Softpanorama

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

MIC Bulletin, 2017

Home 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Jun 05, 2020] Antifa in Theory and in Practice

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists". ..."
"... Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism. Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism. ..."
"... The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic. ..."
"... Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism" to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem). ..."
"... The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin. ..."
"... The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language. ..."
"... The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful thought police for the neoliberal war party. ..."
"... In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise. But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation? ..."
"... The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative to joining the U.S. Marines. ..."
"... American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang is tougher than your gang. ..."
"... In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals, of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry, not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump instead of themselves. ..."
"... Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy, white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods, has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

Photo by jcrakow | CC BY 2.0

" Fascists are divided into two categories: the fascists and the anti-fascists ."

– Ennio Flaiano, Italian writer and co-author of Federico Fellini's greatest film scripts.

In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists".

Despite its imported European name, Antifa is basically just another example of America's steady descent into violence.

Historical Pretensions

Antifa first came to prominence from its role in reversing Berkeley's proud "free speech" tradition by preventing right wing personalities from speaking there. But its moment of glory was its clash with rightwingers in Charlottesville on August 12, largely because Trump commented that there were "good people on both sides". With exuberant Schadenfreude, commentators grabbed the opportunity to condemn the despised President for his "moral equivalence", thereby bestowing a moral blessing on Antifa.

Charlottesville served as a successful book launching for Antifa: the Antifascist Handbook , whose author, young academic Mark Bray, is an Antifa in both theory and practice. The book is "really taking off very fast", rejoiced the publisher, Melville House. It instantly won acclaim from leading mainstream media such as the New York Times , The Guardian and NBC, not hitherto known for rushing to review leftwing books, least of all those by revolutionary anarchists.

The Washington Post welcomed Bray as spokesman for "insurgent activist movements" and observed that: "The book's most enlightening contribution is on the history of anti-fascist efforts over the past century, but its most relevant for today is its justification for stifling speech and clobbering white supremacists."

Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism. Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism.

The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic.

The original Antifascist movement was an effort by the Communist International to cease hostilities with Europe's Socialist Parties in order to build a common front against the triumphant movements led by Mussolini and Hitler.

Since Fascism thrived, and Antifa was never a serious adversary, its apologists thrive on the "nipped in the bud" claim: "if only" Antifascists had beat up the fascist movements early enough, the latter would have been nipped in the bud. Since reason and debate failed to stop the rise of fascism, they argue, we must use street violence – which, by the way, failed even more decisively.

This is totally ahistorical. Fascism exalted violence, and violence was its preferred testing ground. Both Communists and Fascists were fighting in the streets and the atmosphere of violence helped fascism thrive as a bulwark against Bolshevism, gaining the crucial support of leading capitalists and militarists in their countries, which brought them to power.

Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism" to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem).

The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin.

Storm Troopers of the Neoliberal War Party

Since Mark Bray offers European credentials for current U.S. Antifa, it is appropriate to observe what Antifa amounts to in Europe today.

In Europe, the tendency takes two forms. Black Bloc activists regularly invade various leftist demonstrations in order to smash windows and fight the police. These testosterone exhibits are of minor political significance, other than provoking public calls to strengthen police forces. They are widely suspected of being influenced by police infiltration.

As an example, last September 23, several dozen black-clad masked ruffians, tearing down posters and throwing stones, attempted to storm the platform where the flamboyant Jean-Luc Mιlenchon was to address the mass meeting of La France Insoumise , today the leading leftist party in France. Their unspoken message seemed to be that nobody is revolutionary enough for them. Occasionally, they do actually spot a random skinhead to beat up. This establishes their credentials as "anti-fascist".

They use these credentials to arrogate to themselves the right to slander others in a sort of informal self-appointed inquisition.

As prime example, in late 2010, a young woman named Ornella Guyet appeared in Paris seeking work as a journalist in various leftist periodicals and blogs. She "tried to infiltrate everywhere", according to the former director of Le Monde diplomatique , Maurice Lemoine, who "always intuitively distrusted her "when he hired her as an intern.

Viktor Dedaj, who manages one of the main leftist sites in France, Le Grand Soir , was among those who tried to help her, only to experience an unpleasant surprise a few months later. Ornella had become a self-appointed inquisitor dedicated to denouncing "conspirationism, confusionism, anti-Semitism and red-brown" on Internet. This took the form of personal attacks on individuals whom she judged to be guilty of those sins. What is significant is that all her targets were opposed to U.S. and NATO aggressive wars in the Middle East.

Indeed, the timing of her crusade coincided with the "regime change" wars that destroyed Libya and tore apart Syria. The attacks singled out leading critics of those wars.

Viktor Dedaj was on her hit list. So was Michel Collon, close to the Belgian Workers Party, author, activist and manager of the bilingual site Investig'action. So was Franηois Ruffin, film-maker, editor of the leftist journal Fakir elected recently to the National Assembly on the list of Mιlenchon's party La France Insoumise . And so on. The list is long.

The targeted personalities are diverse, but all have one thing in common: opposition to aggressive wars. What's more, so far as I can tell, just about everyone opposed to those wars is on her list.

The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language.

In mid-June 2011, the anti-EU party Union Populaire Rιpublicaine led by Franηois Asselineau was the object of slanderous insinuations on Antifa internet sites signed by "Marie-Anne Boutoleau" (a pseudonym for Ornella Guyet). Fearing violence, owners cancelled scheduled UPR meeting places in Lyon. UPR did a little investigation, discovering that Ornella Guyet was on the speakers list at a March 2009 Seminar on International Media organized in Paris by the Center for the Study of International Communications and the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. A surprising association for such a zealous crusader against "red-brown".

In case anyone has doubts, "red-brown" is a term used to smear anyone with generally leftist views – that is, "red" – with the fascist color "brown". This smear can be based on having the same opinion as someone on the right, speaking on the same platform with someone on the right, being published alongside someone on the right, being seen at an anti-war demonstration also attended by someone on the right, and so on. This is particularly useful for the War Party, since these days, many conservatives are more opposed to war than leftists who have bought into the "humanitarian war" mantra.

The government doesn't need to repress anti-war gatherings. Antifa does the job.

The Franco-African comedien Dieudonnι M'Bala M'Bala, stigmatized for anti-Semitism since 2002 for his TV sketch lampooning an Israeli settler as part of George W. Bush's "Axis of Good", is not only a target, but serves as a guilty association for anyone who defends his right to free speech – such as Belgian professor Jean Bricmont, virtually blacklisted in France for trying to get in a word in favor of free speech during a TV talk show. Dieudonnι has been banned from the media, sued and fined countless times, even sentenced to jail in Belgium, but continues to enjoy a full house of enthusiastic supporters at his one-man shows, where the main political message is opposition to war.

Still, accusations of being soft on Dieudonnι can have serious effects on individuals in more precarious positions, since the mere hint of "anti-Semitism" can be a career killer in France. Invitations are cancelled, publications refused, messages go unanswered.

In April 2016, Ornella Guyet dropped out of sight, amid strong suspicions about her own peculiar associations.

The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful thought police for the neoliberal war party.

I am not suggesting that all, or most, Antifa are agents of the establishment. But they can be manipulated, infiltrated or impersonated precisely because they are self-anointed and usually more or less disguised.

Silencing Necessary Debate

One who is certainly sincere is Mark Bray, author of The Intifa Handbook . It is clear where Mark Bray is coming from when he writes (p.36-7): " Hitler's 'final solution' murdered six million Jews in gas chambers, with firing squads, through hunger an lack of medical treatment in squalid camps and ghettoes, with beatings, by working them to death, and through suicidal despair. Approximately two out of every three Jews on the continent were killed, including some of my relatives."

This personal history explains why Mark Bray feels passionately about "fascism". This is perfectly understandable in one who is haunted by fear that "it can happen again".

However, even the most justifiable emotional concerns do not necessarily contribute to wise counsel. Violent reactions to fear may seem to be strong and effective when in reality they are morally weak and practically ineffectual.

We are in a period of great political confusion. Labeling every manifestation of "political incorrectness" as fascism impedes clarification of debate over issues that very much need to be defined and clarified.

The scarcity of fascists has been compensated by identifying criticism of immigration as fascism. This identification, in connection with rejection of national borders, derives much of its emotional force above all from the ancestral fear in the Jewish community of being excluded from the nations in which they find themselves.

The issue of immigration has different aspects in different places. It is not the same in European countries as in the United States. There is a basic distinction between immigrants and immigration. Immigrants are people who deserve consideration. Immigration is a policy that needs to be evaluated. It should be possible to discuss the policy without being accused of persecuting the people. After all, trade union leaders have traditionally opposed mass immigration, not out of racism, but because it can be a deliberate capitalist strategy to bring down wages.

In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise. But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation?

A recent survey* shows that mass immigration is increasingly unpopular in all European countries. The complexity of the issue is shown by the fact that in the vast majority of European countries, most people believe they have a duty to welcome refugees, but disapprove of continued mass immigration. The official argument that immigration is a good thing is accepted by only 40%, compared to 60% of all Europeans who believe that "immigration is bad for our country". A left whose principal cause is open borders will become increasingly unpopular.

Childish Violence

The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative to joining the U.S. Marines.

American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang is tougher than your gang.

That is also the logic of U.S. imperialism, which habitually declares of its chosen enemies: "All they understand is force." Although Antifa claim to be radical revolutionaries, their mindset is perfectly typical the atmosphere of violence which prevails in militarized America.

In another vein, Antifa follows the trend of current Identity Politics excesses that are squelching free speech in what should be its citadel, academia. Words are considered so dangerous that "safe spaces" must be established to protect people from them. This extreme vulnerability to injury from words is strangely linked to tolerance of real physical violence.

Wild Goose Chase

In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals, of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry, not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump instead of themselves.

Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy, white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods, has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was.

The facile use of the term "fascist" gets in the way of thoughtful identification and definition of the real enemy of humanity today. In the contemporary chaos, the greatest and most dangerous upheavals in the world all stem from the same source, which is hard to name, but which we might give the provisional simplified label of Globalized Imperialism. This amounts to a multifaceted project to reshape the world to satisfy the demands of financial capitalism, the military industrial complex, United States ideological vanity and the megalomania of leaders of lesser "Western" powers, notably Israel. It could be called simply "imperialism", except that it is much vaster and more destructive than the historic imperialism of previous centuries. It is also much more disguised. And since it bears no clear label such as "fascism", it is difficult to denounce in simple terms.

The fixation on preventing a form of tyranny that arose over 80 years ago, under very different circumstances, obstructs recognition of the monstrous tyranny of today. Fighting the previous war leads to defeat.

Donald Trump is an outsider who will not be let inside. The election of Donald Trump is above all a grave symptom of the decadence of the American political system, totally ruled by money, lobbies, the military-industrial complex and corporate media. Their lies are undermining the very basis of democracy. Antifa has gone on the offensive against the one weapon still in the hands of the people: the right to free speech and assembly.

Notes.

* "Oω va la dιmocratie?", une enquκte de la Fondation pour l'innovation politique sous la direction de Dominique Reyniι, (Plon, Paris, 2017).

[Dec 21, 2019] A walk down memory lane

Oct 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , October 28, 2017 at 2:29 pm

A walk down memory lane:
http://theduran.com/5-discarded-anniversaries-of-western-led-aggression/
And here is the list:

1 The Korean War ends (1953
2 President Kennedy invades South Vietnam (1962)
3 The US overthrows Allende in Chile (1973)
4 The West installs Iranian dictator the Shah (1953)
5 The US-led Iraq invasion (2003)

Many honorable mentions including:
– NATO bombing of Serbia
– Libya
– Afghanistan
– Syria (support of ISIS and its predecessors and spinoffs)

The US body count is simply staggering – many millions killed, millions more wounded or poisoned (Vietnam – agent orange and other chemical agents) and tens of millions of lives forever damaged.

USA! USA! USA! (its elites that rule us of course!)

Cortes , October 29, 2017 at 6:23 pm
And no mention of

Indonesia.

Just the 1m plus deaths.

[Dec 21, 2019] A walk down memory lane

Oct 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , October 28, 2017 at 2:29 pm

A walk down memory lane:
http://theduran.com/5-discarded-anniversaries-of-western-led-aggression/
And here is the list:

1 The Korean War ends (1953
2 President Kennedy invades South Vietnam (1962)
3 The US overthrows Allende in Chile (1973)
4 The West installs Iranian dictator the Shah (1953)
5 The US-led Iraq invasion (2003)

Many honorable mentions including:
– NATO bombing of Serbia
– Libya
– Afghanistan
– Syria (support of ISIS and its predecessors and spinoffs)

The US body count is simply staggering – many millions killed, millions more wounded or poisoned (Vietnam – agent orange and other chemical agents) and tens of millions of lives forever damaged.

USA! USA! USA! (its elites that rule us of course!)

Cortes , October 29, 2017 at 6:23 pm
And no mention of

Indonesia.

Just the 1m plus deaths.

[Dec 21, 2019] All The Countries America Has Invaded... In One Map

Notable quotes:
"... Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies professor from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team created an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014. ..."
"... " Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions. ..."
Aug 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Tyler Durden Aug 26, 2017 9:15 PM 0 SHARES US has had a military presence across the world , from almost day one of its independence. For those who have ever wanted a clearer picture of the true reach of the United States military - both historically and currently - but shied away due to the sheer volume of research required to find an answer, The Anti Media points out that a crew at the Independent just made things a whole lot simpler.

Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies professor from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team created an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014.

To avoid confusion, indy100 laid out its prerequisites for what constitutes an invasion:

" Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions.

But indy100 didn't stop there. To put all that history into context, using data from the Department of Defense (DOD), the team also put together a map to display all the countries in which nearly 200,000 active members of the U.S. military are now stationed.

For more details, click on the country:

[Dec 21, 2019] War is the health of the state, but death of empires

Notable quotes:
"... As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits? ..."
Aug 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

Sean , August 25, 2017 at 6:42 pm GMT

As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?

You start by assuming that the absence of war is the ultimate good, but none can say what a world without war would be like, or how long it would last.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/wars-john-gray-conflict-peace
Has the world seen moral progress? The answer should not depend on whether one has a sunny or a morose temperament. Everyone agrees that life is better than death, health better than sickness, prosperity better than privation, freedom better than tyranny, peace better than war. All of these can be measured, and the results plotted over time. If they go up, that's progress.

For John Gray, this is a big problem. As a part of his campaign against reason, science and Enlightenment humanism, he insists that the strivings of humanity over the centuries have left us no better off. This dyspepsia was hard enough to sustain when Gray first expressed it in the teeth of obvious counterexamples such as the abolition of human sacrifice, chattel slavery and public torture-executions. But as scholars have increasingly measured human flourishing, they have found that Gray is not just wrong but howlingly, flat-earth, couldn't-be-more-wrong wrong. The numbers show that after millennia of near-universal poverty and despotism, a steadily growing proportion of humankind is surviving infancy and childbirth, going to school, voting in democracies, living free of disease, enjoying the necessities of modern life and surviving to old age.

And more people are living in peace. In the 1980s several military scholars noticed to their astonishment that the most destructive form of armed conflict – wars among great powers and developed states – had effectively ceased to exist. At the time this "long peace" could have been dismissed as a random lull, but it has held firm for an additional three decades.

In my opinion Gray, though wrong that violence is not decreasing, is onto something about the future being bleak because of the rise of meliorist assumptions, because perpetual peace will be humanity's tomb.

While many suggest a danger for our world along the lines of Brian Cox's explanation for the Fermi Paradox (ie intelligent life forms cross grainedly bring on self-annihilation through unlimited war) I take a different view.

Given that Pinker appears substantially correct that serious war (ie wars among great powers and developed states) have effectively ceased to exist, the trend is for peace and cooperation. Martin Nowak in his book The Supercoperators shows cooperation, not fighting, to be the defining human trait (and indeed the most cooperative groups won their wars in history, whereby nation states such the US are the result of not just individuals but familial tribal regional , and virtually continental groupings coming together for mutual advantage and defence .

The future is going to be global integration pursuit of economic objectives, and I think this exponential moral progress bill begat technological advances beyond imagining.. An escape from the war trap is almost complete and the Singularity becomes. The most likely culprit in the paradox is a technological black hole event horizon created by unlimited peace and progress.

Cross-grained though it may be to say that the good war hallows every cause, I think it not so bad in comparison with the alternative.

[Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language. ..."
"... At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways. ..."
"... Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built. ..."
"... Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. ..."
"... I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department. ..."
"... I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed. ..."
"... "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened. ..."
"... Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire, ..."
"... We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'. ..."
"... "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country." ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Azblue on July 31, 2006

Global cop

Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language.

The foundation upon which Barnett builds his binary view of the world is heavily dependant upon the continued advancement of globalization - almost exclusively so. However, advancing globalization is not pre-ordained. Barnett himself makes the case that globalization is a fragile undertaking similar to an interconnected chain in which any broken link destroys the whole. Globalization could indeed be like the biblical statue whose feet are made of clay. Globalization, and therefore the integration of the Gap, may even stop or recede - just as the globalization of the early 20th century ended abruptly with the onset of WW I and a global depression. Moreover, Barnett's contention that the United States has an exceptional duty and moral responsibility for "remaking the world in America's image" might be seen by many as misguided and perhaps even dangerous.

The divide between the `Functioning Core' and the `Non-Integrating Gap' differs from the gulf between rich and poor in a subtle yet direct way. State governments make a conscious decision to become connected vs. disconnected to advancing globalization. States and their leaders can provide the infrastructure and the opening of large global markets to their citizens in ways that individuals cannot. An example can serve to illustrate the point: You can be rich and disconnected in Nigeria or poor and disconnected in North Korea. In each case the country you live in has decided to be disconnected. Citizens in this case have a limited likelihood of staying rich and unlimited prospects of staying poor. But by becoming part of the functioning Core, the enlightened state allows all citizens a running start at becoming part of a worldwide economic system and thus provide prospects for a better future because global jobs and markets are opened up to them. A connected economy such as India's, for example, enables citizens who once had no prospects for a better life to find well-paying jobs, such as computer-related employment. Prospects for a better Indian life are directly the result of the Indian government's conscious decision to become connected to the world economy, a.k.a. embracing globalization.

After placing his theory of the Core/Gap and preemptive war strategy firmly into the church of globalization, Barnett next places his theory squarely upon the alter of rule sets. Few would argue that the world is an anarchic place and Barnett tells us that rule sets are needed to define `good' and `evil' behavior of actors in this chaotic international system. An example of such a rule set is the desire of the Core to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Other examples are the promulgation of human rights and the need to stop genocide. Barnett also uses rule sets to define `system' rules that govern and shape the actions, and even the psychology, of international actors. An example that Barnett gives of a system-wide rule set is the creation of the `rule' defined by the United States during the Cold War called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Barnett claims that this rule set effectively ended the possibility of war for all time amongst nuclear-capable great powers. Barnett states that the U.S. now should export a brand new rule set called `preemptive war,' which aims to fight actors in the lawless Gap in order to end international terrorism for all time. Barnett makes it clear that the Core's enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (Middle East), but a condition (disconnectedness).

Next, Barnett points out that system-wide competition has moved into the economic arena and that military conflict, when it occurs, has moved away from the system-wide (Cold War), to inter-state war, ending up today with primarily state conflict vs. individuals (Core vs. bin Laden, Core vs. Kim, etc.). In other words, "we are moving progressively away from warfare against states or even blocs of states and toward a new era of warfare against individuals." Rephrased, we've moved from confrontations with evil empires, to evil states, to evil leaders. An example of this phenomenon is the fact that China dropped off the radar of many government hawks after 9/11 only to be replaced by terrorist groups and other dangerous NGOs "with global reach."

Barnett also points out that the idea of `connectivity' is central to the success of globalization. Without it, everything else fails. Connectivity is the glue that holds states together and helps prevent war between states. For example, the US is not likely to start a war with `connected' France, but America could more likely instigate a war with `disconnected' North Korea, Syria or Iran.

Barnett then examines the dangers associated with his definition of `disconnectedness.' He cleverly describes globalization as a condition defined by mutually assured dependence (MAD) and advises us that `Big Men', royal families, raw materials, theocracies and just bad luck can conspire to impede connectedness in the world. This is one of few places in his book that Barnett briefly discusses impediments to globalization - however, this short list looks at existing roadblocks to connectedness but not to future, system-wide dangers to globalization.

At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways.

Barnett then takes us on a pilgrimage to the Ten Commandments of globalization. Tellingly, this list is set up to be more like links in a chain than commandments. Each item in the list is connected to the next - meaning that each step is dependent upon its predecessor. If any of the links are broken or incomplete, the whole is destroyed. For example, Barnett warns us that if there is no security in the Gap, there can be no rules in the Gap. Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built.

What else could kill globalization? Barnett himself tells us: "Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." Here he is implying that an interruption of any or all of these basic necessities can doom globalization. Barnett states clearly: "...(these are) the four massive flows I believe are essential to protect if Globalization III is going to advance." Simply put, any combination of American isolationism or closing of borders to immigration, a global energy crisis, a global financial crisis or rampant global insecurity could adversely affect "connectedness," a.k.a. globalization. These plausible future events, unnerving as they are, leave the inexorable advancement of globalization in doubt and we haven't yet explored other problems with Barnett's reliance on globalization to make the world peaceful, free and safe for democracy.

Barnett goes on to tell us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "overt attempt to create a "System Perturbation" centered in the Persian Gulf to trigger a Big Bang." His definition of a Big Bang in the Middle East is the democratization of the many totalitarian states in the region. He also claims that the Big Bang has targeted Iran's "sullen majority."

Barnett claims that our problem with shrinking the Gap is not our "motive or our means, but our inability to describe the enemies worth killing, the battles worth winning, and the future worth creating." Managing the global campaign to democratize the world is no easy task. Barnett admits that in a worst-case scenario we may be stuck in the "mother of all intifadas" in Iraq. Critics claim this is something that we should have planned for - that the insurgency should not have been a surprise, and that it should have been part of the "peacemaking" planning. Barnett blithely states that things will get better "...when America internationalizes the occupation." Barnett should not engage in wishful thinking here, as he also does when he predicted that Iraqis would be put in charge of their own country 18 months after the fall of Baghdad. It would be more accurate if he claimed this would happen 18 months after the cessation of hostilities. Some critics claim that Iraq is an example that we are an "empire in a hurry" (Michael Ignatieff), which then results in: 1) allocating insufficient resources to non-military aspects of the project and 2) attempting economic and political transformation in an unrealistically short time frame.

The final basic premise of Barnett's theory of the Core and the Gap is the concept of what he calls the "global transaction strategy." Barnett explains it best: "America's essential transaction with the outside world is one of our exporting security in return for the world's financing a lifestyle we could far more readily afford without all that defense spending." Barnett claims that America pays the most for global stability because we enjoy it the most. But what about the other 80 countries in the Core?

Why is America, like Atlas, bearing the weight of the world's security and stabilization on its shoulders?

Barnett claims that historical analogies are useless today and point us in the wrong direction. I disagree. James Madison cautioned us not to go abroad to seek monsters to destroy. We can learn from his simple and profound statement that there are simply too many state (and individual) monsters in today's world for the U.S. to destroy unilaterally or preemptively. We must also avoid overstretching our resources and power. Thucydides reminds us that the great democracy of Athens was brought to its knees by the ill-advised Sicilian expedition - which resulted in the destruction of everything the Athenians held dear. Do not ignore history as Barnett councils; heed it.

Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. Therefore, America needs to stay engaged in the affairs of the world, but Barnett has not offered conclusive evidence that the U.S. needs to become the world's single Leviathan that must extinguish all global hot wars. Barnett also has not proved that America needs to be, as he writes, "the one willing to rush in when everyone else is running away." People like Barnett in academia and leaders in government may proclaim and ordain the U.S. to be a global Leviathan, but it is a conscious choice that should be thoroughly debated by the American people. After all, it is upon the backs of the American people that such a global Leviathan must ride. Where is the debate? The American people, upon reflection, may decide upon other courses of action.

I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department.

It seems to be well researched - having 35 pages of notes. Many of Barnett's citations come from the Washington Post and the New York Times, which some may see as a liberal bias, but I see the sources as simply newspapers of record.

I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed.

Alan H. Macdonald on April 1, 2013
A misused book waiting for redemption

I don't think poorly of Thomas Barnett himself. He's very bright and, I think, good hearted, BUT his well thought-out, well argued pride and joy (and positive intellectual pursuit) is being badly distorted ---- which happens to all 'tools' that Empire gets its hands on.

For those who like predictions, I would predict that Barnett will wind up going through an epiphany much like Francis Fukuyama (but a decade later) and for much the same reason, that his life's work gets misused and abused so greatly that he works to reverse and correct its misuse. Fukuyama, also brilliant, wrote "The End of History" in 1992 (which was misused by the neocons to engender war), and now he's working just as hard to reverse a misuse that he may feel some guilt of his work supporting, and is writing "The Future of History" as a force for good --- and I suspect (and hope) that Barnett will, in even less time, be counter-thinking and developing the strategy and book to reverse the misuse of his 2004 book before the Global Empire pulls down the curtain.

"Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened.

Best luck and love to the fast expanding 'Occupy the Empire' educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful, guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which can't so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets ---- quite yet!

Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'.

"If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country."

[Dec 21, 2019] We are all Palestinians: possible connection between neocons and Pentagon

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents. ..."
Aug 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

schrub , August 25, 2017 at 7:18 pm GMT

People who seem to think that Trump's generals will somehow go along and support his original vision are sadly mistaken.

Since 2003, Israel has had an increasingly strong hand in the vetting who gets promoted to upper positions in the American armed forces. All of the generals Trump has at his side went through a vetting procedure which definitely involved a very close look at their opinions about Israel.

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003.

Officers who openly oppose the dictates of the Israel Lobby will see their prospects for advancement simply vanish like a whiff of smoke.. Those who support Israel's machinations are rewarded with promotions, the more fervent the support the more rapid the promotion especially if this knowledge is made known to their congressman or senator..

Generals who support Israel already know that this support will be heavily rewarded after their retirements by being given lucrative six figure positions on company boards of directors or positions in equally lucrative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institution or the Hoover Institute. They will receive hefty speaking fees. as well. They learned early that their retirements could be truly glorious if they only "went" along with The Lobby. They will be able to then live the good life in expensive places like Washington, New York or San Francisco, often invited to glitzy parties with unlimited amount of free prawns "the size of your hand".

On the other hand, upper officers who somehow get then get "bad" reputations for their negative views about Israel ( like Karen U. Kwiatkowski for instance) will end up, once retired, having to depend on just their often scanty pensions This requires getting an often demeaning second jobs to get by in some place where "their dollar goes further". No bright lights in big cities for them. No speaking fees, no college jobs. Once their fate becomes known, their still active duty contemporaries suddenly decide to "go along".

If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents.

Face it, we live in a country under occupation by a hostile power that we willingly pay large amounts monetary tribute to. Our government does whatever benefits Israel regardless of how negatively this effects the USA. We are increasing troop strength in Afghanistan because, somehow, this benefits Israel. If our presence in Afghanistan (or the Mideast in general) didn't benefit Israel, our troops would simply not be there.

We are all Palestinians.

[Dec 21, 2019] War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror

Aug 22, 2017 | warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

JWalters , August 18, 2017 at 7:02 pm

Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem. At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.

"War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" . http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

[Dec 21, 2019] There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK military forces thinking

Notable quotes:
"... There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris. ..."
Aug 10, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anonymous | Aug 4, 2017 7:00:33 PM | 37

Enrico Malatesta @13

The Russians were there in Yugoslavia but they were not following NATO's script. There was an incident where Russian forces took control of a key airport to the total surprise of NATO. The US overall commander ordered the UK to go in and kick the Russians out. The UK ground commander wisely said he was not prepared to start WW III over Russian control of an airfield.

There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris.

[Dec 21, 2019] William Astore on War as Art and Advertising – Antiwar.com Blog

Notable quotes:
"... A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it. ..."
"... My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us. ..."
"... Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again. ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | www.antiwar.com

Consider this article a work of speculation; a jumble of ideas thrown at a blank canvas.

A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it.

For example, America's overseas wars today are both abstractions and distractions. They're also somewhat surreal to most Americans, living as we do in comparative safety and material luxury (when compared to most other peoples of the world). Abstraction and surrealism: two art styles that may say something vital about America's wars.

If some aspects of America's wars are surreal and others abstract, if reports of those wars are often impressionistic and often blurred beyond recognition, this points to, I think, the highly stylized representations of war that are submitted for our consideration. What we don't get very often is realism. Recall how the Bush/Cheney administration forbade photos of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of all the war reporting you've seen on U.S. TV and Cable networks, and ask how many times you saw severed American limbs and dead bodies on a battlefield. (On occasion, dead bodies of the enemy are shown, usually briefly and abstractly, with no human backstory.)

Of course, there's no "real" way to showcase the brutal reality of war, short of bringing a person to the front and having them face fire in combat -- a level of "participatory" art that sane people would likely seek to avoid. What we get, as spectators (which is what we're told to remain in America), is an impression of combat. Here and there, a surreal report. An abstract news clip. Blown up buildings become exercises in neo-Cubism; melted buildings and weapons become Daliesque displays. Severed limbs (of the enemy) are exercises in the grotesque. For the vast majority of Americans, what's lacking is raw immediacy and gut-wrenching reality.

Again, we are spectators, not participants. And our responses are often as stylized and limited as the representations are. As Rebecca Gordon put it from a different angle at TomDispatch.com , when it comes to America's wars, are we participating in reality or merely watching reality TV? And why are so many so prone to confuse or conflate the two?

Art, of course, isn't the only lens through which we can see and interpret America's wars. Advertising, especially hyperbole, is also quite revealing. Thus the US military has been sold, whether by George W. Bush or Barack Obama, as "the world's finest military in history" or WFMH, an acronym I just made up, and which should perhaps come with a copyright or trademark symbol after it. It's classic advertising hyperbole. It's salesmanship in place of reality.

So, when other peoples beat our WFMH, we should do what Americans do best: sue them for copyright infringement. Our legions of lawyers will most certainly beat their cadres of counsels. After all, under Bush/Cheney, our lawyers tortured logic and the law to support torture itself. Talk about surrealism!

My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us.

As I said, this is me throwing ideas at the canvas of my computer screen. Do they make any sense to you? Feel free to pick up your own brush and compose away in the comments section.

P.S. Danger, Will Robinson. I've never taken an art theory class or studied advertising closely.

William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.

Jim Savell , 19 hours ago

Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again.

[Dec 21, 2019] In places like Yemen, Syria and Iraq, the United States is deepening its involvement in wars while diplomacy becomes largely an afterthought

Mar 31, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne , March 30, 2017 at 12:47 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/world/middleeast/us-war-footprint-grows-in-middle-east.html

March 29, 2017

U.S. War Footprint Grows, With No Endgame in Sight
By BEN HUBBARD and MICHAEL R. GORDON

In places like Yemen, Syria and Iraq, the United States is deepening its involvement in wars while diplomacy becomes largely an afterthought.

ilsm -> anne... , March 30, 2017 at 01:51 PM
14 years as if US were going strong on Hanoi in '79!

Putin is a Tibetan Buddhist compared to Obama and so forth

mulp -> anne... , March 30, 2017 at 04:30 PM
Well, sending US troops is a US jobs program.

Why would you object to government creating more demand for labor? Over time, wages will rise and higher wages will fund more demand for labor produced goods.

[Apr 21, 2019] Exploring the Shadows of America s Security State Or How I Learned Not to Love Big Brother

Notable quotes:
"... Almost by accident, I had launched my academic career by doing something a bit different. Embedded within that study of drug trafficking was an analytical approach that would take me, almost unwittingly, on a lifelong exploration of U.S. global hegemony in its many manifestations, including diplomatic alliances, CIA interventions, developing military technology, recourse to torture, and global surveillance. Step by step, topic by topic, decade after decade, I would slowly accumulate sufficient understanding of the parts to try to assemble the whole. In writing my new book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power , I drew on this research to assess the overall character of U.S. global power and the forces that might contribute to its perpetuation or decline. ..."
"... In the process, I slowly came to see a striking continuity and coherence in Washington's century-long rise to global dominion. CIA torture techniques emerged at the start of the Cold War in the 1950s; much of its futuristic robotic aerospace technology had its first trial in the Vietnam War of the 1960s; and, above all, Washington's reliance on surveillance first appeared in the colonial Philippines around 1900 and soon became an essential though essentially illegal tool for the FBI's repression of domestic dissent that continued through the 1970s. ..."
"... After occupying the Philippines in 1898, the U.S. Army, facing a difficult pacification campaign in a restive land, discovered the power of systematic surveillance to crush the resistance of the country's political elite. Then, during World War I, the Army's "father of military intelligence," the dour General Ralph Van Deman, who had learned his trade in the Philippines, drew upon his years pacifying those islands to mobilize a legion of 1,700 soldiers and 350,000 citizen-vigilantes for an intense surveillance program against suspected enemy spies among German-Americans, including my own grandfather. In studying Military Intelligence files at the National Archives, I found "suspicious" letters purloined from my grandfather's army locker. In fact, his mother had been writing him in her native German about such subversive subjects as knitting him socks for guard duty. ..."
"... In the 1950s, Hoover's FBI agents tapped thousands of phones without warrants and kept suspected subversives under close surveillance, including my mother's cousin Gerard Piel, an anti-nuclear activist and the publisher of Scientific American magazine. During the Vietnam War, the bureau expanded its activities with an amazing array of spiteful, often illegal, intrigues in a bid to cripple the antiwar movement with pervasive surveillance of the sort seen in my own FBI file. ..."
"... What about using the historical method to explore the nature of USA's reducing EU nations to "vassals" – and keeping them in the status of vassals, such that they can be depended on to undermine their own economies and sovereignty for the sake of USA's global initiatives? ..."
"... An interesting question might be whether the NATO-to-Afghanistan highway (truck route for munitions, etc.), c. 2010, was also, on the back-haul – Afghanistan to EU – the major supply route for heroin throughout the EU and thus the key to corruption of EU governments (and of Russia) and domination of those governments by USA's neocon operatives? (E.g., was/is the distribution system of the "Chocolate King" Petro Poroshenko, President of Ukraine, delivering something besides just chocolate?) ..."
"... The Puppet Masters Behind Georgia President Saakashvili http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20569.htm ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

Alfred McCoy August 24, 2017

[ This piece has been adapted and expanded from the introduction to Alfred W. McCoy's new book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power .]

In the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks, Washington pursued its elusive enemies across the landscapes of Asia and Africa, thanks in part to a massive expansion of its intelligence infrastructure, particularly of the emerging technologies for digital surveillance, agile drones, and biometric identification. In 2010, almost a decade into this secret war with its voracious appetite for information, the Washington Post reported that the national security state had swelled into a "fourth branch" of the federal government -- with 854,000 vetted officials, 263 security organizations, and over 3,000 intelligence units, issuing 50,000 special reports every year.

Though stunning, these statistics only skimmed the visible surface of what had become history's largest and most lethal clandestine apparatus. According to classified documents that Edward Snowden leaked in 2013, the nation's 16 intelligence agencies alone had 107,035 employees and a combined "black budget" of $52.6 billion, the equivalent of 10% percent of the vast defense budget.

By sweeping the skies and probing the worldwide web's undersea cables, the National Security Agency (NSA) could surgically penetrate the confidential communications of just about any leader on the planet, while simultaneously sweeping up billions of ordinary messages. For its classified missions, the CIA had access to the Pentagon's Special Operations Command, with 69,000 elite troops (Rangers, SEALs, Air Commandos) and their agile arsenal. In addition to this formidable paramilitary capacity, the CIA operated 30 Predator and Reaper drones responsible for more than 3,000 deaths in Pakistan and Yemen.

While Americans practiced a collective form of duck and cover as the Department of Homeland Security's colored alerts pulsed nervously from yellow to red, few paused to ask the hard question: Was all this security really directed solely at enemies beyond our borders? After half a century of domestic security abuses -- from the "red scare" of the 1920s through the FBI's illegal harassment of antiwar protesters in the 1960s and 1970s -- could we really be confident that there wasn't a hidden cost to all these secret measures right here at home? Maybe, just maybe, all this security wasn't really so benign when it came to us.

From my own personal experience over the past half-century, and my family's history over three generations, I've found out in the most personal way possible that there's a real cost to entrusting our civil liberties to the discretion of secret agencies. Let me share just a few of my own "war" stories to explain how I've been forced to keep learning and relearning this uncomfortable lesson the hard way.

On the Heroin Trail

After finishing college in the late 1960s, I decided to pursue a Ph.D. in Japanese history and was pleasantly surprised when Yale Graduate School admitted me with a full fellowship. But the Ivy League in those days was no ivory tower. During my first year at Yale, the Justice Department indicted Black Panther leader Bobby Seale for a local murder and the May Day protests that filled the New Haven green also shut the campus for a week. Almost simultaneously, President Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia and student protests closed hundreds of campuses across America for the rest of the semester.

In the midst of all this tumult, the focus of my studies shifted from Japan to Southeast Asia, and from the past to the war in Vietnam. Yes, that war. So what did I do about the draft? During my first semester at Yale, on December 1, 1969, to be precise, the Selective Service cut up the calendar for a lottery. The first 100 birthdays picked were certain to be drafted, but any dates above 200 were likely exempt. My birthday, June 8th, was the very last date drawn, not number 365 but 366 (don't forget leap year) -- the only lottery I have ever won, except for a Sunbeam electric frying pan in a high school raffle. Through a convoluted moral calculus typical of the 1960s, I decided that my draft exemption, although acquired by sheer luck, demanded that I devote myself, above all else, to thinking about, writing about, and working to end the Vietnam War.

During those campus protests over Cambodia in the spring of 1970, our small group of graduate students in Southeast Asian history at Yale realized that the U.S. strategic predicament in Indochina would soon require an invasion of Laos to cut the flow of enemy supplies into South Vietnam. So, while protests over Cambodia swept campuses nationwide, we were huddled inside the library, preparing for the next invasion by editing a book of essays on Laos for the publisher Harper & Row. A few months after that book appeared, one of the company's junior editors, Elizabeth Jakab, intrigued by an account we had included about that country's opium crop, telephoned from New York to ask if I could research and write a "quickie" paperback about the history behind the heroin epidemic then infecting the U.S. Army in Vietnam.

I promptly started the research at my student carrel in the Gothic tower that is Yale's Sterling Library, tracking old colonial reports about the Southeast Asian opium trade that ended suddenly in the 1950s, just as the story got interesting. So, quite tentatively at first, I stepped outside the library to do a few interviews and soon found myself following an investigative trail that circled the globe. First, I traveled across America for meetings with retired CIA operatives. Then I crossed the Pacific to Hong Kong to study drug syndicates, courtesy of that colony's police drug squad. Next, I went south to Saigon, then the capital of South Vietnam, to investigate the heroin traffic that was targeting the GIs, and on into the mountains of Laos to observe CIA alliances with opium warlords and the hill-tribe militias that grew the opium poppy. Finally, I flew from Singapore to Paris for interviews with retired French intelligence officers about their opium trafficking during the first Indochina War of the 1950s.

The drug traffic that supplied heroin for the U.S. troops fighting in South Vietnam was not, I discovered, exclusively the work of criminals. Once the opium left tribal poppy fields in Laos, the traffic required official complicity at every level. The helicopters of Air America, the airline the CIA then ran, carried raw opium out of the villages of its hill-tribe allies. The commander of the Royal Lao Army, a close American collaborator, operated the world's largest heroin lab and was so oblivious to the implications of the traffic that he opened his opium ledgers for my inspection. Several of Saigon's top generals were complicit in the drug's distribution to U.S. soldiers. By 1971, this web of collusion ensured that heroin, according to a later White House survey of a thousand veterans, would be "commonly used" by 34% of American troops in South Vietnam.

None of this had been covered in my college history seminars. I had no models for researching an uncharted netherworld of crime and covert operations. After stepping off the plane in Saigon, body slammed by the tropical heat, I found myself in a sprawling foreign city of four million, lost in a swarm of snarling motorcycles and a maze of nameless streets, without contacts or a clue about how to probe these secrets. Every day on the heroin trail confronted me with new challenges -- where to look, what to look for, and, above all, how to ask hard questions.

Reading all that history had, however, taught me something I didn't know I knew. Instead of confronting my sources with questions about sensitive current events, I started with the French colonial past when the opium trade was still legal, gradually uncovering the underlying, unchanging logistics of drug production. As I followed this historical trail into the present, when the traffic became illegal and dangerously controversial, I began to use pieces from this past to assemble the present puzzle, until the names of contemporary dealers fell into place. In short, I had crafted a historical method that would prove, over the next 40 years of my career, surprisingly useful in analyzing a diverse array of foreign policy controversies -- CIA alliances with drug lords, the agency's propagation of psychological torture, and our spreading state surveillance.

The CIA Makes Its Entrance in My Life

Those months on the road, meeting gangsters and warlords in isolated places, offered only one bit of real danger. While hiking in the mountains of Laos, interviewing Hmong farmers about their opium shipments on CIA helicopters, I was descending a steep slope when a burst of bullets ripped the ground at my feet. I had walked into an ambush by agency mercenaries.

While the five Hmong militia escorts whom the local village headman had prudently provided laid down a covering fire, my Australian photographer John Everingham and I flattened ourselves in the elephant grass and crawled through the mud to safety. Without those armed escorts, my research would have been at an end and so would I. After that ambush failed, a CIA paramilitary officer summoned me to a mountaintop meeting where he threatened to murder my Lao interpreter unless I ended my research. After winning assurances from the U.S. embassy that my interpreter would not be harmed, I decided to ignore that warning and keep going.

Six months and 30,000 miles later, I returned to New Haven. My investigation of CIA alliances with drug lords had taught me more than I could have imagined about the covert aspects of U.S. global power. Settling into my attic apartment for an academic year of writing, I was confident that I knew more than enough for a book on this unconventional topic. But my education, it turned out, was just beginning.

Within weeks, a massive, middle-aged guy in a suit interrupted my scholarly isolation. He appeared at my front door and identified himself as Tom Tripodi , senior agent for the Bureau of Narcotics, which later became the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). His agency, he confessed during a second visit, was worried about my writing and he had been sent to investigate. He needed something to tell his superiors. Tom was a guy you could trust. So I showed him a few draft pages of my book. He disappeared into the living room for a while and came back saying, "Pretty good stuff. You got your ducks in a row." But there were some things, he added, that weren't quite right, some things he could help me fix.

Best of all, there was the one about how the Bureau of Narcotics caught French intelligence protecting the Corsican syndicates smuggling heroin into New York City. Some of his stories, usually unacknowledged, would appear in my book, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia . These conversations with an undercover operative, who had trained Cuban exiles for the CIA in Florida and later investigated Mafia heroin syndicates for the DEA in Sicily, were akin to an advanced seminar, a master class in covert operations.

In the summer of 1972, with the book at press, I went to Washington to testify before Congress. As I was making the rounds of congressional offices on Capitol Hill, my editor rang unexpectedly and summoned me to New York for a meeting with the president and vice president of Harper & Row, my book's publisher. Ushered into a plush suite of offices overlooking the spires of St. Patrick's Cathedral, I listened to those executives tell me that Cord Meyer, Jr., the CIA's deputy director for covert operations, had called on their company's president emeritus, Cass Canfield, Sr. The visit was no accident, for Canfield, according to an authoritative history , "enjoyed prolific links to the world of intelligence, both as a former psychological warfare officer and as a close personal friend of Allen Dulles," the ex-head of the CIA Meyer denounced my book as a threat to national security. He asked Canfield, also an old friend, to quietly suppress it.

I was in serious trouble. Not only was Meyer a senior CIA official but he also had impeccable social connections and covert assets in every corner of American intellectual life. After graduating from Yale in 1942, he served with the marines in the Pacific, writing eloquent war dispatches published in the Atlantic Monthly . He later worked with the U.S. delegation drafting the U.N. charter. Personally recruited by spymaster Allen Dulles, Meyer joined the CIA in 1951 and was soon running its International Organizations Division, which, in the words of that same history , "constituted the greatest single concentration of covert political and propaganda activities of the by now octopus-like CIA," including " Operation Mockingbird " that planted disinformation in major U.S. newspapers meant to aid agency operations. Informed sources told me that the CIA still had assets inside every major New York publisher and it already had every page of my manuscript.

As the child of a wealthy New York family, Cord Meyer moved in elite social circles, meeting and marrying Mary Pinchot, the niece of Gifford Pinchot, founder of the U.S. Forestry Service and a former governor of Pennsylvania. Pinchot was a breathtaking beauty who later became President Kennedy's mistress, making dozens of secret visits to the White House. When she was found shot dead along the banks of a canal in Washington in 1964, the head of CIA counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton, another Yale alumnus, broke into her home in an unsuccessful attempt to secure her diary. Mary's sister Toni and her husband, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, later found the diary and gave it to Angleton for destruction by the agency. To this day, her unsolved murder remains a subject of mystery and controversy.

Cord Meyer was also in the Social Register of New York's fine families along with my publisher, Cass Canfield, which added a dash of social cachet to the pressure to suppress my book. By the time he walked into Harper & Row's office in that summer of 1972, two decades of CIA service had changed Meyer (according to that same authoritative history) from a liberal idealist into "a relentless, implacable advocate for his own ideas," driven by "a paranoiac distrust of everyone who didn't agree with him" and a manner that was "histrionic and even bellicose." An unpublished 26-year-old graduate student versus the master of CIA media manipulation. It was hardly a fair fight. I began to fear my book would never appear.

To his credit, Canfield refused Meyer's request to suppress the book. But he did allow the agency a chance to review the manuscript prior to publication. Instead of waiting quietly for the CIA's critique, I contacted Seymour Hersh, then an investigative reporter for the New York Times . The same day the CIA courier arrived from Langley to collect my manuscript, Hersh swept through Harper & Row's offices like a tropical storm, pelting hapless executives with incessant, unsettling questions. The next day, his exposι of the CIA's attempt at censorship appeared on the paper's front page . Other national media organizations followed his lead. Faced with a barrage of negative coverage, the CIA gave Harper & Row a critique full of unconvincing denials . The book was published unaltered.

My Life as an Open Book for the Agency

I had learned another important lesson: the Constitution's protection of press freedom could check even the world's most powerful espionage agency. Cord Meyer reportedly learned the same lesson. According to his obituary in the Washington Post , "It was assumed that Mr. Meyer would eventually advance" to head CIA covert operations, "but the public disclosure about the book deal apparently dampened his prospects." He was instead exiled to London and eased into early retirement.

Meyer and his colleagues were not, however, used to losing. Defeated in the public arena, the CIA retreated to the shadows and retaliated by tugging at every thread in the threadbare life of a graduate student. Over the next few months, federal officials from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare turned up at Yale to investigate my graduate fellowship. The Internal Revenue Service audited my poverty-level income. The FBI tapped my New Haven telephone (something I learned years later from a class-action lawsuit).

In August 1972, at the height of the controversy over the book, FBI agents told the bureau's director that they had "conducted [an] investigation concerning McCoy," searching the files they had compiled on me for the past two years and interviewing numerous "sources whose identities are concealed [who] have furnished reliable information in the past" -- thereby producing an 11-page report detailing my birth, education, and campus antiwar activities.

A college classmate I hadn't seen in four years, who served in military intelligence, magically appeared at my side in the book section of the Yale Co-op, seemingly eager to resume our relationship. The same week that a laudatory review of my book appeared on the front page of the New York Times Book Review , an extraordinary achievement for any historian, Yale's History Department placed me on academic probation. Unless I could somehow do a year's worth of overdue work in a single semester, I faced dismissal.

In those days, the ties between the CIA and Yale were wide and deep. The campus residential colleges screened students, including future CIA Director Porter Goss, for possible careers in espionage. Alumni like Cord Meyer and James Angleton held senior slots at the agency. Had I not had a faculty adviser visiting from Germany, the distinguished scholar Bernhard Dahm who was a stranger to this covert nexus, that probation would likely have become expulsion, ending my academic career and destroying my credibility.

During those difficult days, New York Congressman Ogden Reid, a ranking member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, telephoned to say that he was sending staff investigators to Laos to look into the opium situation. Amid this controversy, a CIA helicopter landed near the village where I had escaped that ambush and flew the Hmong headman who had helped my research to an agency airstrip. There, a CIA interrogator made it clear that he had better deny what he had said to me about the opium. Fearing, as he later told my photographer, that "they will send a helicopter to arrest me, or soldiers to shoot me," the Hmong headman did just that.

At a personal level, I was discovering just how deep the country's intelligence agencies could reach, even in a democracy, leaving no part of my life untouched: my publisher, my university, my sources, my taxes, my phone, and even my friends.

Although I had won the first battle of this war with a media blitz, the CIA was winning the longer bureaucratic struggle. By silencing my sources and denying any culpability, its officials convinced Congress that it was innocent of any direct complicity in the Indochina drug trade. During Senate hearings into CIA assassinations by the famed Church Committee three years later, Congress accepted the agency's assurance that none of its operatives had been directly involved in heroin trafficking (an allegation I had never actually made). The committee's report did confirm the core of my critique, however, finding that "the CIA is particularly vulnerable to criticism" over indigenous assets in Laos "of considerable importance to the Agency," including "people who either were known to be, or were suspected of being, involved in narcotics trafficking." But the senators did not press the CIA for any resolution or reform of what its own inspector general had called the "particular dilemma" posed by those alliances with drug lords -- the key aspect, in my view, of its complicity in the traffic.

During the mid-1970s, as the flow of drugs into the United States slowed and the number of addicts declined, the heroin problem receded into the inner cities and the media moved on to new sensations. Unfortunately, Congress had forfeited an opportunity to check the CIA and correct its way of waging covert wars. In less than 10 years, the problem of the CIA's tactical alliances with drug traffickers to support its far-flung covert wars was back with a vengeance.

During the 1980s, as the crack-cocaine epidemic swept America's cities, the agency, as its own Inspector General later reported , allied itself with the largest drug smuggler in the Caribbean, using his port facilities to ship arms to the Contra guerrillas fighting in Nicaragua and protecting him from any prosecution for five years. Simultaneously on the other side of the planet in Afghanistan, mujahedeen guerrillas imposed an opium tax on farmers to fund their fight against the Soviet occupation and, with the CIA's tacit consent , operated heroin labs along the Pakistani border to supply international markets. By the mid-1980s, Afghanistan's opium harvest had grown 10-fold and was providing 60% of the heroin for America's addicts and as much as 90% in New York City.

Almost by accident, I had launched my academic career by doing something a bit different. Embedded within that study of drug trafficking was an analytical approach that would take me, almost unwittingly, on a lifelong exploration of U.S. global hegemony in its many manifestations, including diplomatic alliances, CIA interventions, developing military technology, recourse to torture, and global surveillance. Step by step, topic by topic, decade after decade, I would slowly accumulate sufficient understanding of the parts to try to assemble the whole. In writing my new book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power , I drew on this research to assess the overall character of U.S. global power and the forces that might contribute to its perpetuation or decline.

In the process, I slowly came to see a striking continuity and coherence in Washington's century-long rise to global dominion. CIA torture techniques emerged at the start of the Cold War in the 1950s; much of its futuristic robotic aerospace technology had its first trial in the Vietnam War of the 1960s; and, above all, Washington's reliance on surveillance first appeared in the colonial Philippines around 1900 and soon became an essential though essentially illegal tool for the FBI's repression of domestic dissent that continued through the 1970s.

Surveillance Today

In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, I dusted off that historical method, and used it to explore the origins and character of domestic surveillance inside the United States.

After occupying the Philippines in 1898, the U.S. Army, facing a difficult pacification campaign in a restive land, discovered the power of systematic surveillance to crush the resistance of the country's political elite. Then, during World War I, the Army's "father of military intelligence," the dour General Ralph Van Deman, who had learned his trade in the Philippines, drew upon his years pacifying those islands to mobilize a legion of 1,700 soldiers and 350,000 citizen-vigilantes for an intense surveillance program against suspected enemy spies among German-Americans, including my own grandfather. In studying Military Intelligence files at the National Archives, I found "suspicious" letters purloined from my grandfather's army locker. In fact, his mother had been writing him in her native German about such subversive subjects as knitting him socks for guard duty.

In the 1950s, Hoover's FBI agents tapped thousands of phones without warrants and kept suspected subversives under close surveillance, including my mother's cousin Gerard Piel, an anti-nuclear activist and the publisher of Scientific American magazine. During the Vietnam War, the bureau expanded its activities with an amazing array of spiteful, often illegal, intrigues in a bid to cripple the antiwar movement with pervasive surveillance of the sort seen in my own FBI file.

Memory of the FBI's illegal surveillance programs was largely washed away after the Vietnam War thanks to Congressional reforms that required judicial warrants for all government wiretaps. The terror attacks of September 2001, however, gave the National Security Agency the leeway to launch renewed surveillance on a previously unimaginable scale. Writing for TomDispatch in 2009, I observed that coercive methods first tested in the Middle East were being repatriated and might lay the groundwork for "a domestic surveillance state." Sophisticated biometric and cyber techniques forged in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq had made a "digital surveillance state a reality" and so were fundamentally changing the character of American democracy.

Four years later, Edward Snowden's leak of secret NSA documents revealed that, after a century-long gestation period, a U.S. digital surveillance state had finally arrived. In the age of the Internet, the NSA could monitor tens of millions of private lives worldwide, including American ones, via a few hundred computerized probes into the global grid of fiber-optic cables.

And then, as if to remind me in the most personal way possible of our new reality, four years ago, I found myself the target yet again of an IRS audit, of TSA body searches at national airports, and -- as I discovered when the line went dead -- a tap on my office telephone at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Why? Maybe it was my current writing on sensitive topics like CIA torture and NSA surveillance, or maybe my name popped up from some old database of suspected subversives left over from the 1970s. Whatever the explanation, it was a reasonable reminder that, if my own family's experience across three generations is in any way representative, state surveillance has been an integral part of American political life far longer than we might imagine.

At the cost of personal privacy, Washington's worldwide web of surveillance has now become a weapon of exceptional power in a bid to extend U.S. global hegemony deeper into the twenty-first century. Yet it's worth remembering that sooner or later what we do overseas always seems to come home to haunt us, just as the CIA and crew have haunted me this last half-century. When we learn to love Big Brother, the world becomes a more, not less, dangerous place.

Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular , is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of the now-classic book The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade , which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and the forthcoming In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power (Dispatch Books, September) from which this piece is adapted. (Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)

Grandpa Charlie > , August 24, 2017 at 8:13 pm GMT

"In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, I dusted off that historical method, and used it to explore the origins and character of domestic surveillance inside the United States." -- Alfred McCoy

What about using the historical method to explore the nature of USA's reducing EU nations to "vassals" – and keeping them in the status of vassals, such that they can be depended on to undermine their own economies and sovereignty for the sake of USA's global initiatives?

An interesting question might be whether the NATO-to-Afghanistan highway (truck route for munitions, etc.), c. 2010, was also, on the back-haul – Afghanistan to EU – the major supply route for heroin throughout the EU and thus the key to corruption of EU governments (and of Russia) and domination of those governments by USA's neocon operatives? (E.g., was/is the distribution system of the "Chocolate King" Petro Poroshenko, President of Ukraine, delivering something besides just chocolate?)

"Just over one third of all cargo goes on routes dubbed the "northern distribution network" through Central Asia, and the Caucasus or Russia. " -- Reuters, 2011

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-pakistan-isaf-idUSTRE7AR0XK20111128

Just a thought, speculative, based in part on the assumption that such trucks would not be subject to narcotics search-and-seizure going across borders.

Anon > , Disclaimer August 25, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT

Thanks for this serious, high-quality content, Mr. Unz.

hyperbola > , August 25, 2017 at 4:12 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie

The Puppet Masters Behind Georgia President Saakashvili http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20569.htm

WikiLeaks exposes US cover-up of Georgian attack on South Ossetia

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/12/geor-d06.html one of the suggestions was that drugs were involved.

Myth, Meth and the Georgian Invasion https://www.thenation.com/article/myth-meth-and-georgian-invasion/

Soros, drugs, British Empire and Saakashvili http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=64

[Apr 21, 2019] Is the CIA Reformable by Melvin A. Goodman

Notable quotes:
"... The debate over whether Snowden was a traitor is fatuous. As a result of Snowden's revelations, we learned that the National Security Agency logged domestic phone calls and emails for years, recorded the metadata of correspondence between Americans, and, in some cases, exploited the content of emails. The case against Private Manning was similarly fatuous. Manning provided evidence of the US cover-up of torture by our Iraqi allies; a US Army helicopter opening fire on a group of civilians, including two Reuters journalists; and the use of an air strike to cover up the execution of civilians. Some of these acts were war crimes. ..."
"... According to US law, the term "whistleblower" applies to anyone who "reasonably believes" he or she is disclosing a violation of law or gross mismanagement, gross waste, or abuse of authority. My testimony documented for the first time the intentional distortion of intelligence by CIA director William Casey and Deputy Director Gates in order to serve the agenda of Ronald Reagan and his administration. ..."
"... Being a contrarian was easy and natural for me. In fact, no one should think about entering the intelligence profession without good contrarian instincts. Such instincts would include an innate skepticism, the doubting of conventional wisdom and a willingness to challenge authority, which translates to an ability to tell truth to power. These contrarian instincts are essential to the success of any intelligence organization. As Rogers and Hammerstein would have it, it was "doing what comes naturally!" ..."
"... My book The Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA was the first insider account from an intelligence analyst regarding the skewed and politicized assessments of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence -- the Agency's analytic arm. I also exposed the strategic failure of covert actions that were never intended to be a part of President Harry Truman's CIA ..."
"... The political pliancy of these directors fully compromised the intelligence mission of the CIA, and it was political pliancy that made directors such as Gates and Tenet so attractive to Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. ..."
"... In December 1963, less than a month after the assassination of President Kennedy, Truman wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post to document the wrongs of the CIA He concluded that his efforts to "create the quiet intelligence arm of the Presidency" had been subverted by a "sinister" and "mysterious" agency that was conducting far too many clandestine activities in peacetime. I lectured at the Truman Library in the summer of 2014, and found a note in Truman's hand that stated the CIA was not designed to "initiate policy or to act as a spy organization. That was never the intention when it was organized." ..."
"... In The Failure of Intelligence , I documented the CIA's resistance to reform and the corruption in both the analytical and operational directorates. I made a case for starting over at the CIA, not dissimilar from the case made by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan 25 years ago as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Not every agency or department of government can be reformed, and it is possible that the intricate web of habits, procedures, and culture places the CIA in the non-reformable category. Once the political culture of an institution such as the CIA has been broken, it is extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to rebuild or repair it. ..."
Jul 21, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

The CIA's mission has gone dangerously and lethally astray, argues Melvin A. Goodman, former CIA intelligence analyst.

Whistleblower at the CIA tells the story of the corruption Melvin A. Goodman observed within the intelligence agency and what he did to expose it. NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake says this book "serves in the public interest as a warning and wake-up call for what's at stake and why we cannot trust the CIA or the intelligence establishment to do the right thing." Click here to order a copy today by making a donation to Truthout!

In this excerpt, , former CIA intelligence analyst Melvin A. Goodman ponders the meanings of the words whistleblower, dissident and contrarian, how they apply to himself and others, and whether the CIA can ever be repaired or rebuilt.

Whistleblowers. Dissidents. Contrarians.

The terms are used synonymously by pundits and the public, and I've been all three at one time or another in order to expose improprieties and illegalities in the secret government, and to inform the American public of policies that compromise the freedom and security of US citizens and weaken US standing in the global community.

I have never liked the terms contrarian or dissident. I've always believed that my criticism should be conventional wisdom. The term whistleblower is more complex because it often raises questions of patriotism or sedition. Chelsea Manning received commutation from her 35-year prison sentence for revealing so-called secrets that documented the terror and violence of the baseless US war in Iraq. Members of the Bush administration who launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003 are considered honorable members of our society, although their acts involved the corruption of intelligence; caused the death of thousands of US soldiers and foreign civilians; terrorized civilian populations; perpetrated the criminal use of torture and abuse; sanctioned use of secret prisons and extraordinary rendition; and caused the destabilization of the region that has set the stage for strategic advances by Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Edward Snowden, if he had remained in the United States, would have faced an even longer prison sentence because he revealed the massive NSA surveillance program that was illegal and immoral, and that violated the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal seizures and searches. Manning and Snowden admit to breaking US laws, but their actions were never as serious as the law-breaking, including massive violations of privacy, that they exposed.

The debate over whether Snowden was a traitor is fatuous. As a result of Snowden's revelations, we learned that the National Security Agency logged domestic phone calls and emails for years, recorded the metadata of correspondence between Americans, and, in some cases, exploited the content of emails. The case against Private Manning was similarly fatuous. Manning provided evidence of the US cover-up of torture by our Iraqi allies; a US Army helicopter opening fire on a group of civilians, including two Reuters journalists; and the use of an air strike to cover up the execution of civilians. Some of these acts were war crimes.

There is no more compelling evidence of the unconscionable behavior of US personnel in Iraq than the callous dialogue between the crew members of the helicopter regarding the civilian deaths and particularly the firing on those Iraqis who came to recover the dead bodies of Iraqi civilians. Manning's documents exposed this behavior, but her efforts were ridiculed by former secretary of defense Robert Gates, who described it as examining war by "looking through a straw."

To make matters worse, American journalists have criticized their colleagues (Julian Assange of WikiLeaks and Glenn Greenwald [then of The Guardian]) who brought the Snowden-Manning revelations to the attention of the public. David Gregory, then host of the venerable "Meet the Press" on NBC, asked Greenwald "to the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden ... why shouldn't you ... be charged with a crime?"

Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer who labors for CNN and The New Yorker, called Snowden a "grandiose narcissist who belongs in prison" and referred to Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, who was detained by British authorities for nine hours under anti-terror laws, the equivalent of a "drug mule."

The king of calumny is Michael Grunwald, a senior correspondent for Time, who wrote on Twitter that he couldn't "wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange." The New York Times also targeted Assange, although the paper cooperated with WikiLeaks in 2010 in publishing reams of information from Private Manning's revelations. Of course, if Time or the New York Times had broken these stories, they would have built new shelves to hold their Pulitzer Prizes.

Their hypocrisy was exposed by David Carr of the New York Times, who expressed shock at finding Assange and Greenwald "under attack, not just from a government bent on keeping its secrets, but from friendly fire by fellow journalists."

I didn't reveal abuses as great as those revealed by Manning and Snowden or Daniel Ellsberg, but I do claim status as a whistleblower because of my revelations before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during confirmation hearings for Bob Gates, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 to be director of central intelligence.

According to US law, the term "whistleblower" applies to anyone who "reasonably believes" he or she is disclosing a violation of law or gross mismanagement, gross waste, or abuse of authority. My testimony documented for the first time the intentional distortion of intelligence by CIA director William Casey and Deputy Director Gates in order to serve the agenda of Ronald Reagan and his administration.

Bob Gates was an old friend, but the friendship ended when he routinely distorted intelligence throughout the 1980s as deputy director for intelligence and deputy director of the CIA In destroying the political culture of the CIA, he created a toxic and corrupt environment at the Agency, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA detention and torture reminds us that the Agency hasn't recovered.

Being a contrarian was easy and natural for me. In fact, no one should think about entering the intelligence profession without good contrarian instincts. Such instincts would include an innate skepticism, the doubting of conventional wisdom and a willingness to challenge authority, which translates to an ability to tell truth to power. These contrarian instincts are essential to the success of any intelligence organization. As Rogers and Hammerstein would have it, it was "doing what comes naturally!"

My book The Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA was the first insider account from an intelligence analyst regarding the skewed and politicized assessments of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence -- the Agency's analytic arm. I also exposed the strategic failure of covert actions that were never intended to be a part of President Harry Truman's CIA

I wrote the book for many reasons, including the need to describe the inability of journalists to take into account, let alone understand, the dangers of politicization and the actions of CIA directors such as Casey, Gates, and more recently Goss and Tenet. The political pliancy of these directors fully compromised the intelligence mission of the CIA, and it was political pliancy that made directors such as Gates and Tenet so attractive to Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

Truthout Progressive Pick
Whistleblower at the CIA: An Insider's Account of the Politics of Intelligence

"Urgent, timely, and deeply recommended." -- Daniel Ellsberg. Click here now to get the book!


For the past quarter century, my testimony and writings have exposed the failure to honor President Truman's purpose in creating a CIA to provide policymakers with accurate, unbiased accounts of international developments, and have highlighted the CIA's readiness to cater to the White House. This view is not original with me; in fact, it was President Truman who first acknowledged that the CIA he created in 1947 had gotten off the tracks under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy in the 1950s and early 1960s.

In December 1963, less than a month after the assassination of President Kennedy, Truman wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post to document the wrongs of the CIA He concluded that his efforts to "create the quiet intelligence arm of the Presidency" had been subverted by a "sinister" and "mysterious" agency that was conducting far too many clandestine activities in peacetime. I lectured at the Truman Library in the summer of 2014, and found a note in Truman's hand that stated the CIA was not designed to "initiate policy or to act as a spy organization. That was never the intention when it was organized."

In The Failure of Intelligence , I documented the CIA's resistance to reform and the corruption in both the analytical and operational directorates. I made a case for starting over at the CIA, not dissimilar from the case made by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan 25 years ago as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Not every agency or department of government can be reformed, and it is possible that the intricate web of habits, procedures, and culture places the CIA in the non-reformable category. Once the political culture of an institution such as the CIA has been broken, it is extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to rebuild or repair it.

Copyright (2017) by Melvin A. Goodman. Not be reprinted without permission of the publisher, City Lights Books. Melvin A. Goodman Melvin A. Goodman served as a senior analyst and Division Chief at the CIA from 1966 to 1990. An expert on US relations with Russia, his writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Harper's and many others. He is author of six books on US intelligence and international security. Related Stories CIA Asked to Release Documents Related to Massacre in El Salvador By Carmen Rodriguez, CIP Americas Program | Report CIA Watchdog "Mistakenly" Destroys Its Sole Copy of Senate Torture Report By Sarah Lazare, AlterNet | News Analysis CIA Cables Detail Its New Deputy Director's Role in Torture By Raymond Bonner, ProPublica | Report

[Apr 21, 2019] Mark Ames: The FBI Has No Legal Charter But Lots of Kompromat

Notable quotes:
"... Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico). ..."
"... The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005. ..."
"... Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself. ..."
"... Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either. ..."
May 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here . Originally published at The Exiled

I made the mistake of listening to NPR last week to find out what Conventional Wisdom had to say about Trump firing Comey, on the assumption that their standardized Mister-Rogers-on-Nyquil voice tones would rein in the hysteria pitch a little. And on the surface, it did-the NPR host and guests weren't directly shrieking "the world is ending! We're all gonna die SHEEPLE!" the way they were on CNN. But in a sense they were screaming "fire!", if you know how to distinguish the very minute pitch level differences in the standard NPR Nyquil voice.

The host of the daytime NPR program asked his guests how serious, and how "unprecedented" Trump's decision to fire his FBI chief was. The guests answers were strange: they spoke about "rule of law" and "violating the Constitution" but then switched to Trump "violating norms"-and back again, interchanging "norms" and "laws" as if they're synonyms. One of the guests admitted that Trump firing Comey was 100% legal, but that didn't seem to matter in this talk about Trump having abandoned rule-of-law for a Putinist dictatorship. These guys wouldn't pass a high school civics class, but there they were, garbling it all up. What mattered was the proper sense of panic and outrage-I'm not sure anyone really cared about the actual legality of the thing, or the legal, political or "normative" history of the FBI.

For starters, the FBI hardly belongs in the same set with concepts like "constitutional" or " rule of law." That's because the FBI was never established by a law. US Lawmakers refused to approve an FBI bureau over a century ago when it was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt. So he ignored Congress, and went ahead and set it up by presidential fiat. That's one thing the civil liberties crowd hates discussing - how centralized US political power is in the executive branch, a feature in the constitutional system put there by the holy Founders.

In the late 1970s, at the tail end of our brief Glasnost, there was a lot of talk in Washington about finally creating a legal charter for the FBI -70 years after its founding. A lot of serious ink was spilled trying to transform the FBI from an extralegal secret police agency to something legal and defined. If you want to play archeologist to America's recent history, you can find this in the New York Times' archives, articles with headlines like "Draft of Charter for F.B.I. Limits Inquiry Methods" :

The Carter Administration will soon send to Congress the first governing charter for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The proposed charter imposes extensive but not absolute restrictions on the bureau's employment of controversial investigative techniques, .including the use of informers, undercover agents and covert criminal activity.

The charter also specifies the duties and powers of the bureau, setting precise standards and procedures for the initiation ,and conduct of investigations. It specifically requires the F.B.I. to observe constitutional rights and establishes safeguards against unchecked harassment, break‐ins and other abuses.

followed by the inevitable lament, like this editorial from the Christian Science Monitor a year later, "Don't Forget the FBI Charter". Which of course we did forget-that was Reagan's purpose and value for the post-Glasnost reaction: forgetting. As historian Athan Theoharis wrote , "After 1981, Congress never seriously considered again any of the FBI charter proposals."

The origins of the FBI have been obscured both because of its dubious legality and because of its original political purpose-to help the president battle the all-powerful American capitalists. It wasn't that Teddy Roosevelt was a radical leftist-he was a Progressive Republican, which sounds like an oxymoron today but which was mainstream and ascendant politics in his time. Roosevelt was probably the first president since Andrew Jackson to try to smash concentrated wealth-power, or at least some of it. He could be brutally anti-labor, but so were the powerful capitalists he fought, and all the structures of government power. He met little opposition pursuing his imperial Social Darwinist ambitions outside America's borders-but he had a much harder time fighting the powerful capitalists at home against Roosevelt's most honorable political obsession: preserving forests, parks and public lands from greedy capitalists. An early FBI memo to Hoover about the FBI's origins explains,

"Roosevelt, in his characteristic dynamic fashion, asserted that the plunderers of the public domain would be prosecuted and brought to justice."

According to New York Times reporter Tim Wiener's Enemies: A History of the FBI , it was the Oregon land fraud scandal of 1905-6 that put the idea of an FBI in TR's hyperactive mind. The scandal involved leading Oregon politicians helping railroad tycoon Edward Harriman illegally sell off pristine Oregon forest lands to timber interests, and it ended with an Oregon senator and the state's only two House representatives criminally charged and put on trial-along with dozens of other Oregonians. Basically, they were raping the state's public lands and forests like colonists stripping a foreign country-and that stuck in TR's craw.

TR wanted his attorney general-Charles Bonaparte (yes, he really was a descendant of that Bonaparte)-to make a full report to on the rampant land fraud scams that the robber barons were running to despoil the American West, and which threatened TR's vision of land and forest conservation and parks. Bonaparte created an investigative team from the US Secret Service, but TR thought their report was a "whitewash" and proposed a new separate federal investigative service within Bonaparte's Department of Justice that would report only to the Attorney General.

Until then, the US government had to rely on private contractors like the notorious, dreaded Pinkerton Agency, who were great at strikebreaking, clubbing workers and shooting organizers, but not so good at taking down down robber barons, who happened to also be important clients for the private detective agencies.

In early 1908, Attorney General Bonaparte wrote to Congress asking for the legal authority (and budget funds) to create a "permanent detective force" under the DOJ. Congress rebelled, denouncing it as a plan to create an American okhrana . Democrat Joseph Sherley wrote that "spying on men and prying into what would ordinarily be considered their private affairs" went against "American ideas of government"; Rep. George Waldo, a New York Republican, said the proposed FBI was a "great blow to freedom and to free institutions if there should arise in this country any such great central secret-service bureau as there is in Russia."

So Congress's response was the opposite, banning Bonaparte's DOJ from spending any funds at all on a proposed FBI. Another Congressman wrote another provision into the budget bill banning the DOJ from hiring Secret Service employees for any sort of FBI type agency. So Bonaparte waited until Congress took its summer recess, set aside some DOJ funds, recruited some Secret Service agents, and created a new federal detective bureau with 34 agents. This was how the FBI was born. Congress wasn't notified until the end of 1908, in a few lines in a standard report - "oh yeah, forgot to tell you-the executive branch went ahead and created an American okhrana because, well, the ol' joke about dogs licking their balls. Happy New Year!"

The sordid history of America's extralegal secret police-initially named the Bureau of Investigation, changed to the FBI ("Federal") in the 30's, is mostly a history of xenophobic panic-mongering, illegal domestic spying, mass roundups and plans for mass-roundups, false entrapment schemes, and planting what Russians call "kompromat"- compromising information about a target's sex life-to blackmail or destroy American political figures that the FBI didn't like.

The first political victim of J Edgar Hoover's kompromat was Louis Post, the assistant secretary of labor under Woodrow Wilson. Post's crime was releasing over 1,000 alleged Reds from detention facilities near the end of the FBI's Red Scare crackdown, when they jailed and deported untold thousands on suspicion of being Communists. The FBI's mass purge began with popular media support in 1919, but by the middle of 1920, some (not the FBI) were starting to get a little queasy. A legal challenge to the FBI's mass purges and exiles in Boston ended with a federal judge denouncing the FBI. After that ruling, assistant secretary Louis Post, a 71-year-old well-meaning progressive, reviewed the cases against the last 1500 detainees that the FBI wanted to deport, and found that there was absolutely nothing on at least 75 percent of the cases. Post's review threatened to undo thousands more FBI persecutions of alleged Moscow-controlled radicals.

So one of the FBI's most ambitious young agents, J Edgar Hoover, collected kompromat on Post and his alleged associations with other alleged Moscow-controlled leftists, and gave the file to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives-which promptly announced it would hold hearings to investigate Post as a left subversive. The House tried to impeach Post, but ultimately he defended himself. Post's lawyer compared his political persecutors to the okhrana (Russia, again!): "We in America have sunk to the level of the government of Russia under the Czarist regime," describing the FBI's smear campaign as "even lower in some of their methods than the old Russian officials."

Under Harding, the FBI had a new chief, William Burns, who made headlines blaming the terror bombing attack on Wall Street of 1920 that killed 34 people on a Kremlin-run conspiracy. The FBI claimed it had a highly reliable inside source who told them that Lenin sent $30,000 to the Soviets' diplomatic mission in New York, which was distributed to four local Communist agents who arranged the Wall Street bombing. The source claimed to have personally spoken with Lenin, who boasted that the bombing was so successful he'd ordered up more.

The only problem was that the FBI's reliable source, a Jewish-Polish petty criminal named Wolf Lindenfeld, turned out to be a bullshitter-nicknamed "Windy Linde"-who thought his fake confession about Lenin funding the bombing campaign would get him out of Poland's jails and set up in a comfortable new life in New York.

By 1923, the FBI had thoroughly destroyed America's communist and radical labor movements-allowing it to focus on its other favorite pastime: spying on and destroying political opponents. The FBI spied on US Senators who supported opening diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union: Idaho's William Borah, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Thomas Walsh of the Judiciary Committee, and Burton K Wheeler, the prairie Populist senator from Montana, who visited the Soviet Union and pushed for diplomatic relations. Harding's corrupt Attorney General Dougherty denounced Sen. Wheeler as "the Communist leader in the Senate" and "no more a Democrat than Stalin, his comrade in Moscow." Dougherty accused Sen. Wheeler of being part of a conspiracy "to capture, by deceit and design, as many members of the Senate as possible and to spread through Washington and the cloakrooms of Congress a poison gas as deadly as that which sapped and destroyed brave soldiers in the last war."

Hoover, now a top FBI official, quietly fed kompromat to journalists he cultivated, particularly an AP reporter named Richard Whitney, who published a popular book in 1924, "Reds In America" alleging Kremlin agents "had an all-pervasive influence over American institutions; they had infiltrated every corner of American life." Whitney named Charlie Chaplin as a Kremlin agent, along with Felix Frankfurter and members of the Senate pushing for recognition of the Soviet Union. That killed any hope for diplomatic recognition for the next decade.

Then the first Harding scandals broke-Teapot Dome, Veterans Affairs, bribery at the highest rungs. When Senators Wheeler and Walsh opened bribery investigations, the FBI sent agents to the senators' home state to drum up false bribery charges against Sen. Wheeler. The charges were clearly fake, and a jury dismissed the charges. But Attorney General Dougherty was indicted for fraud and forced to resign, as was his FBI chief Burns-but not Burns' underling Hoover, who stayed in the shadows.

"We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail This must stop."

With the Cold War, the FBI became obsessed with homosexuals as America's Fifth Column under Moscow's control. Homosexuals, the FBI believed, were susceptible to Kremlin kompromat-so the FBI collected and disseminated its own kompromat on alleged American homosexuals, supposedly to protect America from the Kremlin. In the early 1950s, Hoover launched the Sex Deviates Program to spy on American homosexuals and purge them from public life. The FBI built up 300,000 pages of files on suspected homosexuals and contacted their employers, local law enforcement and universities to "to drive homosexuals from every institution of government, higher learning, and law enforcement in the nation," according to Tim Weiner's book Enemies. No one but the FBI knows exactly how many Americans' lives and careers were destroyed by the FBI's Sex Deviants Program but Hoover-who never married, lived with his mother until he was 40, and traveled everywhere with his "friend" Clyde Tolson .

In the 1952 election, Hoover was so committed to helping the Republicans and Eisenhower win that he compiled and disseminated a 19-page kompromat file alleging that his Democratic Party rival Adlai Stevenson was gay. The FBI's file on Stevenson was kept in the Sex Deviants Program section-it included libelous gossip, claiming that Stevenson was one of Illinois' "best known homosexuals" who went by the name "Adeline" in gay cruising circles.

In the 1960s, Hoover and his FBI chiefs collected kompromat on the sex lives of JFK and Martin Luther King. Hoover presented some of his kompromat on JFK to Bobby Kennedy, in a concern-trollish way claiming to "warn" him that the president was opening himself up to blackmail. It was really a way for Hoover to let the despised Kennedy brothers know he could destroy them, should they try to Comey him out of his FBI office. Hoover's kompromat on MLK's sex life was a particular obsession of his-he now believed that African-Americans, not homosexuals, posed the greatest threat to become a Kremlin Fifth Column. The FBI wiretapped MLK's private life, collecting tapes of his affairs with other women, which a top FBI official then mailed to Martin Luther King's wife, along with a note urging King to commit suicide.

FBI letter anonymously mailed to Martin Luther King Jr's wife, along with kompromat sex tapes

After JFK was murdered, when Bobby Kennedy ran for the Senate in 1964, he recounted another disturbing FBI/kompromat story that President Johnson shared with him on the campaign trail. LBJ told Bobby about a stack of kompromat files - FBI reports "detailing the sexual debauchery of members of the Senate and House who consorted with prostitutes." LBJ asked RFK if the kompromat should be leaked selectively to destroy Republicans before the 1964 elections. Kennedy recalled,

"He told me he had spent all night sitting up and reading the files of the FBI on all these people. And Lyndon talks about that information and material so freely. Lyndon talks about everybody, you see, with everybody. And of course that's dangerous."

Kennedy had seen some of the same FBI kompromat files as attorney general, but he was totally opposed to releasing such unsubstantiated kompromat-such as, say, the Trump piss files-because doing so would "destroy the confidence that people in the United States had in their government and really make us a laughingstock around the world."

Imagine that.

Which brings me to the big analogy every hack threw around last week, calling Trump firing Comey "Nixonian." Actually, what Trump did was more like the very opposite of Nixon, who badly wanted to fire Hoover in 1971-2, but was too afraid of the kompromat Hoover might've had on him to make the move. Nixon fell out with his old friend and onetime mentor J Edgar Hoover in 1971, when the ailing old FBI chief refused to get sucked in to the Daniel Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers investigation, especially after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. Part of the reason Nixon created his Plumbers team of black bag burglars was because Hoover had become a bit skittish in his last year on this planet-and that drove Nixon crazy.

Nixon called his chief of staff Haldeman:

Nixon: I talked to Hoover last night and Hoover is not going after this case [Ellsberg] as strong as I would like. There's something dragging him.

Haldeman: You don't have the feeling the FBI is really pursuing this?

Nixon: Yeah, particularly the conspiracy side. I want to go after everyone. I'm not so interested in Ellsberg, but we have to go after everybody who's a member of this conspiracy.

Hoover's ambitious deputies in the FBI were smelling blood, angling to replace him. His number 3, Bill Sullivan (who sent MLK the sex tapes and suicide note) was especially keen to get rid of Hoover and take his place. So as J Edgar was stonewalling the Daniel Ellsberg investigation, Sullivan showed up in a Department of Justice office with two suitcases packed full of transcripts and summaries of illegal wiretaps that Kissinger and Nixon had ordered on their own staff and on American journalists. The taps were ordered in Nixon's first months in the White House in 1969, to plug up the barrage of leaks, the likes of which no one had ever seen before. Sullivan took the leaks from J Edgar's possession and told the DOJ official that they needed to be hidden from Hoover, who planned to use them as kompromat to blackmail Nixon.

Nixon decided he was going to fire J Edgar the next day. This was in September, 1971. But the next day came, and Nixon got scared. So he tried to convince his attorney general John Mitchell to fire Hoover for him, but Mitchell said only the President could fire J Edgar Hoover. So Nixon met him for breakfast, and, well, he just didn't have the guts. Over breakfast, Hoover flattered Nixon and told him there was nothing more in the world he wanted than to see Nixon re-elected. Nixon caved; the next day, J Edgar Hoover unceremoniously fired his number 3 Bill Sullivan, locking him out of the building and out of his office so that he couldn't take anything with him. Sullivan was done.

The lesson here, I suppose, is that if an FBI director doesn't want to be fired, it's best to keep your kompromat a little closer to your chest, as a gun to hold to your boss's head. Comey's crew already released the piss tapes kompromat on Trump-the damage was done. What was left to hold back Trump from firing Comey? "Laws"? The FBI isn't even legal. "Norms" would be the real reason. Which pretty much sums up everything Trump has been doing so far. We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"-and while those norms may mean everything to the ruling class, it's an open question how much these norms mean to a lot of Americans outside that club.

Huey Long , May 16, 2017 at 2:33 am

Wow, and this whole time I thought the NSA had a kompromat monopoly as they have everybody's porn site search terms and viewing habits on file.

I had no idea the FBI practically invented it!

3.14e-9 , May 16, 2017 at 3:04 am

The Native tribes don't have a great history with the FBI, either.

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/culture/thing-about-skins/comey-fbi-destructive-history-native-people/

voteforno6 , May 16, 2017 at 6:06 am

Has anyone ever used the FBI's lack of a charter as a defense in court?

Disturbed Voter , May 16, 2017 at 6:42 am

The USA doesn't have a legal basis either, it is a revolting crown colony of the British Empire. Treason and heresy all the way down. Maybe the British need to burn Washington DC again?

Synoia , May 16, 2017 at 9:46 pm

Britain burning DC, and the so call ed "war" of 1812, got no mention in my History Books. Napoleon on the other hand, featured greatly

In 1812 Napoleon was busy going to Russia. That went well.

Ignim Brites , May 16, 2017 at 7:55 am

Wondered how Comey thought he could get away with his conviction and pardon of Sec Clinton. Seems like part of the culture of FBI is a "above and beyond" the law mentality.

Watt4Bob , May 16, 2017 at 7:56 am

Back in the early 1970s a high school friend moved to Alabama because his father was transferred by his employer.

My friend sent a post card describing among other things the fact that Alabama had done away with the requirement of a math class to graduate high school, and substituted a required class called "The Evils of Communism" complete with a text-book written by J. Edgar Hoover; Masters of Deceit.

JMarco , May 16, 2017 at 2:52 pm

In Dallas,Texas my 1959 Civics class had to read the same book. We all were given paperback copies of it to take home and read. It was required reading enacted by Texas legislature.

Watt4Bob , May 16, 2017 at 4:47 pm

So I'd guess you weren't fooled by any of those commie plots of the sixties, like the campaigns for civil rights or against the Vietnamese war.

I can't really brag, I didn't stop worrying about the Red Menace until 1970 or so, that's when I started running into returning vets who mostly had no patience for that stuff.

Carolinian , May 16, 2017 at 8:35 am

We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"

Or as David Broder put it (re Bill Clinton): he came in and trashed the place and it wasn't his place.

It was David Broder's place. Of course the media play a key role with all that kompromat since they are the ones needed to convey it to the public. The tragedy is that even many of the sensible in their ranks such as Bill Moyers have been sucked into the kompromat due to their hysteria over Trump. Ames is surely on point in this great article. The mistake was allowing secret police agencies like the FBI and CIA to be created in the first place.

Katharine , May 16, 2017 at 8:37 am

Sorry, my initial reaction was that people who don't know the difference between "rein" and "reign" are not to be trusted to provide reliable information. Recognizing that as petty, I kept reading, and presently found the statement that Congress was not informed of the founding of the FBI until a century after the fact, which seems implausible. If in fact the author meant the end of 1908 it was quite an achievement to write 2008.

Interesting to the extent it may be true, but with few sources, no footnotes, and little evidence of critical editing who knows what that may be?

Carolinian , May 16, 2017 at 9:12 am

Do you even know who Mark Ames is?

Petty .yes.

Katharine , May 16, 2017 at 10:08 am

Who he is is irrelevant. I don't take things on faith because "the Pope said" or because Mark Ames said. People who expect their information to be taken seriously should substantiate it.

Bill Smith , May 16, 2017 at 12:00 pm

Yeah, in the first sentence

Interesting article though.

Fiery Hunt , May 16, 2017 at 9:21 am

Yeah, Kathatine, you're right .very petty.

And completely missed the point.

Or worse, you got the point and your best rejection of that point was pointing out a typo.

Katharine , May 16, 2017 at 10:13 am

I neither missed the point nor rejected it. I reserved judgment, as I thought was apparent from my comment.

sid_finster , May 16, 2017 at 10:50 am

But Trump is bad. Very Bad.

So anything the FBI does to get rid of him must by definition be ok! Besides, surely our civic-minded IC would never use their power on the Good Guys™!

Right?

JTMcPhee , May 16, 2017 at 9:21 am

Ah yes, the voice of "caution." And such attention to the lack of footnotes, in this day when the curious can so easily cut and paste a bit of salient text into a search engine and pull up a feast of parse-able writings and video, from which they can "judiciously assess" claims and statements. If they care to spend the time, which is in such short supply among those who are struggling to keep up with the horrors and revelations people of good will confront every blinking day

Classic impeachment indeed. All from the height of "academic rigor" and "caution." Especially the "apologetic" bit about "reign" vs "rein." Typos destroy credibility, don't they? And the coup de grass (sic), the unrebuttable "plausibility" claim.

One wonders at the nature of the author's curriculum vitae. One also marvels at the yawning gulf between the Very Serious Stuff I was taught in grade and high school civics and history, back in the late '50s and the '60s, about the Fundamental Nature Of Our Great Nation and its founding fathers and the Beautiful Documents they wrote, on the one hand, and what we mopes learn, through a drip-drip-drip process punctuated occasionally by Major Revelations, about the real nature of the Empire and our fellow creatures

PS: My earliest memory of television viewing was a day at a friend's house - his middle-class parents had the first "set" in the neighborhood, I think an RCA, in a massive sideboard cabinet where the picture tube pointed up and you viewed the "content" in a mirror mounted to the underside of the lid. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5onSwx7_Cn0 The family was watching a hearing of Joe McCarthy's kangaroo court, complete with announcements of the latest number in the "list of known Communists in the State Department" and how Commyanism was spreading like an unstoppable epidemic mortal disease through the Great US Body Politic and its Heroic Institutions of Democracy. I was maybe 6 years old, but that grainy black and white "reality TV" content had me asking "WTF?" at a very early age. And I'd say it's on the commentor to show that the "2008" claim is wrong, by something other than "implausible" as drive-by impeachment. Given the content of the original post, and what people paying attention to all this stuff have a pretty good idea is the general contours of a vast corruption and manipulation.

"Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no."

Katharine , May 16, 2017 at 10:19 am

It is the author's job to substantiate information, not the reader's. If he thinks his work is so important, why does he not make a better job of it?

Edward , May 16, 2017 at 9:22 pm

I think the MLK blackmail scheme is well-established. Much of the article seems to be based on Tim Wiener's "Enemies: A History of the FBI".

nonsense factory , May 16, 2017 at 11:16 am

Interesting article on the history of the FBI, although the post-Hoover era doesn't get any treatment. The Church Committee hearings on the CIA and FBI, after the exposure of notably Operation CHAOS (early 60s to early 70s) by the CIA and COINTELPRO(late 1950s to early 1970s) by the FBI, didn't really get to the bottom of the issue although some reforms were initiated.

Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico).

The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005.

Maybe this is legitimate, but this only applies to their protection of the interests of large corporations – as the 2008 economic collapse and aftermath showed, they don't prosecute corporate executives who rip off poor people and middle-class homeowners. Banks who rob people, they aren't investigated or prosecuted; that's just for people who rob banks.

When it comes to political issues and national security, however, the FBI has such a terrible record on so many issues over the years that anything they claim has to be taken with a grain or two of salt. Consider domestic political activity: from the McCarthyite 'Red Scare' of the 1950s to COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 1970s to targeting of environmental groups in the 1980s and 1990s to targeting anti-war protesters under GW Bush to their obsession with domestic mass surveillance under Obama, it's not a record that should inspire any confidence.

Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself.

As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences. The Saudi intelligence agency role in 9/11 was buried for over a decade, as well. Since 9/11, most of the FBI investigations seem to have involved recruiting mentally disabled young Islamic men in sting operations in which the FBI provides everything needed. You could probably get any number of mentally ill homeless people across the U.S., regardless of race or religion, to play this role.

Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either.

Ultimately, this is because FBI executives are paid off not to investigate Wall Street criminality, nor shady U.S. government activity, with lucrative positions as corporate board members and so on after their 'retirements'. I don't doubt that many of their junior members mean well and are dedicated to their jobs – but the fish rots from the head down.

Andrew Watts , May 16, 2017 at 3:58 pm

As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences.

The Clinton Administration had other priorities. You know, I think I'll let ex-FBI Director Freeh explain what happened when the FBI tried to get the Saudis to cooperate with their investigation into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.

"That September, Crown Prince Abdullah and his entourage took over the entire 143-room Hay-Adams Hotel, just across from Lafayette Park from the White House, for six days. The visit, I figured, was pretty much our last chance. Again, we prepared talking points for the president. Again, I contacted Prince Bandar and asked him to soften up the crown prince for the moment when Clinton, -- or Al Gore I didn't care who -- would raise the matter and start to exert the necessary pressure."

"The story that came back to me, from "usually reliable sources," as they say in Washington, was that Bill Clinton briefly raised the subject only to tell the Crown Prince that he certainly understood the Saudis; reluctance to cooperate. Then, according to my sources, he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the still-to-be-built Clinton presidential library. Gore, who was supposed to press hardest of all in his meeting with the crown Prince, barely mentioned the matter, I was told." -Louis J. Freeh, My FBI (2005)

In my defense I picked the book up to see if there was any dirt on the DNC's electoral funding scandal in 1996. I'm actually glad I did. The best part of the book is when Freeh recounts running into a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade and listens to how Hoover's FBI ruined his life despite having broken no laws. As if a little thing like laws mattered to Hoover. The commies were after our precious bodily fluids!

verifyfirst , May 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm

I'm not sure there are many functioning norms left within the national political leadership. Seemed to me Gingrich started blowing those up and it just got worse from there. McConnell not allowing Garland to be considered comes to mind

lyman alpha blob , May 16, 2017 at 1:14 pm

Great article – thanks for this. I had no idea the FBI never had a legal charter – very enlightening.

JMarco , May 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm

Thanks to Mark Ames now we know what Pres. Trump meant when he tweeted about his tapes with AG Comey. Not some taped conversation between Pres. Trump & AG Comey but bunch of kompromat tapes that AG Comey has provided Pres. Trump that might not make departing AG Comey looked so clean.

[Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Oct 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Fran Macadam , October 20, 2017 at 3:08 pm GMT

A credible reading of the diverse facts, Mike.
Kirk Elarbee , October 20, 2017 at 8:27 pm GMT
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/10/everyone-hacked-everyone-hacked-everyone-spy-spin-fuels-anti-kaspersky-campaign.html

utu , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 5:18 am GMT
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.

Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.

Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.

Pamela Geller: Thank You, Larry David

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/10/19/pamela-geller-thank-larry-david/

anon , Disclaimer Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 5:54 am GMT
OK.

The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway.

No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way

The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.

The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.

ThereisaGod , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 6:37 am GMT
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people."

All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.

jilles dykstra , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 6:46 am GMT
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present. A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
Logan , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from it.

DESERT FOX , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.

Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.

TG , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 2:03 pm GMT
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result "

But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.

I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter!

Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them.

Anonymous , Disclaimer Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no, the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in the less-mainstream fake news media.

So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?

Jake , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.

By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.

So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.

The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself.

Logan , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT
@Grandpa Charlie

Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable approach for a book.

Here's the problem.

Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of photoshopping.

OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist wouldn't be paid.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/nov/08/cromwell-portraitist-samuel-cooper-exhibition

Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so.

All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..

America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side of American history is taught.

Wally , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:16 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Hasbarist 'Kenny', you said:

"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate this level of panic."

You continue to claim what you cannot prove.

But then you are a Jews First Zionist.

Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of "Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a straight face

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/10/robert-parry/jumping-the-shark/

Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet?

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

+ review of other frauds

Logan , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT
@Jake

Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.

Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.

The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.

After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924, despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.

Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else wanted.

Grandpa Charlie , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" -- Michael Kenney

Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1) by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.

It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans. OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a half.

Seamus Padraig , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:39 pm GMT
@utu

Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration.

I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration. While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?

Seamus Padraig , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT
@Grandpa Charlie

That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era.

Ludwig Watzal , Website Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling. Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.

The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.

This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.

anonymous , Disclaimer Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.

The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/donald-trumps-likudist-campaign-against-iran/5614264

[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.

Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.

Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016, donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]

Miro23 , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT
A great article with some excellent points:

Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.

American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency, and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state – particularly the Chinese.

First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic ambitions.

The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.

Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say.

They are given the political line and they broadcast it.

The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people. That can only lead to trouble.

At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet Bolshevik model.

CanSpeccy , Website Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 5:11 pm GMT
@utu

On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.

Thales the Milesian , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 5:53 pm GMT
Brennan did this, CIA did that .

So what are you going to do about all this?

Continue to whine?

Continue to keep your head stuck in your ass?

So then continue with your blah, blah, blah, and eat sh*t.

You, disgusting self-elected democratic people/institutions!!!

AB_Anonymous , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 5:59 pm GMT
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse.

The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last events show – with acceleration.

It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free" population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start one.

Art , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT
An aside:

All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.

Think Peace -- Art

Mr. Anon , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT
@utu

The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.

Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy" narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.

Art , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 7:11 pm GMT
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and CIA-trained.

Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.)

Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave office.)

Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress?

Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!

9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.

We are being exceptionally arrogant.

Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.

Think Peace -- Art

Rurik , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT
@Ben10

right at 1:47

when he says 'we can't move on as a country'

his butt hurt is so ruefully obvious, that I couldn't help notice a wry smile on my face

that bitch spent millions on the war sow, and now all that mullah won't even wipe his butt hurt

when I see ((guys)) like this raging their inner crybaby angst, I feel really, really good about President Trump

MAGA bitches!

Mr. Anon , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 7:15 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA

A Peoples History of the USA? Which Peoples?

Tradecraft46 , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 8:04 pm GMT
I am SAIS 70 so know the drill and the article is on point.

Here is the dealio. Most reporters are dim and have no experience, and it is real easy to lead them by the nose with promises of better in the future.

[Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy

Highly recommended!
Trump actually proved to be very convenient President to CIA., Probably as convenient as Obama... Both completely outsourced foreign policy to neocons and CIA )in this sense the appointment of Pompeo is worst joke Trump could play with the remnants of US democracy_ .
Notable quotes:
"... "The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street." ..."
"... "It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads." ..."
"... Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups. ..."
"... "So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him." ..."
"... But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. ..."
"... He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable. ..."
Feb 19, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
And on the heels of Dennis Kucinich's warnings , The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous. As TheAntiMedia's Carey Wedler notes , Greenwald asserted in an interview with Democracy Now, published on Thursday, that this boils down to a fight between the Deep State and the Trump administration.

https://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2017/2/16/greenwald_empowering_the_deep_state_to

Though Greenwald has argued the leaks were "wholly justified" in spite of the fact they violated criminal law, he also questioned the motives behind them.

"It's very possible - I'd say likely - that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble," he wrote. "Whatever else is true, this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries in the Trump White House."

According to an in-depth report by journalist Mike Lofgren:

"The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street."

As Greenwald explained during his interview:

"It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads."

Greenwald believes this division is a result of the Deep State's disapproval of Trump's foreign policy and the fact that the intelligence community overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton over Trump because of her hawkish views. Greenwald noted that Mike Morell, acting CIA chief under Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, openly spoke out against Trump during the presidential campaign.

Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups.

"So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him."

"[In] the closing months of the Obama administration, they put together a deal with Russia to create peace in Syria. A few days later, a military strike in Syria killed a hundred Syrian soldiers and that ended the agreement. What happened is inside the intelligence and the Pentagon there was a deliberate effort to sabotage an agreement the White House made."

Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous. "Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving," he said, likely alluding to a recent court ruling that nullified Trump's travel ban.

He continued:

"But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity."

He argues that mentality is "a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it," highlighting that members of both prevailing political parties are praising the Deep State's audacity in leaking details of Flynn's conversations.

As he wrote in his article, " it's hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people - from both parties, across the ideological spectrum - who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn."

He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable.

[Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy

Highly recommended!
Trump actually proved to be very convenient President to CIA., Probably as convenient as Obama... Both completely outsourced foreign policy to neocons and CIA )in this sense the appointment of Pompeo is worst joke Trump could play with the remnants of US democracy_ .
Notable quotes:
"... "The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street." ..."
"... "It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads." ..."
"... Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups. ..."
"... "So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him." ..."
"... But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. ..."
"... He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable. ..."
Feb 19, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
And on the heels of Dennis Kucinich's warnings , The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous. As TheAntiMedia's Carey Wedler notes , Greenwald asserted in an interview with Democracy Now, published on Thursday, that this boils down to a fight between the Deep State and the Trump administration.

https://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2017/2/16/greenwald_empowering_the_deep_state_to

Though Greenwald has argued the leaks were "wholly justified" in spite of the fact they violated criminal law, he also questioned the motives behind them.

"It's very possible - I'd say likely - that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble," he wrote. "Whatever else is true, this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries in the Trump White House."

According to an in-depth report by journalist Mike Lofgren:

"The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street."

As Greenwald explained during his interview:

"It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads."

Greenwald believes this division is a result of the Deep State's disapproval of Trump's foreign policy and the fact that the intelligence community overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton over Trump because of her hawkish views. Greenwald noted that Mike Morell, acting CIA chief under Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, openly spoke out against Trump during the presidential campaign.

Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups.

"So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him."

"[In] the closing months of the Obama administration, they put together a deal with Russia to create peace in Syria. A few days later, a military strike in Syria killed a hundred Syrian soldiers and that ended the agreement. What happened is inside the intelligence and the Pentagon there was a deliberate effort to sabotage an agreement the White House made."

Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous. "Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving," he said, likely alluding to a recent court ruling that nullified Trump's travel ban.

He continued:

"But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity."

He argues that mentality is "a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it," highlighting that members of both prevailing political parties are praising the Deep State's audacity in leaking details of Flynn's conversations.

As he wrote in his article, " it's hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people - from both parties, across the ideological spectrum - who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn."

He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable.

[Mar 02, 2019] Watters Words The swamp strikes back

Pretty interesting video... no we know that the Swamp consumed Flatfooted Donald rather quickly
Notable quotes:
"... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
"... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
"... FakeStream Media ..."
"... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
Feb 18, 2017 | www.youtube.com
Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal

Louis John 2 hours ago

@hexencoff

McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag

Gary M 3 hours ago
McCain is a globalist
belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
(edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.

ryvr madduck 1 hour ago

+belaghoulashi

Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?

Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
@Michael Cambo

don't they...they do say shit floats.

Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago

@Michael Cambo - Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living - explain to me how he is draining the swamp

tim sparks 3 hours ago
Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
@tim sparks

He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies 2017 the best is yet to come

Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
FakeStream Media
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
@Patrick Reagan

Very FakeStream Media

aspengold5 4 hours ago
I am so disappointed in McCain.
orlando pablo 4 hours ago
my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six more years!
robert barham 4 hours ago
The very Fake Media has met their match
H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
(edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
kazzicup 3 hours ago
We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News Network.

Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago

@kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country - if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree

[Mar 02, 2019] Watters Words The swamp strikes back

Pretty interesting video... no we know that the Swamp consumed Flatfooted Donald rather quickly
Notable quotes:
"... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
"... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
"... FakeStream Media ..."
"... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
Feb 18, 2017 | www.youtube.com
Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal

Louis John 2 hours ago

@hexencoff

McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag

Gary M 3 hours ago
McCain is a globalist
belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
(edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.

ryvr madduck 1 hour ago

+belaghoulashi

Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?

Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
@Michael Cambo

don't they...they do say shit floats.

Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago

@Michael Cambo - Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living - explain to me how he is draining the swamp

tim sparks 3 hours ago
Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
@tim sparks

He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies 2017 the best is yet to come

Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
FakeStream Media
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
@Patrick Reagan

Very FakeStream Media

aspengold5 4 hours ago
I am so disappointed in McCain.
orlando pablo 4 hours ago
my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six more years!
robert barham 4 hours ago
The very Fake Media has met their match
H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
(edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
kazzicup 3 hours ago
We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News Network.

Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago

@kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country - if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree

[Mar 02, 2019] Pulling a J. Edgar Hoover on Trump

So the coup against the President was exposed already in Jan 2017 and Trump did not take any measures to prevent the appointment of the Special Prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with prostitutes have been circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the earmarks of a campaign dirty trick. ..."
"... However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets. ..."
"... In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide. ..."
"... Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the next four years. ..."
"... Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people. ..."
"... Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major media. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart. ..."
"... The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet) ..."
"... At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people". ..."
"... I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. ..."
"... Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government? ..."
Jan 12, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: President-elect Trump is fending off a U.S. intelligence leak of unproven allegations that he cavorted with Russian prostitutes, but the darker story might be the CIA's intervention in U.S. politics, reports Robert Parry.

The decision by the U.S. intelligence community to include in an official report some unverified and salacious accusations against President-elect Donald Trump resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press.

Legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover

In this case, as leaders of the U.S. intelligence community were pressing Trump to accept their assessment that the Russian government had tried to bolster Trump's campaign by stealing and leaking actual emails harmful to Hillary Clinton's campaign, Trump was confronted with this classified "appendix" describing claims about him cavorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room.

Supposedly, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan included the unproven allegations in the report under the rationale that the Russian government might have videotaped Trump's misbehavior and thus could use it to blackmail him. But the U.S. intelligence community also had reasons to want to threaten Trump who has been critical of its performance and who has expressed doubts about its analysis of the Russian "hacking."

After the briefing last Friday, Trump and his incoming administration did shift their position, accepting the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government hacked the emails of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's campaign chief John Podesta. But I'm told Trump saw no evidence that Russia then leaked the material to WikiLeaks and has avoided making that concession.

Still, Trump's change in tone was noted by the mainstream media and was treated as an admission that he was abandoning his earlier skepticism. In other words, he was finally getting onboard the intelligence community's Russia-did-it bandwagon. Now, however, we know that Trump simultaneously had been confronted with the possibility that the unproven stories about him engaging in unorthodox sex acts with prostitutes could be released, embarrassing him barely a week before his inauguration.

The classified report, with the explosive appendix, was also given to President Obama and the so-called "Gang of Eight," bipartisan senior members of Congress responsible for oversight of the intelligence community, which increased chances that the Trump accusations would be leaked to the press, which indeed did happen.

Circulating Rumors

The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with prostitutes have been circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the earmarks of a campaign dirty trick.

However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets.

Trump has denounced the story as "fake news" and it is certainly true that the juicy details – reportedly assembled by a former British MI-6 spy named Christopher Steele – have yet to check out. But the placement of the rumors in a U.S. government document gave the mainstream media an excuse to publicize the material.

It's also allowed the media to again trot out the Russian word "kompromat" as if the Russians invented the game of assembling derogatory information about someone and then using it to discredit or blackmail the person.

In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide.

However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump. It could just be rumors concocted in the middle of a hard-fought campaign, first among Republicans battling Trump for the nomination (this opposition research was reportedly initiated by backers of Sen. Marco Rubio in the GOP race) before being picked up by Clinton supporters for use in the general election.

Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the next four years.

Hurting Both Candidates

Though I was skeptical of that information, it did turn out that FBI Director James Comey, one of the top officials in the intelligence community, badly damaged Clinton's campaign by deeming her handling of her emails as Secretary of State "extremely careless" but deciding not to prosecute her – and then in the last week of the campaign briefly reopening and then re-closing the investigation.

Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people.

The intelligence community's assessment set the stage for what could have been a revolt by the Electoral College in which enough Trump delegates could have refused to vote for him to send the election into the House of Representatives, where the states would choose the President from one of the top three vote-getters in the Electoral College. The third-place finisher turned out to be former Secretary of State Colin Powell who got four votes from Clinton delegates in Washington State. But the Electoral College ploy failed when Trump's delegates proved overwhelmingly faithful to the GOP candidate.

Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major media.

Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump or whether the intelligence community genuinely thought that the accusations might be true and deserved inclusion in a report on alleged Russian interference in U.S. politics or whether it was some combination of the two, we are witnessing a historic moment when the U.S. intelligence community has deployed its extraordinary powers within the domain of U.S. politics. J. Edgar Hoover would be proud.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Bryan Hemming , January 12, 2017 at 11:06 am

Excuse the mixed metaphors, but this looks like another entirely predictable nail in the coffin of US democracy, as the chickens come home to roost. For some time it has been quite obvious the CIA has been pulling strings from behind the scenes to make whatever puppet occupies the White House dance to its tune. But it won't end there. Only when the CIA climbs completely out of the coffin can the epic finale between the CIA, FBI and NSA begin.

The big question is as to how long the people of states like Texas and Florida stand by in the wings as the theater catches fire.

There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.

Jean-David , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am

Don't mix your metaphors before they are hatched. ;-) Reply

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 2:05 pm

There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.

The United States has been accused of decadence for decades by Americans and non-Americans without much concern being shown by anyone not in a certain minority. The great tragedy of a decadent way of life is its durability.

In 1961 William Lederer's book, "A Nation of Sheep" revealed the abuse of American power and the ignorance of the American people regarding this misrule. Nothing much has changed since then except the names of the aggressors and their primary geographic areas of intended domination. The mass of people are essentially clueless and content to believe whatever lies and salacious tales are told them from the nation's Towers of Babel. This is in line with human history that shows people of authoritarian dispositions tend to be more aggressive and dominant in politics and commerce and the masses accept their lot as long as they get enough crumbs from establishment's plate..

(The title of the book was also an insult to sheep, but that is another story.)

Common Tater , January 12, 2017 at 4:59 pm

The saying goes, "power corrupts," but i believe that it is the corrupt who seek power to begin with.
Most people are content to live and let live, to live by the golden rule, mind their own and reciprocate kindness etc., etc.
Then there are those who get a thrill from exercising control over others. Those are the ones who shoot straight to the top.

Jack Flanigan , January 14, 2017 at 1:47 am

An interesting and clear observation. As an australian I note our system is dominated by two major parties (and I mean dominated) similar to the US. The two parties are vehicles for ambitious and corrupt individuals to fast track political careers. The power rests in these organizations and attracts the corrupt like bees to honey. Reply

Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:09 pm

Bill, regarding your sense of human history I might add that for many centuries people couldn't read, except for the aristocracy and the religious sects mostly. The reformation produced a 100 year war and literacy was at an all time low in Luthers time but something motivated them to fight for such a long time, and it wasn't information nor intellect.

Where has our literacy gone which would prevent a repeat of endless war and violence these days? Oh yes, corporate controlled media hiring people who are certain to have no critical thinking skills, no moral rudder, nor worldly experience to shed the scales from their eyes. We are almost in pre-Gutenberg times of short attention spans and 140 character 'news truths' covering the landscape of the ignorant. One can only hope the Tower of the oligarchs Babel has rapidly decaying clay feet. We certainly know how to reduce cultures more ancient than ours to ashes without so much as a second thought regarding the sanctity of life. Where are all the pro-lifers now? Oh yeh, that's only in the womb, and after the umbilical cord is cut they are fair game for destruction. The US values we rave about will really hurt when other cultures treat us as they have been treated.

Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm

Or better yet, we are in Gutenberg times where the "type" is set by the big players and the papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their only function now at the national level to inhibit discourse, excluding this site of course. Reply

Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:34 pm

Or better yet, we are in times of the early press machines, where the "type" is set by the big players and the papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their only function now at the national level, meant to inhibit discourse and ideas. (excluding this site of course) Reply

Wendi , January 12, 2017 at 5:41 pm

In its Hoover relation, this article reprises the passage in The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet).

It describes the power struggle involved post-FDR, during-HST 1946-48, at the institution of the CIA (The Agency was not legislatively enacted, only instituted through Executive Order.)
Hoover opposed the creation of an intelligence collection that would compete with the FBI's monopoly of spies snoops and snitches.

The compromise settlement set the FBI with domestic coverage and the CIA with international haunts for its spooks.

Come the the present day, they still have turf wars in power rivalry for budget money.
However, in effect, after the budget shuffle the two legions merge their 'assets' - making each one double its real size. They join in advocating for (the oxymoronic) 'authoritarian morality,' gaining both the unlawfulness funded in the Judiciary with same unlawfulness, (or, being 'outlaw,' 'above the law'), funded by the Executive.

You can depend that they employ the same techniques. Coercion, extortion, blackmail, assassination, torture, defamation, slander and Press Release aspersion. The polity is hung pendant on those strings the outlaws pull. Or, 'hanged' pendant.

As Hoover, so Clapper et al.

Trump seems to have reconsided, maybe recanted, his defiance of 'intelligence' after he has seen some truth in it regarding things he knows he did in places he knows he was. He knows he dare not let the public see him through the cyclopian 'eye' of the intelligentia illumination.
_____
My wit sez, Lo! That explains his undocumented wife - he heard about Russian mail-order brides and flew off to visit the showroom. And brought back some capital equipment, manufactured in foreign lands.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:04 pm

The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet)

Try alibris or abebooks dot coms. They have copies.

Joe Lauria , January 14, 2017 at 9:08 am

There's a Kindle edition available. Reply

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 8:34 am

Good comment Bryan, but I wonder if we should pay attention at all to this decline of everything, not only of democracy. Yet, I wish to highlight two humorous comments which best characterise the situation.

The first one was a title I saw on Russia-Insider website: "Trump watch out! John Brennan throws even a kitchen sink at Trump in desperation."

The other was a comment by a zero-hedge reader: "Trump could have had sex with a goat in a Moscow hotel room and be videod as much as I care if he only delivers on his election promises. I voted based on his policy promises, not on his sexual preferences."

The sexual smear is so 20th century, the same as the CIA – obsolete.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 11:39 am

To continue on the humorous side, the vile RT has one on the Pornhub reporting a huge increase in searches for "Golden Showers". Perhaps the kiddies are adding a new term to their vocabularies.

https://www.rt.com/viral/373545-pornhub-golden-showers-trump/ Reply

rosemerry , January 13, 2017 at 5:10 pm

It seems that Trump supporters are many and varied, and very loyal. To pretend that all these shenanigans were needed to help elect him against such a faulty candidate as Hillary is pathetic in the extreme. The terrible results, when we see how the new Administration is being gently helped by the Senate including Democrats, will be bad for us all if their warlike statements lead to facts. However, Obama's sending of 2800 tanks and 4000 troops to help Germany(!) and Poland against "Russian aggression" right now, plus Hillary's promises, do not give a hopeful alternative scenario for the "land of the free" or peace on earth. Reply

W. R. Knight , January 12, 2017 at 11:06 am

The saddest part of this entire debacle is that the intelligence agencies, as well as main stream media, the president and most members of Congress have destroyed their own credibility. Lacking credibility, they cannot be believed; and when they cannot be believed, they cannot be trusted; and a government that cannot be trusted is doomed.

J. D. , January 12, 2017 at 1:35 pm

Trump proved more feisty than expected at his first press conference as President-Elect, hitting back at both Buzzfeed ('You're fake news" and CNN ("you're organization is terrible") And went on to say that "If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks? That's called an asset, not a liability," describing the urgency of cooperation in defeating terrorism. Lost in the shuffle however was the source of the lies - British intelligence agencies.In fact, the NYTimes reported Jan. 6 that the official report released last week by the US intelligence agencies, which accused Putin of subverting the U.S. election, also came from British intelligence, which "raised an alarm that Moscow had hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer servers, and alerted their American counterparts.Talk about foreign interference.

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:52 pm

friends of Israel in action in the UK Reply

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:40 pm

A 4 chan blogger wrote it as a hoax Reply

Steve Abbott , January 12, 2017 at 2:15 pm

Get with the program! We are supposed to believe that all we have heard from and about the CIA in this century was pure and innocent incompetence, and should therefore continue to put all of our faith in their motives and methods. Reply

Godfree Roberts , January 13, 2017 at 4:55 am

Do you know which major government is the most trusted by its citizens?
The Edelman Corporation does. They've been doing 'government trust' surveys for decades. Check it out. http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanAPAC/2016-edelman-trust-barometer-china-english .
Hint: China Reply

Dan Kuhn , January 12, 2017 at 11:08 am

The entire sordid mess needs to be dismantled brick by brick and rebuilt from the ground up. Washington should be razed to the ground. It is beyond rescuing. it is beyond saving. It is rotten from the foundations to the pinicle of the obilisk. The American People should declare war on Washington DC and invade the place and clean house. Bring the Guillotine along with them and the baskets for the heads.

The stench is overwhelming. It needs to be cleaned up. No it needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. One of the founding fathers said that periodically, the tree of democracy had to be watered with blood. That time has arrived. Reply

Znam Svashta , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am

George Orwell predicted our current mess in his classic, "1984". Interestingly, that was the year that the neocons took over the Pentagon's Office of Risk Assessment, the State Department, and the whore-house American media. Reply

Lin Cleveland , January 12, 2017 at 11:50 am

What's going on here? I think Julian Assange may be on to something. ( my bold )

"Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a D.C. insider , he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilizing the pre-existing central power network within D.C. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better."–Julian Assange

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:02 pm

Thanks, Lin [for your 'bold.' Assange and Snowden are two voices "in the wilderness" always worth listening to. Reply

Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:10 pm

Brilliant– as always. No matter how vilified JA is and no matter how much he's lied about, he still is a force for reason and subversion, both of which we desparately need. Thanks for the quote. Reply

D5-5 , January 12, 2017 at 4:50 pm

Curious to me in the two-pronged attack on Trump (a. demonizing to delegitimize and replace with Pence coming from the political establishment; b. hysterical fear of Trump coming from left wing journalism sources including left-oriented alternative news sites) is why the hysteria in the left continues so virulently. Assange's comment, to me, is balanced and sober. We don't know what will happen out of Trump and his collection of "idiosyncratic personalities," we don't know what will turn out "change for the worse and change for the better," and all the fear-mongering from people like Robert Reich, appearing regularly in Truthdig, is entirely speculative. I then question–would these same people on the left, that I once thought to be colleagues, prefer Hillary Clinton and "consolidation of power in the existing ruling class"? This fracturing in what I had thought was an intelligent left opposition is disturbing.

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 9:36 pm

As an "old leftie" myself, I'd have to agree with Paul Craig Roberts that there IS no left anymore. It was co-opted and bought by Big Money. Maybe we need to forget about "left" and "right" and operate according to our own minds rather tha taking our cues from apologists for the establishment like Robert Reich. But it sounds like you're already doing that. Reply

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:10 pm

Change that will undoubtedly benefit the privileged in a big way.

I don't give a crap about if Trump had prostitutes. That's between he and his wife. What I do care about is if there are Trump financial threads to Russia and if his team had illegal meetings with Moscow before the election. There are too many questions that need to be answered.

Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating his opponents. Those are facts.

Why won't he release his tax returns? It could only mean he is hiding something.

What benefit does the world intelligence community gain in smearing a president elect? Is it financial? idealogical? Power? Are they not tied and beholdened more to the entrenched financial hierarchies then to the ever changing political landscape?

What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info? Money, fame, a 2nd home in Portugal?

How does anyone watching that press conference not come away with the chilly realization that our president-elect is psychologically impaired? My god you don't have to be a trained psychologist to see the guy has some serious mental health issues.

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm

"He's a vicious killer " – this is a music for the Kagans' clan Reply

JayHobeSound , January 13, 2017 at 4:10 am

"What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info?"

Reportedly he asked his neighbours to feed his cats and he went into hiding. Bizarre.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article126129709.html Reply

Godfree Roberts , January 13, 2017 at 4:59 am

'Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating his opponents. Those are facts.'
Facts? I'm pretty familiar with Putin's career and I've seen nothing to suggest that Putin is a killer at all.
Can you provide links to evidence? Not just links to other people making assertions without evidence, please. Reply

Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:20 pm

"Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating his opponents. Those are facts."
You talking about Trump or Putin? In any case has Russia or Putin killed as many people as America or Obama. The "facts" say no, not even close. Reply

stinky rafsanjani , January 16, 2017 at 9:36 am

vicious killer? since when is that a bad thing? jinkies, obama of nobel fame
sends missiles and drones around the planet, bombing and killing for fun and
profit. why, he even orders the assassination of citizens of his own country,
without trial even. meanwhile, putin has, umm look! a squirrel!

James van Oosterom , January 16, 2017 at 11:45 am

Nobody said it was a bad thing. You're inferring things. Stick to squirrels . Ah yes, the door . Reply

Andreas Wirsιn , January 12, 2017 at 11:54 am

A "new phase" in Intelligence meddling with presidential candidates, yes – but only in how openly they stand behind it as the source. Campaigns to scandalize unwanted primary challengers have been alleged before. Senator Gary Hart, for one, has said in interviews he believes he was caught in a honey trap, which cost him his candidacy.

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm

Gary Hart, a potentially strong contender, was also [like Trump] not up to Deep State's standards in Russophobia. Reply

LongGoneJohn , January 12, 2017 at 12:04 pm

Didn't Trump just acknowledge that attacks on cyber US infrastructure including the DNC takes place, in a general way? That is what his statement read and to me that does not sound like "Trump acknowledges Russian DNC hack" at all.

So is it me, or ?

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:12 pm

No, LGJ, it's not just you who can read through MSMB[ullsh t.] Reply

Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 12:05 pm

If Trump & Co. accept "the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government hacked the emails," they are only saying that, as is common knowledge, everybody hacks everybody. This is not, as Parry says, an acceptance of the intelligence "assessment" that Putin or Russian hackers released the emails, or even got them. Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that the source was inside the DNC, which means it cannot have been the Russians.

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that the source was inside the DNC, which means it cannot have been the Russians.

Assange and Murray might be right, and they might not. There is a term being tossed around – "cutout". Just because an intermediary claims to be a DNC leaker doesn't mean he actually was such.

Under the circumstances I just don't care. Now if the Russians or Chinese or Ugandans or anybody else had done more than facilitate the release of true information useful to voters, I'd be agitated myself. Not that I'd expect anybody else to be. US votes have been hacked ever since the no-verify touchscreen devices were first introduced, and nobody in authority has given a hoot about it.

Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:18 pm

Zachary–you are so right. It drives me crazy that Bush got away with stealing the voting system and all the Damn Dems care about is using it themselves. And now it drives me crazy that the Clintonistas took down Bernie and are getting away with it. With that cat's paw Obusha hanging around to "work" on rebuilding the DNC, we'll never see democracy again.

Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 6:52 am

We must indeed Dump the Dems. We need a progressive party.

There is a strong progressive majority everywhere which is being deliberately fragmented by the Dems. In the US, Clinton supporters must unify not only with the critics of Dem warmongering for Israel and KSA, but also with the Trumpers who want economic security in a rapacious oligarchic state. Clinton supporters will have to admit their mistake and abandon the Dems as a scam of oligarchy serving only as a backstop for the Repubs.

The solution is for a third party to align moderate progressives (national health care, no wars of choice, income security) with parts of the traditional right (fundamentalists, flag-wavers, make America great) leaving out only the extreme right (wars, discrimination, big business imperialism), use individual funding, and rely upon broad platform appeal to marginalize the Dems as the third party.

RMDC , January 13, 2017 at 9:28 am

Sam F. I agree with you but you have to stop using the term "progressive." The Clinton faction of the demo party owns that term. It arose with John Podesta's Center for American Progress. Podesta is the ideologue of contemporary progressivism. It has nothing to do with the Progressive movement of the early 20th century.

The right term is Sander's term: Democratic Socialism. I know socialism is a problematic term, too, but at least it is now claimed by the right people.

Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 2:20 pm

RMDC: Do you think "Progressive" can be brought back to its original meaning, or given a better one, despite people falsely claiming to be progressive? Sanders' term might be incorporated into that. It would be nice to deny the fakers the use of it.

Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:23 pm

"we'll never see democracy again."

Humm? When did we last see that "democracy" thing? Reply

Bill Cash , January 12, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Trump could end all this by releasing his tax returns but he won't do it. I believe the intelligence community had fears that once inaugurated, Trump would squash the whole thing. The Russian connection is the only theory that connects all the dots. I'm waiting t see what happens with Assange. Will he suddenly be able to go to Sweden?
As far as Trump's behavior, don't forget he was accused of raping a 13 year old girl but the woman had to withdraw the suit because her life was threatened.

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:56 pm

Why is your post such a strong reminder of Pizzagate? Reply

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:48 pm

Wont make any difference what t he does. He's an outsider. There's no escape except trying & convicting the traitors running obama. Reply

Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:14 pm

Very interesting column. I guess Mr. Trump is getting a lesson in who really runs things around here. Reply

Patricia Victour , January 12, 2017 at 12:22 pm

Unless Trump killed a prostitute on film, how could whatever is on the alleged video be any worse than the pussy-grabbing debacle and all the other accusations of sexual predation? I don't think you can embarrass Trump. He would just brush it off, and his base would probably think he was a super stud.

Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:52 pm

Oh, I don't know, they could well have much worse stuff to leak, given Mr. Trump's complete lack of control of his desires.

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:59 pm

I collected a lot of "stuff" on Trump from the internet in the past year, and was surprised to see virtually none of it used against him. My best guess is that Hillary & Co. didn't think it was necessary against their carefully selected "easiest" opponent. That "stuff" is still available, and might well be used to buttress wilder and unverifiable claims.

col from oz , January 12, 2017 at 7:49 pm

Yesterday on anther site i wrote how Hillary was complicit in a very serious charge.
Please watch video titles, where is Eric braverman on you tube . I have watched some and most of the material gives you the reality of what is occurring. A example is this. A fact is Gaddafi wanted to have some kind of gold backed Dina money policy. Fact. So Libya had a lot of gold maybe hundreds of tons. Where is it now. Did the "invaders' get it with their usual cut out Libyan man?
In the spirit of trying to make a better world i put this up, it seems political unbiased however it shows the Clinton as they are?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vam6qxfQrgA

day 70

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 8:48 pm

"For over four decades, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi's rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/20/libya-from-africas-wealthiest-democracy-under-gaddafi-to-terrorist-haven-after-us-intervention/

"Libya's Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa). In 2004, a pan-African Parliament (53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.

"African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for oil/gas Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya's own state-owned bank.
That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary to repair it."

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987399/why_qaddafi_had_to_go_african_gold_oil_and_the_challenge_to_monetary_imperialism.html

dave , January 12, 2017 at 3:24 pm

Speaking of "leaks", isn't the specific accusation in this case that Trump paid a prostitute to "take a leak" on the bed where he believed the Obamas had spent the night? (So I guess it was the prostitute that had "worse stuff to leak"!)

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 8:58 pm

And while no one at Trump's press conference mentioned the specifics, Trump stated, "Does anyone really believe that story? I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way, believe me."

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:56 pm

Check Chan4

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 11:04 pm

Anna, do you mean the British television programme?

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:48 pm

What? Dim wit. Reply

backwardsevolution , January 12, 2017 at 12:36 pm

The Saker writes in "The Neocon's Declaration of War Against Trump":

"After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be called a declaration of war against Donald Trump. [ ] All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House (I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed. [ ]

As I predicted it before the election, the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump, the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas). At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat against Trump, I predict that these millions of Americans will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life

If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President ΰ la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police, security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a Cold War clichι) this can also happen in the USA."

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:54 pm

If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President ΰ la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people.

At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people". I suspect that's why a great many of them joined up in the first place. Finally, carefully chosen drone operators thousands or tens of thousands of miles away won't have the slightest problem slaughtering evildoers. That's what they do all the time in their regular jobs.

Brad Owen , January 12, 2017 at 3:44 pm

Don't forget veterans, millions of them. When THEY stepped up to the North Dakota pipeline, security forces backed off. Backwards' described scenario could be our "1991" moment to break free and break the Deep State, and reinstating Glass-Steagall would break their Imperial paymasters in The City and The Street. A new World could suddenly come about, faster than even the USSR/Warsaw Pact disappeared. Reply

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:14 pm

At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people".

Police departments all over the U.S. and other nations have a long history of acting as goon squads and occasional firing squads for their local establishments. Lots of examples in labor histories. Reply

Peter Loeb , January 13, 2017 at 8:23 am

KILLING OUR OWN PEOPLE .

Special thanks to Zachary Smith.

In the US it's called "heroism", patriotism" and the rest. But if we are
inconvenienced to kill our own people, we can kill other peoples'
people. Gigantic weapons deals to Saudi Arabia and Israel
are proof of that.

By the way, did anyone happen to notice in the NDAA (Defense Authorization
Act) the increase of funds to rebels in another country whose goal is to
defeat the Syrian Government?

-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

PS For those who object to our killing our own people in the US join
Black Lives Matter. Reply

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 2:53 am

At the very least, the US should get rid of this prolonged waiting period between the elections and actual assuming power by the president-elect. It was meant to facilitate the orderly transition of power, but as we see now it is serving just the opposite goals. I cannot believe Obama is so keen on hurting Trump he is ready to badly hurt his own country as well. Reply

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:37 pm

Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump

The motive I see is to "soften" him up for his impeachment. Given Trump's temperament, it could be a winning strategy for the people who prefer President Pence. In my barely informed opinion, that would include a majority of both parties in both houses of the US congress.

Joe Tedesky , January 12, 2017 at 1:41 pm

Read section 4 of the 25th amendment .

"Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. Although Donald Trump may give one some consternation to his being a qualified person to sit in the Oval Office, Mike Pence may bring down the house with his religious leanings inside of his political philosophy. Either way we Americans are in for a most interesting time of it in our country's brief history. We should all probably prepare ourselves for the worst, and hope that the best will happen.

Zachary wasn't Mike Pense your governor, or do I have you in the wrong state?

Realist , January 12, 2017 at 4:27 pm

Fascinating and disturbing at the same time. That section was surely MEANT to apply to the president's health and physical capacity to do the job. However, a declaration by the VP (supported only by a simple majority of the cabinet or the congress) "that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" can be based in an insurrection, a coup, or simply the erosion of political capital. Gerald Ford could have argued that Richard Nixon no longer had the support to govern (which is what Nixon himself conceded as the basis for his resignation). It basically gives the VP and whatever insurgents he can muster the ability to quickly overthrow the sitting president without the inconvenience of an impeachment and trial in the Senate. It could be the Maidan without the messy blood all over the pavement. How wonderful.

Very resourceful of you in looking that up, Joe. I would never have imagined the seeds for a coup existed right in the constitution.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:16 am

I have a saying: For the people in law-enforcement, law is a fringe benefit. Those who control law always use it as a tool. Have you ever heard of a coup which was not based on some law, even if it was the one written post-festum by the coup plotters? In other words, a coup is never difficult to justify by the winners.

I have no doubt that the coup that Joe describes is possible. But the issue for the coup plotters has always been: what happens with all the Trump voters after such a coup, the millions of them? Will they sit and just watch the destruction of their social contract?

To some extent such US coup dilemma is not dissimilar to the nuclear war dilemma: easy to start, difficult to finish.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 10:53 am

KIza, nice to hear from you it's been awhile.

Read this link. Trump got 26.8% of the total citizenry to vote for him. In all honesty I haven't seen any polls on how the American populace shakes out on these controversies such as this most recent fake news story, but I would imagine that a clever beat down campaign would be able to soften the blowback .but then again I agree with you to some extent, that by pushing Trump out of office this would have to have some kind of consequence that would not be pretty.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/12/bringing-trump-nation-down-to-size/

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 11:20 am

Joe, in general I am trying to highlight that it is one thing to bamboozle sheeple with a talk of democracy (which does not exist) and another to openly crush even this reassuring lie. I just cannot see the end game of a US coup and Trump is but a minor obstacle if they want to start it.

Therefore, they really want to make a Trump a lame and controllable President, not to take over. Maintaining a reassuring lie of democracy is a much more sophisticated and efficient control mechanism than direct control. I may we wrong but I do believe that Trump is just being house trained/broken by TPTB in front of our eyes.

You write: I have not seen any polls how American populace shakes out on these controversies.
My reading of the online beat is that the Trump voters are not swayed, whilst the Clinton voters use the "controversy" as confirmation that they were right all along about Trump. But then Clinton voters would receive a confirmation even from an oily rag thrown in their direction. In other words, a mountain shook and a mouse was born – almost no change at all on either side.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:56 pm

KIza your comparing Trump's attackers to how the MH17 story was spun is right on.

http://journal-neo.org/2017/01/11/trump-and-mh17-just-one-step-too-far/

Trump is an easy target since his nature is certainly different than that of the usual norm of our politico class who are cookie cutter politicians on the whole. I'm disappointed by how people such as Michael Moore are going out of their way attacking Trump, while they completely ignore how corrupt and dishonest the Clinton's are.

I wouldn't go so far as to predict that Trump supporters won't rebel against his impeachment, but there again I believe the Trump supporters would be out numbered due to an over aggressive media who could sway the majority into believing we must get Trump out of office. Any other method other than impeachment is to horrible to even contemplate, so let's hope that all of our concerns turn to ashes, and that for the good or bad of it that Trump finishes out his first term in good health.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm

Yes, Joe, those 26.8% of citizenry who voted for Trump are built into 75-76% of citizenry who do not believe in the MSM any more and in the John Brennan's two kitchen sinks, that is, his two top secret but leakable kompromat dossiers on Trump – the first one apparently from an MI6 agent and the second one promoted by the BBC (source unknown yet).

But this is not about Clintons any more, this is about the owners of the Clintons training/braking Trump to be like the Clintons. If they cannot have a Clinton as a President, they want to have a President as Clinton. If kompromat does not work, maybe a billet will, their patience is limited.

Always enjoyable to exchange thoughts with you Joe.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 11:14 am

Realist, considering how our country's founders were a bunch of slave owners declaring how all men are created equally well need I say more?

Words are just words, that is until lawyers interpret these legal words into a reality, which doesn't always fit into our own personal definition of a certain word usage. You and I deal with this stuff all the time. Whether it be a traffic ticket, or an ordinance summons, we read one thing, and the judge administers another thing. Prisons are filled with people who swear with, 'yeah but' explanations which give these prisoners no relief what so ever so I do think these crafty legislators could pull a fast one, and install Mike Pence into the White House. Let's you and I hope that I'm the one out in left field with my 25th amendment comment, and that we won't end up with a Christian whack job as our president. Reply

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 5:23 pm

Yeah, Pence was elected Governor of Indiana. But despite this state being one of the most conservative in the nation, Pence was too "nutty" and "far-right" for Mississippi North, and would have surely been defeated. Now the man is one heartbeat/one impeachment conviction from becoming President of the United States.

Quote: "From his denial of climate change to his belief in creationism, Pence is the most hard-right radical to ever appear on a national ticket. Just this week a federal court had to block his atrocious bill barring Syrian refugees from his state because his reasoning that Syrians scare him is discriminatory."

Quote: "it is a literal truth, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am in Congress today because of Rush Limbaugh, and not because of some tangential impact on my career or his effect on the national debate; but because in fact after my first run for Congress in 1988, it was the new national voice emerging in 1989 across the heartland of Indiana of one Rush Hudson Limbaugh, III, that captured my imagination.""

It's a fact we are very, very close to having a Rush 'druggie' Limpaugh clone as President. In my opinion, Pence is Trump's worst mistake up till now. If they can't have Hillary, for the neocons and neo-liberals and the Christian End-Timers there remains Worse-Than-Hillary Mike Pence.

Trump is a Trojan horse for a cabal of vicious zealots who have long craved an extremist Christian theocracy, and Pence is one of its most prized warriors. With Republican control of the House and Senate and the prospect of dramatically and decisively tilting the balance of the Supreme Court to the far right, the incoming administration will have a real shot at bringing the fire and brimstone of the second coming to Washington.

"The enemy, to them, is secularism. They want a God-led government. That's the only legitimate government," contends Jeff Sharlet, author of two books on the radical religious right, including "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power." "So when they speak of business, they're speaking not of something separate from God, but they're speaking of what, in Mike Pence's circles, would be called biblical capitalism, the idea that this economic system is God-ordained."

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/mike-pence-will-be-the-most-powerful-christian-supremacist-in-us-history/

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:36 pm

Zachary I looked forward to your reply, since you always have references to your level headed comments .so thanks for getting back to me.

In my world I don't even like bringing up the word God, or religion, since I believe a government should be governed in a truly secular way. Who I pray to, and who I pay taxes to, are two completely different things. My devotion to God is a very private matter, and I don't need some politician interpreting God's greatness to me in anyway. So with that if Mike Pense wants to preach the gospel to me, then he should resign from public office and become a full fledged preacher and even then I will not go to his mean spirited church. Amen.

Realist , January 13, 2017 at 3:13 pm

What a troubling coincidence that Hulu is releasing its production of "the Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood this April, which tells the story of the United States government being taken over by extreme Christian fundamentalists and the consequences, especially to women and religious dissenters. Read the book by Atwood and you'll see where Isis/Daesh got many of their ideas on punishment and control of the masses. The Spanish Inquisition was six hundred years ago, but its urges lie just beneath the veneer of our civilised modern world. Human nature hasn't changed, only technology has. I thought this country was in danger of playing out the novel during Dubya's administration, as 9-11 was exactly the kind of pretext for such a takeover in the book's plot narrative and the Islamic world was portrayed as the great global adversary just as many Americans believe in the real world. Trump has never struck me as a religious man, certainly not a zealot, but Pence, with a little help from the Deep State, he could bring this disturbing novel to life.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:16 pm

I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence.

A very plausible and ominous possibility.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:53 am

Seriously Bill even taking into consideration how some like Glenn Beck along with Rick Santelli ridiculed an early President Obama back in 2009, I can't recall a more hostile media such as the likes of how this current day corporate media is going after Trump. True, that Donald Trump by just being Donald Trump can be an outrageous person with his words and actions, but still I just can't get over the 24/7 media coverage, and how most of it isn't good coverage at that. This leaves me to wonder if we all are not being setup for something big.

With Trump's winning streak putting away a whole herd of Republican primary candidates, and how he sent 'low energy Jeb' packing, and then to go on and beat Hillary by his winning the Electoral vote, he has had a great run. Now Donald Trump is battling not only the CIA/FBI/NSA, but he is also bumping up against the congressional establishment. You know that McCain and Graham hate him, but you can only bet that there is yet much more to come.

I'm sorry, but I don't sense there is much good to come with all of this. Thanks for the reply.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:57 am

Joe, I wonder if people missed the crazy similarity of the media campaign on the Trump "report" and the one on MH17 ?

It appears that the TPTB have decided that if they generate enough media screaming, the lack of proof does not matter any more.

Thus, I have become a strong proponent of the theory that whatever TPTB use outside, it is only a practice for what they will use (more productively) inside. Drones anyone?

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:06 pm

KIza read my comment above, it pertains to what you brought up here.

Gregory Herr , January 13, 2017 at 2:44 pm

Weaponized drones anyone?

http://youtu.be/1sK5mDTCNEU

Pablo Diablo , January 12, 2017 at 12:42 pm

All this turmoil and a dysfunctional Congress insures that nothing will change. The 1% loves the status quo and will do anything to preserve it. Simply a smokescreen to keep US from dealing with the corporate stranglehold on our government.
An Empire in decline. Reply

Mike Flores , January 12, 2017 at 1:24 pm

While others laugh and make jokes, those of us who study Intel know that what just happened with the leaked report was that the CIA has involved itself in U.S. politics, which it is forbidden to do. How did the alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA begin? President Truman had allowed 200 Nazi Intel agents to come into the U.S. – including the men who created the blueprint for the holocaust. Fearing Joe McCarthy would discover this, the CIA faked an Intel report and has spent decades ever since lying about Joe. They actually confessed that his 2 lists were correct, so they had to fool him with a fake dossier right before the Army hearings to shake his confidence. Just search CIA AND THE POND and you will find on their website STUDIES IN INTELLIGENCE in the last third of the article a full confession of framing Joe. This Facebook photo album THE REAL JOSEPH McCARTHY is packed with forbidden information and can be viewed with this link by anyone whether they are on FB or not. The alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA began by hiding the people responsible for the holocaust. ( We should keep in mind Truman was KKK and forbade the bombing of the train tracks to the death camps. The reason soldiers were not prepared for the camps was that none had been told about them. Truman did not want our troops wasting time on them). Interesting to note that absolutely no one has ever done an article or book on the impact of the beliefs of the KKK on the 5 Democrats who were Presidents and Klansmen in the 20th century. That would reveal the true nature of the Democratic Party.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153995222685986.1073741929.695490985&type=1&l=6dd1544b9d Reply

Bill , January 12, 2017 at 1:37 pm

You don't mention President Obama, but it certainly seems likely that he's involved with this. Who told Brennan and Clapper to go on TV to hype the intelligence reports and bad-mouth the next President?

And were the leakers within the agencies acting on their own, or were they given orders from above? There's a conspiracy going on and it's not my imagination.

Does the behavior rise to the level of treason or espionage?

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:58 pm

Obama is a deadhead it is Brennan who instructs him. But who instructs Brennan? Reply

Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 1:46 pm

As I have just learned from another reader's comment on another article, David Spring has augmented his earlier article to an 85-page expose. Seems it was both a leak and a hack, but in neither case by "the Russians."

I hope Ray McGovern and especially Wm Binney (and some Trump guy) read this and tell us what they think!

https://turningpointnews.org/hack-everything-special-report

Lois Gagnon , January 13, 2017 at 11:04 am

I read it last night. Very much worth the couple of hours it took. Reply

Realist , January 14, 2017 at 3:42 am

Well, that's THE comprehensive treatment in a nutshell. Everything documented chronologically. Nothing important left out. Everything explained clearly and concisely. As organised as possible and argued like a philosopher rather than a lawyer. The man has exceptional writing skills as well as incredible computer knowledge. I'd like to see him question Clapper on the witness stand. I hope that President Trump puts the Justice Department on this case to do a thorough investigation, including potential indictments of spooks that perjured themselves and/or engaged in partisan activities during the election and its ugly aftermath. Reply

Oleg , January 12, 2017 at 2:47 pm

I am really surprised to no end. Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government? I do not really know what would happen in the US but in Russia there would be riots. Any leader in Russia can govern only until he/she is trusted. Think Tsar Nicholas II, Gorbachev I hope it will not get to this and some sanity will prevail in your country.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:22 pm

Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government?

What credibility? Oleg, if you check the graphic at the top of the right sidebar on this page you will see a reference to "I. F. Stone" who was one of this nation's great journalists of the 20th Century. He is noted for a dictum that says, "All governments lie." All governments certainly include the U.S. government. You can get plenty of examples of lies with a little effort.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 11:12 pm

Lies out of government agencies and elected politicians are not the only problem. Hypocrisy is another and has been part of American governance since the writing of the Declaration of Independence by slave owners who said that all men are created equal with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now hypocrisy is rampant with politicians decrying alleged Russian intervention is U.S. elections with the claim that it is wrong for any nation to interfere in the elections of another nation. There is no nation on the planet that interferes in the governments of other nations than the United States. Reply

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:02 am

Well, I certainly agree, but a government can still be largely trusted even if they resort to some petty lies. As we all do too sometimes. But this this is not a petty thing, this is an intentional attack on the whole institution of elections and democracy when they try to impeach the elected President because some part of the establishment, not the people, dislike him. This has a potential to really get very dangerous, and having any kind of uprisings (as was also mentioned by other commenters above) in a country like the US is extremely dangerous for the whole world. Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 3:01 pm

Anyone in Washington seeking a golden shower from a couple of Russian prostitutes just has to hop on one of those all-expenses-paid AIPAC junkets to Israel.

It's truly amazing how streams of urine help elevate one's anxiety about Iran's nuclear energy program.

Adam , January 13, 2017 at 3:11 am

Best comment, Abe! Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 3:25 pm

American journalist and activist Chris Hedges noted a key purpose of the declassified report "Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election" from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI):

"to justify the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization beyond Germany, a violation of the promise Ronald Reagan made to the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Expanding NATO in Eastern Europe opened up an arms market for the war industry. It made those businesses billions of dollars. New NATO members must buy Western arms that can be integrated into the NATO arsenal. These sales, which are bleeding the strained budgets of countries such as Poland, are predicated on potential hostilities with Russia. If Russia is not a threat, the arms sales plummet. War is a racket."

The Real Purpose of the U.S. Government's Report on Alleged Hacking by Russia
By Chris Hedges
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_purpose_of_the_us_governments_report_on_alleged_hacking_by_russi

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 4:54 pm

Israeli arms sales to Europe more than doubled from $724 million in 2014 to $1.63 billion in 2015. http://jfjfp.com/?p=83806

Israel is the leading arms exporter in the world per capita (2014), and ranks 11th among the top 20 exporters of military equipment and systems (2011-15).

75-80% of Israeli military exports are generated by just three companies - the state-owned Rafael and Israel Aerospace Industries and the publicly traded Elbit Systems.

The largest categories of Israeli military exports are upgrading aircraft and aerospace systems (14%), radar and electronic systems (12%), drones (11%), and intelligence and information systems (10%).

In 2015, the Russian government described Israel's delivery of lethal weapons to Ukraine as "counterproductive". There is a close arms trade and production co-operation between Israel and Poland. Israeli companies have invested in building arms manufacturing facilities in Poland. Reply

jfl , January 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm

However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

- said to have been said by redhat richelieu

what is known is that the nsa/cia/fbi have all the dirt on everyone, and that they use it on the leaders of the eu, for instance.

if the only thing that comes out of this filthy little exercise is the death of the nsa/cia/fbi – superpower america's superstazi – by executive fiat it will have been worth trump's election.

it's either that or another dead president. with pence playing lbj. Reply

F. G. Sanford , January 12, 2017 at 3:41 pm

Funny how these "leaks" work, isn't it? If there really were an "insider" able to provide insight on the deepest, darkest secrets that had been gathered by Russian intelligence, why would any responsible intelligence agency completely destroy that asset only to expose a mundane fetish like "golden showers"? But don't anybody dare leak "The Torture Report". Don't even consider leaking information about war crimes, election fraud, financial crimes, murder, state corruption or state sponsorship of terrorism.

Just my opinion, but here's how it really went. The "hack" scenario is a diversion from the "leak" scenario. The "deep state" didn't really want Hillary. While she may superficially represent their interests, the Clinton machine is too knowledgeable, too experienced and too selfish and self-centered to predictably execute their programs. The Clintons have plenty of dirt on them. But they had enough dirt on her to compromise her electability. They don't want Trump either, but they can manufacture or dig up enough dirt to compromise his Presidency. Their first choice was Jeb Bush. Their second choice is Mike Pence.

The DNC stuff was leaked by an insider, and the Podesta stuff was hacked by the NSA. The only plausible alternative points to hacking attempts by the neo-Nazi Ukrainian hacking outfit "RuH8", not the Russians.

A bunch of recent articles seek to analyze Barack Obama's legacy, personality and motivations. That's all superfluous. The "real deal" has been well documented. His grandparents were CIA His mother was CIA His first job after law school was with Banking international Corporation, a CIA "front company". He was groomed and thoroughly vetted.

Nobody wants to hear the truth or look at real evidence. The circumstantial – though well documented – evidence connecting Ted Cruz's father to the anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald is actually much more plausible and substantial than the evidence for "Russian hacking" of the election, yet the general public has no problem dismissing that as a "conspiracy theory".

Between the two, Trump was perceived – mistakenly – as the lesser threat to the "deep state". Just a guess, but we may be about to see all hell break loose.

It's about time some journalists and researchers started naming names and making lists. The "New McCarthyism" uses lists to good advantage. It creates the perception of a vast subversive network dedicated to destroying our "democracy". Until some names are named and fingers pointed, the "deep state" and its intelligence community enforcement arm will continue to control the "democracy" we don't really have. Blackmail is just one of their methods, and it's far from the worst.

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 4:14 pm

Funny how these "streams," er, "leaks" work:

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.764452

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 10:17 pm

Buzzfeed's "explosive and unverified" golden shower (guess that's not highlighter on the documents):
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.pdf

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 4:42 am

And someone has been paying for this crap? If anything, this report exposes its authors much more than anybody else. Reply

Abe , January 13, 2017 at 1:00 pm

The "authors" dominate a post-truth regime that demands popular attention to and participation in its discursive games.

Are you not entertained?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs Reply

F. G. Sanford , January 13, 2017 at 6:37 pm

My favorite quotes from the "Company Intelligence Report":

"However, he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow " (Is this a pun?)

"PUTIN angry with senior officials who "overpromised" on TRUMP and further heads likely to roll as result. Foreign minister LAVROV may be next" (What Putin is going to make him change the sheets in Trump's hotel room?)

" TRUMP has paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities there but key witnesses silenced and evidence hard to obtain" (Were the "key" witnesses the same ones that claim Putin shot down MH-17?)

I think they dug up the script writers from "The Man from Uncle" and put them back to work. This sounds like a Quinn Martin Production straight out of a Hollywood "B Movie". Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 10:24 pm

First Draft coalition "partner" BuzzFeed is leading the charge to make fake news, hybrid war propaganda, and hoaxes "more shareable and more social"

https://firstdraftnews.com/buzzfeed-wants-use-social-media-might-take-hoaxers/ Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 5:09 pm

Funny how that "leak" worked:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb565-Was-U.S.-Nuclear-Weapons-Fuel-Diverted-to-Israel/

"OK, but I doubt advisability of getting into this (redacted)." – FBI Director J. Edgard Hoover Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 5:17 pm

Funny how that other "leak" worked:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB407/ Reply

Gregory Kruse , January 12, 2017 at 8:37 pm

FG, I'm not gay, but I always scroll down to find your comment. You are always looking into the big picture, not the big illusion.

backwardsevolution , January 13, 2017 at 1:44 am

Gregory – I agree. His comments are always very good. Reply

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Me three.

F. G. Sanford , January 13, 2017 at 6:41 pm

Thanks to all – sometimes I wonder if it's worth putting in my two cents. We're probably a statistically insignificant group of readers on the world's stage, but I like to think at least it's worth a try. Reply

Jessica K , January 12, 2017 at 4:34 pm

We must organize beyond cyberspace as this is a coup in action. CIA is greatest meddler of all nations, coups and assassinations well documented. DC is the Aegean stable that must be cleaned, a truly Herculean task and We the People have to get organized because this planet is imperiled. Agree with Dan that whole sordid mess is beyond a swamp, a stinking pit and pitchforks are necessary! Reply

LJ , January 12, 2017 at 4:36 pm

It's more doublethink logic from the Intelligence heads. It would require a tremendous leap of faith for anyone with a brain to think that Russia/Putin/Lavrov would use this info, if it existed at all, in public manner. To do so wouldn't help them achieve a goal and it would only hurt Russia .. The tape would never become public even if it existed. That means this rumor is clearly slander and was aimed at some political end. . Where is the smoking gun?, sorry. By the way , Putin is friends with Bertoloscini , Sarkozy and other notorious womanizers and is known to like women himself. This is not something he would do. He is not a mobster. This is puerile and it is coming from the Democrats although the word is that George Bush initially hired the guy, the former MI5 spy, who wrote the dossier/smear piece on Trump in the first place. . Hoover would have kept it in shop and tried to leverage Trump himself. Reply

Bernie , January 12, 2017 at 5:09 pm

There's an article at ABC News today about US tanks rolling into Poland. This reminds me of Nazis rolling into Austria in 1938 and then Poland on Sept 1, 1941 to start WWII. "American soldiers rolled into Poland on Thursday, fulfilling a dream some Poles have had since the fall of communism in 1989 to have U.S. troops on their soil as a deterrent against Russia. Some people waved and held up American flags as U.S. troops in tanks and other vehicles crossed into southwestern Poland from Germany and headed toward the town of Zagan, where they will be based. "

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm

Like Poland, Ukraine is eager to express its devotion to the Reich, er, its "Euro-Atlantic aspirations".

If only for the sake of NATO "cooperation" and "capacity building", Poland and Ukraine have much to forgive and forget:

http://observer.com/2016/09/from-friends-to-bitter-rivals-poland-and-ukraine-accuse-each-other-of-genocide/

Of course, reports of Russian "euphoria" remain "unconfirmed". Reply

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:36 pm

Absurd. Who is this "they" everyone is talking about? How many are/is this 'they'? 5, 10 20? Who is in control of 'they'? Who's in charge? The political elite? Do they have a club and do they meet for bridge every Tuesday? Do they have a secret handshake? Are they all really Mason's?

This conspiracy holds no credibility because 'they' is just an 'idea'. That is all. Until someone can give names of those who are responsible and running this political elite then its all storybook conjecture. We should be more concerned with the obvious psychological dementia affecting the president elect. He was a total looney tune in that press conference.

Wendi , January 12, 2017 at 5:52 pm

Here are the names.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/meet-the-80-people-who-are-as-rich-as-half-the-world/

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 7:09 pm

What you are saying with this list then, Wendi, it is not the political elites, intelligence agencies or career politicians whoTrump continuously rails against as the cause for the end of the American Empire. It is the financial hierarchies that Trump so desperately wants to be a part of. Putin is obviously at the top of this list and Trump sees him as a way to become a player in this club. That makes sense to me. Reply

Dr. Ibrahim Soudy , January 12, 2017 at 6:14 pm

"THEY" are the people who control the MONEY. They are referred to as the BANKERS. Those are a mafia that runs the political circus BEHIND the scene. The parties and elections are a diversion to keep the idiots busy arguing with each other like the crazy fans of sports teams. The BANKERS always make sure that the "idiots" are choosing between alternatives that ultimately BOW to the BANKERS. Read for example the following:

– "All the President's Bankers" by Naomi Prins.

– "Memoirs" by David Rockefeller.

– "The Crisis of Democracy" a publication of the Tri-Lateral Commission on their website.

-Here's How Goldman Sachs Became the Overlord of the Trump Administration
http://wallstreetonparade.com/

-Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism | The Inline image 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-whetten/goldman-wall-street-and-f_b.. .
Jun 19, 2010 · The most disturbing aspect of the recent Goldman Sachs lawsuit isn't just the legal violations involved Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism.

-Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists | FacebookInline image 1
http://www.facebook.com/Stop.Goldman
Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists. 95,662 likes · 6,188 talking about this. Get the Honest truth on the economy, this page sponsors no organization

Those will give you a good start ..Good Luck. Reply

Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 7:29 am

Perhaps you do not mean the ridicule you suggest. The effects of economic aristocracy and political conspiracy are of course not "storybook conjecture" but the combined deductions of experienced observers. That would become conjecture only if specific persons were accused, which is seldom done without evidence.

The demand for detailed evidence of an old-fashioned conspiracy to effect societal trends is not valid. It becomes propaganda when used to attack the means by which we all deduce that events are driven by cabals, or loose organizations of interested parties. While we are occasionally surprised by the detailed evidence that emerges long after events, even that is incomplete and not very relevant.

The means of ridicule shows its invalidity. There is no reason to speculate upon clubs, meetings, or handshakes, as there is no need for such specific or antiquated organization. No modern organization works that way, no one has suggested that, and no one here has reasoned from such nonsense, but rather from well documented effects of cabals. So I hope that you merely overstated a wish for more evidence.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:49 am

Bravo. Reply

Howard Mettee , January 12, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Robert, Could it not be true that the real losers in the neocon push to extend the American dominion might actually be the intelligence services? They have become so politicized in domestic politics since the Iraq War build up (a la Rice, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell) that they figure they can shape American public opinion to support any war, no matter how "unthreatening" the enemy (say Russia) might actually be. Originally they were basically "fact collectors" (objective) – at first from around the world, but since 9/11's Patriot Act, at home also. Then, they became "interpreters and analyzers of motives" which takes a bit of a weed-gee board (subjective!) on the part of the "experienced eye". When whatever these very effective (and appreciated) fact collectors opine suddenly becomes gospel in their "estimates" (interpretation), we have lost the ability to even influence the fate of our nation. Is this the country I grew up in? Or, has it been this way since we were led so effectively to support World War I? Take care, HM Reply

Thurgle , January 12, 2017 at 6:44 pm

The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid the huge sums for the research that produced the story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow. They never say the funders are unknown, but instead use devices like the passive tense to avoid saying. But it would be very interesting to know who signed the checks. Apparently, there was a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It would be very interesting to know who these funders were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid saying. Reply

BlackPete , January 12, 2017 at 7:46 pm

When it comes to cavorting with prostitutes JFK was the undisputed champion. Given the high regard JFK is held in in some circles maybe Trump's alleged misbehaviour is a positive sign. Also, now that Trump's behaviour has been made public isn't the Russian threat to expose him now worthless and their alleged hold/influence gone?

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 8:01 pm

Its not about the hookers. That's useless drivel. It's about the potential of illegal financial dealings with Russia prior to the election. Just show the damn tax returns. What the hell is he afraid of? What could possibly go wrong?

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Are you keen on asking Clintons to reveal their financial dealings with Saudis, the sponsors of 9/11?
How about the Kagans' clan being currently "supported" financially by Qatari?
And this is much more interesting than tax return: "The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid the huge sums for the research that produced the story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow. They never say the funders are unknown, but instead use devices like the passive tense to avoid saying. But it would be very interesting to know who signed the checks. Apparently, there was a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It would be very interesting to know who these funders were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid saying."

col from oz , January 12, 2017 at 10:25 pm

I read it was Rubio commissioned the dirt.
Look at day 69 of eric braverman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwKhbsASDhI Reply

akech , January 12, 2017 at 8:07 pm

Is this the face of the "DEEP STATE"?

It is controlling, deceptive, organized, bloody and does not give a "rat ass" about the needs of any other human being on earth who does not belong to it!

It neither tolerates opposing views from anybody who does not belong to its members nor allows the outsiders to organize . It is determined to be the lens through which everybody under its control see the rest of the world; any conclusion drawn by the besieged population, based on what it is forced to see, must conform to the "DEEP STATE" norms; otherwise, you are in deep trouble. The POTUS or the Congress must toe lines dictated by the members of this organization, (the Deep State). We are observing that no effort is being spared to see to it that President-Elect toes the "DEEP STATE" line; it is deep and scary indeed! Reply

John , January 12, 2017 at 8:40 pm

Russia is the half naked female in the magic show The real slight of hand is the relationship with the American oligarch and china .wow !!! . talking about messing with the bottom line some of you big brain folks will get this in 4 ..3 2 ..lol Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm

What I Learned From the Intelligence Report on "Russian Hacking"
By James Corbett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ecxu7EStgs Reply

CitizenOne , January 12, 2017 at 9:55 pm

There is little doubt that the obvious blackmail will never be covered in that light by main stream media. To those of us who are historians or are natural skeptics or have actually lived through those times, this is all fairly obvious. They are trying to put Donald Trump in a corner so he can be controlled.

I suspect that is why Trump retained Steve Bannon for. Not just a house racist but someone who can get down and dirty on those that dish up dirt on Trump. We'll have to see if it works. Headlines: "Donald unleashes TwitterBomb on CIA". But he'll have to go on the internet since the CIA owns the press in the USA.

He has two choices. Listen to the CIA and do their bidding which is the requirement to start WWIII with Russia or resist and be smeared in the press. It's an uphill battle too. Unlike Silvio Berlusconi or Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump does not actually own the press. That will make it especially hard to do.

This thing is shaping up to be a geopolitical oil war. Rex and the Russians vs the Saudi/CIA Team USA.

All I can say is fine America. Don't give a damn about privacy. Don't give a damn about anything. But one of these days this massive spying ring gathering every shred of any and all traces of your life and filing them away forever cannot be good. It will most certainly not end well.

When AI has us all pinned up against a wall threatening to out all of us if we do not do exactly what it wants then what will we do?

We need some privacy laws. Also we need to throw the main stream media out with the trash. It is pure evil. Back in the day, the press wouldn't run the stories about MLKs extramarital affairs it recorded secretly. The press demanded to know the source of the B.S. and the FBI did not want to tip their hand so the Mexican standoff led to the suicide letter which said "if you accept the Nobel Prize, we will shame you and ruin you and you should consider preserving you legacy by killing yourself instead. At least the MSM had some ethical standards and smelled a rat and refused to run the stories. Imagine that. If MLK was alive today we and we still had segregation, people and the media would fight to keep it! MLK would be a portrayed in the press as a philandering bad guy. A sexual predator. The Civil Rights movement would end in a quagmire of gossip surrounding its leader.

The Republicans have certainly had their fun with it too making Monica Lewinsky describe to a court the distinctive features of the president's privates. I bet they were rolling in the aisles when that happened. Now it's their turn. Will they defend Trump or will they hope that perhaps Mike Pence would make a better leader.

All this tawdry B.S. really gets old fast. I could care less what people do in private as long as nobody gets hurt.

One person abroad when asked what they thought about Bill Clinton's circumstances replied they were confused since after all we were not electing the Pope. Amen. I feel the same way about Trump. It's all B.S.

The problem is America can't remember what happened yesterday. We are collectively like terminal Alzheimer patients. Two seconds after we see something, we forget it and are completely susceptible to B.S.in two seconds after we forgot what just happened which ignores the facts which occurred a mere two seconds earlier but we are none the wiser since we can't remember what happened more than two seconds ago. That means there are a lot of opportunities each day to fool us.

What ever happened to the story about James Comey influencing the election? We just forgot it. What ever happened to all of the other historically "likely suspects" thought to have been likely suspects in vote rigging schemes. They are all absent and not presented as possible influencers of the election by our CIA owned press. Instead we are presented with a fake narrative filled with salacious gossip and naughty bits designed to turn public opinion into a weapon for further increases in militarization and military spending while preserving foreign relationships which benefit wealthy investors.

We need to wake up and start taking some strong medicine to ward off the Alzheimer disease that is affecting us in order to put the daily snow job presented by the MSM and the CIA into perspective. That perspective would include what just happened two seconds ago.

Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen since the medication would have to include administering it to the MSM too.

The ability of the MSM to erase our collective memory and present us with a new fake narrative on any given day should ring alarm bells that we are obviously vulnerable to being fooled.

We are being fooled. Every day. Time to start taking the meds. Reply

Jurgen , January 12, 2017 at 10:01 pm

This is no "deep state" this is rather in-plain-sight US Government at work.
Trivial task:
1) Create a dense smoke screen by broadcasting on every single TV channel non-stop anti-Russian and anti-Trump*** hysteria (they know it can't go wrong – they know Trump would try to reply to every single fake thus making their task easier and the picture even more colorful)
2) Behind that smoke screen ship few thousands of US troops and tanks over to Poland and to those parasitic micro quasi-states in Baltic and by doing that de-facto lay foundation for 4-5 new military bases,
which (yet another NATO expansion) otherwise would not be approved and likely axed by Trump. But now it went through s-m-o-u-ht-ly, like a butter. Highest class of the old Shell Game. Where CIA, FBI and other spook shops are used as shills and the population of the US are total losers (everyone's taxes will be used to pay for that yet another NATO expansion).
3) Behind the same smoke screen Obamacare has just been demolished late last night, congrats 20 million of poor folks!

*** Just wait till grainy videos surface showing some naked figures – one of them would be vaguely resembling Trump.
That'd be no hard task for talented movie makers from either PSYOP or/and PAG (just remember their masterpieces featuring Jessica Lynch and other ones featuring fat "Osama bin Laden"-looking dude).

Note: Authorization to create and finance state Propaganda apparatus, S.2943, was quietly passed late Friday night Dec.23 behind the smoke screen of the same anti-Russian and anti-Trump hysteria, thus what we are seeing now is perfectly lawful – propaganda machine at full throttle, who said bureaucracy is slow(?)

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 10:05 pm

is not it nice that Obama is leaving office while being decorated with salacious fake stories which he is promoting Petty and dishonest in everything.

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 11:17 pm

I tried to watch his good riddance speech last night, but couldn't get through the half of it. For relief I turned to this video:

http://youtu.be/F5K7UmYkD1I Reply

Franz Rock , January 12, 2017 at 10:11 pm

As a non-citicen one has to wonder about the mind boggling machination the US politic is capable of.
After WW2 the European countries looked upon the USA as the beacon of democratic values.
How bitter for the young generation to find, bit by bit, that behind the American facade lurked a system
of smoke and mirrors. As ruthless as the very system they replaced in Europe. Slowly sugarcoating
their deep aims of domination. Under words like freedom,liberty and equality there is the underlying
unbelievable lust for money and with it power. From a human point of view, and the thinking person,
the politics and aims of the United States of America is an abomination for all the worlds people.

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:27 am

I certainly agree with you, but also I am really saddened that this pattern is far from being unique and repeats itself all over and over again. The power corrupts, and it is true for states as well as for people. But the US are indeed a sad champion in hypocrisy. Their predecessors were not as skilled in hiding their true intentions behind the screen of freedom and all other very attractive values. This makes it especially hard to accept. Reply

Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:08 am

You've fingered the wrong culprits, or rather indicted fellow victims. It's the same bloody, titled ruling class and their managerial elites in business and banking from old-line European/British families who've been playing their Imperial games and still are. THEY created the late 19th century Synachist Movement for Empire (SME) that gave birth to Fascism and its' feverish twin NAZIism,really just movements to update the workings of the old-fashioned European Empires. It's also the Cecil Rhodes/Milner RoundTable Group that dove-tailed with SME machinations to update old Empires, campaigning strenuously, through their managerial elites on Wall Street, to recapture their "rogue colony" USA and bring it into the British version of Empire. Right at the moment of FDR's death (may have been assassination), the tables were turned on us, with Churchill leading stupid Truman around by the nose speaking of iron curtains and Red Scares and Cold Wars. FDR's intelligence community was taken over by Anglophile RoundTable allies in the post-war 40s. Having helped win the battles, we lost the War to the fascist/NAZI SME and RoundTable groups who never received so much as a scratch from all the bombs and bullets. Have you seen the show Hunting Hitler? WWII never ended, the methods of fighting just changed.

Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:44 am

P.S. Not only did WWII never end, just a change in fighting methods, BUT the SME/RoundTable Groups managed to get the two most powerful allies turned against each other: USSR and USA, so that we, together, couldn't focus on the REAL enemy; SME/RoundTable group of elites (which would have happened under FDR in post-war. He would have been President until January 1949 if he hadn't died/been killed, Stalin told FDRs son that "that Churchill gang killed him" been trying to do the same to Stalin) and THIS is why Trumps' Russophilia is such a grave and real threat to our Establishment.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:13 pm

Brad you hit the nail on the head with your comments here .bravo! Reply

John P , January 14, 2017 at 9:55 pm

Where on earth did you get this fable. Roosevelt had polio and needed a wheelchair, he was a heavy smoker, had high blood pressure, angina followed by congestive heart failure all finalized by a stoke. He had been weakening over a long period. This is all before the days of polonium the USSR uses to kill its foes today.
Russia wasn't following the agreements drawn up in Yalta and fair free elections were not provided in Poland and many Poles who fought for the allies in the war felt betrayed. The Soviets went their own way, so were we to tell the Poles, tough.
Allied convoys, mainly British, at great cost in ships and men, supplied the Russians with war supplies. They faced U-boats and heavily armed German battle-cruisers in freezing arctic waters. After the war Germany got assistance in rebuilding, but the British were held to paying off debts for US build liberty ships used to replace ships lost on the Atlantic convoys. I had an uncle who's ship was sunk and very luckily, after much time in a life boat, was picked up. Many Americans sat back and watched until Pearl Harbour. The British had warned the Americans some time before, that they had lost contact with one of the Japanese fleets they were following, and you can guess the consequences.
Britain saw what was coming when Germany attacked Poland and declared war on Germany. We didn't have much. My father was almost killed assisting surgeon in a Liverpool hospital and luckily had to leave to go out in an ambulance. When he came back the OR was gone. Bombed out. Luckily on another occasion, the day staff had been told to stay on duty with the night staff and the nursing residence was flattened. We had rationing until 1950, and had to grow food in our small back garden, sprouts, peas, cabbage. We had 6 chickens and a rooster, a source of much needed nutrition from eggs. I remember my mother weeping terribly after telling the police she had lost her ration books. As a young lad I went on a search and eventually found them in the folds of a chair. You may never have had to live through something like that.
And if you think America is any better than others, read "What is America?" by Ronald Wright. Learn about the Trail of Tears and traders knowingly giving natives blankets used by whites with small-pox.

Brad Owen , January 15, 2017 at 6:47 am

You relate the manufactured cover story, thanks to the anglophile Intel community that took over in post-war forties, and did their typical change of the narration, much like they do today with the phony crap about Russian aggression. This kind of sh!t has been going on since the revolution, as the wealthy and powerful Imperial Tories never left and never relented. I got this"fable" from EIR and Tarpley.net. It makes more sense to me than the current fable we call history. Check it out for yourself, it amounts to mountains of articles and essays. It took me years to piece it all together and relay it adequately in brief paragraphs. Choose to believe there is no over-arching Imperial ruling class inimical to the interests of commoners if you want. I refuse to be blind to it anymore.

David F., N.A. , January 12, 2017 at 10:18 pm

What if the intelligence community wasn't choosing between HRC and Trump, but, in stead, between HRC and Pence. So no matter who won, wouldn't this hedged election mean business as usual?

Sorry, HRC, but for this downward neoliberal/fascist spiral thingy to work, you lesser-of-2-evil conservaDems are just going to have to learn to share with the equally-corrupt conservatives. See ya in 4 (or maybe 8 (naw, 4)).

Hail to the de facto Chief. da dada da dada dada dada da. Reply

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:36 pm

You forgot to declare who is the drag queen in this matter?

Let's warn these evil psychopaths that a JFK OUTCOME IS OFF LIMITS.
That is the inference of your article.

By the way, Trump NEVER READ THE REPORT PRIVATELY. THERE WAS AN ORAL PRESENTATION, & CLAPPER & Brennan took the CLASSIFIED documents back with them. Trump never read the 2 pg libel nor was it discussed in the presentation.

Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:38 am

This is also reminiscent of Hoover and JFK. When JFK attended Hoover's office, he was handed the President's file. JFK read some of the file while Hoover waited. When JFK stood up to leave, Hoover told the President that the file remains with him. No wonder JFK and Bobby hated this dangerous psychopath. Reply

John P , January 12, 2017 at 11:43 pm

It's all slime, Americans let their political system fall into the trap of big money (lobbying system and PACs) and neo-liberalism. I have no faith that Trump has the capabilities to be a good president. His dialogue is simple, his temper easily aroused as are his feelings of hurt. He shows little historical knowledge or political skills and speaks in a petty childish way. Who is going to pay for the southern border wall ?! What is going to replace Obama's medical care programs, more big business institutions ?! To me it looks like the Palestinians are on the Titanic run by captain Trump and his son-in law, and only minutes to go. What real in depth policies has Trump ever stated ?! Look out because Trump has a habit of passing on the bills be it cash, broken promises or a road you never thought he would take.
And yes we need a calming down and discussion between the US, Russia and China, but I don't see any hope in the line of folks Trump has chosen or Clinton. To me, Trump is like passenger on an aircraft in which the pilot has expired and he is relying on others to tell him what to do because he has no idea or understanding.
I think this and a world where jobs have been taken by microprocessors and robots, is a very dangerous place and we don't need a blind narcissist leading the way. Sadly Bernie Sanders got burnt on the stake. Reply

Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:28 am

At times like this I miss the wise words of the late Chalmers Johnson. Chalmers was not encouraged by the possibility of America stepping back from her efforts to control the entire world. He felt the deep state was too committed to America's Full Spectrum Dominance. Is this the sloppy end to the legacy of the Sole Super Power? Or, is this just the middle of the play before curtain call?
When Russia came to the aid of Syria, I believed that we were entering the Multipolar World Order. Hopefully that is still possible but better sooner than later before we enter the No World Order of endless chaos. Does the American deep state really want to play Russian Roulette with live nucs?

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:16 pm

I wish Chalmers Johnson were still with us, and able to comment on our current events good of you to bring his name up. Reply

John P , January 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm

I'm sorry Brad. With your EIR's reference, the first story I saw concerned Obama-care connected to some Nazi policies. Next they claim global warming is fake. The US was the only western nation without a national health program. People die because they haven't the money to pay for drugs or health care. The health of a labourer is more important to them that a rich bloke sitting at a desk. And excuse me but back in the late 60s I studied astronomy besides my major, another science, and even then learned that both CO2 and methane each trap the sun's energy and cause temperatures to rise. That was long before global warming came to peoples attention. Sorry, your story is pure fiction.

Also, Trump hasn't a clue what he's talking about as far as global warming is concerned. Take a look at the temperatures in the far north. They have been warmer than ever while we down here are having huge cycles of heat and cold and are experiencing the fury that those changes can induce.

Dieter Heymann , January 16, 2017 at 2:23 pm

As a scientist you ought to know that CO2 and methane do not trap the sun's energy but absorb upward IR radiation from Earth part of which they radiate back towards Earth's surface part out into space. The blanket I use on my bed at night does not trap the heat generated by me either. If it did it might catch fire?

John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Dieter I was just trying to make it simple, not write an article for Nature. The point being so many people don't believe that we are altering the earths climate through burning fossil fuels. We take down our forests, and plants are a big reason we are here as they take in carbon dioxide, utilize the suns energy through photosynthesis and create organic compounds thus setting the stage for further developments. There is so much irrationality out there brought on by job losses through technology, and this creates huge divisions within society and that can lead to awful consequences as history has shown.
I not sure some would understand the true science behind it. The subject was a reliance on a web site that promoted climate change denial and a mentioned link between Obamacare and Nazism. Is that a firm foundation of reliance ?

John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:33 pm

Just to clarify, I said astronomy wasn't my major, it was microbiology and medical sciences. I had an interest in star gazing and following the planets. Reply

Jamie , January 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm

Many liberals fail to understand that Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. Unlike the unwashed masses - these forces don't care if politician has a 'D' or 'R' next to their name. It is how well they will serve capital.

[Mar 02, 2019] Pulling a J. Edgar Hoover on Trump

So the coup against the President was exposed already in Jan 2017 and Trump did not take any measures to prevent the appointment of the Special Prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with prostitutes have been circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the earmarks of a campaign dirty trick. ..."
"... However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets. ..."
"... In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide. ..."
"... Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the next four years. ..."
"... Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people. ..."
"... Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major media. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart. ..."
"... The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet) ..."
"... At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people". ..."
"... I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. ..."
"... Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government? ..."
Jan 12, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: President-elect Trump is fending off a U.S. intelligence leak of unproven allegations that he cavorted with Russian prostitutes, but the darker story might be the CIA's intervention in U.S. politics, reports Robert Parry.

The decision by the U.S. intelligence community to include in an official report some unverified and salacious accusations against President-elect Donald Trump resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press.

Legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover

In this case, as leaders of the U.S. intelligence community were pressing Trump to accept their assessment that the Russian government had tried to bolster Trump's campaign by stealing and leaking actual emails harmful to Hillary Clinton's campaign, Trump was confronted with this classified "appendix" describing claims about him cavorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room.

Supposedly, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan included the unproven allegations in the report under the rationale that the Russian government might have videotaped Trump's misbehavior and thus could use it to blackmail him. But the U.S. intelligence community also had reasons to want to threaten Trump who has been critical of its performance and who has expressed doubts about its analysis of the Russian "hacking."

After the briefing last Friday, Trump and his incoming administration did shift their position, accepting the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government hacked the emails of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's campaign chief John Podesta. But I'm told Trump saw no evidence that Russia then leaked the material to WikiLeaks and has avoided making that concession.

Still, Trump's change in tone was noted by the mainstream media and was treated as an admission that he was abandoning his earlier skepticism. In other words, he was finally getting onboard the intelligence community's Russia-did-it bandwagon. Now, however, we know that Trump simultaneously had been confronted with the possibility that the unproven stories about him engaging in unorthodox sex acts with prostitutes could be released, embarrassing him barely a week before his inauguration.

The classified report, with the explosive appendix, was also given to President Obama and the so-called "Gang of Eight," bipartisan senior members of Congress responsible for oversight of the intelligence community, which increased chances that the Trump accusations would be leaked to the press, which indeed did happen.

Circulating Rumors

The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with prostitutes have been circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the earmarks of a campaign dirty trick.

However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets.

Trump has denounced the story as "fake news" and it is certainly true that the juicy details – reportedly assembled by a former British MI-6 spy named Christopher Steele – have yet to check out. But the placement of the rumors in a U.S. government document gave the mainstream media an excuse to publicize the material.

It's also allowed the media to again trot out the Russian word "kompromat" as if the Russians invented the game of assembling derogatory information about someone and then using it to discredit or blackmail the person.

In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide.

However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump. It could just be rumors concocted in the middle of a hard-fought campaign, first among Republicans battling Trump for the nomination (this opposition research was reportedly initiated by backers of Sen. Marco Rubio in the GOP race) before being picked up by Clinton supporters for use in the general election.

Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the next four years.

Hurting Both Candidates

Though I was skeptical of that information, it did turn out that FBI Director James Comey, one of the top officials in the intelligence community, badly damaged Clinton's campaign by deeming her handling of her emails as Secretary of State "extremely careless" but deciding not to prosecute her – and then in the last week of the campaign briefly reopening and then re-closing the investigation.

Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people.

The intelligence community's assessment set the stage for what could have been a revolt by the Electoral College in which enough Trump delegates could have refused to vote for him to send the election into the House of Representatives, where the states would choose the President from one of the top three vote-getters in the Electoral College. The third-place finisher turned out to be former Secretary of State Colin Powell who got four votes from Clinton delegates in Washington State. But the Electoral College ploy failed when Trump's delegates proved overwhelmingly faithful to the GOP candidate.

Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major media.

Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump or whether the intelligence community genuinely thought that the accusations might be true and deserved inclusion in a report on alleged Russian interference in U.S. politics or whether it was some combination of the two, we are witnessing a historic moment when the U.S. intelligence community has deployed its extraordinary powers within the domain of U.S. politics. J. Edgar Hoover would be proud.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Bryan Hemming , January 12, 2017 at 11:06 am

Excuse the mixed metaphors, but this looks like another entirely predictable nail in the coffin of US democracy, as the chickens come home to roost. For some time it has been quite obvious the CIA has been pulling strings from behind the scenes to make whatever puppet occupies the White House dance to its tune. But it won't end there. Only when the CIA climbs completely out of the coffin can the epic finale between the CIA, FBI and NSA begin.

The big question is as to how long the people of states like Texas and Florida stand by in the wings as the theater catches fire.

There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.

Jean-David , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am

Don't mix your metaphors before they are hatched. ;-) Reply

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 2:05 pm

There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.

The United States has been accused of decadence for decades by Americans and non-Americans without much concern being shown by anyone not in a certain minority. The great tragedy of a decadent way of life is its durability.

In 1961 William Lederer's book, "A Nation of Sheep" revealed the abuse of American power and the ignorance of the American people regarding this misrule. Nothing much has changed since then except the names of the aggressors and their primary geographic areas of intended domination. The mass of people are essentially clueless and content to believe whatever lies and salacious tales are told them from the nation's Towers of Babel. This is in line with human history that shows people of authoritarian dispositions tend to be more aggressive and dominant in politics and commerce and the masses accept their lot as long as they get enough crumbs from establishment's plate..

(The title of the book was also an insult to sheep, but that is another story.)

Common Tater , January 12, 2017 at 4:59 pm

The saying goes, "power corrupts," but i believe that it is the corrupt who seek power to begin with.
Most people are content to live and let live, to live by the golden rule, mind their own and reciprocate kindness etc., etc.
Then there are those who get a thrill from exercising control over others. Those are the ones who shoot straight to the top.

Jack Flanigan , January 14, 2017 at 1:47 am

An interesting and clear observation. As an australian I note our system is dominated by two major parties (and I mean dominated) similar to the US. The two parties are vehicles for ambitious and corrupt individuals to fast track political careers. The power rests in these organizations and attracts the corrupt like bees to honey. Reply

Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:09 pm

Bill, regarding your sense of human history I might add that for many centuries people couldn't read, except for the aristocracy and the religious sects mostly. The reformation produced a 100 year war and literacy was at an all time low in Luthers time but something motivated them to fight for such a long time, and it wasn't information nor intellect.

Where has our literacy gone which would prevent a repeat of endless war and violence these days? Oh yes, corporate controlled media hiring people who are certain to have no critical thinking skills, no moral rudder, nor worldly experience to shed the scales from their eyes. We are almost in pre-Gutenberg times of short attention spans and 140 character 'news truths' covering the landscape of the ignorant. One can only hope the Tower of the oligarchs Babel has rapidly decaying clay feet. We certainly know how to reduce cultures more ancient than ours to ashes without so much as a second thought regarding the sanctity of life. Where are all the pro-lifers now? Oh yeh, that's only in the womb, and after the umbilical cord is cut they are fair game for destruction. The US values we rave about will really hurt when other cultures treat us as they have been treated.

Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm

Or better yet, we are in Gutenberg times where the "type" is set by the big players and the papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their only function now at the national level to inhibit discourse, excluding this site of course. Reply

Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:34 pm

Or better yet, we are in times of the early press machines, where the "type" is set by the big players and the papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their only function now at the national level, meant to inhibit discourse and ideas. (excluding this site of course) Reply

Wendi , January 12, 2017 at 5:41 pm

In its Hoover relation, this article reprises the passage in The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet).

It describes the power struggle involved post-FDR, during-HST 1946-48, at the institution of the CIA (The Agency was not legislatively enacted, only instituted through Executive Order.)
Hoover opposed the creation of an intelligence collection that would compete with the FBI's monopoly of spies snoops and snitches.

The compromise settlement set the FBI with domestic coverage and the CIA with international haunts for its spooks.

Come the the present day, they still have turf wars in power rivalry for budget money.
However, in effect, after the budget shuffle the two legions merge their 'assets' - making each one double its real size. They join in advocating for (the oxymoronic) 'authoritarian morality,' gaining both the unlawfulness funded in the Judiciary with same unlawfulness, (or, being 'outlaw,' 'above the law'), funded by the Executive.

You can depend that they employ the same techniques. Coercion, extortion, blackmail, assassination, torture, defamation, slander and Press Release aspersion. The polity is hung pendant on those strings the outlaws pull. Or, 'hanged' pendant.

As Hoover, so Clapper et al.

Trump seems to have reconsided, maybe recanted, his defiance of 'intelligence' after he has seen some truth in it regarding things he knows he did in places he knows he was. He knows he dare not let the public see him through the cyclopian 'eye' of the intelligentia illumination.
_____
My wit sez, Lo! That explains his undocumented wife - he heard about Russian mail-order brides and flew off to visit the showroom. And brought back some capital equipment, manufactured in foreign lands.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:04 pm

The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet)

Try alibris or abebooks dot coms. They have copies.

Joe Lauria , January 14, 2017 at 9:08 am

There's a Kindle edition available. Reply

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 8:34 am

Good comment Bryan, but I wonder if we should pay attention at all to this decline of everything, not only of democracy. Yet, I wish to highlight two humorous comments which best characterise the situation.

The first one was a title I saw on Russia-Insider website: "Trump watch out! John Brennan throws even a kitchen sink at Trump in desperation."

The other was a comment by a zero-hedge reader: "Trump could have had sex with a goat in a Moscow hotel room and be videod as much as I care if he only delivers on his election promises. I voted based on his policy promises, not on his sexual preferences."

The sexual smear is so 20th century, the same as the CIA – obsolete.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 11:39 am

To continue on the humorous side, the vile RT has one on the Pornhub reporting a huge increase in searches for "Golden Showers". Perhaps the kiddies are adding a new term to their vocabularies.

https://www.rt.com/viral/373545-pornhub-golden-showers-trump/ Reply

rosemerry , January 13, 2017 at 5:10 pm

It seems that Trump supporters are many and varied, and very loyal. To pretend that all these shenanigans were needed to help elect him against such a faulty candidate as Hillary is pathetic in the extreme. The terrible results, when we see how the new Administration is being gently helped by the Senate including Democrats, will be bad for us all if their warlike statements lead to facts. However, Obama's sending of 2800 tanks and 4000 troops to help Germany(!) and Poland against "Russian aggression" right now, plus Hillary's promises, do not give a hopeful alternative scenario for the "land of the free" or peace on earth. Reply

W. R. Knight , January 12, 2017 at 11:06 am

The saddest part of this entire debacle is that the intelligence agencies, as well as main stream media, the president and most members of Congress have destroyed their own credibility. Lacking credibility, they cannot be believed; and when they cannot be believed, they cannot be trusted; and a government that cannot be trusted is doomed.

J. D. , January 12, 2017 at 1:35 pm

Trump proved more feisty than expected at his first press conference as President-Elect, hitting back at both Buzzfeed ('You're fake news" and CNN ("you're organization is terrible") And went on to say that "If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks? That's called an asset, not a liability," describing the urgency of cooperation in defeating terrorism. Lost in the shuffle however was the source of the lies - British intelligence agencies.In fact, the NYTimes reported Jan. 6 that the official report released last week by the US intelligence agencies, which accused Putin of subverting the U.S. election, also came from British intelligence, which "raised an alarm that Moscow had hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer servers, and alerted their American counterparts.Talk about foreign interference.

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:52 pm

friends of Israel in action in the UK Reply

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:40 pm

A 4 chan blogger wrote it as a hoax Reply

Steve Abbott , January 12, 2017 at 2:15 pm

Get with the program! We are supposed to believe that all we have heard from and about the CIA in this century was pure and innocent incompetence, and should therefore continue to put all of our faith in their motives and methods. Reply

Godfree Roberts , January 13, 2017 at 4:55 am

Do you know which major government is the most trusted by its citizens?
The Edelman Corporation does. They've been doing 'government trust' surveys for decades. Check it out. http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanAPAC/2016-edelman-trust-barometer-china-english .
Hint: China Reply

Dan Kuhn , January 12, 2017 at 11:08 am

The entire sordid mess needs to be dismantled brick by brick and rebuilt from the ground up. Washington should be razed to the ground. It is beyond rescuing. it is beyond saving. It is rotten from the foundations to the pinicle of the obilisk. The American People should declare war on Washington DC and invade the place and clean house. Bring the Guillotine along with them and the baskets for the heads.

The stench is overwhelming. It needs to be cleaned up. No it needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. One of the founding fathers said that periodically, the tree of democracy had to be watered with blood. That time has arrived. Reply

Znam Svashta , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am

George Orwell predicted our current mess in his classic, "1984". Interestingly, that was the year that the neocons took over the Pentagon's Office of Risk Assessment, the State Department, and the whore-house American media. Reply

Lin Cleveland , January 12, 2017 at 11:50 am

What's going on here? I think Julian Assange may be on to something. ( my bold )

"Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a D.C. insider , he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilizing the pre-existing central power network within D.C. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better."–Julian Assange

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:02 pm

Thanks, Lin [for your 'bold.' Assange and Snowden are two voices "in the wilderness" always worth listening to. Reply

Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:10 pm

Brilliant– as always. No matter how vilified JA is and no matter how much he's lied about, he still is a force for reason and subversion, both of which we desparately need. Thanks for the quote. Reply

D5-5 , January 12, 2017 at 4:50 pm

Curious to me in the two-pronged attack on Trump (a. demonizing to delegitimize and replace with Pence coming from the political establishment; b. hysterical fear of Trump coming from left wing journalism sources including left-oriented alternative news sites) is why the hysteria in the left continues so virulently. Assange's comment, to me, is balanced and sober. We don't know what will happen out of Trump and his collection of "idiosyncratic personalities," we don't know what will turn out "change for the worse and change for the better," and all the fear-mongering from people like Robert Reich, appearing regularly in Truthdig, is entirely speculative. I then question–would these same people on the left, that I once thought to be colleagues, prefer Hillary Clinton and "consolidation of power in the existing ruling class"? This fracturing in what I had thought was an intelligent left opposition is disturbing.

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 9:36 pm

As an "old leftie" myself, I'd have to agree with Paul Craig Roberts that there IS no left anymore. It was co-opted and bought by Big Money. Maybe we need to forget about "left" and "right" and operate according to our own minds rather tha taking our cues from apologists for the establishment like Robert Reich. But it sounds like you're already doing that. Reply

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:10 pm

Change that will undoubtedly benefit the privileged in a big way.

I don't give a crap about if Trump had prostitutes. That's between he and his wife. What I do care about is if there are Trump financial threads to Russia and if his team had illegal meetings with Moscow before the election. There are too many questions that need to be answered.

Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating his opponents. Those are facts.

Why won't he release his tax returns? It could only mean he is hiding something.

What benefit does the world intelligence community gain in smearing a president elect? Is it financial? idealogical? Power? Are they not tied and beholdened more to the entrenched financial hierarchies then to the ever changing political landscape?

What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info? Money, fame, a 2nd home in Portugal?

How does anyone watching that press conference not come away with the chilly realization that our president-elect is psychologically impaired? My god you don't have to be a trained psychologist to see the guy has some serious mental health issues.

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm

"He's a vicious killer " – this is a music for the Kagans' clan Reply

JayHobeSound , January 13, 2017 at 4:10 am

"What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info?"

Reportedly he asked his neighbours to feed his cats and he went into hiding. Bizarre.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article126129709.html Reply

Godfree Roberts , January 13, 2017 at 4:59 am

'Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating his opponents. Those are facts.'
Facts? I'm pretty familiar with Putin's career and I've seen nothing to suggest that Putin is a killer at all.
Can you provide links to evidence? Not just links to other people making assertions without evidence, please. Reply

Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:20 pm

"Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating his opponents. Those are facts."
You talking about Trump or Putin? In any case has Russia or Putin killed as many people as America or Obama. The "facts" say no, not even close. Reply

stinky rafsanjani , January 16, 2017 at 9:36 am

vicious killer? since when is that a bad thing? jinkies, obama of nobel fame
sends missiles and drones around the planet, bombing and killing for fun and
profit. why, he even orders the assassination of citizens of his own country,
without trial even. meanwhile, putin has, umm look! a squirrel!

James van Oosterom , January 16, 2017 at 11:45 am

Nobody said it was a bad thing. You're inferring things. Stick to squirrels . Ah yes, the door . Reply

Andreas Wirsιn , January 12, 2017 at 11:54 am

A "new phase" in Intelligence meddling with presidential candidates, yes – but only in how openly they stand behind it as the source. Campaigns to scandalize unwanted primary challengers have been alleged before. Senator Gary Hart, for one, has said in interviews he believes he was caught in a honey trap, which cost him his candidacy.

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm

Gary Hart, a potentially strong contender, was also [like Trump] not up to Deep State's standards in Russophobia. Reply

LongGoneJohn , January 12, 2017 at 12:04 pm

Didn't Trump just acknowledge that attacks on cyber US infrastructure including the DNC takes place, in a general way? That is what his statement read and to me that does not sound like "Trump acknowledges Russian DNC hack" at all.

So is it me, or ?

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:12 pm

No, LGJ, it's not just you who can read through MSMB[ullsh t.] Reply

Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 12:05 pm

If Trump & Co. accept "the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government hacked the emails," they are only saying that, as is common knowledge, everybody hacks everybody. This is not, as Parry says, an acceptance of the intelligence "assessment" that Putin or Russian hackers released the emails, or even got them. Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that the source was inside the DNC, which means it cannot have been the Russians.

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that the source was inside the DNC, which means it cannot have been the Russians.

Assange and Murray might be right, and they might not. There is a term being tossed around – "cutout". Just because an intermediary claims to be a DNC leaker doesn't mean he actually was such.

Under the circumstances I just don't care. Now if the Russians or Chinese or Ugandans or anybody else had done more than facilitate the release of true information useful to voters, I'd be agitated myself. Not that I'd expect anybody else to be. US votes have been hacked ever since the no-verify touchscreen devices were first introduced, and nobody in authority has given a hoot about it.

Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:18 pm

Zachary–you are so right. It drives me crazy that Bush got away with stealing the voting system and all the Damn Dems care about is using it themselves. And now it drives me crazy that the Clintonistas took down Bernie and are getting away with it. With that cat's paw Obusha hanging around to "work" on rebuilding the DNC, we'll never see democracy again.

Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 6:52 am

We must indeed Dump the Dems. We need a progressive party.

There is a strong progressive majority everywhere which is being deliberately fragmented by the Dems. In the US, Clinton supporters must unify not only with the critics of Dem warmongering for Israel and KSA, but also with the Trumpers who want economic security in a rapacious oligarchic state. Clinton supporters will have to admit their mistake and abandon the Dems as a scam of oligarchy serving only as a backstop for the Repubs.

The solution is for a third party to align moderate progressives (national health care, no wars of choice, income security) with parts of the traditional right (fundamentalists, flag-wavers, make America great) leaving out only the extreme right (wars, discrimination, big business imperialism), use individual funding, and rely upon broad platform appeal to marginalize the Dems as the third party.

RMDC , January 13, 2017 at 9:28 am

Sam F. I agree with you but you have to stop using the term "progressive." The Clinton faction of the demo party owns that term. It arose with John Podesta's Center for American Progress. Podesta is the ideologue of contemporary progressivism. It has nothing to do with the Progressive movement of the early 20th century.

The right term is Sander's term: Democratic Socialism. I know socialism is a problematic term, too, but at least it is now claimed by the right people.

Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 2:20 pm

RMDC: Do you think "Progressive" can be brought back to its original meaning, or given a better one, despite people falsely claiming to be progressive? Sanders' term might be incorporated into that. It would be nice to deny the fakers the use of it.

Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:23 pm

"we'll never see democracy again."

Humm? When did we last see that "democracy" thing? Reply

Bill Cash , January 12, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Trump could end all this by releasing his tax returns but he won't do it. I believe the intelligence community had fears that once inaugurated, Trump would squash the whole thing. The Russian connection is the only theory that connects all the dots. I'm waiting t see what happens with Assange. Will he suddenly be able to go to Sweden?
As far as Trump's behavior, don't forget he was accused of raping a 13 year old girl but the woman had to withdraw the suit because her life was threatened.

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:56 pm

Why is your post such a strong reminder of Pizzagate? Reply

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:48 pm

Wont make any difference what t he does. He's an outsider. There's no escape except trying & convicting the traitors running obama. Reply

Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:14 pm

Very interesting column. I guess Mr. Trump is getting a lesson in who really runs things around here. Reply

Patricia Victour , January 12, 2017 at 12:22 pm

Unless Trump killed a prostitute on film, how could whatever is on the alleged video be any worse than the pussy-grabbing debacle and all the other accusations of sexual predation? I don't think you can embarrass Trump. He would just brush it off, and his base would probably think he was a super stud.

Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:52 pm

Oh, I don't know, they could well have much worse stuff to leak, given Mr. Trump's complete lack of control of his desires.

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:59 pm

I collected a lot of "stuff" on Trump from the internet in the past year, and was surprised to see virtually none of it used against him. My best guess is that Hillary & Co. didn't think it was necessary against their carefully selected "easiest" opponent. That "stuff" is still available, and might well be used to buttress wilder and unverifiable claims.

col from oz , January 12, 2017 at 7:49 pm

Yesterday on anther site i wrote how Hillary was complicit in a very serious charge.
Please watch video titles, where is Eric braverman on you tube . I have watched some and most of the material gives you the reality of what is occurring. A example is this. A fact is Gaddafi wanted to have some kind of gold backed Dina money policy. Fact. So Libya had a lot of gold maybe hundreds of tons. Where is it now. Did the "invaders' get it with their usual cut out Libyan man?
In the spirit of trying to make a better world i put this up, it seems political unbiased however it shows the Clinton as they are?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vam6qxfQrgA

day 70

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 8:48 pm

"For over four decades, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi's rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/20/libya-from-africas-wealthiest-democracy-under-gaddafi-to-terrorist-haven-after-us-intervention/

"Libya's Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa). In 2004, a pan-African Parliament (53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.

"African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for oil/gas Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya's own state-owned bank.
That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary to repair it."

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987399/why_qaddafi_had_to_go_african_gold_oil_and_the_challenge_to_monetary_imperialism.html

dave , January 12, 2017 at 3:24 pm

Speaking of "leaks", isn't the specific accusation in this case that Trump paid a prostitute to "take a leak" on the bed where he believed the Obamas had spent the night? (So I guess it was the prostitute that had "worse stuff to leak"!)

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 8:58 pm

And while no one at Trump's press conference mentioned the specifics, Trump stated, "Does anyone really believe that story? I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way, believe me."

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:56 pm

Check Chan4

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 11:04 pm

Anna, do you mean the British television programme?

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:48 pm

What? Dim wit. Reply

backwardsevolution , January 12, 2017 at 12:36 pm

The Saker writes in "The Neocon's Declaration of War Against Trump":

"After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be called a declaration of war against Donald Trump. [ ] All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House (I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed. [ ]

As I predicted it before the election, the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump, the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas). At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat against Trump, I predict that these millions of Americans will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life

If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President ΰ la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police, security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a Cold War clichι) this can also happen in the USA."

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:54 pm

If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President ΰ la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people.

At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people". I suspect that's why a great many of them joined up in the first place. Finally, carefully chosen drone operators thousands or tens of thousands of miles away won't have the slightest problem slaughtering evildoers. That's what they do all the time in their regular jobs.

Brad Owen , January 12, 2017 at 3:44 pm

Don't forget veterans, millions of them. When THEY stepped up to the North Dakota pipeline, security forces backed off. Backwards' described scenario could be our "1991" moment to break free and break the Deep State, and reinstating Glass-Steagall would break their Imperial paymasters in The City and The Street. A new World could suddenly come about, faster than even the USSR/Warsaw Pact disappeared. Reply

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:14 pm

At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people".

Police departments all over the U.S. and other nations have a long history of acting as goon squads and occasional firing squads for their local establishments. Lots of examples in labor histories. Reply

Peter Loeb , January 13, 2017 at 8:23 am

KILLING OUR OWN PEOPLE .

Special thanks to Zachary Smith.

In the US it's called "heroism", patriotism" and the rest. But if we are
inconvenienced to kill our own people, we can kill other peoples'
people. Gigantic weapons deals to Saudi Arabia and Israel
are proof of that.

By the way, did anyone happen to notice in the NDAA (Defense Authorization
Act) the increase of funds to rebels in another country whose goal is to
defeat the Syrian Government?

-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

PS For those who object to our killing our own people in the US join
Black Lives Matter. Reply

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 2:53 am

At the very least, the US should get rid of this prolonged waiting period between the elections and actual assuming power by the president-elect. It was meant to facilitate the orderly transition of power, but as we see now it is serving just the opposite goals. I cannot believe Obama is so keen on hurting Trump he is ready to badly hurt his own country as well. Reply

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:37 pm

Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump

The motive I see is to "soften" him up for his impeachment. Given Trump's temperament, it could be a winning strategy for the people who prefer President Pence. In my barely informed opinion, that would include a majority of both parties in both houses of the US congress.

Joe Tedesky , January 12, 2017 at 1:41 pm

Read section 4 of the 25th amendment .

"Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. Although Donald Trump may give one some consternation to his being a qualified person to sit in the Oval Office, Mike Pence may bring down the house with his religious leanings inside of his political philosophy. Either way we Americans are in for a most interesting time of it in our country's brief history. We should all probably prepare ourselves for the worst, and hope that the best will happen.

Zachary wasn't Mike Pense your governor, or do I have you in the wrong state?

Realist , January 12, 2017 at 4:27 pm

Fascinating and disturbing at the same time. That section was surely MEANT to apply to the president's health and physical capacity to do the job. However, a declaration by the VP (supported only by a simple majority of the cabinet or the congress) "that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" can be based in an insurrection, a coup, or simply the erosion of political capital. Gerald Ford could have argued that Richard Nixon no longer had the support to govern (which is what Nixon himself conceded as the basis for his resignation). It basically gives the VP and whatever insurgents he can muster the ability to quickly overthrow the sitting president without the inconvenience of an impeachment and trial in the Senate. It could be the Maidan without the messy blood all over the pavement. How wonderful.

Very resourceful of you in looking that up, Joe. I would never have imagined the seeds for a coup existed right in the constitution.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:16 am

I have a saying: For the people in law-enforcement, law is a fringe benefit. Those who control law always use it as a tool. Have you ever heard of a coup which was not based on some law, even if it was the one written post-festum by the coup plotters? In other words, a coup is never difficult to justify by the winners.

I have no doubt that the coup that Joe describes is possible. But the issue for the coup plotters has always been: what happens with all the Trump voters after such a coup, the millions of them? Will they sit and just watch the destruction of their social contract?

To some extent such US coup dilemma is not dissimilar to the nuclear war dilemma: easy to start, difficult to finish.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 10:53 am

KIza, nice to hear from you it's been awhile.

Read this link. Trump got 26.8% of the total citizenry to vote for him. In all honesty I haven't seen any polls on how the American populace shakes out on these controversies such as this most recent fake news story, but I would imagine that a clever beat down campaign would be able to soften the blowback .but then again I agree with you to some extent, that by pushing Trump out of office this would have to have some kind of consequence that would not be pretty.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/12/bringing-trump-nation-down-to-size/

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 11:20 am

Joe, in general I am trying to highlight that it is one thing to bamboozle sheeple with a talk of democracy (which does not exist) and another to openly crush even this reassuring lie. I just cannot see the end game of a US coup and Trump is but a minor obstacle if they want to start it.

Therefore, they really want to make a Trump a lame and controllable President, not to take over. Maintaining a reassuring lie of democracy is a much more sophisticated and efficient control mechanism than direct control. I may we wrong but I do believe that Trump is just being house trained/broken by TPTB in front of our eyes.

You write: I have not seen any polls how American populace shakes out on these controversies.
My reading of the online beat is that the Trump voters are not swayed, whilst the Clinton voters use the "controversy" as confirmation that they were right all along about Trump. But then Clinton voters would receive a confirmation even from an oily rag thrown in their direction. In other words, a mountain shook and a mouse was born – almost no change at all on either side.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:56 pm

KIza your comparing Trump's attackers to how the MH17 story was spun is right on.

http://journal-neo.org/2017/01/11/trump-and-mh17-just-one-step-too-far/

Trump is an easy target since his nature is certainly different than that of the usual norm of our politico class who are cookie cutter politicians on the whole. I'm disappointed by how people such as Michael Moore are going out of their way attacking Trump, while they completely ignore how corrupt and dishonest the Clinton's are.

I wouldn't go so far as to predict that Trump supporters won't rebel against his impeachment, but there again I believe the Trump supporters would be out numbered due to an over aggressive media who could sway the majority into believing we must get Trump out of office. Any other method other than impeachment is to horrible to even contemplate, so let's hope that all of our concerns turn to ashes, and that for the good or bad of it that Trump finishes out his first term in good health.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm

Yes, Joe, those 26.8% of citizenry who voted for Trump are built into 75-76% of citizenry who do not believe in the MSM any more and in the John Brennan's two kitchen sinks, that is, his two top secret but leakable kompromat dossiers on Trump – the first one apparently from an MI6 agent and the second one promoted by the BBC (source unknown yet).

But this is not about Clintons any more, this is about the owners of the Clintons training/braking Trump to be like the Clintons. If they cannot have a Clinton as a President, they want to have a President as Clinton. If kompromat does not work, maybe a billet will, their patience is limited.

Always enjoyable to exchange thoughts with you Joe.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 11:14 am

Realist, considering how our country's founders were a bunch of slave owners declaring how all men are created equally well need I say more?

Words are just words, that is until lawyers interpret these legal words into a reality, which doesn't always fit into our own personal definition of a certain word usage. You and I deal with this stuff all the time. Whether it be a traffic ticket, or an ordinance summons, we read one thing, and the judge administers another thing. Prisons are filled with people who swear with, 'yeah but' explanations which give these prisoners no relief what so ever so I do think these crafty legislators could pull a fast one, and install Mike Pence into the White House. Let's you and I hope that I'm the one out in left field with my 25th amendment comment, and that we won't end up with a Christian whack job as our president. Reply

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 5:23 pm

Yeah, Pence was elected Governor of Indiana. But despite this state being one of the most conservative in the nation, Pence was too "nutty" and "far-right" for Mississippi North, and would have surely been defeated. Now the man is one heartbeat/one impeachment conviction from becoming President of the United States.

Quote: "From his denial of climate change to his belief in creationism, Pence is the most hard-right radical to ever appear on a national ticket. Just this week a federal court had to block his atrocious bill barring Syrian refugees from his state because his reasoning that Syrians scare him is discriminatory."

Quote: "it is a literal truth, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am in Congress today because of Rush Limbaugh, and not because of some tangential impact on my career or his effect on the national debate; but because in fact after my first run for Congress in 1988, it was the new national voice emerging in 1989 across the heartland of Indiana of one Rush Hudson Limbaugh, III, that captured my imagination.""

It's a fact we are very, very close to having a Rush 'druggie' Limpaugh clone as President. In my opinion, Pence is Trump's worst mistake up till now. If they can't have Hillary, for the neocons and neo-liberals and the Christian End-Timers there remains Worse-Than-Hillary Mike Pence.

Trump is a Trojan horse for a cabal of vicious zealots who have long craved an extremist Christian theocracy, and Pence is one of its most prized warriors. With Republican control of the House and Senate and the prospect of dramatically and decisively tilting the balance of the Supreme Court to the far right, the incoming administration will have a real shot at bringing the fire and brimstone of the second coming to Washington.

"The enemy, to them, is secularism. They want a God-led government. That's the only legitimate government," contends Jeff Sharlet, author of two books on the radical religious right, including "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power." "So when they speak of business, they're speaking not of something separate from God, but they're speaking of what, in Mike Pence's circles, would be called biblical capitalism, the idea that this economic system is God-ordained."

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/mike-pence-will-be-the-most-powerful-christian-supremacist-in-us-history/

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:36 pm

Zachary I looked forward to your reply, since you always have references to your level headed comments .so thanks for getting back to me.

In my world I don't even like bringing up the word God, or religion, since I believe a government should be governed in a truly secular way. Who I pray to, and who I pay taxes to, are two completely different things. My devotion to God is a very private matter, and I don't need some politician interpreting God's greatness to me in anyway. So with that if Mike Pense wants to preach the gospel to me, then he should resign from public office and become a full fledged preacher and even then I will not go to his mean spirited church. Amen.

Realist , January 13, 2017 at 3:13 pm

What a troubling coincidence that Hulu is releasing its production of "the Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood this April, which tells the story of the United States government being taken over by extreme Christian fundamentalists and the consequences, especially to women and religious dissenters. Read the book by Atwood and you'll see where Isis/Daesh got many of their ideas on punishment and control of the masses. The Spanish Inquisition was six hundred years ago, but its urges lie just beneath the veneer of our civilised modern world. Human nature hasn't changed, only technology has. I thought this country was in danger of playing out the novel during Dubya's administration, as 9-11 was exactly the kind of pretext for such a takeover in the book's plot narrative and the Islamic world was portrayed as the great global adversary just as many Americans believe in the real world. Trump has never struck me as a religious man, certainly not a zealot, but Pence, with a little help from the Deep State, he could bring this disturbing novel to life.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:16 pm

I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence.

A very plausible and ominous possibility.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:53 am

Seriously Bill even taking into consideration how some like Glenn Beck along with Rick Santelli ridiculed an early President Obama back in 2009, I can't recall a more hostile media such as the likes of how this current day corporate media is going after Trump. True, that Donald Trump by just being Donald Trump can be an outrageous person with his words and actions, but still I just can't get over the 24/7 media coverage, and how most of it isn't good coverage at that. This leaves me to wonder if we all are not being setup for something big.

With Trump's winning streak putting away a whole herd of Republican primary candidates, and how he sent 'low energy Jeb' packing, and then to go on and beat Hillary by his winning the Electoral vote, he has had a great run. Now Donald Trump is battling not only the CIA/FBI/NSA, but he is also bumping up against the congressional establishment. You know that McCain and Graham hate him, but you can only bet that there is yet much more to come.

I'm sorry, but I don't sense there is much good to come with all of this. Thanks for the reply.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:57 am

Joe, I wonder if people missed the crazy similarity of the media campaign on the Trump "report" and the one on MH17 ?

It appears that the TPTB have decided that if they generate enough media screaming, the lack of proof does not matter any more.

Thus, I have become a strong proponent of the theory that whatever TPTB use outside, it is only a practice for what they will use (more productively) inside. Drones anyone?

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:06 pm

KIza read my comment above, it pertains to what you brought up here.

Gregory Herr , January 13, 2017 at 2:44 pm

Weaponized drones anyone?

http://youtu.be/1sK5mDTCNEU

Pablo Diablo , January 12, 2017 at 12:42 pm

All this turmoil and a dysfunctional Congress insures that nothing will change. The 1% loves the status quo and will do anything to preserve it. Simply a smokescreen to keep US from dealing with the corporate stranglehold on our government.
An Empire in decline. Reply

Mike Flores , January 12, 2017 at 1:24 pm

While others laugh and make jokes, those of us who study Intel know that what just happened with the leaked report was that the CIA has involved itself in U.S. politics, which it is forbidden to do. How did the alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA begin? President Truman had allowed 200 Nazi Intel agents to come into the U.S. – including the men who created the blueprint for the holocaust. Fearing Joe McCarthy would discover this, the CIA faked an Intel report and has spent decades ever since lying about Joe. They actually confessed that his 2 lists were correct, so they had to fool him with a fake dossier right before the Army hearings to shake his confidence. Just search CIA AND THE POND and you will find on their website STUDIES IN INTELLIGENCE in the last third of the article a full confession of framing Joe. This Facebook photo album THE REAL JOSEPH McCARTHY is packed with forbidden information and can be viewed with this link by anyone whether they are on FB or not. The alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA began by hiding the people responsible for the holocaust. ( We should keep in mind Truman was KKK and forbade the bombing of the train tracks to the death camps. The reason soldiers were not prepared for the camps was that none had been told about them. Truman did not want our troops wasting time on them). Interesting to note that absolutely no one has ever done an article or book on the impact of the beliefs of the KKK on the 5 Democrats who were Presidents and Klansmen in the 20th century. That would reveal the true nature of the Democratic Party.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153995222685986.1073741929.695490985&type=1&l=6dd1544b9d Reply

Bill , January 12, 2017 at 1:37 pm

You don't mention President Obama, but it certainly seems likely that he's involved with this. Who told Brennan and Clapper to go on TV to hype the intelligence reports and bad-mouth the next President?

And were the leakers within the agencies acting on their own, or were they given orders from above? There's a conspiracy going on and it's not my imagination.

Does the behavior rise to the level of treason or espionage?

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:58 pm

Obama is a deadhead it is Brennan who instructs him. But who instructs Brennan? Reply

Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 1:46 pm

As I have just learned from another reader's comment on another article, David Spring has augmented his earlier article to an 85-page expose. Seems it was both a leak and a hack, but in neither case by "the Russians."

I hope Ray McGovern and especially Wm Binney (and some Trump guy) read this and tell us what they think!

https://turningpointnews.org/hack-everything-special-report

Lois Gagnon , January 13, 2017 at 11:04 am

I read it last night. Very much worth the couple of hours it took. Reply

Realist , January 14, 2017 at 3:42 am

Well, that's THE comprehensive treatment in a nutshell. Everything documented chronologically. Nothing important left out. Everything explained clearly and concisely. As organised as possible and argued like a philosopher rather than a lawyer. The man has exceptional writing skills as well as incredible computer knowledge. I'd like to see him question Clapper on the witness stand. I hope that President Trump puts the Justice Department on this case to do a thorough investigation, including potential indictments of spooks that perjured themselves and/or engaged in partisan activities during the election and its ugly aftermath. Reply

Oleg , January 12, 2017 at 2:47 pm

I am really surprised to no end. Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government? I do not really know what would happen in the US but in Russia there would be riots. Any leader in Russia can govern only until he/she is trusted. Think Tsar Nicholas II, Gorbachev I hope it will not get to this and some sanity will prevail in your country.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:22 pm

Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government?

What credibility? Oleg, if you check the graphic at the top of the right sidebar on this page you will see a reference to "I. F. Stone" who was one of this nation's great journalists of the 20th Century. He is noted for a dictum that says, "All governments lie." All governments certainly include the U.S. government. You can get plenty of examples of lies with a little effort.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 11:12 pm

Lies out of government agencies and elected politicians are not the only problem. Hypocrisy is another and has been part of American governance since the writing of the Declaration of Independence by slave owners who said that all men are created equal with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now hypocrisy is rampant with politicians decrying alleged Russian intervention is U.S. elections with the claim that it is wrong for any nation to interfere in the elections of another nation. There is no nation on the planet that interferes in the governments of other nations than the United States. Reply

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:02 am

Well, I certainly agree, but a government can still be largely trusted even if they resort to some petty lies. As we all do too sometimes. But this this is not a petty thing, this is an intentional attack on the whole institution of elections and democracy when they try to impeach the elected President because some part of the establishment, not the people, dislike him. This has a potential to really get very dangerous, and having any kind of uprisings (as was also mentioned by other commenters above) in a country like the US is extremely dangerous for the whole world. Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 3:01 pm

Anyone in Washington seeking a golden shower from a couple of Russian prostitutes just has to hop on one of those all-expenses-paid AIPAC junkets to Israel.

It's truly amazing how streams of urine help elevate one's anxiety about Iran's nuclear energy program.

Adam , January 13, 2017 at 3:11 am

Best comment, Abe! Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 3:25 pm

American journalist and activist Chris Hedges noted a key purpose of the declassified report "Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election" from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI):

"to justify the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization beyond Germany, a violation of the promise Ronald Reagan made to the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Expanding NATO in Eastern Europe opened up an arms market for the war industry. It made those businesses billions of dollars. New NATO members must buy Western arms that can be integrated into the NATO arsenal. These sales, which are bleeding the strained budgets of countries such as Poland, are predicated on potential hostilities with Russia. If Russia is not a threat, the arms sales plummet. War is a racket."

The Real Purpose of the U.S. Government's Report on Alleged Hacking by Russia
By Chris Hedges
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_purpose_of_the_us_governments_report_on_alleged_hacking_by_russi

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 4:54 pm

Israeli arms sales to Europe more than doubled from $724 million in 2014 to $1.63 billion in 2015. http://jfjfp.com/?p=83806

Israel is the leading arms exporter in the world per capita (2014), and ranks 11th among the top 20 exporters of military equipment and systems (2011-15).

75-80% of Israeli military exports are generated by just three companies - the state-owned Rafael and Israel Aerospace Industries and the publicly traded Elbit Systems.

The largest categories of Israeli military exports are upgrading aircraft and aerospace systems (14%), radar and electronic systems (12%), drones (11%), and intelligence and information systems (10%).

In 2015, the Russian government described Israel's delivery of lethal weapons to Ukraine as "counterproductive". There is a close arms trade and production co-operation between Israel and Poland. Israeli companies have invested in building arms manufacturing facilities in Poland. Reply

jfl , January 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm

However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

- said to have been said by redhat richelieu

what is known is that the nsa/cia/fbi have all the dirt on everyone, and that they use it on the leaders of the eu, for instance.

if the only thing that comes out of this filthy little exercise is the death of the nsa/cia/fbi – superpower america's superstazi – by executive fiat it will have been worth trump's election.

it's either that or another dead president. with pence playing lbj. Reply

F. G. Sanford , January 12, 2017 at 3:41 pm

Funny how these "leaks" work, isn't it? If there really were an "insider" able to provide insight on the deepest, darkest secrets that had been gathered by Russian intelligence, why would any responsible intelligence agency completely destroy that asset only to expose a mundane fetish like "golden showers"? But don't anybody dare leak "The Torture Report". Don't even consider leaking information about war crimes, election fraud, financial crimes, murder, state corruption or state sponsorship of terrorism.

Just my opinion, but here's how it really went. The "hack" scenario is a diversion from the "leak" scenario. The "deep state" didn't really want Hillary. While she may superficially represent their interests, the Clinton machine is too knowledgeable, too experienced and too selfish and self-centered to predictably execute their programs. The Clintons have plenty of dirt on them. But they had enough dirt on her to compromise her electability. They don't want Trump either, but they can manufacture or dig up enough dirt to compromise his Presidency. Their first choice was Jeb Bush. Their second choice is Mike Pence.

The DNC stuff was leaked by an insider, and the Podesta stuff was hacked by the NSA. The only plausible alternative points to hacking attempts by the neo-Nazi Ukrainian hacking outfit "RuH8", not the Russians.

A bunch of recent articles seek to analyze Barack Obama's legacy, personality and motivations. That's all superfluous. The "real deal" has been well documented. His grandparents were CIA His mother was CIA His first job after law school was with Banking international Corporation, a CIA "front company". He was groomed and thoroughly vetted.

Nobody wants to hear the truth or look at real evidence. The circumstantial – though well documented – evidence connecting Ted Cruz's father to the anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald is actually much more plausible and substantial than the evidence for "Russian hacking" of the election, yet the general public has no problem dismissing that as a "conspiracy theory".

Between the two, Trump was perceived – mistakenly – as the lesser threat to the "deep state". Just a guess, but we may be about to see all hell break loose.

It's about time some journalists and researchers started naming names and making lists. The "New McCarthyism" uses lists to good advantage. It creates the perception of a vast subversive network dedicated to destroying our "democracy". Until some names are named and fingers pointed, the "deep state" and its intelligence community enforcement arm will continue to control the "democracy" we don't really have. Blackmail is just one of their methods, and it's far from the worst.

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 4:14 pm

Funny how these "streams," er, "leaks" work:

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.764452

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 10:17 pm

Buzzfeed's "explosive and unverified" golden shower (guess that's not highlighter on the documents):
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.pdf

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 4:42 am

And someone has been paying for this crap? If anything, this report exposes its authors much more than anybody else. Reply

Abe , January 13, 2017 at 1:00 pm

The "authors" dominate a post-truth regime that demands popular attention to and participation in its discursive games.

Are you not entertained?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs Reply

F. G. Sanford , January 13, 2017 at 6:37 pm

My favorite quotes from the "Company Intelligence Report":

"However, he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow " (Is this a pun?)

"PUTIN angry with senior officials who "overpromised" on TRUMP and further heads likely to roll as result. Foreign minister LAVROV may be next" (What Putin is going to make him change the sheets in Trump's hotel room?)

" TRUMP has paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities there but key witnesses silenced and evidence hard to obtain" (Were the "key" witnesses the same ones that claim Putin shot down MH-17?)

I think they dug up the script writers from "The Man from Uncle" and put them back to work. This sounds like a Quinn Martin Production straight out of a Hollywood "B Movie". Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 10:24 pm

First Draft coalition "partner" BuzzFeed is leading the charge to make fake news, hybrid war propaganda, and hoaxes "more shareable and more social"

https://firstdraftnews.com/buzzfeed-wants-use-social-media-might-take-hoaxers/ Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 5:09 pm

Funny how that "leak" worked:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb565-Was-U.S.-Nuclear-Weapons-Fuel-Diverted-to-Israel/

"OK, but I doubt advisability of getting into this (redacted)." – FBI Director J. Edgard Hoover Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 5:17 pm

Funny how that other "leak" worked:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB407/ Reply

Gregory Kruse , January 12, 2017 at 8:37 pm

FG, I'm not gay, but I always scroll down to find your comment. You are always looking into the big picture, not the big illusion.

backwardsevolution , January 13, 2017 at 1:44 am

Gregory – I agree. His comments are always very good. Reply

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Me three.

F. G. Sanford , January 13, 2017 at 6:41 pm

Thanks to all – sometimes I wonder if it's worth putting in my two cents. We're probably a statistically insignificant group of readers on the world's stage, but I like to think at least it's worth a try. Reply

Jessica K , January 12, 2017 at 4:34 pm

We must organize beyond cyberspace as this is a coup in action. CIA is greatest meddler of all nations, coups and assassinations well documented. DC is the Aegean stable that must be cleaned, a truly Herculean task and We the People have to get organized because this planet is imperiled. Agree with Dan that whole sordid mess is beyond a swamp, a stinking pit and pitchforks are necessary! Reply

LJ , January 12, 2017 at 4:36 pm

It's more doublethink logic from the Intelligence heads. It would require a tremendous leap of faith for anyone with a brain to think that Russia/Putin/Lavrov would use this info, if it existed at all, in public manner. To do so wouldn't help them achieve a goal and it would only hurt Russia .. The tape would never become public even if it existed. That means this rumor is clearly slander and was aimed at some political end. . Where is the smoking gun?, sorry. By the way , Putin is friends with Bertoloscini , Sarkozy and other notorious womanizers and is known to like women himself. This is not something he would do. He is not a mobster. This is puerile and it is coming from the Democrats although the word is that George Bush initially hired the guy, the former MI5 spy, who wrote the dossier/smear piece on Trump in the first place. . Hoover would have kept it in shop and tried to leverage Trump himself. Reply

Bernie , January 12, 2017 at 5:09 pm

There's an article at ABC News today about US tanks rolling into Poland. This reminds me of Nazis rolling into Austria in 1938 and then Poland on Sept 1, 1941 to start WWII. "American soldiers rolled into Poland on Thursday, fulfilling a dream some Poles have had since the fall of communism in 1989 to have U.S. troops on their soil as a deterrent against Russia. Some people waved and held up American flags as U.S. troops in tanks and other vehicles crossed into southwestern Poland from Germany and headed toward the town of Zagan, where they will be based. "

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm

Like Poland, Ukraine is eager to express its devotion to the Reich, er, its "Euro-Atlantic aspirations".

If only for the sake of NATO "cooperation" and "capacity building", Poland and Ukraine have much to forgive and forget:

http://observer.com/2016/09/from-friends-to-bitter-rivals-poland-and-ukraine-accuse-each-other-of-genocide/

Of course, reports of Russian "euphoria" remain "unconfirmed". Reply

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:36 pm

Absurd. Who is this "they" everyone is talking about? How many are/is this 'they'? 5, 10 20? Who is in control of 'they'? Who's in charge? The political elite? Do they have a club and do they meet for bridge every Tuesday? Do they have a secret handshake? Are they all really Mason's?

This conspiracy holds no credibility because 'they' is just an 'idea'. That is all. Until someone can give names of those who are responsible and running this political elite then its all storybook conjecture. We should be more concerned with the obvious psychological dementia affecting the president elect. He was a total looney tune in that press conference.

Wendi , January 12, 2017 at 5:52 pm

Here are the names.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/meet-the-80-people-who-are-as-rich-as-half-the-world/

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 7:09 pm

What you are saying with this list then, Wendi, it is not the political elites, intelligence agencies or career politicians whoTrump continuously rails against as the cause for the end of the American Empire. It is the financial hierarchies that Trump so desperately wants to be a part of. Putin is obviously at the top of this list and Trump sees him as a way to become a player in this club. That makes sense to me. Reply

Dr. Ibrahim Soudy , January 12, 2017 at 6:14 pm

"THEY" are the people who control the MONEY. They are referred to as the BANKERS. Those are a mafia that runs the political circus BEHIND the scene. The parties and elections are a diversion to keep the idiots busy arguing with each other like the crazy fans of sports teams. The BANKERS always make sure that the "idiots" are choosing between alternatives that ultimately BOW to the BANKERS. Read for example the following:

– "All the President's Bankers" by Naomi Prins.

– "Memoirs" by David Rockefeller.

– "The Crisis of Democracy" a publication of the Tri-Lateral Commission on their website.

-Here's How Goldman Sachs Became the Overlord of the Trump Administration
http://wallstreetonparade.com/

-Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism | The Inline image 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-whetten/goldman-wall-street-and-f_b.. .
Jun 19, 2010 · The most disturbing aspect of the recent Goldman Sachs lawsuit isn't just the legal violations involved Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism.

-Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists | FacebookInline image 1
http://www.facebook.com/Stop.Goldman
Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists. 95,662 likes · 6,188 talking about this. Get the Honest truth on the economy, this page sponsors no organization

Those will give you a good start ..Good Luck. Reply

Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 7:29 am

Perhaps you do not mean the ridicule you suggest. The effects of economic aristocracy and political conspiracy are of course not "storybook conjecture" but the combined deductions of experienced observers. That would become conjecture only if specific persons were accused, which is seldom done without evidence.

The demand for detailed evidence of an old-fashioned conspiracy to effect societal trends is not valid. It becomes propaganda when used to attack the means by which we all deduce that events are driven by cabals, or loose organizations of interested parties. While we are occasionally surprised by the detailed evidence that emerges long after events, even that is incomplete and not very relevant.

The means of ridicule shows its invalidity. There is no reason to speculate upon clubs, meetings, or handshakes, as there is no need for such specific or antiquated organization. No modern organization works that way, no one has suggested that, and no one here has reasoned from such nonsense, but rather from well documented effects of cabals. So I hope that you merely overstated a wish for more evidence.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:49 am

Bravo. Reply

Howard Mettee , January 12, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Robert, Could it not be true that the real losers in the neocon push to extend the American dominion might actually be the intelligence services? They have become so politicized in domestic politics since the Iraq War build up (a la Rice, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell) that they figure they can shape American public opinion to support any war, no matter how "unthreatening" the enemy (say Russia) might actually be. Originally they were basically "fact collectors" (objective) – at first from around the world, but since 9/11's Patriot Act, at home also. Then, they became "interpreters and analyzers of motives" which takes a bit of a weed-gee board (subjective!) on the part of the "experienced eye". When whatever these very effective (and appreciated) fact collectors opine suddenly becomes gospel in their "estimates" (interpretation), we have lost the ability to even influence the fate of our nation. Is this the country I grew up in? Or, has it been this way since we were led so effectively to support World War I? Take care, HM Reply

Thurgle , January 12, 2017 at 6:44 pm

The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid the huge sums for the research that produced the story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow. They never say the funders are unknown, but instead use devices like the passive tense to avoid saying. But it would be very interesting to know who signed the checks. Apparently, there was a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It would be very interesting to know who these funders were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid saying. Reply

BlackPete , January 12, 2017 at 7:46 pm

When it comes to cavorting with prostitutes JFK was the undisputed champion. Given the high regard JFK is held in in some circles maybe Trump's alleged misbehaviour is a positive sign. Also, now that Trump's behaviour has been made public isn't the Russian threat to expose him now worthless and their alleged hold/influence gone?

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 8:01 pm

Its not about the hookers. That's useless drivel. It's about the potential of illegal financial dealings with Russia prior to the election. Just show the damn tax returns. What the hell is he afraid of? What could possibly go wrong?

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Are you keen on asking Clintons to reveal their financial dealings with Saudis, the sponsors of 9/11?
How about the Kagans' clan being currently "supported" financially by Qatari?
And this is much more interesting than tax return: "The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid the huge sums for the research that produced the story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow. They never say the funders are unknown, but instead use devices like the passive tense to avoid saying. But it would be very interesting to know who signed the checks. Apparently, there was a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It would be very interesting to know who these funders were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid saying."

col from oz , January 12, 2017 at 10:25 pm

I read it was Rubio commissioned the dirt.
Look at day 69 of eric braverman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwKhbsASDhI Reply

akech , January 12, 2017 at 8:07 pm

Is this the face of the "DEEP STATE"?

It is controlling, deceptive, organized, bloody and does not give a "rat ass" about the needs of any other human being on earth who does not belong to it!

It neither tolerates opposing views from anybody who does not belong to its members nor allows the outsiders to organize . It is determined to be the lens through which everybody under its control see the rest of the world; any conclusion drawn by the besieged population, based on what it is forced to see, must conform to the "DEEP STATE" norms; otherwise, you are in deep trouble. The POTUS or the Congress must toe lines dictated by the members of this organization, (the Deep State). We are observing that no effort is being spared to see to it that President-Elect toes the "DEEP STATE" line; it is deep and scary indeed! Reply

John , January 12, 2017 at 8:40 pm

Russia is the half naked female in the magic show The real slight of hand is the relationship with the American oligarch and china .wow !!! . talking about messing with the bottom line some of you big brain folks will get this in 4 ..3 2 ..lol Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm

What I Learned From the Intelligence Report on "Russian Hacking"
By James Corbett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ecxu7EStgs Reply

CitizenOne , January 12, 2017 at 9:55 pm

There is little doubt that the obvious blackmail will never be covered in that light by main stream media. To those of us who are historians or are natural skeptics or have actually lived through those times, this is all fairly obvious. They are trying to put Donald Trump in a corner so he can be controlled.

I suspect that is why Trump retained Steve Bannon for. Not just a house racist but someone who can get down and dirty on those that dish up dirt on Trump. We'll have to see if it works. Headlines: "Donald unleashes TwitterBomb on CIA". But he'll have to go on the internet since the CIA owns the press in the USA.

He has two choices. Listen to the CIA and do their bidding which is the requirement to start WWIII with Russia or resist and be smeared in the press. It's an uphill battle too. Unlike Silvio Berlusconi or Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump does not actually own the press. That will make it especially hard to do.

This thing is shaping up to be a geopolitical oil war. Rex and the Russians vs the Saudi/CIA Team USA.

All I can say is fine America. Don't give a damn about privacy. Don't give a damn about anything. But one of these days this massive spying ring gathering every shred of any and all traces of your life and filing them away forever cannot be good. It will most certainly not end well.

When AI has us all pinned up against a wall threatening to out all of us if we do not do exactly what it wants then what will we do?

We need some privacy laws. Also we need to throw the main stream media out with the trash. It is pure evil. Back in the day, the press wouldn't run the stories about MLKs extramarital affairs it recorded secretly. The press demanded to know the source of the B.S. and the FBI did not want to tip their hand so the Mexican standoff led to the suicide letter which said "if you accept the Nobel Prize, we will shame you and ruin you and you should consider preserving you legacy by killing yourself instead. At least the MSM had some ethical standards and smelled a rat and refused to run the stories. Imagine that. If MLK was alive today we and we still had segregation, people and the media would fight to keep it! MLK would be a portrayed in the press as a philandering bad guy. A sexual predator. The Civil Rights movement would end in a quagmire of gossip surrounding its leader.

The Republicans have certainly had their fun with it too making Monica Lewinsky describe to a court the distinctive features of the president's privates. I bet they were rolling in the aisles when that happened. Now it's their turn. Will they defend Trump or will they hope that perhaps Mike Pence would make a better leader.

All this tawdry B.S. really gets old fast. I could care less what people do in private as long as nobody gets hurt.

One person abroad when asked what they thought about Bill Clinton's circumstances replied they were confused since after all we were not electing the Pope. Amen. I feel the same way about Trump. It's all B.S.

The problem is America can't remember what happened yesterday. We are collectively like terminal Alzheimer patients. Two seconds after we see something, we forget it and are completely susceptible to B.S.in two seconds after we forgot what just happened which ignores the facts which occurred a mere two seconds earlier but we are none the wiser since we can't remember what happened more than two seconds ago. That means there are a lot of opportunities each day to fool us.

What ever happened to the story about James Comey influencing the election? We just forgot it. What ever happened to all of the other historically "likely suspects" thought to have been likely suspects in vote rigging schemes. They are all absent and not presented as possible influencers of the election by our CIA owned press. Instead we are presented with a fake narrative filled with salacious gossip and naughty bits designed to turn public opinion into a weapon for further increases in militarization and military spending while preserving foreign relationships which benefit wealthy investors.

We need to wake up and start taking some strong medicine to ward off the Alzheimer disease that is affecting us in order to put the daily snow job presented by the MSM and the CIA into perspective. That perspective would include what just happened two seconds ago.

Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen since the medication would have to include administering it to the MSM too.

The ability of the MSM to erase our collective memory and present us with a new fake narrative on any given day should ring alarm bells that we are obviously vulnerable to being fooled.

We are being fooled. Every day. Time to start taking the meds. Reply

Jurgen , January 12, 2017 at 10:01 pm

This is no "deep state" this is rather in-plain-sight US Government at work.
Trivial task:
1) Create a dense smoke screen by broadcasting on every single TV channel non-stop anti-Russian and anti-Trump*** hysteria (they know it can't go wrong – they know Trump would try to reply to every single fake thus making their task easier and the picture even more colorful)
2) Behind that smoke screen ship few thousands of US troops and tanks over to Poland and to those parasitic micro quasi-states in Baltic and by doing that de-facto lay foundation for 4-5 new military bases,
which (yet another NATO expansion) otherwise would not be approved and likely axed by Trump. But now it went through s-m-o-u-ht-ly, like a butter. Highest class of the old Shell Game. Where CIA, FBI and other spook shops are used as shills and the population of the US are total losers (everyone's taxes will be used to pay for that yet another NATO expansion).
3) Behind the same smoke screen Obamacare has just been demolished late last night, congrats 20 million of poor folks!

*** Just wait till grainy videos surface showing some naked figures – one of them would be vaguely resembling Trump.
That'd be no hard task for talented movie makers from either PSYOP or/and PAG (just remember their masterpieces featuring Jessica Lynch and other ones featuring fat "Osama bin Laden"-looking dude).

Note: Authorization to create and finance state Propaganda apparatus, S.2943, was quietly passed late Friday night Dec.23 behind the smoke screen of the same anti-Russian and anti-Trump hysteria, thus what we are seeing now is perfectly lawful – propaganda machine at full throttle, who said bureaucracy is slow(?)

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 10:05 pm

is not it nice that Obama is leaving office while being decorated with salacious fake stories which he is promoting Petty and dishonest in everything.

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 11:17 pm

I tried to watch his good riddance speech last night, but couldn't get through the half of it. For relief I turned to this video:

http://youtu.be/F5K7UmYkD1I Reply

Franz Rock , January 12, 2017 at 10:11 pm

As a non-citicen one has to wonder about the mind boggling machination the US politic is capable of.
After WW2 the European countries looked upon the USA as the beacon of democratic values.
How bitter for the young generation to find, bit by bit, that behind the American facade lurked a system
of smoke and mirrors. As ruthless as the very system they replaced in Europe. Slowly sugarcoating
their deep aims of domination. Under words like freedom,liberty and equality there is the underlying
unbelievable lust for money and with it power. From a human point of view, and the thinking person,
the politics and aims of the United States of America is an abomination for all the worlds people.

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:27 am

I certainly agree with you, but also I am really saddened that this pattern is far from being unique and repeats itself all over and over again. The power corrupts, and it is true for states as well as for people. But the US are indeed a sad champion in hypocrisy. Their predecessors were not as skilled in hiding their true intentions behind the screen of freedom and all other very attractive values. This makes it especially hard to accept. Reply

Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:08 am

You've fingered the wrong culprits, or rather indicted fellow victims. It's the same bloody, titled ruling class and their managerial elites in business and banking from old-line European/British families who've been playing their Imperial games and still are. THEY created the late 19th century Synachist Movement for Empire (SME) that gave birth to Fascism and its' feverish twin NAZIism,really just movements to update the workings of the old-fashioned European Empires. It's also the Cecil Rhodes/Milner RoundTable Group that dove-tailed with SME machinations to update old Empires, campaigning strenuously, through their managerial elites on Wall Street, to recapture their "rogue colony" USA and bring it into the British version of Empire. Right at the moment of FDR's death (may have been assassination), the tables were turned on us, with Churchill leading stupid Truman around by the nose speaking of iron curtains and Red Scares and Cold Wars. FDR's intelligence community was taken over by Anglophile RoundTable allies in the post-war 40s. Having helped win the battles, we lost the War to the fascist/NAZI SME and RoundTable groups who never received so much as a scratch from all the bombs and bullets. Have you seen the show Hunting Hitler? WWII never ended, the methods of fighting just changed.

Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:44 am

P.S. Not only did WWII never end, just a change in fighting methods, BUT the SME/RoundTable Groups managed to get the two most powerful allies turned against each other: USSR and USA, so that we, together, couldn't focus on the REAL enemy; SME/RoundTable group of elites (which would have happened under FDR in post-war. He would have been President until January 1949 if he hadn't died/been killed, Stalin told FDRs son that "that Churchill gang killed him" been trying to do the same to Stalin) and THIS is why Trumps' Russophilia is such a grave and real threat to our Establishment.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:13 pm

Brad you hit the nail on the head with your comments here .bravo! Reply

John P , January 14, 2017 at 9:55 pm

Where on earth did you get this fable. Roosevelt had polio and needed a wheelchair, he was a heavy smoker, had high blood pressure, angina followed by congestive heart failure all finalized by a stoke. He had been weakening over a long period. This is all before the days of polonium the USSR uses to kill its foes today.
Russia wasn't following the agreements drawn up in Yalta and fair free elections were not provided in Poland and many Poles who fought for the allies in the war felt betrayed. The Soviets went their own way, so were we to tell the Poles, tough.
Allied convoys, mainly British, at great cost in ships and men, supplied the Russians with war supplies. They faced U-boats and heavily armed German battle-cruisers in freezing arctic waters. After the war Germany got assistance in rebuilding, but the British were held to paying off debts for US build liberty ships used to replace ships lost on the Atlantic convoys. I had an uncle who's ship was sunk and very luckily, after much time in a life boat, was picked up. Many Americans sat back and watched until Pearl Harbour. The British had warned the Americans some time before, that they had lost contact with one of the Japanese fleets they were following, and you can guess the consequences.
Britain saw what was coming when Germany attacked Poland and declared war on Germany. We didn't have much. My father was almost killed assisting surgeon in a Liverpool hospital and luckily had to leave to go out in an ambulance. When he came back the OR was gone. Bombed out. Luckily on another occasion, the day staff had been told to stay on duty with the night staff and the nursing residence was flattened. We had rationing until 1950, and had to grow food in our small back garden, sprouts, peas, cabbage. We had 6 chickens and a rooster, a source of much needed nutrition from eggs. I remember my mother weeping terribly after telling the police she had lost her ration books. As a young lad I went on a search and eventually found them in the folds of a chair. You may never have had to live through something like that.
And if you think America is any better than others, read "What is America?" by Ronald Wright. Learn about the Trail of Tears and traders knowingly giving natives blankets used by whites with small-pox.

Brad Owen , January 15, 2017 at 6:47 am

You relate the manufactured cover story, thanks to the anglophile Intel community that took over in post-war forties, and did their typical change of the narration, much like they do today with the phony crap about Russian aggression. This kind of sh!t has been going on since the revolution, as the wealthy and powerful Imperial Tories never left and never relented. I got this"fable" from EIR and Tarpley.net. It makes more sense to me than the current fable we call history. Check it out for yourself, it amounts to mountains of articles and essays. It took me years to piece it all together and relay it adequately in brief paragraphs. Choose to believe there is no over-arching Imperial ruling class inimical to the interests of commoners if you want. I refuse to be blind to it anymore.

David F., N.A. , January 12, 2017 at 10:18 pm

What if the intelligence community wasn't choosing between HRC and Trump, but, in stead, between HRC and Pence. So no matter who won, wouldn't this hedged election mean business as usual?

Sorry, HRC, but for this downward neoliberal/fascist spiral thingy to work, you lesser-of-2-evil conservaDems are just going to have to learn to share with the equally-corrupt conservatives. See ya in 4 (or maybe 8 (naw, 4)).

Hail to the de facto Chief. da dada da dada dada dada da. Reply

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:36 pm

You forgot to declare who is the drag queen in this matter?

Let's warn these evil psychopaths that a JFK OUTCOME IS OFF LIMITS.
That is the inference of your article.

By the way, Trump NEVER READ THE REPORT PRIVATELY. THERE WAS AN ORAL PRESENTATION, & CLAPPER & Brennan took the CLASSIFIED documents back with them. Trump never read the 2 pg libel nor was it discussed in the presentation.

Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:38 am

This is also reminiscent of Hoover and JFK. When JFK attended Hoover's office, he was handed the President's file. JFK read some of the file while Hoover waited. When JFK stood up to leave, Hoover told the President that the file remains with him. No wonder JFK and Bobby hated this dangerous psychopath. Reply

John P , January 12, 2017 at 11:43 pm

It's all slime, Americans let their political system fall into the trap of big money (lobbying system and PACs) and neo-liberalism. I have no faith that Trump has the capabilities to be a good president. His dialogue is simple, his temper easily aroused as are his feelings of hurt. He shows little historical knowledge or political skills and speaks in a petty childish way. Who is going to pay for the southern border wall ?! What is going to replace Obama's medical care programs, more big business institutions ?! To me it looks like the Palestinians are on the Titanic run by captain Trump and his son-in law, and only minutes to go. What real in depth policies has Trump ever stated ?! Look out because Trump has a habit of passing on the bills be it cash, broken promises or a road you never thought he would take.
And yes we need a calming down and discussion between the US, Russia and China, but I don't see any hope in the line of folks Trump has chosen or Clinton. To me, Trump is like passenger on an aircraft in which the pilot has expired and he is relying on others to tell him what to do because he has no idea or understanding.
I think this and a world where jobs have been taken by microprocessors and robots, is a very dangerous place and we don't need a blind narcissist leading the way. Sadly Bernie Sanders got burnt on the stake. Reply

Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:28 am

At times like this I miss the wise words of the late Chalmers Johnson. Chalmers was not encouraged by the possibility of America stepping back from her efforts to control the entire world. He felt the deep state was too committed to America's Full Spectrum Dominance. Is this the sloppy end to the legacy of the Sole Super Power? Or, is this just the middle of the play before curtain call?
When Russia came to the aid of Syria, I believed that we were entering the Multipolar World Order. Hopefully that is still possible but better sooner than later before we enter the No World Order of endless chaos. Does the American deep state really want to play Russian Roulette with live nucs?

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:16 pm

I wish Chalmers Johnson were still with us, and able to comment on our current events good of you to bring his name up. Reply

John P , January 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm

I'm sorry Brad. With your EIR's reference, the first story I saw concerned Obama-care connected to some Nazi policies. Next they claim global warming is fake. The US was the only western nation without a national health program. People die because they haven't the money to pay for drugs or health care. The health of a labourer is more important to them that a rich bloke sitting at a desk. And excuse me but back in the late 60s I studied astronomy besides my major, another science, and even then learned that both CO2 and methane each trap the sun's energy and cause temperatures to rise. That was long before global warming came to peoples attention. Sorry, your story is pure fiction.

Also, Trump hasn't a clue what he's talking about as far as global warming is concerned. Take a look at the temperatures in the far north. They have been warmer than ever while we down here are having huge cycles of heat and cold and are experiencing the fury that those changes can induce.

Dieter Heymann , January 16, 2017 at 2:23 pm

As a scientist you ought to know that CO2 and methane do not trap the sun's energy but absorb upward IR radiation from Earth part of which they radiate back towards Earth's surface part out into space. The blanket I use on my bed at night does not trap the heat generated by me either. If it did it might catch fire?

John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Dieter I was just trying to make it simple, not write an article for Nature. The point being so many people don't believe that we are altering the earths climate through burning fossil fuels. We take down our forests, and plants are a big reason we are here as they take in carbon dioxide, utilize the suns energy through photosynthesis and create organic compounds thus setting the stage for further developments. There is so much irrationality out there brought on by job losses through technology, and this creates huge divisions within society and that can lead to awful consequences as history has shown.
I not sure some would understand the true science behind it. The subject was a reliance on a web site that promoted climate change denial and a mentioned link between Obamacare and Nazism. Is that a firm foundation of reliance ?

John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:33 pm

Just to clarify, I said astronomy wasn't my major, it was microbiology and medical sciences. I had an interest in star gazing and following the planets. Reply

Jamie , January 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm

Many liberals fail to understand that Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. Unlike the unwashed masses - these forces don't care if politician has a 'D' or 'R' next to their name. It is how well they will serve capital.

[Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back

Highly recommended!
This article from 2017 looks like it was written yesterday. Trump betrayal of his elctorate on multiple levels, essentially on all key poin of his election program mkes him "Republican Obama".
What is interesting about Trump foreign policy is his version of neoliberal "gangster capitalism" on foreign arena: might is right principle applied like universal opener. Previous administrations tried to put a lipstick on the pig. Trump does not even bother.
In terms of foreign policy, and even during the transition before Trump's inauguration, there were other, more disturbing signs of where Trump would be heading soon. When Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016, Trump seemed jubilant as if he had somehow been vindicated, and took the opportunity to slander Castro as a "brutal dictator" who "oppressed his own people" and turned Cuba into a "totalitarian island".
Notable quotes:
"... However, when he delivered his inaugural address on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the government's back on a long-standing policy of cultural imperialism , stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first". ..."
"... Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office -- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat. ..."
"... The entire conflict with Russia that has developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. ..."
"... Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from wars for regime change, Trump sold out again. "I love WikiLeaks -- " -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding. ..."
"... AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States? ..."
"... AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing? ..."
"... AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange? ..."
"... While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US, witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to them. ..."
"... Since NAFTA was implemented, migration from Mexico to the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately drove them away from agriculture ..."
"... As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact, per capita GDP is nearly a flat line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures that have been implemented, the US leads the world . ..."
"... To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only when the US reaps the greater share of benefits. ..."
"... As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son -- then what an abysmally poor choice he is ..."
"... On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism, which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced. ..."
"... As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism . Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics. ..."
"... As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition. ..."
Aug 09, 2017 | zeroanthropology.net

Trump could have kept quiet, and lost nothing. Instead what he was attacking -- and the irony was missed on his fervently right wing supporters -- was someone who was a leader in the anti-globalist movement, from long before it was ever called that. Fidel Castro was a radical pioneer of independence, self-reliance, and self-determination.

Castro turned Cuba from an American-owned sugar plantation and brothel, a lurid backwater in the Caribbean, into a serious international actor opposed to globalizing capitalism. There was no sign of any acknowledgment of this by Trump, who instead chose to parrot the same people who would vilify him using similar terms (evil, authoritarian, etc.). Of course, Trump respects only corporate executives and billionaires, not what he would see as some rag-tag Third World revolutionary. Here Trump's supporters generally failed, using Castro's death as an opportunity for tribal partisanship, another opportunity to attack "weak liberals" like Obama who made minor overtures to Cuba (too little, too late).

Their distrust of "the establishment" was nowhere to be found this time: their ignorance of Cuba and their resort to stock clichιs and slogans had all been furnished to them by the same establishment they otherwise claimed to oppose.

Just to be clear, the above is not meant to indicate any reversal on Trump's part regarding Cuba. He has been consistently anti-communist, and fairly consistent in his denunciations of Fidel Castro. What is significant is that -- far from overcoming the left-right divide -- Trump shores up the barriers, even at the cost of denouncing others who have a proven track record of fighting against neoliberal globalization and US interventionism. In these regards, Trump has no track record. Even among his rivals in the Republican primaries, senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul had more of an anti-interventionist track record.

However, when he delivered his inaugural address on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the government's back on a long-standing policy of cultural imperialism , stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first".

Russia

Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office -- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat.

Instead, Trump continued the sanctions, as if out of meek deference to Obama's policy, one founded on lies and antagonism toward Trump himself. Rather than repair the foul attempt to sabotage the US-Russian relationship in preparation for his presidency, Trump simply abided and thus became an accomplice. To be clear, Trump has done precisely nothing to dampen the near mass hysteria that has been manufactured in the US about alleged -- indeed imaginary -- "Russian intervention".

His comments, both during the electoral campaign and even early into his presidency, about wanting good relations with Russia, have been replaced by Trump's admissions that US relations with Russia are at a low point (Putin agreed: "I would say the level of trust [between Russia and the US] is at a workable level, especially in the military dimension, but it hasn't improved. On the contrary, it has degraded " and his spokesman called the relations " deplorable ".)

Rather than use the power of his office to calm fears, to build better ties with Russia, and to make meeting with Vladimir Putin a top priority, Trump has again done nothing , except escalating tensions. The entire conflict with Russia that has developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. Russia had actively facilitated the US' war in Afghanistan for over a decade, and was a consistent collaborator on numerous levels. It is up to thinking American officials to honestly explain what motivated them to tilt relations with Russia, because it is certainly not Russia's doing. The only explanation that makes any sense is that the US leadership grew concerned that Russia was no longer teetering on the edge of total socio-economic breakdown, as it was under the neoliberal Boris Yeltsin, but has instead resurfaced as a major actor in international affairs, and one that champions anti-neoliberal objectives of enhanced state sovereignty and self-determination.

WikiLeaks

Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from wars for regime change, Trump sold out again. "I love WikiLeaks -- " -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding.

After finding so much use for WikiLeaks' publication of the Podesta emails, which became incorporated into his campaign speeches, and which fuelled the writing and speaking of journalists and bloggers sympathetic to Trump -- he was now effectively declaring WikiLeaks to be both an enemy and a likely target of US government action, in even more blunt terms than we heard during the past eight years under Obama. This is not mere continuity with the past, but a dramatic escalation. Rather than praise Julian Assange for his work, call for an end to the illegal impediments to his seeking asylum, swear off any US calls for extraditing and prosecuting Assange, and perhaps meeting with him in person, Trump has done all of the opposite. Instead we learn that Trump's administration may file arrest charges against Assange . Mike Pompeo , chosen by Trump to head the CIA, who had himself cited WikiLeaks as a reliable source of proof about how the Democratic National Committee had rigged its campaign, now declared WikiLeaks to be a " non-state hostile intelligence service ," along with vicious personal slander against Assange.

Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks was one that he defended in terms that were not just a deceptive rewriting of history, but one that was also fearful -- "I don't support or unsupport" WikiLeaks, was what Trump was now saying in his dash for the nearest exit. The backtracking is so obvious in this interview Trump gave to the AP , that his shoes must have left skid marks on the floor:

AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States?

TRUMP: When Wikileaks came out never heard of Wikileaks, never heard of it. When Wikileaks came out, all I was just saying is, "Well, look at all this information here, this is pretty good stuff." You know, they tried to hack the Republican, the RNC, but we had good defenses. They didn't have defenses, which is pretty bad management. But we had good defenses, they tried to hack both of them. They weren't able to get through to Republicans. No, I found it very interesting when I read this stuff and I said, "Wow." It was just a figure of speech. I said, "Well, look at this. It's good reading."

AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing?

TRUMP: No, I don't support or unsupport. It was just information .

AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange?

TRUMP: I am not involved in that decision, but if Jeff Sessions wants to do it, it's OK with me. I didn't know about that decision, but if they want to do it, it's OK with me.

First, Trump invents the fictitious claim that WikiLeaks was responsible for hacking the DNC, and that WikiLeaks also tried to hack the Republicans. Second, he pretends to be an innocent bystander, a spectator, in his own administration -- whatever others decide, is "OK" with him, not that he knows about their decisions, but it's all up to others. He has no power, all of a sudden.

Again, what Trump is displaying in this episode is his ultimate attachment to his class, with all of its anxieties and its contempt for rebellious, marginal upstarts. Trump shuns any sort of "loyalty" to WikiLeaks (not that they ever had a working relationship) or any form of gratitude, because then that would imply a debt and therefore a transfer of value -- whereas Trump's core ethics are those of expedience and greed (he admits that much). This move has come with a cost , with members of Trump's support base openly denouncing the betrayal. 6

NAFTA

On NAFTA , Trump claims he has not changed his position -- yet, from openly denouncing the free trade agreement and promising to terminate it, he now vows only to seek modifications and amendments, which means supporting NAFTA. He appeared to be awfully quick to obey the diplomatic pressure of Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and Mexico's President, Enrique Peρa Nieto. Trump's entire position on NAFTA now comes into question.

While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US, witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to them.

This really deserves to be treated at length, separately from this article. However, for now, let's keep in mind that when Trump complains about Canadian softwood lumber and dairy exports to the US, his argument about NAFTA is without merit. Neither commodity is part of the NAFTA agreement.

Moreover, where dairy is concerned, the problem is US overproduction. Wisconsin alone has more dairy cows than all of Canada . There is a net surplus , in the US' favour, with respect to US dairy exports to Canada. Overall, the US has a net surplus in the trade in goods and services with Canada. Regarding Mexico, the irony of Trump's denunciations of imaginary Mexican victories is that he weakens his own criticisms of immigration.

Since NAFTA was implemented, migration from Mexico to the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately drove them away from agriculture.

As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact, per capita GDP is nearly a flat line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures that have been implemented, the US leads the world .

To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only when the US reaps the greater share of benefits.

His arguments with respect to Canada are akin to those of a looter or raider. He wants to block lumber imports from Canada, at the same time as he wants to break the Canadian dairy market wide open to absorb US excess production. That approach is at the core of what defined the US as a "new empire" in the 1800s. In addition, while Trump was quick to tear up the TPP, he has said nothing about TISA and TTIP.

Mexico

Trump's argument with Mexico is also disturbing for what it implies. It would seem that any evidence of production in Mexico causes Trump concern. Mexico should not only keep its people -- however many are displaced by US imports -- but it should also be as dependent as possible on the US for everything except oil. Since Trump has consistently declared his antagonism to OPEC, ideally Mexico's oil would be sold for a few dollars per barrel.

China

Trump's turn on China almost provoked laughter from his many domestic critics. Absurdly, what figures prominently in most renditions of the story of Trump's change on China (including his own), is a big piece of chocolate cake. The missile strike on Syria was, according to Wilbur Ross, the " after-dinner entertainment ". Here, Trump's loud condemnations of China on trade issues were suddenly quelled -- and it is not because chocolate has magical properties. Instead it seems Trump has been willing to settle on selling out citizens' interests , and particularly those who voted for him, in return for China's assistance on North Korea. Let's be clear: countering and dominating North Korea is an established favourite among neoconservatives. Trump's priority here is fully "neocon," and the submergence of trade issues in favour of militaristic preferences is the one case where neoconservatives might be distinguished from the otherwise identical neoliberals.

North Korea

Where North Korea is concerned, Trump chose to manufacture a " crisis ". North Korea has actually done nothing to warrant a sudden outbreak of panic over it being supposedly aggressive and threatening. North Korea is no more aggressive than any person defending their survival can be called belligerent. The constant series of US military exercises in South Korea, or near North Korean waters, is instead a deliberate provocation to a state whose existence the US nearly extinguished. Even last year the US Air Force publicly boasted of having "nearly destroyed" North Korea -- language one would have expected from the Luftwaffe in WWII. The US continues to maintain roughly 60,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, and continues to refuse to formally declare an end to the Korean War and sign a peace treaty . Trump then announced he was sending an "armada" to the Korean peninsula, and boasted of how "very powerful" it was. This was in addition to the US deploying the THAAD missile system in South Korea. Several of his messages in Twitter were written using highly provocative and threatening language. When asked if he would start a war, Trump glibly replied: " I don't know. I mean, we'll see ". On another occasion Trump stated, "There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely". When the world's leading military superpower declares its intention to destroy you, then there is nothing you can do in your defense which anyone could justly label as "over the top". Otherwise, once again Trump posed as a parental figure, the world's chief babysitter -- picture Trump, surrounded by children taking part in the "Easter egg roll" at the White House, being asked about North Korea and responding "they gotta behave". Trump would presume to teach manners to North Korea, using the only tools of instruction that seem to be the first and last resort of US foreign policy (and the "defense" industry): bombs.

Syria

Attacking Syria , on purportedly humanitarian grounds, is for many (including vocal supporters) one of the most glaring contradictions of Trump's campaign statements about not embroiling the US in failed wars of regime change and world policing. During the campaign, he was in favour of Russia's collaboration with Syria in the fight against ISIS. For years he had condemned Obama for involving the US in Syria, and consistently opposed military intervention there. All that was consigned to the archive of positions Trump declared to now be worthless. That there had been a change in Trump's position is not a matter of dispute -- Trump made the point himself :

"I like to think of myself as a very flexible person. I don't have to have one specific way, and if the world changes, I go the same way, I don't change. Well, I do change and I am flexible, and I'm proud of that flexibility. And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me -- big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I've been watching it and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that. And I have that flexibility, and it's very, very possible -- and I will tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much. And if you look back over the last few weeks, there were other attacks using gas. You're now talking about a whole different level".

Bending to the will of the prevailing Cold War and neo-McCarthyist atmosphere in the US, rife with anti-Russian conspiracy theories, Trump found an easy opportunity to score points with the hostile media, ever so mindful as he is about approval ratings, polls, and media coverage. Some explain Trump's reversals as arising from his pursuit of public adulation -- and while the media play the key role in purveying celebrity status, they are also a stiff bastion of imperialist culture. Given his many years as a the host of a popular TV show, and as the owner of the Miss Universe Pageant, there is some logical merit to the argument. But I think even more is at work, as explained in paragraphs above. According to Eric Trump it was at the urging of Ivanka that Donald Trump decided to strike a humanitarian-militarist pose. He would play the part of the Victorian parent, only he would use missiles to teach unruly children lessons about violence. Using language typically used against him by the mainstream media, Trump now felt entitled to pontificate that Assad is "evil," an " animal ," who would have to go . When did he supposedly come to this realization? Did Assad become evil at the same time Trump was inaugurated? Why would Trump have kept so silent about "evil" on the campaign trail? Trump of course is wrong: it's not that the world changed and he changed with it; rather, he invented a new fiction to suit his masked intentions. Trump's supposed opponents and critics, like the Soros-funded organizer of the women's march Linda Sarsour, showed her approval of even more drastic action by endorsing messages by what sounded like a stern school mistress who thought that 59 cruise missiles were just a mere "slap on the wrist". Virtually every neocon who is publicly active applauded Trump, as did most senior Democrats. The loudest opposition , however, came from Trump's own base , with a number of articles featuring criticism from Trump's supporters , and one conservative publication calling him outright a " weakling and a political ingrate ".

Members of the Trump administration have played various word games with the public on intervention in Syria. From unnamed officials saying the missile strike was a "one off," to named officials promising more if there were any other suspected chemical attacks (or use of barrel bombs -- and this while the US dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in existence on Afghanistan); some said that regime change was not the goal, and then others made it clear that was the ultimate goal ; and then Trump saying, "Our policy is the same, it hasn't changed. We're not going into Syria " -- even though Trump himself greatly increased the number of US troops he deployed to Syria , illegally, in an escalation of the least protested invasion in recent history. Now we should know enough not to count this as mere ambiguity, but as deliberate obfuscation that offers momentary (thinly veiled) cover for a renewal of neocon policy .

We can draw an outline of Trump's liberal imperialism when it comes to Syria, which is likely to be applied elsewhere. First, Trump's interventionist policy regarding Syria is one that continues to treat that country as if it were terra nullius , a mere playground for superpower politics. Second, Trump is clearly continuing with the neoconservative agenda and its hit list of states to be terminated by US military action, as famously confirmed by Gen. Wesley Clark. Even Trump's strategy for justifying the attack on Syria echoed the two prior Bush presidential administrations -- selling war with the infamous "incubator babies" myth and the myth of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). In many ways, Trump's presidency is thus shaping up to be either the seventh term of the George H.W. Bush regime, or the fifth straight term of the George W. Bush regime. Third, Trump is taking ownership of an extremely dangerous conflict, with costs that could surpass anything witnessed by the war on Iraq (which also continues). Fourth, by highlighting the importance of photographs in allegedly changing his mind, Trump has placed a high market value on propaganda featuring dead babies. His actions in Syria will now create an effective demand for the pornographic trade in pictures of atrocities. These are matters of great importance to the transnational capitalist class, which demands full global penetrability, diminished state power (unless in the service of this class' goals), a uniformity of expectations and conformity in behaviour, and an emphasis on individual civil liberties which are the basis for defending private property and consumerism.

Venezuela

It is very disturbing to see how Venezuela is being framed as ripe for US intervention, in ways that distinctly echo the lead up to the US war on Libya. Just as disturbing is that Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, has a clear conflict of interest regarding Venezuela, from his recent role as CEO of Exxon and its conflict with the government of Venezuela over its nationalization of oil. Tillerson is, by any definition, a clear-cut member of the transnational capitalist class. The Twitter account of the State Department has a battery of messages sternly lecturing Venezuela about the treatment of protesters, while also pontificating on the Venezuelan Constitution as if the US State Department had become a global supreme court. What is impressive is the seamless continuity in the nature of the messages on Venezuela from that account, as if no change of government happened between Obama's time and Trump's. Nikki Haley, Trump's neocon ambassador to the UN, issued a statement that read like it had been written by her predecessors, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, a statement which in itself is an unacceptable intervention in Venezuelan internal affairs. For Trump's part, from just days before the election, to a couple of weeks after his inauguration, he has sent explicit messages of support for anti-government forces in Venezuela. In February, Trump imposed sanctions on Venezuela's Vice President. After Syria and North Korea, Venezuela is seeming the likely focus of US interventionism under Trump.

NATO

Rounding out the picture, at least for now (this was just the first hundred days of Trump's presidency), was Trump's outstanding reversal on NATO -- in fact, once again he stated the reversal himself, and without explanation either: " I said it was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete ". This came just days after the US missile strike against Syria, and just as Ivanka Trump was about to represent his government at a meeting of globalist women, the W20 . NATO has served as the transnational military alliance at the service of the transnational capitalist class, and particularly the military and political members of the TCC. 7

Saving Neoliberalism?

Has Trump saved neoliberal capitalism from its ongoing demise? Has he sustained popular faith in liberal political ideals? Are we still in the dying days of liberalism ? If there had been a centrally coordinated plan to plant an operative among the ranks of populist conservatives and independents, to channel their support for nationalism into support for the persona of the plant, and to then have that plant steer a course straight back to shoring up neoliberal globalism -- then we might have had a wonderful story of a masterful conspiracy, the biggest heist in the history of elections anywhere. A truly "rigged system" could be expected to behave that way. Was Trump designated to take the fall in a rigged game, only his huge ego got in the way when he realized he could realistically win the election and he decided to really tilt hard against his partner, Hillary Clinton? It could be the basis for a novel, or a Hollywood political comedy. I have no way of knowing if it could be true.

Framed within the terms of what we do know, there was relief by the ousted group of political elites and the liberal globalist media at the sight of Trump's reversals, and a sense that their vision had been vindicated. However, if they are hoping that the likes of Trump will serve as a reliable flag bearer, then theirs is a misguided wishful thinking. If someone so demonized and ridiculed, tarnished as an evil thug and racist fascist, the subject of mass demonstrations in the US and abroad, is the latest champion of (neo)liberalism, then we are certainly witnessing its dying days.

Is Trump Beneficial for Anti-Imperialism?

Once one is informed enough and thus prepared to understand that anti-imperialism is not the exclusive preserve of the left (a left which anyway has mostly shunned it over the last two decades), that it did not originate with the left , and that it has a long and distinguished history in the US itself , then we can move toward some interesting realizations. The facts, borne out by surveys and my own online immersion among pro-Trump social media users, is that one of the significant reasons why Trump won is due to the growth in popularity of basic anti-imperialist principles (even if not recognized under that name): for example, no more world policing, no transnational militarization, no more interventions abroad, no more regime change, no war, and no globalism. Nationalists in Europe, as in Russia, have also pushed forward a basic anti-imperialist vision. Whereas in Latin America anti-imperialism is largely still leftist, in Europe and North America the left-right divide has become blurred, but the crucial thing is that at least now we can speak of anti-imperialism gaining strength in these three major continents. Resistance against globalization has been the primary objective, along with strengthening national sovereignty, protecting local cultural identity, and opposing free trade and transnational capital. Unfortunately, some anti-imperialist writers (on the left in fact) have tended to restrict their field of vision to military matters primarily, while almost completely neglecting the economic and cultural, and especially domestic dimensions of imperialism. (I am grossly generalizing of course, but I think it is largely accurate.) Where structures such as NAFTA are concerned, many of these same leftist anti-imperialists, few as they are, have had virtually nothing to say. It could be that they have yet to fully recognize that the transnational capitalist class has, gradually over the last seven decades, essentially purchased the power of US imperialism. Therefore the TCC's imperialism includes NAFTA, just as it includes open borders, neoliberal identity politics, and drone strikes. They are all different parts of the same whole.

As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son -- then what an abysmally poor choice he is. 8

On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism, which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced. In addition to that, given that his candidacy aggravated internal divisions in the US, which have not subsided with his assumption of office, these domestic social and cultural conflicts cause a serious deficit of legitimacy, a loss of political capital. A declining economy will also deprive him of capital in the strict sense. Moreover, given the kind of persona the media have crafted, the daily caricaturing of Trump will significantly spur anti-Americanism around the world. If suddenly even Canadian academics are talking about boycotting the US, then the worm has truly turned. Trump can only rely on "hard power" (military violence), because "soft power" is almost out of the question now that Trump has been constructed as a barbarian. Incompetent and/or undermined governance will also render Trump a deficient upholder of the status quo. The fact that nationalist movements around the world are not centrally coordinated, and their fortunes are not pinned to those of Trump, establishes a well-defined limit to his influence. Trump's antagonism toward various countries -- as wholes -- has already helped to stir up a deep sediment of anti-Americanism. If Americanism is at the heart of Trump's nationalist globalism, then it is doing all the things that are needed to induce a major heart attack.

As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism . Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics.

As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition.

[Jan 13, 2018] Remarks of Stephen Bannon at a Conference at the Vatican

Looks like Bannon is really weak in political economy. He does not even use the term neoliberalism. Go here to read the full transcript of his speech.
One very interesting quote is ""I believe we've come partly off-track in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism."
Notable quotes:
"... That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history -- virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age. ..."
"... I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism. ..."
"... I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism." ..."
"... One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century. ..."
"... The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States. However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal freedom." ..."
Jan 13, 2018 | the-american-catholic.com

Buzzfeed has the remarks of Stephen Bannon, former CEO of Breitbart News , and currently appointed by President Elect Trump to be his chief advisor, at a conference at the Vatican in the summer of 2014:

Steve Bannon:

Thank you very much Benjamin, and I appreciate you guys including us in this. We're speaking from Los Angeles today, right across the street from our headquarters in Los Angeles. Um. I want to talk about wealth creation and what wealth creation really can achieve and maybe take it in a slightly different direction, because I believe the world, and particularly the Judeo-Christian west, is in a crisis. And it's really the organizing principle of how we built Breitbart News to really be a platform to bring news and information to people throughout the world. Principally in the west, but we're expanding internationally to let people understand the depths of this crisis, and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west in our beliefs.

It's ironic, I think, that we're talking today at exactly, tomorrow, 100 years ago, at the exact moment we're talking, the assassination took place in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the end of the Victorian era and the beginning of the bloodiest century in mankind's history. Just to put it in perspective, with the assassination that took place 100 years ago tomorrow in Sarajevo, the world was at total peace. There was trade, there was globalization, there was technological transfer, the High Church of England and the Catholic Church and the Christian faith was predominant throughout Europe of practicing Christians. Seven weeks later, I think there were 5 million men in uniform and within 30 days there were over a million casualties.

That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history -- virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.

But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not just the heroism of our people -- whether it was French resistance fighters, whether it was the Polish resistance fighters, or it's the young men from Kansas City or the Midwest who stormed the beaches of Normandy, commandos in England that fought with the Royal Air Force, that fought this great war, really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal. It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it's the Soviet Union, England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East.

That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many years and decades of peace. And I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism.

And we're at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs, but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that's starting, that will completely eradicate everything that we've been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.

Now, what I mean by that specifically: I think that you're seeing three kinds of converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief.

I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism."

But there's a strand of capitalism today -- two strands of it, that are very disturbing.

  1. One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century.
  2. The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.

    However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal freedom."

The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West. And I know we've talked about secularization for a long time, but if you look at younger people, especially millennials under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising iteration.

... ... ...

[Jan 06, 2018] Looks like Bannon self-immolated himself by his cooperation with Wolff

Notable quotes:
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Feb 15, 2017 | www.unz.com
... ... ..

Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them.

The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.

Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."

Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.

Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."

Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated."

I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration.

It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."

Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.

I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment.

But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.

- John Fund is NRO's national-affairs correspondent . https://twitter.com/@JohnFund

[Dec 31, 2017] Looks like Trump foreign policy is unsane and overextend the USA military capabilities

Dec 31, 2017 | www.unz.com

Ludwig Watzal , Website December 31, 2017 at 5:46 am GMT

There are hardly any rational actors left in the Trump administration.

Rex Tillerson is a joke and should have long done these bunch of crazies. Russia and China should join forces and should tell Trump and his Ziocon backers what is at stake if they attack Syria or Iran.

Nikki Haley is the mouthpiece of the Zionist regime and tried to make Colin Powell. If the US-Zionist and the Saudi regime attack Iran, at least the Zionist regime and the decadent Saudi one will be doomed. The US should adjust itself to more coffins from the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Just recently I watched an interview with Security adviser McMasters on BBC, and I could not believe the nonsense this guy was saying about Iran, Hezbollah et cetera. He is very dangerous. Such a policy advice is not rational but insane.

[Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

Highly recommended!
What a pitiful pressitute this Like Harding is...
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.

Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, and has published in The Nation some of the clearest arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian where he has been writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of New York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win.

In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal".

The term Gish gallop , named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9Ikf1uZli4g

In this part here , for example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's happening here:

Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most recently when President Macron was elected ? -

Maté: Well actually Luke that's not true. That's straight up not true. After that election the French cyber-intelligence agency came out and said it could have been virtually anybody.

Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ? -

Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed didn't happen?

Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?

Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just claimed actually is not true?

Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive, but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.

Maté: Where else?

Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.

Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no Russian hack in Germany.

In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a completely false example .

That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.

The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim, Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding has.

jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' - YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148

The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive government it is, after which the following exchange took place:

Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.

At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up the show and promote Harding's book on his own.

You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.

The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument.

Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.

* * *

Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History 4 days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.

He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies.

That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.

Few in the US know about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.

[Dec 31, 2017] Looks like Trump foreign policy is unsane and overextend the USA military capabilities

Dec 31, 2017 | www.unz.com

Ludwig Watzal , Website December 31, 2017 at 5:46 am GMT

There are hardly any rational actors left in the Trump administration.

Rex Tillerson is a joke and should have long done these bunch of crazies. Russia and China should join forces and should tell Trump and his Ziocon backers what is at stake if they attack Syria or Iran.

Nikki Haley is the mouthpiece of the Zionist regime and tried to make Colin Powell. If the US-Zionist and the Saudi regime attack Iran, at least the Zionist regime and the decadent Saudi one will be doomed. The US should adjust itself to more coffins from the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Just recently I watched an interview with Security adviser McMasters on BBC, and I could not believe the nonsense this guy was saying about Iran, Hezbollah et cetera. He is very dangerous. Such a policy advice is not rational but insane.

[Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

Highly recommended!
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite, especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.

As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment that had already killed millions of people.

As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented, the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as Pete Seeger satirized it , and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.

Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive Diem regime and its successors ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them.

The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."

Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.

Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.

Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.

Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans. As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.

The CIA's Pretexts for War

U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy.

Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future, both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war.

The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.

Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.

Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.

CIA in Syria and Africa

But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi, the CIA and its allies began flying fighters and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.

Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even more savage "Islamic State," triggered the heaviest and probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into the chaos of Syria's civil war.

Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N. has published a report titled Journey to Extremism in Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment , based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and Boko Haram.

The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family, was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups, and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.

The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study, The People's Perspectives : Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves or their families.

The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective.

"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit of some national objective in the first place."

The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to 53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first place.

This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale.

Taking on China

What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."

China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."

China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.

Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty and displacement.

As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others.

But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.

Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.

The Three Scapegoats

In Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments, whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure. But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official Elliott Abrams' failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.

How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya, once ranked by the U.N. as the most developed country in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.

In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.

In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the solid victory of Venezuela's ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.

The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.

Boxing In North Korea

A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated its commitment to North Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.

Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul, a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only 35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.

U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats of war. Under the Agreed Framework signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for one nuclear bomb.

The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.

Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental reactor was shut down as a result of the "Six Party Talks" in 2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.

But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.

North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range from 110 to 250 kilotons , comparable to a small hydrogen bomb.

The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal of 4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.

The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.

China has proposed a reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.

This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy that is possible in official circles."

Demonizing Iran

The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA, which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild goose chase in his 2011 memoir, Age of Deception : Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .

When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."

Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book, Manufactured Crisis : the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.

But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.

"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized in a prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought Iran to the table."

In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book, A Single Roll of the Dice : Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S. from coming to the table itself.

As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer. Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's failures in the Middle East.

The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and attacks by Israel.

Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has run its course.

What the Future Holds

Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the heaviest U.S. aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.

Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.

But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.

If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems, it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.

But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.

In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies. Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the world.

Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by calling for a recommitment to the rule of international law , which prohibits the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea, Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.

Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction.

Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other than putty in the hands of the CIA

Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .

[Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. ..."
May 05, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
One of the best summary observations in this regard is from Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein , who writes on business and financial matters but whose conclusions could apply as well to Trump's handling of a wide range of foreign and domestic matters: " What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. What he says bears no relationship to any consistent political or policy ideology or world-view. What he says is also likely to bear no relationship to what his top advisers or appointees have said or believe, making them unreliable interlocutors even if they agreed among themselves, which they don't. This lack of clear policy is compounded by the fact that the president, despite his boasts to the contrary, knows very little about the topics at hand and isn't particularly interested in learning. In other words, he's still making it up as he goes along."

Many elements of dismay can follow from the fact of having this kind of president. We are apt to get a better idea of which specific things are most worthy of dismay as the rest of this presidency unfolds. I suggest, however, that a prime, overarching reason to worry is Trump's utter disregard for the truth. Not just a disregard, actually, but a determination to crush the truth and to instill falsehood in the minds of as many people as possible. The Post 's fact checker, Glenn Kessler , summarizes the situation by noting that "the pace and volume of the president's misstatements" are so great that he and other fact checkers "cannot possibly keep up."

Kessler also observes how Trump's handling of falsehoods is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the garden variety of lying in which many politicians indulge: "Many will drop a false claim after it has been deemed false. But Trump just repeats the claim over and over." It is a technique reminiscent of the Big Lie that totalitarian regimes have used, in which the repetition and brazenness of a lie help lead to its acceptance.

The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth-factual reality -- is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. Crushing the truth means not just our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently. To the extent that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what would otherwise be its ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.

[Dec 30, 2017] Not a single officer resigned in protest despite the fact that the US is deeply in bed with ISIS and those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11

Saker, of course, if "Russia firster". And that makes his analyses of Russia weaker than it should be. But his analysis of the USA is superb.
Notable quotes:
"... What defeats? US achieved its real goal in Iraq, which was to smash it and leave it divided. Zionist wanted a weak Iraq, and it is weak indeed. US still occupies Afghanistan and uses it for whatever it wants. The longer the war goes on, the Occupation is justified like continued US presence in South Korea. US doesn't want to win in Afghanistan. As long as the war is officially 'on', US can stay and rule that part of the world. ..."
"... And Libya is destroyed. Gaddafi's dream of counter-currency is finished. Libya is like humpty dumpty, smashed forever, and the Zionists are happy. ..."
"... And Syria? It didn't cost America anything to see that nation totally wrecked. ..."
"... re the first sentence of this comment. And probably confusing for "Russia-Firsters"; USA is this/that (all bad) and Russia/China are this/that (all good) but there is a fear about the "bad boy". Doesn't make sense but, well, who cares. We gotta go with the message, that one "USA bad" etc. ..."
"... The burden now is clearly on Russia and China to do everything they can to try to stop the US from launching even more catastrophic and deeply immoral wars. That is a very, very difficult task and I frankly don't know if they can do it. I hope so. That is the best I can say. ..."
"... US foreign policy flows from internal conditions. As long as the US is ruled by ...Globalists... as their cuckaroo dogs like Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and the rest, nothing will change. ..."
"... Simplistically, it appears most Americans because of the Cold War view geopolitics as a Manichean struggle of civilizations, good versus evil. Therefore, as they understand the United States, representing absolute good, to have been the victor in that battle for the planet, the United States now has the right to dictate terms to the entire globe in a mopping up action. ..."
"... It is US "elites" Modus Operandi, otherwise "exceptionalism" flies out of the window. With some effort and time given we may yet see the US taking credit for the Battle of Lepanto and, eventually, for Thermopylae. Consider his: "Kursk was an Anglo-American victory as well as a Soviet one." (c) ..."
Dec 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Priss Factor , Website December 29, 2017 at 5:47 am GMT

The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to resign to protest the fact that the US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope, in fact US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these "patriots" has the honor/courage/integrity to go public about it.

But for 9/11, Alqaeda was always the US's baby. They were used in Afghanistan against the Soviets. US and its ally Pakistan fully backed Osama and his ilk for a long time. If not for 9/11, US and Alqeda's good relations would have been unbroken.

It's like US-Japan's relations. It got rocky cuz of disagreement over China and then Pearl Harbor. But had it not been for that, US-Japan relations would have been smooth throughout the 20th century. US had initially backed Japan's war with Russia and looked the other way when Japan moved into Korea and China. It was Japan's over-reaching that set the two nations apart and led to Pearl Harbor. But after WWII, they were friends against against China and Russia.

So, it shouldn't surprise us that US and Alqaeda are pals again. They were for a long time. It was US presence in Saudi Arabia that made Osama bitter and turn against his ally, the US. But with Iran and Shias as the Big Enemy, the US and Alqaeda are friends again.

Priss Factor , Website December 29, 2017 at 5:53 am GMT
And yet, somewhere, to some degree, these guys must know that the odds are not in their favor. For one thing, an endless stream of military defeats and political embarrassments ought to strongly suggest to them that inaction is generally preferable to action, especially for clueless people.

What defeats? US achieved its real goal in Iraq, which was to smash it and leave it divided. Zionist wanted a weak Iraq, and it is weak indeed. US still occupies Afghanistan and uses it for whatever it wants. The longer the war goes on, the Occupation is justified like continued US presence in South Korea. US doesn't want to win in Afghanistan. As long as the war is officially 'on', US can stay and rule that part of the world.

And Libya is destroyed. Gaddafi's dream of counter-currency is finished. Libya is like humpty dumpty, smashed forever, and the Zionists are happy.

And Syria? It didn't cost America anything to see that nation totally wrecked.

...These were great successes in a sick way. The Zionist-US goal was to spread chaos and turn those nations into hellholes that will take many decades to recover. And since 9/11, there's been hardly any major terrorist attacks in America.

peterAUS , December 29, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT
Beauties of time zone(s). Anyway . The usual Saker's "panic attack". So, for those 10 % here who aren't actually on his wavelength, a brief comment. As usual there is a bit of discrepancy between:

the AngloZionist Empire is reeling from its humiliating defeat in Syria

and

Syria (threats of a US-Israeli-KSA attack; attack on Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Syria)
attack on Russian forces in Syria)
.attack Iranian forces in Syria)

but not important, of course. Just think "USA bad", "Russia good" and all makes sense. Surprisingly, though, this is well stated

Let me immediately say here that listing pragmatic arguments against such aggression is, at this point in time, probably futile.

with a bit of Freudian slip

that is really frightening.

re the first sentence of this comment. And probably confusing for "Russia-Firsters"; USA is this/that (all bad) and Russia/China are this/that (all good) but there is a fear about the "bad boy". Doesn't make sense but, well, who cares. We gotta go with the message, that one "USA bad" etc.

Now, he got this mostly right:

whereas those in the elites not only know that they are total hypocrites and liars, but they actually see this as a sign superiority: the drones believes in his/her ideology, but his rulers believe in absolutely nothing.

Except they do believe in something: POWER.

He got close here, I admit:

Because they profoundly believe in four fundamental things:
1. We can buy anybody
2. Those we cannot buy, we bully
3. Those we cannot bully we kill
4. Nothing can happen to us, we live in total impunity not matter what we do

Now, I also admit THIS is quite interesting:

The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to resign to protest the fact that the US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope, in fact US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these "patriots" has the honor/courage/integrity to go public about it.

Still, the explanation feels weak.

Imbeciles and cowards. Delusional imbeciles giving orders and dishonorable cowards mindlessly executing them.

He could've gone deeper, but that would've complicated the message. Propaganda is all about keeping things simple and close to the lowest denominator (read imbecile). Makes sense, actually. He is correct here, though:

Alas, this is also a very hard combo to deter or to try to reason with.

The usual "Bad USA has been losing badly" compulsory part of the article we'll skip here, save:

.to engage either the Iranians or Hezbollah is a very scary option

("panic" thing) And, of course oh man .

Putin is a unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart.

I suggest reading this a couple of times. For a couple of reasons I'd leave to the reader. Back to topic at hand:

I think that we can agree that the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria and that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies will have to take it.

with

I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't think that the Neocons believe that the Russians will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway, right?!)

..("panic" thing)
and

Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them from trying again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely

..("panic" thing).
and

The truth is that at this point nobody knows what the outcome of a US attack on the DPRK might be, not even the North Koreans. Will that be enough to deter the delusional imbeciles giving and dishonorable cowards currently at the helm of the Empire? You tell me!

("panic" thing).

And, at the end, kudos actually, he appears to be getting there:

Frankly, I am not very confident about this attempt as analyzing the possible developments in 2018. All my education has always been based on a crucial central assumption: the other guy is rational.

This isn't bad:

The burden now is clearly on Russia and China to do everything they can to try to stop the US from launching even more catastrophic and deeply immoral wars. That is a very, very difficult task and I frankly don't know if they can do it. I hope so. That is the best I can say.

But I'd keep focus on "I frankly don't know if they can do it". Now, back to fanboys and resident agenda pushers.

Priss Factor , Website December 29, 2017 at 6:23 am GMT
Frankly, I am not very confident about this attempt as analyzing the possible developments in 2018.

US foreign policy flows from internal conditions. As long as the US is ruled by ...Globalists... as their cuckaroo dogs like Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and the rest, nothing will change.

America needs a new civil 'war' to set things right. The ruling elites must be outed, routed, and destroyed. But the elites have framed the civil war in America as between 'nazis' and 'antifa', and this divide-and-conquer strategy gets nothing done. The American Left is more at war with Civil War monuments than with the REAL power. This civil 'war' must be between people vs the elites. But elites have manipulated the conflict as 'blue' vs 'red'.

What happens IN America will affect what happens OUTSIDE America.

There are people on both right and left who know what is going on with this neo-imperialism BS. Elite intellectuals are useless as critics because the filtering system for elitism favors the cucks and toadies. To reach the top in any profession, one has to suck up to Zionists, denounce Russia, worship homos, and denounce any form of white agency as 'white supremacism'.

... ... ...

How can the elite power be challenged by non-elites? Is there some way? A new way to use the internet? Maybe. That must be why the Platforms are shutting down so many alternative voices.

And how can masses of Trumptards and Anti-Trump resistance be convinced that the real power is not with Trump or any president but with the Deep State that colludes with Big Media and Big donors?

So many Trumptards think all is fine because Trump is president. Likewise, so many progs paid no attention as long as Obama was president even though Obama proved to be a war criminal.

US is now a silly nation where progs are totally incensed over 'gay cakes'. With dummy populists who think in terms of flag and guns and idiot decadent proggists who think in terms of 'muh gender' and 'white privilege', a true challenge to sick elite power is impossible.

We need more on the right to call out on Trump, and we need more on the left to call out on likes of Obama and Hillary. And both sides need to focus on the Power above Trump-Hillary-Obama. But they are too childish to see anything cuz for most of them, it's either 'muh guns' or 'muh gender'.

Fran Macadam , Website December 29, 2017 at 7:46 am GMT
Simplistically, it appears most Americans because of the Cold War view geopolitics as a Manichean struggle of civilizations, good versus evil. Therefore, as they understand the United States, representing absolute good, to have been the victor in that battle for the planet, the United States now has the right to dictate terms to the entire globe in a mopping up action.
Andrei Martyanov , Website December 29, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT

Yet none of that prevents them from claiming that they, not Russia, defeated Daesh/ISIS/al-Nusra/etc. This is absolutely amazing, think of it –

It is US "elites" Modus Operandi, otherwise "exceptionalism" flies out of the window. With some effort and time given we may yet see the US taking credit for the Battle of Lepanto and, eventually, for Thermopylae. Consider his: "Kursk was an Anglo-American victory as well as a Soviet one." (c)

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-battle-kursk-might-just-be-the-most-misunderstood-22931?page=3

You see where it is all going? In real everyday life this is qualified as Stolen Valor and there is a Federal Law from 2013 which makes it a crime.

Diversity Heretic , December 29, 2017 at 2:30 pm GMT
@Priss Factor

Calvin Coolidge referred to Japan as America's natural friend. Were the economic sanctions imposed because of Japanese expansion in China, Indochina and the Dutch East Indies really necessary? How important was it to Mr. and Mrs. Average American that China be governed by Communists, warlords and corrupt nationalists, that Indochina be governed by French colonialists, and the Dutch East Indies be governed by Dutch colonialists, than by Japanese imperalists? Pat Buchanan has called WWII in Europe the unnecessary war; I think the truly unnecessary WWII conflict was in the Pacific.

[Dec 30, 2017] Bill Maher as a tool of deep state

It is interesting how easily Bill Maher was owned by Stone. Stone has higher level of IQ and that shows.
And Bill Maher is not that easy guy to own. Pretty slick political operative is this Roger Stone.
Notable quotes:
"... Bill Maher gets absolutely stumped. He can't stop stammering after what Roger says about the CIA. ..."
"... Bill Maher is a LIAR, and a very cunning one at that. ..."
Dec 30, 2017 | www.youtube.com

mrbossandbeast , 8 months ago

Stop, the anti trump bullshit just needs to stop. Terrible videos against him and his family is so wrong. It's getting old and people are finally understanding!

Diego Carrera , 8 months ago

Roger Stone nails it at 12:25 - 12:45 ish, and what our real problems are in America. The dude is spot on.

Lui Pietro , 8 months ago

You sound like a person that isn't open minded and is rather biased, leaning to the left. You sound just like one of these schmucks like Colbert, Samantha Bee, Maher, etc. "Hating Trump is not being liberal. It is being sane." Stfu.

These are the people who I constantly see in the trending section, all liberal propaganda that of course you must enjoy watching. But yet there is also conservative channels that get just as many views and likes but yet none of them are trending. You probably also believe that Russia hacked the polls when there is no evidence what so ever.

So, I feel that no matter what I say to you, you will simply dismiss is it and just keep on believing what you believe. Trump is just a puppet. You want someone to hate?

Why don't you hate the bankers like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the Morgans who are controlling this country and leading us to all these problems. They are the ones who make all the decisions behind the curtains. Its just that the media doesn't like to talk about them because the CIA controls what they want you to see and believe and the bankers control them. If you don't go along with their agenda they will ruin your life. Just like they had JFK murdered for not going with their agenda. Inform yourself please.

This country is going to shit and you're being led to believe that Trump is the problem when the bankers are the ones fucking our government up. Once we get rid of them we can have our country back.

Patrick Corbett , 7 months ago (edited)

11:00 Bill Maher gets absolutely stumped. He can't stop stammering after what Roger says about the CIA.

Steven Paul , 4 months ago

Bill Maher is a LIAR, and a very cunning one at that.

Eric Courtois , 8 months ago (edited)

BILL MAHER IS SIMPLY A RUDE IDIOT!

[Dec 30, 2017] Stone Releases His Opening Statement

The opening statement can be also hear at Roger Stone Opening Statement for a Secret Session of the House Intel Committee, September 2017 - YouTube
Dec 30, 2017 | dailycaller.com

"I am most interested in correcting a number of falsehoods, misstatements, and misimpressions regarding allegations of collusion between Donald Trump, Trump associates, the Trump Campaign and the Russian state," Stone writes in the opening statement he provided to The Daily Caller.

外国人说中文 3 months ago Roger Stone is the MAN!!!

Steve McAtee 3 months ago

WAIT! Didn't Debbie Washerwoman Shultz's long term, computer team from Pakistan just get criminally charged with not only hacking over 30+ democrats in the House and possessing not only the DNC files and all of Shultz files but also of selectively sending secure DNC and congressional files to their own clandestine server, and then probably dispersing those files to various foreign parties or the highest bidders?

WHEN THIS WAS UNCOVERED IN PART, THE DEMOCRATS DESPERATELY COBBLED TOGETHER INFORMATION FROM A DOSSIER AND OTHER SOURCES AND ACCUSED TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN OF COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS! DUH!!!!!!!!!sm

Polydynamix 3 months ago

Well as long as this guy 'believes' it then I guess there's no need for evidence. Go forth, subservient minions and spread the fake news based on a Trump advisors 'feelings'. Because there's no incentive for a Trump advisor to say something negative about Democrats so by all means, spread it as if it were true and if ANYONE asks for evidence or says you're wrong don't you DARE give them any kind of evidence, or talk to them like they have a valid request- just get mad, freak out, call them a 'libtard'

[Dec 30, 2017] The Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or Russian descent" relevant to its Russiagate investigation

Dec 30, 2017 | theduran.com

The email reveals that the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or Russian descent" relevant to its investigation , which means the Russiagate conspiracy theory and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from neo-McCarthyism – smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats or intelligence, and into xenophobia – eyeing any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a potential threat plain and simple , which is far down the slippery slope that many commentators have long predicted.

The American government has now gone full blown McCarthy.

The fact that Russia hating, progressive left news channel, The Young Turks, has uncovered and published this bombshell email should concern all Russian Americans that the witch-hunt against Russia may now be extended to US citizens, residents, and tourists in the United States no evidence needed except profiling based on Russian heritage.

Via Zerohedge

The Young Turks Network (TYT), a popular progressive YouTube channel and news site, has obtained a bombshell internal email related to the Senate committee probing alleged Russian interference in the American political system, and though currently being covered in Russian media, mainstream US media is passing it over without comment.

The email reveals that the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or Russian descent" relevant to its investigation , which means the Russiagate conspiracy theory and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from neo-McCarthyism – smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats or intelligence, and into xenophobia – eyeing any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a potential threat plain and simple , which is far down the slippery slope that many commentators have long predicted.

[Dec 30, 2017] Russiagate Is Devolving Into An Effort To Stigmatize Dissent

Confident elite does not file such "amicus briefs". This is a sign of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. Frightened elite now was to stigmatize the dissent.
Notable quotes:
"... The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or confusion over sources of information." ..."
"... Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s." ..."
"... In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association". It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea: https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641 ..."
"... They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position is in context. ..."
"... Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words, 'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'. ..."
"... Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training. ..."
Dec 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including former deputy secretary of state William Burns; former CIA director John Brennan; former director of national intelligence James Clapper; and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably includes free speech), filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit.

The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or confusion over sources of information."

The former officials portray the amicus brief as an offering of neutral ("Amici submit this brief on behalf of neither party") expertise ("to offer the Court their broad perspective, informed by careers spent working inside the U.S. government").

The brief claims that Putin's Russia has not only "actively spread disinformation online in order to exploit racial, cultural and political divisions across the country" but also "conducted cyber espionage operations to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process and, in the general election, influence the results against Secretary Hillary Clinton."

Much of this has been said before. But where the briefers branch off into new territory is in their attempt to characterize journalism and political speech with which they disagree as acts of subversion on behalf of a foreign power.

According to the 14 former officials, Russia's active-measure campaign relies "on intermediaries or 'cut outs' inside a country," which are rather broadly defined as "political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen."

Such "intermediaries" can range from "the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian operations and objectives."

In other words, a Russian "cut out" (or fifth columnist) can be defined as those "activists, academics, journalists, [or] web operators" who dissent from the shared ideology of the 14 signatories of the amicus brief.

In a recent essay for the London Review of Books, the historian Jackson Lears observed that "the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords." And this amicus brief is one such pronouncement.

In spite of the brief's high-flown language ("The threat posed to our democracy by Russian active measures campaigns is serious, ongoing and will require vigilance on the part of the U.S. government and people"), it is little more than yet another effort to stigmatize political speech that questions the necessity of demonizing Russia -- political speech, in other words, with which these former high-ranking intelligence and national-security officials surely disagree.

Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."

That is only too true; indeed, as of this writing, the Russia-Trump collusion narrative is fast devolving into an effort to stigmatize and marginalize expressions of dissent, with the overarching aim of short-circuiting and stifling debate over US-Russia policy.

Billy the Poet -> BlindMonkey Dec 29, 2017 9:32 PM

Knowledge is power, the truth will set you free. Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

chubbar -> Billy the Poet Dec 29, 2017 10:29 PM

Not only no forgeries, which means the emails told the truth about what these morons were doing, but also it's been demonstrated that the emails could only have been downloaded to a thumb drive because of the speeds they were transmitted. Why these fucking dimwits keep overlooking that inconvenient truth is anyone's guess, likely because it doesn't dovetail with their scenario of a Russian hack. This lawsuit goes nowhere but is being used to slowdown and divert attention away from the crimes of the DNC, et al.

It burns me that Brennan and Clapper, those two fucking traitorous cunts, filed a brief supporting this bullshit. Those 2 assholes were running the illegal spy operation against Trump during his campaign.

AgLand Dec 29, 2017 9:07 PM

The US loses it's collective sanity in the "New McCarthyism"...

nmewn Dec 29, 2017 9:22 PM

"In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including former deputy secretary of state William Burns ; former CIA director John Brennan ; former director of national intelligence James Clapper ; and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably includes free speech), filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit."

How revealing, the co-conspirators have filed an amicus brief ;-)

TheGhostOfJame Dec 29, 2017 9:23 PM

In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association". It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea: https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641

At the very minimum many high fliers who put on these Smith-Mundt hoaxes are going away for charity fraud. That's one reason they're so desperate.

MuffDiver69 -> TheGhostOfJame Dec 29, 2017 9:30 PM

They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position is in context. It's a bit like my wife when I tell her I'm not in the mood.. hehehehehe

scraping_by Dec 29, 2017 9:23 PM

"In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."

Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words, 'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'.

Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training.

Promethus Dec 29, 2017 9:26 PM

These people are TRAITORS.

They have violated their oaths of office and have conspired to over through the constitutionally elected President of the United States. Instead of filing amicus brief they should be swinging from ropes.

WTFUD -> Promethus Dec 29, 2017 9:42 PM

Yeah true, but think of the Army of New Recruits/Converts if Trump had the foresight/Inclination to Drain that SWAMP . . . . To have a modicum of credibility in my eyes he'd have to Deputize Deplorables to shoot these treasonous bastards in the face.

Billy the Poet -> Promethus Dec 29, 2017 9:44 PM

The mutineers must be held accountable according to the harshest possible terms.

MuffDiver69 Dec 29, 2017 9:26 PM

We see this thought pattern all over college and lower education now. People defending the right to censor and even criminalize things they don't believe in and often enough these people have nice penalties for not bowing down to our betters...We've come full circle back to King George the III and the American Revolution it seems..The founders had enough of this exact bullshit ...

WTFUD -> MuffDiver69 Dec 29, 2017 9:33 PM

'lower edumakation' at premium rates. lol

gwar5 Dec 29, 2017 9:29 PM

All nonsense. The Russians wanted Hillary to win. She (and everybody else) was already bought and paid for after Uranium One.

John Brennan still needs to answer for Passport Gate and the murder of his employee, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., in 2008 two weeks before he was to testify. Brennan hacked the State department and tampered Obama's passport and was rewarded with the first post-election appointment. Before there was Seth Rich there was 24 year old, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passpor

WTFUD Dec 29, 2017 9:29 PM

Claptrap, Brennan . . . two warmongering Shadow Government Lackey's who should be in Orange Jumpsuits. 12 months on and NO jail sentences. MoFo Puppet!

otschelnik Dec 29, 2017 9:35 PM

Roger reemed the dem's on the house intel committee, only his opening statement has been made public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ6sgOpKeUM

so now the deep state trying to settle the score with Roger.

[Dec 29, 2017] The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left

Dec 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Christian Chuba , 26 December 2017 at 07:23 PM
A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.

The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN, their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine, call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea, maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist attack.

Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too (picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.

BTW this link shows the flight pattern of US surveillance aircraft as they take off from Bulgaria and files along the coast of Sevastopol http://russia-insider.com/en/us-keeps-loitering-coast-russian-naval-base-sevastopol-russia-adds-second-s-400-air-defense-battery

EEngineer , 26 December 2017 at 01:30 PM

All signs that the citizens of the imperial court have poisoned themselves with their own propaganda. Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for the rubes. An exceedingly dangerous condition.

I was surprised neither China or Russia vetoed the recent UN sanctions on North Korea. I can see how the SCO countries would want to play for time, but I wonder if throwing NK to the wolves makes war more likely rather than less so. I could see Iran interpreting it as being on deck (next, a baseball term), and the Neocons as a green light.

And so few seem to care... It's almost as if they've been conditioned to want war.

I was dragged to the latest Star Wars movie this weekend. Explosion porn... For a story ostensibly about sacrifice and honor, it had so many silly comic book jokes I was almost surprised it didn't have a laugh track.

Lyttenburgh , 26 December 2017 at 06:16 PM
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who "threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is true.

If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national security threats" as Iran and DPRK.

Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here a sort of détente is possible.

[Dec 29, 2017] Will War Cancel Trump's Triumphs by Pat Buchanan

Dec 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

But it is in the realm of foreign policy where the real perils seem to lie. President Trump has been persuaded by his national security team to send Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, for use against the tanks and armor of pro-Russian rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Should Petro Poroshenko's Kiev regime reignite the war in his breakaway provinces bordering Russia, Vladimir Putin is less likely to let him crush the rebels than to intervene with superior forces and rout the Ukrainian army.

Trump's choice then? Accept defeat and humiliation for our "ally" -- or escalate and widen the conflict with Russia.

Putin's interest in the Donbass, a part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for centuries, is obvious.

What, exactly, is ours -- to justify a showdown with Moscow?

In this city there is also a powerful propaganda push to have this country tear up the nuclear deal John Kerry negotiated with Iran, and confront the Iranians in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and the Persian Gulf.

... ... ...

The Korean War finished Truman. Vietnam finished LBJ. Reagan said putting Marines into Lebanon was his worst mistake. Iraq cost Bush II both houses of Congress and his party the presidency in 2008.

Should Trump become a war president, he'll likely become a one-term president.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

[Dec 29, 2017] Hunt s Deathbed Confession Reveals JFK Killers

Dec 29, 2017 | rense.com
Hunt's Deathbed Confession
Reveals JFK Killers
The Last Confession Of E. Howard Hunt -
US government/CIA team murdered JFK

By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor
4-4-7

The April 5 issue of Rolling Stone features the deathbed confession of CIA operative and key Bay of Pigs/Watergate/Nixon administration figure E. Howard Hunt, The Last Confession of E. Howard Hunt by Erik Hedegaard. This piece is significant not only for its exploration of Hunt, but for breakthrough information that appears to thoroughly corroborate the work of key John F. Kennedy assassination researchers and historians.

Who killed JFK?

According to Hunt's confession, which was taken by his son, St. John ("Saint") Hunt, over the course of many personal and carefully planned father-son meetings, the following individuals were among the key participants:

Lyndon B. Johnson: LBJ, whose own career was assisted by JFK nemesis J. Edgar Hoover (FBI), gave the orders to a CIA-led hit team, and helped guide the Warren Commission/lone gunman cover-up.

Cord Meyer: CIA agent, architect of the Operation Mockingbird disinformation apparatus, and husband of Mary Meyer (who had an affair with JFK).

David Atlee Philips: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Recruited William Harvey (CIA) and Cuban exile militant Antonio Veciana.

William Harvey: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Connected to Mafia figures Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana.

Antonio Veciana: Cuban exile, founder of CIA-backed Alpha 66.

Frank Sturgis: CIA operative, mercenary, Bay of Pigs veteran, and later Watergate figure.

David Morales: CIA hit man, Bay of Pigs veteran. Morales was also a figure involved with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

Lucien Sarti: Corsican assassin and drug trafficker, possible "French gunman," Grassy Knoll (second) shooter.

Would Hunt continue to tell lies on his deathbed? Perhaps. Would Hunt tell a final tall story or two, to protect himself, or perhaps deal one final slap in the face to the US government (which made him a fall guy for Watergate)? Yes. Would Hunt hide the involvement of certain individuals to whom he remained loyal, including people who are still alive? Certainly. Anything from an operative like Hunt can only be accepted with caution and healthy skepticism.

Nevertheless, Hunt's scenario has the ring of truth.

Each of the named names are well-known CIA and CIA-linked players exposed by many researchers and historians who have detailed the enduring connection from the Bay of Pigs and the Dallas hit to Watergate and Iran-Contra.

The Hunt confession vindicates generations of historians, researchers and whistleblowers who have given their lives and careers to expose the truth about Dealey Plaza. While there are too many to name, they include, but are not limited to (and in no particular order): Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Fletcher Prouty, Josiah Thompson, Carl Oglesby, Peter Dale Scott, Anthony Summers, Robert Groden, Victor Marchetti, David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone, Michael Canfield, A.J. Weberman, Sylvia Meagher, William Turner, Jim Marrs, Pete Brewton, John Newman, Philip Melanson, Hal Verb, Mae Brussell, Harold Weisberg, Oliver Stone, Mike Ruppert and Dan Hopsicker, Jim diEugenio and Linda Pease.

Meanwhile, the criminal deceptions of the US government and its corporate media, the Warren Commission, and the dirty work of cover-up specialists such as Gerald Posner and Mark Fuhrman, and the legions of JFK assassination revisionist/theorists, deserve a final rebuke, and eternal scorn.

Highlighting Hunt's role

Although the Rolling Stone piece does not address it, the Hunt confession directly corroborates two classic investigations that previously exposed the role of Hunt. They are Mark Lane's Plausible Denial and Michael Canfield/A.J. Weberman's Coup D'Etat in America. Lane's book details how he took Hunt to court, and won a libel suit, essentially proving that the CIA murdered JFK, and that Hunt lied about his whereabouts. The investigation of Canfield and Weberman identified Hunt and Frank Sturgis as two of the three "tramps" arrested at Dealey Plaza.

Time has only made these investigations more relevant. More than ever, their books, and those of the JFK historians and researchers above listed, deserve to be found, read and studied.

Hunt to Nixon to Bush

The Rolling Stone piece fails to go after the roles of Richard Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush. But the Hunt confession, if accurate, leads directly to them, to their lifelong associates, and all the way to the present George W. Bush administration.

The Dallas-Watergate-Iran-Contra connection has been thoroughly documented by the key JFK researchers, and in particular, in the work of Peter Dale Scott, one of the very first to show the deep political continuity across three decades. Daniel Hopsicker's Barry and the Boys goes into even more detail on the players.

Consider the career of George H.W. Bush. He was a Texas oilman (Zapata Oil) and a CIA operative, involved with the Bay of Pigs. Bush's name was found in the papers of George DeMohrenschildt, one of Lee Harvey Oswald's CIA handlers. As documented by Pete Brewton, author of The Mafia, the CIA and George Bush, Bush was deeply connected with a small circle of Texas elites tied to the CIA and the Mafia, as well as the Florida-based CIA/anti-Casto Cuban exile/ Mafia milieu As Richard Nixon's hand-picked Republican National Committee chairman, and later as CIA director, Bush constantly covered-up and stonewalled for his boss about Watergate, which itself (by the admission of Frank Sturgis and others) was a cover-up of the JFK assassination.

Tracking any of the individual CIA operatives involved with the Bay of Pigs, it is impossible to ignore or deny direct connections to George H.W. Bush and his crime family, across the Kennedy assassinations, covert operations in Indochina and, later, Latin America.

Beyond any reasonable doubt, the US government murdered John F. Kennedy. There are people still alive today who were involved directly and indirectly implicated. Some are probably even serving in positions of high influence. Some still have never been identified or touched.

All of these individuals still need to be pursued, exposed, and brought to justice.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

[email protected]

Email Online Journal Editor

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_1918.shtml

[Dec 29, 2017] Will War Cancel Trump's Triumphs by Pat Buchanan

Dec 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

But it is in the realm of foreign policy where the real perils seem to lie. President Trump has been persuaded by his national security team to send Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, for use against the tanks and armor of pro-Russian rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Should Petro Poroshenko's Kiev regime reignite the war in his breakaway provinces bordering Russia, Vladimir Putin is less likely to let him crush the rebels than to intervene with superior forces and rout the Ukrainian army.

Trump's choice then? Accept defeat and humiliation for our "ally" -- or escalate and widen the conflict with Russia.

Putin's interest in the Donbass, a part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for centuries, is obvious.

What, exactly, is ours -- to justify a showdown with Moscow?

In this city there is also a powerful propaganda push to have this country tear up the nuclear deal John Kerry negotiated with Iran, and confront the Iranians in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and the Persian Gulf.

... ... ...

The Korean War finished Truman. Vietnam finished LBJ. Reagan said putting Marines into Lebanon was his worst mistake. Iraq cost Bush II both houses of Congress and his party the presidency in 2008.

Should Trump become a war president, he'll likely become a one-term president.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

[Dec 29, 2017] E. Howard Hunt, Agent Who Organized Botched Watergate Break-In, Dies at 88 - The New York Times

Dec 29, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

E. Howard Hunt, a cold warrior for the Central Intelligence Agency who left the spy service in disillusionment, joined the Nixon White House as a secret agent and bungled the break-in at the Watergate that brought the president down in disgrace, died Tuesday in Miami. He was 88.

His death, at North Shore Medical Center, was caused by pneumonia, said his wife, Laura.

"This fellow Hunt," President Richard M. Nixon muttered a few days after the June 1972 break-in, "he knows too damn much."

That was Howard Hunt's burden: he was entrusted with too many secret missions. His career at the C.I.A. was destroyed by the disastrous invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in 1961, and his time as Nixon's master of dirty tricks ended with his arrest in the Watergate case. He served 33 months in prison for burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping and emerged a broken man.

"I am crushed by the failure of my government to protect me and my family as in the past it has always done for its clandestine agents," Mr. Hunt told the Senate committee investigating the Watergate affair in 1973, when he faced a provisional prison sentence of 35 years. "I cannot escape feeling that the country I have served for my entire life and which directed me to carry out the Watergate entry is punishing me for doing the very things it trained and directed me to do."

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

He was a high-spirited 30-year-old novelist who aspired to wealth and power when he joined the C.I.A. in 1949. He set out to live the life he had imagined for himself, a glamorous career as a spy. But Mr. Hunt was never much of a spy. He did not conduct classic espionage operations in order to gather information. His field was political warfare: dirty tricks, sabotage and propaganda.

Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story

When he left the C.I.A. in 1970 after a decidedly checkered career, he had become a world-weary cynic. Trading on the thin veneer of a reputation in the clandestine service, he won a job as a $100-a-day "security consultant" at the Nixon White House in 1971.

In that role, he conducted break-ins and burglaries in the name of national security. He drew no distinction between orchestrating a black-bag job at a foreign embassy in Mexico City and wiretapping the Democratic National Committee's headquarters at the Watergate complex. He recognized no lawful limit on presidential power, convinced that "when the president does it," as Nixon once said, "that means it is not illegal." Mr. Hunt and the nation found out otherwise.

Mr. Hunt was intelligent, erudite, suave and loyal to his friends. But the record shows that he mishandled many of the tasks he received from the C.I.A. and the White House. He was "totally self-absorbed, totally amoral and a danger to himself and anybody around him," Samuel F. Hart, a retired United States ambassador who first met him in Uruguay in the 1950s, said in a State Department oral history.

"As far as I could tell, Howard went from one disaster to another," Mr. Hart said, "until he hit Watergate."

Everette Howard Hunt Jr. was born in Hamburg, N.Y., on Oct. 9, 1918, the son of a lawyer and a classically trained pianist who played church organ. He graduated from Brown University in June 1940 and entered the United States Naval Academy as a midshipman in February 1941.

He worked as a wartime intelligence officer in China, a postwar spokesman for the Marshall Plan in Paris and a screenwriter in Hollywood. Warner Brothers had just bought his fourth novel, "Bimini Run," a thriller set in the Caribbean, when he joined the fledgling C.I.A. in April 1949.

Mr. Hunt was immediately assigned to train C.I.A. recruits in political and psychological warfare, fields in which he was a rank amateur, like most of his colleagues. He moved to Mexico City, where he became chief of station in 1950. He brought along another rookie C.I.A. officer, William F. Buckley Jr., later a prominent conservative author and publisher, who became godfather and guardian to the four children of Mr. Hunt and his wife, the former Dorothy L. Wetzel.

Photo
E. Howard Hunt in 1973. Credit Mike Lien/The New York Times

In 1954, Mr. Hunt helped plan the covert operation that overthrew the elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz. "What we wanted to do was to have a terror campaign," Mr. Hunt said in a CNN documentary on the cold war, "to terrify Arbenz particularly, to terrify his troops." Though the operation succeeded, it ushered in 40 years of military repression in Guatemala.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

By the time of the coup, Mr. Hunt had been removed from responsibility. He moved on to uneventful stints in Japan and Uruguay. Not until 1960 was Mr. Hunt involved in an operation that changed history.

The C.I.A. had received orders from both President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his successor, President John F. Kennedy, to alter or abolish the revolutionary government of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Mr. Hunt's assignment was to create a provisional Cuban government that would be ready to take power once the C.I.A.'s cadre of Cuban shock troops invaded the island. He fared no better than the paramilitary planners who had vowed to defeat Mr. Castro's 60,000-man army with a 1,500-strong brigade.

The careers of the American intelligence officers who planned and executed the Bay of Pigs debacle in April 1961 were damaged or destroyed, as was the C.I.A.'s reputation for derring-do. Mr. Hunt spent most of the 1960s carrying out desultory propaganda tasks at the agency, among them running news services and subsidizing books that fell stillborn from the press.

He funneled his talent into writing paperback spy novels. His works followed a formula of sex and intrigue but offered flashes of insight. "We become lawless in a struggle for the rule of law -- semi-outlaws who risk their lives to put down the savagery of others," says the author's alter ego, Peter Ward, in the novel "Hazardous Duty."

He retired from the C.I.A. in 1970 and secured a job with an agency-connected public relations firm in Washington. Then, a year later, came a call from the White House. A fellow Brown alumnus, Charles W. Colson, special counsel to President Nixon, hired Mr. Hunt to carry out acts of political warfare. Within weeks, Mr. Hunt was in charge of a subterranean department of dirty tricks.

He went back to C.I.A. headquarters, requesting false identification, a red wig, a voice-altering device and a tiny camera. He then burglarized the Beverly Hills office of a psychiatrist treating Dr. Daniel J. Ellsberg, a former national-security aide who had leaked a copy of the Pentagon Papers, a classified history of the Vietnam War, to The New York Times. Mr. Hunt was looking for information to discredit Mr. Ellsberg. When the break-in became public knowledge two years later, the federal case against Mr. Ellsberg on charges of leaking classified information was dismissed.

Mr. Hunt, in league with another recently retired C.I.A. officer and four Cuban Bay of Pigs veterans, then led a break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate complex to bug the telephone lines. The job was botched, and the team went in again to remove the taps. The burglars were arrested on the night of June 17, 1972. One had Mr. Hunt's name and a White House telephone number in his address book, a classic failure of espionage tradecraft that proved the first thread of the web that ensnarled the president.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

The final blow that drove Nixon from office was one of the secret White House recordings he made -- the "smoking gun" tape -- in which he vowed to order the C.I.A. to shut down the federal investigation of the Watergate break-in on spurious national-security grounds. By the time Nixon resigned in August 1974, Mr. Hunt was a federal prisoner.

His life was in ruins: his wife had been killed in a plane crash in 1972, his legal fees approached $1 million, he had suffered a stroke, and whatever illusions he once had that his government would protect him were shattered. Standing before the judge who imprisoned him, he said he was "alone, nearly friendless, ridiculed, disgraced, destroyed as a man."

Freed from prison just before his 60th birthday, Mr. Hunt moved to Miami, where he met and married his second wife, Laura, a schoolteacher, and started a second family. Besides his wife, he is survived by the two daughters and two sons from his first marriage: Lisa Hunt of Las Vegas, Kevan Hunt Spence of Pioneer, Calif., Howard St. John Hunt of Eureka, Calif., and David Hunt of Los Angeles; two children from his second marriage, Austin and Hollis, both of Miami; seven grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren.

Mr. Hunt's last book, "American Spy: My Secret History in the C.I.A., Watergate and Beyond," written with Greg Aunapu, is to be published on March 16 with a foreword by his old friend William F. Buckley Jr.

Late in life, he said he had no regrets, beyond the Bay of Pigs.

[Dec 29, 2017] Watergate Burglar Howard Hunt Was William Buckley's Deep Throat

Dec 29, 2017 | www.thedailybeast.com

According to Buckley's son, Christopher, Hunt informed Buckley that, were he to die, Buckley would be contacted by a person he did not know who had a key to a safe deposit box, which the two of them would open together. When Christopher asked his father what the box might have contained, Buckley replied, "I don't know exactly, but it could theoretically involve information that could lead to the impeachment of the president of the United States." He felt bound to keep confidential what he knew.

[Dec 29, 2017] Are E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis JFK Assassins

Notable quotes:
"... Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States ..."
Dec 29, 2017 | posc.mu.edu

H oward Hunt and Frank Sturgis became notorious in 1972 with the start of the Watergate scandal. Both men plead guilty on a variety of charges in January of 1973.

Frank Sturgis was arrested by police at the Democratic party headquarters on the sixth floor of Watergate. He was found with four other men, wearing rubber surgical gloves, unarmed, and carrying extensive photographic equipment and electronic surveillance devices. He was officially charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other conversations. Sturgis was also apart of the Miami Cuban exile community and involved in various "adventures" relating to Cuba which he believed were organized and financed by the CIA.

E. Howard Hunt was one of the "plumbers" and a former White House aid during the Watergate scandal. He was directly linked to Sturgis and the other four men that broke into Watergate. He was charged with burglary, conspiracy, and wiretapping. He served 33 months. Hunt was also a former employee of the CIA, serving from 1949-1970. He typically performed work relating to propaganda operations in foreign countries.

To say this punched all kinds of buttons among JFK conspiracy theorists would be an understatement.

In no time flat the theorists concluded that Hunt and Sturgis were involved in the death of JFK. It was claimed that they were two of the three tramps photographed on the day of the assassination. By 1974, when the Rockefeller Commission was established to investigate the domestic activities of the CIA, Hunt and Sturgis were chief suspects in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The following section from the Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States outlines the Commission's conclusions.

... ... ...

B. The Theory That the CIA Had Relationships With Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby The second theory advanced in support of allegations of CIA participation in the assassination of President Kennedy is that various links existed between the CIA, Oswald and Ruby. Lee Harvey Oswald was found by the Warren Commission to be the person who assassinated the President. Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald two days after the President's assassination.

There is no credible evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was ever employed by the CIA or ever acted for the CIA in any capacity whatever, either directly or indirectly.

Testimony was offered purporting to show CIA relationships with Oswald and Ruby. It was stated, for example, the E. Howard Hunt, as an employee of the CIA, engaged in political activity with elements of the anti-Castro Cuban community in the United States on behalf of the CIA prior to the Bay of Pigs operation in April 1961. In connection with those duties, it was further alleged that Hunt was instrumental in organizing the Cuban Revolutionary Council and that the Cuban Revolutionary Council had an office in New Orleans. Finally, it was claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald lived in New Orleans from April to September 1963, and that a pamphlet prepared and distributed by Oswald on behalf of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee during that period indicated that the office of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was situated in building which was also the address of the New Orleans office of the Cuban Revolutionary Council. (4)

It was therefore implied that Hunt could have had contact with Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans during the spring or summer of 1963. No evidence was presented that Hunt ever met Oswald, or that he was ever in New Orleans in 1963, or that he had any contact with any New Orleans office of the Cuban Revolutionary Council.

Hunt's employment record with the CIA indicated that he had no duties involving contacts with Cuban exile elements or organizations inside or outside the United States after the early months of 1961. This was more that two years before Oswald went to New Orleans in April 1963 and more than a year before Oswald returned to the United States from the Soviet Union, where he had lived for almost three years.

An example of the testimony relating to an alleged relationship between the CIA and Jack Ruby consisted of a statement that Frank Sturgis was engaged in a series of revolutionary activities among Cuban exiles in the United States in the 1950's and 1960's and that the CIA also sponsored and organized anti-Castro activities among Cuban exiles in the United States in 1959 and the early 1960's.

It was further stated that someone once reported to the FBI that Jack Ruby had engaged in supplying arms to persons in Cuba in the early 1950's in association with a former Cuban President, Carlos Prio, and that Frank Sturgis also had connections with Carlos Prio during the 1950's and 1960's.

In addition, it was alleged that Frank Sturgis was at one time (before he escaped from Cuba in June 1959) a director of gambling and gaming establishments in Havana for the Castro government, and that in August or September, 1959, Jack Ruby made a trip to Havana at the invitation of a friend who had interests in gambling establishments in Cuba and the United States.

Moreover, both Sturgis and Ruby were alleged to have had connections with underground figures who had interests in the United States and Cuba.

From this group of allegations, the witness inferred that Sturgis and Ruby could have met and known each other--although no actual evidence was presented to show that Ruby or Sturgis ever met each other.

Even if the individual items contained in the foregoing recitations were assumed to be true, it was concluded that the inferences drawn must be considered farfetched speculation insofar as they purport to show a connection between the CIA and either Oswald or Ruby.

Even in absence of denials by living persons that such a connection existed, no weight could be assigned to such testimony. Moreover, Sturgis was never an employee or agent of the CIA.

A witness, a telephone caller, and a mail correspondent tendered additional information of the same nature. None of it was more than a strained effort to draw inferences of conspiracy from the facts which would not fairly support the inferences. A CIA involvement in the assassination was implied by the witness, for example, from the fact that the Mayor of Dallas at that time was a brother of a CIA official who had been involved in the planning of the Bay of Pigs operation in Cuba several years previously, and from the fact that President Kennedy reportedly blamed the CIA for the Bay of Pigs failure.

The same witness testified that E. Howard Hunt was Acting Chief of a CIA station in Mexico City in 1963, implying that he could have had contact with Oswald when Oswald visited Mexico City in September 1963. Hunt's service in Mexico City, however, was twelve years earlier--in 1950 and 1951--and his only other CIA duty in Mexico covered only a few weeks in 1960. At no time was he ever the Chief, or Acting Chief, of a CIA station in Mexico City.

Hunt and Sturgis categorically denied that they had ever met or known Oswald or Ruby. They further denied that they ever had any connection whatever with either Oswald or Ruby.

Conclusions
Numerous allegations have been made that the CIA participated in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The Commission staff investigated these allegations. On the basis of the staff's investigation, the Commission concluded there was no credible evidence of any CIA involvement.

[Dec 29, 2017] Confession of Howard Hunt

Dec 29, 2017 | www.maryferrell.org

Confession of Howard Hunt Legendary CIA spy and convicted Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt. Legendary CIA spy and convicted Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt.

Before his death in January 2007, CIA master spy and convicted Watergate conspirator Howard Hunt confessed to being peripherally involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, and named several other participants.

In notes and conversations with his son Saint John, and in an audiotape he created in 2004 to be played after his death, Hunt described being invited into the "big event" at a Miami safehouse in 1963. Others named in the plot:

Hunt says he declined active participation but did have a "benchwarmer" role in the plot. In the tape excerpt made available so far, Hunt made no claims which would prove his allegations. However, the people he names have all been suspects in the assassination for some time, and many of them worked closely together in anti-Castro operations.

In the "smoking gun" tape which helped drive him from office, President Richard Nixon said this of Hunt: "You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things..." He then instructed Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman to take a message to CIA Director Richard Helms, asking Helms to intervene in the FBI's early Watergate investigation because "the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again." In his book The Ends of Power , Haldeman described Helms' reaction: "Turmoil in the room. Helms gripping the arms of his chair leaning forward and shouting, 'The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs'." Haldeman came to believe that the "Bay of Pigs" referred to the Kennedy assassination.

Hunt's story has been challenged due to its lack of corroboration, its internal inconsistencies and Hunt's failure to provide any details from his activities in 1963 which would support it.

Some will accept Hunt's confession as the truth. For others, Hunt's naming of LBJ at the top of the plot will be seen as a bit of "spin" to present the assassination as a "rogue operation," deflecting attention from higher-level sponsors within the government. For that matter, Hunt was not necessarily in a position to know the ultimate authors of the conspiracy.

For others, the confession will be dismissed, seen as a parting gift to a ne'er-do-well son or perhaps a "last laugh" on America from a man who hated Kennedy with a passion.

[Dec 29, 2017] The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left

Dec 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Christian Chuba , 26 December 2017 at 07:23 PM
A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.

The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN, their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine, call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea, maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist attack.

Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too (picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.

BTW this link shows the flight pattern of US surveillance aircraft as they take off from Bulgaria and files along the coast of Sevastopol http://russia-insider.com/en/us-keeps-loitering-coast-russian-naval-base-sevastopol-russia-adds-second-s-400-air-defense-battery

EEngineer , 26 December 2017 at 01:30 PM

All signs that the citizens of the imperial court have poisoned themselves with their own propaganda. Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for the rubes. An exceedingly dangerous condition.

I was surprised neither China or Russia vetoed the recent UN sanctions on North Korea. I can see how the SCO countries would want to play for time, but I wonder if throwing NK to the wolves makes war more likely rather than less so. I could see Iran interpreting it as being on deck (next, a baseball term), and the Neocons as a green light.

And so few seem to care... It's almost as if they've been conditioned to want war.

I was dragged to the latest Star Wars movie this weekend. Explosion porn... For a story ostensibly about sacrifice and honor, it had so many silly comic book jokes I was almost surprised it didn't have a laugh track.

Lyttenburgh , 26 December 2017 at 06:16 PM
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who "threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is true.

If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national security threats" as Iran and DPRK.

Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here a sort of détente is possible.

[Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

Highly recommended!
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken. If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits. So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed get a new more sinister life.
I suspected many of such firms (for example ISS which was bought by IBM in 2006) to be scams long ago.
Notable quotes:
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | theduran.com

Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's pathetic election defeat to Trump, and CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this entire DNC server hack an "insurance policy."

... ... ...

[Dec 28, 2017] From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.S. intelligence services to limit the publication of the NSA files obtained by Edward Snowden. ..."
"... In May 2013 Edward Snowden fled to Hongkong and handed internal documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) to four journalists, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian and separately to Barton Gellman who worked for the Washington Post . ..."
"... In July 2013 the Guardian was forced by the British government to destroy its copy of the Snowden archive. ..."
"... In August 2013 Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for some $250 million. In 2012 Bezos, the founder, largest share holder and CEO of Amazon, had already a cooperation with the CIA. Together they invested in a Canadian quantum computing company. In March 2013 Amazon signed a $600 million deal to provide computing services for the CIA. ..."
"... The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. Bezos is estimated to own a shameful $90 billion. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. Omidyar has a net worth of some $9.3 billion. But the use of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been a CIA front , George Soros' Open Society foundation is one of the premier "regime change" operations, well versed in instigating "color revolutions" ..."
"... It would have been reasonable if the cooperation between those billionaires and the intelligence agencies had stopped after the NSA leaks were secured. But it seems that strong cooperation of the Bezos and Omidyar outlets with the CIA and others continue. ..."
"... The Washington Post , which has a much bigger reach, is the prime outlet for "Russia-gate", the false claims by parts of the U.S. intelligence community and the Clinton campaign, that Russia attempted to influence U.S. elections or even "colluded" with Trump. ..."
"... The revelation that the sole Russiagate "evidence" was the so-called Steele Dossier - i.e. opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign - which was used by the intelligence community to not only begin the public assertions of Trump's perfidy but to then initiate FISA approved surveillance on the Trump campaign, that is truly astonishing. Instructive then that the NY Times, Washington Post, etc have yet to acknowledge these facts to their readers, and instead have effectively doubled down on the story, insisting that the Russiagate allegations are established fact and constitute "objective reality." That suggests this fake news story will continue indefinitely. ..."
"... What we see here is these bastions of establishment thinking in the USA promoting "objective reality" as partisan - i.e. there is a Clinton reality versus a Trump reality, or a Russian reality versus a "Western" reality, facts and documentation be damned. This divorce from objectivity is a symptom of the overall decline of American institutions, an indicate a future hard, rather than soft, landing near the end of the road. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.S. intelligence services to limit the publication of the NSA files obtained by Edward Snowden.

In May 2013 Edward Snowden fled to Hongkong and handed internal documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) to four journalists, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian and separately to Barton Gellman who worked for the Washington Post . Some of those documents were published by Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian , others by Barton Gellman in the Washington Post . Several other international news site published additional material though the mass of NSA papers that Snowden allegedly acquired never saw public daylight.

In July 2013 the Guardian was forced by the British government to destroy its copy of the Snowden archive.

In August 2013 Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for some $250 million. In 2012 Bezos, the founder, largest share holder and CEO of Amazon, had already a cooperation with the CIA. Together they invested in a Canadian quantum computing company. In March 2013 Amazon signed a $600 million deal to provide computing services for the CIA.

In October 2013 Pierre Omidyar, the owner of Ebay, founded First Look Media and hired Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. The total planned investment was said to be $250 million. It took up to February 2014 until the new organization launched its first site, the Intercept . Only a few NSA stories appeared on it. The Intercept is a rather mediocre site. Its management is said to be chaotic . It publishes few stories of interests and one might ask if it ever was meant to be a serious outlet. Omidyar has worked, together with the U.S. government, to force regime change onto Ukraine. He had strong ties with the Obama administration.

Snowden had copies of some 20,000 to 58,000 NSA files . Only 1,182 have been published . Bezos and Omidyar obviously helped the NSA to keep more than 95% of the Snowden archive away from the public. The Snowden papers were practically privatized into trusted hands of Silicon Valley billionaires with ties to the various secret services and the Obama administration.

The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. Bezos is estimated to own a shameful $90 billion. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. Omidyar has a net worth of some $9.3 billion. But the use of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been a CIA front , George Soros' Open Society foundation is one of the premier "regime change" operations, well versed in instigating "color revolutions".

It would have been reasonable if the cooperation between those billionaires and the intelligence agencies had stopped after the NSA leaks were secured. But it seems that strong cooperation of the Bezos and Omidyar outlets with the CIA and others continue.

The Intercept burned a intelligence leaker, Realty Winner, who had trusted its journalists to keep her protected. It smeared the President of Syria as neo-nazi based on an (intentional?) mistranslation of one of his speeches. It additionally hired a Syrian supporter of the CIA's "regime change by Jihadis" in Syria. Despite its pretense of "fearless, adversarial journalism" it hardly deviates from U.S. policies.

The Washington Post , which has a much bigger reach, is the prime outlet for "Russia-gate", the false claims by parts of the U.S. intelligence community and the Clinton campaign, that Russia attempted to influence U.S. elections or even "colluded" with Trump.

Just today it provides two stories and one op-ed that lack any factual evidence for the anti-Russian claims made in them.

In Kremlin trolls burned across the Internet as Washington debated options the writers insinuate that some anonymous writer who published a few pieces on Counterpunch and elsewhere was part of a Russian operation. They provide zero evidence to back that claim up. Whatever that writer wrote (see list at end) was run of the mill stuff that had little to do with the U.S. election. The piece then dives into various cyber-operations against Russia that the Obama and Trump administration have discussed.

A second story in the paper today is based on "a classified GRU report obtained by The Washington Post." It claims that the Russian military intelligence service GRU started a social media operation one day after the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was illegally removed from his office in a U.S. regime change operation . What the story lists as alleged GRU puppet postings reads like normal internet talk of people opposed to the fascist regime change in Kiev. The Washington Post leaves completely unexplained who handed it an alleged GRU report from 2014, who classified it and how, if at all, it verified its veracity. To me the piece and the assertions therein have a strong odor of bovine excrement.

An op-ed in the very same Washington Post has a similar smell. It is written by the intelligence flunkies Michael Morell and Mike Rogers. Morell had hoped to become CIA boss under a President Hillary Clinton. The op-ed (which includes a serious misunderstanding of "deterrence") asserts that Russia never stopped its cyberattacks on the United States :

Russia's information operations tactics since the election are more numerous than can be listed here . But to get a sense of the breadth of Russian activity, consider the messaging spread by Kremlin-oriented accounts on Twitter, which cybersecurity and disinformation experts have tracked as part of the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy.

The author link to this page which claims to list Twitter hashtags that are currently used by Russian influence agents. Apparently the top issue Russia's influence agents currently promote is "#merrychristmas".


bigger

When the authors claim Russian operations are "more numerous than can be listed here" they practically admit that they have not even one plausible operation they could cite. Its simply obfuscation to justify their call for more political and military measures against Russia. This again to distract from the real reasons Clinton lost the election and to introduce a new Cold War for the benefit of weapon producers and U.S. influence in Europe.

Cont. reading: From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media

11:53 AM | Comments (137)

G , Dec 26, 2017 12:10:03 PM | 1

If what you allege is true about Greenwald and the Intercept, then why hasn't Snowden spoken out about it yet? Surely he would have said something about the Intercept and Greenwald keeping important stories buried by now. Yet, as far as I can tell, he has a good relationship with Greenwald. I find it hard to believe hat a man who literally gave up everything he had in life to leak important docs would remain silent for so long about a publishing cover up. I don't really like the Intercept and I think your analysis of its content is accurate, but I do find it hard to believe that the NSA docs were "bought" back by the CIA.
Ort , Dec 26, 2017 1:41:21 PM | 16
@G | 1

If what you allege is true about Greenwald and the Intercept, then why hasn't Snowden spoken out about it yet?
_____________________________________________________

My understanding is that early on, Snowden placed his trove of documents in the exclusive care of Glenn Greenwald and his associates. Although Snowden has since become a public figure in his own right, and his opinions on state-security events and issues are solicited, as far as I know Snowden has no direct responsibility for managing the material he downloaded.

I haven't followed Snowden closely enough to know how familiar he may be with the contents of the reported "20,000 to 58,000 NSA files" turned over to GG/Omidyar. Snowden presumably took pains to acquire items of interest in his cache as he accumulated classified material, but even if he has extraordinary powers of recall he may not remember precisely what remains unreleased.

FWIW, I was troubled from the first by one of the mainstays of GG's defense, or rationale, when it became clear that he was the principal, and perhaps sole, executive "curator" of the Snowden material. In order to reassure and placate nervous "patriots"-- and GG calls himself a "patriot"-- he repeatedly emphasized that great care was being taken to vet the leaked information before releasing it.

GG's role as whistleblower Snowden's enabler and facilitator was generally hailed uncritically by progressive-liberals and civil-liberties advocates, to a point where public statements that should've raised skeptical doubts and questions were generally passively accepted by complacent admirers.

Specifically, my crap detectors signaled "red alert" early on, when Greenwald (still affiliated with "The Guardian", IIRC) took great pains to announce that his team was working closely with the US/UK governments to vet and screen Snowden's material before releasing any of it; GG repeatedly asserted that he was reviewing the material with the relevant state-security agencies to ensure that none of the released material would compromise or jeopardize government operatives and/or national security.

WTF? Bad enough that Greenwald was requiring the world to exclusively trust his judgment in deciding what should be released and what shouldn't. He was also making it clear that he wasn't exactly committed to disclosing "the worst" of the material "though the heavens fall".

In effect, as GG was telling the world that he could be trusted to manage the leaked information responsibly, he was also telling the world that it simply had to trust his judgment in this crucial role.

To me, there was clearly a subliminal message for both Western authorities and the public: don't worry, we're conscientious, patriotic leak-masters. We're not going to irresponsibly disclose anything too radical, or politically/socially destabilizing.

GG and the Omidyar Group have set themselves up as an independent "brand" in the new field of whistleblower/hacker impresario and leak-broker.

Like only buying NFL-approved merchandise, or fox-approved eggs, the public is being encouraged to only buy (into) Intercept-approved Snowden Leaks™. It's a going concern, which lends itself much more to the "modified limited hangout" approach than freely tossing all the biggest eggs out of the basket.

GG found an opportunity to augment his rising career as a self-made investigative journalist and civil-liberties advocate. Now he's sitting pretty, the celebrity point man for a lucrative modified limited hangout enterprise. What is wrong with this picture?

Bart Hansen , Dec 26, 2017 1:51:59 PM | 17
#1: I suspect that Snowden needs Glenn and Laura as liaisons to the outside world.
G , Dec 26, 2017 2:05:23 PM | 18
@16 I just see no evidence of that aside from fitting the narrative of people who are convinced of a cover up in leaked docs. Moreover, there is no way Russia would continue to offer Snowden asylum if he was gov agent. I'm sure Russian intelligence did a very thorough background check on him.

@17 that's simply not true. He regularly tweets, gives online talks and publishes on his own. He has not used either Poitras or Greenwald as a means of communication for years. And he has never dropped a single hint of being disappointed or frustrated with how documents and info was published.

It just seems so implausible given the total lack of any sign of Snowden's dissatisfaction.

jayc , Dec 26, 2017 2:31:15 PM | 22
The revelation that the sole Russiagate "evidence" was the so-called Steele Dossier - i.e. opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign - which was used by the intelligence community to not only begin the public assertions of Trump's perfidy but to then initiate FISA approved surveillance on the Trump campaign, that is truly astonishing. Instructive then that the NY Times, Washington Post, etc have yet to acknowledge these facts to their readers, and instead have effectively doubled down on the story, insisting that the Russiagate allegations are established fact and constitute "objective reality." That suggests this fake news story will continue indefinitely.

What we see here is these bastions of establishment thinking in the USA promoting "objective reality" as partisan - i.e. there is a Clinton reality versus a Trump reality, or a Russian reality versus a "Western" reality, facts and documentation be damned. This divorce from objectivity is a symptom of the overall decline of American institutions, an indicate a future hard, rather than soft, landing near the end of the road.

Jen , Dec 26, 2017 2:50:16 PM | 25
G @ 1 and 18: My understanding is that Edward Snowden has been advised (warned?) by the Russian government or his lawyer in Moscow not to reveal any more than he has said so far. The asylum Moscow has offered him may be dependent on his keeping discreet. That may include not saying much about The Intercept, in case his communications are followed by the NSA or any other of the various US intel agencies which could lead to their tracking his physical movements in Russia and enable any US-connected agent or agency (including one based in Russia) to trace him, arrest him or kill him, and cover up and frame the seizure or murder in such a way as to place suspicion or blame on the Russian government or on local criminal elements in Russia.

I believe that Snowden does have a job in Russia and possibly this job does not permit him the time to say any more than what he currently tweets or says online.

There is nothing in MoA's article to suggest that Glenn Greenwald is deliberately burying stories in The Intercept. B has said that its management is chaotic which could suggest among other things that Greenwald himself is dissatisfied with its current operation.

G , Dec 26, 2017 2:57:40 PM | 26
@21 I'm not disputing that moneyed interests might have been leaned on by the CIA to stop publishing sensitive info. What I'm disputing is the idea that people like Greenwald have deliberately with-held information that is in the public interest. I doubt that, regardless of the strength of the Intercept as a publication.

@25 What interest would the Russian gov have in helping protect NSA? I assume Russia loves the idea of the US Intel agencies being embarrassed. Snowden speaks his mind about plenty of domestic and international events in US. I have never seen him act like he's being censored.

Jen , Dec 26, 2017 3:46:44 PM | 31
G @ 25: Moscow would have no interest in helping protect the NSA or any other US intel agency. The Russians would have advised Snowden not to say more than he has said so far, not because they are interested in helping the NSA but because they can only protect him as long as he is discreet and does not try to say or publish any more that would jeopardise his safety or give Washington an excuse to pressure Moscow to extradite him back to the US. That would include placing more sanctions on Russia until Snowden is given up.

There is the possibility also that Snowden trusts (or trusted) Greenwald to know what to do with the NSA documents. Perhaps that trust was naively placed - we do not know.

Red Ryder , Dec 26, 2017 3:48:47 PM | 33
b, a big exposition of facts, rich in links to more facts.

This is important material for all to understand.

Snowden is "the squirrel over there!" A distraction turned into a hope.
Compared to Assange, who is being slow-martyred in captivity, Snowden is a boy playing with gadgets.

Why did not Snowden make certain a copy of his theft went to Wikileaks? That would have been insurance.
Since he did not, it all could be just a distraction.

What is known about the Snowden affair is we received proof of what we knew. Not much else. For those who didn't know, they received news.
And ever since, the shape of things from the Deep State/Shadow Government/IC has been lies and warmongering against American freedoms and world cooperation among nations.

Fascism is corporate + the police state. The US government is a pure fascist tyranny that also protects the Empire and Global Hegemony.

We connect the dots and it's always the same picture. It was this way in the 60s,70s,80s,90s, 00s, and this forlorn decade.
Fascism more bold each decade. Billionaires and millionaires have always been in the mix.

[Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ghost Ship , Dec 27, 2017 10:17:37 AM | 92

Posted by: Oriental Voice | Dec 26, 2017 3:56:16 PM | 35
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse.

Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news.

As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.

[Dec 28, 2017] Napalm An American Biography

Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

131

Harry , Dec 27, 2017 7:25:26 PM | 130

@james #120

Robert M. Neer

Napalm An American Biography

Grieved , Dec 27, 2017 7:32:42 PM | 131
@120 james

It actually appears to be from "Napalm: an American Biography" by Robert M. Neer, 2013. The book is divided into 3 sections: Hero, Soldier, Pariah - hence the seeming title of Soldier at the top of the page.

A Google search on "correspondent Cutforth" (including the quotation marks) returns a slightly differently typeset book but with the same copy as b's image. The image itself is also returned under Images for that search. So it's definitely the Napalm book.

Try scrolling through this to find your page:
https://books.google.com/books?id=BbKvLs2TZKAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

rjj , Dec 27, 2017 8:03:20 PM | 135
JAMES @ 120 and 122


Robert Neer, Napalm, page 100

[Dec 28, 2017] My Response To The McCarthyists – Extra Newsfeed

Dec 28, 2017 | extranewsfeed.com

Back in August of 2016, which feels like millions of years ago in terms of everything that's happened in American politics since that time, Glenn Greenwald published an article in The Intercept titled " Democrats' Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S. ". I took note of the article because I look up to Greenwald, but because of my focus on the US presidential election I couldn't really see the looming terror on the horizon that he was warning of at the time.

After the election I started getting comments on my anti-Democratic establishment articles accusing them of being "Kremlin propaganda", and I had no idea how to respond to this. I'm an Australian mother who started doing political commentary last year because I fell in love with Bernie Sanders; I've never been to Russia, I've never been involved with Russia, and at that point my interest in Russia amounted to an affection for Regina Spektor, those cool fur hats and the movie Spies Like Us . I'd certainly never in my life been accused of writing propaganda.

https://extranewsfeed.com/media/e3eac8cd5216d1c3f2fbea96b0d376d3?postId=ad769fcddc10

Now these comments have become a daily occurrence. I make unapologetically frequent use of social media blocking features, but I still get accused of being a Kremlin propagandist multiple times a day for my skepticism of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and my criticism of the Democratic party.

And now pro-establishment outlets are starting to publish attack editorials full of outright lies about me. Rantt News ran a hit piece on me last month which reported completely falsely that I'm a Russian shill hired "to spread alternative facts and false equivalencies in order to divide leftists and ensure Trump, Ryan, their cabal of billionaires, and their newfound Russian friends all continue to enjoy power at the expense of your civil rights." To substantiate his claim the author cited two articles of mine that I'd written for the Melbourne site Newslogue which were then republished without my permission by a website called Russia Insider, with whom I have never had contact apart from my recent request that they remove the articles.

As I pointed out in my response to the Rantt smear piece , Russia Insider very clearly labels those articles as copies that it took from elsewhere. Here is a screenshot from the first one , which very plainly labels the article as having come from Newslogue:

Here is a link to my original article from Newslogue . Here is a screenshot from that one:

Note the dates. Here is the second article Russia Insider published, again labeled as being from Newslogue:

And here is my original article.

[Dec 28, 2017] Napalm An American Biography

Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

131

Harry , Dec 27, 2017 7:25:26 PM | 130

@james #120

Robert M. Neer

Napalm An American Biography

Grieved , Dec 27, 2017 7:32:42 PM | 131
@120 james

It actually appears to be from "Napalm: an American Biography" by Robert M. Neer, 2013. The book is divided into 3 sections: Hero, Soldier, Pariah - hence the seeming title of Soldier at the top of the page.

A Google search on "correspondent Cutforth" (including the quotation marks) returns a slightly differently typeset book but with the same copy as b's image. The image itself is also returned under Images for that search. So it's definitely the Napalm book.

Try scrolling through this to find your page:
https://books.google.com/books?id=BbKvLs2TZKAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

rjj , Dec 27, 2017 8:03:20 PM | 135
JAMES @ 120 and 122


Robert Neer, Napalm, page 100

[Dec 28, 2017] The Mueller investigation will delay and stall closing the investigation until the 2018 Congressional Elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be won and Nunes removed

Notable quotes:
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sid2 , Dec 26, 2017 12:58:36 PM | 12

I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.

Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.

http://theduran.com/fbi-russiagate-strategy-stonewall-congressional-elections/

Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.

I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.

[Dec 28, 2017] Jill Stein the first victim of the political Witch-hunt that has started by the exposed McCarthyism in America

Dec 28, 2017 | bit.ly

Posted by: nhs | Dec 26, 2017 12:20:37 PM | 5

[Dec 28, 2017] The irony and hypocrisy as well as the buffoonery of the US Beltway Junta is certainly in full display with it's latest Russophobe allegation of election tampering

Notable quotes:
"... With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics. Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government ..."
"... The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony alert). ..."
"... That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics (another irony alert) of Russia. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Allen , Dec 26, 2017 3:52:34 PM | 34

The irony and hypocrisy as well as the buffoonery of the US Beltway Junta is certainly in full display with it's latest Russophobe allegation of election tampering. Put aside all the obvious items such as, zero evidence, US elections are already rigged by the US elites before a single vote is cast, the US has been tampering in just about every countries elections for decades overtly and covertly- and just consider the more recent attempt BY THE US to tamper in Russian elections through the ever-handy NED.

With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics. Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government

The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony alert).

That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics (another irony alert) of Russia.

But yes, of course, let's Call it Democracy and have some pretend outrage in the US Propaganda Sector where the US Chattering Classes are aghast that Russia won't allow the NED to interfere in it's elections.

[Dec 28, 2017] When GG acquired apparently exclusive stewardship of the Snowden trove, one of my first thoughts was, "If there's anything in Snowden's documents that contradict or cast doubt upon the official 9/11 narrative, Glenn will be careful to put it on the bottom of the pile and keep it there." I still believe this

Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

@ WJ | 110

119

Sorry I can't help with your questions, but I concur with your hunches about the creation of Intercept.

Your reference to Intercept being set up "to block the inquiry into or exposure of special access Intel operations during or prior to 9/11 which would blow up entirely the official narrative of that epochal event" touches a nerve.

I was a regular reader and commenter at Glenn Greenwald's (GG) "Unclaimed Territory" blog, which was absorbed into the progressive-liberal lite Salon site. I even had a few brief but cordial e-mail exchanges with GG, since I diligently sent him (requested) private e-mail alerts to grammatical and syntactic errors in his prolific posts.

I sympathized with GG's early attempts to deal fairly with aggressive 9/11 Truthers monopolizing the comments; he personally moderated, and participated in, his comments threads. At first, GG's stance was "agnostic" towards 9/11 "Truther" theories, but he reasonably insisted that 9/11-related comments not be allowed to hijack every discussion.

But GG himself was not much of a 9/11 skeptic, and I soured on GG when he proved to be what I call a "Trutherphobe".

Before long, he became openly censorious and began removing both comments and commenters who insisted on mentioning 9/11, even if the 9/11 reference was germane to the topic. (Not me; I knew better than to push his buttons.) Also, GG adopted, or independently reached, what I call the "Chomsky Bubble" stance-- essentially, a sophisticated rationalization that amounts to "nothing to see here, move along."

Eventually, despite his efforts to seem nominally open-minded towards 9/11 skeptics, it became clear that to GG, pursuing 9/11 truth was both a distraction and a nuisance. 9/11 truth is simply not part of GG's agenda.

When GG acquired apparently exclusive stewardship of the Snowden trove, one of my first thoughts was, "If there's anything in Snowden's documents that contradict or cast doubt upon the official 9/11 narrative, Glenn will be careful to put it on the bottom of the pile and keep it there." I still believe this.

It's too late to blithely conclude "In short...", but all this to say that if you're correct, GG is just the person to put in charge of a modified limited hangout operation that, in part, suppresses 9/11 inquiry and truth.

[Dec 28, 2017] Was Snowden a double agent or not

Notable quotes:
"... I have always been flabbergasted about the naivety of the general public in regards to the abilities, capabilities and determination of the so called 'establishment' - aka Plutocracy, when it comes to the choice of means to achieve their psychopathic goals. What is out of reach, or undoable to those that willingly accept the death of millions of innocent people in the ME and the world over? ..."
"... The utter destruction of sovereign Nations that don't fall in line? Organizing coup d'etats like local fundraisers for soup kitchens? Looking at the track record of the American establishment, nothing, absolutely nothing is ever off the table. ..."
"... I'm always wary of talk about limited hangouts. A case can usually be made that such talk is itself intended for the same purpose - to lull the recipient into despair and passivity. ..."
"... And it WAS a secret weapon. It took a long time for this to become obvious. We see the media all along has been completely mediocre, but since it has long given wall-to-wall coverage, it never had to get very good in order to send the daily propaganda message. Come the Internet, everyone sees how sloppy the media's work is. But does this raise the quality of the media lies? It seems not - the opposite in fact, the readers get far smarter than the writers. ..."
"... The greatest trick the Devil pulled was not convincing the world he didn't exist, it was convincing the world that evil was clever, when in fact it's very mediocre. Evil performs badly. It will continue to perform badly. It can be resisted and overcome. This takes time. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Grieved , Dec 26, 2017 8:34:55 PM | 57

Snowden went to established journalists because he wanted the story to get out. He also wanted them to be cautious and conservative, to redact whatever seemed damaging to operations or his country.

In my opinion, what the journalists did worked. And Snowden destroyed his own access to the materials.

My guess - purely a guess - is that Snowden was, and remains, quite satisfied with what happened and what got published. He never wanted operational FACTS to get out so much as he wanted the SCALE of what the US was doing to get out. In this matter, I'd call his entire effort a tremendous success.

Snowden's face and story went around the world and shook things up. Paradigms came crashing down. In my own personal case, the Snowden material showed me the scale of US adventurism, and the vast audacity of its criminality. It made it clear, in philosophical terms rather than evidentiary terms, that 9/11 could easily be an inside job. It took a change in the paradigms of the scale of corruption to open up that possibility for me. I'm sure it's done similar things for millions of people. Snowden was one of the few events I can think of that actually played out in the mainstream before anyone figured out how to shut it down - and the genie was out of the bottle.

We don't know what we've lost by not having the missing pages released. But I find it hard to think they could change paradigms any more than has already happened. There's a diminishing return here. Wikileaks publishes troves of material, but what paradigms get changed unless it plays in the mainstream? Manning with the video of the mercs shooting the civilians was the last time this happened, I think.

When it comes to seeing what's behind the curtain - which is precisely what the information war is about - the words and the details of the stories matter far less than the way that people's thinking gets changed.

~~

At Christmas I socialized with ordinary people. I learned that they believe the Russians interfered in the US election, and planted Trump. Bummer, but on the other hand, I could talk to everyone about the NSA getting my Facebook feed or my phone data, and there's full agreement, or at least no disagreement.

Snowden went into the culture. Russiagate is still playing out, and we don't yet know who will be the big loser in the belief system of the culture. I'm still willing to bet it's the mainstream media.

~~

Putin has said that Snowden didn't reveal anything that Russian intelligence didn't already know. Russia didn't want to harbor Snowden, but the US State Department forced the issue by revoking his passport while he was in the air terminal in Russia. The current asylum granted is for a 3-year period. I see no reason to make any change in this. It will be reviewed when it expires, and if Snowden is still a stateless political refugee, which seems very likely, than I imagine it will be renewed. Russia is a nation of laws.

Russia has little to do with Snowden. And even less to do with the US elections. Russia doesn't want confrontation, between anyone. Russia wants a world of no conflict, and every action it takes pursues this end. Russia will easily forego a cheap victory in order to gain a valuable cessation of hostilities. I believe Putin when he says that who won the US election was of no great importance to Russia - they would deal with whomever was there.

It's always important to understand that Russia is not playing a zero-sum game, nor is she playing to "win" against any other nation in geopolitics. Russia wins when other nations stop fighting. The lat thing she wants to do is interfere with the internal order of other countries. But she is rooting for the orderliness of each country.

~~

Sorry such a long comment.

karlof1 , Dec 26, 2017 9:31:54 PM | 63
Grieved @57--

Thanks for your nice long comment and its excellent observations. And Happy Holidays since I haven't wished them on you yet this year!

For me, Snowden's revelations were nothing new as I had already learned about Project Echelon , which by the end of the 1980s was global girding and mostly intent on industrial espionage as this summary at the link informs:

"The ECHELON program was created in the late 1960s to monitor the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc allies during the Cold War, and was formally established in 1971.[5][6]

"By the end of the 20th century, the system referred to as "ECHELON" had allegedly evolved beyond its military and diplomatic origins, to also become ' a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications' (mass surveillance and industrial espionage)."

Indeed, the extent of Echelon was available to the public--sort of--but there were very few publications about it, although that changed as the internet grew during the 1990s. So for me, Snowden's actions becoming headline news was more important than the content of his revelations as the slumbering public got slapped upside its collective head.

Another historical factoid of interest is FDR's meeting with media CEOs a few days prior to 7 Dec 1941, of which no transcript exists to my knowledge, although what was said can be inferred by subsequent actions by all the actors involved--there was no, zero, deviation from the official government line about the Day of Infamy, which was a prelude to media portrayal on 911.

Fundamentally, the bottom line is whenever interests between national governments diverge from those of their public, governments will lie every time--those two sets of policy HRC admitted she had for public versus private consumption. Although it's too soon to be certain, it appears that the leadership of Russia and China have learned the difficult lesson that the best policy is for the national government to be in sync with the interests of its citizenry, thus the philosophical adoption of Win/Win versus the Outlaw US Empire's Zero Sum game, which forms the basis for our ongoing Hybrid Third World War.

nottheonly1 , Dec 26, 2017 9:32:22 PM | 64
Pe entities at work that are not under the control of the Russian secret services. Here is a link to an article on RT.de about US Special Forces at the Russian Border
All we can do is assume.

@karlof1 #37

My favorite pet peeve is Bernays. Even those who are aware of his deplorable actions, seldom grasp just how devastating his selling out of the human psyche to corporations and the NSA/CIA really turned out to be. The man hated the masses and short of calling them 'useless eaters', he saw them solely as means to corporate profits.
His legacy is a citizen without any other rights than that to "go shopping".

Go Ask Alice tells us the latest story about how much the surveillance has advanced. The article is about some content provider with unknown identity. The core message though is about the NSA/FBI/CIA going after anybody that comments on the internet, provided certain keywords are triggered. While that has been known since Snowden, the masses suffer from short term memory loss. Any dissent to the establishment is noted. This proves that there is no more rule of common law and nothing resembling a democracy by a far shot. A Plutocratic dictatorship determined to destroy anybody that poses a threat to its existence.

Red Ryder , Dec 26, 2017 10:43:54 PM | 69
@66
"What would be the most sinister scenario in regards to Snowden and the NSA leak?"

That General Hayden gets his wish and kills Snowden. That's the most sinister.

If you meant, intrigue, double agent or useful idiot sort of thing, well, Snowden had no intention of running to China and definitely not to Russia.
The Intel Agencies would have loved if he ran straight to Moscow. But it didn't happen. So,we sort of know he wasn't "used". He was "allowed" because they had it covered when he handed off the purloined data.

What sort of encrypted communication did he use on that trip to Hong Kong? They knew what he was doing.
They tried for it to be an out-and-out treason case. Remember that they insisted the Chinese in Beijing had it all?
They they tried to generate the same with Russia and Putin when he landed in Moscow.

I find him to be a useful tool for everyone who wants something out of his adventure. People who think he's a hero have their hero. People who want him dead probably have some contract out on him. And others want him to be returned and prosecuted like Timothy McVeigh and executed.

Grieved indicated above @57, Snowden was in our culture now. He's an asterisk. Compare him to Daniel Ellsberg. You cannot. Ellsberg forced the country against the war machine, forced the NYTimes to grow a set of balls and publish the Papers, and he won against the Deep State who tried to destroy him. All the while he stood like a man of courage and didn't scurry around and lateral the papers off. They got published. He faced down the system and won a huge First Amendment battle.

I chalk up the differences as Snowden is a kid with a keyboard. Assange and Ellsberg are men. The latter really matter. Snowden is a very light symbol, at best. He embarrassed NSA and only exists today because of Putin and Russian values.

I guess Vietnam was the great Evil, and surveillance just doesn't match up against what that charnel house of napalm, carpet bombing, white phosphorus, Agent Orange and Agent Blue, Phoenix Program assassinations became.

Ellsberg was a true hero. I named my first son after him.

Penelope , Dec 26, 2017 11:46:12 PM | 76
The original 3 TV Networks were started by Intelligence figures. When the Church Committee documented that all 3 were controlled by the Rockefellers, Senator Nelson Rockefeller was able to limit the GPO printing of the report to less than 100 copies.
Time Warner was govt & military intelligence controlled since its founding in 1923 by Henry Luce, a Yale Skull & Bones guy from an intelligence family. His father was a spy in China pretending to be a missionary.

The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte wrote a book, Bought Journalists, in which he reported that every significant European journalist functions as a CIA asset.

It became even worse during the Clinton regime when six mega-media companies were permitted to acquire 90% of the US print, TV, radio, and entertainment media, a concentration that destroyed diversity and independence. Today the media throughout the Western world serves as a Propaganda Ministry for Washington. The Western media is Washington's Ministry of Truth.

At the top it isn't the case that the CIA controls the media; rather that the board of directors is named by the banksters and mega-rich. Like all the mega-corps, they are thoroughly controlled by the Usurpers. The CIA has always been their private police force for intell & enforcement at home and abroad.

To rule a world requires control of military force, of money, information, energy, and the elimination of private property. Everything else is distraction. Probably the end of net neutrality is important. The coming global digital money is catastrophic. Agenda 21 is the global dictatorship, and is already decreasing private property-- among other things. https://geopolitics.co/2015/04/09/the-true-purpose-of-agenda-21/ I recommend the video within it.

Grieved , Dec 27, 2017 1:08:11 AM | 77
@73 Mark - I cannot understand why Snowden doesn't have another copy to give to Wikileaks.

This is a crucial point. Edward Snowden chose not to possess the files after he had handed them off to the journalists. He wiped out his copy when they started to publish them. This was a deliberate choice, and part of an entire ethical view that Snowden held of the situation he was in, and the situation he had created.

If you can't understand why he held this view, then you have to ask him, or study his words. But rest assured that he didn't simply "fail" to have a backup copy in case his journalists chickened out or sold out their commitment. He was a geek. He wasn't a journalist. He wanted sensible journalists to handle the lifetime scoop that he was holding. In my view, he made an incredibly good choice.

Put yourself in his shoes. The path he had already walked just to get those files to those real-world journalists in Hong Kong was already a thousand times longer than anything that could possibly lie in front of him. All this talk about assets - like you can keep this kind of thing going: the man lived a lifetime in a few short years and did the best thing he could ever have conceived of.

He earned the space to delete the files and sit back for a while and watch things happen. He said he wanted the public to know, and the public to discuss - if he was wrong, so be it, but it was for the public to discuss, he always said.

Everything I've written here may not be true. But if it is true, then on the basis of this narrative of events, no one has any right to ask anything more of Snowden. He was the messenger who put his body in the circuit to complete the signal. We all gained. He gained nothing, except satisfaction of mission accomplished.

For me that's where his story ends. Greenwald, Intercept, oligarchs, slavery - these are all another story, and one that I'm focused on. But I choose to honor Snowden for the bravery of what he seems to have done, and if true that achievement scored so high that no amount of falling short can diminish it.

Peter AU 1 , Dec 27, 2017 1:38:17 AM | 79
78

Snowden confirmed the NSA files held by shadow brokers as genuine. How many years after destroying his copies? Snowden worked in US intelligence, perhaps just as a geek, but I don't see him destroying the only weapon he has against them.

psychohistorian , Dec 27, 2017 2:04:04 AM | 80
@ Grieved with recent support for Snowden

I agree and thank you for your words.

I haven't read here any discussion of the movie, SNOWDEN, produced by Oliver Stone. I saw it when it first came out. Is it on Netflix or other outlets yet? As movies go it fell short of a documentary. That said, it provides yet another potential thin-edge-of-a-wedge thought for the zombies that live among us.

The neurofeedback treatment that I am up to 132 session of has healed many people like Edward Snowden (with his reported epilepsy) and I hope he gets such soon in his life; us old folks are harder to heal. One of neurofeedback earliest successes was a woman with epilepsy who after being healed went out and got a drivers license.....can't find the source but this was 30-40 years ago

I consider Snowden to be a true American patriot. The American values that I was taught are in stark contrast to those exhibited by the God of Mammon cabal in control today. I don't believe that we are a bad species but sorely misdirected by something that can be "easily" changed. Look at the progress we have made as a species. Why do we let ourselves be limited in our development by centuries old conventions about who controls the tools of finance? How many wars would there be if money was a public utility?

Wake up zombies! It is time to change the world.

Thominus , Dec 27, 2017 2:52:00 AM | 81
What more revelations of Snowden's archive could possibly make any difference? It is already basically understood that the NSA, its contractors, and 5 eyes agencies "collect it all" illegally, with no meaningful oversight, to the degree that social media became their accomplice and extension, that they abuse this power and the constitution proudly and with impunity for any purposes and justifications they see fit, and so on, and the vast majority of citizens cower, or delude themselves with some comforting trust that it won't be used against them.

It has only proven that nothing will snap the majority ignorance from its coma.
No one with any voice - even those involved seem able to comprehend how vastly and deeply this will effect the free will of people, culture, and society - for that matter how it already has progressed to do so.

In the wake of the retroactive telcom immunity (which by definition is an admission of blatant criminality and conspiracy by and between both government and telcom corporations) The Snowden revalations couldn't have been more explicit, signifiacnt, or urgent. The people did nothing. Those minor percentage of us who bother to read and understand what is happening can chatter and pontificate all we want, because the ignorant majority hasn't the interest or energy to question the status quo. (they absoloutely have not the attention span to read a single Greenwald article) So really I can understand why there is no point releaseing the rest.

Snowden was the one upholding his oath to the constitution, against whose who systematically violated it, and he is called a traitor.

As far as RussiaGate being some sort of distraction from this - no more than a distraction from any other meaningful information that SHOULD be on people's minds.

brabantian , Dec 27, 2017 4:11:38 AM | 83
Regrettably, Moon of Alabama has not spotted what all major government intelligence agencies have known for a couple of years now ... European intel agency report - 'Edward Snowden & Glenn Greenwald are CIA frauds'
...
[copy of a Veterans Today nonsense piece deleted - b.]
V. Arnold , Dec 27, 2017 4:14:20 AM | 84
Peter AU 1 | Dec 27, 2017 1:38:17 AM | 80

Snowden didn't "destroy" anything. He gave it all to Greenwald in Hong Kong.
That way, nobody could coerce or otherwise intimidate him; as there were no files in his possesion.
Snowden himself clearly stated this fact.
That he landed in Russia is entirely the fault of the U.S. government (such as it is) by cancelling Snowden's passport enroute; this becomes ancient history in today's world...

Oh mercy; this is getting just too weird and woo, woo, for this one; later will be greater...

Posted by: V. Arnold , Dec 27, 2017 4:16:44 AM | 85

Oh mercy; this is getting just too weird and woo, woo, for this one; later will be greater...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Dec 27, 2017 4:16:44 AM | 85 /div

V. Arnold , Dec 27, 2017 6:20:14 AM | 86
So, it seems Pierre Omidyar sold out Greenwald; that's just peachy...
john , Dec 27, 2017 6:40:27 AM | 87
the Snowden('snowed in') saga is yet to be written, or perhaps, like much verity, will NEVER be written. eluding the intelligence hounds for a couple of weeks while shooting a nice HD video with a couple of prominent journalists never passed my smell test...

,,,

...and what might seem a minor quibble with Grieved's:

Manning with the video of the mercs shooting the civilians was the last time this happened, I think

those weren't mercs, dude, they were US Army.

John , Dec 27, 2017 9:50:53 AM | 90
Re#56 - Grieved

I agree that the Snowden info was the paradym changer that showed to me in unmistakable imagery,
that my country was an outlaw nation hellbent on economic empire and had shifted from liberty to total
Control mechanisms.

The Snowden info together with the missing 28 pages from the 911 committee findings sent me on a
truth mission; reading everything from "CIA Rouges Killed JFK, Russ Baker's book on the Bush
family, to Fahrenheit 911.

This former Neocon keeps trying to wash himself in the pure waters of the truth but cannot wash clean his guilt
for once voting for and defending such trash.

So I continue reading sites like MOA and others seeking the truth and speaking out to those in my life.

john , Dec 27, 2017 10:11:12 AM | 91
John says:

I agree that the Snowden info was the paradym changer that showed to me in unmistakable imagery,
that my country was an outlaw nation hellbent on economic empire and had shifted from liberty to total
Control mechanisms

"Earth-shattering!" Bah! Humbug!

Penelope , Dec 27, 2017 11:09:22 AM | 95
Brabantian @ 83, Yes, the huge amount of publicity given Snowden was an obvious tip-off that he is a hoax. All other whistleblowers get no publicity at all. Plus, everything that Snowden "disclosed" was already known. Perhaps he's out there to give credibility to lies as yet untold. Already his "asylum" promotes the fiction of East vs West opposition. It is a play and we are the audience, stuck in Plato's cave.
wendy davis , Dec 27, 2017 12:00:01 PM | 98
'Snowden says he took no secret files to russia', NYSlimes 10/13

He argued that he had helped American national security by prompting a badly needed public debate about the scope of the intelligence effort. "The secret continuance of these programs represents a far greater danger than their disclosure," he said. He added that he had been more concerned that Americans had not been told about the N.S.A.'s reach than he was about any specific surveillance operation.

" So long as there's broad support amongst a people, it can be argued there's a level of legitimacy even to the most invasive and morally wrong program, as it was an informed and willing decision," he said . "However, programs that are implemented in secret, out of public oversight, lack that legitimacy, and that's a problem. It also represents a dangerous normalization of 'governing in the dark,' where decisions with enormous public impact occur without any public input."
Pffffft.

Zo, will congress renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702 when they're back in town?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took-no-secret-files-to-russia.html

WJ , Dec 27, 2017 2:11:30 PM | 110
There's a lot going on in this post and comment thread. I have no strong opinion about the disputed status/role of either Snowden or Greenwald that are being discussed above, but I do think it very likely that the Intercept was originally started as what is often referred to (I believe following the Nixon tapes) as a "limited hangout" operation.

It was intended to "expose" certain truths the CIA/NSA knew were already implied by earlier revealed and published documents and by this means was to distract the public (as if) and journalists (all three of them) from probing more deeply into the history, scope, and current operations of these and related programs. I would not be surprised if it turned out somehow that the real objective of this was to block the inquiry into or exposure of special access Intel operations during or prior to 9/11 which would blow up entirely the official narrative of that epochal event.

But I would like to bring up one fact that bears on the ongoing discussion of Snowden and Greenwald but has not been mentioned yet (I believe) in this thread. That is the NSA's reported identification of (I believe) at least two other possible leakers or whistleblowers simultaneous with or just after Snowden. I recall there being several reports about the arrest or possible detainment of one possible leaker in particular whose identity has never (to my knowledge) come to light. Does anybody remember better than I do this intriguing but often forgot facet of the NSA / Snowden affair?

The existence, identity, and (unknown?) fate of this possible NSA leaker bears on the questions being asked above about Snowden and Greenwald in obvious ways. If there really was such a leaker or potential leaker who had at the time not yet been apprehended by the NSA, then it is at least certainly possible that Snowden's own leaks were co-opted (willingly or not) by the CIA/NSA to render the revelations of the other not-yet-identified leaker anticlimactic and redundant. In this way, it is possible that Snowden's leaks, as filtered through Greenwald, the Guardian, and the Post, were themselves a kind of limited hangout operation.

Note what they produced: Obama admitted a discussion was needed, Clapper was dutifully brought before Congress, lied to them, and was not punished at all for it, and some peripheral laws were tweaked (and then untweaked) to give the impression that something had been discovered, discussed, and addressed, with the hope that now everybody would stop thinking too much about the NSA etc. This is exactly what happened, and it's exactly what limited hangouts are designed to do.

I would be interested in hearing more information from others here about those one or two other unidentified NSA leakers. What ever happened with that story? Was the identity of both leakers ever revealed?

nottheonly1 , Dec 27, 2017 5:57:15 PM | 123
@Red Ryder #69
...

As many other here stated, what WAS revealed, to was already known to a large degree. What WAS revealed, did not stir up the public sentiment beyond a ripple. It is the absence of any whatsoever consequence to his revelations that does not make sense. For the first part, of his living here in Hawai'i and subcontractor work for the NSA via Booz Allen Hamilton, reads like a cheap version of a spy b-picture. Compared to the surrounding circumstances of Daniel Ellsberg, Snowden's story appeared to be staged - if only to me. The more became known, the less did people pay attention to Libya and Syria. The distractive value of the unfolding Snowden whistle blowing was enormous.

...

nottheonly1 , Dec 27, 2017 6:30:36 PM | 125
@Red Ryder #69
...

I have always been flabbergasted about the naivety of the general public in regards to the abilities, capabilities and determination of the so called 'establishment' - aka Plutocracy, when it comes to the choice of means to achieve their psychopathic goals. What is out of reach, or undoable to those that willingly accept the death of millions of innocent people in the ME and the world over?

The utter destruction of sovereign Nations that don't fall in line? Organizing coup d'etats like local fundraisers for soup kitchens? Looking at the track record of the American establishment, nothing, absolutely nothing is ever off the table.

A staged NSA leak story that turns out to become more inconceivable and more suspicious by the day. And it matters not. Not more than Assange spending his days in an Ecuadorian exile until the plot line demands to change.

Therefore, the most sinister scenario includes a wholly staged Snowden storyline, with the participation of Russia. This is not to say that this is the way it is, but not discounting the possibility that it could be. On more than one occasion, Russian behavior, be it either reactionary, or proactive has been inconclusive. A fool who would think that it is all just theater on the expense of millions of innocent people and humanity as a whole.

No one has ever been able to predict the future in detail. Mankind is left to make sense of the present and with constant misinformation and distraction, that appears to be impossible.

Thanks to You and the other knowledgeable commenters.

All the best for 2018.

fast freddy , Dec 27, 2017 6:44:05 PM | 126
There is a good case that both Snowjob and Assange are Limited Hangouts. Each has exposed little beyond that which was already known. Neither offers any criticism of Israel's occupation of Palestine and the Yinon Plan.

What they have done is to get the worlds' citizenry to understand that domestic surveillance is a normal condition which should be expected and accepted.

Grieved , Dec 27, 2017 7:45:07 PM | 132
@126 What they have done is to get the worlds' citizenry to understand that domestic surveillance is a normal condition which should be expected and accepted.

This could also be stated as, "What they have done is to get the worlds' citizenry to understand that domestic surveillance is a normal condition which should be expected and guarded against ."

I think the world has changed since Snowden. Within the IT community, the sense of security and its requirements has been changed. What's missing so far is a discernible response. Wait a few more short years, until Chinese computing oustrips western encryption by an order of magnitude, and sooner than that when Russian hardware and software made for the consumer market is invulnerable to NSA technology. There's no sense trying to protect oneself from NSA at present because it will only draw attention. But when the Russian kit is on the market, let's just see who in the west buys it. I predict large sales.

dh , Dec 27, 2017 7:52:50 PM | 133
@132 Didn't Kaspersky just get banned in the US?
Grieved , Dec 27, 2017 8:13:41 PM | 137
I'm always wary of talk about limited hangouts. A case can usually be made that such talk is itself intended for the same purpose - to lull the recipient into despair and passivity.

When we say that we've all been gamed by theater, it's another way of saying not to fight back. But the Devil doesn't get it all his way all the time. And the rulers of the Earth always have to work through agents, and they are so frigging human that plans often go slightly, or greatly, awry.

We see more botched conspiracy action than seems credible. So a case can be made that the carelessness itself is part of the subliminal message that resistance is futile. But is it really intentional, or is it simply making the best of a bad job? Was Kennedy really gunned down in daylight as a message to all of us that we'd better not resist, because the power was total? Or was it just the way the state criminals think, that the way to kill a president is the same playbook that always worked before, and still they botched the hit with all kinds of missed shots and clumsy actions? Their secret weapon was media complicity - this allowed a multitude of sins, and without it we'd have known 50 years ago who killed Kennedy.

And it WAS a secret weapon. It took a long time for this to become obvious. We see the media all along has been completely mediocre, but since it has long given wall-to-wall coverage, it never had to get very good in order to send the daily propaganda message. Come the Internet, everyone sees how sloppy the media's work is. But does this raise the quality of the media lies? It seems not - the opposite in fact, the readers get far smarter than the writers.

The greatest trick the Devil pulled was not convincing the world he didn't exist, it was convincing the world that evil was clever, when in fact it's very mediocre. Evil performs badly. It will continue to perform badly. It can be resisted and overcome. This takes time.

I always enjoy the words of fictional Lazarus Long: "Of course the game is rigged. But don't let that stop you playing. If you don't play, you can't win."

David Park , Dec 27, 2017 9:39:05 PM | 138
Here is my little experience with the surveillance state: I am a user of the Mathematica computer program developed and sold by Wolfram Research Inc. They have a web site for users to exchange information called Wolfram Community. It is mostly about asking and answering questions about the use of Mathematica or sharing Mathematica tricks. About a year ago a series of about half a dozen ads for programmers appeared which were clearly link to expanding the surveillance state. Here is one of them:

Programming Ad

I replied by quoting the U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment and saying "Yes it was relevant to the advertisement."

Within 10 minutes my reply was deleted. I received an email from Wolfram Research saying: "We work very hard to foster positive environment on Wolfram Community and cannot allow any discussions outside the Wolfram Community guidelines. This means discussions that stray way beyond Wolfram Technologies topics."

So what is positive about advertisements on a community forum for the surveillance state and what is negative about the 4th Amendment? And the advertisements had little direct relevance to Mathematica. But I suppose they had their reasons.

[Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt

Highly recommended!
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
Dec 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Rhett , Dec 26, 2017 2:18:30 PM | 20

I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.

Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian plan.

The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot. Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to end sanctions against Russia.

Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the world's favor in the long run.

Sid2 , Dec 26, 2017 3:17:40 PM | 27
@20

there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."

The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.

To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence. Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As with:

"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."

this is b's link in URL form here:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n01/jackson-lears/what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-russian-hacking

Oriental Voice , Dec 26, 2017 3:56:16 PM | 35
@20:

I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and the ME. Credit to b.

On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt.

But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future.

USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.

[Dec 27, 2017] The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left.

Dec 27, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Christian Chuba , 26 December 2017 at 10:36 AM

A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.

The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN, their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine, call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea, maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist attack.

Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too (picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.

BTW this link shows the flight pattern of U.S. surveillance aircraft as they take off from Bulgaria and fliesl along the coast of Sevastopol http://russia-insider.com/en/us-keeps-loitering-coast-russian-naval-base-sevastopol-russia-adds-second-s-400-air-defense-battery

Lyttenburgh , 26 December 2017 at 06:16 PM
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who "threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is true.

If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national security threats" as Iran and DPRK.

Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here a sort of détente is possible.

D , 26 December 2017 at 07:23 PM
@EE

"Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for the rubes."

Exactly. And that condition seems to appertain to the formation of most domestic and foreign policies emanating from Washington these day. That's what you get in a country where folks like to gorge themselves on the swill of cable news and talk radio.

[Dec 27, 2017] Russia hacked the election. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. Like a misstatement in Flynn s case

Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about
The key reason of Trump victory was the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA -- voters rejected candidates from two major and discredited parties and elected outsider -- Trump is vain hopes that he can change the situation for the better (similar hope were during lection of Obama who also positioned himself as an outsider). So far it looks like he betrayed his voters becoming "Republican Obama" with fame "Make America Great Again" slogan (great for whom, for military industrial complex ?) instead of Obama fake slogan "change we can believe in".
Notable quotes:
"... The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. ..."
"... Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present ..."
"... Trump has claimed he has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are going to be disappointed. ..."
"... Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about: ..."
Dec 27, 2017 | moonofalabama.org

Ghost Ship | Dec 27, 2017 10:38:32 AM | 93

>>>> Sid2 | Dec 26, 2017 12:58:36 PM | 12

Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false.

Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present.

Is the investigation a sham? Most of what you read about it is supposition coming from partisan reporters working for partisan newspapers. The actual facts are few and far between.

Manafort was clearly influence-peddling but for Turkey and a Ukrainian oligarch. Flynn clear did lie but his actions, requesting Russia delay a response to the expulsion of diplomat and that Russia block a resolution against Israel, appear not to be of themselves illegal. Trump Jr holding a meeting with a Maltese professor of international relations, a Russian criminal lawyer and a "niece" of Putin who wasn't in fact a niece of Putin was neither here nor there unless Trump Jr. lied to the FBI.

There is no evidence that the Steele dossier corroborates any of the above acts, but if the Obama regime really used it to get a FISA warrant then that needs to be investigated. Even the author of the dossier admits it might be 30% wrong.

As for Jill Stein, it's news to me that Mueller is investigating her when it seems to be some Democrats in the Senate who are doing so.

There have been a lot of "leaks" about the Mueller investigation but most reports suggest none of the leaks come from the investigation itself which seems to be watertight. It's a matter of waiting and seeing what comes out later and that Trump has claimed he has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are going to be disappointed. And nobody can then say that they weren't warned.

Red Ryder , Dec 27, 2017 12:29:58 PM | 102

@93, Ghost Ship, "Flynn clear did lie . . . "

What was the lie? You have the "lie" and no one else has it. There is no lie. There wasn't even a lie to Pence. Flynn was NSC advisor, prior campaign and transition advisor on Nation Security. He was protecting the President's "moves" and doing the President's business.

Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about:

It's all memes for people to accept as facts. Mike Flynn's job is to lie to everyone but his commander-in-chief. That's what he did. In other words, he told "the truth" which everyone should know could be a lie. Flynn was working for President-elect Trump as his top Intel man. Of course, he would lie. He spent 33 years in military Intel, rose to the top and told a million lies. Spies lie. Espionage is about truth and untruth.

Ghost Ship , Dec 27, 2017 1:01:00 PM | 106

>>>> Red Ryder | Dec 27, 2017 12:29:58 PM | 102

So why did Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI? If he was that accustomed to/experienced in lying he would have known what to do. Such as:

  1. Knowing that with the FBI involved you don't lie but that doesn't mean you have to help them;
  2. Making sure he had a criminal lawyer with him before answering any question;
  3. Pleading the fifth amendment.

[Dec 27, 2017] The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left.

Dec 27, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Christian Chuba , 26 December 2017 at 10:36 AM

A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.

The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN, their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine, call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea, maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist attack.

Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too (picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.

BTW this link shows the flight pattern of U.S. surveillance aircraft as they take off from Bulgaria and fliesl along the coast of Sevastopol http://russia-insider.com/en/us-keeps-loitering-coast-russian-naval-base-sevastopol-russia-adds-second-s-400-air-defense-battery

Lyttenburgh , 26 December 2017 at 06:16 PM
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who "threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is true.

If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national security threats" as Iran and DPRK.

Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here a sort of détente is possible.

D , 26 December 2017 at 07:23 PM
@EE

"Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for the rubes."

Exactly. And that condition seems to appertain to the formation of most domestic and foreign policies emanating from Washington these day. That's what you get in a country where folks like to gorge themselves on the swill of cable news and talk radio.

[Dec 26, 2017] Are sanctions pushing Russians to rally around the flag Not exactly

Notable quotes:
"... There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it. ..."
"... The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass. ..."
"... The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine ..."
"... Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus. ..."
"... For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France. ..."
"... Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But still not advisable to poke that bear further. ..."
Dec 26, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

AMR56 6/18/2017 10:52 AM EDT

There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it.

The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass.

The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine.

The first round of sanctions has obviously failed to have its effect. That's why the US Senate is now attempting a new, harsher round of sanctions in an effort to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate. ... more See More Like Share

MyFreeAdvice 6/16/2017 9:08 AM EDT
The new sanctions on Russia is all about giving an advantage to US LNG producers. First shipment of LNG to Poland from US, ever, was done just last week. It is all a game for the benefit of the big business while emotionally victimizing the common person in the US.
Alex Bes 6/16/2017 7:31 AM EDT [Edited]
Timoty Frai made a lot of research and did a lot of conclusions. Unfortunately he did not understand the only fact: we Russians has a little bit different mentality. Sanctions could not make us gave up if we believe that we are on a right side )))

For example: Imagine if someone say to you: "If you will not let me hurt your baby I will reject you as a customer!" Will you let him hurt your baby??? Most of the Russians won't!

Christopher Perrien 6/15/2017 9:06 AM EDT [Edited]
Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus.

For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France.

Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But still not advisable to poke that bear further.

Manuel Angst 6/15/2017 9:49 AM EDT
"... punish Russia for being Syria's friend"

Propping up the biggest butcher of Syrian people is hardly "being Syria's friend".

... more See More Like Nedlog and Manuel Angst 2

Revealer 6/15/2017 6:42 PM EDT
Must I remind you that many thousands of Americans living in both Southern and Northern states of American considered Abraham Lincoln a butcher of American people and a tyrant doing the U.S. civil war. In fact he outraged so many who thought of him that way he was assassinated because of a belief that he was a tyrant and a butcher of American people. Many people at the time remembered Gen. Sherman's military march through the South that burned everything in sight and believe it or not killed many civilians. Be careful who you call a butcher. ... more See More Like
Don Brook 6/15/2017 8:47 AM EDT
Putin's disciple Trump may well decide to invade some small country as a way of shoring up his own declining approval. ... more See More Like Share
Tebteb27 6/15/2017 8:54 AM EDT
You are a type locality example of the slow digression into destructive ignorance that we currently face as a nation. God help us. ... more See More Like
Ed Chen 6/15/2017 9:10 AM EDT
That is the best vision of how the leftist (the same word "liberal") propaganda screw the minds of the people like Don Brook, to bring this nation to a dangerous situation of clash with each other over nothing, but the pain could be great. Are sanctions pushing Russians to 'rally around the flag'? Not exactly. - The Washington Post
Bob Twou 6/15/2017 8:37 AM EDT
The sanctions have strengthen Russia's domestic economy and has turn the corner
despite low energy prices. Sanctions are never an effective tool for international relations, look at Cuba. lol
Russian are an educated people, they are not stupid which the Establishment media wants us to believe. Time to talk, isn't that what diplomacy is all about? ... more See More Like Share Erugo 1
altR 6/15/2017 8:58 AM EDT
You are also correct, sanctions are the biggest waste of time. They are only for the political elite to fake resolve

[Dec 26, 2017] National Security Searches for a Strategy by Philip Giraldi

Trump is now 100% pure neocon. What a metamorphose is less a year from inauguration...
Notable quotes:
"... It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people." ..."
"... A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities." ..."
"... Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely. ..."
"... And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute. ..."
"... So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States. ..."
Dec 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

If one takes Trump at his word, the U.S. will use force worldwide to make sure that only Washington can dominate regionally, a frightening thought as it goes beyond even the wildest pretensions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And equally ridiculous are the potential consequences of such bullying – the White House clearly believes that it will make other nations respect us and follow our leadership whereas quite the reverse is likely to be true.

On the very limited bright side, Trump did have good things to say about the benefits derived from intelligence sharing with Russia and he also spoke about both Moscow and Beijing as "rivals" and "adversaries" instead of enemies. That was very refreshing to hear but unfortunately the printed document did not say the same thing.

The NSS report provided considerably more detail than did the speech but it also was full of generalizations and all too often relied on Washington group think to frame its options. The beginning is somewhat terrifying for one of my inclinations on foreign policy:

"An America that is safe, prosperous, and free at home is an America with the strength, confidence, and will to lead abroad. It is an America that can preserve peace, uphold liberty, and create enduring advantages for the American people. Putting America first is the duty of our government and the foundation for U.S. leadership in the world. A strong America is in the vital interests of not only the American people, but also those around the world who want to partner with the United States in pursuit of shared interests, values, and aspirations."

One has to ask what this "lead" and "leadership" and "partner" nonsense actually represents, particularly in light of the fact that damn near the entire world just repudiated Trump's decision to move the American Embassy in Israel as well as the nearly global rejection of his response to climate change? And Washington's alleged need to lead has brought nothing but grief to the American people starting in Korea and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and numerous lesser stops along the way in places like Somalia, Panama and Syria. The false narrative of the threat coming from "foreigners" has actually done nothing to make Americans safer while also diminishing constitutional liberties and doing serious damage to the economy.

The printed report is much more brutal than was Trump about the dangers facing America and it is also much more carefree in the "facts" that it chooses to present. It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people."

A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities."

Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely.

And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute.

So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States.

[Dec 25, 2017] As American Statecraft Crumbles into Dangerous Incoherence, Where is the Senate By Andrew Bacevich Common Dreams

Notable quotes:
"... Contrast that with our situation today. Donald Trump came to office almost entirely ignorant of statecraft. Rather than a considered worldview, he offers slogans and sound bites. As Trump approaches the first anniversary of his inauguration, we can say this about U.S. foreign policy: It has ceased to exist. ..."
"... Any policy worthy of the name requires principles. Trump has none. So U.S. behavior on the world stage today consists of little more than random and often contradictory impulses. For recent examples, consider the inflammatory rhetoric directed at North Korea, stealth increases in U.S. troop contingents in Syria and Afghanistan, the inauguration of a U.S. bombing campaign in Somalia and recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In each instance, the president acted without making the slightest pretense of consulting anyone outside a small circle of White House advisors. None of these decisions, to put it mildly, will Make America Great Again. ..."
"... Given the chance, any president will treat statecraft as his personal fiefdom. History shows that even a small number of senators with sufficient gumption and wit can frustrate such ambitions. This is what La Follette and Norris, Borah and Wheeler, and Fulbright did in their time. That among their successors today there appear to be none willing or able to take up their mantle is a sad testament to the state of American politics. ..."
"... is the author of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History ..."
"... which has just been published by Random House. ..."
"... He is also editor of the book, The Short American Century ..."
"... Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (American Empire Project) ; Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War , The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War , The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (American Empire Project) , ..."
"... The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II . ..."
Dec 25, 2017 | www.commondreams.org

The USA foreign policy remain unchanged. It is a neocon foreign policy. Trump just does not matter. He just added a spicy flavor of reckless adventurism to it.

How senators of both parties have made themselves complicit in the unfolding folly of Trump's foreign policy by Andrew Bacevich Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., center, smiles as he takes an elevator after meeting with President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans on Nov. 28 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press) Where is J. William Fulbright when we need him? Or if not Fulbright, perhaps Robert M. La Follette or George W. Norris. Personally, I'd even settle for William Borah or Burton K. Wheeler.

During the 20th century, each of these now largely forgotten barons of the U.S. Senate served the nation with distinction. Their chief contribution? On matters related to war and peace, they declined to kowtow to whoever happened to occupy the office of commander in chief. On issues involving the safety and security of the American people, they challenged presidents, insisting that the Congress should play a central role in formulating basic policy. With the floor of the Senate as their bully pulpit, they questioned, provoked and thereby captured public attention.

"The Senate's duty is clear -- to spell out the implications of Trump's mishandling of U.S. foreign policy before the damage becomes irreversible."

A century ago, La Follette of Wisconsin and Norris of Nebraska, both progressive Republicans, spoke eloquently and at length in opposition to President Woodrow Wilson's insistence that the United States should go to war with Germany. Following the World War I armistice, Borah, a Republican from Idaho, emerged as an uncompromising critic of the Versailles Treaty that Wilson negotiated in Paris. During the late 1930s, having concluded that U.S. participation in that earlier European war had been a huge error, Borah and Wheeler, a Democrat from Montana, sought to prevent President Franklin D. Roosevelt from repeating Wilson's mistakes. Three decades later, Fulbright, a Democrat from Arkansas and the influential chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, became a thorn in Lyndon B. Johnson's side as a sharp critic of the Vietnam War.

In opposing presidents whom they saw as too eager to wage war or too certain that they alone understood the prerequisites of peace, these senators were not necessarily correct in their judgments. Yet by drawing widespread public attention to foreign policy issues of first-order importance, they obliged their adversaries in the White House to make their case to the American people.

Whatever the issue -- sending Americans to fight on the Western Front, joining the League of Nations, rescuing Great Britain from Hitler or defending South Vietnam -- the back and forth between presidents and prominent Senate critics provided a means of vetting assumptions, assessing potential risks and debating possible consequences. In each instance, American citizens gained a clearer picture of what their president was intent on doing and why. The president became accountable.

Contrast that with our situation today. Donald Trump came to office almost entirely ignorant of statecraft. Rather than a considered worldview, he offers slogans and sound bites. As Trump approaches the first anniversary of his inauguration, we can say this about U.S. foreign policy: It has ceased to exist.

Any policy worthy of the name requires principles. Trump has none. So U.S. behavior on the world stage today consists of little more than random and often contradictory impulses. For recent examples, consider the inflammatory rhetoric directed at North Korea, stealth increases in U.S. troop contingents in Syria and Afghanistan, the inauguration of a U.S. bombing campaign in Somalia and recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In each instance, the president acted without making the slightest pretense of consulting anyone outside a small circle of White House advisors. None of these decisions, to put it mildly, will Make America Great Again.

As American statecraft succumbs to incoherence, where is the Senate? Somewhere between missing in action and too preoccupied with partisan and parochial considerations to take notice. As a body, the Senate has done nothing to restrain Trump or to enlighten the American people regarding the erratic course on which the president has embarked. Occasional complaints registered by a handful of senators, such as the ailing John McCain, amount to little more than catcalls from the bleachers. In effect, senators of both parties have made themselves complicit in the unfolding folly.

The duty of the Senate is clear -- to spell out the implications of Trump's mishandling of U.S. foreign policy before the damage that he is inflicting becomes irreversible.

Given the chance, any president will treat statecraft as his personal fiefdom. History shows that even a small number of senators with sufficient gumption and wit can frustrate such ambitions. This is what La Follette and Norris, Borah and Wheeler, and Fulbright did in their time. That among their successors today there appear to be none willing or able to take up their mantle is a sad testament to the state of American politics. © Los Angeles Times Andrew Bacevich Andrew J. Bacevich , a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, is the author of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History , which has just been published by Random House. He is also editor of the book, The Short American Century (Harvard Univ. Press) , and author of several others, including: Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (American Empire Project) ; Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War , The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War , The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (American Empire Project) , and The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II . Share This Article

[Dec 25, 2017] The USA as neocons occupied country

Apr 28, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
XXX, April 28, 2017 at 06:29 PM
Sanjait,

"Hillary Clinton, following a long tradition of mainstream Democrats, had a grab bag of proposals that, if enacted, would collectively make a huge difference in the lives of working people. "

I think you are wrong here.

Hillary was/is a neoliberal, and as such is hostile to the interests of working people and middle class in general. Like most neoliberals she is a Machiavellian elitist. Her election promises are pure demagogy, much like Trump or Obama election promised (immortalized in the slogan "change we can believe in" which now became the synonym of election fraud)

Also she was/is hell-bent of preserving/expanding the US neoliberal empire and the wars for neoliberal dominance (in ME mainly for the benefit of Israel and Saudis). War are pretty costly ventures and they are financed at the expense of working class and lower middle class, never at the expense of "fat cats" from Wall Street.

All-in-all I think the role of POTUS is greatly "misunderestimated" in your line of thinking. As we can see differences between Trump and Hillary in foreign policy are marginal. Why are you assuming that the differences in domestic economic policies would be greater ?

In reality there are other powerful factors in play that diminish the importance of POTUS:

  1. The US Presidential Elections are no longer an instrument for change. They are completely corrupted and are mostly of "bread and circuses" type of events, where two gladiators preselected by financial elite fight for the coveted position, using all kind of dirty tricks for US public entertainment.
  2. While the appearance of democracy remains, in reality the current system represents that rule of "deep state". In the classic form of "National security state". In the National Security State, the US people no longer have the any chances to change the policies.
  3. Political emasculation of US voters has led to frustration, depression and rage. It feeds radical right movement including neo-fascists, which embrace more extreme remedies to the current problems because they correctly feel that the traditional parties no longer represent the will of the people.
  4. Insulated and partially degenerated US elite have grown more obtuse and is essentially a hostage for neocons. They chose to ignore the seething anger that lies just below the surface of brainwashed Us electorate.
  5. The "American Dream" is officially dead. People at a and below lower middle class level see little hope for themselves, their children or the country. The chasm between top 1% (or let's say top 20%) and the rest continues to fuel populist anger.
  6. While Trump proved to be "yet another turncoat" like Barak Obama (who just got his first silver coin in the form of the $400K one hour speech) Trump's election signify a broad rejection of the country's neoliberal elite, including neoliberal MSM, neocon foreign policy as well as neoliberal economic system (and first of all neoliberal globalization).
  7. The country foreign policy remains hijacked by neocons (this time in the form of fiends of Paul Wolfowitz among the military brass appointed by Trump to top positions in his administration) and that might spell major conflict or even WWIII.

The level of subservience to neocon agenda in Trump administration might well be higher then in previous administration. And "make America first" was already transformed into "full spectrum dominance" == "America uber alles". http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/deutschland-uber-alles-and-america-first-in-song

8. We can now talk about the USA as "neocon occupied country" (NOC), because the neocons policies contradict the USA national interests and put heavy burden of taxpayers, especially in lower income categories. Due to neglect in maintaining infrastructure, in some areas the USA already looks like third word country. Still we finance Israel and several other countries to the tune of $40 billion dollars in military aid alone (that that's in case of Israel just the tip of the iceberg; real figure is probably double of that) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

Since Bill Clinton POTUS is more or less a marionette of financial oligarchy (which Obama -- as a person without the past (or with a very fuzzy past) - symbolizes all too well).

[Dec 25, 2017] As American Statecraft Crumbles into Dangerous Incoherence, Where is the Senate By Andrew Bacevich Common Dreams

Notable quotes:
"... Contrast that with our situation today. Donald Trump came to office almost entirely ignorant of statecraft. Rather than a considered worldview, he offers slogans and sound bites. As Trump approaches the first anniversary of his inauguration, we can say this about U.S. foreign policy: It has ceased to exist. ..."
"... Any policy worthy of the name requires principles. Trump has none. So U.S. behavior on the world stage today consists of little more than random and often contradictory impulses. For recent examples, consider the inflammatory rhetoric directed at North Korea, stealth increases in U.S. troop contingents in Syria and Afghanistan, the inauguration of a U.S. bombing campaign in Somalia and recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In each instance, the president acted without making the slightest pretense of consulting anyone outside a small circle of White House advisors. None of these decisions, to put it mildly, will Make America Great Again. ..."
"... Given the chance, any president will treat statecraft as his personal fiefdom. History shows that even a small number of senators with sufficient gumption and wit can frustrate such ambitions. This is what La Follette and Norris, Borah and Wheeler, and Fulbright did in their time. That among their successors today there appear to be none willing or able to take up their mantle is a sad testament to the state of American politics. ..."
"... is the author of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History ..."
"... which has just been published by Random House. ..."
"... He is also editor of the book, The Short American Century ..."
"... Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (American Empire Project) ; Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War , The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War , The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (American Empire Project) , ..."
"... The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II . ..."
Dec 25, 2017 | www.commondreams.org

The USA foreign policy remain unchanged. It is a neocon foreign policy. Trump just does not matter. He just added a spicy flavor of reckless adventurism to it.

How senators of both parties have made themselves complicit in the unfolding folly of Trump's foreign policy by Andrew Bacevich Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., center, smiles as he takes an elevator after meeting with President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans on Nov. 28 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press) Where is J. William Fulbright when we need him? Or if not Fulbright, perhaps Robert M. La Follette or George W. Norris. Personally, I'd even settle for William Borah or Burton K. Wheeler.

During the 20th century, each of these now largely forgotten barons of the U.S. Senate served the nation with distinction. Their chief contribution? On matters related to war and peace, they declined to kowtow to whoever happened to occupy the office of commander in chief. On issues involving the safety and security of the American people, they challenged presidents, insisting that the Congress should play a central role in formulating basic policy. With the floor of the Senate as their bully pulpit, they questioned, provoked and thereby captured public attention.

"The Senate's duty is clear -- to spell out the implications of Trump's mishandling of U.S. foreign policy before the damage becomes irreversible."

A century ago, La Follette of Wisconsin and Norris of Nebraska, both progressive Republicans, spoke eloquently and at length in opposition to President Woodrow Wilson's insistence that the United States should go to war with Germany. Following the World War I armistice, Borah, a Republican from Idaho, emerged as an uncompromising critic of the Versailles Treaty that Wilson negotiated in Paris. During the late 1930s, having concluded that U.S. participation in that earlier European war had been a huge error, Borah and Wheeler, a Democrat from Montana, sought to prevent President Franklin D. Roosevelt from repeating Wilson's mistakes. Three decades later, Fulbright, a Democrat from Arkansas and the influential chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, became a thorn in Lyndon B. Johnson's side as a sharp critic of the Vietnam War.

In opposing presidents whom they saw as too eager to wage war or too certain that they alone understood the prerequisites of peace, these senators were not necessarily correct in their judgments. Yet by drawing widespread public attention to foreign policy issues of first-order importance, they obliged their adversaries in the White House to make their case to the American people.

Whatever the issue -- sending Americans to fight on the Western Front, joining the League of Nations, rescuing Great Britain from Hitler or defending South Vietnam -- the back and forth between presidents and prominent Senate critics provided a means of vetting assumptions, assessing potential risks and debating possible consequences. In each instance, American citizens gained a clearer picture of what their president was intent on doing and why. The president became accountable.

Contrast that with our situation today. Donald Trump came to office almost entirely ignorant of statecraft. Rather than a considered worldview, he offers slogans and sound bites. As Trump approaches the first anniversary of his inauguration, we can say this about U.S. foreign policy: It has ceased to exist.

Any policy worthy of the name requires principles. Trump has none. So U.S. behavior on the world stage today consists of little more than random and often contradictory impulses. For recent examples, consider the inflammatory rhetoric directed at North Korea, stealth increases in U.S. troop contingents in Syria and Afghanistan, the inauguration of a U.S. bombing campaign in Somalia and recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In each instance, the president acted without making the slightest pretense of consulting anyone outside a small circle of White House advisors. None of these decisions, to put it mildly, will Make America Great Again.

As American statecraft succumbs to incoherence, where is the Senate? Somewhere between missing in action and too preoccupied with partisan and parochial considerations to take notice. As a body, the Senate has done nothing to restrain Trump or to enlighten the American people regarding the erratic course on which the president has embarked. Occasional complaints registered by a handful of senators, such as the ailing John McCain, amount to little more than catcalls from the bleachers. In effect, senators of both parties have made themselves complicit in the unfolding folly.

The duty of the Senate is clear -- to spell out the implications of Trump's mishandling of U.S. foreign policy before the damage that he is inflicting becomes irreversible.

Given the chance, any president will treat statecraft as his personal fiefdom. History shows that even a small number of senators with sufficient gumption and wit can frustrate such ambitions. This is what La Follette and Norris, Borah and Wheeler, and Fulbright did in their time. That among their successors today there appear to be none willing or able to take up their mantle is a sad testament to the state of American politics. © Los Angeles Times Andrew Bacevich Andrew J. Bacevich , a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, is the author of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History , which has just been published by Random House. He is also editor of the book, The Short American Century (Harvard Univ. Press) , and author of several others, including: Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (American Empire Project) ; Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War , The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War , The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (American Empire Project) , and The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II . Share This Article

[Dec 24, 2017] Donald Trump Prepares to Escalate Confrontation with Russia over Ukraine by Doug Bandow

Notable quotes:
"... With over 10,000 dead, the conflict in Ukraine is a humanitarian travesty but of minimal security consequence to America and Europe. Indeed, Kiev's status never was key to Europe's status. An integral part of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire, Ukraine turned into an unexpected bonus for the allies by seceding from the Soviet Union, greatly diminishing the latter's population and territory. Russia's seizure of Crimea and battle in the Donbass destabilized an already semi-failed state, but did not materially alter the European balance of power. Or demonstrate anything other than Moscow's brutal yet limited ambitions. ..."
"... At the same time, transferring lethal arms would divide the U.S. from European nations, many of which oppose further confrontation with Russia, especially over Ukraine. Brussels already bridled at Congress' new sanctions legislation, which passed without consulting the Europeans and targeted European firms. If Moscow responds with escalation, Washington may find no one behind it. ..."
"... Also noteworthy is the fragility of the Ukrainian state. Kiev's self-inflicted wounds are a more important cause than Russian pressure. The government is hobbled by divisions between East and West, violent neo-fascist forces, bitter political factionalism, economic failure, and pervasive corruption. The recent specter of former Georgian President and Ukrainian Governor Mikheil Saakashvili clambering across rooftops, escaping arrest, and railing against President Petro Poroshenko epitomized Ukraine's problems. Kiev, to put it mildly, is not a reliable military partner against its nuclear-armed neighbor. ..."
"... Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon). ..."
Dec 24, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

Most Americans were told Donald Trump won the presidential election last year. But his policy toward Russia looks suspiciously like what a President Hillary Clinton would have pursued. Exhibit A is the apparent decision to arm Ukraine against Russia in the proxy conflict in the Donbass. This dunderheaded move will simply encourage Moscow to retaliate not only in Ukraine but against U.S. interests elsewhere around the globe.

With over 10,000 dead, the conflict in Ukraine is a humanitarian travesty but of minimal security consequence to America and Europe. Indeed, Kiev's status never was key to Europe's status. An integral part of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire, Ukraine turned into an unexpected bonus for the allies by seceding from the Soviet Union, greatly diminishing the latter's population and territory. Russia's seizure of Crimea and battle in the Donbass destabilized an already semi-failed state, but did not materially alter the European balance of power. Or demonstrate anything other than Moscow's brutal yet limited ambitions.

In fact, present allied policy makes continuation of the current conflict almost inevitable. Newly released documents demonstrate that Soviet officials reasonably believed that releasing their Warsaw Pact captives would not lead to NATO's expansion to Russia's border. Well, well. Look what actually happened -- the very dramatic increase in tensions that George F. Kennan predicted would occur. For Russia sees geographical space and buffer states as critical for its security, and none are more important than Ukraine.

Expanding NATO, disregarding Moscow's historic interests in the Balkans, dismantling onetime Slavic ally Serbia, aiding "color revolutions" that brought anti-Russian governments to power along its border, announcing the intention of inducting both Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance created to confront Moscow, and finally ostentatiously backing a street revolution against a corrupt but elected leader friendly to Russia -- going to far as to discuss who should rule after his planned ouster -- could not help but be viewed as hostile in Moscow. One can easily imagine how Washington would react to similar events in Canada or Mexico.

Russia's response was unjustified but efficient and, most important, limited. Moscow grabbed Crimea, the only part of Ukraine with a majority of Russian-speakers (who probably favored joining Russia, though the subsequent referendum occurred in what was occupied Crimea). Moscow further backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine, perhaps in hopes of grabbing territory or merely bleeding Kiev.

Some Western responses were near hysteria, imagining a blitzkrieg attack on Ukraine, conquering the country. The Baltic States saw themselves as the next targets. Poland remembered its twentieth century conflicts with Moscow. At least one observer added Finland to Moscow's potential target list. Others worried about intimidation of allied states, borders being withdrawn, and challenges to the European order. Some afflicted with war fever feared an attempt to reconstitute the Soviet Union and perhaps roll west from there.

None of which happened.

Perhaps President Vladimir Putin secretly was an Adolf Hitler-wannabe but was dissuaded by the U.S. and NATO response. However, economic sanctions and military deployments were modest. Assistance to Ukraine did not include lethal military aid. Most likely, Putin never intended to start World War III.

Instead, he opportunistically took advantage of the opportunity to snatch Crimea, the territory with the closest identification with Moscow, simultaneously safeguarding the latter's major Black Sea base, and create a frozen conflict in the Donbass, effectively preventing Ukraine's entry into NATO. Russia's activity there also gives him an opportunity to create additional trouble for the U.S.

Moscow's policy is unpleasant for America and Europe, but only prevents the allies from doing that which is not in their interest: inducting a security black hole into NATO. Even before 2014, Ukraine was a political and economic mess. While independent it mattered little for Western security, in NATO it would bring along all of its disputes and potential conflicts with Russia, a touchy, nationalistic nuclear power.

What State Department called "enhanced defensive capabilities," which require congressional approval, aren't likely to raise the price of the conflict enough to force Russia to back down. The Putin regime has far more at stake in preserving its gains than the U.S. does in reversing them. Moscow also is better able to escalate and is likely to consistently outbid the West: Putin's advantages include greater interests, geographic closeness, and popular support. For Ukraine more weapons would at most mean more fighting, with little additional advantage.

Indeed, the plan to arm Kiev with weapons, especially if anti-tank missiles are included, as news reports indicate, would risk turning the Donbass conflict from cool to warm--and perhaps more. Ukraine already joins Russia in failing to implement the Minsk Agreement. Kiev would not only be better armed, but might believe that it enjoyed an implicit guarantee from Washington, which in turn would have more at stake and thus be less inclined to abandon its new "investment." Then what if Moscow escalated? In 2014 the Putin government deployed Russian military units to counter Ukrainian gains. Would Washington do likewise in response to Moscow?

At the same time, transferring lethal arms would divide the U.S. from European nations, many of which oppose further confrontation with Russia, especially over Ukraine. Brussels already bridled at Congress' new sanctions legislation, which passed without consulting the Europeans and targeted European firms. If Moscow responds with escalation, Washington may find no one behind it.

Providing lethal weapons would almost certainly encourage the Ukrainians to press for even heavier arms and escalate the fighting, as well as discourage them from negotiating a settlement. U.S. officials refer to the weapons as defensive, but their capabilities are not so easily compartmentalized. Said Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the "ability to stop armored vehicles would be essential for them to protect themselves." True, but the ability to disable tanks is useful on offense as well as defense. There has been little movement in the battle line over the last couple of years. New U.S. weapons aren't necessary to preserve the status quo. Rather, they would most help Ukraine press harder for a military solution.

Does Kiev want to accept a compromise peace or fight on? Obama Pentagon official Michael Carpenter said providing weapons "will be a huge boost of support to Ukraine." Moscow is not concerned about Kiev's military potential. Russia is concerned that the U.S. and Europe say they intend to induct Ukraine into NATO. The closer the military ties grow between America and Ukraine, the greater Moscow's incentive to keep the conflict going. Russia also has opportunities to retaliate against American interests elsewhere. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said: "The United States crossed the line in a sense" and "may lead to new victims in a country that is neighboring us." America, he added, was an "accomplice in fueling war."

That might be just talk, but Russia can provide aid, sell arms, offer political backing, and give economic assistance in ways that hamper U.S. activities. Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela all provide opportunities for Russian mischief. Moscow could refuse to back additional sanctions on Pyongyang or even provide the latter with S-400 anti-aircraft missiles.

Although limited resources constrain Moscow, politics encourages a tough response. Putin is running for reelection but has lost support because of the Russian Federation's economic weakness. Nationalism remains one of his strongest issues; an assault by America on Russian interests would offer him a means to rally public support.

Also noteworthy is the fragility of the Ukrainian state. Kiev's self-inflicted wounds are a more important cause than Russian pressure. The government is hobbled by divisions between East and West, violent neo-fascist forces, bitter political factionalism, economic failure, and pervasive corruption. The recent specter of former Georgian President and Ukrainian Governor Mikheil Saakashvili clambering across rooftops, escaping arrest, and railing against President Petro Poroshenko epitomized Ukraine's problems. Kiev, to put it mildly, is not a reliable military partner against its nuclear-armed neighbor.

A better approach would be to negotiate for Russian de-escalation by offering to take NATO membership for Ukraine (and Georgia) off the table. In fact, expanding the alliance is not in America's interest: the U.S., not, say, Luxembourg, is the country expected to back up NATO's defense promises. And neither Kiev nor Tbilisi warrants the risk of war with a great power, especially one armed with nukes. Eliminating that possibility would reduce Moscow's incentive to maintain a frozen conflict in the Donbass. Backing away also would create the possibility of reversing military build-ups by both sides elsewhere, especially around Poland and the Baltic States.

Washington and Moscow have no core security interests in conflict with each other, especially in Ukraine. Instead of turning a peripheral security issue into a potential military clash with Moscow, Washington should seek to trade military disengagement from Ukraine for Russian acceptance of that nation's territorial integrity. Moscow might not agree, but the Trump administration won't know unless it makes the offer. Right now, it doesn't seem to care to even try. Quite the contrary.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon).

[Dec 24, 2017] Donald Trump Prepares to Escalate Confrontation with Russia over Ukraine by Doug Bandow

Notable quotes:
"... With over 10,000 dead, the conflict in Ukraine is a humanitarian travesty but of minimal security consequence to America and Europe. Indeed, Kiev's status never was key to Europe's status. An integral part of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire, Ukraine turned into an unexpected bonus for the allies by seceding from the Soviet Union, greatly diminishing the latter's population and territory. Russia's seizure of Crimea and battle in the Donbass destabilized an already semi-failed state, but did not materially alter the European balance of power. Or demonstrate anything other than Moscow's brutal yet limited ambitions. ..."
"... At the same time, transferring lethal arms would divide the U.S. from European nations, many of which oppose further confrontation with Russia, especially over Ukraine. Brussels already bridled at Congress' new sanctions legislation, which passed without consulting the Europeans and targeted European firms. If Moscow responds with escalation, Washington may find no one behind it. ..."
"... Also noteworthy is the fragility of the Ukrainian state. Kiev's self-inflicted wounds are a more important cause than Russian pressure. The government is hobbled by divisions between East and West, violent neo-fascist forces, bitter political factionalism, economic failure, and pervasive corruption. The recent specter of former Georgian President and Ukrainian Governor Mikheil Saakashvili clambering across rooftops, escaping arrest, and railing against President Petro Poroshenko epitomized Ukraine's problems. Kiev, to put it mildly, is not a reliable military partner against its nuclear-armed neighbor. ..."
"... Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon). ..."
Dec 24, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

Most Americans were told Donald Trump won the presidential election last year. But his policy toward Russia looks suspiciously like what a President Hillary Clinton would have pursued. Exhibit A is the apparent decision to arm Ukraine against Russia in the proxy conflict in the Donbass. This dunderheaded move will simply encourage Moscow to retaliate not only in Ukraine but against U.S. interests elsewhere around the globe.

With over 10,000 dead, the conflict in Ukraine is a humanitarian travesty but of minimal security consequence to America and Europe. Indeed, Kiev's status never was key to Europe's status. An integral part of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire, Ukraine turned into an unexpected bonus for the allies by seceding from the Soviet Union, greatly diminishing the latter's population and territory. Russia's seizure of Crimea and battle in the Donbass destabilized an already semi-failed state, but did not materially alter the European balance of power. Or demonstrate anything other than Moscow's brutal yet limited ambitions.

In fact, present allied policy makes continuation of the current conflict almost inevitable. Newly released documents demonstrate that Soviet officials reasonably believed that releasing their Warsaw Pact captives would not lead to NATO's expansion to Russia's border. Well, well. Look what actually happened -- the very dramatic increase in tensions that George F. Kennan predicted would occur. For Russia sees geographical space and buffer states as critical for its security, and none are more important than Ukraine.

Expanding NATO, disregarding Moscow's historic interests in the Balkans, dismantling onetime Slavic ally Serbia, aiding "color revolutions" that brought anti-Russian governments to power along its border, announcing the intention of inducting both Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance created to confront Moscow, and finally ostentatiously backing a street revolution against a corrupt but elected leader friendly to Russia -- going to far as to discuss who should rule after his planned ouster -- could not help but be viewed as hostile in Moscow. One can easily imagine how Washington would react to similar events in Canada or Mexico.

Russia's response was unjustified but efficient and, most important, limited. Moscow grabbed Crimea, the only part of Ukraine with a majority of Russian-speakers (who probably favored joining Russia, though the subsequent referendum occurred in what was occupied Crimea). Moscow further backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine, perhaps in hopes of grabbing territory or merely bleeding Kiev.

Some Western responses were near hysteria, imagining a blitzkrieg attack on Ukraine, conquering the country. The Baltic States saw themselves as the next targets. Poland remembered its twentieth century conflicts with Moscow. At least one observer added Finland to Moscow's potential target list. Others worried about intimidation of allied states, borders being withdrawn, and challenges to the European order. Some afflicted with war fever feared an attempt to reconstitute the Soviet Union and perhaps roll west from there.

None of which happened.

Perhaps President Vladimir Putin secretly was an Adolf Hitler-wannabe but was dissuaded by the U.S. and NATO response. However, economic sanctions and military deployments were modest. Assistance to Ukraine did not include lethal military aid. Most likely, Putin never intended to start World War III.

Instead, he opportunistically took advantage of the opportunity to snatch Crimea, the territory with the closest identification with Moscow, simultaneously safeguarding the latter's major Black Sea base, and create a frozen conflict in the Donbass, effectively preventing Ukraine's entry into NATO. Russia's activity there also gives him an opportunity to create additional trouble for the U.S.

Moscow's policy is unpleasant for America and Europe, but only prevents the allies from doing that which is not in their interest: inducting a security black hole into NATO. Even before 2014, Ukraine was a political and economic mess. While independent it mattered little for Western security, in NATO it would bring along all of its disputes and potential conflicts with Russia, a touchy, nationalistic nuclear power.

What State Department called "enhanced defensive capabilities," which require congressional approval, aren't likely to raise the price of the conflict enough to force Russia to back down. The Putin regime has far more at stake in preserving its gains than the U.S. does in reversing them. Moscow also is better able to escalate and is likely to consistently outbid the West: Putin's advantages include greater interests, geographic closeness, and popular support. For Ukraine more weapons would at most mean more fighting, with little additional advantage.

Indeed, the plan to arm Kiev with weapons, especially if anti-tank missiles are included, as news reports indicate, would risk turning the Donbass conflict from cool to warm--and perhaps more. Ukraine already joins Russia in failing to implement the Minsk Agreement. Kiev would not only be better armed, but might believe that it enjoyed an implicit guarantee from Washington, which in turn would have more at stake and thus be less inclined to abandon its new "investment." Then what if Moscow escalated? In 2014 the Putin government deployed Russian military units to counter Ukrainian gains. Would Washington do likewise in response to Moscow?

At the same time, transferring lethal arms would divide the U.S. from European nations, many of which oppose further confrontation with Russia, especially over Ukraine. Brussels already bridled at Congress' new sanctions legislation, which passed without consulting the Europeans and targeted European firms. If Moscow responds with escalation, Washington may find no one behind it.

Providing lethal weapons would almost certainly encourage the Ukrainians to press for even heavier arms and escalate the fighting, as well as discourage them from negotiating a settlement. U.S. officials refer to the weapons as defensive, but their capabilities are not so easily compartmentalized. Said Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the "ability to stop armored vehicles would be essential for them to protect themselves." True, but the ability to disable tanks is useful on offense as well as defense. There has been little movement in the battle line over the last couple of years. New U.S. weapons aren't necessary to preserve the status quo. Rather, they would most help Ukraine press harder for a military solution.

Does Kiev want to accept a compromise peace or fight on? Obama Pentagon official Michael Carpenter said providing weapons "will be a huge boost of support to Ukraine." Moscow is not concerned about Kiev's military potential. Russia is concerned that the U.S. and Europe say they intend to induct Ukraine into NATO. The closer the military ties grow between America and Ukraine, the greater Moscow's incentive to keep the conflict going. Russia also has opportunities to retaliate against American interests elsewhere. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said: "The United States crossed the line in a sense" and "may lead to new victims in a country that is neighboring us." America, he added, was an "accomplice in fueling war."

That might be just talk, but Russia can provide aid, sell arms, offer political backing, and give economic assistance in ways that hamper U.S. activities. Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela all provide opportunities for Russian mischief. Moscow could refuse to back additional sanctions on Pyongyang or even provide the latter with S-400 anti-aircraft missiles.

Although limited resources constrain Moscow, politics encourages a tough response. Putin is running for reelection but has lost support because of the Russian Federation's economic weakness. Nationalism remains one of his strongest issues; an assault by America on Russian interests would offer him a means to rally public support.

Also noteworthy is the fragility of the Ukrainian state. Kiev's self-inflicted wounds are a more important cause than Russian pressure. The government is hobbled by divisions between East and West, violent neo-fascist forces, bitter political factionalism, economic failure, and pervasive corruption. The recent specter of former Georgian President and Ukrainian Governor Mikheil Saakashvili clambering across rooftops, escaping arrest, and railing against President Petro Poroshenko epitomized Ukraine's problems. Kiev, to put it mildly, is not a reliable military partner against its nuclear-armed neighbor.

A better approach would be to negotiate for Russian de-escalation by offering to take NATO membership for Ukraine (and Georgia) off the table. In fact, expanding the alliance is not in America's interest: the U.S., not, say, Luxembourg, is the country expected to back up NATO's defense promises. And neither Kiev nor Tbilisi warrants the risk of war with a great power, especially one armed with nukes. Eliminating that possibility would reduce Moscow's incentive to maintain a frozen conflict in the Donbass. Backing away also would create the possibility of reversing military build-ups by both sides elsewhere, especially around Poland and the Baltic States.

Washington and Moscow have no core security interests in conflict with each other, especially in Ukraine. Instead of turning a peripheral security issue into a potential military clash with Moscow, Washington should seek to trade military disengagement from Ukraine for Russian acceptance of that nation's territorial integrity. Moscow might not agree, but the Trump administration won't know unless it makes the offer. Right now, it doesn't seem to care to even try. Quite the contrary.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon).

[Dec 23, 2017] The State Department has approved the delivery to the Ukrainian army of modified 50 calibre Barrett sniper rifles, "Model M107A"

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , December 21, 2017 at 10:55 am

Oh look at what I just got given me!

https://icdn.lenta.ru/images/2017/12/21/12/20171221122514922/brief_f8fe6380f3186e74c06a46d665607174.jpg

The state Department has approved the delivery to the Ukrainian army of modified 50 calibre Barrett sniper rifles, "Model M107A"

It may be related to the Model 82A1®/M107®, but the M107A1 is far from a simple evolution. Driven by the demands of combat, every component was re-engineered to be lighter yet stronger. Designed to be used with a suppressor, this rifle allows you to combine signature reduction capabilities with the flawless reliability of the original Barrett M107, but with a weight reduction of 5 pounds. Advanced design and manufacturing make the M107A1 more precise than ever.

See: BarrrrettM107A1

[Dec 23, 2017] Neocons and Neoliberals -- Two Masks, One Face by WashingtonsBlog

Notable quotes:
"... Trotsky communism ..."
Nov 10, 2008 | www.washingtonsblog.com

Obama might very well be classified as a "neoliberal". He appears to be appointing leading neoliberals to key positions in his administration .

If you're a liberal, you might think this is great. Instead of the Neoconservatives who have been in power for the last 8 years, we'll now have neoliberals. You may assume that "neoliberals" are new, smarter liberals -- with liberal social policies, but with a stronger, more realistic outlook.

Nope.

In reality, neoliberalism is as dissimilar to true progressive liberal politics as neo-conservatism is to true conservative politics (if you don't know it, most leading neoconservatives are former followers of Trotsky communism -- not very conservative, huh?)

For example, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a leading neoliberal ? In the U.S., of course, he is described as the quintessential conservative. But internationally, people understand that he really pushed neoliberal economic policies.

As former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi writes :

Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn't matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way.

And leading neo-conservative strategist Robert Kagan recently said :

Until now the liberal West's strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to tame them and make them safe for liberalism."

So neoconservatives are not really conservative and neoliberals are not really liberal. But neocons and neoliberals are very similar to each other . Neocons are a lot more similar to neoliberals than to true conservatives; neoliberass are more similar to neocons than to real liberals.

Do you get it? Both the Republican and Democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations richer and expand the American empire.

There is only one party, which simply puts on different faces depending on which "branch" of the party is in power. If its the Democratic branch, there is a slightly liberal social veneer to the mask: a little more funding for social programs, a little more nice guy talk, a little more of a laissez faire attitude towards gays and minorities, and a little more patient push towards military conquest and empire.

If its the Republican branch, there's a little more tough guy talk, quicker moves towards military empire, a little more mention of religion, and a tad more centralization of power in the president.

But there is only a single face behind both masks: the face of raw corporatism, greed and yearning for power and empire.

Until Americans stop getting distracted by the Republican versus Democratic melodrama, America will move steadily forward towards war, empire and -- inevitably as with any country which extends too far -- collapse.

Neoliberalism is neither "new" or liberal. Neoconservativism is neither new or conservative. They are just new labels for a very old agenda: serving the powers-that-be, consolidating power, controlling resources. Whether the iron fist has a velvet glove on it or not, it is still an iron fist.

A true opposition party is needed to counter the never-changing American agenda for military and corporate empire.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/9498954186704486?pubid=ld-6193-3093&pubo=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonsblog.com&width=747

J R Thompson , September 19, 2012 10:33 PM

This article does much to confuse and disinform. NeoCons are essential modern day Fascists. If you don't recall your politics, Fascists are to the right of Conservatives on the political spectrum. They have nothing to do with Communists who are far to the left. During the 1930s Nazis were the NeoCons. They were Fascists, and they also had the overwhelming support of Muslims, who are also Fascists. Today's NeoLiberals are basically Right Wing and hardly middle of the fence. There is virtually no politics to the left of centre and this is the catalyst for massive economic stagnation, economic collapse, rapidly growing global instability, indemic poverty, and an ongoing threat of pandemic disease and general global conflict. Until we have some form of political balance, we're on the brink of catastrophe, and will probably end up with an enormous mess to clean up.

Guest J R Thompson , June 18, 2014 8:12 PM

The Wiki page disagrees with you.

It says that Neo-Conservatives descend from Trotskeyism.

Grey Winters J R Thompson , June 23, 2014 4:28 PM

Fascism is statism and nothing represents the ultimate power of the state then the liberal. No liberal supports our constitution or a smaller government . But it's innately typical of a liberal to project their agenda onto others.

Malcolm Scott J R Thompson , November 4, 2016 9:18 PM

Fascism, Communism are just different faces of Totalitarianism or Statism. Fascism gives "private" owners (oligarchs) the illusion of freedom.

MisterReason J R Thompson , November 8, 2015 6:27 AM

Your communist professor lied to you.

Communism and Fascism are one degree apart. In Fascism, instead of the elite being part of the government, they are part of the private sector. That is the only difference. They are both mainly concerned with consolidation of power and shaping the culture though control of information. Internationally they operate the same as well, expanding their influence through wars of occupation.

Adnihilo , November 11, 2008 7:16 PM

Thank you for this article! As an author you always seem to be one step ahead of me in articles I've been planning to write! I too have been asserting [in comments mostly at OpedNews] that the economic right political 'values' found in NeoLibs, [short for both NeoLibertarians and Neoliberals] NeoCons, and TheoCons are predominantly the same for months now ever since these corporate bailouts started. This author has a firm grasp on political ideologies as evidenced in his other articles correctly identifying the now $2 trillion in US corporate bailouts as the economic policy of Fascism.

The TheoCons-NeoCons-NeoLibs have taken the country so far to the economic right and up in to an authoritarian level since 2000 that most all in the democratic party, excluding a few like Kucinich and Sanders, have moved from a 'centrist' political ideology to an authoritarian right and moderate conservative political ideology.

Like Anna here more fully displays, the overwhelming majority of Americans just do not have a realistic grasp on global political ideologies, much less their own personal political values. Political party indoctrination and mud slinging has the population wrongly convinced democratic politicians are for the most part 'liberals' when they're economic right NeoLiberals and moderate conservatives while republicans calling themselves 'conservative' are instead radically authoritarian and economic right TheoCons and NeoCons.

When Americans don't understand their own political values, much less those of the candidate they vote for, they will continue to make the wrong choices. This would seem to be exactly what the '1' party corporatist system wants so Americans will only continue making the wrong choices from choosing between 'moderate conservative' Democrats like Obama-Biden, and NeoCon/TheoCon republicans like McCain-Palin. Who better to assert this 1 party economic right NeoLiberal reality than one of the most renown liberal authors and intellectuals than Chomsky in his recent article the Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being Exposed.

Chomsky cites America as a "one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats" while putting the blame on this economic crisis where it belongs on the very people who created it, America's NeoLiberals. Anna, if you need more proof I suggest you take a trip to the non partisan web site created by a group of doctorate degreed political ideology professors, political experts and sociologists called Political Compass. I guarantee you these experts are far more learned than you are about political ideologies and political values not just in the US, but around the globe. It will surely shock you to learn based on speeches, public statements and most crucially voting records that Obama is firmly in the authoritarian right quadrant as a moderate conservative.

There you'll see their reasons for this based on his voting record and speeches briefly cited in "While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe.

Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad."A way to realistically determine if the candidate you vote for actually represents your own political values is to take the political values test found at political compass here and afterward learn about the inadequacies inherent in the limited age-old traditional left-right economic view of political ideologies.

Then you Anna, along with a host of others, may actually start voting in support of candidates that factually represent your own political values. Or you may find you really aren't this liberal you think you are after all. Regardless, only by learning more about ones' own political values and those of the candidates Americans support will they get the political leaders, type of leadership, and government they actually want....

Alejandro Moreno Adnihilo , July 21, 2016 2:07 PM

Written 8 years ago and yet STILL true, Sanders and Kucinich are still of, by and for the people.

Dave , December 8, 2012 11:06 AM

Libertarian Party. http://www.lp.org

SuperTech86 Dave , November 11, 2015 3:20 AM

Doesn't do anything to stop the advance of corporatism which ultimately leads to tyranny and fascism.

Ian SuperTech86 , September 5, 2016 6:28 PM

Its debatable. Corporations won't be near as interested in a small government that is less willing to do favors for them. What do you suggest as a solution to stop the advancement of corporatism? If your answer is to tax the rich more and grow the government you would just get tyranny. Currently with big government we have both tyranny and fascism.

bosunj , November 10, 2008 5:59 PM

Indeed. One Party. The Corporate party. GOP-DEM are little different than Sunni and Shia! GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!

anon bosunj , November 17, 2013 9:43 PM

This is just ignorance -- the Republicans and Democrats are the same, but Sunni and Shia Islam are not just arbitrary branches of some terrorist collective called Islam. I suggest you read more about Islam, it's extraordinarily misunderstood AND--I might add--misinforming people about Islam is an integral part of the agenda of the corporate GOP-DEM elite. I'm not a Muslim, for the record.

Mike , November 10, 2008 6:31 PM

You are confusing the issue. The work neoliberal applies to an economic philosophy which is also sometimes called the Chicago School or the Washington Consensus. It is related to what we often call globalization, and it has to to with "liberalization" of economies, in other words privatization of publicly held industries etc. Liberal in the American political sense it totally unrelated to neoliberal. Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that espouses vanguardism and militant foreign policy. They are related in that their goals dove tail, kind of like apples and oranges are similar in that they are both edible.

[Dec 23, 2017] Debunking Mainstream Economists on Secular Stagnation and the Loanable Funds Fallacy by Servaas Storm

Notable quotes:
"... By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress, income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public spending and raising wages will change that. ..."
"... ceteris paribus ..."
"... simultaneously ..."
"... private households ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... This is the night of the expanding man I take one last drag as I approach the stand I cried when I wrote this song Sue me if I play too long This brother is free I'll be what I want to be ..."
Dec 22, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

by Yves Smith Yves here. This is a terrific takedown of the loanable funds theory, on which a ton of bad policy rests.

By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress, income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website

Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public spending and raising wages will change that.

Introduction

Nine years after the Great Financial Crisis, U.S. output growth has not returned to its pre-recession trend, even after interest rates hit the 'zero lower bound' (ZLB) and the unconventional monetary policy arsenal of the Federal Reserve has been all but exhausted. It is widely feared that this insipid recovery reflects a 'new normal', characterized by "secular stagnation" which set in already well before the global banking crisis of 2008 (Summers 2013, 2015).

This 'new normal' is characterized not just by this slowdown of aggregate economic growth, but also by greater income and wealth inequalities and a growing polarization of employment and earnings into high-skill, high-wage and low-skill, low-wage jobs -- at the expense of middle-class jobs (Temin 2017; Storm 2017). The slow recovery, heightened job insecurity and economic anxiety have fueled a groundswell of popular discontent with the political establishment and made voters captive to Donald Trump's siren song promising jobs and growth ( Ferguson and Page 2017 ).

What are the causes of secular stagnation? What are the solutions to revive growth and get the U.S. economy out of the doldrums?

If we go by four of the papers commissioned by the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at its recent symposium to explore these questions, one headline conclusion stands out: the secular stagnation is caused by a heavy overdose of savings (relative to investment), which is caused by higher retirement savings due to declining population growth and an ageing labour force (Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017; Lu & Teulings 2017; Eggertson, Lancastre and Summers 2017), higher income inequality (Rachel & Smith 2017), and an inflow of precautionary Asian savings (Rachel & Smith 2017). All these savings end up as deposits, or 'loanable funds' (LF), in commercial banks. In earlier times, so the argument goes, banks would successfully channel these 'loanable funds' into productive firm investment -- by lowering the nominal interest rate and thus inducing additional demand for investment loans.

But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even when they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow more in order to invest. The result is inadequate investment and a shortage of aggregate demand in the short run, which lead to long-term stagnation as long as the savings-investment imbalance persists. Summers (2015) regards a "chronic excess of saving over investment" as "the essence of secular stagnation". Monetary policymakers at the Federal Reserve are in a fix, because they cannot lower the interest rate further as it is stuck at the ZLB. Hence, forces of demography and ageing, higher inequality and thrifty Chinese savers are putting the U.S. economy on a slow-moving turtle -- and not much can be done, it seems, to halt the resulting secular stagnation.

This is clearly a depressing conclusion, but it is also wrong.

To see this, we have to understand why there is a misplaced focus on the market for loanable funds that ignores the role of fiscal policy that is plainly in front of us. In other words, we need to step back from the trees of dated models and see the whole forest of our economy.

The Market for Loanable Funds

In the papers mentioned, commercial banks must first mobilise savings in order to have the loanable funds (LF) to originate new (investment) loans or credit. Banks are therefore intermediaries between "savers" (those who provide the LF-supply) and "investors" (firms which demand the LF). Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot pre -finance investment by new money. They only move it between savers and investors.

We apparently live in a non-monetary (corn) economy -- one that just exchanges a real good that everybody uses, like corn. Savings (or LF-supply) are assumed to rise when the interest rate R goes up, whereas investment (or LF-demand) must decline when R increases. This is the stuff of textbooks, as is illustrated by Greg Mankiw's (1997, p. 63) explanation:

In fact, saving and investment can be interpreted in terms of supply an demand. In this case, the 'good' is loanable funds, and its 'price' is the interest rate. Saving is the supply of loans -- individuals lend their savings to investors, or they deposit their saving in a bank that makes the loan for them. Investment is the demand for loanable funds -- investors borrow from the public directly by selling bonds or indirectly by borrowing from banks. [ .] At the equilibrium interest rate, saving equals investment and the supply of loans equals the demand.

But the loanable funds market also forms the heart of complicated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models, beloved by 'freshwater' and 'saltwater' economists alike (Woodford 2010), as should be clear from the commissioned INET papers as well. Figure 1 illustrates the loanable funds market in this scheme. The upward-sloping curve tells us that savings (or LF-supply) goes up as the interest rate R increases. The downward-sloping curve shows us that investment (or LF-demand) declines if the cost of capital (R) goes up. In the initial situation, the LF-market clears at a positive interest rate R0 > 0. Savings equal investment, which implies that LF-supply matches LF-demand, and in this -- happy -- equilibrium outcome, the economy can grow along some steady-state path.

To see how we can get secular stagnation in such a loanable-funds world, we introduce a shock, say, an ageing population (a demographic imbalance), a rise in (extreme) inequality, or an Asian savings glut, due to which the savings schedule shifts down. Equilibrium in the new situation should occur at R1 which is negative. But this can't happen because of the ZLB: the nominal interest cannot decline below zero. Hence R is stuck at the ZLB and savings exceed investment, or LF-supply > LF-demand. This is a disequilibrium outcome which involves an over-supply of savings (relative to investment), in turn leading to depressed growth.

Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong influence upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible form in a simple diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift' and Max Weber's Protestant Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path to bliss.

The problem with this model is that it is wrong (see Lindner 2015; Taylor 2016 ). Wrong in its conceptualisation of banks (which are not just intermediaries pushing around existing money, but which can create new money ex nihilo ), wrong in thinking that savings or LF-supply have anything to do with "loans" or "credit," wrong because the empirical evidence in support of a "chronic excess of savings over investment" is weak or lacking, wrong in its utter neglect of finance, financialization and financial markets, wrong in its assumption that the interest rate is some "market-clearing" price (the interest rate, as all central bankers will acknowledge, is the principal instrument of monetary policy), and wrong in the assumption that the two schedules -- the LF-supply curve and the LF-demand curve -- are independent of one another (they are not, as Keynes already pointed out).

Figure 1: The Loanable Funds Market: A Savings Glut Causing Secular Stagnation

I wish to briefly elaborate these six points. I understand that each of these criticisms is known and I entertain little hope that that any of this will make people reconsider their approach, analysis, diagnosis and conclusions. Nevertheless, it is important that these criticisms are raised and not shoveled under the carpet. The problem of secular stagnation is simply too important to be left mis-diagnosed.

First Problem: Loanable Funds Supply and Demand Are Not Independent Functions

Let me start with the point that the LF-supply and LF-demand curve are not two independent schedules. Figure 1 presents savings and investment as functions of only the interest rate R, while keeping all other variables unchanged. The problem is that the ceteris paribus assumption does not hold in this case. The reason is that savings and investment are both affected by, and at the same time determined by, changes in income and (changes in) income distribution. To see how this works, let us assume that the average propensity to save rises in response to the demographic imbalance and ageing. As a result, consumption and aggregate demand go down. Rational firms, expecting future income to decline, will postpone or cancel planned investment projects and investment declines (due to the negative income effect and for a given interest rate R0). This means that LF-demand curve in Figure 1 must shift downward in response to the increased savings. The exact point was made by Keynes (1936, p. 179):

The classical theory of the rate of interest [the loanable funds theory] seems to suppose that, if the demand curve for capital shifts or if the curve relating the rate of interest to the amounts saved out of a given income shifts or if both these curves shift, the new rate of interest will be given by the point of intersection of the new positions of the two curves. But this is a nonsense theory. For the assumption that income is constant is inconsistent with the assumption that these two curves can shift independently of one another. If either of them shift, then, in general, income will change; with the result that the whole schematism based on the assumption of a given income breaks down In truth, the classical theory has not been alive to the relevance of changes in the level of income or to the possibility of the level of income being actually a function of the rate of the investment.

Let me try to illustrate this using Figure 2. Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) rise in the average propensity to save. In reponse, the LF-supply curve shifts down, but because (expected) income declines, the LF-demand schedule shifts downward as well. The outcome could well be that there is no change in equilibrium savings and equilibrium investment. The only change is that the 'natural' interest is now R1 and equal to the ZLB. Figure 2 is, in fact, consistent with the empirical analysis (and their Figure of global savings and investment) of Rachel & Smith. Let me be clear: Figure 2 is not intended to suggest that the loanable funds market is useful and theoretically correct. The point I am trying to make is that income changes and autonomous demand changes are much bigger drivers of both investment and saving decisions than the interest rate. Market clearing happens here -- as Keynes was arguing -- because the level of economic activity and income adjust, not because of interest-rate adjustment.

Figure 2: The Loanable Funds Market: Shifts in Both Schedules

Second Problem: Savings Do Not Fund Investment, Credit Does

The loanable funds doctrine wrongly assumes that commercial bank lending is constrained by the prior availability of loanable funds or savings. The simple point in response is that, in real life, modern banks are not just intermediaries between 'savers' and 'investors', pushing around already-existing money, but are money creating institutions. Banks create new money ex nihilo , i.e. without prior mobilisation of savings. This is illustrated by Werner's (2014) case study of the money creation process by one individual commercial bank. What this means is that banks do pre-finance investment, as was noted by Schumpeter early on and later by Keynes (1939), Kaldor (1989), Kalecki, and numerous other economists. It is for this reason that Joseph Schumpeter (1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy' -- someone who by creating credit ( ex nihilo ) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of new combinations, authorizes people, in the name of society as it were, to form them." Nicholas Kaldor (1989, p. 179) hit the nail on its head when he wrote that "[C]redit money has no 'supply function' in the production sense (since its costs of production are insignificant if not actually zero); it comes into existence as a result of bank lending and is extinguished through the repayment of bank loans. At any one time the volume of bank lending or its rate of expansion is limited only by the availability of credit-worthy borrowers." Kaldor had earlier expressed his views on the endogeneity of money in his evidence to the Radcliffe Committee on the Workings of the Monetary System, whose report (1959) was strongly influenced by Kaldor's argumentation. Or take Lord Adair Turner (2016, pp. 57) to whom the loanable-funds approach is 98% fictional, as he writes:

Read an undergraduate textbook of economics, or advanced academic papers on financial intermediation, and if they describe banks at all, it is usually as follows: "banks take deposits from households and lend money to businesses, allocating capital between alternative capital investment possibilities." But as a description of what modern banks do, this account is largely fictional, and it fails to capture their essential role and implications. [ ] Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ] The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money takes this form .

We therefore don't need savings to make possible investment -- or, in contrast to the Protestant Ethic, banks allow us to have 'gratification' even if we have not been 'thrifty' and austere, as long as there are slack resources in the economy.

It is by no means a secret that commercial banks create new money. As the Bank of England (2007) writes, "When bank make loans they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed" (Berry et al. 2007, p. 377). Or consider the following statement from the Deutsche Bundesbank (2009): "The commercial banks can create money themselves ." Across the board, central bank economists, including economists working at the Bank for International Settlements (Borio and Disyatat 2011), have rejected the loanable funds model as a wrong description of how the financial system actually works (see McLeay et al . 2014a, 2014b; Jakab and Kumhof 2015). And the Deutsche Bundesbank (2017) leaves no doubt as to how the banking system works and money is created in actually-existing capitalism, stating that the ability of banks to originate loans does not depend on the prior availability of saving deposits. Bank of England economists Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhoff (2015) reject the loanable-funds approach in favour of a model with money-creating banks. In their model (as in reality), banks pre-finance investment; investment creates incomes; people save out of their incomes; and at the end of the day, ex-post savings equal investment. This is what Jakab and Kumhoff (2015) conclude:

" . if the loan is for physical investment purposes, this new lending and money is what triggers investment and therefore, by the national accounts identity of saving and investment (for closed economies), saving. Saving is therefore a consequence, not a cause, of such lending. Saving does not finance investment, financing does. To argue otherwise confuses the respective macroeconomic roles of resources (saving) and debt-based money (financing)."

Savings are a consequence of credit-financed investment (rather than a prior condition) -- and we cannot draw a savings-investment cross as in Figure 1, as if the two curves are independent. They are not. There exists therefore no 'loanable funds market' in which scarce savings constrain (through interest rate adjustments) the demand for investment loans. Highlighting the loanable funds fallacy, Keynes wrote in "The Process of Capital Formation" (1939):

"Increased investment will always be accompanied by increased saving, but it can never be preceded by it. Dishoarding and credit expansion provides not an alternative to increased saving, but a necessary preparation for it. It is the parent, not the twin, of increased saving."

This makes it all the more remarkable that some of the authors of the commissioned conference papers continue to frame their analysis in terms of the discredited loanable funds market which wrongly assumes that savings have an existence of their own -- separate from investment, the level of economic activity and the distribution of incomes.

Third Problem: The Interest Rate Is a Monetary Policy Instrument, Not a Market-Clearing Price

In loanable funds theory, the interest rate is a market price, determined by LF-supply and LF-demand (as in Figure 1). In reality, central bankers use the interest rate as their principal policy instrument (Storm and Naastepad 2012). It takes effort and a considerable amount of sophistry to match the loanable funds theory and the usage of the interest rate as a policy instrument. However, once one acknowledges the empirical fact that commercial banks create money ex nihilo , which means money supply is endogenous, the model of an interest-rate clearing loanable funds market becomes untenable. Or as Bank of England economists Jakab and Kumhof (2015) argue:

modern central banks target interest rates, and are committed to supplying as many reserves (and cash) as banks demand at that rate, in order to safeguard financial stability. The quantity of reserves is therefore a consequence, not a cause, of lending and money creation. This view concerning central bank reserves [ ] has been repeatedly described in publications of the world's leading central banks.

What this means is that the interest rate may well be at the ZLB, but this is not caused by a savings glut in the loanable funds market, but the result of a deliberate policy decision by the Federal Reserve -- in an attempt to revive sluggish demand in a context of stagnation, subdued wage growth, weak or no inflation, substantial hidden un- and underemployment, and actual recorded unemployment being (much) higher than the NAIRU (see Storm and Naastepad 2012). Seen this way, the savings glut is the symptom (or consequence ) of an aggregate demand shortage which has its roots in the permanent suppression of wage growth (relative to labour productivity growth), the falling share of wages in income, the rising inequalities of income and wealth (Taylor 2017) as well as the financialization of corporations (Lazonick 2017) and the economy as a whole (Storm 2018). It is not the cause of the secular stagnation -- unlike in the loanable funds models.

Fourth Problem: The Manifest Absence of Finance and Financial Markets

What the various commissioned conference papers do not acknowledge is that the increase in savings (mostly due to heightened inequality and financialization) is not channeled into higher real-economy investment, but is actually channeled into more lucrative financial (derivative) markets. Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity and IMF economists have documented the growth of global institutional cash pools, now worth $5 to 6 trillion and managed by asset or money managers in the shadow banking system (Pozsar 2011; Pozsar and Singh 2011; Pozsar 2015). Today's global economy is suffering from an unprecedented "liquidity preference" -- with the cash safely "parked" in short-term (over-collateralized lending deals in the repo-market. The liquidity is used to earn a quick buck in all kinds of OTC derivatives trading, including forex swaps, options and interest rate swaps. The global savings glut is the same thing as the global overabundance of liquidity (partying around in financial markets) and also the same thing as the global demand shortage -- that is: the lack of investment in real economic activity, R&D and innovation.

The low interest rate is important in this context, because it has dramatically lowered the opportunity cost of holding cash -- thus encouraging (financial) firms, the rentiers and the super-rich to hold on to their liquidity and make (quick and relatively safe and high) returns in financial markets and exotic financial instruments. Added to this, we have to acknowledge the fact that highly-leveraged firms are paying out most of their profits to shareholders as dividends or using it to buy back shares (Lazonick 2017). This has turned out to be damaging to real investment and innovation, and it has added further fuel to financialization (Epstein 2018; Storm 2018). If anything, firms have stopped using their savings (or retained profits) to finance their investments which are now financed by bank loans and higher leverage. If we acknowledge these roles of finance and financial markets, then we can begin to understand why investment is depressed and why there is an aggregate demand shortage. More than two decades of financial deregulation have created a rentiers' delight, a capitalism without 'compulsions' on financial investors, banks, and the property-owning class which in practice has led to 'capitalism for the 99%' and 'socialism for the 1%' (Palma 2009; Epstein 2018) For authentic Keynesians, this financialized system is the exact opposite of Keynes' advice to go for the euthanasia of the rentiers ( i.e. design policies to reduce the excess liquidity).

Fifth Problem: Confusing Savings with "Loans," or Stocks with Flows

"I have found out what economics is,' Michał Kalecki once told Joan Robinson, "it is the science of confusing stocks with flows." If anything, Kalecki's comment applies to the loanable funds model. In the loanable fund universe, as Mankiw writes and as most commissioned conference papers argue, saving equals investment and the supply of loans equals the demand at some equilibrium interest rate. But savings and investment are flow variables, whereas the supply of loans and the demand for loans are stock variables. Simply equating these flows to the corresponding stocks is not considered good practice in stock-flow-consistent macro-economic modelling. It is incongruous, because even if we assume that the interest rate does clear "the stock of loan supply" and "the stock of loan demand", there is no reason why the same interest rate would simultaneously balance savings ( i.e. the increase in loan supply) and investment ( i.e. the increase in loan demand). So what is the theoretical rationale of assuming that some interest rate is clearing the loanable funds market (which is defined in terms of flows )?

To illustrate the difference between stocks and flows: the stock of U.S. loans equals around 350% of U.S. GDP (if one includes debts of financial firms), while gross savings amount to 17% of U.S. GDP. Lance Taylor (2016) presents the basic macroeconomic flows and stocks for the U.S. economy to show how and why loanable funds macro models do not fit the data -- by a big margin. No interest rate adjustment mechanism is strong enough to bring about this (ex-post) balance in terms of flows , because the interest rate determination is overwhelmed by changes in loan supply and demand stocks . What is more, and as stated before, we don't actually use 'savings' to fund 'investment'. Firms do not use retained profits (or corporate savings) to finance their investment, but in actual fact disgorge the cash to shareholders (Lazonick 2017). They finance their investment by bank loans (which is newly minted money). Households use their (accumulated) savings to buy bonds in the secondary market or any other existing asset. In that case, the savings do not go to funding new investment -- but are merely used to re-arrange the composition of the financial portfolio of the savers.

Final Problem: The Evidence of a Chronic Excess of Savings Over Investment is Missing

If Summers claims that there is a "chronic excess of savings over investment," what he means is that ex-ante savings are larger than ex-ante investment. This is a difficult proposition to empirically falsify, because we only have ex-post (national accounting) data on savings and investment which presume the two variables are equal. However, what we can do is consider data on (global) gross and net savings rates (as a proportion of GDP) to see if the propensity to save has increased. This is what Bofinger and Ries (2017) did and they find that global saving rates of private households have declined dramatically since the 1980s. This means, they write, that one can rule out 'excess savings' due to demographic factors (as per Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017; Eggertsson, Lancastre & Summers 2017; Rachel & Smith 2017; and Lu & Teulings 2017). While the average saving propensity of household has declined, the aggregate propensity to save has basically stayed the same during the period 1985-2014. This is shown in Figure 3 (reproduced from Bofinger and Reis 2017) which plots the ratio of global gross savings (or global gross investment) to GDP against the world real interest rate during 1985-2014. A similar figure can be found in the paper by Rachel and Smith (2017). What can be seen is that while there has been no secular rise in the average global propensity to save, there has been a secular decline in interest rates. This drop in interest rates to the ZLB is not caused by a savings glut, nor by a financing glut, but is the outcome of the deliberate decisions of central banks to lower the policy rate in the face of stagnating economies, put on a 'slow-moving turtle' by a structural lack of aggregate demand which -- as argued by Storm and Naastepad (2012) and Storm (2017) -- is largely due to misconceived macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation.

Saving/Investment Equilibria and World Real Interest Rate, 1985-2014 Source: Bofinger and Reis (2017), Figure 1(a).

To understand the mechanisms underlying Figure 3, let us consider Figure 4 which plots investment demand as a negative function of the interest rate. In the 'old situation', investment demand is high at a (relatively) high rate of interest (R0); this corresponds to the data points for the period 1985-1995 in Figure 3. But then misconceived macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation began to depress aggregate demand and investment -- and as a result, the investment demand schedule starts to shift down and to become more steeply downward-sloping at the same time. In response to the growth slowdown (and weakening inflationary pressure), central banks reduce R -- but without any success in raising the gross investment rate. This process continues until the interest rate hits the ZLB while investment has become practically interest-rate insensitive, as investment is now overwhelmingly determined by pessimistic profit expectations; this is indicated by the new investment schedule (in red). That the economy is now stuck at the ZLB is not caused by a "chronic excess of savings" but rather by a chronic shortage of aggregate demand -- a shortage created by decades of wage growth moderation, labour market flexibilization, and heightened job insecurity as well as the financialization of corporations and the economy at large (Storm 2018).

Figure 4: Secular Stagnation As a Crisis of Weak Investment Demand

Conclusions

The consensus in the literature and in the commissioned conference papers that the global decline in real interest rates is caused by a higher propensity to save, above all due to demographic reasons, is wrong in terms of underlying theory and evidence base. The decline in interest rates is the monetary policy response to stalling investment and growth, both caused by a shortage of global demand. However, the low interest rates are unable to revive growth and halt the secular stagnation, because there is little reason for firms to expand productive capacity in the face of the persistent aggregate demand shortage. Unless we revive demand, for example through debt-financed fiscal stimulus or a drastic and permanent progressive redistribution of income and wealth in favour of lower-income groups (Taylor 2017), there is no escape from secular stagnation. The narrow focus on the ZLB and powerless monetary policy within the framing of a loanable-funds financial system blocks out serious macroeconomic policy debate on how to revive aggregate demand in a sustainable manner. It will keep the U.S. economy on the slow-moving turtle -- not because policymakers cannot do anything about it, but we choose to do so. The economic, social and political damage, fully self-inflicted, is going to be of historic proportions.

It is not a secret that the loanable funds approach is fallacious (Lindner 2015; Taylor 2016; Jakab and Kumhof 2015). While academic economists continue to refine their Ptolemaic model of a loanable-funds market, central bank economists have moved on -- and are now exploring the scope of and limitations to monetary policymaking in a monetary economy. Keynes famously wrote that "Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back." In 2017, things seem to happen the other way around: academic economists who believe themselves to be free thinkers are caught in the stale theorizing of a century past. The puzzle is, as Lance Taylor (2016, p. 15) concludes "why [New Keynesian economists] revert to Wicksell on loanable funds and the natural rate while ignoring Keynes's innovations. Maybe, as [Keynes] said in the preface to the General Theory, "'The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones ..' (p. viii)"

Due to our inability to free ourselves from the discredited loanable funds doctrine, we have lost the forest for the trees. We cannot see that the solution to the real problem underlying secular stagnation (a structural shortage of aggregate demand) is by no means difficult: use fiscal policy -- a package of spending on infrastructure, green energy systems, public transportation and public services, and progressive income taxation -- and raise (median) wages. The stagnation will soon be over, relegating all the scholastic talk about the ZLB to the dustbin of a Christmas past.

See original post for references

gtggtg , December 22, 2017 at 10:08 am

"Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public spending and raising wages will change that."

But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"? Or is Keynes so out of favor that this is outre thinking?

gtggtg , December 22, 2017 at 10:10 am

I mean, I just have this image of economists going, "It's the chicken! It's the chicken, I say!" "No! It's the egg, dammit!"

MisterMr , December 22, 2017 at 11:58 am

I second this.

The point is that the "saving glut" is caused bi unequal distribution of income, so it's a good thing that the "shortage of aggregate demand" is stressed, but still it's just two names for the same thing.

In the end the "money creation" is needed because there is not a "money circulation", IMO.

jsn , December 22, 2017 at 4:45 pm

Putting money into the broadest possible distribution and circulation is the key. It could be done with existing money through taxation or with new money through the federal fiscal lever.

Given the "Tax Reform" just passed, odds on the first option look vanishingly long. The second option is what the elites do whenever they want something, normally a war or tax cut. If they want a robust economy, eventually they will pull the fiscal lever.

Feudalism, however, may look better to our depraved current elite crop than any kind of broadly robust economy.

TroyMcClure , December 22, 2017 at 11:49 am

There was a link to an article yesterday called "I write because I hate" that described how incorrect and even dangerous metaphors can be when it comes to understanding the world. Yours is a case in point.

Jamie , December 22, 2017 at 12:00 pm

But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"

I'm not sure I entirely understand your complaint, but at a first glance a savings glut is one kind of demand shortage, but not every kind of demand shortage can reasonably be called a savings glut. In one situation you have plenty of resource but no use for it other than possible future use (savings glut -- you have everything you need so cease purchasing) and in another situation you have insufficient resource (demand shortage -- you cease purchasing because you can't afford to purchase) but no savings glut. You don't even have the resources you need for today, never mind saving for tomorrow.

artiste-de-decrottage , December 22, 2017 at 1:54 pm

Aye, that's exactly how I understand it, so it is not exactly a chicken-or-the-egg conflation to try to distinguish a savings glut from a lack of demand.

James McFadden , December 22, 2017 at 3:25 pm

You seem to have missed the point. The problem is wealth distribution. Mainstream economists don't distinguish who has the savings in their simplistic models. When the rich already have a widget in every room of their mansion, they are not going to buy more widgets no matter how low the price of widgets sink. And when the poor have no money, they will not be able to buy the widgets no matter how much they want them. Demand is not just a function of price. To increase demand, we need a more equitable form of wealth distribution.

Skip Intro , December 23, 2017 at 9:30 am

One major difference, according to the author, is that the lack of aggregate demand exists, while the savings glut does not. The fact of companies sitting on liquidity, is detached from investment, for which they borrow. That investment is lacking because they do not see good investments, because of a lack of aggregate demand. if they did invest, it would not be constrained by their 'savings'.

Larry , December 22, 2017 at 12:58 pm

"But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even when they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow more in order to invest."

That needs some explanation. Banks are not offering US businesses free money (excerpt briefly during the Crash). BBB bonds yields are aprox 4.3% -- and most businesses cannot borrow at that rate (excerpt when posting collateral).

For comparison over long time horizons, the real (ex-CPI) BBB corporate bond rate is 2.5% to 3% -- in the middle of its range from 1952-1980.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAA

John Wright , December 22, 2017 at 1:45 pm

Banks are enjoying the privilege of loaning excess deposits to a risk free client, the Federal Reserve.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EXCSRESNS

This is at 1.5% per https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reqresbalances.htm as of 12-14-2017

Why should banks risk lending money to entities who might not pay it back?

Loan it to the Fed at 1.5%

Altandmain , December 22, 2017 at 1:17 pm

The real reason why the political system won't make any effort to address aggregate demand is because it would help the people.

I suspect that the elite know the truth. They just want to pretend to be ignorant to prevent the system from helping the people who need it.

Let's bring up Michal Kalecki again:
https://mronline.org/2010/05/22/political-aspects-of-full-employment/

We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending. But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under the pressure of the masses -- the maintenance of full employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders. Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure. The social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. It is true that profits would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices, and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more appreciated than profits by business leaders. Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system.

In other words, one potential reason for business to oppose any efforts at addressing the problem is that the people would have more bargaining power. The elite are not after absolute wealth or power, but relative power over the rest of us.

Imagine for example if the alternative was passed say some form of social democracy with full employment and MMT policy.

This would undermine in their view their ability to dominate over the rest of us. Now they may arguably be richer (ex: we might see more money for productive parts of society like say, disease research), but they are willing to give that up for dominating us. That is what we are up against.

Mike , December 23, 2017 at 10:17 am

If what you say is true (re social democracy + MMT policies), how then to consider for even one second the further existence of a business cadre dedicated to upending such an agreement? We always theorize as if an actual resistance to "our" policies will melt away with the displacement of elite political control. I remember Chile and the "strikes" called to bring down Allende.

The innocence of our imaginations is not only disturbing, but dangerous. Once power is gained and capital has been put in its place, the fight begins right there, anew. Unless we wish to fall into Stalinist methods of "resolution", consideration for alternate methods of economic control, and an anticipation of backlash, are in demand if the "people" are to prevail.

Mark Anderlik , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 am

In my experience as a union organizer and negotiator the opposition by many employers to unions is not particularily because of money, but because of power and the erosion of the employer's grip of it by the collective action of workers. Many times in my experience employers have spent a boatload more money on fighting workers and hiring union-busting attorneys than whatever wage and benefit increase is being proposed. These employers are acting from their political self-interest rather than the narrow economic self-interest that is commonly assumed.

Cat Burglar , December 23, 2017 at 3:43 pm

Great comments -- the motivation behind the ideas is a need for power and control.

You can look at the first 20 years of the Cold War as a domestic experiment in social control: incomes were allowed to rise for most people, and inequality was moderated in the interest of politically consolidating the country to support arming and fighting the war.

By the early 70s our handlers -- as shown in the Powell Memo, say -- had tired of the experiment. With more income, free time, and education, women, students, non-white people, and the newly prosperous working class were entering into contention on every terrain imaginable -- and that had to reduced to a manageable level. So they "leaned-out the mix", reduced income for most people, and bumped up the level of indebtedness and indoctrination.

Now the fuel-air mix is so lean that the engine is starting to miss (for example, the Trump election and the Sanders challenge to the Dem elite). But it looks like they have no other idea but to double-down on austerity. I guess they assume they can maintain global financial and military hegemony on the backs of a sick, unfit, indebted, and politically fractious population -- an iffy proposition. No wonder they seem desperate.

paul , December 22, 2017 at 2:03 pm

unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system.

That is both the long and short of it.

To engineer the scarcity of the ability to sustain is the the greatest sin

Paul Hirschman , December 22, 2017 at 2:46 pm

The Trump/Republican tax law tells us (if we needed another message) that the link between economic policy and economic theory is so weak as the bring into question the point of theorizing in the first place, apart, of course, from convincing (semi)-smart but fearful people to remain timid in the face of powerful lunacy. Government spending to replace worn out capital, to satisfy basic material needs of the population, and to underwrite investment in an environmental and educational future worth creating is, OBVIOUSLY, a no-no to Wall Street, war profiteers, and the large population of yes-men and women who promote fear among the middle class. We should spend less time contesting economic thinking that is nonsense. Instead why not spend time proposing and explaining fairly obvious fiscal strategies that will promote a better society, as well as the time that will be needed to defend these life-affirming proposals against the scholastic nonsense that our saltwater and freshwater scaredy-cat friends will put out every day to explain why what we propose will wreck Civilization. Let's go on the offense for a change.

redolent , December 22, 2017 at 8:14 pm

let's go on the offensive for a change

precisely, but for the forementioned scholastic nonsense of our salty and fresh feline friends, one would need a salient and orchestrated defense, as to why such meddling with traditional economic trajectories, will mean that: by foregoing my 'short sided 2018 increase in my personal deduction', will I actually allow myself to feel benign about the sagging state of civilization, that those 'cats of all breeds', have so eloquently perpetuated upon a 'generation of our peers'.

calling 'message central', the 'greater good awaits'. Yes

Jabawocky , December 22, 2017 at 2:50 pm

I still can't get my head around the fact that these models can persist in the economics literature whilst everyone knows they are based on flawed assumptions. In science these would quickly end up as part of some distant history. Someone would publish another model, and slowly everyone would start working with it if it had strong explanatory power. Imagine the grief that climate modellers would get if theirs models were so poorly grounded.

Left in Wisconsin , December 22, 2017 at 6:33 pm

You could almost think it was ideology trumping evidence.

Susan the other , December 22, 2017 at 2:57 pm

Thank you for this post. It was as good as Michael Hudson and all the clear thinkers you post for us. Since we got rid of Greenspan (who admitted that interest rates had no effect on the economy but still freaked out about inflaltion), Bernanke and then Yellen have had better instincts – not straightforward, but better. If central banks know the loanable funds theory to be nonsense, the battle is mostly won. MMT will be the logical next step. Public spending/infrastructure is just good grassroots policy that serve everyone. Even dithering goofballs like Larry Summers. And, as implied above, public spending takes care of the always ignored problem of private debt levels which suck productive spending and investment out of the economy, because unemployment. It's hard to believe that academics have been so wrong-headed for so long without any evidence for their claims. Steve Keen's premise, that these academics ignore both the existence of private debt and the importance of dwindling energy sources is also addressed above. Storm's point – also made by both old hands and new MMT – that there is not a problem with inflation (too much) if there are slack resources seems to have morphed into an ossified rule whereby some inflexible academics see slack resources as scarce resources. What is slack is always a political definition. What is slack today is a filthy environment; there is a great surplus of it. Enormously slack. That's the good news.

cnchal , December 22, 2017 at 3:07 pm

What are the causes of secular stagnation?

Globalization is a disaster wherever you care to look.

Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity . . .

A better example is Apple, with it's roughly 1/4 trillion dollar cash hoard, beaten out of their Chinese work force in collusion of the Chinese elite. With wages crushed here and there, because they don't want to pay anyone anything anywhere, where will demand come from? The Chinese peasant slaving away on an Apple farm has a few square feet of living space, like a broiler chicken in a Tyson cage so where is she going to put the new furniture she can't afford?

Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ] The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money takes this form .

The banks are the MMT practicing intermediary between the federal government and the peasants.

Enquiring Mind , December 23, 2017 at 11:19 am

Was the Tax Cut a Hail Mary to get more aggregate demand? Perhaps the Administration is practicing anti-loanable funds on the sly.

knowbuddhau , December 22, 2017 at 3:22 pm

So much goodness, don't know where to start. It's a long post. It's my day (singular) off. I'm going long. Deacon Blues* applies.

This:

Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong influence upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible form in a simple diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift' and Max Weber's Protestant Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path to bliss.

Now we're talking. This puts the doctrine in the context of its parent beliefs.

The way I see it, beliefs:economics as operating system:application as mythology:religion. So shorter Storm: The LFF is a BS application for a BS OS.

Been dawning on me lately how neoliberalism is the spawn of a degenerate parent belief system, too. I was even thinking of Weber just the other day.

By speaking in apparently objective, pragmatic, "realistic" terms, public figures are notorious for "dog-whistling" their occult beliefs in terms their congregations hear loud and clear. When Her Royal Clinton's even more notoriously damned to hell half the population as "deplorables," she tipped her hand. The obscure term, ephors, is very instructive here.

To refesh the readers memory, "Schumpeter (1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy' -- someone who by creating credit (ex nihilo) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of new combinations, authorizes people, in the name of society as it were, to form them."

Not so fast, though. Who were the original ephors?

Herodotus claimed that the institution was created by Lycurgus, while Plutarch considers it a later institution. It may have arisen from the need for governors while the kings were leading armies in battle. The ephors were elected by the popular assembly, and all citizens were eligible for election. They were forbidden to be reelected. They provided a balance for the two kings, who rarely cooperated with each other. Plato called them tyrants who ran Sparta as despots, while the kings were little more than generals. Up to two ephors would accompany a king on extended military campaigns as a sign of control, and they held the authority to declare war during some periods in Spartan history.[2]

According to Plutarch,[3] every autumn, at the crypteia, the ephors would pro forma declare war on the helot population so that any Spartan citizen could kill a helot without fear of blood guilt.[4] This was done to keep the large helot population in check.

The ephors did not have to kneel down before the Kings of Sparta and were held in high esteem by the citizens, because of the importance of their powers and because of the holy role they earned throughout their functions.

Ain't that something. We don't call it "class war" for nothing. More on the crypteia:

The Crypteia or Krypteia (Greek: κρυπτεία krupteνa from κρυπτός kruptσs, "hidden, secret things") was an ancient Spartan state institution involving young Spartan men. Its goal and nature are still a matter of discussion and debate among historians, but some scholars (Wallon) consider the Krypteia to be a kind of secret police and state security force organized by the ruling classes of Sparta, whose purpose was to terrorize the servile helot population. Others (Kφchly, Wachsmuth) believe it to be a form of military training, similar to the Athenian ephebia.

So Schumpeter's metaphor is way too apt for comfort. Gets right under my skin.

For a modern equivalent of the pro forma declaration of civil war, I'm thinking "election cycle." Hippie-punching and all that goes a long way back, eh?

Let's cut to the chase: what's all this talk of econ as religion telling us? ISTM arguing with neoliberals as they frame the debate is like arguing with theologians in their terms. My learning psych professor, Robert Bolles, regarding the dismantling of ascendant BS models, always said, you don't take down an enormous tree leaf by leaf, you go where it meets the ground. Where does neoliberalism meet the ground? And its parent belief system?

Neoliberalism is so poorly grounded, it's shorting out all over the place. This could be easier than it looks. Storm's argument is compelling (at least to this newbie). What are its other weakest links? (Not being rhetorical here. I really don't know. A little help?)

Speaking of Weber, one of the major factors in the Reformation was the utter failure of the Catholic church to be able to produce a valid calendar . The trouble is of course, in their mythos, you have to perform the proper rituals at the proper time and often in the proper place, or you will fry in hell forever and ever amen.

Obviously, then, the calculation of the equinox assumed considerable and understandable importance. If the equinox was wrong, then Easter was celebrated on the wrong day and the placement of most of the other observances -- such as the starts of Lent and Pentecost -- would also be in error.

As the Julian calendar was far from perfect, errors did indeed begin to creep into the keeping of time. Because of the inherent imprecision of the calendar, the calculated year was too long by 11 minutes and 14 seconds. The problem only grew worse with each passing year as the equinox slipped backwards one full day on the calendar every 130 years. For example, at the time of its introduction, the Julian calendar placed the equinox on March 25. By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, the equinox had fallen back to March 21. By 1500, the equinox had shifted by 10 days.

The 10 days were of increasing importance also to navigation and agriculture, causing severe problems for sailors, merchants, and farmers whose livelihood depended upon precise measurements of time and the seasons. At the same time, throughout the Middle Ages, the use of the Julian calendar brought with it many local variations and peculiarities that are the constant source of frustration to historians. For example, many medieval ecclesiastical records, financial transactions, and the counting of dates from the feast days of saints did not adhere to the standard Julian calendar but reflected local adjustments. Not surprisingly, confusion was the result.

The Church Saves Time

[Doncha just love that succinct bit of myth-making? smh]

The Church was aware of the inaccuracy, and by the end of the 15th century there was widespread agreement among Church leaders that not celebrating Easter on the right day -- the most important and most solemn event on the calendar -- was a scandal.

A functioning mythology tells one how to be human right now. The Catholic church couldn't even tell people what date it was, putting not just ephemeral souls in peril should one die, even more of a daily dread in those days, but lives and property were increasingly at risk.

ISTM we're in an analogous situation. Our two high holies, Wall Street and Washington, DC, are increasingly irrelevant to us helots. They're of no use to us in ordering our daily lives. In fact, they've becoming openly hostile, dropping any pretense of governing for the common good, and I'm not referring only to Trump, eg, whatever happened to habeas corpus ? "If you like your health plan, you can keep it." The betrayals come fast and furious, too fast to keep up.

Others are rejecting science. A schism here, a schism there, pretty soon it all cracks up one day "outta nowhere." And I do mean "one day."

Moving right along, let's look at "the virtue of thrift."

Like the "virtues" of the LF fallacy, it arises from a parent belief system. This is from Some Call for Reclaiming the Virtue of Thrift (emphasis added).

In the formative years of United States history, prominent thinkers such as Ben Franklin promoted a "thrift ethic" that encouraged hard work, frugal spending on self and generous giving to charity, he asserted, maintaining "thrift" was simply the secular term for the religious stewardship principle . And institutions developed to support that ethic, he noted.

That's what I'm saying: secular institutions are the operationalizations, the applications, of belief systems, and further, we can study them instead of just saying "religion = bad = no further analysis required" and then dismissing it all out of hand.

As with LF-supply and LF-demand, secular and sectarian are not the independent variables they're made out to be, as argued so well by Cook & Ferguson right here on NC in The Real Economic Consequences of Martin Luther , eg, "[Henry VIII] did not abolish the papacy so much as take the pope's place." Same goes for today, IMNSHO: Our "secular" leaders are sectarian high priests in mufti.

The Baptist article also goes on to say what the flock people should do: ignore Wall St. and DC. Unsuprisingly, it's also chock full of punching downwards and victim-blaming. Payday lending and lotteries are to blame, they say. People just need to be more thrifty , which apparently means, impoverish yourself for the betterment of your betters. Or else.

When HRC damned half of us to Hell, she was dog-whistling loud and clear in a tradition going at least as far back as the wars of the ephors on the helots. When the high priests of our high holy temples of finance tell us we need more austerity, although they speak in terms apparently objective and especially dispassionate, it's nothing but the failed preachings of the failed priests of a failed church.

Looked at as comparative mythology, and speaking empirically as well (much obliged to the present author and our hosts, sincerely) neoliberalism is no way of being human.

Sure, us nerds get that. But wonky discussions don't move people. The execrable Mario Cuomo is credited with saying, "You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose," and I think it's profoundly true. Telling my friends we've debunked the Loanable Funds Fallacy will get me nowhere.

Oy vey. The immense satisfaction I had been feeling, of seeing through neoliberalism all the way to its core, sure was short lived. Now I need to know what MMT says about being human. This is what happens when you start thinking in words, you know. It never ends!

I've heard Steve Keen's writing won't be much help in popularizing MMT in time. Who's a witty MMTer? Who can express its way of being human in one-liners? Who's punchy?

(Administrivia: "Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) *rise* in the average propensity to save. In reponse, the LF-supply curve shifts down ." Shouldn't that be "drop"?)

* This is the night of the expanding man
I take one last drag as I approach the stand
I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long
This brother is free
I'll be what I want to be

knowbuddhau , December 22, 2017 at 4:23 pm

Oops left out two links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephor

knowbuddhau , December 22, 2017 at 4:23 pm

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypteia

susan the other , December 23, 2017 at 12:11 pm

Very interesting rant, Knowbuddhau. Imo all we have to do is get over gold. It made sense before the days of sovereign fiat that you saved your coins before you spent them. How else? But fiat is the essential spirit of money while gold was/is a craze. And the Neoliberals are unenlightened just like the Neocons against whom they pretend to react. But they are reactionaries regardless. That's their problem. All reaction, no action. When Storm refers to Kalecki above saying the original sin of economics was confusing stocks with flows, I take it to mean confusing fiat with gold in a sense. Once upon a time a store of value (a pouch full of gold coins) was the same thing as a medium of exchange. Not any more. Fiat is the only mechanism, spent in advance to promote social well being, that can create an "economy" in this world of zillions of people.

JustAnObserver , December 22, 2017 at 5:16 pm

Isn't a bit of an irony that the academic papers being debunked here were commissioned by the Institute for *New* Economic Thinking ? Sad to see its also been corrupted by the neoliberal virus (political Ebola).

ewmayer , December 22, 2017 at 8:11 pm

The author writes about the fuctional LF paradigm: "Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot pre -finance investment by new money. They only move it between savers and investors." -- Note that that narrative doesn't even make sense *within* the loanable-funds model, because with fractional reserve banking, even if banks were required to loan against pre-existing deposits, they could amplify each dollar of same into multiple units of newly-created credit money. The fact that what really happens goes even further and entirely omits the need for pre-existing funds from the banks' monetary legerdemain is the reason for my pet term for the "loans create deposits" reality: "fictional reserve banking."

Dan , December 23, 2017 at 12:40 am

Aggregate demand increases investment only to the extant that it increases profitable opportunities. If costs remain constant, then obviously an increase in demand increases profitability. But an increase in wages doesn't merely increase aggregate demand, it also increases aggregate costs because that's what a wage is to a firm. If aggregate wages were boosted by $1 trillion, consumption will be boosted by less than 100% of that (workers will save some of their increased income) while firms will have to pay the full $1 trillion in increased wages if they are to employ the workers. So how is increasing wages supposed to increase profitability and investment? It seems like it would do the opposite.

We really need to look more at profit. The aggregate profit rate is determined by the cost of the total capital employed in relation to the output. If the costs rise faster than productivity growth, then profitability falls. How do aggregate costs rise? By capital accumulation, by an increase in savings and investment. Thus, it would seem that stagnation can only be reached if too much capital has been accumulated without a corresponding increase in productivity. This hypothesis doesn't rely on the loanable funds theory (it doesn't matter whether the money exists before it is spent), but it is more similar to the savings glut explanation because it is the accumulation of capital that leads to the fall in profitability. The suppression of wages is an effect, an attempt to create profitable opportunities when there are none.

Steven Greenberg , December 23, 2017 at 11:29 am

Your model is correct when you limit yourself to the variables in your model. Real life economies are complex, dynamic interactions of many variables. At different times some variable become more important than others.

I think your variable, capital accumulation, is itself a complicated mix of many variables. Sometimes the cost of "capital accumulation" may be controlling, and sometimes not. It also depends on which variables within capital accumulation are having the most impact.

Steven Greenberg , December 23, 2017 at 10:42 am

I think one of the major problems of the theory of supply and demand is that it may be true as a static model (all other things being equal), but the economy (and life) are not static. Unless you can take dynamic effects into account, then this static or even quasi-static model will just not represent what actually happens. This is just another way of saying what this article says. Over time, the supply curve and the demand curve interact. There is hardly, if any, point in time when all other things aren't changing.

In my world of simulating the behavior of integrated circuits, the problem involves non-linear differential equations, not just non-linear algebraic equations.

Steven Greenberg , December 23, 2017 at 10:55 am

Here is another problem. " by the national accounts[,] identity of saving and investment (for closed economies),"

Accounting is also a static snapshot of a dynamic system. A bank creates a loan payable in let's say 30 years. The spending occurs immediately. In accounting terms these two items balance. However, on impact on the economy, they do not balance. Why else would capitalism have noticed the value of buy now, pay later?

Steven Greenberg , December 23, 2017 at 11:02 am

This is no longer a chicken and egg problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg. In real life, there are lots of chickens and lots of eggs. Which came first is irrelevant. Chickens create eggs and eggs create chickens.

Steven Greenberg , December 23, 2017 at 11:23 am

Models are a simplification of reality. They apply best when the things that were simplified away don't matter much. They fail when the things that were simplified away become important. So, when does the loanable funds model apply?

IMHO, the loanable funds model applies when there is a run on the bank. When the fractional reserve banking system is running smoothly, the loanable funds model is irrelevant. That's why banks have reserves and monetary systems have central reserve banks. These reserve systems let us ignore loanable funds models.

Cat Burglar , December 23, 2017 at 3:56 pm

These are great comments! You put the whole process in time.

[Dec 23, 2017] IMF demands that the price of gas be raised for Ukrainians

Dec 23, 2017 | rusnewstoday24.ru

As reported by the permanent representative of the International Monetary Fund in the Ukraine, Jost Longman, the Kiev authorities should increase Ukrainian gas tariffs to the level of import parity. Longman argues that an increase in gas prices will have a positive effect on the development of the free market and will teach the Ukrainians to use natural gas economically. "In the end, the final goal is the implementation of a free gas market. On the way to this, it is important to continue to adjust the price of gas in accordance with the price of imports", said Longman. "One price for all types of consumer also eliminates the space for corruptio," he added.

[Dec 23, 2017] Nikki Haley is the most honest UN rep America has had in a long time. Look at the exact words. The clear meaning is that the UN (and associated international law) is, in the American view, most emphatically not an association of equal nations bound by common rules. It's a protection racket where little countries can be bullied by big ones

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Ryan Ward , December 20, 2017 at 7:04 am

I'm really happy about this. The reason being that the mask is completely off. Nikki Haley is the most honest UN rep America has had in a long time. Look at the exact words. The clear meaning is that the UN (and associated international law) is, in the American view, most emphatically not an association of equal nations bound by common rules. It's a protection racket where little countries can be bullied by big ones, but big ones (most especially the US) are accountable to no one. And it's an insult to even suggest that the UN might have standing to criticize the US the same way it criticizes smaller countries. Everyone knew all this before, but it's refreshing to see it expressed so honestly.
marknesop , December 20, 2017 at 5:36 pm
I absolutely agree, and the more America shits itself right in front of everyone, the better I like it. Because it is burning all its soft-power bridges; carrots are out and the stick is in. But quite a few countries don't care for that sort of threatening, and some among those might even say "Or what? Like, what will you do? Impose sanctions against us? Because you are running out of trading partners already, fuck-stick, so just keep it up and you won't have any".
Patient Observer , December 20, 2017 at 6:59 pm
Me too.
kirill , December 20, 2017 at 9:57 pm
Don't be too quick. Here the OP is happy that US exceptionalism is being forced down the world's throat. It is clear that the UN and most other "international organizations" such as WADA, IOP, etc, are US puppets. For some reason, such organizations were trying to act impartial during the previous cold war. During the current cold war they have no impartiality whatsoever. So some pancake house waitress can spew all sorts of "refreshing" BS and the "united nothings" are supposed to eat it with a smile.

I recall lots of wailing in the NATzO media before 1990 how the UN was "ineffective". They must be all wet with glee that the current UN is nothing more than Washington's tool.

[Dec 23, 2017] What we witnessed here in the Security Council is an insult. It won't be forgotten," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said after the vote, adding that it was the first veto cast by the United States in more than six years.

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , December 18, 2017 at 8:05 pm

One can only be dumbstruck by the breathtaking arrogance and stupidity of this woman:

"What we witnessed here in the Security Council is an insult. It won't be forgotten," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said after the vote, adding that it was the first veto cast by the United States in more than six years.

"The fact that this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in defence of America's role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the Security Council," Haley said.

Yup, she's taking names.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-believes-u-veto-u-n-resolution-jerusalem-170400201.html

marknesop , December 18, 2017 at 9:50 pm
Oh, dear; America is isolated! How did this happen?

The Trump administration must have had a feeling it would go badly, and Haley must have prepared a response to go with using the American veto; she's just not that good at thinking on her feet. Politics One-Oh-One: never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer.

Keep it up, America. You are pissing off Europe to the point it is asking itself, why are we friends with this jerk? We're not there yet – the USA still has lots of money, and too many European leaders perceive that the bloc could not survive without lovely American money. But the progress is incrementally in that direction.

Jen , December 18, 2017 at 9:50 pm
I'd like to see her taking all fourteen names – she'll probably need a lifetime taking them.
marknesop , December 18, 2017 at 10:30 pm
Unless she's wearing open-toe sandals; unlikely, this time of year.
yalensis , December 19, 2017 at 2:52 am
Nikki is a modern-day Margaret Dumont defending her beloved Freedonia:

[Dec 23, 2017] Haley has completed the transformation of diplomacy at the the UN into a farce. Its her party and she can cry if she wants to. All food will be kosher.

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , December 22, 2017 at 1:11 pm

Haley has completed the transformation of diplomacy at the the UN into a farce. Its her party and she can cry if she wants to.

The 64 nations that voted 'no,' abstained, or were not present during the UN General Assembly's diplomatic spanking of Washington's Jerusalem move will get a "thank you" reception from US envoy Nikki Haley.

https://www.rt.com/usa/414008-nikki-haley-un-party-jerusalem/

All food will be kosher.

Perhaps those unwanted miserably losers (e.g. China, Russia, most of Europe, etc.) can have their version of the deploraball featuring sumptuous Middle East cuisine (no joke, that would be good eatin').

[Dec 23, 2017] For the American UN rep to be a warmongering psycho POS has a certain Deja Vu feel to it

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star , December 22, 2017 at 1:37 pm

For the American UN rep to be a warmongering psycho POS has a certain Deja Vu feel to it..does it not??

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5689320359001/?#sp=show-clips

Hmmm..who were the reps under Obongo??

Well there you have it !!!

[Dec 23, 2017] Who to Believe on Washington's Korea Policy, Tillerson or Trump by Ron Paul

Notable quotes:
"... Defense Secretary James Mattis seems skeptical about neocon hysteria, declaring that the North Korean missile program does not pose a "capable threat" to the United States. With that in mind, we can only hope that President Trump will encourage Tillerson to do another about-face and return to the idea of talks without pre-condition. Strategic ambiguity is one thing, sending constantly mixed signals when nuclear war looms is something else. (Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative) ..."
Dec 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

President Trump has often said that his foreign policy objective was to keep his enemies guessing. If that's the goal, you could say that he's doing a good job. The problem is who does he think his enemies are, because the American people are often left guessing as well.

US policy toward North Korea last week is a good example of how the Trump Administration is wittingly or unwittingly sowing confusion among friend and foe alike. In what looked like a breakthrough, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced last Tuesday that the US would be willing to sit down and talk with North Korea "without preconditions." Previously the US had demanded that North Korea agree to end its nuclear weapons and missile programs before Washington was willing to sit down to formal talks.

The State Department shift toward actual diplomacy with North Korea was quickly quashed, however, when the White House announced that its position on North Korea had not changed. It seemed that the State Department and White House were each pursuing different foreign policies on the Korea issue.

The White House even appeared to belittle Tillerson's attempt at diplomacy, releasing a statement on Wednesday that talks with North Korea would be "pointless." No wonder speculation persists that Tillerson is on his way out as Secretary of State.

Then on Friday Secretary Tillerson seemed to do a u-turn on his own policy, announcing at a UN Security Council meeting that a "sustained cessation of North Korea's threatening behavior" must precede any negotiations with the US. "North Korea must earn its way back to the table," he said. So, after just three days the offer of unconditional talks with North Korea had been put on and then removed from the table.

There is more than a little hypocrisy in US demands that North Korea cease its "threatening behavior." Just this month the US and South Korea launched yet another joint military exercise targeting North Korea. Some 12,000 military personnel and 230 aircraft – including stealth fighters – participated in the massive war games. Does anyone think this is not meant to be threatening to North Korea?

It is a shame that the hawks in the Administration continue to dominate. It seems pretty reasonable to open talks with North Korea after a period of "good faith" gestures between Washington and Pyongyang. Why not agree on no US/South Korean joint military exercises for six months in exchange for no North Korean missile launches for the same period and then agree to a meeting on neutral ground? How could it possibly hurt, particularly considering the alternative?

The hawks continue to talk up a US strike against North Korea. Senator Lindsey Graham seemed pleased when he announced that there was a 70 percent chance that the US would attack North Korea if it detonated another nuclear weapon. Does he realize how many people will die? Does he care?

Defense Secretary James Mattis seems skeptical about neocon hysteria, declaring that the North Korean missile program does not pose a "capable threat" to the United States. With that in mind, we can only hope that President Trump will encourage Tillerson to do another about-face and return to the idea of talks without pre-condition. Strategic ambiguity is one thing, sending constantly mixed signals when nuclear war looms is something else. (Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)

Priss Factor , Website December 18, 2017 at 6:42 pm GMT

Maybe they are playing good cop/bad cop. Smart move if true.

Carrots gotta be offered with threat of the stick.

PS. Puff wants to be in the NFL business.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/12/18/sean-diddy-combs-eyes-carolina-panthers-wants-to-sign-kaepernick.html

Best solution would be to have each race have their own league. Due to biological race-ism that favors blacks in sports, non-blacks can hardly play in pro sports.

So, let there be various racial leagues.

Since biological race-ism discriminates against whites in NBA and NFL, let there be the Blanco League.

Jonathan Mason , December 19, 2017 at 1:44 am GMT
T. Rex is probably closer to the mark. Clearly the Last Trump is continuing his Wizard of Oz impersonation and being humored by his minders while others try to go about the business of actually performing miracles.

Eventually Congress critters will wake up back home in their jerrymandered constituencies and realize it has all been a bad dream.

The Alarmist , December 19, 2017 at 12:09 pm GMT

"Senator Lindsey Graham seemed pleased when he announced that there was a 70 percent chance that the US would attack North Korea if it detonated another nuclear weapon. Does he realize how many people will die? Does he care?"

1) Yes.
2) No.

It's a sick, sad world where a former JAG Corps officer has so much influence over foreign and national defence and security policies.

Trump should re-activate him and either put him in Syria to brief the rules of engagement to the special ops forces (who will no doubt frag him) in real-time, or at one of the bases near the Korean DMZ, where he'll get real-world experience in the first wave of the invasion he is cheering on.

polistra , Website December 20, 2017 at 7:38 pm GMT
In a competent administration I'd assume good cop / bad cop. In the Trump era no assumptions are possible. Everything is just random noise, like leaves and trash blowing down the street, or cats yowling on a fence.
WorkingClass , December 21, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT

With that in mind, we can only hope that President Trump will encourage Tillerson to do another about-face and return to the idea of talks without pre-condition.

You got that right Dr. Paul. We can only hope. We want peace. We vote for peace. But we get war.

FB , December 22, 2017 at 5:42 pm GMT

Why not agree on no US/South Korean joint military exercises for six months in exchange for no North Korean missile launches for the same period and then agree to a meeting on neutral ground? How could it possibly hurt, particularly considering the alternative?

Well the simple reason is that the US continues to dream of regime change in North Korea there is no other 'plan'. There is no desire for simple coexistence with North Korea. That is quite plain and indisputable, based on the US actions. The US refusal to even consider a peace treaty for 60 years now makes that sinister motive plain as day. So it is useless to start from the point that the US is somehow interested in 'defusing' the North Korean crisis or even cares about the nuclear weapons or missiles

Missiles and nukes are not the problem even without those the US has never abandoned its core goal of 70 years to dominate the entire Korean peninsula. As soon as we recognize what the dynamics here really are then we can go forward. It is interesting to see here that Tillerson is yet again showing himself to be hugely capable of realism. This man is a gift to the American people but he is undermined by Dump himself who has chosen to adopt the entire neocon agenda. If we assume that the policy of the US is shaped more by unseen actors rather than the elected and visible personalities on center stage then my hope is that there are some rational players among those 'unseen' shot callers who may be supporting the Tillerson realpolitik approach because getting real and snapping out of disneyland fantasies is the only thing that is going to stave off impending disaster for the US

We can only hope that such a faction of realists exists within the 'unseen' power structure. What we can be plenty sure of is that there is clearly another powerful faction at work call them the neocons the war party or what you will and they seem to have the upper hand over the pathetically weak Dump

At least for the moment

[Dec 23, 2017] What Did John Brennan and Anonymous Sources Really Say by Philip Giraldi

The rule for retired intelligence officials is to keep their mouth shut and disappear from the public view. This not the case with Brennan. Probably worried about his survival chances in case of failure, Brennan tries to justified the "putsch" of a faction of intelligence officials against Trump. Nice... Now we have indirect proof that he conspired with Michael Morell to depose legitimately elected president.
Now the question arise whether he worked with MI6 to create Steele dossier. In other words did CIA supplied some information that went to the dossier.
Moreover, since JFK assassination, the CIA is prohibited from spying on American citizens, especially tracking the activities of associates of a presidential candidate, which is clearly political activity.
This alone should have sent warning bells off for Congress critters, yet Brennan clearly persisted in following this dangerous for him and CIA trail. Very strange.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous ..."
"... The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides . ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. ..."
"... It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. ..."
"... In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence. ..."
"... Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials. ..."
"... It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result. ..."
"... "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ." ..."
"... US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/ ..."
"... The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. ..."
"... Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason. ..."
"... Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface. ..."
"... "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned." ..."
"... This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist. ..."
"... What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships. ..."
"... "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal". ..."
May 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous

The Washington Post and a number of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA Director John Brennan's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post headlined a front page featured article with Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .

The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals."

Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off, yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.

But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his campaign had met with Russians. He was "concerned" because of known Russian efforts to "suborn such individuals." Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say "suborn those individuals." Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of "such individuals" because he knows that spies, inter alia , recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the Americans and British, do so aggressively.

At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it.

It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don't explains a lot of things about today's CIA

Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question "whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." He doesn't know whether the Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal offense.

In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence.

Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.

The article goes on to concede that "It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn ," and that's about all there is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the phone about the possibility of influencing an American's presidential candidate's advisers, an observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn't it? Isn't that what diplomats and intelligence officers do?

It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result.

How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television "news" or hears coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.

RobinG , May 30, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT

Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.

Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful, rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative speculation, who needs facts?

The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's taking the political line on the DNC emails!

https://www.c-span.org/video/?427995-3/whistleblower-cia

Melvin A. Goodman talked about his book, Whistleblower at the CIA: An Insider's Account of the Politics of Intelligence.

animalogic , May 30, 2017 at 5:32 am GMT

Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media. Incidentally: "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ."

"Presumably" here is quite generous: I'd be tempted to presume a whole string of lies .

Anon , May 30, 2017 at 5:51 am GMT

US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/

The Alarmist , May 30, 2017 at 5:54 am GMT

It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have been so convinced in their day.

exiled off mainstreet , May 30, 2017 at 6:15 am GMT

The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.

jilles dykstra , May 30, 2017 at 8:00 am GMT

It all seems quite simple to me. After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should not die ever more for imperialism. Isolation, neutrality laws. In 1932 Roosevelt was brought into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world. Trump and his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them personally. If I'm right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since 1932.

Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason.

Russ , May 30, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT

Lisa Frank has recently (5/18/2017) written beautifully on the topic of Comey in the FBI: http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=72788

Just as Ms. Frank dissects Comey's background and motivations, so a similar dissection is now in order for Mr. Brennan.

LauraMR , May 30, 2017 at 9:32 am GMT

@exiled off mainstreet The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.

Is he an Anglo-Zionist? I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the article

Renoman , May 30, 2017 at 10:08 am GMT

I'll say it again "what has Russia ever done to the USA"? The answer is Nothing!

mp , May 30, 2017 at 10:30 am GMT

Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No. Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT

" One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal offense".

Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war against Russia.

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 10:53 am GMT

@Renoman "[W]hat has Russia ever done to the USA"?

Er, supported the US government during the American Civil War? Given it Alaska for a token payment? Won WW2 for it?

RealAmerican , May 30, 2017 at 11:23 am GMT

How many congressmen and other politicians in Washington are already suborned by AIPAC? Is that not AIPAC's raison d'etre ?

DanCT , May 30, 2017 at 11:33 am GMT

"Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. "

Let's not forget 911 and it's ongoing coverup, the State Dept's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally's parallel command and control apparatus in every federal agency such as the FBI, etc

Wizard of Oz , May 30, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT

The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign intelligence service necessarily seeking to "direct" its agents. It would indeed follow that the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However .

Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could be aptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer's festival, invite them to accept your country's generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of information, especially about people.

alexander , May 30, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh

I think something fascinating is going on, Tom. Our leaders made a choice to defraud us into the Iraq war. Russia didn't. This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero accountability. It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for having done this, are the one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.

The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes THEY committed, not anything the Russians did. If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior. I do not know of one American, anywhere, who feels this is okay.

Do you ?

Andrei Martyanov , Website May 30, 2017 at 12:50 pm GMT

Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server

It doesn't matter. Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface.

"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/james-clapper-trump-russia-ties-my-dashboard-warning-light-was-n765601

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so not.

Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media. It is no longer disputed that the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.

August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F. Tracy

Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis.

https://www.intellihub.com/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know-2/ 

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT

@alexander Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American – I am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here – in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.

I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue explains very clearly how it works.

-------------------------------------–
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

- Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert

jilles dykstra , May 30, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland. The trap worked.

jilles dykstra , May 30, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT

@Agent76 That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough. The CIA is not a secret service, it is a secret army. This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT

This CIA director? May 19, 2010 Obama advisor John Brennan speaks about the beauty of Islam

jilles dykstra , May 30, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

@alexander It is.
After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report of considerable size. What happened ? Nothing. Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 2:43 pm GMT

Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State's Voter Database

While most of the country frets over Russia's role in the 2016 election, the state of Georgia has come forward saying that they've traced an IP from a hack of their voter database right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government.

annamaria , May 30, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet

The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known: https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/

"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on Sunday.

Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence," Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.

"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."

This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist.

alexander , May 30, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh Excellent quote, Tom.

.And so true.

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 3:08 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government schooling* .

Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA

The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland. The trap worked.

What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.

As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much mistaken.

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

@Agent76 "

"Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal".

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin

Rurik , Website May 30, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT

@annamaria

Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known: https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence," Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist.

the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014

I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a Zio-bankster-quisling.

PG:

the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.

getting to the crux of the matter

when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan / Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine (some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".

The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])

http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2015/03/John_Brennan.jpg

has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria and elsewhere too.

All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery. Which brings us to this curious comment..

The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,

what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!

So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the zio-media/AIPAC/etc..

His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.

In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.

And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than anything else.

[Dec 23, 2017] The State Department has approved the delivery to the Ukrainian army of modified 50 calibre Barrett sniper rifles, "Model M107A"

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , December 21, 2017 at 10:55 am

Oh look at what I just got given me!

https://icdn.lenta.ru/images/2017/12/21/12/20171221122514922/brief_f8fe6380f3186e74c06a46d665607174.jpg

The state Department has approved the delivery to the Ukrainian army of modified 50 calibre Barrett sniper rifles, "Model M107A"

It may be related to the Model 82A1®/M107®, but the M107A1 is far from a simple evolution. Driven by the demands of combat, every component was re-engineered to be lighter yet stronger. Designed to be used with a suppressor, this rifle allows you to combine signature reduction capabilities with the flawless reliability of the original Barrett M107, but with a weight reduction of 5 pounds. Advanced design and manufacturing make the M107A1 more precise than ever.

See: BarrrrettM107A1

[Dec 23, 2017] Slovenia is among the Coalition of the 128 NOT willing to be punked by USA. Melania better keep a low profile around Trump and Nikki

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star , , December 21, 2017 at 1:13 pm

Uh Oh Slovenia is among the Coalition of the 128 NOT willing to be punked by USA..

Maybe some panic stricken late night 911 DV calls from the WH??

Melania better keep a low profile around Trump and Nikki !!!!!! LOL!!

Jen , December 21, 2017 at 2:48 pm
India was naughty as well and Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley ought to have taken the Indian ambassador's name down as well. Maybe she'll even declare she won't ever set foot in India again. Her relatives there will breathe sighs of relief!
Cortes , December 21, 2017 at 4:27 pm
She's made herself untouchable.
Jen , December 21, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Ha ha!
Moscow Exile , December 21, 2017 at 8:41 pm
She makes me Sikh

[Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:

Example 1:

North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.

We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.

Example 2:

Commander's intent:

Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.

Execution:

Phase one:

Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.

Phase two:

Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course).

Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"

Phase four: Regime change.

There you go .

Example 3:

I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.

These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics:

First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence, when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain"). You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .

Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority, the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case, that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological, hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example #2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.

The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of " my country, right or wrong " but goes far beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility" to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".

A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.

A glorification of ignorance which is transformed into a sign of manliness and honesty. This is powerfully illustrated in the famous song " Where were you when the world stopped turning " whoso lyrics include the following words " I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God " (notice how the title of the song suggests that New York is the center of the world, when when get hit, the world stops turning; also, no connection is made between watching CNN and not being able to tell two completely different countries apart). If this were limited to singers, then it would not be a problem, but this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ".

As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.

A totally uncritical acceptance of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or the latest hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .

The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive, they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.

That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .

Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans" (example #2 is a prefect example of this).

There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:

Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.

As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans (political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:

One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).

Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.

Consequences:

There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion than on the actual ability to form one .

By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types") because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.

The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others. One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory and leave.

Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars . And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!

We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated (if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is not just a case of " Fools rush in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught me about it!).

If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of their own.

What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us

I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.

Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans, remember the previous war in Korea).

But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem

The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.

This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.

In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable scenario (see here if that topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly seeking solutions to our current predicament.

-- -- -

1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:

Paul b , December 22, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
Third world nationalist , December 22, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern degeneracy.
Andrei Martyanov , Website December 22, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness

A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the warfare.

Sean , December 22, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech ( it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
VICB3 , December 22, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.

Don't think that would ever happen? Reference 'How Tyrannies Implode' by Richard Fernandez: https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/02/27/how-tyrannies-implode/?print=true&singlepage=true

There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*

Just a thought.

VicB3

*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.

His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.

Wish I didn't think that, but I do.

pyrrhus , December 22, 2017 at 5:03 pm GMT
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years .In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
anonymous , Disclaimer December 22, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice. It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre. Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes, look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
Randal , December 22, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT
@VICB3

but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military and shot on TV.

All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.

Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.

I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies that came to a bad end.

neutral , December 22, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
@pyrrhus

so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world

I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world.

neutral , December 22, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT

The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.

Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.

Dana Thompson , December 22, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless? Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake. But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
peterAUS , December 22, 2017 at 10:37 pm GMT
@Dana Thompson

Agree.

I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.

VICB3 , December 23, 2017 at 12:07 am GMT
@Randal

Just be patient.

Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.

Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.

Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better. And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.

At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."

And then it's "Live on TV Time!"

Hope this helps.

Just a thought.

VicB3

Santoculto , December 23, 2017 at 12:27 am GMT
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first

METWO#

Erebus , December 23, 2017 at 12:59 am GMT
@peterAUS

Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.

In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to you at some length elsewhere.

In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.

It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.

You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with. Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.

Simple, really.

[Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:

Example 1:

North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.

We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.

Example 2:

Commander's intent:

Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.

Execution:

Phase one:

Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.

Phase two:

Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course).

Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"

Phase four: Regime change.

There you go .

Example 3:

I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.

These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics:

First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence, when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain"). You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .

Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority, the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case, that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological, hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example #2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.

The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of " my country, right or wrong " but goes far beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility" to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".

A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.

A glorification of ignorance which is transformed into a sign of manliness and honesty. This is powerfully illustrated in the famous song " Where were you when the world stopped turning " whoso lyrics include the following words " I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God " (notice how the title of the song suggests that New York is the center of the world, when when get hit, the world stops turning; also, no connection is made between watching CNN and not being able to tell two completely different countries apart). If this were limited to singers, then it would not be a problem, but this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ".

As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.

A totally uncritical acceptance of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or the latest hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .

The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive, they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.

That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .

Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans" (example #2 is a prefect example of this).

There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:

Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.

As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans (political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:

One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).

Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.

Consequences:

There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion than on the actual ability to form one .

By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types") because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.

The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others. One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory and leave.

Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars . And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!

We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated (if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is not just a case of " Fools rush in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught me about it!).

If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of their own.

What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us

I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.

Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans, remember the previous war in Korea).

But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem

The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.

This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.

In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable scenario (see here if that topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly seeking solutions to our current predicament.

-- -- -

1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:

Paul b , December 22, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
Third world nationalist , December 22, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern degeneracy.
Andrei Martyanov , Website December 22, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness

A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the warfare.

Sean , December 22, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech ( it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
VICB3 , December 22, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.

Don't think that would ever happen? Reference 'How Tyrannies Implode' by Richard Fernandez: https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/02/27/how-tyrannies-implode/?print=true&singlepage=true

There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*

Just a thought.

VicB3

*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.

His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.

Wish I didn't think that, but I do.

pyrrhus , December 22, 2017 at 5:03 pm GMT
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years .In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
anonymous , Disclaimer December 22, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice. It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre. Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes, look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
Randal , December 22, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT
@VICB3

but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military and shot on TV.

All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.

Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.

I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies that came to a bad end.

neutral , December 22, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
@pyrrhus

so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world

I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world.

neutral , December 22, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT

The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.

Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.

Dana Thompson , December 22, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless? Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake. But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
peterAUS , December 22, 2017 at 10:37 pm GMT
@Dana Thompson

Agree.

I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.

VICB3 , December 23, 2017 at 12:07 am GMT
@Randal

Just be patient.

Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.

Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.

Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better. And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.

At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."

And then it's "Live on TV Time!"

Hope this helps.

Just a thought.

VicB3

Santoculto , December 23, 2017 at 12:27 am GMT
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first

METWO#

Erebus , December 23, 2017 at 12:59 am GMT
@peterAUS

Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.

In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to you at some length elsewhere.

In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.

It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.

You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with. Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.

Simple, really.

[Dec 22, 2017] If You Are Looking for Consistency, Trump Ain't Your Man by Publius Tacitus

Dec 22, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Christmas came early for Donald Trump. He signed a historic tax cut, kept the Government funded and operating and, to the delight of many in his base, used UN Ambassador Nikki Haley as a mouthpiece to tell the rest of the world to go pound sand. He is feeling groovy. But Donald Trump is still his own worst enemy. And his Presidency will be fatally harmed if he continues with his erratic foreign policy and his empty talk on dealing with the opioid plague.

Let's start with his wildly fluctuating foreign policy. There is no consistency nor is their a theme. When he announced that he was recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, many assumed he was on the Israeli leash and was behaving as any obedient dog would. Perhaps.

How then do you explain yesterday's (Thursday) decision to arm Ukraine as a show of force to Russia :

The Trump administration has approved the largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine since 2014. . . . Administration officials confirmed that the State Department this month approved a commercial license authorizing the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories to Ukraine, a sale valued at $41.5 million. These weapons address a specific vulnerability of Ukrainian forces fighting a Russian-backed separatist movement in two eastern provinces.

The people we are arming in the Ukraine are the actual and intellectual descendants of the Nazi sympathizers who helped the Einsatzgruppen murder more than a million Jews after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Scholar Richard Sakwa provides the horrifying details on the pro-Nazi ideological foundation of the key Ukrainian political groups we are backing:

"The Orange revolution, like the later Euromaidan events, was democratic in intent but gave an impetus 'to the revival of the radical versions of [the] Ukrainian national movement that first appeared on the historical scene in the course of World War II and a national discourse focused on fighting against the enemy'.41 " . . . .

"In Dnepropetrovsk, for example, instead of the anticipated 60 street-name changes, 350 were planned. Everywhere 'Lenin Streets' became 'Bandera Avenues' as everything Russian was purged. One set of mass murderers was changed for another. Just as the Soviet regime had changed toponyms to inscribe its power into the physical environment, so now the Euromaidan revolution seeks to remould daily life. In Germany today the names of Nazis and their collaborators are anathema, whereas in Ukraine they are glorified."

Excerpt From: Richard Sakwa. "Frontline Ukraine : Crisis in the Borderlands." from the Afterward

At the very moment we are signaling our support for Israel, the country founded largely because of the horror over the Shoah, we are also giving weapons to political groups whose parents and grand parents helped carry out the Shoah. Oh yeah, in the process of doing this we are providing a tangible threat to Russia. Imagine what our reaction would be if Russia decided to step up its weapons supplies to Cuba.

Then we have Trump's tough talk on the opioid slaughter taking place across America. Let me be clear. He is not responsible for the start of this plague. The Obama Administration carries a heavy burden on that front. CBS 60 Minutes has done a magnificent job in exposing the role that the Obama Justice Department refused to play in going after the major corporate opiate drug pusher--i.e., the McKesson Corporation :

In October, we joined forces with the Washington Post and reported a disturbing story of Washington at its worst - about an act of Congress that crippled the DEA's ability to fight the worst drug crisis in American history - the opioid addiction crisis. Now, a new front of that joint investigation. It is also disturbing. It's the inside story of the biggest case the DEA ever built against a drug company: the McKesson Corporation, the country's largest drug distributor. It's also the story of a company too big to prosecute.

In 2014, after two years of painstaking inquiry by nine DEA field divisions and 12 U.S. Attorneys, investigators built a powerful case against McKesson for the company's role in the opioid crisis.

[According to DEA Agent Schiller] This is the best case we've ever had against a major distributor in the history of the Drug Enforcement Administration. How do we not go after the number one organization? In the height of the epidemic, when people are dying everywhere, doesn't somebody have to be held accountable? McKesson needs to be held accountable.

Holding McKesson accountable meant going after the 5th largest corporation in the country. Headquartered in San Francisco, McKesson has 76,000 employees and earns almost $200 billion a year in revenues, about the same as Exxon Mobil. Since the 1990s, McKesson has made billions from the distribution of addictive opioids.

So what has Donald Trump done? That is the wrong question. What has he failed to do? We are approaching the one year anniversary of his Presidency and Trump has failed to nominate a Director for the Drug Enforcement Administration, a Director for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a Director for the National Institute of Justice and an Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs . In other words, none of the people who would be on the policy frontline putting the President's tough words into action have been nominated. Not one. And those agencies and departments are drifting like a rudderless ship on stormy seas.

Another problem for Trump is his mixed signals on getting entangled in foreign wars. During the campaign he made a point of ridiculing those candidates who wanted to go to war in Syria. Now that he is in office, Trump, along with several members of his cabinet, are threatening Iran on almost a daily basis. The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity just put out a memo on this very subject (which, I'm happy to note, reflects some of the themes I've written about previously):

Iran has come out ahead in Iraq and, with the 2015 nuclear agreement in place, Iran's commercial and other ties have improved with key NATO allies and the other major world players -- Russia and China in particular.

Official pronouncements on critical national security matters need to be based on facts. Hyperbole in describing Iran's terrorist activities can be counterproductive. For this reason, we call attention to Ambassador Nikki Haley's recent statement that it is hard to find a "terrorist group in the Middle East that does not have Iran's fingerprints all over it." The truth is quite different. The majority of terrorist groups in the region are neither creatures nor puppets of Iran. ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra are three of the more prominent that come to mind.

You have presented yourself as someone willing to speak hard truths in the face of establishment pressure and not to accept the status quo. You spoke out during the campaign against the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as a historic mistake of epic proportions. You also correctly captured the mood of many Americans fatigued from constant war in far away lands. Yet the torrent of warnings from Washington about the dangers supposedly posed by Iran and the need to confront them are being widely perceived as steps toward reversing your pledge not to get embroiled in new wars.

We encourage you to reflect on the warning we raised with President George W. Bush almost 15 years ago, at a similar historic juncture:

"after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

Finally, there is the recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. I defer to Colonel Lang on this. He believes that this single decision has planted an odious seed that will sprout into a global anti-U.S. sentiment that will reduce our global influence and tangibly damage our leadership on the world stage. While I suppose there always is a chance for a different kind of outcome, I learned long ago not to bet against the old warrior on matters like this.

Taking all of this together I think we are looking at a 2018 where U.S. foreign policy will continue to careen around the globe devoid of a strategic vision.

catherine , 22 December 2017 at 07:20 PM

'' The people we are arming in the Ukraine are the actual and intellectual descendants of the Nazi sympathizers who helped the Einsatzgruppen murder more than a million Jews after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union''

They are also the descendants of the Ukrainians who were starved to death by the Bolsheviks plundering of their crops first then starved again by Stalin.
That Jews figured large in the Bolsheviks is a fact and noted:..then and later.

A collection of reports on Bolshevism in Russia
by Great Britain. Foreign Office

https://www.archive.org/stream/collectionofrepo00greaiala/collectionofrepo00greaiala_djvu.txt

''..anti-Semitism is growing, probably because the food supply committees are entirely in the hands of Jews and voices can be heard sometimes calling for a " pogrom."

So I am giving Ukraine a pass on their so called threat to the Chosen.

Babak Makkinejad -> mongo... , 22 December 2017 at 07:32 PM
Yup, every one and everything under the sun bears some responsibility except the poor, abused, manipulated, down-trodden users.
Publius Tacitus -> catherine... , 22 December 2017 at 07:32 PM
You make my point. The NAZIS came up with lots of nifty reasons to justify exterminating Jews. Starvation by Stalin, therefore kill the Jews. Yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm fully intended).

[Dec 22, 2017] When Russians Were Americanophiles, by Anatoly Karlin

Notable quotes:
"... And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war. ..."
"... r Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia. ..."
"... They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part, corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia? ..."
"... The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in the Donbass. ..."
"... Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in "between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy. ..."
"... Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story. ..."
"... Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian ..."
"... There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans. ..."
"... Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. ..."
"... Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014). ..."
"... Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession – with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable. ..."
"... I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating over after the Maidan coup. ..."
"... So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of skilled people. ..."
"... Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons ..."
"... The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine. ..."
"... You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5 billion. ..."
"... Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army. ..."
"... The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear. ..."
"... Most ukrops even admit that Kharkov could easily have gone in 2014, if Russia had wanted it/feasible ..."
Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT

Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire centuries in the making

What's remarkable to me about that graph of opinion over time is how pig-headedly resilient Russian naivety about the US has been. Time after time it appears the scales would fall from Russians' eyes after the US regime disgraced itself particularly egregiously (Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia), and within a few months approval would be back up to 50% or above. It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
@Art Deco

There are no disgraces incorporated into any of these events

That might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments, and supporting Georgia was, like NATO expansion in general and numerous other consistently provocative US foreign policy measures directed against post-Soviet Russia, a literally stupid matter of turning a potential ally against the real rival China into an enemy and ally of said rival.

You are perfectly entitled to endorse mere stupidity on the part of your rulers, but the fact that you so shamelessly approve of waging illegal wars counter to treaty commitments discredits any opinions you might have on such matters.

Verymuchalive , December 18, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT

Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy

Actually, present Russian borders are more those of Peter the Great, circa 1717, than Old Muscovy. Russia, unlike nearly all the Great Powers of the C20th, has retained its Empire – Siberia, the Russian Far East, Kamchatka, South Russia and the Crimea ( first acquired as recently as 1783 ).

Once those dim-witted Ukies finally implode the Ukrainian economy, Russia will be able to gobble up the rest of southern and eastern Ukraine – all the way to Odessa.

The places that seceded from the Soviet Union are places that Russians don't want ( Northern Kazakhstan excepted ) and are urgently required to receive all those Central Asian immigrants who will be deported by sensible Russian governments in the near future. ( I exclude Armenians from the last clause )

inertial , December 18, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT
Yes, US had squandered a lot of good will in exchange for extremely valuable "geopolitical foothold in Eastern Europe." Incidentally, Soviet propaganda was never anti-American. It was anti-capitalist, an important distinction. Whereas in America, anti-Russian propaganda has always been anti- Russian .
Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

the US gained a geopolitical foothold in Eastern Europe, tied up further European integration into an Atlantic framework,

Washington could get both by integrating and not alienating americanophile Russia.

closed off the possibility of the "Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok" envisaged by Charles de Gaulle.

It also closed off the possibility of an American-led Global North.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 4:46 pm GMT
@Randal That might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments,

We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq and both places had it coming.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT
@Art Deco

You have a large national state.

Correction: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state . Its Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they exclude those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate republics of Belarus and Ukraine.

I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home' – an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.

PS: just because we had trouble holding onto Chechnya doesn't mean that annexing Belarus will be hard. Sure, we can expect blowback in the form of Western sanctions, but I don't anticipate much resistance from inside Belarus.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 5:06 pm GMT
@Randal

It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.

Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 5:12 pm GMT
@Art Deco With that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's incursions into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the Ukraine. US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever. US interests suffered as a result of its ill-advised agression, they ended up empowering their avowed enemy – Iran.
Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.

How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media? These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public opinion.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 5:42 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Correction: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state.

Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152 million.

Its Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they exclude those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate republics of Belarus and Ukraine.

It's western borders are no more artificial than that of any other country not bounded by mountains or water.

I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home' –

'Essential'? You just can't get through the day without Minsk?

As for White Russia, your constituency there has in its dimensions fallen by half in the last 20 years.

http://russialist.org/belarusians-want-to-join-eu-rather-than-russia-poll-shows/

As for the Ukraine, you've no discernable constituency for reunification. The constituency for a Russophile foreign policy weighs in there at about 12% of the public. VP's three-dimensional chess game is going swimmingly.

My own forebears discovered in 1813 that the residue of British North America was quite content with gracious George III, and our boys got their assess handed to them by them Cannucks. We got over it and so can you. Miss Ukraine is just not that into you. Best not to play the stalker.

inertial , December 18, 2017 at 5:46 pm GMT
@Art Deco As for the Ukraine, you've no discernable constituency for reunification.

You don't know much about Ukraine.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 5:50 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich With that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's incursions into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the Ukraine.

They dissed you. La di dah. My own countrymen have put up with that from an array of Eurotrash and 3d world kleptocrats every time we open the newspaper.

US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever.

No, we did so because that was the best alternative. The other alternative was a sanctions regime which Big Consciences were assuring the world was causing a six-digit population of excess deaths each year or taking the sanctions off and letting Saddam and the other Tikritis to follow their Id. Iraq was a charnel house, and the world is well rid of the Tikriti regime, especially Iraq's Kurdish and Shia provinces, which have been quiet for a decade. You don't take an interest in the ocean of blood for which the Ba'ath Party was responsible, but you're terribly butthurt that politicians in Kiev don't take orders from Moscow. Felix, I can taste teh Crazy.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 5:58 pm GMT
@Art Deco

Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152 million.

Exactly, and you're missing the point. Re-read my previous comment again:
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home' – an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.

Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not regard Belarus and Ukraine as part of "заграница" – foreign countries. Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.

http://russialist.org/belarusians-want-to-join-eu-rather-than-russia-poll-shows/

I don't care, because this isn't a popularity contest. There were similar polls in Crimea showing majority support for the EU, just before the peninsula voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia. LOL

The question that matters to me is will there be a vast resistance movement inside Belarus following the annexation, and to be honest I don't expect one.

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 6:06 pm GMT
@Art Deco

We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq

Except the UN Charter and the Helsinki Accords. The latter only with Serbia.

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Neither the Ukrainians nor probably the Byelorussians want to join Russia. Get over it. You still have a big enough country.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT
@Art Deco

We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq

The treaty commitment in question was with almost the entire rest of the world, namely when your country entirely voluntarily signed up to a commitment to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". If your country had retained the slightest trace of integrity and self-respect it would at least have had the decency to withdraw from membership of the the UN when it chose to breach those treaty commitments.

And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war.

An entire nation state behaving like a lying '60s hippy or a shamelessly dishonest aggressor.

I'm sure you're proud.

and both places had it coming.

A straightforward confession of lawless rogue state behaviour, basically.

Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such arguments? Better for a real American patriot to just stop digging and keep sheepishly quiet about the past three decades of foreign policy.

inertial , December 18, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia.

That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian. The rulers of Ukraine and, to a much lesser degree, Belorussia are trying to erect cultural barriers between themselves and Russia. Good luck with that, in the 21st century. It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world. Eventually it will tell.

Now, the question is if Russians will even want Ukraine back. This is not so clear.

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT
@Mr. XYZ

Would Russia have been interested in joining both the E.U. and NATO?

Integration into West is what Russians wanted. An example

IF RUSSIA HAD THE CHANCE TO BECOME A FULL MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION NOW, WOULD YOU BE FOR OR AGAINST THIS? (N=800)

08/2009:
For: 53%
Against: 21%
Difficult to say: 27%

https://www.levada.ru/en/2016/06/10/russia-s-friends-and-enemies-2/

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT
@Randal

What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.

Yugoslavia and Iraq were not that close to Russia and Russian elite was still pushing for Integration into West at that time. After 2008, "Reset" and Obama happened.

It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000 and in 2004.

Keep in mind that Obama's opponent in 2008 was McCain, that McCain. Just like Trump, Obama seemed like the lesser evil and not to blame for previous conflicts.

Darin , December 18, 2017 at 7:53 pm GMT
@inertial

That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.

This is for them to decide, not for you.

It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world.

Yeah, the culture homogenizes around the world, into global Hollywood corporate culture. In the long there, "traditional Russian culture" is as doomed as "traditional Ukrainian culture" and "traditional American culture" if there is anything left of it.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

The fact is neither did Crimeans really want to join Russia (polls didn't show that)

Nonsense, Mr. Clueless-About-Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014#Polling

Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that 63.8% of Crimeans (76% of Russians, 55% of Ukrainians, and 14% of Crimean Tatars, respectively) would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status, but with expanded powers and rights . A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013 found that 53% wanted "Autonomy in Ukraine (as today)", 12% were for "Crimean Tatar autonomy within Ukraine", 2% for "Common oblast of Ukraine" and 23% voted for "Crimea should be separated and given to Russia".

The takeaway is that Crimeans were satisfied being part of Ukraine as long as Ukraine had an ethnic Russian, generally pro-Russian president like Yanukovich in charge (2013 poll), but preferred being part of Russia to being part of a Ukrainian state run by Ukrainians (2008 poll, post-Maidan).

AP , December 18, 2017 at 7:59 pm GMT
@inertial

That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.

Believer of Russian nationalist fairytales tells Russian nationalist fairytales. You managed to fit 3 of them into 2 sentences, good job.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT
@AP I was referring specifically to Russian attitudes about Ukrainians. I know that among Ukrainians themselves, there is quite the confusion on this subject.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:15 pm GMT
@Mitleser Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.

I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after 9/11, though not so much after Iraq.

But I have been told by Russians who ought to have some knowledge of these things that Putin and the wider regime were not so naïve even back in the late 1990s, so the case can be made both ways.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 8:16 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home' – an actual Russian nation-state.

In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime. Obviously there will have to be a militarized occupation regime and prison camps and a network of informants. A proud home.

Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.

Baltics were Russian longer than Ukraine. Central Poland became Russian at the same time as did half of Ukraine. According to the 1897 census, there were about as many Great Russian speakers in Kiev governate as in Warsaw. Take the Baltics and Warsaw back too?

inertial , December 18, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT
@Darin This is for them to decide, not for you.

Yes, of course. Just don't assume they will decide the way you think.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:21 pm GMT
@AP These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These polls are meaningless : most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless answer.

I'm sure, support for reunification will go up in Belarus, if the Kremlin shows some leadership on this issue. We will find enough people willing to work with us, the rest will just have to accept the new reality and go about their daily lifes as usual.

The situation in Ukraine is different, it differs wildly by region and will require us to modify our approach.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:24 pm GMT
@German_reader US started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own preferences.

It did nothing of the kind. It ejected two governments for reasons of state. One we'd been a state of belligerency with for 12 years, the other was responsible for a gruesome casus belli. Now, having done that, we needed to put in place a new government. There was no better alternative means of so doing than electoral contests.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media? These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public opinion.

They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part, corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?

melanf , December 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.

Definitely no. American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 8:42 pm GMT
@Randal

Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.

I am just taking into account that the early 00s were right after the 1990s when pro-Americanism was at its peak in Russia. Yugoslavia and Iraq were too distant too alienate the majority permanently.

I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after 9/11, though not so much after Iraq.

Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option? Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.

melanf , December 18, 2017 at 8:43 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Integration into West is what Russians wanted.
An example
08/2009:

Since then, everything has changed

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 8:51 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West.

There is no reason to assume that West will offer the Russian elite enough carrot to deregulate the Russian media order and the stick is just more reason not to do it and to retain control.

What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?

And you think that people in Russian elite are not aware of it?

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT
@AP

In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime.

This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000 – does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?

On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority – they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass. A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist" – these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare, they will just flee (like they already fled from Donbass).

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT
@Randal

In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them.

I agree with most of this, but you leave out precisely why public opinion shifts. My, rather cynical, view is that media is by far the main driver in shifting public views, and so whoever gives the media marching orders is the Pied Piper here.

An example close to home was the consternation among some of my conservative friends over the events Charlottesville. They knew nothing about the American alt-right, and still less about the context of what happened that day, yet they still spoke of what a disgrace it was for Trump not to distance himself from these deplorables. This was, of course, fully the making of Swedish media.

The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in the Donbass.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?

It tells me the reporters are confused or you are. There is no 'agreement' that will prevent 'Russia' from 'meddling' in American political life or the converse. The utility of agreements is that they make understandings between nations more precise and incorporate triggers which provide signals to one party or the other as to when the deal is off.

utu , December 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT
@inertial

Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in "between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy.

Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story.

Sean , December 18, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT
Two powerful countries beside one another are natural enemies, they can never be friends until one has been relegated by defeat. Britain and France were enemies until France became too weak to present a threat, then Britain's enemy was Germany (it still is, Brexit is another Dunkirk with the UK realizing it cannot compete with Germany on the continent).

Russia cannot be a friend of China against the US until Russia has been relegated in the way France has been. France has irrecoverably given up control of its currency, they are relegated to Germany's sidekick.

China is like Bitcoin. The smart money (Google) is going there. Received wisdom in the US keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When it becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down China's economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT
@melanf

American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.

Being Russian, you would be in a better position than I am to comment on this, but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian public and for what purpose? This article might hold the answer:

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/re-visiting-russian-counter-propaganda-methods/

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 9:20 pm GMT
@Art Deco Well, they can now send troops to Syria on land.
Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm GMT
@German_reader Calling me "Eurotrash"

I didn't have you in particular in mind.

oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all very unoriginal by now.

No, I'm a fat middle aged man who thinks most of what people say on political topics is some species of self-congratulation. And a great deal of it is perverse. The two phenomena are symbiotic. And, of course, I'm unimpressed with kvetching foreigners. Kvetching Europeans might ask where is the evidence that they with their own skills and resources can improve some situation using methods which differ from those we have applied and kvetching Latin Americans can quit sticking the bill for their unhappy histories with Uncle Sam, and kvetching Arabs can at least take responsibility for something rather than projecting it on some wire-pulling other (Jews, Americans, conspiracy x).

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT
@Art Deco

Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because we had troops in Iraq?

Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear allegiance directly to Khamenei.

Is that "victory" for you?

An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them to assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something they never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.

Is that "victory" for you?

And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing again.

Is that "victory" for you?

AP , December 18, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These polls are meaningless: most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless answer.

So according to you when hundreds or thousands of people are asked a question they are not prepared for, their collective answer is meaningless and does not indicate their preference?

So it's a total coincidence that when Ukraine was ruled by Ukrainians most Crimeans preferred to join Russia, when Ukraine was ruled by a Russian, Crimeans were satisfied within Ukraine but when Ukrainian nationalists came to power Crimeans again preferred being part of Russia?

Are all political polls also meaningless according to you, or just ones that contradict your idealistic views?

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 9:31 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000 – does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?

In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder. (I'm not sure "draft" is the word I'm looking for. My understanding is that they are temporarily exempt from military service if they study at university or have good jobs.)

melanf , December 18, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian public and for what purpose?

It is known – the minions of Putin translated into Russian language American (and European) propaganda, and putting it on the website http://inosmi.ru/ .
The Americans also try: there is a special "Radio Liberty" that 24-hour broadcasts (in Russian) hate speech against the Russian.
But it only speeds up the process (which will happen anyway) .

AP , December 18, 2017 at 10:12 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000 – does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?

It was about 50,000 in 2014, about 200,000-250,000 now.

Polish military has 105,000 personnel. Poland also not united or willing to defend itself?

On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority – they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass

Avakov, Poroshenko's interior minister and sponsor of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, in 2010 got 48% of the vote in Kharkiv's mayoral race in 2010 when he ran as the "Orange" candidate. In 2012 election about 30% of Kharkiv oblast voters chose nationalist candidates, vs. about 10% in Donetsk oblast. Vkontakte, a good source for judging youth attitudes, was split 50/50 between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan in Kharkiv (IIRC it was 80/20 anti-Maidan winning in Donetsk). Kharkiv is just like Donbas, right?

A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist"

Football hooligans in these places are also Ukrainian nationalists. Azov battalion and Right Sector are both based in Eastern Ukraine.

Here is how Azov started:

The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect 82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv, "Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]

Here is Azov battalion commander-turned-Kiev oblast police chief, Kharkiv native Vadim Troyan:

Does he look like an intellectual to you? Before Maidan he was a cop.

these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare,

On the contrary, they will probably dig in while seeking cover in urban areas that they know well, where they have some significant support (as Donbas rebels did in Donetsk), forcing the Russian invaders to fight house to house and causing massive damage while fighting native boys such as Azov. About 1/3 of Kharkiv overall and 1/2 of its youth are nationalists. I wouldn't expect mass resistance by the Kharkiv population itself, but passive support for the rebels by many. Russia will then end up rebuilding a large city full of a resentful population that will remember its dead (same problem Kiev will face if it gets Donbas back). This scenario can be repeated for Odessa. Dnipropetrovsk, the home base of Right Sector, is actually much more nationalistic than either Odessa or Kharkiv. And Kiev is a different world again. Bitter urban warfare in a city of 3 million (officially, most likely about 4 million) followed by massive reconstruction and maintenance of a repression regime while under international sanctions.

Russia's government has adequate intelligence services who know better what Ukraine is actually like, than you do. There is a reason why they limited their support to Crimea and Donbas.

Your wishful thinking about Ukraine would be charming and harmless if not for the fact that such wishful thinking often leads to tragic actions that harm both the invader and the invaded. Remember the Iraqis were supposed to welcome the American liberators with flowers after their cakewalk.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 10:22 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder.

Correct. The thinking often was – "the corrupt officers will screw up and get us killed, or sell out our positions to the Russians for money, if the Russians came to our city I'd fight them but I don't wanna go to Donbas.." This is very different from avoiding the draft because one wouldn't mind if Russia annexed Ukraine. Indeed, Dnipropetrovsk in the East has contributed a lot to Ukraine's war effort, primarily because it borders Donbas – ones hears from people there that if they don't fight in Donbas and keep the rebels contained there, they'd have to fight at home.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT
@AP LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types. And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.

The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country. I assume Russian security services know all of them by name.

To deal with Ukronazi problem, I would first take out their leaders, then target their HQs, arms depots and training camps. I would kill or intimidate their sponsors. Ukronazis would be left decapitated, without resources, undermanned and demoralised, trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them. It will be a short lived insurgency.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types.

And Russians and Poles were also soft when someone invaded their country? Ukrainians are not modern western Euros.

And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.

Most pensioners. It will be about 50/50 among young fighting-age people.

The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country

Maybe. Ukrainian government claims 46,000 in volunteer self-defense battalions (including Azov) but this is probably an exaggeration.

OTOH there are a couple 100,000 demobilized young people with combat experience who would be willing to fight if their homeland were attacked, who are not neo-Nazis in Azov. Plus a military of 200,000-250,000 people, many of whom would imitate the Donbas rebels and probably redeploy in places like Kharkiv where they have cover. Good look fighting it out block by block.

trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them

In 2010, 48% of Kharkiv voters chose a nationalist for their mayor. In 2012 about 30% voted for nationalist parties. Judging by pro vs, anti-Maidan, the youth are evenly split although in 2014 the Ukrainian nationalist youths ended up controlling the streets, not the Russian nationalist ones as in Donbas. This is in the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.

Suuure, the population of Kharkiv will despise their kids, grandkids, nephews, classmates etc,. but will welcome the invaders from Russia who will be bombing their city. Such idealism and optimism in Russia!

It will be a short lived insurgency.

And Iraq was supposed to be a cakewalk.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 11:15 pm GMT
@AP Again, supporting Maidan doesn't mean you're ready to take up Kalashnikov and go fight. Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.

This is what typical Maidanist Ukrainian youths look like; these people certainly don't look like they have a lot of fight in them: They remind me of Navalny supporters in Russia. These kind of people can throw a tantrum, but they are fundamentally weak people, who are easily crushed.

Cato , December 19, 2017 at 3:43 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Northern Kazakhstan is/was ethnically Russian, since the 1700s. This should have been folded into Russia; the North Caucasus should have been cut loose. My opinion.
AP , December 19, 2017 at 3:53 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Typical Russian mistakes regarding Ukraine: weak student-types in Russia are the main supporters of Ukraine in Russia, thus the same type must be the main pro-Maidan people in Ukraine. Because Ukraine = Russia. This silly dream of Ukraine being just like Russia leads to ridiculous ideas and hopes.

As I already said, the Azov battalion grew out of brawling football ultras in Kharkiv. Maidan itself was a cross-section – of students, yes, but also plenty of Afghan war vets, workers, far right brawlers, professionals, etc. It's wasn't simply "weak" students, nor was it simply far-right fascists (another claim by Russia) but a mass effort of the western half of the country.

Here are Afghan war vets at Maidan:

Look at those weak Maidan people running away from the enemy:

Azov people in their native Kharkiv:

Kharkiv kids:

Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.

Dodging the draft in order to avoid fighting in Donbas, where you are not wanted by the locals, is very different from dodging the draft to avoid fighting when your own town is being invaded.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:10 am GMT
@AP Summer camp was in Kiev, but there is another outside Kharkiv.

To be clear, most Ukrainians fighting against Russia are not these unsavory types, though they make for dramatic video. Point is that pro-Maidan types in Ukraine are far from being exclusively liberal student-types.

jimbojones , December 19, 2017 at 8:01 am GMT
A few points:

- The Russians ALWAYS were Americanophiles – ever since the Revolution. Russia has been an American ally most often explicit but occasionally tacit – in EVERY major American conflict, including the War on Terror and excluding Korea and Vietnam (both not major compared to the Civil War or WW2). The only comparable Great Power US ally is France. Russia and the US are natural allies.

- Russians are Americanophiles – they like Hollywood movies, American music, American idealism, American video games, American fashion, American inventions, American support in WW2, American can-do-aittude, American badassery and Americana in general.

- There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity that is not Russian.

- The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government. Yanukovich was certainly a corrupt scoundrel. But he was a democratically elected corrupt scoundrel. To claim Russian intervention in his election is a joke in light of the CIA-backed 2004 and 2014 coups.

Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 19, 2017 at 1:35 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich I think this poll is the most relevant for assessing the question, since it covered different regions and used the same methodology.

Takeaway:

1. Support for uniting into a single state with Russia at 41% in Crimea at a time when it was becoming quite clear the Yanukovych regime was doomed.

2. Now translates into ~90% support (according to both Russian and international polls) in Crimea. I.e., a more than a standard deviation shift in "Russophile" sentiment on this matter.

3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with Russia post facto . Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the Ukraine before 2014).

4. Central and West Ukraine would not be, which is why their reintegration would be far more difficult – and probably best left for sometime in the future.

5. What we have instead seen is a one standard deviation shift in "Ukrainophile" sentiment within all those regions that remained in the Ukraine. If this change is "deep," then AP is quite correct that their assimilation into Russia has been made impossible by Putin's vacillations in 2014.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT
@jimbojones

The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government

Typical Russian nationalist half-truth about Ukraine.

To be clear – Yanukovich was democratically elected in 2010, into a position where his powers were limited and where he was faced with a hostile parliament. His post-election accumulation of powers (overthrowing the Opposition parliament, granting himself additional powers, stacking the court with local judges from his hometown) was not democratic. None of these actions enjoyed popular support, none were made through democratic processes such as referendums or popular elections. Had that been the case, he would not have been overthrown in what was a popular mass revolt by half the country.

There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity that is not Russian.

A bit closer to the truth, but much too simplistic in a way that favors Russian idealism. Crimea (60% Russian) was simply not Ukraine, so lumping it in together with a place such as Kharkiv (oblast 70% Ukrainian) and saying that Russia took one part of this uniformly "Russian Ukraine" is not accurate.

You are correct that the western half of the country are a non-Russian Polish-but-not Habsburg central Ukraine/Volynia, and Polish-and-Habsburg Galicia.

But the other half consisted of two parts: ethnic Russian Crimea (60% Russian) and largely ethniuc-Russian urban Donbas (about 45% Russian, 50% Ukrainian), and a heavily Russified but ethnic Ukrainian Kharkiv oblast (70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian), Dnipropetrovsk (80% Ukrainian, 20% Russian), Kherson (82% Ukrainian, 14% Russian), and Odessa oblast (63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian).

The former group (Crimea definitely, and urban Donbas less strongly) like being part of Russia. The latter group, on the other hand, preferred that Ukraine and Russia have friendly ties, preferred Russian as a legal language, preferred economic union with Russia, but did not favor loss of independence. Think of them as pro-NAFTA American-phile Canadians who would nevertheless be opposed to annexation by the USA and would be angered if the USA grabbed a chunk of Canada. In grabbing a chunk of Ukraine and supporting a rebellion in which Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk kids are being shot by Russian-trained fighters using Russian-supplied bullets, Putin has turned these people off the Russian state.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with Russia post facto. Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the Ukraine before 2014).

'Asumptions' like this are what provide Swiss cheese the airy substance that makes it less caloric! Looks like only the retired sovok population in the countryside is up to supporting your mythical 'NovoRosija' while the more populated city dwellers would be opposed, even by your own admission (and even this is questionable). I'm surprised that the dutifully loyal and most astute opposition (AP) has let this blooper pass without any comment?

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin I think when answering this question, most people simple give what they consider to be the socially acceptable answer, especially in contemporary Ukraine, where you will go to prison for displaying Russian flag – who wants to be seen as a "separatist"?

In Crimea it has become more socially acceptable to identify with Russia following the reunification, which is why the number of people who answer this way shot up . The same effect will seen in Belarus and Ukraine – I'm fairly certain of it.

Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson

Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society. Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters. Most of them will react to Russian takeover by self-deporting – they have the money and resources to do it.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters.

Repeating your claim over and over again doesn't make it true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect 82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv, "Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]

The brawling East Ukrainian nationalists who took the streets of Kharkiv and Odessa were not mostly rich, fey hipsters.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society.

So, even by tour own admission, the only folks that would be for unifying with Russia are the uneducated, poor and those with no hopes of ever amounting to much in society. I don't agree with you, but I do see your logic. These are just the type of people that are the most easily manipulated by Russian propoganda – a lot of this went on in the Donbas, and we can see the results of that fiasco to this day.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 19, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT
@jimbojones

Russia and the US are natural allies.

While geopolitically and historically it is true:

a)Post-WWII American power elites are both incompetent and arrogant (which is a first derivative of incompetence) to understand that–this is largely the problem with most "Western" elites.

b) Currently the United States doesn't have enough (if any) geopolitical currency and clout to "buy" Russia. In fact, Russia can take what she needs (and she doesn't have "global" appetites) with or without the US. Plus, China is way more interested in Russia's services that the US, which will continue to increasingly find out more about its own severe military-political limitations.

c) The United States foreign policy is not designed and is not being conducted to serve real US national interests. In fact, US can not even define those interests beyond the tiresome platitudes about "global interests" and being "exceptional".

d) Too late

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
@AP I like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis, it's kinda funny actually, so let me pose as Ukraine's "defender" here:

This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern Ukraine. These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes. They are despised, looked down upon by the normal people, pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian alike. A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges draft. It's just the way it is.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT
@AP The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and perhaps even political power. Azov is simply a gang. And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs, so I don't expect Ukronazis to pose a major challenge.
reiner Tor , December 19, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich I'm not sure about Ukrainian football hooligans, but football hooligans in Hungary are not necessarily "low -lifes, criminals, delinquents", in fact, the majority of them aren't. Most groups consist mostly of working class (including a lot of security guards and similar) members, but there are some middle class (I know of a school headmaster, though I think he's no longer very active in the group) and working class entrepreneur types (e.g. the car mechanic who ended up owning a car dealership) and similar. I think outright criminal types are a small minority. Since it costs money to attend the matches, outright failures (the permanently unemployed and similar ne'er-do-wells) are rarely found in such groups.
Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT
@reiner Tor LOL I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their pastime. Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder, kidnapping and racketeering. Their criminal activities go unpunished by the regime, because they are considered "heroes" or something.
AP , December 19, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

I like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis

I never denied the presence of them.

This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern Ukraine.

If by "representative" you mean majority, sure. Neither are artsy students, or Afghan war veterans, or schoolteachers, any other group a majority.

Also not all of the street fighters turned militias neo-Nazis, as are Azov. Right Sector are not neo-Nazis, they are more fascists.

These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes.

As reiner tor correctly pointed out, this movement which grew out of the football ultra community is rather working class but is not lumpens. You fail again.

A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges draft

Are there more business owners, students (many of whom do not dodge the draft), office workers combined than there are ultras/far-right brawlers? Probably. 30% of Kharkiv voted for nationalist parties (mostly Tymoshenko's and Klitschko's moderates) in the 2012 parliamentary elections, under Yanukovich. That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?

The exteme nationalist Banderist Svoboda party got about 4% of the vote in Kharkiv oblast in 2012. This would make Bandera twice as popular in Kharkiv as the democratic opposition is in Russia.

reiner Tor , December 19, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their pastime.

They are well integrated into the rest of society, so you can call them low-lifes, but they will still be quite different from ordinary criminals.

Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder, kidnapping and racketeering.

But that's quite different from being professional criminals. Members of the Waffen-SS also committed unspeakable crimes, but they rarely had professional criminal backgrounds, and were, in fact, quite well integrated into German society.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and perhaps even political power

Yes, there are elements of this, but not only. If they were ethnic Russians, as in Donbas, they would have taken a different path, as did the pro-Russian militants in Donbas who are similar to the ethnic Ukrainian Azovites. Young guys who like to brawl and are ethnic Russians or identify s such joined organizations like Oplot and moved to Donbas to fight against Ukraine, similar types who identified as Ukrainians became Azovites or joined similar pro-Ukrainian militias. Also not all of these were delinquents, many were working class, security guards, etc.

Good that you admit that in Eastern Ukraine nationalism is not limited to student activists and businessmen.

And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs,

They chose to stay away from Kharkiv and limit Russia's action to Donbas, knowing that there would be too much opposition, and not enough support, to Russian rule in Kharkiv to make the effort worthwhile.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
@Anon Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT
@reiner Tor I feel that comparing Azov to SS gives it too much credit.

My point is that this way of life is not something that many people in Ukraine are willing to actively participate in. Most people are not willing to condone it either. AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how this could work – there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.

There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT
@AP

That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?

This means these people won't pose a big problem. These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea did.

Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT
@Gerard2 oligarchs, not nationalism are the driving force behind the "Ukrainian" mass crimes against humanity committing --
AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how this could work – there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.

About 1/3 of the population in Eastern Ukrainian regions voted for Ukrainian nationalists in 2012, compared to only 10% in Donbas. Three times as many. Likely after 2014 many of the hardcore pro-Russians left Kharkiv, just as hardcore pro-Ukrainians left Donetsk. Furthermore anti-Russian attitudes have hardened, due to the war, Crimea, etc. So there would be plenty of local support for native insurgents.

Russians say, correctly, that after Kiev has shelled Donetsk how can the people of Donetsk reconcile themselves with Kiev?

The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?

There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.

Crimea was 60% Russian, Donbas Republics territory about 45% Russian; Kharkiv oblast is only 25% Russian.

With Donbas – there are actually local pro-Ukrainian militants from Donbas, in the Donbas and Aidar battalions.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT
@AP It was a decision that Putin personally made. He wasn't going to move in Crimea either, until Maidanists overthrew his friend

It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable. And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated by Azov militia.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea did

The problem with this comparison is that Crimeans were far more in favor of joining Russia that are Kharkivites.

The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army.

Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?

We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.

You would be able to recruit some local proxies in Kharkiv. Kiev even did so in Donbas. But given the fact that Ukrainian nationalism was 3 times more popular on Kharkiv than in Donetsk, and that Kharkiv youth were split 50/50 in terms of or versus anti Maidan support (versus 80/20 IIIRC anti-Maidan in Donbas), it would not be so easy. Moreover, by now many of the hardcore anti-Kiev people have already left Kharkiv, while Kharkiv has had some settlement by pro-Ukrainian dissidents from Donbas. So the situation even in 2014 was hard enough that Russia chose to stay away, now it is even worse for the pro-Russians.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated by Azov militia.

This is rather a symptom of a much wider phenomenon: the population simply doesn't see itself as Russian and doesn't want to be part of Russia. So its hooligan-types go for Ukrainian, not Russian, nationalism as is the case in Russia.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT
@AP

The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?

The locals will move to disarm Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then welcome Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol

It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely undefended. It's wide open!

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:05 pm GMT
@AP Honestly, I doubt that this kind of stuff has much impact on Putin's decisionmaking.
Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 5:09 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.

Well there you have it. Putin is a much smarter guy than you are Felix (BTW, are you Jewish, all of the Felix's that I've known were Jewish?). Good to see that you're nothing more than a blackshirted illusionist.*

*фантазёр

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT
@for-the-record German and European reliance on US security guarantees is a problem, since it's become pretty clear that the US political system is dysfunctional and US "elites" are dangerous extremists. We need our own security structures to be independent from the US so they can't drag us into their stupid projects or blackmail us anymore why do you think Merkel didn't react much to the revelations about American spying on Germany? Because we're totally dependent on the Americans in security matters.

And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be foolish to have no credible deterrence.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

"How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?"

They will move to disarm ther Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then welcome their Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol

While about 1/3 of Kharkiv voted for Ukrainian nationalists, only perhaps 10%-20% of the city would actually like to be part of Russia (and I am being generous to you). So your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.

It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely undefended.

Are you living in 2014? Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is comforting for them.

Ukraine currently has 200,000-250,000 active troops. About 60,000 of them are around Donbas.

Here is a map of various positions in 2017:

Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses). The map does not include national guard units such as Azov, however, which would add a few thousand troops to Kharkiv's defense.

It looks like rather than stationing their military in forward positions vs. a possible Russian attack, Ukraine, has put lot of troops in Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kiev and Odessa.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT
@AP

Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?

I read Kassad blog, and he says Ukrainian formations assembled in Donbass number some 50-70 thousands men. The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready. Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.

By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT
@AP So your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.

The local populations in Iraq were congenial to begin with, at least outside some Sunni centers. It was never an object of American policy to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:55 pm GMT
@AP

Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses).

How many people does this "motorized infantry brigade" have? And more importantly what is its level of combat readiness? Couldn't we just smash this brigade with a termobaric bomb while they are sleeping?

Ukraine is full of shit. They had 20.000 troops in Crimea, "a lot of air defenses" and it didn't make a iota of difference. Somehow you expect me to believe Ukraine has a completely different army now. Why should I? They don't have the resources to afford a better army, so it is logical to assume that Ukrainian army is still crap.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 6:01 pm GMT
Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is comforting for them.

Betwixt and between all the trash talking, they've forgotten that the last occasion on which one country attempted to conquer an absorb another country with a population anywhere near 30% of its own was during the 2d World War. Didn't work out so well for Germany and Japan.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT
@for-the-record Austria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella" to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why couldn't Germany?

Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use for security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT
@for-the-record

Germany has willingly supported the US

Not completely true, Germany didn't participate in the Iraq war and in the bombing of Libya.
I'm hardly an expert on military matters, but it would seem just common sense to me that a state needs sufficient armed forces to protect its own territory if you don't have that, you risk becoming a passive object whose fate is decided by other powers. Doesn't mean Germany should have a monstrously bloated military budget like the US, just sufficient forces to protect its own territory and that of neighbouring allies (which is what the German army should be for instead of participating in futile counter-insurgency projects in places like Afghanistan). Potential for conflict in Europe is obviously greatest regarding Russia it's still quite low imo, and I want good relations with Russia and disagree vehemently with such insanely provocative ideas as NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, but it would be stupid not to have credible deterrence (whose point it is to prevent hostilities after all). I don't think that's an anti-Russian position, it's just realistic.
Apart from that Germany doesn't probably need much in the way of military capabilities maybe some naval forces for participation in international anti-piracy missions.
Regarding nuclear weapons, that's obviously something Germany can't or shouldn't do on its own (probably wouldn't be tolerated anyway given 20th century history), so it would have to be in some form of common European project. Hard to tell now if something like this could eventually become possible or necessary.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Sorry to prickle your little fantasy world once again tovarishch, but according to current CIA statistics Ukraine has 182,000 active personnel, and 1,000,000 reservists! For a complete rundown of Ukraine's military strength, read this and weep:

https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=ukraine

inertial , December 19, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT
@Art Deco They've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade from now.

Yes, these people had been sold a vision. If only they leave behind the backward, Asiatic, mongoloid Russia, they will instantly Join Europe. They will have all of the good stuff: European level of prosperity, rule of law, international approval, and so on; and none of the bad stuff that they associated with Russia, like poverty, corruption, and civil strife.

Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder.

The experience of Communism shows that it may take decades but eventually people notice that the state ideology is a lie. Once they do, they change their mind about things rather quickly.

Swedish Family , December 19, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.

Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool . More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons:

(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative. Common people know full well that the Ukrainian troops are hated in the Donbass (I once watched a Ukrainian soldier shock the audience by saying this on Shuster Live), and they know also that Kiev has a blame in all those dead women and children. These are promising conditions for future reconciliation, and they would be squandered overnight if Russian troops moved further westward.

(2) The geopolitical repercussions would be enormous. As I and others have already written, the present situation is just about what people in elite Western circles can stomach. Any Russian escalation would seriously jeopardize European trade with Russia, among other things.

(3) There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. These "acquisitions," too, would be jeopardized by more military action.

Swedish Family , December 19, 2017 at 9:56 pm GMT
@Art Deco

You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.

No, I wrote that those civilians are already gone and that both sides had a hand in their deaths, which will help the peace process since no side can claim sole victimhood.

And your assumption that the separatists are mercenaries is groundless speculation. Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.

Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?

Risible comparison. Theirs is a conflict involving three major religions and the survival of the Israeli state at stake. On the Crimean question, we have already heard influential Westerners voice the possibility that it might one day be accepted as Russian, and if you read between the lines, many Ukrainians are of a similiar mind.

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 12:19 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014).

Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession – with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable.

As I was already writing in 2016 :

Like it or not, but outright war with Maidanist Ukraine has been ruled out from the beginning, as the more perceptive analysts like Rostislav Ischenko have long recognized. If there was a time and a place for it, it was either in April 2014, or August 2014 at the very latest. Since then, the Ukrainian Army has gotten much stronger. It has been purged of its "Russophile" elements, and even though it has lost a substantial percentage of its remnant Soviet-era military capital in the war of attrition with the LDNR, it has more than made up for it with wartime XP gain and the banal fact of a quintupling in military spending as a percentage of GDP from 1% to 5%.

This translates to an effective quadrupling in absolute military spending, even when accounting for Ukraine's post-Maidan economic collapse.

Russia can still crush Ukraine in a full-scale conventional conflict, and that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.

* There's a report that says actual Ukrainian military spending remained rather more modest at 2.5% of GDP ( https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_66_ang_best_army_ukraine_net.pdf ); even so, that still translates to huge improvements over 2014.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 12:26 am GMT
@Felix Keverich

The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready.

250,000. Combat readiness is very different from 2014.

Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.

Again, it isn't 2014 anymore. Military budget has increased significantly, from 3.2 billion in 2015 to 5.17 billion in 2017. In spite of theft, much more is getting through.

By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft

It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is unnecessaary.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT
@Swedish Family

Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.

80% are natives. Perhaps as much as 90%. However, often it a way to make a meager salary in those territories, so there is a mercenary aspect to it. Lots of unemployed workers go into the Republic military.

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT
@Swedish Family

Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.

80% in 2014-15, to be precise; another 10% from the Kuban; 10% from Russia, the Russian world, and the world at large.

NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians – no Russian went there to get rich.

That said, I strongly doubt there will ever be international recognition of Crimea, let alone Donbass. Israel has by far the world's most influential ethnic lobby. Even NATO member Turkey hasn't gotten Northern Cyprus internationally recognized, so what exactly are the chances of the international community (read: The West) recognizing the claims of Russia, which is fast becoming established in Western minds as the arch-enemy of civilization?

AP , December 20, 2017 at 12:56 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Fascinating link. The numbers for the military budget are a lot lower than reported elsewhere.

Mobilization percentages by region:

"Among the leaders of the fourth and fifth wave of partial mobilisation were the Khmelnitsky, Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Kirovohrad and Zaporizhia regions, as well as the city of Kyiv, whose mobilisation plan was fulfilled 80-100% (the record was Vinnytsia oblast, which achieved 100% mobilisation). At the opposite extreme are the Kharkiv, Chernivtsi, Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lugansk, Sumy, Ternopil and Transcarpathian regions, where the results of the mobilisation varied from 25 to 60%."

Summary:

2014:

The true face of the Ukrainian armed forces was revealed by the Russian annexation of Crimea and the first weeks of the war in the Donbas – they were nothing more than a fossilised structure, unfit for any effective function upon even a minimum engagement with the enemy, during which a significant part of the troops only realised whom they were representing in the course of the conflict and more than once, from the perspective of service in one of the post-Soviet military districts, they chose to serve in the Russian army

2017:

The war in the Donbas shaped the Ukrainian army. It gave awareness and motivation to the soldiers, and forced the leadership of the Defence Ministry and the government of the state to adapt the army's structure – for the first time since its creation – to real operational needs, and also to bear the costs of halting the collapses in the fields of training and equipment, at least to such an extent which would allow the army to fight a close battle with the pro-Russian separatists. Despite all these problems, the Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2017 now number 200,000, most of whom have come under fire, and are seasoned in battle. They have a trained reserve ready for mobilisation in the event of a larger conflict*; their weapons are not the latest or the most modern, but the vast majority of them now work properly; and they are ready for the defence of the vital interests of the state (even if some of the personnel still care primarily about their own vested interests). They have no chance of winning a potential military clash with Russia, but they have a reason to fight. The Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2014, in a situation where their home territory was occupied by foreign troops, were incapable of mounting an adequate response. The changes since the Donbas war started mean that Ukraine now has the best army it has ever had in its history.

* The Ukrainian armed forces have an operational reserve of 130,000 men, relatively well trained and with real combat experience, who since 2016 have been moulded out of veterans of the Donbas (as well as from formations subordinate to the Interior Ministry). It must be stressed, however, that those counted in the reserve represent only half of the veterans of the anti-terrorist operation (by October 2016, 280,000 Ukrainians had served in the Donbas in all formations subordinate to the government in Kyiv, with 266,000 reservists gaining combat status; at the beginning of February 2017, 193,400 reservists were in the armed forces). Thanks to that, at least in terms of the human factor, it should be possible in a relatively short period of time to increase the Ukrainian army's degree of combat readiness, as well as to fight a relatively close battle with a comparable opponent, something the Ukrainian armed forces were not capable of doing at the beginning of 2014.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 1:21 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians – no Russian went there to get rich.

Which further points to the critical role played by Russians. Many of the local volunteers are participating because doing so offers a salary, which is very important in a wrecked, sanctioned Donbas. The Russian 10%-20% are motivated, often Chechen combat vets. They are more important than their % indicates.

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:33 am GMT
@Gerard2 ..and lets not forget the failure in mobilisation from the Ukrainian military

That and having to hire loads of Georgians, Chechens, Poles and other mercenaries. Pretty much tallys perfectly with the failed shithole Ukraine government structure full of everyone else .but Ukrainians

melanf , December 20, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT
Amazing – almost any discussion in this section turns to хохлосрач (ukrohitstorm)
neutral , December 20, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT
@melanf What is almost incomprehensible for me in these endless Russia vs Ukraine arguments is how they (yes both sides) always ignore the real issues and instead keep on raising relatively petty points while thinking that mass non white immigration and things like the EU commissioner of immigration stating openly that Europe needs endless immigration, are not important.

It's like white South Africans who still debate the Boer war or the Irish debate the northern Ireland question, and are completely oblivious to the fact that these things don't matter anymore if you have an entirely new people ruling your land (ok in South Africa they were not new, but you know what I mean).

melanf , December 20, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT
@Swedish Family

Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine

much more than half. Donbass rebels: soldiers of the detachment of "Sparta". Data published by Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine:

https://imgur.com/a/Gh8zx

TT , December 20, 2017 at 12:05 pm GMT
I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating over after the Maidan coup.

So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of skilled people.

What it got to lose to unify with Russia to have peace, prosperity and been a nation of a great country instead of poor war torn? Plus a bonus of free Russia market access, unlimited cheap natural gas and pipeline toll to tax instead of buying LNG from US at double price.

Sorry this s just my opinion based on mostly fake news we are fed, only the Ukrainian know the best and able to decde themselves.

Randal , December 20, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons:

Yes, this is my view also. I think Russia was never in a position to do much more than it has, and those who talk about more vigorous military interference are just naïve, or engaging in wishful thinking, about the consequences. I think Putin played a very bad hand as well as could reasonably be expected in Ukraine and Crimea. No doubt mistakes were made, and perhaps more support at the key moment for the separatists (assassinations of some of the key oligarchs who chose the Ukrainian side and employed thugs to suppress the separatists in eastern cities, perhaps) could have resulted in a better situation now with much more of the eastern part of Ukraine separated, but if Russians want someone to blame for the situation in Ukraine apart from their enemies, they should look at Yanukovich, not Putin.

In the long run, it seems likely the appeal of NATO and the EU (assuming both still even exist in their current forms in a few years time) is probably peaking, but strategic patience and only limited covert and economic interference is advisable.

The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine.

Felix Keverich , December 20, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

There's a report that says actual Ukrainian military spending remained rather more modest at 2.5% of GDP ( https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_66_ang_best_army_ukraine_net.pdf ); even so, that still translates to huge improvements over 2014.

You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5 billion.

Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army.

The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear.

AP predicts that the cities of Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk will be reduced to something akin to Aleppo. But it has taken 3 years of constant shelling to cause the damage in Aleppo. A more likely outcome is that Ukrainian soldiers will promptly ditch their uniforms, once they realise the Russian are coming and their command is gone.

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%. This matters more, since the vast majority of Ukrainian military spending occurs in grivnas.

By various calculations, Ukrainian military spending went up from 1% of GDP, to 2.5%-5%. Minus 20%, that translates to a doubling to quadrupling.

What it does mean is that they are even less capable of paying for advanced weapons from the West than before, but those were never going to make a cardinal difference anyway.

AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree with him on that. In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.

Felix Keverich , December 20, 2017 at 1:50 pm GMT
@AP

It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is unnecessaary.

It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL

My point is that this bodes well for our ability to recruit proxies in Ukraine, don't you think? We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov. That's the approach I would use in Ukraine: strip away parts of it piece by piece, create local proxies, use them to maintain control and absorb casualties in the fighting on the ground.

Mr. Hack , December 20, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.

Fortunately, we'll not be seeing a replay of the sacking and destruction of Novgorod as was done in the 15th century by Ivan III, and all of its ugly repercussions in Ukraine. Besides, since the 15th century, we've seen the emergence of three separate nationalities out of the loose amalgamation of principalities known a Rus. Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT

"It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is unnecessaary."

It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL

Well, they are, at least in the center and west. Kievans don't volunteer to fight because they have no other way of making money. But you probably believe the fairytale that Ukraine is in total collapse, back to the 90s.

We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.

If in the process of taking Kharkiv the local economy goes into ruin due to wrecked factories and sanctions so that picking up a gun is the only way to feed one's family for some people, sure. But again, keep in mind that Kharkiv is much less pro-Russian than Donbas so this could be more complicated.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin How so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population) worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.

You're forgetting a few things. In the United States, about 1/3 of the country's productive capacity was devoted to the war effort during the period running from 1940 to 1946. I'll wager you it was higher than that in Britain and continental Europe. That's what Germany was drawing on to attempt to sustain its holdings for just the 4-5 year period in which they occupied France and Poland. (Russia currently devotes 4% of its productive capacity to the military). Germany had to be exceedingly coercive as well. They were facing escalating partisan resistance that whole time (especially in the Balkans).

Someone whose decisions matter is going to ask the question of whether it's really worth the candle.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT
@Art Deco Thanks for the correction. This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan. This I think would have been the only legitimate reason to invade in Iraq in 2003 (WMDs weren't there, and in 2003 the regime was not genocidal as it had been decades earlier when IMO an invasion would have been justified)

Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk.

Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?

You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya, the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq.

Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains stability and peace, or if one does so – take on the responsibility of investing massive effort and treasure in order to prevent the inevitable chaos and violence that would erupt as a result of one's invasion.

Felix Keverich , December 20, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian military personnel. Use LDNR army: transport them to Belgorod and with Russians they could move to take Kharkov, while facing minimal opposition. Then move futher to the West and South until the entire Ukrainian army in Donbass becomes encircled at which point they will likely surrender.

After supressing Ukrainian air-defence, our airforce should be able to destroy command and control, artillery, armoured formations, airfields, bridges over Dnieper, other infrustructure. Use the proxies to absord casualties in the fighting on the ground.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 20, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.

Anatoly, please, don't write on things you have no qualification on writing. You can not even grasp the generational (that is qualitative) abyss which separates two armed forces. The question will not be in this:

but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.

By the time the "cruising" would commence there will be no Ukrainian Army as an organized formation or even units left–anything larger than platoon will be hunted down and annihilated. It is really painful to read this, honestly. The question is not in Russian "ambition" or rah-rah but in the fact that Ukraine's armed forces do not posses ANY C4ISR capability which is crucial for a dynamics of a modern war. None. Mopping up in the East would still be much easier than it would be in Central, let alone, Western Ukraine but Russia has no business there anyway. More complex issues were under consideration than merely probable losses of Russian Army when it was decided (rightly so) not to invade.

I will open some "secret"–nations DO bear collective responsibility and always were subjected to collective punishment -- latest example being Germany in both WWs -- the bacillus of Ukrainian "nationalism" is more effectively addressed by letting those moyahataskainikam experience all "privileges" of it. In the end, Russia's resources were used way better than paying for mentally ill country. 2019 is approaching fast.

P.S. In all of your military "analysis" on Ukraine one thing is missing leaving a gaping hole–Russian Armed Forces themselves which since 2014 were increasing combat potential exponentially. Ukies? Not so much–some patches here and there. Russian Armed Forces of 2018 are not those of 2013. Just for shits and giggles check how many Ratnik sets have been delivered to Russian Army since 2011. That may explain to you why timing in war and politics is everything.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%.

About 16% from 2013 to 2015 when Ukraine hit bottom:

https://www.worldeconomics.com/GrossDomesticProduct/Ukraine.gdp

AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree with him on that.

I wrote that parts of the city would look like that. I don't think there would be enough massive resistance that the entire city would be destroyed. But rooting out a couple thousand armed, experienced militiamen or soldiers in the urban area would cause a lot of expensive damage and, as is the case when civilians died in Kiev's efforts to secure Donbas, would probably not endear the invaders to the locals who after all do not want Russia to invade them.

And Kharkiv would be the easiest to take. Dnipropetrovsk would be much more Aleppo-like, and Kiev Felix was proposing for Russia to take all these areas.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 20, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian military personnel.

The question is not in losses, per se. Russians CAN accept losses if the deal becomes hot in Ukraine–it is obvious. The question is in geopolitical dynamics and the way said Russian Armed Forces were being honed since 2013, when Shoigu came on-board and the General Staff got its mojo returned to it. All Command and Control circuit of Ukie army will be destroyed with minimal losses if need be, and only then cavalry will be let in. How many Russian or LDNR lives? I don't know, I am sure GOU has estimates by now. Once you control escalation (Russia DOES control escalation today since can respond to any contingency) you get way more flexibility (geo)politcally. Today, namely December 2017, situation is such that Russia controls escalation completely. If Ukies want to attack, as they are inevitably forced to do so, we all know what will happen. Ukraine has about a year left to do something. Meanwhile considering EU intentions to sanction Poland, well, we are witnessing the start of a major shitstorm.

Mr. Hack , December 20, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT

Most ukrops even admit that Kharkov could easily have gone in 2014, if Russia had wanted it/feasible

Really? So why didn't Russia take Kharkiv then? Why wan't it 'feasible', Mr.Know it All?

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.

A stupid comment for an adult. Ukraine, in effect never existed before Russia/Stalin/Lenin created it. Kiev is a historical Russian city, and 5 of the 7 most populated areas in Ukraine are Russian/Soviet created cities, Russian language is favourite spoken by most Ukrainians ( see even Saakashvili in court, speaking only in Russian even though he speaks fluent Ukrainian now and all the judges and lawyers speaking in Russian too), the millions of Ukrainians living happily in Russia and of course, the topic of what exactly is a Ukrainian is obsolete because pretty much every Ukrainian has a close Russian relative the level of intermarriage was at the level of one culturally identical people.

AK: Improvement! The first paragraph was acceptable, hence not hidden.

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack economics, hope that the west and their puppets in Kiev would act like sane and decent people, threat of sanctions and so on.

As is obvious, if the west had remained neutral ( an absurd hypothetical because the west were the ringmasters of the farce in this failed state) ..and not supported the coup and then the evil war brought on the Donbass people, then a whole different situation works out in Ukraine ( for the better)

AP , December 20, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT
@Gerard2

Kharkov always was and will be as pro-Russian as Donbass

Kharkiv oblast: 71% Ukrainian, 26% Russian
Donetsk oblast: 57% Ukrainian, 38% Russian (skews more Russian in the Donbas Republic parts)

Self-declared native language Kharkiv oblast: 54% Ukrainian, 44% Russian
Self-declared native language Donetsk oblast: 24% Ukrainian, 75% Russian

(not the same thing as language actually spoken, but a decent reflection of national self-identity)

2012 parliamentary election results (rounding to nearest %):

Kharkiv oblast: 62% "Blue", 32% "Orange" – including 4% Svoboda
Donetsk oblast – 84% "Blue", 11% "Orange" – including 1% Svoboda

A good illustration of Russian wishful thinking fairytales compared to reality on the ground.

S3 , December 20, 2017 at 3:23 pm GMT
@S3 Nietzsche famously foresaw the rise and fall of communism and the destruction of Germany in the two world wars. He also liked to think of himself as a Polish nobleman. Maybe this is what he meant.
Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT
@AP Kharkiv oblast: 71% Ukrainian, 26% Russian
Donetsk oblast: 57% Ukrainian, 38% Russian (skews more Russian in the Donbas Republic parts)
gT , December 21, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT
Its very amusing reading all the comments so far. But reality is that Russia should take back all the lands conquered by the Tsars, and that includes Finland.

Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the world. And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their "presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office. Now America has even moved into Eastern Europe, and has troops and radars and nuclear capable missile batteries stationed there. So America is just expanding and expanding its grasp while Russia must contract its territories even further and further. Yippee.

So Russia must take back all the territories conquered by the Tsars so as to not lose this game of monopoly. Those in those territories not too happy about such matters can move to America or deal with the Red Army. This is not a matter of cost benefits analysis but a matter of Russia's national security, as in the case of Chechnya.

The territories to Russia's East are especially necessary for Russia's security; when the chips are down, when all the satellites have been blown out of space, all the aircraft blown out of the air, all the ground hardware blown to smithereens; when the battle is reduced to eye to eye rat like warfare, then those assorted Mongol mongrels from Russia's East come into their element. Genghis Khan was the biggest mass murderer in history, he made Hitler look like a school boy, his genes live on in those to Russia's East. So if America were to get involved in Ukraine Russia would have no issues losing a million troops in a matter of days while the US has never even lost a million troops in its civil war and WW2 combined.

Lets face it, those Mongol mongrels make much better fighters than the effete Sunni Arabs any day, so Russia should get them on her side. In Syria those ISIS idiots would never have got as far as they did were it not for those few Chechens in their midst's.

But alas, Russia has to eat humble pie at the moment, internationally and at the Olympics. But humble pie tastes good when its washed down with bottles of vodka, and its only momentarily after all.

Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 10:50 am GMT
@gT Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the world.

Since 1945, between 70% and 87% of American military manpower has been stationed in the United States and its possession. The vast bulk of the remainder is generally to be found in about a half-dozen countries. (In recent years, that would be Germany, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait). Andrew Bacevich once went on a whinge about the stupidity of having a 'Southern Command' without bothering to tell his readers that the Southern Command had 2,000 billets at that time, that nearly half were stationed at Guantanamo Bay (an American possession since 1902), that no country had more than 200 American soldiers resident, and that the primary activity of the Southern Command was drug interdiction. On the entire African continent, there were 5,000 billets at that time.

And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their "presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office.

This is a fantasy.

Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT
@gT Why not post sober?
gT , December 21, 2017 at 4:05 pm GMT
@Art Deco Fantasy?

Read here about Merkel obeying her real masters

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/editorial-merkel-has-left-germans-high-and-dry-a-911425.html

and read here about "BERLIN IS WASHINGTON'S VASSAL UNTIL 2099″

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-183232

I especially like the bit about "Though most of the German officers were not originally inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies."

Seems its not only the Russians who are getting increasingly pissed off with the US when at first they actually liked the US. No wonder the Germans are just letting their submarines and tanks rot away.

Also https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2011/06/05/germany-still-under-the-control-of-foreign-powers/
(damn South Africans popping up everywhere)

[Dec 22, 2017] Nikki Haley Holds Friendship Party For Countries That Supported US In UN Israel Vote Zero Hedge

Dec 22, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Thursday's UN General Assembly vote on the Jerusalem resolution to a "friendship" party.

Hours after Haley tweeted "We appreciate these countries for not falling to the irresponsible ways of the UN," Voice of America's UN correspondent Margaret Besheer posted an electronic version of the invitation to twitter, which reads "Save the Date: The Honorable Nikki R. Haley, Permanent Representative United States Mission to the United Nations invites you to a reception to thank you for your friendship to the United States, Wednesday, January 3, 2018 6:00-8:00p.m. Formal Invitation to Follow."


US Ambassador Nikki Haley invites the 64 countries who voted 'no', abstained or didn't show up for UNGA Jerusalem resolution to "friendship" party.

Naturally our first thought is that it sounds like it's going to be a pretty sad and deeply awkward party. After all only 9 actually voted with the United States, and 35 were absentions, leaving all the rest as no-shows. So even the majority of the 64 "friends" on the invitation list were a bit too embarrassed to fully step up for their "friend" the first time around - why would they then attend what sounds like a literal pity party for the losing side?

Perhaps the absentions will quietly show up trying to fit in at the "cool party" for the winning team, wherever that may be. Newsweek has likened the invitation for making into the 'nice' column of the White House's "naughty or nice" list .

And concerning what could very well comprise the "VIP part" of the invitation list - only Israel, Honduras, Togo, U.S., Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Guatemala voted against the Jerusalem resolution to condemn the US move to recognize the city as the capital of Israel and relocate the American embassy there. Two-thirds of UN member states including Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Spain and Greece voted in favor of the resolution.

Notably, Canada abstained, which is sure going to make the "friendship to the United States" party extra stiff and awkward the moment the Canadian delegation walks through the door.

Sad little party. pic.twitter.com/ClBzvn9xHM

-- Stephanie Lamy (@WCM_JustSocial) December 21, 2017

And who knows, perhaps a few of those countries that did vote 'no' alongside the US did so because prior to the vote both President Trump and Nikki Haley threatened to cut aid to countries failing to support the controversial US decision (well actually many are sparsely populated micronations who have long essentially been dependencies of the US government).

Haley's parting speech after the vote took on a threatening tone as well, as despite being isolated by virtually the entire international community, she warned the international body that the U.S. would remember the vote as a betrayal by the U.N., and that the vote would do nothing to affect the Trump administration's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move its embassy there.

Haley reminded UN members of the US' generous contributions to the organization and said that the United States expects its will to be respected in return. "When we make a generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our goodwill is recognized and respected," Haley said, adding that the vote will be "remembered" by the US and "make a difference on how the Americans look at the UN."

And with all that parting drama, regarding Nikki's upcoming "friendship" party, it would be great to be a fly on the wall for the event... or, perhaps it'll be too awkward even for the flies.

BennyBoy -> Give_me_liberty_or , Dec 22, 2017 6:09 AM

That "Bribeship Party" requires a very, very, very small room.

Give_me_liberty_or -> BennyBoy , Dec 22, 2017 6:11 AM

this is yet another divide and conquer wedge issue. If you are against it they will label you "unpatriotic anti-trump muslim-loving commie bolshevik." The cognitive dissonance is so dense it's creating a vortex.

Haus-Targaryen -> Give_me_liberty_or , Dec 22, 2017 6:27 AM

The propaganda coming from Hailey is the most obvious/egregious out there.

old naughty -> Haus-Targaryen , Dec 22, 2017 6:28 AM

do we have a full list of the members abstained and no show?

Shemp 4 Victory -> Haus-Targaryen , Dec 22, 2017 6:33 AM

So is there some kind of unwritten rule that the US envoy to the UN must be a self-righteous raving lunatic?

Go back to Waffle House where you belong, Nikki.

Latina Lover -> Give_me_liberty_or , Dec 22, 2017 6:28 AM

Too bad we can't move Washington to Jerusalem? At least this way everyone knows for sure who controls the USA.

ludwigvmises , Dec 22, 2017 6:15 AM

What a pathetic joke we've become on the international circuit. I loved the idea of #MAGA and America first. But this? We're the laughing stock of international diplomacy.

JailBank -> ludwigvmises , Dec 22, 2017 6:22 AM

U.S. Gives Financial Aid to 96% of All Countries. According to the federal government, for fiscal year 2012, "The United States remained the world's largest bilateral donor, obligating approximately $48.4 billion -- $31.2 billion in economic assistance and $17.2 billion in military assistance." Oct 15, 2014

Merry Christmas we have decided to split $50 billion bewtween you 64.

ludwigvmises -> JailBank , Dec 22, 2017 6:27 AM

You forgot it was the United State sand NO ONE ELSE who was pressing for the creation of the United Nations. It is and always was an instrument for US control of it's mercantilist policies. We gave money to South America and Africa and the Middel East out of the goodness of our heart or in order to install regimes that allowed us to exploit their natural resources?

ludwigvmises -> JailBank , Dec 22, 2017 6:27 AM

You forgot it was the United State and NO ONE ELSE who was pressing for the creation of the United Nations. It is and always was an instrument for US control of it's mercantilist policies. We gave money to South America and Africa and the Middel East out of the goodness of our heart or in order to install regimes that allowed us to exploit their natural resources?

kochevnik -> JailBank , Dec 22, 2017 7:41 AM

USA a corporation not a nation

Expat -> Jethro , Dec 22, 2017 8:24 AM

And no UN success stories? None?

Smallpox?

Cyprus? India-Pakistan? Haiti?

Astonishing reduction in death from famine versus previous centuries?

Education programs worldwide.

Population control programs.

I have worked many times with the UN in my career so I know what a sham it can be. But it is an international institution that has prevented a major world or regional war since its inception. You might be too young to know the seventies and eighties, but the UN served a very useful purpose in giving a forum to argue between the world powers.

Trumpeteers call the UN a sham because the UN is not a US department. That is the entire point. If you want war and to continue building the empire, just quit the UN. Cast off the sheep's clothing and admit that the US is a violent, expansionist nation of thugs and xenophobes.

I think what bothers Trumpeteers and right wing Americans the most about the UN is that it costs money but the benefits are hard to measure. And Americans have no interest any more in spending money to help people. Charity starts at home! Jesus was a white man. Death to unbelievers. Fuck the poor and downtrodden. All of this is American zeitgeist. For years Americans thought these things but did not dare to shout them out loud. Now Trump. a man with no mental control over his words, shouts these things and Americans feel empowered. So fuck the UN and all the money-grubbing poor people. Let them starve. And if they dare turn to China or Russia we will bomb the shit out of them...in the name of democracy.

you can spout "MAGA" and "The UN sucks", but until you actually provide facts and acknowledge facts, you look like any of the other mullet-headed, ignorant fuckheads here on ZH.

Robert Trip , Dec 22, 2017 7:06 AM

The U.S. embassy to be built in Jewrusalem will resemble one of the larger German fortification bunkers built along the Atlantic Wall.

9 stories tall with 8' thick reinforced steel concrete walls, the latest surveillance and defensive equipment installed should make it a winner.

No moat around this one though.

Robert Trip , Dec 22, 2017 7:21 AM

There should be a major shakeup in the Trump team coming up imminently.

Those that put the bug in the President's ear concerning this fiasco creating move of our embassy to Jewrusalem or on the other hand those that failed to stop him if he was set on doing it.

We look like fools on the international stage

An interesting aside is the reaction of our main stream media to this whole affair.

100% positive to the move and recognition.

I wonder why?

GPW , Dec 22, 2017 7:21 AM

She is a national embarassment. What the hell was Trump thinking in appointing her?

J J Pettigrew , Dec 22, 2017 7:40 AM

Compare Nikki to Samantha Powers....nuff said...

Shemp 4 Victory -> J J Pettigrew , Dec 22, 2017 9:15 AM

Compare Nikki to Samantha Powers....

Nikki Haley, Samantha Power, John Bolton: defiant deniers of reality, raving and drooling warmongers, eager fellators of Netanyahoo...

nuff said...

Yeah, I see your point.

Laughing.Man , Dec 22, 2017 7:51 AM

SMH Juvenile behavior. I'm hoping someone is brave enough to snap a few pics of this " Friendship Party ".

rejected , Dec 22, 2017 7:55 AM

The Donald trying to squeeze the UN. Vote our way or take the well known highway. Not bad coming from the exceptional demockracy,,, the indispensable nation,,, leader of the Fee world. Haley in an embarrassment to the US and to the species.

Worse,,, Many Americans have no problem with it. Hell, they screw each other on a daily basis. In fact it's about the only way to make a buck these days,,, Ask the stooges at Ebay or Amazon selling imported junk or any lawyer or MD. The sickness just never ends.

rejected , Dec 22, 2017 7:55 AM

The Donald trying to squeeze the UN. Vote our way or take the well known highway. Not bad coming from the exceptional demockracy,,, the indispensable nation,,, leader of the Fee world. Haley in an embarrassment to the US and to the species.

Worse,,, Many Americans have no problem with it. Hell, they screw each other on a daily basis. In fact it's about the only way to make a buck these days,,, Ask the stooges at Ebay or Amazon selling imported junk or any lawyer or MD. The sickness just never ends.

Fake Trump , Dec 22, 2017 7:57 AM

What fucking party when 128 countries condemn Trump.

africoman , Dec 22, 2017 8:02 AM

128-9 vote result

The seven countries that sided Thursday with the United States and Israel on a U.N. General Assembly resolution declaring "null and void" of Trump's Jerusalem Israel capital

1. Guatemala

2. Honduras

3. Marshall Islands

4. Micronesia

5. Nauru

6. Palau

7. Togo

35 creepy abstenshines.

Add U$A and I$$rahell to the seven comes 9 countries in fevour of.

Hellish repeatedly claimed that the move<<<for them to move the capital to Jerusalem>>> was because of the will of Americans!

Question:

is Americans=Zionist/deep-state/

or

name exactly just one citizenry who happen beg Niki/Orange to trouble themselves.

Motherfuckers, they even said irrespective of the

UN votes resounding rejection, they gonna just ignore and move the USA embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.

And not surprisingly the bibi whore played guilty trip and claimed the rejection was disrespecting to the USA.

Lying , pricks super Psychopath.Bibi also confirmed he doesn't care the vote,implying they gonna punish UN by pulling out U$A $$$$ supply?

How the world gonna see these outragious move? Silently ?

Raul44 , Dec 22, 2017 8:28 AM

For those who dont understand, this is psychological warfare they will now try to run for a while. Most of this will be actually happening in private talks between 2, kind of "you can be part of us and benefit, rather than be on your own where we cannot guarantee your country's future" - type of talk. When you see sometimes in the future significant number of UN's reversal on this stance, you will know what I was talking about. Probably terms like "surprise" will be used in the news headlines.

Shemp 4 Victory -> dogismycopilot , Dec 22, 2017 9:25 AM

he can turn off the US Foreign Aid spigot

He wouldn't dare. Most US foreign aid consists of gift cards for shopping at Uncle Sam's Arms Emporium . The rest, like food and medical aid, are just cover ops for the CIA station chiefs. You think he's going to go against the MIC/CIA?

[Dec 22, 2017] A Stunning Rebuke 128 Nations Support UN Call For Trump To Withdraw Jerusalem Decision

Notable quotes:
"... America has lost moral grounds. Its propaganda machine is falling apart exposing America as an international outlaw ..."
"... America is in a situation when it cannot wage an open full-scale war and it cannot negotiate anything. For example, a war with N. Korea potentially will be an extremely bloody for America with totally unpredictable consequences and, at the same time, America cannot negotiate anything since, in a case of Iran, Trump stated that he did not give a shit to any negotiated agreements. ..."
"... Trump vision of making America great is to be a greater lackey of Israel and by impoverishing the America middle class by enriching his lenders on the Wall Street. ..."
Dec 22, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

C_Tacitus -> Truthoutthere , Dec 21, 2017 6:14 PM

Meanwhile in the Trump administration neo-cons are filling up the senior ranks on foreign policy : (well word the read)

" there are many vacancies, which has opened the door to eager neoconservative-leaning nominal Republicans to re-enter government . At the State Department Brian Hook of the neocon John Hay Initiative is now chief of policy planning, courtesy of Margaret Peterlin, Tillerson's chief of staff. They have recently hired David Feith , the son of the infamous Pentagon Office of Special Plans head Doug Feith , to head the Asia desk. And Wes Mitchell , whose policies are largely indistinguishable from his predecessor, has replaced Victoria Nuland as Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs . While Elliot Abrams, Eliot Cohen, the Kagans and other prominent neocons have been blocked, second-tier activists carrying less political baggage have quietly been brought in . "

" The unfortunate Donald Trump Administration decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel serves no visible American interest , in spite of what some of the always-loyal-to-Israel punditry has been suggesting. Israel is already moving to exploit the situation in its usual fashion . Immediately after the announcement was made, Israeli Ambassador in Washington Ron Dermer suggested that the decision on Jerusalem could now be extended to include other disputed areas, most particularly Syria's Golan Heights that were occupied in 1967"

" Nothing good will come out of the Trump decision as the situation in the region is already starting to unravel. The Turks are talking about opening an Embassy to Palestine in East Jerusalem and the 56 other Muslim countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation might follow suit."

philipat -> C_Tacitus , Dec 21, 2017 7:24 PM

The perfect example of the present state of American "morality". We are paying you off to agree with us and if not we will take our ball and go home. And as for Haley's comment that "This is what the American people want and is the right thing to do", when were the American people ever asked and who says it is the right thing to do other than neocons?

Sanctions and Miltary intervention is the sum total of US foreign policy. Is it any wonder that the Chinese are winning friends and making inroads around the world by engaging in quiet diplomacy and reaching win/win investment solutions with no political demands made on the host country.

caconhma -> BennyBoy , Dec 21, 2017 11:14 PM

The Trump's foreign policies are a total catastrophe:

techpriest -> The_Juggernaut , Dec 21, 2017 1:37 PM

IIRC from my international affairs classes, the UN was always a rubber stamp for American interests. Every "international" organization was like this. Now, we see the tables are turning and we might end up ditching these organizations as the Empire no longer controls them.

techpriest -> Mementoil , Dec 21, 2017 1:41 PM

Look back at the Korean War. Originally, the loss of sovereignty was meant to be an MIC rubber stamp, to commit the US to war while going around Congress. In other words, the UN was the MIC's rubber stamp to approve whatever it wanted, without Congressional approval, and without making American politicians bear the burden of guilt.

C_Tacitus -> Mementoil , Dec 21, 2017 2:09 PM

Stop right there trollie .... the ONLY outrageous challenge to US "sovereignty" is the Zionist talmudist ethnocentric chosenites who have their "dual"-citizens pulling the strings on US foreign policy:

"Neoconservative Douglas Feith writes a position paper entitled "A Strategy for Israel." Feith proposes that Israel re-occupy "the areas under Palestinian Authority control" even though "the price in blood would be high." [Commentary, 9/1997; American Conservative, 3/24/2003; In These Times, 3/13/2007] Feith is the co-author of the 1996 position paper "A Clean Break" (see July 8, 1996), which advocates a similar aggressive posture for Israel."

"January 30, 2001: First National Security Council Meeting Focuses on Iraq and Israel, Not Terrorism. The Bush White House holds its first National Security Council meeting. The focus is on Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...But Bush isn't interested in terrorism...Instead, Bush channels his neoconservative advisers, particularly incoming Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz... in taking a new approach to Middle East affairs, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...

Rice begins noting "that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region."...Bush orders Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh Shelton to begin preparing options for the use of US ground forces in Iraq's northern and southern no-fly zones in support of a native-based insurgency against the Hussein regime..."Meeting adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq...

"US Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, later recalls: "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime...officials never questioned the logic behind this policy. No one ever asked, "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" Instead, the issue that needed to be resolved was how this could be accomplished. "It was all about finding a way to do it," O'Neill will explain. "That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'""

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces..."These were the policies that even the Israeli right had not dared to implement." One senior administration official says after the meeting, "The Likudniks are really in charge now."..."

"Shortly After September 11, 2001: Pentagon Officials Wolfowitz and Feith Set Up Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group"

"Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith set up a secret intelligence unit, named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG -- sometimes called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group), to sift through raw intelligence reports and look for evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda... George Packer will later describe their process, writing, "Wurmser and Maloof were working deductively, not inductively: The premise was true; facts would be found to confirm it."...Critics claim that its members manipulate and distort intelligence, "cherry-picking" bits of information that support their preconceived conclusions... They were cherry-picking intelligence and packaging it for [Vice President] Cheney and [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld to take to the president. That's the kind of rogue operation that peer review is intended to prevent."...A defense official later adds, "There is a complete breakdown in the relationship between the Defense Department and the intelligence community, to include its own Defense Intelligence Agency. Wolfowitz and company disbelieve any analysis that doesn't support their own preconceived conclusions. The CIA is enemy territory, as far are they're concerned."... For weeks, the unit will attempt to uncover evidence tying Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, a theory advocated by both Feith and Wolfowitz..."

"The rest of the US intelligence community is not impressed with CTEG's work. "I don't have any problem with [the Pentagon] bringing in a couple of people to take another look at the intelligence and challenge the assessment," former DIA analyst Patrick Lang will later say. "But the problem is that they brought in people who were not intelligence professionals, people were brought in because they thought like them. They knew what answers they were going to get."..."

"Dismissing CIA's Findings that Iraq, al-Qaeda are Not Linked... In CTEG's view, policy makers should overlook any equivocations and discrepancies and dismiss the CIA's guarded conclusions: "[T]he CIA report ought to be read for content only -- and CIA's interpretation ought to be ignored." Their decision is powered by Wolfowitz, who has instructed them to ignore the intelligence community's view that al-Qaeda and Iraq were doubtful allies. They also embrace the theory that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi official in Prague, a theory discredited by intelligence professionals..."

"The group is later accused of stovepiping intelligence directly to the White House. Lang later tells the Washington Times: "That unit had meetings with senior White House officials without the CIA or the Senate being aware of them. That is not legal. There has to be oversight." According to Lang and another US intelligence official, the two men go to the White House several times to brief officials, bypassing CIA analysts whose analyses they disagreed with..."

C_Tacitus -> C_Tacitus , Dec 21, 2017 2:57 PM

For those how do not want to read the article I've linked to these quotes let me highlight a few passages (apologies in advance as someone replied to my previous article so I could not do it prior):

"Neoconservative Douglas Feith writes a position paper entitled " A Strategy for Israel ." Feith proposes that Israel re-occupy "the areas under Palestinian Authority control" even though "the price in blood would be high." [Commentary, 9/1997; American Conservative, 3/24/2003; In These Times, 3/13/2007] Feith is the co-author of the 1996 position paper " A Clean Break " (see July 8, 1996), which advocates a similar aggressive posture for Israel."

" January 30, 2001 : First National Security Council Meeting Focuses on Iraq and Israel, Not Terrorism

The Bush White House holds its first National Security Council meeting. The focus is on Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...But Bush isn't interested in terrorism ...Instead, Bush channels his neoconservative advisers, particularly incoming Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz... in taking a new approach to Middle East affairs, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...

Rice begins noting "that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region."...Bush orders Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh Shelton to begin preparing options for the use of US ground forces in Iraq's northern and southern no-fly zones in support of a native-based insurgency against the Hussein regime..."Meeting adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq ...

"US Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, later recalls: "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. From the very first instance, it was about Iraq . It was about what we can do to change this regime...officials never questioned the logic behind this policy . No one ever asked, "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" Instead, the issue that needed to be resolved was how this could be accomplished. " It was all about finding a way to do it ," O'Neill will explain. "That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'""

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces ..."These were the policies that even the Israeli right had not dared to implement." One senior administration official says after the meeting, "The Likudniks are really in charge now."..."

"Shortly After September 11, 2001: Pentagon Officials Wolfowitz and Feith Set Up Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group"

"Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith set up a secret intelligence unit, named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG -- sometimes called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group), to sift through raw intelligence reports and look for evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda... George Packer will later describe their process, writing, "Wurmser and Maloof were working deductively, not inductively: The premise was true; facts would be found to confirm it ."...Critics claim that its members manipulate and distort intelligence, "cherry-picking" bits of information that support their preconceived conclusions... They were cherry-picking intelligence and packaging it for [Vice President] Cheney and [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld to take to the president. That's the kind of rogue operation that peer review is intended to prevent. "...A defense official later adds, "There is a complete breakdown in the relationship between the Defense Department and the intelligence community, to include its own Defense Intelligence Agency. Wolfowitz and company disbelieve any analysis that doesn't support their own preconceived conclusions . The CIA is enemy territory, as far are they're concerned."... For weeks, the unit will attempt to uncover evidence tying Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, a theory advocated by both Feith and Wolfowitz..."

"The rest of the US intelligence community is not impressed with CTEG's work. "I don't have any problem with [the Pentagon] bringing in a couple of people to take another look at the intelligence and challenge the assessment," former DIA analyst Patrick Lang will later say. "But the problem is that they brought in people who were not intelligence professionals , people were brought in because they thought like them. They knew what answers they were going to get ."..."

"Dismissing CIA's Findings that Iraq, al-Qaeda are Not Linked... In CTEG's view, policy makers should overlook any equivocations and discrepancies and dismiss the CIA's guarded conclusions: "[T]he CIA report ought to be read for content only -- and CIA's interpretation ought to be ignored." Their decision is powered by Wolfowitz, who has instructed them to ignore the intelligence community's view that al-Qaeda and Iraq were doubtful allies . They also embrace the theory that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi official in Prague, a theory discredited by intelligence professionals..."

"The group is later accused of stovepiping intelligence directly to the White House . Lang later tells the Washington Times: " That unit had meetings with senior White House officials without the CIA or the Senate being aware of them . That is not legal . There has to be oversight." According to Lang and another US intelligence official, the two men go to the White House several times to brief officials, bypassing CIA analysts whose analyses they disagreed with ..."

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...

Oldwood -> C_Tacitus , Dec 21, 2017 7:48 PM

Oh, that's right. Bill Clinton and the Democrats NEVER condoned regime change in Iraq. Just like they NEVER proposed accepting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

... .. ...

Hans-Zandvliet -> drendebe10 , Dec 22, 2017 2:18 AM

The UN is Washington's most powerfull tool to keep the rest of the world in check.

And because Washington wants to preserve the global status quo (which has been constructed to Washington's advantage), the UN is not allowed to do "anything productive".

As a Gringo, you should be damn content with the UN, because Washington's control over the UN facilitates your luxurious Gringo-lifestyle.

But you can't have it all: AND a luxurious Gringo-lifestyle AND the applause of the rest of the world.

UN, IMF and World Bank are just the three pillars on which the neo-colonial US-empire is built.

Most of the world would wish to be liberated from you Gringos,but you don't even realize what you're wishing for, because you've never looked beyond your home-town, next month's pay check or thought about what happened longer than a week ago.

Hans-Zandvliet -> NugginFuts , Dec 22, 2017 2:02 AM

"Could we just finally leave the UN now? Or are we waiting for them to finally like us?"

Yes! Please! Leave! Go with god, but go!

I think it's long over due to move the UN out of New York to any-place-is-better. To be blackmailed by its xenofobic USA-host, is just unacceptably lethal to a plurinational institution like the UN.

Maybe the Crimea Peninsula would be a rather suitable place: it's more central for most of the rest of the world and Russia is a much more respectful and hospitable host.

To be rid of the two most murderous rogue states of the UN, would make life so much easier for the rest of the world. Without the USA and Israel, the UN would be able to advance with leaps on a laundry list of bogged down global problems.

I'm quite sure that within a few years of voluntary isolation, the USA and Israel would come back, begging to be atmitted again to the UN. But of course, the USA would not get back its veto right in the Security Counsil anymore.

Crazy Or Not -> tmosley , Dec 21, 2017 2:43 PM

> Gotta love those no-lose situations..

While its populist to shit post the UN, many here are smarter than that. Likely you appreciate this may be the first signs of the great pivot East. Putin & Xi Jingping will be crunching their popcorn with interest at this, if not cackling down the phone to each other. US may well save on its UN subscriptions if this course is pursued, the end result will be UN HQ will move, not to Switzerland, but to Bejing and with it American isolationism in a way thats not been experienced since the great depression. More than anything else, the US needs foreign trade, and that calls for engagement.

The disturbing part is why choose now to recognise Jerusalem? What exactly has Israel done for the US? Dance on some rooftops while WTC came down? Caused havoc to most of her neighbors? Schemed and conived to set one neighbor against another.

The Don knew this would sit badly abroad, possibly it's linked with some push back against Putin in Syria, and to tell Iraq how pissed he is they rained on the Kurdish State parade. Likely it includes some MIC trade off to pull CiA dogs off his back??? IDK - but it will forment more dissent in Middle East, and since that's where much of the world's oil & gas still comes from, we'll all feel the hit.

It seems an action more guided by the Generals? and whilst US does have a formidable military to add leverage to decisions, it's military infrastructure was built in the cold war. Much of it in need of replacement:

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2017/10/31/americas-nuclear-we...

There may be some short term MAGA in this, but the bill will come later, and it will be painful. IMHO.

opport.knocks -> Crazy Or Not , Dec 21, 2017 3:57 PM

Stop overthinking. This is nothing more than a campaign funding promise to Sheldon Adelson and his conservative Isreali-American Council (note which name appears first). $50+ million to his campaign, $5 million to inauguration.

https://972mag.com/is-sheldon-adelson-behind-trumps-decision-on-jerusale...

Some even think the Las Vegas shooting (Adelson owns Las Vegas) was a not so subtle signal to Trump to get on with it or more events like it would happen.

Crazy Or Not , Dec 21, 2017 12:52 PM

Polyanna says: "But but we introduce peace and democracy around the world"

https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governmen...

me or you , Dec 21, 2017 12:58 PM

The Empire of Chaos is falling apart. The whole world is now together to fight the evil who threats humanity.

Soph , Dec 21, 2017 12:58 PM

I would think "Go fuck yourselves" seems to be the appropriate diplomatic response from Trump and his team.

totenkopf88 -> Soph , Dec 21, 2017 1:15 PM

"Go fuck yourself" is what Trump is telling his base

Eyes Opened -> Soph , Dec 21, 2017 3:34 PM

Seems like Murica likes to GIVE bloody noses.... but not be on the recieving end of a bloody nose....hypocritical ??

foxenburg , Dec 21, 2017 1:01 PM

"Haley warned the international body that the U.S. would remember the vote as a betrayal by the U.N"

She should remember the vote as being a complete rejection of the USA and its values by 128 sovereign nations.

It also shows how popular Israel is.

Albertarocks -> Davidduke2000 , Dec 21, 2017 1:19 PM

Canada's entire economic system is so incredibly connected to the USA that it is to a great extent dependent on a happy and prosperous USA. The last thing Canada needs right now (since the country already has an embarrassing buffoon as a leader) is to upset the US.

To abstain was their only option, especially since it was known that it would make no difference in the vote. So it was the wise choice. It had little to do with dumbass Trudeau.

[Dec 22, 2017] If You Are Looking for Consistency, Trump Ain't Your Man by Publius Tacitus

Dec 22, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Christmas came early for Donald Trump. He signed a historic tax cut, kept the Government funded and operating and, to the delight of many in his base, used UN Ambassador Nikki Haley as a mouthpiece to tell the rest of the world to go pound sand. He is feeling groovy. But Donald Trump is still his own worst enemy. And his Presidency will be fatally harmed if he continues with his erratic foreign policy and his empty talk on dealing with the opioid plague.

Let's start with his wildly fluctuating foreign policy. There is no consistency nor is their a theme. When he announced that he was recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, many assumed he was on the Israeli leash and was behaving as any obedient dog would. Perhaps.

How then do you explain yesterday's (Thursday) decision to arm Ukraine as a show of force to Russia :

The Trump administration has approved the largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine since 2014. . . . Administration officials confirmed that the State Department this month approved a commercial license authorizing the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories to Ukraine, a sale valued at $41.5 million. These weapons address a specific vulnerability of Ukrainian forces fighting a Russian-backed separatist movement in two eastern provinces.

The people we are arming in the Ukraine are the actual and intellectual descendants of the Nazi sympathizers who helped the Einsatzgruppen murder more than a million Jews after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Scholar Richard Sakwa provides the horrifying details on the pro-Nazi ideological foundation of the key Ukrainian political groups we are backing:

"The Orange revolution, like the later Euromaidan events, was democratic in intent but gave an impetus 'to the revival of the radical versions of [the] Ukrainian national movement that first appeared on the historical scene in the course of World War II and a national discourse focused on fighting against the enemy'.41 " . . . .

"In Dnepropetrovsk, for example, instead of the anticipated 60 street-name changes, 350 were planned. Everywhere 'Lenin Streets' became 'Bandera Avenues' as everything Russian was purged. One set of mass murderers was changed for another. Just as the Soviet regime had changed toponyms to inscribe its power into the physical environment, so now the Euromaidan revolution seeks to remould daily life. In Germany today the names of Nazis and their collaborators are anathema, whereas in Ukraine they are glorified."

Excerpt From: Richard Sakwa. "Frontline Ukraine : Crisis in the Borderlands." from the Afterward

At the very moment we are signaling our support for Israel, the country founded largely because of the horror over the Shoah, we are also giving weapons to political groups whose parents and grand parents helped carry out the Shoah. Oh yeah, in the process of doing this we are providing a tangible threat to Russia. Imagine what our reaction would be if Russia decided to step up its weapons supplies to Cuba.

Then we have Trump's tough talk on the opioid slaughter taking place across America. Let me be clear. He is not responsible for the start of this plague. The Obama Administration carries a heavy burden on that front. CBS 60 Minutes has done a magnificent job in exposing the role that the Obama Justice Department refused to play in going after the major corporate opiate drug pusher--i.e., the McKesson Corporation :

In October, we joined forces with the Washington Post and reported a disturbing story of Washington at its worst - about an act of Congress that crippled the DEA's ability to fight the worst drug crisis in American history - the opioid addiction crisis. Now, a new front of that joint investigation. It is also disturbing. It's the inside story of the biggest case the DEA ever built against a drug company: the McKesson Corporation, the country's largest drug distributor. It's also the story of a company too big to prosecute.

In 2014, after two years of painstaking inquiry by nine DEA field divisions and 12 U.S. Attorneys, investigators built a powerful case against McKesson for the company's role in the opioid crisis.

[According to DEA Agent Schiller] This is the best case we've ever had against a major distributor in the history of the Drug Enforcement Administration. How do we not go after the number one organization? In the height of the epidemic, when people are dying everywhere, doesn't somebody have to be held accountable? McKesson needs to be held accountable.

Holding McKesson accountable meant going after the 5th largest corporation in the country. Headquartered in San Francisco, McKesson has 76,000 employees and earns almost $200 billion a year in revenues, about the same as Exxon Mobil. Since the 1990s, McKesson has made billions from the distribution of addictive opioids.

So what has Donald Trump done? That is the wrong question. What has he failed to do? We are approaching the one year anniversary of his Presidency and Trump has failed to nominate a Director for the Drug Enforcement Administration, a Director for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a Director for the National Institute of Justice and an Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs . In other words, none of the people who would be on the policy frontline putting the President's tough words into action have been nominated. Not one. And those agencies and departments are drifting like a rudderless ship on stormy seas.

Another problem for Trump is his mixed signals on getting entangled in foreign wars. During the campaign he made a point of ridiculing those candidates who wanted to go to war in Syria. Now that he is in office, Trump, along with several members of his cabinet, are threatening Iran on almost a daily basis. The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity just put out a memo on this very subject (which, I'm happy to note, reflects some of the themes I've written about previously):

Iran has come out ahead in Iraq and, with the 2015 nuclear agreement in place, Iran's commercial and other ties have improved with key NATO allies and the other major world players -- Russia and China in particular.

Official pronouncements on critical national security matters need to be based on facts. Hyperbole in describing Iran's terrorist activities can be counterproductive. For this reason, we call attention to Ambassador Nikki Haley's recent statement that it is hard to find a "terrorist group in the Middle East that does not have Iran's fingerprints all over it." The truth is quite different. The majority of terrorist groups in the region are neither creatures nor puppets of Iran. ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra are three of the more prominent that come to mind.

You have presented yourself as someone willing to speak hard truths in the face of establishment pressure and not to accept the status quo. You spoke out during the campaign against the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as a historic mistake of epic proportions. You also correctly captured the mood of many Americans fatigued from constant war in far away lands. Yet the torrent of warnings from Washington about the dangers supposedly posed by Iran and the need to confront them are being widely perceived as steps toward reversing your pledge not to get embroiled in new wars.

We encourage you to reflect on the warning we raised with President George W. Bush almost 15 years ago, at a similar historic juncture:

"after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

Finally, there is the recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. I defer to Colonel Lang on this. He believes that this single decision has planted an odious seed that will sprout into a global anti-U.S. sentiment that will reduce our global influence and tangibly damage our leadership on the world stage. While I suppose there always is a chance for a different kind of outcome, I learned long ago not to bet against the old warrior on matters like this.

Taking all of this together I think we are looking at a 2018 where U.S. foreign policy will continue to careen around the globe devoid of a strategic vision.

catherine , 22 December 2017 at 07:20 PM

'' The people we are arming in the Ukraine are the actual and intellectual descendants of the Nazi sympathizers who helped the Einsatzgruppen murder more than a million Jews after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union''

They are also the descendants of the Ukrainians who were starved to death by the Bolsheviks plundering of their crops first then starved again by Stalin.
That Jews figured large in the Bolsheviks is a fact and noted:..then and later.

A collection of reports on Bolshevism in Russia
by Great Britain. Foreign Office

https://www.archive.org/stream/collectionofrepo00greaiala/collectionofrepo00greaiala_djvu.txt

''..anti-Semitism is growing, probably because the food supply committees are entirely in the hands of Jews and voices can be heard sometimes calling for a " pogrom."

So I am giving Ukraine a pass on their so called threat to the Chosen.

Babak Makkinejad -> mongo... , 22 December 2017 at 07:32 PM
Yup, every one and everything under the sun bears some responsibility except the poor, abused, manipulated, down-trodden users.
Publius Tacitus -> catherine... , 22 December 2017 at 07:32 PM
You make my point. The NAZIS came up with lots of nifty reasons to justify exterminating Jews. Starvation by Stalin, therefore kill the Jews. Yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm fully intended).

[Dec 22, 2017] The way I see it "an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion, and it included plenty of American blood. Young healthy American men lost their lifes in Iraq, lost their their bodyparts (arms, legs, their nuts), lost their sanity, and as an American I can't imagine that you were pleased about that.

Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm GMT

@Art Deco The way I see it "an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion, and it included plenty of American blood. Young healthy American men lost their lifes in Iraq, lost their their bodyparts (arms, legs, their nuts), lost their sanity, and as an American I can't imagine that you were pleased about that. Certainly, most of your countrymen didn't feel this way, they didn't feel this war was worth it for the US.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT
@Art Deco

We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq

The treaty commitment in question was with almost the entire rest of the world, namely when your country entirely voluntarily signed up to a commitment to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". If your country had retained the slightest trace of integrity and self-respect it would at least have had the decency to withdraw from membership of the the UN when it chose to breach those treaty commitments.

And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war.

An entire nation state behaving like a lying '60s hippy or a shamelessly dishonest aggressor.

I'm sure you're proud.

and both places had it coming.

A straightforward confession of lawless rogue state behaviour, basically.

Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such arguments? Better for a real American patriot to just stop digging and keep sheepishly quiet about the past three decades of foreign policy.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 6:15 pm GMT
@reiner Tor The fact is neither did Crimeans really want to join Russia (polls didn't show that), and yet our re-unification has been a huge success! I honestly can't think of good reason, why we can't go futher.
Mr. XYZ , December 18, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT
: Would Russia have been interested in joining both the E.U. and NATO?
Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 6:27 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Neither apply.
Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 6:30 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich "an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion,

By various and sundry Sunni insurgents, who continue to distort and disfigure life in the provinces where they have a critical mass of the population. The Kurdish and Shia provinces are quiet.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT
@Randal Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such arguments?

Depends on the degree to which my interlocutor lives in a bubble breathing in the air of his own mephitic resentments.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT
And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts

There were no imaginary pretexts. You need to get out more.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 6:38 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media.

There seems no evident reason to look for another explanation for the drops in pro-American sentiment. They seem eminently justified by the US's behaviour over the period 1990-date and perfectly unsurprising.

What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.

In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them. It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000 and in 2004.

It's understandable that following a particular instance of particularly bad US behaviour (such as Kosovo or Iraq) opinion of the US in US sphere states would dip dramatically (as it did, mostly) and then recover slowly to roughly its long term mean, because those crimes were not directed against the interests of US sphere states or elites. But they very much were targeted at Russia or its interests and disadvantageous to Russia and its global status. Russians had few excuses for failing to see that the US was an implacable and dangerous enemy from at least Kosovo onward, and yet they repeatedly chose to pretend to themselves that it wasn't.

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.

Why are you assuming that the pendulum would swing back?
The Kremlin is still playing nice with Western "partners".
The alternative does not have to be more pro-American.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT
@Art Deco As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen together, which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country. And now these Shia communities vote for pro-Iran politicians, who gradually turn Iraq into Iranian puppet -- is this why American soldiers died?

C'mon, Iraq invasion was a disaster for the US whichever way you look at it. That's what happens when you start a war for the wrong reasons.

inertial , December 18, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia.

That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian. The rulers of Ukraine and, to a much lesser degree, Belorussia are trying to erect cultural barriers between themselves and Russia. Good luck with that, in the 21st century. It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world. Eventually it will tell.

Now, the question is if Russians will even want Ukraine back. This is not so clear.

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
@Art Deco They do.
Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT
@Mr. XYZ

Would Russia have been interested in joining both the E.U. and NATO?

Integration into West is what Russians wanted.

An example

IF RUSSIA HAD THE CHANCE TO BECOME A FULL MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION NOW, WOULD YOU BE FOR OR AGAINST THIS? (N=800)

08/2009:
For: 53%
Against: 21%
Difficult to say: 27%

https://www.levada.ru/en/2016/06/10/russia-s-friends-and-enemies-2/

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT
@Art Deco That's just dumb. The reasons officially given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Saddam's regime hiding weapons of mass destruction and being an intolerable threat to the outside world -- were a transparently false pretext for war, and that was clearly discernible at the time. Saddam's regime was extremely brutal and increasingly Islamic or even Islamist in character, but by 2003 it wasn't a serious threat to anyone outside Iraq anymore the worst thing it did was send money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (bad, but hardly an existential threat). Admittedly there was the question how to deal with his regime in coming years, whether to eventually relax sanctions or to keep them in place for the foreseeable future. But there was no urgent need to invade Iraq that was purely a war of choice which the US started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own preferences. If you don't understand why many people find that rather questionable, it's you who needs to get out more.
Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT
@Randal

What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.

Yugoslavia and Iraq were not that close to Russia and Russian elite was still pushing for Integration into West at that time. After 2008, "Reset" and Obama happened.

It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000 and in 2004.

Keep in mind that Obama's opponent in 2008 was McCain, that McCain.
Just like Trump, Obama seemed like the lesser evil and not to blame for previous conflicts.

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT
@Art Deco Hungary joined NATO a few days (weeks? can't remember) before the start of the Kosovo-related bombardment of Serbia. I attended university in a city in the south of Hungary, close to the Serbian border. I could see the NATO planes flying by above us every night when going home from a bar or club (both of which I frequented a lot).

I was a staunch Atlanticist at the time, and I believed all the propaganda about the supposed genocide which later turned out not to have gone through the formality of actually taking place. But it was never properly reported as the scandal it was -- it was claimed that the Serbs were murdering tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians, but it never happened. They might have killed a few hundred, at worst a few thousand civilians, but that's different from what the propaganda claimed at the time. I only found out that there was no genocide of Albanians in Kosovo when I searched the internet for it some time after the Iraq invasion. By that time I was no longer an Atlanticist. Most people are totally unaware that there was any lying going on while selling us the war.

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT
@German_reader

and that was clearly discernible at the time

Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes and made me question some previous policies, especially the bombardment of Serbia. I wasn't any longer comfortable of being in NATO, especially since it started to get obvious that Hungarian elites (at least the leftists among them) used our membership to dismantle our military and use the savings on handouts for their electorate, or -- worse -- outright steal it. While it increasingly looked like NATO wasn't really protecting our interests, since our enemies were mostly our neighbors (some of them). This kind of false safety didn't feel alright.

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT
@reiner Tor "Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes"

Same for me. I was 15 during the Kosovo war and believed NATO's narrative, couldn't understand how anybody could be against the war, given previous Serb atrocities during the Bosnian war it seemed to make sense. And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued vehemently with a stupid leftie teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified, so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American fool). But Iraq was just too much, too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it was hard not to feel that there was something deeply wrong with a large part of the American public if they were gullible enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it was a real turning point in the evolution of my political views.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 7:45 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not regard Belarus and Ukraine as part of "заграница" -- foreign countries. Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.

The last two sentences contradict the first.

Russians tend to be rather ignorant of Ukrainians, and you are no different.

DFH , December 18, 2017 at 7:45 pm GMT
@Mitleser Western Europe, with the best will in the world, doesn't need more Slav/Muslim immigrants. Europeans would have never agreed to it.
reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT
@German_reader

Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified

Destroying the Taliban government, yes. Building "democracy" is just stupid, though. They should've quickly left after the initial victory and let the Afghans to just eat each other with Stroganoff sauce if they so wished. It's not our business.

Darin , December 18, 2017 at 7:53 pm GMT
@inertial

That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.

This is for them to decide, not for you.

It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world.

Yeah, the culture homogenizes around the world, into global Hollywood corporate culture. In the long there, "traditional Russian culture" is as doomed as "traditional Ukrainian culture" and "traditional American culture" if there is anything left of it.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

The fact is neither did Crimeans really want to join Russia (polls didn't show that)

Nonsense, Mr. Clueless-About-Ukraine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014#Polling

Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that 63.8% of Crimeans (76% of Russians, 55% of Ukrainians, and 14% of Crimean Tatars, respectively) would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status, but with expanded powers and rights . A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013 found that 53% wanted "Autonomy in Ukraine (as today)", 12% were for "Crimean Tatar autonomy within Ukraine", 2% for "Common oblast of Ukraine" and 23% voted for "Crimea should be separated and given to Russia".

The takeaway is that Crimeans were satisfied being part of Ukraine as long as Ukraine had an ethnic Russian, generally pro-Russian president like Yanukovich in charge (2013 poll), but preferred being part of Russia to being part of a Ukrainian state run by Ukrainians (2008 poll, post-Maidan).

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Totally agree, there should just have been a quick punitive expedition, trying to "fix" Afghanistan is pointless.
AP , December 18, 2017 at 7:59 pm GMT
@inertial

That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.

Believer of Russian nationalist fairytales tells Russian nationalist fairytales. You managed to fit 3 of them into 2 sentences, good job.

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 8:05 pm GMT
@DFH Oh, Western Europe does not mind Slav/Muslim immigrants.
In fact, they love them.
They would not have agreed for other reasons without admitting them in public.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen together,

The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis:

James Mattis' 33-Year Grudge Against Iran

That's something that ought to seriously concern anyone with a rational view of world affairs.

which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country.

In fact the Americans had already admitted defeat and agreed to pull out before Obama took office. Bush II signed the withdrawal agreement on 14th December 2008. After that, US forces in Iraq were arguably no longer occupiers and were de jure as well as de facto present on the sufferance of the Iraqi government. The US regime had clearly hoped to have an Iraqi collaboration government for the long term, as a base from which to attack Iran, but the long Iraqi sunni and shia resistances scuppered that idea. The sunnis had fought hard, but were mostly defeated and many of them ended up collaborating with the US occupiers, as indeed had much of the shia, for entirely understandable reasons in both cases.

Military occupations are morally complicated like that.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT
@AP I was referring specifically to Russian attitudes about Ukrainians. I know that among Ukrainians themselves, there is quite the confusion on this subject.
Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:09 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen together, which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country. And now these Shia communities vote for pro-Iran politicians, who gradually turn Iraq into Iranian puppet -- is this why American soldiers died?

Your memory is bad. The three Kurdish provinces never suffered much. Political violence in the Shia provinces was finally suppressed over a series of months in late 2007 and early 2008. It was also contained to a degree in the six provinces with Sunnis. And that is how matters remained for six years. ISIS was active in those provinces which have had public order problems consistently since 2003.

Iran has influence in Iraq. It is an 'Iranian' puppet only when unzdwellers require rhetorical flourishes.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:11 pm GMT
@Randal In fact the Americans had already admitted defeat

Were we defeated, Iraq would be ruled by the Ba'ath Party or networks of Sunni tribesman. It is not. This isn't that difficult Randal.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:15 pm GMT
@Mitleser Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.

I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after 9/11, though not so much after Iraq.

But I have been told by Russians who ought to have some knowledge of these things that Putin and the wider regime were not so naïve even back in the late 1990s, so the case can be made both ways.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 8:16 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home' -- an actual Russian nation-state.

In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime. Obviously there will have to be a militarized occupation regime and prison camps and a network of informants. A proud home.

Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.

Baltics were Russian longer than Ukraine. Central Poland became Russian at the same time as did half of Ukraine. According to the 1897 census, there were about as many Great Russian speakers in Kiev governate as in Warsaw. Take the Baltics and Warsaw back too?

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:17 pm GMT
@German_reader That's just dumb.

No, it's just an argument you're not used to having to answer.

The reasons officially given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Saddam's regime hiding weapons of mass destruction and being an intolerable threat to the outside world -- were a transparently false pretext for war, and that was clearly discernible at the time.

It was nothing of the kind. That was on the list of concerns Bush had. Bush's trilemmas don't go away just because Eurotrash strike poses and have impoverished imaginations.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT
@reiner Tor I was a staunch Atlanticist at the time, and I believed all the propaganda about the supposed genocide

The concern at the time was that Serbia was beginning an ethnic cleansing operation contra the Albania population, but carry on.

inertial , December 18, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT
@Darin This is for them to decide, not for you.

Yes, of course. Just don't assume they will decide the way you think.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:21 pm GMT
@AP These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These polls are meaningless : most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless answer.

I'm sure, support for reunification will go up in Belarus, if the Kremlin shows some leadership on this issue. We will find enough people willing to work with us, the rest will just have to accept the new reality and go about their daily lifes as usual.

The situation in Ukraine is different, it differs wildly by region and will require us to modify our approach.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:24 pm GMT
@German_reader US started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own preferences.

It did nothing of the kind. It ejected two governments for reasons of state. One we'd been a state of belligerency with for 12 years, the other was responsible for a gruesome casus belli. Now, having done that, we needed to put in place a new government. There was no better alternative means of so doing than electoral contests.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@inertial Yes, of course. Just don't assume they will decide the way you think.

They've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade from now.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media? These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public opinion.

They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part, corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Art Deco

Were we defeated, Iraq would be ruled by the Ba'ath Party or networks of Sunni tribesman. It is not. This isn't that difficult Randal.

Well this is an old chestnut that is really just an attempt to abuse definitions of victory and defeat on your part.

The US invasion of Iraq itself was initially a military success. It ended in complete military victory over the Iraqi regime and nation, the complete surrender of the Iraqi military and the occupation of the country.

However, the US regime's wider war aims were not achieved because they were unable to impose a collaboration government and use the country as a base for further projection of US power in the ME (primarily against Iran, on behalf of Israel), and the overall result of the war and the subsequent occupation was catastrophic for any honest assessment of American national interests (as opposed to the interests of the lobbies manipulating US regime policy). The costs were significant, the reputational damage was also significant, and the overall result was to replace a contained and essentially broken opponent with vigorous sunni jihadist forces together with a resurgent Iran unwilling to kowtow to the US as most ME states are.

So the best honest assessment is that the US was defeated in Iraq, despite an initial military victory.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@Randal

The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis

I suspect the reason this happens is because ambitious American officers know that hating Iran (hating enemies of Israel in general) is what gets you promoted. It wasn't an accident that James Mattis was appointed Secretary of Defense -- he is Bill Kristol's favourite.

melanf , December 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.

Definitely no
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:38 pm GMT
@Art Deco US military is still butthurt over the Iran's support for Shia militias, targeting US troops during Iraq occupation. Clearly, the Shias hurt them a lot, and it was very unexpected for the US, because Americans actually brought Shias into power.
Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 8:42 pm GMT
@Randal

Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.

I am just taking into account that the early 00s were right after the 1990s when pro-Americanism was at its peak in Russia. Yugoslavia and Iraq were too distant too alienate the majority permanently.

I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after 9/11, though not so much after Iraq.

Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.

melanf , December 18, 2017 at 8:43 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Integration into West is what Russians wanted.
An example
08/2009:

Since then, everything has changed

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT
@Art Deco Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003. Your statement that this was merely one item "on the list of the concerns" Bush had, amounts to an admission that this was merely a pretext and that the real object of the war was a political reordering of the region according to US preferences (which of course backfired given that the Iraq war increased Iran's power and status).
Calling me "Eurotrash" oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all very unoriginal by now.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:48 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Destroying the Taliban government, yes. Building "democracy" is just stupid, though. They should've quickly left after the initial victory and let the Afghans to just eat each other with Stroganoff sauce if they so wished. It's not our business.

In fact destroying the Taliban government was both illegal and foolish (but the latter was by far the more important). It seems clear now the Taliban were quite willing to hand bin Laden over for trial in a third party country, and pretty clearly either had had no clue what he had been planning or were crapping themselves at what he had achieved. Bush declined that offer because he had an urgent political need to be seen to be kicking some foreign ass in order to appease American shame.

The illegality is not a particularly big deal in the case of Afghanistan because it's clear that in the post-9/11 context the US could easily have gotten UNSC authorisation for the attack and made it legal. Bush II deliberately declined to do so precisely in order to make the point that the US (in Americans' view) is above petty details of international law and its own treaty commitments. A rogue state, in other words.

But an attack on Afghanistan was unnecessary and foolish (for genuine American national interests, that is, not for the self-interested lobbies driving policy obviously), as the astronomical ongoing costs have demonstrated. A trial of bin Laden would have been highly informative (and some would argue that was why the US regime was not interested in such a thing), and would if nothing else have brought him out into the open. Yes, he would have had the opportunity to grandstand, but if the US were really such an innocent victim of unprovoked aggression why would the US have anything to fear from that? The whole world, pretty much, was on the US's side after 9/11.

The US could have treated terrorism as what it is, after 9/11 -- a criminal matter. It chose instead to make it a military matter, because that suited the various lobbies seeking to benefit from a more militarised and aggressive US foreign policy. The result of a US attack on the government of (most of) Afghanistan would always have been either a chaotic jihadi-riddled anarchy in Afghanistan worse than the Taliban-controlled regime that existed in 2001, or a US-backed regime trying to hold the lid down on the jihadists, that the US would have to prop up forever. And so indeed it came to pass.

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 8:51 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West.

There is no reason to assume that West will offer the Russian elite enough carrot to deregulate the Russian media order and the stick is just more reason not to do it and to retain control.

What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?

And you think that people in Russian elite are not aware of it?

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT
@AP

In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime.

This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000 -- does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?

On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority -- they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass. A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist" -- these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare, they will just flee (like they already fled from Donbass).

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT
@Randal

In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them.

I agree with most of this, but you leave out precisely why public opinion shifts. My, rather cynical, view is that media is by far the main driver in shifting public views, and so whoever gives the media marching orders is the Pied Piper here.

An example close to home was the consternation among some of my conservative friends over the events Charlottesville. They knew nothing about the American alt-right, and still less about the context of what happened that day, yet they still spoke of what a disgrace it was for Trump not to distance himself from these deplorables. This was, of course, fully the making of Swedish media. The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in the Donbass.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 18, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT
@German_reader

US nationalists like you

He is not US "nationalist". Agree with the rest of your post.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 18, 2017 at 9:01 pm GMT

while the percentage of Russians with actively negative views emerged essentially out of nowhere

LOL!!

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm GMT
@Swedish Family ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?

It tells me the reporters are confused or you are. There is no 'agreement' that will prevent 'Russia' from 'meddling' in American political life or the converse. The utility of agreements is that they make understandings between nations more precise and incorporate triggers which provide signals to one party or the other as to when the deal is off.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:04 pm GMT
@Swedish Family Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?

Why do people give up 'control' of anything? Because they cannot be bothered anymore.

utu , December 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT
@inertial Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in "between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy.

Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT
@German_reader Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons of mass destruction

No, that's what you noticed in an amongst everything else being discussed by officials and in the papers at the time.

which didn't exist in 2003.

It's a reasonable inference the stockpiles were largely destroyed. To what extent they were able to ship stockpiles to co-operating third parties is not altogether certain. You know the stockpiles were largely destroyed because . we were occupying the country .

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:11 pm GMT
@German_reader , amounts to an admission that this was merely a pretext a

It amounts to no such thing. That you have three reasons for doing something does not render one of them a 'real' reason and the others artificial.

Sean , December 18, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT
Two powerful countries beside one another are natural enemies, they can never be friends until one has been relegated by defeat. Britain and France were enemies until France became too weak to present a threat, then Britain's enemy was Germany (it still is, Brexit is another Dunkirk with the UK realising it cannot compete with Germany on the continent). Russia cannot be a friend of China against the US until Russia has been relegated in the way France has been. France has irrecoverably given up control of its currency, they are relegated to Germany's sidekick.

China is like Bitcoin. The smart money (Google) is going there. Received wisdom in the US keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When it becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down China's economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:13 pm GMT
@German_reader given that the Iraq war increased Iran's power and status).

Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because we had troops in Iraq?

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 9:16 pm GMT
@Art Deco What stockpiles are you talking about?
Johann Ricke , December 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT
@German_reader

Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003.

It was one of many reasons. You don't set a guy on Death Row free just because one of the charges didn't stick. The biggest reason was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, which should have resulted in his removal from power. We settled on a truce because George HW Bush did not want to pay the price, and the (mostly-Sunni) Arab coalition members did not want (1) a democracy in Iraq and (2) a Shiite-dominated Iraq. Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for that piece of unfinished business. The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT
@melanf

American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.

Being Russian, you would be in a better position than I am to comment on this, but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian public and for what purpose? This article might hold the answer:

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/re-visiting-russian-counter-propaganda-methods/

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 9:20 pm GMT
@Art Deco Well, they can now send troops to Syria on land.
Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm GMT
@German_reader Calling me "Eurotrash"

I didn't have you in particular in mind.

oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all very unoriginal by now.

No, I'm a fat middle aged man who thinks most of what people say on political topics is some species of self-congratulation. And a great deal of it is perverse. The two phenomena are symbiotic. And, of course, I'm unimpressed with kvetching foreigners. Kvetching Europeans might ask where is the evidence that they with their own skills and resources can improve some situation using methods which differ from those we have applied and kvetching Latin Americans can quit sticking the bill for their unhappy histories with Uncle Sam, and kvetching Arabs can at least take responsibility for something rather than projecting it on some wire-pulling other (Jews, Americans, conspiracy x).

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT
@Art Deco

Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because we had troops in Iraq?

Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear allegiance directly to Khamenei.

Is that "victory" for you?

An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them to assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something they never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.

Is that "victory" for you?

And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing again.

Is that "victory" for you?

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT
@reiner Tor And they can recruit more easily in post-Saddam Iraq.
AP , December 18, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These polls are meaningless: most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless answer.

So according to you when hundreds or thousands of people are asked a question they are not prepared for, their collective answer is meaningless and does not indicate their preference?

So it's a total coincidence that when Ukraine was ruled by Ukrainians most Crimeans preferred to join Russia, when Ukraine was ruled by a Russian, Crimeans were satisfied within Ukraine but when Ukrainian nationalists came to power Crimeans again preferred being part of Russia?

Are all political polls also meaningless according to you, or just ones that contradict your idealistic views?

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:29 pm GMT
@Sean Brexit is another Dunkirk with the UK realising it cannot compete with Germany on the continent).

No, it's an effort by the British public to reclaim for elected officials discretion which had been transferred to unaccountable microbes in Brussels.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 9:31 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000 -- does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?

In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder. (I'm not sure "draft" is the word I'm looking for. My understanding is that they are temporarily exempt from military service if they study at university or have good jobs.)

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT
@Randal Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear allegiance directly to Khamenei.

You can get away with more by using the prefix 'there has even been speculation'/

An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them to assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something they never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.

They've been supplying Hezbollah for 35 years.

And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing again.

Their western neighbor never invaded them 'with U.S. backing'. During the latter half of the Iraq war, Iraq restored diplomatic relations with the United States and received some agricultural credits and other odds and ends.

Iran will be under threat from their western neighbor should they have something that neighbor wishes to forcibly seize.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm GMT
@Johann Ricke

Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for that piece of unfinished business.

No, Bush II chose to invade Iraq entirely voluntarily. There was no good reason to do so, and the very good reasons why his father had sensibly chosen not to invade still largely applied (even more so in some cases, given Iraq's even weaker state).

The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.

This is of course self-serving fantasy. The Russians told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The sensible British told you there was no need to invade Iraq, but for some reason you preferred to listen to the words of the staring-eyed sycophant who happened to be Prime Minister at the time, instead.

More fool the Yanks. Most everyone else honest on the topic was giving you sensible advice. Bush II (whose incompetence is now generally accepted) chose to ignore that advice, and committed what is generally now regarded as the most egregious example of a foreign policy blunder since Vietnam at least, and probably since Suez, and will likely be taught as such around the world (including in the US, once the partisan apologists have given up trying to rationalise it) for generations to come.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm GMT
@Sean Received wisdom in the US keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When it becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down China's economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.

https://www.amazon.com/MITI-Japanese-Miracle-Industrial-1925-1975/dp/0804712069

Whatever.

melanf , December 18, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian public and for what purpose?

It is known -- the minions of Putin translated into Russian language American (and European) propaganda, and putting it on the website http://inosmi.ru/ .
The Americans also try: there is a special "Radio Liberty" that 24-hour broadcasts (in Russian) hate speech against the Russian.
But it only speeds up the process (which will happen anyway) .

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT
@Art Deco

They've been supplying Hezbollah for 35 years.

Only by air.

For the last four years, Iran was shipping weapons and ammunition to the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Hezbollah through an air route. This method allowed Israel to identify, track and target Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah easily, as only few cargo airplanes land in Syrian airports every day.

However, now Israel will be incapable of identifying any Iranian shipment on the new ground route, as it will be used by thousands of Iraq and Syrian companies on daily basis in the upcoming months. Experts believe that this will give Hezbollah and the SAA a huge advantage over Israel and will allow Iran to increase its supplies to its allies.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/12/httpssouthfrontorgfirst-iranian-military-convoy-enters-syria-through-land-route-from-iraq-reports.html

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT
@Art Deco US elites and media are constantly freaking out about some Iranian "empire" supposedly being created and threatening US allies in the mideast since you seem to put great trust in their credibility, shouldn't that concern you? Personally I think those fears are exaggerated, but how can it be denied that Iran's influence has increased a lot in recent years and that the removal of Saddam's regime facilitated that development? Iranian revolutionary guards and Iranian-backed Shia militias operate in Iraq, the Iraqi government maintains close ties to Iran, and Iran is also an active participant in the Syrian civil war would that have been conceivable like this before 2003?
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 9:52 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.

Well you have to wonder if he was just trolling the Americans, or if he was really naïve enough to expect a serious response.

Sean , December 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm GMT
@Art Deco Lord Weinstock said Britain could be de-industrialised in the EU, and how right he was.
AP , December 18, 2017 at 10:12 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000 -- does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?

It was about 50,000 in 2014, about 200,000-250,000 now.

Polish military has 105,000 personnel. Poland also not united or willing to defend itself?

On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority -- they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass

Avakov, Poroshenko's interior minister and sponsor of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, in 2010 got 48% of the vote in Kharkiv's mayoral race in 2010 when he ran as the "Orange" candidate. In 2012 election about 30% of Kharkiv oblast voters chose nationalist candidates, vs. about 10% in Donetsk oblast. Vkontakte, a good source for judging youth attitudes, was split 50/50 between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan in Kharkiv (IIRC it was 80/20 anti-Maidan winning in Donetsk). Kharkiv is just like Donbas, right?

A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist"

Football hooligans in these places are also Ukrainian nationalists. Azov battalion and Right Sector are both based in Eastern Ukraine.

Here is how Azov started:

The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect 82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv, "Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]

Here is Azov battalion commander-turned-Kiev oblast police chief, Kharkiv native Vadim Troyan:

Does he look like an intellectual to you? Before Maidan he was a cop.

these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare,

On the contrary, they will probably dig in while seeking cover in urban areas that they know well, where they have some significant support (as Donbas rebels did in Donetsk), forcing the Russian invaders to fight house to house and causing massive damage while fighting native boys such as Azov. About 1/3 of Kharkiv overall and 1/2 of its youth are nationalists. I wouldn't expect mass resistance by the Kharkiv population itself, but passive support for the rebels by many. Russia will then end up rebuilding a large city full of a resentful population that will remember its dead (same problem Kiev will face if it gets Donbas back). This scenario can be repeated for Odessa. Dnipropetrovsk, the home base of Right Sector, is actually much more nationalistic than either Odessa or Kharkiv. And Kiev is a different world again. Bitter urban warfare in a city of 3 million (officially, most likely about 4 million) followed by massive reconstruction and maintenance of a repression regime while under international sanctions.

Russia's government has adequate intelligence services who know better what Ukraine is actually like, than you do. There is a reason why they limited their support to Crimea and Donbas.

Your wishful thinking about Ukraine would be charming and harmless if not for the fact that such wishful thinking often leads to tragic actions that harm both the invader and the invaded. Remember the Iraqis were supposed to welcome the American liberators with flowers after their cakewalk.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 10:14 pm GMT
@Swedish Family Only by air.

How often has Israel shot down Iranian aircraft?

However, now Israel will be incapable of identifying any Iranian shipment on the new ground route,

Not buying.

neutral , December 18, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT
@AP

Does he look like an intellectual to you?

The question reminds me of this:

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 10:20 pm GMT
@Sean The share of value-added in industry as a share of global product has been declining for over 50 years. In the EU, industry accounts for 24.5% of value added. In Britain, the figure is 20.2%. Not seeing why that animates you.
AP , December 18, 2017 at 10:22 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder.

Correct. The thinking often was -- "the corrupt officers will screw up and get us killed, or sell out our positions to the Russians for money, if the Russians came to our city I'd fight them but I don't wanna go to Donbas.." This is very different from avoiding the draft because one wouldn't mind if Russia annexed Ukraine. Indeed, Dnipropetrovsk in the East has contributed a lot to Ukraine's war effort, primarily because it borders Donbas -- ones hears from people there that if they don't fight in Donbas and keep the rebels contained there, they'd have to fight at home.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 10:28 pm GMT
US elites and media are constantly freaking out about some Iranian "empire" supposedly being created and threatening US allies in the mideast

No, they aren't. The political class has been anxious about Iran because it's sinking a lot of resources into building weapons of mass destruction, because key actors therein adhere to apocalyptic conceptions, and because it's a weirdly (and gratuitously) hostile country.

since you seem to put great trust in their credibility, shouldn't that concern you? Personally I think those fears are exaggerated, but how can it be denied that Iran's influence has increased a lot in recent years and that the removal of Saddam's regime facilitated that development? Iranian revolutionary guards and Iranian-backed Shia militias operate in Iraq, the Iraqi government maintains close ties to Iran, and Iran is also an active participant in the Syrian civil war would that have been conceivable like this before 2003?

You keep alluding to things that cannot be quantified or even readily verified. Iran's taken advantage of disordered situations in the past (in Lebanon), so it's not surprising they do so in Syria. The disordered situation there is a function of the breakdown of government in Syria, not of the Iraq war. Whether any influence Iran has in Iraq turns out to be abiding remains to be seen. The anxiety about Iraq has concerned it's inclination to subvert friendly governments and drop atomic weaponry on Israel. Not sure how their subrosa dealings with the Iraqi government further the latter (or even the former).

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT
@AP LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types. And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.

The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few of them -- no more than 10.000 in the entire country. I assume Russian security services know all of them by name.

To deal with Ukronazi problem, I would first take out their leaders, then target their HQs, arms depots and training camps. I would kill or intimidate their sponsors. Ukronazis would be left decapitated, without resources, undermanned and demoralised, trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them. It will be a short lived insurgency.

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 10:46 pm GMT
@Art Deco

No, they aren't.

The supposed threat of an Iranian empire is a common theme in interventionist US media and in certain think tanks/pressure groups, even five minutes of googling produced this:

https://nypost.com/2015/02/01/the-iranian-dream-of-a-reborn-persian-empire/

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/15/fmr-nato-supreme-allied-commander-stavridis-iran-will-be-imperial-power-due-to-iran-deals-golden-shower-of-money/

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/iran-and-the-imperialism-hypocrisy/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/30/what-to-do-about-an-imperial-iran-middle-east-persia-regional-dominance/

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/may-clifford-d-the-new-persian-empire/ (btw, the Foundation for defense of democracies agrees with me that the removal of Saddam's regime was to Iran's benefit).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/henry-kissinger-isis-iranian-radical-empire-middle-east-a7881541.html

Obviously I don't want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, though imo US policy in this regard has been rather counter-productive recently.
Regarding the Iraq war, it's probably pointless to continue the discussion, if you want to continue regarding it as a great idea, I won't argue with you.

Talha , December 18, 2017 at 10:56 pm GMT
I remember my dad telling me that the Carter administration was the highlight of America-love in Pakistan. Slowly went downhill from there and crashed at Dubya.

Peace.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types.

And Russians and Poles were also soft when someone invaded their country? Ukrainians are not modern western Euros.

And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.

Most pensioners. It will be about 50/50 among young fighting-age people.

The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few of them -- no more than 10.000 in the entire country

Maybe. Ukrainian government claims 46,000 in volunteer self-defense battalions (including Azov) but this is probably an exaggeration.

OTOH there are a couple 100,000 demobilized young people with combat experience who would be willing to fight if their homeland were attacked, who are not neo-Nazis in Azov. Plus a military of 200,000-250,000 people, many of whom would imitate the Donbas rebels and probably redeploy in places like Kharkiv where they have cover. Good look fighting it out block by block.

trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them

In 2010, 48% of Kharkiv voters chose a nationalist for their mayor. In 2012 about 30% voted for nationalist parties. Judging by pro vs, anti-Maidan, the youth are evenly split although in 2014 the Ukrainian nationalist youths ended up controlling the streets, not the Russian nationalist ones as in Donbas. This is in the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.

Suuure, the population of Kharkiv will despise their kids, grandkids, nephews, classmates etc,. but will welcome the invaders from Russia who will be bombing their city. Such idealism and optimism in Russia!

It will be a short lived insurgency.

And Iraq was supposed to be a cakewalk.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 11:04 pm GMT
@German_reader The supposed threat of an Iranian empire is a common theme in interventionist US media

"Imperial" or "Imperialist" is a term of art among IR specialists referring to active revisionist powers in a given state system.

The people you are linking to are a mixed bunch. One's a lapsed reporter. Two are opinion journalists with background (one in the military and one in the intelligence services, or so he says), one has been out of office for 40 years (and, IMO, is engaging in the academic's exercise of attention-seeking through counter-factual utterance; there's little downside to that), and one actually is someone who has been a policy-maker in the last generation (and he's offering a critique of the Iran deal, which was not a Bush administration initiative).

Johann Ricke , December 18, 2017 at 11:06 pm GMT
@Randal

This is of course self-serving fantasy. The Russians told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The sensible British told you there was no need to invade Iraq, but for some reason you preferred to listen to the words of the staring-eyed sycophant who happened to be Prime Minister at the time, instead.

Who gives a damn what they think? These are the same countries that plunged the world into two World Wars that killed 100m people between them. Their blinkered and self-serving stupidity is a model for what not to do.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 11:06 pm GMT
@Talha I remember my dad telling me that the Carter administration was the highlight of America-love in Pakistan. Slowly went downhill from there and crashed at Dubya.

I remember Gen. Zia on the front page of The New York Times ridiculing Mr. Carter in plain terms (the $400 million aid offer was 'peanuts').

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 11:10 pm GMT
@Randal The Russians told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The sensible British told you there was no need to invade Iraq,

The sensible British were a co-operating force in invading Iraq. As for the rest, they all have their shticks and interests (and no, I don't stipulate that you've characterized their opinion correctly either).

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Sounds like fun.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 11:14 pm GMT
@German_reader

And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued vehemently with a stupid leftie teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified, so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American fool). But Iraq was just too much, too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it was hard not to feel that there was something deeply wrong with a large part of the American public if they were gullible enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it was a real turning point in the evolution of my political views.

The common factor amongst you, reiner and myself here is that none of us come from a dogmatically anti-American background or personal world-view, nor from a dogmatically pacifist one.

As I've probably noted here previously, I grew up very pro-American and very pro-NATO in the late Cold War, and as a strong supporter of Thatcher and Reagan. I saw the fall of the Soviet Union as a glorious triumph and a vindication of all the endless arguments against anti-American lefties and CND numpties. I also strongly supported the Falklands War (the last genuinely justified and intelligent war fought by my country, imo) and also the war against Iraq in 1990/1, though I'm a little less certain on that one nowadays. I'm significantly older than you both, it seems, however, and it was watching US foreign policy in the 1990s, culminating in the Kosovo war, that convinced me that the US is now the problem and not the solution.

When the facts changed, I changed my opinion.

So I was a war or two ahead of you, chronologically, because I'm older, but we've travelled pretty much the same road. Our views on America have been created by US foreign policy choices.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 11:15 pm GMT
@AP Again, supporting Maidan doesn't mean you're ready to take up Kalashnikov and go fight. Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.

This is what typical Maidanist Ukrainian youths look like; these people certainly don't look like they have a lot of fight in them:

They remind me of Navalny supporters in Russia. These kind of people can throw a tantrum, but they are fundamentally weak people, who are easily crushed.

RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:16 pm GMT
@Donnyess I haven't heard either Russia, or the Right in the USA, alleging that African-"Americans" are taking white Americans' jobs.

Generally, I don't know anyone in the USA whose complaint about African-"Americans" is that they are working.

RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:17 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Similarly, it doesn't seem likely that the US government will give up its control and influence over the "independent media" that many Americans still think we have.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 11:18 pm GMT
@Johann Ricke

Who gives a damn what they think?

Well history has proven them to have been correct and the US regime wrong on Iraq, so that pretty much tells you how far your arrogance will get you outside your own echo chamber.

US foreign policy is pretty much a byword for incompetence even amongst its own allies, at least when they are talking off the record.

RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:22 pm GMT
@Art Deco Folks in Belarus shouldn't make up their minds about applying to the EU until they speak with regular German, French, English, and Swedish people about the effects of the Islamic / Third World immivasion that the EU has imposed on them. My wife and I speak & correspond with Germans living in Germany frequently, and the real state of affairs for non-elite Germans is getting worse fast, with no good end in sight.

Anyone who does not desire to die or at best live subjugated under sharia -- and sharia run largely by cruel dimwits from Africa and Arabia -- ought to stay out (or GET out of) the EU.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 11:24 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter It shocks me, the amount of supposedly 'smart', 'educated' people in the US, who seriously think "free press" is a thing.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 11:25 pm GMT
@Art Deco

The sensible British were a co-operating force in invading Iraq.

That was the staring-eyed sycophant's work.

The man who opened the floodgates to immigration because he thought multiculturalism is a great idea.

As for the rest, they all have their shticks and interests

Of course. Unlike the exceptional United States of course, the only country in the world whose government never has any axe to grind in the nobility of purpose and intent it displays in all the wars it has ever fought.

You seem to be degenerating into a caricature of the ignorant, arrogant American.

Johann Ricke , December 18, 2017 at 11:31 pm GMT
@Randal

Well history has proven them to have been correct and the US regime wrong on Iraq, so that pretty much tells you how far your arrogance will get you outside your own echo chamber.

"History" has proven no such thing. What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's underestimate of the number of American casualties and the cost to the US treasury*, for which he and the GOP paid a serious political price. However, it's also clear that the Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets that Saddam is gone. While both communities seem to think that we should continue to bear a bigger chunk of the price of pacifying Iraq's bellicose Sunni Arabs, it's also obvious that they are not electing Tikritis or even Sunni Arabs to office, as they would if they were nostalgic for Saddam's rule. The big picture, really, is that the scale of the fighting has probably convinced both Shiites and Kurds that they could not have toppled Saddam without the assistance of Uncle Sam. They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at bay without American assistance.

* These costs were larger than projected, but small compared to the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Whether or not Iraq can be secured as an American ally in the decades ahead, both the gamble and the relatively nugatory price paid will, in retrospect, be seen as a reasonable one, given Iraq's strategic location.

Talha , December 18, 2017 at 11:40 pm GMT
@Art Deco Sure, but the ordinary folks liked him -- he seemed like a humble man with faith from humble beginnings. Pakistanis could relate to someone like that.

I was just a wee lad at the time, so I'm only conveying what my dad told me.

Peace.

RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:51 pm GMT
@Art Deco Well, there is some reason to think that membership in the EU will become a steadily less attractive prospect.

The substantial demographic changes sweeping northern and western Europe now will become far larger as (1) new "migration" occurs from Africa and the Middle East and Pakistan into Europe; (2) "family reunification" chain migration goes on endlessly from the same places into Europe; and (3) Muslims continue to dramatically outbreed non-Muslims in Europe.

(Even if Muslims in Europe drop their total fertility rate to replacement, around 2.1 I think, the non-Muslim Europeans have TFRs like 1.4 and 1.5 and 1.6, the very definition of dying peoples.)

And that doesn't even account for the flight of non-Muslims out of Europe as it becomes ever more violent, frightening, chaotic, and impoverished. That flight could become a massive phenomenon. (We have acquaintances in Germany and Austria already mulling over the idea, with great sadness and anger in their hearts.)

On current trends, what reason is there to think that "Germany" and "France" and "England" and "Sweden" won't in fact be heavily Islamic / African (and in the case of Germany, Turkish) hellholes in the lifetime of many of us here?

Granted, Russia has too many Muslims itself, and I don't know enough to predict whether they will be willing and able to remove the excessive number of Central Asian Muslims (guestworkers or otherwise) from their territory. But Russia is not giving itself away to Muslims at a breakneck pace like the terminally naïve Germans, French, English, and Swedes are doing with their own countries.

The point is, Belarus and Ukraine won't be faced with a choice between Russia and the "Europe" that we still envision from the recent past.

Belarus and Ukraine will likely face a choice between a tenuous independence that they lack the force to maintain, union or close formal affiliation with Russia, or a "Europe" where white Europeans are outnumbered, terrified, massively taxed to pay for their younger and more confident Islamic / African overlords, and ultimately subjugated and killed / inter-bred into nonexistence.

The Europe that you are positing as an alternative to Russia, already doesn't quite exist anymore. Soon it won't exist at all in any recognizable or desirable form. Russia merely needs to be a better alternative than THAT.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 11:54 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter Fine. The EU is poorly constructed and a threat to self-government.

Mr. Felix fancies White Russia is Russia's property. There's a constituency in White Russia for re-incorporation into Russia, but it amounts to about 1/4 of the population and is half the proportion it was 20 years ago. Kinda think it really shouldn't be Mr. Felix's call, but he doesn't see it that way.

RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:59 pm GMT
@German_reader Agree with much of what you say. With a big exception": most Europeans ARE pussies who try to appease the Islamic and African aggressors and freeloaders they are importing into their lands at a furious pace. Besonders die Deutschen.

At least SOME decent portion of Americans are trying to resist the Mexican and Third World takeover of our country. Albeit probably without success.

Summary: we're probably screwed, you're almost certainly screwed worse and faster.

Keep patting yourself on the back. But grow that beard now and bend over -- and beat the rush.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 12:03 am GMT
@RadicalCenter Belarus and Ukraine will likely face a choice between a tenuous independence that they lack the force to maintain,

Just to point out that occasions where a state has had its sovereignty extinguished since 1945 are as follows: East Germany (1990, voluntary), South Yemen (1990, voluntary, but triggering an insurrection), Kuwait (1990, temporary), South VietNam (1975/76, conquered). Not real common. N.B. the Axis rampage in Europe and Asia during the War: the only thing that stuck was Soviet Russia's seizure of the Baltic states.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 12:07 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Why don't you present us a photo of yourself, so that we can see what a true Russian warrior looks like?

I think I've found one of you?

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:08 am GMT
@RadicalCenter

At least SOME decent portion of Americans are trying to resist the Mexican and Third World takeover of our country.

30 years too late, though I'll readily admit that I was somewhat impressed how normal US citizens managed to kill off amnesty proposals during Bush's 2nd administration by lobbying their congressmen etc. Quite the contrast with what's going on in my own country where people just meekly submit to everything.
And I've never denied that many Europeans are quite decadent they should certainly spend more for their own defense, maybe even bring back conscription.

Randal , December 19, 2017 at 12:08 am GMT
@Johann Ricke

What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's underestimate of the number of American casualties and the cost to the US treasury

No, what went wrong in Iraq from the pov of any kind of honest assessment of an American national interest was that an unnecessary war was fought justified by lies that have seriously discredited the nation that told them, and that the results of the war were hugely counter to said American national interests: the conversion of a contained and broken former enemy state into a jihadist free fire training and recruitment zone combined with a strong ally of a supposed enemy state, Iran.

Whether the direct material cost of the war is acceptable or not is rather beside the point. It's a matter between Bush II and the parents, relatives and friends of those Americans who lost their lives or their health, and between Bush II and American taxpayers. If it had been achieved cost-free it still wouldn't have been worth it, because it was a defeat.

But it's no accident that the costs of the war were "underestimated". As usual, if the Bush II regime had been honest about the likely costs of their proposed war, there would have been a political outcry against it and they'd have been forced to back down as Obama was over Syria.

However, it's also clear that the Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets that Saddam is gone

Amusing to see you are currently pretending that what Iraqi Kurds and Shiites feel matters. It's always entertaining to see just how shameless Americans can be at their game of alternately pretending to care for foreigners' views (when they need to justify a war) and regarding foreigners with utter contempt and disregard (when said foreigners are saying something Americans don't like to hear).

They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at bay without American assistance.

Well that partly depends upon how much support the US regime allowed its Gulf sunni Arab proxies to funnel to said jihadists, I suppose. But most likely they'd have crushed them in due course with Iranian backing.

In Iraq, IS were fine as long as they stayed out of the strongly Shiite areas in the south. They'd have quickly been whipped if they'd ventured there. Just as IS were fine in Syria as long as they were taking relatively remote land over from a government and army in desperate straits as a result of a disastrous externally funded civil war, but were soon beaten when the Russians stepped in and started actually fighting them rather than pretending to do so only as long as it didn't interfere too much with their real goal of overthrowing the Syria government, American-style.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 12:16 am GMT
@German_reader I see that Art Deco got more active than usual. Seems that the destruction of Iraq is close to his heart. Several days ago Ron Unz had this to say about him:

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116171
Exactly! It's pretty obvious that this "Art Deco" fellow is just a Jewish-activist type, and given his very extensive posting history, perhaps even an organized "troll." But he's certainly one of the most sophisticated ones, with the vast majority of his comments being level-headed, moderate, and very well-informed, generally focusing on all sorts of other topics, perhaps with the deliberate intent of building up his personal credibility for the periodic Jewish matters that actually so agitate him.

To which I added:

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116402
The quality and wide range of his comments are really impressive. As if it was coming form a super intelligent AI Hal that has access to all kinds of databases at his finger tips. And then there is always the same gradient of his angle: the reality is as it is; reality is as you have been told so far; do not try to keep coming with weird theories and speculations because they are all false; there is nothing interesting to see. His quality and scope are not congruent with his angle. All his knowledge and all his data and he hasn't found anything interesting that would not conform to what we all read in newspapers. Amazing. If America had its High Office of Doctrine and Faith he could have been its supreme director.

His overactivity here is somewhat out of character and after reading his comments here I doubt that Ron Unz would call him "one of the most sophisticated ones." I also would take back the "really impressive" part too. Perhaps some other individuum was assigned to Art Deco handle this Monday.

Randal , December 19, 2017 at 12:27 am GMT
Speaking of US foreign policy stupidity and arrogance, the response to the latest evidence that Trump will continue the inglorious Clinton/Bush II/Obama tradition of destructive corrupt/incompetent buffoonery:

US outnumbered 14 to 1 as it vetoes UN vote on status of Jerusalem

And here's the profoundly noxious Nikki Haley "lying for her country" (except, bizarrely, it isn't even really for her own country). Her appointment by Trump certainly was one of the first signs that he was going to seriously let America down:

The resolution was denounced in furious language by the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, who described it as "an insult" that would not be forgotten. "The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy," she said.

"It's scandalous to say we are putting back peace efforts," she added. "The fact that this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in defence of America's role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the security council."

The real nature of the UN resolution the execrable Haley was so faux-offended by:

The UK and France had indicated in advance that they would would back the text, which demanded that all countries comply with pre-existing UNSC resolutions on Jerusalem, dating back to 1967, including requirements that the city's final status be decided in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

But requiring Israel and its US poodles to act in good faith is surely anti-Semitic, after all. The real beneficiary (he thinks, at least) of Trump's and Haley's buffoonery was suitably condescending in his patting of his poodles' heads:

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, tweeted: "Thank you, Ambassador Haley. On Hanukkah, you spoke like a Maccabi. You lit a candle of truth. You dispel the darkness. One defeated the many. Truth defeated lies. Thank you, President Trump."

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT
@utu Art Deco isn't Jewish iirc, but an (Irish?) Catholic from the northeastern US. And I suppose his views aren't even that extreme, but pretty much standard among many US right-wingers (a serious problem imo), so it makes little sense to attack him personally.
utu , December 19, 2017 at 12:29 am GMT
@German_reader Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons

The fact that Iraq had no WMD was actually critical to making the claims that it had them. If Iraq had them it would officially relinquish them which would take away the ostensive cause for the invasion.

I am really amazed that now 14 years after the invasion there are some who still argue about the WMD. Iraq was to be destroyed because this was the plan. The plan to reorganize the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria. The WDM was just an excuse that nobody really argued for or against in good faith including Brits or Germans or Turks. Everybody knew the writing on the wall.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT
@German_reader it makes little sense to attack him personally

Yes, personal attacks are counterproductive but I can't resit, I just can't help it, so I must to say what I said already several times in the past: you are a cuck. You are a hopeless case.

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:41 am GMT
@utu

The plan to reorganize the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria.

Has to be admitted though that Iraq became increasingly less secular during the 1990s, with Saddam's regime pushing Islamization as a new source of legitimacy. It's probably no accident that former Baath people and officers of Saddam's army were prominent among the leadership of IS.
Still hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:48 am GMT
@utu With all due respect to you and Ron Unz, but the idea that someone like "Art Deco" is an "organized troll" who creates an elaborate fake persona (which he then maintains over multiple years on several different websites -- I first encountered him years ago on the American conservative's site) to spread pro-Jewish views seems somewhat paranoid to me.
I have no reason to doubt he's genuine (as far as that's possible on the internet), his views aren't unusual.
RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 3:16 am GMT
@German_reader Agree with everything you just wrote. And please understand, I love the Germans and I'm angry at them in the way that you'd be angry at a brother who refuses to stop destroying himself with drugs or whatever.
John Gruskos , December 19, 2017 at 3:25 am GMT
@German_reader The commenter using the name "Art Deco" is NOT an American nationalist.

He is neocon trash.

Cato , December 19, 2017 at 3:43 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Northern Kazakhstan is/was ethnically Russian, since the 1700s. This should have been folded into Russia; the North Caucasus should have been cut loose. My opinion.
AP , December 19, 2017 at 3:53 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Typical Russian mistakes regarding Ukraine: weak student-types in Russia are the main supporters of Ukraine in Russia, thus the same type must be the main pro-Maidan people in Ukraine. Because Ukraine = Russia. This silly dream of Ukraine being just like Russia leads to ridiculous ideas and hopes.

As I already said, the Azov battalion grew out of brawling football ultras in Kharkiv. Maidan itself was a cross-section -- of students, yes, but also plenty of Afghan war vets, workers, far right brawlers, professionals, etc. It's wasn't simply "weak" students, nor was it simply far-right fascists (another claim by Russia) but a mass effort of the western half of the country.

Here are Afghan war vets at Maidan:

Look at those weak Maidan people running away from the enemy:

Azov people in their native Kharkiv:

Kharkiv kids:

Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.

Dodging the draft in order to avoid fighting in Donbas, where you are not wanted by the locals, is very different from dodging the draft to avoid fighting when your own town is being invaded.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:10 am GMT
@AP Summer camp was in Kiev, but there is another outside Kharkiv.

To be clear, most Ukrainians fighting against Russia are not these unsavory types, though they make for dramatic video. Point is that pro-Maidan types in Ukraine are far from being exclusively liberal student-types.

Anon , Disclaimer December 19, 2017 at 5:08 am GMT
@RadicalCenter Said a dude who invested in an Asian woman.
utu , December 19, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT
@German_reader Still hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.

What do you mean by that? Are you so out of touch? You really do not understand what was the reason behind Iraq 2003 war and then fucking it up when Gen. Garner was recalled and replaced with Paul Bremer who drove Iraq to the ground? Repeat after me: Iraq was destroyed because this was the only objective of 2003 Iraq war. The mission was accomplished 100%.

jimbojones , December 19, 2017 at 8:01 am GMT
A few points:
- The Russians ALWAYS were Americanophiles -- ever since the Revolution. Russia has been an American ally most often explicit but occasionally tacit -- in EVERY major American conflict, including the War on Terror and excluding Korea and Vietnam (both not major compared to the Civil War or WW2). The only comparable Great Power US ally is France. Russia and the US are natural allies.
- Russians are Americanophiles -- they like Hollywood movies, American music, American idealism, American video games, American fashion, American inventions, American support in WW2, American can-do-aittude, American badassery and Americana in general.
- There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity that is not Russian.
- The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government. Yanukovich was certainly a corrupt scoundrel. But he was a democratically elected corrupt scoundrel. To claim Russian intervention in his election is a joke in light of the CIA-backed 2004 and 2014 coups. Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian
LondonBob , December 19, 2017 at 8:18 am GMT
@Andrei Martyanov Art Deco is a Zionist, just checkout his reaction when you point out Israel assassinated JFK.
LondonBob , December 19, 2017 at 8:19 am GMT
@utu Israel wanted Iraq destroyed, it was.
Anatoly Karlin , Website December 19, 2017 at 1:35 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich I think this poll is the most relevant for assessing the question, since it covered different regions and used the same methodology.

Takeaway:

1. Support for uniting into a single state with Russia at 41% in Crimea at a time when it was becoming quite clear the Yanukovych regime was doomed.

2. Now translates into ~90% support (according to both Russian and international polls) in Crimea. I.e., a more than a standard deviation shift in "Russophile" sentiment on this matter.

3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with Russia post facto . Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the Ukraine before 2014).

4. Central and West Ukraine would not be, which is why their reintegration would be far more difficult -- and probably best left for sometime in the future.

5. What we have instead seen is a one standard deviation shift in "Ukrainophile" sentiment within all those regions that remained in the Ukraine. If this change is "deep," then AP is quite correct that their assimilation into Russia has been made impossible by Putin's vacillations in 2014.

Anon , Disclaimer December 19, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT
@LondonBob Check out any American's reaction when some random Londoner tells him Israel assassinated JFK.
for-the-record , December 19, 2017 at 2:15 pm GMT
@German_reader they [Germans] should certainly spend more for their own defense, maybe even bring back conscription .

With all due respect, and making allowance for your relative youth, that is simply rubbish. Defense against whom? Russia? Iran? As your posts make it eminently clear, the real enemy of Germany is within, not without.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT
@jimbojones

The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government

Typical Russian nationalist half-truth about Ukraine.

To be clear -- Yanukovich was democratically elected in 2010, into a position where his powers were limited and where he was faced with a hostile parliament. His post-election accumulation of powers (overthrowing the Opposition parliament, granting himself additional powers, stacking the court with local judges from his hometown) was not democratic. None of these actions enjoyed popular support, none were made through democratic processes such as referendums or popular elections. Had that been the case, he would not have been overthrown in what was a popular mass revolt by half the country.

There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity that is not Russian.

A bit closer to the truth, but much too simplistic in a way that favors Russian idealism. Crimea (60% Russian) was simply not Ukraine, so lumping it in together with a place such as Kharkiv (oblast 70% Ukrainian) and saying that Russia took one part of this uniformly "Russian Ukraine" is not accurate.

You are correct that the western half of the country are a non-Russian Polish-but-not Habsburg central Ukraine/Volynia, and Polish-and-Habsburg Galicia.

But the other half consisted of two parts: ethnic Russian Crimea (60% Russian) and largely ethniuc-Russian urban Donbas (about 45% Russian, 50% Ukrainian), and a heavily Russified but ethnic Ukrainian Kharkiv oblast (70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian), Dnipropetrovsk (80% Ukrainian, 20% Russian), Kherson (82% Ukrainian, 14% Russian), and Odessa oblast (63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian).

The former group (Crimea definitely, and urban Donbas less strongly) like being part of Russia. The latter group, on the other hand, preferred that Ukraine and Russia have friendly ties, preferred Russian as a legal language, preferred economic union with Russia, but did not favor loss of independence. Think of them as pro-NAFTA American-phile Canadians who would nevertheless be opposed to annexation by the USA and would be angered if the USA grabbed a chunk of Canada. In grabbing a chunk of Ukraine and supporting a rebellion in which Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk kids are being shot by Russian-trained fighters using Russian-supplied bullets, Putin has turned these people off the Russian state.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with Russia post facto. Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the Ukraine before 2014).

'Asumptions' like this are what provide Swiss cheese the airy substance that makes it less caloric! Looks like only the retired sovok population in the countryside is up to supporting your mythical 'NovoRosija' while the more populated city dwellers would be opposed, even by your own admission (and even this is questionable). I'm surprised that the dutifully loyal and most astute opposition (AP) has let this blooper pass without any comment?

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin I think when answering this question, most people simple give what they consider to be the socially acceptable answer, especially in comtemporary Ukraine, where you will go to prison for displaying Russian flag -- who wants to be seen as a "separatist"?

In Crimea it has become more socially acceptable to identify with Russia following the reunification, which is why the number of people who answer this way shot up . The same effect will seen in Belarus and Ukraine -- I'm fairly certain of it.

Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson

Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society. Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters. Most of them will react to Russian takeover by self-deporting -- they have the money and resources to do it.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters.

Repeating your claim over and over again doesn't make it true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect 82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv, "Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]

The brawling East Ukrainian nationalists who took the streets of Kharkiv and Odessa were not mostly rich, fey hipsters.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society.

So, even by tour own admission, the only folks that would be for unifying with Russia are the uneducated, poor and those with no hopes of ever amounting to much in society. I don't agree with you, but I do see your logic. These are just the type of people that are the most easily manipulated by Russian propoganda -- a lot of this went on in the Donbas, and we can see the results of that fiasco to this day.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 19, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT
@jimbojones

Russia and the US are natural allies.

While geopolitically and historically it is true:

a)Post-WWII American power elites are both incompetent and arrogant (which is a first derivative of incompetence) to understand that -- this is largely the problem with most "Western" elites.

b) Currently the United States doesn't have enough (if any) geopolitical currency and clout to "buy" Russia. In fact, Russia can take what she needs (and she doesn't have "global" appetites) with or without the US. Plus, China is way more interested in Russia's services that the US, which will continue to increasingly find out more about its own severe military-political limitations.

c) The United States foreign policy is not designed and is not being conducted to serve real US national interests. In fact, US can not even define those interests beyond the tiresome platitudes about "global interests" and being "exceptional".

d) Too late

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
@AP I like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis, it's kinda funny actually, so let me pose as Ukraine's "defender" here:

This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern Ukraine. These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes. They are despised, looked down upon by the normal people, pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian alike. A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges draft. It's just the way it is.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 19, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT
@jimbojones

American music

One substantial correction: generation which now is in power and defines most of Russia's dynamics, age group of 40s-50s, was largely influenced by British music, not American one, despite its definite presence in cultural menu in 1960 through 1980s. British music was on the order of magnitude more popular and influential in USSR. The love for American music was rather conditional and very selective. Of course, jazz was and is huge among educated and cultured, but in terms of pop/rock if one discounts immensely popular Eagles (for obvious reason), Donna Summer or something on the order of magnitude of Chicago, British pop-music was a different universe altogether. Beatles, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple or even British Glam were immense in 1970s, not to mention NWBHM in 1980s. One would have more luck hearing Iron Maiden blasting from windows somewhere in Russia than music of Michael Jackson.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT
@AP The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and perhaps even political power. Azov is simply a gang. And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs, so I don't expect Ukronazis to pose a major challenge.
Gerard2 , December 19, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT
@AP [MORE]
RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT
@Anon Yes, a highly intelligent, hardworking, conservative, Christian Asian woman who loves and appreciates America, is the same as a Muslim African, Arab or Paki whose religion tells him to subjugate or kill us. No drastic difference in genetics or the impact on our culture, language, economy, and security there.

Moreover, allowing our native-born white citizens to choose spouses from elsewhere is the same as admitting tens of millions of people with little to no screening whatsoever (the latter being admitted in the interest of those who actively seek the most dimwitted, violent, intimidating, slothful, hateful, and incompatible people psosible in order to endanger, impoverish, and dumb down out people and set the stage for us to "need" a police state to manage the chaos and crime they bring).

Your logic is impeccable, I'll admit.

How long have you been married, by the way? And how many children are you raising? I just ask because I am sure we can compare notes and I can benefit from your manly experience and expertise.

Get a consistent handle to use on this site. Then tell us personal details as many of us have done. Then we can have a further friendly chat, big anonymous man who comments on other men's wives.

reiner Tor , December 19, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich I'm not sure about Ukrainian football hooligans, but football hooligans in Hungary are not necessarily "low -lifes, criminals, delinquents", in fact, the majority of them aren't. Most groups consist mostly of working class (including a lot of security guards and similar) members, but there are some middle class (I know of a school headmaster, though I think he's no longer very active in the group) and working class entrepreneur types (e.g. the car mechanic who ended up owning a car dealership) and similar. I think outright criminal types are a small minority. Since it costs money to attend the matches, outright failures (the permanently unemployed and similar ne'er-do-wells) are rarely found in such groups.
reiner Tor , December 19, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

One would have more luck hearing Iron Maiden blasting from windows somewhere in Russia than music of Michael Jackson.

What about Metallica or Slayer? The famous 1991 Monsters of Rock in Moscow featured I think Metallica in its prime and Pantera right before they became really big (and heavy).

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT
@LondonBob Art Deco is a Zionist, just checkout his reaction when you point out Israel assassinated JFK.

My reaction is that you need to take your risperidal, bathe, and quit pestering people for bits of cash. And make your clinic appointments. They're sick of seeing you at the ED.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 3:49 pm GMT
@LondonBob Israel wanted Iraq destroyed, it was.

The actually existing Israeli officialdom advised the Bush administration to give priority to containing Iran.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT
@reiner Tor LOL I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their pastime. Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder, kidnapping and racketeering. Their criminal activities go unpunished by the regime, because they are considered "heroes" or something.
AP , December 19, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

I like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis

I never denied the presence of them.

This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern Ukraine.

If by "representative" you mean majority, sure. Neither are artsy students, or Afghan war veterans, or schoolteachers, any other group a majority.

Also not all of the street fighters turned militias neo-Nazis, as are Azov. Right Sector are not neo-Nazis, they are more fascists.

These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes.

As reiner tor correctly pointed out, this movement which grew out of the football ultra community is rather working class but is not lumpens. You fail again.

A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges draft

Are there more business owners, students (many of whom do not dodge the draft), office workers combined than there are ultras/far-right brawlers? Probably. 30% of Kharkiv voted for nationalist parties (mostly Tymoshenko's and Klitschko's moderates) in the 2012 parliamentary elections, under Yanukovich. That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?

The exteme nationalist Banderist Svoboda party got about 4% of the vote in Kharkiv oblast in 2012. This would make Bandera twice as popular in Kharkiv as the democratic opposition is in Russia.

reiner Tor , December 19, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their pastime.

They are well integrated into the rest of society, so you can call them low-lifes, but they will still be quite different from ordinary criminals.

Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder, kidnapping and racketeering.

But that's quite different from being professional criminals. Members of the Waffen-SS also committed unspeakable crimes, but they rarely had professional criminal backgrounds, and were, in fact, quite well integrated into German society.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 4:03 pm GMT
@Talha he seemed like a humble man with faith from humble beginnings. Pakistanis could relate to someone like that.

Carter was an agribusinessman whose personal net worth (not counting his mother's holdings and siblings' holdings) was in seven digits in 1976. (His dipso brother managed the family business -- passably well -- from 1963 until 198?). John Osborne interviewed 1st, 2d, and 3d degree relations of Carter during the campaign and discovered the family was in satisfactory condition financially even during the Depression. Carter also spent the 2d World War -- the whole thing -- at the Naval Academy.

There's much to be said for Carter, but there's no doubt one of his shortcomings is vanity. Harry Truman is the closest thing to a humble man in the White House in the years since Pakistan was constituted. If you're looking for 'humble beginnings', the best examples are Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

Anon , Disclaimer December 19, 2017 at 4:07 pm GMT
@Art Deco Not relevant re humble beginnings but re Pakistan: you've probably heard the famous anecdote about Kennedy and Bhutto:

K: "You know, you're a bright man. If you were an American I'd have you in my cabinet."
B: "No, Mr. President; if I were an American you would be in my cabinet."

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and perhaps even political power

Yes, there are elements of this, but not only. If they were ethnic Russians, as in Donbas, they would have taken a different path, as did the pro-Russian militants in Donbas who are similar to the ethnic Ukrainian Azovites. Young guys who like to brawl and are ethnic Russians or identify s such joined organizations like Oplot and moved to Donbas to fight against Ukraine, similar types who identified as Ukrainians became Azovites or joined similar pro-Ukrainian militias. Also not all of these were delinquents, many were working class, security guards, etc.

Good that you admit that in Eastern Ukraine nationalism is not limited to student activists and businessmen.

And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs,

They chose to stay away from Kharkiv and limit Russia's action to Donbas, knowing that there would be too much opposition, and not enough support, to Russian rule in Kharkiv to make the effort worthwhile.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
@Anon Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT
@reiner Tor I feel that comparing Azov to SS gives it too much credit.

My point is that this way of life is not something that many people in Ukraine are willing to actively participate in. Most people are not willing to condone it either. AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how this could work -- there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.

There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT
@AP

That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?

This means these people won't pose a big problem. These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea did.

Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT
@Gerard2 oligarchs, not nationalism are the driving force behind the "Ukrainian" mass crimes against humanity committing --
Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 4:34 pm GMT
@utu Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.

Actually, it's completely random and bizarre, but random and bizarre appeals to a certain sort of head case. Oliver Stone's thesis (that the military-industrial complex took down the President by subcontracting the job to a bunch of French Quarter homosexuals) is comparatively lucid.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how this could work -- there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.

About 1/3 of the population in Eastern Ukrainian regions voted for Ukrainian nationalists in 2012, compared to only 10% in Donbas. Three times as many. Likely after 2014 many of the hardcore pro-Russians left Kharkiv, just as hardcore pro-Ukrainians left Donetsk. Furthermore anti-Russian attitudes have hardened, due to the war, Crimea, etc. So there would be plenty of local support for native insurgents.

Russians say, correctly, that after Kiev has shelled Donetsk how can the people of Donetsk reconcile themselves with Kiev?

The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?

There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.

Crimea was 60% Russian, Donbas Republics territory about 45% Russian; Kharkiv oblast is only 25% Russian.

With Donbas -- there are actually local pro-Ukrainian militants from Donbas, in the Donbas and Aidar battalions.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT
@AP It was a decision that Putin personally made. He wasn't going to move in Crimea either, until Maidanists overthrew his friend

It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable. And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated by Azov militia.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea did

The problem with this comparison is that Crimeans were far more in favor of joining Russia that are Kharkivites.

The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army.

Ukrainian military has 200,000 -- 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?

We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.

You would be able to recruit some local proxies in Kharkiv. Kiev even did so in Donbas. But given the fact that Ukrainian nationalism was 3 times more popular on Kharkiv than in Donetsk, and that Kharkiv youth were split 50/50 in terms of or versus anti Maidan support (versus 80/20 IIIRC anti-Maidan in Donbas), it would not be so easy. Moreover, by now many of the hardcore anti-Kiev people have already left Kharkiv, while Kharkiv has had some settlement by pro-Ukrainian dissidents from Donbas. So the situation even in 2014 was hard enough that Russia chose to stay away, now it is even worse for the pro-Russians.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated by Azov militia.

This is rather a symptom of a much wider phenomenon: the population simply doesn't see itself as Russian and doesn't want to be part of Russia. So its hooligan-types go for Ukrainian, not Russian, nationalism as is the case in Russia.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT
@AP

The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?

The locals will move to disarm Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then welcome Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol

It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely undefended. It's wide open!

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:05 pm GMT
@AP Honestly, I doubt that this kind of stuff has much impact on Putin's decisionmaking.
Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 5:09 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.

Well there you have it. Putin is a much smarter guy than you are Felix (BTW, are you Jewish, all of the Felix's that I've known were Jewish?). Good to see that you're nothing more than a blackshirted illusionist.*

*фантазёр

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT
@for-the-record German and European reliance on US security guarantees is a problem, since it's become pretty clear that the US political system is dysfunctional and US "elites" are dangerous extremists. We need our own security structures to be independent from the US so they can't drag us into their stupid projects or blackmail us anymore why do you think Merkel didn't react much to the revelations about American spying on Germany? Because we're totally dependent on the Americans in security matters.
And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be foolish to have no credible deterrence.
AP , December 19, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

"How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?"

They will move to disarm ther Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then welcome their Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol

While about 1/3 of Kharkiv voted for Ukrainian nationalists, only perhaps 10%-20% of the city would actually like to be part of Russia (and I am being generous to you). So your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.

It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely undefended.

Are you living in 2014? Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is comforting for them.

Ukraine currently has 200,000-250,000 active troops. About 60,000 of them are around Donbas.

Here is a map of various positions in 2017:

Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses). The map does not include national guard units such as Azov, however, which would add a few thousand troops to Kharkiv's defense.

It looks like rather than stationing their military in forward positions vs. a possible Russian attack, Ukraine, has put lot of troops in Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kiev and Odessa.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT
@AP

Ukrainian military has 200,000 -- 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?

I read Kassad blog, and he says Ukrainian formations assembled in Donbass number some 50-70 thousands men. The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready. Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.

By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men -- that's impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT
@AP So your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.

The local populations in Iraq were congenial to begin with, at least outside some Sunni centers. It was never an object of American policy to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:55 pm GMT
@AP

Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses).

How many people does this "motorized infantry brigade" have? And more importantly what is its level of combat readiness? Couldn't we just smash this brigade with a termobaric bomb while they are sleeping?

Ukraine is full of shit. They had 20.000 troops in Crimea, "a lot of air defenses" and it didn't make a iota of difference. Somehow you expect me to believe Ukraine has a completely different army now. Why should I? They don't have the resources to afford a better army, so it is logical to assume that Ukrainian army is still crap.

for-the-record , December 19, 2017 at 5:55 pm GMT
@German_reader And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be foolish to have no credible deterrence.

What "credible deterrence" are you proposing for Germany? As has been clearly demonstrated, the only credible deterrence against a determined foe (of which Germany has none, at least externally) is nuclear. Is this what you are suggesting?

Germany has willingly supported the US (presumably in continuing gratitude for US support during the Cold War), it hasn't been "blackmailed" into this. Austria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella" to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why couldn't Germany? There is no need whatsoever for Germany to build up its military strength; rather, what Germany (sorely) lacks is the desire (and guts) to act independently of the US.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 6:01 pm GMT
Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is comforting for them.

Betwixt and between all the trash talking, they've forgotten that the last occasion on which one country attempted to conquer an absorb another country with a population anywhere near 30% of its own was during the 2d World War. Didn't work out so well for Germany and Japan.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 19, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

What about Metallica or Slayer? The famous 1991 Monsters of Rock in Moscow featured I think Metallica in its prime and Pantera right before they became really big (and heavy).

Metallica primarily and AC/DC. Pantera were more of a bonus. Nowhere near massive popularity of AC/DC and Metallica, who were main attraction. Earlier, in 1988, so called Moscow Peace Festival also saw a collection of heavy and glam metal luminaries such as Motley Crue, Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Scorpions, of course, etc. But, of course, Ozzy was met with a thunder by Luzhniki stadium. The only rock royalty who was allowed to give a first ever concert on Red Square was Sir Paul, with Putin being personally present. Speaks volumes. British rock was always dominant in USSR. In the end, every Soviet boy who was starting to play guitar had to know three chords of the House of the Rising Sun. Russians are also very progressive rock oriented and in 1970s Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant etc. were huge. Soviet underground national anthem was Uriah Heep's masterpiece of July Morning. I believe Bulgaria still has July Morning gatherings every year. All of it was British influence. My generation also grew up with British Glam which for us was a pop-music of the day -- from Sweet to Slade, to T.Rex. And then there was: QUEEN.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT
@for-the-record Austria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella" to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why couldn't Germany?

Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use for security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT
@for-the-record

Germany has willingly supported the US

Not completely true, Germany didn't participate in the Iraq war and in the bombing of Libya.
I'm hardly an expert on military matters, but it would seem just common sense to me that a state needs sufficient armed forces to protect its own territory if you don't have that, you risk becoming a passive object whose fate is decided by other powers. Doesn't mean Germany should have a monstrously bloated military budget like the US, just sufficient forces to protect its own territory and that of neighbouring allies (which is what the German army should be for instead of participating in futile counter-insurgency projects in places like Afghanistan). Potential for conflict in Europe is obviously greatest regarding Russia it's still quite low imo, and I want good relations with Russia and disagree vehemently with such insanely provocative ideas as NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, but it would be stupid not to have credible deterrence (whose point it is to prevent hostilities after all). I don't think that's an anti-Russian position, it's just realistic.
Apart from that Germany doesn't probably need much in the way of military capabilities maybe some naval forces for participation in international anti-piracy missions.
Regarding nuclear weapons, that's obviously something Germany can't or shouldn't do on its own (probably wouldn't be tolerated anyway given 20th century history), so it would have to be in some form of common European project. Hard to tell now if something like this could eventually become possible or necessary.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Sorry to prickle your little fantasy world once again tovarishch, but according to current CIA statistics Ukraine has 182,000 active personnel, and 1,000,000 reservists! For a complete rundown of Ukraine's military strength, read this and weep:

https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=ukraine

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT
@Art Deco "Clouseau He killed two customers, a Cossack, and a WAITER!!"
Sean , December 19, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT
@Art Deco A lot of what used to be manufacturing, such as engineering design, is now put under the category of services. Manufacturing companies want to be listed as engaged in services because manufacturing is perceived as not profitable. Britain is alone among comparable countries in having lost significant amounts of productive capacity.
RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 6:48 pm GMT
@Art Deco You have exquisite taste in movies, sir. Something we can agree on.
Johann Ricke , December 19, 2017 at 7:06 pm GMT
@Anon

K: "You know, you're a bright man. If you were an American I'd have you in my cabinet."
B: "No, Mr. President; if I were an American you would be in my cabinet."

The thing about many of these corrupt, worthless and incompetent Third World leaders is they're not lacking in self-esteem. Just ask Karzai. Or Maliki.

Sean , December 19, 2017 at 7:13 pm GMT
@Art Deco The potential power of China is an order of magnitude greater than Japan. After WW2 Japan, and to a lesser extent Germany, were too small to be a threat. Don't you believe all that Robert Kagan 'the US solved the problems that caused WW1 and 2′ stuff. China is a real hegemon in the making and they will take a run at it, unless they are contained by military pressure on their borders.

Modern Japan is more like Singapore than China. China has economies of scale, they have a single integrated factory complex making laptops with has more workers than the British army. China will have a huge home market, like America. So by the time it dawns on America that China's growing power must be checked, economic measures will be ineffective.

for-the-record , December 19, 2017 at 7:42 pm GMT
@Art Deco Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use for security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?

That's about right, yes. Except I didn't say that Germany should have no military capability, only that there is no sense in increasing current military expenditure. A military capability can be useful for dealing with emergencies, such as tornadoes and hurricanes.

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 19, 2017 at 7:45 pm GMT
@Anon t. le 56% face.

America's national IQ will be below 90 in a few decades so I really doubt that.

inertial , December 19, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT
@Art Deco They've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade from now.

Yes, these people had been sold a vision. If only they leave behind the backward, Asiatic, mongoloid Russia, they will instantly Join Europe. They will have all of the good stuff: European level of prosperity, rule of law, international approval, and so on; and none of the bad stuff that they associated with Russia, like poverty, corruption, and civil strife.

Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder.

The experience of Communism shows that it may take decades but eventually people notice that the state ideology is a lie. Once they do, they change their mind about things rather quickly.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT
@Sean Manufacturing companies want to be listed as engaged in services because manufacturing is perceived as not profitable.

Inventive parry. Not buying.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 8:23 pm GMT
@Sean Modern Japan is more like Singapore than China.

There are 120 million people living in Japan, settlements of every size, and agricultural land sufficient for Japan to supply demand for rice from domestic production. So, no.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 8:24 pm GMT
@for-the-record That's about right, yes.

You said that, not me.

Swedish Family , December 19, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.

Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool . More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons:

(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative. Common people know full well that the Ukrainian troops are hated in the Donbass (I once watched a Ukrainian soldier shock the audience by saying this on Shuster Live), and they know also that Kiev has a blame in all those dead women and children. These are promising conditions for future reconciliation, and they would be squandered overnight if Russian troops moved further westward.

(2) The geopolitical repercussions would be enormous. As I and others have already written, the present situation is just about what people in elite Western circles can stomach. Any Russian escalation would seriously jeopardize European trade with Russia, among other things.

(3) There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. These "acquisitions," too, would be jeopardized by more military action.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 8:29 pm GMT
@inertial 1. You fancy they're bamboozled and you're not. Cute.

2. You also fancy your interlocutors are economic illiterates and that they'll buy into the notion that the solution to the Ukraine's economic problems is to be forcibly incorporated into Russia. Such a change in political boundaries addresses no economic problems.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@Swedish Family (1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative.

You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.

There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. T

Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@for-the-record That is terribly naïve.

I've been all over the comment boards calling for my country (the USA) to take a less belligerent, more honest, friendlier approach to Russia, and I've largely taken the side of Russia in the Ukraine and Syria controversies.

I also don't think Russia has any current designs on the territory of its western neighbors, or the desire for the dire consequences that would likely follow as the US and others react to such a move.

But that doesn't mean that it's prudent for Germany (or any other smaller, less populous country near Russia) to simply trust that Russia will never use military force against them in the future.

Nor should Germany assume that China will not ultimately find it worthwhile to take their territory or resources for its own massive, overcrowded, ambitious population.

Germany's military forces are grossly inadequate. Same for France. Same for the UK. None of them should purport to predict well into the future that Russia, China, and others (Turkey) will never be both willing and able to invade them. Nor should Germany et al. assume that the USA will always be in a position to jump in to defend Europeans in the absence of serious European militaries.

In fact, the western Europeans' glaring military weakness (and their obvious loss of the will to defend their people, their land, and their way of life) could serve to encourage physical aggression by, e.g., Turkey or Russia. Betting that you need a military merely "for dealing with emergencies, such as tornadoes and hurricanes" is a potentially fatal bet, with irreversible consequences.

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT
@for-the-record Yes, Germany would be wise to acquire at least a small nuclear deterrent, just as France and the UK and Israel have.
RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 8:40 pm GMT
@Johann Ricke So the costs of the US invasion/occupation/"reconstruction" of Iraq were (allegedly) less than the costs of the equally unnecessary and non-defensive US wars in Korea and Vietnam? Heck of an argument.

How about this: we should have refrained from all three wars.

We should be using our resources to secure our own borders, to police the international waters and vital shipping lanes / chokepoints (fighting pirates and terrorists as necessary to those ends), and to actually defend our land and our people and deter aggression. That's it.

Randal , December 19, 2017 at 9:16 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter

Germany's military forces are grossly inadequate. Same for France. Same for the UK.

Grossly inadequate for what purpose?

What matters about military strength is its relation to neighbours' and potential enemies' strengths. Germany's military spending currently ranks number nine in the world (using the SIPRI figures per Wikipedia for simplicity ), which when you consider they are located in the middle of one of the safest continents (militarily speaking) in the world, surrounded by allies with whom military conflict is currently pretty much inconceivable, is quite impressive. Above them are only its European allies UK and France, the grossly bloated US and Saudi Arabian budgets, Russia and China, and Japan and India. Apart from South Korea who come next, Germany spends half as much again as the next on the list (Italy).

Germany's military shortcomings can in no plausible degree be attributed to not spending enough, unless you think Germany should be remilitarising for a potential war with Russia. Basically, Germany's military is toothless mostly because nobody in Germany really thinks it matters, nobody expects to be involved in a war, and such spending as it has is mostly purposed to suit a Germany integrated into NATO and the EU rather than an independent state. If there's a problem it's not down to insufficient spending but to how the money is currently spent.

Like you I'm a general believer in having a strong military, and in "si vis pacem, para bellum". But it's hard to see how Germany could really benefit from increased military spending. If they were to feel genuinely threatened, nuclear weapons would make much more sense (along with a radical reorganisation of the current spending and conventional military establishment).

There's a lot of American nonsense talked about European states underspending on their military, but the reality is that the US grossly overspends to serve its own global interventionist purposes. There's no reason why European states should spend to serve those purposes, which is what in reality increased European spending in the current context would be used for.

What we might see in some potential circumstances is increased German (and European in general) military spending in order to give them the confidence to break away from NATO and US control, and build the long trailed "European Defence Force". That looks a lot more likely after Brexit and in the context of the Trump presidency than it did a few years ago, but it's still something of a distant possibility. In that case, though, the increases would be mainly for morale building and transitional spending purposes, given that the combined EU military budget is already second in the world, behind only the ludicrous US.

Talha , December 19, 2017 at 9:34 pm GMT
@Art Deco Hey Art Deco (cool name by the way -- I love that style of architecture -- probably one of the only modern styles I like),

Well, all I can say is he played it smooth enough to fool a heck of a lot of Pakistanis (not saying that's all that difficult).

Peace.

Swedish Family , December 19, 2017 at 9:56 pm GMT
@Art Deco

You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.

No, I wrote that those civilians are already gone and that both sides had a hand in their deaths, which will help the peace process since no side can claim sole victimhood.

And your assumption that the separatists are mercenaries is groundless speculation. Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.

Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?

Risible comparison. Theirs is a conflict involving three major religions and the survival of the Israeli state at stake. On the Crimean question, we have already heard influential Westerners voice the possibility that it might one day be accepted as Russian, and if you read between the lines, many Ukrainians are of a similiar mind.

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 9:57 pm GMT
@Art Deco We're in agreement on all of that, AD.

But the EU isn't merely a threat to self-government anymore. It is now actively and intentionally importing people who kill, rape, mug, beat, grope, harass, stalk, and generally disrespect and intimidate "their own" European people. The EU is an active threat to the lives and physical safety of European people. No people with the barest common sense and will to live will stay in the EU as these recent horrific events continue to unfold.

for-the-record , December 19, 2017 at 10:06 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter Nor should Germany assume that China will not ultimately find it worthwhile to take their territory or resources for its own massive, overcrowded, ambitious population.

This is really a case of misplaced priorities.

Germany is in the process of losing its national identity built up over 2,000 years or so, and it has nothing to do with the Chinese (or the Russians either, for that matter). And China certainly doesn't need its military to successfully export its "massive, overcrowded, ambitious population" overseas (cf. Western Canada, Australia).

Focusing on the (non-existent, in my opinion) need for Germany to increase its current (already high) level of military expenditures will do nothing to preserve Germany as a European nation.

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 11:36 pm GMT
@for-the-record Take a look at my other comments. You'll see that I wholeheartedly agree with you about the moral sickness, cowardice, misplaced guilty, and terminal naivete of the Germans leading them to surrender their land, their property, their way of life, and their very lives to the Muslim and African savages they are importing.

As a recent book by a German politician put it, "Deutschland schafft sich ab", or "Germany does away with itself."

But what has that to do with Germany also refusing to maintain a serious military defense force to deter potential threats from state actors such as Russia, Turkey, and China? Any nation worth its salt must both secure / guard its orders AND keep a military ready to fight external forces. Germany can and should do both, and right now it's doing neither.

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 11:41 pm GMT
@for-the-record As for China in particular: of course China is glad to export millions of its people to settle and become citizens in the USA, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the former "West."

They are thereby en route to acquiring real social influence, and ultimately some direct political power, in those places (especially Australia and the provinces of "British" Columbia and Alberta, owing to the very small white populations of those places compared to the immigration onslaught).

I lived part-time in Richmond and Vancouver, BC, and know just how quickly that region is becoming an alien culture -- Chinese more than anything, but also Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh. (Look up the career of crooked "Canadian" former pol and now radio-host Kash Heed, among many other examples.) I would expect that Mandarin will eventually become a co-equal official language of government (and public schools) in BC, with no effective opposition by those ever-"tolerant" Canadians ("We're not like those racist Americans, you know!").

But the people who have emigrated from China thus far are a drop in the bucket. China is still terribly overcrowded and lacks both land and natural resources needed to sustain its population. Actually outright TAKING swathes of Europe or, say, Africa, would help them a lot more than immigration. When the time is right -- say, after the US dollar loses its world reserve status and/or the US is beset by widespread racial conflict and riots -- China may well make its move in that regard. I hope not, and I don't think it will be very soon, but a wise country needs a strong military in the face of China and other threats.

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 11:45 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter Talha, you agreed with me again? I must be slipping

Merry Christmas, buddy -

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 12:19 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014).

Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession -- with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable.

As I was already writing in 2016 :

Like it or not, but outright war with Maidanist Ukraine has been ruled out from the beginning, as the more perceptive analysts like Rostislav Ischenko have long recognized. If there was a time and a place for it, it was either in April 2014, or August 2014 at the very latest. Since then, the Ukrainian Army has gotten much stronger. It has been purged of its "Russophile" elements, and even though it has lost a substantial percentage of its remnant Soviet-era military capital in the war of attrition with the LDNR, it has more than made up for it with wartime XP gain and the banal fact of a quintupling in military spending as a percentage of GDP from 1% to 5%. This translates to an effective quadrupling in absolute military spending, even when accounting for Ukraine's post-Maidan economic collapse. Russia can still crush Ukraine in a full-scale conventional conflict, and that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.

* There's a report that says actual Ukrainian military spending remained rather more modest at 2.5% of GDP ( https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_66_ang_best_army_ukraine_net.pdf ); even so, that still translates to huge improvements over 2014.

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 12:23 am GMT
@Art Deco How so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population) worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.

And Japan could have kept China subjugated indefinitely without the American intervention.

Not of course to otherwise entertain your completely false and misleading comparison.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 12:26 am GMT
@Felix Keverich

The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready.

250,000. Combat readiness is very different from 2014.

Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.

Again, it isn't 2014 anymore. Military budget has increased significantly, from 3.2 billion in 2015 to 5.17 billion in 2017. In spite of theft, much more is getting through.

By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men -- that's impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft

It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is unnecessaary.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT
@Swedish Family

Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.

80% are natives. Perhaps as much as 90%. However, often it a way to make a meager salary in those territories, so there is a mercenary aspect to it. Lots of unemployed workers go into the Republic military.

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT
@Swedish Family

Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.

80% in 2014-15, to be precise; another 10% from the Kuban; 10% from Russia, the Russian world, and the world at large.

NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians -- no Russian went there to get rich.

That said, I strongly doubt there will ever be international recognition of Crimea, let alone Donbass. Israel has by far the world's most influential ethnic lobby. Even NATO member Turkey hasn't gotten Northern Cyprus internationally recognized, so what exactly are the chances of the international community (read: The West) recognizing the claims of Russia, which is fast becoming established in Western minds as the arch-enemy of civilization?

AP , December 20, 2017 at 12:56 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Fascinating link. The numbers for the military budget are a lot lower than reported elsewhere.

Mobilization percentages by region:

"Among the leaders of the fourth and fifth wave of partial mobilisation were the Khmelnitsky,
Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Kirovohrad and Zaporizhia regions, as well as the city
of Kyiv, whose mobilisation plan was fulfilled 80-100% (the record was Vinnytsia oblast,
which achieved 100% mobilisation). At the opposite extreme are the Kharkiv, Chernivtsi,
Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lugansk, Sumy, Ternopil and Transcarpathian regions, where
the results of the mobilisation varied from 25 to 60%."

Summary:

2014:

The true face of the Ukrainian armed forces was revealed by the Russian annexation of Crimea and the first weeks of the war in the Donbas -- they were nothing more than a fossilised structure, unfit for any effective function upon even a minimum engagement with the enemy, during which a significant part of the troops only realised whom they were representing in the course of the conflict and more than once, from the perspective of service in one of the post-Soviet military districts, they chose to serve in the Russian army

2017:

The war in the Donbas shaped the Ukrainian army. It gave awareness and motivation to the soldiers, and forced the leadership of the Defence Ministry and the government of the state to adapt the army's structure -- for the first time since its creation -- to real operational needs, and also to bear the costs of halting the collapses in the fields of training and equipment, at least to such an extent which would allow the army to fight a close battle with the pro-Russian separatists. Despite all these problems, the Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2017 now number 200,000, most of whom have come under fire, and are seasoned in battle. They have a trained reserve ready for mobilisation in the event of a larger conflict*; their weapons are not the latest or the most modern, but the vast majority of them now work properly; and they are ready for the defence of the vital interests of the state (even if some of the personnel still care primarily about their own vested interests). They have no chance of winning a potential military clash with Russia, but they have a reason to fight. The Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2014, in a situation where their home territory was occupied by foreign troops, were incapable of mounting an adequate response. The changes since the Donbas war started mean that Ukraine now has the best army it has ever had in its history.

* The Ukrainian armed forces have an operational reserve of 130,000 men, relatively well trained and with real combat experience, who since 2016 have been moulded out of veterans of the Donbas (as well as from formations subordinate to the Interior Ministry). It must be stressed, however, that those counted in the reserve represent only half of the veterans of the anti-terrorist operation (by October 2016, 280,000 Ukrainians had served in the Donbas in all formations subordinate to the government in Kyiv, with 266,000 reservists gaining combat status; at the beginning of February 2017, 193,400 reservists were in the armed forces). Thanks to that, at least in terms of the human factor, it should be possible in a relatively short period of time to increase the Ukrainian army's degree of combat readiness, as well as to fight a relatively close battle with a comparable opponent, something the Ukrainian armed forces were not capable of doing at the beginning of 2014.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 1:18 am GMT
@Art Deco I respectfully disagree with you about the Iraq war (one of the few areas on which I disagree with you).

I suppose had the West made a massive investment in Iraq, secured its Christian population, loaded it with US troops, and did to it what was done to Japan, over several decades, transforming it into a prosperous democratic US ally, removing Saddam (who deserves no sympathy) might have been a nice thing. It would have been a massive financial drain but having a "Japan", other than Israel, in the heart of the Middle East might have been worth it (I am not a Middle East expert but it seems the Shah's Persia was sort of being groomed for such a role).

Instead, it ended up being a disaster -- 100,000s dead in sectarian massacres, Christian population nearly destroyed, and other than Kurdish areas, an ally either of Iran or of militant anti-American Sunnis. At the cost, to the USA, of dead Americans, lots of money, and loss of soft power. I also suspect that America being stuck and preoccupied in Middle East conflicts gave room for Russia to act. I guess its a tribute to how strong America is, that it is still doing pretty well in spite of the debacle. A lesser power such as the USSR would have been sunk.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 1:21 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians -- no Russian went there to get rich.

Which further points to the critical role played by Russians. Many of the local volunteers are participating because doing so offers a salary, which is very important in a wrecked, sanctioned Donbas. The Russian 10%-20% are motivated, often Chechen combat vets. They are more important than their % indicates.

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:00 am GMT
@Art Deco [MORE]
Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT
@AP [MORE]
Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:30 am GMT
@AP [MORE]
Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:33 am GMT
@Gerard2 ..and lets not forget the failure in mobilisation from the Ukrainian military

That and having to hire loads of Georgians, Chechens,Poles and other mercenaries.

Pretty much tallys perfectly with the failed shithole Ukraine government structure full of everyone else .but Ukrainians

Talha , December 20, 2017 at 4:05 am GMT
@RadicalCenter Hey man -- when you're right, you're right -- that one was spot on.

If we can end the nonsense wars, we can at least solve a good chunk of the immigration crisis. It's all related.

Hope your family has a safe holiday and a good New Years.

Peace.

Mr. Hack , December 20, 2017 at 5:02 am GMT
@Gerard2 [MORE]
melanf , December 20, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT
Amazing -- almost any discussion in this section turns to хохлосрач (ukrohitstorm)
neutral , December 20, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT
@melanf What is almost incomprehensible for me in these endless Russia vs Ukraine arguments is how they (yes both sides) always ignore the real issues and instead keep on raising relatively petty points while thinking that mass non white immigration and things like the EU commissioner of immigration stating openly that Europe needs endless immigration, are not important. It's like white South Africans who still debate the Boer war or the Irish debate the northern Ireland question, and are completely oblivious to the fact that these things don't matter anymore if you have an entirely new people ruling your land (ok in South Africa they were not new, but you know what I mean).
ussr andy , December 20, 2017 at 9:52 am GMT
@Swedish Family cool screen name ; )
melanf , December 20, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT
@Swedish Family

Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine

much more than half

Donbass rebels: soldiers of the detachment of "Sparta". Data published by Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine:

https://imgur.com/a/Gh8zx

ussr andy , December 20, 2017 at 10:55 am GMT
@neutral yup, it's positively quaint , doubly so in light of the most-important-graph.gif.
TT , December 20, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT
That's rght, and it happens to the whole world too including those countries destroyed by US and under its sanction. The bombastic propaganda MSM fake news and Hollywood have brainwashed all to harbour delusion that US is a perfect heaven paved with gold, honey and milk, people of high morality and freedom. Wait till they live there to find out reality of DemoNcracy made in USA.
Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT
@melanf I think it's mostly Gerard2. Mr. Hack is fairly hostile but coldly civil. Don't think this compares to Runet xoxlosraches at all (of course I try to cut any such developments in the bud).
TT , December 20, 2017 at 12:05 pm GMT
I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating over after the Maidan coup.

So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of skilled people.

What it got to lose to unify with Russia to have peace, prosperity and been a nation of a great country instead of poor war torn? Plus a bonus of free Russia market access, unlimited cheap natural gas and pipeline toll to tax instead of buying LNG from US at double price.

Sorry this s just my opinion based on mostly fake news we are fed, only the Ukrainian know the best and able to decde themselves.

Randal , December 20, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons:

Yes, this is my view also. I think Russia was never in a position to do much more than it has, and those who talk about more vigorous military interference are just naïve, or engaging in wishful thinking, about the consequences. I think Putin played a very bad hand as well as could reasonably be expected in Ukraine and Crimea. No doubt mistakes were made, and perhaps more support at the key moment for the separatists (assassinations of some of the key oligarchs who chose the Ukrainian side and employed thugs to suppress the separatists in eastern cities, perhaps) could have resulted in a better situation now with much more of the eastern part of Ukraine separated, but if Russians want someone to blame for the situation in Ukraine apart from their enemies, they should look at Yanukovich, not Putin.

In the long run, it seems likely the appeal of NATO and the EU (assuming both still even exist in their current forms in a few years time) is probably peaking, but strategic patience and only limited covert and economic interference is advisable.

The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine.

Mr. Hack , December 20, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin If presenting a Ukrainophile point of view at this website is considered to be 'pretty hostile' then so be it. I cannot countenance the slimy way that Gerard2 reponds to AP's comments. He was getting way out of line with his name calling and needed to be put in his place.
Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter But the people who have emigrated from China thus far are a drop in the bucket. China is still terribly overcrowded and lacks both land and natural resources needed to sustain its population.

As we speak, about 8.5% of the value-added in China's economy is attributable to agriculture and about 27% of the workforce is employed in agriculture. Industry and services are not land-intensive activities.

About 1/2 of China's land area consists of arid or alpine climates suitable for only light settlement. As for the rest, China's entire non-agricultural population could be settled at American suburban densities on about 23% of the whole.

You don't need 'natural resources' on site to 'sustain your population'. Imports of oil and minerals will do. As for foodstuffs, China's been a net importer since 2004. However, its food-trade deficit is currently about $35 bn, a single-digit fraction of China's total food consumption.

Felix Keverich , December 20, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

There's a report that says actual Ukrainian military spending remained rather more modest at 2.5% of GDP ( https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_66_ang_best_army_ukraine_net.pdf ); even so, that still translates to huge improvements over 2014.

You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5 billion.

Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their wages rather than qualitatively impoving capabilities of the army.

The bottomline is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear.

AP predicts that the cities of Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk will be reduced to something akin to Aleppo. But it has taken 3 years of constant shelling to cause the damage in Aleppo. A more likely outcome is that Ukrainian soldiers will promptly ditch their uniforms, once they realise the Russian are coming and their command is gone.

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%. This matters more, since the vast majority of Ukrainian military spending occurs in grivnas.

By various calculations, Ukrainian military spending went up from 1% of GDP, to 2.5%-5%. Minus 20%, that translates to a doubling to quadrupling.

What it does mean is that they are even less capable of paying for advanced weapons from the West than before, but those were never going to make a cardinal difference anyway.

AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree with him on that. In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT
@Gerard2 We'd all benefit if you'd sober up and add brevity and humor to your emotional outbursts and trash talk. No need for much verbiage in the absence of substantive information.
Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 1:44 pm GMT
@AP The American occupation of Japan lasted 7 years, not 'several decades'. Japan was quite capable of rapid and autonomous economic development without the assistance of the United States or any other power. Neither was the United States government the author of Japanese parliamentary institutions, which antedate the war. There were certain social reforms enacted during the MacArthur regency (I think having to do with the agricultural sector). The emperor's power was further reduced in the 1946 constitution. A portion of the flag-rank military were put in front of firing squads. That's about it.

Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk. You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya, the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq. If you want to understand this, you have to look to how Arab societies themselves are ordered (in contrast to interwar or post-war German society).

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 1:49 pm GMT
@TT That's rght, and it happens to the whole world too including those countries destroyed by US

There are no such places.

Felix Keverich , December 20, 2017 at 1:50 pm GMT
@AP

It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is unnecessaary.

It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL

My point is that this bodes well for our ability to recruit proxies in Ukraine, don't you think? We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov. That's the approach I would use in Ukraine: strip away parts of it piece by piece, create local proxies, use them to maintain control and absorb casualties in the fighting on the ground.

Mr. Hack , December 20, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.

Fortunately, we'll not be seeing a replay of the sacking and destruction of Novgorod as was done in the 15th century by Ivan III, and all of its ugly repercussions in Ukraine. Besides, since the 15th century, we've seen the emergence of three separate nationalities out of the loose amalgamation of principalities known a Rus. Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT

"It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is unnecessaary."

It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL

Well, they are, at least in the center and west. Kievans don't volunteer to fight because they have no other way of making money. But you probably believe the fairytale that Ukraine is in total collapse, back to the 90s.

We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.

If in the process of taking Kharkiv the local economy goes into ruin due to wrecked factories and sanctions so that picking up a gun is the only way to feed one's family for some people, sure. But again, keep in mind that Kharkiv is much less pro-Russian than Donbas so this could be more complicated.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin How so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population) worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.

You're forgetting a few things. In the United States, about 1/3 of the country's productive capacity was devoted to the war effort during the period running from 1940 to 1946. I'll wager you it was higher than that in Britain and continental Europe. That's what Germany was drawing on to attempt to sustain its holdings for just the 4-5 year period in which they occupied France and Poland. (Russia currently devotes 4% of its productive capacity to the military). Germany had to be exceedingly coercive as well. They were facing escalating partisan resistance that whole time (especially in the Balkans).

Someone whose decisions matter is going to ask the question of whether it's really worth the candle.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT
@Art Deco Thanks for the correction. This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan. This I think would have been the only legitimate reason to invade in Iraq in 2003 (WMDs weren't there, and in 2003 the regime was not genocidal as it had been decades earlier when IMO an invasion would have been justified)

Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk.

Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?

You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya, the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq.

Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains stability and peace, or if one does so -- take on the responsibility of investing massive effort and treasure in order to prevent the inevitable chaos and violence that would erupt as a result of one's invasion.

Felix Keverich , December 20, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian military personnel. Use LDNR army: transport them to Belgorod and with Russians they could move to take Kharkov, while facing minimal opposition. Then move futher to the West and South until the entire Ukrainian army in Donbass becomes encircled at which point they will likely surrender.

After supressing Ukrainian air-defence, our airforce should be able to destroy command and control, artillery, armoured formations, airfields, bridges over Dnieper, other infrustructure. Use the proxies to absord casualties in the fighting on the ground.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 20, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.

Anatoly, please, don't write on things you have no qualification on writing. You can not even grasp the generational (that is qualitative) abyss which separates two armed forces. The question will not be in this:

but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.

By the time the "cruising" would commence there will be no Ukrainian Army as an organized formation or even units left -- anything larger than platoon will be hunted down and annihilated. It is really painful to read this, honestly. The question is not in Russian "ambition" or rah-rah but in the fact that Ukraine's armed forces do not posses ANY C4ISR capability which is crucial for a dynamics of a modern war. None. Mopping up in the East would still be much easier than it would be in Central, let alone, Western Ukraine but Russia has no business there anyway. More complex issues were under consideration than merely probable losses of Russian Army when it was decided (rightly so) not to invade. I will open some "secret" -- nations DO bear collective responsibility and always were subjected to collective punishment -- latest example being Germany in both WWs -- the bacillus of Ukrainian "nationalism" is more effectively addressed by letting those moyahataskainikam experience all "privileges" of it. In the end, Russia's resources were used way better than paying for mentally ill country. 2019 is approaching fast.

P.S. In all of your military "analysis" on Ukraine one thing is missing leaving a gaping hole -- Russian Armed Forces themselves which since 2014 were increasing combat potential exponentially. Ukies? Not so much -- some patches here and there. Russian Armed Forces of 2018 are not those of 2013. Just for shits and giggles check how many Ratnik sets have been delivered to Russian Army since 2011. That may explain to you why timing in war and politics is everything.

S3 , December 20, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter

flight of non-Muslims out of Europe

I think you mean Western Europe. If Germany's human capital drains to Poland et al in a reversal of the Cold War direction, those countries have a quite bright future. I wonder if any economic predictions have taken this into account yet.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%.

About 16% from 2013 to 2015 when Ukraine hit bottom:

https://www.worldeconomics.com/GrossDomesticProduct/Ukraine.gdp

AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree with him on that.

I wrote that parts of the city would look like that. I don't think there would be enough massive resistance that the entire city would be destroyed. But rooting out a couple thousand armed, experienced militiamen or soldiers in the urban area would cause a lot of expensive damage and, as is the case when civilians died in Kiev's efforts to secure Donbas, would probably not endear the invaders to the locals who after all do not want Russia to invade them.

And Kharkiv would be the easiest to take. Dnipropetrovsk would be much more Aleppo-like, and Kiev Felix was proposing for Russia to take all these areas.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 20, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian military personnel.

The question is not in losses, per se. Russians CAN accept losses if the deal becomes hot in Ukraine -- it is obvious. The question is in geopolitical dynamics and the way said Russian Armed Forces were being honed since 2013, when Shoigu came on-board and the General Staff got its mojo returned to it. All Command and Control circuit of Ukie army will be destroyed with minimal losses if need be, and only then cavalry will be let in. How many Russian or LDNR lives? I don't know, I am sure GOU has estimates by now. Once you control escalation (Russia DOES control escalation today since can respond to any contingency) you get way more flexibility (geo)politcally. Today, namely December 2017, situation is such that Russia controls escalation completely. If Ukies want to attack, as they are inevitably forced to do so, we all know what will happen. Ukraine has about a year left to do something. Meanwhile considering EU intentions to sanction Poland, well, we are witnessing the start of a major shitstorm.

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT
@AP [MORE]
Mr. Hack , December 20, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT

Most ukrops even admit that Kharkov could easily have gone in 2014, if Russia had wanted it/feasible

Really? So why didn't Russia take Kharkiv then? Why wan't it 'feasible', Mr.Know it All?

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.

A stupid comment for an adult. Ukraine, in effect never existed before Russia/Stalin/Lenin created it. Kiev is a historical Russian city, and 5 of the 7 most populated areas in Ukraine are Russian/Soviet created cities, Russian language is favourite spoken by most Ukrainians ( see even Saakashvili in court, speaking only in Russian even though he speaks fluent Ukrainian now and all the judges and lawyers speaking in Russian too), the millions of Ukrainians living happily in Russia and of course, the topic of what exactly is a Ukrainian is obselete because pretty much every Ukrainian has a close Russian relative the level of intermarriage was at the level of one culturally identical people.

AK: Improvement! The first paragraph was acceptable, hence not hidden.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT
@AP This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan.

That was never the object. The object was (1) to remove a hostile government and (2) replace it with a normal range government. Normal range governments aren't revanchist, aren't territorially grabby, are chary about subverting neighboring governments, and aren't in their international conduct notably driven by pride or political theo-ideology. The House of Saud, the Hashemites, Lebanon's parliamentary bosses, the Turkish military, the (post-Nasser) Egyptian military, etc. etc are all purveyors of normal-range government. NPR likely has transcripts of interview programs in early 2003 in which Wm. Kristol was a participant. Kristol was not a public official at the time, but he was the opinion-monger who most assiduously promoted the conquest of Iraq. Kristol never expected Iraq to be like Switzerland; he expected an Iraq that was 'tense' (his words), pluralistic, and willing to live in its international environment rather than against that environment.

Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?

I suspect the Shia and Kurd populations are pleased to be rid of the Baathists.

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack economics, hope that the west and their puppets in Kiev would act like sane and decent people, threat of sanctions and so on.

As is obvious, if the west had remained neutral ( an absurd hypothetical because the west were the ringmasters of the farce in this failed state) ..and not supported the coup and then the evil war brought on the Donbass people, then a whole different situation works out in Ukraine ( for the better)

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT
@AP Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains stability and peace, o

That's a rather fantastical description of Iraq's 35 year slide under the Baathists.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 3:03 pm GMT
@Art Deco I was speaking of 2003. Of course, for much of its history Saddam's regime was not that. Too bad it wasn't stopped then, if it was going to be stopped.
AP , December 20, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT
@Gerard2

Kharkov always was and will be as pro-Russian as Donbass

Kharkiv oblast: 71% Ukrainian, 26% Russian
Donetsk oblast: 57% Ukrainian, 38% Russian (skews more Russian in the Donbas Republic parts)

Self-declared native language Kharkiv oblast: 54% Ukrainian, 44% Russian
Self-declared native language Donetsk oblast: 24% Ukrainian, 75% Russian

(not the same thing as language actually spoken, but a decent reflection of national self-identity)

2012 parliamentary election results (rounding to nearest %):

Kharkiv oblast: 62% "Blue", 32% "Orange" -- including 4% Svoboda
Donetsk oblast -- 84% "Blue", 11% "Orange" -- including 1% Svoboda

A good illustration of Russian wishful thinking fairytales compared to reality on the ground.

S3 , December 20, 2017 at 3:23 pm GMT
@S3 Nietzsche famously foresaw the rise and fall of communism and the destruction of Germany in the two world wars. He also liked to think of himself as a Polish nobleman. Maybe this is what he meant.
Sean , December 20, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
@Art Deco When calculated with constant pricing share of manufacturing in GDP in Germany, Italy and France is not very much, It has actually risen in Switzerland and the US, and risen greatly in Sweden, they are buying, people who think like you are selling out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/18/making-things-matter-britain-forgot-manufacturing-brexit

[...]All of those supposedly knowledge-intensive services sell mostly to manufacturing firms, so their success depends on manufacturing success. It is not because the Americans invented superior financial techniques that the world's financial centre moved from London to New York in the mid-20th century. It is because the US became the leading industrial nation.

The weakness of manufacturing is at the heart of the UK's economic problems. Reversing three and a half decades of neglect will not be easy but, unless the country provides its industrial sector with more capital, stronger public support for R&D and better-trained workers, it will not be able to build the balanced and sustainable economy that it so desperately needs.

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT
@AP Kharkiv oblast: 71% Ukrainian, 26% Russian
Donetsk oblast: 57% Ukrainian, 38% Russian (skews more Russian in the Donbas Republic parts)
Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 7:40 pm GMT
@Sean When calculated with constant pricing share of manufacturing in GDP in Germany, Italy and France is not very much, It has actually risen in Switzerland and the US, and risen greatly in Sweden, they are buying, people who think like you are selling out.

"Not very much" according to whom? Manufacturing accounts for about 15% of Europe's domestic product, about 12% of that for North America, and about 8% for that of the Antipodes. It's higher in the Far East (about 24%), but Japan is in no danger of overtaking the United States in per capita product, it's larger manufacturing sector notwithstanding. There is no region of the globe bar the Far East where that sector much exceeds 15% of total value added. Comparatively large manufacturing sectors are characteristic of the more affluent middle income countries. As countries grow more productive and affluent, their consumption patterns and productive capacity shift to services.

I've no clue why you and this fellow at The Guardian have bought into the notion that there is something magical about manufacturing (it was a popular meme a generation ago, promoted by Felix Rohaytn). By way of example, Germany and Japan have lost ground economically to the UK and the US in the last 25 years, even though they devote ~21% of their productive capacity to manufacturing in contrast to the ~11%.of the Anglosphere. (Germany remains more affluent than Britain to the tune of about 11%, but about 15% less affluent than the United States).

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 7:50 pm GMT
@Gerard2 Wave them hands.
Sean , December 20, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT
@Art Deco Sorry, mistake. I meant when you do the comparison with constant prices, manufacturing has not declined very much in the US ect . Britain is different it has lost a lot of manufacturing. Britain cannot build its own nuclear power station. Germany and France have taken the industry and would have come for the City next. Britain was to be the milch cow of the EU, so it got out.

Switzerland is a rich mans country and so is Sweden. Business runs certain countries and those countries are actually adding to their productive capacity, so they are not acting like it is not profitable. That Guardian fellow is a professor of Economics at Oxford, and I already quoted you Lord Weinstock who ran just about Britain's most profitable company: it wasn't doing services. Once Weinstock retired his successor listened to the City financial geniuses, sold the manufacturing core of the business, and when times got bad the had nothing to fall back on and collapsed.

Germany does not have a single currency and Schengen Agreement free movement with the US. German goods are expensive in the US, the single currency and Schengen Agreement are an export promotion program for Germany industry. The Germans are going to deindustrialise the rest of the EU. Britain realised it had to get out now or be borged.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT
@Sean Britain hasn't lost any manufacturing output. It indubitably has fewer workers employed in manufacturing, but manufacturing output has not declined. What's happened is that growth in production since 1990 has been concentrated in the service sector.

The decline in the salience of manufacturing in the British economy has been more rapid than it has elsewhere, but the same basic story has played out. The share of value added attributable to manufacturing hit bottom in Britain in 2006, btw.

Sean , December 20, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT
As I am sure you know service sector employment is mainly masses on low wages, so low they are subsidized by the state in many cases, and increasingly on zero hours contracts. Hence low demand. Running Britain on a London and the SE boom on the rationale that the country is economically stronger relative to Germany and Japan is unstable because the strength of the country in not increasing in any meaningful sense. The recent votes in Britain should have made it clear that the country is not more stable for all the economic "success". The people feel Britain is getting weaker compared to Germany.

No one doubts that Britain has a manufacturing problem and the inefficiency is at the root of the loss of manufacturing but other counties are basically not the same, and that is why Britain left the EU. Germany is playing the manufacturing game on its own terms inside the EU with a single currency.

reiner Tor , December 20, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT
@Art Deco

there is something magical about manufacturing

There is. Manufacturing productivity can easily be increased. Agriculture is more difficult, and by the time its fully motorized, it's already a very small portion of the total output. While services productivity is very low and cannot be easily increased. So an economy with no manufacturing cannot raise its productivity much. It's also more difficult to export services, so countries with low manufacturing will often experience huge current account deficits.

High value added services can be risky, especially finance, which makes the country vulnerable to credit cycles. The UK could export most financial services while credit was easy. During the credit crunch it suddenly exported way less. So it's very pro-cyclical, more so than manufacturing, because such countries still need to service their oversized (due to the size of the financial sector) debts and obligations. It makes them too leveraged.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 10:32 pm GMT
@reiner Tor It's also more difficult to export services, so countries with low manufacturing will often experience huge current account deficits.

No. They experience current account deficits because their savings rates are under par.

There is. Manufacturing productivity can easily be increased.

Doesn't matter if all that new output of glass, steel, and rubber hasn't much of a market because people are sated.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 11:02 pm GMT
@Sean As I am sure you know service sector employment is mainly masses on low wages, so low they are subsidized by the state in many cases, and increasingly on zero hours contracts.

No, I don't know that. The compensation scales in various industrial sectors (as a % of the mean across all private sectors) are as follows:

Utilites: 206%
Management of companies and enterprises: 201%
Mining: 178%
Information: 176%
Finance: 173%
Professional, scientific and technical services: 156%
Wholesale Trade: 127%
Manufacturing: 119%
Construction: 103%
Real estate: 99%
Transportation and Warehousing: 99%
Health Care and Social Assistance: 92%
Educational services [private]: 82%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation: 81%
Administrative and waste management services: 70%
Miscellaneous svs: 69%
Accommodation: 63%
Agriculture, Fishing, Forestry: 63%
Retail trade: 60%

Wages in manufacturing are above the mean. More sophisticated technology means you're left with fewer employees (but with the skill sets to operate the machinery). (About 11% of the private sector workforce is in manufacturing).

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 11:07 pm GMT
@Sean As I am sure you know service sector employment is mainly masses on low wages, so low they are subsidized by the state in many cases, and increasingly on zero hours contracts. Hence low demand.

They're not running a current account deficit of 4.4% of gdp because they're suffering from 'low demand'

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 11:09 pm GMT
@Art Deco These are figures for the United States by way of illustration.
RadicalCenter , December 21, 2017 at 1:03 am GMT
@AP Turning Iraq into a stable democracy would have been a legitimate reason to wage war? Must respectfully and strenuously disagree. We would be constantly at war if that were the standard. And, in fact, we HAVE been constantly at war. It has to stop.
RadicalCenter , December 21, 2017 at 1:12 am GMT
@S3 Great point, S3, and I will correct my comment to exclude Eastern Europe from the prediction of likely substantial non-Muslim flight ("Eastern Europe" meaning, for this purpose, Poland, Hungary, Belarus if it is not so foolish as to join the EU, and whatever is left of Ukraine that is not re-claimed by Russia).

But I'd also predict likely substantial "flight of non-Muslims out of Western and perhaps CENTRAL Europe", unfortunately.

Because I am not at all convinced, yet, that Austria will not continue to be colonized by Muslims. Austria may be colonized at a slower pace than Germany if the new Austrian government seriously secures its borders, deports some existing invaders who have not been granted citizenship yet, and refuses to take any new Muslim and/or African/Arab "refugees."

But even if that occurs, as I fervently hope, Muslims apparently will continue to constitute an ever-larger share of Austria's population -- based simply on the huge difference in fertility rates among non-Muslims compared to Muslims there. Even without any new immigration to Austria, an improbably happy state of affairs, Austrians simply don't have enough children to replace themselves. Not even close.

With Austrian TFR so persistently low, all Muslims in Austria need to do is maintain a TFR at replacement (say, 2.1), and they will take over the country.

That new government had better get to work if they don't want to see Austrians fleeing east (or to the USA) along with the droves of Germans who will certainly be underway.

AP , December 21, 2017 at 2:59 am GMT
@RadicalCenter

Turning Iraq into a stable democracy would have been a legitimate reason to wage war

Yes. That doesn't necessarily mean we should have done it, even if that were the reason. As you said, we can't keep doing this everywhere all the time. Nor am I claiming it is possible (it was done in Japan but Japan is not Iraq). But if we did invade, and then did whatever had to be done to transform the place from a Baathist dictatorship with radical Islam simmering underneath, into a stable, decent, secular, Christian-tolerant and allied country, that would have been legitimate.

S3 , December 21, 2017 at 4:09 am GMT
@RadicalCenter Does Austria have anything like the US's RICO Act? Creating something like it and generously applying it to immigrant crime would be one of my suggestions, a California-style three-strikes law would be another.

The in-your-face pro-natality propaganda does not seem to be working. So maybe something subtler is required, like asking television and film studios to produce more traditional role-models for women. More scenes of doting mothers and adorable babies. And yes, Kurz's wife should definitely be given a role.

Talha , December 21, 2017 at 4:26 am GMT
@RadicalCenter On a roll.
gT , December 21, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT
Its very amusing reading all the comments so far. But reality is that Russia should take back all the lands conquered by the Tsars, and that includes Finland.

Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the world. And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their "presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office. Now America has even moved into Eastern Europe, and has troops and radars and nuclear capable missile batteries stationed there. So America is just expanding and expanding its grasp while Russia must contract its territories even further and further. Yippee.

So Russia must take back all the territories conquered by the Tsars so as to not lose this game of monopoly. Those in those territories not too happy about such matters can move to America or deal with the Red Army. This is not a matter of cost benefits analysis but a matter of Russia's national security, as in the case of Chechnya.

The territories to Russia's East are especially necessary for Russia's security; when the chips are down, when all the satellites have been blown out of space, all the aircraft blown out of the air, all the ground hardware blown to smithereens; when the battle is reduced to eye to eye rat like warfare, then those assorted Mongol mongrels from Russia's East come into their element. Genghis Khan was the biggest mass murderer in history, he made Hitler look like a school boy, his genes live on in those to Russia's East. So if America were to get involved in Ukraine Russia would have no issues losing a million troops in a matter of days while the US has never even lost a million troops in its civil war and WW2 combined.

Lets face it, those Mongol mongrels make much better fighters than the effete Sunni Arabs any day, so Russia should get them on her side. In Syria those ISIS idiots would never have got as far as they did were it not for those few Chechens in their midst's.

But alas, Russia has to eat humble pie at the moment, internationally and at the Olympics. But humble pie tastes good when its washed down with bottles of vodka, and its only momentarily after all.

Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 10:50 am GMT
@gT Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the world.

Since 1945, between 70% and 87% of American military manpower has been stationed in the United States and its possession. The vast bulk of the remainder is generally to be found in about a half-dozen countries. (In recent years, that would be Germany, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait). Andrew Bacevich once went on a whinge about the stupidity of having a 'Southern Command' without bothering to tell his readers that the Southern Command had 2,000 billets at that time, that nearly half were stationed at Guantanamo Bay (an American possession since 1902), that no country had more than 200 American soldiers resident, and that the primary activity of the Southern Command was drug interdiction. On the entire African continent, there were 5,000 billets at that time.

And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their "presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office.

This is a fantasy.

Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT
@gT Why not post sober?
gT , December 21, 2017 at 4:05 pm GMT
@Art Deco Fantasy?

Read here about Merkel obeying her real masters

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/editorial-merkel-has-left-germans-high-and-dry-a-911425.html

and read here about "BERLIN IS WASHINGTON'S VASSAL UNTIL 2099″

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-183232

I especially like the bit about "Though most of the German officers were not originally inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies." Seems its not only the Russians who are getting increasingly pissed off with the US when at first they actually liked the US. No wonder the Germans are just letting their submarines and tanks rot away.

Also https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2011/06/05/germany-still-under-the-control-of-foreign-powers/
(damn South Africans popping up everywhere)

Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT
@gT Yes, a fantasy. That you put your gloss on news reports and locate other fantasists does not make it less of a fantasy.
Andrei Martyanov , Website December 21, 2017 at 8:23 pm GMT
@Art Deco

That you put your gloss on news reports

Pray tell how military-political analysis works without news? Your angle on OSI (Open Source Intelligence) would also be "interesting".

Sean , December 21, 2017 at 8:47 pm GMT
@Art Deco Switzerland has the second highest per capital value added manufacturing, Singapore is first. Successful profitable services do not seem stand alone in any actual economy.
Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT
Successful profitable services do not seem stand alone in any actual economy.

Well, you're not looking for them.

Switzerland has the second highest per capital value added manufacturing, Singapore is first.

About 19% of the value-added in their economies is attributable to manufacturing. You find the same ratio in Serbia, which no one will mistake for an affluent and economically dynamic country.

Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 11:33 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov 1. There is no 'President of Japan'.

2. Neither the Japanese Emperor nor the President of Germany take an oath of allegiance to the United States or any American official.

3. Neither the Chancellor of Germany nor the Prime Minister of Japan are incapable of making a decision without consulting the U.S. Embassy. (Manned by Caroline Kennedy at one point in Japan).

Johann Ricke , December 22, 2017 at 1:03 am GMT
@Art Deco

About 19% of the value-added in their economies is attributable to manufacturing.

The amusing thing is that the stock-in-trade of both Switzerland and Singapore is some combo of private banking, tax-avoidance and money laundering. That's why the per capita income is so high. It's bloated by the portfolio income of wealthy people like Marc Rich, Robert Mugabe and Zuckerberg's Brazilian business partner.

[Dec 22, 2017] But an attack on Afghanistan was unnecessary and foolish (for genuine American national interests, that is, not for the self-interested lobbies driving policy obviously), as the astronomical ongoing costs have demonstrated.

Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:48 pm GMT

@reiner Tor

Destroying the Taliban government, yes. Building "democracy" is just stupid, though. They should've quickly left after the initial victory and let the Afghans to just eat each other with Stroganoff sauce if they so wished. It's not our business.

In fact destroying the Taliban government was both illegal and foolish (but the latter was by far the more important). It seems clear now the Taliban were quite willing to hand bin Laden over for trial in a third party country, and pretty clearly either had had no clue what he had been planning or were crapping themselves at what he had achieved. Bush declined that offer because he had an urgent political need to be seen to be kicking some foreign ass in order to appease American shame.

The illegality is not a particularly big deal in the case of Afghanistan because it's clear that in the post-9/11 context the US could easily have gotten UNSC authorisation for the attack and made it legal. Bush II deliberately declined to do so precisely in order to make the point that the US (in Americans' view) is above petty details of international law and its own treaty commitments. A rogue state, in other words.

But an attack on Afghanistan was unnecessary and foolish (for genuine American national interests, that is, not for the self-interested lobbies driving policy obviously), as the astronomical ongoing costs have demonstrated. A trial of bin Laden would have been highly informative (and some would argue that was why the US regime was not interested in such a thing), and would if nothing else have brought him out into the open. Yes, he would have had the opportunity to grandstand, but if the US were really such an innocent victim of unprovoked aggression why would the US have anything to fear from that? The whole world, pretty much, was on the US's side after 9/11.

The US could have treated terrorism as what it is, after 9/11 -- a criminal matter. It chose instead to make it a military matter, because that suited the various lobbies seeking to benefit from a more militarised and aggressive US foreign policy. The result of a US attack on the government of (most of) Afghanistan would always have been either a chaotic jihadi-riddled anarchy in Afghanistan worse than the Taliban-controlled regime that existed in 2001, or a US-backed regime trying to hold the lid down on the jihadists, that the US would have to prop up forever. And so indeed it came to pass.

[Dec 22, 2017] Felix Keverich

Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

, December 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm GMT

@Art Deco The way I see it "an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion, and it included plenty of American blood. Young healthy American men lost their lifes in Iraq, lost their their bodyparts (arms, legs, their nuts), lost their sanity, and as an American I can't imagine that you were pleased about that. Certainly, most of your countrymen didn't feel this way, they didn't feel this war was worth it for the US.
German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT
@Art Deco That's just dumb. The reasons officially given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Saddam's regime hiding weapons of mass destruction and being an intolerable threat to the outside world -- were a transparently false pretext for war, and that was clearly discernible at the time. Saddam's regime was extremely brutal and increasingly Islamic or even Islamist in character, but by 2003 it wasn't a serious threat to anyone outside Iraq anymore the worst thing it did was send money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (bad, but hardly an existential threat). Admittedly there was the question how to deal with his regime in coming years, whether to eventually relax sanctions or to keep them in place for the foreseeable future. But there was no urgent need to invade Iraq that was purely a war of choice which the US started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own preferences. If you don't understand why many people find that rather questionable, it's you who needs to get out more.
reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT
@Art Deco Hungary joined NATO a few days (weeks? can't remember) before the start of the Kosovo-related bombardment of Serbia. I attended university in a city in the south of Hungary, close to the Serbian border. I could see the NATO planes flying by above us every night when going home from a bar or club (both of which I frequented a lot).

I was a staunch Atlanticist at the time, and I believed all the propaganda about the supposed genocide which later turned out not to have gone through the formality of actually taking place. But it was never properly reported as the scandal it was -- it was claimed that the Serbs were murdering tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians, but it never happened. They might have killed a few hundred, at worst a few thousand civilians, but that's different from what the propaganda claimed at the time. I only found out that there was no genocide of Albanians in Kosovo when I searched the internet for it some time after the Iraq invasion. By that time I was no longer an Atlanticist. Most people are totally unaware that there was any lying going on while selling us the war.

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT
@German_reader

and that was clearly discernible at the time

Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes and made me question some previous policies, especially the bombardment of Serbia. I wasn't any longer comfortable of being in NATO, especially since it started to get obvious that Hungarian elites (at least the leftists among them) used our membership to dismantle our military and use the savings on handouts for their electorate, or -- worse -- outright steal it. While it increasingly looked like NATO wasn't really protecting our interests, since our enemies were mostly our neighbors (some of them). This kind of false safety didn't feel alright.

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT
@reiner Tor "Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes"

Same for me. I was 15 during the Kosovo war and believed NATO's narrative, couldn't understand how anybody could be against the war, given previous Serb atrocities during the Bosnian war it seemed to make sense. And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued vehemently with a stupid leftie teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified, so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American fool). But Iraq was just too much, too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it was hard not to feel that there was something deeply wrong with a large part of the American public if they were gullible enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it was a real turning point in the evolution of my political views.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen together,

The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis:

James Mattis' 33-Year Grudge Against Iran

That's something that ought to seriously concern anyone with a rational view of world affairs.

which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country.

In fact the Americans had already admitted defeat and agreed to pull out before Obama took office. Bush II signed the withdrawal agreement on 14th December 2008. After that, US forces in Iraq were arguably no longer occupiers and were de jure as well as de facto present on the sufferance of the Iraqi government. The US regime had clearly hoped to have an Iraqi collaboration government for the long term, as a base from which to attack Iran, but the long Iraqi sunni and shia resistances scuppered that idea. The sunnis had fought hard, but were mostly defeated and many of them ended up collaborating with the US occupiers, as indeed had much of the shia, for entirely understandable reasons in both cases.

Military occupations are morally complicated like that.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Art Deco

Were we defeated, Iraq would be ruled by the Ba'ath Party or networks of Sunni tribesman. It is not. This isn't that difficult Randal.

Well this is an old chestnut that is really just an attempt to abuse definitions of victory and defeat on your part.

The US invasion of Iraq itself was initially a military success. It ended in complete military victory over the Iraqi regime and nation, the complete surrender of the Iraqi military and the occupation of the country.

However, the US regime's wider war aims were not achieved because they were unable to impose a collaboration government and use the country as a base for further projection of US power in the ME (primarily against Iran, on behalf of Israel), and the overall result of the war and the subsequent occupation was catastrophic for any honest assessment of American national interests (as opposed to the interests of the lobbies manipulating US regime policy). The costs were significant, the reputational damage was also significant, and the overall result was to replace a contained and essentially broken opponent with vigorous sunni jihadist forces together with a resurgent Iran unwilling to kowtow to the US as most ME states are.

So the best honest assessment is that the US was defeated in Iraq, despite an initial military victory.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@Randal

The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis

I suspect the reason this happens is because ambitious American officers know that hating Iran (hating enemies of Israel in general) is what gets you promoted. It wasn't an accident that James Mattis was appointed Secretary of Defense -- he is Bill Kristol's favourite.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:38 pm GMT
@Art Deco US military is still butthurt over the Iran's support for Shia militias, targeting US troops during Iraq occupation. Clearly, the Shias hurt them a lot, and it was very unexpected for the US, because Americans actually brought Shias into power.
German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT
@Art Deco Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003. Your statement that this was merely one item "on the list of the concerns" Bush had, amounts to an admission that this was merely a pretext and that the real object of the war was a political reordering of the region according to US preferences (which of course backfired given that the Iraq war increased Iran's power and status).
Calling me "Eurotrash" oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all very unoriginal by now.
Johann Ricke , December 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT
@German_reader

Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003.

It was one of many reasons. You don't set a guy on Death Row free just because one of the charges didn't stick. The biggest reason was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, which should have resulted in his removal from power. We settled on a truce because George HW Bush did not want to pay the price, and the (mostly-Sunni) Arab coalition members did not want (1) a democracy in Iraq and (2) a Shiite-dominated Iraq. Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for that piece of unfinished business. The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm GMT
@Johann Ricke

Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for that piece of unfinished business.

No, Bush II chose to invade Iraq entirely voluntarily. There was no good reason to do so, and the very good reasons why his father had sensibly chosen not to invade still largely applied (even more so in some cases, given Iraq's even weaker state).

The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.

This is of course self-serving fantasy. The Russians told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The sensible British told you there was no need to invade Iraq, but for some reason you preferred to listen to the words of the staring-eyed sycophant who happened to be Prime Minister at the time, instead.

More fool the Yanks. Most everyone else honest on the topic was giving you sensible advice. Bush II (whose incompetence is now generally accepted) chose to ignore that advice, and committed what is generally now regarded as the most egregious example of a foreign policy blunder since Vietnam at least, and probably since Suez, and will likely be taught as such around the world (including in the US, once the partisan apologists have given up trying to rationalise it) for generations to come.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT
@Art Deco

They've been supplying Hezbollah for 35 years.

Only by air.

For the last four years, Iran was shipping weapons and ammunition to the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Hezbollah through an air route. This method allowed Israel to identify, track and target Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah easily, as only few cargo airplanes land in Syrian airports every day.

However, now Israel will be incapable of identifying any Iranian shipment on the new ground route, as it will be used by thousands of Iraq and Syrian companies on daily basis in the upcoming months. Experts believe that this will give Hezbollah and the SAA a huge advantage over Israel and will allow Iran to increase its supplies to its allies.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/12/httpssouthfrontorgfirst-iranian-military-convoy-enters-syria-through-land-route-from-iraq-reports.html

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 11:25 pm GMT
@Art Deco

The sensible British were a co-operating force in invading Iraq.

That was the staring-eyed sycophant's work.

The man who opened the floodgates to immigration because he thought multiculturalism is a great idea.

As for the rest, they all have their shticks and interests

Of course. Unlike the exceptional United States of course, the only country in the world whose government never has any axe to grind in the nobility of purpose and intent it displays in all the wars it has ever fought.

You seem to be degenerating into a caricature of the ignorant, arrogant American.

RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:17 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Similarly, it doesn't seem likely that the US government will give up its control and influence over the "independent media" that many Americans still think we have.
RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:22 pm GMT
@Art Deco Folks in Belarus shouldn't make up their minds about applying to the EU until they speak with regular German, French, English, and Swedish people about the effects of the Islamic / Third World immivasion that the EU has imposed on them. My wife and I speak & correspond with Germans living in Germany frequently, and the real state of affairs for non-elite Germans is getting worse fast, with no good end in sight.

Anyone who does not desire to die or at best live subjugated under sharia -- and sharia run largely by cruel dimwits from Africa and Arabia -- ought to stay out (or GET out of) the EU.

Johann Ricke , December 18, 2017 at 11:31 pm GMT
@Randal

Well history has proven them to have been correct and the US regime wrong on Iraq, so that pretty much tells you how far your arrogance will get you outside your own echo chamber.

"History" has proven no such thing. What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's underestimate of the number of American casualties and the cost to the US treasury*, for which he and the GOP paid a serious political price. However, it's also clear that the Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets that Saddam is gone. While both communities seem to think that we should continue to bear a bigger chunk of the price of pacifying Iraq's bellicose Sunni Arabs, it's also obvious that they are not electing Tikritis or even Sunni Arabs to office, as they would if they were nostalgic for Saddam's rule. The big picture, really, is that the scale of the fighting has probably convinced both Shiites and Kurds that they could not have toppled Saddam without the assistance of Uncle Sam. They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at bay without American assistance.

* These costs were larger than projected, but small compared to the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Whether or not Iraq can be secured as an American ally in the decades ahead, both the gamble and the relatively nugatory price paid will, in retrospect, be seen as a reasonable one, given Iraq's strategic location.

Randal , December 19, 2017 at 12:08 am GMT
@Johann Ricke

What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's underestimate of the number of American casualties and the cost to the US treasury

No, what went wrong in Iraq from the pov of any kind of honest assessment of an American national interest was that an unnecessary war was fought justified by lies that have seriously discredited the nation that told them, and that the results of the war were hugely counter to said American national interests: the conversion of a contained and broken former enemy state into a jihadist free fire training and recruitment zone combined with a strong ally of a supposed enemy state, Iran.

Whether the direct material cost of the war is acceptable or not is rather beside the point. It's a matter between Bush II and the parents, relatives and friends of those Americans who lost their lives or their health, and between Bush II and American taxpayers. If it had been achieved cost-free it still wouldn't have been worth it, because it was a defeat.

But it's no accident that the costs of the war were "underestimated". As usual, if the Bush II regime had been honest about the likely costs of their proposed war, there would have been a political outcry against it and they'd have been forced to back down as Obama was over Syria.

However, it's also clear that the Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets that Saddam is gone

Amusing to see you are currently pretending that what Iraqi Kurds and Shiites feel matters. It's always entertaining to see just how shameless Americans can be at their game of alternately pretending to care for foreigners' views (when they need to justify a war) and regarding foreigners with utter contempt and disregard (when said foreigners are saying something Americans don't like to hear).

They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at bay without American assistance.

Well that partly depends upon how much support the US regime allowed its Gulf sunni Arab proxies to funnel to said jihadists, I suppose. But most likely they'd have crushed them in due course with Iranian backing.

In Iraq, IS were fine as long as they stayed out of the strongly Shiite areas in the south. They'd have quickly been whipped if they'd ventured there. Just as IS were fine in Syria as long as they were taking relatively remote land over from a government and army in desperate straits as a result of a disastrous externally funded civil war, but were soon beaten when the Russians stepped in and started actually fighting them rather than pretending to do so only as long as it didn't interfere too much with their real goal of overthrowing the Syria government, American-style.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 12:16 am GMT
@German_reader I see that Art Deco got more active than usual. Seems that the destruction of Iraq is close to his heart. Several days ago Ron Unz had this to say about him:

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116171
Exactly! It's pretty obvious that this "Art Deco" fellow is just a Jewish-activist type, and given his very extensive posting history, perhaps even an organized "troll." But he's certainly one of the most sophisticated ones, with the vast majority of his comments being level-headed, moderate, and very well-informed, generally focusing on all sorts of other topics, perhaps with the deliberate intent of building up his personal credibility for the periodic Jewish matters that actually so agitate him.

To which I added:

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116402
The quality and wide range of his comments are really impressive. As if it was coming form a super intelligent AI Hal that has access to all kinds of databases at his finger tips. And then there is always the same gradient of his angle: the reality is as it is; reality is as you have been told so far; do not try to keep coming with weird theories and speculations because they are all false; there is nothing interesting to see. His quality and scope are not congruent with his angle. All his knowledge and all his data and he hasn't found anything interesting that would not conform to what we all read in newspapers. Amazing. If America had its High Office of Doctrine and Faith he could have been its supreme director.

His overactivity here is somewhat out of character and after reading his comments here I doubt that Ron Unz would call him "one of the most sophisticated ones." I also would take back the "really impressive" part too. Perhaps some other individuum was assigned to Art Deco handle this Monday.

Randal , December 19, 2017 at 12:27 am GMT
Speaking of US foreign policy stupidity and arrogance, the response to the latest evidence that Trump will continue the inglorious Clinton/Bush II/Obama tradition of destructive corrupt/incompetent buffoonery:

US outnumbered 14 to 1 as it vetoes UN vote on status of Jerusalem

And here's the profoundly noxious Nikki Haley "lying for her country" (except, bizarrely, it isn't even really for her own country). Her appointment by Trump certainly was one of the first signs that he was going to seriously let America down:

The resolution was denounced in furious language by the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, who described it as "an insult" that would not be forgotten. "The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy," she said.

"It's scandalous to say we are putting back peace efforts," she added. "The fact that this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in defence of America's role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the security council."

The real nature of the UN resolution the execrable Haley was so faux-offended by:

The UK and France had indicated in advance that they would would back the text, which demanded that all countries comply with pre-existing UNSC resolutions on Jerusalem, dating back to 1967, including requirements that the city's final status be decided in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

But requiring Israel and its US poodles to act in good faith is surely anti-Semitic, after all. The real beneficiary (he thinks, at least) of Trump's and Haley's buffoonery was suitably condescending in his patting of his poodles' heads:

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, tweeted: "Thank you, Ambassador Haley. On Hanukkah, you spoke like a Maccabi. You lit a candle of truth. You dispel the darkness. One defeated the many. Truth defeated lies. Thank you, President Trump."

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT
@utu Art Deco isn't Jewish iirc, but an (Irish?) Catholic from the northeastern US. And I suppose his views aren't even that extreme, but pretty much standard among many US right-wingers (a serious problem imo), so it makes little sense to attack him personally.
utu , December 19, 2017 at 12:29 am GMT
@German_reader Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons

The fact that Iraq had no WMD was actually critical to making the claims that it had them. If Iraq had them it would officially relinquish them which would take away the ostensive cause for the invasion.

I am really amazed that now 14 years after the invasion there are some who still argue about the WMD. Iraq was to be destroyed because this was the plan. The plan to reorganize the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria. The WDM was just an excuse that nobody really argued for or against in good faith including Brits or Germans or Turks. Everybody knew the writing on the wall.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT
@German_reader it makes little sense to attack him personally

Yes, personal attacks are counterproductive but I can't resit, I just can't help it, so I must to say what I said already several times in the past: you are a cuck. You are a hopeless case.

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:41 am GMT
@utu

The plan to reorganize the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria.

Has to be admitted though that Iraq became increasingly less secular during the 1990s, with Saddam's regime pushing Islamization as a new source of legitimacy. It's probably no accident that former Baath people and officers of Saddam's army were prominent among the leadership of IS.
Still hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:48 am GMT
@utu With all due respect to you and Ron Unz, but the idea that someone like "Art Deco" is an "organized troll" who creates an elaborate fake persona (which he then maintains over multiple years on several different websites -- I first encountered him years ago on the American conservative's site) to spread pro-Jewish views seems somewhat paranoid to me.
I have no reason to doubt he's genuine (as far as that's possible on the internet), his views aren't unusual.
RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 3:16 am GMT
@German_reader Agree with everything you just wrote. And please understand, I love the Germans and I'm angry at them in the way that you'd be angry at a brother who refuses to stop destroying himself with drugs or whatever.
John Gruskos , December 19, 2017 at 3:25 am GMT
@German_reader The commenter using the name "Art Deco" is NOT an American nationalist.

He is neocon trash.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT
@German_reader Still hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.

What do you mean by that? Are you so out of touch? You really do not understand what was the reason behind Iraq 2003 war and then fucking it up when Gen. Garner was recalled and replaced with Paul Bremer who drove Iraq to the ground? Repeat after me: Iraq was destroyed because this was the only objective of 2003 Iraq war. The mission was accomplished 100%.

LondonBob , December 19, 2017 at 8:19 am GMT
@utu Israel wanted Iraq destroyed, it was.
AP , December 20, 2017 at 1:18 am GMT
@Art Deco I respectfully disagree with you about the Iraq war (one of the few areas on which I disagree with you).

I suppose had the West made a massive investment in Iraq, secured its Christian population, loaded it with US troops, and did to it what was done to Japan, over several decades, transforming it into a prosperous democratic US ally, removing Saddam (who deserves no sympathy) might have been a nice thing. It would have been a massive financial drain but having a "Japan", other than Israel, in the heart of the Middle East might have been worth it (I am not a Middle East expert but it seems the Shah's Persia was sort of being groomed for such a role).

Instead, it ended up being a disaster -- 100,000s dead in sectarian massacres, Christian population nearly destroyed, and other than Kurdish areas, an ally either of Iran or of militant anti-American Sunnis. At the cost, to the USA, of dead Americans, lots of money, and loss of soft power. I also suspect that America being stuck and preoccupied in Middle East conflicts gave room for Russia to act. I guess its a tribute to how strong America is, that it is still doing pretty well in spite of the debacle. A lesser power such as the USSR would have been sunk.

TT , December 20, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT
That's rght, and it happens to the whole world too including those countries destroyed by US and under its sanction. The bombastic propaganda MSM fake news and Hollywood have brainwashed all to harbour delusion that US is a perfect heaven paved with gold, honey and milk, people of high morality and freedom. Wait till they live there to find out reality of DemoNcracy made in USA.

[Dec 22, 2017] When Russians Were Americanophiles, by Anatoly Karlin

Notable quotes:
"... And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war. ..."
"... r Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia. ..."
"... They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part, corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia? ..."
"... The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in the Donbass. ..."
"... Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in "between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy. ..."
"... Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story. ..."
"... Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian ..."
"... There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans. ..."
"... Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. ..."
"... Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014). ..."
"... Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession – with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable. ..."
"... I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating over after the Maidan coup. ..."
"... So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of skilled people. ..."
"... Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons ..."
"... The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine. ..."
"... You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5 billion. ..."
"... Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army. ..."
"... The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear. ..."
"... Most ukrops even admit that Kharkov could easily have gone in 2014, if Russia had wanted it/feasible ..."
Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT

Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire centuries in the making

What's remarkable to me about that graph of opinion over time is how pig-headedly resilient Russian naivety about the US has been. Time after time it appears the scales would fall from Russians' eyes after the US regime disgraced itself particularly egregiously (Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia), and within a few months approval would be back up to 50% or above. It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
@Art Deco

There are no disgraces incorporated into any of these events

That might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments, and supporting Georgia was, like NATO expansion in general and numerous other consistently provocative US foreign policy measures directed against post-Soviet Russia, a literally stupid matter of turning a potential ally against the real rival China into an enemy and ally of said rival.

You are perfectly entitled to endorse mere stupidity on the part of your rulers, but the fact that you so shamelessly approve of waging illegal wars counter to treaty commitments discredits any opinions you might have on such matters.

Verymuchalive , December 18, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT

Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy

Actually, present Russian borders are more those of Peter the Great, circa 1717, than Old Muscovy. Russia, unlike nearly all the Great Powers of the C20th, has retained its Empire – Siberia, the Russian Far East, Kamchatka, South Russia and the Crimea ( first acquired as recently as 1783 ).

Once those dim-witted Ukies finally implode the Ukrainian economy, Russia will be able to gobble up the rest of southern and eastern Ukraine – all the way to Odessa.

The places that seceded from the Soviet Union are places that Russians don't want ( Northern Kazakhstan excepted ) and are urgently required to receive all those Central Asian immigrants who will be deported by sensible Russian governments in the near future. ( I exclude Armenians from the last clause )

inertial , December 18, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT
Yes, US had squandered a lot of good will in exchange for extremely valuable "geopolitical foothold in Eastern Europe." Incidentally, Soviet propaganda was never anti-American. It was anti-capitalist, an important distinction. Whereas in America, anti-Russian propaganda has always been anti- Russian .
Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

the US gained a geopolitical foothold in Eastern Europe, tied up further European integration into an Atlantic framework,

Washington could get both by integrating and not alienating americanophile Russia.

closed off the possibility of the "Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok" envisaged by Charles de Gaulle.

It also closed off the possibility of an American-led Global North.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 4:46 pm GMT
@Randal That might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments,

We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq and both places had it coming.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT
@Art Deco

You have a large national state.

Correction: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state . Its Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they exclude those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate republics of Belarus and Ukraine.

I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home' – an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.

PS: just because we had trouble holding onto Chechnya doesn't mean that annexing Belarus will be hard. Sure, we can expect blowback in the form of Western sanctions, but I don't anticipate much resistance from inside Belarus.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 5:06 pm GMT
@Randal

It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.

Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 5:12 pm GMT
@Art Deco With that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's incursions into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the Ukraine. US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever. US interests suffered as a result of its ill-advised agression, they ended up empowering their avowed enemy – Iran.
Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.

How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media? These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public opinion.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 5:42 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Correction: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state.

Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152 million.

Its Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they exclude those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate republics of Belarus and Ukraine.

It's western borders are no more artificial than that of any other country not bounded by mountains or water.

I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home' –

'Essential'? You just can't get through the day without Minsk?

As for White Russia, your constituency there has in its dimensions fallen by half in the last 20 years.

http://russialist.org/belarusians-want-to-join-eu-rather-than-russia-poll-shows/

As for the Ukraine, you've no discernable constituency for reunification. The constituency for a Russophile foreign policy weighs in there at about 12% of the public. VP's three-dimensional chess game is going swimmingly.

My own forebears discovered in 1813 that the residue of British North America was quite content with gracious George III, and our boys got their assess handed to them by them Cannucks. We got over it and so can you. Miss Ukraine is just not that into you. Best not to play the stalker.

inertial , December 18, 2017 at 5:46 pm GMT
@Art Deco As for the Ukraine, you've no discernable constituency for reunification.

You don't know much about Ukraine.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 5:50 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich With that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's incursions into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the Ukraine.

They dissed you. La di dah. My own countrymen have put up with that from an array of Eurotrash and 3d world kleptocrats every time we open the newspaper.

US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever.

No, we did so because that was the best alternative. The other alternative was a sanctions regime which Big Consciences were assuring the world was causing a six-digit population of excess deaths each year or taking the sanctions off and letting Saddam and the other Tikritis to follow their Id. Iraq was a charnel house, and the world is well rid of the Tikriti regime, especially Iraq's Kurdish and Shia provinces, which have been quiet for a decade. You don't take an interest in the ocean of blood for which the Ba'ath Party was responsible, but you're terribly butthurt that politicians in Kiev don't take orders from Moscow. Felix, I can taste teh Crazy.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 5:58 pm GMT
@Art Deco

Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152 million.

Exactly, and you're missing the point. Re-read my previous comment again:
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home' – an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.

Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not regard Belarus and Ukraine as part of "заграница" – foreign countries. Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.

http://russialist.org/belarusians-want-to-join-eu-rather-than-russia-poll-shows/

I don't care, because this isn't a popularity contest. There were similar polls in Crimea showing majority support for the EU, just before the peninsula voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia. LOL

The question that matters to me is will there be a vast resistance movement inside Belarus following the annexation, and to be honest I don't expect one.

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 6:06 pm GMT
@Art Deco

We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq

Except the UN Charter and the Helsinki Accords. The latter only with Serbia.

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Neither the Ukrainians nor probably the Byelorussians want to join Russia. Get over it. You still have a big enough country.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT
@Art Deco

We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq

The treaty commitment in question was with almost the entire rest of the world, namely when your country entirely voluntarily signed up to a commitment to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". If your country had retained the slightest trace of integrity and self-respect it would at least have had the decency to withdraw from membership of the the UN when it chose to breach those treaty commitments.

And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war.

An entire nation state behaving like a lying '60s hippy or a shamelessly dishonest aggressor.

I'm sure you're proud.

and both places had it coming.

A straightforward confession of lawless rogue state behaviour, basically.

Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such arguments? Better for a real American patriot to just stop digging and keep sheepishly quiet about the past three decades of foreign policy.

inertial , December 18, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia.

That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian. The rulers of Ukraine and, to a much lesser degree, Belorussia are trying to erect cultural barriers between themselves and Russia. Good luck with that, in the 21st century. It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world. Eventually it will tell.

Now, the question is if Russians will even want Ukraine back. This is not so clear.

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT
@Mr. XYZ

Would Russia have been interested in joining both the E.U. and NATO?

Integration into West is what Russians wanted. An example

IF RUSSIA HAD THE CHANCE TO BECOME A FULL MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION NOW, WOULD YOU BE FOR OR AGAINST THIS? (N=800)

08/2009:
For: 53%
Against: 21%
Difficult to say: 27%

https://www.levada.ru/en/2016/06/10/russia-s-friends-and-enemies-2/

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT
@Randal

What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.

Yugoslavia and Iraq were not that close to Russia and Russian elite was still pushing for Integration into West at that time. After 2008, "Reset" and Obama happened.

It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000 and in 2004.

Keep in mind that Obama's opponent in 2008 was McCain, that McCain. Just like Trump, Obama seemed like the lesser evil and not to blame for previous conflicts.

Darin , December 18, 2017 at 7:53 pm GMT
@inertial

That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.

This is for them to decide, not for you.

It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world.

Yeah, the culture homogenizes around the world, into global Hollywood corporate culture. In the long there, "traditional Russian culture" is as doomed as "traditional Ukrainian culture" and "traditional American culture" if there is anything left of it.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

The fact is neither did Crimeans really want to join Russia (polls didn't show that)

Nonsense, Mr. Clueless-About-Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014#Polling

Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that 63.8% of Crimeans (76% of Russians, 55% of Ukrainians, and 14% of Crimean Tatars, respectively) would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status, but with expanded powers and rights . A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013 found that 53% wanted "Autonomy in Ukraine (as today)", 12% were for "Crimean Tatar autonomy within Ukraine", 2% for "Common oblast of Ukraine" and 23% voted for "Crimea should be separated and given to Russia".

The takeaway is that Crimeans were satisfied being part of Ukraine as long as Ukraine had an ethnic Russian, generally pro-Russian president like Yanukovich in charge (2013 poll), but preferred being part of Russia to being part of a Ukrainian state run by Ukrainians (2008 poll, post-Maidan).

AP , December 18, 2017 at 7:59 pm GMT
@inertial

That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.

Believer of Russian nationalist fairytales tells Russian nationalist fairytales. You managed to fit 3 of them into 2 sentences, good job.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT
@AP I was referring specifically to Russian attitudes about Ukrainians. I know that among Ukrainians themselves, there is quite the confusion on this subject.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:15 pm GMT
@Mitleser Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.

I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after 9/11, though not so much after Iraq.

But I have been told by Russians who ought to have some knowledge of these things that Putin and the wider regime were not so naïve even back in the late 1990s, so the case can be made both ways.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 8:16 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home' – an actual Russian nation-state.

In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime. Obviously there will have to be a militarized occupation regime and prison camps and a network of informants. A proud home.

Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.

Baltics were Russian longer than Ukraine. Central Poland became Russian at the same time as did half of Ukraine. According to the 1897 census, there were about as many Great Russian speakers in Kiev governate as in Warsaw. Take the Baltics and Warsaw back too?

inertial , December 18, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT
@Darin This is for them to decide, not for you.

Yes, of course. Just don't assume they will decide the way you think.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:21 pm GMT
@AP These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These polls are meaningless : most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless answer.

I'm sure, support for reunification will go up in Belarus, if the Kremlin shows some leadership on this issue. We will find enough people willing to work with us, the rest will just have to accept the new reality and go about their daily lifes as usual.

The situation in Ukraine is different, it differs wildly by region and will require us to modify our approach.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:24 pm GMT
@German_reader US started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own preferences.

It did nothing of the kind. It ejected two governments for reasons of state. One we'd been a state of belligerency with for 12 years, the other was responsible for a gruesome casus belli. Now, having done that, we needed to put in place a new government. There was no better alternative means of so doing than electoral contests.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media? These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public opinion.

They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part, corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?

melanf , December 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.

Definitely no. American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 8:42 pm GMT
@Randal

Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.

I am just taking into account that the early 00s were right after the 1990s when pro-Americanism was at its peak in Russia. Yugoslavia and Iraq were too distant too alienate the majority permanently.

I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after 9/11, though not so much after Iraq.

Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option? Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.

melanf , December 18, 2017 at 8:43 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Integration into West is what Russians wanted.
An example
08/2009:

Since then, everything has changed

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 8:51 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West.

There is no reason to assume that West will offer the Russian elite enough carrot to deregulate the Russian media order and the stick is just more reason not to do it and to retain control.

What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?

And you think that people in Russian elite are not aware of it?

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT
@AP

In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime.

This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000 – does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?

On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority – they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass. A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist" – these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare, they will just flee (like they already fled from Donbass).

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT
@Randal

In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them.

I agree with most of this, but you leave out precisely why public opinion shifts. My, rather cynical, view is that media is by far the main driver in shifting public views, and so whoever gives the media marching orders is the Pied Piper here.

An example close to home was the consternation among some of my conservative friends over the events Charlottesville. They knew nothing about the American alt-right, and still less about the context of what happened that day, yet they still spoke of what a disgrace it was for Trump not to distance himself from these deplorables. This was, of course, fully the making of Swedish media.

The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in the Donbass.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?

It tells me the reporters are confused or you are. There is no 'agreement' that will prevent 'Russia' from 'meddling' in American political life or the converse. The utility of agreements is that they make understandings between nations more precise and incorporate triggers which provide signals to one party or the other as to when the deal is off.

utu , December 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT
@inertial

Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in "between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy.

Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story.

Sean , December 18, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT
Two powerful countries beside one another are natural enemies, they can never be friends until one has been relegated by defeat. Britain and France were enemies until France became too weak to present a threat, then Britain's enemy was Germany (it still is, Brexit is another Dunkirk with the UK realizing it cannot compete with Germany on the continent).

Russia cannot be a friend of China against the US until Russia has been relegated in the way France has been. France has irrecoverably given up control of its currency, they are relegated to Germany's sidekick.

China is like Bitcoin. The smart money (Google) is going there. Received wisdom in the US keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When it becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down China's economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT
@melanf

American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.

Being Russian, you would be in a better position than I am to comment on this, but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian public and for what purpose? This article might hold the answer:

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/re-visiting-russian-counter-propaganda-methods/

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 9:20 pm GMT
@Art Deco Well, they can now send troops to Syria on land.
Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm GMT
@German_reader Calling me "Eurotrash"

I didn't have you in particular in mind.

oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all very unoriginal by now.

No, I'm a fat middle aged man who thinks most of what people say on political topics is some species of self-congratulation. And a great deal of it is perverse. The two phenomena are symbiotic. And, of course, I'm unimpressed with kvetching foreigners. Kvetching Europeans might ask where is the evidence that they with their own skills and resources can improve some situation using methods which differ from those we have applied and kvetching Latin Americans can quit sticking the bill for their unhappy histories with Uncle Sam, and kvetching Arabs can at least take responsibility for something rather than projecting it on some wire-pulling other (Jews, Americans, conspiracy x).

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT
@Art Deco

Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because we had troops in Iraq?

Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear allegiance directly to Khamenei.

Is that "victory" for you?

An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them to assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something they never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.

Is that "victory" for you?

And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing again.

Is that "victory" for you?

AP , December 18, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These polls are meaningless: most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless answer.

So according to you when hundreds or thousands of people are asked a question they are not prepared for, their collective answer is meaningless and does not indicate their preference?

So it's a total coincidence that when Ukraine was ruled by Ukrainians most Crimeans preferred to join Russia, when Ukraine was ruled by a Russian, Crimeans were satisfied within Ukraine but when Ukrainian nationalists came to power Crimeans again preferred being part of Russia?

Are all political polls also meaningless according to you, or just ones that contradict your idealistic views?

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 9:31 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000 – does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?

In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder. (I'm not sure "draft" is the word I'm looking for. My understanding is that they are temporarily exempt from military service if they study at university or have good jobs.)

melanf , December 18, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian public and for what purpose?

It is known – the minions of Putin translated into Russian language American (and European) propaganda, and putting it on the website http://inosmi.ru/ .
The Americans also try: there is a special "Radio Liberty" that 24-hour broadcasts (in Russian) hate speech against the Russian.
But it only speeds up the process (which will happen anyway) .

AP , December 18, 2017 at 10:12 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000 – does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?

It was about 50,000 in 2014, about 200,000-250,000 now.

Polish military has 105,000 personnel. Poland also not united or willing to defend itself?

On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority – they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass

Avakov, Poroshenko's interior minister and sponsor of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, in 2010 got 48% of the vote in Kharkiv's mayoral race in 2010 when he ran as the "Orange" candidate. In 2012 election about 30% of Kharkiv oblast voters chose nationalist candidates, vs. about 10% in Donetsk oblast. Vkontakte, a good source for judging youth attitudes, was split 50/50 between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan in Kharkiv (IIRC it was 80/20 anti-Maidan winning in Donetsk). Kharkiv is just like Donbas, right?

A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist"

Football hooligans in these places are also Ukrainian nationalists. Azov battalion and Right Sector are both based in Eastern Ukraine.

Here is how Azov started:

The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect 82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv, "Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]

Here is Azov battalion commander-turned-Kiev oblast police chief, Kharkiv native Vadim Troyan:

Does he look like an intellectual to you? Before Maidan he was a cop.

these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare,

On the contrary, they will probably dig in while seeking cover in urban areas that they know well, where they have some significant support (as Donbas rebels did in Donetsk), forcing the Russian invaders to fight house to house and causing massive damage while fighting native boys such as Azov. About 1/3 of Kharkiv overall and 1/2 of its youth are nationalists. I wouldn't expect mass resistance by the Kharkiv population itself, but passive support for the rebels by many. Russia will then end up rebuilding a large city full of a resentful population that will remember its dead (same problem Kiev will face if it gets Donbas back). This scenario can be repeated for Odessa. Dnipropetrovsk, the home base of Right Sector, is actually much more nationalistic than either Odessa or Kharkiv. And Kiev is a different world again. Bitter urban warfare in a city of 3 million (officially, most likely about 4 million) followed by massive reconstruction and maintenance of a repression regime while under international sanctions.

Russia's government has adequate intelligence services who know better what Ukraine is actually like, than you do. There is a reason why they limited their support to Crimea and Donbas.

Your wishful thinking about Ukraine would be charming and harmless if not for the fact that such wishful thinking often leads to tragic actions that harm both the invader and the invaded. Remember the Iraqis were supposed to welcome the American liberators with flowers after their cakewalk.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 10:22 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder.

Correct. The thinking often was – "the corrupt officers will screw up and get us killed, or sell out our positions to the Russians for money, if the Russians came to our city I'd fight them but I don't wanna go to Donbas.." This is very different from avoiding the draft because one wouldn't mind if Russia annexed Ukraine. Indeed, Dnipropetrovsk in the East has contributed a lot to Ukraine's war effort, primarily because it borders Donbas – ones hears from people there that if they don't fight in Donbas and keep the rebels contained there, they'd have to fight at home.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT
@AP LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types. And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.

The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country. I assume Russian security services know all of them by name.

To deal with Ukronazi problem, I would first take out their leaders, then target their HQs, arms depots and training camps. I would kill or intimidate their sponsors. Ukronazis would be left decapitated, without resources, undermanned and demoralised, trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them. It will be a short lived insurgency.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types.

And Russians and Poles were also soft when someone invaded their country? Ukrainians are not modern western Euros.

And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.

Most pensioners. It will be about 50/50 among young fighting-age people.

The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country

Maybe. Ukrainian government claims 46,000 in volunteer self-defense battalions (including Azov) but this is probably an exaggeration.

OTOH there are a couple 100,000 demobilized young people with combat experience who would be willing to fight if their homeland were attacked, who are not neo-Nazis in Azov. Plus a military of 200,000-250,000 people, many of whom would imitate the Donbas rebels and probably redeploy in places like Kharkiv where they have cover. Good look fighting it out block by block.

trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them

In 2010, 48% of Kharkiv voters chose a nationalist for their mayor. In 2012 about 30% voted for nationalist parties. Judging by pro vs, anti-Maidan, the youth are evenly split although in 2014 the Ukrainian nationalist youths ended up controlling the streets, not the Russian nationalist ones as in Donbas. This is in the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.

Suuure, the population of Kharkiv will despise their kids, grandkids, nephews, classmates etc,. but will welcome the invaders from Russia who will be bombing their city. Such idealism and optimism in Russia!

It will be a short lived insurgency.

And Iraq was supposed to be a cakewalk.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 11:15 pm GMT
@AP Again, supporting Maidan doesn't mean you're ready to take up Kalashnikov and go fight. Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.

This is what typical Maidanist Ukrainian youths look like; these people certainly don't look like they have a lot of fight in them: They remind me of Navalny supporters in Russia. These kind of people can throw a tantrum, but they are fundamentally weak people, who are easily crushed.

Cato , December 19, 2017 at 3:43 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Northern Kazakhstan is/was ethnically Russian, since the 1700s. This should have been folded into Russia; the North Caucasus should have been cut loose. My opinion.
AP , December 19, 2017 at 3:53 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Typical Russian mistakes regarding Ukraine: weak student-types in Russia are the main supporters of Ukraine in Russia, thus the same type must be the main pro-Maidan people in Ukraine. Because Ukraine = Russia. This silly dream of Ukraine being just like Russia leads to ridiculous ideas and hopes.

As I already said, the Azov battalion grew out of brawling football ultras in Kharkiv. Maidan itself was a cross-section – of students, yes, but also plenty of Afghan war vets, workers, far right brawlers, professionals, etc. It's wasn't simply "weak" students, nor was it simply far-right fascists (another claim by Russia) but a mass effort of the western half of the country.

Here are Afghan war vets at Maidan:

Look at those weak Maidan people running away from the enemy:

Azov people in their native Kharkiv:

Kharkiv kids:

Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.

Dodging the draft in order to avoid fighting in Donbas, where you are not wanted by the locals, is very different from dodging the draft to avoid fighting when your own town is being invaded.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:10 am GMT
@AP Summer camp was in Kiev, but there is another outside Kharkiv.

To be clear, most Ukrainians fighting against Russia are not these unsavory types, though they make for dramatic video. Point is that pro-Maidan types in Ukraine are far from being exclusively liberal student-types.

jimbojones , December 19, 2017 at 8:01 am GMT
A few points:

- The Russians ALWAYS were Americanophiles – ever since the Revolution. Russia has been an American ally most often explicit but occasionally tacit – in EVERY major American conflict, including the War on Terror and excluding Korea and Vietnam (both not major compared to the Civil War or WW2). The only comparable Great Power US ally is France. Russia and the US are natural allies.

- Russians are Americanophiles – they like Hollywood movies, American music, American idealism, American video games, American fashion, American inventions, American support in WW2, American can-do-aittude, American badassery and Americana in general.

- There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity that is not Russian.

- The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government. Yanukovich was certainly a corrupt scoundrel. But he was a democratically elected corrupt scoundrel. To claim Russian intervention in his election is a joke in light of the CIA-backed 2004 and 2014 coups.

Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 19, 2017 at 1:35 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich I think this poll is the most relevant for assessing the question, since it covered different regions and used the same methodology.

Takeaway:

1. Support for uniting into a single state with Russia at 41% in Crimea at a time when it was becoming quite clear the Yanukovych regime was doomed.

2. Now translates into ~90% support (according to both Russian and international polls) in Crimea. I.e., a more than a standard deviation shift in "Russophile" sentiment on this matter.

3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with Russia post facto . Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the Ukraine before 2014).

4. Central and West Ukraine would not be, which is why their reintegration would be far more difficult – and probably best left for sometime in the future.

5. What we have instead seen is a one standard deviation shift in "Ukrainophile" sentiment within all those regions that remained in the Ukraine. If this change is "deep," then AP is quite correct that their assimilation into Russia has been made impossible by Putin's vacillations in 2014.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT
@jimbojones

The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government

Typical Russian nationalist half-truth about Ukraine.

To be clear – Yanukovich was democratically elected in 2010, into a position where his powers were limited and where he was faced with a hostile parliament. His post-election accumulation of powers (overthrowing the Opposition parliament, granting himself additional powers, stacking the court with local judges from his hometown) was not democratic. None of these actions enjoyed popular support, none were made through democratic processes such as referendums or popular elections. Had that been the case, he would not have been overthrown in what was a popular mass revolt by half the country.

There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity that is not Russian.

A bit closer to the truth, but much too simplistic in a way that favors Russian idealism. Crimea (60% Russian) was simply not Ukraine, so lumping it in together with a place such as Kharkiv (oblast 70% Ukrainian) and saying that Russia took one part of this uniformly "Russian Ukraine" is not accurate.

You are correct that the western half of the country are a non-Russian Polish-but-not Habsburg central Ukraine/Volynia, and Polish-and-Habsburg Galicia.

But the other half consisted of two parts: ethnic Russian Crimea (60% Russian) and largely ethniuc-Russian urban Donbas (about 45% Russian, 50% Ukrainian), and a heavily Russified but ethnic Ukrainian Kharkiv oblast (70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian), Dnipropetrovsk (80% Ukrainian, 20% Russian), Kherson (82% Ukrainian, 14% Russian), and Odessa oblast (63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian).

The former group (Crimea definitely, and urban Donbas less strongly) like being part of Russia. The latter group, on the other hand, preferred that Ukraine and Russia have friendly ties, preferred Russian as a legal language, preferred economic union with Russia, but did not favor loss of independence. Think of them as pro-NAFTA American-phile Canadians who would nevertheless be opposed to annexation by the USA and would be angered if the USA grabbed a chunk of Canada. In grabbing a chunk of Ukraine and supporting a rebellion in which Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk kids are being shot by Russian-trained fighters using Russian-supplied bullets, Putin has turned these people off the Russian state.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with Russia post facto. Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the Ukraine before 2014).

'Asumptions' like this are what provide Swiss cheese the airy substance that makes it less caloric! Looks like only the retired sovok population in the countryside is up to supporting your mythical 'NovoRosija' while the more populated city dwellers would be opposed, even by your own admission (and even this is questionable). I'm surprised that the dutifully loyal and most astute opposition (AP) has let this blooper pass without any comment?

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin I think when answering this question, most people simple give what they consider to be the socially acceptable answer, especially in contemporary Ukraine, where you will go to prison for displaying Russian flag – who wants to be seen as a "separatist"?

In Crimea it has become more socially acceptable to identify with Russia following the reunification, which is why the number of people who answer this way shot up . The same effect will seen in Belarus and Ukraine – I'm fairly certain of it.

Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson

Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society. Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters. Most of them will react to Russian takeover by self-deporting – they have the money and resources to do it.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters.

Repeating your claim over and over again doesn't make it true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect 82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv, "Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]

The brawling East Ukrainian nationalists who took the streets of Kharkiv and Odessa were not mostly rich, fey hipsters.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society.

So, even by tour own admission, the only folks that would be for unifying with Russia are the uneducated, poor and those with no hopes of ever amounting to much in society. I don't agree with you, but I do see your logic. These are just the type of people that are the most easily manipulated by Russian propoganda – a lot of this went on in the Donbas, and we can see the results of that fiasco to this day.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 19, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT
@jimbojones

Russia and the US are natural allies.

While geopolitically and historically it is true:

a)Post-WWII American power elites are both incompetent and arrogant (which is a first derivative of incompetence) to understand that–this is largely the problem with most "Western" elites.

b) Currently the United States doesn't have enough (if any) geopolitical currency and clout to "buy" Russia. In fact, Russia can take what she needs (and she doesn't have "global" appetites) with or without the US. Plus, China is way more interested in Russia's services that the US, which will continue to increasingly find out more about its own severe military-political limitations.

c) The United States foreign policy is not designed and is not being conducted to serve real US national interests. In fact, US can not even define those interests beyond the tiresome platitudes about "global interests" and being "exceptional".

d) Too late

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
@AP I like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis, it's kinda funny actually, so let me pose as Ukraine's "defender" here:

This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern Ukraine. These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes. They are despised, looked down upon by the normal people, pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian alike. A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges draft. It's just the way it is.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT
@AP The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and perhaps even political power. Azov is simply a gang. And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs, so I don't expect Ukronazis to pose a major challenge.
reiner Tor , December 19, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich I'm not sure about Ukrainian football hooligans, but football hooligans in Hungary are not necessarily "low -lifes, criminals, delinquents", in fact, the majority of them aren't. Most groups consist mostly of working class (including a lot of security guards and similar) members, but there are some middle class (I know of a school headmaster, though I think he's no longer very active in the group) and working class entrepreneur types (e.g. the car mechanic who ended up owning a car dealership) and similar. I think outright criminal types are a small minority. Since it costs money to attend the matches, outright failures (the permanently unemployed and similar ne'er-do-wells) are rarely found in such groups.
Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT
@reiner Tor LOL I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their pastime. Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder, kidnapping and racketeering. Their criminal activities go unpunished by the regime, because they are considered "heroes" or something.
AP , December 19, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

I like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis

I never denied the presence of them.

This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern Ukraine.

If by "representative" you mean majority, sure. Neither are artsy students, or Afghan war veterans, or schoolteachers, any other group a majority.

Also not all of the street fighters turned militias neo-Nazis, as are Azov. Right Sector are not neo-Nazis, they are more fascists.

These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes.

As reiner tor correctly pointed out, this movement which grew out of the football ultra community is rather working class but is not lumpens. You fail again.

A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges draft

Are there more business owners, students (many of whom do not dodge the draft), office workers combined than there are ultras/far-right brawlers? Probably. 30% of Kharkiv voted for nationalist parties (mostly Tymoshenko's and Klitschko's moderates) in the 2012 parliamentary elections, under Yanukovich. That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?

The exteme nationalist Banderist Svoboda party got about 4% of the vote in Kharkiv oblast in 2012. This would make Bandera twice as popular in Kharkiv as the democratic opposition is in Russia.

reiner Tor , December 19, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their pastime.

They are well integrated into the rest of society, so you can call them low-lifes, but they will still be quite different from ordinary criminals.

Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder, kidnapping and racketeering.

But that's quite different from being professional criminals. Members of the Waffen-SS also committed unspeakable crimes, but they rarely had professional criminal backgrounds, and were, in fact, quite well integrated into German society.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and perhaps even political power

Yes, there are elements of this, but not only. If they were ethnic Russians, as in Donbas, they would have taken a different path, as did the pro-Russian militants in Donbas who are similar to the ethnic Ukrainian Azovites. Young guys who like to brawl and are ethnic Russians or identify s such joined organizations like Oplot and moved to Donbas to fight against Ukraine, similar types who identified as Ukrainians became Azovites or joined similar pro-Ukrainian militias. Also not all of these were delinquents, many were working class, security guards, etc.

Good that you admit that in Eastern Ukraine nationalism is not limited to student activists and businessmen.

And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs,

They chose to stay away from Kharkiv and limit Russia's action to Donbas, knowing that there would be too much opposition, and not enough support, to Russian rule in Kharkiv to make the effort worthwhile.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
@Anon Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT
@reiner Tor I feel that comparing Azov to SS gives it too much credit.

My point is that this way of life is not something that many people in Ukraine are willing to actively participate in. Most people are not willing to condone it either. AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how this could work – there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.

There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT
@AP

That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?

This means these people won't pose a big problem. These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea did.

Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT
@Gerard2 oligarchs, not nationalism are the driving force behind the "Ukrainian" mass crimes against humanity committing --
AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how this could work – there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.

About 1/3 of the population in Eastern Ukrainian regions voted for Ukrainian nationalists in 2012, compared to only 10% in Donbas. Three times as many. Likely after 2014 many of the hardcore pro-Russians left Kharkiv, just as hardcore pro-Ukrainians left Donetsk. Furthermore anti-Russian attitudes have hardened, due to the war, Crimea, etc. So there would be plenty of local support for native insurgents.

Russians say, correctly, that after Kiev has shelled Donetsk how can the people of Donetsk reconcile themselves with Kiev?

The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?

There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.

Crimea was 60% Russian, Donbas Republics territory about 45% Russian; Kharkiv oblast is only 25% Russian.

With Donbas – there are actually local pro-Ukrainian militants from Donbas, in the Donbas and Aidar battalions.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT
@AP It was a decision that Putin personally made. He wasn't going to move in Crimea either, until Maidanists overthrew his friend

It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable. And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated by Azov militia.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea did

The problem with this comparison is that Crimeans were far more in favor of joining Russia that are Kharkivites.

The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army.

Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?

We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.

You would be able to recruit some local proxies in Kharkiv. Kiev even did so in Donbas. But given the fact that Ukrainian nationalism was 3 times more popular on Kharkiv than in Donetsk, and that Kharkiv youth were split 50/50 in terms of or versus anti Maidan support (versus 80/20 IIIRC anti-Maidan in Donbas), it would not be so easy. Moreover, by now many of the hardcore anti-Kiev people have already left Kharkiv, while Kharkiv has had some settlement by pro-Ukrainian dissidents from Donbas. So the situation even in 2014 was hard enough that Russia chose to stay away, now it is even worse for the pro-Russians.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated by Azov militia.

This is rather a symptom of a much wider phenomenon: the population simply doesn't see itself as Russian and doesn't want to be part of Russia. So its hooligan-types go for Ukrainian, not Russian, nationalism as is the case in Russia.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT
@AP

The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?

The locals will move to disarm Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then welcome Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol

It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely undefended. It's wide open!

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:05 pm GMT
@AP Honestly, I doubt that this kind of stuff has much impact on Putin's decisionmaking.
Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 5:09 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.

Well there you have it. Putin is a much smarter guy than you are Felix (BTW, are you Jewish, all of the Felix's that I've known were Jewish?). Good to see that you're nothing more than a blackshirted illusionist.*

*фантазёр

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT
@for-the-record German and European reliance on US security guarantees is a problem, since it's become pretty clear that the US political system is dysfunctional and US "elites" are dangerous extremists. We need our own security structures to be independent from the US so they can't drag us into their stupid projects or blackmail us anymore why do you think Merkel didn't react much to the revelations about American spying on Germany? Because we're totally dependent on the Americans in security matters.

And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be foolish to have no credible deterrence.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

"How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?"

They will move to disarm ther Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then welcome their Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol

While about 1/3 of Kharkiv voted for Ukrainian nationalists, only perhaps 10%-20% of the city would actually like to be part of Russia (and I am being generous to you). So your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.

It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely undefended.

Are you living in 2014? Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is comforting for them.

Ukraine currently has 200,000-250,000 active troops. About 60,000 of them are around Donbas.

Here is a map of various positions in 2017:

Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses). The map does not include national guard units such as Azov, however, which would add a few thousand troops to Kharkiv's defense.

It looks like rather than stationing their military in forward positions vs. a possible Russian attack, Ukraine, has put lot of troops in Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kiev and Odessa.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT
@AP

Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?

I read Kassad blog, and he says Ukrainian formations assembled in Donbass number some 50-70 thousands men. The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready. Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.

By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT
@AP So your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.

The local populations in Iraq were congenial to begin with, at least outside some Sunni centers. It was never an object of American policy to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:55 pm GMT
@AP

Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses).

How many people does this "motorized infantry brigade" have? And more importantly what is its level of combat readiness? Couldn't we just smash this brigade with a termobaric bomb while they are sleeping?

Ukraine is full of shit. They had 20.000 troops in Crimea, "a lot of air defenses" and it didn't make a iota of difference. Somehow you expect me to believe Ukraine has a completely different army now. Why should I? They don't have the resources to afford a better army, so it is logical to assume that Ukrainian army is still crap.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 6:01 pm GMT
Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is comforting for them.

Betwixt and between all the trash talking, they've forgotten that the last occasion on which one country attempted to conquer an absorb another country with a population anywhere near 30% of its own was during the 2d World War. Didn't work out so well for Germany and Japan.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT
@for-the-record Austria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella" to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why couldn't Germany?

Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use for security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT
@for-the-record

Germany has willingly supported the US

Not completely true, Germany didn't participate in the Iraq war and in the bombing of Libya.
I'm hardly an expert on military matters, but it would seem just common sense to me that a state needs sufficient armed forces to protect its own territory if you don't have that, you risk becoming a passive object whose fate is decided by other powers. Doesn't mean Germany should have a monstrously bloated military budget like the US, just sufficient forces to protect its own territory and that of neighbouring allies (which is what the German army should be for instead of participating in futile counter-insurgency projects in places like Afghanistan). Potential for conflict in Europe is obviously greatest regarding Russia it's still quite low imo, and I want good relations with Russia and disagree vehemently with such insanely provocative ideas as NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, but it would be stupid not to have credible deterrence (whose point it is to prevent hostilities after all). I don't think that's an anti-Russian position, it's just realistic.
Apart from that Germany doesn't probably need much in the way of military capabilities maybe some naval forces for participation in international anti-piracy missions.
Regarding nuclear weapons, that's obviously something Germany can't or shouldn't do on its own (probably wouldn't be tolerated anyway given 20th century history), so it would have to be in some form of common European project. Hard to tell now if something like this could eventually become possible or necessary.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Sorry to prickle your little fantasy world once again tovarishch, but according to current CIA statistics Ukraine has 182,000 active personnel, and 1,000,000 reservists! For a complete rundown of Ukraine's military strength, read this and weep:

https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=ukraine

inertial , December 19, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT
@Art Deco They've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade from now.

Yes, these people had been sold a vision. If only they leave behind the backward, Asiatic, mongoloid Russia, they will instantly Join Europe. They will have all of the good stuff: European level of prosperity, rule of law, international approval, and so on; and none of the bad stuff that they associated with Russia, like poverty, corruption, and civil strife.

Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder.

The experience of Communism shows that it may take decades but eventually people notice that the state ideology is a lie. Once they do, they change their mind about things rather quickly.

Swedish Family , December 19, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.

Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool . More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons:

(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative. Common people know full well that the Ukrainian troops are hated in the Donbass (I once watched a Ukrainian soldier shock the audience by saying this on Shuster Live), and they know also that Kiev has a blame in all those dead women and children. These are promising conditions for future reconciliation, and they would be squandered overnight if Russian troops moved further westward.

(2) The geopolitical repercussions would be enormous. As I and others have already written, the present situation is just about what people in elite Western circles can stomach. Any Russian escalation would seriously jeopardize European trade with Russia, among other things.

(3) There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. These "acquisitions," too, would be jeopardized by more military action.

Swedish Family , December 19, 2017 at 9:56 pm GMT
@Art Deco

You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.

No, I wrote that those civilians are already gone and that both sides had a hand in their deaths, which will help the peace process since no side can claim sole victimhood.

And your assumption that the separatists are mercenaries is groundless speculation. Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.

Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?

Risible comparison. Theirs is a conflict involving three major religions and the survival of the Israeli state at stake. On the Crimean question, we have already heard influential Westerners voice the possibility that it might one day be accepted as Russian, and if you read between the lines, many Ukrainians are of a similiar mind.

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 12:19 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014).

Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession – with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable.

As I was already writing in 2016 :

Like it or not, but outright war with Maidanist Ukraine has been ruled out from the beginning, as the more perceptive analysts like Rostislav Ischenko have long recognized. If there was a time and a place for it, it was either in April 2014, or August 2014 at the very latest. Since then, the Ukrainian Army has gotten much stronger. It has been purged of its "Russophile" elements, and even though it has lost a substantial percentage of its remnant Soviet-era military capital in the war of attrition with the LDNR, it has more than made up for it with wartime XP gain and the banal fact of a quintupling in military spending as a percentage of GDP from 1% to 5%.

This translates to an effective quadrupling in absolute military spending, even when accounting for Ukraine's post-Maidan economic collapse.

Russia can still crush Ukraine in a full-scale conventional conflict, and that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.

* There's a report that says actual Ukrainian military spending remained rather more modest at 2.5% of GDP ( https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_66_ang_best_army_ukraine_net.pdf ); even so, that still translates to huge improvements over 2014.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 12:26 am GMT
@Felix Keverich

The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready.

250,000. Combat readiness is very different from 2014.

Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.

Again, it isn't 2014 anymore. Military budget has increased significantly, from 3.2 billion in 2015 to 5.17 billion in 2017. In spite of theft, much more is getting through.

By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft

It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is unnecessaary.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT
@Swedish Family

Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.

80% are natives. Perhaps as much as 90%. However, often it a way to make a meager salary in those territories, so there is a mercenary aspect to it. Lots of unemployed workers go into the Republic military.

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT
@Swedish Family

Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.

80% in 2014-15, to be precise; another 10% from the Kuban; 10% from Russia, the Russian world, and the world at large.

NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians – no Russian went there to get rich.

That said, I strongly doubt there will ever be international recognition of Crimea, let alone Donbass. Israel has by far the world's most influential ethnic lobby. Even NATO member Turkey hasn't gotten Northern Cyprus internationally recognized, so what exactly are the chances of the international community (read: The West) recognizing the claims of Russia, which is fast becoming established in Western minds as the arch-enemy of civilization?

AP , December 20, 2017 at 12:56 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Fascinating link. The numbers for the military budget are a lot lower than reported elsewhere.

Mobilization percentages by region:

"Among the leaders of the fourth and fifth wave of partial mobilisation were the Khmelnitsky, Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Kirovohrad and Zaporizhia regions, as well as the city of Kyiv, whose mobilisation plan was fulfilled 80-100% (the record was Vinnytsia oblast, which achieved 100% mobilisation). At the opposite extreme are the Kharkiv, Chernivtsi, Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lugansk, Sumy, Ternopil and Transcarpathian regions, where the results of the mobilisation varied from 25 to 60%."

Summary:

2014:

The true face of the Ukrainian armed forces was revealed by the Russian annexation of Crimea and the first weeks of the war in the Donbas – they were nothing more than a fossilised structure, unfit for any effective function upon even a minimum engagement with the enemy, during which a significant part of the troops only realised whom they were representing in the course of the conflict and more than once, from the perspective of service in one of the post-Soviet military districts, they chose to serve in the Russian army

2017:

The war in the Donbas shaped the Ukrainian army. It gave awareness and motivation to the soldiers, and forced the leadership of the Defence Ministry and the government of the state to adapt the army's structure – for the first time since its creation – to real operational needs, and also to bear the costs of halting the collapses in the fields of training and equipment, at least to such an extent which would allow the army to fight a close battle with the pro-Russian separatists. Despite all these problems, the Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2017 now number 200,000, most of whom have come under fire, and are seasoned in battle. They have a trained reserve ready for mobilisation in the event of a larger conflict*; their weapons are not the latest or the most modern, but the vast majority of them now work properly; and they are ready for the defence of the vital interests of the state (even if some of the personnel still care primarily about their own vested interests). They have no chance of winning a potential military clash with Russia, but they have a reason to fight. The Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2014, in a situation where their home territory was occupied by foreign troops, were incapable of mounting an adequate response. The changes since the Donbas war started mean that Ukraine now has the best army it has ever had in its history.

* The Ukrainian armed forces have an operational reserve of 130,000 men, relatively well trained and with real combat experience, who since 2016 have been moulded out of veterans of the Donbas (as well as from formations subordinate to the Interior Ministry). It must be stressed, however, that those counted in the reserve represent only half of the veterans of the anti-terrorist operation (by October 2016, 280,000 Ukrainians had served in the Donbas in all formations subordinate to the government in Kyiv, with 266,000 reservists gaining combat status; at the beginning of February 2017, 193,400 reservists were in the armed forces). Thanks to that, at least in terms of the human factor, it should be possible in a relatively short period of time to increase the Ukrainian army's degree of combat readiness, as well as to fight a relatively close battle with a comparable opponent, something the Ukrainian armed forces were not capable of doing at the beginning of 2014.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 1:21 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians – no Russian went there to get rich.

Which further points to the critical role played by Russians. Many of the local volunteers are participating because doing so offers a salary, which is very important in a wrecked, sanctioned Donbas. The Russian 10%-20% are motivated, often Chechen combat vets. They are more important than their % indicates.

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:33 am GMT
@Gerard2 ..and lets not forget the failure in mobilisation from the Ukrainian military

That and having to hire loads of Georgians, Chechens, Poles and other mercenaries. Pretty much tallys perfectly with the failed shithole Ukraine government structure full of everyone else .but Ukrainians

melanf , December 20, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT
Amazing – almost any discussion in this section turns to хохлосрач (ukrohitstorm)
neutral , December 20, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT
@melanf What is almost incomprehensible for me in these endless Russia vs Ukraine arguments is how they (yes both sides) always ignore the real issues and instead keep on raising relatively petty points while thinking that mass non white immigration and things like the EU commissioner of immigration stating openly that Europe needs endless immigration, are not important.

It's like white South Africans who still debate the Boer war or the Irish debate the northern Ireland question, and are completely oblivious to the fact that these things don't matter anymore if you have an entirely new people ruling your land (ok in South Africa they were not new, but you know what I mean).

melanf , December 20, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT
@Swedish Family

Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine

much more than half. Donbass rebels: soldiers of the detachment of "Sparta". Data published by Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine:

https://imgur.com/a/Gh8zx

TT , December 20, 2017 at 12:05 pm GMT
I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating over after the Maidan coup.

So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of skilled people.

What it got to lose to unify with Russia to have peace, prosperity and been a nation of a great country instead of poor war torn? Plus a bonus of free Russia market access, unlimited cheap natural gas and pipeline toll to tax instead of buying LNG from US at double price.

Sorry this s just my opinion based on mostly fake news we are fed, only the Ukrainian know the best and able to decde themselves.

Randal , December 20, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons:

Yes, this is my view also. I think Russia was never in a position to do much more than it has, and those who talk about more vigorous military interference are just naïve, or engaging in wishful thinking, about the consequences. I think Putin played a very bad hand as well as could reasonably be expected in Ukraine and Crimea. No doubt mistakes were made, and perhaps more support at the key moment for the separatists (assassinations of some of the key oligarchs who chose the Ukrainian side and employed thugs to suppress the separatists in eastern cities, perhaps) could have resulted in a better situation now with much more of the eastern part of Ukraine separated, but if Russians want someone to blame for the situation in Ukraine apart from their enemies, they should look at Yanukovich, not Putin.

In the long run, it seems likely the appeal of NATO and the EU (assuming both still even exist in their current forms in a few years time) is probably peaking, but strategic patience and only limited covert and economic interference is advisable.

The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine.

Felix Keverich , December 20, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

There's a report that says actual Ukrainian military spending remained rather more modest at 2.5% of GDP ( https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_66_ang_best_army_ukraine_net.pdf ); even so, that still translates to huge improvements over 2014.

You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5 billion.

Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army.

The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear.

AP predicts that the cities of Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk will be reduced to something akin to Aleppo. But it has taken 3 years of constant shelling to cause the damage in Aleppo. A more likely outcome is that Ukrainian soldiers will promptly ditch their uniforms, once they realise the Russian are coming and their command is gone.

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%. This matters more, since the vast majority of Ukrainian military spending occurs in grivnas.

By various calculations, Ukrainian military spending went up from 1% of GDP, to 2.5%-5%. Minus 20%, that translates to a doubling to quadrupling.

What it does mean is that they are even less capable of paying for advanced weapons from the West than before, but those were never going to make a cardinal difference anyway.

AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree with him on that. In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.

Felix Keverich , December 20, 2017 at 1:50 pm GMT
@AP

It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is unnecessaary.

It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL

My point is that this bodes well for our ability to recruit proxies in Ukraine, don't you think? We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov. That's the approach I would use in Ukraine: strip away parts of it piece by piece, create local proxies, use them to maintain control and absorb casualties in the fighting on the ground.

Mr. Hack , December 20, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.

Fortunately, we'll not be seeing a replay of the sacking and destruction of Novgorod as was done in the 15th century by Ivan III, and all of its ugly repercussions in Ukraine. Besides, since the 15th century, we've seen the emergence of three separate nationalities out of the loose amalgamation of principalities known a Rus. Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT

"It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is unnecessaary."

It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL

Well, they are, at least in the center and west. Kievans don't volunteer to fight because they have no other way of making money. But you probably believe the fairytale that Ukraine is in total collapse, back to the 90s.

We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.

If in the process of taking Kharkiv the local economy goes into ruin due to wrecked factories and sanctions so that picking up a gun is the only way to feed one's family for some people, sure. But again, keep in mind that Kharkiv is much less pro-Russian than Donbas so this could be more complicated.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin How so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population) worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.

You're forgetting a few things. In the United States, about 1/3 of the country's productive capacity was devoted to the war effort during the period running from 1940 to 1946. I'll wager you it was higher than that in Britain and continental Europe. That's what Germany was drawing on to attempt to sustain its holdings for just the 4-5 year period in which they occupied France and Poland. (Russia currently devotes 4% of its productive capacity to the military). Germany had to be exceedingly coercive as well. They were facing escalating partisan resistance that whole time (especially in the Balkans).

Someone whose decisions matter is going to ask the question of whether it's really worth the candle.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT
@Art Deco Thanks for the correction. This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan. This I think would have been the only legitimate reason to invade in Iraq in 2003 (WMDs weren't there, and in 2003 the regime was not genocidal as it had been decades earlier when IMO an invasion would have been justified)

Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk.

Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?

You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya, the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq.

Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains stability and peace, or if one does so – take on the responsibility of investing massive effort and treasure in order to prevent the inevitable chaos and violence that would erupt as a result of one's invasion.

Felix Keverich , December 20, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian military personnel. Use LDNR army: transport them to Belgorod and with Russians they could move to take Kharkov, while facing minimal opposition. Then move futher to the West and South until the entire Ukrainian army in Donbass becomes encircled at which point they will likely surrender.

After supressing Ukrainian air-defence, our airforce should be able to destroy command and control, artillery, armoured formations, airfields, bridges over Dnieper, other infrustructure. Use the proxies to absord casualties in the fighting on the ground.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 20, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.

Anatoly, please, don't write on things you have no qualification on writing. You can not even grasp the generational (that is qualitative) abyss which separates two armed forces. The question will not be in this:

but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.

By the time the "cruising" would commence there will be no Ukrainian Army as an organized formation or even units left–anything larger than platoon will be hunted down and annihilated. It is really painful to read this, honestly. The question is not in Russian "ambition" or rah-rah but in the fact that Ukraine's armed forces do not posses ANY C4ISR capability which is crucial for a dynamics of a modern war. None. Mopping up in the East would still be much easier than it would be in Central, let alone, Western Ukraine but Russia has no business there anyway. More complex issues were under consideration than merely probable losses of Russian Army when it was decided (rightly so) not to invade.

I will open some "secret"–nations DO bear collective responsibility and always were subjected to collective punishment -- latest example being Germany in both WWs -- the bacillus of Ukrainian "nationalism" is more effectively addressed by letting those moyahataskainikam experience all "privileges" of it. In the end, Russia's resources were used way better than paying for mentally ill country. 2019 is approaching fast.

P.S. In all of your military "analysis" on Ukraine one thing is missing leaving a gaping hole–Russian Armed Forces themselves which since 2014 were increasing combat potential exponentially. Ukies? Not so much–some patches here and there. Russian Armed Forces of 2018 are not those of 2013. Just for shits and giggles check how many Ratnik sets have been delivered to Russian Army since 2011. That may explain to you why timing in war and politics is everything.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%.

About 16% from 2013 to 2015 when Ukraine hit bottom:

https://www.worldeconomics.com/GrossDomesticProduct/Ukraine.gdp

AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree with him on that.

I wrote that parts of the city would look like that. I don't think there would be enough massive resistance that the entire city would be destroyed. But rooting out a couple thousand armed, experienced militiamen or soldiers in the urban area would cause a lot of expensive damage and, as is the case when civilians died in Kiev's efforts to secure Donbas, would probably not endear the invaders to the locals who after all do not want Russia to invade them.

And Kharkiv would be the easiest to take. Dnipropetrovsk would be much more Aleppo-like, and Kiev Felix was proposing for Russia to take all these areas.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 20, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian military personnel.

The question is not in losses, per se. Russians CAN accept losses if the deal becomes hot in Ukraine–it is obvious. The question is in geopolitical dynamics and the way said Russian Armed Forces were being honed since 2013, when Shoigu came on-board and the General Staff got its mojo returned to it. All Command and Control circuit of Ukie army will be destroyed with minimal losses if need be, and only then cavalry will be let in. How many Russian or LDNR lives? I don't know, I am sure GOU has estimates by now. Once you control escalation (Russia DOES control escalation today since can respond to any contingency) you get way more flexibility (geo)politcally. Today, namely December 2017, situation is such that Russia controls escalation completely. If Ukies want to attack, as they are inevitably forced to do so, we all know what will happen. Ukraine has about a year left to do something. Meanwhile considering EU intentions to sanction Poland, well, we are witnessing the start of a major shitstorm.

Mr. Hack , December 20, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT

Most ukrops even admit that Kharkov could easily have gone in 2014, if Russia had wanted it/feasible

Really? So why didn't Russia take Kharkiv then? Why wan't it 'feasible', Mr.Know it All?

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.

A stupid comment for an adult. Ukraine, in effect never existed before Russia/Stalin/Lenin created it. Kiev is a historical Russian city, and 5 of the 7 most populated areas in Ukraine are Russian/Soviet created cities, Russian language is favourite spoken by most Ukrainians ( see even Saakashvili in court, speaking only in Russian even though he speaks fluent Ukrainian now and all the judges and lawyers speaking in Russian too), the millions of Ukrainians living happily in Russia and of course, the topic of what exactly is a Ukrainian is obsolete because pretty much every Ukrainian has a close Russian relative the level of intermarriage was at the level of one culturally identical people.

AK: Improvement! The first paragraph was acceptable, hence not hidden.

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack economics, hope that the west and their puppets in Kiev would act like sane and decent people, threat of sanctions and so on.

As is obvious, if the west had remained neutral ( an absurd hypothetical because the west were the ringmasters of the farce in this failed state) ..and not supported the coup and then the evil war brought on the Donbass people, then a whole different situation works out in Ukraine ( for the better)

AP , December 20, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT
@Gerard2

Kharkov always was and will be as pro-Russian as Donbass

Kharkiv oblast: 71% Ukrainian, 26% Russian
Donetsk oblast: 57% Ukrainian, 38% Russian (skews more Russian in the Donbas Republic parts)

Self-declared native language Kharkiv oblast: 54% Ukrainian, 44% Russian
Self-declared native language Donetsk oblast: 24% Ukrainian, 75% Russian

(not the same thing as language actually spoken, but a decent reflection of national self-identity)

2012 parliamentary election results (rounding to nearest %):

Kharkiv oblast: 62% "Blue", 32% "Orange" – including 4% Svoboda
Donetsk oblast – 84% "Blue", 11% "Orange" – including 1% Svoboda

A good illustration of Russian wishful thinking fairytales compared to reality on the ground.

S3 , December 20, 2017 at 3:23 pm GMT
@S3 Nietzsche famously foresaw the rise and fall of communism and the destruction of Germany in the two world wars. He also liked to think of himself as a Polish nobleman. Maybe this is what he meant.
Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT
@AP Kharkiv oblast: 71% Ukrainian, 26% Russian
Donetsk oblast: 57% Ukrainian, 38% Russian (skews more Russian in the Donbas Republic parts)
gT , December 21, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT
Its very amusing reading all the comments so far. But reality is that Russia should take back all the lands conquered by the Tsars, and that includes Finland.

Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the world. And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their "presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office. Now America has even moved into Eastern Europe, and has troops and radars and nuclear capable missile batteries stationed there. So America is just expanding and expanding its grasp while Russia must contract its territories even further and further. Yippee.

So Russia must take back all the territories conquered by the Tsars so as to not lose this game of monopoly. Those in those territories not too happy about such matters can move to America or deal with the Red Army. This is not a matter of cost benefits analysis but a matter of Russia's national security, as in the case of Chechnya.

The territories to Russia's East are especially necessary for Russia's security; when the chips are down, when all the satellites have been blown out of space, all the aircraft blown out of the air, all the ground hardware blown to smithereens; when the battle is reduced to eye to eye rat like warfare, then those assorted Mongol mongrels from Russia's East come into their element. Genghis Khan was the biggest mass murderer in history, he made Hitler look like a school boy, his genes live on in those to Russia's East. So if America were to get involved in Ukraine Russia would have no issues losing a million troops in a matter of days while the US has never even lost a million troops in its civil war and WW2 combined.

Lets face it, those Mongol mongrels make much better fighters than the effete Sunni Arabs any day, so Russia should get them on her side. In Syria those ISIS idiots would never have got as far as they did were it not for those few Chechens in their midst's.

But alas, Russia has to eat humble pie at the moment, internationally and at the Olympics. But humble pie tastes good when its washed down with bottles of vodka, and its only momentarily after all.

Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 10:50 am GMT
@gT Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the world.

Since 1945, between 70% and 87% of American military manpower has been stationed in the United States and its possession. The vast bulk of the remainder is generally to be found in about a half-dozen countries. (In recent years, that would be Germany, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait). Andrew Bacevich once went on a whinge about the stupidity of having a 'Southern Command' without bothering to tell his readers that the Southern Command had 2,000 billets at that time, that nearly half were stationed at Guantanamo Bay (an American possession since 1902), that no country had more than 200 American soldiers resident, and that the primary activity of the Southern Command was drug interdiction. On the entire African continent, there were 5,000 billets at that time.

And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their "presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office.

This is a fantasy.

Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT
@gT Why not post sober?
gT , December 21, 2017 at 4:05 pm GMT
@Art Deco Fantasy?

Read here about Merkel obeying her real masters

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/editorial-merkel-has-left-germans-high-and-dry-a-911425.html

and read here about "BERLIN IS WASHINGTON'S VASSAL UNTIL 2099″

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-183232

I especially like the bit about "Though most of the German officers were not originally inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies."

Seems its not only the Russians who are getting increasingly pissed off with the US when at first they actually liked the US. No wonder the Germans are just letting their submarines and tanks rot away.

Also https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2011/06/05/germany-still-under-the-control-of-foreign-powers/
(damn South Africans popping up everywhere)

[Dec 21, 2017] The RussiaGate Witch-Hunt Stockman Names Names In The Deep State's Insurance Policy by David Stockman

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike. ..."
Dec 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Deep State's "Insurance Policy" Tyler Durden Dec 18, 2017 11:05 PM 0 SHARES Authored by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016 election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and Langley----of the Imperial City.

Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact, they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the US government.

Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:

To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama such a blight on the nation's well-being. To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state and practitioner of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make their living along the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.

The above cast of election-meddlers, of course, comes from the same mold. If Wikipedia is roughly correct, just these 10 named perpetrators have punched in about 300 years of post-graduate employment---and 260 of those years (87%) were on government payrolls or government contractor jobs.

As to whether they shared Obama's political class arrogance, Peter Strzok left nothing to the imagination in his now celebrated texts to his gal-pal, Lisa Page:

"Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support......I LOATHE congress....And F Trump."

You really didn't need the ALL CAPS to get the gist. In a word, the anti-Trump cabal is comprised of creatures of the state.

Their now obvious effort to alter the outcome of the 2016 election was nothing less than the Imperial City's immune system attacking an alien threat, which embodied the very opposite trait: That is, the Donald had never spent one moment on the state's payroll, had been elected to no government office and displayed a spirited contempt for the groupthink and verities of officialdom in the Imperial City.

But it is the vehemence and flagrant transparency of this conspiracy to prevent Trump's ascension to the Oval Office that reveals the profound threat to capitalism and democracy posed by the Deep State and its prosperous elites and fellow travelers domiciled in the Imperial City.

That is to say, Donald Trump was no kind of anti-statist and only a skin-deep populist, at best. His signature anti-immigrant meme was apparently discovered by accident when in the early days of the campaign he went off on Mexican thugs, rapists and murderers----only to find that it resonated strongly among a certain element of the GOP grass roots.

But a harsh line on immigrants, refugees and Muslims would not have incited the Deep State into an attempted coup d'état; it wouldn't have mobilized so overtly against Ted Cruz, for example, whose positions on the ballyhooed terrorist/immigrant threat were not much different.

No, what sent the Imperial City establishment into a fit of apoplexy was exactly two things that struck at the core of its raison d' etre.

First was Trump's stated intentions to seek rapprochement with Putin's Russia and his sensible embrace of a non-interventionist "America First" view of Washington's role in the world. And secondly, and even more importantly, was his very persona.

That is to say, the role of today's president is to function as the suave, reliable maître d' of the Imperial City and the lead spokesman for Washington's purported good works at home and abroad. And for that role the slovenly, loud-mouthed, narcissistic, bombastic, ill-informed and crudely-mannered Donald Trump was utterly unqualified.

Stated differently, welfare statism and warfare statism is the secular religion of the Imperial City and its collaborators in the mainstream media; and the Oval Office is the bully pulpit from which its catechisms, bromides and self-justifications are propagandized to the unwashed masses---the tax-and-debt-slaves of Flyover America who bear the burden of its continuation.

Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike.

Yet that is exactly what has the Deep State and its media collaborators running scared. To wit, Trump's entire modus operandi is not about governing or a serious policy agenda---and most certainly not about Making America's Economy Great Again. (MAEGA)

By appointing a passel of Keynesian monetary central planners to the Fed and launching an orgy of fiscal recklessness via his massive defense spending and tax-cutting initiatives, the Donald has more than sealed his own doom: There will unavoidably be a massive financial and economic crisis in the years just ahead and the rulers of the Imperial City will most certainly heap the blame upon him with malice aforethought.

In the interim, however, what the Donald is actually doing is sharply polarizing the country and using the Bully Pulpit for the very opposite function assigned to it by Washington's permanent political class. Namely, to discredit and vilify the ruling elites of government and the media and thereby undermine the docility and acquiescence of the unwashed masses upon which the Imperial City's rule and hideous prosperity depend.

It is no wonder, then, that the inner circle of the Obama Administration plotted an "insurance policy". They saw it coming-----that is, an offensive rogue disrupter who was soft on Russia, to boot--- and out of that alarm the entire hoax of RussiaGate was born.

As is now well known from the recent dump of 375 Strzok/Gates text messages, there occurred on August 15, 2016 a meeting in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (who is still there) to kick off the RussiaGate campaign. As Strzok later wrote to Page, who was also at the meeting:

" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk......It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."

They will try to spin this money quote seven-ways to Sunday, but in the context of everything else now known there is only one possible meaning: The national security and law enforcement machinery of Imperial Washington was being activated then and there in behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Indeed, the trail of proof is quite clear. At the very time of this August meeting, the FBI was already being fed the initial elements of the Steele dossier, and the latter had nothing to do with any kind of national security investigation.

For crying out loud, it was plain old "oppo research" paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. And the only way that it bore on Russian involvement in the US election was that virtually all of the salacious material and false narratives about Trump emissaries meeting with high level Russian officials was disinformation sourced in Moscow, and was completely untrue.

As former senior FBI official, Andrew McCarthy, neatly summarized the sequence of action recently:

The Clinton campaign generated the Steele dossier through lawyers who retained Fusion GPS. Fusion, in turn, hired Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had FBI contacts from prior collaborative investigations. The dossier was steered into the FBI's hands as it began to be compiled in the summer of 2016. A Fusion Russia expert, Nellie Ohr, worked with Steele on Fusion's anti-Trump research. She is the wife of Bruce Ohr, then the deputy associate attorney general -- the top subordinate of Sally Yates, then Obama's deputy attorney general (later acting AG). Ohr was a direct pipeline to Yates.....

Based on the publication this week of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair, we have learned of a meeting convened in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe...... right around the time the Page FISA warrant was obtained......

Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele. And after Trump was elected, according to Fusion founder Glenn Simpson, he requested and got a meeting with Simpson to, as Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee, "discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election."

This, of course, was the precise time Democrats began peddling the public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. It is the time frame during which Ohr's boss, Yates, was pushing an absurd Logan Act investigation of Trump transition official Michael Flynn (then slotted to become Trump's national-security adviser) over Flynn's meetings with the Russian ambassador.

Here's the thing. There is almost nothing in the Steele dossiers which is true. At the same time, there is no real alternative evidence based on hard NSA intercepts that show Russian government agents were behind the only two acts----the leaks of the DNC emails and the Podesta emails----that were of even minimal import to the outcome of the 2016 presidential campaign.

As to the veracity of the dossier, the raving anti-Trumper and former CIA interim chief, Michael Morrell, settled the matter. If you are paying ex-FSA agents for information on the back streets of Moscow, the more you pay, the more "information" you will get:

Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service] officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call you up and say, 'Hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because they want to get paid some more,' Morrell said.

Far from being "verified," the dossier is best described as a pack of lies, gossip, innuendo and irrelevancies. Take, for example, the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with Russian Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague during August 2016. That claim is verifiably false as proven by Cohen's own passport.

Likewise, the dossier 's claim that Carter Page was offered a giant bribe by the head of Rosneft, the Russian state energy company, in return for lifting the sanctions is downright laughable. That's because Carter Page never had any serious role in the Trump campaign and was one of hundreds of unpaid informal advisors who hung around the basket hoping for some role in a future Trump government.

Like the hapless George Papadopoulos, in fact, Page apparently never met Trump, had no foreign policy credentials and had been drafted onto the campaign's so-called foreign policy advisory committee out of sheer desperation.

That is, because the mainstream GOP foreign policy establishment had so completely boycotted the Trump campaign, the latter was forced to fill its advisory committee essentially from the phone book; and that desperation move in March 2016, in turn, had been undertaken in order to damp-down the media uproar over the Donald's assertion that he got his foreign policy advise from watching TV!

The truth of the matter is that Page was a former Merrill Lynch stockbrokers who had plied his trade in Russia several years earlier. He had gone to Moscow in July 2016 on his own dime and without any mandate from the Trump campaign; and his "meeting" with Rosneft actually consisted of drinks with an old buddy from his broker days who had become head of investor relations at Rosneft.

Nevertheless, it is pretty evident that the Steele dossier's tale about Page's alleged bribery scheme was the basis for the FISA warrant that resulted in wiretaps on Page and other officials in Trump Tower during September and October.

And that's your insurance policy at work: The Deep State and its allies in the Obama administration were desperately looking for dirt with which to crucify the Donald, and thereby insure that the establishment's anointed candidate would not fail at the polls.

So the question recurs as to why did the conspirators resort to the outlandish and even cartoonish disinformation contained in the Steele dossier?

The answer to that question cuts to the quick of the entire RussiaGate hoax. To wit, that's all they had!

Notwithstanding the massive machinery and communications vacuum cleaners operated by the $75 billion US intelligence communities and its vaunted 17 agencies, there are no digital intercepts proving that Russian state operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. Period.

Yet when it comes to anything that even remotely smacks of "meddling" in the US election campaign, that's all she wrote.

There is nothing else of moment, and most especially not the alleged phishing expeditions directed at 20 or so state election boards. Most of these have been discredited, denied by local officials or were simply the work of everyday hackers looking for voter registration lists that could be sold.

The patently obvious point here is that in America there is no on-line network of voting machines on either an intra-state or interstate basis. And that fact renders the whole election machinery hacking meme null and void. Not even the treacherous Russians are stupid enough to waste their time trying to hack that which is unhackable.

In that vein, the Facebook ad buying scheme is even more ridiculous. In the context of an election campaign in which upwards of $7 billion of spending was reported by candidates and their committees to the FEC, and during which easily double that amount was spent by independent committees and issue campaigns, the notion that just $44,000 of Facebook ads made any difference to anything is not worthy of adult thought.

And, yes, out of the ballyhooed $100,000 of Facebook ads, the majority occurred after the election was over and none of them named candidates, anyway. The ads consisted of issue messages that reflected all points on the political spectrum from pro-choice to anti-gun control.

And even this so-called effort at "polarizing" the American electorate was "discovered" only after Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches. Instead, this complete drivel was detected only after the Senate's modern day Joseph McCarthy, Sen. Mark Warner, who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator on Internet regulation, showed up on Mark Zuckerberg's doorstep at Facebook headquarters.

In any event, we can be sure there are no NSA intercepts proving that the Russians hacked the Dem emails for one simple reason: They would have been leaked long ago by the vast network of Imperial City operatives plotting to bring the Donald down.

Moreover, the original architect and godfather of NSA's vast spying apparatus, William Binney, has essentially proved that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider who downloaded them on a memory stick. By conducting his own experiments, he showed that the known download speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet from a remote location in Russia or anywhere else on the planet, and actually matched what was possible only via a local USB-connected thumb drive.

So the real meaning of the Strzok/Gates text messages is straight foreword. There was a conspiracy to prevent Trump's election, and then after the shocking results of November 8, this campaign morphed into an intensified effort to discredit the winner.

For instance, Susan Rice got Obama to lower the classification level of the information obtained from the Trump campaign intercepts and other dirt-gathering actions by the Intelligence Community (IC)--- so that it could be disseminated more readily to all Washington intelligence agencies.

In short order, of course, the IC was leaking like a sieve, thereby paving the way for the post-election hysteria and the implication that any contact with a Russian--even one living in Brooklyn-- must be collusion. And that included calls to the Russian ambassador by the president-elect's own national security advisor designate.

Should there by any surprise, therefore, that it turns out the Andrew McCabe bushwhacked General Flynn on January 24 when he called to say that FBI agents were on the way to the White House for what Flynn presumed to be more security clearance work with his incipient staff.

No at all. The FBI team was there to interrogate Flynn about the transcripts of his perfectly appropriate and legal conversations with Ambassador Kislyak about two matters of state----the UN resolution on Israel and the spiteful new sanctions on certain Russian citizens that Obama announced on December 28 in a fit of pique over the Dems election loss.

And that insidious team of FBI gotcha cops was led by none other than......Peter Strzok!

But after all the recent leaks---and these text messages are just the tip of the iceberg-----the die is now cast. Either the Deep State and its minions and collaborators in the media and the Republican party, too, will soon succeed in putting Mike Pence into the Oval Office, or the Imperial City is about ready to break-out in vicious partisan warfare like never before.

Either way, economic and fiscal governance is about ready to collapse entirely, making the tax bill a kind of last hurrah before they mayhem really begins.

In that context, selling the rip may become one of the most profitable speculations ever imagined.

CuttingEdge -> The_Juggernaut , Dec 19, 2017 2:05 AM

Not sure why Stockman went off on a tangent about Trump's innumerate economic strategy - kinda dilutes from an otherwise informative piece for anyone who hasn't a handle on the underhand shit that's been hitting the fan in recent months. Its like he has to have a go about it no matter what the main theme. Like PCR and "insouciance". And then there's the texting...

Clue yourself in, David.

A very small percentage of the public are actually informed about what is really going down. Those that visit ZH or your website. Fox is the only pro-Trump mainstream TV news outlet, and as to the NYT, WP et al? The media disinformation complex keep the rest in the matrix, and it has been very easy to see in action over the last year or so because it has been so well co-ordinated (and totally fabricated).

Given the blatant and contemptous avoidance of the truth by the MSM (the current litany of seditious/treasonous actions being a case in point), it is fair to say that Trump's tweets provide a very real public service - focussing the (otherwise ignorant) public's attention on many things the aforementioned cunts (I'll include Google and FaecesBook) divert from like the plague (and making them look utter slime in the process).

Don't knock it

A Sentinel -> BennyBoy , Dec 19, 2017 2:23 AM

I do respect stockman but here's bullshit-call #1: he says that the deep state doesn't like the divisiveness he causes: bush certainly did that and Obama' did so at an order of magnitude higher. I don't believe that the left is more upset by trump than we were by Barry- we're just not a bunch of sniveling, narcissistic babies like they are.

redmudhooch -> BennyBoy , Dec 19, 2017 1:14 PM

Hondurans accuse US of election meddling

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/hondurans-accuse-election-meddling...

The US embassy in Honduras has been surrounded by protesters infuriated by the three-week-wait for the definitive result of the presidential election.

Demonstrators accuse the US of meddling in last month's vote which both candidates say they won.

Wage Slave 927 -> shitshitshit , Dec 19, 2017 1:45 AM

When the details of the FISA warrant application are revealed, it will be like a megaton-class munition detonating, and the Deep State will bear the brunt of destruction.

enough of this , Dec 18, 2017 11:19 PM

The Comey - Strzok Duet satire:

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-comey-strzok-duet-on-the-eve-of-the-c...

SheHunter , Dec 18, 2017 11:25 PM

For those of you who have not yet discovered it Mr. Stockman's Contra Corner is a hands-down great blog well worth a nightly read.

zagzigga -> Mini-Me , Dec 18, 2017 11:48 PM

Similar mass deception was in play to start the Iraq war as well. Constant bombardment led to public consensus and even the liberal New York Times endorsed the war. Whenever we see mass hysteria about something new, we should just go with the flow and not ask any questions at all. It is best for retaining sanity in this dumbed down and getting more dumber world.

Anunnaki , Dec 18, 2017 11:31 PM

Susan Rice and Obama should be indicted for illegally wiretapping Trump Towers for the express purpose of finding oppo research to help Hellary's late term abortiion of a campaign

Tapeworm -> Anunnaki , Dec 19, 2017 8:25 AM

This one is deeper but well laid out. Comey & Mueller Ignored McCabe's Ties to Russian Crime Figures & His Reported Tampering in Russian FBI Cases, Files

https://truepundit.com/comey-mueller-ignored-mccabes-ties-to-russian-cri...

I damned near insist that y'all read this one. Please???

Cardinal Fang , Dec 18, 2017 11:40 PM

Great read, loved the 'Imperial City's immune system' analogy...

I disagree about the economy though.

It feels strange to me that the architect of the Reagan Revolution is unable to see the makings of another revolution, the Trump Revolution.

We have had 10-20 years of pent up demand in the economy and instead of electing another neo-Marxist Alynski acolyte, the American people elected a hard charging anti-establishment bull in a China shop.

Surely Dave can see the potential.

It kills me when people are surprised by a 12 month, 5000 point run up on Wall Street.

For God's sake the United States was run by a fucking commie for 8 years, what the fuck did you think was gonna happen?

Jeez

GoldHermit , Dec 18, 2017 11:58 PM

America is divided and will remain divided. I think it will last at least for the next 50 years, maybe longer. The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state more responsibility. States can succeed or fail on their own. People will be free to move where they want.

Not My Real Name -> GoldHermit , Dec 19, 2017 1:21 AM

"The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state more responsibility."

Oh, you mean follow the Constitution as it was written. Good one, Hermit!

bh2 , Dec 19, 2017 12:01 AM

Somewhere there is a FISA judge who should be defrocked and exposed as a fraud. No sober judge would accept such evidence for any purpose, much less authorizing government snooping on a major party candidate for president.

MrSteve -> bh2 , Dec 19, 2017 12:29 AM

This makes FISA a totalitarian joke and that should be investigated.

RonBananas , Dec 19, 2017 4:51 AM

The CIA holds all the videos from Jeff Epstein's Island (20 documented trips by Bill, 6 documented trips by Hillary), I'm sure Bill doing a 12 year old, Hillary and Huma doing an 8 year old girl together, etc. So what are they willing to do for the CIA? Anything at any cost, getting caught red handed with a dossier is chump change when you look at the big picture..they don't care and will do anything...ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.

This is the only reason they are so frantic. There is absolutely no other reason they would play at this level.

Pol Pot -> RonBananas , Dec 19, 2017 4:57 AM

Correct on all except it's the Mossad and not the CIA who ran flight Epstein.

shutterbug , Dec 19, 2017 5:47 AM

Trump is gone in a few months or the DoJ, FBI and all others connected to FBI-gate are prosecuted...

Session's (in-)action will be crucial to one of these paths...

Stud Duck , Dec 19, 2017 6:42 AM

As always, Dave puts it all into prospective for even the brain dead. Ya think Joe and his gang will be talking about this article on their morning talk show today?? I wonder how Brezenski's daughter is going to tell daddy that the gig is up and they may want to look into packing a boogie bag just to play it safe?

David Stockman is a flame of hope in a world of dark machievellian thought!

Occams_Razor_Trader , Dec 19, 2017 7:25 AM

Why did the alt media and the msm all stop reportinmg that McCabe's wife recieved 700 thousand dollars from Terry McAulife (former Clinton campaign manager times 2!) for a Virginia State Senate run? Quid pro quo? Oh no, never the up and up DemonRats.

So when I hear that the conversation was held in McCabe's office- I want to puke first then start building the gallows.

MATA HAIRY , Dec 19, 2017 7:34 AM

fucken brilliant article!! There is a lot I don't like about trump (some of which stockman discusses above), but as a retired govt worker, I can tell you that he right about what he is saying here.

insanelysane , Dec 19, 2017 8:14 AM

One little tidbit that has been lost in all of this:

If the FBI was willing to use their power to back Hillary and defeat Trump at the national level, what did they try to do in McCabe's wife's state senate campaign? She is a pediatrician and she ran for state senate. ??? WTF is that about? She's not only a doctor but a doctor for children. Those people are usually wired to help people. Yet she was going to for-go being a doctor for a state senate position. ??? And the DNC forked over $700,000 to put her on the map.

I'm sure the people meeting daily in Andy's office were not pleased with the voter resistance to his wife and to Hillary. The FBI needs to be shut down. They have become an opposition research firm for the DNC. Even if they can't find dirt on candidates using the NSA database, they are able to tap that database to find out political strategies in real time on opposition The fish is rotten from the head down to the tail.

unklemunky , Dec 19, 2017 8:20 AM

No matter what article you read here, and don't get me wrong, I love the insight, but every fucking article is "it's all over. America is doomed, the petro dollar days are over, China China China. It's getting a bit old. The charts and graphs about stock market collapse......it becoming an old record that needs changed. If I say it's going to rain every fucking day, at some point I will be right. That doesn't make me a genius....it makes me persistent.

insanelysane , Dec 19, 2017 8:24 AM

It's a Deep State mess and Sessions is trying his best as he cowers in a corner sucking his thumb.

If they continue to go after Trump, the FBI is going to be found guilty of violating the Hatch Act by exonerating Hillary. See burner phones. See writing the conclusion in May when the investigation supposedly ended with Hillary's interview on July 3rd. The FBI will also be exposed for sedition as they then carried out the phony Russiagate investigation as their "insurance policy."

However, they have created an expectation with the left that Trump and his minions will be brought to "justice." If we thought the Left didn't handle losing the election well, they will not be pleased at losing Russiagate.

MrBoompi , Dec 19, 2017 4:25 PM

How dare anyone contradict or go against the wishes of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC? Don't you know they understand what's best for us?

[Dec 21, 2017] In Unexpected Move, Trump Enacts Obama-era Law Opening US Arms Sales To Ukraine

Notable quotes:
"... the same week that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like "an asset". ..."
Dec 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Though WaPo's Josh Rogin characterizes the decision as intended to appease hawks while seeking to avoid broader conflict escalation based on "limited arms sales" (and not approving some of the heavier weaponry sought by Kiev), the move is likely to further ratchet up tensions with Russia, which is ironic for the fact that the decision comes the same week that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like "an asset".

Or perhaps we will be assured this is just more 4-dimensional chess playing between Trump and Putin to prove that not Putin but the Military Industrial Complex is once again "unexpectedly" in charge?

[Dec 21, 2017] Former Intel chief Putin is handling Trump like 'an asset' by Olivia Beavers

Notable quotes:
"... "I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively." ..."
"... Clapper took aim at the news that Putin called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture." ..."
"... He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not all that visible." ..."
"... The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he found the message to be contradictory. ..."
"... Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security, intelligence and foreign policy officials filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen," the brief reads. ..."
Dec 18, 2017 | thehill.com

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Monday that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling President Trump Donald John Trump House Democrat slams Donald Trump Jr. for 'serious case of amnesia' after testimony Skier Lindsey Vonn: I don't want to represent Trump at Olympics Poll: 4 in 10 Republicans think senior Trump advisers had improper dealings with Russia MORE like "an asset."

"I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively."

Clapper took aim at the news that Putin called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture."

He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not all that visible."

The former intelligence chief said Putin likely learned to recruit assets to help with his interests when he served as an officer in the KBG, which was the Soviet Union's main security agency.

"You have to remember Putin's background. He's a KGB officer, that's what they do. They recruit assets. And I think some of that experience and instincts of Putin has come into play here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our president," he continued.

The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he found the message to be contradictory.

He also pointed to his previous experiences of trying to share intelligence with the Kremlin, stemming back to the early 1990s, describing the attempts as a "one-way street."

Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security, intelligence and foreign policy officials filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen," the brief reads.

"They range from the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian operations and objectives," it continues.

[Dec 20, 2017] It seems like the intelligence agencies are spending more time monitoring politicians and public than Al Queda.

Notable quotes:
"... Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more. ..."
"... The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc. ..."
"... This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from. ..."
"... AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card. ..."
Mar 23, 2017 |
fresno dan March 22, 2017 at 6:56 pm

So I see where Nunes in a ZeroHedge posting says that there might have been "incidental surveillance" of "Trump" (?Trump associates? ?Trump tower? ?Trump campaign?)
Now to the average NC reader, it kinda goes without saying. But I don't think Trump understands the scope of US government "surveillance" and I don't think the average citizen, certainly not the average Trump supporter, does either – the nuances and subtleties of it – the supposed "safeguards".

I can understand the rationale for it .but this goes to show that when you give people an opportunity to use secret information for their own purposes .they will use secret information for their own purposes.

And at some point, the fact of the matter that the law regarding the "incidental" leaking appears to have been broken, and that this leaking IMHO was purposefully broken for political purposes .is going to come to the fore. Like bringing up "fake news" – some of these people on the anti Trump side seem not just incapable of playing 11th dimensional chess, they seem incapable of winning tic tac toe .

Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable. But it seems like the intelligence agencies are spending more time monitoring repubs than Al queda. Now maybe repubs are worse than Al queda – I think its time we have a real debate instead of the pseudo debates and start asking how useful the CIA is REALLY. (and we can ask how useful repubs and dems are too)

craazyboy March 22, 2017 at 8:45 pm

If Obama taped the information, stuffed the tape in one of Michelle's shoeboxes, then hid the shoebox in the Whitehouse basement, he could be in trouble. Ivanka is sure to search any shoeboxes she finds.

Irredeemable Deplorable March 23, 2017 at 2:57 am

Oh the Trump supporters are all over this, don't worry. There are many more levels to what is going on than what is reported in the fakenews MSM.

Adm Roger of NSA made his November visit to Trump Tower, after a SCIF was installed there, to .be interviewed for a job uh-huh yeah.

Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more.

The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc.

You all should be happy, because although Pres Trump has been vindicated here on all counts, the more important story for you is that the old line Democratic Party looks about to sink under the wieght of thier own lies and illegalities. This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from.

AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card.

Lambert Strether Post author March 23, 2017 at 4:08 am

> Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable

I think he knew about it. After fulminating about weedy technicalities, let me just say that Obama's EO12333 expansion made sure that whatever anti-Trump information got picked up by the intelligence community could be spread widely, and would be hard to trace back to an individual source .

[Dec 19, 2017] Not a lot of nuance, or diplomacy, on display and the tantrum was aimed at friends and rivals alike

Notable quotes:
"... Trump has promised to expand the half-million person Army when in fact there is no need for a US ground force; Canada and Mexico are quite benign. The NSS in fact makes it clear that the objective is not defense but increasing world hegemony: "We will advance American influence because a world that supports American interests and reflects our values makes America more secure and prosperous." Baloney, the wars have made America less secure and will continue to do so as new wars on North Korea and Iran are promoted. ..."
"... Thus hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on the military in a country with dire domestic needs. That's no way to Make America Great Again, is it. That's just being stupid. ..."
Dec 19, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

jayc , Dec 19, 2017 2:32:48 PM | 29

Nikki Haley, in her distinct fashion, articulated an "America First" pov at the UNSC yesterday as she claimed the repudiation of decades of international understandings on the status of Jerusalem was an expression of American "sovereignty", and criticism of same amounted to an "insult" that "would not be forgotten." Not a lot of nuance, or diplomacy, on display and the tantrum was aimed at friends and rivals alike.

The National Security vision seems to place a lot of faith in a version of laissez-faire libertarian economics which, reading between the lines, will serve as a motivating principle in extending great power rivalry based on defining the "rules based international system" as precisely such economic system. That's probably not too different from the "exceptional" viewpoint of the previous administrations, but expressed, much like Haley, in far blunter fashion.

les7 , Dec 19, 2017 2:39:00 PM | 30
@ 2 lea

Very well said. I would only add that the globalist/financial sector did even better!

@ 15, 20

I am surprised that Russia does not openly support US regime change projects. (sarc)

Really, what other country gets so much bang for their buck? Perhaps this is history's version of shock and awe for those who arrogate to themselves the power to 'make' it.

harrylaw , Dec 19, 2017 12:13:22 PM | 20
Don Bacon@15, Don, projected costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars are not billions but trillions.
Kennedy School professor Linda Bilmes finds that the all-in costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will measure in the $4 trillion to $6 trillion range when all is said and done. But that's not the most terrifying element of her survey of the fiscal impact of the "war on terror" and related undertakings. What should really strike fear into your heart is her finding that "the largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid." http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/28/cost_of_iraq_linda_bilmes_says_iraq_and_afghanistan_wars_could_cost_6_trillion.html
So much for Trumps 'fix our infrastructure' first promises. instead of MAGA we get MIGA make Israel great again.
WorldBLee , Dec 19, 2017 11:29:24 AM | 17
The greatest danger of the US's decline in power relative to the rest of the world is an overreaction by the US to try to halt such decline. This has been true for a while; Trump's belligerence just brings it into sharper focus. Obama was actually pretty much the same but he hid it behind smoother language.
Don Bacon , Dec 19, 2017 11:15:26 AM | 15
NSS: "We will preserve peace through strength by rebuilding our military so that it remains preeminent, deters our adversaries, and if necessary, is able to fight and win."

Currently the military is in poor shape. Half the fighter planes can't fly, only one of eleven aircraft carriers is deployed, and the Pentagon has struggled to send one brigade to Europe. Morale is low, the Air Force has a deficit of about 2,000 pilots, Navy personnel are poorly trained in seamanship so collisions occur, and the Army is struggling to recruit because young people in the recruit pool have drug and weight problems (and better things to do).

The current "rebuilding" is characterized by spending tons of money on complex systems that don't work well, like the F-35 strike fighter, the Ford-class aircraft carrier, the stealth destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship.

Budget limitations including sequestration mean that the defense budget funds for rebuilding are not available, and as the out-of-power Democrat Party insists that domestic needs be considered equally with "defense." (That's the good news.)

Of course the military budget has little to do with defense and mostly has served for elective wars which the US has consistently lost, and then paid to correct such as the $60 billion used for Iraq reconstruction in a country the US converted from an Iran enemy to an Iran ally (Iran says thank you Uncle Sam).

Trump has promised to expand the half-million person Army when in fact there is no need for a US ground force; Canada and Mexico are quite benign. The NSS in fact makes it clear that the objective is not defense but increasing world hegemony: "We will advance American influence because a world that supports American interests and reflects our values makes America more secure and prosperous." Baloney, the wars have made America less secure and will continue to do so as new wars on North Korea and Iran are promoted.

Thus hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on the military in a country with dire domestic needs. That's no way to Make America Great Again, is it. That's just being stupid.

[Dec 19, 2017] I won t be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance policy toward US military adventurism in countries on the borders of Russia/China. But this will never happen

The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
Notable quotes:
"... Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure Zionist and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch out 2018. ..."
"... But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now. ..."
"... America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative ways of operating getting traction. ..."
"... Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic and foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's "near abroad" than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria, and they have no intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations are being slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by all. ..."
Dec 19, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

ben , Dec 19, 2017 10:10:35 PM | 53

"I won't be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance policy toward US military adventurism in countries on the borders of Russia/China - by promising to bomb the continental USA if it attacks a Russia/China neighbor.

Imo it's absolutely essential to light a big bonfire under AmeriKKKa's Impunity. And it would be delightful, sobering, and a big boost for Peace and Diplomacy to hear the Yankees whingeing about being threatened by entities quite capable of following through on their threats."

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 19, 2017 11:10:32 AM | 14

Hell yes, I'd love that scenario, but never happen. Too much $to be made by kissing up to the empire.

Sad Canuck @ 31: Abso fukken 'lutely!!

b, you better change what you're smoken' if you believe the empire is going isolationist.

Alexander P , Dec 19, 2017 10:17:08 PM | 54
@48 They did not want him lol? So many comments in here make me chuckle.

Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure Zionist and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch out 2018.

But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.

dh , Dec 19, 2017 10:27:40 PM | 55
@26 "I think you would find that the vast majority of Americans would be quite happy to disengage militarily from the rest of the world, and put resources at work on domestic problems."

Disengage militarily? I would like to think so sleepy but why do they keep getting so involved internationally? Instead of concentrating on domestic issues putting 'America first' seems to mean bullying any country that doesn't do what it's told.

psychohistorian , Dec 19, 2017 10:42:31 PM | 56
@ Debsisdead with the end of his comment
"
America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative ways of operating getting traction.
"

There are those that say the same (vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink) about China, so there might be some competition in our world yet.

I , for one, want to end private finance and maybe give the China way a go. Anyone else? I did future studies in college and am intrigued by planning processes at the scale that China has done 13 of....their 5-year plans.

May we live to see structural change in the way our species comports itself......soon, I hope

Daniel , Dec 19, 2017 10:51:15 PM | 57
NemesisCalling, I suggest paying little to know attention to Trump's (or any other politician/oligarch) platitudes.

Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic and foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's "near abroad" than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria, and they have no intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations are being slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by all.

I remain amazed that people who KNOW that the MSM lies to us constantly, about things big and small, still believe with all their hearts the MSM narrative that Trump is an "outsider" whom the Establishment hates and has fought against ever since they gave him $5 billion in free advertising.

Don Bacon , Dec 19, 2017 10:52:39 PM | 58
Disengage? In 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces, including Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, deployed to 149 countries around the world, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command. That's around 75 percent of the nations on the planet.

What the vast majority of Americans might want has been cast aside by this president after he got their votes. There go hope and change again, damn.

[Dec 19, 2017] Anatol Lieven: A Trap of Their Own Making The consequences of the new imperialism. Book review LRB 8 May 2003

May 08, 2003 |

Nineteenth-century empires were often led on from one war to another as a result of developments which imperial governments did not plan and domestic populations did not desire. In part this was the result of plotting by individual 'prancing proconsuls', convinced they could gain a reputation at small risk, given the superiority of their armies to any conceivable opposition; but it was also the result of factors inherent in the imperial process.

The difference today is that overwhelming military advantage is possessed not by a set of competing Western states, but by one state alone. Other countries may possess elements of the technology, and many states are more warlike than America; but none possesses anything like the ability of the US to integrate these elements (including Intelligence) into an effective whole, and to combine them with weight of firepower, capacity to transport forces over long distances and national bellicosity. The most important question now facing the world is the use the Bush Administration will make of its military dominance, especially in the Middle East. The next question is when and in what form resistance to US domination over the Middle East will arise. That there will be resistance is certain. It would be contrary to every historical precedent to believe that such a quasi-imperial hegemony will not stir up resentment, which sooner or later is bound to find an effective means of expression.

US domination over the Middle East will, for the most part, be exercised indirectly, and will provoke less grievance than direct administration would, but one likely cause of trouble is the 'proletarian colonisation' of Israel – the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories. Given past experience and the indications now coming from Israel, there is little reason to hope for any fundamental change in Israeli policies. Sharon may eventually withdraw a few settlements – allowing the US Administration and the Israeli lobby to present this as a major concession and sacrifice – but unless there is a tremendous upheaval in both Israeli and US domestic politics, he and his successors are unlikely to offer the Palestinians anything more than tightly controlled bantustans.

Palestinian terrorism, Israeli repression and wider Arab and Muslim resentment seem likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

How long it will be before serious resistance grows is hard to tell. In some 19th-century cases, notably Afghanistan, imperial rule never consolidated itself and was overthrown almost immediately by new revolts. In others, it lasted for decades without involving too much direct repression, and ended only after tremendous social, economic, political and cultural changes had taken place not only in the colonies and dependencies but in the Western imperial countries themselves. Any attempt to predict the future of the Middle East must recognise that the new era which began on 11 September 2001 has not only brought into the open certain latent pathologies in American and British society, culture and politics; it has also fully revealed the complete absence of democratic modernisation, or indeed any modernisation, in all too much of the Muslim world.

The fascination and the horror of the present time is that so many different and potentially disastrous possibilities suggest themselves. The immediate issue is whether the US will attack any other state. Or, to put the question another way: will the US move from hegemony to empire in the Middle East? And if it does, will it continue to march from victory to victory, or will it suffer defeats which will sour American public support for the entire enterprise?

For Britain, the most important question is whether Tony Blair, in his capacity as a senior adviser to President Bush, can help to stop US moves in this direction and, if he fails, whether Britain is prepared to play the only role it is likely to be offered in a US empire: that fulfilled by Nepal in the British Empire – a loyal provider of brave soldiers with special military skills. Will the British accept a situation in which their chief international function is to provide auxiliary cohorts to accompany the Roman legions of the US, with the added disadvantage that British cities, so far from being protected in return by the empire, will be exposed to destruction by 'barbarian' counter-attacks?

As is clear from their public comments, let alone their private conversations, the Neo-Conservatives in America and their allies in Israel would indeed like to see a long-term imperial war against any part of the Muslim world which defies the US and Israel, with ideological justification provided by the American mission civilisatrice – 'democratisation'. In the words of the Israeli Major-General Ya'akov Amidror, writing in April under the auspices of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, 'Iraq is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is the Middle East, the Arab world and the Muslim world. Iraq will be the first step in this direction; winning the war against terrorism means structurally changing the entire area.' The Neo-Con model is the struggle against 'Communism', which they are convinced was won by the Reaganite conflation of military toughness and ideological crusading. The ultimate goal here would be world hegemony by means of absolute military superiority.

The Neo-Cons may be deluding themselves, however. It may well be that, as many US officials say in private, Bush's new national security strategy is 'a doctrine for one case only' – namely Iraq. Those who take this position can point to the unwillingness of most Americans to see themselves in imperial terms, coupled with their powerful aversion to foreign entanglements, commitments and sacrifices. The Bush Administration may have made menacing statements about Syria, but it has also assured the American people that the US military occupation of Iraq will last 18 months at the very most. Furthermore, if the economy continues to falter, it is still possible that Bush will be ejected from office in next year's elections. Should this happen, some of the US's imperial tendencies will no doubt remain in place – scholars as different as Andrew Bacevich and Walter Russell Mead have stressed the continuity in this regard from Bush through Clinton to Bush, and indeed throughout US history. However, without the specific configuration of hardline elements empowered by the Bush Administration, American ambitions would probably take on a less megalomaniac and frightening aspect.

In this analysis, both the grotesque public optimism of the Neo-Con rhetoric about democratisation and its exaggeration of threats to the US stem from the fact that it takes a lot to stir ordinary Americans out of their customary apathy with regard to international affairs. While it is true that an element of democratic messianism is built into what Samuel Huntington and others have called 'the American Creed', it is also the case that many Americans have a deep scepticism – healthy or chauvinist according to taste – about the ability of other countries to develop their own forms of democracy.

In the case of Iraq, this scepticism has been increased by the scenes of looting and disorder. In addition, there have been well-publicised harbingers both of incipient ethnic conflict and of strong mass opposition to a long-term US military presence and a US-chosen Iraqi Government. Even the Washington Post , which was one of the cheerleaders for this war in the 'serious' American press, and which has not been too anxious to publicise Iraqi civilian casualties, has reported frankly on the opposition to US plans for Iraq among the country's Shia population in particular.

Even if most Americans and a majority of the Administration want to move to indirect control over Iraq, the US may well find that it has no choice but to exercise direct rule. Indeed, even those who hated the war may find themselves morally trapped into supporting direct rule if the alternative appears to be a collapse into anarchy, immiseration and ethnic conflict. There is a tremendous difference in this regard between Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the mass of the population has been accustomed to fend for itself with very little help from the state, very little modern infrastructure and for that matter very little formal employment. In these circumstances, it was possible for the US to install a ramshackle pretence of a coalition government in Kabul, with a tenuous truce between its elements held in place by an international peacekeeping force backed by US firepower. The rest of the country could be left in the hands of warlords, clans and ethnic militias, as long as they made their territories open hunting ranges for US troops in their search for al-Qaida. The US forces launch these raids from airbases and heavily fortified, isolated camps in which most soldiers are kept rigidly separated from Afghans.

Doubtless many US planners would be delighted to dominate Iraq in the same semi-detached way, but Iraq is a far more modern society than Afghanistan, and much more heavily urbanised: without elements of modern infrastructure and services and a state to guarantee them, living standards there will not recover. Iraq needs a state; but for a whole set of reasons, it will find the creation of a workable democratic state extremely difficult. The destruction of the Baath regime has involved the destruction of the Sunni Arab military dominance on which the Iraqi state has depended since its creation by the British. Neither the US nor anyone else has any clear idea of what to put in its place (if one ignores the fatuous plan of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to install Ahmad Chalabi as an American puppet and Iraqi strongman). Equally important, the US will not allow the creation of a truly independent state. Ultimately, it may well see itself as having no choice but to create the state itself and remain deeply involved not just in supporting it but in running it, as the British did in Egypt for some sixty years.

Very often – perhaps most of the time – the old imperial powers preferred to exercise control indirectly, through client states. This was far cheaper, far easier to justify domestically and ran far less chance of provoking native revolt. The problem was that the very act of turning a country into a client tended to cripple the domestic prestige of the client regime, and to place such economic, political and moral pressures on it that it was liable to collapse. The imperial power then had the choice of either pulling out (and allowing the area to fall into the hands of enemies) or stepping in and imposing direct control. This phenomenon can be seen from Awadh and Punjab in the 1840s to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1989.

Of course, the threat to imperial client states did not come only from within their own borders. In a world where ethnic, clan, religious and personal loyalties spilled across national boundaries, a power that seized one territory was likely to find itself inexorably drawn to conquering its neighbours. There were always military, commercial or missionary interests to agitate for this expansion, often backed by exiled opposition groups ready to stress that the mass of the population would rejoice in an imperial invasion to bring them to power.

Whatever the Neo-Cons and the Israeli Government may wish, there is I believe no fixed intention on the part of the US Administration to attack either Syria or Iran, let alone Saudi Arabia. What it had in mind was that an easy and crushing US victory over Iraq would so terrify other Muslim states that they would give up any support for terrorist groups, collaborate fully in cracking down on terrorists and Islamist radicals, and abandon their own plans to develop weapons of mass destruction, thereby making it unnecessary for the US to attack them. This applied not only to perceived enemies such as Syria, Iran and Libya, but to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen and other states seen as unreliable allies in the 'war against terrorism'. If the US restricts itself to this strategy and this goal, it may enjoy success – for a while at least. Several states in the region are clearly running very scared. Moreover, every single state in the region – including Iran – feels under threat from the forces of Sunni Islamist revolution as represented by al-Qaida and its ideological allies; so there is a genuine common interest in combating them.

But for this strategy to work across such a wide range of states and societies as those of the Muslim world, US policymakers would have to display considerable sensitivity and discrimination. These are virtues not usually associated with the Bush Administration, least of all in its present triumphalist mood. The policy is in any case not without its dangers. What happens if the various pressures put on the client regimes cause them to collapse? And what happens if an enemy calls America's bluff, and challenges it to invade? It is all too easy to see how a new US offensive could result. Another major terrorist attack on the US could upset all equations and incite another wave of mass hysteria that would make anything possible. If, for example, it were once again perceived to have been financed and staffed by Saudis, the pressure for an attack on Saudi Arabia could become overwhelming. The Iranian case is even trickier. According to informed European sources, the Iranians may be within two years of developing a nuclear deterrent (it's even possible that successful pressure on Russia to cut off nuclear trade would not make any crucial difference). Israel in particular is determined to forestall Iranian nuclear capability, and Israeli commentators have made it clear that Israel will take unilateral military action if necessary. If the US and Israeli Governments are indeed determined to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, they may not have much time.

The second factor is the behaviour of the Shias of Iraq, and especially of Iranian-backed factions. Leading Shia groups have boycotted the initial discussions on forming a government. If they maintain this position, and if the US fails to create even the appearance of a viable Iraqi government, with disorder spreading in consequence, Iran will be blamed, rightly or not, by powerful elements in Washington. They will use it as an additional reason to strike against Iranian nuclear sites. In response, Tehran might well promote not only a further destabilisation of Iraq but a terrorist campaign against the US, which would in turn provoke more US retaliations until a full-scale war became a real possibility.

Although the idea of an American invasion of Iran is viewed with horror by most military analysts (and, as far as I can gather, by the uniformed military), the latest polls suggest that around 50 per cent of Americans are already prepared to support a war to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Moreover, the voices of moderation among the military tend to be the same ones which warned – as I did – of the possibility of stiff Iraqi resistance to a US invasion and the dangers of urban warfare in Baghdad, opposed Rumsfeld's plans to invade with limited numbers of relatively lightly armed troops and felt vindicated in their concern by the initial setbacks around Nasiriya and elsewhere. The aftermath has shown Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to have been correct in their purely military calculations about Iraq, and this will undoubtedly strengthen them in future clashes with the uniformed military. Rumsfeld's whole strategy of relying on lighter, more easily transportable forces is, of course, precisely designed to make such imperial expeditions easier.

As for the majority of Americans, well, they have already been duped once, by a propaganda programme which for systematic mendacity has few parallels in peacetime democracies: by the end of it, between 42 and 56 per cent of Americans (the polls vary) were convinced that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of 11 September. This gave the run-up to the war a peculiarly nightmarish quality in the US. It was as if the full truth about Tonkin Gulf, instead of emerging in dribs and drabs over a decade, had been fully available and in the open the whole time – and the US intervention in Vietnam had happened anyway.

While the special place of Saddam Hussein in American demonology means that this wouldn't be an easy trick to repeat, the American public's ignorance of international affairs in general and the Muslim world in particular make it by no means impossible. It isn't just Fox TV: numerous even more rabid media outlets, the Christian Coalition and parts of the Israeli lobby are all dedicated to whipping up hatred of Arabs and Muslims. More important is the fact that most Americans accept Bush's equation of terrorism and 'evil', which makes it extremely difficult to conduct any serious public discussion of threats from the Muslim world in terms which would be acceptable or even comprehensible to a mass American audience. Add to this the severe constraints on the discussion of the role of Israel, and you have a state of public debate close to that described by Marcuse. If America suffered another massive terrorist attack in the coming years, the dangers would be incomparably greater.

If the plans of the Neo-Cons depended on mass support for imperialism within the US, they would be doomed to failure. The attacks of 11 September, however, have given American imperialists the added force of wounded nationalism – a much deeper, more popular and more dangerous phenomenon, strengthened by the Israeli nationalism of much of the American Jewish community. Another attack on the American mainland would further inflame that nationalism, and strengthen support for even more aggressive and ambitious 'retaliations'. The terrorists may hope that they will exhaust Americans' will to fight, as the Vietcong did; if so, they may have underestimated both the tenacity and the ferocity of Americans when they feel themselves to have been directly attacked. The capacity for ruthlessness of the nationalist or Jacksonian element in the American democratic tradition – as in the firebombing of Japan and North Korea, neither of which had targeted American civilians – has been noted by Walter Russell Mead, and was recently expressed by MacGregor Knox, an American ex-soldier, now a professor at the LSE: Europeans 'may believe that the natural order of things as they perceive it – the restraint of American power through European wisdom – will sooner or later triumph. But such expectations are delusional. Those who find militant Islam terrifying have clearly never seen a militant democracy.'

America could certainly be worn out by a protracted guerrilla struggle on the scale of Vietnam. It seems unlikely, however, that a similar struggle could be mounted in the Middle East – unless the US were to invade Iran, at which point all bets and predictions would be off. Another terrorist attack on the US mainland, using some form of weapons of mass destruction, far from demoralising the US population would probably whip it into chauvinist fury.

To understand why successful guerrilla warfare against the US is unlikely (quite apart from the fact that there are no jungles in the Middle East), it is necessary to remember that the imperial domination made possible by 19th-century Western military superiority was eventually destroyed by three factors: first, the development of military technology (notably such weapons as the automatic rifle, the grenade and modern explosives) which considerably narrowed the odds between Western armies and 'native' insurgents. Second, the development of modern ideologies of resistance – Communist, nationalist or a combination of the two – which in turn produced the cadres and structures to organise resistance. Third, weariness on the part of 'metropolitan' populations and elites, stemming partly from social and cultural change, and partly from a growing awareness that direct empire did not pay economically.

Guerrilla warfare against the US is now a good deal more difficult because of two undramatic but immensely important innovations: superbly effective and light bullet-proof vests and helmets which make the US and British soldier almost as well protected as the medieval knight; and night-vision equipment which denies the guerrilla the aid of his oldest friend and ally, darkness. Both of these advantages can be countered, but it will be a long time before the odds are narrowed again. Of course, local allies of the US can be targeted, but their deaths are hardly noticed by US public opinion. More and more, therefore, 'asymmetric warfare' will encourage a move to terrorism.

The absence or failure of revolutionary parties led by cadres working for mass mobilisation confirms this. The Islamists may alter this situation, despite the disillusioning fate of the Iranian Revolution. But as far as the nationalists are concerned, it has been tried in the past, and while it succeeded in expelling the colonialists and their local clients, it failed miserably to produce modernised states. Algeria is a clear example: a hideously savage but also heroic rebellion against a particularly revolting form of colonialism – which eventually led to such an utterly rotten and unsuccessful independent state that much of the population eventually turned to Islamic revolution.

And now this, too, is discredited, above all in the one major country where it succeeded, Iran. Arab states have failed to develop economically, politically and socially, and they have also failed properly to unite. When they have united for the purposes of war, they have been defeated. Rebellion against the US may take place in Iraq. Elsewhere, the mass response to the latest Arab defeat seems more likely to be a further wave of despair, disillusionment and retreat into private life – an 'internal emigration'. In some fortunate cases, this may lead to a new Islamist politics focused on genuine reform and democratic development – along the lines of the changes in Turkey. But a cynicism which only feeds corruption and oppression is just as likely a result.

Even if despair and apathy turn out to be the responses of the Arab majority, there will also be a minority which is too proud, too radical, too fanatical or too embittered – take your pick – for such a course. They are the natural recruits for terrorism, and it seems likely that their numbers will only have been increased by the latest American victory. We must fear both the strengthening of Islamist terrorism and the reappearance of secular nationalist terrorism, not only among Palestinians but among Arabs in general. The danger is not so much that the Bush Administration will consciously adopt the whole Neo-Con imperialist programme as that the Neo-Cons and their allies will contribute to tendencies stemming inexorably from the US occupation of Iraq and that the result will be a vicious circle of terrorism and war. If this proves to be the case, then the damage inflicted over time by the US on the Muslim world and by Muslims on the US and its allies is likely to be horrendous. We have already shown that we can destroy Muslim states. Even the most ferocious terrorist attacks will not do that to Western states; but if continued over decades, they stand a good chance of destroying democracy in America and any state associated with it.

[Dec 18, 2017] The Scary Void Inside Russia-gate by Stephen F. Cohen

Highly recommended!
"A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the US's parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems." Well said. National security parasites are so entrenched (and well fed by MIC) that any change of the US foreign policy is next to impossible. The only legitimate course is more wars and bombing.
Notable quotes:
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. ..."
"... To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest threat to American national security. ..."
"... Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.) ..."
"... As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples of Russia-gate without Russia. ..."
"... Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. ..."
"... Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally (generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen. ..."
"... I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union where people actually believe the regime's propaganda. ..."
"... The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do. They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out of control. ..."
"... Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems. ..."
"... Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times. ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Despite a lack of evidence at its core – and the risk of nuclear conflagration as its by-product – Russia-gate remains the go-to accusation for "getting" the Trump administration, explains Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen.

The foundational accusation of Russia-gate was, and remains, charges that Russian President Putin ordered the hacking of Democratic National Committee e-mails and their public dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy."

As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half of media and government investigations, we are left with Russia-gate without Russia. (An apt formulation perhaps first coined in an e-mail exchange by Nation writer James Carden.) Special counsel Mueller has produced four indictments: against retired Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's short-lived national-security adviser, and George Papadopolous, a lowly and inconsequential Trump "adviser," for lying to the FBI; and against Paul Manafort and his partner Rick Gates for financial improprieties. None of these charges has anything to do with improper collusion with Russia, except for the wrongful insinuations against Flynn.

Instead, the several investigations, desperate to find actual evidence of collusion, have spread to "contacts with Russia" -- political, financial, social, etc. -- on the part of a growing number of people, often going back many years before anyone imagined Trump as a presidential candidate. The resulting implication is that these "contacts" were criminal or potentially so.

This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise.

More to the point, advisers to U.S. policy-makers and even media commentators on Russia must have many and various contacts with Russia if they are to understand anything about the dynamics of Kremlin policy-making. I myself, to take an individual example, was an adviser to two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered my wide-ranging and longstanding "contacts" with Russia to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president whom I advised.

To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest threat to American national security.

Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.)

That said, the mainstream American media have been largely responsible for inflating, perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russia-gate as the real political crisis it has become, arguably the greatest in modern American presidential and thus institutional political history. The media have done this by increasingly betraying their own professed standards of verified news reporting and balanced coverage, even resorting to tacit forms of censorship by systematically excluding dissenting reporting and opinions.

(For inventories of recent examples, see Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept and Joe Lauria at Consortiumnews . Anyone interested in exposures of such truly "fake news" should visit these two sites regularly, the latter the product of the inestimable veteran journalist Robert Parry.)

Still worse, this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for their journalistic standards, where expressed disdain for "evidence" and "proof" in favor of allegations without any actual facts can sometimes be found. Nor are these practices merely the ordinary occasional mishaps of professional journalism.

As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples of Russia-gate without Russia.

Flynn and the FBI

Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving office.

Those sanctions were highly unusual -- last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified cyber-attacks on Russia. They gave the impression that Obama wanted to make even more difficult Trump's professed goal of improving relations with Moscow.

Still more, Obama's specified reason was not Russian behavior in Ukraine or Syria, as is commonly thought, but Russia-gate -- that is, Putin's "attack on American democracy," which Obama's intel chiefs had evidently persuaded him was an entirely authentic allegation. (Or which Obama, who regarded Trump's victory over his designated successor, Hillary Clinton, as a personal rebuff, was eager to believe.)

But Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador -- as well as other Trump representatives' efforts to open "back-channel" communications with Moscow – were anything but a crime. As I pointed out in another commentary , there were so many precedents of such overtures on behalf of presidents-elect, it was considered a normal, even necessary practice, if only to ask Moscow not to make relations worse before the new president had a chance to review the relationship.

When Henry Kissinger did this on behalf of President-elect Nixon, his boss instructed him to keep the communication entirely confidential, not to inform any other members of the incoming administration. Presumably Flynn was similarly secretive, thereby misinforming Vice President Pence and finding himself trapped -- or possibly entrapped -- between loyalty to his president and an FBI agent. Flynn no doubt would have been especially guarded with a representative of the FBI, knowing as he did the role of Obama's Intel bosses in Russia-gate prior to the election and which had escalated after Trump's surprise victory.

In any event, to the extent that Flynn encouraged Moscow not to reply in kind immediately to Obama's highly provocative sanctions, he performed a service to U.S. national security, not a crime. And, assuming that Flynn was acting on the instructions of his president-elect, so did Trump. Still more, if Flynn "colluded" in any way, it was with Israel, not Russia , having been asked by that government to dissuade countries from voting for an impending anti-Israel U.N. resolution.

Removing Tillerson

Finally, and similarly, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to drive Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon, anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. Tillerson was an admirable appointee by Trump -- widely experienced in world affairs, a tested negotiator, a mature and practical-minded man.

Originally, his role as the CEO of Exxon Mobil who had negotiated and enacted an immensely profitable and strategically important energy-extraction deal with the Kremlin earned him the slur of being "Putin's pal." This preposterous allegation has since given way to charges that he is slowly restructuring, and trimming, the long bloated and mostly inept State Department, as indeed he should do. Numerous former diplomats closely associated with Hillary Clinton have raced to influential op-ed pages to denounce Tillerson's undermining of this purportedly glorious frontline institution of American national security. Many news reports, commentaries, and editorials have been in the same vein. But who can recall a major diplomatic triumph by the State Department or a Secretary of State in recent years?

The answer might be the Obama administration's multinational agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear-weapons potential, but that was due no less to Russia's president and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which provided essential guarantees to the sides involved. Forgotten, meanwhile, are the more than 50 career State Department officials who publicly protested Obama's rare attempt to cooperate with Moscow in Syria. Call it by what it was: the sabotaging of a president by his own State Department.

In this spirit, there are a flurry of leaked stories that Tillerson will soon resign or be ousted. Meanwhile, however, he carries on. The ever-looming menace of Russia-gate compels him to issue wildly exaggerated indictments of Russian behavior while, at the same time, calling for a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, in which he clearly believes. (And which, if left unencumbered, he might achieve.)

Evidently, Tillerson has established a "productive" working relationship with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, the two of them having just announced North Korea's readiness to engage in negotiations with the United States and other governments involved in the current crisis.

Tillerson's fate will tell us much about the number-one foreign-policy question confronting America: cooperation or escalating conflict with the other nuclear superpower, a détente-like diminishing of the new Cold War or the growing risks that it will become hot war. Politics and policy should never be over-personalized; larger factors are always involved. But in these unprecedented times, Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. Apart, that is, from President Trump himself, loathe him or not. Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to gravely endanger American national security?

Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation , where a version of this article first appeared.

Abe , December 15, 2017 at 1:49 pm

"Thanks to Flynn's indictment, we now know that the Israeli prime minister was able to transform the Trump administration into his own personal vehicle for undermining Obama's lone effort to hold Israel accountable at the UN. A clearer example of a foreign power colluding with an American political operation against a sitting president has seldom, if ever, been exposed in such glaring fashion.

"Kushner's deep ties to the Israeli right-wing and ethical breaches

"The day after Kushner was revealed as Flynn's taskmaster, a team of researchers from the Democratic Super PAC American Bridge found that the presidential son-in-law had failed to disclose his role as a co-director of his family's Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation during the years when his family's charity funded the Israeli enterprise of illegal settlements. The embarrassing omission barely scratched the surface of Kushner's decades long relationship with Israel's Likud-led government. [ ]

"A Clinton mega-donor defends Kushner's collusion

"So why isn't this angle of the Flynn indictment getting more attention? An easy explanation could be deduced from the stunning spectacle that unfolded this December 2 at the Brookings Institution, where the fresh-faced Kushner engaged in a 'keynote conversation' with Israeli-American oligarch Haim Saban. [ ]

""The spectacle of a top Democratic Party money man defending one of the Trump administration's most influential figures was clearly intended to establish a patina of bipartisan normalcy around Kushner's collusion with the Netanyahu government. Saban's effort to protect the presidential son-in-law was supplemented by an op-ed in the Jewish Daily Forward headlined, 'Jared Kushner Was Right To 'Collude' With Russia -- Because He Did It For Israel.'

"While the Israel lobby ran interference for Kushner, the favorite pundits of the liberal anti-Trump "Resistance" minimized the role of Israel in the Flynn saga. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who has devoted more content this year to Russia than to any other topic, appeared to entirely avoid the issue of Kushner's collusion with Israel.

"There is simply too much at stake for too many to allow any disruption in the preset narrative. From the journalist pack that followed the trail of Russiagate down a conspiracy infested rabbit hole to the Clintonites seeking excuses for their mind-boggling campaign failures to the Cold Warriors exploiting the panic over Russian meddling to drive an unprecedented arms build-up, the narrative must go on, regardless of the facts."

Michael Flynn's Indictment Exposes Trump Team's Collusion With Israel, Not Russia
By Max Blumenthal
https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/flynn-indictment-exposes-collusion-israel

Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 2:19 pm

Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally (generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen.

One quick example -- a few months ago the otherwise execrable Hannity actually had on his show the great Dennis Kucinich who railed against the deep state for attacking Trump b/c of his overtures toward peace with Moscow and how the deep state was using Russiagate to do it, etc. Kucinich was sensational. I doubt Maddow would ever have given him such a platform to voice the truth like Hannity did on this particular occasion.

Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:27 pm

I may have to take a look at Fox again–I bet you are right. Hannity as an arbiter of truth–oh my god

Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:35 pm

On this one particular issue, Hannity gets things right.

Rob , December 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm

If Hannity ever reports a story correctly, it's only because it coincides with his deeply partisan interests. Being truthful is something about which he cares little, if at all.

Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 3:05 pm

Yeah Drew-

For years I railed against Fox, but nowadays they seem to be the relatively sensible ones. Tucker Carlson is exceptionally bright, and I have no idea what got into Hannity. I used to loathe him to no end. Him giving Dennis Kucinich a chance to speak his mind is something I never would have imagined.

Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:36 pm

Isn't it something Mr. Scott?

Dave P. , December 15, 2017 at 11:34 pm

Drew and Skip Scott – Yes, I agree with you. I watched Dennis Kucinich too. Hannity and Carlson have been doing some very good reporting on these issues. It is amazing how the things have changed. Fox News was "No" for progressives to go to.

Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:25 pm

Prior to Trump's presidency I would never watch Fox News, but on this issue,, they are a more accurate source of information then any other broadcasting media. Rachel Maddow does nothing but rave, as if she had her own personal agenda, and maybe she does, ousting Trump, and that a woman didn't win the White House. I too saw the interview with Kucinich, and indeed it was a very good one.

RamboDave , December 15, 2017 at 5:27 pm

Tucker Carlson, on Fox (right before Hannity), has had Glenn Greenwald on several times.

David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:08 am

That basically maps directly onto the fact that Russia is the one issue Trump is right on.

Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:20 pm

Great article. Has America gone off the deep end? I just watched the first ten minutes of an anti-Putin and anti-Russian Frontline on television two nights ago. I have never seen more blatant or shameless propaganda. Because my mom watches tv all day and I am taking care of her, I see the same slop, drivel, and gibberish parroted all day long on the major news outlets. Perhaps I should state that more professionally: I see the same shameless propaganda parroted daily by the mainstream news media And it occurs to me–these young news commentators are not part of a conspiracy, willfully lying–they actually believe the propaganda. We are in trouble. I think as a group we act much more like bees in a hive or monkeys in a troop than we do as rational beings, and I mean no disrespect to bees or monkeys.

exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:56 pm

I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union where people actually believe the regime's propaganda.

Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:35 pm

Personally I believe that many do know that there is nothing to the Russia-gate story, but go along to get along, and they are no different then politicians, who bow before the Israeli Lobby, or NRA, or corporate groups to get reelected, and maintain their standing in their party. Another way of putting it, is to say they are willing to prostitute themselves. I can't see myself doing that.

occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 12:36 am

I, too, saw this scurrilous 'documentary' – "Putin's Revenge" – and made a point of writing down the names of a good number of those commentators moving the narrative along. All of them are well-known active Zionists or children of American Zionists who've helped create and ardently protect the State of Israel. I wish I could remember now at least some of the commentors' names. I didn't see Frontline' "Putin's Revenge" on PBS. It was on a National Geographic channel that traditionally shows those anthropological 'documentaries' about "Ancient Alien Visitors," "Gods from Outer Space, etc .pleasant programs to fall to sleep by. 'Putin's Revenge', however, was grotesque in its downright lies – making me furiously wide awake until I could google info on those names.

alley cat , December 15, 2017 at 2:36 pm

"Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to gravely endanger American national security?"

The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do. They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out of control.

exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:54 pm

This is a great article by one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable commentators on Russia remaining active despite the ongoing dangerous propaganda storm. Those responsible for this storm are threatening our continued existence. Because of this depressing salient fact, the democratic party, which has been fully on board with this, has totally sacrificed its legitimacy and degenerated to a clear and present existential danger. Clear thinking people have to view it as such and take necessary action based upon that fact, which is serious in its implications, since it is difficult in the extreme to supplant an existing party in a two party system (which has degenerated into a two faction one party state some time ago) in light of the media propaganda, intelligence and police control exercised by this odious system.

Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:11 pm

Really glad, Mr, Cohen, to see your article in Consortium. Your voice is always a wise one. Weekly listener.

Very important and accurate information, for the most part, in my view, though I have a few caveats.

Unfortunately for our perception of the 'goodness' of those in power, I tend to think the level of knowledge and intention of those who spread Russiagate are more cynical than you imagine.

When we read certain articles from hardline think-tanks and serious political commentary from those publications and outlets which sustain the current 'scandal' we see a surprising awareness of Russia's true intentions and nature. Sober, and reasonable. The problem is that this commentary is not what is used to persuade any element of the public toward a certain view on Russia. You instead see it within the establishment essentially talking amongst themselves.

The problem, as I see it, is that these people are fully aware of the truth, as well as Russia's intentions. They are just quite simply spinning vast lies to the contrary whenever they speak to, or in front of, the public. For two main reasons:

The remainder of this piece refers to #2.

Russia is an 'enemy' now, more than anything else, because, for whatever it's self-interested motivations, it is a loud, prominent, powerful voice actively and methodically criticizing and opposing US imperial hypocrisy, double-standards, and deception.

Russia is a fake enemy, talked about in a fake way, by fake people in an increasingly fake democracy. Respectfully, Mr. Cohen, I don't think ideology is the problem. I don't think those at the helm of US foreign policy have had an ideology in a long, long time. I think they have, with few exceptions, a 'prime directive': The retention and expansion of Oligarchic corporate power.

Nowadays, fearmongering over immigrant crime, terrorists, non-state cyber-criminals, or whatever else conjured to make the extremely safe-from-foreign-threats (To this day no war on our soil since the Civil War. Itself a domestic threat) American people feel afraid, and thus controllable and ignorant, is no longer working. Only a big fish like Russia can even hope to do the job. Plus that big fish is one of the factors 'sowing chaos' by giving a voice to anti-imperialists in the West to spread the truth of the government we actually live under.

In short, Russiagate, and it's accompanying digital censorship efforts, are a desperate attempt to rest control back over the American people and away from honest, rational truth.

Even shorter, our rulers underestimated the power of the internet.

Kind regards,
Bill

Lois Gagnon , December 15, 2017 at 8:57 pm

Thank you. That is a really truthful post. It really is all about maintaining imperial hegemony at all costs. Unfortunately, the cost could be the end of life on Earth. These weasels controlling the machinery of state from the darkness must be exposed as the treacherous criminals they are.

David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:22 am

Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems.

Jessica K , December 15, 2017 at 3:27 pm

Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times.

And Twitter is helping because western media sources will not tell the truth and people are taking to it to push back. I agree that at this time Fox is more interested in the facts than MSNBC, and particularly Tucker Carlson. (The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are showing what a fouled-up society America has become. It is feminist McCarthyism, sadly, and I am glad Tavis Smiley is fighting back.)

Yesterday I had a conversation with a loud mouth believer of the "Putin did it" fable and told him some details, that outright it was a fabrication, and someone nearby in the coffee shop actually joined to support the pushback with other facts. So, I am hopeful that people are waking up. And Nikki Haley has just been called by people on Twitter for her lies about Iran provocation in Yemen. Plus documents on NATO expansion after Gorbachev was assured would not happen, have just been revealed. I do think people are waking up.

Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:30 pm

Jessica,

That's what it takes. The political battle of our times. Good on you. I think you're right. The beginnings of which seem to have motivated Russiagate in the first place. I did a longer post on this above. Please keep spreading sense. I'll do the same.

Best wishes,
Bill

RnM , December 15, 2017 at 9:25 pm

It's good to be optimistc, but let us not forget the long history (short by Old World standards) of the oligarchy of doing anything and everything to get what they want.

The present cock-up of Russia-gate (Geez, I hate using that MSM concocted jingo term) points, not to the oligarchs losing their groove, but to an incompetent but persistent bunch of Clinton/Obama synchophants. Their days in any kind of power are, thankfully, numbered. But the snakes are lurking in the bushes, as are the deeper parts of the deep state. It's the long game that they are in for.

Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:37 pm

Thanks, Jessica,
A hopeful comment! Here, too, I sense at least some more dissent among us citizens with the prevailing lies.
When the bubble bursts, the boy has cried and everyone "realises" the emperor is naked, I wonder, will our governments, politicians and media survive? Everyone, practically, is complicit.

Jessica K , December 15, 2017 at 3:35 pm

Thanks, Bill, and I think we're at a profound crossroads in world history. I saw an interview on YouTube with young Americans who did not even know who won the Civil War nor why it was fought! We all must speak out with conviction and without anger.

Realist , December 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm

My parents always used to use the old argument to keep my thinking on track and avoid conforming to dangerous groupthink: "if everyone else decided to jump off the cliff, in the river or out the 10th floor window, would you just follow the crowd?" Professor Cohen is one of the rare little boys who either learned that lesson well or has always had strong innate instincts to avoid following the crowd or jumping on self-destructive bandwagons. Most of the readers of this site seem to have similar predilections and are among the very few Americans not being led by the Pied Pipers of all-encompassing self-destructive Russophobia. (Is there some common childhood experience or shared gene in our personal biographies that compel our rigorous adherence to the principles we all uphold?) As other posters have noted here, those few media personalities with a seeming immunity to the pathological groupthink now infecting most of America are indeed a very curious lot, with little else in the way of ideological conformity, but thank heavens for them for any restoration of mass sanity will surely have to originate from within their ranks, examples and leadership. I, for one, am pulling for Professor Cohen to be among those leading this country out of the wilderness of lock-step madness.

Bob Van Noy , December 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm

We remember an era before 11/22/1963

Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:30 pm

Realist I'm glad you brought up the readers on consortiumnews, and their not falling for this Russia-Gate nonsense. People posting comments here in support of 'no Russian interference' have been accused of being Trump supporters, but that was never the case. No, instead many here just saw through the fog of propaganda, and certainly saw this Russia-Gate idiocy as it being nothing more than an instigated coup. This defense of Trump could have been for any newly elected president, but the division between Hillary supporters, and Trump backers, has been the biggest obstacle to overcome, while attempting to explain your thought. I truly think that if the shoe had been on the other foot, that the many posters of comments here on consortiumnews would have been on Hillary's side, if it had been the same kind of coup that had been put in place. It's time to tell John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, and Robert Mueller, to call Hillary and say, 'well at least we tried Madam Secretary', and then be done with it.

Dave P. , December 16, 2017 at 2:43 pm

Realist and Joe – I always enjoy reading your thoughtful comments. Those of us who have been reading professor Stephen Cohen's articles for more than four decades now , know that he is the foremost authority on Russia. Instead of being courted to give his valuable input into the relations with Russia, he and others like him are being vilified as Putin apologists. It is the sign of the times we live in now.

As many comments posters here on this site had noted, the Russia-Gate has been deliberately created to confront Russia at this time rather than later on. Russia is in the way for final push for World domination – the Neoliberal Globalization.

Nobody, in Washington or elsewhere in the Country seems to ask why and for whom they, The ruling Powers want to establish this World Empire at any cost – even at the risk of a nuclear war. This process of building an Empire has changed the country as I had seen it more than half a century ago.

NeoLiberal Globalization, building this World wide Empire during the last three or four decades had its real winners and losers. Lot of wealth has been created all over the World under neoliberal global economy.

The big time winners are top .01% and another about 10% are also in the winners category, and have accumulated lot of wealth. From all over the World; China, India . . . this top 10% class send their kids to the best universities in the West for professional education; Finance, High tech, Sciences, and other professions and they get the jobs all over in Silicon Valley, and big financial Institutions and other professional fields in U.S. , U.K., Australia Canada . . .

The losers are middle class in U.S. – whom Hillary called deplorables – especially in those once mighty Industrial States in the Midwest, and East. With my marriage here , I inherited lots of relatives more than forty five years ago, most of them in the Midwest. As somebody commented a few weeks ago on this site about these middle class people that their " Way of Life " has been destroyed. It is true. All these people voted for Trump. With the exception of two, all our relatives in the Midwest and elsewhere on my wife's side voted for Trump. They are good, hard working people. It is painful to look at those ruined and abandoned factories in those States and ruined lives of many of those Middle Class people. Globalization has been disastrous for the middle class people in U.S. It is a race to the bottom for those people.

Ask those relatives if they have ever read anything about Russia during 2016. Not one of them have ever read or listened to anything related to Russian media or other Russian source. They did not even know if anything like RT or Sputnik News ever existed. Most of them don't even know now. And it is true of the people we associate with here where we live. None of them have time to read anything let alone Russian Media. I came to know about RT during events in Ukraine in 2014, and about Sputnik News over a year ago when this Russia- Gate commotion began. And I had read lot of Russian literature in my young age.

As several articles on this website have pointed out those email leaks were an inside job. Russia-Gate is just a concocted scheme to bring down Trump. And to destabilize Russia – a hurdle to Globalization and West's domination.

Skip Scott , December 17, 2017 at 8:39 am

Dave P-

Yours is a very accurate portrayal of the heartland of America. I live in a very rural area of the southwest, and you describe reality there to a "T". They are much too busy trying to survive to dig too deeply into world affairs. Thank goodness at least they've got Tucker Carlson at Fox to contrast the propaganda spewers on the other networks. They know the latte sippers and their government has abandoned them, but they don't fully understand the PNAC empire's moves in pursuit of global domination, and many wind up in the military jousting at windmills.

Realist , December 17, 2017 at 4:46 pm

I totally concur, Dave. I'm 70 and well remember, as a little kid, as a teenager and as a young man, folks talking about a far-off ideal of world unity, wherein all people on earth would share in earth's bounty and have the same democratic rights. The UN was supposed to be one of the first steps in that general direction. However, nobody thought that the eventual outcome would be what the movement has transmogrified into today: neoliberal globalism in which a tiny fraction of the top 1% own and control everything, with the rest of us actually suffering a drastic drop in our standard of living and a blatant diminution of our political rights.

It's been fifty years since I lived in Chicago, and about 45 since I last lived in the Midwest, but I was born and raised there and well recognise everything you have said about the place and the people in your remark to be entirely correct. It's also true for most of the other regions of this country in which I have lived, but the "Rust Belt" has paid the price in spades to satiate the neoliberal globalist "free traders." (Remember when THAT catchphrase was first sold to the working classes by Slick Willie's DLC wing of the Democratic party? He and Al Gore basically ended up doubling the ranks of "Reagan Democrats" whether they intended to do so or not. And, Hillary was so delusional as to assume those people would be on her side!)

Dave P. , December 17, 2017 at 11:36 pm

Yes, Realist. That Slick Willie and Gore did the most damage to the working class than any other administration in the recent American history. And being progressive democrats, we worked hard for their election as volunteers registering voters. At that time Rolling Stone Magazine called them as Saviors after Reagan and Bush era of greed – as they called it. Clintons sold the Democratic Party to the Wall Street and to Neoliberal Globalization. Tony Blair did the same in U.K. to the Labor Party.

Then we put faith in Hopey changey Obama and worked for his election. And he turned out to be big fraud too. After his Libya intervention and then on to Syria, I finally got turned off from Democratic Party politics. My wife, and I had started with McGovern Campaign in 1972.

Talking about Chicago, I landed at O'Haire fifty two years ago during snowy Winter, with just a few hundred dollars in my pocket enough for one semester on my way to Graduate School. You can not do it these days. America was at it's best. Ann Arbor was a Republican town those days with very friendly people. Compared to Europe, and other cultures, I found Americans the least prejudiced people, very open to other cultures. The factories In Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana . . . were humming. Never on Earth, such a prosperous middle class on such a scale has ever been created; made of good, hard working people in those small and big towns. The workers were back bone of the Democratic Party. And every thing looked optimistic. I, and couple of my friends thought it can not get better than this on Earth.

And all this seems like a past history now. Life is still good but that stability and that optimism of 1960's is gone. I visited Wisconsin and Michigan last Spring and in Fall again this year. It is painful to look at those gigantic factories shut down and in ruins. I lived for a decade in Michigan. As I said in my comments above, the biggest loser in this NeoLiberal Globalization is American Middle Class.

Piotr Berman , December 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Jessica K: The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are showing what a fouled-up society America has become.

One could say that there is nothing bad about a witch hunt, provided that it genuinely goes after evil witches. Perhaps the worst hitch hunt in my memory was directed at preschool teachers accused of sexual molestation and sometimes satanism. Probably we are not in this Animal Kingdom story (yet):

Denizens of AK see a hare running very fast and they ask "what happen?" Mr. hare answers "They are castrating camels!" "But you are a hare, not a camel!" "Try to prove that you are not a camel!".

Abe , December 15, 2017 at 5:02 pm

"In a dramatic development in the trial in Kiev of several Berkut police officers accused of shooting civilians in the Maidan demonstrations in February 2014, the defence has produced two Georgians who confirm that the murders were committed by foreign snipers, at least 50 of them, operating in teams. The two Georgians, Alexander Revazishvili and Koba Nergadze have agreed to testify [ ]

"This dramatic and explosive evidence was first brought to light by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin on November 16 in an article in the Italian journal Il Giornale and is again brought to the world's attention by a lawyer with some courage picking up on that report and speaking with the witnesses himself. These witnesses stated to Gian Micalessin, even more explosively, that the American Army was directly involved in the murders.

"The clear objective of the Maidan massacre in Kiev on February 20, 2014 was to sow chaos and reap the fall of the democratically elected, pro-Russian Yanukovych government. People were slaughtered for no other reason than to destroy a government the NATO powers, especially the United States and Germany, wanted removed because of its opposition to NATO, the EU, and their hegemonic drive to open Ukraine and Russia to American and German economic expansion. In other words, it was about money and the making of money.

"The western media and leaders quickly blamed the Yanukovych government for the killings during the Maidan demonstrations, but more evidence has become available indicating that the massacre in Kiev of police and civilians – which led to the escalation of protests, leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government – was the work of snipers working on orders of government opponents and their NATO controllers using the protests as a cover for a coup.

"One of the snipers already admitted to this in February 2015, thereby confirming what had become common knowledge just a few days after the massacre in Kiev and in a secretly recorded telephone call, the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet reported to the EU head of Foreign Policy, Catherine Ashton, in early March 2014, that there was widespread suspicion that "someone from the new coalition" in the Kiev government may have ordered the sniper murders. In February 2016, Maidan activist Ivan Bubenchik confessed that in the course of the massacre, he had shot Ukrainian police officers. Bubenchik confirmed this in a film that gained wide attention.

'Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, at the University of Ottawa, published a devastating paper on the Maidan killings setting out in extensive detail the conclusive evidence that it was a false flag operation and that members of the present Kiev regime, including Poroshenko himself were involved in the murders, not the government forces. [ ]

"In the November 16 article in the Italian journal Il Giornale, and repeated on Italian TV Canale 5, journalist Gian Micalessin revealed that 3 Georgians, all trained army snipers, and with links to Mikheil Saakashvili and Georgian security forces were ordered to travel to Kiev from Tbilisi during the Maidan events. It is two of these men that are now being called to testify in Kiev."

The Maidan Massacre: US Army Orders: Sow Chaos
By Christopher Black
https://journal-neo.org/2017/12/15/the-maidan-massacre-us-army-orders-sow-chaos/

Abe , December 15, 2017 at 5:12 pm

The pretext for the western-supported overthrow of Ukrainian President Yanukovych was the massacre of more than a hundred protestors in Kiev in February 2014, which Yanukovych allegedly ordered his forces to carry out. Doubts have been expressed about the evidence for this allegation, but they have been almost entirely ignored by the western media and politicians.

Ukrainian-Canadian professor Ivan Katchanovski has carried out a detailed study of the evidence of those events, including videos and radio intercepts made publicly available by pro-Maidan sources, and eye witness accounts. His findings point to the involvement of far-right militias in the massacre and a cover-up afterwards:

– The trajectories of many of the shots indicate that they were fired from buildings that were then occupied by Maidan forces.
– Many warnings were given by announcers on the Maidan stage about snipers firing from those buildings.
– Several leaders of the then opposition felt secure enough to give speeches on the Maidan around the time that gunmen in nearby buildings were shooting protestors dead, and those leaders were not targeted by the gunmen .
– Many of the protesters were shot with an outdated type of firearm that was not used by professional snipers but was available in Ukraine as a hunting weapon.
– Recordings of all live TV and Internet broadcasts of the massacre by five different TV channels were either removed from their websites immediately after the massacre or not made publicly available.
– Official results of ballistic, weapons, and medical examinations and other evidence collected during the investigations have not been made public, while crucial evidence, including bullets and weapons, has disappeared.
– No evidence has been given that links the then security forces' weapons to the killings of the protesters.
– No evidence has been given of orders to shoot unarmed protestors even though the new government claimed that Yanukovych issued those orders personally.
– So far the only three people have been charged with the massacre, one of whom has disappeared from house arrest.

http://www.academia.edu/8776021/The_Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine

Bob Van Noy , December 15, 2017 at 6:16 pm

Thank you Abe that article could change everything

Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:54 pm

Abe,
Thanks for advocating Dr Katchanovski! I have been reading some of his papers since a year or two and his work seems very thorough! He uses physical facts like trajectories of bullets to determine where shots originated.

Another expert in the field who knows Mr Katchanovski fully endorsed his academic work without any hesitation when I asked him recently. He is being published by publishers with the highest demands. His work can be found in academia.com or is it .org, login is free of charge.
His work deserves the attention of real journalists.

Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm

Oh, sorry, I see u already mentioned academia.edu!
No harm repeating though.
And it is .edu. :)

Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm

Ditto with the airliner shootdown.
Russia is accused and evidence is destroyed/suppressed.
The pattern is quite clear. Russiagate is merely an extension of the same pattern.
Remember those intelligence tests that consist of presenting a series of numbers, and the test taker has to figure out what the next number in the pattern is . . .
So, the Russiagate thing is merely the next item that continues the pattern of Maidan, plane shootdown and cover-up, shootdown of plane in Sinai, etc. etc. etc.
I think the deep state REALLY went apoplectic when Snowden escaped to Russia.

They will have their revenged, at any price, to the USA, to Russia, to the world. These are madmen.

Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:32 am

It's prove Abe that 'only if you live long enough' applies to learning these newly uncovered facts regarding the Maiden Square riots. Let's hold out hope that the truth to MH17 comes out soon. Another thing, how can these sanctions against Russia stay in place while everything known as a narrative to that event comes unraveled.

Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:31 pm

That's a good article , worth reading in its entirety. Thanks.

occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 1:23 am

Abe, thank you so much for this information. US fingerprints are all over Ukraine's sickening economic 'reforms', too! Have you read the House Ukraine Freedom Support Act – passed by both houses in the middle of the night Dec. 2014? I have. Wade through until nearly the end where it gives President Obama #1. the power to work toward US corporations exploring and developing Ukraine's natural resources (including fracking) once 'reforms' have been put in place (privatization); #2. the power to ask the World Bank to extend special loans for US corporations to develop those natural resources; #3. the power to install 'defensive' missile sites all along Russia's western borders; #4. the power to free US NGO's in Russia from their previously non-partisan restraints and allow them to work with anti-Putin political groups.

I urge you to google Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul/Ukraine Freedom Support Act -2014. You won't believe how that bill got through the House of Representatives and Senate. And you'll have to laugh when you hear the word "democracy" in any context with "the USA".

Annie , December 15, 2017 at 6:48 pm

I also see the sexual allegations made against Trump, as another opportunity to oust him from his presidency. I in no way condone such behavior, but it's disturbing to think the main motivation driving this is another means of trying to oust him from his presidency. I don't believe, as these women claim, that they felt "left out", in the recent outings of men who have misused their positions of power to exploit women sexually.

Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:58 pm

Yep, the Weinstein thing is being trumpeted and amplified to the extent that it synergizes wtih attempts to oust Trump. It is handy to the deep state. Trump qua political figure is being tarred with the Weinstein brush. That is the main reason we are seeing such a heavy dose of stories on male bad behavior. We would not be seeing this if Hillary were in power. Just a few stories but not full-court press. Because too many of these bad actors are actually in the Hillary camp. Like, most of Hollywood. The story wouldn't help her, politically, if she were in power. It only helps politically to drag down Trump. Before the Weinstein thing came along, we arleady had teh golden showers fairy tale. In fact it would not surprise me at all if Rose McGowan had some kind of political support and encouragement to "go public."
this is no way means that I think this kind of thing is OK. But, things are not straightforward in our world. It is a political as well as a "moral" or lifestyle story. One of the political targets is Trump. Notice that the heads of studios who knew all about this behavior and did nothing are not being forced to step down. Let's check out their political donations . . .

Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:44 am

What if the 'Sexual Predator Purge' stories along with the 'Get Trump Out of Office' campaign were but two stories colliding into each other? I mean a reporter in our TMZ world we live in would need paid a handsome sum to continually stay quiet over a Harvey Weinstein kind of scoop, so eventually these scandals had to come out. And then there's hateable loud mouth the Donald, who must be stopped by any means. Put the two together, and hey with how all these big shot perv's are going down, why not corral Trump and force him to resign. It's even cheaper than impeachment.

So the conniving once again craft together a piece of fiction, mixed in with some reality, and take the American conscience off into another realm of fantasy. Hate can get anybody carted off to the guillotine, if the timings right.

Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:55 am

Andrew Bacevich mentions the Weinstein scandal, and then goes on to suggest what the conversation should be.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48429.htm

Litchfield , December 16, 2017 at 9:12 am

Bacevich is fine as far as he goes
But he never quite "turns the corner" himself in taking the story as far as it needs to be taken and laying out the conclusions that the public needs to grasp.

David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:32 am

Yes! That! Thank you, Litchfield.

Bacevich is knowledgeable and worth reading. But he never, afaik, ventures to look deeply enough into the imperial heart of darkness – "turn the corner", as you say.

Leslie F. , December 15, 2017 at 7:11 pm

So the investigation isn't really about Russia. It is about corruption, money laundering, tax evasion, etc. All worthy of investigation. Not to mention the conspiracy to kidnap the Turkish cleric and collusion with Israel This investigation should not be shut down because the deep state and the press are in a conspiracy to blame it all on Russia. It is up to you guys in the press to convince your colleagues to call it what it really is, and expose those members who continue to misrepresent reality. The press, as a whole, has dropped the ball in a big way on this, but that is not Mueller's responsibility. The 4th estate is a mess and you should be trying to figure out how to clean it up without violating the constitution.

Annie , December 15, 2017 at 7:58 pm

This is one of the reasons I no longer support Democracy Now. As Mr. Cohen said, " worse, this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for their journalistic standards, "

God, help us, everyone including mental health professionals have no sense of professionalism, but they sure know how to make a buck, and try to undo a presidency.

"There are Thousands of Us": Mental Health Professionals Warn of Trump's Increasing Instability

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/12/8/there_are_thousands_of_us_mental

Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 10:00 pm

Ditto, The Nation. See my post.

Annie , December 15, 2017 at 11:22 pm

I read your post, and of course I agree. Some of the allegations are so minor, as he hugged me and gave me a kiss on my mouth. He touched my breast. I was in the dressing room when he came in unannounced, and my hair was in curlers, and I was only wearing a robe, but I was nude underneath. Of course some were more disconcerting then those I mentioned, but all claim to be traumatized. I have no doubt their agenda is to bring him down and the whole thing has been orchestrated to do just that. Where is all the concern, and coverage of rape in this country where the estimates go from 300,000 to over a million women raped each year? Where are the stories about sexual trafficking of children, or the children who are sexually abused in their own homes? I've never seen coverage on these issues like what is happening now. That is another reason I find this whole thing appalling. Not to mention using sexual harassment as a political tool to bring down a president.

David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:41 am

So many examples of this. There's an alternative newspaper comic I used to like, "Tom the Dancing Bug" – smart, subversive, and "progressive". But the writer has completely bought into Scary Putin/Puppet Trump. It's depressing.

BobH , December 15, 2017 at 8:33 pm

"unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous" sums it up nicely. It was also good to have Professor Cohen's endorsement of this website's courageous initiatives in combatting the Russia-gate farce.

Bob Van Noy , December 16, 2017 at 11:15 am

I'll happily second that thought BobH. And thanks

Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:29 pm

Thank god Consortium News keeps up the pressure on the Russia-gate scam.
And glad to see Stephen Cohen published here.
Readers of this site need to keep reminding themselve of the basic background on this -- at least, I do -- in case opportunities comes along to deflate others' credulousness.

One question for Stephen Cohen:
Your wife is the editor of The Nation.
What has The Nation done to stop the madness?
Not enough. What's the story?
In fact, during the campaign and post-election, The Nation shamefully lent itself to the craziness on the left that sought to devalidate not only the results of the election but Trump himself qua human being. Nothing has been too far below the belt for Nation editors and writers to strike. I have had the ongoing impression that The Nation's editorial board really cannot see below the surface on any of this and have driven a very superficial anti-Trump, "resist" narrative dangerous in its implications. I think I have seen just one story, by a Patrick someone, that seriously questioned the russia-gate narrative. The Nation has fallen right in to the trap of "I hate Trump so much and am so freaked out by his election that I will make common cause with any one and any forces in our polity that will get rid of him somehow." The nation seems too scared of facing head on the reality of deep state actors in the USA. Or is too wedded to its version of reality to see what has become incraseingly clear to growing numbers of Americans.
As many an intelligent and more knowledgeable than I person has said: There is plenty to decry about Trump. But worse is the actions taken in the name of ridding the country of him and his presidency.
Because of this consistent cluelessness I have canceled all gift subscriptions to The Nation. I'll pay for my own sub, to see where this magazine goes, but others will have to pay their own way with The Nation if they so choose.
So, please clean up at home and get the act together on what is left of the left.
First.

Herman , December 15, 2017 at 9:32 pm

Thought the acronym PEPs was clever, Progressives Except for Palestine. Now it has morphed into PEPIRs pronounced Peppers, Progressives Except for Palestine, Iran and Russia. Actually could be PEPIRS adding Syria. If we added Iraq it could be PIEPIRS or Peepers. Actually, I have little regard for such people whose aims include killing and maiming for land and money.

Professor Cohen's credentials are very impressive and his voice and pen are badly needed. People like him are precious resources for America and the world.

Herman , December 16, 2017 at 11:08 am

PIEPIRS is incorrect with the I before the E making Pipers. So we have PEPs, Peppers and Pipers. Please excuse the frivolous comments but it feels good to try to expose their hypocrisy in any way you can, that is of the Peps, Peppers and Pipers.

Gregory Herr , December 15, 2017 at 9:43 pm

What has really been astonishing to me -- beyond a lack of evidence for all the "Russia-gate" allegations–is the utterly preposterous nature of the narrative in the first place. Robert Parry has addressed this, but the voice of Stephen Cohen–with the perspective of specialized scholarship and experience vis-a-vis Russia–is a welcome voice indeed.

David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:55 am

The NY Times printed an allegedly explanatory graphic a couple of days ago showing the Trump/Russia "scandal" as a basically a proliferating root system descending from the central "collusion" premise, with the roots and rootlets branching down to encompass all the disjointed facts (and "facts") and allegations that have appeared in the media.

The graphic was unintentionally revealing of the phoniness of the whole business: instead of showing numerous observations leading to a deeper truth, it accurately depicted "Russia-gate" as a pre-existing (fact-free) conceit that has chaotically complexified to accommodate random developments. That's the definition of a weak and useless theory!

Gregory Herr , December 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm

It seems to that as a representative of the incoming Administration's foreign policy team Flynn was just doing his job speaking with the Russian ambassador about the sudden and striking maneuvers of Obama during the transition. And in trying to defuse potential fallout and escalation due to those sanctions he was doing his job well. Was it not perfectly legal and well within the parameters of his duties to establish some baselines of discussion with counterparts?
Flynn's expression of thoughts on policy to counterparts were, to my mind, subject to the approval of the head of the incoming Administration -- namely Trump, and Trump only.

By the time the FBI questioned Flynn, he surely must have had an idea his conversation with the Ambassador had been under surveillance. What was the "lie"? Was he forgetful of a detail and just caught in a nitpicking technicality? Or did he deliberately manufacture a falsehood? When he gets past his legal entanglement, I sure hope he sits down to a candid interview. I'd like him to demystify me about all this.

I like your phraseology David this nonsense has been chaotically complexified to accommodate random developments!

David G , December 16, 2017 at 6:46 pm

Thanks, Gregory Herr. In your earlier comment that I replied to, you reference "the utterly preposterous nature of the narrative". That's not bad phraseology either.

And it also gets to something I've been thinking all along: I'd like to hear a "Russia-gate" proponent, such as an MSNBC host, actually supply what they consider a plausible narrative that fits all these breathless Trump/Russia "scoops".

I'm not demanding they prove anything, but just want to hear a story that makes sense. Because it seems to me that all the little developments they rush toward with their hummingbird attention spans don't fit together, *even if you concede all the dubious and debatable "facts"*.

dhinds , December 16, 2017 at 7:28 am

An important interview, for anyone that wants to understand Russia, today.

https://youtu.be/E_WPk6Rxx00

Megyn Kelly Interview Vladimir Putin

June, 2017

Damn good Interview (on the part of Putin – He said what was needed to be said. including "well, this is just more nonsense Have you lost your mind over there, or something)? He then continued to wrap it up, in a reasonable and and diplomatic manner.

Effectively, the USA continues locked into denial, refusing to accept responsibility for it's own current state of affairs. (The mass delusion is so thick you could eat it with a spoon, if it wasn't so putrid).

Warmongering, terrorist and refugee creating Regime Change and mass assassinations (with neither congressional oversight nor due process), arms and influence peddling profiteering, the creation of a mass surveillance society and militarized police state that kills minorities, the homeless and poor with impunity, mass incarceration in private for profit prisons, increasingly gross inequality and the excessive cost of health care and education; show the USA to be a society adrift and devoid of fundamental values. (And that's me talking, not Vladimir Putin)

The Clintons, Bush's and their supporters are to blame and should be held accountable, but mainly a new course for society must be charted and neither of the two corrupt major political parties is capable of that at this time.

A new coalition is called for.

James , December 16, 2017 at 10:13 am

Thank you Mr. Cohen for your ever insightful and reasoned commentary on this disturbing trend.

Clif , December 16, 2017 at 5:04 pm

Yes, thank you Dr. Cohen.

The lack of scrutiny is alarming. I'd like to offer Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan as possible figures who are working the lines and should be drawn into the light.

rosemerry , December 16, 2017 at 5:53 pm

Professor Cohen is one of the few who really knows about Russia, so of course so any of the Fawning Corporate Media (to quote Ray McGovern) denigrate his work. Even in GWBush's time he often explained "the Cold War is over", and Obama's intemperate rush to expel diplomats and push ahead the Russophobia after Trump's election had no basis in fact and just encouraged the Hillary-Dems and neocons to continue the unjustified destruction of the one aspect of Trump's "plan" that would have benefited the USA and peace.

Bill , December 17, 2017 at 12:03 pm

Do you really think that Obama was misled by others? I don't believe it. Obama and Hillary are the origin of the fabrications. Will anyone hold their feet to the fire?

Jerry Alatalo , December 17, 2017 at 1:56 pm

"It's the state-sponsorship of terrorism, stupid." The largest-scale, ongoing, organized war criminal operation in the history of the world has murdered millions.

Jessica K , December 17, 2017 at 9:10 pm

Vox has an article "The Left Shouldn't Make Peace With Neocons -- Even to Defeat Trump", by Robert Wright. Bill Kristol of American Conservative and many other neocons including Robert Kagan have dual US-Israel citizenship, and they push the MICC toward war. They'll be pushing for war with Iran and maybe Russia.

Tim , December 18, 2017 at 10:13 am

Sadly, quite a concise, clear picture of the muddy waters called Russia-gate, Intel's baby, and the faint possibilities of Tillerson and Lavrov holding fast against sabotage. Let's hope against all hope.

[Dec 18, 2017] Gaius Publius: Explosive WikiLeaks Release Exposes Massive, Aggressive CIA Cyber Spying, Hacking Capability

Notable quotes:
"... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. ..."
"... Donald Trump is deep in the world of spooks now, the world of spies, agents and operatives. He and his inner circle have a nest of friends, but an even larger, more varied nest of enemies. As John Sevigny writes below, his enemies include not only the intel and counter-intel people, but also "Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul." ..."
"... A total of 8,761 documents have been published as part of 'Year Zero', the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said that 'Year Zero' revealed details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program," including "weaponized exploits" used against company products including " Apple's iPhone , Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs , which are turned into covert microphones." ..."
"... According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate Android phones and collect "audio and message traffic before encryption is applied." ..."
"... "CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware. Can activate backdoors on demand, including via Windows update "[.] ..."
"... Do you still trust Windows Update? ..."
"... As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. ..."
"... "Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, told the Huffington Post that Hastings's crash looked consistent with a car cyber attack.'" Full and fascinating article here . ..."
"... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive. ..."
"... Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities. ..."
"... By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware. Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified. ..."
"... I learned this when I was in my 20s. The Catholic Church was funding my early critique of American foreign aid as being imperialist. I asked whether they thought I should go into politics. They said, "No, you'd never make it". And I said, "Why?" and they said, "Well, nobody has a police record or any other dirt on you." I asked what they meant. They said, "Unless they have something over you to blackmail you with, you're not going to be able to get campaign funding. Because they believe that you might do something surprising," in other words, something they haven't asked you to do. So basically throughout politics, on both sides of the spectrum, voters have candidates who are funded by backers who have enough over them that they can always blackmail. ..."
"... The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening. ..."
"... 4th impressions – I went looking for the "juicy bits" of interest to me – SOHO routers, small routers – sadly its just a table documenting routers sold around the world, and whether these guys have put the firmware in their Stash Repository. Original firmware, not hacked one. But the repository isn't in the vault dump, AFAIK. ..."
"... The WikiLeaks docs show that CIA has developed means to use all personal digital device microphones and cameras even when they are "off," and to send all of your files and personal data to themselves, and to send your private messages to themselves before they are encrypted. They have installed these spyware in the released version of Windows 10, and can easily install them on all common systems and devices. ..."
"... So we have a zillion ways to spy and hack and deceive and assassinate, but no control. I think this is what the military refers to as "being overtaken by events." ..."
"... My godfather was in the CIA in the late sixties and early seventies, and he said that outside of the President's pet projects there was no way to sift through and bring important information to decision makers before it made the Washington Post (he is aware of the irony) and hit the President's breakfast table. ..."
"... To what extent do these hacks represent the CIA operating within the US? To what extent is that illegal? With the democrats worshipping the IC, will anyone in an official position dare to speak out? ..."
"... Schumer said that as he understands, intelligence officials are "very upset with how [Trump] has treated them and talked about them ..."
"... The CIA's internal security is crap, too. Really a lot of people should be fired over that, as well as over Snowden's release. We didn't hear of it happening in the NSA, though I'm not sure we would have. Given Gaius's description of Trump's situation, it seems unlikely it will happen this time, either. One of my hopes for a Trump administration, as long as we're stuck with it, was a thorough cleanout of the upper echelons in the IC. It's obviously long overdue, and Obama wasn't up to it. But I used the past tense because I don't think it's going to happen. Trump seems more interested in sucking up to them, presumably so they won't kill him or his family. That being one of their options. ..."
"... "The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability ." [My emphasis]. It seems to characterize an organization that operates outside of any control and oversight – and one that is intentionally structuring itself that way. That worries me. ..."
"... It's a dangerous world out there and only our brave IC can protect us from it. Come on. Stop blaming the victim and place the blame where it belongs–our IC and MIC. I say stop feeding the beast with your loyalty to a government that has ceased to be yours. ..."
"... "These CIA revelations in conjunction with those of the NSA paints a pretty dark future for privacy and freedom. Edward Snowden made us aware of the NSA's program XKEYSCORE and PRISM which are utilized to monitor and bulk collect information from virtually any electronic device on the planet and put it into a searchable database. Now Wikileaks has published what appears to be additional Big Brother techniques used by a competing agency. Say what you want about the method of discovery, but Pandora's box has been opened." ..."
Mar 09, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Yves here. The first release of the Wikileaks Vault 7 trove has curiously gone from being a MSM lead story yesterday to a handwave today. On the one hand, anyone who was half awake during the Edward Snowden revelations knows that the NSA is in full spectrum surveillance and data storage mode, and members of the Five Eyes back-scratch each other to evade pesky domestic curbs on snooping. So the idea that the CIA (and presumably the NSA) found a way to circumvent encryption tools on smartphones, or are trying to figure out how to control cars remotely, should hardly come as a surprise.

However, at a minimum, reminding the generally complacent public that they are being spied on any time they use the Web, and increasingly the times in between, makes the officialdom Not Happy.

And if this Wikileaks claim is even halfway true, its Vault 7 publication is a big deal:

Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.

This is an indictment of the model of having the intelligence services rely heavily on outside contractors. It is far more difficult to control information when you have multiple organizations involved. In addition, neolibearlism posits that workers are free agents who have no loyalties save to their own bottom lines (or for oddballs, their own sense of ethics). Let us not forget that Snowden planned his career job moves , which included a stint at NSA contractor Dell, before executing his information haul at a Booz Allen site that he had targeted.

Admittedly, there are no doubt many individuals who are very dedicated to the agencies for which they work and aspire to spend most it not all of their working lives there. But I would assume that they are a minority.

The reason outsiders can attempt to pooh-pooh the Wikileaks release is that the organization redacted sensitive information like the names of targets and attack machines. The CIA staffers who have access to the full versions of these documents as well as other major components in the hacking toolkit will be the ones who can judge how large and serious the breach really is. 1 And their incentives are to minimize it no matter what.

By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny

CIA org chart from the WikiLeaks cache (click to enlarge). "The organizational chart corresponds to the material published by WikiLeaks so far. Since the organizational structure of the CIA below the level of Directorates is not public, the placement of the EDG [Engineering Development Group] and its branches is reconstructed from information contained in the documents released so far. It is intended to be used as a rough outline of the internal organization; please be aware that the reconstructed org chart is incomplete and that internal reorganizations occur frequently."
* * *
"O brave new world, that has such people in it."

Bottom line first. As you read what's below, consider:

Now the story.

WikiLeaks just dropped a huge cache of documents (the first of several promised releases), leaked from a person or people associated with the CIA in one or more capacities (examples, employee, contractor), which shows an agency out-of-control in its spying and hacking overreach. Read through to the end. If you're like me, you'll be stunned, not just about what they can do, but that they would want to do it, in some cases in direct violation of President Obama's orders. This story is bigger than anything you can imagine.

Consider this piece just an introduction, to make sure the story stays on your radar as it unfolds - and to help you identify those media figures who will try to minimize or bury it. (Unless I missed it, on MSNBC last night, for example, the first mention of this story was not Chris Hayes, not Maddow, but the Lawrence O'Donnell show, and then only to support his guest's "Russia gave us Trump" narrative. If anything, this leak suggests a much muddier picture, which I'll explore in a later piece.)

So I'll start with just a taste, a few of its many revelations, to give you, without too much time spent, the scope of the problem. Then I'll add some longer bullet-point detail, to indicate just how much of American life this revelation touches.

While the cache of documents has been vetted and redacted , it hasn't been fully explored for implications. I'll follow this story as bits and piece are added from the crowd sourced research done on the cache of information. If you wish to play along at home, the WikiLeaks torrent file is here . The torrent's passphrase is here . WikiLeaks press release is here (also reproduced below). Their FAQ is here .

Note that this release covers the years 2013–2016. As WikiLeaks says in its FAQ, "The series is the largest intelligence publication in history."

Preface - Trump and Our "Brave New World"

But first, this preface, consisting of one idea only. Donald Trump is deep in the world of spooks now, the world of spies, agents and operatives. He and his inner circle have a nest of friends, but an even larger, more varied nest of enemies. As John Sevigny writes below, his enemies include not only the intel and counter-intel people, but also "Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul." Plus Vladimir Putin, whose relationship with Trump is just "business," an alliance of convenience, if you will.

I have zero sympathy for Donald Trump. But his world is now our world, and with both of his feet firmly planted in spook world, ours are too. He's in it to his neck, in fact, and what happens in that world will affect every one of us. He's so impossibly erratic, so impossibly unfit for his office, that everyone on the list above wants to remove him. Many of them are allied, but if they are, it's also only for convenience.

How do spooks remove the inconvenient and unfit? I leave that to your imagination;they have their ways. Whatever method they choose, however, it must be one without fingerprints - or more accurately, without their fingerprints - on it.

Which suggests two more questions. One, who will help them do it, take him down? Clearly, anyone and everyone on the list. Second, how do you bring down the president, using extra-electoral, extra-constitutional means, without bringing down the Republic? I have no answer for that.

Here's a brief look at "spook world" (my phrase, not the author's) from " The Fox Hunt " by John Sevigny:

Several times in my life – as a journalist and rambling, independent photographer - I've ended up rubbing shoulders with spooks. Long before that was a racist term, it was a catch-all to describe intelligence community people, counter intel types, and everyone working for or against them. I don't have any special insight into the current situation with Donald Trump and his battle with the IC as the intelligence community calls itself, but I can offer a few first hand observations about the labyrinth of shadows, light, reflections, paranoia, perceptions and misperceptions through which he finds himself wandering, blindly. More baffling and scary is the thought he may have no idea his ankles are already bound together in a cluster of quadruple gordian knots, the likes of which very few people ever escape.

Criminal underworlds, of which the Trump administration is just one, are terrifying and confusing places. They become far more complicated once they've been penetrated by authorities and faux-authorities who often represent competing interests, but are nearly always in it for themselves.

One big complication - and I've written about this before - is that you never know who's working for whom . Another problem is that the hierarchy of handlers, informants, assets and sources is never defined. People who believe, for example, they are CIA assets are really just being used by people who are perhaps not in the CIA at all but depend on controlling the dupe in question. It is very simple - and I have seen this happen - for the subject of an international investigation to claim that he is part of that operation. [emphasis added]

Which leads Sevigny to this observation about Trump, which I partially quoted above: "Donald Trump may be crazy, stupid, evil or all three but he knows the knives are being sharpened and there are now too many blades for him to count. The intel people are against him, as are the counter intel people. His phone conversations were almost certainly recorded by one organization or another, legal or quasi legal. His enemies include Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul. Putin is not on his side - that's a business matter and not an alliance."

Again, this is not to defend Trump, or even to generate sympathy for him - I personally have none. It's to characterize where he is, and we are, at in this pivotal moment. Pivotal not for what they're doing, the broad intelligence community. But pivotal for what we're finding out, the extent and blatancy of the violations.

All of this creates an incredibly complex story, with only a tenth or less being covered by anything like the mainstream press. For example, the Trump-Putin tale is much more likely to be part of a much broader "international mobster" story, whose participants include not only Trump and Putin, but Wall Street (think HSBC) and major international banks, sovereign wealth funds, major hedge funds, venture capital (vulture capital) firms, international drug and other trafficking cartels, corrupt dictators and presidents around the world and much of the highest reaches of the "Davos crowd."

Much of the highest reaches of the .01 percent, in other words, all served, supported and "curated" by the various, often competing elements of the first-world military and intelligence communities. What a stew of competing and aligned interests, of marriages and divorces of convenience, all for the common currencies of money and power, all of them dealing in death .

What this new WikiLeaks revelation shows us is what just one arm of that community, the CIA, has been up to. Again, the breadth of the spying and hacking capability is beyond imagination. This is where we've come to as a nation.

What the CIA Is Up To - A Brief Sample

Now about those CIA spooks and their surprising capabilities. A number of other outlets have written up the story, but this from Zero Hedge has managed to capture the essence as well as the breadth in not too many words (emphasis mine throughout):

WikiLeaks has published what it claims is the largest ever release of confidential documents on the CIA It includes more than 8,000 documents as part of 'Vault 7', a series of leaks on the agency, which have allegedly emerged from the CIA's Center For Cyber Intelligence in Langley , and which can be seen on the org chart below, which Wikileaks also released : [org chart reproduced above]

A total of 8,761 documents have been published as part of 'Year Zero', the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said that 'Year Zero' revealed details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program," including "weaponized exploits" used against company products including " Apple's iPhone , Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs , which are turned into covert microphones."

WikiLeaks tweeted the leak, which it claims came from a network inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virginia.

Among the more notable disclosures which, if confirmed, " would rock the technology world ", the CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services such as Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram. According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate Android phones and collect "audio and message traffic before encryption is applied."

With respect to hacked devices like you smart phone, smart TV and computer, consider the concept of putting these devices in "fake-off" mode:

Among the various techniques profiled by WikiLeaks is "Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), which infests smart TVs , transforming them into covert microphones. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a 'Fake-Off' mode , so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In 'Fake-Off' mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server.

As Kim Dotcom chimed in on Twitter, "CIA turns Smart TVs, iPhones, gaming consoles and many other consumer gadgets into open microphones" and added "CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware. Can activate backdoors on demand, including via Windows update "[.]

Do you still trust Windows Update?

About "Russia did it"

Adding to the "Russia did it" story, note this:

Another profound revelation is that the CIA can engage in "false flag" cyberattacks which portray Russia as the assailant . Discussing the CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group, Wikileaks' source notes that it "collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.["]

As Kim Dotcom summarizes this finding, " CIA uses techniques to make cyber attacks look like they originated from enemy state ."

This doesn't prove that Russia didn't do it ("it" meaning actually hacking the presidency for Trump, as opposed to providing much influence in that direction), but again, we're in spook world, with all the phrase implies. The CIA can clearly put anyone's fingerprints on any weapon they wish, and I can't imagine they're alone in that capability.

Hacking Presidential Devices?

If I were a president, I'd be concerned about this, from the WikiLeaks " Analysis " portion of the Press Release (emphasis added):

"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached the Obama administration's commitments [that the intelligence community would reveal to device manufacturers whatever vulnerabilities it discovered]. Many of the vulnerabilities used in the CIA's cyber arsenal are pervasive [across devices and device types] and some may already have been found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.

As an example, specific CIA malware revealed in "Year Zero" [that it] is able to penetrate, infest and control both the Android phone and iPhone software that runs or has run presidential Twitter accounts . The CIA attacks this software by using undisclosed security vulnerabilities ("zero days") possessed by the CIA[,] but if the CIA can hack these phones then so can everyone else who has obtained or discovered the vulnerability. As long as the CIA keeps these vulnerabilities concealed from Apple and Google (who make the phones) they will not be fixed, and the phones will remain hackable.

Does or did the CIA do this (hack presidential devices), or is it just capable of it? The second paragraph implies the latter. That's a discussion for another day, but I can say now that both Lawrence Wilkerson, aide to Colin Powell and a non-partisan (though an admitted Republican) expert in these matters, and William Binney, one of the triumvirate of major pre-Snowden leakers, think emphatically yes. (See Wilkerson's comments here . See Binney's comments here .)

Whether or not you believe Wilkerson and Binney, do you doubt that if our intelligence people can do something, they would balk at the deed itself, in this world of "collect it all "? If nothing else, imagine the power this kind of bugging would confer on those who do it.

The Breadth of the CIA Cyber-Hacking Scheme

But there is so much more in this Wikileaks release than suggested by the brief summary above. Here's a bullet-point overview of what we've learned so far, again via Zero Hedge:

Key Highlights from the Vault 7 release so far:

Also this scary possibility:

Journalist Michael Hastings, who in 2010 destroyed the career of General Stanley McChrystal and was hated by the military for it, was killed in 2013 in an inexplicably out-of-control car. This isn't to suggest the CIA, specifically, caused his death. It's to ask that, if these capabilities existed in 2013, what would prevent their use by elements of the military, which is, after all a death-delivery organization?

And lest you consider this last speculation just crazy talk, Richard Clarke (that Richard Clarke ) agrees: "Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, told the Huffington Post that Hastings's crash looked consistent with a car cyber attack.'" Full and fascinating article here .

WiliLeaks Press Release

Here's what WikiLeaks itself says about this first document cache (again, emphasis mine):

Press Release

Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault 7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.

The first full part of the series, "Year Zero", comprises 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virgina. It follows an introductory disclosure last month of CIA targeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election .

Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.

"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of "zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.

Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.

By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware. Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.

In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public , including whether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency. The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.

Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by rival states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor stated that "There is an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'. Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain them combined with their high market value, and the global arms trade. But the significance of "Year Zero" goes well beyond the choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective."

Wikileaks has carefully reviewed the "Year Zero" disclosure and published substantive CIA documentation while avoiding the distribution of 'armed' cyberweapons until a consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA's program and how such 'weapons' should analyzed, disarmed and published.

Wikileaks has also decided to redact and anonymise some identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout Latin America, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen, we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one ("Year Zero") already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.

Be sure to click through for the Analysis, Examples and FAQ sections as well.

"O brave new world," someone once wrote . Indeed. Brave new world, that only the brave can live in.

____

1 Mind you, the leakers may have had a comprehensive enough view to be making an accurate call. But the real point is there are no actors who will be allowed to make an independent assessment.

That's all I needed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself.

The material, which has been seen by the Guardian, is a series of reports on Trump's relationship with Moscow. They were drawn up by a former western counter-intelligence official, now working as a private consultant. BuzzFeed on Tuesday published the documents, which it said were "unverified and potentially unverifiable".

The Guardian has not been able to confirm the veracity of the documents' contents,

Emphases mine. I had been sitting on this link trying to make sense of this part. Clearly, the Trump Whitehouse has some major leaks, which the MSM is exploiting. But the start of this article suggests that para-intelligence (is that a word? Eh, it is now) was the source of the allegedly damaging info.

This is no longer about the deep-state, but a rouge state, possibly guns for higher, each having fealty to specific political interests. The CIA arsenal wasn't leaked. It was delivered.

salvo , March 9, 2017 at 3:13 am

hmm.. as far as I can see, noone seems to care here in Germany anymore about being spied on by our US friends, apart from a few alternative sources which are being accused of spreading fake news, of being anti-american, russian trolls, the matter is widely ignored

visitor , March 9, 2017 at 3:40 am

I have read a few articles about the Vault 7 leak that typically raise a few alarms I would like to comment on.

1) The fact that the

CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services

does not mean that it has broken encryption, just that it has a way to install a program at a lower level, close to the operating system, that will read messages before they are encrypted and sent by the messaging app, or just after they have been decrypted by it.

As a side note: banks have now largely introduced two-factor authentication when accessing online services. One enters username (or account number) and password; the bank site returns a code; the user must then enter this code into a smartphone app or a tiny specialized device, which computes and returns a value out of it; the user enters this last value into the entry form as a throw-away additional password, and gains access to the bank website.

I have always refused to use such methods on a smartphone and insist on getting the specialized "single-use password computer", precisely because the smartphone platform can be subverted.

2) The fact that

"Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), [ ] infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert microphones.

is possible largely because smart TVs are designed by their manufacturers to serve as spying devices. "Weeping Angel" is not some kind of virus that turns normal devices into zombies, but a tool to take control of existing zombie devices.

The fact that smart TVs from Vizio , Samsung or LG constitute an outrageous intrusion into the privacy of their owners has been a known topic for years already.

3) The

CIA [ ] also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks

is not a "scary possibility" either; various demonstrations of such feats on Tesla , Nissan , or Chrysler vehicles have been demonstrated in the past few years.

And the consequences have already been suggested (killing people by disabling their car controls on the highway for instance).

My take on this is that we should seriously look askance not just at the shenanigans of the CIA, but at the entire "innovative technology" that is imposed upon (computerized cars) or joyfully adopted by (smartphones) consumers. Of course, most NC readers are aware of the pitfalls already, but alas not the majority of the population.

4) Finally this:

He's so impossibly erratic, so impossibly unfit for his office,

Trump is arguably unfit for office, does not have a clue about many things (such as foreign relations), but by taxing him of being "erratic" Gaius Publius shows that he still does not "get" the Donald.

Trump has a completely different modus operandi than career politicians, formed by his experience as a real-estate mogul and media star. His world has been one where one makes outrageous offers to try anchoring the negotiation before reducing one's claims - even significantly, or abruptly exiting just before an agreement to strike a deal with another party that has been lured to concessions through negotiations with the first one. NC once included a video of Trump doing an interactive A/B testing of his slogans during a campaign meeting; while changing one's slogans on the spot might seem "erratic", it is actually a very systematic market probing technique.

So stop asserting that Trump is "unpredictable" or "irrational"; this is underestimating him (a dangerous fault), as he is very consistent, though in an uncommon fashion amongst political pundits.

Yves Smith Post author , March 9, 2017 at 5:53 am

While I agree that it's worth pointing out that the CIA has not broken any of the major encryption tools, even Snowden regards being able to circumvent them as worse, since people using encryption are presumably those who feel particularly at risk and will get a false sense of security and say things or keep data on their devices that they never never would if they thought they were insecure.

Re Gaius on Trump, I agree the lady doth protest too much. But I said repeatedly that Trump would not want to be President if he understood the job. It is not like being the CEO of a private company. Trump has vastly more control over his smaller terrain in his past life than he does as President.

And Trump is no longer campaigning. No more a/b testing.

The fact is that he still does not have effective control of the Executive branch. He has lots of open positions in the political appointee slots (largely due to not having even submitted candidates!) plus has rebellion in some organizations (like folks in the EPA storing data outside the agency to prevent its destruction).

You cannot pretend that Trump's former MO is working at all well for him. And he isn't showing an ability to adapt or learn (not surprising at his age). For instance, he should have figured out by now that DC is run by lawyers, yet his team has hardly any on it. This is continuing to be a source of major self inflicted wounds.

His erraticness may be keeping his opponents off base, but it is also keeping him from advancing any of his goals.

visitor , March 9, 2017 at 6:59 am

I believe we are in agreement.

Yes, not breaking encryption is devious, as it gives a false sense of security - this is precisely why I refuse to use those supposedly secure e-banking login apps on smartphones whose system software can be subverted, and prefer those non-connected, non-reprogrammable, special-purpose password generating devices.

As for Trump being incompetent for his job, and his skills in wheeling-dealing do not carrying over usefully to conducting high political offices, that much is clear. But he is not "erratic", rather he is out of place and out of his depth.

RBHoughton , March 9, 2017 at 9:00 pm

I am writing this in the shower with a paper bag over my head and my iPhone in the microwave.

I have for years had a password-protected document on computer with all my important numbers and passwords. I have today deleted that document and reverted to a paper record.

Ivy , March 9, 2017 at 10:09 am

Please tell readers more about the following for our benefit:

"single-use password computer"

visitor , March 9, 2017 at 11:34 am

That is an example of the sort of thing I am talking about.

PhilM , March 9, 2017 at 11:35 am

I think he means a machine dedicated to high-security operations like anything financial or bill-pay. Something that is not exposed to email or web-browsing operations that happen on a casual-use computer that can easily compromise. That's not a bad way to go; it's cheaper in terms of time than the labor-intensive approaches I use, but those are a hobby more than anything else. It depends on how much you have at stake if they get your bank account or brokerage service password.

I take a few basic security measures, which would not impress the IT crowd I hang out with elsewhere, but at least would not make me a laughingstock. I run Linux and use only open-source software; run ad-blockers and script blockers; confine risky operations, which means any non-corporate or non-mainstream website to a virtual machine that is reset after each use; use separate browsers with different cookie storage policies and different accounts for different purposes. I keep a well-maintained pfSense router with a proxy server and an intrusion detection system, allowing me to segregate my secure network, home servers, guest networks, audiovisual streaming and entertainment devices, and IoT devices each on their own VLANs with appropriate ACLs between them. No device on the more-secured network is allowed out to any port without permission, and similar rules are there for the IoT devices, and the VoIP tools.

The hardware to do all of that costs at least $700, but the real expense is in the time to learn the systems properly. Of course if you use Linux, you could save that on software in a year if you are too cheap to send a contribution to the developers.

It's not perfect, because I still have computers turned on :) , but I feel a bit safer this way.

That said, absolutely nothing that I have here would last 30 milliseconds against anything the "hats" could use, if they wanted in. It would be over before it began. If I had anything to hide, really, I would have something to fear; so guess I'm OK.

jrs , March 9, 2017 at 2:36 pm

open source software often has a lot of bugs to be exploioted. Wouldn't it be easier to just do banking in person?

visitor , March 9, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Banks discourage that by

a) charging extortionate fees for "in-person" operations at the counter;

b) closing subsidiaries, thus making it tedious and time-consuming to visit a branch to perform banking operations in person;

c) eliminating the possibility to perform some or even all usual operations in any other form than online (see the advent of "Internet only" banks).

In theoretical terms, all this is called "nudging".

cfraenkel , March 9, 2017 at 12:07 pm

They're key fobs handed to you by your IT dept. The code displayed changes every couple of minutes. The plus is there's nothing sent over the air. The minus is the fobs are subject to theft, and are only good for connecting to 'home'. And since they have a cost, and need to be physically handed to you, they're not good fit for most two factor login applications (ie logging into your bank account).

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_SecurID

meme , March 9, 2017 at 3:53 am

I watched (fast forwarded through, really) Morning Joe yesterday to see what they would have to say about Wikileaks. The show mostly revolved around the health care bill and Trump's lying and tweeting about Obama wiretapping him. They gave Tim Kaine plenty of time to discuss his recent trip to London talking to "some of our allies there" saying that they are concerned that "all the intelligence agencies" say the Rooskies "cyber hacked" our election, and since it looks like we aren't doing anything when we are attacked, they KNOW we won't do anything when they are attacked. (more red baiting)

The only two mentions I saw was about Wikileaks were, first, a question asked of David Cohen, ex Deputy Director of the CIA, who refused to confirm the Wikileaks were authentic, saying whatever tools and techniques the CIA had were used against foreign persons overseas, so there is no reason to worry that your TV is looking at you. And second, Senator Tom Cotton, who didn't want to comment on the contents of Wikileaks, only saying that the CIA is a foreign intelligence service, collecting evidence on foreign targets to keep our country safe, and it does not do intelligence work domestically.

So that appears to be their story, the CIA doesn't spy on us, and they are sticking with it, probably hoping the whole Wikileaks thing just cycles out of the news.

Direction , March 9, 2017 at 4:23 am

Thanks for mentioning Hastings. His death has always been more than suspicious.

skippy , March 9, 2017 at 5:46 am

Elite risk management reduction tool goes walkabout inverting its potential ..

disheveled . love it when a plan comes together ..

james wordsworth , March 9, 2017 at 5:50 am

The unwillingness of the main stream media (so far) to really cover the Wikileaks reveal is perhaps the bigger story. This should be ongoing front page stuff .. but it is not.

As for using ZeroHedge as a source for anything, can we give that a rest. That site has become a cesspool of insanity. It used to have some good stuff. Now it is just unreadable. SAD

And yes I know the hypocrisy of slamming ZH and the MSM at the same time we live in interesting times.

Yves Smith Post author , March 9, 2017 at 7:52 am

Your remarks on ZH are an ad hominem attack and therefore a violation of site policies. The onus is on you to say what ZH got wrong and not engage in an ungrounded smear. The mainstream media often cites ZH.

NC more than just about any other finance site is loath to link to ZH precisely because it is off base or hyperventilating a not acceptably high percent of the time, and is generally wrong about the Fed (as in governance and how money works). We don't want to encourage readers to see it as reliable. However, it is good on trader gossip and mining Bloomberg data.

And I read through its summary of the Wikileaks material as used by Gaius and there was nothing wrong with it. It was careful about attributing certain claims to Wikileaks as opposed to depicting them as true.

3urypteris , March 9, 2017 at 12:14 pm

My rules for reading ZH:
1- Skip every article with no picture
2- Skip every article where the picture is a graph
3- Skip every article where the picture is of a single person's face
4- Skip every afticle where the picture is a cartoon
5- Skip every article about gold, BitCoin, or high-frequency trading
6- Skip all the "Guest Posts"
7- ALWAYS click through to the source
8- NEVER read the comments

It is in my opinion a very high noise-to-signal source, but there is some there there.

sunny129 , March 9, 2017 at 7:20 pm

Finding the TRUTH is NOT that easy.

Discerning a 'news from noise' is NEVER that easy b/c it is an art, developed by years of shifting through ever increasing 'DATA information' load. This again has to be filtered and tested against one's own 'critical' thinking or reasoning! You have to give ZH, deserved credit, when they are right!

There is no longer a Black or white there, even at ZH! But it is one of the few, willing to challenge the main stream narrative 'kool aid'

TheCatSaid , March 9, 2017 at 6:14 am

In addition to the "para-intelligence" community (hat tip Code named D) there are multiple enterprises with unique areas of expertise that interface closely with the CIA The long-exposed operations, which include entrapment and blackmailing of key actors to guarantee complicity, "loyalty" and/or sealed lips, infect businesses, NGOs, law enforcement agencies, judges, politicians, and other government agencies. Equal opportunity employment for those with strong stomachs and a weak moral compass.

Romancing The Loan , March 9, 2017 at 8:43 am

Yes I can't remember where I read it but it was a tale passed around supposedly by an FBI guy that had, along with his colleagues, the job of vetting candidates for political office. They'd do their background research and pass on either a thick or thin folder full of all the compromising dirt on each potential appointee. Over time he said he was perturbed to notice a persistent pattern where the thickest folders were always the ones who got in.

nobody , March 9, 2017 at 10:10 am

Michael Hudson :

I learned this when I was in my 20s. The Catholic Church was funding my early critique of American foreign aid as being imperialist. I asked whether they thought I should go into politics. They said, "No, you'd never make it". And I said, "Why?" and they said, "Well, nobody has a police record or any other dirt on you." I asked what they meant. They said, "Unless they have something over you to blackmail you with, you're not going to be able to get campaign funding. Because they believe that you might do something surprising," in other words, something they haven't asked you to do. So basically throughout politics, on both sides of the spectrum, voters have candidates who are funded by backers who have enough over them that they can always blackmail.

craazyboy , March 9, 2017 at 8:20 am

I find the notion that my consumer electronics may be CIA microphones somewhat irritating, but my imagination quickly runs off to far worse scenarios. (although the popular phase, "You're tax dollars at work." keeps running thru my head like a earworm. And whenever I hear "conservatives" speak of their desire for "small government", usually when topics of health care, Medicare and social security come up, I can only manage a snort of incredulousness anymore)

One being malware penetrating our nuke power plants and shutting down the cooling system. Then the reactor slowly overheats over the next 3 days, goes critical, and blows the surrounding area to high heaven. We have plants all around the coast of the country and also around the Great Lakes Region – our largest fresh water store in a drought threatened future.

Then the same happening in our offensive nuke missile systems.

Some other inconvenient truths – the stuxnet virus has been redesigned. Kaspersky – premier anti malware software maker – had a variant on their corporate network for months before finally discovering it. What chance have we?

In China, hacking is becoming a consumer service industry. There are companies building high power data centers with a host of hacking tools. Anyone, including high school script kiddies, can rent time to use the sophisticated hacking tools, web search bots, and whatever, all hosted on powerful servers with high speed internet bandwidth.

Being a bit "spooked" by all this, I began to worry about my humble home computer and decided to research whatever products I could get to at least ward off annoying vandalism. Among other things, I did sign up for a VPN service. I'm looking at the control app for my VPN connection here and I see that with a simple checkbox mouse click I can make my IP address appear to be located in my choice of 40 some countries around the world. Romania is on the list!

flora , March 9, 2017 at 11:11 am

"my consumer electronics may be CIA microphones "

I haven't tested this, so can't confirm it works, but it sounds reasonable.
http://www.komando.com/tips/390304/secure-your-webcam-and-microphone-from-hackers

craazyboy , March 9, 2017 at 12:40 pm

Actually, I very much doubt that does work. The mic "pickup" would feed its analog output to a DAC (digital to analog converter) which would convert the signal to digital. This then goes to something similar to a virtual com port in the operating system. Here is where a malware program would pick it up and either create a audio file to be sent to an internet address, or stream it directly there.

The article is just plugging in a microphone at the output jack. The malware got the data long before it goes thru another DAC and analog amp to get to the speakers or output jack.

craazyboy , March 9, 2017 at 12:46 pm

s/b "plugging in a earbud at the output jack". They're confusing me too.

flora , March 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm

ah. thanks for vetting.

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 2:53 pm

It's actually a input/output jack or, if you will, a mic/headphone jack.

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 2:52 pm

It depends on how it is hooked up internally. Old fashioned amateur radio headphones would disable the speakers when plugged in because the physical insertion of the plug pushed open the connection to the speakers. The jack that you plug the ear buds into might do the same, disconnecting the path between the built-in microphone and the ADC (actually it is an ADC not a DAC). The only way to know is to take it apart and see how it is connected.

Pat , March 9, 2017 at 8:27 am

The CIA is not allowed to operate in the US is also the panacea for the public. And some are buying it. Along with everyone knows they can do this is fueling the NOTHING to see here keep walking weak practically non existent coverage.

Eureka Springs , March 9, 2017 at 8:31 am

At what point do people quit negotiating in terrorism and errorism? For this is what the police, the very State itself has long been. Far beyond being illegitimate, illegal, immoral, this is a clear and ever present danger to not just it's own people, but the rule of law itself. Blanket statements like we all know this just makes the dangerously absurd normal I'll never understand that part of human nature. But hey, the TSA literally just keeps probing further each and every year. Bend over!

Trump may not be the one for the task but we the people desperately need people 'unfit', for it is the many fit who brought us to this point. His unfit nature is as refreshing on these matters in its chaotic honest disbelief as Snowden and Wiki revelations. Refreshing because it's all we've got. One doesn't have to like Trump to still see missed opportunity so many should be telling him he could be the greatest pres ever if (for two examples) he fought tirelessly for single payer and to bring down this police state rather than the EPA or public education.

This cannot stand on so many levels. Not only is the fourth amendment rendered utterly void, but even if it weren't it falls far short of the protections we deserve.

No enemy could possibly be as bad as who we are and what we allow/do among ourselves. If an election can be hacked (not saying it was by Russia).. as these and other files prove anything can and will be hacked then our system is to blame, not someone else.

What amazes me is that the spooks haven't manufactured proof needed to take Trump out of office Bonfire of The Vanities style. I'd like to think the people have moved beyond the point they would believe manufactured evidence but the Russia thing proves otherwise.

These people foment world war while probing our every move and we do nothing!

If we wait for someone fit nothing will ever change because we wait for the police/media/oligarch state to tell us who is fit.

Anon , March 9, 2017 at 2:40 pm

being "unfit" does not automatically make someone a savior.

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 3:05 pm

But being fit by the standards of our ruling class, the "real owners" as Carlin called them is, in my book, an automatic proof that they are up to no good. Trump is not my cup of tea as a president but no one we have had in a while wasn't clearly compromised by those who fund them. Did you ever wonder why we have never had a president or even a powerful member of congress that was not totally in the tank for that little country on the Eastern Mediterranean? Or the Gulf Monarchies? Do you think that is by accident? Do you think money isn't involved? Talk about hacked elections! We should be so lucky as to have ONLY Russians attempting to affect our elections. Money is what hacks US elections and never forget that. To me it is laughable to discuss hacking the elections without discussing the real way our "democracy" is subverted–money not document leaks or voting machine hacks. It's money.

Why isn't Saudi Arabia on Trump's list? Iran that has never been involved in a terrorist act on US soil is but not Saudi Arabia? How many 911 hijackers came from Iran? If anything saves Trump from destruction by the real owners of our democracy it is his devotion to the aforementioned countries.

Allegorio , March 9, 2017 at 4:00 pm

The point again is not to remove him from office but to control him. With Trump's past you better believe the surveillance state has more than enough to remove him from office. Notice the change in his rhetoric since inauguration? More and more he is towing the establishment Republican line. Of course this depends on whether you believe Trump is a break with the past or just the best liar out there. A very unpopular establishment would be clever in promoting their agent by pretending to be against him.

Anyone who still believes that the US is a democratic republic and not a mafia state needs to stick their heads deeper into the sands. When will the low information voters and police forces on whom a real revolution depends realize this is anyone's guess. The day is getting closer especially for the younger generation. The meme among the masses is that government has always been corrupt and that this is nothing new. I do believe the level of immorality among the credentialed classes is indeed very new and has become the new normal. Generations of every man for himself capitalist philosophy undermining any sense of morality or community has finally done its work.

HBE , March 9, 2017 at 8:47 am

Go take a jaunt over to huffpo, at the time of this post there was not a single mention of vault 7 on the front page. Just a long series of anti trump administration articles.

Glad to know for sure who the true warmongers were all along.

Arizona Slim , March 9, 2017 at 8:50 am

We need another Church Commission.

Eureka Springs , March 9, 2017 at 8:59 am

No.. The Church commission was a sweep it under the rug operation. It got us FISA courts. More carte blanche secrecy, not less. The commission nor the rest of the system didn't even hold violators of the time accountable.

We have files like Vault 7. Commissions rarely get in secret what we have right here before our eyes.

Arizona Slim , March 9, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Well, how about a Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

Foppe , March 9, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Cute but the ANC lost the war by acceding to WTO entry (which "forbade" distributive politics, land/resource redistribution, nationalizations, etc.).

River , March 9, 2017 at 10:59 am

Need Langley surrounded and fired upon by tanks at this point.

Err on the side of caution.

DJG , March 9, 2017 at 12:49 pm

River: Interesting historic parallel? I believe that the Ottomans got rid of the Janissaries that way, after the Janissaries had become a state within a state, by using cannons on their HQ

From Wiki entry, Janissaries:

The corps was abolished by Sultan Mahmud II in 1826 in the Auspicious Incident in which 6,000 or more were executed.[8]

polecat , March 9, 2017 at 12:53 pm

"Nuke it from orbit it's the only way to be sure . "

knowbuddhau , March 9, 2017 at 9:01 am

Took less than a minute to download the 513.33MB file. The passphrase is what JFK said he'd like to do to CIA: SplinterItIntoAThousandPiecesAndScatterItIntoTheWinds.

"The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." Henry Kissinger, 1975.

Stormcrow , March 9, 2017 at 9:35 am

Here is Raimondo's take:
Spygate
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/03/07/spygate-americas-political-police-vs-donald-j-trump/

The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening.

The irony is that the existence of this dangerous apparatus – which civil libertarians have warned could and probably would be used for political purposes – has been hailed by Trump and his team as a necessary and proper function of government. Indeed, Trump has called for the execution of the person who revealed the existence of this sinister engine of oppression – Edward Snowden. Absent Snowden's revelations, we would still be in the dark as to the existence and vast scope of the NSA's surveillance.

And now the monster Trump embraced in the name of "national security" has come back to bite him.

We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not.

What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone.

This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic.

Perhapps overstated but well worth pondering.

SplinterItIntoAThousandPiecesAndScatterItIntoTheWinds. , March 9, 2017 at 10:06 am

Yeah I downloaded it the day it came out and spent an hour or so looking at it last night. First impressions – "heyyy this is like a Hackers Guide – the sort I used in the 80s, or DerEngel's Cable Modem Hacking" of the 00s.

2nd impressions – wow it really gives foundational stuff – like "Enable Debug on PolarSSL".

3rd impressions – "I could spend hours going thru this happily ".

4th impressions – I went looking for the "juicy bits" of interest to me – SOHO routers, small routers – sadly its just a table documenting routers sold around the world, and whether these guys have put the firmware in their Stash Repository. Original firmware, not hacked one. But the repository isn't in the vault dump, AFAIK.

Its quite fascinating. But trying to find the "juicy stuff" is going to be tedious. One can spend hours and hours going thru it. To speed up going thru it, I'm going to need some tech sites to say "where to go".

flora , March 9, 2017 at 11:21 am

It seems clear that Wikileaks has not and will not release actual ongoing method "how-to" info or hacking scripts. They are releasing the "whats", not the tech level detailed "hows". This seems like a sane approach to releasing the data. The release appears to be for political discussion, not for spreading the hacking tools. So I wouldn't look for "juicy bits" about detailed methodology. Just my guess.

That said, love what you're doing digging into this stuff. I look forward to a more detailed report in future. Thanks.

Sam F , March 9, 2017 at 10:10 am

Yves, I think that you much underestimate the extremity of these exposed violations of the security of freedom of expression, and of the security of private records. The WikiLeaks docs show that CIA has developed means to use all personal digital device microphones and cameras even when they are "off," and to send all of your files and personal data to themselves, and to send your private messages to themselves before they are encrypted. They have installed these spyware in the released version of Windows 10, and can easily install them on all common systems and devices.

This goes far beyond the kind of snooping that required specialized devices installed near the target, which could be controlled by warrant process. There is no control over this extreme spying. It is totalitarianism now.

This is probably the most extreme violation of the rights of citizens by a government in all of history. It is far worse than the "turnkey tyranny" against which Snowden warned, on the interception of private messages. It is tyranny itself, the death of democracy.

Outis Philalithopoulos , March 9, 2017 at 10:58 am

Your first sentence is a bit difficult to understand. If you read Yves' remarks introducing the post, she says that the revelations are "a big deal" "if the Wikileaks claim is even halfway true," while coming down hard on the MSM and others for "pooh-pooh[ing]" the story. Did you want her to add more exclamation points?

susan the other , March 9, 2017 at 10:59 am

So we have a zillion ways to spy and hack and deceive and assassinate, but no control. I think this is what the military refers to as "being overtaken by events."

It's easy to gather information; not so easy to analyze it, and somehow impossible to act on it in good faith. With all this ability to know stuff and surveil people the big question is, Why does everything seem so beyond our ability to control it?

We should know well in advance that banks will fail catastrophically; that we will indeed have sea level rise; that resources will run out; that water will be undrinkable; that people will be impossible to manipulate when panic hits – but what do we do? We play dirty tricks, spy on each other like voyeurs, and ignore the inevitable. Like the Stasi, we clearly know what happened, what is happening and what is going to happen. But we have no control.

NotTimothyGeithner , March 9, 2017 at 11:34 am

My godfather was in the CIA in the late sixties and early seventies, and he said that outside of the President's pet projects there was no way to sift through and bring important information to decision makers before it made the Washington Post (he is aware of the irony) and hit the President's breakfast table.

Arizona Slim , March 9, 2017 at 1:33 pm

Do you mean to say that the CIA leaked like a sieve? That's my understanding of your post.

Old Jake , March 9, 2017 at 6:05 pm

AS, I would interpret it as saying that there was so much coming in it was like trying to classify snowflakes in a snowstorm. They could pick a few subject areas to look at closely but the rest just went into the files.

Leaking like a sieve is also likely, but perhaps not the main point.

Andrew , March 9, 2017 at 11:14 am

The archive appears to have been circulated among government hackers and contractors in a authorized manner

There, that looks the more likely framing considering CIA & DNI on behalf of the whole US IC seemingly fostered wide dissimilation of these tools, information. Demonstration of media control an added plus.

Cheers Yves

Stormcrow , March 9, 2017 at 11:20 am

The Empire Strikes Back

WikiLeaks Has Joined the Trump Administration
Max Boot
Foreign Policy magazine

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/08/wikileaks-has-joined-the-trump-administration/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New+Campaign&utm_term=%2AEditors+Picks

I guess we can only expect more of this.

Todd Pierce , on the other hand, nails it. (From his Facebook page.)
The East German Stasi could only dream of the sort of surveillance the NSA and CIA do now, with just as nefarious of purposes.

lyman alpha blob , March 9, 2017 at 11:42 am

Perhaps the scare quotes around "international mobster" aren't really necessary.

In all this talk about the various factions aligned with and against Trump, that's one I haven't heard brought up by anybody. With all the cement poured in Trump's name over the years, it would be naive to think his businesses had not brushed up against organized crime at some point. Question is, whose side are they on?

JTMcPhee , March 9, 2017 at 3:02 pm

Like all the other players, the "side" they are on is them-effing-selves. And isn't that the whole problem with our misbegotten species, writ large?

Then there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Hzds9aGdA Maybe these people will be around and still eating after us urban insects and rodents are long gone? Or will our rulers decide no one should survive if they don't?

Skip Intro , March 9, 2017 at 12:55 pm

To what extent do these hacks represent the CIA operating within the US? To what extent is that illegal? With the democrats worshipping the IC, will anyone in an official position dare to speak out?

tegnost , March 9, 2017 at 1:05 pm

Well we know chuckie won't speak out..

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community

FTA "Schumer said that as he understands, intelligence officials are "very upset with how [Trump] has treated them and talked about them.""

Oregoncharles , March 9, 2017 at 2:17 pm

I've long thought that the reason Snowden was pursued so passionately was that he exposed the biggest, most embarrassing secret: that the National "Security" Agency's INTERNAL security was crap.

And here it is: "Wikileaks claims that the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal "

The CIA's internal security is crap, too. Really a lot of people should be fired over that, as well as over Snowden's release. We didn't hear of it happening in the NSA, though I'm not sure we would have. Given Gaius's description of Trump's situation, it seems unlikely it will happen this time, either. One of my hopes for a Trump administration, as long as we're stuck with it, was a thorough cleanout of the upper echelons in the IC. It's obviously long overdue, and Obama wasn't up to it. But I used the past tense because I don't think it's going to happen. Trump seems more interested in sucking up to them, presumably so they won't kill him or his family. That being one of their options.

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 3:51 pm

Ah, that's the beauty of contracting it out. No one gets fired. Did anyone get fired because of Snowden? It was officially a contractor problem and since there are only a small number of contractors capable of doing the work, well you know. We can't get new ones.

tiebie66 , March 9, 2017 at 2:59 pm

What I find by far the most distressing is this: "The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability ." [My emphasis]. It seems to characterize an organization that operates outside of any control and oversight – and one that is intentionally structuring itself that way. That worries me.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Republic is lost because we didn't stand guard for it. Blaming others don't cut it either – we let it happen. And like the Germans about the Nazi atrocities, we will say that we didn't know about it.

JTMcPhee , March 9, 2017 at 3:06 pm

Hey, I didn't let it happen. Stuff that spooks and sh!tes do behind the Lycra ™ curtain happens because it is, what is the big word again, "ineluctable." Is my neighbor to blame for having his house half eaten by both kinds of termites, where the construction is such that the infestation and damage are invisible until the vast damage is done?

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 4:08 pm

And just how were we supposed to stand guard against a secret and unaccountable organization that protected itself with a shield of lies? And every time some poor misfit complained about it they were told that they just didn't know the facts. If they only knew what our IC knows they would not complain.

It's a dangerous world out there and only our brave IC can protect us from it. Come on. Stop blaming the victim and place the blame where it belongs–our IC and MIC. I say stop feeding the beast with your loyalty to a government that has ceased to be yours.

Studiously avoid any military celebrations. Worship of the military is part of the problem. Remember, the people you thank for "their service" are as much victims as you are. Sadly they don't realize that their service is to a rotten empire that is not worthy of their sacrifice but every time we perform the obligatory ritual of thankfulness we participate in the lie that the service is to a democratic country instead of an undemocratic empire.

It's clearly a case of Wilfred Owen's classic "Dulce et Decorum Est". Read the poem, google it and read it. It is instructive: " you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori." Make no mistake. It is a lie and it can only be undone if we all cease to tell it.

nonsense factory , March 9, 2017 at 8:57 pm

Here's a pretty decent review of the various CIA programs revealed by Wikileaks:

http://www.libertyforjoe.com/2017/03/what-is-vault-7.html

"These CIA revelations in conjunction with those of the NSA paints a pretty dark future for privacy and freedom. Edward Snowden made us aware of the NSA's program XKEYSCORE and PRISM which are utilized to monitor and bulk collect information from virtually any electronic device on the planet and put it into a searchable database. Now Wikileaks has published what appears to be additional Big Brother techniques used by a competing agency. Say what you want about the method of discovery, but Pandora's box has been opened."

[Dec 18, 2017] Strangelove impersonations

Dec 18, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

MakeBeerNotWar -> Smallworld5 , 4 Dec 2014 03:17

'MEIN FUHRER!! - I CAN WALK!!!!'

LOL Oh, yes- same here. My late father loved Peter Sellers and to my mother's annoyance would sometimes do Strangelove impersonations w jerking arm. His WWII convoy officer veteran half German (and fully German fluent) father also thought the film was funny as hell and few German Americans hated the Nazis as much as my grandfather did.

I saw the film for the very first time as a US Marine PFC stationed in Okinawa Autumn 1981 during of all things, a big typhoon which kept us confined to some scattered barracks up at then remote- and beautiful- Camp Schwab. Two bored captains touring my deserted barracks I stood duty in noticed in one cubicle a Beta video player and copy of the film and- kid you not- when I confessed I had never seen the film, ordered me to watch it with them and I was hooked. The two officers laughed hysterically like naughty little school boys on the bunk they sat on as I pulled up a wooden footlocker. Utterly brilliant and imo has aged well- a masterpiece.

Making of docu:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ6BiRtGTAk

'I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.' - Sellers' creepy chuckle in response to Sterling Hayden's deranged rant alone still has me howling.

I grew up during the "hottest" part of the Cold War with my family living literally next to a Nike nuclear SAM site(w armed sentries and scary dogs inside the barbed wire) in San Pedro, CA. - we never lost any sleep over it even tho my '50s conscript Army vet dad quipped we were a high priority target in any war w the Soviets.

http://www.ftmac.org/lanike1.htm

http://www.coldwarla.com/missile-sites.html

- I find myself missing the Cold War sometimes- the moral certainties were better defined.

[Dec 18, 2017] Who is Ashton Carter

This was three years ago. nothing changed...
Notable quotes:
"... Along the way, he was one of only two senior people openly advocated for a pre-emptive attack on N. Korea. Even Bush thought that was too much, and even Cheney did not support it, but Carter pushed it. ..."
"... One can wonder how a neocon, wife of a leading neocon, came to be in charge in Ukraine, to declaim "f-the-EU" and boast of spending billions to promote this second color revolution, giving cookies to open Nazis along the way. ..."
Dec 03, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
MakeBeerNotWar -> Smallworld5 , 3 Dec 2014 20:23
- Dr Strangelove would approve.
MakeBeerNotWar , 3 Dec 2014 20:21
I heard earlier today on the radio Carter is Obama's nom- I laughed as I called it here last week- Obama's Deep State masters' top pick as a very smooth below radar Trojan Horse neo con who will fly through confirmation and has doubtless has big plans. The GOP and the MIC will love him, new wars will be cooked up for Americans to die in and I'm sure he has less than democratic views on Americans who will protest their govt for this. The Soviets' crushing of the 1968 Prague Spring makes for a nice blueprint on how to silence dissent if the anti Occupy tactics don't work and a dialed down version of martial law could be here to stay.
MarkThomason , 3 Dec 2014 18:41
Ashton Carter was one of the most extreme of the neocon hawks in the upper levels of the Bush Admin. His specific assignment was to ensure there could never be a "peer competitor" by throwing money at the bleeding cutting edge of weapons technology.

Along the way, he was one of only two senior people openly advocated for a pre-emptive attack on N. Korea. Even Bush thought that was too much, and even Cheney did not support it, but Carter pushed it.

One can wonder how a neocon, wife of a leading neocon, came to be in charge in Ukraine, to declaim "f-the-EU" and boast of spending billions to promote this second color revolution, giving cookies to open Nazis along the way.

However, now with Carter we see that the neocons have captured the policy part of the Obama Admin -- it wasn't an accident, it was design that we did that, and now will go back into Iraq, attack Syria, and attack Iran.

midnightschild10 , 3 Dec 2014 18:03
What could go wrong with someone advocating bombing North Korea? Just the type of person the job requires. The only criteria for the job was: must love war. So, while we are bombing Iraq, Syria, Yemen, occasionally Pakistan, we can figure out how much we will pay contractors for armament to take care of Iran and North Korea as well. He will certainly fit into Obama's cabinet as another yes man. Just like so many who have no military experience outside of watching war movies and video games, he is exactly what Obama wants. Someone who agrees how easy it is to start wars. He probably won't face much opposition since Obama has become an official member of the neocons now running the country. Anyone who would caution that the unending wars are taking the country down the road that destroyed the Soviet Union need not apply. The US doesn't feel that domestic issues are a priority, why put money into fixing the failing infrastructure when you can buy more drones. He'll do fine as long as he takes his orders from Nuland, Psaki and Harf.
zelazny , 3 Dec 2014 17:51
Another sociopath willing to do the biding of the sociopaths who run the USA. The rich profit immensely from the department of war, as this article intimates. Every dead Muslim child means profits for rich Americans.
Micheal Cairagan , 3 Dec 2014 17:25
Don't know about secretary of war, but he was great in "The Butterfly Effect".
MBDifani , 3 Dec 2014 16:05
I wonder if Mr. Carter will last as long as the late Sec. of Defense McNamara who served from early '61 to early 1968 when Pres. Johnson moved him to the head of the UN World Bank. A former secretary was William Cohen, a Republican, who served under Clinton. Leon Panetta and Robert Gates did well, but both wrote critical books about Obama after leaving. A complex job, dealing with the White House and the four star hawks in the Pentagon. Oh, a few doves too.

[Dec 18, 2017] Russia-Gate Is State-Sponsored Paranoia by Gilbert Doctorow

It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
Dec 18, 2017 | russia-insider.com

"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."

"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"

- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in parliament.

The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large.

This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.

Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin.

Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical survival.

In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote 98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.

There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com .

The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.

Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.

The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."

The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted. Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American presidential election.

In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.

* * * *

Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9 time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel, they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free app.

I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking.

The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.

Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.

"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.

During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my participation in these talk shows are as follows:

For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content that I believe is important to this discussion.

My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in the guests' lounge before the program went on air.

Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.

As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's negativism.

To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.

In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary "World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank since.

Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the Kremlin to the USA at various times.

For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.

On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.

The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes' tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.

To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West European and American commentators.

As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office

The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day after the elections.

A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World, which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.

Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning. Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and off-the-cuff.

During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement, and suggesting seditious intent.

In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.

Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.

The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.

Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in full:

"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.

Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the conscience of the world.

Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It will end badly.

Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the world will be at the brink of a big war "

Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man" whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a great rupture in bilateral relations.

The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."

This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration for what the United States has achieved and represents.

The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require attribution to one or another participant:

"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."

"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application. After lunch you can open your business."

"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement."

"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."

How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur.

* * * *

Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.

However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.

And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.

It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in the territories under consideration.

As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war.

It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.

TONY LANE , December 17, 2017 9:59 AM

But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.

Kjell Hasthi -> TONY LANE , December 17, 2017 1:50 PM

JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the American president is enemy, you are not American

Jimmy Robertson , December 17, 2017 9:22 AM

As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items:

https://viableopposition.bl...

The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States.

tom -> Jimmy Robertson , December 17, 2017 9:23 AM

"Remember the Maine!"

GKW -> tom , December 17, 2017 2:13 PM

Don't forget the Turner Joy and the gulf of Tonkin.

John Tosh , December 17, 2017 9:47 AM

Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises....

It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle.

Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.

Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so please shut up once and for all.

You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise. Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That is what you need to practice.

Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your propaganda.

YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you feel better... Big fat cowards.!

Guy -> John Tosh , December 17, 2017 1:16 PM

I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .

All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed.

ALTERNATE HISTORY -> John Tosh , December 17, 2017 6:15 PM

They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.

tom , December 17, 2017 9:39 AM

"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".

Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".

Emmet Sweeney , December 17, 2017 4:31 PM

The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West - and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.

tom , December 17, 2017 9:20 AM

'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'

This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap.

But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.

It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".

CaperAsh -> tom , December 17, 2017 4:17 PM

Yes, but R's comment was delightfully witty, and a great 'high ground manoeuvre.'

John C Carleton , December 17, 2017 7:20 AM

Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".

That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of, not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!

Kjell Hasthi -> John C Carleton , December 17, 2017 1:43 PM

- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".

The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals. This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.

rosemerry , December 17, 2017 3:29 PM

What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.

thomas malthaus -> Nationalist Globalist Oligarch , December 17, 2017 4:08 PM

I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.

I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably blended into other terror groups.

rosewood11 , December 17, 2017 2:03 PM

The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."

These Deep State actors in the US have hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their mountains to fall on them when it does.

Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!

You can call me Al -> rosewood11 , December 17, 2017 5:59 PM

I think that is a great comment.

Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.

Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.

Stop Bush and Clinton , December 17, 2017 8:41 PM

After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.

Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.

Nationalist Globalist Oligarch , December 17, 2017 2:54 PM

No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in Russia.

Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.

Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.

Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.

Guy , December 17, 2017 1:07 PM

For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.

http://www.informationclear...

I would highly recommend his latest book also .I am approx half way already and well worth the read.

Superior Europe , December 17, 2017 11:12 AM

New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).

Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th places respectively.

Kjell Hasthi -> Superior Europe , December 17, 2017 1:37 PM

- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden Netherlands and Denmark

When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring junk?

"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."

Superior Europe is employed by Zionist BND?

[Dec 18, 2017] Prepare! Pursue!! Prevail!!! by Brian Cloughley

Dec 15, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
The waves, the artificial tides of anti-Russian propaganda continue to beat upon the ears and eyes of Western citizens, spurred by US politicians, bureaucrats and tycoons whose motives vary from duplicitous to blatantly commercial. It is no coincidence that there has been vastly increased expenditure on US weaponry by Eastern European countries.

Complementing the weapons' build-up, which is so sustaining and lucrative for the US industrial-military complex, the naval, air and ground forces of the US-NATO military alliance continue operations ever closer to Russia's borders.

Shares and dividends in US arms manufacturing companies have rocketed, in a most satisfactory spinoff from Washington's policy of global confrontation, and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) records that "arms sales are recognized widely as an important instrument of state power. States have many incentives to export arms. These include enhancing the security of allies or partners; constraining the behavior of adversaries; using the prospect of arms transfers as leverage on governments' internal or external behavior; and creating the economics of scale necessary to support a domestic arms industry."

The CRS notes that arms deals "are often a key component in Congress's approach to advancing US foreign policy objectives," which is especially notable around the Baltic and throughout the Middle East, where US wars have created a bonanza for US weapons makers -- and for the politicians whom the manufacturers reward so generously for their support. (Additionally, in 2017 arms manufacturers spent $93,937,493 on lobbying Congress.)

Some countries, however, do not wish to purchase US weaponry, and they are automatically categorized as being influenced by Russia, which is blamed for all that has gone wrong in America over the past couple of years. This classification is especially notable in the Central Asian Republics.

The US military's Central Command (Centcom) states that its "area of responsibility spans more than 4 million square miles and is populated by more than 550 million people from 22 ethnic groups, speaking 18 languages . . . and confessing [ sic; probably 'professing'] multiple religions which transect national borders. The demographics create opportunities for tension and rivalry." Centcom is deeply engaged in the US wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, while supporting Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen, and the extent of its influence in the Pentagon's self-allotted geographical Area of Responsibility is intriguing, to say the least. Some of its priorities were revealed in March 2017 by the Commander of this enormous military realm, General Joseph Votel, in testimony to the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives in Washington.

General Votel's description of US "responsibilities" was astonishing in its imperialistic arrogance.

As Commander of Centcom, General Votel gave the Armed Services Committee a colorful tour of his territory, describing nations in terms ranging from condescendingly supportive to patently insolent, and he devoted much time to describing relations with countries abutting Russia, Iran and China, which nations, he declared , are trying "to limit US influence in the sub-region." That "sub-region" includes many countries immediately on the borders of Russia, Iran and China, and averaging 7,000 miles (11,000 kilometers) from Washington.

First he dealt with Kazakhstan with which the US has its "most advanced military relationship in Central Asia" in furtherance of which Washington is "making notable progress . . . despite enduring Russian influence." It is obviously unacceptable to the Pentagon that Russia wishes to maintain cordial relations with a country with which it has a border of 6,800 kilometers. Then General Votel went into fantasyland by claiming that "Kazakhstan remains the most significant regional contributor to Afghan stability . . ." which even the members of the Congressional Committee would have realized is spurious nonsense.

But more nonsense was to follow, with General Votel referring to Kyrgyzstan in patronizing terms usually associated with a Viceroy or other colonial master of a region that Votel describes as "widely characterized by pervasive instability and conflict," which he failed to note were caused by the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He told the Committee that Kyrgyzstan "sees political pressure from its larger, more powerful neighbors, including Russia, hosting a small Russian airbase outside the capital, Bishkek. Despite ongoing challenges in our bilateral and security cooperation, we continue to seek opportunities to improve our mil-to-mil relationship." He did not explain why Kyrgyzstan should be expected to embrace a military alliance with United States Central Command, but Viceroys don't have to provide explanations.

Votel then moved to describe Tajikistan with which "our mil-to-mil relationship is deepening despite Moscow's enduring ties and the presence of the military base near Tajikistan's capital of Dushanbe, Russia's largest military base outside of its borders." Not only this, says Votel, but China (having a 400 kilometer border with Tajikistan) has had the temerity to have "initiated a much stronger military cooperation partnership with Tajikistan, adding further complexity to Tajikistan's multi-faceted approach to security cooperation."

No : China hasn't added any complexity to Tajikistan's circumstances. What has complicated their relations is the fact that Afghanistan is in a state of chaos, following the US invasion of 2001, and drugs and terrorists cross the border (1,300 kilometers long) from Afghanistan into Tajikistan, which is trying to protect itself. During its sixteen years of war in Afghanistan there has been no attempt by the United States to secure that border.

None of these countries wants to be forced into a military pact with the United States, and Turkmenistan (border with Afghanistan 750 kilometers) has made it clear it doesn't want to be aligned with anyone. But General Votel states that its "UN-recognized policy of 'positive neutrality' presents a challenge with respect to US engagement." No matter what is desired by Turkmenistan, it seems, there must always be a way for the United States Central Command to establish military relations and, as General Votel told the Defence Committee, "we are encouraged somewhat by Turkmenistan's expressed interest in increased mil-to-mil engagement with the US within the limits of their 'positive neutrality' policy."

In the minds (to use the word loosely) of General Votel and his kind, it doesn't matter if a country wants nothing whatever to do with the United States' military machine, and wants very much to be left alone to get on with its affairs without interference. Adoption of such a policy by any nation presents a "challenge" and the United States, which in this region is overseen by General Votel's Central Command, is determined to seek military "engagement" irrespective of what is desired by governments. Arms sales would swiftly follow.

Votel's tour of his area of responsibility covered Afghanistan, about which his most absurd assertion was "I believe what Russia is attempting to do is they are attempting to be an influential party in this part of the world. I think it is fair to assume they may be providing some sort of support to [the Taliban] in terms of weapons or other things that may be there."

There was not a shred of evidence provided, but the Committee accepted his pronouncement without question. If an allegation is made about Russia it doesn't matter if it is false. It must be believed. But unfortunately for the imperial Votel and his deferential audience, a person with some sense of truth and balance came up two months later with a statement rubbishing Votel's unfounded and provocative accusation. In May the Director of the US Defence Intelligence Agency told a Senate Committee that "We have seen indication that [Russia] offered some level of support [to the Taliban], but I have not seen real physical evidence of weapons or money being transferred." The mainstream media gave no publicity to the truth, and continue to blame Russia for all the ills that befall the US Empire, at home and overseas.

The state of affairs was summed up admirably by Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation on December 4 when he wrote that "Central to any national-security state is the need for official enemies, ones that are used to frighten and agitate the citizenry. If there are no official enemies, the American citizenry might begin asking some discomforting questions: What do we need a national-security state for? Why not abolish the CIA and dismantle the military-industrial complex and the NSA. Why can't we have our limited-government, constitutional republic back?"

The Motto of the Pentagon's Central Command is "Prepare, Pursue, Prevail." and the Central Asian Republics would be well-advised to bear in mind these threats and think hard about the underlying motif of the US military-industrial complex which is "Propagandize, Provoke, Profit."

[Dec 17, 2017] Whither the Anti-war Movement by Daniel Martin

Notable quotes:
"... The antiwar movement could not survive the end of the draft. One most Americans did not have to worry about their kids being sent in harm's way, when minorities became soldiers for the pay, the enthusiasm waned. It was other people's kids that did the fighting and the dying. None of your concern. ..."
"... Initiatives of the Military-Industrial-Complex are well-planned, well-funded, and have paid staff to keep the interests of the corporate sector healthy and powerful. ..."
"... The Pentagon knows that as long as we have a volunteer army and outsource much of the nasty side of conflict to contractors, the volunteer peace activists don't stand a chance against their wealthy corporate allies. ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The duopoly succumbed to the war machine, while organized resistance got pushed to the fringe

Veterans For Peace rally in Washington, less than a month after 9/11. Credit: Elvert Barnes/Flickr

"Imagine there's no heaven and no religion too."

A more useful line when it comes to our current wars may be "Imagine there's no duopoly." It's hard to fault John Lennon for his idealism, of course. In his day, many blamed religion on the wars of history. But a much bigger obstacle right now, at least in the U.S., is partisanship. The two major political parties, in power and out, have been so co-opted by the war machine that any modern anti-war movement has been completely subsumed and marginalized -- even as American troops and killer drones continue to operate in or near combat zones all over the world.

Aside from the very early days of the Iraq war, the anti-war movement has been a small, ineffectual pinprick on the post-9/11 landscape. A less generous assessment is that it's been a bust. After liberals helped elect the "anti-war" Barack Obama, the movement all but disappeared, even though the wars did not. By putting a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Democratic face on his inherited wars, Obama expanded into new conflicts (Libya, Syria, Yemen) with little resistance, ultimately bombing seven different countries during his tenure. By 2013, Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin lamented , "We've been protesting Obama's foreign policy for years now, but we can't get the same numbers because the people who would've been yelling and screaming about this stuff under Bush are quiet under Obama."

It's easy to blame the military-industrial complex, the corporate media, and the greed and malleability of politicians. But what about the anti-war movement itself? Why has it failed so miserably, and can it revive as President Donald Trump continues the wars of his predecessors and threatens new ones?

The rallies and protests in the early 2000s attracted significant numbers but they were weighed down by far-left organizations like the World Workers Party, which brought with them myriad other issues beyond war like global warming and poverty. There was also long-held and fairly broad skepticism about the intentions of United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which organized most of the big protests over the last 17 years. This was due to the "big tent" affiliations of some of their steering committee members, which critics say led to a dilution of the message and drove the anti-war movement further from the mainstream.

Perhaps the movement's biggest weakness was that it shied away from directly attacking its own -- the liberal Democrats who voted for the war in Congress.

In a sense, Democrats did emerge as the de facto anti-war party during the Iraq war, but that was only because a Republican -- George W. Bush -- was commander-in-chief. And what of the Democrats who voted for the war and continued to fund it? Out of 77 senators who supported the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq in 2002, 20 are still in office and roughly half are Democrats, while out of the 296 votes in favor in the House, 90 are still in office and 57 of them are Democrats. Some of them, like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, went on to become party leaders. Two others, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, went on to become secretaries of state and their party's nominees for president in 2004 and 2016 respectively. All went on to support new military interventions and regime changes, albeit under a new, liberal interventionist, Democratic banner.

Conversely, steadfast non-interventionist Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the resolution, failed badly in both his 2004 and 2008 attempts at his party's presidential nomination. Bottom line: Support for the war was hardly a deal-breaker for voters, any more than opposition to it was a dealmaker.

Reaction to war is just a microcosm of the political landscape, a manifestation of partisan-driven, short-term memory. Sure there might have been momentary disapproval, but when it came time to decide whether supporters of the war stayed or went, the sins of one's party leaders meant very little in the zero-sum game of electoral politics. Parties outside the duopoly be damned.

The same thing happened to the anti-war right, as the Ron Paul movement took off in 2008 with an immense level of grassroots energy. One of the singular successes of his movement was the ability to reach people on an intellectual and practical level about the folly of our foreign interventions and the waste, fraud, and abuse of tax dollars. Paul didn't shy from criticizing his own party's leaders and actions. He explained the Federal Reserve's relationship to the monetary costs of war.

Ultimately, media blackouts and distortion of Paul's message (for example, conflating his non-interventionist foreign policy views with "isolationism") helped kill his campaign. After Paul's 2008 defeat, conservative political activists seized upon the Texas congressman's libertarian-leaning revolutionary momentum and channeled it into the Tea Party -- while leaving the non-interventionist impulses behind. By 2011, national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin acknowledged , "On foreign policy probably the majority [of Tea Party Patriots] are more like [hawks] Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich."

And don't underestimate how the escalation of drone warfare during the Obama presidency muted the anti-war effort. Drone attacks made fewer headlines because they supposedly caused less collateral damage and kept U.S. troops out of harm's way, which was portrayed by administration officials and the war establishment in Washington as progress.

What the drone program did, in essence, was to create the illusion of "less war." Nevertheless, studies showing an increase of terrorism since the beginning of the "war on terror" indicate precisely the opposite: Civilian drone deaths (not always reported) create more enemies, meaning more of our troops will be put in harm's way eventually.

So where should the anti-war movement go from here? Perhaps it should begin by tempering its far-left impulses and embracing its allies on the right who have been made to feel unwelcome. They could take a lesson from right-leaning places like Antiwar.com and TAC that have long been open to writers and activists on the left.

Meanwhile, flying "Resist Trump" signs at rallies not only misses the mark by suggesting that our needless wars aren't a bipartisan, systemic problem, but creates a non-inclusive atmosphere for anti-war Trump voters. Ironically, not much "resistance" was heard when Democrats recently helped pass Trump's $700 billion 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and failed to repeal the original post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force, as was advocated for by Senator Rand Paul this year.

In addition, the few on the anti-war left who oppose war based on pacifist or religious reasons need to acknowledge that the majority of Americans believe in a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution. Most people are willing to accept that there's a big difference between that and the terrible waste and tragedy that comes with waging unnecessary wars overseas.

They are also averse to their lawmakers doing favors for special interests. Focusing on the money and influence that giant defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have on Capitol Hill -- essentially making war a business -- makes the anti-war point by raising the issue of crony capitalism and the cozy relationship between politicians and big business, which increasingly leaves the American public out of the equation.

These corporations, along with Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, have accounted for $42 million in contributions to congressional candidates since 2009, with $12 million in the 2016 cycle alone. The majority of these funds have targeted Armed Services Committee members, such as perennial war hawk John McCain. In addition, influential neoconservative think tanks have received millions in grants over the years from "philanthropic" organizations such as the Bradley Foundation and the Olin Foundation, which have corporate backgrounds in the defense industry. The conservative Heritage Foundation is reportedly considering the vice president of Lockheed as its new president.

Furthermore, mantras and slogans like, "you're either with us or against us" and "support our troops" have been used as powerful psy-ops to create a false dichotomy: you either support the war policy or you're not patriotic. Debunking this by pointing out how these wars profit the elite while serving as a pipeline that puts more American military servicemembers -- often from working-class backgrounds -- into harm's way should appeal to the current populist spirit on both sides of the political fence. In fact, it could begin to draw new, disenchanted voters into the movement.

Americans today are tired of war, which is good, for now. Unfortunately, without a strong anti-war movement, there won't be much resistance when the next "big threat" comes along. The two major parties have proven to be false friends when it comes to opposing war -- they only do it when it suits them politically. Moving beyond them and becoming stronger with allies and numbers -- imagine, there's no parties -- is the best way to build a real opposition.

Daniel Martin is an anti-war activist, musician, and rock journalist from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter @MartysInvasion .

Youknowho December 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm

The antiwar movement could not survive the end of the draft. One most Americans did not have to worry about their kids being sent in harm's way, when minorities became soldiers for the pay, the enthusiasm waned. It was other people's kids that did the fighting and the dying. None of your concern.
Whine Merchant , says: December 14, 2017 at 10:47 pm
The so-called 'anti-war' or 'peace' movement is mostly a genuine grass roots phenomenon that relies upon volunteers and ordinary people taking time out of their busy lives to become active. The energy and drive are hard to sustain on a volunteer basis.

To a great extent, motivation for activism is a reaction to something egregious, not a planned and sustained response to an on-going situation. Despite the power of social media, reactively movements lead by well-intentioned amateurs cannot martial prolonged support.

Initiatives of the Military-Industrial-Complex are well-planned, well-funded, and have paid staff to keep the interests of the corporate sector healthy and powerful. The activism that pulled the US out of SE Asia in the 70s took 10 years to build strength against a what was less organised and planned war machine than we see today. The Pentagon knows that as long as we have a volunteer army and outsource much of the nasty side of conflict to contractors, the volunteer peace activists don't stand a chance against their wealthy corporate allies.

Thank you –

Fran Macadam , says: December 14, 2017 at 11:19 pm
The tragedy yet to be is that the business of war and its boosterism only ends when the suffering of war comes upon the nation whose leaders make it. It might be different if the population were inclined against it, but there is a widespread belief in U.S. Exceptionalism and a belief that it is America's birthright to rule the world by military force if required. And ruling peoples against their wills does require force.

The consistency of human nature does not promise any respite from the propensity to make war, as has occurred throughout all known history. Those wars will be waged with ever greater and even world-ending technology – there never has been a weapon created that was not used, and every one of them has proliferated.

Donald ( the left leaning one) , says: December 15, 2017 at 12:20 am
This makes sense to me. There has to be a coalition of anti interventionists across the political spectrum because the two parties are dominated by warmongers. On foreign policy I am closer to many of the conservatives here than to many or most liberals I know in real life or online. I have never heard a liberal in my real life mention Yemen or drones unless I bring it up. Syria was never seen as a place where our support for " moderate" rebels kept the killing going. A friend of mine has become outraged when I tell him our support for the Saudis in Yemen is much more important than Russiagate. So Russiagate matters more than our complicity in a crime against humanity.

Mainstream liberals simply don't care about our stupid wars unless there is a large American death toll and it can be blamed solely on a Republican. I am not saying conservatives are better. The ones here are better.

Zebesian , says: December 15, 2017 at 2:43 am
I hope that the anti-war movement grows again, and persists throughout the probable Democratic Presidency in 2020. There's such little a single person can do, though.

Maybe Trump will keep his anti-war promises?

collin , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:03 am
There is probably a multiple issues here but:

1) Most military is below the headlines and it is hard to protest here. There several thousands troops in Africa and hardly anybody knows it.
2) The last 7 Prez elections, 6 doves (2004 exception and yes Bush pretended to the dove in 2000.) won and yet the dovish winner is more hawkish in the White House. So it is hard not to use the military and it would wise to answer that question,
3) Anti-War conservatives only had modest support when Obama signed the nuclear deal or avoided bombing in Syria. Where were the 'Ron Paul' voters there to support the President making dovish choices? Sure Syria was handled poorly but if we heard more support it might change things.
4) And it is true the hard left is very-war but focused on other agenda. Witness Bernie Sanders was unable to beat HRC because he is dove complaining about Cold War battles that is past history. And watch out Matt Duss is writing his speeches and Bernie is taking them seriously.

Robert E. , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:25 am
I'm a liberal democrat and certainly would agree that President Obama was culpable for destroying our anti-war movement. It was one of my grievances with him from the very beginning, as nothing about his rhetoric was ever about peace. It was only till the very end of his last term that he ever learned any lessons on caution in intervention (But never about the folly of drone striking civilians), and by then, it was too late.

Neo-militarism, which is where the costs of war are separated from engagement with it in order to reduce civil unrest over military actions, wasn't something Obama created though. It was a reaction to the Vietnam War that was thoroughly ingrained in the conscience of both parties. The only lesson they learned from that war is that if Americans see and hear of the suffering of their soldiers, they won't be supportive of military pork and intervention.

And so we live in a really weird culture now where most people don't even know a soldier, where our soldiers are off to forever war and in the system they are in is so distant that they don't understand civilian society either, and where the costs of war are hidden. There is a political problem certainly, but the root of it is a cultural problem. We are fed patriotic myths of American invincibility and Spartanism, and militarism has become one of the only unifying threads in being an "American", even though most Americans have not even the faintest clue of how the military operates or what soldiers are like.

You can gather up all the anti-war activists across the political spectrum, and you still aren't going to find enough people for a successful movement. And I'm not entirely sure how you can change the culture on this issue, as it would require undoing a lifetime worth of programming and propaganda in every citizen.

It may take another cultural trauma from a war so disastrous that even the worst chicken hawks have to say, "Wow, we really ruined everything here" for Americans to finally learn a lesson beyond how to sweep the nasty parts of war under the rug so the public doesn't see them. I suppose North Korea is looking promising on that front.

EliteCommInc. , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:49 am
I dislike the term anti-war. It sounds too much akin to a pacifists pose. I don't have any issues with people who are sincerely pacifists. But there are times when war is required. And sometimes in my view, that includes the use of force for humanitarian purposes.

I rest on the views that push the "clear and present danger" as old as it may be. And I do so without being ignorant of my own concerns about the strategic threats that abound or potentially abound in the future, near and far.

Where's the anti-war movement -- they are in think tanks, congress, and CEO corporate positions seeking to atone for the mess they made of our communities, country and veterans since the the misguided anti-war slogans of the late '60's and early '70's.

The consequence of an all volunteer military separates the community from a national sense of risk. I will dare utter, the unspoken, Vietnam was not about some just cause or care about the Vietnamese or the national conscience. It was the basic fear of personal sacrifice – period.

Ohh it was nicely clothed in all kinds of rhetorical discourse about war, peace loving Vietnamese, peace-love and understanding, free speech, anti-colonialism . . . blah and blah.

As Dr. King would soon discover, lending his intellect to young white kids fears, sabotaged the real retrenchment of the consequence of the nation's hypocrisy.

It takes a moral courage that has been bled out because there is in my view essentially no risk individual national investment. If x hundred thousand are willing to sign-up for defense --

that is a choice of no account to citizens who don't.

There is a war going on and its right here at home.

Myles Hagar , says: December 15, 2017 at 12:21 pm
If we want the freedom to comfortably drive to the convenience store to buy more plastic products from China, we must have war to secure the oil, flow of foreign goods and exploitation of foreign labour necessary to maintain our predatory and non-productive way of life. Peace requires a transformation of consciousness with the resultant total rejection of consumerism. The personal sacrifice required for peace is the missing element.
Kent , says: December 15, 2017 at 12:53 pm
"a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution."

I take strong exception to this. The second amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Unlike what most people think, the "free State" mentioned here represents the 13 original states. Their "well regulated Militia"'s could not be disarmed because that would allow the federal military to take away their sovereign freedom. The federal government was never intended to be more powerful than the individual state's militias.

And Section 8 Clause 12 of the Constitution when describing Congress' responsibilities:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

The Constitution assumed that Congress would only raise an army when at war, and it would be dismantled almost immediately, hence the "two Years" limit on funding the military.

The Constitution assumes a very weak defensive posture, and the continued massive military system of the USA is the most unconstitutional thing we do. By a million miles.

john , says: December 15, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As long a there is a volunteer military there will not be a strong anti war movement. Remember, the sixties and that so called anti war movement which turned out to be nothing more that an anti draft movement. As soon as the military draft stopped those so called activists shaved their beards, got a haircut, took a bath, and along with those who came back from Canada went on to join daddy's business or law firm, with many migrating to wall street, eventually becoming the chicken hawks of the current era.There would never have been an invasion of Iraq or the perpetual war if every family shared the burden of sending one of their sons or daughters to act as cannon fodder. With the poverty draft only five percent of the younger generation are doing the fighting and dying. Americans will not even give up attending football games where disrespect for the military takes the form of disrespecting the flag, let alone join the military or put one of their children in harms way.
EliteCommInc. , says: December 15, 2017 at 3:19 pm
"The Constitution assumes a very weak defensive posture, and the continued massive military system of the USA is the most unconstitutional thing we do. By a million miles."

I guess if one skips the preamble one might come to that conclusion. But the Purpose of the Constitution establishing a nation spells out in very clear terms --

" . . . provide for the common defense . . ."

That is not a weak posture in any sense of the word. And no founder of government not those that followed understood that said union was to be weak. Avoiding unnecessary wars or conflicts does not mean a weak defense. What they pressed was a weak federal systems that would subvert internal freedoms for states and individuals.

It's hard to argue that no established international defense was sought -- when it states in very clear terms -- the nation is created for the very purpose of defending it's existence.

A strong defense does not require a an over aggressive posture, but existence requires an ability to defend it. And right now nothing more threatens our existence as much as weak immigration enforcement.

And I think the evidence for that is overwhelming. Most poignantly demonstrated by the events of 9/11. And there christians of many brands are a threat to the US by aiding and abetting the violations of that sovereignty and using Christ as the excuse to do so, even as that defense undermines their fellow citizens. That breed of christian ethos is certainly not new nor are its tentacles of hypocrisy.

What I object to among both interventionists is that they both don't mind giving people in the country illegally a pass despite their mutual claims of legal moral high bround.

David Swanson , says: December 15, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Biggest sign of how weak we are in this article is the assumption built into this: "In addition, the few on the anti-war left who oppose war based on pacifist or religious reasons need to acknowledge that the majority of Americans believe in a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution." I mean the assumption that one cannot oppose the whole institution for the overwhelming secular empirical reasons that it endangers us, destroys our environment, impoverishes us, erodes our liberties, militarizes our localities, degrades our culture, poisons our politics. See the case made at World Beyond War's website.
Glenn , says: December 15, 2017 at 5:29 pm
Superb article by Daniel Martin. The first step out of this mess is to fully acknowledge the scope of the mess: Democrats and Republicans -- who squabble about many things -- unite to give bipartisan support for American militarism.
Honorable Shark , says: December 15, 2017 at 6:01 pm
The anti-war movement is not listened to. In SF during a bombardment of Gaza, there were hundreds of anti-war protesters at City Hall. The most liberal deliberative body in the US looked stone-faced and emotionless. When they finished, if on a cue, a Jewish member of the Board tabled the agenda item, and it was never heard from again. Not one of these eleven lawmakers even asked a question. Who said you cannot fight City Hall? They were right.
balconesfault , says: December 15, 2017 at 7:06 pm
A lot of Dems stepped forward to oppose the Iraq War and they got plowed over for it politically.

I fully expect the same to happen to any Dems who divert their attention from stopping the other budget busting, middle-class harming, anti-environmental, anti-women measures the GOP is currently pushing to make a futile attempt to stop whatever Trump decides to do with our military.

You guys elected Donald J. Trump. You own him.

cka2nd , says: December 15, 2017 at 8:01 pm
The argument that there can be no anti-war movement without a draft to drive it is belied by the fact that no war in our history generated more protests than the Bush Administration's build-up towards the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Where the mass base of any anti-war movement seems to draw the line is not specifically at their kids but at the possibility of significant American casualties, period. Hence, the absence of mass protest against drone warfare on the one hand, and the immediate and decisive push back by the public against Congress authorizing Obama to "put boots on the ground" in Syria on the other.

My friends in the International Bolshevik Tendency ( http://bolshevik.org/ ) argue for the classic united front in their anti-war organizing. Everyone opposed to War X should march together but retain their right to free speech at the march and on the podium. So the official call for the march is not a laundry list, but marchers and speakers are not subject to censorship or being shut down if they want to make connections that discomfit some Democratic politician or movement hack. It makes more sense to me than either the single-issue, "we must ALL stay ON point" model or the multi-issue, excessively intersectional and virtue-signaling one that arose in reaction to it.

MKBrussel , says: December 16, 2017 at 12:19 am
No one seems to mention the power and importance of the mainstream, corporatized, media, which has supported all our wars and associated aggressions in recent times, and which ignores and suppresses antiwar sentiments and opinion writers, as well as inconvenient facts. This holds for the NYT, the WP, the WSJ and client newspapers as well as the TV news channels. The internet is evidently not powerful enough to offset this national bias. Antiwar periodicals tend to be on the fringe in terms of mass circulation.
It also takes money in this society to get things done, and the anti-war "left"(or right) , in addition to having organizational problems, lacks those resources. An antiwar super billionaire, if that is not a contradiction in terms, might make a dent by creating/promoting TV and news channels.

A usefull discussion.

Fran Macadam , says: December 16, 2017 at 4:26 am
EliteCommInc., be assured you will get your wars. Also be assured that they won't accomplish the aims they will be sold to accomplish. Some of those who know the real reasons may well accomplish their private goals for a season. One day, the real cost to be paid will come due, and it may not be a rude awakening, but nuclear death. So by all means, continue not to be against war, against all the evidence. We are predisposed to war because our fallen nature leads us to dream of it.
balconesfault , says: December 16, 2017 at 6:02 am
@Glenn

Democrats and Republicans -- who squabble about many things -- unite to give bipartisan support for American militarism.

That is because, sadly, American voters demand it.

As I've observed before – if you place a candidates militarism on a spectrum of 0 (Ghandi) to 100 (Hitler) American voters are conditioned to prefer a candidate with a score 20 points higher than theirs to a candidate 5 points lower.

Fear is a powerful tool.

Dieter Heymann , says: December 16, 2017 at 7:26 am
Kent makes a very good point. Yet this baby nation was somewhat torn between a Scylla and Charybdis of military readiness. The Scylla was the fear of a "European" track that is to say the evolution into a Monarchy anchored on a powerful national army. The Charybdis was the potential invasions by the powerful European states of Great Britain and Spain.
Dave Sullivan , says: December 16, 2017 at 8:14 am
The opinion that anti-war people, particularly from the Vietnam era, did so because they didn't want to sacrifice is ludicrous. It displays an ignorance of the sacrifices made, and the success of the war party to paint them in this manor. Veterans are appointed a myriad of benefits, a plethora of memorials,holidays, endless honorable mentions. For the war resistors, nothing, unless one could count the kind of scorn I see here, on an antiwar site ! It is not "selfish" to look both ways before crossing the street, and perhaps choosing not to if it appears the risk is not worth the reward. In fact, this behavior defines "conservative". Militant societies require centralization. The key to modern centralized militant power, is nuclear war. The existence of these weapons produces a huge secrecy, and internal security state. They produce an insane populace whom believe the state is protecting them from annihilation. Know this, our militant masters love that North Korea has the bomb. Sleep tight.

[Dec 17, 2017] Nikki Haley Is Not Good At Foreign Policy

Notable quotes:
"... Reza Marashi is director of research at the National Iranian American Council. He came to NIAC after serving in the Office of Iranian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and The Atlantic, among other publications. He has been a guest contributor to CNN, NPR, the BBC, TIME Magazine, The Washington Post, and the Financial Times, among other broadcast outlets. Follow Reza on Twitter: @rezamarashi ..."
"... At least since 1980, millions of bombs have been dropped on the people of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Gaza, Libya, all 'Made in USA' or 'Made in England': directly sold by Americans and the British and mostly dropped by the American/British pilots, but none has ever been displayed with such a vigor and moral concern and called for the international community to come forward to confront or condemn the manufacturer or the perpetrators who had used them against the civilians. ..."
"... What 'international' law/obligation is this that grants the US the monopoly and full rights to continue to arm criminal regimes in the Middle East and to shamelessly support them, but the same 'international obligation' requires Iran to refrain from any military or even moral support for the victims and demands that Iran must remain an observer of the US-Saudi-UAE mass murder in Yemen?! For how many more years and decades the people in the Middle East are supposed to accept such a contemptible hypocrisy and double standards! ..."
"... You diplomatically brought in the key motivation behind the show – political ambitions. She knows she needs 'name recognition' and seems determined to get it, no matter how. ..."
"... Ever since you left DOS, US' core policy on Iran has not been changed. As a matter of fact ever since the revolution, US Iran policy has not changed an iota, Nicki Healy, Samantha Powers, and Collin Powell and many others that came and gone are all the same, firmly anti- Iran and Iran in as long as Iran and Iranians maintains their nationalistic independence policy. ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | lobelog.com

Nikki Haley is not good at foreign policy. With few discernible achievements to speak of after one year as America's envoy to the UN, her most noteworthy moments have been two incoherent diatribes on Iran. The first -- an airing of grievances passed off as justification for killing the Iran nuclear deal -- came and went with little fanfare. Yesterday, she doubled down with a speech trying to make the case that Iran is, among other things, supplying Houthis in Yemen with ballistic missiles and "fanning the flames of conflict in the region." There are a variety of problems with Haley's assertions. Three in particular stand out.

First, Haley cited a UN report in her claim regarding Iranian missile transfers to the Houthis. Of course, the UN has reached no such conclusion. Instead, a panel of experts concluded that fired missile fragments show components from an Iranian company, but they have "no evidence as to the identity of the broker or supplier." Asked about Haley's claim that Iran is the culprit, Sweden's ambassador to the UN said, "The info I have is less clear." Analysts from the U.S. Department of Defense speaking to reporters at Haley's speech openly acknowledged that they do not know the missiles' origin. Perhaps most surreal is the very same UN report cited by Haley also says the missile included a component that was manufactured by an American company. Did she disingenuously omit that inconvenient bit from her remarks, or fail to read the entire UN report? The world may never know.

If Iran is arming the Houthis, it is a terrible policy that Iranian officials should reverse. All countries should stop arming the various factions in Yemen. Tehran is no exception. But neither is Washington. It was therefore appalling to see that Haley's speech reference Yemen and not include a single word about America's ongoing military, intelligence, and logistical support for the Saudi-led humanitarian catastrophe taking place. If she wanted to focus on facts regarding Iran and Yemen, she should have explained to reporters that, in addition to bolstering Iran's influence in country where it was previously negligible, the Saudi-led debacle has also empowered al-Qaeda -- the same al-Qaeda that attacked the United States on 9/11 with 15 Saudi nationals, and continues to plot attacks on America today.

There is also a stunning lack of foreign policy sophistication in Haley's prevailing assumption regarding Iran and missiles. Not only do we recklessly arm despots in the world's most volatile region with missile of their own, we also provide the Iranian government with a pretext to further develop its missile program -- and cite American and European military sales to an increasingly aggressive Saudi Arabia and UAE as justification for doing so. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a slogan, not a strategy. And if it remains the status quo, so too will the growth of Iran's missile program.

The most inexplicable part of Haley's charade is her insistence on talking about Iran rather than talking to Iran. The only thing stopping her from sitting down one on one with her Iranian counterpart at the UN to respectfully discuss these matters is her own shortsighted ideological rigidity. Frankly, the track record is clear. Talking about Iran produced more missiles under the Bush administration. Talking to Iran eventually produced compromises on missiles under the Obama administration. Haley should spend less time using the UN ambassadorship to boost her domestic political ambitions, and more time actually conducting diplomacy on behalf of the United States.

If Haley is truly concerned about Iran's missile program and regional activities, she can take three immediate steps to demonstrate her seriousness: First, immediately halt all American military, intelligence, and logistical support for the Saudi-led humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen. If the war ends, concerns about Iran in Yemen recede. Second, freeze all missile sales to Middle Eastern countries. If Saudi Arabia and the UAE aren't armed to the teeth with missiles they don't know how to use, Iran's threat perception and missile development reduces accordingly. Third, immediately offer bilateral and multilateral dialogue with the Iranian government on all issues of contention -- with no preconditions. The JCPOA is proof that sustained diplomacy with Iran can produce favorable outcomes for American interests.

Haley's dearth of foreign policy experience is no excuse for her shambolic performance yesterday. Rather than displaying the dignity and poise of America's face to the United Nations, she had her Colin Powell 2003 moment, demonstrating that too many of our leaders have still not learned the lessons of the Iraq war disaster. At best, this is willful ignorance on Haley's part. At worst (and more likely), she cherry-picked intelligence in a fashion eerily reminiscent of the 2002-2003 push for invading Iraq. It's not too late for Haley to salvage her tenure at the UN, but it will require listening more to the professional staff of career government officials she inherited rather than the motley crew of Republican operatives she brought with her to New York.

Reza Marashi is director of research at the National Iranian American Council. He came to NIAC after serving in the Office of Iranian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and The Atlantic, among other publications. He has been a guest contributor to CNN, NPR, the BBC, TIME Magazine, The Washington Post, and the Financial Times, among other broadcast outlets. Follow Reza on Twitter: @rezamarashi

Khosrow, December 15, 2017

At least since 1980, millions of bombs have been dropped on the people of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Gaza, Libya, all 'Made in USA' or 'Made in England': directly sold by Americans and the British and mostly dropped by the American/British pilots, but none has ever been displayed with such a vigor and moral concern and called for the international community to come forward to confront or condemn the manufacturer or the perpetrators who had used them against the civilians.

But why this time? Because this time the butcher of the world has found his buddy on the receiving end!

Kooshy, December 15, 2017
"Nikki Haley Is Not Good At Foreign Policy"

That's exactly why she was chosen by gods of Mount Zion for this job at UN, for constantly bashing Iran there is no need for expertise in FP.

Khosrow, December 15, 2017
"If Iran is arming the Houthis, it is a terrible policy that Iranian officials should reverse. All countries should stop arming the various factions in Yemen".

Mr Marashi, you speak from the safety of your office/country: Where the American armed and trained Saudi and Emirati forces and pilots viciously attack defenseless civilians in Yemen that has so far left more than 10,000 killed and 8 million near starvation, it is our moral obligation to support the oppressed Yemenis, not to leave them at the mercy of the Saudi savage air attacks – the Yemenis should not be denied support just as we Iranians were denied arms by the civilized world while we had come under Saddam's savage military attack in the 1980s.

What 'international' law/obligation is this that grants the US the monopoly and full rights to continue to arm criminal regimes in the Middle East and to shamelessly support them, but the same 'international obligation' requires Iran to refrain from any military or even moral support for the victims and demands that Iran must remain an observer of the US-Saudi-UAE mass murder in Yemen?! For how many more years and decades the people in the Middle East are supposed to accept such a contemptible hypocrisy and double standards!?

James Canning, December 15, 2017

Nikki Haley's record at the UN is pathetic, unless the measure in question is degree of gratification provided to the ISRAEL LOBBY.

david wright, December 15, 2017

'Nikki Haley is not good at foreign policy.'

Not good at it; even worse for it. But following in the hallowed tradition of Bush the Son's representative, Colin Powell. Let's hope that even the British have figured out what's going on this time, and will not behave like Lapdog Blair.

Given no excuse at all for waging war, the US will invent one. Past time it was called on this, by the the other 192 nations in the UN

Nona, December 17, 2017

"If Iran is arming the Houthis, it is a terrible policy that IRan should reverse."

WHY is it terrible? Someone should and MUST help the Houthis / Yemen PATRIOTS! No one else is helping them, NOT the U.N .and certainly, what use are they, if they don't prevail on the Saud.Arab. to stop the war.
Not even the Russians are helping the Yemenis.

It isn't even a war, because a war means two sides fighting, but in the case of Yemen, it's a matter of the Yemenis defending themselves. And it's the innocent civilians, women and children, as well as the civilian men, suffering and dying.

So the matter at hand is the Arab invasion, NOT where the missile came from.

The whole thing is a U.S. distraction from the Saudi invasion. And Haley frothing at the mouth, does a good job of distraction.

James Larrimore, December 17, 2017

Great article, Reza.

You diplomatically brought in the key motivation behind the show – political ambitions. She knows she needs 'name recognition' and seems determined to get it, no matter how.

She was mentioned to replace Tillerson as Sec of State, probably at her instigation. She knows T loves her style so she can do as she pleases, like flying with fanfare to see IAEA DG Amano in Vienna – where there is still no Ambassador. But you can bet her ambition is to be the first US woman President, to show the Clinton clan how that is done.

Unfortunately but necessarily, it will be important to 'put her in her place' in as many media fora as possible. Reza, you made a good contribution!

Kooshy, December 16, 2017

Mr. Marashi

Ever since you left DOS, US' core policy on Iran has not been changed. As a matter of fact ever since the revolution, US Iran policy has not changed an iota, Nicki Healy, Samantha Powers, and Collin Powell and many others that came and gone are all the same, firmly anti- Iran and Iran in as long as Iran and Iranians maintains their nationalistic independence policy.

As Mr. Zarif has said, we all have seen this show before and are not impressed with it. Noticeably, what has really been changed is yours and NIAC' analysis and opinions on US policies, especially ever since the failure of US' green color revolution back in 09.

However, IMO, you and NIAC, owe an explanation on what made you change your opinion of US intentions for Iran, after you left the DOS, if you seek support of expatriate Iranians for your efforts.

Jen, December 16, 2017

"Nikki Haley is not good at foreign policy "

I'd nominate this as the understatement of the year for 2017. But someone's got to point out the obvious and Reza Marashi nailed it.

Pity I can't link to a couple of articles on Haley's past incarnations as Governor of South Carolina or accountant to her parents' clothing boutique business so that readers can see Haley's talent for being truly abysmal at whatever she turns her hand to.

Mimo hard, December 16, 2017

Thank you Donald trump for uniting the arab dictators against you and the ugly apartheid state.

[Dec 17, 2017] Dr. Stephen Cohen on Tucker Carlson: Empty Accusations of Russian Meddling Have Become Grave National Security Threat

Notable quotes:
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of dιtente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
Dec 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.

The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.

Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of dιtente or cooperation with Russia.

Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute a "grave American national security threat."

At the very end of the interview, Tucker's very un-furrowed eyebrows agreed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtwFEA4dM18

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

[Dec 17, 2017] Whither the Anti-war Movement by Daniel Martin

Notable quotes:
"... The antiwar movement could not survive the end of the draft. One most Americans did not have to worry about their kids being sent in harm's way, when minorities became soldiers for the pay, the enthusiasm waned. It was other people's kids that did the fighting and the dying. None of your concern. ..."
"... Initiatives of the Military-Industrial-Complex are well-planned, well-funded, and have paid staff to keep the interests of the corporate sector healthy and powerful. ..."
"... The Pentagon knows that as long as we have a volunteer army and outsource much of the nasty side of conflict to contractors, the volunteer peace activists don't stand a chance against their wealthy corporate allies. ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The duopoly succumbed to the war machine, while organized resistance got pushed to the fringe

Veterans For Peace rally in Washington, less than a month after 9/11. Credit: Elvert Barnes/Flickr

"Imagine there's no heaven and no religion too."

A more useful line when it comes to our current wars may be "Imagine there's no duopoly." It's hard to fault John Lennon for his idealism, of course. In his day, many blamed religion on the wars of history. But a much bigger obstacle right now, at least in the U.S., is partisanship. The two major political parties, in power and out, have been so co-opted by the war machine that any modern anti-war movement has been completely subsumed and marginalized -- even as American troops and killer drones continue to operate in or near combat zones all over the world.

Aside from the very early days of the Iraq war, the anti-war movement has been a small, ineffectual pinprick on the post-9/11 landscape. A less generous assessment is that it's been a bust. After liberals helped elect the "anti-war" Barack Obama, the movement all but disappeared, even though the wars did not. By putting a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Democratic face on his inherited wars, Obama expanded into new conflicts (Libya, Syria, Yemen) with little resistance, ultimately bombing seven different countries during his tenure. By 2013, Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin lamented , "We've been protesting Obama's foreign policy for years now, but we can't get the same numbers because the people who would've been yelling and screaming about this stuff under Bush are quiet under Obama."

It's easy to blame the military-industrial complex, the corporate media, and the greed and malleability of politicians. But what about the anti-war movement itself? Why has it failed so miserably, and can it revive as President Donald Trump continues the wars of his predecessors and threatens new ones?

The rallies and protests in the early 2000s attracted significant numbers but they were weighed down by far-left organizations like the World Workers Party, which brought with them myriad other issues beyond war like global warming and poverty. There was also long-held and fairly broad skepticism about the intentions of United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which organized most of the big protests over the last 17 years. This was due to the "big tent" affiliations of some of their steering committee members, which critics say led to a dilution of the message and drove the anti-war movement further from the mainstream.

Perhaps the movement's biggest weakness was that it shied away from directly attacking its own -- the liberal Democrats who voted for the war in Congress.

In a sense, Democrats did emerge as the de facto anti-war party during the Iraq war, but that was only because a Republican -- George W. Bush -- was commander-in-chief. And what of the Democrats who voted for the war and continued to fund it? Out of 77 senators who supported the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq in 2002, 20 are still in office and roughly half are Democrats, while out of the 296 votes in favor in the House, 90 are still in office and 57 of them are Democrats. Some of them, like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, went on to become party leaders. Two others, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, went on to become secretaries of state and their party's nominees for president in 2004 and 2016 respectively. All went on to support new military interventions and regime changes, albeit under a new, liberal interventionist, Democratic banner.

Conversely, steadfast non-interventionist Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the resolution, failed badly in both his 2004 and 2008 attempts at his party's presidential nomination. Bottom line: Support for the war was hardly a deal-breaker for voters, any more than opposition to it was a dealmaker.

Reaction to war is just a microcosm of the political landscape, a manifestation of partisan-driven, short-term memory. Sure there might have been momentary disapproval, but when it came time to decide whether supporters of the war stayed or went, the sins of one's party leaders meant very little in the zero-sum game of electoral politics. Parties outside the duopoly be damned.

The same thing happened to the anti-war right, as the Ron Paul movement took off in 2008 with an immense level of grassroots energy. One of the singular successes of his movement was the ability to reach people on an intellectual and practical level about the folly of our foreign interventions and the waste, fraud, and abuse of tax dollars. Paul didn't shy from criticizing his own party's leaders and actions. He explained the Federal Reserve's relationship to the monetary costs of war.

Ultimately, media blackouts and distortion of Paul's message (for example, conflating his non-interventionist foreign policy views with "isolationism") helped kill his campaign. After Paul's 2008 defeat, conservative political activists seized upon the Texas congressman's libertarian-leaning revolutionary momentum and channeled it into the Tea Party -- while leaving the non-interventionist impulses behind. By 2011, national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin acknowledged , "On foreign policy probably the majority [of Tea Party Patriots] are more like [hawks] Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich."

And don't underestimate how the escalation of drone warfare during the Obama presidency muted the anti-war effort. Drone attacks made fewer headlines because they supposedly caused less collateral damage and kept U.S. troops out of harm's way, which was portrayed by administration officials and the war establishment in Washington as progress.

What the drone program did, in essence, was to create the illusion of "less war." Nevertheless, studies showing an increase of terrorism since the beginning of the "war on terror" indicate precisely the opposite: Civilian drone deaths (not always reported) create more enemies, meaning more of our troops will be put in harm's way eventually.

So where should the anti-war movement go from here? Perhaps it should begin by tempering its far-left impulses and embracing its allies on the right who have been made to feel unwelcome. They could take a lesson from right-leaning places like Antiwar.com and TAC that have long been open to writers and activists on the left.

Meanwhile, flying "Resist Trump" signs at rallies not only misses the mark by suggesting that our needless wars aren't a bipartisan, systemic problem, but creates a non-inclusive atmosphere for anti-war Trump voters. Ironically, not much "resistance" was heard when Democrats recently helped pass Trump's $700 billion 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and failed to repeal the original post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force, as was advocated for by Senator Rand Paul this year.

In addition, the few on the anti-war left who oppose war based on pacifist or religious reasons need to acknowledge that the majority of Americans believe in a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution. Most people are willing to accept that there's a big difference between that and the terrible waste and tragedy that comes with waging unnecessary wars overseas.

They are also averse to their lawmakers doing favors for special interests. Focusing on the money and influence that giant defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have on Capitol Hill -- essentially making war a business -- makes the anti-war point by raising the issue of crony capitalism and the cozy relationship between politicians and big business, which increasingly leaves the American public out of the equation.

These corporations, along with Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, have accounted for $42 million in contributions to congressional candidates since 2009, with $12 million in the 2016 cycle alone. The majority of these funds have targeted Armed Services Committee members, such as perennial war hawk John McCain. In addition, influential neoconservative think tanks have received millions in grants over the years from "philanthropic" organizations such as the Bradley Foundation and the Olin Foundation, which have corporate backgrounds in the defense industry. The conservative Heritage Foundation is reportedly considering the vice president of Lockheed as its new president.

Furthermore, mantras and slogans like, "you're either with us or against us" and "support our troops" have been used as powerful psy-ops to create a false dichotomy: you either support the war policy or you're not patriotic. Debunking this by pointing out how these wars profit the elite while serving as a pipeline that puts more American military servicemembers -- often from working-class backgrounds -- into harm's way should appeal to the current populist spirit on both sides of the political fence. In fact, it could begin to draw new, disenchanted voters into the movement.

Americans today are tired of war, which is good, for now. Unfortunately, without a strong anti-war movement, there won't be much resistance when the next "big threat" comes along. The two major parties have proven to be false friends when it comes to opposing war -- they only do it when it suits them politically. Moving beyond them and becoming stronger with allies and numbers -- imagine, there's no parties -- is the best way to build a real opposition.

Daniel Martin is an anti-war activist, musician, and rock journalist from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter @MartysInvasion .

Youknowho December 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm

The antiwar movement could not survive the end of the draft. One most Americans did not have to worry about their kids being sent in harm's way, when minorities became soldiers for the pay, the enthusiasm waned. It was other people's kids that did the fighting and the dying. None of your concern.
Whine Merchant , says: December 14, 2017 at 10:47 pm
The so-called 'anti-war' or 'peace' movement is mostly a genuine grass roots phenomenon that relies upon volunteers and ordinary people taking time out of their busy lives to become active. The energy and drive are hard to sustain on a volunteer basis.

To a great extent, motivation for activism is a reaction to something egregious, not a planned and sustained response to an on-going situation. Despite the power of social media, reactively movements lead by well-intentioned amateurs cannot martial prolonged support.

Initiatives of the Military-Industrial-Complex are well-planned, well-funded, and have paid staff to keep the interests of the corporate sector healthy and powerful. The activism that pulled the US out of SE Asia in the 70s took 10 years to build strength against a what was less organised and planned war machine than we see today. The Pentagon knows that as long as we have a volunteer army and outsource much of the nasty side of conflict to contractors, the volunteer peace activists don't stand a chance against their wealthy corporate allies.

Thank you –

Fran Macadam , says: December 14, 2017 at 11:19 pm
The tragedy yet to be is that the business of war and its boosterism only ends when the suffering of war comes upon the nation whose leaders make it. It might be different if the population were inclined against it, but there is a widespread belief in U.S. Exceptionalism and a belief that it is America's birthright to rule the world by military force if required. And ruling peoples against their wills does require force.

The consistency of human nature does not promise any respite from the propensity to make war, as has occurred throughout all known history. Those wars will be waged with ever greater and even world-ending technology – there never has been a weapon created that was not used, and every one of them has proliferated.

Donald ( the left leaning one) , says: December 15, 2017 at 12:20 am
This makes sense to me. There has to be a coalition of anti interventionists across the political spectrum because the two parties are dominated by warmongers. On foreign policy I am closer to many of the conservatives here than to many or most liberals I know in real life or online. I have never heard a liberal in my real life mention Yemen or drones unless I bring it up. Syria was never seen as a place where our support for " moderate" rebels kept the killing going. A friend of mine has become outraged when I tell him our support for the Saudis in Yemen is much more important than Russiagate. So Russiagate matters more than our complicity in a crime against humanity.

Mainstream liberals simply don't care about our stupid wars unless there is a large American death toll and it can be blamed solely on a Republican. I am not saying conservatives are better. The ones here are better.

Zebesian , says: December 15, 2017 at 2:43 am
I hope that the anti-war movement grows again, and persists throughout the probable Democratic Presidency in 2020. There's such little a single person can do, though.

Maybe Trump will keep his anti-war promises?

collin , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:03 am
There is probably a multiple issues here but:

1) Most military is below the headlines and it is hard to protest here. There several thousands troops in Africa and hardly anybody knows it.
2) The last 7 Prez elections, 6 doves (2004 exception and yes Bush pretended to the dove in 2000.) won and yet the dovish winner is more hawkish in the White House. So it is hard not to use the military and it would wise to answer that question,
3) Anti-War conservatives only had modest support when Obama signed the nuclear deal or avoided bombing in Syria. Where were the 'Ron Paul' voters there to support the President making dovish choices? Sure Syria was handled poorly but if we heard more support it might change things.
4) And it is true the hard left is very-war but focused on other agenda. Witness Bernie Sanders was unable to beat HRC because he is dove complaining about Cold War battles that is past history. And watch out Matt Duss is writing his speeches and Bernie is taking them seriously.

Robert E. , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:25 am
I'm a liberal democrat and certainly would agree that President Obama was culpable for destroying our anti-war movement. It was one of my grievances with him from the very beginning, as nothing about his rhetoric was ever about peace. It was only till the very end of his last term that he ever learned any lessons on caution in intervention (But never about the folly of drone striking civilians), and by then, it was too late.

Neo-militarism, which is where the costs of war are separated from engagement with it in order to reduce civil unrest over military actions, wasn't something Obama created though. It was a reaction to the Vietnam War that was thoroughly ingrained in the conscience of both parties. The only lesson they learned from that war is that if Americans see and hear of the suffering of their soldiers, they won't be supportive of military pork and intervention.

And so we live in a really weird culture now where most people don't even know a soldier, where our soldiers are off to forever war and in the system they are in is so distant that they don't understand civilian society either, and where the costs of war are hidden. There is a political problem certainly, but the root of it is a cultural problem. We are fed patriotic myths of American invincibility and Spartanism, and militarism has become one of the only unifying threads in being an "American", even though most Americans have not even the faintest clue of how the military operates or what soldiers are like.

You can gather up all the anti-war activists across the political spectrum, and you still aren't going to find enough people for a successful movement. And I'm not entirely sure how you can change the culture on this issue, as it would require undoing a lifetime worth of programming and propaganda in every citizen.

It may take another cultural trauma from a war so disastrous that even the worst chicken hawks have to say, "Wow, we really ruined everything here" for Americans to finally learn a lesson beyond how to sweep the nasty parts of war under the rug so the public doesn't see them. I suppose North Korea is looking promising on that front.

EliteCommInc. , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:49 am
I dislike the term anti-war. It sounds too much akin to a pacifists pose. I don't have any issues with people who are sincerely pacifists. But there are times when war is required. And sometimes in my view, that includes the use of force for humanitarian purposes.

I rest on the views that push the "clear and present danger" as old as it may be. And I do so without being ignorant of my own concerns about the strategic threats that abound or potentially abound in the future, near and far.

Where's the anti-war movement -- they are in think tanks, congress, and CEO corporate positions seeking to atone for the mess they made of our communities, country and veterans since the the misguided anti-war slogans of the late '60's and early '70's.

The consequence of an all volunteer military separates the community from a national sense of risk. I will dare utter, the unspoken, Vietnam was not about some just cause or care about the Vietnamese or the national conscience. It was the basic fear of personal sacrifice – period.

Ohh it was nicely clothed in all kinds of rhetorical discourse about war, peace loving Vietnamese, peace-love and understanding, free speech, anti-colonialism . . . blah and blah.

As Dr. King would soon discover, lending his intellect to young white kids fears, sabotaged the real retrenchment of the consequence of the nation's hypocrisy.

It takes a moral courage that has been bled out because there is in my view essentially no risk individual national investment. If x hundred thousand are willing to sign-up for defense --

that is a choice of no account to citizens who don't.

There is a war going on and its right here at home.

Myles Hagar , says: December 15, 2017 at 12:21 pm
If we want the freedom to comfortably drive to the convenience store to buy more plastic products from China, we must have war to secure the oil, flow of foreign goods and exploitation of foreign labour necessary to maintain our predatory and non-productive way of life. Peace requires a transformation of consciousness with the resultant total rejection of consumerism. The personal sacrifice required for peace is the missing element.
Kent , says: December 15, 2017 at 12:53 pm
"a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution."

I take strong exception to this. The second amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Unlike what most people think, the "free State" mentioned here represents the 13 original states. Their "well regulated Militia"'s could not be disarmed because that would allow the federal military to take away their sovereign freedom. The federal government was never intended to be more powerful than the individual state's militias.

And Section 8 Clause 12 of the Constitution when describing Congress' responsibilities:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

The Constitution assumed that Congress would only raise an army when at war, and it would be dismantled almost immediately, hence the "two Years" limit on funding the military.

The Constitution assumes a very weak defensive posture, and the continued massive military system of the USA is the most unconstitutional thing we do. By a million miles.

john , says: December 15, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As long a there is a volunteer military there will not be a strong anti war movement. Remember, the sixties and that so called anti war movement which turned out to be nothing more that an anti draft movement. As soon as the military draft stopped those so called activists shaved their beards, got a haircut, took a bath, and along with those who came back from Canada went on to join daddy's business or law firm, with many migrating to wall street, eventually becoming the chicken hawks of the current era.There would never have been an invasion of Iraq or the perpetual war if every family shared the burden of sending one of their sons or daughters to act as cannon fodder. With the poverty draft only five percent of the younger generation are doing the fighting and dying. Americans will not even give up attending football games where disrespect for the military takes the form of disrespecting the flag, let alone join the military or put one of their children in harms way.
EliteCommInc. , says: December 15, 2017 at 3:19 pm
"The Constitution assumes a very weak defensive posture, and the continued massive military system of the USA is the most unconstitutional thing we do. By a million miles."

I guess if one skips the preamble one might come to that conclusion. But the Purpose of the Constitution establishing a nation spells out in very clear terms --

" . . . provide for the common defense . . ."

That is not a weak posture in any sense of the word. And no founder of government not those that followed understood that said union was to be weak. Avoiding unnecessary wars or conflicts does not mean a weak defense. What they pressed was a weak federal systems that would subvert internal freedoms for states and individuals.

It's hard to argue that no established international defense was sought -- when it states in very clear terms -- the nation is created for the very purpose of defending it's existence.

A strong defense does not require a an over aggressive posture, but existence requires an ability to defend it. And right now nothing more threatens our existence as much as weak immigration enforcement.

And I think the evidence for that is overwhelming. Most poignantly demonstrated by the events of 9/11. And there christians of many brands are a threat to the US by aiding and abetting the violations of that sovereignty and using Christ as the excuse to do so, even as that defense undermines their fellow citizens. That breed of christian ethos is certainly not new nor are its tentacles of hypocrisy.

What I object to among both interventionists is that they both don't mind giving people in the country illegally a pass despite their mutual claims of legal moral high bround.

David Swanson , says: December 15, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Biggest sign of how weak we are in this article is the assumption built into this: "In addition, the few on the anti-war left who oppose war based on pacifist or religious reasons need to acknowledge that the majority of Americans believe in a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution." I mean the assumption that one cannot oppose the whole institution for the overwhelming secular empirical reasons that it endangers us, destroys our environment, impoverishes us, erodes our liberties, militarizes our localities, degrades our culture, poisons our politics. See the case made at World Beyond War's website.
Glenn , says: December 15, 2017 at 5:29 pm
Superb article by Daniel Martin. The first step out of this mess is to fully acknowledge the scope of the mess: Democrats and Republicans -- who squabble about many things -- unite to give bipartisan support for American militarism.
Honorable Shark , says: December 15, 2017 at 6:01 pm
The anti-war movement is not listened to. In SF during a bombardment of Gaza, there were hundreds of anti-war protesters at City Hall. The most liberal deliberative body in the US looked stone-faced and emotionless. When they finished, if on a cue, a Jewish member of the Board tabled the agenda item, and it was never heard from again. Not one of these eleven lawmakers even asked a question. Who said you cannot fight City Hall? They were right.
balconesfault , says: December 15, 2017 at 7:06 pm
A lot of Dems stepped forward to oppose the Iraq War and they got plowed over for it politically.

I fully expect the same to happen to any Dems who divert their attention from stopping the other budget busting, middle-class harming, anti-environmental, anti-women measures the GOP is currently pushing to make a futile attempt to stop whatever Trump decides to do with our military.

You guys elected Donald J. Trump. You own him.

cka2nd , says: December 15, 2017 at 8:01 pm
The argument that there can be no anti-war movement without a draft to drive it is belied by the fact that no war in our history generated more protests than the Bush Administration's build-up towards the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Where the mass base of any anti-war movement seems to draw the line is not specifically at their kids but at the possibility of significant American casualties, period. Hence, the absence of mass protest against drone warfare on the one hand, and the immediate and decisive push back by the public against Congress authorizing Obama to "put boots on the ground" in Syria on the other.

My friends in the International Bolshevik Tendency ( http://bolshevik.org/ ) argue for the classic united front in their anti-war organizing. Everyone opposed to War X should march together but retain their right to free speech at the march and on the podium. So the official call for the march is not a laundry list, but marchers and speakers are not subject to censorship or being shut down if they want to make connections that discomfit some Democratic politician or movement hack. It makes more sense to me than either the single-issue, "we must ALL stay ON point" model or the multi-issue, excessively intersectional and virtue-signaling one that arose in reaction to it.

MKBrussel , says: December 16, 2017 at 12:19 am
No one seems to mention the power and importance of the mainstream, corporatized, media, which has supported all our wars and associated aggressions in recent times, and which ignores and suppresses antiwar sentiments and opinion writers, as well as inconvenient facts. This holds for the NYT, the WP, the WSJ and client newspapers as well as the TV news channels. The internet is evidently not powerful enough to offset this national bias. Antiwar periodicals tend to be on the fringe in terms of mass circulation.
It also takes money in this society to get things done, and the anti-war "left"(or right) , in addition to having organizational problems, lacks those resources. An antiwar super billionaire, if that is not a contradiction in terms, might make a dent by creating/promoting TV and news channels.

A usefull discussion.

Fran Macadam , says: December 16, 2017 at 4:26 am
EliteCommInc., be assured you will get your wars. Also be assured that they won't accomplish the aims they will be sold to accomplish. Some of those who know the real reasons may well accomplish their private goals for a season. One day, the real cost to be paid will come due, and it may not be a rude awakening, but nuclear death. So by all means, continue not to be against war, against all the evidence. We are predisposed to war because our fallen nature leads us to dream of it.
balconesfault , says: December 16, 2017 at 6:02 am
@Glenn

Democrats and Republicans -- who squabble about many things -- unite to give bipartisan support for American militarism.

That is because, sadly, American voters demand it.

As I've observed before – if you place a candidates militarism on a spectrum of 0 (Ghandi) to 100 (Hitler) American voters are conditioned to prefer a candidate with a score 20 points higher than theirs to a candidate 5 points lower.

Fear is a powerful tool.

Dieter Heymann , says: December 16, 2017 at 7:26 am
Kent makes a very good point. Yet this baby nation was somewhat torn between a Scylla and Charybdis of military readiness. The Scylla was the fear of a "European" track that is to say the evolution into a Monarchy anchored on a powerful national army. The Charybdis was the potential invasions by the powerful European states of Great Britain and Spain.
Dave Sullivan , says: December 16, 2017 at 8:14 am
The opinion that anti-war people, particularly from the Vietnam era, did so because they didn't want to sacrifice is ludicrous. It displays an ignorance of the sacrifices made, and the success of the war party to paint them in this manor. Veterans are appointed a myriad of benefits, a plethora of memorials,holidays, endless honorable mentions. For the war resistors, nothing, unless one could count the kind of scorn I see here, on an antiwar site ! It is not "selfish" to look both ways before crossing the street, and perhaps choosing not to if it appears the risk is not worth the reward. In fact, this behavior defines "conservative". Militant societies require centralization. The key to modern centralized militant power, is nuclear war. The existence of these weapons produces a huge secrecy, and internal security state. They produce an insane populace whom believe the state is protecting them from annihilation. Know this, our militant masters love that North Korea has the bomb. Sleep tight.

[Dec 16, 2017] Canada takes initiative among NATO countries in deciding to provide heavy weapons to Ukraine

Dec 16, 2017 | www.newcoldwar.org

Canada has taken a lead among NATO countries in approving heavy weapons sales to the government and armed forces of Ukraine. The Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the decision on December 13.

The U.S. government is poised to make a similar decision .

The decision by Washington's junior partner in Ottawa is a blow to human rights organizations and others in the U.S. and internationally who argue that increasing the arms flow to the regime in Kyiv will only escalate Ukraine's violence against the people's republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine was compelled to sign the 'Minsk-2' ceasefire and peace agreement on Feb 12, 2015. Germany and France endorsed the agreement and have pretended to stand by it. But Ukraine has violated Minsk-2 ( text here ) ever since its signing, with impunity from Kyiv's allies in western Europe and North America.

Minsk-2 was endorsed by the UN Security Council on Feb 17, 2015. That shows the regard which NATO members such as the U.S. and Canada attach to the world body -- the UN it is a useful tool when it can be manipulated to serve their interests, otherwise it is an annoyance to be ignored. Witness their boycotting of the UN General Assembly discussion (and eventual adoption) on July 7, 2017 of the Treaty on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons .

[Dec 16, 2017] Trump's doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin.

Notable quotes:
"... History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-( ..."
Dec 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Jim Haygood , , December 15, 2017 at 7:26 am

Nice timing for the release of these archives on Dec 12th. Yesterday the WaPo posted an article "based on interviews with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials" titled "Doubting the Intelligence: Trump Pursues Putin and Leaves a Russian Threat Unchecked":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/

Axiomatic to the WaPo hacks authors is that NATO ranks right up there with the 1776 Declaration and the Constitution as a bedrock US principle. Trump's doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin.

Naturally the new archives released by GWU play no part in the WaPo story two days later, since they aren't "fitted to the narrative."

History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-(

[Dec 16, 2017] Canada takes initiative among NATO countries in deciding to provide heavy weapons to Ukraine

Dec 16, 2017 | www.newcoldwar.org

Canada has taken a lead among NATO countries in approving heavy weapons sales to the government and armed forces of Ukraine. The Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the decision on December 13.

The U.S. government is poised to make a similar decision .

The decision by Washington's junior partner in Ottawa is a blow to human rights organizations and others in the U.S. and internationally who argue that increasing the arms flow to the regime in Kyiv will only escalate Ukraine's violence against the people's republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine was compelled to sign the 'Minsk-2' ceasefire and peace agreement on Feb 12, 2015. Germany and France endorsed the agreement and have pretended to stand by it. But Ukraine has violated Minsk-2 ( text here ) ever since its signing, with impunity from Kyiv's allies in western Europe and North America.

Minsk-2 was endorsed by the UN Security Council on Feb 17, 2015. That shows the regard which NATO members such as the U.S. and Canada attach to the world body -- the UN it is a useful tool when it can be manipulated to serve their interests, otherwise it is an annoyance to be ignored. Witness their boycotting of the UN General Assembly discussion (and eventual adoption) on July 7, 2017 of the Treaty on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons .

[Dec 15, 2017] Sic Semper Tyrannis Watergate Deja Vu and Fake News by Publius Tacitus

Notable quotes:
"... The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan. ..."
"... How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona? ..."
"... DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back. By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all therefore fair game for DJT. ..."
"... I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'ιtat. Said ninnies are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer). ..."
"... You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about this? The facts are clear enough, for once. ..."
"... And, off stage, a slow but powerful campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like Brazile's book. But faster please ..."
"... I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans. ..."
"... The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures. The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for the delay, "it was complicated". ..."
"... He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman. In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long. ..."
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve some problems and reduce the importance of government. ..."
"... I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death fight with the Media. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
"... Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe. Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations. ..."
"... Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case. IMO, we are about to though. ..."
"... I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. ..."
"... If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media". ..."
"... He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's comments on this thread. ..."
"... One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades. Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

That sure sounds a lot like the current state of the media. We have witnessed this type of hysteria ourselves in just the last two days. First there was the Brian Ross debacle, which entailed Ross peddling the lie that Trump ordered Flynn to contact the Russians. That "fake news" elicited an emotional orgasm from Joy Behar on The View. She was on the verge of writhing on the floor as she prematurely celebrated what she thought would seal the impeachment of Donald Trump. Whoops. Ross had to retract that story.

... ... ...

Watergate and "Russiagate" do share a common trope. During Watergate the Washington Post was mostly a lone voice covering the story. Washington Post publisher at the time, Kate Graham, reportedly remarked that she was worried that none of the other papers were covering the story. And it was an important story. It exposed political corruption and abuse of power and a threat to our democracy.

How is that in common with Russiagate? The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan.

Publius Tacitus , 05 December 2017 at 11:52 PM
It is a shame you wanted to start the discussion with such a stupid comment. I have made no representation whatsoever about the intelligence or lack of intelligence of Trump. I have expressed nothing regarding "my expectations" for him or his policies. I get it. You don't like the man and want to grind a meaningless axe.
EEngineer said in reply to David E. Solomon... , 06 December 2017 at 01:12 AM

How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona?

There's truth and lies, but then there's just plain old bullshit which has nothing to do with either. He seems to throw a ton of it around as a diversionary tactic. I understand the technique, but I can't see through the smoke screen to divine what he's up to or who he really is. So I continue to dispassionately observe.

walrus , 06 December 2017 at 01:49 AM
DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back. By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all therefore fair game for DJT.
sbjonez , 06 December 2017 at 02:36 AM
Maybe a citation could be offered here, but there does not appear to be any support for the assertion made by the author of this piece that "...the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump...".There were reports that the FBI 'considered' paying Steele to continue his work, ( a not altogether uncommon practice), yet within the more responsibly researched reports it was also clearly stated that in the end the FBI did not in fact pay Steele anything for any work at all.
Dr. George W. Oprisko , 06 December 2017 at 03:32 AM
As it happens the FBI and most probably the others were created by executive order.

Perhaps it's time to end them by executive order.......

INDY

Eric Newhill said in reply to Publius Tacitus ... , 06 December 2017 at 03:32 AM
PT,
I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'ιtat. Said ninnies are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer).

When you belong to a cult, you must suspend reason; make it subordinate to the hive mind. You lose all perspective. They believe all kids of ridiculous notions that fail to withstand the most basic rational scrutiny; like Islam and feminism can be allies, socialism would work if only it were applied correctly, if a man puts on a dress he has actually become a woman and that such a person would make a good 11 series in the military, low skill/low IQ immigrants - legal or otherwise - are actually good for the country......so of course they believe that a coup d'ιtat is appropriate when the target is Trump. In their madness they have convinced themselves that Trump is uniquely dangerous. He is going to destroy the world via ignoring global warming, tax cuts, immigration reform, pushing the nuclear button just for fun; all of the above and maybe more. You know this, of course. You did mention "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

As for the rest of the subject matter, personally, I feel that what with all that has been revealed about the FBI, CIA and NSA, someone should be bringing the involved members of these agencies up on charges related to treason, sedition or whatever legal terms are correct. Actually, these people should have their doors kicked down and be brought out in hand cuffs. Death sentences should be on the table and should be applied when legally possible.

This is no more Watergate than a man in a dress is a woman.

The depths to which the govt, populace and values of this country have degenerated have never been more on display than in this witch hunt. We are in very bad shape. The media is thoroughly scurrilous. Officials in bureaucracies are treasonous and have no respect for the rule of law. Half of the citizens are insane and support the media and the traitors.

If someone doesn't at least just pull the plug on this "investigation", it's going to ruin what's left of this country. It may be too late. A lot of ninnies are going to wake up to a very harsh reality.

Peter Reichard , 06 December 2017 at 05:21 AM
From day one the Republicans were trying to impeach Bill Clinton by investigating every dark corner of the Clintons' past and present until they could find something that would stick. Same thing with Trump except this time it goes far beyond the opposition party to include elements of the government, most of the media and even leading members of his own party. Elections be damned, we have an empire to maintain and he is seen by the establishment as too impulsive, unstable and so far uncontrollable to be allowed to stay in power. While no threat to the sacred cows of Wall Street and Israel or even to drain the swamp they are terrified of his unpredictability, hence the full court press unprecedented in American history to remove him from office. My very low opinion of Trump doesn't blind me to the dangers inherent in this effort. \
English Outsider -> Publius Tacitus ... , 06 December 2017 at 05:45 AM
PT - Isn't the point you've just made central? The issues here are far more important than the personalities?

I like what I've seen of our PM, Mrs May. Nice person, to my outsider's way of thinking. Doesn't alter the fact that I consider her policies and philosophy to be hopeless. And since we're never going to meet her in the pub that's what counts. Would it not be possible to separate things out in the same way with Trump? Set on one side the partisan arguments about his personality - politics is not a TV show - and consider him on the basis of what he may or may not do or be able to do?

You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about this? The facts are clear enough, for once.

JMH said in reply to David E. Solomon... , 06 December 2017 at 07:29 AM
Actually, I think he shares many of Bismark's qualities: "a political genius of a very unusual kind [whose success] rested on several sets of conflicting characteristics among which brutal, disarming honesty mingled with the wiles and deceits of a confidence man. He played his parts with perfect self-confidence, yet mixed them with rage, anxiety, illness, hypochrondria, and irrationality. ... He used democracy when it suited him, negotiated with revolutionaries and the dangerous Ferdinand Lassalle, the socialist who might have contested his authority. He utterly dominated his cabinet ministers with a sovereign contempt and blackened their reputations as soon as he no longer needed them. He outwitted the parliamentary parties, even the strongest of them, and betrayed all those ... who had put him into power. By 1870 even his closest friends ... realized that they had helped put a demonic figure into power.[6]"-wiki

Bernie can be Lasalle.

Patrick Armstrong , 06 December 2017 at 07:55 AM
I think, I hope, I believe, I persuade myself that all is unfolding as it should. Mueller turns up nothing but further examples of officials pimping themselves out to foreign governments; meanwhile revelations of bias on his team; meanwhile chewing away at the Fusion GPS thing (one of the key pillars); meanwhile investigation of the FBI. And, off stage, a slow but powerful campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like Brazile's book. But faster please
Martin Oline , 06 December 2017 at 08:02 AM
I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans. I saw two pieces this morning from BBC and The New York Times:

Perhaps this is the start of a change or a recognition that the MSM's habitual crying wolf behavior is not resonating with Main Street. I can only hope, but I stopped watching the national news long ago.

Ken Roberts , 06 December 2017 at 08:30 AM
The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures. The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for the delay, "it was complicated".

That truly is water under the bridge, and at least must be so, if you wish to preserve your republic. You all have the right to withhold consent and trash what you and your fathers and grandfathers have achieved. Most will not like the outcome. But I sincerely hope that you, each and collectively, instead will choose the positive aspects of this model:

"... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Best wishes,
kr

Greco , 06 December 2017 at 08:56 AM
The ABC story had to be "clarified" given they originally reported Flynn had contacted the Russians DURING the election when in fact it was AFTER the election. The story had consequences on the stock market: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4129355-cost-fake-news-s-and-p-500 This all happened on the eve of the passage of Trump's tax cuts and it seemed timed to hurt the stock market. It may even possibly have torpedoed the tax cuts by putting into question Trump's legal standing as president.
jdledell , 06 December 2017 at 10:04 AM
I detest Trump as a person but still acknowledge that he is our current President. I will continue to fight against the implementation of his policies and work hard to to try to insure he does not win a second term. Other than that in 3 more years the American people will have an opportunity to judge his performance and make a decision on his worthiness to continue as President. That is as it should be.

Trump has taken some hard shots, some deserved and some not. That is the nature of our current political system. When Trump traveled the nation proclaiming Obama was not American born and thus an illegitimate President is also an example of "all is fair in War and politics".

Fred -> David E. Solomon... , 06 December 2017 at 10:20 AM
David,

He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman. In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long.

Publius Tacitus -> sbjonez... , 06 December 2017 at 10:35 AM
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
rjj said in reply to JMH... , 06 December 2017 at 11:19 AM
is this doom-and-gloom or hope-assaulting-experience? Am guessing that the only thing he has shares with Old Otto is a preference for the classic method of donning trousers.

OOPS! there's this (was reminded of it by the hyperventilatory "breaking news" about Blackwater/Erik Prince):

Bismarck held von Holstein in high esteem, and when the latter went to him with his plan for establishing a vast organization of almost universal spying, the Chancellor of the new German Empire immediately grasped the advantages he could obtain from it. ....

Von Holstein ... had one great ambition; that of knowing everything about everybody and of ruling everybody through fear of the disclosures he could make were he at any time tempted to do so. ....

The German Foreign Office knew everything and made use of everything .... In the Prussian Intelligence Department as Holstein organized it there was hardly a person of note or consequence in Europe about whom everything was not known, including, of course, his weaknesses and cupboard skeletons. And this knowledge was used when necessary without any compunction or remorse. ....

His first care, whenever an individual capable at a given moment of playing a part, no matter how humble, in the great drama attracted his attention, was to ferret out all that could be learned about him or her. With few exceptions he contrived to lay his finger on a hidden secret. Once this preliminary step had been performed to his satisfaction, the rest was easy. The unfortunate victim was given to understand that he would be shamed publicly at any time, unless . . . unless . . .

https://archive.org/details/firebrandofbolsh00radz

As this has been the SOP of Karl Rove (presumably), of Jedgar, and before that [__fill in the blanks___], the only thing unprecedented about the Prince/Blackwater story is the disregard for omerta.

DISCLAIMER: The Princess Radziwill who published the passage on von Holstein was an opportunistic swashbucklereuse type and [guessing] would have been so even in less horrifically interesting times.

walter , 06 December 2017 at 12:06 PM
My humble opinion on what is going on. "The Borg" are individuals whose self-interest is tied to perpetuating "business as usual" in Washington DC. FBI agents, CIA, NSA need domestic and foreign conflict to aggrandize and justify their positions. They do not want our national problems solved...god forbid, budgets, salaries, bonuses, future contracting and consulting jobs might be reduced or eliminated.

Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve some problems and reduce the importance of government.

I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death fight with the Media.

Sid Finster , 06 December 2017 at 12:16 PM
I find the whole idea that "Deutsche Bank has branches in Russia and lends money to Russian borrowers, therefore Russians control Deutsche Bank" idea to be comical.

I have clients who also regularly borrow money from Deutsche Bank. Are they now Russians? Are they controlled now by Russians? Do Russians control them? What role does DB play in all this web of control?

If I have my mortgage at the same bank as a slum lord/toxic waste generator/adult bookstore owner/CIA operative, am I now his puppet?

Asking for a friend.

Does nobody understand how banking law works? (in Germany and the US, banks are forbidden to lend to any client or client group in an amount that would give the borrower de facto control over the operations of the bank). Of course the smarter conspiracy theorists understand this. Any stick to beat a dog.

Sid Finster said in reply to English Outsider ... , 06 December 2017 at 12:18 PM
The difference is that the establishment/Deep State/Borg/whatever you want to call it approves of Steele's activities.
Dr. Puck said in reply to Dr. George W. Oprisko ... , 06 December 2017 at 12:27 PM
FYI History of the FBI. www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history
Sylvia 1 , 06 December 2017 at 12:48 PM
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.

What I fail to understand is why Democrats are sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.

Eric Newhill , 06 December 2017 at 12:51 PM
PT,

Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe. Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations.

Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case. IMO, we are about to though.

Peter VE said in reply to Sylvia 1... , 06 December 2017 at 05:05 PM
I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. If they can't allow the truth to come out after 54 years, they surely can't be trusted to be truthful about today's information.
Cvillereader said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 06 December 2017 at 06:54 PM
Fox News, which has been fairly reliable of late, reported last night that the FBI OIG report will be finalized and made public sometime in the next 4-5 weeks.
blue peacock , 07 December 2017 at 12:18 AM
Publius Tacitus
The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump.

How can this conspiracy be investigated? Who could do it? Clearly not anyone from the DoJ, FBI, CIA and NSA as they are fully compromised.

JamesT -> Cvillereader... , 07 December 2017 at 12:48 AM
If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media".
Imagine , 07 December 2017 at 12:50 AM
Real News: Outstanding official independent post-mortem of Charlottesville. Includes maneuver tactics, I think y'all will like it.

http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=59615

AK said in reply to English Outsider ... , 07 December 2017 at 04:06 AM
English Outsider,

"Any idea why?"

He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's comments on this thread.

One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades. Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years.

Still, this phenomenon existed long before Trump, The Politician, and even before Obama and his own cult. Many of these people were able to put their expectations on hold for eight long years. Obama was a result they could at least live with temporarily - " Just eight more years, and then they owe her. "

They had their very structures of reality built around a certain outcome, which didn't come to pass. So, the disappointment was all the more bitter when they realized that their waiting was in vain. That's a tidal wave of cognitive dissonance unleashed by that unimaginable (for some) occurrence of her defeat. He didn't put paid to Martin O'Malley or even Bernie Sanders. He vanquished The Queen. That sort of thing never goes down lightly.

AK said in reply to Richardstevenhack ... , 07 December 2017 at 04:23 AM
Richardstevenhack,

" As I've said before, I think Trump only ran for President for 1) ego, and 2) he knows he will have access to billions of dollars of business deals once he leaves office, with the cachet of having been President.

You might as well assert that lions only hang out around watering holes because 1) there's water there, and 2) gazelles and zebras have to drink water. Can you point me to one President from living memory who did not 1) run for the Office at least partially out of ego, and 2) take advantage in his subsequent "private life" of these exact perks of having held the Office? I ask seriously, because it seems you are pining for a nobility in presidential politics which to my recollection hasn't existed for at least three generations. Cincinnatus, they ain't. Maybe Ike, but anyone else is a real stretch.

[Dec 15, 2017] James Clapper Corrects Left's Narrative On Russia Election Interference 'Not All 17' Intel Agencies Affirmed

Notable quotes:
"... Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " ..."
"... Aaron Klein Investigative Radio ..."
"... ." Follow him on ..."
"... Twitter @AaronKleinShow. ..."
"... Follow him on ..."
"... With research by Joshua Klein. ..."
May 09, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

During yesterday's Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, put the kibosh on a major anti-Donald Trump talking point that 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

That talking point was amplified last October, when Hillary Clinton stated the following at the third presidential debate: "We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing."

Clinton was referring to an October 7, 2016 joint statement from the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence claiming, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations."

The statement was followed by a January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community report assessing Russian intentions during the presidential election.

While the U.S. Intelligence Community is indeed made up of 17 agencies, Clapper made clear in his testimony yesterday that the community's assessments regarding alleged Russian interference were not the product of all seventeen agencies but of three – the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security Agency (NSA).

Referring to the assessments, Clapper stated : "As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office."

Later in the hearing, Clapper corrected Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) when Franken claimed that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded Russia attempted to influence the election.

Here is a transcript of that exchange :

FRANKEN: And I want to thank General Clapper and – and Attorney General Yates for – for appearing today. We have – the intelligence communities have concluded all 17 of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that's right.

CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office

FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?

CLAPPER: Well, we didn't go through that – that process, this was a special situation because of the time limits and my – what I knew to be to who could really contribute to this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or – or disagreed when it came out.

The January 6 U.S. intelligence community report is titled, "Background to 'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution."

The report makes clear it is a product of three intelligence agencies and not 17.

The opening states: "This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies."

Following Clinton's presidential debate claim about "17 intelligence agencies," PolitiFact rated her statement as "true."

However, within its ruling, PolitiFact conceded:

We don't know how many separate investigations into the attacks there were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country's 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations' emails.

PolitiFact's "true" judgement was the basis for a USA Today piece titled, "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."

Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " Aaron Klein Investigative Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

With research by Joshua Klein.

[Dec 15, 2017] Protecting the Shaky Russia-gate Narrative by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative. ..."
"... The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!" ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports Robert Parry.

If Russia-gate is the massive scandal that we are told it is by so many Important People -- across the U.S. mainstream media and the political world -- why do its proponents have to resort to lies and exaggerations to maintain the pillars supporting the narrative?

A new example on Thursday was The New York Times' statement that a Russian agency "spent $100,000 on [Facebook's] platform to influence the United States presidential election last year" – when the Times knows that statement is not true.

According to Facebook, only 44 percent of that amount appeared before the U.S. presidential election in 2016 (i.e., $44,000) and few of those ads addressed the actual election. And, we know that the Times is aware of the truth because it was acknowledged in a Times article in early October.

As part of that article, Times correspondents Mike Isaac and Scott Shane reported that the ads also covered a wide range of other topics: "There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies that spread across the site with the help of paid ads."

As nefarious as the Times may think it is for Russians to promote a Facebook page about "adorable puppies," the absurdity of that concern – and the dishonesty of the Times then "forgetting" what it itself reported just two months ago about the timing and contents of these "Russian-linked ads" – tells you a great deal about Russia-gate.

On Thursday, the Times chose to distort what it already knew to be true presumably because it didn't want to make the $100,000 ad buy (which is not a particularly large sum) look even smaller and less significant by acknowledging the pre-election total was less than half that modest amount – and even that total had little to do with the election.

Why would the Times lie? Because to tell the truth would undercut the narrative of evil Russians defeating Hillary Clinton and putting Donald Trump in the White House – the core narrative of Russia-gate.

Another relevant fact is that Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches and only detected the $100,000 after a personal visit from Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator on Internet regulation.

In other words, Facebook's corporate executives dredged up something to appease Warner. That way, Warner and the Democrats could blame Russia for the Trump presidency, sparing further criticism of Clinton's dreadful campaign (in which she labeled half of Trump's voters "deplorables") and her neo-liberal economic policies (and neo-conservative foreign policies) that have alienated much of America's working class as well as many progressives.

Leaving Out Context

The Times also might have put the $100,000 in "Russian-linked" ads over a two-year period in the context of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue, but the Times didn't do that – apparently because it would make even the full $100,000 look like a pittance.

Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative.

Ironically, the Times' latest false depiction of the $100,000 in ads as designed "to influence" the 2016 election appeared in an article about Facebook determining that other Russian-linked ads, which supposedly had a powerful effect on Great Britain's Brexit vote, totaled just three ads at the cost of 97 cents. (That is not a misprint.)

According to Facebook, the three ads, which focused on immigration, were viewed some 200 times by Britons over four days in May 2016. Of course, the response from British parliamentarians who wanted to blame the Brexit vote on Moscow was to assert that Facebook must have missed something. It couldn't be that many Britons had lost faith in the promise of the European Union for their own reasons.

We have seen a similar pattern with allegations about Russian interference in German and French elections, with the initial accusations being widely touted but not so much the later conclusions by serious investigations knocking down the claims. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's " German Intel Clears Russia on Interference. "]

The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!"

These days in Official Washington, it has become almost forbidden to ask for actual evidence that would prove the original claim that Russia "hacked" Democratic emails, even though the accusation came from what President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged were "hand-picked" analysts from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.

These "hand-picked" analysts produced the evidence-lite Jan. 6 "assessment" about Russia "hacking" the emails and slipping them to WikiLeaks – a scenario denied by both WikiLeaks and Russia.

When that "assessment" was released almost a year ago, even the Times' Scott Shane noticed the lack of proof, writing : "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.'"

But the Times soon "forgot" what Shane had inconveniently noted and began reporting the Russian "hacking" as accepted wisdom.

The 17-Agencies Canard

Whenever scattered expressions of skepticism arose from a few analysts or non-mainstream media, the doubts were beaten back by the claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" concurred in the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered the hacking to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. And what kind of nut would doubt the collective judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies!

Though the 17-agency canard was never true, it served an important purpose in establishing the Russia-gate groupthink. Wielding the "all 17 intelligence agencies" club, the U.S. mainstream media pounded politicians and policymakers into line, making any remaining skeptics seem more out of step and crazy.

So, in May 2017, when Clapper (along with former CIA Director John Brennan) admitted in congressional testimony that it wasn't true that all 17 agencies concurred in the Russian hacking conclusion, those statements received very little attention in the mainstream media.

The New York Times among other major news outlets just continued asserting the 17-agency falsehood until the Times was finally pressured to correct its lie in late June , but that only led to the Times shifting to slightly different but still misleading wording, citing a "consensus" among the intelligence agencies without mentioning a number or by simply stating the unproven hacking claim as flat fact.

Even efforts to test the Russian-hack claims through science were ignored or ridiculed. When former NSA technical director William Binney conducted experiments that showed that the known download speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet but matched what was possible for a USB-connected thumb drive -- an indication that a Democratic insider likely downloaded the emails and thus that there was no "hack" -- Binney was mocked as a "conspiracy theorist."

Even with the new disclosures about deep-seated anti-Trump bias in text messages exchanged between two senior FBI officials who played important early roles in the Russia-gate investigation, there is no indication that Official Washington is willing to go back to the beginning and see how the Russia-gate story might have been deceptively spun.

In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for "an insurance policy" just in case he did. A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want to know what these senior FBI officials had in mind.

But the Times and other big promoters of Russia-gate continue to dismiss doubters as delusional or as covering up for Russia and/or Trump. By this point – more than a year into this investigation – too many Important People have bought into the Russia-gate narrative to consider the possibility that there may be little or nothing there, or even worse, that it is the "insurance policy" that Strzok envisioned.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

WC , December 15, 2017 at 3:39 pm

http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/taking-liberty/

Sally Snyder , December 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Here is an article that looks at how Google is proposing to "protect us" from all things Russian:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.lt/2017/11/how-google-manages-fake-news.html

George Orwell was right, he was just a few decades ahead of his time. Non-government actors in the United States, including Google, have learned an important lesson from the 2016 election and we can pretty much assure ourselves that the next election will see significant massaging when it comes to what we read and hear.

ranney , December 15, 2017 at 4:43 pm

Lately I've heard on PBS and other news shows that Russia "invaded Ukraine" and also attacked Crimea and essentially stole the island back to Russia. I forget the exact words used about Crimea but that was the gist. I have heard several times people on PBS using the the words Russia "invaded Ukraine" to describe what happened there. Like the N.Y.T. PBS is supposed to be the go to place for unbiased news and now they are blatantly lying to the public – and have been lying certainly as far back as 2014, if not before.

It's very discouraging to know that there are so few places where one can go to get actual facts. Consortium is one and, surprisingly RT is often another – at least RT tells us about stuff going on in other parts of the world that we never hear about in the MSM. Boy! talk about being an insular country! America is the most isolated country in the world when it comes to knowledge about other lands. We go on about how narcissistic Trump is, but the fact is that our whole government and our MSM is totally narcissistic and has been for quite a while – all we think about is us- and our government is willing to kill and lay waste anyone or any country that doesn't do exactly what we want, even when what we want is disasterous for not only other countries, but also disasterous for our own country. We are so narcissistic that we can't see it.

Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:09 pm

Well ranney, while I look at and read this site regularly, I gotta say that Trump is merely a doppelgänger for our country's collective psyche. This country is off the rails in every way possible. Yes, that includes those bad apples of the deep state AND compliant hamster citizens who vote and are currently scurrying about on the wheel of capitalism in pursuit of the Christmas Machine. All the hand wringing done on this web-site ain't gonna change any of it.

Mr. Parry would do everyone justice by taking his excellent skills and expanding his writing repertoire beyond Russia-gate. I'm seriously beginning to wonder what's up with him that he repeatedly beats the same old sorry drum- like the MSM- only on the opposite side. It's getting tiresome. How about proposing solutions to what ails us?

Sorry to ruin everyone's party.

Abe , December 15, 2017 at 4:46 pm

"major media outlets have made humiliating, breathtaking errors on the Trump-Russia story, always in the same direction, toward the same political goals. Here is just a sample of incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be corrected, walked back, or retracted -- often long after the initial false claims spread, and where the corrections receive only a tiny fraction of the attention with which the initial false stories are lavished:

– Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter (Wash Post)
– An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin agents (Wash Post)
– WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
– A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
– RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
– Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
– Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets, echoing Homeland Security)
– Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment fund under investigation (CNN) [ ]

"But what it means most of all is that when media outlets are responsible for such grave and consequential errors as the spectacle we witnessed yesterday, they have to take responsibility for it by offering transparency and accountability. In this case, that can't mean hiding behind P.R. and lawyer silence and waiting for this to just all blow away.

"At minimum, these networks -- CNN, MSNBC, and CBS -- have to either identify who purposely fed them this blatantly false information or explain how it's possible that 'multiple sources' all got the same information wrong in innocence and good faith. Until they do that, their cries and protests the next time they're attacked as 'Fake News' should fall on deaf ears, since the real author of those attacks -- the reason those attacks resonate -- is themselves and their own conduct."

The U.S. Media Suffered Its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages and Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened
By Glenn Greenwald
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

JOHN L. OPPERMAN , December 15, 2017 at 4:49 pm

Hilary gave it away, as the (anti-democratic)"Democratic Party" gave it all away and has been doing it for decades.
Whereas the right has wisely (for it's purposes) built long term infrastructure of funded think tanks, media, fundamentalist ideologists, etc; the Democratic Establishment has dumped on it's base at practically ever turn, never really showing actual support for it's public community, and has joined with the right to destroy all attempt to build an actual peoples' political party.
I just turned 84 and have witnessed the ever-growing weakness and right-leaning of the Party" since I was a little kid and have seen it only become more disgustingly lame and disingenuous in all these years since, with extended travel, 20-year military service and work around the world, in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
And we are largely to blame, being humans and Americans, we sit back-busy with our lives, and neglect our responsibilities to our fellow man and community.
Get up off your ass, guys

JOHN L. OPPERMAN , December 15, 2017 at 4:53 pm

I must add, the so-called Party has quite consistently ACTIVELY fought against labor, consumers, t's own loyal public.

Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 5:10 pm

Among the many great comments posted here I find in your resume Mr Opperman a ton of experienced words worth listening too. In fact, it is people such as yourself that I feel our younger generation should be learning from. Your traveling, and working for the government has given you an insight that many of us do not have, nor will get since we are all not like you John. So keep posting, and tell us what you think America should do next, as we go forward. Thank you for your remarks, they are respected for what you have earned. Joe

Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:11 pm

Thanks for this post John.

Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 4:52 pm

In the end, this whole RussiaGate scandal may actually have a positive impact if it can be proven that it was a conspiracy cooked up by the "Deep State" as insurance in case of a Trump victory. If this is proven and actually becomes common knowledge, people like Brennan and Clapper, and their MSM mouthpieces, will never be trusted again. Though heads didn't roll after the exposure of the "weapons of mass destruction" lie, this one might tip the balance. Their argument that the "intelligence was mistaken" won't fly, as RussiaGate is so obviously a purposely constructed lie. It would be even greater if this led to a counter-investigation where all the perps were exposed and publicly prosecuted, and the Intelligence Agencies were "broken into 1000 pieces." Maybe while they were at it, they could get around to auditing the Pentagon. I like to dream big.

My hope is that websites like this one can continue to build an audience and speak truth to power now that net neutrality appears dead.

Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:59 pm

Funny how the NYT will try and make hay with a collection of various Russian disjointed ads on Facebook with an investment of $44,000.xx out weights the 4.9 billion dollars worth of free media coverage the MSM gave Trump through the whole 2016 presidential campaign, and nobody thinks nothing of it. If there was any type of collusion to help Trump win the White House then why not question this free media give away?

As a side note, should we investigate Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn for colluding with Israel?

Senator Mark Warner plays the part of the inquisitor well, and for that reason he has loss my respect, if he ever had it to begin with. Enough of covering up for Hillary's guilt complex to why she loss the election. Someone should just tell her, that even though she has done everything there is in her power to take Putin out of power, that her presidential loss is all on her. Putin didn't need to interfere, since by Hillary just being Hillary was enough to keep her out of reach of the Oval Office.

I hope that in the coming year, that by some stroke of luck, that William Binney will get the praise he deserves. We need more people like Binney working in our government, and without him we all are left vulnerable to the many who don't represent our citizen values. I thought the MSM's treatment of William Binney was disgraceful, to say the least.

Lastly, I would only hope that whoever it was that started this Russia-Gate nonsense would be revealed, but hope doesn't prosecute anyone, but knowledge at least allows you too see who and what is behind the curtain.

Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:46 pm

" a collection of various Russian disjointed ads on Facebook with an investment of $44,000.xx .."

Yes , it was amazing that Russia was able to control our election so cheaply , but really , that was nothing. They swung the UK Brexit vote with Facebook ads costing them only 97 cents ! :

http://russia-insider.com/en/brilliant-russians-engineered-brexit-97-cents-facebook-ads/ri21937

mike k , December 15, 2017 at 5:34 pm

This whole Russiagate fraud could serve to awake a lot of Americans, if they would only look into it. You are not going to find a more blatant example of fake news by every major media, and also those supposedly upstanding Senators and Representatives, FBI and Justice Icons. If the public ignores opportunities to wake up to this outrageous scam being perpetrated on them now, there is little hope that they ever will. I try to get my friends interested in researching Russiagate, and a few of them have become curious and started asking questions – that's how awakening begins .

Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm

Agreed. It's important to have just one or a few topics at most that you can suggest to your uninformed friends as being worthy of their own time to research , with the ultimate goal of " waking up ". Russia-gate is perfect. The Syrian War is another good one.

Pablo Diablo , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm

Also, a convenient excuse to discredit the "Special Counsel" Mueller investigation. "Witch hunt", "Fake News", which will come in handy if any real crimes are exposed. Reminds me of one criminal mob taking over territory from the current bunch of criminals.
Sad to see. The definition of "government" is that it represents "the people". Yet, I wonder if any government on Earth does represent "the people".

Brendan , December 15, 2017 at 6:02 pm

In spite of all the blatant lies that it publishes, the New York Times is still highly regarded by the political and media establishment, even in Europe.

In Hamburg on 3 December 2017, the NYT was awarded the Marion Dönhoff Prize for International Understanding and Reconciliation. In his presentation speech, the German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier described the NYT as an authority of enlightenment and a beacon of reason.

Steinmeier even managed to sneak in some fake news when he said "We are paying tribute to a flagship of freedom of the press in an age in which independent newspapers are branded as foreign agents in Russia".
http://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Reden/EN/Frank-Walter-Steinmeier/Reden/2017/12/171203-Doenhoff-Prize.html

In fact, none of the media outlets that were recently declared foreign agents by Moscow is either independent or a newspaper. That list consists only of the US government financed VOA and RFE/RL and a number of websites and broadcasters that VOA and RFE/RL control.

Apart from that, the Russian "foreign agents" list is just a direct retaliation against Washington for doing exactly the same thing to RT and Sputnik, who were forced to register as foreign agents. Apparently the "freedom of the press" isn't so important when it applies to Russian media organisations working in the USA.

[Dec 15, 2017] Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it masks their corruption and their collusion with Israel

Notable quotes:
"... Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it side-steps their collusion with Israel. It serves the Republicans less because of collusion with corporations in the effort to destroy democracy and the social programs of the New Deal, and Russia is in on it. What is the purpose of all this collusion? It's to bring Iran, North Korea, and Cuba into the New World Order. ..."
"... Washington Post today, in another story relying solely on anonymous sources, breathlessly states: "Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House. The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president -- and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality -- have impaired the government's response to a national security threat." Objective reality? ..."
"... The "Red Herring" is a major distraction to what is fundamentally a very corrupted election process from within and non-action by both parties to pursue fair, transparent "un-rigged" elections, taking the money out of the elections, getting rid of the electoral college, ranked voting and more. ..."
"... "Israel's collusion with the Trump presidential transition team points to more than just Trump, Kushner, and Flynn violating the Logan Act of 1799, an arcane law prohibiting American citizens from engaging in their own foreign policies. By convincing Trump, Kushner, and Flynn that Obama was behind Resolution 2443, Israel co-opted the Trump transition team to do its bidding. The Logan Act is immaterial when Trump, Kushner, Flynn, and others committed virtual treason against their own country to further the political aims of Israel. ..."
"... "The phoniest aspect of so-called 'Russiagate' is that the political scandal involving Trump, Kushner, Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and others hardly involves the Russian government. Instead, Eastern European-Israeli oligarchs, along with their thousands of offshore shell corporations located in places as far-ranging as the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Jersey to the Marshall Islands and Seychelles, along with well-placed American agents-of-influence for Israel, are front-and-center in the scandal that now threatens to bring down the Trump administration." ..."
"... Mueller Names Trump's Foreign 'Colluding' Power: Israel By Wayne Madsen ..."
"... Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false accusation – without the slightest proof, of course. ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Gregory Kruse , December 14, 2017 at 1:48 pm

Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it side-steps their collusion with Israel. It serves the Republicans less because of collusion with corporations in the effort to destroy democracy and the social programs of the New Deal, and Russia is in on it. What is the purpose of all this collusion? It's to bring Iran, North Korea, and Cuba into the New World Order.

China and Russia are only nominal adversaries in the world economy. They also want to impoverish the majority of the world's population even at the cost of enriching some individuals to the point of becoming gods. In a sense, this is what liberals have wanted, to level the field that the poor people of the world exist on.

jaycee , December 14, 2017 at 2:26 pm

Washington Post today, in another story relying solely on anonymous sources, breathlessly states: "Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House. The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president -- and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality -- have impaired the government's response to a national security threat." Objective reality?

Colleen O'Brien , December 14, 2017 at 2:30 pm

All the layers of deceit, denial and distraction bode ill for the Democratic Party and MSM. Thank you Robert Parry for standing up to all this disinformation & propaganda. The "Red Herring" is a major distraction to what is fundamentally a very corrupted election process from within and non-action by both parties to pursue fair, transparent "un-rigged" elections, taking the money out of the elections, getting rid of the electoral college, ranked voting and more.

Reforming our election process is the most important issue because what we have now and what came before is because of the money which owns the politicians and who no longer represent the American People! Nothing will change until we fix this!

Abe , December 14, 2017 at 4:32 pm

"Israel's collusion with the Trump presidential transition team points to more than just Trump, Kushner, and Flynn violating the Logan Act of 1799, an arcane law prohibiting American citizens from engaging in their own foreign policies. By convincing Trump, Kushner, and Flynn that Obama was behind Resolution 2443, Israel co-opted the Trump transition team to do its bidding. The Logan Act is immaterial when Trump, Kushner, Flynn, and others committed virtual treason against their own country to further the political aims of Israel.

"There has never been a successful prosecution under the Logan Act and likely there will never be one. However, those who possessed access to classified information – Trump, Kushner, Flynn, Haley, and others – who were simultaneously taking orders from Israel on matters of US national security, could be found guilty of violating the US Espionage Act. Israel's 'Greek Chorus' of supporters in the US news media and Congress brought up the Logan Act to minimize the damage caused by collusion between Israel's skink-like ambassador to the UN Danny Danon, Netanyahu, Kushner, Flynn, Trump, and Haley to kill the resolution. If the Logan Act had any enforcement teeth, it would have been used a long time ago to indict George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, Paul Singer, and other pro-Israeli billionaire influence-peddlers, who represent the interests of other nations and engage in their own foreign policies.

"The phoniest aspect of so-called 'Russiagate' is that the political scandal involving Trump, Kushner, Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and others hardly involves the Russian government. Instead, Eastern European-Israeli oligarchs, along with their thousands of offshore shell corporations located in places as far-ranging as the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Jersey to the Marshall Islands and Seychelles, along with well-placed American agents-of-influence for Israel, are front-and-center in the scandal that now threatens to bring down the Trump administration."

Mueller Names Trump's Foreign 'Colluding' Power: Israel By Wayne Madsen https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/04/mueller-names-trump-foreign-colluding-power-israel.html

mike k , December 14, 2017 at 4:51 pm

Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false accusation – without the slightest proof, of course.

Mild -ly - Facetious , December 14, 2017 at 5:29 pm

... The new Reunion of Ismael and Issac

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/13/trump-netanyahu-mohammad-bin-salman-destroyers-neoliberal-world-order.html

Mild -ly - Facetious , December 14, 2017 at 7:16 pm

To whom it may concern: Forgive me, this isn't meant to be Hasbara .

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/11/30/us-foreign-policy-another-trump-organization-inc-property.html

[Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next?

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections. ..."
"... What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel? ..."
"... The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played. ..."
"... In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars. ..."
"... True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated. ..."
"... Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces. ..."
"... Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us". ..."
"... If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing. ..."
"... It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation. ..."
"... The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ... ..."
"... Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community. ..."
"... Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests. ..."
"... Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders. ..."
"... the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official ..."
"... "The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems" ..."
"... It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome? ..."
"... So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's. ..."
"... You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on ..."
"... Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts. ..."
"... If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ..."
"... Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence. ..."
"... Clinton lied under oath ..."
"... The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office... ..."
"... Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive? ..."
"... The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese? ..."
"... The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. ..."
"... And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics. ..."
"... In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it. ..."
"... All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election. ..."
"... So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere ..."
"... Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference. ..."
"... America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works. ..."
"... The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that ..."
"... Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat. ..."
Dec 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

polpont , 4 Dec 2017 08:32

Mueller will have to thread very carefully because he is maneuvering on a very politically charged terrain. And one cannot refrain from comparing the current situation with the many free passes the democrats were handed over by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the media which make the US look like a banana republic.

The mind blowing fact that Clinton sat with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport "to chit-chat" and not to discuss the investigation on Clinton's very wife that was being overseen by the same AG, leaves one flabbergasted.

And the fact that Comey essentially said that Clinton's behaviour, tantamount in his own words to extreme recklessness, did not warrant prosecution was just inconceivable.

Don't forget that Trump has nearly 50 M gun-toting followers on Tweeter and that he would not hesitate to appeal to them were he to feel threatened by what he could conceive as a judicial Coup d'Etat. The respect for the institutions in the USA has never been so low.

ID1456161 -> Canadiman , 4 Dec 2017 08:30

...a judge would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial.

Actually, in the U.S. a grand jury would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant formal charges leading to a trial. There is also the possibility that Mueller has uncovered both Federal and NY State offenses, so charges could be brought against Kushner at either level. Mueller has been sharing information from his investigation with the NY Attorney General's Office. Trump could pardon a federal offense, but has no jurisdiction to pardon charges brought against Kushner by the State of NY.

Anna Bramwell -> etrang , 4 Dec 2017 08:28
I watched RT for 24 months before the US election. They favoured Bernie Saunders strongly before he lost to Hilary. Then they ran hustings for the smaller US parties, eg Greens, and the Libertarians , which could definitely be seen as an interference in the US election, but which as far as I know, was never mentioned in the US. They were anti Hilary but not pro Trump. And indeed, their strong anti capitalist bias would have made such support unlikely.
EduardStreltsovGhost -> JonShone , 4 Dec 2017 08:28
What's he lying about? More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections.

Obama and Hillary met hundreds of foreign officials. Were they colluding as well?

pretzelattack -> Atticus_Finch , 4 Dec 2017 08:28
What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel?
oddballs -> Taf1980uk , 4 Dec 2017 08:26
The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played.
Krautolivier , 4 Dec 2017 08:21
In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars.
It's all too funny.
zerohoursuni -> damientrollope , 4 Dec 2017 08:19
True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated.

Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces.

Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us".

cookcounty , 4 Dec 2017 08:15
I missed Jill Abramson's column about all the meetings the Obama administration held -- quite openly -- with foreign governments during the transition period between his election and his first inauguration.

But since she's been demonstrably and laughably wrong about predicting future political events in the USA (see her entire body of work during the 2016 election campaign), why should she start making sense now?

It's completely possible, of course, that some as-yet-to-be-revealed piece of evidence will prove collusion -- before the election and by candidate Trump -- with the Russians. But the Flynn testimony certainly isn't it. All the heavy breathing and hysteria is simply a sign of how the media, yet again, always gravitates toward the news it wishes were true, rather than what really is true. If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing.

themandibleclaw -> SteveMilesworthy , 4 Dec 2017 08:12
Flynn was charged with far more serious crimes which were all dropped and he was left with a charge that if he spends any time in prison, it will be about 6 months. Now, you could say for him to agree to that, he must have some juicy info - and he probably does - but what that juicy info is is just speculation. And if we are speculating, then maybe what he traded it for was nothing to do with Trump? After all, one of the charges against him was failing to register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey.

It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation.

WallyWillage , 4 Dec 2017 08:05
Still no evidence of Russian collusion in Trump campaign BEFORE the election...... whatever happened after being president elect is not impeachable unless it would be after taking office.

The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ...

EduardStreltsovGhost -> CitizenOfTinyBlue , 4 Dec 2017 08:03

You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression

if that were the case, Clinton, Bush and Obama would be sitting in jail right now.
oddballs -> Taf1980uk , 4 Dec 2017 07:58
Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community.

Trumps presidency could have the capability of galvanising a powerful resistance against the 2 party state for 'real change, like affordable healthcare and affordable education for ALL its people. But no its not happening, Trump is attacked on probables and undisclosed sources. A year has passed and nothing has been revealed.

Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests.

Well their not, their only function is, is to spend tax dollars that otherwise would be spent on education, health, infrastructure, things that would 'really' benefit America. Disagree, well go ahead and accuse me of being a conspiracy nut-job, in the meantime China is by peaceful means getting the mining rights in Africa, Australia, deals that matter.

The tax legislation for the few against the many is deflected by the anti-Trump hysteria based on conjecture and not proof.

EduardStreltsovGhost , 4 Dec 2017 07:52
Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders.
RelaxAndChill -> Silgen , 4 Dec 2017 07:46
Crimea was and is Russian. Your mask is slipping, Vlad .

Your ignorance is showing. I have no connection to Russia what so ever. Crimea was legally ceded to Russia over 200 years ago, by the Ottomans to Catherine the Great. Russia has never relinquished control. What the criminal organization the USSR did under Ukrainian expat Khrushchev, is irrelevant. And as Putin said , any agreement about respecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was negated when the USA and the EU fomented and financed a rebellion and revolution.

StillAbstractImp , 4 Dec 2017 07:40
Decelerating Fascism - Is Kushner a Putin operative, too?
mikedow -> Karantino , 4 Dec 2017 07:35
Australia, Canada, and S. Africa supply the lion's share of gold bullion that London survives on. And the best uranium in the world. All sorts of other precious commodities as well. If you're not toeing the line on US foreign policies religiously, the Yanks will drop you.
themandibleclaw -> Toastface_Killah , 4 Dec 2017 07:34

You are selectively choosing to refer to this one instance, but even here Obama administration were still in charge - so not very legal, was it.

I am "selectively choosing to refer to this one instance" because that's all Flynn has been charged with. Oh, and it is totally legal for a member of the incoming administration to start talks with their foreign counterparts. Here's a quote from an op-ed piece in The Hill from a law professor at Washington University.

the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official .

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/362813-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-flynn-indictment

backstop -> EdwardFatherby , 4 Dec 2017 07:31
"The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems"

It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome?

BustedBoom , 4 Dec 2017 07:31

He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council.

So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's.
CitizenOfTinyBlue , 4 Dec 2017 07:26
You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on

Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts.

Oh, and I have to be supporter of Putin's oligarchy with dreams of great tsars of Russia, if I care about humans survival on this planet and have very bad opinion about suicidal fools playing this stupid games.

ConCaruthers , 4 Dec 2017 07:25
If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
moonsphere -> Hydro , 4 Dec 2017 07:24
Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence.
etrang -> CraftyRabbi , 4 Dec 2017 07:14

Mueller could charge/indict Kushner or Trump Jr under New York state criminal statutes

But not for crimes relating to federal elections or conspiring with Russia.

John Edwin -> OlivesNightie , 4 Dec 2017 07:13
Clinton lied under oath
John Edwin -> SoAmerican , 4 Dec 2017 07:11
The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office...
emiliofloris -> Sowester , 4 Dec 2017 07:08

I am not sure any level of scandal will make much difference to Trump or his supporters. They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact.

So far the level of scandal is below that of Whitewater/Lewinsky, and that was a very low level indeed. What "evidence of wrongdoing" is there? Nothing, that's why they charged Flynn with lying to investigators. It's important to keep in mind that the he did nor lie about actual crimes. Perhaps that's going to change as the investigation proceeds, but so far this is nothing more than a partisan lawfare fishing expedition.

Billsykesdoggy -> reinhardpolley , 4 Dec 2017 06:55
<blockquoteSpecifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.>

So Trump authorized Obama's talks with Macron last week?

Don't think so.

braciole -> Karantino , 4 Dec 2017 06:55

Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the US.

And your evidence for this is what exactly? As for countries trying to influence elections in other countries, I'm all for it particularly when one of the candidates is murderous, arrogant and stupid.

BTW, in Honduras after supporting a coup against the democratically-elected president because he sought a referendum on allowing presidents to serve two terms, you'd think the United States would interfere when his non-democratically-elected replacement used a "packed" supreme court to change the constitution to allow presidents to serve more than one term to at least stop him stealing an election as he is now doing/has done. But they didn't and that hasn't stopped the United States whining that Evo Morales is being undemocratic by trying to extend the number of terms he can serve.

emiliofloris -> Karantino , 4 Dec 2017 06:53

Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the US.

Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive?

The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese?

technotherapy , 4 Dec 2017 06:46
The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council.

And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics.

themandibleclaw -> Simon Denham , 4 Dec 2017 06:44

Can someone please actually tell us what Flynn/Jared/Trump is supposed to have done.

In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it.

moonsphere -> SoAmerican , 4 Dec 2017 06:44
These days "US influence" seems to consist of bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the bronze age for reasons that defy easy logic. Anything that reduces that kind of influence would be welcome.
reinhardpolley -> Simon Denham , 4 Dec 2017 06:33
The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act
themandibleclaw , 4 Dec 2017 06:22
All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election.

So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere.

damientrollope , 4 Dec 2017 06:15
Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference.

But now this Russian debacle, and at last they've woken up, because another country had the temerity to turn the tables on them. And I think if this was Bush or Obama we would never have heard a thing about it. Everybody hates the Dotard, because he's an obese dick with an IQ to match.

Boojay , 4 Dec 2017 06:15
Nothing will happen to Trump, It's all bollocks. You've all watched too many Spielberg films, bad guys win, and they win most of the time.
Trump is the real face of America, America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works.
formerathlete -> vacantspace , 4 Dec 2017 06:15

when American presidents were rational, well balanced with progressive views we had.... decent American healthcare? Equality of opportunity? Gun laws that made it safe to walk the streets?

Say who, what an a where now????????? Since when has the US EVER had any of the three things that you mentioned???

If ever, then it was a loooooong time before the pilgrim fathers ever landed.

Hugh Mad -> JonShone , 4 Dec 2017 06:10

The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.

That is the bottom line, yes. People view the world through west = good and Russia = bad, while both make economic and political decisions that serve the interests of their people respectively. Ultimately, I think people are scared that the West's monopoly on global influence is slipping, to as you said, a rival.

JonShone -> Hugh Mad , 4 Dec 2017 06:06
You are right that calling Russia the US enemy needs justification, but these threads often deteriorate into arguments of the yes it is/no it isn't variety.

Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat.

It's certain that their ideals and goals run counter to those generally held in the US in many ways. But let's not forget that the US' ideals are often, if not generally, divergent from their interests and US foreign policy since 1945 has been responsible for countless deaths, perhaps more than Russia's.

The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.

RelaxAndChill , 4 Dec 2017 05:59
All the signs in the Russia probe point to ..

How the liberals and the Democrats don't give a damm about the USA or the world's political scene, just some endless 'sore loser' witch hunt. So much could be achieved by the improving of relations with Russia. Crimea was and is Russian. Let Trump have a go as POTUS and then judge him. He wants to befriend Putin and if done it would help solve Syrian, Nth Korean and other global problems.

variation31 -> Sowester , 4 Dec 2017 05:50

They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact

Whereas if it's a Democrat in the spotlight, these same dipshits see it as an élitist cover-up and no lack of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact. If anything, lack of evidence is evidence of cover-up which is therefore proof of evidence.

These cynical games they play with veracity and human honesty are a very pure form of evil.

[Dec 13, 2017] The U.S. Media Suffered Its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages by Glenn Greenwald

Notable quotes:
"... publicly available ..."
"... Greenwald's lamenting of the US media's lack of transparency and accountability is touchingly high-minded, but it is also naive. These people are not in the business of informing their viewers; they are in the business of delivering their viewers to a preestablished agenda set by powerful and wealthy people. Until Mr. Greenwald understands this, he will continue to feel disappointment and dissonance. ..."
"... The massive deception operation that goes by the name of "US media" will continue so long as the audience tolerates it, which is probably indefinitely. Over and over again, I have showed members of that audience that they are being lied to. Their reaction is always the same: anger with me for discomforting them. The audience does not watch the US media in order to be informed, they watch the media in order to be comforted, and the media know this and exploit this. This show will run for a long, long time. ..."
"... Well put. Lying is not a special occasion for the US media. It's an everyday occurrence, whereas telling the truth is quite rare. As a person who was born and grew up in Ukraine and has lots of relatives and acquaintances all over that disintegrating country, I can testify that 80% of the reports in the US media about Ukraine since 2014 were blatant lies, whereas in the remaining 20% truth was twisted beyond recognition. ..."
"... There is a minute of breaking news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then what news is up next for 2 minutes. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. ..."
Dec 09, 2017 | www.unz.com

FRIDAY WAS ONE of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN, with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation's largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened.

The spectacle began on Friday morning at 11 a.m. EST, when the Most Trusted Name in News™ spent 12 straight minutes on air flamboyantly hyping an exclusive bombshell report that seemed to prove that WikiLeaks, last September, had secretly offered the Trump campaign, even Donald Trump himself, special access to the DNC emails before they were published on the internet. As CNN sees the world, this would prove collusion between the Trump family and WikiLeaks and, more importantly, between Trump and Russia, since the U.S. intelligence community regards WikiLeaks as an "arm of Russian intelligence," and therefore , so does the U.S. media.

This entire revelation was based on an email which CNN strongly implied it had exclusively obtained and had in its possession. The email was sent by someone named "Michael J. Erickson" -- someone nobody had heard of previously and whom CNN could not identify -- to Donald Trump, Jr., offering a decryption key and access to DNC emails that WikiLeaks had "uploaded." The email was a smoking gun, in CNN's extremely excited mind, because it was dated September 4 -- 10 days before WikiLeaks began promoting access to those emails online -- and thus proved that the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.

It's impossible to convey with words what a spectacularly devastating scoop CNN believed it had, so it's necessary to watch it for yourself to see the tone of excitement, breathlessness and gravity the network conveyed as they clearly believed they were delivering a near-fatal blow on the Trump/Russia collusion story:

There was just one small problem with this story: it was fundamentally false, in the most embarrassing way possible. Hours after CNN broadcast its story -- and then hyped it over and over and over -- the Washington Post reported that CNN got the key fact of the story wrong.

The email was not dated September 4, as CNN claimed, but rather September 14 -- which means it was sent after WikiLeaks had already published access to the DNC emails online. Thus, rather than offering some sort of special access to Trump, "Michael J. Erickson" was simply some random person from the public encouraging the Trump family to look at the publicly available DNC emails that WikiLeaks -- as everyone by then already knew -- had publicly promoted . In other words, the email was the exact opposite of what CNN presented it as being.

Read the Entire Article at The Intercept

Jim Christian , December 11, 2017 at 12:57 pm GMT

The real cartoon network if you ask me. Once people blow it, their public character becomes that of a cartoon character. Franken, Conyers, Hillary, Weinstein and the Weiners. Why is CNN and liberal media exempt? Oh. They aren't.
Almost Missouri , December 11, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT
Kudos to Greenwald for calling the US media out on this occasion, but in reality the US media humiliates itself weekly, if not daily, if not hourly, with its false reports, poorly concealed agenda and generally propagandistic approach to everything.

Greenwald's lamenting of the US media's lack of transparency and accountability is touchingly high-minded, but it is also naive. These people are not in the business of informing their viewers; they are in the business of delivering their viewers to a preestablished agenda set by powerful and wealthy people. Until Mr. Greenwald understands this, he will continue to feel disappointment and dissonance.

The massive deception operation that goes by the name of "US media" will continue so long as the audience tolerates it, which is probably indefinitely. Over and over again, I have showed members of that audience that they are being lied to. Their reaction is always the same: anger with me for discomforting them. The audience does not watch the US media in order to be informed, they watch the media in order to be comforted, and the media know this and exploit this. This show will run for a long, long time.

anonymous , • Disclaimer December 11, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT
@Almost Missouri

Yes. Most of our fellows are willfully ignorant cowards. I also believe that many cope by turning on Confederate statues, getting worked up over bathrooms, etc.

Svigor , December 11, 2017 at 4:01 pm GMT
Missouri, how the fuck anyone finds Big Media comforting is beyond me. Their contempt for America and Americans isn't hard to suss out.
Anon , • Disclaimer December 12, 2017 at 1:31 am GMT
@Almost Missouri

Well put. Lying is not a special occasion for the US media. It's an everyday occurrence, whereas telling the truth is quite rare. As a person who was born and grew up in Ukraine and has lots of relatives and acquaintances all over that disintegrating country, I can testify that 80% of the reports in the US media about Ukraine since 2014 were blatant lies, whereas in the remaining 20% truth was twisted beyond recognition.

anarchyst , December 12, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT
The mainstream media has always been dishonest...

... ... ...

The media has become a "fifth column" of the government and is not to be trusted.

To our advantage, we now have the internet, which gives the ability for ordinary citizens to be real "journalists", quite often getting and reporting the story TRUTHFULLY before the mainstream media.

In fact, there are calls by "mainstream media" to "license" journalists, in an attempt to keep these "citizen journalists" out twenty years ago, any journalist suggesting such a scheme would have been thrown out, but nowadays

Alden , December 12, 2017 at 10:32 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman

But do they really watch the TV? The news shows are terrible for getting a coherent message across.

There is a minute of breaking news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then what news is up next for 2 minutes. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news.

In an hour of a news show its probably 15 minutes, broken into 1 minute segments of actual news. The rest is just flashing lights and ads and what news will be next. Except for PBS and NPR of course which are just liberal propaganda. Democracy Now, Charlie Rose, Travis Smiley have fewer ads, but who can listen to them or look at them? I'd like to smash Charley Rose' sanctimonious face. And Amy Goodman, why women shouldn't be allowed to vote or hold elected or appointed office.

It's so chopped up with ads and what's up next I don't see how anyone could have the patience to sit through it and figure out what they are blathering about.

Some White Guy , December 13, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT
I'm sure everyone at CNN has completely forgotten about it by now.
jacques sheete , December 13, 2017 at 11:53 pm GMT
@Alden

It's so chopped up with ads and what's up next I don't see how anyone could have the patience to sit through it and figure out what they are blathering about.

I agree but I'm not sure it would take patience so much as total lack of self respect as well as a hopeless amount of gullibility.

Speaking of ads

for I knew nothing of the facts. I read no newspaper now but Ritchie's, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for they contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to To Nathaniel Macon
Monticello, January 12, 1819

[Dec 12, 2017] Bad Moon Rising, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review

Highly recommended!
neocons == Hillary Clinton Democrats
Notable quotes:
"... At the time, I agreed, but I did note that the neoconservatives have proven to be remarkable resilient, particularly as many of them have remained true to their Democratic Party values on nearly everything but foreign policy, where they are irredeemable hawks, hostile to Russia and Iran and always reliably in the corner of Israel. In short, many neocons can be unmasked as Hillary Clinton Democrats if one looks at them issue by issue, which certainly helps to explain some subsequent developments. ..."
"... Multiple sources are predicting Tillerson out and Mike Pompeo in at State Department with Pompeo replaced at CIA by Senator Tom Cotton. The White House is denying the story, calling it "fake news," but it is clear that Trump is uncomfortable with the current arrangement and Tillerson will be gone sooner or later. ..."
"... Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State replaces a somewhat bumbling businessman adept at dealing in energy futures contracts who has been struggling with reducing State's enormously bloated payroll. Pompeo, a real hard-nosed political hardliner who tends to see complex issues in fairly simplistic ways, has become a presidential confidant, briefing Trump frequently on the state of the world, most recently pushing for the horrific decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. ..."
"... Pompeo would like to turn the United States into an unleashed wrecking ball directed against the enemies of the American Way and he appears intent on starting that process in the Middle East. ..."
"... And Pompeo will be replaced as CIA Director by Tom Cotton. The less said about Tom the better, but I will attempt to summarize in 8 words here: Tom is completely owned by the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... I do not wish to imply that Cotton and Pompeo are somehow stupid, but they do tend to see the world in a very monochromatic fashion, just like their boss. Pompeo was first in his class at West Point and Cotton graduated from Harvard as an undergrad and also from the Law School ..."
"... Haley really is stupid. And ambitious. And is also owned by the Israel Lobby, which appears to be a thread that runs its way through all the Trump foreign policy appointees. ..."
"... Neocon watchers will undoubtedly note that big names like Brill Kristol, the Kagans, Michael Chertoff and Max Boot will not be showing up in government. True, but that is because they will instead be working through their foundations, of which FDD is only one. The Alliance for Securing Democracy, which has recently sprung up in lobby-land, markets itself as "bipartisan, and transatlantic " but it actually is pure neocon. ..."
"... The replacement of former political appointees in the government has been so slow in Trump's first year that it has actually benefited the neocons in their recovery. Many survivors of the two previous administrations are still in place, nearly all of whom reflect the hawkishness prevalent during 2001-2016. They will be supplemented by second and third tier neoconservatives, who will fill in the policy gaps, virtually guaranteeing that the neocon crafted foreign policy that has been around for the past sixteen years will be here for some time longer. ..."
Dec 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

Back during the admittedly brief shock and awe period that immediately followed on the Trump electoral victory, it appeared that there might be an actual realignment of American foreign policy. The neoconservatives virtually unanimously had opposed Donald Trump in the most vile terms, both in the GOP primaries and during the actual electoral campaign, making clear that Hillary was their choice for a future full of unrelenting, ideologically driven warfare to convert the world to democracy. By that metric, one would assume that Trump would prefer to be roasted on a spit rather than have neocons on his national security team, and many in the punditry did agree with that analysis and went on to share that view.

At the time, I agreed, but I did note that the neoconservatives have proven to be remarkable resilient, particularly as many of them have remained true to their Democratic Party values on nearly everything but foreign policy, where they are irredeemable hawks, hostile to Russia and Iran and always reliably in the corner of Israel. In short, many neocons can be unmasked as Hillary Clinton Democrats if one looks at them issue by issue, which certainly helps to explain some subsequent developments.

Some Washington observers who actually care about such things have been writing how there has been a kumbaya process going on between self-described conservative neocons and liberal interventionists. Katrina vanden Heuvel describes the progressive hawks as "the essential-country crowd," borrowing a phrase from ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

There are inevitably minor disconnects between the two groups based on their motives for aggression – Democrats claim to do it to bring democracy and freedom while Republicans say they do it to enhance national security. Both are lying in any event as it all comes down to great power rivalries, with big powerful nations pushing smaller weaker nations around because they are able to get away with it and feel more comfortable if everyone lines up behind them.

So everyone in Washington and New York's financial services industry agrees that a more assertive America is a better America even when the reality is that no one winds up with either democracy or security. Which brings us to the latest shuffle in the Donald Trump cabinet and what it is likely to mean down the road. Multiple sources are predicting Tillerson out and Mike Pompeo in at State Department with Pompeo replaced at CIA by Senator Tom Cotton. The White House is denying the story, calling it "fake news," but it is clear that Trump is uncomfortable with the current arrangement and Tillerson will be gone sooner or later.

Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State replaces a somewhat bumbling businessman adept at dealing in energy futures contracts who has been struggling with reducing State's enormously bloated payroll. Pompeo, a real hard-nosed political hardliner who tends to see complex issues in fairly simplistic ways, has become a presidential confidant, briefing Trump frequently on the state of the world, most recently pushing for the horrific decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In a recent speech , Pompeo criticized the CIA, observing that it had both forgotten how to spy, which is almost certainly true, while adding that it will have to become "more vicious" to accomplish its mission of making the United States "safe." Pompeo would like to turn the United States into an unleashed wrecking ball directed against the enemies of the American Way and he appears intent on starting that process in the Middle East.

And Pompeo will be replaced as CIA Director by Tom Cotton. The less said about Tom the better, but I will attempt to summarize in 8 words here: Tom is completely owned by the Israel Lobby. In his 2014 election as junior Senator from Arkansas, he received $1 million from the Emergency Committee for Israel headed by Bill Kristol as well as additional assistance from the Republican Jewish Coalition. In March 2015, Tom paid those supporters back when 47 Republican United States Senators signed a letter allegedly written by him that was then sent to the Iranian government directly, warning that any agreement over that country's nuclear program reached with President Barack Obama would likely be overturned by the Congress. The letter, which undercuts the authority of the American president before an international audience, was signed by the entire Republican Party leadership in the Senate and also included then presidential contenders Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

I do not wish to imply that Cotton and Pompeo are somehow stupid, but they do tend to see the world in a very monochromatic fashion, just like their boss. Pompeo was first in his class at West Point and Cotton graduated from Harvard as an undergrad and also from the Law School . Trump claims to be the smartest person in the room no matter where he is standing. But for all the academic credentials and other posturing, it is hard to imagine how the new choices could possibly be worse from a common-sense perspective unless one includes Nikki Haley, who is, fortunately, otherwise engaged. Haley really is stupid. And ambitious. And is also owned by the Israel Lobby, which appears to be a thread that runs its way through all the Trump foreign policy appointees.

What is wrong about the whole Trump team is that they all seem to believe that you can go around the world kicking the shit out of everyone without there being any consequences. And they all hate Iran for reasons that continue to be obscure but may be connected to their relationships with – you guessed it – the neoconservatives and the Israeli Lobby!

Yes, the neocons are back. I noted back in October that when Pompeo and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster wanted a friendly place to drop by to give a policy speech that would be warmly received they went to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), whose marketing masthead slogan is "Fighting Terrorism and Promoting Freedom." FDD is currently neocon central, used like the American Enterprise Institute was when Dick Cheney was Vice President and needed a friendly audience. It is headed by Canadian Mark Dubowitz, whose passion in life is making sure that sanctions on Iran are enforced to the letter. Unfortunately, it is not easy to deport a Canadian.

Neocon watchers will undoubtedly note that big names like Brill Kristol, the Kagans, Michael Chertoff and Max Boot will not be showing up in government. True, but that is because they will instead be working through their foundations, of which FDD is only one. The Alliance for Securing Democracy, which has recently sprung up in lobby-land, markets itself as "bipartisan, and transatlantic " but it actually is pure neocon. Its goal is to "expose Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States of America and Europe." It includes the usual neocon names but also has the loyal Democratic opposition, including ex-CIA Acting Director Mike Morell and Jake Sullivan, both of whom were top level advisers to Hillary Clinton.

The replacement of former political appointees in the government has been so slow in Trump's first year that it has actually benefited the neocons in their recovery. Many survivors of the two previous administrations are still in place, nearly all of whom reflect the hawkishness prevalent during 2001-2016. They will be supplemented by second and third tier neoconservatives, who will fill in the policy gaps, virtually guaranteeing that the neocon crafted foreign policy that has been around for the past sixteen years will be here for some time longer.

What all this means is that, now that the Palestinians have been disposed of and the Israelis rewarded, we can expect armed conflict with Iran within the next year, followed by increased hostility towards Moscow as Russiagate continues to play out. I do not even want to guess at what kind of insanity the gang in the West Wing Situation Room will come up with for dealing with North Korea. The good news is that the builders of home bomb shelters, a booming enterprise when I was growing up back in the 1950s and 1960s now used to cultivate mushrooms, will be back in business.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .

[Dec 12, 2017] We are all just hapless passengers on the Neocon Titanic, unable to influence what is playing out on the bridge

Highly recommended!
Of course, UNZ is more radical on this issue then most (actually they use the terms "Jew", "neocons" and "Zionist" almost interchangeably, but in most case the meaning is neocon -- ideology, not nationality ) , but it looks like public support of neocons in the USA now dropped dramatically, especially after their attacks on Trump during 2016 elections.
Notable quotes:
"... They are not a threat to the US and while I think we will be in a support capacity -- with Israel obviously -- to a bunker buster attack it will be regarded as US backed war throughout the Islamic world. Trump may be too weak to resist Netanyahu's best sales pitch. ..."
"... The Neocons are turning up at MSNBC of late. In addition to Podhoretz, Brooks, Kristol, we are now seeing E. Johnson, B. Stephens, D. Pletka on the scene as regular rotation players. No doubt where they will be leading. Moving in where opportunities abound for some reason? ..."
"... "Trump may be too weak to resist Netanyahu's best sales pitch." Trump is an Israeli sycophant ..a loser. ..."
"... That US missile attack on the Syrian airport cost Trump a lot of domestic and international support for zero benefit... ..."
"... This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. ..."
"... Yet if you point out the obvious, that our foreign policy has been hijacked by an element whose first loyalty is to Israel, you will catch all sorts of hell, be banned from making comments on blogs and news sites, or like the brave Mr. Giraldi, lose your job. And be blasted with the worn-out canard of being an anti-Semite. Maybe even a Jew hater, all because you show concern for the nation you love and are loyal to. ..."
"... While Pompeo would be not good, Tillerson has been a big disappointment with his latest statements on Crimea and Ukraine included. ..."
"... You obviously do not live here. 99% of Americans have a flat screen TV installed in their living rooms and believe everything (jooie managed images and info) spewing forth from it. ..."
"... The "problem" is that the whole American "business model" is based on global economic supremacy, which means, essentially, the dollar as world reserve currency. If that goes, the whole US house of cards will probably implode, Soviet-style. That requires unchallenged American "world leadership". The big threat to the "American model" isn't the EU and certainly not the Russian Federation. It's China. ..."
"... Yeah, yeah, yeah big bad ISIS. The Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. "Keeping Fools and Idiots At Each Other's Throats". Since 1950. I don't know what to tell you ..."
"... The US is expansionist, projecting itself all over the globe and uses force against anyone who resists. Force is all it understands. What happens when the irresistible force bumps into the immovable object? War hysteria, of which we've had an unending amount for the past three generations. Objectively there's nothing conservative about the so-called neocons. They're hardly any different from fascists except the rhetoric is different. Mussolini had limits as to how much territory he wanted to conquer for his empire unlike the US which recognizes no limits. ..."
"... BTW, I still don't see an attack on Iran as being very likely. If Russia and China would not greenlight an attack on Syria, they will be doubly reluctant to greenlight an attack on Iran. ..."
"... The "democracy" the neocons want to push is the one in which (((mass media))) successfully lobotomizes the electorate into thinking it has democracy. The zombies then make their way to the polls seeking "hope & change" but with no choice. Hegemony is the goal, not democracy. ..."
"... American has an all volunteer armed forces (mercenary), they are paid to kill or be killed, their fates is only a few seconds on the screens if the MSM decided to air them, otherwise the wars and the American soldiers' lives have nothing to do with the American public. Mayhem in far away land in out of sight and out of mind. ..."
"... The real issue is how to finance the war, as long as the war does not cause hyper inflation in the USA, the warmongers in the Washington beltway will go ahead with the war without much concern, with EU, Australia, Japan and S Korea in line paying the bills, the American should be able to wage another regime change war in the ME without much difficulty. ..."
"... Having some small portion of Scotch-Irish ancestry myself, and having ancestors who pioneered Tennessee, I don't think General Andrew Jackson would support the Israel First foreign policy of Tom Cotton. ..."
"... Yet if you point out the obvious, that our foreign policy has been hijacked by an element whose first loyalty is to Israel, you will catch all sorts of hell, be banned from making comments on blogs and news sites, or like the brave Mr. Giraldi, lose your job. And be blasted with the worn-out canard of being an anti-Semite. Maybe even a Jew hater, all because you show concern for the nation you love and are loyal to. ..."
"... Re: At the time, I agreed, but I did note that the neoconservatives have proven to be remarkable resilient, particularly as many of them have remained true to their Democratic Party values on nearly everything but foreign policy, where they are irredeemable hawks, hostile to Russia and Iran and always reliably in the corner of Israel ..."
"... And when it comes to foreign policy, of course the Neocons are globalists, like the international bankers whom they serve. ..."
"... The Neocons are nothing less than a parasitical foreign body which has us thinking in accordance with its interests; in fact they are mortal enemies, nothing less. ..."
"... Wall Street power held a gun to the head of the entire US economy and said 'Give us money, OR we will take ALL OF YOU down with us.' ..."
"... My knowledge of foreign policy is headline-quality only. My knowledge of some domestic policy is pretty good. I've been on the public stump in my area. The reality of American policy, as I've seen it, is that it's bought and paid for. There is no "public interest", no "national interest". I'm not even sure there's an America, in the sense of a people joined by some common values. Sometimes I think of America as an agglomeration of rackets. You're goddamned right I don't like thinking this way. ..."
"... Dump's second big mistake was firing Comey again on the advice of Kushner. Which got the Mueller ball rolling. Some have rightly drawn the parallels of Kushner whispering in Dump's ear to the same role of Kissinger vis a vis Nixon's downfall ..."
"... Then Kushner appeared to connive with his buddy KSA Clown Prince MBS to engineer the Hariri fiasco [which Tillerson managed to "deftly undo..."] ..."
"... That is a useless statement on many levels Tillerson deftly managed what is arguably America's most important corporation in what is surely the most strategic and geopolitical global industry energy ..."
"... The neocons are of course insane they are picking fights with Iran, Venezuela and others who are going to be the first to ditch the petrodollar and accelerate the tipping point to the new global financial order that is going to impoverish the US overnight ..."
"... The same neocons are also the ones who are undermining US demographics because their Ponzi scheme economy is based on perpetual growth which, in turn, requires perpetual population growth which means more immigration. Also the immigration keeps the wages low which is just extra gravy for the Plutocracy ..."
Dec 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

Mark James , December 12, 2017 at 5:57 am GMT

I'm really concerned an attack on Iran is a correct assessment Philip. They are not a threat to the US and while I think we will be in a support capacity -- with Israel obviously -- to a bunker buster attack it will be regarded as US backed war throughout the Islamic world. Trump may be too weak to resist Netanyahu's best sales pitch.

Tillerson will be gone sooner or later: No question, perhaps the week between Christmas and New Year?

Cotton and Pompeo: Pompeo may have problems with the Mueller probe. Cotton has a number of rumors in his past and maybe they are just unfortunate talk? But I don't see him at CIA (we shall see?)

The Neocons are turning up at MSNBC of late. In addition to Podhoretz, Brooks, Kristol, we are now seeing E. Johnson, B. Stephens, D. Pletka on the scene as regular rotation players. No doubt where they will be leading. Moving in where opportunities abound for some reason? At least two (Halperin, Ford) aren't around anymore on Coffee Joe.

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 12, 2017 at 7:22 am GMT
Well, if the rumours about Cotton and Pompeo appointments materialise, Trump might as well move his own office to Jerusalem
Fran Macadam , December 12, 2017 at 7:42 am GMT
We're all just hapless passengers on the Neocon Titanic, unable to influence what's playing out on the bridge. Steady as she goes on the unsinkable U.S.S.
Realist , December 12, 2017 at 9:08 am GMT
@Mark James

"Trump may be too weak to resist Netanyahu's best sales pitch." Trump is an Israeli sycophant ..a loser.

Philip Smeeton , December 12, 2017 at 11:02 am GMT
From the movie Iron Sky, meant as a condemnation of Nazism, but inadvertently conveying a sensible message about the merits of purity.

Renate Richter:

This is very simple. The world is sick, but we are the doctors. The world is anemic, but we are the vitamin. The world is weary, but we are the strength. We are here to make the world healthy once again, with hard work, with honesty, with clarity, with decency. We are the product of loving mothers and brave fathers. We are the embodiment of love and bravery! We are the gift of both God and Science. We are the answer to the question. We are the promise delivered to all mankind. For that, we raise our hands to one Nation. We step to the beat of one drum. We march to the beat of one heart and it is this song that we will sing to this world. We are the people who carry the children on our shoulders in the same way that our fathers carried us and their fathers carried them. We are the one people united and strong. We are the one people with certainty, moral certainty. We are invincible and we have no fear because the truth makes us wise.

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 12, 2017 at 11:23 am GMT
@peterAUS

Well, if conflict is simply air assault on Iranian nuclear facilities that shouldn't be a problem for either party. Israelis/Americans bomb a bit and then everything goes back to normal. Something as that cruise missile launch on Syria.

That US missile attack on the Syrian airport cost Trump a lot of domestic and international support for zero benefit...

jacques sheete , December 12, 2017 at 11:53 am GMT

I do not even want to guess at what kind of insanity

Insanity. That's the key. Sick beyond redemption. No rational person could ever begin to understand their motives. Somehow the jackals need to be restrained.

Greg Bacon , Website December 12, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT
We see the same usual suspects time and again, waving their pom-poms lustily cheering on endless war that does NOT help or benefit the USA. In fact, it is destroying our nation economically, spiritually and politically.

From an April 2003 Haaretz article:

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.

This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

Yet if you point out the obvious, that our foreign policy has been hijacked by an element whose first loyalty is to Israel, you will catch all sorts of hell, be banned from making comments on blogs and news sites, or like the brave Mr. Giraldi, lose your job. And be blasted with the worn-out canard of being an anti-Semite. Maybe even a Jew hater, all because you show concern for the nation you love and are loyal to.

Will Americans ever realize they are being played for fools by a country and Zionist con artists which doesn't give a tinkers damn about us or will we keep jumping up and down to the pom-pom waving?

Den Lille Abe , December 12, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT
Yes all this Newspeak, to hide the fact that the US is a threat in anyone that disagrees with them
Z-man , December 12, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT
Of course I hope you're wrong Phil. While Pompeo would be not good, Tillerson has been a big disappointment with his latest statements on Crimea and Ukraine included.

Cotton would be another matter altogether and even though there is a 'collegial spirit' in the Senate I would hope that Rand Paul and other senators with common sense would squash this guys nomination. Even if he has to carry himself back from Kentucky, broken ribs and all, to squash this Neocon stooge Cotton. Also, I'm hopping there are some boys in the closet when it comes to Cotton. lol

Zumbuddi , December 12, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT
@LondonBob

Faith in Bush the OLDER is misplaced. In 1979 he stood shoulder to shoulder w/ Bibi and Benzion Netenyahu, and Midge Decter & other neocons, in Jerusalem, as they drafted the blueprint for GWOT. Planning went so far as to name the 7 states to take out. USSR was #1 at the time. Jews got Jews Who had been highly educated at Russian expense – out of Russia, now Russia is back in the crosshairs.

... ... ...

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 12, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT

Americans are stoopid and cowardly fucks for being so easily manipulated by the Jew.

Not so much anymore. Meanwhile, didn't the Muslims spend five years fighting each-other right on the Israeli border? But wait – they did attack Israel once – and apologised:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-28/isis-apologized-israel-attacking-idf-soldiers

I don't know what to tell you

nsa , December 12, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT
@peterAUS

"the American public isn't as gullible as before ."

Ha, Ha. You obviously do not live here. 99% of Americans have a flat screen TV installed in their living rooms and believe everything (jooie managed images and info) spewing forth from it. More than 50% of Americans have multiple flat screen TV in their homes so they can be sure not to miss the latest disinfo or lies.

.... ... ...

Michael Kenny , December 12, 2017 at 3:41 pm GMT
The "problem" is that the whole American "business model" is based on global economic supremacy, which means, essentially, the dollar as world reserve currency. If that goes, the whole US house of cards will probably implode, Soviet-style. That requires unchallenged American "world leadership". The big threat to the "American model" isn't the EU and certainly not the Russian Federation. It's China. 1.4 billion people and rapidly heading for global economic hegemony. To say nothing of a rising India at 1.2 billion. At 300 million, the US is small beans. How to ward off the Yellow Peril? That's the problem the US hegemonists had to resolve.

... ... ...

DaveE , December 12, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Yeah, yeah, yeah big bad ISIS. The Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. "Keeping Fools and Idiots At Each Other's Throats". Since 1950. I don't know what to tell you ..

anonymous , Disclaimer December 12, 2017 at 3:47 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

Somehow the jackals need to be restrained.

It's not that difficult to strategize HOW to go about "restraining the jackals." 99 44/100% of what ziocons accuse others of is projection. They say, "They [_____ Iran, ISIS, Palestinians, Russians - fill in the blank] understand only force." This projects that the only thing that will restrain psychopathic Israel is force.

When an Iranian nuclear engineer was assassinated in Tehran, Ronen Bergman told Brian Williams that "Israel has used assassination more than any other state; not even Stalin or Hitler used assassination as much as Israel. . . ."

... ... ...

anonymous , Disclaimer December 12, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT
@Ben Frank

So far the President has proved much smarter than most people expected him to be

Exactamundo, Ben Frank (any relation to Anne, Princess of the Ballpoint Pen?). Naming Jerusalem the capital of Israel was fucking brilliant. Don't you worry your pretty little head about all the US forces in the multiple bases in the region that are accessible to mad-as-hornets Muslims; Israel will have their backs, fer shur.

--

Come to think of it, maybe Trump can burnish his "much smarter-ness" by taking a page out of Reagan's playbook: Immediately after the first US soldier is plinked by an Angry Arab, Trump should pull ALL US FORCES out of the region: do a Reagan-post-Black Hawk down.

If the Israelis want to stir the pot, let them stand over the steam-heat and wield the spoon. We're outa there.

anonymous , Disclaimer December 12, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT
The people of the ME can't catch a break. Since being pried away from the Ottoman empire a hundred years ago they've been the plaything of various western countries. Their national borders drawn up by distant foreigners, they've been interfered with constantly, their regimes dictated by foreigners. Then the selfsame westerners turn around and point to their backwardness as proof that they're incapable of doing anything on their own.

The US is expansionist, projecting itself all over the globe and uses force against anyone who resists. Force is all it understands. What happens when the irresistible force bumps into the immovable object? War hysteria, of which we've had an unending amount for the past three generations. Objectively there's nothing conservative about the so-called neocons. They're hardly any different from fascists except the rhetoric is different. Mussolini had limits as to how much territory he wanted to conquer for his empire unlike the US which recognizes no limits.

Rurik , December 12, 2017 at 4:21 pm GMT

replaced at CIA by Senator Tom Cotton.

it was faint, and barely perceptible, but at some level, I did actually tremble when I read those words. Cotton is the new John McCain. The ultimate traitor to this nation and its people and all people of good will on the planet and every tenet of decency known to the universe

a lickspittle to Sheldon Adelson and everything that repulsive toad represents. if Cotton is exalted to head the CIA, I'll have to think very hard about leaving these shores. perhaps Bobby Fischer was right, and the ZUSA is endemically, irredeemably evil.

there can be no doubt that the zio-Fiend is the incarnation of evil itself, but I always keep hoping that the good people of the ZUS will repudiate the zio-Fiend- that has them waging serial wars all over the planet to benefit the Jews. As their infrastructure crumbles back home, and their veterans can't get health care, and the jobs are 'in' and outsourced to the third world. what will it take to wake up the bovine, cud-chewing sheople?!

their children come home in body bags, or with their souls so eviscerated by the sheer evil of the wars they're forced to fight, that they often just 'snuff it' as the only escape from their nightmares. (and the realization that the ZUSA is a drooling fiend and that they've murdered innocent people and destroyed nations on its behalf)

those young people can not abide the evil that the ZUS government has become, and their only salvation is to end their young lives.

for those of us with more choices at hand, why can't we finally and simply repudiate the zio-scum who've done us and so many others so much harm?!

NOT TOM COTTON!!!!!

fuck no!

SolontoCroesus , December 12, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

PS If the USA / American people and their representatives conformed foreign as well as economic policy to the vision of George Washington rather than Louis Brandeis -- > Benjamin Netanyahu & fellow psychopaths and traitors, USA would engage with OBOR rather than attempt to destroy it.

Check out anon20171212′s comment at #21, above http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/bad-moon-rising/#comment-2115106

Destruction (and deception) are the way of the Talmudists. Even Heinrich Graetz, the Germanophilic Jew who authored the first modern history of the Jewish people, had nothing but opprobrium to heap on Talmudists.

https://archive.org/details/historyofthejews014022mbp

The American 'way' is not the way of the Talmud. Christian values are not Talmudic values. George Washington's legacy was not Talmudic, it was America First :

https://www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/milestone-events/george-washingtons-farewell-address-full-text

Astuteobservor II , December 12, 2017 at 4:43 pm GMT
@Anonymous

doesn't matter, we are still the ones doing the dirty work. there is no escape from the responsibility. it is like a hitman claiming he is a professional, it is just business. that doesn't fly.

Ken S , December 12, 2017 at 4:47 pm GMT
What's with it with neoconservative Israel lackeys like Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz graduating from a prestigious and supposedly left-wing school like Harvard? Are they book-smart without common sense? The country would be better off if Cotton stayed in the Senate. He can do less damage if 1 of 100. Plus, the shelf-life of anyone in the Trump admin seems to be very short – and he'd better not have groped any Harvard classmates, who might just be waiting in the wings to destroy his career.
Seamus Padraig , December 12, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT
As recently as a month ago, I was still willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. But it should now be obvious to all what a total zio-muppet he really is. If there's any silver lining in all of this, it's the fact that the Jew-media have expended so much effort in attacking Trump that he'll now make a very poor spokesman for their cause abroad.

BTW, I still don't see an attack on Iran as being very likely. If Russia and China would not greenlight an attack on Syria, they will be doubly reluctant to greenlight an attack on Iran.

Frank Walus , December 12, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
The "democracy" the neocons want to push is the one in which (((mass media))) successfully lobotomizes the electorate into thinking it has democracy. The zombies then make their way to the polls seeking "hope & change" but with no choice. Hegemony is the goal, not democracy.

Trump may have been skeptical as a candidate about America's role as policeman of the world, but the establishment knives are out and he might (correctly?) surmise that the only way to stay in office is to make the ziocons happy. Even Bill Kristol would see the error in never-Trump_vs_deep_state if bombs started falling on Iran.

Joe Wong , December 12, 2017 at 8:04 pm GMT
@peterAUS

American has an all volunteer armed forces (mercenary), they are paid to kill or be killed, their fates is only a few seconds on the screens if the MSM decided to air them, otherwise the wars and the American soldiers' lives have nothing to do with the American public. Mayhem in far away land in out of sight and out of mind. Citing the American public gullibility is really a residual sentiment of old days cold war mentality and trying to attach some kind of morality to the wars the American has been fighting. American has long been demonstrated they are just as morally defunct imperialist as the British and their mentor, the Romans.

The real issue is how to finance the war, as long as the war does not cause hyper inflation in the USA, the warmongers in the Washington beltway will go ahead with the war without much concern, with EU, Australia, Japan and S Korea in line paying the bills, the American should be able to wage another regime change war in the ME without much difficulty.

Charles Pewitt , December 12, 2017 at 8:14 pm GMT
Tom Cotton is not to be trusted. Many gave US Senator Tom Cotton credit for his offering a bill that would cut legal immigration in half and would significantly reduce illegal immigration. It is now clear that the immigration reduction ploy proffered by Tom Cotton was a sneaky way to mollify the White Core American voter base of President Trump.

Tom Cotton is a stooge for Sheldon Adelson and the Neo-Conservatives. The Neo-Conservatives know they are highly vulnerable on the immigration issue and the national question. That is why they sent their puppet Tom Cotton out with instructions to bang the pot on reducing immigration.

Recently, the Neo-Conservative-controlled, Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal gave Tom Cotton a half page, above the fold puff piece where Tom Cotton is said to be offering a foreign policy fit for "Jacksonian America." I think Tom Cotton must be referring to Michael Jackson or some other Jackson, and not General Andrew Jackson. Having some small portion of Scotch-Irish ancestry myself, and having ancestors who pioneered Tennessee, I don't think General Andrew Jackson would support the Israel First foreign policy of Tom Cotton.

IMMIGRATION and the NATIONAL QUESTION are the two things that will finally dislodge the nation-wrecking Neo-Conservatives and their politician puppets from the ruling class of the American Empire.

Z-man , December 12, 2017 at 8:22 pm GMT
@Greg Bacon

Yet if you point out the obvious, that our foreign policy has been hijacked by an element whose first loyalty is to Israel, you will catch all sorts of hell, be banned from making comments on blogs and news sites, or like the brave Mr. Giraldi, lose your job. And be blasted with the worn-out canard of being an anti-Semite. Maybe even a Jew hater, all because you show concern for the nation you love and are loyal to.

If you remember what happened to Rick Sanchez, the former talking head of NBC and CNN when he was pushed into calling out the Jew in a 'gotcha' interview as he sarcastically replied that yeah Jews are underrepresented in the media. He was gone in '60 seconds'!

Whatever happened to Rick Sanchez??? LOL!!!

Veranon , December 12, 2017 at 8:25 pm GMT
Re: At the time, I agreed, but I did note that the neoconservatives have proven to be remarkable resilient, particularly as many of them have remained true to their Democratic Party values on nearly everything but foreign policy, where they are irredeemable hawks, hostile to Russia and Iran and always reliably in the corner of Israel.
-- -- -- -- -
Of course. The Jewish Neocons and their "useful idiots," whether "bought and paid for" or voluntarily enlisted, are necessarily "liberal" in relation to domestic policy because the idea is to destroy all Western and Christian norms and values by means of cultural marxist "critical theory." And it's working very well. The mass media and the educational system have hopelessly corrupted American and European minds with this profoundly subversive "intellectual" garbage.

And when it comes to foreign policy, of course the Neocons are globalists, like the international bankers whom they serve. Israel first, because they are not there to defend their country's interests, but to defend Israel's, in accordance with the permanent goal of Eretz Ysrael and world hegemony in accordance with the ultimate goal of Jewish supremacy via the money power, and in preparation for their "messiah". It's all disguised as for the sake of American greatness and "our values."

The Neocons are nothing less than a parasitical foreign body which has us thinking in accordance with its interests; in fact they are mortal enemies, nothing less. The Western goyim–as well as innocent Jews here and in Israel itself–will be cheerfully sacrificed by the Zionists, who serve darker forces and interests than those of their people. Western humanity has been rendered helpless because they are intellectually helpless and because in consequence they have been dispossessed of deep faith and corresponding real virtues. This was noted years ago by Solzhenitsyn, among others. Ideas rule human beings for good or ill, since we are thinking beings. But when the ideas that determine us are profoundly wrong and when intellectual chaos and unbridled individualism reign, nothing real can be accomplished. However, in due time vincit omnia veritas –the Real has the last word. "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

Priss Factor , Website December 12, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT
North Korea's survival strategy is "If you invade us, we will blow up South Korea and maybe even Tokyo." Ruled by a vile regime but with rational concern for survival, even if it has no moral right to survive. But then, what is the other option? South Korea is a puppet state of US globalist empire. If NK was ruled by wiser people, its case would be made more intelligently. It would tell the world community that it needs for defense given US record in the Middle East and North Africa. But it's ruled by some egotistical brat-boy whose idea of culture is Dennis Rodman and Rap trash-talking.

As different as NK and Jewish Power, they have one thing in common: WGYG or We Go, You Go. The idea is that if they are destroyed, they will take others with them.

Jewish Power pulled this off in 2008. When Lehman Brothers wasn't bailed out by the government, Wall Street pushed a 'too big to fail' scheme and threatened Total Collapse of the Economy UNLESS it was showered with super-generous bailouts that would eventually come to enrich the banks during a severe recession for most Americans. Bush couldn't do anything about it except go along. Obama bailed out Wall Street. And McCain would have done the same had he won. Jewish Wall Street power held a gun to the head of the entire US economy and said 'Give us money, OR we will take ALL OF YOU down with us.'

The system is rigged so that a major collapse of Jewish Power will trigger total collapse of the entire system. It's been wired that way. The whole tower will collapse. So, if anyone tries to cut the wire of Jewish Power, kaboom, the whole thing blows up, and everyone dies. Gentiles must carry Jewish Power like a crate of nitroglycerin. One false step and Kaboom.

JackOH , December 12, 2017 at 10:04 pm GMT
Phil, thanks.

"Tom [Cotton] is completely owned by the Israeli lobby."

" . . . [Nikki] Haley is stupid. And ambitious. And is also owned by the Israeli lobby . . .".

My knowledge of foreign policy is headline-quality only. My knowledge of some domestic policy is pretty good. I've been on the public stump in my area. The reality of American policy, as I've seen it, is that it's bought and paid for. There is no "public interest", no "national interest". I'm not even sure there's an America, in the sense of a people joined by some common values. Sometimes I think of America as an agglomeration of rackets. You're goddamned right I don't like thinking this way.

There are only insider players who bankroll and blackmail their way into getting the decisions they want. I wish I could say something high-minded, but I can't.

anon , Disclaimer December 12, 2017 at 10:52 pm GMT
@Priss Factor

India and Pakistan have nukes. How would they respond to an Israeli Sampson Option?

How about China? An Izzie attack on European capitals could destroy a lot of Chinese investment. China has sufficient nuclear capability to detach Israel from the Mediterranean littoral and create an irradiated submerged island.

Does van Crevald think Putin will sit on his hands and wait a thousand years for the dust to clear?

van Crevald says Israel can hit Rome. That's zionism's wet dream, to completely obliterate Rome.
How many Jews live a parasitical life in Rome and other European capitals?

Can Izzies reach USA? Didn't think so. What do they think would happen to hundreds of Jewish institutions, and Jewish people, in USA if Israel destroys Europe -- again?

FB , December 13, 2017 at 12:03 am GMT
People need to let go of the idea that Dump is anything but a conman and a weak one at that

The office of President holds a lot of authority that Dump has not been able [or willing] to wield that speaks to his own weakness as a leader

It's time to admit that he is not the messiah that many Lunchpail Joes wanted to believe

As to the specifics of this article yes I agree with Mr. Giraldi that the neocons are back in the driver's seat if they ever left in the first place

Exhibit One is Jared Kushner the Clown Prince of the Shite House. This is the guy who has inflicted most of the damage on Dump starting with his advice to dump Flynn. Dump was under zero pressure to do any such thing the neocon Pence is the one who demanded Flynn's head. Dump could have pushed back there was nothing wrong with Flynn the incoming National Security Adviser speaking to the Russians or anyone else and what he spoke of with the Russians was in lobbying THEM in the US interest not the other way round

Dump's second big mistake was firing Comey again on the advice of Kushner. Which got the Mueller ball rolling. Some have rightly drawn the parallels of Kushner whispering in Dump's ear to the same role of Kissinger vis a vis Nixon's downfall

Then Kushner appeared to connive with his buddy KSA Clown Prince MBS to engineer the Hariri fiasco [which Tillerson managed to "deftly undo..."]

' Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was accompanying the president during his Asia tour at the time of the Saudi-engineered initiative, was "completely blindsided" by the move, as several senior Middle East diplomats confirmed to TAC.

While Tillerson would later be accused of being "totally disengaged" from the crisis, several former and current U.S. diplomats have told us that just precisely the opposite was the case '

' The unlikely hero in all of this might well be Rex Tillerson, who quietly engineered a U.S. policy at odds with the views of Donald Trump -- and his son-in-law. The exact details of how Tillerson pulled this off remain unknown ("I think Tillerson just told Trump what he was going to do," the senior diplomat with whom we spoke speculates, "and then just did it.") '

So that's the backstory right there about why the neocons are agitating for Tillerson's ouster. I have to strongly disagree with Mr. Giraldi's characterization of Tillerson as

' a somewhat bumbling businessman adept at dealing in energy futures contracts who has been struggling with reducing State's enormously bloated payroll '

That is a useless statement on many levels Tillerson deftly managed what is arguably America's most important corporation in what is surely the most strategic and geopolitical global industry energy

The global oil trade is 14 trillion dollars even at today's prices and the petrodollar is the underpinning of the entire US system a free ride for printing free money because every nation has to buy US dollars to buy or sell oil. In 1971

' I was informed at a White House meeting that U.S. diplomats had let Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries know that they could charge as much as they wanted for their oil, but that the United States would treat it as an act of war not to keep their oil proceeds in U.S. dollar assets '

Writes economist Michael Hudson" from personal recollection of the many meetings he had at the WH

This whole saga surrounding Dump's readiness to tie the can to Tillerson is proof positive if any more were needed that conman Dump has been a fake from the beginning

If the neocons are ascendant and back in the driver's seat it is no one's fault but the Dumpster

He has cast his lot with Kushner who appears to be the neocons' Trojan Horse

There can be no more sympathy or understanding anymore for Dump

If we recall his campaign rhetoric of 'draining the swamp' and rebuilding America's failing infrastructure improving relations with Russia all good things

we must also recall that he has been vehemently anti-Iran from the get-go

One has to ask why ?

Iran is a completely Israeli-owned issue Iran has nothing to do with the interests of the US other than to benefit leading US industries like aircraft manufacturing which were immediately rewarded with a $100 billion order of Boeing aircraft in the aftermath of the Obama nuclear deal

That vehement anti-Iran attitude even on the campaign trail should have been a red flag to everyone

Even Hellary would have been better in that regard and as for the Russia 'issue' what could Hellary or the US to do Russia anyway ?

Militarily nothing even in Syria the US military would certainly not go for an open war against Russia neither would the regional players hosting US bases which would need to be on board for such an adventure

same goes for the breakaway region of eastern Ukraine

Germany and France are anyway moving closer to Russia, which has de facto established itself as an energy distribution superpower for the continent and for China

The big picture is that the petrodollar and the free ride for US prosperity is living on borrowed time China is the world's biggest energy importer and is not going to support the petrodollar forever

Already an alternative financial architecture is being built and the BRICS countries now outpace the combined GDP of the G7 so the writing is on the wall

Dump has shown himself to be a conman first and an incredibly weak president he deserves no sympathy or support

The neocons are of course insane they are picking fights with Iran, Venezuela and others who are going to be the first to ditch the petrodollar and accelerate the tipping point to the new global financial order that is going to impoverish the US overnight

The same neocons are also the ones who are undermining US demographics because their Ponzi scheme economy is based on perpetual growth which, in turn, requires perpetual population growth which means more immigration. Also the immigration keeps the wages low which is just extra gravy for the Plutocracy

The US will be a white-minority country by 2050 much of the Southwest already is

None of that is going to change when the party is over and the Titanic sinks the handful of necons and Plutocrats will have their lifeboats ready

FB , December 13, 2017 at 12:14 am GMT
@FB

Sorry my link to the Kushner role in the Hariri circus and Tillerson's save did not come through here it is: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/kushner-kept-tillerson-in-the-dark-on-saudi-lebanon-move/

[Dec 12, 2017] Saakashvii troubles: the reliability of Western support for him in under question

Notable quotes:
"... straight from the lips of Pavlo Munchkin. The west will not react to Saakashvili's detention , and considers it to be an internal Ukrainian matter. So Kiev can make up whatever wild charges it wants, and Uncle Sam will not ride to the rescue. Saakashvili has apparently outlived his usefulness. ..."
"... Well, indeed, it looks like the collective West decided to just say to poor, ageing, clumsy Mishiko "I know thee not, old man!". The ritualistic spitting and trampling of Saakasvhili effigy in the Freest Press in the World (Western one) will commence soon enough. But before that – a quick reminder of what they were saying, before re-alignment of the winds, blowing from Washington's ObCom. ..."
"... "AFTER the Maidan revolution and the start of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014, Western policy had two aims: to halt and punish Russian aggression and to help Ukraine become a democratic state governed by the rule of law. America imposed sanctions on Russia, ordered the president, Petro Poroshenko, to establish an anti-corruption force and sent Joe Biden, then vice-president, on repeated visits to insist on fighting graft. The EU imposed sanctions on Russia, and made support for civil-society and the rule of law a linchpin of the association agreement it signed with Ukraine in 2014. ..."
"... In that light, the news out of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been dire. The country's prosecutor-general has disrupted investigations by its National Anti-corruption Bureau, with the apparent consent of Mr Poroshenko. The interior minister has intervened to protect his son from similar scrutiny. Officers in the security service, the SBU, have tried to arrest Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president turned Ukrainian corruption-fighter, only to be driven back by protesters. Prosecutors are targeting anti-corruption activists; the army, interior-ministry troops and private militias work at cross-purposes, answering to different politicians or oligarchs . Mr Poroshenko's government has been seriously weakened. ..."
"... "To some Europeans and Americans, this picture suggests that their efforts to persuade Ukraine to turn over a new leaf were always doomed to fail. That is a misreading. In fact, the recent chaos in Ukraine comes in part because in the past year, especially since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Europe and America have eased the pressure. If they do not restore their commitment to defending anti-corruption reforms, Ukraine risks sinking back into the morass from which it tried to extricate itself with Maidan. ..."
"... Ukraine's grubby politicians and oligarchs have tried to frustrate Western aims without openly defying them (see article ). Partly as a result, policy under Mr Trump has lost its focus on fighting graft. Kurt Volker, the American envoy to Ukraine, works on external security; America may soon sell the country lethal weapons for the first time. But when the State Department complains about corruption, it is ignored -- because (unlike Mr Biden) the White House offers it no support. As for the EU, few believe it would jeopardise its association agreement with Ukraine for the sake of the rule of law. So, the country's elite no longer fears attacking investigators and activists." ..."
"... "Lay off the pay-offs ..."
"... If they succeed in ending the attempts to fight graft, it will be a disaster for Ukraine -- and a step back for Europe and America, too. The country is the focal point of the West's conflict with Russia. Weak and divided, it is vulnerable to Russian encroachment, especially if Vladimir Putin decides he needs to fire up patriotic Russian voters. Chaos would also buttress Mr Putin's claim that the West's aims in Ukraine are purely anti-Russian and have nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. All this would undermine the rules-based global order, with consequences in the South China Sea and elsewhere. ..."
"... Now that Ukraine is defying complaints by America's State Department and the EU's foreign-policy arm, it is vital that America and Europe use every tool at their disposal to support corruption-fighters in Kiev. The EU should make plain that the benefits of the association pact depend on progress against graft; America should attach the same conditions to arms sales. Prosecutors in Western capitals should investigate the laundering of ill-gotten Ukrainian wealth. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity should not involve tolerance for the lack of integrity among its politicians." ..."
Dec 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren , December 10, 2017 at 8:26 pm

Al Jazeera English
Published on 9 Dec 2017
SUBSCRIBE 1.7M
He was the president of Georgia, then a governor in Ukraine, and now he's in jail on hunger strike.

The arrest, and re-arrest, of Mikhail Saakashvii in Kiev has stirred protests which evoke memories of the Ukrainian revolution three years ago.

Saakashvili's supporters say his detention is based on lies and they want him let go. They already freed him once earlier this week – from a police van.

Tuesday's dramatic scenes saw a former president being dragged across a roof. Police arrested him for allegedly conspiring with Russia against the Ukrainian state. Saakashvili then escaped custody, before police tracked him down again on Friday. The former Georgian leader says his arrest is politically motivated.

But is it really?

Presenter: Sami Zeidan

Guests:

Alexander Korman – Former Head of the Public Council and First Deputy Chairman of Public Council to the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Ukraine.
Sergey Markov – Former Russian MP & spokesman for President Vladimir Putin.
Lilit Gevorgyan – IHS Global Insigh tanalyst and principal economist covering Russia & Ukraine.

marknesop , December 9, 2017 at 9:34 pm
Aaaaand there you have it, folks, straight from the lips of Pavlo Munchkin. The west will not react to Saakashvili's detention , and considers it to be an internal Ukrainian matter. So Kiev can make up whatever wild charges it wants, and Uncle Sam will not ride to the rescue. Saakashvili has apparently outlived his usefulness.

I don't really feel sorry for him, because I've always thought he was a twat and his preening over being the golden child of Washington was sickening. In fact, he probably deserves whatever happens to him, although I expect the west will make some kind of private deal to get him out on the promise that he will stay out of Ukraine. Where he will go then is anyone's guess, since he is a stateless person with no citizenship. But it is significant to note how much weight Ukraine still swings with the west, even though Europe is getting impatient about its hamfisted anti-corruption charade. Kiev just said "Stay out of it", and the west retired smartly.

I think you will agree that is hardly a climate in which Poroshenko will feel moved to do anything much about corruption beyond making a lot of noise and promises.

Lyttenburgh , December 10, 2017 at 12:36 am
Well, indeed, it looks like the collective West decided to just say to poor, ageing, clumsy Mishiko "I know thee not, old man!". The ritualistic spitting and trampling of Saakasvhili effigy in the Freest Press in the World (Western one) will commence soon enough. But before that – a quick reminder of what they were saying, before re-alignment of the winds, blowing from Washington's ObCom.

The Economist (Editorial): Ukraine is a mess; the West should press it harder to fight graft – Lay off the pay-offs
Drama in the streets is a sign of worsening corruption. Ukraine must notbe allowed to fail

Ukraine is a mess? Nooooo waaaaaay! Are you sure? Tell me more!

"AFTER the Maidan revolution and the start of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014, Western policy had two aims: to halt and punish Russian aggression and to help Ukraine become a democratic state governed by the rule of law. America imposed sanctions on Russia, ordered the president, Petro Poroshenko, to establish an anti-corruption force and sent Joe Biden, then vice-president, on repeated visits to insist on fighting graft. The EU imposed sanctions on Russia, and made support for civil-society and the rule of law a linchpin of the association agreement it signed with Ukraine in 2014.

In that light, the news out of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been dire. The country's prosecutor-general has disrupted investigations by its National Anti-corruption Bureau, with the apparent consent of Mr Poroshenko. The interior minister has intervened to protect his son from similar scrutiny. Officers in the security service, the SBU, have tried to arrest Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president turned Ukrainian corruption-fighter, only to be driven back by protesters. Prosecutors are targeting anti-corruption activists; the army, interior-ministry troops and private militias work at cross-purposes, answering to different politicians or oligarchs . Mr Poroshenko's government has been seriously weakened. "

That's important part – keep it mind. But here comes the "meat" of the article! Good flunkies of Ed Lukas has found the answer to the eternal question "Whom to blame?" as pertains to the Ukraine and its current woes! Are you ready? Here it is:

"To some Europeans and Americans, this picture suggests that their efforts to persuade Ukraine to turn over a new leaf were always doomed to fail. That is a misreading. In fact, the recent chaos in Ukraine comes in part because in the past year, especially since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Europe and America have eased the pressure. If they do not restore their commitment to defending anti-corruption reforms, Ukraine risks sinking back into the morass from which it tried to extricate itself with Maidan.

Ukraine's grubby politicians and oligarchs have tried to frustrate Western aims without openly defying them (see article ). Partly as a result, policy under Mr Trump has lost its focus on fighting graft. Kurt Volker, the American envoy to Ukraine, works on external security; America may soon sell the country lethal weapons for the first time. But when the State Department complains about corruption, it is ignored -- because (unlike Mr Biden) the White House offers it no support. As for the EU, few believe it would jeopardise its association agreement with Ukraine for the sake of the rule of law. So, the country's elite no longer fears attacking investigators and activists."

Trump! It is all Trump's fault! Because – surely! – under the watch of the President of Peace B. Obama and gramps Biden no dodgy things ever happened in the Ukraine, noooope! Biden (and his son) gonna defend this PO like lions! This also welcomes nasty question – aren't Mr. Poroshenko himself an oligarch, whose personal wealth skyrocketed since his election? And maybe – I'm not insisting, no-no – having lots of cash stashed in "Panama Papers Fund" precludes him from actually fighting corruption – and not, you know, the election of Trump? Heresy, I know!

But the articles goes from strength to strength, boldly skipping to the "What to do?" section. The solution is as brilliant and though-over as everything else in there:

"Lay off the pay-offs

If they succeed in ending the attempts to fight graft, it will be a disaster for Ukraine -- and a step back for Europe and America, too. The country is the focal point of the West's conflict with Russia. Weak and divided, it is vulnerable to Russian encroachment, especially if Vladimir Putin decides he needs to fire up patriotic Russian voters. Chaos would also buttress Mr Putin's claim that the West's aims in Ukraine are purely anti-Russian and have nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. All this would undermine the rules-based global order, with consequences in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

Now that Ukraine is defying complaints by America's State Department and the EU's foreign-policy arm, it is vital that America and Europe use every tool at their disposal to support corruption-fighters in Kiev. The EU should make plain that the benefits of the association pact depend on progress against graft; America should attach the same conditions to arms sales. Prosecutors in Western capitals should investigate the laundering of ill-gotten Ukrainian wealth. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity should not involve tolerance for the lack of integrity among its politicians."

Hahahahahhahahahhahahhahhahahahahaohmysidesarehurtinghahhahhahahahmakeitstophahahha

Nope. Your Russophobia is high (and you yourself dear Western elites are also high most of the time when it comes to Russia) that you will allow this unholy corrupt mess to persist. Because, really, you are not interested in "democracy" and "open society". Not at the prize of people electing someone, whose strings you cannot pull.

At the same time – this is "big: and "respectable" The Economist we are talking about. They smell the fire from the yet unlit tires of new Maidan. They are afraid . They know, that their "Operation: SHOWCASE" of turning Ukraine into a "democratic alternative to Russia" failed. They are in denial.

Oh, how sweet!

Cortes , December 10, 2017 at 2:08 am
The obligatory "rules-based global order" makes a tardy but welcome cameo appearance like an aging well-loved Thespian milking the audience for a final burst of applause before retirement. Great stuff!
Moscow Exile , December 10, 2017 at 6:25 am
Украинцы проголосовали за возвращение "преступного режима" Януковича

Ukrainians voted for a return of the "criminal regime" of Yanukovich
01:24 – 10.12.2017

Ninety-two percent of the audience of the Ukrainian TV channel "NewsOne" voted for the return of the regime of former President Viktor Yanukovych, reports the news portal "Politnavigator".

In Saturday's broadcast, viewers were asked to choose one of two options to answer the question "For whom would you vote: for the last criminal power or the current one?". Out of 46,686 people only eight per cent supported the policy of the current president, Petro Poroshenko.

On 23 October, the Centre for social studies "Sofia" published the results of a poll in which 79 percent of the population in varying degrees did not approve of Poroshenko being head of state: the answer "fully approve of the President" was chosen by only 1.6 percent.

On October 17, the Prosecutor General of the Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, accused former president Viktor Yanukovich of embezzling assets worth $40 billion. According to the head of the supervisory authority, this was comparable with the annual budget of the country.

Yanukovych was President of the Ukraine from 2010 to 2014. After a violent regime change by means of the Euromaidan mass protests in Kiev and other cities, he left the country.

In the Ukraine, there have been initiated several criminal cases made against the former head of state and his property on the territory of the country has been seized.

marknesop , December 10, 2017 at 3:46 pm
There's a useful lesson there for someone: more than 90% – arguably; we have no way to know how scientific or representative this poll was – of the population does not support the current government, in a country that has considerable and recent practical experience of revolution. Yet the current government prevails with complete impunity, and even flaunts its contempt for accountability. How can these two realities coexist? Is it possible the violent nationalist element wields disproportionate influence, despite all the quacking about its low support in the polls and Russian exaggeration of its extremist beliefs?
Patient Observer , December 10, 2017 at 8:39 am
Can't vouch for the entire web site but this was interesting:

Baiting is the act of deliberately annoying or provoking someone to extreme emotion. When a person baits another, they are deliberately taunting in order to provoke a response from the offender's attack.

If you are a fisherman, it might be fun but if you're the fish -- or worse a worm squirming on a hook, being used to entice a predator to amuse? It's simply not as much fun for people who are the victims of any form of bait and switch attack.

Truly believing the world as they know it revolves around them, they tend to symptomatically behave in ways that are compulsively self-promoting, grandiose, illogical, irrational, egocentric, and grandiose.

Every social interaction is seen as a competition of sorts, with the Narcissist behaving as if their distorted, self-deluded version of any fact, story, or reality is somehow rooted in divine truth (rather than being recognized as a symptom of psychiatric dysfunction and outright gaslighting tales and lies).

The condition -- a personality TYPE classification, rather than an actual diagnosis of illness (per se) -- tends to be rooted in cultural nurturing, for the most part.

http://flyingmonkeysdenied.com/definition/baiting/

Warren , December 10, 2017 at 10:44 am
Can Neoliberalism Ever Go Away?

People all over the world are protesting against globalisation, inequality and selfishness. Democratic liberalism is supposed to solve these problems, but liberalism and its big brother neoliberalism are actually the cause of these problems. Furthermore, once a country has adopted neoliberalist policies it is very hard for it ever to reject them.

https://sputniknews.com/radio_brave_new_world/201707281055961487-can-neoliberalism-ever-go-away/

[Dec 12, 2017] Saakashvii troubles: the reliability of Western support for him in under question

Notable quotes:
"... straight from the lips of Pavlo Munchkin. The west will not react to Saakashvili's detention , and considers it to be an internal Ukrainian matter. So Kiev can make up whatever wild charges it wants, and Uncle Sam will not ride to the rescue. Saakashvili has apparently outlived his usefulness. ..."
"... Well, indeed, it looks like the collective West decided to just say to poor, ageing, clumsy Mishiko "I know thee not, old man!". The ritualistic spitting and trampling of Saakasvhili effigy in the Freest Press in the World (Western one) will commence soon enough. But before that – a quick reminder of what they were saying, before re-alignment of the winds, blowing from Washington's ObCom. ..."
"... "AFTER the Maidan revolution and the start of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014, Western policy had two aims: to halt and punish Russian aggression and to help Ukraine become a democratic state governed by the rule of law. America imposed sanctions on Russia, ordered the president, Petro Poroshenko, to establish an anti-corruption force and sent Joe Biden, then vice-president, on repeated visits to insist on fighting graft. The EU imposed sanctions on Russia, and made support for civil-society and the rule of law a linchpin of the association agreement it signed with Ukraine in 2014. ..."
"... In that light, the news out of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been dire. The country's prosecutor-general has disrupted investigations by its National Anti-corruption Bureau, with the apparent consent of Mr Poroshenko. The interior minister has intervened to protect his son from similar scrutiny. Officers in the security service, the SBU, have tried to arrest Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president turned Ukrainian corruption-fighter, only to be driven back by protesters. Prosecutors are targeting anti-corruption activists; the army, interior-ministry troops and private militias work at cross-purposes, answering to different politicians or oligarchs . Mr Poroshenko's government has been seriously weakened. ..."
"... "To some Europeans and Americans, this picture suggests that their efforts to persuade Ukraine to turn over a new leaf were always doomed to fail. That is a misreading. In fact, the recent chaos in Ukraine comes in part because in the past year, especially since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Europe and America have eased the pressure. If they do not restore their commitment to defending anti-corruption reforms, Ukraine risks sinking back into the morass from which it tried to extricate itself with Maidan. ..."
"... Ukraine's grubby politicians and oligarchs have tried to frustrate Western aims without openly defying them (see article ). Partly as a result, policy under Mr Trump has lost its focus on fighting graft. Kurt Volker, the American envoy to Ukraine, works on external security; America may soon sell the country lethal weapons for the first time. But when the State Department complains about corruption, it is ignored -- because (unlike Mr Biden) the White House offers it no support. As for the EU, few believe it would jeopardise its association agreement with Ukraine for the sake of the rule of law. So, the country's elite no longer fears attacking investigators and activists." ..."
"... "Lay off the pay-offs ..."
"... If they succeed in ending the attempts to fight graft, it will be a disaster for Ukraine -- and a step back for Europe and America, too. The country is the focal point of the West's conflict with Russia. Weak and divided, it is vulnerable to Russian encroachment, especially if Vladimir Putin decides he needs to fire up patriotic Russian voters. Chaos would also buttress Mr Putin's claim that the West's aims in Ukraine are purely anti-Russian and have nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. All this would undermine the rules-based global order, with consequences in the South China Sea and elsewhere. ..."
"... Now that Ukraine is defying complaints by America's State Department and the EU's foreign-policy arm, it is vital that America and Europe use every tool at their disposal to support corruption-fighters in Kiev. The EU should make plain that the benefits of the association pact depend on progress against graft; America should attach the same conditions to arms sales. Prosecutors in Western capitals should investigate the laundering of ill-gotten Ukrainian wealth. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity should not involve tolerance for the lack of integrity among its politicians." ..."
Dec 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren , December 10, 2017 at 8:26 pm

Al Jazeera English
Published on 9 Dec 2017
SUBSCRIBE 1.7M
He was the president of Georgia, then a governor in Ukraine, and now he's in jail on hunger strike.

The arrest, and re-arrest, of Mikhail Saakashvii in Kiev has stirred protests which evoke memories of the Ukrainian revolution three years ago.

Saakashvili's supporters say his detention is based on lies and they want him let go. They already freed him once earlier this week – from a police van.

Tuesday's dramatic scenes saw a former president being dragged across a roof. Police arrested him for allegedly conspiring with Russia against the Ukrainian state. Saakashvili then escaped custody, before police tracked him down again on Friday. The former Georgian leader says his arrest is politically motivated.

But is it really?

Presenter: Sami Zeidan

Guests:

Alexander Korman – Former Head of the Public Council and First Deputy Chairman of Public Council to the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Ukraine.
Sergey Markov – Former Russian MP & spokesman for President Vladimir Putin.
Lilit Gevorgyan – IHS Global Insigh tanalyst and principal economist covering Russia & Ukraine.

marknesop , December 9, 2017 at 9:34 pm
Aaaaand there you have it, folks, straight from the lips of Pavlo Munchkin. The west will not react to Saakashvili's detention , and considers it to be an internal Ukrainian matter. So Kiev can make up whatever wild charges it wants, and Uncle Sam will not ride to the rescue. Saakashvili has apparently outlived his usefulness.

I don't really feel sorry for him, because I've always thought he was a twat and his preening over being the golden child of Washington was sickening. In fact, he probably deserves whatever happens to him, although I expect the west will make some kind of private deal to get him out on the promise that he will stay out of Ukraine. Where he will go then is anyone's guess, since he is a stateless person with no citizenship. But it is significant to note how much weight Ukraine still swings with the west, even though Europe is getting impatient about its hamfisted anti-corruption charade. Kiev just said "Stay out of it", and the west retired smartly.

I think you will agree that is hardly a climate in which Poroshenko will feel moved to do anything much about corruption beyond making a lot of noise and promises.

Lyttenburgh , December 10, 2017 at 12:36 am
Well, indeed, it looks like the collective West decided to just say to poor, ageing, clumsy Mishiko "I know thee not, old man!". The ritualistic spitting and trampling of Saakasvhili effigy in the Freest Press in the World (Western one) will commence soon enough. But before that – a quick reminder of what they were saying, before re-alignment of the winds, blowing from Washington's ObCom.

The Economist (Editorial): Ukraine is a mess; the West should press it harder to fight graft – Lay off the pay-offs
Drama in the streets is a sign of worsening corruption. Ukraine must notbe allowed to fail

Ukraine is a mess? Nooooo waaaaaay! Are you sure? Tell me more!

"AFTER the Maidan revolution and the start of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014, Western policy had two aims: to halt and punish Russian aggression and to help Ukraine become a democratic state governed by the rule of law. America imposed sanctions on Russia, ordered the president, Petro Poroshenko, to establish an anti-corruption force and sent Joe Biden, then vice-president, on repeated visits to insist on fighting graft. The EU imposed sanctions on Russia, and made support for civil-society and the rule of law a linchpin of the association agreement it signed with Ukraine in 2014.

In that light, the news out of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been dire. The country's prosecutor-general has disrupted investigations by its National Anti-corruption Bureau, with the apparent consent of Mr Poroshenko. The interior minister has intervened to protect his son from similar scrutiny. Officers in the security service, the SBU, have tried to arrest Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president turned Ukrainian corruption-fighter, only to be driven back by protesters. Prosecutors are targeting anti-corruption activists; the army, interior-ministry troops and private militias work at cross-purposes, answering to different politicians or oligarchs . Mr Poroshenko's government has been seriously weakened. "

That's important part – keep it mind. But here comes the "meat" of the article! Good flunkies of Ed Lukas has found the answer to the eternal question "Whom to blame?" as pertains to the Ukraine and its current woes! Are you ready? Here it is:

"To some Europeans and Americans, this picture suggests that their efforts to persuade Ukraine to turn over a new leaf were always doomed to fail. That is a misreading. In fact, the recent chaos in Ukraine comes in part because in the past year, especially since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Europe and America have eased the pressure. If they do not restore their commitment to defending anti-corruption reforms, Ukraine risks sinking back into the morass from which it tried to extricate itself with Maidan.

Ukraine's grubby politicians and oligarchs have tried to frustrate Western aims without openly defying them (see article ). Partly as a result, policy under Mr Trump has lost its focus on fighting graft. Kurt Volker, the American envoy to Ukraine, works on external security; America may soon sell the country lethal weapons for the first time. But when the State Department complains about corruption, it is ignored -- because (unlike Mr Biden) the White House offers it no support. As for the EU, few believe it would jeopardise its association agreement with Ukraine for the sake of the rule of law. So, the country's elite no longer fears attacking investigators and activists."

Trump! It is all Trump's fault! Because – surely! – under the watch of the President of Peace B. Obama and gramps Biden no dodgy things ever happened in the Ukraine, noooope! Biden (and his son) gonna defend this PO like lions! This also welcomes nasty question – aren't Mr. Poroshenko himself an oligarch, whose personal wealth skyrocketed since his election? And maybe – I'm not insisting, no-no – having lots of cash stashed in "Panama Papers Fund" precludes him from actually fighting corruption – and not, you know, the election of Trump? Heresy, I know!

But the articles goes from strength to strength, boldly skipping to the "What to do?" section. The solution is as brilliant and though-over as everything else in there:

"Lay off the pay-offs

If they succeed in ending the attempts to fight graft, it will be a disaster for Ukraine -- and a step back for Europe and America, too. The country is the focal point of the West's conflict with Russia. Weak and divided, it is vulnerable to Russian encroachment, especially if Vladimir Putin decides he needs to fire up patriotic Russian voters. Chaos would also buttress Mr Putin's claim that the West's aims in Ukraine are purely anti-Russian and have nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. All this would undermine the rules-based global order, with consequences in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

Now that Ukraine is defying complaints by America's State Department and the EU's foreign-policy arm, it is vital that America and Europe use every tool at their disposal to support corruption-fighters in Kiev. The EU should make plain that the benefits of the association pact depend on progress against graft; America should attach the same conditions to arms sales. Prosecutors in Western capitals should investigate the laundering of ill-gotten Ukrainian wealth. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity should not involve tolerance for the lack of integrity among its politicians."

Hahahahahhahahahhahahhahhahahahahaohmysidesarehurtinghahhahhahahahmakeitstophahahha

Nope. Your Russophobia is high (and you yourself dear Western elites are also high most of the time when it comes to Russia) that you will allow this unholy corrupt mess to persist. Because, really, you are not interested in "democracy" and "open society". Not at the prize of people electing someone, whose strings you cannot pull.

At the same time – this is "big: and "respectable" The Economist we are talking about. They smell the fire from the yet unlit tires of new Maidan. They are afraid . They know, that their "Operation: SHOWCASE" of turning Ukraine into a "democratic alternative to Russia" failed. They are in denial.

Oh, how sweet!

Cortes , December 10, 2017 at 2:08 am
The obligatory "rules-based global order" makes a tardy but welcome cameo appearance like an aging well-loved Thespian milking the audience for a final burst of applause before retirement. Great stuff!
Moscow Exile , December 10, 2017 at 6:25 am
Украинцы проголосовали за возвращение "преступного режима" Януковича

Ukrainians voted for a return of the "criminal regime" of Yanukovich
01:24 – 10.12.2017

Ninety-two percent of the audience of the Ukrainian TV channel "NewsOne" voted for the return of the regime of former President Viktor Yanukovych, reports the news portal "Politnavigator".

In Saturday's broadcast, viewers were asked to choose one of two options to answer the question "For whom would you vote: for the last criminal power or the current one?". Out of 46,686 people only eight per cent supported the policy of the current president, Petro Poroshenko.

On 23 October, the Centre for social studies "Sofia" published the results of a poll in which 79 percent of the population in varying degrees did not approve of Poroshenko being head of state: the answer "fully approve of the President" was chosen by only 1.6 percent.

On October 17, the Prosecutor General of the Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, accused former president Viktor Yanukovich of embezzling assets worth $40 billion. According to the head of the supervisory authority, this was comparable with the annual budget of the country.

Yanukovych was President of the Ukraine from 2010 to 2014. After a violent regime change by means of the Euromaidan mass protests in Kiev and other cities, he left the country.

In the Ukraine, there have been initiated several criminal cases made against the former head of state and his property on the territory of the country has been seized.

marknesop , December 10, 2017 at 3:46 pm
There's a useful lesson there for someone: more than 90% – arguably; we have no way to know how scientific or representative this poll was – of the population does not support the current government, in a country that has considerable and recent practical experience of revolution. Yet the current government prevails with complete impunity, and even flaunts its contempt for accountability. How can these two realities coexist? Is it possible the violent nationalist element wields disproportionate influence, despite all the quacking about its low support in the polls and Russian exaggeration of its extremist beliefs?
Patient Observer , December 10, 2017 at 8:39 am
Can't vouch for the entire web site but this was interesting:

Baiting is the act of deliberately annoying or provoking someone to extreme emotion. When a person baits another, they are deliberately taunting in order to provoke a response from the offender's attack.

If you are a fisherman, it might be fun but if you're the fish -- or worse a worm squirming on a hook, being used to entice a predator to amuse? It's simply not as much fun for people who are the victims of any form of bait and switch attack.

Truly believing the world as they know it revolves around them, they tend to symptomatically behave in ways that are compulsively self-promoting, grandiose, illogical, irrational, egocentric, and grandiose.

Every social interaction is seen as a competition of sorts, with the Narcissist behaving as if their distorted, self-deluded version of any fact, story, or reality is somehow rooted in divine truth (rather than being recognized as a symptom of psychiatric dysfunction and outright gaslighting tales and lies).

The condition -- a personality TYPE classification, rather than an actual diagnosis of illness (per se) -- tends to be rooted in cultural nurturing, for the most part.

http://flyingmonkeysdenied.com/definition/baiting/

Warren , December 10, 2017 at 10:44 am
Can Neoliberalism Ever Go Away?

People all over the world are protesting against globalisation, inequality and selfishness. Democratic liberalism is supposed to solve these problems, but liberalism and its big brother neoliberalism are actually the cause of these problems. Furthermore, once a country has adopted neoliberalist policies it is very hard for it ever to reject them.

https://sputniknews.com/radio_brave_new_world/201707281055961487-can-neoliberalism-ever-go-away/

[Dec 12, 2017] With the 2018 midterms on the horizon, Moscow proposed a sweeping noninterference agreement with the United States, US officials tell BuzzFeed News. The Trump administration said no

Notable quotes:
"... "To test the possibility of a mutual agreement, Putin dispatched Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov to Washington for a July 17 meeting with Under Secretary Tom Shannon, the No. 3 official at the State Department. The official US account of the meeting offered only a bland summary of conversations on "areas of mutual concern." But three US administration officials, including one inside the meeting, said Ryabkov handed over a document containing a bold proposal: A sweeping noninterference agreement between Moscow and Washington that would prohibit both governments from meddling in the other's domestic politics. ..."
"... After examining the proposal, which has not previously been reported, US officials told Moscow there would be no deal. ..."
"... "We said 'thank you very much but now is not the time for this,'" said a senior State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic discussions." ..."
Dec 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Lyttenburgh , December 10, 2017 at 5:59 pm

C for Chutzpah.

ButtFeed: How Secret Talks With Russia to Prevent Election Meddling Collapsed
With the 2018 midterms on the horizon, Moscow proposed a sweeping noninterference agreement with the United States, US officials tell BuzzFeed News. The Trump administration said no.

"To test the possibility of a mutual agreement, Putin dispatched Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov to Washington for a July 17 meeting with Under Secretary Tom Shannon, the No. 3 official at the State Department. The official US account of the meeting offered only a bland summary of conversations on "areas of mutual concern." But three US administration officials, including one inside the meeting, said Ryabkov handed over a document containing a bold proposal: A sweeping noninterference agreement between Moscow and Washington that would prohibit both governments from meddling in the other's domestic politics.

After examining the proposal, which has not previously been reported, US officials told Moscow there would be no deal.

"We said 'thank you very much but now is not the time for this,'" said a senior State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic discussions."

Here you have it – a self-confession from the highest D.C. officials, that "democracy promotion = meddling in the elections"! Oh, but that's not all:

[Dec 12, 2017] The Acceleration of Censorship in America by Joe Lauria

Notable quotes:
"... BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election. ..."
"... A lesson of the 2016 campaign was that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with three decades of neoliberal policies that have fabulously enriched the top tier of Americans and debased a huge majority of everyone else. The population has likewise grown tired of the elite's senseless wars to expand their own interests, which they to conflate with the entire country's interests. ..."
"... Careerist journalists readily acquiesce in this suppression of news to maintain their jobs, their status and their lifestyles. Meanwhile, a growing body of poorly paid freelancers compete for the few remaining decent-paying gigs for which they must report from the viewpoint of the mainstream news organizations and their wealthy owners. ..."
"... Their solution has been to brand the content of the Russian television network, RT, as "propaganda" since it presents facts and viewpoints that most Americans have been kept from hearing. ..."
"... Now, these American transgressions are projected exclusively onto Moscow. There's also a measure of self-reverence in this for "successful" people, like some journalists, with a stake in an establishment that underpins the elite, demonstrating how wonderfully democratic they are compared to those ogres in Russia. ..."
"... The Jan. 6 intelligence assessment on alleged Russian election meddling is a good example of this. A third of its content is an attack on RT for "undermining American democracy" by reporting on Occupy Wall Street, the protest over the Dakota pipeline and, of all things, holding a "third party candidate debates," at a time when 71% of American millennials say they want a third party. ..."
"... According to the Jan. 6 assessment, RT's offenses include reporting that "the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'" RT also "highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties." In other words, reporting newsworthy events and giving third-party candidates a voice undermines democracy. ..."
"... The assessment also says all this amounts to "a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest," but those protests by are against privileges of the wealthy and the well-connected, a status quo that the intelligence agencies were in essence created to protect. ..."
"... There are also deeper reasons why Russia is being targeted. The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader in Moscow. There is substance to Russia's concerns about American designs for "regime change" in the Kremlin. ..."
"... But the "deranking" isn't only aimed at Russian sites; Google algorithms also are taking aim at independent news sites that don't follow the mainstream herd – and thus are accused of spreading Russian or other "propaganda" if they question the dominant Western narratives on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria. A number of alternative websites have begun reporting a sharp fall-off of traffic directed to their sites from Google's search engines. ..."
"... the European Union is spending €3.8 million to counter Russian "propaganda." It is targeting Eurosceptic politicians who repeat what they hear on Russian media. ..."
"... Less prominent figures are targeted too. John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture and was jailed for it, was kicked off a panel in Europe on Nov. 10 by a Bernie Sanders supporter who refused to appear with Kiriakou because he co-hosts a show on Radio Sputnik . ..."
"... At the end of November, Reporters Without Borders, an organization supposedly devoted to press freedom, tried to kick journalist Vanessa Beeley off a panel in Geneva to prevent her from presenting evidence that the White Helmets, a group that sells itself as a rescue organization inside rebel-controlled territory in Syria, has ties to Al Qaeda. The Swiss Press Club, which hosted the event, resisted the pressure and let Beeley speak. ..."
"... Much of this spreading mania and intensifying censorship traces back to Russia-gate. Yet, it remains remarkable that the corporate media has failed so far to prove any significant Russian interference in the U.S. election at all. Nor have the intelligence agencies, Congressional investigations and special prosecutor Robert Mueller. His criminal charges so far have been for financial crimes and lying to federal authorities on topics unrelated to any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians to "hack" Democratic emails ..."
"... As journalist Yasha Levine tweeted: "So the country that influenced US policy through Michael Flynn is Israel, not Russia. But Flynn did try to influence Russia, not the other way around. Ha-ha. This is the smoking gun? What a farce." ..."
"... There's also the question of how significant the release of those emails was anyway. They did provide evidence that the DNC tilted the primary campaign in favor of Clinton over Sanders; they exposed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from the voters; and they revealed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation and its foreign donations. But – even if the Russians were involved in providing that information to the American people – those issues were not considered decisive in the campaign. ..."
"... As for vaguer concerns about some Russian group "probably" buying $100,000 in ads, mostly after Americans had voted, as a factor in swaying a $6 billion election, it is too silly to contemplate. ..."
"... RT and Sputnik 's reach in the U.S. is minuscule compared to Fox News , which slammed Clinton throughout the campaign, or for that matter, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream news outlets, which often expressed open disdain for Republican Donald Trump but also gave extensive coverage to issues such as the security concerns about Clinton's private email server. ..."
"... Without convincing evidence, I remain a Russia-gate skeptic. I am not defending Russia. Russia can defend itself. However, amid the growing censorship and the dangerous new McCarthyism, I am trying to defend America -- from itself. ..."
"... Lauria's article is an excellent review of the hydra-headed MSM perversion of political journalism in this era of the PATRIOT Act, with special focus on 2016-2017. With one small exception that still is worth noting. Namely the inclusion of "North Koreans" along with Palestinians, Russians and Iranians as those whose viewpoints are never represented in the Western media. ..."
"... Without factual support James calls Putin an organized criminal. US NGO staff who have actually dealt with Putin characterize him as a strict legalist. In fact, Putin's incorruptibility is what drives CIA up the wall. Ask any upper-echelon spook. Putin's cupidity deficit short-circuits CIA's go-to subversion method, massive bribes. Putin has an uneasy relationship with the kleptocrats CIA installed while their puppet Yeltsin staggered around blind drunk. But Putin has materially curbed kleptocratic corruption and subversion. Russians appreciate that. ..."
"... It seems to be the same in Germany. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, he died maybe a year ago, he worked long for the prestigious newspaper FAZ, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book about bought journalism. His explanation for the disappearence of discussion sites with newspapers is that the journalists discovered that the reactions got far more attention than the articles. Very annoying, of course. With us here, Follow The Money, and The Post Online behave as childish as German newspapers. ..."
"... And if that same central bank would give out loans -- that never get repaid -- to the same ethnic gangsters that would then would use those loans to buy up over 90% of the host nations MSM outlets to forever ensure that a steady drip, drip, drip of propaganda went into the host nation's residents, ever so slowly turning them into mindless sheep always bleating for more wars to help the ethnic gangsters steal their way to an Eretz state? ..."
"... Reminds me of a contemporary Russian joke: "Everything communists told us about socialism turned out to be a lie. However, everything they told us about capitalism is perfectly true". ..."
Dec 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

Under increasing pressure from a population angry about endless wars and the transfer of wealth to the one percent, American plutocrats are defending themselves by suppressing critical news in the corporate media they own. But as that news emerges on RT and dissident websites, they've resorted to the brazen move of censorship, which is rapidly spreading in the U.S. and Europe. I know because I was a victim of it.

At the end of October, I wrote an article for Consortium News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election.

The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First was former British spy Christopher Steele's largely unverified dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.

And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used faulty software it was later forced to rewrite . The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.

My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear -- especially in academia, journalism and civil rights organizations -- about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia's alleged guilt.

After the article appeared at Consortium News , I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the article on the HuffPost, which was rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006, I am trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost editors retracted the article without any explanation.

.... ... ...

Support from Independent Media

Like the word "fascism," "censorship" is an over-used and mis-used accusation, and I usually avoid using it. But without any explanation, I could only conclude that the decision to retract was political, not editorial.

I am non-partisan as I oppose both major parties for failing to represent millions of Americans' interests. I follow facts where they lead. In this case, the facts led to an understanding that the Jan. 6 FBI/NSA/CIA intelligence "assessment" on alleged Russian election interference, prepared by what then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts, was based substantially on unvetted opposition research and speculation, not serious intelligence work.

The assessment even made the point that the analysts were not asserting that the alleged Russian interference was a fact. The report contained this disclaimer: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

Under deadline pressure on Jan. 6, Scott Shane of The New York Times instinctively wrote what many readers of the report must have been thinking: "What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.'"

Yet, after the Jan. 6 report was published, leading Democrats asserted falsely that the "assessment" represented the consensus judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies – not just the views of "hand-picked" analysts from three – and much of the U.S. mainstream media began treating the allegations of Russian "hacking" as fact, not as an uncertain conclusion denied by both the Russian government and WikiLeaks, which insists that it did not get the two batches of Democratic emails from the Russian government.

Yet, because of the oft-repeated "17 intelligence agencies" canard and the mainstream media's over-hyped reporting, the public impression has built up that the accusations against Russia are indisputable. If you ask a Russia-gate believer today what their faith is based on, they will invariably point to the Jan. 6 assessment and mock anyone who still expresses any doubt.

For instance, an unnamed former CIA officer told The Intercept last month, "You've got all these intelligence agencies saying the Russians did the hack. To deny that is like coming out with the theory that the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor."

That the supposedly dissident Intercept would use this quote is instructive about how unbalanced the media's reporting on Russia-gate has been. We have film of Japanese planes attacking Pearl Harbor and American ships burning – and we have eyewitness accounts of thousands of U.S. soldiers and sailors. Yet, on Russia-gate, we have only the opinions of "hand-picked" intelligence officials who themselves admit their opinions aren't fact. No serious editor would allow a self-interested and unnamed source to equate Russia-gate and Pearl Harbor in print.

In this atmosphere, it was easy for HuffPost editors to hear complaints from readers and blithely ban my story. But before it was pulled, 125 people had shared it. Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, then took up my cause, being the first to write about the HuffPost censorship on his blog. McGovern included a link to a .pdf file that I captured of the censored HuffPost story. It has since been republished on numerous other websites.

Journalist Max Blumenthal tweeted about it. British filmmaker and writer Tariq Ali posted it on his Facebook page. Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams interviewed me at length about the censorship on their TV program. ZeroHedge wrote a widely shared piece and someone actually took the time, 27 minutes and 13 seconds to be exact, to read the entire article on YouTube. I began a petition to HuffPost 's Polgreen to either explain the retraction or restore the article. It has gained more than 2,000 signatures so far. If a serious fact-check analysis was made of my article, it must exist and can and should be produced.

Watchdogs & Media Defending Censorship

Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals in such situations on principle, not preference.

In terms of their responsibilities for defending journalism and protecting civil liberties, their personal opinions about whether Russia-gate is real or not are irrelevant. The point is whether a journalist has the right to publish an article skeptical of it. I worry that amid the irrational fear spreading about Russia that concerns about careers and funding are behind these decisions.

One online publication decidedly took the HuffPost's side. Steven Perlberg, a media reporter for BuzzFeed, asked the HuffPost why they retracted my article. While ignoring me, the editors issued a statement to BuzzFeed saying that "Mr. Lauria's self-published" piece was "later flagged by readers, and after deciding that the post contained multiple factually inaccurate or misleading claims, our editors removed the post per our contributor terms of use." Those terms include retraction for "any reason," including, apparently, censorship.

Perlberg posted the HuffPost statement on Twitter. I asked him if he inquired of the editors what those "multiple" errors and "misleading claims" were. I asked him to contact me to get my side of the story. Perlberg totally ignored me. He wrote nothing about the matter. He apparently believed the HuffPost and that was that. In this way, he acquiesced with the censorship.

BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election.

That Russia-gate has reached this point, based on faith and not fact, was further illustrated by a Facebook exchange I had with Gary Sick, an academic who served on the Ford and Carter national security staffs. When I pressed Sick for evidence of Russian interference, he eventually replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck " When I told him that was a very low-bar for such serious accusations, he angrily cut off debate.

When belief in a story becomes faith-based or is driven by intense self-interest, honest skeptics are pushed aside and trampled. True-believers disdain facts that force them to think about what they believe. They won't waste time making a painstaking examination of the facts or engage in a detailed debate even on something as important and dangerous as a new Cold War with Russia.

This is the most likely explanation for the HuffPost 's censorship: a visceral reaction to having their Russia-gate faith challenged.

Why Critical News is Suppressed

But the HuffPos t's action is hardly isolated. It is part of a rapidly growing landscape of censorship of news critical of American corporate and political leaders who are trying to defend themselves from an increasingly angry population. It's a story as old as civilization: a wealthy and powerful elite fending off popular unrest by trying to contain knowledge of how the elite gain at the others' expense, at home and abroad.

A lesson of the 2016 campaign was that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with three decades of neoliberal policies that have fabulously enriched the top tier of Americans and debased a huge majority of everyone else. The population has likewise grown tired of the elite's senseless wars to expand their own interests, which they to conflate with the entire country's interests.

America's bipartisan rulers are threatened by popular discontent from both left and right. They were alarmed by the Bernie Sanders insurgency and by Donald Trump's victory, even if Trump is now betraying the discontented masses who voted for him by advancing tax and health insurance plans designed to further crush them and benefit the rich.

Trump's false campaign promises will only make the rulers' problem of controlling a restless population more difficult. Americans are subjected to economic inequality greater than in the first Gilded Age. They are also subjected today to more war than in the first Gilded Age, which led to the launch of American overseas empire. Today American rulers are engaged in multiple conflicts following decades of post-World War II invasions and coups to expand their global interests.

People with wealth and power always seem to be nervous about losing both. So plutocrats use the concentrated media they own to suppress news critical of their wars and domestic repression. For example, almost nothing was reported about militarized police forces until the story broke out into the open in the Ferguson protests and now the story has been buried again.

Careerist journalists readily acquiesce in this suppression of news to maintain their jobs, their status and their lifestyles. Meanwhile, a growing body of poorly paid freelancers compete for the few remaining decent-paying gigs for which they must report from the viewpoint of the mainstream news organizations and their wealthy owners.

To operate in this media structure, most journalists know to excise out the historical context of America's wars of domination. They know to uncritically accept American officials' bromides about spreading democracy, while hiding the real war aims.

Examples abound: America's role in the Ukraine coup was denied or downplayed; a British parliamentary report exposing American lies that led to the destruction of Libya was suppressed ; and most infamously, the media promoted the WMD hoax and the fable of "bringing democracy" to Iraq, leading to the illegal invasion and devastation of that country. A recent example from November is a 60 Minutes report on the Saudi destruction of Yemen, conspicuously failing to mention America's crucial role in the carnage.

I've pitched numerous news stories critical of U.S. foreign policy to a major American newspaper that were rejected or changed in the editorial process. One example is the declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document of August 2012 that accurately predicted the rise of the Islamic State two years later.

The document, which I confirmed with a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. and its Turkish, European and Gulf Arab allies, were supporting the establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria to put pressure on the Syrian government, but the document warned that this Salafist base could turn into an "Islamic State."

But such a story would undermine the U.S. government's "war on terrorism" narrative by revealing that the U.S.-backed strategy actually was risking the expansion of jihadist-held territory in Syria. The story was twice rejected by my editors and to my knowledge has never appeared in corporate media.

Another story rejected in June 2012, just a year into the Syrian war, was about Russia's motives in Syria being guided by a desire to defeat the growing jihadist threat there. Corporate media wanted to keep the myth of Russia's "imperial" aims in Syria alive. I had to publish the article outside the U.S., in a South African daily newspaper.

In September 2015 at the U.N. General Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed my story about Russia's motives in Syria to stop jihadists from taking over. Putin invited the U.S. to join this effort as Moscow was about to launch its military intervention at the invitation of the Syrian government. The Obama administration, still insisting on "regime change" in Syria, refused. And the U.S. corporate media continued promoting the myth that Russia intervened to recapture its "imperial glory."

It was much easier to promote the "imperial" narrative than report Putin's clear explanation to French TV channel TF1, which was not picked up by American media.

"Remember what Libya or Iraq looked like before these countries and their organizations were destroyed as states by our Western partners' forces?" Putin said. "These states showed no signs of terrorism. They were not a threat for Paris, for the Cote d'Azur, for Belgium, for Russia, or for the United States. Now, they are the source of terrorist threats. Our goal is to prevent the same from happening in Syria."

But don't take Putin's word for it. Then Secretary of State John Kerry knew why Russia intervened. In a leaked audio conversation with Syrian opposition figures in September 2016, Kerry said: "The reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger, Daesh was threatening the pos­sibility of going to Damascus, and that's why Russia came in because they didn't want a Daesh government and they supported Assad."

Kerry admitted that rather than seriously fight the Islamic State in Syria, the U.S. was ready to use its growing strength to pressure Assad to resign, just as the DIA document that I was unable to report said it would. "We know that this was growing, we were watching, we saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, how­ever, we could probably manage that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him." Kerry's com­ment suggests that the U.S. was willing to risk the Islamic State and its jihadist allies gaining power in order to force out Assad.

Why Russia Is Targeted

Where are independent-minded Western journalists to turn if their stories critical of the U.S. government and corporations are suppressed? The imperative is to get these stories out – and Russian media has provided an opening. But this has presented a new problem for the plutocracy. The suppression of critical news in their corporate-owned media is no longer working if it's seeping out in Russian media and through dissident Western news sites.

Their solution has been to brand the content of the Russian television network, RT, as "propaganda" since it presents facts and viewpoints that most Americans have been kept from hearing.

As a Russian-government-financed English-language news channel, RT also gives a Russian perspective on the news, the way CNN and The New York Times give an American perspective and the BBC a British one. American mainstream journalists, from my experience, arrogantly deny suppressing news and believe they present a universal perspective, rather than a narrow American view of the world.

The viewpoints of Iranians, Palestinians, Russians, North Koreans and others are never fully reported in the Western media although the supposed mission of journalism is to help citizens understand a frighteningly complex world from multiple points of view. It's impossible to do so without those voices included. Routinely or systematically shutting them out also dehumanizes people in those countries, making it easier to gain popular support to go to war against them.

Russia is scapegoated by charging that RT or Sputnik are sowing divisions in the U.S. by focusing on issues like homelessness, racism, or out-of-control militarized police forces, as if these divisive issues didn't already exist. The U.S. mainstream media also seems to forget that the U.S. government has engaged in at least 70 years of interference in other countries' elections, foreign invasions, coups, planting stories in foreign media and cyber-warfare, which Russian media crucially points out.

Now, these American transgressions are projected exclusively onto Moscow. There's also a measure of self-reverence in this for "successful" people, like some journalists, with a stake in an establishment that underpins the elite, demonstrating how wonderfully democratic they are compared to those ogres in Russia.

The overriding point about the "Russian propaganda" complaint is that when America's democratic institutions, including the press and the electoral process, are crumbling under the weight of corruption that the American elites have created or maintained, someone else needs to be blamed.

The Jan. 6 intelligence assessment on alleged Russian election meddling is a good example of this. A third of its content is an attack on RT for "undermining American democracy" by reporting on Occupy Wall Street, the protest over the Dakota pipeline and, of all things, holding a "third party candidate debates," at a time when 71% of American millennials say they want a third party.

According to the Jan. 6 assessment, RT's offenses include reporting that "the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'" RT also "highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties." In other words, reporting newsworthy events and giving third-party candidates a voice undermines democracy.

The assessment also says all this amounts to "a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest," but those protests by are against privileges of the wealthy and the well-connected, a status quo that the intelligence agencies were in essence created to protect.

There are also deeper reasons why Russia is being targeted. The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader in Moscow. There is substance to Russia's concerns about American designs for "regime change" in the Kremlin.

Moscow sees an aggressive America expanding NATO and putting 30,000 NATO troops on its borders; trying to overthrow a secular ally in Syria with terrorists who threaten Russia itself; backing a coup in Ukraine as a possible prelude to moves against Russia; and using American NGOs to foment unrest inside Russia before they were forced to register as foreign agents.

Accelerated Censorship in the Private Sector

The Constitution prohibits government from prior-restraint, or censorship, though such tactics were imposed, largely unchallenged, during the two world wars. American newspapers voluntarily agreed to censor themselves in the Second World War before the government dictated it.

In the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur said he didn't "desire to reestablish wartime censorship" and instead asked the press for self-censorship. He largely got it until the papers began reporting American battlefield losses. On July 25, 1950, "the army ordered that reporters were not allowed to publish 'unwarranted' criticism of command decisions, and that the army would be 'the sole judge and jury' on what 'unwarranted' criticism entailed," according to a Yale University study on military censorship.

After excellent on-the-ground reporting from Vietnam brought the war home to America, the military reacted by instituting, initially in the first Gulf War, serious control of the press by "embedding" reporters from private media companies. They accepted the arrangement, much as World War II newspapers censored themselves.

It is important to realize that the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, including the media. It is not illegal for them to practice censorship. I never made a First Amendment argument against the HuffPost , for instance. However, under pressure from Washington, even in peacetime, media companies can do the government's dirty work to censor or limit free speech for the government.

In the past few weeks, we've seen an acceleration of attempts by corporations to inhibit Russian media in the U.S. Both Google and Facebook, which dominate the Web with more than 50 percent of ad revenue, were at first resistant to government pressure to censor "Russian propaganda." But they are coming around.

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Google's parent company, said on Nov. 18 that Google would "derank" articles from RT and Sputnik in the Google searches, making the stories harder for readers to find. The billionaire Schmidt claimed Russian information can be "repetitive, exploitative, false, [or] likely to have been weaponized," he said. That is how factual news critical of U.S. corporate and political leadership is seen by them: as a weapon threatening their rule.

"My own view is that these patterns can be detected, and that they can be taken down or deprioritized," Schmidt said. Though Google would essentially be hiding news produced by RT and Sputnik , Schmidt is sensitive to the charge of censorship, even though there's nothing legally to stop him. "We don't want to ban the sites. That's not how we operate," Schmidt said cynically. "I am strongly not in favor of censorship. I am very strongly in favor of ranking. It's what we do."

But the "deranking" isn't only aimed at Russian sites; Google algorithms also are taking aim at independent news sites that don't follow the mainstream herd – and thus are accused of spreading Russian or other "propaganda" if they question the dominant Western narratives on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria. A number of alternative websites have begun reporting a sharp fall-off of traffic directed to their sites from Google's search engines.

Responding to a deadline from Congress to act, Facebook on Nov. 22 announced that it would inform users if they have been "targeted" by Russian "propaganda." Facebook's help center will tell users if they liked or shared ads allegedly from the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, which supposedly bought $100,000 in ads over a two-year period, with more than half these ads coming after the 2016 U.S. election and many not related to politics.

The $100,000 sum over two years compares to Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue. Plus, Facebook only says it "believes" or it's "likely" that the ads came from that firm, whose links to the Kremlin also have yet to be proved.

Facebook described the move as "part of our ongoing effort to protect our platforms and the people who use them from bad actors who try to undermine our democracy." Congress wants more from Facebook, so it will not be surprising if users will eventually be alerted to Russian media reports as "propaganda" in the future.

While the government can't openly shut down a news site, the Federal Communications Commission's upcoming vote on whether to deregulate the Internet by ending net neutrality will free private Internet companies in the U.S. to further marginalize Russian and dissident websites by slowing them down and thus discouraging readers from viewing them.

Likewise, as the U.S. government doesn't want to be openly seen shutting down RT operations, it is working around the edges to accomplish that.

After the Department of Justice forced, under threat of arrest, RT to register its employees as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , State Department spokeswoman Heather Nuaert said that "FARA does not police the content of information disseminated, does not limit the publication of information or advocacy materials, and does not restrict an organization's ability to operate." She'd earlier said that registering would not "impact or affect the ability of them to report news and information. We just have them register. It's as simple as that."

The day after Nuaert spoke the Congressional press office stripped RT correspondents of their Capitol Hill press passes, citing the FARA registration. "The rules of the Galleries state clearly that news credentials may not be issued to any applicant employed 'by any foreign government or representative thereof.' Upon its registration as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), RT Network became ineligible to hold news credentials," read the letter to RT.

But Russia-gate faithful ignore these aggressive moves and issue calls for even harsher action. After forcing RT to register, Keir Giles, a Chatham House senior consulting fellow, acted as though it never happened. He said in a Council on Foreign Relations Cyber Brief on Nov. 27: "Although the Trump administration seems unlikely to pursue action against Russian information operations, there are steps the U.S. Congress and other governments should consider."

I commented on this development on RT America. It would also have been good to have the State Department's Nuaert answer for this discrepancy about the claim that forced FARA registrations would not affect news gathering when it already has. My criticism of RT is that they should be interviewing U.S. decision-makers to hold them accountable, rather than mostly guests outside the power structure. The decision-makers could be called out on air if they refuse to appear.

Growing McCarthyite Attacks

Western rulers' wariness about popular unrest can be seen in the extraordinary and scurrilous attack on the Canadian website globalresearch.ca . It began with a chilling study by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into the relatively obscure website, followed by a vicious hit piece on Nov. 18 by the Globe and Mail, Canada's largest newspaper. The headline was: "How a Canadian website is being used to amplify the Kremlin's view of the world."

"What once appeared to be a relatively harmless online refuge for conspiracy theorists is now seen by NATO's information warfare specialists as a link in a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of mainstream Western media – as well as the North American and European public's trust in government and public institutions," the Globe and Mail reported.

"Global Research is viewed by NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence – or StratCom – as playing a key accelerant role in helping popularize articles with little basis in fact that also happen to fit the narratives being pushed by the Kremlin, in particular, and the Assad regime." The website never knew it had such powers. I've not agreed with everything I've read on the site. But it is a useful clearinghouse for alternative media. Numerous Consortium News articles are republished there, including a handful of mine. But the site's typical sharing and reposting on the Internet is seen by NATO as a plot to undermine the Free World.

"It uses that reach to push not only its own opinion pieces, but 'news' reports from little-known websites that regularly carry dubious or false information," the he Globe and Mail reported. " At times, the site's regular variety of international-affairs stories is replaced with a flurry of items that bolster dubious reportage with a series of opinion pieces, promoted on social media and retweeted and shared by active bots."

The newspaper continued, "'That way, they increase the Google ranking of the story and create the illusion of multi-source verification,' said Donara Barojan, who does digital forensic research for [StratCom]. But she said she did not yet have proof that Global Research is connected to any government."

This sort of smear is nothing more than a blatant attack on free speech by the most powerful military alliance in the world, based on the unfounded conviction that Russia is a fundamental force for evil and that anyone who has contacts with Russia or shares even a part of its multilateral world view is suspect.

Such tactics are spreading to Europe. La Repubblica newspaper in Italy wrote a similar hit piece against L'Antidiplomatico, a dissident website. And the European Union is spending €3.8 million to counter Russian "propaganda." It is targeting Eurosceptic politicians who repeat what they hear on Russian media.

High-profile individuals in the U.S. are also now in the crosshairs of the neo-McCarthyite witch hunt. On Nov. 25 The Washington Post ran a nasty hit piece on Washington Capitals' hockey player Alex Ovechkin, one of the most revered sports figures in the Washington area, simply because he, like 86 percent of other Russians , supports his president.

"Alex Ovechkin is one of Putin's biggest fans. The question is, why?" ran the headline. The story insidiously implied that Ovechkin was a dupe of his own president, being used to set up a media campaign to support Putin, who is under fierce and relentless attack in the United States where Ovechkin plays professional ice hockey.

"He has given an unwavering endorsement to a man who U.S. intelligence agencies say sanctioned Russian meddling in last year's presidential election," write the Post reporters, once again showing their gullibility to U.S. intelligence agencies that have provided no proof for their assertions (and even admit that they are not asserting their opinion as fact).

Less prominent figures are targeted too. John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture and was jailed for it, was kicked off a panel in Europe on Nov. 10 by a Bernie Sanders supporter who refused to appear with Kiriakou because he co-hosts a show on Radio Sputnik .

At the end of November, Reporters Without Borders, an organization supposedly devoted to press freedom, tried to kick journalist Vanessa Beeley off a panel in Geneva to prevent her from presenting evidence that the White Helmets, a group that sells itself as a rescue organization inside rebel-controlled territory in Syria, has ties to Al Qaeda. The Swiss Press Club, which hosted the event, resisted the pressure and let Beeley speak.

But as a consequence the club director said its funding was slashed from the Swiss government.

Russia-gate's Hurdles

Much of this spreading mania and intensifying censorship traces back to Russia-gate. Yet, it remains remarkable that the corporate media has failed so far to prove any significant Russian interference in the U.S. election at all. Nor have the intelligence agencies, Congressional investigations and special prosecutor Robert Mueller. His criminal charges so far have been for financial crimes and lying to federal authorities on topics unrelated to any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians to "hack" Democratic emails.

There will likely be more indictments from Mueller, even perhaps a complaint about Trump committing obstruction of justice because he said on TV that he fired Comey, in part, because of the "Russia thing." But Trump's clumsy reaction to the "scandal," which he calls "fake news" and a "witch hunt," still is not proof that Putin and the Russians interfered in the U.S. election to achieve the unlikely outcome of Trump's victory.

The Russia-gate faithful assured us to wait for the indictment of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But again there was nothing about pre-election "collusion," only charges that Flynn had lied to the FBI about conversations with the Russian ambassador regarding policy matters during the presidential transition, i.e., after the election.

One of Flynn's conversations was about trying unsuccessfully to comply with an Israeli request to get Russia to block a United Nations resolution censuring Israel's settlements on Palestinian land.

As journalist Yasha Levine tweeted: "So the country that influenced US policy through Michael Flynn is Israel, not Russia. But Flynn did try to influence Russia, not the other way around. Ha-ha. This is the smoking gun? What a farce."

The media is becoming a victim of its own mania. In its zeal to push this story reporters are making a huge number of amateurish mistakes on stories that are later corrected. Brian Ross of ABC News was suspended for erroneously reporting that Trump had told Flynn to contact the Russians before the election, and not after.

There remain a number of key hurdles to prove the Russia-gate story. First, convincing evidence is needed that the Russian government indeed did "hack" the Democratic emails, both those of the DNC and Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta – and gave them to WikiLeaks. Then it must be linked somehow to the Trump campaign. If it were a Russian hack it would have been an intelligence operation on a need-to-know basis, and no one in the Trump team needed to know. It's not clear how any campaign member could have even helped with an overseas hack or could have been an intermediary to WikiLeaks.

There's also the question of how significant the release of those emails was anyway. They did provide evidence that the DNC tilted the primary campaign in favor of Clinton over Sanders; they exposed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from the voters; and they revealed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation and its foreign donations. But – even if the Russians were involved in providing that information to the American people – those issues were not considered decisive in the campaign.

Clinton principally pinned her loss on FBI Director James Comey for closing and then reopening the investigation into her improper use of a private email server while Secretary of State. She also spread the blame to Russia (repeating the canard about "seventeen [U.S. intelligence] agencies, all in agreement"), Bernie Sanders, the inept DNC and other factors.

As for vaguer concerns about some Russian group "probably" buying $100,000 in ads, mostly after Americans had voted, as a factor in swaying a $6 billion election, it is too silly to contemplate.

That RT and Sputnik ran pieces critical of Hillary Clinton was their right, and they were hardly alone. RT and Sputnik 's reach in the U.S. is minuscule compared to Fox News , which slammed Clinton throughout the campaign, or for that matter, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream news outlets, which often expressed open disdain for Republican Donald Trump but also gave extensive coverage to issues such as the security concerns about Clinton's private email server.

Another vague Russia-gate suspicion stemming largely from Steele's opposition research is that somehow Russia bribed or blackmailed Trump because of past business with Russians. But there are evidentiary and logical problems with these theories, since some lucrative deals fell through (and presumably wouldn't have if Trump was being paid off).

Some have questioned how Trump could have supported detente with Russia without being beholden to Moscow in some way. But Jeffrey Sommers, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, wrote a convincing essay explaining adviser Steve Bannon's influence on Trump's thinking about Russia and the need for cooperation between the two powers to solve international problems.

Without convincing evidence, I remain a Russia-gate skeptic. I am not defending Russia. Russia can defend itself. However, amid the growing censorship and the dangerous new McCarthyism, I am trying to defend America -- from itself.

An earlier version of this story appeared on Consortium News .

Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and the Wall Street Journal among other newspapers. He is the author of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton published by OR Books in June 2017. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter at @unjoe .

Carlton Meyer , Website December 11, 2017 at 5:49 am GMT

"Breaking News" – CNN's Fake News Exposed -- Again!

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

AndrewR , December 11, 2017 at 6:40 am GMT
People believe what they want to. Evidence, or lack thereof, has little to do with it, so censorship, or lack thereof, is largely pointless.
El Dato , December 11, 2017 at 6:53 am GMT

But Huffington stepped down as editor in August 2016 and has nothing to do with the site now. It is run by Lydia Polgreen, a former New York Times reporter and editor, who evidently has very different ideas. In April, she completely redesigned the site and renamed it HuffPost.

Ah, so HuffPo is now a NYT vehicle.

jilles dykstra , December 11, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT
" It's a story as old as civilization: a wealthy and powerful elite fending off popular unrest by trying to contain knowledge of how the elite gain at the others' expense, at home and abroad. "

This is exactly what Howard Zinn writes. Alas it is the same at this side of the Atlantic. The British newspaper Guardian was independent, Soros bought it. Dutch official 'news' is just government propaganda.

But also most Dutch dicussion sites are severely biased, criticism of Israel is next to impossible. And of course the words 'populist' and 'extreme right' are propaganda words, used for those who oppose mainstream politics: EU, euro, globalisation, unlimited immigration, etc.

Despite all these measures and censorship, including self censorship, dissident political parties grow stronger and stronger. One could see this in the French presidential elections, one sees it in Germany where AfD now is in parliament, the Reichstag, one sees it in Austria, where the nationalist party got about half the votes, one sees it in countries as Poland and Hungary, that want to keep their cultures. And of course there is Brexit 'we want our country back'.

In the Netherlands the in October 2016 founded party FvD, Forum for Democracy, got two seats in the last elections, but polls show that if now elections were held, it would have some fourteen seats in our parliament of 150. The present ruling coalition, led by Rutte, has very narrow margins, both in parliament and what here is called Eerste Kamer.
Parliament maybe can be seen as House, Eerste Kamer as Senate. There is a good chance that at the next Eerste Kamer elections FvD will be able to end the reign of Rutte, who is, in my opinion, just Chairman of the Advance Rutte Foundation, and of course a stiff supporter of Merkel and Brussels. Now that the end of Merkel is at the horizon, I'm curious how Rutte will manoevre.

Grandpa Charlie , December 11, 2017 at 7:42 am GMT

"The viewpoints of Iranians, Palestinians, Russians, North Koreans and others are never fully reported in the Western media although the supposed mission of journalism is to help citizens understand a frighteningly complex world from multiple points of view" -- Joe Lauria

Lauria's article is an excellent review of the hydra-headed MSM perversion of political journalism in this era of the PATRIOT Act, with special focus on 2016-2017. With one small exception that still is worth noting. Namely the inclusion of "North Koreans" along with Palestinians, Russians and Iranians as those whose viewpoints are never represented in the Western media.

It"s true, of course, that the viewpoints of North Koreans go unreported in MSM, but that's hardly the "whole truth and nothing but the truth." The problems confronting any journalist who might endeavor to report on public opinion in North Korea are incomparably more difficult than the problems confronting attempts to report on public opinion in Iran, in Russia or in Palestine. These three "theaters" -- so to speak –each with its own challenges, no doubt, should never be conflated with the severe realities of censorship and even forceful thought policing in North Korea.

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 11, 2017 at 9:32 am GMT

Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals in such situations on principle, not preference.

I'm not even sure that they believe in Russia-gate. This could easily be cowardice or corruption. The globalists have poured untold millions into "fixing" the Internet wrongthink so it's only natural that we're seeing results. I'm seeing "grassroots" shilling everywhere, for instance.

This is not going to work for them. You can't force consent of the governed. The more you squeeze, the more sand slips through your fingers.

Vlad , December 11, 2017 at 10:12 am GMT
Thank you for your steadfastness, honesty, courage and determination.
cowardly troll , December 11, 2017 at 11:31 am GMT
It is worse than censorship. History, via web searches, are being deleted. Now, you have no hint what is missing. Example, in 1999 I read an article in a weekly tech newspaper – maybe Information Week – about university researchers who discovered that 64 bit encrypted phones were only using the first 56 bits and the last 8 were zeros. They suspected that the US government was responsible. Cannot find any reference to that online.
Jim Bob Lassiter , December 11, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT
Joe Lauria may very well be a "victim", but certainly not one that I would parade around as some USDA table grade poster child victim of really egregious reprisals. He's a veteran in the establishment MSM milieu and certainly knew what kind of a shit bird operation it is that he chose to attempt to publish his piece in.

Oh, lest I forget to mention, he didn't lose his livelihood, get ejected from his gym, have his country club membership revoked, get banned from AirB&B ad nauseum.

Che Guava , December 11, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT
It is an interesting article. I am curious about the '17 intellience agencies' thing, CIA, FBI, NSA, army and navy intel units, well that is making five or so. The latter two would likely having no connection with checking the 'Russia was hacking the election', likewise, air force sigint (which they obviously need and have). So, a list from a poster who is expert on the topic, what are the seventeen agencies which were agreeing on vicious Vlad having 'hacked' poor Hillary's campaign?

Is anybody knowing? This is a very real, good, and serious question, from me, and have not seeing it before. Can anybody producing a list of the seventeen agencies? Parodic replies welcome, but it would be of interest to many if somebody could making a list of the seventeen lurching about in Hillary's addled mind.

jack ryan , Website December 11, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT
We're witnessing a huge closing of the American Liberal secular mind. There used to be secular liberal hard copy magazines like the Atlantic Magazine that published intelligent well written articles and commentary about foreign affairs, immigration, Islam from a principled secular, Liberal perspective – especially in the early 1990s. That's pretty much gone now as The Atlantic is mostly just a blog that puts out the party line. There are still, thankfully a few exceptions like

Graeme Wood's "What ISIS Really Wants" https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

The Atlantic Magazine still allows a lot of free speech in the comment section, except in cases like articles written by the Ta-Nehisi Coates.

We try to use humor to deflate the humorless PC Lib Left thought police and the go alongs to get along in the Cuckservative, Conservative Inc.

Here's one of our/Farstar cartoons just noticing that too many people are just parroting CNN nonsense about Russian conspiracies.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2017/06/16/farstar-returns-parroting-the-tv-the-russians-are-behind-everything/jpg-parrot/

Ilyana_Rozumova , December 11, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT
Bias MSM. Censorship. These are affirmative sins of insecurity eventually leading to desperation, resulting in dictatorship.
Joe Hide , December 11, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT
Your article seemed otherwise good, but lacked any humor early on to keep me reading. After all, it is 6000 words! I have a job, family, obligations, other readings, and only so much thinking energy in a day. I think You might try shortening such articles to maybe 2000 – 3000 words? Like I said though, You did present some good ideas.
Julius n' Ethel , December 11, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT
Mark James' modified limited hangout shows us the true purpose of his ICCPR-illegal statist war propaganda. James candidly jettisons Hillary, acknowledging the obvious, that she was the more repulsive choice in this duel of the titans. But James is still hanging on to the crucial residual message of the CIA line: Putin tripleplus bad.

Without factual support James calls Putin an organized criminal. US NGO staff who have actually dealt with Putin characterize him as a strict legalist. In fact, Putin's incorruptibility is what drives CIA up the wall. Ask any upper-echelon spook. Putin's cupidity deficit short-circuits CIA's go-to subversion method, massive bribes. Putin has an uneasy relationship with the kleptocrats CIA installed while their puppet Yeltsin staggered around blind drunk. But Putin has materially curbed kleptocratic corruption and subversion. Russians appreciate that.

James fantasizes that Putin is going to get ousted and murdered. However Putin has public approval that US politicians couldn't dream of. This is because Russia's government meets world human rights standards that the US fails to meet. The Russian government complies with the Paris Principles, world standard for institutionalized human rights protection under expert international review. The USA does not. The USA is simply not is Russia's league with respect to universally-acknowledged rights.

James can easily verify this by comparing the US human-rights deficiencies to corresponding Russian reviews, point-by-point, based on each article of the core human rights conventions.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

Comprehensive international human rights review shows that the USA is not in Russia's league. Look at the maps if you can't be bothered to read the particulars – they put the US in an underdeveloped backwater with headchopping Arab princelings and a couple African presidents-for-life. CIA's INGSOC fixation on Putin is intended to divert your attention from the objectively superior human-rights performance of the Russian government as a whole, and the USA's failure and disgrace in public in Geneva, front of the whole world.

How did this happen? Turns out, dismantling the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now we see it's time to take the USA apart and do the same for America. That's the origin of the panic you can smell on the CIA regime.

Don Bacon , December 11, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT
There is censorship on blogs.
> I have been banned from The Atlantic blog for correcting a noted anti-Iran blogger.
> I have been banned from the National Interest blog for highlighting Pentagon's acquisition problems.
> I have been banned by Facebook for declaring that females don't belong in the infantry. I "violated community standards" with my opinion which was based somewhat on my time in the infantry, which my PC critic probably lacked.
jilles dykstra , December 11, 2017 at 5:53 pm GMT
@Don Bacon

In hindsight I wish I would have made a list of sites where I was banned, some of them several times. In the USA Washpost and Christian Science Monitor, both sites were abolished, I suppose because censorship and banning became too expensive.

In UK War Without End was was one of the very few sites where was no censorship, UK laws forced the owner to close down. The site was near impossible to hack, the owner had a hand built interface in Linux between incoming messages and the site itself. At present there is not one more or less serious Dutch site where I can write.

On top of that, most Dutch sites no longer exist, especially those operated by newspapers.

It seems to be the same in Germany. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, he died maybe a year ago, he worked long for the prestigious newspaper FAZ, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book about bought journalism. His explanation for the disappearence of discussion sites with newspapers is that the journalists discovered that the reactions got far more attention than the articles. Very annoying, of course. With us here, Follow The Money, and The Post Online behave as childish as German newspapers.

Alden , December 11, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT
@Jim Bob Lassiter

Your post is exactly what I wanted to write. Saved me the effort. I figured out the MSM was nothing but lies around 1966. I have no sympathy for any MSM journalist.

Greg Bacon , Website December 11, 2017 at 6:12 pm GMT
Wouldn't it be scary if a nation's central bank was controlled and run by a group pretending to be loyal to their host nation, but was actually in league with a nation that was trying to gobble up huge chunks of ME land, doing this by controlling the host nation's media outlets, and forever posting psyop stories and actual lies to support the land thefts?

And if that same central bank would give out loans -- that never get repaid -- to the same ethnic gangsters that would then would use those loans to buy up over 90% of the host nations MSM outlets to forever ensure that a steady drip, drip, drip of propaganda went into the host nation's residents, ever so slowly turning them into mindless sheep always bleating for more wars to help the ethnic gangsters steal their way to an Eretz state?

Yes, it would be scary to live in a tyrant state like that.

Anon , Disclaimer December 12, 2017 at 1:02 am GMT

Reminds me of a contemporary Russian joke: "Everything communists told us about socialism turned out to be a lie. However, everything they told us about capitalism is perfectly true".

[Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

Highly recommended!
Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better protection.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
"... Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
"... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
"... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
"... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
"... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
"... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
"... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
"... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
"... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
"... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
"... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
"... Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
"... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
"... Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
"... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
"... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
"... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
"... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
"... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
"... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
"... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
"... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
"... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
"... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
"... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
"... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
"... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
"... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
"... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
Jul 13, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.

Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.

The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War.

According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.

Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.

However, the project took an unexpected turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.

So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.

Blocked Premiere

Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.

Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."

As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The Washington Post reported.

That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.

By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son.

But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.

There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past.

Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."

In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven forbid!

One-Time Showing

So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War.

Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.

After the Newseum presentation, a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder and the Magnitsky Act."

The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic. But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.

The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.

"We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."

The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you might read in a totalitarian society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for saying something that almost no one heard.

New Paradigm

The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives on sensitive geopolitical issues.

Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."

First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.

In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.

From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.

But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the White House.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Joseph A. Haran, Jr. , July 13, 2017 at 2:13 pm

Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.

Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this problem before.

ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm

Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.

Any link?? I am willing to buy it.

Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm

This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet, search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"

https://my.mail.ru/bk/n-osetrova/video/71/18682.html?time=155&from=videoplayer

I'll keep looking for the film with translation into some other language.

Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:31 pm

Sorry, the Russian text did not appear. Try with latin alphabet: Film Andreia Nekrasova "Zakon Magnitskogo. Za kulisami"

Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:45 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d1ylakLMNU

This is the same dubbed version, on youtube.

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 5:21 pm

Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis.

backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm

Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.

incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm

Well stated.

Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm

Mr. Parry,

Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.

Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?

I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant.

Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it.

Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.

Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life as we know it, is appalling.

Anna , July 13, 2017 at 5:54 pm

"After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.

Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm

Anna,
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.

Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't like get elected

Anna , July 14, 2017 at 9:31 am

Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch, the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks, it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.

orwell , July 14, 2017 at 3:44 pm

Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational discussion here.

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm

Dear orwell

re Anna

Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish Zionist crowd in the US.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am

orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?

Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm

I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker just went up for taking on these two wackos.

Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm

The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless I shell out some unknown amount of money.

If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.

Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm

I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information. Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?

orwell , July 14, 2017 at 3:48 pm

The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.

Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm

Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product.

backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm

Drew – good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and strength.

BannanaBoat , July 13, 2017 at 6:12 pm

Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am

BannanaBoat – that too!

Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm

This is interesting:

"In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank! for which he was paid $500,000.

"Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.

Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder, a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance officials, among others, participated in the fraud."

The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia relations would suffer as a result."

More: http://observer.com/2017/07/natalia-veselnitskaya-hillary-clinton-magnitsky-act/

Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:13 pm

Very interesting, Zim.

Bart in Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 3:15 pm

"[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?

Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl clutching.

Cal , July 13, 2017 at 3:31 pm

WOW..excellent reporting.

BobH , July 13, 2017 at 3:35 pm

nice backgrounder for an ever evolving story censorship is censorship by any other name!

BobH , July 13, 2017 at 3:38 pm

afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am

Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view, as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm

"The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.

Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.

"The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.

'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of 'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'

'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.

'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into Russian meddling in the American electoral process.

'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.

"The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's statements appear factually sound."

Throwing a Curveball at 'Intelligence Community Consensus' on Russia By Scott Ritter http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-17-intelligence-agencies-really-come-to-consensus-on-russia/

Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC, as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders aren't going to listen them?

Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm

Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain historical events you've told us about.

Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am

Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.

John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm

Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.

I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
Thanks.

Roger Annis , July 13, 2017 at 4:02 pm

A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in Parliament.

A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/when-it-comes-to-magnitsky-laws-its-clear-what-russia-is-looking-for/article35678618/

John-Albert Eadie , July 13, 2017 at 5:01 pm

Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination.

backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm

Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger, with a link to this article.

Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm

Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.

Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm

"Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that's an oxymoron.

ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm

Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not).

Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm

ToivoS,

thank you for this background information.

My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented as socialist instead of social democratic ones.

backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm

Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.

I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them.

Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm

backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.

In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt, and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.

Bruce Walker , July 13, 2017 at 9:29 pm

I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.

I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You all have a nice Peacefull day

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am

Joe Average – "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."

No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized (sarc)!

But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online). Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that it was in the Russian language. LOL

Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918)."

Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here without going back in time for more fun!

I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up.

Keep smiling, Joe.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am

Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up. Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.

Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")

Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am

Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.

A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy, confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.

Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.

And now the disclaimer.

Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving , caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.

Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm

backwardsevolution,

thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading "Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.

The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.

With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.

On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne (Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.

Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am

Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others are the creative inventors.

Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks that way.

Thanks, Joe.

Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am

Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.

During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to his titles. The office became hereditary.

When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony. Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.

When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son, Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.

Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8 when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.

When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.

Anna , July 14, 2017 at 9:45 am

The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/

Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies (never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.

Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm

I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.

For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.

backwardsevolution,

in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.

Miranda Keefe,

I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.

Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz ). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants / money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.

Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm

History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nppst

History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal position of the church in the

Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable art work also.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am

Cal – read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings, gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with it?

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm

@ backwards

" Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'

imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside some loot for themselves.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm

Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.

Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am

An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some such belief.

Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm

Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia, the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia and China.

mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm

Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know .. (Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)

Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm

Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table? Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your not, what compromise with you?

Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute, but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?

Always like reading your comments mike K Joe

Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm

Joe,

when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.

Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm

This is where the Two Joe's are alike.

mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm

I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now, those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.

Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:15 pm

Yep

BannanaBoat , July 13, 2017 at 6:36 pm

Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of the nightmare USA society has become.

ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm

Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!

John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm

If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be a top historian as well as a top journalist.

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm

"Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains a cherished value."

A Response to William Browder
By Rachel Bauman
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/response-william-browder-16654

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:16 pm

William Browder is a "shareholder activist" the way Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a "human rights activist".

Both loudly bleat the "story" of their heroic "fight for justice" for billionaire Jewish oligarchs: themselves.

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.686922.1447865981!/image/78952068.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_625/78952068.jpg

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:19 pm

"never driven by the money"
https://www.thejc.com/culture/books/be-careful-of-putin-he-is-a-true-enemy-of-jews-1.61745

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:50 am

Abe – "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!

"It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by lobbying it.

This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.

"The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what the best constellation of players will be on this.

"There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting options, but I'm not going to name any names."

What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am

Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case is the margin of error.

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm

"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill Browder [ ]

"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia. He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.

"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel, to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?

"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum, though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a partner but also a mentor and friend.

"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party, the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University, the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising that none of it gets mentioned.

"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."

http://forward.com/news/376788/the-secret-jewish-history-of-donald-trump-jrs-russia-scandal/

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:15 am

Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As the article says, he leaves a lot out.

Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm

In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University – The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University – Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.

Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper

The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:

"With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2632989

In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts, Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes (mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud). Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am

What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.

It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel, almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.

Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.

Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am

" His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "

The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.

Abe , July 15, 2017 at 5:11 pm

Bill Browder with American-Israeli interviewer Natasha Mozgovaya, TV host for Voice of America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbgNeQ_xINM

In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".

The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.

Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various publications in Russia.

Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.

In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America.

HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm

Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled in me the sence of
priority.
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls, that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am

Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay, enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.

Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm

Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?

I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya. My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.

The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.

Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?

F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am

I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election. Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under control.

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am

It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.

I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.

When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger .she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.

I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.

Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.

Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.

Joe

Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am

"Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."

Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am

The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.

Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm

JT,
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm

I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.

Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm

You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.

Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm

Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.

My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:

"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."

This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives "play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever. The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am

Sanford – "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.

Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm

yessir, love it

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am

Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm

BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers would still be most scary.

Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am

Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options, have been allowed to flourish here.

A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."

The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."

In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.

The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.

Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.

When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.

Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.

According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.

Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs, criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am

Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:14 pm

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=6180

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW

United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
.
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE, LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,

HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,

THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.

Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification

Country: United States of America
Language: English

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm

Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."

A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there. That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.

Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm

Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has done a lot of good.

BannanaBoat , July 14, 2017 at 10:45 am

USA justice for Oilygarchs; Ignore capital crimes and mass destruction ; concentrate on entertaining shenanigans.

Cal , July 13, 2017 at 11:39 pm

If Trump wants to survive he better let go of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Lets start here:

Trump's personal attorneys are reportedly fed up with Jared Kushner
http://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-trump-lawyers-donald-jr-emails-2017-7

Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner "as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign

Second
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.

Third
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?

Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar

And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?

Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/03/sergei-gorkov-russian-banker-jared-kushner

The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals." Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.

Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before
http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
2 days ago –
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his father-in-law's

The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.

At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8 billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start. On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall, a hotel and high-priced condominiums"

Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange for giving them something from the Trump WH.

BannanaBoat , July 14, 2017 at 10:52 am

The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has gone to the very very very DARK side.

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm

Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol

Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am

What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today, and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.

Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election. Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information! They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures, not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.

So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative: that has been shown to be true over and over again.

This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism, but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.

Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am

Chris – good post. Thanks.

mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am

Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual post.

Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am

It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader". http://www.billbrowder.com/bio

HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am

One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S. politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.

Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am

With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate' I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions, that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making. Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story' and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed it appears

BannanaBoat , July 14, 2017 at 11:00 am

HEAR -- HEAR -- Excellent --

Zachary Smith , July 14, 2017 at 11:04 am

I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.

Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no alternative.

How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy? Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.

Again – Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am

Spot on.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm

Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white), but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?

It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm

Nice comment.

None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of the people involved in a issue or story.

We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am

I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company, a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks, just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written off with the "no evidence" argument.

Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm

God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.

I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.

Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm

Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting the facts.

The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.

The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".

Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.

Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism. Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime and terrorism in Syria.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am

Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.

Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm

When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".

exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm

Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.

mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm

I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless. If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what we must counter to wake people up.

Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm

Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds to a rebuttal.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am

Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.

The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.

Philippe Lemoine , July 14, 2017 at 3:41 pm

Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed blog post in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm

I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?

Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe

PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?

Philippe Lemoine , July 14, 2017 at 5:14 pm

Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her to win.

Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm

Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:

"as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr. said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting. Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."

Philippe Lemoine , July 14, 2017 at 10:27 pm

Thanks!

exiled off mainstreet , July 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.

Mike , July 14, 2017 at 9:36 pm

Pretty interesting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-jr-russia-bill-browder-testify-senate-links-natalia-veselnitskaya-steele-dossier-a7840061.html

Big Tim , July 15, 2017 at 12:31 am

"Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"

Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am

Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.

Anna , July 15, 2017 at 10:25 am

"Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
Agree.

P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm

When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist. Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity. As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold war.

Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm

Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!

MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Enough's Enough
STOP DNC/DEMs
#CryBabyFakeNewsBS

Support Duly ELECTED
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump
#BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
#DrainTheSwamp
#MAGA

Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 12:50 pm

CN article on 911 truthers:

https://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/011511.html

Finnish wonderer , July 15, 2017 at 1:19 pm

Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but still finished his documentary.

Mark Dankof , July 15, 2017 at 3:21 pm

The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American Republic is dead.

Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm

Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about the censorship. Sad.

Abe , July 15, 2017 at 5:41 pm

Note "allegations that are unsupported by facts".

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/19/a-reminder-about-comment-rules-2/

David , July 16, 2017 at 3:51 pm

Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:

From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia), and allegations that are unsupported by facts.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm

My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc). I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.

Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.

Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am

You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm

Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.

"David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.

Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".

Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".

David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm

I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm

The cowardly claim of "censorship".

The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".

No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.

Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.

dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm

torrent for the film?

Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am

Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-04-04%20CEG%20to%20DHS%20(Akhmetshin%20Information)%20with%20attachment.pdf

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:16 pm

Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.

But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.

It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William Browder.

After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".

Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (nιe Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman, a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family, were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.

In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator, with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.

Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.

David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm

So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not. Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm

Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".

My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.

Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.

And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.

Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.

I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.

David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm

It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper" as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day if you just read it.

David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm

Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican) to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm

It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility" and "standing" of William Browder.

Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and slurs against RP.

Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.

Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.

But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.

David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm

I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.

Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am

We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during a Perplexing situation.

This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.

The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton, regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.

This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information is share with other People.

This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton Foundation.

We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that Crime.

The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.

There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.

We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.

This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.

We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.

There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump, then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans, because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.

There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.

We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.

There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.

These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime, or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.

There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District, then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.

There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.

There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President, and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,

There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.

MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm

I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/07/10/trumps-inner-circle-met-with-no-ordinary-russian-lawyer/

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:32 pm

Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:

"So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.

"And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"

Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to flourish in Israel.

A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."

The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."

In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.

The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.

Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.

When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.

Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.

According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.

Why was Bharara fired?

Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.

Ain't gonna happen.

David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm

Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case, days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors. Hmmmm.

David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm

By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm

The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic Party political consultant.

From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington, Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.

Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation, and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/

Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune. Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.

Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".

Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Very interesting.

[Dec 10, 2017] blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag. Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time

Highly recommended!
Guardian in Russia coverage acts as MI6 outlet. Magnitsky probably was MI6 operation, anyway.
Notable quotes:
"... The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so. ..."
"... What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them. ..."
"... In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't. ..."
"... No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks. ..."
Dec 10, 2017 | off-guardian.org

by VT

The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at this gem :

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" – the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.

But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.

As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and not by Putin at all.

The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so.

What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.

When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.

In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't.

No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.

The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.

Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda narrative about the case. Magnitsky was actually an accountant .

A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:

"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.

By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.


michaelk says November 26, 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/26/big-issue-who-will-step-in-after-bullies-have-silenced-dissenters

From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail on Sunday by Nick Robinson?

michaelk says November 26, 2017
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5117723/Nick-Robinson-Putin-using-fake-news-weaken-West.html

This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.

michaelk says November 23, 2017
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq.

The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. Nothing happened afterwards. There was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international crime against humanity and things actually got worse post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.

rtj1211 says November 29, 2017
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill articles from ever working again in the media.

Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods ..

michaelk says November 23, 2017
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political right . amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.

The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.

I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality and real purpose.

The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not enough anymore.

All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls. It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.

WeatherEye says November 21, 2017
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.

John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonising Russia, I would propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any day.

rtj1211 says November 29, 2017
The Guardian is now owned by Neocon Americans, that is why it is demonising Russia. Simple as that.
WeatherEye says November 29, 2017
Evidence?
Harry Stotle says November 21, 2017
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not understand' – in other words they play a central role in 'the power of nightmares' https://www.youtube.com/embed/LlA8KutU2to
rtj1211 says November 21, 2017
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?

If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template of economic imperialism?

In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making $100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave ..

I do not know the trurh about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organising mass genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians as murdering savages ..

michaelk says November 21, 2017
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.

What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies, or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth in a chaotic world.

This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the Bible and separate the Truths it contained from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine the social order and fundamental power relationships.

The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that people were actually burned alive in England for smuggling the Bible in English translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such a 'crime.'

One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.

We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks represented.

WeatherEye says November 21, 2017
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth the filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on MSM as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilizing our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank videos. Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original being and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
tutisicecream says November 21, 2017
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".

Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public interest?

In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled: "MPs defend fees of up to £1,000 an hour to appear on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel." However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their ruse and although the most vociferous critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear not the buy into the idea that RT is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed outlet for giving voice to those who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.

Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance. In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.

Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/18/mps-kremlin-propaganda-channel-rt#comments

The fact that it's not shows clearly the fake Guardian/Observer claim and their real agenda.

WE ARE DEFINITELY LIVING IN DISORIENTATION TIMES and the Guardian/Observer are leading the charge.

tutisicecream says November 21, 2017
Correction: DISORIENTATING TIMES
Peter says November 21, 2017
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut. RT is launching a French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake news to further Putin's evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told). Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant in French political life).
Jim says November 21, 2017
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares their view and that they are in the majority. The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders for fear of influencing their cult members.
BigB says November 20, 2017
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is baseless and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst it may turn out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy to the tune of $145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.

A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison – she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones attention away from ones natural instinct.

[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment ) ]

So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.

jag37777 says November 20, 2017
Browder is a spook.
susannapanevin says November 20, 2017
Reblogged this on Susanna Panevin .
Eric Blair says November 20, 2017
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.

In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.

labrebisgalloise says November 20, 2017
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Eric Blair says November 20, 2017
Hey, MbS is also an "anti-corruption" campaigner! If the media says so it must be true!
Sav says November 20, 2017
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily people can be brainwashed.

The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.

A Petherbridge says November 20, 2017
Well said – interesting to know what the Guardian is paid to run these stories funded by this arm of US state propaganda.
bevin says November 20, 2017
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc etc.

Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..

This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible for a breach in diplomatic relations. It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.

Admin says November 21, 2017
The Canary is publishing mainstream russophobia?

[Dec 10, 2017] When Washington Cheered the Jihadists Consortiumnews

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany. ..."
"... A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07 .) ..."
"... So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside bombs." ..."
"... The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark. ..."
"... The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place. ..."
"... The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency." ..."
"... ancien régime, ..."
"... With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway. ..."
"... Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad. ..."
"... So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it. ..."
"... It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them. ..."
"... The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5 years. ..."
"... Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington don't want peace at any price because its bad for business. ..."
"... It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the people! ..."
"... The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S. politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC. ..."
"... This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will end. ..."
"... Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive toys are falling out of the sky in droves. ..."
"... On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives. ..."
"... The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in Syria. ..."
"... Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and Saudis coordinate their activities. ..."
"... An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq, which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena." ..."
"... The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
"... To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime." ..."
"... The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply lines. ..."
"... The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started working overtime. ..."
"... The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians. ..."
"... In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision." ..."
"... Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making ..."
"... General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria. ..."
"... The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection. ..."
"... That it conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course, there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions". ..."
"... The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces. ..."
"... I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the Salafist Islamic state with alarm ..."
"... Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. ..."
"... Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take much to see why he was targeted. ..."
"... The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on 9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" – covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic. ..."
"... Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US, who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union. ..."
"... All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in destroying life on Earth. ..."
"... There is a volume of evidence that the war criminals in our midst were arming and training "jihadists." See link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html ..."
"... Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg. ..."
"... The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well. Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. ..."
"... The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large collection of links for compiled evidence: http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292 ..."
"... This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without question, in the face of many unanswered questions ..."
"... Bin Laden (CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a "conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated ..."
"... So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war. It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not posting any comments here, either. ..."
"... From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy for the Realm". ..."
"... For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack all who disagree. ..."
"... I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No! US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private profit. ..."
"... Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking. The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic consequences. ..."
"... I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan, with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r? ..."
"... Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived for the zionists. Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had to be opposed. The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists for Mideast wars. ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total destruction. Easy. ..."
"... Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and 'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total disgrace? ..."
Dec 10, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

When a Department of Defense intelligence report about the Syrian rebel movement became public in May 2015, lots of people didn't know what to make of it. After all, what the report said was unthinkable – not only that Al Qaeda had dominated the so-called democratic revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for years, but that the West continued to support the jihadis regardless, even to the point of backing their goal of creating a Sunni Salafist principality in the eastern deserts.

Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in August 2014.

The United States lining up behind Sunni terrorism – how could this be? How could a nice liberal like Barack Obama team up with the same people who had brought down the World Trade Center?

It was impossible, which perhaps explains why the report remained a non-story long after it was released courtesy of a Judicial Watch freedom-of-information lawsuit . The New York Times didn't mention it until six months later while the Washington Post waited more than a year before dismissing it as "loopy" and "relatively unimportant." With ISIS rampaging across much of Syria and Iraq, no one wanted to admit that U.S. attitudes were ever anything other than hostile.

But three years earlier, when the Defense Intelligence Agency was compiling the report, attitudes were different. Jihadis were heroes rather than terrorists, and all the experts agreed that they were a low-risk, high-yield way of removing Assad from office.

After spending five days with a Syrian rebel unit, for instance, New York Times reporter C.J. Chivers wrote that the group "mixes paramilitary discipline, civilian policing, Islamic law, and the harsh demands of necessity with battlefield coldness and outright cunning."

Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, assured the Washington Post that "al Qaeda is a fringe element" among the rebels, while, not to be outdone, the gossip site Buzzfeed published a pin-up of a "ridiculously photogenic" jihadi toting an RPG.

"Hey girl," said the subhead. "Nothing sexier than fighting the oppression of tyranny."

And then there was Foreign Policy, the magazine founded by neocon guru Samuel P. Huntington, which was most enthusiastic of all. Gary Gambill's " Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists ," which ran on the FP web site just a couple of weeks after the DIA report was completed, didn't distort the facts or make stuff up in any obvious way. Nonetheless, it is a classic of U.S. propaganda. Its subhead glibly observed: "So the rebels aren't secular Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn't much matter."

Assessing the Damage

Five years later, it's worth a second look to see how Washington uses self-serving logic to reduce an entire nation to rubble.

First a bit of background. After displacing France and Britain as the region's prime imperial overlord during the 1956 Suez Crisis and then breaking with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser a few years later, the United States committed itself to the goal of defeating Arab nationalism and Soviet Communism, two sides of the same coin as far as Washington was concerned. Over the next half-century, this would mean steering Egypt to the right with assistance from the Saudis, isolating Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi, and doing what it could to undermine the Syrian Baathist regime as well.

William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany.

A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07 .)

Since the United States didn't like what such governments were doing, the solution was to install more pliable ones in their place. Hence Washington's joy when the Arab Spring struck Syria in March 2011 and it appeared that protesters would soon topple the Baathists on their own.

Even when lofty democratic rhetoric gave way to ominous sectarian chants of "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin," U.S. enthusiasm remained strong. With Sunnis accounting for perhaps 60 percent of the population, strategists figured that there was no way Assad could hold out against religious outrage welling up from below.

Enter Gambill and the FP. The big news, his article began, is that secularists are no longer in command of the burgeoning Syrian rebel movement and that Sunni Islamists are taking the lead instead. As unfortunate as this might seem, he argued that such a development was both unavoidable and far from entirely negative.

"Islamist political ascendancy is inevitable in a majority Sunni Muslim country brutalized for more than four decades by a secular minoritarian dictatorship," he wrote in reference to the Baathists. "Moreover, enormous financial resources are pouring in from the Arab-Islamic world to promote explicitly Islamist resistance to Assad's Alawite-dominated, Iranian-backed regime."

So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside bombs."

The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark.

"So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies," the article concluded, "we should quietly root for them – while keeping our distance from a conflict that is going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame the beast after Iran's regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames."

Deals with the Devil

The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place.The Islamists were something America could employ to their advantage and then throw away like a squeezed lemon. A few Syrians would suffer, but America would win, and that's all that counts.

The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency."

Where Gambill predicted that "Assad and his minions will likely retreat to northwestern Syria," the DIA speculated that the jihadis might establish "a declared or undeclared Salafist principality" at the other end of the country near cities like Hasaka and Der Zor (also known as Deir ez-Zor).

Where the FP said that the ultimate aim was to roll back Iranian influence and undermine Shi'ite rule, the DIA said that a Salafist principality "is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."

Bottle up the Shi'ites in northwestern Syria, in other words, while encouraging Sunni extremists to establish a base in the east so as to put pressure on Shi'ite-influenced Iraq and Shi'ite-ruled Iran.

As Gambill put it: "Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people, any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime, for three reasons: A new government in Damascus will find continuing the alliance with Tehran unthinkable, it won't have to distract Syrians from its minority status with foreign policy adventurism like the ancien régime, and it will be flush with petrodollars from Arab Gulf states (relatively) friendly to Washington."

With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway.

Disastrous Thinking

Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad.

U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the YouTube video] War-time destruction totals around $250 billion , according to U.N. estimates, a staggering sum for a country of 18.8 million people where per-capita income prior to the outbreak of violence was under $3,000. From Syria, the specter of sectarian violence has spread across Asia and Africa and into Europe and North America as well. Political leaders throughout the advanced industrial world are still struggling to contain the populist fury that the Middle East refugee crisis, the result of U.S.-instituted regime change, helped set off.

So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it.

It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for.

The forum is particularly well known for its Campus Watch program, which targets academic critics of Israel, Islamists, and – despite Gambill's kind words about "suicide bombings and roadside bombs" – anyone it considers the least bit apologetic about Islamic terrorism.

Double your standard, double the fun. Terrorism, it seems, is only terrorism when others do it to the U.S., not when the U.S. does it to others.

Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).

Babyl-on , December 8, 2017 at 5:26 pm

I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them.

The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5 years. When that happens the world will return to the gold standard + Bitcoin possibly and US dollar hegemony will end. After that the trillion dollar a year military and the 20 trillion debt take on a different meaning. Before that slaughter non-stop will continue.

john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:31 am

Really, Baby-lon, your first short paragraph sums this piece by Lazare perfectly and makes the rest of his blog seem rather pointless. Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington don't want peace at any price because its bad for business.

Jerald Davidson , December 9, 2017 at 11:53 am

Babyl-on and John Wilson: you have nailed it. The last thing the US (gov't.) wants is peace. War is big business; casualties are of no concern (3 million Koreans died in the Korean War; 3 million Vietnamese in that war; 100's of thousands in Iraq [including Clinton's sanctions] and Afghanistan). The US has used jihadi proxies since the mujahedeen in 1980's Afghanistan and Contras in Nicaragua. To the US (gov't.), a Salafist dictatorship (such as Saudi Arabia) is highly preferable to a secular, nationalist ruler (such as Egypt's Nasser, Libya's Gaddafi, Syria's Assad).
So the cover story of the jjihadi's has changed – first they are freedom fighters, then terrorists. What does not change is that in either case they are pawns of the US (gov't.) goal of hegemony.
(Incidentally, Drew Hunkins must be responding to a different article.)

BannanaBoat , December 9, 2017 at 4:31 pm

Exactly Baby right on, Either USA strategists are extremely ignorant or they are attempting to create chaos, probably both. Perhaps not continuously but surely frequently the USA has promoted war prior to the last 73 years. Native Genocide , Mexican Wars, Spanish War, WWI ( USA banker repayment war)

Richard , December 9, 2017 at 5:24 pm

Exactly Babylon! Looks like consortiumnews is turning into another propaganda rag. Assad was allied with Russia and Iran – that's why the U.S. wanted him removed. Israel said that they would preferred ISIS in power over Assad. The U.S. would have happily wiped out 90% of the population using its terrorist proxies if it thought it could have got what it wanted.

Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:50 am

CN tends to make moderate statements so as to communicate with those most in need of them. One must start with the understandings of the audience and show them that the evidence leads further.

Richard , December 10, 2017 at 10:27 am

Sam F, no, it's a DELIBERATE lie in support of U.S. foreign policy. The guy wrote: "the NAIVE belief that jihadist proxies could be used to TRANSFORM THE REGION FOR THE BETTER." It could have been written as: "the stated justification by the president that he wanted to transform the region for the better, even though there are often ulterior motives."

It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the people!

Either Robert Parry or the author wrote that introduction. I suspect Mr Parry – he always portrays the president as having a heart of gold, but, always, sadly, misinformed; being a professional journalist, he knows full well that people often only read the start and end of an article.

Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 5:31 pm

What we have occurring right now in the United States is a rare divergence of interests within our ruling class. The elites are currently made up of Zionist-militarists. What we're now witnessing is a rare conflict between the two factions. This particular internecine battle has reared its head in the past, the Dubai armaments deal comes to mind off the top of my head.

Trump started the Jerusalem imbroglio because he's concerned about Mueller's witch hunt.

The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S. politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC.

Since Trump's concerned about 1.) Mueller's witch hunt (he definitely should be deeply concerned, this is an out of control prosecutor on mission creep), and 2.) the almost total negative coverage the press has given him over the last two years, he's made a deal with the Zionist Power Configuration; Trump, effectively saying to them: "I'll give you Jerusalem, you use your immense influence in the American mass media to tamp down the relentlessly hostile coverage toward me, and perhaps smear Mueller's witch hunt a bit ".

This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will end.

How this all eventually plays out is anyone's guess indeed. Let's just make sure it doesn't end with mushroom clouds over Tehran, Saint Petersburg, Paris, Chicago, London, NYC, Washington and Berlin.

Abe , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm

Trump's purported deviation from foreign policy orthodoxy regarding both Russia and Israel was a propaganda scam engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning. As Russia-gate fiction is progressively deconstructed, the Israel-gate reality becomes ever more despicably obvious.

The shamelessly Israel-pandering Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.

"We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent." VIDEO minutes 2:15-8:06 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiwBwBw7R-U

After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015.

Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.

Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has "1000 percent" support from the Trump regime.

Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 8:10 pm

If Trump were totally and completely subservient to Netanyahu he would have bombed Damascus to remove Assad and would have bombed Tehran to obliterate Iran. Of course thus far he has done neither. Don't get me wrong, Trump is essentially part and parcel of the Zionist cabal, but I don't quite think he's 1,000% under their thumb (not yet?).

I don't think the Zionist Power Configuration concocted Trump's policy of relative peace with the Kremlin. Yes, the ZPC is extremely powerful in America, but Trump's position of detente with Moscow seemed to be genuine. He caught way too much heat from the mass media for it to be a stunt, it's almost torpedoed his presidency, and may eventually do just that. It was actually one of the very few things Trump got right; peace with Russia, cordial relations with the Kremlin are a no-brainer. A no-brainer to everyone but the military-industrial-complex.

Abe , December 8, 2017 at 10:59 pm

Russian. Missiles. Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive toys are falling out of the sky in droves.

Whether it was "bird strike" or something more technological that recently grounded the "mighty" Israeli F-35I, it's clear that America isn't eager to have those "Inherent Resolve" jets, so busily not bombing ISIS, painted with Russian SAM radar.

Russia made it clear that Trump's Tomahawk Tweet in April 2017 was not only under totally false pretenses. It had posed a threat to Russian troops and Moscow took extra measures to protect them.

Russian deployment of the advanced S-400 system on the Syrian coast in Latakia also impacts Israel's regional air superiority. The S-400 can track and shoot down targets some 400 kilometers (250 miles) away. That range encompasses half of Israel's airspace, including Ben Gurion International Airport. In addition to surface-to-air missiles installations, Russian aircraft in Syria are equipped with air-to-air missiles. Those weapons are part of an calculus of Israeli aggression in the region.

Of course, there's much more to say about this subject.

WC , December 9, 2017 at 3:44 pm

Here's a good one from Hedges (for what little good it will do). https://www.truthdig.com/articles/zero-hour-palestine/

john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:34 am

Surely, Drew, even the brain washed sheep otherwise known as the American public can't seriously believe that their government armed head choppers in a bid to bring peace to the region, can they?

Drew Hunkins , December 9, 2017 at 1:34 pm

Yup Mr. Wilson. It's too much cognitive dissonance for them to process. After all, we're the exceptional nation, the beacon on the hill, the country that ONLY intervenes abroad when there is a 'right to protect!' or it's a 'humanitarian intervention.' As Ken Burns would say: Washington only acts "with good intentions. They're just sometimes misplaced." That's all. The biggest global empire the world has ever seen is completely out of the picture.

mike k , December 8, 2017 at 5:34 pm

When evil people with evil intentions set out to do something in the world, the result is evil. Like Libya, or Iraq, or Syria. Why do I call these people who killed millions for their own selfish greed for power evil? If you have to ask that, then you just don't understand what evil is – and you have a lot of company, because many people believe that evil does not even exist! Such sheeple become the perfect victims of the evil ones, who are destroying our world.

john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:36 am

Correction, Mike. The public do believe that evil exists but they sincerely think that Putin and Russia are the evil ones'

mike k , December 9, 2017 at 5:41 pm

One of the ways to avoid recognizing evil is to ascribe it to inappropriate, incorrect sources usually as a result of believing misleading propaganda. Another common maneuver is to deny evil's presence in oneself, and believe it is always "out there". Or one can feel that "evil" is an outmoded religious concept that is only used to hit at those one does not like.

Mild - ly Facetious , December 8, 2017 at 6:22 pm

Oh Jerusalem: Requiem for the two-state solution (Gas masks required)

https://electronicintifada.net/content/oh-jerusalem-requiem-two-state-solution/22521

Abe , December 8, 2017 at 6:24 pm

On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives.

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/24/syria-rebels-nsa-saudi-prince-assad/

Marked "Top Secret" the NSA memo focuses on events that unfolded outside Damascus in March of 2013.

The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in Syria.

Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and Saudis coordinate their activities.

Abe , December 8, 2017 at 6:27 pm

An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq, which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena."

The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime."

The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply lines.

The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started working overtime.

The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians.

Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:26 pm

In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y274U7QIs

Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making:

Hasan: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?"

Flynn: "I think the administration."

Hasan: "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"

Flynn: "I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision."

Hasan: "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

Flynn: "It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."

Holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan read aloud key passages such as, "there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."

Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did the State Department soon after its release, Flynn did the opposite: he confirmed that while acting DIA chief he "paid very close attention" to this report in particular and later added that "the intelligence was very clear."

Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on the Syrian regime:

Hasan: "In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?"

Flynn: "I hate to say it's not my job but that my job was to was to to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be."

Flynn unambiguously confirmed that the 2012 DIA document served as source material in his own discussions over Syria policy with the White House. Flynn served as Director of Intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda.

Flynn's admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature. The Pentagon's former highest ranking intelligence officer in charge of the hunt for Osama bin Laden confessed that the United States directly aided the Al Qaeda terrorist legions of Ayman al-Zawahiri beginning in at least 2012 in Syria.

Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:44 pm

Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael Flynn, former head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency

Full Transcript: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2016/01/transcript-michael-flynn-160104174144334.html

Abe , December 9, 2017 at 2:11 pm

"Flynn would later tell the New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in particular was seen at the White House where it was 'disregarded' because it 'didn't meet the narrative' on the war in Syria. He would further confirm to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that Defense Department (DoD) officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly warning the administration that jihadists were leading the opposition in Syria -- warnings which were met with 'enormous pushback.' Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments, General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria.

"In a personal exchange on his blog Sic Semper Tyrannis, legendary DoD intelligence officer and former presidential briefer Pat Lang explained [ ] that the DIA memo was used as a 'warning shot across the [administration's] bow.' Lang has elsewhere stated that DIA Director Flynn had 'tried to persuade people in the Obama Administration not to provide assistance to the Nusra group.' It must be remembered that in 2012 what would eventually emerge as distinct 'ISIS' and 'Nusra' (AQ in Syria) groups was at that time a singular entity desiring a unified 'Islamic State.' The nascent ISIS organization (referenced in the memo as 'ISI' or Islamic State in Iraq) was still one among many insurgent groups fighting to topple Assad.

"In fact, only one year after the DIA memo was produced (dated August 12, 2012) a coalition of rebels fighting under the US-backed Revolutionary Military Council of Aleppo were busy celebrating their most strategic victory to date, which served to open an opposition corridor in Northern Syria. The seizure of the Syrian government's Menagh Airbase in August 2013 was only accomplished with the military prowess of fighters identifying themselves in front of cameras and to reporters on the ground as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

"Public embarrassment came for Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford who reluctantly confirmed that in fact, yes, the US-funded and supplied FSA commander on the ground had personally led ISIS and Nusra fighters in the attack (Ford himself was previously filmed alongside the commander). This after the New York Times publicized unambiguous video proof of the fact. Even the future high commander of Islamic State's military operations, Omar al-Shishani, himself played a leading role in the US sponsored FSA operation."

Obama and the DIA 'Islamic State' Memo: What Trump Gets Right
By Brad Hoff
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/07/01/obama-and-the-dia-islamic-state-memo-what-trump-gets-right/

Abe , December 9, 2017 at 3:08 pm

"one first needs to understand what has happened in Syria and other Middle Eastern countries in recent years. The original plan of the US and Saudi Arabia (behind whom stood an invisible Israel) was the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and his replacement with Islamic fundamentalists or takfiris (Daesh, al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra).

"The plan involved the following steps:

"It was an ambitious plan, and the Israelis were completely convinced that the United States would provide all the necessary resources to see it through. But the Syrian government has survived thanks to military intervention by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Daesh is almost defeated and Iran and Hezbollah are so firmly entrenched in Syria that it has driven the Israelis into a state of fear bordering on panic. Lebanon remains stable, and even the recent attempt by the Saudis to abduct Prime Minister Saad Hariri failed.

"As a result, Saudi Arabia and Israel have developed a new plan: force the US to attack Iran. To this end, the 'axis of good"' (USA-Israel-Saudi Arabia) was created, although this is nothing new. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab States in the Persian Gulf have in the past spoken in favor of intervention in Syria. It is well known that the Saudis invaded Bahrain, are occupying it de facto, and are now at war in Yemen.

"The Israelis will participate in any plan that will finally split the Sunnis and Shiites, turning the region into rubble. It was not by chance that, having failed in Lebanon, they are now trying to do the same in Yemen after the murder of Ali Abdullah Saleh.

"For the Saudis and Israelis, the problem lies in the fact that they have rather weak armed forces; expensive and high-tech, but when it comes to full-scale hostilities, especially against a really strong opponent such as the Iranians or Hezbollah, the 'Israel/Wahhabis' have no chance and they know it, even if they do not admit it. So, one simply needs to think up some kind of plan to force the Shiites to pay a high price.

"So they developed a new plan. Firstly, the goal is now not the defeat of Hezbollah or Iran. For all their rhetoric, the Israelis know that neither they nor especially the Saudis are able to seriously threaten Iran or even Hezbollah. Their plan is much more basic: initiate a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene. Only today, the armed forces of the United States have no way of winning a war with Iran, and this may be a problem. The US military knows this and they are doing everything to tell the neo-cons 'sorry, we just can't.' This is the only reason why a US attack on Iran has not already taken place. From the Israeli point of view this is totally unacceptable and the solution is simple: just force the US to participate in a war they do not really need. As for the Iranians, the Israeli goal of provoking an attack on Iran by the US is not to defeat Iran, but just to bring about destruction – a lot of destruction [ ]

"You would need to be crazy to attack Iran. The problem, however, is that the Saudis and the Israelis are close to this state. And they have proved it many times. So it just remains to hope that Israel and the KSA are 'crazy', but 'not that crazy'."

The Likelihood of War with Iran By Petr Lvov https://journal-neo.org/2017/12/09/the-likelihood-of-war-with-iran/

BobH, December 8, 2017 at 7:13 pm

The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection.

That it conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course, there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions".

Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:24 pm

There WAS dissension within the Pentagon, not only about being in a coalition with the Gulf States and Turkey in support of terrorist forces, but about allowing ISIS to invade Ramadi, which CENTCOM exposed by making public that US forces watched it happen and did nothing. In addition, CENTCOM and SOCOM publicly opposed switching sides in Yemen.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/4/17/us-generals-think-saudi-strikes-in-yemen-a-bad-idea.html

A senior commander at Central Command (CENTCOM), speaking on condition of anonymity, scoffed at that argument. "The reason the Saudis didn't inform us of their plans," he said, "is because they knew we would have told them exactly what we think -- that it was a bad idea.

Military sources said that a number of regional special forces officers and officers at U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) argued strenuously against supporting the Saudi-led intervention because the target of the intervention, the Shia Houthi movement -- which has taken over much of Yemen and which Riyadh accuses of being a proxy for Tehran -- has been an effective counter to Al-Qaeda.

The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces.

BobH , December 8, 2017 at 10:55 pm

Thanks, I never read anything about it in the MSM (perhaps Aljazeera was an exception?). However, this doesn't explain Gen. Flynn's tight relationship with Turkey's Erdogan who clearly backed the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels to the point of shooting down a Russian jet over Syria.

Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:57 am

The fighter shoot-down incident was before Erdogan's reversals in Syria policy.

Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:28 pm

I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the Salafist Islamic state with alarm.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

B. THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.

C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA, AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.

C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN).

D. THE DETERIORATION OF THE SITUATION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES ON THE IRAQI SITUATION AND ARE AS FOLLOWS:

–1. THIS CREATES THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR AQI TO RETURN TO ITS OLD POCKETS IN MOSUL AND RAMADI, AND WILL PROVIDE A RENEWED MOMENTUM UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF UNIFYING THE JIHAD AMONG SUNNI IRAQ AND SYRIA ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY

https://geopolitics.co/2015/12/22/dempseys-pentagon-aided-assad-with-military-intelligence-hersh/
London Review of Books Vol. 38 No. 1 · 7 January 2016
Military to Military: US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war
Seymour M. Hersh

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in control of the opposition. Turkey wasn't doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign fighters and weapons across the border. 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,' Flynn told me. 'We understood Isis's long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria.' The DIA's reporting, he said, 'got enormous pushback' from the Obama administration. 'I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.'

j. D. D. , December 9, 2017 at 8:33 am

Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take much to see why he was targeted. Ironically, the MSM is now going bananas over his support for nuclear power in the region, which he had tied to desalination of sea water, toward alleviating that crucial source of conflict in the area.

Abbybwood , December 9, 2017 at 11:24 pm

I believe Wesley Clark told Amy Goodman that he was handed the classified memo regarding the U.S. overthrowing seven countries in five years starting with Iraq and ending with Iran, in 2001, not 2006. He said it was right after 9/11 when he visited the Pentagon and Joint Chief of Staff's office and was handed the memo.

jaycee , December 8, 2017 at 7:19 pm

The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on 9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" – covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic.

One disturbing common feature across the years have been US sponsored airlifts of Islamist fighters facing defeat, as seen in Afghanistan in late 2001 and just recently in eastern Syria. In 2001, some of those fighters were relocated to North Africa, specifically Mali – the roots of the Islamist insurgency which has destabilized that country over the past few years. Where exactly the ISIS rebels assisted some weeks ago were relocated is yet unknown.

turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US, who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union.

Hence the birth of the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden, the rest is history.

j. D. D. , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm

The article does not support the sub-headline. There is no evidence provided, nor is there any evidence to be found, that Washington's policy in the region was motivated by anything other than geopolitical objectives.

David G , December 9, 2017 at 7:25 am

I think that phrasing may point to the hand of editor Robert Parry. The incredible value of CN notwithstanding, Parry in his own pieces (erroneously in my eyes) maintains a belief that Obama somehow meant well. Hence the imputation of some "naïve" but ultimately benevolent motive on the part of the U.S. genocidaires, as the whole Syria catastrophe got going on Obama's watch.

Anon , December 9, 2017 at 9:14 am

The imputation of naivete works to avoid accusation of a specific strategy without sufficient evidence.

Skip Scott , December 9, 2017 at 9:45 am

Although I am no fan of Obama, and most especially the continuation of the warmongering for his 8 years, he did balk at the "Red line" when he found out he was being set up, and it wasn't Assad who used chemical weapons. I don't think he "meant well" so much as he knew the exact length of his leash. His bragging about going against "The Washington playbook" was of course laughable; just as his whole hopey/changey thing was laughable with Citigroup picking his cabinet.

Stephen , December 9, 2017 at 2:49 pm

Off topic but you can listen to some of Obama's banking handiwork here: https://sputniknews.com/radio_loud_and_clear/201712091059844562-looming-government-shutdown-will-democrats-fight-trumps-pro-rich-plan/ It starts at about minute 28:14. It explains the whole reaction by Obama and Holder to the banking fiasco in my mind. Sorry but I had to get it from the evil Rooski radio program.

Lois Gagnon , December 8, 2017 at 8:41 pm

All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in destroying life on Earth.

Stephen J. , December 8, 2017 at 8:42 pm

There is a volume of evidence that the war criminals in our midst were arming and training "jihadists." See link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html

MarkU , December 8, 2017 at 10:00 pm

"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better, explains Daniel Lazare." What a load of old rubbish, naïve belief indeed. it is difficult to believe that anyone could write this stuff with a straight face.

Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:37 pm

Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg.

Zachary Smith , December 8, 2017 at 11:37 pm

That Gary Gambill character "outed" himself as a Zionist on September 4 of this year. He appears to have mastered the propaganda associated with the breed. At the link see if you can find any mention of the murders, thefts, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid of his adopted nation. Blaming the victim may be this fellow's specialty. Sample:

The well-intentioned flocked in droves to the belief that Israeli- Palestinian peace was achievable provided Israel made the requisite concessions, and that this would liberate the Arab-Islamic world from a host of other problems allegedly arising from it: bloated military budgets, intolerance of dissent, Islamic extremism, you name it.

Why tackle each of these problems head on when they can be alleviated all at once when Israel is brought to heel? Twenty years later, the Middle East is suffering the consequences of this conspiracy of silence.

Zachary Smith , December 8, 2017 at 11:37 pm

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-accidental-Zionist-504221

Gerry , December 9, 2017 at 4:51 am

The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well. Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth.

It takes courage to go against the flow of course and one can only hope that the Americans are what they think they are: courageous and strong enough to hear their cherished truths smashed, allow the scales before their eyes to fall and practise free speech and free thought.

Theo , December 9, 2017 at 6:35 am

Thanks for this article and many others on this site.In Europe and in Germany you hardly hear,read or see any of these facts and their connections.It seems to be only of marginal interest.

Josh Stern , December 9, 2017 at 6:49 am

The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large collection of links for compiled evidence: http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292

triekc , December 9, 2017 at 8:27 am

This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without question, in the face of many unanswered questions.

Beginning in the 1990's, neocons who would become W's cabinet, wrote detailed plans of military regime change in Middle East, but stating they needed a "strong external shock to the United States -- a latter-day 'Pearl Harbor", to get US sheeple to support increased militarism and global war. Few months after W took office, and had appointed those war mongering neocons to positions of power, Bin Laden (CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a "conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated

Joe Tedesky , December 9, 2017 at 11:27 am

You commented on what I was thinking, and that was, 'remember when al Queda was our enemy on 911'? So now that bin Laden is dead, and his al Queda now fights on our side, shouldn't the war be over? And, just for the record who did attack us on 911?

So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war. It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not posting any comments here, either.

Knowing the Pentagon mentality they probably have an 'al Queda combat medal' to pin on the terrorists chest. Sarcasm I know, but seriously is anything not within the realm of believable when it comes to this MIC establishment?

Christene Bartels , December 9, 2017 at 8:53 am

Great article and spot on as far as the author takes it. But the world is hurtling towards Armageddon so I'd like to back things up about one hundred years and get down to brass tacks.

The fact of the matter is, the M.E. has never been at total peace but it has been nothing but one colossal FUBAR since the Ottoman Empire was defeated after WWI and the Allied Forces got their grubby, greedy mitts on its M.E. territories and all of that luscious black gold. First up was the British Empire and France and then it really went nuclear (literally) in 1946 when Truman and the U.S. joined in the fun and decided to figure out how we could carve out that ancient prime piece of real estate and resurrect Israel. By 1948 ..violà ..there she was.

So now here we sit as the hundred year delusion that we knew what the hell we were doing comes crashing down around us. Seriously, whoever the people have been who thought that a country with the historical perspective of a toddler was going to be able to successfully manage and manipulate a region filled with people who are still tribal in perspective and are still holding grudges and settling scores from five thousand years ago were complete and total arrogant morons. Every single one of them. Up to the present moment.

Which gets me down to those brass tacks I alluded to at the beginning of my comment. Delusional crusades lead by arrogant morons always, always, always end up as ash heaps. So, I would suggest we all prepare for that rapidly approaching conclusion accordingly. For me, that means hitting my knees.

Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 1:00 pm

Middle Eastern people are no more "tribal" or prone to holding grudges than any other people. Middle Eastern people have exhibited and practiced peaceful and tolerant living arrangements within several different contexts over the centuries. Iraq had a fairly thriving middle class and the Syrians are a cultured and educated people.

Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 10:07 pm

Syrian society is constructed very much within the construct of close family ties and a sense of a Syrian homeland. It is solely the business of the Syrian people to decide whether the socialist Ba'ath government functions according to their own sense of realities and standards. Some of those realities may include aspects of a necessitated national security state (necessitated by CIA and Israeli subterfuge) that prompts shills to immediately characterize the Assad government as "an authoritarian regime" and of course that's all you need to know. Part of what pisses the West off about the Syrians is that they are so competent, and that includes their intelligence and security services. One of the other parts is the socialist example of government functioning in interests of the general population, not selling out to vultures.

It bothers me that Mr. Lazare wrote: "Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair." Really? Well the Syrian government can hardly be blamed for the vile strategy of using terrorist mercenaries to take or destroy a people's homeland–killing horrific numbers of fathers, mothers, and children on the way to establish some kind of Wild West control over Damascus that can then be manipulated for the typical elite deviances. What was purposely planned and visited upon the Syrian people has had human consequences that were known and disregarded by the planners. It has been and continues to be a grave crime against our common humanity that should be raised to the roof of objection! People like Gambill should be excoriated for their crass appraisal of human costs .and for their contrived and twisted rationalizations and deceits. President Assad recently gave an interview to teleSUR that is worth a listen. He talks about human costs with understanding for what he is talking about. Gambill doesn't give a damn.

BASLE , December 9, 2017 at 10:46 am

From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy for the Realm".

Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:08 am

Yes, Israel is the cut-out or fence for US politicians stealing campaign money from the federal budget. US policy is that of the bribery sources and nothing else. And it believes that to be professional competence. For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack all who disagree.

Herman , December 9, 2017 at 10:47 am

"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better, explains Daniel Lazare."

Lazare makes the case very well about our amoral foreign policy but I think he errs in saying our aim was to "transform the region for the better." Recent history, going back to Afghanistan shows a very different goal, to defeat our enemies and the enemies of our allies with little concern for the aftermath. Just observing what has happened to the people where we supported extremists is evidence enough.

Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward men. We hope the conscience of our nation is bothered by our behavior but we know that is not true, and we sleep very well, thank you.

Marilyn Vogt-Downey , December 9, 2017 at 11:18 am

I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No! US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private profit.

There is ample evidence–see the Brookings Institute study among many others–that the Gulf monarchies–flunkies of US imperialism–who "host" dozens of US military bases in the region, some of them central to US war strategy–initiated and nourished and armed and financed the "jihadi armies" in Syria AND Libya AND elsewhere; they did not do this on their own. The US government–the executive committee of the US ruling class–does not naively support the Gulf monarchies because it doesn't know any better! Washington (following British imperialism) organized, established and backed these flunky regimes. They are autocratic, antediluvian regimes, allowing virtually civil rights, with no local proletariat to speak of, no popular base. They are no more than sheriffs for imperialism in that region of the world, along with the Zionist state of Israel, helping imperialism do the really dirty work.

I research this and gathered the evidence to support what I just asserted in a long study printed back in Dec. 2015 in Truthout. Here is the link: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34151-what-is-the-war-on-terror-and-how-to-fight-it

Look at the evidence. Stop the totally foolish assessment that the US government spends all this money on a war machine just to "naively" blunder into wars that level entire nations–and is not taking on destruction of the entire continent of Africa to eliminate any obstacles to its domination.

No! That is foolish and destructive. Unless we look in the face what is going on–the US government since its "secret" intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, has recruited, trained, armed, funded and relied on jihadi armies to unseat regimes and destabilize and destroy populations and regimes the US government wants to overthrow, and destroy, any that could potentially develop into an alternative model of nationalist, bourgeois industrial development on any level.

Wake up!!! The evidence is there. There is no reason to bumble and bungle along as if we are in the dark.

Randal Marlin , December 9, 2017 at 11:26 am

Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking.
The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic consequences.

Behind all this is the thinking that the survival of Israel outweighs anything else in any global ethical calculus. Those who don't accept this moral premise but who believe in supporting the survival of Israel have their work cut out for them. This work would be made easier if the U.S. population saw clearly what was going on, instead of being preoccupied with salacious sexual misconduct stories or other distractions.

Zachary Smith , December 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm

A Russian interceptor has been scrambled to stop a rogue US fighter jet from actively interfering with an anti-terrorist operation, the Russian Defense Ministry said. It also accused the US of provoking close encounters with the Russian jets in Syria.

A US F-22 fighter was preventing two Russian Su-25 strike aircraft from bombing an Islamic State (IS, former ISIS) base to the west of the Euphrates November 23, according to the ministry. The ministry's spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov described the episode as yet another example of US aircraft attempts to prevent Russian forces from carrying out strikes against Islamic State.

"The F-22 launched decoy flares and used airbrakes while constantly maneuvering [near the Russian strike jets], imitating an air fight," Konashenkov said. He added that the US jet ceased its dangerous maneuvers only after a Russian Su-35S fighter jet joined the two strike planes.

If this story is true, then it illustrates a number of things. First, the US is still providing ISIS air cover. Second, either the F-22 pilot or his commander is dumber than dirt. The F-22 may be a fine airplane, but getting into a contest with an equally fine non-stealth airplane at eyeball distances means throwing away every advantage of the super-expensive stealth.

Zachary Smith , December 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm

https://www.rt.com/news/412590-russia-us-syria-air-force/

Pablo Diablo , December 9, 2017 at 2:53 pm

Gotta keep the War Machine well fed and insure Corporate control of markets and taking of resources.

Abe , December 9, 2017 at 2:54 pm

In October 1973, a nuclear armed rogue state almost triggered a global thermonuclear war.

Yom Kippur: Israel's 1973 nuclear alert
By Richard Sale
https://www.upi.com/Yom-Kippur-Israels-1973-nuclear-alert/64941032228992/

Israel obtained operational nuclear weapons capability by 1967, with the mass production of nuclear warheads occurring immediately after the Six-Day War. In addition to the Israeli nuclear arsenal, Israel has offensive chemical and biological warfare stockpiles.

Israel, the Middle East's sole nuclear power, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In 2015, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security estimated that Israel had 115 nuclear warheads. Outside estimates of Israel's nuclear arsenal range up to 400 nuclear weapons.

Israeli nuclear weapons delivery mechanisms include Jericho 3 missiles, with a range of 4,800 km to 6,500 km (though a 2004 source estimated its range at up to 11,500 km), as well as regional coverage from road mobile Jericho 2 IRBMs.

Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear capability using submarine-launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles, which can be launched from the Israeli Navy's Dolphin-class submarines.

The Israeli Air Force has F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are capable of delivering tactical and strategic nuclear weapons at long distances using conformal fuel tanks and supported by their aerial refueling fleet of modified Boeing 707's.

In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, fled to the United Kingdom and revealed to the media some evidence of Israel's nuclear program and explained the purposes of each building, also revealing a top-secret underground facility directly below the installation.

The Mossad, Israel's secret service, sent a female agent who lured Vanunu to Italy, where he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and smuggled to Israel aboard a freighter. An Israeli court then tried him in secret on charges of treason and espionage, and sentenced him to eighteen years imprisonment.

At the time of Vanunu's kidnapping, The Times reported that Israel had material for approximately 20 hydrogen bombs and 200 fission bombs by 1986. In the spring of 2004, Vanunu was released from prison, and placed under several strict restrictions, such as the denial of a passport, freedom of movement limitations and restrictions on communications with the press. Since his release, he has been rearrested and charged multiple times for violations of the terms of his release.

Safety concerns about this 40-year-old reactor have been reported. In 2004, as a preventive measure, Israeli authorities distributed potassium iodide anti-radiation tablets to thousands of residents living nearby. Local residents have raised concerns regarding serious threats to health from living near the reactor.

According to a lawsuit filed in Be'er Sheva Labor Tribunal, workers at the center were subjected to human experimentation in 1998. According to Julius Malick, the worker who submitted the lawsuit, they were given drinks containing uranium without medical supervision and without obtaining written consent or warning them about risks of side effects.

In April 2016 the U.S. National Security Archive declassified dozens of documents from 1960 to 1970, which detail what American intelligence viewed as Israel's attempts to obfuscate the purpose and details of its nuclear program. The Americans involved in discussions with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and other Israelis believed the country was providing "untruthful cover" about intentions to build nuclear weapons.

mike k , December 9, 2017 at 6:38 pm

The machinations of those seeking to gain advantages for themselves by hurting others, are truly appalling. If we fail to name evil for what it is, then we fail as human beings.Those who look the other way as their country engages in an organized reign of terror, are complicit in that enormous crime.

Den Lille Abe , December 9, 2017 at 8:54 pm

The path the US has chosen since the end of WWII has been over dead bodies. In the name of "security", bringing "Freedom" and "Democracy" and complete unconstrained greed it has trampled countless nations into piles of rubble. To say it is despised or loathed is an overwhelming understatement. It is almost universally hated in the third world. Rightly. Bringing this monstrosity to a halt is a difficult task, and probably cannot be done militarily without a nuclear war, economically could in the end have the same outcome, then how?

Easy! Ruin its population. This process has started, long ago. The decline in the US of health, general wealth, nutrition, production, education, equality, ethics and morals is already showing as cracks in the fabrics of the US.

A population of incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies, armed to teeth with guns, in a country with a crumbling infrastructure, full of environmental disasters is 21 st century for most Americans. In all the areas I mentioned the US is going backwards compared to most other countries. So the monster will come down.

turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:20 pm

I think you are being a little hard on the incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies, armed to teeth with guns

I am not sure who is more loathsome the evangelicals who were supporting the Bush / Cheney cabal murderous wars until the bitter end or the liberal intelligentsia careerist cheerleaders for Obama and Hilary's Wars in Iraq and Syria, who also dont give a damn about another Arab country being destroyed and sold into slavery as long as Hillary gets elected. At least with the former group, you can chalk it up to a lack of education.

Linda Wood , December 10, 2017 at 1:52 am

This is possibly the most intelligent and hopeful discussion I have read since 9/11. It says that at least some Americans do see that we have a fascist cell in our government. That is the first step in finding a way to unplug it. Best wishes to all of you who have written here. We will find a way to put war out of business.

Barbara van der Wal-Kylstra , December 10, 2017 at 2:46 am

I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan, with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r?

Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:18 am

Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived for the zionists. Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had to be opposed. The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists for Mideast wars.

Luutzen , December 10, 2017 at 9:15 am

Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total destruction. Easy.

mike k , December 10, 2017 at 11:05 am

The US Military is part of the largest terrorist organization on Earth. For the super rich and powerful rulers of that US Mafia, the ignorant religious fanatics and other tools of Empire are just pawns in their game of world domination and universal slavery for all but themselves. These monsters of evil delight in profiting from the destruction of others; but their insatiable greed for more power will never be satisfied, and will become the cause of the annihilation of every living thing – including themselves. But like other sold out human addicts, at this point they don't really care, and will blindly pursue their nightmare quest to the very end – and perhaps they secretly hope that that final end of everything will at last quench their burning appetite for blood and gold.

Joe Tedesky , December 10, 2017 at 11:12 am

I'm leaving a link to a very long David Swanson article, where Mr Swanson goes into quite a lot of detail to how the U.S. wages war.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/12/76-years-pearl-harbor-lies.html

Brendan , December 10, 2017 at 12:09 pm

What's interesting of course is how not just Washington, but much of the 'left' also cheered on the jihadists.

Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and 'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total disgrace?

[Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein

Highly recommended!
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'ιtat. In the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
Dec 10, 2017 | www.facebook.com

The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.

The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.

The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.

Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.

In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.

I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)

Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York, making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.

I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.

Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?

Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling, I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because, in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].

Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?

Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life. The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth. I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this, you are also under the gun.

Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace it back as best we can.

Thomas Drake: In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.

From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.

The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth, they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."

Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?

Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?

I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.

Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders.

Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.

Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.

Thomas Drake: The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."

Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.

What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?

Dennis J Bernstein is a host of "Flashpoints" on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom . You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net .

orwell

"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.

exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm

Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag.

Jerry Alatalo , December 7, 2017 at 3:34 pm

It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!

jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm

The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html ).

This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.

mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm

How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in!

john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am

Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.

fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm

Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern. Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.

The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I submit the actions and intentions of those who govern that are revealed and discussed in this article https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/07/russia-gates-reach-into-journalism/ should be among the list of impels that support the next declaration.

Al Pinto , December 7, 2017 at 5:23 pm

Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and further advance it by silencing the independent media.

Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.

https://usawatchdog.com/mother-of-all-bubbles-too-big-to-pop-peter-schiff/

mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:53 pm

Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.

john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am

Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief.

Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.

One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US.

Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am

In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.

Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight with Karma.

[Dec 10, 2017] #blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag

Notable quotes:
"... The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. ..."
"... Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda narrative about the case. Magnitsky was actually an accountant . ..."
"... By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another. ..."
"... I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. ..."
"... At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation. ..."
"... The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not enough anymore. ..."
"... John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any day. ..."
"... So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia? If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template of economic imperialism? ..."
"... In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making $100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave. ..."
"... I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians as murdering savages ..."
"... Browder is a spook. ..."
"... This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media. ..."
"... In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes ..."
"... I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up. ..."
"... The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy. ..."
"... The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc etc. Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket.. ..."
"... The Canary is publishing mainstream russophobia? ..."
off-guardian.org

Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time

The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at this gem :

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" – the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.

But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.

As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and not by Putin at all.

The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so.

What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.

When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.

In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't.

No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.

The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.

Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda narrative about the case. Magnitsky was actually an accountant .

A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:

"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.

By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.


michaelk says November 26, 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/26/big-issue-who-will-step-in-after-bullies-have-silenced-dissenters

From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail on Sunday by Nick Robinson?

michaelk says November 26, 2017
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5117723/Nick-Robinson-Putin-using-fake-news-weaken-West.html

This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.

michaelk says November 23, 2017
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember.

Nothing happened afterwards. There was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international crime against humanity and things actually got worse post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.

rtj1211 says November 29, 2017
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill articles from ever working again in the media. Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods ..
michaelk says November 23, 2017
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.

The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.

I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality and real purpose.

The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not enough anymore.

All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls. It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.

WeatherEye says November 21, 2017
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.

John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any day.

rtj1211 says November 29, 2017
The Guardian is now owned by Neocon Americans, that is why it is demonising Russia.

Simple as that.

WeatherEye says November 29, 2017
Evidence?
Harry Stotle says November 21, 2017
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not underdstand' – in other words they play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LlA8KutU2to?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

rtj1211 says November 21, 2017
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia? If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template of economic imperialism?

In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making $100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave.

I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians as murdering savages ..

michaelk says November 21, 2017
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.

What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies, or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth in a chaotic world.

This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the Bible and seperate the Truths it containedf from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine the social order and fundamental power relationships.

The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that pepeople were actually burned alive in England for smuggling the Bible in english translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such a 'crime.'

One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.

We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks represented.

WeatherEye says November 21, 2017
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth the filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on MSM as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilising our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank videos. Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original being and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
pimatters says November 27, 2017
Yes, as the guy below says this is a great simile. Wikileaks is like the first English translations of the bible! Fantastic!
pimatters says November 27, 2017
above – not below
tutisicecream says November 21, 2017
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".

Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public interest?

In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled:
"MPs defend fees of up to £1,000 an hour to appear on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel"
However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their ruse and although the most vociferous critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear not the buy into the idea that RT is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed outlet for giving voice to those who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.

Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance. In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.

Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/18/mps-kremlin-propaganda-channel-rt#comments

The fact that it's not shows clearly the fake Guardian/Observer claim and their real agenda.

WE ARE DEFINITELY LIVING IN DISORIENTATION TIMES and the Guardian/Observer are leading the charge.

tutisicecream says November 21, 2017
Correction: DISORIENTATING TIMES
Peter says November 21, 2017
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut.

RT is launching a French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake news to further Putin's evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told).

Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant in French political life).

Jim says November 21, 2017
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares their view and that they are in the majority.
The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders for fear of influencing their cult members.
BigB says November 20, 2017
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is baseless and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst it may turn out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy to the tune of $145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.

A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison – she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones attention away from ones natural instinct.

[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment ) ]

So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.

jag37777 says November 20, 2017
Browder is a spook.
susannapanevin says November 20, 2017
Reblogged this on Susanna Panevin .
Eric Blair says November 20, 2017
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.

In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.

labrebisgalloise says November 20, 2017
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Eric Blair says November 20, 2017
Hey, MbS is also an "anti-corruption" campaigner! If the media says so it must be true!
Sav says November 20, 2017
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily people can be brainwashed.

The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.

A Petherbridge says November 20, 2017
Well said – interesting to know what the Guardian is paid to run these stories funded by this arm of US state propaganda.
bevin says November 20, 2017
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc etc. Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..

This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible for a breach in diplomatic relations. It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.

Admin says November 21, 2017
The Canary is publishing mainstream russophobia?

[Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

Highly recommended!
This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente) with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of 'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
"... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
"... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
"... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
"... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
"... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
"... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
"... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
"... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
"... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
"... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
"... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
"... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
"... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
"... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
"... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
"... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
"... Dr. Strangelove ..."
"... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
Nov 13, 2017 | www.truthdig.com

Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black Americans by law enforcement."

In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.

"Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."

Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will end."

The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.

Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."

To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms. But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to Facebook's data , 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not exactly a viral smash.

Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts targeted "animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed " Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According to its " deliberately broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part, documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.

However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping 82 percent of Democrats that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the attacks of 9/11 . And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.

As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities. Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.

So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?

Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship

A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."

Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force.

Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.

Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.

Before Congress, a String of Deceptions

Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate, helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.

In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."

Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.

The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda, the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was named by Spanish investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.

Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and a look at his single tweet promoting the article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political divisions."

Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast transcript of his testimony) was a single link to an RT article that factually documented a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets, from the Houston Chronicle to the Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual events.

Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.

In the articles cited by Watts during his testimony, neither RT nor Sputnik made any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually every major Turkish news organization ( here , here , here and here ). What's more, the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed the severity of the event, citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover." This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.

Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.

Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.

Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court

During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures" to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.

Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.

The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal.

The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.

In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record.

When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent.

When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression. He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for defamation and libel.

Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.

The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.

FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists

Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."

Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a similar characterization of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led the charge."

FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupι, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupι gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization described by journalists Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, " The Geography of Intellect ," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising." Strausz-Hupι seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational thought."

While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupι and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda. By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."

Ultimately, Strausz-Hupι's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy. Today, he is remembered fondly on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.

The Paranoid Style

This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling. Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been mysteriously scrubbed from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable claims about Russian influence.

While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said, claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."

"If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or offer any examples.

"Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."

It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues. He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."

According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely unexamined.

Domestic Agent of Influence

"I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."

By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."

Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have triggered congressional hearings.

Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation, this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.

In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and consular raids to arbitrary crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.

It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.

In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.

Read part two here .

Max Blumenthal is a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of " Goliath ," " Republican Gomorrah ," and " The 51 Day War ." He is the co-host of the podcast, Moderate Rebels . Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal .

Related Articles

[Dec 09, 2017] Criticism of Ukraine's language law justified rights body by Alessandra Prentice

Paradoxically it was language question which by-and-large fueled Crimea secession and Donbass uprising. Now they decide to step on the same rake again.
If Ukraine strive to be like Canada and the part of EU why do not adopt English as an official language, to defuse the tensions relegating Ukrainian and Russian to the role of regional languages (which both of them now actually are). That will instantly diminish the influence of Russia and thus fulfill the main goal of Western Ukrainian nationalists who are in power after Maydan (at least partially). English is a great, cultural and scientifically dominant language now and countries like Canada enjoy full benefits of this situation. Because cultural and political influence of Russia is what Ukrainian nationalists are most afraid of. English is politically acceptable to them. That also will save money of textbooks and like, especially university level textbooks.
They now actually gave a powerful tool for Russia to further limit economic ties claiming discrimination of Russian speaking population. Not that Ukrainian nationalist care much about Russian reaction.
But Western Ukrainian nationalists have a penchant for making disastrous for the Ukrainian economy moves to feed their ambitions and stereotypes. Which led to the situation when Ukraine is just debt slave nation with limited sovereignty and huge problems due to impoverishment of population and decay of Soviet era infrastructure. Neoliberalism is not a friend of such countries as Ukraine, despite all population expectations after Maydan. They want to milk Ukraine, not to help. and they are very skillful in that as Ukraine probably leaned during 90th. This is what neoliberal " disaster capitalism " is about. In other words Ukraine which previously somehow managed to balance between West and East milking both, moved itself in the zugzwang position.
As for adoption of Ukrainian (which is a beautiful language, BTW), think what would happen if Canadian French nationalists managed to force French upon the county as official language while bordering with the USA (actually like in Ukraine where in western part of the country there are few people who do not speak Russian, there are few people in Canada who neither speak nor understand English)
It is critical now that the population can speak English because the markets for Ukraine now are in the West. Ukraine by and large lost Russian market. Probably for a long time.
Notable quotes:
"... "The less favorable treatment of these (non-EU) languages is difficult to justify and therefore raises issues of discrimination," it said. Language is a sensitive issue in Ukraine. ..."
"... After the pro-European Maidan uprising in 2014, the decision to scrap a law allowing some regions to use Russian as an official second language fueled anti-Ukrainian unrest in the east that escalated into a Russia-backed separatist insurgency. ..."
Dec 09, 2017 | www.reuters.com

Kiev has submitted the law for review by the Venice Commission, a body which rules on rights and democracy disputes in Europe and whose decisions member states, which include Ukraine, commit to respecting.

In an opinion adopted formally on Friday, the commission said it was legitimate for Ukraine to address inequalities by helping citizens gain fluency in the state language, Ukrainian.

"However, the strong domestic and international criticism drawn especially by the provisions reducing the scope of education in minority languages seems justified," it said in a statement.

It said the ambiguous wording of parts of the 'Article 7' legislation raised questions about how the shift to all-Ukrainian secondary education would be implemented while safeguarding the rights of ethnic minorities.

As of 2015, Ukraine had 621 schools that taught in Russian, 78 in Romanian, 68 in Hungarian and five in Polish, according to education ministry data. The commission said a provision in the new law to allow some subjects to be taught in official EU languages, such as Hungarian, Romanian and Polish, appeared to discriminate against speakers of Russian, the most widely used non-state language.

"The less favorable treatment of these (non-EU) languages is difficult to justify and therefore raises issues of discrimination," it said. Language is a sensitive issue in Ukraine.

After the pro-European Maidan uprising in 2014, the decision to scrap a law allowing some regions to use Russian as an official second language fueled anti-Ukrainian unrest in the east that escalated into a Russia-backed separatist insurgency.

[Dec 09, 2017] The West Backed the Wrong Man in Ukraine by Leonid Bershidsky

Poor Ukraine. It is now just a prey of major powers and other neoliberal predators, including transnational corporations. Each wants a fat piece. Looks after Poroshenko "revolt" against anti-corruption bureau prompted Washington to "switch horses during crossing the river" (which is very Tramp-style decision). A new favorite most probably is Timoshenko (about whom they have a lot of compromising material, so she will always be on the hook). When a neoliberals poodle like Aslund tweets " "President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition for economic growth, EU or IMF funding," you can be sure that Washington priorities now definitely changed. Such a brave man telling people the hard truth ;-) This guy would praise Poroshenko to skies, if that wouldn't be case. .. The message from Bershidsky handlers who ordered this "hit piece" is that same -- "The moor has done his duty, moor has to go". Such a hatchet job in MSM like Bloomberg, NYT or Wapo is usually done only under direct order from powers that be.
Re-appearance of Saakashvili with this farce of illegal crossing of the border (imagine this !) on the political scene is probably also orchestrated from Washington.
Formally Poroshenko is accused that he is trying to undermine the work of anti-corruption bureau controlled by FBI. The real situation might be that gradually Poroshenko probably understood that blind following of Washington political line is the road to nowhere and leads to further impoverishing of population. Also "independent" status of anti-corruption buro to a certain extent makes Ukrain a colony with colonial administration. Specifically it give FBI the possibility to persecute any Ukrainian politician. On the other hand Poroshenko also have far right nationalists sitting behind his back and they are probably not too exited by neoliberal reforms Poroshenko pursue. Standard of living in Ukraine dropped to the level when it corresponds to standard of living of some Central African countries -- less then $2 a day. It became a "sex shop" for Western Europeans, especially French. Most of prostitutes in Western Europe are Ukrainian woman. In other words both Ukraine and Poroshenko are now is zugzwang situation.
So in desperation Poroshenko probably started making some "unapproved" moves interfering with work of FBI controlled anti-corruption buro (which actually did not jail a single US citizen for corruption). Probably following Polish example of ' disobedience " to neoliberal dictate. A reaction followed.
Charges of corruption is such a classic tool of "color revolutions" that now it can be viewed as just a symbol of renewed attempt to interfere into Ukraine political life. A Washington Obcom dictate, if you wish. Actually corruption a little bit complicates looting of the country which if done by financial mechanisms as it means that in contracts Western companies have some disadvantage and need a local "roof" which negatively affects the profits.
Notable quotes:
"... He and his first prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. ..."
Dec 05, 2017 | www.bloomberg.com

President Petro Poroshenko is sacrificing Westernization to a personal political agenda.

It's become increasingly clear that Obama-era U.S. politicians backed the wrong people in Ukraine. President Petro Poroshenko's moves to consolidate his power now include sidelining the anti-corruption institutions he was forced to set up by Ukraine's Western allies.

Poroshenko, who had briefly served as Ukraine's foreign minister, looked worldlier than his predecessor, the deposed Viktor Yanukovych, and spoke passable English. He and his first prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. So, as Ukraine emerged from the revolutionary chaos of January and February 2014, the U.S., and with it the EU, backed Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk as Ukraine's next leaders. Armed with this support, not least with promises of major technical aid and International Monetary Fund loans, they won elections, posing as Westernizers who would lead Ukraine into Europe. But their agendas turned out to be more self-serving.

... ... ...

After a failed attempt to kick Saakashvili, an anti-corruption firebrand, out of Ukraine for allegedly obtaining its citizenship under false pretences, Poroshenko's law enforcement apparatus has harassed and deported the Georgian-born politician's allies. Finance Minister Oleksandr Danilyuk, who helped Saakashvili set up a think tank in Kiev -- which is now under investigation for suspected financial violations -- has accused law-enforcement agencies of "putting pressure on business, on those who want to change the country." Danilyuk himself is being investigated for tax evasion.

... ... ...

"President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition for economic growth, EU or IMF funding," economist Anders Aslund, who has long been optimistic about Ukrainian reforms, tweeted recently.

... ... ...

Poroshenko, however, would have gotten nowhere -- and wouldn't be defending Ukraine's opaque, corrupt, backward political system today -- without Western support. No amount of friendly pressure is going to change him. If Ukrainians shake up their apathy to do to him what they did to Yanukovych -- or when he comes up for reelection in 2019 -- this mistake shouldn't be repeated. It's not easy to find younger, more principled, genuinely European-oriented politicians in Ukraine, but they exist. Otherwise, Western politicians and analysts will have to keep acting shocked that another representative of the old elite is suddenly looking a lot like Yanukovych.

[Dec 09, 2017] The Loose Cannon the Neocons Wanted in NATO by Patrick J. Buchanan

In no way Mr. Saakashvili is an independent political player, he is just a pawn of some complex gambit against Poroshenko. Who is behind him? Timoshenko, the far right nationalists (that would be very strange), the USA is completely unclear. But in no way he of his own can command loyalty of the crowd in Kiev, this crowd most probably consist of Timoshenko supporters, who were communicated the the "wish" of their leader that "we need to support Mr. Saakashvili, he is one of us". In any case those events are a huge surprise to most observers, who assumes that the USA firmly backs Poroshenko.
Notable quotes:
"... "With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for 'peaceful protests' to remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F. Yanukovych, in February 2014." ..."
"... And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S. intervention.Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now." Following that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in the East. This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of U.S. arms. ..."
"... Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war. ..."
"... These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny usually have deep state connections. ..."
"... Neocons are a scourge on the planet. Somehow they always manage to stay in control of things even when they make so many war mongering blunders. They must have supernatural help, but not the good kind. ..."
"... "These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny ' Saakashvili as a latter day Che Guevara? Ha, ha, ha. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." K. Marx. ..."
"... Expanding NATO was a damn fool thing to do. The Romans couldn't hang onto Mesopotamia; overextension is real. Let's hope we get a leader who will retrench. Oh, and bring back Giraldi. Yes, Veruschka, there is an Israel Lobby. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Even interventionists are regretting some of the wars into which they helped plunge the United States in this century. Among those wars are Afghanistan and Iraq, the longest in our history; Libya, which was left without a stable government; Syria's civil war, a six-year human rights disaster we helped kick off by arming rebels to overthrow Bashar Assad; and Yemen, where a U.S.-backed Saudi bombing campaign and starvation blockade is causing a humanitarian catastrophe. Yet, twice this century, the War Party was beaten back when seeking a clash with Putin's Russia. And the "neo-isolationists" who won those arguments served America well.

What triggered this observation was an item on Page 1 of Wednesday's New York Times that read in its entirety: "Mikheil Saakashvili, former president of Georgia, led marchers through Kiev after threatening to jump from a five-story building to evade arrest. Page A4"

Who is Saakashvili? The wunderkind elected in 2004 in Tbilisi after a "Rose Revolution" we backed during George W. Bush's crusade for global democracy. During the Beijing Olympics in August 2008, Saakashvili sent his army crashing into the tiny enclave of South Ossetia, which had broken free of Georgia when Georgia broke free of Russia. In overrunning the enclave, however, Saakashvili's troops killed Russian peacekeepers. Big mistake. Within 24 hours, Putin's tanks and troops were pouring through Roki Tunnel, running Saakashvili's army out of South Ossetia, and occupying parts of Georgia itself. As defeat loomed for the neocon hero, U.S. foreign policy elites were alive with denunciations of "Russian aggression" and calls to send in the 82nd Airborne, bring Georgia into NATO, and station U.S. forces in the Caucasus.

"We are all Georgians!" thundered John McCain. Not quite. When an outcry arose against getting into a collision with Russia, Bush, reading the nation right, decided to confine U.S. protests to the nonviolent. A wise call. And Saakashvili? He held power until 2013, and then saw his party defeated, was charged with corruption, and fled to Ukraine. There, President Boris Poroshenko, beneficiary of the Kiev coup the U.S. had backed in 2014, put him in charge of Odessa, one of the most corrupt provinces in a country rife with corruption.

In 2016, an exasperated Saakashvili quit, charged his patron Poroshenko with corruption, and fled Ukraine. In September, with a band of supporters, he made a forced entry back across the border.

Here is the Times' Andrew Higgins on his latest antics:

"On Tuesday Saakashvili, onetime darling of the West, took his high-wire political career to bizarre new heights when he climbed onto the roof of his five-story apartment building in the center of Kiev... As hundreds of supporters gathered below, he shouted insults at Ukraine's leaders and threatened to jump if security agents tried to grab him. Dragged from the roof after denouncing Mr. Poroshenko as a traitor and a thief, the former Georgian leader was detained but then freed by his supporters, who blocked a security service van before it could take Mr. Saakashvili to a Kiev detention center and allowed him to escape.

"With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for 'peaceful protests' to remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F. Yanukovych, in February 2014."

This reads like a script for a Peter Sellers movie in the '60s. Yet this clown was president of Georgia, for whose cause in South Ossetia some in our foreign policy elite thought we should go to the brink of war with Russia.

And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S. intervention.Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now." Following that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in the East. This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of U.S. arms.

Do we really want to cede to folks of the temperament of Mikhail Saakashvili an ability to instigate a war with a nuclear-armed Russia, which every Cold War president was resolved to avoid, even if it meant accepting Moscow's hegemony in Eastern Europe all the way to the Elbe?

Watching Saakashvili losing it in the streets of Kiev like some blitzed college student should cause us to reassess the stability of all these allies to whom we have ceded a capacity to drag us into war. Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.

Kirt Higdon , says: December 8, 2017 at 12:15 am
I'd bet that Saak is a CIA asset who is probably moon-lighting for other intelligence services as well. Israel? Russia? Iran? Turkey? Who knows? These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny usually have deep state connections.
Mary Myers , says: December 8, 2017 at 12:58 am
Neocons are a scourge on the planet. Somehow they always manage to stay in control of things even when they make so many war mongering blunders. They must have supernatural help, but not the good kind.
cka2nd , says: December 8, 2017 at 6:19 am
Maybe its time conservatives acknowledged that the Rosenbergs did a good thing by helping the Soviet Union get the A-bomb. It's obvious that the only thing stopping our bloodthirsty, mad dog foreign policy establishment from attacking Russia or North Korea is their nukes, just as the threat of Soviet nukes is what kept U.S. presidents from dropping ours on North Korea and North Vietnam. If the so-called "foreign policy realists" – whose forebears have copious amounts of Latin American, African and Asian blood on their hands – ever get back into Foggy Bottom and the West Wing, maybe they could prevail on the President to issue a posthumous pardon for the Rosenbergs and all of the other American Communists who greased the wheels for the Red Bomb.
Michael Kenny , says: December 8, 2017 at 10:39 am
Mr Buchanan's standard line. Vladimir Putin must be allowed to inflict a humiliating defeat on the evil United States. What Mr Buchanan sidesteps is the inherent contradiction in his argument. As anyone who has read his articles over the years will know, his enemy is the EU, which he wants to destroy at all costs, probably because he sees it as a challenge to US global hegemony. In the original neocon scam, Putin was a "useful idiot" to serve as a battering ram to break up the EU and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting plethora of weak statelets to submit to US hegemony in return for such protection as the US vouchsafed to give them. In return for his services, the US would give Putin such part of the European cake as it vouchsafed to give him. Putin, at that point, would, of course, have been an American stooge, logical in the context of US global hegemony. However, by grabbing Ukrainian territory by military force, Putin challenged US global hegemony and as long as he is allowed to occupy Ukrainian territory, US global hegemony is worthless. That, in its turn, will probably provoke a Soviet-style implosion of the whole American house of cards. Thus, in order to maintain US global hegemony by destroying the EU, Mr Buchanan has to destroy US global hegemony by backing Putin!
darko , says: December 8, 2017 at 10:42 am
"These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny ' Saakashvili as a latter day Che Guevara? Ha, ha, ha. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." K. Marx.
Grumpy Old Man , says: December 8, 2017 at 11:03 am
Expanding NATO was a damn fool thing to do. The Romans couldn't hang onto Mesopotamia; overextension is real. Let's hope we get a leader who will retrench. Oh, and bring back Giraldi. Yes, Veruschka, there is an Israel Lobby.
ukm1 , says: December 8, 2017 at 11:31 am
Mr. Buchanan wrote: "We are all Georgians!" thundered John McCain.

Will American Senators claim this time around that "We are all South Koreans!" or "We are all Japanese!" or "We are all Taiwanese!"?

LINK: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/12/06/chinese-state-media-tells-citizens-prepare-north-korea-nuclear-war/

Mary Myers , says: December 8, 2017 at 1:17 pm
Michael Kenney suffers from PDS –Putin Derangement Syndrome.
One Guy , says: December 8, 2017 at 1:23 pm
I'm having trouble understanding why I should care about the Ukraine, or NATO, or this Saakashvili person. Someone please tell me how they affect me personally.
PR Doucette , says: December 8, 2017 at 2:59 pm
That Saakashvili has always been a few bricks short of a full load is not in dispute but to argue that this means the US and Europe should back away from making it clear to Putin that parts of Eastern Europe are not going to be ceded to Russian domination again makes no sense.

Like Premier Xi of China who in now trying to argue that Chinese domination of Asia is justified by some prior period in Chinese history, Putin would like us to believe that Russian domination of large parts of Eastern Europe is perfectly natural because of past Russian history or even on religious grounds. We forget at our peril that Putin was a former communist and atheist and a part of an organization that not only believed the West was decadent and deserved to be defeated but also worked to suppress and eradicate religion. Putin now cravenly uses religiously based arguments to justify Russian actions and would like us to believe he is defending Christianity from Western decadence. We might as well put the proverbial fox in charge of the hen house if we allow ourselves to accept that Putin really has any interest in defending Christianity or doesn't lust for the restoration of Russian domination of Eastern Europe.

Russia may no longer be the "Evil Empire" that it was called when it was the USSR but it would be pure folly to not push back against Putin's dreams of Russian hegemony any more than it would make sense for the US to assume that Russian and China are not going to push back against what they perceive as US hegemony. Conversely we need to guard against assuming that just because a country declares itself to be a democracy that the actions of any new democratic leaders automatically deserves our support and protection. In fairness to Georgia, the Soviets weren't known for allowing deep pools of democracy supporting leaders to develop which unfortunately means that people like Saakashvili will float to the top.

peter , says: December 8, 2017 at 3:33 pm
Excellent article.
Yes TAC – please bring back Mr. Giraldi – his articles about the hidden aspects of international events are refreshing.

Mr. Michael Kenny – there you go again ranting against Putin!
You remind me of the "Bewitched" mother-in-law.

Senator McCain – do the country a favor and retire.

Ken Zaretzke , says: December 8, 2017 at 4:12 pm
"Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now."

The neocons probably won't be saying "We're all Kazkhstans now" in a few years when the long-serving president of Kazakhstan dies without a clear successor and Russia moves in to the north and east of Kazakhstan to crush the ensuing acts of Islamic terrorism and incidentally help protect China's crucial border state of Xinjiang from ISIS, giving Russia the balance of power in Central Asia and thus restoring it to superpower status.

Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: December 8, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Contemplating the behavior of this gentleman really makes one think that in some cases college student is a state of mind. On the other hand, if wanted to threaten someone with his suicide, he could have swallowed a non-lethal quantity of belladonna berries instead of a dull standing on a roof. Politically the outcome would have likely been the same, but knowing the mental impact of tropane alkaloids, with a hell lot of fun along the way.

Setting this walking curiosity aside for a moment there, I also join those wishing the return of Mr. Giraldi.

[Dec 09, 2017] Donald Trump says recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will bring peace – it will do quite the opposite by Robert Fisk

Looks like short term Israel win, but long term Israel problem. As soon as the role of the USA as lord-protector of Israel disappears Israel will face consequences.
But what if two state solution is dead and it is better to give Palestinian the full rights instead of apartheid solution ?
Notable quotes:
"... Trump has turned away from any notion of fairness in peace negotiations and run with Israel's ball ..."
"... Kingdom of Heaven ..."
"... Yet even at the start, the chicanery begins. Trump talks about "very fresh thinking" and "new approaches". But there is nothing new about Jerusalem as Israel's capital, since the Israelis have been banging on about this for decades. What is "new" is that – for the benefit of his party, Christian Evangelicals and those who claim to be American supporters of Israel – Trump has simply turned away from any notion of fairness in peace negotiations and run with Israel's ball. Past presidents have issued waivers against the 1995 Jerusalem Congress Act, not because "delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of peace" but because that recognition should be given to the city as a capital for two peoples and two states – not one. ..."
"... As usual, we had the Trump waffle. He wants "a great deal" for the Israelis and Palestinians, a peace agreement that is "acceptable to both sides" – even though this is not possible when he's recognised all of Jerusalem as Israeli before the so-called "final status" talks, which the world still fondly expects to take place between "both sides". But if Jerusalem is "one of the most sensitive issues" in these talks, if there was going to be "disagreement and dissent" about his announcement – all of which he said – then why on earth did he make the decision at all? ..."
"... Sure, he wants to follow up on his campaign promises. But how come he decided to honour this promise but could not bring himself to say last April that the mass murder of a million and a half Armenians in 1915 constituted an act of genocide? He was obviously frightened of upsetting the Turks, who deny the first industrial holocaust of the 20th century. Well, he's sure upset the Turks now. I'd like to think he'd taken that into account. But forget it. The guy is crackers. And it will take many years for his country to recover from this latest act of folly. ..."
Dec 09, 2017 | independent.co.uk

This religious renaissance of XXI century with new theocratic states on the map (and Israel is a theocratic state or Theocratic republic as Jerusalim post calls it) is probably is one of the most strange thing to watch. Why now, when computers and cellphones are so ubiquitous that even clergymen are using them.

Trump has turned away from any notion of fairness in peace negotiations and run with Israel's ball

I was called by an Irish radio station in Dublin to respond to President Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel . What did I think was going on inside the US President's mind, I was asked? And I replied immediately: "I don't have the key to the lunatic asylum." What might once have seemed an outrageously over-the-top remark was simply accepted as a normal journalistic reaction to the leader of the world's greatest superpower. And re-listening to the speech that Trump made in the White House, I realised I should have been far less restrained. The very text of the document is insane, preposterous, shameful.

Goodbye Palestine. Goodbye the two-state solution. Goodbye the Palestinians. For this new Israeli "capital" is not for them. Trump did not even use the word "Palestine". He talked about "Israel and the Palestinians" – in other words, of a state and of those who do not deserve – and can no longer aspire to – a state. No wonder I received a call in Beirut last night from a Palestinian woman who had just listened to the Trump destruction of the "peace process". "Remember Kingdom of Heaven ?" she asked me, referring to Ridley Scott's great movie of the 1187 fall of Jerusalem. "Well it's now the Kingdom of Hell."

It's not the Kingdom of Hell, of course. The Palestinians have been living in a kind of hell for a 100 years, ever since the Balfour Declaration declared Britain's support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, when a single sentence – in which our beloved Theresa May takes such "pride" – became a textbook for refugeedom and the future dispossession of the Palestinian Arabs from their lands. As usual, the Arab response this week was sickening, warning of the "dangers" of Trump's decision, which was "unjustified and irresponsible" – this piece of fluff produced by King Salman of Saudi Arabia, the so-called protector of Islam's two holiest places (the third being Jerusalem, although he didn't quite manage to point that out) – and we can be sure that in the coming days many an "emergency committee" will be formed by Arab and Muslim institutions to deal with this "danger". They will, as we all know, be worthless But it was the linguistic analysis of Noam Chomsky when I was at university – he later became a good friend – which I applied to the Trump speech. The first thing I spotted was, as I mentioned above, the absence of "Palestine". I always put the word in quotation marks because I don't believe it will ever exist as a state. Go and look at the Jewish colonies in the West Bank and it's clear that Israel has no intention that it should exist in the future. But that's no excuse for Trump. In the spirit of the Balfour Declaration – which referred to Jews but to the Arabs as "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" – Trump downgrades the Arabs of Palestine to "Palestinians".

Yet even at the start, the chicanery begins. Trump talks about "very fresh thinking" and "new approaches". But there is nothing new about Jerusalem as Israel's capital, since the Israelis have been banging on about this for decades. What is "new" is that – for the benefit of his party, Christian Evangelicals and those who claim to be American supporters of Israel – Trump has simply turned away from any notion of fairness in peace negotiations and run with Israel's ball. Past presidents have issued waivers against the 1995 Jerusalem Congress Act, not because "delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of peace" but because that recognition should be given to the city as a capital for two peoples and two states – not one.

Then Trump tells us that his decision "is in the best interests" of the US. But he can't explain how – by effectively taking America out of future "peace" negotiations and destroying any claim (admittedly dubious by now) that the US is an "honest broker" in these talks – this will benefit Washington. It clearly won't – though it might help Trump's party funding – since it further lowers American power, prestige and standing across the Middle East. Then he claims that "like every other sovereign nation", Israel has the right to determine its own capital. Up to a point, Lord Copper. For when another people – the Arabs rather than just the Jews – also want to claim that city as a capital (or at least the east of it), then that right is suspended until a final peace comes into existence. Israel may claim all of Jerusalem as its eternal and undivided capital – as Netanyahu also claims that Israel is the "Jewish state", despite the fact that more than 20 per cent of the people of Israel are Muslim Arabs who live inside its borders – but America's recognition of this claim means that Jerusalem can never be the capital of another nation. And here's the rub. We don't have the slightest idea of the real borders of this "capital". Trump actually acknowledged this, in a line that went largely unreported, when he said that "we are not taking a position on the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem". In other words, he recognised the sovereignty of a country over all of Jerusalem without knowing exactly where that city's borders lie.

In fact, we don't have the slightest idea of just where Israel's eastern border is. Does it lie along the old front line that divided Jerusalem? Does it lie a mile or so to the east of east Jerusalem? Or does it lie along the Jordan river? In which case, goodbye Palestine. Trump has awarded Israel the right to a whole city as its capital but hasn't the slightest idea where the eastern border of this country is, let alone the frontier of Jerusalem. The world was happy to accept Tel Aviv as a temporary capital – as it was to pretend that Jericho or Ramallah was the "capital" of the Palestine Authority after Arafat arrived there. But Jerusalem was not to be recognised as the Israeli capital even though Israel claimed it was. Then we have Trump stating that in this "most successful" democracy, "people of all faiths are free to live and worship according to their conscience". I trust he won't be telling that to the more than two and a half million Palestinians in the West Bank who are not free to worship in Jerusalem without a special pass, or the population of besieged Gaza who cannot hope to reach the city. Yet Trump claims his decision is merely "a recognition of reality". I suppose his ambassador in Tel Aviv – soon, presumably, in Jerusalem (if only, so far, in a hotel room) – believes this tosh; for it was he who claimed that Israel only occupied "2 per cent" of the West Bank.

And this new embassy, when it is eventually completed, will become "a magnificent tribute to peace", according to Trump. Given the bunkers into which most US embassies in the Middle East have turned, it's going to be a place with armoured gates and pre-stressed concrete walls and lots of inner bunkers for its diplomatic staff. But by then, I suppose, Trump will be gone. Or will he?

As usual, we had the Trump waffle. He wants "a great deal" for the Israelis and Palestinians, a peace agreement that is "acceptable to both sides" – even though this is not possible when he's recognised all of Jerusalem as Israeli before the so-called "final status" talks, which the world still fondly expects to take place between "both sides". But if Jerusalem is "one of the most sensitive issues" in these talks, if there was going to be "disagreement and dissent" about his announcement – all of which he said – then why on earth did he make the decision at all?

Only when he descended into Blair-like verbosity – that the future of the region was held back by "bloodshed, ignorance and terror" – did it really become too much to stomach any more of these lies. If people are supposed to respond to "disagreement" with "reasoned debate, not violence", what is the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital supposed to produce? A "debate", for heaven's sake? Is that what to "rethink old assumptions" means?

Enough of this twaddle. What more folly can this wretched man dream up and lie about? So what was going on in his befuddled mind when he made this decision? Sure, he wants to follow up on his campaign promises. But how come he decided to honour this promise but could not bring himself to say last April that the mass murder of a million and a half Armenians in 1915 constituted an act of genocide? He was obviously frightened of upsetting the Turks, who deny the first industrial holocaust of the 20th century. Well, he's sure upset the Turks now. I'd like to think he'd taken that into account. But forget it. The guy is crackers. And it will take many years for his country to recover from this latest act of folly.

[Dec 09, 2017] Criticism of Ukraine's language law justified rights body by Alessandra Prentice

Paradoxically it was language question which by-and-large fueled Crimea secession and Donbass uprising. Now they decide to step on the same rake again.
If Ukraine strive to be like Canada and the part of EU why do not adopt English as an official language, to defuse the tensions relegating Ukrainian and Russian to the role of regional languages (which both of them now actually are). That will instantly diminish the influence of Russia and thus fulfill the main goal of Western Ukrainian nationalists who are in power after Maydan (at least partially). English is a great, cultural and scientifically dominant language now and countries like Canada enjoy full benefits of this situation. Because cultural and political influence of Russia is what Ukrainian nationalists are most afraid of. English is politically acceptable to them. That also will save money of textbooks and like, especially university level textbooks.
They now actually gave a powerful tool for Russia to further limit economic ties claiming discrimination of Russian speaking population. Not that Ukrainian nationalist care much about Russian reaction.
But Western Ukrainian nationalists have a penchant for making disastrous for the Ukrainian economy moves to feed their ambitions and stereotypes. Which led to the situation when Ukraine is just debt slave nation with limited sovereignty and huge problems due to impoverishment of population and decay of Soviet era infrastructure. Neoliberalism is not a friend of such countries as Ukraine, despite all population expectations after Maydan. They want to milk Ukraine, not to help. and they are very skillful in that as Ukraine probably leaned during 90th. This is what neoliberal " disaster capitalism " is about. In other words Ukraine which previously somehow managed to balance between West and East milking both, moved itself in the zugzwang position.
As for adoption of Ukrainian (which is a beautiful language, BTW), think what would happen if Canadian French nationalists managed to force French upon the county as official language while bordering with the USA (actually like in Ukraine where in western part of the country there are few people who do not speak Russian, there are few people in Canada who neither speak nor understand English)
It is critical now that the population can speak English because the markets for Ukraine now are in the West. Ukraine by and large lost Russian market. Probably for a long time.
Notable quotes:
"... "The less favorable treatment of these (non-EU) languages is difficult to justify and therefore raises issues of discrimination," it said. Language is a sensitive issue in Ukraine. ..."
"... After the pro-European Maidan uprising in 2014, the decision to scrap a law allowing some regions to use Russian as an official second language fueled anti-Ukrainian unrest in the east that escalated into a Russia-backed separatist insurgency. ..."
Dec 09, 2017 | www.reuters.com

Kiev has submitted the law for review by the Venice Commission, a body which rules on rights and democracy disputes in Europe and whose decisions member states, which include Ukraine, commit to respecting.

In an opinion adopted formally on Friday, the commission said it was legitimate for Ukraine to address inequalities by helping citizens gain fluency in the state language, Ukrainian.

"However, the strong domestic and international criticism drawn especially by the provisions reducing the scope of education in minority languages seems justified," it said in a statement.

It said the ambiguous wording of parts of the 'Article 7' legislation raised questions about how the shift to all-Ukrainian secondary education would be implemented while safeguarding the rights of ethnic minorities.

As of 2015, Ukraine had 621 schools that taught in Russian, 78 in Romanian, 68 in Hungarian and five in Polish, according to education ministry data. The commission said a provision in the new law to allow some subjects to be taught in official EU languages, such as Hungarian, Romanian and Polish, appeared to discriminate against speakers of Russian, the most widely used non-state language.

"The less favorable treatment of these (non-EU) languages is difficult to justify and therefore raises issues of discrimination," it said. Language is a sensitive issue in Ukraine.

After the pro-European Maidan uprising in 2014, the decision to scrap a law allowing some regions to use Russian as an official second language fueled anti-Ukrainian unrest in the east that escalated into a Russia-backed separatist insurgency.

[Dec 09, 2017] The West Backed the Wrong Man in Ukraine by Leonid Bershidsky

Poor Ukraine. It is now just a prey of major powers and other neoliberal predators, including transnational corporations. Each wants a fat piece. Looks after Poroshenko "revolt" against anti-corruption bureau prompted Washington to "switch horses during crossing the river" (which is very Tramp-style decision). A new favorite most probably is Timoshenko (about whom they have a lot of compromising material, so she will always be on the hook). When a neoliberals poodle like Aslund tweets " "President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition for economic growth, EU or IMF funding," you can be sure that Washington priorities now definitely changed. Such a brave man telling people the hard truth ;-) This guy would praise Poroshenko to skies, if that wouldn't be case. .. The message from Bershidsky handlers who ordered this "hit piece" is that same -- "The moor has done his duty, moor has to go". Such a hatchet job in MSM like Bloomberg, NYT or Wapo is usually done only under direct order from powers that be.
Re-appearance of Saakashvili with this farce of illegal crossing of the border (imagine this !) on the political scene is probably also orchestrated from Washington.
Formally Poroshenko is accused that he is trying to undermine the work of anti-corruption bureau controlled by FBI. The real situation might be that gradually Poroshenko probably understood that blind following of Washington political line is the road to nowhere and leads to further impoverishing of population. Also "independent" status of anti-corruption buro to a certain extent makes Ukrain a colony with colonial administration. Specifically it give FBI the possibility to persecute any Ukrainian politician. On the other hand Poroshenko also have far right nationalists sitting behind his back and they are probably not too exited by neoliberal reforms Poroshenko pursue. Standard of living in Ukraine dropped to the level when it corresponds to standard of living of some Central African countries -- less then $2 a day. It became a "sex shop" for Western Europeans, especially French. Most of prostitutes in Western Europe are Ukrainian woman. In other words both Ukraine and Poroshenko are now is zugzwang situation.
So in desperation Poroshenko probably started making some "unapproved" moves interfering with work of FBI controlled anti-corruption buro (which actually did not jail a single US citizen for corruption). Probably following Polish example of ' disobedience " to neoliberal dictate. A reaction followed.
Charges of corruption is such a classic tool of "color revolutions" that now it can be viewed as just a symbol of renewed attempt to interfere into Ukraine political life. A Washington Obcom dictate, if you wish. Actually corruption a little bit complicates looting of the country which if done by financial mechanisms as it means that in contracts Western companies have some disadvantage and need a local "roof" which negatively affects the profits.
Notable quotes:
"... He and his first prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. ..."
Dec 05, 2017 | www.bloomberg.com

President Petro Poroshenko is sacrificing Westernization to a personal political agenda.

It's become increasingly clear that Obama-era U.S. politicians backed the wrong people in Ukraine. President Petro Poroshenko's moves to consolidate his power now include sidelining the anti-corruption institutions he was forced to set up by Ukraine's Western allies.

Poroshenko, who had briefly served as Ukraine's foreign minister, looked worldlier than his predecessor, the deposed Viktor Yanukovych, and spoke passable English. He and his first prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. So, as Ukraine emerged from the revolutionary chaos of January and February 2014, the U.S., and with it the EU, backed Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk as Ukraine's next leaders. Armed with this support, not least with promises of major technical aid and International Monetary Fund loans, they won elections, posing as Westernizers who would lead Ukraine into Europe. But their agendas turned out to be more self-serving.

... ... ...

After a failed attempt to kick Saakashvili, an anti-corruption firebrand, out of Ukraine for allegedly obtaining its citizenship under false pretences, Poroshenko's law enforcement apparatus has harassed and deported the Georgian-born politician's allies. Finance Minister Oleksandr Danilyuk, who helped Saakashvili set up a think tank in Kiev -- which is now under investigation for suspected financial violations -- has accused law-enforcement agencies of "putting pressure on business, on those who want to change the country." Danilyuk himself is being investigated for tax evasion.

... ... ...

"President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition for economic growth, EU or IMF funding," economist Anders Aslund, who has long been optimistic about Ukrainian reforms, tweeted recently.

... ... ...

Poroshenko, however, would have gotten nowhere -- and wouldn't be defending Ukraine's opaque, corrupt, backward political system today -- without Western support. No amount of friendly pressure is going to change him. If Ukrainians shake up their apathy to do to him what they did to Yanukovych -- or when he comes up for reelection in 2019 -- this mistake shouldn't be repeated. It's not easy to find younger, more principled, genuinely European-oriented politicians in Ukraine, but they exist. Otherwise, Western politicians and analysts will have to keep acting shocked that another representative of the old elite is suddenly looking a lot like Yanukovych.

[Dec 09, 2017] The Year of the Headless [neo]Liberal Chicken by C.J. Hopkins

Notable quotes:
"... Fortunately, just in the nick of time, the ruling classes and their media mouthpieces rolled out the Russian Propaganda story. The Washington Post (whose owner's multimillion dollar deal with the CIA, of course, has absolutely no effect on the quality of its professional journalism) led the charge with this McCarthyite smear job , legitimizing the baseless allegations of some random website and a think tank staffed by charlatans like this "Russia expert," who appears not to speak a word of Russian or have any other "Russia expert" credentials, but is available both for television and Senate Intelligence Committee appearances. Numerous similar smear pieces followed. Liberals breathed a big sigh of relief that Hitler business had been getting kind of scary. How long can you go, after all, with Hitler stumbling around the White House before somebody has to go in there and shoot him? ..."
"... In any event, by January, the media were playing down the Hitler stuff and going balls-out on the "Russiagate" story. According to The Washington Post (which, let's remember, is a serious newspaper, as opposed to a propaganda organ of the so-called US "Intelligence Community"), not only had the Russians "hacked" the election, but they had hacked the Vermont power grid ! Editorialists at The New York Times were declaring that Trump " had been appointed by Putin ," and that the USA was now "at war" with Russia. This was also around the time when liberals first learned of the Trump-Russia Dossier , which detailed how Putin was blackmailing Trump with a video the FSB had shot of Trump and a bunch of Russian hookers peeing on a bed in a Moscow hotel in which Obama had allegedly slept. ..."
"... This nonsense was reported completely straight-faced, and thus liberals were forced to take it seriously. Imagine the cognitive dissonance they suffered. It was like that scene in 1984 when the Party abruptly switches enemies, and the war with Eurasia becomes the war with Eastasia. Suddenly, Trump wasn't Hitler anymore. Now he was a Russian sleeper agent who Putin had been blackmailing into destroying democracy with this incriminating "golden showers" video. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Dec 09, 2017 | www.unz.com

First came the overwhelming shock of Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump, a repulsive, word salad-babbling buffoon with absolutely no political experience who the media had been portraying to liberals as the Second Coming of Adolf Hitler. This was a candidate, let's recall, who jabbered about building a "beautiful wall" to protect us from the hordes of "Mexican rapists" and other "bad hombres" who were invading America, and who had boasted about grabbing women "by the pussy" like a prepubescent 6th grade boy. While he had served as a perfect foil for Clinton, and had provided hours of entertainment in a comic book villain kind of way, the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency was inconceivable in the minds of liberals. So, when it happened, it was like the Martians had invaded.

Mass hysteria gripped the nation. There was beaucoup wailing and gnashing of teeth. Liberals began exhibiting irrational and, in some cases, rather disturbing behaviors. Many degenerated into dissociative states and just sat there with their phones for hours obsessively reloading the popular vote count, which Clinton had won, on FiveThirtyEight. Others festooned themselves with safety pins and went out looking for defenseless minorities who they could "demonstrate solidarity" with. Owen Jones flew in from London to join his colleague Steven Thrasher, who was organizing a guerilla force to resist " the normalization of Trump " and the global race war he was about to launch, which "not all of us were going to get out of alive."

In the weeks immediately following the election, the mainstream media inundated liberals with pronouncements of the advent of an " Age of Darkness " and the " Triumph of White Supremacy " over the beneficent values of Globalism. Yes, it was pretty much the end of everything . America was facing nothing less than a descent into " racial Orwellianism ," " Zionist anti-Semitism ," and " the bottomless pit of Fascism " itself. Liberals, who by then had dispensed with the safety pins, immediately set about terrorizing their children with visions of the impending holocaust , which would be carried out by the genocidal, racist monsters who had voted for Trump.

At that point, the media had been hammering hard on the Trump-is-Hitler narrative for months, so they had to stick with that for a while. It had only been a few weeks, after all, since The Wall Street Journal , The New York Times , The Washington Post , The Guardian , and numerous other establishment publications , had explained how Trump was using special fascist code words like "global elites," "international banks," and "lobbyists" to signal his virulent hatred of the Jews to the millions of Americans who, according to the media, were secretly Hitler-loving fascists.

This initial post-election propaganda was understandably somewhat awkward, as the plan had been to be able to celebrate the "Triumph of Love over the Forces of Hate," and the demise of the latest Hitlerian bogeyman. But this was the risk the ruling classes took when they chose to go ahead and Hitlerize Trump, which they wouldn't have done if they'd thought for a moment that he had a chance of actually winning the election. That's the tricky thing about Hitlerizing people. You need to be able to kill them, eventually. If you don't, when they turn out not to be Hitler, your narrative kind of falls apart, and the people you've fear-mongered into a frenzy of frothing, self-righteous fake-Hitler-hatred end up feeling like a bunch of dupes who'll believe anything the government tells them. This is why, normally, you only Hitlerize foreign despots you can kill with impunity. This is Hitlerization 101 stuff, which the ruling classes ignored in this case, which the left poor liberals terrified that Trump was actually going to start building Trump-branded death camps and rounding up the Jews.

Fortunately, just in the nick of time, the ruling classes and their media mouthpieces rolled out the Russian Propaganda story. The Washington Post (whose owner's multimillion dollar deal with the CIA, of course, has absolutely no effect on the quality of its professional journalism) led the charge with this McCarthyite smear job , legitimizing the baseless allegations of some random website and a think tank staffed by charlatans like this "Russia expert," who appears not to speak a word of Russian or have any other "Russia expert" credentials, but is available both for television and Senate Intelligence Committee appearances. Numerous similar smear pieces followed. Liberals breathed a big sigh of relief that Hitler business had been getting kind of scary. How long can you go, after all, with Hitler stumbling around the White House before somebody has to go in there and shoot him?

In any event, by January, the media were playing down the Hitler stuff and going balls-out on the "Russiagate" story. According to The Washington Post (which, let's remember, is a serious newspaper, as opposed to a propaganda organ of the so-called US "Intelligence Community"), not only had the Russians "hacked" the election, but they had hacked the Vermont power grid ! Editorialists at The New York Times were declaring that Trump " had been appointed by Putin ," and that the USA was now "at war" with Russia. This was also around the time when liberals first learned of the Trump-Russia Dossier , which detailed how Putin was blackmailing Trump with a video the FSB had shot of Trump and a bunch of Russian hookers peeing on a bed in a Moscow hotel in which Obama had allegedly slept.

This nonsense was reported completely straight-faced, and thus liberals were forced to take it seriously. Imagine the cognitive dissonance they suffered. It was like that scene in 1984 when the Party abruptly switches enemies, and the war with Eurasia becomes the war with Eastasia. Suddenly, Trump wasn't Hitler anymore. Now he was a Russian sleeper agent who Putin had been blackmailing into destroying democracy with this incriminating "golden showers" video. Putin had presumably been "running" Trump since Trump's visit to Russia in 2013 to hobnob with "Russia-linked" Russian businessmen and attend the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. During the ensuing partying, Trump must have gotten loaded on Diet Coke and gotten carried away with those Russian hookers. Now, Putin had him by the short hairs and was forcing him to staff his Manchurian cabinet with corporate CEOs and Goldman Sachs guys, who probably had also been videotaped by the FSB in Moscow hotels paying hookers to pee on furniture, or performing whatever other type of seditious, perverted kink they were into.

Before the poor liberals had time to process this, the ruling classes launched "the Resistance." You remember the Pussyhat People , don't you? And the global corporate PR campaign which accompanied their historic "Womens' March" on Washington? Do you remember liberals like Michael Moore shrieking for the feds to arrest Donald Trump ? Or publications like The New York Times , Salon , and many others, and even State Satirist Stephen Colbert accusing Trump and anyone who supported him of treason a crime, let's recall, that is punishable by death? Do you remember folks like William Kristol and Rob "the Meathead" Reiner demanding that the "deep state" launch a coup against Trump to rescue America from the Russian infiltrators?

Ironically, the roll-out of this "Russiagate" hysteria was so successful that it peaked too soon, and prematurely backlashed all over itself. By March, when Trump had not been arrested, nor otherwise removed from office, liberals, who by that time the corporate media had teased into an incoherent, throbbing state of anticipation were well, rather disappointed. By April, they were exhibiting all the hallmark symptoms of clinical psychosis. This mental breakdown was due to the fact that the media pundits and government spooks who had been telling them that Trump was Hitler, and then a Russian sleeper agent, were now telling them that he wasn't so bad , because he'd pointlessly bombed a Syrian airstrip, and dropped a $314 million Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb on some alleged "terrorist caves" in Afghanistan.

As if liberals' poor brains weren't rattled enough, the corporate media then switched back to, first, the Russian Propaganda narrative (which they expanded into a global threat), then, the Hitler stuff again, but this time Trump wasn't actually Hitler, because Putin was Hitler, or at least he was fomenting Hitlerism throughout the West with his legions of fascist hacker bots who were "influencing" unsuspecting consumers with their blitzkrieg of divisive "fake news" stories. Oh, yeah, and now Putin had also done Brexit , or Trump and Robert Mercer had, but they were working for Putin, who had also hacked the French election that he hadn't hacked , or whatever this was no time to worry about what had or hadn't actually happened. The peace and prosperity President Obama had reestablished throughout the West by incessantly bombing the Greater Middle East and bailing out his pals at the Wall Street banks was being torn asunder by Vladimir Putin, who at some point had apparently metamorphosized from a ruthless, former KGB autocrat into a white supremacist megalomaniac.

Right on cue, on the weekend of August 11-12 in Charlottesville, Virginia, where there had never been any history of racism , a "national gathering" of approximately five hundred tiki torch-bearing neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan types, and other white supremacists, many of them barking Nazi slogans, marched into the pages of history. Never before have so few fascists owed so much to the mainstream media, which showered them with overwrought coverage, triggering a national Nazi panic. Liberals poured into the streets, tearing down Confederate monuments, and otherwise signaling their total intolerance of the racism they had tolerated until a few days earlier. People named after Robert E. Lee , and horses named after General Lee's horse , went into hiding to until the panic subsided. This was wise, as by then the so-called anti-fascists were showing up in force at anything resembling a right-wing rally and stomping the living Hitler out of Nazis, and Trump supporters, and journalists, and well, anyone they didn't think looked quite right. This totally preemptively self-defensive, non-violent type of violent behavior, naturally, shocked and horrified liberals, who are strongly opposed to all forms of violence that aren't carried out by the US military, or the police, or someone else wearing a uniform. Unsure as to whom they were supposed to condemn, the Nazis or the Antifa terrorists, they turned for guidance to the corporate ruling classes, who informed them it was time to censor the Internet .

This made about as much sense as any of the other nonsense they'd been spoonfed so far, so liberals decided to get behind it, or at least look the other way while it happened. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter (and all the other corporations that control the Internet, the media, Hollywood, the publishing industry, and every other means of representing "reality") surely have people's best interests at heart. Plus, they're only censoring the Nazis, and the terrorists, and the Russian "fake news" disseminators, and, OK, a lot of leftist publications, and award-winning journalists , and anyone else espousing "divisive," anti-American, or anti-corporate, "extremist" views.

Look, I know what you're probably thinking, but it isn't like liberals don't actually care about fundamental liberal values like freedom of the press and speech and all that. It's just that they desperately need the Democrats to take back the House and the Senate next year, so they can get on with impeaching Trump, and if they have to stand by while the corporations suppress a little leftist dissent, or, you know, transform the entire Internet into a massive, mind-numbing echo chamber of neo-McCarthyite corporate conformity well, sacrifices have to be made.

This can't go on forever, after all. This level of full-blown mass hysteria can only be sustained for so long. It's all fine and good to be able to whip people up into a frenzied mob, but at some point you need to have an endgame. The neoliberal ruling classes know this. Their endgame is actually fairly simple. Their plan is to (a) make an example of Trump to discourage any future billionaire idiots from screwing with their simulation of democracy, and (b) demonize anyone deviating from neoliberal ideology as a fascist, racist, or anti-Semite, or otherwise "abnormal" or "extremist." Their plan is not to incinerate the entire planet in a war with Russia. We're not on the brink of World War III, despite how many Twitter likes or Facebook shares it might get me to say that. Yes, eventually, they want to force Russia to return to the kind of "cooperation" it engaged in during the 1990s, when it was run by an incorrigible drunkard and the Goldman Sachs boys and their oligarch pals were looting the country for all it was worth but that has little to do with all this.

No, the corporate ruling classes' endgame here is to reestablish neoliberal "normality," so we can get back to the War on Terror (or whatever they'll be calling it by then), and put this neo-nationalist revolt against neoliberalism episode behind us. To do that, they will need to install some sort of hopey-changey, Obama-like messiah, or at least somebody who can play the part of POTUS like a normal person and not sit around the Oval Office gobbling McDonald's and retweeting racist memes by random British fascists.

The way things are going, that might take a while, but rest assured they'll get there eventually. Now that Robert Mueller has proved that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin by obstructing an investigation by Comey into Michael Flynn's lying to the FBI about not colluding with the Russian ambassador on behalf of Israel at Kushner's behest, the dominoes are surely about to fall. Once they all have, and Donald Trump's head has been mounted on a spike on the White House lawn as a warning to any other potential usurpers, all this Russia and Nazi hysteria that has the poor liberals running around like headless chickens will disappear. Russia will go back to being Russia. The North American Nazi Menace, deprived of daily media coverage, will go back to being a fringe phenomenon. Liberals will go back to ignoring politics (except identity politics, naturally) and obediently serving the global capitalist ruling elites that are destroying the planet, and the lives of millions of human beings, in order to increase their profit margins. Sure, there'll be a brief emotional hangover, once the adrenaline rush wears off and they look back at their tweets and Facebook posts, which in hindsight might convey the impression that they spent the better part of a year parroting whatever insane propaganda the corporate media pumped out at them, and otherwise behaving like Good Americans but then, that's what the "delete" key is for.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

anonymous , Disclaimer December 9, 2017 at 8:51 am GMT

"The way things are going, that might take a while, but rest assured they'll get there eventually. Now that Robert Mueller has proved that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin by obstructing an investigation by Comey into Michael Flynn's lying to the FBI about not colluding with the Russian ambassador on behalf of Israel at Kushner's behest, the dominoes are surely about to fall."

Thanks, now I understand where Judge Napolitano is coming from.

[Dec 09, 2017] World condemns Trump Jerusalem announcement

Dec 09, 2017 | www.middle-east-online.com

Palestinian president says US could no longer play role of peace broker while Israel hails US President's recognition as 'historic'.

Trump delivered a shock and awe decision to the world

PARIS - Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital has drawn sharp criticism, with the significant exception of Israel.

Here are key reactions from around the world:

- Israel salutes 'historic' day -

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed Trump's recognition as "historic" and a "courageous and just decision".

Netanyahu also pledged no change to the status quo at Jerusalem's highly sensitive holy sites in the city, sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims.

- No longer a peace broker -

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas said the US could no longer play the role of peace broker after Trump's decision.

"These deplorable and unacceptable measures deliberately undermine all peace efforts," Abbas said in a speech.

- 'Destroys two-state solution' -

The secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organisation said Trump had destroyed any hopes for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"He destroyed the two-state solution," Saeb Erekat, who long served as the Palestinians' top negotiator, told journalists.

- 'Open gates of hell' -

Hamas said Trump's decision would "open the gates of hell" on US interests in the region.

"This decision will open the gates of hell on US interests in the region," Ismail Radwan, an official with the Palestinian Islamist movement that runs the Gaza Strip, told journalists.

- 'Serious repercussions' -

Qatar's emir has warned Trump that his decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital would have "serious repercussions", according to a statement from Doha's foreign ministry Thursday.

Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani "warned of the serious repercussions of this step, which would further complicate the situation in the Middle East and negatively affect the security and stability in the region," read a statement from the ministry, quoting the emir in a phone call with Trump.

- 'Unjustified and irresponsible' -

Saudi Arabia slammed Trump's move as "unjustified and irresponsible" and said the decision goes against the "historical and permanent rights of the Palestinian people".

"The kingdom has already warned of the serious consequences of such an unjustified and irresponsible move," said a Saudi royal court statement carried by the official Saudi Press Agency.

- 'New intifada' -

Iran condemned the US move, saying it threatened a "new intifada", or uprising, against Israel.

"The provocative and unwise decision by the US... will provoke Muslims and inflame a new intifada and an escalation of radical, angry and violent behaviour," the foreign ministry said on its website.

- UN against 'unilateral measures' -

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres implicitly criticised Trump's announcement, warning that Jerusalem's status must be resolved through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

"From day one as secretary general of the United Nations, I have consistently spoken out against any unilateral measures that would jeopardise the prospect of peace for Israelis and Palestinians," Guterres said.

- 'Palestinian cause' -

The office of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dismissed Trump's move, saying in a statement it would not dim the "Palestinian cause".

"The future of Jerusalem is not set by a state or a president, but by its history, will, and the determination of those loyal to the Palestinian cause which will stay alive in the conscience of the Arab homeland until the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital," it said.

- 'Rejected by Arab world' -

Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri vowed his country's "highest degrees of solidarity with the Palestinian people and its right to establish an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital".

"The American decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the embassy there is a step that is rejected by the Arab world and risks spilling dangers over into the region," he said.

- 'Violation of international law' -

Jordan condemned Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as amounting to a violation of international law and the UN charter.

"The decision of the American president to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital and the transfer of the US embassy to this city constitutes a violation of decisions of international law and the United Nations charter," said government spokesman Mohammed Momani.

- Indonesia summons US ambassador -

Indonesian president Joko Widodo, who leads the world's biggest Muslim-majority country, said he "condemned" Trump's decision on Jerusalem, and ordered the US ambassador in Jakarta to be summoned over the move.

"Indonesia strongly condemns the United States' one-sided recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and asks the US to reconsider this decision," Widodo said in televised remarks.

- 'Irresponsible, illegal' -

Turkey also slammed Trump's Jerusalem announcement.

"We condemn the irresponsible statement of the US administration... the decision is against international law and relevant UN resolutions," Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu wrote on Twitter.

- 'Unhelpful for peace' -

Prime Minister Theresa May said the British government disagreed with Trump's decision, saying it was "unhelpful" for peace efforts.

"We disagree with the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem and recognise Jerusalem as the Israeli capital," she said in a statement. "We believe it is unhelpful in terms of prospects for peace in the region".

- 'Avoid violence' -

French President Emmanuel Macron branded Trump's stance as "regrettable" and called for efforts to "avoid violence at all costs".

Macron affirmed "the attachment of France and Europe to the two-state solution, Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security within internationally recognised borders, with Jerusalem as the capital of the two states".

- Merkel 'does not support' -

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said through her spokesman that she "does not support" Trump's reversal of decades of US policy.

"The status of Jerusalem can only be negotiated within the framework of a two-state solution," spokesman Steffen Seibert wrote on Twitter.

- 'Uncontrollable consequences' -

Russia expressed "serious concern" over Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, saying the move threatened security in the region.

"Moscow views the decisions announced in Washington with serious concern," the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement, adding that it risked aggravating already complicated Israeli-Palestinian ties as well as security risks.

"In light of this we call on all involved parties to show restraint and forgo any action that would be fraught with dangerous and uncontrollable consequences," the foreign ministry said.

Moscow reiterated its long-held view that a solution to the dispute over Jerusalem's status should be negotiated through "direct Palestinian-Israeli talks".

Moscow said earlier that it considered East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future Palestinian state, and the west of the city the capital of Israel.

- 'Serious concern' -

The European Union's chief diplomat Federica Mogherini voiced "serious concern" at Trump's new stance on Jerusalem.

"President Trump's announcement on Jerusalem has a very worrying potential impact. It is a very fragile context and the announcement has the potential to send us backwards to even darker times than the ones we're already living in," Mogherini told a press conference in Brussels.

"What we truly need in these difficult times is wisdom and to listen to the wise voices calling for peace and peaceful reactions."

"We believe this difficult moment calls for an even stronger engagement for peace. The most urgent priority now is that all relevant actors avoid to further escalate tensions on the ground," she added.

"The aspirations of both parties must be fulfilled and a way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of both states."

[Dec 09, 2017] Iraqi militia threatens US forces over Jerusalem provocation

Dec 09, 2017 | www.middle-east-online.com

Trump's move has sparked storm of condemnation, both from Washington's traditional allies and its international foes.

Middle East Online

Hashed al-Shaabi militias had been on same side as US forces in battle against IS jihadists.

TEHRAN - An Iranian-backed militia in Iraq threatened Thursday to attack US forces in the country after President Donald Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital, while Baghdad summoned Washington's envoy.

"The decision by Trump on Al-Quds (Jerusalem) makes it legitimate to strike the American forces in Iraq," Al-Nojaba militia chief Akram al-Kaabi said in a statement.

The Shiite group, established in 2013 and supported by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, numbers around 1,500 fighters and is part of the Hashed al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilisation) auxiliary force that has fought alongside the army against the Islamic State group.

The US has thousands of troops stationed in Iraq to help in the fight against IS.

Officially, the Pentagon says it has 5,262 personnel in the country, but other figures released by the US military have put the number at almost 9,000.

Trump's move to end decades of careful US policy on Jerusalem has sparked a storm of condemnation around the globe, both from Washington's traditional allies and its international foes.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari summoned the US ambassador in the country to protest the shift, while powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who heads his own militia, demanded the closure of the American embassy in Baghdad and warned that "we can reach Israel through Syria".

The spiritual head of Iraq's Shiites Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in a statement "denounced and condemned the American decision that injures the feelings of hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims".

"This will not change the fact that Jerusalem is an occupied territory that needs to be returned to its legitimate Palestinian owners," he said.

[Dec 09, 2017] The Loose Cannon the Neocons Wanted in NATO by Patrick J. Buchanan

In no way Mr. Saakashvili is an independent political player, he is just a pawn of some complex gambit against Poroshenko. Who is behind him? Timoshenko, the far right nationalists (that would be very strange), the USA is completely unclear. But in no way he of his own can command loyalty of the crowd in Kiev, this crowd most probably consist of Timoshenko supporters, who were communicated the the "wish" of their leader that "we need to support Mr. Saakashvili, he is one of us". In any case those events are a huge surprise to most observers, who assumes that the USA firmly backs Poroshenko.
Notable quotes:
"... "With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for 'peaceful protests' to remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F. Yanukovych, in February 2014." ..."
"... And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S. intervention.Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now." Following that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in the East. This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of U.S. arms. ..."
"... Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war. ..."
"... These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny usually have deep state connections. ..."
"... Neocons are a scourge on the planet. Somehow they always manage to stay in control of things even when they make so many war mongering blunders. They must have supernatural help, but not the good kind. ..."
"... "These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny ' Saakashvili as a latter day Che Guevara? Ha, ha, ha. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." K. Marx. ..."
"... Expanding NATO was a damn fool thing to do. The Romans couldn't hang onto Mesopotamia; overextension is real. Let's hope we get a leader who will retrench. Oh, and bring back Giraldi. Yes, Veruschka, there is an Israel Lobby. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Even interventionists are regretting some of the wars into which they helped plunge the United States in this century. Among those wars are Afghanistan and Iraq, the longest in our history; Libya, which was left without a stable government; Syria's civil war, a six-year human rights disaster we helped kick off by arming rebels to overthrow Bashar Assad; and Yemen, where a U.S.-backed Saudi bombing campaign and starvation blockade is causing a humanitarian catastrophe. Yet, twice this century, the War Party was beaten back when seeking a clash with Putin's Russia. And the "neo-isolationists" who won those arguments served America well.

What triggered this observation was an item on Page 1 of Wednesday's New York Times that read in its entirety: "Mikheil Saakashvili, former president of Georgia, led marchers through Kiev after threatening to jump from a five-story building to evade arrest. Page A4"

Who is Saakashvili? The wunderkind elected in 2004 in Tbilisi after a "Rose Revolution" we backed during George W. Bush's crusade for global democracy. During the Beijing Olympics in August 2008, Saakashvili sent his army crashing into the tiny enclave of South Ossetia, which had broken free of Georgia when Georgia broke free of Russia. In overrunning the enclave, however, Saakashvili's troops killed Russian peacekeepers. Big mistake. Within 24 hours, Putin's tanks and troops were pouring through Roki Tunnel, running Saakashvili's army out of South Ossetia, and occupying parts of Georgia itself. As defeat loomed for the neocon hero, U.S. foreign policy elites were alive with denunciations of "Russian aggression" and calls to send in the 82nd Airborne, bring Georgia into NATO, and station U.S. forces in the Caucasus.

"We are all Georgians!" thundered John McCain. Not quite. When an outcry arose against getting into a collision with Russia, Bush, reading the nation right, decided to confine U.S. protests to the nonviolent. A wise call. And Saakashvili? He held power until 2013, and then saw his party defeated, was charged with corruption, and fled to Ukraine. There, President Boris Poroshenko, beneficiary of the Kiev coup the U.S. had backed in 2014, put him in charge of Odessa, one of the most corrupt provinces in a country rife with corruption.

In 2016, an exasperated Saakashvili quit, charged his patron Poroshenko with corruption, and fled Ukraine. In September, with a band of supporters, he made a forced entry back across the border.

Here is the Times' Andrew Higgins on his latest antics:

"On Tuesday Saakashvili, onetime darling of the West, took his high-wire political career to bizarre new heights when he climbed onto the roof of his five-story apartment building in the center of Kiev... As hundreds of supporters gathered below, he shouted insults at Ukraine's leaders and threatened to jump if security agents tried to grab him. Dragged from the roof after denouncing Mr. Poroshenko as a traitor and a thief, the former Georgian leader was detained but then freed by his supporters, who blocked a security service van before it could take Mr. Saakashvili to a Kiev detention center and allowed him to escape.

"With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for 'peaceful protests' to remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F. Yanukovych, in February 2014."

This reads like a script for a Peter Sellers movie in the '60s. Yet this clown was president of Georgia, for whose cause in South Ossetia some in our foreign policy elite thought we should go to the brink of war with Russia.

And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S. intervention.Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now." Following that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in the East. This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of U.S. arms.

Do we really want to cede to folks of the temperament of Mikhail Saakashvili an ability to instigate a war with a nuclear-armed Russia, which every Cold War president was resolved to avoid, even if it meant accepting Moscow's hegemony in Eastern Europe all the way to the Elbe?

Watching Saakashvili losing it in the streets of Kiev like some blitzed college student should cause us to reassess the stability of all these allies to whom we have ceded a capacity to drag us into war. Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.

Kirt Higdon , says: December 8, 2017 at 12:15 am
I'd bet that Saak is a CIA asset who is probably moon-lighting for other intelligence services as well. Israel? Russia? Iran? Turkey? Who knows? These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny usually have deep state connections.
Mary Myers , says: December 8, 2017 at 12:58 am
Neocons are a scourge on the planet. Somehow they always manage to stay in control of things even when they make so many war mongering blunders. They must have supernatural help, but not the good kind.
cka2nd , says: December 8, 2017 at 6:19 am
Maybe its time conservatives acknowledged that the Rosenbergs did a good thing by helping the Soviet Union get the A-bomb. It's obvious that the only thing stopping our bloodthirsty, mad dog foreign policy establishment from attacking Russia or North Korea is their nukes, just as the threat of Soviet nukes is what kept U.S. presidents from dropping ours on North Korea and North Vietnam. If the so-called "foreign policy realists" – whose forebears have copious amounts of Latin American, African and Asian blood on their hands – ever get back into Foggy Bottom and the West Wing, maybe they could prevail on the President to issue a posthumous pardon for the Rosenbergs and all of the other American Communists who greased the wheels for the Red Bomb.
Michael Kenny , says: December 8, 2017 at 10:39 am
Mr Buchanan's standard line. Vladimir Putin must be allowed to inflict a humiliating defeat on the evil United States. What Mr Buchanan sidesteps is the inherent contradiction in his argument. As anyone who has read his articles over the years will know, his enemy is the EU, which he wants to destroy at all costs, probably because he sees it as a challenge to US global hegemony. In the original neocon scam, Putin was a "useful idiot" to serve as a battering ram to break up the EU and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting plethora of weak statelets to submit to US hegemony in return for such protection as the US vouchsafed to give them. In return for his services, the US would give Putin such part of the European cake as it vouchsafed to give him. Putin, at that point, would, of course, have been an American stooge, logical in the context of US global hegemony. However, by grabbing Ukrainian territory by military force, Putin challenged US global hegemony and as long as he is allowed to occupy Ukrainian territory, US global hegemony is worthless. That, in its turn, will probably provoke a Soviet-style implosion of the whole American house of cards. Thus, in order to maintain US global hegemony by destroying the EU, Mr Buchanan has to destroy US global hegemony by backing Putin!
darko , says: December 8, 2017 at 10:42 am
"These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny ' Saakashvili as a latter day Che Guevara? Ha, ha, ha. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." K. Marx.
Grumpy Old Man , says: December 8, 2017 at 11:03 am
Expanding NATO was a damn fool thing to do. The Romans couldn't hang onto Mesopotamia; overextension is real. Let's hope we get a leader who will retrench. Oh, and bring back Giraldi. Yes, Veruschka, there is an Israel Lobby.
ukm1 , says: December 8, 2017 at 11:31 am
Mr. Buchanan wrote: "We are all Georgians!" thundered John McCain.

Will American Senators claim this time around that "We are all South Koreans!" or "We are all Japanese!" or "We are all Taiwanese!"?

LINK: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/12/06/chinese-state-media-tells-citizens-prepare-north-korea-nuclear-war/

Mary Myers , says: December 8, 2017 at 1:17 pm
Michael Kenney suffers from PDS –Putin Derangement Syndrome.
One Guy , says: December 8, 2017 at 1:23 pm
I'm having trouble understanding why I should care about the Ukraine, or NATO, or this Saakashvili person. Someone please tell me how they affect me personally.
PR Doucette , says: December 8, 2017 at 2:59 pm
That Saakashvili has always been a few bricks short of a full load is not in dispute but to argue that this means the US and Europe should back away from making it clear to Putin that parts of Eastern Europe are not going to be ceded to Russian domination again makes no sense.

Like Premier Xi of China who in now trying to argue that Chinese domination of Asia is justified by some prior period in Chinese history, Putin would like us to believe that Russian domination of large parts of Eastern Europe is perfectly natural because of past Russian history or even on religious grounds. We forget at our peril that Putin was a former communist and atheist and a part of an organization that not only believed the West was decadent and deserved to be defeated but also worked to suppress and eradicate religion. Putin now cravenly uses religiously based arguments to justify Russian actions and would like us to believe he is defending Christianity from Western decadence. We might as well put the proverbial fox in charge of the hen house if we allow ourselves to accept that Putin really has any interest in defending Christianity or doesn't lust for the restoration of Russian domination of Eastern Europe.

Russia may no longer be the "Evil Empire" that it was called when it was the USSR but it would be pure folly to not push back against Putin's dreams of Russian hegemony any more than it would make sense for the US to assume that Russian and China are not going to push back against what they perceive as US hegemony. Conversely we need to guard against assuming that just because a country declares itself to be a democracy that the actions of any new democratic leaders automatically deserves our support and protection. In fairness to Georgia, the Soviets weren't known for allowing deep pools of democracy supporting leaders to develop which unfortunately means that people like Saakashvili will float to the top.

peter , says: December 8, 2017 at 3:33 pm
Excellent article.
Yes TAC – please bring back Mr. Giraldi – his articles about the hidden aspects of international events are refreshing.

Mr. Michael Kenny – there you go again ranting against Putin!
You remind me of the "Bewitched" mother-in-law.

Senator McCain – do the country a favor and retire.

Ken Zaretzke , says: December 8, 2017 at 4:12 pm
"Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now."

The neocons probably won't be saying "We're all Kazkhstans now" in a few years when the long-serving president of Kazakhstan dies without a clear successor and Russia moves in to the north and east of Kazakhstan to crush the ensuing acts of Islamic terrorism and incidentally help protect China's crucial border state of Xinjiang from ISIS, giving Russia the balance of power in Central Asia and thus restoring it to superpower status.

Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: December 8, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Contemplating the behavior of this gentleman really makes one think that in some cases college student is a state of mind. On the other hand, if wanted to threaten someone with his suicide, he could have swallowed a non-lethal quantity of belladonna berries instead of a dull standing on a roof. Politically the outcome would have likely been the same, but knowing the mental impact of tropane alkaloids, with a hell lot of fun along the way.

Setting this walking curiosity aside for a moment there, I also join those wishing the return of Mr. Giraldi.

[Dec 09, 2017] The Rot Of American Party Elites ( the 'Republican Intellectual Elite' means the neocons )

Actually it is rot of the US neocon elite.
Notable quotes:
"... Until you can talk about the problem -- that the 'Republican Intellectual Elite' means the neocons (who promote each other and keep everyone else out) -- you can't do anything about it. This group polices what is intellectually respectable on the right and and you aren't allowed to cross them if you want to stay on the inside. ..."
"... neoconservatism still is the conservative establishment. If you want a 'fellow' of some institute to represent the 'conservative' point of view you are going to get someone who is more or less a neocon. ..."
"... Trump has not changed a thing about who the establishment is: but he threatens change which is one reason why they hate him. It's not that they have gone away but that they have been discredited and won't go away because they have the infrastructure. ..."
Dec 09, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

And for that matter, let us recall that it was the best and brightest of the Republican Party's defense and national security elite that led the nation into its worst foreign policy debacle since Vietnam. Did you see Ken Burns's recent Vietnam documentary? Did you see Errol Morris's fantastic documentary The Fog of War , about Robert McNamara and Vietnam? Those were Democratic Party elites, but the most important fact is that they were American elites, just as the Republican elites that led us into Iraq. And it was American elites -- Republican and Democrat -- that led us into the 2008 economic crash, beginning with the Clinton-era deregulation of Wall Street, continued through the George W. Bush era.

My problem with Donald Trump is not so much that he's a populist rebuke to the GOP elites (who deserve it) but that he's a loudmouth incompetent who's so bad at it -- and his most ardent supporters let him get away with it. This tax bill, which he embraces, gives lie to any substantive claim that Trump is a populist.

... ... ...

Yes, the GOP is putrefying. So is the Democratic Party (as Edsall's analysis reveals). The rot began long before Donald Trump showed up on the political scene. He is both symptom and catalyst, but he didn't start the rot.

Noah172 December 8, 2017 at 11:56 am

He's absolutely right, of course, and the Republicans who voted for that unpopular (see here and here), help-the-rich, deficit-exploding tax bill

Oh, get off it. The bill greatly expands the standard deduction, which reduces the value of all itemized deductions (itemized deductions help the wealthy). It reduces the mortgage interest and SALT deductions, which subsidize rich New Yorkers and Californians (the real reason Democrats hate this bill). It increases the child credit (maybe not enough, but some). A number of analyses show that it will give a modest post-tax income boost across the income spectrum. As for the estate tax thing, remember that heirs pay capital gains and other taxes (e.g. local property) on their inherited assets; tweaking the cost-basis people calculate on inherited assets (I would set it to zero if I were king) could get the feds the same revenue as an estate tax.

It is not a perfect or even that great of a bill, but stop robotically repeating every apocalyptic denunciation of it (literally apocalyptic: Nancy Pelosi said the bill is "Armageddon" and "the end of the world"; and others are screaming that the bill will murder people).

Noah172 , , December 8, 2017 at 11:58 am
NFR: On tax policy and economics, he's governing like a standard-issue plutocratic Republican

Not on trade. Not on immigration. Pay attention.

On foreign policy, he's reducing American power abroad and making war more likely

Have you gone back to neoconservatism?

[NFR: Please. It delights me to think of the yoga-like contortions you're having to do to justify your man's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. -- RD]

Ben H , , December 8, 2017 at 12:12 pm
Until you can talk about the problem -- that the 'Republican Intellectual Elite' means the neocons (who promote each other and keep everyone else out) -- you can't do anything about it. This group polices what is intellectually respectable on the right and and you aren't allowed to cross them if you want to stay on the inside.

Potentially influential people can't talk about these guys because if you do you lose your job. This happens even now, there was a case within the last couple of months that comes to mind.

Even though this group's plans have proceed disastrous time after time, these people are beyond criticism and never suffer any consequences when their actions lead to real world death and destruction.

[NFR: But that's just it -- neoconservatism *was* the conservative establishment, until Trump came along. -- RD]

Ben H , says: December 8, 2017 at 12:37 pm
No, neoconservatism still is the conservative establishment. If you want a 'fellow' of some institute to represent the 'conservative' point of view you are going to get someone who is more or less a neocon.

Trump has not changed a thing about who the establishment is: but he threatens change which is one reason why they hate him. It's not that they have gone away but that they have been discredited and won't go away because they have the infrastructure.

Kent , says: December 8, 2017 at 12:44 pm
"More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: "I'm homeless. I'm politically homeless."

Sheepishly raises hand. I was always a Republican not because of any of a thousand issues, but because I believed Republicans knew how to run an efficient, financially prudent government. It was the party of conservative values like work and integrity.

Democrats were the party of budget deficits, handouts, war and favored constituencies. The Republicans have become the Democrats of old, just tweaking who gets the handouts.

GWB's second term was the first time I ever voted for a democrats across the line. Not because I care about their policies (they're basically Republican anyway), but just because its the only way I have to slap the GOP in my small way.

The GOP has become the party of radical incompetence. An embarrassment. I see little difference between Trump and Hillary. And most Republicans I know think there is an ocean between them. That's how small their world has become.

DBN , says: December 8, 2017 at 12:57 pm
The rot afflicting the G.O.P. is comprehensive -- moral, intellectual, political and reputational. More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: "I'm homeless. I'm politically homeless."

Cry me a river. A lot of Americans have felt this way way for decades. Pew Research Center polling has consistently shown that the largest group of Americans tilts socially to the right but economically to the left. There has not been a party since FDRs Democrats that felt like a home for these people.

Given that we have a two-party system, and that's unlikely to change, I would rather that at least one party begin represent a significant portion of the population again.

[Dec 08, 2017] What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.

Notable quotes:
"... What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China. ..."
"... He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); ..."
"... he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well. ..."
"... He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved in CI activities targeting Russian and China. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

WJ , 05 December 2017 at 08:16 PM

Sir,

What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China.

He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen);

he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well.

The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.

He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all, or is this kind of stuff pretty common for people in his field and position.

turcopolier , 05 December 2017 at 09:36 PM
WJ

I know nothing of him other than what is in the press but his partisan interference in investigations appears to be a blot on the honor of the FBI but then I am old fashioned. pl

fanto said in reply to WJ... , 05 December 2017 at 10:51 PM
WJ,
I first learned about this man from a comment of David Habakkuk (in an earlier post) and was curious to learn more about him. As you point out, ΄internet is not your friend΄ in his case. Your comment gives so far the most information about his doings. Thank you. According to David Habakkuk that surname is polish, but it possibly be other slavic origin as well ( possibly Jidish ?)
The Twisted Genius -> WJ... , 05 December 2017 at 11:27 PM
WJ,

Given Strzok's career, I wouldn't expect to find much, if anything, about him on the internet. If he spent his career working "in the shadows," he rightly would have stayed off the internet. He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved in CI activities targeting Russian and China. Anyone actively working in a classified environment would be grossly negligent to allow himself to be plastered all over the internet. Why do you think I still use a light cover of TTG just to post here years after retiring? It's just force of habit.

I was glad to hear that Mueller banished him to HR as soon as his anti-Trump emails were discovered. If he stayed, he would have cast an ugly shadow over the Mueller investigation. It's much like the partisan shadow extending over much of the NY FBI office. Their pro-Trump/anti-Clinton stance was notorious. I also think the FBI should review the entire Clinton email server file in light of this.

rjj said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 06 December 2017 at 12:20 PM
Don't know how bureaucracies work in DC. Remembering how placement in HR was a goal for activists. HR is obscure and unglamorous - how is it banishment for someone with an agenda who works in the shadows?

[Dec 08, 2017] Sic Semper Tyrannis More on Kushner and company.

Notable quotes:
"... From the time when the USA became Israel's "guardian angel" there has always been a sham going on. "Peace Initiative" has a nice fresh ring to it instead of "Peace Process", one of history's longest running diplomatic shams. It's hard to compromise when when one party only wants the disappearance of the other. The Israelis have spent the last 70 years trying to make life so unendurable for the Palestinians that they would all immigrate, but they are so stubborn and they "keep breeding". Hence the Israelis continue to be stuck with them and just can't make them go away. And, meanwhile we are joined at the hip with Israel in a partnership that paralyzes open dialog about it here and poisons our relations with a disproportionately larger group in the rest of the world. Cui Bono? ..."
"... Russia is the only power in the Middle East who could theoretically rein in Israel, at least temporarily. ..."
"... This "peace" deal has been cooked up in cooperation between Netanyahu, Kushner and MBS. Abu Mazen was beckoned to Riyadh and told that Palestinians must agree to the offer or he must resign. Should Abu Mazen resign, the triumvirate are counting on someone like UAE-based multi-millionaire and former security boss Mohammad Dahlan, whose influence within the PLO is questionable. ..."
"... If I was an Israeli military, I would be disturbed: Hizbollah, SAA & 10k mercs, all battle hardened, well equipped & eager to see Jerusalem. ..."
"... how do u view the growing regional clout of Iran and Russia, including their asymmetric capability in relation to Israel? ..."
"... When the daughter and son in law are Hasidic Jews it is understandable that the First Family would considered Israelites as chosen ones. Nation states are being superseded by multi-national corporations and their institutions. Democracy and societal good demolished. Five men own half of the world's wealth. Paranoia is rampart. Donald Trump will fight the "Deep State" with a private spy network: http://www.newsweek.com/trump-private-spies-deep-state-735091 ..."
"... No one in power in DC places the national interests of the United States first. A few connected families are grabbing it all while they can and pushing their own ideology and religion. Israel is a shining example. ..."
"... The racist ideas of Judaism and their real estate contract with God are a plague on humanity. That Zionists in our midst assert power over all the earth and its nations as their birthright. Only this truth and its consequences will free our nation and the people of the world from the Zionist plague. ..."
"... Moving the embassy is nothing. Recognizing that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is probably a disastrous thing to do. Erdogan has called for a world-wide Islamic conference on this mid-month. ..."
"... Well, I guess that's one way to drive a wedge between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and Trump's base won't complain about it. I'm not sure that "keeping the Saudis from buddying up with Israel" was the intent here, but that may well be the outcome. ..."
Dec 05, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

First thing to understand is Trump's "Peace Initiative" is a sham. The only thing he is trying to do is to keep the region from exploding. He is under pressure from the Arab countries to do something to make life better for the Palestinians - not necessarily to get them their own state. The Trump administration does not want protests erupting in Arab states because the Israelis do something dumb to the Palestinians. Between Jason Greenblatt, David Friedman and Kushner the information Trump gets on Israel is very heavily skewed. Friedman especially but also Greenblatt to a lesser degree strongly favor the concept of the Greater Israel. While not advocating a complete return of the Kingdom of David, they strongly believe parts of Jordan, Lebanon, the Sinai and Syria BELONG to Israel as G-d promised. I've attended numerous Jewish events in New York City where Friedman and Greenblatt have spoken and they do not hide in any way their dreams for Israel. Israel is getting stronger by the day compared with it's rivals in the region. This strength eliminates the need for any concessions to the Palestinians. For the foreseeable future there will be no Palestinian state, no citizenship for West Bank Palestinians etc. The U.S. declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel even though our embassy is in Tel Aviv sounds like a Trump engineered compromise that will mean absolutely nothing to further a peace agreement. For Israel when they say Jerusalem they mean the territory right up to the border of Ramallah and including Maale Adumim whose municipal boundaries extend all the way to Hebron - a huge chunk of the West Bank. Trump would have pissed off the Palestinians far less if he had just said he was moving the embassy to West Jerusalem. This comment "If you want to look for a silver lining, this administration has been accumulating pro-Israeli credentials," the former Israeli official said. "When they table a deal, it will be very hard for this [Netanyahu] administration to say no." Whoever made this comment really will not admit how Israel negotiates. They will graciously say thank you when they get concessions but with their next breath will ask " how about this and that". They will continue to collect concessions until they get 100% of what they want. jdledell

----------

This was a draft comment from jdledell. He has great personal knowledge of the subject. pl

A.Pols , 05 December 2017 at 12:27 PM

From the time when the USA became Israel's "guardian angel" there has always been a sham going on. "Peace Initiative" has a nice fresh ring to it instead of "Peace Process", one of history's longest running diplomatic shams. It's hard to compromise when when one party only wants the disappearance of the other. The Israelis have spent the last 70 years trying to make life so unendurable for the Palestinians that they would all immigrate, but they are so stubborn and they "keep breeding". Hence the Israelis continue to be stuck with them and just can't make them go away. And, meanwhile we are joined at the hip with Israel in a partnership that paralyzes open dialog about it here and poisons our relations with a disproportionately larger group in the rest of the world. Cui Bono?
Richardstevenhack , 05 December 2017 at 01:42 PM
Meanwhile Israel continues to try to up the ante by conducting yet another missile strike on a Syrian military location, this time using ground to ground missiles. This time Syria claims to have shot down approximately half the missiles. This follows the previous attack on Friday. Apparently the temper in Israel is that war is coming because Bibi needs one. An ominous warning: 'Netanyahu needs a war with Iran. And he needs it soon' http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/ominous-warning-netanyahu/

I think at some point if these air and ground strikes against Syria continue that Russia is going to have to step up and demonstrate that it could seriously damage Israel. Of course, Russia doesn't want a war with Israel. But Israel doesn't want a war with Russia, either. A single pin-prick Russian strike on an Israeli airbase that is conducting these attacks on Syria might bring that home to Bibi. The US won't do anything about it except moan in the UNSC. If Russia brings up these illegal strikes by Israel first in the UNSC before doing anything directly, the US would be left hanging.

Last year when Obama was considering imposing a "no-fly zone" on Syria, Russia explicitly said that anyone attacking the Syrian military would be shot down. Obama backed down. It's coming close to the time when Russia will have to include Israel in that regardless of any diplomatic consequences.

Russia is the only power in the Middle East who could theoretically rein in Israel, at least temporarily.

Babak Makkinejad , 05 December 2017 at 01:50 PM
jdledell:

There has not been any evidence for the Kingdom of David over 100 years of sifting the dirt of Palestine. It is time to conclude that the Kingdoms of David and Solomon were fiction. Predicating policy on what can charitably be only considered a historical romance is not practical. Arguing on basis of the Kingdom of Herod would be more sensible but then it would empty the claim to Palestine of all its purported existential religious import and shrink the size of disputed territories.

Ishmael Zechariah , 05 December 2017 at 02:03 PM
jdledell,
re: "Israel is getting stronger by the day compared with it's rivals in the region" Could you please expand this statement a bit? Given some recent events it is puzzling to me. Thanks
Ishmael Zechariah
eakens , 05 December 2017 at 02:27 PM
If reports are true, Trump is about to make a monumental foreign policy blunder tomorrow..... all for what?
Annem , 05 December 2017 at 02:30 PM
FOLKS,

This "peace" deal has been cooked up in cooperation between Netanyahu, Kushner and MBS. Abu Mazen was beckoned to Riyadh and told that Palestinians must agree to the offer or he must resign. Should Abu Mazen resign, the triumvirate are counting on someone like UAE-based multi-millionaire and former security boss Mohammad Dahlan, whose influence within the PLO is questionable.

The deal is horrible for the West Bankers and Palestinians in Jerusalem, only made worse by Trump's announcements about Jerusalem and Israel. Jerusalem as defined by Israel spreads up to Hebron, for instance. The Palestinians will be condemned to remain in their Bantustans supervised by the Israeli forces and with Israel allowed to extend existing settlements and initiate new ones by very slowly. Saudi Arabia and Israel are anxious to get the Palestinian issue off their backs and focus attention on what they see as a far more serious matter, Iran and Hezbollah. This obviously pleases Trump as well.

How other Arabs deal with all this at a time when most are bogged down in their own internal problems will be intersting to see. [We do know that El Sisi is on board though we don't know what this means for Gaza. Critics of El Sisi charge that he is preparing for the settlement of some Palestinians in northern Sinai.

Also, we will need to see how the Palestinians and the Euros and others take it all. As for Netanyahu, this distracts public opinion from the four indictments he faces for corruption.

The Beaver said in reply to Annem... , 05 December 2017 at 04:20 PM
Annem,

Should Abu Mazen resign, the triumvirate are counting on someone like UAE-based multi-millionaire and former security boss Mohammad Dahlan, whose influence within the PLO is questionable. This has been the goal of UAE monarchy and some Israelis, along with the two poor buggers: Jordan and Egypt, isn't it/

Kooshy said in reply to Ishmael Zechariah... , 05 December 2017 at 05:20 PM
I fully agree, I didn't know having lost the Lebanon and now Syrian war, zillion Iranian and HIzbollah aimed at you and your benefactors' Arab clients disestablished and limbo makes one stronger than ever. Good to know
jdledell said in reply to Ishmael Zechariah... , 05 December 2017 at 05:52 PM
Ishmael - What I mean is that in a conventional war, neither Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in any combination have the kind of military and equipment that could provide a serious existential threat to Israel. A war would cause Israel serious damage but not to the point of threatening their existence. The IAF would have complete freedom to grind up any attacking forces. Compared with 1967 and 1973 Israel's military has been completely modernized while their rivals have not and would have to use a lot of 30-40 year old equipment.
English Outsider -> Babak Makkinejad... , 05 December 2017 at 06:12 PM
Babak - It seems you're right but I don't believe it matters whether it's fiction or not. The Gothic Crimea isn't fiction but no Germans are wanting to reclaim that. Some did a while back but they wouldn't want to now under any circumstances. The ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples cannot be justified in the 20th/21st Century whatever the truth or falsity of ancient history.
jdledell said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 05 December 2017 at 06:14 PM
Babek - There you go again, using logic when discussing Israel. There is no logic to the claims, but there is a lot of religious faith. The reality is Israel uses the sacred texts to define the various kingdoms, with a generous benefit to themselves of any ambiguity. On virtually any street corner you can buy maps of the various kingdoms and none of them can be validated with current science. A strong religious faith will always trump logic.
Jony Kanuck , 05 December 2017 at 06:16 PM
Col;

While it's possible that in the twisted picture Trump has of the middle east, doing Israel a favour (Pandora's box?) to get them to give the Palestinians some scrap could move things forward! Someone who has better knowledge of Islam than me could comment whether this would hasten the day that a Jihad is proclaimed against Israel.

The last Israeli strike against Syria really got my attention though: A couple weeks back I read an Elijah Magnier column that said Hizbollah & Syria see the Golan Hts as unfinished business. this time they are prepared to do something about it. So Syria, in particular has been carefully escalating their response to Israeli attacks. The rabid Israeli response to a couple 20yr old anti air missiles shows it doesn't take much! The western analysis of the last strike says camp for Iranian mercs (Iraqi & Afgani Shia) of which there may be 10k. Hizbollah meanwhile has pulled back into Lebanon & is armed to the teeth. So when Syria shot down several Israeli missiles, I thought the pattern is established. If I was an Israeli military, I would be disturbed: Hizbollah, SAA & 10k mercs, all battle hardened, well equipped & eager to see Jerusalem.

Lemur said in reply to jdledell... , 05 December 2017 at 06:28 PM
how do u view the growing regional clout of Iran and Russia, including their asymmetric capability in relation to Israel?
Allen Thomson said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 05 December 2017 at 07:05 PM
Yes, I'd like to see a map showing what is seriously expected by Likud and friends to be Greater Israel. Euphrates to Nile? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel ? Mediterranean to, er, what? Or what?
J -> Annem... , 05 December 2017 at 07:06 PM
If Dahlan is UAE based, and a member of the Palestinian security and legislative bodies, then why is his citizenship Serbia and Montenegro? My inquiring mind wants to know.
VietnamVet , 05 December 2017 at 07:21 PM
jdledell,

When the daughter and son in law are Hasidic Jews it is understandable that the First Family would considered Israelites as chosen ones. Nation states are being superseded by multi-national corporations and their institutions. Democracy and societal good demolished. Five men own half of the world's wealth. Paranoia is rampart. Donald Trump will fight the "Deep State" with a private spy network: http://www.newsweek.com/trump-private-spies-deep-state-735091

No one in power in DC places the national interests of the United States first. A few connected families are grabbing it all while they can and pushing their own ideology and religion. Israel is a shining example.

Dorsey Gardner , 05 December 2017 at 07:35 PM
Since our Congressmen are owned by the Lobby (when they aren't abusing their interns at the taxpayers' expense), the only way to make a difference is to support the Global Boycott -- BDS Movement. Not only does it hurt Israel economically, but it has a far greater effect when it isolates Zionists and their supporters and makes them pariahs.
To enumerate the best response to the endless lies of Israel, let me provide a list:

1. BDS - you can find stickers for BDS online. Put them wherever public announcements are posted, wherever grafitti is found, wherever the Lobby can't complain. Also, send a check to the BDS organization -- you can find it online.

2. Support blogs such as "If Americans Knew," Council for the National Interest, Palestine Legal, and the Rachel Corrie Foundation. Forget giving to your colleges and universities, they are owned by the Lobby.

3. In the presence of your Jewish friends, refer to Palestine as "Occupied Palestine" never Israel. First of all, it is the correct nomenclature. Second, it will send a message that what they are doing is unacceptable and they will never be successful in controlling the narrative despite all the hasbara from the NYTimes, WAPO, and Harveywood.
4. Read "Holocaust HighPriest" and "Breaking the Spell" by Nicholas Kollerstrom. If you read these books you will never, and I mean NEVER, believe in the nonsense called the Holocaust. Without the Holocaust, the pack of lies that is call Israel disappears.

5. On a more optimistic note, the dirty secret about Israel is that there is a significant out-migration from the Promised Land to, of all places, Germany and elsewhere. When you see a photo of Jewish settlements, do you see any people? Right, its all vacant houses in the middle of nowhere. Israel has been trying to convince Jews to make Aliyah and it ain't working. Who would want to live in a hellhole surrounded by lunatics with fetlocks and shawls carring AK-47s shooting up the place. The Jews have managed to create Hell-On-Earth. We should let them have it except that the Palestinians are getting caught in the crossfire, US has to pay for it, and it has led to endless destabilization of decent neighbors (I'm not talking about Saudi Arabia) who just want
to live their lives.

turcopolier , 05 December 2017 at 08:10 PM
jdledell

what you say is sadly true and equally true of the other side. Al-Quds is sacred to them. pl

WJ , 05 December 2017 at 08:16 PM
Sir,

What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China. He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well. The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles. He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all, or is this kind of stuff pretty common for people in his field and position.

jpb said in reply to elaine... , 05 December 2017 at 08:33 PM
Deuteronomy 7:6 6 "For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth.

Jews proclaimed themselves God's 'chosen people', above all ordinary humanity. This idea is an abomination, yet it is accepted and tolerated by ordinary humanity, without question, lest one be condemned as an anti-semite.

The racist ideas of Judaism and their real estate contract with God are a plague on humanity. That Zionists in our midst assert power over all the earth and its nations as their birthright. Only this truth and its consequences will free our nation and the people of the world from the Zionist plague.

jdledell said in reply to Lemur... , 05 December 2017 at 08:44 PM
Lemur - Israel has a great deal of respect for Russian military capability, as they should. Israel is pretty careful in Syria not to stick their finger in Russian eyes. I've got a nephew who is a F-16 pilot and his orders when flying in Syria is to stay as far away form the Russian navel base in Tartus as possible.

Iran irritates Israel because of it's support for Hezballah and Israel will continue to try to limit the amount of supplies and equipment sends to Hezballah but other than that it's a standoff between Hezballah and Israel. However, Israel is genuinely concerned about Iran's possible breakout for a nuclear bomb. Israel realizes that it would only take 3 or 4 such bombs to virtually wipe out the country. They have some legitimate concerns that some crazy in Iran could launch such a strike.

However, Israel is NOT going to war against Iran to take out their nuclear capabilities in spite of the Saudi urging. It would be a fools errand since Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt together could not conquer Iran to put an end to Iran's nuclear capabilities. It would take a complete occupation of Iran to put stop this activity and that is impossible given the limitations of those military sources and the size and population of Iran. An added factor that inhibits Israel from attacking Iran is that they do not know how Russia would react.

kooshy said in reply to jdledell... , 05 December 2017 at 10:39 PM
This same equipment was used in 2006 against Merkavas, and against supper dooper IDF ground forces. Apparently back in 06, this new ME instead of coming out of Condie' womb, it exited her rectum, perhaps with as much pang if not more.
TonyL said in reply to eakens... , 06 December 2017 at 07:50 AM
To distract, and direct our attention to a different subject, he must have felt the heat of Mueller's investigation. It's in the playbook of all POTUS, pass and present. Moving US embassy to Jerusalem is a stupid decision, that will stir violent unrest in ME, and that no other nation will do. But does he cares?
turcopolier , 06 December 2017 at 08:40 AM
tonyL

Moving the embassy is nothing. Recognizing that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is probably a disastrous thing to do. Erdogan has called for a world-wide Islamic conference on this mid-month. pl

LeaNder said in reply to Dorsey Gardner... , 06 December 2017 at 10:18 AM
Oh, an activist from the twilight zone? Welcome! Should I have noticed you before? How's the man behind the curtain doing, when will the Fat Lady Sing, and the Truth Set Us All finally Free?

Read "Holocaust HighPriest" and "Breaking the Spell" by Nicholas Kollerstrom.

I am hearing you. You are sure you don't want to add Nicholas Kollerstrom, PhD. See your advertisement worked. I sure hope you read his 2015 book on Paul McCartney too? How and why the GB initiated WWI and WWII (2016), and The Chronicles of False Flag Terror (2017). Would you recommend the astrological titles too?

Babak Makkinejad -> Will.2718... , 06 December 2017 at 10:24 AM
The sad part of it is that all this scholarship means nothing to people like my Iranian friends who consider Israel to be their country; not withstanding the fact that their mother tongue is Persian and they associate socially with similar people.
jdledell said in reply to kooshy... , 06 December 2017 at 10:24 AM
Kooshy - It is true when Israel goes into Lebanon that Hezballah has the advantage and as I have explained previously the Hezballah used anti-tank weapons, to Israel's surprise, effectively against the Merkavas. Hezballah has effectively made southern Lebanon a nightmare for any offensive thrust by Israel.

However, it would be a totally different story if Hezballah had to abandon their defensive positions and go on the offensive. The same is true of other Arab offensive thrusts into Israel where they would be in the open.

When Israel is fundamentally threatened the entire nation and populace responds. In 1973 I was staying with friends in Jaffa and there was fear the Egyptian forces would roll right up the coast. The Israeli defense forces came into town and were handing out weapons to literally every man, woman and child. I was given an old WW I Enfield rifle and a handful of bullets, to point out the window toward the street. Of course the Egyptians never came and all I got out of the situation was very sore shoulders - that damn rifle weighed a ton.

LeaNder said in reply to turcopolier ... , 06 December 2017 at 10:44 AM
Well, Pat, the Jerusalem Embassy Act doesn't seem make a difference between those two issues. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act_of_1995 It's a peculiar verbal dance around the topic since 1995: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act#Developments Maybe one should get it over with. Has been hanging their like the Sword of Damocles for quite some time. Besides how many Palestinian enclaves/houses are still around in East Jerusalem. Seems to have been a steady process.

I hate to admit, but Trump would simply recognize reality, facts on the ground. How far into Judea and Samaria will this recognition reach in the upcoming larger/extended plan?

Sid Finster said in reply to VietnamVet... , 06 December 2017 at 12:04 PM
I thought Kushner et al. were Orthodox Jews, not Hassidic? Incidentally, the SatMar (a large Hassidic sect) are ferociously anti-Zionist and are frequent participants in anti-Israel demonstrations.
Sid Finster said in reply to jdledell... , 06 December 2017 at 12:06 PM
Hence the drive to drag the United States into a war with Iran.
Sid Finster said in reply to eakens... , 06 December 2017 at 12:07 PM
Well, I guess that's one way to drive a wedge between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and Trump's base won't complain about it. I'm not sure that "keeping the Saudis from buddying up with Israel" was the intent here, but that may well be the outcome.
jdledell said in reply to Allen Thomson... , 06 December 2017 at 03:31 PM
Allen Thompson - I'll jump in here to give you my ideas of where Israel is going with their land expansion ideas. First of all, there is recognition in Israel that there are far too few Jews to populate much more land than they have already grabbed. The Israeli Government will not state what their ultimate land objectives are - they will expand as their Jewish population expands. That is what is behind Netanyahu's pleas to the French Jews to move to Israel. If there is another large group of Jews moving to Israel as happened with the Soviet Union Jews in the past, then you will see military action to expand by Israel. The people who run the Government in Israel are pragmatic when it comes to issues like "Greater Israel" since they recognize the impact such a move would have given the limited supply of Jews and the already stretched Reserve army forces.
turcopolier , 06 December 2017 at 03:32 PM
LeaNder, You have never sounded so much like a Zionist troll. there are greater realities than mere possession. pl
Fred -> LeaNder... , 06 December 2017 at 03:49 PM
LeaNder, "facts on the ground" like the recognition of the military conquest of East Jerusalem? I wonder what Rocketman thinks of that.
Kooshy said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 06 December 2017 at 04:34 PM
If you mean expatriate JEWISH Iranians, IMO they are not as much as before link themselves to Israel, apparently some really lost a lot in business deals with Israelies.
Kooshy said in reply to jdledell... , 06 December 2017 at 04:57 PM
Sorry, I don't think so, the situation is becoming more balance then even 2006. Currently Hezbollah with her missiiles has as much offensive fear power as Israel Air Force. And as far as IDF ground forces goes they are no match to Hezbollah, irregular guys flying from US and France to help IDF are not professional gurrila fighter. In long run fear factor is more davastating on Israelis to think realistically on their future, then is for the Hezbollah and other Arabs since the Arabs have no were else to go.

IMO Israel and her supporters including US have never been weaker in their strategic position in entire ME. That is fact, backed by various events of this last 40 years, especially since 9/11. Ignoring actual facts and making unjustified analyses is just dangerous wishful thinking, on expense of western positions in the new forming world order.

Babak Makkinejad -> LeaNder... , 06 December 2017 at 10:00 PM
And, furthermore, the other Western people, firmly upholding the Separation of Church and State will cheerfully accept such conduct, no?
TonyL said in reply to turcopolier ... , 06 December 2017 at 10:05 PM
Yes sir, Moving the embassy there is just a symbolic part of the recognition.
fanto said in reply to turcopolier ... , 06 December 2017 at 11:57 PM
Colonel, Sir
how right you are - there are realities of possession, but such realities are not three dimensional, but four dimensional, everything changes with time; the 1000 year Reich is an example, one could cite many many more of "forever" claims - just like today´s pronouncement of Bibi about `Jerusalem is forever Israels capital` (I am paraphrasing what was today in the news). Your mentioning the Catholic Church in this context is saying the same thing - patience is a virtue, and only time will tell. btw - I agree about LeaNder
LeaNder said in reply to turcopolier ... , 07 December 2017 at 06:23 AM
Pat, that was cynic without adding cynicism alert. Melancholic. Deeply Melancholic. This is a very, very bad signal. ... But, should I really be surprised? It feels nobody should be. After all he said he would do this during his campaign. Should I go and check on his speech at AIPAC last year? I vividly recall one rather horrible anti-Iran propaganda show against Iran at AIPAC, quite professional on a huge screens. Some years earlier. Really shocking. Triggered images, propaganda productions. Strictly, Iran was a central item in his promise catalogue too. And hasn't Rouhani been declared the new Hitler recently? Zionist troll? At one point I opted for Post-Zionist, versus anti-Zionist. Maybe that was naive. But I was as hesitant concerning Anti-Semite versus Philo-Semite. Somewhat similiar to the choice between Trump-hater and Trump-supporter? No critical distance allowed you are either one or the other, it feels lately around here.

I do not trust Trump, that's true. Not even concerning Russia. Strictly he was offered that position on a silver plate. But doesn't this decision make him, if not a Zionist then at least a fierce pro-Israel hawk?

turcopolier , 07 December 2017 at 07:45 AM
LeaNder A lot of what you are writing lately does not sound like you. Are the other farmers writing your material? "Cynicism" and "irony" are different things. I am sorry that you are melancholic. pl

[Dec 08, 2017] Trump Is Bashing The 'Salvator Saudi' - Why

Notable quotes:
"... Trump has just declared that the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Did the administration expect the applause of the Saudis for its breaking of international law with regards to Jerusalem? Does it lash out to the Saudis to get their agreement? ..."
"... If so the miscalculation is clearly on the U.S. side. It is impossible for the Saudis to concede the Haram al-Sharif, the mosque on the so called temple mount, to the Zionists. The Saudi King would no longer be the "custodian of the two holy mosques" in Mecca and Medina but the "seller of the third holy mosque" of Islam in Jerusalem. The people would kill him and his whole family. ..."
"... My pet hypothesis is Trump's recognizing Jerusalem was the bone he was willing to throw the Israelis after his generals told him attacking Iran would be catastrophic for the US military and world economy. The Saudis, who are as rabid about bombing Iran as the Zionists, were pissed as they probably had been led to believe the attack was a matter of time. ..."
"... That sacked FM - Is that the little fellow that Col Lang calls "The Chihuahua"? ..."
"... Saudi in all likelihood were not part of the Jerusalem declaration. Israeli sources spread a plan they said was agreed to by Saudi, trying to embarrass them. ..."
"... Jerusalem: The reaction is deeper than expected. Not in the way of street, easily contained, violence, but by a gut reaction of the whole ME..The religious aspect seems to have been totally ignored by the US. Removing one of the major symbols of about 1.2 billion people - is not going to go down well. ..."
"... wahabbi is a tavistock british demented fiendish virus injected into islam for gang counter gang pseudogang hagel control ..."
"... I do wonder...knowing that real or false-flag violence could ensue against Israeli or US targets, it could be a useful pretext for the US waging war in the ME against Hezbullah or anyone else we accuse. With our intelligence agencies providing the "evidence" and a compliant media to sell it, as usual a majority of Americans would support it. ..."
"... This Jerusalem declaration has me genuinely scared. Violence (real or false flag) could be the expected Reaction to this Problem, resulting in the long-planned Solution of finishing off MENA. If Russia is sincere in its alliance with Syria and Iran, and interest in a multi-polar world with self-determination for sovereign nations, this war could easily escalate to the End Timer's dreamt of Final Battle of Armageddon. ..."
"... Most of the MSM coverage of Reactions I've seen name Muslim/Arab countries as opposing, and others as "concerned," even though almost all official state responses have denounced President Trump's® declaration. This "Clash of Civilizations" type narrative is not encouraging. ..."
"... something stinks in trumptoon. really small world what are the chances A. whenever Donald Trump has left the White House and ventured anywhere, Dmitry Rybolovlev (aka the "Russian King of Fertilizer") has tended to show up in the same city. The latter possibility has long been bolstered by the fact that Trump sold Rybolovlev a mansion a few years ago that neither of them lived in nor cared about, suggesting the sale was mere cover for shifting money from Russia to Trump. ..."
"... Western media called Putin unpredictable, but that was because he could see moves that others didn't see. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Just the day before the administration leaked to the WSJ about the art deal, President Trump had publicly scolded MbS about the situation in Yemen:

President Trump called on Saudi Arabia to lift its crushing blockade against its war-torn neighbor Yemen on Wednesday, hours after defying the kingdom and saying the U.S. would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel .

In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Trump said he had directed members of his administration to reach out to the Saudi leadership "to request that they completely allow food, fuel, water, and medicine to reach the Yemeni people who desperately need it."

Today Secretary of State Tillerson again pushed that line :

Speaking in Paris on Friday, Rex Tillerson, US secretary of state, called on Saudi Arabia to be "measured" in its military operations in Yemen.
...
Tillerson urged Saudi restraint.

"With respect to Saudi Arabia's engagement with Qatar, how they're handling the Yemen war that they're engaged in, the Lebanon situation, we would encourage them to be a bit more measured and a bit more thoughtful in those actions to, I think, fully consider the consequences," he said.

He once again demanded a "complete end" to the Saudi-led blockade of Yemen so that humanitarian aid and commercial supplies could be delivered.

Embarrassing MbS about the art buy and publicly(!) scolding hm for the situation in Yemen, for which the U.S. is just as much responsible as the Saudis, is quite an assault. What has MbS done - or not done - to deserve such a punishment?

Trump has just declared that the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Did the administration expect the applause of the Saudis for its breaking of international law with regards to Jerusalem? Does it lash out to the Saudis to get their agreement?

If so the miscalculation is clearly on the U.S. side. It is impossible for the Saudis to concede the Haram al-Sharif, the mosque on the so called temple mount, to the Zionists. The Saudi King would no longer be the "custodian of the two holy mosques" in Mecca and Medina but the "seller of the third holy mosque" of Islam in Jerusalem. The people would kill him and his whole family.

If the issue of this public hustle it is not Jerusalem, what else might it be that the Trump administration wants and the Saudis can not, or are not willing to concede?

A few hours ago the Saudi King fired his ankle biting Foreign Minster Adel al-Jubair. A relative of the king, Khaled bin Salman, will take the job. Is this related to the spat with Trump?

arbetet , Dec 8, 2017 3:02:14 PM | 1

This came up:
Breaking: Saudi FM allegedly sacked by regime

The Saudi Foreign Minister, 'Adel Al-Jubeir, has been allegedly sacked by the Kingdom's regime, several prominent political activists reported this evening.

According to the claims, Jubeir was fired and replaced by a close confidant of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

The confidant that is allegedly replacing Jubeir is none other than Prince Khaled bin Salman, the Crown Prince's brother.

The Saudi regime has yet to confirm or deny these rumors.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-saudi-fm-allegedly-sacked-regime/

Madderhatter67 , Dec 8, 2017 3:14:21 PM | 2
It was Jerusalem. They were not willing to sacrifice Jerusalem.
Quentin , Dec 8, 2017 3:20:29 PM | 3
Where does MbS's interpretation of Salvator Mundi come from. The Saudi's have something with crystal orbs, like the one Trump so fondly stroked in Riyadh after giving a masterful interpretation of the sword dance.
BX , Dec 8, 2017 3:20:30 PM | 4
Yes. It is puzzling what is going on between MbS and the Trump administration. I was sure MbS, the reformer, secretly okayed the Jerusalem move. His negative statement might be just theater, I figured. But I am not so sure anymore. Yes, MbS wants a peace deal (any deal with "peace" written on it) between Palestinians and Israelis. But both he and Trump/Kushner are novices in politics and diplomacy (and that ain't the same as getting a deal for a new tower) and absolutely underestimated the effort. Totally.

Word is that Kushner made Trump delay delivering his campaign promise because he needed more time for his peace plan (and that would be 6 months???). This is the level they are at. And now, they placed an obvious obstacle in the path go their peace plan - out of folly. Complete folly. Because Trump wanted to deliver. I believe they are already backtracking as good as they can. But the damage is done. I think Palestinians were just waiting for a good opportunity/reason to get rid of the US in the process and found it now. Also, the single state solution is being talked about.

The source for the WSJ need not be the Trump administration in the narrow sense but some stray intelligence official ("U.S. intelligence reports") wanting to throw a wrench because that story is absolutely damaging. Absolutely, because it is embarrassing and I don't think MbS enjoys that. Note, the story began to become known around the time it became obvious Trump would not sign the waiver and reached its epitome (WSJ) just after that. Trump set himself up for this.

Don Wiscacho , Dec 8, 2017 3:38:33 PM | 5
My pet hypothesis is Trump's recognizing Jerusalem was the bone he was willing to throw the Israelis after his generals told him attacking Iran would be catastrophic for the US military and world economy. The Saudis, who are as rabid about bombing Iran as the Zionists, were pissed as they probably had been led to believe the attack was a matter of time. In order to remind them of their position and get them on board with the "peace" deal Tillerson has been hinting about, they've been turning the screws on MBS as a taste of what's to come if he puts up stink about the wonderful Kushner- concocted "plan".
fx , Dec 8, 2017 3:42:39 PM | 6
$450 mil... MbS's Egyptian torturer-in-chief must have just torn a few princely nails and whip a few feet for that, just a few days' worth of "anti-corruption" "campaigning".

Wait, wasn't the Saudi populace all behind MbS because he was going to spend the money on them? If there is no bread, let them non-royals eat paint.

somebody , Dec 8, 2017 3:56:36 PM | 7
About the picture - after the shake down of Saudi Arabia's rich princes MBS must have a lot of enemies. Some of these princes might have been close to the Trump administration.
Bart Hansen , Dec 8, 2017 4:01:43 PM | 8
That sacked FM - Is that the little fellow that Col Lang calls "The Chihuahua"?
somebody , Dec 8, 2017 4:09:19 PM | 9
Good Patrick Cockburn article on the mess .

Gazan military groups are warming up to a rocket competition. I am sure the real stuff is not involved yet. What were they thinking? That people did not take the chance to unite on the only issue they all agree on?

4
I agree, Saudi in all likelihood were not part of the Jerusalem declaration. Israeli sources spread a plan they said was agreed to by Saudi, trying to embarrass them.

stonebird , Dec 8, 2017 4:54:47 PM | 10
MbS is in it for himself, no one else. Leave him aside for the moment.

However, Trump probably thought he had a marvellous peace plan for Palestine which he would show the world.... errr... tomorrow. This was supposed to have the backing of the Saudis and the Israelis and all the other ME "actors" would be lined up behind MbS.

ie. Saudis would provide the backing, which included the "Arab" states as per the recent gathering of them all (excluding Iran and Iraq). Abbas would be blackmailed to go along in order to keep his position (Moneywise), and the Palestinians as well - but by the withholding of funds. (New vote in Congress).

Leaks of the plan (unverified) suggest that the PA's would be held in walled-in isolated camps, with all contact subject to the harassement and nightly raids of the IDF, the land still open to theft by settlers (this has been "legalised" in Israel !) and so on. ie they get nothing except a tissue-paper "treaty" . They seem not to have even been consulted by Kushner and the Israelis. ie who possibly expected to be able to impose whatever Netanyahu and the Israeli Generals might allow.

BUT, when have either the US or Israel kept to an agreement - never. and the PA's and the rest of the ME know it.

Jerusalem: The reaction is deeper than expected. Not in the way of street, easily contained, violence, but by a gut reaction of the whole ME..The religious aspect seems to have been totally ignored by the US. Removing one of the major symbols of about 1.2 billion people - is not going to go down well.

Those countries with a large Palestinian refugee population, either fear them, or may be outnumbered if there are more arriving (Jordan), or will find that they now have a potential source of militants at their disposal.. (Syria?, Lebanon?). The Syrians and Lebanese have not let the Palestinians get more arms - yet, as they might have become targets themselves. But, there have been PA's in the Syrian counter-terrorist forces, even when Yarmouk camp was held by Daesh (or one of the others).

So I think that the "bit" players have got cold feet. They cannot go along with the eradication of the Palestinians or their confinement to concentrated internement camps such as Gaza, whose conditions are WORSE that prisons. Otherwise the whole "Rulers-People and the power-structures that keep them in place" would be in jeopardy.
......
The Leonardo ? .... acquiring "class" by buying expensive "cultural" artifacts. You can buy a lot of "class" with $450.3 million.

psychohistorian , Dec 8, 2017 5:06:51 PM | 11
I think that answer to b's question has a lot to do with trying to incite war in the ME

I think that SA does not want to be the global elite's proxy in a war with Iran....especially to start/incite the war.

It really is becoming a public spectacle and that plays into the desire of the masses to see such incompetence writ large.

I entreat everyone's spirits to keep these kooks away from the nukes.

Jef , Dec 8, 2017 5:17:11 PM | 12
Yo b or any of the commentariat - Any speculation as to the connection to the Russian Oilagarck....you know, follow the money?
Scotch Bingeington , Dec 8, 2017 5:18:55 PM | 13
Maybe that canvas Jesus is meant to be a hostage one day, potentially.
terry tibbs , Dec 8, 2017 5:26:21 PM | 14
a simple question who gets the 100s of millions? who is the seller? the fake painting is cover for a payoff or tribute yes no maybe friends of kushner own the painting maybe it is to help kushner and his 666 moloch tower block mortgage. the bank of gorge soros must need some fund back quick for a new hungary regime change operation.

wahabbi is a tavistock british demented fiendish virus injected into islam for gang counter gang pseudogang hagel control

uae and the house of saud are donmeh jews
satanist hate jesus.
simply google talmud quotes about jesus and all will become clear.

Kabobyak , Dec 8, 2017 5:27:13 PM | 15
As to how the Jerusalem actions play out, the posting here (MOA) a couple of days ago was informative as to reasons and timing (including info about Sheldon Adelson's hundred million to Trump campaign). I do wonder...knowing that real or false-flag violence could ensue against Israeli or US targets, it could be a useful pretext for the US waging war in the ME against Hezbullah or anyone else we accuse. With our intelligence agencies providing the "evidence" and a compliant media to sell it, as usual a majority of Americans would support it.
Daniel , Dec 8, 2017 5:37:14 PM | 16
Great stuff, b et al. This Jerusalem declaration has me genuinely scared. Violence (real or false flag) could be the expected Reaction to this Problem, resulting in the long-planned Solution of finishing off MENA. If Russia is sincere in its alliance with Syria and Iran, and interest in a multi-polar world with self-determination for sovereign nations, this war could easily escalate to the End Timer's dreamt of Final Battle of Armageddon.

Most of the MSM coverage of Reactions I've seen name Muslim/Arab countries as opposing, and others as "concerned," even though almost all official state responses have denounced President Trump's® declaration. This "Clash of Civilizations" type narrative is not encouraging.

Flatulus , Dec 8, 2017 6:09:23 PM | 17
Terry Tibbs 14 - The family trust of Rybolovlev is the seller of the painting. Rybolovlev was also a buyer of Trump estate in Florida previously.
psychohistorian , Dec 8, 2017 6:22:05 PM | 18
@ Daniel ending with "This "Clash of Civilizations" type narrative is not encouraging." That is exactly what they want you to focus on as a narrative rather than the simple truth about the demise of private banking. On the previous thread about the Republican: Ryan deficit BS there was a commenter ex-SA with a John H. Hotson link that I want to see go viral because it simply explains the history of the Gordian Knot we face as a species

The link to a 1996 article: Understanding Money by John H. Hotson. The take away quote

"Banking came into existence as a fraud. The fraud was legalized and we've been living with the consequences, both good and bad, ever since. Even so it is also a great invention-right up there with fire, the wheel, and the steam engine."

Clash of Civilizations is as vapid a meme as the common understanding of the Capitalism myth as that article so clearly states. Spread his word far and wide to wake up the zombies. It is time!

terry tibbs , Dec 8, 2017 6:45:52 PM | 19

17
something stinks in trumptoon. really small world what are the chances A. whenever Donald Trump has left the White House and ventured anywhere, Dmitry Rybolovlev (aka the "Russian King of Fertilizer") has tended to show up in the same city. The latter possibility has long been bolstered by the fact that Trump sold Rybolovlev a mansion a few years ago that neither of them lived in nor cared about, suggesting the sale was mere cover for shifting money from Russia to Trump.

Deutsche Bank in Germany busted for laundering more than ten billion dollars out of Russia and into places like New York. This stood out because Deutsche has also loaned more than a billion dollars to Donald Trump, who just happens to be based out of New York.

james , Dec 8, 2017 6:56:26 PM | 20
thanks b.. fascinating.. i wait for the next shoe to drop.. it's coming... hopefully we get the back story on this sooner then later..

i would think the timing of Foreign Minster Adel al-Jubair being fired has something to do with all this.. he revealed something that he wasn't supposed to? i would also imagine those heavies still hanging at the saudi ritz carlton might be pulling some strings from behind the scenes? meanwhile mbz is doing a hell of a fine apprentice with mbs, lol..

nice pic in the post btw!! clown prince as savior of ksa, lol...

jezabeel , Dec 8, 2017 7:02:46 PM | 21
Belief in Jerusalem as the Jew capital is the same as belief in the intrinsic value of fiat currency, or the exceptionalism of the US. It's just mental illness. The Kingdom of God is within you, not in temples of stone and wood. We'd be better just cultivating our own personal relationship with our higher selves and leave the deluded to scrap it out over ash and sand. That said, if someone with a big nose came to my door and said my house was going to get knocked down because Shalom etc, that would be the day I would have to really figure out how to proceed without becoming the necessary victim in another's persecutor drama complex. I guess that's what Palestinians have to deal with every day. Horrible situation.

I heard a story once that when the British were throwing the Aborigines of Australia off cliffs en masse in their Australian version of the Middle East story of dispossession and demonization, the Aborigines would look up calmly at the officers as they fell and in their own language say: "You have a problem, bro". Sometimes death is better than becoming a victim. And as a worshiper of Lord Shiva the Destroyer, I wish you all completely liberating and renewing deaths from yourselves.

terry tibbs , Dec 8, 2017 7:08:16 PM | 22
probably nothing kosher burger. Russian Oligarch Rybolovlev Saved Trump Financially.
https://new.euro-med.dk/20170314-russian-oligarch-rybolovlev-saved-trump-financially-courier-of-the-tsar-putin-to-president-trump.php

Confirmed: Rybolovlev's Jet & Yacht were in Dubrovnik the same time as Ivanka and Jared Kushner

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/17/1644558/-Confirmed-Rybolovlev-s-Jet-Yacht-were-in-Dubrovnik-the-same-time-as-Ivanka-and-Jarred-Kushner

elsi , Dec 8, 2017 7:20:02 PM | 23
But, has not The Donald declared that this media NYT, Bloomberg , etc...were all "fake news"? Then why is anybody going to trust them when publishing whatever?
Sounds quite clumsy, or simply, demential ( as every move of this administration ) to try to leak something through those media you have widely discredited during all your election campaign and beyond....

I, by a norm, do not trust any move coming from Trump could be for any good. This is, simply, "smoke and mirrors" and an intent of whitewashing a bit the already deplorable image of this admnistration in front of the world wide reaction in rejection of his bold and clumsy declaration of Jerusalem as capital of the Zionist regime.
The same for the clearly hypocritical call for to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people, just another intent of whitewashing when they are main puppet-masters in that war torn country, as it happens with every conflict in the world.

What it is beyond me is that the Russians, are always amongst those who swallow this theater plays....I wonder why....

In front of the demential way this administration makes fun of every event, people, country... in the world, in spite of the suffering they could inflict on them, I concur with Terry in that this just could be some esotheric issue more proper of unoccupied people with too much money to waste. Most probably something involving "Damian" Kushner, his 666,Madison Avenue penthouse and an occult message from The Messiah in the reverse of the canvas of that Jesus paint with a codified message on the results of the coming final battle of Armaggedon amongst the forces of evil and those of good, when Russia will be santified as the real Promised Land and The Saker will be ( finally! ) crowned as the saint he always claimed to be along with Saint Nicolas Romanov, and they will all eat sardinas together with the Trumps, the Kushners and the Netanyahus in Mar a Lago or in the super-yatch of Abramovich during the summer, but in winter they will go together to Sochi´s Putin dacha, since they love to meet super-intelligent, well educated, cool people....well, the elite of everything...

The surviving Arabs and the rest of us, plebeian ignorant clumsy sinners not so white as them, ( what they call "the sheeple", vaya )we will continue working from sunrise to sunset for crumbs, but, who cares? We will continue having good times with our peers and loved ones and laughing as usual with the little things of real life...Do not despair....

elsi , Dec 8, 2017 7:25:15 PM | 24
This is the real Christmas spirit of The Donald, alias Orange Agent Dotard : https://www.rebelion.org/imagenes/p_08_12_2017.jpg
elsi , Dec 8, 2017 7:44:26 PM | 25
The poster above was drawn by Basque artist Josetxo Ezcurra
Peter AU 1 , Dec 8, 2017 7:46:42 PM | 26
Western media called Putin unpredictable, but that was because he could see moves that others didn't see. Erdogan looked unpredictable and irrational while moving from the hedgemon to the multi-polar world. Trump? Like Erdogan, trying to move US to the multi polar world? Too many moves he makes puts sand in the hedgemon's gears.
elsi , Dec 8, 2017 8:15:30 PM | 27
For you to see that all this is not but theater, look what worries them most, meanwhile, in The Vatican: Pope Francis supports the idea of changing a phrase in the Lord's Prayer

[Dec 08, 2017] Prediction that Tillerson would be gone by end of year

Notable quotes:
"... Fred: It's assuming that the "professional diplomats" who gave us the Iraq War and the Maiden Demonstrations in Ukraine call Trump irresponsible! I think Trump is doing a Gulfies. Besides the Mother of Arms Deals with the Kingdom of Horrors, he's just got Bahrain to buy another batch of F-16's they don't need. ..."
"... Trump said he was going to make the Gulfies pay for our protection. And that is what he is doing. Now if he could only make the Zionists pay..... ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Richardstevenhack ,

On this side of the water, my prediction that Tillerson would be gone by end of year appears to be coming true.

Reports say Trump is going to throw Tillerson under the bus - like all his other supporters - and replace him with CIA's Mike Pompeo. Senator Cotter - a torture and drone advocate - will replace Pompeo at CIA

So now we'll have a CIA head in charge at State. I'm totally sure that will improve US diplomacy with North Korea, Russia, China, etc...

Those people who kept saying Trump had some master plan to save us were right - it entails throwing out anyone NOT advocating war with most of the nuclear powers on the planet.

Kooshy , 30 November 2017 at 05:48 PM
Zizi controlled US media, like the NYT and CNN really want Rex Tillerson out, they are paving the way for him to leave, and have decided who they like to replace him, both candidates for the state and CIA are supper neocon protectors of Zionism in US, and totally anti Iran.
Fred -> Richardstevenhack ... , 30 November 2017 at 06:23 PM
Richardstevenhack,

This is the second, or perhaps third, report of Tillerson getting "thrown under the bus". I would say the Borg are having their policy narrative systematicly destroyed by Trump and they are desperate to at least create, or at least maintain, an image of turmoil in the executive branch.

JamesT -> Richardstevenhack ... , 30 November 2017 at 06:39 PM
Richardstevenhack

Do you think that POTUS ordered CENTCOM to cut off arms supplies to the Kurds in order to start a war with nuclear powers? It seems to me this action does the complete opposite of that - it dramatically reduces the chance of war with Russia.

DemiJohn said in reply to Fred ... , 30 November 2017 at 08:57 PM
Agreed. And Reuters is also In the band. It would be sad to see one of the last brains in the cabinet disappear.
Yeah, Right , 01 December 2017 at 02:11 AM
"Those people who kept saying Trump had some master plan to save us were right" Maybe not a master plan, but Trump may well be marching to a tune that you can not hear. Take his refusal to certify the JCPOA as stipulated by Congress.

Q: Did he follow that up by tearing up the JCPOA?
A: No, he didn't. He threw the problem back to Congress, who look like a deer caught in some headlights.

He is also expected (either this time or the next) to refuse to sign the waiver regarding moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

Q: Will he then follow up by actually, you know, moving that embassy?
A: My guess is he won't, and he'll dare Congress to make something of it.

I really think that there is a pattern to his behaviour, and it isn't the behaviour of a slave to "the establishment". It looks more like he is throwing that establishment off-balance by saying, in essence, that he isn't interested in playing their silly games, and by doing so he exposes those games as.... silly.

Certifying the JCPOA is a burden, and he simply shrugs it off. Waiving the Embassy move is a burden, and he'll just shrug it off. Every time he does so he exposes Congressional politicking that are an irrelevance - an instance of Congress sticking its nose where it doesn't belong - and that's no bad thing. Just my take, but I really don't think Trump is who you think he is.

Matthew said in reply to Fred ... , 01 December 2017 at 09:11 AM
Fred: It's assuming that the "professional diplomats" who gave us the Iraq War and the Maiden Demonstrations in Ukraine call Trump irresponsible! I think Trump is doing a Gulfies. Besides the Mother of Arms Deals with the Kingdom of Horrors, he's just got Bahrain to buy another batch of F-16's they don't need.

Trump said he was going to make the Gulfies pay for our protection. And that is what he is doing. Now if he could only make the Zionists pay.....


[Dec 08, 2017] AMERICA-HYSTERICA

Notable quotes:
"... Pentagon "weaponised information" years ago: " Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media ".) ..."
"... The collapse of the Fusion GPS operation will unravel the whole construction. And it's coming . ( And don't forget Awan .) All this because the Dems fixed their nomination and then lost anyway. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

AMERICA-HYSTERICA I. It's not working. 52% believe it's better to have Russia on "our side" than not ; 76% of Republicans and 51% of independents agree but only 29% of Democrats. (I presume Dems find it easier to believe that Trump won because Putindunnit than that he beat their candidate fair and square). It's not working in Europe either: another poll show large majorities in Germany, Poland, France and UK would like better relations with Russia . But the effluent is still pumped out: " weaponised information ". (As a readers' guide to this sort of thing, you won't go wrong assuming that whatever US/NATO accuse Russia of doing, they are actually doing. For example, the Pentagon "weaponised information" years ago: " Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media ".)

AMERICA-HYSTERICA II. " FBI and Justice Department officials have told congressional investigators in recent days that they have not been able to verify or corroborate the substantive allegations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign outlined in the Trump dossier. " The collapse of the Fusion GPS operation will unravel the whole construction. And it's coming . ( And don't forget Awan .) All this because the Dems fixed their nomination and then lost anyway.

[Dec 07, 2017] Trump just announced that the US now recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is there not enough chaos in the Mideast?

Dec 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Semper Fidelis , December 6, 2017 at 10:34 pm GMT

Trump just announced that the US now recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Now why the feck does he have to go do that for? Is there not enough chaos in the Mideast? Why did he have to go stir up shite like this? Netanyahu is an evil Zionist and he's got his best agent in the WH in the form of the president's son-in-law.

The best thing that could come out of the Mueller investigation is if he ends up sending Jared Kushner to jail.

Breitbart is going bonkers cheering him on. All those Trump fanboys and fangirls from Appalachia are being used like fools by that Zionist rag.

Talha , December 6, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT
@Rurik

Hey Rurik,

Good to hear from you!

what do you think about it sir?

Some things are best stated in Turkish

I really do hope the Muslim world comes to at least a settlement on this fundamental issue and that the Jordanians do not budge if they know the Muslim world has their backs. My guess is that it will simply be a declaration, that won't mean much on the ground in real terms. Politics as usual. Kind of like if I declare myself the King of Denmark – makes my kids happy that they are princes and princesses, but nobody else cares.

Again Turkish "I didn't come to Israel, I came to Palestine."

Peace.

Cloak And Dagger , December 6, 2017 at 7:18 pm GMT
Haaretz

Jewish groups in the U.S. expressed dismay following Tuesday evening's announcement from U.S. President Donald Trump that he intends to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

The Jewish Reform movement in the U.S. expressed its concern over Trump's expected change in U.S. policy on Jerusalem's Old City. Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, said on Wednesday that "President Trump's ill-timed, but expected, announcement affirms what the Reform Jewish Movement has long held: that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel."

Jacobs contested that Reform Jews "cannot support his decision to begin preparing that move now, absent a comprehensive plan for a peace process."

"While the president took the right step in announcing that he would sign the waiver, as have his Republican and Democratic predecessors, the White House should not undermine these efforts by making unilateral decisions that are all but certain to exacerbate the conflict," he noted.

J Street, the U.S.-based, liberal advocacy group also opposed the move. President Jeremy Ben-Ami stated that "the effect of moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem prior to a negotiated agreement will be to anger key Arab allies, foment regional instability and undermine nascent U.S. diplomatic efforts to resolve the larger conflict."

"The administration should also note that only a small minority of Jewish Americans – just 20 percent – support unilaterally moving the embassy," he added. "Moving the embassy or recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital could have destructive consequences for American allies in the region- in particular the kingdoms of Jordan and Saudi Arabia," he warned.

Left-wing activist organization Jewish Voice for Peace blasted Trump's reported decision as "an endorsement of Israel's annexation."

Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of JVP, stated that "for 70 years, the US has given Israel tacit approval to steal Palestinian land, build illegal Jewish settlements, and deny Palestinians in East Jerusalem and elsewhere their rights."

"Trump's decision," she charged, "takes these ongoing policies to the next level and is reckless, irresponsible and endangers the lives of Palestinians and Israelis."

The American-based New Israel Fund also raised qualms over the potential dangers such moves could pose to Israelis and Jews in the Diaspora. CEO Daniel Sokatch stated that "President Trump many not understand what's at stake here, but we do. Moving the embassy risks igniting the tinderbox of anger, frustration and hopelessness that already exists in Jerusalem."

"Throwing.. balance off with this unilateral gesture could have grave consequences," he speculated.

Charles Pewitt , December 6, 2017 at 7:54 pm GMT
Young Americans of European Christian ancestry will be the ones who sever all ties between the United States and Israel. The American Empire can never go back to being a republic ever again; but the young White Core Americans will force the American Empire to behave more like a representative republic that strictly puts the interests of the United States ahead of all other nations.

NO MORE WAR FOR ISRAEL IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

Israel will be cut off from all support from the United States. The American Empire will keep US military forces in the Middle East solely to have some control over the natural resources in the region.

The Jewish moment in American history is over. Going forward, the Sam Huntington questions -- Who are we? and What are we fighting for? -- will be answered by young White Americans. The answers are that the United States is a British Protestant-derived European Christian nation and the United States will only fight to advance the interests of the United States. No more wars for Israel such as the Iraq War debacle.

The Jews who put the interests of Israel ahead of the United States, such as Jared Kushner, Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson, will be disregarded by the young White Core Americans who refuse to allow the US military to be badly used as muscle for Israel in Middle East wars.

President Trump will find that even young evangelicals in the Southern states are highly suspicious and skeptical of any more wars for Israel in the Middle East.

L.K , December 7, 2017 at 1:36 am GMT
Lebanese(?) journalist Sharmine Narwani, whose articles have appeared at TAC and RT, had a good tweet about Kushner:

Kushner looks a bit like what I imagine Damien from Omen looks like as an adult. Genderless, blank-eyed, indistinctive, but dangerous.

2 great articles by her;

Israel's Geopolitical Gut Check: A once favorable balance of power has shifted, clipping Tel Aviv's wings

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/israels-geopolitical-gut-check/

The next one takes care of many of the lies which are constantly repeated about Hezbollah
Hezbollah is Not a Threat to America – 'Trumped' up charges to get at Iran won't work

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/hezbollah-is-not-a-threat-to-america/

L.K , December 7, 2017 at 2:21 am GMT
The Lebanese journalist I mentioned before, Sharmine Narwani, wrote about that one thing that has the zionists in panic mode they fear "delegitimization".

In an article titled 'Excuse Me, But Israel Has No Right To Exist' , she writes:

The United States and Israel have created the global discourse on this issue, setting stringent parameters that grow increasingly narrow regarding the content and direction of this debate. Anything discussed outside the set parameters has, until recently, widely been viewed as unrealistic, unproductive and even subversive.

Participation in the debate is limited only to those who prescribe to its main tenets: the acceptance of Israel, its regional hegemony and its qualitative military edge; acceptance of the shaky logic upon which the Jewish state's claim to Palestine is based; and acceptance of the inclusion and exclusion of certain regional parties, movements and governments in any solution to the conflict.[...]

But this group-think has led us nowhere. It has obfuscated, distracted, deflected, ducked, and diminished, and we are no closer to a satisfactory conclusion because the premise is wrong.

There is no fixing this problem. This is the kind of crisis in which you cut your losses, realize the error of your ways and reverse course. Israel is the problem. It is the last modern-day colonial-settler experiment, conducted at a time when these projects were being unraveled globally.

There is no "Palestinian-Israeli conflict" – that suggests some sort of equality in power, suffering, and negotiable tangibles, and there is no symmetry whatsoever in this equation. Israel is the Occupier and Oppressor; Palestinians are the Occupied and Oppressed. What is there to negotiate? Israel holds all the chips.[...]

Let me correct myself. Palestinians do hold one chip that Israel salivates over – the one big demand at the negotiating table that seems to hold up everything else. Israel craves recognition of its "right to exist."

But you do exist – don't you, Israel?

Israel fears "delegitimization" more than anything else. Behind the velvet curtain lies a state built on myths and narratives, protected only by a military behemoth, billions of dollars in US assistance and a lone UN Security Council veto. Nothing else stands between the state and its dismantlement. Without these three things, Israelis would not live in an entity that has come to be known as the "least safe place for Jews in the world."

Strip away the spin and the gloss, and you quickly realize that Israel doesn't even have the basics of a normal state. After 64 years, it doesn't have borders. After six decades, it has never been more isolated. Over half a century later, and it needs a gargantuan military just to stop Palestinians from walking home.

Israel is a failed experiment. It is on life-support – pull those three plugs and it is a cadaver, living only in the minds of some seriously deluded foreigners who thought they could pull off the heist of the century.[...]

[Dec 07, 2017] Tillerson, Mattis Warned Trump Against Embassy Move by Mark Perry

Dec 07, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Donald Trump's announcement that the U.S. now recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and will eventually move its embassy there, might well be the most predictable decision of an otherwise unpredictable presidency. Trump made his Jerusalem promise back in March of 2016, during an address he gave to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It was an obvious attempt to convince skeptical Jewish leaders of his uncompromising support for Israel.

But it's not only that Trump was intent to fulfill a campaign promise: The Jerusalem initiative has been in the works since the day he took office, was coordinated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and is supported by influential voices in the administration -- including Vice President Mike Pence, son-in-law Jared Kushner, Middle East envoy (and former Trump Organization lawyer) Jason Greenblatt, and CIA Director Mike Pompeo. The decision was all but finalized, The American Conservative has learned, during a late November meeting of Trump's foreign policy advisors at the White House.

... ... ...

In fact, it seems unlikely that this unseemly sleight-of-hand (of making dubious claims), will allay Arab fears that the U.S. continues to be "Israel's lawyer" (to use a term coined by former U.S. Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller). Now it has also become Israel's realtor. This seems not to bother the president, who is becoming known for playing a poor hand by throwing in more chips. The strategy is almost perverse in its beauty, and was on full display among administration officials intent on selling the president's Jerusalem initiative in the wake of his address. The Trump announcement, as one of them argued, doesn't undermine the peace process -- not because there isn't one (as everyone suspects), but because there is, and it's going swimmingly. Trump, this official added, was actually anxious to make Wednesday's announcement because he was so encouraged by the progress made on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by Jared Kushner and his team. "I know a lot of that progress isn't visible," as this official was overheard saying to a prominent television reporter, "[but] it's partly because that progress is not visible that they've been able to make so much progress."

... ... ...

Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a regular contributor to The American Conservative and the author of The Pentagon's Wars, which was released in October. He tweets @markperrydc

[Dec 07, 2017] Trump Settles Debt With Zionists - Confirms That Iran's Struggle Is Righteous

Notable quotes:
"... Destabilisation of Jordan is in prospect, as there is a lot of religious anti-regime feeling already. ..."
"... If Jerusalem is now supposed to be the "only" capital; At this point it might be that the best course of action would be for the Palestinians to demand equal rights, votes, civil law (not military), and the absence of discrimination, apartheid, arbitrary detention, and with recourse against biaised trials, and punitive imprisonment (particularly for the 500+ minors actually held) ..."
"... The proper minimum response from the Muslim world would be to recall their ambassadors from the US, and deliver diplomatic notes to US embassies in their own countries to start. This should unite Muslims Shia and Sunni, but it will not, of course. Instead, there will be meaningless protests in cities in the Muslim world that will peter out in a few weeks, if that long. Erdoğan may cut ties with Israel in a superficial way, but business will continue as usual in the economic realm. Same deal as with the Mavi Marmara incident. ..."
"... Muslims, particularly takfiris, will continue killing Muslims, while US, UK, EU oligarchs supply them with the means to do so. This has been done ad nauseum ..."
"... STATEMENT OF THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES. --(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; (2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and (3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. . . here ..."
"... driving a new wedge between the Neolib and Neocon fractions could also prove valuable. ..."
"... The blatant hypocrisy of the two-state solution has been exposed for the lie it has always been, so as others note, demanding equal rights - land ownership and immigration and voting in national elections - is the only plausible way forward for the Palestinians. Given that there's about a 50-50 split between Jews and Arabs in the entire region of Israel/Palestine, this will be quite unlike the resolution of the apartheid system in South Africa. Let's see how many people are willing to take off their blinders and call for a one-state solution with equal rights for all. ..."
"... Evene worse, Palestinians themselves have been party to this sectarian bs in the region - talk about misplaced priorities!!! I've seen Palestinians waving unfree Syrian army flags in Gaza simply because Assad is "Alawite" and is killing "sunnis" - yes, the same FSA who collaborate openly with Israel. ..."
"... And then we have the impotent Arab leaders who all pretty much take their marching orders from the US. How are they supposed to go against their masters in Washington? ..."
"... To top it up, as a token gesture, Trump has ordered his pet dog in Saudi Arabia to stop his criminal siege on Yemen. As if that's going to calm down the Arab street. ..."
"... "The Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt and the highest authority of Sunni Islam, Al Azhar, warned on Wednesday about the negative consequences of the implementation by the United States of a change to Jerusalem from its embassy in Israel. ..."
"... Perhaps the fuckwit should STFU about a "regular relationship with a terrorist organisation" given how much support the Israeli Occupation Force gives to Al Qaeda, a global terrorist forces. I hope Americans remember 9/11/2001 but I suspect their memories are too short. ..."
"... One state solution with equal rights as some are suggesting here - it wont EVER happen. Jews would become minority, with Palestinians ruling the country. If anyone thinks Jews would ever agree to that, then I have bridges to sell. Sad truth is, Israel will continue to be an Apartheid state, ever expanding its territory, and oppressing or outright killing everyone who stands in their way. ..."
"... What worries me about many of those tweets on that hashtag is that they claim Jerusalem as Muslim when it's the capital of Palestine which has never been and never should be an exclusively Muslim state. Palestine should be a state for all its inhabitants, current or displaced, whether they be Christian, Muslim or Jewish. ..."
"... "The President's decision is an important step towards peace. For there is no peace that doesn't include Jerusalem as the capitol of the State of Israel." "This has been our goal since Israel's first day." ~ Benjamin Netanyahu ..."
"... The comments are interesting, as usual, but most of them neglect the central point b makes, that two-state is a dead duck, a fairy tale. Why believe in it? Some public responses were amusing-- CNN: President Donald Trump's fragile political standing among American voters may be about to cause dangerous reverberations in the Middle East, even provoking the Pope to express concern. ..."
"... Is it a nothingburger? news report: Hours after recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital Wednesday, and saying he had instructed the State Department to begin preparation to relocate the US embassy there, US President Donald Trump signed the waiver putting off any such move by another six months. ..."
"... This is a major sticking point because the Israeli government is actively pursuing a demographic shift in its favour by way of building up Jewish settlements illegally in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and evicting Palestinians around Jerusalem and the West Bank. Many see this as a way of Judaizing parts of Palestinian territories. The IDF is well known to do nothing against illegal settlers harassing Palestinians. The expansion of settlements is Israeli opportunism in the face of a disunited Palestinian Authority. ..."
"... and finally it turns out Trump was wrong it was not arabs dancing on van roof tops on 9 and 11 but Mossad arts students ..."
"... Meanwhile the UN had a vote last Thursday which somehow seems to have escaped the notice of the ever diligent MSM. 151 UN states vote to disavow Israeli ties to Jerusalem http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/UN-disavows-Israeli-ties-to-Jerusalem-515730 ..."
"... Canada loves Israel even though does not have its budget filled by US Treasury like Marshall Islands and Micronesia. By the way, why the coalition of Angels lost Palau? My guess, nefarious influence of Tuvalu, yet another reason why invasion of Tuvalu is imperative. Imagine: Palau, Niue, Tuvalu, and even Kiribati joining Sons of Righteousness. Who knows, perhaps Tonga, Samoa and New Zealand will be cowed too! Anyway, Canada is there, next to Marshalls and Micronesia. I hope that the heart of everyone Up There is filled with pride. ..."
Dec 07, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
ab initio | Dec 7, 2017 1:23:36 AM | 89
This move to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by Trump is meaningless. So what? Who cares?

The fact is that no one in the Middle East believes the US can be an honest broker. They know that the US is Israel's doberman. In any case the Israelis don't want to negotiate a peace deal when they hold all the cards with respect to the Palestinians who are now already walled in bantustans.

Jerusalem is already pretty much annexed and hosts much of Israel's government as well as their legislature, the Knesset.

The Palestinians are weak and divided and have no ability to take on the Israeli government. Neither the Arabs nor the Persians have the ability to force Israel into any kind of deal nor the ability to threaten and execute military attacks on Israel. Israel will do whatever it wants to do with Jerusalem as it has been doing for several decades already. This is the current reality. Howling outrage may make folks feel better but that's not gonna change the situation on the ground.

Laguerre | Dec 6, 2017 2:53:14 PM | 6

The issue will be: how strong the Muslim reaction.

In principle, with Arab autocratic regimes going in with Israel, it should be muted. But autocratic regimes don't represent their people. The Angry Arab has been highlighting much more angry reactions, as you say. Saudi public certainly doesn't agree with Saudi regime. Quite how far it is going to go, I'm not sure. But Jerusalem is very important in Muslim feeling, it's a religious thing. Third most holy shrine. What with today's populism, it could provoke a bigger movement than Netanyahu anticipates. Destabilisation of Jordan is in prospect, as there is a lot of religious anti-regime feeling already.

Jordan destabilised, there could be jihadis throwing themselves over the Jordan, to certain death. religious feeling can be very strong. It should be recalled that the anti-Crusader movement of the 12th century was built on the recovery of Jerusalem.

stonebird | Dec 6, 2017 2:55:29 PM | 7
If Jerusalem is now supposed to be the "only" capital; At this point it might be that the best course of action would be for the Palestinians to demand equal rights, votes, civil law (not military), and the absence of discrimination, apartheid, arbitrary detention, and with recourse against biaised trials, and punitive imprisonment (particularly for the 500+ minors actually held)

Since the place has been changed from a bi-ethnic state as under the original UN idea, to one where only a certain religious group is now responsible - let them be held responsible - instead of the rest of the world (mainly it's leadership) shirking all their own ethic obligations.

Start by tearing down all those walls. Let the Palestinians build at the same rate as settlers. No "Jewish" only roads. No Palestinian "Ghettos", subject to daily harrassement and bullying.

One country, That is what the Israeli's have been wanting - or is it?

Blue | Dec 6, 2017 3:01:10 PM | 8
The proper minimum response from the Muslim world would be to recall their ambassadors from the US, and deliver diplomatic notes to US embassies in their own countries to start. This should unite Muslims Shia and Sunni, but it will not, of course. Instead, there will be meaningless protests in cities in the Muslim world that will peter out in a few weeks, if that long. Erdoğan may cut ties with Israel in a superficial way, but business will continue as usual in the economic realm. Same deal as with the Mavi Marmara incident.

Muslims, particularly takfiris, will continue killing Muslims, while US, UK, EU oligarchs supply them with the means to do so. This has been done ad nauseum

Don Bacon | Dec 6, 2017 3:48:40 PM | 16
But that [two state] idea had been dead all along.

Palestinians are relegated to a couple dozen walled communities and there is no possibility of a Palestine state. So it's about time that the US ended its hypocrisy and obeyed the law.

PUBLIC LAW 104–45 -- NOV. 8, 1995 (extracts)
JERUSALEM EMBASSY ACT OF 1995
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.
(2) Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.
STATEMENT OF THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES. --(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; (2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and (3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. . . here

Perhaps now there can be a common-sense dialog on what to do to help Palestinians involving the practical realities of the situation, and not some pipe-dream.

Clueless Joe | Dec 6, 2017 3:52:56 PM | 17
Indeed, Trump should have stated that Jerusalem is the capital of both Israel and Palestine - or the future true state of Palestine, since it's not exactly a state yet, with that bloody occupation. That would've been the "master deal-maker" move.

I'm truly amazed at how great 2017 has been for Iran - except for Trump trying to tear apart the nuclear deal, obviously. Apart from wiping out ISIS and securing the bulk of Iraq and Syria, they managed to turn Qatar, they're in way friendlier terms with Turkey, their position in Lebanon was strengthened by Saudis shenanigans, and now this wonderful Christmas / Hanukkah gift which confirms to the Arab and Muslim streets who always backed Quds and the Palestinians and who threw them under the bus.

Quadriad | Dec 6, 2017 4:02:15 PM | 18
This move could help expose the Arab autocrats as the humble and compliant house negros of Zion that they are. As such, it is very likely to help forment an Arab Autumn, when several new Arab Islamic Republics may pop up. Lets face it... there might have been some premeditation to this effect and indirect shitstirring in this direction, not by the limited mind of Trump but, quite possibly, by Chessmaster Volodya V P. And driving a new wedge between the Neolib and Neocon fractions could also prove valuable.
nonsense factory | Dec 6, 2017 4:27:30 PM | 20
The blatant hypocrisy of the two-state solution has been exposed for the lie it has always been, so as others note, demanding equal rights - land ownership and immigration and voting in national elections - is the only plausible way forward for the Palestinians. Given that there's about a 50-50 split between Jews and Arabs in the entire region of Israel/Palestine, this will be quite unlike the resolution of the apartheid system in South Africa. Let's see how many people are willing to take off their blinders and call for a one-state solution with equal rights for all.
Zico | Dec 6, 2017 4:28:34 PM | 21
So, Trump walks into a bar and tosses a grenade on the bar table and hopes it brings peace. WOW!!! How this guys became a very rich and the president of the US at the same time is beyond me.

This was bound to happen anyways. The muslim world have been deliberately divided over the last decade and they've been fithging a bloody sectarian war from Iraq to Libya. ISIS was created for this. Meanwhile, the Zionists occupiers just keep stealing land and cementing their grip on whatever's left of Palestine.

Evene worse, Palestinians themselves have been party to this sectarian bs in the region - talk about misplaced priorities!!! I've seen Palestinians waving unfree Syrian army flags in Gaza simply because Assad is "Alawite" and is killing "sunnis" - yes, the same FSA who collaborate openly with Israel.

And then we have the impotent Arab leaders who all pretty much take their marching orders from the US. How are they supposed to go against their masters in Washington?

To top it up, as a token gesture, Trump has ordered his pet dog in Saudi Arabia to stop his criminal siege on Yemen. As if that's going to calm down the Arab street.

Palestine will be eventually liberated, but not by the current crop of sold out leaders. One good outcome of this bombshell is the soon to be irrelevant Palestinian Authority led by Abu(the Shah of Palestine, aka best double agent) Abbas. He can stop faking it now and do the honorable thing by tossing himself over the nearest dividing wall.

mireille | Dec 6, 2017 4:36:00 PM | 25
Yrump is a Christian Zionist. This should be no surprise. Have you ever noticed how much Kushner looks like the reincarnation of Machiavelli? He has been huddled with Kissinger for months. Something evil obviously in the works. I believe that it has been decided to deport the Palestinians to Sinai. It will become the new Palestine, a district of Egypt as Southern Palestine often was in times past. I think the recent mass murder of Sufis at worship in Sinai was the opening move. There will be false flags, provocations. Egypt will be made to pay dearly for welcoming the Russian military, a bitter price well known to them.

Israel has never met the UN formal standards for a country. No defined borders, no Constitution, flagrant human rights violations, flouting of UN censure hundreds of times. Based on the vision of Hertzl, who hated most Jews with a passion. I think Trump has cast the die that will wipe Israel off the map. Suleiman was Egyptian. He will come forward again and Egypt will have a fine hour.

Check a map. The Sinai border is long. Horns of Hattin.

Jen | Dec 6, 2017 4:46:18 PM | 27
Don Bacon @ 16:

"... Perhaps now there can be a common-sense dialog on what to do to help Palestinians involving the practical realities of the situation, and not some pipe-dream."

Indeed - if you live in the US, would your neighbourhood be prepared to host a large number of Palestinian immigrants or refugees if the practical realities of the new situation in Jerusalem mean that Palestinians can no longer live there and that the city, contrary to what the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 also says about Jerusalem remaining an undivided city respecting the rights of every ethnic and religious group, is to become exclusively Jewish?

elsi | Dec 6, 2017 5:24:06 PM | 34
For those who doubt that the Sunni and the Shia world will not unite against this outrage...Al Azhar is the higuest authority of Sunni Islam:

Al Azhar and the Coptic Church of Egypt condemn Trump's decision on the change of embassy to Jerusalem

http://spanish.almanar.com.lb/153958

"The Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt and the highest authority of Sunni Islam, Al Azhar, warned on Wednesday about the negative consequences of the implementation by the United States of a change to Jerusalem from its embassy in Israel.

In a statement, the Egyptian Coptic Church warned of 'dangerous consequences' of the proposed change, which 'contradicts international legitimacy and resolutions on Jerusalem'.

He also called for maintaining the legal status of Jerusalem within the framework of international law and the relevant UN resolutions.

In the text, that religious authority also reaffirmed its support for the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis and called for negotiations to achieve a just resolution that preserves the historic state of Jerusalem.

The Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Church administers seven Coptic churches in Jerusalem, which host more than 10,000 Palestinian Coptic Orthodox Christians, according to figures from the Palestinian Information Center.

For its part, Al Azhar of Egypt, the most important Sunni Islamic learning institution in the world, also warned against the negative consequences of the plan proposed by the United States.

Al Azhar said in his statement that the planned transfer of the US diplomatic mission to Jerusalem would be a "threat to world peace and fuel anger among Muslims around the world."

Among other holy places for the three great monotheistic religions, the Old City of Jerusalem houses the third holiest site of Islam, the Al Aqsa mosque and the sanctuary of the Dome of the Rock.

The day before, the Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah El Sisi, emphasized in a telephone call to his US counterpart, Donald Trump, the firm position of Egypt that "Jerusalem should maintain its current legal status".

Sisi urged Trump to "not complicate the situation in the region by introducing measures that would undermine the chances of peace in the Middle East," according to a statement from the presidential office."

xor | Dec 6, 2017 5:28:49 PM | 35
"Hashtag "Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine" #1 trending right now"

Trending hashtag on a US platform which is known for its manipulation. I call that stillborn protest. The kind of outrage that in contrast to 30 years ago is now neatly funneled into a digital pressure vessel.

"In violating Int'l law & legitimizing Israel's apartheid rule in Jerusalem, Int'l law will no longer serve as a framework"

International law is US whim. When the US sets up it's base in Al Tanf, occupied eastern Syria, supported Daesh in Syria, let KSA bomb Yemen and granted a seat to KSA at UN human rights, "no fly zoned" Libya, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Trump's move will increase the internal instability of those countries U.S. imperialism in the Middle East depends on."

I really really hope so but I wouldn't even bet 1 cent on it.

Ghost Ship | Dec 6, 2017 5:40:22 PM | 36
It also reveals that Trump has very recently had a stroke of some sort. The British government will say something but that will be it - according to the Conservative Friends of Isreal website 80% of Tory MPs are members of Conservative Friends of Israel including most of the present government and the DUP are, I suspect, anti-Semitic Zionists. Meanwhile, Gilad Erdan, security minister tipped to be Israel's next PM launched a preemptive strike against Labour by suggesting (in The Guardian of course, link ) that they're anti-Semitic rather than anti-Zionist
We recognise and we see that there are antisemitic views in many of the leadership of the current Labour party," Erdan said. "We hope it will be changed. The views.

"That they will come to the right decisions about people in their party who don't understand that Hamas is a recognised terror organisation, that you cannot have a regular relationship with a terror organisation."

Perhaps the fuckwit should STFU about a "regular relationship with a terrorist organisation" given how much support the Israeli Occupation Force gives to Al Qaeda, a global terrorist forces. I hope Americans remember 9/11/2001 but I suspect their memories are too short.

Dbell | Dec 6, 2017 5:47:48 PM | 38
Boys, give the Arabs 24 hours they forget about it. "When the accursed Golda Meir was asked what the hardest days of her life were, she answered, 'The day the Al-Aqsa Mosque was burned.' And when asked for the happiest day of her life, she answered, 'The day the Al-Aqsa Mosque was burned.' They asked her, 'How can this be?' She said, 'The day the Al-Aqsa Mosque was burnt I thought that [we faced the] last day of the State of Israel, but when I saw the Muslim responses, I understood that Israel is safe in the region of the Arab world."
Tacitus | Dec 6, 2017 6:07:15 PM | 50
Nero Trump's decision reflects the hubris on display by the Zionist entity entrenched within US and its realpolitik belief that it no longer conceals, and instead flaunts openly with circumspection tossed into the winds to be carried off into the distance.

How has it come to pass that a foreign entity's interests supersede that own its own interests, that of the people? Through the subtle and innocuous injections, over long periods of time, of a pathogen, one that renders the natural sense of preservation, foresight, critical thinking impotent. Why does a populace of a nation not ask itself: "This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material?" --- Marcus Aurelius

How pervasive is the problem? Certainly worse than one would tend to believe. An information article written by a former CIA counter intelligence agent Philip Giraldi has some good insight.

Harry | Dec 6, 2017 6:07:53 PM | 51
One state solution with equal rights as some are suggesting here - it wont EVER happen. Jews would become minority, with Palestinians ruling the country. If anyone thinks Jews would ever agree to that, then I have bridges to sell. Sad truth is, Israel will continue to be an Apartheid state, ever expanding its territory, and oppressing or outright killing everyone who stands in their way.

Good news - it wont last forever:

1) Israel initially (around WW2) could do whatever it wanted because of extreme military supremacy compared to simple Palestinian farmers and weak Arab states. This edge is almost erased now.

2) Israel enjoyed US protection and could completely ignore UN resolutions or rely on US veto. This also coming to the end. After few more decades, we will have de facto multipolar World. US influence will be significantly reduced and wont be able to shelter
Israel anymore.

My humble prediction - there will be a two state solution after 20-30 years, and Palestinians will finally have (part) of their country.

Ghost Ship | Dec 6, 2017 6:13:54 PM | 52
>>>> karlof1 | Dec 6, 2017 5:49:29 PM | 39

What worries me about many of those tweets on that hashtag is that they claim Jerusalem as Muslim when it's the capital of Palestine which has never been and never should be an exclusively Muslim state. Palestine should be a state for all its inhabitants, current or displaced, whether they be Christian, Muslim or Jewish.

Daniel | Dec 6, 2017 6:29:43 PM | 56
karlof1 , I'll add one more comment:

"The President's decision is an important step towards peace. For there is no peace that doesn't include Jerusalem as the capitol of the State of Israel." "This has been our goal since Israel's first day." ~ Benjamin Netanyahu

"Peace" to the Zionists has always meant the quiet acquiescence: of the world to their demands. And just as President Trump® has ripped off the mask of US good intentions, Nutty Yahoo is openly admitting the actual goals of Zionism about which they have long deluded the goyim.

Don Bacon | Dec 6, 2017 6:34:00 PM | 57
The comments are interesting, as usual, but most of them neglect the central point b makes, that two-state is a dead duck, a fairy tale. Why believe in it? Some public responses were amusing-- CNN: President Donald Trump's fragile political standing among American voters may be about to cause dangerous reverberations in the Middle East, even provoking the Pope to express concern.

Fox: Senator Feinstein: Dear Mr. President, I write to you today to urge you to reject calls to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. . . .But Feinstein was among those who voted for a 1995 law passed by Congress that required "the relocation of the United States embassy in Israel to Jerusalem." The measure also required the U.S. recognize the city as the capital of Israel. That law, the Jerusalem Embassy Act, passed the Senate by a 93-5 margin.

Don Bacon | Dec 6, 2017 6:46:29 PM | 61
Is it a nothingburger? news report: Hours after recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital Wednesday, and saying he had instructed the State Department to begin preparation to relocate the US embassy there, US President Donald Trump signed the waiver putting off any such move by another six months.
schlub | Dec 6, 2017 8:40:21 PM | 72
from link on another board. https://frontierinsights.me/2017/12/07/trump-takes-big-gamble-jerusalem/

This is a major sticking point because the Israeli government is actively pursuing a demographic shift in its favour by way of building up Jewish settlements illegally in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and evicting Palestinians around Jerusalem and the West Bank. Many see this as a way of Judaizing parts of Palestinian territories. The IDF is well known to do nothing against illegal settlers harassing Palestinians. The expansion of settlements is Israeli opportunism in the face of a disunited Palestinian Authority.

The construction of the "security barrier" has also resulted in Israel absorbing about 10% of Palestinian land in the West Bank. As such, the PA is demanding pre-67 borders, which remains a hotly contentious issue.
...
The fact that this was timed right before Christmas shows that the move was done with Evangelical-Zionist intent.

dorian gay | Dec 6, 2017 9:25:25 PM | 78
other news today: First Israeli Female Combat Tank Operators Are Ready For Deployment

the SAA and Iranian-backed forces just officially established a major land route between Lebanon and Iran.

Russia Announces The Complete Destruction Of ISIS In Syria "All terrorist units of ISIS on Syrian soil have been destroyed, and the territory is liberated," Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Valery Gerasimov.

and finally it turns out Trump was wrong it was not arabs dancing on van roof tops on 9 and 11 but Mossad arts students.

pantaraxia | Dec 6, 2017 9:31:14 PM | 80
Meanwhile the UN had a vote last Thursday which somehow seems to have escaped the notice of the ever diligent MSM. 151 UN states vote to disavow Israeli ties to Jerusalem http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/UN-disavows-Israeli-ties-to-Jerusalem-515730

"The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to disavow Israeli ties to Jerusalem as part of six anti-Israel resolutions it approved on Thursday in New York. The vote was 151 in favor and six against, with nine abstentions.

snip

In New York, only six countries out of 193 UN member states fully supported Israel's ties Jerusalem: Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, the United States and Israel itself.

snip

The resolution stated that "any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever."

snip

The UNSG on Thursday also approved a second resolution that condemned Israeli settlement activity and called upon it to withdraw to the pre-1967 line. This included leaving the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria during the Six-Day War.

Some 157 nations voted in favor of the text, seven opposed it and eight abstained"

Tacitus | Dec 6, 2017 9:51:55 PM | 81
When will people start to face the stark reality that, amongst other things, US foreign policy is commandered by Israeli firsters at the expense of its own people? When will it be a time for a candid discussion on the subject?

There are those who try to stand up and blow (even those in our IC) the wistle, yet most citizens seem to be oblivious and nonchalant to this growing foreign subversion. There are even brave Jews who stand up to this Zionist Goliath, but like others are labeled anti-Semites (imagine the unadulterated irony in this) or holocaust-deniers. When will this veneer be wiped off so that Zionist interest groups are made naked for all to see? But no, continue to gloss over the Elephant-in-the-room ... but then do not ask about the downfall of your country in the aftermath!!!

Do yourself a favor and at least listen to experts, like Philip Giraldi, a former CIA intelligence agent, amongst others explain the current trajectory of US foreign policy:

Some of his interviews:

Piotr Berman | Dec 6, 2017 10:26:32 PM | 83
Canada loves Israel even though does not have its budget filled by US Treasury like Marshall Islands and Micronesia. By the way, why the coalition of Angels lost Palau? My guess, nefarious influence of Tuvalu, yet another reason why invasion of Tuvalu is imperative. Imagine: Palau, Niue, Tuvalu, and even Kiribati joining Sons of Righteousness. Who knows, perhaps Tonga, Samoa and New Zealand will be cowed too! Anyway, Canada is there, next to Marshalls and Micronesia. I hope that the heart of everyone Up There is filled with pride.

Strangely enough, just a day earlier there were rumors, duly reported in NYT and other MSM of note, that MbS told Abbas about his still unfinished peace proposal. Israeli concession would presumably be a recognition that Palestinians are actually people, and Palestinian concessions would be everything else, no independence, no Jerusalem. Perhaps area B would get privileges of area A (being raided by IDF somewhat less often)? Abbas was quite unhappy and kvetching to everybody who would listen -- like reporters of NYT.

It pretty much sounded like pre-approval of the Trumpian (Kushnerian?) decision, hence the CoC (coalition of clowns) is doing fine. This bodes well for KSA, presumably the end of the carrier of the Crown Prince just got a bit closer (recall late Anwar Sadat).

Which would make ME less funny.

Don Bacon | Dec 6, 2017 10:31:56 PM | 84
Trump's speech (excerpts)
>We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past. All challenges demand new approaches.
> In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act urging the federal government to relocate the American Embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that that city, and so importantly, is Israel's capital. This act passed congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. And was reaffirmed by unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.
> After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
> It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.
> Today, I am delivering. I've judged this course of action to be in the best interests of the United States of America and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This is a long overdue step to advance the peace process. And to work towards a lasting agreement.
> Israel is a sovereign nation with the right, like every other sovereign nation, to determine its own capital. Acknowledging this is a fact is a necessary condition for achieving peace. It was 70 years ago that the United States under President Truman recognized the state of Israel.
> Ever since then, Israel has made its capital in the city of Jerusalem, the capital the Jewish people established in ancient times.
> Today, Jerusalem is the seat of the modern Israeli government. It is the home of the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, as well as the Israeli Supreme Court. It is the location of the official residence of the prime minister and the president. It is the headquarters of many government ministries.
> For decades, visiting American presidents, secretaries of State and military leaders have met their Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem, as I did on my trip to Israel earlier this year.
> That is why consistent with the Jerusalem embassy act, I am also directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This will immediately begin the process of hiring architects, engineers and planners so that a new embassy, when completed, will be a magnificent tribute to peace. . . here
tspoon | Dec 6, 2017 11:44:36 PM | 87
I believe this to be merely a provocation, an attempt to prod the opponents of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Western Elite, into taking some form of action, which can then be responded to, whilst claiming victim status. Of all their recent tactics, this is the one so far that is most likely to succeed, but hopefully still will not. The probable best response from such opponents is to carry on as they were, developing missiles and air defense systems apace, moving them into position, and waiting for the Axis of Stupidity to act according to their nature. They eventually won't be able to help themselves, and will bring upon themselves the culmination of their actions for the last 70 or so years in the area.
Ian | Dec 7, 2017 1:32:34 AM | 90
@Tacitus

What's there to talk about? It's well known here, and in other forums, that Western governments, not just their foreign policies, have been taken over by Israeli firsters. The US is on the top of the list because of their military might. On top of that, there's the social-culture-media centers that have been hijacked. It's all about controlling the narrative. IIRC, there was a movie director (or executive) several years ago, who later admitted that he worked for Israeli Intelligence.

When will it be a time for a candid discussion on the subject?

You'll never get any widespread discussion going until those that control MSM, and their supporters, are removed.

[Dec 07, 2017] Trump just announced that the US now recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is there not enough chaos in the Mideast?

Dec 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Semper Fidelis , December 6, 2017 at 10:34 pm GMT

Trump just announced that the US now recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Now why the feck does he have to go do that for? Is there not enough chaos in the Mideast? Why did he have to go stir up shite like this? Netanyahu is an evil Zionist and he's got his best agent in the WH in the form of the president's son-in-law.

The best thing that could come out of the Mueller investigation is if he ends up sending Jared Kushner to jail.

Breitbart is going bonkers cheering him on. All those Trump fanboys and fangirls from Appalachia are being used like fools by that Zionist rag.

Talha , December 6, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT
@Rurik

Hey Rurik,

Good to hear from you!

what do you think about it sir?

Some things are best stated in Turkish

I really do hope the Muslim world comes to at least a settlement on this fundamental issue and that the Jordanians do not budge if they know the Muslim world has their backs. My guess is that it will simply be a declaration, that won't mean much on the ground in real terms. Politics as usual. Kind of like if I declare myself the King of Denmark – makes my kids happy that they are princes and princesses, but nobody else cares.

Again Turkish "I didn't come to Israel, I came to Palestine."

Peace.

Cloak And Dagger , December 6, 2017 at 7:18 pm GMT
Haaretz

Jewish groups in the U.S. expressed dismay following Tuesday evening's announcement from U.S. President Donald Trump that he intends to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

The Jewish Reform movement in the U.S. expressed its concern over Trump's expected change in U.S. policy on Jerusalem's Old City. Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, said on Wednesday that "President Trump's ill-timed, but expected, announcement affirms what the Reform Jewish Movement has long held: that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel."

Jacobs contested that Reform Jews "cannot support his decision to begin preparing that move now, absent a comprehensive plan for a peace process."

"While the president took the right step in announcing that he would sign the waiver, as have his Republican and Democratic predecessors, the White House should not undermine these efforts by making unilateral decisions that are all but certain to exacerbate the conflict," he noted.

J Street, the U.S.-based, liberal advocacy group also opposed the move. President Jeremy Ben-Ami stated that "the effect of moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem prior to a negotiated agreement will be to anger key Arab allies, foment regional instability and undermine nascent U.S. diplomatic efforts to resolve the larger conflict."

"The administration should also note that only a small minority of Jewish Americans – just 20 percent – support unilaterally moving the embassy," he added. "Moving the embassy or recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital could have destructive consequences for American allies in the region- in particular the kingdoms of Jordan and Saudi Arabia," he warned.

Left-wing activist organization Jewish Voice for Peace blasted Trump's reported decision as "an endorsement of Israel's annexation."

Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of JVP, stated that "for 70 years, the US has given Israel tacit approval to steal Palestinian land, build illegal Jewish settlements, and deny Palestinians in East Jerusalem and elsewhere their rights."

"Trump's decision," she charged, "takes these ongoing policies to the next level and is reckless, irresponsible and endangers the lives of Palestinians and Israelis."

The American-based New Israel Fund also raised qualms over the potential dangers such moves could pose to Israelis and Jews in the Diaspora. CEO Daniel Sokatch stated that "President Trump many not understand what's at stake here, but we do. Moving the embassy risks igniting the tinderbox of anger, frustration and hopelessness that already exists in Jerusalem."

"Throwing.. balance off with this unilateral gesture could have grave consequences," he speculated.

Charles Pewitt , December 6, 2017 at 7:54 pm GMT
Young Americans of European Christian ancestry will be the ones who sever all ties between the United States and Israel. The American Empire can never go back to being a republic ever again; but the young White Core Americans will force the American Empire to behave more like a representative republic that strictly puts the interests of the United States ahead of all other nations.

NO MORE WAR FOR ISRAEL IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

Israel will be cut off from all support from the United States. The American Empire will keep US military forces in the Middle East solely to have some control over the natural resources in the region.

The Jewish moment in American history is over. Going forward, the Sam Huntington questions -- Who are we? and What are we fighting for? -- will be answered by young White Americans. The answers are that the United States is a British Protestant-derived European Christian nation and the United States will only fight to advance the interests of the United States. No more wars for Israel such as the Iraq War debacle.

The Jews who put the interests of Israel ahead of the United States, such as Jared Kushner, Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson, will be disregarded by the young White Core Americans who refuse to allow the US military to be badly used as muscle for Israel in Middle East wars.

President Trump will find that even young evangelicals in the Southern states are highly suspicious and skeptical of any more wars for Israel in the Middle East.

L.K , December 7, 2017 at 1:36 am GMT
Lebanese(?) journalist Sharmine Narwani, whose articles have appeared at TAC and RT, had a good tweet about Kushner:

Kushner looks a bit like what I imagine Damien from Omen looks like as an adult. Genderless, blank-eyed, indistinctive, but dangerous.

2 great articles by her;

Israel's Geopolitical Gut Check: A once favorable balance of power has shifted, clipping Tel Aviv's wings

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/israels-geopolitical-gut-check/

The next one takes care of many of the lies which are constantly repeated about Hezbollah
Hezbollah is Not a Threat to America – 'Trumped' up charges to get at Iran won't work

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/hezbollah-is-not-a-threat-to-america/

L.K , December 7, 2017 at 2:21 am GMT
The Lebanese journalist I mentioned before, Sharmine Narwani, wrote about that one thing that has the zionists in panic mode they fear "delegitimization".

In an article titled 'Excuse Me, But Israel Has No Right To Exist' , she writes:

The United States and Israel have created the global discourse on this issue, setting stringent parameters that grow increasingly narrow regarding the content and direction of this debate. Anything discussed outside the set parameters has, until recently, widely been viewed as unrealistic, unproductive and even subversive.

Participation in the debate is limited only to those who prescribe to its main tenets: the acceptance of Israel, its regional hegemony and its qualitative military edge; acceptance of the shaky logic upon which the Jewish state's claim to Palestine is based; and acceptance of the inclusion and exclusion of certain regional parties, movements and governments in any solution to the conflict.[...]

But this group-think has led us nowhere. It has obfuscated, distracted, deflected, ducked, and diminished, and we are no closer to a satisfactory conclusion because the premise is wrong.

There is no fixing this problem. This is the kind of crisis in which you cut your losses, realize the error of your ways and reverse course. Israel is the problem. It is the last modern-day colonial-settler experiment, conducted at a time when these projects were being unraveled globally.

There is no "Palestinian-Israeli conflict" – that suggests some sort of equality in power, suffering, and negotiable tangibles, and there is no symmetry whatsoever in this equation. Israel is the Occupier and Oppressor; Palestinians are the Occupied and Oppressed. What is there to negotiate? Israel holds all the chips.[...]

Let me correct myself. Palestinians do hold one chip that Israel salivates over – the one big demand at the negotiating table that seems to hold up everything else. Israel craves recognition of its "right to exist."

But you do exist – don't you, Israel?

Israel fears "delegitimization" more than anything else. Behind the velvet curtain lies a state built on myths and narratives, protected only by a military behemoth, billions of dollars in US assistance and a lone UN Security Council veto. Nothing else stands between the state and its dismantlement. Without these three things, Israelis would not live in an entity that has come to be known as the "least safe place for Jews in the world."

Strip away the spin and the gloss, and you quickly realize that Israel doesn't even have the basics of a normal state. After 64 years, it doesn't have borders. After six decades, it has never been more isolated. Over half a century later, and it needs a gargantuan military just to stop Palestinians from walking home.

Israel is a failed experiment. It is on life-support – pull those three plugs and it is a cadaver, living only in the minds of some seriously deluded foreigners who thought they could pull off the heist of the century.[...]

[Dec 07, 2017] Tillerson, Mattis Warned Trump Against Embassy Move by Mark Perry

Dec 07, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Donald Trump's announcement that the U.S. now recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and will eventually move its embassy there, might well be the most predictable decision of an otherwise unpredictable presidency. Trump made his Jerusalem promise back in March of 2016, during an address he gave to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It was an obvious attempt to convince skeptical Jewish leaders of his uncompromising support for Israel.

But it's not only that Trump was intent to fulfill a campaign promise: The Jerusalem initiative has been in the works since the day he took office, was coordinated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and is supported by influential voices in the administration -- including Vice President Mike Pence, son-in-law Jared Kushner, Middle East envoy (and former Trump Organization lawyer) Jason Greenblatt, and CIA Director Mike Pompeo. The decision was all but finalized, The American Conservative has learned, during a late November meeting of Trump's foreign policy advisors at the White House.

... ... ...

In fact, it seems unlikely that this unseemly sleight-of-hand (of making dubious claims), will allay Arab fears that the U.S. continues to be "Israel's lawyer" (to use a term coined by former U.S. Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller). Now it has also become Israel's realtor. This seems not to bother the president, who is becoming known for playing a poor hand by throwing in more chips. The strategy is almost perverse in its beauty, and was on full display among administration officials intent on selling the president's Jerusalem initiative in the wake of his address. The Trump announcement, as one of them argued, doesn't undermine the peace process -- not because there isn't one (as everyone suspects), but because there is, and it's going swimmingly. Trump, this official added, was actually anxious to make Wednesday's announcement because he was so encouraged by the progress made on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by Jared Kushner and his team. "I know a lot of that progress isn't visible," as this official was overheard saying to a prominent television reporter, "[but] it's partly because that progress is not visible that they've been able to make so much progress."

... ... ...

Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a regular contributor to The American Conservative and the author of The Pentagon's Wars, which was released in October. He tweets @markperrydc

[Dec 07, 2017] Trump Settles Debt With Zionists - Confirms That Iran's Struggle Is Righteous

Notable quotes:
"... Destabilisation of Jordan is in prospect, as there is a lot of religious anti-regime feeling already. ..."
"... If Jerusalem is now supposed to be the "only" capital; At this point it might be that the best course of action would be for the Palestinians to demand equal rights, votes, civil law (not military), and the absence of discrimination, apartheid, arbitrary detention, and with recourse against biaised trials, and punitive imprisonment (particularly for the 500+ minors actually held) ..."
"... The proper minimum response from the Muslim world would be to recall their ambassadors from the US, and deliver diplomatic notes to US embassies in their own countries to start. This should unite Muslims Shia and Sunni, but it will not, of course. Instead, there will be meaningless protests in cities in the Muslim world that will peter out in a few weeks, if that long. Erdoğan may cut ties with Israel in a superficial way, but business will continue as usual in the economic realm. Same deal as with the Mavi Marmara incident. ..."
"... Muslims, particularly takfiris, will continue killing Muslims, while US, UK, EU oligarchs supply them with the means to do so. This has been done ad nauseum ..."
"... STATEMENT OF THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES. --(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; (2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and (3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. . . here ..."
"... driving a new wedge between the Neolib and Neocon fractions could also prove valuable. ..."
"... The blatant hypocrisy of the two-state solution has been exposed for the lie it has always been, so as others note, demanding equal rights - land ownership and immigration and voting in national elections - is the only plausible way forward for the Palestinians. Given that there's about a 50-50 split between Jews and Arabs in the entire region of Israel/Palestine, this will be quite unlike the resolution of the apartheid system in South Africa. Let's see how many people are willing to take off their blinders and call for a one-state solution with equal rights for all. ..."
"... Evene worse, Palestinians themselves have been party to this sectarian bs in the region - talk about misplaced priorities!!! I've seen Palestinians waving unfree Syrian army flags in Gaza simply because Assad is "Alawite" and is killing "sunnis" - yes, the same FSA who collaborate openly with Israel. ..."
"... And then we have the impotent Arab leaders who all pretty much take their marching orders from the US. How are they supposed to go against their masters in Washington? ..."
"... To top it up, as a token gesture, Trump has ordered his pet dog in Saudi Arabia to stop his criminal siege on Yemen. As if that's going to calm down the Arab street. ..."
"... "The Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt and the highest authority of Sunni Islam, Al Azhar, warned on Wednesday about the negative consequences of the implementation by the United States of a change to Jerusalem from its embassy in Israel. ..."
"... Perhaps the fuckwit should STFU about a "regular relationship with a terrorist organisation" given how much support the Israeli Occupation Force gives to Al Qaeda, a global terrorist forces. I hope Americans remember 9/11/2001 but I suspect their memories are too short. ..."
"... One state solution with equal rights as some are suggesting here - it wont EVER happen. Jews would become minority, with Palestinians ruling the country. If anyone thinks Jews would ever agree to that, then I have bridges to sell. Sad truth is, Israel will continue to be an Apartheid state, ever expanding its territory, and oppressing or outright killing everyone who stands in their way. ..."
"... What worries me about many of those tweets on that hashtag is that they claim Jerusalem as Muslim when it's the capital of Palestine which has never been and never should be an exclusively Muslim state. Palestine should be a state for all its inhabitants, current or displaced, whether they be Christian, Muslim or Jewish. ..."
"... "The President's decision is an important step towards peace. For there is no peace that doesn't include Jerusalem as the capitol of the State of Israel." "This has been our goal since Israel's first day." ~ Benjamin Netanyahu ..."
"... The comments are interesting, as usual, but most of them neglect the central point b makes, that two-state is a dead duck, a fairy tale. Why believe in it? Some public responses were amusing-- CNN: President Donald Trump's fragile political standing among American voters may be about to cause dangerous reverberations in the Middle East, even provoking the Pope to express concern. ..."
"... Is it a nothingburger? news report: Hours after recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital Wednesday, and saying he had instructed the State Department to begin preparation to relocate the US embassy there, US President Donald Trump signed the waiver putting off any such move by another six months. ..."
"... This is a major sticking point because the Israeli government is actively pursuing a demographic shift in its favour by way of building up Jewish settlements illegally in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and evicting Palestinians around Jerusalem and the West Bank. Many see this as a way of Judaizing parts of Palestinian territories. The IDF is well known to do nothing against illegal settlers harassing Palestinians. The expansion of settlements is Israeli opportunism in the face of a disunited Palestinian Authority. ..."
"... and finally it turns out Trump was wrong it was not arabs dancing on van roof tops on 9 and 11 but Mossad arts students ..."
"... Meanwhile the UN had a vote last Thursday which somehow seems to have escaped the notice of the ever diligent MSM. 151 UN states vote to disavow Israeli ties to Jerusalem http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/UN-disavows-Israeli-ties-to-Jerusalem-515730 ..."
"... Canada loves Israel even though does not have its budget filled by US Treasury like Marshall Islands and Micronesia. By the way, why the coalition of Angels lost Palau? My guess, nefarious influence of Tuvalu, yet another reason why invasion of Tuvalu is imperative. Imagine: Palau, Niue, Tuvalu, and even Kiribati joining Sons of Righteousness. Who knows, perhaps Tonga, Samoa and New Zealand will be cowed too! Anyway, Canada is there, next to Marshalls and Micronesia. I hope that the heart of everyone Up There is filled with pride. ..."
Dec 07, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
ab initio | Dec 7, 2017 1:23:36 AM | 89
This move to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by Trump is meaningless. So what? Who cares?

The fact is that no one in the Middle East believes the US can be an honest broker. They know that the US is Israel's doberman. In any case the Israelis don't want to negotiate a peace deal when they hold all the cards with respect to the Palestinians who are now already walled in bantustans.

Jerusalem is already pretty much annexed and hosts much of Israel's government as well as their legislature, the Knesset.

The Palestinians are weak and divided and have no ability to take on the Israeli government. Neither the Arabs nor the Persians have the ability to force Israel into any kind of deal nor the ability to threaten and execute military attacks on Israel. Israel will do whatever it wants to do with Jerusalem as it has been doing for several decades already. This is the current reality. Howling outrage may make folks feel better but that's not gonna change the situation on the ground.

Laguerre | Dec 6, 2017 2:53:14 PM | 6

The issue will be: how strong the Muslim reaction.

In principle, with Arab autocratic regimes going in with Israel, it should be muted. But autocratic regimes don't represent their people. The Angry Arab has been highlighting much more angry reactions, as you say. Saudi public certainly doesn't agree with Saudi regime. Quite how far it is going to go, I'm not sure. But Jerusalem is very important in Muslim feeling, it's a religious thing. Third most holy shrine. What with today's populism, it could provoke a bigger movement than Netanyahu anticipates. Destabilisation of Jordan is in prospect, as there is a lot of religious anti-regime feeling already.

Jordan destabilised, there could be jihadis throwing themselves over the Jordan, to certain death. religious feeling can be very strong. It should be recalled that the anti-Crusader movement of the 12th century was built on the recovery of Jerusalem.

stonebird | Dec 6, 2017 2:55:29 PM | 7
If Jerusalem is now supposed to be the "only" capital; At this point it might be that the best course of action would be for the Palestinians to demand equal rights, votes, civil law (not military), and the absence of discrimination, apartheid, arbitrary detention, and with recourse against biaised trials, and punitive imprisonment (particularly for the 500+ minors actually held)

Since the place has been changed from a bi-ethnic state as under the original UN idea, to one where only a certain religious group is now responsible - let them be held responsible - instead of the rest of the world (mainly it's leadership) shirking all their own ethic obligations.

Start by tearing down all those walls. Let the Palestinians build at the same rate as settlers. No "Jewish" only roads. No Palestinian "Ghettos", subject to daily harrassement and bullying.

One country, That is what the Israeli's have been wanting - or is it?

Blue | Dec 6, 2017 3:01:10 PM | 8
The proper minimum response from the Muslim world would be to recall their ambassadors from the US, and deliver diplomatic notes to US embassies in their own countries to start. This should unite Muslims Shia and Sunni, but it will not, of course. Instead, there will be meaningless protests in cities in the Muslim world that will peter out in a few weeks, if that long. Erdoğan may cut ties with Israel in a superficial way, but business will continue as usual in the economic realm. Same deal as with the Mavi Marmara incident.

Muslims, particularly takfiris, will continue killing Muslims, while US, UK, EU oligarchs supply them with the means to do so. This has been done ad nauseum

Don Bacon | Dec 6, 2017 3:48:40 PM | 16
But that [two state] idea had been dead all along.

Palestinians are relegated to a couple dozen walled communities and there is no possibility of a Palestine state. So it's about time that the US ended its hypocrisy and obeyed the law.

PUBLIC LAW 104–45 -- NOV. 8, 1995 (extracts)
JERUSALEM EMBASSY ACT OF 1995
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.
(2) Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.
STATEMENT OF THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES. --(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; (2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and (3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. . . here

Perhaps now there can be a common-sense dialog on what to do to help Palestinians involving the practical realities of the situation, and not some pipe-dream.

Clueless Joe | Dec 6, 2017 3:52:56 PM | 17
Indeed, Trump should have stated that Jerusalem is the capital of both Israel and Palestine - or the future true state of Palestine, since it's not exactly a state yet, with that bloody occupation. That would've been the "master deal-maker" move.

I'm truly amazed at how great 2017 has been for Iran - except for Trump trying to tear apart the nuclear deal, obviously. Apart from wiping out ISIS and securing the bulk of Iraq and Syria, they managed to turn Qatar, they're in way friendlier terms with Turkey, their position in Lebanon was strengthened by Saudis shenanigans, and now this wonderful Christmas / Hanukkah gift which confirms to the Arab and Muslim streets who always backed Quds and the Palestinians and who threw them under the bus.

Quadriad | Dec 6, 2017 4:02:15 PM | 18
This move could help expose the Arab autocrats as the humble and compliant house negros of Zion that they are. As such, it is very likely to help forment an Arab Autumn, when several new Arab Islamic Republics may pop up. Lets face it... there might have been some premeditation to this effect and indirect shitstirring in this direction, not by the limited mind of Trump but, quite possibly, by Chessmaster Volodya V P. And driving a new wedge between the Neolib and Neocon fractions could also prove valuable.
nonsense factory | Dec 6, 2017 4:27:30 PM | 20
The blatant hypocrisy of the two-state solution has been exposed for the lie it has always been, so as others note, demanding equal rights - land ownership and immigration and voting in national elections - is the only plausible way forward for the Palestinians. Given that there's about a 50-50 split between Jews and Arabs in the entire region of Israel/Palestine, this will be quite unlike the resolution of the apartheid system in South Africa. Let's see how many people are willing to take off their blinders and call for a one-state solution with equal rights for all.
Zico | Dec 6, 2017 4:28:34 PM | 21
So, Trump walks into a bar and tosses a grenade on the bar table and hopes it brings peace. WOW!!! How this guys became a very rich and the president of the US at the same time is beyond me.

This was bound to happen anyways. The muslim world have been deliberately divided over the last decade and they've been fithging a bloody sectarian war from Iraq to Libya. ISIS was created for this. Meanwhile, the Zionists occupiers just keep stealing land and cementing their grip on whatever's left of Palestine.

Evene worse, Palestinians themselves have been party to this sectarian bs in the region - talk about misplaced priorities!!! I've seen Palestinians waving unfree Syrian army flags in Gaza simply because Assad is "Alawite" and is killing "sunnis" - yes, the same FSA who collaborate openly with Israel.

And then we have the impotent Arab leaders who all pretty much take their marching orders from the US. How are they supposed to go against their masters in Washington?

To top it up, as a token gesture, Trump has ordered his pet dog in Saudi Arabia to stop his criminal siege on Yemen. As if that's going to calm down the Arab street.

Palestine will be eventually liberated, but not by the current crop of sold out leaders. One good outcome of this bombshell is the soon to be irrelevant Palestinian Authority led by Abu(the Shah of Palestine, aka best double agent) Abbas. He can stop faking it now and do the honorable thing by tossing himself over the nearest dividing wall.

mireille | Dec 6, 2017 4:36:00 PM | 25
Yrump is a Christian Zionist. This should be no surprise. Have you ever noticed how much Kushner looks like the reincarnation of Machiavelli? He has been huddled with Kissinger for months. Something evil obviously in the works. I believe that it has been decided to deport the Palestinians to Sinai. It will become the new Palestine, a district of Egypt as Southern Palestine often was in times past. I think the recent mass murder of Sufis at worship in Sinai was the opening move. There will be false flags, provocations. Egypt will be made to pay dearly for welcoming the Russian military, a bitter price well known to them.

Israel has never met the UN formal standards for a country. No defined borders, no Constitution, flagrant human rights violations, flouting of UN censure hundreds of times. Based on the vision of Hertzl, who hated most Jews with a passion. I think Trump has cast the die that will wipe Israel off the map. Suleiman was Egyptian. He will come forward again and Egypt will have a fine hour.

Check a map. The Sinai border is long. Horns of Hattin.

Jen | Dec 6, 2017 4:46:18 PM | 27
Don Bacon @ 16:

"... Perhaps now there can be a common-sense dialog on what to do to help Palestinians involving the practical realities of the situation, and not some pipe-dream."

Indeed - if you live in the US, would your neighbourhood be prepared to host a large number of Palestinian immigrants or refugees if the practical realities of the new situation in Jerusalem mean that Palestinians can no longer live there and that the city, contrary to what the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 also says about Jerusalem remaining an undivided city respecting the rights of every ethnic and religious group, is to become exclusively Jewish?

elsi | Dec 6, 2017 5:24:06 PM | 34
For those who doubt that the Sunni and the Shia world will not unite against this outrage...Al Azhar is the higuest authority of Sunni Islam:

Al Azhar and the Coptic Church of Egypt condemn Trump's decision on the change of embassy to Jerusalem

http://spanish.almanar.com.lb/153958

"The Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt and the highest authority of Sunni Islam, Al Azhar, warned on Wednesday about the negative consequences of the implementation by the United States of a change to Jerusalem from its embassy in Israel.

In a statement, the Egyptian Coptic Church warned of 'dangerous consequences' of the proposed change, which 'contradicts international legitimacy and resolutions on Jerusalem'.

He also called for maintaining the legal status of Jerusalem within the framework of international law and the relevant UN resolutions.

In the text, that religious authority also reaffirmed its support for the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis and called for negotiations to achieve a just resolution that preserves the historic state of Jerusalem.

The Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Church administers seven Coptic churches in Jerusalem, which host more than 10,000 Palestinian Coptic Orthodox Christians, according to figures from the Palestinian Information Center.

For its part, Al Azhar of Egypt, the most important Sunni Islamic learning institution in the world, also warned against the negative consequences of the plan proposed by the United States.

Al Azhar said in his statement that the planned transfer of the US diplomatic mission to Jerusalem would be a "threat to world peace and fuel anger among Muslims around the world."

Among other holy places for the three great monotheistic religions, the Old City of Jerusalem houses the third holiest site of Islam, the Al Aqsa mosque and the sanctuary of the Dome of the Rock.

The day before, the Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah El Sisi, emphasized in a telephone call to his US counterpart, Donald Trump, the firm position of Egypt that "Jerusalem should maintain its current legal status".

Sisi urged Trump to "not complicate the situation in the region by introducing measures that would undermine the chances of peace in the Middle East," according to a statement from the presidential office."

xor | Dec 6, 2017 5:28:49 PM | 35
"Hashtag "Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine" #1 trending right now"

Trending hashtag on a US platform which is known for its manipulation. I call that stillborn protest. The kind of outrage that in contrast to 30 years ago is now neatly funneled into a digital pressure vessel.

"In violating Int'l law & legitimizing Israel's apartheid rule in Jerusalem, Int'l law will no longer serve as a framework"

International law is US whim. When the US sets up it's base in Al Tanf, occupied eastern Syria, supported Daesh in Syria, let KSA bomb Yemen and granted a seat to KSA at UN human rights, "no fly zoned" Libya, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Trump's move will increase the internal instability of those countries U.S. imperialism in the Middle East depends on."

I really really hope so but I wouldn't even bet 1 cent on it.

Ghost Ship | Dec 6, 2017 5:40:22 PM | 36
It also reveals that Trump has very recently had a stroke of some sort. The British government will say something but that will be it - according to the Conservative Friends of Isreal website 80% of Tory MPs are members of Conservative Friends of Israel including most of the present government and the DUP are, I suspect, anti-Semitic Zionists. Meanwhile, Gilad Erdan, security minister tipped to be Israel's next PM launched a preemptive strike against Labour by suggesting (in The Guardian of course, link ) that they're anti-Semitic rather than anti-Zionist
We recognise and we see that there are antisemitic views in many of the leadership of the current Labour party," Erdan said. "We hope it will be changed. The views.

"That they will come to the right decisions about people in their party who don't understand that Hamas is a recognised terror organisation, that you cannot have a regular relationship with a terror organisation."

Perhaps the fuckwit should STFU about a "regular relationship with a terrorist organisation" given how much support the Israeli Occupation Force gives to Al Qaeda, a global terrorist forces. I hope Americans remember 9/11/2001 but I suspect their memories are too short.

Dbell | Dec 6, 2017 5:47:48 PM | 38
Boys, give the Arabs 24 hours they forget about it. "When the accursed Golda Meir was asked what the hardest days of her life were, she answered, 'The day the Al-Aqsa Mosque was burned.' And when asked for the happiest day of her life, she answered, 'The day the Al-Aqsa Mosque was burned.' They asked her, 'How can this be?' She said, 'The day the Al-Aqsa Mosque was burnt I thought that [we faced the] last day of the State of Israel, but when I saw the Muslim responses, I understood that Israel is safe in the region of the Arab world."
Tacitus | Dec 6, 2017 6:07:15 PM | 50
Nero Trump's decision reflects the hubris on display by the Zionist entity entrenched within US and its realpolitik belief that it no longer conceals, and instead flaunts openly with circumspection tossed into the winds to be carried off into the distance.

How has it come to pass that a foreign entity's interests supersede that own its own interests, that of the people? Through the subtle and innocuous injections, over long periods of time, of a pathogen, one that renders the natural sense of preservation, foresight, critical thinking impotent. Why does a populace of a nation not ask itself: "This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material?" --- Marcus Aurelius

How pervasive is the problem? Certainly worse than one would tend to believe. An information article written by a former CIA counter intelligence agent Philip Giraldi has some good insight.

Harry | Dec 6, 2017 6:07:53 PM | 51
One state solution with equal rights as some are suggesting here - it wont EVER happen. Jews would become minority, with Palestinians ruling the country. If anyone thinks Jews would ever agree to that, then I have bridges to sell. Sad truth is, Israel will continue to be an Apartheid state, ever expanding its territory, and oppressing or outright killing everyone who stands in their way.

Good news - it wont last forever:

1) Israel initially (around WW2) could do whatever it wanted because of extreme military supremacy compared to simple Palestinian farmers and weak Arab states. This edge is almost erased now.

2) Israel enjoyed US protection and could completely ignore UN resolutions or rely on US veto. This also coming to the end. After few more decades, we will have de facto multipolar World. US influence will be significantly reduced and wont be able to shelter
Israel anymore.

My humble prediction - there will be a two state solution after 20-30 years, and Palestinians will finally have (part) of their country.

Ghost Ship | Dec 6, 2017 6:13:54 PM | 52
>>>> karlof1 | Dec 6, 2017 5:49:29 PM | 39

What worries me about many of those tweets on that hashtag is that they claim Jerusalem as Muslim when it's the capital of Palestine which has never been and never should be an exclusively Muslim state. Palestine should be a state for all its inhabitants, current or displaced, whether they be Christian, Muslim or Jewish.

Daniel | Dec 6, 2017 6:29:43 PM | 56
karlof1 , I'll add one more comment:

"The President's decision is an important step towards peace. For there is no peace that doesn't include Jerusalem as the capitol of the State of Israel." "This has been our goal since Israel's first day." ~ Benjamin Netanyahu

"Peace" to the Zionists has always meant the quiet acquiescence: of the world to their demands. And just as President Trump® has ripped off the mask of US good intentions, Nutty Yahoo is openly admitting the actual goals of Zionism about which they have long deluded the goyim.

Don Bacon | Dec 6, 2017 6:34:00 PM | 57
The comments are interesting, as usual, but most of them neglect the central point b makes, that two-state is a dead duck, a fairy tale. Why believe in it? Some public responses were amusing-- CNN: President Donald Trump's fragile political standing among American voters may be about to cause dangerous reverberations in the Middle East, even provoking the Pope to express concern.

Fox: Senator Feinstein: Dear Mr. President, I write to you today to urge you to reject calls to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. . . .But Feinstein was among those who voted for a 1995 law passed by Congress that required "the relocation of the United States embassy in Israel to Jerusalem." The measure also required the U.S. recognize the city as the capital of Israel. That law, the Jerusalem Embassy Act, passed the Senate by a 93-5 margin.

Don Bacon | Dec 6, 2017 6:46:29 PM | 61
Is it a nothingburger? news report: Hours after recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital Wednesday, and saying he had instructed the State Department to begin preparation to relocate the US embassy there, US President Donald Trump signed the waiver putting off any such move by another six months.
schlub | Dec 6, 2017 8:40:21 PM | 72
from link on another board. https://frontierinsights.me/2017/12/07/trump-takes-big-gamble-jerusalem/

This is a major sticking point because the Israeli government is actively pursuing a demographic shift in its favour by way of building up Jewish settlements illegally in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and evicting Palestinians around Jerusalem and the West Bank. Many see this as a way of Judaizing parts of Palestinian territories. The IDF is well known to do nothing against illegal settlers harassing Palestinians. The expansion of settlements is Israeli opportunism in the face of a disunited Palestinian Authority.

The construction of the "security barrier" has also resulted in Israel absorbing about 10% of Palestinian land in the West Bank. As such, the PA is demanding pre-67 borders, which remains a hotly contentious issue.
...
The fact that this was timed right before Christmas shows that the move was done with Evangelical-Zionist intent.

dorian gay | Dec 6, 2017 9:25:25 PM | 78
other news today: First Israeli Female Combat Tank Operators Are Ready For Deployment

the SAA and Iranian-backed forces just officially established a major land route between Lebanon and Iran.

Russia Announces The Complete Destruction Of ISIS In Syria "All terrorist units of ISIS on Syrian soil have been destroyed, and the territory is liberated," Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Valery Gerasimov.

and finally it turns out Trump was wrong it was not arabs dancing on van roof tops on 9 and 11 but Mossad arts students.

pantaraxia | Dec 6, 2017 9:31:14 PM | 80
Meanwhile the UN had a vote last Thursday which somehow seems to have escaped the notice of the ever diligent MSM. 151 UN states vote to disavow Israeli ties to Jerusalem http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/UN-disavows-Israeli-ties-to-Jerusalem-515730

"The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to disavow Israeli ties to Jerusalem as part of six anti-Israel resolutions it approved on Thursday in New York. The vote was 151 in favor and six against, with nine abstentions.

snip

In New York, only six countries out of 193 UN member states fully supported Israel's ties Jerusalem: Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, the United States and Israel itself.

snip

The resolution stated that "any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever."

snip

The UNSG on Thursday also approved a second resolution that condemned Israeli settlement activity and called upon it to withdraw to the pre-1967 line. This included leaving the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria during the Six-Day War.

Some 157 nations voted in favor of the text, seven opposed it and eight abstained"

Tacitus | Dec 6, 2017 9:51:55 PM | 81
When will people start to face the stark reality that, amongst other things, US foreign policy is commandered by Israeli firsters at the expense of its own people? When will it be a time for a candid discussion on the subject?

There are those who try to stand up and blow (even those in our IC) the wistle, yet most citizens seem to be oblivious and nonchalant to this growing foreign subversion. There are even brave Jews who stand up to this Zionist Goliath, but like others are labeled anti-Semites (imagine the unadulterated irony in this) or holocaust-deniers. When will this veneer be wiped off so that Zionist interest groups are made naked for all to see? But no, continue to gloss over the Elephant-in-the-room ... but then do not ask about the downfall of your country in the aftermath!!!

Do yourself a favor and at least listen to experts, like Philip Giraldi, a former CIA intelligence agent, amongst others explain the current trajectory of US foreign policy:

Some of his interviews:

Piotr Berman | Dec 6, 2017 10:26:32 PM | 83
Canada loves Israel even though does not have its budget filled by US Treasury like Marshall Islands and Micronesia. By the way, why the coalition of Angels lost Palau? My guess, nefarious influence of Tuvalu, yet another reason why invasion of Tuvalu is imperative. Imagine: Palau, Niue, Tuvalu, and even Kiribati joining Sons of Righteousness. Who knows, perhaps Tonga, Samoa and New Zealand will be cowed too! Anyway, Canada is there, next to Marshalls and Micronesia. I hope that the heart of everyone Up There is filled with pride.

Strangely enough, just a day earlier there were rumors, duly reported in NYT and other MSM of note, that MbS told Abbas about his still unfinished peace proposal. Israeli concession would presumably be a recognition that Palestinians are actually people, and Palestinian concessions would be everything else, no independence, no Jerusalem. Perhaps area B would get privileges of area A (being raided by IDF somewhat less often)? Abbas was quite unhappy and kvetching to everybody who would listen -- like reporters of NYT.

It pretty much sounded like pre-approval of the Trumpian (Kushnerian?) decision, hence the CoC (coalition of clowns) is doing fine. This bodes well for KSA, presumably the end of the carrier of the Crown Prince just got a bit closer (recall late Anwar Sadat).

Which would make ME less funny.

Don Bacon | Dec 6, 2017 10:31:56 PM | 84
Trump's speech (excerpts)
>We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past. All challenges demand new approaches.
> In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act urging the federal government to relocate the American Embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that that city, and so importantly, is Israel's capital. This act passed congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. And was reaffirmed by unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.
> After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
> It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.
> Today, I am delivering. I've judged this course of action to be in the best interests of the United States of America and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This is a long overdue step to advance the peace process. And to work towards a lasting agreement.
> Israel is a sovereign nation with the right, like every other sovereign nation, to determine its own capital. Acknowledging this is a fact is a necessary condition for achieving peace. It was 70 years ago that the United States under President Truman recognized the state of Israel.
> Ever since then, Israel has made its capital in the city of Jerusalem, the capital the Jewish people established in ancient times.
> Today, Jerusalem is the seat of the modern Israeli government. It is the home of the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, as well as the Israeli Supreme Court. It is the location of the official residence of the prime minister and the president. It is the headquarters of many government ministries.
> For decades, visiting American presidents, secretaries of State and military leaders have met their Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem, as I did on my trip to Israel earlier this year.
> That is why consistent with the Jerusalem embassy act, I am also directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This will immediately begin the process of hiring architects, engineers and planners so that a new embassy, when completed, will be a magnificent tribute to peace. . . here
tspoon | Dec 6, 2017 11:44:36 PM | 87
I believe this to be merely a provocation, an attempt to prod the opponents of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Western Elite, into taking some form of action, which can then be responded to, whilst claiming victim status. Of all their recent tactics, this is the one so far that is most likely to succeed, but hopefully still will not. The probable best response from such opponents is to carry on as they were, developing missiles and air defense systems apace, moving them into position, and waiting for the Axis of Stupidity to act according to their nature. They eventually won't be able to help themselves, and will bring upon themselves the culmination of their actions for the last 70 or so years in the area.
Ian | Dec 7, 2017 1:32:34 AM | 90
@Tacitus

What's there to talk about? It's well known here, and in other forums, that Western governments, not just their foreign policies, have been taken over by Israeli firsters. The US is on the top of the list because of their military might. On top of that, there's the social-culture-media centers that have been hijacked. It's all about controlling the narrative. IIRC, there was a movie director (or executive) several years ago, who later admitted that he worked for Israeli Intelligence.

When will it be a time for a candid discussion on the subject?

You'll never get any widespread discussion going until those that control MSM, and their supporters, are removed.

[Dec 05, 2017] Further sabotage of the Iran deal would not bring success -- only embarrassment

This is two years old article. Not much changed... Comments sound as written yesterday. Check it out !
The key incentive to Iran deal is using Iran as a Trojan horse against Russia in oil market -- the force which helps to keep oil prices low, benefitting the USA and other G7 members and hurting Russia and other oil-producing nations. Iran might also serve as a replacement market for EU goods as Russian market is partially lost. Due to sanctions EU now lost (and probably irrevocably) Russian market for food, and have difficulties in maintaining their share in other sectors (cars, machinery) as Asian tigers come in.
Notable quotes:
"... The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans. ..."
"... The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently. ..."
"... Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development). ..."
"... Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble. ..."
"... AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is. ..."
"... Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region ..."
"... With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community. ..."
"... The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious. ..."
"... As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent. ..."
"... AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. ..."
"... Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support. ..."
"... No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him. ..."
"... It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry. ..."
"... The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer. ..."
"... Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk. ..."
"... And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally. ..."
"... I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing. ..."
"... Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one. ..."
"... Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal. ..."
"... American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites. ..."
"... The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power." ..."
"... AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people. ..."
Sep 14, 2015 | The Guardian

The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic.

We may not look back at this as a sea change – some Senate Democrats who held firm against opposition to the deal are working with AIPAC to pass subsequent legislation that contains poison pills designed to kill it – but rather as a rising tide eroding the once sturdy bipartisan pro-Israeli government consensus on Capitol Hill. Some relationships have been frayed; previously stalwart allies of the Israel's interests, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have reportedly said the Iran deal fight soured them on AIPAC.

Even with the boundaries of its abilities on display, however, AIPAC will continue its efforts. "We urge those who have blocked a vote today to reconsider," the group said in a spin-heavy statement casting a pretty objective defeat as victory with the headline, "Bipartisan Senate Majority Rejects Iran Nuclear Deal." The group's allies in the Senate Republican Party have already promised to rehash the procedural vote next week, and its lobbyists are still rallying for support in the House. But the Senate's refusal to halt US support for the deal means that Senate Democrats are unlikely to reconsider, especially after witnessing Thursday's Republican hijinx in the House. These ploys look like little more than efforts to embarrass Obama into needing to cast a veto.

If Republicans' rhetoric leading up to to their flop in the Senate – Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans.

Opponents of the deal want to say the Democrats played politics instead of evaluating the deal honestly. That charge is ironic, to say the least, since most experts agree the nuclear deal is sound and the best agreement diplomacy could achieve. But there were politics at play: rather than siding with Obama, Congressional Democrats lined up against the Republican/Netanyahu alliance. The adamance of AIPAC ended up working against its stated interests.

Groups like AIPAC will go on touting their bipartisan bona fides without considering that their adoption of Netanyahu's own partisanship doomed them to a partisan result. Meanwhile, the ensuing fight, which will no doubt bring more of the legislative chaos we saw this week, won't be a cakewalk, so to speak, but will put the lie to AIPAC's claims it has a bipartisan consensus behind it. Despite their best efforts, Obama won't be the one embarrassed by the scrambling on the horizon.

TiredOldDog 13 Sep 2015 21:47

a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes

I guess this may mean Israel. If it does, how about we compare Assad's Syria, Iran and Israel. How many war crimes per day in the last 4 years and, maybe, some forecasts. Otherwise it's the usual gratuitous use of bad words at Israel. It has a purpose. To denigrate and dehumanize Israel or, at least, Zionism.

ID7612455 13 Sep 2015 18:04

The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently.

winemaster2 13 Sep 2015 17:01

Put a Brush Mustache on the control freak, greed creed, Nentanhayu the SOB not only looks like but has the same mentality as Hitler and his Nazism crap.

Martin Hutton -> mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 23:50

I wondered when someone was going to bring up that "forgotten" fact. Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development).

mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 20:51

Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble.

ByThePeople -> Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 20:27

Is pitiful how for months and months, certain individuals blathered on and on and on when it was fairly clear from the get go that this was a done deal and no one was about cater to the war criminal. I suppose it was good for them, sucking every last dime they could out of the AICPA & Co. while they acted like there was 'a chance'. Nope, only chance is that at the end of the day, a politician is a politician and he'll suck you dry as long as you let 'em.

What a pleasure it is to see the United States Congress finally not pimp themselves out completely to a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes. A once off I suppose, but it's one small step for Americans.

ByThePeople 12 Sep 2015 20:15

AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is.

ambushinthenight -> Greg Zeglen 12 Sep 2015 18:18

Seems that it makes a lot of sense to most everyone else in the world, it is now at the point where it really makes no difference whether the U.S. ratifies the deal or not. Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region. Politicians here object for one of two reasons. They are Israeli first and foremost not American or for political expediency and a chance to try undo another of this President's achievements. Been a futile effort so far I'd say.

hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 12 Sep 2015 16:42

With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation.

nardone -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 14:12

Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community.

The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious.

Greg Zeglen -> Glenn Gang 12 Sep 2015 13:51

good point which is found almost nowhere else...it is still necessary to understand that the whole line of diplomacy regarding the west on the part of Iran has been for generations one of deceit...and people are intensely jealous of what they hold dear - especially safety and liberty with in their country....

EarthyByNature -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 13:45

I do trust your on salary with a decent benefits package with the Israeli government or one of it's slavish US lobbyists. Let's face it, got to be hard work pouring out such hateful drivel.

BrianGriffin -> imipak 12 Sep 2015 12:53

The USA took about six years to build a bomb from scratch. The UK took almost six years to build a bomb. Russia was able to build a bomb in only four years (1945-1949). France took four years to build a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The Chinese only took four years. http://www.china.org.cn/english/congress/228244.htm

steelhead 12 Sep 2015 12:48

As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent.

BrianGriffin -> HauptmannGurski 12 Sep 2015 12:35

"Europe needs business desperately."

Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 12:32

In other words, once again, Obama out-played and out-thought both the GOP and AIPAC. He was playing multidimensional chess while they were playing checkers. The democrats kept their party discipline while the republicans ran around like a schoolyard full of sugared-up children. This is what happens when you have grownups competing with adolescents. The republican party, to put it very bluntly, can't get it together long enough to whistle 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' in unison.

They lost. Again. And worse than being losers, they're sore, whining, sniveling, blubbering losers. Even when they've been spanked - hard - they swear it's not over and they're gonna get even, just you wait and see! Get over it. They lost - badly - and the simple fact that their party is coming apart at the seams before our very eyes means they're going to be losing a lot more, too.

AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. All the way around, a glorious victory for Obama, and an ignominious defeat for the republicans. And most especially, Israel. Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support.

Their worst loss, however, was losing the support of the American jews. Older, orthodox jews are Israel-firsters. The younger, less observant jews are Americans first. Netanhayu's behavior has driven a wedge between the US and Israel that is only going to deepen over time. And on top of that, Iran is re-entering the community of nations, and soon their economy will dominate the region. Bibi overplayed his hand very, very stupidly, and the real price that Israel will pay for his bungling will unfold over the next few decades.

BrianGriffin -> TiredOldDog 12 Sep 2015 12:18

"The Constitution provides that the president 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur'"

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

Hardly a done deal. If Obama releases funds to Iran he probably would be committing an impeachable crime under US law. Even many Democrats would vote to impeach Obama for providing billions to a sworn enemy of Israel.

Glenn Gang -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 12:07

"...institutionally Iranclad(sic) HATRED towards the west..." Since you like all-caps so much, try this: "B.S."

The American propel(sic) actually figured out something else---that hardline haters like yourself are desperate to keep the cycle of Islamophobic mistrust and suspicion alive, and blind themselves to the fact that the rest of us have left you behind.

FACT: More than half of the population of Iran today was NOT EVEN BORN when radical students captured the U.S. Embassy in Teheran in 1979.

People like you, Bruce, conveniently ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad and his hardline followers were voted out of power in 2013, and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further marginalized them by allowing the election of new President Hassan Rouhani to stand, though he was and is an outspoken reformer advocating rapprochement with the west. While his outward rhetoric still has stern warnings about anticipated treachery by the 'Great Satan', Khamenei has allowed the Vienna agreement to go forward, and shows no sign of interfering with its implementation.

He is an old man, but he is neither stupid nor senile, and has clearly seen the crippling effects the international sanctions have had on his country and his people. Haters like you, Bruce, will insist that he ALWAYS has evil motives, just as Iranian hardliners (like Ahmedinejad) will ALWAYS believe that the U.S. has sinister motives and cannot EVER be trusted to uphold our end of any agreement. You ascribe HATRED in all caps to Iran, the whole country, while not acknowledging your own simmering hatred.

People like you will always find a 'boogeyman,' someone else to blame for your problems, real or imagined. You should get some help.

beenheretoolong 12 Sep 2015 10:57

No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him.

geneob 12 Sep 2015 10:12

It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry.

Jack Hughes 12 Sep 2015 08:38

The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer.

To reject the agreement is to accept the status quo, which is unacceptable, leaving an immediate and unprovoked American-led bombing campaign as the only other option.

Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk.

American politicians opposed to the agreement are serving their short-term partisan political interests and, under America's system of legalized bribery, their Israeli and Saudi paymasters -- not America's long-term policy interests.

ID293404 -> Jeremiah2000 12 Sep 2015 05:01

And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally.

He then has pictures taken of himself in a jet pilot's uniform on a US aircraft carrier with a huge sign saying Mission Accomplished. He attacks Afghanistan to capture Osama, lets him get away, and then attacks Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and no ties with Al Qaeda.

So then we have two interminable wars going on, thanks to brilliant Republican foreign policy, and spend gazillions of dollars while creating a mess that may never be straightened out. Never mind all the friends we won in the middle east and the enhanced reputation of our country through torture, the use of mercenaries, and the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Yeah, we really need those bright Republicans running the show over in the Middle East!

HauptmannGurski -> lazman 12 Sep 2015 02:31

That is a very difficult point to understand, just look at this sentence "not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans" ... too much emperor thinking for me. We have this conversation with regard to Putin everywhere now, so we disrespect all 143 million Russians? There's not a lot of disrespect around for Japanese PM Abe and Chinese Xi - does this now mean we respect them and all Japanese and Chinese? Election campaigns create such enormous personality cults that people seem to lose perspective.

On the Iran deal, if the US had dropped out of it it would have caused quite a rift because many countries would have just done what they wanted anyway. The international Atomic Energy Organisation or what it is would have done their inspections. Siemens would have sold medical machines. Countries would grow up as it were. But as cooperation is always better than confrontation it is nice the US have stayed in the agreement that was apparently 10 years in the making. It couldn't have gone on like that. With Europe needing gazillions to finance Greece, Ukraine, and millions of refugees (the next waves will roll on with the next spring and summer from April), Europe needs business desparately. Israel was happy to buy oil through Marc Rich under sanctions, now it's Europe's turn to snatch some business.

imipak -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 21:56

Iran lacks weapons-grade uranium and the means to produce it. Iran has made no efforts towards nuclear weapons technology for over a decade. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is entitled to the rights enshrined therein. If Israel launches a nuclear war against Iran over Iran having a medical reactor (needed to produce isotopes for medicine, isotopes America can barely produce enough of for itself) that poses no security threat to anyone, then Israel will have transgressed so many international laws that if it survives the radioactive fallout (unlikely), it won't survive the political fallout.

It is a crime of the highest order to use weapons of mass destruction (although that didn't stop the Israelis using them against Palestinian civilians) and pre-emtive self-defence is why most believe Bush and Blair should be on trial at the ICJ, or (given the severity of their crimes) Nuremberg.

Israel's right to self-defense is questionable, I'm not sure any such right exists for anyone, but even allowing for it, Israel has no right to wage unprovoked war on another nation on the grounds of a potential threat discovered through divination using tea leaves.

imipak -> Jeremiah2000 11 Sep 2015 21:43

Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is of no concern. Such acts do not determine its competency to handle nuclear material at the 5% level (which you can find naturally). There are only three questions that matter - can Iran produce the 90-95% purity needed to build a bomb (no), can Iran produce such purity clandestinely (no), and can Iran use its nuclear technology to threaten Israel (no).

Israel also supports international terrorism, has used chemical weapons against civilians, has directly indulged in terrorism, actually has nuclear weapons and is paranoid enough that it may use them against other nations without cause.

I respect Israel's right to exist and the intelligence of most Israelis. But I neither respect nor tolerate unreasoned fear nor delusions of Godhood.

imipak -> commish 11 Sep 2015 21:33

I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing.

Until such time as Israel implements the Oslo Accords, withdraws to its internationally recognized boundary and provides the International Court of Justice a full accounting of state-enacted and state-sponsored terrorism, it gets no claims on sainthood and gets no free rides.

Iran has its own crimes to answer, but directly threatening Israel in words or deeds has not been one of them within this past decade. Its actual crimes are substantial and cannot be ignored, but it is guilty only of those and not fictional works claimed by psychotic paranoid ultra-nationalists.

imipak -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 21:18

Domestic politics. Of no real consequence, it's just a way of controlling a populace through fear and a never-ending pseudo-war. It's how Iran actually feels that is important.

For the last decade, they've backed off any nuclear weapons research and you can't make a bomb with centrifuges that can only manage 20% enriched uranium. You need something like 90% enrichment, which requires centrifuges many, many times more advanced. It'd be hard to smuggle something like that in and the Iranians lack the skills, technology and science to make them.

Iran's conventional forces are busy fighting ISIS. What they do afterwards is a concern, but Israel has a sizable military presence on the Golan Heights. The most likely outcome is for Iran to install puppet regimes (or directly control) Syria and ISIS' caliphate.

I could see those two regions plus Iraq being fully absorbed into Iran, that would make some sense given the new geopolitical situation. But that would tie up Iran for decades. Which would not be a bad thing and America would be better off encouraging it rather than sabre-rattling.

(These are areas that contribute a lot to global warming and political instability elsewhere. Merging the lot and encouraging nuclear energy will do a lot for the planet. The inherent instability of large empires will reduce mischief-making elsewhere to more acceptable levels - they'll be too busy. It's idle hands that you need to be scared of.)

Israelis worry too much. If they spent less time fretting and more time developing, they'd be impervious to any natural or unnatural threat by now. Their teaching of Roman history needs work, but basically Israel has a combined intellect vastly superior to that of any nearby nation.

That matters. If you throw away fear and focus only on problems, you can stop and even defeat armies and empires vastly greater than your own. History is replete with examples, so is the mythologicized history of the Israeli people. Israel's fear is Israel's only threat.

mostfree 11 Sep 2015 21:10

Warmongers on all sides would had loved another round of fear and hysteria. Those dark military industrial complexes on all sides are dissipating in the face of the high rising light of peace for now . Please let it shine.

bishoppeter4 11 Sep 2015 20:09

The rabid Republicans working for a foreign power against the interest of the United States -- US citizens will know just what to do.

Jeremiah2000 -> Carolyn Walas Libbey 11 Sep 2015 19:21

"Netanyahu has no right to dictate what the US does."

But he has every right to point out how Obama is a weak fool. How's Obama's red line working in Syria? How is his toppling of Qadaffi in Libya working? How about his completely inept dealings with Egypt, throwing support behind the Muslim Brotherhood leaders? The leftists cheer Obama's weakening of American influence abroad. But they don't talk much about its replacement with Russian and Chinese influence. Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran's Quds Force leader. Obama and Kerry are sending a strongly worded message.

Susan Dechancey -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 19:05

Incredible to see someone prefer war to diplomacy - guess you are an armchair General not a real one.

Susan Dechancey -> commish 11 Sep 2015 19:04

Except all its neighbours ... not only threatened but entered military conflict and stole land ... murdered Iranian Scientists but apart from that just a kitten

Susan Dechancey -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 19:00

Israel has nukes so why are they afraid ?? Iran will never use nukes against Israel and even Mossad told nuttyyahoo sabre rattling

Susan Dechancey 11 Sep 2015 18:57

Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one.

To be honest the USA can do what it likes now .. UK has set up an embassy - trade missions are landing Tehran from Europe. So if Israel and US congress want war - they will be alone and maybe if US keeps up the Nuttyahoo rhetoric European firms can win contracts to help us pay for the last US regime change Iraq / Isis / Refugees...

lswingly -> commish 11 Sep 2015 16:58

Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal.

It's no different from how when you run a poll on who's in favor "Obamacare" the results will be majority negative. But if you poll on whether you are in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" most people are in favor of it and if you break it down and poll on the individual planks of "Obamacare" people overwhelming approve of the things that "Obamacare does". The disapproval is based on the fact that Republican's have successfully turned "Obamacare" into a pejorative and has almost no reflection of people feelings on actual policy.

To illustrate how meaningless those poll numbers are a Jewish poll (supposedly the people who have the most to lose if this deal is bad) found that a narrow majority of Jews approve of the deal. You're numbers are essentially meaningless.

The alternative to this plan is essentially war if not now, in the very near future, according to almost all non-partisan policy wonks. Go run a poll on whether we should go to war with Iran and see how that turns out. Last time we destabilized the region we removed a secular dictator who was enemies with Al Queda and created a power vacuum that led to increased religious extremism and the rise of Isis. You want to double down on that strategy?

MadManMark -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 16:34

You need to reread this article. It's exactly this attitude of yours (and AIPAC and Netanyahu) that this deal is not 100% perfect, but then subsequently failed to suggest ANY way to get something better -- other than war, which I'm sorry most people don't want another Republican "preemptive" war -- caused a lot people originally uncertain about this deal (like me) to conclude there may not be a better alternative. Again, read the article: What you think about me, I now think about deal critics like you ("It seems people will endorse anything to justify their political views.)

USfan 11 Sep 2015 15:34

American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites.

Interesting times. We'll see how this plays out. My family is Jewish and I have not been shy in telling them that alliances with the GOP for short-term gains for Israel is not a wise policy. The GOP establishment are not antiSemtic but the base often is, and if Trump's candidacy shows anything it's that the base is in control of the Republicans.

But we'll see.

niyiakinlabu 11 Sep 2015 15:29

Central question: how come nobody talks about Israel's nukes?

hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 14:02

Iran will not accept being forced into dependence on outside powers. We may dislike their government but they have as much right as anyone else to enrich their own fuel.

JackHep 11 Sep 2015 13:30

Netanyahu is an example of all that is bad about the Israeli political, hence military industrial, establishment. Why Cameron's government allowed him on British soil is beyond belief. Surely the PM's treatment of other "hate preachers" would not have been lost on Netanyahu? Sadly our PM seems to miss the point with Israel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10692563/David-Cameron-tells-Israelis-about-his-Jewish-ancestors.html

talenttruth 11 Sep 2015 13:12

The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power."

And let's be treasonous against the United States by trying to undermine U.S. Foreign Policy FOR OUR OWN PROFIT. We are LONG overdue for serious jail time for these sociopaths, who already have our country "brainwashed" into 53% of our budget going to the War Profiteers and to pretending to be a 19th century Neo-Colonial Power -- in an Endless State of Eternal War. These people are INSANE. Time to simply say so.

Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:58

At the rally to end the Iran deal in the Capitol on Wednesday, one of the AIPAC worshipping attendees had this to say to Jim Newell of Slate:

""Obama is a black, Jew-hating, jihadist putting America and Israel and the rest of the planet in grave danger," said Bob Kunst of Miami. Kunst-pairing a Hillary Clinton rubber mask with a blue T-shirt reading "INFIDEL"-was holding one sign that accused Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry of "Fulfilling Hitler's Dreams" and another that queried, "DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM 1938?"

His only reassurance was that, when Iran launches its attack on the mainland, it'll be stopped quickly by America's heavily armed citizenry."

That is indicative of the mindset of those opposed to the agreement.

Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:47

AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people.

tunejunky 11 Sep 2015 12:47

AIPAC, its constituent republicans, and the government of Israel all made the same mistake in a common episode of hubris. by not understanding the American public, war, and without the deference shown from a proxy to its hegemon, Israel's right wing has flown the Israeli cause into a wall. not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans, the Israeli government acted as a spoiled first-born - while to American eyes it was a greedy, ungrateful ward foisted upon barely willing hands. it presumed far too much and is receiving the much deserved rebuke.

impartial12 11 Sep 2015 12:37

This deal is the best thing that happened in the region in a while. We tried war and death. It didn't work out. Why not try this?

[Dec 05, 2017] Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighter by Shaun Walker

This article is two years old, but still sounds current. The only difference now is that the conflict between Western nationalists and neoliberal central government of President Poroshenko became more acute. Nationalists do not understand that "The Moor has done his duty, Moor can go" and neoliberal government of Poroshenko do not need (and actually is afraid of) them.
Vr13vr: "Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers" Historically Kiev was a Russian speaking city. Western Ukrainians typically were called "zapadentsi".
Notable quotes:
"... Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. ..."
"... So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass for Russians there not to feel threatened. ..."
"... So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades. ..."
"... "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine" with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders. ..."
"... But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas. ..."
"... They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people. ..."
"... The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict ..."
"... In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr. ..."
"... the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are there to give this majority a lesson. ..."
"... In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko, a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news) ..."
"... For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to beat back the Russians. ..."
"... It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers. According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia. ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot"). ..."
"... The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war. People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine. ..."
Feb 10, 2015 | The Guardian

vr13vr -> jezzam 10 Feb 2015 18:35

The distrust between the West and the rest of Ukraine is not 14 months old. It has always existed. Since the War at the very list. Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. Western Ukrainians would call everyone a moscovite, and in the East and the South, the Russians were neutral because their lives were much closer to Russia than to all this Ukrainian bullshit. So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass for Russians there not to feel threatened.

So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades.

Systematic

A new law to likely be approved by the Rada "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine" with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders.

Meanwhile, while the law is not approved,

In February 8 in Mariupol a rally was planned against mobilization. On the eve the adviser of Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko said that everyone who comes there will be arrested, "Everyone who comes to the rally tomorrow against mobilization, will be delayed for several hours for identification and after fingerprinting and photographing until released. Let me remind you that I and my fellow lawmaker Boris Filatov has filed a bill to impose criminal liability for public calls for the failure of mobilization "- he wrote on his page on Facebook. As a result, the action did not take place.

http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2015/02/10_a_6407945.shtml

vr13vr -> SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 18:25

With all the hot headed claims of how the Soviet Union just grabbed the piece of land from Poland, Ukraine has a good chance to correct those misdeeds. Give West Ukraine to Poland, Transkarpathia - to Hungary, and the South West - to Romania. That would be restoring historical injustice.

vr13vr -> SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 18:18

But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas.

Besides, federalization may or may not protect them. Kiev may or may not adhere to rules in the future, there will be a tax issue, there will be cultural issues as Kiev will try to Ukrainize those areas subtly - you know those programs that are not anti-Russian per se but that increase Ukrainian presence, thus diluting the original population. Remaining under the same roof with Kiev and L'vov isn't really the best solution for Donbass if they want to preserve their independence and identity.

SallyWa -> VladimirM 10 Feb 2015 18:16

They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people.

theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02

The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate who have ceded responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.

I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.

newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01

Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from 20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).

theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02

The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate who have ceded responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.

I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.

newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01

Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from 20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).

erpiu 10 Feb 2015 17:59

The focus on Putin and geopolitics forces the actual ukr people out of the picture and blurrs understanding.

The maidan was a genuinely popular NW-ukr rebellion after NW-ukr had lost all recent pre-2014 elections to the culturally Russian majority of voters mainly in SE-ukr.

In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr.

the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are there to give this majority a lesson.

USA+EU weapons would only help the punitive "pacification" of SE ukr, the place that was deciding UKR elections until the coup.

The real festering conflict is the incompatibility of the anti-Russian feelings in NW ukr (little else is shared by the various maidan factions) with the cccp/russian heritage of most people in SE ukr... that incompatibility is the main problem that needs to be "solved".

Neither the maidan coup nor yanukovich&the pre-coup electoral dominance of SE ukr voters were ever stable solutions.

newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 17:57

In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko, a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news)

SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 17:51

Ukraine's Economy Is Collapsing And The West Doesn't Seem To Care

For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to beat back the Russians.

It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers. According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2015/02/09/ukraines-economy-is-collapsing-and-the-west-doesnt-seem-to-care/

TET68HUE 10 Feb 2015 17:35

During WW 2 Draft dodging was almost unheard of. The war was perceived as "just", a righteous cause. Thus, men correctly saw it as their duty to take up arms against fascism.

During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot").

The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war. People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine.

[Dec 05, 2017] AFP Calling Americans A Great People Is Anti-American

In reality Ukraine is run by neoliberals. Still this is an interesting propaganda twist. Actually "antisemitism" bait works perfectly well in most cases.
moonofalabama.org

This, by AFP, is one of the most misleading propaganda efforts I have ever seen.

The headline:

Ukraine run by 'miserable' Jews: rebel chief

80% of the readers will not read more than that headline.

The first paragraph:

Donetsk (Ukraine) (AFP) - Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders "miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe.

Of those 20% of the readers who will read the first paragraph only one forth will also read the second one. The "anti-semitic" accusation has thereby been planted in 95% of the readership. Now here is the second paragraph:

Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, claimed that Kiev's pro-Western leaders were "miserable representatives of the great Jewish people".

Saying that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were "miserable representatives of the great American people" would be "anti-American"? What is anti-semitic in calling "the Jewish people" "great"?

The AFP reporter and editor who put that up deserve an Orwellian reward. It is one of the most misleading quotations I have ever seen. Accusing Zakharchenko of anti-semitism when he is actually lauding Jews.

Now I do not agree with Zakharchenko. There is no such thing as "the Jewish people" in the sense of a racial or national determination. There are people of various nationalities and racial heritages who assert that they follow, or their ancestors followed, religious Jewish believes. Some of them may have been or are "great".

But that does not make them "the Jewish people" just like followers of Scientology do not make "the Scientologish people".

Posted by b at 06:51 AM | Comments (76)

jfl | Feb 3, 2015 8:27:41 AM | 4

@1

Saker has a link to the youtube, the audio in Russian with English subtitles. It begins at about 12:30.

@3

When Sarkozy came in AFP really hit the skids. Like the NYTimes and Bush XLIII.

Lysander | Feb 3, 2015 12:02:09 PM | 13
What Zacharchenko did that was unforgivable is to draw attention to the fact that Kiev's current leadership is largely Jewish. From Yats to Petro (Waltzman) Poroshenko To Igor Kolomoiski. No matter how gracefully Zach would put it, it is the content that they hate.

Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but I guess there are some who would rather you not notice.

Lone Wolf | Feb 3, 2015 2:01:47 PM | 20

Right-wing nazi-rag KyivPost has a miserable coverage of same piece. "Agence France-Presse: Russia's guy says Ukraine run by 'miserable Jews'" Zhakharchenko is "Russia's guy," his picture under the headline with a totally unrelated caption, subtitled by the first paragraph of the AFP fake "news" (sic!)"Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders "miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe.", and a link to Yahoo news reproducing the AFP piece in full.

https://tinyurl.com/nes4o9g

Zionazi thieves stole the word "semitic" to mean "Jews," when in fact it comprehends many other languages and peoples. Zhakharchenko's AFP phony "anti-Semitic jibe" would be insulting to all these many peoples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

"...Semitic peoples and their languages, in ancient historic times (between the 30th and 20th centuries BC), covered a broad area which encompassed what are today the modern states and regions of Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and the Sinai Peninsula and Malta..."

...The word "Semite" and most uses of the word "Semitic" relate to any people whose native tongue is, or was historically, a member of the associated language family.[35][36] The term "anti-Semite", however, came by a circuitous route to refer most commonly to one hostile or discriminatory towards Jews in particular...[37]

Yet another historical theft by the so-called "chosen" crooks.

[Dec 05, 2017] Schizophrenic nonsense about Russia in Western MSM

So the anti-Russian campaign probably started after Sochi Olympics if nor earlier. Now we see just a new stage of it.
Notable quotes:
"... Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian Empire the day afterwards. ..."
"... West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and conquer the world! ..."
"... For nearly two hours, the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. ..."
"... So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled, leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state what the evidence is.]). ..."
"... I stopped reading the FT years ago . For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass * politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked – apparently 1 in 7 of us are). ..."
Jan 31, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren says:

Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian Empire the day afterwards.

West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and conquer the world!

Moscow Exile, February 3, 2015 at 11:02 am
From the above tweet kindly posted by Peter:

Extracts from the FT article: "Battle for Ukraine: How the west lost Putin"

It was past 10pm and the German chancellor was sitting in a Hilton hotel conference room in Brisbane, Australia. Her interlocutor was the implacable Vladimir Putin. For nearly two hours, the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

The chancellor steered the conversation back to eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists were engaged in a bloody struggle against the western-backed government in Kiev, according to a person familiar with the meeting [WHO? No names, no pack drill?]. Since the crisis began, Ms Merkel [Why Ms? She is "Frau" and she is married. Does the journalist not know that? Does he think that Bundeskanzlerin Merkel wants to keep her marital status a secret? Fucking PC crap!] had worked hard to extract some sense from Mr Putin of what he wanted - something she could use to construct an agreement. When he finally offered a solution, she was shocked. Mr Putin declared Kiev should deal with the rebels the way he had dealt with Russia's breakaway Chechnya region: by buying them off with autonomy and money. A reasonable idea, perhaps, to an ex-KGB colonel. But for an East German pastor's daughter, with a deeply-ingrained sense of fairness, this was unacceptable.

Ms Merkel had asked her closest advisers to stay outside during the Brisbane meeting, on November 15 last year. "She wanted to be alone . . . to test whether she could get Putin to be more open about what he really wants",says someone briefed on the conversation [WHO?]. "But he wouldn't say what his strategy is, because he doesn't know".

For Moscow, too, something snapped. Weeks later, a Kremlin official [WHO?] dismissed the notion, often cited in diplomatic circles, that there had ever been a "special relationship" between the two leaders. "Putin and Merkel could never stand each other", he told the Financial Times. "Of course, they are professionals, so they tried to make the best of it for a long time. But that seems to have changed now."

The Merkel-Putin encounter in Australia marked a turning point. After a year of crisis, the west realised that it had been pursuing an illusion: for all its post-communist tribulations, Russia was always seen to be on an inexorable path of convergence with Europe and the west - what a senior German official [WHO?] calls the notion that "in the end, they'll all become like us".

So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled, leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state what the evidence is.]).

According to a senior Washington official [WHO?], Mr Poroshenko, the oligarch elected Ukraine's president in May, was anxious to hold face-to-face meetings with Mr Putin. But he wanted other leaders in the room capable of holding Mr Putin to commitments. Ms Merkel was the obvious choice. "The administration's view is that she's the best interlocutor that we have in the west with Putin," says an ex-US diplomat [WHO?].

US President Barack Obama has held his own share of calls with Mr Putin, but he has largely taken a back seat. US insiders [WHO?] say the president feels Mr Putin was unresponsive to efforts to build a relationship. "Obama sees the world in win-win terms, Putin sees it in zero-sum terms", says the ex-diplomat. The two have a visible lack of chemistry. In Mr Obama's words, Mr Putin has a "kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom".

Diplomats suspect [WHICH DIPLOMATS?] Mr Putin is surrounded by yes-men afraid to give him the unvarnished truth. They suggest, for example, that he has been surprised by the strength of EU unity over sanctions.

She prepares meticulously, studying maps of eastern Ukraine and poring over them in meetings and phone calls with Mr Putin. "There are maps and charts, with roads and checkpoints", says a European diplomat [WHO?]. "She has these details. She knows about them."

In public, Ms Merkel has not said Mr Putin has lied, but she has in private [TO WHOM?]. "'He's lying', that's what she says to all the other leaders," says the EU diplomat.

A partygoer [WHO?] close to Ms Merkel recalls her saying little about the disaster. "The chancellor doesn't like to speak about something until she is sure of her facts. But she was shaken. It was horrendous."

"The Russians just weren't credible. They got beaten", says a senior Washington official [WHO?].

Asked why Mr Putin did not turn MH17 into an opportunity for reconciliation, a former senior Kremlin official [WHO?] said: "Because he was insulted. He acted emotionally. Because your side came out before anything was clear, accusing him of all sorts of things".

and on and on and on.

I've just got fed up of noting the unsubstantiated statements. And to make all this even more annoying,each time I cut and pasted, I received the following notification off FT:

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article."

High quality global journalism???

et Al , February 3, 2015 at 12:59 pm
I stopped reading the FT years ago. For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass* politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked – apparently 1 in 7 of us are).

The thing is, none of this should surprise us as established journalism has only got worse. Alternative media fortunately has grown on the back of this atrophy of the circle jerk club. What this goes to show is that the discerning news consumer now looks elsewhere for its news because the Pork Pie News Networks are so transparently bullshit in the extreme and even more unapologetic when they are caught with their pants down pretending to be milking grandma's cow in the middle of the night.

Fern, February 3, 2015 at 5:09 pm
If Putin became 'emotional' every time he was insulted by the west, he wouldn't have gotten out of bed since about 2003. Jeez, the crap these guys write.

[Dec 05, 2017] Further sabotage of the Iran deal would not bring success -- only embarrassment

This is two years old article. Not much changed... Comments sound as written yesterday. Check it out !
The key incentive to Iran deal is using Iran as a Trojan horse against Russia in oil market -- the force which helps to keep oil prices low, benefitting the USA and other G7 members and hurting Russia and other oil-producing nations. Iran might also serve as a replacement market for EU goods as Russian market is partially lost. Due to sanctions EU now lost (and probably irrevocably) Russian market for food, and have difficulties in maintaining their share in other sectors (cars, machinery) as Asian tigers come in.
Notable quotes:
"... The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans. ..."
"... The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently. ..."
"... Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development). ..."
"... Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble. ..."
"... AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is. ..."
"... Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region ..."
"... With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community. ..."
"... The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious. ..."
"... As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent. ..."
"... AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. ..."
"... Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support. ..."
"... No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him. ..."
"... It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry. ..."
"... The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer. ..."
"... Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk. ..."
"... And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally. ..."
"... I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing. ..."
"... Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one. ..."
"... Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal. ..."
"... American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites. ..."
"... The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power." ..."
"... AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people. ..."
Sep 14, 2015 | The Guardian

The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic.

We may not look back at this as a sea change – some Senate Democrats who held firm against opposition to the deal are working with AIPAC to pass subsequent legislation that contains poison pills designed to kill it – but rather as a rising tide eroding the once sturdy bipartisan pro-Israeli government consensus on Capitol Hill. Some relationships have been frayed; previously stalwart allies of the Israel's interests, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have reportedly said the Iran deal fight soured them on AIPAC.

Even with the boundaries of its abilities on display, however, AIPAC will continue its efforts. "We urge those who have blocked a vote today to reconsider," the group said in a spin-heavy statement casting a pretty objective defeat as victory with the headline, "Bipartisan Senate Majority Rejects Iran Nuclear Deal." The group's allies in the Senate Republican Party have already promised to rehash the procedural vote next week, and its lobbyists are still rallying for support in the House. But the Senate's refusal to halt US support for the deal means that Senate Democrats are unlikely to reconsider, especially after witnessing Thursday's Republican hijinx in the House. These ploys look like little more than efforts to embarrass Obama into needing to cast a veto.

If Republicans' rhetoric leading up to to their flop in the Senate – Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans.

Opponents of the deal want to say the Democrats played politics instead of evaluating the deal honestly. That charge is ironic, to say the least, since most experts agree the nuclear deal is sound and the best agreement diplomacy could achieve. But there were politics at play: rather than siding with Obama, Congressional Democrats lined up against the Republican/Netanyahu alliance. The adamance of AIPAC ended up working against its stated interests.

Groups like AIPAC will go on touting their bipartisan bona fides without considering that their adoption of Netanyahu's own partisanship doomed them to a partisan result. Meanwhile, the ensuing fight, which will no doubt bring more of the legislative chaos we saw this week, won't be a cakewalk, so to speak, but will put the lie to AIPAC's claims it has a bipartisan consensus behind it. Despite their best efforts, Obama won't be the one embarrassed by the scrambling on the horizon.

TiredOldDog 13 Sep 2015 21:47

a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes

I guess this may mean Israel. If it does, how about we compare Assad's Syria, Iran and Israel. How many war crimes per day in the last 4 years and, maybe, some forecasts. Otherwise it's the usual gratuitous use of bad words at Israel. It has a purpose. To denigrate and dehumanize Israel or, at least, Zionism.

ID7612455 13 Sep 2015 18:04

The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently.

winemaster2 13 Sep 2015 17:01

Put a Brush Mustache on the control freak, greed creed, Nentanhayu the SOB not only looks like but has the same mentality as Hitler and his Nazism crap.

Martin Hutton -> mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 23:50

I wondered when someone was going to bring up that "forgotten" fact. Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development).

mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 20:51

Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble.

ByThePeople -> Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 20:27

Is pitiful how for months and months, certain individuals blathered on and on and on when it was fairly clear from the get go that this was a done deal and no one was about cater to the war criminal. I suppose it was good for them, sucking every last dime they could out of the AICPA & Co. while they acted like there was 'a chance'. Nope, only chance is that at the end of the day, a politician is a politician and he'll suck you dry as long as you let 'em.

What a pleasure it is to see the United States Congress finally not pimp themselves out completely to a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes. A once off I suppose, but it's one small step for Americans.

ByThePeople 12 Sep 2015 20:15

AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is.

ambushinthenight -> Greg Zeglen 12 Sep 2015 18:18

Seems that it makes a lot of sense to most everyone else in the world, it is now at the point where it really makes no difference whether the U.S. ratifies the deal or not. Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region. Politicians here object for one of two reasons. They are Israeli first and foremost not American or for political expediency and a chance to try undo another of this President's achievements. Been a futile effort so far I'd say.

hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 12 Sep 2015 16:42

With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation.

nardone -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 14:12

Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community.

The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious.

Greg Zeglen -> Glenn Gang 12 Sep 2015 13:51

good point which is found almost nowhere else...it is still necessary to understand that the whole line of diplomacy regarding the west on the part of Iran has been for generations one of deceit...and people are intensely jealous of what they hold dear - especially safety and liberty with in their country....

EarthyByNature -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 13:45

I do trust your on salary with a decent benefits package with the Israeli government or one of it's slavish US lobbyists. Let's face it, got to be hard work pouring out such hateful drivel.

BrianGriffin -> imipak 12 Sep 2015 12:53

The USA took about six years to build a bomb from scratch. The UK took almost six years to build a bomb. Russia was able to build a bomb in only four years (1945-1949). France took four years to build a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The Chinese only took four years. http://www.china.org.cn/english/congress/228244.htm

steelhead 12 Sep 2015 12:48

As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent.

BrianGriffin -> HauptmannGurski 12 Sep 2015 12:35

"Europe needs business desperately."

Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 12:32

In other words, once again, Obama out-played and out-thought both the GOP and AIPAC. He was playing multidimensional chess while they were playing checkers. The democrats kept their party discipline while the republicans ran around like a schoolyard full of sugared-up children. This is what happens when you have grownups competing with adolescents. The republican party, to put it very bluntly, can't get it together long enough to whistle 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' in unison.

They lost. Again. And worse than being losers, they're sore, whining, sniveling, blubbering losers. Even when they've been spanked - hard - they swear it's not over and they're gonna get even, just you wait and see! Get over it. They lost - badly - and the simple fact that their party is coming apart at the seams before our very eyes means they're going to be losing a lot more, too.

AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. All the way around, a glorious victory for Obama, and an ignominious defeat for the republicans. And most especially, Israel. Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support.

Their worst loss, however, was losing the support of the American jews. Older, orthodox jews are Israel-firsters. The younger, less observant jews are Americans first. Netanhayu's behavior has driven a wedge between the US and Israel that is only going to deepen over time. And on top of that, Iran is re-entering the community of nations, and soon their economy will dominate the region. Bibi overplayed his hand very, very stupidly, and the real price that Israel will pay for his bungling will unfold over the next few decades.

BrianGriffin -> TiredOldDog 12 Sep 2015 12:18

"The Constitution provides that the president 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur'"

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

Hardly a done deal. If Obama releases funds to Iran he probably would be committing an impeachable crime under US law. Even many Democrats would vote to impeach Obama for providing billions to a sworn enemy of Israel.

Glenn Gang -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 12:07

"...institutionally Iranclad(sic) HATRED towards the west..." Since you like all-caps so much, try this: "B.S."

The American propel(sic) actually figured out something else---that hardline haters like yourself are desperate to keep the cycle of Islamophobic mistrust and suspicion alive, and blind themselves to the fact that the rest of us have left you behind.

FACT: More than half of the population of Iran today was NOT EVEN BORN when radical students captured the U.S. Embassy in Teheran in 1979.

People like you, Bruce, conveniently ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad and his hardline followers were voted out of power in 2013, and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further marginalized them by allowing the election of new President Hassan Rouhani to stand, though he was and is an outspoken reformer advocating rapprochement with the west. While his outward rhetoric still has stern warnings about anticipated treachery by the 'Great Satan', Khamenei has allowed the Vienna agreement to go forward, and shows no sign of interfering with its implementation.

He is an old man, but he is neither stupid nor senile, and has clearly seen the crippling effects the international sanctions have had on his country and his people. Haters like you, Bruce, will insist that he ALWAYS has evil motives, just as Iranian hardliners (like Ahmedinejad) will ALWAYS believe that the U.S. has sinister motives and cannot EVER be trusted to uphold our end of any agreement. You ascribe HATRED in all caps to Iran, the whole country, while not acknowledging your own simmering hatred.

People like you will always find a 'boogeyman,' someone else to blame for your problems, real or imagined. You should get some help.

beenheretoolong 12 Sep 2015 10:57

No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him.

geneob 12 Sep 2015 10:12

It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry.

Jack Hughes 12 Sep 2015 08:38

The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer.

To reject the agreement is to accept the status quo, which is unacceptable, leaving an immediate and unprovoked American-led bombing campaign as the only other option.

Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk.

American politicians opposed to the agreement are serving their short-term partisan political interests and, under America's system of legalized bribery, their Israeli and Saudi paymasters -- not America's long-term policy interests.

ID293404 -> Jeremiah2000 12 Sep 2015 05:01

And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally.

He then has pictures taken of himself in a jet pilot's uniform on a US aircraft carrier with a huge sign saying Mission Accomplished. He attacks Afghanistan to capture Osama, lets him get away, and then attacks Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and no ties with Al Qaeda.

So then we have two interminable wars going on, thanks to brilliant Republican foreign policy, and spend gazillions of dollars while creating a mess that may never be straightened out. Never mind all the friends we won in the middle east and the enhanced reputation of our country through torture, the use of mercenaries, and the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Yeah, we really need those bright Republicans running the show over in the Middle East!

HauptmannGurski -> lazman 12 Sep 2015 02:31

That is a very difficult point to understand, just look at this sentence "not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans" ... too much emperor thinking for me. We have this conversation with regard to Putin everywhere now, so we disrespect all 143 million Russians? There's not a lot of disrespect around for Japanese PM Abe and Chinese Xi - does this now mean we respect them and all Japanese and Chinese? Election campaigns create such enormous personality cults that people seem to lose perspective.

On the Iran deal, if the US had dropped out of it it would have caused quite a rift because many countries would have just done what they wanted anyway. The international Atomic Energy Organisation or what it is would have done their inspections. Siemens would have sold medical machines. Countries would grow up as it were. But as cooperation is always better than confrontation it is nice the US have stayed in the agreement that was apparently 10 years in the making. It couldn't have gone on like that. With Europe needing gazillions to finance Greece, Ukraine, and millions of refugees (the next waves will roll on with the next spring and summer from April), Europe needs business desparately. Israel was happy to buy oil through Marc Rich under sanctions, now it's Europe's turn to snatch some business.

imipak -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 21:56

Iran lacks weapons-grade uranium and the means to produce it. Iran has made no efforts towards nuclear weapons technology for over a decade. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is entitled to the rights enshrined therein. If Israel launches a nuclear war against Iran over Iran having a medical reactor (needed to produce isotopes for medicine, isotopes America can barely produce enough of for itself) that poses no security threat to anyone, then Israel will have transgressed so many international laws that if it survives the radioactive fallout (unlikely), it won't survive the political fallout.

It is a crime of the highest order to use weapons of mass destruction (although that didn't stop the Israelis using them against Palestinian civilians) and pre-emtive self-defence is why most believe Bush and Blair should be on trial at the ICJ, or (given the severity of their crimes) Nuremberg.

Israel's right to self-defense is questionable, I'm not sure any such right exists for anyone, but even allowing for it, Israel has no right to wage unprovoked war on another nation on the grounds of a potential threat discovered through divination using tea leaves.

imipak -> Jeremiah2000 11 Sep 2015 21:43

Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is of no concern. Such acts do not determine its competency to handle nuclear material at the 5% level (which you can find naturally). There are only three questions that matter - can Iran produce the 90-95% purity needed to build a bomb (no), can Iran produce such purity clandestinely (no), and can Iran use its nuclear technology to threaten Israel (no).

Israel also supports international terrorism, has used chemical weapons against civilians, has directly indulged in terrorism, actually has nuclear weapons and is paranoid enough that it may use them against other nations without cause.

I respect Israel's right to exist and the intelligence of most Israelis. But I neither respect nor tolerate unreasoned fear nor delusions of Godhood.

imipak -> commish 11 Sep 2015 21:33

I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing.

Until such time as Israel implements the Oslo Accords, withdraws to its internationally recognized boundary and provides the International Court of Justice a full accounting of state-enacted and state-sponsored terrorism, it gets no claims on sainthood and gets no free rides.

Iran has its own crimes to answer, but directly threatening Israel in words or deeds has not been one of them within this past decade. Its actual crimes are substantial and cannot be ignored, but it is guilty only of those and not fictional works claimed by psychotic paranoid ultra-nationalists.

imipak -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 21:18

Domestic politics. Of no real consequence, it's just a way of controlling a populace through fear and a never-ending pseudo-war. It's how Iran actually feels that is important.

For the last decade, they've backed off any nuclear weapons research and you can't make a bomb with centrifuges that can only manage 20% enriched uranium. You need something like 90% enrichment, which requires centrifuges many, many times more advanced. It'd be hard to smuggle something like that in and the Iranians lack the skills, technology and science to make them.

Iran's conventional forces are busy fighting ISIS. What they do afterwards is a concern, but Israel has a sizable military presence on the Golan Heights. The most likely outcome is for Iran to install puppet regimes (or directly control) Syria and ISIS' caliphate.

I could see those two regions plus Iraq being fully absorbed into Iran, that would make some sense given the new geopolitical situation. But that would tie up Iran for decades. Which would not be a bad thing and America would be better off encouraging it rather than sabre-rattling.

(These are areas that contribute a lot to global warming and political instability elsewhere. Merging the lot and encouraging nuclear energy will do a lot for the planet. The inherent instability of large empires will reduce mischief-making elsewhere to more acceptable levels - they'll be too busy. It's idle hands that you need to be scared of.)

Israelis worry too much. If they spent less time fretting and more time developing, they'd be impervious to any natural or unnatural threat by now. Their teaching of Roman history needs work, but basically Israel has a combined intellect vastly superior to that of any nearby nation.

That matters. If you throw away fear and focus only on problems, you can stop and even defeat armies and empires vastly greater than your own. History is replete with examples, so is the mythologicized history of the Israeli people. Israel's fear is Israel's only threat.

mostfree 11 Sep 2015 21:10

Warmongers on all sides would had loved another round of fear and hysteria. Those dark military industrial complexes on all sides are dissipating in the face of the high rising light of peace for now . Please let it shine.

bishoppeter4 11 Sep 2015 20:09

The rabid Republicans working for a foreign power against the interest of the United States -- US citizens will know just what to do.

Jeremiah2000 -> Carolyn Walas Libbey 11 Sep 2015 19:21

"Netanyahu has no right to dictate what the US does."

But he has every right to point out how Obama is a weak fool. How's Obama's red line working in Syria? How is his toppling of Qadaffi in Libya working? How about his completely inept dealings with Egypt, throwing support behind the Muslim Brotherhood leaders? The leftists cheer Obama's weakening of American influence abroad. But they don't talk much about its replacement with Russian and Chinese influence. Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran's Quds Force leader. Obama and Kerry are sending a strongly worded message.

Susan Dechancey -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 19:05

Incredible to see someone prefer war to diplomacy - guess you are an armchair General not a real one.

Susan Dechancey -> commish 11 Sep 2015 19:04

Except all its neighbours ... not only threatened but entered military conflict and stole land ... murdered Iranian Scientists but apart from that just a kitten

Susan Dechancey -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 19:00

Israel has nukes so why are they afraid ?? Iran will never use nukes against Israel and even Mossad told nuttyyahoo sabre rattling

Susan Dechancey 11 Sep 2015 18:57

Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one.

To be honest the USA can do what it likes now .. UK has set up an embassy - trade missions are landing Tehran from Europe. So if Israel and US congress want war - they will be alone and maybe if US keeps up the Nuttyahoo rhetoric European firms can win contracts to help us pay for the last US regime change Iraq / Isis / Refugees...

lswingly -> commish 11 Sep 2015 16:58

Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal.

It's no different from how when you run a poll on who's in favor "Obamacare" the results will be majority negative. But if you poll on whether you are in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" most people are in favor of it and if you break it down and poll on the individual planks of "Obamacare" people overwhelming approve of the things that "Obamacare does". The disapproval is based on the fact that Republican's have successfully turned "Obamacare" into a pejorative and has almost no reflection of people feelings on actual policy.

To illustrate how meaningless those poll numbers are a Jewish poll (supposedly the people who have the most to lose if this deal is bad) found that a narrow majority of Jews approve of the deal. You're numbers are essentially meaningless.

The alternative to this plan is essentially war if not now, in the very near future, according to almost all non-partisan policy wonks. Go run a poll on whether we should go to war with Iran and see how that turns out. Last time we destabilized the region we removed a secular dictator who was enemies with Al Queda and created a power vacuum that led to increased religious extremism and the rise of Isis. You want to double down on that strategy?

MadManMark -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 16:34

You need to reread this article. It's exactly this attitude of yours (and AIPAC and Netanyahu) that this deal is not 100% perfect, but then subsequently failed to suggest ANY way to get something better -- other than war, which I'm sorry most people don't want another Republican "preemptive" war -- caused a lot people originally uncertain about this deal (like me) to conclude there may not be a better alternative. Again, read the article: What you think about me, I now think about deal critics like you ("It seems people will endorse anything to justify their political views.)

USfan 11 Sep 2015 15:34

American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites.

Interesting times. We'll see how this plays out. My family is Jewish and I have not been shy in telling them that alliances with the GOP for short-term gains for Israel is not a wise policy. The GOP establishment are not antiSemtic but the base often is, and if Trump's candidacy shows anything it's that the base is in control of the Republicans.

But we'll see.

niyiakinlabu 11 Sep 2015 15:29

Central question: how come nobody talks about Israel's nukes?

hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 14:02

Iran will not accept being forced into dependence on outside powers. We may dislike their government but they have as much right as anyone else to enrich their own fuel.

JackHep 11 Sep 2015 13:30

Netanyahu is an example of all that is bad about the Israeli political, hence military industrial, establishment. Why Cameron's government allowed him on British soil is beyond belief. Surely the PM's treatment of other "hate preachers" would not have been lost on Netanyahu? Sadly our PM seems to miss the point with Israel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10692563/David-Cameron-tells-Israelis-about-his-Jewish-ancestors.html

talenttruth 11 Sep 2015 13:12

The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power."

And let's be treasonous against the United States by trying to undermine U.S. Foreign Policy FOR OUR OWN PROFIT. We are LONG overdue for serious jail time for these sociopaths, who already have our country "brainwashed" into 53% of our budget going to the War Profiteers and to pretending to be a 19th century Neo-Colonial Power -- in an Endless State of Eternal War. These people are INSANE. Time to simply say so.

Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:58

At the rally to end the Iran deal in the Capitol on Wednesday, one of the AIPAC worshipping attendees had this to say to Jim Newell of Slate:

""Obama is a black, Jew-hating, jihadist putting America and Israel and the rest of the planet in grave danger," said Bob Kunst of Miami. Kunst-pairing a Hillary Clinton rubber mask with a blue T-shirt reading "INFIDEL"-was holding one sign that accused Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry of "Fulfilling Hitler's Dreams" and another that queried, "DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM 1938?"

His only reassurance was that, when Iran launches its attack on the mainland, it'll be stopped quickly by America's heavily armed citizenry."

That is indicative of the mindset of those opposed to the agreement.

Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:47

AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people.

tunejunky 11 Sep 2015 12:47

AIPAC, its constituent republicans, and the government of Israel all made the same mistake in a common episode of hubris. by not understanding the American public, war, and without the deference shown from a proxy to its hegemon, Israel's right wing has flown the Israeli cause into a wall. not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans, the Israeli government acted as a spoiled first-born - while to American eyes it was a greedy, ungrateful ward foisted upon barely willing hands. it presumed far too much and is receiving the much deserved rebuke.

impartial12 11 Sep 2015 12:37

This deal is the best thing that happened in the region in a while. We tried war and death. It didn't work out. Why not try this?

[Dec 05, 2017] Putin Live Talks US, Nukes, Ukraine, Iran, Hitler, And Cloning In Town Hall Meeting - Full VIdeo

What changed in the US foreign policy since 2015? The answer is nothing. It is still a neocon driven policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Putin on whether Alaska is "ice crimea" (play on "ice cream"): "What would you need Alaska for? It's cold there, let's not get overenthusiastic about it." ..."
"... Putin on when he would be willing to retire: "You won't live to see it." ..."
"... As Bloomberg notes, the Russian President took 'the pot calling the kettle black' to the next level by likening the US to the post-war USSR. Like the Soviet Union, Washington seeks to "impose" its will, Putin said, echoing comments made by his security council last month in a critique of US foreign policy. The US, he continued, wants "vassals" and not "allies." Putin also employed the tried and true "express willingness to negotiate then make not-so-veiled nuclear threat" strategy before reminding listeners that Stalin was not Hitler. ..."
"... U.S. "doesn't need allies, they need vassals" ..."
"... Nothing good came of U.S.S.R.'s attempts to impose will, model on other countries; U.S. also won't succeed in forcing its position on world, U.S. shouldn't be only power ..."
"... Putin says it wasn't Russia that ruined relations w/ U.S. its allies ..."
"... If U.S., allies was to rebuild ties, they must respect Russia, its interests ..."
"... Russia will continue to fight radical nationalism, nationalism is threat to Russia's unity ..."
"... Iran: Putin insisted lifting a five-year embargo on the delivery of air defence missiles to Iran did not undermine international sanctions since the Russian ban was voluntary. The US and Israel have objected to the move announced this week. Putin said he made the decision since Iran had shown "a desire to reach compromise". ..."
"... WW2 commemorations: European nations not coming to Moscow to mark the 70th anniversary of the war's end had been put under pressure by Washington, Putin claimed. ..."
"... Ukraine: The Russian president denied Russian military forces were in Ukraine and said Kiev was violating a peace accord by maintaining an economic blockade on eastern regions under the control of pro-Russian rebels. ..."
"... Economy: Putin was optimistic in his answers, highlighting gains in agriculture and a low unemployment rate. He added that the rouble was getting back on its feet following a sharp devaluation last year, and estimated a full recovery to be "somewhere in the region of two years". ..."
"... Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and the chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces also invoked the cold war in claiming that Washington has adopted a 'to the winner go the spoils' approach to international politics since the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Top Russian officials accused the United States on Thursday of seeking political and military dominance in the world and sought to put blame on the West for international security crises, including the conflict in east Ukraine. ..."
"... Evoking Cold War-style rhetoric, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said a drive by the United States and its allies to bring Kiev closer to the West was a threat to Moscow and had forced it to react. ..."
"... "The United States and its allies have crossed all possible lines in their drive to bring Kiev into their orbit. That could not have failed to trigger our reaction," he told an annual security conference in Moscow. ..."
"... Echoing his comments, General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, told the meeting: "Considering themselves the winners of the Cold War, the United States decided to reshape the world to fit its needs. ..."
"... "Aiming at complete dominance, Washington stopped taking into account the interests of other countries and respect international law." ..."
"... General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said missile defense systems slated for installation in Poland and Romania represented a threat and Russia had to prepare to respond. ..."
"... "Nonnuclear powers where missile-defense installations are being installed have become the objects of priority response," Gen. Gerasimov said, referring to Poland and Romania. ..."
"... The comments came at a Moscow defense conference where a series of high-level Russian leaders repeatedly warned of the serious threats that the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization posed to modern Russia. Together, the speeches formed a fiery rebuke to the U.S. that comes as the conflict in Ukraine has brought the worst relations between Moscow and Washington since the days of the Cold War... ..."
"... In the past, Western leaders have said NATO's long-running project to build a missile defense shield in Europe aimed to deter an attack from Iran rather than from Russia. On Thursday, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said such assertions were a lie. ..."
"... "Today it is clear that the missile threat from Tehran that the U.S. and other countries of the alliance invented was a bluff," Mr. Shoigu said... ..."
"... Gen. Gerasimov also warned of Islamist extremism. He said al Qaeda had arisen from the Mujahideen that fought against Soviet forces in Afghanistan with U.S. money and support and suggested history had begun to repeat itself. ..."
"... Like him or not, he has exposed Obama and Team as the incompetent fools they are. Just go back and look and Tunisia, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine. Add in the Iranian deal and Yemen. That is just the Foreign Affairs book and I am sure I forgot a few. Toss in the Domestic issues and the pattern becomes clearer. ..."
"... Create chaos and instability throughout the world then re-sculpt in the Vision of the Messiah. Only I is doomed to failure leaving behind unfathomable death and destruction. ..."
"... Well, it si quite difficult to let bygones be bygones, when another WWIII is on the horizon. Why do you think Russians are now so sensitive about Hitler and WWII??? Just think! They simply do NOT want any other world war, but they know they are being pushed to such a war right now by the USA neocons and banksters. ..."
"... No American president has talked unscripted to the Americna people since Carter, even Reagan gave up the idea of talking directly and taking unscreened questions. Bush refused all contact with unscreened Americans, and Obama is the same. Cowards, and idiots. ..."
"... "Nonnuclear powers where missile-defense installations are being installed have become the objects of priority response," Gen. Gerasimov ..."
"... By trying to please Washington, Poland is taking a nuclear war timing from 15 minutes to an 1 hour, down to 5 minutes. Russia would have 5 - 10 minutes to launch on Poland to get the anti missiles out of the way first. Then consider the larger defensive launch on the West. ..."
Apr 16, 2015 | Zero Hedge

Russian President Vladimir Putin - who TIME readers recently voted as the most influential person in the world - held his annual call-in/ town hall-style Q&A on Thursday, and as one might imagine, there were some memorable moments. Previous sessions included the following classic clips (via RT):

Putin on whether Alaska is "ice crimea" (play on "ice cream"): "What would you need Alaska for? It's cold there, let's not get overenthusiastic about it."

Putin on when he would be willing to retire: "You won't live to see it."

Putin on John McCain's suggestion that the Russian President will go the way of Muammar Gaddafi: "McCain sat in a pit in Vietnam for several years, anyone would go nuts after that."

Putin on astronomy, the exact time table for the end of the world, and how, if he's around then, he will most assuredly not be afraid:

Clearly these are tough acts to follow and so, with the bar set, Putin came into Thursday's event prepared to one-up himself - he did not disappoint.

As Bloomberg notes, the Russian President took 'the pot calling the kettle black' to the next level by likening the US to the post-war USSR. Like the Soviet Union, Washington seeks to "impose" its will, Putin said, echoing comments made by his security council last month in a critique of US foreign policy. The US, he continued, wants "vassals" and not "allies." Putin also employed the tried and true "express willingness to negotiate then make not-so-veiled nuclear threat" strategy before reminding listeners that Stalin was not Hitler.

Here's more:

Other highlights include the following, via The Guardian:

Iran: Putin insisted lifting a five-year embargo on the delivery of air defence missiles to Iran did not undermine international sanctions since the Russian ban was voluntary. The US and Israel have objected to the move announced this week. Putin said he made the decision since Iran had shown "a desire to reach compromise".

WW2 commemorations: European nations not coming to Moscow to mark the 70th anniversary of the war's end had been put under pressure by Washington, Putin claimed.

Ukraine: The Russian president denied Russian military forces were in Ukraine and said Kiev was violating a peace accord by maintaining an economic blockade on eastern regions under the control of pro-Russian rebels.

Economy: Putin was optimistic in his answers, highlighting gains in agriculture and a low unemployment rate. He added that the rouble was getting back on its feet following a sharp devaluation last year, and estimated a full recovery to be "somewhere in the region of two years".

Here's the entire spectacle:

Meanwhile, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and the chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces also invoked the cold war in claiming that Washington has adopted a 'to the winner go the spoils' approach to international politics since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This, the officials claim, is evident in the US approach to the conflict in Ukraine. Here's more, via Reuters:

Top Russian officials accused the United States on Thursday of seeking political and military dominance in the world and sought to put blame on the West for international security crises, including the conflict in east Ukraine.

Evoking Cold War-style rhetoric, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said a drive by the United States and its allies to bring Kiev closer to the West was a threat to Moscow and had forced it to react.

"The United States and its allies have crossed all possible lines in their drive to bring Kiev into their orbit. That could not have failed to trigger our reaction," he told an annual security conference in Moscow.

Echoing his comments, General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, told the meeting: "Considering themselves the winners of the Cold War, the United States decided to reshape the world to fit its needs.

"Aiming at complete dominance, Washington stopped taking into account the interests of other countries and respect international law."

And a bit more color from WSJ:

General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said missile defense systems slated for installation in Poland and Romania represented a threat and Russia had to prepare to respond.

"Nonnuclear powers where missile-defense installations are being installed have become the objects of priority response," Gen. Gerasimov said, referring to Poland and Romania.

The comments came at a Moscow defense conference where a series of high-level Russian leaders repeatedly warned of the serious threats that the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization posed to modern Russia. Together, the speeches formed a fiery rebuke to the U.S. that comes as the conflict in Ukraine has brought the worst relations between Moscow and Washington since the days of the Cold War...

In the past, Western leaders have said NATO's long-running project to build a missile defense shield in Europe aimed to deter an attack from Iran rather than from Russia. On Thursday, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said such assertions were a lie.

"Today it is clear that the missile threat from Tehran that the U.S. and other countries of the alliance invented was a bluff," Mr. Shoigu said...

Gen. Gerasimov also warned of Islamist extremism. He said al Qaeda had arisen from the Mujahideen that fought against Soviet forces in Afghanistan with U.S. money and support and suggested history had begun to repeat itself.

"Not so long ago participants in ISIL also were 'good' fighters, widely paid off by the West as 'fighters for democracy in Syria,'" Gen. Gerasimov said. "Now they've gotten out of control," he added, saying they posed a threat to their "former employers."

* * *

As funny as it is to listen to the Russian President field random questions on subjects as diverse as cloning, astronomy, and annexing Alaska, and while there's certainly a degree to which the Kremlin employs a bit of sophistry in an effort to paint Russia as the tragic protagonist in a story about an evil hegemon bent on spreading Russophobia (so pretty much the exact same thing the US did during the cold war, only in reverse), the tension between Moscow and the West is palpable and with NATO now conducting its own snap drills in Eastern Europe and with the very same militants to which Gen. Gerasimov is referring just a few kilometers away from the palace of the Russian-backed Bashar al-Assad, we wonder if and when the war of words will turn into one of bullets.

takeaction

Wouldn't it be nice to have a real leader. Take a look. What a joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcb4rLzXFl0

nuubee

Actually no. American's shouldn't need leaders, the fact that they feel they do should be a point of great shame to them.

CrazyCooter

I wonder if he need teleprompters for all that Q&A ...

PartysOver

Like him or not, he has exposed Obama and Team as the incompetent fools they are. Just go back and look and Tunisia, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine. Add in the Iranian deal and Yemen. That is just the Foreign Affairs book and I am sure I forgot a few. Toss in the Domestic issues and the pattern becomes clearer.

Create chaos and instability throughout the world then re-sculpt in the Vision of the Messiah. Only I is doomed to failure leaving behind unfathomable death and destruction.

ch25061

Judging from the quickness of his wit and sophistication of his off-the-cuff responses that his IQ is Enormous... Probably well over 160.

SeminoleBob For Truth

Hey new Crazy Cooter! I watched this via live feed. He doesn't seem to use teleprompters, always eyeing the audience and not looking in one place. He reads stats from paper or from the computer, when answering questions and speaking to the people, eyeing the people to the side, front, other side. It's pretty amazing. A far cry from an Obama State of the Union:

Obama: Our economy is booing!

Democrats: standing ovation and cheers

Obama: Unemployment has never been better!

DemocratsL Standing ovation and cheers

Obama: We have contained Russia and China

Democrats and Republicans: standing ovation and cheers

Love Putin or hate him, he knows his country, knows the facts and talks to he people, taking hard questions. We just don't see that heee in America. Very sad, it's always a reminder of how far we have fallen

walkόre

I think it's better to leave history alone and try and forget who hated who and for what reasons. Germans weren't exactly loved anywhere in Europe prior to WW1 and especially not prior to WW2. There was injustice and abuse toward native Germans all across Eastern Europe going back a couple centuries. It's just too sad when people rely on their forefathers to promote sentiment against other groups of people. What it comes down to is the issue of money and compensation. Many Germans lost everything after two major wars and nobody is defending their claims. I know we lost not one but two wars but c'mon, that can't be the last excuse for eternity? Especially when the circumstances of each war are very nebulous and the origin of guilt is hard to establish - unofficially.

Unless we truly let bygones be bygones and focus on the future without running in circles and accusing each other of whatever our grandfathers did or may have had involvement in. That can never be compensated and those that were victims are dead and frankly, they don't care anymore.

swass

No one should be responsible for any atrocities committed by their ancestors. 100% agree. Although I know at the same time that memories of such atrocities are often passed down many generations and evoke a lot of emotion. You're right that it is to the benefit of everyone to recognize the distinction between something that happened a long time ago and that it doesn't make it true today. Some blacks still feel that America somehow owes them reparations for slavery that happened more than 150 years ago. I don't think slavery was ever right, and I don't believe that any of my ancestors ever owned slaves (that were here in the US). Yet they still hate whitey and demand reparations from all Americans, despite the fact this happened so long ago, and that no one alive here in the US has ever lived in slavery. They need to learn that the past is the past, just like may others throughout the world.

datura

Well, it si quite difficult to let bygones be bygones, when another WWIII is on the horizon. Why do you think Russians are now so sensitive about Hitler and WWII??? Just think! They simply do NOT want any other world war, but they know they are being pushed to such a war right now by the USA neocons and banksters. Russians will now have a huge WWII Victory Day celebrations and Western leaders will not come to see it, although it is so much important for Russians, because they wanted to remind the world of WWII to make them understand that we must do anything to prevent any such war. But Western leaders are puppets and do not seem to care if we all die or not. So, instead, Putin will have China, India, Vietnam etc. in these celebrations and the world is once again divided into blocks. Interestingly, the Chinese president seems to make a fuss over WWII as well, because the Chinese have suffered in WWII as well - in the hands of Japan and now the USA seems to be arming up Japan. And the Nazis in Ukraine. It seems that both for Russia and China all this just opens old wounds and they take it very seriously.

"Chinese President Xi Jinping will reach Moscow on May 8 for the celebrations to mark the 70th anniversary of Russia's defeat of Nazi Germany and 70 years since the end of World War II.. Heads of 26 countries have confirmed their attendance at the May 9 celebrations in Moscow. Putin and Xi have both, in recent months, warned against "distorting history". Chinese President Xi Jinping said at a war commemoration event in December that "forgetting history means betrayal and denying the crime means committing it once again." Last month, Putin ordered the organizing committee, established for the 70th anniversary celebration of the victory of the Anti-Fascist War on May 9 in Moscow, to effectively counter worrying attempts to "rewrite history". "This is a very important work to involve the young people in preserving historical memory about the events of the Great Patriotic War, about the key role of the Soviet Union in the victory over Nazism," a Kremlin statement quoted Putin.

swass

Actually, I don't think that is really true. At least not something anyone can make a sweeping generalization about. While I think the hatred of Hitler is universal in Russia (and many countries like Ukraine), Hitler wasn't trying to exterminate all Russians. That is completely false. If that were true, Germans would have done so as they took control of villages and cities. Nazi's did, as Putin said, target Jews and attempt to exterminate them, but not Russians in general. In any case, everyone knows that WWII was very costly for Russia in terms of casualties. I have family in Russia and Ukraine. I'm well aware. "USA people" are well aware. WWI was very bad for the US also. Not sure what you think your arguing exactly.

Mike Masr

Good point. I have family in St. Petersburg that lived through the nazi siege. I think Americans who also gave lives to defeat nazism understand only to a degree. They had no nazi invasion and most here cannot comprehend 27 million lost to fighting this evil. So yes most Americans are aware, but don't understand or comprehend the price our people paid.

This is why the war is known is the West as World War II and in Russia as "The Great Patriotic War".

swass

Sure, I agree with what you said Mike. I also agree that it's hard for most people to conceptualize that size of a loss. My wife is helping to host Victory Day celebrations for Russians/Ukrainians/etc here in Minnesota and especially for elderly that lived through WWII and it's aftermath there.

Mike Masr

Could you imagine our spineless leader barry in a conference like this without a teleprompter? I don't even think he would make it 30 minutes. Forget 4 hours!!!

Jack Burton

No American president has talked unscripted to the Americna people since Carter, even Reagan gave up the idea of talking directly and taking unscreened questions. Bush refused all contact with unscreened Americans, and Obama is the same. Cowards, and idiots.

Jack Burton

"Nonnuclear powers where missile-defense installations are being installed have become the objects of priority response," Gen. Gerasimov This is a sad fact. Anti Missile systems sound defensive in nature. But they are part of a First Stike Capability. One side launches a mass attack on the others nuclear weapons systems, then sits back and counts on it's anti missile shield to destroy many of the surviving response missiles. Thus, the anti missile systems are MORE IMPORTANT a first strike target than the USA's nuclear forces themselves. So Poland and others who host a vast anti ballistic missile system for America, hoping this is all part of defense, are being lured into becoming the VERY most threatening force in the world to Russia.

Russia then, if they seek survival, would absolutely HAVE to hit Poland first and as hard as possible at the very first hint of an American Nuclear missile launch. This is very basic Nuclear War Fighting Strategy! Poland and others would be Russia's priority target when the first US ICBM appear on a Russian radar screen. The Polish sites would be hit long before Russia even launched it's response missiles. A lighting fast hair trigger will be set on Russian missiles set right on Poland's borders. Why? Because only a fool would not see the need to eliminate the anti missile systems first and foremost.

By trying to please Washington, Poland is taking a nuclear war timing from 15 minutes to an 1 hour, down to 5 minutes. Russia would have 5 - 10 minutes to launch on Poland to get the anti missiles out of the way first. Then consider the larger defensive launch on the West.

Poland is fucking insane to push the nuclear trigger this tightly. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. Idiots!

besnook

there isn't a single politician in the entire usa who would do this, let alone the president.

watching putin and comparing him to any usa leadership, public or private, makes me cry for the usa.

[Dec 05, 2017] Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighter by Shaun Walker

This article is two years old, but still sounds current. The only difference now is that the conflict between Western nationalists and neoliberal central government of President Poroshenko became more acute. Nationalists do not understand that "The Moor has done his duty, Moor can go" and neoliberal government of Poroshenko do not need (and actually is afraid of) them.
Vr13vr: "Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers" Historically Kiev was a Russian speaking city. Western Ukrainians typically were called "zapadentsi".
Notable quotes:
"... Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. ..."
"... So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass for Russians there not to feel threatened. ..."
"... So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades. ..."
"... "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine" with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders. ..."
"... But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas. ..."
"... They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people. ..."
"... The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict ..."
"... In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr. ..."
"... the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are there to give this majority a lesson. ..."
"... In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko, a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news) ..."
"... For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to beat back the Russians. ..."
"... It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers. According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia. ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot"). ..."
"... The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war. People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine. ..."
Feb 10, 2015 | The Guardian

vr13vr -> jezzam 10 Feb 2015 18:35

The distrust between the West and the rest of Ukraine is not 14 months old. It has always existed. Since the War at the very list. Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. Western Ukrainians would call everyone a moscovite, and in the East and the South, the Russians were neutral because their lives were much closer to Russia than to all this Ukrainian bullshit. So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass for Russians there not to feel threatened.

So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades.

Systematic

A new law to likely be approved by the Rada "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine" with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders.

Meanwhile, while the law is not approved,

In February 8 in Mariupol a rally was planned against mobilization. On the eve the adviser of Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko said that everyone who comes there will be arrested, "Everyone who comes to the rally tomorrow against mobilization, will be delayed for several hours for identification and after fingerprinting and photographing until released. Let me remind you that I and my fellow lawmaker Boris Filatov has filed a bill to impose criminal liability for public calls for the failure of mobilization "- he wrote on his page on Facebook. As a result, the action did not take place.

http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2015/02/10_a_6407945.shtml

vr13vr -> SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 18:25

With all the hot headed claims of how the Soviet Union just grabbed the piece of land from Poland, Ukraine has a good chance to correct those misdeeds. Give West Ukraine to Poland, Transkarpathia - to Hungary, and the South West - to Romania. That would be restoring historical injustice.

vr13vr -> SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 18:18

But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas.

Besides, federalization may or may not protect them. Kiev may or may not adhere to rules in the future, there will be a tax issue, there will be cultural issues as Kiev will try to Ukrainize those areas subtly - you know those programs that are not anti-Russian per se but that increase Ukrainian presence, thus diluting the original population. Remaining under the same roof with Kiev and L'vov isn't really the best solution for Donbass if they want to preserve their independence and identity.

SallyWa -> VladimirM 10 Feb 2015 18:16

They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people.

theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02

The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate who have ceded responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.

I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.

newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01

Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from 20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).

theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02

The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate who have ceded responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.

I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.

newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01

Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from 20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).

erpiu 10 Feb 2015 17:59

The focus on Putin and geopolitics forces the actual ukr people out of the picture and blurrs understanding.

The maidan was a genuinely popular NW-ukr rebellion after NW-ukr had lost all recent pre-2014 elections to the culturally Russian majority of voters mainly in SE-ukr.

In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr.

the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are there to give this majority a lesson.

USA+EU weapons would only help the punitive "pacification" of SE ukr, the place that was deciding UKR elections until the coup.

The real festering conflict is the incompatibility of the anti-Russian feelings in NW ukr (little else is shared by the various maidan factions) with the cccp/russian heritage of most people in SE ukr... that incompatibility is the main problem that needs to be "solved".

Neither the maidan coup nor yanukovich&the pre-coup electoral dominance of SE ukr voters were ever stable solutions.

newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 17:57

In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko, a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news)

SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 17:51

Ukraine's Economy Is Collapsing And The West Doesn't Seem To Care

For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to beat back the Russians.

It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers. According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2015/02/09/ukraines-economy-is-collapsing-and-the-west-doesnt-seem-to-care/

TET68HUE 10 Feb 2015 17:35

During WW 2 Draft dodging was almost unheard of. The war was perceived as "just", a righteous cause. Thus, men correctly saw it as their duty to take up arms against fascism.

During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot").

The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war. People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine.

[Dec 05, 2017] Conspiracy Theorists, Bloggers Compared To ISIS During Congressional Hearing by Paul Joseph Watson

So neo McCarthyism witch hunt that is rampant now is just more of the same.
Notable quotes:
"... The hearing, hosted by the House Foreign Relations Committee, was titled "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information," and accused Russian state broadcaster RT of weaponizing "conspiracy theories" to spread propaganda. ..."
"... One of the speakers giving testimony was former RT host Liz Wahl, who made a public spectacle of quitting Russian state media last year in an incident stage-managed by neo-con James Kirchick, himself a former employee of Radio Free Europe – a state media outlet. ..."
"... Remarking that the Internet provided a platform for "fringe voices and extremists," Wahl characterized people who challenge establishment narratives as a "cult". "They mobilize and they feel they're part of some enlightened fight against the establishment .they find a platform to voice their deranged views," said Wahl. ..."
"... Referring to comments made in January by US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) chief Andrew Lack, who characterized RT as a threat on the same level as ISIS and Boko Haram, Wahl said the comparison was justified. ..."
"... Peter Pomerantsev, of the London-based Legatum Institute, followed up by claiming that conspiracy theories were no longer "fringe" and were now driving the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, before lamenting the fact that conspiracy theories were challenging the "global order" and threatening to undermine global institutions. ..."
"... All three individuals that gave testimony are staunch critics of Russia, leading Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to wish "we had at least one other person to balance out this in a way that perhaps could've compared our system to the Russian system, to find out where that truth is, just how bad that is." ..."
"... Without a doubt, RT puts out pro-Russian propaganda, but it also broadcasts truths about geopolitics and U.S. foreign policy that Americans will never see on mainstream corporate networks, precisely because those networks are also engaged in propaganda. ..."
"... As linguist Noam Chomsky said, "The idea that there should be a network reaching people, which does not repeat the US propaganda system, is intolerable" to the US establishment. ..."
"... I love it when .gov shows their hand. ..."
"... Let's not forget -- as reported here many times to the credit of ZH -- that the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government. ..."
"... Websites of Mass Instruction (are internet sites that can educate and bring significant enlightenment to a large number of humans or cause great damage to the false government-scripted MSM narrativ ..."
"... Screw them, screw all of them. I am a blogger, I do my own analysis, and try to figure out what BS they are going to try and pull next based on the information I have available to me. It makes things so clear when they start speaking so hostilely about something you are involved in when you know are doing the right thing by speaking out. She is making it seem like there is some nefarious motive behind what we do. She is the one that is dangerous, not us. She is trying to curtail free speech for god sake. ..."
"... The US Propaganda Machine has just jumped the shark. ..."
"... It jumped the shark awhile ago. Like all corrupt governments, the government of the United States accuses others of behavior the US blatantly engages in itself. A few gems regarding our own "online troll army": http://www.wired.com/2011/07/darpa-wants-social-media-sensor-for-propaga... ..."
"... And let's not forget that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 included a provision to repeal the ban on government propaganda being directed at American citizens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fisc... ..."
"... Turns out Uncle Sam is a sociopathic, hypocritical asshole. EDIT: Incidentally, folks, they always tell you what they're gonna do before they do it. This is a shot across the bow; they will be coming after the internet in one way or another at some point. It's too much of a threat for them to ignore it, and it's only a matter of time. ..."
"... The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories. Most so-called "conspiracy theorists" are really skeptics, by definition. They're skeptical of what the government tells them. They're skeptical of the claim that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They're skeptical that food corporations are telling them the truth about what's in their food. And they're also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time. ..."
"... So let's get this straight... they believe that Russia is responsibility for ALLLLLLL the "conspiracy theories" on the Internet? LOL! How about the one where the NSA was spying on everyone and it turned out to be true? Is Russia responsible for that one too? ..."
"... Soon we will find out that Liz Wahl works for the CIA and was specifically planted at RT in order to create the current psyop. ..."
"... US propagandists are locked in a monologue mode, speaking to themselves and of themselves all the time. The Russians are simply a canvas on which US propagandists paint a projected picture of their inner selves. This is the US world order, wallowing in the denial of the most basic reality. Who could come with the fantasy that the US supports freedom of speech? ..."
Apr 16, 2015 | euobserver.com

Submitted by Paul Joseph Watson via PrisonPlanet.com,

Bloggers, conspiracy theorists and people who challenge establishment narratives on the Internet were all likened to ISIS terrorists during a chilling Congressional hearing which took place yesterday.

The hearing, hosted by the House Foreign Relations Committee, was titled "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information," and accused Russian state broadcaster RT of weaponizing "conspiracy theories" to spread propaganda.

One of the speakers giving testimony was former RT host Liz Wahl, who made a public spectacle of quitting Russian state media last year in an incident stage-managed by neo-con James Kirchick, himself a former employee of Radio Free Europe – a state media outlet.

Remarking that the Internet provided a platform for "fringe voices and extremists," Wahl characterized people who challenge establishment narratives as a "cult". "They mobilize and they feel they're part of some enlightened fight against the establishment .they find a platform to voice their deranged views," said Wahl.

Referring to comments made in January by US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) chief Andrew Lack, who characterized RT as a threat on the same level as ISIS and Boko Haram, Wahl said the comparison was justified.

"By using the Internet to mobilize people that feel displaced, that feel like they've been on the outskirts of society, and give them a place where they can find a sense of belonging, and maybe make a difference in their own way, and it's a problem," she said.

Wahl went on to bemoan the fact that conspiracy theorists were "shaping the discussion online, on message boards, on Twitter, on social media," before asserting that the web had become a beacon of "disinformation, false theories, people that are just trying to make a name for themselves, bloggers or whatever, that have absolutely no accountability for the truth, that are able to rile up a mass amount of people online."

Committee Chairman Ed Royce then proceeded to accuse people on YouTube of using "raw violence" to advance conspiracy theories.

Peter Pomerantsev, of the London-based Legatum Institute, followed up by claiming that conspiracy theories were no longer "fringe" and were now driving the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, before lamenting the fact that conspiracy theories were challenging the "global order" and threatening to undermine global institutions.

All three individuals that gave testimony are staunch critics of Russia, leading Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to wish "we had at least one other person to balance out this in a way that perhaps could've compared our system to the Russian system, to find out where that truth is, just how bad that is."

Beyond the inflammatory rhetoric, the real story revolves around the fact that Washington was caught off guard by the rapid growth of RT, with Hillary Clinton and others having acknowledged the fact that the U.S. is "losing the information war," which is why they are now desperately trying to denigrate the Russian broadcaster.

Without a doubt, RT puts out pro-Russian propaganda, but it also broadcasts truths about geopolitics and U.S. foreign policy that Americans will never see on mainstream corporate networks, precisely because those networks are also engaged in propaganda.

There's no mystery behind why RT has become so big – telling the truth is popular – but because Washington finds it impossible to compete on that basis, it has been forced to resort to ad hominem attacks and ludicrous comparisons to ISIS in a desperate bid to level the playing field.

As linguist Noam Chomsky said, "The idea that there should be a network reaching people, which does not repeat the US propaganda system, is intolerable" to the US establishment.

_SILENCER

I love it when .gov shows their hand.

Fukushima Sam

You fucking bastards, you give me a version of events like "9/11" and the "Boston Marathon Bombing" that actually seem to jibe with reality and maybe then I'll stop being a "conspiracy theorist".

LetThemEatRand

Let's not forget -- as reported here many times to the credit of ZH -- that the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government.

nmewn

It should also be pointed out that Bernanke is now "a blogger" at the Brookings Institute and one helluva "conspiracy theorist" in his own right...lol.

I guess some nutters are more equal than others ;-)

Supernova Born

Websites of Mass Instruction (are internet sites that can educate and bring significant enlightenment to a large number of humans or cause great damage to the false government-scripted MSM narrative)

clymer

Thanks RT for not thoroughly vetting that bitchy douche. Now if we could all go back to CNN like the nice little drones that we are... (Lauren Lyster ended up at CBS - WTF is with RT hand-picking these opportunists - reminds of ironically of Yuri Bezmenov speaking of hiring jouralists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc -- they didn't learn from their own program)

Captain Debtcrash

Screw them, screw all of them. I am a blogger, I do my own analysis, and try to figure out what BS they are going to try and pull next based on the information I have available to me. It makes things so clear when they start speaking so hostilely about something you are involved in when you know are doing the right thing by speaking out. She is making it seem like there is some nefarious motive behind what we do. She is the one that is dangerous, not us. She is trying to curtail free speech for god sake.

http://www.debtcrash.report/

Bumpo

The US Propaganda Machine has just jumped the shark.

McMolotov

It jumped the shark awhile ago. Like all corrupt governments, the government of the United States accuses others of behavior the US blatantly engages in itself. A few gems regarding our own "online troll army": http://www.wired.com/2011/07/darpa-wants-social-media-sensor-for-propaga...

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/I2O/Programs/Social_Media_in_Strategic_Com...

And let's not forget that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 included a provision to repeal the ban on government propaganda being directed at American citizens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fisc...

Turns out Uncle Sam is a sociopathic, hypocritical asshole. EDIT: Incidentally, folks, they always tell you what they're gonna do before they do it. This is a shot across the bow; they will be coming after the internet in one way or another at some point. It's too much of a threat for them to ignore it, and it's only a matter of time.

BLOTTO

I've post previously...but always a good read.

'What is a "conspiracy theorist?

The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories. Most so-called "conspiracy theorists" are really skeptics, by definition. They're skeptical of what the government tells them. They're skeptical of the claim that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They're skeptical that food corporations are telling them the truth about what's in their food. And they're also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time.

People who are not skeptics of "official stories" tend to be dull-minded. To believe everything these institutions tell you is a sign of mental retardation. To ask questions, on the other hand, is a sign of higher intelligence and wisdom.'

http://www.naturalnews.com/045172_conspiracy_theories_rational_thought_c...

philipat

It's hilarious watching in the land of the free as they try to find a way around the First Amendment to ban RT.......

Gaius Frakkin

So let's get this straight... they believe that Russia is responsibility for ALLLLLLL the "conspiracy theories" on the Internet? LOL! How about the one where the NSA was spying on everyone and it turned out to be true? Is Russia responsible for that one too?

So who are the REAL paranoid, deranged, scared out of their wits about losing power, conspiracy theorists?

Element

Like glib acceptance of any flaky old crap that drifts into your transom, you mean?

oh ... that's completely different ...

Right?

--

If people buy into nonsense and BS stories of their own volition, this is hardly going to be changed at the stroke of a pen of a legislative chamber all agreeing on some policy of state action to ban or else accept some aspect of public discourse.

cro_maat

Soon we will find out that Liz Wahl works for the CIA and was specifically planted at RT in order to create the current psyop.

TheFourthStooge-ing

US propagandists are locked in a monologue mode, speaking to themselves and of themselves all the time. The Russians are simply a canvas on which US propagandists paint a projected picture of their inner selves. This is the US world order, wallowing in the denial of the most basic reality. Who could come with the fantasy that the US supports freedom of speech?

Sorry, US citizens, your propaganda techniques are too old by now. Most people know them. Especially the Russians:

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/04/chronicles-of-collapse-info-battles...

The translator of this Russian article notes that America throwing more resources into the info war is a sign of Russia's victories and America's agony in this theater of operations.

[Dec 05, 2017] One-Pager on Latest Developments in Russia (RF Sitrep 20150129)

Jan 31, 2015 | Russia Insider

HOW TO READ THE WESTERN MEDIA.

When they say Kiev forces have re-taken the airport, know that they have lost it.

When they say giving up South Stream was a defeat for Putin, know it was a brilliant counter-move.

When they say Russia is isolated (a stopped clock, here's The Economist in 1999!), know that it is expanding its influence and connections every day.

When they say Russians are turning against Putin, know that the opposite is true. When they speak of nation-building in the new Ukraine, know it's degenerating into armed thuggery (see video).

Know that when they speak of Kyrzbekistan, they're not just stenographers, they're incompetent stenographers.

Take what they say, turn it upside down, and you'll have a better take on reality.

THE MERKEL MYSTERY. I, like many, thought, when the Ukraine crisis began, that German Chancellor Merkel would prove to be key in settling it. This has not proved to be the case at all; in fact she often throws more fuel on the fire. I believe that Gilbert Doctorow may have the answer. In essence, he believes that Berlin dreams the "pre-WWI dream of Mitteleuropa" with cheap, docile workers in Poland, Ukraine and the others forever. Of course, it hasn't worked out very well, but that, he thinks, was the plan. There was no "End of History" after all; a rebirth of history it seems.

[Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic

Highly recommended!
Actually it was the West, especially the USA which created political Islam to fight Soviets. They essentially created Osama bin Laden as a political figure. The USA is also the main protector of Saudi Arabia were Wahhabism is the official religion. Then they tried to partition Russia by supporting Chechen islamists and financed the jihadist groups in Russia (especially in Dagestan).
Obama administration flirted with Muslim Brotherhood and unleashed the wars in Lybia and Siria were islamists were trying to take down the legitimate governments.
So Political Islam despite its anti-Western message used as a tool as a patsy for the destabilization of "unfriendly", the dogs that could be unleashed when weapons and money started to flow.
Now it looks like boomerang returns home.
Notable quotes:
"... I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development. ..."
"... Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. ..."
"... The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. ..."
"... To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. ..."
"... If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. ..."
Feb 01, 2016 | chroniclesmagazine.org
View all posts from this blog

On January 23 Freedom and Prosperity Radio , Virginia's only syndicated political talk radio show, broadcast an interview with Srdja Trifkovic on the subject of Islam and the ongoing Muslim invasion of Europe. Here is the full transcript of the interview. ( Audio )

FPR: Your book The Sword of the Prophet was published back in 2002, yet here we are-15 years later-still scratching our heads over this problem. Defeating Jihad you wrote ten years ago, and yet we are still fumbling around in the dark. It seems like we don't have the ability to say what is right and what is wrong. We've lost the ability we had had during the Cold War to say out way is better than their way . . .

ST: I'm afraid the problem is deeper than that. It is in the unwillingness of the ruling elite in the Western world to come to grips with the nature of Islam-as-such. There is this constant tendency by the politicians, the media and the academia to treat jihadism as some sort of aberration which is alien to "true" Islam. We had an example of that in 2014, when President Obama went so far as to say that ISIS was "un-Islamic"! It is rather curious that the President of the United States assumes the authority of a theologian who can pass definite judgments on whether a certain phenomenon is "Islamic" or not. Likewise we have this constant repetition of the mantra of the "religion of peace and tolerance," which is simply not supported by 14 centuries of historical experience. What I've tried to emphasize in both those books you've mentioned, and in my various other writings and public appearances, is that the problem of Islam resides in the core texts, in the Kuran and the Hadith , the "Traditions" of the prophet of Islam, Muhammed. This is the source from which the historical practice has been derived ever since. The problem is not in the jihadists misinterpreting Islam, but rather in interpreting it all too well. This mythical "moderate Islam," for which everybody seems to be looking these days, is an exception and not the rule.

In answer to your question, I'd say that "scratching one's head" is-by now-only the phenomenon of those who refuse to face reality. Reasonable people who are capable of judging phenomena on their merits and on the basis of ample empirical evidence, are no longer in doubt. They see that the problem is not in the alleged misinterpretation of the Islamic teaching, but rather in its rigorous application and literal understanding. I'm afraid things will not get better, because with each and every new jihadist attack, such as the Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris a year ago, or again in Paris last November, or the New Year's Eve violence in Germany, we are witnessing-time and over again-the same problem. The Islamic mindset, the Islamic understanding of the world, the Muslim Weltanschauung , world outlook, is fundamentally incompatible with the Western value system and the Western way of life.

FPR: . . . It seems obvious, regarding Islam, that its "freedom of religion" is impacting other people, and it's dictated to do so-it must go out and fight the infidels. And that's where we have the disconnect. Maybe there is some traction to the statement, as you put it, that fundamentalism reflects a far more thorough following of Islam, and that it is simply incompatible with the Constitution?

ST: It is inevitable, because if you are an orthodox, practicing, mainstream Muslim, then you necessarily believe in the need to impose Sharia as the law of the land. Sharia is much more than a legal code. It is also a political program, it is a code of social behavior, it is the blueprint for the totality of human experience. That's why it is impossible to make Sharia compatible with the liberal principle of "live and let live": it is inherently aggressive to non-Islam. In the Islamic paradigm, the world is divided in the Manichean manner, black-and-white, into "the World of Faith," Dar al-Islam , literally "the world of submission," and "the World of War, Dar al-Harb .

It is the divine duty of each and every Muslim to seek the expansion of Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb until the one true faith is triumphant throughout the world. In this sense the Islamic mindset is very similar to Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks also believed that "the first country of Socialism" should expand its reach and control until the whole world has undergone the proletarian revolution and has become one in the march to the Utopia of communism. There is constant inner tension in the Islamic world, in the sense that for as long as non-Islam exists, it is inherently perceived as "the other," as an abomination. In that sense, Muslims perceive any concession made by the West-for instance in allowing mass immigration into Western Europe-not as a gesture of good will and multicultural tolerance, but as a sign of weakness that needs to be exploited and used as a means to an end.

FPR: The Roman Catholic Church has its Catechism which decides the issues of doctrine. Until there's an Islamic "catechism" which can say "no, this is no longer the right interpretation, this is not what it means any more"-and I don't think this would be a short-term thing, because you'd still have the splinter groups dissenting against the "traitors"-but is this the only way to go to the center of theological jurisprudence in the Islamic world?

ST: The problem is twofold. First of all, there is no "interpretation" of the Kuran . Classical Islamic sources are adamant that the Kuran needs to be taken at face value, literally. If it says in Sura 9, verse 5, "fight the infidels wherever you find them, and let them go if they convert," or if it says time and over again that the choice for a non-Muslim is to accept Islam, or to live as a second-class citizen-the dhimmi -under Islamic supremacy, or else to be killed it is very hard to imagine what sort of authority in the Islamic world would be capable of saying "now we are going to relativize and soften the message."

The second part of the problem is that there is no single authority in Islam. It is not organized in a hierarchical way like the Roman Catholic Church, where if the Pope speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are obligatory for all Catholics everywhere. Islam is a diffused religion, with various centers of learning and various ullema who may or may not agree on certain peripheral details. Yet any any one of them who'd dare say "look, now we rally need to reinterpret the fundamental sources, the Kuran and the Hadith, so as to make it compatible with the pluralist society"-they'd immediately be condemned as heretics. We've seen attempts at reform in the past. In the end the orthodox interpretation always prevails, because it is-sadly-the right interpretation of the core texts. With neither the hierarchy capable of imposing a new form of teaching on the faithful, nor the existence of alternative core texts which would provide grounds for such reinterpretation, it is very hard to see how it could be done.

FPR: How do we go forward? . . . How does the end-game play out?

ST: I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development.

But if we look at the past 14 centuries, time and over again we see the same phenomenon. The first time they tried to conquer Europe was across the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Iberian Peninsula, today's Spain. Then they crossed the Pyrinees and were only stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel in 732AD. Then they were gradually being pushed back, and the Reconquista -- the reconquest of Spain-lasted 800 years, until 1492, when Cordoba finally fell to the Christian forces. Then came the second, Ottoman onslaught, in the XIVth century, which went across the Dardanelles into the Balkan Peninsula. The Turks were only finally stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Pushing Turkey out of Europe went all the way to 1912, to the First Balkan War.

So we may say that we are now witnessing the third Islamic conquest of Europe. This time it is not using armed janissaries, it is using so-called refugees. In fact most of them are healthy young men, and the whole process is obviously a strategic exercise -- a joint venture between Ankara and Riyadh, who are logistically and financially helping this mass transfer of people from the Turkish and Middle Eastern refugee camps to the heart of Europe. The effect may be the same, but this time it is far more dangerous because, on the European side-unlike in 732, or 1683-there is no political will and there is no moral strength to resist. This is happening because the migrants, the invaders, see Europe as the candy store with a busted lock and they are taking advantage of that fact.

FPR: When you see the horrors of rapes and sexual assaults that took place across Germany, and now we see the Germans' response . . . vigilantes on their streets . . . this is something that we either control politically and with leadership, or else it falls apart into anarchy, Prof. Trifkovic?

ST: Instead of anarchy I think we will have a form of postmodern totalitarianism. The elite class, the government of Germany etc, and the media, will demonize those who try to resist. In fact we already have the spectacle of the minister of the interior of one of the German states saying that "hate speech" on the social networks and websites was far worse than the "incidents" in Cologne. And the Mayor of Cologne-an ultra-feminist who is also a pro-immigration enthusiast-said that in order to prevent such events in the future women should observe a "code of conduct" and keep distance "at an arm's length" from men. It's a classic example of blaming the victim. The victims of Islamic violence should change their behavior in order to adapt themselves to the code of conduct and values of the invaders. This is truly unprecedented.

Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. The same applies to Marine Le Pen in France and to her party, the Front National , or to Geert Wilders in Holland, or to Strache in Austria. Whoever tries to articulate a coherent plan of action that includes a ban or limits on Islamic immigration is immediately demonized as a right-wing fanatic or a fascist. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, that you have a multi-million Islamic diaspora in Europe which is not assimilating, which refuses even to accept a code of conduct of the host population, the reaction is always the same: blame the victim, and demonize those who try to articulate some form of resistance.

FPR: Dr. Trifkovic, how does a country such as ours, the United States, fix this problem . . .

ST: The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. In both cases we have a committed, highly motivated group of people who want to effect a fundamental transformation of the United States in a way that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, to the American way of life, and to the American values. It is time to stop the Islamists from hiding behind the "freedom of religion" mantra. What they are seeking is not some "freedom of religion" but the freedom to organize in order to pursue political subversion. They do not accept the U.S. Constitution.

To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. I happen to know the oath because I am myself a naturalized U.S. citizen. They can do it "in good faith" from their point of view by practicing taqqiya . This is the Arab word for the art of dissimulation, when the Muslim lies to the infidel in order to protect the faith. For them to lie to investigators or to immigration officials about their beliefs and their objectives does not create any conflict of conscience. The prophet of Islam himself has mandated the use of taqqiya if it serves the objective of spreading the faith.

FPR: Can a civil war come out of this? Is it conceivable?

ST: If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. I do not believe that there will be many people fighting on the side of the multiculturalists' suicide, but nevertheless we still have very effective forces of coercion and control on the government side which can be deployed to prevent the articulation of any long-term, coherent plan of resistance.

FPR: Where can people continue to read you writings, Dr. Trifkovic?

ST: On Chroniclesmagazine.org where I publish weekly online commentaries, and also in the print edition of Chronicles where I have my regular column.

[Dec 03, 2017] Is Washington the Most Corrupt Government in History by Paul Craig Roberts

Looks like the credibility of the US establishment might collapse under weight of all lies that it perpetuated.
Americans and Russians should be natural partners in a multipolar world to widespread benefit. The current situation dominated by neo-McCarthyism witch hunt is tragic. Looks like the current neoliberal elite is truly evil, so there is not much hope for a change there. The American people are overall decent and generous, but their abysmal lack of (or even interest) in history and ignorance of the current events might be their undoing, I'm afraid.
Notable quotes:
"... The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public's head. ..."
Dec 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI who is working as a special prosecutor "investigating" a contrived hoax designed by the military/security complex and the DNC to destroy the Trump presidency, has yet to produce a scrap of evidence that Russiagate is anything but orchestrated fake news. As William Binney and other top experts have said, if there is evidence of Russiagate, the NSA would have it. No investigation would be necessary. So where is the evidence?

It is a revelation of how corrupt Washington is that a fake scandal is being investigated while a real scandal is not. The fake scandal is Trump's Russiagate. The real scandal is Hillary Clinton's uranium sale to Russia. No evidence for the former exists. Voluminous evidence for Hillary's scandal lies in plain view. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html

Why are the clearly false charges against Trump being investigated and the clearly true charges against Hillary not being investigated? The answer is that Hillary with her hostility toward Russia and her denunciation of Russian President Putin as the "New Hitler" is not a threat to the budget and power of the US military/security complex, while Trump's aim of normalizing relations with Russia would deprive the military/security complex of the "enemy" it requires to justify its massive budget and power.

Why hasn't President Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate Hillary? Is the answer that Trump is afraid the military/security complex will assassinate him? Why hasn't the Justice Department undertaken the investigation on its own? Is the answer that Trump's government is allied with his enemies?

How corrupt does Mueller have to be to agree to lead a fake investigation designed to overthrow the democratic election of the President of the United States? Why doesn't Trump have Mueller and Comey arrested for sedition and conspiring to overthrow the president of the United States?

Why instead is Mueller expanding his investigation beyond his mandate and bringing charges against Manafort and others for decade-old under-reporting of income? Why instead is Congress harassing journalist Randy Credico for interviewing Julian Assange? How does an interview become part of the House Intelligence (sic) Committee's investigation into "Russian active measures directed at the 2016 U.S. election?" There were no such active measures, but the uranium sale was real.

Why haven't the media conglomerates that have produced presstitutes instead of journalists been broken up? Why can presstitutes lie 24/7, but a man can't make a pass at a woman?

Once you begin asking questions, there is no end of them.

The failure of the US and European media is extreme.

The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public's head.

Consider, for example, the Obama regime's claim to have murdered Osama bin Laden in his "compound" in Abbottabad, Pakistan, next to a Pakistani military base. The official story had to be changed several times. The Obama regime claim that Obama and top government officials had watched the raid via cameras on the SEALs' helmets had to be abandoned. There was no reason to withhold the filmed evidence, and of course there was no such evidence, so the initial claim to have watched the killing became a "miscommunication." The staged photo of the top government officials watching the alleged live filming was never explained. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html

The entire story never made any sense: Osama, unarmed and defended only by his unarmed wife, was murdered in cold blood by a SEAL. What in the world for? Why murder rather than capture the "terrorist mastermind" from whom endless information could have been gained? Why forgo the political fanfare of parading Osama bin Laden before the world as a captive of the American superpower?

Why were no photographs taken? Why was Osama's body dumped in the ocean. In other words, why was all the evidence destroyed and nothing saved to back up the story?

Why the fake story of Osama being given a sea burial from an aircraft carrier? Why was no media interested that the ship's crew wrote home that no such burial took place?

Why was there no presstitute interest in the fact that the SEAL unit, from which the SEALs on the alleged raid on bin Laden's compound were drawn, was loaded against regulations in one 50-year old Vietnam era helicopter and shot down in Afghanistan, with all lives lost? Why was there no presstitute interest in the parents of the SEALs complaints about inappropriate procedures that cost their sons' lives and about fears expressed to them by sons that something was wrong and they felt endangered? http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/navy-seals-father-obama-sent-my-son-to-his-death/
and https://www.military1.com/navy/article/403494-navy-seals-parents-sue-biden-panetta-over-sons-deaths/ and http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/families-of-seal-team-6-to-reveal-why-they-think-the-govt-is-as-much-responsible-for-the-death-of-their-sons-as-the-taliban

Did the SEAL unit have to be wiped out because the members were asking one another, "who was on that raid?" "Were you on the bin Laden raid?" When in fact no one was on the raid.

Why wasn't Congress interested?

Why was the live Pakistani TV interview with an eye witness of the alleged raid on bin Laden's compound not reported in the US media? The witness contradicted every aspect of the official story. And this was immediately after the event. There was no time for anyone to concoct an elaborate counter-story or motive to do so. Here is the interview: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/11/15/pakistan-samaa-tv-interview-eyewitness-alleged-osama-bin-laden-killing/ and here is a verified translation that confirms the accuracy of the English subscripts: https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Pakistan-TV-Report-Contrad-by-paul-craig-roberts-110806-879.html

Osama bin Laden had been dead for a decade prior to the false claim that Navy SEALs murdered him in Pakistan in May 2011. Here are the obituraries from December 2001: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/11/20/bin-ladens-obituary-notice/ and this one from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/12/26/report-bin-laden-already-dead.html

Here is bin Laden's last confirmed interview. He says he had nothing to do with 9/11. Why would a terrorist leader who succeed in humiliating "the world's only superpower" fail to boost his movement by claiming credit?
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/

See also:

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/11/07/another-fake-bin-laden-story-paul-craig-roberts/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-orders-purge-of-osama-bin-ladens-death-files-from-data-bank/5342055

http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2013/334-int-32

https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Creating-Evidence-Where-Th-by-paul-craig-roberts-110805-618.html

https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Pakistan-TV-Report-Contrad

Think about this. The bin Laden story, including 9/11, is fake from start to finish, but it is inscribed into encyclopedias, history books, and the public's consciousness.

And this is just one example of the institutionalized mass lies concocted by Washington and the presstitutes and turned into truth. Washington's self-serving control over explanations has removed Americans from reality and made them slaves to fake news.

So, how does democracy function when voters have no reliable information and, instead, are led into the agendas of the rulers by orchestrated events and fake news?

Where is there any evidence that the United States is a functioning democracy?

[Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast

Highly recommended!
It's interesting to reread this two years article by
Here is an extremely shred observation: "I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us." ..."
"... the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East. ..."
"... the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us." ..."
"... Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991? ..."
"... The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe. ..."
"... Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States. ..."
"... I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster. ..."
"... "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." ..."
"... the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl. ..."
"... In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ½-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome: ..."
"... In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad. ..."
"... "The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview . "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ..."
"... In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said. ..."
"... That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out. ..."
"... As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress. ..."
"... Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. ..."
"... Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam? ..."
Apr 15, 2015 | antiwar.com
Former Washington insider and four-star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans several years ago on how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us."

As I recently reviewed a YouTube eight-minute clip of General Clark's October 2007 speech, what leaped out at me was that the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East.

While Clark's public exposι largely escaped attention in the neocon-friendly "mainstream media" (surprise, surprise!), he recounted being told by a senior general at the Pentagon shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 about the Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz-led plan for "regime change" in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

This was startling enough, I grant you, since officially the United States presents itself as a nation that respects international law, frowns upon other powerful nations overthrowing the governments of weaker states, and – in the aftermath of World War II – condemned past aggressions by Nazi Germany and decried Soviet "subversion" of pro-U.S. nations.

But what caught my eye this time was the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us."

That remark directly addresses a question that has troubled me since March 2003 when George W. Bush attacked Iraq. Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991?

The question is not an idle one. Despite the debacle in Iraq and elsewhere, the neocon "crazies" still exercise huge influence in Establishment Washington. Thus, the question now becomes whether, with Russia far more stable and much stronger, the "crazies" are prepared to risk military escalation with Russia over Ukraine, what retired U.S. diplomat William R. Polk deemed a potentially dangerous nuclear confrontation, a "Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse."

Putin's Comment

The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe.

But, commenting two years after the Iraq invasion, Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States.

If one takes a step back and attempts an unbiased look at the spread of violence in the Middle East over the past quarter-century, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Putin's comment was on the mark. With Russia a much-weakened military power in the 1990s and early 2000s, there was nothing to deter U.S. policymakers from the kind of adventurism at Russia's soft underbelly that, in earlier years, would have carried considerable risk of armed U.S.-USSR confrontation.

I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.

Visiting Wolfowitz

In his 2007 speech, General Clark related how in early 1991 he dropped in on Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (and later, from 2001 to 2005, Deputy Secretary of Defense). It was just after a major Shia uprising in Iraq in March 1991. President George H.W. Bush's administration had provoked it, but then did nothing to rescue the Shia from brutal retaliation by Saddam Hussein, who had just survived his Persian Gulf defeat.

According to Clark, Wolfowitz said: "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."

It's now been more than 10 years, of course. But do not be deceived into thinking Wolfowitz and his neocon colleagues believe they have failed in any major way. The unrest they initiated keeps mounting – in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon – not to mention fresh violence now in full swing in Yemen and the crisis in Ukraine. Yet, the Teflon coating painted on the neocons continues to cover and protect them in the "mainstream media."

True, one neocon disappointment is Iran. It is more stable and less isolated than before; it is playing a sophisticated role in Iraq; and it is on the verge of concluding a major nuclear agreement with the West – barring the throwing of a neocon/Israeli monkey wrench into the works to thwart it, as has been done in the past.

An earlier setback for the neocons came at the end of August 2013 when President Barack Obama decided not to let himself be mouse-trapped by the neocons into ordering U.S. forces to attack Syria. Wolfowitz et al. were on the threshold of having the U.S. formally join the war against Bashar al-Assad's government of Syria when there was the proverbial slip between cup and lip. With the aid of the neocons' new devil-incarnate Vladimir Putin, Obama faced them down and avoided war.

A week after it became clear that the neocons were not going to get their war in Syria, I found myself at the main CNN studio in Washington together with Paul Wolfowitz and former Sen. Joe Lieberman, another important neocon. As I reported in "How War on Syria Lost Its Way," the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl.

Israeli/Neocon Preferences

But the neocons are nothing if not resilient. Despite their grotesque disasters, like the Iraq War, and their disappointments, like not getting their war on Syria, they neither learn lessons nor change goals. They just readjust their aim, shooting now at Putin over Ukraine as a way to clear the path again for "regime change" in Syria and Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]

The neocons also can take some solace from their "success" at enflaming the Middle East with Shia and Sunni now at each other's throats – a bad thing for many people of the world and certainly for the many innocent victims in the region, but not so bad for the neocons. After all, it is the view of Israeli leaders and their neocon bedfellows (and women) that the internecine wars among Muslims provide at least some short-term advantages for Israel as it consolidates control over the Palestinian West Bank.

In a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity memorandum for President Obama on Sept. 6, 2013, we called attention to an uncommonly candid report about Israeli/neocon motivation, written by none other than the Israel-friendly New York Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem Jodi Rudoren on Sept. 2, 2013, just two days after Obama took advantage of Putin's success in persuading the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons to be destroyed and called off the planned attack on Syria, causing consternation among neocons in Washington.

Rudoren can perhaps be excused for her naοve lack of "political correctness." She had been barely a year on the job, had very little prior experience with reporting on the Middle East, and – in the excitement about the almost-attack on Syria – she apparently forgot the strictures normally imposed on the Times' reporting from Jerusalem. In any case, Israel's priorities became crystal clear in what Rudoren wrote.

In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ½-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome:

"For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad's government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

"'This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don't want one to win - we'll settle for a tie,' said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. 'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"

Clear enough? If this is the way Israel's leaders continue to regard the situation in Syria, then they look on deeper U.S. involvement – overt or covert – as likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict there. The longer Sunni and Shia are killing each other, not only in Syria but also across the region as a whole, the safer Tel Aviv's leaders calculate Israel is.

Favoring Jihadis

But Israeli leaders have also made clear that if one side must win, they would prefer the Sunni side, despite its bloody extremists from Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad.

"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said.

Netanyahu sounded a similar theme in his March 3, 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he trivialized the threat from the Islamic State with its "butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube" when compared to Iran, which he accused of "gobbling up the nations" of the Middle East.

That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out.

As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress.

Corker Uncorked

Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.

Corker complained, "In essence – I'm sorry to be slightly rhetorical – we jumped into Putin's lap." A big No-No, of course – especially in Congress – to "jump into Putin's lap" even though Obama was able to achieve the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons without the United States jumping into another Middle East war.

It would have been nice, of course, if General Clark had thought to share his inside-Pentagon information earlier with the rest of us. In no way should he be seen as a whistleblower.

At the time of his September 2007 speech, he was deep into his quixotic attempt to win the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. In other words, Clark broke the omerta code of silence observed by virtually all U.S. generals, even post-retirement, merely to put some distance between himself and the debacle in Iraq – and win some favor among anti-war Democrats. It didn't work, so he endorsed Hillary Clinton; that didn't work, so he endorsed Barack Obama.

Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam?"

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

Reprinted with permission from Consortium News.

[Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura

Highly recommended!
The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite. If you look at the role of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
Notable quotes:
"... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
"... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
"... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
"... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
"... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
"... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
"... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
"... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | www.amazon.com

True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser counterparts around the world.

Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.

This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers."

The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt has done so for many, many centuries.

... ... ...

From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of the government or private life they were connected.

This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.

Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?

... ... ...

Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out, go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject defeat for the other.

Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the Gulf War in Iraq.

... ... ...

This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment.

One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.

This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders.

The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.

It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.

Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.

The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist.

Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3

[Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

Highly recommended!
Heritage Foundation is just a neocon swamp filled with "national security parasites". What you can expect from them ?
Notable quotes:
"... A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." ..."
"... These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. ..."
"... No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative." ..."
Nov 30, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
According to recent reports the Heritage Foundation, clearly the most established and many would say politically influential conservative think tank in Washington, is considering David Trulio, Lockheed Martin vice president and longtime lobbyist for the defense industry, to be its next president. While Heritage's connection to Washington's sprawling national security industry is already well-established, naming Trulio as its president might be seen as gilding the lily.

If anything, reading this report made me more aware of the degree to which the "conservative policy community" in Washington depends on the whims and interests of particular donors.

And this relationship is apparently no longer something to be concealed or embarrassed by. One can now be open about being in the pocket of the defense industry. Trulio's potential elevation to Heritage president at what we can assume will be an astronomical salary, will no doubt grease the already well-oiled pipeline of funds from major contractors to this "conservative" foundation, which already operates with an annual disclosed budget of almost $100 million.

A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." In 2011, senior national security fellow James Carafano wrote " Five Steps to Defend America's Industrial Defense Base ," which complained about a "fifty billion dollar under-procurement by the Pentagon" for buying new weaponry. In 2016, Heritage made the case for several years of reinvestment to get the military back on "sound footing," with an increase in fiscal year 2016 described as "an encouraging start."

These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. Incidentally, the 2009 position paper seems to be directing the government to throw more taxpayer dollars to Boeing than to its competitor Lockheed. But it seems both defense giants have landed a joint contract this year to produce a new submersible for the Navy, so it may no longer be necessary to pick sides on that one at least. No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding.

Although one needn't reduce everything to dollars and cents, if we're looking at the issues Heritage and other likeminded foundations are likely to push today, it's far more probable they'll be emphasizing the national security state rather than, say, opposition to gay marriage or the defense of traditional gender roles. There's lots more money to be made advocating for the former rather than the latter. In May 2013, Heritage sponsored a formal debate between "two conservatives" and "two liberals" on the issue of defense spending, with Heritage and National Review presenting the "conservative" side. I wondered as I listened to part of this verbal battle why is was considered "conservative" to call for burdening American taxpayers with massive increases in the purchase of Pentagon weaponry and planes that take 17 years to get off the ground.

Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative."

In any event, Mr. Trulio won't have to travel far if he takes the Heritage helm. He and his corporation are already ensconced only a few miles away from Heritage's Massachusetts Avenue headquarters, if the information provided by Lockheed Martin is correct. It says: "Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 98,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services." A company like that can certainly afford to underwrite a think tank -- if the price is right.

Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for twenty-five years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents . His books have been translated into multiple languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.

[Nov 30, 2017] The US Aristocracy's Smear-Russia Campaign Big Brother At Work

The USA has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"
Notable quotes:
"... These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick, and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire. ..."
Nov 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Billionaires, both liberal and conservative ones, own, and their corporations advertise in and their 'charities' donate to, America's mainstream (and also many 'alternative news') media.

They do this not so as to profit directly from the national 'news'media (a money-losing business, in itself), but so as to control the 'news' that the voting public (right and left) are exposed to and thus will accept as being "mainstream" and will reject all else as being "fringe" or even 'fake news', even if what's actually fake is, in fact, the billionaires' own mainstream 'news', such as their 'news'media had most famously 'reported' about 'Saddam's WMD' (but the'news'media never changed after that scandal -- even after having pumped uncritically that blatant lie to the public).

Have America's numerous foreign coups and outright military invasions (including Iraq 2003) been the result of fake-news that was published by the mainstream 'news'media, or only by some of the 'alternative news' sites that mirror what the mainstream ones have been 'reporting' (passing along the Government's lies just like the mainstream ones do)? Obviously, the catastrophic fake news -- the fake news that 'justified' America's invading and destroying Iraq, Libya, and many other countries -- was all published in the mainstream 'news'media. That's where to go for the really dangerous lies: it's the mainstream 'news'media. If those media, and their Government (whose lies they stenographically report to the public) will now censor the Internet, such as is increasingly happening not only in the US but in its allies including the European Union , then the only 'information' that the public will have access to, at all, will be the billionaires' lies. Have we already almost reached 1984 , finally, in 2017?

Two typical examples of this coordinated mass-deception-operation happened to be showing at the top of the magazine-pile at an office recently and struck my attention there, because of the ordinariness of the propaganda that was being pumped.

One of them was the cover of TIME magazine, dated "July 24, 2017" and with the cover headlined "RED HANDED: The Russia Scandal Hits Home" , overprinting onto the face of Donald Trump Jr., as their menacing-looking cover-image. That cover-story, as published inside, was titled "How Donald Trump Jr.'s Emails Have Cranked Up the Heat on His Family" , and it used such phrases as "potentially treasonous" and "Russia is the one country that could physically destroy America" (as if it weren't also the case that US is the one country that could physically destroy Russia, and very much the case also that possession of the weaponry isn't any indication of being evil, such as this particular propagandist was implicitly assuming). Hillary Clinton's V.P. running-mate was reported to be "saying that these fresh revelations move the Russia investigation into the realms of 'perjury, false statements and even, potentially, treason.'"

These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick, and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire.

The other example was the cover of The New Republic magazine, dated "December 2017" and it simply headlined in its center, "HOW TO ATTACK A DEMOCRACY ", and the opening page of the article inside was bannered "WEAKEN FROM WITHIN" and below that in the printed edition (the December physical issue of the magazine) was:

"Russian manipulation of American social media in the 2016 presidential election took the United States by surprise. But Moscow has been honing an information-age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can these societies protect themselves?"

The online version of that article (which was dated 2 November 2017) opened almost the same: "Moscow has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"

The unspoken assumption in this article is that the US CIA hasn't been doing the same thing -- and doing it even worse than the old (and thankfully expired) KGB ever did. (And the CIA, even after the end of communism as its supposed enemy until 1991, still does far worse to other countries than Russia's FSB does or ever did.)

Underlying both the TIME article and the TNR article are unstated speculations about the American situation, which are based upon thin facts such as that "at least $100,000 in ads purchased through 470 phony Facebook pages and accounts" were "using Facebook to incite anti-black hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice and fear while provoking extremism" , and that supposedly somehow (they never say how) such puny expenses threw the multi-billion-dollar 2017 US Presidential election to Trump. How is a case such as that, to be viewed by an intelligent reader as constituting anything but propaganda for the weapons-making firms such as Lockheed Martin, who benefit from such international anti-Russia hate-spewing to NATO countries, which are those firms' major markets (other than Saudi Arabia, and the other fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms that together constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council or "GCC" nations, which hate Shiite Iran as much as the US regime hates Russia)?

Also among the underlying and unstated speculations in the background here is the older mass-media allegation about Russia's allegedly having spied and swayed the US election by 'hacking' it, which is likewise being pumped by Democrats and other opponents of Mr. Trump, alleging that 'Russia hacked the election' .

And, so, for an example of the flimsiness of those allegations, one of the two main 'authorities' who are the source of that, the Bush and Obama Administration's James Clapper, was headlined at Politico on 7 July 2017, "Clapper: No evidence others besides Russia hacked US election" . Mr. Clapper happens to be a military-industrial-complex revolving-door 'intelligence' 'professional' whom, on 10 February 2011, even Politico was reporting to be "backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement 'largely secular'," and who had also covered-up George W. Bush's lies about 'WMD in Iraq' so as to protect the liars. On 29 October 2003, the New York Times stenographically passed along his deception about the non-existent WMD by headlining, "WEAPONS SEARCH; Iraqis Removed Arms Material, US Aide Says" and reported, "The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material 'unquestionably' had been moved out of Iraq." No evidence ever existed that Saddam Hussein still had any WMD after the U.N. monitors (UNSCOM) destroyed the last of them in 1998; but Clapper 'unquestionably' 'knew' to the contrary -- though no evidence was ever made available to the contrary of UNSCOM's reports, and lots of evidence existed that Bush simply lied about the entire matter .

The other main source for the allegation that 'Russia hacked the election' is the Obama Administration's John Brennan, whom Glenn Greenwald exposed as a fraud back on 7 January 2013, headlining "John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination" .

Both of the official 'experts' who are promoting the Russiagate charges, are longtime, and repeatedly, exposed liars - but that's the best they can do, always assuming that the public don't know that these people are propagandists for the military-industrial complex , not real 'public servants' at all.

This isn't to say that Trump isn't also a liar -- just that the 'news' in America is full of conflicting lies -- and that they constantly are coming from the fake 'news'media that are the mainstream ones who are now trying to censor out, and ultimately to obliterate, the few small news-operations (some of which, unlike any of the mainstream ones, actually are good, and authentic journalistic operations, no mere PR hackery) that are constantly exposing the fraudulence of the mainstream ones, which want to impose their dictatorship -- the mainstream lies -- even more rigorously than they already do. After all, the mainstream Western media still haven't yet reported US President Obama's bloody racist-fascist coup that in February 2014 replaced the democratically elected President of Ukraine (and his supporters in the legislature) by a racist-fascist or ideologically nazi regime that's rabidly hostile toward its neighboring nation of Russia . Even now -- nearly four years after the event. It's already solidly documented history , but the mainstream US-and-allied press still hasn't reported it.

The fake-news masters are certainly the mainstream 'news'media themselves - and they, and the billionaires and centi-millionaires who own and control them, are the real megaphones by which the US dictatorship constantly fools the American people (and the publics in its allied nations), to keep in line, for the aristocracy .

VWAndy , Nov 30, 2017 12:07 AM

The lies just keep getting bigger.

Skateboarder -> VWAndy , Nov 30, 2017 12:17 AM

"Us vs. them," the tune for the culling.

Slippery Slope -> Skateboarder , Nov 30, 2017 12:55 AM

Many of the Jewish Oligarchs in Russia and throughout the World, really hate Russia, I think it has to do with the Slavs conquest of the Khazars.

In that Putin rebuilt Russia and stopped them from thieving, irks them all the more.

jeff montanye -> Skateboarder , Nov 30, 2017 1:28 AM

if russia hacked the election why didn't the dnc ask, beg the fbi to examine the dnc email servers and prove it in detail? instead the dnc put forward the highly questionable crowdstrike and guccifer 2.0 materials.

why hasn't evidence from the vaunted national security agency, as shown by snowden to record everything, been presented to demonstrate russian hacking?

how can the fbi still maintain it never investigated the seth rich murder? even if seymour hersh is right and it wasn't connected to rich's very probable theft of dnc email data and its transmission to wikileaks, it certainly could have been and merited checking out. either the fbi is lying or incompetent (or both).

i sent a request to judicial watch (potentially explosive materials about the clinton lynch "tarmac" meeting to be released today) asking them to file freedom of information suits on the first and third paragraphs above. we must break out of the horrible zionist takeover of the u.s. that is explained in detail in chris bollyn's new book and video, the war on terror; the plot to rule the middle east . it is also the plot to rule the u.s.a.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=chris+bollyn+war+on...

07564111 -> jeff montanye , Nov 30, 2017 1:38 AM

US Aristocracy = Joos In Charge

Kassandra -> jeff montanye , Nov 30, 2017 3:55 AM

Good on you.

In these days of internet, where we can actually know (or suspect) what is going on, why do the lies continue? When we all KNOW IT IS ALL A LIE!

Blue Steel 309 -> VWAndy , Nov 30, 2017 12:57 AM

The Soviets collapsed under the weight of their own lies, not the economy or cold war arms race.

We are next. Is this being orchestrated or just part of the sinusoidal process of this civilization?

[Nov 30, 2017] WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every day. ..."
"... Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"... ..."
Nov 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits "No Evidence" Of Trump-Russia Collusion Tyler Durden Nov 29, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES CNN and New York Times , Project Veritas has now set their sights on the Washington Post. In a candid conversation with an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the Post's National Security Director, Adam Entous, put himself in danger of being a bit too honest, at least by his employer's standards, by admitting that "there's no evidence of [Trump-Russia collusion] that I've seen so far." Entous goes on to admit that "it's a fucking crap shoot" and that he has no idea how Mueller's investigation might turn out.

Entous : "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."

PV Journalist : "There has to be something, right?"

Entous "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a fucking black box."

"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion, would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."

"I mean it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..."

Today we show you our second undercover video within @washingtonpost this time exposing Nat'l Security Director Adam Entous who ADMITS that the Russia story is a "f*cking crap shoot" and "maybe it doesn't exist at all." pic.twitter.com/qeEfk9oCKA

-- James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 29, 2017

Of course, on the surface, Entous' opinions are not that explosive and likely mimic the views held by many Americans...namely that despite 1.5 years of investigations no one has presented any actual, tangible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every day.

Like this one...

Or this one if you prefer...

Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"...

...but O'Keefe seemed to not be all that defensive in his response below...which presumably means we'll all be treated to many more undercover stings in the years to come.

MSM want to destroy @Project_Veritas . They see us as their enemy. When we expose them, they are lose their power. We have a stone lodged between Goliath's eyes. They want me to kneel down & apologize. I will not. We will keep pushing, we will expose the truth. - @JamesOKeefeIII pic.twitter.com/vbBVxXtBD6

-- Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) November 29, 2017

Finally, here is the latest Project Veritas video for your viewing pleasure:

greenskeeper carl -> Bernie Madolf , Nov 29, 2017 9:12 PM

Apparently his WaPo thing didn't really work, but they can't all be winners. His exposing of those DNC operatives during the campaign was brilliant. To this day I do not understand why they were allowed to just get fired or resign from all their postings without an indictment.

nope-1004 -> greenskeeper carl , Nov 29, 2017 9:14 PM

Honest on hidden camera, full of shit in the MSM.

So it is with all .gov media outlets.

[Nov 30, 2017] WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion Zero Hedge

Nov 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits "No Evidence" Of Trump-Russia Collusion Tyler Durden Nov 29, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES CNN and New York Times , Project Veritas has now set their sights on the Washington Post. In a candid conversation with an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the Post's National Security Director, Adam Entous, put himself in danger of being a bit too honest, at least by his employer's standards, by admitting that "there's no evidence of [Trump-Russia collusion] that I've seen so far." Entous goes on to admit that "it's a fucking crap shoot" and that he has no idea how Mueller's investigation might turn out.

Entous : "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."

PV Journalist : "There has to be something, right?"

Entous "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a fucking black box."

"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion, would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."

"I mean it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..."

Today we show you our second undercover video within @washingtonpost this time exposing Nat'l Security Director Adam Entous who ADMITS that the Russia story is a "f*cking crap shoot" and "maybe it doesn't exist at all." pic.twitter.com/qeEfk9oCKA

-- James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 29, 2017

Of course, on the surface, Entous' opinions are not that explosive and likely mimic the views held by many Americans...namely that despite 1.5 years of investigations no one has presented any actual, tangible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every day.

Like this one...

Or this one if you prefer...

Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"...

...but O'Keefe seemed to not be all that defensive in his response below...which presumably means we'll all be treated to many more undercover stings in the years to come.

MSM want to destroy @Project_Veritas . They see us as their enemy. When we expose them, they are lose their power. We have a stone lodged between Goliath's eyes. They want me to kneel down & apologize. I will not. We will keep pushing, we will expose the truth. - @JamesOKeefeIII pic.twitter.com/vbBVxXtBD6

-- Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) November 29, 2017

Finally, here is the latest Project Veritas video for your viewing pleasure:

greenskeeper carl -> Bernie Madolf , Nov 29, 2017 9:12 PM

Apparently his WaPo thing didn't really work, but they can't all be winners. His exposing of those DNC operatives during the campaign was brilliant. To this day I do not understand why they were allowed to just get fired or resign from all their postings without an indictment.

nope-1004 -> greenskeeper carl , Nov 29, 2017 9:14 PM

Honest on hidden camera, full of shit in the MSM.

So it is with all .gov media outlets.

[Nov 30, 2017] The US Aristocracy's Smear-Russia Campaign Big Brother At Work

The USA has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"
Nov 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Billionaires, both liberal and conservative ones, own, and their corporations advertise in and their 'charities' donate to, America's mainstream (and also many 'alternative news') media.

They do this not so as to profit directly from the national 'news'media (a money-losing business, in itself), but so as to control the 'news' that the voting public (right and left) are exposed to and thus will accept as being "mainstream" and will reject all else as being "fringe" or even 'fake news', even if what's actually fake is, in fact, the billionaires' own mainstream 'news', such as their 'news'media had most famously 'reported' about 'Saddam's WMD' (but the'news'media never changed after that scandal -- even after having pumped uncritically that blatant lie to the public).

Have America's numerous foreign coups and outright military invasions (including Iraq 2003) been the result of fake-news that was published by the mainstream 'news'media, or only by some of the 'alternative news' sites that mirror what the mainstream ones have been 'reporting' (passing along the Government's lies just like the mainstream ones do)? Obviously, the catastrophic fake news -- the fake news that 'justified' America's invading and destroying Iraq, Libya, and many other countries -- was all published in the mainstream 'news'media. That's where to go for the really dangerous lies: it's the mainstream 'news'media. If those media, and their Government (whose lies they stenographically report to the public) will now censor the Internet, such as is increasingly happening not only in the US but in its allies including the European Union , then the only 'information' that the public will have access to, at all, will be the billionaires' lies. Have we already almost reached 1984 , finally, in 2017?

Two typical examples of this coordinated mass-deception-operation happened to be showing at the top of the magazine-pile at an office recently and struck my attention there, because of the ordinariness of the propaganda that was being pumped.

One of them was the cover of TIME magazine, dated "July 24, 2017" and with the cover headlined "RED HANDED: The Russia Scandal Hits Home" , overprinting onto the face of Donald Trump Jr., as their menacing-looking cover-image. That cover-story, as published inside, was titled "How Donald Trump Jr.'s Emails Have Cranked Up the Heat on His Family" , and it used such phrases as "potentially treasonous" and "Russia is the one country that could physically destroy America" (as if it weren't also the case that US is the one country that could physically destroy Russia, and very much the case also that possession of the weaponry isn't any indication of being evil, such as this particular propagandist was implicitly assuming). Hillary Clinton's V.P. running-mate was reported to be "saying that these fresh revelations move the Russia investigation into the realms of 'perjury, false statements and even, potentially, treason.'"

These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick, and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire.

The other example was the cover of The New Republic magazine, dated "December 2017" and it simply headlined in its center, "HOW TO ATTACK A DEMOCRACY ", and the opening page of the article inside was bannered "WEAKEN FROM WITHIN" and below that in the printed edition (the December physical issue of the magazine) was:

"Russian manipulation of American social media in the 2016 presidential election took the United States by surprise. But Moscow has been honing an information-age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can these societies protect themselves?"

The online version of that article (which was dated 2 November 2017) opened almost the same: "Moscow has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"

The unspoken assumption in this article is that the US CIA hasn't been doing the same thing -- and doing it even worse than the old (and thankfully expired) KGB ever did. (And the CIA, even after the end of communism as its supposed enemy until 1991, still does far worse to other countries than Russia's FSB does or ever did.)

Underlying both the TIME article and the TNR article are unstated speculations about the American situation, which are based upon thin facts such as that "at least $100,000 in ads purchased through 470 phony Facebook pages and accounts" were "using Facebook to incite anti-black hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice and fear while provoking extremism" , and that supposedly somehow (they never say how) such puny expenses threw the multi-billion-dollar 2017 US Presidential election to Trump. How is a case such as that, to be viewed by an intelligent reader as constituting anything but propaganda for the weapons-making firms such as Lockheed Martin, who benefit from such international anti-Russia hate-spewing to NATO countries, which are those firms' major markets (other than Saudi Arabia, and the other fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms that together constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council or "GCC" nations, which hate Shiite Iran as much as the US regime hates Russia)?

Also among the underlying and unstated speculations in the background here is the older mass-media allegation about Russia's allegedly having spied and swayed the US election by 'hacking' it, which is likewise being pumped by Democrats and other opponents of Mr. Trump, alleging that 'Russia hacked the election' .

And, so, for an example of the flimsiness of those allegations, one of the two main 'authorities' who are the source of that, the Bush and Obama Administration's James Clapper, was headlined at Politico on 7 July 2017, "Clapper: No evidence others besides Russia hacked US election" . Mr. Clapper happens to be a military-industrial-complex revolving-door 'intelligence' 'professional' whom, on 10 February 2011, even Politico was reporting to be "backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement 'largely secular'," and who had also covered-up George W. Bush's lies about 'WMD in Iraq' so as to protect the liars. On 29 October 2003, the New York Times stenographically passed along his deception about the non-existent WMD by headlining, "WEAPONS SEARCH; Iraqis Removed Arms Material, US Aide Says" and reported, "The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material 'unquestionably' had been moved out of Iraq." No evidence ever existed that Saddam Hussein still had any WMD after the U.N. monitors (UNSCOM) destroyed the last of them in 1998; but Clapper 'unquestionably' 'knew' to the contrary -- though no evidence was ever made available to the contrary of UNSCOM's reports, and lots of evidence existed that Bush simply lied about the entire matter .

The other main source for the allegation that 'Russia hacked the election' is the Obama Administration's John Brennan, whom Glenn Greenwald exposed as a fraud back on 7 January 2013, headlining "John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination" .

Both of the official 'experts' who are promoting the Russiagate charges, are longtime, and repeatedly, exposed liars - but that's the best they can do, always assuming that the public don't know that these people are propagandists for the military-industrial complex , not real 'public servants' at all.

This isn't to say that Trump isn't also a liar -- just that the 'news' in America is full of conflicting lies -- and that they constantly are coming from the fake 'news'media that are the mainstream ones who are now trying to censor out, and ultimately to obliterate, the few small news-operations (some of which, unlike any of the mainstream ones, actually are good, and authentic journalistic operations, no mere PR hackery) that are constantly exposing the fraudulence of the mainstream ones, which want to impose their dictatorship -- the mainstream lies -- even more rigorously than they already do. After all, the mainstream Western media still haven't yet reported US President Obama's bloody racist-fascist coup that in February 2014 replaced the democratically elected President of Ukraine (and his supporters in the legislature) by a racist-fascist or ideologically nazi regime that's rabidly hostile toward its neighboring nation of Russia . Even now -- nearly four years after the event. It's already solidly documented history , but the mainstream US-and-allied press still hasn't reported it.

The fake-news masters are certainly the mainstream 'news'media themselves - and they, and the billionaires and centi-millionaires who own and control them, are the real megaphones by which the US dictatorship constantly fools the American people (and the publics in its allied nations), to keep in line, for the aristocracy .

VWAndy , Nov 30, 2017 12:07 AM

The lies just keep getting bigger.

Skateboarder -> VWAndy , Nov 30, 2017 12:17 AM

"Us vs. them," the tune for the culling.

Slippery Slope -> Skateboarder , Nov 30, 2017 12:55 AM

Many of the Jewish Oligarchs in Russia and throughout the World, really hate Russia, I think it has to do with the Slavs conquest of the Khazars.

In that Putin rebuilt Russia and stopped them from thieving, irks them all the more.

jeff montanye -> Skateboarder , Nov 30, 2017 1:28 AM

if russia hacked the election why didn't the dnc ask, beg the fbi to examine the dnc email servers and prove it in detail? instead the dnc put forward the highly questionable crowdstrike and guccifer 2.0 materials.

why hasn't evidence from the vaunted national security agency, as shown by snowden to record everything, been presented to demonstrate russian hacking?

how can the fbi still maintain it never investigated the seth rich murder? even if seymour hersh is right and it wasn't connected to rich's very probable theft of dnc email data and its transmission to wikileaks, it certainly could have been and merited checking out. either the fbi is lying or incompetent (or both).

i sent a request to judicial watch (potentially explosive materials about the clinton lynch "tarmac" meeting to be released today) asking them to file freedom of information suits on the first and third paragraphs above. we must break out of the horrible zionist takeover of the u.s. that is explained in detail in chris bollyn's new book and video, the war on terror; the plot to rule the middle east . it is also the plot to rule the u.s.a.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=chris+bollyn+war+on...

07564111 -> jeff montanye , Nov 30, 2017 1:38 AM

US Aristocracy = Joos In Charge

Kassandra -> jeff montanye , Nov 30, 2017 3:55 AM

Good on you.

In these days of internet, where we can actually know (or suspect) what is going on, why do the lies continue? When we all KNOW IT IS ALL A LIE!

Blue Steel 309 -> VWAndy , Nov 30, 2017 12:57 AM

The Soviets collapsed under the weight of their own lies, not the economy or cold war arms race.

We are next. Is this being orchestrated or just part of the sinusoidal process of this civilization?

[Nov 30, 2017] Declassifying the Syrian Jihad CIA vs. the Pentagon

Notable quotes:
"... Brad Hoff is an independent journalist and served as a Marine computer programmer for a headquarters unit at MCB Quantico. He lived in Syria on and off from 2004-2009 as a civilian and currently teaches in Texas. ..."
Nov 30, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

by Brad Hoff Posted on June 28, 2016 June 27, 2016 On a Monday morning in September of 2014 White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stepped out in front of cameras to respond to questions of "intelligence failure" and explained that both the administration and intelligence community were caught completely "surprised" over the shocking and "rapid advance" of ISIS into Iraq over the course of that summer. However, two years prior in August 2012, an intelligence official with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) stationed in Iraq had written an incredibly prescient classified report predicting that out of the Syrian war could emerge "a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime "

It seems the analyst's chief concern, from his or her vantage point in Iraq, was that the international coalition fueling the rebel insurgency across the border in Syria to effect regime change in Damascus could produce a monster capable to devouring large territory. The intelligence report forecast that "ISI [Islamic State in Iraq] could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory."

The memo specifically names Ramadi and Mosul as among the first Iraqi cities to potentially fall victim to what it calls "unifying the jihad" under the banner of an Islamic State . The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) would capture Mosul in June 2014, and in a seemingly unprecedented blitz across Anbar, seize Ramadi on Sunday, May 17, 2015. Ironically, the intelligence report itself would hit public view in heavily redacted form on Monday, May 18, 2015 – just as the world was receiving news of the fall of Ramadi.

Soon after it was written, the 2012 IIR (Intelligence Information Report) landed on the desks of Congressional Intelligence Committee members, but more importantly it would be used to argue policy at the White House – this according to the DoD's chief of military intelligence at the time the memo was produced.

Director of the DIA at the time of the memo's drafting and former Sr. Intelligence Officer for JSOC, Michael Flynn, has repeatedly affirmed the report's accuracy in public statements. But now for the first time a CIA perspective has been offered: former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell recently took to Politico to weigh in on controversy surrounding the now declassified 2012 memo which further warned that "the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria" and that "the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition."

Ex-CIA #2 Morell contradicts Flynn's account of the intelligence report, writing that "it was simply wrong in its facts when it indicated that the West was supporting extremists in Syria." Morell wants you to take his word for it: "The administration went to great lengths to ensure that any aid provided by the United States to the opposition would not fall into the hands of extremists, including the Islamic State and Al Qaeda." Morell adds his voice and insider credentials to a chorus of others assuring the public that Trump is spouting debunked conspiracy theories in claiming the memo points to Obama and Hillary "support" for ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria.

While Trump mustered this document to back his usually bizarre and hyper-sensationalized rhetoric on President Obama's supposed ideological sympathies with Islamic extremism, the DIA document itself is quite substantive and worthy of public scrutiny and debate. Middle East analysts and academics have been discussing the document for the past year since its court-ordered declassification through FOIA , though it has remained largely outside of US media's notice until recently.

The Washington Post's commentary, apparently uninformed of the history of reporting and analysis of the 2012 memo, refers to it as "relatively unimportant" and as mere "routine headquarters analysis" in spite of the publicly available confirmation that the terms by which it was obtained through FOIA reflect that it was used to brief Congressional Intelligence Committee leaders.

But Morell has paid closer attention and knows the more significant context the Post left out, which is perhaps why he takes the unusual step in writing an entire editorial to ensure the public stays away from the "conspiracy" reading of the text. He is well aware that within three months of the document's declassification, Lieutenant General Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, appeared on Al Jazeera and confirmed not only that the report had risen to his agency's highest office, but that he used it to argue policy at the White House. According to Morell:

"The conspiracy theory got another boost when several news outlets reported on an interview that Mike Flynn, the director of the DIA from 2012 to 2014, gave to Al Jazeera in August 2015. The media reported that Flynn said it was a 'willful decision' by the administration to support extremists in Syria. Flynn's seniority and his interview as reported by the media gave the conspiracy theory credibility."

Morell elsewhere references "national security-related blogs," which may be an indirect reference to my own August 2015 article , which could have caught his eye after WikiLeaks posted it on its media accounts , or after Glenn Greenwald cited it in an article defending Edward Snowden against intelligence officials' charge that his leaks had aided ISIS (Morell in particular had been very vocal on this charge after the Paris attacks).

Flynn appeared on Mehdi Hasan's Head to Head to tackle of topic of "Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL?" soon after the DIA memo was featured in an explosive article in The Guardian (UK) which went viral, and immediately on the heels of a lengthy London Review of Books history of the Syrian conflict authored by the world's foremost expert in modern Algeria and its Islamist movements, Hugh Roberts.

While Middle East pundit Juan Cole previously downplayed the document's importance, Roberts gave it lengthy commentary and affirmed that "The document not only anticipates the rise of IS but seems to suggest it would be a desirable development from the point of view of the international 'coalition' seeking regime change in Damascus."

Roberts seemed to anticipate the two extreme poles around which the intelligence report would be interpreted: on one side are the conspiracists who see evidence of the West's direct and ongoing support of ISIS to sow chaos in Syria, and on the other are those who say it's a low-level IIR (Intelligence Information Report) which is of no importance.

This is precisely the false dichotomy which Morell and the Washington Post present – no doubt the inevitable result of a somewhat complex intelligence report entering partisan presidential politics (and of course just old fashion CIA lying and obfuscation).

Hugh Roberts, however, accurately places the memo in its nuanced historical context:

"In the middle, showing more respect for the DIA, we could imagine something else: the possibility that, in 2012, American and other Western intelligence services saw Isis much as they saw Jabhat al-Nusra and other jihadi groups, as useful auxiliaries in the anti-Assad drive, and could envisage its takeover of northeastern Syria as a helpful development with no worrying implications."

This is precisely both what Flynn confirms in his interview and what actually happened on the ground in Syria. The former CIA Deputy Director is certainly correct when he says, "It is actually worth watching the interview," but the wealth of context given in the five minute segment on the DIA memo should allow any observer to see that Morell is wrong in his interpretation: "When I watched it, I did not see Flynn agree with the interviewer's assertion that the United States was deliberately supporting extremists."

Though a tough interview segment , Flynn did not object to Hasan, who held up a physical copy of the report as the two spoke, but instead confirmed Hasan's reading of the intelligence document:

Hasan: In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?

Flynn: I hate to say it's not my job but that my job was to was to to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be.

Flynn would later tell the New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in particular was seen at the White House where it was "disregarded" because it "didn't meet the narrative" on the war in Syria. He would further confirm to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that DOD officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly warning the administration that jihadists were leading the opposition in Syria – warnings which were met with "enormous pushback." Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments, General Flynn explained to Hersh that "If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic." Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria.

In a personal exchange on his blog Sic Semper Tyrannis , legendary DOD intelligence officer and former presidential briefer Pat Lang explained to me that the DIA memo was used as a "warning shot across the [administration's] bow." Lang has elsewhere stated that DIA Director Flynn had "tried to persuade people in the Obama Administration not to provide assistance to the Nusra group." It must be remembered that in 2012 what would eventually emerge as distinct "ISIS" and "Nusra" (AQ in Syria) groups was at that time a singular entity desiring a unified "Islamic State." The nascent ISIS organization (referenced in the memo as 'ISI' or Islamic State in Iraq) was still one among many insurgent groups fighting to topple Assad.

In fact, only one year after the DIA memo was produced (dated August 12, 2012) a coalition of rebels fighting under the US-backed Revolutionary Military Council of Aleppo were busy celebrating their most strategic victory to date, which served to open an opposition corridor in Northern Syria. The seizure of the Syrian government's Menagh Airbase in August 2013 was only accomplished with the military prowess of fighters identifying themselves in front of cameras and to reporters on the ground as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham .

Public embarrassment came for Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford who reluctantly confirmed that in fact, yes, the US-funded and supplied FSA commander on the ground had personally led ISIS and Nusra fighters in the attack (Ford himself was previously filmed alongside the commander). This after the New York Times publicized unambiguous video proof of the fact. Even the future high commander of Islamic State's military operations, Omar al-Shishani, himself played a leading role in the US sponsored FSA operation. Al Jazeera and rebel video footage with translations authenticated by the top Syria expert in the US, Joshua Landis, can be viewed here .

The Washington Post's interpretation of the DIA memo which includes the assertion that the "Obama administration, in fact, drew sharp distinctions between the rebel groups" naively glosses over the messier realities on the ground in Syria. Abstractions of the Situation Room are one thing, but as Brookings Institution scholar Charles Lister confirms in his latest book, The Syrian Jihad , ISIS largely made its military debut in Syria in 2013 in the context of a US backed operation: "And despite some contentious debate over whether the FSA or jihadists had been responsible for the victory, the then head of Aleppo's opposition Military Council, Colonel 'Abd al-Jabbar al-Okaidi, confirmed that '[ISIS] took the lead in taking over the airport. This group [is] a reality on the ground.'" (Charles Lister has elsewhere revealed that US advisors assisted the Al-Qaeda linked "Army of Conquest" in its 2015 takeover of Idlib from an "operations room" in Turkey.)

In spite of what Flynn calls a steady stream of accurate intelligence detailing the Al-Qaeda aligned nature of the opposition and its aim of establishing a "Salafist principality" or "an Islamic State" (DIA memo), a CIA program to arm the Syrian opposition moved forward anyway (the New York Times reports that the CIA program began in early 2012).

Michael Morell himself recently acknowledged to NPR that "all of the weapons that were available led to the rise of ISIS." But contrary to the guiding assumption of the NPR segment (that the intelligence community had failed to predict the rise of IS), the DIA memo and related testimony proves the IC knew exactly what would emerge, and that the White House was given this knowledge far in advance, yet proceeded in weapons delivery anyway.

Vice President Joe Biden, in extraordinarily candid remarks about internal White House deliberations given in front of a Harvard audience, explained in October 2014 that while the external powers supporting the opposition (Biden specifically identified US allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others) were claiming to support moderates, in actuality "the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements coming from other parts of the world." This was indeed, as Michael Flynn says, a "willful decision" as the intelligence "was very clear" and yet the White House proceeded in partnering with its "allies" in covert support of these groups anyway.

No responsible commentary on the DIA memo suggests that this means administration advisors were sitting around openly talking about how to empower ISIS, but this was certainly the end result of a CIA program born of calculation that a militarized Sunni movement could prove useful in rolling back both the Assad government and what the DIA memo calls "Shia expansion." Even the US's closest Middle East ally, Israel, routinely reflects in the policy statements of some current and former officials a strategic vision that sees ISIS as the lesser evil when compared to Assad and Iran.

Michael Morell himself confirmed in a 2015 Jerusalem Post interview that Israel cooperates with Syrian Al-Qaeda (Nusra) along the Golan border and took the opportunity to warn Israel with the following unambiguous words: "don't make deals with them." Most recently in Washington it's been former CIA Director David Petraeus strongly advocating for the direct arming and training of Al-Qaeda in Syria to effect the West's policies in the region.

No doubt Morell would likely emphasize that ISIS and other terror groups got their hands on US weapons primarily left behind in Iraq. Administration officials have consistently downplayed what the Washington Post reported in 2015 (based on Snowden documents) to be a secret weapons shipment program that is "one the agency's largest covert operations, with a budget approaching $1 billion a year" (1/15 th of the CIA's total budget according to the leaked documents). For Morell and others such a covert program signifies restraint and dovishness in a beltway environment where the prevailing culture is oriented towards overt war as always being "on the table."

For ISIS and others these US and coalition supplied weapons became, in the words of former MI6 spy and British diplomat Alastair Crooke, the basis of a "jihadi Wal-Mart" of sorts. The CIA had never been in the dark as to this reality, but officials like Michael Morell can hide behind plausible deniability as Crooke notes, "The West does not actually hand the weapons to al-Qaida – let alone to ISIS , but the system they've constructed leads precisely to that end." Indeed, independent weapons research organizations like the UK-based Conflict Armament Research have gone so far as to trace the origins of Croatian antitank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to the joint CIA/Saudi covert program via identifiable serial numbers.

It must be remembered that low level and less well connected American citizens have been arrested and put into solitary confinement under US anti-terror laws for entering Syria to fight with FSA and al-Qaeda factions. Yet Michael Morell and others were the very overseers of a covert program which resulted in the arming and equipping of these very groups.

Trump is surely right about one thing: this administration, including the CIA and Michael Morell himself, has a lot to answer for concerning covert action in Syria.

Brad Hoff is an independent journalist and served as a Marine computer programmer for a headquarters unit at MCB Quantico. He lived in Syria on and off from 2004-2009 as a civilian and currently teaches in Texas.

Reprinted with permission from Levantreport.com .

[Nov 29, 2017] Trumps Saudi Scheme Unravels

Notable quotes:
"... bin Salman is still so new it is impossible to get much of a read on him. Mind you, when you are the consequence-free press, you can just go off and rewrite history to your liking. ..."
Nov 29, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , November 28, 2017 at 4:01 am

Consortium News via Sic Semper Tyrannis: Trump's Saudi Scheme Unravels https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/17/trumps-saudi-scheme-unravels/

President Trump and his son-in-law bet that the young Saudi crown prince could execute a plan to reshape the Mideast, but the scheme quickly unraveled revealing a dangerous amateur hour, writes ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke.

By Alastair Crooke

Aaron Miller and Richard Sokolsky, writing in Foreign Policy, suggest "that Mohammed bin Salman's most notable success abroad may well be the wooing and capture of President Donald Trump, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner." Indeed, it is possible that this "success" may prove to be MbS' only success.

"It didn't take much convincing", Miller and Sokolski wrote: "Above all, the new bromance reflected a timely coincidence of strategic imperatives."

Trump, as ever, was eager to distance himself from President Obama and all his works; the Saudis, meanwhile, were determined to exploit Trump's visceral antipathy for Iran – in order to reverse the string of recent defeats suffered by the kingdom .
####

More at the link.

marknesop , , November 28, 2017 at 10:55 am
President Obama and all his works .what might those be? The American establishment so loathes Trump that it cannot wait to get its digs in, resulting in the retroactive canonization of the mostly-useless Obama, and ignoring his waste of his entire first term trying to achieve 'bipartisanship'.

Meanwhile, because Trump has not whipped the new Saudi front end into shape in five minutes, he's an idiot.

Well, he is; no use disputing that, but bin Salman is still so new it is impossible to get much of a read on him. Mind you, when you are the consequence-free press, you can just go off and rewrite history to your liking.

[Nov 29, 2017] Brennan and Clapper Elder Statesmen or Serial Fabricators by Mike Whitney

Brennan is probably one of the key figures in color revolution against Trump that was launched after the elections...
Looks like both Brennan and Clapper suffer from the acute case of Anti-Russian paranoia along with Full Spectrum Dominance hallucinations.
Notable quotes:
"... In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign. ..."
"... The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations ..."
"... So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions? ..."
"... There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact." ..."
"... Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria. ..."
"... In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." . ..."
"... Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News) ..."
"... So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it? ..."
"... Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program ..."
"... So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA ..."
"... As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say. ..."
"... From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper. ..."
"... Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen. ..."
"... What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons. ..."
"... Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. ..."
"... Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it. ..."
"... Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this? ..."
"... As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. ..."
Nov 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

Mike Whitney November 17, 2017

On Sunday, Former CIA Director John Brennan and Former National Intelligence Director (NID) James Clapper appeared on CNN's morning talk show, State of the Union, to discuss Donald Trump's brief meeting with Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. The two ex-Intel chiefs were sharply critical of Trump and wondered why the president did not "not acknowledge and embrace" the idea that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. According to Brennan, Russia not only "poses a national security problem" for the US, but also "Putin is committed to undermining our system, our democracy, and our whole process."

Naturally, CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, never challenged Brennan or Clapper on any of the many claims they made regarding Russia nor did he interrupt either man while they made, what appeared to be, carefully scripted remarks about Trump, Putin and the ongoing investigation.

There were no surprise announcements during the interview and neither Brennan or Clapper added anything new to the list of allegations that have been repeated ad nauseam in the media for the last year. The only time Tapper veered off course at all was when he asked Brennan whether he thought "any laws were broken by the Trump campaign? Here's what Brennan said:

I'm just a former intelligence officer. I never had the responsibility for determining whether or not criminal actions were taken. But, since leaving office on the 20th of January, I think more and more of this iceberg is emerging above the surface of the water, some of the things that I knew about, but some of the things I didn't know about, in terms of some of the social media efforts that Russia employed. So, I think what Bob Mueller, who, again, is another quintessential public servant, is doing is trying to get to the bottom of this. And I think we're going to find out how large this iceberg really is.

In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign.

The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations. Here's the money-quote from the report:

Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.

So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions?

Here's Brennan again on Sunday:

I think Mr. Trump knows that the intelligence agencies, specifically CIA, NSA and FBI, the ones that really have responsibility for counterintelligence and looking at what Russia does, it's very clear that the Russians interfered in the election. And it's still puzzling as to why Mr. Trump does not acknowledge that and embrace it, and also push back hard against Mr. Putin. The Russian threat to our democracy and our democratic foundations is real.

There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."

Why is it so hard for Brennan to wrap his mind around that simple, unambiguous statement? The reason Brennan's intelligence analysts admit that they have no proof, is because they have no proof. That might sound obvious, but we have to assume that it isn't given that both Houses of Congress and a Special Counsel are still bogged down in an investigation that has yet to provide even a solid lead let alone any compelling evidence.

We also have to assume that most people do not understand that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the massive investigations that are currently underway. (What probable cause?) Adds placed in Facebook do not constitute hard evidence of foreign espionage or election rigging. They indicate the desperation of the people who are leading the investigation. The fact that serious people are even talking about social media just underscores the fact that the search for proof has produced nothing.

These investigations are taking place because powerful elites want to vilify an emerging geopolitical rival (Russia) and prevent Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, not because there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As the Intel analysts themselves acknowledge, there is no proof of criminal wrongdoing or any other wrongdoing for that matter. What there is, is a political agenda to discredit Trump and demonize Russia. That's the fuel that is driving the present campaign.

Russia-gate is not about 'meddling', it's about politics. And Brennan and Clapper are critical players in the current drama. They're supposed to be the elder statesmen who selflessly defend the country from foreign threats. But are they or is this just role-playing that doesn't square with what we already know about the two men? Here's thumbnail sketch of Clapper written by former-CIA officer Ray McGovern that will help to clarify the point:

Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria.

In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." .

Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News)

So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it?

He also lied about spying on the American people. Why? Why would he do that? And why should we trust someone who not only spied on us but also paved the way to war in Iraq?

And the rap-sheet on Brennan is even worse than Clapper's. Check out this blurb from Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian:

"Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program

Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser . In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year .

Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in Yemen – targeting people without even knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency .." ("John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination", Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian)

So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA

These radical militias have been defeated largely due to Russian military intervention. Do you think that this defeat at the hands of Putin may have shaped Brennan's attitude towards Russia?

Of course, it has. Brennan never makes any attempt to conceal his hatred for Putin or Russia.

As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say.

Which is why the Russia-gate narrative is beginning to unravel.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

Curmudgeon , November 23, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT

What!!!! Someone from the management of an intelligence agency lying? I'm shocked!
Dan Hayes , November 25, 2017 at 7:51 am GMT
From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper.
m___ , November 25, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT
Fake news, and stale news. By when an algorithm of Goolag to "clean" the internet of current house-hold garbage?
Carroll Price , November 25, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen.
Che Guava , November 25, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT
@WorkingClass

What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons.

Chris Bridges , November 25, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. He is an extreme leftist and there should be an investigation into how this wacko was allowed to join the CIA – he openly admits voting for CPUSA chief Gus Hall in 1976. Brennan is, besides, a resentful CIA failure.

He was denied entry to the elite Directorate of Operations (or couldn't cut the mustard and was banished from it) and spent his career stewing away in anger as a despised analyst at CIA headquarters.

Brennan spent his time at CIA attempting to undermine the organization.

Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it.

Michael Kenny , November 25, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
The umpteenth version of a now standard article.

We all know that the Russiagate narrative isn't starting to unravel and this and other (wholly untrustworthy) internet authors' claims are not proved by simply repeating them over and over again (to borrow a phrase!). In fact, Russiagate is expanding. It has gone from mere Russian interference in the election to dubious financial transactions between wealthy Americans, including Trump, and, to put it very politely, "dubious" Russians. It has also expanded to Europe.

What is emerging, therefore, is a collusion between wealthy Americans, no doubt with major investments in Russia, US internet sites, probably financed by the aforementioned wealthy Americans, dubious Russian financiers, Putin, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage and no doubt others to manipulate, perhaps rig, elections and referenda in the US and Europe. It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.

We also get the now standard argument that Trump is just dying to "normalize" relations with Russia but is being held back by some dastardly group or other. As we all know, of course, "normalizing relations with Moscow" in Orwellian translates into English as "capitulating to Putin in Ukraine". Putin's frantic attempts to get Trump to let him win in Syria is why this old line is suddenly back on the table.

Finally, the idea of the Russian Federation as an emerging geopolitical rival is amusing. That country has existed as a sovereign state only for about 25 years and is merely the largest piece of wreckage from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a world that is slowly being dominated by China, Russia is a very minor player.

Beefcake the Mighty , November 25, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT
Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this?
DESERT FOX , November 25, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT
Brennan and Clapper are agent provocateurs for the Zionists who control the U.S. government and the 17 gestapo agencies which in fact are controlled by dual citizen Zionists ie ISRAEL.

Brennan and Clapper are under Zionist control and thus are traitors to the constitution of America and should be tried and sent to prison for life.

jacques sheete , November 25, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.

And since when are the three not related?

It's too bad that good people, like MW, need to waste their time and energy investigating and publishing what's obviously state sponsored utter rubbish designed to support some of the money bag crowd in one way or another.

Why does it even need to be stated that most of what's supposed to be a big deal to us prols, peasants and piss ants is nothing but propaganda, and of a particularly transparent and low grade variety,even?

Clyde , November 25, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT
@Chris Bridges

Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister.

Clapper told some whoppers while he was head of all our intelligence agencies under Obama. But you are correct that Brennan is far more toxic. He was this way under Obama and post-Obama. He has been one of the biggest Trump saboteurs. And most effective. One ugly customer!

Colleen Pater , November 25, 2017 at 5:31 pm GMT
@Curmudgeon

Why should we care if the russians spent billions on trying to exert their influence on us, we do it we have an alphabet soup of projects to do exactly that and god knows what else to every nation on earth.In fact we do it to our own people these social websites and "news" sites universities media etc are nothing but one huge propaganda machine intended to render democracy nothing more than a distraction so elites can go about doing what they want.

jilles dykstra , November 25, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT
Long ago, when car radio's still had antennae long enough to receive long wave transmissions, I often listened to BBCW radio, 848 Mhz.
I still remember the statement 'you can always tell when a politician lies, he then moves his lips'.
jilles dykstra , November 25, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Capitulating to Putin in Ukraine. The assertion is that the CIA spent five billion dollar in Ukraine in order to overthrow the legitimate democratic government. Of course nobody can prove the assertion. What is crystal clear is that the members of EU parliament Verhofstadt, Van Baalen and Timmermans held speeches in Kiev urging the people to overthrow the government.
Their speeches could be seen live on tv, or were rebroadcast.

Timmermans held the crocodile tears speech at the UN about the MH17 victims. How, why, and through whom over 300 people were killed in Ukraine airspace we do not know until now. All there is is vague insinuations towards Russia, the country for which the disaster was a disaster, EU sanctions all of a sudden were possible.

That the political annexation by the west failed is best seen in E Ukraine, where the wealth is, in gas and oil. A son, and a son in law, of Biden, and Kerry were promised well paid jobs as CEO's of companies who were to exploit the E Ukrainian wealth, they are still waiting for the jobs.

Roger n Me , November 25, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
I remember when they actually prosecuted for someone for lying to Congress. Unfortunately, it was a former baseball player named Roger Clemons over the vitally important question of whether or not he had taken steroids. Obviously a vital question that every sports tabloid wants to know.
Cyrano , November 25, 2017 at 7:27 pm GMT
I just hope that the Russians realize that with enormous power comes enormous responsibility. I hope that they'll choose the next US president wisely.

There is real danger there is -- now that we know that the Russians can elect pretty much anyone in the US – that come the next elections, some charismatic, possibly independent candidate, might seduce the Russians with promises of improved ties, and after they elect him, he might turn to be a real wacko job who might end up not only worsening the ties between the superpowers, but he might end up destroying the world. Be cautious, Russians.

I.F. Stoned , November 25, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT
If we want to talk about meddling in the election ..

Lets compare CNN giving hours and hours of free and very favorable air time to the Hillary campaign?

versus

A news website paying for a handful of thousand dollar adds on Twitter?

I remember studies that showed that during the crooked, corrupt and rigged Democratic Primaries, that there was a large disparity in favorable stories about Hillary versus the number that were favorable for Bernie. And CNN happily seemed to give lots of airtime to any Hillary surrogate who wanted to red bait and smear Bernie as a socialist.

We saw the same sort of disparity in the amount of favorable coverage of Trump vs Hillary. Likewise, any Hillary surrogate who wanted to spread the official campaign message that Trump was a racist, was a fascist, and said some rude things about women was always welcome on the CNN airwaves.

And, just recently, we had the web page editor for the NYT state publicly that they deliberately tilted their web page stories to convince voters to vote against Trump.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg if we want to talk about how the American corporate (aka mainstream) media tried very hard to tilt the whole election towards putting the Crooked Clintons back into the White House.

But, OMG, the story in the same corrupt media is that awful and evil RT spend a whole thousand dollars on an ad trying to promote their website.

Vikki , November 25, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine.

Bottom , November 25, 2017 at 7:55 pm GMT
@Colleen Pater

Hillary is the one who spend BILLIONS trying to become President. The only thing that so far has been traced to Russia is a few hundred thousand in Twitter Ads that otherwise served the legitimate purpose of trying to promote the web news sites. And most of those ads didn't concern political stories, but instead stories about cute puppies to draw clicks.

Adrian E. , November 25, 2017 at 8:57 pm GMT
The interesting development is that, after no proof for the "Russian hacking" allegations could be found, they turned to simple ads (for amounts that are extremely small compared to what the campaigns spent) and social media postings. This was accompanied by loosening the criteria, they did not even pretend any more that they had indications that these social media activities were connected to the Russian state, they just had to be "Russia-linked". In the case of Twitter, this includes anyone who has ever logged in from Russia, uses Cyrillic signs in the account metadata (that could also be connected with a number of other countries), logged in from a Russian IP address, paid something with a Russian credit card etc., and only one condition had to be fulfilled for an account to be counted as "Russia-linked".

Of course, with such a large country, there are certainly some social media activities that are "linked" with it. There can be many reasons – people who travel, migrants in both directions, or simply Russians with an interest in US politics. From what is known, the ads and postings were so diverse – some right-wing and pro-Trump, some leftwing or critical of Trump, and many not directly linked to the elections – and distributed over a large time with many after the elections that it does not seem too unlikely as a result of social media activities of random people who have some connection with Russia.

Of course, we may speculate in each case, why someone posted something or bought an ad. But before speculating, it would be necessary to have data about ads and social media postings linked to other countries. For example, it could be determined with the same criteria which ads and postings were Brazile-linked, Germany-linked, and Philippines-linked. Probably, there, a similar random collection would emerge. Only if there is something special about the Russia-linked ads and postings, it would even make sense to speculate about the reasons.

We don't know whether these "Russia-linked" ads and social media positings were just random activities by people related to Russia (e.g. about 2% of the US population have Russian as their native language, some may not have many contacts with Russia any more and don't travel there regularly, but others do) or whether a part of them was the result of an organized campaign, but in any case, from what was written in the media, the volume of these social media activities does not seem to be very large (but in order to judge that, social media activities linked to other countries with the same criteria would be needed).

What I find hilarious is how people sometimes try to insert a collusion angle even if it is not about hacking, but about social media ads and postings. This becomes completely absurd. Then, the idea is that Russians contacted the Trump campaign in order to find out which ads they should buy and what they should post on social media. Why should they do so? If the Trump campaign had ideas about what to post and what kind of ads to buy, why didn't they just do it themselves or via an American company? What would be the point of the Trump campaign spending $564 million on the campaign, but then do a small part of the campaign via Russians who then spent a few thousand dollars for buying ads and posting messages the Trump campaign had advised them to via "collusion"? After all, if they had done it themselves or via an American intermediary, there would be nothing nefarious or suspicious about this, this idea that for a very small part of their campaign, they colluded with Russians and told them what to post and which ads to buy almost sounds as if they deliberately wanted to behave in a strange way that could then fit a preconceived collusion narrative. And even if they had outsourced some small part of their campaign to a Russian company for some odd reasons, would that make it nefarious?

I think the Russiagate theorists should at least make sure that their theories don't violate basic principles of common sense. If they want to use the hacking story, the involvement of Russian secret services might theoretically make sense – it might not be so easy for the Trump campaign to hack servers themselves (though phishing is hardly something so sophisticated that only secret services can do it, we're not talking about something like Stuxnet), and something illegal would be involved. That is a theory that could in principle make sense, the only problem is, that no evidence for this is available (and the Russians are certainly not the only ones who might have had an interest in these mails, another plausible theory is that it was an insider who disliked how the Clinton campaign took over the DNC early on and created better conditions for Clinton than for Sanders, and it could have been any hacker who, for some reason disliked Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Podesta). If the Russiagate theorists switch over to simple social media activity because there is no evidence for Russian secret services being responsible for giving e-mails to Wikileaks, they also have to sacrifice the whole "collusion" part of the story. It might be that some Russians used social media in an organized way, but to invent a story that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russians for a small part of their social media election campaign hardly makes sense.

The only condition under which it might somehow make sense would be if someone thought Russians are intellectually vastly superior to Americans and know much better what potential voters care about, and their capabilities are even vastly above Cambridge Analytics. Then, it might somehow make sense for the Trump campaign to hand over a part of the social media activities to Russians, and this might somehow be seen as an unfair advantage – but again, if, with that assumption, the Russians are intellectually so vastly superior that can have a significant influence with very small amounts of money and works while the Trump and Clinton campaigns spend billions, why would they have to "collude" with the Trump campaign, people who would be intellectually so much below them according to that assumption? Maybe real genius for targeting potential voters only emerges when Americans and Russians with complementary abilities collaborate? In any case, it is already very difficult just to construct a version of that theory that does not violate basic principles of common sense.

Fred D , November 26, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT
Mind controlled Moron
WHAT , November 26, 2017 at 2:19 am GMT
@Michael Kenny

"Let him win in Syria"?

Dude, it`s like the first legit amusing line from you. Now bring another!

robt , November 26, 2017 at 3:11 am GMT
@Cyrano

Sarcasm is probably the only way to deal with it. I find myself all the time asking people if they are serious or joking. Sadly, many claim they are serious.
Currently it seems that peaceful and productive relations with a foreign power are Bad Things.
Mr Putin did amusingly say one time to a ditzy US 'journalist':
"Have you all lost your minds over there?"

Cyrano , November 26, 2017 at 3:54 am GMT
@robt

I really truly believe that the only way to force the stupids who came up with that ridiculous story about "Russia influencing the elections" – to drop it – is to make incessantly fun of them until they finally realize how really truly stupid they are.

exiled off mainstreet , November 26, 2017 at 5:03 am GMT
@DESERT FOX

The facts support this viewpoint, including the dual citizen element of it. By the way, I oppose the death penalty except if it is applied to major serial war criminals. I recognize that all legal systems are too corrupt to be given the power of life and death, and that this is particularly true of the US system, which sets the benchmark for corruption. The corruption of the US political system, meanwhile, is revealed by the fact that this absurd Russiagate story is still being peddled and is accepted as received wisdom despite the manifold evidence proving its absurd falsity. What the article shows is that Clapper and Brennan are serial war criminals and that their latest gambit threatens our very existence. We would be better off if the utopia of a legal system incorruptible enough to allow for the death penalty did exist in the US rather than the corrupt system allowing somebody like Mueller to act extra-legally on this absurd basis was continuing in operation. By the way, the Canadian satellite media is still publishing stories trying to resuscitate the Steele dossier paid by the DNC and the yankee government as factual. The whole thing would be comical if it were not deadly serious. Those still backing the story publicly are either dangerously deluded or criminal themselves.

Sarah Toga , November 26, 2017 at 5:10 am GMT
Does Brennan have that dark calloused spot on his forehead yet from use of his "prayer rug" ?
DESERT FOX , November 26, 2017 at 3:16 pm GMT
@exiled off mainstreet

The U.S. gov is a criminal organization ran by criminal for criminals and sexual perverts and pedophiles , if interested, read these two books , THE FRANKLIN COVERUP by the late John DeCamp and THE TRANCE FORMATIO of AMERICA by Cathy Obrien and see their interviews on YouTube, the books can be had on amazon.com.

The books reveal a shocking look at the top ones in the demonrat and republicon parties, and I do mean shocking.

Anon , Disclaimer November 26, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT
@Carroll Price

The US, Russian Federation, and the Nuland-Kagan revolution in Kiev in 2014:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

"The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international mainstream media.

The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers They claim that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to be paid 5000 USD after the "job is done", they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger. The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car The weapons came on stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. "There were three or four weapons in each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges." – witnesses Nergadze.

The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos.
"I listened to the screams," recalls Revazishvili. "There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart."

Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment and have decided to tell the truth about those who "used and abandoned" them."

Well that was a clear picture of a sausage-making during the US-sponsored regime change in Ukraine. The neo-Nazi in the US-supported "government" in Kiev came about naturally.

Anon , Disclaimer November 26, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
@Carroll Price

An addition to the previous post.
The Maidan revolution and its neo-Nazi consequence makes an amazing monument to the Kagans' clan:

"Thousands of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists marched in Kiev, Thursday, celebrating the 106th birthday of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) leader Stepan Bandera [famous Nazis collaborator]. Among the main organisers were representatives of Right Sector and Svoboda." https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a7_1420142767#gDHooVSL6b0yQ1SG.99

"Members of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov volunteer battalion and their ultranationalist civilian sympathizers have conducted a torchlit procession in the center of the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, held under the slogan "coming after you!" http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_72571.shtml

"A leader of Ukrainian Jewry condemned the hosting in Lviv of a festival celebrating a Nazi collaborator on the anniversary of a major pogrom against the city's Jews." http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Ukraine-city-to-hold-festival-in-honor-of-Nazi-collaborator-498159

The wide-spread desecration of Jewish cemetries by Ukrainian thugs (a post-Maidan phenomenon) has spilled to Poland: "Yet another case of vandalism by Ukrainian nationalists is on the record in Poland. This time, an old Jewish cemetery in Krakσw became the target of thugs from the neighboring state. The graves of Polish Jews who died over a century ago were destroyed by those hot-blood Ukrainians." https://www.reddit.com/r/antisemitism/comments/5npnj5/ukrainian_nationalists_stand_behind_desecration/

"Vandals desecrated the Korinovskaya Jewish Cemetery in Kiev. They destroyed two entire sections: 27 and 28. These acts of vandalism are very systematic: every night they destroy one or two headstones. According to the elderly women who look after the place, these vandals are usually drunken youths who come there to wreak destruction. The Zaddik of Chernobyl is buried in this cemetery. These vandals destroyed his gravestone, smearing Satanic Cult symbols on it."

http://antisemitism.org.il/article/58386/ukraine-8211-desecration-jewish-cemetery-kiev

[Nov 29, 2017] Trumps Saudi Scheme Unravels

Notable quotes:
"... bin Salman is still so new it is impossible to get much of a read on him. Mind you, when you are the consequence-free press, you can just go off and rewrite history to your liking. ..."
Nov 29, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , November 28, 2017 at 4:01 am

Consortium News via Sic Semper Tyrannis: Trump's Saudi Scheme Unravels https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/17/trumps-saudi-scheme-unravels/

President Trump and his son-in-law bet that the young Saudi crown prince could execute a plan to reshape the Mideast, but the scheme quickly unraveled revealing a dangerous amateur hour, writes ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke.

By Alastair Crooke

Aaron Miller and Richard Sokolsky, writing in Foreign Policy, suggest "that Mohammed bin Salman's most notable success abroad may well be the wooing and capture of President Donald Trump, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner." Indeed, it is possible that this "success" may prove to be MbS' only success.

"It didn't take much convincing", Miller and Sokolski wrote: "Above all, the new bromance reflected a timely coincidence of strategic imperatives."

Trump, as ever, was eager to distance himself from President Obama and all his works; the Saudis, meanwhile, were determined to exploit Trump's visceral antipathy for Iran – in order to reverse the string of recent defeats suffered by the kingdom .
####

More at the link.

marknesop , , November 28, 2017 at 10:55 am
President Obama and all his works .what might those be? The American establishment so loathes Trump that it cannot wait to get its digs in, resulting in the retroactive canonization of the mostly-useless Obama, and ignoring his waste of his entire first term trying to achieve 'bipartisanship'.

Meanwhile, because Trump has not whipped the new Saudi front end into shape in five minutes, he's an idiot.

Well, he is; no use disputing that, but bin Salman is still so new it is impossible to get much of a read on him. Mind you, when you are the consequence-free press, you can just go off and rewrite history to your liking.

[Nov 29, 2017] It must be embarrassing to be European these days. To be dressed down by the corrupt country you support on handouts because you are not doing enough to support it.

Notable quotes:
"... "We live at the time of a certain degrading of European institutions and their external weakening, including by Russia. You can accept it and go with the flow but you can also recognize the fact try to resist it." ..."
Nov 29, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

marknesop , , November 28, 2017 at 2:13 pm

Ha, ha!!! The Victim Of The Aggressor Country seldom fails to entertain. Here we have VR Deputy Chairperson Ira Gerashchenko bossing Europe around , and telling it that the Victim Of The Aggressor Country's parliamentary delegation will continue to insist on Russia not returning to the Council of Europe. Because, she says, Russia has stolen part of the territory of the VOTAC which was a gift from Russia in the first place (although she doesn't mention that last part), thereby setting a precedent for every country which has a province 'liberated' by the west to term it stolen by the west. But that wasn't my favourite part. No; this is – "We live at the time of a certain degrading of European institutions and their external weakening, including by Russia. You can accept it and go with the flow but you can also recognize the fact try to resist it."

Beautiful, Ira!! Inspiring!! And how many degraded European leaders are Billionaires who openly own an impressive slate of businesses and media in their countries, which they continue to operate and profit from while piously declaring their only interest is the welfare of the country? Which is, by the bye, the most corrupt country in Europe ? How many Prosecutors-General has the VOTAC had since its glorious liberation from the yoke of the Moskali? Yes, you can certainly teach Yurrup a thing or two about integrity.

It must be embarrassing to be European these days. To be dressed down by the corrupt country you support on handouts because you are not doing enough to support it. First we had the 'Me' generation. Then we had the 'Me' country.

[Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter

Highly recommended!
At some point quantity of duplicity turns into quality. and affect international relations. Economic decline can speed this process up. The US elite has way too easy life since 1991. And that destroyed the tiny patina of self-restraint that it has during Cold War with negative (hugely negative) consequences first of all for the US population. Empire building is a costly project even if it supported by the dominance of neoliberal ideology and technological advances in computers and telecommunication. . The idea of "full spectrum dominance" was a disaster. But the realization of this came too late and at huge cost for the world and for the US population. Russia decimated its own elite twice in the last century. In might be the time for the USA to follow the Russia example and do it once in XXI century. If we thing about Hillary Clinton Jon McCain, Joe Biden, Niki Haley, as member of the US elite it is clear that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark).
Notable quotes:
"... How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous. ..."
"... There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious. ..."
"... The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya. ..."
"... Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. ..."
"... Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking. ..."
"... This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espaρol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine. ..."
"... One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate. ..."
"... "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard." ..."
"... Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it. ..."
"... He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough. ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill. ..."
"... When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America. ..."
Nov 28, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy.

For any country, the foundation of successful diplomacy is a reputation for credibility and reliability. Governments are wary of concluding agreements with a negotiating partner that violates existing commitments and has a record of duplicity. Recent U.S. administrations have ignored that principle, and their actions have backfired majorly, damaging American foreign policy in the process.

The consequences of previous deceit are most evident in the ongoing effort to achieve a diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis. During his recent trip to East Asia, President Trump urged Kim Jong-un's regime to "come to the negotiating table" and "do the right thing" -- relinquish the country's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Presumably, that concession would lead to a lifting (or at least an easing) of international economic sanctions and a more normal relationship between Pyongyang and the international community.

Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous.

North Korea is likely focused on another incident that raises even greater doubts about U.S. credibility. Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi capitulated on the nuclear issue in December of 2003, abandoning his country's nuclear program and reiterating a commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and welcomed Libya back into the community of respectable nations. Barely seven years later, though, Washington and its NATO partners double-crossed Qaddafi, launching airstrikes and cruise missile attacks to assist rebels in their campaign to overthrow the Libyan strongman. North Korea and other powers took notice of Qaddafi's fate, making the already difficult task of getting a de-nuclearization agreement with Pyongyang nearly impossible.

The Libya intervention sullied America's reputation in another way. Washington and its NATO allies prevailed on the UN Security Council to pass a resolution endorsing a military intervention to protect innocent civilians. Russia and China refrained from vetoing that resolution after Washington's assurances that military action would be limited in scope and solely for humanitarian purposes. Once the assault began, it quickly became evident that the resolution was merely a fig leaf for another U.S.-led regime-change war.

Beijing, and especially Moscow, understandably felt duped. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates succinctly described Russia's reaction, both short-term and long-term:

The Russians later firmly believed they had been deceived on Libya. They had been persuaded to abstain at the UN on the grounds that the resolution provided for a humanitarian mission to prevent the slaughter of civilians. Yet as the list of bombing targets steadily grew, it became obvious that very few targets were off-limits, and that NATO was intent on getting rid of Qaddafi. Convinced they had been tricked, the Russians would subsequently block any such future resolutions, including against President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

The Libya episode was hardly the first time the Russians concluded that U.S. leaders had cynically misled them . Moscow asserts that when East Germany unraveled in 1990, both U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and West German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher offered verbal assurances that, if Russia accepted a unified Germany within NATO, the alliance would not expand beyond Germany's eastern border. The official U.S. position that there was nothing in writing affirming such a limitation is correct -- and the clarity, extent, and duration of any verbal commitment to refrain from enlargement are certainly matters of intense controversy . But invoking a "you didn't get it in writing" dodge does not inspire another government's trust.

There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious.

The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya.

Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own.

Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking.

It is painful for any American to admit that the United States has acquired a well-deserved reputation for duplicity in its foreign policy. But the evidence for that proposition is quite substantial. Indeed, disingenuous U.S. behavior regarding NATO expansion and the resolution of Kosovo's political status may be the single most important factor for the poisoned bilateral relationship with Moscow. The U.S. track record of duplicity and betrayal is one reason why prospects for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue through diplomacy are so bleak.

Actions have consequences, and Washington's reputation for disingenuous behavior has complicated America's own foreign policy objectives. This is a textbook example of a great power shooting itself in the foot.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles and policy studies on international affairs.

Magdi , says: November 28, 2017 at 5:46 am

you are dead ON! I have been saying this since IRAQ
fiasco (not one Iraqi onboard on 9/11) we should have invaded egypt and saudi arabia. how the foolish american public(sheep) just buys the american propaganda is beyond me.. don't blame the Russians one spittle!!
Herbert Heebert , says: November 28, 2017 at 7:47 am
A few points:

1. I think North Korea might also be looking at the example of Ukraine, and Russia's clear violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

2. It's silly to put so much weight on Baker's verbal assurance re: NATO expansion.

3. I would suggest Mr. Carpenter make a list of Russia's betrayals. But I have the impression he is not interested.

Viriato , says: November 28, 2017 at 9:25 am
Excellent piece. The US really has destroyed its credibility over the years.

This points Ted Galen Carpenter makes in this piece go a long way toward explaining Russia's destabilizing behavior in recent years.

One point in particular jumped out at me:

"Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique."

This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espaρol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine.

This

craigsummers , says: November 28, 2017 at 10:09 am
Mr. Carpenter

You have made a reasonable case that the US and Europe have not always been reliable, but the expansion of NATO is not one of them. No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard.

The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic which Russia invoked with the Medvedev Doctrine in 2008. This is currently on display in Ukraine. Russia is aggressively denying Ukraine their sovereignty. Who could possibly blame former Soviet Block countries for hightailing it to NATO during a lull in Russian aggression?

DOD , says: November 28, 2017 at 10:23 am
One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate.
Michael Kenny , says: November 28, 2017 at 12:12 pm
The whole weakness of the author's argument is a classic American one: very few Americans seem to be able to get their heads around the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to exist 26 years ago! They are still totally locked into their cold war mentality. He thus unquestioningly accepts Putin's pre-1789 "sphere of influence" theory in which there are "superior" and "inferior" races, with only the superior races being entitled to have a sovereign state and the inferior races being forced to submit to being ruled by foreigners. Mr Carpenter really needs to put his cold war mentality aside and come into the 21st century!

Most seriously of all, Mr Carpenter offers no solution for improving relations between the US and Russia. Saying that past US actions were wrong, even if true, says nothing about the present and offers nothing for the future. At best, Mr Carpenter's article is empty moralising.

And the unspoken, but perfectly obvious, subtext, namely that the US should "atone for its sins" by capitulating to Putin, is morally reprehensible and politically unrealistic. Since, by Mr Carpenter's own account, the problem is caused by US wrongdoing, isn't it for the US to put things right (for example, by getting Putin out of Ukraine) and not simply make a mess in someone else's country and then run for home with its tail between its legs? Who gave Americans the right to give away other people's countries?

Will Harrington , says: November 28, 2017 at 12:58 pm
Herbert Heevert

The one problem with your argument if, you are an american as I am, is that Russia is not acting in our names. If the US government, supposedly a government of, by, and for the people breaks its word, then you and I are foresworn oathbreakers as well because the government is (theoretically, at least) acting on OUR authority.

Will Harrington , says: November 28, 2017 at 1:15 pm
Craig Summers

Really?! "Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."

I think that if you look at a map or a globe, you will find that this is not a belief but a fact. How you could overlook this, I don't know.

"The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic "

If you are going to try and use history to influence opinion, it is best to check your facts. This is a very old concept.What do you think the Great Game between Imperial Russia and the British Empire in Central Asia was about? For that matter, what we call the Byzantine Commonwealth was a clearly attempt by the Romaoi to establish a political, cultural, and religious sphere of influence to support the power of the Empire, much as the United States has been doing over the past several decades.

NoldorElf , says: November 28, 2017 at 1:31 pm
You could make the case that Iraq too in 2003 is another reason why the Russians and the North Koreans distrust the US.

At this point, it is fairly certain that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was not building nuclear weapons of mass destruction, which is what Bush strongly implied in his ramp up to the war.

One other takeaway that the North Koreans mag have from the 2003 Iraq invasion is that the US will lie any way to get what it wants.

Not saying that Russia or North Korea are perfect. Far from it. But the US needs to take a hard look in the mirror.

Jeeves , says: November 28, 2017 at 1:42 pm
What Craigsummers said.

And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym for "oral."

SteveM , says: November 28, 2017 at 1:49 pm
Re: craigsummers, "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."

Except both here and abroad, the Global Cop Elites in Washington shape the strategy space through propaganda, fear-mongering and subversion. Moreover, the Eastern European countries are happy to join NATO when it's the American taxpayers who foot a large percentage of the bill.

Standard U.S. MO: create the threat, inflate the threat, send in the War Machine at massive cost to sustain the threat.

Rather than being broadened, NATO should have been ratcheted back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. military presence in Europe massively reduced. Then normalized relations between Europe and Russia would have been designed and developed by Europe and Russia. Not the 800 pound Gorilla Global Cop that is good at little more than breaking things. (And perversely, after flushing TRILLIONS of tax dollars down the toilet, duping Americans to wildly applaud the "Warrior-Heroes" for a job well done.)

b. , says: November 28, 2017 at 2:33 pm
The 2008 war between Georgia and Russia was, per observers at the time, in Russian word and thought directly linked to the Balkan 's precedent.

The subtext here – of nation states, sovereignty, separatism and secessionist movements – is even more relevant with respect to US-China relationships. Since WW2 and that brief, transient monopoly on nuclear weapons, US foreign policy has eroded the Peace of Westphalia while attempting to erect an "international order" of convenience on top if it.

Both China and Russia know that nothing will stop the expansionism of US "national interests". In response to the doctrinal aspirations of the Soviets, the US has committed itself to an ideology that is just a greedy and relentless. In retrospect, it is hard to tell how many decades ago the Cold War stopped being about opposition to Soviet ideology, and instead became about "projecting" – in every sense of the word – an equally globalist US ideology.

We are the redcoats now. Now wonder the neocons and neolibs are shouting "Russia!" at every opportunity.

Janek , says: November 28, 2017 at 2:45 pm
I am amazed how many masochistic conservatives are in USA conservative circles especially in the CATO institute. Mr. T. G. Carpenter, as is clear from not only this and other articles, is a staunch defender of Yalta and proponent of Yalta 2 after the Cold War ended. As far as I remember Libya was the hatchet job of the Europeans especially the French and British. B. Obama at first didn't want to attack Libya but gave in after lobbying by the French, British and the neoliberal/neo-conservative lobby and supporters of the Arab Spring in the USA. America lost credibility after and only since the conservatives neoliberals and neocons manipulated USA and the West's foreign politics for thirty plus years. USA is still a democratic country so it is easy to blame everything on the US. In today's Putin's Russia similar critics of the Russian politics wouldn't be so "easy".

The Central Europe doesn't want Russia's sphere of influence precisely because of centuries of Russian occupation and atrocities in there especially after WW2, brutal and bloody invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Cuban Crisis, Afghanistan, Chechnya etc. Now you have infiltration by Russia of the American electoral process and political system and some conservatives still can't connect the dots and see what is going on. I wonder why the western conservatives and US in particular are such great supporters of Russia. If Russia should be allowed to keep her sphere of influence after the Cold War then what was the reason to fight the Cold War in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to surrender to Russia right after WW2.

SteveM , says: November 28, 2017 at 2:45 pm
One other observation about Russia that should be made but isn't is that the Russia-phobes can't point to an actual motive for Russian military aggression. There is no "Putin Plan" for conquest and domination by Russia like in Das Kapital or Hitler's Mein Kampf . What strategic value would Russia see from overrunning Poland and then having to perpetually suppress 35 million resistors? Or retaking the Baltic states that have only minority ethnic Russian populations?

Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it.

In the gangster movies, a mob boss often says that he hates bloodshed because it's bad for business. That's Putin. He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough.

U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill.

Mark , says: November 28, 2017 at 3:00 pm
"And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym for "oral."

I imagine you thought you were being funny; and you were, just not in the way you foresaw. In fact, verbal is a synonym for oral; to wit, "spoken rather than written; oral. "a verbal agreement". Synonyms: oral, spoken, stated, said, verbalized, expressed."

Of course anyone who attempts to portray the United States as duplicitous and sneaky (those are synonyms!)is immediately branded a "Russian apologist". As if there are certain countries which automatically have no rights, and can be assumed to be lying every time they speak. Except they're not, and the verbal agreement that NATO would not advance further east in exchange for Russian cooperation has been acknowledged by western principals who were present.

As SteveM implies, NATO's reason for being evaporated with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and was dead as a dodo with the breakup of the Soviet Union. Everything since has been a rationalization for keeping it going, including regular demonizations of imaginary enemies until they become real enemies. You can't just 'join NATO' because it's the in-crowd, you know. No, there are actually criteria, one of which is the premise that your acceptance materially enhances the security of the alliance. Pretty comical imagining Montenegro in that context, isn't it?

When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America.

[Nov 28, 2017] Trump Wants Peace With Erdogan - The Military Wants To Sabotage It

Notable quotes:
"... "President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlόt Ηavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call. ..."
"... The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to the YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal. Despite that, supply for the YPG continued. In total over 3,500 truckloads were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the YPK received some 120 armored Humvees , mine clearance vehicles and other equipment. ..."
"... The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made. The Washington Post writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and uncertain what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from the National Security Council." ..."
"... The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support its occupation of north-east Syria, The intent of the occupation is , for now, to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change": ..."
"... When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S. announced to arm the YPG directly without the cover of the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa. ..."
"... A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic Turkman Talaf Silo, recently defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The whole concept is a sham. ..."
"... Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once! ..."
"... Trump personally sent General Flynn to recruit back Erdogan and the Turks right before the election. Flynn wrote his now infamous editorial "Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support" and published in "The Hill". http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/305021-our-ally-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support ..."
"... But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor, you will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF and US State Dept failed. ..."
"... Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he did for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not just the Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas and Russian naval power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear. ..."
"... Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup was staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort not just because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that: the road to Tehran runs through Damascus .) ..."
Nov 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

President Trump is attempting to calm down the U.S. conflict with Turkey . The military junta in the White House has different plans. It now attempts to circumvent the decision the president communicated to his Turkish counterpart. The result will be more Turkish-U.S. acrimony.

Yesterday the Turkish foreign minister surprisingly announced a phone call President Trump had held with President Erdogan of Turkey.

United States President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan spoke on the phone on Nov. 24 only days after a Russia-Turkey-Iran summit on Syria, with Ankara saying that Washington has pledged not to send weapons to the People's Protection Units (YPG) any more .

"President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlόt Ηavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call.

Trump had announced the call:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!
12:04 PM - 24 Nov 2017

During the phone call Trump must have escaped his minders for a moment and promptly tried to make, as announced, peace with Erdogan. The issue of arming the YPG is really difficult for Turkey to swallow. Ending that would probably make up for the recent NATO blunder of presenting the founder of modern Turkey Kemal Atatόrk and Erdogan himself as enemies.

The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to the YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal. Despite that, supply for the YPG continued. In total over 3,500 truckloads were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the YPK received some 120 armored Humvees , mine clearance vehicles and other equipment.

The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made. The Washington Post writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and uncertain what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from the National Security Council."

The White House finally released what the Associated Press called :

a cryptic statement about the phone call that said Trump had informed the Turk of "pending adjustments to the military support provided to our partners on the ground in Syria."

Neither a read-out of the call nor the statement AP refers to are currently available on the White House website.

The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support its occupation of north-east Syria, The intent of the occupation is , for now, to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change":

U.S. officials have said they plan to keep American troops in northern Syria -- and continue working with Kurdish fighters -- to pressure Assad to make concessions during peace talks brokered by the United Nations in Geneva, stalemated for three years now. "We're not going to just walk away right now," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said last week.

To solidify its position the U.S. needs to further build up and strengthen its YPG mercenary forces.

When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S. announced to arm the YPG directly without the cover of the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa.

The YPG had been unwilling to fight for the Arab city unless the U.S. would provide it with more money, military supplies and support. All were provided. The U.S. special forces, who control the YPG fighters, directed an immense amount of aerial and artillery ammunition against the city. Any potential enemy position was destroyed by large ammunition and intense bombing before the YPG infantry proceeded. In the end few YPG fighters died in the fight. The Islamic State was let go or eliminated from the city but so was the city of Raqqa . The intensity of the bombardment of the medium size city was at times ten times greater than the bombing in all of Afghanistan. Airwars reported :

Since June, an estimated 20,000 munitions were fired in support of Coalition operations at Raqqa . Images captured by journalists in the final days of the assault show a city in ruins

Several thousand civilians were killed in the indiscriminate onslaught.

The Islamic State in Syria and Iraq is defeated. It no longer holds any ground. There is no longer any justification to further arm and supply the YPG or the dummy organization SDF.

But the generals want to continue to do so to further their larger plans. They are laying grounds to circumvent their president's promise. The Wall Street Journal seems to be the only outlet to pick up on the subterfuge:

President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to stop sending weapons directly to Kurdish militants battling Islamic State in Syria, dealing a political blow to the U.S.'s most reliable ally in the civil war, officials said Friday.

...

The Turkish announcement came as a surprise in Washington, where military and political officials in Mr. Trump's administration appeared to be caught off-guard. U.S. military officials said they had received no new guidance about supplying weapons to the Kurdish forces. But they said there were no immediate plans to deliver any new weapons to the group. And the U.S. can continue to provide the Kurdish forces with arms via the umbrella Syrian militant coalition

The "military officials" talking to the WSJ have found a way to negate Trump's promise. A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic Turkman Talaf Silo, recently defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The whole concept is a sham.

But the U.S. needs the YPG to keep control of north-east Syria. It has to continue to provide whatever the YPG demands, or it will have to give up its larger scheme against Syria.

The Turkish government will soon find out that the U.S. again tried to pull wool over its eyes. Erdogan will be furious when he discovers that the U.S. continues to supply war material to the YPG, even when those deliveries are covered up as supplies for the SDF.

The Turkish government released a photograph showing Erdogan and five of his aids taking Trump's phonecall. Such a release and the announcement of the call by the Turkish foreign minister are very unusual. Erdogan is taking prestige from the call and the public announcement is to make sure that Trump sticks to his promise.

This wide publication will also increase Erdogan's wrath when he finds out that he was again deceived.

Posted by b on November 25, 2017 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

WorldBLee | Nov 25, 2017 12:48:12 PM | 1

Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once!
Red Ryder | Nov 25, 2017 12:49:33 PM | 2
Trump personally sent General Flynn to recruit back Erdogan and the Turks right before the election. Flynn wrote his now infamous editorial "Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support" and published in "The Hill". http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/305021-our-ally-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support

Some interpret this act on Election eve as a pecuniary fulfillment by Flynn of a lobbying contract (which existed).

But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor, you will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF and US State Dept failed.

Flynn understood the crucial need for US and NATO to hold Turkey and prevent the Russians from getting Erdogan as an ally for Syria and the Black Sea, the Balkans and Mediterranean as well as Iran, Qatar and Eurasia. Look at what has transpired between Turkey and Russia since. Gas will be flowing through the Turkish Stream and Erdogan conforms to Putin's wishes.

Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he did for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not just the Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas and Russian naval power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear.

Flynn was on it for Trump. And the IC and State want him prosecuted for defying their efforts to replace Erdogan with a stooge like Gulen. It looks like Mueller is pursuing that against the General.

Harry | Nov 25, 2017 1:18:07 PM | 3
Its not a problem for US to drop Kurds if they are no longer needed, BUT for now they are essential for US/Israel/Saudi goals, therefore you can bet 100% Kurds support will continue. Trump's order (he hasn't made it official either) will be easily circumvented.

The real question is, what Resistance will do with the backstabbing Kurds? It wont be easy to make a deal while Kurds maintain absurd demands and as long as they have full Axis of Terror support.

Go Iraq's way like they reclaimed Kirkuk? US might have sitten out that one, I doubt they'll allow this to happen in Syria as well, unless they get something in return.

alabaster | Nov 25, 2017 1:19:42 PM | 4
While America's standard duplicity of saying one thing while doing the opposite has been known for decades, they have been able to play games mainly because of the weakness of the other actors in the region.
The tables have turned now, but America still thinks it holds top dog position.
Wordplay, semantics and legal loopholes wont be tolerated for very long, and when hundreds of US boots return home in body bags a choice will have to be made - escalate, or run away.
Previous behavior dictates run away, but times have changed.
A cornered enemy is the most dangerous, and the USA has painted itself into a very small corner...
Jean | Nov 25, 2017 1:35:55 PM | 5
Gee. While reading B's article what got to my mind is: "Turkey is testing the ground". Whatever Trump said to Erdogan on the phone, it seems to me that the Turks are playing a card to see how the different actors in the US that seems to follow different agendas will react. If Turkey concludes that the US will continue to back YPG, it's split from the US and will be definitive.

Erdogan is shifting away from US/NATO. He even hinted today that he might talk to Assad. That's huge! I wouldn't be surprised if Turkey leaves NATO sooner than later. And if it's the case, it will be a major move of a tectonic amplitude.

Peter AU 1 | Nov 25, 2017 1:36:09 PM | 6
Trump.. "Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!"

General Wesley Clark - seven countries in five years with Iran last on the list = "Get it all done"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

Jen | Nov 25, 2017 2:36:10 PM | 7
Surely by now Erdogan must realise that whatever the US President says and promises will be circumvented by the State Department, the Pentagon, the 17 US intel agencies (including the CIA and the NSA) and rogue individuals in these and other US government departments and agencies, and in Congress as well (Insane McCain comes to mind)? Not to mention the fact that the Israeli government and the pro-Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill exercise huge influence over sections of the US government.

If Erdogan hasn't figured out the schizoid behaviour of the US from past Turkish experience and the recent experience of Turkey's neighbours (and the Ukraine is one such neighbour), he must not be receiving good information.

Though as Jean says, perhaps Erdogan is giving the US one last chance to demonstrate that it has a coherent and reliable policy towards the Middle East.

Hausmeister | Nov 25, 2017 3:37:06 PM | 8
Jen | Nov 25, 2017 2:36:10 PM | 6

Well, the US policy has been coherent and reliable in the last years. It enhanced local conflicts, supported both sides at the same time but with different intensities. Whoever wins would be "our man". Old stuff since the Byzantine period. It always takes a lot of time to prove the single actions that were done. In most cases we learn about it years later. The delay is so big and unpleasant that quite a number of folks escapes to stupid narratives that explain everything in one step, and therefore nothing. By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type of Arabic nationalism illegitimate?

stonebird | Nov 25, 2017 3:44:32 PM | 9
How can Trump have his cake and eat it?

The Kurds (PKK basically) are only necessary to give a "face" to the force the US is trying to align in E. Syria. The "fighting" against ISIS (if there really was any) is coming to a close. The Chiefs of ISIS have been airlifted to somewhere nearby, and the foreign mercenary forces sent elsewhere by convoy. ALL the valuable personnel have now become "HTS2" with reversible vests. These, plus the US special forces are the basis of a new armed anti-Syrian force. (Note that one general let slip that there are 5'000 US forces in E-Syria - not the 500 spoken of in the MSM).
So Trump may well be correct in saying that the Kurds (specifically) will not get any more arms - because they have other demands and might make peace with the Syrian Government, to keep at least some part of their territorial gains. The ISIS "bretheren" and foreign mercenaries do not want any peaceful solution because it would mean their elimination.. So The CIA and Pentagon will probably continue arms supplies to "HTS2" - but not the Kurds.

(ex-ISIS members; Some are from Saudi Arabia, Qatar - the EU and the US, as well as parts of Russia and China. They are not farming types but will find themselves with some of the best arable land in Syria. Which belonged to Syrian-arabs-christians-Druzes-Yadzis etc. Who wil want their properties back.)

Note that the US forces at Tanf are deliberately not letting humanitarian help reach the nearby refugee camp. Starvation and deprivation will force many of the younger members to become US paid terrorists.

james | Nov 25, 2017 4:00:51 PM | 10
thanks b.. i tend to agree with @4 jean and @5 jen... the way i see it, there is either a real disconnect inside the usa where the president gets to say one thing, but another part of the establishment can do another, or trump has made his last lie to turkey here and turkey is going to say good bye to it's involvement with the usa in any way that can be trusted.. seems like some kind of internal usa conflict to me at this point, but maybe it is all smoke and mirrors to continue on with the same charade.. i mostly think internal usa conflict at this point..
A P | Nov 25, 2017 4:34:19 PM | 11
Odd that no one has mentioned the fact the US was behind the attempted coup, where Erdogan was on a plane with two rogue Syrian jets that stood down rather than execute the kill shot. I have read opinion that the fighter pilots were "lit up" by Russian missile batteries and informed by radio they would not survive unless they shut down their weapons targeting immediately. This is probably a favour Putin reminds Erdogan of on a regular basis, whenever Erdo tries to play Sultan. The attempted coup/asassination also shows Erdogan exactly how much he can trust the US/Zionists at any level.

And Edrogan must also know Syria was once at least partly in the US-orbit, as Syria was the destination for many well-documented US-ordered rendition/torture cases. It is probable Mossad (or their proxy thugs) killed Assad's father and older brother, so Erdo knows he's better relying on Putin than Trumpty Dumbdy.

Virgile | Nov 25, 2017 5:09:38 PM | 12
Erdogan is about to make a u-turn toward Syria. He is furious at Saudi Arabia for boycotting its ally Qatar, for talking about owning Sunni Islam and by the continuous support of Islamists and Sunni Kurds in Syria.
Erdogan is preparing the turkish public opinion to a shift away from the USA-Israeli axis. This may get him many points in the 2019 election if the war in Syria is stopped, most Syrian refugees are back, Turkish companies are involved in the reconstruction and the YPG neutralized. Erdogan has 1 year and half to make this to happen. For that he badly needs Bashar al Assad and his army on his side.

Therefore he is evaluating what is the next move and he needs to know where the USA is standing about Turkey and Syria. Until now the messages from the USA are contradictory yet Erdogan keeps telling his supporters that the USA is plotting against Turkey and against Islam. Erdogan's reputation also is been threatened by the outcome of Reza Zarrab's trial in the US where the corruption of his party may be exposed.

That is why Erdogan is making another check about the US intentions before Erdogan he starts the irreversible shift toward the Iran-Russia (+Qatar and Syria) axis.

dirtyoilandgas | Nov 25, 2017 6:13:37 PM | 13
missing in this analysis is oil gas ... producers, refiners, slavers, middle crooks, and the LNG crowd :Israel, Fracking, LNG and wall street... these are the underlying directing forces that will ultimately dictate when the outsiders have had enough fight against Assad over Assad's oil and Assad's refusal to allow outsiders to install their pipelines. Until then, gangland intelligence agencies will continue the divide, destroy and conquer strategies sufficient to keep the profits flowing. The politicians cannot move until the underlying corruptions resolve..
les7 | Nov 25, 2017 6:59:27 PM | 14
The word 'byzantine' has been used for centuries to describe the intricate and multi-leveled forms of agreement, betrayal, treachery and achievement among the shifting power brokers in the region. The US alone has three major and another three minor players at work - often fighting each other. If however, it thinks it can outplay people whose lives are steeped in such a living tradition, it is sadly deluded and will one day be in for a very rude surprise. Even the Russians have had difficulty navigating that maze.

When confronted with such a 'Gordian knot' of treachery and shifting alliances, Alexander the Great drew his sword and cut through it with a vision informed by the sage Socrates as taught by Aristotle.

Despite claiming to represent such a western heritage, the US has no such Socratic wisdom, no Aristotelian logic, and no visionary leadership that could enable it to do what Alexander did. Lacking this, it is destined to get lost in its' own hubris, and be consumed by our current version of that region's gordian knot.

flankerbandit | Nov 25, 2017 7:53:29 PM | 15
'Hausmaus' @7 says...
'...By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type of Arabic nationalism illegitimate?..'

...showing that he either knows only the crap spouted by wikipedia...or nothing at all about the Baath party...

...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism...[an obvious oxymoron to be pan-national and 'nationalist' at the same time...]

Of course there is always a 'better way'...right Hausmaus...?

The Baath socialism under Saddam in Iraq was no good for anyone we recall...especially women, students, sick people etc...

A 'better way' has since been installed and it is working beautifully...all can agree...

Same thing in Libya...where the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was no good for anyone...

Of course everyone wanted the 'Better Way'...all those doctoral graduates with free education and guaranteed jobs...a standard of living better than some European countries...etc...

Again...removing the 'socialist' Kadafi has worked out wonderfully...

We now have black African slaves sold in open air markets...where before they did all the broom pushing that was beneath the dignity of the Libyan Arabs...

...and were quite happy to stay there and have a job and paycheck...instead of now flooding the shores of Italy in anything that can float...

Oh yes...why would anyone in Syria want to be governed by the socialist Baath party...?

...especially the Kurds...who just over the border in Turkey are not even recognized as humans...never mind speaking their own language...

Oh yes yes yes...we all want the 'Better Way'...

It's a question of legitimacy you see...

Daniel | Nov 25, 2017 7:55:00 PM | 16
I'd really hoped that Donald Trump would be the "outsider" that both the MSM and he have been insisting he is for the past couple of years. Other than the Reality TV Show faux conflicts with which the MSM entertains us nightly, I see no such "rogue" Administration.

This say one thing, and do the other has been US foreign policy forever.

Recall, for instance that on February 21, 2014, Obama's State Department issued a statement hailing Ukrainian President Yanukovych for signing an agreement with the "pro-democracy Maidan Protest" leaders in which he acquiesced to all of their demands.

Then, on February 22, 2014, the US State Department cheered the "peaceful and Constitutional" coup after neo-nazis stormed the Parliament.

A few months later, Secretary of State Kerry hailed the Minsk Treaty to end the war in Ukraine. Later that day, Vickie Nuland said there was no way her Ukies would stop shelling civilians, and sure enough they didn't (until they'd been on the retreat for weeks, and came whimpering back to the negotiations table).

A couple years later, Kerry announced that the US and Russia would coordinate aerial assaults in Syria. The next day, "Defense" Secretary Carter said, "no way," and within a week or so, we "accidentally" bombed Syrian forces at Deir ez Zoir for over an hour.

From my perspective, they keep us chasing the next squirrel, while bickering amongst each other about each squirrel. But the wolves are still devouring the lambs, with only the Bear preventing a complete extinction.

flankerbandit | Nov 25, 2017 8:16:50 PM | 17
Some good comments here with food for thought...

What we know with at least some level of confidence...

Dump is not the 'decider'...the junta is...he's just a cardboard cutout sitting behind the oval office desk...

And he's got no one to blame but himself...he came in talking a big game about cleaning house and got himself cleaned out of being an actual president...

This was inevitable from the moment he caved on Flynn...the only person he didn't need to vet with the senate...and a position that wields a lot of power...

This was his undoing on many levels...not only because he faced a hostile deep state and even his own party in congress with no one by his side [other than Flynn]...

...but because it showed that he had no balls and would not stand by his man...

This is not the stuff leaders are made of...

The same BS we see with Turkey is playing out with Russia on the Ukraine issue...

Now the junta and their enablers in congress want to start sending offensive arms to Ukraine...Dump and his platitudes to Putin...no matter how much he may mean it...mean nothing...he's not in charge...

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/410942-trump-putin-friendly-words/

Yeah, Right | Nov 25, 2017 9:44:37 PM | 18
I think that Jean @4 has the best take on this: Erdoğan went very public on Trump's "promise" in a classic put-up-or-shut-up challenge to the USA.

Either the word of a POTUS means something or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then Turkey is going to join Russia in concluding that the USA as simply not-agreement-capable.

Erdoğan will then say "enough!!!", give the USA the two-finger-salute, and then take Turkey out of NATO.

And the best thing about it will be that McMaster, Kelly and Mathis will be so obsessed with playing their petty little games that they won't see it coming.

ritzl | Nov 25, 2017 11:08:38 PM | 19
It's hard to tell what Erdoğan is doing or intending other than that he is navigating something - objective TBD. It'll be interesting to see if he constrains the use of Incirlik airbase should the US keep arming the YPG/PKK forces. Airpower is the enabler (sole enabler, IMO) of the/any Kurdish overreach inside Syria. Seems like Erdoğan holds the ace card in this muddle but has yet to play it.
Grieved | Nov 25, 2017 11:32:17 PM | 20
@18 ritzl

Seems like Turkey has more than one card to play. A commenter on another site mentioned recently that the US really doesn't want Erdogan to have that S-400 system from Russia. Got me thinking, could Russia have deliberately loaded Erdogan's hand with that additional card to help him negotiate with the US?

Turkey may well leave NATO and as others have pointed out, this would be a game changer far beyond the matter of the US's illegal presence in NE Syria. This possibility brings immense existential gravitas to Erdogan's position right now. He could ask for many concessions at this point, not to leave. And from the Eurasian point of view, it doesn't matter if he leaves or stays, while from the western view, it matters greatly.

Would the US give up Syria, in order to keep Turkey in NATO? It's a western dichotomy, not one that affects Asia. It would be simple to throw S-400 at that dynamic to watch it squirm.

Jackrabbit | Nov 25, 2017 11:42:26 PM | 21
The plays the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.

- Hamlet

As the endgame plays out, Erdogan's conscience may be revealed.

b has made the point that the partition that US-led proxy forces have carved out is unsustainable. But it would be sustainable if Erdogan can be convinced to allow trade via Turkey.

For that reason, I thought Trump's ceasing direct military aid to the Kurds made sense as it provided Erdogan with an excuse to allow land routes for trade/supply. Erdogan can argue that he wants to encourage such good behavior and doesn't want to make US an enemy (Turkey is still a NATO country).

Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup was staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort not just because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that: the road to Tehran runs through Damascus .)

Hasn't Erdogan's vehement anti-Kurdish stance done R+6 a disservice? It seems to me that it has helped USA to convince Kurds to fight for them and has also been a convenient excuse for Erdogan to hold onto Idlib where al Queda forces have refuge. If Erdogan was really soooo angry with Washington, and soooo dependent on Moscow, then why not relax his anti-Kurdish stance so as to bring Kurds back into the Syrian orbit?

Seby | Nov 26, 2017 12:25:05 AM | 22
tRump just wants to hide the truth that he is castrated and with a tiny penis, like his hands.

Also just cares about money and soothing his narcissism. So f***'in American, in the worst sense!

Ian | Nov 26, 2017 12:29:05 AM | 23
Jackrabbit @20:
Erdogan may feel that if he relaxed his stance against the Syrian Kurds, it could embolden Turkish Kurds to further pursue their agenda. It would also make him appear weak towards his supporters.
Fernando Arauxo | Nov 26, 2017 1:45:51 AM | 24
Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he? It would be the stupidest chess move ever? He's in the club and they can't kick him out. He can cause all the trouble he wants and hobble that huge machine that is the western alliance. He will not get EU membership, but he has his NATO ID CARD and that ain't bad. Erdo now knows that the poor bastard Trumps is WORTHLESS that he is a toothless executive in name only. This is a wake up call, if I were Erdo, I would be very afraid of the USA and it's Syria, MENA policy. It is being run by LUNATICS and is a slow moving train wreak. So for now, Erdo must be looking at Moscow, admiring Putin for this is a man who has his shit together and truly knows how to run a country. Maybe even a sense of admiration and more respect for Putin is even present. If I were Erdo, I'd double down in my support for Russia's Syria policy.
Hausmeister | Nov 26, 2017 3:46:55 AM | 25
@ flankerbandit | Nov 25, 2017 7:53:29 PM | 14

You do not get it:
„...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism..."
According to this ideology the coherence of a society comes from where? And who is excluded if one applies it?
So your contribution is just a rant using rancidic rhetoric tools. But I will not call you „flunkerbandit". My advice is to move to this area and have a look into such a society from a more close position. Armchair type of vocal leadership does not help.

Anon | Nov 26, 2017 5:11:53 AM | 26
In the Obama years there was a:

Which policy is Trump really up against?

Jen | Nov 26, 2017 6:38:32 AM | 27
Anon @ 25: Tempted to say Trump is up against all of them plus NSA policy, FBI policy, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) policy and the policies of, what, 12 other intel agencies?
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/17-agencies-of-the-us-intelligence-community-2013-5?r=US&IR=T
Yeah, Right | Nov 26, 2017 7:27:43 AM | 28
@23 "Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he?"

I guess one possible reason would be this: as long as Turkey remains in NATO then he is obliged to allow a US military presence in his country, and that's just asking for another attempt at a military coup.

After all, wasn't Incirlik airbase a hotbed of coup-plotters during the last coup attempt?

arbetet | Nov 26, 2017 10:14:56 AM | 29
This came up:

SDF official: Kurds will join the Syrian Arab Army ranks!

Harry | Nov 26, 2017 10:33:01 AM | 30
@ arbetet | 29

"when the Syrian settlement is achieved, Syria's democratic forces will join the Syrian army."
"When the Syrian state stabilizes, we can say that the Americans did what they said, then withdraw as they did in Iraq and set a date for their departure and leave."

Nothing new here, nothing good either. Kurds so far are keeping up their demands of de-facto independence under fig-leaf of "we are part of federalised Syria" with weak central government and autonomous Kurds. Thats how US plan to castrate Syria. Russia offered cultural autonomy, Kurds rejected.

As for Americans "withdrawing" willfully, it never happened. Iraq had to kick them out, and then US used ISIS and Kurds to get back in.

As for Syria's stabilization part, US is doing everything in its power to prevent it.

dan of steele | Nov 26, 2017 11:00:06 AM | 31
@Yeah Right #26
Turkey is not obliged to keep foreign troops in their country to remain in NATO. De Gaulle invited the US to leave France in 1967 but is still a member of NATO
Yeah, Right | Nov 26, 2017 5:18:37 PM | 32
@31 France actually withdrew from NATO in 1966. It remained "committed" to the collective defence of western Europe, without being, you know, "committed" to it.

So, yeah, France kicked all the foreign troops out of France in 1967, precisely because its withdrawal from NATO's Integrated Military Command meant that the French were no longer under any obligation to allow NATO troops on its soil.

But France had to formally withdraw from that Command first, and the reason that de Gaulle gave for withdrawing were exactly that: remaining meant ceding sovereignty to a supra-national organization i.e. NATO Integrated Military Command.

That France retained "membership" of NATO's political organizations even after that withdrawal was little more than a fig-leaf.

After all, NATO's purpose isn't "political", it is "military".

fast freddy | Nov 26, 2017 6:21:33 PM | 33
"The Decider" is Trump's apparent self image. He can't be enjoying the Presidency and the controls exerted upon him by others among the "Deep State" (whom I suppose have effectively cowed him into behaving via serious threats).

If he already had money and power, as it appears that he had, he gained little by taking the crown. He has less power because he is now controlled by a number of forces (CIA, NSA, Media, MIC and etc.) as he remains under constant assault by his natural opposition.

Big mistake dumping Flynn.

Now you take another kind of asshole in the person of Obama - a guy that had nothing - you have a malleable character who enjoys the pomp and circumstance. Really didn't need any persuading to do anything required of him.

psychohistorian | Nov 26, 2017 11:30:16 PM | 34
Here is a recent report from the Turkish Prime Minister supporting Trump's "lie" about ending support for the Kurds....what will history show occured?

ISTANBUL, Nov. 26 (Xinhua) -- Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said on Sunday that his country is expecting the United States to end its partnership with the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People's Protection Units (YPG).

"Since the very beginning, we have said that it is wrong for the U.S. to partner with PKK's cousin PYD and YPG in the fight against Daesh (Islamic State) terrorist group," Yildirim told the press in Istanbul prior to his departure for Britain.

Ankara sees the Kurdish groups as an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) fighting against the Turkish government for over 30 years, while Washington regards them as a reliable ground force against the Islamic State (IS), also known as Daesh.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday spoke to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan over the phone, pledging not to provide weapons to the YPG any more, an irritant that has hurt bilateral ties, according to the Turkish side.

Yildirim noted that Washington has described it as an obligation rather than an option to support the Kurdish groups on the ground. "But since Daesh (IS) is now eliminated then this obligation has disappeared," he added.

Julian | Nov 27, 2017 12:47:45 AM | 35
It would be nice if Erdogan when withdrawing from NATO (Assuming he does this in the next 12-18 months) would say something like.
"We really like President Trump - and we trust his word implicitly. The problem is, although we trust his word, we know he is not in control so his word is useless and best ignored. Though of course - we still trust he means well."

That would be a nice backhander to hear from Erdopig.

Quentin | Nov 27, 2017 8:48:51 AM | 36
Speculation about Turkey leaving NATO seems farfetched. Turkey has NATO over a barrel. It has been a member for decades and what would it gain by leaving? Nothing. By staying it continues to influence and needle at the same time. Turkey will only leave when NATO throws it out, which isn't going to happen.
Willy2 | Nov 27, 2017 11:53:09 AM | 37
- According to Sibel Edmonds there're 2 coups being prepared. One against Trump and one against Erdogan.

[Nov 28, 2017] Blowback CNN Pushes Plan To Ban The Term 'Fake News' by Paul Joseph Watson

Notable quotes:
"... In a CNN opinion piece written by Hossein Derakhshan and Claire Wardle, who are affiliated with the globalist Council of Europe, the authors argue that the term "fake news" has "become meaningless" and lost its power because politicians (primarily Donald Trump) have hijacked it as a way to "undermine" the media establishment. ..."
"... The authors decry the fact that many people now believe the mainstream media peddles "fabricated stories" and that information monopolies are being challenged by the ability for "anyone in the world" to have a platform. ..."
"... Of course, the real reason media elites want to clamp down on the term "fake news" is because its original intention, to smear and discredit opponents of Hillary Clinton, right of center media outlets, and people who distrust the mainstream media, has completely backfired. ..."
"... This was illustrated yet again by Donald Trump's tweet earlier today when he suggested that a "fake news trophy" should be awarded to the network that has been responsible for the most inaccurate reporting. ..."
"... The Podesta emails also revealed how mainstream journalists were completely in bed with the Clinton campaign and even ran stories by them before publication. ..."
"... The "fake news" narrative has completely backfired on the political establishment and the media because it has acted as a boomerang, showing the mainstream media to be the most consistently dishonest entity of all. ..."
"... Is it any wonder therefore that the political class is now so keen to retire the term altogether? ..."
Nov 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via InfoWars.com

CNN is now pushing an effort to "ban the term fake news" after the slogan became synonymous with CNN itself thanks to President Donald Trump.

In a CNN opinion piece written by Hossein Derakhshan and Claire Wardle, who are affiliated with the globalist Council of Europe, the authors argue that the term "fake news" has "become meaningless" and lost its power because politicians (primarily Donald Trump) have hijacked it as a way to "undermine" the media establishment.

The authors decry the fact that many people now believe the mainstream media peddles "fabricated stories" and that information monopolies are being challenged by the ability for "anyone in the world" to have a platform.

Remember when the mainstream media & the Hillary campaign invented the term "fake news" in an effort to discredit alternative & right of center media outlets?

Yeah, that went well. pic.twitter.com/HJPpIQEr4j

-- Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 27, 2017

Complaining that "less powerful agents can harm large institutions or established individuals," Derakhshan and Wardle warn that trust in institutions is declining and that only through intervention at the level of "public education" (ie indoctrination) can this be reversed.

Of course, the real reason media elites want to clamp down on the term "fake news" is because its original intention, to smear and discredit opponents of Hillary Clinton, right of center media outlets, and people who distrust the mainstream media, has completely backfired.

This was illustrated yet again by Donald Trump's tweet earlier today when he suggested that a "fake news trophy" should be awarded to the network that has been responsible for the most inaccurate reporting.

We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2017

"Fake news" was one of many excuses trotted out after November last year to push the narrative that President Trump's election was somehow illegitimate.

In reality, a major Stanford University study found that "even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of Americans," and that the most widely believed fake news stories were those that benefited Hillary Clinton.

Fake news had virtually no impact on the election, but the establishment media weaponized the term as part of an agenda to silence and censor voices of dissent, including media platforms, that had opposed Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

In addition, mainstream media news coverage in the weeks leading up to the election was 91% negative towards Trump, according to a study by the Media Research Center.

The Podesta emails also revealed how mainstream journalists were completely in bed with the Clinton campaign and even ran stories by them before publication.

The "fake news" narrative has completely backfired on the political establishment and the media because it has acted as a boomerang, showing the mainstream media to be the most consistently dishonest entity of all.

Is it any wonder therefore that the political class is now so keen to retire the term altogether?

[Nov 23, 2017] US-Israeli military supply relations - Symbiosis or parasitism

Notable quotes:
"... I am not in a position to gauge whether the confidence she expresses in the continued enthusiasm of the American military for Israel is well-founded. What makes me slightly skeptical is her description of 'the British' as 'our other best friend in the world'. This may still be largely true, if one looks solely at the élite level, but in pursuing 'neoconservative' and 'neoliberal' policies the leaderships of both major parties have drastically undermined their own legitimacy. To an extent the resulting backlash is already turning antisemitic, and may become much more so. ..."
Nov 23, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"The biggest element of US-Israeli military-technical cooperation is military aid. Israel is the main recipient of US military aid in the form of grants and direct deliveries of equipment on advantageous terms. Since 1976, Israel has been the biggest recipient of annual US aid, and since 1987 of US military aid. In addition, by some estimates Israel receives $1 billion a year in the form of charity contributions, and a similar sum through short- and long-term funds. US provide aid to Israel in various forms: Foreign Military Sales, Direct Commercial Sales, Excess Defense Articles, and also funds to support research and development. Moreover, the Foreign Military Financing program implemented by the US Department of State has become, over the years, the largest of all such programs implemented by the US. One should note that, for example, out of $5.7 billion budgeted for this program in 2014, $3.1 went to Israel, In other words, Israel obtains more military assistance through this program than the rest of the world combined. This sum does not include the financing for Israel's ABM programs, which are estimated at another $500 million. Unlike other programs, FMF allows Israel to spend up to 25% of US-provided funding on own military programs. All other countries receiving military aid must spend it only on US weapons and equipment." SF

-----------

IMO it is debatable as to which side is the donkey in the US/Israeli military relationship. In my experience as the head DoD liaison to IDF general staff intelligence (7 years worth), "what's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs as well." I was an SES then with the spigot to intelligence largesse in my hand and I found them to be completely bloody minded about sharing information with the US. To get anything from them was like pulling molars without anesthetic.

I don't doubt that US government gifts to Israel benefit American defense industry, but these gifts come right out of the pocket of the American taxpayer and what do we get for it? Is it salved conscience for FDR's unwillingness to open the floodgates to European Jewry during WW2? Perhaps that is so or is it the brute force arm twisting and virtual bribery that AIPAC works upon Congress?

Israeli forces are in no way at the disposition of the US. They are not assets of American policy. Israel sees itself as an self-defining island in the world and the only real home for Jews. As such it thinks it cannot afford to be sentimental about any predominately gentile state, in other words, all others.

And then, there is the repeated phenomenon of Israel either skirting the provisions of proprietary agreements about equipment sales or shared R&D or simply outright violations of these agreements in sales to third parties.

No, there is no doubt, we are the ass. Hee Haw! pl

https://southfront.org/israels-military-expenditures-and-military-industrial-complex-overview-and-dynamics/

Peter , 21 November 2017 at 12:03 PM

You nailed it - the US is definitely the ass

One wonders when young American troops will stop dying for Israel

mikee -> Peter... , 21 November 2017 at 08:54 PM
Perhaps the body count has not reached the required threshold.
mikee -> Peter... , 21 November 2017 at 10:44 PM
Go to Breitbart or other Zionist supporting websites and ask the same question. Only frame it differently i.e. 'When will Israel start fighting it's own wars?'
Bob Smith -> Peter... , 22 November 2017 at 09:26 AM
Once Israel has sucked America dry . . got them in a strangle hold in National debt, bought out all Corporations that are profitable and useful for their cause . . and all the time Americans believe Israel is doing them a favour in the Middle East.

Remember that's what the Russians believed, the British, the German, the French, the Arabs & the Turks believed. Now its China's turn . . now their done with the U.S. . . how long or how deep in debt must you go before you wake up America and how many Goyim children must die for these Talmudists. Work it out . .

james , 21 November 2017 at 01:00 PM
thanks pat.. good quick overview from you who have worked on the inside enough to get a better glimpse of the dynamic. when will this insane relationship stop?
james , 21 November 2017 at 01:00 PM
oh and i forgot to mention, it is all about Russia stealing the election, lol..
b , 21 November 2017 at 03:55 PM
Notes from a speech given by Shoshana Bryen at the American Zionist Movement Conference November 2017, Washington, DC

"The U.S. Military as a Zionist Organization"

https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2017/11/20/u-s-military-zionist-organization/

Klaus Weiß , 21 November 2017 at 04:12 PM
FDR's unwillingness? According to Alfred M. Lilienthal ("The Zionist Connection. What Price Peace?", pp. 35 f.), it was the Jewish lobby that prevented a legislation enabling the immigration of the doomed.
Perer Reichard -> Klaus Weiß... , 22 November 2017 at 06:07 AM
The Zionist Connection is a wonderful eye opening book that completely turned my thinking around when I first read it 39 years ago. Highly recommended.
Lemur , 21 November 2017 at 04:47 PM
Zionist shenanigans with the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world represent yet another stark warning against the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism. Predatory rent seeking minorities, protected by the liberal mind virus, leveraging the power structure for their own gain.

And its not limited to just Jews. Even whites who originated further away from the largely northern European founding stock of the US play their little games. Few know concentrations of Poles in key swing states like Ohio have extracted significant concessions from various presidential campaigns on the matter of Eastern European foreign policy. This was why when unapologetic WASPs ruled the United States, they were highly selective of who could come in, and ruthlessly stamped out any value systems and cultural traits distinct from new world Anglo norms. America was never a 'melting pot' as a London based Jew tried to claim in the early 20th century in his hack play. It was an Anglo run forge which inducted selected adjacent groups who could be assimilated into to the whig Anglo tradition.

mikee -> Lemur... , 21 November 2017 at 10:11 PM
"Zionist shenanigans with the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world represent yet another stark warning against the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism."

I believe diversity and multicultuarlism may be a superior counterbalance to your 'rent seeking minorities', Perhaps this nation needs some new blood to help 'drain the swamp'.

turcopolier , 21 November 2017 at 05:16 PM
james

"enough to get a better glimpse of the dynamic.." Grudging. What would you think "a lot? pl

Poul , 21 November 2017 at 06:02 PM
A never ending "Marshall Plan" for Israel of about 1% of Israel's GDP. They don't need the money but as long as the USA can pay it's nice.

I think the access to American technology is of greater importance. A lot of R&D cost can be avoided and there is a great potential for weapons sales.

Richardstevenhack , 21 November 2017 at 07:39 PM
Not to mention the blatant theft of US nuclear materials in support of their nuclear weapons program. Not to mention they are always on the FBI's list of the countries most engaged in espionage against the US. The FBI was up in arms over the fact that Israeli firms were operating the US communications eavesdropping equipment until they got caught selling intercept information to California drug dealers.

Israel has learned that the best way to spy on other countries is to be the country selling those countries all the surveillance equipment.

Not to mention Israel's hacking ability. The latest Russiagate nonsense involved the Kaspersky Labs, an infosec company, being hacked by Israel who then claimed Kaspersky was connected to Russian intelligence. This resulted in the US banning Kaspersky products inside the US government and severely hurt Kaspersky's business model.

Not to mention their agents knew all about 9/11 prior to the attack and waited until a couple weeks before to mention it to US intelligence, as a means of CYA. Their agents actually filmed the attack from New Jersey while high-fiving themselves.

Not to mention they were involved in "false flag" terrorist attacks against Western targets until they got caught at it.

Not to mention the USS Liberty, a flagrant attack on a US intelligence ship with the expressed purpose of killing every US sailor on board.

The list of Israeli aggression against the US is long and sickening. It should be considered treason to support that country in any way.

mikee -> Richardstevenhack ... , 21 November 2017 at 08:19 PM
I certainly hope you have some evidence to support all of these claims, particularly the 9-11 claim. Will be waiting with baited breath.
Richardstevenhack -> mikee... , 22 November 2017 at 03:13 PM
A sampling...

Four Part Series Carl Cameron Israeli Spies in U.S.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k43_NKYs50

9/11 – Whar Was Israel's Role?
https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121701.html

9/11 Suspects: Dancing Israelis
https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-dancing-israelis/

The Apollo Affair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair

How Israel Stole the Bomb
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/11/how-israel-stole-the-bomb/

Lavon Affair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

There's more - Google is your friend.

J , 21 November 2017 at 07:49 PM
So is our U.S. becoming a more police state atmosphere like Israel? The same Israel where censorship and the state message rule the day, seems is being passed onto our U.S.. U.S. taxpayer funded startup GOOGLE is now on-board to become America's censor. Was British Author George Orwell looking into a crystal ball when he created the writing "1984"? Hmmm..

https://www.rt.com/news/410444-google-alphabet-derank-rt/

Why not let the American people do their own censoring, where if they don't like the internet message (RT,Sputnik, Russian news), they can change the subject or move on to something they are more interested in.

I'd say the parasitical more than the symbiosis is the meme.

America's police being trained in Israeli tactics of force upon the unarmed, the Israeli tactics to dehumanize is now percolating within U.S. law enforcement tactics and employment methods, is also spreading to thought and message control.

mikee -> J... , 21 November 2017 at 08:27 PM
I believe Google has been doing this for quite some time. The information is there but you must make an effort to find it, and assess its factualness. The only thing Schmidt is doing is prioritizing Western propaganda over Russian propaganda.
The Porkchop Express -> J... , 21 November 2017 at 08:54 PM
This was one of the scariest things I noticed traveling in Israel/Palestine around 2006-2008. Just about every draconian security measure was used as part of daily life. They've since become common place in the US now all as a result of the same need to "fight terrorism."

That US police forces send delegations to Israel to learn about policing tactics are also worrisome.

Tail truly wags the dog here. Maybe not overall but certainly as far as foreign policy/middle east/constant need for an enemy are concerned.

mikee , 21 November 2017 at 09:59 PM
Are you 'Rapture Ready'? ( https://www.raptureready.com/category/rapture-ready-news/ )

Focuses on the end times, Israel and now the Saudis, not necessarily in any order of importance. And damn India - they've cancelled a $500 million missile deal with Israel .

Poul -> mikee... , 22 November 2017 at 08:27 AM
Smart policy move from India? Leave Israel wanting to get back into India's good graces with some extra technology transfers. My impression is that India plays Israel well on arms tech. Get as much as they can with as little in return as possible. Don't the US sometimes put their foot down and blocks an arms deal.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/India-Israel/India-cancels-500-million-missile-deal-with-Israel-514708

"India has become one of Israel's largest buyers of military hardware, with annual defense deals worth over $1b.

"Usually, all the [defense] deals between Israel and India included some technology transfer, which India could not get anywhere else in Europe or America," said Shapir. "As long as we can supply better technology on better terms, India will welcome it." He added that relations could deteriorate again, due to India's strong ties to Iran and much of the Arab world."

J , 21 November 2017 at 10:18 PM
Colonel

The IC have lost it IMO letting Amazon have the keys to the kingdom. Question is, will Israel be given a copy set of keys, if not you can safely say they'll try and get into it by other means. Which means by the IC using cloud, they'll be giving the keys to the kingdom to both Moscow and Beijing.
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2017/11/amazons-new-secret-region-promises-easier-sharing-classified-data/142692/

Crosley Bendix , 21 November 2017 at 10:24 PM
A long time ago I worked at Collins in Cedar Rapids in the GPS group. My boss at the time was head of R&D. He told me that when the Israelis came to town they were almost impossible to work with since they were constantly trying to steal intellectual property and classified material. Other foreign nationals would occasionally try something but they never tried to get away anything near what the Israelis did. As I'm sure that many of your readers would be aware of GPS is crucial to communication security.
mikee , 21 November 2017 at 10:27 PM
Never forget that a Palestinian and an Israeli put their pants on the same way that you do. That's the way I try to look at the inhabitants of this world. In my heart I'm hoping that most Israelis would agree
Willybilly , 22 November 2017 at 12:09 AM
They will suck the last drop of blood from USA, then they will move out to better heavens.... They have already started moving lots and lots of funds and assets out of the USA...., for in their schemes, the US is nearing a breaking point to the worst...
Peter AU , 22 November 2017 at 12:33 AM
The two major problems your country faces as an independent country are Saudi money, and Gods chosen people (according to the bible). Saudi money is corruption legalised. Israel - many people of influence in the US seem to give their loyalty to Israel rather than the US, for I guess religious reasons. Be interesting to see how much Saudi "sponsorship" money flows into the US after the MBS corruption enquiries. Israel is a harder nut to crack. A bit of chemo in the US required?
Heros von Borcke , 22 November 2017 at 06:40 AM
When I claimed that Nato was little more than the Rothschild Army I was lambasted here. If the US military, which has control of Nato, is the ass of the Donkey, then what does that make Nato? Somehow every Nato secretary ends up being a Zionist/Neocon too, so the control is clearly complete.

In 1917, the Balfour declaration was addressed to Lord Rothschild, who simultaneously was instigating the Russian Revolution and the murder of his sworn enemy, the czar.

The point here is that Israel, more than anything else, is a creation of the House of Rothschild and during the decades of its creation there were numerous Jews who were rabidly opposed to the false claims of biblical justification. This is one reason why there are dozens of fake claims in the Zionist dominated newspapers of "6,000,000 dead Jews" starting in the pogroms of the late 1890's until they finally found a holocaust that they could make stick to use to justify land theft and extortion.

And extortion is the point here. Not only the US is being extorted for a few billion every year, other countries are forced to make massive extortion payoff's too. Switzerland and Sweden were forced to pay billions due to their having traded with Germany during the war and having accepted "nazi gold". Merkel famously gifted diesel-electric submarines to Israel, on top of the tribute that Germany still pays yearly.

There are dozens of ways that Israel, and jews in general, extort money from gentiles in forms of special jew taxes. One of these is the OU kosher certification which many manufacturers are forced to provide.

Babak Makkinejad -> Heros von Borcke... , 22 November 2017 at 11:50 AM
But what did Rotschild gain from the wars of disintegrate of Yugoslavia? Or from NATO's march East, towards WW3?
Peter Reichard , 22 November 2017 at 06:47 AM
The Lavi fighter saga epitomizes the perverse nature of US-Israeli relations. The US offered over a billion dollars for its R&D, 250 million to be spent in Israel. The primary beneficiary was IAI a company which illegally tried to sell its Kfir jet to Peru in direct competition with Northrup, illegal because the Kfir's GE J-79 engines came free of charge and with an End User Certificate preventing their re-export. Informed of this Congress responded by increasing the Israeli largess to 450 million.

In the end Israel decided not to build the plane but sold the plans to the Chinese whose J-10 aircraft, their first home-grown state of the art fighter, while not a part for part copy does bear a striking resemblance to the Lavi. Both the British and American aviation press claim the J-10 could not have been built as quickly and cheaply as it was without Israeli help. With friends like these .....

gaikokumaniakku , 22 November 2017 at 07:36 AM
>is it the brute force arm twisting and virtual bribery that AIPAC works upon Congress?

Mostly it is about the bribery. To some degree it is about the blackmail. If Hillary gets convicted for uranium - or pizza trafficking - perhaps the extent of corruption will become widely known, and perhaps the populace will be moved to wrath.

David Habakkuk , 22 November 2017 at 11:33 AM
All,

The notes from the recent speech given by Shoshana Bryen at the American Zionist Conference which were published under the title 'The U.S. Military as a Zionist Organisation' are I think very interesting – thanks to 'b' for the link.

(See http://mondoweiss.net/2017/11/clinton-scandals-entailed/ .)

I am not in a position to gauge whether the confidence she expresses in the continued enthusiasm of the American military for Israel is well-founded. What makes me slightly skeptical is her description of 'the British' as 'our other best friend in the world'. This may still be largely true, if one looks solely at the élite level, but in pursuing 'neoconservative' and 'neoliberal' policies the leaderships of both major parties have drastically undermined their own legitimacy. To an extent the resulting backlash is already turning antisemitic, and may become much more so.

It was also interesting that Ms Bryen relied extensively on the views of our former Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, given that he has little understanding of the attitudes of people in this country outside the narrow circles in which it appears he moves.

In September 2016, he gave a speech to the European Parliament entitled 'The Mutating Virus: Understanding Antisemitism', in which it was claimed that: 'Antisemitism is not about Jews. It is about anti-Semites. It is about people who cannot accept responsibility for their own failures and have instead to blame someone else.'

(See http://rabbisacks.org/mutating-virus-understanding-antisemitism/ .)

... ... ...

rjj -> David Habakkuk ... , 22 November 2017 at 01:06 PM
Extrapolating from the above mentioned list of 50, a list of 100 would include Bernie Madow and Leona Helmsley.

It's agitprop -- bait.

rjj -> David Habakkuk ... , 22 November 2017 at 02:06 PM
Seems to me the Jewish predicament is that they number 15 million in a world with 1.3 and 1.4 billion Indians and Chinese respectively. Am guessing this is experienced as a threat to their post-ww2 intellectual, cultural, and economic supremacy.

All living organisms at all levels of organization have survival strategies for overcoming disadvantage. See Darwin and/or Adler and/or Clausewitz and/or Kautilya for different but similar -- variations on a theme -- descriptions of how that goes.

outthere -> David Habakkuk ... , 22 November 2017 at 03:07 PM
as usual, your analysis is provocative and I mostly agree, but you say
"to dismiss the convictions of people who think that Jews have too much influence as scapegoating is, again, simply silly. The wrong Jews do."

In my view, Jews do have too much influence over the government of the USA, but it is NOT just a matter of "the wrong jews" as you state. Consider the Supreme Court, where 3 of 9 justices are jews, also noteworthy that 5 are catholic. Gorsuch is the 9th, and he was raised catholic but became an episcopalian. Until Gorsuch was appointed, there were no protestants on the Court, none, zero. And of course there are no atheists, or muslims or buddhists or hindus.

I do not fault the jewish members of the Court, rather I ask for analysis of how this small minority of perhaps 2% came to occupy one third of the seats of the Court.
And catholics with 22% of the population, hold 5 of 9 seats on the Court.

Perhaps the answer is there are no intelligent articulate protestants in the USA?? I don't think that is the answer.

outthere , 22 November 2017 at 03:24 PM
Here is an analysis of how much Israel spent to influence USA elections. Washington - Which Nation is Really Interfering in the Electoral Process?
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ru/2017/07/washington-which-nation-is-really.html

[Nov 22, 2017] Here is an analysis of how much Israel spent to influence USA elections

Nov 22, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

outthere , 22 November 2017 at 03:24 PM

Here is an analysis of how much Israel spent to influence USA elections
Washington - Which Nation is Really Interfering in the Electoral Process?
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ru/2017/07/washington-which-nation-is-really.html

[Nov 22, 2017] Here is an analysis of how much Israel spent to influence USA elections

Nov 22, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

outthere , 22 November 2017 at 03:24 PM

Here is an analysis of how much Israel spent to influence USA elections
Washington - Which Nation is Really Interfering in the Electoral Process?
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ru/2017/07/washington-which-nation-is-really.html

[Nov 22, 2017] DECAMERON And Now, Calling to Start US War in Syria All Over Again

Notable quotes:
"... "Consistent with the Trump Administration's stated intention of pushing back against Iran's increasingly malign behavior throughout the Middle East, American policymakers urgently need to rebuild credibility and positions of strength by contesting Iran's rising influence across the region. Most urgently, the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran's pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime in Syria. Time is of the essence, as Iranian-backed forces recently have retaken nearly all the country, save lands liberated from Islamic State (IS) by the U.S.-led coalition. These, and any further, strategic gains threaten to entrench Tehran as the arbiter of postwar Syria and consolidate its control of a "land bridge" connecting Iran directly to Lebanon and Hezbollah." ..."
"... "The annual Generals and Admirals Program to the Middle East, in which recently retired American generals and admirals are invited to visit Israel with JINSA to meet the top echelon of the Israeli military and political leadership, ensures that the American delegation is well briefed on the security concerns of Israel, as well as the key role Israel plays as a friend and ally of the U.S. To date, JINSA has taken more than 400 retired officers to Israel, many of whom serve on JINSA's Board of Advisors." ..."
"... first -- JINSA." ..."
Nov 22, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

There are only a couple of dozen hardcore BORG-ists (to use Col Lang's useful description) trolling for war against Iran, but they are irrationally consistent. The names are familiar: Ledeen, Richard Perle, Woolsey, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), etc. Now, enter JINSA.

This week, another piece of the drive for war against Iran has manifested itself on the pages of the Jewish Institute for National Security for America (JINSA) www.jinsa.org , with a November 20, 2017 report, Countering Iranian Expansion in Syria. It says:

"Consistent with the Trump Administration's stated intention of pushing back against Iran's increasingly malign behavior throughout the Middle East, American policymakers urgently need to rebuild credibility and positions of strength by contesting Iran's rising influence across the region. Most urgently, the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran's pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime in Syria. Time is of the essence, as Iranian-backed forces recently have retaken nearly all the country, save lands liberated from Islamic State (IS) by the U.S.-led coalition. These, and any further, strategic gains threaten to entrench Tehran as the arbiter of postwar Syria and consolidate its control of a "land bridge" connecting Iran directly to Lebanon and Hezbollah."

The heart of Israeli penetration of the U.S. national security sector has long been JINSA -- Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA). JINSA was founded in 1973, immediately following the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli War, to assure U.S. military support for all future Israeli wars. JINSA 's mission was to recruit large numbers of recently retired U.S. military officers to the Israeli cause, by, among other techniques, sponsoring all-expenses-paid junkets to Israel, or exchange programs at Israeli military academies. It is long term. It is steady. It keeps the same core directors. It is not distracted. It is a mostly-overlooked component of the Israel Lobby.

Today, the JINSA website boasts:

"The annual Generals and Admirals Program to the Middle East, in which recently retired American generals and admirals are invited to visit Israel with JINSA to meet the top echelon of the Israeli military and political leadership, ensures that the American delegation is well briefed on the security concerns of Israel, as well as the key role Israel plays as a friend and ally of the U.S. To date, JINSA has taken more than 400 retired officers to Israel, many of whom serve on JINSA's Board of Advisors."

JINSA's board is a hotbed of neo-cons, some of whom have been investigated for spying for the Israeli state. Board members include former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Steven D. Bryen, former National Security consultant Michael Ledeen, Bush-Cheney's director of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, Kenneth Timmerman, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. Steven Bryen's wife, Shoshanna Bryen was long time executive director of JINSA, involved in profiling likely military officers to be recruited to the junkets to Israel.

In 2001, after the 9/11 attack, JINSA's own website boasted of its dedication to the primacy of the US-Israeli relationship above all else. "Only one think tank puts the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship first -- JINSA."

On Sept. 12, 2001 JINSA issued a call for precisely the kind of U.S. war against the Arab world that has embroiled the U.S. in endless wars in the region. At that time, JINSA said the response to the 911 attack had to be larger than an attack on Al Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan: "The countries harboring and training [terrorists] include not just Afghanistan -- but Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Algeria, friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt."

Get a score card, and see whether JINSA's interests have taken hold: Invasion of Iraq (2003), Regime change in Iran (still trying and 2017, the Number One priority), Syria (ongoing war to unseat Assad), Sudan (country divided), Libya (2011 overthrow of Qadaffi and failed state), Palestinian Authority (chaos and Jewish settlement expansion especially since the 2006 Hamas election victory), Egypt (two revolutions in two years, absolute economic desperation). Not targeted so far: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria (kind of).

No wonder Saudi Arabia's Salman team is salivating over making alliances with Netanyahu.

Posted at 01:07 PM in Decameron , Middle East Permalink Comments (1)

jjc said...

Israel hosted the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism way back in the summer of 1979 where the foundations of the War On Terror were set, although in that day the ultimate sponsor of international terrorism was said to be the Soviet Union. "The mortal danger to Western security and democracy posed by the worldwide scope of this international terrorist movement required an appropriate worldwide anti-terrorism offensive, consisting of the mutual coordination of Western military intelligence services."

This conference was hosted by Netanyahu and featured numerous high level Israeli politicians and military figures, as well as Americans such as Henry Jackson, George HW Bush, Richard Pipes, Ray Cline, and right-leaning officials from Britain and France. "US, Israeli and British elites were actively constructing 'international terrorism' as an ideology..." (see Nafeez Ahmed, War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism, pp 3-6)

[Nov 22, 2017] Just imagine what songs Bandar Bush is singing in the Ritz these days

Nov 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
survey-of-disinfo , November 20, 2017 at 1:50 pm GMT
@Erebus

Just imagine what songs Bandar Bush is singing in "the Ritz" these days. Want to sue Saudi Arabia for money because of 9/11? No problem, judge. Here are the names, here are the numbers, and here are the facts.

Disagree regarding multipolar order. The super structures for Globalism are untouched in all this theatrical displays. All parties seem to participate actively in key Globalist institutions.

Petrodollar is not and was never a component of NWO. It was an instrument of American supremacy. There are no planned superpowers in the NWO vision. Only Super-Institutions .

[Nov 18, 2017] State Department's New Victoria Nuland...is Just Like the Old Victoria Nuland

Notable quotes:
"... American Interest ..."
Nov 18, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Yesterday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson swore into office a new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Dr. A. Wess Mitchell became the Trump Administration's top diplomat for Europe , "responsible for diplomatic relations with 50 countries in Europe and Eurasia, and with NATO, the EU and the OSCE."

Readers will recall that the position was most recently held during the Obama Administration by Kagan family neocon, Victoria Nuland, who was key catalyst and cookie provider for the US-backed coup overthrowing the elected government in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland's virulently anti-Russia position was a trademark of the neocon persuasion and she put ideology into action by " midwifing ," in her own words, an illegal change of government in Ukraine.

It was Nuland's coup that laid the groundwork for a precipitous decay in US/Russia relations, as Washington's neocons peddled the false line that "Russia invaded Ukraine" to cover up for the fact that it was the US government that had meddled in Ukrainian affairs. The coup was bloody and divisive , resulting in a de-facto split in the country that continues to the day. Ukraine did not flourish as a result of this neocon scheme, but has in fact been in economic free-fall since the US government installed its preferred politicians into positions of power.

You don't hear much about Ukraine these days because the neocons hate to talk about their failures. But the corruption of the US-installed government has crippled the country, extreme nationalist elements that make up the core of the post-coup elites have imposed a new education law so vicious toward an age-old Hungarian population stuck inside arbitrarily re-drawn post-WWI borders that the Hungarian government has blocked Ukraine's further integration into NATO, and a new "Maidan" protest has steadily gathered steam in Kiev despite Western cameras being uninterested this time.

Fortunately Donald Trump campaigned on and was elected to improve relations with Russia and end the Obama Administration's neocon-fueled launch of a new Cold War. He raised eyebrows when he directly challenged the neocon shibboleth -- amplified by the mainstream media -- that Russia was invading Ukraine. But candidate Trump really blew neocon minds -- and delighted voters -- when he said he was looking into ending US sanctions on Russia imposed by Obama and may recognize Crimea as Russian territory.

Which brings us back to Wess Mitchell. Certainly President Trump, seeing the destruction of Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Victoria Nuland's anti-Russia interventionism, would he finally restore a sane diplomat to the position vacated by the unmourned former Assistant Secretary. Would appoint someone in line with the rhetoric that landed him the Oval Office. Right?

Wrong!

If anything, Wess Mitchell may well prove to be Victoria Nuland on steroids. He was co-founder and CEO of the neocon-dominated Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). Mitchell's CEPA is funded largely by the US government, NATO, neocon grant-making mega-foundations, and the military-industrial complex. The "think tank" does the bidding of its funders, finding a Russian threat under every rock that requires a NATO and defense industry response -- or we're doomed!

Mitchell's CEPA's recent greatest hits? " The Kremlin's 20 toxic tactics ," " Russian disinformation and anti-Western narratives in Romania: How to fight back? ," " Winning the Information War ," " Alliances and American greatness ," " Russia's historical distortions ," " What the Kremlin Fears Most ," and so on. You get the idea. The raison d'etre of the organization founded by the new Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia is to foment a new (and very profitable) Cold War (and more?) with Russia.

Last month, CEPA put on its big conference, the " CEPA Forum 2017 ." Speakers included central European heavy hitter politicos like the president of Latvia and also Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, Commanding General of U.S. Army Europe, who gave a talk on how "the unity of the NATO Alliance" is "what Russia fears the most." The grand event was funded, as might be expected, by war contractors Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin. But also, surprisingly, significant funding came from the Hungarian government of Viktor Orban, who is seen as somewhat of a maverick in central Europe for refusing to sign on to the intense Russia-hate seen in the Baltics and in Poland.

The no-doubt extraordinarily expensive conference was funded by no less than three Hungarian government entities: the Embassy of Hungary in Washington, DC, the Hungarian Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade , and the Hungarian Presidency of the Visegrad Group . Again, given Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's reputation for bucking neocon positions vis-a-vis Russia it is surprised to see the virulently anti-Russia CEPA conference so awash in Hungarian taxpayer money. Perhaps there is something to explore in the fact that the recently-fired Hungarian Ambassador to Washington,Réka Szemerkényi, was recently named executive vice president of CEPA. Hmmm. Makes you wonder.

But back to Mitchell. So he founded a neocon think tank funded by a NATO desperate for new missions and a military-industrial complex desperate for new wars. What about his own views? Surely he can't be as bad as Nuland. Right? Wrong! Fortunately Assistant Secretary Mitchell is a prolific writer, so it's easy to track his thinking. In a recent piece for neocon Francis Fukuyama's American Interest , titled "Predators on the Frontiers," Mitchell warns that, "From eastern Ukraine and the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea, large rivals of the United States are modernizing their military forces, grabbing strategic real estate, and threatening vulnerable US allies."

Mitchell continues, in a voice right out of the neocon canon, that:

By degrees, the world is entering the path to war. Not since the 1980s have the conditions been riper for a major international military crisis. Not since the 1930s has the world witnessed the emergence of multiple large, predatory states determined to revise the global order to their advantage -- if necessary by force.
We are on a path to war not seen since the 1930s! And why are our "enemies" so hell-bent on destroying us? Because we are just so isolationist!

Writes Mitchell: "Over the past few years, Russia, China, and, to a degree, Iran have sensed that the United States is retreating in their respective regions..."

We are "retreating"?

So what can we do? Mitchell again does the bidding of his paymasters in advising that the only thing we can do to save ourselves is...spend more on militarism:

The United States should therefore enhance its nuclear arsenal by maintaining and modernizing it. It needs to sustain a credible nuclear extended deterrent at a time when revisionist states are gradually pushing their spheres of influence and control closer to, if not against, U.S. allies. Moreover, it should use the limited tactical nuclear weapons at its disposal and seed them in a few of the most vulnerable and capable frontline states (Poland and Japan, for instance) under "nuclear sharing" agreements.
There is our new Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia. Our top diplomat for Europe. The only solution is a military solution. President Trump. Elected to end the endless wars, to forge better relations with Russia, to roll-back an "outdated" NATO. President Trump has replaced Victoria Nuland with something far more dangerous and frightening. Heckuva job, there, Mr. President!
Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Nov 18, 2017] How Americas Deep State Operates To Control The Message by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... The recent exchanges over the Russia-US relationship exhibit perfectly how the Deep State operates to control the message. ..."
"... Beyond twisting narratives, Russiagate is also producing potentially dangerous collateral damage to free speech, as one of the objectives of those in the Deep State is to rein in the current internet driven relatively free access to information. In its most recent manifestations, an anonymous group produced a phony list of 200 websites that were "guilty" of serving up Russian propaganda, a George Soros funded think tank identified thousands of individuals who are alleged to be "useful idiots" for Moscow, and legitimate Russian media outlets will be required to register as foreign agents. ..."
"... Hegemonic Empire always attacks those nations who are perceived to be weaker than the Empire. ..."
"... Never in my long life have I ever seen such twistedness in the mainstream media. In the days of Nixon and Watergate, there was a media agenda. But it was based in truth. This crap we get now is complete Deep State party line. ..."
"... I wonder if there ever was a time in history where the media in a country was so full of fabrication and propaganda. If there was, I would be interested in hearing how they had a downfall. It seems the media in this country can be so completely covered in deceit and lies and false claims, yet somehow not be accountable for it. ..."
"... The whole Russiagate bullshite has once again destroyed the credibility of the intel agencies and the media. Really old idiots are in charge of these things. ..."
Nov 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation

It is not possible to overstate the power of certain constituencies and corporate lobbies in the United States.

These pressure groups, joined by powerful government agencies, many of which have secret agendas that focus on national security, constitute what is increasingly being recognized as "Deep State America." Deep State is the widespread belief that there exists in many countries an entrenched and largely hidden infrastructure that really controls the national narrative and runs things. It explains why, for example, a country like the United States is perpetually at war even though the wars have been disastrous failures ever since Korea and have not made the nation more secure.

To be sure, certain constituencies have benefitted from global instability and conflict, to include defense industries, big government in general, and the national security state . They all work together and hand-in-hand with the corporate media to sustain the narrative that the United States is perpetually under threat, even though it is not.

The recent exchanges over the Russia-US relationship exhibit perfectly how the Deep State operates to control the message. American President Donald Trump briefly met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. Putin reportedly told Trump that Russia "absolutely had not meddled" in the 2016 US election and Trump then told reporters that he believed the Russian leader meant what he said, "which is good." As dιtente with Russia is not considered desirable by the Deep State, there was an immediate explosion of a contrary narrative, namely that Trump believes a Russian "enemy" and does not trust what his own intelligence agencies have told him about 2016 because he is being "played" by Putin.

This story was repeated both on television news and in all the mainstream newspapers without exception, eventually forcing Trump to recant and say that he does believe in US intelligence.

Not a single major media outlet in the US reported that it just might be possible that Putin was telling the truth and that the intelligence community, which has been wrong many times over the past twenty years, might have to look again at what it considers to be evidence. No journalist had the courage to point out that the claims of the Washington national security team have been remarkably devoid of anything credible to support the conclusions about what the Russian government might or might not have been up to. That is what a good journalist is supposed to do and it has nothing to do with whether or not one admires or loathes either Putin or Trump.

That the relationship between Moscow and Washington should be regarded as important given the capability of either country to incinerate the planet would appear to be a given, but the Washington-New York Establishment, which is euphemism for Deep State, is actually more concerned with maintaining its own power by marginalizing Donald Trump and maintaining the perception that Vladimir Putin is the enemy head of state of a Russia that is out to cripple American democracy.

Beyond twisting narratives, Russiagate is also producing potentially dangerous collateral damage to free speech, as one of the objectives of those in the Deep State is to rein in the current internet driven relatively free access to information. In its most recent manifestations, an anonymous group produced a phony list of 200 websites that were "guilty" of serving up Russian propaganda, a George Soros funded think tank identified thousands of individuals who are alleged to be "useful idiots" for Moscow, and legitimate Russian media outlets will be required to register as foreign agents.

Driven by Russophobia over the 2016 election, a group of leading social media corporations including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter have been experimenting with ways to self-censor their product to keep out foreign generated or "hate" content.

They even have a label for it: "cyberhate" . Congress is also toying with legislation that will make certain viewpoints unacceptable or even illegal, including a so-called Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that would potentially penalize anyone who criticizes Israel and could serve as a model for banning other undesirable speech. "Defamatory speech" could even eventually include any criticism of the government or political leaders, as is now the case in Turkey, which is the country where the "Deep State" was invented.

serotonindumptruck , Nov 17, 2017 8:14 PM

Fear is the order of the day. Be very, very afraid of that militarily-weak nation on the other side of the world, who poses no legitimate and imminent threat to the US. Hegemonic Empire always attacks those nations who are perceived to be weaker than the Empire. It represents the death knell of Empire, and is typically the final stage of economic and political collapse.

Publicus_Reanimated , Nov 17, 2017 9:07 PM

Howard Beale: "We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God's name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion. So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off. Turn them off right in the middle of this sentence I am speaking to you now. Turn them off!"

-- Network

If you are too young to have heard of this movie, now you know.

Cherubim , Nov 17, 2017 9:53 PM

Never in my long life have I ever seen such twistedness in the mainstream media. In the days of Nixon and Watergate, there was a media agenda. But it was based in truth. This crap we get now is complete Deep State party line.

I wonder if there ever was a time in history where the media in a country was so full of fabrication and propaganda. If there was, I would be interested in hearing how they had a downfall. It seems the media in this country can be so completely covered in deceit and lies and false claims, yet somehow not be accountable for it.

The only thing in history that I know that would compare to this is the Pravda in the old Soviet days of Brezhnev. And I'm not sure how that came finally tumbling down.

wide angle tree , Nov 17, 2017 9:55 PM

The whole Russiagate bullshite has once again destroyed the credibility of the intel agencies and the media. Really old idiots are in charge of these things.

[Nov 16, 2017] Is Donald Trump the New Mikhail Gorbachev

Perestroika and Trump_vs_deep_state has one important thing in common -- they arose out of deep crisis of the Soviet Society and the US neoliberal society, correspondingly
Notable quotes:
"... The reasoning of Gorbachev's program of perestroika -- as an attempt to both transcend tired Soviet orthodoxies while remaining loyal to the underlying assumptions of the regime -- also explains the attraction of Trump_vs_deep_state to many conservative intellectuals, voters, and activists. Trump_vs_deep_state gives its followers the allure of reckoning with the conservative movement's inadequacies while remaining faithful to its underlying assumptions about economics and the role of the state. ..."
"... For all its recklessness, it is this faction of Right that has indeed grappled with a nation whose poor- and lower-middle class face the erosion of both wages and a formerly rich institutional fabric ..."
"... When Bannon calls for Americans to understand themselves as citizens with "certain responsibilities and obligations," it's a subtle -- if incomplete and disingenuous -- recognition that the vocabulary of "liquid modernity" cannot rescue us from the very fruits it created. ..."
"... The Hayekian claim that any language of social justice commences a perilous journey towards serfdom was perhaps necessary to combat midcentury sirens of collectivism. But today it is more often representative of an age fearful of placing demanding claims upon our lives ..."
"... Someone else at TAC asked a similar question, and the answer is, no: Trump is no Gorbachev. If anything he is our Boris Yeltsin. And no, that is not intended as a compliment. MEOW , says: November 15, 2017 at 12:07 am Good points. Gorby was a realist like the Chinese. They could not depress a people's living standards with an inferior system of exchange, production, and distribution. The word was out about living standard differences. The one-world movement is very different. It means to disable all our traditions and differences (Happy Holidays for Merry Christmas – rewriting history etc) in order to allow a different cabal to prevail in this artificially created vacuum. Mac61 , says: November 15, 2017 at 6:46 am Gorbachev said we must set aside all ideology and look at all things through the light of morality. Trump is not capable of that. Bannon tried to ally Trump_vs_deep_state with Judeo-Christian morality. That project seems incomplete at the moment. Egypt Steve , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:26 am I suppose if you compare any two things, you can find some points of similarity somewhere. M1798 , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:32 am You ask for a more expansive welfare state, but didn't Make the case that our current welfare state does any public good. Food stamps and disability payments subsidize mothers to not keep the father around and fathers to not work to provide for their families. We have job training programs, yet you fail to make the case that they serve any long term good. And even our most popular welfare programs, social security and Medicare, are financially unsustainable. You wrote this article as if the GOP has legislated in the same way as their rhetoric, yet the we saw the failure to repeal Obamacare as proof that this isn't true. Dan Green , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:39 am I subscribe to what Hayek coined, the road to serfdom. Once The Social Democratic Welfare State is fully implemented , as we witness today, the state cannot make it work. Currently the model is subsidized with debt. John , says: November 15, 2017 at 10:49 am If there were an award in journalism for the hottest of takes, this might be a strong finalist for this year's. Otherwise LOL. vern , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:38 am Trump is none of the above. His only purpose in government was for his own ego gratification and to increase his wealth. He is a puppet for whoever is close enough for him to pull his strings. His favorite world leaders all happen to be autocrats who care little about civil liberties or human rights. He cares about wins and losses (ego) He is not religious, it is just a smoke screen he has put up so he can hide his worse tendencies and use it to block criticism. spite , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:57 am People that write these kind of articles just never get it (actually they probably do but cannot say these things openly). It has to do with race, whether you like this reason or not – this is the underlying fundamental issue at play here. Being replaced by another people is not going to sit well with some, one would think this is stating the obvious but it seems that the fear to broach this topic makes people come up with all kinds of reasonings that simply do not admit the truth of this. I know that anything to do with race causes so called conservatives to have abject fear (even this comment has a high chance of being censored), but you simply cannot ignore this anymore. Alex , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:59 am Oh, please. I am from the former Soviet Union. I know who Gorbachev was. He was a democrat, Trump is a dictator. Gorbachev was able to talk and listen to people, Trump is very good in insulting and blaming people. I can continue forever. They have nothing in common as human beings. connecticut farmer , says: November 15, 2017 at 12:34 pm " in which the state is again recognized as a limited but essential expression of our shared life together, where we are members not just of a market but a "great common enterprise" in which solidarity and justice are indeed tangible things." This phrase unfortunately constitutes a blemish on an otherwise fine and thoughtful article. Exactly what does the phrase "limited but essential expression of our shared life together" mean? "Limited" by what? What "great common enterprise"? What "solidarity"? Ours is a country where commonality of purpose–to the extent that it has ever existed in the first place– appears to be vanishing at an exponential level. Lots of questions. No answers. polistra , says: November 15, 2017 at 1:10 pm Obama is more like Gorbachev. The last attempt to rebrand the old system, hoping to make it more palatable. Trump may turn out to be more like Yeltsin if he starts doing SOMETHING. So far the fake image of "Trump" is causing all sorts of reactions and changes, but the actual Trump has done nothing at all. He just emits meaningless noises, handing his enemies free ammunition. ..."
Nov 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
TAC' s own Rod Dreher recently highlighted an American professor's exchange with an African diplomat, who compared Donald Trump to Mikhail Gorbachev. Just as the last Soviet premier unwittingly became "the man who destroyed a superpower," Trump in this view is recklessly squandering the United States' global position. But upon reflection, the analogy holds for another reason: Whatever Trump's own mixture of "irritable mental gestures," Trump_vs_deep_state -- as articulated by Steve Bannon, Laura Ingraham, Michael Anton & Company -- can be read as a sort of perestroika for the American Right.

A reader may naturally look warily at the comparison. Can one discern a link between the rhetoric of Breitbart and Gorbachev's exhortation, "to reject obedience to any dogma, to think independently, to submit one's thoughts and plans of action to the test of morality"? However reaching, the comparison may allow us to discern why debates over immigration and trade now capture the conservative imagination in a way not reducible to "white identity politics" or reflexive loyalty to the president.

The reasoning of Gorbachev's program of perestroika -- as an attempt to both transcend tired Soviet orthodoxies while remaining loyal to the underlying assumptions of the regime -- also explains the attraction of Trump_vs_deep_state to many conservative intellectuals, voters, and activists. Trump_vs_deep_state gives its followers the allure of reckoning with the conservative movement's inadequacies while remaining faithful to its underlying assumptions about economics and the role of the state. The appeal of nationalist rhetoric is not reducible to nativism, though it might be for some. Instead, Bannon's program offers conservatives a safe exit ramp from self-critical thinking, allowing them to both grapple with an erosion of work and community among America's economic losers, while maintaining most of an existing right-wing economic program.

In a 1987 message to the Communist Party's Central Committee, Gorbachev flaunted the Soviet order for its "conservative inclinations, inertia, and desire to brush aside everything that didn't fit into habitual patterns." This is the same critique offered by the Jacksonian Right of the conservative establishment. "The whole enterprise of Conservative Inc.," wrote Michael Anton in his famous "Flight 93 Election" essay, "reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation."

For all its recklessness, it is this faction of Right that has indeed grappled with a nation whose poor- and lower-middle class face the erosion of both wages and a formerly rich institutional fabric Laura Ingraham's description of "a working class hammered by globalization" would not seem foreign to readers of Our Kids, Hillbilly Elegy, or Janesville . At its most tone-deaf, the Right responds with incantations to "rekindle the rugged individualism of America's founding, frontiers, and Constitution." But even those on the center-right with sincere empathy frequently offer only small-ball politics. For all their merits , a modest increase of the Child Tax Credit, repeal of occupational licensing, vouchers for improved geographic mobility, and moral exhortations for coastal elites to escape their bubble do not match the gravity of the moment. In a certain way, the Bannonite call for the wall and ripping up trade agreements is a rebellion against a purely technocratic politics without boldness of purpose. When Bannon calls for Americans to understand themselves as citizens with "certain responsibilities and obligations," it's a subtle -- if incomplete and disingenuous -- recognition that the vocabulary of "liquid modernity" cannot rescue us from the very fruits it created.

Trade and immigration are becoming the signature benchmarks for this new movement. Yet the Jacksonian shift allows conservatives to still maintain their aversion to a strong, active welfare state, an institution all other Western center-right parties have come to terms with. Limiting the fluid movement of goods and people, in this view, will accomplish the same goals as a state modeled on social or Christian-democratic purposes: We do not need to expand child tax credits or pursue ambitious investments of retraining and vocational education. All our struggling labor markets demand is "stopping the importation of cheap labor." At the same time, we can press ahead to repeal Obamacare and the tentacles of the administrative state, for economic nationalism can ameliorate our social problems far better than any program arising out of the Washington cesspool. Perhaps this strategy explains why, according to Pew Research , the president maintains far more support among "Core Conservatives" than "Country First" and "Market Skeptic" Republicans. The Trump revolution is ultimately not a decisive schism from old-time William F. Buckley-style fusionism, no matter what both supporters and Never Trumpers allege.

Systematic free-marketers may point out accurately how Trump_vs_deep_state can be just as economically redistributive as any welfare program. This is all true, but to most conservative activists, all this subtle redistribution and subsidizing looks far more hidden than paid-family leave or public investments in early childhood or prenatal care. In other words, Trump_vs_deep_state's attraction derives not from its wholesale rejection of traditional American conservatism, but its potential to keep its core tenets of the right alive -- even as neoliberalism's inadequacies suggest what is needed is a more vigorous discussion of what conservatism means in the public sphere.

If Trump_vs_deep_state's fundamental attraction to most conservative writers and activists derives from its ability to revise but sustain their movement, it is difficult to see how it will be to evolve into a credible governing program. This is not because a more hawkish line on immigration and trade is a fundamental betrayal of the "liberal world order." Indeed, one need only read Paul Collier George Borjas Michael Lind , Peter Skerry , or Dani Rodrik to find sustained, reasonable critiques of the establishment consensus on these matters.

But none of these authors would present their heterodox dissents as singular solutions for restoring the American (or Western) social contract. Just as Gorbachev's ambition was not to revitalize Russia but the Soviet Union, so is Trump_vs_deep_state not a program to save the Republic, or even a more narrow "Middle America." Despite the Jacobin rhetoric, the Trump_vs_deep_state of Bannon, Anton, and Ingraham is ultimately a rearguard maneuver to preserve a conservative movement whose even devoted partisans recognize has not aged gracefully since 1989. To keep it alive, wrecking the "globalist" consensus on immigration and trade must be pursued, regardless of the absence of any discernible benefit for the white working class.

What would a true revolution for American conservatism look like? It should start with the (early) thought of George Will, who wrote in the New Republic that, "if conservatism is to engage itself with the way we live now, it must address government's graver purposes with an affirmative doctrine of the welfare state." Conservatives must "come to terms with a social reality more complex than their slogans," where equality of opportunity is assumed as given. The Hayekian claim that any language of social justice commences a perilous journey towards serfdom was perhaps necessary to combat midcentury sirens of collectivism. But today it is more often representative of an age fearful of placing demanding claims upon our lives .

The Right must again recover the wisdom held by Disraeli, Churchill, and the (early) domestic neoconservatives, in which the state is again recognized as a limited but essential expression of our shared life together, where we are members not just of a market but a "great common enterprise" in which solidarity and justice are indeed tangible things. Accepting this truth will be a harder project than tightening the border and combating Chinese mercantilism, worthy though such things may be. But it will be far more revolutionary, even historic, than anything the present Trumpian revolution offers.

David Jimenez, a recent graduate of Bowdoin College and a Fulbright Scholar in Romania, works on campus outreach at a Washington think-tank.

EngineerScotty , says: November 14, 2017 at 11:22 pm

Someone else at TAC asked a similar question, and the answer is, no: Trump is no Gorbachev. If anything he is our Boris Yeltsin.

And no, that is not intended as a compliment.

MEOW , says: November 15, 2017 at 12:07 am
Good points. Gorby was a realist like the Chinese. They could not depress a people's living standards with an inferior system of exchange, production, and distribution. The word was out about living standard differences. The one-world movement is very different. It means to disable all our traditions and differences (Happy Holidays for Merry Christmas – rewriting history etc) in order to allow a different cabal to prevail in this artificially created vacuum.
Mac61 , says: November 15, 2017 at 6:46 am
Gorbachev said we must set aside all ideology and look at all things through the light of morality. Trump is not capable of that. Bannon tried to ally Trump_vs_deep_state with Judeo-Christian morality. That project seems incomplete at the moment.
Egypt Steve , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:26 am
I suppose if you compare any two things, you can find some points of similarity somewhere.
M1798 , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:32 am
You ask for a more expansive welfare state, but didn't Make the case that our current welfare state does any public good. Food stamps and disability payments subsidize mothers to not keep the father around and fathers to not work to provide for their families. We have job training programs, yet you fail to make the case that they serve any long term good. And even our most popular welfare programs, social security and Medicare, are financially unsustainable. You wrote this article as if the GOP has legislated in the same way as their rhetoric, yet the we saw the failure to repeal Obamacare as proof that this isn't true.
Dan Green , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:39 am
I subscribe to what Hayek coined, the road to serfdom. Once The Social Democratic Welfare State is fully implemented , as we witness today, the state cannot make it work. Currently the model is subsidized with debt.
John , says: November 15, 2017 at 10:49 am
If there were an award in journalism for the hottest of takes, this might be a strong finalist for this year's. Otherwise LOL.
vern , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:38 am
Trump is none of the above. His only purpose in government was for his own ego gratification and to increase his wealth.

He is a puppet for whoever is close enough for him to pull his strings. His favorite world leaders all happen to be autocrats who care little about civil liberties or human rights.

He cares about wins and losses (ego) He is not religious, it is just a smoke screen he has put up so he can hide his worse tendencies and use it to block criticism.

spite , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:57 am
People that write these kind of articles just never get it (actually they probably do but cannot say these things openly). It has to do with race, whether you like this reason or not – this is the underlying fundamental issue at play here. Being replaced by another people is not going to sit well with some, one would think this is stating the obvious but it seems that the fear to broach this topic makes people come up with all kinds of reasonings that simply do not admit the truth of this. I know that anything to do with race causes so called conservatives to have abject fear (even this comment has a high chance of being censored), but you simply cannot ignore this anymore.
Alex , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:59 am
Oh, please. I am from the former Soviet Union. I know who Gorbachev was. He was a democrat, Trump is a dictator. Gorbachev was able to talk and listen to people, Trump is very good in insulting and blaming people. I can continue forever. They have nothing in common as human beings.
connecticut farmer , says: November 15, 2017 at 12:34 pm
" in which the state is again recognized as a limited but essential expression of our shared life together, where we are members not just of a market but a "great common enterprise" in which solidarity and justice are indeed tangible things."

This phrase unfortunately constitutes a blemish on an otherwise fine and thoughtful article. Exactly what does the phrase "limited but essential expression of our shared life together" mean? "Limited" by what? What "great common enterprise"? What "solidarity"? Ours is a country where commonality of purpose–to the extent that it has ever existed in the first place– appears to be vanishing at an exponential level.

Lots of questions. No answers.

polistra , says: November 15, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Obama is more like Gorbachev. The last attempt to rebrand the old system, hoping to make it more palatable. Trump may turn out to be more like Yeltsin if he starts doing SOMETHING. So far the fake image of "Trump" is causing all sorts of reactions and changes, but the actual Trump has done nothing at all. He just emits meaningless noises, handing his enemies free ammunition.
grumpy realist , says: November 15, 2017 at 2:30 pm
Gorbachev had brains. Trump has none, and is very easily manipulated by anyone who points a camera at him and tells him how great he is.

If you don't believe me, look at how the Chinese manipulated Trump on this last trip to Asia.

Ken Zaretzke , says: November 15, 2017 at 6:22 pm
"For all its recklessness, it is this faction of Right that has indeed grappled with a nation whose poor- and lower-middle class face the erosion of both wages and a formerly rich institutional fabric."

But Trump might already be betraying it, as this article on banking (de)regulation suggests. It doesn't bode will for what the tax reform bill would mean for the 80% in the bottom quintiles of the population.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/business/bank-regulation.html

S T Lakshmikumar , says: November 15, 2017 at 8:36 pm
Unfortunately the entrenched social democratic welfare state will not lead to serfdom but to a dysfunctional society. This is the lesson from independent india which has no political party representing individualistic policies. The current Hindu nationalist party in power caters to Hindu sentiments but a redistributive economic policy. As an outsider i see USA following the same path with islands of functionality sustaining barely, the rest. Hopefully the author would join in a length discussion with me on this

[Nov 16, 2017] Russian Interference Now Being Blamed For Swaying Vote In Favor Of Brexit

Nov 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Was Brexit also Putin's fault?

The simmering anti-Russia hysteria that has emerged in the UK recently has finally boiled over, and it appears last night's story in the Times of London claiming that a swarm of Twitter bots reportedly created by a troll farm possibly linked to Russian intelligene (sound familiar?) posted more than 45,000 messages about Brexit in 48 hours during last year's referendum to try and "so discord" among the public was the grain of rice that tipped the scale.

Details that will sound familiar to anybody who's been following the ongoing hysteria surrounding the multiple investigations into Russian influence in the US election, the suspicious twitter accounts shared messages that promoted both the 'Remain' and 'Leave' campaigns, purportedly a "sophisticated" ploy to confuse and bewilder voters.

Most of the tweets seen by this newspaper encouraged people to vote for Brexit, an outcome which Russia would have regarded as destabilising for the European Union. A number were pro-Remain, however, suggesting that the Russian goal may have been simply to sow division.

"This is the most significant evidence yet of interference by Russian-backed social media accounts around the Brexit referendum," said Damian Collins, the Tory MP who chairs the digital, culture, media and sport select committee.

"The content published and promoted by these accounts is clearly designed to increase tensions throughout the country and undermine our democratic process. I fear that this may well be just the tip of the iceberg."

According to the Times, more than 150,000 accounts based in Russia, which had previously confined their posts to subjects such as the Ukrainian conflict, switched attention to Brexit in the days leading up to last year's vote, according to research for an upcoming paper by data scientists at Swansea University and the University of California, Berkeley.

In other words, after months of tweeting about pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, these bots started firing off messages amplifying the voice of the 'Leave' campaign into the void.

The researchers said Russian activity spiked on June 23, the day of the referendum, and on June 24 when the result was announced. From posting fewer than 1,000 tweets a day before June 13, the suspicious accounts posted 39,000 tweets on June 24 before dropping off almost entirely.

The Swansea and Berkeley paper says that a "massive number of Russian-related tweets was created a few days before the voting day, reached its peak during the voting and the result and then dropped immediately afterwards". Tho Pham, one of the paper's authors, said that "the main conclusion is that bots were used on purpose and had influence".

Of course, the Times report neglected to explain the Swansea researchers methodology. Facebook, Twitter and Google used the inadequate standard of having one's browser language set to Russian. It's unclear whether these researchers something that, like browser language, can be easily changed or mimicked by other groups.

On Monday, Theresa May accused Moscow of using fake news to "sow discord" and of meddling directly in elections. Her remarks followed a brief, impromptu meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at an Asian economic summit in Vietnam.

In what appeared to be an attempt to deflect attention away from a challenge to her leadership, UK Prime Minister Theresa May blasted Russia Monday evening, using her speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet to accuse them of interfering in foreign elections.

May accused Moscow of attempting to "weaponize information" as part of a "sustained campaign of cyberespionage and disruption." Russia's actions were "threatening the international order," she said.

"We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed. Because you underestimate the resilience of our democracies, the enduring attraction of free and open societies, and the commitment of Western nations to the alliances that bind us," May said.

May listed off a litany of ills she ascribed to Russia since its annexation of Crimea, including fomenting conflict in eastern Ukraine, violating the airspace of European countries, and hacking the Danish ministry of defense and the German Parliament. Russia has also been accused of interfering in elections in the US, the Brexit referendum in the UK, and the independence vote in Catalonia.

Following May's speech, reports emerged that individuals working on behalf of the Kremlin tried to set up meetings with conservative MPs, including Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

Last night, one of the UK's cyber-defense chiefs adding to the anti-Russia sentiment by accusing Russian intelligence of attacking Britain's media, telecommunications and energy sectors over the past year.

Ciaran Martin, chief executive of GCHQ's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), echoed May's claim that Russia was "seeking to undermine the international system."

Of course, there were at least two prominent British polls who decided to question the dubious accusations of interference.

Jeremy Corbyn wants to "see more evidence" that Russia is trying to undermine Western democracy, his spokesman said Wednesday.

And of course, as we noted yesterday, Nigel Farage pointed out during a speech at the European Parliament that financier George Soros has spent billions of dollars to push his political agenda across Europe, the US and the UK.

"How many of you have taken money from Open Society?" He asked his peers, referring to Soros's Open Society foundation.

While the Russian hysteria has been raging for a year in the US now, in the UK, it's only just beginning. In time, we will see of May's government will continue to use Vladimir Putin as a boogeyman on which they can blame their failure to successfully negotiate amenable Brexit terms for the UK.

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

MusicIsYou , Nov 16, 2017 3:34 AM

Britain never was part of the EU. But most people are too concerned about Iphones and big dicks to think about much else.

Billy the Poet -> MusicIsYou , Nov 16, 2017 3:36 AM

If the premise is that Putin is the greatest living proponent of national sovereignty and individual liberty then what's the problem?

Shemp 4 Victory -> Billy the Poet , Nov 16, 2017 3:56 AM

"Russian Interference" Now Being Blamed For Democracy

Dank fur Kopf , Nov 16, 2017 3:35 AM

They might as well come out with alfoil hats while claiming 'Russia did it'.

That's how we're all seeing it.

Billy the Poet -> Dank fur Kopf , Nov 16, 2017 3:39 AM

They say "Putin ate my homework," with all the earnestness of a recalcitrant second grade scholar.

Lore , Nov 16, 2017 3:38 AM

This is bloody ridiculous. FOR GOD'S SAKE, GROW UP.

MusicIsYou , Nov 16, 2017 3:38 AM

The only Brits really care about is tea time, big dicks, and making sure their socialist buddies don't one up them.

JDLLDJ -> MusicIsYou , Nov 16, 2017 3:48 AM

I can see you are not English... You need to add orderly queue to that list haha

JDLLDJ , Nov 16, 2017 3:42 AM

I wondered when this would get to our shores... I think that governments are totally undermining themselves with the Russian hacking lies.. They are essentially saying that a few bots can control a country entirely.. Its totally stupid to think they could.

I dont have twitter, facebook or any of the other false realities some people choose to live in.. But yet i voted out.. So who influenced me? Nobody, we are an island culture, we will always lean towards independence.

Oh well, let them blame who they want, it changes little. Just makes politicians seem uneeded, lets replace them with bots!!

OutaTime43 , Nov 16, 2017 3:48 AM

Putin is the master spy. He controls the world. Really getting sick of this crap. They can't admit that their people are turning to nationalism and sovereignty over globalism.

JPMorgan , Nov 16, 2017 3:50 AM

Total BS.

The city areas like London voted to stay, and a good number of rural Britain and pensioners voted to leave.

No Russian conspiracy.

Bondosaurus Rex , Nov 16, 2017 3:52 AM

Brexit was about protecting the City Of London tax haven. Nothing more.

Britain is still turning into a third world shithole just like Europe is.

The Square Mile did not want Eurocretins encroaching. Putin is merely a distraction.

Volaille de Bresse , Nov 16, 2017 3:53 AM

I couldn't get a hard-on last night... Must be THE RUSSIANS!!

[Nov 16, 2017] McCarthyism Redux: Attacks on the Russian Media by John Wight

Notable quotes:
"... In 2017 we are witnessing the rebirth of McCarthyism across the West in response to Russia's recovery from the demise of the Soviet Union and the failed attempt to turn the country into a wholly owned subsidiary of Washington via the imposition of free market economic shock treatment thereafter. ..."
Nov 16, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

In 2017 we are witnessing the rebirth of McCarthyism across the West in response to Russia's recovery from the demise of the Soviet Union and the failed attempt to turn the country into a wholly owned subsidiary of Washington via the imposition of free market economic shock treatment thereafter.

In the process critical thinking and reason has been sacrificed on the altar of Pavlovian conditioning and unreason, resulting in the embrace of hysterical Russophobic nostrums by a liberal political and media class for whom Russia can only ever exist as a vanquished foe or a foe that needs to be vanquished. More

[Nov 16, 2017] Massive Overkill by William Hartung

Notable quotes:
"... Such fears were then exaggerated further, thanks to hawkish journalists of the era like Joseph Alsop and prominent Democratic senators like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, as well as Stuart Symington, who just happened to be a friend and former colleague of an executive at the aircraft manufacturing company Convair, which, in turn, just happened to make ICBMs. As a result, he lobbied hard on behalf of a Pentagon plan to build more of that corporation's Atlas ballistic missiles, while Kennedy would famously make the nonexistent missile gap a central theme of his successful 1960 campaign for the presidency. ..."
"... Eisenhower couldn't have been more clear-eyed about all of this. He saw the missile gap for the fiction it was or, as he put it, a "useful piece of political demagoguery" for his opponents. "Munitions makers," he insisted , "are making tremendous efforts towards getting more contracts and in fact seem to be exerting undue influence over the Senators." ..."
"... William D. Hartung, a ..."
"... , is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of ..."
"... . An earlier version of this essay appears in ..."
"... , edited by Helen Caldicott (the New Press). ..."
Nov 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

One thing is certain, however: the president has plenty of nuclear weapons to back up his aggressive rhetoric -- more than 4,000 of them in the active U.S. stockpile, when a mere handful of them could obliterate North Korea at the cost of millions of lives . Indeed, a few hundred nuclear warheads could do the same for even the largest of nations and those 4,000, if ever used, could essentially destroy the planet.

In other words, in every sense of the term, the U.S. nuclear arsenal already represents overkill on an almost unimaginable scale. Independent experts from U.S. war colleges suggest that about 300 warheads would be more than enough to deter any country from launching a nuclear attack on the United States.

Despite this, Donald Trump is all in (and more) on the Pentagon's plan -- developed under Barack Obama -- to build a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, submarines, and missiles, as well as new generations of warheads to go with them. The cost of this " modernization " program? The Congressional Budget Office recently pegged it at $1.7 trillion over the next three decades, adjusted for inflation. As Derek Johnson, director of the antinuclear organization Global Zero, has noted , "That's money we don't have for an arsenal we don't need."

Building a Nuclear Complex

Why the desire for so many nukes? There is, in fact, a dirty little secret behind the massive U.S. arsenal: it has more to do with the power and profits of this country's major weapons makers than it does with any imaginable strategic considerations.

It may not surprise you to learn that there's nothing new about the influence the nuclear weapons lobby has over Pentagon spending priorities. The successful machinations of the makers of strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles, intended to keep taxpayer dollars flowing their way, date back to the dawn of the nuclear age and are the primary reason President Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the term " military-industrial complex " and warned of its dangers in his 1961 farewell address.

Without the development of such weapons, that complex simply would not exist in the form it does today. The Manhattan Project , the vast scientific-industrial endeavor that produced the first such weaponry during World War II, was one of the largest government-funded research and manufacturing projects in history. Today's nuclear warhead complex is still largely built around facilities and locations that date back to that time.

The Manhattan Project was the first building block of the permanent arms establishment that came to rule Washington. In addition, the nuclear arms race against that other superpower of the era, the Soviet Union, was crucial to the rationale for a permanent war state. In those years, it was the key to sustaining the building, funding, and institutionalizing of the arms establishment.

As Eisenhower noted in that farewell address of his, "a permanent arms industry of vast proportions" had developed for a simple enough reason. In a nuclear age, America had to be ready ahead of time. As he put it, "We can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense." And that was for a simple enough reason: in an era of potential nuclear war, any society could be destroyed in a matter of hours. There would be no time, as in the past, to mobilize or prepare after the fact.

In addition, there were some very specific ways in which the quest for more nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles drove Eisenhower to give that farewell address. One of his biggest fights was over whether to build a new nuclear bomber. The Air Force and the arms industry were desperate to do so. Eisenhower thought it a waste of money , given all the other nuclear delivery vehicles the U.S. was building at the time. He even cancelled the bomber, only to find himself forced to revive it under immense pressure from the arms lobby. In the process, he lost the larger struggle to rein in the nation's nuclear buildup and corral the burgeoning military-industrial complex.

At the same time, there were rumblings in the intelligence community, the military establishment, the media, and Congress about a "missile gap" with the Soviet Union. The notion was that Moscow had somehow jumped ahead of the United States in developing and building intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). There was no definitive intelligence to substantiate the claim (and it was later proved to be false). However, a wave of worst-case scenarios leaked by or promoted by intelligence analysts and eagerly backed by industry propaganda made that missile gap part of the everyday news of the time.

Such fears were then exaggerated further, thanks to hawkish journalists of the era like Joseph Alsop and prominent Democratic senators like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, as well as Stuart Symington, who just happened to be a friend and former colleague of an executive at the aircraft manufacturing company Convair, which, in turn, just happened to make ICBMs. As a result, he lobbied hard on behalf of a Pentagon plan to build more of that corporation's Atlas ballistic missiles, while Kennedy would famously make the nonexistent missile gap a central theme of his successful 1960 campaign for the presidency.

Eisenhower couldn't have been more clear-eyed about all of this. He saw the missile gap for the fiction it was or, as he put it, a "useful piece of political demagoguery" for his opponents. "Munitions makers," he insisted , "are making tremendous efforts towards getting more contracts and in fact seem to be exerting undue influence over the Senators."

Once Kennedy took office, it became all too apparent that there was no missile gap , but by then it hardly mattered. The damage had been done. Billions of dollars more were flowing into the nuclear-industrial complex to build up an American arsenal of ICBMs already unmatched on the planet.

The techniques that the arms lobby and its allies in government used more than half a century ago to promote sky-high nuclear weapons spending continue to be wielded to this day. The twenty-first-century arms complex employs tools of influence that Kennedy and his compatriots would have found familiar indeed -- including millions of dollars in campaign contributions that flow to members of Congress and the continual employment of 700 to 1,000 lobbyists to influence them. At certain moments, in other words, there have been nearly two arms lobbyists for every member of Congress. Much of this sort of activity remains focused on ensuring that nuclear weapons of all types are amply financed and that the funding for the new generations of the bombers, submarines, and missiles that will deliver them stays on track.

across the country . There are nuclear weapons labs in California and New Mexico; a nuclear weapons testing and research site in Nevada; a nuclear warhead assembly and disassembly plant in Texas; a factory in Kansas City, Missouri, that builds nonnuclear parts for such weapons; and a plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, that enriches uranium for those same weapons. There are factories or bases for ICBMs, bombers, and ballistic missile submarines in Connecticut, Georgia, Washington State, California, Ohio, Massachusetts, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Such a nuclear geography ensures that a striking number of congressional representatives will automatically favor more spending on nuclear weapons.

In reality, the jobs argument is deeply flawed. As the experts know, virtually any other activity into which such funding flowed would create significantly more jobs than Pentagon spending. A study by economists at the University of Massachusetts, for example, found infrastructure investment would create one and one-half times as many jobs as Pentagon funding and education spending twice as many.

In most cases it hasn't seemed to matter that the jobs claims for weapons spending are grotesquely exaggerated and better alternatives litter the landscape. The argument remains remarkably potent in states and communities that are particularly dependent on the Pentagon. Perhaps unsurprisingly, members of Congress from such areas are disproportionately represented on the committees that decide how much will be spent on nuclear and conventional weaponry.

A Field Guide to Influencing Nuclear Thinking in Washington

Another way the nuclear weapons industry (like the rest of the military-industrial complex) tries to control and focus public debate is by funding hawkish, right-wing think tanks. The advantage to weapons makers is that those institutions and their associated "experts" can serve as front groups for the complex, while posing as objective policy analysts. Think of it as an intellectual version of money laundering.

One of the most effective industry-funded think tanks in terms of promoting costly, ill-advised policies has undoubtedly been Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy. In 1983, when President Ronald Reagan first announced his Strategic Defense Initiative (which soon gained the nickname "Star Wars"), the high-tech space weapons system that was either meant to defend the country against a future Soviet first strike or -- depending on how you looked at it -- free the country to use its nuclear weapons without fear of being attacked, Gaffney was its biggest booster. More recently, he has become a prominent purveyor of Islamophobia, but the impact of his promotional work for Star Wars continues to be felt in contracts for future weaponry to this day.

He had served in the Reagan-era Pentagon, but left because even that administration wasn't anti-Soviet enough for his tastes, once the president and his advisers began to discuss things like reducing nuclear weapons in Europe. It didn't take him long to set up his center with funding from Boeing, Lockheed, and other defense contractors.

Another key industry-backed think tank in the nuclear policy field is the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP). It released a report on nuclear weapons policy just as George W. Bush was entering the White House that would be adopted almost wholesale by his administration for its first key nuclear posture review. It advocated such things as increasing the number of countries targeted by the country's nuclear arsenal and building a new, more "usable," bunker-busting nuke. At that time, NIPP had an executive from Boeing on its board and its director was Keith Payne. He would become infamous in the annals of nuclear policy for co-authoring a 1980 article at Foreign Policy entitled "Victory Is Possible," suggesting that the United States could actually win a nuclear war, while "only" losing 30 million to 40 million people. This is the kind of expert the nuclear weapons complex chose to fund to promulgate its views.

Then there is the Lexington Institute , the think tank that never met a weapons system it didn't like. Their key front man, Loren Thompson, is frequently quoted in news stories on defense issues. It is rarely pointed out that he is funded by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and other nuclear weapons contractors.

And these are just a small sampling of Washington's research and advocacy groups that take money from weapons contractors, ranging from organizations on the right like the Heritage Foundation to Democratic-leaning outfits like the Center for a New American Security , co-founded by former Obama administration Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy (who was believed to have the inside track on being appointed secretary of defense had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election).

And you may not be surprised to learn that Donald Trump is no piker when it comes to colluding with the weapons industry. His strong preference for populating his administration with former arms industry executives is so blatant that Senator John McCain recently pledged to oppose any new nominees with industry ties. Examples of Trump's industry-heavy administration include Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a former board member at General Dynamics; White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, who worked for a number of defense firms and was an adviser to DynCorp, a private security firm that has done everything from (poorly) training the Iraqi police to contracting with the Department of Homeland Security; former Boeing executive and now Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan; former Lockheed Martin executive John Rood, nominated as undersecretary of defense for policy; former Raytheon Vice President Mark Esper, newly confirmed as secretary of the Army; Heather Wilson, a former consultant to Lockheed Martin, who is secretary of the Air Force; Ellen Lord, a former CEO for the aerospace company Textron, who is undersecretary of defense for acquisition; and National Security Council Chief of Staff Keith Kellogg, a former employee of the major defense and intelligence contractor CACI, where he dealt with "ground combat systems" among other things. And keep in mind that these high-profile industry figures are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the corporate revolving door that has for decades been installed in the Pentagon (as documented by Lee Fang of the Intercept in a story from early in Trump's tenure).

... ... ...

William D. Hartung, a TomDispatch regular , is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex . An earlier version of this essay appears in Sleepwalking to Armageddon: The Threat of Nuclear Annihilation , edited by Helen Caldicott (the New Press).

[Nov 16, 2017] William Hartung How to Wield Influence and Sell Weaponry in Washington by Tom Engelhardt

Notable quotes:
"... Sleepwalking to Armageddon: The Threat of Nuclear Annihilation ..."
Nov 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

When it comes to the art of the deal, at least where arms sales are concerned, American presidents, their administrations, and the Pentagon have long been Trumpian in nature. Their role has been to beat the drums (of war) for the major American weapons makers and it's been a highly profitable and successful activity. In 2015, for instance, the U.S. once again took the top spot in global weapons sales, $40 billion dollars of them, or a staggering 50.2% of the world market. (Russia came in a distant third with $11.2 billion in sales.) The U.S. also topped sales of weaponry to developing nations. In these years, Washington has, in fact, peddled the products of those arms makers to at least 100 countries , a staggering figure if you stop a moment to think about the violence on this planet. Internationally, in other words, the U.S. has always been an open-carry nation.

Donald Trump has, however, changed this process in one obvious way. He's shoved the president's role as arms-purveyor-in-chief in everybody's face. He did so on his initial trip abroad when, in Riyadh, he bragged ceaselessly about ringing up $110 billion dollars in arms sales to the Saudis. Some of those had, in fact, already been brokered by the Obama administration and some weren't actually "sales" at all, just " letters of intent ." Still, he took the most fulsome of credit and, when it comes to his "achievements," exaggeration is, of course, the name of his game.

And he's just done it again on his blustery jaunt through Japan and South Korea. There, using the North Korean threat, he plugged American weaponry mercilessly (so to speak), while claiming potential deals and future American jobs galore. In the presence of Shinzo Abe, for instance, he swore that the Japanese Prime Minister would "shoot [North Korean missiles] out of the sky when he completes the purchase of a lot of military equipment from the United States." Both the Japanese and the South Korean leaders, seeing a way into his well-armored heart, humored him relentlessly on the subject and on his claims of bringing home jobs to the U.S. (In fact, one of the weapons systems he was plugging, the F-35 , would actually be assembled in Japan!)

Strangely enough, however, the president didn't bring up an issue he raises regularly when it comes to weapons sales in the United States (at least, sales to white people, not Muslims, with an urge to kill): mental health . Isn't it curious that, as he peddles some of the more destructive weaponry imaginable across Asia and the Middle East, he never brings that up? Fortunately, TomDispatch regular and expert on American arms sales William Hartung raises the issue today in an adaptation of a piece he wrote for Sleepwalking to Armageddon: The Threat of Nuclear Annihilation , a book just published by the New Press. You might say that he considers the most mentally unnerving aspect of American arms sales: the way, since the 1950s, the nuclear lobby has sold planet-destroying weaponry of every sort to presidents, the Pentagon, and Congress. And if that doesn't represent a disturbing mental health record of the first order, what does?

[Nov 16, 2017] 'I'm not a Russian troll I'm a security guard from Glasgow'

Nov 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , November 15, 2017 at 11:28 am

Cortes rumbled?

'I'm not a Russian troll – I'm a security guard from Glasgow'

"The whole issue of anonymous trolls, false personas and automated Twitter accounts is fraught with difficulty, but thanks to the work of James Patrick (among a few others) the public is now becoming aware of the problem of online propaganda, some of it clearly directed (via payments) by Putin's government " -- Peter Jukes, CEO of ByLine, told The Scotsman

"Byline" claims to be the most visited crowdfunded journalism website in the UK.

Moscow Exile , November 15, 2017 at 11:34 am
See: Scot to be kidding: 'Russian troll' turns out to be Glasgow security guard

Reminds me of when years back some smart-arse on the laughable "Comment Is Free" in the Grauniad, having repeatedly stated that I was a Russian troll, congratulated me on my use of English, saying it was quite good for a Russian.

Jen , November 15, 2017 at 3:56 pm
Apparently not the firsht time a Scot was convincing in the role of a Rooshian:

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/tomclancy/images/c/cc/Sean_Connery_The_Hunt_for_Red_October.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150714000007

[Nov 16, 2017] McCarthyism Inc: Introducing the Counter-Terror 'Experts' Hyping Russian Threats and Undermining Our Civil Liberties

Nov 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , November 15, 2017 at 12:11 pm

Alernet via Antiwar.com: McCarthyism Inc: Introducing the Counter-Terror 'Experts' Hyping Russian Threats and Undermining Our Civil Liberties

Revelations about Russia's use of social media in the 2016 elections are being used as a pretext for suppressing dissent by some dubious characters.

By Max Blumenthal / AlterNet

November 10, 2017, 2:26 PM GMT

However, an investigation by AlterNet's Grayzone Project has yielded a series of disturbing findings at odds with the established depiction. The researchers behind the ASD's "dashboard" are no Russia experts, but rather a collection of cranks, counterterror retreads, online harassers and paranoiacs operating with support from some of the most prominent figures operating within the American national security apparatus .
####

Plenty more at the link.

Northern Star , November 15, 2017 at 3:54 pm
So why does this fuckin' cnt not have to register as an agent of a Foreign government???

"II. What, Exactly, Does FARA Require / Prohibit?
It's complicated. But in a nutshell, FARA requires individuals acting within the United States as agents of "foreign principals" to, in plain English, "register with the Department of Justice and file forms outlining its agreements with, income from, and expenditures on behalf of the foreign principal. These forms are public records and must be supplemented every six months." An "agent of a foreign principal," in turn, is defined as

any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through any other person -- (i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or (iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States. . . .
Moreover, the statute defines "foreign principal" not just to include a foreign government itself, but also foreign political parties, a person or organization outside the United States (except U.S. citizens), and any entity organized under the laws of a foreign country or having its principal place of business in a foreign country. So, in a world in which individuals were receiving financial or other enticements from Russian corporations, oligarchs, or the Russian government itself, in order to "engage[] within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal," that seems to fall within the heartland of what FARA covers."

Indeed, a separate statute, 18 U.S.C. § 219, goes one important step further, making it a crime for any individual who is an "officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency, or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function," to be or to act as an agent of a foreign principal under FARA.

******In other words, for a private citizen, FARA's entire impact is in requiring disclosure. But for public officials, § 219 actually prohibits such individuals from acting as foreign agents." *****

Thus, whereas a private citizen need only apprise the Justice Department if they are receiving funds from foreign principals to influence U.S. policy, public officials may not receive such funds, period–and face felony charges if they do. (N.B.: There's an interesting question about whether transition officials might qualify as "public officials" for purposes of § 219. I'm skeptical, but at least in Flynn's case, there's still the issue of whether he was continuing to serve as an agent of a foreign power on and after January 20, when he became the National Security Advisor.)

https://www.justsecurity.org/39493/primer-foreign-agents-registration-act/

Northern Star , November 15, 2017 at 3:59 pm
As for AIPAC itself..in case you are wondering:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/should-aipac-register-as-a-foreign-agent/5601653

[Nov 15, 2017] Alex Azar Can There Be Uglier Scenarios than the Revolving Door naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... By Lambert Strether ..."
"... So should Mr Azar be confirmed as Secretary of DHHS, the fox guarding the hen house appears to be a reasonable analogy. ..."
"... In this post, I'd like to add two additional factors to our consideration of Azar. The first: Democrat credentialism makes it hard for them to oppose Azar. The second: The real ..."
Nov 15, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Alex Azar: Can There Be Uglier Scenarios than the Revolving Door? Posted on November 15, 2017 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether

Clearly, Alex Azar, nominated yesterday for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services by the Trump Administration, exemplifies the case of the "revolving door," through which Flexians slither on their way to (or from) positions of public trust. Roy Poses ( cross-posted at NC ) wrote, when Azar was only Acting Secretary:

Last week we noted that Mr Trump famously promised to &#8220;drain the swamp&#8221; in Washington. Last week, despite his previous pledges to not appoint lobbyists to powerful positions, he appointed a lobbyist to be acting DHHS Secretary. This week he is apparently strongly considering Mr Alex Azar, a pharmaceutical executive to be permanent DHHS Secretary, even though the FDA, part of DHHS, has direct regulatory authority over the pharmaceutical industry, and many other DHHS policies strongly affect the pharmaceutical industry. (By the way, Mr Azar was also in charge of one lobbying effort.)

So should Mr Azar be confirmed as Secretary of DHHS, the fox guarding the hen house appears to be a reasonable analogy.

Moreover, several serious legal cases involving bad behavior by his company, and multiple other instances of apparently unethical behavior occurred on Mr Azar&#8217;s watch at Eli Lilly. So the fox might be not the most reputable member of the species.

So you know the drill&#8230;. The revolving door is a species of conflict of interest . Worse, some experts have suggested that the revolving door is in fact corruption. As we noted here , the experts from the distinguished European anti-corruption group U4 wrote ,

The literature makes clear that the revolving door process is a source of valuable political connections for private firms. But it generates corruption risks and has strong distortionary effects on the economy , especially when this power is concentrated within a few firms.

The ongoing parade of people transiting the revolving door from industry to the Trump administration once again suggests how the revolving door may enable certain of those with private vested interests to have excess influence, way beyond that of ordinary citizens, on how the government works, and that the country is still increasingly being run by a cozy group of insiders with ties to both government and industry. This has been termed crony capitalism.

Poses is, of course, correct. (Personally, I've contained my aghastitude on Azar, because I remember quite well how Liz Fowler transitioned from Wellpoint to being Max Baucus's chief of staff when ObamaCare was being drafted to a job in Big Pharma , and I remember quite well the deal with Big Pharma Obama cut, which eliminated the public option , not that the public option was anything other than a decreasingly gaudy "progressive" bauble in the first place.)

In this post, I'd like to add two additional factors to our consideration of Azar. The first: Democrat credentialism makes it hard for them to oppose Azar. The second: The real damage Azar could do is on the regulatory side.[1]

First, Democrat credentialism. Here is one effusive encomium on Azar. From USA Today, "Who is Alex Azar? Former drugmaker CEO and HHS official nominated to head agency" :

"I am glad to hear that you have worked hard, and brought fair-minded legal analysis to the department," Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said at Azar's last confirmation hearing.

And:

Andy Slavitt, who ran the Affordable Care Act and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during the Obama administration, said he has reason to hope Azar would be a good secretary.

"He is familiar with the high quality of the HHS staff, has real-world experience enough to be pragmatic, and will hopefully avoid repeating the mistakes of his predecessor," Slavitt said.

So, if Democrats are saying Azar is "fair-minded" and "pragmatic" -- and heaven forfend that the word "corruption"[2] even be mentioned -- how do they oppose him, even he's viscerally opposed to everything Democrats supposedly stand for? (Democrats do this with judicial nominations, too.) Azar may be a fox, alright, but the chickens he's supposedly guarding are all clucking about how impeccable his qualifications are!

Second, let's briefly look at Azar's bio. Let me excerpt salient detail from USA Today :

1. Azar clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia .

2. Azar went to work for his mentor, Ken Starr , who was heading the independent counsel investigation into Bill and Hillary Clinton's Whitewater land deal.

3. Azar had a significant role in another major political controversy when the outcome of the 2000 presidential election hinged on a recount in Florida . Azar was on the Bush team of lawyers whose side ultimately prevailed [3]

For any Democrat with a memory, that bio provokes one of those "You shall know them by the trail of the dead" moments. And then there's this:

When Leavitt replaced Thompson in 2005 and Azar became his deputy, Leavitt delegated a lot of the rule-making process to Azar.

So, a liberal Democrat might classify Azar as a smooth-talking reactionary thug with a terrible record and the most vile mentors imaginable, and on top of it all, he's an effective bureaucratic fixer. What could the Trump Administration possibly see in such a person? Former (Republican) HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt explains:

"Understanding the administrative rule process in the circumstance we're in today could be extraordinarily important because a lot of the change in the health care system, given the fact that they've not succeeded legislatively, could come administratively."

We outlined the administration strategy on health care in "Trump Adminstration Doubles Down on Efforts to Crapify the Entire Health Care System (Unless You're Rich, of Course)" . There are three prongs:

1) Administratively, send ObamaCare into a death spiral by sabotaging it

2) Legislatively, gut Medicaid as part of the "tax refom" package in Congress

3) Through executive order, eliminate "essential health benefits" through "association health plans"

As a sidebar, it's interesting to see that although this do-list is strategically and ideologically coherent -- basically, your ability to access health care will be directly dependent on your ability to pay -- it's institutionally incoherent, a bizarre contraption screwed together out of legislation, regulations, and an Executive order. Of course, this incoherence mirrors to Rube Goldberg structure of ObamaCare itself, itself a bizarre contraption, especially when compared to the simple, rugged, and proven single payer system. ( Everything Obama did with regulations and executive orders, Trump can undo, with new regulations and new executive orders . We might compare ObamaCare to a child born with no immune system, that could only have survived within the liberal bubble within which it was created; in the real world, it's not surprising that it's succumbing to opportunistic infections.[2])

On #1, The administration has, despite its best efforts, not achieved a controlled flight into terrain with ObamaCare; enrollment is up. On #2, the administration and its Congressional allies are still dickering with tax reform. And on #3 . That looks looks like a job for Alex Azar, since both essential health benefits and association health plans are significantly affected by regulation.

So, yes, there are worse scenarios than the revolving door; it's what you leave behind you as the door revolves that matters. It would be lovely if there were a good old-fashioned confirmation battle over Azar, but, as I've pointed out, the Democrats have tied their own hands. Ideally, the Democrats would junk the Rube Goldberg device that is ObamaCare, rendering all of Azar's regulatory expertise null and void, but that doesn't seem likely, given that they seem to be doing everything possible to avoid serious discussion of policy in 2018 and 2020.

NOTES

[1] I'm leaving aside what will no doubt be the 2018 or even 2020 issue of drug prices, since for me that's subsumed under the issue of single payer. If we look only at Azar's history in business, real price decreases seem unlikely. Business Insider :

Over the 10-year period when Azar was at Lilly, the price of insulin notched a three-fold increase. It wasn't just Lilly's insulin product, called Humalog. The price of a rival made by Novo Nordisk has also climbed, with the two rising in such lockstep that you can barely see both trend lines below.

The gains came despite the fact that the insulin, which as a medication has an almost-century-long history, hasn't really changed since it was first approved.

Nice business to be in, eh? Here's that chart:

It's almost like Lilly (Azar's firm) and Novo Nordisk are working together, isn't it?

[2] Anyhow, as of the 2016 Clinton campaign , the Democrat standard -- not that of Poses, nor mine -- is that if there's no quid pro quo, there's no corruption.

[3] And, curiously, "[HHS head Tommy] Thompson said HHS was in the eye of the storm after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and Azar had an important role in responding to the resulting public health challenges, as well as the subsequent anthrax attacks "

MedicalQuack , November 15, 2017 at 10:31 am

Oh please, stop quoting Andy Slavitt, the United Healthcare Ingenix algo man. That guy is the biggest crook that made his money early on with RX discounts with his company that he and Senator Warren's daughter, Amelia sold to United Healthcare. He's out there trying to do his own reputation restore routine. Go back to 2009 and read about the short paying of MDs by Ingenix, which is now Optum Insights, he was the CEO and remember it was just around 3 years ago or so he sat there quarterly with United CEO Hemsley at those quarterly meetings. Look him up, wants 40k to speak and he puts the perception out there he does this for free, not so.

diptherio , November 15, 2017 at 11:25 am

I think you're missing the context. Lambert is quoting him by way of showing that the sleazy establishment types are just fine with him. Thanks for the extra background on that particular swamp-dweller, though.

a different chris , November 15, 2017 at 2:01 pm

Not just the context, it's a quote in a quote. Does make me think Slavitt must be a real piece of work to send MQ so far off his rails

petal , November 15, 2017 at 12:52 pm

Alex Azar is a Dartmouth grad (Gov't & Economics '88) just like Jeff Immelt (Applied Math & Economics '78). So much damage to society from such a small department!

sgt_doom , November 15, 2017 at 1:21 pm

Nice one, petal !!!

Really, all I need to know about the Trumpster Administration:

From Rothschild to . . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Ross

Since 2014, Ross has been the vice-chairman of the board of Bank of Cyprus PCL, the largest bank in Cyprus.

He served under U.S. President Bill Clinton on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund. Later, under New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Ross served as the Mayor's privatization advisor.

Jen , November 15, 2017 at 7:56 pm

Or from a "small liberal arts college" (which is a university in all but name, because alumni).

Tim Geitner ('82 – Goverment)
Hank Paulson ('68 – English)

jo6pac , November 15, 2017 at 2:13 pm

Well it's never ending game in the beltway and we serfs aren't in it.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/15/trump-adds-to-washingtons-swamp/

Alfred , November 15, 2017 at 2:53 pm

I don't believe that the President's "swamp" ever consisted of crooked officials, lobbyists, and cronies I think it has always consisted of those regulators who tried sincerely to defend public interests.

It was in the sticky work of those good bureaucrats that the projects of capitalists and speculators bogged down. It is against their efforts that the pickup-driving cohort of Trump_vs_deep_state (with their Gadsden flag decals) relentlessly rails.

Trump has made much progress in draining the regulatory swamp (if indeed that is the right way to identify it), and no doubt will make considerably more as time wears on, leaving America high and dry. The kind of prevaricator Trump is may simply be the one who fails to define his terms.

Henry Moon Pie , November 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm

I think we've moved past the revolving door. We hear members of the United States Senate publicly voice their concerns about what will happen if they fail to do their employers' bidding (and I'm not talking about "the public" here). In the bureaucracy, political appointees keep accruing more and more power even as they make it clearer and clearer that they work for "the donors" and not the people. Nowhere is this more true than the locus through which passes most of the money: the Pentagon. The fact that these beribboned heroes are, in fact, setting war policy on their own makes the knowledge that they serve Raytheon and Exxon rather than Americans very, very troubling.

I suspect Azar's perception is that he is just moving from one post to another within the same company.

Watt4Bob , November 15, 2017 at 5:28 pm

Perfect cartoon over at Truthout

I'm amazed there is enough private security available on this planet to keep these guys safe.

Larry , November 15, 2017 at 8:01 pm

Big pharma indeed has so much defense from the supposed left. It combines their faith in technological progress, elite institutions, and tugs on the heart strings with technology that can save people from a fate of ill health or premature death. Of course, the aspect of the laws being written to line the pockets of corrupt executives is glossed over. While drug prices and medical costs spiral ever higher, our overall longevity and national health in the US declines. That speaks volumes about what Democrats really care about.

[Nov 12, 2017] Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies.

There is some important to note "cognitive dissonance" here: if Trump is as stupid as appears from his current policies why in the past he was insightful enough to understand important events in proper light? Something here does not compute...
Notable quotes:
"... Trump was bright enough to build up a billion dollar business empire, to win the Republican nomination against the wishes of most the the Republican establishment, and to win the election over the Clinton/Establishment machine. ..."
"... He was bright enough to note immediately after the 9/11 false flag the absurdity of aspects of what became the official narrative; ..."
"... And his anti-NWO strong emphasis on national sovereignty, and upon taking office his immediate repudiation of the nation-state disempowering and democracy-defeating TPP, are imo evidence of combining bright and gutsy. ..."
"... And he has been bright and gutsy enough to directly take on mass media bs and to call out, as no other promenent person has, the 'fake news', the mass media propaganda system; and playfully, and rather brightly, offers his direct line to the public via twitter. ..."
"... And along with Putin, Trump has earned more mass media and establishment invective, attacks, and condemnation than just about anyone in my living memory. So he must be doing something right. ..."
"... When someone is referred to as "not the brightest bulb", this is a clichι way of denoting stupidity in someone else, but it is a often a somewhat perilous joust, suggesting a suspect self-inflation. As far as not being well informed, that of course depends on what specific matters are being referred to. It has been said that a bunch of highly intelligent people with access to all sorts of information bombed Indochina mercilessly for years; for. as the highly intelligent and overflowing with information Dr. Kissinger noted, basically nothing. ..."
"... I listened to Trump carefully during his campaign speeches. He'd deliver a long "stream of consciousness" sentence that seemed to go all over the place. But when he'd finished the sentence you realised he'd in fact covered all the points he needed to make. And had done so while at the same time picking up and factoring in the audience response. I think he may be very bright indeed and quick on his feet. ..."
"... His policies? I think we have to accept one unpalatable fact. An American politician who doesn't ostentatiously support Israel doesn't get to be an American politician, if that's not a circular way of saying it. Since that to a lesser extent is the case in England as well - you saw the trouble Corbyn got into recently - one either has to isolate oneself from political discussion or just accept that most politicians of any importance here or in the States will be defective in that respect. That sounds heartless, given what the Palestinians are going through, and given what Israel's neighbours are going through; but ceasing to strive for a little because we cannot have more is even less acceptable. ..."
"... One final point. You've seen the re-election in Germany of Mrs Merkel - no idea how since none of the people I meet in Germany would have dreamed of voting for her, but she's still there. You've seen a dead-beat government elected in the UK as well. And in France you've seen the election of Macron! In America that pattern was broken. I think it might have been a fluke - I have relatives in the States who are dyed in the wool Democrats but who just couldn't stomach the candidate they put up, and it seems there were many like them. But fluke or not they now have a President who, judging by the way they attack him, is an opponent of the type of policies that have led us to our present pass. He seems to have pretty well the entire American establishment and the media against him so he may not get that far. But surely a slim chance of getting out of the hopeless mess that is our politics in the West at present is better that the certainly of sinking further into it? ..."
Nov 12, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trump was bright enough to build up a billion dollar business empire, to win the Republican nomination against the wishes of most the the Republican establishment, and to win the election over the Clinton/Establishment machine.

He was bright enough to note immediately after the 9/11 false flag the absurdity of aspects of what became the official narrative; and for example to question the safety of the deluge of vaccines that kids especially are being subjected to, while simultaneously there is an unprecedented 'epidemic' of autism and asthma in children.

And his anti-NWO strong emphasis on national sovereignty, and upon taking office his immediate repudiation of the nation-state disempowering and democracy-defeating TPP, are imo evidence of combining bright and gutsy.

And he has been bright and gutsy enough to directly take on mass media bs and to call out, as no other promenent person has, the 'fake news', the mass media propaganda system; and playfully, and rather brightly, offers his direct line to the public via twitter.

And along with Putin, Trump has earned more mass media and establishment invective, attacks, and condemnation than just about anyone in my living memory. So he must be doing something right.

When someone is referred to as "not the brightest bulb", this is a clichι way of denoting stupidity in someone else, but it is a often a somewhat perilous joust, suggesting a suspect self-inflation. As far as not being well informed, that of course depends on what specific matters are being referred to. It has been said that a bunch of highly intelligent people with access to all sorts of information bombed Indochina mercilessly for years; for. as the highly intelligent and overflowing with information Dr. Kissinger noted, basically nothing.

EnglishOutsider | Nov 11, 2017 7:15:21 PM | 26
"Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies."

"b" - I listened to Trump carefully during his campaign speeches. He'd deliver a long "stream of consciousness" sentence that seemed to go all over the place. But when he'd finished the sentence you realised he'd in fact covered all the points he needed to make. And had done so while at the same time picking up and factoring in the audience response. I think he may be very bright indeed and quick on his feet.

Not well informed? I can't argue with that, not after Khan Shaykhun, but the same blanket of misinformation that covers almost all of us in Europe or the States will presumably cover New York property developers. In the echo chamber that is Washington DC I doubt there's much chance of remedying that. I speak to responsible well-educated people regularly whose knowledge of what is happening abroad you would condemn as pitifully inadequate. Rightfully so. Those of you who have a more accurate idea of the facts are few, and those of us who hear you are also in a tiny minority. That's a fact of life and we can no more condemn Trump for being ill-informed than we can the most of your and my neighbours.

I pin my hopes on the fact that he does have a good intuition and is, as I say, quick on his feet. With such a person reality has a better chance of getting through than it would with the usual tunnel vision politician.

His policies? I think we have to accept one unpalatable fact. An American politician who doesn't ostentatiously support Israel doesn't get to be an American politician, if that's not a circular way of saying it. Since that to a lesser extent is the case in England as well - you saw the trouble Corbyn got into recently - one either has to isolate oneself from political discussion or just accept that most politicians of any importance here or in the States will be defective in that respect. That sounds heartless, given what the Palestinians are going through, and given what Israel's neighbours are going through; but ceasing to strive for a little because we cannot have more is even less acceptable.

His other policies? You do not write on the economy on your site. The European economies, that of the UK in particular, and the American economy, are in a bad way. Urgently so. I can therefore only put forward as a view that the solutions proposed by Trump in 2016 offered the only chance, if a slim one, of turning that round.

One final point. You've seen the re-election in Germany of Mrs Merkel - no idea how since none of the people I meet in Germany would have dreamed of voting for her, but she's still there. You've seen a dead-beat government elected in the UK as well. And in France you've seen the election of Macron! In America that pattern was broken. I think it might have been a fluke - I have relatives in the States who are dyed in the wool Democrats but who just couldn't stomach the candidate they put up, and it seems there were many like them. But fluke or not they now have a President who, judging by the way they attack him, is an opponent of the type of policies that have led us to our present pass. He seems to have pretty well the entire American establishment and the media against him so he may not get that far. But surely a slim chance of getting out of the hopeless mess that is our politics in the West at present is better that the certainly of sinking further into it?

Peter AU 1 | Nov 11, 2017 6:37:08 PM | 23
karlof1 20

If by chance Trump or anyone is genuine about taking down the deep state, they cannot do it by running around in a pathetic attempt trying to fix small issues.

They would have to leave the machine to carry on as normal and go for its foundations. I thought about this months ago, and now looking at the latest events, this could be what is happening.

[Nov 12, 2017] The Russia hoax might not survive

When a particular MSN outlet call Intelligence assessment the work of "intelligence community" and not a handful of analysis picked by Brannan and Clapper from just three agencies (NSA, CIA and FBI) it ia fair to say it spreads propaganda in best Josef Gebbels tradition: "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play." ― Joseph Goebbels
"That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda's task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success." ― Joseph Goebbels
Notable quotes:
"... CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently met -- at the urging of President Donald Trump -- with one of the principal deniers of Russian interference in the US election, according to multiple intelligence sources. ..."
"... The CIA responded to CNN's inquiry about the meeting by saying that Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community assessment" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election ..."
Nov 12, 2017 | www.wsj.com

This here is The Wall Street Journal on the Steele Dossier .

This is utterly untrue. In British court documents Mr. Steele has acknowledged he briefed U.S. reporters about the dossier in September 2016. Those briefed included journalists from the New York Times , the Washington Post, Yahoo News and others. Mr. Steele, by his own admission (in an interview with Mother Jones), also gave his dossier in July 2016 to the FBI.

... ... ...

To that point, it is fair to ask if the entire Trump-Russia narrative -- which has played a central role in our political discourse for a year, and is now resulting in a special counsel issuing unrelated indictments -- is based on nothing more than a political smear document. Is there any reason to believe the FBI was probing a Trump-Russia angle before the dossier? Is there any collusion allegation that doesn't come in some form from the dossier?

The idea that the federal government and a special counsel were mobilized -- that American citizens were monitored and continue to be investigated -- based on a campaign-funded hit document is extraordinary. Especially given that to this day no one has publicly produced a single piece of evidence to support any of the dossier's substantive allegations about Trump team members.

And CNN CIA director met with DNC hack conspiracy theorist at Trump's urging - CNNPolitics

CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently met -- at the urging of President Donald Trump -- with one of the principal deniers of Russian interference in the US election, according to multiple intelligence sources. Trump apparently made the highly unusual request that Pompeo meet with the former National Security Agency employee and look into a theory that the leak of Democratic Party emails last year was an inside job rather than a cyberattack by Russian hackers.

William Binney, the former NSA employee-turned-whistleblower who circulated the conspiracy theory, confirmed to CNN that he met with Pompeo for about an hour on October 24 -- despite the fact the intelligence community concluded early this year that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The meeting was first reported by The Intercept.

The CIA responded to CNN's inquiry about the meeting by saying that Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community assessment" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

[Nov 10, 2017] Saudi Arabia's Desperate Gamble

More wars... more victims... More destruction...
Nov 10, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , November 10, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Israel's next desperate gamble is direct military attack on Lebanon and Syria.

On 5 November, the ever more delusional Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu complained to the BBC about an "Iranian takeover" of Lebanon.

On 9 November, the equally delusional Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz complained to the Associated Press that "Lebanon is Hezbollah and Hezbollah is Iran".

Israel is by no means content to merely "contemplate" a war.

With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon and Syria.

War against Lebanon and Syria is the next stage of the Israeli-Saudi-US Axis "project".

Saudi Arabia and the United States are very much available to "assist" the upcoming Israeli military adventure.

South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in southern Lebanon.

Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.

Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.

"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War

Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.

"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.

"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.

"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.

"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.

"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.

"Conclusions

"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.

"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.

"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."

Israeli Defense Forces: Military Capabilities, Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
https://southfront.org/israeli-defense-forces-military-capabilities-scenarios-for-the-third-lebanon-war/

Sally Snyder , November 10, 2017 at 10:05 pm

Here are some cables that Wikileaks released showing us how the Saudi royal family tries to control the world's media:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/01/how-saudi-arabia-controls-its-own-media.html

The Saudi Royal Family has bottomless pockets when it comes to controlling negative press coverage.

Zachary Smith , November 10, 2017 at 10:28 pm

And in the shadows, at the back of the gaming room, stands Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. The idea of going to the casino was his, in the first place. If the hero lands on black, he will share in the joy, but if it is red never mind: Bibi's home is not forfeit.

At first glance it looks to me as if Netanyahu wins any coin flip, whether it is "heads" or "tails". No matter what happens, Saudi Arabia is going to be severely shaken up, and chaos in surrounding Muslim nations is almost always a "plus" for Israel.

But at second glance I imagine I can also see a downside. The Arabian Peninsula has a hefty population, and if the Kingdom here does shatter, there is a possibility that an Arabic Napoleon could emerge. During the time of Muhammad there was an outward-moving crusade, and might it not happen again? Saudi Arabia may not have much of an army at the moment, but that could change quickly. A glance at a world globe shows Israel to be very close by. This sort of thing would cause me to lose sleep if I were an Israeli strategist.

At the moment the KSA is being taken over by a young numbskull, if all the accounts I've read are even remotely true. Perhaps Israel is providing the brains. The Moon of Alabama blogger has a low opinion of the young man.

Saudi Arabia – This "Liberal Reformer" Is An Impulsive Tyrant

h**p://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/11/saudi-arabia-the-liberal-reformer-reveals-himself-as-an-impulsive-tyrant-.html

David G , November 10, 2017 at 10:59 pm

The singular fact that the planned next royal succession from Salman to MbS will be the first from father to son since the death of Abdulaziz seems to me to add a whole other level of uncertainty to what is already a difficult time for the kingdom.

[Nov 10, 2017] Saudi Arabia's Desperate Gamble

More wars... more victims... More destruction...
Nov 10, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , November 10, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Israel's next desperate gamble is direct military attack on Lebanon and Syria.

On 5 November, the ever more delusional Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu complained to the BBC about an "Iranian takeover" of Lebanon.

On 9 November, the equally delusional Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz complained to the Associated Press that "Lebanon is Hezbollah and Hezbollah is Iran".

Israel is by no means content to merely "contemplate" a war.

With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon and Syria.

War against Lebanon and Syria is the next stage of the Israeli-Saudi-US Axis "project".

Saudi Arabia and the United States are very much available to "assist" the upcoming Israeli military adventure.

South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in southern Lebanon.

Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.

Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.

"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War

Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.

"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.

"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.

"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.

"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.

"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.

"Conclusions

"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.

"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.

"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."

Israeli Defense Forces: Military Capabilities, Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
https://southfront.org/israeli-defense-forces-military-capabilities-scenarios-for-the-third-lebanon-war/

Sally Snyder , November 10, 2017 at 10:05 pm

Here are some cables that Wikileaks released showing us how the Saudi royal family tries to control the world's media:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/01/how-saudi-arabia-controls-its-own-media.html

The Saudi Royal Family has bottomless pockets when it comes to controlling negative press coverage.

Zachary Smith , November 10, 2017 at 10:28 pm

And in the shadows, at the back of the gaming room, stands Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. The idea of going to the casino was his, in the first place. If the hero lands on black, he will share in the joy, but if it is red never mind: Bibi's home is not forfeit.

At first glance it looks to me as if Netanyahu wins any coin flip, whether it is "heads" or "tails". No matter what happens, Saudi Arabia is going to be severely shaken up, and chaos in surrounding Muslim nations is almost always a "plus" for Israel.

But at second glance I imagine I can also see a downside. The Arabian Peninsula has a hefty population, and if the Kingdom here does shatter, there is a possibility that an Arabic Napoleon could emerge. During the time of Muhammad there was an outward-moving crusade, and might it not happen again? Saudi Arabia may not have much of an army at the moment, but that could change quickly. A glance at a world globe shows Israel to be very close by. This sort of thing would cause me to lose sleep if I were an Israeli strategist.

At the moment the KSA is being taken over by a young numbskull, if all the accounts I've read are even remotely true. Perhaps Israel is providing the brains. The Moon of Alabama blogger has a low opinion of the young man.

Saudi Arabia – This "Liberal Reformer" Is An Impulsive Tyrant

h**p://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/11/saudi-arabia-the-liberal-reformer-reveals-himself-as-an-impulsive-tyrant-.html

David G , November 10, 2017 at 10:59 pm

The singular fact that the planned next royal succession from Salman to MbS will be the first from father to son since the death of Abdulaziz seems to me to add a whole other level of uncertainty to what is already a difficult time for the kingdom.

[Nov 10, 2017] Steve Keen How I Sold Out To The Putin-Soros-Murdoch Conspiracy To Destroy Western Civilization Zero Hedge

Nov 10, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Nov 9, 2017 6:36 PM 0 SHARES Authored by Steve Keen via RT.com,

I was delighted to find myself in the Top Ten (alright; top 15) of the European Values list of 2,326 "Useful Idiots" appearing regularly on RT shows, and thus legitimizing Vladimir Putin's attempt to destroy Western civilization as we know it.

Why delighted? Because it completes the set of conspiracies to which I can now be accused of belonging. They include:

[Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Kovalik's historical excursion takes in the Soviet Union. Clearly, many of the U. S. military interventions described in this valuable book wouldn't have occurred if the Soviet Union still existed. Beyond that, Kovalik says, "the Soviet Union, did wield sizable political and ideological influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its critical role in winning [World War] II." ..."
"... Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that, 'The US is on the wrong side of the world-wide revolution' – and with Daniel Ellsberg's clarification: 'The US is not on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.'" ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Review " A powerful contradiction to the present US narrative of the world . . . As shown here, fake news is thriving in Washington, DC."-- Oliver Stone , Academy Award winning director and screenwriter

" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia is a beautifully written, uncommonly coherent, and very compelling treatise on the issues facing America today... a troubling indictment of where we've been and where we're headed. Moreover, this book is profoundly important , and a timely retrospective review of American foreign policy misadventures since the advent of the Cold War." -- Phillip F. Nelson , author of LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination and LBJ: From Mastermind to "The Colossus"

" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia underscores how the CIA's infiltration and shaping of the media, which began in the 1950s, successfully continues today. A very worthwhile account for anyone who wants to understand how 'reality' is manufactured, while 'real truth' is murdered and buried." -- Peter Janney , author of Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace

"At a time when the U.S. military budget is again soaring to enrich the oligarchs, this timely and thought-provoking book turns Orwellian 'double-think' on its head in a cogent analysis of what's really behind all the saber-rattling against Russia. In a scholarly but also deeply personal and fluidly written work , Dan Kovalik pulls no punches in dissecting the history of how America has justified its own imperialistic aims through the Cold War era and right up to the current anti-Putin hysteria." -- Dick Russell , New York Times bestselling author of Horsemen of the Apocalypse: The Men Who Are Destroying Life on Earth and What It Means to Our Children

" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia confronts the timeliest of subjects, the effort to resuscitate the Cold War by blaming Russian president Vladimir Putin for interfering in the 2016 presidential campaign on behalf of Donald Trump, an effort pursued by CIA and the Democratic Party working in tandem. Kovalik establishes... that not a scintilla of evidence has emerged to grant credibility to this self-serving fantasy... [and he] deftly eviscerates the mainstream press . Reading [this book] will be salutary, illuminating and more than instructive ." -- Joan Mellen , author of Faustian Bargains: Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace in the Robber Baron Culture of Texas

William T. Whitney Jr on May 28, 2017

Review of "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia"

Beating up on Russia; history tells why
By William T. Whitney Jr. .

Lawyer and human rights activist Dan Kovalik has written a valuable book. He looked at a recent U. S. political development in terms of history and then skewered it. His new book, "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia," looks at mounting assaults against Russia that increased during the Obama administration and that spokespersons for the Democratic Party, among others, are promoting.

The CIA, he claims, without going into specifics, is engaged in anti-Russian activities. For Kovalik, "the CIA is a nefarious, criminal organization which often misleads the American public and government into wars and misadventures."

Kovalik devotes much of his book to what he regards as precedents for the current dark turn in U.S. – Russian relations. Toward that end, he surveys the history of U.S. foreign interventions since World War II. He confirms that the United States government is indeed habituated to aggressive adventurism abroad. That's something many readers already know, but Kovalik contributes significantly by establishing that U.S. hostility against Russia ranks as a chapter in that long story.

But what's the motivation for military assaults and destabilizing projects? And, generally, why all the wars? The author's historical survey provides answers. He finds that the scenarios he describes are connected. Treating them as a whole, he gives them weight and thus provides an intellectual weapon for the anti-imperialist cause. Kovalik, putting history to work, moves from the issue of U.S.-Russian antagonism to the more over-arching problem of threats to human survival. That's his major contribution.

His highly-recommended book offers facts and analyses so encompassing as to belie its small size. The writing is clear, evocative, and eminently readable; his narrative is that of a story – teller. Along the way, as a side benefit, Kovalik recalls the causes and outrage that fired up activists who were his contemporaries.

He testifies to a new Cold War. Doing so, he argues that the anti-communist rational for the earlier Cold War was a cover for something else, a pretext. In his words: "the Cold War, at least from the vantage point of the US, had little to do with fighting 'Communism,' and more to do with making the world safe for corporate plunder." Once more Russia is an enemy of the United States, but now it's a capitalist country.

That's mysterious; explanation is in order. Readers, however, may be hungry to know about the "plot" advertised in the book's title. We recommend patience. History and its recurring patterns come first for this author. They enable him to account for U. S. – Russian relations that are contradictory and, most importantly, for the U.S. propensity for war-making. After that he tells about a plot.

Kovalik describes how, very early, reports of CIA machinations from former agents of the spy organization expanded his political awareness, as did a trip to Nicaragua. There he gained first-hand knowledge of CIA atrocities, of deaths and destruction at the hands of the Contras, anti- Sandinista paramilitaries backed by the CIA His book goes on fully and dramatically to describe murders and chaos orchestrated by the United States and/or the CIA in El Salvador, Colombia, and in the South America of Operation Condor. Kovalic discusses the U.S. war in Vietnam, occupation and war in Korea, nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear testing and dying in the Marshall Islands, and the CIA's recruitment of the anti-Soviet Mujahedeen in Afghan¬istan. He recounts U. S. - instigated coups in Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1954; and Chile, 1973.

These projects were about keeping "the world safe from the threat of Soviet totalitarianism" – in other words, anti-communism. But then the USSR disappeared, and the search was on for a new pretext. The Clinton administration evoked "humanitarian intervention," and continued the intrusions: in Ruanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo (on behalf of "US mining interests"), Yugoslavia, and Libya.

In Kovalik's telling, the U. S. government eventually settled upon the notion of "American exceptionalism," that is to say, "the belief that the US is a uniquely benign actor in the world, spreading peace and democracy." Thus armed, the U. S. military exported terror to Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen (via its Saudi Arabian proxy), and Honduras, through a U. S. facilitated military coup. The book catalogues other episodes, other places. Along the way on his excursion, Kovalik contrasts U. S. pretensions and brutal deeds with the relatively benign nature of alleged Russian outrages.

Good relations with Russia, he says, would be "simply bad for business, in particular the business of war which so profoundly undergirds the US economy As of 2015, the US had at least 800 military bases in over 70 nations, while Britain, France and Russia had only 30 military bases combined." And, "under Obama alone, the US had Special Forces deployed in about 138 countries." Further, "The US's outsized military exists not only to ensure the US's quite unjust share of the world's riches, but also to ensure that those riches are not shared with the poor huddled masses in this country."

Kovalik highlights the disaster that overwhelmed Russia as a fledgling capitalist nation: life expectancy plummeted, the poverty rate was 75 percent, and investments fell by 80 percent. National pride was in the cellar, the more so after the United States backed away from Secretary of State Baker's 1991 promise that NATO would never move east, after the United States attacked Russia's ally Serbia, and after the United States, rejecting Russian priorities, attacked Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011.

The author rebuts U. S. claims that Russian democracy has failed and that Putin over-reached in Ukraine. He praises Putin's attempts to cooperate with the United States in Syria. The United States has abused peoples the world over, he insists, and suffers from a "severe democracy deficit."

By the time he is discussing current U. S. – Russian relations, readers have been primed never to expect U.S. imperialism to give Russia a break. The author's instructional course has taken effect, or should have done so. If readers aren't aware of what the U. S. government has been up to, the author is not to blame.

Kovalik condemns the Obama administration and particularly Secretary of State Hilary Clinton for intensifying the U. S. campaign against Russia. He extends his criticism to the Democratic Party and the media. The theme of anti – Russian scheming by the CIA comes up briefly in the book in connection with hacking attributed to Russia and with WikiLeaks revelations about the Democratic Party. Nothing is said about possible interaction between personnel of the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Kovalik's historical excursion takes in the Soviet Union. Clearly, many of the U. S. military interventions described in this valuable book wouldn't have occurred if the Soviet Union still existed. Beyond that, Kovalik says, "the Soviet Union, did wield sizable political and ideological influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its critical role in winning [World War] II."

Kovalik acknowledges "periods of great repression." He adds, however, that "the Russian Revolution and the USSR delivered on many of their promises, and against great odds. . In any case, the goals of the Russian Revolution-equality, worker control of the economy, universal health care and social security- were laudable ones." And, "One of the reasons that the West continues to dance on the grave of the Soviet Union, and to emphasize the worst parts of that society and downplay its achievements, is to make sure that, as the world-wide economy worsens, and as the suffering of work¬ing people around the world deepens, they don't get any notions in their head to organize some new socialist revolution with such ideals."

Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that, 'The US is on the wrong side of the world-wide revolution' – and with Daniel Ellsberg's clarification: 'The US is not on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.'"

Drew Hunkins on May 30, 2017

Dissects the dangerous nonsense

The most important non-fiction work thus far of 2017 is upon us. Finally the book has arrived that cuts through all the hype, deceit, misinformation and disconcerting groupthink.

Kovalik structures TPTSR by starting at the most logical place -- the history of unilateral Washington aggression across the globe, from the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran through the Washington intell agencies' orchestrated coups and proxy wars in Latin America.

This exposition of historical Washington empire building provides a solid foundation when he ultimately addresses why the predatory military-industrial-media-complex is incessantly fomenting this dangerous contemporary Russophobic campaign. The book nails it by presenting in a crystal clear manner the two exact reasons why the demonization of Moscow never seems to subside: 1.) The corporate and Washington military empire builders are deeply threatened by the potential loss of certain markets and a sovereign Russia that desires a say over the diplomatic and military maneuvers on its borders, especially its Western region. 2.) Most importantly, the MIC/national-security state absolutely MUST HAVE a villain (real or imagined, it doesn't matter) in order to justify the trillion dollar budget and careerism that seeps into every pore of the U.S. politico-economic system. This Pentagon system of pseudo economic Keynesianism could potentially lead to nuclear war. The giant house of cards could doom us all.

D. Gordon on June 1, 2017

This book is an amazing contribution. A veritable primer on U

This book is an amazing contribution. A veritable primer on U.S. foreign policy, this book is part memoir, part history, and part analysis of current events. Kovalik makes a compelling case that U.S. policies--not Russia--are the biggest danger to world peace and human rights. The book traces Kovalik's own awakening and transformation from his conservative religious-minded youth to one of our most trenchant critics of U.S. foreign policy writing today. And he does it in his own inimitable, witty, readable, and humane style.

[Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

Highly recommended!
Russiagate witch hunt is destroying CIA franchise in Facebook and Twitter, which were used by many Russians and Eastern Europeans in general.
One telling sign of the national security state is "demonizing enemies of the state" including using neo-McCarthyism methods, typically for Russiagate.
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, as the new Undermensch. If these people and US MSM recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
Notable quotes:
"... Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians." ..."
"... The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health. ..."
"... In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT. ..."
"... The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications." ..."
"... Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians. ..."
"... The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran. ..."
"... After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed. ..."
"... Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet. ..."
"... The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin. ..."
"... The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities. ..."
"... Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. ..."
"... Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago. ..."
"... The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda. ..."
"... I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate. ..."
"... Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all. ..."
"... Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against. ..."
"... Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary. ..."
"... It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine. ..."
"... At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order. ..."
"... The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" ..."
"... Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake. ..."
"... In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more) ..."
"... Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States ..."
"... The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching. ..."
"... It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it΄s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it. ..."
"... In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53) ..."
"... Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55) ..."
"... Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame. ..."
Nov 08, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Special Report: Many American liberals who once denounced McCarthyism as evil are now learning to love the ugly tactic when it can be used to advance the Russia-gate "scandal" and silence dissent, reports Robert Parry.

The New York Times has finally detected some modern-day McCarthyism, but not in the anti-Russia hysteria that the newspaper has fueled for several years amid the smearing of American skeptics as "useful idiots" and the like. No, the Times editors are accusing a Long Island Republican of McCarthyism for linking his Democratic rival to "New York City special interest groups." As the Times laments, "It's the old guilt by association."

Yet, the Times sees no McCarthyism in the frenzy of Russia-bashing and guilt by association for any American who can be linked even indirectly to any Russian who might have some ill-defined links to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

On Monday, in the same edition that expressed editorial outrage over that Long Island political ad's McCarthyism, the Times ran two front-page articles under the headline: "A Complex Paper Trail: Blurring Kremlin's Ties to Key U.S. Businesses."

The two subheads read: " Shipping Firm Links Commerce Chief to Putin 'Cronies' " and " Millions in Facebook Shares Rooted in Russian Cash ." The latter story, which meshes nicely with the current U.S. political pressure on Facebook and Twitter to get in line behind the New Cold War against Russia, cites investments by Russian Yuri Milner that date back to the start of the decade.

Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians."

The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda."

We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health.

Though there was a video of Clinton's collapse on Sept. 11, 2016, followed by her departure from the campaign trail to fight pneumonia – not to mention her earlier scare with blood clots – the response from a group of 100 Clinton supporters was to question Brazile's patriotism: "It is particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians and our opponents about our candidate's health."

In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT.

Pressing the Tech Companies

Just as Sen. Joe McCarthy liked to haul suspected "communists" and "fellow-travelers" before his committee in the 1950s, the New McCarthyism has its own witch-hunt hearings, such as last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google for supposedly allowing Russians to have input into the Internet's social networks. Executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google hauled before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism on Oct. 31, 2017. Trying to appease Congress and fend off threats of government regulation, the rich tech companies displayed their eagerness to eradicate any Russian taint.

Twitter's general counsel Sean J. Edgett told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism that Twitter adopted an "expansive approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account."

Edgett said the criteria included "whether the account was created in Russia, whether the user registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email address, whether the user's display name contains Cyrillic characters, whether the user frequently Tweets in Russian, and whether the user has logged in from any Russian IP address, even a single time. We considered an account to be Russian-linked if it had even one of the relevant criteria."

The trouble with Twitter's methodology was that none of those criteria would connect an account to the Russian government, let alone Russian intelligence or some Kremlin-controlled "troll farm." But the criteria could capture individual Russians with no link to the Kremlin as well as people who weren't Russian at all, including, say, American or European visitors to Russia who logged onto Twitter through a Moscow hotel.

Also left unsaid is that Russians are not the only national group that uses the Cyrillic alphabet. It is considered a standard script for writing in Belarus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbo-Croatia and Ukraine. So, for instance, a Ukrainian using the Cyrillic alphabet could end up falling into the category of "Russian-linked" even if he or she hated Putin.

Twitter's attorney also said the company conducted a separate analysis from information provided by unidentified "third party sources" who pointed toward accounts supposedly controlled by the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), totaling 2,752 accounts. The IRA is typically described in the U.S. press as a "troll farm" which employs tech-savvy employees who combat news and opinions that are hostile to Russia and the Russian government. But exactly how those specific accounts were traced back to this organization was not made clear.

And, to put that number in some perspective, Twitter claims 330 million active monthly users, which makes the 2,752 accounts less than 0.001 percent of the total.

The Trouble with 'Trolling'

While the Russia-gate investigation has sought to portray the IRA effort as exotic and somehow unique to Russia, the strategy is followed by any number of governments, political movements and corporations – sometimes using enthusiastic volunteers but often employing professionals skilled at challenging critical information or at least muddying the waters.

Those of us who operate on the Internet are familiar with harassment from "trolls" who may use access to "comment" sections to inject propaganda and disinformation to sow confusion, to cause disruption, or to discredit the site by promoting ugly opinions and nutty conspiracy theories.

As annoying as this "trolling" is, it's just a modern version of more traditional strategies used by powerful entities for generations – hiring public-relations specialists, lobbyists, lawyers and supposedly impartial "activists" to burnish images, fend off negative news and intimidate nosy investigators. In this competition, modern Russia is both a late-comer and a piker.

The U.S. government fields legions of publicists, propagandists, paid journalists, psy-ops specialists , contractors and non-governmental organizations to promote Washington's positions and undermine rivals through information warfare.

The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications."

Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.

It's also ironic that the U.S. government touted social media as a great benefit in advancing so-called "color revolutions" aimed at "regime change" in troublesome countries. For instance, when the "green revolution" was underway in Iran in 2009 after the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Obama administration asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance so the street protesters could continue using the platform to organize against Ahmadinejad and to distribute their side of the story to the outside world.

During the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, Facebook, Twitter and Skype won praise as a means of organizing mass demonstrations to destabilize governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Back then, the U.S. government denounced any attempts to throttle these social media platforms and the free flow of information that they permitted as proof of dictatorship.

Social media also was a favorite of the U.S. government in Ukraine in 2013-14 when the Maidan protests exploited these platforms to help destabilize and ultimately overthrow the elected government of Ukraine, the key event that launched the New Cold War with Russia.

Swinging the Social Media Club

The truth is that, in those instances, the U.S. governments and its agencies were eagerly exploiting the platforms to advance Washington's geopolitical agenda by disseminating American propaganda and deploying U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, which taught activists how to use social media to advance "regime change" scenarios.

A White Helmets volunteer pointing to the aftermath of a military attack.

While these uprisings were sold to Western audiences as genuine outpourings of public anger – and there surely was some of that – the protests also benefited from U.S. funding and expertise. In particular, NED and USAID provided money, equipment and training for anti-government operatives challenging regimes in U.S. disfavor.

One of the most successful of these propaganda operations occurred in Syria where anti-government rebels operating in areas controlled by Al Qaeda and its fellow Islamic militants used social media to get their messaging to Western mainstream journalists who couldn't enter those sectors without fear of beheading.

Since the rebels' goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad meshed with the objectives of the U.S. government and its allies in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Western journalists uncritically accepted the words and images provided by Al Qaeda's collaborators.

The success of this propaganda was so extraordinary that the White Helmets, a "civil defense" group that worked in Al Qaeda territory, became the go-to source for dramatic video and even was awarded the short-documentary Oscar for an info-mercial produced for Netflix – despite evidence that the White Helmets were staging some of the scenes for propaganda purposes.

Indeed, one argument for believing that Putin and the Kremlin might have "meddled" in last year's U.S. election is that they could have felt it was time to give the United States a taste of its own medicine.

After all, the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin. And there were the U.S.-backed street protests in Moscow against the 2011 and 2012 elections in which Putin strengthened his political mandate. Those protests earned the "color" designation the "snow revolution."

However, whatever Russia may or may not have done before last year's U.S. election, the Russia-gate investigations have always sought to exaggerate the impact of that alleged "meddling" and molded the narrative to whatever weak evidence was available.

The original storyline was that Putin authorized the "hacking" of Democratic emails as part of a "disinformation" operation to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy and to help elect Donald Trump – although no hard evidence has been presented to establish that Putin gave such an order or that Russia "hacked" the emails. WikiLeaks has repeatedly denied getting the emails from Russia, which also denies any meddling.

Further, the emails were not "disinformation"; they were both real and, in many cases, newsworthy. The DNC emails provided evidence that the DNC unethically tilted the playing field in favor of Clinton and against Sen. Bernie Sanders, a point that Brazile also discovered in reviewing staffing and financing relationships that Clinton had with the DNC under the prior chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The purloined emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta revealed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street (information that she was trying to hide from voters) and pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

A Manchurian Candidate?

Still, the original narrative was that Putin wanted his Manchurian Candidate (Trump) in the White House and took the extraordinary risk of infuriating the odds-on favorite (Clinton) by releasing the emails even though they appeared unlikely to prevent Clinton's victory. So, there was always that logical gap in the Russia-gate theory.

Since then, however, the U.S. mainstream narrative has shifted, in part, because the evidence of Russian election "meddling" was so shaky. Under intense congressional pressure to find something, Facebook reported $100,000 in allegedly "Russian-linked" ads purchased in 2015-17, but noted that only 44 percent were bought before the election. So, not only was the "Russian-linked" pebble tiny – compared to Facebook's annual revenue of $27 billion – but more than half of the pebble was tossed into this very large lake after Clinton had already lost.

So, the storyline was transformed into some vague Russian scheme to exacerbate social tensions in the United States by taking different sides of hot-button issues, such as police brutality against blacks. The New York Times reported that one of these "Russian-linked" pages featured photos of cute puppies , which the Times speculated must have had some evil purpose although it was hard to fathom. (Oh, those devious Russians!).

The estimate of how many Americans may have seen one of these "Russian-linked" ads also keeps growing, now up to as many as 126 million or about one-third of the U.S. population. Of course, the way the Internet works – with any item possibly going viral – you might as well say the ads could have reached billions of people.

Whenever I write an article or send out a Tweet, I too could be reaching 126 million or even billions of people, but the reality is that I'd be lucky if the number were in the thousands. But amid the Russia-gate frenzy, no exaggeration is too outlandish or too extreme.

Another odd element of Russia-gate is that the intensity of this investigation is disproportionate to the lack of interest shown toward far better documented cases of actual foreign-government interference in American elections and policymaking.

For instance, the major U.S. media long ignored the extremely well-documented case of Richard Nixon colluding with South Vietnamese officials to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam War peace talks to gain an advantage for Nixon in the 1968 election. That important chapter of history only gained The New York Times' seal of approval earlier this year after the Times had dismissed the earlier volumes of evidence as "rumors."

In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan's team – especially his campaign director William Casey in collaboration with Israel and Iran – appeared to have gone behind President Jimmy Carter's back to undercut Carter's negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran and essentially doom Carter's reelection hopes.

There were a couple of dozen witnesses to that scheme who spoke with me and other investigative journalists – as well as documentary evidence showing that President Reagan did authorize secret arms shipments to Iran via Israel shortly after the hostages were freed during Reagan's inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981.

However, since Vice President (later President) George H.W. Bush, who was implicated in the scheme, was well-liked on both sides of the aisle and because Reagan had become a Republican icon, the October Surprise case of 1980 was pooh-poohed by the major media and dismissed by a congressional investigation in the early 1990s. Despite the extraordinary number of witnesses and supporting documents, Wikipedia listed the scandal as a "conspiracy theory."

Israeli Influence

And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians.

If anyone doubts how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to pull the strings of U.S. politicians, just watch one of his record-tying three addresses to joint sessions of Congress and count how often Republicans and Democrats jump to their feet in enthusiastic applause. (The only other foreign leader to get the joint-session honor three times was Great Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)

So, what makes Russia-gate different from the other cases? Did Putin conspire with Trump to extend a bloody war as Nixon did with the South Vietnamese leaders? Did Putin lengthen the captivity of U.S. hostages to give Trump a political edge? Did Putin manipulate U.S. policy in the Middle East to entice President George W. Bush to invade Iraq and set the region ablaze, as Israel's Netanyahu did? Is Putin even now pushing for wider Mideast wars, as Netanyahu is?

Indeed, one point that's never addressed in any serious way is why is the U.S. so angry with Russia while these other cases, in which U.S. interests were clearly damaged and American democracy compromised, were treated largely as non-stories.

Why is Russia-gate a big deal while the other cases weren't? Why are opposite rules in play now – with Democrats, many Republicans and the major news media flogging fragile "links," needling what little evidence there is, and assuming the worst rather than insisting that only perfect evidence and perfect witnesses be accepted as in the earlier cases?

The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran.

After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed.

Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia.

The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons.

A Smokescreen for Repression

There also seems to be little or no concern that the Establishment is using Russia-gate as a smokescreen for clamping down on independent media sites on the Internet. Traditional supporters of civil liberties have looked the other way as the rights of people associated with the Trump campaign have been trampled and journalists who simply question the State Department's narratives on, say, Syria and Ukraine are denounced as "Moscow stooges" and "useful idiots."

The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda."

The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."

As this authoritarian if not totalitarian future looms and as the dangers of nuclear annihilation from an intentional or unintentional nuclear war with Russia grow, many people who should know better are caught up in the Russia-gate frenzy.

I used to think that liberals and progressives opposed McCarthyism because they regarded it as a grave threat to freedom of thought and to genuine democracy, but now it appears that they have learned to love McCarthyism except, of course, when it rears its ugly head in some Long Island political ad criticizing New York City.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Joe Tedesky , November 6, 2017 at 3:12 pm

I watched the C-Span 'Russian/2016 Election Investigation Hearings' in horror, as each congressperson grilled the Hi-Tech executives in a way to suggest that our First Amendment Rights are now on life support, and our Congress is ready to pull the plug at any moment. I thought, of how this wasn't the America I was brought up to believe in. So as I have reached the age in life where nothing should surprise me, I realize now how fragile our Rights are, in this warring nation that calls itself America.

When it comes to Israel I have two names, Jonathan Pollard & the USS Liberty, and with that, that is enough said.

Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:33 pm

This week's congressional hearings on "extremist content" on the Internet mark a new stage in the McCarthyite witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet.

One after another, congressmen and senators goaded representatives of Google, Twitter and Facebook to admit that their platforms were used to sow "social divisions" and "extremist" political opinions. The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin.

The hearings revolved around claims that Russia sought to "weaponize" the Internet by harnessing social anger within the United States. "Russia," said Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, promoted "discord in the US by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues." It sought to "mobilize real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests."

The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities.

Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/03/pers-n03.html

Joe Tedesky , November 7, 2017 at 12:32 am

Thanks for the informative link Danny.

Watching this Orwellian tragedy play out in our American society, where our Congress is insisting that disclaimers and restrictions be placed upon suspicious adbuys and editorial essays, is counterintuitive to what we Americans were brought up to belief. Why, all my life teachers, and adults, would warn us students of reading the news to not to believe everything we read as pure fact, but to research a subject before coming to a conclusion toward your accepting an opinion to wit. And with these warnings of avoiding us being suckered into a wrong belief, we were told that this was the price we were required to pay for having a free press society. This freedom of speech was, and has always been the bedrock of our hopes and wishes for our belief in the American Dream.

Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. Little by little, and especially since 911 one by one our civil liberties were taken away. Here again our freedom of speech is being destroyed, and with this America is now where Germany had been in the mid-thirties. America's own guilty conscience is rapidly doing some physiological projections onto their imaginary villain Russia.

All I keep hearing is my dear sweet mother lecturing me on how one lie always leads to another lie until the truth will finally jump up and bite you in the ass, and think to myself of how wise my mother had been with her young girl Southside philosophy. May you Rest In Peace Mum.

Martin , November 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm

Yankees chicks are coming home to roost. So many peoples rights and lives had to be extinguished for Americans to have the illusion of pursuing their happiness, well, what goes around comes around.

Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:39 pm

Gee wiz Adam Schiff you make it sound as if signing petitions and rallying to causes and civil protests are unamerican or something. And Russians on the internet are harnessing social anger! Pathetic. These jerks who would have us believe they are interested in "saving" democracy or stopping fascism have sure got it backward.

Geoffrey de Galles , November 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm

Joe, Allow me please, respectfully, to add Mordecai Vanunu -- Israel's own Daniel Ellsberg -- to your two names.

Erik G , November 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm

Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago.

It is especially significant that the zionists are the sole beneficiaries of this scam as well as the primary sponsors of the DNC, hoping to attack Russia and Iran to support Israeli land thefts in the Mideast. It is well established that zionists control US mass media, which never examine the central issue of our times, the corruption of democracy by the zionist/MIC/WallSt influence upon the US government and mass media. Russia-gate is in fact a coverup for Israel-gate.

Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
While Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

mike k , November 6, 2017 at 4:10 pm

Why did we ever believe that the democrat party was a defender of free speech? These bought and paid for tools of the economic elites are only interested in serving their masters with slavish devotion. Selfishness and immorality are their stock in trade; betraying the public their real intention.

Cratylus , November 6, 2017 at 4:11 pm

Great essay.

But one disagreement. I may agree with Trump on very, very few things, among them getting rid of the horrible TPP, one cornerstone of Hillary's pivot; meeting with Putin in Hamburg; the Lavrov-Tillerson arranged cease-fire in SE Syria; the termination of the CIA's support for anti-Assad jihadis in Syria; a second meeting with Putin at the ASEAN conference this week; and in general the idea of "getting along with Russia" (a biggie) which Russia-gate is slowing to a crawl as designed by the neocons.

But Trump as an "incompetent buffoon" is a stretch albeit de rigueur on the pages of the NYT, the programs of NPR and in all "respectable" precincts. Trump won the presidency for god's sake – something that eluded the 17 other GOP primary candidates, some of them considered very"smart" and Bernie and Jill, and in the past, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul – and the supposedly "very smart" Hillary for which we should be eternally grateful. "Incompetent" hardly seems accurate. The respectable commentariat has continually underestimated Trump. We should heed Putin who marveled at Trump's seemingly impossible victory.

Bill Cash , November 6, 2017 at 4:13 pm

How do you explain all the connections between Trump acolytes and Russia and their lying about it. I think they've all lied about their contacts. Why would they do that?I lived through the real McCarthyism and, so far, this isn't close to what happened then.

Bill , November 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm

Probably because they are corruptly involved. Thing is, the higher priority is to avoid another decades-long cold war risking nuclear war. Do you remember how many close calls we had in the last one?

I'm more suspicious of Trump than most here, but even I think we need some priorities. Far more extensive corruption of a similar variety keeps occurring and no one cares, as Mr. Parry points out here yet again.

As for McCarthyism, whatever the current severity, the result is unfolding as a new campaign against dissenting voices on the internet. That's supremely not-okay with me.

Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm

Right. Just because we don't yet have another fulll-fledged HUAC happening doesn't mean severe perils aren't attached to this new McCarthyism. Censorship of dissent is supremely not-okay with me as well.

Elizabeth Burton , November 6, 2017 at 4:58 pm

That class of people lie as a matter of course; it's standard procedure. If you exacerbate it by adding on the anti-Russia hysteria that was spewed out by the Democrats before the ink was dry on the ballots, what possible reason would they have for being truthful?

The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda.

Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 7:10 pm

I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate.

Obviously, Brazile, like millions of voters, saw these films and made appropriate inferences: that Hillary's basic health and stamina were a question mark. Of course, Hillary also offered Americans nothing in her campaign rhetoric. She came across as the mother-in-law from hell.

Was it also a Russia-Gate initiative when Hillary hid from her supporters on election night and let Podesta face the screaming sobbing supporters? Too much spiked vodka or something? Our political stage in the USA is a madhouse.

Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm

These people probably have "connections" with a relatively large number of people, and only very small fraction of the people they have contact with are probably Russians. Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all.

Today's political atmosphere in the United States probably has a lot in common with the Soviet Union. There, people got in trouble if they had contacts with people from Western, capitalist countries – and if they were asked and did not mention these contacts in order to avoid problems, they could get in trouble even more.

I think it is absolutely clear that no one who takes part in this hateful anti-Russian campaign can pretend to be liberal or progressive. The kind of society these xenophobes who detest pluralism and accuse everyone who has opinions outside the mainstream of being a foreign agent is absolutely abhorrent, in my view.

Leslie F , November 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against.

occupy on , November 7, 2017 at 12:47 am

Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary.

In the meantime, Trump Jr. was connected with an evil Russian (Natalia), William Browder was able to link the neocon-hated Trump Sr with neocon-hated, evil Russians (who currently have a warrant out for Browder's arrest on a 15 [or 50?] million dollar tax evasion charge), and neocons have a good chance of claiming victory out of chaos (as is their style and was their intent for the Middle East [not Washington DC!] in the neocon Project For a New American Century – 1998). Clinton may have lost power in Washington DC, but Clinton-supporting neocons may not have – thanks to George Papadopoulis. We shall see. Something tells me the best is yet to come out of the Mueller Investigations.

Roy G Biv , November 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm

You are seeing it clearly Bill. This site was once a go-to-source for investigative journalism. Now it is a place for opinion screeds, mostly with head buried in the sand about the blatant Russian manipulation of the 2016 election. The dominant gang of posters here squash any dissent and dissenting comments usually get deleted within a day. I don't understand why and how it came to be so, but the hysterical labeling of Comey/Mueller investigations as McCarthyism by Parry has ruined his sterling reputation for me.

Stygg , November 7, 2017 at 2:24 pm

If this "Russian manipulation" was as blatant as everyone keeps telling me, how come it's all based on ridiculous BS instead of evidence? Where's the beef?

anon , November 7, 2017 at 3:22 pm

Unable to substantiate anything you say nor argue against anything said here, you disgrace yourself. Do you think anyone is fooled by your repeated lie that you are a disaffected former supporter of this site? And you made the "Stygg" reply above.

Tom Hall , November 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm

It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine.

At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order.

So it's no surprise that liberalism is the rallying point for a new wave of repression. The dangerous buffoon currently occupying the White House stands as a perfect foil to the phony indignation of the liberal leadership- Schumer, Pelosi et al.. The jerk was made to order, and they mean to dump him as their ideological forebears unloaded old Tail Gunner Joe. In fact, Trump is so odious, the Democrats, their media colleagues and major elements of the national security state believe that bringing down the bozo can be made to look like a triumph of democracy. Of course, by then dissent will have been stamped out far more efficiently than Trump and his half-assed cohorts could have achieved. And it will be done in the name of restoring sanity, honoring the constitution, and protecting everyone from the Russians. I was born in the fifties, and it looks like I'm going to die in the fifties.

Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm

Truman started it. And he used it very well.

THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE AND ORIGINS OF ""McCARTHYISM
By Richard M. Freeland

This book argues that Truman used anti-Communist scare tactics to force Congress to implement his plans for multilateral free trade and specifically to pass the Marshall Plan. This is a sound emphasis, but other elements of postwar anti-Communist campaigns are neglected, especially anti-labor legislation; and Freeland attributes to Truman a ""go-soft"" attitude toward the Soviets, which is certainly not proven by the fact that he restrained the ultras Forrestal, Kennan, and Byrnes -- indeed, some of Freeland's own citations confirm Truman's violent anti-Soviet spirit.

The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" Freeland's revisionism is confined and conservative: he deems the Soviets most responsible for the Cold War and implies that ""subversion"" was in fact a menace.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/richard-m-freeland/the-truman-doctrine-and-origins-of-mccarthyism/

Howard Mettee , November 6, 2017 at 4:50 pm

Bob,

You are one of the very few critical journalists today willing to print objective measures of the truth, while the MSM spins out of control under the guise of "protecting America" (and their vital sources), while at the same time actually undermining the very principles of a working democracy they sanctimoniously pretend to defend. It makes me nostalgic for the McCarthy era, when we could safely satirize the Army-McCarthy Hearings (unless you were a witness!). I offer the following as a retrospective of a lost era.:

Top-Ten Criteria for being a Putin Stooge, and a Chance at Winning A One Way Lottery Ticket:to the Gala Gitmo Hotel:
:
(1) Reading Consortium News, Truth Dig, The Real News Network, RT and Al Jeziera
(2) Drinking Starbucks and vodka at the Russian Tea Room with Russian tourists (with an embedded FSS agent) in NYC.
(3) Meeting suspicious tour guides in Red Square who accept dollars for their historical jokes.
(4) Claiming to catch a cell phone photo of the Putin limousine passing through the Kremlin Tower gate.
(4) Starting a joint venture with a Russian trading partner who sells grain to feed Putin's stable of stallions. .
(5) Catching the flu while being sneezed upon in Niagara Falls by a Russian violinist.
(6) Finding the hidden jewels in the Twelfth Chair were nothing but cut glass.
(7) Reading War and Peace on the Brighton Beach ferry.
(8) Playing the iPod version of Rachmaninoff's "Vespers" through ear buds while attending mass in Dallas, TX..
(9) Water skiing on the Potomac flying a pennant saying "Wasn't Boris Good Enough?"
(10) Having audibly chuckled even once at items (1) – (9). Thanks Bob, Please don't let up!

Lisa , November 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm

Howard,

I chuckled loudly more than once – but luckily, no one heard me! No witnesses! So you are acquainted with the masterpiece "12 chairs"? Very suspicious.

David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:42 pm

I've heard that's Mel Brooks favorite among his own movies.

David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:48 pm

I always find it exasperating when I have to remind the waiter at the diner to bring Russian dressing along with the reuben sandwich, but these days I wonder if my loyalty is being tested.

Dave P. , November 6, 2017 at 10:27 pm

David G –

They will change the name of dressing very soon. Remember 2003 when French refused to endorse the invasion of Iraq. I think they unofficially changed the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries".

It is just the start. The whole History is being rewritten – in compliance with Zionist Ideology. Those evil Russkies will be shown as they are!

Elizabeth Burton , November 6, 2017 at 4:53 pm

Clearly, since I've published one book by a Russian, one by a now-deceased US ex-pat living in Russia, and have our catalog made available in Russia via our international distributor, I am a traitor to the US. If you add in my staunch resistance to the whole Russiagate narrative AND the fact I post links to stories in RT America, I'm doomed.

I wish I could think I'm being wholly sarcastic.

Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:38 pm

You are not alone. Many of us live outside the open air prison and feel the same way

Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:29 pm

Robert Parry has described "the New McCarthyism" having "its own witch-hunt hearings". In fact "last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google" was merely an exercise in political theatre because all three entities already belong to the "First Draft" coalition:

http://fortune.com/2016/09/13/facebook-twitter-join-first-draft-coalition/

Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake.

In a remarkable post-truth declaration, the "First Draft" coalition insists that members will "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".

In the "post-truth" regime of US and NATO hybrid warfare, the deliberate distortion of truth and facts is called "verification".

The Washington Post / PropOrNot imbroglio, and "First Draft" coalition "partner" organizations' zeal to "verify" US intelligence-backed fake news claims about Russian hacking of the US presidential election, reveal the "post-truth" mission of this new Google-backed hybrid war propaganda alliance.

Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:45 pm

The Russia-gate "witch-hunt" has graduated from McCarthyism to full Monty Pythonism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jt5ibfRzw

Dan Kuhn , November 6, 2017 at 6:41 pm

You get the gold star for best comment today.

Abe , November 7, 2017 at 1:57 pm

Hysterical demonization of Russia escalated dramatically after Russia thwarted the Israeli-Saudi-US plan to dismember the Syrian state.

With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon and Syria.

South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in southern Lebanon.

Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.

Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.

"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War

Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.

"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.

"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.

"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.

"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.

"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.

"Conclusions

"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.

"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.

"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."

Israeli Defense Forces: Military Capabilities, Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
https://southfront.org/israeli-defense-forces-military-capabilities-scenarios-for-the-third-lebanon-war/

Realist , November 6, 2017 at 5:36 pm

Yes, the latest "big fish" outed yesterday as an agent of the Kremlin was the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Wilbur Ross) who was discovered to hold stock in a shipping company that does business with a Russian petrochemical company (Sibur) whose owners include Vladimir Putin's son-in-law (Kirill Shamalov). Obviously the orders flow directly from Putin to Shamalov to Sibur to the shipping company to Ross to Trump, all to the detriment of American citizens.

From RT (another tainted source!): "US Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. has a stake in a shipping firm that receives millions of dollars a year in revenue from a company whose key owners include Russian President Vladimir Putin's son-in-law and a Russian tycoon sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department as a member of Putin's inner circle," says the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the main publisher of the Paradise Papers. After the report was published, some US lawmakers accused Ross of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings." Don't go mistaking the "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for "Consortium News." These guys are dedicated witch hunters, searching for anyone with six degrees of separation to Vladimir Putin and his grand plan to thwart the United States and effect regime change within its borders.

In a clear attempt to weasel out of his traitorous transgression, Ross stated "In a separate interview with CNBC, that Sibur [which is NOT the company he owned stock in] was not subject to US sanctions." 'A company not under sanction is just like any other company, period. It was a normal commercial relationship and one that I had nothing to do with the creation of, and do not know the shareholders who were apparently sanctioned at some later point in time,' he said." Since when can we start allowing excuses like that? Not knowing that someone holds stock in a company that does business with a company in which you own stock may at some later point in time become sanctioned by the all-wise and all-good American federal government?

I can't wait till they make the first Ben Stiller comedy based on this fiasco twenty years from now. It will be hilarious slap-stick, maybe titled "Can You Believe these Mother Fockers?" President Chelea Clinton of our great and noble idiocracy will throw out the first witch on opening day of the movie.

Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Let's be honest. Most Americans think McCarthy is a retail store. No education. And they think Russia is the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Trump is in Japan to start war with N. Korea to hide the blemishes or the canker on his ass. America is rapidly collapsing.

Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm

In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more).

Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States

But when people daily spew hate against anything and anyone "Russia linked" and still don't recognize that they have gone over to the far right and even claim they are liberal or progressive, this is completely absurd.

McCarthyism, as terrible as it was, at least originally was motivated by hatred against a certain political ideology that also had its bad sides. But today's Russiagate peddlers clearly are motivated by hatred against a certain ethnicity, a certain country, and a certain language. I don't think there is any way to avoid the conclusion that with their hatred against anyone who is "Russia linked", they have become right-wing extremists.

Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:46 pm

"Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project."

Yes, very well organized.
In fact virtually every synagogue is a center for organizing people to harass others who are exercising their First Amendment rights to diseminate information about Israel's occupation of Palestine. The link below is to a protest and really, personal attack, against a Unitarian minister in Marblehead, Mass., for daring to screen the film ""The Occupation of the American Mind, Israel's Public Relations War in the United States." In other words, for daring to provide an dissenting opinion and, simply, to tell the truth. Ironic is that the protesters' comment actually reinforce the basic message of the film.
No other views on Israel will be allowed to enter the public for a good airing and discussion and debate. The truth about the illegal Israeli occupation will be shouted down, and those who try to provide information to the public on this subject will be vilified as "anti-semites." Kudos to this minister for screening the film.

http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/screening-of-film-sparks-protest-in-marblehead/article_0b075cbc-c2ae-5d46-916a-24eed79d30cd.html

http://cdn.field59.com/SALEMNEWS/ebb60114f782c4213f068bf0a39a4a46451ed871_fl9-360p.mp4

Abe , November 7, 2017 at 1:03 am

The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States (2016) examines pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda efforts within the U.S.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD7mOyfclIk

This important documentary, narrated by Roger waters, exposes how the Israeli government, the U.S. government, and the pro-Israel Lobby join forces to shape American media coverage in Israel's favor.

Documentary producer Sut Jhally is professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts, and a leading scholar on advertising, public relations, and political propaganda. He is also the founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation, a documentary film company that looks at issues related to U.S. media and public attitudes.

Jhally is the producer and director of dozens of documentaries about U.S. politics and media culture, including Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict.

The Occupation of the American Mind provides a sweeping analysis of Israel's decades-long battle for the hearts, minds, and tax dollars of the American people – a battle that has only intensified over the past few years in the face of widening international condemnation of Israel's increasingly right-wing policies.

Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 2:45 am

Abe –

The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching.

Dan Kuhn , November 6, 2017 at 6:57 pm

It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it΄s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it.

As a Canadian I could not get over, even though I was just a teenager back then, just how a people in a supposedly advanced country could be so collectively paniced. I think back then it was just a scam to get rid of unions and any kind of collective action against the owners of the country, and this time around I think it is just a continuation of that scam, to frighten people into subservience to the police state. I heard a women on TV today commenting on the Texas masscre, she said " The devil never sleeps", well in the USA the 1/10 of 1% never sleeps when it comes to more control, more pwoer and more wealth, in fact I think they are after the very last shekle still left in the pockets of the bottom 99.9 % of the population. Those evil Russians are just a ploy in the scam.

Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm

"The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons."

And they are driving more and more actual and potential Dem Party members away in droves, further weakening the party and depriving it of its most intelligent members. Any non-senile person knows that this is all BS and these people are not only turning their backs on the Dem Party but I think many of them are being driven to the right by their disgust with this circus and the exposure of the party's critical weaknesses and derangement.

Paolo , November 6, 2017 at 6:59 pm

You correctly write that "the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin". The irony is that a few years later Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor, and presumably the 'mericans gave him a hand to win his first term.
How extremely sad it is to see the USA going totally nuts.

Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:00 pm

In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53)

Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55)

Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:15 pm

On March 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow and a news team at CBS produced a half-hour See It Now special titled "A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy".

Murrow interspersed his own comments and clarifications into a damaging series of film clips from McCarthy's speeches. He ended the broadcast with a warning:

"As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves–as indeed we are–the defenders of freedom, what's left of it, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'"

CBS reported that of the 12,000 phone calls received within 24 hours of the broadcast, positive responses to the program outnumbered negative 15 to 1. McCarthy's favorable rating in the Gallup Poll dropped and was never to rise again.

Gary , November 6, 2017 at 11:34 pm

Sad to see so many hypocrites here espousing freedom from McCarthyism while they continue to vote for capitalist candidates year in year out. Think about the fact that in 2010 when Citizens United managed to get the Supreme Court to certify corporations as people the fear among many was that this would open US company subsidiaries to be infiltrated by foreign money. I guess it is happening in spades with collusion between Russian money & Trump's organization along with Facebook, Twitter & many others. How Mr. Parry can maintain that this parallels the 1950s anti-communist crusade is quite ingenuous. When libertarians, the likes of Bannon, Mercer, Trump et al, with their "destruction of the administrative state" credo are compared to the US communists of the 50s we know progressives have become about as disoriented as can be.

geeyp , November 7, 2017 at 3:30 am

I guess these "Paradise Papers" were released just yesterday, i.e., Sunday the 5th. Somehow I didn't get to it.

john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 6:01 am

So it looks like Hillary will be crossing Putin off her Xmas card list this year! I sometimes wonder if all we posters on here and other similar sites are on a list somewhere and when the day of reckoning comes, the list will be produced and we will have to account for our treasonous behaviour? Of course, one man's treason is another man's truth. I suppose in the end it boils down to the power thing. If you have a perceived enemy you can claim the need for an army. If you have an army you have power and with that power you can dispose of anyone who disagrees with you simply by calling them the enemy.

Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 9:38 am

John, your post made me wonder whether I would be on a list of traitors. I've written three posts, starting yesterday, and tried to explain something about the background of Yuri Milner, mentioned in the article. After "your comment has been posted, thank you" nothing has appeared on this thread.
Well, once more: Milner is known to me as a well-educated physicist from Moscow State University, and the co-founder and financier of The Breakthrough Prize, handing out yearly awards to promising scientists, with a much larger sum than the humble Nobel Prize. The awarding ceremony is held in December in Silicon Valley.

john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm

Hi Lisa, I have just looked up Milner on Wiki and he appears to be into everything including investment in internet companies. He is the co-founder of the "break through prize" that you mention and seems to have backed face book and twitter in their start up. I don't see why you posts haven't appeared as anyone can look Milner up on Wiki and elsewhere in great detail. You don't say where you have tried to post, but I would have thought on this site you would have no trouble whatever. If you have watched the last episode of 'cross talk' on RT you will see that anyone who as ever mentioned Russia in a public place is regarded as some kind of traitor. I guess you and me are due for rendition anytime now!! LOL

Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm

Hi John,
Naturally I had been trying to post on this site. First I tried three times in the comment space below all other posts, and they never went through. Only when I posted a reply to someone else's comment, my reply appeared. Maybe some technical problem on the site.

My motive was to show that Milner is doing worthwhile things with his millions, even if he is an "evil Russian oligarch". The mentioned prize has its own website: breakthroughprize.org. Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) is a board member.

The prize is certainly a "Putin conspiracy", as it has links to Russia. (sarc)

Zachary Smith , November 7, 2017 at 8:05 pm

Maybe some technical problem on the site.

Possibly that's the case. Disappearing-forever posts happen to me from time to time. For at least a while afterwards I cut/paste what I'm about to attempt to "post" to a WORD file before hitting the "post comment" button.

In any event, avoid links whenever possible. By cut/pasting the exact title of the piece you're using as a reference, others can quickly locate it themselves without a link.

K , November 7, 2017 at 9:44 am

I'm a lifelong Democrat. I was a Bernie supporter. But logic dictates my thinking. The Russia nonsense is cover for Hillary's loss and a convenient hammer with which to attack Trump. Not biting. Bill Maher is fixated on this. The Rob Reiner crowd is an embarrassment. The whole thing is embarrassing. The media is inept. Very bizarre times.

Patricia Schaefer , November 7, 2017 at 10:14 am

Excellent article which should shed light on the misunderstandings manifested to manipulate and censor Americans. Personally, it's ludicrous to imply that Russia was the primary reason I could not vote for Hillary. My interest in Twitter peaked when Sidney Blumenthal's name popped up selling arms in Libya. He was on The Clinton Foundation's Payroll for $120K, while the Obama Administration specifically told HRC Sidney Blumenthal was not to work for the State Department.

Further research showed Chris Stevens had no knowledge of Sidney Blumenthal selling arms in Libya. Hillary NEVER even gave Chris Stevens, a candidate with an outstanding background for diplomatic relations in the Middle East, her email. Chris Stevens possessed a Law Degree in International Trade, and had previously worked for Senator Lugar (R). Senator Lugar had warned HRC not to co-mingle State Department business with The Clinton Foundation.

To add salt to the wound Hillary choose to put a third rate security firm in Libya, changing firms a couple of short weeks before the bombing. I think she anticipated the bombing, remarking "What difference does it make? " at the congressional hearings.

If you remember Guccifer (that hacker) he said he'd hacked both Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal. He also said he found Sidney Blumenthal's account more interesting.

That's just one reason why I started surfing the internet. Sidney Blumenthal was a name that hung in the cobwebs of my memory, and I wanted to know what this scum-job of a journalist was doing!

Then there was Clinton Cash, BoysonTheTracks, Clinton Chronicles, the outrageous audacity of the Democrats Superdelegates voting before a single primary ballot had been cast, MSM bias to Hillary, Kathy Shelton's video "I thought you should know." and maybe around September 2016, wondering what dirty things Hillary had done with Russia since 1993?

So I guess it's true. In the end after witnessing what has transpired since the election I would not vote for Hillary because she'd rather risk WWIII, than have the TRUTH come out why she lost.

Gary , November 7, 2017 at 3:16 pm

After living in Europe much of the last three years we've recently returned to the U.S. I must say that life here feels very much like I'm living within a strange Absurdist theatre play of some sort (not that Europe is vastly better). Truth, meaning, rationality, mean absolutely nothing at this juncture here in the United States. Reality has been turned on its head. The only difference between our political parties runs along identity politics lines: "do you prefer your drone strikes, illegal invasions, regime change black-ops, economic warfare and massive government spying 'with' or 'without' gender specific bathrooms?" MSM refer to this situation as "democracy" while of course any thinking person knows we are actually living within a totalitarian nightmare. Theatre of the Absurd as a way of life. I must admit it feels pretty creepy being home again.

Realist , November 7, 2017 at 4:09 pm

Should this give us hope? https://sputniknews.com/us/201711071058899018-trump-cia-meet-whistleblower-russian-hacking/ Trump ordered Pompeo to meet with Binney of VIPS re "Russian hacking." Is it time for the absurd Russia-gate narrative to finally be publicly deconstructed? Or is that asking too much?

Skip Scott , November 8, 2017 at 9:04 am

I wish it wasn't asking too much, but I suspect it is. If the NYT was reporting it, I'd feel better about our chances. But the Deep State controls the narrative, and thus controls Pompeo, Trump's order notwithstanding. I hope I'm wrong.

Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 4:17 pm

Yes Joe. It is rather painful to watch as you said this Orwellian Tragedy playing out in the Country which has just about become a police state. For those of us who grew up admiring the Western Civilization starting with the Greeks and Romans, and then for its institutions enshrining Individual Rights; and its scientific, literary, and cultural achievements, it is as if it still happening in some dream, though it has been coming for some time now – more than two decades now at least. The System was not perfect but I think that it was good as it could get. The system had been in decline for four decades or so now.

From Robert Parry's article:

"The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."

Diane Feinstein's multi-billionaire husband was implicated in those Loan and Savings scandals of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush Era and in many other financial scandals later on but Law did not touch him. He has a dual residency in Israel. These are very corrupt people.

Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Perle, Nulad-Kagan clan, Kristol, Gaffney . . . the list goes on; add Netanyahu to it. In the Hollywood Harvey Weinstein, Rob Reiner. and the rest . . . In Finance and wall Street characters like Sandy Weiss and the gang. The Media and TV is directly or indirectly owned and controlled by "The Chosen People". So, where would you put the blame for all what is going on in this country, and all this chaos, death, and destruction going on in ME and many countries in Africa.

Any body who points out their role in it or utters a word of criticism of Israel is immediately called an anti-semite. Just to tell my own connections, my wife youngest sister is married to person who is Jewish (non-practicing). In all the relatives we have, they are closest to us for more than thirty five years now. They are those transgender common restroom liberals, but we have many common views and interests. In life, I have never differentiated people based on their ethnic or racial backgrounds; you look at the principles they stand for.

As I see it, this era of Russia-Gate and witch hunt is hundred times worse than McCarthy era. It seems irreversible. There is no one in the political establishment or elsewhere in Media or academia left for regeneration of the "Body Politic". In fact, what we are witnessing here is much worse than it was in the Soviet Union. It is complete degeneration of political leadership in this country. It extends to Media and other institutions as well. People in Soviet Union did not believe the lies they were told by the government there. And there arose writers like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Soviet Union. What is left here now except are these few websites?

Maedhros , November 7, 2017 at 4:27 pm

If there is evidence, you should be able to provide some so that readers can analyze and discuss it. Exactly what evidence has been provided that the Russian government manipulated the 2016 election?

CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 10:42 pm

Robert Parry You Nailed It!!!

I need to do a little research to see how far back you used the term "New McCarthyism" to describe the next cold war with Russia. It was about the same time the first allegations of a Trump-Russia conspiracy was floated by the MSM. I do not pretend to know how much airtime they spent covering their coverup for all that the MSM did to profit from SuperPacs. They have webed a weave that conspires to conceive to the tunes of billions of dollars spent to reprieve their intent to deceive us and distract us away from their investment in Donald Trump which was the real influence in the public spaces to gain mega profits from extorting the SuperPacs into spending their dollars to defeat the trumped up candidate they created and boosted. One has to look no further than the Main Stream Press (MSM) to find the guilty party with motive and opportunity to cash in on a candidacy which if not for the money motive would not pass any test of journalistic integrity but would make money for the Media.

The Russian Boogeyman was created shortly after the election and is an obvious attempt to shield and defend the actions of the MSM which was the real fake news covered in the nightly news leading up to the election which sought to get money rather than present the facts.

This is an example of how much power and influence the MSM has on us all to be able to upend a National election and turn around and blame some foreign Devil for the results of an election.

The Russians had little to do with Trumps election. The MSM had everything to do with it. They cast blame on the Russians and in so doing create a new Cold War which suits the power establishment and suitably diverts all of our attention away from their machinations to influence the last presidential election.

Win Win. More Nuclear Weapons and more money for the MIC and more money for all of the corporations who would profit from a new Cold War.

Profit in times of deceit make more money from those who cheat.

CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 11:25 pm

Things not talked about:

1. James Comey and his very real influence on the election has never entered the media space for an instant. It has gone down the collective memory hole. That silence has been deafening because he was the person who against DOJ advice reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the Servergate investigation after it had been closed by the FBI just days before the election.

The silence of the media on the influence on the election by the reopening of James Comey's Servergate investigation and how the mass media press coverage implicating Hillary Clinton (again) in supposed crimes (which never resulted in an indictment) influenced the National Election in ways that have never been examined by the MSM is a nail in the coffin of media impartiality.

Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame.

It serves many interests. The MSM lies to all of us for the benefit of the MIC. It serves to support White House which will deliver maximum investments in the Defense Industry. It does this by creating a foreign enemy which they create for us to fear and be afraid of.

It is obvious to everyone with a clear eyed history of how the last election went down and how the MSM and the government later played upon our fears to grab more cash have cashed in under the present administration.

It is up to us to elect leaders who will reject this manipulation by the media and who will not be cowed by the establishment. We have the power enshrined in our Constitution to elect leaders who will pave the path forward to a better future.

Those future leaders will have to do battle with a media infrastructure that serves the power structure and conspires to deceive us all.

Jessica K , November 8, 2017 at 9:43 am

Clear critical thinking must accompany free speech, however, and irrationality seems to have beset Americans, too stuck in the mud of identity politics. Can they get out? I have hopes that a push is coming from the new multipolar world Xi and Putin are advocating, as well as others (but not the George Soros NWO variety). The big bully American government, actually ruled by oligarchy, has not been serving its regular folks well, so things are falling apart. Seems like the sex scandals, political scandals especially of the Democrat brand, money scandals are unraveling to expose underlying societal sickness in the Disunited States of America.

It is interesting that this purge shakeup in Saudi Arabia is happening in 2017, one hundred years since the shakeup in Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution. So shake-ups are happening everywhere. I think a pattern is emerging of major changes in world events. Just yesterday I read that because "Russia-gate" isn't working well, senators are looking to start a "China-gate", for evidence of Trump collusion with Chinese oligarchs. Ludicrous. As Seer once said, "The Empire in panic mode".

Patricia, thanks for the info on Sid Blumenthal, HRC and the selling of arms from Libya to ME jihadists, which seems to exonerate Chris Stevens from those dirty deeds and lays blame squarely at Blumenthal's and Clinton's doorstep; changes my thinking. And thanks to Robert Parry for continuing to push back at the participation of MSM and government players in the Orwellian masquerade being pulled on the sheeple.

Truther , November 8, 2017 at 12:54 pm

Just the facts for those of you who have minds still open. suggest you bookmark it quickly as the moderator will delete it within the hour.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/a-timeline-of-the-trump-russia-scandal-w511067

[Nov 08, 2017] Trump's Anti-Restraint Foreign Policy by Daniel Larison

The obsession with the USA "leadership" (a.k.a., hegemony) is widely shared between two parties...
Notable quotes:
"... Obviously, I agree with Merry on this, but it is worth spelling out in a little more detail what this means and why this is the case. Trump's speechwriters like to insert the phrase "principled realism" into some of the president's statements, but as I've said more than a few times the administration's so-called "principled realism" is neither principled nor realist. The administration's foreign policy does not seem to follow any guiding principles (unless maximizing arms sales counts as a principle). ..."
"... Since taking office, Trump has escalated multiple wars and ended none. He has deepened U.S. involvement in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen, and that has just been in the first nine months of his presidency. ..."
"... One of the more worrisome aspects of Trump's foreign policy to date has been his tendency to encourage what Barry Posen calls "reckless driving" by U.S. clients. Trump is hardly the first president to do this, but he has made a point of doing it fairly often since taking office. Increasing U.S. support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen is one obvious example of this. Then there was Trump's Riyadh speech in which he effectively told U.S. Gulf clients that they had Washington's blessing to do whatever they wanted. In a matter of weeks, the Saudi-led bloc launched their campaign against Qatar. Since then, the White House has backed every Saudi move without hesitation, which has just encouraged the Saudis to engage in more destabilizing behavior. ..."
"... Foreign policy restraint was never likely under a Trump administration for a few reasons. First, the president's preferences for a bigger military and his preoccupation with shows of "strength" and "greatness" mean that his instincts are to reject some of restraint's core features. Second, there are very few people in the Republican Party, whether "establishment" or populist, who think that the U.S. needs to be significantly less activist abroad. They may disagree among themselves about where and why to interfere around the world, but the obsession with "leadership" (a.k.a., hegemony) is widely shared. ..."
"... "Being White House chief of staff is not something John Kelly has been trained for. Being Secretary of Defense is not something that James Mattis has been trained for. Providing international and foreign policy assessments is not something H. R. McMaster has been trained for. They're out of their lane. And it shows." ..."
"... "We have civilian government for a reason. We have politicians doing political jobs for a reason. I'm not sure where this leads . . . But I think we've seen . . . that the 'adults in the room' . . . are more like the president than we might imagine. . . . They might, in fact, reflect the military that they're from, which is, expeditionary" -- prone to interest in conflict abroad. ..."
"... Their intense hostility to Iran has also reinforced Trump's own. Because Trump has no relevant experience or knowledge to draw that would cause him to overrule their judgment, these Cabinet members and advisers will keep talking him into deeper entanglements in many different countries. The result is a foreign policy that is consistently the opposite of restraint. ..."
"... They are not going to be able to make up the failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or elsewhere by instigating more of the same. If they didn't question the need to invade Ira strategically and press for an incisive , and limited incursion into Afghanistan to deal with the culprits of 9/11, I think its fair to challenge their decision making on other strategic goals as well. ..."
"... There have been some moral ground – responsibility for making a mess of their house (Iraq) -- but I suspect that the window is closed for correcting that mistake. Iran is going to be a force in the region, by our hand and sadly, for the time being -- that's the way it is. ..."
"... At the moment I think one has to conclude that Mr. Bannon was correct, whatever the campaign agenda it is losing to the opposing advocacy. Pres. Trump has it appears chosen not to be a trans-formative Pres. I don't have a beef with the generals, they are doing what generals (dogs of war do). It is the civilian leadership in and out of congress that have failed. ..."
Nov 08, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Curt Mills reports on TAC 's realism and restraint conference that was held last week at George Washington University:

TAC editor Robert Merry, a staunch realist and prolific author, went further than many: "There is no realism and restraint in American foreign policy in the Trump era."

Obviously, I agree with Merry on this, but it is worth spelling out in a little more detail what this means and why this is the case. Trump's speechwriters like to insert the phrase "principled realism" into some of the president's statements, but as I've said more than a few times the administration's so-called "principled realism" is neither principled nor realist. The administration's foreign policy does not seem to follow any guiding principles (unless maximizing arms sales counts as a principle). In practice, the administration neglects managing relations with other great powers, it encourages "cheap-" and "free-riding" by allies and clients, and it treats threats that can be managed with deterrence as intolerable menaces that must be eliminated. If Trump has not yet launched a preventive war, it is not because he thinks there is anything wrong in doing so.

Since taking office, Trump has escalated multiple wars and ended none. He has deepened U.S. involvement in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen, and that has just been in the first nine months of his presidency. He has simultaneously sought to blow up a non-proliferation agreement with Iran while stoking tensions with a nuclear-armed North Korea. He wants a larger military budget than the already bloated one that we have, and he has been even more inclined than his predecessors to give U.S. clients a blank check. A strategy of restraint would reject all of this.

One of the more worrisome aspects of Trump's foreign policy to date has been his tendency to encourage what Barry Posen calls "reckless driving" by U.S. clients. Trump is hardly the first president to do this, but he has made a point of doing it fairly often since taking office. Increasing U.S. support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen is one obvious example of this. Then there was Trump's Riyadh speech in which he effectively told U.S. Gulf clients that they had Washington's blessing to do whatever they wanted. In a matter of weeks, the Saudi-led bloc launched their campaign against Qatar. Since then, the White House has backed every Saudi move without hesitation, which has just encouraged the Saudis to engage in more destabilizing behavior.

A foreign policy of restraint would be one that keeps the U.S. out of local and regional conflicts that pose no threat to our security. The U.S. would not be stuck policing foreign battlefields in the Near East or Central Asia in perpetuity, and it wouldn't be entangled in foreign civil wars where we have nothing at stake. The U.S. wouldn't be taking sides in regional rivalries for the sake of "reassuring" our clients, and our government wouldn't be rewarding clients that destabilize their regions through ill-conceived and unnecessary wars. There would be no place for preventive war in such a foreign policy, and in general the U.S. would seek to avoid land wars whenever possible.

Foreign policy restraint was never likely under a Trump administration for a few reasons. First, the president's preferences for a bigger military and his preoccupation with shows of "strength" and "greatness" mean that his instincts are to reject some of restraint's core features. Second, there are very few people in the Republican Party, whether "establishment" or populist, who think that the U.S. needs to be significantly less activist abroad. They may disagree among themselves about where and why to interfere around the world, but the obsession with "leadership" (a.k.a., hegemony) is widely shared. Finally, Trump's fascination with current and former generals has meant that he has filled his administration with Cabinet members and advisers that have been very involved in the expeditionary wars of the last decade and a half, and as a result his views of these wars and of U.S. foreign policy more broadly have been heavily influenced by men that have no problem with continuing these wars more or less indefinitely. This is connected to a point Mark Perry made on one of the panels last Friday, which Mills quotes in his article:

"Being White House chief of staff is not something John Kelly has been trained for. Being Secretary of Defense is not something that James Mattis has been trained for. Providing international and foreign policy assessments is not something H. R. McMaster has been trained for. They're out of their lane. And it shows."

He continued: "We have civilian government for a reason. We have politicians doing political jobs for a reason. I'm not sure where this leads . . . But I think we've seen . . . that the 'adults in the room' . . . are more like the president than we might imagine. . . . They might, in fact, reflect the military that they're from, which is, expeditionary" -- prone to interest in conflict abroad.

Their intense hostility to Iran has also reinforced Trump's own. Because Trump has no relevant experience or knowledge to draw that would cause him to overrule their judgment, these Cabinet members and advisers will keep talking him into deeper entanglements in many different countries. The result is a foreign policy that is consistently the opposite of restraint.

EliteCommInc., says: November 8, 2017 at 8:04 pm

"Their intense hostility to Iran has also reinforced Trump's own. Because Trump has no relevant experience or knowledge to draw that would cause him to overrule their judgment, these Cabinet members and advisers will keep talking him into deeper entanglements in many different countries."

I'll be honest here. I think it is the other way around. I don't think these are the executives instincts. I think it reflects those of the men around him.

I was hoping he would govern them, but he doesn't seem to have much a back to tell them no.

They are not going to be able to make up the failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or elsewhere by instigating more of the same. If they didn't question the need to invade Ira strategically and press for an incisive , and limited incursion into Afghanistan to deal with the culprits of 9/11, I think its fair to challenge their decision making on other strategic goals as well.

There have been some moral ground – responsibility for making a mess of their house (Iraq) -- but I suspect that the window is closed for correcting that mistake. Iran is going to be a force in the region, by our hand and sadly, for the time being -- that's the way it is.

At the moment I think one has to conclude that Mr. Bannon was correct, whatever the campaign agenda it is losing to the opposing advocacy. Pres. Trump has it appears chosen not to be a trans-formative Pres. I don't have a beef with the generals, they are doing what generals (dogs of war do). It is the civilian leadership in and out of congress that have failed.

But as always, I am not inclined to abandon this President yet -- the commentaries, including my own are speculative.

[Nov 08, 2017] The Trump Administration's Contempt for Diplomacy

Nov 08, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

SteveM , says: November 8, 2017 at 11:21 am

When you have a Global Cop War Machine hammer and surround yourself with a Pentagon/Security State steering committee advising you to use it, everything else is a nail. I have to admit, Trump is even a much smaller man than I imagined him to be at his worst.

Belligerent global power projection is currently unaffordable and quickly becoming obsolete. While China is eating America's lunch with it's productive foreign aid and investments that do not involve killing, destroying and intimidation.

Neither of which Trump comprehends. And of his in-house Neocon minions ("my generals"), it goes without saying

SDS , says: November 8, 2017 at 11:53 am
"and the American diplomatic core is down to Nikki Haley screaming into a phone in some basement office of the Pentagon"

That would be hilarious if it weren't so prophetic

rayray , says: November 8, 2017 at 1:13 pm
Every time a diplomat works to reduce tensions, build relationships, avoid conflict, this is literally taking money and opportunity out of the pockets of the Military/Industrial complex.

Trump, being ironically a terrible negotiator and, as @SDS notes above, has never had the temperament, intelligence, or empathy to be much more than a bully, is the perfect tool for the military/industrial complex.

[Nov 08, 2017] Can Putin Survive by George Friedman

It is interesting to access George Friedman after two and half years since it was made. Looks like he is a bad forcaster.
The Us plot to move Ukraine to the "Baltic states model" was the major geopolitical victory of the Obama administration. and the EU has similar goals, so we can talk about joint invasion into traditional Russian geopolitical space by the USA and EU.
Notable quotes:
"... This week, we revisit a Geopolitical Weekly first published in July 2014 that explored whether Russian President Vladimir Putin could hold on to power despite his miscalculations in Ukraine, a topic that returned to prominence with his recent temporary absence from public view . While Putin has since reappeared, the issues highlighted by his disappearing act persist. ..."
"... Ukraine is, of course, the place to start. The country is vital to Russia as a buffer against the West and as a route for delivering energy to Europe, which is the foundation of the Russian economy. ..."
"... Part of the reason Putin had replaced Boris Yeltsin in 2000 was Yeltsin's performance during the Kosovo war. Russia was allied with the Serbs and had not wanted NATO to launch a war against Serbia. Russian wishes were disregarded. The Russian views simply didn't matter to the West. Still, when the air war failed to force Belgrade's capitulation, the Russians negotiated a settlement that allowed U.S. and other NATO troops to enter and administer Kosovo. As part of that settlement, Russian troops were promised a significant part in peacekeeping in Kosovo. But the Russians were never allowed to take up that role, and Yeltsin proved unable to respond to the insult. ..."
"... Putin also replaced Yeltsin because of the disastrous state of the Russian economy. Though Russia had always been poor, there was a pervasive sense that it been a force to be reckoned with in international affairs. Under Yeltsin, however, Russia had become even poorer and was now held in contempt in international affairs. Putin had to deal with both issues. ..."
"... The breaking point came in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution of 2004. Yanukovich was elected president that year under dubious circumstances, but demonstrators forced him to submit to a second election. He lost, and a pro-Western government took office. At that time, Putin accused the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies of having organized the demonstrations. Fairly publicly, this was the point when Putin became convinced that the West intended to destroy the Russian Federation, sending it the way of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The Ukrainian crisis has made things worse. Capital flight from Russia in the first six months stood at $76 billion, compared to $63 billion for all of 2013. Foreign direct investment fell 50 percent in the first half of 2014 compared to the same period in 2013. And all this happened in spite of oil prices remaining higher than $100 per barrel. ..."
"... The Politburo model is designed for a leader to build coalitions among factions. Putin has been very good at doing that, but then he has been very successful at all the things he has done until now. His ability to hold things together declines as trust in his abilities declines and various factions concerned about the consequences of remaining closely tied to a failing leader start to maneuver. Like Khrushchev, who was failing in economic and foreign policy, Putin could have his colleagues remove him. ..."
"... Ultimately, politicians who miscalculate and mismanage tend not to survive. Putin miscalculated in Ukraine, failing to anticipate the fall of an ally, failing to respond effectively and then stumbling badly in trying to recoup. His management of the economy has not been exemplary of late either, to say the least. He has colleagues who believe they could do a better job, and now there are important people in Europe who would be glad to see him go. He must reverse this tide rapidly, or he may be replaced. ..."
Mar 24, 2015 | Stratfor
Editor's Note: This week, we revisit a Geopolitical Weekly first published in July 2014 that explored whether Russian President Vladimir Putin could hold on to power despite his miscalculations in Ukraine, a topic that returned to prominence with his recent temporary absence from public view. While Putin has since reappeared, the issues highlighted by his disappearing act persist.

There is a general view that Vladimir Putin governs the Russian Federation as a dictator, that he has defeated and intimidated his opponents and that he has marshaled a powerful threat to surrounding countries. This is a reasonable view, but perhaps it should be re-evaluated in the context of recent events.

Ukraine and the Bid to Reverse Russia's Decline

Ukraine is, of course, the place to start. The country is vital to Russia as a buffer against the West and as a route for delivering energy to Europe, which is the foundation of the Russian economy. On Jan. 1, Ukraine's president was Viktor Yanukovich, generally regarded as favorably inclined to Russia. Given the complexity of Ukrainian society and politics, it would be unreasonable to say Ukraine under him was merely a Russian puppet. But it is fair to say that under Yanukovich and his supporters, fundamental Russian interests in Ukraine were secure.

This was extremely important to Putin. Part of the reason Putin had replaced Boris Yeltsin in 2000 was Yeltsin's performance during the Kosovo war. Russia was allied with the Serbs and had not wanted NATO to launch a war against Serbia. Russian wishes were disregarded. The Russian views simply didn't matter to the West. Still, when the air war failed to force Belgrade's capitulation, the Russians negotiated a settlement that allowed U.S. and other NATO troops to enter and administer Kosovo. As part of that settlement, Russian troops were promised a significant part in peacekeeping in Kosovo. But the Russians were never allowed to take up that role, and Yeltsin proved unable to respond to the insult.

Putin also replaced Yeltsin because of the disastrous state of the Russian economy. Though Russia had always been poor, there was a pervasive sense that it been a force to be reckoned with in international affairs. Under Yeltsin, however, Russia had become even poorer and was now held in contempt in international affairs. Putin had to deal with both issues. He took a long time before moving to recreate Russian power, though he said early on that the fall of the Soviet Union had been the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. This did not mean he wanted to resurrect the Soviet Union in its failed form, but rather that he wanted Russian power to be taken seriously again, and he wanted to protect and enhance Russian national interests.

The breaking point came in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution of 2004. Yanukovich was elected president that year under dubious circumstances, but demonstrators forced him to submit to a second election. He lost, and a pro-Western government took office. At that time, Putin accused the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies of having organized the demonstrations. Fairly publicly, this was the point when Putin became convinced that the West intended to destroy the Russian Federation, sending it the way of the Soviet Union. For him, Ukraine's importance to Russia was self-evident. He therefore believed that the CIA organized the demonstration to put Russia in a dangerous position, and that the only reason for this was the overarching desire to cripple or destroy Russia. Following the Kosovo affair, Putin publicly moved from suspicion to hostility to the West.

The Russians worked from 2004 to 2010 to undo the Orange Revolution. They worked to rebuild the Russian military, focus their intelligence apparatus and use whatever economic influence they had to reshape their relationship with Ukraine. If they couldn't control Ukraine, they did not want it to be controlled by the United States and Europe. This was, of course, not their only international interest, but it was the pivotal one.

Russia's invasion of Georgia had more to do with Ukraine than it had to do with the Caucasus. At the time, the United States was still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Washington had no formal obligation to Georgia, there were close ties and implicit guarantees. The invasion of Georgia was designed to do two things. The first was to show the region that the Russian military, which had been in shambles in 2000, was able to act decisively in 2008. The second was to demonstrate to the region, and particularly to Kiev, that American guarantees, explicit or implicit, had no value. In 2010, Yanukovich was elected president of Ukraine, reversing the Orange Revolution and limiting Western influence in the country.

Recognizing the rift that was developing with Russia and the general trend against the United States in the region, the Obama administration tried to recreate older models of relationships when Hillary Clinton presented Putin with a "reset" button in 2009. But Washington wanted to restore the relationship in place during what Putin regarded as the "bad old days." He naturally had no interest in such a reset. Instead, he saw the United States as having adopted a defensive posture, and he intended to exploit his advantage.

One place he did so was in Europe, using EU dependence on Russian energy to grow closer to the Continent, particularly Germany. But his high point came during the Syrian affair, when the Obama administration threatened airstrikes after Damascus used chemical weapons only to back off from its threat. The Russians aggressively opposed Obama's move, proposing a process of negotiations instead. The Russians emerged from the crisis appearing decisive and capable, the United States indecisive and feckless. Russian power accordingly appeared on the rise, and in spite of a weakening economy, this boosted Putin's standing.

The Tide Turns Against Putin

Events in Ukraine this year, by contrast, have proved devastating to Putin. In January, Russia dominated Ukraine. By February, Yanukovich had fled the country and a pro-Western government had taken power. The general uprising against Kiev that Putin had been expecting in eastern Ukraine after Yanukovich's ouster never happened. Meanwhile, the Kiev government, with Western advisers, implanted itself more firmly. By July, the Russians controlled only small parts of Ukraine. These included Crimea, where the Russians had always held overwhelming military force by virtue of treaty, and a triangle of territory from Donetsk to Luhansk to Severodonetsk, where a small number of insurgents apparently supported by Russian special operations forces controlled a dozen or so towns.

If no Ukrainian uprising occurred, Putin's strategy was to allow the government in Kiev to unravel of its own accord and to split the United States from Europe by exploiting Russia's strong trade and energy ties with the Continent. And this is where the crash of the Malaysia Airlines jet is crucial. If it turns out - as appears to be the case - that Russia supplied air defense systems to the separatists and sent crews to man them (since operating those systems requires extensive training), Russia could be held responsible for shooting down the plane. And this means Moscow's ability to divide the Europeans from the Americans would decline. Putin then moves from being an effective, sophisticated ruler who ruthlessly uses power to being a dangerous incompetent supporting a hopeless insurrection with wholly inappropriate weapons. And the West, no matter how opposed some countries might be to a split with Putin, must come to grips with how effective and rational he really is.

Meanwhile, Putin must consider the fate of his predecessors. Nikita Khrushchev returned from vacation in October 1964 to find himself replaced by his protege, Leonid Brezhnev, and facing charges of, among other things, "harebrained scheming." Khrushchev had recently been humiliated in the Cuban missile crisis. This plus his failure to move the economy forward after about a decade in power saw his closest colleagues "retire" him. A massive setback in foreign affairs and economic failures had resulted in an apparently unassailable figure being deposed.

Russia's economic situation is nowhere near as catastrophic as it was under Khrushchev or Yeltsin, but it has deteriorated substantially recently, and perhaps more important, has failed to meet expectations. After recovering from the 2008 crisis, Russia has seen several years of declining gross domestic product growth rates, and its central bank is forecasting zero growth this year. Given current pressures, we would guess the Russian economy will slide into recession sometime in 2014. The debt levels of regional governments have doubled in the past four years, and several regions are close to bankruptcy. Moreover, some metals and mining firms are facing bankruptcy. The Ukrainian crisis has made things worse. Capital flight from Russia in the first six months stood at $76 billion, compared to $63 billion for all of 2013. Foreign direct investment fell 50 percent in the first half of 2014 compared to the same period in 2013. And all this happened in spite of oil prices remaining higher than $100 per barrel.

Putin's popularity at home soared after the successful Sochi Winter Olympics and after the Western media made him look like the aggressor in Crimea. He has, after all, built his reputation on being tough and aggressive. But as the reality of the situation in Ukraine becomes more obvious, the great victory will be seen as covering a retreat coming at a time of serious economic problems. For many leaders, the events in Ukraine would not represent such an immense challenge. But Putin has built his image on a tough foreign policy, and the economy meant his ratings were not very high before Ukraine.

Imagining Russia After Putin

In the sort of regime that Putin has helped craft, the democratic process may not be the key to understanding what will happen next. Putin has restored Soviet elements to the structure of the government, even using the term "Politburo" for his inner Cabinets. These are all men of his choosing, of course, and so one might assume they would be loyal to him. But in the Soviet-style Politburo, close colleagues were frequently the most feared.

The Politburo model is designed for a leader to build coalitions among factions. Putin has been very good at doing that, but then he has been very successful at all the things he has done until now. His ability to hold things together declines as trust in his abilities declines and various factions concerned about the consequences of remaining closely tied to a failing leader start to maneuver. Like Khrushchev, who was failing in economic and foreign policy, Putin could have his colleagues remove him.

It is difficult to know how a succession crisis would play out, given that the constitutional process of succession exists alongside the informal government Putin has created. From a democratic standpoint, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin are as popular as Putin is, and I suspect they both will become more popular in time. In a Soviet-style struggle, Chief of Staff Sergei Ivanov and Security Council Chief Nicolai Patryushev would be possible contenders. But there are others. Who, after all, expected the emergence of Mikhail Gorbachev?

Ultimately, politicians who miscalculate and mismanage tend not to survive. Putin miscalculated in Ukraine, failing to anticipate the fall of an ally, failing to respond effectively and then stumbling badly in trying to recoup. His management of the economy has not been exemplary of late either, to say the least. He has colleagues who believe they could do a better job, and now there are important people in Europe who would be glad to see him go. He must reverse this tide rapidly, or he may be replaced.

Putin is far from finished. But he has governed for 14 years counting the time Dmitri Medvedev was officially in charge, and that is a long time. He may well regain his footing, but as things stand at the moment, I would expect quiet thoughts to be stirring in his colleagues' minds. Putin himself must be re-examining his options daily. Retreating in the face of the West and accepting the status quo in Ukraine would be difficult, given that the Kosovo issue that helped propel him to power and given what he has said about Ukraine over the years. But the current situation cannot sustain itself. The wild card in this situation is that if Putin finds himself in serious political trouble, he might become more rather than less aggressive. Whether Putin is in real trouble is not something I can be certain of, but too many things have gone wrong for him lately for me not to consider the possibility. And as in any political crisis, more and more extreme options are contemplated if the situation deteriorates.

Those who think that Putin is both the most repressive and aggressive Russian leader imaginable should bear in mind that this is far from the case. Lenin, for example, was fearsome. But Stalin was much worse. There may similarly come a time when the world looks at the Putin era as a time of liberality. For if the struggle by Putin to survive, and by his challengers to displace him, becomes more intense, the willingness of all to become more brutal might well increase.

[Nov 08, 2017] Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy assassination, they also have doubts about alternative versions involving CIA as the main culprit. This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission, but to sow uncertainty. Today, people are not only uncertain, they have given up ever learning the truth

Arlen Specter - Wikipedia Arlen Specter (February 12, 1930 – October 14, 2012) was an American lawyer and politician who served as United States Senator from Pennsylvania. Specter was a Democrat from 1951 to 1965,[1][2][3] then a Republican from 1965 until 2009, when he switched back to the Democratic Party. First elected in 1980, he represented his state in the Senate for 30 years.
Cyril Wecht - Wikipedia Cyril Harrison Wecht (born March 20, 1931) is an American forensic pathologist. He has been a consultant in numerous high-profile cases, but is perhaps best known for his criticism of the Warren Commission's findings concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy. See books: Into EVIDENCE: Truth, Lies and Unresolved Mysteries in the Murder of JFK; November 22, 1963: A Reference Guide to the JFK Assassination
Notable quotes:
"... "about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention. People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory. ..."
"... (Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel. http://israellobby.org/numec/ ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

anon, Disclaimer September 6, 2016 at 2:10 am GMT

deHaven Smith is not that impressive on several counts.

one example: book opens:

"Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy assassination, they also have doubts about conspiracy theories and those who believe them. This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission, but to sow uncertainty about the commission's critics. Today, people are not only uncertain, they have given up ever learning the truth. "

At least one high-profile person and an entire community that supports him does not have doubts, has not given up. Cyril Wecht blasted holes in Arlen Specter's "one bullet" theory in 1965. He's still at it. In 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of JFK's assassination,

"about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention. People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory.

Across the state, the Single Bullet exhibit opened on Oct. 21. It's the first exhibition in Philadelphia University's Arlen Specter Center for Public Policy. Willens, the former Kennedy aide, delivered a speech. The center's coordinator, Karen Albert, said he was looking forward to defending his conclusion on the 50th anniversary. " http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5017529-74/wecht-commission-specter

Smith did not even mention Wecht or Specter and the single-bullet theory in his book. The omission is important insofar as its inclusion would have demonstrated that for many years the populace has been aware of the dishonesty of the US government and some have been raising their voices against and continue to do so.

That knowledge should give encouragement to activists such as those who demand accountability for Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the deliberate killing of 34 US sailors and other personnel.

(Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel. http://israellobby.org/numec/

[Nov 08, 2017] Trump's Anti-Restraint Foreign Policy by Daniel Larison

The obsession with the USA "leadership" (a.k.a., hegemony) is widely shared between two parties...
Notable quotes:
"... Obviously, I agree with Merry on this, but it is worth spelling out in a little more detail what this means and why this is the case. Trump's speechwriters like to insert the phrase "principled realism" into some of the president's statements, but as I've said more than a few times the administration's so-called "principled realism" is neither principled nor realist. The administration's foreign policy does not seem to follow any guiding principles (unless maximizing arms sales counts as a principle). ..."
"... Since taking office, Trump has escalated multiple wars and ended none. He has deepened U.S. involvement in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen, and that has just been in the first nine months of his presidency. ..."
"... One of the more worrisome aspects of Trump's foreign policy to date has been his tendency to encourage what Barry Posen calls "reckless driving" by U.S. clients. Trump is hardly the first president to do this, but he has made a point of doing it fairly often since taking office. Increasing U.S. support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen is one obvious example of this. Then there was Trump's Riyadh speech in which he effectively told U.S. Gulf clients that they had Washington's blessing to do whatever they wanted. In a matter of weeks, the Saudi-led bloc launched their campaign against Qatar. Since then, the White House has backed every Saudi move without hesitation, which has just encouraged the Saudis to engage in more destabilizing behavior. ..."
"... Foreign policy restraint was never likely under a Trump administration for a few reasons. First, the president's preferences for a bigger military and his preoccupation with shows of "strength" and "greatness" mean that his instincts are to reject some of restraint's core features. Second, there are very few people in the Republican Party, whether "establishment" or populist, who think that the U.S. needs to be significantly less activist abroad. They may disagree among themselves about where and why to interfere around the world, but the obsession with "leadership" (a.k.a., hegemony) is widely shared. ..."
"... "Being White House chief of staff is not something John Kelly has been trained for. Being Secretary of Defense is not something that James Mattis has been trained for. Providing international and foreign policy assessments is not something H. R. McMaster has been trained for. They're out of their lane. And it shows." ..."
"... "We have civilian government for a reason. We have politicians doing political jobs for a reason. I'm not sure where this leads . . . But I think we've seen . . . that the 'adults in the room' . . . are more like the president than we might imagine. . . . They might, in fact, reflect the military that they're from, which is, expeditionary" -- prone to interest in conflict abroad. ..."
"... Their intense hostility to Iran has also reinforced Trump's own. Because Trump has no relevant experience or knowledge to draw that would cause him to overrule their judgment, these Cabinet members and advisers will keep talking him into deeper entanglements in many different countries. The result is a foreign policy that is consistently the opposite of restraint. ..."
"... They are not going to be able to make up the failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or elsewhere by instigating more of the same. If they didn't question the need to invade Ira strategically and press for an incisive , and limited incursion into Afghanistan to deal with the culprits of 9/11, I think its fair to challenge their decision making on other strategic goals as well. ..."
"... There have been some moral ground – responsibility for making a mess of their house (Iraq) -- but I suspect that the window is closed for correcting that mistake. Iran is going to be a force in the region, by our hand and sadly, for the time being -- that's the way it is. ..."
"... At the moment I think one has to conclude that Mr. Bannon was correct, whatever the campaign agenda it is losing to the opposing advocacy. Pres. Trump has it appears chosen not to be a trans-formative Pres. I don't have a beef with the generals, they are doing what generals (dogs of war do). It is the civilian leadership in and out of congress that have failed. ..."
Nov 08, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Curt Mills reports on TAC 's realism and restraint conference that was held last week at George Washington University:

TAC editor Robert Merry, a staunch realist and prolific author, went further than many: "There is no realism and restraint in American foreign policy in the Trump era."

Obviously, I agree with Merry on this, but it is worth spelling out in a little more detail what this means and why this is the case. Trump's speechwriters like to insert the phrase "principled realism" into some of the president's statements, but as I've said more than a few times the administration's so-called "principled realism" is neither principled nor realist. The administration's foreign policy does not seem to follow any guiding principles (unless maximizing arms sales counts as a principle). In practice, the administration neglects managing relations with other great powers, it encourages "cheap-" and "free-riding" by allies and clients, and it treats threats that can be managed with deterrence as intolerable menaces that must be eliminated. If Trump has not yet launched a preventive war, it is not because he thinks there is anything wrong in doing so.

Since taking office, Trump has escalated multiple wars and ended none. He has deepened U.S. involvement in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen, and that has just been in the first nine months of his presidency. He has simultaneously sought to blow up a non-proliferation agreement with Iran while stoking tensions with a nuclear-armed North Korea. He wants a larger military budget than the already bloated one that we have, and he has been even more inclined than his predecessors to give U.S. clients a blank check. A strategy of restraint would reject all of this.

One of the more worrisome aspects of Trump's foreign policy to date has been his tendency to encourage what Barry Posen calls "reckless driving" by U.S. clients. Trump is hardly the first president to do this, but he has made a point of doing it fairly often since taking office. Increasing U.S. support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen is one obvious example of this. Then there was Trump's Riyadh speech in which he effectively told U.S. Gulf clients that they had Washington's blessing to do whatever they wanted. In a matter of weeks, the Saudi-led bloc launched their campaign against Qatar. Since then, the White House has backed every Saudi move without hesitation, which has just encouraged the Saudis to engage in more destabilizing behavior.

A foreign policy of restraint would be one that keeps the U.S. out of local and regional conflicts that pose no threat to our security. The U.S. would not be stuck policing foreign battlefields in the Near East or Central Asia in perpetuity, and it wouldn't be entangled in foreign civil wars where we have nothing at stake. The U.S. wouldn't be taking sides in regional rivalries for the sake of "reassuring" our clients, and our government wouldn't be rewarding clients that destabilize their regions through ill-conceived and unnecessary wars. There would be no place for preventive war in such a foreign policy, and in general the U.S. would seek to avoid land wars whenever possible.

Foreign policy restraint was never likely under a Trump administration for a few reasons. First, the president's preferences for a bigger military and his preoccupation with shows of "strength" and "greatness" mean that his instincts are to reject some of restraint's core features. Second, there are very few people in the Republican Party, whether "establishment" or populist, who think that the U.S. needs to be significantly less activist abroad. They may disagree among themselves about where and why to interfere around the world, but the obsession with "leadership" (a.k.a., hegemony) is widely shared. Finally, Trump's fascination with current and former generals has meant that he has filled his administration with Cabinet members and advisers that have been very involved in the expeditionary wars of the last decade and a half, and as a result his views of these wars and of U.S. foreign policy more broadly have been heavily influenced by men that have no problem with continuing these wars more or less indefinitely. This is connected to a point Mark Perry made on one of the panels last Friday, which Mills quotes in his article:

"Being White House chief of staff is not something John Kelly has been trained for. Being Secretary of Defense is not something that James Mattis has been trained for. Providing international and foreign policy assessments is not something H. R. McMaster has been trained for. They're out of their lane. And it shows."

He continued: "We have civilian government for a reason. We have politicians doing political jobs for a reason. I'm not sure where this leads . . . But I think we've seen . . . that the 'adults in the room' . . . are more like the president than we might imagine. . . . They might, in fact, reflect the military that they're from, which is, expeditionary" -- prone to interest in conflict abroad.

Their intense hostility to Iran has also reinforced Trump's own. Because Trump has no relevant experience or knowledge to draw that would cause him to overrule their judgment, these Cabinet members and advisers will keep talking him into deeper entanglements in many different countries. The result is a foreign policy that is consistently the opposite of restraint.

EliteCommInc., says: November 8, 2017 at 8:04 pm

"Their intense hostility to Iran has also reinforced Trump's own. Because Trump has no relevant experience or knowledge to draw that would cause him to overrule their judgment, these Cabinet members and advisers will keep talking him into deeper entanglements in many different countries."

I'll be honest here. I think it is the other way around. I don't think these are the executives instincts. I think it reflects those of the men around him.

I was hoping he would govern them, but he doesn't seem to have much a back to tell them no.

They are not going to be able to make up the failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or elsewhere by instigating more of the same. If they didn't question the need to invade Ira strategically and press for an incisive , and limited incursion into Afghanistan to deal with the culprits of 9/11, I think its fair to challenge their decision making on other strategic goals as well.

There have been some moral ground – responsibility for making a mess of their house (Iraq) -- but I suspect that the window is closed for correcting that mistake. Iran is going to be a force in the region, by our hand and sadly, for the time being -- that's the way it is.

At the moment I think one has to conclude that Mr. Bannon was correct, whatever the campaign agenda it is losing to the opposing advocacy. Pres. Trump has it appears chosen not to be a trans-formative Pres. I don't have a beef with the generals, they are doing what generals (dogs of war do). It is the civilian leadership in and out of congress that have failed.

But as always, I am not inclined to abandon this President yet -- the commentaries, including my own are speculative.

[Nov 08, 2017] The Trump Administration's Contempt for Diplomacy

Nov 08, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

SteveM , says: November 8, 2017 at 11:21 am

When you have a Global Cop War Machine hammer and surround yourself with a Pentagon/Security State steering committee advising you to use it, everything else is a nail. I have to admit, Trump is even a much smaller man than I imagined him to be at his worst.

Belligerent global power projection is currently unaffordable and quickly becoming obsolete. While China is eating America's lunch with it's productive foreign aid and investments that do not involve killing, destroying and intimidation.

Neither of which Trump comprehends. And of his in-house Neocon minions ("my generals"), it goes without saying

SDS , says: November 8, 2017 at 11:53 am
"and the American diplomatic core is down to Nikki Haley screaming into a phone in some basement office of the Pentagon"

That would be hilarious if it weren't so prophetic

rayray , says: November 8, 2017 at 1:13 pm
Every time a diplomat works to reduce tensions, build relationships, avoid conflict, this is literally taking money and opportunity out of the pockets of the Military/Industrial complex.

Trump, being ironically a terrible negotiator and, as @SDS notes above, has never had the temperament, intelligence, or empathy to be much more than a bully, is the perfect tool for the military/industrial complex.

[Nov 07, 2017] Mueller is going after money laundering, which unsurprisingly leads to Ukraine. It's one of the oldest known tricks in the book keep in mind, Al Capone fell due to tax evasion.

Manafort can expose Nulandgate dirty kitchen. That's a danger for Mueller and for all Russiagate sponsors (including Podesta) ... So this possibility needs to be neutralized.
Notable quotes:
"... I suspect most here would find little to disagree with in the premise that Washington loves the elegance of 'the deal', in which it pressures an individual or organization or nation into caving in against his/its best interests, knowing it is getting the shitty end of the stick but unable to resist the relentless pressure. The USA calls it 'soft power', and it used to mean something quite different. Now it's like the difference between pulled pork and fast food. Both are satisfying, but one takes a long time to achieve. Instant gratification is all the rage these days, and Washington would much rather bring about an overnight coup than a decade-long transformation. ..."
"... But Yanukovych is still very much alive, and that was not likely in the script. I daresay he has a tale or two to tell about the terms he was offered and the deals he was encouraged to make, which is likely why no western journalists have ever sought permission to interview him in Russia. It's still surprising, because western analysts could have chimed in that he's pro-Russian, what did you expect but lies, if they didn't like what he said. ..."
"... I think what Washington wants is to strike a deal with Manafort which will avoid a trial and testimony which might introduce uncomfortable facts and avenues which might prove uncomfortable to explore. Consider; Manafort was right at the heart of the regime-change effort, and he must have seen and heard quite a few things that Washington would not like made public. It is just crazy to get at Russia and will absorb considerable risk to reach that goal, but a public trial of Manafort might be more of a liability than a show of western jurisprudence. ..."
"... Hence the hilarity. Those who wanted this probe have two bad option: defend Manafort, and thus be part of the corruption that Trump denounces; allow Manafort to fall and take Podesta with him. And to think that it all started in Ukraine. Every Zrada turns into Peremoga, even in DC. ..."
"... History will one day review this period as a mass hysteria equaled only by the Dreyfus Affair. Critical thinking is dead, and a significant group – if not a majority – simply accepts whatever pap it is fed by the popular media. ..."
"... Alexander makes an excellent point – what kind of incredible leverage must Russia possess, that a covert campaign of which no evidence exists to this day to sway public opinion in favour of leaving the EU prevailed over a very public and extremely overt effort by the United States and some European leaders to influence the vote for "Stay"? Further, how could such a feat be accomplished by an international pariah which is friendless and isolated? ..."
Nov 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

ucgsblog , November 6, 2017 at 11:36 am

Mueller is going after money laundering, which unsurprisingly leads to Ukraine. It's one of the oldest known tricks in the book – keep in mind, Al Capone fell due to tax evasion. In this case, money laundering can replace tax evasion. Also, anyone surprised that there have been links to Ukraine and the UK, but no links to Russia?
marknesop , November 6, 2017 at 12:06 pm
I suspect most here would find little to disagree with in the premise that Washington loves the elegance of 'the deal', in which it pressures an individual or organization or nation into caving in against his/its best interests, knowing it is getting the shitty end of the stick but unable to resist the relentless pressure. The USA calls it 'soft power', and it used to mean something quite different. Now it's like the difference between pulled pork and fast food. Both are satisfying, but one takes a long time to achieve. Instant gratification is all the rage these days, and Washington would much rather bring about an overnight coup than a decade-long transformation.

I imagine the pressure is on Manafort to agree to this sort of 'deal' to escape prison. And the narrative is shaping up to be that he was a lobbyist for the PRO-RUSSIAN PRESIDENT, Viktor Yanukovych. There's your Russian connection. Even though Putin did not care for Yanukovych, and Yanukovych only went to Moscow when he had come up against a stone wall with the EU, which obviously wanted Ukraine for free and could not have cared less for the economic damage forcing it to change its loyalties wholesale would have brought about. Still, according to the narrative, Yanukovych was pro-Russian.

But Yanukovych is still very much alive, and that was not likely in the script. I daresay he has a tale or two to tell about the terms he was offered and the deals he was encouraged to make, which is likely why no western journalists have ever sought permission to interview him in Russia. It's still surprising, because western analysts could have chimed in that he's pro-Russian, what did you expect but lies, if they didn't like what he said.

I think what Washington wants is to strike a deal with Manafort which will avoid a trial and testimony which might introduce uncomfortable facts and avenues which might prove uncomfortable to explore. Consider; Manafort was right at the heart of the regime-change effort, and he must have seen and heard quite a few things that Washington would not like made public. It is just crazy to get at Russia and will absorb considerable risk to reach that goal, but a public trial of Manafort might be more of a liability than a show of western jurisprudence.

ucgsblog , November 6, 2017 at 2:30 pm
There are several issues with that. First, the Judicial System is supposed to be beyond reproach. The DNC played that Russia Card, and have suffered as a result, because Americans responded with the "I Don't Give a Shit" card, and the RNC quickly pounced on that. I doubt that Mueller would sacrifice his career for political gains.

The problem that politicians face with the probe, is that he's leading a bipartisan effort. Yanukovich being pro-Russian isn't going to be enough, considering that most Americans know that the FSA was pro-American, and most don't support the FSA. So Mueller won't mind if Manafort spills the beans.

The problem is with the system. While Mueller might not mind, quite a few lobbyists will. The Russia bashing has given Mueller the chance to clean house from the major lobbyists. This means that the pro-Clinton people will be forced to defend Manafort, in an irony of ironies, because when it comes to money laundering, they're probably in on it. Instead of hitting Russia, they hit the "Drain the Swamp" button, which coincidentally happened to be Trump's slogan, which he is sure to take credit for.

Hence the hilarity. Those who wanted this probe have two bad option: defend Manafort, and thus be part of the corruption that Trump denounces; allow Manafort to fall and take Podesta with him. And to think that it all started in Ukraine. Every Zrada turns into Peremoga, even in DC.

ucgsblog , November 6, 2017 at 2:31 pm
It's neither chickenshit nor drunk; I was talking about the campaign managers for Trump and Clinton.
Cortes , November 5, 2017 at 4:55 am
The unseen [¿?] Kremlin hand:

http://theduran.com/putin-behind-brexit-russiagate-hysteria-spreads-britain/

The comment by "Ancient Briton" is priceless.

marknesop , November 5, 2017 at 9:43 am
History will one day review this period as a mass hysteria equaled only by the Dreyfus Affair. Critical thinking is dead, and a significant group – if not a majority – simply accepts whatever pap it is fed by the popular media.

Alexander makes an excellent point – what kind of incredible leverage must Russia possess, that a covert campaign of which no evidence exists to this day to sway public opinion in favour of leaving the EU prevailed over a very public and extremely overt effort by the United States and some European leaders to influence the vote for "Stay"? Further, how could such a feat be accomplished by an international pariah which is friendless and isolated?

The west would be wise to give over before its spiteful efforts do it irreparable damage. It will not, of course, wisdom being in short supply while idiocy is going spare.

kirill , November 5, 2017 at 7:01 am
http://russia-insider.com/en/nato-blogger-takes-sarin-bucket-challenge-raise-awareness-about-harmless-nerve-agent/ri21488

When you snooker them with facts, they just make shit up to wiggle their way out. Galeotti, Higgins and the rest of the NATzO bootlick slime.

[Nov 07, 2017] Washington's Wonderful World of Corruption - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... On the next day, Woolsey and his wife met separately with the same two Turkish businessmen at the Peninsula Hotel in New York City and discussed with them a more general but broadly based $10 million plan of their own that would combine lobbying with public relations to discredit Gülen both in the press and in congress. Woolsey stressed that he had the kind of contacts in government and the media to make the plan work. ..."
"... Woolsey did not get the $10 million contract that he sought and Flynn's well-remunerated work for Turkey reportedly consisted of some research, a short documentary that may or may not have been produced, and a November op-ed in The Hill ..."
"... But the real story about Flynn and Woolsey is the fashion in which senior ex-government employees shamelessly exploit their status to turn money from any and all comers without any regard for either the long- or short- term consequences of what they are doing. ..."
"... Just think. Casino king, lord of vice industry, is the #1 donor to the GOP. Politics was always about money, but now it's totally shameless. ..."
"... So did Flynn take the considerable risks of nondisclosure because he was an ideologue or was it primarily for the money? And was it pathological or just stupidly brazen? The Gereral's pardon awaits. ..."
"... What does one expect in a country where money dominates all ? The USA is a great country to live in when one is rich, anything goes, and horror when one is poor. The only way to escape horror is to get rich, and stay rich. I am severely ill, the Dutch health care system keeps me alive, at great cost. In the USA I would either be broke and dead, or simply dead. ..."
"... Just a couple observations here, but the world economy went into the toilet around the time the big Western economies started pushing all this anti-corruption stuff for businesses, and one cannot help but notice that political corruption in the West has become far more sophisticated in the past twenty years, with payoffs arriving after the fact to provide some degree of plausible deniability for the politicos and apparatchiks involved. ..."
"... 'As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value'. ..."
"... Then, Errol Morris was interviewed about his documentary film on Donald Rumfseld. Morris was scathing: Rumsfeld was all about his career, his voluminous "snowflake" memos were meandering BS, self-aggrandizing; Morris was especially outraged with Rumsfeld's reaction to a seriously wounded soldier -- it was a photo op; no measure of humanity was in evidence. Interesting contrast between McNamara and Rumsfeld ..."
Nov 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Enter former General Michael Flynn and former Bill Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey, both of whom were national security advisers to candidate Donald Trump during his campaign when they competed for contracts with Turkish businessmen linked to the Erdogan government to discredit Gülen and possibly even enable his abduction and illegal transfer to Turkey. If, as a consequence of their labors, Gülen were to be somehow returned home he would potentially be tried on treason charges, which might in the near future carry the death penalty in Turkey.

Both Flynn and Woolsey are highly controversial figures. Woolsey, in spite of having no intelligence experience, was notoriously appointed CIA Director by Bill Clinton to reward the neoconservatives for their support of his candidacy. But Woolsey never met privately with the president during his two years in office. He is regarded as an ardent neocon and Islamophobe affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) and the AIPAC-founded Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). I once debated him on NPR where he asserted that Israel does not spy on the United States, a delusional viewpoint to be sure. Former CIA Senior analyst Mel Goodman, recalling Woolsey's tenure at the Agency, commented in 2003 that "[he] was a disaster as CIA director in the 90s and is now running around this country calling for a World War IV to deal with the Islamic problem. This is a dangerous individual "

Flynn, is, of course, better known, and not for any good qualities that he might possess. He is, like Woolsey, an ardent hawk on Iran and other related issues but is also ready to make a buck through his company The Flynn Intel Group, where Woolsey served as an unpaid adviser. In the summer of 2016 Flynn had obtained a three-month contract for $530,000 to "research" Gülen and produce a short documentary film discrediting him, an arrangement that should have been reported under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, but the big prize was a possible contract in the millions of dollars to create a negative narrative on the Hizmet founder and put pressure on the U.S. government to bring about his extradition.

Woolsey and Flynn, both Trump advisers at the time, found themselves in competition for the money. Flynn had a New York meeting at the Essex House with the businessmen accompanied by the Turkish Foreign and Energy Ministers as well as Erdogan's son-in-law on September 19 th 2016 where, inter alia, the possibility of kidnapping Gülen and flying him to Turkey was discussed. Flynn has denied that the possibility of kidnapping was ever raised, but Woolsey, who was at the meeting for a brief time, insists that "whisking away" Gülen in the dead of night was on the agenda, though he concedes that the discussion was "hypothetical."

On the next day, Woolsey and his wife met separately with the same two Turkish businessmen at the Peninsula Hotel in New York City and discussed with them a more general but broadly based $10 million plan of their own that would combine lobbying with public relations to discredit Gülen both in the press and in congress. Woolsey stressed that he had the kind of contacts in government and the media to make the plan work.

Woolsey did not get the $10 million contract that he sought and Flynn's well-remunerated work for Turkey reportedly consisted of some research, a short documentary that may or may not have been produced, and a November op-ed in The Hill by Flynn that denounced Gülen as a "radical Islamist who portrays himself as a moderate."

But the real story about Flynn and Woolsey is the fashion in which senior ex-government employees shamelessly exploit their status to turn money from any and all comers without any regard for either the long- or short- term consequences of what they are doing. The guilt or innocence of Fetullah Gülen was never an issue for them, nor the reputation of the United States judiciary in a case which has all the hallmarks of a political witch hunt. And if a kidnapping actually was contemplated, it begs one to pause and consider what kind of people are in power in this country.

Neither Flynn nor Woolsey ever considered that their working as presidential campaign advisers while simultaneously getting embroiled in an acrimonious political dispute involving a major ally just might be seen as a serious conflict of interest, even if it was technically not-illegal. All that motivated them was the desire to exploit a situation that they cared not at all about for profit to themselves.

No one expects top rank ex-officials to retire from the world, but out of respect for their former positions, they should retain at least a modicum of decency. This is lacking across the board from the Clintons on down to the Flynns and Woolseys as Americans apparently now expect less and less from their elected officials and have even ceased to demand minimal ethical standards.

Issac , November 7, 2017 at 2:32 am GMT

I've heard it said that Gülen was stateside precisely because of his potential leverage over Ankara. One could be forgiven thinking, therefor, that he had outlived his usefulness after the failed/faked coup. One might even consider sending him home would be a diplomatic gift to such a "major ally," as Turkey. Apparently Langley does not want this bargaining chip off the table just yet. Or do they? Who would even know?

Do you expect Americans to trust current national security state employees more than ex-, if indeed ex- even has the connotation one expects? On what basis would they make this judgement? Are most of the people in either camp not appointments from various neocon-influenced administrations? What would popular resentment of this corruption even look like? Would they demand the passing of legislation that could be ignored?

What ethical standards can be applied to an organization that can lie, under oath, without repercussion? In a world in which sixth generation American citizens are equated in every way with aggressive third-world refugees, the words "loyalty," and "corruption," have lost any foundation upon which they might have meaning.

Carlton Meyer , Website November 7, 2017 at 5:29 am GMT
And in the news today:

By CRAIG WHITLOCK | The Washington Post | Published: November 5, 2017

The "Fat Leonard" corruption investigation has expanded to include more than 60 admirals and hundreds of other U.S. Navy officers under scrutiny for their contacts with a defense contractor in Asia who systematically bribed sailors with sex, liquor and other temptations [like cash], according to the Navy.

Most of the admirals are suspected of attending extravagant feasts at Asia's best restaurants paid for by Leonard Glenn Francis, a Singapore-based maritime tycoon who made an illicit fortune supplying Navy vessels in ports from Vladivostok, Russia, to Brisbane, Australia. Francis also was renowned for hosting alcohol-soaked, after-dinner parties, which often featured imported prostitutes and sometimes lasted for days, according to federal court records.

RobinG , November 7, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT

the sell-out.. disease.. afflicting officials in national security.

corruption from the top down a combination of greed and dishonesty

Amen, Phil, and Americans are collateral damage.

General Michael Hayden abandoned an NSA cyber program –that could have prevented the 9/11 attack– in favor of a less effective plan that was more profitable for corporate security firms, and generated greater funding for the intelligence agency.

"A Good American" tells the story of former Technical director of NSA, Bill Binney, and a program called ThinThread. He and a small team within NSA created a surveillance tool that could pick up any electronic signal on earth, filter it for targets and render results in real-time. NSA leadership dumped it – three weeks prior to 9/11.

Watch it free, before it's taken down. https://youtu.be/FlkAxAc7EjI

Priss Factor , Website November 7, 2017 at 6:37 am GMT
Just think. Casino king, lord of vice industry, is the #1 donor to the GOP. Politics was always about money, but now it's totally shameless.
Mark James , November 7, 2017 at 7:06 am GMT
So did Flynn take the considerable risks of nondisclosure because he was an ideologue or was it primarily for the money? And was it pathological or just stupidly brazen? The Gereral's pardon awaits.
jilles dykstra , November 7, 2017 at 7:35 am GMT
What does one expect in a country where money dominates all ? The USA is a great country to live in when one is rich, anything goes, and horror when one is poor. The only way to escape horror is to get rich, and stay rich. I am severely ill, the Dutch health care system keeps me alive, at great cost. In the USA I would either be broke and dead, or simply dead.
The Alarmist , November 7, 2017 at 9:23 am GMT
Oddly enough, I thought that Gülen was a Company asset, and that that was the reason they took Flynn down. Not that I know anything, just speculation.

Meanwhile, in the private sector, for anybody below the C-Suite there is an ever increasing pressure for compliance policies that outlaw all but the most trivial gifts or meals and entertainment in order to prevent corruption and abuse of position.

Just a couple observations here, but the world economy went into the toilet around the time the big Western economies started pushing all this anti-corruption stuff for businesses, and one cannot help but notice that political corruption in the West has become far more sophisticated in the past twenty years, with payoffs arriving after the fact to provide some degree of plausible deniability for the politicos and apparatchiks involved.

JackOH , November 7, 2017 at 9:41 am GMT
Phil, thanks. Every sentence tells here of an America off the rails.

A onetime local mayor in my area may offer an idea of the type of person we need. Pat U. has balls of steel. The Mob was against him. City hall bureaucrats were against him. The unions were against him. The police were against him. Corrupt cops threatened to frame him. The priest who'd married him and his wife was enlisted as an errand boy to deliver bribe money. Pat once publicly described our area as a "banana republic". He had a remote car starter installed to guard against assassination by car bombing. He was elected for multiple terms, and survived all attempts to crush him.

What did Pat have going for him? Personal anatomy. A wife who'd been a very young Polish WWII refugee, and who knew a thing or two about government gone bad and people gone bad. A strong, incorruptible law director, and a strong, incorruptible budget and finance guy. Charisma, and, of course, votes. He kept a local Mr. Big, a zillionaire briber of politicians, at a distance and worked warily with him. Pat met the challenges of an economically collapsing area pretty well.

How many politicians could weather the permanent storm of American corruption as well as Pat? Not a whole lot.

Greg Bacon , Website November 7, 2017 at 9:59 am GMT
The corruption in DC must be setting a record unmatched in history. It doesn't help that our craven, corrupt Congress sets its own rules regarding pay and benefits, but has also passed laws saying its 'OK' for those elite to engage in insider trading. Each Rep and Senator knows that kissing up to the Fortune 500 guarantees them a job after they leave Congress, with a fat paycheck, bennies and sexy secretaries more than happy to take DICKtation, all provided by the company's they took care of while in Congress.

Compounding the situation is the equally rotten DOJ, who has no problem going after blue-collar crime, but won't touch the real problem, those TBTF Wall Street banks acting like out-of-control casinos who then dump their losses on the backs on the American taxpayer. The latest USAG head Sessions is more confirmation that the Senate is a 'good ol' boys' and girls club that will not go after current and former members, as Sessions will NOT go after the thieving, lying, traitorous Hillary for her many crimes.

Its impossible to Drain the Swamp when it has so many creatures that snack on Americans and protect each other.

Short of a revolution, this can only end badly for Americans.

EliteCommInc. , November 7, 2017 at 10:29 am GMT
I would love to have seen that debate. I am not a fan of the contention that Iran embodies all things evil about Islam. But it is disappointing that Gen Flynn's advocacy is mired in a competition for financial contract.
Tom Welsh , November 7, 2017 at 10:41 am GMT
"We Americans appear to have done it all to ourselves through inexplicable tolerance for a combination of greed and fundamental dishonesty on the part of our elected and appointed government officials".

One thing about you Americans that often surprises foreigners is your readiness to believe that all this corruption is something new or different. It has been going on ever since well before 1776.

My own opinion is that systematic corruption is a more or less inevitable consequence of Americans' attempts to cut themselves off from all previous history and moral standards. There were to be no royalty, nobility, gentry – no one exceptional at all in any way.

Well, human nature abhors a lack of hierarchy: we need it almost as much as water, air, food, security. If you try to abolish all forms of hierarchy, all that happens is that it goes underground. What do Americans respect – what, indeed, have they respected most since (at least) the 1850s? Money. That's it. Cold hard cash. Wealth is next to godliness. The more money you have, the better a person you are thought to be – absolutely regardless of whether you got it by grinding the faces of the workers, murder, torture, drug dealing, or anything else.

But money is not, cannot be a value. Marx explained this in fairly simple terms, but the following is my favorite way of putting it.

'As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value'.

– Morris Berman, "The Moral Order", Counterpunch 8-10 February 2013. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/08/the-moral-order/

another fred , November 7, 2017 at 11:31 am GMT

We Americans appear to have done it all to ourselves through inexplicable tolerance for a combination of greed and fundamental dishonesty on the part of our elected and appointed government officials.

One might call it stupid to believe that a nation could invest its government with the power to handle and disburse vast sums of money without becoming corrupt. Then again one might call that belief insane. One thing is clear, giving the government that much power and money is sure to corrupt it. Anyone who expects anything else of human beings does not know much about human beings.

Z-man , November 7, 2017 at 11:54 am GMT
Flynn was the worst associate that Trump fell in love with. That's a flaw of Trump. He did get rid of Gorka and one or two other NeoCons, unfortunately he has an 'influential' son in law that he can't get rid of that easily whose connected by blood to Joo land. And then again he has a Zionist speech writer Steven Miller, who's very good pushing back the anti Trump press, but still a Zionist Joo . 'Second Coming' anyone? (Grin)
Moi , November 7, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT
What's PG griping about? Our elected leaders, senior officials and corporate captains pretty accurately reflect what our country has devolved into.
jacques sheete , November 7, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT
@JackOH

Thanks for that great story.

How many politicians could weather the permanent storm of American corruption as well as Pat? Not a whole lot.

I'd guess almost zero.

Hotzenplotz , November 7, 2017 at 12:38 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

„I know of no other country where love of money has such a grip on men's hearts or where stronger scorn is expressed for the theory of permanent equality of property." Tocqueville

Dishonesty and greed – the American way from the beginning.

jacques sheete , November 7, 2017 at 1:06 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh

My own opinion is that systematic corruption is a more or less inevitable consequence of Americans' attempts to cut themselves off from all previous history and moral standards. There were to be no royalty, nobility, gentry – no one exceptional at all in any way.

Well, the royalty, nobility, gentry as well as the chief priests and rabbis and and almost everyone in a position of power have historically been pretty corrupt, I'd say. In fact it's probably accurate to say that all of them have been based on violence, treachery and bullshit or some varying mixture of those things has been the rule since rule began.

As far as worshipping money, you are correct, but the systemic corruption is baked into the cake by the way most political systems generally arise, and it's not only an American phenomenon since a person reading Aristophanes, Plutarch, Juvenal, Herbert Spencer and tons more could as well be writing of current events. The concepts are unchanged; only the names, dates and minor particular issues have changed.

Upon arriving at Messene Philip proceeded to devastate the country like an enemy acting from passion rather than from reason. For he expected, apparently, that while he continued to inflict injuries, the sufferers would never feel any resentment or hatred towards him.

-The Histories of Polybius , Book VIII, pg 465, Section III. Affairs of Greece, Philip, and Messenia. published in Vol. III
of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1922 thru 1927

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/8*.html

The concept is not only ancient, but cross-cultural too.

" The Master said, 'Why do you not leave this place?' The answer was, 'There is no oppressive government here.' The Master then said to his disciples: 'Remember this, my little children. Oppressive government is more terrible than tigers.'"

-Confucius as quoted in The Ethics of Confucius, by Miles Menander Dawson, [1915]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cfu/eoc/eoc10.htm

jacques sheete , November 7, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT

What's PG griping about? Our elected leaders, senior officials and corporate captains pretty accurately reflect what our country has devolved into.

Sorry good sir, but no devolution needed. It was baked in the cake from inception. The "anti-federalists" warned us but the warnings fell on deaf (and powerless and preoccupied) ears.

Rich , November 7, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I'm not trolling you, Jilles, you just keep showing up on this site bashing America with factually wrong statements. I'm aware that the Netherlands is a pleasant nation, both my wife and I have some Dutch ancestry, but the Netherlands, like the US, isn't perfect. The fact is that every country, from Venezuela to Monaco, is a great country when one is rich, I'd bet even Holland is nice if you've got a few bucks.

To your point about your health issues. Here in the US there are two primary medical insurance programs run by the government, Medicare and Medicaid. If you're over 65 you are automatically covered by Medicare, there are some low costs associated with it, but if you're too poor to pay them, you don't have to. Medicaid is a government run health insurance program for the poor and uninsured in the US. In most cases all medical conditions are covered for free in this program. No hospital emergency room in the US is allowed to refuse treatment, either. Could the system be better? Of course, but people aren't really dying in the streets, desperate for medical attention, as the leftists you read are telling you.

Carroll Price , November 7, 2017 at 1:54 pm GMT
Contrary to the proverb, fish DO NOT rot from the head down but from the gut. The rampant corruption practiced by elected and unelected US officials alike, simply mirrors that of the nation as a whole.

http://www.brainstormwarning.org/2008/10/30/the-fish-rots-from-the-head

DESERT FOX , November 7, 2017 at 1:56 pm GMT
Our government is not our government anymore , it is a criminal cabal ran for and by criminals and as such is not legitimate anymore and this has led to perpetual war for perpetual profit and perpetual corruption, we are Rome and the end is near.
Joe Hide , November 7, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT
Amazing changes for the Good are taking place at an ever more rapid rate. The exposure of the shenanigans of Flynn and Woolsey are literal examples of the figurative "The darkness hates the Light because the Light exposes the darkness for it's evil deeds". The internet and authors like this allow the Light (Truth) into Humanities Consciousness. Keep it up Giraldi!
SolontoCroesus , November 7, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT
@Rich

Could the system be better? Of course, but people aren't really dying in the streets, desperate for medical attention, as the leftists you read are telling you.

That may or may not be so, I'd have to see some statistics. The evidence of my lyon' eyes tells me plenty of people are living on the streets. My gentrified neighborhood insisted that police remove the men who slept under dumpsters in the alleys -- they moved them to bridge abutments and abandoned industrial sites.

Public libraries are ersatz day-care-for-hoboes; libraries now have police patrolling to ensure that the mentally ill regulars do not act out too loudly or stink too badly. Washington, DC libraries post extensive rules on the bathroom doors: NO shaving, NO showering, NO sex in the bathrooms.

Hu Mi Yu , November 7, 2017 at 2:27 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX

we are Rome and the end is near.

I think of Athens in 415 BC just before the battle of Syracuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition

Old Ben , November 7, 2017 at 3:12 pm GMT
@another fred

Ben Franklin's famous quote while voting to adopt the US Constitution.

"Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
And that was back when the Fed Govt was designed to be much smaller and much less powerful than today. Today's great power concentrated in the US govt, including the power to destroy entire countries or businesses and of course people, as well as a great deal of money which can then thus make people fabulously wealthy, means that this govt is far more susceptable to corruption than the one old Ben Franklin was referring to.

In a country where money means anything and can buy anything, then one must assume that everything is corrupt.

Old and in the way , November 7, 2017 at 3:18 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

Academics, working from CDC statistics, estimated in 2009 that 45,000 Americans die every year from lack of medical care.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

As a nation, we want to go nuts over a few hundred or perhaps a thousand deaths from illegal aliens, but we look the other way as tens of thousands die in order to make people rich(er) from a for-profit medical system.

Rich , November 7, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

Who are these hobos living in the street? Here in NYC they are drug addicts or mentally unstable people. Why are they allowed to live in the street? Because leftist judges and politicians have made it illegal to force them into mental hospitals or drug addiction facilities. Leftists believe this is a sign of their benevolence. I don't know of anyone who is actually homeless because of poverty in the US. There's just too many programs, from section 8, to welfare, to public housing available.

jacques sheete , November 7, 2017 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Old Ben

as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

I could be classified as a big fan of BF, but I think today he'd change that to as other forms have done before it, when the leaders shall become so corrupted as to benefit even more from despotic Government, being incapable of any other. It seems to me that the fish is always on the verge of rotting, and I on't know if it starts at the head or not, but the thing still stinks, and the head, at least, has always been pretty rotten.

Emidio Borg , November 7, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT
There is more honour in a lake full of crocodiles than there is in the American heart.
anonymous , Disclaimer November 7, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT
A couple references to "2017" should be corrected to 2016. Thank you for using this wonderfully bipartisan example. One has to be pretty naive to think that R and D mean much in Washington. Flush twice!
Jake , November 7, 2017 at 5:43 pm GMT
Of course, top officials sell out to anyone for anything. It is always that way in any Empire, save the ones ruled by very bright and brutal men who make it clear that so doing will cost in the biggest ways.

And then there is the fact of WASP culture being one in which everything is for sale. You can see the issue in all kinds of works of literature, from Jonson's The Alchemist to Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles and beyond. That is what underlay the English rotating between fury and amusement that the Irish and Highlanders were to too stupid about pence and pounds to know when to sell, including their freedom and family heritage. The same dynamic was highlighted in Yankee WASPs versus Southerners, whose sense of honor was both hated furiously and laughed ay endlessly by pure-blood Anglo-Saxon Yankees.

Ron Unz , November 7, 2017 at 6:22 pm GMT
@Old and in the way

Academics, working from CDC statistics, estimated in 2009 that 45,000 Americans die every year from lack of medical care As a nation, we want to go nuts over a few hundred or perhaps a thousand deaths from illegal aliens, but we look the other way as tens of thousands die in order to make people rich(er) from a for-profit medical system.

Actually, I think the former figure is a *gigantic* over-estimate. Offhand, I'd say there are something like 100 million middle-class white Americans and maybe 11 million or so illegal immigrants. And there were also over 17,000 total homicides during 2016.

Now if we're talking about ordinary middle-class whites murdered by illegals, I doubt the figure is even remotely close to 1-in-a-million per year, which would be a total of 100. In fact, I'm quite skeptical about whether the total is above 10/year, which would be one-in-10-million. That's the reason that neither VDare nor any of the other anti-immigrant webzines can almost ever find any real-life cases to talk about.

In my opinion, the notion that anything more than an infinitesimal number of American whites are murdered by illegals is just a total Internet hoax that's been endlessly propagated by silly activists.

If anyone on this thread thinks I'm wrong then I challenge them to locate at least 10 cases of ordinary middle-class whites murdered by illegals in 2016 (I'm not talking about Aryan Brotherhood gang members shivved in prison brawls or wives killing husbands/husbands killing wives). If you can't find ten cases in all of America during an entire year, then I'm probably right.

anonymous , Disclaimer November 7, 2017 at 6:27 pm GMT
@EliteCommInc.

I am not a fan of the contention that Iran embodies all things evil about Islam.

On the other hand, I am a fan of the contention that the white race embodies all things evil about Christianity.

MBlanc46 , November 7, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT
"Modicum of decency"? By former elected officials and functionaries? Maybe in some other possible world.
Art , November 7, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT
Did Flynn get crossways with the Mossad – is that why he is in trouble today? Clearly Gülen has protection in America – that has to mean Mossad/CIA backing. I have seen writing that says that Gülen has ties to Israel. That explains a lot. Think Peace -- Art
SolontoCroesus , November 7, 2017 at 8:13 pm GMT
Is corruption uniquely part of the US system of government (beyond the obvious propensity for all systems to become corrupted);
or does the US system of governance have unique loopholes, or systemic weaknesses, that make corruption more likely;
or is/has the US system of governance been corrupted by the machinations of a group or of some 'bad apples,'

Are Woolsey/Flynn examples of the "bad apple" notion: their lack of character has spread rot to the larger system? Their rot has normalized corruption?

Just watched two interviews, a conversation with Robert McNamara and Errol Morris, who directed the documentary, Fog of War, about McNamara's controversial career and decisions about war.

McNamara is widely described as an SOB of dubious moral fiber. In this conversation, he does not hide from his complicity in enormously harmful decisions, but does spell out the forces involved, not only the venal, career-protecting influences but also the realization that decisions involve the lives of large numbers of US men in uniform.

McNamara also tries to articulate the complexities -- and restraint -- with which past political leaders such as himself must approach their post-employment situation: while they do have knowledge, from experience, about situations, McNamara argues that it was his belief that he had to tread very lightly in making public opinions or prescriptions.

Then, Errol Morris was interviewed about his documentary film on Donald Rumfseld. Morris was scathing: Rumsfeld was all about his career, his voluminous "snowflake" memos were meandering BS, self-aggrandizing; Morris was especially outraged with Rumsfeld's reaction to a seriously wounded soldier -- it was a photo op; no measure of humanity was in evidence. Interesting contrast between McNamara and Rumsfeld

"Cometh the hour, cometh the man." Or Cometh the man, rot-eth the barrel."

Andrei Martyanov , Website November 7, 2017 at 8:42 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

McNamara is widely described as an SOB of dubious moral fiber. In this conversation, he does not hide from his complicity in enormously harmful decisions, but does spell out the forces involved, not only the venal, career-protecting influences but also the realization that decisions involve the lives of large numbers of US men in uniform.

Interesting that you mentioned it. I remember years ago watching McNamara's Q&A session after his lecture in one of the US "liberal" universities. I found myself surprised (in a good sense) with his into your face readiness to face anything thrown at him. He went ballistic when some student shouted "murderer" from back seats of the auditorium but McNamara spoke to this student passionately and personally. He was absolutely human and vulnerable, yet honest. In some sense it was very touching and you could see how it also tormented him.

As per neocons, from what I observed so far, I never encountered any indication of any of them being simply decent humans–they are human sewer.

[Nov 05, 2017] The military industrial complex did make a killing in Iraq though (no pun intended). Just a coincidence I suppose

Nov 05, 2017 | www.unz.com

The Scalpel , Website November 3, 2017 at 6:05 pm GMT

@Randal

"Whether the US "won" in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. "

Everybody knows the motivation was to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Iraq no longer possesses WMD's so the US won! Small caveat. There were never WMD's so the war was unnecessary. The military industrial complex did make a killing though (no pun intended). Just a coincidence I suppose

[Nov 04, 2017] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Leads US President Trump to War with Iran by Prof. James Petras

Highly recommended!
I am not sure the tail is wagging the dog in Middle East. The USA has Carter doctrine in place which means that they need to dominate all petro states. That might explain high level of animosity toward Iran, which is not a puppet regime as Carter doctrine requires. In this sense Israel interests are probably highly congruent with the USA interests. Otherwise Netanyahu would not be a prime minister. He proved to be greedy and reckless. The US intelligence agencies probably have enough material to remove him without much noise.
Notable quotes:
"... Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish American Organizations are leading President Trump , like a puppy on a leash, into a major war with Iran. The hysterical '52 Presidents' and 'Bibi' Netanyahu are busy manufacturing Holocaust-level predictions that a non-nuclear Iran is preparing to 'vaporize' Israel, , The buffoonish US President Trump has swallowed this fantasy wholesale and is pushing our nation toward war for the sake of Israel and its US-based supporters and agents. We will cite ten recent examples of Israeli-authored policies, implemented by Trump in his march to war (there are scores of others). ..."
"... Trump's total reliance on his pro-Israel advisers, embedded in his regime, at the expense of US military intelligence, has led to the construction of a parallel government, pitting the President and his Zionist-advisers against his generals . This certainly exposes the total hypocrisy of Trump's presidential campaign promise to ' Make America Great Again' . His practice and policy of promoting war with Iran for the sake of Israel are placing US national interest and the advice of the US generals last and will never restore American prestige. ..."
Oct 26, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

Can Generals James Mattis (US Secretary of Defense) and John Hyten (Head of US Strategic Command) Prevent a Disaster?

Introduction

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish American Organizations are leading President Trump , like a puppy on a leash, into a major war with Iran. The hysterical '52 Presidents' and 'Bibi' Netanyahu are busy manufacturing Holocaust-level predictions that a non-nuclear Iran is preparing to 'vaporize' Israel, , The buffoonish US President Trump has swallowed this fantasy wholesale and is pushing our nation toward war for the sake of Israel and its US-based supporters and agents. We will cite ten recent examples of Israeli-authored policies, implemented by Trump in his march to war (there are scores of others).

  1. After many years, Israel and 'the 52 President' finally made the US withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) because of its detailed documentation of Israeli crimes against Palestinian people. Trump complied with their demands.
  2. Tel Aviv demanded a Zionist fanatic and backer of the illegal Jewish settler occupation of Palestinian lands, the bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman , be appointed US Ambassador to Israel. Trump complied, despite the ambassador's overt conflict of interest.
  3. Israel launched waves of savage bombings against Syrian government troops and facilities engaged in a war against ISIS-mercenary terrorists. Israel, which had backed the terrorists in its ambition to break-up of the secular Syrian state, demanded US support. Trump complied, and sent more US arms to the anti-government terrorists.
  4. Israel denounced the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal Framework and Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action , signed by 6 major states and UN Security Council Members, (US, France, UK, Germany, China and Russia). A furious Netanyahu demanded that President Trump follow Tel Aviv and abrogate the multiparty agreement signed by his predecessor, Barack Obama . Trump complied and the US is at risk of openly violating its international agreement.

    Trump parrots Netanyahu's falsehoods to the letter: He raves that Iran, while technically in compliance, has violated ' the spirit of the agreement' without citing a single instance of actual violation. The 5 other signers of the ' Framework', the US military and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly certified Iran's strict compliance with the accord. Trump rejects the evidence of countless experts among US allies and 'his own generals' while embracing the hysterical lies from Israel and the ' 52' . Who would have thought the 'hard-nosed' businessman Trump would be so ' spiritual' when it came to honoring and breaking treaties and agreements!

  5. Israel and the ' 52' have demanded that Washington imprison and fine US citizens who have exercised their constitutional First Amendment Right of free speech by supporting the international boycott, divest and sanctions (BDS) campaign, which is designed to end the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and crimes against Palestinians. Trump complied. Americans may soon face over a decade in prison and complete economic ruin for supporting a peaceful economic boycott of Israeli settler products. This will represent an unprecedented violation of the US Constitution. At present, US public employees, like teachers in certain US states, are facing job loss for refusing to sign a 'loyalty oath' not to boycott products from Israel's illegal settlements. Desperate American victims of the floods and natural disasters in Texas are being denied access to public US taxpayer relief funds unless they sign similar loyalty oaths in support of Israel.
  6. Israel demanded that the US appoint Zionist fanatic real estate attorney, Jason Greenblatt and real estate speculator, Jared Kushner as Middle East peace negotiators. Trump appointed South Carolina businesswoman Nikki Haley as US Ambassador to the United Nations. Israel pushed for Ms. Haley, the first US governor to criminalize support for the peaceful BDS movement.
  7. Trump went against the advice of ' his Generals' in his own cabinet regarding Iran's compliance with the nuclear agreement, and chose to comply with Netanyahu's demands.
  8. Trump supports the long-standing Israeli project to maneuver a Kurdish takeover of Northern Iraq, grabbing the oil-rich Kirkuk province and permanently divide the once secular, nationalist Iraqi nation. Trump has sent arms and military advisers to the Kurds in war-torn Syria as they attempt to grab territory for a separate 'Kurdistan'. This is part of an Israeli plan to subdivide the Middle East into impotent tribal 'statelets'.
  9. Trump rejected the Turkish government's demand to extradite CIA-Israeli-backed Fethullah Gulen , self-exiled in the US since 1999, for his leadership role in the failed 2016 military coup d'etat.
  10. Like all his predecessors, Trump is completely submissive to Israeli-directed ' lobbies' (like AIPAC), which operate on behalf of a foreign power, in violation of the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. Trump chose his Orthodox Zionist son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a callow real estate investor and prominent supporter for war against Iran, as his chief foreign policy adviser.

President Trump's irresponsible pandering to Israel and its American-Jewish agents has caused deep unease among the Generals in his cabinet, as well as among active duty and retired US military officers, who are skeptical about Tel Aviv's push for open-ended US wars in the Middle East.

Ten Reasons Why Military Officers support America's Nuclear Accord with Iran

The Netanyahu-Israel First power configuration in Washington succeeded in convincing Trump to tear-up the nuclear accord with Iran. This went against the advice and wishes of the top US generals in the White House and active duty officers in the field who support the agreement and recognize Iran's cooperation.

The Generals have ten solid reasons for rejecting the Netanyahu-Trump push to shred the accord:

  1. The agreement is working. By all reliable, independent and official observers, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, the US intelligence community and the US Secretary of State – Iran is complying with its side of the agreement.
  2. If Trump violates the agreement, co-signed by the 6 members of the UN Security Council, in order to truckle to the whims of Israel and its gang of ' 52', the US government will lose all credibility among its allies. The US military will be equally tainted in its current and future dealings with NATO and other military 'partners'.
  3. Violation of the agreement will force the Iranians to restart their nuclear, as well as advanced defensive, weapons programs, increasing the risk of an Israeli-Trump instigated military confrontation. Any US war with Iran will be prolonged, costing the lives of tens of thousands of US troops, its land bases in the Gulf States, and warships in the Persian Gulf. Full-scale war with Iran, a large and well-armed country, would be a disaster for the entire region.
  4. US generals know from their earlier experiences under the George W. Bush Administration that Zionist officials in Washington, in close collaboration with Israeli handlers, worked tirelessly to engineer the US invasion of Iraq and the prolonged war in Afghanistan. This led to the death and injury of hundreds of thousands of US military personnel as well as millions of civilian casualties in the invaded countries. The ensuing chaos created the huge refugee crises now threatening the stability of Europe. The Generals view the Israel-Firsters as irresponsible armchair warmongers and media propagandists, who have no 'skin in the game' through any service in the US Armed Forces. They are correctly seen as agents for a foreign entity.
  5. US generals learned the lesson of the wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Somalia – where disastrous interventions led to defeats and loss of potential important regional allies.
  6. US generals, who are working with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to negotiate an agreement with North Korea, know that Trump's breaking a negotiated agreement with Iran, only reinforces North Korea's distrust of the US and will harden its opposition to a diplomatic settlement on the Korean Peninsula. It is clear that a full-scale war with nuclear-armed North Korea could wipe out tens of thousands of US troops and allies throughout the region and kill or displace hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians.
  7. US generals are deeply disturbed by the notion that their Commander in Chief, the elected President of the United States, is taking his orders from Israel and its US proxies. They dislike committing American blood and treasure for a foreign power whose policies have only degraded US influence in the Middle East. The generals want to act for and in defense of US national interests – and not Tel Aviv's.
  8. US military officials resent the fact that Israel receives the most advanced US military weapons and technology, which have been subsidized by the US taxpayers. In some cases, Israelis receive advanced US weapons before US troops even have them. They also are aware that Israeli intelligence agents (and American citizens) have spied on the US and received confidential military information in order to preempt US policy. Israel operates within the United States with total impunity!
  9. US generals are concerned about negotiating accords with China over strategic military issues of global importance. The constant catering and groveling to Israel, an insignificant global economic entity, has reduced US prestige and status, as well as China's trust in the validity of any military agreements with the Americans.
  10. Trump's total reliance on his pro-Israel advisers, embedded in his regime, at the expense of US military intelligence, has led to the construction of a parallel government, pitting the President and his Zionist-advisers against his generals . This certainly exposes the total hypocrisy of Trump's presidential campaign promise to ' Make America Great Again' . His practice and policy of promoting war with Iran for the sake of Israel are placing US national interest and the advice of the US generals last and will never restore American prestige.

Trump's decision not to certify Iran's compliance with the accord and his handing the ultimate decision on an international agreement signed by the six members of the UN Security Council over to the US Congress is ominous: He has effectively given potential war making powers to a corrupt legislature, often derided as 'Israeli occupied territory', which has always sided with Israeli and US Zionist war mongers. Trump is snubbing ' his' State Department, the Pentagon and the various US Intelligence agencies while giving into the demands of such Zionist zealots as New York Senator Charles Schumer , Netanyahu's alter ego in the US Senate and a huge booster for war with Iran.

Conclusion

Trump's refusal to certify Iran's compliance with nuclear accord reflects the overwhelming power of Israel within the US Presidency. Trump's rebuke of his generals and Secretary of State Tillerson, the UN Security Council and the 5 major cosigners of the 2015 accord with Iran, exposes the advanced degradation of the US Presidency and the US role in global politics.

All previous US Presidents have been influenced by the billionaire and millionaire die-hard Israel-Firsters, who funded their electoral campaigns. But occasionally, some ' Commanders in Chief' have decided to pursue policies favoring US national interest over Israel's bellicose ambitions. Avoiding a catastrophic war in the Middle East is such a case: Obama chose to negotiate and sign a nuclear accord with Iran. Tel Aviv's useful fool, Donald Trump, intends to break the agreement and drag this nation further into the hell of regional war.

In this regard, international opinion has sided with America's generals. Only Israel and its US acolytes on Wall Street and Hollywood applaud the blustering, bellicose Trump!

* James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.He is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, TempsModerne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. In 1973-76 he was a member of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Repression in Latin America

Read also: They prepare new Iraq in Syria - Danger of Nuclear War

[Nov 04, 2017] Who's Afraid of Corporate COINTELPRO by C. J. Hopkins

Highly recommended!
These tactics do not just suppress information. They enforce conformity at much deeper level.
Notable quotes:
"... I am using the Orwellian verb "unperson" playfully, but I'm also trying to be precise. What's happening isn't censorship, technically, at least not in the majority of cases. While there are examples of classic censorship (e.g., in the UK, France, and Germany), apart from so-called "terrorist content," most governments aren't formally banning expressions of anti-corporatist dissent. This isn't Czechoslovakia, after all. This is global capitalism, where the repression of dissent is a little more subtle. The point of Google unpersoning CounterPunch (and probably many other publications) and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists like Hedges is not to prevent them from publishing their work or otherwise render them invisible to readers. The goal is to delegitmize them, and thus decrease traffic to their websites and articles, and ultimately drive them out of business, if possible. ..."
"... Another objective of this non-censorship censorship is discouraging writers like myself from contributing to publications like CounterPunch, Truthdig, Alternet, Global Research, and any other publications the corporatocracy deems "illegitimate." Google unpersoning a writer like Hedges is a message to other non-ball-playing writers. The message is, "this could happen to you." This message is meant for other journalists, primarily, but it's also aimed at writers like myself who are making a living (to whatever degree) writing and selling what we think of as "literature." ..."
"... These tactics do not just suppress information. They enforce conformity at much deeper level. ..."
"... Chomsky explains how this system operates in What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream . It isn't a question of censorship the system operates on rewards and punishments, financial and emotional coercion, and subtler forms of intimidation. Making examples of non-cooperators is a particularly effective tactic. Ask any one of the countless women whose careers have been destroyed by Harvey Weinstein, or anyone who's been to graduate school, or worked at a major corporation. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Nov 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

On November 30, 2016, presumably right at the stroke of midnight, Google Inc. unpersoned CounterPunch. They didn't send out a press release or anything. They just quietly removed it from the Google News aggregator. Not very many people noticed. This happened just as the "fake news" hysteria was being unleashed by the corporate media, right around the time The Washington Post ran this neo-McCarthyite smear piece vicariously accusing CounterPunch, and a number of other publications, of being "peddlers of Russian propaganda." As I'm sure you'll recall, that astounding piece of "journalism" (which The Post was promptly forced to disavow with an absurd disclaimer but has refused to retract) was based on the claims of an anonymous website apparently staffed by a couple of teenagers and a formerly rabidly anti-Communist, now rabidly anti-Putin think tank. Little did most people know at the time that these were just the opening salvos in what has turned out to be an all-out crackdown on any and all forms of vocal opposition to the global corporate ruling classes and their attempts to quash the ongoing nationalist backlash against their neoliberal agenda.

Almost a year later, things are much clearer. If you haven't been following this story closely, and you care at all about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and that kind of stuff, you may want to take an hour or two and catch up a bit on what's been happening. I offered a few examples of some of the measures governments and corporations have been taking to stifle expressions of dissent in my latest piece in CounterPunch , and there are many more detailed articles online, like this one by Andre Damon from July, and this follow-up he published last week (which reports that Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Chris Hedges has also been unpersoned). Or, if you're the type of soul who only believes what corporations tell you, and who automatically dismisses anything published by a Trotskyist website, here's one from last December in The Guardian , and an op-ed in The New York Times , both of which at least report what Google, Twitter, and Facebook are up to. Or you could read this piece by Robert Parry , who also has "legitimate" (i.e., corporate) credentials, and who hasn't been unpersoned just yet, although I'm sure they'll get around to him eventually.

I am using the Orwellian verb "unperson" playfully, but I'm also trying to be precise. What's happening isn't censorship, technically, at least not in the majority of cases. While there are examples of classic censorship (e.g., in the UK, France, and Germany), apart from so-called "terrorist content," most governments aren't formally banning expressions of anti-corporatist dissent. This isn't Czechoslovakia, after all. This is global capitalism, where the repression of dissent is a little more subtle. The point of Google unpersoning CounterPunch (and probably many other publications) and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists like Hedges is not to prevent them from publishing their work or otherwise render them invisible to readers. The goal is to delegitmize them, and thus decrease traffic to their websites and articles, and ultimately drive them out of business, if possible.

Another objective of this non-censorship censorship is discouraging writers like myself from contributing to publications like CounterPunch, Truthdig, Alternet, Global Research, and any other publications the corporatocracy deems "illegitimate." Google unpersoning a writer like Hedges is a message to other non-ball-playing writers. The message is, "this could happen to you." This message is meant for other journalists, primarily, but it's also aimed at writers like myself who are making a living (to whatever degree) writing and selling what we think of as "literature."

Yes, as you've probably guessed by now, in addition to writing political satire, I am, as rogue journalist Caitlin Johnstone so aptly put it once, an "elitist wanker." I've spent the majority of my adult life writing stage plays and working in the theater, and it doesn't get any more elitist than that. My plays are published by "establishment" publishers, have won a few awards, and have been produced internationally. I recently published my "debut novel" (which is what you call it if you're an elitist wanker) and am currently trying to promote and sell it. I mention this, not to blow my little horn, but to the set the stage to try to illustrate how these post-Orwellian intimidation tactics (i.e., unpersoning people from the Internet) work. These tactics do not just suppress information. They enforce conformity at much deeper level.

The depressing fact of the matter is, in our brave new Internet-dominated world, corporations like Google, Twitter, and Facebook (not to mention Amazon), are, for elitist wankers like me, in the immortal words of Colonel Kurz, "either friends or they are truly enemies to be feared." If you are in the elitist wanker business, regardless of whether you're Jonathan Franzen, Garth Risk Hallberg, Margaret Atwood, or some "mid-list" or "emerging" author, there is no getting around these corporations. So it's kind of foolish, professionally speaking, to write a bunch of essays that will piss them off, and then publish these essays in CounterPunch. Literary agents advise against this. Other elitist literary wankers, once they discover what you've been doing, will avoid you like the bubonic plague. Although it's perfectly fine to write books and movies about fictional evil corporations, writing about how real corporations are using their power to mold societies into self-policing virtual prisons of politically-correct, authoritarian consumers is well, it's something that is just not done in professional elitist wanker circles.

Normally, all this goes without saying, as these days most elitist wankers are trained how to write, and read, and think, in MFA conformity factories, where they screen out any unstable weirdos with unhealthy interests in political matters. This is to avoid embarrassing episodes like Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize lecture (which, if you haven't read it, you probably should), and is why so much of contemporary literature is so well-behaved and instantly forgettable. This institutionalized screening system is also why the majority of journalists employed by mainstream media outlets understand, without having to be told, what they are, and are not, allowed to report. Chomsky explains how this system operates in What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream . It isn't a question of censorship the system operates on rewards and punishments, financial and emotional coercion, and subtler forms of intimidation. Making examples of non-cooperators is a particularly effective tactic. Ask any one of the countless women whose careers have been destroyed by Harvey Weinstein, or anyone who's been to graduate school, or worked at a major corporation.

Or let me provide you with a personal example.

A couple weeks ago, I googled myself (which we elitist wankers are wont to do), and noticed that two of my published books had disappeared from the "Knowledge Panel" that appears in the upper right of the search results. I also noticed that the people "People Also Search For" in the panel had changed. For years, consistently, the people you saw there had been a variety of other elitist literary wankers and leftist types. Suddenly, they were all rather right-wing types, people like Ilana Mercer and John Derbyshire, and other VDARE writers. So that was a little disconcerting.

I set out to contact the Google Search specialists to inquire about this mysterious development, and was directed to a series of unhelpful web pages directing me to other unhelpful pages with little boxes where you can write and submit a complaint to Google, which they will completely ignore. Being an elitist literary wanker, I also wrote to Google Books, and exchanged a number of cordial emails with an entity (let's call her Ms. O'Brien) who explained that, for "a variety of reasons," the "visibility" of my books (which had been consistently visible for many years) was subject to change from day to day, and that, regrettably, she couldn't assist me further, and that sending her additional cordial emails was probably a pointless waste of time. Ms. O'Brien was also pleased to report that my books had been restored to "visibility," which, of course, when I checked, they hadn't.

"Whatever," I told myself, "this is silly. It's probably just some IT thing, maybe Google Books updating its records, or something." However, I was still perplexed by the "People Also Search For" switcheroo, because it's kind of misleading to link my writing to that of a bunch of serious right-wingers. Imagine, if you were a dystopian sci-fi fan, and you googled me to check out my book and see what else I had written, and so on, and my Google "Knowledge Panel" popped up and displayed all these far-right VDARE folks. Unless you're a far-right VDARE type yourself, that might be a little bit of a turn-off.

At that point, I wondered if I was getting paranoid. Because Google Search runs on algorithms, right? And my political satire and commentary is published, not only in CounterPunch, but also in The Unz Review, where these far-right-wing types are also published. Moreover, my pieces are often reposted by what appear to be "Russia-linked" websites, and everyone knows that the Russians are all a bunch of white supremacists, right? On top of which, it's not like I'm Stephen King here. I am hardly famous enough to warrant the attention of any post-Orwellian corporate conspiracy to stigmatize anti-establishment dissent by manipulating how authors are displayed on Google (i.e., subtly linking them to white supremacists, anti-Semites, and others of that ilk).

So, okay, I reasoned, what probably happened was over the course of twenty-four hours, for no logical reason whatsoever, all the folks who had been googling me (along with other leftist and literary figures) suddenly stopped googling me, all at once, while, more or less at the exact same time, hundreds of right-wingers started googling me (along with those white supremacist types they had, theoretically, already been googling). That kind of makes sense when you think about it, right? I mean, Google couldn't be doing this intentionally. It must have been some sort of algorithm that detected this sudden, seismic shift in the demographic of people googling me.

Or, I don't know, does that possibly sound like a desperate attempt to rationalize the malicious behavior of an unaccountable, more or less god-like, global corporation that wields the power of life and death over my book sales and profile on the Internet (a more or less god-like global corporation that could do a lot of additional damage to my sales and reputation with complete impunity once the piece you're reading is published)? Or am I simply getting paranoid, and, in fact, I've developed a secret white supremacist fan base without my knowledge? Only Google knows for sure.

Such are the conundrums elitist literary wankers have to face these days that is, those of us wankers who haven't learned to keep our fucking mouths shut yet. Probably the safest course of action, regardless of whether I'm being paranoid or Google does have me on some kind of list, is to lay off the anti-corporatist essays, and definitely stop contributing to CounterPunch, not to mention The Unz Review, and probably also give up the whole dystopian satire novel thing, and ensure that my second novel conforms to the "normal" elitist wanker rules (which every literary wanker knows, but which, technically, do not exist). Who knows, if I play my cards right, maybe I can even sell the rights to Miramax, or okay, some other corporation.

Once that happens, I assume that Google will want to restore me to normal personhood, and return my books to visibility, and I will ride off into the Hollywood sunset with the Clintons, Clooneys, and Pichais, and maybe even Barack Obama himself, if he isn't off jet skiing with Richard Branson, or having dinner with Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos, who just happen to live right down the street, or hawking the TPP on television. By that time, CounterPunch and all those other "illegitimate" publications will have been forced onto the dark web anyway, so I won't be giving up all that much. I know, that sounds pretty cold and cynical, but my liberal friends will understand I just hope all my new white supremacist fans will find it in their hearts to forgive me.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

anonymous , • Disclaimer November 3, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT

Thank you for mustering the courage and then taking the time to spell out these outrages in a straightforward, unemotional way. I've appreciated the humor that centers your other essays, but there's not a damned thing funny about this.

But why are things as they are? With billions aplenty, our rulers must be driven by their libido dominandi. We're left to wonder only whether they get off more on ostracizing the Hopkinses, on buying the politicians, or on herding the sheep from bathrooms to statues to flags.

[Nov 04, 2017] Duty, Honor, Atrocity

Iraq war was the war for oil... Bush was just a puppet.
Notable quotes:
"... Erik Edstrom is a graduate of the West Point class of 2007. He was an infantry officer, Army Ranger, and Bronze Star Medal recipient who deployed to direct combat in Afghanistan. ..."
Nov 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

In George W. Bush's home state of Texas, if you are an ordinary citizen found guilty of capital murder, the mandatory sentence is either life in prison or the death penalty. If, however, you are a former president of the United States responsible for initiating two illegal wars of aggression, which killed 7,000 U.S. servicemen and at least 210,000 civilians , displaced more than 10 million people from their homes, condoned torture, initiated a global drone assassination campaign, and imprisoned people for years without substantive evidence or trial in Guantanamo Bay, the punishment evidently is to be given the Thayer Award at West Point.

On October 19th, George W. Bush traveled to the United States Military Academy, my alma mater , to receive the Sylvanus Thayer Award at a ceremony hosted by that school's current superintendent and presented on behalf of the West Point Association of Graduates. The honor is "given to a citizen whose outstanding character, accomplishments, and stature in the civilian community draw wholesome comparison to the qualities for which West Point strives."

... ... ...

Erik Edstrom is a graduate of the West Point class of 2007. He was an infantry officer, Army Ranger, and Bronze Star Medal recipient who deployed to direct combat in Afghanistan.

SolontoCroesus , October 23, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT
Half right.

Bush is a war criminal and should not be rewarded for upholding moral standards, he should be in prison or on the end of a piano wire.
But, the seed does not fall far from the tree (from which both should hang).

Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist and teaches/counsels ethics and morality to West Pointers and helps military personnel deal with post-engagement moral issues. Kilner published this essay a few days ago:

MORAL MISCONCEPTIONS: FIVE FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS CONFUSE MORAL JUDGMENTS ON WAR

https://www.ausa.org/articles/moral-misconceptions-five-flawed-assumptions-confuse-moral-judgments-war

imo nearly every argument Kilner makes to refute the "5 misconceptions" are childishly simplistic; some rely on distortions or omissions of key facts.
For example, Kilner writes:

Misconception 4
Motives must be pure:
The 1990–91 First Gulf War was a paradigm case of a just war. Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait, and the U.S. and other countries assisted Kuwaiti forces in liberating their country and re-establishing their government. Critics of the war claim that the United States' involvement was motivated by a desire to keep oil prices low. Even if they are right, would it matter?

No, the Gulf War was NOT a "paradigm case of a just war." Just war theory / Jus Ad Bellum Convention holds that the just war must:

have just cause, be a last resort, be declared by a proper authority, possess right intention, have a reasonable chance of success, and the end must be proportional to the means used. . . http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H2

First of all, if you have to lie to gain assent to wage war, then any moral claim to having a just cause is null.
Incubator babies??

In almost every other way the Persian Gulf war waged by George H W Bush violated jus ad bellum principles but especially:

War should always be a last resort. This connects intimately with presenting a just cause – all other forms of solution must have been attempted prior to the declaration of war.

As Vernon Loeb recorded -- and the George H W Bush archives as examined by historian Jeff Engel affirm, King Hussein of Jordan, in concert with other Arab leaders, had achieved a resolution to which Saddam would have agreed, and repeatedly asked Bush to let the Arabs take care of their own conflict. Likewise, Mikhael Gorbachev persisted to the point of annoyance in calling Bush and urging him NOT to go to war to resolve the conflict. Bush shouted at him and ignored his advice.

All other options had NOT been exhausted.

The Berlin wall had fallen, USSR and Gorbachev no longer had power to counterbalance US power; George H W Bush was King of the Mountain and he wielded his power recklessly. The world is still reeling -- and hundreds of thousands are dead, because of his reckless disregard of thousand-year old principles of Justice in War.

It's astonishing that an ethicist who teaches West Pointers did not make this basic analysis.

In summary, if Lt. Col. Pete Kilner is representative of the "moral foundation" provided West Point cadets, the institution -- and the United States that, according to a Gallup poll, trusts the military more than any other institution in USA -- are in deeper trouble than Erik Erdstrom comprehends.

reiner Tor , October 23, 2017 at 8:06 pm GMT
Previously had the impression that Dubya was a dumb but decent person, manipulated by others. I didn't know for example his eager participation in the speechmaking/lecture circus. This mental picture has changed somewhat in recent years, but I remained greatly ignorant of a lot of details. Now these two articles about him shed some light how he really is a piece of shit, just like the others. Maybe not so extremely dumb, though.
willem1 , October 23, 2017 at 9:20 pm GMT
This article is (sadly) on the money. However, it is just another illustration revealing the mockery that most such prestigious awards have made of themselves in recent years. Awarding Barack Obama the Nobel Prize was one recent instance of this – a president that at one point had us engaged in seven wars at once. But at least in that case, it can be claimed that the award was aspirational, as the totality of his "accomplishment" did not become a matter of record until after the award was made. In the case described above, the honor is being awarded with full knowledge of the recipient's history.
SolontoCroesus , October 23, 2017 at 10:37 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Trump's brutal comment to the dead soldier in Florida was on the money: That's what you signed up for. It would be gratifying to think that Trump knew exactly what he was saying; Scott Adams thinks Trump is a master communicator. Conversely, tragic to hear the Florida Rep gripe that she was so upset at Trump's callousness because she "had mentored the young man and helped him get in the military." That's just like helping you get a job with Goldman Sachs, right? No risk, no moral quandaries. re Lt Col Kilner -- he's Chhristiian: here's a piece he wrote for Christianity Today:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/december-web-only/war-is-hell-but-it-can-be-heaven.html

War Is Hell But It Can Be Heaven

peterAUS , October 23, 2017 at 11:51 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

Thank you for that link. A VERY GOOD article. A gem really. Some parts I found particularly good:

This insight is that combat deployments affect our souls so deeply because they allow us to taste something of heaven and hell, in ways that civilian life rarely does. The profound purpose, unity, and love that soldiers in a small unit experience is almost impossible to replicate outside of war; it is a foretaste of heaven. At the same time, the dehumanizing suffering and apparent absence of God that characterize a war zone instruct veterans on how awful human existence can be; there's a reason we say "war is hell."

Soldiers are pawns in a conflict started by others.

And for the first time in most soldiers' lives, we encounter undisguised evil.

Hidden beneath the ugly destructiveness of war, however, is a sublime beauty that is known only to the veterans who have experienced it.

The greater the dangers and adversity that soldiers face and overcome, the greater those bonds. Some soldiers become closer to each other than to their own families.

, it explains why soldiers want to be deployed. We're not warmongers; we're longing for another taste of heaven alongside other warriors. Second, it explains why life outside of war can seem so mundane and even meaningless. Having gone through heaven and hell, our everyday lives can feel like limbo.

We've seen what humans are capable of, for better and for worse. Reflecting on our experiences of war, we are alternately inspired and appalled. We have glimpsed what was previously unimaginable: the happiness of heaven, the desolation of hell.

Compliments to Lt.Col Kilner.

wraith67 , October 24, 2017 at 10:06 am GMT
I'm not sure why that's supposed to be surprising. Leadership across swathes of institutions has abdicated their responsibility to lead or govern and instead adopted baby-sitting and appeasement.
Pete Kilner , Website November 3, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

Solonto: You've posted more than 2,600 comments on this website? "You" are likely a group of Russians working full time to sow discord. But let's charitably assume that you're a real person. Your knowledge of the history of the 1990-91 Gulf War is terrible. I assume that you were too young to remember the events leading up to it. Watch President George H. W. Bush's speech to the world and learn:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?15723-1/president-bush-announces-beginning-persian-gulf-air-war

That may be the best explanation in terms of Just War you'll ever hear a politician give. He checks every block of jus ad bellum.

Also, about your snide comment, "Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist." I have a masters degree in philosophical ethics from an excellent program, and I've researched, written on, and taught ethics for 20 years. I may "style" myself a comedian or good dancer, but I'm pretty well-credentialed as an ethicist.

Pete Kilner , November 3, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Thanks, Peter. If you want to read more, I have a column on professional ethics in Army Magazine. You can access my articles at: https://www.ausa.org/people/lt-col-pete-kilner

Cheers,
Pete

LauraMR , November 4, 2017 at 4:34 am GMT
So what.

Obama turned war itself into a prolonged assassination campaign via remote drone and he awarded himself every conceivable medal. Previous administrations successfully circumvented genocide as a crime against humanity by raining annihilation from the skies. Which part of the government of our country do you fail to understand?

Reg Cζsar , November 4, 2017 at 4:53 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

"This past Summer, after months of private discussions about POW treatment at Gitmo, the Red Cross openly declared the US Government in violation of the Geneva Conventions based upon first hand reports from Cuba "

Why doesn't the Red Cross do something useful, like making the same claim about Puerto Rico? Then we'd be forced to grant them independence. It's way overdue.

Reg Cζsar , November 4, 2017 at 4:56 am GMT
@SolontoCroesus

Bush is a war criminal and should not be rewarded for upholding moral standards, he should be in prison or on the end of a piano wire.

So how is he different from Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry S Truman, who are considered heroes?

utu , November 4, 2017 at 5:25 am GMT
@Pete Kilner

I was around 1990/91 and I followed what was happening. I do not agree with SolontoCroesus take on Bush and Gulf War. I already once had exchanged comments with him about it, I think, but my points did not make a dent.

Bush never looked thrilled to go to this war. I had impression that his arms had to be twisted. He seemed like he would not mind letting Saddam Hussein slide. It was his meeting with Margaret Thatcher in Aspen that changed everything. Bush built broad coalition including many Arab and Muslim nations and went to war. He head to give $500 millions to Israel to keep them away and not retaliating against Iraq in order to not upset Arab allies in the coalition.

The war was won. Bush did not go to Bagdad but only liberated Kuwait. It was reported in papers that his popularity hit 90% which was 20% more than what Hitler got after the Anschluss of Austria in 1938, as I remember thinking this at that time.

In summer 1991 Bush decided to use his political capital and tried to say no Israel illegal settlements by holding money slated for Israel. Yitzhak Shamir got furious and the Lobby attacked. Everybody was against hime. Most people did not know what was happening. Bush backed off and instead of turning to American people and leveling with them on what was going on he only complained that he was all alone in WH.

It was decided (I do not know how, when and where and by whom but it was decided nevertheless) that Bush could not be trusted with the 2nd term. He did not take advantage of the golden opportunity to occupy Iraq and then he had audacity to challenge Israel which last time happened in early summer 1993 by JFK when said no to the development of nuclear weapons by Israel. So everything was done what had to be done for him to lose. And he knew that it would be so. He did not fight. He got impatient with the campaign and looked at his watch during the debate to show his disdain. He had no chance to win. Ross Perot played the same role as Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 election to deprive Taft the 2nd term. Unlike Roosevelt Ross Perot probably did not know what role he was cast to play.

Why Bush did what he did? Why he did not occupy Iraq? Why he challenged Israel? My take is that he really did not want this war. That he really believed that after the wall coming down and Soviet Union falling apart America can change the course and start reducing military spending. He seemed to really believe in the peace dividends. The end of the Cold War was his greatest achievement and it was ruined by Saddam Hussein invasion of Kuwait. So the most important question is to find out who TF whispered to Saddam Hussein's ear to convince him that he will get away with his attack on Kuwait? The same people who wanted Iraq destroyed who eventually had it destroyed 12 years later and all those who did not want peace dividends and who feared the cuts in military spending? I think Bush knew who was really behind Hussain? Who screwed up his vision of post Cold War peace, who deprived him of his legacy. So he said no to Israel when he had the highest approval rating in recent history but then he chickened out. He was intimidated by something. In retrospect he was not a bad guy but he wasted possibly the last opportunity to have America extricated from the iron grip of the Lobby.

jilles dykstra , November 4, 2017 at 6:47 am GMT
Just read the chapter on the Vietnam war by Howard Zinn A Peoples History of the USA. Or read an Eisenhower letter, written after WWII, 'we should have killed much more Germans'. James Bacque, ΄Der geplante Tod, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in amerikanischen und franzφsischen Lagern 1945 – 1946, Frankfurt/M, 1989, 1994 (Other losses, Toronto, 1989)
jilles dykstra , November 4, 2017 at 6:50 am GMT
@SolontoCroesus

As Chomsky said ' according to Neurenberg standards any USA president should have been hanged'.

Realist , November 4, 2017 at 7:51 am GMT
@reiner Tor

"Maybe not so extremely dumb, though."

Oh he's stupid alright. His cerebral prowess is being burnished to further the Deep State cause. Like father like son.

Greg Bacon , Website November 4, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT

The United States Military Academy is, or at least should be, a steward of American military values

But they are upholding American values, like lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, which is what many American presidents, but definitely since President Clinton, have engaged in around the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the liars with Operation Inherent Resolve, the gangster outfit that is overseeing the 'Wars for Wall Street and Israel' in SW Asia and the ME, bomb to smithereens civilians on a daily basis, then get in front of the cameras and LIE that they didn't do it, it was those Rooskies. Then, when they're outed with evidence, they LIE again, promising to investigate and that's the last you'll hear of the latest American-made mass murder.
Aren't all those command types at Operation Butcher Muslims, sorry, Inherent Resolve West Point or Annapolis graduates, that lie, cheat, steal and murder on a daily basis, yet they get their chests festooned with medals from a grateful nation for being basically, unhinged psycho-killers, so you see, West Point is upholding American values.

RealAmerican , November 4, 2017 at 10:56 am GMT
I have read elsewhere that Mr. Bush had the largest contingent of rabbis in his administration, as advisors behind the scenes, to provide him with moral guidance. What is a person to make of that? Was he that obtuse?
Thank you Mr. Edstrom!
WorkingClass , November 4, 2017 at 11:41 am GMT

The Thayer may be one of the most important awards that hardly anyone has ever heard of.

Not anymore. Sort of like the Nobel Peace Prize. Dark humor.

jacques sheete , November 4, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT
@peterAUS

Thanks for posting those excerpts.

Most of them annoy the bleep outta me because they seem like more of the sappy (unctuous even),over romanticized, self aggrandizing, claptrap that we've come to expect from functionaries of the state.

This, type of nonsense, in particular, galls me.:

Hidden beneath the ugly destructiveness of war, however, is a sublime beauty that is known only to the veterans who have experienced it.

What a disgustingly hollow load of bulshit that is! Oh, but the rest of us, who haven't experienced the "sublime beauty" of war, aren't counted amongst the anointed elite who know things the rest of us mere mortals don't.

"Sublime beauty?"

Who do you think yer kidding? I was a grunt (volunteer, not drafted) in Vietnam, and I never saw any beauty in war, sublime, mundane, or otherwise.

Here's how a man with integrity views the military.:

"Military life in general depraves men. It places them in conditions of complete idleness, that is, absence of all rational and useful work; frees them from their common human duties, also puts them into conditions of servile obedience to those of higher ranks than themselves."

― Leo Tolstoy Resurrection Or, The Awakening, 1899
In 1851 Tolstoy and his older brother went to the Caucasus where he joined the Russian army as an artillery officer.
In 1854, during the Crimean War Tolstoy transferred to Wallachia to fight against the French, British and Ottoman Empire and defend Sevastopol.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1872

Here's what military establishments are really about; I wonder if they deal with this at West Point, or in "ethics" classes.

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

James Madison, Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465

Standing armies are un-American, and no amount of cloyingly romantic slight of hand with the truth will change it. Here's all one needs to know about the "ethics" of state sponsored terrorism.:

Wherever an army is established, it introduces a revolution in manners, corrupts the morals, propagates every species of vice, and degrades the human character."

Mercy Otis Warren, Revolution-era historian,
History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 1, Ch3, 1805

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1872

Ethics my tush!:

" I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism."

Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

So, you see, the truth is nothing new. Anyone with a sense of ethics wouldn't try to smear lipstick on a pig.

jacques sheete , November 4, 2017 at 11:59 am GMT
@Greg Bacon

But they are upholding American values, like lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, which is what many American presidents, but definitely since President Clinton, have engaged in around the world.

True, but one could argue that Lincoln was the first of the worst. Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and FDR took hypocrisy and mockery of "American values" to new depths and it's been downhill since then.

We have to face the fact that none of us is fit to wield the levers of so much power. To think otherwise is positively deranged.

jacques sheete , November 4, 2017 at 12:08 pm GMT
@Pete Kilner

Also, about your snide comment, "Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist." I have a masters degree in philosophical ethics from an excellent program, and I've researched, written on, and taught ethics for 20 years.

I must tell you that the comment, whether snide or not, is spot on.

Your other credentials are worth about as much as Bush's award or O-bomb-a's "peace" prize, and any adult should know that.

What're the ethics of farces?

n230099 , November 4, 2017 at 12:19 pm GMT
Still, as criminal as Bush and Obama's actions were, between Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy/Johnson, there are way more Americans dead for nothing than these pikers killed.
DESERT FOX , November 4, 2017 at 12:45 pm GMT
Bush jr. and Bush sr. are both war criminals and were front men for the Zionists who really control this country and both were complicit with Israel and the deep state in 911.

They are evil incarnate with satan and also their henchman Cheney, straight from hell.

TG , November 4, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT
Whatever one thinks of Trump, one must appreciate the public service that he did in utterly humiliating Jeb! Bush and pretty much putting a stake in the heart of the Bush political dynasty. One takes ones guilty pleasures where one finds them.
jacques sheete , November 4, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX

All of your comment is true and I'd like to add that the fetid scent of Zionist sympathies can be detected at least as far back as Wilson and FDR as well, and probably even goes further back.

This quote is interesting though I do not mean to conflate Judaism with Zionism.:

We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level

In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism. The Jew has already emancipated himself in a Jewish way.

"The Jew, who in Vienna, for example, is only tolerated, determines the fate of the whole Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German state, decides the fate of Europe. While corporations and guilds refuse to admit Jews, or have not yet adopted a favorable attitude towards them, the audacity of industry mocks at the obstinacy of the material institutions." (Bruno Bauer, The Jewish Question, p. 114)

This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

-Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question, First Published: February, 1844 in Deutsch-Franzφsische Jahrbόcher; https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

EliteCommInc. , November 4, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT
A someone very fond of the Bush family, I have to admit, as someone who opposed both conflict (one outright) the other as to scale and purpose) this article is a very heavy indictment, less of the executive but of members of congress, the foreign policy establishment and the military advocates for invasion (men and women alike).

I have always thought that Pres Bush ignored his bet instincts on the matter and was ill advised. I don't know what recompense the country will garner for our actions, but I don't think it has yet come. We need to pull up and consider the dark space into which are knee-jerking our way into.

-- –

However, I don't think this is about Pres. Bush or even a stamp of approval on needless and careless interventions as much as it an attempt to wedge the military against Pres Trump or tangentially express discomfit by some in the higher echelons with the Pres.

Deeply appreciated this a article. No argument against those invasion penetrated the cloud of revenge the country was bent on exacting. And it is deeply troubling – when the case against invasion was so blatantly clear.

anonymous , Disclaimer November 4, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

At West Point, it's still possible to believe that we are fighting in the interests of the Afghan people

If that's true then they are mentally deficient. Mercenaries and the mentally defective working under the leadership of the morally corrupt, the perfect dance partners.

jacques sheete , November 4, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT
I apologize to those who may find my comments excessive, but some of the attitudes expressed here need to be confronted. I regret that I can't do it in person.

To those who postulate such insubstantial, quasi-profound, faux-poetic pornography, if not swinishly orgasmic, fanciful hooey as:

combat deployments affect our souls so deeply because they allow us to taste something of heaven and hell, in ways that civilian life rarely does. The profound purpose, unity, and love that soldiers in a small unit experience is almost impossible to replicate outside of war; it is a foretaste of heaven.

we're longing for another taste of heaven alongside other warriors . Second, it explains why life outside of war can seem so mundane and even meaningless. Having gone through heaven and hell , our everyday lives can feel like limbo.

Having gone through heaven and hell, our everyday lives can feel like limbo.

I say that Aristophanes, to name just one, saw through the self adulating humbug, millennia ago.

SAUSAGE-SELLER
you wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist , that Demos may see nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for his bread. But if ever peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort himself once more with good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings you have kept him out of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage, he will rise, burning with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is for this you rock him to sleep with your lies.

- Aristophanes, The Knights, 424 BC

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/knights.html

Mulegino1 , November 4, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT
Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all fit in the category of war criminal, and were there such a thing as authentic and impartial international justice, they could all be in the dock of a new Nuremberg Tribunal – albeit one without the kangaroo court and vae victis characteristics of the eponymous one.
Ris_Eruwaedhiel , November 4, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT
@peterAUS

George Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam and his dad served as a naval aviator during WWII. Quite a difference. At one time, the people who started wars fought in them. The last English king to serve in combat was the much-maligned Richard III, killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. James IV of Scotland was killed at the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513. George II was commander at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743.

Prince Harry saw service in Afghanistan and Andrew in the Falklands. So, the denigrated Royals have a better track record than the elites in a democracy. In Robert Heinlein's Starship Trooper novel, only people who served their society in a dangerous position had the right to vote. That would weed out almost of the "cloud people" who dominate the West.

Ris_Eruwaedhiel , November 4, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT
@utu

I remember James Baker's comment: "F -- the Jews, they didn't vote for us anyway."

MEexpert , November 4, 2017 at 3:09 pm GMT
Bush II could be called a war criminal by reason of stupidity. The real culprit is the bastard standing next to him in the picture. He controlled George W. Bush and was the real President. To this day, he continues to push for war against Iran.
Don Bacon , November 4, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT
Blaming Bush for starting wars is sort of like blaming bin Laden for 9/11 or Putin for Hilary's defeat. There were a lot more people involved in recent and ongoing US wars, including many people from the "opposing" party, Joe Biden and Al Gore come to mind.
anonymous , Disclaimer November 4, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Previously had the impression that Dubya was a dumb but

He's obviously no intellectual and it's unlikely he's ever read any book on his own. He appears to lack curiosity whatever his mental level may be. His speeches, like everyone else, are written by others and just simply read as an actor reads their lines. However, his job was to deliver and that he did in spades. He ratcheted up the security state to a historic level and diverted trillions from the US treasury for the biggest gravy train ever. It's an income transfer scheme, from the masses to the upper classes, all while scaring everyone with nonexistent hobgoblins. He did nothing about unchecked illegal immigration, giving his constituency, the haves and the have-mores, their cheap labor. Historians will argue as to who the worst president of all time was and Bush's name will figure prominently. He'll be seen as one of the downward turning points in American history, a person who ruined what was left of American credibility and pride. He had a lot of enablers though, and did not act alone, standing astride a mountain of bones. So, smart or not, the evil nature of this man will continue to cast it's shadow for years to come.

Carlton Meyer , Website November 4, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT
I checked the web and found this award often goes to the most despicable neocon in the nation. I expect McCain to win next year.

Sylvanus Thayer Award Recipients

I stopped with Tom Brokaw because that seems odd to most. Watch this funny and insightful Jimmy Dore clip about how Brokaw was a no newsman, but a Pentagon bootlicker, hence the award.

sample , November 4, 2017 at 4:28 pm GMT
I think what we can all be thankful is the fact that we are no longer dependant on the NY time/Washington Post etc to see the World through their prizes l
europeasant , November 4, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT
President Bush may have been dumb or naive or he may have been smart. It's difficult to know what a person really thinks. The Iraq war was a mistake but Bush the Younger also pushed for implementation of other policies which look to be highly dubious. Does anyone remember "No Child left Behind" or "The Housing Gap"? These two policies were hairbrained to say the least. Only a foolish person could ever believe in such nonsense. He truly believed that we were all created equal, he was they ultimate champion of the "Blank Slate" theory. A delusional fool who I actually voted for in 2000.
Yes I think he was "A True Believer" in Social Justice causes.
Ris_Eruwaedhiel , November 4, 2017 at 5:38 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I daresay that (((Howard Zinn))) approved of that.

utu , November 4, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT
@Ris_Eruwaedhiel

I daresay that (((Howard Zinn))) approved of that.

Rather not. Zinn on one of his last missions as a member of USAF bomber crew was sent to bomb with napalm large groupings of German soldiers who were just awaiting to surrender somewhere in northern France. The front line past them and was much further West. He did not like it at all. He thought that the only purpose of the mission was to test how the new napalm worked.

nsa , November 4, 2017 at 6:07 pm GMT
West Point? Isn't that some place where the Jooies indoctrinate their latest crop of servile Goy Gurkhas? Change those posters to: Uncle Samuel Wants You with a pic of Samuel in his beanie pointing a bony finger out at you, the suckers.
J1234 , November 4, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT

George W. Bush Receives a Character Award at West Point

He's a character alright.

peterAUS , November 4, 2017 at 6:16 pm GMT
@Ris_Eruwaedhiel

Agree.

And, you definitely have a point here:

In Robert Heinlein's Starship Trooper novel, only people who served their society in a dangerous position had the right to vote. That would weed out almost of the "cloud people" who dominate the West.

Now, there is one country which adheres to that rule a bit:Israel. Interesting, isn't it? Easy, especially on sites like this, to heap abuse on, say, Netanyahu. Just from Wikipedia, though:

Netanyahu joined the Israel Defense Forces shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, and became a team leader in the Sayeret Matkal special forces unit . Netanyahu took part in many missions, including Operation Inferno (1968), Operation Gift (1968) and Operation Isotope (1972), during which he was shot in the shoulder . Netanyahu fought on the front lines in the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, taking part in special forces raids along the Suez Canal, and then leading a commando assault deep into Syrian territory.[3][4] Netanyahu achieved the rank of captain before being discharged.

You have to give them: they got that right. Now, we'll see, say, 20 replies with 20 links each about .. .them . Will keep the article busy though. Interested in topic could just skip them.

edNels , November 4, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT
Thanks for the article about how the elite soldiers are morally conditioned in these days.

Did they teach anything about General Smedley Butler? Some of his second thoughts he had?

What's the matter with these academics who run everthing now, are they senile?

Or, much worse, (maybe not though,) there is a policy on high, to effect the intentional dilution, and then destruction of standards. Prominently, auspicious prizes given to idiots and worse scoundrels! what's that do to the mental and moral health of the youths, will they wise up and see through it and not show up?
No, just replaced with a lower order, who will be more monstrous .

All this decay of stuff is everywhere, who benefits Cui Bono? They don't need smart soldiers what with robots and AI etc. and the real work is in dumbing down the peeps, for the eventual enclosures .

Antiwar7 , November 4, 2017 at 8:16 pm GMT
Really well written. I honor the author's service in writing this piece.

Also, I thank him for pointing out that W. Bush shares another thing with Adolf Hitler, besides war-mongering: painting.

Sane Left Libertarian , November 4, 2017 at 9:18 pm GMT
Most of it's already been said above, but we've been a war nation for more than a generation. Mr. Bush's predecessor bombed Iraq for years. Bush himself (or Cheney or whoever) turned it into an official and seemingly permanent war, using what are now known to be bold-faced lies. Torture as a matter of routine also started during Cheney's reign. Nobel Peace Prize Obama ramped us up to 6 or 7 wars, normalized drone murder, and in his usual unctuous way told us to stop harping on Abu Graib ("It's important we don't get too sanctimonious"). Now Mr. Trump is starting/threatening even more war, complete with nukes, and bragging about the torture.

My point is that someone we don't even see is calling the shots, for all of them. These guys on TV just work for them, and are paid handsomely. The awards they get mean even less than their elections. I don't see us (the proletariat, wage slaves, trying to raise a family) ever even figuring out what's going on, much less doing anything about it.

lavoisier , Website November 4, 2017 at 9:29 pm GMT
"The former president deserves a cold metal bench in a stockade awaiting trial, not an award and a warm round of applause from the academy. No coffee table books featuring his paintings -- a perverse form of macabre exhibitionism -- will atone for his actions. If West Point and its Association of Graduates want to maintain any credible pretense of adhering to the values they claim to espouse, they should revoke the most recent Thayer Award immediately."

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Excellent essay. What has happened to West Point to act this way?? No one with any sense could think of Bush as anything other than a moron at best, a traitorous moron at worst. There must be an explanation–FOLLOW THE MONEY.

[Nov 02, 2017] JFK conspiracy

Notable quotes:
"... I just wanted to commend you for organizing all of these Points of Interest. It's crazy to think that it's been over fifty years and there are still people keeping up the good fight for truth. That is how you honor the memory of someone like JFK, a relentless drive for truth. I just want everyone in this thread to take a single moment to appreciate themselves for what they're doing here. A lot of researchers that have passed with time are being honored with posts like this across the internet today; it's pretty phenomenal to see this all playing out. ..."
"... I guess what I'm trying to say is that when they killed JFK, they killed themselves! ..."
"... JFK was disliked by numerous nefarious groups, but he really pissed off the military industrial complex, intelligence agencies, and radicals like the Irgun. The Dimona conflict isn't mentioned as much, but in my opinion it was one of the top reasons he was taken out. I didn't know about it for awhile. ..."
"... Israel was determined to get nuclear weapons, and JFK was not going to allow that to happen, as he plainly told Israel's Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, in this letter, of May, 1963. ..."
"... He followed up with another letter to newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Eshkol in July, 1963, demanding that the US be allowed to inspect the facility. ..."
"... Since then I've always wondered what files, or information on the assassination may have been stowed away there. Personally, I think anything relevant to the truth of the JFK assassination is long since gone. George HW Bush "reviewed" the files within his first few days in office, as well as the aforementioned JFK Library shenanigans, I just think anything ..."
"... The CIA is essentially government-sanctioned mafia. They aren't going to drop any bombs on themselves. I assure you. ..."
Nov 02, 2017 | www.reddit.com

Here is the page that was scrubbed from wikipedia - " US Covert Involvement in Foreign Regime Changes " - it is a history of the mess made by the CIA around the world - in support large US corporations.

Ethyl_Mercaptan 6 days ago (21 children)

I feel like a lot of the current small "conspiracies" (including some relating to Trump/Clinton) can really be traced back to the military-industrial complex.

Sure. Look at the last several presidencies.

This stuff is hidden in plain sight.

montrev 6 days ago (14 children)
BIS, a proven CIA front company
EvilPhd666 6 days ago (2 children)
Afghan - poppy - opoiods - heroin. What do you see on TV all over? Drug ads. Why? During the political debates we see defense contractors commercials, as if I'm going to go out and buy an F-35. It's all along the same and it's been for a while. Even Smedley Butler warned of Wall Street trying to bribe generals and military / Intel personnel to make a coup for their bucks.
axolotl_peyotl 6 days ago (2 children)
Great comment.

It should be noted that in addition to working with Khrushchev, it's rumored that Kennedy and the Soviet leader were discussing embarking on a joint moon mission...something that flew directly in the face of the extremely lucrative "Cold War" narrative.

SketchTeno 6 days ago (1 child)
That would have been such an even more amazing step for mankind. Omg.
major_lift 5 days ago (0 children)
Makes me sad to think about all the potential wasted on some ploy to gain power.
hamtaylor 6 days ago (6 children)
100% believe he was murdered for pursuing peace with Cuba, Russia and the world. It's a hell of a story, and a great write up.
GuitarWisdom 6 days ago (12 children)
This is also supported by the so-called Iron Mountain Report, allegedly commissioned by Kennedy to explore the possibility of moving to a peacetime government for good.

To summarize, the panel went way beyond its mission and did a thorough examination of why governments are so bloodthirsty and how they came to be this way, ultimately coming to the conclusion that governments and war are inextricably linked so that to stop making war would begin to render government unnecessary.

Hambone_Malone 6 days ago (9 children)
Got a link to any of this? This hits the nail on the head man. This is what it's about. Keep the population in fear and they will always rely on the government and a central authority. The state is the ultimate evil.
Stickmanville 5 days ago (4 children)
Lenin came to that conclusion: " So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state ."

If you want to know why governments engage in imperialism, I suggest this text .

michaelst2256 6 days ago (0 children)
Well done. I made a timeline from 1947 when the CIA was created by president Truman until 1968 when his brother Robert was assassinated: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/78jins/jfk_assassination_timeline_facts_with_reliable/?st=J98NTR49&sh=ad006de5https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/78jins/jfk_assassination_timeline_facts_with_reliable/?st=J98NTR49&sh=ad006de5
extremekc 6 days ago (1 child)
Here is the page that was scrubbed from wikipedia - " US Covert Involvement in Foreign Regime Changes " - it is a history of the mess made by the CIA around the world - in support large US corporations.
Redferick 6 days ago (3 children)
Even shorter? He figured out who ran the world, ("hidden hand" during ww1 &2) spoke of them directly (secret societies) and decided that he didn't like who they were how they did it. CIA drug running ruining American lives, Northwoods, Paperclip, MKULTRA, etc. he knew exactly how it worked his family were insiders during the war. He decided to take them on and get rid of the secrecy and smash them into a thousand pieces. So they took him out, and the same still run the world.
Virtusvitium 6 days ago (0 children)
While I didn't know that much in detail, I can to a similar conclusion as you. The straw that broke the camel's back was Cuba. JFK would have literally changed the way the world ran if he had lived.
GirlNumber20 6 days ago (0 children)

the list in wikipedia that used to exist has been scrubbed

I was livid when they deleted that. I thought about writing a post about it here, but this sub turned into all Trump cheerleading all the time, so what's the point? Someone archived the original article, though, including all of the excellent references. It's here .

AnonDocs 6 days ago (1 child)
Look we all know what's going to happen. They will spin a story to where it was incompetence and not conspiracy. They will admit the government covered up evidence but they will give a boring false reason for this: to hide that they already had early knowledge of the attack. It's their default line. I 100% guarantee this is how it will go down. It's boring but still sinister enough to satisfy the average Joe. They'll say they knew about Oswald but fucked up by not acting soon enough on Intel, and then they covered it up to hide the mistake. The deep state says this every time. Why expect this will be different?
MtlGab 6 days ago (21 children)
Check the end of this: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32113033.pdf
ar40 6 days ago (2 children)

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32113033.pdf

Convenient snippy snipp on the end of that puppy.

BradyMead 5 days ago (2 children)
Must have been accidentally deleted, and then accidentally dropped the physical papers on the floor, then accidentally burnt them all
ezerak 6 days ago (15 children)
Things to look for today:

At the CAPA Press Conference at the National Press Club in March former ARRB chairman Judge John Tunheim discussed these possible items as not being turned over to the ARRB or possibly hidden for this release:

  1. Oswald CIA Office of Security File Volume 5, last seen by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which recently garnered some publicity.
  2. Files of the first chief council to HSCA Richard Sprague, who took his files home with him when he was fired for conducting a real investigation. The Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB), responsible for identifying and obtaining records, missed them because they confused the attorney Richard Sprague with the computer programmer of the same name whose extensive files on the assassination are part of the JFK Collection. Sprague's HSCA files, paid for by taxpayers that rightfully belong at the Archives, are currently in Sprague's Philadelphia law office.
  3. Soviet KGB records of Oswald's time in Moscow and Minsk that were obtained by Norman Mailer are now in the possession of Mailer's former associate Lawrence Schiller, who refused to turn them over to the ARRB.
  4. Unedited AF1 Radio Transmission tapes from November 22, 1963. Two different edited versions of these tapes are available, one on cassette tapes released by the LBJ Library and a reel to reel version discovered among the personnel effects of General Clifton. The White House Communications Agency (WHCA) is responsible for these tapes.
  5. Church Committee interviews with Gerry Patrick Hemming, Orest Pena, Immigration and Naturalization Service and Customs officials, and other Church Committee testimony are missing.
  6. U.S. Customs records on Cubans requested by the HSCA were so voluminous they couldn't be given to the HSCA, but now consist of only a few records at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
  7. The audio tape recording of Gaeton Fonzi's interview with Mitch Werbell was erased and the transcript is missing, only Fonzi's notes remain.
  8. John Newman says that Eisenhower era reports on assassinations of foreign leaders that he copied years ago are now missing from the NARA, and he believes such records are being deliberately stolen.
  9. Bill Simpich notes that CIA Mexico City Station (MCS) cable to Headquarters from September 26-30, 1963 are missing as well as cables from CIA HQ to MCS, JMWAVE to HQ and HQ to JMWAVE cable traffic on the same dates, and all cable traffic between MCS and JMWAVE between September 26 and October 20 and November 22 to December 30, 1963 are missing.
  10. The CIA's study of the July 20, 1944 attempt to kill Hitler to be adapted for use against Castro, as mentioned by Desmond FitzGerald in his September 23, 1963 briefing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the subject of a FOIA lawsuit by the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC).
  11. Office of Naval Intelligence - ONI Defector File, as identified as an assassination record by Navy Lt. Com. T. Pike, but never turned over to the Archives.
  12. ONI 119 investigation reports on Oswald's defection and the assassination, as referred to by the Navy investigators who wrote them and the officers who read them.
  13. The assassination files of the Director of the ONI Rufus Taylor, whose office had undercover agents working in Jack Ruby's Carousel Club, installing and maintaining the sound system, who reported, in the only surviving document, that Oswald was seen in the club.
  14. James Mastrovito - the Secret Service Agent responsible for the SS records on the assassination acknowledged to the ARRB that he "culled" - destroyed many records and flushed into a food processor a vile of material labeled "JFK brain - Armed Forces Institute of Pathology," with no repercussions.
  15. The Secret Service destroyed many records, including the Advance Reports for the Tampa trip after the JFK Act was passed by Congress, although copies of some of these records were found among the personal effects of Agent Gerald Blaine, who wrote the Tampa Advance report.
  16. The "Homme Report" from a Congressional subcommittee reportedly contains information on Robert F. Kennedy's knowledge and approval of CIA plans to kill Fidel Castro.
  17. RFK's date book for 1963 is missing from the Kennedy Library.
  18. Four boxes of witness testimony turned over to NARA in April 1965 by US Attorney now missing.
  19. OSI - Office of Special Investigation military intelligence review of Oswald's State Department file is missing.
  20. When former US Marine officer Oliver Revill joined the FBI he reported on an investigation of Oswald and files on him at a US Marine base in North Carolina, records not in the public record.
  21. The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel had documents excluded from the Warren Commission, according to a memo sent to ARRB and NARA archivist Steve Tilly, "more stuff lost in the shuffle," says Malcolm Blunt.
  22. The ARRB tried to obtain Oswald's New Orleans court records but were told they were accidentally destroyed when sent for microfilming.
  23. Army Intelligence files on Oswald were kept from the Warren Commission and then "routinely" destroyed.
  24. In 1976 when the CIA Counterintelligence staff were reviewing JFK assassination files the Security Office did not hand over their "secondary files" on Oswald, aka "research files," that were not seen by HSCA or any other component of the CIA, as Malcolm Blunt says "they are like a whole separate agency."
  25. Larry Haapanen notes, White House Situation Room Incoming-Outgoing Message Log for 11/22/63-11/30/63 (the extant log for November 1963 ends abruptly on the morning of 11/22/63).
  26. Records of the Dallas-based 488th Military (Strategic) Intelligence Detachment (Counter-Intelligence) unit histories and rosters 1962-1963.
  27. Records of FBI wiretapping of Oswald while in police custody as well as post assassination taps of Ruth Paine and Michael Paine and Marina and Robert Oswald phones, as reported by Irving police chief Paul Barger.
  28. White House Communications Agency (WHCA) records for 11/22/63 including tape of Secret Service motorcade security radio channel that included Roy Kellerman talking as the third shot was fired, and radios in LBJ's car, the AF1 cockpit and the WHCA base station at the Dallas Sheraton hotel.
  29. Missing Mexico City records include LILYRIC (Soviet embassy photo records, Sept. '63); LIFEAT (wiretape records, for all of 1963), daily wiretap summaries for 1963, and records withheld by ARRB at request of CIA and FBI that may be released in the October 26, 2017 data dump.
  30. Many relevant FBI 134 Informant records are missing or being withheld.
  31. FBI dispatch tape of Dallas calls for 11/22/63 is missing.
  32. The Harper Fragment bone found at Dealey Plaza on 11/23/63 and believed to be a bone from JFK's head disapeared.
  33. The photographer who took autopsy photos claims to have taken photos not among those at the NARA today.
  34. The National Photo Interpetation Center (NPIC) report on their study of the Zapruder film and Art Lundal's briefing of CIA Director John McCone is missing.
  35. The JMWAVE NPIC records and other NPIC assassination records were, according to a NPIC secretary, boxed and at the orders of Robert Kennedy sent to the Smithsonian Institute instead of the NARA.
AlwaysUsesAnAlt 6 days ago (2 children)
I just wanted to commend you for organizing all of these Points of Interest. It's crazy to think that it's been over fifty years and there are still people keeping up the good fight for truth. That is how you honor the memory of someone like JFK, a relentless drive for truth. I just want everyone in this thread to take a single moment to appreciate themselves for what they're doing here. A lot of researchers that have passed with time are being honored with posts like this across the internet today; it's pretty phenomenal to see this all playing out.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that when they killed JFK, they killed themselves!

From that giant rose the common "conspiracy theorist" as the CIA would later seem them. These truthseekers carried the torch and illuminated the lies that dark elements sought to conceal. These individuals that used everything in their power to cover up their crimes thought that with time the story and the "theorists" would die out. Yet, here we are!! A testament to their miscalculations, to their misdeeds. The American spirit and the human drive for TRUTH has been strong enough to withstand a half century of coverups and silence; of dissent and division. Even if the files are faked, or the important bits are left out; the fact that we have all assembled here today is a beautiful thing. (And another nail in the coffin of those who would choose to see us fighting each other instead of fighting tyranny.)

So thanks everybody, it's good to see you out here today!

ezerak 6 days ago (1 child)
The man himself said it best:

"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more."

IAMN30 6 days ago (0 children)
JFK: A Murdered Conspiracy Theorist
aheadyriser 6 days ago (2 children)
Excellent comment. It's important to note though that there were many imposters pretending to be Oswald before the assassination for sheep-dipping purposes. Not all documents on where Oswald was should be believed immediately.
Prcrstntr 6 days ago (0 children)
What a surprise, missing documents
12-23-1913 6 days ago (33 children)
There's different theories as to who did it and why JFK was assassinated.

Let me be clear: The "magic bullet" theory is absurd -- along with the subsequent official investigations. I suggest everyone read the leaked CIA memo 1035-960 where the CIA weaponized the term Conspiracy Theorist. The document has literal bullet points on how operatives should dilute, disrupt, and obfuscate theories around his death.

Also, please research JFK's discussions with the founder of Israel, Ben Gurion, in relation to Israeli nuclear testing in Dimona.

JFK was disliked by numerous nefarious groups, but he really pissed off the military industrial complex, intelligence agencies, and radicals like the Irgun. The Dimona conflict isn't mentioned as much, but in my opinion it was one of the top reasons he was taken out. I didn't know about it for awhile.

RIP John.

PS. Thanks for rejecting Operation Northwoods.

MAGUSW 6 days ago (17 children)
Wonder if this former FBI agent will be shown to be close to the truth?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VSXQYvm57YM

mambo_matt 6 days ago (1 child)
Wow I never heard that theory before. He brought up some compelling arguments. Thanks for sharing
MAGUSW 6 days ago (0 children)
Np. Glad I could.
__jupiter__ 6 days ago (11 children)
Of all the theories, to me - the inner works of government agencies always seemed more plausible than foreign or mob related.
MAGUSW 6 days ago (3 children)
Same here although to me they are quite interlaced.
chistiman 6 days ago (1 child)
I've also followed the story for decades and never heard this theory. Thank you sir.
AspiringOligarch 6 days ago (2 children)

Also, please research JFK's discussions with the founder of Israel, Ben Gurion, in relation to Israeli nuclear testing in Dimona.

Dimona was (is) Israel's nuclear facility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center

Israel was determined to get nuclear weapons, and JFK was not going to allow that to happen, as he plainly told Israel's Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, in this letter, of May, 1963.

https://archive.is/CITnD

He followed up with another letter to newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Eshkol in July, 1963, demanding that the US be allowed to inspect the facility.

Quoting the JFK letter:

"You are aware, I am sure, of the exchanges which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits to Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine. We welcomed the former Prime Minister's strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel's willingness to permit periodic visits to Dimona....

"Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you had proposed. If Israel's purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months."

https://archive.is/k6DUB

In November, Kennedy was dead, and Johnson was President, and Israel got their nuclear weapons. There is something you should know about Lyndon B. Johnson: Lyndon B. Johnson -- A Righteous Gentile https://archive.is/MV4Sh Johnson was a lifelong Zionist, and the best US President Israel ever had.

thehornedone 6 days ago (0 children)
add bankers, specifically the Fed, to the list of people he pissed off
Water_Sip 6 days ago (0 children)
Yep. Menachem Begin was a really gross scum piece of shit
GhostDog999 6 days ago (13 children)
In that memo, Donald Trump blocked the release of an unknown number of files, saying he had "no choice" but to accept the concerns of agencies such as the FBI and CIA For days, he had hyped the release of the documents as a victory for the public that would be "so interesting!"On Thursday, though, he said that he had to bow to "national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns" raised by the agencies. He ordered a 180-day review for the agencies to reconsider their redactions, meaning another deadline for documents: 26 April 2018.
ethaner63 5 days ago (7 children)
It's frustrating but I also somewhat understand because apparently the CIA just murders people that don't fall in line. He's sort of playing with fire here.
belllatrix 6 days ago (4 children)
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32241845.pdf This one is interesting, it's all the potential threats to JFK's safety. 400+ reports from people ranging from "I heard a guy said he was glad he died" to "an Ouija board told me LBJ was next" My favorite is # 405 the lady claimed she had a vision of the assassination 2 months before it happened and that his children would be kidnapped, and that RFK would be killed if he ran for Pres. The interview was supposedly conducted 12/3/63
Zukb6 6 days ago (1 child)

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32241845.pdf

398, pg 394 in doc, Charles J. Shenkner

"Subj alleged to FBI that on 11/20/63 Rogers said JFK and Conally would be shot down in Dallas. Rogers was supposed to know who would do it. That the assassin has been to Russia and Cuba and not allowed to stay." "No investigation by S.S. (Secret Service) Subj provided FBI with signed statement but admitted he was drunk when conversation took place."

391, pg 387 in doc, John Hjelmer Abbott

"Subj alleged he cut LHO's hair spring of that year. Stated further that LHO was blackmailing a 'Texas night club owner' and would buy a gun to settle score with the US." No Interview by SS

UsamaBinNoddin 6 days ago (7 children)
All the docs that were formerly witheld in full (Updating as I come across them): https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32241845.pdf
america_rex 6 days ago (9 children)
This was on like page 109. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32352381.pdf

Talks about MI-5 getting an anonymous call saying something big is about to happen. Caller hung up after and 25 minutes later JFK was shot. (Sorry new to the sub, made a topic for it. Wasnt sure where it should go)

ben85ben85 6 days ago (0 children)
Interesting, good find.
Shill4CIA 6 days ago (34 children)
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cia-volume-oswald-missing/

They have lost the volume containing the info on Oswald. This is a farce. They have lost what was probably the most vital part of the documentation. The remaining volumes will be redacted to oblivion so that nobody alive will be implicated. I predict that there will be one small revelation that will amaze and satisfy most people and keep the remaining events secret which is the very definition of a limited hangout.

Even worse, they could potentially fabricate evidence that a foreign government was involved like Russia, feeding into the current Russiaphobia climate that the CIA are currently pushing.

SernyRanders 6 days ago (2 children)
Anyone could find the rest of this top secret deposition?

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32113033.pdf

That's actually some really juicy stuff

GhostDog999 6 days ago (9 children)
"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so that we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin," Hoover said.

In 1965, a source told the FBI that the KGB had "data purporting to indicate president Johnson was responsible for the assassination" -- meaning at least some Soviets were convinced of a conspiracy years after Oswald's death and the Warren Commission.

Merpedy 6 days ago (2 children)
This Castro assassination shit is actually interesting.
levelheadedmofo 6 days ago (1 child)
Somewhat interesting (though hard to read):

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32263509.pdf

J. Edgar Hoover: we now think it involves the Criminal Code on a conspiracy charge under Section 241

...

18 U.S. Code § 241

If two or more persons conspire to [...] and if death results from the acts committed

??

Espryon 6 days ago (13 children)
"At the same time, executive departments and agencies (agencies) have proposed to me that certain information should continue to be redacted because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns. I have no choice --today -- but to accept those redactions rather than allow potentially irreversible harm to our Nation's security ."

What could seriously be so dangerous & relevant that it would be concealed some odd 50 years later? Wtf are they hiding?

MAGA_BRO 5 days ago (0 children)
Possibly foreign policy secrets regarding countries that still exist and hold a grudge (North Korea, maybe red China). But they apparently aren't too concerned about hiding their plans to overthrow Castro.

They're probably just hiding stuff though.

Espryon 5 days ago (3 children)
Well its a safe bet that the CIA had a role (Whether that role is decisive or miscalculated, is anyone's guess). After all, they trained Ho Chi Mihn and Osama Bin Laden, among other controversial figures of which would screw future foreign policy for the US and its allies.
lenjioereh 6 days ago (1 child)
Does anyone think that the Kennedy family actually knew who truly was responsible for the assassination?
Raksso 5 days ago (0 children)
Well Jackie did not want to wash of the blood from her cloth and said 'Let them see what they've done.'

The it's also been said that RFK asked Johnson why he had his brother killed.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tclZrJiJSL0

jebba 6 days ago (1 child)
MAJOR SPEZ: I counted each of the ZIPs provided, but they are (nearly) all the same, so this count was earlier 10x off, roughly! Apologies.
Spin1 6 days ago (17 children)
When everyone wakes up today and begins reading through the files, I want you all who love all that is good and just, all who love the America it could still be, who value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, remember this -

They killed our President. They killed Jack, and then Bobby. Two bright lights of hope, cut down. The world was never darker than that day, I tell you. Because it wasn't like the light had gone out of the sky - it was like the light fell out of sky for all time, forever. They killed, in biblical terms, a Just Man. They don't teach kids about Kennedy anymore. No one cares. But we do.

wile_e_chicken 6 days ago (2 children)
From the recent "WH Anon" thread: https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/146633396#p146633396

This is the most relevant info I saw -- of course it could all be a LARP:

Israel killed JFK. Oswald thought he was there to protect JFK. He realized when JFK got shot he was a fall guy and tried to run.

and

It is the classified JFK files yes, but it is not so much about JFK because it is deeper than that as you probably know. They are being released for other reasons than just wanting to know the truth about JFK. This is just another domino. Another thing, I saw someone say only a bunch of redacted files are being released. That is untrue, not much will be redacted other than names, but not many. Many are already deceased, their anonymity does not matter at this point. You will be surprised. They will not be your typical blacked out pages.

1cognoscere 6 days ago (6 children)
Um...

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32246608.pdf

Informant says Oswald was US agent. Was this known?

londonxsmith 6 days ago (4 children)
Someone posted he was trained by cia
puphenstuff 6 days ago (3 children)
Just read this, I imagine the 200 are the ones WE WANT... "White House just gave a background briefing to say it is releasing 2,800 documents tonight. The remainder are being withheld at the request of the various departments and agencies - most importantly the CIA and FBI."
Fuckyousantorum 6 days ago (0 children)
Yeah, those 200 will be redacted to shit or accidentally fall into a shredder. The cover up continues, 25 years later.
Magikarp_evolved 6 days ago (5 children)
Question because I am only marginally versed in the matters of JFK:

Let's presume best case scenario and find out that JFK was indeed assassinated by the US government. That multiple business and governmental entities were involved. That was is presented in these files made public are an admission of guilt to a conspiracy going back decades.

Is any of this actionable information; could prosecution of any crimes revealed go forward?

lenjioereh 6 days ago (7 children)
Who benefitted the most from the JFK's death in the short term and the long term?
Wormwood03 6 days ago (6 children)
LBJ
lenjioereh 6 days ago (5 children)
So LBJ and Israel are the long term winners and the mafia with the Cia were the short term winners?
DonnaGail 5 days ago (0 children)
I can't help but think of Caroline Kennedy right now.
tinylilzikababyhead 5 days ago (2 children)
https://imgur.com/a/iIif9
fridaymonkeyk 6 days ago (0 children)
Somebody still thinks the deep state is going to hang itself?

I don't think so.

11-22-1963 6 days ago (27 children)
We're not expecting any bombshell revelations from the files, right?
trjb 6 days ago (20 children)
I think everyone hopes there will be good stuff in them, but with the Oswald files having been destroyed in a fire and all...I just don't think the government would release something that could potentially harm them.

Hopeful though, should be interesting reading.

Fuckaduckfuckaduck 6 days ago (9 children)
I remember listening to the scanner the day of the Boston Bombings. There was a call for some sort of small explosion and subsequent fire at the JFK Library.

Since then I've always wondered what files, or information on the assassination may have been stowed away there. Personally, I think anything relevant to the truth of the JFK assassination is long since gone. George HW Bush "reviewed" the files within his first few days in office, as well as the aforementioned JFK Library shenanigans, I just think anything resembling the truth has been redacted, lost, or burnt,

That said; One thing is for sure (at least to me), ever since it was announced that these files would be released, there has been an absolute shitstorm of shilling here, on 4chan, and on Voat. Usually when the shills show up en masse, it's for a reason. And most of these newcomers are not your regular run of the mill shill. These fuckers are smart, well spoken, and real good about dodging rules.

Now look, I realize there is a lot of shit going down right now, so the shills are not just for the JFK file release, but I also firmly believe the deep state is shitting bricks like never before. The file release, Uranium One, Hollywood pedos, Vegas narrative BTFO, Poppy Bush being accused ... it certainly feels like an orchestrated attack on the deep state. At least I'm hoping and praying that is the case anyway.

Either that, or we are all being played like a fucking fiddle....

Welp, gonna go pop me some popcorn now cuz no matter what, things are about to get pretty interesting.

niakarad 6 days ago (2 children)

I remember listening to the scanner the day of the Boston Bombings. There was a call for some sort of small explosion and subsequent fire at the JFK Library. Since then I've always wondered what files, or information on the assassination may have been stowed away there. Personally, I think anything relevant to the truth of the JFK assassination is long since gone. George HW Bush "reviewed" the files within his first few days in office, as well as the aforementioned JFK Library shenanigans, I just think anything resembling the truth has been redacted, lost, or burnt,

why would ANY of those documents be there? It's not like a literal library of everything related to jfk.(though I agree that they're never going to release anything with the truth in it)

2genders--2scoops 6 days ago (0 children)
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/2017-release
1cognoscere 6 days ago (0 children)
Pro-tip: Download the Excel and look at docs that were redacted "in full." Those are going to be the juiciest!
SernyRanders 6 days ago (0 children)
Some quick advice: look for the files that were previously withheld "in full" first.
rbsams72888 6 days ago (0 children)
Everyone say it with me --

L I M I T E D H A N G O U T

The CIA is essentially government-sanctioned mafia. They aren't going to drop any bombs on themselves. I assure you.

oxfouzer 6 days ago (2 children)
Guess: There's really bad stuff about Bush Sr in the remaining documents and they're waiting for him to die so that nobody covers it because it would be distasteful
duallyford 6 days ago (0 children)
So many CIA and Mafia ties!

[Nov 02, 2017] JFK Megathread conspiracy

Nov 02, 2017 | www.reddit.com

manashe102 6 days ago (66 children)

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32204484.pdf soviets reaction to assassination.
SernyRanders 6 days ago (15 children)
Wow, this actually deserves it's own thread, upvote upvote upvote

The Soviets apparently believed the assasination was part of an "ultraright" conspiracy in the US.

I mean, this document is straight from J.Edgar Hoover to Lyndon B.Johnson's advisor Marvin Watson, that's a true bombshell here!

CovfefeBoi 6 days ago (13 children)
Not only that, but they went into "full-alert" mode once they realized this because they thought a general in the USA would "launch a missile" at them. lol that's pretty funny, actually.
EvilPhd666 6 days ago (41 children)
There is a LOT of parallel to the Russia! Russia! Russia! alt-right and alt-left in there.

The Soviets were convinced it was an ultraright conspiracy to kill the president as a catylist to war with Russia. They thought it senseless if it came from the ultraleft as they agreed with Kennedy's peaceful coexistence and disarmament.

So the question is what group(s) would stand to profit off a war with Russia, and maybe we should look there.

A LOT of parallel with today's political rhetoric.

If anything confirmation that we can't let this left-right divide consume us and especially this over consuming "blame Russia" as to some manufactured consent to war with them.

Wall Street and the Saudis. They stood the most to gain, IMO.

lingley 5 days ago (9 children)
Have you seen the documentary "Everything from JFK to 9/11 is a rich man's trick"?
EvilPhd666 5 days ago (0 children)
Yep. Outstanding doc.

Linking it here for the curious

Ethyl_Mercaptan 6 days ago x2 (162 children)
I spent a long time researching this. I'm probably older than most redditors and my thinking was this: "I have lived through many different presidents, congresses, and senates and yet we seem to keep marching in the same direction no matter who is in power. So why is this?" So I started thinking back through each president. I thought Jimmy Carter was a little strange, but as I thought back, I realized that Kennedy was the strangest of all. So I decided to look into it. What I realized is that I had no idea what was actually going on and there are facts that we simply can not ignore about the situation. I believe that most people could understand what actually happened and how it has shaped our world today with about 10 hours of reading. The hard part is communicating what happened in a credible manner since there are so many details, but here is my best shot at it.

Forgive me if I get a few details wrong, but this should be pretty accurate.

Essentially JFK and his administration began pursuing peace through diplomacy rather than through overt force and using covert operations to stage coup's.

To really understand this, you have to go back to the Dulles brothers, John Foster and Allen. They were partners at the big lawfirm, Sullivan and Cromwell. Through their positions in this law firm, they came into contact with very powerful people and represented very powerful companies. Sometimes, they found that their use of international law was not enough to meet the demands of their customers and "friends".

Around 1951, Iran nationalized the oil industry there ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company ) and many large firms lost access to that natural resource which made them loads of money. So, in order to regain control of those resources, an operation coming from within the CIA (Dulles was not yet director, but had been involved in the CIA for a long time recruiting German officers and others during WW2) was launched and named Operation Ajax. Kermit Roosevelt was sent into the country and provided money and other resources to people there who wished to overthrow Mossadegh (current leader). Once the situation became unstable enough, the US helped to install the Shah of Iran as their vassal dictator. This scenario has been carried out numerous times (well over 30, but the list in wikipedia that used to exist has been scrubbed) and should seem familiar to you as it is basically what happened in Ukraine by funneling resources through NGOs.

This was the beginning of the CIA covert regime change operations to seize control of strategic countries to exploit for reasons of power and resources. So let's fast forward to Cuba and the Bay of Pigs. Dulles was in charge of the CIA by this point and they, along with the Joint Chiefs, were determined to take control of Cuba and not back down from Russia because there was this perception that there was a great "communist threat". Whether they actually believed that communism was an existential threat to everyone or used it as a convenient excuse to do what they wanted to (similar to the "war on terrorism" now) is up for debate.

So, in 1961, a group of rebels, trained and supplied by the US (hi ISIS) were to go into Cuba and overthrow Castro, bringing control of the island state to the US. Apparently there were notes in Dulles' archives saying essentially that once they were on the beach, this would force Kennedy to use the might of the military, especially planes, to support the rebels in Cuba. Kennedy, in fact, did not do this when he found out what was going on (the CIA did not inform him this was going to happen) and left Dulles' operation to fail and bring about his humiliation.

Another little known fact, is that we also sponsored a coup in France just a few days later which also failed, but the evidence linking it to the CIA was not as strong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_putsch_of_1961

and http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/20/jfk-assassination-plot-mirrored-in-1961-france-part-1/ Kennedy, who spoke with de Gaulle during this, was to have offered his military support to help him but "could not account for his own CIA" or something very similar.

Then we had the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, which was resolved by John and Bobby Kennedy using diplomatic channels and agreeing to disarm missiles in Europe if Khrushchev withdrew his missiles from Cuba. This opened up a dialog between the Kennedy administration and Russia where they began working toward peaceful solutions to their differences. You can hear this in his "Peace" speech at American University shortly before his death. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fkKnfk4k40

Many people who follow the conspiracy believe it was his "secret society" speech that got him killed. In fact, it was his pursuit of peace through diplomacy in the face of a policy of imperialism and direct conflict.

We have all heard the quote from JFK about shattering the CIA He actually had begun this process by aiming at a 20% reduction by 1966. https://books.google.com/books?id=KS-6XrdalGkC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=JFK+CIA+staff+reduction&source=bl&ots=1iU6fXuREA&sig=94Y1SBSPaDI3-d6rJJcxgVpPLig&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcvc--7LTOAhWDKGMKHYsaCF4Q6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&q=JFK%20CIA%20staff%20reduction&f=false

So he had already managed to destroy the career of one of the most powerful people in the world (Dulles), was getting rid of the jobs of many CIA staff who had no qualms with violence and covert operations, and was in the process of de-escalating conflicts throughout the world, thus threatening the careers and livelihoods of many people within the military industrial complex.

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst had this to say: http://www.salon.com/2016/02/07/intelligent_people_know_that_the_empire_is_on_the_downhill_a_veteran_cia_agent_spills_the_goods_on_the_deep_state_and_our_foreign_policy_nightmares/

Well, John Kennedy had problems of the same kind, and he fired Dulles. And that was a no-no. You don't fire people like Dulles. Kennedy embarked on a new course. He talked with Khrushchev, he had people, interlocutors, who talked with Castro, and, worst of all, he issued two executive orders, saying that 1,000 U.S troops would be pulled out of Vietnam by the end of 1963 and the bulk of the rest by 1965. He was going to give up Southeast Asia to the Commies, and God knows what would happen next with the dominoes falling and Indonesia, and my God So he was killed by the "deep state."

Ray McGovern has also said that James Douglass' book "JFK and the Unspeakable" basically got it right.

https://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/22/trumans-true-warning-on-the-cia/

And so, the question: Did Allen Dulles and other "cloak-and-dagger" CIA operatives have a hand in John Kennedy's assassination and in then covering it up? In my view, the best dissection of the evidence pertaining to the murder appeared in James Douglass's 2008 book, JFK and the Unspeakable. After updating and arraying the abundant evidence, and conducting still more interviews, Douglass concludes that the answer is Yes.

So that's the story, sorry it is long, but there is so much to understand and if you read the books I listed above, then you will have a much better picture of our past and present.

former_russian_spy 6 days ago (64 children)
I feel like a lot of the current small "conspiracies" (including some relating to Trump/Clinton) can really be traced back to the military-industrial complex. It's practically hiding in plain sight--we've been in Afghanistan for how long now? And stocks of Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed, etc keep going up and up. Not to mention the existence of private mercenary contractors.
Eyedeafan88 6 days ago (18 children)
You can't look at Afghanistan without looking at opium and the Heroin trade. Opium production is at an all time high under the NATO occupation at the same time the US is having a heroin addiction crisis. It's not a coincidence and the CIA is deeply involved.
itsaname42 5 days ago (3 children)
Don't forget that right before we invaded Afghanistan the Taliban was in the process of stopping all opium production in the country; then we came in and production skyrockets.

[Nov 02, 2017] The Democratic Law Firm Behind the Russian Collusion Narrative by Scott Ritter

The real question is so much Russian influence as the US intelligence agencies influence on 2016 presidential elections. Brennan in particular. He bet of Hillary Clinton and lost. After that he was instrumental in launching "color revolution" against Trump. In which the the critical step was to appoint "special prosecutor".
Notable quotes:
"... But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier compiled by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of intelligence reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting contained in the Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are real concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources were also utilized by Steele. ..."
"... An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less than truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community in July of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called Gang of Eight who served as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017 Russian ICA. ..."
"... Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream media primetime. ..."
"... The political law practice of Perkins Coie was started in 1981 under the leadership of Bob Bauer , who went on to become the White House Counsel to President Barack Obama. Today, the practice is headed by Marc Elias , who has been described as "the Democrats' go-to attorney an indispensable figure in the party." Elias oversees the work of 18 attorneys representing nearly every Democratic senator, as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Hillary for America, which oversaw the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion to Russia. ..."
"... When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and, again with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach through an exclusive to the Washington Pos t ..."
"... According to the Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from this briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told the New York Times . The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives -- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump." ..."
"... The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery? If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. ..."
"... My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note, by the way, the absence of any reference to George Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
"... But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia, Iran, and Syria. As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism can only complain about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us. ..."
"... Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is made up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians, full stop (cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double standard? ..."
"... We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to believe that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients. ..."
"... What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is of the past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration. ..."
"... I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't. The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would allow them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things to get it past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him in the election. It is really that simple of a story. ..."
"... Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier relied on collaboration with Russian officials. ..."
"... In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama administration covering up lawlessness. ..."
"... Why didn't the FBI insist on examining the DNC servers? Something's not right. ..."
"... I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental. Clinton is not in Putin's pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's pocket -- he has neocons and others working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis. ..."
"... The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other. They have them both in their pocket. ..."
"... As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs a "bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power. ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Democratic Law Firm Behind the Russian Collusion Narrative How a high-powered practice contracted oppo-research on Trump -- and then pushed a hack story.

Credit: Shutterstock/ Mark Van Scyoc The ongoing investigation headed by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller into alleged collusion between the campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian government has moved into a new phase, with a focus on purported money laundering. On Monday, indictments were filed against former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates.

But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier compiled by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The current controversy isn't so much over the contents of the dossier -- despite some of the reporting, none of the relevant claims contained within have been verified. Rather, the issue in question is how opposition research derived from foreign intelligence sources and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC ended up influencing the decision to prepare the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, the contents of that assessment, and the subsequent investigations by the U.S. Congress and a special prosecutor.

The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of intelligence reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting contained in the Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are real concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources were also utilized by Steele.

According to Robert Litt , who served as general counsel to former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, this mirroring was nothing more than coincidence. "The dossier itself," Litt wrote in a recent Lawfare blog , "played absolutely no role in the coordinated intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in our election. That assessment, which was released in unclassified form in January but which contained much more detail in the classified version that has been briefed to Congress, was based entirely on other sources and analysis."

Moreover, Litt noted, the decision in December 2016 to brief President-elect Trump on the existence of the Steele Dossier and provide him with a two-page summary of that document, was not a reflection that "the Intelligence Community had relied on it in any way, or even made any determination that the information it contained was reliable and accurate." It was rather, Litt said, a need to share with Trump the fact that the document existed and was being passed around Congress and the media.

An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less than truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community in July of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called Gang of Eight who served as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017 Russian ICA.

Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream media primetime.

The political law practice of Perkins Coie was started in 1981 under the leadership of Bob Bauer , who went on to become the White House Counsel to President Barack Obama. Today, the practice is headed by Marc Elias , who has been described as "the Democrats' go-to attorney an indispensable figure in the party." Elias oversees the work of 18 attorneys representing nearly every Democratic senator, as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Hillary for America, which oversaw the Clinton campaign.

It was in the latter two roles that Elias, acting on behalf of his clients, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C.-based company that, according to its website , "provides premium research, strategic intelligence, and due diligence services." Fusion GPS had previously been contracted by the Washington Free Beacon "to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary." However, when it became clear that Trump was going to secure the Republican Party nomination, the contract with Fusion GPS was terminated. According to a letter sent by Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS sometime in March 2016, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, met with Elias and lobbied for the job of conducting opposition research on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In April 2016, Simpson's company was retained by the firm through the end of the election cycle.

Perkins Coie is also home to Michael Sussman , a partner in the firm's Privacy and Data Security Practice, who was retained by the DNC to respond to the cyber-penetration of their server in the spring of 2016. When, in late April 2016, the DNC discovered that its servers had been breached, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, then chairwoman of the DNC, turned to Perkins Coie and Sussman for help. Sussman chaired the meetings at the DNC regarding the breach, and, on May 4, 2016, he reached out to Shawn Henry , a former FBI agent who headed the incident response unit for the private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, for assistance in mitigating the fallout from the breach. According to CrowdStrike, it was immediately able to detect the presence of hostile malware that it identified as Russian in origin. Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion to Russia.

When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and, again with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach through an exclusive to the Washington Pos t , which was published in concert with a dramatic CrowdStrike technical report detailing the intrusion, ominously named "Bears in the Midst."

This public relations campaign started the media frenzy over the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC server, enabling every facet of the story that followed to be painted with a Russian brush -- normally with a spokesperson from either the DNC or Hillary for America taking the lead in promulgating the story.

It was about this same time that Elias decided to expand the scope of Fusion GPS's opposition research against Trump, going beyond the simple mining of open-source information that had been the hallmark of the firm's work up until that time, and instead delving into the active collection of information using methodologies more akin to the work of spy agencies. The person Fusion GPS turned to for this task was Steele

Key persons within the Clinton campaign and the DNC denied any knowledge of either the decision by Perkins Coie to hire Fusion GPS for the purpose of gathering opposition research, or to tap Steele to conduct this task. Elias reportedly made use of money already paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions for deniability on the part of his clients. This decision meant that Perkins Coie, as a firm, had ownership of the Steele Dossier; expenditures of firm assets require the approval of either the management or executive committee of the firm (Elias sits on the executive committee).

But as far as intelligence products go, the Steele Dossier is as sketchy as it gets. It's an amalgam of poorly written "reports" cobbled together from what Vanity Fair called "angry ιmigrιs," "wheeling and dealing oligarchs," and "political dissidents with well-honed axes to grind." These are precisely the kind of sources intelligence professionals operating in Russia in the early 1990s -- Steele was assigned to Moscow from 1990 to 1993 -- would have had access to. Such sources also produce information that professional analysts normally treat with more than a modicum of skepticism when preparing national-level intelligence products.

The very first report produced by Steele, dated June 20, 2016, was chock full of the kind of salacious details justifying its explosive title, "Republican Candidate Donald Trump's Activities in Russia and Compromising Relationship with the Kremlin." The substantive charges leveled in the report centered on three unnamed sources -- a senior Foreign Ministry official, a former top-level Russian intelligence officer, and a senior Russian financial official -- whom Steele accessed through a "trusted compatriot." The report alleged that Russia had been feeding the Trump campaign "valuable intelligence" on Clinton, and that this effort was supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. A second report, dated June 26, 2016, focused exclusively on "Russian State Sponsored and Other Cyber Offensive (Criminal) Operations."

These reports were delivered to Elias at a critical time -- on July 22, when Wikileaks released thousands of emails believed to have been sources from the DNC hack . These emails detailed the internal deliberations of the DNC that proved to be embarrassing to both Clinton and the DNC leadership -- Wasserman-Schultz was compelled to resign due to the revelations set forth in these emails. This leak took place on the eve of the Democratic National Convention when Clinton was to be selected as the Democrats' candidate for president. The Clinton campaign blamed Russia. "Russian state actors," Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager told the press , "were feeding the email to hackers for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

If Elias thought the publication of the DNC emails would spur the U.S. intelligence community to join both the DNC and the Clinton campaign in pointing an accusatory finger at Russia, he would be disappointed. When questioned by CNN's Jim Sciutto at the 2016 Aspen Security Forum as to whether or not the DNI shared the White House's view that there was no doubt Russia was behind the hack of the DNC emails, Clapper responded, "I don't think we are quite ready to make a call on attribution I don't think we are ready to make a public call on that yet." Noting that there was still some uncertainty about exactly who was behind the DNC cyber-penetration, Clapper stated that he was taken aback by the media's "hyperventilation" over the DNC email issue, pointing out that the intelligence community did not "know enough to ascribe motivation" at that time.

According to the Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from this briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told the New York Times . The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives -- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump."

This intelligence, allegedly from a "human source" linked to a foreign intelligence service, is at the center of the current spate of Russian meddling investigations. Was this source a product of the CIA's own efforts, as DNI General Counsel Litt contends, or was this an "echo" of the work done by Steele? The answer may lie in the actions of both Elias and Steele, who in the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, and on the heels of the statement by DNI Clapper that he wasn't ready to commit to Russian attribution, shared the first two reports with both the FBI and members of the intelligence community. Steele also sat down with U.S. officials to discuss the details of these reports , which presumably included the sourcing that was used.

The parallels between the information contained in the initial report filed by Steele and the "bombshell" intelligence that prompted Brennan's decision to brief the Gang of Eight are too close to be casually dismissed. Of particular note is Steele's "Source C," a senior Russian "financial official" who had "overheard Putin talking" on at least two occasions. Was this the source that Brennan cited when it came to Putin's "specific instructions"? The cause and effect relationship between the decision by Marc Elias to brief U.S. intelligence officials on the aspects of the Steele Dossier, and Brennan's coming into possession of intelligence that virtually mirrors the reporting by Steele, cannot be dismissed out of hand.

The future of the Trump presidency will be determined by the various investigations currently underway. Those efforts have been influenced, in one way or another, by reporting sourced to Perkins Coie, including the designation of Russia as the responsible party behind the DNC cyber-breach and the Steele Dossier. These investigations are linked in their unquestioning embrace of the conclusions set forth in the 2017 Russia Intelligence Community Assessment that Russia was, in fact, meddling in the election. However, the genesis of that finding, both in terms of Russian involvement in the DNC hack and the "bombshell" intelligence introduced by Brennan in August 2016, has gone largely unquestioned by the investigators.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War (Clarity Press, 2017). MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Youknowho , says: October 30, 2017 at 11:09 pm

The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery? If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. But if it was a question of "tell us what you find, good, bad, or indifferent" then uncovering what might be treasonable activity would be called a patriotic act.
SpecialAgentA , says: October 31, 2017 at 9:00 am
Was it a 'leak' or a 'hack'? Both terms are used here, almost interchangeably, but isn't that an essential issue to explain and clarify?
balconesfault , says: October 31, 2017 at 9:35 am
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Donald Trump could defuse by simply releasing his tax returns and allowing more transparency into his financial relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Bob Salsa , says: October 31, 2017 at 10:48 am
Ritter's underlying 'logic' here extended would have us believe Alan Turin's breaking of the Enigma Machine was done in collusion with Nazi U-boat commanders.
Michael Kenny , says: October 31, 2017 at 11:28 am
The spooks are still scared silly of Russiagate. "Hillary paid" doesn't mean "Hillary fabricated". That Mr Ritter is reduced to such a manifestly silly argument shows just how spooked the spooks are. My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note, by the way, the absence of any reference to George Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych.
David G. , says: October 31, 2017 at 12:26 pm
Given that Russia's insiders (not to mention former-officials) are no more lined up with Putin than US counterparts and political actors are behind any current US administration or opponent, within and without the party in power, there are presumably Russian actors who would like to undermine Putin.

To the extent "the Russians" may be behind particular efforts – including information/disinformation – related to the 2016 US election, might they not have sought to undermine foreign and (Russian) domestic proponents of US-Russian detente?

Donald (the left leaning one) , says: October 31, 2017 at 12:42 pm
" Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. "

This is a joke. I have no concern one way or the other about whether Trump colluded with Russia – if laws were broken, prosecute the lot of them. But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia, Iran, and Syria. As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism can only complain about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us.

In DC we have a vicious fight between the McCain-Clinton forces and the Trump forces. It's a choice between warmongers.

m , says: October 31, 2017 at 1:16 pm
Donald (the left leaning one), I agree with your concluding comment that we are left with a choice between two warmongers, no question about that. However if you look at the corruption in the deep state in the Uranium One deal, how it was approved and now nobody, I mean nobody knows anything about FBI informant and gag order on him for the last 8 years it is just mind boggling. Oh well after all these years I think the African dictators have more integrity than our elected officials.
a person who once spoke to a Russian but regrets it now , says: October 31, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is made up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians, full stop (cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double standard?
Laramie , says: October 31, 2017 at 3:12 pm
I've worked at large law firms, been a partner at several and litigated against Perkins Coie, so I know a bit about them. Knowing the industry and this firm in particular, I can say without reservation that this statement is ridiculous: "Elias reportedly made use of money already paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions for deniability on the part of his clients." That does not and would not happen with a $12 million expense.

Mr. Ritter does not come out and say it, but there's a plausible explanation for all of this Russia nonsense we've been hearing about for the past year. Until the day after the election, 99.9% of Democrats were convinced that Hillary Clinton would win. Once enshrined in office, all of the misdeeds that they'd been getting away with for the past decade -- the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, the Pay-to-Play politics, etc. -- would be swept under the rug.

November came, and that didn't happen. Democrats were both floored and caught with their pants down. Now, all of their dirty laundry was going to come out into the open. It was only a matter of time.

So, what did they do? The same thing Democrats always do. The best defense is an offense. 'Always accuse your opponents of doing whatever wrong you've committed.' All of the sudden, it wasn't just that 'Russians hacked the election.' It became, 'the Trump campaign secretly colluded with the Russians.' The Steele dossier was leaked, the FBI was briefed which in turn briefed Obama, the Gang of Eight and Trump. Next, a Special Prosecutor had to be appointed to investigate.

But, where does it all lead? Back to Hillary, through Perkins Coie, and through many of the same Deep State players who were complicit in the misdeeds.

We now learn that Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein all knew about Russians attempting to buy influence through donations to the Clinton "charity," but they turned a blind eye when Uranium One was up for approval.

We now learn that Clinton and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier then fed it to Comey, who leaked it.

We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to believe that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients.

What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is of the past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration.

Carolinatarheel , says: October 31, 2017 at 3:35 pm
I find it curious that Crooked Mueller charged two republicans just as Crooked Hillary and the DNC were identified for paying Russians for smear documents! America First!
Nick , says: October 31, 2017 at 4:06 pm
I love how the origins of the project (Free Beacon/Paul Singer) are merely a footnote in this terribly written piece.
Jake , says: October 31, 2017 at 4:14 pm
How is it not true? Reports indicate that Mr. Steele did indeed use paid sources within Russia to compile the "dossier" on Trump. Steele used money paid by the Clinton campaign labeled as "legal fees". There is a reason Hillary, DWS, Podesta and the others have all lied.
Quek , says: October 31, 2017 at 4:40 pm
I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't. The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would allow them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things to get it past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him in the election. It is really that simple of a story.
Cjones1 , says: October 31, 2017 at 4:51 pm
Did Obama's White House Counsel Bauer and Perkins Coie's Elias engage in a conspiracy to smear Trump and benefit the Clinton campaign?

Did they orchestrate a campaign trick, using the Fusion GPS dossier and an insider leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks,that falsely smeared the Trump team?

Hillary and Fusion GPS both lobbied against business restrictions proposed and imposed by the Magnitsky legislation and both received bonuses and payments from Russian entities with ties to the Putin gang.

Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier relied on collaboration with Russian officials.

Given that several levels under the 17 intelligence heads of the Obama administration, including former FBI Director Mueller, participated in suppressing known Russian bribery, obfuscated and obstructed the investigation into Hillary's national security violations & pay to play schemes, and apparently conspired using a dossier, containing Russian supplied information, to throw the last Presidential election, it is time to bring the Obama political appointees and Clinton campaign officials to justice and stop the interference affecting the Trump administration.

In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration.

Zardoz , says: October 31, 2017 at 5:13 pm
The Russian SVR RF was no doubt inside the DNC's server, just as it was no doubt inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email server on which she did all of her State Department business.

But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the damning evidence about the corruption of the DNC & its machinations to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that damning evidence.

Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.

But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests there is something seriously wrong with the Democ"rats" story.

Don Juan , says: October 31, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama administration covering up lawlessness.
CapitalistRoader , says: October 31, 2017 at 5:49 pm
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Hillary Clinton could defuse by simply releasing all of the government emails she kept on a private server in order to keep them away from FOIA requests and allowing more transparency into her financial relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
swb , says: October 31, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Nice try at deflection, but it is not likely to stop Muller because he has an actual brain. On the other hand, the comments indicate that the conspiracy types are on board. Now I have it on good authority that there are ties between Steele and Benghazi as well so it is time to wrap this all up together into a unified story.
Virginia Farmer , says: October 31, 2017 at 6:08 pm
Since most of the posters here seem to be partisan I'm sure that no one will like my preference: Lock both Trump and HRC up and put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt to accuse one and defend the other is futile.
MM , says: October 31, 2017 at 6:38 pm
Karen Finney, formerly of the Clinton 2016 campaign, on October 29th:

"I think what's important, though, is less who funded it than what was in the dossier."

In the same interview:

"We also learned this week that Cambridge Analytica, the company that was basically the data company for the [Trump] campaign, reached out to Julian Assange of Wikileaks."

Did everybody catch that?

In today's Democratic Party, it is perfectly acceptable to pay foreign sources for dirt, fabricated or not, on your domestic political opponent.

But it is totally unacceptable to reach out to Wikileaks, with no money involved, for dirt on your domestic political opponent. I'll note that Wikileaks has relied on whistle-blower sources and has not been shown to have published any false information in its entire 10-year existence.

Absolutely gorgeous

Zardoz , says: October 31, 2017 at 7:01 pm
The Russian SVR RF was likely inside the DNC's server, just as it was likely inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email server on which she did all of her State Department business.

But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the evidence about the rotten corruption of the DNC & its machinations to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that evidence.

Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.

But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests that there is something seriously wrong with the Democ"rats" story.

Lenny , says: October 31, 2017 at 7:10 pm
To all of those who think that paying a foreign informant money to give you info is the same thing as accepting help from a foreign government, you have some screws lose.

Furthermore, the help that Trump received was in the form of emails that have been stolen from an American citizen, a federal offence.

The whole Uranium one non story is based on a book that his own author admitted he has no evidence of malfeasance by HRC , and who was paid for his effort by the Mercers.

Also, the Uranium cannot be exported outside the USA anyway, because the law prevents it, no matter who owns the company

JR , says: October 31, 2017 at 7:31 pm
To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think that Hillary is in Putin's pocket? I don't think so. The issue, if you're being honest, is that a lot of people on the other side can easily see Trump being in Putin's pocket. And so far he (Trump) has done nothing to disprove that. Remember the Glee that the neocons had when Trump ordered a few missiles at Syria..guess what nothing came off it and Assad is still very much in power and no one cares anymore (an outcome that I am fine with). You think things would have been the same if Hillary was in power?

But at the end of the day, we're left to wonder whether Trump is doing Putin's bidding Just because so far he has done nothing that has been antagonistic towards Russian interests (Iran notwithstanding because nothing is going to come off it, all it is going to do is make US look impotent, which will be fine by Putin).

jlee67 , says: October 31, 2017 at 8:46 pm
Why didn't the FBI insist on examining the DNC servers? Something's not right.
b. , says: October 31, 2017 at 9:21 pm
If only Sanders had ever exclaimed something like "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn Russians!"

If there is any kind of actual evidence of state actors in the various efforts to force transparency on the Clinton campaign and the DNC, it is now tainted by the association with Steele, Simpson, Elias, which appear to have repeatedly acted against client privileges and privacy – peddling results paid for by one client to another, leaking information paid for by clients to the press, Congress, the FBI – or have acted with client permission, while a former "spy" is accessing and potentially endangering networks maintained by his former employer, a foreign intelligence service known for its ability to find yellowcake.

Only the Democrats can show such staggering ineptitude.

The plot needs some new, exciting turn at this point. Let us speculate that the Steele Dossier was in fact a false flag operation, allowing "Russians" to discredit not one, but two presidential campaigns, not one, but two presidential candidates, a twofer that makes whomever becomes President look like an idiot. One of the most ridiculous propositions of this whole affair has been the claim that Putin would seriously care which incompetent and corrupt American gets to prosecute the self-inflicted ruin of this blighted nation for the next four years.

It's morons all the way down.

Central Virginia Cantor Ejector! , October 31, 2017 at 11:16 pm
@Virginia Farmer : "Lock both Trump and HRC up and put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt to accuse one and defend the other is futile."

Right on! "Virginia Farmer" for President!

Donald ( the left leaning one) , says: November 1, 2017 at 12:09 am
"To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think that Hillary is in Putin's pocket?"

I'm not very partisan. I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental. Clinton is not in Putin's pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's pocket -- he has neocons and others working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.

The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other. They have them both in their pocket.

Donald ( the left leaning one) , says: November 1, 2017 at 12:14 am
M --

Yeah, I can't keep up with all the twists and turns. I read just enough to see both sides ( the partisan ones) live in closed cognitive universes. I suspect there is plenty of corruption and dishonesty to go around, even if we restricted ourselves to real or alleged Russian ties. But I wonder what would turn up if we really looked into how our foreign policy sausage is made?

VikingLS , says: November 1, 2017 at 1:14 pm
@Donald ( the left leaning one)

In my annoyance I overstated it a little, but this thread is a good example of what I was saying about a lot of the liberal commenters on TAC. I don't read a lot of these comments and see people who are giving the article much thought.

BTW I was about to write the exact same thing to JR you did regarding the Saudis and the Israelis.

Cynthia McLean , says: November 1, 2017 at 1:17 pm
As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs a "bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power.

[Nov 01, 2017] JFK and the Unspeakable Why He Died and Why It Matters James W. Douglass

Unspeakable here means the belief that the CIA orchestrated JFK's death.
Nov 01, 2017 | www.amazon.com
J. Roth 5.0 out of 5 stars October 14, 2015 Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
The Seminal Work of Kennedy Assassination Research.

The sheer breadth and scope of Kennedy assassination research can be daunting. It's a subgenre of nonfiction rife with inaccurate, poorly-sourced, and hard-to-access drivel. Even the most touted works (e.g., "Reasonable Doubt," "Crossfire," and "Reclaiming History") are saturated with poor scholarship and misinformation. Yet there is one thread of research -- built upon by authors like John Newman ("Oswald and the CIA"), James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease ("The Assassinations"), Jefferson Morley ("Our Man in Mexico"), David Talbot ("Brothers" and "The Devil's Chessboard"), and Gaeton Fonzi ("The Last Investigation") -- that commands both clarity and credibility. This line of research -- which probes Lee Harvey Oswald's involvement with American counterintelligence -- builds upon the work of the 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations and offers the clearest and most level-headed perspective on the domestic assassinations of the 1960s. Within this body of work, there is no single book that paints a clearer, deeper, and more moving account of the history surrounding the Kennedy assassination than that of James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable." It is, bar none, the single most readable, most concise, and most compelling depiction of that dark chapter in history. That's why most, if not all, of the aforementioned authors regard "Unspeakable" as the seminal Kennedy research book. It's easy-to-access (even for beginners) and impossible to put down.

Turtle on November 29, 2013
Fidel was right

A recent op-ed in the Mexican paper La Jornada does a fantastic job of comparing James Douglass' conclusions about JFK's death with a speech Fidel Castro gave shortly after Nov. 22, 1963. It essentially argues that Douglass spent years doing research and conducting interviews to come up with the same answer Fidel did, which is that the assassination was basically a coup d'état orchestrated by the CIA and supported by "the vested interests of big business, the obsessions of the military and the ideological phobias of extremists."

Here's the full article (translated into English): [...]

Mike F on November 23, 2012
Has a few gaps

Col. L. Fletcher Prouty Explains the Bay of Pigs and Viet Nam
[...]

McGeorge Bundy called 9:30 PM 04-16-61 to delay the Sunday destruction by covert CIA operations of the remaining 3 Cuban fighter jets
guaranteeing Castro a win during the Bay of Pigs.

Those 3 jets destroyed the Cuban invasion of Cuba. This covert operation to destroy those 3 jets was authorized by JFK since air cover was not permitted under 5412: National Security Council Directive 5412 signed by IKE in March 1954 prohibiting use of uniformed services in covert operations; precluded air cover in Bay of Pigs.

JFK National Security Memorandum 55 assigns covert operations to the Joint Chiefs of Staff thus violating 5412 on June 28 of 1961.

Rory Lion on December 25, 2015
"The Unspeakable" - A metaphoric cop-out for Satan

This book, presents the theory that the "CIA" assassinated JFK, and uses "The Unspeakable" in the title. The title bothers me. "The Unspeakable" in particular--its vagueness and lack of courage makes the content of the book suspect. John McAdams reviewed "JFK and the Unspeakable" very critically, writing "As bad as Douglass's account of Kennedy's foreign policy is, his depiction of a plot to murder JFK is worse... To paraphrase Thomas Merton, Douglass's muse and inspiration, the bunk and nonsense Douglass recycles goes beyond the capacity of words to describe. [Douglass] is utterly uncritical of any theory, any witness...as long as it implies conspiracy."

The Unspeakable is a phrase coined by a Catholic monk, Thomas Merton, "One of the awful facts of our age," Merton wrote "is the evidence that [the world] is stricken to the vary core of its being by the presence of the Unspeakable...It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss...

This may be literature, even poetry, but "The Unspeakable" is a metaphor, and hiding behind this metaphor is the truth that the Earth is ruled by Satan. Yes, "The Unspeakable" is Satan. It is not the CIA, although some CIA employees are children of Satan. Satan is the source of evil that led to the murder of JFK and also the source of the millions of other murders committed by the children of Satan who rule the Earth. Jesus told (some of the the Pharisees) "For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44 Faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to His commands is mankind's only hope. Read the greatest book of all, the Holy Bible, and this truth will be revealed to you.

H. Guentert on October 27, 2009
More of a Catholic Perspective than New Objective Insight.

I bought this book based on some positive comments on the radio. I felt I needed to warn readers that there are assumptions being made by the author that create a theoretical moral framework, and then the information about JFK and his assassination seem to be forced into this framework created based on letters by a monk in Kentucky. Had I know this, I probably would not have purchased the book.

I gave it three stars for the helpful new information and interviews, but I disagree with some of the author's assumptions regarding JFK. I believe that President Kennedy was brilliant, had common sense, cared about the USA and its citizens, was making great efforts to reestablish a Constitutional citizen focused government instead of a plutocracy or Corporatocracy even though it irritated some large campaign contributors. I do not believe that JFK needed a "turning" point to realize that a nuclear war was a last resort, and his non-proliferation stand, as well as, RFK's investigations may have been a larger factor in his death than reported.

I believe JFK ran for the Presidency with the belief that he could, with the backing of the American people, restore the US into a more democratic and positive nation, and a force for improving living standards, health, productivity, and peaceful innovation around the world. He already wanted to break free from the imperial world leadership that profited from deceptive banking and multi-national corporate piracy, and restore accountability and liberty to achieve and innovate on a more level playing field without sacrificing security.

I have studied the JFK/RFK/JFK Jr. assassinations, and just find it very arrogant that a Catholic monk in Kentucky is presumed by the author to have a god-like view of the world situation and proposes peace at any price as the answer to USA foreign policy, or that this is even Biblical. I take exception to many of his assumptions made regarding nuclear weapon supremacy, the Japanese, and how far we should go to trade weapons for peace. There were already huge betrayals of the American people with secret technology transfers in previous adminstrations, so "under the table" deals are not discussed which should alter the this book's point of view.

The monk is far more naive that he accuses JFK of being by believing that his letters have some sort of spiritual authority to effect the world by some back channel method, and that JFK and Khrushchev are the ultimate decision makers. He seems to hold himself up as an ambassador of peace with near zero standing, and this downgrades the overall value of the book knowing that there are a lot of assumptions being promoted by some self righteous monk who only reads an occassional newpaper, but wants to promote the ideal foreign policy.

I came away with feeling that this could have been a far better book, if the information was presented without the monk's point of view slanting or filtering the information and creating this somewhat rigid framework. There is just too much to this story to get limited by a subjective theory. If Russia had 50+ nuclear missles in Cuba ready to fire at the US in 1962, then Castro was crazier than I thought and our defenses were not adequate even in the Eisenhower administration. The US should have invaded Cuba when it was still a limited conventional threat. Now, I would expect Russia to have nuclear subs sitting in the Cuban waters regardless of what is on land.

JFK inherited the short end of the stick, from fools who have created one quagmire after another, and he should have been praised for negotiating a peaceful way out. He was murdered for greed, power, and continued lack of accountabilty by people who had already been doing the same thing around the world to control other governments. They just degraded the USA into another Bananna Republic with puppet leadership.

The value in the book is finding some new, documented support information that the reader may not be aware of, not the theological theory. I don't think there are any major new revelations. "Assassination Science" and "File on Files" are far more eye opening books, for those wanting to continue down the assassination "rabit hole", and the "JFK Assassination Encylopedia" is a very good objective resource for those looking for most assassination details.

The only thing naive about JFK was assuming to get at least minimum standard protection from the Secret Service, and the Army. Instead, like all the convenient safeguard failures on 9/11/2001; none of the Secret Service procedures were enforced in Dealey Plaza, and the Army's protective and counter sniper units were prevented from coming to Dallas. Only complete idiots continue to blame Oswald for the JFK assassination when there is more evidence that he was an FBI/CIA informant warning about the assassination, and no evidence he even touched any rifle on Nov. 22, 1963. Lesson learned: Stop believing in insane number of coincidences just to perpetuate the government fairy tales.

JFK was not perfect, but he valued human lives, and deserved far better than he got from the naive American public, and even his family. We have all been too naive.

[Nov 01, 2017] Mary's Mosaic The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision

Notable quotes:
"... On either the night of Meyer's murder or the following morning, the CIA's counterintelligence chief, James Jesus Angleton, burglarized Meyer's home and art studio and stole her personal diary, which very likely contained detailed descriptions about her affair with President Kennedy. It also might have contained her suspicions that Kennedy had been the victim of a high-level assassination plot orchestrated by the CIA Angleton took the diary with the aim of destroying it, but it's still not certain what exactly he did with it. ..."
"... Angleton later claimed that his actions were done at the request of Meyer's close friend, Anne Truitt, whom Meyer had supposedly entrusted with the diary in the event anything happened to her. ..."
"... Angleton also arguably committed obstruction of justice by failing to turn Mary Meyer's diary over to the police, the prosecutor, and the defense in Ray Crump's case. ..."
"... From the gifted elite real people, the upper class ball room society prep schoolers, to a rare peek behind the CIA upper echelon. "Three Musketeers" of Angleton, Crowley and Corson and their unbridled lawlessness leaves little doubt what went down in Dallas,11/22/1963. ..."
Nov 01, 2017 | www.amazon.com

5.0 out of 5 stars

By Jacob G. Hornberger on April 12, 2012

The Murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer

In early 1976 the National Enquirer published a story that shocked the elite political class in Washington, D.C. The story disclosed that a woman named Mary Pinchot Meyer, who was a divorced spouse of a high CIA official named Cord Meyer, had been engaged in a two-year sexual affair with President John F. Kennedy. By the time the article was published, JFK had been assassinated, and Mary Pinchot Meyer herself was dead, a victim of a murder that took place in Washington on October 12, 1964.

The murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer is the subject of a fascinating and gripping new book by Peter Janney, who was childhood friends with Mary Meyer's three sons and whose father himself was a high CIA official. Janney's father and mother socialized in the 1950s with the Meyers and other high-level CIA officials.

Janney's book, Mary's Mosaic, is one of those books that you just can't put down once you start reading it. It has everything a reader could ever want in a work of nonfiction -- politics, love, sex, war, intrigue, history, culture, murder, spies, racism, and perhaps the biggest criminal trial in the history of our nation's capital.

Just past noon on the day of the murder, Mary Meyer was on her daily walk on the C&O Canal Trail near the Key Bridge in Washington, D.C. Someone grabbed her and shot a .38-caliber bullet into the left side of her head. Meyer continued struggling despite the almost certainly fatal wound, so the murderer shot her again, this time downward through her right shoulder. The second bullet struck directly into her heart, killing her instantly.

A 21-year-old black man named Raymond Crump Jr., who lived in one of the poorest sections of D.C., was arrested near the site of the crime and charged with the murder. Crump denied committing the crime.

There were two eyewitnesses. One witness, Henry Wiggins Jr., said that he saw a black man standing over the body wearing a beige jacket, a dark cap, dark pants, and dark shoes, and then he identified Crump as the man he had seen. Another witness, William L. Mitchell, said that prior to the murder, he had been jogging on the trail when he saw a black man dressed in the same manner following Meyer a short time before she was killed.

When Crump was arrested, he was wearing dark pants and dark shoes. Police later found his beige jacket and dark cap in the water near the trail.

It certainly did not look good for Ray Crump, as he himself said to the police. Nonetheless, he steadfastly denied having anything to do with the murder.

Crump's family retained one of D.C.'s most renowned and respected attorneys, an African American woman named Dovey Johnson Roundtree, who was around 50 years old at the time. (See Justice Older than the Law: The Life of Dovey Johnson Roundtree, an autobiography co-authored by Katie McCabe.) Roundtree met with Crump and became absolutely convinced of his innocence. She agreed to take the case for a fee of one dollar.

When the case came to trial, the prosecution, which was led by one of the Justice Department's top prosecutors, called 27 witnesses and introduced more than 50 exhibits. Dovey Roundtree presented 3 character witnesses and then rested her case, without calling Ray Crump to the stand.

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

As Janney documents slowly and meticulously, the case against Ray Crump had all the makings of a good frame, but not a perfect one. For example, the two eyewitnesses had stated that the black man they saw was about 5 inches taller than Ray Crump and about 40 pounds heavier. Moreover, there wasn't a drop of blood on Ray Crump's clothing. Furthermore, there wasn't a bit of Crump's hair, blood, or bodily fluids on the clothing or body of Mary Meyer. Despite an extensive search of the area, including a draining of the nearby canal and a search of the Potomac, the police never found a gun.

After 35 years of researching and investigating the case, Janney pins the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer on the Central Intelligence Agency. What would have been the CIA's motive? To silence an independent-minded woman who apparently did not accept the official lone-nut explanation for the assassination of John F. Kennedy -- and who had apparently concluded instead that Kennedy was the victim of a high-level conspiracy involving officials of the CIA

Immediately after Kennedy's assassination, Meyer telephoned famed LSD guru Timothy Leary, with whom she had consulted regarding the use of LSD, not only for herself but also for unidentified important men in Washington to whom she wanted to expose the drug. Highly emotional, she exclaimed to Leary, "They couldn't control him anymore. He was changing too fast. They've covered everything up. I gotta come see you. I'm afraid. Be careful."

Meyer was referring to the dramatic shift that took place within President Kennedy after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the seminal event that had brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war. As James W. Douglass carefully documents in his book JFK and the Unspeakable, a book that Janney mentions with favor, Kennedy was seared by that experience, especially given that his own children might well have been killed in the nuclear holocaust.

After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy began moving America in a dramatically different direction; he intended to end the Cold War through personal negotiations with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, who desired to do the same thing. The idea was that the United States and the Soviet Union would peacefully coexist, much as communist China and the United States do today. Kennedy's dramatic shift was exemplified by his "Peace Speech" at American University, a speech that Soviet officials permitted to be broadcast all across the Soviet Union. That was followed by the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which in turn was followed by an executive order signed by Kennedy that began the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam.

Perhaps most significant, however, were Kennedy's secret personal communications with Khrushchev and Kennedy's secret personal outreach to Cuban president Fidel Castro, with the aim of ending the Cold War and normalizing relations with Cuba. Those personal communications were kept secret from the American people, but, more significantly, Kennedy also tried to keep them secret from the U.S. military and the CIA

Why would the president do that?

Because by that time, Kennedy had lost confidence in both the Pentagon and the CIA He didn't trust them, and he had no confidence in their counsel or judgment. He believed that they would do whatever was necessary to obstruct his attempts to end the Cold War and normalize relations with Cuba -- which of course could have spelled the end of the U.S. national-security state, including both the enormous military-industrial complex and the CIA Don't forget, after all, that after the disaster at the Bay of Pigs and after Kennedy had fired CIA director Alan Dulles and two other high CIA officials, he had also promised to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

Janney's book places Meyer's murder within the context of the Kennedy murder, which had taken place 11 months before, in November 1963. The book brilliantly weaves the two cases into an easily readable, easily understandable analysis.

In Janney's book, there are two revelations about Mary Meyer's murder that I found especially disturbing:

1. The eyewitness who claimed to be jogging on the trail when he saw a black man following Mary Meyer does not seem to be who he claimed to be.

The man told the police that his name was William L. Mitchell and that he was a U.S. Army 2nd lieutenant who was stationed at the Pentagon.

Janney relates that according to a contemporaneous "news clip" in the Washington Star, by the time the trial began, Mitchell was no longer in the military and instead was now serving as a math instructor at Georgetown University.

Janney's investigation revealed, however, that Georgetown had no record of Mitchell's having taught there. His investigation also revealed that the CIA oftentimes used Georgetown University as a cover for its agents.

Janney investigated the personal address that Mitchell gave both to the police and at trial. It turns out that the building served as a CIA "safe house." What was Mitchell, who supposedly was a U.S. Army lieutenant and then a Georgetown math instructor, doing living in a CIA "safe house"?

Janney was never able to locate Mitchell. You would think that a man who had testified in one of the most important murder cases in D.C. history would have surfaced, from time to time, to talk about his role in the case. Or that friends or relatives of his would have popped up and said that he had told them about his role in the trial.

Nope. It's as if William L. Mitchell just disappeared off the face of the earth -- well, except for some circumstantial evidence that Janney uncovered indicating that Mitchell was actually an agent of the CIA

For example, in 1993 an author named Leo Damore, who had written a book entitled Senatorial Privilege about the Ted Kennedy/Chappaquiddick episode, was conducting his own investigation into Mary Pinchot Meyer's murder, with the aim of writing a book on the case. Damore ended up committing suicide before finishing his book. But in the process of his investigation, he telephoned his lawyer, a former federal judge named Jimmy Smith, telling Smith that after a long, unsuccessful attempt to locate Mitchell, Damore had finally received a telephone call from a man identifying himself as Mitchell. According to Smith's written notes of the conversation, a copy of which are at the back of Janney's book, the man purporting to be Mitchell admitted to having murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer as part of a CIA plot to silence her.

In 1998, an author named Nina Burleigh wrote her own book about Meyer's murder, entitled A Very Private Woman, in which she concluded that Crump really had committed the murder despite his acquittal.

Just recently, Burleigh published a critical review of Janney's book at The Daily Beast, in which she acknowledges the likelihood that given the large amount of evidence that has been uncovered over the past decade, the CIA did, in fact, play a role in the assassination of President Kennedy.

In her review, however, Burleigh ridiculed the notion that the CIA would use its assassin in the Meyer case to also serve as a witness to the murder. It's a fair enough critique, especially given that the information is hearsay on hearsay and Damore isn't alive to relate the details of his purported telephone conversation with Mitchell or to provide a tape recording of the exchange.

But what I found fascinating is that Burleigh failed to confront the other half of the problem: even if Mitchell wasn't the assassin, there is still the problem of his possibly having been a fake witness who provided manufactured and perjured testimony in a federal criminal proceeding.

I couldn't understand how Burleigh could fail to see how important that point is. I figured I'd go take a look at her book. Imagine my surprise when a search for "Mitchell" in the Kindle edition turned up no results. I asked myself, How is that possible? How could this author totally fail to mention the name of one of the two eyewitnesses in the case?

So, I decided to read through her book to see if I could come up with an answer. It turns out that she describes Mitchell simply as a "jogger" (without mentioning his name) who said that he had seen a black man following Meyer and described the clothing the man was wearing. What is bizarre is that while she did point out, repeatedly, the name of the other eyewitness -- Henry Wiggins Jr. -- not once does she mention the name of the "jogger." The omission is conspicuous and almost comical, given sentences such as this: "Wiggins and the jogger both guessed the presumed killer's height at five foot eight" and "The shoes gave Crump the extra inches of height to make him the size described by Wiggins and the jogger."

Why this strange treatment of one of the two important eye witnesses in the case? Only Burleigh can answer that one. But given her extensive investigation of the case, I wish she would have included in her critique of Janney's book a detailed account of the efforts, if any, she made to locate "the jogger" and the fruits, if any, of those efforts. Perhaps The Daily Beast would be willing to commission Burleigh to write a supplemental article to that effect.

We should keep in mind that a criminal-justice system depends on the integrity of the process. If one side or the other feels free to use fake witnesses and perjured testimony with impunity, knowing that no one within the government will ever investigate or prosecute it, then the entire criminal-justice system becomes worthless or, even worse, tyrannical.

Prior to the publication of his book at the beginning of April, Janney issued a press release in which he stated that he planned to mail a request to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to reopen the investigation into the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer based on the evidence that Janney uncovered as part of his research for the book.

He need not bother. In 1973, nine years after the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer, 31-year-old American journalist Charles Horman was murdered in Chile during the U.S.-supported coup that brought military strongman Augusto Pinochet into power. Twenty-six years later -- 1999 -- U.S. officials released a State Department memorandum confessing the CIA's participation in Horman's murder. The CIA's motive? Apparently to silence Horman, who intended to publicly disclose the role of the U.S. military and the CIA in the Chilean coup. Despite the official acknowledgment by the State Department of CIA complicity in the murder of this young American, not one single subpoena has ever been issued by the Justice Department or Congress seeking to find out who the CIA agents who murdered Horman were, why they murdered him, and whether they did so on orders from above.

How much trouble would it be for the Justice Department to issue subpoenas to the Pentagon and the CIA for all records relating to William L. Mitchell, including military and CIA service records and last known addresses? Or a subpoena for records relating to the CIA "safe house" in which Mitchell resided? Or a subpoena for records pertaining to the CIA's use of Georgetown University as a cover for CIA agents? Or a subpoena to Georgetown University for records relating to William L. Mitchell and records relating to the CIA's use of Georgetown University as a cover for CIA agents?

No trouble at all. But the chances of it occurring are nil.

2. The second especially disturbing part of Janney's book relates to Mary Pinchot Meyer's diary. On either the night of Meyer's murder or the following morning, the CIA's counterintelligence chief, James Jesus Angleton, burglarized Meyer's home and art studio and stole her personal diary, which very likely contained detailed descriptions about her affair with President Kennedy. It also might have contained her suspicions that Kennedy had been the victim of a high-level assassination plot orchestrated by the CIA Angleton took the diary with the aim of destroying it, but it's still not certain what exactly he did with it.

Angleton later claimed that his actions were done at the request of Meyer's close friend, Anne Truitt, whom Meyer had supposedly entrusted with the diary in the event anything happened to her. But Truitt had no legal authority to authorize Angleton or anyone else to break into Meyer's house or studio and take possession of any of her personal belongings.

Unless the diary ever shows up, no one will ever know whether Kennedy and Meyer discussed the transformation that Kennedy was undergoing after the Cuban Missile Crisis. But one thing is for sure: given Meyer's deep devotion to peace, which stretched all the way back to her college days, she and Kennedy were certainly on the same wavelength after the crisis. Moreover, given Meyer's fearful statement to Timothy Leary immediately after the assassination, as detailed above, there is little doubt as to what Meyer was thinking with respect to who had killed JFK and why.

Angleton also arguably committed obstruction of justice by failing to turn Mary Meyer's diary over to the police, the prosecutor, and the defense in Ray Crump's case. After all, even if the diary didn't point in the direction of the CIA as having orchestrated the assassination of John Kennedy, at the very least it had to have described the sexual affair between Meyer and the president. The police and the defense were both entitled to that information, if for no other reason than to investigate whether Meyer had been killed by someone who didn't want the affair to be disclosed to the public. The fact that Angleton failed to disclose the diary's existence to the judge, the prosecutor, and the defendant in a criminal proceeding in which a man was being prosecuted for a death-penalty offense speaks volumes.

One of the eerie aspects of this case is that prior to her murder, Meyer told friends that there was evidence that someone had been breaking into and entering her house. Now, one might say that the CIA is too competent to leave that type of evidence when it breaks into someone's home. I agree. But the evidence might well have been meant to serve as a CIA calling card containing the following message to Mary Pinchot Meyer: "We are watching you, and we know what you are doing. If you know what's good for you, cease and desist and keep your mouth shut."

But Mary Pinchot Meyer wasn't that kind of woman. She was independent minded, strong willed, and outspoken. In fact, when she attended CIA parties with her husband, Cord Meyer, she was known to make negative wisecracks about the agency. One of the other CIA wives commented that Mary just didn't know when to keep her mouth shut.

If the CIA did, in fact, orchestrate the assassination of John F. Kennedy -- and, as Nina Burleigh observes, the overwhelming weight of the circumstantial evidence certainly points in that direction -- Mary Pinchot Meyer, given her relationship to the CIA, her close contacts within the Kennedy administration, and her penchant for being outspoken, could have proven to be a very dangerous adversary.

In his introduction to Mary's Mosaic, Janney places the murders of John Kennedy and Mary Pinchot Meyer in a larger context:

The tapestry of President Kennedy's killing is enormous; the tapestry of Mary Meyer's, much smaller. And yet they are connected, one to another, in ways that became increasingly apparent to me as I dug ever more deeply into her relationship with Jack Kennedy and the circumstances surrounding her demise. To understand the complex weave of elements that led to her death is to understand, in a deeper way, one of the most abominable, despicable events of our country's history.

Therein lies the cancerous tumor upon the soul of America. The CIA's inception and entrance into the American landscape fundamentally altered not only the functioning of our government, but the entire character of American life. The CIA's reign during the Cold War era has contaminated the pursuit of historical truth. While the dismantling of America's republic didn't begin in Dallas in 1963, that day surely marked an unprecedented acceleration of the erosion of constitutional democracy. America has never recovered. Today in 2012, the ongoing disintegration of our country is ultimately about the corruption of our government, a government that has consistently and intentionally misrepresented and lied about what really took place in Dallas in 1963, as it did about the escalation of the Vietnam War that followed, and which it presently continues to do about so many things.

Once revered as a refuge from tyranny, America has become a sponsor and patron of tyrants. Like Rome before it, America is -- in its own way -- burning. Indeed, the Roman goddess Libertas, her embodiment the Statue of Liberty, still stands at the entrance of New York harbor to welcome all newcomers. Her iconic torch of freedom ablaze, her tabula ansata specifically memorializing the rule of law and the American Declaration of Independence, the chains of tyranny are broken at her feet. She wears `peace' sandals -- not war boots. While her presence should be an inescapable reminder that we are all "immigrants," her torch reminds us that the core principles for which she stands require truth telling by each and every one of us. As long as any vestige of our democracy remains, each of us has a solemn duty to defend it, putting our personal and family loyalties aside. "Patriotism" -- real patriotism -- has a most important venue, and it's not always about putting on a uniform to fight some senseless, insane war in order to sustain the meaningless myths about "freedom" or "America's greatness." There is a higher loyalty that real patriotism demands and encompasses, and that loyalty is to the pursuit of truth, no matter how painful or uncomfortable the journey.

Buy Peter Janney's book Mary's Mosaic. But be sure to set aside a couple of days for reading it, because once you start, you won't be able to put the book down.

--Jacob G. Hornberger, President, The Future of Freedom Foundation [...].

By Douglas on April 1, 2012
A Masterpiece of Biography and a Mesmerizing Detective Story

Written by Douglas P. Horne, author of "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board"

"Mary's Mosaic" is several things at once: an insightful and sensitive biography of both Mary Meyer and her one-time husband, CIA propaganda specialist Cord Meyer; a murder mystery; a trial drama; an expose of secret knowledge and cover-ups inside the Washington D.C. Beltway during the 1950s and 1960s; and of course, a love story about the late-developing relationship between President John F. Kennedy and Mary Pinchot Meyer, whom he had first met at an Ivy League prep school dance when she was only 15 years old. Their paths had crossed briefly once again in the Spring of 1945, at the founding conference for the United Nations in San Francisco. (Mary, her new husband Cord Meyer, and John F. Kennedy all attended the conference as journalists reporting on the events there, at the birth of the United Nations.)

One of the fascinating aspects of this well-researched book is how it traces the evolution and personal development of Mary Pinchot Meyer, Cord Meyer, and John F. Kennedy. As Cord Meyer---a scarred war hero who was once an idealist and a pacifist, and who aggressively lobbied for a united world government following World War II---became a disillusioned cynic and was subverted to the "dark side" by Allen Dulles of the CIA, his all-consuming commitment to the Cold War (and his abandonment of his former idealism) slowly killed his marriage to Mary Pinchot. Mary remained an idealist and an independent thinker, and it was this very independent and unconventional woman whose orbit finally intersected with that of President John F. Kennedy again late in 1961, about two years before his assassination.

Janney convincingly documents how their relationship became much more than a series of mere sexual trysts---it became a personal and political alliance of two people who had become thoroughly convinced of the insanity of war between nation states in the Nuclear Age, and who were both determined to do something about it. Jack Kennedy, already sickened by war and skeptical about the wisdom of senior military officers because of his World War II experiences, had become even more skeptical about the desire of many to seek simplistic, military solutions to complex international problems following the bad advice he received from the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the Bay of Pigs and Laos in 1961. After the searing crucible of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the fall of 1962, JFK embarked upon a program of moral action not only in civil rights, but undertook bold efforts to begin to end the Cold War; to commence a withdrawal from Vietnam which would have been completed by the end of 1965; and behind the backs of the Pentagon and the CIA, embarked upon what he thought was a clandestine rapprochment with Fidel Castro's Cuba. Mary Pinchot Meyer, who had ever been critical and distrustful of the CIA, became a natural ally of President Kennedy's throughout 1963 as he moved to curb the unbridled power of the Agency and defuse the Cold War. (She was present at the "Peace Speech" at American University on June 10, 1963, and Jackie Kennedy was not.) One of Janney's most convincing sources about the nature of the relationship between Mary Meyer and Jack Kennedy was an extremely well-placed official with intimate knowledge of JFK's daily activities and thinking: Kennedy's Presidential Appointments Secretary, Kenneth O'Donnell. Janney used O'Donnell's oral history interview with the late author Leo Damore, recorded years ago shortly before O'Donnell's death, as one of the foundations for his book.

For those who revel in study of the Cold War culture in Washington in this era, the book is full of well-documented revelations about Phil and Katherine Graham of the Washington Post; James Jesus Angleton (the Head of CIA Counterintelligence), who was godfather to the children of Cord and Mary Meyer; and Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post during the Watergate era (who is exposed in the book as one of the CIA's major media assets). In my view, knowing that Bradlee was in the CIA's pocket helps explain why the Washington Post was so successful in taking down Richard Nixon following the Watergate break-in. Nixon had used his Chief of Staff, Haldemann, to attempt to get the CIA to "warn off" the FBI in its investigation of the Watergate break-in and the "plumbers." Nixon instructed Haldemann to threaten the CIA (Richard Helms) with exposure of its involvement in the JFK assassination, as an incentive for the Agency to cooperate with him. This "hardball" leverage failed, and Bradlee was allowed (and perhaps encouraged) to take down Nixon. He acted as the CIA wished in the Watergate matter. Unaccountably, Bradlee never employed the considerable investigative resources of the Post to look into the Kennedy assassination...well, perhaps that is not so "unaccountable" after all, now that we know he had been a CIA asset since the early 1950s, a part of the Agency's remarkably successful penetration and control of foreign and domestic media. As Janney reveals, Cord Meyer (Mary's husband from 1945 until the late 1950s) was in charge of that CIA program of media penetration and propaganda, and Ben Bradlee was married to Mary Pinchot's sister, Toni. The proximity of these relationships---between Cord Meyer, James Angleton, and Bradlee---make it easy to believe that Bradlee's links with the CIA, that began in the early 1950s, continued into the 1960s and early 1970s, when he was in powerful positions at Newsweek and the Washington Post.

Peter Janney's own father, a World War II Naval aviator and a recipient of the Navy Cross, was also a CIA man, and Peter grew up amidst the CIA culture in Washington. Mary Meyer's son Michael was his best childhood friend. He knew Mary Meyer as his best friend's mother. He was therefore perfectly placed to write this book, for his own family had frequent social contacts with Cord and Mary Meyer, James Angleton, Richard Helms, Tracy Barnes, Desmond FitzGerald, and William Colby. Janney's knowledge of the CIA Cold War culture in our nation's capital in the 1950s and 1960s is very well-informed, on a personal level.

Janney compellingly relates how the D.C. metropolitan police and the U.S. Justice Department attempted to railroad an innocent black man, Ray Crump, for the mysterious murder of Mary Meyer in October of 1964, just three weeks after the Warren Report was issued. Due to the heroic efforts of African American female attorney Dovey Roundtree, Janney explains how against all odds, Crump was acquitted. Peter Janney reveals the likely motive for her murder---she was about to publicly oppose the sham conclusions of the Warren Report as a fraud. Furthermore, she had kept a private diary which presumably recorded details of her relationship with President Kennedy (and perhaps even of affairs of state). In October of 1964, she was literally "the woman who knew too much." This book reveals the numerous lies and falsehoods told about her diary (and its disposition) by Ben Bradlee, James Jesus Angleton, and others, in a way not adequately covered by previous articles and books. The media in this country, misled by the CIA and by former acquaintances of Meyer's who had much to hide, has consistently distorted the true story of what likely happened to her diary, and Peter Janney lays all of this out in a way that anyone can understand.

Peter Janney also solves the mystery of her murder 48 years ago, in as convincing a fashion as one can, so many years later. Many have asked, "If Ray Crump did not kill Mary Meyer, then who did?" This book answers that question. (I will not provide any spoilers here.)

So purchase a copy of this book today. Extensively footnoted and persuasively written, it is the best account in print about the life and death of Mary Meyer, easily eclipsing the sole biography previously written about her by Nina Burleigh. Peter Janney has courageously finished the investigative journey into her life and death begun by the late Leo Damore, and briefly resumed (and then abandoned) by John H. Davis. "Mary's Mosaic" is part film noir thriller, part biography, and also provides a remarkably frank view of the Cold War culture in Washington, and the dark side of the national security state. It belongs on the bookshelf of every Cold War historian, and everyone who is interested in President Kennedy's assassination.

By Frugal Procrastinator on July 15, 2016
AMAZING BOOK, THE TRUTH IS RIGHT THERE

If anything JFK assassination captures you, you've GOT to read this lifes work of Peter Janney. One of the best painstakingly detailed books I've read regarding the subject. From the gifted elite real people, the upper class ball room society prep schoolers, to a rare peek behind the CIA upper echelon. "Three Musketeers" of Angleton, Crowley and Corson and their unbridled lawlessness leaves little doubt what went down in Dallas,11/22/1963. Mary Pinchot Meyer was an intellectual free spirited woman, born into wealth, who had all the young boys mesmerized. Also being in the same social circles of a young Jack Kennedy, they were familiar with each other long before JFK was to become President. Mary was all about self-examination, self-exploration and a driving force for peace. Not only was she a friend and eventual lover to JFK, and he respected her. She was a frequent visitor to the White House and her influence no doubt helped assuage JFK to seek world peace with the Soviets. Fascinating look from a different perspective into a story the readers all know very well. Mary's Mosaic will take you right to the brink of solving the closely guarded CIA secret. And it's right there, inside a safety deposit box, that you can have after I pass away. It's right there...

By StreamlandPark on January 10, 2017
An indispensable work on the deep state

Passionately, undauntingly researched and well-written. In bringing us his insider's perspective on the beautiful, tragically ended life of Mary Pinchot Meyer, Peter Janney also takes us with him on a lifelong journey to understand one of the most traumatic events of his childhood, and through that prism the dark workings of the deep state. This book complements another indispensable work, "The Devil's Chessboard" by David Talbot. For those who were moved by aspects of the motion picture fictionalization of Mary Pinchot in "An American Affair," this book will be a most welcome and factual expansion on her life, circle of acquaintances, and murder trial. It brought to my attention the remarkable career of African-American civil rights attorney Dovey Roundtree, who successfully defended the patsy charged with Mary's death.

By Phillip Michaels on June 20, 2016
The Physics of Information - A Nightmare for Democracy's Traitors

As one who read of Mary Meyer's murder in the Washington Post during my high school days in 1964, this book called up memories from a very deep well. Peter Janney's account of how personal his questions about her murder were made this a riveting book for me. Further, his connection to the CIA and Mary Meyer certainly gave the book a gut feeling of a search for truth, no matter the consequences. The relatively complete picture of her murder that he paints begins to fill out a decent outline of how our secret government actually works. That outline, added to the emerging outlines of other treasonous political crimes committed in the last 50 years, is inexorably exposing that "secret" government bit by bit.

Physicists' hypothesize that information, like energy and matter, cannot be destroyed. The example given is a book thrown into a black hole that turns to heat, ash, and gas as it falls into the maw of the universe's ultimate shredder. According to this hypothesis, the indestructibility of information means that the words and data in that book are not actually destroyed; it's just that we don't know how to reconstruct it, yet. A good example of what that practically means is the discovery in the opening days of this century of the wreck of the Luisitania on a seafloor littered with munitions that the British government (and to some extent the Americans' as well) have long denied were being carried on the ship. The sinking of the "innocent" passenger ship became a "cause celebre" helping to sell the war to citizens on both sides of the Atlantic. But, times have changed and we can now reconstruct the Lusitania's "book" and the truth is out.

The exposure of the truth of a false flag at the beginning of World War I, this story's success in piecing together--from many seemingly disparate pieces--the facts of Mary Meyer's murder, and the realization that the information about a crime can (probably) never be successfully covered up forever should be a nightmare for anyone aiding political machinations and a hope for all the rest of us. Peter's book demonstrates that with the arrival of the information society the timeline for successfully hiding truth is growing shorter. As one already awake to this century's devastating false flag on 9/11, the truth about Mary Meyer and her death has not arrived a moment too soon. Thank you, Peter!

By Gretchen Rohland on December 19, 2016
Truth comes into the light

This history is masterfully researched and written. I fully agree with detailed reviews posted about it. From a personal perspective, what went on during the Kennedy-Johnson era is profoundly disturbing to me. My now deceased husband was in the Air Force and assigned to Operation SkySpot in Vietnam. Johnson's escalation of this war caused the illnesses and deaths of so many of our best and brightest. The gift of this book is the gift that truth can, and was, unearthed. It does hold that truth can set us free.

We must stay vigilant. America is still an amazing and a great country and it is up to all its citizens to uphold this.

[Nov 01, 2017] Why Donald Trump is the perfect tool in the hands of neocons right now

Oct 21, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

Puppets like Obama won't work twice and things with Hillary in power would be even worse because, as she is definitely a pure product of the establishment, no one would believe any cheap excuses that would come out of her mouth in order to persuade the US public opinion for the necessity of another war.

But now, the ruthless neocon/neoliberal establishment has the right man in the right position to put the blame for that: Donald Trump.

Despite that Trump was promoted as an 'anti-establishment' candidate, using intensively anti-interventionist rhetoric, he has already done the exact opposite. He has already bombed Syria, constantly provokes China and North Korea and, lately, does everything he can to destroy the Iran nuclear deal. It's more than obvious that he seeks to go after Iran, as the seventh target of the US empire, revealed by Wesley Clark.

[Nov 01, 2017] The Devil's Chessboard Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government David Talbot 9780062276179 Amazon

Notable quotes:
"... Talbot focusses extensively on James Jesus Angleton, the shadowy counterintelligence figure at the heart of the domestic assassinations of the 1960s, and examines the inner-workings of Dulles' ambitious (and dastardly) plot to consolidate and control global political power. ..."
"... The other shortcoming here is that Talbot never covered one of the most important documents ever revealed by the CIA That document ( https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6515#relPageId=2&tab=page ), signed by my own father who chaired the meeting that took place at the highest levels in the CIA on September 20, 1967, reveals unequivocally the CIA's involvement in the JFK assassination. ..."
"... Present at this meeting was the CIA's Executive Director, General Counsel, Inspector General, and others, including Raymond Rocca who was James Jesus Angleton's chief lieutenant in the office of Counterintelligence. Rocca was quoted as stating in the meeting that he felt that "Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of [Clay] Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy." ..."
"... That statement was nothing less than prima facie evidence of the CIA's involvement in the assassination of a sitting U.S. President, which amounted to an open, documented admission by a high level CIA officer – during an internal CIA meeting – that Clay Shaw (as well as the CIA itself) was "indeed" part of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Since its release in 1998, few JFK assassination researchers have even mentioned this document, much less understood its true significance. This event, among others, will be thoroughly addressed in a new, forthcoming third edition of "Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace" in September 2016. ..."
Nov 01, 2017 | www.amazon.com

J. Roth 5.0 out of 5 stars October 14, 2015

A Groundbreaking Resource, Second Only to "JFK and the Unspeakable"

A tremendous resource of breathtaking depth and clarity. Talbot builds on the now decades-old body of research -- initiated by investigative reporters Tom Mangold ("Cold Warrior") and David Wise ("Molehunt"), and largely developed by assassination researchers James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease ("The Assassinations") -- and adds groundbreaking new information.

Talbot focusses extensively on James Jesus Angleton, the shadowy counterintelligence figure at the heart of the domestic assassinations of the 1960s, and examines the inner-workings of Dulles' ambitious (and dastardly) plot to consolidate and control global political power. "The Devil's Chessboard" is a startling and revelatory masterwork. In terms of easy-to-access assassination research, this book is second only to James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable." In terms of biographies of Dulles and Angleton, two of history's most infamous figures, this work is second to none.

Note: Be wary of one-star reviews for this book. Some trace back to commissioned-review services, the same services that give five-star reviews to shady/suspicious health and beauty products. Go figure.

Peter Janney 5.0 out of 5 stars December 7, 2015 Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
A Breathtaking Volume guaranteed to change your perception!

As the author of "Mary's Mosaic," I believe Talbot's book will become a defining "must read" journey for the true understanding of the Cold War era in American History. As others have point out, this book, coupled with James Douglas's "JFK & The Unspeakable," should be "required reading" for every American citizen. This is as close to the "truth" as we are likely to ever get.

It took me several weeks to finish this book, only because I found myself agitated and enraged to the point of having to put the book down in order to regain my composure. Having a CIA father who was seduced by Allen Dulles (or should I say allowed himself to be seduced by Allen Dulles), my own past demons again rose from the dead for one last dance. Talbot's interviews with Allen Dulles's daughter Joan were also deeply poignant. There are so many things Talbot brings to light in this book for the greater good of all.

If I have any criticism, it would be that Talbot's footnotes are too superficial and structured badly. A book like this needs to be THOROUGHLY documented, sometimes with great detail. A fine example of this would be how Jim Douglas handled his footnotes for "JFK & The Unspeakable." Douglas left no ambiguity when it came to documenting critical details he presented.

The other shortcoming here is that Talbot never covered one of the most important documents ever revealed by the CIA That document ( https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6515#relPageId=2&tab=page ), signed by my own father who chaired the meeting that took place at the highest levels in the CIA on September 20, 1967, reveals unequivocally the CIA's involvement in the JFK assassination. As Jim Garrison's challenge to the Warren Commission emerged into the national foreground in 1967, the public was unaware of what was taking place at CIA headquarters. Present at this meeting was the CIA's Executive Director, General Counsel, Inspector General, and others, including Raymond Rocca who was James Jesus Angleton's chief lieutenant in the office of Counterintelligence. Rocca was quoted as stating in the meeting that he felt that "Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of [Clay] Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy."

That statement was nothing less than prima facie evidence of the CIA's involvement in the assassination of a sitting U.S. President, which amounted to an open, documented admission by a high level CIA officer – during an internal CIA meeting – that Clay Shaw (as well as the CIA itself) was "indeed" part of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Since its release in 1998, few JFK assassination researchers have even mentioned this document, much less understood its true significance. This event, among others, will be thoroughly addressed in a new, forthcoming third edition of "Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace" in September 2016.

Thank you David Talbot for the true understanding of who Allen Dulles really was and the destruction of the republic that he brought about !

[Nov 01, 2017] JFK and the Unspeakable Why He Died and Why It Matters James W. Douglass

Unspeakable here means the belief that the CIA orchestrated JFK's death.
Nov 01, 2017 | www.amazon.com
J. Roth 5.0 out of 5 stars October 14, 2015 Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
The Seminal Work of Kennedy Assassination Research.

The sheer breadth and scope of Kennedy assassination research can be daunting. It's a subgenre of nonfiction rife with inaccurate, poorly-sourced, and hard-to-access drivel. Even the most touted works (e.g., "Reasonable Doubt," "Crossfire," and "Reclaiming History") are saturated with poor scholarship and misinformation. Yet there is one thread of research -- built upon by authors like John Newman ("Oswald and the CIA"), James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease ("The Assassinations"), Jefferson Morley ("Our Man in Mexico"), David Talbot ("Brothers" and "The Devil's Chessboard"), and Gaeton Fonzi ("The Last Investigation") -- that commands both clarity and credibility. This line of research -- which probes Lee Harvey Oswald's involvement with American counterintelligence -- builds upon the work of the 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations and offers the clearest and most level-headed perspective on the domestic assassinations of the 1960s. Within this body of work, there is no single book that paints a clearer, deeper, and more moving account of the history surrounding the Kennedy assassination than that of James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable." It is, bar none, the single most readable, most concise, and most compelling depiction of that dark chapter in history. That's why most, if not all, of the aforementioned authors regard "Unspeakable" as the seminal Kennedy research book. It's easy-to-access (even for beginners) and impossible to put down.

Turtle on November 29, 2013
Fidel was right

A recent op-ed in the Mexican paper La Jornada does a fantastic job of comparing James Douglass' conclusions about JFK's death with a speech Fidel Castro gave shortly after Nov. 22, 1963. It essentially argues that Douglass spent years doing research and conducting interviews to come up with the same answer Fidel did, which is that the assassination was basically a coup d'état orchestrated by the CIA and supported by "the vested interests of big business, the obsessions of the military and the ideological phobias of extremists."

Here's the full article (translated into English): [...]

Mike F on November 23, 2012
Has a few gaps

Col. L. Fletcher Prouty Explains the Bay of Pigs and Viet Nam
[...]

McGeorge Bundy called 9:30 PM 04-16-61 to delay the Sunday destruction by covert CIA operations of the remaining 3 Cuban fighter jets
guaranteeing Castro a win during the Bay of Pigs.

Those 3 jets destroyed the Cuban invasion of Cuba. This covert operation to destroy those 3 jets was authorized by JFK since air cover was not permitted under 5412: National Security Council Directive 5412 signed by IKE in March 1954 prohibiting use of uniformed services in covert operations; precluded air cover in Bay of Pigs.

JFK National Security Memorandum 55 assigns covert operations to the Joint Chiefs of Staff thus violating 5412 on June 28 of 1961.

Rory Lion on December 25, 2015
"The Unspeakable" - A metaphoric cop-out for Satan

This book, presents the theory that the "CIA" assassinated JFK, and uses "The Unspeakable" in the title. The title bothers me. "The Unspeakable" in particular--its vagueness and lack of courage makes the content of the book suspect. John McAdams reviewed "JFK and the Unspeakable" very critically, writing "As bad as Douglass's account of Kennedy's foreign policy is, his depiction of a plot to murder JFK is worse... To paraphrase Thomas Merton, Douglass's muse and inspiration, the bunk and nonsense Douglass recycles goes beyond the capacity of words to describe. [Douglass] is utterly uncritical of any theory, any witness...as long as it implies conspiracy."

The Unspeakable is a phrase coined by a Catholic monk, Thomas Merton, "One of the awful facts of our age," Merton wrote "is the evidence that [the world] is stricken to the vary core of its being by the presence of the Unspeakable...It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss...

This may be literature, even poetry, but "The Unspeakable" is a metaphor, and hiding behind this metaphor is the truth that the Earth is ruled by Satan. Yes, "The Unspeakable" is Satan. It is not the CIA, although some CIA employees are children of Satan. Satan is the source of evil that led to the murder of JFK and also the source of the millions of other murders committed by the children of Satan who rule the Earth. Jesus told (some of the the Pharisees) "For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44 Faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to His commands is mankind's only hope. Read the greatest book of all, the Holy Bible, and this truth will be revealed to you.

H. Guentert on October 27, 2009
More of a Catholic Perspective than New Objective Insight.

I bought this book based on some positive comments on the radio. I felt I needed to warn readers that there are assumptions being made by the author that create a theoretical moral framework, and then the information about JFK and his assassination seem to be forced into this framework created based on letters by a monk in Kentucky. Had I know this, I probably would not have purchased the book.

I gave it three stars for the helpful new information and interviews, but I disagree with some of the author's assumptions regarding JFK. I believe that President Kennedy was brilliant, had common sense, cared about the USA and its citizens, was making great efforts to reestablish a Constitutional citizen focused government instead of a plutocracy or Corporatocracy even though it irritated some large campaign contributors. I do not believe that JFK needed a "turning" point to realize that a nuclear war was a last resort, and his non-proliferation stand, as well as, RFK's investigations may have been a larger factor in his death than reported.

I believe JFK ran for the Presidency with the belief that he could, with the backing of the American people, restore the US into a more democratic and positive nation, and a force for improving living standards, health, productivity, and peaceful innovation around the world. He already wanted to break free from the imperial world leadership that profited from deceptive banking and multi-national corporate piracy, and restore accountability and liberty to achieve and innovate on a more level playing field without sacrificing security.

I have studied the JFK/RFK/JFK Jr. assassinations, and just find it very arrogant that a Catholic monk in Kentucky is presumed by the author to have a god-like view of the world situation and proposes peace at any price as the answer to USA foreign policy, or that this is even Biblical. I take exception to many of his assumptions made regarding nuclear weapon supremacy, the Japanese, and how far we should go to trade weapons for peace. There were already huge betrayals of the American people with secret technology transfers in previous adminstrations, so "under the table" deals are not discussed which should alter the this book's point of view.

The monk is far more naive that he accuses JFK of being by believing that his letters have some sort of spiritual authority to effect the world by some back channel method, and that JFK and Khrushchev are the ultimate decision makers. He seems to hold himself up as an ambassador of peace with near zero standing, and this downgrades the overall value of the book knowing that there are a lot of assumptions being promoted by some self righteous monk who only reads an occassional newpaper, but wants to promote the ideal foreign policy.

I came away with feeling that this could have been a far better book, if the information was presented without the monk's point of view slanting or filtering the information and creating this somewhat rigid framework. There is just too much to this story to get limited by a subjective theory. If Russia had 50+ nuclear missles in Cuba ready to fire at the US in 1962, then Castro was crazier than I thought and our defenses were not adequate even in the Eisenhower administration. The US should have invaded Cuba when it was still a limited conventional threat. Now, I would expect Russia to have nuclear subs sitting in the Cuban waters regardless of what is on land.

JFK inherited the short end of the stick, from fools who have created one quagmire after another, and he should have been praised for negotiating a peaceful way out. He was murdered for greed, power, and continued lack of accountabilty by people who had already been doing the same thing around the world to control other governments. They just degraded the USA into another Bananna Republic with puppet leadership.

The value in the book is finding some new, documented support information that the reader may not be aware of, not the theological theory. I don't think there are any major new revelations. "Assassination Science" and "File on Files" are far more eye opening books, for those wanting to continue down the assassination "rabit hole", and the "JFK Assassination Encylopedia" is a very good objective resource for those looking for most assassination details.

The only thing naive about JFK was assuming to get at least minimum standard protection from the Secret Service, and the Army. Instead, like all the convenient safeguard failures on 9/11/2001; none of the Secret Service procedures were enforced in Dealey Plaza, and the Army's protective and counter sniper units were prevented from coming to Dallas. Only complete idiots continue to blame Oswald for the JFK assassination when there is more evidence that he was an FBI/CIA informant warning about the assassination, and no evidence he even touched any rifle on Nov. 22, 1963. Lesson learned: Stop believing in insane number of coincidences just to perpetuate the government fairy tales.

JFK was not perfect, but he valued human lives, and deserved far better than he got from the naive American public, and even his family. We have all been too naive.

[Nov 01, 2017] Mary's Mosaic The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision

Notable quotes:
"... On either the night of Meyer's murder or the following morning, the CIA's counterintelligence chief, James Jesus Angleton, burglarized Meyer's home and art studio and stole her personal diary, which very likely contained detailed descriptions about her affair with President Kennedy. It also might have contained her suspicions that Kennedy had been the victim of a high-level assassination plot orchestrated by the CIA Angleton took the diary with the aim of destroying it, but it's still not certain what exactly he did with it. ..."
"... Angleton later claimed that his actions were done at the request of Meyer's close friend, Anne Truitt, whom Meyer had supposedly entrusted with the diary in the event anything happened to her. ..."
"... Angleton also arguably committed obstruction of justice by failing to turn Mary Meyer's diary over to the police, the prosecutor, and the defense in Ray Crump's case. ..."
"... From the gifted elite real people, the upper class ball room society prep schoolers, to a rare peek behind the CIA upper echelon. "Three Musketeers" of Angleton, Crowley and Corson and their unbridled lawlessness leaves little doubt what went down in Dallas,11/22/1963. ..."
Nov 01, 2017 | www.amazon.com

5.0 out of 5 stars

By Jacob G. Hornberger on April 12, 2012

The Murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer

In early 1976 the National Enquirer published a story that shocked the elite political class in Washington, D.C. The story disclosed that a woman named Mary Pinchot Meyer, who was a divorced spouse of a high CIA official named Cord Meyer, had been engaged in a two-year sexual affair with President John F. Kennedy. By the time the article was published, JFK had been assassinated, and Mary Pinchot Meyer herself was dead, a victim of a murder that took place in Washington on October 12, 1964.

The murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer is the subject of a fascinating and gripping new book by Peter Janney, who was childhood friends with Mary Meyer's three sons and whose father himself was a high CIA official. Janney's father and mother socialized in the 1950s with the Meyers and other high-level CIA officials.

Janney's book, Mary's Mosaic, is one of those books that you just can't put down once you start reading it. It has everything a reader could ever want in a work of nonfiction -- politics, love, sex, war, intrigue, history, culture, murder, spies, racism, and perhaps the biggest criminal trial in the history of our nation's capital.

Just past noon on the day of the murder, Mary Meyer was on her daily walk on the C&O Canal Trail near the Key Bridge in Washington, D.C. Someone grabbed her and shot a .38-caliber bullet into the left side of her head. Meyer continued struggling despite the almost certainly fatal wound, so the murderer shot her again, this time downward through her right shoulder. The second bullet struck directly into her heart, killing her instantly.

A 21-year-old black man named Raymond Crump Jr., who lived in one of the poorest sections of D.C., was arrested near the site of the crime and charged with the murder. Crump denied committing the crime.

There were two eyewitnesses. One witness, Henry Wiggins Jr., said that he saw a black man standing over the body wearing a beige jacket, a dark cap, dark pants, and dark shoes, and then he identified Crump as the man he had seen. Another witness, William L. Mitchell, said that prior to the murder, he had been jogging on the trail when he saw a black man dressed in the same manner following Meyer a short time before she was killed.

When Crump was arrested, he was wearing dark pants and dark shoes. Police later found his beige jacket and dark cap in the water near the trail.

It certainly did not look good for Ray Crump, as he himself said to the police. Nonetheless, he steadfastly denied having anything to do with the murder.

Crump's family retained one of D.C.'s most renowned and respected attorneys, an African American woman named Dovey Johnson Roundtree, who was around 50 years old at the time. (See Justice Older than the Law: The Life of Dovey Johnson Roundtree, an autobiography co-authored by Katie McCabe.) Roundtree met with Crump and became absolutely convinced of his innocence. She agreed to take the case for a fee of one dollar.

When the case came to trial, the prosecution, which was led by one of the Justice Department's top prosecutors, called 27 witnesses and introduced more than 50 exhibits. Dovey Roundtree presented 3 character witnesses and then rested her case, without calling Ray Crump to the stand.

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

As Janney documents slowly and meticulously, the case against Ray Crump had all the makings of a good frame, but not a perfect one. For example, the two eyewitnesses had stated that the black man they saw was about 5 inches taller than Ray Crump and about 40 pounds heavier. Moreover, there wasn't a drop of blood on Ray Crump's clothing. Furthermore, there wasn't a bit of Crump's hair, blood, or bodily fluids on the clothing or body of Mary Meyer. Despite an extensive search of the area, including a draining of the nearby canal and a search of the Potomac, the police never found a gun.

After 35 years of researching and investigating the case, Janney pins the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer on the Central Intelligence Agency. What would have been the CIA's motive? To silence an independent-minded woman who apparently did not accept the official lone-nut explanation for the assassination of John F. Kennedy -- and who had apparently concluded instead that Kennedy was the victim of a high-level conspiracy involving officials of the CIA

Immediately after Kennedy's assassination, Meyer telephoned famed LSD guru Timothy Leary, with whom she had consulted regarding the use of LSD, not only for herself but also for unidentified important men in Washington to whom she wanted to expose the drug. Highly emotional, she exclaimed to Leary, "They couldn't control him anymore. He was changing too fast. They've covered everything up. I gotta come see you. I'm afraid. Be careful."

Meyer was referring to the dramatic shift that took place within President Kennedy after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the seminal event that had brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war. As James W. Douglass carefully documents in his book JFK and the Unspeakable, a book that Janney mentions with favor, Kennedy was seared by that experience, especially given that his own children might well have been killed in the nuclear holocaust.

After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy began moving America in a dramatically different direction; he intended to end the Cold War through personal negotiations with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, who desired to do the same thing. The idea was that the United States and the Soviet Union would peacefully coexist, much as communist China and the United States do today. Kennedy's dramatic shift was exemplified by his "Peace Speech" at American University, a speech that Soviet officials permitted to be broadcast all across the Soviet Union. That was followed by the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which in turn was followed by an executive order signed by Kennedy that began the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam.

Perhaps most significant, however, were Kennedy's secret personal communications with Khrushchev and Kennedy's secret personal outreach to Cuban president Fidel Castro, with the aim of ending the Cold War and normalizing relations with Cuba. Those personal communications were kept secret from the American people, but, more significantly, Kennedy also tried to keep them secret from the U.S. military and the CIA

Why would the president do that?

Because by that time, Kennedy had lost confidence in both the Pentagon and the CIA He didn't trust them, and he had no confidence in their counsel or judgment. He believed that they would do whatever was necessary to obstruct his attempts to end the Cold War and normalize relations with Cuba -- which of course could have spelled the end of the U.S. national-security state, including both the enormous military-industrial complex and the CIA Don't forget, after all, that after the disaster at the Bay of Pigs and after Kennedy had fired CIA director Alan Dulles and two other high CIA officials, he had also promised to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

Janney's book places Meyer's murder within the context of the Kennedy murder, which had taken place 11 months before, in November 1963. The book brilliantly weaves the two cases into an easily readable, easily understandable analysis.

In Janney's book, there are two revelations about Mary Meyer's murder that I found especially disturbing:

1. The eyewitness who claimed to be jogging on the trail when he saw a black man following Mary Meyer does not seem to be who he claimed to be.

The man told the police that his name was William L. Mitchell and that he was a U.S. Army 2nd lieutenant who was stationed at the Pentagon.

Janney relates that according to a contemporaneous "news clip" in the Washington Star, by the time the trial began, Mitchell was no longer in the military and instead was now serving as a math instructor at Georgetown University.

Janney's investigation revealed, however, that Georgetown had no record of Mitchell's having taught there. His investigation also revealed that the CIA oftentimes used Georgetown University as a cover for its agents.

Janney investigated the personal address that Mitchell gave both to the police and at trial. It turns out that the building served as a CIA "safe house." What was Mitchell, who supposedly was a U.S. Army lieutenant and then a Georgetown math instructor, doing living in a CIA "safe house"?

Janney was never able to locate Mitchell. You would think that a man who had testified in one of the most important murder cases in D.C. history would have surfaced, from time to time, to talk about his role in the case. Or that friends or relatives of his would have popped up and said that he had told them about his role in the trial.

Nope. It's as if William L. Mitchell just disappeared off the face of the earth -- well, except for some circumstantial evidence that Janney uncovered indicating that Mitchell was actually an agent of the CIA

For example, in 1993 an author named Leo Damore, who had written a book entitled Senatorial Privilege about the Ted Kennedy/Chappaquiddick episode, was conducting his own investigation into Mary Pinchot Meyer's murder, with the aim of writing a book on the case. Damore ended up committing suicide before finishing his book. But in the process of his investigation, he telephoned his lawyer, a former federal judge named Jimmy Smith, telling Smith that after a long, unsuccessful attempt to locate Mitchell, Damore had finally received a telephone call from a man identifying himself as Mitchell. According to Smith's written notes of the conversation, a copy of which are at the back of Janney's book, the man purporting to be Mitchell admitted to having murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer as part of a CIA plot to silence her.

In 1998, an author named Nina Burleigh wrote her own book about Meyer's murder, entitled A Very Private Woman, in which she concluded that Crump really had committed the murder despite his acquittal.

Just recently, Burleigh published a critical review of Janney's book at The Daily Beast, in which she acknowledges the likelihood that given the large amount of evidence that has been uncovered over the past decade, the CIA did, in fact, play a role in the assassination of President Kennedy.

In her review, however, Burleigh ridiculed the notion that the CIA would use its assassin in the Meyer case to also serve as a witness to the murder. It's a fair enough critique, especially given that the information is hearsay on hearsay and Damore isn't alive to relate the details of his purported telephone conversation with Mitchell or to provide a tape recording of the exchange.

But what I found fascinating is that Burleigh failed to confront the other half of the problem: even if Mitchell wasn't the assassin, there is still the problem of his possibly having been a fake witness who provided manufactured and perjured testimony in a federal criminal proceeding.

I couldn't understand how Burleigh could fail to see how important that point is. I figured I'd go take a look at her book. Imagine my surprise when a search for "Mitchell" in the Kindle edition turned up no results. I asked myself, How is that possible? How could this author totally fail to mention the name of one of the two eyewitnesses in the case?

So, I decided to read through her book to see if I could come up with an answer. It turns out that she describes Mitchell simply as a "jogger" (without mentioning his name) who said that he had seen a black man following Meyer and described the clothing the man was wearing. What is bizarre is that while she did point out, repeatedly, the name of the other eyewitness -- Henry Wiggins Jr. -- not once does she mention the name of the "jogger." The omission is conspicuous and almost comical, given sentences such as this: "Wiggins and the jogger both guessed the presumed killer's height at five foot eight" and "The shoes gave Crump the extra inches of height to make him the size described by Wiggins and the jogger."

Why this strange treatment of one of the two important eye witnesses in the case? Only Burleigh can answer that one. But given her extensive investigation of the case, I wish she would have included in her critique of Janney's book a detailed account of the efforts, if any, she made to locate "the jogger" and the fruits, if any, of those efforts. Perhaps The Daily Beast would be willing to commission Burleigh to write a supplemental article to that effect.

We should keep in mind that a criminal-justice system depends on the integrity of the process. If one side or the other feels free to use fake witnesses and perjured testimony with impunity, knowing that no one within the government will ever investigate or prosecute it, then the entire criminal-justice system becomes worthless or, even worse, tyrannical.

Prior to the publication of his book at the beginning of April, Janney issued a press release in which he stated that he planned to mail a request to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to reopen the investigation into the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer based on the evidence that Janney uncovered as part of his research for the book.

He need not bother. In 1973, nine years after the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer, 31-year-old American journalist Charles Horman was murdered in Chile during the U.S.-supported coup that brought military strongman Augusto Pinochet into power. Twenty-six years later -- 1999 -- U.S. officials released a State Department memorandum confessing the CIA's participation in Horman's murder. The CIA's motive? Apparently to silence Horman, who intended to publicly disclose the role of the U.S. military and the CIA in the Chilean coup. Despite the official acknowledgment by the State Department of CIA complicity in the murder of this young American, not one single subpoena has ever been issued by the Justice Department or Congress seeking to find out who the CIA agents who murdered Horman were, why they murdered him, and whether they did so on orders from above.

How much trouble would it be for the Justice Department to issue subpoenas to the Pentagon and the CIA for all records relating to William L. Mitchell, including military and CIA service records and last known addresses? Or a subpoena for records relating to the CIA "safe house" in which Mitchell resided? Or a subpoena for records pertaining to the CIA's use of Georgetown University as a cover for CIA agents? Or a subpoena to Georgetown University for records relating to William L. Mitchell and records relating to the CIA's use of Georgetown University as a cover for CIA agents?

No trouble at all. But the chances of it occurring are nil.

2. The second especially disturbing part of Janney's book relates to Mary Pinchot Meyer's diary. On either the night of Meyer's murder or the following morning, the CIA's counterintelligence chief, James Jesus Angleton, burglarized Meyer's home and art studio and stole her personal diary, which very likely contained detailed descriptions about her affair with President Kennedy. It also might have contained her suspicions that Kennedy had been the victim of a high-level assassination plot orchestrated by the CIA Angleton took the diary with the aim of destroying it, but it's still not certain what exactly he did with it.

Angleton later claimed that his actions were done at the request of Meyer's close friend, Anne Truitt, whom Meyer had supposedly entrusted with the diary in the event anything happened to her. But Truitt had no legal authority to authorize Angleton or anyone else to break into Meyer's house or studio and take possession of any of her personal belongings.

Unless the diary ever shows up, no one will ever know whether Kennedy and Meyer discussed the transformation that Kennedy was undergoing after the Cuban Missile Crisis. But one thing is for sure: given Meyer's deep devotion to peace, which stretched all the way back to her college days, she and Kennedy were certainly on the same wavelength after the crisis. Moreover, given Meyer's fearful statement to Timothy Leary immediately after the assassination, as detailed above, there is little doubt as to what Meyer was thinking with respect to who had killed JFK and why.

Angleton also arguably committed obstruction of justice by failing to turn Mary Meyer's diary over to the police, the prosecutor, and the defense in Ray Crump's case. After all, even if the diary didn't point in the direction of the CIA as having orchestrated the assassination of John Kennedy, at the very least it had to have described the sexual affair between Meyer and the president. The police and the defense were both entitled to that information, if for no other reason than to investigate whether Meyer had been killed by someone who didn't want the affair to be disclosed to the public. The fact that Angleton failed to disclose the diary's existence to the judge, the prosecutor, and the defendant in a criminal proceeding in which a man was being prosecuted for a death-penalty offense speaks volumes.

One of the eerie aspects of this case is that prior to her murder, Meyer told friends that there was evidence that someone had been breaking into and entering her house. Now, one might say that the CIA is too competent to leave that type of evidence when it breaks into someone's home. I agree. But the evidence might well have been meant to serve as a CIA calling card containing the following message to Mary Pinchot Meyer: "We are watching you, and we know what you are doing. If you know what's good for you, cease and desist and keep your mouth shut."

But Mary Pinchot Meyer wasn't that kind of woman. She was independent minded, strong willed, and outspoken. In fact, when she attended CIA parties with her husband, Cord Meyer, she was known to make negative wisecracks about the agency. One of the other CIA wives commented that Mary just didn't know when to keep her mouth shut.

If the CIA did, in fact, orchestrate the assassination of John F. Kennedy -- and, as Nina Burleigh observes, the overwhelming weight of the circumstantial evidence certainly points in that direction -- Mary Pinchot Meyer, given her relationship to the CIA, her close contacts within the Kennedy administration, and her penchant for being outspoken, could have proven to be a very dangerous adversary.

In his introduction to Mary's Mosaic, Janney places the murders of John Kennedy and Mary Pinchot Meyer in a larger context:

The tapestry of President Kennedy's killing is enormous; the tapestry of Mary Meyer's, much smaller. And yet they are connected, one to another, in ways that became increasingly apparent to me as I dug ever more deeply into her relationship with Jack Kennedy and the circumstances surrounding her demise. To understand the complex weave of elements that led to her death is to understand, in a deeper way, one of the most abominable, despicable events of our country's history.

Therein lies the cancerous tumor upon the soul of America. The CIA's inception and entrance into the American landscape fundamentally altered not only the functioning of our government, but the entire character of American life. The CIA's reign during the Cold War era has contaminated the pursuit of historical truth. While the dismantling of America's republic didn't begin in Dallas in 1963, that day surely marked an unprecedented acceleration of the erosion of constitutional democracy. America has never recovered. Today in 2012, the ongoing disintegration of our country is ultimately about the corruption of our government, a government that has consistently and intentionally misrepresented and lied about what really took place in Dallas in 1963, as it did about the escalation of the Vietnam War that followed, and which it presently continues to do about so many things.

Once revered as a refuge from tyranny, America has become a sponsor and patron of tyrants. Like Rome before it, America is -- in its own way -- burning. Indeed, the Roman goddess Libertas, her embodiment the Statue of Liberty, still stands at the entrance of New York harbor to welcome all newcomers. Her iconic torch of freedom ablaze, her tabula ansata specifically memorializing the rule of law and the American Declaration of Independence, the chains of tyranny are broken at her feet. She wears `peace' sandals -- not war boots. While her presence should be an inescapable reminder that we are all "immigrants," her torch reminds us that the core principles for which she stands require truth telling by each and every one of us. As long as any vestige of our democracy remains, each of us has a solemn duty to defend it, putting our personal and family loyalties aside. "Patriotism" -- real patriotism -- has a most important venue, and it's not always about putting on a uniform to fight some senseless, insane war in order to sustain the meaningless myths about "freedom" or "America's greatness." There is a higher loyalty that real patriotism demands and encompasses, and that loyalty is to the pursuit of truth, no matter how painful or uncomfortable the journey.

Buy Peter Janney's book Mary's Mosaic. But be sure to set aside a couple of days for reading it, because once you start, you won't be able to put the book down.

--Jacob G. Hornberger, President, The Future of Freedom Foundation [...].

By Douglas on April 1, 2012
A Masterpiece of Biography and a Mesmerizing Detective Story

Written by Douglas P. Horne, author of "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board"

"Mary's Mosaic" is several things at once: an insightful and sensitive biography of both Mary Meyer and her one-time husband, CIA propaganda specialist Cord Meyer; a murder mystery; a trial drama; an expose of secret knowledge and cover-ups inside the Washington D.C. Beltway during the 1950s and 1960s; and of course, a love story about the late-developing relationship between President John F. Kennedy and Mary Pinchot Meyer, whom he had first met at an Ivy League prep school dance when she was only 15 years old. Their paths had crossed briefly once again in the Spring of 1945, at the founding conference for the United Nations in San Francisco. (Mary, her new husband Cord Meyer, and John F. Kennedy all attended the conference as journalists reporting on the events there, at the birth of the United Nations.)

One of the fascinating aspects of this well-researched book is how it traces the evolution and personal development of Mary Pinchot Meyer, Cord Meyer, and John F. Kennedy. As Cord Meyer---a scarred war hero who was once an idealist and a pacifist, and who aggressively lobbied for a united world government following World War II---became a disillusioned cynic and was subverted to the "dark side" by Allen Dulles of the CIA, his all-consuming commitment to the Cold War (and his abandonment of his former idealism) slowly killed his marriage to Mary Pinchot. Mary remained an idealist and an independent thinker, and it was this very independent and unconventional woman whose orbit finally intersected with that of President John F. Kennedy again late in 1961, about two years before his assassination.

Janney convincingly documents how their relationship became much more than a series of mere sexual trysts---it became a personal and political alliance of two people who had become thoroughly convinced of the insanity of war between nation states in the Nuclear Age, and who were both determined to do something about it. Jack Kennedy, already sickened by war and skeptical about the wisdom of senior military officers because of his World War II experiences, had become even more skeptical about the desire of many to seek simplistic, military solutions to complex international problems following the bad advice he received from the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the Bay of Pigs and Laos in 1961. After the searing crucible of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the fall of 1962, JFK embarked upon a program of moral action not only in civil rights, but undertook bold efforts to begin to end the Cold War; to commence a withdrawal from Vietnam which would have been completed by the end of 1965; and behind the backs of the Pentagon and the CIA, embarked upon what he thought was a clandestine rapprochment with Fidel Castro's Cuba. Mary Pinchot Meyer, who had ever been critical and distrustful of the CIA, became a natural ally of President Kennedy's throughout 1963 as he moved to curb the unbridled power of the Agency and defuse the Cold War. (She was present at the "Peace Speech" at American University on June 10, 1963, and Jackie Kennedy was not.) One of Janney's most convincing sources about the nature of the relationship between Mary Meyer and Jack Kennedy was an extremely well-placed official with intimate knowledge of JFK's daily activities and thinking: Kennedy's Presidential Appointments Secretary, Kenneth O'Donnell. Janney used O'Donnell's oral history interview with the late author Leo Damore, recorded years ago shortly before O'Donnell's death, as one of the foundations for his book.

For those who revel in study of the Cold War culture in Washington in this era, the book is full of well-documented revelations about Phil and Katherine Graham of the Washington Post; James Jesus Angleton (the Head of CIA Counterintelligence), who was godfather to the children of Cord and Mary Meyer; and Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post during the Watergate era (who is exposed in the book as one of the CIA's major media assets). In my view, knowing that Bradlee was in the CIA's pocket helps explain why the Washington Post was so successful in taking down Richard Nixon following the Watergate break-in. Nixon had used his Chief of Staff, Haldemann, to attempt to get the CIA to "warn off" the FBI in its investigation of the Watergate break-in and the "plumbers." Nixon instructed Haldemann to threaten the CIA (Richard Helms) with exposure of its involvement in the JFK assassination, as an incentive for the Agency to cooperate with him. This "hardball" leverage failed, and Bradlee was allowed (and perhaps encouraged) to take down Nixon. He acted as the CIA wished in the Watergate matter. Unaccountably, Bradlee never employed the considerable investigative resources of the Post to look into the Kennedy assassination...well, perhaps that is not so "unaccountable" after all, now that we know he had been a CIA asset since the early 1950s, a part of the Agency's remarkably successful penetration and control of foreign and domestic media. As Janney reveals, Cord Meyer (Mary's husband from 1945 until the late 1950s) was in charge of that CIA program of media penetration and propaganda, and Ben Bradlee was married to Mary Pinchot's sister, Toni. The proximity of these relationships---between Cord Meyer, James Angleton, and Bradlee---make it easy to believe that Bradlee's links with the CIA, that began in the early 1950s, continued into the 1960s and early 1970s, when he was in powerful positions at Newsweek and the Washington Post.

Peter Janney's own father, a World War II Naval aviator and a recipient of the Navy Cross, was also a CIA man, and Peter grew up amidst the CIA culture in Washington. Mary Meyer's son Michael was his best childhood friend. He knew Mary Meyer as his best friend's mother. He was therefore perfectly placed to write this book, for his own family had frequent social contacts with Cord and Mary Meyer, James Angleton, Richard Helms, Tracy Barnes, Desmond FitzGerald, and William Colby. Janney's knowledge of the CIA Cold War culture in our nation's capital in the 1950s and 1960s is very well-informed, on a personal level.

Janney compellingly relates how the D.C. metropolitan police and the U.S. Justice Department attempted to railroad an innocent black man, Ray Crump, for the mysterious murder of Mary Meyer in October of 1964, just three weeks after the Warren Report was issued. Due to the heroic efforts of African American female attorney Dovey Roundtree, Janney explains how against all odds, Crump was acquitted. Peter Janney reveals the likely motive for her murder---she was about to publicly oppose the sham conclusions of the Warren Report as a fraud. Furthermore, she had kept a private diary which presumably recorded details of her relationship with President Kennedy (and perhaps even of affairs of state). In October of 1964, she was literally "the woman who knew too much." This book reveals the numerous lies and falsehoods told about her diary (and its disposition) by Ben Bradlee, James Jesus Angleton, and others, in a way not adequately covered by previous articles and books. The media in this country, misled by the CIA and by former acquaintances of Meyer's who had much to hide, has consistently distorted the true story of what likely happened to her diary, and Peter Janney lays all of this out in a way that anyone can understand.

Peter Janney also solves the mystery of her murder 48 years ago, in as convincing a fashion as one can, so many years later. Many have asked, "If Ray Crump did not kill Mary Meyer, then who did?" This book answers that question. (I will not provide any spoilers here.)

So purchase a copy of this book today. Extensively footnoted and persuasively written, it is the best account in print about the life and death of Mary Meyer, easily eclipsing the sole biography previously written about her by Nina Burleigh. Peter Janney has courageously finished the investigative journey into her life and death begun by the late Leo Damore, and briefly resumed (and then abandoned) by John H. Davis. "Mary's Mosaic" is part film noir thriller, part biography, and also provides a remarkably frank view of the Cold War culture in Washington, and the dark side of the national security state. It belongs on the bookshelf of every Cold War historian, and everyone who is interested in President Kennedy's assassination.

By Frugal Procrastinator on July 15, 2016
AMAZING BOOK, THE TRUTH IS RIGHT THERE

If anything JFK assassination captures you, you've GOT to read this lifes work of Peter Janney. One of the best painstakingly detailed books I've read regarding the subject. From the gifted elite real people, the upper class ball room society prep schoolers, to a rare peek behind the CIA upper echelon. "Three Musketeers" of Angleton, Crowley and Corson and their unbridled lawlessness leaves little doubt what went down in Dallas,11/22/1963. Mary Pinchot Meyer was an intellectual free spirited woman, born into wealth, who had all the young boys mesmerized. Also being in the same social circles of a young Jack Kennedy, they were familiar with each other long before JFK was to become President. Mary was all about self-examination, self-exploration and a driving force for peace. Not only was she a friend and eventual lover to JFK, and he respected her. She was a frequent visitor to the White House and her influence no doubt helped assuage JFK to seek world peace with the Soviets. Fascinating look from a different perspective into a story the readers all know very well. Mary's Mosaic will take you right to the brink of solving the closely guarded CIA secret. And it's right there, inside a safety deposit box, that you can have after I pass away. It's right there...

By StreamlandPark on January 10, 2017
An indispensable work on the deep state

Passionately, undauntingly researched and well-written. In bringing us his insider's perspective on the beautiful, tragically ended life of Mary Pinchot Meyer, Peter Janney also takes us with him on a lifelong journey to understand one of the most traumatic events of his childhood, and through that prism the dark workings of the deep state. This book complements another indispensable work, "The Devil's Chessboard" by David Talbot. For those who were moved by aspects of the motion picture fictionalization of Mary Pinchot in "An American Affair," this book will be a most welcome and factual expansion on her life, circle of acquaintances, and murder trial. It brought to my attention the remarkable career of African-American civil rights attorney Dovey Roundtree, who successfully defended the patsy charged with Mary's death.

By Phillip Michaels on June 20, 2016
The Physics of Information - A Nightmare for Democracy's Traitors

As one who read of Mary Meyer's murder in the Washington Post during my high school days in 1964, this book called up memories from a very deep well. Peter Janney's account of how personal his questions about her murder were made this a riveting book for me. Further, his connection to the CIA and Mary Meyer certainly gave the book a gut feeling of a search for truth, no matter the consequences. The relatively complete picture of her murder that he paints begins to fill out a decent outline of how our secret government actually works. That outline, added to the emerging outlines of other treasonous political crimes committed in the last 50 years, is inexorably exposing that "secret" government bit by bit.

Physicists' hypothesize that information, like energy and matter, cannot be destroyed. The example given is a book thrown into a black hole that turns to heat, ash, and gas as it falls into the maw of the universe's ultimate shredder. According to this hypothesis, the indestructibility of information means that the words and data in that book are not actually destroyed; it's just that we don't know how to reconstruct it, yet. A good example of what that practically means is the discovery in the opening days of this century of the wreck of the Luisitania on a seafloor littered with munitions that the British government (and to some extent the Americans' as well) have long denied were being carried on the ship. The sinking of the "innocent" passenger ship became a "cause celebre" helping to sell the war to citizens on both sides of the Atlantic. But, times have changed and we can now reconstruct the Lusitania's "book" and the truth is out.

The exposure of the truth of a false flag at the beginning of World War I, this story's success in piecing together--from many seemingly disparate pieces--the facts of Mary Meyer's murder, and the realization that the information about a crime can (probably) never be successfully covered up forever should be a nightmare for anyone aiding political machinations and a hope for all the rest of us. Peter's book demonstrates that with the arrival of the information society the timeline for successfully hiding truth is growing shorter. As one already awake to this century's devastating false flag on 9/11, the truth about Mary Meyer and her death has not arrived a moment too soon. Thank you, Peter!

By Gretchen Rohland on December 19, 2016
Truth comes into the light

This history is masterfully researched and written. I fully agree with detailed reviews posted about it. From a personal perspective, what went on during the Kennedy-Johnson era is profoundly disturbing to me. My now deceased husband was in the Air Force and assigned to Operation SkySpot in Vietnam. Johnson's escalation of this war caused the illnesses and deaths of so many of our best and brightest. The gift of this book is the gift that truth can, and was, unearthed. It does hold that truth can set us free.

We must stay vigilant. America is still an amazing and a great country and it is up to all its citizens to uphold this.

[Nov 01, 2017] Why Donald Trump is the perfect tool in the hands of neocons right now

Oct 21, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

Puppets like Obama won't work twice and things with Hillary in power would be even worse because, as she is definitely a pure product of the establishment, no one would believe any cheap excuses that would come out of her mouth in order to persuade the US public opinion for the necessity of another war.

But now, the ruthless neocon/neoliberal establishment has the right man in the right position to put the blame for that: Donald Trump.

Despite that Trump was promoted as an 'anti-establishment' candidate, using intensively anti-interventionist rhetoric, he has already done the exact opposite. He has already bombed Syria, constantly provokes China and North Korea and, lately, does everything he can to destroy the Iran nuclear deal. It's more than obvious that he seeks to go after Iran, as the seventh target of the US empire, revealed by Wesley Clark.

[Nov 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty

Notable quotes:
"... The president, he claims, had angered the military-industrial establishment with his procurement policies and his determination to withdraw from Vietnam, and had threatened to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. ..."
"... His death was in effect a coup d'etat that placed in the White House a very different man with a very different approach -- one much more acceptable to what Prouty consistently calls "the power elite." ..."
"... Mr. Prouty points to what he calls "the power elite" as the movers of geopolitics and war. JFK had other ideas as to what makes the world turn. It's the age old battle, as Lincoln put it, "between the divine rights of kings and the common rights of man"... ..."
"... Mr Prouty is no "conspiracy theorist". He worked in the Pentagon and arranged the support for the CIA operations until he retired in 1964. He knew everyone from Allen Dulles to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ..."
"... He was in a particularly excellent position, due to his official responsibilities, to know intimately of the OSS and later CIA operations, as well as the White House positions under various presidents, for he saw and worked with their communications. ..."
"... His book is full of specifics, many to most of which few people know or knew. He served under three presidents. He was liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA In 1954 he was ordered to establish the Office of Special Operations, and in 1964 retired as chief of Special Operations. In 1963 he wrote the formal directive on covert ops used by Joint Chiefs of Staff for all military services.. What this man, Prouty, said cannot be tossed aside. He knew the subject, and he knew what was done. ..."
"... His book really has two entwined themes, the role of CIA operations including the real power which drives those operations and the assassination of JFK. ..."
"... As for the assassination, he takes apart the Warren Commission in detail, point by point. He knew what was at stake between interested parties, and provides quotes from key JFK White House documents. He goes into the source and evolution of the Indochina / Vietnam war, beginning in 1943, as he was present at those allied high level meetings. He provides eye-opening historical material about which I expect few of our citizens are cognizant. ..."
"... The premise of this book is that Pres. Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam, and the military-industrial complex didn't want that to happen. Today there is contention whether this is indeed true or not. I think JFK was uncertain himself ..."
"... After Pres. Kennedy was assasinated it is undeniable we went head first into Vietnam. He had made numerous enemies. The banking industry, the military, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, etc. He was a maverick going against conventional thinking and he had to be removed. As the author states those gunshots on Elm street(which by the way, isn't it interesting that the Hollywood "cabal" chose to use as a title to a famous movie series) were a message to all future Presidents that the "secret team" is running the show now. ..."
"... According to prouty kennedy was a victim of a military-industrial complex plot triggered by his plan to withdraw from vietnam, the most important was a top secret National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only six weeks before the assassination once NSAM 263 was signed, kennedy was, for all intents, a dead man. ..."
"... It's not hard to understand why Obama hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He can't. The military industrial complex and their bankers won't let him. ..."
"... ***Note: Anyone interested in the Kennedy Assassination should realize that there is a "misinformation plant" in the Library Journal review department. Every honest book on the subject has been unconvincingly discredited by them, while they praise and try to steer you towards known flake CIA-financed writers such as Gerald Posner. ..."
"... It's rather common to hear of wrongdoing by the CIA I saw a graph recently that showed American citizen's belief in their government plummeting after the Kennedy Assassination. Almost no one accepted the Warren Commission Report and such a cover up has casted doubt on our government ever since. ..."
"... However, for all its problems as a book, the info contained herein meshes with several other books I've read recently that all point to the fact that Kennedy was moving from a Cold Warrior to a peacenik, (elsewhere attributed to his taking LSD with his mistress Mary Meyer. Who knows?) ..."
"... Oh yes, another of Prouty's big ideas is that the weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a huge error on the part of the Cabal/Elite, since it made normal war impossible, hence a turn to guerrilla warfare by proxy. Again, the belief that everything is part of a master plan. The outcome is valid, but the idea of an invisible hand behind the scenes stage-managing all this is not reasonable to me. ..."
"... Is it credible that the CIA could have been involved in Kennedy's assassination? On this point, I think the answer is yes. The old objection that people wouldn't be able to keep quiet if there were a conspiracy is pretty much moot if we're talking about the CIA, since by definition, these are guys who could do unimaginable things, have a cigarette, and then never speak of it again. ..."
"... I think there is pretty decent evidence that Oswald was connected to the CIA (The defection and then un-defection in and of itself is pretty incredible, and his statement that he was the patsy is more likely if he was in fact a patsy, than if he were a either a nut job or a Castro sympathizer. Both of those types want credit!) ..."
"... And this book also confirms the feeling that I often get that in fact the US has many of the characteristics of a fascist state, minus the concentration camps for Jews. It is true that we have wrought havoc in many other people's countries, that we maintain a near-constant state of war, and that *if* a president tried to go in a different direction, there are forces within the military-industrial-intelligence complex that might both want and be capable of taking them out. ..."
Nov 01, 2017 | www.amazon.com
From Publishers Weekly Prouty, who was a Washington insider for nearly 20 years--in the last few of them as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Kennedy--has a highly unusual perspective to offer on the assassination and the events that led up to it. Familiar to moviegoers as the original of the anonymous Washington figure, played by Donald Sutherland in the Oliver Stone's movie JFK , who asks hero Jim Garrison to ponder why Kennedy was killed, Prouty leaves no doubt where he stands.

The president, he claims, had angered the military-industrial establishment with his procurement policies and his determination to withdraw from Vietnam, and had threatened to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

His death was in effect a coup d'etat that placed in the White House a very different man with a very different approach -- one much more acceptable to what Prouty consistently calls "the power elite." Although he declares that such an elite has operated, supranationally, throughout history, and is all-powerful, he never satisfactorily explains who its members are and how it functions--or how it has allowed the current East-West rapprochement to take place.

Still, this behind-the-scenes look at how the CIA has shaped postwar U.S. foreign policy is fascinating, as are Prouty's telling questions about the security arrangements in Dallas, his knowledge of the extraordinary government movements at that time (every member of the Cabinet was out of the country when Kennedy was shot) and his perception that most of the press has joined in the cover-up ever since. Photos not seen by PW.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. From Library Journal Prouty, the mysterious "X" in Oliver Stone's JFK , promises to explain why Kennedy was assassinated. Instead, he delivers a muddled collection of undocumented, bizarre theories, most significantly that a super-powerful, avaricious power elite engineered the Cold War and all its pivotal events -- Korea, Vietnam, the U-2 incident, the Bay of Pigs, and the Kennedy assassination.

Although they are never identified, these shadowy technocrats, working through the CIA, allegedly had Kennedy murdered because he was on the brink of ending America's commitment to Vietnam, along with its billions of dollars of military contracts.

Prouty avoids some very important issues. Would Kennedy, a Cold War warrior's warrior, have indeed ended American support for Diem? And why couldn't the omnipotent power elite ensure the election of Richard Nixon, its preferred candidate, in 1960--especially since Kennedy won by only .02 percent? A much better choice is John M. Newman's JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power ( LJ 3/15/92). See also James DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case , reviewed in this issue, p. 123.--Ed.

Emil Petardi on October 1, 2014

We are living through that kind of paradigm except they now wear suits and carry briefcases and never get theirs hands dirty. Mr

Mr. Prouty points to what he calls "the power elite" as the movers of geopolitics and war. JFK had other ideas as to what makes the world turn. It's the age old battle, as Lincoln put it, "between the divine rights of kings and the common rights of man"... .

We are living through that kind of paradigm except they now wear suits and carry briefcases and never get theirs hands dirty.

Mr Prouty is no "conspiracy theorist". He worked in the Pentagon and arranged the support for the CIA operations until he retired in 1964. He knew everyone from Allen Dulles to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Coolfire VINE VOICE on May 17, 2012
Content of highest importance.

This is a very important book. It is difficult to read, because Prouty's writing is disorganized, perhaps not so to him, but to a reader. The fact is he had first hand knowledge of a great deal of what went on and into the period covering the latter part of WWII, all of Indochina / Vietnam, and into the Cold War. He was in a particularly excellent position, due to his official responsibilities, to know intimately of the OSS and later CIA operations, as well as the White House positions under various presidents, for he saw and worked with their communications.

His book is full of specifics, many to most of which few people know or knew. He served under three presidents. He was liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA In 1954 he was ordered to establish the Office of Special Operations, and in 1964 retired as chief of Special Operations. In 1963 he wrote the formal directive on covert ops used by Joint Chiefs of Staff for all military services.. What this man, Prouty, said cannot be tossed aside. He knew the subject, and he knew what was done.

His book really has two entwined themes, the role of CIA operations including the real power which drives those operations and the assassination of JFK. The lessons are real. It would have helped had his writing been more organized, rather than jumping around with much repetition, but he does provide abundant specifics in support of his positions. In many cases he uses first person, as he was present. He knew what he was talking about. He has specifics.

As for the assassination, he takes apart the Warren Commission in detail, point by point. He knew what was at stake between interested parties, and provides quotes from key JFK White House documents. He goes into the source and evolution of the Indochina / Vietnam war, beginning in 1943, as he was present at those allied high level meetings. He provides eye-opening historical material about which I expect few of our citizens are cognizant.

His material, cleaned up, should be taught in schools, but such history is never taught in classes. It is only learned `in the field' so to speak. And no nation wants it advertised exactly what drives covert operations and to whose benefit.

V-ROD on September 15, 2010
New information here

I agree with the author's premise of a conspiracy to murder JFK. There is information in this book that I have not read in any other historical reference. For example, the author states that the CIA transported the northern based people of Vietnam called the Tonkin and moved them to the south. He claims that this created a turmoil in the land as people began to fight for resources(food)to live. He states that it was this turmoil that was made to look like a communist infiltration of the country. All of this being a CIA manipulated event. Another interesting aspect is that we had been aiding the French occupation of Vietnam. This continued up until 1954; a few months before Diem being installed as President. We had been helping the enemy of the South Vietnamese people just prior to Diem's installation.

The premise of this book is that Pres. Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam, and the military-industrial complex didn't want that to happen. Today there is contention whether this is indeed true or not. I think JFK was uncertain himself and that is why you can find facts supporting both schools of thought. For example, Pres. Kennedy stated he wanted to be the first to put a man on the moon. A direct challenge to the cold war enemy Russia. Yet the book states later that Kennedy signed a memorandum desiring cooperation with Russia in the exploration of space. This is obviously an affront to the "cabal" that wanted the cold war to continue. There was alot of money to be made. I was disappointed the author didn't write about Pres.Kennedy issuing silver certificates in defiance of the Federal Reserve.

After Pres. Kennedy was assasinated it is undeniable we went head first into Vietnam. He had made numerous enemies. The banking industry, the military, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, etc. He was a maverick going against conventional thinking and he had to be removed. As the author states those gunshots on Elm street(which by the way, isn't it interesting that the Hollywood "cabal" chose to use as a title to a famous movie series) were a message to all future Presidents that the "secret team" is running the show now.

This book is not an easy read. One negative about this book is that the author's points are repeated. It also left me feeling dismayed and bewildered. If you take the author's premise at face value, almost everything we see and read now has the possibility of being a planned event. The fascinating aspect about the JFK assassination is to see how this "secret team" that works behind the scenes is in control of almost all positions of authority that we have in this country. A chief justice resides on the Warren Commission and signs off on the absurd Warren report, police in Dallas allowing reporters direct access to Oswald; at the time the suspect for the murder. Police allowing Jack Ruby to just waltz up to Oswald and shoot him. LBJ and Hoover having a conversation about not wanting a congressional investigation of the assassination and just wanting to use the Hoover/Warren reports. This is way too many coincidences not to have been a conspiracy. Fletcher Prouty may not be 100% accurate, but I'll believe his version over our official history any day.

Tamango on May 6, 2012

"Let the truth rein, or let the heaven's fall."

"This is one of the greatest books written on the assassination of John F. Kennedy,the author Col L. Fletcher Prouty contribution from his work in the pentagon and his common sense view that someone needed to level the playing field-to let the public know that military spending and goals are completely unrealistic. We have to learn from the past and Col. Prouty is one of the few who explain the uncomfortable truth. This uncomfortable feeling goes on today. How do we know when we've won in Iraq or Afghanistan? Will this repeat in Iran and North Korea? What is the next military action that will be another unwinnable war designed to keep the Defense Department in business despite the astronomical costs as it bankrupts the nation? It's time that everyone examine what Col. Fletcher Prouty wrote as a warning of what was really going on as opposed to what was reported regarding the Vietnam war and the removal of John F. Kennedy.

Col. Prouty blows the lid right off our official history and reveal what is probably the closest to the truth that we will ever get regarding the assassination of JFK, this is a true example of what is done in the dark will come to the light..anyone who wants to continue to hide from the truth, then this book is not for you because you cannot handle the truth,it's too much for you.

This is a very important book unique in this big mess that continues to surround Kennedy's murder it is a story that has been buried for decades. It is an account the government didnot want you to hear, and actually fabricated evidence in order to keep you from hearing the truth. There are no crackpot theories here, these are facts this great cabal ( the power elite) has control high enough in government or at least in the councils of government, to be able to influence the travel plans of the president, vice-president and a presidential candidate (Nixon) and all members of the kennedy cabinet. They were powerful enough to have orders issued to the army, and were able to mount a massive campaign to control the media during and after the assassination. Now if that is not power in the wrong hands, i donot know what is..there is something about Col. Prouty manner that speaks of authority, knowledge and above all, old fashioned honesty."

According to prouty kennedy was a victim of a military-industrial complex plot triggered by his plan to withdraw from vietnam, the most important was a top secret National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only six weeks before the assassination once NSAM 263 was signed, kennedy was, for all intents, a dead man.

Vietnam for the powers that be... represented the potential of tens of billions of dollars. This is what caused him to be murdered, it was a military-style ambush from start to finish, "a coup d'etat."

One of the most memorable lines in the book and the movie JFK: "Sometimes i think the organizing principle of any society is for war, the authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers war readiness accounts for approximately a tenth of the output of the world's economy. This power elite together they stand above the law, can any president ever be strong enough really to rule?

And what about the outright theft of the president's brain from the national archives? And the total and complete failure of the secret service to protect JFK in dallas? It boggles the mind, they tagged him as a dangerous traitor plotted his assassination, and orchested the subsequent cover-up. This is an unspeakable refers to an evil whose depth and deceit seemed to go beyond the capacity of words to describe.

If you are not afraid to face the truth then this book is were you would want to start. So many things make sense when you start to put the piece's of the puzzle together and facts and common sense go a long way. That is why most people want to remain ignorant,they cannot face the truth so they try to discredit people like Col. Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, Jesse Ventura to make them sound like lone nuts, sound like de'ja vu huh?

Col. Prouty was a Washington insider for nearly 20 years as chief of staff under president Kennedy this man lived this part of our history, who can better tell us the real deal than someone who was there and lived though it and who does not have anything to gain by keeping the biggest lie told to the american people on-going. Just sticking to the facts of this case and what just take basic common sense is to ask yourself "Why? that's the real question isn't it--why? the how is just scenery,Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, Mafia it keeps people guessing like a parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question--why?

Why was kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who had the power to cover it up? This book is a must read for anyone out there who still believes in truth and justice for all. Don't believe me or anyone else..do your own thinking for yourself and you might surprise yourself in the process of searching for that truth. I would like to end this by saying thank-you to Col. Prouty, Mr. jim garrison, Oliver Stone, and Jesse Ventura for being courageous enough to step forward to shine a light on the truth.

And for the non-believer's out there i feel sorry for you that you are satisfied with never really knowing the truth and how much it still effects your life today. I was not even born yet when president kennedy was assassinate but i was born one year later..and the deferences between me and you is i will always search for the truth and question it until i do find it.

I leave you with this quote: Those who can't remember the past, are condemned to repeat it. Everyone should own a copy of this part of history go out now and purchase this book before it disappear,just like the truth about JFK assassination.

bruce Lasch on June 29, 2013
JFK

I read this book a second time, about 1 year after I read it the first time. Mr Prouty had a very long and interesting career in the Air Air Corps which became the USAF. He has first hand knowledge of much of what he writes about in this book. His book is really the history of the USA since WW II with respect to the warnings of IKE "Beware of the military industrial complex".

If you did not like President Kennedy but wonder why the US has constantly been "at war" somewhere in the world since WW II then I think you will get a lot out of this book. When I was in the USAF back in the 1970's the higher ranking pilots that I flew with told me that Viet Nam was not a great war but it was the only war they had. Well, wars were good for career building if you were in the war, if you were the military industrial complex war was very good and necessary for profits.

The Radio Patriot on July 18, 2010
International Power Elite Pulling the Strings

I'm reading a stunning book written by the late L. Fletcher Prouty who served as the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy presidency. A retired colonel of the U.S. Air Force, Prouty was in charge of the global system designed to provide military support for the CIA's secret activities. He knew where the bodies were buried and the file cabinet containing the paperwork used to cover it up.

Prouty was a source for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" and was portrayed as "Mr. X" by Donald Sutherland, the man in black who advised New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (portrayed by Kevin Costner) that he was on the trail to the truth.

If you have ANY interest whatsoever in learning the truth of the events that led to what happened to our country on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and changed the course of its direction, read it.

A brief excerpt from the 375+ page book that is the most detailed account of the inception of the CIA and the events that culminated in the coup d'etat on Elm Street in Dallas on a sunny day in November.

Excerpt:

From Chapter 16 - Government by Coup d'Etat

The year was 1964. Pres. John F. Kennedy had been shot dead months before by bursts of "automatic gunfire" in Dallas by "mechanics," that is, skilled gunmen, hired by a power cabal determined to exert control over the United States government. Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK's successor, had been only a few feet under the bullets fired at Kennedy as he rode two cars back in that fatal procession.

By 1964 Johnson was becoming mired in the swamp of the Indochina conflict. Kennedy, who had vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," was dead. LBJ, who had heard those fatal bullets zing past his ears, had learned the ultimate lesson; and for good measure, Richard Nixon was in Dallas on that fatal day, so that he, too, had the fact of this ever-present danger imprinted on his memory for future use by his masters.

From Chapter 18 - Setting the Stage for the Death of JFK

"The significance of all this was that I had introduced President Kennedy's Vietnam policy statement NSAM #263, into these discussions. It is my belief that the policy announced so forcefully by Kennedy in his earlier NSAM #55 and in NSAM #263 had been the major factor in causing the decision by certain elements of the power elite to do away with Kennedy before his reelection and to take control of the U.S. government in the process.

Kennedy's NSAM #263 policy would have assured that Americans by the hundreds of thousands would not have been sent to the war in Vietnam. This policy was anathema to elements of the military-industrial complex, their bankers, and their allies in the government. This policy and the almost certain fact that Kennedy would have been reelected President in 1964 set the stage for the plot to assassinate him."

I can't put this book down. It is without doubt, the most thorough explanation of the rogue CIA, it's influence and impact on America's involvement in paramilitary operations around the world and subsequent growing conflicts. It is, as Prouty describes:

"...For the world as a whole, the CIA has now become the bogey that communism had been for America. Wherever there is trouble, violence, suffering, tragedy, the rest of us are now quick to suspect the CIA had a hand in it. Our phobia about the CIA is, no doubt, as fantastically excessive as America's phobia about world communism; but in this case, too, there is just enough convincing guidance to make the phobia genuine...

"This is what the destruction of sovereignty and disregard for the rule of law means, and it will not stop there. With it will go property rights -- as we have witnessed in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union -- and the rights of man."

It's not hard to understand why Obama hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He can't. The military industrial complex and their bankers won't let him.

This is a fascinating look into the world of the power elite: the supremely powerful international bankers who keep the books and balances for each side.

"They make these transactions possible by offering the loans, issuing letters of credit, and collecting the interest on the entire package. In many LDCs (third world "less developed countries") the total amount of interest paid to the banks and their international financing structure amounts to more than half of the total value of dollars earned by their exports. For this reason, annual payments are seldom more than the interest involved and none of the principal. This is one reason why the principal never comes back to the United States." (p. 243 - Ch. Sixteen - Government by Coup d'Etat)

Though the title focuses on the CIA, Vietnam and the plot to kill JFK, this 355 page (not including six pages of notes) book goes much further. It lays out and explains the real power -- the international power elite -- that designs the strategy and moves the pieces on the global chess board of politics, finance, and wars, domestic and international.

Prouty's very detailed book is based on a 19-part magazine series first developed by Prouty, with and published by Freedom Magazine. Prouty served as the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy presidency. A retired U.S. Air Force colonel, Prouty was in charge of the global system that provided military support for the CIA's secret activities. He was witness to activities, machinations and policy-making in the Pentagon and the White House that few others can claim. Prouty died in 2001.

"The year was 1964. Pres. John F. Kennedy had been shot dead months before by bursts of "automatic gunfire" in Dallas by "mechanics," that is, skilled gunmen hired by a power cabal determined to exert control over the United States government. Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK's successor, had been only a few feet under the bullets fired at Kennedy as he rode two cars back in that fatal procession.

"By 1964 Johnson was becoming mired in the swamp of the Indochina conflict. Kennedy, who had vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," was dead. LBJ, who heard those fatal bullets zing past his ears, had learned the ultimate lesson; and for good measure, Richard Nixon was in Dallas on that fateful day, so that he, too, had the fact of this ever-present danger imprinted on his memory for future use by his masters. (Ch. Sixteen, Government by Coup d'Etat - p 232)

~~*~~

When World War II ended with the nuclear bomb, the military industrial complex had a dilemma -- it understood that the next world war would be the final one, Yet it needed a way to keep the lucrative business of war making alive and profitable. How? By fighting a war waged for dollars, without a true military objective, under the control of civilian leaders, a war never intended to achieve victory. Enter Vietnam. Sound familiar?

Chapter Eighteen - "Setting the Stage for the Death of JFK"

[p 267]

Kennedy's NSAM #265 policy would have assured that Americans by the hundreds of thousands would not have been sent to the war in Vietnam. This policy was anathema to elements of the military-industrial complex, their bankers, and their allies in the government. This policy and the almost certain fact that Kennedy would be reelected President in 1964 set the stage for the plot to assassinate him.

[snip]

First of all, NSAM #263, October 11, 1963, was a crucial White House document. Much of it, guided by White House policy, was actually written by my boss in the Pentagon, General Krulak, myself, and others of his staff. I am familiar with it and with events which led to its creation.

[snip]

Our history books and the basic sources of history which lie buried in the archives of government documents that have been concealed from the public, and worse still, government documents that have been tampered with and forged. As I have just demonstrated above, this most important policy statement, NSAM #263, that so many historians and journalists say does not exist, has been divided into two sections in the Pentagon Papers source history.

~~*~~

Chapter Nineteen - Visions of a Kennedy Dynasty

[pp 289-290]

"With Kennedy's announcement that he was getting Americans out of Vietnam, he confirmed that he was moving away from the pattern of Cold War confrontation in favor of détente. He asked Congress to cut the defense budget. Major programs were being phased out. As a result, pressure from several fronts began to build against the young President. The pressure came from those most affected by cuts in the military budget, in the NASA space program, and in the enormous potential cost -- and profit -- of the Vietnam War.

Kennedy's plans would mean an end to the warfare in Indochina, which the United States had been supporting for nearly two decades. This would mean the end to some very big business plans, as the following anecdote will illustrate.

It was reported in an earlier chapter that the First National Bank of Boston had sent William F. Thompson, a vice president, to my office in the Pentagon in 1959, presumably after discussions with CIA officials, to explore "the future of the utilization of the helicopter in [clandestine] military operations" that had been taking place in Indochina up to 1959.

A client of that bank was Textron, Inc. The bank had suggested to Textron officials that the acquisition of the near-bankrupt Bell Aircraft Company, and particularly its helicopter division, might be a good move. What the bank and Textron needed to determine was the extent of use of helicopters by the military and by the CIA then and the potential for their future in Indochina.

Both parties were satisfied with the information they acquired from the Pentagon and from other sources in Washington. In due time the acquisition took place, and on October 13, 1963, news media in South Vietnam reported that an elite paramilitary force had made its first helicopter strike against the Vietcong from "Huey" Bell-Textron helicopters. It was also reported in an earlier chapter that more than five thousand helicopters were ultimately destroyed in Indochina and that billions of dollars were spent on helicopter purchases for those lost and their replacements.

Continuing the warfare in Vietnam, in other words, was of vital importance to these particular powerful financial and manufacturing groups. And helicopters, of course, were but one part of the $220 billion cost of U.S. participation in that conflict. Most of the $220 billion, in fact, was spent after 1963; only $2 - $3 billion had been spent on direct U.S. military activities in Vietnam in all of the years since World War II up to and including 1963. Had Kennedy lived, it would not have gone much higher than that.

It is often difficult to retrace episodes in history and to locate an incident that became crucial to subsequent events. Here, however, we have a rare opportunity.

The success of the deal between the First National Bank of Boston, Textron, and Bell hinged on the escalation of the war in Indochina. A key man in this plan was Walter Dornberger, chief of the German Rocket Center at Peenemunde, Germany, during World War II and later an official with the Bell Aircraft Company. Dornberger's associate and later protegé from Peenumunde, Wehrner von Braun, who had been instrumental in the development of the army's Pershing and Jupiter rocket systems, became a central figure in NASA's plans for the race to the moon. Such connections among skilled technicians can be of great importance within the military-industrial complex, as they generally lead to bigger budgets for all related programs.

Kennedy had announced a reduced military budget, the end of American participation in Indochina, and a major change in the race to the moon. It takes no special wisdom or inside knowledge to understand that certain vested interests considered the Kennedy proposal to defuse Vietnam and these other major budget items to be extremely dangerous to their own plans.

The pressure brought to bear on Kennedy was intense, but some sort of major event was needed that would stir emotions and trigger action. It is very likely that the death of President Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, on November 1, 1963, in Saigon was one of those events. There were at least eight or nine more that, in retrospect, indicate that a plot against Kennedy had begun to unfold."

~~*~~

Is it any wonder that despite his campaign rhetoric to the contrary, Obama is still in Iraq and Afghanistan???

If you apply what Prouty reveals, it follows that Obama does not do anything unless it is decreed by the international power elite -- from pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan to protecting our Gulf Coast oil-stained states.

JFK didn't dance to the tune of his masters. He did it his way. It cost him his life. Obama is the creation of his masters. He serves at their pleasure. He won't make JFK's mistake. You can count on it.

By Theodore M. Herlich on August 11, 1999
Mr. Prouty's book is excellent as autobiography

Mr. Prouty served in the Pentagon's Office of Special Operations during a significant portion of his professional military career. In this role, he observed first-hand how the CIA arranged/staged coups d'etat in the Phillipines and other nations around the globe. In the Office of Special Operations, Mr. Prouty was responsible for providing U.S. military support for CIA operations. This experience serves as the basis for Mr. Prouty's strong inference that the assassination of President Kennedy was a CIA-style coup d'etat. The "why" of the coup d'etat is strongly established by Mr. Prouty. JFK intended to withdraw 1,000 military personnel from Vietnam by the close of 1963 and hoped to complete the full withdrawal of U.S. military personnel from Vietnam by the close of 1965. To do this, JFK needed to get re-elected. His decision to withdraw from Vietnam was based upon the McNamara-Taylor report of early October, 1963 and codified in National Security Action Memorandum#263 of October 11, 1963. [For a thorough, scholarly analysis of the evolution of JFK's Vietnam policy, see "JFK and Vietnam" by John M. Newman (New York: Warner Books, 1992). Mr. Newman is a professional historian and a faculty member at the University of Maryland]. Powerful interests in the CIA, Pentagon and the corporate world were "gung ho" in favor of large-scale military intervention in Vietnam. The prospective war promised billions of dollars in military contracts for the defense industry. JFK's intention to withdraw from Vietnam would deny these elements in the CIA, Pentagon and corporate communities their pot of gold. Immediately after the assassination of JFK, LBJ issued NSAM#273 on November 26, 1963 which was a complete reversal of JFK's policy. NSAM#273 authorized U.S. military raids into North Vietnam. These raids precipitated the Gulf of Tonkin incidents of July-August 1963, led to Congress' Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and massive U.S. military intervention in Vietnam. LBJ gave the CIA, Pentagon and defense contractors what JFK would have denied them: billions of dollars in defense contracts in support of the full-scale war in Vietnam. For Mr. Prouty, the ultimate inference is irresistible: to effectuate the complete turn-around of Vietnam policy proposed by JFK, a CIA-style coup d'etat was carried out in Dallas on November 22, 1963. LBJ's NSAM#273 reversing JFK's Vietnam policy [from withdrawal to establishing the foundation for massive U.S. intervention] was issued on November 26, 1963. The goals of the coup were obtained immediately following the assassination. Prouty gives us the "why" of the coup. Further research remains to be done in order to give us "who" and the "how". Prouty's work is a valuable starting point for further inquiry and deserves our appreciation for its autobiographical honesty and heartfelt analysis.

By doctordave77 on January 3, 2016
Very disappointing.

Very disappointing. I was looking forward to reading this book primarily because the author was so close to the action. But as other reviewers have pointed out, the focus of the book is a far reaching review of US history since 1944-45. Unfortunately, in this regard, the book is a failure.

Prouty isn't a historian and I'm sure that he doesn't claim to be one. But to attempt to cover the ground that he does, he's lacking a lot of background knowledge. This shows up quickly in the book - let me give you a couple of examples;

- He states that President Roosevelt died suddenly, unexpectedly is the word he uses, and this simply isn't true. Roosevelt was bed-ridden for about 6 months before his death and the US government was effectively run by his advisors during this period.

- He claims that the USA and Russia were allies at the close of WWII (true), but also that an atmosphere of trust existed between the two countries (false). He continues to make the claim that but for the actions of the CIA, the Cold War would not have happened. That's simply not the case - Roosevelt and his advisors weren't happy with Stalin and vice versa. The CIA didn't even formally exist until Truman created them in 1947 and they didn't act without full political approval of the US governments of the time.

Look, I'm no fan of the CIA, and I completely agree with him that they plotted and achieved the death of JFK. But that doesn't mean that they and the KGB were responsible for creating the Cold War! Does Prouty think that the KGB could have acted in anyway without the full and knowing approval of Stalin himself? And that the Dulles brothers somehow manipulated the USA into the Cold War without the support and approval of Roosevelt and Truman? Apparently, he does!

Much of his thesis is based on the concept that there is a "power elite" that has actually been in control of world of US and Russian actions since 1944. Perhaps he is correct that a cabal currently sits behind our governments and influences events, but I disagree with his notion that they have controlled political events in the detailed way that he suggests throughout the world since 1944.

This really isn't a book about JFK and his assassination as it is a somewhat innacurate attempt to describe world history since WWII.

By Jeff Marzano on November 16, 2014
Dark And Sinister Revelations

This book presents a very strange and sinister theory.

People who are into conspiracy theories talk about groups like the Bilderberg Group who collude in secret to make decisions that are good for them but disastrous for everyone else. Those types of groups, so the theory goes, are not associated with any one particular government or country. Author Fletcher Prouty describes something like that although he says it is not the Bilderberg Group.

I've always believed in the JFK conspiracy but I never thought this conspiracy extended beyond the United States government and Lyndon Johnson. But yet I have to ask myself, if Fletcher is wrong what is the alternative ? Could he be right ?

Fletcher Prouty was deeply saddened by what he observed first hand in Vietnam. People who had lived in peace for many thousands of years in northern Vietnam were uprooted from their ancestral lands and moved to the south with nothing but the clothes on their backs. This was done to create hopelessness and a boiling cauldron of despair which was the perfect environment for igniting the inferno of warfare.

This was all accomplished by that most sinister of organizations called the CIA This agency is expert at creating confusion, human misery, and death on a massive scale with no regard for human life whatsoever.

Fletcher spends a few chapters analyzing the official story about the Kennedy assassination as far as Oswald's involvement (he was not involved), the number of shooters, and the many unexplained lapses of following official and long held procedures for protecting the president.

He was able to easily see through the smoke screen of lies created by the government about the JFK assassination and many other things because he saw all this from the inside. He was part of the very machine that caused the escalation in Vietnam and the JFK assassination. The Warren Commission's story does not hold up for many, many reasons. For one thing there were too many bullets fired. What a strange coincidence that on the day JFK was killed Fletcher happened to be in Antarctica serving as a military escort for a bunch of diplomats on some sight seeing excursion.

But yet it seems the nefarious group that ordered this assassination didn't really care if people thought there was a conspiracy because they knew nobody can do anything anyway. That's what's so scary about all this.

Fletcher feels this High Cabal, as Winston Churchill called it, has existed for 2,000 years or more in some form. Perhaps this is that great, lying beast and multi headed hydra described in the bible in the Book Of Revelation.

Some of the groups Fletcher feels are part of this cabal are the CIA and the other American intelligence agencies, the American military, international bankers, industrialists, and the Dallas police department. But beyond that even Fletcher doesn't know who is really at the very top of this super elite power structure.

For Fletcher this cabal is much more powerful than the president of the United States and they will disregard what the president says if they want to. That's exactly what happened when the CIA sent Gary Powers on a U2 spy plane mission over Russia and made sure the plane malfunctioned. As a result a planned peace summit between president Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev was cancelled. Ike had given orders to stop all covert activity until this summit was over.

They also cancelled a mission to shoot up Fidel Castro's three aircraft before the Bay Of Pigs fiasco. That was a direct failure to follow president Kennedy's orders to make sure these planes were destroyed before the invasion. They did this to embarrass president Kennedy. That's because peace is the High Cabal's greatest fear and enemy.

The election of president Kennedy was a disaster for the High Cabal. JFK was interfering with their plans to spend, not billions, but trillions of dollars in Vietnam and on their other Cold War projects. JFK was interfering with their ability to control the American government. So they killed him and regained that power, partially through their murderous accomplice Lyin' Lyndon Johnson.

After World War II the High Cabal created the perception in the public's mind of an epic struggle between Communism and the West. They used this false premise to create limited, protracted warfare all over the world. But they had to ensure the fighting did not become too intense because of the ever present menace of nuclear weapons.

Could it really be that the High Cabal doesn't care about the ideological struggle between Communism and the West or any other ideology for that matter ? Could the CIA, the KGB, and other similar groups really be providing weapons to the combatants on all sides just to prolong warfare forever ? That's what Fletcher Prouty says in this book.

Another point is the Vietnam conflict did not have any well defined military objective so it was doomed to become a protracted and ultimately unsuccessful bloodbath with the body count being the only measure of success.

Here's an exchange between Lyin' Lyndon Johnson and military legend General Creighton Abrams and his aide:

Lyndon:

"Abe, you are going over there to win. You will have an army of 550,000 men, one of the most powerful air forces ever assembled, and the invincible Seventh Fleet of the U.S. Navy offshore. Now go over there and do it."

Aide:

"Mr. President, you have told us to go over there and do 'it'. Would you care to define what 'it' is ?"

Johnson remained silent as he ushered General Abrams and his men out of the Oval Office.

Fletcher appears in an episode of the documentary 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'. The hypocrites have taken legal action to have some of those episodes pulled off the market and the DVDs are no longer available for those 'Final Chapter' episodes. However 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' can still be watched on the internet which I highly recommend.

Fletcher served as an advisor for Oliver Stone when Stone created his JFK movie. Stone's movie created a lot of controversy with the public and as a result people called for more hearings about the assassination. But those later investigations ran into the same brick wall of secrecy and deception that continues to this very day.

Fletcher drops another bomb shell in the notes section at the end of the book. He says on the day of the assassination JFK was shot with a poisonous flechette that was launched from an umbrella. A flechette is a very small, rocket propelled dart which travels at a very high velocity and which is very difficult to detect during an autopsy. Why they poisoned JFK even though they were planning on shooting him anyway I don't know. This may have been insurance in case JFK was not shot or not shot fatally.

The people who did this were professional killers. They leave very little to chance and account for many different scenarios.

On the Trail of the Assassins: One Man's Quest to Solve the Murder of President Kennedy

The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ

The Men Who Killed Kennedy

Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination

David Ferrie: Mafia Pilot, Participant in Anti-Castro Bioweapon Plot, Friend of Lee Harvey Oswald and Key to the JFK Assassination

Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor, a Secret Laboratory in New Orleans and Cancer-Causing Monkey Viruses Are Linked to Lee Harvey ... Assassination and Emerging Global Epidemics

Top Secret/Majic: Operation Majestic-12 and the United States Government's UFO Cover-up

UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973

The Men Who Killed Kennedy DVD Series - Episode List

1. "The Coup D'Etat" (25 October 1988)

2. "The Forces Of Darkness" (25 October 1988)

3. "The Cover-Up" (20 November 1991)

4. "The Patsy" (21 November 1991)

5. "The Witnesses" (21 November 1991)

6. "The Truth Shall Set You Free" (1995)

The Final Chapter episodes (internet only):

7. "The Smoking Guns" (2003)

8. "The Love Affair" (2003)

9. "The Guilty Men" (2003)

By A Time Traveler on February 7, 2014
As Told By a Pentagon/Military Insider Since WWII

For all intents and pruposes, Prouty was serving behind the scenes of US Intelligence services in one capacity or another since before WWII (as special duty at both the Cairo and Tehran Conferences), until the day he retired. So how do you know he isn't just like all the other shills and "company men" from the inside who tell the public only what the elite want them to know? There is no better illustration of Prouty's willingness to tell his whole story -- with the vast information at his disposal -- than Page 260, which in this edition, is in Chapter 17 JFK's Plan to End the Vietnam Warfare:

"Why did the US government in 1945, before the end of World War II, choose to arm and equip Ho Chi Minh? Why did the United States, a few short years later, shift its allegiance from Ho Chi Minh to the French in their losing struggle that ended ignominiously with the battle of Dien Bien Phu? Why, after creating the Diem government in 1954 and after supporting that government for ten years, did the United States shift again and encourage those Vietnamese who planned to overthrow it? And finally, why, after creating an enormous military force in Indochina, did the US government fail to go ahead and defeat this same Ho Chi Minh when, by all traditional standards of warfare, it possessed the means to do so?"

And this makes-up the majority of this work by Prouty. He wisely stays with the evidence that HE has at his disposal. In other words, what Prouty effectively laid out for the reader, is the "Why" in the Kennedy assassination. He does so without assuming very much, as when reading the book, you see very well that there was quite a large swath of the Military Industrial Complex that stood to loose billions if Kennedy had lived. And thankfully, Prouty effectively explains in great detail that any myth about Kennedy escalating the Vietnam war is just that -- a myth. And Prouty's evidence of this? Documents from his time in the Pentagon and White House, not to mention press members and administration members who backed Kennedy's own words that US forces would be pulled out of the region after he was reelected.

For those who wish to research this subject further than the events in Dealey Plaza, Prouty's book is for you. If you want an idea as to "why" Kennedy was killed, I couldn't recommend this book highly enough.

By Acute Observer on October 20, 2014
Memoirs of an Insider

JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency. L. Fletcher Prouty spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.

Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was poisoned (he had spies everywhere?). "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients. Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international law firms in government, banks, and major industries.

Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962 Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor? Chapter Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how 43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.

L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering (p.187). Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page 240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.

On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of the Warren Report to his dying day. The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31, 1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever passed in peacetime.

By Liz KS on November 24, 2015
Hard to put down.

A must read if you're wanting answers. I was and I've read a lot of books about this era because I lived through it and wanted answers to questions I had. Now it all makes sense. I would also suggest reading "Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover" by Anthony Summers. I had a hard time putting that book down too.

By Herbert L Calhoun on October 31, 2013
The Long Journey to Dallas Texas

JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty

The Long Journey to Dallas Texas

Spoiler alert: This is neither the shortest version, nor the shortest route to understanding the JFK assassination. But it is as close to the complete canonical text and understanding of the assassination as there is ever likely to be. It is told by an insider, the high priest of understanding about the JFK assassination if you ask me (or Oliver Stone), one who has been around long enough, and has resided deep enough inside the bowels of the US government to know where all the skeletons are buried.

Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty was also a member of "The Secret Team," which he wrote a very revealing book about, of the same name. It has proven to be a critical part of the unfolding of the 50-year old drama of the JFK assassination. (Read my Amazon review of it.)

Here Col Prouty takes us by the hand and guides us on a journey, moving slowly but steadily and deliberately along a long winding path, through the historical underbrush beginning at the end of WW-II. He then leads us out into a clearing called "the Cold War," where events are craftily orchestrated around the threat of a nuclear holocaust. But it is orchestrated in such a way that the right to continue endless conventional wars is preserved and the world is made forever safe "for wars of profit" by other more novel means. Korea, would be the first but not the last of the "make money wars." The mother of all such un-winnable "money wars," however was Vietnam. It would represent a signature turn in the road that would "vector" directly to the JFK assassination. However, along the way the reader will also be introduced to Saudi Arabia, Iran and the oil angle, and then on to Cuba and the threat of nuclear war, finally ending up at high noon on 11/22/63 with the assassination of our 35th president.

As enlightening as the journey is it is not an easy trip for a "democratically trained mind." For along the way, we must unlearn the old rules of democracy in favor of learning a new set, with a new unwritten covenant, as well as a new vocabulary of reactionary and self-destructive power politics. And with them, we must also adopt and adapt to wearing a new kind of emotional straitjacket, armor better to make us comfortable granting involuntary consent to these altered understandings of how our more twisted and diminished democracy is supposed to work.

To wit: We the people, and they, our new anonymous ruling power elite, consent to govern us from above but forever behind the screen, promising nothing but to be unreliable invisible puppet-masters. And in return "we the people" are expected to close our "lying eyes" and pretend that when "we" see JFK's head snap violently back and to the left, it did not really happen? Now, and henceforth, our only reality tests are those prepared for us by our "lying media," the lemmings bought and paid for by our new invisible rulers. In short, the new contract mandates that we go along quietly, without whimpering, and accept the fact that "we the people" have been robbed of all previous contractual understandings of what a democratic government is supposed to mean.

What government "by," "for" and "of" the people used to mean, has been permanently altered. In this new "hyper real context" of being governed by an anonymous power elite, who are constantly pulling the strings from behind the curtains, government "by," "for" and "of" the people now means whatever our anonymous puppet-masters' media outlets tell us it means.

Those steeped in the conspiracy paranoia of the likes of the Bilderburghers, the Trilateralists, and the Council of Foreign Relations, must understand that what Colonel Prouty is telling us here is not the same. They will find no comfort here on this journey for cheap conspiracy nonsense. Instead, they will find here just the clean facts, with all of the dots connected, convincingly written by one of the last of America's authentic patriots. When readers complete this book, they will then understand why the Bilderburghers, the Trilateralists, and the Council of Foreign Relations, are all superfluous and unnecessary. All of the questions one can imagine about the JFK assassination are answered here.

A "Rough" Summary of Colonel Prouty's Story

After World War II, and owing primarily to the creation of the CIA, the U.S entered a new "hyper covert reality" in which, just as General Eisenhower had warned in his farewell address, the machinery of government was effectively commandeered by reactionary warmongers and war profiteers. The post-war power elite ruled by calling for continuous wars, with the CIA and the military acting as their vanguard and shock troops. There was nothing subtle about this take over, nor is reference to it just knee-jerk conspiracy nonsense. Colonel Prouty provides us a framework and a clear discrete paper trail that reveals every step of the "take over process," steps that he argues convincingly led inexorably to the JFK assassination.

Step one was carefully embedded within policy memorandum NSC-5412, which among other things, gave all covert operations over to the CIA, and specifically prohibited the active military from engaging in them. However, after the spectacular debacle of the John Foster Dulles led Bay of Pigs operation, JFK issued (and was in the process of implementing at the time of his very timely assassination), a reversal of this policy with NSC-55, which would have given the responsibility for covert operations back to the active military through the JCS. Not only was this reversing directive never implemented, but with JFK's death, all of the generals running the Vietnam War, were actually CIA officers operating under military cover and rank. According to Colonel Prouty, this was nail #1 in the JFK coffin.

Nail number two involved an excruciatingly carefully worked out policy directive, NSAM-65 by the JFK national security team. It was the policy directive initiating the complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam by 1965. NSAM-65 was drawn up after an unprecedented 23 high-level meetings by JFK's and his national security team. Not only was NSAM-65 not implemented, but it was reversed in a week after the assassination by LBJ initiated policy directives NSC-273 and NSC-288.

The final nail in the coffin, according to Colonel Prouty, the one that actually signaled that assassination plans were already afoot, is the tell-tale fact that in the Pentagon papers that had been released within the government before JFK was assassinated (and later exposed publicly by Daniel Ellsberg), one-page cover sheets were entered in the text at the point where the substance of JFK's two policy directives should have been? Twenty-five stars

By Luc REYNAERT on August 24, 2007
Today America has become the nightmare (Arnold Toynbee)

Prouty's autobiography is very revealing indeed. Of course, it contains controversial items (Would JFK have stopped the Vietnam War?). But, it is the general picture that counts, and here, the author is prophetic.

Prouty presents his world view as follows: `The world is ruled by a power elite. The basic motivations are always the same. Money lays at the root ... the enormous amount spent on military matériel.'

This elite wields its power partly and most importantly through invisible intelligence agencies. `The power of any agency allowed to operate in secrecy is boundless'.

Nationally, JFK would probably be reelected in 1964, also via carefully directed investments, which should have influenced favorably the voting in heavily contested states. This reelection for another 4 years was very hard to swallow for a part of the power elite. JFK had promised to cut the defense budget and destroy one of its power bases (`split an intelligence agency into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.')

JFK's masterfully planned assassination was a coup d'état, not less than a total takeover of the US government. The cover-up of the assassination, which is still going on, shows the immense power of the culprits. They controlled the Warner Commission and could (can) force, until today, the media and Congress to pay lip service to them. Congress was never capable to launch an adequate investigation into the murder.

Internationally, `the world's power elite benefited splendidly from the staggering sums involved in the Vietnam War.' The author's moving evocation of the fate of a pastoral Vietnamese village shows that `people's lives are valueless when they get in the way of elitist interests.' (Mark Curtis)

The powerful show absolutely no respect for national sovereignty (e.g., Vietnam, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Iraq, the Philippines, even Grenada), which is the principle on which `the family of nations exists, with its property rights and the rights of man.'

At the end, Prouty is even prophetic: `the power elite utilizes all manner of plots to achieve their ambitious goal. That gamesmanship is called `Terrorism'.

This book is a must read for all those wanting to understand the world we live in.

By Thomas J. Farrell on December 25, 2014
Well written and ably researched

In his perceptive book JFK: THE CIA, VIETNAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN F. KENNEDY (2011), Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty (Retired, U.S. Air Force) admirably demonstrates that he understands the dynamics involved in the Vietnam War. Time and again, Col. Prouty draws on his own personal experience to elucidate various matters he discusses.

Concerning the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson used trumped-up charges to escalate the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam into a major tragedy - and a defeat for the United States. Col. Prouty sees the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as having orchestrated the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Allen Dulles was the director of the CIA - until President John F. Kennedy fired him as a result of the CIA adventure to invade Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs debacle. During the Eisenhower administration, Allen Dulles' brother, John Foster Dulles, served as the Secretary of State. The Dulles brothers were fervently anti-communist. Moreover, they regarded nation-states not aligned with the U.S. as aligned with the communists - the enemy in the Cold War.

Concerning the Dulles brothers, see Stephen Kinzer's book THE BROTHERS: JOHN FOSTER DULLES, ALLEN DULLES, AND THEIR SECRET WORLD WAR (2013). In my estimate, Kinzer does fine job of tracing the American anti-communist spirit back to the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. But Col. Prouty does not advert to this earlier history of the American anti-communist spirit. Instead, he picks up the story in the waning times of World War II (WWII). As he points out, Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union was one of our allies in WWII against Adolf Hitler's Nazis in Germany. As Col. Prouty also points out, Chiang Kai-shek's China was one of our allies in WWII against Japan. (Subsequently, Chiang Kai-shek was defeated by Moa Tse-tung's communist forces.)

Col. Prouty explains how 1.1 million peasants had earlier been transported about a thousand miles from their traditional culture in what then became known as the nation-state of North Vietnam and had been relocated in what then became known as the nation-state of South Vietnam, where they were landless and poor. Their relocation was orchestrated by the CIA

As a result of their dire needs for food, many of them became bandits. As Col. Prouty repeatedly explains, those bandits had been relocated in the Mekong Delta. The Mekong Delta is so far to the south of North Vietnam as to preclude their having infiltrated from North Vietnam. Unfortunately, those bandits were considered to be communist "infiltrators" from North Vietnam - the enemy. Those bandits came to be referred to as the Vietcong.

With admirable clear-sightedness, Col. Prouty also explains the complicated logistics of helicopter warfare in the Vietnam War.

Because President Harry Truman had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to get Japan to surrender, most powerful Americans had subsequently figured out that another all-out war like WWII would result in the nuclear destruction of human life on the planet. As a result, Col. Prouty claims, President Johnson would not authorize the American military to fight for victory over North Vietnam because such a fight would of necessity run the risk of expanding the conflict to bring in China and perhaps the Soviet Union - and thereby risk the dreaded nuclear holocaust. Thus American forces were consigned to waging the Vietnam War without risking victory - and the dreaded nuclear holocaust.

Even though Col. Prouty's overall discussion of the Vietnam War is astute, his major thesis in the book is that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, by experienced assassins hired to do the job. In CIA parlance, such hired assassins were referred to as "mechanics."

President Kennedy had ordered that all American advisers would be out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. Moreover, he was likely to win re-election in 1964, which would mean that he could make his order stick.

However, for years, the CIA had been cultivating Vietnam for a war there. A war there would serve the purposes of enriching what President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address had referred to as the military-industrial complex - in plain English, war profiteers. No doubt the war profiteers did profit enormously from the Vietnam War. (Of course the war profiteers employed many Americans in their civilian work force.)

Despite the fact that Col. Prouty suggests that the CIA was probably involved in President Kennedy's assassination, he stops well short of naming specific CIA and other government officials who were involved in the carefully orchestrated plot to assassinate President Kennedy. In this respect, we could say that Col. Prouty paints the big picture - but he ably paints the big picture.

In conclusion, Col. Prouty's book JFK: THE CIA, VIETNAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN F. KENNEDY (2011) is well written and ably researched.

By John Duddy on August 21, 2015
Who runs this planet?

This is a shocking book. L. Fletcher Prouty is a world class whistleblower. After reading this masterpiece take another look at the official 9/11 report. The secret cabal running our planet has been exposed by many writers and few politicians; this is an insider's report on that cabal. False flag attacks are now used by the cabal, not only in USA but in any country where the locals are not towing the line as demanded by the banksters.

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. -- Voltaire"

Amazing, the cabal has kept the lid on the murder of JFK for over 50 years. How long will we be kept in the dark about 9/11?

By W. Wilt on March 11, 2014
So somebody finally pulls it all together--the conspiracy is not a theory, it's all facts. Circumstantial, but no lies

Best editorial trick revealed: Leslie H. Gelb, who was to the Watergate papers what Phil Zelikow was to the 9/11 Commission novel, used the neat writer's trick (Gelb was a New York Times editor, you may recall) to hide something in black ink on a white page. Gelb uses the title President to avoid mentioning that JFK's presidency was ended with bullets. The President (JFK) had NSAM #263 written & promulgated, 1 Oct 63. The memo noted that the troops could be pulled out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. Ending the CIA-guided Indochina war they'd begun in September of 1945. So Gelb has "The President" as author of #263, have a mind-change with his cabinet, all of who had decided to go to Honolulu for the 22nd. On the 23rd, when an official speaks with The President, and a new NSAM is issued--#273, which called for an escalation of Conflict. The President of #263 has changed his mind and issued #273. The title stays the same, but the brain of the President who commissioned #263 was blown away by, what, Hornady hollow-point, boat-tail bullets (the kind the Abteilung der Heimats Versicherheit (dept of "home" "security"). And "The President" of the second instance just happened to be a different president, LBJ.

That's some clever and wondrously deliberate writing. The words are there in front of your nose, in plain sight. And yet they hide the circumstances, that, in the brief period between Nov. 21 and Nov. 23, the title President had not changed--just the life and body for which it represented. (In the newspaper biz, novices are instructed to "write around" facts that are missing. In this case, a few years after the Assassination of JFK, i think most people had gotten the news that JFK was dead and gone. Gelb and his boss were in that news loop, so I doubt Gelb would testify that he didn't know that JFK had been murdered (by a head shot fired from the Grassy Knoll, of course, but who's quibbling). No reason to fail to mention that The President (JFK) had been replaced by The President (LBJ), except if you want to avoid the "chance" that people will notice that Presidential Policy on Nov 21, 1963 (NSAM 263 (JFK) hand changed 180 degrees to Presidential Policy (NSAM 273) on Nov. 23 (LBJ).

So in the murder investigation, you'd want to bring Gelb in to get his story. You might want to set a water-board in the witness box right next to him--perhaps the special, autographed KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammad) model, guaranteed to last at least 168 uses (whether by one "detainee" (POW) or a succession of them. And you'd want to get all this moving while at least a few of the players are still alive. I'd like to hear what David R. and the rest of the Wall Street Banksters and lawyers have to say about JFK, RFK, Tonkin, USS Liberty, 9/11, etc. And also what Cheney and Shrub I and Shrub II and Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz and Pearle, etc., have to say about all the above.

At any rate, Prouty is a must-read. As is William Pepper's "An Act of State: The assassination of MLKjr." which puts the quietus to the phrase "conspiracy theory". Not a theory any longer, but a conspiracy fact. But who will prosecute members of the High Cabal? They run the government, with their private army, the CIA, and have since Nov. 22, 1963. Not that anybody cares, of course.

By Acute Observer on October 20, 2014
Memoirs of an Insider

JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency. L. Fletcher Prouty spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.

Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was poisoned (he had spies everywhere?). "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients. Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international law firms in government, banks, and major industries.

Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962 Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor? Chapter Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how 43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.

L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering (p.187). Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page 240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.

On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of the Warren Report to his dying day. The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31, 1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever passed in peacetime.

By Michael Tozer on September 1, 2006
Simply Great!

In this volume, Colonel Fletcher Prouty captures both the secret history of the United States from 1945 to 1975 and the reasons behind the plot to kill President Kennedy. Herein, the courageous Colonel illustrates quite clearly that the clandestine history and the assassination plot were intrinsically linked.

From the important information in this book, we learn that the war in Vietnam actually began on September 2, 1945, when Ho Chi Minh was established as the new leader of Vietnam by our OSS, the predecessor of the CIA, and the US Army. The United States was thoughtful enough to provide all the weapons, ammunition, and supplies necessary for Ho and Giap to pursue their war against the French, which culminated in the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. Following that defeat, the CIA arranged for the transfer of 1.1 million "refugees" from the North of Vietnam to the South. These folks caused such disruption in the fragile agricultural economy of the South that their arrival ultimately drove the orginal residents to banditry in order that they might survive. These displaced bandits became what was later known as the Viet Cong. Hence, the CIA created the conditions necessary for a full scale war in Vietnam.

On coming to office, Kennedy, a brilliant and studious man, came soon to understand the perfidy of the CIA One of first his acts on realizing this was to fire CIA director Allen Dulles. Soon thereafter, he issued one the most important, and unknown, documents of US history, NSAM 263. Issued in October of 1963, this document called for 1,000 US military personnel to come home from Vietnam by that Christmas. The remainder were to be out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. Had John Kennedy lived, what Americans know as the war in Vietnam would never have happened.

Prouty demonstrates herein that the powers that be ultimately made the decision that they could not allow Kennedy to live. He makes it clear that assassination researches who make a career of examining the details of the government's false cover story truly miss the point. What matters is not how the President was killed, but why. And the answer to that question is that the assassination was a coup d'etat, transferring control of the government of the United States to a power elite, which has been in control ever since. Hence, we have the strange silence of every succeeding President on the issue of the cover up of the Kennedy assassination.

The book is well written and extraordinarily important. He would understand our nation and how it came to be in the condition that now obtains would be well advised to read carefully this terribly important book. God bless.

By Bill Crowley on June 27, 2015
Finally, a man on the inside talks

This book is written by someone who was sitting in the middle of Eisenhower's feared military-industrial complex, instead of an outside researcher. Col Prouty lived what he tells us for several years. He saw the Korean & the Vietnam War buildup from the inside; he watched as the Bay of Pigs went down and No, it was not JFK's fault.

I was most impressed that Col Prouty is the actual person depicted as "Mr. X" and portrayed by Donald Sutherland in Oliver Stone's JFK.

If only half of what he tells us is the truth, then we need to demand another look at JFK's murder.

By Peter Cimino on November 6, 2012
Fascinating read, from a man inside the Military Complex

Overall, this was a fascinatiing read, and an awesome addition to my already humongous JFK Assassination collection. My only points of contention: 1)The name of it (and I realize the name needs to attract the reader) should have been The Military Complex / The Power Elite: How it works and it's connection to the JFK Assassination. The first three quarters of this book was all about the High Cabal and the Military complex. Incredibly detailed and compelling reading, but I just could not wait for it to end so we could get to the JFK part. But when it did...BAM! I could not put the book down. 2) This may be minor, but parts were extremely repetitve. I stopped counting how many times he referred to the one million Vietnemese who migrated to South Vietnam. I know he was trying to bang the point home, but it got to a point where it was not needed. 3) Once he got to the assassination itself I truly thought he would get into names...who made up this High Cabal or Power Elite that is more powerful than the President and US Government. I understand this could be dangerous...but a little hint would have been nice. 4) I thought he would get into more detail how the Assassination was pulled off. He drops a lot of hints and possibilities, but never really gives details to his personal thoughts. I cannot believe Mr. Prouty, after all his years serving in the military in the sensitive positions he held, could not come up with some kind of idea. Be that as it my, I truly believe this is as close the truth that we could ever get. I think this give the Why and Who would benefit. But would love even more detail. Maybe that's asking too much... Whether or not you are a JFK Assassination buff...this is truly an amazing read.

By Gianmarco Manzione on February 12, 2005
An Admirble Attempt at Truth-telling by a Good Man

If you have come to this book looking for another lean, persuasive investigation of the various conspiracies that could have led to the killing of JFK, you have come to the wrong place. prouty's book reaches far wider than that narrow scope, exploring every square inch of his vast, first-hand knowledge of the workings and consequences of the so-called Cold War (though I don't see how the bloody loss of millions of lives during that time constitute a war that was anything but blazing hot).

Prouty, a former Air Force colonel and CIA insider, manages to observe his life's work from an objective standpoint that raises countless probing and often hair-raising questions and warnings. Reaching back to the origins of the cold war and its effects on the policy and history that would soon be made, Prouty paints an expansive, thorough and detailed account not only of the JFK assassination, but of the entire political and industrial framework festering in the 20 years leading up to that moment that allowed such a tragedy to take place.

Contrary to most other books that deal --either obliquely or directly -- with JFK's murder, prouty's endures with a relevance that has as much to say about our own time as it does about Kennedy's. He foresees all the problems of a tyrannically powerful CIA that functions as the President's puppet master. "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are CIA students of yesterday," Prouty asserts in what amounts to an astonishing revelation when one considers that, among others, Osama Bin Laden is one of those "CIA students of yesterday." But it isn't only terrorists: it is the people we put in place as American puppets around the world. Take Hamad Karzai, for example, former CIA agent and millionaire now serving as President of Afghanistan.

The intimate and omnipotent mingling of money, military, covert intelligence operations and politics is precisely the network of power Prouty implicates not only in the crime that was the JFK murder, but the crime of so many brutal wars and coups performed by the CIA throughout the world to this very day. We are under the tyranny of an intelligence elite, an elite that happens to have the most powerful military and political machines on the planet at its service.

As prouty shows, Truman regretted his approval of the formation of the CIA toward the end of his presidency. Eisenhower tried to curb its powers but failed miserably, and when Kennedy fired Allen Dulles -- CIA chief at the time -- and not only threatened but actually worked to break the CIA "into a thousand pieces," he was killed. If that strieks you as an irrational logical leap, you need to read Prouty's book.

It is admirable that he undertook the writing of the book himself, rather than resorting to the services of some professional writer as so many politicians and military officials do for their memoirs and other books. Consequently, Prouty's book suffers a bit from a lack of the kind of polish it might have had. He struggles to organize his vast knowledge into the kind of coherant narrative he envisions and promises to no avail throughout. The reader has to work a little harder here to put the many pieces together that prouty lays out.

Nonetheless, Prouty's book reads like a desperate, angry and even frantic attempt at telling the truth by a man whose writing voice belies a remarkable warmth and sincerity. He knows so much and is so appalled at the hypocrisy he witnessed throughout his career -- hypocrisy that turned to horror -- that his book reads like the result of a minor god angrily shaking his fists and roaring in a locked room. His background, littered with merits and accolades, backs up every claim he makes here.

Prouty's book is entirely based on first-hand knowledge and expertise he gleaned over the course of a distinguished career: the precarious security arrangements in Dallas that day, Kennedy's advocacy of a US note that would compete with the federal note, his vow to remove all troops from Vietnam by 1965 and how this threatened the money-making machine that was the Vietnam "conflict," the utter astonishment in Washington at Kennedy's victory over Nixon, a man for whom various war and intelligence initiatives had already been drawn up for him to sign off on at the start of his presidency -- before he was even elected!

From its first hour, Kennedy's thousand-day presidency threatened so many established powers, so many benefactors of the military industrial complex, that there was no way it could have ended up otherwise. Even Robert McNamara, a great admirer of the president and godfather to one of Bobby Kennedy's kids, understood that a helicopter-augmented war like Vietnam would "churn out big dollars," that the war itself was capable of creating the $500 billion in military-industrial profits it eventually raised. Any former Ford executive understands the profits inherent in the collusion between military and industry.

As Prouty reports, quoting the controversial novel "Report From iron Mountain," "The war system is indispensable to the stable political structure . . . war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power." This is precisely the bleak "necessity" that Kennedy eventually grew to rebuke, and it was that rebuke that put the nails in his coffin long before his trip to Dallas.

By A customer on June 15, 1996
Very, very good.

I am a fan of Col Prouty, ever since I read The Secret Team.

Oliver Stone is in excellent company, because both of these men aren't afraid to tell the truth.

It is exactly the lack of truth that is killing the

United States.

Those who attack this book, and Stone, with the usual ignorant hysterics, are part of the cancer that is destroying the very innards of the last, great democracy on earth.

JFK's assasination was just a symptom of disease that is ravageing us today. This book supports this point.

By the way, if you believe the results of the Warren Commmission, (the House Select Comm. on Assasinations didn't, in 1976-78),then you are part of the problem.

This book gives an excellent pre-text to the take-over plans of the war-industy complex,starting after World War II. Prouty clearly states how the US Navy took part in the destabilization of Viet Nam by assisting in exporting tribes to the south. The resulting mess fell into Kennedy's hands.

You can understand why the fascists would have to dispatch a man like Kennedy, because he tried to do what was right. He was too charismatic, and he was correct. He could move too get emotionally involved, and then to act. This was viewed to be a dangerous thing.

Kennedy's Presidential Memorandum #263 was the spark the could ignite a conflagration, pulling the armed forces out of Viet Nam. This correct moral action would lead to other positive events, such as the deconstruction of the war machine at home. If this course was allowed to be taken. It didn't , of course.

The Military Right Wing and Ultra Hawks of the US had to liquidate Kennedy. Then, later, Bobby, Malcom X, King... and I am sure that it was They were all done in by the same smoking gun. They couldn't stand in the light of truth, like a vampire can stand the light of the sun.

The prolem is still rampant today, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Read this book before revisionist history forces it from the shelves. Keep it alive, talk about it. You'll find that you will defend it when you see the context that is carefully presented by Prouty.

Also, think about how (now) Sen. Arlen Specter told us how the "magic" bullet is proof of the single assasin theory. Then think about how he told us that this same bullet dediced to wait in the air 1.6 seconds before striking Gov. Connally, and then move on to kill President Kennedy, and still later was recovered with absolutely no loss of mass. Think, then reject the fantasy tale outright.Specter was a liar, then as he is today, and the Warren Commisssion's finding are pathetically false.

You should then read this book. It's not fantasy.

The cancer grows as you read this, but it is not too late... I think. If enough people get informed, and then act according to their conscience, they can then eradicate the cancer.

There are not enough liar/fascists to stop a revolution of the truth. Today, they are afraid, and for good reason.

Thank you.

MBF

By A customer on December 24, 1998
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" - Plaque at CIA's entrance

These words of St. John are displayed at CIA's Head Quarters in Langley, VA. The DCI, (Director of Central Intelligence), Allen Dulles, was not known for his ability to write good "original" material... At one time, he commissioned one E. Howard Hunt to ghost write for him. That might be likened to a liar who hires a thief to tell the truth! Colonel Leroy Fletcher Prouty was not cast from the same "mold" that produced the likes of Colson, MacGruder, Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Liddy, Mitchell, Hoover, LeMay, Lansdale, and all the rest... No, he was cast from a very different mold... a mold of integrity and dedication to his country, the United States of America.

Imagine a patriotic young man, who enlists into the military, sees combat as a subordinate on the front lines, is commissioned by his superiors (as they recognized the leadership capabilities that he possessed), and is eventually placed in a newly created position: Chief of Special Operations, as an adjunct to his previous title of "Focal Point Officer/Military Liaison" in support of all CIA Clandestine Operations, as per National Security Council Directive #5412. It is from this very perspective that the good Colonel speaks... and he does, in fact, speak the truth.

I would do a disservice to those who seek an accurate account of the CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate JFK, if I failed to mention the following:

Those who criticize or attack the content of this most important "work" of Fletcher, have failed to understand that: "In the interest of a LEGITIMATE National Security Agenda" many covert activities were necessary to insure the continued security of the United States. In such instances any and all of the brave men and women, be they CIA, military, or civilian personnel, who have engaged in such activity, including Fletcher Prouty, are to be commended for their heroism and dedication to the freedom of us all, as unpalatable as many of these activities may seem to those of us who have only known "peace" in our home land. Without the work of the many "human assets" whose dedication to preserving our security at times included, what is euphemistically called "Black Ops"-- we would not be free today to speak of these issues. In this context, "Black Ops" can be seen as a necessary, albeit "unfortunate choice" - However, choosing the lesser of two or more evils MUST be made at times.

At what point does one say "enough is enough?" I believe Colonel Prouty's insight is extremely acute because of the honesty of the man AND the unique "position" he held at the fulcrum of the meeting point between the military, industrial and intelligence complex, of the United States. If one who is in such a position:

1. "Knows the signature of black ops" from years of experience;

2. Witnesses the "breakdown" of the Law mandated by Congress as a "Control Mechanism" -- i.e., the NSC's ability to DIRECT the activities of the intelligence community;

3. Ultimately recognizes that the removal of the main member of the NSC, President John F. Kennedy, was saturated with the "fingerprints" of a very carefully orchestrated "coup d'etat";

Then, (if such an individual is a true patriot), he is under an obligation to "right the wrongs" to the best of his ability... even if it may mean speaking of things that, despite their truth, will tend to strain the credibility of the messenger.

I applaud Colonel Prouty's courage, dedication, wisdom, excellent reportage, attention to detail, and finally, his relentless committment... He is an excellent messenger.

In the words of Jim Garrison: "Do not forget your dying king..."

GO_SECURE

Gregory Burnham

VISAC

By Acute Observer on January 22, 2002
Memoirs of an Insider

Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency.

L. Fletcher Prouty spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.

Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was poisoned (he had spies everywhere?).

"Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients. Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international law firms in government, banks, and major industries.

Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962 Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor?

Chapter Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how 43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.

L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering (p.187).

Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page 240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.

On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of the Warren Report to his dying day.

The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31, 1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever passed in peacetime.

By A customer on December 24, 1998
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" - Plaque at CIA's entrance

These words of St. John are displayed at CIA's Head Quarters in Langley, VA. The DCI, (Director of Central Intelligence), Allen Dulles, was not known for his ability to write good "original" material... At one time, he commissioned one E. Howard Hunt to ghost write for him. That might be likened to a liar who hires a thief to tell the truth! Colonel Leroy Fletcher Prouty was not cast from the same "mold" that produced the likes of Colson, MacGruder, Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Liddy, Mitchell, Hoover, LeMay, Lansdale, and all the rest... No, he was cast from a very different mold... a mold of integrity and dedication to his country, the United States of America.

Imagine a patriotic young man, who enlists into the military, sees combat as a subordinate on the front lines, is commissioned by his superiors (as they recognized the leadership capabilities that he possessed), and is eventually placed in a newly created position: Chief of Special Operations, as an adjunct to his previous title of "Focal Point Officer/Military Liaison" in support of all CIA Clandestine Operations, as per National Security Council Directive #5412. It is from this very perspective that the good Colonel speaks... and he does, in fact, speak the truth.

I would do a disservice to those who seek an accurate account of the CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate JFK, if I failed to mention the following:

Those who criticize or attack the content of this most important "work" of Fletcher, have failed to understand that: "In the interest of a LEGITIMATE National Security Agenda" many covert activities were necessary to insure the continued security of the United States. In such instances any and all of the brave men and women, be they CIA, military, or civilian personnel, who have engaged in such activity, including Fletcher Prouty, are to be commended for their heroism and dedication to the freedom of us all, as unpalatable as many of these activities may seem to those of us who have only known "peace" in our home land. Without the work of the many "human assets" whose dedication to preserving our security at times included, what is euphemistically called "Black Ops"-- we would not be free today to speak of these issues. In this context, "Black Ops" can be seen as a necessary, albeit "unfortunate choice" - However, choosing the lesser of two or more evils MUST be made at times.

At what point does one say "enough is enough?" I believe Colonel Prouty's insight is extremely acute because of the honesty of the man AND the unique "position" he held at the fulcrum of the meeting point between the military, industrial and intelligence complex, of the United States. If one who is in such a position:

1. "Knows the signature of black ops" from years of experience;

2. Witnesses the "breakdown" of the Law mandated by Congress as a "Control Mechanism" -- i.e., the NSC's ability to DIRECT the activities of the intelligence community;

3. Ultimately recognizes that the removal of the main member of the NSC, President John F. Kennedy, was saturated with the "fingerprints" of a very carefully orchestrated "coup d'etat";

Then, (if such an individual is a true patriot), he is under an obligation to "right the wrongs" to the best of his ability... even if it may mean speaking of things that, despite their truth, will tend to strain the credibility of the messenger.

I applaud Colonel Prouty's courage, dedication, wisdom, excellent reportage, attention to detail, and finally, his relentless committment... He is an excellent messenger.

In the words of Jim Garrison: "Do not forget your dying king..."

GO_SECURE

Gregory Burnham

VISAC

By [email protected] on February 24, 1999
Constitutional Implications of the JFK Assassination

A recent poll taken by CNBC and a "news-eum" shows that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the 6th most important event of the twentieth century. How or why those polled justify this choice is not clear. But anyone familiar with American history, American culture, and the myths and assumptions most Americans carry as a foundation of their beliefs -- can deduce the relevance of November 22, 1963 and its implications.

Every school kid is taught that we live in a country where there is no need for coup d'etat. We don't assassinate our leaders; we retire them at the voting booth. In this, derives the faith we have in all our other institutions, and especially, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. From the dawn of our individual consciousness, we are made to believe and assume that we are "safe," that we can think and say and do as we please, so long as we don't tread on the rights of others. And every school kid learns by rote the Preamble to the Constitution -- "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . . ."

So for thirty-five years, most of us have been living in some form of illusion and denial. We were told and made to accept the story that the President of the United States was killed by a single, crazed person -- a relative nobody, an insect. The Warren Commission Report assured a majority of people over some part of those 35 years that our institutions are safe. It attempted to assure us, among other things, that our public officials continue to be honest; that our judges continue to value and protect Justice and Truth above everything else; that our policemen and local officials can be relied upon to protect us; and that the government, when it tells us to send the flower of our youth to war, does so for good reason. In a way, the Report was a means of continuing the myths that we all believe, especially, that "We the People" are the ultimate source of authority and power in our government.

Unfortunately for the authors of the 26-volume Report -- but fortunately for the rest of us -- it has lost its credibility. That credibility began to erode almost as soon as the Report was published, as Jim Garrison, District Attorney of New Orleans parish, resurrected his investigation into the activities and actors of the building at Lafayette and Camp streets. Almost from the beginning, the work of Garrison and his staff was hampered by the seemingly unexplainable efforts of the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency. Since that time, we have been slowly awakened to the possible involvement of as many as three elected presidents in the Warren Commission coverup, and there are echoes of something worse, something more sinister.

We owe this awakening in part to the efforts of Garrison, and to the contribution of the man who anonymously assisted him in that investigation of the late 60's. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, the "Mr. X" of Oliver Stone's "JFK," retired from the CIA not more than a year after the assassination. New facts in the assassination have slowly accumulated, partly due to the efforts of Prouty, Garrison, an emerging army of quiet and persistent historical researchers, investigative journalists, and -- yes -- even elected officials.

Now there are several variations on the conspiracy theme, which polls show is now accepted or suspected by as much as 78 percent of the American population. Some believed that Castro was the source of the plot to kill JFK. Others accepted the most reasonable theory that organized crime, namely Carlos Marcello, was the dark force behind the assassination. How comforting. We can now change the TV channel to "The Brady Bunch" -- we are still safe as long as the identity of the bogeyman that robbed us of a President and half a century's history doesn't challenge our basic beliefs in the institutions of government. And of course, the institutions of the powerful are also safe from a skeptical and inquiring public.

Other theories are more troubling, and as Prouty tells us apologetically, advocates of these theories perennially suffer the labels of "conspiracy nut" and "paranoid." But Prouty was the post-war pilot who shuttled dignitaries to the major conferences of World War II and facilitated the "rescue" of Nazi intelligence officers from their potential Soviet captors. He was on Okinawa when the thousands of tons of war materiel suddenly deemed unnecessary for an invasion of Japan were unexplainably shipped to Haiphong Harbor for the VietMinh. He was privy to the CIA's covert operations from that point forward which slowly enmired America in a war without strategic objectives -- the war in Vietnam. He was in the midst of CIA staff who planned the covert initiatives against Castro, notably Operation Mongoose and the Bay of Pigs. He presents detailed, plausible explanations of the reasons why these efforts failed. This provides a basis for a most incredible argument that a "High Cabal" of individuals and agencies -- above politics, even above government itself -- set in motion the decisions, events, and coordination that enabled the murder of a President.

Prouty was Oliver Stone's closest consultant in forging the epic movie "JFK." The underlying theory of the movie has been labeled "Conspiracy-a-Go-Go," the essence of a plot masterminded by a "High Cabal." The features of such a plot are merely hinted by the movie. Viewers may take away from the film an awakened sense of suspicion mixed with disbelief, and this does not detract from the film as good cinematic art. But Prouty's book offers some solid history and autobiography. It doesn't digest as impassioned rhetoric or the rantings of an extremist paranoid. It comes off as the ruminations and reflections of a witness who has both feet on solid ground.

The author consistently reminds us that an explanation of Kennedy's murder must be grounded in economic reasoning. "Who stood to benefit?" "Why?" He tells us that he doesn't want to concern himself with the identities of the contract assassins themselves, and indeed he informs us that it is in the nature of this underworld thick with professional "mechanics" that their identities may never be entirely known. Instead, he provides us a review of history and foreign policy during the initial and most frightening stages of the Cold War, and he reminds us that individuals are at the core of power where decisions of enormous scope are made frequently without either the participation or the knowledge of the public. So rather than point the finger explicitly at conspirators -- whose identities may be suggested or mentioned as part of the book's historical message -- he leaves it to the reader's judgment.

I cannot fault the book for its failure to present solutions. Ted Kazynski, in his "Manifesto," levels accusations against the same dark, if not anonymous forces, and most people will overlook the scribblings of someone diagnosed as criminally insane. But we cannot ignore any longer the existence of a "power elite" and the imperatives of large-scale global organization which support its existence. If we wish to live in society and partake of the benefits of a civilization thousands of years in the making, we have to accept these distortions to the democratic myths that saturate our consciousness and perceptions. Offering a practical prescription for controlling those forces was never Prouty's objective in writing this book. More aptly, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" is a profound wake-up call.

Prescriptions do not come easily. Those interested in what should prove to be a long and protracted debate should read Gerry Spence's "Give Me Liberty." But one cannot address the problem unless he or she is aware of it. To this end, Prouty's book provides sharp historical focus.

Randy Bednorz

By [email protected] on September 11, 1998
This vital work is a MUST READ for ALL Americans.

Col. Prouty's most informative book exposes the vicious, greedy, and super-anonymous hand of the "High Cabal" as none other has dared attempt. It clearly demonstrates the bizarre and disgusting chain of events (created by the OSS and CIA) that began before the end of WWII; events that led to President Eisenhower's unprecedented farewell address (and warning) to the nation. These events also led to the creation of President John F. Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum #263, which called for de-escalation of the Vietnam War and withdrawal of all troops from Vietnam; the memorandum that ultimately led to his death.

This work exposes the planned genocide of millions of innocent, non-combatant Southeast Asian civilians, under the guise of such noble sounding terms as "pacification." Readers learn that none of these attacks on the peace-loving Southeast Asians were undertaken to protect any nation or preserve any ideology. Rather, they were thrust upon the Southeast Asians to further feed the exceedingly bulging pockets of greedy international bankers and the insidious military-industrial complex. These events also served to further perpetuate the High Cabal's iron-fisted, though ultra-secret, control over American government, among others, and the world economy. Vietnam is but one homeland that the High Cabal has decimated to serve its own purposes. There have indeed been many others throughout history. The question is: who's next? Perhaps us? Every American should read this vitally important book. And, think about it...

Hats off to Col. L. Fletcher Prouty. A truly great American! I proudly salute you, Sir.

By Mike Bartus on February 23, 2000
A great book among others

I want those readers who have not read this book to read my opinions below.

First, this is a great book simply because Prouty has provided more inside ammunition for researchers to mine the depths of our secret government. This is the government of men who controlled the secret programs of assassination, the secret slush funds of counterintelligence, the operatives who dilligently carried out their secret orders,their programs of stealth, quasi-law breaking, and other publically inaccessible information. Prouty's book quite correctly points the finger at Dulles, Lansdale, and others in CIA, who were paranoid about communism and Castro. They viewed Kennedy as a traitor and he stood in the way of the war machine they were operating, both overtly, but especially covertly. The termination of raids to Cuba, the failure of follow-up air support at the Bay of Pigs, the promise not to invade Cuba after the Cuban missile crisis, were all blamed on Kennedy. The firing of Dulles, Cabell, and Bissell contributed to the intelligence community wanting JFK removed from command. It is astonishing that so few have commented on the contrast between now and then: in 1963 we were fed lies depicting Oswald as a crazed nut, a loner, and defector. These days we have mountains of evidence he was much more than these pictures of him. He associated with Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, anti-castro cubans, and others. He returned to the US without a hitch, but in those days a defector would have been hounded and closely watched. If this were true,then why wasn't the FBI catching all his associations and illegal activities? Prouty has produced the superstructure of the conspiracy by showing the history, and context of the cold war and the CIA

If one can view a supposed loser like Oswald pulling off this assassination as being totally ridiculous, then one can entertain other possibilities. Why was Lyndon Johnson reversing NSAMs so quickly concerning Vietnam? Why did Johnson appoint Warren, Dulles, Ford, et al? Why wasn't the Dulles appointment perceived as a conflict of interest? Here is the fired subordinate investigating the dead boss! Dulles definitely kept information from the panel, especially about the assassination plots being orchestrated by the CIA, with the Mafia as the gunmen. In this connection, another book of importance should be read and that is by Peter Dale Scott: Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. It is a difficult book because he describes a quasi government,over-and-above government institutions, which controlled the plot and the outcome. This corresponds to some observations about Prouty's book, which fails to name names. But that isn't quite correct. Prouty does name many persons who were in command positions and had the power to orchestrate the assassination.Two prominent persons were Dulles and Lansdale. Any clever and alert reader who watched Stone's movie JFK will see a very short (about 2 second)sequence in the movie where General X is making the call to the network to carry out the plot and kill JFK. On his desk is a nameplate which clearly says "Lansdale".

The Prouty book establishes that Kennedy "was getting Americans out of Vietnam, he confirmed that he was moving away from the pattern of Cold War confrontation in favor of detente.He asked congress to cut the defense budget.Major programs were being phased out. As a result, pressure from several fronts began to to build against the young President.The pressure came from those most affected by cuts in the military budget, in the NASA space program, and in the enormous potential cost-and profit-of the Vietnam War."

It is very ironic that his enemies in government brought about detente with the Soviet Union. The notion that Oswald was a lone killer is preposterous and if it were true, why would the full truth be kept from us so long after the collapse of communism? This was the facile justification for locking up the evidence until 2025: that our outrage against a communist conspiracy would demand a war against the communists. The real truth was to control the information to the American public, so as to cover their tracks, and establish a legend to the JFK killing.

Everyone should read this book. I heartily recommend this book to anyone seeking insight into the question about insiders being involved in the killing.

By [email protected] Tim Canale on January 6, 1999
Highly Recommended!!

Prouty gives us the point of view of both an ace historian and an insider taking us from the origins of the cold war up through the assassination of President Kennedy, and then on up through tomorrow night's evening news. It's haunting how the power elite's patterns of military strategies and propaganda tactics of that era correlate with many of today's current events. Just the other day somebody on TV was screaming, "Why wasn't there an objective in Desert Fox?!" while at the same time I'm reading the answer in Prouty's book, yet the book was written 6 or 7 years ago.

This isn't a book only on the Kennedy assassination, but Kennedy's bold decisions which led to his death and the forces behind it all. He explains clearly the post-H-bomb military strategy of aiding both sides of the fence in Vietnam to win the REAL war - big business. We get an inside look at the Dulles brothers and their direct line to the "High Cabal" which overrules even the White House.

I once heard Col. Prouty say in an interview that he's never read a page of the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of hearings on the assassination. He said he didn't have to because he knew who did it. I thought that was a bit odd, but after reading this book I understand what he means. Prouty had worked with these guys! These are the same forces that overthrew the Philipines, Greece, Iran, Bulgaria and Guatemala (to name just a few).

Out of all the books written about the Kennedy assassination this is easily one of the best. Check out his website!

By A customer on October 22, 1999
A disturbing and enlightening insight into the Cold War

This book uncovers the many reasons for the Korean & Vietnam conflicts. It clearly implicates the OSS/CIA during the end of World War II in their involvement in providing supplies for the Koreans and then later for the Vietminh. Colonel Prouty indicates how the CIA are quite often able to live in a secret world while manipulating other federal agencies to their desired ends. When Kennedy took office in 1960 he inherited $6.5 billion in surplus from the previous administration. When he planned not to include a major defense manufacturer to build the TFX and gave that bid to General Dynamics the CIA and their constituents were vey upset. Prouty points out that Kennedy never had any intention in building great offensive systems for war. Kennedy wanted to create a united peace in the world through his reelection by implementing domestic policies that would focus on the problems "at home." He also desired better foreign relations with the Soviet Union. Kennedy planned to bring 1000 troops home from Viet Nam by Christmas of 1963. McNamara's report on the Indonesian situation indicated that all military units in Vietnam could be home by Kennedy's due date of 1965. But major corporations having an investment in the manufacturing of war machines do not thrive during peacetime. This was a critical area for Kennedy because of his change in the national policy. Prouty shows that the President's shift prompted many businessmen to seriously think about Kennedy's position as president. This book answers the whys of the cold war period as well as the assassination motives. Prouty's book points out the wasted time in focusing on a "patsy" as the lone assasin of JFK. In all probability Oswald was a soldier carrying out commands from his superior officers not fully knowing the extent of the damage. L. Fletcher Prouty wrote this history from his personal experiences with covert operations and his involvement with government agencies. After reading this book the author leaves one feeling disturbed, yet enlightened by the rich insight he has provided. I am grateful to Colonel Prouty for his willingness to share his knowledge so that many may have an alternative view and perhaps a better understanding regarding the Cold War era.

By Jon W. Davis on October 20, 2004
A Sobering Look Into the Past of JFK and the CIA

Prouty was well postioned to tell his story as seen from inside the intelligence community. Unknown to most people Kennedy challenged the hegemony of the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve. In the summer of 1963 Kennedy signed an executive order to create 4 billion dollars in United States Notes, in direct competion to Federal Reserve Notes. Why? The United States Notes were based on the government silver stores and their creation did not create interest payements to the world bankers and owners of the Fed. Bills in denominations of $2, $5, $10, and $20's were authorized and the $2's and $5's were printed and in circulation. The $10's and $20 were being printed when Kenndy was killed. In Johnsons first month in office the US Notes were recalled from circulation. Go to any good coin shop and ask to buy a 1963 US Note. See it for yourself! The one gem in Prouty's book that ties Kennedy to this issue is a few sentences where he discusses Kennedy sending Robert McNamara to meet with the Governors of the Federal Reserve to let them know that there are going to be big changes in the nations money system. There is very little information out there about Kennedy and money and Prouty clearly knew there was a connection. Why is the topic of Kennedy and the money he created so obscure and unknown? The only other president in the history of the country to create US Notes directly from the authority of the US Government was Lincoln with his greenbacks during the civil war. The only two presidents to buck the money powers were both assasinated in office. I think Prouty shows a possible origin of one of the smoking guns.

By A customer on January 4, 1998
The key to the mystery of the crime of the century.

As a United States Marine in the Vietnam war, I never challenged my country's intentions to stem the tide against communist aggression throughout the world. After my extended tour of duty in that war zone, I came home to ponder how we became involved in such a protracted war that divided the country (USA) so. It all points back to the tradgic event on 22 November 1963. With the death of our beloved President Kennedy, the powers to be had free reign to curtail the planned withdrawl of the small amount of troops in that zone. Only 16,000 at that time. This book is an excellent reference to how real events were managed to create so much grief for the people of South Vietnam and the United States. As a former Marine who left enough of his friends to pay the ultimate sacrifice, I highly recommend Colonel Prouty's fine book. "Those of us who made it have an obligation to find the goodness in man and make this world a better place in which to live." Long live the memory of JFK.

Semper Fidelis

Ronald E. Springer on September 22, 2005
America has Waited a Long Time to Hear the Truth...

Finally, those involved are getting old enough not to place concern about their own welfare above truth anymore.

This book provides so many connections, such a depth of behind the scenes knowledge and inner workings of the specific programs operating at the time, you can't help but be bowled over.

***Note: Anyone interested in the Kennedy Assassination should realize that there is a "misinformation plant" in the Library Journal review department. Every honest book on the subject has been unconvincingly discredited by them, while they praise and try to steer you towards known flake CIA-financed writers such as Gerald Posner.

It's rather common to hear of wrongdoing by the CIA I saw a graph recently that showed American citizen's belief in their government plummeting after the Kennedy Assassination. Almost no one accepted the Warren Commission Report and such a cover up has casted doubt on our government ever since.

This "High Cabal" as Churchill called them obviously doesn't start with the CIA, or the Federal Reserve. It predates Christianity, but it's quite simple. There are bums who seek handouts and never try to rise, and there are bums who gain a position over others but still yearn for that same handout, taking it by force, by skimming, whatever is necessary to defeat justice, honor and civility. These are not great men and they will not be remembered like an Edison or a Ford. They are the most creative parasites on the planet, and the most deeply engrained.

Currency control has changed EIGHT times since America's inception. The most vocal fighter against irrational banking was Andrew Jackson; not Kennedy or Lincoln (google "Jackson Bank Veto"). He fought and defeated in his time what has morphed into the Federal Reserve Bank. Before the Civil War, such bankers were buying politicians, planting press stories, steering elections, stealing freedoms, killing people--anything to assure a fascist cushion between themselves and existence.

Do we ever hear anything bad about the Federal Reserve? In Jackson's time, they were entrenched 16 years deep and it was difficult to rout them out then. They did try to kill him. Now they are ninety years deep. They have owned many Presidents, they control the Justice and State Departments, and the CIA secretly furthers their agenda.

Nothing happens at the Assassination Level without their approval. In today's world, America is struggling in recession (bankruptcy) mostly due to the $360 Billion we now pay to the Fed for their generous "Debt-Money" System, and that is an exponentially increasing burden. EVERY dollar in our country has interest being paid on it as if it were borrowed! Due to this, bankruptcy for America is a mathematical certainty. (Imagine if you had to pay interest not just on every dollar you owed, but on every dollar you made! America IS!)

With changes in the laws, soon none of us will be permitted to walk away from our debts and start over--as if our hard economic times is our own personal fault.

We are all about to become debt slaves, as they intend. If you want to have a chance at recovery, if you want your kids to have a chance at a decent future, join me and I'll give you the Moral Armor neccessary to beat down these parasites and restore America to what it was meant to be. They CAN be defeated, but not without YOUR empowerment. If you can't stand up or are afraid to, I'll show you how. Invest in yourself right now and let's save this ship!

Joshua Lewis on October 4, 2014
They must be pretty well organized

Hard to believe for various reasons. First, other reviewers have commented on the "logic" of the author's arguments. There are, however, numerous fallacies in the book. Lots of, "X happened, and then Y happened, THEREFORE..." but the conclusions are never proven and don't follow logically from the premises. Second, the author doesn't seem to notice some of the absurdities in his thesis when applied to November of 1963. For example, we're told that an international elite working above the leaders elected to the highest offices of government have created and controlled world wide war efforts, power transfers, government overthrows, and economic and monetary conditions among other things, since the end of WWII.

They must be pretty well organized, financed and intelligent to do so. Yet, they were unable to ensure the election of Nixon in the closest election in history up to that point?

Seems odd to be able to start wars but not rig an election that was lost by .02 percent. And, if that isn't a good enough example, let's try another one.

The author gives us several photos in the book of the Dallas "Police" who transported a band of vagabonds on the day JFK was killed and points out the facts that their uniforms aren't standard DPD issue, their uniforms don't match, and their caps and weapons are not standard.

The obvious allusion is that they weren't real policemen and were somehow a part of or hired by this power elite who operated to kill on that day. Yet, wouldn't a "High Cabal" capable of all I mentioned above, have made sure to procure authentic police uniforms, caps, badges and weapons for such an important day, leaving nothing to chance, and preparing for every contingency? It seems like a very sloppy oversight by a group with such limitless powers and ability.

These are just two examples of many where common sense seems to trump the passionate arguments of the author. That being said, there is some interesting information in the book on the inner workings of the CIA and government especially during the Vietnam War. If you are going to read it, just be on the lookout for the faulty logic and use common, critical thinking skills to help sort possibility from probability.

Gary P on January 2, 2013
A few nice nuggets burried in the muck.

In "JFK", Fletcher Prouty shares numerous fascinating observations garnered from his position as a mid-grade officer in what I call the "Conglomerate of Covert Cold Warriors" (OSS/CIA/Military Intelligence/Special Operations/etc) from the 1940s until the early 1960s. Some of the conclusions he draws, however, are completely unsubstantiated and require a real stretch of the imagination.

Chief among these is the existence of some sort of secret "high cabal" of bankers and industrialists (but not the Illuminati, Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations, Freemasons, Trilateral Commision, Pentaverate,or any other previously speculated secret organization) which has been manipulating the governments of the world into conflicts large and small for at least the last hundred years for the purpose of generating profits on the sale and/or financing of war materials.

Prouty further supposes that the CIA and KGB were the two principal levers with which this supposed cabal have exerted their influence on the world in the post-WWII era.

Prouty also suggests that the Korean and Vietnam Wars were prearranged prior to the close of World War II, and that everything that happened in Vietnam from '45 on was part of a master plan by the OSS/CIA to set the table for a protracted large-scale US engagement in a later decade. Kennedy's intent to deviate from this carefully and painstaking constructed plan for Vietnam supposedly was the instigation for the high cabal to orchestrate his murder.

While Prouty brings to light many interesting connections between the "Conglomerate" and world events, the need to attribute credit/blame for everything to some "invisible elite" group of power brokers who pull the strings of the CIA is difficult to accept. It seems to me that the fact that the CIA was a very insular group, created and led by a small cadre of extremely ambitious ideologues who operated with a nearly unlimited budget and almost no accountability means they were likely responsible on their own for most things that Prouty blames on "the cabal."

At times Prouty contradicts himself, suggesting on one hand that various apparent CIA miscalculations that drag us farther into the Vietnam war were actually intentional, while later claiming that the CIA were surprised when the same actions did not yield any strategic gains.

One last criticism I have is that Prouty often repeats himself. Certain themes are addressed over and over, with little or no additional detail brought to the table. Some passages were so similar to ones in previous chapters I wondered if my kindle was malfunctioning and moving me back to pages I'd already read. I blame this more on the editors than Prouty; they should have restructured his ideas more logically and could have cut 50-100 pages from this book without removing any value.

If you can look past the cabal angle and sloppy organization, there are some interesting ideas presented. Prouty makes a strong case that JFK intended to take the country in a direction in Vietnam that was counter to the aims of the "Conglomerate" and that certain individuals were conspicuously well prepared to reverse that policy in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. He also fairly criticizes the failure of the "Pentagon Papers" to put the the dramatic shift in Vietnam policy that occurred in late November, 1963, in the context of of a violent change in the presidency. His theory that the CIA-sponsored relocation of ~1,000,0000 Tonkinese Vietnamese from the North to the Mekong Delta in the South spawned the Viet Cong is compelling, whether or not you buy his supposition that it was a calculated result.

The fact that Prouty is the mysterious "Mr X" from Garrisons book "On the Trail of the Assassins" and Stone's movie "JFK" is reason enough for any assassination buff to read this book despite the shortcomings. That there are other interesting and salient nuggets burried in the muck of the "high cabal" theme is a bonus.

A customer on September 5, 1999
Prouty long on entrigue - short on facts.

I once had the opportunity to ask Col. Prouty (via e-mail) if he had retained any of the orders he states he received, or could produce another officer who shared his perspective on events surrounding the assassination of JFK. Instead of answers, what I got in return was a geriatric tirade and a sermon on respect for the men who have served this great nation. His thesis on the Bay of Pigs, given documentation now available (_Bay of Pigs Declassified_, 1998 National Security Archive, [...]) demonstrates that, where facts are concerned, Prouty is victim to his own perspective. Prouty reports that JFK was advised through CIA channels that Castro's air force had to be disabled prior to the April 17, Bay of Pigs attack, by Cuban exiles/CIA forces. Prouty states that JFK gave the green light for the initial April 15 attack, which decommissioned all but three of Castro's T-33 aircraft, and conveys that when JFK was advised on April 16 that three planes remained, he authorized their destruction with a second wave attack. Col. Prouty contends that McGeorge Bundy made a secure call to General Charles Cabell (brother of the Dallas mayor when JFK was assassinated, Earle Cabell) giving the president's approval, but that Cabell delayed deployment of the exile air force at Nicaragua. The Colonel contends that Cabell's delay in passing the order was the reason Kennedy later had him relieved of duty, and that the Mayor of Dallas retaliated for his brother's dismissal by participating in JFK's assassination.

Prouty makes the case that Cabell foiled any chances of success for the maritime operation by delaying the order for the B-26 aircraft to return to Cuba and destroy three remaining T-33s. But, Prouty is way off the mark on this one. Recently released documentation proves JFK wanted deniabilty and did not authorize the second wave of air attacks. While a question may remain as to whether the CIA adequately briefed Kennedy on the importance of the second wave attacks by the Cuban exiles, there is little doubt that whomever or whatever caused Prouty to print his version of the events will not contribute to Prouty's reputation for accuracy when confidently stating things as fact.

In a realm where hard evidence is a must, Prouty tells interesting tales. If his accounts of the events are to be believed, Col Prouty should furnish us military sources who agree with the Colonel, or concede that historically he simply cannot prove his assertions.

Evelyn Uyemura VINE VOICE on September 15, 2013
Half Credible, Half Not

What a sad mess of a book. It is really unfortunate that the people who were active adults in 1963 are now approaching their dotage, 50 years later, and in addition, that few serious publishers will touch the more controversial points of view with a 10-foot pole. As a result, we get books like this, from someone who might actually know something, but who can't write or edit a book into shape so that we can tell whether it makes any sense.

Prouty has several bugs in his bonnet:

  1. There is a secret Cabal of elites who run the entire world and have for centuries. Presidents and generals are puppets, mostly clueless as to what is really going on. (barely credible.)
  2. The fact that the earth is round, plus Malthus and Darwin, are the keys to the past 500 years of history, and the source of private property, colonialism, and pretty much all evil. (not credible to me.)
  3. Before WW2 had even ended, the US had already decided that its ally, the USSR, was going to be its next enemy and that Germany would be its ally, and started acting on this in the closing days of the war. The reason for this decision is that we, like all countries, need perpetual war to maintain sovereignty. (semi-credible--I doubt that any of this was conscious, if it happened at all.)
  4. A decision was made in 1945 that after WW2, we would next fight in Korea and Vietnam, and we sent weapons there for that purpose. (not credible to me. Yes, we may have sent weapons there, but I really doubt that there was a master plan in place.)

By now you're probably wondering what any or all of this has to do with the assassination of JFK. Well, that's the problem--this book is so all over the place that he spends essentially the whole book on deep background stuff, and the actual explanation of what this has to do with Kennedy is scattered throughout the book. He keeps bringing the story up to 1963 in every chapter, and then backtracking again and again. And again!

However, for all its problems as a book, the info contained herein meshes with several other books I've read recently that all point to the fact that Kennedy was moving from a Cold Warrior to a peacenik, (elsewhere attributed to his taking LSD with his mistress Mary Meyer. Who knows?) He *did* found a thing called the Peace Corps. He did give a speech at an American university that is called his Peace speech. Supposedly, he and Khrushchev were sort of pen pals, and they had both stared into the nuclear abyss and decided to make love not war.

Oh yes, another of Prouty's big ideas is that the weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a huge error on the part of the Cabal/Elite, since it made normal war impossible, hence a turn to guerrilla warfare by proxy. Again, the belief that everything is part of a master plan. The outcome is valid, but the idea of an invisible hand behind the scenes stage-managing all this is not reasonable to me.

Is it credible that the CIA could have been involved in Kennedy's assassination? On this point, I think the answer is yes. The old objection that people wouldn't be able to keep quiet if there were a conspiracy is pretty much moot if we're talking about the CIA, since by definition, these are guys who could do unimaginable things, have a cigarette, and then never speak of it again.

I think there is pretty decent evidence that Oswald was connected to the CIA (The defection and then un-defection in and of itself is pretty incredible, and his statement that he was the patsy is more likely if he was in fact a patsy, than if he were a either a nut job or a Castro sympathizer. Both of those types want credit!)

And this book also confirms the feeling that I often get that in fact the US has many of the characteristics of a fascist state, minus the concentration camps for Jews. It is true that we have wrought havoc in many other people's countries, that we maintain a near-constant state of war, and that *if* a president tried to go in a different direction, there are forces within the military-industrial-intelligence complex that might both want and be capable of taking them out.

I am fairly knowledgeable about the assassination scenarios, but I found this book rough going, because it goes into a lot of political detail about the internal politics of Vietnam as well as very detailed descriptions of Washington politics. Perhaps if you are a bit older than me (I was 11 in 1963), or more knowledgeable about all the names and politics of that time, it would all come together. But a good editor would have helped tremendously to make it accessible to the general public.

Curt Butler on March 2, 2008
Who was Maj. Gen. E.G. ?

In Oliver Stone's film "JFK" in the Mall Scene meeting between D.A. Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) and "Man X" (played by Donald Sutherland), a flashback scene presented a nameplate from the desk of an Air Force military general speaking on the phone, and partialy showing his name as Maj/Gen. E.G. (unknown)?

Who was Stone attempting to make reference to and cast aspersions upon Maj. General E.G. Lansdale?

Does anybody know?? Will check back from time-to-time is see "IF" any comments are posted to my inquiry. Thanks!

R. Anderson on March 28, 2005
Completely Ludicrus

Contrary to popular belief today, Kennedy was a cold warrior. There is no evidence at all that he was (in his second term, if he even got one) going to end the cold war, or pull out of Vietnam. Michael Lind in his book 'Vietnam: The Necessary War' addresses this issue, and points out that the record clearly shows otherwise.

Several of the people who claim that Kennedy told them he was going to pull out of Vietnam revealed this information in the late 60's after the war had become traumatic for the country. Robert McNamara (one of the original architects of the Vietnam War), who has speculated for years that Kennedy would have withdrawn from Vietnam, admits that Kennedy never told him he was going to pull out.

In an interview with Walter Cronkite a few months before he was assassinated Kennedy said (about Vietnam): "I think it would be a mistake to withdraw." Oliver Stone (cleverly), only shows bits and pieces of the interview at the beginning of JFK. Editing the interview to make it look like Kennedy was going to withdraw. In fact, the day he was assassinated Kennedy gave a speech endorsing our involvement in Vietnam. The claim that Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam is speculation at best. Go to : [...]

This post details many of the myths surrounding JFK's policy stances, and shows that (by today's standards) Kennedy (most likely) would have been a moderate Republican. There was no motive (as Prouty claims) to kill Kennedy.

Also go to: [...]

For some more of Prouty's crackpot opinions.

Kennedy was a cold warrior: he was conspicuously absent (as a representative from Massachusetts) when the House of Representatives voted to censure Joseph McCarthy (he even praised McCarthy on several occasions). He ran against Nixon in 1960 on the missile gap (i.e. we were behind the Soviets in the number of ICBM's). He said in his inaugural address: "......Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Doesn't sound to me like he was going to "bug out" of Vietnam.

Also, check out: [...]

This further debunks the idea that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam.

[Nov 01, 2017] The Secret Team The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World by L. Fletcher Prouty

Notable quotes:
"... Having studied conspiracy for over 30 years while working in government and, I now discover, serving as an unwitting foot-soldier of the secret team (I worked in intelligence, special operations and "peacetime operations" work among other things), I was missing a few pieces of the conspiracy puzzle which all fell into place neatly by the time I finished this book. Not only that, but the bizarre shenanigans of the Intelligence Community, particularly the FBI, CIA and, to a lesser extent, DHS during the 2016 election and the coterie of retired military men selected to serve in President Trump's cabinet all took on greater significance to me due to the revelations of this book. ..."
Nov 01, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Ranger 4.0 out of 5 stars

Outstanding long suppressed conspiracy history of the CIA finally re-released in a revised although not updated edition

This is the apparently heavily edited re-release of one of the most mysterious conspiracy books and CIA exposes ever written, "The Secret Team" by L. Fletcher Prouty. First published in 1972 by Prentice-Hall, the original ran to three quick editions before disappearing completely from public view by 1975. Many believed it was blacklisted and suppressed by the CIA In this way it resembles that other conspiracy classic, Professor Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope." In fact, if one had the patience and desire (both of these books are quite long, convoluted and "wordy") I would recommend reading them in historical sequence. The revelations would be startling. And this is one reason why I like "The Secret Team" so much.

Having studied conspiracy for over 30 years while working in government and, I now discover, serving as an unwitting foot-soldier of the secret team (I worked in intelligence, special operations and "peacetime operations" work among other things), I was missing a few pieces of the conspiracy puzzle which all fell into place neatly by the time I finished this book. Not only that, but the bizarre shenanigans of the Intelligence Community, particularly the FBI, CIA and, to a lesser extent, DHS during the 2016 election and the coterie of retired military men selected to serve in President Trump's cabinet all took on greater significance to me due to the revelations of this book.

Anyway, I do recommend this but not without some warnings:

All that being said, I loved this book but it's definitely not for everyone. It would make a fine addition to any collection of Cold War, CIA, intelligence, conspiracy and/or Indochina War history. Ignore the one-star and two-star reviews by people who obviously never read it or are incapable of understanding it. And if you aren't prepared for the meaty stuff you find between its covers you can always give it a bad review and go back to Info-Wars, Coast-to-Coast Radio, the Truther blog-o-sphere or wherever else you came from. Or better yet, do some honest research and discover there is real treasure between these covers. Recommended.

By Boyce Hart on July 22, 2010
The Critical Sinews btw CIA and other Gov. Agencies

What does it mean when we say " the CIA did such and such an action"? Just what is the CIA, a whole or a part? Given its emphasis on compartmentalization, is it accurate to say "the CIA was heavily involved in the JFK assassination" or would it be more accurate to say parts of the CIA were? Moreover, who is the CIA, and what are the powers behind it? Also, perhaps most importantly, what were the relations between the CIA and other parts of government, and how and when did these relationships change and evolve. Were these changes done democratically or secretly. These last two questions are the essence of this book. Yes, it is true as one reviewer noted, this book could have used an editor. Some times it has the feel of a collection of speeches, but not always. So why the five instead of 4. The subject matter-- in particular the last two questions typed above-- are just too rarely mentioned and discussed. This book really helps us understand the curiously evolving nervous system of the CIA btw 1947 and 1963, as very very few other books do. It sees the inception of the CIA in 1947 as just the first step, and makes it clear that later developments were neither willed nor pre-ordained by many of the elected officials who wrote the National Security Act of 1947.

The only other book that really addresses this BETWEEN WORLD--i.e. between CIA and other government agencies is one of the Three most important books published in the last 50 years IMO. Thy Will Be Done: Nelson Rockefeller, Evangelism, and the Conquest of the Amazon In the Age of OIl by Colby and Dennett. Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon : Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil

Still there is one book I recommend even more than that one. This is not the current Gold Standard merely for all current JFK research. It is far more than that; it is the Gold Standard for all US Cold War History Research. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass. This book is so important because it is not merely who done it but why done it. It is a book that mixes how and why of JFK and those crucial-because-contestable Cold War years 1960-63 like no other. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

By John C. Landon on August 14, 2010
From JFK conspiracy theories to deeper questions

As the nature of the conspiracies behind the JFK assassination sink in a series of spontaneous questions/suspicions begin to arise in one's mind: the main one has to do with the CIA and more generally with the question of what larger unseen (political) power could bring off what the record shows.
Here Prouty's book is an invaluable resource and one place to start to see the dark reality behind those spontaneous suspicions.

By Amazon Customer on July 20, 2013
The best insight to the workings of the Shadow Government

HOW secret operations are built.

WHERE secret operations are built (hint: it's a five-sided building).

The WHY is just speculative. Without knowing the inner debates of the National Security State, there is no way of knowing for sure. But the concept of "New World Order" comes to mind.

Making a New World Order is complex, but definitely doable. Over many years influential politicians, corporate leaders and religious leaders were persuaded that a new human era was possible, through the governing body of the United Nations. The thing is: how were these leaders persuaded, and by whom?

Then comes the most outrageous operations the CIA has ever conducted - mind control, manchurian candidate research, worldwide propaganda, blackmailing key people. This will never be admitted by the Agency - or by any other agency. It must be PRIED OUT of them. This is why it's imporatant to read the book, but also important is maintaining high standards for your sources.

By dwcrabtree on November 24, 2015
Shadow government and the CIA infiltration of the elected government

Great informative read by an insider of the "shadow" government.

By Steven A. McFarland on October 30, 2009
5 Stars, A Must Read!

After reading the Secret Team a persons view of the world and who is actually at the reigns changes tremendously. This book is a must read for anyone who studies politics. Prouty reveals a dark and sinister world of false flag operations, swaying political views and reveals how the CIA and its allies control the US and the World. Put this together with a study of Political Ponerology and unmask the reality that has been creeping into US politics for decades!

By nordlys on April 28, 2011
The Secret Team

Of the books I have read about CIA this is defenitely the most scary and gives an unbelievable amount of the many ways they have controled usa, and the rest of the world. Why do we do this, why are we always pretending we have so many enemies that we need to build up and use all the money in government to create and build weapons, bombs, drones and god knows what.
Read this book and learn the secrets so carefully hidden from us.

By gordon gray on September 6, 2014
Best description of the organization and the MO of the ...

Best description of the organization and the MO of the men who engineered the JFK assassination, by someone who was on the ground at the time..

By Herbert L Calhoun on December 4, 2012
The New Corporate (non-State acting) Privatized One World Order

While we sit stunned into complete disbelief and silence trying to make sense of, understand, and decode the strongly suspected connections between the most curious political and military events of our times, this author, Colonel, L. Fletcher Prouty, in this book, "The Secret Team," has already decoded everything for us. From the JFK assassination, Watergate, the Iran-Contra Affair, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, repeated bank bust-outs (like BCCI and Silverado), the cocaine connection from Mena Arkansas to Nicaragua, the "crack" cocaine explosion in America's inner cities, the recent housing crash, and the general Wall Street sponsored financial meltdown, and now even from the wildest recesses of our collective imagination (dare I say it, maybe even 911?), Colonel Prouty, the fabled Mr. "X" in the movie "JFK," has the bureaucratic structure of all the answers here.

What Colonel Prouty tells us is that right before our own eyes, we are experiencing a paradigm shift in international relations and world affairs, one that has quietly moved us from the "old order" where the sovereign nation and its armies and national ideologies once sat at the center of world events and predominated, into a new "One World business run corporate, privatized global order," in which "the corporate powers that be" sit on the throne in the clock tower; and where, as a result of their machinations, true national sovereignty has seeped away to the point that we say safely say, it no longer exists.

The good Colonel tells us that the most important events of this century are taking place right before our eyes, as the Cold War era has already given way to a new age of "One World" under the control of businessmen and their hired guns, their lawyers -- rather than under the threat of military power and ideological differences. In this new, completely "privatized world order," big business, big lawyers, big bankers, big politicians, big lobbyists, and even bigger money-men, run and rule the entire world from behind a national security screen inaccessible to the average citizen. It is this paradigm shift, and the wall of secrecy that has brought us the "Secret Team" and the series of strange inexplicable events that it has skillfully orchestrated, and that keep recurring from time to time both within the U.S. and throughout the world.

This new bureaucratic entity is called a "Secret Team" for good reasons: because like any team, it does not create its own game plan, its own rules, or its own reality. The team plays for a coach and an owner. It is the coach and the owner that writes the scripts, creates and "calls" the plays. The drama of reality that we see on the international screen is a creation of the "Power elite, as it is executed by the "secret Team." The power of the team comes from its vast intergovernmental undercover infrastructure and its direct relationship with private industries, the military, mutual funds, and investment houses, universities, and the news media, including foreign and domestic publishing houses. The beauty of the "Secret team," is that it is not a clandestine super-planning-board, or super-general staff like as is frequently attributed to the Bilderburg Group, or the Trilateral Commission, but is a bewildering collection of ad hoc and semi-permanent action committees and networks that can come into being and then dissolve as specific needs troubles and flash-points dictate. It can create, influence or topple governments around the globe at the behest and on the whim of its coaches, "the Power Elite."

As the Sociologist C. Wright Mills told us nearly a half century ago, the members of the "Power Elite," operate beyond national borders, beyond the reach of the public, and have no national loyalties -- or even return addresses. They operate in the shadows and run the world by remote control and by making us completely dependent upon them and their hidden machinations. Invisibly, they maneuver and jockey to control every aspect of our lives and the infrastructure and markets upon which we depend for our survival: The most important and essential among them being our ability to produce and distribute our own food, water, and energy. As a result of this dependency, and despite mythology to the contrary, Colonel Prouty tells us that we are becoming the most dependent society that has ever lived. And the future viability of an infrastructure that is not controlled and manipulated by this "global power Elite," is diminishing to the point of non-existence.

With climate changes and terrorism already causing serious disruptions in the normal flow of our lives, governments are becoming less and less able to serve as the people's protector of last resort. Already, one of the politicians who ran for President of the United States in its most recent election, Governor Mitt Romney, suggested that FEMA be turned over to a private run firm? And all of the agencies of government that he did not suggest be privatized (or that have not already been privatized), except for the military, he suggested be abolished. As well, we also see the concomitant rise of the Backwaters' of the world, a private firm that has already begun to take over a lion's share of the responsibilities of our volunteer military. Likewise, our prisons, healthcare system and schools are also being privatized, and everything else is being "outsourced" to the lowest bidder on the global labor market. The book however is not just about international politics or international economics, per se, but is also about the primary bureaucratic instrumentality through which the "Power Elite" operates. This instrumentality, as noted above, is called "the Secret Team."

How does Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty know about the "Secret Team:" because he used to be one of its Pentagon operational managers. I believe then that out of prudence, when the man who oversaw management of and liaised with "the Secret team" for nine years as a Pentagon as an Air Force Colonel, (and who incidentally was also sent on a wild goose chase to Antarctica in order to get him out of the country, days before the JFK assassination), tells us that something is wrong in Denmark, I believe it is high time to listen up. In a chilling narrative, Colonel Prouty relates to us how he found out about the assassination of JFK. It was during a stopover in New Zealand on his return from the wild goose chase his superiors had sent him on to get him out of the way. Hours BEFORE the assassination had even occurred, somehow the New Zealand press already had the pre-planned talking points on Lee Harvey Oswald. Somehow they mistakenly deployed them prematurely, reporting well in advance of the assassination itself, that Oswald was JFK's lone assassin? How could such a thing happen unless there was a very high level conspiracy?

The Secret team, according to Prouty consists of a bunch of renegade CIA intelligence operatives that are signed up for life and operate under the full protection and pay of the "Power Elite," itself a cabal of wealthy men with interlocking interests beholden only to their own hunger for power, profit and greed. The "Power Elite" relies upon this covert team of highly trained specialists to get things done without questions being asked and without moral squeamishness.

Operating outside the normal parameters of political authorization, morality, direction, and law, and hiding behind a wall shielded by national security secrecy, very much like the mafia, the "Secret Team" always gets the job done. They are allowed to ply their immoral trade with both impunity and with legal immunity. In short, in the modern era, in the new "One WorldCorporate Order," they have proven again and again that, at worse they are lawless, and at best, they are a law unto themselves. The members of the "Secret Team" have become the new Jack-booted foot soldiers we see trampling over our dying democracy. As we move deeper and deeper into the uncharted realms of the new Corporate run "One World Order," "we the people" have a lot of questions we must ask ourselves if the democracy we once knew is to endure.

The climax of the book appears here in chapter 22 ( entitled "Camelot.") It is a beautifully crafted object lesson for the future of what remains of our democracy. It is a narrative summary of how JFK tried but failed to deal with the emerging paradigm shift in power from the Executive branch of the UGS, to the CIA and the "Secret Team," that is to say, from a system of duly elected Representatives to one dictated by the whims of the "Power Elite" through their "Secret Team." JFK's assassination is just the most dramatic consequence of how our then young President failed to save the USG from usurpation of its power by a cabal of anonymous evil men intent on ruling the world. Colonel Prouty's story ends somewhat as follows.

The Bay of Pigs operation was the seminal event in the clandestine transfer of power from the "normal government" to the CIA's Secret Team." It was done primarily via the thinly transparent interface of the military -- playing a dual role as both military officers reporting to their Commander in Chief, and at the same time as undercover "clandestine operatives" reporting (behind the President's back) to the CIA (and of course through it, to the "Power Elite."). In the book, there is little question where their split loyalties lay.

The key ruse that provided the glue that made this high level "grifter-like scam" (with the U.S. President, as its "mark)" work to perfection, was the words "anti-Communist counterinsurgency." Put to skilful use in hands of trained Specialists, these words had a powerful and purposeful dual meaning. They meant one thing to "clandestine insider members of the "Secret Team," and quite another to "no need to know outsiders" like the American public (and in this case the whole USG, including the Commander in Chief, the President of the U.S. JFK himself). This willful ambiguity in terminology and the duality in the roles of those involved does most of the heavy lifting in the drama played out by the "insiders" and that resulted in the usurpation and the shift of power from the Presidency to the CIA

The "Bay of Pigs operation"proved to be the defining, the seminal and pivotal case in point. It began as a small clandestine "anti-Communist counterinsurgency" operation run by the CIA (as also was the case with Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Granada, Angola, and Santo Domingo), ostensibly under the oversight of the "USG," but in fact ended up as a huge CIA-run military failure, one minus the requisite oversight from the US President. The devil of how this happened lies in the slimy details that went on behind the scenes and that are skillfully unveiled in this book. They are details that the reader can also get from a careful reading between the lines of "The Pentagon Papers."

As the Bay of Pigs Operation slowly morphed from a small-scale USG run operation "with oversight," into a huge, expensive and poorly run CIA operation without any oversight whatsoever, the rules of the game also changed. They changed from being about U.S. security, to being about the greed, power and profits of the "Power Elite, as those objectives were implemented through the "Secret Team." The key to the "Power Elite" getting what they wanted was always accomplished by stoking the ideological fires up to an international boiling point, so that more and more military hardware could be produced, bought and sold.

Likewise, the roles of the primary players also morphed and changed -- from "clandestine operators" in military uniforms, to "military operators" reporting to their CIA handlers, and thus to the "Power Elite." The executive branch (the ostensible oversight body of the government) was none the wiser, since it was not yet aware that it was "being played" by the CIA and thus did not yet know it was being treated in the same way the public is normally treated: as an "excluded outsider" lacking the required "need to know."

Through this bureaucratic sleigh of hand, the partial control and power the USG normally exercised in its oversight role had been covertly usurped, as the military operators (and even members of the Presidents own staff proved to be "insiders," i.e., members of the "Secret Team," "playing" the President like a bass fiddle as he and his team became the "marks" in an insider's "con game" in which power and control of the USG was at stake.

When JFK finally "wised up," it was too late. By then the train had already left the station, with the CIA firmly in the driver's seat. Since JFK era, U.S. foreign policy has become a clear case of the CIA tail wagging the USG dog. And the best proof of the evil intentions of the "Secret Team" calling the shots within the CIA is that no sooner than the Bay of Pigs literally blew up in a spectacular and embarrassing failure did the CIA then put the wheels back in motion to duplicate, expand and even generalize this failed bureaucratic formulate in Vietnam.

But this time JFK was ready for them and issued NSM-55 and NSM-57, both of which were decision directives designed to put the brakes on the CIA and return the usurped power back to the military where the President was the Commander in Chief. But the CIA was already two steps ahead of JFK. His own staff had been so compromised that he had nowhere to turn? He was penetrated and thus effectively checkmated by an agency of his own government? The more he fought back, the more he lost ground, and the more his back was up against the wall. By the time November, 22, 1963 came around, JFK literally had no bureaucratic friends and nowhere to turn?

I only regret that an earlier edition of this book had been lying around unread in my library for more than a decade. Five Stars.

By Luc REYNAERT on November 30, 2008
A symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue (H. Truman)

This is an extremely important book. The proof of it is that even the official copy in the Library of Congress disappeared (!). Moreover, even after his death, the author continues to be the object of a smear campaign (see internet).

His book is not less than a frontal attack on US intelligence and concomitantly on those who control it.
Its portrait of Allen Dulles, a longtime intelligence director, says it all: `I am a lawyer'; in other words, a servant. But of whom?
This book unveils the existence of a secret cabal, a Power Elite (G. William Domhoff), a `deep State' (P.D. Scott) within the US and its government as well as in about 40 host countries.
This Power Elite uses the Secret Team of top intelligence and military commanders as its long arm and protects it. Together they stand above the law and the democratic process. They get things done, whether they have the political authorization or not.
They dispose of a vast undercover political, military, intelligence, business, media and academic infrastructure, in the US as well as worldwide. They don't respect the nation State and are able to create, to influence and to topple governments in the hemisphere controlled by them.

The author gives a remarkable insight into the inner workings, the logistics, the strategies and the tactics of the intelligence agency. Its creation and history show that President H. Truman never intended to create an autonomous operational agency in the clandestine field. L.F. Prouty also gives valuable information about the U2- G. Powers incident (apparently to torpedo the US/USSR peace talks) and the Pentagon papers (an intelligence whitewash).

At the end, the author poses the all important question: `Can any President ever be strong enough really to rule?'

This book is a must read for all those interested in US history and for all those who want to understand the world we live in.

For more information on the Power Elite, I recommend the works of O. Tunander, D. Estulin, Peter Dale Scott, Carroll Quigley, Gary Allen and G. W. Domhoff.

By Herman on February 4, 2017
Extensive analysis of the CIA from its inception to the 1970's

The fact that this book all but disappeared when it was distributed in the 1970's tells all that the CIA did not want any of its "dirty laundry" aired in public. Prouty does an excellent (almost over the top) job of describing the rise and strategies and evolution of the CIA up through the 70's. That the Vietnam War was still controlled by the CIA at the writing of the original book also shows JFK had not gained control of the military-industrial complex. For those who are wanting to fill in more pieces of the puzzle this is an excellent source from a man who found himself in the thick of things for many years. The one shot-coming comes in the last chapter in his description of Nixon and especially LBJ not being able to control the military industrial complex either. Consequent independent research over many years seems to show LBJ who was about to go to jail and be dropped from the 1964 ticket, knew about and helped cover up the JFK assassination and is known to have remarked: "Just get me elected and you can have your damn war". There is also evidence Nixon and company undermined the 1968 peace talks as LBJ was trying to end the war and LBJ actually called Nixon and asked him to back off. ( Kinda like the Oct 1980 surprise by Reagan). Consequently we know from Judyth Vary Baker that Lee Oswald was the the assassin of JFK and he in fact was on the payroll of the FBI and CIA James E Files has confessed to being one of the shooters and E. Howard Hunt told his son, he was involved and he was CIA at the time. But no One man can possibly know everything. Given the pervasive infiltration of government, military and probably many civil institutions by the CIA, one wonders who comprises the shadow government in reality?

By Jeff Marzano on December 17, 2014
An American Hero Reveals The Shocking Truth

This book provides a rare glimpse into the secret history and evil machinations of the CIA as it mutated from its original form between 1946 up until the time the book was published in 1973 when it had become a cancerous blight within the government.

It should not be surprising that most people never really understood the so called Vietnam War and they still don't. Even people in the American government like the Secretary Of Defense were completely confused and manipulated by the Agency as it's called.

President Kennedy was somewhat inexperienced when he first entered office. JFK thought he could handle problems in the government in the same way he handled problems during his presidential campaign. He had an informal style at first where he would just ask a friend to take care of it. This caused JFK to disregard important checks and balances which had been set up to hopefully prevent the CIA from crossing the line from being just an intelligence agency into the realm of initiating clandestine military operations.

The National Security Counsel was supposed to give direction to the CIA and then the Operations Coordination Board was supposed to verify that the CIA had done what they were told and only what they were told. But even before JFK got into office the Agency had taken many determined steps to undermine those controls.

JFK's informal style opened the door even wider for the Agency to circumvent whatever controls may have still been effective to put some sort of limits on their 'fun and games'. Having an informal style with them was dangerous because they were experts at getting around all sorts of rules and laws.

The Agency double crossed JFK during the Bay Of Pigs debacle. Publicly JFK took the blame for what happened but according to Fletcher it was the CIA who cancelled the air support that would have destroyed Fidel Castro's planes on the ground. As a result JFK's only options were to accept the blame or admit to the world that things were being done by the American military establishment that he wasn't even aware of. John Kennedy was a fast learner however and he stated that he would break the CIA up into a thousand tiny pieces. JFK was fed up with all of the Agency's fun and games.

Something similar happened with the Gary Powers U2 spy plane that had to land in the Soviet Union. The evil Secret Team sabotaged the U2 to derail President Eisenhower's lifelong dream of holding a worldwide peace summit. Like JFK Ike accepted the blame publicly.

Ike's only other option would have been to admit that the U2 flight was unauthorized and then fire Allan Dulles and the other leaders of the evil Secret Team. But Fletcher says Ike couldn't do this for various reasons even though Nikita Khrushchev probably realized that Eisenhower did not break his word and authorize the U2 mission.

Ike's comments about the Military Industrial Complex which he made during his farewell address turned out to be very prophetic indeed.

These examples provide the picture of an Agency that had become a law unto itself which reinterpreted whatever orders it was given to make those orders conform to their evil schemes. Fletcher provides many details in the book about how the Agency was able to circumvent laws and regulations and manipulate anyone and everyone in the government starting with the president. They did this mainly by abusing their control of secrecy but they used many other methods as well.

Secret Team leader Allan Dulles wrote a book called 'The Craft of Intelligence'. The title of this book sort of indicates the very problem Fletcher Prouty explains in his book. Dulles viewed himself as a sort of artist or craftsman who could distort information and make it appear in any form he wanted. Strangely Fletcher refers to his close personal friendship with Allan Dulles in the acknowledgements at the beginning of the book but then spends the rest of the book portraying Dulles as a sort of Joseph Goebbels figure.

Fletcher spends over 300 pages describing the metamorphosis which occurred with the CIA as it veered very far afield from what president Truman had intended when he created the Agency. Then towards the end of the book Fletcher finally reveals his shocking conclusions about what this massive abuse of power lead to.

Fletcher felt that the assassination of president Kennedy was the single most pivotal event in modern American history as far as the changes that the assassination caused.

Sadly as Fletcher points out the Vietnam War never really had any military objective. The theory was that if South Vietnam fell this would cause a domino effect and the dreaded communism monster would start gobbling up the entire world. Then when South Vietnam did fall with no domino effect the Secret Team published a group of documents called the Pentagon Papers. These documents deflected blame away from the CIA and said nobody listened to the CIA when they warned that the Vietnam situation was not winnable.

But it wouldn't matter if anyone listened to the Secret Team anyway because they always lie.

This book presents an American government in chaos during the Vietnam era. It was a government that had been high jacked by the evil Secret Team.

After the Bay Of Pigs incident Fidel Castro apparently got fed up with the CIA and America in general. Castro turned to the Soviet Union instead. This lead to the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was only in the last 10 years or so that people realized just how close the world came to an all out nuclear exchange at that time.

This was a very dangerous game master craftsman Allan Dulles and his other liars were playing. They were like kids starting fires all over the place in a big field and then just sitting back and seeing which of those fires would become an inferno as Vietnam did.

Also in recent years people have implicated Lyndon Johnson as being part of the conspiracy to assassination JFK. So LBJ was on the team also.

I'm not sure if Fletcher ever really spells out what the true motivations of the Secret Team were but he hints at it. Probably the three main reasons that people engage in criminal activity are sex, money, and revenge. Usually when crimes are committed there's a money trail somewhere. And in the case of government military spending that's a very long trail.

This is a serious book which contains many details about an approximately 25 year period that began after World War II. It is not light reading.

On the Trail of the Assassins: One Man's Quest to Solve the Murder of President Kennedy

JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

David Ferrie: Mafia Pilot, Participant in Anti-Castro Bioweapon Plot, Friend of Lee Harvey Oswald and Key to the JFK Assassination

The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ

Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination

Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor, a Secret Laboratory in New Orleans and Cancer-Causing Monkey Viruses Are Linked to Lee Harvey ... Assassination and Emerging Global Epidemics

Top Secret/Majic: Operation Majestic-12 and the United States Government's UFO Cover-up

Watch this documentary series on the internet. The hypocrites have pulled it off the market:

The Men Who Killed Kennedy

The Men Who Killed Kennedy DVD Series - Episode List

1. "The Coup D'Etat" (25 October 1988)
2. "The Forces Of Darkness" (25 October 1988)
3. "The Cover-Up" (20 November 1991)
4. "The Patsy" (21 November 1991)
5. "The Witnesses" (21 November 1991)
6. "The Truth Shall Set You Free" (1995)

The Final Chapter episodes (internet only):

7. "The Smoking Guns" (2003)
8. "The Love Affair" (2003)
9. "The Guilty Men" (2003)

By Stephen Courts on August 7, 2012
Secret Team (CIA) By Colonel Fletcher Prouty

Though this book is now over 40 years old, I found the information very relevant and 100% trustworthy from one of America's true Patriots. Colonel Prouty served his country for decades as a pilot and as an integral part of the Department of Defense and CIA Though for nine years Colonel Prouty was the liason between the Air Force and the CIA's clandestine affairs, he is able to reveal confidential information that would typically be classified "Top Secret", because Colonel Prouty did not work for the CIA and therefore did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement with the nefarious CIA

What is fascinating about Colonel Prouty is that he was everywhere throughout his career. He watched world affairs as they unfolded, meeting the most influencial leaders of his time. From FDR, Stalin, Churchill, Ike and every general and admiral in our military. For the nine years from 1954 to 1963, he was involved as the go to guy for the military leaders and the president, including both Ike and JFK. In other words, Colonel Prouty writes from personal and direct experience.

Now the meat of the book is about the creation and abuses of the 1947 created CIA From the end of World War Two until the mid 1970's, the CIA abused its primary responsibility of intelligence gathering to literally unchecked clandestine and covert upheavels in every part of the world. The CIA, particularly under Allen Dulles, created one coup d'etat after another. The reader will realize that from 1945 until the Marines reached the shores of Viet Nam in 1965, every piece of skulldruggery in Viet Nam was done by the CIA The CIA had infiltrated the entire government, from the Department of Defense to the Department of State. Many people would be shocked to know that what passed as Defense activity was acually generals and admirals, wearing their uniforms and working for the CIA Whether it was advising the President, subverting Ambassadors or lying to Congress, the CIA ruled and few knew what they were really doing. Colonel Prouty tells the stories accurately of every subversive, nefarious act the CIA was involved in. One example in particular stands out. It was Ike's goal at the end of his 2nd term as president to have a peace conference with the USSR, one to sign a peace treaty and end the cold war. In direct violation of the presidents specific instructions not to fly U-2 flights prior to the conference in June of 1960, the CIA flew the ill fated Gary Powers flight that guaranteed that the conference would go forth. This was a most important conference that could have brought nuclear peace accords decades before they were eventually signed. Dulles and his henchmen deliberately insured that Gary Powers not only violated the order not to fly these observations flights, they insured that it would be downed by sabotaging the flight and thus force Ike to either admit he knew or fire the bastards who embarrassed him. Ike chose to take responsibility and thus the peace talks were cancelled. There was also another flight in 1958 that was downed in the Soviet Union.

Most Americans would be shocked to know the CIA has their own private air lines, Air America. This is no small air lines. Had Colonel Prouty written this book later, he could connect the CIA with the massive drug smuggling that has devastated American cities. They use the proceeds of this smuggling to finance their illicit involvement of other sovereign countries.

Bottom line is this is an important book as is his 1993 JFK & Viet Nam. Colonel Prouty was a significant advisor to Oliver Stone and his masterpiece, JFK. I am currently finishing the rereading of said book. If you want to know who has controled our foreign policy (against the charter that created this monstrosity) since the mid 1940's, this is an excellent book to begin with. It is my personal opinion, having read many books on the CIA, that their main function is to serve the multi-national corportations and the bankers that exploit the less developed countries around the world and to insure that there will never be peace. There will not be a World War Three, because nuclear weapons would most likely be used and earth as we know it will cease to exist. Therefore, limited, no win conflicts will continually persist. Beginning with Korea, to Viet Nam, to Iraq to Afganistan. The irony is we are wasting our human resources and our treasury to bankrupt our country while both Russia and China sit back and spend zero (USSR & Afganistan is the exception) and develope the kind of infrastruture and consumer goods as well as education that we should be doing.

Finally, the record of the CIA leaves a lot to be desired. There were many failures despite billions of dollars spent and the infiltration into every branch of our society, from education to media to think tanks to the military. Read this book and you will also discover the misadventure in Viet Nam that cost 58,000 plus American casualities, millions of Viet Namese, millions of service men who would never be the same after this debacle. Colonel Prouty explains this better than anyone I have yet to read. He predicted another debacle (Iraq & Afganistan) after the Viet Nam debacle. I believe Cononel Prouty passed away last decade, but he would not have been shocked by the rediculous misadventures in both of the above foremetioned countries. Think of the trillions of dollars and the bloodshed lost on a military misadventure that has no way of producing a positive outcome for the United States.

Stephen Courts
August 7, 2012

By anarchteacher on April 30, 2008
An Insider's Candid Expose' of the National Security State

As in the case of the brilliant Jules Archer volume, The Plot To Seize The White House, it is terrific to have this masterful study of the inner workings of the early CIA back in print after so many years of unavailability.

Skyhorse Publishing is to be commended in seeing to it that both of these crucial works are again available to the attentive reading public who want to know the truth concerning our dark hidden history that the government has so actively strived to keep buried.

The late Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty served as chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff where he was in charge of the global system designed to provide military support for covert activities of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In Oliver Stone's highly acclaimed film on the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, JFK, the mysterious character "X" portrayed by Donald Sutherland was in fact Colonel Prouty, who assisted director Stone in the production and scripting of this historical epic. Prouty had relayed the shocking information detailed in the movie to the actual New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, played by Kevin Cosner, in a series of communiques.

The Secret Team was first published in 1973 during the Watergate scandal, when many Americans were first learning about the dark side of covert government, an outlaw executive branch headed by a renegade chief of state. Richard Nixon would not be the last of this foul breed.

This was years before Frank Church's Senate Committee's damning revelations of CIA misdeeds and assassination plots against foreign leaders rocked the nation.

In each chapter in his book, Prouty speaks frankly with an insiders knowledge of what he describes as the inner workings of "the Secret Team."

This prudential judgment and keen assessment of the National Security Establishment was gained from years as a behind-the-scenes seasoned professional in military intelligence working intimately with those of the highest rank in policy making and implimentation.

The important story Prouty boldly tells should be read by every reflective American.

By SER on December 6, 2001
Best Book On CIA Misdeeds

The author was the liason officer between the CIA and the military during the 50's and 60's. As an air force officer (Colonel), he was excempt from taking the CIA oath of secrecy and therefore was in a position to write the book in 1973. Apparently, shortly after the book's publication, almost all copies disappeared, probably bought up by the CIA I was lucky to find a copy, published in Taiwan (Imperial Books & Records), in a used bookstore several years ago. The author details not only how the CIA conducts its operations, but more importantly, how it manages to keep most or all of its deeds from the eyes of congress, the population and even the President, if necessary. This is the best book I've read on the secret workings of the CIA and its misdeeds during the 50' and early 60's. Not to belittle them, but The Secret Team is a far more informative book than Marchetti and Marks' The CIA And The Cult Of Intelligence....

added, Jan09:

Actually, practically ever since I posted the review, I've been wanting to write a more detailed one, but since it's now been some 20 years since I read the book, I can't remember enough details to do it justice. If I ever reread it, I'll be sure to post a better review. I frankly think my present "review" isn't much of one - and it was cut short after my reference to the Marchetti/Marks book, the linking to which was not allowed at the time.

For example, one item of considerable current interest which I remember from the book is the author's detailing of Operation Northwoods, from the early 1960's - the plan by the intelligence agencies to conduct a false flag attack against American interests and blame it on Cuba, in order to justify a war against that country.
There was a big deal made about this (deservedly, in my opinion), only four or five years ago, when the National Security Archive (an apparently independent non-governmental research institute at George Washington University) discovered the details of this proposed operation, supposedly for the first time, in declassified documents. (This was in light of the ongoing conspiratorial controversies surrounding the 9-11 events.)
Yet, author Prouty detailed Operation Northwoods in his The Secret Team, first published long ago in 1973.
This is but one detail that indicates a much-needed elaborate review of this book.

I'd like to also add (since it is now apparently allowed) that The Secret Team, among other items, is available on CD from the L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site: http://www.prouty.org/

Finally, for readers still obsessed with the JFK assassination, I would like to recommend Final Judgment - The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, by Michael Collins Piper, a book which lives up to it's title. My use of the word "obsessed" is not meant derogatorily, as I have my own bookshelf-full as testament to that particular subject, but as an inducement to read the book, which will make the big picture very clear indeed. Do yourselves the favor.

Last edit: Jan09

By William Thelen on January 9, 2009
The Real "Mr. X" of the movie JFK

If you want to know about "Black Ops", who really killed JFK and why, why Vietnam was a trumped up war for profit and why we should have never been there, this is the man to read - L. Fletcher Prouty. He was the USAF colonel who was the liaison between the Pentagon and Black Ops from WW2 on until after JFK was killed. He also got his hands dirty on site in Greece and a few other places so he knows too well what he's talking about. If he talks about black ops, politics, the CIA and anything related-----listen carefully-----this is the "horses' mouth". It's long, even in paperback, and very detailed but that's exactly what you want in a book like this-----the real detailed truth. Highly recommended.

[Nov 01, 2017] Over the course of four hours, senators argued that "foreign infiltration" is the root of social opposition within the United States, in order to justify the censorship of oppositional viewpoints

Can those senatord spell "the crisis of neoliberalism?" I believe they can, but the need a smoke screen to obscure this from public.
Facebook can influence the US politics. but is is controlled and systematically mined/monitored by intelligence agencies, not by Russians. It is actually a great source of intelligence as many foreigners uses it (I think number of foreign users of Facebook exceeds the number of US users, so number of exhibitionists, narcissists (which actually might perefer Twitter ;-) and clueless in security people oversees is much higher the in the USA.
There are probably some "very serious people" standing behind boyish face of Mark Zuckerberg ( Onion has a great satire playing this theme , 2011) . Facebook is such a great intelligence resource... No person with even cursory of understanding of computer security would use it. It's like installing spy camera in your dining room and enjoying it.
Notable quotes:
"... Following concerns over 'Russian meddling' in the 2016 US election through the use of social media platforms, John Sweeney looks at the role of Facebook and other tech firms as a means of influencing politics. ..."
Nov 01, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star ,

November 1, 2017 at 9:23 am
"Over the course of four hours, senators argued that "foreign infiltration" is the root of social opposition within the United States, in order to justify the censorship of oppositional viewpoints."
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/01/goog-n01.html

In other words these zipperhead dumbfucks think that all Americans are subject to be manipulated and programmed by TPTB.

Throughout the entirety of the 'Cold war' (1945-1990), no one claimed that the profound societal upheavals in the wake of the race based Civil Rights followed by the Women's Rights movements were a result of "foreign infiltration".

Warren , November 1, 2017 at 11:31 am

BBC Newsnight
Published on 31 Oct 2017
SUBSCRIBE 159K
Following concerns over 'Russian meddling' in the 2016 US election through the use of social media platforms, John Sweeney looks at the role of Facebook and other tech firms as a means of influencing politics.

Newsnight is the BBC's flagship news and current affairs TV programme – with analysis, debate, exclusives, and robust interviews.

[Nov 01, 2017] Guardians of the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

It would be interesting to explore possible connection of Browder and MI6. Why he changed his citizenship to British as the scandal unfolded?
Notable quotes:
"... For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient truth. ..."
"... The documentary – "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – was produced by filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie. ..."
"... However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels and – except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington – very few Americans have been allowed to see the documentary. ..."
"... This summer, Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term. ..."
"... Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in the tax fraud. ..."
"... While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant caught up in the scheme. ..."
"... The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets – also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should anyone believe his other self-serving claims? ..."
"... In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered: "No." ..."
"... Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer," all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower. ..."
"... From my book, "The Killing of William Browder," suppressed by Amazon courtesy of Browder's lawyer Jonathan Winer (Amazon obliged, no questions asked): ..."
"... Mr. Cymrot: When you told people Mr. Magnitsky's a lawyer, did you also tell them he never went to law school and never had a law license? Browder: I'm sorry. I Mr. Cymrot: When you tell – how many times have you said, "Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer?" Browder: I don't know. Mr. Cymrot: 50? 100? 200? Browder: I don't know. Mr. Cymrot: Many, many times, right? Browder: Yes Mr. Cymrot: Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree? Browder: No. ..."
"... The fact that anyone who does scratch the surface, like yourself, is immediately attacked shows that Browder is serving the oligarchy. They wish very much to return to the rape, pillage, and plunder of Russia that they enjoyed under Yeltsin. Just like Russia-gate, they seek to control the narrative. The MSM carries their water, and people have to go to sites like this one to find the truth. Thank you very much for your work. ..."
"... Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign, ..."
Oct 28, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Guardians of the Magnitsky Myth

Exclusive: In pursuit of Russia-gate, the U.S. mainstream media embraces any attack on Russia and works to ensure that Americans don't hear the other side of the story, as with the Magnitsky myth, reports Robert Parry.

As Russia-gate becomes the go-to excuse to marginalize and suppress independent and dissident media in the United States, a warning of what the future holds is the blacklisting of a documentary that debunks the so-called Magnitsky case.

The emerging outlines of the broader suppression are now apparent in moves by major technology companies – under intense political pressure – to unleash algorithms that will hunt down what major media outlets and mainstream "fact-checkers" (with their own checkered histories of getting facts wrong) deem to be "false" and then stigmatize that information with pop-up "warnings" or simply make finding it difficult for readers using major search engines.

For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient truth.

Throughout the U.S. and Europe, there has been determined effort to prevent the American and European publics from seeing this detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of the Magnitsky story.

The documentary – "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – was produced by filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie.

However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels and – except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington – very few Americans have been allowed to see the documentary.

Instead, we're fed a steady diet of the frothy myth whipped up by hedge-fund investor William Browder and sold to the U.S. and European governments as the basis for sanctioning Russian officials. For years now, Browder has been given a free hand to spin his dog-ate-my-homework explanation about how some of his firms got involved a $230 million tax fraud in Russia.

Browder insists that some "corrupt" Russian police officers stole his companies' corporate seals and masterminded a convoluted conspiracy. But why anyone would trust a hedge-fund operator who got rich exploiting Russia's loose business standards is hard to comprehend.

The answer is that Browder has used his money and political influence to scare off and silence anyone who dares point to the glaring contradictions and logical gaps in his elaborate confection.

So, the hedge-fund guy who renounced his U.S. citizenship in favor of a British passport gets the royal treatment whenever he runs to Congress. His narrative just fits so neatly into the demonization of Russia and the frenzy over stopping "Russian propaganda and disinformation" by whatever means necessary.

This summer, Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term.

Meanwhile, the U.S. mainstream media helps reinforce Browder's dubious tale by smearing anyone who dares question it as a "Moscow stooge" or a "useful idiot."

Magnitsky and Russia-gate

The Magnitsky controversy now has merged with the Russia-gate affair because Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who traveled to America to challenge Browder's account, arranged a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump campaign advisers in June 2016 to present this other side of the story.

Though nothing apparently came from that meeting, The New York Times, which always treats Browder's account as flat fact, led its Saturday editions with a breathless story entitled, " A Kremlin Link to a Memo Taken to Trump Tower ," citing similarities between Veselnitskaya's memo on the Magnitsky case and an account prepared by "one of Russia's most powerful officials, the prosecutor general Yuri Y. Chaika." Cue the spooky music as the Times challenges Veselnitskaya's honesty.

Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in the tax fraud.

While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant caught up in the scheme.

The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets – also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should anyone believe his other self-serving claims?

As investigative reporter Lucy Komisar noted in a recent article on the case, Browder offered a different description when he testified under oath in a New York court deposition in a related criminal case.

In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered: "No."

Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer," all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower.

The rest of Browder's story stretches credulity even more as he offers a convoluted explanation of how he wasn't responsible for bogus claims made by his companies to fraudulently sneak away with $230 million in refunded taxes.

Rather than show any skepticism toward this smarmy hedge-fund operator and his claims of victimhood, the U.S. Congress and mainstream media just take him at his word because, of course, his story fits the ever-present "Russia bad" narrative.Plus, these influential people have repeated the falsehoods so often and suppressed contrary evidence with such arrogance that they apparently feel that they get to define reality, which – in many ways – is what they want to do in the future by exploiting the Russia-gate hysteria to restore their undisputed role as the "gatekeepers" on "approved" information.

Which is why Americans and Europeans should demand the right to see the Nekrasov documentary and make their own judgments, possibly with Browder given a chance after the show to rebut the overwhelming evidence of his deceptions.

Instead, Browder has used his wealth and connections to make sure that almost no one gets to see the deconstruction of his fable. And The New York Times is okay with that.

[For details on the Nekrasov documentary, see Consortiumnews.com's " A Blacklisted Film and the New Cold War. "]

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

BobH , October 28, 2017 at 9:48 pm

It seems the neo-liberal establishment in the West is ready to take in any Russian dissident seeking refuge while the victims of Western aggression are denied asylum.
http://en.rfi.fr/culture/20171019-russian-artist-detained-over-paris-bank-blaze

Sam F , October 29, 2017 at 9:10 am

Yes, Congress measures human worth in bribes: more from rich immigrants than from poor refugees. We are fortunate to have Mr. Parry expose the corruption of oligarchy and its control of mass media and elections.

Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
While Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

BobH , October 29, 2017 at 11:54 am

Yes, Sam F, I signed on to that one some time ago I'm sure the NYT has a waste basket somewhere that is full of "Russian trolls".

orayates5454 , October 28, 2017 at 11:01 pm

Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing $75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously. Begin here

. http://bit.do/online-Job-today44

Sendero Santos , October 30, 2017 at 3:25 am

Spam a lot.

Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:07 pm

"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill Browder [ ]

"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia. He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.

"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel, to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?

"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum, though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a partner but also a mentor and friend.

"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party, the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University, the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising that none of it gets mentioned.

"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."

http://forward.com/news/376788/the-secret-jewish-history-of-donald-trump-jrs-russia-scandal/

Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:09 pm

Bill Browder with American-Israeli interviewer Natasha Mozgovaya, TV host for Voice of America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbgNeQ_xINM

In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".

The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.

Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various publications in Russia.

Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.

In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America.

Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:11 pm

Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options, have been allowed to flourish here.

A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."

The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."

In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.

The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.

Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.

When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.

Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.

According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.

Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs, criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"

Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:19 pm

William Browder is a "shareholder activist" the way Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a "human rights activist".

Both loudly bleat the "story" of their heroic "fight for justice" for billionaire Jewish oligarchs: themselves.

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.686922.1447865981!/image/78952068.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_625/78952068.jpg

Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 7:58 am

Thank you. Who would expect all these crimes and lies from a progeny of a Jewish communist Browder!

This is priceless: "The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings." In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust."

Lois Gagnon , October 29, 2017 at 2:56 pm

Good info, but not surprising. Covering up the syndicate's global crime spree is priority #1. If we view all events through this lens, it all makes perfect sense.

MrK , October 29, 2017 at 12:06 am

More on Beny and Danny Steinmetz and Dany Gertler here:

Chloe's Blood Diamonds
http://www.globalresearch.ca/chloe-s-blood-diamond/7423

BobH , October 29, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Interesting link, thanks, MrK

BobH , October 29, 2017 at 12:05 pm

Abe, thanks for the informative backgrounder. The Goldberg link is also interesting, although I note he signs on to the Russian Hacking myth and the "Magnitsky murder" theory.

Abe , October 29, 2017 at 12:20 pm

"First they went after "

In video interview featured on Mikhail Khodorkovsky's website, Browder compared Khodorkovsky and himself to victims of the Nazi regime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=21&v=0KvFQHLIvWI [minutes 4:10-4:50

Abe , October 29, 2017 at 12:50 pm

Leading pro-Israel senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman were key promoters of the Magnitsky Act, which was signed into law in 2012.

Browder then published a book, Red Notice, leading to a string of TV appearances.

Outside the Daily Show's studios in New York on 3 February 2015, Browder was served a subpoena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryVavTF6hR0

Browder tried to refuse to accept the subpoena and fled.

United States Federal Judge, Thomas Griesa of the Southern District of New York issued a ruling that compels Browder to travel to New York for a deposition.

Browder's lawyer, Randy Mastro, a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP said Browder "does not have to consent to a deposition." He claimed that Browder is living and working in England and is currently carrying a British passport. Browder is a former U.S. citizen.

In his ruling, Judge Griesa emphasized that Browder must comply with the subpoena in New York because he conducts his business in the city on a "reasonably regular basis."

Browder's lawyer argued that the hedge fund manager was unable to attend in a deposition because there are "credible threats" to his personal safety. In response, the judge pointed out that the threats did not prevent Browder from going to different cable news networks to promote his book.

The federal court's order for Browder was connected to the civil case filed by federal prosecutors in Manhattan against Russian businessman Denis Katsyv.

Browder had urged prosecutors to file lawsuits against Katsyv, who denied the allegations against him. The lawyer representing Katsyv repeatedly tried to serve subpoenas to Browder as the primary source of information in the complaint against the Russian businessman.

Browder opted to run away instead of complying with the subpoena.

Taras 77 , October 29, 2017 at 9:23 pm

Carden, the senator from AIPAC was and is a key supporter!

Thanks, Abe, for your informative posts. The stench on this one takes the Israeli lapdogs in congress to new lows. Congress is either willfully uninformed or totally ignorant on the facts in this case, maybe a distinction without a difference.

Abe , October 30, 2017 at 5:19 pm

Congress is either willfully uninformed nor totally ignorant

They're bought and paid for by the pro-Israel Lobby.

falcemartello , October 30, 2017 at 11:40 pm

@Abe its called the Kosher Nostra. Exceeds anything the Neapolitans or Sicilians have managed. Most people relate syndicated crime to Southern Italians . We can thank Hollywood for that and that says it all . Lansky and Co have been running the mob for years but it's we southern Italians that get the label of mobster. Russian jewish mobsters are behind most of the crimes of graft ,drugs and prostitution ,human trafficking, organ trafficking . You name it. They came to the forefront starting from the deliberate Balkanising of the FDRY Yugoslavia and the implosion of the USSR under Yeltsin they grew exponentially. The Godfather of this international Ashkenazi judaic crime organisation is Semion Mogilevich born in the Ukraine in the 40's. This guy makes Capone and Lucky Luciano look like choir boys., but everybody relates mobsters to these southern Italians how bizarre that the truth is always something else.

Zachary Smith , October 29, 2017 at 12:29 am

Held for 11 months without trial,[4] he was, as reported by The Telegraph, "denied visits from his family" and "forced into increasingly squalid cells." He developed gall stones, pancreatitis and calculous cholecystitis, for which he was given inadequate medical treatment during his incarceration. Surgery was ordered in June, but never performed; detention center chief Ivan P. Prokopenko later said that he " did not consider Magnitsky sick Prisoners often try to pass themselves off as sick, in order to get better conditions."

In prison without a trial. Worsening medical condition ignored. As the year time-limit approached, Magnitsky was badly beaten – probably in a last ditch attempt to force the State's wishes on him.

Whether guilty or innocent, this shouldn't happen to a dog. But it happened with him, and is happening this very moment all over the fine nation we call wonderful, Exceptional, and all that. Privatized prisons who won't waste more than an aspirin tablet on an inmate. Low paid goons who get away with darned near anything they want, even if THEY beat a prisoner to death. Or kill him by choking him. Or by denying him water.

Nobody cares what goes on overseas – unless they can turn an individual gross miscarriage of justice into another attack on Russia. Nobody cares here, either. I still recall my shock and disgust at people who posed as "liberals" daydreaming about Carl Rove being put in the same cell with the sex-starved pervert "Big Bubba".

Exceptional my ***!

tina , October 29, 2017 at 4:20 am

and meanwhile, in Milwaukee , Wisconsin, USA another innocent person died in the county jail. Count that on five fingers, 5 people
dead in Milwaukee County Jail is as many months. GO USA MAGA

Lex , October 29, 2017 at 4:37 am

There is actually no credible evidence the accused accountant was beaten, this is just part of Browder's big story to avoid paying taxes – like he has done his entire life. Even so, the people working at the prison were all punished in Russia, yet somehow Russia is still the villain – when was the last time you heard of US prison staff being punished for negligence or abuse? I've read a book (also censored) about this whole affair, and it includes a lengthy section about the financial crimes visited on Russia in the 90s by people like Browder, and it amounts to crimes against humanity. Browder should be in a Russian prison, but instead his lies have caused both the US and Canada to pass punitive sanctions against an entire nation – and lead the world down a path towards war between the two largest nuclear powers. Spread the word – Browder is a charlatan and a crook, and Magnitsky was likely thrown to the wolves by him.

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 11:24 am

"Browder is a charlatan and a crook" – True. And here is a documentary to read, "The Killing of William Browder:"
https://archive.org/stream/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowderPrintLayout6x91/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowder_PrintLayout_6x9-1#page/n3/mode/1up

And, by the way, here is a real persecution, in the US: "The Persecution of Norman Finkelstein"
https://www.change.org/p/janet-difiore-chief-judge-of-the-state-of-new-york-norman-g-finkelstein-must-walk-free

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 8:02 am

You really believe in each word of the well-known Jewish fraudster Browder?

Sam F , October 29, 2017 at 8:57 am

It does seem most likely that Magnitsky simply lied about medical conditions; I have known zionists to do that all their lives in yet another fake plea for special privileges. If the prison manager really did not believe him, it is poetic justice in action.

US prisoners are in general the poor. Magnitsky was imprisoned for robbing the poor, a different matter altogether. The Magnitsky Act proves that the US Congress cares for no one, but will take bribes to pretend to care for the rich. Tell them that he was cheating zionists and they will repeal the act.

Putin Apologist , October 29, 2017 at 1:47 am

Alex Krainer's book "The Killing of William Browder: Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception" does a good job of exposing William Browder's fraud. It's a quick read about 200 pages. Amazon has banned the book but eBay has it, for now.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Killing-of-William-Browder-Deconstructing-Bill-Browders-Dangerous-Deceptio/311966014830?hash=item48a29f9d6e:g:GNMAAOSwE9RZxce5

Here's Browder running, in an attempt to avoid being served with a subpoena outside the Daily Show's studios in New York. What a f***ing coward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryVavTF6hR0

Joe Tedesky , October 29, 2017 at 2:18 am

Why does it even matter what we Americans think of Browder's dealings with said Russian officials? Not to sound uncaring of human strive or anything like that, but shouldn't we Americans allow the Russians the right of their own laws and sovereignty to settle their own affairs? Shouldn't we Americans be more concerned with how many to a few had died in our own American prisons last year, and why does our land of the free America have such a huge prison population?

This Browder Road is Road we Americans should not go down. There is no reason we should, and Browder's story is too controversial by the poor credibility of his own accusations. There is a oligarchical fist fight going on over there in Russia, and it's former satellites, and America should let that region iron out their own differences. Read Phil Butler over at New Eastern Onion, and the Saker, these guys like Robert Parry are on to this Zionist intrusion.

tina , October 29, 2017 at 4:15 am

Hi joe,
I know you guys are a bit older than I , but growing up in Munich, Germany in the 70's and 80's , was a lot different from you guys in the 60's. Afghanistan 1977, Tehran, Iran 1979, The usa did so much damage, 1953 the brits and usa overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran. Why should anyone like or welcome American troops? Since ww2, they have done nothing but wreak hatred in the world. I wish I could like this country, but I just can't

Joe Tedesky , October 29, 2017 at 5:45 am

Well let me tell ya my young friend tina, the best of America isn't being portrayed at this moment by our media to well these days. In the land of the free, are a lot of nice people tina, but they like you are in the midst these days of being pulled apart from the top down. Most of this tearing apart has been accomplished by the politicians misuse of holding up identity civil rights issues as cover for their own selfish gains. This identity issue is used, since returning to the days of the FDR New Deal is an improbable campaign promise, all because both political parties have done a fine job of destroying that very political uplifting program set in place some eighty years ago.

So tina you don't need to love the current government in the U.S., but to be patient a little while longer and then you may try and learn to like, or love if you will, the American individual, whoever that individual is you are fortunate enough to meet. On the other hand you could just go to Holland. Joe

Skip Scott , October 29, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Tina-

I am wondering why anyone anywhere would ever welcome any foreign troops in their own country. I am certain that one thing that would be a bi-partisan agreement for US citizens is that no foreign troops are welcome here, especially to "show" us how to run our country. I find it very strange that so few Americans seem to be able to make the logical jump to assume the same of other countries' citizens.

Jessica K , October 29, 2017 at 7:15 am

Browder is a sleaze, and the fact that he can be called a "human rights activist" in the US shows how low oligarchy and its congressional minions can go. He can't stand that Putin and the Duma went after him, among other oligarchs and big money crooks, when the US tried to scavenge Russia (which they still want to do).

Thank you for that information, Abe, on Browder's past and present shady connections. And Lex, please tell me what is the book you read on the case? And who can we get to show this film in this age of suppressed truth?

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 11:27 am

The book about Browder: https://archive.org/stream/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowderPrintLayout6x91/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowder_PrintLayout_6x9-1#page/n3/mode/1up

Herman , October 29, 2017 at 7:21 am

When you read articles in CN and those of the commentators the evidence against their targets seems so one sided, that the truth must be somewhere in between. But then, for example, you read works by people like Pappe' on Israel and recently Stephen Cohen on our distortions of events and so many others and you come to understand that what these folks are saying is true and then you wonder how can it change for the better when all the usual avenues of expression are guarded by the deciders. Perhaps why we have become so tortured by this reality is that we better understand it because of the information revolution, that what is always was. And perhaps we will all be saved by those who have decided we are not getting the right information. Perhaps if their algorythyms(sp?) succeed, we will all feel better, less conflicted. We will all come to understand that shock and awe in Iraq was not a human tragedy but wonderful entertainment.

anon , October 29, 2017 at 8:42 am

algorithms. Yes, the truth of control of US mass media and elections by oligarchy is unpleasant but essential medicine.

GMC , October 29, 2017 at 7:26 am

In the interview of Magnitsky's mother, she was asked when her son graduated from Law school. She stated that he never went to Law school – he's an accountant . Even his Mother knew he was not honest – LOL So, what can we expect from a US government when they will kill Our President , cover it up, and hide it from those that believe in them ? Nothing ! And for the record – Putin claimed that 80% of those in control before the break-up of the Soviet Union – were Zionists and jewish oligarchs. Guess who is running the US government and has already stolen most of the public funds as Soc. Sec. etc. ? oo dah chee !

Realist , October 29, 2017 at 8:00 am

Yeah, apparently Congress and two presidents can't handle the truth, and figure that you can't either.

The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible.

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 8:23 am

"Their" "journalists:"
"The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad. Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America."

Is Mozgovaya so naive and pure that she has no idea that Browder was and is a Malicious Fraud? The tribal solidarity makes Mozgovaya an eager coolaborator with the Jewish moneyed filth, the journalistic integrity is of no concern for her. https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/boss-of-slain-russian-whistleblower-to-haaretz-obama-administration-trying-to-appease-putin-1.440511
"The Staggering Cost of Israel to Americans:" https://www.veteranstodaynews.com/2013/05/19/223756-the-staggering-cost-of-israel-to-americans/

Realist , October 29, 2017 at 5:55 pm

I am impressed with the knowledge many readers of CN have of these events. You almost qualify as bone fide "Putin Puppets" under federal statute. I, myself, am only aware of the basic outline of the story, but most Americans, I am sure, have never even heard of Magnitsky or Browder. To them, "Browder" probably means an American actor. Most of Congress probably believes Magnitsky was one Putin's many "political enemies" he had "assassinated" by exotic means. Can you imagine how deep this would all be buried, and yet exploited to the hilt to punish Russia, if Hillary now sat in the White House? Facts and narratives, entirely two different things. One you are denied, the other you are force fed in Amerika.

David G , October 29, 2017 at 9:22 am

"The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible."

It's been tried.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

mike k , October 29, 2017 at 10:54 am

"The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible." Wonderful comment – that sums it all up exactly. Those who are the master criminals in our society seek to operate in complete secrecy, so that they can do whatever they wish to their unsuspecting victims, and cloak themselves in an aura of righteousness. Those who seek to expose the truth of their machinations become their most feared and hated enemies.

Gary , October 29, 2017 at 9:58 am

We Americans didn't want to hear the truth when our own government assassinated the Kennedys and MLK in the 1960, or when we were "secretly" saturation bombing Cambodia, or overthrowing democracy in Chile, or creating Islamic terrorists and funding them with drugs in Afghanistan, or running drugs for gun in Iran-Contra, or training our deaths squads in Guatemala and El Salvador, or killing a half million Iraqi children, because, well, "Saddam is a dictator" – the list is virtually endless of truths we Americans simply didn't and/or don't want to know. Collectively we're like some grotesque ugly monster that looks into our very special magic mirror (corporate media) which rather then tell us the truth, instead tells us we are so beautiful and so exceptional and so indispensable to the world, and above all the laws that apply to mere mortals. And now more and more any attempts to remove the mirror and let the truth seep through must be endlessly suppressed by the power structure. Another example of this is the recent suppression of the English language version of the German book "Bought Journalists," which looks at the corruption and manipulation of media in Europe by the CIA

https://www.globalresearch.ca/english-translation-of-udo-ulfkottes-bought-journalists-suppressed/5601857

This level of censorship suggests a rather fragile system trying desperately to maintain control.

Stefan , October 29, 2017 at 10:07 am

Jessica K. I think the book you are looking for is "The Killing of william browder" (Lower case intentional) by Alex Krainer . Do not waste your time going to amazon.

Lisa , October 29, 2017 at 11:29 am

This book can be downloaded free. Search for the book name and you should get the website among the first hits on google. (archive org.)

I'll give the complete link below (as the links may delay the comment publication).

Lisa , October 29, 2017 at 11:31 am

Here is the link: https://archive.org/details/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowderPrintLayout6x91

I've downloaded it but haven't gotten very far. There is so much to read and investigate every day – and a life needs to be lived at the same time

Riva Enteen , October 29, 2017 at 12:09 pm

I recently asked an anti-Putin Ukrainian how she would define oligarch. She said somebody with lots of money who uses it for political influence. What you call lobbyists.

Skip Scott , October 29, 2017 at 12:15 pm

Browder is such an obvious scumbag. How anyone could watch this youtube of him attempting to dodge a subpoena in NYC, and not see him for what he is is beyond me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryVavTF6hR0

Jerry Alatalo , October 29, 2017 at 1:43 pm

Can men and women who read this able to arrange interviews (via print, radio or video) of Sergei Nekrasov for the purpose of fully informing the American people on the hugely important Magnitsky controversy please do so quickly? Thank you. Peace.

Abe , October 29, 2017 at 4:47 pm

For the purpose of fully informing the American people, it's important to interview Andrei Nekrasov.

Not so important to interview retired Russian athlete Sergei N.

Jerry Alatalo , October 29, 2017 at 10:26 pm

Abe,

Thank you very much for the correction, in that our comment mis-named the film's director as "Sergei" instead of correctly as Andrei. Thank you as well for the many insightful comments you make here, alongside the many other men and women followers who've been contributing through excellent comments at Consortium News. Thank you, again. Peace.

Elizabeth Burton , October 29, 2017 at 2:31 pm

From the NYT piece cited: "The matching messages point to a synchronized information campaign."

I've come to the conclusion that one of the best indicators of a propaganda campaign is when the participants are completely void of any sense of irony.

ranney , October 29, 2017 at 5:57 pm

Robert, as always, you provide a clear presentation of the subject. I would indeed like to protest the censorship of this film as I'm sure lots of others would after reading your articles on the subject – but how does one do that???
Who should we protest to? Is there a petition going 'round? Or is there any other way to protest? Is there a person or government agency we can protest to who has the power to get the film shown? Is there a film agency to write to? Is the film seriously banned – or is it just that people in the film industry are scared to death of some payback? If that is the case, what sort of threat is held over them?
In any case, you can understand that those of us who would like to protest have no idea where to start. Have you any suggestions?

Alex Krainer , October 30, 2017 at 6:04 am

There's a serious problem somewhere in the legal framework, possibly in most western countries. A lawyer petitions a publisher to suppress some materials and threatens lawsuits and the publishers oblige. In my book's case they claimed defamatory content but have no obligation to prove anything. The claim is sufficient. Then Amazon instructed me to work it out with Browder and his lawyers. The really scary implication of thsi is that if you ar lawyered-up elite you can effectively control what may be said and written about you and censor any content that challenges your own narrative. For most people by far fighting for their right of freedom of expression in court is prohibitive and impossible. As author, I'm forced to wrangle this right throught the legal system against far more powerful player. In effect, freedom of expression has been voided in the west, sadly.

Skip Folden , October 29, 2017 at 7:36 pm

"The killing of William Crowder", Alex Krainer, 2017, (a critique of Crowder's Red Notice, was also almost immediately de-listed by Amazon due to Crowder Attorneys

Taras 77 , October 29, 2017 at 9:41 pm

This is a link to an article summarizing Browder's criminal activities:

https://100r.org/2017/10/master-of-reinvention/

(I know next to nothing about the org "100 Reporters )

Summary might even be a tad understated but that is fine-we get enough of the clutch pearls hysteria from "the other sources."

Alex Krainer , October 30, 2017 at 5:58 am

From my book, "The Killing of William Browder," suppressed by Amazon courtesy of Browder's lawyer Jonathan Winer (Amazon obliged, no questions asked):

Browder's deposition in the Prevezon case in Dec. 2015:

Mr. Cymrot: When you told people Mr. Magnitsky's a lawyer, did you also tell them he never went to law school and never had a law license?
Browder: I'm sorry. I
Mr. Cymrot: When you tell – how many times have you said, "Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer?"
Browder: I don't know.
Mr. Cymrot: 50? 100? 200?
Browder: I don't know.
Mr. Cymrot: Many, many times, right?
Browder: Yes
Mr. Cymrot: Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?
Browder: No.

There's so much more. Scratch the surface and Browder's hoax is hysterically childish like a high school punk contrived it.

Skip Scott , October 31, 2017 at 12:41 pm

The fact that anyone who does scratch the surface, like yourself, is immediately attacked shows that Browder is serving the oligarchy. They wish very much to return to the rape, pillage, and plunder of Russia that they enjoyed under Yeltsin. Just like Russia-gate, they seek to control the narrative. The MSM carries their water, and people have to go to sites like this one to find the truth. Thank you very much for your work.

j. D. D. , October 30, 2017 at 7:06 pm

Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign,

GoMovies , October 30, 2017 at 10:44 pm

There has been determined effort to prevent the American and European publics from seeing this detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of the Magnitsky story.

[Nov 01, 2017] They Killed Our President 63 Reasons to Believe There Was a Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK by Jesse Ventura, Dick Russell, David

Notable quotes:
"... John F. Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy involving disgruntled CIA agents, anti-Castro Cubans, and members of the Mafia, all of whom were extremely angry at what they viewed as Kennedy's appeasement policies toward Communist Cuba and the Soviet Union. ..."
"... This is why the missing brain is so important. IF that brain was authentic it could be tested for the microscopic matter that results from a hollow point or soft point bullet strike. That would prove the bullet that hit Kennedy was not a full metal jacket bullet. But, the brain matter is gone. It was critical evidence. ..."
"... It is clear the car was washed out immediately after its arrival at Parkland, and then rebuilt three days later, and that Kennedy's brain matter was switched in the archives. ..."
"... But, as Mr. Ventura points out, what they left out is just as critical as what they put in. What is not said is often much more important than what is said. Choosing to leave out critical information, such as Oswald having a Coke in his hand, is telling in many ways. Mr. Ventura does a good job of pointing out the most obvious omissions. ..."
"... If one sticks to the fact that the Warren Commission Report was a lie we can stop. ..."
"... On the single bullet theory, as a scientist, the energy (physics) needed does not add up. Not even close. Leave it at that. Warren Commission is an example of a government gone astray. ..."
"... For example on the CIA actors, it is very specific, naming individuals and what was known about each of these individuals' involvements, as well as their connections with other potential actors and the data that ties them to the event. There is no overall conclusion that the CIA involvement was a high level policy at an organizational level, instead we are presented with specifics about the involvement of these individuals within that organization. There is similar treatment of the mob, big-oil, and political actors. ..."
Nov 01, 2017 | www.amazon.com

This book even comes with a guarantee. I don't just л/у it was a conspiracy -- I show the evidence, and far beyond any reasonable standards of proof. I guarantee you that there is more than sufficient evidence and that, after examining it, any reasonable person will be convinced of that fact. I've also decided to break with convention and begin this book with some conclusions because I know that's what people want and -- especially in this case -- truly deserve. So bear in mind that proof for these conclusions resides in the pages that follow. John F. Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy involving disgruntled CIA agents, anti-Castro Cubans, and members of the Mafia, all of whom were extremely angry at what they viewed as Kennedy's appeasement policies toward Communist Cuba and the Soviet Union. President Kennedy sought peace and was viewed by these groups as a cowardly traitor by not giving in to their overwhelming call for war. Those groups -- it should be clearly noted -- are precisely the same groups that Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy concluded were responsible for his brother's death, after conducting his own private investigation.1

Please note, by the way, that these are not just my opinions or conclusions:

And if you haven't heard about the above facts from your mainstream media source of news, I would submit that right now you should be asking yourself, why not?

The political imperatives at the time of the assassination were obvious to all concerned. "The point was to stabilize the country after the assassination -- let's get on with the ship of state. ... It would become clear that if one wanted to remain a member in good standing in Washington political and social circles, it was wise not to say anything intemperate about the assassination." 7 So, quite predictably, officials supported the official government version.

To make matters worse, mainstream media immediately backed up the official government version, even if it took a reporter like Dan Rather lying about the backward movement of President Kennedy's body after the shots. He told a national TV audience that the fatal shot drove his head "violently forward" even though the film footage that Mr. Rather was referring to had shown exactly the opposite to be the case.* Mainstream media continues their endorsement of the original official version by their overwhelmingly ardent support of hooks that support that version -- like Reclaiming History and Case Closed -- and their tendency to dismissively label as "conspiracy theories" any scholarly-researched efforts that point out the numerous inconsistencies in the governments case.

Members of the U.S. military were also involved in the conspiracy, specifically in feeding false information on Lee Harvey Oswald, the "patsy" who was set up to take the blame for the President's assassination. 9 Their purpose was to instigate an invasion of Cuba, their arch enemy since it had gone communist under Castro, and to militarily engage communism openly in Vietnam and around the world -- even including our nuclear-armed superpower enemy of that era, the Soviet Union -- in stark contrast to President Kennedy's clearly enunciated policy shift toward detente with our enemies. 10

Kennedy's shifting policies toward peaceful solutions completely alienated the Military-Industrial Complex from Kennedy. JFK was at war with his own national security structure, and no one knew that fact more clearly than he and his trusted inner circle who have documented those facts in the historical record."

If you want to get a real feel for what Jack Kennedy was up against, watch three movies that vividly portray it:

The Manchurian Candidate, a book that President Kennedy helped get made into a film because it documented the dangers about brainwashing, right-wing extremists, and the real possibility that they could be combined to assassinate a president; Dr. Strangclove, in which the character of the crazy nuclear-warhungry general was actually based on General Curtis LeMay, the Chief of Staff for the U.S. Air Force who was in charge of the nation's huge fleet of bombers armed with nuclear weapons at the time and was savagely anti-Kennedy in meetings of the National Security Council; and Seven Days In May, a film about a military takeover of the government that was made because President Kennedy convinced Hollywood producers that if it was made it might actually prevent a coup from taking place. And to give you an idea of how important it was to him to get that last film made, JFK told his Hollywood friends that he...

... ... ...

But over a period of time, that military-corporate complex -- which evidently now runs this country -- has whittled away at our status quo, changing our national priorities. Issues like our health and our education have, to a large extent, lost out in that battle; bullets and bombs have won.

It wasn't always that way. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy overruled the military masters who actually -- even openly -- sought a nuclear exchange with the Soviets. Kennedy stopped them. It was extremely difficult to rein them in, but his Administration succeeded in that effort. So the Pentagon did not have that same dominating influence over the Kennedy Administration.

Peace really did have a chance; a long, long time ago.

That all seemed to change right at the time of the death of John F. Kennedy. President Eisenhower warned us about the real powers that needed standing up to. President Kennedy stood up to those Powers That Be; and was murdered.

That's why his death is so important: Because that's when everything changed.

That's why it still matters, even today.


Alan Dale Daniel Enthusiast: Photography on October 9, 2013

Almost Great, but then He Fumbled

They Killed Our President by former governor Jesse Ventura has a very direct approach to covering the assassination of President Kennedy. Mr. Ventura sets forth the fact or facts he wishes to prove and then directs the reader to online sources to expand the proof. This approach saves the reader from traversing oceans of explanations on trivia and focus the attention on facts rather than speculation; however, that only lasts through the first two sections of the book. The last section is almost total speculation and should have been left out. His conclusions are mostly political diatribe and have nothing to do with history or the Kennedy assassination. Too bad, because up to that point the book was very good.

I have read numerous books on the Kennedy assassination, and most of them are junk. Posner and Bugliosi's books are terrible. Posner attempts to look into the mind of Oswald and speculates endlessly while Bugliosi simply argues off a few favorable facts rather than present facts in an objective fashion. One of the best books to read, outside of this one, is Impossible, The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald by Barry Krusch Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (Volume One) . His three volume work extensively examines how the evidence was gathered and the problems with the evidence presented - and forgotten - by the Warren Commission. Mr. Krusch destroys the Warren Commission's report as few others have. However, his work is somewhat unfocused. Here is where Mr. Ventura's work excels, it is VERY focused.

I have always had a number of problems with the Warren Commission's report. I have read the summary, but not the 96 (?) volumes of the actual report. What is clear to anyone going over the evidence is that the evidence has been subject to tampering. The discovery that the brain matter retained was not President Kennedy's is enough to put anyone on notice that the evidence isn't to be trusted. Any trial attorney, and I was one, will tell you that if any evidence is tainted in a case ALL the evidence becomes doubly questionable. Because we know evidence was stolen and replaced by false evidence we must be more diligent about what is accepted as proof in the case. And there are other problems with the investigation that are basic. The washing out of the car shortly after the attack, and the rebuilding of the vehicle a few days later, is astounding. That is destruction of evidence. Because of this one act, which is undeniable, other acts must be more closely questioned. There is little doubt the photos of Kennedy in the hospital which were released to the public are not correct, and the entry wound in the back information was also incorrect or altered. Mr. Ventuara's book proves those points, and many more, beyond any doubt.

The key factor in the Kennedy assassination, in my mind, was the type of bullet that hit Kennedy. They Killed Our President is the only book that has looked into this matter with any kind of thoroughness. There is no doubt, and I mean none, that Kennedy was hit by a hollow point or soft nosed bullet that expanded violently on impact. Full metal jacketed bullets do not do this. I have personally tested, as a reloader, these kinds of bullets and a full metal jacketed bullet does not explode on impact (our military 223s keyhole on impact which is a different phenomenon) as the bullet that hit Kennedy clearly did. The so called expert testimony in the Warren Commission Report on this matter is an outright lie. The Z-film leaves no doubt Kennedy was pushed backward by the bullet strike. If the vehicle acceleration pushed him backward why isn't anyone else in the car being pushed in the same manner? Kennedy's head jerks backward violently. This was a bullet strike and not vehicle acceleration. This is why the missing brain is so important. IF that brain was authentic it could be tested for the microscopic matter that results from a hollow point or soft point bullet strike. That would prove the bullet that hit Kennedy was not a full metal jacket bullet. But, the brain matter is gone. It was critical evidence. Mr. Ventura could have taken an extra step to prove this. By simply setting up a few watermelons and shooting them with full metal jacketed bullets and hollow point bullets he could have shown the difference. The difference is striking. A 243 would be a good substitute for the 6.5 if one was not available.

It is clear the car was washed out immediately after its arrival at Parkland, and then rebuilt three days later, and that Kennedy's brain matter was switched in the archives. It is also clear that the Z-film's release was fought by the Federal Government. It took a ruling by the US Supreme Court to get it released. It is also clear that clips from the film were reversed in the Warren Commission Report making it appear that Kennedy's head went forward after the bullet strike. There are a lot of other undeniable problems with the evidence in the Kennedy assassination which call the Warren Commission Report into question. Incompetent is the best one could say about the report. But, as Mr. Ventura points out, what they left out is just as critical as what they put in. What is not said is often much more important than what is said. Choosing to leave out critical information, such as Oswald having a Coke in his hand, is telling in many ways. Mr. Ventura does a good job of pointing out the most obvious omissions.

So I like the method of writing the book and its sharp focus in the first sections. I do not like the speculation in the last sections or speculation on who killed Kennedy. If one sticks to the fact that the Warren Commission Report was a lie we can stop. By going too far afield he damages the credibility of the solid work he has done. We also do not need to get political. Stick with the clearly provable facts and he has a winner. He didn't, and that harms his work. Because he fumbled the ball short of the end zone I give the book 3 stars, but he was close. So very close.

AD2

Showing 5 comments
By W. Nichols on October 30, 2013
Mostly Accurate, Jesse needs to temper opinions.

Recommend the book as he hits the main "facts" well. Lived in Dallas in 1963. Learned much about the grassy knoll and most of the facts he lists are accurate from my research. On the single bullet theory, as a scientist, the energy (physics) needed does not add up. Not even close. Leave it at that. Warren Commission is an example of a government gone astray.

View is he is too timid on LBJ. Yes, a "coup" likely did take place. Those who believe in parties and ideology versus "We The People" get the government they deserve.

Agree with a significant majority of the 63 facts he lists. He could have used radiant energy, doppler acoustics studies. His chapter on LBJ...tho sobering...maybe could be added to (other conservations?).

Are we really free? Decide for yourself and when will real change that empowers all of us start? Truth is the only empowerment for mankind and IT NEVER TAKES FROM ANYONE.

POWER ALWAYS CORRUPTS.

Jesse's temperament is his greatest limitation. Though mostly subdued, he delves into opinion and emotions too much and does so even more in person. Come from a similar military background as Jesse. More? Much of what he postulates was known/proved several decades. Much, more? Jesse is a real patriot for his desire for the truth and an attempt to inform people on this critical issue.

The situation is more dire in sustainability than even Jesse briefly communicates here. Can freedom...fear and blame coexist? History is clear on this. Will we learn? The good news though is always the truth in the form of transparency and accountability.

Could most of our elected officials be self serving, unqualified and self serving ideological groupthink zombies? My 40 years in numerous high level government projects on this is quite clear.

Hence, We all lose. Read Eisenhower's farewell address, it is a start toward solutions. Sadly, this vital speech is about the power of institutions, of which government is always the ultimate institution, the military-industrial complex is one of 2 examples he gives (he states government pervasiveness is ubiquitous). In some ways, a bigger and greater example given is the arrest of real science by the elite. The universe is not based on gravity (both Einstein/Newton are quoted as stating this)...it is closer to a poor conceptual understanding of charge or differential. But our toxic blend of ignorance and institutions is hiding much greater truths (as is always the case in our human history). Why? Maybe it would destroy some belief systems of authority. Science is not complex...it is the reality we see in nature everyday...or common sense and no...it is not mathematics. Just observe...then applying real basic science principles as our founding fathers believed and are quoted. Solutions and a way forward to true "self-governance" on this and other issues also a minor quibble which he could pursue further to arrest the inherent human vices of power. Jesse should know how to address this as his military and governorship experiences should be of value. Perplexed a bit why he doesn't.

BTW..FWIW...been involved in 4 areas in government worth trillions of dollars (Future flying weapon systems, Climate Change, Energy, Scientific Research). It is worse than most of you know.

By Peeter Joot on January 28, 2014
A well organized collection of JFK assassination related material

Having read "63 Documents the government doesn't want you to know", I was expecting a more haphazard collection of information in this book. Instead I was pleasantly surprised to find a well organized collection of material.

With this assassination having occurred 10 years before I was born, I had observed that there is generally a consensus that the CIA, military-industrial-complex players, and mobsters were behind it, but did not know any hard information that would lead to concluding that these actors were relevant. This book outlines many of the potential players that could have been involved in this assassination, along with data that supports their involvement and some indication of possible motives.

I was especially surprised at how well balanced the conclusion of this book, "The why, who and how", was. Instead of wild guesswork and pet theories, this section of the book was a summary of what data was known about each of the possible actors. For example on the CIA actors, it is very specific, naming individuals and what was known about each of these individuals' involvements, as well as their connections with other potential actors and the data that ties them to the event. There is no overall conclusion that the CIA involvement was a high level policy at an organizational level, instead we are presented with specifics about the involvement of these individuals within that organization. There is similar treatment of the mob, big-oil, and political actors.

The objective of this book appears to be to present a summary of the irregularities of the standard narrative, enabling conversations that are based on information instead of presupposition. This book also provides a starting point and references for further study on the JFK assassination. Despite the subject material, this is an enjoyable and quick read.

By Brian W. Fairbanks VINE VOICE on December 20, 2013
JFK died as the result of a conspiracy. CASE CLOSED!

There is no need to talk about "conspiracy theories" when it comes to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. One can speculate on the motive, but the evidence is simply overwhelming with forensic experts, secret service agents, witnesses, and even some of the culprits coming forward through the past decades to tell the truth of what happened, all of them greeted with silence by the mainstream media.

Jesse Ventura's They Killed Our President: 63 Reasons to Believe There Was a Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK, is written in a casual, conversational style as unpretentious as the man himself. Ventura gets right to the point, opening with the "smoking gun," a memo from Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach to LBJ aide Bill Moyers that laid out the government's intention to cover up the facts in the murder of the 35th president: "We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

Ventura then goes on to provide several dozen other "smoking guns" that disprove the ludicrous Warren Commission Report with its laughably insulting tale of a lone assassin and a "magic bullet." Even LBJ and Richard Nixon, both of them suspected of possible involvement in the murder, are on record as rejecting the official report with the latter calling it "the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated." In 1979, Congress also invalidated the report by concluding that JFK "was probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy."

I appreciate that Ventura gives his readers "63 Reasons," but four are enough for me:

(1) The alleged assassin is gunned down, in a police station no less, as he is escorted by Dallas police who had made no attempt to shield him from the bullets.

(2) The limousine in which Kennedy was riding is "quickly shipped off to Detroit for a rapid make-over" rather than carefully preserved and examined as evidence.

(3) The president's body is illegally seized from the hospital, at gunpoint, by the same secret service agents that had failed to protect him in Dealy Plaza.

(4) The autopsy that the law required be performed in Dallas is then conducted at Bethesda, after which the notes are burned. (The key on my computer would no longer function if I added as many exclamation points as that sentence requires.)

Ventura effectively demolishes counter arguments about such figures as the "Umbrella Man," "Radio Man," and the "Three Tramps." He also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald would never have been convicted of the crime if he had lived to face a judge and jury, as both LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover were aware. In a tape recorded telephone conversation with Johnson a day after the assassination, Hoover admitted that "The case as it stands now isn't strong enough to get a conviction."

Even if you've read a library's worth of material about the JFK assassination, this is a valuable digest of the case.

Brian W. Fairbanks

By Ron Castle on October 13, 2013
The Conspiracy Continues Alive and Well

Kudos to Jesse and team for compiling 50 years of information into a clarifying and orderly examination of the conspiracy that resulted in the assassination of JFK.

The assassination has always held great interest for me. I was raised in Dallas. The fatal day of the president's visit three of my high school buddies and I left high school to see the president. We decided to go to Love Field to see his arrival rather than go to the parade downtown. The president passed within 15 feet of where I was standing along the fence separating the exit ramp of the plane from the parking lot where he and Jackie boarded the limo.

Early on the morning of November 24 a school mate and I drove out to Mount Vernon 100 miles east of Dallas to "get the hell out of dodge" and visit my grandfather, Warren Penn Castle, Sr., who had retired a couple of months earlier as an assistant district attorney working for Dallas DA Henry Wade. We arrived a few minutes after Jack Ruby shot Oswald on national television. My grandfather was on the phone with his former colleagues at the DA's office and the Dallas Police Department in a more agitated and emotional state than I had ever witnessed. Long story short, his conclusion was several weeks later and until he died was that something was terribly and totally wrong. He knew Jack Ruby and of his mob connections. My grandfather's conclusion until the time he passed away was that maybe someday the truth about what happened would come out.

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison did a better job than anyone of exposing the plot. The government conspiracy machine did all they could to discredit his efforts. It's is amazing to me that he was not assassinated like so many others. Garrison died of cancer in 1992.

The government conspiracy machine is still alive and well, new players in the same old game. War makes big money. The United States has been at war with somebody somewhere since the end of WW2 and there is still no end in sight. Jesse's book is a cogent examination of what can happen. History continues to repeat itself.

By Alan D. Cranford VINE VOICE on November 14, 2013
ROUND UP THE USUAL SUSPECTS

In 1985, Judge Sol Wachtler told a reporter that prosecutors had such influence over grand juries they could convince them to "indict a ham sandwich." The Warren Commission was a substitute for a federal grand jury -- in 1963 murdering the President of the United States was not a federal crime, so the Warren Commission was a star chamber court with no jurisdiction over the act that killed our president.

The prosecution theory of the case is by nature one-sided: the prosecution's side. That's part of the trial process. A Grand Jury screens criminal cases by holding a hearing and determining if the case merits a criminal trial. It is one of the Fifth Amendment rights, too -- the prosecution theory of the case establishes probable cause to put someone on trial. Usually only one side is presented.

I respect Governor Ventura for his many achievements and I read "They Killed Our President" with interest. A jury trial has at least two sides: prosecution and defense. A Grand Jury hearing hears only one side -- because the Grand Jury isn't the actual court trial. And "They Killed Our President" is one of many books acting as the complainant before a grand jury consisting of the reader. Most of "They Killed Our President" has been presented in other books. Governor Ventura's conclusion was that President Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy -- and he names names and points fingers.

Contrast this with Mark Fuhrman's "A Simple Act of Murder" for the opposite conclusion, that Oswald killed Kennedy while acting alone.
I will admit that I don't know if Oswald committed murder or if several other people killed Kennedy. The evidence doesn't conclusively put any person behind the rifle or rifles that killed Kennedy.

For example, Governor Ventura presents his case that firing three shots in six seconds from the Mannlicher-Carcano was impossible, citing Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock and providing a U-tube video link to back up his case. I will comment at length on this -- but a British sergeant hit a 300 yard target 12 inches in diameter 38 times in sixty seconds during 1914. Read how Governor Ventura established that three shots were fired in six seconds.
I only picked one example because of review length. Read "They Killed Our President" for yourself.

By Acute Observer on April 21, 2016
The Facts for a Conspiracy

They Killed Our President

Jesse Ventura is the former Independent governor of Minnesota and wrote four other books. Dick Russell is an award-winning author. David Wayne in an investigative journalist. This book has "63 reasons to believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK". "The Katzenbach Memo" explains the need for a "lone gunman" theory to satisfy the American people and elsewhere by using a Presidential Commission to provide an answer (p.ix). The 'Introduction' provides the conclusions that follow the given evidence in the sixty-three chapters. The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded it probably was a conspiracy. The comment on Dan Rather ignores the fact that TV reporters, like actors, speak what they're told to say or are replaced (p.xiii). Eisenhower warned against the "Military-Industrial Complex". This has resulted in the highest spending and taxes in history, and less for other areas (p.xvii). The chapters are grouped into four sections. "The Evidence" has chapters 1 to 28. "The Cover-Up" has chapters 29 to 48. "The Witnesses" has chapters 49 to 53. "The Why, Who, and How" has chapters 54 to 63. There is no 'Index' or 'Bibliography' (aside from the footnotes), or photographs.

The 'Conclusion' provides a summary (p.335). The authors say the USA is run by the rich and privileged, rights are being taken away from the people (p.337). "America is a nation that is now virtually in a perpetual state of war around the globe." Does the US military (and the forces they represent) dominate foreign policy? The conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are cited (p.338). The so-called "Patriot Act" can deprive the rights of any American accused of "terrorism" (p.339). Former President Jimmy Carter said it was good to reveal the extent of NSA spying. Was this censored in the corporate media (p.340)? Is the "War on Terror" a scam to reduce spending on programs for the good of the people (p.342)? The Joint Chiefs of Staff urged a thermo-nuclear war (p.344)! Page 345 lists the policies needed to restore democracy in America. The War on Iraq has squandered money that could have provided universal health coverage at home, and other benefits (p.349).

Ventura believes "education" will benefit our country. Don't we have the best educated people in history today, and the worst economic depression since the 1920s-1930s? Wealth comes from production, agricultural or manufacturing. To produce wealth in America we need a 25% tariff on imported goods and services. This will balance the budget, save Social Security and Medicare, and reduce unemployment. This worked in the late 19th century, and can work again. We also need to cut back on military spending. High spending on the military correlates to higher joblessness. Chapter 23 tells how a Psychological Stress Evaluation measures stress (or lying) in a person's voice. This tested Oswald's voice and concluded he was telling the truth [or was crazy]. There is another obvious fact about his statement. The assassins of Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley all boasted of their actions. So too the attempts on FDR, Truman, and Ford. Oswald alone denied the shooting, saying he was just a fall guy. Was he truthful or crazy? Did his actions show craziness? The week after JFK's death 'TIME' magazine wrote that "Kennedy was the victim of a lone assassin, just like Lincoln". You can look it up, and their later explanation. Here is a Bibliography for your research.

The Plot to Kill the President, G. Robert Blakey & Richard N. Billings;

Who Killed Kennedy?, Thomas Buchanan;
JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, Charles A. Crenshaw;

Who Killed JFK? James R. Duffy;
The Dark Side of Camelot, Seymour Hersh;
Reasonable Doubt, Henry Hurt;

Rush to Judgment, Mark Lane;
Plausible Denial, Mark Lane;
Dr. Feelgood, Richard A. Lertzman;

Best Evidence, David Lifton;
High Treason: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Robert Groden & Harrison E. Livingstone;
High Treason 2. The Great Cover Up, Harrison E. Livingstone;
JFK and the Unspeakable, John W. Douglass;

Act of Treason, Mark North;
Accessories After the Fact, Sylvia Meagher;
Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy, David E. Scheim;

Conspiracy: The Definitive Book on the JFK Assassination, Anthony Summers;
The Assassination Tapes, George O' Toole;
Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson.

By J.L. Populist Enthusiast: Guitar on January 11, 2015
Witty and Sensible

This book is one of a slew of recent books published in the last few years about the JFK assassination.
Mr. Ventura gets his point across clearly with brief Chapters.

Being one of the newer books on the subject there is a lot of confirmation of other works as well as a surprising amount of information that I haven't read before.
Some of the areas that the author covered very well (in my opinion) are:
* From reading this book I think you could almost identify one of the branches of military intelligence that Oswald worked for.
Mr. Ventura provided a lot of details about Oswalds intelligence ties.
* Through a photograhic expert he identifies the three "tramps" photographed in the rail yard.
* The three different rifles found in the School Depository Building.
* The large number of "national security" assassinations used to eliminate witnesses. It seems that the CIA used "national security" as an excuse for murder on a regular basis.
* The changing of Secret Service protection in the Dallas motorcade from the motorcycle formation to outriders not riding on the Presidential limousine. Also, who changed those details.
* Mr. Ventura spent a lot of the book examining Lee Harvey Oswald and the discrepancies of his physical descriptions and the almost certain use of a double while he was being set up.
* I hadn't heard of a military intelligence abort team being dispatched to Dallas before the assassination.

I give this book 5 stars because it was researched very well and is very easy to follow the points being made. It's hard to argue with the 63 points made in the book!

By Jerry Guild on October 28, 2015
Why it was not Lee Harvey Oswald ,but a high level Conspiracy that killed John F Kennedy.

I have to say that this is one of the best books I've ever read on the Kennedy Assassination.That's saying a lot for me,because I'veread a plethora of JFK books as they were published,and are still being published today.I don't consider myself a conspiracy addict;but I've never believed that the public has ever been told the full story on the Assassination.I have held that opinion from the day i saw the Assassination happen in real time on TV.The reason for my doubt is that I spent time in the Army,did a lot of rifle shooting,and even won a couple of awards.First,the manner in which the back of Kennedy's head was blown out,could only have been by the exiting of a bullet by a frontal head shot.Secondly,even the idea that someone with mediocre marksmanship skills,particularly using such a mediocre rifle could even begin to accomplish the act,in the time taken,or even a much greater time.Also,any marksman would never have planned a shot of JFK moving away rather than approaching ,as was the case,and the shooter (s) had far better choices available.At the time it happened,I was convinced it had to be an expert sniper,who had the rare ability,and top line rifle to do the act..Also.the shooter would have had the ability to accomplish that act from a Kilometer or more distance.,from any number of high points,and would have done just that.Also,if a conspiracy was involved,there would have been more than one shooter,placed in different locations as a triangulation to ensure absolute success;which ,by the way,was what happened.
I must admit,in the early days after the Assassination,I had no idea of what a widespread,complicated,personns involved,organazations and different factions from the CIA,Secret Service,Cuban interestsRussia and Communists,,Mafia,|Politicians,Military Defence manyfacturers;and other Government enitities had good readon to see JFK as well as RFK removed from power,even murdered ,if necessary..The other side of the coin was the insistant effort on the part of the Media,Government,Warren Commission,etc. to debunk any theory,witness,evidence,or logic other than that the idea adopted and perpetrated from day one that the Assassination was the exclusive act of a lone,unconnected,individual;namerly Lee Harvey Oswald.
After reading so many,other books,and watching so many movies , documents and information from various people and studies on the Net,as well as this late 2013,book by Ventura ,Russell and Wayne;I still hold with my original opinion;but only more inforced as the years and information unfold.
What this book does that is so good is that it covers pretty much everything that has been covered over the years;but in short accurate detail.If one were to start from scratch today,and try to read all that has been published,the task would be humongous.What Ventura and all have done is to sum it up in an easy to follow book that pretty well tells all that is known today,and gives excellent references.
Of course,there is still much more that is to be known about the who and why of Kennedy's Assassination,;and we may learn more as secret files and information is released;the one thing that is for sure,is that the idea that LHO was a lone killer will be shown as a total fiction and that a comjplicated conspiracy of the highest level was involved.

By tony from Philly on October 31, 2013
Can you say "Military Coup de Etat"?

After a half century one can only say that with the overwhelming evidence that the Military Industrial Complex in accordance with extreme right wing Cuban Nationals who got their wealthy aristocratic asses kicked by Castro, and Mafioso who wanted desperately to regain their casinos, whore houses, and other vices, and the American businesses like United Fruit joined together to murder the president of the USA in such a way as to strike fear into the hearts of every President, Congressman and Judge who would come along after-that whoever believes that Lee Harvey Oswald sat on a box of books and using a $12.00 Italian surplus bolt action rifle fired three rounds and put two into a moving head from six stories up is either an idiot, a government stooge, a writer trying to get rich being a "Devil's Advocate", or scarred shitless that he/she will end up like the more than 50 eyewitnesses who died under mysterious circumstances within three years of the event. Even doctored up by right winger Henry Luce of Life magazine who snatched up the film, the Zapruder tape still shows undeniable proof to even a fool that JFK's head was hit from the front and the back of his head blown OUT in an undeniable and typical ballistic reaction. The speech that JFK never gave that day to the Texas Business Mart contained two crushing statements: 1) An end to American involvement in Vietnam and 2) Reinstatement of normal relations with Cuba. After threatening to nationalize the steel industry for violating a promise to not raise prices in return for no wage increase for the United Steel Workers, and firing Allen Dulles as head of the CIA and threatening to disband the organization that along with the NSA now runs our government - NEED I SAY MORE?

By Ron Piekaar on November 19, 2014
Very well researched.

I was a sophomore in college when President Kennedy was murdered and it seems that my whole generation somehow knew that we were being lied to about the 'who' and the 'why' of this brutal assination. Our nation lost trust in its government on that day and we have never regained it.

So after 50 years of my own research, I can say that Jesse Ventura has done a masterful job of finally bringing together into one place most of the credible research that so many truth seekers have given so much of their lives to in an attempt to get to the truth. This book exposes the Warren Commission Report for the total lie that it is as well as exposing the continuation of that lie, as found between the covers of Bill O'Reilly's fictional account which he titled "Killing Kennedy".

If you read "They Killed Our President" and then watch all nine episodes of The History Channel's presentation of the series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", on YouTube, you will finally know the truth of the brutal event that changed America. Bill O'Reilly fans especially need to read Mr. Ventura's book and watch the entire series of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" programs in order to make a fair comparison of the facts presented in both cases.

By Kameelyun on October 9, 2013
Half a century later, the world still suffers from the Coup D'Etat of 1963

That many historians and lay citizens reject the notion that Oswald acted alone is nothing new. There have been a countless number of books written about the JFK assassination. So many, in fact, that it can be very difficult for a neophyte to know where to begin. (I am one such neophyte, regarding books on the subject, though I've watched several presentations on YouTube on the subject, and had already seen the Zapruder film along with the video of the Secret Service stand down.) This book, however, is unique because it's delivered through the charismatic voice of Jesse Ventura, and it's done in a style that is not dry or "academic." I can't imagine a more perfect first book on the subject for anyone to read.

As a disclaimer, I'm only about 50 pages into the book, i.e. the 15th of the 63 reasons for why there was a conspiracy. However, I'm comfortable writing this review before finishing the book because I can say that ALREADY Jesse has proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy. From this point, it's just a matter of 48 more layers on the pearl.

As many footnotes and referenced videos are internet entities, Ventura has an official Facebook page where readers can click on the various links as they go through the book, and check the sources for themselves. This saves fact-checkers the awkward task of looking in the book and typing long, complicated URLs into the address bar. Ventura's team gets extra marks for going the extra yard here.

Finally, it should be noted that Ventura has challenged any and all supporters of the "official version" of the assassination to live debate. If the individuals who think Oswald acted alone are confident in this position, they should have no problem taking Ventura up on this challenge. People who avoid debate are the ones who know that their position will be exposed as factually bankrupt. So, to Gerald Posner, Bill O'Reilly, and Vincent Bugliosi, are any of you man enough to step up to the plate?

Grand slam home run once again, Gov. Ventura!

[Nov 01, 2017] Jesse Ventura JFK Assassination Was A Coup D' tat

Any cover up is the evidence of guilt.
Nov 01, 2017 | www.youtube.com

David Harden , 10 months ago

i used to hate this man but i have come to love him. He loves the truth at all cost. Jesse speaks the truth!

2682shark , 11 months ago

Kill shot came from the front.. End of Story... Anyone who denies that is just a brainwashed moron.

HD Occupation , 3 years ago

its not a conspiracy when evidence is presented infront of you.. why cant sleeping Americans wake up.. jessie ventura its A REAL human being thats giving you the truth and most of us are still giving it a blind eye to what really happen to jfk

Brian Cox , 1 year ago

Funny, when FOX put up Ventura's resume - what he's done in his life - they listed his governorship, his authorship and the fact that he was a pro-wrestler, but the left out that he served in the military, fought in Vietnam and was a Navy Seal. I wonder why they'd leave those fact out of a list of his accomplishments? I guess they either thought it unimportant or that it might lend to his credibility. FOX News - the best propaganda network in America.

Richard Salisbury , 1 year ago

Read Ventura's book; though each section is brief it's very convincing. Then, for incredible detail backing up some of what Ventura's book says, read "Best Evidence" by David Lifton (1980); it demolishes the Warren Report almost point by point. Two facts stand out to me as the most convincing that JFK's death was a hit followed by a cover-up, well planned well in advance, with Oswald (who personally liked JFK) as a patsy: 1) The kill shot clearly came from the front (proof: not only did his head jerk backward, but his brain blew out the rear of his head, not the front--clearly the effect of a hollow-point bullet moving through his head from front to rear; whereas the Manlicher Carcano Oswald allegedly used could not, I believe, fire such a round, and the 3 shells that the Report connected with the 3 shots allegedly fired, allegedly from by Oswald, are not shells from a hollow-point. 2) All the accounts of the doctors and nurses interviewed about the condition of JFK's body at Parkland hospital are consistent with shots from the front not the rear; even the alleged exit wound in the throat, identified in the very clumsy official autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, was described by the Parklanders as an entry wound--which they used, thus obscuring it, as a convenient site for a tracheotomy so JFK could breathe. And that's just for starters. If you want to dig even deeper, read "JFK and the Unspeakable--Why He was Killed and Why It Matters" by James Douglass; it spells out what, and whom, Kennedy was up against, and why many, many powerful interests wanted him dead. By the end, he wanted to 1) get us out of Vietnam, 2) eliminate the CIA, 3) eliminate the Federal Reserve (a private bank), 4) normalize relations with Cuba, 5) eliminate the oil-depletion allowance (which we still have), 6) crush the Mafia (RFK was well on the way to doing that), and 7) continue to negotiate with Khrushchev not only for nuclear disarmament, but for general disarmament in Europe. (After JFK's death, Khrushchev was soon deposed, as his enemies in the Kremlin--maybe even his allies--realized that LBJ was not someone they could trust or work with. And I've probably forgotten one or two things JFK was trying for. I.e. he was fighting just about every good fight that a US president could have fought then. His death was indeed a coup d'etat, and one of the saddest days in US history--an historical chasm not just for us but for the whole world. We have not had a great president since--and not an honest one since Carter.

dave b , 9 months ago

Nixon fun fact.... Jack Ruby worked for Tricky Dick in Nov 1947. DH Byrd a biz and political friend of LBJ, owned the texas book depository building

bascet1 , 10 months ago

Was this guy the wrestler from back in the day? He's good and his arguments stack up. Fucking mental that the best sniper in your military couldn't do what the Warren Commission said LHO did after trying 10 times!! Shows how incompetent and incorrect the WC was not to say fucking corrupt!!! The main players in blowing your president's brains out are 1. CIA 2. The Mafia 3. LBJ 4. J Edgar Hoover. Funny how Dulles is on the WC after JFK sacked him a matter of weeks before?? He's gonna be really objective!! This was all set up while JFK was still alive and swung nicely into action once he'd been shot. A coup d'etat . He upset too many powerful people, you would like to think the President can upset anyone but as we know our Prime Ministers and Presidents are not the real power, as intelligence agencies don't even need elections they are staying whatsoever? And in the US case an FBI director that served for 48 years?

[Nov 01, 2017] Buckaroo Banzai

Nov 01, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

WillyGroper , Nov 1, 2017 12:54 PM

"Described by many readers as the definitive "last word" on the JFK conspiracy, Final Judgment has sparked headlines in newspapers here and abroad. And the Israeli lobby has worked overtime to try to stop this book from being distributed.

Final Judgment dissects the theories you've heard over the years about the JFK assassination and demonstrates the one little-known thing they have in common: the long-secret Israeli connection.

Now in two volumes, this extraordinary work demonstrates beyond any doubt that JFK was involved in a bitter, behind-the-scenes battle with Israel over that nation's determined effort to build nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and that the Israeli connection to the murder of President Kennedy is the common thread that ties together the whole amazing story of the JFK assassination in a way that finally makes sense."

http://shop.americanfreepress.net/final-judgment-special-double-offer.html

RumpleShitzkin -> Buckaroo Banzai , Nov 1, 2017 12:57 PM

I'd add Jim Marrs to the list for Kennedy info.

He was one tireless Texan. May he Rest In Peace.

Pinto Currency -> JimmyJones , Nov 1, 2017 1:18 PM

JFK fired Dulles as head of the CIA

Then Dulles was put on Warren Commission to find the truth.

C''mon - that's not incompetence.

runswithscissors -> JimmyJones , Nov 1, 2017 1:18 PM

The US Imperial federal govt...celebrating blatant incompetence since 1945.

Chupacabra-322 -> runswithscissors , Nov 1, 2017 1:22 PM

The agencies that are supposed to represent the people and enforce the law have morphed into political tools for the Democrats. How are you going to get an agency like the FBI to investigate the Clintons when they are in on the scam?

A score of senior and rank and file agents should have gone to prison for burning all those women and children to death in Waco. The Clinton Administration gave those agents a pass, and in the process the Clintons purchased the undying support of the agency. When the very tool you would use to bring down a criminal enterprise has been coopted by that enterprise, you better tread softly.

I am beginning to understand that we are at a tipping point. People are beginning to grasp the import of agency lies about the assassination of President Kennedy. It is clear now that the lies were not told to protect the public.

They were told so that the coconspirators could perfect their coup. Once the coup was completed successive generations of politicians were given the message. That message was simple. We the shadow government can kill anybody we choose. Look what we did to Kennedy. You either toe the line or you will send in the cleaners. Those that would not kao tau to shadow rulers got to meet their John Hinckley or died under suspicious circumstances in some West Texas ranch.

( Doesn't matter the Criminal alphabet Agencies, the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA have decades & Trillions invested over the decades planting "Agent Smiths" in all of them Pentagram MIC included.)

People are beginning to understand that they have been herded by acts of terrorism conducted by their own state. The scenario of the lone shooter with spectacular marksmanship and fantastic kill rates has lost its credibility. Just another in a lone, long line of "book depository"False Flags.

Trump full well understands that he is in mortal combat with a sinister and entrenched oligarchy. This is not their first rodeo and they are extremely dangerous. He has to be sure of his footing before he takes his next step. By the grace of God, he may just very well be able to pull back the curtain and expose these monsters.

If they manage to kill him, buckle up because any agency with federal in its title will have lost any claim to legitimacy. The oligarchs tried to steal the election and that failed. If they steal the election by killing the President, what follows next is a turkey shoot.

Tyrannical Lawlessness.

Perimetr -> RumpleShitzkin , Nov 1, 2017 1:05 PM

Incompetence didn't kill Kennedy, the deep state did

For a real analysis of Kennedy's murder, see https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/10/31/jfk-unspeakable-died-matters/

"The extent to which our national security state was systematically marshaled for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy remains incomprehensible to us. When we live in a system, we absorb and think in a system. We lack the independence needed to judge the system around us. Yet the evidence we have seen points toward our national security state, the systemic bubble in which we all live, as the source of Kennedy's murder and immediate cover-up."

Assigning Kennedy's murder to "incompetence" is just one more means to obstruct the truth

Snípéir_Ag_Obair -> Buckaroo Banzai , Nov 1, 2017 1:11 PM

http://americanfreepress.net/PDF/Final_Judgment.pdf

consider the JFK hit in combo with LBJ's deep ties to Israel and Jewry and the USS Liberty 'incident.'

LBJ and the Israelis conspired to sink a US vessel which would be blamed on Egypt and supply a pretext for US entry on the side of Israel in a war Israel had itself started to grab more land.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/06/17/top-ten-myths-about-the-...

http://www.mintpressnews.com/new-evidence-proves-israel-attacked-uss-lib...

A Russian ship saved the USS Liberty. LBJ prevented US assistance for hours.

Now the Jews have nukes and bomb and attack their neighbors while crying that they are 'defending themselves' and threaten the world with their Samson Option - even now they demand Syria and Iran not be able to defend themselves from Israeli attacks.

Israel is a cancer.

The Jewish/Israeli role in 9/11 (with massive, primary help coming from Cheney, and the Joint Chiefs) is obvious, the official story absurd.

So what will the Transnational Jewish Empire do next?

Snípéir_Ag_Obair -> Snípéir_Ag_Obair , Nov 1, 2017 1:15 PM

great docu on the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html

king david hotel bombing lavon affair bombings of jewish centers in Iraq in the 50s bombing of Jewish centers in Argentina in the 90s charlie hebdo 9/11 ISIS

and on and on and will go on until they change or are destroyed.

time is running out for them to change.

HowdyDoody -> Snípéir_Ag_Obair , Nov 1, 2017 1:44 PM

The USS liberty incident showed that Israel could murder American civilians and military with impunity (potential/actual involvement in JFK murder is still covert)

SoDamnMad -> Buckaroo Banzai , Nov 1, 2017 1:14 PM

Oh good. Now I can add the JFK assassination to the USS Liberty and 9/11.

Radical Marijuana -> strannick , Nov 1, 2017 2:17 PM

Yes, strannick, Hugh-Smith is typical of those who prefer to presume upon Hanlon's Razor : which is the view that events can more often be better explained by incompetence rather than by malice. Hanlon's Razor may be used as a valid form of Occam's Razor in the absence of evidence. However, there is an abundance of historical evidence of the general pattern of all forms of warfare becoming based on the development of the maximum maliciousness.

E.g., flashback to presentation made in 2014:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kFmZFgGJug

A Conspiracy History of the World, Andy Thomas

Those who prefer to use Hanlon's Razor are able to do superficially correct analysis which does NOT have to seriously consider the death control systems in general, and especially NOT murder systems in particular, which in turn enables them to NOT have to admit and address how and why there must necessarily be some death control systems, and so, how and why the actually existing murder systems developed. Those who rely on Hanlon's Razor are able to go through their superficial analyses toward similarly superficial "solutions" to perceiving political problems as due to incompetence rather than due to malice.

VWAndy -> Radical Marijuana , Nov 1, 2017 2:17 PM

Or he knows that simply rolling it out so others can pull the wool off is a better way?

Radical Marijuana -> VWAndy , Nov 1, 2017 3:10 PM

I doubt that interpretation, VWAndy.

Those who prefer Hanlon's Razor tend to be willfully blind because it keeps them within their comfort zone, and similarly enables them to remain relatively more popular with others who like that psychological comfort zone which does not have to admit and address that there must be some murder systems, while those which actually exist were necessarily driven to maximize maliciousness.

Civilization operates according to the principles and methods of organized crime, which includes the corollaries that those who are best at doing so dominate society, while their bullshit stories similarly end up dominating society, such that there is almost nothing but the central core of triumphant organized crime, surrounded by layers of controlled "opposition" groups. Such controlled "opposition" likes using Hanlon's Razor in order to misunderstand politics, which then enables them to present their superficially correct analyses and related "solutions" to others who like to similarly misunderstand politics. After all, politics is applied human ecology, which has been driven to develop the maximum possible dishonesties. Indeed, political events are currently manifesting about exponentially increasing levels of dishonesty.

The essential paradoxes with respect to death control systems are that deceptive denials of those systems are the most socially successful ways to actually operate those systems. There are no good grounds to doubt that Globalized Neolithic Civilization is going to continue to get about exponentially more psychotic, since it is politically impossible to deal more forthrightly with the inherently problematic issues of excessively successful organized crime driving runaway criminal insanities.

As analysis of the Kennedy assassination demonstrates an example of the general pattern of social facts: people were rewarded for agreeing with lies, that violated the laws of physics, while they were punished for not agreeing with lies, but rather, pointing out those lies violated the laws of physics. Civilization based on backing up legalized lies with legalized violence requires that those who adapt to successfully doing so become the best available professional liars and immaculate hypocrites. The most important manifestations of that general pattern of social facts have become the combined money/murder systems, whereby the powers of public governments are used to enforce frauds by private banks. Those enforced frauds act as symbolic robberies, which enable the best available professional hypocrites to become more wealthy and more powerful, although their society as whole thereby becomes more psychotic, since being able to back up lies with violence never stops those lies from still being false.

The chart of the Ministry of Propaganda in the article above applies to pretty well every facet of every social story, including the basic structure of the dominate natural languages and philosophy of science. The biggest bullies' bullshit almost totally dominates Globalized Neolithic Civilization, to the degree that there is almost NO publicly significant genuine opposition, but only various forms of controlled "opposition." It is barely possible to exaggerate the degree to which the overwhelmingly dominate social stories have become based on deliberately ignoring and misunderstanding the laws of nature in the most absurdly backward ways. Pretty all of the most significant social stories, such as the "official story" about the Kennedy assassination, require ignoring and misunderstanding the laws of nature. After all, the only connections between the laws of men and the laws of nature are the abilities to back up lies with violence, despite that the persistent and prolonged social successfulness of those strategies and tactics has driven Civilization to become terminally sick and insane.

The Art of War , as the oldest book on warfare, starts by saying "success in war depends on deceit" and ends by saying "spies are the most important soldiers." For thousands of years, civilizations have been directed to develop by their murder systems, which operated according to those ideas , which applied to both wars between societies, as well as class warfare within societies. Hanlon's Razor allows people to NOT understand warfare. However, when one applies the concepts of general energy systems to human beings and civilization one can theoretically derive what can also be empirically observed, namely the intensifying paradoxes driven by the short to medium term social successfulness of deceits and treacheries, despite the longer term consequences of runaway social psychoses.

After reading many articles by Hugh-Smith (which provided some worthwhile, albeit superficial, analysis), I believe that he is another reactionary revolutionary, who appeals to other mainstream morons, who LIKE staying within their superficial analyses of politics, because then they do NOT have to think more deeply about human ecology in general. Those who do not admit and address the ways that the murder systems have maximized maliciousness then to not have to propose and promote any genuine solutions which would require marginal changes in those murder systems.

Barney Fife -> spastic_colon , Nov 1, 2017 1:16 PM

You don't care because you are too simple to appreciate the ramnifications of it all.

thunderchief -> SloMoe , Nov 1, 2017 12:38 PM

A nyone who thinks Kennedy was shot from behind after seeing him blown away from the front is just bought and paid for by the establishment. It simply stops there.

Amazing they get away with it till this day.

[Oct 31, 2017] Above All - The Junta Expands Its Claim To Power

Highly recommended!
"All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.)"
Notable quotes:
"... All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.) ..."
"... Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the competition. ..."
"... Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it learn that from committing mass atrocities in about each campaign it ever fought? ..."
"... The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses. And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for ..."
"... Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the "translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down to the Buzzfeed crowd. ..."
"... Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy. ..."
"... I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising. ..."
"... This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident, but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of the operation. ..."
"... The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism, and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides familial, or close, etc.) ..."
"... historically, dying empires invest in the double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious) ..."
"... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong, they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps. ..."
"... First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power? ..."
"... The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do, not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA would be out of power? ..."
"... I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama. ..."
"... The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has changed the calculus. ..."
"... The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to foreign influence. ..."
"... Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office. He surrendered his top people. Saker says it was lack of character. I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced him out of the WH. ..."
"... On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals, not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie to Congress. The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering a nation. ..."
"... Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and traitors is absurd. ..."
"... Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa). ..."
"... Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

In an advertising campaign in 2008 the U.S. Air Force declared itself to be "Above All". The slogan and symbol of the campaign was similar to the German "Deutschland άber Alles" campaign of 1933. It was a sign of things to come.

On Thursday Masha Gessen watched the press briefing of White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly and concluded :

The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments .
  1. Those who criticize the President don't know what they're talking about because they haven't served in the military . ...
  2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his generals told him to do . ...
  3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one's business but theirs. ...
  4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. ...

Gessen is late. The coup happened months ago. A military junta is in strong control of White House polices. It is now widening its claim to power.

All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.)

On January 20, the first day of the Not-Hillary presidency , I warned:

The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.

With the help of the media the generals in the White House defeated their civilian adversary. In August the Trump ship dropped its ideological pilot . Steve Bannon went from board. Bannon's militarist enemy, National Security Advisor General McMaster, had won. I stated :

A military junta is now ruling the United States

and later explained :

Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary" candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.

The military took full control of White House processes and policies:

Everything of importance now passes through the Junta's hands ... To control Trump the Junta filters his information input and eliminates any potentially alternative view ... The Junta members dictate their policies to Trump by only proposing certain alternatives to him. The one that is most preferable to them, will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no alternatives," Trump will be told again and again.

With the power center captured the Junta starts to implement its ideology and to suppress any and all criticism against itself.

On Thursday the 19th Kelly criticized Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of South Florida for hearing in (invited) on a phone-call Trump had with some dead soldiers wife:

Kelly then continued his criticism of Wilson, mentioning the 2015 dedication of the Miramar FBI building, saying she focused in her speech that she "got the money" for the building.

The video of the Congresswoman's speech (above link) proves that Kelly's claim was a fabrication. But one is no longer allowed to point such out. The Junta, by definition, does not lie. When the next day journalists asked the White House Press Secretary about Kelly's unjustified attack she responded:

MS. SANDERS: If you want to go after General Kelly, that's up to you. But I think that that -- if you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that that's something highly inappropriate

It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules the empire.

... ... ...

If the soldiers do not work "for any other reason than that they love this country" why do they ask to be paid? Why is the public asked to finance 200 military golf courses ? Because the soldiers "love the country"? Only a few 10,000 of the 2,000,000 strong U.S. military will ever see an active front-line.

And imagine the "wonderful joy" Kelly "got in his heart" when he commanded the illegal torture camp of Guantanamo Bay:

Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom he had maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. His response to the detainees' peaceful hunger strike in 2013 was punitive force-feeding, solitary confinement, and rubber bullets. Furthermore, he sabotaged efforts by the Obama administration to resettle detainees, consistently undermining the will of his commander in chief.

Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the competition. Pompeo also wants to again feel the "wonderful joy". On Friday he promised that the CIA would become a "much more vicious agency". Instead of merely waterboarding 'terrorists' and drone-bombing brown families, Pompeo's more vicious CIA will rape the 'terrorist's' kids and nuke whole villages. Pompeo's remark was made at a get-together of the Junta and neo-conservative warmongers.

On October 19 Defense Secretary General Mattis was asked in Congress about the recent incident in Niger during which, among others, several U.S. soldiers were killed. Mattis set (vid 5:29pm) a curious new metric for deploying U.S. troops:

Any time we commit out troops anywhere it is based on a simple first question and that is - is the well-being of the American people sufficiently enhanced by putting our troops there , by putting our troops in a position to die?

In his October 20 press briefing General Kelly also tried to explain why U.S. soldiers are in Niger:

So why were they there ? They're there working with partners, local -- all across Africa -- in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights ...

Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it learn that from committing mass atrocities in about each campaign it ever fought?

One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights" was a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than a dozen awards and decorations". The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"? Will anyone really buy that bridge?

But who would dare to ask more about this? It is" highly inappropriate " to doubt whatever the military says. Soon that will change into "verboten". Any doubt, any question will be declared "fake news" and a sign of devious foreign influence. Whoever spreads such will be blocked from communicating.

The military is now indeed "Above All". That air force slogan was a remake of a 1933 "Über Alles" campaign in Germany. One wonders what other historic similarities will develop from it.

Posted by b on October 21, 2017 at 03:58 PM | Permalink

nhs | Oct 21, 2017 4:10:12 PM | 1

Why Donald Trump is the perfect tool in the hands of neocons right now

Peter AU 1 | Oct 21, 2017 4:26:51 PM | 3

The military junta rely on the US dollar as reserve currency for their lurks and perks. The more they take power, the faster this will slip away. So called allies will move towards China/Russia and other currencies. Dangerous times but the downfall of the US is gaining momentum.
ruralito | Oct 21, 2017 4:30:08 PM | 4
Cedant arma togae - Cicero
les7 | Oct 21, 2017 4:30:38 PM | 5
@1 While I understand the temptation to link Trump to Neo-con policies, I think it over simplifies the issue.

Thierry Meyssan has a recent article in which he questions how seriously we should take the US's anti-Iran policy. In it he states "We have to keep in mind that Donald Trump is not a professional politician, but a real estate promoter, and that he acts like one. He gained his professional success by spreading panic with his outrageous statements and observing the reactions he had created amongst his competitors and his partners."

That statement is a great summary of one of the key precepts of what I called 'asymmetrical leadership' - which I think characterizes Trumps leadership style (an application of asymmetrical warfare techniques to the political arena). This does not mean that the Junta has not taken over control. I would agree with b on this. However, the forms by which that control get expressed will still run through Trump and will still reflect his 'asymmetric' style.

VietnamVet | Oct 21, 2017 4:32:33 PM | 6
It does take someone on the other side of the world to give perspective. I don't think it is as much a military junta as things are falling apart. The generals are attempting to keep their corrupt war profits flowing. The media moguls still hate Donald Trump; only as an oligarch hates another. Donald Trump is firing up his base. Expect, the whole of the alt-right propaganda is false. It relies on the hatred of others. All he will do is speed up the splintering. If your home is foreclosed, flooded, polluted, burned down or blown apart; reality is slapping you in the face.
Lochearn | Oct 21, 2017 4:51:42 PM | 7
One of your most important posts, b. At first I thought it strange that you would quote Masha Gessen, an infamous anti-Putin journalist and Khodorkovsky fan, but then it didn't seem so strange. Gessen is a Zionist, therefore she is aligned with the CIA/Wall Street faction, which as you perceptively say lost out with Trump and Raqqa. I say Wall Street as opposed to corporate because, as I have pointed out before, non-financial corporates - and that includes most of the Dow Jones or FTSE - have fuck all say on anything except how they are going to meet next quarterly's earnings estimates. And the CIA is very close to Wall Street.

What interests me is how this relates to Iran, on which both factions appear to be in agreement, but there must be nuances. The Saker published an article where,in my opinion, he failed to give enough weight to how circumstances around Iran have changed over the last decade. I see little green men in large green aircraft weaving their way down the Caspian Sea, not to mention invisible Chinese hardware in the sense of how did it get there, and a Europe which is in disarray with their tongues hanging out for deals with Iran. The success of the anti-Trump MSM narrative combined with fears of potentially millions of Iranian refugees would surely indicate this is the worst possible time to attack Iran. So how can they conjure a war out of this?

les7 | Oct 21, 2017 5:49:02 PM | 9
On a far more insidious note, one has to wonder what an radiological 'expert' was doing in Niger - thanks b for that important piece of info.

When that info is combined with:
1) US Special ops in Mali from 2006
2) US operation Oasis Enabler (2009) looking to infiltrate and control Elite Malian army units
3) March 2012 Coup brought to power American trained Capt. Amadou Sanogo
4) French Operation Serval, at the request of the 'interim government' fights to control northern Malian territory and URANIUM mines along the Mali - Niger border (they said they fought ISIS but what they actually fought was a Tuareg separatist movement)

together with the presence of ISIS (the US trained, evacuated from Syria version?) in the area... Ominous is hardly strong enough to describe the feeling...

karlof1 | Oct 21, 2017 5:54:56 PM | 10
China's leader, Xi, just outlined his nation's goals out to 2050, which Pepe Escobar nicely condensed for our consumption, http://www.atimes.com/article/xis-road-map-chinese-dream/ The full transcript can be read here, starting page middle to top, http://live.china.org.cn/2017/10/17/opening-ceremony-of-the-19th-cpc-national-congress/

I start my comment by referencing these since the operational doctrine of the Outlaw US Empire is to keep any such challenges to its perceived dominance--and quest for total dominance--subdued to the point of insignificance. As you can clearly read, Xi, China, Putin, Russia, and their allies aren't going to allow any junta to stop their integration and development plans preparing their nations and region for the future--plans and thinking woefully absent from any sector of the Outlaw US Empire excepting perhaps weapon development. The just completed Valdai Conference provides an excellent insight to the drama, the comments and visions are as important as they're powerful, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55882 I could pile more of the same for barflies to digest, but I don't think that's required.

There's a very longstanding joke about the joining together of these two words--military intelligence--and for good reason, particularly within the Outlaw US Empire. I don't think anyone within the governmental establishment has any idea of what to do about the Eurasian/Muiltipolar Challenge other than trying to break it--no ideas of how to compete or join it so as to also profit from it. The reason for this as I see it is ideological--Zero Sumism and Randian junk economics is so deeply ingrained they've polluted minds to the point where their blinded and unable to think outside the box they've caged themselves within: Hoisted by their own petard as the saying goes. They just can't accept Win/Win as something viable--sharing is for sissies and commies. Problem is that well over half of humanity sees Win/Win as eminently viable and far more welcome than the demonstrably failed Zero Sum Game promoted by Randian political-economists and enforced through the barrel a gun.

The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses. And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for.

There might be a surprise in store from the junta, however--it might just take on a bit of the massive corruption plaguing the USA by attacking the Clinton Foundation and its related sewage. Although, that just solves one part of a huge host of problems.

pB | Oct 21, 2017 6:25:48 PM | 11
@karlof1 10

thanks for the link to pepe's take on the speech.

funny thing that just accord to me that i had not thought of for nearly ten years, one of the initial "benefits" of the state of Israel, was the cutting off of Africa from asia, and its pretty glaring that a project to connect Asia Africa and Europe does not include the logical land route as well.

Clueless Joe | Oct 21, 2017 6:28:30 PM | 12
At least in the times of Caesar and Augustus, military junta who seized power could claim to be effective and victorious military, able to crush significant enemy armies. The current top military in the US were at best kiddies the last time the US actually managed to defeat a truly powerful enemy, back in 1945. (though this criticism can apply to all major powers)
sejomoje | Oct 21, 2017 6:39:09 PM | 13
Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the "translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down to the Buzzfeed crowd.

We need to start calling the CIA traitors, actual traitors. Masha Gessen is CIA, CIA ghostwrites for most MSM. Traitors all. But even without the constant hagiographies, would people start to get it? "Americans", I mean?

karlof1 | Oct 21, 2017 6:46:49 PM | 14
Here's a bit of what Hamid Karzai at the Valdai Club had to say about what the junta accomplished in Afghanistan:

"Today, I am one of the greatest critics of the US policy in Afghanistan. Not because I am anti-Western, I am a very Western person. My education is Western, my ideas are Western. I am very democratic in my inner instincts. And I love their culture. But I am against the US policy because it is not succeeding. It is causing us immense trouble and the rise of extremism and radicalism and terrorism. I am against the US policy because on their watch, under their total control of the Afghan air space, the Afghan intelligence and the Afghan military, of all that they have, that super power, there is Daesh in Afghanistan. How come Daesh emerged in Afghanistan 14–15 years after the US presence in Afghanistan with that mass of resources and money and expenditure? Why is the world not as cooperative with America in Afghanistan today as it was before? How come Russia now has doubts about the intentions of the US in Afghanistan or the result of its work in Afghanistan? How come China does not view it the same way? How come Iran has immense difficulty with the way things are conducted in Afghanistan?

"Therefore, as an Afghan in the middle of this great game, I propose to our ally, the United States, the following: we will all succeed if you tell us that you have failed. We would understand. Russia would understand, China would understand. Iran, Pakistan, everybody would understand. India would understand. We have our Indian friends there. We see all signs of failure there, but if you do not tell us you failed, what is this, a game?"

I doubt the junta will do any better than its performed in Afghanistan because it only knows how to play the game Karzai describes. Link is same as one above.

AriusArmenian | Oct 21, 2017 7:24:02 PM | 15
We can now add the Air Force being 'Above All' to the supremacist 'exceptional and indispensable' lunatic attitude in the US that is definitely psychologically the same as another people that thought they were 'Uber Alles'.
Red Ryder | Oct 21, 2017 7:36:54 PM | 16
B,

You stated: The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one).

I differ. JFK was taken out by a combined US Naval Intel and CIA plot. The beneficiary was the MIC. Eleven days later, LBJ reversed the executive order by JFK to end the US involvement in Nam. For 11 more years the Military got what it wanted--war.

LBJ got what he wanted--the Presidency. The Cuban-Americans got what they wanted--revenge for failure at Bay of Pigs by Kennedy. The Mafia got what they wanted--revenge for Bobby Kennedy.

One other thing about the counter-insurgency. It was not so much Military. They waited while the IC ran the leaks and counter-insurgency. Then,Trump fell into the Military's arms. He had been cut off from his base and key supporters and had to empower them by obedience to their plans. Foreign policy is what they wanted. He can still have all the domestic policy he can get, which is basically nothing much. A SC justice, some EOs, and all the Twitter-shit he can muster.

Dr. Bill Wedin | Oct 21, 2017 7:42:38 PM | 17
American democracy is indeed dead. The US Military's only real victory after WWII. After Vietnam, the generals said: "Freedom of speech and of the press and of assembly and the right to trial by jury and all that crap has got to go! And they got rid of it all! The Junta is in control. And the only positive aspect is that we have a rolling Fukushima disaster in Trump, who could implode and then explode in a nuclear Holocaust any second from all the humiliation and investigations crushing in on him--if the Junta did not keep tight control over all the information coming in to him. So you better leave them in place or... BAM! That's the blackmail. But it only works as long as Trump has sole authority to launch our nuclear arsenal. If someone else with a 2nd launch key were required to agree, the Junta would no longer be needed to "protect" us Mafia-style.
ben | Oct 21, 2017 8:05:47 PM | 19
Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy.
Perimetr | Oct 21, 2017 8:26:46 PM | 20
Re Bill Wedin at 18, you wrote "the blackmail only works as long as Trump has sole authority to launch our nuclear arsenal."

Authority to launch also includes predelegation to some of the highest ranking military, in the event of a perceived nuclear attack, in which the National Command Authority is disrupted and unable to give launch orders. However, this leaves open the question as to whether the President could be bypassed in the process.

Trident sub commanders also have the necessary launch codes on board to initiate a nuclear strike. Yes, the codes are under lock and key, but the key is on board.

Don Bacon | Oct 21, 2017 8:32:11 PM | 21
The current US militarism also reflects on the kneeling during the national anthem, which is also an ode to the flag in a war setting -- "by the rockets red glare" etc. President Trump has said the protests (against police killing blacks) are unpatriotic and disrespectful of military veterans. Trump has initiated a petition: "The President has asked for a list of supporters who stand for the National Anthem. Add your name below to show your patriotism and support."

Randolph Bourne (see #8) had some thoughts on this.

. . . We reverence not our country but the flag. We may criticize ever so severely our country, but we are disrespectful to the flag at our peril. It is the flag and the uniform that make men's heart beat high and fill them with noble emotions, not the thought of and pious hopes for America as a free and enlightened nation. It cannot be said that the object of emotion is the same, because the flag is the symbol of the nation, so that in reverencing the American flag we are reverencing the nation. For the flag is not a symbol of the country as a cultural group, following certain ideals of life, but solely a symbol of the political State, inseparable from its prestige and expansion.
financial matters | Oct 21, 2017 9:18:09 PM | 23
""All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle, the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon proxy won over the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with the same outcome.)""

I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising.

I think this CIA/corporate power has to be dealt with first to give progressive/socialist ideas much of a chance. It's a fine line but the military is supposed to protect against enemies foreign and domestic.

The corporate part of course has huge power over Congress.

Yul | Oct 21, 2017 9:34:35 PM | 24
@ b

a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist"

This is Niger - Remember back in 2002/2003 : The Italian letter and Yellow Cake. These days we have Areva mining uranium in Niger Hence the French military offering both security and protecting the "assets" of French Establishment. Those soldiers were not ambushed but were conducting a raid and something went wrong!

Anon | Oct 21, 2017 10:28:24 PM | 30
If there was a coup Masha would be singing praises free n the rooftop because the waragenda she is paid to shill for would be back on. The fact that the lying bitch is gnashing her teeth would suggest that the NeoCon agenda, especially for war against Russia, has been derailed. Fuck you Masha. You suck.
mo' better | Oct 21, 2017 10:29:51 PM | 31
This is great news! I hope the military junta smashes the CIA into little tiny pieces. Why? Because the US military is in its most easily defeatable state ever - they haven't won a war in generations, their generals are armchair soldiers most who have never seen combat, and they have a fondness for massively overpriced technological pieces of MIC enriching garbage for weapons. The CIA owns the media, and without an effective propaganda arm, the military will only ever face another Vietnam.
Don Bacon | Oct 21, 2017 11:02:22 PM | 32
On the topic of losing generals I'm reminded of Harry Truman. A couple of Truman quotes: "It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail."
> It's worse now. Most generals got where they are by sucking up, not performing.
> Donald Trump is no Harry Truman, for sure.
peter | Oct 21, 2017 11:59:56 PM | 35
Remember CNN? That fake MSM outlet that never tells the truth? Well, they have been skewering Kelly since he ran his mouth about that Florida congresswoman. So have the other outlets. Huckabee-Sanders is now something of a national joke after her comments. Kelly's shit doesn't hold up and he's been called out repeatedly. "It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules over the empire." Bullshit.
Ralphieboy | Oct 22, 2017 3:37:33 AM | 36
Look in the Twitter archives and you will find a counter-tweet for almost anything Trump says, including one criticizing four-star general Colin Powell...
Ralphieboy | Oct 22, 2017 3:57:25 AM | 37
Look in the Twitter archives and you will find a Trump tweet criticizing four-star general Colin Powell...
Heros | Oct 22, 2017 4:41:13 AM | 38
"The slogan and symbol of the campaign was similar to the German "Deutschland Über Alles" campaign of 1933."

This is once again typical anti-German propaganda that was used to get both WWI and WWII started, and is now being used against Putin and Russia as well as nationalists across Europe and the Anglo world. In 1933 France still had control of the Saar and the Rhineland, Germany was saddled with monumental war debts, and Hitler was clearly not running a campaign on the slogan "Germany should rule the world", which is what the Anglo-Zionist narrative would have us believe. The meaning "Über Alles" was clearly "Germany First". That means look out for the German people first. The Weimar government clearly wasn't doing this. Call it Hitler's "MAGA".

The real truth is that it is this same US military industrial complex who worked for Roosevelt, Churchill, and their Zionist masters to get the second world war started, and who now are desperate for a third. They are sadistic, murdering globalists. Hitler was a nationalist. He never planned to rule the world the same way the Zionists already do, as is evidenced by the never ending strife in the Middle East, and their ongoing tribal civil war which is also being waged within the US government.

This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident, but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of the operation.

Here is a LV company where for $3500 you can fly around the desert in a Helicopter shooting up targets with a SAW-249.

https://machinegunsvegas.com/product/machine-gun-helicopter/

How is it that this company can get away with this without MIC participation? Could this helicopter be available for uses at the right price?

ralphieboy | Oct 22, 2017 6:11:44 AM | 40
The original meaning of "Deutschland über alles" came about in the early 1800's when there was no united Germany: it meant that there should be a united Germany above all the minor German states, duchies and principalities that existed at the time.
fx | Oct 22, 2017 7:08:30 AM | 41
For those who want to avoid being datamined by nhs, the original link about "Why Donald Trump is the perfect tool in the hands of neocons right now" is here: https://failedevolution.blogspot.com/
fx | Oct 22, 2017 7:10:36 AM | 42
"One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights" was a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than a dozen awards and decorations".

The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"?" It's all about the uranium in Agades, then?

Jack Frost | Oct 22, 2017 7:49:08 AM | 43
Trump is either very gullible and ignorant (most likely) or he is diabolically clever. Everything he does - every action, every appointment, every utterance - could not be better formulated to undermine the Zioamerican empire. Which is kind of what he promised to do.
Camillus O'Byrne | Oct 22, 2017 7:52:58 AM | 44
The brazen arrogance of these jerks like Kelly is stupefying. Infuriatingly shameless.

The guy has never done an honest day's work IN HIS LIFE, has had his snout in the public trough continuously and has materially contributed to the ruination of his country. STFU you stupid twat. He is also a scumbag that no doubt had a lot to do with his son's demise - imagine being this a-hole's son?

These clowns call themselves "General" and we are supposed to think that puts them in the same class as a Wellington or a Caesar or Napoleon? They were all first class bastards, ruthless, but fine Generals. Tough, bold, audacious leaders of men and brilliant strategists, who took risks, including with their own lives. Hell, the Prussian officer training system turned out Quartermasters that were better field Generals than these American frauds.

As I have said in another thread, the US has none of the martial virtues. Not as a people, not as military institutions, not as individual soldiers or sailors (their airmen are obviously cowards or psychopaths so not necessary even to consider in this context). Virtues such as steadfastness in adversity, discipline when under fire, self-sacrifice for comrades and the cause. Not saying anything about the morality of any particular cause here, just what makes a professional army. To compare the US military with Rome's Legions, say, is laughable. The biggest difference between these American whackers is that in real armies individuals are expected to be able to contend with a worthy adversary. To take risks. To fight when it is HARD to fight. Even Rome's patricians understood that every now and then they had to expose themselves to danger if they were to have any honour, as Crassus, richest of them all, found out very dramatically when he met his end at the head of the Syrian Legions. (Defeated by the Iranians! - they've seen 'em all come and go). Windbags like Kelly wouldn't know what honour is.

The US has NEVER fought an adversary on anything like equal terms. They preen themselves about WW2. I call BS. They waited until the Soviets had broken the back of the most fearsome war machine in history, the Wehrmacht and then faced teenagers and old men in France. On the occasions when they did face professional German troops they had their whiney arses kicked. As for the Pacific war, they stood off island after island and rained a stupendous amount of naval shells and bombs on the Japanese garrisons to the point where they were insane with the cacophany and pure physical terror to turn your bowels to water, before setting foot on them, while the aerial destruction of Japanese cities is one of the great atrocities in history, disgraceful and completely without honour. I suspect a disproportionate number of US military casualties are due to being run over by a forklift, training accidents, friendly fire, syphilis or fragging of their own.

The qualities the US military (they don't deserve the epithet "army") exemplifies are cowardice, incompetence, viciousness and wanton destructiveness. No wonder, as the corruption (plenty of fiscal as well as moral) starts at the top with the Kellys and drips down like a putrid slime from there.

He and his ilk are just a bunch of murderous bags of human excrement. No decent person can have anything but contempt for them.

Petri Krohn | Oct 22, 2017 9:02:58 AM | 45
It is little surprise if a junta has taken over. Many Democrats would support a military junta over Trump. Now we are hearing similar calls from Republicans.

One of the latest is this opinion piece by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post from October 12, 2017: Republicans, it's time to panic The Washington Examiner has a short summary:

Ex-Bush adviser Michael Gerson tells Republicans: 'It's time to panic'

Michael Gerson, who's also a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote in an op-ed Friday that "the security of our country -- and potentially the lives of millions of people abroad -- depends on Trump being someone else entirely."

"The time for whispered criticisms and quiet snickering is over. The time for panic and decision is upon us. The thin line of sane, responsible advisers at the White House -- such as Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson -- could break at any moment," Gerson wrote. "The American government now has a dangerous fragility at its very center. Its welfare is as thin as an eggshell -- perhaps as thin as Donald Trump's skin."

The op-ed comes amid Trump's feud with Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who warned that the president's reckless threats could lead to "World War III."

"I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it's a situation of trying to contain him," Corker told the New York Times.

arze | Oct 22, 2017 9:48:36 AM | 46
At this point in history to be US president is to be a criminal. An "autonomous" US president has not existed at least since JFK, perhaps not since Lincoln. Kelley, like his boss, routinely "clowns" the media, and however unctuous Kelley's remarks are, they fit into that mode.

Our generals are weak men. If they weren't, they wouldn't need a Trump, or a whatever to run for office and win that office.

They can't run and win any better than they can conduct warfare as a rational means to a rational end; and as the post eloquently points out, again: they are experts at rape, murder, war crimes, mayhem and destruction. The ubiquitous propaganda to hide that is all they have that saves them from the penal colony where they belong.

Their project to rule the world would be as successful as any "they destroyed it in order to save it" attempts.

MG's fragmented consciousness permit her to be rational at times, and irresponsible at others.

Don Bacon | Oct 22, 2017 10:02:48 AM | 47
re: Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom he had maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. . .

The US needed go show progress in the "war on terror" and one way was to accumulate some prisoners of the "war." CIA operatives were sent to the tribal areas of Afghanistan & Pakistan with cash to entice "bounty hunters." It was easy, because every tribal chief had enemies, which he would capture and present for a big payoff. So the Guantanamo (Gitmo) prison was set up in Cuba and soon accumulated 7-800 "detainees" who were bullied and tortured.

None of them were tried because there was no evidence they had done anything wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that they should have a judicial process but (except a few cases) it was never done. Most of the prisoners detainees were released, including a 13 yo boy and a 92 yo man, and about 200 remained. I guess it's less now.

Meanwhile the Washington politicians were able to crow about all those dangerous people in Gitmo, and prattle about the "recidivism" danger if and when they would be released. What were they supposed to do, forgive and forget all the terrible treatment they had received?? So yes, Kelly is scum, but that's not unusual for a general.

Noirette | Oct 22, 2017 10:07:12 AM | 48
The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism, and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides familial, or close, etc.)

Therefore, the belonging or 'solidarity' is activated only facing an outside enemy who is personalised as e.g. communist, ugly dictator, intends to attack the US, poisons babies, etc. That gives the military an edge.. Then natch, historically, dying empires invest in the double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious), ain't flash news.

.... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong, they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps.

To me this looks more like total disorganisation than anything else.

J | Oct 22, 2017 10:53:49 AM | 49
What a load of hooey!

First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power?

Secondly, same question will be here for you when a) the military and Trump get booted with impeachment, or b) when the next election comes.

Van Morrison once penned "politics, superstition and religion go hand in hand." It never fails, those out of power go from being logical, critical thinkers to becoming outlandish bores who exaggerate things and fabricate what they see. It's called delusion.

Don Bacon | Oct 22, 2017 11:22:03 AM | 51
@J 49
The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do, not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA would be out of power?
Don Bacon | Oct 22, 2017 11:25:38 AM | 52
Kelly: So why were they there? They're there working with partners, local -- all across Africa -- in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights

These guys didn't die teaching, nor in combat in Niger, they were (according to news reports) trying to track down an accomplice of one Abu Adnan al-Sahraoui. In other words they were doing police work in a foreign country, an absolutely ridiculous task which they were not trained or able to do and which put their lives needlessly in danger. This criticism applies to the whole "war on terror" which has proven to be a tragic farce (if there can be such a thing).

dahoit | Oct 22, 2017 11:37:28 AM | 53
b is quoting macha gessen? You got be kidding. MSN will look his site in homage. In what way MSM will JFK look CIA approval? Traitors.
Jackrabbit | Oct 22, 2017 12:38:59 PM | 54
I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama.
Piotr Berman | Oct 22, 2017 1:10:28 PM | 56
Carry on, nothing to see here.

I really think that this is the case in this instance. Trump is bellicose and erratic. In the realm of foreign policy and military, it yielded one positive change: his obsession with ISIS led to huge decrease of fighting between "moderate opposition" in Syria with "SAA and allies", allowing the latter to effectively reduce the territory controlled by ISIS, similarly, Obama's efforts to sideline "sectarian forces trained by Iran" from fighting with ISIS were apparently abandoned with similar effect. But otherwise, no "reset" with Russia, clown show concerning the nuclear program of North Korea, berating allies who spend insufficiently to fight threats that they do not have, increasing domestic military budget (again, to fight threats that we do not have) and so on. Formation of the new axis of evil, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela is a notable novelty.

Trump was so contradictory is his campaign statements that it is almost amazing that ANY positive element can be discerned. At the time, I paid attention to his praises of John Bolton, a proud walrus-American who communicates using bellowing, in other words, resembles a walrus both in the way he looks, but also in the way he speaks.

Needless to say, Dotard in Chief can exercise power only through underlings that may try to make sense of what he says. In some cases, like reforming American healthcare according to his promises, this is flatly impossible. So generals are seemingly in the same position, and of course, when in doubt, they do what they would do anyway.

Lawrence Smith | Oct 22, 2017 1:22:16 PM | 57
Not that I am any more or less in the loop than any of these fine commenters, but what pops into my mind when reading of the ambush of the four special forces servicemen is the crash of the helicopter that took out so many of the seal team six who supposedly took out Osama. Maybe they knew too much would be my guess. Why else would they put such a knowledgable specialist out on the perimeter? Makes no sense. Offing your own is part and parcel in the military. Heroes of convenience.
Jackrabbit | Oct 22, 2017 1:39:09 PM | 58
What seems to have been lost in the discussion is what exactly the "counter-coup" is all about.

1. During the Obama years, "successes" like Lybia and Ukraine were matched by "failures" like the lost proxy war for Syria and pushing Russia into the arms of China. The new 'Cold War' makes US nationalism more important as 'hot' conflicts become more likely.

2. Obama/Clinton-led civilian authority was abusing power to promote an "Empire-first" vision of governance, Obama/Clinton:

>> replaced/retired many military officers;

>> placed US resources/forces in a support role ("leading from behind") ;

>> grew a 'radical center' (aka "Third Way") that sought to undermine traditional nationalist/patriotism via immigration and divisive 'wedge issues'.

The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has changed the calculus.

The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to foreign influence.

So Trump pivots US policy based on Obama's record (as Obama did off Bush's record), and the next President will pivot off Trump's record, but the direction is always the same.

Red Ryder | Oct 22, 2017 2:34:25 PM | 59
Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office. He surrendered his top people. Saker says it was lack of character. I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced him out of the WH.

Trump is powerless except when he functions as Leader of the rallies. As President, even with the cabal running the Oval Office, they all are limited by the Shadow Government, Deep State, IC, Khazarian Matrix. No President is a free man empowered to act.

He now is focused on what is possible. Perhaps that will be a tax cut and a few more SC justices and a few score of judges for the fed district courts. Those don't interfere with Financial Power and MIC and the Hegemony of Empire.

There is one hope. Putin + Xi.
And we know the limits they face.

Inside the Tyranny of American government, there is no hope. During the Trump time Putin and Xi have to make the most of the Swamp creating their own problems. It is that moment of opportunity, though it looks bleak.

One thing for certain, the US military does not want a direct war. It wants more of these terror conflicts. Africa will become huge over the next few years. Graham is already selling it big. Trillions of dollars is what is the goal.

SE Asia and Africa are the new big "markets" for MIC. ISIS/AQ are the product. War is the service industry being sold as the "solution".

The Long War of anti-terror is the scam Smedley Butler told us about in the thirties.

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long.

I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

CD Waller | Oct 22, 2017 2:39:29 PM | 60
On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals, not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie to Congress. The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering a nation.

In none of their unwarranted invasions (all the result of bad information and poor judgment) of other nations have they been successful the day after the bombs stopped falling.

bob | Oct 22, 2017 3:21:56 PM | 61
IDIOTS!!! you forget the fact that if clinton won you would first be glowing GREEN and now dead. On Oct 16th 2016 Putin said "if hillary wins its WW3" on you tube. guess what we are alive and have to deal with that taxevader trump. we will survive!
james | Oct 22, 2017 4:04:30 PM | 62
@57 lawrence... plausible... thanks..truth eventually comes out..
Castellio | Oct 22, 2017 5:05:46 PM | 63
@16, @22

The time has long passed since one can ignore JFK's failed insistence on the inspections of the illegal Israeli nuclear weapons program at Dimona, and then his sudden death. Factoring Israel into the equation greatly simplifies understanding the make-up of the Warren Commission, LBJ's about turn on the relation to the illegal nuclear weapons program and his reaction to the attack on the Liberty, and the evolution of US politics more generally.

One would be more pressed to argue why one thinks it is not a primary cause.

Fidelios Automata | Oct 22, 2017 11:37:16 PM | 64
We voted for change and as usual, we got more of the same. All I can say is thank God it's not Hillary in the White House. At least Trump's not spoiling for a war with Russia.
Danny801 | Oct 23, 2017 11:09:10 AM | 65
Democracy has been dead in America for a long time. I'd rather Kelly run the country than Hillary Clinton. She would have us all annihilated in a war with Russia and China
ian | Oct 23, 2017 5:15:48 PM | 66
It's going to be hard to fight a junta. The military is at least halfway competent, something that can't be said for either the administration or congress. Look at this latest flap - on the one side you have Wilson the rodeo clown, on the other you have Trump, who can't resist the urge to pop off on twitter.

Then you have Kelly, who at least comes off like an adult. Before people start pointing to all the nefarious things the military is doing, let me just say I'm talking about perception.

This all seems like Rome all over.

Shyaku | Oct 23, 2017 10:06:35 PM | 67
Maybe this sums it up: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather#World_War_I

- Regards as always, Shyaku.

NemesisCalling | Oct 23, 2017 10:32:39 PM | 68
@59 Ryder

Good post sans the Africa bit. They are having a tough time explaining the Niger debacle to people. I don't think African conflicts have the same glamorous draw as MENA conflicts. Once the economy goes to shit, it will be an even tougher sell.

Trump is walking a narrow line. He has not brought us into a war with either Russia or NoKo...yet. This deserves some praise. The media blitz against Trump has always had a twofold reasoning behind it: it puts pressure on his ego to acquiesce and, two, if he doesn't, the public has been inoculated against feeling too bad when a lone-gunmen puts a bullet in his brain. I guess if you believe that, as I do, it explains why even a bumbling policy is a positive aspect of a Trump presidency, instead of the true-believer approach from Hillary and her ilk. There really is no other choice. It's either war or watch the empire crumble. The true believers might have chosen the former, but President Trump, I believe, has sabotaged that possibility. So take all the Trump-bashers in here with a grain or salt. They are asking for the stars, but watching the empire's police implode suits me just fine.

"But the white supremacists...KKK!" What a fucking joke.

dmorista | Oct 24, 2017 7:57:57 AM | 69
Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and traitors is absurd.

Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa).

Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. The actual situation is similar to that the U.S. participated in during period from the late 1800s - WW 2; the declining hegemon accustomed to calling the shots in international affairs (then the British Empire, now the U.S.), ends up overextended and committed in far too many areas, with declining resources and domestic solidarity to dedicate to the tasks; the rising hegemon (then the U.S. now China) is still focused on issues of internal and external economic development and the exercise of regional power. China is already either equal in power to the U.S. or more powerful and will only continue to grow in power as the U.S. continues to decline. The Israelis/Zionists fully realize that the U.S. would not survive another disastrous war (like the air war they want the U.S. to wage against Iran, the U.S. does not have the capability to conduct a land war against Iran) intact. They are willing to try to force the issue to achieve one more step in their plan to establish "Eretz Israel" whose territory would extend from the Nile to the Euphrates and from the Sinai to Turkey. Their plans are just as crazy as those of the NeoCons and the NeoLiberals and their endless disastrous wars; and Trump/Bannon are their agents in the U.S.

[Oct 31, 2017] Read the CIA s Simple Sabotage Field Manual: A Timeless, Kafkaesque Guide to Subverting Any Organization with Purposeful Stupidity (1944)

Oct 31, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

[ Open Culture ] ( PDF ).

Arizona Slim , October 30, 2017 at 3:03 pm

Quoting from the guide: "The saboteur may have to reverse his thinking, and he should be told this in so many words. Where he formerly thought of keeping his tools sharp, he should now let them grow dull; surfaces that formerly were lubricated now should be sanded; normally diligent, he should now be lazy and careless; and so on. Once he is encouraged to think backwards about himself and the objects of his everyday life, the saboteur will see many opportunities in his immediate environment which cannot possibly be seen from a distance. A state of mind should be encouraged that anything can be sabotaged."

Fun stuff!

Pogonip , October 30, 2017 at 3:10 pm

Well, now we know where they get the instructions for The Ongoing Crapification Of Everything.

Off-the-rack clothing has reached a new high (low?) in crapification. I know to check for missing buttons, dud zippers, gaps in stitching, crooked seams, no seam allowance, sleeves of unequal length, but the other day I bought a shirt that passed all the above and when I got it home I noticed it had not been hemmed! It had honestly never occurred to me to check something that basic.

[Oct 31, 2017] JFK was taken out by a combined US Naval Intel and CIA plot. The beneficiary was the MIC

Notable quotes:
"... One other thing about the counter-insurgency. It was not so much Military. They waited while the IC ran the leaks and counter-insurgency. Then, Trump fell into the Military's arms. He had been cut off from his base and key supporters and had to empower them by obedience to their plans. Foreign policy is what they wanted. He can still have all the domestic policy he can get, which is basically nothing much. A SC justice, some EOs, and all the Twitter-shit he can muster. ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Red Ryder | Oct 21, 2017 7:36:54 PM | 16

B,

You stated: The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one).

I differ. JFK was taken out by a combined US Naval Intel and CIA plot. The beneficiary was the MIC. Eleven days later, LBJ reversed the executive order by JFK to end the US involvement in Nam. For 11 more years the Military got what it wanted -- war.

LBJ got what he wanted -- the Presidency. The Cuban-Americans got what they wanted -- revenge for failure at Bay of Pigs by Kennedy. The Mafia got what they wanted -- revenge for Bobby Kennedy.

One other thing about the counter-insurgency. It was not so much Military. They waited while the IC ran the leaks and counter-insurgency. Then, Trump fell into the Military's arms. He had been cut off from his base and key supporters and had to empower them by obedience to their plans. Foreign policy is what they wanted. He can still have all the domestic policy he can get, which is basically nothing much. A SC justice, some EOs, and all the Twitter-shit he can muster.

bits | Oct 21, 2017 8:33:54 PM | 22
@b:

The military/intelligence -- slash not dash -- coup was on September 11, 2001. Trump's overt Junta is psyops. This is the "armed forces" rescuing us from "neocons" lead by courageous slimebag Trump.

--

@Red Ryder | Oct 21, 2017 7:36:54 PM | 16

Dear RR. You forgot that JFK wanted to subject ISRAEL to the same IAEA regime that IRAN is now subjected to. "Never forget".

[Oct 31, 2017] What Do Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Dick Cheney, Oprah Winfrey, Erin Brockovich, Stephen Hawking, Harrison Ford, Robert Kennedy, Jr., Jon Krakauer, Michelle Obama, Dan Rathers, Malcolm Gladwell, and Yours Truly Have in Common? Smeared by a Soros-Funded Think Tank for Appearing on RT

Acute case of projection
Notable quotes:
"... But the point of the McCarthyism more than anything has been to scare respectable people away from so much as appearing on RT. It's worked, because our spooks know that Americans with media ambitions are easily frightened by anything that can hurt their social capital. ..."
"... Apparently everybody seemed to know about Harvey's perversion proclivities for decades, why expose him and others of their preying ilk now? ..."
"... So that leaves Russia only entity in the world (that can) can justify the supercarriers at $10B a pop . that white elephant called the F35 revamping the nuclear arsenal (and the list goes on). Can't justify those things because of al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram or al-Shabaab ..."
"... There is a Russian joke that goes something like this: "We learned that everything Pravda told us about the Soviet Union was a lie. And that everything they told us about the West was true." ..."
"... The world is awash with petty tyrants and compromised magicians. The hordes of invented organizations, reliably do the opposite (contrary) of what their name says. Thus "European Values" really means "North Korean Police State Hellhole". ..."
"... The biggest thing that struck me though, was an assumption that was so pervasive throughout that it was never explicitly stated: Criticism of an entity makes that entity weaker. This strikes me as both profoundly unscientific and undemocratic. Any think tank advancing arguments on this basis is advertising itself as an instrument of propaganda over critical thinking and rigorous analysis. ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The New McCarthyite program of demonizing anyone and anything associated with Russia continues apace. A Soros-funded think tank called European Values has put out a screed (no exaggeration, read the hyperventilating tone of the "report") which has as its major aim chilling the participation of guest speakers on RT, per its title, The Kremlin's Platform for 'Useful Idiots' in the West .

This self-styled think tank posted a list of people who had appeared on RT on a series of its shows since 2013. Despite its claims of being comprehensive, the former producer of the RT show Boom Bust, Ed Harrison, quickly identified some names that were missing, and I am sure if he thought further, he could come up with more.

The list is so lengthy and includes so many highly respected people that I doubt including will hurt them in any way. But some were mighty annoyed anyhow:

I didn't read the list as carefully as I could (see this spreadsheet , and notice it has lots of categories), plus my selection was admittedly personal. These names caught my eye:

The irony here is that I appear to have been picked up for what were my last appearances on RT, mainly on Ed Harrison's Boom Bust show. As much as I like Ed and enjoyed that the interviews were six to ten minutes (leisurely by TV standards), I quit doing pretty much all TV (save Bill Moyers' show) because it was a lot of work for little payoff. First, they tend to ask you to appear the same day and spout off, which never works for me (I am too time stressed to drop everything and fit an appearance into my schedule). Second, you have to do some research perp. Third, for the level of TV I was invited to do, I would have to go to a remote studio. That means you do your own hair and makeup. Women have to use specialized makeup for high def camera (different foundations, more like paint primer, requires use of bronzers and blush, and hooker level eye liner). It takes 20 minutes to do it if you don't screw up the liner. Even in studios (where the makeup artists do it and they know the lighting, so they know were they can do less v. more), it's a bare minimum of ten minutes for them, more like 15-20. Fourth, you have to transit time to and from the studio and you need to get there at least 15 minutes before the "hit time".

So it's a minimum of a three hour time sink all in, which is longer than it takes to do a post. And while readers liked seeing me on TV, I didn't get new readers this way. The audiences for the shows to which I'd be invited were not all that large and overlapped heavily with my existing audience.

And as for the productiveness of this attack on RT, which no matter what you think of RT, is an attack on the First Amendment. On one level, it won't dent any of the reputations of the individuals named, since with so many prestigious names across such a wide range of positions, being on this list is in practice meaningless. But it will still have a chilling effect on RT's ability to attract guests, at least in the US. As Ed Harrison pointed out:

Even if we expose this move for the McCarthyism it is, the blacklist will still have its intended impact by putting a chill on RT's ability to get guests. EVERYONE will think twice before appearing on the network. The damage has been done.

And as Mark Ames confirmed:

But the point of the McCarthyism more than anything has been to scare respectable people away from so much as appearing on RT. It's worked, because our spooks know that Americans with media ambitions are easily frightened by anything that can hurt their social capital.

But the perverse bit is, that as John Helmer pointed out in previous reporting, and the the think tank study confirmed, RT's audience in puny. So why should anyone care if it has no real reach? From Helmer via e-mail, who has been blacklisted by RT for reporting on how it exaggerated the size of its audience:

Rag picking is a sorry task, but occasionally there are gems to be salvaged [the screenshots are from the think tank report]:

In short, this is evidence, again, of the self-sucking icecream. RT is an audience failure. In order to earn its budget from the Kremlin, it used to rely on trickery in Nielsen and other survey manipulation, fabricated data, bots, etc. For example, Nielsen told me in 2009, when I investigated, that because RT places its service on hotel room televisions, the audience count includes every guest who turns on the TV set in the hotel room. It apparently didn't occur this moron to speak to Nielsen.

When I ran this story in Asia Times – http://johnhelmer.net/black-hole-television-how-the-little-pigs-lie-to-the-big-bad-wolf/ – [RT editor-in-chief Margarita] Simonyan issued a lawfirm libel threat until AT agreed to give her a large interview space in which to damn everything I had done. Peter Lavelle, now the "anchor" for RT's John McLaughlin-mimic show, telephoned because he was terrified Simonyan would realize I had been talking to him by telephone and by email.

Nowadays, no trickery is needed. The USG, the US media, Pomerantz, Edward Lucas et al., all do the job of promotion for RT – so Putin is convinced, and [Press Secretary Dmitry] Peskov grows rich. Simonyan too.

So while this little hit piece on potential RT guests will probably be effective, at least in the US, in hurting RT's ability to produce credible content, it will increase its appearance of effectiveness and hence its funding. So this may not net out to be a negative and could still over time be a net plus for RT.

And that's before we get to the fact that some individuals who don't like intimidation campaigns, such as Russell Brand and Nicholas Nassim Taleb, having some sport with this, particularly since many of the people on this list have much bigger megaphones than the think tank shooting at them.

Put it another way: this sort of report is not the product of a confident ruling class. It's far too easy to blame a legitimacy crisis on outside agents when the fault lies in decades of neglecting the most fundamental responsibility of leadership: that of making a serious effort to assure the welfare of ordinary people. Even if one were to believe the barmy thesis that RT has damaged the US body politic, it's because the the rot is so widespread that takes only a minuscule dose of PR to further weaken the foundations.

Wukchumni , October 31, 2017 at 7:22 am

Then: Useful Idiots

Now: Useful Vidiots

I grew up in the era of Pravda/Tass, and you got used to the Soviet Premier winning with 99.43% of the vote, and it was certainly news to me that the Russians had invented baseball, as they claimed.

But that was the game then-the communists lied all the time, stupid fabrications not for the audience beyond it's borders, it was strictly for domestic consumption. Hitting people over the head with the same tales enough so it sunk in, so as to be truth.

Here in the west, we were by no means saintly, but by mostly being open about things, we were leagues more truthful, in yet another aspect of the Bizarro World existence capitalism & communism had with one another.

But that was then and this is now, and Fox seems to have taken the Pravda angle and gussied it up so as to appeal to the masses, and despite so many other media outlets available to the public (unlike in the USSR) their model worked to a charm, and now our Premier gets his news from them and often repeats it verbatim.

We're in obviously an odd time, and a which hunt atmosphere is taking hold, witness the all of the sudden issue with sexual harassment that's gone as far as including a President in his 90's in a wheelchair as the perps, along with the usual Hollywood types. Apparently everybody seemed to know about Harvey's perversion proclivities for decades, why expose him and others of their preying ilk now?

Arizona Slim , October 31, 2017 at 9:29 am

Why expose them now? Because it distracts the rubes from the root cause of the elites' legitimacy crisis.

Thank you, Yves, for identifying that root cause.

Wukchumni , October 31, 2017 at 10:14 am

In the Soviet Union, the 'tell' when something happened they wanted to squelch news of, was a steady diet of classical music on the radio airwaves.

urdsama , October 31, 2017 at 1:38 pm

I'm confused; how does the Weinstein matter have anything to do with Yves' post?

I'd like to think that reports of women being assaulted and raped by a powerful Hollywood figure, (and now male teenagers with the Spacey revelations) would be an important matter to report on and bring to light.

To imply that such actions are being taken "Because it distracts the rubes from the root cause of the elites' legitimacy crisis" seems flawed when the person being called out is considered one of those elites.

Should those women continue to suffer in silence because the timing is inconvenient?

flora , October 31, 2017 at 2:43 pm

Just my opinion, but I think the point is to get everyone panic running, by whatever interest point/shocking story might get them running. Once everyone is panic running, for whatever reason, they can all be "herded" into the preferred corral/poltical conclusion by careful MSM media manipulation – which has been used to get them running in the first place. imo.
Sexual harrasment/abuse is a serious issue, but it's not a new issue.

djrichard , October 31, 2017 at 10:35 am

Apparently everybody seemed to know about Harvey's perversion proclivities for decades, why expose him and others of their preying ilk now?

I'm assuming it's because one can't throw rocks in glass houses. Or flip that around. Rather they are throwing rocks in glass houses and to show their even handedness, they're taking aim at themselves as well. I guess it establishes their bonafides when it comes to throwing rocks.

More importantly, I think it re-enforces their bonafides for being the arbiter of what's "normal". See CJ Hopkins on this theme: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/20/tomorrow-belongs-to-the-corporatocracy/ .

This also manifests itself when language is invoked about various parties being irredeemable: see Clinton's comments on deplorables. Or various parties not being repentant: see media comments on John Kelly regarding his comments on Wilson.

urdsama , October 31, 2017 at 1:31 pm

"Apparently everybody seemed to know about Harvey's perversion proclivities for decades, why expose him and others of their preying ilk now?"

This would be the reason:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2017/10/jodi_kantor_on_how_she_broke_the_harvey_weinstein_story.html

That and social media.

While long overdue, I'm not sure why this being exposed now is an issue.

wellclosed , October 31, 2017 at 7:44 am

Geezis F.C. Guantanamo is going to have to be updated and expanded to the whole state of North Dakota to accommodate the quarantine of those thusly infected – while the crack PropOrNot Medical Unit develops its GetYourMindRight vaccine.

dearieme , October 31, 2017 at 7:56 am

I must say that I wouldn't care to be associated with a Cheney or a Kennedy. But I wouldn't mind being associated with Tulsi Gabbard (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

But seriously, this hysterical anti-Russian stuff reminds me that many Americans must be completely indifferent to the rest of the world thinking them crooks and fools.

The Rev Kev , October 31, 2017 at 8:04 am

Boris Johnson must be part of this mob as he too has attacked people that appeared on RT. He attacked Labour MPs for appearing on this program recently ( https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4709175/boris-johnson-slams-rt-then-finds-out-his-dad-went-on-air/ ) only to discover too late that not only were several Tory MPs also on this program but also recently his dad as well – do'h!
For those unaware of who Boris Johnson is and what he looks like, imagine Donald Trump but with unkempt hair instead of styled hair.

Nervous, north of 49th. , October 31, 2017 at 8:26 am

The corporate funded Democrats and Republicans are playing a two-man con game against the American people. One runs up the deficits with tax cuts to the rich, the other cuts social spending to balance the books, and both are in favour of endless war.

When people start to take notice – "Look! Over there! A Russian conspiracy!!"

divadab , October 31, 2017 at 9:01 am

My approach is simple – look at who is ginning up this anti-Russia hysteria, and know that they are the enemy. Corrupt scum who lie as a matter of habit.

flora , October 31, 2017 at 9:28 am

Soros has a list, right there in his pocket .

But what I heard is that Soros is trying to distract everyone while he prepares to short the Euro.* /s

On a more serious note I think Harrison and Ames are right.

-- -- -- –
*This is a snark based on history.
https://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-george-soros-broke/

Arizona Slim , October 31, 2017 at 9:31 am

At long last, Mr. Soros, have you no sense of decency?

annenigma , October 31, 2017 at 10:05 am

I use a cheap digital antenna to get free, over-the-air television broadcasts which includes RT along with about 40 other channels. No one is counting us as viewers. But shhh, don't tell the Gov't many of us are enjoying these RT programs, I mean Russian propaganda, or they'll shut it down.

RT may have a small audience, but however small, that audience is still bigger for people like Ralph Nader, Chris Hedges, et. al. than what corporate media provides them. Many have been blacked out and blackballed.

The above list includes people who, for the most part, have not been blacked out and have other avenues besides RT to reach the masses on tv. Sadly, for many of our most outspoken patriots who dare speak truth to power, RT is the last refuge for those scoundrels.

Arizona Slim , October 31, 2017 at 11:57 am

I watch Lee Camp's Redacted Tonight show on YouTube. It's an RT show.

I also enjoy Al Jazeera.

ex-PFC Chuck , October 31, 2017 at 2:46 pm

If you have a Kodi video streaming system you can get an RT app for it. The software is downloadable for free and can run on an older computer if the latter is capable of handling it. Or you can get a Raspberry Pi 3 for less than a Franklin and run it on that with the also free LibreELEC operating system, which is a stripped down Linux for Kodi.

diptherio , October 31, 2017 at 10:39 am

I always knew there was something off about Jeremy Irons

HotFlash , October 31, 2017 at 11:30 am

He killed Simba's father!

sinbad66 , October 31, 2017 at 10:48 am

This whole Russia goes to the fact that only 4 countries on this Earth can give 'murica the middle finger and get away with it: China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

Now, of these, only China and Russia are a real threat. However, you can scratch China off the list because they are our "frenemy with benefits". They are the spouse that, if you divorce them, you will pay dearly (make a lot of our stuff, holds a lot of our debt). So, as Johnnie Taylor had sung "its cheaper to keep her".

So that leaves Russia. They are they only entity in the world where you can justify the Gerald Ford supercarriers at $10B a pop. Justify that white elephant called the F35 (with $180 billion in cost overruns and counting). Spend billions revamping the nuclear arsenal (and the list goes on). Can't justify those things because of al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram or al-Shabaab. But you can with Russia

Yes, Virginia, this is why you can't have nice things because of those darn Rooskies!

polecat , October 31, 2017 at 11:38 am

Anyone notice how the billionairgasbags (on BOTH sides of the libricon aisle) are suddenly dialing the Trump blame-cannons to 11+

"He's CRAZYYY !!" "Has LAUNCH-CODES !!" "Must IMPEACH, NOWWW !!!" "Oh, and would you please you sign this petition ??"

I should've grown popcorn this season ..

Mark P. , October 31, 2017 at 2:38 pm

So that leaves Russia only entity in the world (that can) can justify the supercarriers at $10B a pop . that white elephant called the F35 revamping the nuclear arsenal (and the list goes on). Can't justify those things because of al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram or al-Shabaab

Exactly so.

Presidential candidates who were recipients of defense industry money, and how much they received --

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=D&recipdetail=P&sortorder=U&mem=N&cycle=2016

Oregoncharles , October 31, 2017 at 3:11 pm

you forgot Bolivia. I used to think Venezuela was another, but that was before Chavez died and the price of oil plummeted.

FiddlerHill , October 31, 2017 at 11:23 am

I teach journalism as an adjunct professor, and one of my former students is now an on-camera newscaster at RT. When she was first offered the job, she phoned me with some vague concern about RT being funded by the Russian government. I told her not to hesitate, to take the job. I said simply judge the organization by its content -- and the content then as now is entirely in-line with the power-confronting material seen on this website, The Intercept, the Jimmy Dore Show and dozens of other progressive news sources in the US.

Now Neo–McCarthyism has set in. She emailed me a few weeks ago -- horrified that the State Department was now insisting that she and all RT reporters register as foreign lobbyists. I couldn't get over the hypocrisy and irony of it: the US government -- beneficiary of a massive sycophantic domestic corporate media empire -- going after one small voice in the wilderness, hammer and tong, because of its source of funding, not because of the nature of its reporting. I know from regular contact with my former student that RT's "agenda" isn't dictated from the Kremlin. There's no need whatever for that. A vast corrupt and self-serving American political class provides any semi-conscious journalist with more than enough stories to pursue every day of the week.

Arizona Slim , October 31, 2017 at 11:59 am

She should register as a foreign agent, but do all sorts of stupid things on the registration form.

Y'know, like leaving things blank, entering contradictory information, and misspelling words. Call it being a cheerful saboteur.

sd , October 31, 2017 at 12:38 pm

Does the same apply to any of the other state funded foreign media in the United States? For instance, BBC. Anyone know?

Elizabeth Burton , October 31, 2017 at 2:50 pm

So far as I know, the BBC hasn't been officially designated a foreign propaganda mouthpiece, which (albeit in more "legal" phrasing) RT America has. The truly scary part is the same piece of "legalness" is so vaguely worded with regard to what defines a foreign propaganda mouthpiece any alternative medium could acquire the same label.

It's like the FBI now labeling any African American who dares protest a "Black identity extremist."

Mel , October 31, 2017 at 1:43 pm

the State Department was now insisting that she and all RT reporters register as foreign lobbyists

To be way too blunt, this kind of pushing local interests in restraint of foreign trade is just the reason ISDS courts are required. When local sovereignty is being applied unfairly, even local courts can't be trusted.
It's also why Canadians can be so antsy about foreign content in media.

Chauncey Gardiner , October 31, 2017 at 1:43 pm

Do you know whether the State Department will require past guests on RT from the list above to register as foreign lobbyists, as well? That possibility brings a smile to my face.

Alex Morfesis , October 31, 2017 at 12:12 pm

The browder plague grandson tells us the Russians are bad, grandpa helped crazy joe McCarthy make the argument that talking to Russia was bad, by his wondrous service as mister communist party usa

Gottlacht

Carolinian , October 31, 2017 at 12:28 pm

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/28/guardians-of-the-magnitsky-myth/

As for RT and censorship, Gilbert Doctorow has been talking about how Russia's neocon and other opponents are frequent guests on Russian television because their outlandish claims are considered good entertainment. Maybe Russians, those snowbound chess masters, are just smarter than Americans. Next to Trump Putin seems like some sort of Einstein.

Kim Kaufman , October 31, 2017 at 12:59 pm

Thanks, Yves, for this important post. Last night a friend emailed me this discussion on RNN between Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal about it
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20309
but I didn't take it very seriously. Seeing the George Soros connection in your post, now I do take this very seriously.

Joel , October 31, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Is the RT hostility payback for Russian resistance to American media such as VoA?

Mel , October 31, 2017 at 1:47 pm

Maybe. Twenty-six years late.

Erelis , October 31, 2017 at 1:44 pm

There is a Russian joke that goes something like this: "We learned that everything Pravda told us about the Soviet Union was a lie. And that everything they told us about the West was true."

What the Soviets said about the Civil Rights movement.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/07/09/civil_rights_coverage_how_the_soviets_used_evidence_of_racial_strife_against.html

Dikaios Logos , October 31, 2017 at 2:23 pm

re: RT audience size

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I had a run-in with Ed Harrison a few years ago that shows how small RT's audience likely is. During a time I was spending too much time on finance twitter, I noticed a very familiar face from a twitter avatar walking down a very quiet residential street early one morning. As I got closer I felt the need to confirm this, since I was worried I was seeing things (happens when you're a neurotic insomniac!). Turns it out it was Ed and he was, it seemed to me, very unaccustomed to being recognized on the street and almost certainly took my curiosity to be hostile. People who are recognized on the street have ways of dealing with it, Ed really seemed to not have figured those out, suggesting to me that being on RT didn't interfere with his being anonymous! So much for 'Russian propaganda'!

clarky90 , October 31, 2017 at 3:15 pm

"A Soros-funded think tank called European Values. This is what we are up against; Ass-backwards, widderschynnes, black magic. Harvey Weinstein at the January 2017 Women's March in Park City, Utah.

"At least he went with a gray beanie instead of the de rigeur head wear."

The world is awash with petty tyrants and compromised magicians. The hordes of invented organizations, reliably do the opposite (contrary) of what their name says. Thus "European Values" really means "North Korean Police State Hellhole".

I learned this simple rule of thumb from the NC Commentariat. The "truth" is often merely the diametric opposite; hiding in plain sight. Turn upside down and inside out, and the pig-Latin code is easily deciphered! Voilΰ!

ChrisPacific , October 31, 2017 at 5:21 pm

I had a skim through the article. Overall it strikes me as a particularly acute case of projection. There also seems to be a significant lack of good faith (as you'd expect).

The biggest thing that struck me though, was an assumption that was so pervasive throughout that it was never explicitly stated: Criticism of an entity makes that entity weaker. This strikes me as both profoundly unscientific and undemocratic. Any think tank advancing arguments on this basis is advertising itself as an instrument of propaganda over critical thinking and rigorous analysis.

[Oct 31, 2017] At some point, he was really furious and yelled:" Hey Dean, tell the bastard : if he won't behave we'll do him what we did to the Kennedy boys!"

Oct 31, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

CarlD | Oct 30, 2017 6:00:30 PM | 20

On Kennedy:

25 years ago, I was in the office of a trader in US military surplus. That gentleman
sold all kinds of items to all kinds of dictators all around the World. I was there to
buy some marine stuff.

He was just back from a trip to Israel where "he had been inspecting some facilities".
He was in good spirits.

The phone rang, and he took the call. As the conversation progressed, his voice got
louder and louder. Repeatedly, he called his interlocutor "Dean". Name or surname
I cannot decide as there were several high ranking officials named Dean as a name
or Dean as a Family name. He seemed oblivious of my presence or probably
thought I would not grasp what he was saying.

At some point, he was really furious and yelled:" Hey Dean, tell the bastard :
if he won't behave we'll do him what we did to the Kennedy boys!"

It took him a few minutes after hanging up before he was back from his explosion
and we started talking business.

[Oct 30, 2017] Nick Turse A Red Scare in the Gray Zone by Tom Engelhardt

Notable quotes:
"... Memo to Senator John McCain: ..."
Oct 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

Memo to Senator John McCain: Senator, the other day I noticed that, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, you threatened to subpoena the Trump administration for information about the recent attack in Niger that killed four American soldiers. "There's a mindset over there that they're a unicameral government," you said. "It was easier under Obama We are coequal branches of government; we should be informed at all times. We're just not getting the information in the timely fashion that we need."

How true! But let me make one small suggestion. If you really want to know what led to those deaths in Niger, the first place you might consider looking -- no subpoena needed -- is this very website, TomDispatch . Or, to be more specific, Nick Turse's coverage of the way U.S. Africa Command and American Special Operations forces have, with a certain stealth but also without significant coverage in the mainstream media, extended the war on terror deep into Africa. He alone has covered this story and the secret bases , widespread " training missions " (like the one in Niger), and barely noticed wars being fought there since at least 2012, when I was already writing this of his work:

"So here's another question: Who decided in 2007 that a U.S. Africa Command should be set up to begin a process of turning that continent into a web of U.S. bases and other operations? Who decided that every Islamist rebel group in Africa, no matter how local or locally focused, was a threat to the U.S., calling for a military response? Certainly not the American people, who know nothing about this, who were never asked if expanding the U.S. global military mission to Africa was something they favored, who never heard the slightest debate, or even a single peep from Washington on the subject."

By 2013, in a passage that sounds eerily up to date as we read of ISIS-allied militants on the lawless Niger-Mali border, he was already reporting that

"while correlation doesn't equal causation, there is ample evidence to suggest the United States has facilitated a terror diaspora, imperiling nations and endangering peoples across Africa. In the wake of 9/11, Pentagon officials were hard-pressed to show evidence of a major African terror threat. Today, the continent is thick with militant groups that are increasingly crossing borders, sowing insecurity, and throwing the limits of U.S. power into broad relief. After 10 years of U.S. operations to promote stability by military means, the results have been the opposite. Africa has become blowback central."

Four years later, when the Niger events occurred, nothing had changed, except that the U.S. military had moved, again with little attention (except from Turse), even deeper into the heart of Africa, setting up a remarkable array of bases and outposts of every sort (including two drone bases in Niger).

[Oct 30, 2017] The Crooks, the Clowns and the Nazis by Saker

Questionable analysis by Saker (omitted for brevity). Some good comments in the discussion. The situation with the standard of living in Ukraine is really bad and it is unclear how it can improve. If you get 4000 grivna monthly salary and pay for the apartment around 2000 (heating with gas at winter often is over 1000 grivna) you can barely survive on the remaining money (2000 grivna is around 66 grivna a day) . Even food is a problem, unless you adhere to basic diet of bread, milk, eggs and potatoes. You simply can't. They are in a trap. This war in Donbass just make the bad situation even worse. But it sill continue, because there are powerful forces interesting in escalation of this war.
Notable quotes:
"... Just because one thinks American moves are not "strategic" only means you don't fully grasp what is going on. Remember, the narrative which is being presented here is that the United States has caused both conflicts. A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots. ..."
"... Ask yourself a simple question: would Washington be better off with the status quo ante, would they be happy to go back to 2012? Of course they would – Crimea would be in Ukraine and in play, Russia would be subsidising Ukraine (not EU or IMF). But most importantly Russia would be sweating what 'might happen' with Crimea. Once West made its move and lost that threat was gone. It was just stupid. ..."
"... My take is that people there, based on a long experience, simply recognize that they are caught between two oligarchies, and unwilling to choose between them. That lethargy (for a lack of better word) is interesting. They don't buy US/West vision anymore. The thing is, they don't buy Russian either. They just don't care. Maybe that's worse than fighting for either side. ..."
"... The United States does not care about Poland or Estonia or Crimea or Ukraine or Syria or Georgia or even whether the other NATO members spend enough money. It cares about the bigger long-term picture. ..."
"... All this stuff like the coup in Ukraine, sanctions over Crimea – it's just probing moves, games. The US has Putin boxed in. He's got to scrape and claw over nothing. ..."
"... I guess it's kinda true in the sense that the US specifically (not necessarily the West as such, it seems) needs to have the uninterrupted chain of wars and cartoonish all-powerful super-evil adversaries threatening its very existence. I suppose it's needed for economic (mic) reasons, to maintain the internal unity/morale/discipline, and to run the usual protection racket abroad. Sorta like Oceania in Orwell's 1984. ..."
"... Russia is boxed in by its geography, and so is China. There is nothing new there. Enemies have been pressing on Russia's extensive borders forever. It is not likely that anyone would actually try to cross that border given this one reality: nuclear weapons. Unless the constant prodding has an answer to that reality, what is it all about? What's the point? ..."
"... Wars happen even if nobody 'wants' them. There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims ownership. And if there is a war, there will be fighting in Poland – it is literally ground zero (as so often before), and no amount of NY Times editorials will make any damn difference. The country is too small, so it would be annihilated. Poland is storing missiles and 'defensive' divisions for its allies across the Atlantic with an open admission that they are targeting Russia. What do you think would happen in a real crisis or a war? Do you think US would look kindly at Russian missiles in Canada or Mexico? That is the true madness, and Poland is kind of in a heart of it. As so often before. ..."
"... At the end, I suspect, when/if it comes to renewal of hostilities, it will be: First and foremost artillery exchanges. Nothing changes. Then, small unit raids. Nothing changes. Then, tactical incursions by Ukrainian best. After initial success they'll be met by Donbas best.Because either side don't have many of those nothing changes too. A lot of talk from Washington and Moscow. Some dead/mutilated mercenaries. And while those "games" go the rest of peoples there just keep what they've been doing so far. Oceania vs Eurasia .. ..."
"... The single best way to assure that there isn't a 'regime change' is by constant probing of Russia's borders, by constant attacks, etc So I don't buy that, the experts in Washington are not that stupid. They understand fully well that placing missiles, coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure that nothing changes in Moscow. ..."
"... The Ukraine situation will not be decided by fighting in Donbass, or in Moscow. It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa, Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses. Unless a miracle happens, or most people emigrate, this is not a sustainable situation. They are living worse than in 2013, and they already had it very bad in 2013. Marshall Plan isn't coming, membership in EU isn't coming either. Once that sinks in – it might take 5-10 years – things will change. ..."
"... That seems to be Russia's strategy. I agree that by far the best thing Moscow could do is to improve quality of life in Russia. Nato strategy is to delay it by any means: sanctions, energy, new arms race, whatever they can think off, lately mostly media campaigns. ..."
"... In Ukraine the EU-West infatuation will take a long time to dissipate. Getting hurt will eventually lead to making things better in the head , but it will take at least a generation. And things don't stay quiet for that long, other events will intervene. A circle cannot be squared: Kiev has attempted a great leap into its imagined future – Europe!!! – they bet everything on it, cut off all else, and there is no realistic way the leap will land Ukraine happily and soon enough in EU. EU will not agree to absorb 40 million poor people who mostly just want to live immediately like Germans, or move there. This is a mad dream, reality will intervene. ..."
"... I am sorry but I have to say this. How has led by Kissinger and Nixon strategy of opening China worked out? Is creating major geopolitical foe where there was none considered a sign of deep strategically long term thinking? ..."
"... The Ukrainian nationalists think that based on their accomplishments as a nation (there are none) they rightfully deserve to be geographically located somewhere between Germany and France. For this state of affairs they again blame the Russians. You see, because Russia is so big, and definitely in Eastern Europe, that they have the gravitational force that keeps Ukraine in Eastern Europe. If it wasn't for the Russians, Ukraine would have long ago catapulted into Western Europe – probably even geographically. It's only Russia that prevents them from acquiring their rightful place in the heart of Europe. ..."
"... In Ukrainians' defence, they have a bad location: wide-open, unprotected, with few geographic features and at the same time very high-quality earth. On second thought, if Ukraine, as is, was located in Western Europe 'somewhere between Germany and France' , I would be willing to bet that not a single Ukrainian would exist today. The Western Europeans know their genocide and know how to pacify populations. They almost got to them during WWII, Ukraine was the lebensraum that Nazis dreamt about. ..."
"... the assassination attempt on Mosiychuk [the former deputy commander of the infamous neo-Nazi Azov Battalio] is the initial phase of an escalation of the conflict between the Nazis and Jewish oligarchs headed by President Poroshenko, an escalation which is transitioning from a political to a "hot", or armed phase. ..."
"... Btw, Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen. Speaking about Holocaust deniers – is it kosher to support neo-Nazi and work on the resurrection of Nazism in Ukraine and to remain an honorable Israeli citizen? It seems that Kolomoysky is such case. Next time the Israel-firsters attempt to squeal about any critics of "Holocaust story" they should be presented with the story of Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky. ..."
"... Your usage of the imbecilic word 'regime' betrays bias. What the f k is a'regime'? Is EU a 'regime', or the Saudi king, or China? If not, why not? Stick with term government and use it for all and you won't sound like a bitter dead-ender unable to see things rationally. ..."
"... Decent article, although some generalizations which is understandable. Couple points about Poland. Yes its allied with neocons atm (the bad). The government has some forces somewhat supporting Ukraine (Basically as long as the blame is focused on Russia). The government knows there are "neonazi" elements, as has mentioned Ukraine will not join EU until they stop that. As for the people Poland is divided like crazy on the Ukraine issue. ..."
"... Pax Americana's wave broke and is now rolling back out to sea, creating undertows as it goes. ..."
"... The ramifications of that sea change will take years, maybe decades, to play themselves out, but my assessment is that there will be no active "roll back (of the) '90s" or that said roll back is desirable/possible. The Ukraine and Serbia/Kosovo will wind up having to fit themselves into whatever new paradigm the world will be living under at the time. That paradigm won't be American led, or of American design. ..."
"... I don't see much of a future for Ukraine. Neither the West nor Russia is willing to underwrite the massive investment that would be required to rebuild the economy. Sure it makes sense to split the country. However, both sides are more than willing to live with an impoverished buffer between NATO and Russia. If the country is split, there is no longer any territorial disputes and the new West Ukraine ultimately becomes a NATO member and NATO weapons move hundreds of miles closer to the Russian border. Not to mention the fact that Russia would find it expensive to subsidize the new government. Same with the EU. ..."
"... The Black Sea may be important to Russia's regional aspirations, but for the US, what could be better than have as many Russian naval vessels as possible parked there? ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Johnny Rico , October 26, 2017 at 2:16 pm GMT

Russian activity in Syria and Ukraine are moves of desperation from a position of weakness. The United States has Russia boxed in. The United States forced Putin to take these actions. He would be removed from power otherwise. He had no choice. He is not in control.

In Russia you are either strong and in total control or they murder you. At least that has been the case for the last thousand years.

There was no "huge effort not to intervene." If there was, I'd like to know who made it and when.

This is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Comparisons to American involvement in these two places have limited utility.

Just because one thinks American moves are not "strategic" only means you don't fully grasp what is going on. Remember, the narrative which is being presented here is that the United States has caused both conflicts. A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots.

The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and has Putin off-balance.

Priss Factor , Website October 26, 2017 at 3:49 pm GMT
To better understand what is going on, all three groups -- crooks, clowns, and nazis -- fall into the schnook category. They are being duped and used by the Globalist Empire that also controls the US. US is the Jewel in the Crown of the Globalist Empire but still a subject than a sovereign nation. It's like India was the Jewel in the Crown of the British Empire but not a free independent nation.

... ... ...

Beckow , October 26, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT
@Johnny Rico

Assigning emotional labels is not helpful. You are right that Ukraine is nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan, it is hard to understand why Saker would use such a facile analogy.

You are also right that US-West have the initiative. But that is not necessarily a sustainable advantage. Hitler had the initiative too, and so did Napoleon, they had all the initiative until they didn't. (I know poor analogy, but tempting).

The prize in Ukraine was Crimea and the Russian Naval base. That was the prize, not who gets to grow potatoes in Lviv or scoop up coal in Donbass. Crimea is gone, and I think all rational people would agree that for now that is irreversible. So what is the fight about? Torch marching in Kiev, Nato relevancy, or who gets to subsidise 40 million very poor people? To control Ukraine (Kiev really) is now a hot potato that nobody particularly wants. It is like fighting over who has the control of Bihar in India, or eastern Nigeria, or any number of poor, non-strategic backwaters full of people who mostly want to emigrate.

Washington (with Poland and a few other fire-eating nut-cases in EU) made a strong move in 2013-14 trying to get their hands on Crimea and to replace the very strategic Russian Navy base in Sebastopol with a Nato base. They invested a lot in it, and they had the initiative. But the locals screwed up, they were too slow, too unfocused and too distracted by nationalism. So Russia won Crimea and all else are just provincial consequences of little long-term interest.

Ask yourself a simple question: would Washington be better off with the status quo ante, would they be happy to go back to 2012? Of course they would – Crimea would be in Ukraine and in play, Russia would be subsidising Ukraine (not EU or IMF). But most importantly Russia would be sweating what 'might happen' with Crimea. Once West made its move and lost that threat was gone. It was just stupid.

peterAUS , October 26, 2017 at 5:32 pm GMT
@Johnny Rico

A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots.

The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and has Putin off-balance.

Well, I'd say:
A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia was reacting – not calling the shots.

The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and had Putin off-balance.

What has been interesting to me is something Martyanov hinted to here:

no part of the Novorossia, with the exception of Lugansk and Donetsk, matched even one tenth of scale and effort required to get back to Russia, or, at least, get away from Kiev. I don't blame them but it is what it is and this couldn't be ignored and it is not being ignored, thankfully.

My take is that people there, based on a long experience, simply recognize that they are caught between two oligarchies, and unwilling to choose between them. That lethargy (for a lack of better word) is interesting. They don't buy US/West vision anymore. The thing is, they don't buy Russian either. They just don't care. Maybe that's worse than fighting for either side.

When you are, effectively, in a state of constant conflict between states and most of population doesn't care, that looks as people there got their spirit crushed. And, oligarchies do like people with crushed spirit. Just a pliable mass doing what's told. Just a thought.

Beckow , October 26, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT
@Mao Cheng Ji

Initiative means that US-West are the ones starting conflicts. It is neither good nor bad and initiatives that fail are worse than if they had done nothing. That is true about Iraq, Syria, Libya and Ukraine; in each case the status quo before the 'initiative' was better. Russia and China don't show anywhere as much 'initiative', they mostly react, they don't set the agenda.

People with too much initiative get stuck in muck of their own creation and eventually lose even what they safely controlled before. But the Washington-Brussels elites cannot help it, they must start things because they are not fully serious, they have had it too good, they believe in their own mythologized narratives, and their careers are based on it. So they will keep it going. The insurgencies within the domestic domain are still very minor, this has years to go, maybe decades.

Johnny Rico , October 26, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
@Beckow

I agree with much of what you say.

My feeling is that The Saker is always talking about the superiority of Russian "strategy" in retrospect while speculating about the minutiae of tactical deployments.

Americans rarely talk strategy and there is always an ongoing discussion in the higher levels of foreign policy academia and journals about what exactly the policy or strategy is or whether we even need one.

That was the title of Kissinger's 2002 book :

Does America Need a Foreign Policy? : Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century

This, however, does not mean there is no strategy.

The United States does not care about Poland or Estonia or Crimea or Ukraine or Syria or Georgia or even whether the other NATO members spend enough money. It cares about the bigger long-term picture.

We are not fighting insurgencies (as Mao Cheng Ji contends). That ended in Iraq in about 2010 and Afghanistan in about 2012.

Since 1980, Russia and the Soviet Union have lost FAR more troops (especially as a proportion of total population) in combat than the United States.

Everywhere US elite light infantry troops are stationed now they basically sit on their asses safe in bases. Occasionally they go out and call in airstrikes for local allies or conduct a raid on a "high-value target." Occasionally they die or get suicide-bombed by a local infiltrator.

All the guys I've ever met that are in these units LIVE to do what they are doing. I even know a couple dozen guys who have been either kicked out of the military or been wounded in Afghanistan or Iraq and they still say that the best time of their lives was walking around over there with a rifle.

They would be quite surprised by the notion that they are being forced to do what they do by the "ZioMedia" – whatever that is. This is not 1968 in Vietnam.

Syria has no oil. Ukraine is a basket-case economy with too many people. Georgia has 4 million people. That's more than Albania and less than Massachusetts. Most Americans couldn't find the state of Georgia on a map – nevermind the country.

Now in 2008 Russia launched an assault on Georgia that it had been planning for at least a decade after provoking what it wanted. It didn't go well technically but it went okay tactically, but because of the size mismatch it couldn't not be a success for the Russians. But it was quick because the Georgians are stupid but not that stupid. So it could be called an operational and strategic win. The United States tailored its response. But here you will always see it portrayed as some great Russian victory over a NATO-trained military and an attempted genocide of the South Ossetians. The Russians it appears used it successfully as a learning experience and got their act together militarily.

All along the periphery of the Russian Empire/former Soviet Union the US and the Russians play games. It's a big game.

Saker's last article was about whose propaganda is better. It's a big game. It keeps people employed in the respective defense industries.

The latest thing I read is that the US is spending $8 Billion on a rapid response division or something in Eastern Europe. There was a Toyota ad I think for an armor brigade in Poland during the Super Bowl. Ridiculous. A single division.

Nobody wants a war. There isn't going to be any fighting in Poland. If Russians and Ukrainians want to kill themselves over Kharkov, Americans don't care. I think the Russians and Germans fought three times over Kharkov. I guess it had a railroad track or something. Americans don't care.

All this stuff like the coup in Ukraine, sanctions over Crimea – it's just probing moves, games. The US has Putin boxed in. He's got to scrape and claw over nothing.

The Saker always talks about Russia having a "defensive" strategy. Change the perspective for a second. Knowing that all the planet's real estate is "owned"- where the US Empire stands now – trade routes, bases everywhere around the remaining oilfields in the Middle East. AND, here is the kicker – what if you consider that the US has the defensive strategy now? That is some serious flexible depth.

And Russia is still boxed in.

Mao Cheng Ji , October 26, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
@Beckow

Initiative means that US-West are the ones starting conflicts.

I guess it's kinda true in the sense that the US specifically (not necessarily the West as such, it seems) needs to have the uninterrupted chain of wars and cartoonish all-powerful super-evil adversaries threatening its very existence. I suppose it's needed for economic (mic) reasons, to maintain the internal unity/morale/discipline, and to run the usual protection racket abroad. Sorta like Oceania in Orwell's 1984.

But I don't think this amounts to 'initiative' in any flattering sense. By the same token a rabid dog shows 'initiative'.

Beckow , October 26, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT
@Johnny Rico

Change the perspective for a second. Knowing that all the planet's real estate is "owned"- where the US Empire stands now – trade routes, bases everywhere around the remaining oilfields in the Middle East. AND, here is the kicker – what if you consider that the US has the defensive strategy now? That is some serious flexible depth.

You can call it 'depth', or you can also call it being exposed with too long supply lines. I don't think there is an automatic benefit to being everywhere, it could be a liability in a multi-site crisis. Hitler controlled almost all of continental Europe (and so did Napoleon), all it did was that when he was forced on a defensive (in the east), all of those territories became potential liabilities with allied landings, rebellions, countries switching sides, etc

Another problem is that US is trying to do it on the cheap with bombing, technology and allies – but with minimal casualties. The inability to take casualties is a weakness, you cannot in the long-run control all this geography and also protect every GI's life.

And Russia is still boxed in.

Russia is boxed in by its geography, and so is China. There is nothing new there. Enemies have been pressing on Russia's extensive borders forever. It is not likely that anyone would actually try to cross that border given this one reality: nuclear weapons. Unless the constant prodding has an answer to that reality, what is it all about? What's the point?

Nobody wants a war. There isn't going to be any fighting in Poland.

Wars happen even if nobody 'wants' them. There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims ownership. And if there is a war, there will be fighting in Poland – it is literally ground zero (as so often before), and no amount of NY Times editorials will make any damn difference. The country is too small, so it would be annihilated. Poland is storing missiles and 'defensive' divisions for its allies across the Atlantic with an open admission that they are targeting Russia. What do you think would happen in a real crisis or a war? Do you think US would look kindly at Russian missiles in Canada or Mexico? That is the true madness, and Poland is kind of in a heart of it. As so often before.

I don't think either Russia or West have better or worse 'strategy'. They play with what they have. Lately Russia has been prevailing, maybe because West pushed too far and is on thin ice in most of these far-away places.

By the way, your description of the Georgia conflict in 2008 omitted the key event: as the Beijing Olympics were starting, Georgia attacked S Ossetia with massive bombardment (100+ civilians killed). You say that somehow Russia 'anticipated' it and took advantage. Isn't it their job to 'anticipate'? Wouldn't any country? But the key point is that without the extremely stupid, almost suicidial attack by Georgia, none of that would happened. Who the hell told Saakasvilli that this would be a good idea? Some 'strategist' who likes to 'poke the Russian borders' to keep them in a 'box'? This is abstract thinking at its worst. Get real.

peterAUS , October 26, 2017 at 7:37 pm GMT
Speaking of crooks and thieves. True, those Ukrainian elites are that. Can't argue that most of US/Western elite aren't. But, Russian (current) regime elite? How about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_crooks_and_thieves

So, I guess that an average Ukrainian ponders a simple question: For which crook I am supposed to lose my life and limb? And risking the same for people I care for? Tough decision. If if doubt do nothing feels as the best option. Keep your head down, keep your mouth shut and try to scrap a living there. Or, if you can, emigrate somewhere. If you can that is.

peterAUS , October 26, 2017 at 9:13 pm GMT
@Beckow

what is it all about? What's the point?

That rhetorical question? Regime change in Moscow->incorporating Russia into Empire at vassal level. Or back to happy Yeltsin era. Happy for some I mean. With vengeance.

As for this:

There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims ownership

Couldn't agree more. That's the real worry at present. Combination of who are people in power and means of warfare.

People on the ground in Ukraine at "West" side incompetent and weak crooks. People on the ground in Ukraine at "East" side are also incompetent crooks. Not so sure how weak they are, though. They must be weak enough to obey Moscow but hard enough to keep .ahm..pruning own ranks from those unpopular with Moscow. Besides, they got into power by armed insurrection so usually those types can be hard.

I, personally, don't see much fuss about all this. Could be wrong, of course. The real question would be how, really, good Ukrainian armed forces are.
Have they used the time well to get good enough to create a serious problem for Donbass. My feeling .(haven't spent much time researching it) is they have not. Now, not so sure, whatever Saker is saying here, how good Donbass military is. In reality. I concede that they got better organized and equipped. Doesn't mean much , IMHO. The more important is how WILLING they would be to face an attack.

I .suspect .that the will when it was all started isn't there anymore. Could be wrong. Still think I am not. Or, better .feel that way. Those assassinations, plus overall quality of life there, plus unclear future (not what Moscow is saying, people on the ground don't buy that) aren't good for combat morale.

At the end, I suspect, when/if it comes to renewal of hostilities, it will be: First and foremost artillery exchanges. Nothing changes.
Then, small unit raids. Nothing changes. Then, tactical incursions by Ukrainian best. After initial success they'll be met by Donbas best.Because either side don't have many of those nothing changes too. A lot of talk from Washington and Moscow. Some dead/mutilated mercenaries. And while those "games" go the rest of peoples there just keep what they've been doing so far. Oceania vs Eurasia ..

Issac , October 26, 2017 at 9:44 pm GMT
@Priss Factor

Saker writing a Philip Giraldi level expose from that angle would probably have him out of a job. The Russian ruling class is not interested in making an enemy of Israel or vice versa.

Beckow , October 27, 2017 at 12:53 am GMT
@peterAUS

"Regime change in Moscow"

The single best way to assure that there isn't a 'regime change' is by constant probing of Russia's borders, by constant attacks, etc So I don't buy that, the experts in Washington are not that stupid. They understand fully well that placing missiles, coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure that nothing changes in Moscow.

The Ukraine situation will not be decided by fighting in Donbass, or in Moscow. It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa, Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses. Unless a miracle happens, or most people emigrate, this is not a sustainable situation. They are living worse than in 2013, and they already had it very bad in 2013. Marshall Plan isn't coming, membership in EU isn't coming either. Once that sinks in – it might take 5-10 years – things will change.

peterAUS , October 27, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT

They understand fully well that placing missiles, coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure that nothing changes in Moscow.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that they believe that's exactly what's needed. Worked rather well since '91 I think. US soldier couldn't get pass Germany (West/East) border. Now

It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa, Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses.

Sounds reasonable. In meantime

Beckow , October 29, 2017 at 8:27 am GMT
@Mr. Hack

"'Novorussian' fighting forces have from the very beginning just been a rag tag collection of Chechen and Russian mercenaries ,with a few local alcoholic yahoos , all directed by imported Russian degenerates, supported all along with Russian national troops and armaments"

All soldiers today get paid, thus you can call all of them 'mercenaries'. All soldiers drink. Their ethnicities are hard to establish and generalize. Words like 'rag tag', 'yahoos', 'degenerates' mean literally nothing in this context, you just add them to make yourself feel better.

If you take what your wrote and strip out the unnecessary poetry you might be closer to the truth: Novorussian forces are a combination of local separatists and volunteers who joined them mostly from Russia; Russia has provided most of their modern arms. Russia also acts as a backstop in case of another Kiev offensive to make sure that they cannot be defeated.

See, I fixed it for you. Now drop the poetic abuse and tell us what can be done about it. And take into account interests of all parties and their relative strength. All people are equal, applying emotional adjectives to your enemies changes nothing.

Avery , October 29, 2017 at 9:21 am GMT
@Beckow

Well said. Regarding: { . a rag tag collection of Chechen and Russian mercenaries,with a few local alcoholic yahoos, all directed by imported Russian degenerates }

If that is true, then it means Ukrainian military is even more incompetent than it is, being soundly defeated by a 'rag tag collection of mercenaries, alcoholic yahoos, and degenerates'. Being defeated by a professional opposing force is bad enough, but being defeated and chased out of Novorussia by 'degenerates'? How embarrassing for the Kiev junta.

Beckow , October 29, 2017 at 9:26 am GMT
@Sergey Krieger

That seems to be Russia's strategy. I agree that by far the best thing Moscow could do is to improve quality of life in Russia. Nato strategy is to delay it by any means: sanctions, energy, new arms race, whatever they can think off, lately mostly media campaigns. With Russia's resources, favourable demographics and global economic realities (China), it will not work. And then what? Once the quality of life is comparable to the average EU country, the gig will be up. Today Russia is slightly worse off than Poland and Lithuania, but better off than Romania or Bulgaria. But it is dramatically worse off than Germany, Czech R or Austria. Between 2000-2014 Germany and Russia were feeding off each other's growth, now they both suffer. We will see how that plays out, but there was a natural synergy that was artificially curtailed. More than anything else the Atlantic neo-cons fear more prosperity in Russia, so they will do almost anything to prevent it.

In Ukraine the EU-West infatuation will take a long time to dissipate. Getting hurt will eventually lead to making things better in the head , but it will take at least a generation. And things don't stay quiet for that long, other events will intervene. A circle cannot be squared: Kiev has attempted a great leap into its imagined future – Europe!!! – they bet everything on it, cut off all else, and there is no realistic way the leap will land Ukraine happily and soon enough in EU. EU will not agree to absorb 40 million poor people who mostly just want to live immediately like Germans, or move there. This is a mad dream, reality will intervene.

Those still hoping for a happy ending have not been paying attention.

Sergey Krieger , October 29, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT
@Johnny Rico

I am sorry but I have to say this. How has led by Kissinger and Nixon strategy of opening China worked out? Is creating major geopolitical foe where there was none considered a sign of deep strategically long term thinking?

Cyrano , October 29, 2017 at 11:04 am GMT
@Beckow

One often hears about "historical injustices" being committed against this nation or that ethnic group. Ukraine is probably a unique (basket) case because they think (the stupid ones) that beside historical injustices, they have also suffered geographical injustice.

The Ukrainian nationalists think that based on their accomplishments as a nation (there are none) they rightfully deserve to be geographically located somewhere between Germany and France. For this state of affairs they again blame the Russians. You see, because Russia is so big, and definitely in Eastern Europe, that they have the gravitational force that keeps Ukraine in Eastern Europe. If it wasn't for the Russians, Ukraine would have long ago catapulted into Western Europe – probably even geographically. It's only Russia that prevents them from acquiring their rightful place in the heart of Europe.

Beckow , October 29, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT
@Cyrano

"they have also suffered geographical injustice"

And so a solution is to have a war against geography. That usually goes very well, check with the Georgians :)

In Ukrainians' defence, they have a bad location: wide-open, unprotected, with few geographic features and at the same time very high-quality earth. On second thought, if Ukraine, as is, was located in Western Europe 'somewhere between Germany and France' , I would be willing to bet that not a single Ukrainian would exist today. The Western Europeans know their genocide and know how to pacify populations. They almost got to them during WWII, Ukraine was the lebensraum that Nazis dreamt about.

My estimate would be that if Russia had not sacrificed 20 million people to defeat Germany, today there would be no Poles, no Ukrainians, and no Czechs. A few smaller nations, like Croats, Slovaks, Slovenians, would exist as tiny folklor-only curiosity, regularly brutally culled for potential dissenters. Those 'damn Russkies', how dare they stop this? No wonder the sneaky Westerners will never forgive them. But one wonders why some of the designated victims, Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, are also angry that the lebensraum genocide Nazi plan was not allowed to take place. But we are leaving geography and getting into psychiatry

Anon , Disclaimer October 29, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT
@Johnny Rico

A repost from consortiumnews.com: "The Kaganzation of Ukraine, which started on Clinton watch, is moving to a next, neo-Nazi phase: http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/mosiychuk-assassination-attempt.html

" the assassination attempt on Mosiychuk [the former deputy commander of the infamous neo-Nazi Azov Battalio] is the initial phase of an escalation of the conflict between the Nazis and Jewish oligarchs headed by President Poroshenko, an escalation which is transitioning from a political to a "hot", or armed phase.

Ironically enough, it is the Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky who is financing the operations of such Nazi revolutionaries. Indeed, all of the "Ukrainian revolutions," as is well known, have been done with Jewish money and through the hands of Ukrainian Nazis. By all accounts, Mosiychuk himself is one of the key figures behind preparing a Nazi coup d'etat."

Any reaction from the diligent ADL? Any peep from AIPAC? Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen and a pillar of the Jewish community of Ukraine. He has been financing the Ukrainian neo-Nazis for several years already; Kolomoysky is also implicated in the downing of MH17. Still no interest from the Israel-occupied US Congress? Amazing. In the US, the "victims of Holocaust" from the Kagans' clan have been plotting and implementing the collaborative projects with Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Interesting times.

Just to reiterate –– "all of the "Ukrainian revolutions" have been done with Jewish money and through the hands of Ukrainian Nazis." And the Jewish vigilantes are busy fighting against BDS " https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/28/hillary-clinton-keeps-pointing-fingers/#comment-293951

Btw, Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen. Speaking about Holocaust deniers – is it kosher to support neo-Nazi and work on the resurrection of Nazism in Ukraine and to remain an honorable Israeli citizen? It seems that Kolomoysky is such case. Next time the Israel-firsters attempt to squeal about any critics of "Holocaust story" they should be presented with the story of Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky.

Beckow , October 29, 2017 at 12:17 pm GMT
@peterAUS

You use language very loosely: 'total control, 'fully integrated', 'force's skeleton', all those terms are both unprovable and meaningless in Donbass context. There are millions of Russians in Donbass, they have always lived there. They are willing to oppose post-coup Kiev government on their own. All else is vague verbiage that means nothing.

"the regime in Moscow decide to abandon the project it could dissolve that force in 12 hours tops and leave Novorussia ripe for takeover by the regime in Kiev"

Your usage of the imbecilic word 'regime' betrays bias. What the f k is a'regime'? Is EU a 'regime', or the Saudi king, or China? If not, why not? Stick with term government and use it for all and you won't sound like a bitter dead-ender unable to see things rationally.

Russia cannot abandon Donbass because the Kiev government would massacre many Russians living in Donbass. Or they would let their nationalist allies do it. In any case, millions would either be expelled, imprisoned or killed. That would mean the end of Putin's government. The fact that Brussels and Mme Merkel would look the other way and that Western media would pretend that not much was happening would not help either. So that's not going to happen, Russia is committed, it cannot 'abandon the project'. Kiev will either negotiate seriously now, or in the future. And time is definitely not on their side, longer this goes on, worse deal will be on the table for Kiev.

Anon , Disclaimer October 29, 2017 at 7:03 pm GMT
@Beckow

" it might take 5-10 years – things will change." It is already on the go: http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/mosiychuk-assassination-attempt.html
" another Maidan to be held under openly Nazi slogans and leading to the overthrow of the Jewish oligarchs led by Petro Poroshenko who seized power in Ukraine. Ukrainian Nazis are the most consistent and terrifying enemies of the Poroshenko regime, which they call an "internal occupation regime." We are now seeing a rehearsal for such a Nazi Maidan. Apparently, Poroshenko is taking a serious turn, and now terrorist methods are being used against the regime's mortal enemies."

polskijoe , October 29, 2017 at 7:42 pm GMT
Decent article, although some generalizations which is understandable. Couple points about Poland. Yes its allied with neocons atm (the bad).
The government has some forces somewhat supporting Ukraine (Basically as long as the blame is focused on Russia). The government knows there are "neonazi" elements, as has mentioned Ukraine will not join EU until they stop that. As for the people Poland is divided like crazy on the Ukraine issue.
Sergey Krieger , October 29, 2017 at 8:04 pm GMT
@Mao Cheng Ji

Lots of people changed from Russians into Ukrainians. I see many guys with Russian surnames there from news who are rabidly antirussians. Give some time. When Russia rises and life in Russia will be good there will be suddenly 90% of Ukrainian population Russians.

Erebus , October 29, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT
Alas, you've yet again missed the salient point you're commenting on. The sea change I talk about is "a sea change in both capability and prospects" . And yes, a sea change in the sense that the high water mark of the USA's capabilities and prospects is now plainly visible. Its role has been reduced from world leader to that of spoiler in Syriaq, Philippines, MENA, ECS & SCS, in Africa, and in Europe itself. A spoiler's role is a very far cry from the world leader at "the end of history" it proclaimed itself to be in the early '90s. Pax Americana's wave broke and is now rolling back out to sea, creating undertows as it goes.

The ramifications of that sea change will take years, maybe decades, to play themselves out, but my assessment is that there will be no active "roll back (of the) '90s" or that said roll back is desirable/possible. The Ukraine and Serbia/Kosovo will wind up having to fit themselves into whatever new paradigm the world will be living under at the time. That paradigm won't be American led, or of American design.

polskijoe , October 29, 2017 at 8:34 pm GMT
@Dan Hayes

Prof Cohen, he is smart on Russian affairs, for a Jewish guy suprising he speaks favorably of the Russians. I dont know his political views. Certainly a change from the Neocon bs.

anon , Disclaimer October 29, 2017 at 11:52 pm GMT
I don't see much of a future for Ukraine. Neither the West nor Russia is willing to underwrite the massive investment that would be required to rebuild the economy. Sure it makes sense to split the country. However, both sides are more than willing to live with an impoverished buffer between NATO and Russia. If the country is split, there is no longer any territorial disputes and the new West Ukraine ultimately becomes a NATO member and NATO weapons move hundreds of miles closer to the Russian border. Not to mention the fact that Russia would find it expensive to subsidize the new government. Same with the EU.

The obsession with theoretical military engagements ignore the reality that 'winning' is simply taking a nation that is still a paying customer for natural gas and turning them into an expense.

As far as the value of Ukraine as an agricultural power -- Russia no longer cares. Russia (thanks to the US sanctions, among other things) is now the world's largest grain exporter.

The Black Sea may be important to Russia's regional aspirations, but for the US, what could be better than have as many Russian naval vessels as possible parked there?

Anatoly Karlin , Website October 30, 2017 at 12:05 am GMT
@Mr. Hack

The Saker does indeed peddle a lot of BS, but you are hardly one to talk.

1. The Chechens were briefly involved in 2014, have long since left.

2. The vast majority of the NAF (80%) are Ukrainian citizens , as confirmed by multiple sources including a list of names leaked by your ideological comrades at the Peacekeeper website. About another 10% are Russians from the Kuban, which is ethnically and culturally close to the Donbass, while the last 10% are Russians and other adventurers from the wider world.

So yes, it is indeed very homegrown, though it is true that the NAF would not have survived in its embryonic stages without the more competent and experienced Russian volunteers like Strelkov, as well as Russian logistical and artillery support.

3. NAF volunteers are indeed probably lower than average on the socio-economic scale, but I would be exceedingly surprised if it was otherwise for the UAF and the independent batallions. Certainly the chronic drunkeness , accidents, etc. in the Ukrainian Army that are constantly being written about indicates that doesn't harvest the cream of Ukraine's crop. (And that makes sense – apart from a hard core of patriots and nationalists, any Ukrainian would pay to avoid conscription, if he has the means).

[Oct 30, 2017] The JFK Files and the Real Conspiracy Against the Truth by David Stockman

Notable quotes:
"... While the record of Oswald's proficiency as a military marksman is highly disputed, the distance of the so-called third shot was equivalent to a touchdown run from your own 12 yard-line. Even as country boy hunters back in the day, we could appreciate that would have been quite a feat. ..."
"... In effect, that meant the CIA, FBI and rest of the so-called intelligence community had been given 6,250 government business days to review the files and redact or delete what they would. ..."
"... After two-and-one-half decades to prepare, the CIA and FBI literally took a fire ax to the Oval Office door, vetoed the President's clear power under the statute to make the release and then forcibly repossessed some 200 of the 3,000 JFK documents . ..."
"... Needless to say, the fact that at one minute before midnight the FBI and CIA pulled this "sources and methods" gambit on the JFK assassination files is surely testimony to the unbridled power and arrogance of the Deep State. ..."
"... However, our ruminations on yesterday's outrage is not merely for the purpose of denouncing the CIA and FBI and all of their malevolent doings and plots. The larger point is that a Deep State apparatus that can operate in this unchecked manner and with such massive resources is exactly the kind of antidemocratic usurper that President Eisenhower famously warned about in his 1961 farewell address on the military-industrial complex. ..."
Oct 27, 2017 | original.antiwar.com
If you didn't believe the Deep State is beyond democratic control before, you now have no choice – not after the last minute mugging the Donald received on his way to releasing these ancient JFK assassination files.

And believe us, they are indeed ancient. Your editor was sitting in high school civics class learning about the difference between America's open society and democratic government and the secretive Kremlin dictatorship of the Soviet Union when news of the Dallas tragedy came over the school's PA.

Needless to say, the theory that the assassination was the work of a lone gunman in the Texas Book Depository, who fired three shots in 11 seconds with a 1890 vintage Italian rifle and hit President Kennedy from 265 feet was never very satisfying from the beginning.

While the record of Oswald's proficiency as a military marksman is highly disputed, the distance of the so-called third shot was equivalent to a touchdown run from your own 12 yard-line. Even as country boy hunters back in the day, we could appreciate that would have been quite a feat.

Nor did we find it any more convincing a few years later when as a college antiwar radical we realized that the despicable Alan Dulles, founder of the CIA, had been a member of the Warren Commission and was the behind the scenes puppeteer who shaped the report. And, oh, Alan Dulles loathed Kennedy for firing him after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and was therefore possessed of no special zeal to get to the bottom of what actually happened.

At length, a large share of the American public also came to doubt the report – especially after Oliver Stone's brilliant conspiracy movie called JFK hit the theaters in 1991. So the very next year, twenty-five years ago, Congress ordered all the files to be released no later than October 26, 2017.

In effect, that meant the CIA, FBI and rest of the so-called intelligence community had been given 6,250 government business days to review the files and redact or delete what they would.

Yet as of last weekend, the Donald, who is virtually a conspiracy theory aficionado and a friend of Roger Stone who believes LBJ did it, had every reason to let it all hang out. To that end, he tweeted that the files are finally on the way – fully 54 years after the event:

Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened.

Moreover, as of 3:56 PM Wednesday, the President of the United State had apparently not received any "further" information. Accordingly, he tweeted again, absent the qualifier:

The long anticipated release of the #JFKFiles will take place tomorrow. So interesting!

Except it didn't. After two-and-one-half decades to prepare, the CIA and FBI literally took a fire ax to the Oval Office door, vetoed the President's clear power under the statute to make the release and then forcibly repossessed some 200 of the 3,000 JFK documents .

Of course, this mugging was done for the same hackneyed reason which allows the Deep State to keep Congress and the public in the dark about much of what goes on in Washington's globe-spanning Imperial operations – such as the most recent revelations about Niger.

In fact, there are 6,000 US forces conducting more than 3,500 missions per year all around the African continent. Niger was just the tip of the iceberg, which apparently includes troops and missions in Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Gabon, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, the Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Togo, Uganda, Tunisia, Kenya, Ghana, Djibouti and undoubtedly still others.

The point is, the Deep State simply asserts that "sources and methods" must be protected and that's all it takes. A curtain of secrecy then slams down that only a few members of the Congressional intelligence and national security committees can peer behind.

Of course, the whole shebang is a farce because 98% of what is being protected comes from so-called SIGINT (signals intelligence). That is to say, from the massive NSA spying operations that monitor every digital impulse that courses through the worldwide web from virtually every spot on the planet.

And thanks to Edward Snowden's courageous expose four years ago, the whole world now knows that NSA does exactly that. So there are really no "sources and methods" to protect.

Indeed, it's an open fact that the combined budgets of the 17 US intelligence agencies amount to about $75 billion per year – a figure 25% larger than Russia's entire military budget, including research and development, weapons procurement, fuel, ammo, spare parts, soldiers pay and spare boots, too!

So no enemy, adversary or friend, as the case may be, anywhere on the earth is unaware that they are being watched and tracked. Nothing would be "compromised" by telling Congress and the public what the "intelligence community" has gathered from SIGINT – such as any digital proof that Russia hacked John Podesta's email – and most of its other sources, too.

In fact, however, the elected politicians who come and go in the Imperial City are so domesticated to this insane regime of secrecy that they simply acquiesce to a system that is utterly ridiculous. To wit, there are more than 5.1 million non-elected bureaucrats, consultants and contractors with security clearances, including 1.5 million with "top secret" status, who are privileged to far more "national security" information than most Members of Congress!

Needless to say, the fact that at one minute before midnight the FBI and CIA pulled this "sources and methods" gambit on the JFK assassination files is surely testimony to the unbridled power and arrogance of the Deep State.

For crying out loud, Castro is dead, the Soviet Union disappeared 26 years ago, and any US secret agents in Moscow who remained alive in 1991 – either have now passed on to the hereafter or are living on a CIA pension in Florida!

However, our ruminations on yesterday's outrage is not merely for the purpose of denouncing the CIA and FBI and all of their malevolent doings and plots. The larger point is that a Deep State apparatus that can operate in this unchecked manner and with such massive resources is exactly the kind of antidemocratic usurper that President Eisenhower famously warned about in his 1961 farewell address on the military-industrial complex.

... ... ...

David Stockman has agreed to send every Antiwar.com reader a free copy of his newest book, Trumped! when you take his special Contra Corner offer. Click here now for the details.

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed , The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin And How to Bring It Back . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader .

[Oct 30, 2017] The Deep State's JFK Triumph Over Trump by Ray McGovern

The biggest revelation from last week's limited release of the JFK files is the fact that the FBI and CIA still desperately need to keep secrets about something that happened 54 years ago
Notable quotes:
"... I do hope to be around next April after the 180-day extension for release of the remaining JFK documents. But – absent a gutsy whistleblower – I wouldn't be surprised to see in April, a Washington Post banner headline much like the one that appeared Saturday: "JFK files: The promise of revelations derailed by CIA, FBI." ..."
"... Journalist Caitlin Johnstone hits the nail on the head in pointing out that the biggest revelation from last week's limited release of the JFK files is "the fact that the FBI and CIA still desperately need to keep secrets about something that happened 54 years ago." ..."
"... That the CIA and FBI are still choosing what we should be allowed to see concerning who murdered John Kennedy may seem unusual, but there is hoary precedent for it. After JFK's assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, the well-connected Allen Dulles, whom Kennedy had fired as CIA director after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, got himself appointed to the Warren Commission and took the lead in shaping the investigation of JFK's murder. ..."
"... And so, the big question remains: Did Allen Dulles and other "cloak-and-dagger" CIA operatives have a hand in John Kennedy's assassination and subsequent cover-up? In my view and the view of many more knowledgeable investigators, the best dissection of the evidence on the murder appears in James Douglass's 2008 book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. ..."
"... But Kennedy stuck to his guns, so to speak. A few months after the abortive invasion of Cuba -- and his refusal to send the U.S. military to the rescue -- Kennedy fired Dulles and his co-conspirators and told a friend that he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds." Clearly, the outrage was mutual. ..."
"... When JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters ..."
"... Could fear of the Deep State be largely why President Obama felt he had to leave the Cheney/Bush-anointed CIA torturers, kidnappers and black-prison wardens in place, instructing his first CIA chief, Leon Panetta, to become, in effect, the agency's lawyer rather than take charge? Is this why Obama felt he could not fire his clumsily devious Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who had to apologize to Congress for giving "clearly erroneous" testimony under oath in March 2013? Does Obama's fear account for his allowing then-National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander and counterparts in the FBI to continue to mislead the American people, even though the documents released by Edward Snowden showed them – as well as Clapper – to be lying about the government's surveillance activities? ..."
"... Is this why Obama fought tooth and nail to protect CIA Director John Brennan by trying to thwart publication of the comprehensive Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of CIA torture, which was based on original Agency cables, emails, and headquarters memos? [See here and here .] ..."
"... Schumer said : "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." ..."
"... Three days after that interview, President Obama's intelligence chiefs released a nearly evidence-free "assessment" claiming that the Kremlin engaged in a covert operation to put Trump into office, fueling a "scandal" that has hobbled Trump's presidency. On Monday, Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller indicted Trump's one-time campaign manager Paul Manafort on unrelated money laundering, tax and foreign lobbying charges, apparently in the hope that Manafort will provide incriminating evidence against Trump. ..."
"... So, President Trump has been in office long enough to have learned how the game is played and the "six ways from Sunday" that the intelligence community has for "getting back at you." He appears to be as intimidated as was President Obama. ..."
"... Trump's awkward acquiescence in the Deep State's last-minute foot-dragging regarding release of the JFK files is simply the most recent sign that he, too, is under the thumb of what the Soviets used to call "the organs of state security." ..."
"... President's Daily Brief ..."
"... The Truman piece – "Limit CIA Role to Intelligence" – can be found at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/LimitCIARoleToIntelligenceByHarrySTruman ..."
"... Finally, a pretty clear statement, or clearly stated hypothesis, that ties together the JFK assassination, Truman's Op-ed, and more recent symptoms of the CIA's intimidation of elected officials. And a big thank-you to McGovern for highlighting JFK and the Unspeakable: if you read one book about the years leading up to Dallas and then the years following, this is the book to read. Including all of the notes. ..."
"... Here is another very revealing book -- put it together with the JFK and the Unspeakable, and you pretty much have the complete picture: "I Heard You Paint Houses," by Frank Sheeran. Mainly about Jimmy Hoffa and his relationship with the Mob, but also about a lot more -- including Dallas, in a kind of Rosenkrantz and Guildernstern way. ..."
"... Another great contribution from Mr. McGovern explaining the significance of the Kennedy document hold-up and the reality of power in the Yankee imperium which was the US republic up until the spymasters took over real power. ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
Exclusive: Fifty-four years after President Kennedy's assassination, the CIA and FBI demanded more time to decide what secrets to keep hiding – and a chastened President Trump bowed to their power, observes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

It was summer 1963 when a senior official of CIA's operations directorate treated our Junior Officer Trainee (JOT) class to an unbridled rant against President John F. Kennedy. He accused JFK, among other things, of rank cowardice in refusing to send U.S. armed forces to bail out Cuban rebels pinned down during the CIA-launched invasion at the Bay of Pigs, blowing the chance to drive Cuba's Communist leader Fidel Castro from power.

It seemed beyond odd that a CIA official would voice such scathing criticism of a sitting President at a training course for those selected to be CIA's future leaders. I remember thinking to myself, "This guy is unhinged; he would kill Kennedy, given the chance."

Our special guest lecturer looked a lot like E. Howard Hunt, but more than a half-century later, I cannot be sure it was he. Our notes from such training/indoctrination were classified and kept under lock and key.

At the end of our JOT orientation, we budding Agency leaders had to make a basic choice between joining the directorate for substantive analysis or the operations directorate where case officers run spies and organize regime changes (in those days, we just called the process overthrowing governments).

I chose the analysis directorate and, once ensconced in the brand new headquarters building in Langley, Virginia, I found it strange that subway-style turnstiles prevented analysts from going to the "operations side of the house," and vice versa. Truth be told, we were never one happy family.

I cannot speak for my fellow analysts in the early 1960s, but it never entered my mind that operatives on the other side of the turnstiles might be capable of assassinating a President – the very President whose challenge to do something for our country had brought many of us to Washington in the first place. But, barring the emergence of a courageous whistleblower-patriot like Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden, I do not expect to live long enough to learn precisely who orchestrated and carried out the assassination of JFK.

And yet, in a sense, those particulars seem less important than two main lessons learned: (1) If a President can face down intense domestic pressure from the power elite and turn toward peace with perceived foreign enemies, then anything is possible. The darkness of Kennedy's murder should not obscure the light of that basic truth; and (2) There is ample evidence pointing to a state execution of a President willing to take huge risks for peace. While no post-Kennedy president can ignore that harsh reality, it remains possible that a future President with the vision and courage of JFK might beat the odds – particularly as the American Empire disintegrates and domestic discontent grows.

I do hope to be around next April after the 180-day extension for release of the remaining JFK documents. But – absent a gutsy whistleblower – I wouldn't be surprised to see in April, a Washington Post banner headline much like the one that appeared Saturday: "JFK files: The promise of revelations derailed by CIA, FBI."

The New Delay Is the Story

You might have thought that almost 54 years after Kennedy was murdered in the streets of Dallas – and after knowing for a quarter century the supposedly final deadline for releasing the JFK files – the CIA and FBI would not have needed a six-month extension to decide what secrets that they still must hide.

Journalist Caitlin Johnstone hits the nail on the head in pointing out that the biggest revelation from last week's limited release of the JFK files is "the fact that the FBI and CIA still desperately need to keep secrets about something that happened 54 years ago."

What was released on Oct. 26, was a tiny fraction of what had remained undisclosed in the National Archives. To find out why, one needs to have some appreciation of a 70-year-old American political tradition that might be called "fear of the spooks."

That the CIA and FBI are still choosing what we should be allowed to see concerning who murdered John Kennedy may seem unusual, but there is hoary precedent for it. After JFK's assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, the well-connected Allen Dulles, whom Kennedy had fired as CIA director after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, got himself appointed to the Warren Commission and took the lead in shaping the investigation of JFK's murder.

By becoming de facto head of the Commission, Dulles was perfectly placed to protect himself and his associates, if any commissioners or investigators were tempted to question whether Dulles and the CIA played any role in killing Kennedy. When a few independent-minded journalists did succumb to that temptation, they were immediately branded – you guessed it – "conspiracy theorists."

And so, the big question remains: Did Allen Dulles and other "cloak-and-dagger" CIA operatives have a hand in John Kennedy's assassination and subsequent cover-up? In my view and the view of many more knowledgeable investigators, the best dissection of the evidence on the murder appears in James Douglass's 2008 book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.

After updating and arraying the abundant evidence, and conducting still more interviews, Douglass concludes that the answer to the big question is Yes. Reading Douglass's book today may help explain why so many records are still withheld from release, even in redacted form, and why, indeed, we may never see them in their entirety.

Truman: CIA a Frankenstein?

When Kennedy was assassinated, it must have occurred to former President Harry Truman, as it did to many others, that the disgraced Allen Dulles and his associates might have conspired to get rid of a President they felt was soft on Communism – and dismissive of the Deep State of that time. Not to mention their vengeful desire to retaliate for Kennedy's response to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. (Firing Allen Dulles and other CIA paragons of the Deep State for that fiasco simply was not done.)

Exactly one month after John Kennedy was killed, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Harry Truman titled "Limit CIA Role to Intelligence." The first sentence read, "I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency."

Strangely, the op-ed appeared only in the Post's early edition on Dec. 22, 1963. It was excised from that day's later editions and, despite being authored by the President who was responsible for setting up the CIA in 1947, the all-too-relevant op-ed was ignored in all other major media.

Truman clearly believed that the spy agency had lurched off in what Truman thought were troubling directions. He began his op-ed by underscoring "the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency and what I expected it to do." It would be "charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without Department 'treatment' or interpretations."

Truman then moved quickly to one of the main things clearly bothering him. He wrote "the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions."

It was not difficult to see this as a reference to how one of the agency's early directors, Allen Dulles, tried to trick President Kennedy into sending U.S. forces to rescue the group of invaders who had landed on the beach at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961 with no chance of success, absent the speedy commitment of U.S. air and ground support. The planned mouse-trapping of the then-novice President Kennedy had been underpinned by a rosy "analysis" showing how this pin-prick on the beach would lead to a popular uprising against Fidel Castro.

Wallowing in the Bay of Pigs

Arch-Establishment figure Allen Dulles was offended when young President Kennedy, on entering office, had the temerity to question the CIA's Bay of Pigs plans, which had been set in motion under President Dwight Eisenhower. When Kennedy made it clear he would not approve the use of U.S. combat forces, Dulles set out, with supreme confidence, to give the President no choice except to send U.S. troops to the rescue.

Coffee-stained notes handwritten by Allen Dulles were discovered after his death and reported by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke. In his notes, Dulles explained that, "when the chips were down," Kennedy would be forced by "the realities of the situation" to give whatever military support was necessary "rather than permit the enterprise to fail."

The "enterprise" which Dulles said could not fail was, of course, the overthrow of Fidel Castro. After mounting several failed operations to assassinate Castro, this time Dulles meant to get his man, with little or no attention to how Castro's patrons in Moscow might react eventually. (The next year, the Soviets agreed to install nuclear missiles in Cuba as a deterrent to future U.S. aggression, leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis).

In 1961, the reckless Joint Chiefs of Staff, whom then-Deputy Secretary of State George Ball later described as a "sewer of deceit," relished any chance to confront the Soviet Union and give it, at least, a black eye. (One can still smell the odor from that sewer in many of the documents released last week.)

But Kennedy stuck to his guns, so to speak. A few months after the abortive invasion of Cuba -- and his refusal to send the U.S. military to the rescue -- Kennedy fired Dulles and his co-conspirators and told a friend that he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds." Clearly, the outrage was mutual.

When JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters came out, the mainstream media had an allergic reaction and gave it almost no reviews. It is a safe bet, though, that Barack Obama was given a copy and that this might account in some degree for his continual deference – timorousness even – toward the CIA

Could fear of the Deep State be largely why President Obama felt he had to leave the Cheney/Bush-anointed CIA torturers, kidnappers and black-prison wardens in place, instructing his first CIA chief, Leon Panetta, to become, in effect, the agency's lawyer rather than take charge? Is this why Obama felt he could not fire his clumsily devious Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who had to apologize to Congress for giving "clearly erroneous" testimony under oath in March 2013? Does Obama's fear account for his allowing then-National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander and counterparts in the FBI to continue to mislead the American people, even though the documents released by Edward Snowden showed them – as well as Clapper – to be lying about the government's surveillance activities?

Is this why Obama fought tooth and nail to protect CIA Director John Brennan by trying to thwart publication of the comprehensive Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of CIA torture, which was based on original Agency cables, emails, and headquarters memos? [See here and here .]

The Deep State Today

Many Americans cling to a comforting conviction that the Deep State is a fiction, at least in a "democracy" like the United States. References to the enduring powers of the security agencies and other key bureaucracies have been essentially banned by the mainstream media, which many other suspicious Americans have come to see as just one more appendage of the Deep State.

But occasionally the reality of how power works pokes through in some unguarded remark by a Washington insider, someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, the Senate Minority Leader with 36 years of experience in Congress. As Senate Minority Leader, he also is an ex officio member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is supposed to oversee the intelligence agencies.

During a Jan. 3, 2017 interview with MSNBC'S Rachel Maddow, Schumer told Maddow nonchalantly about the dangers awaiting President-elect Donald Trump if he kept on "taking on the intelligence community." She and Schumer were discussing Trump's sharp tweeting regarding U.S. intelligence and evidence of "Russian hacking" (which both Schumer and Maddow treat as flat fact).

Schumer said : "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this."

Three days after that interview, President Obama's intelligence chiefs released a nearly evidence-free "assessment" claiming that the Kremlin engaged in a covert operation to put Trump into office, fueling a "scandal" that has hobbled Trump's presidency. On Monday, Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller indicted Trump's one-time campaign manager Paul Manafort on unrelated money laundering, tax and foreign lobbying charges, apparently in the hope that Manafort will provide incriminating evidence against Trump.

So, President Trump has been in office long enough to have learned how the game is played and the "six ways from Sunday" that the intelligence community has for "getting back at you." He appears to be as intimidated as was President Obama.

Trump's awkward acquiescence in the Deep State's last-minute foot-dragging regarding release of the JFK files is simply the most recent sign that he, too, is under the thumb of what the Soviets used to call "the organs of state security."

Ray McGovern works with the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career at CIA, he prepared the President's Daily Brief for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and conducted the one-on-one morning briefings from 1981 to 1985. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Zachary Smith , October 30, 2017 at 3:09 pm

The Truman piece – "Limit CIA Role to Intelligence" – can be found at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/LimitCIARoleToIntelligenceByHarrySTruman

Unusual for that site, the only way I could download it was by the JPG format, and even then I had to do one page at a time.

Litchfield , October 30, 2017 at 3:40 pm

You really missed the point, Steve!
My own take:

Finally, a pretty clear statement, or clearly stated hypothesis, that ties together the JFK assassination, Truman's Op-ed, and more recent symptoms of the CIA's intimidation of elected officials. And a big thank-you to McGovern for highlighting JFK and the Unspeakable: if you read one book about the years leading up to Dallas and then the years following, this is the book to read. Including all of the notes.

Here is another very revealing book -- put it together with the JFK and the Unspeakable, and you pretty much have the complete picture: "I Heard You Paint Houses," by Frank Sheeran. Mainly about Jimmy Hoffa and his relationship with the Mob, but also about a lot more -- including Dallas, in a kind of Rosenkrantz and Guildernstern way.

exiled off mainstreet , October 30, 2017 at 11:38 am

Another great contribution from Mr. McGovern explaining the significance of the Kennedy document hold-up and the reality of power in the Yankee imperium which was the US republic up until the spymasters took over real power.

Sam F , October 30, 2017 at 12:51 pm

Yes, an excellent article. It is very odd that any documents need be withheld after 54 years to protect anyone then involved.

It seems unlikely that a president could be "intimidated" by secret agencies, when he can easily put out the word on any rogues by many means, and purge them by any or all of numerous agencies. More likely he is surrounded by and "under the thumb" of "advisors" and "experts" controlled by the 2000-strong NSC and has no understanding of how to seek or set up alternative sources.

But then perhaps I assume that anyone in high office would have the principles and courage to resist personal threats: that may simply be untrue.

Rafe Garcia , October 30, 2017 at 11:48 am

Excellent!

Chris Chuba , October 30, 2017 at 11:59 am

That was then, now we have much more stable people in our ranks such as Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and Gen. Breedlove.

There are obviously no national security issues after 50yrs+. The CIA just wants to hide their buffoonery and incompetence from the public but would rather like to do their favorite trick of selective leaks as in the Oswald visit of a KGB guy in Mexico. They will leave out the part where it was incidental but that creates a nice little insinuation that the Russians were behind it without having to actually say so.

Anna , October 30, 2017 at 11:59 am

The US – by the bankers for the bankers: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/10/harper-a-banker-from-hsbc-going-to-jail.html
"In a novel civil case in Federal court in Texas, HSBC has been sued by the families of American government officials brutally killed by the Mexican drug cartels, charging that the bank was complicit in the murders under US anti-terrorism laws, because they laundered the money used to pay the assassins. Evidence presented in Court in that case shows a depth of collusion between the bank and the cartels that is mind blowing. The attorney for the plaintiffs in that case is a former Federal Prosecutor, Richard Elias, who quit the DOJ after he found evidence of massive and willful fraud by Citibank mortgage bankers only to see his higher-ups in Washington cut a deferred prosecution and civil fine deal under the Holder Rule.

Not surprisingly, the US mainstream media (MSM) has barely covered the Johnson case. Not one major newspaper gave it frontpage coverage. Bloomberg New's legal team did report on the court ruling–and on the panic is has caused in board rooms and trading desks at the big Wall Street and London banks.

While it is too soon to say that the Johnson conviction opens a new era in which bankers at big TBTF institutions are going to be held accountable for their criminal actions–usually targeted against their own customers–the case is a hopeful sign that the playing field is getting a little more level."
Put the boards of directors of HSBC to prison for 30 years, with total confiscation of their assets to pay for the lost lifes and low-enforcement efforts. They all are mega-thieves.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/hsbc-exposed-us-finacial-system-to-money-laundering-drug-terrorist-financing-risks
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-usa-crime/u-s-jury-finds-ex-hsbc-executive-guilty-of-fraud-in-3-5-billion-currency-trade-idUSKBN1CS295
http://fortune.com/2017/08/22/hsbc-currency-scheme-may-have-involved-11-other-bank-employees/

Jonathan , October 30, 2017 at 12:12 pm

An interesting and informative article. Thank you Ray as usual.
Depressing and chronic absence of truth and transparency from all branches of government leads to an unhappy and destabilized society.
The one thing Trump had going for him (in my opinion) was that that he was not a politician. There might still be some mileage in this thought and Ray could be mistaken in his conclusion. J. Hornberger has an interesting take on this:
https://www.fff.org/2017/10/27/jfk-cover-continues/

Andrew , October 30, 2017 at 12:37 pm

Trump has proven himself dumb enough to say the right things for wrong reason.

Anna , October 30, 2017 at 1:20 pm

Where are Podesta brothers? Why there is no indictment of these two operatives? – http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-30/paul-manafort-asked-surrender-fbi
Where is Awan-Wasserman affair, the most serious violation of the US cybersecurity?
Why there is a dead silence about investigation of Seth Rich death?

The deciders are exposed and they still are in disbelief that their stupid nakedness is on display.
Like a rotten fabric, everything is falling apart.

john wilson , October 30, 2017 at 12:42 pm

Hi Jonathan: I read the Homberger piece and it was interesting. What I can never understand with all these sensitive documents, why do they archive them when presumably they could just shred them? I bet there won't be any 9-11 documents to read in fifty years time!!

Litchfield , October 30, 2017 at 4:07 pm

Me, too, same question.
In the movies the incriminating letter etc. is burned in the fireplace, and the audience watches helplessly as the only piece of evidence goes up in smoke . . .
Ditto with the "real" will.
people destroy incriminating documents.
Why would the CIA or anyone even keep anything incriminating?

And why is the CIA the agency that has control of these documents in the first place?
Why not the Pentagon, or the Library of Congress, or some agency that specializes in maintaining archives? I mean, where are the CIA-held docs? IN someone's file cabinet? In a drawer? In the school supply closet? I would really like to get a clear picture of the physical reality and location of the documents.

Bob Van Noy , October 30, 2017 at 1:42 pm

Jonathan, excellent link that adds to the dialogue and seems to me to be well thought out and accurate as opposed to disinformation. I hope that Jacob G. Hornberger is correct in his assumptions

Karl Sanchez , October 30, 2017 at 12:21 pm

The handling of Truman's op/ed is telling. For a guy who was supposedly a very good analyst, McGovern's inability to discern the who, what and why of JFK's assassination shows his limitations. And his nonchalance attitude regarding the fact that he knew of the CIA's criminal activities at the outset of his career with it still render him an untrustworthy messenger for me. Too bad McGovern didn't point his readers to this excellent find by Tyler Durden regarding the bullet hole in JFK's limo's windshield, and existence of the DVD documentation and why it differs from what you're allowed to see on YouTube, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48105.htm

The entire 1947 National Security Act is unconstitutional as it creates an unaccountable power center capable of controlling the national government through its criminal aspects, which were already ongoing prior to its inception. Both Truman and Eisenhower created criminal organizations, only to warn the populous about them when it was far too late–Truman opened the door, but Ike filled the Hall and ushered in the Military Industrial Congressional Complex that includes the CIA

BobH , October 30, 2017 at 1:26 pm

Karl Sanchez, he already stated that the operations sector was separated by "turnstiles" and the operative sector was obviously not trusting of their analyst colleagues. There was no "inability to discern" as his suspicions are based on observations and logic and he was not privy to absolute proof of his suspicions.

Bob Van Noy , October 30, 2017 at 1:48 pm

I agree BobH, and I suspect Karl Sanchez, that the CIA remains divided to this day and garding the past has become an existential pursuit

Brad Owen , October 30, 2017 at 2:13 pm

This Nat'l Security System is extremely compartmentalized on a "need to know" basis that is very much abused. There are sometimes-competing/sometimes-cooperating agendas pursued under "Above Top Secret" cover.

TN , October 30, 2017 at 12:27 pm

Will Trump be releasing all the files now? See: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/924382514613030912

Stephen J. , October 30, 2017 at 12:27 pm

I believe Trump is learning that he cannot oppose: "The Imposition of a New World Order." That has been helped by puppet politicians. hence he MUST get with the program, or else. Therefore the question must be asked: "Is There An Open Conspiracy to Control the World'?
[More info on this at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2014/12/is-there-open-conspiracy-to-control.html

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:11 pm

You actually think Trump really wanted to release documents?

BobH , October 30, 2017 at 12:33 pm

Ray McGovern makes a cogent argument for why the documents regarding JFK's assassination are redacted.

BobH , October 30, 2017 at 1:32 pm

I suspect that Truman wasn't the only ex-president to have misgivings about the Deep State. Eisenhower's famous farewell address contained the ominous warning"beware of the military-industrial complex". Regrets or ambivalence about authorizing the Bay of Pigs?

Joe Tedesky , October 30, 2017 at 3:31 pm

You make an excellent point Bob. There have been many times when I considered to if Eisenhower would have delivered that MIC speech any sooner than 1/17/61, that any earlier attempt to expose the truth about the rising concern of the MIC would have earned Ike a bullet for his disclosure.

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:12 pm

Truman called America: The American Gestapo. You can search it. He knew but he was part of the whole thing. He got elected due to his connections with the mob.

SocraticGadfly , October 30, 2017 at 12:51 pm

(Sigh) is the kindest thing I have to say about this piece, because of its conspiracy theorizing.

Joe Tedesky , October 30, 2017 at 3:32 pm

With all due respect, how do you feel about the Warren Report?

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Warren didn't even want to be involved. He was told to head the Commission for if not, people would blame Russia and a war would have broken out. Warren was, along with Dulles and Ford, involved in coverup

annot , October 30, 2017 at 12:54 pm

Let us not be fooll America is Nothing less than the New Nazi Empire. It gave shelter to many fortunated Hitler's associates and scientists like Von Braun. The most Dangerous state on planet Earth are the USA. Nobody else ! So Beware !

Joe Tedesky , October 30, 2017 at 3:45 pm

Let us not forget the Gehlan Organization and Operation Paper Clip. Also should we include the Vatican under the leadership of Pope Pius XII? You may already know this, but David Talbot does talk about Allen Dulles with his desire to recruit these 'on the lamb' Nazi's, because he thought that by his hiring these ex-Hitler spy's that in and of it self would be enough of a bonus for the U.S. to fighting Stalin's KGB. While Dulles reasoning made some kind of strategic sense, his trade off of our nation's ethnics was deplorable. Just think to back then, and then zoom forward here too today, and here once again the U.S. is sponsoring Nazi's in the Ukraine. Somethings just never change.

Talbot's book is: "The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government"

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:14 pm

For more on Ghelen and Operation Paperclip and more: got to Dave Emory's site. He is the best Nazi hunter alive.

mike k , October 30, 2017 at 1:01 pm

The above critics of Ray McGovern's right on essay add little to the discussion beyond their own intentions to cloud the issue with vague complaints.

evelync , October 30, 2017 at 1:07 pm

If the CIA was set up by Truman to provide him straight honest intelligence.
Who were the operators on the "action" side like Hunt working for?

Bob Van Noy , October 30, 2017 at 1:56 pm

evelync, in large part they were disaffected Batista Cubans who for business or personal reasons wanted to recover their past in Cuba.
They opposed anybody who might have prevented them from doing that. The more important question is: Who specifically was directing them and Hunt

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:15 pm

Actually, Batista was opposed during the 50's by the CIA They wanted Prio. However, he was reinstated by the CIA when Prio turned out to not be what they were looking for.

Litchfield , October 30, 2017 at 4:17 pm

"who for business or personal reasons wanted to recover their past in Cuba."

Who lost the most in Cuba?
The Mob.
The Mob totally controlled Cuba and made vast amounts of $$$ there, not only on gambling, but on every activity that took place in Batista's Cuba. Just like they took a cut of just about every "legitimate" business in the US of A. Very big in the Mob's Cuba interests was Meyer Lansky. To get an inside look read "I Hear You Paint Houses," by Frank Sheeran. There have long been speculations as to the role of the Mob in the JFK assassination. Dallas was sort of like "Murder on the Orient Express": a lot of entities had strong motivation to eliminate Kennedy. Israel/Ben Gurion was one (Kennedy refused to give them nukes and was getting on their case).The Mob was another. Lansky -- a very big supporter of Israel -- could well have been the connector between the mob and the CIA These entities divvied up the roles, like any good team players. Masterminded by the CIA, but the Mob also played a part. Someone like Sheeran is interesting because on hind sight he realizes what his little role was. Very likely most of the people who were coordinated to carry off the crime were similarly clueless -- including Oswald.

Stephen J. , October 30, 2017 at 1:12 pm

Is this what happens when gangsters are in control?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
January 5, 2017
When Gangsters Are In Control

When gangsters are in control, endless wars slaughter millions of souls
And countries are destroyed by the hit men of the gangster ghouls
The unethical money changers finance their dirty depredations
And corporate cannibals profit from the bloody confrontations

Government by gangsters is now "the rule of law"
And "justice" is in the hands of criminals and outlaws
The language is twisted and debased
To suit these evil demons of the "human race"

Fancy titles and Houses of ill repute
Is where these villains consort and debut
Making "laws" to screw the masses
Yet, people continue to vote for these asses

If there really was "law and order"
These gangsters would be charged with genocide and murder
Instead these war criminals parade on the world stage
When they should be in a big enormous prison cage

They sell arms and weapons to bloody head choppers
They don't know the meaning of improper
Grovelling and saluting financiers of terrorism
They are in bed with the dictators of barbarism

Such is the sick state of the world today
And much, more could be said, of the gangsters' way
Evidence abounds of these criminals roles
That's why we know gangsters are in control

[more info at link below]

http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/01/when-gangsters-are-in-control.html

Anna , October 30, 2017 at 1:34 pm

" gangsters are in control.."
True.
This is why the ignorant and incompetent cowards have infested the US government through and through. And then their progeny is surprised that the thievery is rampant, nothing works, and everything falls apart.

mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:59 pm

Bravo! I love your poems Stephen – it's the high voltage truth content that gets me.

Pancho Villegas , October 30, 2017 at 1:36 pm

Say amen somebody

mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:59 pm

Amen.

Randal Marlin , October 30, 2017 at 1:40 pm

When I graduated from university in 1959 and was contemplating different career choices, my father steered me away from the CIA He had worked for the OSS, forerunner of the CIA, in Ireland during WWII. Without getting into details, he indicated that the CIA had changed from what the OSS had been, and he hinted that joining it would likely entail serious moral compromises. But he had a hard time believing the Watergate revelations, and he accepted the Warren Commission findings. Ray McGovern makes clear how very serious those moral compromises would have been.

Rob Pates , October 30, 2017 at 1:40 pm

Ray McGovern's columns are always worth reading and especially interesting. He raises an interesting point about what it might take to be the US President, and to pursue responsible, sane policies. To be "fit" in this regard it is necessary to be able to stand up to "deep state" power brokers like the CIA and the military -- a tall order indeed.

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:16 pm

The US presidents have little if any power. They are figureheads designed to make you believe that they are in control. They are not

thinbluemime , October 30, 2017 at 1:45 pm

JFK – WHY HE DIED

*A) Jim Garrison: I never realized Kennedy was so dangerous to the establishment. Is that why?

X: Well that's the real question, isn't it? Why? The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, the Mafia. Keeps 'em guessing like some kind of parlor game, prevents 'em from asking the most important question, why?

*A) Why was Kennedy killed?

*B) Who benefited?

*C) Who has the power to cover it up?

///

*A) Mr. President, my people have the right to exist, both in Israel and wherever they may live, and this existence is in danger.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cohen-israel.html
http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/israel/documents/exchange/index.html

*B) Once the trauma of Kennedy's assassination in November 1963 began to wear off and Johnson settled in as president, the relationship between the U.S. and Israel quickly soared to new heights. In The Bomb in the Basement, his history of Israel's procurement of nuclear weapons, Israeli author Michael Karpin writes that "as soon as [Johnson] entered the White House the pressure on Israel on the [nuclear] issue ceased."
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/front-page/who-was-the-first-genuinely-pro-israel-u-s-president/2017/08/30/

*C) James Jesus Angleton
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/ktEhcqIWzqg/4IShJ44dBAAJ
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1987/12/05/the-secret-ceremony/d8d30dab-fe95-4ba0-b52f-c50a04795b77/?utm_term=.33f4e918341b

Joe Tedesky , October 30, 2017 at 4:15 pm

I can't help it, but when ever Israel's name comes up in regard to the JFK assassination I automatically think of Meyer Lansky. It is a well known fact among us who believe that John Kennedy was taken out with help from the Mob, that Lansky who's name never gets mentioned in the assassination cast of characters, could have at least had a great deal of detailed knowledge of the inner actions of the plot. So, I surmise that possibly Lansky who had loss a great deal to Castro with Cuba, and Meyer being a good friend, if not one himself, briefed the Zionist, and would have at least shared the inside coup knowledge with the Israeli government, or at least parts of the Israeli government, to give the Israeli's the back mail ammunition they would need to hold over LBJ's head. Stop for a moment, and consider what you would rather prefer, killing the president, or knowing who did what? I also wonder to if this, among a few other things that went down between LBJ and Israel, if this could have been the real reason the Attack on the USS Liberty had been the silencing dictate of why the USS Liberty crew was made to submit to a gag order, and thus the Liberty Crew was forced to sit on the shelf with the JFK conspiracy fan club?

America will never be that wonderful people orientated government we all wish it to be, until American's are made aware of what all this government of ours has done through out all these years. The saying goes, 'and the truth will set you free', and with that we Americans are doomed to a few life times of confinement. Here again, even if you never liked John F Kennedy, what should get under your skin and unnerve you, is how badly you have been lied to about a sitting presidents awful death. We Americans like to put ourselves above the Third World Dictatorships, well consider this, we Americans do the same thing as what we despise but only we insist on doing it bigger, as this is the American Way.

Litchfield , October 30, 2017 at 4:21 pm

I agree, re Lansky.
He has remained under the radar all these years, but is an obvious "dot" that connects other "dots."

See mine, above.

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:22 pm

Lansky was the head of the National Crime Syndicate. The mafia reported to Lansky.

Yes, certainly he lost a great deal when Havana went to Castro and Castro threw the mobsters out. Castro was smart. Lansky supported Castro with guns and weapons, this also was the role of Ruby. ruby ran weapons for Lansky and Trafficante.

Read the book by Messick, it is called 'Lansky'. Messick killed the deal with Israel which is why Lansky was never given asylum.

Also, Lansky branched out in the Carribean once Cuba was taken from the National Crime Syndicate. He was involved with Dewey in starting the Mary Carter Paint Company. Yes, a paint company with 100 locations. It was a front for the CIA The company changed its name once the Bahamas was captured by the mob. They changed it to Resorts International.

In 1987, Trump bought Resorts International. There is a Playboy article which I cannot find that goes into this, 1967 I think it was written. Resorts International has sued everybody over their connections with the mob.

jaycee , October 30, 2017 at 2:01 pm

Oswald travelled to the Soviet Union at a time when both the CIA and the military were running false defector programs to that country. Oswald's Naval Intelligence file was destroyed before any investigator could look at it. Later, Oswald popped up in New Orleans to create a one-man Fair Play for Cuba outfit at a time when both the FBI and CIA had active programs to disrupt that organization. The CIA's David Phillips was running its FPCC disruption campaign, and he was deeply connected with the CIA's Mexico City office which was central to the oddly incomplete picture of Oswald's alleged visit to that city just weeks before the assassination. False stories connecting Oswald to Cuba were prevalent after the assassination, and the story-tellers all connected back to Phillips. Many of the still-sealed CIA documents involve persons connected to Mexico City and related Cuban operations.

This information doesn't "solve" the case, but it does highlight areas any honest investigation of the assassination would want to clarify. Powerful blocs within the government have worked assiduously to ensure such clarification would never happen, The mainstream media has done its part – for over five decades now – to brand anyone interested in clarification as mentally deficient. It has been left to citizens outside of the government and establishment structures to lobby, investigate, and clarify as best they can – a remarkable effort to date. The killers of JFK may not have been identified, but that the Emperor has no clothes is obvious.

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:24 pm

No, Oswald was never in Mexico. Read Peter Dale Scott's book: Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics.

Joe Tedesky , October 30, 2017 at 4:40 pm

After studying how Oswald conducted his self in New Orleans, as with his outrageously loud displays of activism for Communism, that his actions don't look anything like what a spy should have been doing to represent Russian convert interest. I seriously don't think a Russian handler at that time would have approved of Oswald's performance. I do believe that Oswald's defection to Russia was a U.S. Government undercover spy program, and I don't believe the Russians allowed themselves to get compromised with this silly defection program. So Oswald was brought back to his homeland with a new mission to perform, only this new mission's goal was not even to be known unto Oswald, and thus the presidential coup was in play. I mean for crying out loud even Bobby Kennedy didn't have the sense to see through the Operation Mongoose betrayal.

Bob , October 30, 2017 at 2:23 pm

The stench of america can be detected all over the planet

Josh Stern , October 30, 2017 at 2:26 pm

FBI files on MLK's assassination from 1967 are also still secret/classified. William Pepper, the King family attny won a civil trial verdict that held the US govt. was likely responsible for MLK's murder. Pepper found witnesses saying the FBI had put the plot together. COINTELPRO hearings in the '70s revealed that the FBI had sent a 1963 letter to King demanding that he commit suicide. Yet the FBI handled "the case" and its files are still classified for national security

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:25 pm

Pepper is now researching the death of Robert Kennedy. Stay tuned.

MaDarby , October 30, 2017 at 2:42 pm

I urge again those who have not read the two outstanding books on the Dulles brothers to do so at the first opportunity. In it you see how the underlying power behind the US Empire manipulates presidents to do their bidding, Eisenhower was hardly an exception as the Dulles brothers lead him into slaughtering across the globe just as the CIA/NSA do today. Eisenhower was a general for cryin' out loud, an insider who know what was up and yet he allowed the Dulles brothers, on behalf of Imperial commercial interests, to slaughter by the millions.
The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War

The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government

One can hardly conclude other than Allan Dulles was involved and probably who ordered the assassination of JFK for disobedience in Cuba.

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:26 pm

Also read Steven Kinszrs book: The Brothers. Much to add to the story

Litchfield , October 30, 2017 at 4:28 pm

I have ordered from the library and will read.
And I urge others to read JFK and the Unspeakable.

John Cloakey , October 30, 2017 at 3:12 pm

Why "The Cuban Game," if Castro was CIA? Must prove to me he wasn't CIA!

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:27 pm

Castro was not CIA What he did was to charm the rancid criminals. He took money from the mob, who gave it to him willingly and then kicked them out of the country and closed all gambling casinos.

The US initially supported Castro. That is until they realized they had been had.

Zachary Smith , October 30, 2017 at 3:14 pm

Mr. McGovern speaks of Obama's "fear" of the CIA The bloggers I read have convinced me that it's highly likely BHO was a CIA recruit at a very early age, and that was what greased the skids for him at every stage of his career.

Now Trump probably actually is afraid, and for good reason.

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:27 pm

No he is not afraid. Why? He does what he is told

Litchfield , October 30, 2017 at 4:29 pm

I also think it is likely that BHO was a CIA asset from the get-go.
Like his mom.

Jessica K , October 30, 2017 at 4:01 pm

An excellent article again from Ray McGovern, and James W. Douglass' book is incredibly good. I can't help but think that, if the truth behind Kennedy's assassination really were to be revealed now, an explosion that may yet occur in this repressed society might happen because there is much anger among middle class and poor Americans that has been building up for years. Then again, maybe it would be spun away by the "Fourth Estate". In any case, the Deep State again sends a signal that it is firmly in control. The only way this will change is through revolution, as Chris Hedges believes, and advocating government overthrow has been criminalized by this criminal government.

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:28 pm

Many theorize the same. That if Americans only knew about JFK they would rebel. I think not. Americans care nothing about illegal murders. And so many youth do not even know who Kennedy was

Danny Weil , October 30, 2017 at 4:07 pm

Let us be honest. Trump never cared about JFK and he has nothing but contempt for the american people.

This supposed release of documents is a hoax. One could think Bannon was behind this for he picks a little from the left and cobbles it together for fascism. His goal is to create a new proto fascist party to compete with reactionary republicans.

This whole story about how Trump tried to release documents but could not due to the deep state smells like what it is: fraud.

But it does do the job it is supposed to: getting the average Joe or Mary to think that Donald is held captive by the deep state. Nothing could be more absurd. Trump is a representative of the deep state.

All this JFK malarky is and was designed to keep people from looking the failure of capitalism in the eye and allowing Bannon to seem he is progressive when in fact, he is a regressive.

We may not know who actually fired the sixteen or so shots. What we do know, and one can read The Devil's Chessboard by David Talbot, as well as research the issue, is that JFK was assassinated not by Oswald, who never fired a shot, but by members of the CIA, Anti-Castro Cubans, oil rich individuals in Texas and the mob.

Our country was enveloped in a coup. And now, look where we are. The deep state, three generals and the CIA, control, with the banks, everything.

The JFK issue by Trump was a scam to keep our minds on anything but the collapse of capitalism and the country.

Stephen J. , October 30, 2017 at 4:40 pm

I hate to say this, but I believe the American people, (as do the rest of us) live in a captured country or countries. We are spied upon, taxed to death, controlled, fed propaganda and Trillions are spent on wars. Our sons and daughters and grandchildren fight and die in these illegal wars, while corporate cannibals make massive bloodstained profits. Homeless people are everywhere, drugs are epidemic and some banks launder drug money. the Rule of "law" has become the rule of outlaws. Offshore tax havens hide the money of the plutocracy. i could go on and on with more examples of the depredations perpetrated upon ordinary people. Therefore, I ask:
Is This The "Democracy" of the Depraved? see link below for more info,

. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/10/is-this-democracy-of-depraved.html

Hide BehindhBehindhere have been wake up calls but they were ignored. , October 30, 2017 at 4:48 pm

There must be over 500k hits on net since these papers were released, that have same thing as this and sorry folks those of my age and were not wrapped in the same flag as this author are finding not a damn thing new.

Ever wonder where and how all the Kennedy b's was stored, wonder if as is normally done by intel, copies, micro film first then digital copies for posterity and all those who have had access to these and one he'll of a lot more interesting files?

Would first Bush of had any connections within US Intel community during his term?

Who are the hands on people that physicly handled the material; gathering up, how many months days before release to Trump ( for approval)?
And why is it not being screamed from even the Supremes holy halls that it is An illegal to with hold any portion, and not even the Presidency was to have sole access before all americans.

READ THE DAMN ACT THAT PLACED IT INTO SECRECY.!

If someone hasn't figured out that we live within a data controlled police State by now and the Internet has lots of paid government trolls whose only task is to confuse and control info that is , every branch of military has groups Congress passed funding for, going to be supported by those who cannot think outside of years of federal dependency.

Like Pavlovs dogs, slobbering atmouth tails wagging when bell rand, well the village bell ringers of today took the clippers out

[Oct 30, 2017] New York Times Acknowledges US Global Empire by Sheldon Richman

Notable quotes:
"... The UN has 193 member states -- and the U.S. government has a military presence in at least 89 percent of them! The Times ..."
"... Sheldon Richman , author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited , keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute. ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

One big advantage the war party has is the public's ignorance about the activities of the far-flung American empire. Athough frustrating, that ignorance is easy to understand and has been explained countless times by writers in the public choice tradition. Most people are too busy with their lives, families, and communities to pay the close attention required to know that the empire exists and what it is up to. The opportunity cost of paying attention is huge, considering that the payoff is so small: even a well-informed individual could not take decisive action to rein in the out-of-control national security state. One vote means nothing, and being knowledgeable about the U.S. government's nefarious foreign policy is more likely to alienate friends and other people than influence them. Why give up time with family and friends just so one can be accused of "hating America"?

In light of this systemic rational ignorance, we must be grateful when a prominent institution acknowledges how much the government intervenes around the world. Such an acknowledgment came from the New York Times editorial board this week. The editorial drips with irony since the Times has done so much to gin up public support for America's imperial wars. (See, for example, its 2001-02 coverage of Iraq and its phantom WMD.) Stlll, the piece is noteworthy.

The Oct. 22 editorial began:

The United States has been at war continuously since the attacks of 9/11 and now has just over 240,000 active-duty and reserve troops in at least 172 countries and territories.

That alone ought to come as a shock to nearly all Americans. The UN has 193 member states -- and the U.S. government has a military presence in at least 89 percent of them! The Times does not mention that the government also maintains at least 800 military bases and installations around the world. That's a big government we're talking about. And empires are bloody expensive.

Sheldon Richman , author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited , keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute.

[Oct 30, 2017] Nick Turse A Red Scare in the Gray Zone by Tom Engelhardt

Notable quotes:
"... Memo to Senator John McCain: ..."
Oct 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

Memo to Senator John McCain: Senator, the other day I noticed that, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, you threatened to subpoena the Trump administration for information about the recent attack in Niger that killed four American soldiers. "There's a mindset over there that they're a unicameral government," you said. "It was easier under Obama We are coequal branches of government; we should be informed at all times. We're just not getting the information in the timely fashion that we need."

How true! But let me make one small suggestion. If you really want to know what led to those deaths in Niger, the first place you might consider looking -- no subpoena needed -- is this very website, TomDispatch . Or, to be more specific, Nick Turse's coverage of the way U.S. Africa Command and American Special Operations forces have, with a certain stealth but also without significant coverage in the mainstream media, extended the war on terror deep into Africa. He alone has covered this story and the secret bases , widespread " training missions " (like the one in Niger), and barely noticed wars being fought there since at least 2012, when I was already writing this of his work:

"So here's another question: Who decided in 2007 that a U.S. Africa Command should be set up to begin a process of turning that continent into a web of U.S. bases and other operations? Who decided that every Islamist rebel group in Africa, no matter how local or locally focused, was a threat to the U.S., calling for a military response? Certainly not the American people, who know nothing about this, who were never asked if expanding the U.S. global military mission to Africa was something they favored, who never heard the slightest debate, or even a single peep from Washington on the subject."

By 2013, in a passage that sounds eerily up to date as we read of ISIS-allied militants on the lawless Niger-Mali border, he was already reporting that

"while correlation doesn't equal causation, there is ample evidence to suggest the United States has facilitated a terror diaspora, imperiling nations and endangering peoples across Africa. In the wake of 9/11, Pentagon officials were hard-pressed to show evidence of a major African terror threat. Today, the continent is thick with militant groups that are increasingly crossing borders, sowing insecurity, and throwing the limits of U.S. power into broad relief. After 10 years of U.S. operations to promote stability by military means, the results have been the opposite. Africa has become blowback central."

Four years later, when the Niger events occurred, nothing had changed, except that the U.S. military had moved, again with little attention (except from Turse), even deeper into the heart of Africa, setting up a remarkable array of bases and outposts of every sort (including two drone bases in Niger).

[Oct 30, 2017] Could Papadopoulos case be an entrapment ? This "Russian professor" looks exactly like the heroes of Nigerian spam letters

Entrapment is as old as civilization. "In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offence that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit. [1] It "is the conception and planning of an offence by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer." [2] "
Previously I thought that members of Hillary entourage were complete idiots both as for computer security and generally security wise. Now it looks like Trump entourage have has the same problem: many of they were idiots.
In "After Snowden" world anybody who wants to communicate with a unknown foreign person via Facebook of Twitter on issues of any political significance is an idiot. Because chances of hoax, provocation of in case of Trump team "false flag operation" are nearly 100%. This way you can implicate anybody in Russian ties: hire a hoaxer and ask him to pretend that he is Russian. To simp0lify the matter ask him to use Skype to communicate with the target. Send a couple of incriminating emails. Any of Nigerian spammers can be used for this purpose. They are already trained. Rinse and repeat.
So how we can be sure that this idiot Papadopoulos was not set up? BTW he ws born in 1987 -- so he just out of the college (graduated in 2009). What does he know about foreign policy?He never has been an ambassador to an important country, words in State Depertment, or servers as a senior fellow in some research institution which study those issues. (he was "unpaid intern" in Hudson institute" in 2011) What foreign policy advisor role for such a guy ? He looks like a huckster to me.
Of cause Kieren McCarth in her joy over the development is unable to contemplate this question.
Notable quotes:
"... Papadopoulos has been assisting Mueller's special inquiry for several months, but word of this cooperation only emerged today when his guilty plea to making false statements to the FBI was unsealed. ..."
"... he used Facebook Messenger and Skype to communicate with a Russian government agent, called "the Professor," who promised to provide damaging information on the Clinton campaign. Emails, no less. ..."
"... the Professor showed interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS only after learning of his role." ..."
"... And then there is extensive evidence -- confirmed by Papadopoulos -- that he acted as a go-between for the Trump campaign and the Russian government, including being supplied with damaging information on the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... There are also emails from other Trump campaign staff -- so far unnamed -- that show explicit efforts to work with Russians in gathering damaging information on the real-estate tycoon's political rival. In other words, efforts to engage a foreign power to swing a US presidential election. ..."
"... For one, using Facebook to carry out highly dubious and potentially illegal activity is not a good idea. This is a social network that periodically changes account settings to keep up the pretense that it's not gathering and selling every snippet of information it can get out of you. Anything you say on Facebook may go straight down a pipe to the NSA and a database searchable by the FBI. It's called Section 702 . ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.theregister.co.uk
Originally from: Manafort, Stone, Trump, Papadopoulos, Kushner, Mueller, Russia All the tech angles in one place • The Register By Kieren McCarthy

Former Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos -- no, not that one -- has been turned by ex-FBI director Robert Mueller as part of the latter's investigation into Trump campaign team members. Mueller is probing allegations of obstruction of justice, money laundering and other financial crimes, and collusion with Russian government agents seeking to meddle with last year's US presidential election.

Papadopoulos has been assisting Mueller's special inquiry for several months, but word of this cooperation only emerged today when his guilty plea to making false statements to the FBI was unsealed.

Coincidentally, Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort surrendered himself this morning to Mueller at his nearest FBI office, as requested, to answer allegations ranging from making false statements to acting as a foreign agent.

Ex-Trump campaign official Rick Gates, also accused of conspiracy and money laundering, handed himself in today, too. The indictment against the pair is here , and both deny any wrongdoing.

Among the wealth of details in Papadopoulos' 14-page statement [PDF] is the fact that he used Facebook Messenger and Skype to communicate with a Russian government agent, called "the Professor," who promised to provide damaging information on the Clinton campaign. Emails, no less.

"This isn't like he [the Professor]'s messaging me while I'm in April with Trump," Papadopoulos told the FBI. "I wasn't even on the Trump team." Except he was on the team in April 2016. The Feds noted in their court paperwork: "Defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor for the first time on or about March 14, 2016, after defendant PAPADOPOULOS had already learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the Campaign; the Professor showed interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS only after learning of his role."

And then there is extensive evidence -- confirmed by Papadopoulos -- that he acted as a go-between for the Trump campaign and the Russian government, including being supplied with damaging information on the Clinton campaign.

There are also emails from other Trump campaign staff -- so far unnamed -- that show explicit efforts to work with Russians in gathering damaging information on the real-estate tycoon's political rival. In other words, efforts to engage a foreign power to swing a US presidential election.

But let's take a quick look at Facebook.

For one, using Facebook to carry out highly dubious and potentially illegal activity is not a good idea. This is a social network that periodically changes account settings to keep up the pretense that it's not gathering and selling every snippet of information it can get out of you. Anything you say on Facebook may go straight down a pipe to the NSA and a database searchable by the FBI. It's called Section 702 .

Papadopoulos is obviously not a man well versed in spy craft. Something that becomes more apparent when it's revealed the day after he was pulled in for questioning, he deleted his entire Facebook account and started a new one. He also tried changing his phone number to sidestep the Feds.

You can just imagine Mueller's team at their morning meeting: so how did the Papadopoulos interview go yesterday? Well, this morning he deleted his Facebook account. Great, now we know where to look.
... ... ...

[Oct 30, 2017] The Crooks, the Clowns and the Nazis by Saker

Questionable analysis by Saker (omitted for brevity). Some good comments in the discussion. The situation with the standard of living in Ukraine is really bad and it is unclear how it can improve. If you get 4000 grivna monthly salary and pay for the apartment around 2000 (heating with gas at winter often is over 1000 grivna) you can barely survive on the remaining money (2000 grivna is around 66 grivna a day) . Even food is a problem, unless you adhere to basic diet of bread, milk, eggs and potatoes. You simply can't. They are in a trap. This war in Donbass just make the bad situation even worse. But it sill continue, because there are powerful forces interesting in escalation of this war.
Notable quotes:
"... Just because one thinks American moves are not "strategic" only means you don't fully grasp what is going on. Remember, the narrative which is being presented here is that the United States has caused both conflicts. A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots. ..."
"... Ask yourself a simple question: would Washington be better off with the status quo ante, would they be happy to go back to 2012? Of course they would – Crimea would be in Ukraine and in play, Russia would be subsidising Ukraine (not EU or IMF). But most importantly Russia would be sweating what 'might happen' with Crimea. Once West made its move and lost that threat was gone. It was just stupid. ..."
"... My take is that people there, based on a long experience, simply recognize that they are caught between two oligarchies, and unwilling to choose between them. That lethargy (for a lack of better word) is interesting. They don't buy US/West vision anymore. The thing is, they don't buy Russian either. They just don't care. Maybe that's worse than fighting for either side. ..."
"... The United States does not care about Poland or Estonia or Crimea or Ukraine or Syria or Georgia or even whether the other NATO members spend enough money. It cares about the bigger long-term picture. ..."
"... All this stuff like the coup in Ukraine, sanctions over Crimea – it's just probing moves, games. The US has Putin boxed in. He's got to scrape and claw over nothing. ..."
"... I guess it's kinda true in the sense that the US specifically (not necessarily the West as such, it seems) needs to have the uninterrupted chain of wars and cartoonish all-powerful super-evil adversaries threatening its very existence. I suppose it's needed for economic (mic) reasons, to maintain the internal unity/morale/discipline, and to run the usual protection racket abroad. Sorta like Oceania in Orwell's 1984. ..."
"... Russia is boxed in by its geography, and so is China. There is nothing new there. Enemies have been pressing on Russia's extensive borders forever. It is not likely that anyone would actually try to cross that border given this one reality: nuclear weapons. Unless the constant prodding has an answer to that reality, what is it all about? What's the point? ..."
"... Wars happen even if nobody 'wants' them. There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims ownership. And if there is a war, there will be fighting in Poland – it is literally ground zero (as so often before), and no amount of NY Times editorials will make any damn difference. The country is too small, so it would be annihilated. Poland is storing missiles and 'defensive' divisions for its allies across the Atlantic with an open admission that they are targeting Russia. What do you think would happen in a real crisis or a war? Do you think US would look kindly at Russian missiles in Canada or Mexico? That is the true madness, and Poland is kind of in a heart of it. As so often before. ..."
"... At the end, I suspect, when/if it comes to renewal of hostilities, it will be: First and foremost artillery exchanges. Nothing changes. Then, small unit raids. Nothing changes. Then, tactical incursions by Ukrainian best. After initial success they'll be met by Donbas best.Because either side don't have many of those nothing changes too. A lot of talk from Washington and Moscow. Some dead/mutilated mercenaries. And while those "games" go the rest of peoples there just keep what they've been doing so far. Oceania vs Eurasia .. ..."
"... The single best way to assure that there isn't a 'regime change' is by constant probing of Russia's borders, by constant attacks, etc So I don't buy that, the experts in Washington are not that stupid. They understand fully well that placing missiles, coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure that nothing changes in Moscow. ..."
"... The Ukraine situation will not be decided by fighting in Donbass, or in Moscow. It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa, Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses. Unless a miracle happens, or most people emigrate, this is not a sustainable situation. They are living worse than in 2013, and they already had it very bad in 2013. Marshall Plan isn't coming, membership in EU isn't coming either. Once that sinks in – it might take 5-10 years – things will change. ..."
"... That seems to be Russia's strategy. I agree that by far the best thing Moscow could do is to improve quality of life in Russia. Nato strategy is to delay it by any means: sanctions, energy, new arms race, whatever they can think off, lately mostly media campaigns. ..."
"... In Ukraine the EU-West infatuation will take a long time to dissipate. Getting hurt will eventually lead to making things better in the head , but it will take at least a generation. And things don't stay quiet for that long, other events will intervene. A circle cannot be squared: Kiev has attempted a great leap into its imagined future – Europe!!! – they bet everything on it, cut off all else, and there is no realistic way the leap will land Ukraine happily and soon enough in EU. EU will not agree to absorb 40 million poor people who mostly just want to live immediately like Germans, or move there. This is a mad dream, reality will intervene. ..."
"... I am sorry but I have to say this. How has led by Kissinger and Nixon strategy of opening China worked out? Is creating major geopolitical foe where there was none considered a sign of deep strategically long term thinking? ..."
"... The Ukrainian nationalists think that based on their accomplishments as a nation (there are none) they rightfully deserve to be geographically located somewhere between Germany and France. For this state of affairs they again blame the Russians. You see, because Russia is so big, and definitely in Eastern Europe, that they have the gravitational force that keeps Ukraine in Eastern Europe. If it wasn't for the Russians, Ukraine would have long ago catapulted into Western Europe – probably even geographically. It's only Russia that prevents them from acquiring their rightful place in the heart of Europe. ..."
"... In Ukrainians' defence, they have a bad location: wide-open, unprotected, with few geographic features and at the same time very high-quality earth. On second thought, if Ukraine, as is, was located in Western Europe 'somewhere between Germany and France' , I would be willing to bet that not a single Ukrainian would exist today. The Western Europeans know their genocide and know how to pacify populations. They almost got to them during WWII, Ukraine was the lebensraum that Nazis dreamt about. ..."
"... the assassination attempt on Mosiychuk [the former deputy commander of the infamous neo-Nazi Azov Battalio] is the initial phase of an escalation of the conflict between the Nazis and Jewish oligarchs headed by President Poroshenko, an escalation which is transitioning from a political to a "hot", or armed phase. ..."
"... Btw, Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen. Speaking about Holocaust deniers – is it kosher to support neo-Nazi and work on the resurrection of Nazism in Ukraine and to remain an honorable Israeli citizen? It seems that Kolomoysky is such case. Next time the Israel-firsters attempt to squeal about any critics of "Holocaust story" they should be presented with the story of Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky. ..."
"... Your usage of the imbecilic word 'regime' betrays bias. What the f k is a'regime'? Is EU a 'regime', or the Saudi king, or China? If not, why not? Stick with term government and use it for all and you won't sound like a bitter dead-ender unable to see things rationally. ..."
"... Decent article, although some generalizations which is understandable. Couple points about Poland. Yes its allied with neocons atm (the bad). The government has some forces somewhat supporting Ukraine (Basically as long as the blame is focused on Russia). The government knows there are "neonazi" elements, as has mentioned Ukraine will not join EU until they stop that. As for the people Poland is divided like crazy on the Ukraine issue. ..."
"... Pax Americana's wave broke and is now rolling back out to sea, creating undertows as it goes. ..."
"... The ramifications of that sea change will take years, maybe decades, to play themselves out, but my assessment is that there will be no active "roll back (of the) '90s" or that said roll back is desirable/possible. The Ukraine and Serbia/Kosovo will wind up having to fit themselves into whatever new paradigm the world will be living under at the time. That paradigm won't be American led, or of American design. ..."
"... I don't see much of a future for Ukraine. Neither the West nor Russia is willing to underwrite the massive investment that would be required to rebuild the economy. Sure it makes sense to split the country. However, both sides are more than willing to live with an impoverished buffer between NATO and Russia. If the country is split, there is no longer any territorial disputes and the new West Ukraine ultimately becomes a NATO member and NATO weapons move hundreds of miles closer to the Russian border. Not to mention the fact that Russia would find it expensive to subsidize the new government. Same with the EU. ..."
"... The Black Sea may be important to Russia's regional aspirations, but for the US, what could be better than have as many Russian naval vessels as possible parked there? ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Johnny Rico , October 26, 2017 at 2:16 pm GMT

Russian activity in Syria and Ukraine are moves of desperation from a position of weakness. The United States has Russia boxed in. The United States forced Putin to take these actions. He would be removed from power otherwise. He had no choice. He is not in control.

In Russia you are either strong and in total control or they murder you. At least that has been the case for the last thousand years.

There was no "huge effort not to intervene." If there was, I'd like to know who made it and when.

This is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Comparisons to American involvement in these two places have limited utility.

Just because one thinks American moves are not "strategic" only means you don't fully grasp what is going on. Remember, the narrative which is being presented here is that the United States has caused both conflicts. A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots.

The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and has Putin off-balance.

Priss Factor , Website October 26, 2017 at 3:49 pm GMT
To better understand what is going on, all three groups -- crooks, clowns, and nazis -- fall into the schnook category. They are being duped and used by the Globalist Empire that also controls the US. US is the Jewel in the Crown of the Globalist Empire but still a subject than a sovereign nation. It's like India was the Jewel in the Crown of the British Empire but not a free independent nation.

... ... ...

Beckow , October 26, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT
@Johnny Rico

Assigning emotional labels is not helpful. You are right that Ukraine is nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan, it is hard to understand why Saker would use such a facile analogy.

You are also right that US-West have the initiative. But that is not necessarily a sustainable advantage. Hitler had the initiative too, and so did Napoleon, they had all the initiative until they didn't. (I know poor analogy, but tempting).

The prize in Ukraine was Crimea and the Russian Naval base. That was the prize, not who gets to grow potatoes in Lviv or scoop up coal in Donbass. Crimea is gone, and I think all rational people would agree that for now that is irreversible. So what is the fight about? Torch marching in Kiev, Nato relevancy, or who gets to subsidise 40 million very poor people? To control Ukraine (Kiev really) is now a hot potato that nobody particularly wants. It is like fighting over who has the control of Bihar in India, or eastern Nigeria, or any number of poor, non-strategic backwaters full of people who mostly want to emigrate.

Washington (with Poland and a few other fire-eating nut-cases in EU) made a strong move in 2013-14 trying to get their hands on Crimea and to replace the very strategic Russian Navy base in Sebastopol with a Nato base. They invested a lot in it, and they had the initiative. But the locals screwed up, they were too slow, too unfocused and too distracted by nationalism. So Russia won Crimea and all else are just provincial consequences of little long-term interest.

Ask yourself a simple question: would Washington be better off with the status quo ante, would they be happy to go back to 2012? Of course they would – Crimea would be in Ukraine and in play, Russia would be subsidising Ukraine (not EU or IMF). But most importantly Russia would be sweating what 'might happen' with Crimea. Once West made its move and lost that threat was gone. It was just stupid.

peterAUS , October 26, 2017 at 5:32 pm GMT
@Johnny Rico

A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots.

The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and has Putin off-balance.

Well, I'd say:
A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia was reacting – not calling the shots.

The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and had Putin off-balance.

What has been interesting to me is something Martyanov hinted to here:

no part of the Novorossia, with the exception of Lugansk and Donetsk, matched even one tenth of scale and effort required to get back to Russia, or, at least, get away from Kiev. I don't blame them but it is what it is and this couldn't be ignored and it is not being ignored, thankfully.

My take is that people there, based on a long experience, simply recognize that they are caught between two oligarchies, and unwilling to choose between them. That lethargy (for a lack of better word) is interesting. They don't buy US/West vision anymore. The thing is, they don't buy Russian either. They just don't care. Maybe that's worse than fighting for either side.

When you are, effectively, in a state of constant conflict between states and most of population doesn't care, that looks as people there got their spirit crushed. And, oligarchies do like people with crushed spirit. Just a pliable mass doing what's told. Just a thought.

Beckow , October 26, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT
@Mao Cheng Ji

Initiative means that US-West are the ones starting conflicts. It is neither good nor bad and initiatives that fail are worse than if they had done nothing. That is true about Iraq, Syria, Libya and Ukraine; in each case the status quo before the 'initiative' was better. Russia and China don't show anywhere as much 'initiative', they mostly react, they don't set the agenda.

People with too much initiative get stuck in muck of their own creation and eventually lose even what they safely controlled before. But the Washington-Brussels elites cannot help it, they must start things because they are not fully serious, they have had it too good, they believe in their own mythologized narratives, and their careers are based on it. So they will keep it going. The insurgencies within the domestic domain are still very minor, this has years to go, maybe decades.

Johnny Rico , October 26, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
@Beckow

I agree with much of what you say.

My feeling is that The Saker is always talking about the superiority of Russian "strategy" in retrospect while speculating about the minutiae of tactical deployments.

Americans rarely talk strategy and there is always an ongoing discussion in the higher levels of foreign policy academia and journals about what exactly the policy or strategy is or whether we even need one.

That was the title of Kissinger's 2002 book :

Does America Need a Foreign Policy? : Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century

This, however, does not mean there is no strategy.

The United States does not care about Poland or Estonia or Crimea or Ukraine or Syria or Georgia or even whether the other NATO members spend enough money. It cares about the bigger long-term picture.

We are not fighting insurgencies (as Mao Cheng Ji contends). That ended in Iraq in about 2010 and Afghanistan in about 2012.

Since 1980, Russia and the Soviet Union have lost FAR more troops (especially as a proportion of total population) in combat than the United States.

Everywhere US elite light infantry troops are stationed now they basically sit on their asses safe in bases. Occasionally they go out and call in airstrikes for local allies or conduct a raid on a "high-value target." Occasionally they die or get suicide-bombed by a local infiltrator.

All the guys I've ever met that are in these units LIVE to do what they are doing. I even know a couple dozen guys who have been either kicked out of the military or been wounded in Afghanistan or Iraq and they still say that the best time of their lives was walking around over there with a rifle.

They would be quite surprised by the notion that they are being forced to do what they do by the "ZioMedia" – whatever that is. This is not 1968 in Vietnam.

Syria has no oil. Ukraine is a basket-case economy with too many people. Georgia has 4 million people. That's more than Albania and less than Massachusetts. Most Americans couldn't find the state of Georgia on a map – nevermind the country.

Now in 2008 Russia launched an assault on Georgia that it had been planning for at least a decade after provoking what it wanted. It didn't go well technically but it went okay tactically, but because of the size mismatch it couldn't not be a success for the Russians. But it was quick because the Georgians are stupid but not that stupid. So it could be called an operational and strategic win. The United States tailored its response. But here you will always see it portrayed as some great Russian victory over a NATO-trained military and an attempted genocide of the South Ossetians. The Russians it appears used it successfully as a learning experience and got their act together militarily.

All along the periphery of the Russian Empire/former Soviet Union the US and the Russians play games. It's a big game.

Saker's last article was about whose propaganda is better. It's a big game. It keeps people employed in the respective defense industries.

The latest thing I read is that the US is spending $8 Billion on a rapid response division or something in Eastern Europe. There was a Toyota ad I think for an armor brigade in Poland during the Super Bowl. Ridiculous. A single division.

Nobody wants a war. There isn't going to be any fighting in Poland. If Russians and Ukrainians want to kill themselves over Kharkov, Americans don't care. I think the Russians and Germans fought three times over Kharkov. I guess it had a railroad track or something. Americans don't care.

All this stuff like the coup in Ukraine, sanctions over Crimea – it's just probing moves, games. The US has Putin boxed in. He's got to scrape and claw over nothing.

The Saker always talks about Russia having a "defensive" strategy. Change the perspective for a second. Knowing that all the planet's real estate is "owned"- where the US Empire stands now – trade routes, bases everywhere around the remaining oilfields in the Middle East. AND, here is the kicker – what if you consider that the US has the defensive strategy now? That is some serious flexible depth.

And Russia is still boxed in.

Mao Cheng Ji , October 26, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
@Beckow

Initiative means that US-West are the ones starting conflicts.

I guess it's kinda true in the sense that the US specifically (not necessarily the West as such, it seems) needs to have the uninterrupted chain of wars and cartoonish all-powerful super-evil adversaries threatening its very existence. I suppose it's needed for economic (mic) reasons, to maintain the internal unity/morale/discipline, and to run the usual protection racket abroad. Sorta like Oceania in Orwell's 1984.

But I don't think this amounts to 'initiative' in any flattering sense. By the same token a rabid dog shows 'initiative'.

Beckow , October 26, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT
@Johnny Rico

Change the perspective for a second. Knowing that all the planet's real estate is "owned"- where the US Empire stands now – trade routes, bases everywhere around the remaining oilfields in the Middle East. AND, here is the kicker – what if you consider that the US has the defensive strategy now? That is some serious flexible depth.

You can call it 'depth', or you can also call it being exposed with too long supply lines. I don't think there is an automatic benefit to being everywhere, it could be a liability in a multi-site crisis. Hitler controlled almost all of continental Europe (and so did Napoleon), all it did was that when he was forced on a defensive (in the east), all of those territories became potential liabilities with allied landings, rebellions, countries switching sides, etc

Another problem is that US is trying to do it on the cheap with bombing, technology and allies – but with minimal casualties. The inability to take casualties is a weakness, you cannot in the long-run control all this geography and also protect every GI's life.

And Russia is still boxed in.

Russia is boxed in by its geography, and so is China. There is nothing new there. Enemies have been pressing on Russia's extensive borders forever. It is not likely that anyone would actually try to cross that border given this one reality: nuclear weapons. Unless the constant prodding has an answer to that reality, what is it all about? What's the point?

Nobody wants a war. There isn't going to be any fighting in Poland.

Wars happen even if nobody 'wants' them. There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims ownership. And if there is a war, there will be fighting in Poland – it is literally ground zero (as so often before), and no amount of NY Times editorials will make any damn difference. The country is too small, so it would be annihilated. Poland is storing missiles and 'defensive' divisions for its allies across the Atlantic with an open admission that they are targeting Russia. What do you think would happen in a real crisis or a war? Do you think US would look kindly at Russian missiles in Canada or Mexico? That is the true madness, and Poland is kind of in a heart of it. As so often before.

I don't think either Russia or West have better or worse 'strategy'. They play with what they have. Lately Russia has been prevailing, maybe because West pushed too far and is on thin ice in most of these far-away places.

By the way, your description of the Georgia conflict in 2008 omitted the key event: as the Beijing Olympics were starting, Georgia attacked S Ossetia with massive bombardment (100+ civilians killed). You say that somehow Russia 'anticipated' it and took advantage. Isn't it their job to 'anticipate'? Wouldn't any country? But the key point is that without the extremely stupid, almost suicidial attack by Georgia, none of that would happened. Who the hell told Saakasvilli that this would be a good idea? Some 'strategist' who likes to 'poke the Russian borders' to keep them in a 'box'? This is abstract thinking at its worst. Get real.

peterAUS , October 26, 2017 at 7:37 pm GMT
Speaking of crooks and thieves. True, those Ukrainian elites are that. Can't argue that most of US/Western elite aren't. But, Russian (current) regime elite? How about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_crooks_and_thieves

So, I guess that an average Ukrainian ponders a simple question: For which crook I am supposed to lose my life and limb? And risking the same for people I care for? Tough decision. If if doubt do nothing feels as the best option. Keep your head down, keep your mouth shut and try to scrap a living there. Or, if you can, emigrate somewhere. If you can that is.

peterAUS , October 26, 2017 at 9:13 pm GMT
@Beckow

what is it all about? What's the point?

That rhetorical question? Regime change in Moscow->incorporating Russia into Empire at vassal level. Or back to happy Yeltsin era. Happy for some I mean. With vengeance.

As for this:

There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims ownership

Couldn't agree more. That's the real worry at present. Combination of who are people in power and means of warfare.

People on the ground in Ukraine at "West" side incompetent and weak crooks. People on the ground in Ukraine at "East" side are also incompetent crooks. Not so sure how weak they are, though. They must be weak enough to obey Moscow but hard enough to keep .ahm..pruning own ranks from those unpopular with Moscow. Besides, they got into power by armed insurrection so usually those types can be hard.

I, personally, don't see much fuss about all this. Could be wrong, of course. The real question would be how, really, good Ukrainian armed forces are.
Have they used the time well to get good enough to create a serious problem for Donbass. My feeling .(haven't spent much time researching it) is they have not. Now, not so sure, whatever Saker is saying here, how good Donbass military is. In reality. I concede that they got better organized and equipped. Doesn't mean much , IMHO. The more important is how WILLING they would be to face an attack.

I .suspect .that the will when it was all started isn't there anymore. Could be wrong. Still think I am not. Or, better .feel that way. Those assassinations, plus overall quality of life there, plus unclear future (not what Moscow is saying, people on the ground don't buy that) aren't good for combat morale.

At the end, I suspect, when/if it comes to renewal of hostilities, it will be: First and foremost artillery exchanges. Nothing changes.
Then, small unit raids. Nothing changes. Then, tactical incursions by Ukrainian best. After initial success they'll be met by Donbas best.Because either side don't have many of those nothing changes too. A lot of talk from Washington and Moscow. Some dead/mutilated mercenaries. And while those "games" go the rest of peoples there just keep what they've been doing so far. Oceania vs Eurasia ..

Issac , October 26, 2017 at 9:44 pm GMT
@Priss Factor

Saker writing a Philip Giraldi level expose from that angle would probably have him out of a job. The Russian ruling class is not interested in making an enemy of Israel or vice versa.

Beckow , October 27, 2017 at 12:53 am GMT
@peterAUS

"Regime change in Moscow"

The single best way to assure that there isn't a 'regime change' is by constant probing of Russia's borders, by constant attacks, etc So I don't buy that, the experts in Washington are not that stupid. They understand fully well that placing missiles, coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure that nothing changes in Moscow.

The Ukraine situation will not be decided by fighting in Donbass, or in Moscow. It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa, Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses. Unless a miracle happens, or most people emigrate, this is not a sustainable situation. They are living worse than in 2013, and they already had it very bad in 2013. Marshall Plan isn't coming, membership in EU isn't coming either. Once that sinks in – it might take 5-10 years – things will change.

peterAUS , October 27, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT

They understand fully well that placing missiles, coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure that nothing changes in Moscow.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that they believe that's exactly what's needed. Worked rather well since '91 I think. US soldier couldn't get pass Germany (West/East) border. Now

It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa, Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses.

Sounds reasonable. In meantime

Beckow , October 29, 2017 at 8:27 am GMT
@Mr. Hack

"'Novorussian' fighting forces have from the very beginning just been a rag tag collection of Chechen and Russian mercenaries ,with a few local alcoholic yahoos , all directed by imported Russian degenerates, supported all along with Russian national troops and armaments"

All soldiers today get paid, thus you can call all of them 'mercenaries'. All soldiers drink. Their ethnicities are hard to establish and generalize. Words like 'rag tag', 'yahoos', 'degenerates' mean literally nothing in this context, you just add them to make yourself feel better.

If you take what your wrote and strip out the unnecessary poetry you might be closer to the truth: Novorussian forces are a combination of local separatists and volunteers who joined them mostly from Russia; Russia has provided most of their modern arms. Russia also acts as a backstop in case of another Kiev offensive to make sure that they cannot be defeated.

See, I fixed it for you. Now drop the poetic abuse and tell us what can be done about it. And take into account interests of all parties and their relative strength. All people are equal, applying emotional adjectives to your enemies changes nothing.

Avery , October 29, 2017 at 9:21 am GMT
@Beckow

Well said. Regarding: { . a rag tag collection of Chechen and Russian mercenaries,with a few local alcoholic yahoos, all directed by imported Russian degenerates }

If that is true, then it means Ukrainian military is even more incompetent than it is, being soundly defeated by a 'rag tag collection of mercenaries, alcoholic yahoos, and degenerates'. Being defeated by a professional opposing force is bad enough, but being defeated and chased out of Novorussia by 'degenerates'? How embarrassing for the Kiev junta.

Beckow , October 29, 2017 at 9:26 am GMT
@Sergey Krieger

That seems to be Russia's strategy. I agree that by far the best thing Moscow could do is to improve quality of life in Russia. Nato strategy is to delay it by any means: sanctions, energy, new arms race, whatever they can think off, lately mostly media campaigns. With Russia's resources, favourable demographics and global economic realities (China), it will not work. And then what? Once the quality of life is comparable to the average EU country, the gig will be up. Today Russia is slightly worse off than Poland and Lithuania, but better off than Romania or Bulgaria. But it is dramatically worse off than Germany, Czech R or Austria. Between 2000-2014 Germany and Russia were feeding off each other's growth, now they both suffer. We will see how that plays out, but there was a natural synergy that was artificially curtailed. More than anything else the Atlantic neo-cons fear more prosperity in Russia, so they will do almost anything to prevent it.

In Ukraine the EU-West infatuation will take a long time to dissipate. Getting hurt will eventually lead to making things better in the head , but it will take at least a generation. And things don't stay quiet for that long, other events will intervene. A circle cannot be squared: Kiev has attempted a great leap into its imagined future – Europe!!! – they bet everything on it, cut off all else, and there is no realistic way the leap will land Ukraine happily and soon enough in EU. EU will not agree to absorb 40 million poor people who mostly just want to live immediately like Germans, or move there. This is a mad dream, reality will intervene.

Those still hoping for a happy ending have not been paying attention.

Sergey Krieger , October 29, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT
@Johnny Rico

I am sorry but I have to say this. How has led by Kissinger and Nixon strategy of opening China worked out? Is creating major geopolitical foe where there was none considered a sign of deep strategically long term thinking?

Cyrano , October 29, 2017 at 11:04 am GMT
@Beckow

One often hears about "historical injustices" being committed against this nation or that ethnic group. Ukraine is probably a unique (basket) case because they think (the stupid ones) that beside historical injustices, they have also suffered geographical injustice.

The Ukrainian nationalists think that based on their accomplishments as a nation (there are none) they rightfully deserve to be geographically located somewhere between Germany and France. For this state of affairs they again blame the Russians. You see, because Russia is so big, and definitely in Eastern Europe, that they have the gravitational force that keeps Ukraine in Eastern Europe. If it wasn't for the Russians, Ukraine would have long ago catapulted into Western Europe – probably even geographically. It's only Russia that prevents them from acquiring their rightful place in the heart of Europe.

Beckow , October 29, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT
@Cyrano

"they have also suffered geographical injustice"

And so a solution is to have a war against geography. That usually goes very well, check with the Georgians :)

In Ukrainians' defence, they have a bad location: wide-open, unprotected, with few geographic features and at the same time very high-quality earth. On second thought, if Ukraine, as is, was located in Western Europe 'somewhere between Germany and France' , I would be willing to bet that not a single Ukrainian would exist today. The Western Europeans know their genocide and know how to pacify populations. They almost got to them during WWII, Ukraine was the lebensraum that Nazis dreamt about.

My estimate would be that if Russia had not sacrificed 20 million people to defeat Germany, today there would be no Poles, no Ukrainians, and no Czechs. A few smaller nations, like Croats, Slovaks, Slovenians, would exist as tiny folklor-only curiosity, regularly brutally culled for potential dissenters. Those 'damn Russkies', how dare they stop this? No wonder the sneaky Westerners will never forgive them. But one wonders why some of the designated victims, Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, are also angry that the lebensraum genocide Nazi plan was not allowed to take place. But we are leaving geography and getting into psychiatry

Anon , Disclaimer October 29, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT
@Johnny Rico

A repost from consortiumnews.com: "The Kaganzation of Ukraine, which started on Clinton watch, is moving to a next, neo-Nazi phase: http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/mosiychuk-assassination-attempt.html

" the assassination attempt on Mosiychuk [the former deputy commander of the infamous neo-Nazi Azov Battalio] is the initial phase of an escalation of the conflict between the Nazis and Jewish oligarchs headed by President Poroshenko, an escalation which is transitioning from a political to a "hot", or armed phase.

Ironically enough, it is the Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky who is financing the operations of such Nazi revolutionaries. Indeed, all of the "Ukrainian revolutions," as is well known, have been done with Jewish money and through the hands of Ukrainian Nazis. By all accounts, Mosiychuk himself is one of the key figures behind preparing a Nazi coup d'etat."

Any reaction from the diligent ADL? Any peep from AIPAC? Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen and a pillar of the Jewish community of Ukraine. He has been financing the Ukrainian neo-Nazis for several years already; Kolomoysky is also implicated in the downing of MH17. Still no interest from the Israel-occupied US Congress? Amazing. In the US, the "victims of Holocaust" from the Kagans' clan have been plotting and implementing the collaborative projects with Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Interesting times.

Just to reiterate –– "all of the "Ukrainian revolutions" have been done with Jewish money and through the hands of Ukrainian Nazis." And the Jewish vigilantes are busy fighting against BDS " https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/28/hillary-clinton-keeps-pointing-fingers/#comment-293951

Btw, Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen. Speaking about Holocaust deniers – is it kosher to support neo-Nazi and work on the resurrection of Nazism in Ukraine and to remain an honorable Israeli citizen? It seems that Kolomoysky is such case. Next time the Israel-firsters attempt to squeal about any critics of "Holocaust story" they should be presented with the story of Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky.

Beckow , October 29, 2017 at 12:17 pm GMT
@peterAUS

You use language very loosely: 'total control, 'fully integrated', 'force's skeleton', all those terms are both unprovable and meaningless in Donbass context. There are millions of Russians in Donbass, they have always lived there. They are willing to oppose post-coup Kiev government on their own. All else is vague verbiage that means nothing.

"the regime in Moscow decide to abandon the project it could dissolve that force in 12 hours tops and leave Novorussia ripe for takeover by the regime in Kiev"

Your usage of the imbecilic word 'regime' betrays bias. What the f k is a'regime'? Is EU a 'regime', or the Saudi king, or China? If not, why not? Stick with term government and use it for all and you won't sound like a bitter dead-ender unable to see things rationally.

Russia cannot abandon Donbass because the Kiev government would massacre many Russians living in Donbass. Or they would let their nationalist allies do it. In any case, millions would either be expelled, imprisoned or killed. That would mean the end of Putin's government. The fact that Brussels and Mme Merkel would look the other way and that Western media would pretend that not much was happening would not help either. So that's not going to happen, Russia is committed, it cannot 'abandon the project'. Kiev will either negotiate seriously now, or in the future. And time is definitely not on their side, longer this goes on, worse deal will be on the table for Kiev.

Anon , Disclaimer October 29, 2017 at 7:03 pm GMT
@Beckow

" it might take 5-10 years – things will change." It is already on the go: http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/mosiychuk-assassination-attempt.html
" another Maidan to be held under openly Nazi slogans and leading to the overthrow of the Jewish oligarchs led by Petro Poroshenko who seized power in Ukraine. Ukrainian Nazis are the most consistent and terrifying enemies of the Poroshenko regime, which they call an "internal occupation regime." We are now seeing a rehearsal for such a Nazi Maidan. Apparently, Poroshenko is taking a serious turn, and now terrorist methods are being used against the regime's mortal enemies."

polskijoe , October 29, 2017 at 7:42 pm GMT
Decent article, although some generalizations which is understandable. Couple points about Poland. Yes its allied with neocons atm (the bad).
The government has some forces somewhat supporting Ukraine (Basically as long as the blame is focused on Russia). The government knows there are "neonazi" elements, as has mentioned Ukraine will not join EU until they stop that. As for the people Poland is divided like crazy on the Ukraine issue.
Sergey Krieger , October 29, 2017 at 8:04 pm GMT
@Mao Cheng Ji

Lots of people changed from Russians into Ukrainians. I see many guys with Russian surnames there from news who are rabidly antirussians. Give some time. When Russia rises and life in Russia will be good there will be suddenly 90% of Ukrainian population Russians.

Erebus , October 29, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT
Alas, you've yet again missed the salient point you're commenting on. The sea change I talk about is "a sea change in both capability and prospects" . And yes, a sea change in the sense that the high water mark of the USA's capabilities and prospects is now plainly visible. Its role has been reduced from world leader to that of spoiler in Syriaq, Philippines, MENA, ECS & SCS, in Africa, and in Europe itself. A spoiler's role is a very far cry from the world leader at "the end of history" it proclaimed itself to be in the early '90s. Pax Americana's wave broke and is now rolling back out to sea, creating undertows as it goes.

The ramifications of that sea change will take years, maybe decades, to play themselves out, but my assessment is that there will be no active "roll back (of the) '90s" or that said roll back is desirable/possible. The Ukraine and Serbia/Kosovo will wind up having to fit themselves into whatever new paradigm the world will be living under at the time. That paradigm won't be American led, or of American design.

polskijoe , October 29, 2017 at 8:34 pm GMT
@Dan Hayes

Prof Cohen, he is smart on Russian affairs, for a Jewish guy suprising he speaks favorably of the Russians. I dont know his political views. Certainly a change from the Neocon bs.

anon , Disclaimer October 29, 2017 at 11:52 pm GMT
I don't see much of a future for Ukraine. Neither the West nor Russia is willing to underwrite the massive investment that would be required to rebuild the economy. Sure it makes sense to split the country. However, both sides are more than willing to live with an impoverished buffer between NATO and Russia. If the country is split, there is no longer any territorial disputes and the new West Ukraine ultimately becomes a NATO member and NATO weapons move hundreds of miles closer to the Russian border. Not to mention the fact that Russia would find it expensive to subsidize the new government. Same with the EU.

The obsession with theoretical military engagements ignore the reality that 'winning' is simply taking a nation that is still a paying customer for natural gas and turning them into an expense.

As far as the value of Ukraine as an agricultural power -- Russia no longer cares. Russia (thanks to the US sanctions, among other things) is now the world's largest grain exporter.

The Black Sea may be important to Russia's regional aspirations, but for the US, what could be better than have as many Russian naval vessels as possible parked there?

Anatoly Karlin , Website October 30, 2017 at 12:05 am GMT
@Mr. Hack

The Saker does indeed peddle a lot of BS, but you are hardly one to talk.

1. The Chechens were briefly involved in 2014, have long since left.

2. The vast majority of the NAF (80%) are Ukrainian citizens , as confirmed by multiple sources including a list of names leaked by your ideological comrades at the Peacekeeper website. About another 10% are Russians from the Kuban, which is ethnically and culturally close to the Donbass, while the last 10% are Russians and other adventurers from the wider world.

So yes, it is indeed very homegrown, though it is true that the NAF would not have survived in its embryonic stages without the more competent and experienced Russian volunteers like Strelkov, as well as Russian logistical and artillery support.

3. NAF volunteers are indeed probably lower than average on the socio-economic scale, but I would be exceedingly surprised if it was otherwise for the UAF and the independent batallions. Certainly the chronic drunkeness , accidents, etc. in the Ukrainian Army that are constantly being written about indicates that doesn't harvest the cream of Ukraine's crop. (And that makes sense – apart from a hard core of patriots and nationalists, any Ukrainian would pay to avoid conscription, if he has the means).

[Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.

Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.

Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.

The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.

Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.

Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.

These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.

Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org .

[Oct 29, 2017] John Feffer The Real Disuniting of America by Tom Engelhardt

Wars eventually deeply affect on the nation which launches them....
Notable quotes:
"... Stop thinking of this country as the sole superpower or the indispensable nation on Earth and start reimagining it as the great fracturer, the exceptional smasher, the indispensable fragmenter. Its wars of the twenty-first century are starting to come home big time -- home being not just this particular country (though that's true , too) but this planet. Though hardly alone , the U.S. is, for the moment, the most exceptional home-destroyer around and its president is now not just the commander-in-chief but the home-smasher-in-chief. ..."
"... Just this week, for instance, home smashing was in the headlines. After all, the Islamic State's "capital," the city of Raqqa, was " liberated ." We won! The U.S. and the forces it backed in Syria were finally victorious and the brutal Islamic State (a home-smashing movement that emerged from an American military prison in Iraq) was finally driven from that city ( almost !). And oh yes, according to witnesses , the former city of 300,000 lies abandoned with hardly a building left undamaged, unbroken, unsmashed. ..."
"... In the Greater Middle East and Africa, people by the tens of millions , including staggering numbers of children , have been uprooted and displaced, their homes destroyed, their cities and towns devastated, sending survivors fleeing across national borders as refugees in numbers that haven't been seen since a significant part of the planet was leveled in World War II. ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

Stop thinking of this country as the sole superpower or the indispensable nation on Earth and start reimagining it as the great fracturer, the exceptional smasher, the indispensable fragmenter. Its wars of the twenty-first century are starting to come home big time -- home being not just this particular country (though that's true , too) but this planet. Though hardly alone , the U.S. is, for the moment, the most exceptional home-destroyer around and its president is now not just the commander-in-chief but the home-smasher-in-chief.

Just this week, for instance, home smashing was in the headlines. After all, the Islamic State's "capital," the city of Raqqa, was " liberated ." We won! The U.S. and the forces it backed in Syria were finally victorious and the brutal Islamic State (a home-smashing movement that emerged from an American military prison in Iraq) was finally driven from that city ( almost !). And oh yes, according to witnesses , the former city of 300,000 lies abandoned with hardly a building left undamaged, unbroken, unsmashed. Over these last months, the American bombing campaign against Raqqa and the artillery support that went with it reportedly killed more than 1,000 civilians and turned significant parts of the city into rubble -- and what that didn't do, ISIS bombs and other munitions did. (According to estimates , they could take years to find and remove.) And Raqqa is just the latest Middle Eastern city to be smashed more or less to bits.

And since the splintering of the planet is the TomDispatch subject of the day, what about the recent Austrian election, fought out and won by right-wing "populists" on the basis of anti-refugee sentiments and Islamophobia? Where exactly did such sentiments come from? You know perfectly well: from America's war on terror and the much-vaunted " precision warfare " (smart bombs and the rest) that continues to fracture a vast swath of the planet from Afghanistan to Libya and beyond.

In the Greater Middle East and Africa, people by the tens of millions , including staggering numbers of children , have been uprooted and displaced, their homes destroyed, their cities and towns devastated, sending survivors fleeing across national borders as refugees in numbers that haven't been seen since a significant part of the planet was leveled in World War II. In this way, America's 16-year-old war on terror has been a genuine force for terror, and so for the kind of resentment and fear that's now helping to crack open a recently united Europe (and in the United States helped elect well, you know just who).

And that's only a small introduction to the largely unexplored American role in the fracturing of this planet. Don't even get me started on our president and climate change!

As it happens, the fellow who brought the nature of this splintering home to me was TomDispatch regular John Feffer, who in early 2015 began writing for this website what became his remarkable dystopian novel Splinterlands . In it, he imagined our shattered planet in 2050 so vividly that it's stayed with me ever since -- and evidently with him, too, because today he considers just how quickly the splintering process he imagined has been occurring not in his fictional version of our world, but in the all-too-real one.

Robert Magill , October 25, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT

If we lose the state in a fourth great shattering, we will lose an important part of ourselves as well: our very humanity.

In many respects the "state", USA that is, is already lost. What we had until the 1950s was an ongoing mythology known as America; an agreed upon, ongoing concern known abroad for its popular music, for Hollywood, for a thriving middle class, a healthy working-class and a supplier of goods and services to the world, envy of all. Well, we shot a few holes in Myth America!

First to go was the music: replaced by Bubblegum; downhill from there. Tin Pan Alley is now dumpster heaven. The middle class now resides in Beijing with largess delivered to our Dollar emporiums (not seen here since the Great Depression). Noticeable gaps in the starving malls once housed record stores and book shops; remember them?

The final blow has landed on the movie houses across the land. Near empty, struggling. Even in the depths of the 30′s, movie house were full. But then, "No myth:No nation". No more.

https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/10/14/mankind-a-bogus-species/

[Oct 29, 2017] The car was evidence. The evidence was obviously tampered with and removed from Texas before the state was done investigating a murder.

Oct 29, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

incog99 70p · 8 hours ago

The car was evidence. The evidence was obviously tampered with and removed from Texas before the state was done investigating a murder. Reminds me how fast the steel from the New York Twin Towers were exported to China for "recycling". Of course, this was all part of the cover-up.

[Oct 29, 2017] Customer reviews Last Word My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK

Oct 29, 2017 | www.amazon.com

CE399 on December 17, 2014

A compelling court-worthy indictment of the CIA in the assassination of JFK.

If Amazon allowed customers to give 10 stars to one item to allow an offset to one star ratings by haters and competitors I would give my 10-star rating to "Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK".

Mark Lane's works are the Holy Writ on the assassination of JFK.

Read all of his work on the subject and find a copy of the film documentary "Rush to Judgment" and watch it. That documentary alone should have been enough for action to have been taken to nullify the Warren Commission and go after the real perpetrators. That would have been timely and would make me far less angry at the previous generation for giving me a legacy of corruption that is orders of magnitude more difficult to fix now than it would have been then. Shame on the U.S. adult population contemporary to the JFK assassination for not using your intellect and going on your faith in Walter Cronkite!

This book eliminates any excuse for not indicting the CIA in the homicide of John F. Kennedy which remains unsolved and has no statute of limitations.

In all of Mark Lane's works on the assassination of JFK I am left with one big question:

Why does Mark Lane appear to leave the topic of LBJ's motives and complicity untouched and even possibly perpetuate some inaccuracies regarding LBJ's behavior. In this book Mark Lane gives LBJ's account of agent Rufus Youngblood leaping into the back seat on top of him after the first shot was fired.

Why doesn't Lane discuss the assertions of credible authors who propound that LBJ actually ducked down BEFORE the first shot was fired and that Youngblood did not leap into the back seat on top of him?

It bothers me that Mark Lane does not address the controversy about LBJ's possible complicity in the crime. Albeit the involvement of LBJ, organized crime, the Military and any other parties is immaterial to the vastly more important indictment of the CIA

Mark Lon, September 8, 2016

A must read for those who want the truth.

A stunning condemnation of rogue elements of the CIA Hopefully the truth will out before all of us who remember are gone. The government is supposed to release 3,600 additional documents in October 2017 UNLESS agencies object to the President. Of course they will. See whowhatwhy.org. RIP Mark Lane and thank you for pursuing the truth from the beginning.

Richard S. Smith on June 26, 2015

Assasinated by the CIA

Shame on the "Warren Report" for getting it all (all) wrong, only to spare us Americans the TRUTH, OUR PRESIDENT was BETRAYED by our own CIA and the CIA is still in CHARGE and can strike whenever they feel they need too, I feel pretty betrayed myself as all Americans should feel who were living in 1963 to witness the Assasination of our President by our own CIA, this book spells it all out and dispels all the Magic Bullet Theories woven into the Warren Report (Bull S*** Report) ...........

Howie on October 19, 2015
Very scary!!!!

This book was scary to read and i wonder how the CIA missed murdering Mr. Mark Lane for the threat that he appeared to be. I would like to know what response Mr. Lane received from his letter to President Obama.

Herbert L Calhoun on September 9, 2012
Mexico City: The Rosetta Stone to the JFK Assassination

Mark Lane, the Dean of the U. S. First Amendment. And in his spare time, the best assassination researcher in existence here combines his considerable legal experience with his unparalleled investigative skills, to demonstrate finally and beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the JFK murder was engineered and carried out by the CIA

As one who has followed the trail of the assassins through secondary sources since the three excellent books by Joachim Joesten beginning in early 1964, and by Lane's own "Rush to Judgment," I never once was misled into believing that it was anyone other than the CIA However, at the same time, I was never quite able to connect the dots between Oswald's "supposed trip" to Mexico City during late September 1963 and the plot to assassinate JFK. Here the author has finally connected those dots in a grand way, and in the process has laid everything out on the table so that the question of who planned and carried out the assassination is all crystal clear: There is no longer any doubt about who engineered the assassination of our 35th President: It was the CIA, period.

The smoking gun in my view, occurred when the FBI inadvertently intercepted the fabricated data (pictures and voice recordings) David Atlee Phillips, head of the Western Hemisphere Division of the CIA, had prepared and sent back to Washington to "frame" Oswald before the fact. Phillips sold the lie to the Warren Commission that Oswald had actually visited both the Russian and Cuban Embassies during the week of September 27 through October 6, 1963 -- presumably to finalize his own plans to carry out the assassination against JFK alone but with Russian and Cuban assistance in his escape.

When the FBI demonstrated that the pictures and voices sent by Phillips to Washington proved to be someone using Oswald's name, i.e., "posing" as Oswald, rather than Oswald himself, the jig for Phillips was up, and the plot he had hatched completely unraveled. Later in a debate on the assassination at USC, after he had retired from the CIA, Phillips, admitted that Oswald had never been in Mexico City.

For the coup de grace of evidence supporting the "CIA did it theory," Lane shows that all three of the people confronted by Dallas police as prime suspects immediately after the shooting (two on the grassy Knoll, and one coming out of the back of the Texas Book Depository), quickly produced identification showing them to be members of the Secret Service. However, the secret Service confirmed that other than those in the motorcade, they had no agents prowling the parade route? As a serendipitous fluke discovered while scrounging through recently released JFK archival data, guess who Lane discovered was the only USG agency to make, issue and disseminate badges for the Secret Service? You guessed it, the CIA's Technical Services Division (TSD), which at the time of the assassination was headed up by Richard Helm's buddy, the notorious Sidney Gottlieb, of MKULTRA fame.

There is much more here in this cogently put together book. My only negative comments are that there is no index to the book and that the author spent an inordinate amount of time responding to Vincent Bugliosi's baseless charges. It has always been clear to anyone with a brain that both Bugliosi and Gerald Posner are the best whores that CIA money can buy. Five stars

Tiborious Maximus on March 1, 2015
All you need to read that's true about the Kennedy Assassination

A very good follow-up to the tour-de-force book that proceeded it, called "Plausible Denial". Read that one first - then, this one. There is no doubt who was behind the Kennedy Assassination. The only other book you need to read on the subject - the best one of all, is "Best Evidence" by David Lifton. Read them all and the new one by E. Howard Hunt's son, St. John Hunt. Deathbed confessional vetts these other books as being spot on.

[Oct 28, 2017] John Kerry I Have 'Serious Doubts That Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone' the Day JFK Died

Oct 28, 2017 | parade.com
Jonathan Braun 3 years ago

"Is the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of John F. Kennedy accurate? Was Lee Harvey Oswald really the lone gunman responsible for the President's death, or was there a conspiracy? And if there really was a plot, who else was involved -- and why? If questions like this trouble you ."

So began my article in the Sunday, April 4, 1976 edition of Parade when I was an associate editor of the magazine. The questions are still troubling after all these years. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe Kennedy was the victim of some sort of conspiracy. RFK and the Jackie Kennedy believed that; and in 1979, the last Congressional committee to investigate the murders of JFK and Dr. King–the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)–concluded that two organized crime bosses "had the motive, means, and opportunity to assassinate President Kennedy."

The lone nut theory is clearly absurd. A so-called Marxist who mysteriously moved in radical rightwing circles that included Kennedy-hating Minutemen, members of the anti-Castro underground, gangsters and gun runners and an ex-Nazi collaborator an assassin with a military intelligence background who defected to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, renounced his US citizenship and was allowed easy re-entry to the county. None of this makes sense.

No wonder Kerry said what he did. He simply expressed aloud what most Americans understandably suspect, namely, that there is more to the story than the official version.

marktracy 3 years ago

Was Oswald posing as a Communist, while actually working as a spy for the CIA? The following is a quick look at some of the evidence pointing to Oswald's involvement with spy work:

His childhood -- a bright loner who read a wide range of books and was drawn to unpopular ideas, attracted by spy stories (the TV show "I Led Three Lives" and Ian Fleming's James Bond novels were among his favorites) -- perfectly fits the profile of persons most desired for intelligence work.
Oswald's Marine career is checkered with inconsistencies and unexplained events that suggest secret intelligence training.

His assignment to Atsugi base in Japan, which housed a large CIA facility.

Oswald's incredible ability with the Russian language. Several Russians, including his wife, said he spoke like a native, yet this high-school dropout reportedly taught himself Russian from books.

The fact that several persons -- including a former CIA paymaster, Oswald's Marine roommate, and fellow Marine Gerry Patrick Hemming -- have suggested that Oswald worked for U.S. intelligence.

The manner in which Oswald traveled so easily in and out of Russia as well as the unaccounted-for funds he used suggests intelligence guidance.
The ability of this American "defector" to leave the Soviet Union with his Russian-born wife at a time when most Russians were being denied exit permits.

The ease with which this would-be defector obtained passports both in 1959 and 1963.

The fact that Oswald wrote a lengthy report on his activities in Russia and, later, made a detailed report to the FBI concerning his Fair Play For Cuba activities in New Orleans.

Oswald's notebook contained the word "microdots," a common spy technique of photographically reducing information to a small dot.

Oswald's nonbinding "defection" to Russia fits perfectly the profile of an Office of Naval Intelligence program to infiltrate American servicemen into the Soviet Union during the late 1950's.

One of Oswald's closest contacts, George DeMohrenschildt, was himself an intelligence operative, first for the Nazis and later for the CIA

One of the strongest pieces of evidence for Oswald's involvement in spy work concerns a small Minox camera found among his effects by Dallas Police. Information developed by the Dallas Morning News in 1978 revealed the camera was not available to the public in 1963. It may have been spy equipment issued to Oswald. This evidence was so explosive that the FBI tried to get Dallas detectives to change their reports regarding the camera and also kept photos taken by Oswald hidden for nearly fifteen years . Detective Rose told the Dallas Morning News: "[FBI agents] were calling it a light meter, I know that. But I know a camera when I see it .

The thing we got at Irving out of Oswald's seabag was a Minox camera. No question about it. They tried to get me to change the records because it wasn't a light meter. I don't know why they wanted it changed, but they must have had some motive for it." The motive may have been that the existence of the camera pointed to Oswald's intelligence connections . The three-inch-long German-made camera was famous for being used by spies on both sides during World War II.

Note: The above text is excerpted from the book, Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs

[Oct 28, 2017] Then, suddenly, the document cuts off

The homicide of John F. Kennedy remains unsolved and has no statute of limitations.
Notable quotes:
"... "Well, now, the final area of my investigation relates to charges that the CIA was in some way conspiratorially involved with the assassination of President Kennedy. During the time of the Warren Commission, you were Deputy Director of Plans, is that correct?" Belin asked. ..."
"... After Helms replied that he was, Belin then asked: "Is there any information involved with the assassination of President Kennedy which in any way shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was in some way a CIA agent or agent " ..."
"... Then, suddenly, the document cuts off. ..."
Oct 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

outthere , 27 October 2017 at 10:34 PM

quote

The records also reveal a deposition given before the presidential Commission on CIA Activities in 1975 by Richard Helms, who had served as the agency's director. After a discussion of Vietnam, David Belin, an attorney for the commission, turned to whether the CIA was involved in Kennedy's killing.

"Well, now, the final area of my investigation relates to charges that the CIA was in some way conspiratorially involved with the assassination of President Kennedy. During the time of the Warren Commission, you were Deputy Director of Plans, is that correct?" Belin asked.

After Helms replied that he was, Belin then asked: "Is there any information involved with the assassination of President Kennedy which in any way shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was in some way a CIA agent or agent "

Then, suddenly, the document cuts off.

endquote

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jfk-files-new-discoveries-strippers-assassination-what-trump-revealed-a8023986.html

[Oct 27, 2017] the CIA contemplated mafia hits on Cuban President Fidel Castro, involving the false flag staging of bombings in Miami

May researchers think that JFK assassination were done by the same group of people within CIA who were preparing assassination of Fidel Castro. Bob Kennedy feels himself guilty about this and his part by unwittingly preparing the plot of his his brother by giving OK for this CIA plan. That's probably why he was killed.
Notable quotes:
"... A 1975 document from the Rockefeller Commission detailing the CIA's role in foreign assassinations said plans to assassinate Castro were undertaken in the early days of the Kennedy administration. ..."
"... Attorney General Kennedy stated that the CIA should never undertake the use of mafia people again without first checking with the Department of Justice because it would be difficult to prosecute such people in the future," the report reads. The report also said the CIA was later interested in using mobsters to deliver a poison pill to Castro in order to kill him ..."
Oct 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Following last night's release of the latest set of JFK Assassination Files, the public has been busy combing through the several thousand documents. Among the more notable discoveries so far are the following: the CIA contemplated mafia hits on Cuban President Fidel Castro, involving the "false flag" staging of bombings in Miami; Someone calling the FBI threatening to kill Lee Harvey Oswald a day before Oswald's murder; the US examined sabotaging airplane parts heading to Cuba.

As a reminder, following a deadline 25 years in the making, last night the National Archives released an abridged dump of JFK Assassination files.

While president Trump blocked the release of some, arguably the most controversial, documents citing national security concerns, the release still left researchers and conspiracy theorists with 52 previously unreleased full documents and thousands in part to sift through.

Here are the key highlights from the trove so far, courtesy of CBS and AP :

[Oct 27, 2017] False Flag Bombings, Murder Plots, Bizarre Phone Calls The Stunning Revelations In The JFK Assassination Files Zero Hedge

Oct 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Following last night's release of the latest set of JFK Assassination Files, the public has been busy combing through the several thousand documents. Among the more notable discoveries so far are the following: the CIA contemplated mafia hits on Cuban President Fidel Castro, involving the "false flag" staging of bombings in Miami; Someone calling the FBI threatening to kill Lee Harvey Oswald a day before Oswald's murder; the US examined sabotaging airplane parts heading to Cuba. As a reminder, following a deadline 25 years in the making, last night the National Archives released an abridged dump of JFK Assassination files. While president Trump blocked the release of some, arguably the most controversial, documents citing national security concerns, the release still left researchers and conspiracy theorists with 52 previously unreleased full documents and thousands in part to sift through.

Here are the key highlights from the trove so far, courtesy of CBS and AP :

[Oct 27, 2017] JFK was taken out by the Deep State .

Notable quotes:
"... The smearing and downgrading of President Trump by the mainstream media, the liberal political class, the "Deep State," plus some Zionist political thugs could become a self-fulfilling prophecy like the book "To Kill the President" anticipated. JFK was also taken out by the "Deep State". And 9/11 stills waits for clarification. ..."
Oct 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

Alfa158 > , July 27, 2017 at 11:05 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer 1. Kennedy clearly wasn't hit in the right temple.
2. If he had been, the recreation of the car and people positions establish that the bullet would have passed through his head, then Jackie's.
The latest position recreations are why some JFK investigators are now saying that the Zapruder film was doctored or faked because they show that a fatal shot from the grassy knoll would have killed Jackie, and from the overpass would have had to pass through the limo's windshield.

However with events like this we are dealing with un-falsifiable hypotheses.

Ludwig Watzal > , • Website July 27, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT

The smearing and downgrading of President Trump by the mainstream media, the liberal political class, the "Deep State," plus some Zionist political thugs could become a self-fulfilling prophecy like the book "To Kill the President" anticipated. JFK was also taken out by the "Deep State". And 9/11 stills waits for clarification.

Si1ver1ock > , July 27, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer I agree. I've watched the interview a few times. Files makes a few mistakes, but given the time interval involved, it seems authentic. Files is definitely a person from that time period and milieu. Parts of the story can be corroborated. Also the lead instigator is a an FBI agent of some experience and reputation.

The lead on James Files came from the FBI. Agent Zack Shelton (now retired) served 28 years with the FBI. He has an impeccable record and spent much of his career on organized crime task forces of Chicago and Kansas City. He is the man who gave the information on James Files to private investigator Joe West, because Zack Shelton had reason to believe that James Files knew more about the Kennedy assassination. This was based on a remark that James Files had made to an FBI informant. Joe West subsequently located James Files in Stateville penitentiary, which ultimately led to his confession of being the gunman on the grassy knoll.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/filestruth.htm

utu > , July 27, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra two weeks after he threatened Israel not to give them weapons any more

I thought that exchanges between JFK and Israel took place several months before his death not weeks.

Si1ver1ock > , July 28, 2017 at 12:44 am GMT

However with events like this we are dealing with un-falsifiable hypotheses.

Files claimed he used a mercury tipped exploding bullet. That could be checked and possibly falsified. Joe West, the guy who first started interviewing Files, had a court order to exhume Kennedy's body and check for mercury. He died under mysterious circumstances -- Kind of like Seth Rich -- and the order was rescinded.

But Joe West never heard a full confession from James Files. Files didn't want to talk. Only if Joe could arrange immunity for him, would Files consider it. During that time Joe had to go into a hospital for heart surgery. The operation itself was a success, but then out of nowhere he went into a coma and never came out of it. With his death, his exhumation suit also died.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/filestruth.htm

ThreeCranes > , July 28, 2017 at 1:25 am GMT

Files said -- and if I remember correctly, correctly -- that the president's car slowed down right about the time the shots began.

If the limo were traveling at 5 miles/1hour.

If Files were indeed 35 yards or 100 feet away as he claims in the interview.

The .222 cartridge muzzle velocity is 32oo feet/second.

At 5 miles/hour the car is traveling 5 miles/hour x 1 hour/3600 seconds x 5280 feet/1 hour = 7.33 feet/second.

The bullet would need 100 feet x 1 second/3200 = 1/32 seconds to travel from Files to Kennedy. Think of this in terms of the shutter speed on your old SLR camera. Literally, faster than the blink of an eye.

The car would have traveled 7.33 feet/second x 1/32 seconds = .229 feet towards Files during the time in which the bullet was in the air.

.229 feet x 12 inches/1 feet = 2.74 inches.

It is entirely possible that the bullet, shot from a gun aimed at Kennedy's right eye, would strike his right temple slightly behind the eye whether he moved his head forward or not, as Files claimed.

[Oct 27, 2017] National Archives Releases Another 2,891 JFK Assassination Records

MIC + DeepState + CIA + PissedOffAboutCuba Mob?
Notable quotes:
"... Basic choices are: ..."
"... 1) Mob payback for RFK's attention after they helped steal the election in Chicago at Joe's behest. ..."
"... 2) CIA payback for Bay of Pigs betrayal and plans to pull out of Vietnam (LOTS of CIA players in Dallas that day) ..."
"... 3) Bankers and Billionaires - JFK was planning to issue Treasury Notes (in place of FRB notes) and eliminate the oil depletion allowance. Same powers behind planned coup against FDR in the 1930's ..."
"... 4) LBJ in conjunction with 1,2 and/or 3 as a way to get the Presidency ..."
"... This is just kabuki theater. The documents containing the truth about those involved in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK was never disclosed to the Warren Commission or to United States CONgress investigators and were never placed in the National Archives. ..."
"... There are too many people's reputations that would be tarnished, an enormous understatement, if their role in JFK's assassination were to be publicly confirmed (i.e., LBJ, Allen Foster Dulles, George H. W. Bush, J. Edgar Hoover, etc.). ..."
"... Hi. I've hidden these files for some 50 plus years because they hold stuff that might make me look bad. But now I will let you see them... Except for these over here. And some are marked up so you can't make them out. See - transparency... ..."
Oct 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Ms No -> Rebelrebel7 , Oct 26, 2017 8:46 PM

There are people who have been researching this their entire lives. They'll dig through it and they are smarter than these people. They will find something they missed or find that it's all a fictional recreation. I'll just wait for them to confirm that. We all know anyway. They really don't want anybody to know much about "Jack Ruby" and Oswald's work history, or really anything about Oswald prior. They were all tied to a company called Permindex which a couple researchers have said was a Mossad front company. Of course the CIA and the rest of their lapdogs were in on it too. Now literally the whole nation is a CIA and Mossad front... joke.

Lumberjack -> Ms No , Oct 26, 2017 10:04 PM

VVV

THIS! Make copy!

Letter written to his father following trip to Palestine, 1939

https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-135-001.aspx

I can't rule out British involvement in JFK's demise either.

Lumberjack -> Lumberjack , Oct 26, 2017 10:49 PM

Enter LBJ...

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/lbjs-secret-israel-tapes/78712/

radio man , Oct 26, 2017 8:55 PM

It was a mob hit launched in New Orleans and Tampa. Joe enlisted the mob to push Jack over Nixon in the 1960 election. In return, JFK was supposed to oust Castro and return the mob's hotels and casinos to the rightful mobsters. Bay of pigs fails and RFK goes after Hoffa and the mob. Betrayal doesn't sit well for long in Dallas. I have details, death certificates and phone records....Occam's razor.

King of Ruperts Land -> radio man , Oct 26, 2017 9:31 PM

The MIC/DeepState/CIA/PissedOffAboutCuba Mob?

cynicalskeptic , Oct 26, 2017 9:58 PM

'dozens of new theories'?!?!

Basic choices are:

1) Mob payback for RFK's attention after they helped steal the election in Chicago at Joe's behest.

2) CIA payback for Bay of Pigs betrayal and plans to pull out of Vietnam (LOTS of CIA players in Dallas that day)

3) Bankers and Billionaires - JFK was planning to issue Treasury Notes (in place of FRB notes) and eliminate the oil depletion allowance. Same powers behind planned coup against FDR in the 1930's

4) LBJ in conjunction with 1,2 and/or 3 as a way to get the Presidency

5) Castro as payback for attempts on his life..... least likely given that 1,2 and 3 had more resources

gregga777 , Oct 26, 2017 10:04 PM

This is just kabuki theater. The documents containing the truth about those involved in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK was never disclosed to the Warren Commission or to United States CONgress investigators and were never placed in the National Archives.

There are too many people's reputations that would be tarnished, an enormous understatement, if their role in JFK's assassination were to be publicly confirmed (i.e., LBJ, Allen Foster Dulles, George H. W. Bush, J. Edgar Hoover, etc.).

DisorderlyConduct , Oct 26, 2017 11:04 PM

Let me get this straight - people actually expected something from these files? I mean something real, not made up? Something worth reading? You gotta be kidding me.

Hi. I've hidden these files for some 50 plus years because they hold stuff that might make me look bad. But now I will let you see them... Except for these over here. And some are marked up so you can't make them out. See - transparency...

Talk about willing suspension of disbelief...

[Oct 27, 2017] How Saddam Hussein Predicted America's Failure in Iraq

Oct 27, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

b. , says: October 25, 2017 at 12:01 pm

Maybe US foreign policy as well as the popular sentiments expressed in the thread are well explained by the fact that the US does not have to worry about any bridges connecting it with the nations it attacks and devastates.

With two shining seas on either side, and no apparent military concern about the borders north and south, maybe all wars to be pursued for profit and "interest" are by definition elective, hence aggression, hence unconstitutional and illegal.

Kent , says: October 25, 2017 at 12:59 pm
How did the US "succeed" in Iraq? What did it gain? What is the measure of success in Afghanistan?
PJ London , says: October 26, 2017 at 11:39 am
Hamdani was a soldier and Hussein although a competent soldier was first and foremost a politician.(Qusay was a spoilt child).
Soldiers can win battles and even 'wars' but do not have the end-game in mind.

The only thing that USA could gain was some oil, some gold and a few more years of Bretton-Woods hegemony. Hussein attacked USA where it hurt. Refusing to go along with the Dollar exchange and insisting on Euro. Gaddafi did the same with a Gold based Dinar, and see where it got him. Iran has the same idea with the Tehran oil exchange, which is why they were/are so hated.

China and Russia and Hussein knew that it is only the first step to win a battle. If you take ground, you must then occupy that ground. Russia moved millions of Russians to all the occupied territories, and therefore could rightly claim that Crimea (and Kiev) were Russian territory inhabited by Russian speaking people. China in Tibet, Israel in Jerusalem. To win the battle is only a minor step, you need to occupy the land with your people to keep it.

There was/is no way that Americans are going to resettle in Afghanistan or Iraq and therefore they can never win the war. USA has 'occupied' Europe for as long as their troops have the 'Russians are coming' was believed and that the US army could enforce the Bretton-woods diktat. Both are now discredited and the USA will lose everywhere. It is trying to gain Africa, but there are already a million Chinese who have settled and USA has no chance. Of course the fact that the Chinese and Russians have gone to Africa with money and trade whilst the US has only drones and guns to offer will not make them popular either.

USA is dying and the final death throes are painful to watch, but it comes to all eventually. You had a good run but now is the time to say goodbye.

The British recognised it after the Second World War and handed over the colonies to the natives. Which then ran them into the ground with Australia, Canada and India being prime examples of why people need a strong hand to control them, but USA cannot or will not let go.

Unfortunately it is sad rather than amusing to watch the demise.

Wilfred , says: October 26, 2017 at 7:58 pm
Considering how events unfolded, both for Iraq and for Saddam personally, it's hard to take seriously the notion that he was a far-sighted seer.
M Murqus , says: October 26, 2017 at 11:11 pm
Despite all that is said, the USA has not "failed" in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq, as well as the invasion of Afghanistan and the destabilization of Libya and Syria, are all steps in the plan to control natural resources and dismember any threat to the zionist entity of israel whose lackeys actually control the U.S.

In addition, every country that was attacked was placed directly under the control of the bankers who finance the zionists. Every threat to the hegenomy of these bankers has been snuffed out and everywhere gold reserves were stolen, and oil, gas and mineral deposits are now under their control.

Whether you believe it ot like it or not, this is what is happening.

[Oct 27, 2017] False Flag Bombings, Murder Plots, Bizarre Phone Calls The Stunning Revelations In The JFK Assassination Files Zero Hedge

Oct 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Following last night's release of the latest set of JFK Assassination Files, the public has been busy combing through the several thousand documents. Among the more notable discoveries so far are the following: the CIA contemplated mafia hits on Cuban President Fidel Castro, involving the "false flag" staging of bombings in Miami; Someone calling the FBI threatening to kill Lee Harvey Oswald a day before Oswald's murder; the US examined sabotaging airplane parts heading to Cuba. As a reminder, following a deadline 25 years in the making, last night the National Archives released an abridged dump of JFK Assassination files. While president Trump blocked the release of some, arguably the most controversial, documents citing national security concerns, the release still left researchers and conspiracy theorists with 52 previously unreleased full documents and thousands in part to sift through.

Here are the key highlights from the trove so far, courtesy of CBS and AP :

[Oct 26, 2017] BuzzFeed's Golden Showers debacle is classic yellow press fake

Notable quotes:
"... When I first read the memos, I knew none of the backstory, and looked forward to the salacious content to bring this clown down, particularly any facts showing that the Trump people had prior knowledge of the Russian hacks - a Watergate-sized story, if true, even if the effects of the hacks on the election are being overblown. But with nearly 40 years of investigative experience, mostly on international issues, the wording of the memos quickly caused me to slam on the breaks, because they were worded in such a way as to make confirmation of the charges impossible. The rule involved in making professional judgments on these kinds of things is simple: you look for information that can be proven either true or false, and from that factual template, you then build out one incontrovertible fact at a time. These memoranda had no such facts, with the possible exception of Cohen's trip to Prague, which the FBI told the WSJ was false. ..."
washingtonbabylon.com

From: BuzzFeed's Golden Showers Washington Babylon

... think it was wrong for BuzzFeed to publish it and the media company bears responsibility for this debacle, which has made the entire profession look even worse and generated sympathy for, of all people, Donald Trump.

Simpson's firm is being berated at the moment but there are a lot of companies in Washington who do the same thing - namely produce political and business intelligence for paying clients - and they operate openly and everyone, including journalists, know who they are. In terms of political intelligence, there are firms who work for Democrats and firms that work for Republicans, and some who work for both. The Democrats don't have a monopoly on these firms as one might imagine from the current hysteria.

... ... ...

As has been widely reported, the Trump dossier had circulated for many months - at least as far back as August - and even though there was a fever on the part of the media to get anti-Trump stories into print, everyone with the exception of David Corn of Mother Jones declined to write about the "dossier," and even he only referred to parts of it. The fact that dozens of journalists reviewed these documents and declined to use them, on the grounds that their allegations could not be verified shows that the information contained within them was very shaky.

I read the documents online and it's clear that they are thinly sourced and there were apparently serious errors in them, for example the bit about Trump's attorney's trip to Prague...

... ... ...

Whatever you think of Trump, he won this embarrassing election under the rules of the game. (And yes, Hillary won the popular vote and in a serious democracy she would have been declared the winner, but we are stuck for the time being with the Electoral College.) The Golden Showers story is quite a sensational accusation to make given that he was about 10 days out from inauguration. If Hillary had won the election would Buzzfeed have posted an unproven dossier on her that alleged she had hired prostitutes during an overseas trip to Ukraine? I seriously doubt it, especially given Buzzfeed's notable pro-Hillary tilt during the campaign.

... ... ...

When Chuck Todd accused Smith of publishing "fake news," he suggested that BuzzFeed was just being a good Internet news organization and not letting the media and political elite keep information from the public. This would be easier to take more seriously if BuzzFeed is not so obviously a part of the media elite and doesn't fraternize so comfortably with the political elite like most other news outlets. BuzzFeed was chasing clicks and that's fine, but dressing this up as public service doesn't cut it and especially given the political calculations involved.

BuzzFeed's other excuse was that the documents were already being talked about and were referred to in the Intelligence Community's very dubious report on Trump. But the documents appear to have been given to various agencies by political figures seeking to burn Trump, which BuzzFeed was only too happy to help out with. So it appears that Trump's political enemies and media enemies were working together to get this information out before the inauguration.

I'd also note here one peculiar, and possibly unethical, thing about the New York Times' behavior here. The Times, like everyone but BuzzFeed, didn't publish the report but they wrote quite a bit about it. In an early story it said that they would not identify the research firm behind the leaked memos because of "a confidential source agreement with The New York Times." Then it revealed the firm's name in a later story and edited the earlier one to take out the line about their confidential source agreement.

So it looks like the Times violated a confidentiality agreement, which is pretty troubling...

... ... ...

Note: I'd strongly urge anyone following this story to friend long-time investigative journalist and researcher Craig Pyes on Facebook. ....

Here is an excerpt:

When I first read the memos, I knew none of the backstory, and looked forward to the salacious content to bring this clown down, particularly any facts showing that the Trump people had prior knowledge of the Russian hacks - a Watergate-sized story, if true, even if the effects of the hacks on the election are being overblown. But with nearly 40 years of investigative experience, mostly on international issues, the wording of the memos quickly caused me to slam on the breaks, because they were worded in such a way as to make confirmation of the charges impossible. The rule involved in making professional judgments on these kinds of things is simple: you look for information that can be proven either true or false, and from that factual template, you then build out one incontrovertible fact at a time. These memoranda had no such facts, with the possible exception of Cohen's trip to Prague, which the FBI told the WSJ was false.

[Oct 26, 2017] Putin Warns Of Soft Coup Against Trump; Calls Golden Shower Dossier Creators Worse Than Prostitutes

Notable quotes:
"... Warning that a "soft coup" is being waged against Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he sees attempts in the United States to "delegitimize" US President-elect Donald Trump using "Maidan-style" methods previously used in Ukraine, where readers will recall president Yanukovich was ousted in 2014 following a violent coup, which many suspect was conducted under the auspices of the US State Department and assorted US intelligence operations. ..."
"... Putin said he doesn't believe that Donald Trump met with prostitutes in Russia, calling the accusations part of a campaign to undermine the election result, and suggested that an internal political struggle is underway in the United States despite the fact that the presidential election is over, and added that reports of alleged Russian dossier on Trump are fake as "our security services do not chase every US billionaire." ..."
Jan 17, 2017 | www.thedailysheeple.com
Warning that a "soft coup" is being waged against Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he sees attempts in the United States to "delegitimize" US President-elect Donald Trump using "Maidan-style" methods previously used in Ukraine, where readers will recall president Yanukovich was ousted in 2014 following a violent coup, which many suspect was conducted under the auspices of the US State Department and assorted US intelligence operations.

Putin said he doesn't believe that Donald Trump met with prostitutes in Russia, calling the accusations part of a campaign to undermine the election result, and suggested that an internal political struggle is underway in the United States despite the fact that the presidential election is over, and added that reports of alleged Russian dossier on Trump are fake as "our security services do not chase every US billionaire."

Unsubstantiated allegations made against Trump are "obvious fabrications," Putin told reporters in the Kremlin on Tuesday. "People who order fakes of the type now circulating against the U.S. president-elect, who concoct them and use them in a political battle, are worse than prostitutes because they don't have any moral boundaries at all," he said.

The Russian president, cited by BBG, said that Trump wasn't a politician when he visited Moscow in the past and Russian officials weren't aware that he held any political ambitions.

[Oct 25, 2017] Did John McCain Launder Dodgy Trump Intel Dossier

Looks like the US Senate is a real can of worms...
Notable quotes:
"... One involved the media, which in October were given and encouraged to publish the "report" by the authors of the report (or their sponsors), purportedly a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence company ..."
"... Remember, we have a dubious report constructed for the purpose of discrediting Donald Trump, which was first commissioned by one of his Republican primary rivals and later completed under the patronage of someone in Hillary's camp. ..."
"... Enter John McCain. According to media reports, the dossier was handed to Sen. McCain -- again, a strong Trump opponent and proponent of conflict with Russia -- by a former UK ambassador (who presumably received it from the source, a former British intelligence officer). ..."
"... Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the most powerful members of the US Senate. Consider the impact of being handed a strange report by some private intelligence-firm-for-hire or a media outlet versus being handed a report by one of the most powerful men in the US government. McCain's involving himself in the case gave the report a sense of legitimacy that it would not otherwise have had. Was this "laundering" intentional on his part? We do not know, but given his position on Trump and Russia that possibility must be considered. ..."
"... So great was the pressure on McCain to come clean on his decision to meet privately with the FBI Director to hand over this report that he released a statement earlier today portraying himself as nothing more than a good citizen, passing information to the proper authorities for them to act on if they see fit. ..."
Jan 11, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

We all know what money laundering is. When you need to hide the fact that the money in your possession comes by way of nefarious sources, you transfer it through legitimate sources and it appears clean on the other end. It's standard practice among thieves, extortionists, drug dealers, and the like.

The same practice can even be used to "clean" intelligence that comes by dubious sources, and sometimes even US Senators may involve themselves in such dark activities. Case in point US Senator John McCain (R-AZ), whose virulent opposition to Donald Trump is outmatched only by his total dedication to fomenting a new cold (or hot?) war with Russia.

While the world was caught up in the more salacious passages from a purported opposition research report on Donald Trump showing all manner of collusion with Putin's Russia -- and Russia's possession of blackmail-able kompromat on Trump -- something very interesting was revealed about the custody of the information. The "dossier" on Trump seemed to follow two chains of custody. One involved the media, which in October were given and encouraged to publish the "report" by the authors of the report (or their sponsors), purportedly a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence company. Only David Corn of Mother Jones bit, and his resulting story picked over the report to construct a mess of innuendo on Trump's relation to Russia that was short on any evidence.

The other chain of custody is what interests us. Remember, we have a dubious report constructed for the purpose of discrediting Donald Trump, which was first commissioned by one of his Republican primary rivals and later completed under the patronage of someone in Hillary's camp. It was created for a specific political purpose, which may have tainted its reception among more objective governmental sources had that been known.

Enter John McCain. According to media reports, the dossier was handed to Sen. McCain -- again, a strong Trump opponent and proponent of conflict with Russia -- by a former UK ambassador (who presumably received it from the source, a former British intelligence officer).

Senator McCain then felt duty-bound to bring this "intelligence report" directly (and privately) to the personal attention of FBI Director James Comey. From this hand-off to Comey, the report then became part of the Intelligence Community's assessment of Russian interference in the US presidential election.

Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the most powerful members of the US Senate. Consider the impact of being handed a strange report by some private intelligence-firm-for-hire or a media outlet versus being handed a report by one of the most powerful men in the US government. McCain's involving himself in the case gave the report a sense of legitimacy that it would not otherwise have had. Was this "laundering" intentional on his part? We do not know, but given his position on Trump and Russia that possibility must be considered.

So great was the pressure on McCain to come clean on his decision to meet privately with the FBI Director to hand over this report that he released a statement earlier today portraying himself as nothing more than a good citizen, passing information to the proper authorities for them to act on if they see fit.

Do you believe the Senator from Arizona?


Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Oct 25, 2017] The Definitive Demise of the Debunked Dodgy Dossier on The Donald

Notable quotes:
"... For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful. ..."
"... Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued. ..."
"... puts his name on stuff ..."
"... (2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy ..."
"... Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky – ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the US by means of "gravitational weapons". ..."
"... Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele? ..."
"... But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to be discredited appears strange. ..."
"... Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible, you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational, and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st and ..."
"... Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game, you don't care about the niceties. ..."
"... transition ..."
"... And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days. ..."
"... Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. ..."
Jan 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
by Lambert Strether of Corrente .

In the midst of the hysteria about Russian interference in the 2016 election - 52% of Democrat voters believe it's definitely or probably true that "Russia tampered with vote tallies" , a view for which there is no evidence whatever, and which is a depressing testimony to the power of propaganda to produce epistemic closure in liberals as well as conservatives - came Buzzfeed's 35-page "dodgy dossier" on Donald Trump, oppo that the researcher, Christopher Steele , peddled during the election proper, but was unable to sell, not even to an easy mark like Jebbie. (There's a useful debunking of Steele's report in the New York Review of Books , of all places.) Remember the piss jokes? So two-weeks ago Amazingly, or not, a two-page summary to Steele's product had been included in a briefing given to Trump (and Obama). A weary Obama was no doubt well accustomed to the intelligence community's little ways, but the briefing must have been quite a revelation to Trump. I mean, Trump is a man who knows shoddy when he sees it, right?

In any case, a link to the following story in Hamburg's ridiculously sober-sided Die Zeit came over the transom: So schockiert von Trump wie alle anderen ("So shocked by Trump like everyone else"). The reporter is Alexej Kowaljow , a Russian journalist based in Moscow. Before anyone goes "ZOMG! The dude is Russian !", everything Kowaljow writes is based on open sources or common-sense information presumably available to citizens of any nation. The bottom line for me is that if the world is coming to believe that Americans are idiots, it's not necessarily because Americans elected Trump as President.

I'm going to lay out two claims and two questions from Kowaljow's piece. In each case, I'll quote the conventional, Steele and intelligence community-derived wisdom in our famously free press, and then I'll quote Kowaljow. I think Kowaljow wins each time. Easily. I don't think Google Translate handles irony well, but I sense that Kowaljow is deploying it freely.

(1) Trump's Supposed Business Dealings in Russia Are Commercial Puffery

Here's the section on Russia in Time's article on Trump's business dealings; it's representative. I'm going to quote it all so you can savor it. Read it carefully.

Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map

Russia

"For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump tweeted in July, one day before he called on the country to "find" a batch of emails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private server. Nonetheless, Russia's extraordinary meddling in the 2016 U.S. election-a declassified report released by U.S. intelligence agencies in January disclosed that intercepted conversations captured senior Russian officials celebrating Trump's win-as well as Trump's complimentary remarks about Russian President have stirred widespread questions about the President-elect's pursuit of closer ties with Moscow. Several members of Trump's inner circle have business links to Russia, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who consulted for pro-Russia politicians in the Ukraine. Former foreign policy adviser Carter Page worked in Russia and maintains ties there.

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser, has been a regular guest on Russia's English-language propaganda network, RT , and even dined with Putin at a banquet.

During the presidential transition, former Georgia Congressman and Trump campaign surrogate Jack Kingston told a gathering of businessmen in Moscow that the President-elect could lift U.S. sanctions.

According to his own son, Trump has long relied on Russian customers as a source of income. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr. told a Manhattan real estate conference in 2008 , according to an account posted on the website of trade publication eTurboNews. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." Back to map .

Read that again, if you can stand it. Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump? Do you see the name of any businessperson who closed a deal with Trump? Do you, in fact, see any reporting at all? At most, you see commercial puffery by Trump the Younger: "Russians [in Russia?] make up a pretty [qualifier] disproportionate [whatever that means] cross-section [whatever that means] of a lot of [qualifier] our assets."

Now Kowaljow (via Google Translate, so forgive any solecisms):

For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful.

Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued.

Because think about it: Trump puts his name on stuff . Towers in Manhattan, hotels, casinos, golf courses, steaks. Anything in Russia with Trump's name on it? Besides the failed vodka venture? No? Case closed, then.

(2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy

From The Hill's summary of Russian "interference" in the 2016 election:

Five reasons intel community believes Russia interfered in election

The attacks dovetailed with other Russian disinformation campaigns

The report covers more than just the hacking effort. It also contains a detailed list account of information warfare against the United States from Russia through other means.

Political party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the report lists as a "pro-Kremlin proxy," said before the election that, if Trump won, Russia would 'drink champagne' to celebrate their new ability to advance in Syria and Ukraine.

Now Kowaljow:

The report of the American intelligence services on the Russian interference in the US elections, published at the beginning of January, was notoriously neglected by Russians, because the name of Vladimir Zhirinovsky was mentioned among the "propaganda activities of Russia", which had announced that in the event of an election victory of Trump champagne to want to drink.

Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky – ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the US by means of "gravitational weapons".

If, therefore, the Kremlin had indeed had the treacherous plan of helping Trump to power, it would scarcely have been made known about Zhirinovsky.

The American equivalent would be. Give me a moment to think of an American politician who's both so delusional and such a laughingstock that no American President could possibly consider using them as a proxy in a devilishly complex informational warfare campaign Sara Palin? Anthony Weiner? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Na ga happen.

And now to the two questions.

(3) Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele?

Kowaljow:

But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to be discredited appears strange.

Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible, you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational, and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st and 20th centuries, suborning the President of the United States, and whose intelligence agencies are (3) leakly like a sieve. Does that make sense? (Of course, the devilish Russkis could have fed Steele bad data, knowing he'd then feed it to the American intelligence agencies, who would lap it up, but that's another narrative.)

(4) How Do You Compromise the Uncompromisable?

Funny how suddenly the word kompromat was everywhere, wasn't it? So sophisticated. Everybody loves to learn a new word! Regarding the "Golden Showers" - more sophistication! - Kowaljow writes:

But even if such a compromise should exist, what sense should it have, since the most piquant details have long been publicly discussed in public, and had no effect on the votes of the elected president? Like all the other scandals trumps, which passed through the election campaign, they also remained unresolved, including those who were concerned about sex.

This also includes what is known as a compromise, compromising material, that is, video shots of the unsightly nature, which can destroy both the political career and the life of a person. The word Kompromat shines today – as in the past Perestroika – in all headlines; It was not invented in Russia, of course. But in Russia in the Yeltsin era, when the great clans in the power gave bitter fights and intensively used the media, works of this kind have ended more than just a brilliant career. General Prosecutor Jurij Skuratov was dismissed after a video had been shown in the country-wide television channels: There, a person "who looks like the prosecutor's office" had sex with two prostitutes.

Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game, you don't care about the niceties.

Conclusion

It would be nice, wouldn't it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump transition , instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:

  1. The content and impact of Trump's Executive Orders.
  2. Ditto, regulations.
  3. Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?
  4. Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them. Charters, for example.
  5. Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.
  6. The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.
  7. Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump's implementation

And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days.

Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing unless, of course, you're the sort of sleaze merchant who downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it's all about the clicks.

[Oct 25, 2017] Ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele in hiding after Trump dossier

Notable quotes:
"... BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer - rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer. ..."
"... Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President Obama last week. ..."
"... But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned. ..."
"... Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking the dossier. ..."
Jan 12, 2017 | www.bbc.com

An ex-MI6 officer who is believed to have prepared memos claiming Russia has compromising material on US President-elect Donald Trump is now in hiding, the BBC understands.

Christopher Steele, who runs a London-based intelligence firm, is believed to have left his home this week.

The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian security officials have compromising material on Mr Trump.

The US president-elect said the claims were "fake news" and "phoney stuff".

Mr Steele has been widely named as the author of a series of memos - which have been published as a dossier in some US media - containing extensive allegations about Mr Trump's personal life and his campaign's relationship with the Russian state.

... ... ...

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer - rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer.

However, as Mr Steele was now working in the private sector, our correspondent said, there was "probably a fair bit of money involved" in the commissioning of the reports.

He said there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations and it was still possible the dossier had been based on what "people had said" about Mr Trump "without any proof".

Donald J. Tump Twit

@realDonaldTrump

James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated. Made up, phony facts. Too bad!

... ... ...

Obama briefing

The 35-page dossier on Mr Trump - which is believed to have been commissioned initially by Republicans opposed to Mr Trump - has been circulating in Washington for some time.

Media organisations, uncertain of its credibility, initially held back from publication. However, the entire series of reports has now been posted online, with Mr Steele named as the author.

Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President Obama last week.

But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned.

Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking the dossier.

[Oct 25, 2017] Former MI6 agent behind Trump dossier returns to work by Luke Harding and Nick Hopkins

So guardian clearly supports Steele dossier. Nice... So the guy clearly tried to influence the US election and Guardian neoliberal honchos and their Russophobic presstitutes (like Luke Harding) are OK with it. They just complain about Russian influence. British elite hypocrisy in action...
Notable quotes:
"... Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow in 2013. ..."
"... Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed Russia did not collect kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else. ..."
"... As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said. ..."
Mar 07, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Christopher Steele speaks publicly for first time since the file was revealed and thanks supporters for 'kind messages'

The former MI6 agent behind the controversial Trump dossier has returned to work, nearly two months after its publication caused an international scandal and furious denials from Washington and Moscow.

Christopher Steele posed for a photograph outside the office of his business intelligence company Orbis in Victoria, London on Tuesday. Speaking for the first time since his dossier was revealed , Steele said he had received messages of support.

"I'm now going to be focusing my efforts on supporting the broader interests of our company here," he told the Press Association. "I'd like to say a warm thank you to everyone who sent me kind messages and support over the last few weeks."

Steele, who left British intelligence in 2009 and co-founded Orbis with an MI6 colleague, said he would not comment substantively on the contents of the dossier: "Just to add, I won't be making any further statements or comments at this time."

Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow in 2013.

It alleged that Trump was secretly videoed with Russian prostitutes in a suite in the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Moscow. The prostitutes allegedly urinated on the bed used by Barack Obama during a presidential visit.

Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed Russia did not collect kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else.

Steele's friends say he has been keen to go back to work for some weeks. They insist he has not been in hiding but has been keeping a low profile to avoid paparazzi who have been camped outside his family home in Surrey.

Several of the lurid stories about him that have appeared in the press have been wrong, said friends. The stories include claims that Steele met Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian dissident who was murdered in 2006 with a radioactive cup of tea, probably on Putin's orders .

As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.

[Oct 25, 2017] Why the FBI wiretap on former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is a big deal by Randall D. Eliason

Neocons still dream of Trump impeachment. Neutering him is not enough... the number of potentially illegal wiretaps of Trump associates suggests that threr was a plan to derail plan in three letter agencies headquarters (with blessing of Obama). Plan of interfere with the US election to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times reported Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. ..."
"... A typical white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate. ..."
"... Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | washingtonpost.com

Then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort at the Republican National Convention. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)

Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign.

CNN reported Monday night that the FBI obtained a warrant to listen in on Manafort's phone calls back in 2014. The warrant was part of an investigation into U.S. firms that may have performed undisclosed work for the Ukrainian government. The surveillance reportedly lapsed for a time but was begun again last year when the FBI learned about possible ties between Russian operatives and Trump associates.

This news is a big deal primarily because of what it takes to obtain such a wiretap order. The warrant reportedly was issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A FISA warrant requires investigators to demonstrate to the FISA court that there is probable cause to believe the target may be acting as an unlawful foreign agent.

When news broke last month that Mueller was using a grand jury to conduct his investigation, many reported it with unnecessary breathlessness. Although a grand jury investigation is certainly significant, a prosecutor does not need court approval or a finding of probable cause to issue a grand jury subpoena, and Mueller's use of a grand jury was not unexpected .

A FISA warrant is another matter. It means investigators have demonstrated probable cause to an independent judicial authority. Obtaining a warrant actually says much more about the strength of the underlying allegations than issuing a grand jury subpoena.

That's also why the search warrant executed at Manafort's home in July was such a significant step in the investigation. Unlike a grand jury subpoena, the search warrant required Mueller's team to demonstrate to a judge that a crime probably had been committed.

But it's important not to get too far in front of the story. The FBI surveillance of Manafort reportedly began in 2014, long before he was working as Trump's campaign manager. So the initial allegations, at least, appear to have involved potential crimes having nothing to do with the Trump campaign. And most or all of the surveillance apparently took place before Mueller was even appointed and was not at his direction.

Mueller's involvement now does suggest that the current focus relates to Manafort's role in the Trump campaign. But we don't know exactly how, if at all, any alleged crimes by Manafort relate to his work in that role. And we don't know whether any other individuals involved in the campaign are potentially implicated.

We also don't know what evidence was obtained as a result of the surveillance. The fact that warrants were issued does not mean any evidence of criminal conduct was actually found.

The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times reported Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. Even if Mueller were to indict Manafort for crimes not directly related to the Trump campaign, it would be a significant development. A typical white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate.

Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly.

But news of the FISA surveillance is the latest evidence that Mueller's investigation is serious, aggressive and will be with us for some time.

Randall D. Eliason teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School.

[Oct 25, 2017] The McCain globalist-American Exceptionalism narrative is the steady injection of lies and half-truths so that the public accepts the unending demands for increased defense spending, accepting that the world outside is a dangerous place that must be kept in line by force majeur of US policeman.

Notable quotes:
"... This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world's policeman. He describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism." ..."
"... And this is why we are where we are -- our government is infested by the likes of McCain, Lindsay Graham, and hundreds of others of their ilk. There is no milk of human kindness that flows in my veins when I look at these despicable creatures who have done so much harm to so many people and continue to exist, cancer and all, like Darth Cheney with his nuclear heart, while the innocents fall by the wayside from their evil. ..."
"... I can't find that citation at the moment, but I recall a report from US military experts that placed the accuracy of interceptor missiles at about 10% in real-world conditions. I vaguely recall that during the Gulf war, we had placed Patriot interceptors in Israel to protect the chosen from Saddam's Scud missiles, and apparently only a few of those decrepit scuds were successfully intercepted. I believe the lack of accuracy of these Patriot missiles was hushed up. ..."
Oct 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

Americans consequently do not know war except as something that happens elsewhere and to foreigners, requiring only that the U.S. step in on occasion and bail things out, or screw things up depending on one's point of view. This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world's policeman. He describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism."

McCain's completely fatuous account of recent world history befits a Navy pilot who was adept at crashing his planes and almost sank his own aircraft carrier. He also made propaganda radio broadcasts for the North Vietnamese after he was captured. The McCain globalist-American Exceptionalism narrative is also, unfortunately, echoed by the media. The steady ingestion of lies and half-truths is why the public puts up with unending demands for increased defense spending, accepting that the world outside is a dangerous place that must be kept in line by force majeure . Yes, we are the good guys.

But underlying the citizenry's willingness to accept that the military establishment should encircle the globe with foreign bases to keep the world "safe" is the assumption that the 48 States are invulnerable, isolated by broad oceans and friendly nations to the north and south. And protected from far distant threats by technology, interceptor systems developed and maintained at enormous expense to intercept and shoot down incoming ballistic missiles launched by enemies overseas.

Cloak And Dagger, October 24, 2017 at 5:22 am GMT

Phil, two topics so dear to my heart!

This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world's policeman. He describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism."

And this is why we are where we are -- our government is infested by the likes of McCain, Lindsay Graham, and hundreds of others of their ilk. There is no milk of human kindness that flows in my veins when I look at these despicable creatures who have done so much harm to so many people and continue to exist, cancer and all, like Darth Cheney with his nuclear heart, while the innocents fall by the wayside from their evil.

I had wished him dead, but as a friend reminded me, it is better for him to live, suffering from excruciating agony as cancer demolishes him one cell at a time, jabbing his brain every second of every day -- to the brink of madness and just a step behind the precipice that would end his life, living for decades more, tortured and despised.

Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.

-- Herman Melville

Even the federal government watchdog agencies have concluded that the missile interception system seldom performs.

I can't find that citation at the moment, but I recall a report from US military experts that placed the accuracy of interceptor missiles at about 10% in real-world conditions. I vaguely recall that during the Gulf war, we had placed Patriot interceptors in Israel to protect the chosen from Saddam's Scud missiles, and apparently only a few of those decrepit scuds were successfully intercepted. I believe the lack of accuracy of these Patriot missiles was hushed up.

Meanwhile, the Russian S-300, S-400, and the soon-to-appear S-500 missile batteries have demonstrated very impressive results. Now our "allies" are all scampering over to Moscow to acquire these instead of our duds, following the utter failure of our $0.5 Trillion F-35 embarrassment.

It is high time for us to ask how we got here and who is responsible. I will give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

[Oct 25, 2017] N Korea simply wants to be left alone. Sending a message of 'will and capability' is not how they think. They are sending a message of 'if you corner me, I will hurt you, even if we both die'.

Oct 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

Greg Bacon , Website October 24, 2017 at 8:54 am GMT

If our missile defense systems are so hot, why haven't the interceptors, stationed in Alaska, Japan, S. Korea and on US Navy ships in the area, shot down any of Kim's missiles that go flying over Japan?

We're being sold a bill of goods, or BS for short. Those missile defense systems make for fat Pentagon contracts, but will do no more to protect Americans than the old 'Duck and Cover' propaganda we were taught back in the 1950′s and 1960′s. Just duck and cover under your school desk, then after the nukes pops off, get back to living.

With all the colleges and university's the USA has, how can Americans be so stupid?

Smoler , October 24, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT

To me, the biggest threat that a North Korean attack could pose would be EMP. All they'd have to do is get a nuclear warhead into the atmosphere somewhere above or off the west coast of the US. Setting off that would destroy much of the electronics upon which our 'Communications Age' relies upon with an EMP wave.

And that seems hard, or at least harder to stop. It does not require accuracy on the part of the North Korean missile(s). And it only requires that one such warhead get through the missile defenses. With a bit of subterfuge, it could possibly be disquised as yet another missile test, one that would obviously not be aimed at the US mainland, but falling short, before it explodes high in the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean, but close enough that the EMP wave has a direct path to much of the US. I suspect that many military electronics are hardened against this, as the effect has been known for quite some time. But the consumer electronics upon which our society relies would not be. Picture for instance every cell-phone/smart-phone going dead. And that's just one effect.

And it seems to be a big ask to ask missile defense to stop that. Especially when in controlled test after controlled test, when the 'defenders' know exactly what missiles will be launched, when they will be launched, and all the information about their trajectory, the missile defense still seems to be a 'hit-or-miss' proposition.

Which is why we should be negotiating. Although, the main problem with that is why the North Koreans would negotiate considering the US didn't keep its word in the 2005 agreement and is currently in the process of teaching Iran that the word of the US isn't worth the toilet paper an agreement is written upon.

Chris Mallory , October 24, 2017 at 7:49 pm GMT
@Smoler

To me, the biggest threat that a North Korean attack could pose would be EMP. All they'd have to do is get a nuclear warhead into the atmosphere somewhere above or off the west coast of the US.

Actually it is harder than that. They would have to have a warhead large enough to produce the EMP pulse strong enough to damage the electronics. Then they have to hit the right spot to target the area they want to damage. Too high and the EMP pulse won't be strong enough too low and it won't have the range needed to do the damage.

Plus any equipment not under load will probably be unaffected by the EMP. The EMP threat is greatly overblown.

headrick , October 24, 2017 at 10:55 pm GMT
If we nuked NK, I think we would become a world pariah. I am not sure though. NK says what they want is to be accepted as a nuclear power but not have to actually fight a nuclear war to achieve that. I don't know who to believe about that. It seems that the US is more belligerent than SK so maybe we should get in line behind and not ahead of SK about this. Jeeze, what a mess.
Chris Mallory , October 24, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter

If the US government hits Pyongyang with even "small" tactical nuclear weapons, how will we avoid irradiating South Korea and China, which are very nearby?

Depending on how long the radioactive debris stays aloft, how do we keep from irradiating Japan? If you look at a prevailing winds map, the winds blow west to east across the Korean peninsula and encircle Japan.

anonymous , Disclaimer October 25, 2017 at 12:05 am GMT

Americans consequently do not know war except as something that happens elsewhere and to foreigners,

That's pretty much it in a nutshell, isn't it? Americans usually don't give a hoot about dead furriners, they all look alike anyway. Notice that in all this sharpening of tension and debate regarding the DPRK no American has brought up the issue of what do the people of the ROK think about the prospect of hostilities over there. They're on the front line and would bear the cost of any outbreak of war yet no American cares about that even though they're supposed to be our close ally. Our 'ally' apparently would just be collateral damage of little interest to anyone on these shores. It's worrying because now it appears that the DPRK is emerging as another nuclear power and wants to develop the capability to hit the US; it's no longer a one-way street. The US never asked anyone for permission to build it's nuclear weapons and it's ability to act as a gatekeeper is eroding before it's eyes, hence the hysterical rhetoric. DPRK is becoming a member of the world's nuclear club regardless of who likes it so deal with it. There's always Venezuela to invade. Or Niger. Oh wait, we're already there.

Grandpa Charlie , October 25, 2017 at 12:22 am GMT
@Chris Mallory

"

So you would have no issue with the North Koreans, China, Russia or Outer Bumfreakistan running military exercises with Mexico just south of the Rio Grande?" Chris Mallory, to Grandpa

Chris, you manage to pack quite a few false equivalencies into your 25 words! Here's an example: Mexico is a much larger country than South Korea -- anywhere in South Korea could be taken as "just south of the Rio Grande". The area of Mexico is about 20 times that of South Korea! Plus, if you think about it, the only realistic exercises would have to be at the DMZ or at some kind of mock-up of the DMZ and where would you like UN/USA/ROK to construct that mock-up?

But of course, Chris, you don't think about anything at all you don't have to, being absolutely certain of your righteousness and the evil of all those who oppose your stupid POV. Very "liberal" of you!

nsa , October 25, 2017 at 1:49 am GMT
Not the slightest chance of a war with the Koreans ..nuke or otherwise. The reason is as plain as the hook nose on your face ..nothing in it for the jooies who run Jerusalem on the Potomac. Iran is the target. We here in Ft. Meade get paid to know these things .
Cloak And Dagger , October 25, 2017 at 2:03 am GMT
@renfro

There is a lot of hot air about South Korea being willing to destroy North Korea. I have spent a fair amount of time in Seoul over the years, and one thing that people may not realize is that many South Koreans have families and relatives in North Korea. They are not about to bomb them.

Beckow , October 25, 2017 at 2:04 am GMT
@peterAUS

N Korea simply wants to be left alone. Sending a message of 'will and capability' is not how they think. They are sending a message of 'if you corner me, I will hurt you, even if we both die'. They are also not going to start anything. If they are pre-emptively attacked, what happens next is anyone's guess. But it could be catastrophic.

My point is that apart from the likely catastrophe, if we survive, there would also be a long-term negative consequence for Washington in terms of very bad vibes for generations in that part of the world. Actually, probably all over the world. That is a risk even more unhinged warmongers in Washington might not want to take. But, hey if their rationality is as low as you think, they just might. They might as well nuke Soul for all the emotional anger that would release among the Koreans.

Beckow , October 24, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT

@peterAUS

There is also South Korea. Try to imagine the fallout among Koreans (and Japanese, Chinese, other Asians) if their cousins are nuked. In the short run it might even work -- if it would be an extremely targeted attack. But there is also longer run and for decades US would not be able to live this down. Generations of Koreans would grow up bitter that it was deemed ok to nuke people like them. War propaganda tends to wear off and only angry emotional memories remain.

And the Europeans, they would be apoplectic, probably the end of their American infatuation.

So the downside is potentially enormous. My guess is that fat Kim and his crew just want to be left alone. And they are scared. What's the point is stirring up a wasp nest? Now just imagine Chinese reaction if somebody drops a nuke on their border. It wouldn't be pretty.

Greg the American , October 24, 2017 at 5:24 pm GMT

Am I the only one having trouble seeing through the propaganda to understand the situation in North Korea? If they are wacko bird and horrible bad guys, then Trump may be right and Tillerson is wasting his time.

On the other hand, my suspicion is that this is our creation, we're still fighting a decades old proxy war for some reason, and all we really need to do is get our boot off their throat. If this is the case, and it costs us Seattle, then we need to call the American experiment done.

Let's pretend the author is wrong, star wars works (reagan sits up in his grave and gives a fist pump) and we successfully kill a couple million North Koreans. Problem solved, right? Aside from the sin of it (hard to put aside), I think the aftermath will call in a lot of accounts Americans will be ashamed to pay.

Or maybe not, all these wars are started by the lies of the powerful.

Beckow , October 24, 2017 at 8:28 pm GMT

@peterAUS

"Kim regime does not appear reasonable"

Appearances are created for you, I am not sure these 'appearances' reflect reality in N Korea. They might, but we are also being manipulated. Since I am not familiar with N Korea, my sanity check is to compare 'media appearances' of things I know well to actual reality. And there one can see huge media created gaps.

I agree that US government is capable of seeing the longterm impact on Koreans as 'nothing'. That's a problem, some core sanity principles have been discarded in Washington. My point is that any nuclear usage would have huge long-term consequences, it could start unraveling the magical spell that 'America' has had for about 100 years on the rest of mankind. But they still might do it. Remember that these actions are never clear-cut -- there would be endless doubts about whether N Korea was actually going to -- or was capable -- of attacking Hawaii. There is no way you can win that in the long run. Koreans are after all a very-tightly related and very ethnically aware nation. And the difference between North and South Koreans is largely political -- they are the same people.

renfro , October 24, 2017 at 9:02 pm GMT

" Far better to take the North Korean threat seriously and admit that a west coast city like Seattle could well become the target of a successful nuclear weapon attack.>>>>>>

Isn't that what Trump and Co. and the Walking Dead Neocons have been doing all along fear mongering? I think so.

The myth of missile defense aside I don't know that I even buy that this N Korea hysteria is even about their nukes.
Reading reports in international papers it may be more about the fact that Russia has been actively investing in North Korea to secure a key strategic economic outlet to the Pacific Ocean. And on top of that Russia is acting as the political and business intermediary between China. Japan and the loud mouth in N Korea in this 3 sided squabble.

So all this crap about N Korea actually lobbing a nuke on the US reminds me of the WMD propaganda to justify invading Iraq.
It may be and probably is more about the US foiling Russian expansion of influence and commerce in that part of Asia.

L.K , October 24, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT
@peterAUS

As usual, you are completely full of shit but then, anyone with, er, half a brain, can see you are merely a virulent little war mongering Internet troll, always asking for some more war, from the comfort of whatever little insect hole you type your garbage. It reminds me of what another poster wrote around here: 'Amerikastan, Amerikastan, Wants to fight Russia and China, Iran and North Korea, Can't even beat, The Taliban*.' * that is a militia, btw.

hypewaders , October 24, 2017 at 9:44 pm GMT
International shipping provides convenient delivery to the world's ports. Of WMDs. Who are we really kidding?
L.K , October 24, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT
Why North Korea Needs Nukes -- And How To End That

Now consider what the U.S. media don't tell you about Korea:

BEIJING, March 8 (Xinhua) -- China proposed "double suspension" to defuse the looming crisis on the Korean Peninsula, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Wednesday. "As a first step, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) may suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises, " FM Wang, 'the lips', undoubtedly transmitted an authorized message from North Korea: "The offer is (still) on the table and China supports it."

North Korea has made the very same offer in January 2015. The Obama administration rejected it. North Korea repeated the offer in April 2016 and the Obama administration rejected it again. This March the Chinese government conveyed and supported the long-standing North Korean offer. The U.S. government, now under the Trump administration, immediately rejected it again. The offer, made and rejected three years in a row, is sensible. Its rejection only led to a bigger nuclear arsenal and to more missiles with longer reach that will eventually be able to reach the United States.

North Korea is understandably nervous each and every time the U.S. and South Korea launch their very large yearly maneuvers and openly train for invading North Korea and for killing its government and people. The maneuvers have large negative impacts on North Korea's economy.

North Korea justifies its nuclear program as the economically optimal way to respond to these maneuvers.[...]

Each time the U.S. and South Korea launch their very large maneuvers, the North Korean conscription army (1.2 million strong) has to go into a high state of defense readiness. Large maneuvers are a classic starting point for military attacks. The U.S.-South Korean maneuvers are (intentionally) held during the planting (April/May) or harvesting (August) season for rice when North Korea needs each and every hand in its few arable areas .

To understand why North Korea fears U.S. aggressiveness consider the utter devastation caused mostly by the U.S. during the Korea War:

Read it all at

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/the-reason-behind-north-koreas-nuclear-program-and-its-offer-to-end-it.html

Joe Stalin , October 25, 2017 at 3:13 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

You raise an interesting point. During the UN retreat under PRC attack in the Korean War, US merchant marine were requested, not ordered, to evacuate North Korean civilians to safety from Hungnam. They evacuated 90,000+ North Korean civilians to South Korea. Those NKs have supposedly contributed 1 million citizens to South Korea. "The evacuation included 14,000 refugees who were transported on one ship, the SS Meredith Victory -- the largest evacuation from land by a single ship."

https://www.marad.dot.gov/about-us/maritime-administration-history-program/usdot-maritime-gallant-ship-award/ss-meredith-victory-2/

Beckow , October 25, 2017 at 5:38 am GMT
@peterAUS

You are right that leaders don't like to risk a surprise attack. So they have a tendency to over-insure (most people in quiet, settled circumstances over-insure, because, well, what else is there to do?). This might be one of those cases where the circumstances lead us to a disaster. I hope not.

I don't "virtue signal". Virtues , like charity, only make sense in a narrow sense, in one's private life. But we need this planet for selfish reasons. Neo-cons are just the latest reincarnation of nutty, out-of-control busybodies obsessed with their own ideas and power. People like that have a cul-de-sac way of thinking. They tend to overdo it at the end and push things too far, go for that ultimate victory. Their thinking lacks boundaries. That makes them very dangerous. We are gain at one of those really dangerous moments in mankind's history, we could absent-mindedly cause a catastrophe. In a way a smaller catastrophe (like N Korea) could help us avoid a much bigger one.

Erebus , October 25, 2017 at 6:58 am GMT
@Grandpa Charlie

Actually, lots has been going on between the Russian-Chinese tag team and the two Koreas. Westerners wouldn't necessarily have heard much about it, but developments are afoot.

Largely unreported by Western corporate media, what happened in Vladivostok is really ground-breaking. Moscow and Seoul agreed on a trilateral trade platform, crucially involving Pyongyang, to ultimately invest in connectivity between the whole Korean peninsula and the Russian Far East. The rest is at http://www.atimes.com/article/russia-china-plan-north-korea-stability-connectivity/

According to reports, the N. Koreans didn't participate in the meeting, but "aren't against" the idea. Railways, ports, roads, and IT is how one draws the hermit kingdom out from its defensive shell. The US will have a hard time with this idea, so Moon will be under a lot of pressure to abandon these thoughts. Without the N. Korean bugaboo, the US has one less reason to be there, and they need all the reasons they can get. The Japanese have been eyeing this as well. They will not want to be left out.

Do Putin or Lavrov ever sleep?

KenH , October 25, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT

The tests themselves are carefully scripted to guarantee success.

And no doubt use that "success" to keep taxpayer money flowing for anti-ICBM defense systems.

Even if the success rate is an honest 50% that means five ICBM's will still reach their targets if say, Kim Jong Un fired ten at the west coast. Sacremento, LA and San Fransicko would go up in mushroom clouds. Governor Moonbeam would be no more, so there's a silver lining to everything.

Carroll Price , October 25, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

If the US could keep their hooked nose out of it, South and North Korea would have resolved their differences long ago.

[Oct 25, 2017] Tell Me How This Ends

The military and deep state are so thoroughly intertwined with the USA's domestic economy now that any attempt to rein in the military and/or the intelligence and law enforcement agencies that constitute the USA's deep state will have immediate and politically unacceptable consequences.
There are costs of maintaining global empire and fighting eight wars simultaneously, even if each is a low intensity conflict. That's how empires became bankrupt. Fighting wars at foreign lands also erode civil liberties at home. And that effect might be more profound in the USA case than many think. This is the effect not mentioned by the author.
Intelligence agencies were important players in all wars mentioned in the article and for them those countries served as a platform for development of more sophisticated methods of surveillance. And then chicken came home to roost. It was James Mattis experience with Iraq cell phone call interception (where you generally can't understand the content of the message and has only the "envelope" time of the call, duration and from and to parameters -- aka metadata) that led to current "total surveillance" regime. Which is another very expensive operation with somewhat questionable benefits. Which taken to the extreme when all connections are recorded at Telco level and internet provider level suffer from the problem of "drinking from the fire hose". To alleviate this problem, the direct access to major Webmail providers mailboxes was instituted as Snowden demonstrated. In this case information is already organized and filtered by the user.
But that means that security-conscious people just stopped using such accounts (not that reasonable people used Facebook, Gmail or hotmail for important emails in any case) and search engines which supposedly do not store history of your searches appeared on the market (keep our fingers crossed ;-) . Of cause Amazon remain the best fired of CIA and NSA, but it also might suffer from public understanding that being under the microscope of your purchases is not a very good thing.
Notable quotes:
"... The Best and the Brightest ..."
"... Field Service Manual 3-24 ..."
"... For example, the USA has, if I remember correctly, some 13 carrier task forces, more than six times as many as any other country and twice as many as all other countries in the world combined. Yet rather than eliminating any of this grotesquely belligerent, budget busting overkill, there is pressure to increase the number. The reasons behind this irrationality are obvious. The home bases of each task force are thriving domestic mini-economies centered entirely around catering to the needs of its carrier task force. Suggesting the task force's elimination would be political suicide. ..."
"... Despite this dismal scholarship, Petraeus became a four-star General, partly due to marriage to the daughter of four-star Army General William Knowlton. General Petraeus was in charge of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and since he failed to learn from the Vietnam war, he failed in those conflicts because of myths of U.S. military invincibility. " ..."
"... The all volunteer Army is a good thing for the USA and humanity in the long term. It selects for the most violent amoral young American men and hopefully eliminates their genes from the gene pool before they can reproduce. At a minimum, it gets a lot of them out of the USA so that they commit their rapes, assaults, and other crimes somewhere else ..."
"... Just Sayin, you are absolutely right about the intertwining of the economy and the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex. My present home state of Texas is deeply embedded with the military and actually allots a significant amount of state revenue to be prepared to prevent the closure or shrinkage of any military installation. And otherwise "progressive" political figures cite the need for this as a given, nothing to discuss here ..."
"... I recall teaching political science at the time that Tricky Dick eliminated the draft, and while my students applauded I warned them that we'd come to regret this. It didn't take long. But MBlanc 46 is right, the draft isn't coming back. The powers that be do not want public protests about their wars and their "war machine." ..."
"... "military leaders recall US units never lost a battle" is a brilliantly evasive phrasing, lawyer-like in its cunning, perhaps even Jesuitical. Sly dog, Petraeus. ..."
"... On another note, Petreus studied Vietnam. Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression. Both led us into intractable quagmires. When will we ever learn to not put people who study failure into positions to lead to new failures? ..."
Oct 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

It took 14 years, but now we have an answer.

It was March 2003, the invasion of Iraq was underway, and Major General David Petraeus was in command of the 101st Airborne Division heading for the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. Rick Atkinson, Washington Post journalist and military historian, was accompanying him. Six days into a lightning campaign, his division suddenly found itself stopped 30 miles southwest of the city of Najaf by terrible weather, including a blinding dust storm, and the unexpectedly "fanatical" attacks of Iraqi irregulars. At that moment, Atkinson reported ,

"[Petraeus] hooked his thumbs into his flak vest and adjusted the weight on his shoulders. 'Tell me how this ends,' he said. 'Eight years and eight divisions?' The allusion was to advice supposedly given the White House in the early 1950s by a senior Army strategist upon being asked what it would take to prop up French forces in South Vietnam. Petraeus's grin suggested the comment was more droll quip than historical assertion."

Certainly, Petraeus knew his history when it came to American interventions in distant lands. He had entered West Point just as the American war in Vietnam was beginning to wind down and did his doctoral dissertation at Princeton in 1987 on that conflict ("The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era"). In it, he wrote,

"Vietnam cost the military dearly. It left America's military leaders confounded, dismayed, and discouraged. Even worse, it devastated the armed forces, robbing them of dignity, money, and qualified people for a decade Vietnam was an extremely painful reminder that when it comes to intervention, time and patience are not American virtues in abundant supply."

So no wonder he was well acquainted with that 1954 exchange between President Dwight D. Eisenhower and former Korean War commander General Matthew Ridgeway about the French war in Vietnam. Perhaps, the "droll quip" aspect of his comment lay in his knowledge of just how badly Ridgeway underestimated both the years and the troop numbers that the American version of that war would eat up before it, too, ended in disaster and in a military as riddled with protest and as close to collapse as was imaginable for an American force of our era.

In his thesis, Petraeus called for the military high command to be granted a far freer hand in whatever interventions the future held. In that sense, in 1987, he was already mainlining into a twenty-first-century world in which the U.S. military continues to get everything it wants ( and more ) as it fights its wars without having to deal with either an obstreperous citizen army or too many politicians trying to impose their will on its actions.

And by the way, though his Najaf comments have regularly been cited as if they were sui generis , as the Ridgeway reference indicates, he was hardly the first American military commander or political figure to appropriate Joan of Arc's question in Bernard Shaw's play Saint Joan : "How long, oh Lord, how long?"

As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Halberstam recounted in his history of the Vietnam years, The Best and the Brightest , for instance, President Lyndon Johnson turned to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Earle Wheeler in a June 1965 meeting and asked of the war in Vietnam, "What do you think it will take to do the job?"

Wheeler's answer echoed Ridgeway's 11 years earlier, though in the escalatory mode that was typical of Vietnam: "It all depends on what your definition of the job is, Mr. President. If you intend to drive the last Vietcong out of Vietnam it will take seven hundred, eight hundred thousand, a million men and about seven years. But if your definition of the job is to prevent the Communists from taking over the country, that is, stopping them from doing it, then you're talking about different gradations and different levels. So tell us what the job is and we'll answer it."

A Generational Approach to America's Wars

Not so long after that moment on the outskirts of Najaf, the 101st Airborne made its way to Baghdad just as the burning and looting began, and that would only be the prologue to David Petraeus's war, to his version of eight years and eight divisions. When an insurgency (actually several) broke out in Iraq, he would be dispatched to the northern city of Mosul (now a pile of rubble after its 2017 "liberation" from the Islamic State in Washington's third Iraq War). There, he would first experiment with bringing back from the Vietnam experience the very strategy the U.S. military had hoped to be rid of forever: "counterinsurgency," or the winning of what in that war had regularly been called "hearts and minds." In 2004, Newsweek was already hailing him on its cover with the dramatic question : "Can This Man Save Iraq?" (Four months after Petraeus ended his stint in that city, the police chief he had trained there went over to the insurgents and it became a stronghold for them.)

By the time the occupation of Iraq turned into a full-scale disaster, he was back at Fort Leavenworth running the U.S. Army's Combined Arms Center. During that period, he and another officer, Marine Lieutenant General James Mattis -- does that name ring any bells? -- joined forces to oversee the development and publication of Field Service Manual 3-24 , Counterinsurgency Operations . It would be the first official counterinsurgency (COIN) how-to book the military had produced since the Vietnam years. In the process, he became "the world's leading expert in counterinsurgency warfare." He would famously return to Iraq in 2007, that manual in hand, with five brigades, or 20,000 U.S. troops, for what would become known as "the surge," or "the new way forward," an attempt to bail the Bush administration out of its disastrous occupation of the country. His counterinsurgency operations would, like the initial invasion, be hailed by experts and pundits in Washington (including Petraeus himself ) as a marvel and a success of the first order, as a true turning point in Iraq and in the war on terror.

A decade later, with America's third Iraq War ongoing, you could be excused for viewing the "successes" of that surge somewhat differently .

In the process, Petraeus (or "King David" as he was supposedly nicknamed by Iraqis during his stint in Mosul) would become America's most celebrated, endlessly featured general, and go on in 2008 to head U.S. Central Command (overseeing America's wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq). In 2010, he would become the U.S. Afghan commander, largely so that he could perform the counterinsurgency miracles in Afghanistan he had supposedly performed in Iraq. In 2011, he became Barack Obama's CIA director only to crash and burn a year later in a scandal over a lover-cum-biographer and the misuse of classified documents, after which he morphed into a go-to expert on our wars and a partner at KKR, a global investment firm. In other words, as with the three generals of the surge generation now ascendant in Washington, including Petraeus's former COIN pal James Mattis (who also headed U.S. Central Command), he presided over this country's failing wars in the Greater Middle East.

And only recently, 14 years after he and Atkinson were briefly trapped outside Najaf, in his role as a pundit and prognosticator on his former wars, he finally answered -- and not quippingly either -- the question that plagued him then. Though his comments were certainly covered in the news (as anything he says is), in a sense no one noticed. Asked by Judy Woodruff of the PBS News Hour whether, in Donald Trump's America, it was "smart" to once again send more U.S. troops surging into Afghanistan, he called the Pentagon's decision "heartening," even as he warned that it wasn't a war that would end any time soon.

Instead, after so many years of involvement, experience, thought, and observation, in a studio without a grain of sand, no less a dust storm in sight, he offered this observation:

"But this is a generational struggle. This is not something that is going to be won in a few years. We're not going to take a hill, plant a flag, [and] go home to a victory parade. And we need to be there for the long haul, but in a way that is, again, sustainable. We have been in Korea for 65-plus years because there is an important national interest for that. We were in Europe for a very long period of time, still there, of course, and actually with a renewed emphasis now, given Russia's aggressive actions. And I think that's the way we need to approach this."

In proposing such a "generational struggle" to be handed on to our children, if not grandchildren, he's in good company. In recent times, the Pentagon high command, too, has been adopting a " generational approach " to Afghanistan and assumedly our other wars across the Greater Middle East and Africa. Similarly, the scholars of the Brookings Institution have urged on Washington's policymakers what they call "an enduring partnership" in Afghanistan: "The U.S.-Afghan partnership should be recognized as generational in duration, given the nature of the threat and the likely longevity of its future manifestations."

Even if, under further questioning by Woodruff, Petraeus wouldn't quite cop to a 60-year Afghan war (that is, to a war lasting at least until 2061), his long-delayed answer to his own question of the 2003 invasion moment was now definitive. Such American wars won't end. Not now. Maybe not ever. And in a way you can't be much blunter or grimmer than that in your assessment of the "successes" of the war on terror.

A Military Success Story of the Strangest Sort

Until James "Mad Dog" Mattis hit Washington in 2017, no American general of our era was ever written about as much as, or in a more celebratory fashion, than David Petraeus. Adulatory (if not fawning) profiles of him are legion. Even today, in the wake of barely avoided felony and other charges (for, among other things, lying to the FBI) -- he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the handling of classified documents and was sentenced to two years of probation and a fine -- he may still be this country's most celebrated general.

adult day care " in the White House -- are still treated like the only " adults in the room " in our nation's capital, like, in short, American winners.

And yet consider recent events in the central African country of Niger, which already has an operating U.S. drone base, another under construction , and about 800 American troops quietly but permanently stationed there. It's also a country that, until this moment, not an American in a million would have been able to locate on a map. On October 4th, four Green Berets were killed and two others wounded during a " routine training mission " there. Patrolling with Nigerien troops, they were ambushed by Islamic militants -- whether from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb or a new branch of ISIS remains unclear. That officially makes Niger at least the eighth country , including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya, to be absorbed into Washington's war on terror and, in case you hadn't noticed, in none of them has that war ended and in none have U.S. forces triumphed.

And yet you could comb the recent mainstream coverage of the events in Niger without finding any indication that those deaths represented a modest new escalation in the never-ending, ever-spreading war on terror.

As was inevitable, in Iraq and Syria, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Islamic "caliphate" is finally collapsing. The city of Mosul is back in Iraqi hands, as is Tal Afar , and more recently the town of Hawija (with a rare mass surrender of ISIS militants). Those were the last significant urban areas controlled by ISIS in Iraq, while in Syria, the " apocalyptic ruins " of the Islamic State's "capital," Raqqa, are also largely in the hands of forces allied with and supported by the air power of the U.S. military. In what are now the ravaged ruins of Syria and Iraq, however, such "victories" will inevitably prove as hollow as were the "successful" invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq or the "successful" overthrow of Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi. Meanwhile, the Islamic State may have spread its brand to another country with U.S. forces in it. And yet, across a vast swath of the planet, the wars of David Petraeus, James Mattis, and the other generals of this era simply go on and on in a region being fractured and devastated (and whose vast numbers of displaced refugees are, in turn, helping to fracture Europe).

Worse yet, it's a situation that can't be seriously discussed or debated in this country because, if it were, opposition to those wars might rise and alternatives to them and the by-now brain-dead decisions of those generals, including newly heightened air wars and the latest mini-surge in Afghanistan, might become part of an actual national debate.

So think of this as a military success story of the strangest sort -- success that can be traced directly back to a single decision, now decades old, made by a long-discredited American president, Richard Nixon. Without returning to that decision, there is simply no way to understand America's twenty-first-century wars. In its own way, it would prove an act of genius (if, at least, you wanted to fight never-ending wars until the end of time).

In any case, credit, when owed, must be given. Facing an antiwar movement that wouldn't go away and, by the early 1970s, included significant numbers of both active-duty servicemen and Vietnam veterans, the president and his secretary of defense, Melvin Laird , decided to try to cut into its strength by eliminating the draft. Nixon suspected that young men not endangered by the possibility of being sent into the Vietnam War might be far less eager to demonstrate against it. The military high command was uncertain about such a move. They worried, with reason, that in the wake of Vietnam it would be hard to recruit for an all-volunteer military. Who in the world, they wondered, would want to be part of such a discredited force? That was, of course, a version of Nixon's thinking turned upside down, but the president moved ahead anyway and, on January 27, 1973 , conscription was ended.

There would be no more draft calls and the citizen's army, the one that had fought World War II to victory and had raised such a ruckus about the grim and distasteful war in Vietnam, would be no more.

In that single stroke, before he himself fell prey to the Watergate scandal and resigned his presidency, Nixon functionally created a legacy for the ages, paving the way for the American military to fight its wars "generationally" and lose them until hell froze over with the guarantee that no one in this country would seem to care a whit . Or put another way, can you truly imagine such silence in "the homeland" if an American draft were continually filling the ranks of a citizen's army to fight a 16-year-old war on terror, still spreading, and now considered "generational"? I doubt it.

So as American air power in places like Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan is ramped up yet again, as the latest mini-surge of troops arrives in Afghanistan, as Niger enters the war, it's time to put generals David Petraeus, James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, and John Kelly in context. It's time to call them what they truly are: Nixon's children.

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .

MBlanc46 , October 17, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT

If the answer here is, "Bring back the draft", I'm afraid that it's the wrong one.It's not going to happen. Because it would mean drafting women. It would mean giving them M4s and putting them on the front lines. They'd start dying in "routine training accidents". They'd start coming home horribly maimed and disfigured. We'd have a generation of orphans whose "mommy died in the war".
Jeff Allen , October 17, 2017 at 5:42 pm GMT
If a draft is indeed a non-starter, then it might be interesting to see what Engelhardt thinks of Posen's "Restraint."
Jus' Sayin'... , October 17, 2017 at 7:14 pm GMT
A very nice summary of the situation. If I may, I'd like to add two observations:

(1) The military and deep state are so thoroughly intertwined with the USA's domestic economy now that any attempt to rein in the military and/or the intelligence and law enforcement agencies that constitute the USA's deep state will have immediate and politically unacceptable consequences.

For example, the USA has, if I remember correctly, some 13 carrier task forces, more than six times as many as any other country and twice as many as all other countries in the world combined. Yet rather than eliminating any of this grotesquely belligerent, budget busting overkill, there is pressure to increase the number. The reasons behind this irrationality are obvious. The home bases of each task force are thriving domestic mini-economies centered entirely around catering to the needs of its carrier task force. Suggesting the task force's elimination would be political suicide.

As another example, the UIS military is burdened with complex modern weapons systems – airplanes, ships, ballistic weapons – that are extraordinarily expensive and break down constantly under even the most ideal operating conditions. They are essentially so useless and expensive that even our pampered military command would prefer to be without them. Yet once again the impact on the domestic economy of eliminating these white elephants is such that even suggesting cut backs is a dangerous political move.

The situation in the deep state is just as bad. The vast majority of the intrusions into the privacy of citizens and foreigners is actually conducted by private, for profit, corporate contractors. Contractors also play a major role in joint military-intelligence operations overseas. Attempts to rein these contractors in have economic consequences that terrify risk-averse politicians.

Our last great president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, foresaw what has happened and warned against it in his farewell address regarding the military-industrial complex. His warnings were not heeded and the situation has now metastasized beyond even Eisenhower's wildest imaginings.

(2) The absolute control Israel and its agents -- the Israel Lobby comprised of fanatic domestic Zionists, so- called neocons, and their domestic dupes -- exercise over US foreign policy and the malignant effect this has had. But Phillip Giraldi has covered this topic much better than I can. See here http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/ and here http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-lobby-british-style/ and here http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/how-i-got-fired/ for some brief examples. Do searches on "USS Liberty", "Jonathan Pollard", "Cynthia McKinney", etc., etc., etc., for other examples.

Without the malignant control Israel exercises over US foreign policy – with increasing assistance from its quondam allies, Saudi Arabia and the other terrorist-sponsoring, Sunni, Gulf sheikhdoms -- the USA would never have gotten enmeshed in the unending series of wars that Israeli-provoked, US aggression has created in the Near East, Central Asia, North Africa, and now Central Africa.

The neocons' malignant influence has also expanded US aggression into the Balkans, Ukraine, the Baltic, and much of Eastern Europe, making an utterly unnecessary nuclear confrontation with Russia increasingly likely.

Carlton Meyer , Website October 17, 2017 at 9:56 pm GMT
I mentioned General P at the end of my series: "Lost Battles of the Vietnam War".

"Ironically, the USA succeeded in Vietnam only after its military left. Billions of dollars in annual aid were no longer required, while American GIs were no longer killed or maimed. There was no Chinese communist takeover of the region. In contrast, traditional rivalries resurfaced leading to a short, yet bloody, war between China and Vietnam in 1979. Without the distraction of fighting a war, the Vietnamese government was forced to address economic problems. It recognized the need for foreign trade and the value of free enterprise and has become a capitalistic economic power. American corporations now operate factories in Vietnam while United Airlines has daily flights. Likewise, the USA will never win in Afghanistan until its troops come home.

Given the ample historical facts available, many historians are amazed this "we never lost a battle" myth persists. Part of the blame lies with certain professors, who published this myth in articles like: "Lessons of History and Lessons of Vietnam" where in 1986 U.S. Army Major David H. Petraeus (left) wrote: "Vietnam planted doubts in many military minds about the ability of US forces to conduct successful large-scale counterinsurgencies. These misgivings do not in all cases spring from doubts about the capabilities of American troops and units per se; even in Vietnam, military leaders recall US units never lost a battle." Despite this dismal scholarship, Petraeus became a four-star General, partly due to marriage to the daughter of four-star Army General William Knowlton. General Petraeus was in charge of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and since he failed to learn from the Vietnam war, he failed in those conflicts because of myths of U.S. military invincibility. "

http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

Issac , October 17, 2017 at 10:32 pm GMT
Hey, hey, LBJ ! How many kids have you killed today?
renfro , October 17, 2017 at 11:32 pm GMT
Bring back the draft. And you will see the mother of all uprisings to end US wars. So hell yea..bring it back.
The Scalpel , Website October 18, 2017 at 8:26 am GMT
The all volunteer Army is a good thing for the USA and humanity in the long term. It selects for the most violent amoral young American men and hopefully eliminates their genes from the gene pool before they can reproduce. At a minimum, it gets a lot of them out of the USA so that they commit their rapes, assaults, and other crimes somewhere else

The ideal war would be one in which the US Army fought another similar all volunteer army in a close matchup and huge numbers on each side were killed. The problem is that the US Army usually fights innocent conscripts and others forced to defend their actual homes and families. It also kills many civilians. Those are relatively good genes the US Army is removing from the gene pool.

Helen Marshall , October 18, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
Just Sayin, you are absolutely right about the intertwining of the economy and the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex. My present home state of Texas is deeply embedded with the military and actually allots a significant amount of state revenue to be prepared to prevent the closure or shrinkage of any military installation. And otherwise "progressive" political figures cite the need for this as a given, nothing to discuss here

I recall teaching political science at the time that Tricky Dick eliminated the draft, and while my students applauded I warned them that we'd come to regret this. It didn't take long. But MBlanc 46 is right, the draft isn't coming back. The powers that be do not want public protests about their wars and their "war machine."

dearieme , October 18, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

"military leaders recall US units never lost a battle" is a brilliantly evasive phrasing, lawyer-like in its cunning, perhaps even Jesuitical. Sly dog, Petraeus.

The Alarmist , October 19, 2017 at 10:36 am GMT
@MBlanc46

Maybe that's the way to end this war and avoid future frivolous wars. I forget how many women died in Vietnam, but it was a very small number.

On another note, Petreus studied Vietnam. Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression. Both led us into intractable quagmires. When will we ever learn to not put people who study failure into positions to lead to new failures?

The Alarmist , October 19, 2017 at 10:57 am GMT
@dearieme

It is a myth. US military leaders have lost a number of battles, sometimes spectacularly, even in wars they claim to have won. Ike, himself, got some schooling from the Germans at Kasserine Pass during WW2, though, to be fair, he was not the field commander there.

[Oct 25, 2017] Origins of the Korean war are quite complex.

Oct 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

Horace J , October 21, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie

Origins of the Korean war are quite complex. There is no simple answer. You may wan to consult the article at this link:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/

And consult the links within. A rich and fascinating history awaits. See this for why the North Korean invasion, though alarming in D.C. was considered a god-send by many in Washington:

https://www.shmoop.com/korean-war/politics.html

[Oct 25, 2017] The Situation in Puerto Rico The Roads

Notable quotes:
"... although I haven't heard of private equity pushing Puerto Rican toll roads they would own ..."
"... My dear Lambert, were I a vulture capitalist (which I am not!), I would not put one plugged nickel into infrastructure in PR. Not toll roads, not resorts, not power grid, not rebuilding the pharma factories, nada. Because another Maria will just happen again and trash it all before sufficient ROI, and who's gonna insure it now? Insurance companies believe in climate change, whether they will admit it or not. ..."
"... But I would put a few $$$ into PR debt, and gamble that the US govt will bail *me*and my fellow vultures (not PR) out. Am I cynical enough? ..."
"... This is just incompetence. Load up cargo ships (which are the most enormous transportation devices on the planet) and bring an aircraft carrier or two with cargo helicopters to bring the goods inland: ..."
"... "The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens.". It wasn't always this way. Read http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/thirty-eight-new-england-lumber-storm . ..."
"... When I read what the FDR Administration was able to accomplish amidst the devastation of New England's forests wrought by the hurricane of 1938, it brought tears to my eyes. ..."
"... "The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens." ..."
"... most convenient/fast/cost effective ..."
"... If the U.S. is not an empire, Puerto Rico would not be a protectorate or whatever. If the U.S. is an empire in decline, Puerto Rico being abandoned would be a signal to the world that the U.S. dollar is in serious trouble. ..."
"... What with PR's situation and the apparent U.S. tendency to retreat from simple truths, could a collapse in preference falsification* be in progress? ..."
Oct 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Synoia , October 23, 2017 at 2:21 pm

[4] Too bad we don't have a Jobs Guarantee .

The most important things are guaranteed:

Funding the military, enforcing payment of debts, Profit, promises made to campaign contributors, and of course death and taxes.

Glen , October 23, 2017 at 2:31 pm

Somehow, I think our government's response to PR/Maria will be the new norm unless there are a bunch of billionaire's calling the gov reps they bought to complain. And even they may be frustrated by the current boob in the WH.

HotFlash , October 23, 2017 at 3:06 pm

although I haven't heard of private equity pushing Puerto Rican toll roads they would own

My dear Lambert, were I a vulture capitalist (which I am not!), I would not put one plugged nickel into infrastructure in PR. Not toll roads, not resorts, not power grid, not rebuilding the pharma factories, nada. Because another Maria will just happen again and trash it all before sufficient ROI, and who's gonna insure it now? Insurance companies believe in climate change, whether they will admit it or not.

But I would put a few $$$ into PR debt, and gamble that the US govt will bail *me*and my fellow vultures (not PR) out. Am I cynical enough?

PKMKII , October 23, 2017 at 3:27 pm

The Intercept has a good article on a Puerto Rican recovery for Puerto Ricans and not outside interests.

Code Name D , October 23, 2017 at 3:32 pm

What about the cars? I would imagine that many cars were destroyed, heavely damaged, or simply lost. Getting cars repaired and replaced will also be a major challenge. And this I bet would fall on the backs of the individual owners who will already be strapped for cash to begin with.

HotFlash , October 23, 2017 at 4:23 pm

Pretty well, yup. Insurance companies gonna pay pennies on the dollar, assuming you actually have insurance for stuff like this. Poor people tend to get the very minimum needed to get their vehicle on the road, which is usually liability. If you do have bountiful; coverage for Acts O'God, where are you going to get your car repaired or replaced anyway? This may sound super-cynical, even for me, but looking at those washed out and blown-away roads, getting cargo into remote places in PR is a job for sure-footed critters like mules and horses. Dirt bikes can move people over difficult terrain. So can bicycles , and they have been preparing for such a thing.

cocomaan , October 23, 2017 at 3:41 pm

The crisis in PR compared to the crises in FL and TX really opened my eyes to how dangerous and precarious it must be to live on an island, even one ostensibly connected to a powerful country. The logistical nightmare of getting things there is compounded so much by that sea barrier. At least in TX, you can call in the cajun navy who can drive their boats to the location, then launch.

So now one thing is even clearer to me: the first losers of rising sea levels and climate change disasters will be islanders. Places like the Maldives and the Leewards will have a really hard time in the next few decades.

a different chris , October 23, 2017 at 5:21 pm

>is compounded so much by that sea barrier.

??? The sea is how people got things everywhere long, long before the first steam engine (and I'm talking those Roman toy ones) was even conceived?

This is just incompetence. Load up cargo ships (which are the most enormous transportation devices on the planet) and bring an aircraft carrier or two with cargo helicopters to bring the goods inland:

"The CH-53E heavylift transport helicopter can carry cargo with a maximum weight of 13.6 t internally or 14.5 t externally."

But yes, agree on the precarity of island life.

cocomaan , October 23, 2017 at 6:39 pm

I get what both of you are saying vis a vis sea travel, Jones Act and all, but even in the best of all possible human organizations, it's still a major factor in any relief effort. It's just not nearly as easy to get people from point A to point B by boat. If your car breaks down, you're stranded, if your boat breaks down, you could easily die.

rd , October 23, 2017 at 6:01 pm

Much of the sea barrier is man-made, namely the Jones Act. As a result, it is more expensive for Puerto Rico to get supplies form the US than from non-American sources because of shipping costs.

Joel , October 23, 2017 at 11:50 pm

Could NC do a post on the Jones Act?

Do we allow foreign-flagged vessels to transport goods between, say, California and Hawaii? What about Guam and the US Virgin Islands?

Thor's Hammer , October 24, 2017 at 5:27 pm

We do live on a global island. Soot from Chinese coal burning lands on the few remaining glaciers in Glacier National Park and hastens their demise. Methane from melting permafrost in the Northwest Territories acts as a blanket to increase solar heating of the ocean surface. Increased ocean temperatures help hurricanes to explode from Category 1 to 5 almost overnight and stall over Houston as a Biblical deluge.

Three well-placed air-burst EMP nuclear bombs can disable communication and transport over most of the country. And a week without water and food being transported into New York would turn it into San Juan with no rescue boats on the horizon and frozen corpses piling up in the alleys in mid-winter.

We all live on an island -- one held together by a thin spider web of technology and resting upon an biosphere that we are waging war against with our insatiable imperative of growth.

Mark K , October 23, 2017 at 3:46 pm

"The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens.". It wasn't always this way. Read http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/thirty-eight-new-england-lumber-storm .

When I read what the FDR Administration was able to accomplish amidst the devastation of New England's forests wrought by the hurricane of 1938, it brought tears to my eyes.

HotFlash , October 23, 2017 at 4:30 pm

"The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens."

My momma used to say, "Where there's a will, there's a way." I have observed that if there's 'no way', it's because there is no will. I think this is the case in PR, as it was in NOLA, and as it seems to be in Houston (except for the *nice* neighbourhoods, of course). Cali fire victims, prepare to be On Your Own(tm).

JohnS , October 23, 2017 at 4:05 pm

Great job, Lambert .insight and solid research into a topic overlooked by the MSM and the politicals .

If your interest and time permits, I would love a report on what FEMA will/has provided for LONG TERM HOUSING for PR, Northern CA, and the areas hit hard by hurricanes on the USA mainland ..

I have not been able to locate much on this topic

Last I heard was that FEMA had Zero trailers on hand and had let out a contract to some company(s) to build new trailers.

In the interim, there was a report that FEMA would be distributing TENTS to some people in need of shelter. I believe this article was a report from Florida after the fist Hurricane hit there.

A look at Puerto Rico shows that there at lots of homes without roofs ..and they are probably not accessible for a trailer delivery up in the hills. In Santa Rosa, CA, there is very little affordable and available housing close to Santa Rosa. The rains will arrive and then the Mud will Turn the Sand into YUCK and MUCK.

I remember, after Katrina and her friends beat up New Orleans, a lot of folks were flown away from New Orleans (Barbara Bush opined it was probably a good deal for a lot of 'em) and many did not return. Others were put in FEMA trailers. (TREME on HBO covered the KATRINA aftermath as only David Simon can!)

Anyone else, who can provide me with links or information, is most welcome to respond.

Happy Trails,

JohnS

Bruce , October 24, 2017 at 1:16 pm

FEMA's mission is emergency/first response mobilization. It is not their job or within its functionality or budget to provide long-term rebuilding solutions. That falls on the island's government, with congressional financial assistance if congress allocates money for it.

Mel , October 23, 2017 at 4:08 pm

The Army Corps of Engineers are one thing, the other things are the Combat Engineers, organized perhaps as regiments and assigned to combat brigades. These are the people who do roads, airfields, etc., and the ones you would have wanted on the spot in Puerto Rico from maybe day two.

a different chris , October 23, 2017 at 5:29 pm

I strongly believe the problem is the deployment to the Middle East. Bullies strongly believe they must never, ever show weakness. So they believe that they can't pull Combat Engineers out of Whateveristan without looking weak.

So they don't – and they bless their lucky stars that Puerto Rico isn't a state and Puerto Ricans aren't considered Americans by most Americans. However – how many of those deployed to the ME are from Puerto Rico, and how are they reacting? I gotta wonder.

rd , October 23, 2017 at 6:06 pm

USGS has started mapping the landslide impacts:

https://landslides.usgs.gov/research/featured/2017-maria-pr/

http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2017/10/05/hurricane-maria-1/

To get a road open, you need to clear the trees and debris, repair bridges, and repair landslides. In rugged terrain, this is a serious effort as just one break makes the road unusable for deliveries beyond the break.

SerenityNow , October 23, 2017 at 7:43 pm

The Bloomberg piece explains:

Puerto Rico has one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world, thanks to urban sprawl and the government's failure to build public transportation that commuters might actually use . Puerto Ricans are isolated without cars About 931,000 Puerto Ricans drive or carpool to work out of 3.4 million total residents, according to U.S. Census data. [T]he island has the fifth-highest number of vehicles per capita in the world.

The only thing I would like to mention is that people don't drive because there soley because there is no public transportation, they drive because it is the most convenient/fast/cost effective mode of travel available. You could build all the lightrail in the world, but if it wasn't more convenient/cheaper/cost effective than driving, people wouldn't take it. Disincentives for driving are much more powerful than incentives for transit.

How much road do they have per inhabitant there? Maybe disasters like these could be a wakeup call for how we lay out our development and where we spend our infrastructure dollars? Unfortunately probably not.

Vatch , October 23, 2017 at 9:28 pm

I haven't read the book or seen the movie, so maybe my comment is off base, but I'll proceed anyway. This article makes me think of the post-apocalyptic drama "The Road", by Cormac McCarthy.

AbateMagicThinking but Not money , October 23, 2017 at 11:40 pm

If the U.S. is not an empire, Puerto Rico would not be a protectorate or whatever. If the U.S. is an empire in decline, Puerto Rico being abandoned would be a signal to the world that the U.S. dollar is in serious trouble.

What with PR's situation and the apparent U.S. tendency to retreat from simple truths, could a collapse in preference falsification* be in progress?

From my side of the world, the U.S. is becoming more than ever a busted flush of apparent and unsustainable inconsistencies which might take us all down with it.

Here's hoping that there is a bounty of brilliant minds and and excellent administrators in the U.S. military leadership who are ready to step up.

Pip Pip!

*see Timur Kuran's 1995 work.

George Phillies , October 24, 2017 at 12:23 am

By report Puerto Rico is making a deal with a Washington (state) power company on power line repair, the issues involved in running power lines through PR and through inland Washington being rather similar. the last Saffir 3, 4, or 5 hurricanes ot hit the island did so in 1928 and 1932, or so I have read, so on one hand there is plenty of time to get a return on investment, and on the other hand, there was no rationale for building power lines that could survive a force 4 or 5 hurricane.

Felix_47 , October 24, 2017 at 1:18 am

Puerto Rico is third world lite. They could rebuild and become a model for the third world. There are only 3 million people on the island. They dont have to pay Fed income tax. It could be a great retirement location for elderly whites. It just requires investment. Currently the single largest employer is the US govt. They need leadership from within.

Vatch , October 24, 2017 at 10:28 am

Here's what the IRS says about Puerto Rico and income taxes (quoted from Wikipedia ):

In general, United States citizens and resident aliens who are bona fide residents of Puerto Rico during the entire tax year, which for most individuals is January 1 to December 31, are only required to file a U.S. federal income tax return if they have income sources outside of Puerto Rico or if they are employees of the U.S. government. Bona fide residents of Puerto Rico generally do not report income received from sources within Puerto Rico on their U.S. income tax return.

So they pay income tax, but only on income from outside Puerto Rico. Also from Wikipedia:

In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury.[10] Residents of Puerto Rico pay into Social Security, and are thus eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. However, they are excluded from the Supplemental Security Income.

The federal taxes paid by Puerto Rico residents include import/export taxes,[11] federal commodity taxes,[12] and others. Residents also pay federal payroll taxes, such as Social Security[13] and Medicare taxes.[14]

[Oct 25, 2017] Shocking the Shock Doctrine What Recovery in Puerto Rico Could Look Like

Oct 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

If neoliberalism is the belief that the proper role of government is to enrich the rich -- in Democratic circles they call it "wealth creation" to hide the recipients; Republicans are much more blatant -- then the " shock doctrine " is its action plan.

Click the link above for more information (or read the book ), but in essence the idea is to use any form of disaster, whether earthquake or economic/political crisis, to remake a society in the neoliberal image. To reconstruct the destroyed world, in other words, to the liking of holders of great wealth -- by privatizing everything of value held by the public (think water rights, public roads); by forcing austerity on cash-strapped governments as the price for "aid" (think loans, not grants, repaid by unwritten social insurance checks); by putting "managers," or simply loan officers, in charge of democratic decision-making.

In simple, a "shock doctrine" solution always takes this form: "Yes, we'll help you, but we now own your farm and what it produces. Also, your family must work on it for the next 50 years."

This is what happened in Chile after Pinochet and his coup murdered the democratically elected socialist Salvador Allende and took over the government. It's what's happening to Greece, victim of collusion between greedy international bankers and the corrupt Greek politicians they cultivated. And it's what happened in the U.S. during the 2008 bailout of bankers, by which government money was sent in buckets to companies like AIG so they could pay their debts in full to companies like Goldman Sachs. While millions of mortgaged homeowners crashed and burned to the ground.

The populist reaction to neoliberal "reform" is usually social revolt, often or usually ineffective, since creditors are, almost by definition, people with money, and people with money, almost by definition, control most governments. In Greece, the revolt sparked the election of an (ineffective) "socialist" government -- plus the rise of the Greek neo-Nazi party, Golden Dawn. In the U.S. the revolt still still sparks universal (and ineffective) hatred of the 2008 bank bailout -- plus the rise of the failed Sanders candidacy and the successful Trump presidency.

The form this same revolt will take in 2018 and 2020 is still to be determined.

The Shock Doctrine and Puerto Rico

The "shock doctrine" -- the stripping of wealth from the devastated by the already-way-too-wealthy -- is now being applied to Puerto Rico. Even before the hurricanes hit it, Puerto Rico was a second-class citizen relative to states of the U.S., even among its non-state territories. In contrast to Puerto Rico, for example, the American Virgin Islands were instantly much better treated when it came to relief from the Jones Act , a sign of already-established prejudice.

The reason should be obvious. In Puerto Rico , English is the primary language of less than 10% of the people, while Spanish is the dominant language of the school system and daily life. In the American Virgin Islands , English is the dominant language, and Spanish is spoken by less than 20% of the population. The fact that two-thirds of the population of the U.S. Virgin Islands is black seems to be lost on most Americans, a fact that likely benefits those inhabitants greatly in times like these.

Thus, to most Americans the citizens of Puerto Rico are conveniently (for neoliberals) easy to paint as "them," the undeserving, which changes what atrocities can be committed in the name of "aid" -- much like it did after Hurricane Katrina devastated "them"-inhabited New Orleans.

Synoia , October 24, 2017 at 6:41 am

Puerto Rico is not Sovereign. Are its debts valid? Could they be repudiated?

Huey Long , October 24, 2017 at 8:09 am

Congress passed a law back in the 80's prohibiting PR from defaulting. Repudiation of PR debt would entail getting our current congress and prez to pass legislation to repudiate it, so in other words divine intervention ;-).

rd , October 24, 2017 at 10:56 am

The one place in the US that did get hammered by NAFTA was Puerto Rico. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/03/us/trade-pact-threatens-puerto-rico-s-economic-rise.html?pagewanted=all

When NAFTA was passed, Congress also stripped companies of tax benefits for having operations in Puerto Rico. In addition, the Jones Act makes shipping to and from Puerto Rico more expensive than shipping to and from Mexico. Oddly enough, many companies moved operations from Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico has been in recession/depression ever since.

Norb , October 24, 2017 at 9:28 am

I think Puerto Rico will be interesting to watch to see if anti neoliberal sentiment can take hold and survive. In one sense, every individual abandoned or ensnared in debt is in the same boat. Once put in a situation of debt servitude, the only recourse to extricate oneself is to become self reliant and attempt to build supporting networks. The trouble is, once those networks start to form, the traditional game plan is to bring in force and break them up.

If strong, self-supporting communities can form in PR, it will provide inspiration for communities on the mainland.

It will be also interesting to see if self-funded initiatives can make headway against the banking and financial interests.

This situation in PR is important in that it can change the focus of community building away form personal self-interest as now exists in America, and towards the common good, as it should be. The same is happening all across the mainland in economically devastated communities, but successfully blacked out in the media.

This truly is a long term endeavor, but tragically, climate change will increase the opportunities for proper action. The proper long term investment is in people and life skills. Lets roll up our sleeves.

flora , October 24, 2017 at 10:43 am

an aside:
" Once put in a situation of debt servitude, the only recourse to extricate oneself is to become self reliant and attempt to build supporting networks. "

US people born 1880 – 1900 were adults/young adults with families when the Great Depression hit. Their children, sometimes referred to as The Greatest Generation, were children or teens during the depression and saw how debt destroyed families. When those children grew up they were debt averse. The Depression/Greatest Gen's children, the Baby Boomers, would often joke their parents, who were Depression kids, could squeeze a nickel until it screamed. Boomers, having no memory of systemic economic bad times, took on large debts for school and housing on the theory their income would always increase as it had for their parents. Now the Boomers children are facing a wholly different economy, more like the Great Depression than the Booming 50's and 60's.

I expect today's younger generation will become debt averse. That would hurt the FIRE sector's reliance on ever increasing debt payment rents. Reducing the FIRE sectors influence would be good for both the Main Street economy and individuals, imo.

diptherio , October 24, 2017 at 11:52 am

It will be also interesting to see if self-funded initiatives can make headway against the banking and financial interests.

See my comment below. Puerto Rico already has a thriving, self-funded co-op movement, so I think they've got a better chance than most.

Jim Haygood , October 24, 2017 at 9:57 am

"What's killing the modern world is the world-wide overhang of personal debt -- not government deficits, which are entirely different."

This is an odd claim to make in an article about Puerto Rico, whose troubled debt is entirely governmental. Pie chart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_government-debt_crisis#/media/File:Distribution-puerto-rico-outstanding-debt.png

In turn, Puerto Rico's govt debt crisis led to the imposition of a crushing 11.5% sales tax, making retail prices already jacked up by the Jones Act even more unaffordable.

Puerto Rico's recovery will depend almost entirely on how much of a haircut is imposed on bondholders versus restructuring and extending in the Greek fashion, which would doom PR forevahhhh.

Thor's Hammer , October 24, 2017 at 10:22 am

It would be interesting to compare the pace of recovery in Cuba with that of Puerto Rico. Both were hit by category 5 hurricanes within days of each other. In the case of Cuba, Havana was every much at the center of the bulls eye as San Juan Puerto Rico if I am correct. But I've not been able to uncover a single scrap of reporting that draws the comparison. Perhaps it would be embarrassing to the defenders of "free market" capitalism and social organization?

But hurricanes are last month's news. We've moved on to the startling revelations that fat pig movie directors are pussy grabbers just like our President.

Rakesh , October 24, 2017 at 12:18 pm

http://www.frontline.in/world-affairs/a-tale-of-two-islands/article9892265.ece

GlobalMisanthrope , October 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm

Thank you posting this!

I have always believed that one of the primary aims of the Cuba travel ban was to keep us Puerto Ricans from traveling there to see what isolation and poverty -- the constant threats leveled at those who support PR independence -- could look like.

Thor's Hammer , October 24, 2017 at 6:28 pm

Thanks for posting this journalism from an Indian source. While it may be accurate, the writing style reads like it was copied straight from the Ideologe's Bible. So I'll file it along most commentary from outlets like the Washington Post– assume it is fraudulent propaganda until proven otherwise.

Jeremy Grimm , October 24, 2017 at 11:48 am

It's very nice to talk about how to rebuild Puerto Rico but how long will it be before Puerto Rico is hit by another major hurricane? And while we're thinking of Puerto Rico what about Houston, and Florida? What about the North Carolina sea coast -- or New Jersey -- NYC? I don't expect anything reasonable will be done in rebuilding any of these places or beginning an orderly retreat to higher ground.

Some parts of these areas may remain habitable -- at least long enough to make it worthwhile to build infrastructure but I believe it will be a mistake to simply "rebuild". Replacement infrastructure should be built to better withstand the future storms and rising seas. I am aware that not "rebuilding" is neither socially nor politically viable. It just seems a shame to waste what time and resources remain.

diptherio , October 24, 2017 at 11:50 am

I was fortunate enough to get to meet a number of Puerto Rican cooperators at this year's Assoc. of Cooperative Educators Institute in Denver. Puerto Rico has a very strong cooperative sector/movement. Co-ops in Puerto Rico don't pay tax to the gov't. Instead, each co-op provides (iirc) 2% of net revenues to Liga de Cooperativas de Puerto Rico , the apex co-op organization for the island. This provides an internally funded support mechanism for co-ops and has helped create a thriving co-op ecosystem.

So I've got some optimism that my Puerto Rican friends will be able to replace at least some of the failed systems that have been afflicting them with cooperative, sustainable, alternative solutions.

Watt4Bob , October 24, 2017 at 11:58 am

Things are moving fast, from MSN ;

Puerto Rico has agreed to pay a reported $300 million for the restoration of its power grid to a tiny utility company which is primarily financed by a private equity firm founded and run by a man who contributed large sums of money to President Trump, an investigation conducted by The Daily Beast has found.

Whitefish Energy Holdings, which had a reported staff of only two full-time employees when Hurricane Maria touched down, appears ill-equipped to handle the daunting task of restoring electricity to Puerto Rico's over 3 million residents.

As usual, donate a few thousand, reap millions.

FEC data compiled by The Daily Beast shows that Colonnetta contributed $20,000 to the "Trump Victory" PAC during the general election, $27,000 to Trump's primary election campaign (then the maximum amount permitted), $27,000 to Trump's general election campaign (also the maximum), and a total of $30,700 to the Republican National Committee in 2016 alone.

Colonnetta's wife, Kimberly, is no stranger to Republican politics either; shortly after Trump's victory she gave $33,400 to the Republican National Committee, the maximum contribution permitted for party committees in 2016.

Bears repeating, we're not only 'ruled' by whores, we're ruled by cheap whores.

Of course I make apologies to all ladies of negotiable affection.

[Oct 24, 2017] The Weinstein story was suppressed by Hollywood, using its legal and financial muscle to keep a lid on it until now. But there are also power centres in the US government that can dictate to Hollywood: the Pentagon and the CIA

Notable quotes:
"... it could be surmised that this basically a turf war among the Hollywood power elites that went nuclear on Weinstein. When one scumbag accuses another scumbag of being a scumbag, there is more to the story than feigned moral outrage. ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren , October 22, 2017 at 4:37 am

Al Jazeera English
Published on 22 Oct 2017
SUBSCRIBE 1.6M
The Weinstein story was suppressed by Hollywood, using its legal and financial muscle to keep a lid on it – until now. But there are also power centres in the US government that can dictate to Hollywood: the Pentagon and the CIA

Patient Observer , October 22, 2017 at 7:51 am
What did Weinstein do to get thrown under the bus by his peers? Just on general principles, it could be surmised that this basically a turf war among the Hollywood power elites that went nuclear on Weinstein. When one scumbag accuses another scumbag of being a scumbag, there is more to the story than feigned moral outrage.
yalensis , October 22, 2017 at 11:55 am
When I first heard about the Hollywood scandal, I was confused for a minute, thinking, "Weinstein is so gay, why would he harrass women?"

And then I realized that I was confusing Harvey Weinstein with Harvey Fierstein!

[Oct 24, 2017] Did the USA cool to Poroshenko? Mishiko just said: What stands between us and that future? A tiny clique of oligarchs and speculators: The President and his entourage

Notable quotes:
"... "Everyone knows that five-billion contracts are not signed by the defense minister or by his deputy, or even by any head of the Defense Ministry department. All politicians know who signs five-billion contracts. And this is the president of Ukraine," Tymoshenko said, while commenting on the scandal with the detention by the NABU of Deputy Defense Minister Ihor Pavlovsky and director of the public procurement department at the Defense Ministry Volodymyr Hulevych. ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

yalensis , October 22, 2017 at 6:25 am

Only just got some time to start following Mishiko's "Mikho-Maidan" (English-language hashtag is #Mikhomaidan .

Apparently Saakashvili came up with a humdinger this morning: He promised his followers from the stump that the Ukraine will become a superpower dictating conditions to Europe and the world.


"Там где есть сила, там будет Украинская сверхдержава, которая будет диктовать условия в Европе и всем другим, и где люди будут жить достойно Что стоит между нами и этим будущим? Это маленькая кучка олигархов, барыг – президент и его окружение", -- сказал он, заверив, что сменить нынешнюю власть при желании населения можно "очень быстро и очень безболезненно".

"Кто-то говорит – "вот, этот гастролер, зачем он тут?" Все очень просто. Нет будущего ни у Грузии, ни у Молдовы, ни у Белоруссии, ни у кого в регионе, если не будет Украины", -- подчеркнул Саакашвили.

TRANSLATION:
"If people shall unite as a force, then there will be a Ukrainian superpower which will dictate conditions in Europe and to all the others; and people [here] will be able to live their lives with dignity. What stands between us and that future? A tiny clique of oligarchs and speculators: The President and his entourage," he said, assuring people that it would be a very quick and painless matter to overturn the existing government, given the desire of the people.
"Some people say, oh, here is that travelling showman, why is he here? It's very simple: There can be no future, neither for Gruzia, nor Moldavia, nor Belorussia, not for anyone in this region, if a Ukraine doesn't exist," Saakashvili underscored.

Pavlo Svolochenko , October 22, 2017 at 7:43 am
Does he even have any legal right to be in the country?
yalensis , October 22, 2017 at 11:56 am
No.
Jen , October 22, 2017 at 7:14 pm
Mishiko doesn't have the legal right to be in any country. He's stateless.
yalensis , October 23, 2017 at 3:08 am
He is just like Philip Nolan, "The Man Without A Country".

http://files.constantcontact.com/766c6672201/17c86a4a-16a5-412a-bffe-da50a5251b12.png?a=1127596639173

Patient Observer , October 22, 2017 at 7:56 am
Some people say, oh, here is that travelling showman, why is he here?

A good question yet to be answered by Mr. Saakashvili. The answer probably includes money, food, cocaine, public attention, food, sex and did I mention food?

marknesop , October 22, 2017 at 11:20 am
Mmmmm ..that sounds suspiciously like his oratory while President of Georgia, when he predicted that within X years of his modernizations like the Glass Bridge in Tbilisi (between 3 and 5, I forget now and the source was assimilated into the government's propaganda-pablum machine), there would be more tourists in Georgia than there were Georgians. Or like the time he told the US Senate that Georgia was so honest a place that people did not even lock their doors, the same year the US Government's State Department released a travel warning for Georgia that warned against pickpockets and various forms of thieving, including stopping your car on the road and robbing you or making you get out and taking the car. Crimes carried out by Georgian and Ukrainian organized criminals are often blamed on the Russian mafia.
yalensis , October 22, 2017 at 11:58 am
Also don't forget when Mishka bragged that Gruzia didn't need no stinking Russian wine market – they could always sell their best stuff to Western Europe!
'cause, see, the French and Germans and Italians don't produce any good wines
marknesop , October 22, 2017 at 12:48 pm
Yes, that's right! And then when the Russian market opened up again, it was greeted with great relief by the Georgian winemakers, and impartial sources remarked that there was not much of an appetite in Europe for Georgia's sweet and somewhat heavy wines, while Russians were very fond of them. Ukraine is learning the same bitter lesson now, and there would be nobody like Mishka to teach them. For the west's part, they would probably be quite willing to give Mishka another project, to keep him busy and keep Ukraine from slipping back into the Russian orbit.

Don't forget that Poroshenko is not likely to be going anywhere, since Ukraine is making him richer and richer, and he is likely to dabble in politics even after he is evicted in the next election. But having Mishka there to split the vote could easily result in a Tymoshenko victory. And that would be just perfect, with all her histrionic squalling about getting a machine gun and going to kill some Katsaps. She did say 'we'. Go ahead, Yooooolia. Let's see you bring it.

Speaking of Yoooolia, she now says that Poroshenko is using the army's fuel contracts to launder money .

"Everyone knows that five-billion contracts are not signed by the defense minister or by his deputy, or even by any head of the Defense Ministry department. All politicians know who signs five-billion contracts. And this is the president of Ukraine," Tymoshenko said, while commenting on the scandal with the detention by the NABU of Deputy Defense Minister Ihor Pavlovsky and director of the public procurement department at the Defense Ministry Volodymyr Hulevych.

Ponder for a moment the irony of Tymoshenko – who browbeat the director of Naftogaz into signing the take-or-pay contract with Russia which caused Ukraine such grief and then flew to Russia herself to wrap it up, after being specifically told by the Rada cabinet not to do it – pointing the accusing finger at corruption in the energy business.

[Oct 24, 2017] Hillary Clinton Lied, Paid For Trump Dossier

Is this CIA against Hillary Clinton. Did she cross some red line ? Why this revelation happened now? What changed in deep state to allow such a revelation to surface.
Notable quotes:
"... Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier – which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election ..."
"... Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices. ..."
"... While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias - $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier. ..."
"... Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion. Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist his campaign for president. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records. ..."
"... The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign jointly financed the creation of the infamous "Trump dossier," which helped inspire the launch of the floundering investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.

Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier – which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election.

Sound familiar?

Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices.

While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias - $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier.

Fusion GPS's work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries when an unidentified GOP donor reportedly hired the firm to dig into Trump's background. The Republicans who were involved in the early stages of Fusion's efforts have not yet been identified. Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump's Russia ties, but quickly realized that those relationships would be a fruitful place to start, WaPo reported.

Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion. Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist his campaign for president.

Fusion turned over Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, and it's unclear how much of it he shared with the campaign.

The revelation about who funded the dossier comes just days after Trump tweeted that the FBI and DOJ should publicly reveal who hired Fusion GPS. And lo and behold, that information has now been made public.

Officials behind the now discredited "Dossier" plead the Fifth. Justice Department and/or FBI should immediately release who paid for it.

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 21, 2017

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records.

The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports. Officials also decided to withhold information from the dossier in an intelligence community report published in January alleging that Russian entities had tried to sway the US election on behalf of the Russian government.

Of course, we still don't know who leaked the dossier to Buzzfeed and CNN back in January. John McCain – one of the primary suspects – has repeatedly denied it, and Fusion GPS has said in court documents that it didn't share the document with Buzzfeed. However, we do known that in early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of Steele's dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump.

It therefore strongly suggests that it was the FBI that was instrumental in spreading the dossier to the media, most of which was too embarrassed to publish it until Buzzfeed came along and did it... for the clicks.

So to summarize:

[Oct 24, 2017] Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

Another day, another scandal in Washington, DC. Simultaneous opening of inquires that are designed to hurt Hillary and Bill were complete surprise.
Why now? There was some change on deep state level that is now reflected in this news. Suddenly Uranium 1 scandal comes into the forfront. And along with Steele dossier it is damaging to Clinton. Were Clintons "Weinsteinalized"? Should be expect "50 women" phenomena to be replayed.
There is some storm hitting the US "deep state". The reasons for this storm remains hidden. But attempt of Clintons to preserve their leadership in Democratic Party after Hillary fiasco in 2016 now are again became questionable.>
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said. ..."
"... After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ..."
"... Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele compiled the dossier on President Trump's alleged ties to Russia. (Victoria Jones/AP)

Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS's role.

[Oct 24, 2017] Republican-led House committees to investigate Clintons emails again by Associated Press

Why they decided to resume investigation now ? What new facts were uncovered? What hidden storm hit "deep state" so the for stability they need to sacrifice Hillary Clinton
How this correlates with the discovery that DNC paid for Steele dossier? Judging from John Sipher a is a former member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service attempt to defend Steele dossier in his Slate article (Sept, 2017), just a month before current revelations. As retied CIA agents usually avoid public spotlight it might well be that he was "adviced" to write his evaluation and, if this is the case, then CIA and may be personally Brennan were also involved in "Steele dossier" fiasco.
Notable quotes:
"... The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general. ..."
"... Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

The Republican leaders of the House judiciary and oversight panels said in a statement they were opening investigations into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation and the decision not to prosecute her – the subject of hours-long congressional hearings last year.

The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes, also announced a separate investigation into a uranium deal brokered during Barack Obama's tenure as president.

The House judiciary committee chairman, Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, and the oversight committee chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said the inquiry would be aimed at the FBI and its decisions in the Clinton investigation . The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general.

The two panels have declined to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, leaving those inquiries to Senate committees and the House intelligence committee.

Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes.

[Oct 24, 2017] Pompeo ominously stated that the CIA is "going to become a much more vicious agency".

Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , October 22, 2017 at 8:18 am

Speaking of Pompeo:

http://theduran.com/mike-pompeos-latest-rant-shows-cia-far-unreasonable-dprk/

In a recent statement, Pompeo talked brazenly about assassinating Kim Jong-un. The CIA director stated,

"With respect to if Kim Jong-un should vanish, given the history of the CIA, I'm just not going to talk about it.
Someone might think there was a coincidence. 'You know, there was an accident.' It's just not fruitful".

Pompeo then ominously stated that the CIA is "going to become a much more vicious agency".

Reasons for the efforts to regime-change NK may include preventing the eventual integration of NK's economy with China and Russia. Once such an integration is achieved SK would have little choice but to join in and be part of the Eurasian one belt-one road economy. Japan would be left twisting in the wind unless it could overcome its US masters and also set aside its racial prejudices. As for Australia, who cares (no disrespect to Jen)?

[Oct 24, 2017] Help Wanted - State Department Seeks Self-Consistent Secretary

Oct 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

European business deals with Iran are safe Tillerson - AFP, October 20 2017

Washington (AFP) - The United States does not intend to disrupt European business deals with Iran, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in comments published Friday.
...
"The president's been pretty clear that it's not his intent to interfere with business deals that the Europeans may have under way with Iran," Tillerson told The Wall Street Journal.

"He's said it clearly: 'That's fine. You guys do what you want to do.'"

Tillerson Warns Europe Against Iran Investments - NYT, October 22 2017

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia --
...
Speaking during a visit to Saudi Arabia, Mr. Tillerson said, "Both of our countries believe that those who conduct business with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, any of their entities -- European companies or other companies around the globe -- really do so at great risk ." Mr. Tillerson appeared at a brief news conference in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, with the Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir.
...
Mr. Tillerson's remarks were the administration's most pointed warning to date ...

This not the way to get the European Union in line with U.S. policies. So what is going on here?

Trump in often inconsistent in what he says. That is his privilege. But it does not mean that the Secretary of State has to contradict himself each and every day. It is Tillerson's task to project a steady foreign policy. If there is none - for whatever reason - he must keep his comments vague. Contradictions like the above make him a joke.

'Rexxon' has experience in doing international businesses. He knows that consistency is one of the most important factors in getting things done. No one will make deals with a party that changes its mind every other day.

So why is Tillerson jumping around like this? He seeks to replace Ms. Jubeir as court jester in Riyadh? Or does he want to sabotage his own position?

One inevitably gets the impression that Tillerson wants out. That he wants to chuck his job rather sooner than later. That he longs for the inevitable day he will be fired.

Tillerson is a realist at heart. He is no fan of Netanyahoo. He despises the fake human rights blabber others use to hide their motives. The neo-conservatives would love to see him go. Josh Rogin lists their favorite candidates:

The most popular parlor game in Washington right now is speculating who will replace Rex Tillerson as President Trump's next secretary of state ... two qualified and apparently willing candidates have emerged. ... The top two contenders, Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, ...

Haley is way too loud and incompetent . Pompeo is too narrow minded.

I wonder who the White House junta will prefer as new Secretary of State. One from its own stable? David Petraeus?

He would be another nail in the coffin of Trump's presidency.

Posted by b on October 23, 2017 at 09:28 AM | Permalink

lysander | Oct 23, 2017 10:07:12 AM | 1

My understanding is that both Mattis and Dunford also favor continuing with the Iran agreement. It is also not yet clear that Congress will actually pass any serious new sanctions on Iran in the 60 days available to it.

As for Trump firing Tillerson, I doubt it. Tillerson might decide to quit on his own, and i would not blame him, but I don't think Trump will fire him. The last thing he wants is another brutal confirmation hearing in the Senate. Or to pick a traditional neocon to avoid one.

Trump at times my seem seem stupid, but he isn't.

nhs | Oct 23, 2017 10:16:59 AM | 2
It's an underground war inside the unholy Western alliance:

Neoliberal cannibalism: free market fundamentalists start a transatlantic civil war

G | Oct 23, 2017 10:18:20 AM | 3
@lysander

My guess is that the only reason Mattis, McMaster, Dunford, and Kelly are supposedly in support of the Iran deal is because they know Trump is horrible at foreign policy and that war with Iran under Trump would be a bigger disaster than the other middle east escapades of the last decade. If any other republican, including Pence, was at the helm, they'd be all for de-certification and escalation. Trump is such a liability that they have been pushed towards realism, but are not committed deeply to its principles. Tillerson may actually be much more of a realist at heart, which, despite his bumbling, contradictions, and impotence, makes him better than pretty much any other possible Secretary of States that the Trump administration would offer up.

Bill H | Oct 23, 2017 10:24:04 AM | 4
Tillerson says that dealing with Iran and with businesses in Iran is fine; dealing with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is not okay. I see nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard owns and conducts business separately from the government as a whole, and it certainly is separate from Iranian businesses.
Don Bacon | Oct 23, 2017 10:37:24 AM | 5
How pathetic. The US is in denial about its Operation Iraqi Freedom which converted Iraq to an Iran ally.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson arrived in Riyadh on Saturday to attend a landmark meeting between officials from Saudi Arabia and Iraq aimed at improving relations between the two countries and countering Iran's growing regional influence.

Danny801 | Oct 23, 2017 10:38:06 AM | 6
theyre not replacing him with the Israeli stooge and disaster that is Nikki Haley. She was Trumps gift to Netenyahu at the UN because he needs Israeli lobbyist support at home unfortunately. But the people running the country are Kelly and Mattis and they are not ok with a costly war with Iran (thankfully). they're more pragmatic. Nikki as Secretary of State would have a hard time even getting anyone to sit down and negotiate with her. Look at how awful our relations are with Iran and Russia and yet both have sat down with Tillerson out of respect for the man (even knowing he has almost no sway with the President). that same courtesy isnt going to be given to a war mongering nutjob like Haely. Pompeo is a poor choice as well he comes across as too impatient and thin skinned for that job.

I agree the junta will look within its stable at one of its own. Would also be easier to get one of them approved by a very hostile Congress as well

james | Oct 23, 2017 11:18:23 AM | 7
thanks b... the usa position at this point on the world stage is in disarray... whether that is the result of trump, or trump is a byproduct of it all, i can't tell.. however, tillerson will be fed to the neo con lions like all others including trump at some point.. the neo con agenda must be fed!
karlof1 | Oct 23, 2017 12:42:41 PM | 8
The problem that plagues Tillerson is the same that plagued Kerry--Despite its being published, they cannot publicly acknowledge the actual Imperial Policy of the Outlaw US Empire, to attain Full Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people which began under Clinton attempting to bring into reality GHW Bush's New World Order--the standing policy is illegal under both Domestic and International Law. So, there is no stated policy because it cannot be stated, leaving Tillerson and Kerry before him looking like uneducated fools. Rice, on the other hand, was effective since she had no qualms about that policy since she's one of its designers, which is why she's a War Criminal. There was never any debate over the current Imperial Policy formulation. Indeed, it merely brought together several disparate policy threads that had been in place since WW2's end. Of course, what plagues Tillerson in no way shackles other nations policy responses, although the public announcement of the Outlaw US Empire's policy doesn't occur as often as it ought to when a nation seeks to justify its policy, and when it occurs it's censored by the Empire's Propaganda System.
john | Oct 23, 2017 12:44:32 PM | 9
i suppose Rex signed off on this , as well.

another nuance of US diplomacy.

NotIran | Oct 23, 2017 1:13:11 PM | 10
I don't want my country Greece doing bussines with the islamic oppresive Iranian government.
HOW CAN GERMAN OLIGARCHS OF BRUSSELS/BERLIN SPEAK FOR THE REST OF US EU COUNTRIES?
We want out of this we suffered enough!
Virgile | Oct 23, 2017 2:29:49 PM | 11
@Notiran

Easy.. Grexit!

Daniel | Oct 23, 2017 2:32:30 PM | 12
Did y'all catch this? The US State Department admitted for the first time that our "rebels in Syria use chemical weapons against civilians.

From their Travel Warning on 10/18/17

"Tactics of ISIS, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and other violent extremist groups include the use of suicide bombers, kidnapping, small and heavy arms, improvised explosive devices, and chemical weapons. They have targeted major city centers, road checkpoints, border crossings, government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces, in Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr provinces. These groups have murdered and kidnapped U.S. citizens, both for ransom and political purposes; in some instances U.S. citizens have disappeared within Syria."

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/syria-travel-warning.html

ben | Oct 23, 2017 2:39:01 PM | 13
Actually b, BFD. It matters not who the latest "puppet jesters" are in D.C., policies are decided by the puppeteers, not the puppets. Thus it is today in the U$A..

Full on Oligarchy/Fascism. "It's just business"

gepay | Oct 23, 2017 3:14:22 PM | 14
Yes the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is not the Iranian economy. This probably has more to do with Trump mumbling about listing the IRG as a terrorist organization.It was dumb of b to ignore this in his blog, although the gist of his bog on Tillerson is probably true.
Bart in VA | Oct 23, 2017 3:52:04 PM | 15
I read that Tillerson needs to stay one year so as not to take a capital gains hit on the assets he divested upon taking the job.
jezabeel | Oct 23, 2017 5:05:27 PM | 16
The US is clinically insane. But you can't kick them out of the party just yet. I think we're all waiting for them to fall on their own sword somehow. But they've lost the one thing that was going for them. Fear.
Chipnik | Oct 23, 2017 5:23:39 PM | 17
Rodham may not seem stupid either, but she and Trump are venal elitists and borderline psychopaths. Your choice last November was between ZioWarPigA and ZioWarPigB, Trump even joked about it afterward at a rally, how easily he conned everyone, and everyone kept cheering.
No Wall, (Open Border Legal Immigration); No Tax Cuts (making SS and MC means tested); No Infrastructure (runaway MIC War Pig spending); No Healthcare (cut $1.5T from MC runaway cost hikes); World Wars on Two Fronts and 183 Countries. Trump is one dumb MFr if he thinks the Emperor has clothes.
Debsisdead | Oct 23, 2017 5:48:26 PM | 18
Tillerson's function was to ensure that the energy industry which had given agent orange huge support in his campaign, got an operative in a senior position in the trump regime. Tillerson a major player in the world of rapacious capitalism, in a way that orange could never be, disturbs the trumpeter because he makes trump feel so inconsequential.

Lets face it given a choice between access to energy or a golf course, most humans will always pick energy, so that appart from being considerably wealthier and more powerful than the idjit, it is highly likely Tillerson is also a helluva a lot smarter, more deceitful and even less empathetic. About the only edge old comb-over has is that tillerson is exceedingly short, something that the vain one doubtless exploits in any face to faces the two have.

Tillerson may want out because it is pretty clear his one position secretary of state even though traditionally a powerful one, has been marginalised by the seeming unity of the junta this is compounded by agent orange's inability to 'stay in his lane' the demarcations of cabinet responsibility mean nothing to the unstructured, reactive fool in the WH.
Even so I doubt tillerson will be in a hurry to pull the pin, even if that is because the energy capitalists are terrified at what a vengeful trump may do to their meticulously designed system for separating all humans from all the rewards of their endeavours. Tillerson will be under considerable pressure from his co-conspirators to hang in long enough that agent orange will be relieved to see the back of him, rather than him shoot through when the creep is so desperate.
From tillerson's point of view that probably feels like never, but all prezs get brief glimpses of glory if they hang in and despite trumps predilection for screwing himself before he cops the accolades, there will come a time when he does something that wins grudging admiration from the media barons.

In the meantime tillerson will spend as much time as possible with his old mates the thieves of Riyadh, without whom exxon mobil would just be a chain of decrepit 'service-stations'. Doubtless they are planning all sorts of scams and rorts, although it will be difficult for them to realise their latest greeds without support from the amerikan military. Africa, a sporadically and haphazardly developed continent likely features large in all resource thieves dreams.

TSP | Oct 23, 2017 6:14:34 PM | 19
There's no fuel for war. Luckily DT has sufficient bluster that no one has dumped Ratheon beyond where the CB is still willing to buy.

Iran is a corporation to these people. The proverbial Pepsi to the Coke 'debate.' As military finances move towards pensions and away from new ground forces, the bluster will need to mind its believability. No one fears the twitter tiger.

Eventually, when those $6T losses come back on shore, the spending power drop will squeeze foreign entanglements too. It's always new market development that gets cut first.

peter | Oct 23, 2017 6:16:24 PM | 20
I think Rex is the most grounded guy in the cabinet. I tend to think he will only eat so much shit before he bails.

He's had Trump tell him he's wasting his time with Korea on Twitter. He's had Trump undermine him on air, said he wished he was tougher. Tillerson has already called Trump a fucking moron out of pure exasperation. He has been at the helm of bigger outfits than Trump ever dreamed of, except the presidency. He can watch day by day the pure ineptness of his boss and must often wonder why he accepted the job.

So I think b is right about him waiting to get out. But I will miss his low-key gravitas. I think he and Lavrov could have seen eye to eye. I even think he might have made some headway with Kim if Trump wasn't so utterly unhinged. Imagine fucking with millions of lives as cavalierly as the Donald. Still has his fans though.

fast freddy | Oct 23, 2017 8:20:52 PM | 21
Is the country of Iran an "entity" of the IRG? Or is the IRG an entity of Iran? In any case, it is off putting and can't be conducive to stability in the vaunted "markets" or anything else. Who the fock wants to engage in business with a country that the USA, lapdog UK and Israel have earmarked for surprise aerial shock'n ya'll?

Really dumb statements from the Tiller. A guy that supposedly understands markets.

jwco | Oct 23, 2017 8:30:01 PM | 22
B you call Halley "incompetent", but have you called Trump that?

[Oct 24, 2017] US and Western propaganda against Russia is inconsistent and contradictory

Notable quotes:
"... Russia cannot be a poor, weak, regional power at best, that doesn't make anything, a gas station masquerading as a country and simultaneously pose an existential threat to the United States, and has the wherewithal and guile to decide US presidential elections. ..."
"... US and Western propaganda fails miserably, because it is so inconsistent and anyone with a modicum basic knowledge of history and has an attention span longer than that of a goldfish is immune to it. ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren , October 24, 2017 at 4:38 pm

The US and their European Atlanticist minions are trapped by their own propaganda and ideological prejudices.

Russia cannot be a poor, weak, regional power at best, that doesn't make anything, a gas station masquerading as a country and simultaneously pose an existential threat to the United States, and has the wherewithal and guile to decide US presidential elections.

US and Western propaganda is so inconsistent and contradictory. However, Americans and their European Atlanticist minions are so myopic – they don't notice it!

It's hilarious, US and Western propaganda fails miserably, because it is so inconsistent and anyone with a modicum basic knowledge of history and has an attention span longer than that of a goldfish is immune to it.

[Oct 24, 2017] Phoenix 2.0 - CIA's Vietnam Terror Unleashed Upon Afghanistan

The problem with the USA is that the USA empire lost legitimacy with the dissolution of the USSR and has to be reconstructed as a new neoliberal empire. For a while rise of neoliberalism was a cover for this expansion, but this period is probably over. Now neoliberalism is also under attack and neoliberal ideology is discredited (Trump and Brexit are just two signs of it). So now the USA is the empire with decaying ideology, not that dissimilar to the USSR in 80th, which is still trying to achieve its imperial goals despite rejection of them by most of of the world population. In such circumstances huge military superiority that the USA enjoys is not everything.
Notable quotes:
"... The CIA is expanding its covert operations in Afghanistan, sending small teams of highly experienced officers and contractors alongside Afghan forces to hunt and kill Taliban militants across the country ... ..."
"... This is not going to be a counter-insurgency campaign, even when some will assert that. A counter-insurgency campaign requires political, security, economic, and informational components. It can only be successful in support of a legitimate authority. ..."
"... The current Afghan government has little legitimacy. It was bribed together by the U.S. embassy after wide and open election fraud threatened to devolve into total chaos. ..."
"... A campaign solely centered on "security" will end up as a random torture and killing expedition without the necessary context and with no positive results. ..."
"... The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban. While it will likely kill a some Taliban aligned insurgents here and there, it will also alienate many more Afghan people. Most of the Taliban fighters are locals. Killing them creates new local recruits for the insurgency. It will also give it better population cover for future operations. ..."
"... A similar campaign during the Vietnam war was known as Operation Phoenix . Then some 50,000 South-Vietnamese, all of course 'suspected communists', were killed by the CIA's roving gangs ..."
"... [Phoenix] was designed to identify and "neutralize" (via infiltration, capture, counter-terrorism, interrogation, and assassination) the infrastructure of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLF or Viet Cong). The CIA described it as "a set of programs that sought to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the Viet Cong". ..."
"... The Phoenix program was embedded into a larger civil political and economic development program known as CORDS . The accepted historical judgement is that Phoenix failed to achieve its purpose despite its wider conceptualization. The passive support for the Viet Cong increased due to the campaign. In recent years there have been revisionists efforts by the Pentagon's RAND Corporation to change that view. ..."
"... The now announced campaign looks similar to Phoenix but lacks any political component. It is not designed to pacify insurgents but to eliminate any and all resistance: ..."
"... There are only a few dozen officers in the CIA Special Activities Division that can support such a campaign. The lede to the article suggests that 'contractors' will have a significant role. In August the former head of the mercenary outlet Blackwater, Eric Prince, lobbied the Trump administration for a contractor led war in Afghanistan. We can safely assume that Prince and some Blackwater offspring will be involved in the new CIA campaign. The major intelligence groundwork though will have to be done by the NDS. ..."
"... "Iraq's campaign in the Euphrates and Tigris River valleys, the Kurdish campaign in western Syria and the Saudi and UAE campaign against the Houtis in Yemen have been devastating and vicious assaults on populations, critical infrastructure and housing, that coupled with nighttime commando raids that terrorize entire villages and neighborhoods, look not to bring a political settlement, reconciliation or peace, but rather subjugate, along ethnic and sectarian lines, entire population groups to achieve American political desires in the Muslim world. ..."
"... As I have said previously here - the failure of English policy in South Africa in 1899 showed the myth of the British Empire and contributed to the emboldenment of 'a rising ' Germany, challenging England for 'market' share in 1914 . ..."
"... BTW, in the early days of the British occupation of Helmand Province, the price of wheat was higher than heroin in Afghanistan and many of the farmers asked for help to convert to growing wheat which never happened because American farmers wouldn't allow it. ..."
"... Perhaps you could provide a link to back up your claim, but I expect one from 1979 when the United States started the American War in Afghanistan before the Soviet Union intervened in defense of modernity over medieval headchoppers aka KSA? Or perhaps you can name the empires brought low by Afghanistan but don't bother naming the British Empire. ..."
"... I quite agree that Afghanistan is a narco-state but the trade is not controlled by the CIA, the Pentagon , the so-called American Deep State or even the Rothschilds . At most, the CIA and Pentagon turn a blind eye to its operation, and HSBC probably launder some of the money ..."
"... Published May 22, 2001. ...gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban... ..."
"... On reading B's excellent post, I found myself thinking Israel has similar assassination units operating under the name Sayeret Matkal. No doubt those Israeli units would only be too happy to give training and other support to the CIA's covert program of assassination units attached to Afghan forces. ..."
"... There are two US initiatives to counter China's One Belt, One Road (OBOR) strategy which is budgeted at about a trillion dollars, and way out of anything the US could afford. So the US has come up with these two plans, neither one showing any promise except as a reason to continue with the AfPak war. SecState Tillerson is the point man on these initiatives. They both include a new initiative to work closely with India, and one of them requires ownership of Afghanistan. ..."
"... The second initiative is the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor, still at a very nascent stage. It would focus on the "economic corridors between South and Southeast Asia" which implies working with India and against China. The US naval challenges in the South China Sea are probably one example. Tillerson has talked about challenging Chinese financing -- good luck on that. ..."
"... Finally, the inclusion of India in Afghan affairs is what drives Pakistan to oppose the US strategy. It hasn't matter that the US has given Pakistan billions of dollars, Pakistan still sponsors the Taliban fighters who kill US troops. The current US destruction of Afghanistan and its people is not a choice of Pakistan, but it's less important to Pakistan than having an Indian presence on both flanks. Pakistan does not want to become an Indian sandwich. The two countries are arch-enemies. ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Phoenix 2.0 - CIA's Vietnam Terror Unleashed Upon Afghanistan

Last week the new head of the CIA Mike Pompeo publicly threatened to make the CIA a "much more vicious agency". His first step towards that is to unleash CIA sponsored killer gangs onto the people of Afghanistan:

The CIA is expanding its covert operations in Afghanistan, sending small teams of highly experienced officers and contractors alongside Afghan forces to hunt and kill Taliban militants across the country ...
...
The CIA's expanded role will augment missions carried out by military units, meaning more of the United States' combat role in Afghanistan will be hidden from public view

This is not going to be a counter-insurgency campaign, even when some will assert that. A counter-insurgency campaign requires political, security, economic, and informational components. It can only be successful in support of a legitimate authority.

The current Afghan government has little legitimacy. It was bribed together by the U.S. embassy after wide and open election fraud threatened to devolve into total chaos. In August CIA director Pompeo met the Afghan president Ashraf Ghani and likely discussed the new plan. But the now announced campaign has neither a political nor an economic component. A campaign solely centered on "security" will end up as a random torture and killing expedition without the necessary context and with no positive results.

The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban. While it will likely kill a some Taliban aligned insurgents here and there, it will also alienate many more Afghan people. Most of the Taliban fighters are locals. Killing them creates new local recruits for the insurgency. It will also give it better population cover for future operations.

A similar campaign during the Vietnam war was known as Operation Phoenix . Then some 50,000 South-Vietnamese, all of course 'suspected communists', were killed by the CIA's roving gangs:

[Phoenix] was designed to identify and "neutralize" (via infiltration, capture, counter-terrorism, interrogation, and assassination) the infrastructure of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLF or Viet Cong). The CIA described it as "a set of programs that sought to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the Viet Cong". The major two components of the program were Provincial Reconnaissance Units (PRUs) and regional interrogation centers. PRUs would kill or capture suspected NLF members, as well as civilians who were thought to have information on NLF activities. Many of these people were then taken to interrogation centers where many were allegedly tortured in an attempt to gain intelligence on VC activities in the area. The information extracted at the centers was then given to military commanders, who would use it to task the PRU with further capture and assassination missions.

The Phoenix program was embedded into a larger civil political and economic development program known as CORDS . The accepted historical judgement is that Phoenix failed to achieve its purpose despite its wider conceptualization. The passive support for the Viet Cong increased due to the campaign. In recent years there have been revisionists efforts by the Pentagon's RAND Corporation to change that view.

The now announced campaign looks similar to Phoenix but lacks any political component. It is not designed to pacify insurgents but to eliminate any and all resistance:

The new effort will be led by small units known as counterterrorism pursuit teams. They are managed by CIA paramilitary officers from the agency's Special Activities Division and operatives from the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's intelligence arm , and include elite American troops from the Joint Special Operations Command. The majority of the forces, however, are Afghan militia members

There are only a few dozen officers in the CIA Special Activities Division that can support such a campaign. The lede to the article suggests that 'contractors' will have a significant role. In August the former head of the mercenary outlet Blackwater, Eric Prince, lobbied the Trump administration for a contractor led war in Afghanistan. We can safely assume that Prince and some Blackwater offspring will be involved in the new CIA campaign. The major intelligence groundwork though will have to be done by the NDS.

The Afghan National Directorate of Security was build by the CIA from elements of the former Northern Alliance, the opponents of the original Taliban. In the late 1990s the Northern Alliance under Ahmed Shah Massoud was financed by the CIA . Shah Massoud's intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh, a dual citizen, received CIA training. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan Saleh headed the new intelligence service, the NDS. Then President Hamid Karzai fired Saleh in 2010 when he resisted Karzai's efforts to reconcile with the Taliban. In March 2017 the current President Ashraf Ghani appointed Saleh as State Minister for Security Reforms. Saleh resigned(?) in June after Ghani reached a peace agreement with the anti-government warlord and former Taliban ally Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Saleh is an ethnic Tajik and an unforgiving hardliner. He is wary of Pashtun who are the most populous ethnic group in Afghanistan and the base population for the Taliban. Saleh recently founded his own political party. He obviously has further ambitions. He always had excellent relations with the CIA and especially its hardline counter-terrorism center. I find it highly likely that he was involved in the planning of this new campaign.

In the ethnically mixed north of Afghanistan the involvement of NDS led local militia will probably cause large scale ethnic cleansing. In the Pashtun south and east it will lack all local support as such militia have terrorized the country for quite some time:

For years, the primary job of the CIA's paramilitary officers in the country has been training the Afghan militias. The CIA has also used members of these indigenous militias to develop informant networks and collect intelligence.
...
The American commandos -- part of the Pentagon's Omega program, which lends Special Operations forces to the CIA -- allow the Afghan militias to work together with conventional troops by calling in airstrikes and medical evacuations.
...
The units have long had a wide run of the battlefield and have been accused of indiscriminately killing Afghan civilians in raids and with airstrikes.

It is utterly predictable how this campaign will end up. The CIA itself has few, if any, independent sources in the country. It will depend on the NDS, stuffed with Saleh's Tajik kinsmen, as well as on ethnic and tribal militia. Each of these will have their own agenda. A 'security' campaign as the planned one depends on reliable intelligence. Who, in this or that hamlet, is a member of the Taliban? For lack of trusted local sources the militia, under CIA or contractor command, will resort to extremely brutal torture. They will squeeze 'informants' and 'suspects' until these come up with names of a new rounds of 'suspects'. Rinse-repeat - in the end all of the 'suspects' will be killed.

The new plan was intentionally 'leaked' to the New York Times by "two senior American officials". It is set into a positive light:

[T]he mission is a tacit acknowledgment that to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table -- a key component of Mr. Trump's strategy for the country -- the United States will need to aggressively fight the insurgents

That claim is of course utter nonsense. The U.S. already has for years "aggressively fought the insurgents". The Taliban were always willing to negotiate. Their main condition for a peace agreement is that U.S. forces end their occupation and leave the country. The U.S. is simply not willing to do so. Killing more 'suspect' Taliban sympathizers will not change the Taliban's demand nor will it make serious negations more likely.

Five years from now, when the utter brutality and uselessness of the campaign will come into full light, the NYT will be shocked, SHOCKED, that such a campaign could ever have happened.

Posted by b on October 24, 2017 at 06:43 AM | Permalink

Depth Charge | Oct 24, 2017 6:45:53 AM | 1

They tried this in Northern Ireland against the IRA. Didn't work.
originalone | Oct 24, 2017 7:55:45 AM | 2
I wonder how much of the "OPIUM" production these "killer gangs" will receive. Of course, it's too late for the top dogs to use the U.S.A. as a dumping ground, but there's still potential within the 3rd world for expansion. It's just too lucrative to lose, which would probably happen if the Taliban were to regain control of Afghanistan. Makes one wonder just who the addicted really are.
V. Arnold | Oct 24, 2017 8:36:56 AM | 3
I do wish I could express shock, or even surprise, at Phoenix 2.0; but it's been obvious for decades that the U.S. is an outlaw empire not beholden to any and all laws on planet earth.
They (the U.S.) now own the planet and will rule as they see fit: End of discusion...
Oilman2 | Oct 24, 2017 8:59:01 AM | 4
The other things this illustrates are a complete lack of creativity and adaptation by the CIA They have used the same playbook, passed down for 70 years and never changed anything but the jerseys the players wear. When a simple analysis like b has done indicates the result will not be what is desired (apparently), then maybe the CIA desires something else? Like maybe a big payoff by the mercs they contract out to?

One would think that heading for the hills, bugging out, would be the strategy the Taliban adopts - because it has worked when the invaders numbers are too low, even in the face of higher tech weapons and surveillance. This will likely happen once again, and then there will be a call for "moar, moar!" to finish the 'mission'. Which has no set goal other than to be a mission to spread the money around among the players.

The Taliban goal hasn't wavered and is simple and uniformly appealing - they want the Yanks to go home. It's amazing that the same pitfall setup by the CIA entangled Russia, and then the CIA and US military walked into their own old pit. Next they still stand about, unable to concede the mission is impossible?

So this looks to me like an OP to spend money and hide it by spreading it around yet again. Very similar to Iraq, only without any spoils to spread around. Unless, of course, opium production rises again, and the protection racket baksheesh rises with it for the mercs we send.

Perimetr | Oct 24, 2017 9:04:37 AM | 5
Good practice for domestic operations.
Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 24, 2017 9:09:21 AM | 6
The 3rd par of your commentary on the NYT text spells out the obvious flaw in this (same old) Full Spectrum Depravity scheme, b...

"The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban. While it will likely kill a some Taliban aligned insurgents here and there, it will also alienate many more Afghan people. Most of the Taliban fighters are locals. Killing them creates new local recruits for the insurgency. It will also give it better population cover for future operations."

Christian Chuba | Oct 24, 2017 9:13:38 AM | 7
One of the arguments for having permanent bureaucracies as opposed to political appointments is to maintain a collective memory but we are in a cycle where we keep trying failed ideas over and over again. To add insult to injury, our 'watchdog' press never calls them out on this.

I know, let's use our air power to bomb ...
I know, let's have a counter-insurgency operation ...
I know, let's fund rebels in a foreign country ...
I know, let's have assassination teams ...
I know, let's have a surge ...

x | Oct 24, 2017 9:45:52 AM | 8
@4 -- "They have used the same playbook, passed down for 70 years and never changed anything but the jerseys the players wear."

Hopefully they aren't using Monsanto's "Agent Orange" on the poppy fields this time round like they did in Vietnam and Cambodia etc -- that would really undermine the Black Budget and criminal opioid supply system.

likklemore | Oct 24, 2017 10:03:21 AM | 9
What's for dinner?

Commenter Originalone @ 2 nails it. It's all about the "OPIUM" trade.

And, they have misplaced the Memo. Afghanistan is where Empires go to die. Fast forward, as in Nam, the helicopter exits will be on the horizon.

Red Ryder | Oct 24, 2017 10:07:42 AM | 10
Phoenix Program killed 135,000 Vietnamese.

The result was the US ran for its life, in disgrace, General Giap's tanks chasing them out of his country.

As for the Taliban negotiating. Something is going on with Russia and the Taliban. So the US is determined to disrupt it as severely as possible. This will make Putin and Lavrov's job easier.

This Afghan war will end when the Taliban hoist half a dozen dead SOF up on a bridge or overpass for the flies and buzzards to feast while the photos go viral.

Then America will stand down. And only then, when it is a PR nightmare and historical iconic image. Fallujah, Somalia, etc.

The Pentagon and CIA won't care. The American citizens will be the ones shocked by the denouement. They are already being primed for AFRICOM adventures. Niger Ambush. Those damn Frenchies didn't save our boys. Those Mirages (an apt name for imperial aircraft in the deserts of N.Africa) never opened fire. 'Twasn't our fault. Blame the Frenchies.

b, that was a lot of information presented in an excellent piece of writing. As always, I admire your economy of words. Thanks for the take.

Posted by: Grieved | Oct 24, 2017 10:34:47 AM | 11

b, that was a lot of information presented in an excellent piece of writing. As always, I admire your economy of words. Thanks for the take.

Posted by: Grieved | Oct 24, 2017 10:34:47 AM | 11 /div

Laguerre | Oct 24, 2017 10:47:12 AM | 12
You could have added a comparison to the Death Saquads of Central America. Same thing.
RenoDino | Oct 24, 2017 11:05:54 AM | 13
This is not a continuation of the Afghan war by other means. This is a colonial occupation. We now have a forward base in the Far East that borders both China and Russia that we will never abandon. Defeating the Taliban is a non-issue in the broader strategic sense. In fact, engaging the Taliban justifies the long-term occupation under the banner of defeating terrorism. Death squads are the perfect way to keep a restive population restive. Since every place on earth is a sanctuary for terrorism, every place is now deserving of American occupation, and none more so than Afghanistan. Stirring up the locals is small price to pay to distract the American people and Congress from the long term goal of maintaining a military and prison colony in the path of the Great Silk Road for at least 1,000 years. Appointing an American Viceroy to rule the colony has already been publicly discussed. With sufficient CIA success, we may achieve enough cover to allow for resource extraction to benefit our strategic stockpile without any consideration for environmental standards. Only then, will Afghanistan achieve full 19th Century colony status.
Ghostship | Oct 24, 2017 11:06:33 AM | 14
>>>> likklemore | Oct 24, 2017 10:03:21 AM | 9

FFS, it has absolutely nothing to do with opium.

Afghanistan is where Empires go to die.

Bollocks!

And which empires did?
British Empire? Nope.
Mongol Empire? Nope.
Russian Empire? Nope.
Qing dynasty? Nope.
Spanish Empire? Nope.
Second French colonial empire? Nope.
Abbasid Caliphate? Nope.
Umayyad Caliphate? Nope.
Yuan dynasty? Nope.
Portuguese Empire? Nope.
(Top ten empires of all time according to Wikipedia)
Looking through the entire list of fifty empires that controlled more than 2% of the earth's land surface, I couldn't identify one that had been destroyed by Afghanistan. However, Montgomery's Rules of War should be amended to include "Don't go anywhere near Afghanistan because the fly-infested shithole ain't worth anything".

It didn't even come close to defeating the Soviet Empire which wisely got out of the stalemate created by American and Saudi support of the jihadists. Americans need to get it into their pea-sized brains that the Soviet Union was not defeated in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter but broke up because its leaders had woken up to the fact that Bolshevism doesn't really work in the long term. Once Americans understand this, they should be capable of understanding that realising they are in a stalemate and just getting the fuck out doesn't mean that the Taliban have defeated them because any time it wants the US can go back, kick the Taliban out at minimal cost and the Taliban knows that. Anybody who knows about the First Anglo-Afghan War should understand what I'm saying

Don Bacon | Oct 24, 2017 11:17:24 AM | 15
The US has also greatly increased the aerial bombing. This will be further increased. The additional troops being dispatched will be used by the Afghan Army at battalion level to call in air strikes.
news report excerpt:
The second R, "realignment," will push U.S. advisors and trainers down to Afghan forces' battalions, and the third, "reinforce," means adding 3,000 or so U.S. troops to help do so, Mattis said. In recent years, U.S. advisors have been embedded only at the senior levels of the conventional Afghan military and with the Afghan special forces.
"Two levels down below is where the decisive action is taking place, and we didn't have any advisors," Dunford said. "So even though we had some aviation capabilities, some intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, it wasn't being delivered to those Afghan units who were perhaps most relevant to the fight."
That means more Afghan forces -- there's 300,000 all told today, both officials said -- will have U.S. troops with them capable of requesting air strikes around the country.
And the targets they'll be able to strike have expanded as well.
"At one time, sir, we could not help Afghan forces unless they were in extremis" -- that is, under direct, urgent threat, Mattis said. "And then eventually that was rescinded, but they still had to be in proximity. They had to be in contact. Today, wherever we find them, the terrorists -- anyone trying to throw the NATO plan off, trying to attack the Afghan people and the Afghan government -- then we can go after them."

President Trump has told us that the real policy change in Afghanistan is no longer to build needed infrastructure, but to destroy it. The US must destroy Afghanistan to save it. Excerpts from his August speech remarks:
> have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work
> I have already lifted restrictions
> we are already seeing dramatic results in the campaign to defeat ISIS, including the liberation of Mosul in Iraq. (Mosul has been completely destroyed.)
> apply swift, decisive, and overwhelming force.
linda amick | Oct 24, 2017 11:38:28 AM | 16
These american overseas missions seem to have several goals one of which is for criminal government representatives and their corporate masters to set up rat lines and pay to play schemes. Of course perpetuating "boogey man" propaganda for the american public's benefit has so far kept citizens quiet and deluded.
The USG has ceased having any accountability to american citizens.
karlof1 | Oct 24, 2017 11:45:50 AM | 17
CIA further grasping at straws. Eventually, the collective action of the SCO, of which Afghanistan will eventually become a full member, will finally drive the Yanks and their NATO lackeys out of South Asia, but it won't happen anytime soon. Adam Garrie at The Duran points out the "dissonance" in the Outlaw US Empire's policy (which is directly related to the reasons for Tillerson's ineffectiveness I wrote about yesterday) and well described in this excerpt:

"Making matters all the more awkward for the US, while the US continues to attempt and fight the Taliban while treating the group as a kind of terrorist organisation, in reality, the Taliban are in fact the 'moderate rebel' which the US once spoke about in Syria, even though in Syria, moderate rebels objectively do not exist. Yet in a country, where there is a 'moderate rebellion', the US continues to take a generally hard-line approach. This attitude goes against the grain of world opinion including that of Russia, Pakistan and China who each favour military de-escalation and a peace process that, once certain conditions are met, would include the more amiable factions of the Taliban."

Garrie also delves into the CIA's heroin program and links it to its strategy to derail China's One Belt, One Road project in his conclusion. http://theduran.com/rex-tillerson-says-us-ready-work-taliban-fighting/

Don Bacon | Oct 24, 2017 12:13:51 PM | 18
Still lacking is sufficient rationale for why all this expensive destructive killing behavior is necessary in this landlocked illiterate tribal country on the other side of the planet. The old tired explanations didn't work sixteen years ago and they are less worthy now.
> eliminate safe haven
> disallow planning for future 9/11
Of course they can't use the real reasons:
> Prevent "losing" Afghanistan, maintenance of the empire
> Set the example for other countries thinking of slipping the reins (or US reign)
nonsense factory | Oct 24, 2017 12:37:07 PM | 19
The only long-term interest the US has in Afghanistan is the TAPI pipeline route. Gotta get those stranded Central Asia oil & gas assets to global markets without going through Russian or Iranian pipeline routes. Chevron & Exxon just dumped another $37 billion into the Tengiz. And they're still flogging TAPI:
(2013) In a major development, the four countries that are part of the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (TAPI) gas pipeline project have selected two US-based energy giants for financing and operating the multi-billion-dollar pipeline.

. . . transnational-project-chevron-exxonmobil-keen-on-running-tapi-pipeline/

So the CIA has been tasked with making this possible. So they'll let one group of ethnic warlords run all the criminal drug rackets they like, in exchange for their cooperation with CIA and contractors, as in Laos with the Hmong and the opium cartel in Southeast Asia.

It's a broken record and has been for decades. First it was buy off the Taliban, open TAPI. Then it was defeat the Taliban, open TAPI. This is just another tired repeat of the same stupid imperial pet tricks. If you look back at the past decade in Afghanistan, it's obvious that every single U.S. military action has been focused on controlling the TAPI route - and this is obvious to the Afghan people, too. So they'll keep blowing up any pipeline effort. And Exxon and Chevron and the CIA and US military will keep trying to push it through.

ben | Oct 24, 2017 12:40:10 PM | 20
No great mystery here:

http://www.khaama.com/afghanistan-the-saudi-arabia-of-lithium-1747

b said:"The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban."

Absolutely true. Historical context proves this over and over again, but, the corporate empire will have their resources, no matter the cost in blood and treasure.

Ghostship @ 14: good post, nothing like reality to sober up thought.

Until the reserve currency problem is solved by the world, this BS will continue..

james | Oct 24, 2017 1:00:27 PM | 21
thanks b..

what is the reason the usa is in afganistan?

3 choices - could be 1, 2 or all 3..

feeding the war machine.
opium
pipelines.

regardless of the reason - none of them are valid reasons on the world stage and everyone knows this, including the contractors, corporations and profiteers off any or all of it..

the usa is a rogue nation that got taken over some time ago.. that much is obvious.. when will other countries step up and put a stop to this madness?

likklemore | Oct 24, 2017 1:32:28 PM | 22
Ghostship | Oct 24, 2017 11:06:33 AM | 14 wrote


FFS, it has absolutely nothing to do with opium.


FFS Ghostship. You are the one sporting Bollocks.. Ask the boys who manage the processing labs; load the coffins and the routing of said coffins. They are not ghosts but carriers, like pigeons. Pentagon vs. see aye a.

No? Why is production up since the "occupation"

At the start of the US Afghani war, NYT's cartoon posted the list of empires defeated in Afghanistan. You may remain in denial, revising history. It's your choice. Some of us are closer to the facts on the ground - first hand accounts.

A little background for starters: - also check out the Guardian and WSJ on subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

Cruel Harvest in the gardens of Empire: Afghanistan, Garden of Empire: America's Multibillion Dollar Opium Harvest
https://www.globalresearch.ca/afghanistan-garden-of-empire-americas-multibillion-dollar-opium-harvest/5324196

Afghanistan: The Making of a Narco State
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/afghanistan-the-making-of-a-narco-state-20141204

Also, within the R S link above, read the related article written Feb 10, 2012 by Michael Hastings' "The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn't Want You to Read" – that Michael Hastings whose Benz, with Michael at the wheel, had a fiery end in a single vehicle accident on June 18, 2013.


Red Ryder | Oct 24, 2017 1:49:39 PM | 23
Why Afghanistan?

China, Central Asia stans, Russia.

It is the perfect platform to use against all those nations.
As long as they can fly in what they need to supply their proxies and the small numbers of special forces and some CIA guys, it works like a massive aircraft carrier.

The other thing is the trillions in minerals. Not so much to rape and take, but to deny them to China.

This is part of containment and strangulation of China and destabilization of CSTO/SCO nations.

Virgile | Oct 24, 2017 1:58:01 PM | 24
The USA is out of tricks on Afghanistan. It now thinks that a CIA covert operations will be less deadly on US military.
Pompeo has been pressed by Trump to find something that would make the Taliban small.
History shows that CIA intervention blows back years after in a worse situation.
Neither Trump nor Pompeo will be there to feel the blow back...
b | Oct 24, 2017 2:18:04 PM | 25
Video: The Vietnam War and the Phoenix Program: "A Computerized Genocide" - Michael Maclear's 1975 documentary, Spooks and Cowboys, Gooks and Grunts (Part 1)
PavewayIV | Oct 24, 2017 2:19:14 PM | 26
Ghostship@14 - The costs of Iraq/Afghanistan are now estimated to be about $4.7 trillion in constant dollars. Most of that was on credit - we created IOU's and sold them to the highest bidder. Those $4.7 trillion of IOUs also have interest that will total $7.9 trillion (if rates remain low), and that's just from IOUs created up until 2013 and payable through 2053. None of the Syria/Iraq anti-ISIS operations after 2013 nor the cost of Afghanistan since 2013 have been counted in those numbers.

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

Unmanageable future national debt use to be controlled in the US by inflating it away. The Fed no longer has the power to do that anymore, and US inflation will just drive more US businesses and jobs out of the country. We might actually be the first empire to fall because of (at least in part) Afghanistan.

ben | Oct 24, 2017 2:36:39 PM | 27
James @ 21 said:"3 choices - could be 1, 2 or all 3.."

feeding the war machine.
opium
pipelines.

No doubt, there there are a myriad of reasons, all involve they making of profits. And that, is why some people refer to this current empire as a corporate driven one. But then, weren't they all?

Daniel | Oct 24, 2017 3:05:24 PM | 28
I very strongly recommend that everyone read Douglas Valentine's newest book, "The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World." More than fulfilling its ambitious title, this book documents how the goals and tactics of Phoenix have been deployed in the US, and also makes clear the foundational funding of CIA from narcotics.

It builds on his excellent 2014 book, "The Phoenix Program: America's Use of Terror in Vietnam" in which he documents Phoenix through the eyes of the CIA, military and private contractors who designed and implemented it. He won the trust of former CIA Director William Colby, who gave him access to - and the trust of - these terrorists. So they not only admitted, but bragged about the program that became the blueprint for the modernization of COINTELPRO we see today.

karlof1 | Oct 24, 2017 3:12:17 PM | 29
I Heartily second Daniel's recommendation @28. Along with Prouty's The Secret Team , most definitely required reading.
Peter AU 1 | Oct 24, 2017 3:27:12 PM | 30
Paveway 26
I suspect Syria is the trigger for the fall of the US empire. Russia's entry into Syria opened many peoples eyes, and countries, to what the US is about. Now, US actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and anywhere else will be veiwed with Syria in mind.
Debsisdead | Oct 24, 2017 3:42:47 PM | 31
Difficult to agree with much that is being said, no one really knows the exact numbers of vietnamese murdered by amerika during operation phoenix but it was many tens of thousands of citizens and neither them, their families, nor Vietnamese people as whole regarded this sociopathic slaughter as some minor or peripheral easily dismissed event.

I think I've already posted here about meeting, getting to know and narrowly avoiding getting into a business relationship with an operation Phoenix 'manager' in Asia about a decade after the amerikan defeat. This guy was one of the crummiest blokes I have ever met. He had a big coke habit at a time when coke wasn't readily available in the country he was deployed into. In addition to using coke pretty much continuously (AFAIK by way of amerikan diplomatic pouches) the guy was a bully who regularly used intelligence he accessed via his station, to bully the local police if they had the gall to try and protect the local children from his raping. Although mostly this was done by remote control via CIA connections with the national police who regarded local cops as little more than parking wardens - they actually performed the most vital role in law enforcement one that amerikan policing methods appear to have long despised - that is as a community based service trying to protect people within their local community but that's another story.

How did I learn all this? From the arsehole's alcohol fuelled, coke crazed tirades that is how.

I was fairly unsurprised by it as what I heard just confirmed what I had already concluded about Operation Phoenix which up until that time was the subject of hushed horror stories, but unfortunately my business partner back then had bought into that 1980's greed is good nonsense and it took entirely too much work to persuade him to get as far away from the deal as poss - to just gtfo out until the arsehole came unstuck. That happened not long after but there was no great sense of schadenfreude cos he was just moved to another station still in South East Asia.

Anyway the point I wanted to make was that altho it is unlikely that cia bosses can be blind to boozing & snorting any more, the game remains the same, so they will be using contemporaneously acceptable sociopaths, as always.

The result will be devastating for afghans. As former State Department official Matthew Hoh puts it:

"Iraq's campaign in the Euphrates and Tigris River valleys, the Kurdish campaign in western Syria and the Saudi and UAE campaign against the Houtis in Yemen have been devastating and vicious assaults on populations, critical infrastructure and housing, that coupled with nighttime commando raids that terrorize entire villages and neighborhoods, look not to bring a political settlement, reconciliation or peace, but rather subjugate, along ethnic and sectarian lines, entire population groups to achieve American political desires in the Muslim world.

This CIA program of using Afghan militias to conduct commando raids, the vast majority of which will be used against civilians despite what the CIA states, falls in line with American plans to escalate the use of air and artillery strikes against the Afghan people in Taliban-held areas, almost all of whom are Pashtuns.

Again, the purpose of this campaign is not to achieve a political settlement or reconciliation, but to brutally subjugate and punish the people, mostly rural Pashtuns, who support the Taliban and will not give in to the corrupt American run government in Kabul."

ashley albanese | Oct 24, 2017 3:44:25 PM | 32
Peter Au 30

As I have said previously here - the failure of English policy in South Africa in 1899 showed the myth of the British Empire and contributed to the emboldenment of 'a rising ' Germany, challenging England for 'market' share in 1914 . It is ironic , in the light of present events that the 1890's U S secret service warned England not to try military solutions against Paul Kruger at the horn of Africa .

I am sure the US / Anglo interests were warned in similar historical terms at this bloody juncture in the Middle East .

dh | Oct 24, 2017 4:01:50 PM | 33
@31 Not saying your Phoenix guy wasn't the real thing but I've spent quite a bit of time in SE Asia and Central America, some of it in bars. Just about every American I met was some kind of CIA agent either active or retired. The Brits tended to be mostly ex-SAS.
Laguerre | Oct 24, 2017 4:15:01 PM | 34
Frankly, we're in the last days of the US occupation of Afghanistan. There's nowhere for them to go now, to improve their position. They're just waiting for the next Taliban attack. Sooner or later one will succeed.
john | Oct 24, 2017 4:17:12 PM | 35
a rogue and grueling empire in slash-and-burn mode, given to spite.
Ghostship | Oct 24, 2017 4:32:37 PM | 36
>>>> likklemore | Oct 24, 2017 1:32:28 PM | 22
No? Why is production up since the "occupation"

Because the Taliban decided to suppress production and when the Taliban were kicked out the Afghan farmers needed to make an income so they went back to doing what they did best, growing opium poppies and paying off the American-backed warlords. Then the Taliban decided they needed a source of income so they moved into the opium trade to raise about 60% of their income. BTW, in the early days of the British occupation of Helmand Province, the price of wheat was higher than heroin in Afghanistan and many of the farmers asked for help to convert to growing wheat which never happened because American farmers wouldn't allow it.

At the start of the US Afghani war, NYT's cartoon posted the list of empires defeated in Afghanistan. You may remain in denial, revising history. It's your choice. Some of us are closer to the facts on the ground - first hand accounts.

A cartoon??????? Perhaps you could provide a link to back up your claim, but I expect one from 1979 when the United States started the American War in Afghanistan before the Soviet Union intervened in defense of modernity over medieval headchoppers aka KSA? Or perhaps you can name the empires brought low by Afghanistan but don't bother naming the British Empire.

As for the rest, I quite agree that Afghanistan is a narco-state but the trade is not controlled by the CIA, the Pentagon , the so-called American Deep State or even the Rothschilds . At most, the CIA and Pentagon turn a blind eye to its operation, and HSBC probably launder some of the money

>>>> PavewayIV | Oct 24, 2017 2:19:14 PM | 26

We might actually be the first empire to fall because of (at least in part) Afghanistan.

You could very well be right but I really hope it happens peacefully.

Anyway off to get my weekly dose of opium provided by the state to calm me down a bit.

uncle tungsten | Oct 24, 2017 4:40:05 PM | 37
Afghanistan is another backyard to Iran. From Kabul, head west and slaughter lots of shia up to the border of Iran. That's what Israel has requested and that's what the Yankees will do. On the side they will grossly enrich the military industrial complex and all will be well in the world.

The kurdistan game has been foiled and the Iraq government will not play ball on the mindless Israeli hatred for shia and passion for divisive politics. So lets try Afghanistan.

Watch out Herat.

dh | Oct 24, 2017 4:50:45 PM | 38
@33 I forgot to mention....you can usually tell the real ones from their collection of dried Gook ears. They like to keep a couple in their pockets for show and tell.
fastfreddy | Oct 24, 2017 4:54:14 PM | 39
www.thenation.com/article/bushs-faustian-deal-taliban

Published May 22, 2001. ...gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban...

Jen | Oct 24, 2017 5:29:08 PM | 40
On reading B's excellent post, I found myself thinking Israel has similar assassination units operating under the name Sayeret Matkal. No doubt those Israeli units would only be too happy to give training and other support to the CIA's covert program of assassination units attached to Afghan forces.

How much respect and loyalty the Afghan government will have left among its people when the CIA starts its program of police state terror in earnest is another question.

Don Bacon | Oct 24, 2017 5:37:20 PM | 41
There are two US initiatives to counter China's One Belt, One Road (OBOR) strategy which is budgeted at about a trillion dollars, and way out of anything the US could afford. So the US has come up with these two plans, neither one showing any promise except as a reason to continue with the AfPak war. SecState Tillerson is the point man on these initiatives. They both include a new initiative to work closely with India, and one of them requires ownership of Afghanistan.

The US has revived two major infrastructure projects in South and Southeast Asia in which India would be a vital player, the 'New Silk Road" initiative and the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor linking South and Southeast Asia. The US New Silk Road Strategy is based upon the Silk Road Strategy Acts of 1999 and 2006. What port(s) would be used to get to Afghanistan at the doorstep of the -Stans? The US Silk Road products would have to come through the Iran port of Chabahar. That would be off limits to the US. India is supposed to be doing some development there, but it's slow. India has built a highway from Chabahar to Afghanistan. The nearby Pakistan port of Gwadar is now being developed by China and so is also off limits to the US. The US has put a major diplomatic and economic effort into the -Stans, including using USAID funds to train the locals to take over US jobs in conjunction with US companies in the International Chamber of Commerce, an offshoot of the US Chamber.

The second initiative is the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor, still at a very nascent stage. It would focus on the "economic corridors between South and Southeast Asia" which implies working with India and against China. The US naval challenges in the South China Sea are probably one example. Tillerson has talked about challenging Chinese financing -- good luck on that. Tillerson: "It is important that those emerging democracies and economies (in Asa-Pacific) have alternative means of developing both the infrastructure they need but also developing the economies. We have watched the activities and actions of others in the region . . .It is important that those emerging democracies and economies (in Asa-Pacific) have alternative means of developing both the infrastructure they need but also developing the economies. We have watched the activities and actions of others in the region" . . here

Finally, the inclusion of India in Afghan affairs is what drives Pakistan to oppose the US strategy. It hasn't matter that the US has given Pakistan billions of dollars, Pakistan still sponsors the Taliban fighters who kill US troops. The current US destruction of Afghanistan and its people is not a choice of Pakistan, but it's less important to Pakistan than having an Indian presence on both flanks. Pakistan does not want to become an Indian sandwich. The two countries are arch-enemies.

[Oct 24, 2017] The US lurches toward military dictatorship by Andre Damon

Notable quotes:
"... World Socialist Web Site. ..."
Oct 23, 2017 | www.wsws.org

The militarist diatribe by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, a retired Marine general, at a White House press briefing last week laid bare an open secret of American politics: behind the façade of democratic rule, the United States increasingly resembles a military dictatorship.

Firing back at criticisms of President Donald Trump's handling of the October 4 deaths of four US soldiers in Niger, Kelly called members of the US military "the best one percent this country produces." He then announced that he would take questions only from journalists who were family, friends or acquaintances of soldiers killed in action.

In an expression of undisguised contempt for the civilian government, Kelly denounced Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, who had publicly exposed Trump's callousness in his condolence call to the widow of one of the soldiers killed in the October 4 incident. Kelly falsely accused Wilson of bragging about securing funding for a government building in Miami named after slain FBI agents, saying of her: "Empty barrels [make] the most noise."

The next day, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders implied at a press briefing that any questioning of the pronouncements of the military was out of bounds. "If you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general," she said, "I think that that's something highly inappropriate."

Concerned over the White House's undisguised contempt for the constitutional principle of civilian control over the military, some military figures sought to verbally distance themselves from Kelly's statements. ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday led with an interview with retired four-star army general and former CIA director David Petraeus, who declared, "We in uniform are fiercely protective of the rights of our fellow Americans to express themselves, even if that includes criticizing us."

Kelly's remarks evoked such defensive statements not because they challenge nearly 250 years of civilian rule in the United States, but because sections of the US political establishment see it as necessary, at least for the time being, to cloak the massive power exercised by the military over political life with the formal trappings of civilian rule.

This task, however, is increasingly difficult. Shortly after Petraeus's appearance, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," where he had an extraordinary exchange with moderator Chuck Todd. Asked whether as Senate Democratic leader he had been briefed on the situation in Niger, Schumer nonchalantly replied, "Not yet."

When Todd asked whether Schumer knew the US had a thousand troops stationed in Niger, Schumer replied, "Uh, No, I did not."

Todd pressed him further: "How do you describe it any other way than never-ending war?" Schumer gave a meandering reply that ended with the words, "We have to keep at it."

In other words, the country's civilian leadership neither knows where the US military operates, nor dares to inquire. Wars are not declared. Those who lead them are not accountable to Congress or the people. The military is deployed at the discretion of the president and his generals, as in the over one dozen African countries where US troops are engaged in combat operations. The ranking member of the nominal opposition party has no problem with this state of affairs.

Should anybody be surprised, then, when Kelly, one of three generals occupying the most sensitive positions in Trump's cabinet, denounces a member of Congress for daring to question the commander-in-chief?

One need only consider the rest of Sunday's broadcast of ABC's "This Week" interview program. With only the slightest modifications, the entire program could have been produced in a country run by a military junta. In the midst of host Martha Raddatz's interview with Petraeus, the program cut to a prerecorded segment showing Raddatz on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan as it carried out a war exercise off the Coast of North Korea, with Raddatz declaring enthusiastically, "The Sea of Japan is bristling with warships."

The segment featured statements by the captain, the commander, a signal officer and a pilot aboard the ship. Raddatz concluded, "With the region remaining on the brink, they have to be ready to fight tonight." The program then went on to preview an upcoming eight-part miniseries by the National Geographic Channel glorifying the Iraq war.

By this point, three quarters of the program had elapsed and not a single nonmilitary figure had made an appearance on one of the premier political talk shows of the world's leading "democracy."

Kelly's comments triggered statements of concern among some segments of the US press. "A military dictatorship: that appears what the White House thinks the United States is," declared CNN anchor Erin Burnett. Masha Gessen wrote in the New Yorker , "Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don't have to strain your imagination -- all you have to do is watch Thursday's White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump's phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like."

But this raises the question: Would the United States really need to have a coup to transition to military rule? Would it really look much different from today's "democracy"? There would be the same parade of generals serving as talking heads on the news, the same "embedded" reporters interviewing commanders on the front lines, the same members of Congress (most dictatorships do not dissolve parliament) declaring they had "not yet" been briefed on what the military has decided to do.

One could object that a military dictatorship would censor the press. But this has already in large measure been accomplished. The search engine giant Google has announced that it is promoting "authoritative" news content, while it buries links to left-wing sites in search results, almost entirely removing results on Google News for the World Socialist Web Site.

The ever-growing power of the military in the United States is not some accident or fluke stemming from the personality of Donald Trump. Despite being at war for his entire two terms in office, Trump's Democratic Party predecessor Barack Obama never once went to Congress for authorization to use military force, and he defended his orders for drone assassinations of US citizens as part of the prerogatives of the commander-in-chief.

In the current political furor over the deaths of the soldiers in Niger, the Democrats have not questioned the legality of the deployment of thousands of US troops to Africa, carried out without any public discussion and behind the backs of the population, but instead sought to attack Trump from the right for being insufficiently deferential to the military.

After all, it is the Democrats and newspapers generally aligned with them, particularly the New York Times and the Washington Post , which praised General Kelly, together with fellow generals H. R. McMaster (national security adviser) and James Mattis (secretary of defense) as the "grown-ups" in the White House, with Times columnist Thomas Friedman calling on the generals to "reverse the moral rot that has infected the Trump administration" in the person of the president.

The increasingly dictatorial forms of rule emerging in the United States are the outcome of protracted and deep-rooted processes. Amid levels of social inequality that eclipse even those of the Gilded Age, bourgeois democracy in the US is collapsing, replaced by direct rule by the oligarchy and its partners in the military.

This process has been accelerated through a quarter century of aggressive wars, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which have reached such a pitch that "never-ending war," in the words of CNN's Chuck Todd, is the new American reality, presently reaching a higher stage with the looming threat of nuclear war over North Korea.

The move toward dictatorship in the United States, accompanied by the drive to world war, is proceeding at breakneck speed. There is not much time. Workers and young people must mobilize now to oppose it on the basis of a socialist and internationalist program aimed at overthrowing the root cause of war, social inequality and dictatorship -- the capitalist system.

Andre Damon

Peter L. , October 23, 2017 4:59 PM

Look, let's be honest: since November 22, 1963 this country has been on the road to a separate military government which controls and operates foreign policy. As a nation and as a society we have reached the end of this road. We are at war in Niger with no Congressional approval or even knowledge. Africom wants to destroy the African Union and guarantee access to Africa's resources for the West and to insure the West can pay for those resources in dollars. Requiring Western nations to pay for African resources with gold backed dinars was one of Gaddafi's policies as head of the AU .That was the reason for the overthrow of Gaddafi and his government. It is the reason U.S. troops are in Africa.

Ron Ruggieri , October 23, 2017 11:59 AM

In the form of under-reported public opinion there still exists a measure of " civilian control " over the military. To the degree that ordinary Americans see the government as " democratic " they will tolerate large numbers of regular troops deployed. How can hundreds of thousands of American soldiers be deployed to enforce the New Colonialism in the Middle East or be stationed in an " enemy " country after a USA ordered nuclear attack ? Already sick of " endless war ", the not so few " brave and bold " will not be put in a mutinous mood ?

The breaking point in Vietnam was , I recall , 500,000 American combat troops with hundreds of casualties a week.

And that would put about 500,000 anti-war protesters in the streets on one day in 1969, or 1970 or 1971. Clearly US imperialism would have to share the spoils of war with many dubious allies.

How much protest would a draft - of males and females- provoke ? . Fascist America cannot possible resemble Nazi Germany overnight - with sheep-like submission. Or will it ? I am not yet bumping into any goose stepping working class or middle class neighbors .

Will American fascist propaganda proclaim not a master RACE but a master NATION ? ( Rainbow Fascism ? With female pilots dropping H-bombs ? ).

The Eternal Champion , October 23, 2017 10:51 AM

There are far too many people within the working class of this country that are ok with the current situation and they aren't interested in seeing the truth. More than anything, they are the real impediment to socialist change.

Charlotte Ruse , October 23, 2017 10:08 AM

"When Todd asked whether Schumer knew the US had a thousand troops stationed in Niger, Schumer replied, "Uh, No, I did not."

And when the same question was asked to Lindsey Graham, a Senator who sits on the The Armed Services Committee, and is in favor of every military intervention he had the exact same response: "No, I did not know." How is it possible, that the Senate and Congress in both political parties are so totally unaware about military operations and yet have NO hesitation about giving the Pentagon $700 billion in tax dollars.

It should be noted, that on every mainstream media news program questions about the US involvement in Africa is always limited by just saying that it's all about fighting "terrorism." Terrorism has become the cloth to smother any analytical conversation about US Imperialism. Just use the word TERRORISM and then all military actions can be justified.

And that was the greatest "triumph" of 911 for the PNAC. They had the cover of terrorism to unharness the power of militarism and the police state which can only lead to fascism.

"Amid levels of social inequality that eclipse even those of the Gilded Age, bourgeois democracy in the US is collapsing, replaced by direct rule by the oligarchy and its partners in the military."

Charlotte Ruse Selim Sulaiman , October 23, 2017 2:27 PM

Actually, terrorism has been a good excuse to promote unilateral US hegemony. The funding and promoting of terrorists has been used to undermine other capitalistic oligarchies in Russia and China.

dmorista , October 23, 2017 8:14 AM

The U.S. has never simply been a "democracy" (or a republic as right-wingers and libertarian types, correctly, always like to point out). The country was founded in a revolution, led largely by wealthy merchants from the North and plantation cavaliers from the South; when they saw that various factions of the common people were assuming too much socioeconomic power and freedom of action under the Articles of Confederation, they gathered in Philadelphia to write a new foundational document, the much ballyhooed Constitution. It, of course, favored their interests and set up a more centralized system of political power (ironically the best part and most enduring legacy of the Constitution is clearly the first 10 amendments, that some of the wiser men there demanded as the price for their affirmation). Of course the original document set up such anti-democratic measures as the electoral college, the 3/5 of a person rule for slaves, voting rights extended only to white male property owners, and selection of U.S. Senators by state legislatures.

As the country grew in strength and power, political coalitions of the rich and well-connected ran roughshod over the populace in their quest for even more wealth. Much of the time, they used mobilization of select segments of the population as part of their process of socioeconomic and political control. In general, however, the populace had much more say in policy and events, when they mobilized themselves and organized their own institutions, and used that solidarity to fight physically on the streets and in the workplaces, and politically in the halls of government with their own parties and candidates; than when they acquiesced to meekly voting and merely supporting one of the two ruling class political parties.

The very social advancements, now and for several previous decades under relentless attack, that make life bearable in the U.S., e.g. the 8-hour day, public education, the right for workers to organize to protect their interests, freedom from debtor's prison and various types of debt peonage, widespread home ownership, and other items were the result of public mobilization and demands for social justice by the common people. Never once did the ruling class ever do anything other than resist social advancement and try to maintain the status quo. They always took every measure, from constant military and paramilitary attacks against workers attempting to organize unions up until the 1930s, to the more recent methods of using spies, informers, and agents provocateurs to infiltrate the popular organizations that protest the wars and other outrages, to maintain their power and socioeconomic privileges.

While the American ruling class was always very aggressive, and never shrank from using military force to obtain their objectives, it was not until the post-WW 2 period that they decided to maintain a huge standing military during the "peace" that followed that horrific war. The U.S. rulers saw the opportunity to push the greatly weakened British Empire from their post as global hegemon, and to take the many advantages that accrue from that economic, military, and political global position. Of course, part and parcel of the benefits and costs of assuming the throne of "Global Hegemon", is the position as Capitalist Enforcer keeping the sea lanes open and granting special economic concessions to needed allies. Even President Dwight D. Eisenhower became disturbed by the resultant growth of socioeconomic and political power, in the hands of the military and its supporting economic and political infrastructure in the armaments industry and congress. He introduced the term Military Industrial Complex into the lexicon (changed from Military Industrial Congressional Complex by the urging of political aides and advisors).

The powerful position of the U.S., as the hegemonic power, increased the advantages and opportunities for American capitalists to move their investments, to places where labor was cheaper and regulations were more lax. After 70+ years of this process the U.S. is now greatly weakened itself, much like the British Empire was after WW 1, but still stronger perhaps than the British Empire was after WW 2. The military grew in both absolute and relative power, as did the vultures of finance capital, while the civilian goods and services part of the socioeconomic system stagnated and shrank both relatively and even absolutely. The military high command, the great majority of whom are personally always setting themselves up for post-military careers, as highly paid consultants and operatives for the armaments industries, or as "expert commentators" for the Corporate Controlled Media militarist cheering sections, has become much stronger and visible in the councils of power than used to be the case. In fact, this is a harbinger of the fact that the end of American dominance and hegemony draws nigh.

It is no coincidence, that this increased role of the military brass in direct governance is occurring, at the same time that right-wing anarchist wreckers like Steve Bannon are an active part of the Republican Party's meetings of their elites and semi-elites. The final destruction of the New Deal and Great Society social welfare institutions would free up many trillions of dollars, for the elite to loot for personal gain and to fund a last gasp militarist push. This is a far cry from earlier, and wiser, constellations of political coalitions and socioeconomic policy making. Well suited to a myopic ruling class, in which Marie Antoinette (let them eat cake) would be very comfortable.

Infarction , October 23, 2017 8:13 AM

Suddenly, the corporate media and even the usually far-sighted WSWS have finally realized that the US is a military dictatorship under President Donald Trump. In fact the US has been a military dictatorship for years, arguably starting during the Bush/Cheney regime, but certainly during President Barack Obama's regime.

The US became a military dictatorship, when Obama declared in 2011 the authority to murder, torture and imprison anyone on the planet at his whim, without the slightest whiff of due process.

dmorista Infarction , October 23, 2017 11:32 AM

Although, I would argue for the 2001 passage of the Patriot Act and the earlier 2001 Deep State operations in New York, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania, that set up the rah-rah atmosphere necessary for a coup.

Of course on some level November 22, 1963 was the real beginning when a decent, though certainly flawed, reformist politician was summarily and very publicly executed; and there were the two major follow-up jobs against MLK and RFK. Endless colonial wars and horrific covert agency operations became the norm, and unless massive popular mobilization occurred, these machinations continued despite whatever criticism was proffered. As JFK said "those who make peaceful reform impossible make violent revolution inevitable". He also proposed a general gradual disarmament that would have ended with all the militaries on the planet being disbanded with only small reserve forces and police remaining. That was in June in his famous American University Speech. Five months later he was eliminated.

Jim Bergren dmorista , October 23, 2017 2:22 PM

The murder of the 35th President of the US was the beginning of the shift from civilian rule to the military. Kennedy had said that the torch was passing to a "new generation" but the old generation said "no way" with the bullets that killed him. Right from that event LBJ pursued a program of war and allowed Israel to produce nukes which Kennedy had ordered Golda Mier not to do because he did not want an arms race in the middle East. Kennedy also was a friend of Patrice Lumumba and had promised him aid for the Congo before his(Kennedy's) election. The Dulles CIA then assassinated Lumumba right before the election. That is why Kennedy wanted to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces". It is now a well known fact that three of the plotters of Kennedy's murder became US presidents and all pursued wars of aggression subsequentially.

veblen , October 23, 2017 5:01 AM

The US is not likely to become a military dictatorship. There is no need since US style democracy works fine for the Military industrial complex. It also channels peoples protests safely into criticisms of an Individual (Trump) instead of the system

Off course, if there is a mass movement of the working class, this could change and there is a real possibility of the US becoming a dictatorship.

weilunion veblen , October 23, 2017 4:33 PM

Yes, if there was a mass movement of the working class this would change the trajectory. But this is not in the material conditions we find ourselves in.

Decades of neglect for democratic thinking, let alone democracy, has severed US citizens from rational reasoning.

No, the military is the dark force of enforcement in the protection of the petrol/dollar

Selim Sulaiman veblen , October 23, 2017 11:41 AM

Military industrial complex = dictatorship and imperialism

CH , October 23, 2017 4:00 AM

This Sarah Huckabee Sanders is a real piece of work, too. I happened to catch her on the TV news making her "get into a debate with a four-star Marine general" utterance. I thought the sneer on her upper lip was probably the most telling thing about it.

K SHESHU BABU , October 23, 2017 3:41 AM

The US government is fearing that it is loosing control over the world politics. In order to keep it's hegemony in tact, the only alternative left to Trump is military aggression. So, he needs military dictatorship' to achieve his goal. Suppressing dissent internally through military deployment and suppressing external rebellion by militarisation is the policy adopted to control opposition

weilunion K SHESHU BABU , October 23, 2017 4:34 PM

Trump needs the military, the military needs Trump. For as long as the Orange Caligula is the center of attention the deflection works. This is why he was selected.

лидия , October 23, 2017 2:50 AM

I wonder, who had send USA colonial troops to Niger? It could be Obama, of course, I doubt it is a recent development.

OL лидия , October 23, 2017 7:29 AM

Obama in 2013, the French had asked for help IIRC.

лидия OL , October 23, 2017 12:56 PM

Thank you. Why am I NOT surprised?

лидия , October 23, 2017 2:47 AM

"ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday led with an interview with retired four-star army general and former CIA director David Petraeus, who declared, "We in uniform are fiercely protective of the rights of our fellow Americans to express themselves, even if that includes criticizing us.""
and
"Masha Gessen wrote in the New Yorker, "Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don't have to strain your imagination -- all you have to do is watch Thursday's White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump's phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like.""

Made me laugh bitterly. A war criminal/the (former?) master of back ops and a notorious pro-NATO Russian propaganda person are now ones saving USA democracy?

лидия , October 23, 2017 2:42 AM

As Angry Arab noted "US media worship of the US military

The Washington Post and other media have no problem in referring to lies by Trump. But when it came to lies uttered by Gen. Kelly, the Post among others only dared to say that he was "not accurate"."

Sebouh80 , October 23, 2017 2:26 AM

Comrades it is not surprising at all to see US under current conditions descending into a Military dictatorship. The outcome of years of overseas imperial wars and growing social discrepancy in America has undermined the relevance of bourgeois democratic state institutions. This trend accelerated under President Obama and now under the Trump administration it has taken a new dimension.

weilunion Sebouh80 , October 23, 2017 4:35 PM

This, and the outcome of American Exceptionalism propaganda through movies, TV, internet and print.

Godfree Roberts , October 23, 2017 1:34 AM

A wise Latin American diplomat observed that military dictatorships are not evident by men wearing peaked caps giving orders to elected officials, but to budgets.

More than half of America's discretionary budget is spent on the military and the White House is run by three generals.

Mirek Godfree Roberts , October 23, 2017 5:21 AM

Of course, all these `public funds` spent, military actions taken are to make Americans secure, and the US and Pentagon safe for Wall Street and the military-industrial complex! There is no contradiction there!

[Oct 24, 2017] Our Quest For 'Absolute Security' Guarantees Forever War by Danny Sjursen

The truth may be that neither the Us people, nor the US government controls foreign policy of the nation after 1963. MIC controls it. After all neocons are just hired guns, propagandists for MIC. They have no courage, no integrity, nothing, except desire for a cramps form MIC table.
Militarism is the doctrine by which the USA operate. As Eisenhower stated the danger was the capture of the nation by the MIC and it did happened in 1963. This is more about MIC interest in profits, then the US population interest in absolute security. After all number of homicides in the USA are above level in many other nations.
Bush II with his neocon clique just skillfully sold the US population the war in Iraq, which was already planned by PNAC long ago. In no way Iraq war was about enhancing the US people security, it was about oil.
Notable quotes:
"... It's not just the neocons. This is a deeply rooted American problem. ..."
"... Need an example? Let us examine everyone's least favorite (and ever present) national ritual. We've all been there: you queue up, empty those pockets, undo the belt, (maybe) kick off your shoes, do a final liquid check, and wait your turn for airport security. Depending on the day and the culture of the town, you listen as a cynical, jovial, or sometimes even clever TSA agent rattles off familiar instructions. "No metallic objects blah blah blah liquid ounces step back step forward." Wait, wait some more, then we raise our hands in a -- for me -- familiar pose of enemy surrender. ..."
"... But realistically the sharper minds among us know we're not really safe. Motivated terrorists are inevitably smarter than the average TSA agent, and the entire ritual (usually) only deters yesterday's threat. The rational mind recognizes the illusion of it all. One is never truly safe from terrorism -- or lightning strikes for that matter -- in any absolute sense. Nevertheless, life goes on. It must. ..."
"... If you're a regular reader of TomDispatch , you've heard me drone on about the dangers of military optimism , and you are certainly familiar with Andrew Bacevich's powerful takedown of the all-volunteer military. That leaves the third tradition: America's fixation on the mythical search for absolute security. ..."
"... Some level of threat, insecurity, or uncertainty is inevitable, and to assume otherwise is to seek the impossible. Unfortunately, after 9/11 that's exactly the path the United States embarked upon: to defeat "evil" and restore the bygone era of "free security." So here we are, tilting at windmills amidst fruitless campaigns across rather inhospitable sections of the globe. ..."
"... On it goes, the eternal urge for American troops to do something about the over-hyped Islamic. Terrorist. Threat. A surprisingly bipartisan foreign policy consensus combines with a flourishing military-industrial complex, American armaments industry, and terrified -- often by the proclamations of those same politicians -- public to ensure there's likely to be more military interventions in the near future. ..."
"... What amazes me is that by any military measure, the military failed its missions. Rather than demand answers and change, the American public blithely ignores the failures, claims to admire the generals and admirals who led the failures and embraces international violence without end. ..."
"... But I disagree that the people expect perfect security. The American people aren't given a choice. I'm certain that, prior to the invasion of Iraq, had Congress proceeded with a national debate on the efficacy of an invasion as well as the quality of the evidence of WMDs, their wouldn't have been an invasion. ..."
"... This is an issue of governance. The structures of governance created by the Constitution are no longer capable of providing good decisions for the nation. ..."
"... And really, the fact is that the USA is bounded by oceans to the east and west and friendlies to the north and south. We have little need for a military to begin with, all-volunteer or otherwise. Of course that must not be openly discussed. ..."
"... You have this huge behemoth who isn't all that bright. Wouldn't you try to figure out ways to get the Rhino charging into conflicts that could tip the balance into your favor? ..."
"... For example, ISIS rose in Syria because Obama didn't enforce the 'red line'. Wow, how would attacking Assad have deterred ISIS yet this is folklore repeated by talking heads fed to them by respected analysts. ..."
"... Our incessant need to 'do something' in the endless need for perfect security can easily be manipulated. Our foreign policy experts aren't that bright. Rex Tillerson should have been laughed at when he called for the Shiite militias to 'leave Iraq and go home' (Rex, they are Iraqis, they were born in Iraq) but it fits the narrative. ..."
"... Follow the money and see who's getting rich from America's quest for "Absolute Security". And it seems to have been (and still is) one helluva of a "marketing campaign" that sadly way to many Americans have bought into. Meanwhile the Republic rots. ..."
"... Democracies can be much more easily managed externally. You can manipulate who runs for office, how much advertising support they'll get, how ballots are counted, who gets to vote, etc And you only need to control 51% of the elected officials. From that, you can get laws passed that ensure the profitability of your business investments are maximized. Non-democratic leaders tend to have too much ill-gotten wealth to be so easily manipulated. ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

It's not just the neocons. This is a deeply rooted American problem.

Ah, the illusion of security. Most Americans love it, need it, crave it.

Need an example? Let us examine everyone's least favorite (and ever present) national ritual. We've all been there: you queue up, empty those pockets, undo the belt, (maybe) kick off your shoes, do a final liquid check, and wait your turn for airport security. Depending on the day and the culture of the town, you listen as a cynical, jovial, or sometimes even clever TSA agent rattles off familiar instructions. "No metallic objects blah blah blah liquid ounces step back step forward." Wait, wait some more, then we raise our hands in a -- for me -- familiar pose of enemy surrender.

If you're lucky, the whole affair consumes less than 20 minutes. Then you load the plane, do a cursory check for vaguely Arab faces -- feel a tinge of liberal guilt about that -- and settle in for the miracle of flight.

But realistically the sharper minds among us know we're not really safe. Motivated terrorists are inevitably smarter than the average TSA agent, and the entire ritual (usually) only deters yesterday's threat. The rational mind recognizes the illusion of it all. One is never truly safe from terrorism -- or lightning strikes for that matter -- in any absolute sense. Nevertheless, life goes on. It must.

There's just one problem. At the macro level, policymakers, politicians, and the public alike actually expect total security from terrorism. Well, at least one kind of terror: as President Trump so loves to enunciate: Radical. Islamic. Terrorism. Never mind that more American deaths stem from right-wing extremists, or that the chances of dying in a terror attack are comparable to drowning in your own bathtub. Because the public, and our elected leaders, demand absolute security from terror, the United States has spent the last decade and a half shipping people like me on one quixotic adventure after another across the Middle East.

Brace yourself for an uncomfortable fact: the blame for today's indecisive wars doesn't rest with George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump alone. Rather, these quagmires represent symptoms of an entirely American problem. While it is quite satisfying to blame Iraq and Afghanistan on a group of neoconservative, interventionist zealots in the Bush administration, that explanation will not entirely suffice. A combination of three factors has enabled the lengthy, inconclusive, and unnecessary "wars" of the 21st century: optimism about the efficacy of force, our current all-volunteer system of military service, and a fixation on absolute security.

If you're a regular reader of TomDispatch , you've heard me drone on about the dangers of military optimism , and you are certainly familiar with Andrew Bacevich's powerful takedown of the all-volunteer military. That leaves the third tradition: America's fixation on the mythical search for absolute security.

Here I must invoke critical analysis by the eminent military historian John Shy. Shy identifies several enduring characteristics of American military culture, among them "a concept of military security that was expressed not in relative but in absolute terms." From the outset, Americans' inherent military optimism has combined with this distinctive obsession for absolute security. As Shy notes , American interpretations of national security are traditionally binary -- either "the United States is secure, or it is not; it is threatened, or it is not." Only that's not reality. Global geopolitics play out in a vast gray abyss. Some level of threat, insecurity, or uncertainty is inevitable, and to assume otherwise is to seek the impossible. Unfortunately, after 9/11 that's exactly the path the United States embarked upon: to defeat "evil" and restore the bygone era of "free security." So here we are, tilting at windmills amidst fruitless campaigns across rather inhospitable sections of the globe.

When combined with fear -- which, along with honor and (often economic) interest, are the prime motivators of human behavior -- obsession with absolute security led post-9/11 policymakers down the road towards open-ended military deployments. This just wasn't realistic or smart. Too many places on earth house potential terrorists or anti-American extremists for our military to reasonably handle them all. Moreover, it is unclear whether the deployment of U.S. troops doesn't in fact do more harm than good. It is now certain that one of Osama bin Laden's goals in the 9/11 attacks was to lure American ground forces into Islamic Southwest Asia in order to inflame local passions and ignite a millennial holy war. As bin Laden himself declared : "Iraq has become a point of attraction and a restorer of our energies." Well, mission accomplished!

While intelligence operations, Special Forces raids, and limited conventional incursions are (maybe) necessary and appropriate, prolonged occupations in the Middle East tend only to radicalize the locals and dangerously conflate nationalist with religious resistance. Human beings are a proud lot. We tend to get touchy about having our capitals seized and our streets filled with foreign soldiers. Think Americans would respond any differently? Hardly. Exhibit A: Boston, 1775. Exhibit B: Not one, but two iterations of the film Red Dawn

President Bush and his advisors wasted no opportunity instilling in the American people a distinct, if convenient, Manichean worldview. It all centered on mythical promises of perfect security. The events of 9/11, we were told, changed everything. The globe was now divided between the forces of good and evil. Bush communicated this quite clearly in an address to the nation just days after 9/11: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil."

Such proclamations define the contemporary American quest for absolute security. If terrorism exists, then so does evil, and evil must be swept away to avoid a 9/11 repeat. No one seems to ask whether a relatively small, 10-division, professional, volunteer army is even equipped to rid the world of evil. An even tougher question is whether U.S. military force has any utility in the Mideast these days. Two wars and 16 years in uniform later, this soldier, at least, isn't so sure. Either way, it's not the average citizen's problem. Leave that quandary to a volunteer, warrior caste. The new American way.

But it gets worse. Think for a moment about all the counterproductive decisions this (and previous) administrations have made in this pursuit of absolute security from -- "Islamic" -- terrorists:

Travel (read: Muslim) bans and tightened immigration limitations as the world suffers through the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War. All the while, ISIS has taken to calling Trump's travel policy the "blessed ban."

Warrantless wiretapping and a domestic surveillance state (to paraphrase Mr. Trump) the likes of which this world has never seen. Anyone else miss the long ago-demolished Fourth Amendment

A 16-year military campaign that has cost the U.S. military about 7,000 killed and more than 50,000 wounded in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen.

What exactly did they all sacrifice for anyway?

And that's but a cursory list.

On it goes, the eternal urge for American troops to do something about the over-hyped Islamic. Terrorist. Threat. A surprisingly bipartisan foreign policy consensus combines with a flourishing military-industrial complex, American armaments industry, and terrified -- often by the proclamations of those same politicians -- public to ensure there's likely to be more military interventions in the near future.

Perhaps it is time to shed naïve notions of absolute security and reinstate the American people as agents of national defense. Ever since Nixon ended the draft, the vast majority of Americans have ceased to fear, expect, or even consider national service. The result is an apathetic citizenry disconnected from an all-volunteer, warrior caste. When combined with their obsession over absolute security, American apathy proves the lethal nail in the coffin. Seen in this light, America's decade of failures appear wholly predictable. Perhaps it is worth reflecting on this and questioning the true -- if unpleasant -- legacy of the "War on Terror," as hawks once again beat the drums for the ever expanding interventions in Syria, Iraq, and who knows where else.

Should the U.S. once again escalate its commitments in Iraq, I suspect the outcome will prove disappointing. But who knows: perhaps in the Persian Gulf, the third time's the charm.

Anyway, I don't buy it. Here's one absolute you can bet on: we've already lost.

Major Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army officer and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is the author of Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet .

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]

EliteCommInc. , , October 23, 2017 at 11:48 pm

"Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government."

Maybe they should. Laugh.

I won't back away for a minute that after 9/11 we should have shut down the border. We should overhauled our immigration enforcement.

I remain convinced then a now Iraq was a huge strategic and ethical error, for which we have not yet received consequence. Afghanistan too was overkill and a needless invasion to the goal.

The subsequent meddling only made matters worse. We lost in Iraq. We may lose in Afghanistan.

And I don't think a draw down is isolationist. I don't think a serious rethinking of our role in the world is isolationist, but it is required by a nation unhinged till by the event of Sept 11. I won't budge on illegal immigration and the undermining of the US citizens opportunities by other schemes of foreign labor.

We do have some areas of reasoned joint operations. I think ensuring the security of Niger, until it can secure itself is reasoned.

I wanted get that up front before agreeing with a good deal of this article. I re main guilt ridden about Iraq, because so much tragedy there is squarely on us. But that ship has long since sailed.

Fran Macadam , , October 24, 2017 at 12:07 am
Absolute security means none, as everyone must be under suspicion.
Hal Donahue , , October 24, 2017 at 6:25 am
Finally, a military officer says what needs to be said. long ago, I was involved with then Vice-President George Bush's counter terrorism. The assumption was not if the US would be attacked but when and yes, the use of passenger aircraft was a considered option.

When possibility turned into reality, Bush the torturer panicked and shortly there after panicked the nation. It has yet to recover.

What amazes me is that by any military measure, the military failed its missions. Rather than demand answers and change, the American public blithely ignores the failures, claims to admire the generals and admirals who led the failures and embraces international violence without end. This will not end well without drastic change.

Kent , , October 24, 2017 at 6:26 am
Great article. But I disagree that the people expect perfect security. The American people aren't given a choice. I'm certain that, prior to the invasion of Iraq, had Congress proceeded with a national debate on the efficacy of an invasion as well as the quality of the evidence of WMDs, their wouldn't have been an invasion.

This is an issue of governance. The structures of governance created by the Constitution are no longer capable of providing good decisions for the nation.

And really, the fact is that the USA is bounded by oceans to the east and west and friendlies to the north and south. We have little need for a military to begin with, all-volunteer or otherwise. Of course that must not be openly discussed.

Christian Chuba , , October 24, 2017 at 7:29 am
I like to comment on the article that is written rather than retreat into my pet subject. In this spirit, I'd go as far to say that Islamists have tried to take advantage of this view by provoking us into wars to upset the game table. Think about it, wouldn't you? You have this huge behemoth who isn't all that bright. Wouldn't you try to figure out ways to get the Rhino charging into conflicts that could tip the balance into your favor?

For example, ISIS rose in Syria because Obama didn't enforce the 'red line'. Wow, how would attacking Assad have deterred ISIS yet this is folklore repeated by talking heads fed to them by respected analysts.

Our incessant need to 'do something' in the endless need for perfect security can easily be manipulated. Our foreign policy experts aren't that bright. Rex Tillerson should have been laughed at when he called for the Shiite militias to 'leave Iraq and go home' (Rex, they are Iraqis, they were born in Iraq) but it fits the narrative.

Beware the Red Cape you stupid Bull.

Dan Green , , October 24, 2017 at 8:59 am
Great article for as they say someone in the know. Another slant however.

I am from the very small so called silent generation born and raised by the greatest generation.

When WW 2 ended at the troops came home as before they left and when they returned we never locked our doors we left the keys in the car. I could travel to a favorite hinting area and give my shot gun to the pilot during flight.

polistra , , October 24, 2017 at 9:00 am
I don't think the security motive is a major or constant theme of warmongering propaganda.

Wilson made war "to spread Democracy", and the modern Wilsonians (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump) have continued using the same insane pretext.

Security is the supposed reason for INTERNAL tyranny via FBI, DHS, TSA, etc.

EliteCommInc. , , October 24, 2017 at 11:18 am
"And really, the fact is that the USA is bounded by oceans to the east and west and friendlies to the north and south."

If you think our relationship with Mexico is friendly, you are misreading Mexico's intentions. No state that willfully support violating your border regulations and who citizens undermine the integrity of the Us has friendly intentions. You might want to read La Raza's charter.

Spend one minute listening to Hispanics in los angele, san diego, and san francisco complain about the theft of Mexican territory --

It sounds over the top, but what we have in the making is a low scale war to recapture the southwest.

____________

"I don't think the security motive is a major or constant theme of warmongering propaganda."

There's a significant shift since then. Before the lean has been in support of existing democracies. Currently the press is to make democracies and if that means war so be it. The interventionists to that end are winning that argument to make democracies.

On its face it' an appealing grand narrative, in practice impractical, destructive and probably infeasible.

Fred Bowman , , October 24, 2017 at 11:31 am
Follow the money and see who's getting rich from America's quest for "Absolute Security". And it seems to have been (and still is) one helluva of a "marketing campaign" that sadly way to many Americans have bought into. Meanwhile the Republic rots.
Kent , , October 24, 2017 at 12:45 pm
"The interventionists to that end are winning that argument to make democracies."

Democracies can be much more easily managed externally. You can manipulate who runs for office, how much advertising support they'll get, how ballots are counted, who gets to vote, etc And you only need to control 51% of the elected officials. From that, you can get laws passed that ensure the profitability of your business investments are maximized. Non-democratic leaders tend to have too much ill-gotten wealth to be so easily manipulated.

[Oct 24, 2017] The country's civilian leadership neither knows where the US military operates, nor dares to inquire. Wars are not declared. Those who lead them are not accountable to Congress or the people. The military is deployed at the discretion of the president and his generals

Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star , October 23, 2017 at 4:13 pm

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/23/pers-o23.html

Again the article and the comments are totally spot on .
e.g:

"Kelly's remarks evoked such defensive statements not because they challenge nearly 250 years of civilian rule in the United States, but because sections of the US political establishment see it as necessary, at least for the time being, to cloak the massive power exercised by the military over political life with the formal trappings of civilian rule.
This task, however, is increasingly difficult. Shortly after Petraeus's appearance, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," where he had an extraordinary exchange with moderator Chuck Todd. Asked whether as Senate Democratic leader he had been briefed on the situation in Niger, Schumer nonchalantly replied, "Not yet."

When Todd asked whether Schumer knew the US had a thousand troops stationed in Niger, Schumer replied, "Uh, No, I did not." Todd pressed him further: "How do you describe it any other way than never-ending war?" Schumer gave a meandering reply that ended with the words, "We have to keep at it."

In other words, the country's civilian leadership neither knows where the US military operates, nor dares to inquire. Wars are not declared. Those who lead them are not accountable to Congress or the people. The military is deployed at the discretion of the president and his generals, as in the over one dozen African countries where US troops are engaged in combat operations. The ranking member of the nominal opposition party has no problem with this state of affairs.

Peter L. • 2 hours ago

Look, let's be honest: since November 22, 1963 this country has been on the road to a separate military government which controls and operates foreign policy. As a nation and as a society we have reached the end of this road. We are at war in Niger with no Congressional approval or even knowledge. Africom wants to destroy the African Union and guarantee access to Africa's resources for the West and to insure the West can pay for those resources in dollars. That was the reason for the overthrow of Ghaddafi and his government. It is the reason U.S. troops are in Africa."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_in_May#Plot

[Oct 24, 2017] Neo-Jacobins Demand Zero Tolerance, Or Else by Zachary Yost

Notable quotes:
"... The best label for these students is "Jacobin," even if it's unlikely many of them would refer to themselves that way. Historically, the Jacobins were a faction in the French Revolution that carried out the Reign of Terror and orchestrated the genocidal suppression of the reactionary Catholic and Monarchist counter-revolutionaries. While the original Jacobins are long gone, the spirit of their revolutionary ideology lingers, seeking nothing less than to end evil itself by sweeping away the status quo and replacing it with a new and just order. ..."
"... The Jacobins would rather embrace revolutionary violence and tear society apart than tolerate injustices and oppression temporarily while changes are made. In the end that leaves everyone, including the oppressed, worse off. ..."
"... Reflections on the Revolution in France ..."
"... why do the pampered Hollywood elite go out and march against Trump? It is surely not because he threatens their way of life or freedom to hit the casting couch ..."
"... The reality is that our country has become so divorced from anything real and meaningful in the lives of most people, particularly sheltered coastal elites and snowflake students, that they are desperately looking for something to gives their lives meaning. It just so happens that the imminent Nazi takeover of the local independent coffee house gives them the lightning rod they need. ..."
"... Are they dangerous? Sure. Are they potentially going to be a long term problem? Maybe, especially if America begins to split apart at the seams. They're not much different from ISIS, outside of a lack of religion. ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

They prefer fists and fires over words, but to what end?

Recently, the University of California at Berkeley paid approximately $600,000 for security so their chapter of Young Americans for Freedom could host conservative pundit Ben Shapiro without riots breaking out. Similarly, Reed College was forced to cancel the first meeting of its core "Introduction to Humanities: Ancient Greece and the Mediterranean" class -- which has been mandatory for freshman since 1943 -- after students objected that the course was Eurocentric and racist, and disrupted its classes. These protests are increasingly common on college campuses. They're almost always carried out in the name of denying alleged oppressors a platform to spew "hateful" rhetoric.

But it's a recent incident at the College of William and Mary that provides the best window into the disruptors' way of thinking. A speech by a representative of the ACLU was interrupted by protesters who objected to the group's defense of First Amendment rights for everyone -- including white supremacists -- and demanded zero tolerance for views they deem unacceptable. If one sorts through their various chants and screams, it becomes readily apparent why they reject free speech: they view it as an inherently conservative institution that stands in the way of "progress."

The best label for these students is "Jacobin," even if it's unlikely many of them would refer to themselves that way. Historically, the Jacobins were a faction in the French Revolution that carried out the Reign of Terror and orchestrated the genocidal suppression of the reactionary Catholic and Monarchist counter-revolutionaries. While the original Jacobins are long gone, the spirit of their revolutionary ideology lingers, seeking nothing less than to end evil itself by sweeping away the status quo and replacing it with a new and just order.

Campus Jacobins, like many of their fellow students, see ills like racism, sexism, and bigotry, and desire to end them. However, to the Jacobin mind, anything short of immediate and radical reform is tantamount to colluding with evil. With that in mind, it becomes clear why these students are opposed to free speech and open inquiry: trying to fix things by working out differences through words is a very slow process that allows injustices to continue existing in the short term. In the words of one student, trying to right wrongs through debate merely " tricks you into thinking social problems can be resolved if only people tolerate their oppression just a LITTLE while longer ."

The Jacobins would rather embrace revolutionary violence and tear society apart than tolerate injustices and oppression temporarily while changes are made. In the end that leaves everyone, including the oppressed, worse off. Slow positive change is much preferable to rapid and revolutionary upheaval. As Edmund Burke, the 18th-century political theorist and staunch opponent of the French Revolution, said in his Reflections on the Revolution in France , "mind must conspire with mind. Time is required to produce that union of minds which alone can produce all the good we aim at. Our patience will achieve more than our force."

Burke argues for caution, reflection, and restraint when seeking to make necessary changes, rather than revolutions that lead to more problems that before. This requires humility and the acknowledgement that one might not possess the ultimate answer to a problem. The open and free exchange of ideas is the best way of accomplishing such a task because it allows the aggregation of knowledge and perspectives to arrive together at a general conclusion, rather than violently enforcing one conclusion on everyone. Campus Jacobins have no patience for that; despite their youth and inexperience, they've concluded that they already possess all the information they need, and therefore there is no need for discussion, only compliance with their demands.

Unfortunately, the oft unsaid -- and perhaps unrealized -- implication of the rejection of free expression is that force and violence are the only alternatives to bring about change. If one is so supremely self-assured in one's conclusions that one sees those who hold differing views not as acting in good faith but rather perpetrating evil, then it follows that dissent should not be reasoned or compromised with but rather eradicated. When everyone does not carry out their demands merely because they demand them, the morally absolute are left only with upheaval.

Hopefully, the majority of college students see the destructive path that the campus Jacobins are heading down and choose to defend free speech and open inquiry, which has provided the basis for so much social harmony, despite our differences. If not, the future of civil coexistence looks bleak.

Zachary Yost is a Young Voices Advocate who lives and works in the Pittsburgh area. Hide 20 comments 20 Responses to Neo-Jacobins Demand Zero Tolerance, Or Else

John , says: October 23, 2017 at 10:12 pm

I have a relative who marches with these clowns, or at least is a fellow traveler. He lamented a few years ago that there was no great protest movement like the sixties to take part in, so he became a campus agitator himself.

Likewise, why do the pampered Hollywood elite go out and march against Trump? It is surely not because he threatens their way of life or freedom to hit the casting couch.

The reality is that our country has become so divorced from anything real and meaningful in the lives of most people, particularly sheltered coastal elites and snowflake students, that they are desperately looking for something to gives their lives meaning. It just so happens that the imminent Nazi takeover of the local independent coffee house gives them the lightning rod they need.

Are they dangerous? Sure. Are they potentially going to be a long term problem? Maybe, especially if America begins to split apart at the seams. They're not much different from ISIS, outside of a lack of religion. I don't think they are going to effect the widespread social change they want, other than hastening the collapse of the higher ed bubble as parents begin to hesitate sending their kids to these schools.

Harold Helbock , says: October 23, 2017 at 10:23 pm
The German National Socialists were just like the Jacobins. They had different ideas about what they wanted but their methods were identical. We need to be much less "understanding" of the current crop of fascists.
Siarlys Jenkins , says: October 23, 2017 at 11:03 pm
A modest contribution from a Burkean Bolshevik:

The Jacobins would rather embrace revolutionary violence and tear society apart than tolerate injustices and oppression temporarily while changes are made.

Unlike the original Jacobins, who were a product rather than the progenitors of a revolution that followed nobody's plan or principles, these "infantile disorders" as Lenin would have called them are puffed up fish in a very small pond. They have no mass base to support any kind of upsurge, peaceful or violent, and they wouldn't last long outside their campus cocoons. They wouldn't last long there if, e.g., Reed College would simply expel any student who disrupted a scheduled class. Think John Reed would have a problem with that? Joseph Stalin wouldn't.

Bill Johnson , says: October 23, 2017 at 11:07 pm
Classic moron conservatism. Left's war on "bigotry" and "hate" is legit, just needs to be slowed down a little
EliteCommInc. , says: October 23, 2017 at 11:27 pm
I take it then that you reject the violence of the founder's revolution.

Which i why i take the poition that the founders were not conservatives or conservatives who temporarily threw off reason . . . a temporary losing of their rational selves.

s you say according to Edmund Burke,

" . . . mind meets mind . . ."

Fran Macadam , says: October 23, 2017 at 11:50 pm
We'll find out if it has to play out unto Thermidor.
cka2nd , says: October 24, 2017 at 2:45 am
I've dealt with a lot of progressives and radicals over the years who dismissed the need for long-term thinking and planning and demanded immediate action and immediate responses from those in power, and I've often been critical of such thinking and of activism that seemed to be more about you making yourself feel useful than about really changing things. I can't say I've been right every time, but overall, I'm comfortable with that perspective.

However, Mr. Yost, you make some very broad generalizations when you say that "revolutionary violence In the end leaves everyone, including the oppressed, worse off." Revolutionary violence contributed to the raising up of the French peasantry that left it, as a class, far better off than it was under the Old Regime. The French Revolution was also defended by mobilized masses who defeated virtually every army that the European monarchies threw at them, and inspired the eventual replacement of monarchy by republican forms of governance, which begs the question whether many Frenchmen thought that revolutionary violence had been, on balance, worse for everyone.

I could make similar arguments about the American, Russian and Chinese revolutions – as horrible as the Great Chinese Famine of 1959-61 was, Maoist China still increased lifespans and improved overall quality of life more than India did in the same period – but let's move on to your argument that "Slow positive change is much preferable to rapid and revolutionary upheaval."

Generally speaking, I would agree with you, but if the change is snail-paced or virtually non-existent, and if the powers that be have proved resistant to Edmund Burke's "union of minds," then patience is just a fool's game. I've had friends argue that chattel slavery would have died out within two or three generations of the American Civil War, so the enormous waste of the war was unjustifiable. Yet the slaveowners were working actively against that fate, expanding the practice to Texas and looking to extend it further west and south, including into a conquered Mexico. Nor were they afraid of violating free speech rights or bending the Constitution and laws of the Republic to their benefit.

I, too, appreciate caution, reflection, restraint and humility, and the open and free exchange of ideas, but I also recognize that consensus does not always happen, no matter the quality of the debate and the mutual regard of the debaters. Most orthodox Trotskyists I know do not support shouting down or "no platforming" political opponents, even ones we may consider racist, homophobic or just bat-sh*t crazy (Ann Coulter, come on down!). But right-wingers with a history or current practice of violence are another story, which is why you'll see Trotskyists and other Marxists organizing for a MASS response when the Klan or the neo-Nazis are in town, ready and willing to help the masses drive them from the streets.

My problem with so many young "social justice warriors" today, and their mentors, is that they refuse to make the necessary distinctions between the ACLU – which has defended us, too, you know! – Ann Coulter and the KKK. You need to deepen your ability to make distinctions, too, I think.

By the way, the article on Reed College was very interesting and actually somewhat heartening. Thank you for the link.

cka2nd , says: October 24, 2017 at 3:29 am
By the way, I read your Op-Ed piece at the Washington Examiner about unions. Sigh.

Using seniority as the basis for awarding shifts or making seniority-based pay increases is not the perfect system, but it is the least imperfect one (that's usually an argument that appeals to conservatives, by the way). Along with across-the-board and cost-of-living wage increases, seniority pay can stabilize a workforce, reducing wasteful turnover and staff churning, and leave a better trained and more competent and knowledgeable staff in place. In an ideal world, merit pay would actually reward merit, but in the real world, it usually rewards friends and sycophants. And while any union shop steward can tell you tales of employees they wish they didn't have to defend and who should lose their jobs, due process means that the bosses have rules to follow when they want to fire anyone, including the excellent employee who somehow got under someone's bonnet.

You might also want to brush up on your understanding of "basic economics" as many studies have called into doubt the idea that increased minimum wages decrease job creation, even in those municipalities competing directly with lower minimum wage neighbors. And at some point, yielding to captial's demand for ever lower wages becomes a zero sum game and demands restrictions on capital's power, not on labor's price.

Moving on, if you think workers in highly skilled jobs or unions do not have to fear technological unemployment, I suggest you read about the automation of brokerage jobs on Wall Street and Amazon's on-going effort to automate human responses to language, grammar and thought.

Back to your appeal to "basic economics" – a favorite trope of libertarians, by the way, as if there are not different schools of economic thought, including within capitalist economic theory – if productivity and not unions were responsible for increased wages, why have wages fallen or remained stagnant for the last nearly 40 years even though productivity has gone through the roof while unions have been busted and capital deregulated?

The naivete of you arguing that "learning more skills and gaining workplace experience" is the best way to secure one's future might be charming in a post-Great Recession "gig" economy if you weren't also so insulting as to say that supporting unions means that you "are comfortable with stasis, enjoy having underachieving colleagues, and are largely lacking in ambition." My ambition is for workers, in general, to have a weekend, an annual vacation, paid sick time and personal time off, paid parental leave and wages enough to afford a home, car (and private school if I so choose), which would be a radical break from the employment trends of the last 40 years (so no stasis there).

And if all that and due process rights and solidarity come at the cost of living with the occasional underachieving colleague, so be it. It's not as if the ranks of management aren't filled with incompetents, or that being non-union ensures that all of one's colleagues will know what the hell they are doing. But I'll take the trade-offs that come with unions, thank you, and so would most American workers if they didn't face constant anti-union harassment or the threat of closing down the workplace and losing their jobs if they vote to unionize.

cka2nd , says: October 24, 2017 at 3:30 am
Welcome to TAC, Mr. Yost!
Thaomas , says: October 24, 2017 at 9:04 am
Colleges just need to stand firm, hire the extra security if necessary and prosecute those who disrupt if they break the law.
KD , says: October 24, 2017 at 9:24 am
Unfortunately, as Taleb Nassim has pointed out, in a democracy, the most intolerant groups always win in the end:

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15

Thinking that we are okay because there is a more tolerant majority is not true. The only way that there will be a balance is if members of the Right exert equal or greater intolerance than the Left.

The irony of the American politics is that the Right is always caricatured as "intolerant" and "bigots" when in fact they are clearly more tolerant and less bigoted than the Left, hence the increasing Leftward turn towards pervasive political correctness.

Further, these folks aren't Jacobins, they are revolutionary throat-slitting Communists in the image of Stalin and Lenin. If they win, there will be mass executions, gulags, and unimaginable state repression.

Stephen , says: October 24, 2017 at 10:16 am
Reading about our privileged "radicals," I'm reminded of Morgan Earp's remark in Tombstone: "They're bugs, Wyatt. There's no live-and-let-live with bugs." It's sad that college administrators are so spineless.
Valley Virginian , says: October 24, 2017 at 10:38 am
I take it then that you reject the violence of the founder's revolution.
EliteCommInc:
"Which i why i take the poition that the founders were not conservatives or conservatives who temporarily threw off reason . . . a temporary losing of their rational selves.

s you say according to Edmund Burke,

" . . . mind meets mind . . .""

They actually were conservatives/traditionalists. If you know history from the beginning of English settlement in America until and through the War for Independence, it is clear that they are. By the time of the Revolution, there were different American ways. Also, the Revolution was sparked by a Constitutional crisis (one of the British constitution). Parliament and King were subverting the British constitution, and interfering in the American ways that had developed since 1607. As M.E. Bradford said, it was a revolution prevented, not made. Essentially, it was a "revolution" to preserve the existing social and political ways of the different colonies.

Colonel Bogey , says: October 24, 2017 at 11:18 am
"They wouldn't last long if . . . Reed College would simply expel any student who disrupted a scheduled class. Think John Reed would have a problem with that? Joseph Stalin wouldn't."

I had to check to see whether Reed College could actually have been named for John Reed, but it wasn't, and I don't think Mr Jenkins was implying that it was. But that would have been wonderful irony along the lines of chickens coming home to roost. Now, William and Mary, on the other hand. . . . Name a college after illegitimate usurpers, and see what eventually happens!

Siarlys Jenkins , says: October 24, 2017 at 11:48 am
What cka2nd said.

Darn, Colonel Bogey, we've agree twice this month, and now you go trashing the Glorious Revolution. Very much in character though.

I believe that John Reed was related to the family that gave Reed College its name, but no, he wasn't a founder nor was it named after him.

Further, these folks aren't Jacobins, they are revolutionary throat-slitting Communists in the image of Stalin and Lenin.

Most of them are anarchists, and not particularly ideological anarchists at that. They have some commonality with the Red Guards in China -- which the communist party eventually had to forcibly dislodge from their roost on the campuseses, but they lack the administrative ability to maintain a Guglag. And they also lack a mass base.

(Captcha is going crazy again. Rein it in.)

Colm J , says: October 24, 2017 at 12:26 pm
This piece gives Antifa way too much credit for sincerity. Antifa never attack the rallies of Neocon politicians, or those of Democrat liberal interventionists – even though these folks' wars kill more non-whites in a day than the the various Klan groups managed in 150 years. And they never attack the meetings of the Israel first politicians in both parties – even though Israel is an open and
unabashed ethnostate.

It's quite clear therefore that Antifa are not an anti-racist group, but rather the street enforcers of the global super-capitalist class – whatever their ludicrous jargon ridden manifestoes may claim to the contrary

MM , says: October 24, 2017 at 1:33 pm
Some more recent developments:

09/29/17: Berkeley Antifa stalks Republican students at dinner
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9873

09/27/17: Antifa Leader to White Ally: "If You're White, You're Inherently Racist It's In Your DNA"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/09/27/antifa_youre_white_youre_inherently_racist_its_in_your_dna.html# !

09/14/17: Criminal Justice Professor Justifies Antifa Violence And Jokes About Dead Cops
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/14/criminal-justice-professor-justifies-antifa-violence-and-jokes-about-dead-cops/

08/28/17: Dartmouth professor calls Antifa violence "vital" form of "collective self defense"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/28/mark-bray-dartmouth-professor-calls-vital-antifa-v/

08/25/17: Black Trump Supporter Sucker Punched By Antifa: If Situation Were Reversed, "I Would Be In The Spotlight On CNN"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/08/25/black_trump_supporter_sucker-punched_by_antifa_if_situation_were_reversed_i_would_be_in_the_spotlight_in_cnn.html

08/17/17: Antifa Injures Reporter, Blames Him: "You Do Not Have the Right to Treat Us This Way"
http://freebeacon.com/politics/antifa-injures-reporter-blames-him/

Leaving aside the delicious irony that a self-described anti-authoritarian and anti-racist movement is itself explicitly authoritarian and racist, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Professor Robert Reich, formerly of the Clinton Administration and strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, considers this whole pheonomenon, all of it, to be nothing more than a right-wing false flag operation:

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/03/robert-reich-rumors-that-berkeley-riots-were-a-right-wing-false-flag-or-something/

Absolutely gorgeous

oath keeper , says: October 24, 2017 at 2:14 pm
"The reality is that our country has become so divorced from anything real and meaningful in the lives of most people, particularly sheltered coastal elites and snowflake students, that they are desperately looking for something to gives their lives meaning."

True enough. Sadly, there's a conservative version of this which is just as sick, un-American, and divorced from reality. And you can find it in certain places in the "heartland". For example, this law in Texas that you can't get hurricane relief unless you sign a document swearing not to (wait for it) boycott Israel . Whoever thought that one up ought to be deported to Tel Aviv and have their US citizenship revoked.

PR Doucette , says: October 24, 2017 at 2:23 pm
We all need to stop and take a breath and remember back to when we were in school. As a member of the so-called Boomer generation I can well recall the protests over everything from civil rights, the war in Vietnam, and whether somebody with socialist/communist sympathies should be allowed to speak on campus and how parents, the press and politicians of that time were sure that all these protests a sure sign that America was going to hell in a hand basket. Well guess what? The vast majority of those young Boomers who directly or indirectly supported all those protests have become the biggest defenders of the status quo and now bemoan that their children or grand children are protesting against the status quo.

Instead of bemoaning that some of the protesters consider a course on democracy to be euro-centric as a sign of the decay of youth perhaps the better response would be to admit that yes the course is euro-centric but ask for examples of any other culture that has made any significant contribution to our understanding of what democracy means today. Just as the concept of the zero in math was developed by Arab mathematicians, many cultures have made contributions to society but in the case of democracy, for better or worse it was European thinkers who developed the concept of democracy.

Instead of worrying what the demands of today's protesters mean for the future we would be wise to remember that in youth all issues have hard edges and that just like we Boomers today's protesters will become the next generation to face the protests of their children and they will be just a perplexed by some of their protests.

TheIdiot , says: October 24, 2017 at 3:21 pm
cda2nd, you speak well for the left. As a Burkean conservative, I'm glad to hear your voice. While we likely disagree on solutions, we likely agree on the problems.

The real reason for all this craziness is our federal reserve. It has allowed this rampant crony capitalism that keeps the government from reining in monopolies. It allows governments and corporations to live beyond their means while holding the average Joe down. Not having real money has kept wages stagnant while financial assets and political contributions have continued to rise. It is the Feds fault. They have insulated us from a realistic risk-reward environment.

In order to make the world safer, first you need to make it more dangerous.

We try to keep everyone safe by eliminating the consequences of unsafe behavior. Better for there to be consequences for acting unsafely. In Pittsburgh for instance, Mr Yost will recognize, people don't text and drive. It's too dangerous; they might die.

[Oct 24, 2017] The Weinstein story was suppressed by Hollywood, using its legal and financial muscle to keep a lid on it until now. But there are also power centres in the US government that can dictate to Hollywood: the Pentagon and the CIA

Notable quotes:
"... it could be surmised that this basically a turf war among the Hollywood power elites that went nuclear on Weinstein. When one scumbag accuses another scumbag of being a scumbag, there is more to the story than feigned moral outrage. ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren , October 22, 2017 at 4:37 am

Al Jazeera English
Published on 22 Oct 2017
SUBSCRIBE 1.6M
The Weinstein story was suppressed by Hollywood, using its legal and financial muscle to keep a lid on it – until now. But there are also power centres in the US government that can dictate to Hollywood: the Pentagon and the CIA

Patient Observer , October 22, 2017 at 7:51 am
What did Weinstein do to get thrown under the bus by his peers? Just on general principles, it could be surmised that this basically a turf war among the Hollywood power elites that went nuclear on Weinstein. When one scumbag accuses another scumbag of being a scumbag, there is more to the story than feigned moral outrage.
yalensis , October 22, 2017 at 11:55 am
When I first heard about the Hollywood scandal, I was confused for a minute, thinking, "Weinstein is so gay, why would he harrass women?"

And then I realized that I was confusing Harvey Weinstein with Harvey Fierstein!

[Oct 23, 2017] If granny had become POTUS there might have been a lot more radiation around the world because of her "charm".

Oct 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , October 21, 2017 at 4:19 am

The re-modelling of Killary? Why does nobody mention that Hillary Clinton is perfectly nice? Hillary Clinton on The Graham Norton Show: no Paxman-style grilling, but the Democrat radiated grandmotherly charm

Who the fuck is this Norton bloke, anyway?

Moscow Exile , October 21, 2017 at 4:21 am
If granny had become POTUS there might have been a lot more radiation around the world because of her "charm".

[Oct 23, 2017] Why Trump Is Releasing the JFK Files by Adrienne LaFrance

Looks like Atlantic honchos are really worrying at the possibility of the release of the JFK assassination documents. I like the line "One, that the press is "the enemy of the American people" working in cahoots with the deep state, and, two, by lending credibility to the idea that the official story of JFK's assassination is indeed suspect."
Notable quotes:
"... The phrase "conspiracy theory" was invented by the CIA to cover up what they were doing. It shouldn't take much smarts to see that LHO was just a patsy. ..."
"... Here's a smarts question for you: did Bush try to launch a rightwing military coup in the USA, yes or no? ..."
"... I don't think there's any doubt that the CIA has and had assets in the media who did and do perpetuate disinformation and distraction. ..."
"... Of course they've tried to hide the fact, but the Church Committee hearings on the plots and assassinations and other criminal behavior by The Agency back in the 1950s and 1960s exposed all sorts of similar schemes. ..."
Oct 22, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com
Trump tweeted Saturday morning, "I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened."

Trump's announcement came a day after his longtime confidant Roger Stone went on Infowars , a radio show and website known for spreading conspiracy theories, and announced that Trump would not block the release of the documents, which are set to be issued by the National Archives in the coming days. Earlier that day, Politico Magazine had published an in-depth piece saying that Trump would likely block the release of the files.

Here's the thing that happens, apparently, when a conspiracy theorist becomes president of the United States: The lines between decision and reaction blur. The American people are accustomed to public officials spinning their way through public office. No president has been truly forthcoming with the electorate. Many have misled the American people.

... ... ...

Regardless of the files, though, Trump's attention to them is a window into how he wants to be seen. In one dashed-off tweet, Trump positions himself as doing something noble -- advocating for transparency, against the warnings of the intelligence community -- while feeding at least two major conspiracies. One, that the press is "the enemy of the American people" working in cahoots with the deep state, and, two, by lending credibility to the idea that the official story of JFK's assassination is indeed suspect.

"The best conspiracy theories have all the trappings of a classic underdog story," wrote Rob Brotherton in his book, Suspicious Minds . "We want to see top dogs taken down a peg; we want the downtrodden underdog to triumph. And when it comes to conspiracy theories, unfair disadvantage is par for the course

Nikolas Bourbaki SatanicPanic , October 22, 2017 5:36 PM

The best initial attitude to have is one of skepticism...not only of conspiracy theories but of denials of conspiracy theories. Until, that is, definitive evidence is revealed. You are a fool to believe in conspiracy theories without credible evidence You are also a fool for denying them without evidence. The fact is that we know through credible records including the CIA's own internal records that they have been involved with many conspiracies with foreign militias, dictatorships, corporations, thugs, gangsters and assassins. You are a damn fool not to take an allegation seriously and to blanket dismiss new allegations unless proven false. In fact, the CIA had (has?) a campaign to discredit any criticism of its policies as "conspiracy theory". Gaslighting is a common tool they have used against anyone who dares critiques or questions them.

24AheadDotCom SatanicPanic , October 22, 2017 10:37 PM

The phrase "conspiracy theory" was invented by the CIA to cover up what they were doing. It shouldn't take much smarts to see that LHO was just a patsy.

Here's a smarts question for you: did Bush try to launch a rightwing military coup in the USA, yes or no?

David Ticas Polite Democrat , October 22, 2017 1:32 PM

The files were due to be released on this day after 25 years. In 1992, after the movie JFK came out, people were intrigued and wanted the files released. The president ordered them sealed for another 25 years (Oct 2017) and President Trump happens to be President. He will release the files, if no conspiracy there, we will FINALLY get the transparency we the people have been asking for. Nothing more, nothing less.

Richard Turnbull David Ticas , October 22, 2017 1:50 PM

How exactly will the files show there was "no conspiracy there"? Do you expect somehow the files will erase the numerous eyewitness accounts of shots from in front of the motorcade?

Johnny Burnette Richard Turnbull , October 22, 2017 3:02 PM

Not only that, but the Parkland doctors said JFK's wounds ran contrary to what the Warren Report concluded. And the only doctor who saw both the assassination, the Parkland Hospital work, and the Bethesda autopsy, Dr. Burkley, was never consulted by the Warren Commission, and when asked later whether he thought shots may have hit Kennedy from more than one direction, replied: "I don't care to comment on that."

Richard Turnbull Johnny Burnette , October 22, 2017 5:44 PM

That's exactly why Vincent Bugliosi buried "What the Parkland Doctors Saw" as Endnote 404 on a CD-ROM accompanying his part of the coverup.

Johnny Burnette Richard Turnbull , October 22, 2017 7:20 PM

Bugliosi was intellectually dishonest in his massive tome. He hid inconvenient facts in order to push his agenda; i.e. that a lone gunman did all of the work alone. Serious scholars like Newman and DiEugenio have revealed his omissions for all to see.

Liars N. Fools , October 22, 2017 3:52 PM

I can't say for sure how the Clintons did it, but we should recall that Bill met JFK in 1963 and used that opportunity to plant a miniature tracking device. Hillary, using one of her witch spells, then met Bill earlier than officially recorded, and the two of them recruited Oswald and Ruby, with the help of Soviet agents using Vince Foster as a temporal go-between. Foster killed himself over his guilt in the assasination. They were desperate to get Hillary elected to stop the release of the files, but of course they failed. Now we will get another reason to lock her up. I have no proof but know this in my heart to be true.

Richard Turnbull Liars N. Fools , October 22, 2017 4:42 PM

They would have had to recruit Jack Ruby from organized crime --- see Who Was Jack Ruby? by Scripps-Howard White House correspondent Seth Kantor for more on "the mob's front man when they moved into Dallas."

Edit: Kantor was previously a reporter in Dallas-Ft. Worth and before that, a veteran of Guadalcanal --- he played a key role in testifying that Jack Ruby, who he knew well, was at Parkland Hospital while JFK was in Trauma Room One, which Ruby denied. The circumstances indicate a strong possibility Ruby planted the so-called "Magic Bullet" on an unattended stretcher.

@disqus_hbolPDDKSP , October 22, 2017 2:53 PM

The lame stream news media are forever searching for ways to attack Trump. You'd think he would get some credit for releasing the 3,000 documents. But no, once again he has ulterior motives.

I remember Walter Cronkite saying that it's difficult for people to come to the conclusion that one man could have affected history to the extent that Oswald did.

Richard Turnbull @disqus_hbolPDDKSP , October 22, 2017 6:08 PM

That's a fine thought, but has nothing to do with an actual murder case in which Oswald is supposed to have killed Patrolman Tippit and then President Kennedy, despite not one single shred of concrete, credible evidence tying him to either of the weapons supposedly used. In fact, even worse, the weapon or weapons used don't even consistently show up in the chain-of-custody by the Dallas police, bullets don't match, wounds are seen by attending physicians which had to be fired from the front, etc.

"How could Oswald shoot Kennedy in the front from the back?" is one reductio of the Warren Commission fantasies, which is why they assiduously avoided calling scores of eyewitnesses of the assassination to testify, and mucked up the autopsy evidence. I mean, their whole "case" amounted to "Well, Oswald was a communist" (not correct) "who hated Kennedy" (wrong again!) "and killed a policeman" (this is completely bogus, with key Tippit-killing witness Helen Markham described by a WC attorney as a "crackpot" among other problems) and "Oswald was at the Texas School Book Depository" (True, he worked there in a job arranged by Ruth Paine) "so he must have shot JFK" ---

(Wrong, the eyewitness testimony --- see The Girl on the Stairs: My Search for a Missing Witness to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by Barry Ernest, for example -- places him in the "wrong place" to have shot anyone down in the motorcade from the sixth floor, and that's just the first major problem, it would take too long to recount them all, as in HUNDREDS OF PAGES, so that's just a few hints about what faces anyone investigating and/or reading about the JFK assassination, as well as the murders of Tippit and Oswald, or Jack Ruby's extensive ties as an organized crime factotum in Dallas and Cuba. Yes, Cuba.

David Ticas , October 22, 2017 1:26 PM

Adrienne Lagrange, being the highly intellectual you try and portray. Why don't you see that by writing this negative story about President Trump you not only make yourself sound foolish, but you push neutral people to the President's side. Why do you think former President Bush came out after 9 years of silence to condemn "conspiracy theorist" days before President Trump announced the release of the JFK files? President Bush sr WAS involved with the CIA in Texas during the JFK assasination in 1963. Obviously, he does not want the truth to come out and so he got out in front of story to discredit what the files will show. Corruption is common in the U.S Government, President Trump is dismantling this corruption a little bit at a time. This is only the beginning.

Qoquaq En Transic Richard Turnbull , October 22, 2017 1:33 PM

I don't think Bush's "role" is really necessarily in question.

Frankly, even with the documents coming out (IF they actually do, and IF we actually get them all) I doubt the truth will be really revealed.

Richard Turnbull Qoquaq En Transic , October 22, 2017 1:40 PM

What more do you need? The JFK literature is voluminous, and maybe you need to actually try to read some of the key source material and critics and go from there.

Try reading Accessories after the Fact by Sylvia Meagher or On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison, or Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. If you have the time to deal with over 1200 pages about the JFK assassination, read Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History , and THEN read the ferocious debunkings of Bugliosi available online.

N.B. Some of the most important discussions in Bugliosi's massive tome are in the Endnotes, especially but not only "What the Parkland Doctors Saw." Conspiracy of Silence by Parkland M.D. Dr. Charles Crenshaw is another useful text, as is Mafia Kingfish by John Davis.

Richard Turnbull Qoquaq En Transic , October 22, 2017 6:21 PM

Ok: my honest opinion is that you can't summarize anything as complex as the planning, execution, and subsequent coverup of the JFK assassination (including extensive use of media assets for DECADES afterward) in anything short of a manuscript of hundreds of pages, and many of the best work is already available, "just google it" ---but again, you have to be willing to read those hundreds of pages with some sense of other background facts about the Cold War and spy agencies.

This is one of the most intricate and far reaching events or set of interconnected events in modern history --- just take a look at the "tags" on the front page of kennedysandking.com and you'll see what I mean.

On the only occasion in which I had time in tutorials with Chomsky, I asked him first about his views on the nexus of players at 544 Camp Street. That question and his answer might not even make much sense to you without extensive background reading. Sorry, but that's just the facts.

Qoquaq En Transic Richard Turnbull , October 22, 2017 7:08 PM

I truly understand your point regarding the complexity of the issue and I apologize for my earlier comment.

I'm aware of the massive inconsistencies in the examination of his body, how it was "handled", "magic bullets", and lots of other stuff I once knew but have forgotten. There's a LOT of stuff, that's for sure.

I'm also very aware of how certain agencies (especially intel agencies) operate. Their allegience to the truth is suspect at best.

I guess I was asking for was something like "It was basically an effort by (a list such as... certain elements in the FBI/CIA/NSA/government... and/or foreign governments... and/or the Mafia... or Cuba... or it was basically a coup driven by the MIC... (which I think it was) or whatever combination it may be)." Basically the 100k foot view, a very simplistic view. And I realize my opinion is not _nearly_ as informed as yours.

But that would certainly open up much noise from people like that moron I blocked earlier. And certainly no one needs more of that....

I'll check out the links. Thanks.

By the way... I met Jim Marrs twice when I lived in Texas, actually around a campfire. It was interesting meeting him, and he was a very interesting man regarding the JFK assassination. I didn't know he passed, apparently quite recently.

I hope these documents get released and I hope they answer a lot of the open questions still remaining.

truthynesslover , October 22, 2017 6:10 PM

JFK was murdered by the CIA.....he wanted to "to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds"......he fired Allen Dulles. Dulles was one of seven commissioners of the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination of the U.S. President John F. Kennedy..oh and he had no problem murdering people....

This Trump?

Who hasn't even been a republican since 1999?

2008 Trump: 'I Support Hillary; I Think She's Fantastic' - YouTube
▶ 2:00
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Aug 15, 2016 - Uploaded by The PolitiStickGet More PolitiStick Read: http://PolitiStick.com Like: https://www.facebook.com/Po...

Richard Turnbull truthynesslover , October 22, 2017 10:01 PM

Correction: "rogue elements" of the CIA with some complicity by very high-level officials.

Иван truthynesslover , October 22, 2017 6:23 PM

I don't believe a single word from a politician. They are professional liars. It's their job to lie and spin webs of deception. I watch and judge them by their actions.

truthynesslover Иван , October 22, 2017 6:27 PM

1.JFK fired Dulles and top generals. He was pulling out of Vietnam and working secretly to make a deal with Castro..

2.Trump wasnt even a republican....and ran against Bush and the GOP...

Trump in 1999: GOP is 'just too crazy' | MSNBC

▶ 6:42

www.msnbc.com/.../trump-in-... ...

Aug 17, 2015The last time Donald Trump was on 'Meet the Press' he announced he was quitting the GOP. Plus, Trump .

Иван truthynesslover , October 22, 2017 6:33 PM

I couldn't care less what color orange TrumPutin wears. He declared war on corporate media and that is good enough for me. I don't support him because of his position on Snowden but I agree with him on many issues.

JFK was a naive fool. He moved against forces he did not fully understand. I don't blame him for trying. He was a patriot.

truthynesslover Иван , October 22, 2017 6:41 PM

Trump may be a baboon but he made the right enemies....the DNC ad GOP and neocons all hate him.

Those forces JFK tried to reign in are in complete control today. Trump threw them through a loop.......

Ayna Иван , October 22, 2017 7:35 PM

But some politicians lie more than others. That's why Madame Never President became Madame Never President.

Иван , October 22, 2017 4:12 PM

Atantuc reasserting it's superior newsmaking capabilities with click-bait headlines, unsupported assumptions and trolling. Well done. You fall below tabloid, yellow journalism.

basarov , October 22, 2017 3:15 PM

LOL---americans are little antagonistic children that prefer lies to truth...see comments below! and are gullible enough to believe anything told them...who needs conspiracy theories when people are so stupid...everyone in Europe understood that americans were idiots when they accepted the impossible claim that 1 shooter killed JFK...and now they are more stupid believing that 1 gambler shot 500 people in las vegas...a nation of dimwits

Richard Turnbull basarov , October 22, 2017 4:49 PM

The American public had to wait TWELVE YEARS to see the Zapruder film of the assassination, showing the effect of the kill shot from in front of the motorcade. But by the time Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane had become a best seller a few years after the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission's hearings and exhibits were published (with no index --- it was left to United Nations-employed scientist Sylvia Meagher to assemble that, which spurred critics of the WC fantasies and outright lies to expose the multiple flaws and fallacies in the first "official investigation," i.e., the first attempted coverup) the credibility of the Krazy Kid Oswald nonsense was already held in disrepute by informed observers.

The article above can't whitewash the mainstream media's role in the coverup, of course --- search "Operation Mockingbird" or "Walter Sheridan and the Garrison investigation" or " Jim Di Eugenio critique of Phil Shenon's JFK books" etc,

Иван basarov , October 22, 2017 6:14 PM

If you like conspiracy theories, there were claims that Soviets did it.

and please ease up on anti-Americanism.

Johnny Burnette Иван , October 22, 2017 8:42 PM

Any claims that the Soviets or Cubans did it have been thoroughly debunked. It was an American domestic coup. If you believe the Warren Commission, I've got Indian treaties to show you.

Michael Kosanovich basarov , October 22, 2017 3:22 PM

No one has presented evidence that there was another shooter. Clint Black, the secret service agent at the scene adamantly say's no other gunshots from the grassy knoll area. Simply no proof. As for the Vegas shooting as well.

Johnny Burnette Michael Kosanovich , October 22, 2017 4:00 PM

I disagree with your faith-based following of Bugliosi. I think Dr. Cyril Wecht blows Bugliosi out of the water, from a forensics standpoint.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

This guy debunks Bugliosi's position too: https://www.youtube.com/wat...

As for the Vegas guy? Yeah, he did it alone. That's pretty much in the forensics bag.

wmlady Johnny Burnette , October 22, 2017 4:49 PM

I agree with you about Bugliosi and Wecht. Wecht pokes sufficient holes in the pristine "magic bullet" theory that it's simply unbelievable.

Richard Turnbull wmlady , October 22, 2017 5:03 PM

See the book Reclaiming Parkland for an extended dismantling of Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, or just search "critical reviews of Bugliosi's JFK assassination book." It's an embarrassment that Bugliosi wrote such fine books on the Simpson case and on the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision, but was apparently either blackmailed into writing obvious lies or somehow convinced himself "no one with sufficient familiarity with the JFK assassination in the requisite granular detail will ever read my book and expose my silly attempts to distort the historical record." It took enormous chutzpah on his part to title the book "Reclaiming History."

Search "Reclaiming History? Or Re-framing Oswald?" at reclaiminghistory.org , which has links to a series of reviews of Bugliosi, none of which you will ever see discussed on CNN or any other corporate mass media outlet. Instead, without bothering to read the book much less deal with hundreds and hundreds of footnotes and "Endnotes," some of bear on crucial points about the JFK assassination (such as "What the Parkland Doctors Saw" ---see the Endnotes from 404-408} the corporate media is happy to perpetuate as best they can the "one lone nut with no ties to the CIA killed two days later by another lone nut with no relevant ties to the mob" confabulations.

wmlady Richard Turnbull , October 22, 2017 5:23 PM

"Reclaiming Parkland" is not one I've read, but I will. I don't think there's any doubt that the CIA has and had assets in the media who did and do perpetuate disinformation and distraction.

Richard Turnbull wmlady , October 22, 2017 5:31 PM

Of course they've tried to hide the fact, but the Church Committee hearings on the plots and assassinations and other criminal behavior by The Agency back in the 1950s and 1960s exposed all sorts of similar schemes.

Search "MKUltra" and "Operation Artichoke" or just "The CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald" and you can run across all sorts of interesting facts. not wild speculation, but facts, some of it from CIA documents etc. etc.

wmlady Richard Turnbull , October 22, 2017 6:02 PM

I did manage to slog through Newman's "Oswald and the CIA"

Johnny Burnette wmlady , October 22, 2017 8:44 PM

Newman did his homework. He has combed through the declassified records and published his findings on Oswald and the CIA, and on what really happened in Vietnam.

wmlady Richard Turnbull , October 22, 2017 5:34 PM

I have read about Bolden.

In my view the Miami and Chicago plans being aborted make the existence of multiple shooters in Dallas-- such as Files -- more believable; the conspirators were simply not going to miss another chance. Interestingly, Files himself says his superior told him the Dallas plot was supposed to be called off, but they ignored the order.

wmlady Guest , October 22, 2017 3:09 PM

Did you know that Gerald Posner, who wrote the definitive book concluding that Oswald acted alone ("Case Closed"), is fully in favor of releasing the remainder of the documents -- in agreement with Pres. Trump's friend Roger Stone, who is a "conspiracy theorist"?

Did you know that the original "conspiracy theorist" -- the late Mark Lane -- was a leftist and ardent supporter of JFK?

For the educated, this is about transparency, not ignorance.

Richard Turnbull wmlady , October 22, 2017 5:06 PM

Posner? Are you posting this as some kind of joke? Posner fabricated, altered, distorted evidence on practically EVERY key point about the supposed role of Oswald, and totally ignored all the revelations about Oswald's connections which exposed the role he played as an intelligence agency asset.
Try reading some "critical reviews" of Case Closed, they are devastating and some are maliciously funny, as well.

wmlady Richard Turnbull , October 22, 2017 5:29 PM

I was being sarcastic. I was pointing out that if a guy like Posner is in favor of releasing the rest of the documents, it's a non-controversial issue.

Michael Kosanovich wmlady , October 22, 2017 3:36 PM

I can promise you this; Vincent Buglioti wrote THEE masterpiece. Reclaiming history, The JFK assassination. 1612 pages, twenty year's of research, and he embarrassed every other JFK assassination writer' I've read Posner's book. Very well researched. But truthfully, it cannot compare to Bugliotis " opus"

Richard Turnbull Michael Kosanovich , October 22, 2017 5:15 PM

Get real --- Bugliosi has been thoroughly debunked. One of his favorite tricks is to partially quote the FBI reports from Sibert and O'Neill out-of-context and ignore contradictory witness testimony from witnesses (and there were dozens) not called to testify before the Warren Commission. His book (and yes, I read ALL of it but with the advantage of having ALSO read the WC report (the 26 volumes in large part, although not the part where they had dental x-rays from Jack Ruby's mother --- I kid you not --- so much as the inadvertently revelatory portions) as well as dozens and dozens of other books on the assassination, so I could immediately spot some of Bugliosi's howlers) is considered essentially a fraud on the public by informed critics of the JFK assassination.

Maud Pie , October 22, 2017 2:38 PM

"Conspiracy theories are a way to stand up, through disbelief, against the powerful. Those who spread conspiracy theories in earnest are, whether they mean to or not, partaking in an act of defiance against established institutions as much as they are questioning accepted truths."

I disagree. Conspiracy theories are a way for the ignorant and stupid to delude themselves that they are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Conspiracy theories provide a way of feeling smart and shrewd without bothering with all that evidence and logic stuff.

Richard Turnbull Maud Pie , October 22, 2017 2:49 PM

Your comment makes no sense, since there are political assassinations like that of Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy, for example, which have been both officially and "unofficially" found to be the result of conspiracies. The House Select Committee on Assassinations is one "official theory" that posits a conspiracy in the killing of President Kennedy. You could also search "The Lincoln Conspiracy the book" and read that. In fact, you don't have any idea at all about any of this, do you? You're just parroting some supposed sage advice from the usual suspects.

Maud Pie Richard Turnbull , October 22, 2017 2:59 PM

Learn to read. I didn't say conspiracies never exist, My remarks were addressed to conspiracy "theories" not supported by evidence and logic.

Richard Turnbull , October 22, 2017 1:30 PM

"[L]ending credibility to the idea that the official story (sic) of JFK's assassination is indeed suspect" is the incontrovertible fact that there are multiple "official stories," and at least one of them posits the probability of a conspiracy behind JFK's assassination.

Since Oswald cannot even be tied to the supposed murder weapon by a credible chain-of-evidence, nor placed in the so-called "sniper's nest" at the time shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, nor be credibly rigged up as the killer of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, it is hardly surprising that anyone stuck trying to defend the relentlessly debunked Warren Commission fantasies about the JFK-Tippit-Oswald murders is up against equally relentless debunking right up to today.

See jfkfacts.org , Jefferson Morley's website and kennedysandking.com for various paths into the maze.

julianpenrod , October 22, 2017 7:31 PM

A fact that the Democratic Party toadies try to push is that Trump does not tell the truth.

He says things that are at variance with the claims the "press" try to toss at the people, but that doesn't make them untrue.

The "press" was determined to tell people that the U.S.S. Maine was sunk by Spain, even though it made no sense for them to be engage in aggressive actions that the New York Journal claimed would then escalate into overt military action. If they felt that way, they would have acted militarily from the start. Morons never questioned this and the U.S. easily entered war with Spain. Even though the explosion on the Maine seems to have been the result of a carelessly disposed of cigar.

Similarly with R.M.S. Lusitania. Imbeciles wouldn't ask why the Germans would engage in something like murdering innocent civilians on an ocean liner if they wanted war. Why not just carry out an invasion or declare war? Only now it's being admitted that Lusitania was illegally carrying war supplies and ammunition from the U.S. to the Allies, making it a legitimate target. Indeed, it is not necessarily proved that it actually carried civilian passengers.

Similarly for the claims the the U.S. spied on the USSY with U-2 spy planes. The same with the failure of the government and the "press" to admit the suspicious nature of claims of the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident".

The fact is, Trump and others in the Republican Party have said many things that the "press" denied, only to have the "press" shown to be lying later.

Hillary Clinton supporters were carrying out acts of violence after the election in Trump's name to try to undermine him. Germany didn't pay its agreed upon amount for the maintenance of NATO. Obama did bug Trump's campaign headquarters. Puerto Rico's sorry condition is the result of massive corruption in its government. There are many women who, as Trump asserted, will let a man with money and power take liberties. In fact, climate isn't changing. "Climate" is the massive, interconnected, self regulating system comprised of things like land, ocean, sky, solar energy, life. Land, ocean, solar energy, life are no different from fifty years ago. Only the weather is changing, and that is caused by chemtrails, the program of doping the air with weather modification chemicals from high flying jets, producing long, non dissipating vapor lanes that stretch from horizon to horizon and can last for an hour or more. Stop chemtrails and everything will return to normal.

Todd Akin was criticized for saying that, in "legitimate rape" women's bodies will fight being impregnated. Democratic Party followers insisted Akin was saying rape was legal. He was referring to rapes that actually occurred, not lies that many women do lodge against rich and powerful men to get money.

J. Edgar Hoover said that "civil rights" marches and such were tools of the Kremlin to try to undermine democracy. In their desperate attempt to rescue the claim that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election, none other than The Atlantic has taken up Hoover's insistence that such demonstrations were a means used by the USSR to try to destroy democracy. And the dullards of the Democratic Party's target audience won't realize they are now agreeing with the Republicans.

Trump and the politicians come from rarefied levels that know facts that government and the "press" lies to the public about. One fact, that there may be actual sections of government, or "government", that act independently of any rules and can even roll over the rest of "government". "Government" is just a sleazy swindle to make the rich richer. No one controls them! Not even elections! They publish fake "vote tallies", then put who they want in. Trump speaks of the Deep State of power mongering going on behind the scenes. Hillary Clinton operated her own shadow government with a system of unregistered servers only one of which has been acknowledged. It's been suspected for a long time that the "intelligence network" acted solely on its own recognizance, answerable to no one. Questions Trump raises can point people to the truth.

Richard Turnbull Qoquaq En Transic , October 22, 2017 2:40 PM

"My" research? Look, just GO ONLINE to another website like JFKfacts.org or kennedysand king.com , or search "James Di Eugenio on the JFK assassination," I have read around 150 books and articles and much of the Warren Report (the volumes not the summary) and the House Select Committee hearings reports, but compared to "serious researchers" I am a dilletante. Besides, you really NEED to study this either for yourself as a kind of "research project" or if possible, in a university level course environment.

There are THOUSANDS of really interesting books about aspects of the JFK assassination --- search "Reclaiming Parkland" by Di Eugenio and go from there, whatever.

Follow the links, and expect it to take many many hours to get the beginning of an understanding.

Richard Turnbull Qoquaq En Transic , October 22, 2017 2:54 PM

Ok, why don't you at least realize it's FAR more complex than any possible "avionics system," it's something akin to people on Quora asking me to "summarize Hamlet," or "summarize King Lear." It's just absurd. Besides which, the subject matter is far too important for anyone to take their views from a few summarized paragraphs, whether about Hamlet or Lear or the JFK assassination.

So yeah, I did "research" and I think the facts speak for themselves, as you would learn by delving into the posts at jfkfacts.org or kennedysandking.com , or reading Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. The thing is, it's one of the most complicated interlocking sets of topics in modern history, not something that can be scrawled on a postcard.

[Oct 22, 2017] The Political Theory of Trump_vs_deep_state by Corey Robin

This is great comment: " One fairly obvious point -- in response to your original post, not the article itself -- is surely that the general consensus which united conservatives and liberals, that neoliberal economics works, that war against weak countries can be waged on the cheap, and that the local working class will always eat whatever excrement is put on their plates, has started to break down. "
Notable quotes:
"... The Reactionary Mind ..."
"... The Art of the Deal ..."
"... TRUMP IS BY NO MEANS the first man of the right to reach that conclusion about capitalism, though he may be the first President to do so, at least since Teddy Roosevelt. A great many neoconservatives found themselves stranded on the same beach after the end of the cold war, as had many conservatives before that. But they always found a redeeming vision in the state. Not the welfare state or the "nanny state," but the State of high politics, national greatness, imperial leadership, and war; the state of Churchill and Bismarck. Given the menace of Trump's rhetoric, his fetish for pomp and love of grandeur, this state, too, would seem the natural terminus of his predilections. As his adviser Steve Bannon has said, "A country's more than an economy. We're a civic society." Yet on closer inspection, Trump's vision of the state looks less like the State than the deals he's not sure add up to much. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state's inconsistency, lack of coherence and cult of personality brings to mind Juan Peron and Evita. ..."
"... The desire to make Trump anti-Semitic, and a fascist is a lot easier than recognizing he's a talented media manipulator devoid and any real convictions. The idea that 60 million Americans voted to elect a man who secretly wants to end elections is absurd on every level. He doesn't need to end elections, because elections are the ultimate ratings game. He brags endlessly that he beat all the professional politicians as a neophyte. ..."
"... When folks assert that Trump is all about surfaces, they say that as if it's a bad thing. The republican base supporting Trump, we have clearly learned, maintains no fidelity to the theologies expounded at the NRO and the AEI. Trump's inability to think about challenges in ways approved of by his critics confounds experts precisely because he's so effective. I can't believe he has less heft and gravitas than the light-bulb salesman Americans elected twice. He is simply the right guy with the right message for a specific time and place. He may morph into evil personified and I get the sense at times that some of his critics are keen to see just that. ..."
"... That Trump lacks much knowledge of public policy was clear during the campaign, and since being inaugurated he has remained uninterested in and ignorant of (sometimes amazingly so) the details of policy. One wonders if he even reads the exec orders he has been signing. Your support of someone so manifestly unsuited to be president, by virtue of his vast ignorance if nothing else, was puzzling during the campaign and remains so. Btw, what "great society experiments" are you talking about? Have you heard of the '96 welfare 'reform' law? ..."
"... Trump has defended an isolationist foreign policy, attacking Nafta, Nato, the WTO etc. Given his erratic behavior, he has not followed through on this (yet?) but the departure with the previous mainstream consensus is radical. The mainstream left and right, at least since two decades, had been very much internationalist. ..."
"... During the campaign Trump has defended some form of social welfare state and more government intervention in the economy: e.g. his defense of Social Security, or even maternity leave, and his support for infrastructure. I do not think he really cares about this stuff and so he is probably not going to follow through. ..."
"... It's also very anti-historical. Inasmuch as conservatism is, among other things, a defense of hierarchy , it can (and did, at one time) appeal to millennia of precedent. ..."
"... Something can be deeply wrong, i.e. immoral, without being the product of a cognitive abnormality, and people can commit evil acts and hold evil beliefs without being mentally or psychologically impaired. To attribute all retrograde political acts and beliefs to an individual's deficient "theory of mind" (whatever that means exactly) is sociologically naive, psychologically untenable, and historically invalid. ..."
"... One fairly obvious point -- in response to your original post, not the article itself -- is surely that the general consensus which united conservatives and liberals, that neoliberal economics works, that war against weak countries can be waged on the cheap, and that the local working class will always eat whatever excrement is put on their plates, has started to break down. ..."
"... Trump is a right-wing bullshitter, Clinton is a liberal bullshitter; there's nothing really new about that (much the same sort of thing happened with those who continued to support the consensus during the Great Depression). ..."
"... When Obama failed to embody the forward-looking ideals he campaigned on, some people checked out, but you can trace clear lines of mass disillusionment and radicalization from 2008 to Occupy and BLM to the Sanders campaign. ..."
"... The question was never if there was an appetite for real leftism in the American electorate (Clinton and Trump's unconvincing plagiarism of Sanders talking points are telling here, I think), but whether the Democratic party, mired as it's been in institutional rot and complacency, would ever tolerate true economic leftism when the "social liberalism" of identity and representation seemed to work well enough and was so much less threatening to the moneyed interests that financed the party's rightward swing. ..."
"... For decades, the left wing of the Democratic party has been cajoled into voting for "liberal" candidates that resemble nothing so much as the old aristocratic Whigs who used to discuss ways to help the less fortunate over claret and cigars down at the gentlemen's club. ..."
"... I don't think there's any going back to the neocon/neolib era and I think even a lot of moderate Republicans (who used to rely on friendly financiers like Romney to keep the rabid right on-leash) are beginning to realize it. After all, what's the point of selling out if it doesn't buy you anything? ..."
"... The neo-cons are out: Bill Kristol, Max Boot and company are sworn enemies of the administration. Democratic party neocons like HRC can longer launch democracy-building projects in the middle east. Long may this continue. ..."
"... Calling 60 million Trump voters racist and/or fascist might feel good, but as Mark Lilla sensibly observes, identity politics is Reagan's trickle-down economics for liberals, self-delusion for folks out of answers. The 'solutions' for poor, black families in crisis on this thread illustrate clearly why so many black voters in Michigan and elsewhere stayed home. Folks without work, safe schools, and much hope want solutions – not 'this study says' or 'but, Republicans.'' ..."
"... Donald Trump is president because the Democratic party abandoned the poorest, white and black, not because 60 million Americans are actually fascists. ..."
"... It's the sort of completely insane projection that falls apart at the most cursory examination, to wit: the entire notion of destroying a public, universal service like secondary (and post-secondary, in many cases) education in order to hand the system over to unscrupulous profiteers is [extremely Zizek voice]PURE NEOLIBERALISM[/extremely Zizek voice]. ..."
"... What we have, and what Trump_vs_deep_state is merely one symptom of, is a massive crisis in public governance. In large part, the people who are responsible for said governance brought it on themselves. ..."
"... Race is one the primary axes of American politics, and our reluctance to fund basic public goods cannot be understood without acknowledging this basic fact. ..."
"... there's absolutely no daylight whatsoever between "mainstream" Republicans and Trump when it comes to the lust for war: ..."
"... Having discovered this fact which so many slogans obscure, we might well wonder whether it is quite correct to look upon capitalism as a social form sui generis or, in fact, as anything else but the last stage of the decomposition of what we have called feudalism. ..."
"... The thing is, Trump is an owner who's there because he's finished with that political crap. At this point, we probably have to hope that some general has the spine to tell Trump no, the US army really is not a very good military force for anything that involves taking casualties, which means it is fairly useless for actually conquering anything, as opposed to laying waste in endless campaigns. But the spirit of West Point, the school of treason that produced many, many, many more fighters against America than the CPUSA ever did, still rules. I'm not very hopeful. ..."
"... This is a legitimacy crisis. It is not as if Clinton partisans did not call Trump's electoral legitimacy into question. Half the country think Russian "meddling" determined the result, when it is not clear any "meddling" happened. ..."
"... Yes, Americans have lost their collective mind, politically. I know several elderly people (not much more elderly than me, truth to tell) who consume anti-Trump screeds from Seth Meyers or Rachel Maddow on a daily basis. It is entertainment I suppose, but it does not inform them or improve their critical thinking skills. One, a transplanted Englishman, described Maddow to me the other day as "erudite". ..."
"... The relentless flood tide of propaganda in American politics makes it exceedingly hard to talk with any American realistically about what is going on, because so much of what is going is exists not as objective and verified facts, but as shared, tendentious narratives. The actual Trump seems to me to be a bit of a personal mess and an authoritarian in the same mode as the blowhards who hang out at the barbershop; the Trump constructed by, say, Maddow's televised narratives is something else, something more imagined than real. The imagined Trump has to be bigger, to be fitted with cheap hyperbole. ..."
"... An essential element of the propaganda narrative is the "distance" to the other. The "base of Trump supporters" is a prop. Wondering what "they" could be thinking but not waiting for an answer before launching scorn and ridicule on the way to slander is a method. ..."
"... No Layman, there is plenty of irrefutable evidence that Clinton is a militarist who strongly believes in force and the threat of force, especially when it comes to the ME – and this plays just fine with the Democratic party establishment, actually it's a necessity considering the donor base. Clinton's stance towards Iran and the nuclear deal is a matter of record. Next time don't nominate a warmonger who voted for the Iraq war if you want to prevent someone like Trump – and hey, maybe young people will trust you again. ..."
"... There is no "real" Trump narrative; narratives are imagined stories, constructed according to principles of dramatic art to create meaning and morality. With effort, it is possible to anchor a narrative to facts, and to do so by methods that limit violence to the objectivity of facts. Whether a well-anchored narrative is persuasive may be important to such enterprises as the operation of law or even the progress of science. ..."
"... Our famously free press (spoken sarcastically) is thought to provide a check; fact-check columns proliferate at times, but mostly prove how weak an instrument of the public interest, a Media run by massive corporations and financially dependent on corporate business advertising is. ..."
"... A common practice now is to lead with counterfactuals: narratives in which the place of facts is taken by theory and theory's constructions. "Because the whole thing is basically a fantasy, nothing will disprove it." ..."
"... My political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state is that this is what conservative politics unchecked, unopposed and not responsible to any mass constituency produces. Trump says anything. But, it has been twenty years since anyone in politics has been held to account for anything said, except for "gotcha" moments of mostly fake outrage. Not that we would have a gotcha moment for Bush's war crimes. But that is my point. Holding Clinton up as a standard of normalcy in politics runs into exactly this same problem: she talks in the political code words, takes no responsibility for policy consequences and shows every sign of greed and irresponsibility, but the counterfactual of her normalcy is still set forward, with no awareness that it is a groundless narrative. This is not a point about Clinton or Trump, but it is a point about a political process that produces a lot of stupid and Trump is a bonus. ..."
"... Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the 'personalization' of media might bring. Most germane to this discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding to? 'The most serious political problem posed by filter bubbles is that they make it increasingly difficult to have a public argument.' " ..."
"... I stand by my belief that Trump built a public persona as a race-baiting, loudmouth buffoon that carried him straight into the WH despite a fervent, well-funded bi-partisan effort to unseat him from the time he declared up right to the present. Studying the buffoon tells us practically nothing about the individual. He's ordinary, capable, ambitious, avaricious, and mired in the world of the senses rather than the mind. There are worse traits and places to be. ..."
"... what I always find grotesque about the accusations of Russian meddling is the full ticket obliviousness to all the meddling the US used to perform in Russian elections, and in fact in many other elections worldwide. It's quite a sorry sight to see people like you make a fuss about very minor activities (if there's even evidence of any), without as much as a shred of self awareness. ..."
"... If people want a sane non- militaristic foreign policy it's going to take more than just opposition to Trump. You are also going to have to oppose some of Trump's opponents in both parties. The one time Trump received positive feedback and praise from many in the Beltway was when he bombed Syria. ..."
"... Why are people talking about Hillary here, on a thread about Trump and conservatism? Because a plausible argument can be made that Hillary is more of conservative than Trump, at least in terms of neo-conservative politics. She has, after all, two neo-con wars under her belt already and enjoys good relations with all the really wrong people. Her avarice and willingness to tell tales are at least comparable to Trump's. But perhaps the best reason Hillary belongs here is because many believe that had a less conservative Democrat than Hillary run (Bernie, for example), Dems would have won and Donald Trump would be yesterday's news. ..."
Oct 22, 2017 | crookedtimber.org

October 12, 2017 The magazine n+1 is running an excerpt from the second edition of The Reactionary Mind , which comes out next week but is available for purchase now . The n+1 piece is titled "The Triumph of the Shill: The political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state." It's my most considered reflection on what Trump_vs_deep_state represents, based on a close reading of The Art of the Deal (yes, I know he didn't write it, but it's far more revelatory of the man and what he thinks than even its ghostwriter realized) and some of his other writings and speeches, as well as the record of Trump's first six months in office.

Here are some excerpts from the excerpt, but I hope you'll buy the book, too. It's got a lot of new material, particularly about the economic ideas of the right. And a long, long chapter on Trump and Trump_vs_deep_state.

... ... ...

This is what makes Trump's economic philosophy, such as it is, so peculiar and of its moment. An older generation of economic Darwinists, from William Graham Sumner to Ayn Rand, believed without reservation in the secular miracle of the market. It wasn't just the contest that was glorious; the outcome was, too. That conviction burned in them like a holy fire. Trump, by contrast, subscribes and unsubscribes to that vision. The market is a moment of truth  --  and an eternity of lies. It reveals; it hides. It is everything; it is nothing. Rand grounded her vision of capitalism in A is A; Trump grounds his in A is not A.

TRUMP IS BY NO MEANS the first man of the right to reach that conclusion about capitalism, though he may be the first President to do so, at least since Teddy Roosevelt. A great many neoconservatives found themselves stranded on the same beach after the end of the cold war, as had many conservatives before that. But they always found a redeeming vision in the state. Not the welfare state or the "nanny state," but the State of high politics, national greatness, imperial leadership, and war; the state of Churchill and Bismarck. Given the menace of Trump's rhetoric, his fetish for pomp and love of grandeur, this state, too, would seem the natural terminus of his predilections. As his adviser Steve Bannon has said, "A country's more than an economy. We're a civic society." Yet on closer inspection, Trump's vision of the state looks less like the State than the deals he's not sure add up to much.

Again, read the whole excerpt here , and then buy the book !

I'll be doing a bunch of interviews about the book, including one with our very own Henry, so keep an eye out at my blog for more information on that.

Dr. Hilarius 10.12.17 at 4:54 am (no link)

Trump_vs_deep_state's inconsistency, lack of coherence and cult of personality brings to mind Juan Peron and Evita.
kidneystones 10.12.17 at 2:19 pm (no link)
@12 The desire to make Trump anti-Semitic, and a fascist is a lot easier than recognizing he's a talented media manipulator devoid and any real convictions. The idea that 60 million Americans voted to elect a man who secretly wants to end elections is absurd on every level. He doesn't need to end elections, because elections are the ultimate ratings game. He brags endlessly that he beat all the professional politicians as a neophyte.

He looks certain at this point to thread the needle for 2020 at the expense of both Republicans and Democrats. He may very well simplify the tax code and get rather more done in his second year in office. His first year has and will be devoted to pure survival – defending his corner and maintaining his base. Trump supporters, myself included, are anti-politician, and unsympathetic to faction and ideology, which is part of the reason I really do question Corey's efforts to make Trump part of a conservative movement.

When folks assert that Trump is all about surfaces, they say that as if it's a bad thing. The republican base supporting Trump, we have clearly learned, maintains no fidelity to the theologies expounded at the NRO and the AEI. Trump's inability to think about challenges in ways approved of by his critics confounds experts precisely because he's so effective. I can't believe he has less heft and gravitas than the light-bulb salesman Americans elected twice. He is simply the right guy with the right message for a specific time and place. He may morph into evil personified and I get the sense at times that some of his critics are keen to see just that.

Every time Hillary Clinton opens her mouth to utter another blatant falsehood, I feel better about the results of 2016. There is, as Corey notes, an emptiness at the heart of the conservative movement. The same can be said of liberals who are, if anything, in even greater disarray than conservatives. The great society experiments yield, in 2016, appalling failure rates among America's African-American youth to follow decades of failure as the African-American family unit dis-integrates. Liberals are all out of answers, as are theological conservatives. Perhaps the reality is that ordinary Americans, and others across the globe, are actually far less polarized than the pundits tell us.

We might very well go down some ugly path to war and disaster, but is seems to me just as likely that life will actually go on much as it has, only with fewer wars and slightly more charity towards each other. Cause just yammering about the blah-blah-blah is getting mighty old.

LFC 10.12.17 at 5:03 pm (no link)
kidneystones @15
That Trump lacks much knowledge of public policy was clear during the campaign, and since being inaugurated he has remained uninterested in and ignorant of (sometimes amazingly so) the details of policy. One wonders if he even reads the exec orders he has been signing. Your support of someone so manifestly unsuited to be president, by virtue of his vast ignorance if nothing else, was puzzling during the campaign and remains so. Btw, what "great society experiments" are you talking about? Have you heard of the '96 welfare 'reform' law?
LFC 10.12.17 at 5:10 pm (no link)
p.s. In terms of ignorant presidents in recent memory, Reagan and G.W. Bush come close to Trump, but Trump outdoes them. (Though in a competition on that score between Reagan and Trump, it might be close to a tie.)
Tom 10.13.17 at 1:41 am ( 32 )
As far as I can tell, your claim so far (in this and other posts) is that Trump should be seen first of all as a conservative: those who see him as a radical break from US conservatism have an idealized version of what the GOP and the right have actually been throughout their history.* I tend to agree with this (e.g. the GOP has been very racist since many decades) but with two important qualifications that I have never seen you make:

a) Trump has defended an isolationist foreign policy, attacking Nafta, Nato, the WTO etc. Given his erratic behavior, he has not followed through on this (yet?) but the departure with the previous mainstream consensus is radical. The mainstream left and right, at least since two decades, had been very much internationalist.

b) During the campaign Trump has defended some form of social welfare state and more government intervention in the economy: e.g. his defense of Social Security, or even maternity leave, and his support for infrastructure. I do not think he really cares about this stuff and so he is probably not going to follow through. Given his general cluelessness, he is also captured by the various randians who populate the GOP ranks. But, differently from many politicians on the right, in primis the randians, Trump has some sense for what people want. And in the campaign he said it, possibly opening up the field for future Keynesians republicans.

*You hedge this view a bit in this post, by considering Trump's view of the market.

LFC 10.13.17 at 2:22 am ( 34 )
Collin Street thinks that conservatism is some kind of organic affliction, that conservatives all have something wrong with their brain chemistry or biology, that they are all cognitively abnormal. This is absurd.

It's also very anti-historical. Inasmuch as conservatism is, among other things, a defense of hierarchy , it can (and did, at one time) appeal to millennia of precedent. Were the believers in the divine right of monarchs mentally abnormal? Were those who believed (and continue to believe) that employers have a right to exploit their workers mentally ill? Were, to take an even starker example, proponents of slavery psychologically impaired? If so, how to account for the fact that slavery was close to universal among human societies until fairly recently in the history of the species? Were the vast majority of humans all psychologically impaired until some date of enlightenment (pick your date or century)?

Something can be deeply wrong, i.e. immoral, without being the product of a cognitive abnormality, and people can commit evil acts and hold evil beliefs without being mentally or psychologically impaired. To attribute all retrograde political acts and beliefs to an individual's deficient "theory of mind" (whatever that means exactly) is sociologically naive, psychologically untenable, and historically invalid.

MFB 10.13.17 at 6:50 am ( 42 )
One fairly obvious point -- in response to your original post, not the article itself -- is surely that the general consensus which united conservatives and liberals, that neoliberal economics works, that war against weak countries can be waged on the cheap, and that the local working class will always eat whatever excrement is put on their plates, has started to break down.

The alternatives seem to be to change the consensus, or spread bullshit that the consensus is OK but just needs to be tweaked a bit. Trump is a right-wing bullshitter, Clinton is a liberal bullshitter; there's nothing really new about that (much the same sort of thing happened with those who continued to support the consensus during the Great Depression).

Fake Dave 10.13.17 at 10:31 am ( 47 )
This excerpt seems to take a fairly dim view of the left and what it's had to offer in recent years, and I can't say I really disagree, but I think Corey is underestimating the extent to which a leftist resurgence is already underway. I still think 2008 was a turning point, not because Obama himself really represented a new view of American liberalism (frankly, I think a hypothetical Gore or Kerry administration would have been extremely similar to what we got from Obama), but because the energy people invested in Obama's vision of America has never really dissipated. I think liberals are liberals in large part because they prefer futurism to nostalgia, so it shouldn't have been surprising that the candidate of "hope and change" beat a candidate whose political persona is frozen in the mid-90s.

When Obama failed to embody the forward-looking ideals he campaigned on, some people checked out, but you can trace clear lines of mass disillusionment and radicalization from 2008 to Occupy and BLM to the Sanders campaign.

The question was never if there was an appetite for real leftism in the American electorate (Clinton and Trump's unconvincing plagiarism of Sanders talking points are telling here, I think), but whether the Democratic party, mired as it's been in institutional rot and complacency, would ever tolerate true economic leftism when the "social liberalism" of identity and representation seemed to work well enough and was so much less threatening to the moneyed interests that financed the party's rightward swing.

For decades, the left wing of the Democratic party has been cajoled into voting for "liberal" candidates that resemble nothing so much as the old aristocratic Whigs who used to discuss ways to help the less fortunate over claret and cigars down at the gentlemen's club. We put up with it because we were told that was the only way to keep Republican robber barons from reinstating white male supremacy, criminalizing poverty, and declaring war on human decency. Trump was the embodiment of that venal reactionary bogeyman and Clinton was supposed to be the bullwark of reason and common sense -- the "electable" candidate -- that kept the far right at bay. George W. Bush was a decent-seeming guy whose dad was president. Losing to him was tolerable if frustrating, but Clinton losing feels like a broken promise, like the deal with the devil we made back in '92 is now null and void and it's time for something new.

I don't think there's any going back to the neocon/neolib era and I think even a lot of moderate Republicans (who used to rely on friendly financiers like Romney to keep the rabid right on-leash) are beginning to realize it. After all, what's the point of selling out if it doesn't buy you anything?

kidneystones 10.13.17 at 11:33 am ( 51 )

... ... ...

"We came, we saw, he died – ha-ha-ha" is not president, and African-Americans are no longer chained to the ineffective policies of the Democratic party and teachers unions. The neo-cons are out: Bill Kristol, Max Boot and company are sworn enemies of the administration. Democratic party neocons like HRC can longer launch democracy-building projects in the middle east. Long may this continue.

And let the dogs bark.

Collin Street 10.13.17 at 12:15 pm ( 52 )
@b9n10nt 10.12.17 at 11:57 pm

A sociopath can be very good at reading and manipulating others. Having a theory of mind is quite distinct from having empathy, and having empathy is quite distinct from using it pervasively to guide personal/social/political life.

There's a few simple tricks, is the only word that works, I think, that you can do without needing any insight into how people work. Stuff like being silent and letting people run their mouth out, or being vague so that you can redefine what you meant post-facto and claiming success, or the gish-gallop technique or a few other rhetorical tricks that can be used to confuse/blindside people in various ways.

Power-sales techniques and what-have-you.

"Tricks", because if they work they work by mechanical rule-following and if people know enough to recognise them they don't work at all. You don't need particular insight to use any of these, you just need an audience that doesn't recognise them and isn't told about them. A lot of the communication ones, in particular, rely on abuse of normal discourse structures/pragmatics, which means that they're actually things that people with autism-spectrum conditions -- that severely disrupt normal pragmatic structures -- might stumble into by, literally, accident.

With a drive to succeed and a handful of these tricks you can -- with luck, and we only hear about the successes: there's an old technique for building a reputation that starts by sending out 1024 letters that A will happen, and another 1024 saying the exact opposite -- build a small fortune. But if you run into more-experienced players who can recognise the tricks you're using, then you're not going to succeed against them, and it might go badly for you. Or they might give you a half-million in fuck-off money just to get you out of their way, and you'd probably think yourself awesome for getting it.

Collin Street 10.13.17 at 1:21 pm ( 55 )
But since I haven't read a lot of Burke I need to decide, provisionally, whether to go with the view that e.g. Reflections on the Revolution in France is a manifestation of "autism" or whether to go with the view that it's a statement and elaboration of the author's political convictions.

I can't exactly see how the two descriptions you've provided are incompatible; can you explain why you feel you need to decide, why do you feel that they can't both be true?

kidneystones 10.13.17 at 1:22 pm ( 56 )

... ... ...

Calling 60 million Trump voters racist and/or fascist might feel good, but as Mark Lilla sensibly observes, identity politics is Reagan's trickle-down economics for liberals, self-delusion for folks out of answers. The 'solutions' for poor, black families in crisis on this thread illustrate clearly why so many black voters in Michigan and elsewhere stayed home. Folks without work, safe schools, and much hope want solutions – not 'this study says' or 'but, Republicans.''

America's cities are under Democratic control, for the most part, and the studies, the plans, and the programs, and the teachers' unions haven't got the job done, unless creating a cycle of failure and illiteracy qualifies as some form of progress, or success.

Donald Trump is president because the Democratic party abandoned the poorest, white and black, not because 60 million Americans are actually fascists.

If Democrats can't provide solutions for ordinary people at the state, local and national level the party is going to continue to keep losing elections.

JRLRC 10.13.17 at 4:15 pm ( 61 )
"Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism". Orwell in his review of "Mein Kampf".
Jerry Vinokurov 10.13.17 at 4:36 pm ( 65 )
Ah, there it is, the good shit, the barely-warmed-over Manhattan Institute talking points that the conservative lie machine has been pushing for ages.

It's the sort of completely insane projection that falls apart at the most cursory examination, to wit: the entire notion of destroying a public, universal service like secondary (and post-secondary, in many cases) education in order to hand the system over to unscrupulous profiteers is [extremely Zizek voice]PURE NEOLIBERALISM[/extremely Zizek voice].

It is exactly the kind of short-sighted maneuver that Democrats have been pulling for decades now, trying to get "moderate" Republicans in the suburbs to vote for them, and its only effect has been to undermine the concept of public education entirely. Some of the most vigorous advocates of charter schools and union-busting have been Democrats, for fuck's sake! A nonexhaustive list: Joel Klein, Arne Duncan, Rahm Emmanuel, and these are just the first three I could think of off the top of my head; I guarantee that I could find you an list as long as your arm if I tried. Top Democratic donors such as those from Silicon Valley and Wall Street are gung-ho about charter schools and other similar scams like "online education." In the meantime, the actual research shows that at best, charter schools are a wash in terms of performance and at worst they are basically a fraud perpetrated upon both taxpayers and students in order to shovel money to people like DeVos.

What we have, and what Trump_vs_deep_state is merely one symptom of, is a massive crisis in public governance. In large part, the people who are responsible for said governance brought it on themselves. On the right-wing side, a propaganda machine has existed since the 1950s to sell people various poisonous ideas (regulation is bad! the "free market" is good!) dressed up, in the best of times, in quasi-academic language, and in the worst of times as just plain racism. The retreat from public services that took place in the South once those services would have to be integrated is a great tell; wealthy Virginians literally closed the entire state's public school system rather than have to attend school with black children. On the center-left, the entire New Democrat generation drank the idiot Kool-Aid that demanded we turn over anything and everything to market forces but! with a slightly more advanced degree of wokeness. Meanwhile, in Chicago, the CTU, under a predominantly black and Latino leadership, has been at the forefront (PDF) of fighting privatization and the attendant segregation that follows it, demanding resources from the austerity-mad Emmanuel administration so they can actually do their jobs. Said fight, I should add, taking place with the support of the predominantly African-American communities that are currently being brutalized by Rahm, so maybe if you care about black agency as much as you claim you do (hahahaha) you might take that into account.

The Democratic party has not been nearly as good to the African-American community as the latter's loyalty to the former (or, really, as basic justice) would seem to require, but the failure has not been "too much Great Society programs" or "too many unionized teachers." That's tendentious, ahistorical horseshit. The real failure has been the Democratic willingness to cast its most solid coalition partner again and again into a racist market system in which they have to fight uphill battles every step of the way. That Democrats are still a preferable alternative to the open eliminationism of Trump supporters is not particularly to their credit, not when entire Democratic administrations have failed to protect African-Americans from predatory lending or housing and workplace discrimination or being killed by police officers or even do so much as keep them from being forced to drink lead-tainted water.

Race is one the primary axes of American politics, and our reluctance to fund basic public goods cannot be understood without acknowledging this basic fact. Lots of white people, but especially the petit bourgeoisie that constitutes the core of Republican voters (who are, shock of shocks, also the core of Trump voters), would rather eat dirt if it means that a black person somewhere will have to eat shit, and unfortunately for all of us, the idiotic electoral system we inherited from the slavers played to their advantage in this electoral cycle. Now Trump is going to decertify the Iran deal so go take your "hurrrr neocons out" nonsense and shove it up your ass, because all the same fucking lunatics who want to turn the Middle East into glass are still in charge everywhere and a literally demented person holds the nuclear codes because showing the libs whatfor is the only ideal that white middle America is even capable of processing anymore.

TM 10.13.17 at 6:29 pm ( 67 )
JRLRC 61 Thanks for some historical perspective. Reading this thread makes me give up hope for the American Republic. Your leader misses no opportunity to exhibit contempt for democracy, contempt for the rule of law, contempt for international treaty obligations, contempt for the UN world order, contempt for diplomacy, contempt for truth, contempt for science, a guy who in real time threatens to start a nuclear world war (remember CR wrote a whole post dismissing the idea that Trump was reckless), and you people explain him away as just another conservative? Have you really no sense of history? Frankly you must be out of your minds.
Jerry Vinokurov 10.13.17 at 6:51 pm ( 71 )
Since the link was disemvoweled along with my admittedly petty insult, please allow me to relink it again, if for no other purpose than to demonstrate that there's absolutely no daylight whatsoever between "mainstream" Republicans and Trump when it comes to the lust for war: https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnhudson/trumps-boldest-move-today-wasnt-decertifying-the-iran-deal?utm_term=.pb5YARWbz#.svmyK02Lz
Lee A. Arnold 10.13.17 at 7:00 pm ( 72 )
"We have seen that the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on This social function is already losing importance and is bound to lose it at an accelerating rate in the future even if the economic process itself of which entrepreneurship was the prime mover went on unabated. economic progress tends to become depersonalized and automatized. (p.132)

"Of old, roughly up to and including the Napoleonic Wars, generalship meant leadership and success meant the personal success of the man in command who earned corresponding "profits" in terms of social prestige This is no longer so. Rationalized and specialized office work will eventually blot out personality, the calculable result, the "vision." The leading man no longer has the opportunity to fling himself into the fray. He is becoming just another office worker -- and one who is not always difficult to replace. in the last analysis the same social process -- undermines the role and, along with the role, the social position of the capitalist entrepreneur. His role, though less glamorous than that of medieval warlords, great or small, also is or was just another form of individual leadership acting by virtue of personal force and personal responsibility for success (p.133)

" contrasting the figure of the industrialist or merchant with that of the medieval lord. The latter's "profession" not only qualified him admirably for the defense of his own class interest -- he was not only able to fight for it physically -- but it also cast a halo around him and made of him a ruler of men Of the industrialist and merchant the opposite is true. There is surely no trace of any mystic glamour about him which is what counts in the ruling of men. The stock exchange is a poor substitute for the Holy Grail. We have seen that the industrialist and merchant, as far as they are entrepreneurs, also fill a function of leadership. But economic leadership of this type does not readily expand, like the medieval lord's military leadership, into the leadership of nations. On the contrary, the ledger and the cost calculation absorb and confine He can only use rationalist and unheroic means to defend his position or to bend a nation to his will. He can impress by what people may expect from his economic performance, he can argue his case, he can promise to pay out money or threaten to withhold it, he can hire the treacherous services of a condottiere or politician or journalist. But that is all and all of it is greatly overrated as to its political value the bourgeois class is ill equipped to face the problems, both domestic and international, that have normally to be faced by a country of any importance. (pp.137-8)

" capitalist policies wrought destruction much beyond what was unavoidable. They attacked the artisan in reservations in which he could have survived for an indefinite time. They forced upon the peasant all the blessings of early liberalism -- the free and unsheltered holding and all the individualist rope he needed in order to hang himself In breaking down the pre-capitalist framework of society, capitalism thus broke not only barriers that impeded its progress but also flying buttresses that prevented its collapse. That process, impressive in its relentless necessity, was not merely a matter of removing institutional deadwood, but of removing partners of the capitalist stratum, symbiosis with whom was an essential element of the capitalist schema. Having discovered this fact which so many slogans obscure, we might well wonder whether it is quite correct to look upon capitalism as a social form sui generis or, in fact, as anything else but the last stage of the decomposition of what we have called feudalism." (p.139)

Schumpeter, from Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, ch. 7

Ben 10.13.17 at 8:05 pm ( 75 )
The terrorist designation linked by Jerry Vinokurov really is a big deal that'll take awhile to play out along multiple economic, military and diplomatic fronts https://www.law360.com/articles/908829/how-terror-group-label-for-irgc-could-impact-iran-deal
steven t johnson 10.13.17 at 8:50 pm ( 77 )
Jerry Vinokurov@71 writes "there's absolutely no daylight whatsoever between 'mainstream' Republicans and Trump when it comes to the lust for war "

This is overly optimistic in a way, yet overly pessimistic in another. For the first, there's no daylight between Trump and "mainstream" Democrats when it comes to a lust for war.

For the second? It's clear both parties would support Trump if he ordered a decapitation strike on North Korea, and it's likely both parties would support Trump if it failed and turned into an all-out conflagration, no matter the fallout. But, the last president apt to such unilateral war-making was Richard Nixon, and he was impeached for also discarding the two-party deal (a no no on par with a Mexican President taking a second term.) Before the fact, however, there are straws in the wind about impeachment, from the Washington Post op-ed, columnists Rubin and Waldman, and "rumors" reported in Vanity Fair. Not a bright prospect, to be sure, no daylight at all?

The thing is, Trump is an owner who's there because he's finished with that political crap. At this point, we probably have to hope that some general has the spine to tell Trump no, the US army really is not a very good military force for anything that involves taking casualties, which means it is fairly useless for actually conquering anything, as opposed to laying waste in endless campaigns. But the spirit of West Point, the school of treason that produced many, many, many more fighters against America than the CPUSA ever did, still rules. I'm not very hopeful.

I recall a story that Nixon boasted that after he was finished, they'd never make things like they were again. That's the political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state. Today, when people will seriously argue that Nixon was a liberal president, there is no ruling class appetite for democracy, old style or bourgeois or what have you.

b9n10nt @68 links to Ta-Nehisi Coates. Coates knows perfectly well that if the black voters had turned out in larger numbers, Clinton would have won the Electoral College as well. People trying to normalize Trump are not alone, Every single black voter who didn't see any difference between Clinton and Trump agrees. Clinton tried to make the campaign about a symbolic endorsement of anti-racism and anti-sexism, as opposed to the deplorables. Millions of black voters proved they were having none of it. They stayed home.

Stephen 10.13.17 at 9:04 pm ( 78 )
OP: "conservatives have breached norms, flouted decorum, assailed elites, and shattered orthodoxy throughout the ages." But is that not also exactly what anti-conservatives – progressives, revolutionaries – have done? Or is it the wrong sort of breaching, flouting, assailing, shattering when conservatives, not your friends, do it; but SOP when your friends do it?

Or are you maintaining that respectable norm-adhering, decorum-maintaining, elite-sustaining, deeply orthodox left-wingers have always been the vast majority of anti-conservatives?

On further thought: elite-sustaining, yes, maybe, if you regard the nomenklatura as elite. Orthodox also, for their own kind of orthodoxy.

None of this is intended to imply support for the remarkable Trump.

bruce wilder 10.14.17 at 2:36 pm ( 97 )
JQ @60, J-D @ 79

I wonder if that qualifies as push-polling? Is asking the question propaganda? This is a legitimacy crisis. It is not as if Clinton partisans did not call Trump's electoral legitimacy into question. Half the country think Russian "meddling" determined the result, when it is not clear any "meddling" happened.

nastywoman

Yes, Americans have lost their collective mind, politically. I know several elderly people (not much more elderly than me, truth to tell) who consume anti-Trump screeds from Seth Meyers or Rachel Maddow on a daily basis. It is entertainment I suppose, but it does not inform them or improve their critical thinking skills. One, a transplanted Englishman, described Maddow to me the other day as "erudite".

The relentless flood tide of propaganda in American politics makes it exceedingly hard to talk with any American realistically about what is going on, because so much of what is going is exists not as objective and verified facts, but as shared, tendentious narratives. The actual Trump seems to me to be a bit of a personal mess and an authoritarian in the same mode as the blowhards who hang out at the barbershop; the Trump constructed by, say, Maddow's televised narratives is something else, something more imagined than real. The imagined Trump has to be bigger, to be fitted with cheap hyperbole.

An essential element of the propaganda narrative is the "distance" to the other. The "base of Trump supporters" is a prop. Wondering what "they" could be thinking but not waiting for an answer before launching scorn and ridicule on the way to slander is a method.

novakant 10.14.17 at 3:24 pm ( 99 )
No Layman, there is plenty of irrefutable evidence that Clinton is a militarist who strongly believes in force and the threat of force, especially when it comes to the ME – and this plays just fine with the Democratic party establishment, actually it's a necessity considering the donor base. Clinton's stance towards Iran and the nuclear deal is a matter of record. Next time don't nominate a warmonger who voted for the Iraq war if you want to prevent someone like Trump – and hey, maybe young people will trust you again.
bruce wilder 10.14.17 at 5:50 pm ( 102 )
There is no "real" Trump narrative; narratives are imagined stories, constructed according to principles of dramatic art to create meaning and morality. With effort, it is possible to anchor a narrative to facts, and to do so by methods that limit violence to the objectivity of facts. Whether a well-anchored narrative is persuasive may be important to such enterprises as the operation of law or even the progress of science.

In politics, the absence of the restraints imposed by institutions of law or science (which often fail their purposes even in those domains) invite the practice of dark arts of propaganda and mass manipulation. Our famously free press (spoken sarcastically) is thought to provide a check; fact-check columns proliferate at times, but mostly prove how weak an instrument of the public interest, a Media run by massive corporations and financially dependent on corporate business advertising is.

A common practice now is to lead with counterfactuals: narratives in which the place of facts is taken by theory and theory's constructions. "Because the whole thing is basically a fantasy, nothing will disprove it."

Last week's New Yorker has a profile of Rachel Maddow.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/rachel-maddow-trumps-tv-nemesis
Janet Malcolm is full of praise for Maddow. For what she identifies, correctly, as entertainment. She does not comment on whether political comment as entertainment makes for a healthy politics. I think not.

My political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state is that this is what conservative politics unchecked, unopposed and not responsible to any mass constituency produces. Trump says anything. But, it has been twenty years since anyone in politics has been held to account for anything said, except for "gotcha" moments of mostly fake outrage. Not that we would have a gotcha moment for Bush's war crimes. But that is my point. Holding Clinton up as a standard of normalcy in politics runs into exactly this same problem: she talks in the political code words, takes no responsibility for policy consequences and shows every sign of greed and irresponsibility, but the counterfactual of her normalcy is still set forward, with no awareness that it is a groundless narrative. This is not a point about Clinton or Trump, but it is a point about a political process that produces a lot of stupid and Trump is a bonus.

bruce wilder 10.15.17 at 2:49 am ( 111 )
J-D @ 110

I was not intending to distinguish actual from real, if that was a question. I was intending to distinguish objectively factual statements or descriptive observation from arguments taking the form of narratives, particularly projective or counterfactual narratives that seem distant from or untethered in the main from verifiable fact.

I think it is possible to make value judgments closely related to factual observation, without projecting a narrative into the future or into an alternate reality.

Whether my statements characterizing Trump constitute a narrative or rely on narrative to justify value judgments is a fine point I do not see the point in arguing at this time. I would not defend my observations and judgment as constituting the one "true story".

kidneystones 10.15.17 at 6:17 am ( 113 )
@97 This is very good. For those interested in how we're learning less about each other and the world we share, here's a timely piece by informed sources from the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/

"Eli Pariser's The Filter Bubble became the most widely cited distillation of the effects Facebook and other internet platforms could have on public discourse. Pariser began the book research when he noticed conservative people, whom he'd befriended on the platform despite his left-leaning politics, had disappeared from his News Feed. "I was still clicking my progressive friends' links more than my conservative friends' -- and links to the latest Lady Gaga videos more than either," he wrote. 'So no conservative links for me.'

Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the 'personalization' of media might bring. Most germane to this discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding to? 'The most serious political problem posed by filter bubbles is that they make it increasingly difficult to have a public argument.' "

I think everyone here agrees we have problems to address. If the solutions I supported most of my life were working in places such as California, I wouldn't feel the need for radical change. Had the Democratic candidate not supported the Iraq war, alongside Biden, McCain et al, and then 'learned' her lesson by violent regime-change in Libya (described by Obama as a 'shit-show'), and then embarked upon program of cash collection from the powerful and secrecy towards her coronation, I might have wavered back towards the Dems. Bernie would have drawn me like a magnet. But given the choice between the devil I know and the one I don't I choose the latter. Trump may yet screw things up and people are free to disagree about his skills and solutions.

It's pretty easy today to forget that both Bill and Hillary attended Trump's (most recent) wedding. Their daughter Chelsea is/was a good friend of Ivanka Trump (a convert to Judaism) and her husband. The criticism of bedrock conservatives repeatedly loudly and publicly even today, is that Trump is more of a Democrat than a conservative.

I stand by my belief that Trump built a public persona as a race-baiting, loudmouth buffoon that carried him straight into the WH despite a fervent, well-funded bi-partisan effort to unseat him from the time he declared up right to the present. Studying the buffoon tells us practically nothing about the individual. He's ordinary, capable, ambitious, avaricious, and mired in the world of the senses rather than the mind. There are worse traits and places to be.

kidneystones 10.15.17 at 6:31 am ( 114 )
Just re-read the longish article linked above.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/

Corey, it's a must read, especially for those in your field and for anyone interested in how information is being manufactured, filtered, distributed, and internalized.

Hint: we don't know whattf others are reading and thinking, and won't be finding out anytime soon.

Donald Johnson 10.15.17 at 1:07 pm ( 125 )
I don't think Clinton would have cancelled the Iran agreement because it leaves the US exposed as the one clearly breaking its word, annoying its allies. I think she would have found cleverer ways to be bellicose. For instance, her supporter Michael Morell told Charlie Rose we should be covertly killing Iranians and Russians in Syria so that they would know we did it. He didn't spell it out, but by saying "covert" he meant we would deny it publicly. Clinton also wanted protected zones for refugees, which in practice would mean massive air strikes and ground forces and in a sanctuary for rebels to use as they strike at the Syrians and Russians and Iranians and Hezbollah.
Donald Johnson 10.15.17 at 1:11 pm ( 126 )
Before someone objects to irrelevant Clinton bashing, there is a larger point. Trump is awful and I favor removing him via the 25th Amendment because I think he might start a war with N Korea. But a great many of Trump's opponents are opposed to him because he is an incompetent boob and not because they oppose American warmongering. They favor it, but don't trust Trump to do it correctly.
kidneystones 10.15.17 at 1:29 pm ( 127 )
@122 I'm going to respectfully leave that for you to figure out on your own. I'll close all further communication with you by suggesting that your aggressive and uniformly uncharitable reading of the remarks of others may complicate your understanding of relatively simple statements.

@123 I enjoy your comments very much, generally. And 123 is entirely fair.

I find very little in Trump's first term that is remarkable, or revolutionary. He seems to understand that he can't go to war with a Republican party he's ostensibly supposed to lead. Corey and others are correct, I believe, in asserting that Trump is fundamentally uninterested in governing, and entirely wrapped up in frequent external validations. I'll add that he thrives on conflict and perhaps instinctively knows how and when to rally his base. I've certainly seen him switch gears/targets during rallies when he senses he's losing the crowd.

Unlike you, and probably many others, I don't take anything any politician says seriously, especially Trump. Actions, rather than words, matter far more. Trump might like to get credit for a decapitation strike on NK and I think you nailed it when you noted that such a strike would win him bi-partisan support. He's more interested, imho, in getting credit for a golden economic age however fanciful that notion may be.

Overall, I still defer to Scott Adams and look forward to his new book (any day)
"Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter." By all means buy Corey's Book, but keep Adams in the back of your mind for light reading.

Trump may well blow us all up, but I've been told that could happen pretty much every day since I can recall. What I can say, re: Kim, is that I was here in Japan when Bill Clinton started looking seriously at removing Kim and all the Americans I knew here were crapping themselves. Can't see it happening simply because nobody wants to see downtown Seoul and Tokyo vaporized, one of which is a near-certainty, and that's if the conflict remains contained. The 1 percent in China, the US, Korea, Russia, and Japan aren't about to let anybody risk a regional conflagration.

And that really is it for me.

Donald Johnson 10.15.17 at 4:03 pm ( 131 )
Michael Morell is a former CI A director and I saw speculation that he was a likely member of a Clinton Administration. About the same time that he appeared on Charlie Rose he had also published an op ed endorsing Clinton for President.

But you also ignored my other points. Clinton favored a safe zone in Syria, which is tantamount to an invasion of Syria and armed conflict with their government and its allies. And Clinton herself was and is representative of a large number of Very Serious People who thought Obama had botched Syria by not intervening on a large enough scale. There is a big constituency for more vigorous action against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. ( There is also a constituency for more intervention in the Ukraine.). Clinton was clearly part of that. She also told AIPAC that we needed to take our relationship with Israel to the next level, and the only comment I recall reading about her regarding Yemen was about Iranian intervention, but to be honest I would need to look that up to be sure.

Clinton pushed for the Libyan intervention.

Again, she is irrelevant now, but she was part of the group who wanted yet more American military intervention in the Middle East. That group is still around. Your response was to avoid all my points and to pretend Morrell is just some random supporter.

Donald Johnson 10.15.17 at 4:06 pm ( 132 )
I keep misspelling his name. Morell. Forgot to mention he was working for a Clinton aide.

http://gawker.com/i-ran-the-c-i-a-now-i-work-for-a-longtime-clinton-ally-1784871887

Donald Johnson 10.15.17 at 4:12 pm ( 133 )
Last comment of the day. But I googled and found something I didn't know. Morell was one of her advisors last fall and said we should be stopping and boarding Iranian ships to prevent them from sending weapons to the Houthis.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/clinton-adviser-lets-attack-iran-to-aid-saudis-in-yemen.html

Jake Sullivan is also portrayed as something of an anti Iran militarist.

And again, Clinton is irrelevant now, I think. But these other people are still around.

bruce wilder 10.16.17 at 7:40 am ( 149 )
J-D 'Can you explain how the construction of Trump in an (illustrative example) imagined narrative differs from an objective description of Trump?'

Here is a quote from a Vox article dated Oct 13: ". . . obviously, there's Donald Trump, who has dispensed with one democratic norm after another. He's fired an FBI director in order to undercut an investigation into his campaign's possible collusion with Moscow . . ."

The article is not about Trump. Sean Illing, the author, is using Trump as an illustration. Or, rather he is using a narrative about Trump where Trump colluded with the Russian state to win election by foul means. If you accept the donnιe of Trump's collusion with Russia, then it follows that Trump fired Comey in what practically amounts to obstruction of justice. And, a considerable volume of reporting has supported that narrative. One set of reports had Comey fired right after he made a budget request to fund an expanded investigation. A dossier put together by a British spy implied that Trump was being blackmailed by Russians. A meeting of arranged by one of Trump's sons with a Russian lawyer was supposedly baited with an offer of dirt on Clinton and this meeting has been interpreted as confirming the Trump campaign's willingness to collude. There has been a lot of speculation in the Media in support of this narrative is my point. At the time Comey was fired, there was a great volume of speculation centered on what Trump said in his letter dismissing Comey, calling into question the claim by Trump that Comey had assured Trump on three occasions that Trump himself was not under investigation. In support of the narrative that Trump had obstructed justice, Comey's character and positive reputation were touted by some journalists.

But, despite the tremendous volume of journalistic speculation structured around this narrative of collusion, there are no confirmed and unambiguous facts to support it. So, Illing must qualify his use of the narrative as an example of bad behavior with the insertion of the weasel words, "possible collusion".

In a better world than the one we are living in, responsible journalists are careful and judicious in both verifying facts and grounding the narratives they use with facts. The facts that can be ascertained and verified become constraints on the story, on the choice of narrative. That does not necessarily happen. Sometimes, journalists go with a "good story" that resonates with readers and attracts clicks or viewers. And, they construe such facts as there are in ways that support the chosen narrative without exercising judgment or attempting verification. The story -- the choice of narrative script -- becomes a constraint on the facts and their interpretation.

I think the balance of available factual evidence suggests pretty strongly that Trump did not collude with the Russian state to defeat Clinton. An honest and balanced "objective" description of factors affecting the electoral outcome and Trump's conduct do not support the idea that there was collusion or even that the Russians did much of anything to affect the election beyond openly funding a cable news channel. The dossier peddled by the British ex-spy was pretty ridiculous on its face. The Comey budget request was a pure invention. Responsible journalists would have attempted to verify details in the dossier or reported on how absurd many parts of it were. Journalists assessing Comey's character might have taken a more critical perspective.

If the factual basis for "possible collusion" is taken away, the obstruction of justice charge evaporates. Trump becomes a President who does not want to be dogged by a groundless investigation, fishing for a blue dress until it finds one. Trump the President finds he does not want to have the hack, Comey hanging out. Useful when he was tripping up his opponent, not so attractive as a companion.

Trump viewed plainly is still a fairly alarming figure to have in a powerful office, but a narrative of traitorous collusion with a national enemy, titillating as it may be as news entertainment, is not descriptively accurate given the available evidence and appropriately balanced methods of evaluating that evidence. (During the campaign, Trump called on Russia to disclose the emails Clinton claimed to have deleted. I suppose one could take that as a joke or a call for collusion with Boris and Natasha. I think joke is the better, more natural interpretation.)

Donald Johnson 10.16.17 at 12:01 pm ( 157 )
You did it again, layman. I refuted what you said to me even if you take it in the narrowest possible way. You objected to my reference to Morell's statement, implying that he was just some random Clinton supporter using some silly argument about. " Donald Johnson supporter" who drowns kittens. I showed that this argument was wrong and Morell was one of Clinton's advisors. If you want to stick to issues, then stick to them and don't make silly arguments and get them wrong.

The larger point is that in Washington the fight between Trump and many ( obviously not all) of his critics is a fight between two groups of militarists.. It would be good if people acknowledged this. In a way it is three groups of militarists,, since Trump's personal incoherence makes him a group unto himself. But on Iran there is an important disagreement between those who want to dump the nuclear agreement and those who want to adhere to it, but are otherwise hardliners who badly want more confrontation.

On your main point, when you aren't trivializing mine, yes, Trump is worse than Clinton because he is not only an arrogant militarist (a trait he shares with Clinton and many others), but ignorant and irrational.

bruce wilder 10.16.17 at 4:59 pm ( 166 )
Layman, small differences between Clinton and Trump do not dominate Clinton's very large political defects. You had an argument for relentlessly focusing on differences to the exclusion of appreciating the whole reality, maybe, when there was a choice on an upcoming ballot. Now, we live in the shadow of Clinton's defects: her defects gave us Trump. And, those defects are not so much the qualities of an individual person -- Clinton or Trump -- as they are the persistent institutional personalities of large political factions and institutional actors: the Democratic Party establishment, the Deep State intelligence agencies and military-industrial complex, the Foreign Policy Blob, the corporate Media, et cetera.

Bullying others in comments over such fine points as whether Clinton would have respected certain forms of the Iran nuclear deal is not contributing much to the discussion. We can see that Trump is hostile to that agreement and is cynically manipulating the forms in ways likely to make the agreement come apart. What relevance a counterfactual projection of Clinton's behavior might have is not clear; asserting that acceptance of such a counterfactual as "true" should be a dispositive criteria for rationality borders on the bizarre.

The relevant fact is not some putative small differences between Trump and Clinton (and the factions and interests and institutionalized views she sought to represent as a fully paid-up member of the Foreign Policy Blob), but the near-absence in American politics of a countervailing force to the consensus of views and interests promoting a palsied, nearly mindless imperial aggression. Morell's views are relevant to showing just how extreme and reckless is this "center" that Clinton represented, and understanding how and why the "center" is not doing much to restrain the Trump. Some powerful forces cultivated by the Democratic establishment have always been hostile to Iran, supportive of Saudi Arabia and so on.

TM, the idea that CR is minimizing Trump seems bizarre to me. If anyone understands the incoherent viciousness of conservatism as the impulse to dominate in a hierarchical polity, it is our gracious host. Trump is expressing conservative ideas and impulses that have always been there. He is not new. That bit of narrative hyperbole -- that Trump is different from all those nice responsible conservatives of the past -- is a dangerous deception. What is different in our political moment is the collapse of effective opposition from the left and centre-left. Trump is so scary because so little stands in his way, so little compels him (or the various factions enjoying the power associated with the authority of office under his aegis, including the practical military junta at the core of his Administration) to moderate his policies, let alone his rhetoric.

Mario 10.16.17 at 9:15 pm ( 174 )
@Layman

what I always find grotesque about the accusations of Russian meddling is the full ticket obliviousness to all the meddling the US used to perform in Russian elections, and in fact in many other elections worldwide. It's quite a sorry sight to see people like you make a fuss about very minor activities (if there's even evidence of any), without as much as a shred of self awareness.

Also, too: I've said I think she's bad on militarism. I'm not interested in, and don't, defend the other side of that argument. I just don't have any patience for the sort of nonsense that wants to paint her as an eater of babies. She's a bog-standard, mainstream adherent of the global diplomatic, economic and military order. That's not good, but it ain't Satan either.

The global diplomatic, economic and military order is downright evil and full-scale babyeating. Ask around in Yemen, Syria, Lybia, etc. So yes, she has that Satan streak. That that's bog-standard and mainstream is horrific, but I grant you that's the world we live in.

Note, BTW, that she was directly involved in at least some of these actions. She has, even now, more blood on her hands than Trump.

Donald Johnson 10.16.17 at 11:50 pm ( 176 )
Faustusnotes --

The evidence that Morell was one of Clinton's advisors was in the link I provided, where it says Morell was one of Clinton's advisors.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/clinton-adviser-lets-attack-iran-to-aid-saudis-in-yemen.html

This is tiresome. I provide links and people demand the evidence that is in the links.

Donald Johnson 10.17.17 at 12:13 am ( 177 )
Layman, this is the third time your response is frustratingly beside the point and after this I am giving up, because you are just going to continue doing it. I didn't just quote other people. I said Clinton supported intervention in Syria, that she supported the Libyan intervention and of course she voted for the Iraq War. She is also a standard AIPAC panderer. Do your own googling if you actually care about this rather than try to save face in some internet thread. It's well known Clinton is a hawk.

My point was that yes, she is a bog standard militarist and one of the points I was making is that even if she is no longer relevant, the people who are militaristic in their attitudes still are. You are the one between the two of us who wants to make it mainly about Clinton, but since you brought up baby eating, that is you once again trivializing the consequences of bog standard US militarism.

Here is a link specifically on Clinton

http://fpif.org/hillary-clintons-support-iraq-war-no-fluke/

There are others, easily found, and I am not wasting further time on this.

Suzanne 10.17.17 at 12:35 am ( 178 )
@174: Trump has lifted the Obama Administration's restraints on the military, resulting in a rapid rise in civilian casualties:

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-has-already-killed-more-civilians-obama-us-fight-against-isis-653564

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/us/politics/trump-drone-strikes-commando-raids-rules.html

As the Amnesty International spokesman points out in the NYT piece, the Obama Administration's constraints fell far short of what is needed.

On the home front, Trump is rescinding the Obama-era limits imposed on Pentagon handouts to cops:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/trump-police-military-surplus-equipment.html

'Police departments will now have access to military surplus equipment typically used in warfare, including grenade launchers, armored vehicles and bayonets, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Monday, describing it as "lifesaving gear."'

All of the foregoing actions could have been predicted during the campaign.

It is quite true that the U.S. has interfered in the elections of other nations, with disastrous consequences for many of those nations. Why this should tie hands now is not clear to me. Highly unlikely the Russians were engaged in righteous retribution for Mossadegh. I suspect some would be taking a less dismissive tone had, say, the Chinese interfered on behalf of Clinton the bloodthirsty.

Orange Watch 10.17.17 at 1:39 am ( 179 )
Layman@159 :
Based on this and your prior comment, you're asking for counterfactuals, because of course Clinton-the-non-President is not capable of being even as bad as let alone worse than Trump-the-President. However, based on your comments elsewhere in the thread, you're dismissing any counterfactuals out of hand. Taken together, this is not a tack taken by someone who is interested in a serious dialogue, or really, any dialogue. Can we dispense with that sort of horseshit?

Either Clinton has no relevance at all, in which case you can forgo with the pedantic lectures about how she's vastly superior in all ways to Trump ( @95 ) and we can hopefully resume forgetting that she exists, or the comparison of a hypothetical Clinton presidency to the current administration has some value in the conversation even when someone other than you is making it ( @96 ). Until and unless you're willing and able to unravel the fundamental contradiction between these perfectly incompatible stances – which have infected every exchange you've made downthread of the them – there's no point at all in trying to discuss this with you in any detail, and there's certainly no reason for us to run and fetch answers for you in response to your ever-changing standards.

Donald Johnson 10.17.17 at 4:13 am ( 182 )
I didn't go back to see who first mentioned Clinton, but the point made by at least a few of us is that Clinton is only important at this point as a representative of a broad segment of the Beltway crowd that is constantly pushing for more military intervention, either directly or by proxy, and that some of the opposition to Trump doesn't come from antiwar types, but from people who don't trust him to warmonger in a competent way.

If people want a sane non- militaristic foreign policy it's going to take more than just opposition to Trump. You are also going to have to oppose some of Trump's opponents in both parties. The one time Trump received positive feedback and praise from many in the Beltway was when he bombed Syria.

bruce wilder 10.17.17 at 6:19 am ( 186 )
Lee A. Arnold @ 166

If XYZ does not exist, it doesn't exist. If it does exist, it exists. I agree that in our present state of political disorganization among the broad mass, most people do not know much about constitutes a political issue. And, they don't know what they want politically.

nastywoman @ 175

"Such "thinking" is as "Alien" as blaming the kid who was mauled by a Pit Bull the other day – "because so little stood in the Pit Bulls way and so little did "compel him".

"What type of person – what type of people can think like that?!"

The kind of person who thinks dogs should be kept on a leash. The type of person who can think like that is highly intelligent, suave and debonair.

kidneystones 10.17.17 at 11:30 am ( 194 )
Why are people still talking about Clinton? In general, because Clinton won't shut up. She's as hungry for a microphone and the spotlight as the conservative in question. Which is ironic considering that her aversion to the press and the public as a candidate helped cost her the election. Now, she can't stop talking. Bannon would willingly bankroll the book tour and undoubtedly wants her to remain in the spotlight through 2018. Indeed, Bannon is banking on making Hillary a key part of Trump's re-election in 2020, as role she looks all too eager to fill. Chew on that as you gaze into the future.

Why are people talking about Hillary here, on a thread about Trump and conservatism? Because a plausible argument can be made that Hillary is more of conservative than Trump, at least in terms of neo-conservative politics. She has, after all, two neo-con wars under her belt already and enjoys good relations with all the really wrong people. Her avarice and willingness to tell tales are at least comparable to Trump's. But perhaps the best reason Hillary belongs here is because many believe that had a less conservative Democrat than Hillary run (Bernie, for example), Dems would have won and Donald Trump would be yesterday's news.

To get a sense of what the Democratic future looks like, here's a very recent interview with Hillary which I think is illustrative of the level of disconnect between supporters (like me) who felt strongly enough about her candidacy in 2008 to endure accusations of racism from Obama supporters, yet turned from her to Trump by 2015, and those who still support her for reasons that make a great deal of sense (to them).

The interview with Hillary about Hillary runs 45 minutes on Australian TV with a transcript. Take away – Trump figures bigly and in the most unflattering terms, so much for graciousness in defeat. The Access Hollywood tape is discussed in great detail, as is Comey, and the Russians. The words Wall St; Goldman Sachs, Libya, and Syria are never mentioned. In Hillary-world Michigan, Wisconsin, and Bernie Sanders merit a mention each and only in a very specific context. We get David Duke, the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists; pizzas – and pure deflection when the discussion turns to Bill, Chelsea, gifts; and cash. In short, she hasn't much of a good word to say about anyone.

Here's a sampling for the still faithful.

" Russians actually paid in rubles for running ads in ah Facebook and on Twitter making all kinds of accusations against me, working to suppress voters which is a really important part of the equation " (suppress voters, or decrease turnout? The latter fits better, imho.)

Interviewer: "Is it, is it the case that you missed the fundamentally angry sentiment in the US last year against globalisation?

HILLARY CLINTON: I didn't miss it "

Interviewer: "Was it in some ways your links to big money politics that made it difficult for you to be the representative of that anger ?

HILLARY CLINTON: No, not at all! You know, when I was in the primary, Bernie Sanders couldn't explain his programs. I was the one who was saying here's what we're going to do to the banks "

One mere mention of Wisconsin: "we know is that the false information was aimed at Wisconsin and Michigan and parts of Pennsylvania "

And folks wonder how she lost.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/hillary-clinton:-the-interview/9055256

[Oct 22, 2017] Libertarianism, the Alt-Right and AntiFa by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Notable quotes:
"... Speech delivered at the 12 th annual meeting of the ..."
"... in Bodrum, Turkey, on September 17, 2017 ..."
"... For A New Liberty. The Libertarian Manifesto, ..."
"... bêtes noires ..."
"... Students for Liberty ..."
"... Millennial Woes " ..."
"... Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious. This is the Alt-Right." ..."
"... "1) don't be belligerent; 2) don't presume hatred of liberty; 3) don't presume different goals; 4) don't presume ignorance; 5) don't regard anyone as an enemy." ..."
"... vis-à-vis ..."
"... vis-à-vis ..."
"... divide et impera ..."
"... except for the very first one ..."
"... : Stop mass immigration ..."
"... Stop attacking, killing and bombing people in foreign countries ..."
"... England First!, Germany First!, Italy First! ..."
"... Defund the ruling elites and its intellectual bodyguards ..."
"... End the Fed and all central banks. ..."
"... Abolish all " Affirmative Action " and "non-discrimination" laws and regulations ..."
"... Crush the "Anti-Fascist" Mob ..."
"... Crush the street criminals and gangs ..."
"... Get rid of all welfare parasites and bums ..."
"... Get the State out of education. ..."
"... Don't put your trust in politics or political parties ..."
"... Hans-Herman Hoppe ..."
"... , holds annual meetings of his ..."
"... Property and Freedom Society ..."
"... in the stunningly beautiful town of Bodrum in south west Turkey. ..."
Oct 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

October 20, 2017 7,200 Words 4 Comments Reply

Speech delivered at the 12 th annual meeting of the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum, Turkey, on September 17, 2017

We know the fate of the term "liberal" and " liberalism ." It has been affixed to so many different people and different positions that it has lost all its meaning and become an empty, non-descript label. The same fate now increasingly also threatens the term " libertarian " and "libertarianism," which was invented to regain some of the conceptual precision lost with the demise of the former labels.

However, the history of modern libertarianism is still quite young. It began in Murray Rothbard's living room and found its first quasi-canonical expression in his For A New Liberty. The Libertarian Manifesto, published in 1973 .

And so I am still hopeful and not yet willing to give up on libertarianism as defined and explained by Rothbard with unrivaled conceptual clarity and precision, notwithstanding the meanwhile countless attempts of so-called libertarians to muddy the water and misappropriate the good name of libertarianism for something entirely different.

The theoretical, irrefutable core of the libertarian doctrine is simple and straightforward and I have explained it already repeatedly at this place. If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts, or more precisely physical clashes, would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always conflicts concerning scarce things.

I want to do A with a given thing and you want to do B with the same thing. Because of such conflicts -- and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other -- we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.

Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual or group of individuals. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and me clashing.

But who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not?

First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly . Second: as for scarce resources that can be controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own nature-given, i.e., un-appropriated, body), exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that person, who appropriated the resource in question first or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner.

For only the first appropriator of a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i.e., peacefully. Otherwise, if exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers , conflict is not avoided but contrary to the very purpose of norms made unavoidable and permanent.

Before this audience, I do not need to go into greater detail except to add this: If you want to live in peace with other people and avoid all physical clashes and, if such clashes do occur, seek to resolve them peacefully, then you must be an anarchist or more precisely a private property anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist or a proponent of a private law society.

And by implication, then, and again without much further ado: Someone, anyone, is not a libertarian or merely a fake libertarian who affirms and advocates one or more of the following:

the necessity of a State, any State, of "public" (State) property and of taxes in order to live in peace; the existence and justifiability of any so-called "human rights" or " civil rights" other than private property rights, such as "women's rights," " gay rights ," "minority rights," the "right" not to be discriminated against, the "right" to free and unrestricted immigration, the "right" to a guaranteed minimum income or to free health care, or the "right" to be free of unpleasant speech and thought.

The proponents of any of this may call themselves whatever they want, and as libertarians we may well cooperate with them, insofar as such a cooperation offers the promise of bringing us closer to our ultimate goal, but they are not libertarians or only fake libertarians.

Now, "a funny thing happened on the way to the forum." While Rothbard and I, following in his footsteps, never went astray from these theoretically-derived core beliefs, not just non-libertarians but in particular also fake libertarians, i.e., people claiming (falsely) to be libertarians, and even many possibly honest yet dim-witted libertarians have selected and vilified us as their favorite bêtes noires and incarnates of evil.

Rothbard, the spiritus rector of modern libertarianism, has been branded by this so-called "anti-fascist" crowd as a reactionary, a racist, a sexist, an authoritarian, an elitist, a xenophobe, a fascist and, to top it all off, a self-hating Jewish Nazi. And I have inherited all of these honorary titles, plus a few more (except for the Jewish stuff).

So what funny thing has happened here?

Trying to develop an answer to this question brings me to the topic of this speech: the relationship between libertarianism and the Alternative Right or "Alt-Right," which has gained national and international notoriety after Hillary Clinton , during the last presidential election campaign, identified it as one of the inspirational sources behind the "basket of deplorables" rooting for Trump (and whose leadership, to its credit, after Trump's election victory, quickly broke with Trump when he turned out to be just another presidential warmonger).

paleo-conservative movement that came to prominence in the early 1990s, with columnist and best-selling author Patrick Buchanan as its best-known representative. It went somewhat dormant by the late 1990s, and it has recently, in light of the steadily growing damage done to America and its reputation by the successive Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama administrations, reemerged more vigorous than before under the new label of the Alt-Right.

Many of the leading lights associated with the Alt-Right have appeared here at our meetings in the course of the years . Paul Gottfried, who first coined the term, Peter Brimelow , Richard Lynn , Jared Taylor , John Derbyshire , Steve Sailer and Richard Spencer . As well , Sean Gabb's name and mine are regularly mentioned in connection with the Alt-Right, and my work has been linked also with the closely related neo-reactionary movement inspired by Curtis Yarvin ( aka Mencius Moldbug ) and his now defunct blog Unqualified Reservations . In sum, these personal relations and associations have earned me several honorable mentions by America's most famous smear-and-defamation league, the SPLC ( aka Soviet Poverty Lie Center).

Now: How about the relationship between libertarianism and the Alt-Right and my reasons for inviting leading representatives of the Alt-Right to meetings with libertarians?

Libertarians are united by the irrefutable theoretical core beliefs mentioned at the outset. They are clear about the goal that they want to achieve. But the libertarian doctrine does not imply much if anything concerning these questions:

First, how to maintain a libertarian order once achieved; Second, how to attain a libertarian order from a non-libertarian starting point, which requires a) that one must correctly describe this starting point and b) correctly identify the obstacles posed in the way of one's libertarian ends by this very starting point.

To answer these questions, in addition to theory, you also need some knowledge of human psychology and sociology or at least a modicum of common sense.

Yet many libertarians and fake libertarians are plain ignorant of human psychology and sociology or even devoid of any common sense. They blindly accept, against all empirical evidence, an egalitarian, blank-slate view of human nature, of all people and all societies and cultures being essentially equal and interchangeable.

While much of contemporary libertarianism can be characterized, then, as theory and theorists without psychology and sociology, much or even most of the Alt-Right can be described, in contrast, as psychology and sociology without theory.

Alt-Righters are not united by a commonly held theory, and there exists nothing even faintly resembling a canonical text defining its meaning. Rather, the Alt-Right is essentially united in its description of the contemporary world, and in particular the US and the so-called Western World, and the identification and diagnosis of its social pathologies.

In fact, it has been correctly noted that the Alt-Right is far more united by what it is against than what it is for. It is against, and indeed it hates with a passion, the elites in control of the State , the MSM and academia.

Why? Because they all promote social degeneracy and pathology. Thus, they promote, and the Alt-Right vigorously opposes, egalitarianism, Affirmative Action ( aka " non-discrimination "), multiculturalism , and "free" mass immigration as a means of bringing multiculturalism about.

Cultural Marxism o r Gramsciism and all "Political Correctness" and, strategically wise, it shrugs off, without any apology whatsoever, all accusations of being racist , sexist, elitist, supremacist, homophobe, xenophobe, etc., etc.

And the Alt-Right also laughs off as hopelessly naïve the programmatic motto of so-called libertarians such as the Students for Liberty (which I have termed the "Stupids for Liberty" and my young German friend Andre Lichtschlag as "Liberallala-Libertarians") of "Peace, Love, and Liberty," appropriately translated into German by Lichtschlag as "Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen."

In stark contrast to this, Alt-Righters insist that life is also about strife, hate, struggle and fight, not just between individuals but also among various groups of people acting in concert. " Millennial Woes " (Colin Robertson) has thus aptly summarized the Alt-Right:

" Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious. This is the Alt-Right."

Absent any unifying theory, however, there is far less agreement among the Alt-Right about the goal that it ultimately wants to achieve.

Many of its leading lights have distinctly libertarian leanings, most notably those that have come here (which, of course, was the reason for having invited them here), even if they are not 100%-ers and would not identify themselves as such. All Alt-Righters that have appeared here, for instance, have been familiar with Rothbard and his work, all the while the most recent presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party had never even heard of Rothbard's name. And all of them, to the best of my knowledge, were outspoken supporters of Ron Paul during his primary campaign for the Republican Party's nomination as presidential candidate, all the while many self-proclaimed libertarians attacked and tried to vilify Ron Paul for his supposedly (you already know what's coming by now) "racist" views.

However, several of the Alt-Right's leaders and many of its rank and file followers have also endorsed views incompatible with libertarianism. As Buchanan before and Trump now, they are adamant about complementing a policy of restrictive, highly selective and discriminating immigration (which is entirely compatible with libertarianism and its desideratum of freedom of association and opposition to forced integration) with a strident policy of restricted trade, economic protectionism and protective tariffs -- which is antithetical to libertarianism and inimical to human prosperity.

(Let me hasten to add here that, despite my misgivings about his "economics," I still consider Pat Buchanan a great man.)

Others strayed even further afield, such as Richard Spencer, who first popularized the term Alt-Right. In the meantime, owing to several recent publicity stunts, which have gained him some degree of notoriety in the US, Spencer has laid claim to the rank of the maximum leader of a supposedly mighty unified movement (an endeavor, by the way, that has been ridiculed by Taki Theodoracopulos, a veteran champion of the paleo-conservative-turned-Alt-Right movement and Spencer's former employer).

When Spencer appeared here, several years ago, he still exhibited strong libertarian leanings. Unfortunately, however, this has changed and Spencer now denounces , without any qualification whatsoever, all libertarians and everything libertarian and has gone so far as to even put up with socialism, as long as it is socialism of and for only white people. What horrifying disappointment!

Given the lack of any theoretical foundation, this split of the Alt-Right movement into rival factions can hardly be considered a surprise.

Yet this fact should not mislead one to dismiss it, because the Alt-Right has brought out many insights that are of central importance in approaching an answer to the two previously mentioned questions unanswered by libertarian theory: of how to maintain a libertarian social order; and how to get to such an order from the current, decidedly un-libertarian status quo.

The Alt-Right did not discover these insights. They had been established long before and indeed, in large parts they are no more than common sense. But in recent times such insights have been buried under mountains of egalitarian, Leftist propaganda and the Alt-Right must be credited for having brought them back to light.

To illustrate the importance of such insights, let me take the first unanswered question first.

Many libertarians hold the view that all that is needed to maintain a libertarian social order is the strict enforcement of the non-aggression principle (NAP) . Otherwise, as long as one abstains from aggression, according to their view, the principle of "live and let live" should hold.

Yet surely, while this "live and let live" sounds appealing to adolescents in rebellion against parental authority and all social convention and control (and many youngsters have been initially attracted to libertarianism believing that this "live and let live" is the essence of libertarianism), and while the principle does indeed hold and apply for people living far apart and dealing with each other only indirectly and from afar, it does not hold and apply, or rather it is insufficient , when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, as neighbors and cohabitants of the same community.

A simple example suffices to make the point. Assume a new next-door neighbor. This neighbor does not aggress against you or your property in any way, but he is a "bad" neighbor. He is littering on his own neighboring property, turning it into a garbage heap; in the open , for you to see, he engages in ritual animal slaughter, he turns his house into a " Freudenhaus ," a bordello , with clients coming and going all day and all night long; he never offers a helping hand and never keeps any promise that he has made; or he cannot or else he refuses to speak to you in your own language. Etc., etc..

Your life is turned into a nightmare. Yet you may not use violence against him, because he has not aggressed against you. What can you do?

You can shun and ostracize him. But your neighbor does not care, and in any case you alone thus "punishing" him makes little if any difference to him. You have to have the communal respect and authority, or you must turn to someone who does, to persuade and convince everyone or at least most of the members of your community to do likewise and make the bad neighbor a social outcast, so as to exert enough pressure on him to sell his property and leave.

(So much for the libertarians who, in addition to their "live and let live" ideal also hail the motto "respect no authority!")

The lesson? The peaceful cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory -- a tranquil, convivial social order -- requires also a commonality of culture: of language, religion, custom and convention. There can be peaceful co-existence of different cultures on distant, physically separated territories, but multi-culturalism, cultural heterogeneity, cannot exist in one and the same place and territory without leading to diminishing social trust, increased tension, and ultimately the call for a "strong man" and the destruction of anything resembling a libertarian social order.

And moreover: Just as a libertarian order must always be on guard against "bad" (even if non-aggressive) neighbors by means of social ostracism, i.e., by a common "you are not welcome here" culture, so, and indeed even more vigilantly so, must it be guarded against neighbors who openly advocate communism, socialism, syndicalism or democracy in any shape or form. They, in thereby posing an open threat to all private property and property owners, must not only be shunned, but they must, to use a by now somewhat famous Hoppe-meme , be "physically removed," if need be by violence, and forced to leave for other pastures.

Not to do so inevitably leads to -- well, communism, socialism, syndicalism or democracy and hence, the very opposite of a libertarian social order.

With these "Rightist" or as I would say, plain commonsensical insights in mind I turn now to the more challenging question of how to move from here, the status quo , to there.

And for this it might be instructive to first briefly consider the answer given by the liberallala, the peace-love-and-liberty, the Friede-Freude-Eierkuchen or the capitalism-is-love libertarians. It reveals the same fundamental egalitarianism, if in a slightly different form, as that exhibited also by the live-and-let-live libertarians.

These, as I have just tried to show, define what we may call the "bad neighbor problem" -- and what is merely a short-hand for the general problem posed by the co-existence of distinctly different, alien, mutually disturbing, annoying, strange or hostile cultures -- simply out of existence. And indeed, if you assume, against all empirical evidence, that all people, everywhere, are essentially the same, then, by definition, no such thing as a "bad neighbor problem" exists.

The same egalitarian, or as the liberallala-libertarians themselves prefer call it, "humanitarian" spirit also comes to bear in their answer to the question of a libertarian strategy . In a nutshell, their advice is this: be nice and talk to everyone -- and then, in the long run, the better libertarian arguments will win out.

To illustrate, take my former-friend-turned-foe Jeffrey Tucker's five "Don'ts When Talking Liberty." They are "1) don't be belligerent; 2) don't presume hatred of liberty; 3) don't presume different goals; 4) don't presume ignorance; 5) don't regard anyone as an enemy."

Now, quite apart from the fact that Tucker does not seem to follow his own advice in his belligerent condemnation of the entire Alt-Right as liberty-hating fascists , I find his exhortations truly astounding. They may be good advice vis-à-vis people just sprung up from nowhere, without any traceable history whatsoever, but vis-à-vis real people with a recorded history they strike me as hopelessly naïve, unrealistic, and outright counterproductive in the pursuit of libertarian ends.

For I (and I assume everyone else here) know of and have met many people in my life who are ignorant, who do have different, un-libertarian goals, and who do hate liberty as understood by libertarians -- and why in the world should I not regard such people as fools or enemies? And why should I not hate and not be belligerent vis-a-vis my enemies?

As a libertarian strategy, then, Tucker's advice must be considered simply a bad joke. But surely it is good advice if one seeks entry into the State as some sort of "libertarian" advisor, and this may well explain the enthusiasm with which Tucker's "humanitarian" libertarianism has been embraced by the entire liberallala-libertarian crowd.

Outside egalitarian phantasy lands, however, in the real world, libertarians must above all be realistic and recognize from the outset, as the Alt-Right does, the inequality not just of individuals but also of different cultures as an ineradicable datum of the human existence.

We must further recognize that there exist plenty of enemies of liberty as defined by libertarianism and that they, not we, are in charge of worldly affairs; that in many parts of the contemporary world their control of the populace is so complete that the ideas of liberty and of a libertarian social order are practically unheard of or considered unthinkable (except as some idle intellectual play or mental gymnastics by a few "exotic" individuals); and that it is essentially only in the West, in the countries of Western and Central Europe and the lands settled by its people, that the idea of liberty is so deeply rooted that these enemies still can be openly challenged.

And confining our strategic considerations here only to the West, then, we can identify, pretty much as the Alt-Right has effectively done, these actors and agencies as our principal enemies.

They are, first and foremost,

the ruling elites in control of the State apparatus and in particular the "Deep State" or the so-called "Cathedral" of the military, the secret services, the central banks and the supreme courts.

As well, they include the leaders of the military-industrial complex, i.e., of nominally private firms that owe their very existence to the State as the exclusive or dominant buyer of their products, and they also include the leaders of the big commercial banks, which owe their privilege of creating money and credit out of thin air to the existence of the central bank and its role as a "lender of last resort."

They together, then, State, Big-Business and Big-Banking, form an extremely powerful even if tiny "mutual admiration society," jointly ripping off the huge mass of tax-payers and living it up big time at their expense.

The second, much larger group of enemies:

the intellectuals, educators and " educrats ," from the highest levels of academia down to the level of elementary schools and kindergartens. Funded almost exclusively, whether directly or indirectly, by the State, they, in their overwhelming majority, have become the soft tools and willing executioners in the hands of the ruling elite and its designs for absolute power and total control.

And thirdly:

the journalists of the MSM, as the docile products of the system of "public education," and the craven recipients and popularizers of government "information."

Equally important in the development of a libertarian strategy then is the immediately following next question: who are the victims ?

The standard libertarian answer to this is: the tax- payers as opposed to the tax- consumers . Yet while this is essentially correct, it is at best only part of the answer, and libertarians could learn something in this respect from the Alt-Right: because apart from the narrowly economic aspect there is also a wider cultural aspect that must be taken into account in identifying the victims.

In order to expand and increase its power, the ruling elites have been conducting for many decades what Pat Buchanan has identified as a systematic "culture war," aimed at a trans-valuation of all values and the destruction of all natural, or if you will "organic" social bonds and institutions such as families, communities, ethnic groups and genealogically related nations, so as to create an increasingly atomized populace, whose only shared characteristic and unifying bond is its common existential dependency on the State.

The first step in this direction, taken already half a century or even longer ago, was the introduction of "public welfare" and "social security." Thereby, the underclass and the elderly were turned into State-dependents and the value and importance of family and community was correspondingly diminished and weakened.

More recently, further-reaching steps in this direction have proliferated. A new "victimology" has been proclaimed and promoted. Women, and in particular single mothers, Blacks, Browns, Latinos, homosexuals, lesbians, bi- and transsexuals have been awarded "victim" status and accorded legal privileges through non-discrimination o r affirmative action decrees.

As well, most recently such privileges have been expanded also to foreign-national immigrants, whether legal or illegal, insofar as they fall into one of the just mentioned categories or are members of non-Christian religions such as Islam, for instance.

The result? Not only has the earlier mentioned "bad neighbor problem" not been avoided or solved, but systematically promoted and intensified instead. Cultural homogeneity has been destroyed, and the freedom of association, and the voluntary physical segregation and separation of different people, communities, cultures and traditions has been replaced by an all-pervasive system of forced social integration.

Moreover, each mentioned "victim" group has thus been pitted against every other, and all of them have been pitted against white, heterosexual, Christian males and in particular those married and with children as the only remaining, legally un-protected group of alleged "victimizers."

Hence, as the result of the trans-valuation of all values promoted by the ruling elites, the world has been turned upside down. The institution of a family household with father, mother and their children that has formed the basis of Western civilization, as the freest, most industrious, ingenious and all-around accomplished civilization known to mankind, i.e., the very institution and people that has done most good in human history, has been officially stigmatized and vilified as the source of all social ills and made the most heavily disadvantaged, even persecuted group by the enemy elites' relentless policy of divide et impera .

Accordingly, given the present constellation of affairs, then, any promising libertarian strategy must, very much as the Alt-Right has recognized, first and foremost be tailored and addressed to this group of the most severely victimized people.

White married Christian couples with children, in particular if they belong also to the class of tax- payers (rather than tax-consumers), and everyone most closely resembling or aspiring to this standard form of social order and organization can be realistically expected to be the most receptive audience of the libertarian message (whereas the least support should be expected to come from the legally most "protected" groups such as, for instance, single Black Muslim mothers on welfare).

Given this constellation of perpetrator-enemies vs. victims in the contemporary West, then, I can now come to the final task of trying to outline a realistic libertarian strategy for change.

The specifics of which will have to be prefaced by two general considerations.

For one,

given that the class of intellectuals from the tops of academia to the opinion-molding journalists in the MSM are funded by and firmly tied into the ruling system, i.e., that they are a part of the problem , they also should not be expected to play a major if any role in the problem's solution .

Accordingly, the so-called Hayekian strategy for social change, that envisions the spread of correct libertarian ideas starting at the top, with the leading philosophers, and then trickling down from there to journalists and finally to the great unwashed masses, must be considered fundamentally unrealistic.

Instead, any realistic libertarian strategy for change must be a populist strategy. That is, libertarians must short-circuit the dominant intellectual elites and address the masses directly to arouse their indignation and contempt for the ruling elites.

And secondly,

While the main addressees of a populist libertarian message must be indeed the just mentioned groups of dispossessed and disenfranchised native whites, I believe it to be a serious strategic error to make "whiteness" the exclusive criterion on which to base one's strategic decisions, as some strands of the Alt-Right have suggested to do.

After all, it is above all white men that make up the ruling elite and that have foisted the current mess upon us.

True enough, the various protected "minorities" mentioned before take full advantage of the legal privileges they have been accorded and they have become increasingly emboldened to ask for ever more "protection," but none of them and all of them together did not and do not possess the intellectual prowess that would have made this outcome possible, if it were not for the instrumental help that they received and are receiving from white men.

Now, taking our cues from the Buchanan-, the Paul- and the Trump-movement, on to the specifics of a populist strategy for libertarian change, in no specific order except for the very first one , which has currently assumed the greatest urgency in the public mind.

One : Stop mass immigration . The waves of immigrants currently flooding the Western world have burdened it with hordes of welfare parasites, brought in terrorists , increased crime, led to the proliferation of no-go areas and resulted in countless "bad neighbors" who, based on their alien upbringing, culture and traditions, lack any understanding and appreciation of liberty and are bound to become mindless future supporters of welfare-statism.

No one is against immigration and immigrants per se . But immigration must be by invitation only. All immigrants must be productive people and hence, be barred from all domestic welfare payments.

To ensure this, they or their inviting party must place a bond with the community in which they are to settle, and which is to be forfeited and lead to the immigrant's deportation should he ever become a public burden. As well, every immigrant, inviting party or employer should not only pay for the immigrant's upkeep or salary, but must also pay the residential community for the additional wear and tear of its public facilities associated with the immigrant's presence, so as to avoid the socialization of any and all costs incurred with his settlement.

Moreover, even before his admission, every potential immigrant invitee must be carefully screened and tested not only for his productivity but also for cultural affinity (or "good neighborliness") -- with the empirically predictable result of mostly, but by no means exclusively, western-white immigrant-candidates.

And any known communist or socialist, of any color, denomination or country of origin, must be barred from permanent settlement -- unless, that is, the community where the potential immigrant wants to settle officially sanctions the looting of its residents' property by new, foreign arrivals, which is not very likely to say the least, even within already-existing "commie" communes.

(Brief message to all Open-Border and liberallala libertarians , who will surely label this, you guessed it, " fascist ": In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the owner's right to exclude at will. And "public property" has borders as well. It is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners.

(And while it is true that the State is a criminal organization and that to entrust it with the task of border control will inevitably result in numerous injustices to both domestic residents and foreigners, it is also true that the State does something also when it decides not to do anything about border control and that, under the present circumstances, doing nothing at all in this regard will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry.)

Two: Stop attacking, killing and bombing people in foreign countries . A main cause, even if by no means the only one, for the current invasion of Western countries by hordes of alien immigrants, are the wars initiated and conducted in the Middle East and elsewhere by the US ruling elites and their subordinate Western puppet-elites. As well, the by now seemingly 'normal' and ubiquitous terrorist attacks in the name of Islam across the Western world are in large measure the "blow-back" of these wars and the ensuing chaos throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa.

There should be no hesitation to call these Western rulers what they are: murderers or accessories to mass murder. We must demand, and cry out loud instead for a foreign policy of strict non-interventionism. Withdraw from all international and supranational organizations such as the UN , NATO and the EU that integrate one country into the domestic affairs of another. Stop all government-to-government aid and prohibit all weapon sales to foreign States.

Let it be America First!, England First!, Germany First!, Italy First! , and so on, i.e., each country trading with one another and no one interfering in anyone else's domestic affairs.

Three: Defund the ruling elites and its intellectual bodyguards . Expose and widely publicize the lavish salaries, perks, pensions, side-deals, bribes and hush monies received by the ruling elites: by the higher-ups in government and governmental bureaucracies, of supreme courts, central banks, secret services and spy agencies, by politicians, parliamentarians, party leaders, political advisors and consultants, by crony-capitalists, "public educrats," university presidents, provosts and academic "stars." Drive home the point that all their shining glory and luxury is funded by money extorted from tax-payers, and consequently urge that any and all taxes be slashed: income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, inheritance taxes, etc., etc..

Four: End the Fed and all central banks. The second source of funding for the ruling elites, besides the money extorted from the public in the form of taxes, comes from the central banks. Central banks are allowed to create paper money out of thin air. This reduces the purchasing power of money and destroys the savings of average people. It does not and cannot make society as a whole richer, but it redistributes income and wealth within society. The earliest receivers of the newly created money, i.e., the ruling elites, are thereby made richer and the later and latest receivers, i.e., the average citizen, are made poorer.

The central bank's manipulation of interest rates is the cause of boom-bust cycles. The central bank permits the accumulation of ever greater "public debt" that is shifted as a burden onto unknown future taxpayers or is simply inflated away. And as the facilitator of public debt, the central banks are also the facilitators of wars.

This monstrosity must end and be replaced by a system of free, competitive banking built on the foundation of a genuine commodity money such as gold or silver.

Five: Abolish all " Affirmative Action " and "non-discrimination" laws and regulations . All such edicts are blatant violations of the principle of the equality before the law that, at least in the West, is intuitively sensed and recognized as a fundamental principle of justice.

As private property owners, people must be free to associate or disassociate with others: to include or exclude, to integrate or segregate, to join or separate, to unify and incorporate or to disunite, exit and secede.

Close all university departments for Black-, Latino-, Women-, Gender-, Queer-Studies, etc., etc., as incompatible with science and dismiss its faculties as intellectual imposters or scoundrels. As well, demand that all Affirmative Action commissars, Diversity and Human Resources officers, from universities on down to schools and kindergartens, be thrown out onto the street and be forced to learn some useful trade.

Six: Crush the "Anti-Fascist" Mob . The trans-valuation of all values throughout the West, the invention of ever more "victim groups," the spread of "Affirmative Action" programs and the relentless promotion of Political Correctness, has led to the rise of an "Anti-Fascist" mob. Tacitly supported and indirectly funded by the ruling elites, this self-described mob of "Social Justice Warriors" has taken upon itself the task of escalating the fight against "white privilege" through deliberate acts of terror directed against anyone and anything deemed "racist," "right-wing," "fascist," "reactionary," "incorrigible" or "unreconstructed."

Such "enemies of progress" are physically assaulted by the "anti-fascist" mob, their cars are burnt down, their properties vandalized, and their employers threatened to dismiss them and ruin their careers -- all the while the police are ordered by the powers that be to "stand down" and not to investigate the crimes committed or prosecute and punish the criminals.

In view of this outrage, public anger must be aroused and there must be clamoring, far and wide, for the police to be unleashed and this mob be beaten into submission.

(Query for liberallala-libertarians and the Stupids for Liberty, who are sure to object to this demand on the ground that the police asked to crush the "anti-fascist" mob are State -police: Do you also object, on the same grounds, that the police arrest murderers or rapists? Aren't these legitimate tasks performed also in any libertarian order by private police?

(And if the police are not to do anything about this mob, isn't it o.k. then that the target of its attacks, the "racist Right," should take the task upon itself of giving the "social justice warriors" a bloody nose?)

Seven: Crush the street criminals and gangs . In dispensing with the principle of the equality before the law and awarding all sorts of group privileges (except to the one group of married white Christian men and their families) the ruling elites have also dispensed with the principle of equal punishment for equal crime. Some State-favored groups are handed more lenient punishment for the same crime than others, and some especially favored groups are simply let run wild and go practically unpunished at all, thus actually and effectively promoting crime.

As well, no-go areas have been permitted to develop where any effort at law-enforcement has essentially ceased to exist and where violent thugs and street gangs have taken over. In view of this, public furor must be provoked and it be unmistakably demanded that the police crack-down quick and hard on any robber, mugger, rapist and murderer, and ruthlessly clear all current no-go areas of violent gang-rule.

Needless to say that this policy should be colorblind, but if it happens to be, as it in fact does, that most street criminals or gang members are young Black or Latino males or, in Europe, young immigrant males from Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans or Eastern Europe, then so be it and such human specimen then should be the ones that most prominently get their noses bloodied.

And needless to say also that in order to defend against crime, whether ordinary street crime or acts of terrorism, all prohibitions against the ownership of guns by upstanding citizens should be abolished.

Eight: Get rid of all welfare parasites and bums . To cement their own position, the Ruling Class has put the underclass on the dole and thus made it a most reliable source of public support.

Allegedly to help people rise and move up from the underclass to become self-supporting actors, the real -- and actually intended -- effect of the State's so-called "social policy" is the exact opposite. It has rendered a person's underclass status more permanent and made the underclass steadily grow (and with this also the number of tax-funded social workers and therapists assigned to "help and assist" it).

For, in accordance with inexorable economic law, every subsidy awarded on account of some alleged need or deficiency produces more, not less, of the problem that it is supposed to alleviate or eliminate.

Thus, the root cause of a person's underclass status -- his low impulse control and high time preference, i.e., his uncontrolled desire for immediate gratification -- and the various attendant manifestations of this cause, such as unemployment, poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, divorce, female headed households, out-of-wedlock births, rotating shack-up male companions, child abuse, negligence and petty crime, is and are not alleviated or eliminated but systematically strengthened and promoted.

Instead of continuing and expanding this increasingly unsightly social disaster, then, it should be abolished and be loudly demanded that one take heed of the biblical exhortation that he who can, but will not work, also shall not eat, and that he who truly cannot work, due to severe mental or physical deficiencies, be taken care of by family, community and voluntary charity.

Nine: Get the State out of education. Most, if not all, social pathologies plaguing the contemporary West have their common root in the institution of "public education."

When the first steps were taken, more than two centuries ago, in Prussia, to supplement and ultimately replace a formerly completely private system of education with a universal system of compulsory "public education," the time spent in State-run schools did in most cases not exceed four years. Today, throughout the entire Western world, the time spent in institutions of "public education" is, at a minimum, around ten years, and in many cases, and increasingly so, twenty or even thirty years.

That is, a large or even the largest part of time during the most formative period in a person's life is spent in State-funded and State-supervised institutions, whose primary purpose from the very beginning it was not to raise an enlightened public, but to train "good soldiers" and "good public servants:" not independent and mature or "mündige Bürger," but subordinate and servile "Staats-Bürger."

The result? The indoctrination has worked: the longer the time a person has spent within the system of public education, the more he is committed to Leftist-egalitarian ideas and has swallowed and wholeheartedly internalized the official doctrine and agenda of Political Correctness.

Indeed, in particular among social science teachers and professors, people not counting themselves as part of the Left have practically ceased to exist.

Consequently, it must be demanded that the control of schools and universities be wrest away from the central State and, in a first step, be returned to regional or better still local and locally funded authorities, and ultimately be completely privatized, so as to replace a system of compulsory uniformity and conformity with a system of decentralized education that reflects the natural variation, multiplicity and diversity of human talents and interests.

Ten: Don't put your trust in politics or political parties . Just as academia and the academic world cannot be expected to play any significant role in a libertarian strategy for social change, so with politics and political parties -- after all, it is the ultimate goal of libertarianism to put an end to all politics, and to subject all interpersonal relations and conflicts to private law and civil law procedures.

To be sure, under present, all-pervasively politicized conditions an involvement in politics and party politics cannot be entirely avoided. However, in any such involvement one must be keenly aware of and guard against the corrupting influence of power and the lure of money and perks that comes with it.

And to minimize this risk and temptation, it is advisable to concentrate one's efforts on the level of regional and local rather than national politics, and there to promote a radical agenda of decentralization: of nullification and peaceful separation, segregation and secession.

Most importantly, however, we must take heed of Ludwig von Mises' life-motto: Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.

That is, we must speak out whenever and wherever, whether in formal or informal gatherings, against anyone affronting us with by now only all-too-familiar "Politically Correct" drivel and Left-egalitarian balderdash and unmistakably say: "No. Hell no. You must be kidding."

In the meantime, given the almost complete mind-control exercised by the ruling elites, academia and the MSM, it already requires a good portion of courage to do so.

But if we are not brave enough to do so now and thus set an example for others to follow, matters will become increasingly worse and more dangerous in the future, and we, Western civilization and the Western ideas of freedom and liberty will be wiped out and vanish.

Economist Hans-Herman Hoppe , [ Email him ] author of Democracy: The God that Failed , holds annual meetings of his Property and Freedom Society in the stunningly beautiful town of Bodrum in south west Turkey. (Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative) Category: Ideology Tags: Alt Right , Antifa , Libertarianism , VDare Archives Hide 4 Comments Leave a Comment 4 Comments to "Libertarianism, the Alt-Right and AntiFa" Commenters to Ignore Commenters to ignore (one per line)

Save ListCancel ...to Follow Commenters to follow (one per line)

Save ListCancel Endorsed Only []

FKA Max , Website October 21, 2017 at 3:52 am GMT

Good stuff!

I don't agree with everything, but generally good stuff.

Watched it a few days ago, after it was recommended here on the Unz Review by a "hardcore libertarian": http://www.unz.com/announcement/open-thread-software-bugs/#comment-2048136

In case the "hardcore libertarian" reads this comment, what do you think about this?

Libertarianism, which boils down to the non-aggression principle (NAP: The initiation of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property is inherently illegitimate) is derived from the Catholic Scholastics, most notably the School of Salamanca, who based their proto-Austrian economic theory on Natural Rights derived from Scripture and Catholic theology. Thinkers like Francisco de Vitoria, Domingo de Soto, and Francisco Suárez originated the modern concepts of libertarianism based on Catholic moral teaching and St. Thomas Aquinas's theory of natural law, which stipulates the principle, "one should do harm to no man" (Summa Theologea I-II Q. 95), a progression from the Golden Rule, professed in the Bible: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Lk 6:31

http://thelibertariancatholic.com/summa-of-the-libertarian-catholic/

The Mont Pelerin Society was created on 10 April 1947 at a conference organized by Friedrich Hayek. Originally, it was to be named the Acton-Tocqueville Society. After Frank Knight protested against naming the group after two "Roman Catholic aristocrats" and Ludwig von Mises expressed concern that the mistakes made by Acton and Tocqueville would be connected with the society, the decision was made to name it after Mont Pèlerin, the Swiss resort where it convened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society#Name

Dr. Otto von Habsburg on Religion,Politics and Education

FKA Max , Website October 21, 2017 at 6:20 am GMT
@FKA Max

5. The Wealth of Nations: Ideology, Religion, Biology, and Environment

https://mises.org/library/5-wealth-nations-ideology-religion-biology-and-environment

The Catholic Church is anti-democratic, individualistic and capable of salvation. Slavery became seen as incompatible with Christian views. Christianity upholds social cooperation. Capitalism was born in Italy – a Catholic country. Private property came to be seen as a good. The Protestant religion was the most successful in production because their puritanical work ethic was the harshest. Protestantism both strengthened the state and democracies.


Mapping one of the world's largest landowners

In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court recently ruled that only a portion of a Catholic shrine's nearly 200 acres were used for worship purposes and therefore were exempt from paying local property tax. The shrine was sent a tax bill for $92,000.
[...]
With more than 1 billion adherents, the Catholic Church is one of the largest, if not the largest, nongovernmental landowners in the world. One estimate puts the church's holdings close to 177 million acres, or 277,000 square miles. If those properties were grouped together and placed on a list of the world's countries by land area, it would fall within the top 50, higher than both France and Spain. (Plus, it is unclear whether or not the 177 million acre figure includes land owned by affiliated institutions, such as Catholic schools and hospitals, which number in the hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- worldwide.)

https://www.curbed.com/2017/10/18/16483194/catholic-church-gis-goodlands-esri-molly-burhans

The Wealth of Nations and Religion – Cat[h]olicism and Protestantism

Brabantian , Website October 21, 2017 at 11:55 pm GMT
A major key point made by Hans-Hermann Hoppe above, rather neglected by the Unz community here, is this:

After all, it is above all white men that make up the ruling elite and that have foisted the current mess upon us.

True enough, the various protected 'minorities' take full advantage of the legal privileges they have been accorded and they have become increasingly emboldened but none of them would have made this outcome possible, if it were not for the instrumental help that they received and are receiving from white men.

Though it is more helpful to call this problem by its most accurate name: oligarchy. And in a country that has been predominantly white, under a white oligarchy, the core pathology is obscured by an excess focus on dominant native culture versus other cultures. As Hoppe indicates, whatever faults or crimes can be ascribed to minorities / migrants, the dysfunctionality of the system is ultimately the fault of the oligarchs at the top of the social heap, who designed the system as it stands.

For those who focus on Jewish influence groups – often the preferred 'mafias' for an oligarchy, to be sure – it is nonetheless true, as Canadian rebel Jew Henry Makow points out, that Jewish influence agents, media mavens etc, are for the most part not higher than #2 in the pecking order. Even with 40% of USA billionaires being Jewish, the other 60% who are gentile, clearly are allowing Jewish groups to have what influence they do have.

A Jewish-Israeli writer who emigrated from Russia quipped, that what he found in his new life in Israel, was only the benefit that his oppressors were now other Jews rather than non-Jews. USA whites must face the fact too, their biggest oppressors are oligarch whites who don't give a shite about their less-well-connected brothers and sisters.

And the problem overall with 'libertarianism', the whole Rothbard – Ron Paul etc spectrum, is seen in the practical matter that a wing of billionaire oligarchs see the libertarians as their hired 'useful idiots'. In some cases you can see the libertarian pundits being funded by the Koch brothers etc trying to become the owners of federal land that would then be 'turned over to the free market private sector' har-har.

Though the intellectual libertarians have nice theories supporting small business and anti-monopoly etc in practice the whole free-market, no-social-benefit ideology, tends to support the crony oligarch monopolists very well.

Whereas the actual truth, as the real-life experience of Europe (in its better days, now fading) has shown, is that an intelligently-run mixed economy, with government restricting the oligarch oligopolists, and really serving its own citizens, is the way to go. The fact that the oligarchs are running the systems down and making them blow up these days, doesn't change the fact that for a brief few decades in history, Western Continental Europe achieved some aspects of paradise – little crime, almost no one in jail, a pleasant life for just about all, and zero poverty amongst legal residents.

The 'alt-right' has it more correct, 'libertarianism' is essentially a kind of clever geeky scam flying in the face of what really works.

FKA Max , Website October 22, 2017 at 12:33 am GMT
@FKA Max

Just for clarification; I shared the video of Otto von Habsburg, because he was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society , and also a devout Catholic, but he supported the "collectivist" European Union:

What is basically emerging is the European Union Otto von Habsburg envisioned
[...]
He was also a member of the Mont Pelerin Society.

http://www.unz.com/jpetras/the-middle-east-pivot/#comment-2051317

Rose and Milton Friedman on Mont Pelerin Society

"In this interview, Milton Friedman, who was awarded the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics, describes the values, objectives, and beginnings of the Mont Pelerin Society. He explains what it was like to create a society dedicated to classical liberalism in a world where the prevailing economic views leaned towards central planning and collectivism. Since it was founded in 1947, this organization has grown and prospered; offering its members from around the world opportunities to exchange and discuss their ideas. Friedman also comments on the significant role Universidad Francisco Marroquín has played in promoting the ideals of free-market economics and the importance of protecting private property. This interview was conducted by Hoover Institution and presented at the Mont Pelerin Society meeting in London in 2002."

[Oct 22, 2017] Who Can Blame McCain for Loathing Trump

Oct 22, 2017 | washingtonmonthly.com

Yes, one can argue that McCain set in motion the series of events that put Trump in the White House by selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate in August 2008 . Of course, the counterargument is that McCain basically had no choice, that he was under severe pressure to throw a bone to the wingnuts, that he was held hostage by the far right. In other words, it wasn't Palin per se that caused McCain to lose the 2008 presidential election, but the right-wing forces that intimidated McCain into making such a choice .

[Oct 22, 2017] Trump and His 'Beautiful' Weapons by William Blum

Notable quotes:
"... It's easy to understand why some of President Trump's senior advisers privately consider him a "moron," with a limited vocabulary and stunning lack of normal human empathy, as William Blum explains at Anti-Empire Report. ..."
"... Capturing the wisdom and the beauty of Donald J. Trump in just one statement escaping from his charming mouth: "Our military has never been stronger. Each day, new equipment is delivered; new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world – the best anywhere in the world, by far." [Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2017] ..."
"... And in case you still don't fully appreciate that, notice that he specifies that our equipment is the best in the world BY FAR! That means that no other country is even close! Just imagine! ..."
"... Lucky for the man his seeming incapacity for moral or intellectual embarrassment. He's twice blessed. His fans like the idea that their president is no smarter than they are. This may well serve to get the man re-elected, as it did with George W. Bush. ..."
"... Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II ..."
"... Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower ..."
Oct 21, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

It's easy to understand why some of President Trump's senior advisers privately consider him a "moron," with a limited vocabulary and stunning lack of normal human empathy, as William Blum explains at Anti-Empire Report.

Capturing the wisdom and the beauty of Donald J. Trump in just one statement escaping from his charming mouth: "Our military has never been stronger. Each day, new equipment is delivered; new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world – the best anywhere in the world, by far." [Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2017]

Here the man thinks that everyone will be impressed that the American military has never been stronger. And that those who, for some unimaginable reason, are not impressed with that will at least be impressed that military equipment is being added EACH DAY. Ah yes, it's long been a sore point with most Americans that new military equipment was being added only once a week.

And if that isn't impressive enough, then surely the fact that the equipment is NEW will win people over. Indeed, the newness is important enough to mention twice. After all, no one likes USED military equipment. And if newness doesn't win everyone's heart, then BEAUTIFUL will definitely do it. Who likes UGLY military equipment? Even the people we slaughter all over the world insist upon good-looking guns and bombs.

And the best in the world. Of course. That's what makes us all proud to be Americans. And what makes the rest of humanity just aching with jealousy. And in case you don't fully appreciate that, notice that he adds that it's the best ANYWHERE in the world.

And in case you still don't fully appreciate that, notice that he specifies that our equipment is the best in the world BY FAR! That means that no other country is even close! Just imagine! Makes me choke up.

Lucky for the man his seeming incapacity for moral or intellectual embarrassment. He's twice blessed. His fans like the idea that their president is no smarter than they are. This may well serve to get the man re-elected, as it did with George W. Bush.

William Blum is an author, historian, and renowned critic of U.S. foreign policy. He is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower , among others. [This article originally appeared at the Anti-Empire Report, https://williamblum.org/ .]

[Oct 22, 2017] CNN EXPOSED IN UNDERCOVER STING - Russia-Trump Story Admitted FAKE NEWS - Driving to Bohemian Grove

Oct 22, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Five Star Productions , 3 months ago

CNN is toast. Everyone (anyone) with a brain knows this. I feel badly for the professional reporters there that can't get out to a new location ..... they will be ruined also.

[Oct 21, 2017] Washington Funds Foreign Think Tanks That Blacklist Opponents of Neocon Foreign Policy by Ron Paul

I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Oct 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Dear Friends of the Ron Paul Institute:

I just finished an interview on RT.

Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.

In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech " think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian government-funded RT television network.

Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank? Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.

I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"

It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials, when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.

So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights."

Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political "enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech "European Values" think tank.

Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?

"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.

This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."

That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny?

The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.

[Oct 21, 2017] Dying for the Empire Is Not Heroic by Sheldon Richman

Oct 21, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Posted on October 20, 2017 October 20, 2017 Predictably, the news media spent most of the week examining words Donald Trump may or may not have spoken to the widow of an American Green Beret killed in Niger, in northwest Africa, in early October. Not only was this coverage tedious, it was largely pointless. We know Trump is a clumsy boor, and we also know that lots of people are ready to pounce on him for any sort of gaffe, real or imagined. Who cares? It's not news. But it was useful to those who wish to distract Americans from what really needs attention: the U.S. government's perpetual war.

The media's efforts should have been devoted to exploring – really exploring – why Green Berets (and drones) are in Niger at all. ( This is typical of the establishment media's explanation.)

That subject is apparently of little interest to media companies that see themselves merely as cheerleaders for the American Empire. For them, it's all so simple: a US president (even one they despise) has put or left military forces in a foreign country – no justification required; therefore, those forces are serving their country; and that in turn means that if they die, they die as heroes who were protecting our way of life. End of story.

Thus the establishment media see no need to present a dissenting view, say, from an analyst who would question the dogma that inserting American warriors into faraway conflicts whenever a warlord proclaims his allegiance to ISIS is in the "national interest." Patriotic media companies have no wish to expose their audiences to the idea that jihadists would be no threat to Americans who were left to mind their own business.

Apparently the American people also must be shielded from anyone who might point out that the jihadist activity in Niger and neighboring Mali is directly related to the US and NATO bombing of Libya, which enabled al-Qaeda and other Muslim militants to overthrow the secular regime of Col. Muammar Qaddafi. That Obama-Clinton operation in 2011, besides producing Qaddafi's grisly murder and turning Libya into a nightmare, facilitated the transfer of weapons and fanatical guerrillas from Libya to nearby countries in the Sahel – as well as Syria. Since then the US government has been helping the French to "stabilize" its former colony Mali with surveillance drones and Green Berets based in Niger. Nice work, Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. (Citizen Trump was an early advocate of US intervention in Libya.) Need I remind you that the US/NATO regime-change operation in Libya was based on a lie ? Obama later said his failure to foresee the consequences of the Libya intervention was the biggest mistake of his presidency. (For more on the unintended consequences for the Sahel, see articles here , here , and here .)

So the media, which pretends to play a role in keeping Americans informed, have decided the people need not hear the truth behind the events in Niger. Instead, "reporters" and "analysts" perform their role as cheerleaders for the American Empire by declaring the dead men "heroes" and focusing on the tragedy that has befallen their families. Public scrutiny of the military operation is discouraged because it thought to detract from the Green Berets' heroism.

What makes them heroes? They were killed by non-Americans in a foreign land while wearing military uniforms. That's all it takes, according to the gospel of what Andrew Bacevich calls the Church of America the Redeemer and its media choir.

But are they really heroes? We can question this while feeling sorrow for the people who will never see their husbands, sons, brothers, and fathers again. Reporters and analysts who emote over alleged heroism base their claim on the dubious proposition that the men were "serving their country" and "protecting our freedom." A brief examination, however, is enough to show this is not so, although the troops, their families, and many others believe it.

First, their "country," if by this term we mean the American people, did not call them to "service," which itself a question-begging word. The source of the call was a collection of politicians and bureaucrats (including generals) who wouldn't know the public interest from a hole in the ground.

Second, US intervention in the Muslim world, which predates 9/11 and the creation of al-Qaeda and ISIS, has not made Americans safe. On the contrary, it has put them at risk, as the attacks on the World Trade Center demonstrated. Is it hard to believe that people will seek vengeance against those whose government bombs them and starves their children, as the US government did in Iraq all through the 1990s (to take just one example)?

Dying (and killing) for the Empire is not heroic. Allowing yourself to be ordered to intervene in distant conflicts you surely don't understand is not worthy of admiration. What's heroic is resisting the Empire.

Anyone who thought Trump would bring the troops back should now know better. He, of all people, is not about to give up imperial power. The Guardian quotes a former military officer saying, "Since [President] Trump took power, US forces deployed around the world have had a lot more room to maneuver. Decisions about when and what to engage have been devolved right down to unit level. Any soldier knows that if you give guys on the ground more independence, then they will be that much more aggressive and will take more risks."

At this point we can't expect the corporate media to quit propagandizing on behalf of the war state and start informing the public of the harm "their" government has inflicted abroad and at home. Fortunately, we have virtually costless access to alternative sources of information about the politicians' and military's mischief. The conundrum is that most people, having been fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda, won't turn to those sources until they become suspicious of power.

Sheldon Richman is the executive editor of The Libertarian Institute , senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is the former senior editor at the Cato Institute and Institute for Humane Studies, former editor of The Freeman , published by the Foundation for Economic Education , and former vice president at the Future of Freedom Foundation . His latest book is America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited . Reprinted with permission from The Libertarian Institute .

Read more by Sheldon Richman Flags, Football, and Begged Questions – October 3rd, 2017 Operation CYA – Afghanistan – August 25th, 2017 Trump's 'Fire and Fury' Wouldn't Be the First for North Korea – August 11th, 2017 Truman, A-Bombs, and the Killing of Innocents – August 6th, 2017 The American Way of War – July 2nd, 2017

[Oct 21, 2017] Dying for the Empire Is Not Heroic by Sheldon Richman

Oct 21, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Posted on October 20, 2017 October 20, 2017 Predictably, the news media spent most of the week examining words Donald Trump may or may not have spoken to the widow of an American Green Beret killed in Niger, in northwest Africa, in early October. Not only was this coverage tedious, it was largely pointless. We know Trump is a clumsy boor, and we also know that lots of people are ready to pounce on him for any sort of gaffe, real or imagined. Who cares? It's not news. But it was useful to those who wish to distract Americans from what really needs attention: the U.S. government's perpetual war.

The media's efforts should have been devoted to exploring – really exploring – why Green Berets (and drones) are in Niger at all. ( This is typical of the establishment media's explanation.)

That subject is apparently of little interest to media companies that see themselves merely as cheerleaders for the American Empire. For them, it's all so simple: a US president (even one they despise) has put or left military forces in a foreign country – no justification required; therefore, those forces are serving their country; and that in turn means that if they die, they die as heroes who were protecting our way of life. End of story.

Thus the establishment media see no need to present a dissenting view, say, from an analyst who would question the dogma that inserting American warriors into faraway conflicts whenever a warlord proclaims his allegiance to ISIS is in the "national interest." Patriotic media companies have no wish to expose their audiences to the idea that jihadists would be no threat to Americans who were left to mind their own business.

Apparently the American people also must be shielded from anyone who might point out that the jihadist activity in Niger and neighboring Mali is directly related to the US and NATO bombing of Libya, which enabled al-Qaeda and other Muslim militants to overthrow the secular regime of Col. Muammar Qaddafi. That Obama-Clinton operation in 2011, besides producing Qaddafi's grisly murder and turning Libya into a nightmare, facilitated the transfer of weapons and fanatical guerrillas from Libya to nearby countries in the Sahel – as well as Syria. Since then the US government has been helping the French to "stabilize" its former colony Mali with surveillance drones and Green Berets based in Niger. Nice work, Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. (Citizen Trump was an early advocate of US intervention in Libya.) Need I remind you that the US/NATO regime-change operation in Libya was based on a lie ? Obama later said his failure to foresee the consequences of the Libya intervention was the biggest mistake of his presidency. (For more on the unintended consequences for the Sahel, see articles here , here , and here .)

So the media, which pretends to play a role in keeping Americans informed, have decided the people need not hear the truth behind the events in Niger. Instead, "reporters" and "analysts" perform their role as cheerleaders for the American Empire by declaring the dead men "heroes" and focusing on the tragedy that has befallen their families. Public scrutiny of the military operation is discouraged because it thought to detract from the Green Berets' heroism.

What makes them heroes? They were killed by non-Americans in a foreign land while wearing military uniforms. That's all it takes, according to the gospel of what Andrew Bacevich calls the Church of America the Redeemer and its media choir.

But are they really heroes? We can question this while feeling sorrow for the people who will never see their husbands, sons, brothers, and fathers again. Reporters and analysts who emote over alleged heroism base their claim on the dubious proposition that the men were "serving their country" and "protecting our freedom." A brief examination, however, is enough to show this is not so, although the troops, their families, and many others believe it.

First, their "country," if by this term we mean the American people, did not call them to "service," which itself a question-begging word. The source of the call was a collection of politicians and bureaucrats (including generals) who wouldn't know the public interest from a hole in the ground.

Second, US intervention in the Muslim world, which predates 9/11 and the creation of al-Qaeda and ISIS, has not made Americans safe. On the contrary, it has put them at risk, as the attacks on the World Trade Center demonstrated. Is it hard to believe that people will seek vengeance against those whose government bombs them and starves their children, as the US government did in Iraq all through the 1990s (to take just one example)?

Dying (and killing) for the Empire is not heroic. Allowing yourself to be ordered to intervene in distant conflicts you surely don't understand is not worthy of admiration. What's heroic is resisting the Empire.

Anyone who thought Trump would bring the troops back should now know better. He, of all people, is not about to give up imperial power. The Guardian quotes a former military officer saying, "Since [President] Trump took power, US forces deployed around the world have had a lot more room to maneuver. Decisions about when and what to engage have been devolved right down to unit level. Any soldier knows that if you give guys on the ground more independence, then they will be that much more aggressive and will take more risks."

At this point we can't expect the corporate media to quit propagandizing on behalf of the war state and start informing the public of the harm "their" government has inflicted abroad and at home. Fortunately, we have virtually costless access to alternative sources of information about the politicians' and military's mischief. The conundrum is that most people, having been fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda, won't turn to those sources until they become suspicious of power.

Sheldon Richman is the executive editor of The Libertarian Institute , senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is the former senior editor at the Cato Institute and Institute for Humane Studies, former editor of The Freeman , published by the Foundation for Economic Education , and former vice president at the Future of Freedom Foundation . His latest book is America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited . Reprinted with permission from The Libertarian Institute .

Read more by Sheldon Richman Flags, Football, and Begged Questions – October 3rd, 2017 Operation CYA – Afghanistan – August 25th, 2017 Trump's 'Fire and Fury' Wouldn't Be the First for North Korea – August 11th, 2017 Truman, A-Bombs, and the Killing of Innocents – August 6th, 2017 The American Way of War – July 2nd, 2017

[Oct 21, 2017] Socialism, Land and Banking 2017 compared to 1917 by Michael Hudson

Notable quotes:
"... Socialism a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized. ..."
"... Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected, Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen neoliberalism. ..."
"... Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor. ..."
"... Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges. ..."
"... Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. ..."
"... When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S. advisors wanted to teach Russia. [3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival producers. ..."
"... It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate, electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history. The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have characterized as "primitive accumulation." ..."
"... The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991 hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western investors in 1994-96. ..."
"... The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism. ..."
"... Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S. Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency. These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100% annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to be adopted even in the United States! ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not ..."
"... By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008. ..."
"... The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... American Journal of Economics and Sociology ..."
"... Super-Imperialism ..."
"... The Great Credit Crash ..."
"... The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model ..."
"... Journal of Economic Issues ..."
Oct 20, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
Socialism a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized.

Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected, Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen neoliberalism.

Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor.

Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges.

Socialism flowered in the 19 th century as a program to reform capitalism by raising labor's status and living standards, with a widening range of public services and subsidies to make economies more efficient. Reformers hoped to promote this evolution by extending voting rights to the working population at large.

Ricardo's discussion of land rent led early industrial capitalists to oppose Europe's hereditary landlord class. But despite democratic political reform, the world has un-taxed land rent and is still grappling with the problem of how to keep housing affordable instead of siphoning off rent to a landlord class – more recently transmuted into mortgage interest paid to banks by owners who pledge the rental value for loans. Most bank lending today is for real estate mortgages. The effect is to bid up land prices toward the point where the entire rental value is paid as interest. This threatens to be a problem for socialist China as well as for capitalist economies.

Landlords, banks and the cost of living

The classical economists sought to make their nations more competitive by keeping down the price of labor so as to undersell competitors. The main cost of living was food; today it is housing. Housing and food prices are determined not by the material costs of production, but by land rent – the rising market price for land.

In the era of the French Physiocrats, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, this land rent accrued to Europe's hereditary landlord class. Today, the land's rent is paid mainly to bankers – because families need credit to buy a home. Or, if they rent, their landlords use the property rent to pay interest to the banks.

The land issue was central to Russia's October Revolution, as it was for European politics. But the discussion of land rent and taxation has lost much of the clarity (and passion) that guided the 19 th century when it dominated classical political economy, liberal reform, and indeed most early socialist politics.

In 1909/10 Britain experienced a constitutional crisis when the democratically elected House of Commons passed a land tax, only to be overridden by the House of Lords, governed by the old aristocracy. The ensuing political crisis was settled by a rule that the Lords never again could overrule a revenue bill passed by the House of Commons. But that was Britain's last real opportunity to tax away the economic rents of landlords and natural resource owners. The liberal drive to tax the land faltered, and never again would gain serious chance of passage.

The democratization of home ownership during the 20 th century led middle-class voters to oppose property taxes – including taxes on commercial sites and natural resources. Tax policy in general has become pro- rentier and anti-labor – the regressive opposite of 19 th -century liberalism as developed by "Ricardian socialists" such as John Stuart Mill and Henry George. Today's economic individualism has lost the early class consciousness that sought to tax economic rent and socialize banking.

The United States enacted an income tax in 1913, falling mainly on rentier income, not on the working population. Capital gains (the main source of rising wealth today) were taxed at the same rate as other income. But the vested interests campaigned to reverse this spirit, slashing capital gains taxes and making tax policy much more regressive. The result is that today, most wealth is not gained by capital investment for profits. Instead, asset-price gains have been financed by a debt-leveraged inflation of real estate, stock and bond prices.

Many middle-class families owe most of their net worth to rising prices for their homes. But by far the lion's share of the real estate and stock market gains have accrued to just One Percent of the population. And while bank credit has enabled buyers to bid up housing prices, the price has been to siphon off more and more of labor's income to pay mortgage loans or rents. As a result, finance today is what is has been throughout history: the main force polarizing economies between debtors and creditors.

Global oil and mining companies created flags of convenience to make themselves tax-exempt, by pretending to make all their production and distribution profits in tax-free trans-shipping havens such as Liberia and Panama (which use U.S. dollars instead of being real countries with their own currency and tax systems).

The fact that absentee-owned real estate and natural resource extraction are practically free of income taxation shows that democratic political reform has not been a sufficient guarantee of socialist success. Tax rules and public regulation have been captured by the rentiers , dashing the hopes of 19 th -century classical reformers that progressive tax policy would produce the same effect as direct public ownership of the means of production, while leaving "the market" as an individualistic alternative to government regulation or planning.

In practice, planning and resource allocation has passed to the banking and financial sector. Many observers hoped that this would evolve into state planning, or at least work in conjunction with it as in Germany. But liberal "Ricardian socialist" failed, as did German-style "state socialism" publicly financing transportation and other basic infrastructure, pensions and similar "external" costs of living and doing business that industrial employers otherwise would have to bear. Attempts at "half-way" socialism via tax and regulatory policy against monopolies and banking have faltered repeatedly. As long as major economic or political choke points are left in private hands, they will serve s springboards to subvert real reform policies. That is why Marxist policy went beyond these would-be socialist reforms.

To Marx, the historical task of capitalism was to prepare the way for socializing the means of production by clearing away feudalism's legacy: a hereditary landlord class, predatory banking, and the monopolies that financial interests had pried away from governments. The path of least resistance was to start by socializing land and basic infrastructure. This drive to free society from economic overhead in the form of hereditary privilege and unearned income by the "idle rich" was a step toward socialist management, by minimizing rentier costs (" faux frais of production").

Proto-socialist reform in the leading industrial nations

Marx was by no means alone in expecting a widening range of economic activity to be shifted away from the market to the public sector. State socialism (basically, state-sponsored capitalism) subsidized pensions and public health, education and other basic needs so as to save industrial enterprise from having to bear these charges.

In the United States, Simon Patten – the first economics professor at the new Wharton business school at the University of Pennsylvania – defined public infrastructure as a "fourth factor of production" alongside labor, capital and land. The aim of public investment was not to make a profit, but to lower the cost of living and doing business so as to minimize industry's wage and infrastructure bill. Public health, pensions, roads and other transportation, education, research and development were subsidized or provided freely. [1]

The most advanced industrial economies seemed to be evolving toward some kind of socialism. Marx shared a Progressive Era optimism that expected industrial capitalism to evolve in the most logical way, by freeing economies from the landlordship and predatory banking inherited from Europe's feudal era. That was above all the classical reform program of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and the intellectual mainstream.

But the aftermath of World War I saw the vested interests mount a Counter-Enlightenment. Banking throughout the Western world find its major market in real estate mortgage lending, natural resource extraction and monopolies – the Anglo-American model, not that of German industrial banking that had seemed to be capitalism's financial future in the late 19 th century.

Since 1980 the Western nations have reversed early optimistic hopes to reform market economies. Instead of the classical dream of taxing away the land rent that had supported Europe's hereditary landed aristocracies, commercial real estate has been made virtually exempt from income taxation. Absentee owners avoid tax by a combination of tax-deductibility for interest payments (as if it is a necessary business expense) and fictitious over-depreciation tax credits that pretend that buildings and properties are losing value even when market prices for their land are soaring.

These tax breaks have made real estate the largest bank customers. The effect has been to financialize property rents into interest payments. Likewise in the industrial sphere, regulatory capture by lobbyists for the major monopolies has disabled public attempts to keep prices in line with the cost of production and prevent fraud by breaking up or regulating monopolies. These too have become major bank clients.

The beginning and end of Russian socialism

Most Marxists expected socialism to emerge first in Germany as the most advanced capitalist economy. After its October 1917 Revolution, Russia seemed to jump ahead, the first nation to free itself from rent and interest charges inherited from feudalism. By taking land, industry and finance into state control, Soviet Russia's October Revolution created an economy without private landlords and bankers. Russian urban planning did not take account of the natural rent-of-location, nor did it charge for the use of money created by the state bank. The state bank created money and credit, so there was no need to rely on a wealthy financial class. And as property owner, the state did not seek to charge land rent or monopoly rent.

By freeing society from the post-feudal rentier class of landlords, bankers and predatory finance, the Soviet regime was much more than a bourgeois revolution. The Revolution's early leaders sought to free wage labor from exploitation by taking industry into the public domain. State companies provided labor with free lunches, education, sports and leisure activity, and modest housing.

Agricultural land tenure was a problem. Given its centralized marketing role, the state could have reallocated land to build up a rural peasantry and helped it invest in modernization. The state could have manipulated crop prices to siphon off agricultural gains, much like Cargill does in the United States. Instead, Stalin's collectivization program waged a war against the kulaks. This political shock led to famine. It was a steep price to pay for avoiding rent was paid to a landlord class or peasantry.

Marx had said nothing about the military dimension of the transition from progressive industrial capitalism to socialism. But Russia's Revolution – like that of China three decades later – showed that the attempt to create a socialist economy had a military dimension that absorbed the lion's share of the economic surplus. Military aggression by a half dozen leading capitalist nations seeking to overthrow the Bolshevik government obliged Russia to adopt War Communism. For over half a century the Soviet Union devoted most of capital to military investment, not provide sufficient housing or consumer goods for its population beyond spreading literacy, education and public health.

Despite this military overhead, the fact that the Soviet Union was free of a rentier class of financiers and absentee landlords should have made the Soviet Union the world's most competitive low-cost economy in theory. In 1945 the United States certainly feared the efficiency of socialist planning. Its diplomats opposed Soviet membership on the ground that state enterprise and pricing would enable such economies to undersell capitalist countries. [2] So socialist countries were kept out of the IMF, World Bank and the planned World Trade Organization, explicitly on the ground that they were free of land rent, natural resource rent, monopoly rent and financial charges.

Capitalist economies are now privatizing and financializing their basic needs and infrastructure. Every activity is being forced into "the market," at prices that need to cover not only the technological costs of production but also interest, ancillary financial fees and pension set-asides. The cost of living and doing business is further privatized as financial interests pry roads, health care, water, communications and other public utilities away from the public sector, while driving housing and commercial real estate deeply into debt.

The Cold War has shown that capitalist countries plan to continue fighting socialist economies, forcing them to militarize in self-defense. The resulting oppressive military overhead is then blamed on socialist bureaucracy and inefficiency.

The collapse of Russian Stalinism

Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. In contrast to China's housing construction policy, the Soviet regime insisted that families double up. Clothing and other consumer goods had only drab designs, needlessly suppressing variety. To cap matters, public opposition to Russia's military personnel losses in Afghanistan caused popular resentment.

When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S. advisors wanted to teach Russia. [3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival producers.

Russia has gone to the furthest anti-socialist extreme by adopting a flat tax that fails to distinguish wages and profits of labor and capital from unearned rental income. By also having to pay a value-added tax (VAT) on consumer goods (with no tax on trading in financial assets), labor is taxed much higher than the wealthy.

Most Western "wealth creation" is achieved by debt-leveraged price increases for real estate, stocks and bonds, and by privatizing the public domain. The latter process has gained momentum since the early 1980s in Margaret Thatcher's Britain and Ronald Reagan's America, followed by Third World countries acting under World Bank tutelage. The pretense is that privatization will maximize technological efficiency and prosperity for the economy as a whole.

Following this advice, Russian leaders agreed that the major sources of economic rent – natural resource wealth, real estate and state companies – should be transferred to private owners (often to themselves and associated insiders). The "magic of the marketplace" was supposed to lead the new owners to make the economy more efficient as a byproduct of making money in the quickest way possible.

Each Russian worker got a "voucher" worth about $25. Most were sold off simply to obtain money to buy food and other needs as many companies stopped paying wages. Russia had wiped out domestic savings with hyperinflation after 1991.

It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate, electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history. The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have characterized as "primitive accumulation."

The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991 hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western investors in 1994-96.

The Russian oligarchs kept most of their sales proceeds abroad in British and other banks, beyond the reach of Russian authorities to recapture. Much was spent on London real estate, sports teams and luxury estates in the world's flight-capital havens. Almost none was invested in Russian industry. Wage arrears often mounted up half a year behind. Living standards shrank, along with the population as birth rates plunged throughout the former Soviet economies. Skilled labor emigrated.

The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism.

Russian officials failed to understand the State Theory of money that is the basis of Modern Monetary Theory: States can create their own money, giving it value by accepting it in payment of taxes. The Soviet government financed its economy for seventy years without any need to back the ruble with foreign exchange. But Russia's central bank was persuaded that "sound money" required it to back its domestic ruble currency with U.S. Treasury bonds in order to prevent inflation. Russian leaders did not realize that dollars or other foreign currencies were only needed to finance balance-of-payments deficits, not domestic spending except as this money was spent on imports.

Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S. Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency. These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100% annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to be adopted even in the United States!

When the Soviet Union dissolved itself, its officials showed no apprehension of how quickly their economies would be de-industrialized as a result of accepting U.S. advice to privatize state enterprises, natural resources and basic infrastructure. Whatever knowledge of Marx's analysis of capitalism had existed (perhaps in Nicolai Bukharin's time) was long gone. It is as if no Russian official had read Volumes II and III of Marx's Capital (or Theories of Surplus Value ) where he reviewed the laws of economic rent and interest-bearing debt.

The inability of Russia, the Baltics and other post-Soviet countries to understand the FIRE sector and its financial dynamics provides an object lesson for other countries as to what to avoid. Reversing the principles of Russia's October 1917 Revolution, the post-Soviet kleptocracy was akin to the feudal epoch's "primitive accumulation" of the land and commons. They adopted the neoliberal business plan: to establish monopolies, first and most easily by privatizing the public infrastructure that had been built up, extracting economic rents and them paying out the resulting as interest and dividends.

This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not to organize an economy. [4] Having rejoined the global economy free of debt in 1991, Russia's population, companies and government quickly ran up debts as a result of its man-made disaster. Families could have been given their homes freely, just as corporate managers were given their entire companies virtually for free. But Russian managers were as anti-labor as they were greedy to grab their own assets from the public domain. Soaring housing prices quickly plagued Russian's economy with one of the world's highest-priced living and business costs. That prevented any thought of industrial competitiveness with the United States or Europe. What passed for Soviet Marxism lacked an understanding of how economic rents and the ensuing high labor costs affected international prices, or how debt service and capital flight affected the currency's exchange rate.

Adversaries of socialism pronounced Marxist theory dead, as if the Soviet dissolution meant the end of Marxism. But today, less than three decades later, the leading Western economies are themselves succumbing to an overgrowth of debt and shrinking prosperity. Russia failed to recognize that just as its own economy was expiring, so was the West's. Industrial capitalism is succumbing to a predatory finance capitalism that is leaving Western economies debt-ridden. [5] The underlying causes were clear already a century ago: unchecked financial rentiers , absentee ownership and monopolies.

The post-Soviet collapse in the 1990s was not a failure of Marxism, but of the anti-socialist ideology that is plunging Western economies under domination by the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector's symbiosis of the three forms of rent extraction: land and natural resource rent, monopoly rent, and interest (financial rent). This is precisely the fate from which 19 th -century socialism, Marxism and even state capitalism sought to save the industrial economies.

A silver lining to the Soviet "final" stage has been to free Marxist analysis from Russian Marxology. Its focus of Soviet Marxology was not an analysis of how the capitalist nations were becoming financialized neo- rentier economies, but was mainly propagandistic, ossifying into a stereotyped identity politics appealing to labor and oppressed minorities. Today's revival of Marxist scholarship has begun to show how the U.S.-centered global economy is entering a period of chronic austerity, debt deflation, and polarization between creditors and debtors.

Financialization and privatization are submerging capitalism in debt deflation

By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008.

The pitfalls of this financial dynamic were not apparent in the early years after World War II, largely because economies emerged with their private sectors free of debt. The ensuing boom endowed the middle class in the United States and other countries, but was debt financed, first for home ownership and commercial real estate, then by consumer credit to purchase of automobiles and appliances, and finally by credit-card debt just to meet living expenses.

The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier interests instead of liberating economies from absentee landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. Banks and bondholders have found their most lucrative market not in the manufacturing sector but in real estate and natural resource extraction.

These vested interests have translated their takings into the political power to shed taxes and dismantle regulations on wealth. The resulting political Counter-Reformation has inverted the idea of "free market" to mean an economy free for rent extractors, not free from landlords, monopolists and financial exploitation as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and other classical economists had envisioned. The word "reform" as used by today's neoliberal media means undoing Progressive Era reforms, dismantling public regulation and government power – except for control by finance and its allied vested interests.

All this is the opposite of socialism, which has now sunk to its nadir through the Western World. The past four decades have seen most of the European and North American parties calling themselves "socialist" make an about-face to follow Tony Blair's New Labour, the French socialists-in-name and the Clinton's New Democrats. They support privatization, financialization and a shift away from progressive taxation to a value-added tax (VAT) falling on consumers, not on finance or real estate.

China's socialist diplomacy in today's hostile world

Now that Western finance capitalism is stagnating, it is fighting even harder to prevent the post-2008 crisis from leading to socialist reforms that would re-socialize infrastructure that has been privatized and put a public banking system in place. Depicting the contrast between socialist and finance-capitalist economies as a clash of civilizations, U.S.-centered "Western" diplomacy is using military and political subversion to prevent a transition from capitalism into socialism.

China is the leading example of socialist success in a mixed economy. Unlike the Soviet Union, it has not proselytized its economic system or sought to promote revolution abroad to emulate its economic doctrine. Just the opposite: To avert attack, China has given foreign investors a stake in its economic growth. The aim has been to mobilize U.S. and other foreign interests as allies, willing customers for China's exports, and suppliers of modern production facilities in China.

This is the opposite of the antagonism that confronted Russia. The risk is that it involves financial investment. But China has protected its autonomy by requiring majority Chinese ownership in most sectors. The main danger is domestic, in the form of financial dynamics and private rent extraction. The great economic choice facing China today concerns the degree to which land and natural resources should be taxed.

The state owns the land, but does fully tax its rising valuation or rent-of-location that has made many families rich. Letting the resulting real-estate and financialized wealth dominate its economic growth poses two dangers: First, it increases the price that new buyers must pay for their home. Second, rising housing prices force these families to borrow – at interest. This turns the rental value of land – value created by society and public infrastructure investment – into a flow of interest to the banks. They end up receiving more over time than the sellers, while increasing the cost of living and doing business. That is a fate which a socialist economy must avoid at all costs.

At issue is how China can best manage credit and natural resource rent in a way that best meets the needs of its population. Now that China has built up a prosperous industry and real estate, its main challenge is to avoid the financial dynamics that are subjecting the West to debt deflation and burying Western economies. To avoid these dynamics, China must curtail the proliferation of unproductive debt created merely to transfer property on credit, inflating asset prices in the process.

Socialism is incompatible with a rentier class of landlords, natural resource owners and monopolists – the preferred clients of banks hoping to turn economic rent into interest charges. As a vehicle to allocate resources "the market" reflects the status quo of property ownership and credit-creation privileges at any given moment of time, without consideration for what is fair and efficient or predatory. Vested interests claim that such a market is an immutable force of nature, whose course cannot be altered by government "interference." This rhetoric of political passivity aims to deter politicians and voters from regulating economies, leaving the wealthy free to extract as much economic rent and interest as markets can bear by privatizing real estate, natural resources, banking and other monopolies.

Such rent seeking is antithetical to socialism's aim to take these assets into the public domain. That is why the financial sector, oil and mineral extractors and monopolists fight so passionately to dismantle state regulatory power and public banking. That is the diplomacy of finance capital, aiming to consolidate American hegemony over a unipolar world. It backs this strategy with a neoliberal academic curriculum that depicts predatory financial and rentier gains as if they add to national income, not simply transfer it into the hands of the rentier classes. This misleading picture of economic reality poses a danger for China sending its students to study economics at American and European universities.

The century that has elapsed since Russia's October 1917 Revolution has produced a substantial Marxist literature describing how finance capitalism has overpowered industrial capitalism. Its dynamics occupied Marx in Volumes II and III of Capital (and also his Theories of Surplus Value ). Like most observers of his era, Marx expected capitalism to make a substantial step toward socialism by overcoming the dynamics of parasitic capital, above all the tendency for debt to keep on expanding at compound interest until it produces a financial crash.

The only way to control banks and their allied rentier sectors is outright socialization. The past century has shown that if society does not control the banks and financial sector, they will control society. Their strategy is to block government money creation so that economies will be forced to rely on banks and bondholders. Regulatory authority to limit such financial aggression and the monopoly pricing and rent extraction it supports has been crippled in the West by "regulatory capture" by the rentier oligarchy.

Attempts to tax away rental income (the liberal alternative to taking real estate and natural resources directly into the public domain) is prone to lobbying for loopholes and evasion, most notoriously via offshore banking centers in tax-avoidance enclaves and the "flags of convenience" sponsored by the global oil and mining companies. This leaves the only way to save society from the financial power to convert rent into interest to be a policy of nationalizing natural resources, fully taxing land rent (where land and minerals are not taken directly into the public domain), and de-privatizing infrastructure and other key sectors.

Conclusion

Markets have not recovered for the products of American industry and labor since 2008. Industrial capitalism has been sacrificed to a form of finance capitalism that is looking more pre-capitalist (or simply oligarchic and neofeudal) with each passing year. The resulting polarization forces every economy – including China – to choose between saving its bankers and other creditors or freeing debtors and lowering the economy's cost structure. Will the government enforce bank and bondholder claims, or will it give priority to the economy and its people? That is an eternal political question spanning pre-capitalist, capitalist and post-capitalist economies.

Marx described the mathematics of compound interest expanding to absorb the entire economy as age-old, long predating industrial capitalism. He characterized the ancient mode of production as dominated by slavery and usury, and medieval banking as predatory. These financial dynamics exist in socialist economies just as they did in medieval and ancient economies. The way in which governments manage the dynamics of credit and debt thus are the dominant force in every era, and should receive the most pressing attention today as China shapes its socialist future.

Notes.

[1] I give the details in "Simon Patten on Public Infrastructure and Economic Rent Capture," American Journal of Economics and Sociology 70 (October 2011):873-903.

[2] My book Super-Imperialism (1972; new ed. 2002) reviews this discussion during 1944-46.

[3] I discuss the IMF and World Bank plan to wipe out Russian savings with hyperinflation and make manufacturing investment uneconomic in "How Neoliberal Tax and Financial Policy Impoverishes Russia – Needlessly," Mir Peremen (The World of Transformations), 2012 (3):49-64 (in Russian). МИР ПЕРЕМЕН 3/2012 (ISSN 2073-3038) Mir peremen М. ХАДСОН, Неолиберальная налоговая и финансовая политика приводит к обнищанию России, 49-64.

[4] I give details in "How Neoliberals Bankrupted 'New Europe': Latvia in the Global Credit Crisis," (with Jeffrey Sommers), in Martijn Konings, ed., The Great Credit Crash (Verso: London and New York, 2010), pp. 244-63, and "Stockholm Syndrome in the Baltics: Latvia's neoliberal war against labor and industry," in Jeffrey Sommers and Charles Woolfson , eds., The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model (Routledge 2014), pp. 44-63.

[5] For more analysis see Dirk Bezemer and Michael Hudson, " Finance is Not the Economy: Reviving the Conceptual Distinction ," Journal of Economic Issues , 50 (2016: #3), pp. 745-768.

[Oct 21, 2017] Re-Visiting Russian Counter-Propaganda Methods by Saker

Notable quotes:
"... "You can't handle the truth" – was the famous line from the movie "A few good men". Many people believe that this is the main purpose of propaganda – to tell people something that they can "handle" – which usually is a sugar coated lie. ..."
"... The real purpose of propaganda in the US actually is slightly different. The reason why the US government prefers to tell their subjects lies – i.e. propaganda is not because the people can't handle the truth, it's because the US government wouldn't be able to handle its citizens if they dared to tell them the truth. ..."
"... I don't know, tbh I can't really think of any other country whose political culture is as bizarrely warped as that of the US. I personally don't really approve of Russia's actions in Ukraine (though I can understand the reasons for them), and certainly there is quite a bit of jingoistic sentiment in Russia as well – but at least its goals are limited, and its underlying perception of reality (Russia confronted by a hostile West) isn't totally irrational. Many Americans have this weird view of their country as a global redeemer nation, a force for good against a world of darkness ("the last best hope of humanity" etc.). And then there's the bizarre paranoia constantly cultivated in American culture (both in popular culture like television series, but also in serious political statements) there's always some foreign evil-doer supposedly plotting against virtuous America. I find this immensely irritating given how the US has one of the most secure geopolitical positions on earth and suffered minimal trauma (compared to all other combatants) even during the catastrophes of the world wars. According to that logic the US apparently can't ever be secure unless there is permanent American global hegemony. Which of course will inevitably lead to conflict. ..."
Oct 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

Cyrano , October 20, 2017 at 6:29 am GMT

"You can't handle the truth" – was the famous line from the movie "A few good men". Many people believe that this is the main purpose of propaganda – to tell people something that they can "handle" – which usually is a sugar coated lie.

The real purpose of propaganda in the US actually is slightly different. The reason why the US government prefers to tell their subjects lies – i.e. propaganda is not because the people can't handle the truth, it's because the US government wouldn't be able to handle its citizens if they dared to tell them the truth.

Thus the purpose of propaganda in the US is to make their population more manageable. I think that there is also a cultural difference between US and Russia in how they see the purpose of propaganda.

The Americans see propaganda as useful tool, which when applied skillfully on the domestic population removes the need to oppress them – which they would have to do to their population if they tell them the truth and don't like the reaction of the population after they've been told the truth.

This is called "democracy" – avoid telling them the truth and remove the need to oppress them, which you will have to do if you tell your people a truth that they can't "handle".

The Russians have different approach – which is deeply rooted in their history and culture. The Russian government is less uncomfortable with their population knowing the truth, because if the Russian people don't like the truth, and react to that, the Russian government is more inclined to resort to some kind of oppression on their population – if they think it's in the interest of the Russian state.

Me personally – I like the Russian approach better, I hate lies even if they are told in the name of "democracy". It's better to tell the truth and face the music than be deceitful.

Randal , October 20, 2017 at 9:14 am GMT
Good piece.

Clearly important truths, for anyone wanting to understand both the recent past and the present that developed out of it:

As for the Soviet propaganda in the West, it did have a measurable effect (just look at the influence of various Communist Parties in Europe during the Cold War), but never enough to beat the base appeal to hedonism and consumerism promoted by the best and most effective branch of the western propaganda apparatus: Hollywood.

and:

Third, outrageous, over the top and disgusting as some of the clown shown on Russian TV are, they do not misrepresent the reality of the AngloZionist Empire. Yes, sure, true Russophobes are a tiny minority in the West at least where the people are concerned (especially in southern Europe and the US), but practically the regimes in power in the West controlled by Russophobes or by their puppets. As for the western Ziomedia, it is wall-to-wall russophobic to such a degree that I would call it unambiguously racist.

Randal , October 20, 2017 at 9:30 am GMT

For one thing, the European elites are very very slowly, by tiny steps, waking up to the reality that their abject and total subservience to the US has put them in an extremely uncomfortable situation.

This is one reason why, as I have noted before, the current drive by many of the usual suspects and the rest of the war lobbies in the US to overturn the Iran deal is not necessarily something to be feared. Indeed for those recognising the problems of US interventionism as among the most urgent facing the world, it's probably a win-win situation. Fail, and the US/Israeli/Saudi warmongers have suffered a defeat. Succeed, and they have probably set themselves up for an even more costly defeat.

The Iran deal is widely popular in Europe, even amongst business and other elites, as having halted the necessity for complying with and paying lip-service to the transparently irrational and/or dishonest US nonsense about Iran, and the economically costly and intellectually insupportable sanctions used by the US to wage economic war on that country in the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

If the deal is breached by the US regime, the said regime will massively lose credibility worldwide. There will then be a struggle wherein the US tries to coerce its European and British client states to return to waging economic war against Iran. That risks an open refusal, which will seriously damage US control and quite possibly bring it to an end. Russia and China have already started to develop economic and financial structures beyond the reach of Washington. The door will be open for European businesses and governments to walk through it, to the new world beyond.

If it doesn't itself trigger such final breaks, the process of imposing Washington's will will create huge resentment and set the scene for such breaks in the near future.

The Alarmist , October 20, 2017 at 11:01 am GMT
The average US American's experience with Russians in the past forty years has come from Rambo films and Red Dawn (the first one). Long gone are the days when films like The Russians are Coming exposed Americans to Russians as human beings rather than as killing machines of an evil state. When Putin or Lavrov appear on American TV, which is not very often, it is only in very tightly scripted sound bites that fit the narrative blathering from the talking head telling the viewer what to think about the Russians and their "misdeeds." Perhaps the only friend the Russians have in American media these days is Rush Limbaugh mull that over.

You can get RT on a few cable providers in the US. In my hometown, you have to pay for the "Russian Package" to get it, though I found RT America once on basic cable in Dallas. I doubt many Americans even know RT exists, much less seek it out. I get the European version via U.K. FTA satellite, and wonder how long it will be before it is knocked off the air by Ofcom.

If I want the truth about the US and U.K., I generally can count on getting it, albeit a bit spun, from RT. If I want the truth about Russia, I generally have to ask one of my Russian friends, though RT, to its credit, does occasionally take a pole at the best. If I want to hear what Putin and Lavrov are actually saying, I rarely get that in any Western Media, but RT will let them go on without significant editorial.

What I find amusing is that during the Cold War, American media elites were falling all over one another to kiss Soviet A ** , but even though many of these same elites accuse Putin of being a closeted commie, they portray him as evil personified; I guess he isn't Communist enough for them.

German_reader , October 20, 2017 at 12:08 pm GMT
@Randal

Yes, sure, true russophobes are a tiny minority in the West at least where the people are concerned (especially in southern Europe and the US )

I don't know, does that really sound plausible to you given the "Russia stole our election" hysteria in the US?
More generally, I think people outside of the US need to get beyond the idea that the problem with America is just its government, the military-industrial complex, influential lobbies etc., and that the average American is totally blameless. An awful lot of Americans do support aggressive interventionism abroad, and this includes many, many Trump supporters (one need only look at the readers' comments on a Breitbart piece about North Korea or the Iran deal these people's ideas of national greatness have militarism and armed interventions – "showing who's boss, who's Number one" – as key ingredients). I don't think the kind of anti-interventionists commenting here at Unz review are that representative on the whole.

The Alarmist , October 20, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

Gotta love auto-correct "pole at the best" should be "poke at the bear."

Randal , October 20, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT
@German_reader

I don't know, does that really sound plausible to you given the "Russia stole our election" hysteria in the US?

I think Saker is probably not including the general mass of ignorant propaganda victims as "true Russophobes".

US popular opinion on Russia seems pretty mixed, albeit there are certainly plenty of gormless victims of the wall to wall Russophobic propaganda (that's – in its recent guise – mostly partisan anti-Trump in motivation, in truth) in the US. Here's a recent poll (July);

But on the broader issue of relations with Russia, Americans don't appear to be in a bellicose mood. Asked whether it's better for the U.S. to build relationships with Russia or treat Russia as a threat, 59 percent said they want to build relationships, compared to 31 percent who want to treat Russia as a threat.

Registered Democrats were more interested in treating Russia as a threat than Republicans, but 46 percent of them preferred building relationships, 2 percent more than those who favored taking a more aggressive stance. Republicans were far more interested in building relationships, with 67 percent in support.

The poll also asked Americans whether Trump's goal of improving relations with Russia was good or bad for the U.S. While a five percent plurality favored the goal, there was again a sharp partisan divide. 70 percent of Democrats said Trump's goal of improving relations with Russia was bad for the U.S., and 75 percent of Republicans consider it good.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/americans-mixed-feelings-trump-russia-new-poll-shows

More generally, I think people outside of the US need to get beyond the idea that the problem with America is just its government, the military-industrial complex, influential lobbies etc., and that the average American is totally blameless. An awful lot of Americans do support aggressive interventionism abroad, and this includes many, many Trump supporters (one need only look at the readers' comments on a Breitbart piece about North Korea or the Iran deal these people's ideas of national greatness have militarism and armed interventions – "showing who's boss, who's Number one" – as key ingredients). I don't think the kind of anti-interventionists commenting here at Unz review are that representative on the whole.

Yes, I agree with this, for sure.

It's true that ordinary Americans are deluged in interventionist and militarist propaganda from the cradle to the grave, and that is perhaps some explanation if not excuse, but the fact does remain that Americans re-elected Clinton, Bush II and Obama (though admittedly they were hardly provided with decent alternatives, but that again shows how they are prepared to vote for warmongers in primaries), and elect and re-elect warmongering interventionist scum like John McCain to Congress time after time after time.

There is clearly a problem in American culture and their political structure that makes them particularly open to manipulation in this area (which is not to say the same isn't true of other countries, mind you).

Arioch , October 20, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT
> There is no Russian equivalent of the Pokemon story

Half true.

When Pokemon Go was announced, it was widely speculated that this technology may be used to both hoard unexpecting game addicts into some places (like, moving nazi and antifa crowds together, where their firght would be imminent; or nazi and aggressive ethnic minority; or competing sport teams fans, etc) or background surveillance and spying (by placing pokemons in the places, game operator wants to see in photo).

This was quite a hot topic, and i think those potential dangers are real. Just looking how pseudo-private companies like Facebook engage in swept political censorship makes one ask "how Pokemon company is different?".

There indeed was no allegation that US Gov't actually utilizes this already, but there definitely was a lot of debate about laying frameworks and public habits to start doing it.

Not only Russia but many other states and companies limited Pokemon Go at their premises.

Now, what we see is CNN merely combining the real fears about Po-Go embedded capabilities (which, i repeat, were shared by many Russians) with the typical "Putin is under your bed because all the patriots say so" fundamentalists claim.

Arioch , October 20, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT
@Cyrano

You have also account for Russia being here an underdog. Russia's information outlets are much weaker than USA's and globalists' ones. Russia has only RT and Sputnik against CNN/Fox/WaPo/MSNBC/PB/BBC/DW/AFP and what not

Russia just can not engage in symmetric warfare and win by overwhelming force, Russia only has overwhelming weakness here.

So, Russia has to take truth into allies, not because it likes it that much more, but because it does not have a chance to fight symmetrically, lies with lies and fires with fires.

German_reader , October 20, 2017 at 4:15 pm GMT
@Randal

which is not to say the same isn't true of other countries, mind you

I don't know, tbh I can't really think of any other country whose political culture is as bizarrely warped as that of the US. I personally don't really approve of Russia's actions in Ukraine (though I can understand the reasons for them), and certainly there is quite a bit of jingoistic sentiment in Russia as well – but at least its goals are limited, and its underlying perception of reality (Russia confronted by a hostile West) isn't totally irrational. Many Americans have this weird view of their country as a global redeemer nation, a force for good against a world of darkness ("the last best hope of humanity" etc.). And then there's the bizarre paranoia constantly cultivated in American culture (both in popular culture like television series, but also in serious political statements) there's always some foreign evil-doer supposedly plotting against virtuous America. I find this immensely irritating given how the US has one of the most secure geopolitical positions on earth and suffered minimal trauma (compared to all other combatants) even during the catastrophes of the world wars. According to that logic the US apparently can't ever be secure unless there is permanent American global hegemony. Which of course will inevitably lead to conflict.

Anatoly Karlin , Website October 20, 2017 at 6:35 pm GMT
This is a good, accurate article.

Another great example of this is the entire Inosmi phenomenon, which translates Western MSM texts into Russian. As one my acquaintances pointed out, it was a "machine that turned naive, simple-minded, West-loving normies into hardcore ultranationalists."

Sergey Krieger , October 20, 2017 at 10:15 pm GMT
Truth is the best weapon. By trying to close Soviet union to western news Soviet leadership made things worse. Soviet people than refused to believe even truth about the West believing everything transmitted by those voices. And that despite USSR being in most areas in far better shape than modern Russia. Current Russian propaganda and international policy is head and shoulders above what was passing for those back then managing to achieve excellent results for little expense. Way to go.
Issac , October 21, 2017 at 1:17 am GMT
Much of Europe is presently jailing its citizenry over reactionary tweets and facebook posts. I wouldn't think it accurate to describe them as unwilling to use oppression. In point of fact, I think they're far more willing to directly undermine political reactionaries than the Americans. The American Establishment seems content to stick with propaganda, bureaucratic scheming, and judicial subterfuge.
NoseytheDuke , October 21, 2017 at 2:47 am GMT
@Arioch

I have access to almost all of the sources that you mentioned and a few more. All have their faults but some are so bad that I cannot watch them. RT is definitely one of the best.

Only today I watched RT showing Hillary Clinton being interviewed with RT simultaneously showing screenshots from other media exposing and refuting Clinton's blatant lies. The same technique is used with others such as government (US and EU) spokespersons and officials. It is very effective, in my opinion.

Mathias , October 21, 2017 at 4:07 am GMT
Average Finnish experience about Russia is sadly still from era of Leonid Breznev, cheap vodka and real socialist bar girls of late 1970′s and 1980′s. However hundreds of thousands of people who have visited in Sankt Petersburg and Vyborg during the last 10 years have noticed huge gap between western propaganda and real progress and development in real life Russia.
anonymous , Disclaimer October 21, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT
@German_reader

the average American is totally blameless.

It's something of a top-down situation. After all, America is where the art of PR was refined and is a large industry, pushing everything from consumer goodies to whatever cultural/political ideas are being sponsored at the moment. American is a big island and most in it grow up in something of a bubble. They are tone-deaf in understanding other countries. Middle-class people I know with decent educational track records seem competent at carrying out the functions of their job but transform into embarrassing babbling fools when giving their opinions on anything foreign. Another thing to keep in mind is that half of the population is mentally average or below average and so what they think about anything beyond their range of experience is pretty much worthless. Of the various commenters giving their opinion on different websites about the Iran nuclear deal how many have actually read it? Mostly they know zero about it. That's pretty much it, Americans know very little so when dealing with them one has to act as one does with a simple-minded neighbor and humor them: yes, you're the fairest one of them all!

Issac , October 21, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT
"Middle-class people I know with decent educational track records seem competent at carrying out the functions of their job but transform into embarrassing babbling fools when giving their opinions on anything foreign."

In fairness to the American proles, their country is equivalent in approximate size the European continent. Few proles know anything of politics outside their continental bubble on either side of the Atlantic. Jingoism on either continent is equivalent and opposite from my experience as a third party to both. Americans prefer their jingoism to be patriotic and feign ignorance about Europe as unimportant. Europeans prefer their jingoism to be passive-aggressive and feign understanding about American politics that they do not have. Israelis tend to split the difference by taking a great deal of interest in both and claiming their largely uninformed opinions are unimportant.

Anon , Disclaimer October 21, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT
To conclude, from the analysis of 1 program, that Russia's whole political communication strategy is super professional and way more sophisticated than "the West's" seems a clear overstretch. The conclusion may be true, but it does not follow from the evidence presented.

In fact, the program's general recipe (use of opponent's egregious examples, a bit of humor, giving air time to 'extreme' spokespersons and basic knowledge of audience nature) is what Sailer does.

Putin does have going for him, however, the fact that he is governing with Russia's best interests at heart. Or can credibly hold that position. For propaganda purposes, half the battle (legitimacy and support of the governed) is won right there.

Another good chunk can be won by claiming the defensive: " we are attacked by anti-Russian forces". The use of a common threat (real or perceived) to rally the people is well known in politics, whether campaigning or governing. What does not strike me as Putinesque is to underestimate the adversary, as the author does.

Philip Owen , October 21, 2017 at 8:53 pm GMT
Russia Today was a worthy channel that put the Russian point of view and posted positive stories about Russia. Decades of positive stories are what Russia needs. But it is boring work to do.

RT has become a ridiculous parody that barely comments on Russia (perhaps another channel is needed). It is designed to attract conspiracy theorists and obsessives. It uses editing tricks at two levels. Some obvious heady handed edit to distract analytical attention from a deeper level. That's very good production to be sure.

RT is anti US. THERE IS NO STATION OUT THERE PUTTING A POSITIVE VIEW OF RUSSIA. THIS IS A HUGE LONG TERM ERROR.

[Oct 21, 2017] Washington Funds Foreign Think Tanks That Blacklist Opponents of Neocon Foreign Policy by Ron Paul

I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Oct 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Dear Friends of the Ron Paul Institute:

I just finished an interview on RT.

Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.

In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech " think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian government-funded RT television network.

Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank? Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.

I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"

It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials, when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.

So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights."

Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political "enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech "European Values" think tank.

Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?

"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.

This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."

That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny?

The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.

[Oct 19, 2017] Profile In Treason - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Read John McCain's Liberty Medal ceremony speech ..."
"... John McCain just delivered a total and complete takedown of Trump_vs_deep_state ..."
"... Senator John McCain: "We Are All Ukrainians ..."
"... The Kurdish War with Iraq ..."
"... Mr. McCain Goes To Washington ..."
"... National Review, ..."
"... The Liberalism That Isn't ..."
"... Married couple sentenced for migrant critical Facebook post ..."
"... [Pick a single Handle and stick to it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments may get trashed.] ..."
Oct 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

There is no hatred more complete and no malevolence more fanatical than that held by the American political class for the American people. The commissar's rage against the kulaks, the jihadist 's fury against the infidel , the inquisitor 's wrath against the unbeliever , all of this pales in comparison to the genocidal bloodlust Senators and Congressmen have against their own constituents . And even as they gleefully promote the outsourcing of jobs, the importation of cheap labor , and the ruthless extirpation of property, wealth and liberty, these shameless parasites demand their slaves die to export their filthy System all over the world.

The most contemptible and dangerous of these vermin is Senator John McCain . In a political career marked by near constant betrayal and hypocrisy , there are only two constants to his bloody career. The first is a passion for war, any war, for any reason, which can only be termed pathological. The second is the desire to replace the people of his own state and the voters of his own party.

Like a dying venomous snake , McCain is using his final moments to strike at President Trump and those who supported him.

In remarks gleefully repeated by the sociopathic controlled media, McCain simpered:

To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.

[ Read John McCain's Liberty Medal ceremony speech , Boston Globe, October 17, 2017]

It's worth noting McCain gave his comments while accepting an award from Joe Biden. Much like McCain's "patriotism" consists of deconstructing the Historic American Nation itself, Biden poses as a champion of the "working class" because he rides Amtrak but supports "constant, unrelenting" immigration , outsourcing, anti-white racial preferences and endless, nihilistic wars. McCain and Biden, are, in all essentials, practically identical.

One aches to ask Senator McCain directly what "problem" he thinks will be more effectively "solved" by importing the Third World. National security ? Health care ? Collapsing wages ? Rising inequality ? Crumbling infrastructure ?

McCain's mumblings are practically self-discrediting. But as American journalists exist to serve power and suppress dissent it's unlikely the Senator has been or will ever be asked to defend such ludicrous claims.

McCain draws a distinction between "nationalism" and "patriotism," with the former being defined by the concrete realities of history and heritage and the latter formed by mysterious abstractions.

"We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil," he explained. "We are the custodians of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad."

These ideals, as is customary when they are invoked, are not defined. Yet given McCain's tributes to the "immigrant's dream," the land which "reinvents itself," and the current "international order," his remarks are being hyped as a rebuke of "Trump_vs_deep_state" and celebrated by Leftist journalists who suddenly claim the right to define what is "conservatism" or "Republicanism" [ John McCain just delivered a total and complete takedown of Trump_vs_deep_state , by Chris Cillizza, CNN, October 17, 2017]

McCain's ideals would be unrecognizable , not only to the Founding Fathers, but to practically any other American generation in history. Would the Father of Our Country have countenanced endless interventionism? Would either Jefferson or Hamilton have recognized a moral imperative for self-annihilation? Would any Federalist or anti-Federalist celebrate the replacement of the very people who had just won independence from the British Empire?

McCain's denunciation of "nationalism" is also selective. McCain is quite eager to defend the borders of other nations. "We are all Ukrainians," he declared on one occasion [ Senator John McCain: "We Are All Ukrainians , by Jay Newton-Small, Time, February 28, 2014]. "We are all Georgians" he pronounced on another.

It is only when it comes to America that McCain's "patriotism" becomes abstract and imaginary. Indeed, it seems every people on earth has a right to "blood and soil" which must be safeguarded by American arms, except Americans themselves.

Even as this is written, Kurds and Iraqis are on the brink of war [ The Kurdish War with Iraq , by Thomas Ricks, Foreign Policy, October 17, 2017]. If it erupts, once again, the tribal hatreds and border conflicts of peoples who should be of interest to us only in anthropology textbooks will be cause for the death of American soldiers.

The sacrifice of our military is framed as "leadership." "That leadership has had its costs, but we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we did," McCain gloats. And he is right, in speaking of his peers; he and his fellow parasites are indeed incomparably powerful and wealthy.

But such power and wealth does not trickle down to those he ostensibly represents. The wages of working Americans have stagnated for decades , and even skilled workers can barely earn a wage sufficient to support a family.

And "power?" The tyranny of George III that our forefathers rose against would be a glorious boon for ordinary Americans of today, as their lives , families, communities , and property are forfeit to the whims of unelected bureaucrats, publicly funded "activists," or sadistic reporters eager to rouse a mob. McCain's tribute to America's "power" and "wealth" is reminiscent of an Ottoman sultan boasting about shared victories to the janissaries he's kidnapped from Eastern Europe.

The democratic system McCain pledges Americans to defend is a form of government in which elected officials blatantly lie to their constituents and then taunt them at the very moment of betrayal. Consider McCain himself. He campaigned on repealing Obamacare, and then gleefully voted to save it [ Mr. McCain Goes To Washington , by John Fund, National Review, July 30, 2017] He promised to "complete the danged fence" but instead has done his best to make sure Arizona ceases to be an American state in any meaningful sense.

One may disagree with monarchy or some other form of unelected leadership, but it seems vastly preferably to a system where political power is awarded to the most outrageous liar. Such a system should not be tolerated, let alone fought for.

Besides, the liberal international order McCain defends is nothing of the kind. The Western world is not free. [ The Liberalism That Isn't , by Costin Alamariu, Daily Caller, September 7, 2017] East Germany in the 1980s was in some ways more free than contemporary Germany is today: it would not have occurred to Erich Honecker to expose his subjects to mass sexual assault at the hands of Muslim invaders and then arrest anyone who protests. [ Married couple sentenced for migrant critical Facebook post , by Chris Tomlinson, Breitbart, July 8, 2016]

The Occupation Government in Washington has presided over the Death of the West . The world order McCain defends is, quite explicitly, built on the dispossession of the European-Americans who actually created the American polity. If our civilization or country is to survive in any meaningful sense, that order must be destroyed.

And that means replacing the political class, the enemy collaborators, exemplified by the likes of Senator McCain. His warmongering against a nuclear armed Russia is unhinged . His desire to hurt our own nation is so unrelenting and energetic one wonders if he is working under duress or threat of blackmail . I almost hope so. To think he actually believes these ideas is a terrifying possibility.

It is not polite to speak ill of the terminally ill. Yet this cruel, murderous and thoroughly despicable character poses a threat not just to the existence of the American nation, but to the very lives of people all over the world.

I wish the Senator no harm. I only offer a desperate prayer in self-defense that his retirement will be forthcoming and his media megaphone removed.

The political life not just of our country, but of the world, must be rid of this Man of Blood , this sociopathic butcher -- who, shuffling to his grave, seems determined to drag us all down with him.

The Alarmist , October 18, 2017 at 11:02 am GMT

Gee, you didn't even mention his actual collaboration with the actual enemy while a POW in Hanoi.

Speaking of Germany, they held elections in Niedersachsen the other day, and more than a few people were surprised to see a large influx of votes for the AfD (so-called ultra-nationalists) come from immigrants who came to the country legally through the proper channels aside from so-called Asylum or simply walking in.

Another interesting thing from Germany: The native-German Interior Minister suggests that Islamic holidays be added to the legal holiday list, and the biggest critic of that turns out to be the Turkish-descended leader of the Green Party.

RealAmerican , October 18, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
Who can forget the humiliation suffered at the hands of this man by the patriotic and courageous Chuck Hagel, when Mr. Hagel was nominated to be Secretary of Defence under Obama. That a compromised and morally corrupt, traitorous individual can inflict such demeaning treatment in the open on the MSM on an outstanding true American, such as Mr. Hagel, speaks volumes about the state of affairs in the USA today. Thank you Mr. Kirkpatrick!
KenH , October 18, 2017 at 10:46 pm GMT
There's no doubt that the vast majority of Republican congressman utterly loathe their white constituents and John McAmnesty is one of the worst if not the worst. They're on board with white race replacement and support the spurious nationalism of Israel as well as the racial chauvinism of every third world racial group within the United States while condemning white nationalism.

John McCain especially champions the spurious nationalism of Israel and even lovingly refers to it as a Jewish state while he insists that it's the U.S.'s destiny to "reinvent" itself as a multiracial flophouse with no racial core and hothouse of anti-white racial hatred.

Personally, I hope the evil SOB dies a miserable death whether of cancer or some other cause. He would richly deserve it.

Dan Hayes , October 19, 2017 at 12:41 am GMT
@RealAmerican

RealAmerican:

I didn't realize or had forgotten about McCain's unsavory interrogation of Hagel. A guttersnipe performance is what one would expect from the good senator. A quick google search once again proved this to be the case!

ThreeCranes , October 19, 2017 at 2:59 am GMT
"We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil," he explained. "We are the custodians of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad."

How can a land be made of ideals? Land is land. It is rock overlaid with soil. While rock cannot sustain life, soil can. Soil is the decomposed bodies of all the living things that have had their abode there. Culture, like soil is the substrate in which the individual is rooted and from which he draws his sustenance.

It is impossible to think about "ideals" without at the same time invoking culture, the sum total of inherited wisdom. Inherited wisdom is the fruit of a tree whose sap is the blood of its forebears. The tree is rooted in soil made up of the figurative decomposed bodies of its forebears. Ideals that are not rooted in blood and soil float in the air; they are abstracted, removed and alien.

In his book "The Rebel", Camus drew a distinction between rebellion and revolution. Observing that revolutions always devoured their own, Camus came to the conclusion that whereas rebellion was a violent "pushing back" which defined a limit beyond which humans may not proceed, revolution, based on pure "ideals" was restrained by no such limit. The consequence of Revolution was a top-down tyranny which gave itself permission to remake humankind according to its' "ideal" blueprint even if that meant reeducation, radical reconditioning and ultimately murdering the poor subjects of the grand social experiment.

Revolutions, born in the realm of "ideals" always end in murder and tyranny. Rebellions are more human affairs. Both the French and Russian revolutions ended in the slaughter of thousands if not millions under the pretext of creating the perfected human race. Rebellions, grounded in a man's personal feeling of having "had it up to here" are an act of defiance that implicitly draws a line in the sand saying "Beyond this line you shall not go." and "This far and no farther". We see the same limit-drawing in the defiance which the Alt Right has shown in standing up to today's ruling demagogues. As long as those rebelling hold themselves in their behavior to the same line or limit they have drawn, then the human race develops its potentialities.

It is no surprise then that McCain, speaking on behalf of an alien, occupying government, would espouse an ideal blueprint that undermines the solidarity of this nation's citizens and which will, if history is any indication, likely result in the slaughter of millions of us.

nsa , October 19, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT
Now taking bets as to how long the senile old coot, Tokyo Rose McCain, can defy the reaper. My guess is 9 months as he is on the best socialized medical plan on the planet .free everything at Walter Reed in Bethesda. Hell, Cheney has been plugging along for years after the elite medicos replaced his diseased ticker with an aquarium pump ..so there is no reason Rose can't make it 9 more months with his mickey mouse brain tumor. Let's see .that would make it July 18 but maybe the gods are in a playful mood so let's predict July 29, the anniversary of the day a Rose afterburner prank set the USS Forrestal on fire, killing 134 sailors.
Van Tolstoy , October 19, 2017 at 5:51 am GMT
[Pick a single Handle and stick to it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments may get trashed.]

We have doubled the national debt "fighting terrorism". Yet, corrupt Zio puppets like McCain think the same 3rd world menace that we have spent decades bombing are " cured" of their terrorist ways once they step on American soil? That is a a level of absolute ignorance that shouldn't be tolerated.

Cyrano , October 19, 2017 at 6:46 am GMT
In order to understand what the ruling class in America is all about, we need to examine 2 of their most favorite phrases: 1. US is exceptional 2. We are all equal.

These are 2 mutually exclusive statements that only make sense if we identify whom exactly are they referring to.

It's actually pretty simple. US has 2 classes. 1. Ruling elites 2. Proles

The statement that US are exceptional refers to their ruling elites. They are the ones that are exceptional and irreplaceable. The statement about "all of us" being equal refers clearly to the proles – as seen through the eyes of the ruling elites.

Proles are all equal from the perspective of the ruling elites. Not only are the proles equal among themselves – they are equal to all the proles from all over the world. The proof of this is – of course the uncontrolled immigration from the 3rd world.

The domestic proles are not only equal to the ones from the 3rd world – they are also replaceable by them. In order to make this point as clear as possible – the ruling elites are not only replacing the domestic proles with 3rd world proles – they also intend to equalize the standards of living between these 2 types of proles – and this equalization is not working in favor of the domestic proles.

The declining standards of living for the domestic proles meet with the inclining standards of living for the newly arrived 3rd world proles who are still possible to impress with declining standards of living of the proles in US – considering that the places where they come from are even worse off.

Those 2 magnanimous statements about: 1.US being exceptional and 2. We are all equal need to be replaced with (as spoken through the lying, mendacious and hypocritical mouths of the ruling elites):

1. We are exceptional (ruling elites) 2. YOU are all equal (all proles regardless of place of origin). That should put some clarity into the phony generosity of the ruling elites with which they "embrace" everybody as being "equal".

Realist , October 19, 2017 at 9:11 am GMT
The North Vietnamese coup de grâce to the US was sending McCain home alive.
Realist , October 19, 2017 at 9:15 am GMT
@KenH

"There's no doubt that the vast majority of Republican congressman utterly loathe their white constituents "

The same can be said about Democrat congressmen.

lavoisier , Website October 19, 2017 at 10:12 am GMT
@KenH

He is dying from cancer.

And it will take this terrible disease to rid the nation of this terrible man as the voters of Arizona continued to put the traitor in office over far too many years.

No hope for a republic with voters this stupid.

Jayzerbee , October 19, 2017 at 10:16 am GMT
Both this article and the comments reflect a segment of this country that has gone off the rails. This is trash and nothing more than resentful low life expressing their anger, devoid of any sense of decency.
Greg Bacon , Website October 19, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT
McCain's a phony and anyone who thinks he's some kind of hero is either deluded or part of the problem of this country being used and abused by certain actors to obtain power, wealth and other people's land.

You can bet the house that Johnny Boy would never say "We are all Palestinians" anytime, let alone when Israel is venting its impotence against its neighbors by carpet-bombing Gaza.

To selectively advocate for freedom only for those who've donated huge amounts of money or who your CFR or AIPAC overlords tell you to cheer on is not only craven, but treasonous, as it gets the USA involved in endless war mongering and nation building.

In a way, McCain is the Harvey Weinstein of the USG, only he doesn't rape little girls, but nations yearning to be free of Wall Street and a Zionist infested neoCON government.

Anon , Disclaimer October 19, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT
"To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history."

Must be the brain tumor!

ThreeCranes , October 19, 2017 at 11:28 am GMT
@Jayzerbee

"This is trash and nothing more than resentful low life expressing their anger, devoid of any sense of decency."

You've put the cart before the horse.

We are angry because we are people with a sense of decency who resent the arrogance of a self-anointed, alien, occupying Elite by whose actions our standard of living is being lowered.

fnn , October 19, 2017 at 11:28 am GMT
@Jayzerbee

Do you have anything to say other than verbal pearl-clutching?

jacques sheete , October 19, 2017 at 11:31 am GMT

There is no hatred more complete and no malevolence more fanatical than that held by the American political class for the American people.

That's s a verity beyond question, and I might add, they no doubt feel the same about the people everywhere. Albert J. Beveridge's 1898 "March of the Flag " is a must read since he's quite open about how the ruling plutoligarchs viewed others and it rivals Cecil Rhodes' "Confession of Faith" (1877).

What surprises me is that most 'Merkins seem so clueless about it and must be constantly reminded when, in fact, the concept was well known to those who opposed the imposition of the constitution on the peasant and prol class over 2 centuries ago.

Here are a few excerpts from "The Use of Coercion by the New Goverenment" (1788) that illustrate the fact that early Americans were better informed than the clueless masses of 'Merkin fools of today. Note the date as well as how many points apply to the situation today.

Read the said constitution [I] find that we are to receive but little good, and a great deal of evil.

Aristocracy, or government in the hands of a very few nobles, or RICH MEN, is therein concealed in the most artful wrote plan that ever was formed to entrap a free people. The contrivers of it have so completely entrapped you, and laid their plans so sure and secretly And in order to bring you into their snare, you may daily read new pieces published in the newspapers, in favor of this new government; and should a writer dare to publish any piece against it, he is immediately abused and vilified.

Look round you and observe well the RICH MEN, who are to be your only rulers, lords and masters in future! Are they not all for it? Yes! Ought not this to put you on your guard? Does not riches beget power, and power, oppression and tyranny?

Let me beg of you to reflect a moment on the danger you run. If you choose these men, or others like them, they certainly will do everything in their power to adopt the new government. Should they succeed, your liberty is gone forever; and you will then be nothing better than a strong ass crouching down between two burdens.

-"A FARMER AND PLANTER" had his work printed in The Maryland Journal, and Baltimore Advertiser, April 1, 1788.

http://csac.history.wisc.edu/md_farmerandplanter.pdf

We're now a bunch of weak asses and we're crouching about as low as we can get.

Bahmi , October 19, 2017 at 11:46 am GMT
When McPain talks about the vast merits of this country, surely he must be praising our penchant for wars of imperialism. There is little for other countries to envy, the US has gone to the dogs.

This detritic monster must have a radio device in his brain that tells him to utter such lies with his special brand of contempt.

geokat62 , October 19, 2017 at 11:48 am GMT

One aches to ask Senator McCain directly what "problem" he thinks will be more effectively "solved" by importing the Third World. National security? Health care? Collapsing wages? Rising inequality? Crumbling infrastructure?

None of the above. As Prof. MacDonald has clearly demonstrated, the truth is that The Lobby was behind the push for importing the Thirld World.

Here's the source:

Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review

Kevin MacDonald

California State University-Long Beach

This paper discusses Jewish involvement in shaping United States immigration policy. In addition to a periodic interest in fostering the immigration of co-religionists as a result of anti-Semitic movements, Jews have an interest in opposing the establishment of ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies in which they resideas minorities. Jews have been at the forefront in supporting movements aimed at altering the ethnic status quo in the United States in favor of immigration of non-European peoples. These activities have involved leadership in Congress, organizing and funding anti-restrictionist groups composed of Jews and gentiles, and originating intellectual movements opposed to evolutionary and biological perspectives in the social sciences.

An excerpt from p. 300:

A congruent opinion is expressed by prominent Jewish social scientist and political activist Earl Raab' who remarks very positively on the success of revised American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States since 1965. Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in changing the Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (1993a, p. 17), and he has also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that "(a)n increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop" (1995, p. 91). Or more colorfully:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible -- and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever (Raab, 1993b, p. 23).

Indeed, the "primary objective" of Jewish political activity after 1945 "was to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States" (Svonkin 1997,1998).

So, as the concluding sentence intimates, The Lobby had pushed for immigration reform for over a hundred years because it wanted to ensure that pogroms would never occur in the New World, like they did in the Old World.

As I've previously stated, what we witnessed in Charlottsville, VA is the last spasms of an organism that has been attacked by the "Diversity Is Our Strength" virus, implanted by The Lobby. But, as I keep reminding people, the tremendous success of The Lobby may be sowing the seeds of its own demise, as it will inevitably succumb to hubristic forces and keep reaching for more and more – e.g., the anti-BDS law that could fine Americans for up to $1M and imprison them for up to 20 yrs if they support BDS. These types of actions will convince more and more Americans that The Lobby is working against their interests and a day of reckoning will come.

To avert this scenario from unfolding, my consistent advice has been for the Jewish community to take notice of these risks and to work to curb the influence of their powerful lobbies. These lobbies must immediately cease and desist from pursuing their nefarious objectives – both domestic (diversity is our strength) and foreign (the phony GWOT that has drained gallons of blood and trillions of dollars to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle) – that are inimical to the interests of the American people.

Don't believe me? Here's what Prof. MacDonald predicts the future holds if things continue on the same path they're currently on:

CONCLUSION

The defeats of 1924 and 1952 did not prevent the ultimate victory of the Jewish interest in combating the cultural, political, and demographic dominance of the European-derived peoples of the United States. What is truly remarkable is the tenacity with which Jewish ethnic interests were pursued for a period of close to 100 years. Also remarkable was the ability to frame the argument of immigration-restrictionists in terms of racial superiority in the period from 1924-1965 rather than in such positive terms as the ethnic interests of the peoples of northern and western Europe in main- taining a status quo as of 1924.

During the period between 1924 and 1965 Jewish interests were largely thwarted, but this did not prevent the ultimate triumph of the Jewish perspective on immigration.

Although the success of the anti-restrictionist effort is an indication that people can be induced to be altruistic toward other groups, I rather doubt such altruism will continue to occur if there are obvious signs that the status and political power of the European-derived group is decreasing while the power of other groups increases as a result of immigration and other social policies. The prediction, both on common sense grounds and on the basis of psychological research on social identity process (e.g., Hogg & Abrams, 1987) , is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified and that contemporary divisive influences among the European-derived peoples of the United States (e.g., issues related to gender and sexual orientation; social class differences; religious differences) will be increasingly perceived as unimportant. Eventually these groups will develop greater cohesion and a sense of common interest in their interactions with the other ethnic groups with profound consequences on the future history of America and the West.

jacques sheete , October 19, 2017 at 11:53 am GMT
This is an excellent article, but this doesn't quite fit.

The sacrifice of our military is framed as "leadership."

The author, since he invoked the founding fathers, really need to check out how the founders felt about standing armies.

Many knew of and spoke against imposing standing armies on the rest of us.

This is typical.:

Standing armies are dangerous to the liberties of a people.

-BRUTUS, Objections to A Standing Army (Part 1), http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/24.html

Note to authors.: If you intend to have something published, please research the topic first. You tainted a perfectly fine article with your comment on the military. What we have is an abomination, and McCain itself makes, and has made use of, the monstrosity for his own evil ends.

jacques sheete , October 19, 2017 at 12:00 pm GMT
@ThreeCranes

Superb comment.

Please consider sharing more!

jacques sheete , October 19, 2017 at 12:09 pm GMT
@Jayzerbee

Both this article and the comments reflect a segment of this country that has gone off the rails.

I got news for ya. The country went off the rails in 1788.

This is trash and nothing more than resentful low life expressing their anger, devoid of any sense of decency.

Actually your comment is trash. Petulant trash to be more precise. People are expressing their anger because of the despicable McCain's total lack of decency.

Please re-read the article. McCain is the indecent trash and he does evoke anger. Hell, rage against that horrid pile of swine scat is justified too, I think.

If he spends eternity simmering in a cauldron of fetid pig body fluids mixed with molten gold, a punishment similar to those mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud, I wouldn't shed any tears. It would be deserved and appropriate.

jacques sheete , October 19, 2017 at 12:14 pm GMT
@Greg Bacon

You can bet the house that Johnny Boy would never say "We are all Palestinians"

Exactly, and ya beat me to it!

jacques sheete , October 19, 2017 at 12:17 pm GMT
@geokat62

Excellent work, Sir!

iffen , October 19, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT
@geokat62

Oh no!

Not dem Jews again!

Propagandist Hacker , Website October 19, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT
cancer cells, they're a-multiplyin'
it's electrifyin'
jacques sheete , October 19, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT
Speaking of McStain and the military, not only did the scumster itself betray its fellows, but it was excreted by a military family.

Let's look a bit more at what "Brutus" had to say about standing armies what it attracts

an army will afford a decent support, and agreeable employment to the young men of many families, who are too indolent to follow occupations that will require care and industry, and too poor to live without doing any business, we can have little reason to doubt but that we shall have a large standing army as soon as this government can find money to pay them, and perhaps sooner.

-BRUTUS, Objections to A Standing Army (Part 1), http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/24.html

DESERT FOX , October 19, 2017 at 1:22 pm GMT
McCain caused the explosion and fire on the USS FORRESTAL that took the lives of 134 men and wounded 161 as a result of a wet start prank with his jet and a coverup of the incident took place as his father was in command of the navy.

McCain also made over 30 tapes for North Vietnam condemning the U.S. and he gave information on bombing runs that led to American planes being shot down. McCain gave so much info to the North that he was label by them as the SONGBIRD.

McCain has a filthy mouth as is evident in videos of him on you tube cursing out various people and especially when asked about his covering up the fact that POWS were left behind in North Vietnam.

McCain was in on supporting ISIS aka AL CIADA and was pictured with ISIS leaders in Syria and was an important part in supplying ISIS.

McCain is a absolute fraud and a traitor and a liar.

Mulegino1 , October 19, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT
In short, " the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century" is FUBAR, and yes, our nation is a mix of blood and soil. Mostly the blood of Christians of European descent, and the soil consecrated by the incredible sacrifices of the latter to win it and cultivate it.

The providential role of America was to be a great tellurocratic continental power stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and to the Gulf of Mexico and to provide a home for those Christian Europeans eager to avoid the petty dynastic quarrels and internecine squabbles of Europe. It was never intended to be a dumping ground for the world's refuse nor an international gendarme.

Unfortunately, the demonic spiritual ancestors of the likes of McCain decided to make the republic an empire and set their sights upon the Caribbean and the Philippines and the rest is history. America's blundering into world affairs has been nothing but disastrous, and has led to the outright destruction of the European homeland's culture, and now a near extinction of its people.

McCain is a warmongering idiot and a major war criminal who will never face human justice but who should prepare himself for Divine justice by spending his last years or months on earth in a monastic cell doing penance.

Michael Kenny , October 19, 2017 at 1:35 pm GMT
This reflects the current fight within the US hegemonist camp: who to destroy first, Putin or the EU. Mr Kirkpatrick's extraordinary fury probably stems from the fact that Mc Cain has exposed that split in the public arena. McCain sees Putin as having become a far greater threat to US hegemony than the EU, so he wants to put destroying the EU on the back burner until the more immediate threat of Putin is removed. Clearly, Mr Kirkpatrick is on the other side of that argument. He wants to stick to the original plan of using Putin to destroy the EU and then turning on Putin. The argument about intervention or non-intervention is indeed "spurious" and "half-baked". The "non-intervention" argument was concocted in haste after Putin had departed from the US hegemonist "script" by annexing Crimea and has never been more than a pretext for letting Putin win in Ukraine, which Mr Kirkpatrick goes out of his way to mention, so that he can get on with the job the US hegemonists have given him of breaking up the EU. Thus, the reason why the "nationalism" preached by the Breitbart/VDare camp sounds spurious and half-baked is precisely because it is. Indeed, Mr Kirkpatrick betrays himself by his comments about Germany. A "non-interventionist" wouldn't care a hoot about what happens in Germany, on way or the other, and a person on the right of the political spectrum certainly wouldn't declare a communist dictatorship to be "more free" than a democracy. People like Mr Kirkpatrick piously preach the rights of white Americans but , we white Europeans, and we are, after all, the "original" whites, are to have our media manipulated and our elections and referenda rigged so as to prevent us exercising the national sovereignty which the same Americans are urging upon us in a way which does not serve the cause of US global hegemony. That may or may not be spurious and half-baked but it certainly can't be called "non-intervention"!
Jake , October 19, 2017 at 1:38 pm GMT
John McCain is evil.
Anon , Disclaimer October 19, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT
McCain legacy in Ukraine: "Ukraine has a Nazi problem " https://www.rt.com/op-edge/406991-western-media-ukraine-nazi/
"On Saturday night, up to 20,000 far-right radicals honored the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – a paramilitary group led by Stepan Bandera, which actively collaborated with Hitler's Germany. The leaders of the procession included Oleg Tyahnybok, an associate of US Senators John McCain " https://www.rt.com/op-edge/406991-western-media-ukraine-nazi/

What a family! – the panderers to ziocons (USSLiberty tragedy) and the associates of neo-Nazis (Ukrainian tragedy).

anarchyst , October 19, 2017 at 1:46 pm GMT
John McCain was a disaster from day one. He graduated near the bottom of his class at Annapolis, did an aircraft "hot start" as a "stunt" which killed a number of Navy crewmen, personally crashed 3 aircraft, and was never punished for it. You see, McCain's daddy was an admiral who protected "sonny boy" from repercussions for his stupidity.

Captured in North Vietnam, he turned out to be one of the most prolific "stoolies" which caused untold suffering for his fellow POWs. His POW nickname was "songbird". You can be sure that he "tweeted" a lot in order to procure preferential treatment for himself.

Fast forward to the "savings and loan" scandal, in which McCain was a principle player. Of course, his POW "status" got him out of that one. McCain is a Democrat masquerading as a Republican. He should have been put "out to pasture" a long time ago . . .

Both John McCain (R-Tel Aviv) and John Kerry (D-Tel Aviv) should be put out to pasture. . . It is no secret that only HALF of our verified Vietnam War POW's were released to us. The North Vietnamese "held back" HALF of our POWs in anticipation of receiving "war reparations" (which never materialized).

Most people are unaware that both of these cretins cut off the search for POWs in Southeast Asia at a time when there were STILL verified sightings of Americans held in captivity. These sightings took place by satellite imaging ("circle-K") as well as being verified by various "boots on the ground". McCain and Kerry consigned these brave men to their suffering deaths. . . So much for "leaving no one behind". . .

ThreeCranes , October 19, 2017 at 2:00 pm GMT
@Mulegino1

Well stated with Authority .

jacques sheete , October 19, 2017 at 2:02 pm GMT

by spending his last years or months on earth in a monastic cell doing penance.

I have a suggestion; Abu Ghraib. In a radioactive cell with Hillary and Netan-yahoooo.

How about subjecting these pustulent vermin to an occasional dose of napalm and WP when they're feeling uppity, and a refreshing shower of Agent Orange now and then? As a consolation, they can sleep on mattresses stuffed with money.

Yes, "our" military is so lovely

Johnny Smoggins , October 19, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT
@ThreeCranes

"The consequence of Revolution was a top-down tyranny which gave itself permission to remake humankind according to its' "ideal" blueprint ."

Too bad you sullied an otherwise well thought out comment by using the awkward, feminist nomenclature "humankind" instead of mankind.

SMK , Website October 19, 2017 at 2:16 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

Yes, the only way to save Germany is by turning it into a Muslim-majority country.

Joe Hide , October 19, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT
Mr Kirkpatrick,
GOOD, BEST, GREATEST ARTICLE!
John McCain is scum. From the first sentence you wrote, I was in perfect agreement with you. Write more!
Cloppy , October 19, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT
McCain and Biden are indeed indentical in one key respect.

Both are bought and paid for and always do the bidding of their masters. For McCain, he's a servant of the Merchants of Death. Or to use their more offical but oxymoronic name, the 'defense contractors.' Biden was once known as the Senator from MasterCard, and Obama picked him to signal to Obama's banker backers that they'd have their old friend in the White House alongside Obama.

Thus, neither really represents a personal idealogy. Both simply do whatever the people who own them tell them to do, and then spout a lot of nonsense that sound like personal beliefs. But any of those statement will change or be discarded when their owners decide they want something different. And in between, limited and meaningless statements of what they think their voters want to hear during campaigns.

The Senator from Boeing and the Senator from MasterCard. A perfect pair.

Rurik , October 19, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT
Thank you Mr. Kirkpatrick for writing this.

the Bloodstain will rightly check out of this world the most hated and despised man in American history

Benedict Arnold or John Wayne Gacy or Jerry Sandusky are all notorious for their evil deeds, but John McCain, by shear weight of the incomprehensible human suffering and horrors he's personally responsible for, will surely go down in history as the most execrable human being to ever defile our nation.

when Gacy breathed his last feculent breath, it was a cause of celebration to all whose lives he touched

and similarly, hundreds of millions.. indeed; billions of people the world over- from Russia to the Middle East to America's heartland- will all quietly celebrate in our hearts, as a united family of humanity, when that evil little man finally goes to meet his reward in hell.

I sort of wonder if that's why they kept Ariel Sharon on life support for so long, so as to cheat us all of the quiet celebration we were all entitled to when that toad finally checked out.

Please Bloodstain, don't linger in that way. Give us all a what we're entitled to! what we long for..

You are/were, hand's down, the most loathsome human being on the planet during your entire murderous and treasonous career, at least try at least in some small way, to make up for it by giving us all, the entire populace of planet Earth, a united cause to celebrate, at least for one glorious moment!

Don Bacon , October 19, 2017 at 3:03 pm GMT
re: The sacrifice of our military is framed as "leadership."
"Fallen" (dead) soldiers are the sacrificial lambs which sanctify the government's leaders. It's the blood of the lamb, or the Aztec sacrifices, whatever one's religion, which make the government's policy holy and right. Religious power correlates wonderfully with government power, and each promotes the other.
Anon , Disclaimer October 19, 2017 at 3:11 pm GMT
@Jayzerbee

You mean this is decent?-
"Nazi Roots of Ukraine's Conflict: Sen. John McCain appearing with Ukrainian rightists of the Svoboda [neo-Nazi] party at a pre-coup rally in Kiev." https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/28/nazi-roots-of-ukraines-conflict/
"John McCain Went To Ukraine And Stood On Stage With A Man Accused Of Being An Anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi" http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12

Is it your dedication to zionism or is it your neo-Nazi Ukrainian patriotism that made you an admirer of the "Tokyo Rose?" McCain is a big friend of both Israel and neo-Nazis; no conflict here. See also the Jewish citizen Kolomojsky, famous for his financing the neo-Nazi battalion Azov.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called McCain "A hero. A fighter. A friend." Who needs another recommendation when Bibi approves McCain? https://www.timesofisrael.com/4-times-john-mccain-went-maverick-with-jewish-friends/

SMK , Website October 19, 2017 at 3:13 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Yes, "non-interventionists" who are race-realists and white advocates, immigration restrictionists who support and want to conserve what is left of West Civilization in North America, Australia, and Europe, a civilization that was created and can only be sustained by Europeans, shouldn't care about the ruination of Germany, France, the UK, Sweden, Belgium, etc. by Muslims, black Africans, and Somalis who are black and Muslim. They shouldn't care about Muslim terrorism, about the sexual assaults of hundreds of women and girls in Cologne and other German cities by Muslim savages and predators and misogynists; about the abduction, enslavement, torture, and gang-rapes of girls as young as 10 and 11 in Rotherham by Muslim immigrants from Pakistan; about Arab and Somali Muslims committing over 95% of rapes in Sweden; about virtually all the nations of Western Europe being transformed into Muslim and black African-majority hell-holes and dystopias.

hyperbola , October 19, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT
This article skirts around the fact that McCain sold himself out to a racist-supremacist, mideast sect that abuses Americans decades ago. His whole political career has been based on being a lackey of a corrupt foreign mafia that ponied up "funds" to get him re-elected whenever a real American posed a threat to the sect's lackey.

google( John McCain; A Closer Look at Evil (Part 2) )
The political genealogy of Arizona Senator John McCain is firmly rooted in organized crime. Gus Greenbaum, an influential mobster, was close to Meyer Lansky in New York .

google( John McCain; A Closer Look at Evil (Part 4) )
The career of John McCain offers a textbook case confirming how war is waged on the U.S. by way of deception -- with the help of senior lawmakers. Despite the constancy of his treasonous conduct, .

Lets remember that as a lackey of the sect, McCain helped introduce the "campaign reform" that facilitated buying of American elections by the sect with this kind of perversion.
google( How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties counterpunch )

hyperbola , October 19, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT
@iffen

Seems to be a large majority of them anyway.

The Zionist Attack on Jewish Values

http://www.acjna.org/acjna/articles_detail.aspx?id=520

Although there are also exceptions to the racist-supremacism of the sect.

A Jewish Defector Warns America: Benjamin Freedman speaks

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

c matt , October 19, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT
I don't wish McCain ill, I just wish him out.
wlindsaywheeler , Website October 19, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT
I'm sorry if I don't agree with the OP author's contention that the FFofA wouldn't recognize McCain's remarks. Half of the FFofA were Masons or fellow travellers of Masonry like Tom Paine. George Washington was a Mason as were all of his generals under him. America is the first Masonic Republic, look at the Seal of the US and the two slogans, "Novus Ordo" and "E pluribus unum" -- very Masonic sentiments, ideas. The only 'dogma' of Masonry is the Brotherhood of Man–the rebuilding of the Tower of Babel. McCain is only espousing true Masonic ideas and values. Masonry calls race those "accidental divisions of mankind". Not all of America is onboard with Masonry, but much of the Elite, especially the Establisment Swamp IS Masonic at its core. Masonry is an American tradition.

Masonry is an evil ideology and McCain is only a practitioner of it.

[Oct 19, 2017] The U.S. Military - Pampered, Safe And Very Scared

Oct 19, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The U.S. military is a socialist paradise :

Service members and their families live for free on base. People living off base are given a stipend to cover their housing costs. They shop in commissaries and post exchanges where prices for food and basic goods are considerably lower than at civilian stores. Troops and their families count on high-quality education and responsive universal health care. They expect to be safe at home, as bases, on average, have less violence than American cities of comparable size. And residents enjoy a wide range of amenities -- not just restaurants and movie theaters but fishing ponds, camp sites, and golf courses built for their use.

Of course, some bases are better than others. But even the most austere provides a comprehensive network of social welfare provisions and a safety net that does not differentiate between a junior employee and an executive.

For those who stay on, the military provides a generous retirement pay .

"But life in the military is dangerous!"

Not so.

According to a 2012 study by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center (AFHSC) the risk to ones life is lower for soldiers than for civilians:

In the past two decades ( which include two periods of intense combat operations ), the crude overall mortality rate among U.S. service members was 71.5 per 100,000 [person-years] . In 2005, in the general U.S. population, the crude overall mortality rate among 15-44 year olds was 127.5 per 100,000 p-yrs

The huge difference is quite astonishing. The death rate for soldiers would still have been lower than for civilians if the U.S. had started another medium size war:

If the age-specific mortality rates that affected the U.S. general population in 2005 had affected the respective age-groups of active component military members throughout the period of interest for this report, there would have been approximately 13,198 (53%) more deaths among military members overall.

Those working in the U.S. military, even when the U.S. is at war, have a quite pampered life with lots of benefits. They have less risk to their lives than their civilian peers. But when some soldier dies by chance, the announcements speak of "sacrifice". The fishermen, transport and construction workers, who have the highest occupational death rates , don't get solemn obituaries and pompous burials .

There may be occasions where soldiers behave heroic and die for some good cause. But those are rather rare incidents. The reports thereof are at times manipulated for propaganda purposes.

The U.S. military spends more than a billion per year on advertisement. It spends many uncounted millions on hidden information operations. These are not designed to influence an enemy but the people of the United States. In recent years the U.S. military and intelligence services have scripted or actively influenced 1,800 Hollywood and TV productions. Many of the top-rated movie scripts pass through a military censorship office which decides how much 'production assistance' the Department of Defense will provide for the flick.

A rather schizophrenic aspect of its safe life is the military's fear. Despite being cared for and secure, the soldiers seem to be a bunch of scaredy-cats. The military's angst is very ambiguous. It meanders from issue to issue. This at least to various headlines:

Members of the U.S. military live quite well. They are safe. Their propaganda depicts them as heroes. At the same time we are told that they are a bunch of woosies who fear about anything one can think of.

I find that a strange contradiction.

/snark

Posted by b on October 19, 2017 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

Don Bacon | Oct 19, 2017 12:40:38 PM | 1

remember--
"October 13 - 8 Out Of 10 Will Only Read This Headline"
not pampered, but I assume that's a tongue in cheek argument. Live under the rules of a tyrant and call yourself pampered.

Posted by: Stryker | Oct 19, 2017 1:01:21 PM | 2

not pampered, but I assume that's a tongue in cheek argument.
Live under the rules of a tyrant and call yourself pampered.

Posted by: Stryker | Oct 19, 2017 1:01:21 PM | 2 /div

StephenLaudig | Oct 19, 2017 1:15:57 PM | 3
The US military.... losing wars since 1946 [unless you count Panama and/or Grenada]... But in fairness it was tasked with wars that were, by their nature, unwinnable wars. One of the 'grand lessons' of the 20th and 21st centuries is that empires will [almost] always lose wars. The American Empire will lose wars until it runs out of money and then it will quit. All the US needs is a border patrol and a coast guard. All the rest is imperial impedimenta.
la Cariatide | Oct 19, 2017 1:19:49 PM | 4
where do i sign to join american socialist dream?
john | Oct 19, 2017 1:21:01 PM | 5
Their propaganda depicts them as heroes

their suicide rate depicts them as conflicted.

Stryker | Oct 19, 2017 1:23:00 PM | 6
try Venezuela, the United States is of America, it's not America. The "dreamers" all trying to get here.
Ian | Oct 19, 2017 1:23:48 PM | 7
The amenities are good but the pay is low, and health care for veterans is below par.
mischi | Oct 19, 2017 1:26:29 PM | 8
the best soldiers the world has ever seen, like they like to call themselves. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Joe | Oct 19, 2017 1:39:26 PM | 9
Please don't confuse the fears of a lowly enlisted guy, like I used to be, with the published "fears" intended only to extract moar taxpayer dollars....
Burt | Oct 19, 2017 1:43:26 PM | 10
I thought North Korea had a pampered army treated better than the civilian population. Isn't that an Axis of Evil thing?
mena | Oct 19, 2017 1:43:48 PM | 11
Well, and except for the whole Bill of Rights thing. But I guess that's a different conversation.
Of course, the Free Market ideal is to replace as many soldiers with private mercenaries as possible, as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 19, 2017 2:03:05 PM | 12

Of course, the Free Market ideal is to replace as many soldiers with private mercenaries as possible, as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 19, 2017 2:03:05 PM | 12 /div

Piotr Berman | Oct 19, 2017 2:15:40 PM | 13
Honestly, the military exists to respond to "threats", and that entails identifying those threats. The impact of volcano eruptions on jet planes is very real, to give one example, so it is rational to develop options when you cannot use such planes. And so on. I should read "The Airforce 4 biggest fears", just beforehand, I would guess budget cuts are number one. But expenditures imposed by morons in Congress should also be considered. That makes me curious what is number 3 and number 4.
ben | Oct 19, 2017 2:17:18 PM | 14
"Members of the U.S. military live quite well. They are safe. Their propaganda depicts them as heroes."

Not quite as good as depicted b, but, none the less, quite better than the average workers in the U$A today.

IMO, the true heroes in the U$A today are the many workers who struggle daily on minimum wage, to provide for their family's welfare with no job security, and no health care..

james | Oct 19, 2017 2:29:40 PM | 15
b, did you get some kick back for this promotional ad for the us armed forces? i hope so!

@6 stryker. i always get a kick out of when it is referred to as 'america' as if the usa is as big as many in the country think it is! meanwhile us lowly others who inhabit the 'americas' don't get much of a mention...

NemesisCalling | Oct 19, 2017 2:46:06 PM | 16
Even though I have a brother in the Navy who joined because of the shit economy, let me play on the devil's side here, even though I gemerally agree with you.

Ideally, these types of benefits would be welcomed by any country who were legitimately proud of their military. It just so happens that the military we are talking about here is the empire's world police. It really ISN'T the US military any longer, although it takes our cash this way and that for "defense" spending. Although down the list when it comes to defense spending as a per centage of GDP, the US still spends wayyyyyyyy too much. So we are altogether looking at a weird-ass example, b, and although you may be right when it comes to the pussification of our military, I look at it differently for two reasons: 1) as stated above, the US military is unique in their role for the empire; this has created the immense problem of explaining or warranting their existence in faraway lands for almost no discernible reasons. A scattered and bungling approach, meanwhile being stretched way too far, means certain morale and training issues; and 2) it is also a generational thing which ties into the shit economy run by technocratic elites who don't give one iota of a care for the lesser classes which they have massacred through globalization.

So while I think you are in the right to help deconstruct the myth of American military might, I would argue that it is a moot point really and the table is already set for the whole MIC pertaining to US spending to come crashing down once the economy goes tits up. After that, god only knows if militaries will even be useful. In the end, it is difficult for an American like myself to really see the purpose of a military adventure force due to our geographical location. OTOH, a soldier in India looking out from his post over Kashmir might know exactly his worth now and for the future.

Just Sayin' | Oct 19, 2017 2:50:56 PM | 17
The fears of the US Military are the best fears that money can buy.

USA! USA! USA!
Number 1!!!!!!!

notlurking | Oct 19, 2017 2:51:46 PM | 18
I stopped watching most of the war movies dealing with ME conflicts.....a lot of propaganda bullshit.....
Liam | Oct 19, 2017 2:59:43 PM | 19
#MeToo – A Course In Deductive Reasoning: Separating Fact From Fiction Through The Child Exploitation Of 8 Year Old Bana Alabed

https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/10/19/metoo-a-course-in-deductive-reasoning-separating-fact-from-fiction-through-the-child-exploitation-of-8-year-old-bana-alabed/

b | Oct 19, 2017 3:07:51 PM | 20
I now added the /snark tag to the post. Seems necessary ...
S Brennan | Oct 19, 2017 3:09:51 PM | 21
"the crude overall mortality rate among U.S. service members was 71.5 per 100,000 [person-years]. In 2005, in the general U.S. population, the crude overall mortality rate among 15-44 year olds was 127.5 per 100,000 p-yrs"

Roughly two-thirds of all DOD active-duty military personnel were ages 30 or younger in 2015. Only about one-in-ten (9%) were older than 40.*

Compared to**:

15 to 19 years 20,219,890 7.2
20 to 24 years 18,964,001 6.7
25 to 34 years 39,891,724 14.2
35 to 44 years 45,148,527 16.0

So, the disproportionality of the age groups in the cited example would more than account for mortality.

Additionally, massive injuries including dismemberment, permanent brain damage and paralysis are not accounted for. That misrepresentation goes further than the general reader is aware, battlefield casualties that were once fatal are now, though initial response, being treated and the Soldier/Marine returned to society.***

* http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/13/6-facts-about-the-u-s-military-and-its-changing-demographics/

** https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-state/demographic-statistics-342

*** http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/12/iraq_2004_looks_like_vietnam_1966.html

WorldBLee | Oct 19, 2017 3:17:22 PM | 22
#7 - I agree, the pay for enlisted soldiers is low and VA healthcare doesn't want to treat many chemical issues soldiers get from being around depleted uranium, toxic burn pits, etc. Still, it's a much better life than those bombed by them experience!
Stryker | Oct 19, 2017 3:37:58 PM | 23
@15 James, thanks for the feedback, not too many picking up on that yet.
karlof1 | Oct 19, 2017 3:38:54 PM | 24
The intellectual quality of the Outlaw US Empire's military serfs is reflected in their inability to see that the government they're in service to is the #1 Domestic threat to the Constitution they swore to uphold and protect, with the so-called Deep State tied to it like a shadow.
ken | Oct 19, 2017 3:57:56 PM | 25
A 1st Lieutenant over 3 years makes $4,682 base pay. Thats $30 per hour on average. That is well above most civilian pay. Then many businesses hand them a 10-15% discount.

A Sergeant over 3 5 years makes $2,725 base pay. That's about $17.50 per hour... Not so bad.

Then the get BAS (Meals) $246 for Officers and $347 for enlisted. BAH (Housing) $1291 per month Enlisted. They're hiding the Officers amount.

Then kick in free medical. No Obamacare for them!

And God only know the pension they get after 20 or 30 years. I knew a person receiving a military pension and a Post Office pension. The Post Office is very partial to military and dependents. Almost impossible to work for them full time as a civilian. My wife went to take the 'test' and was told she didn't stand a chance as there were too many military retirees vying for the job.

When I went in the Military in 1967 I made $78 per month. When I got out in 1978 I made $700 per month.

All government workers including military on average make more then civilian counterparts.

What's maddening is when I hear them poor boy everyone. Calling, wanting money for the military or cops.

Debsisdead | Oct 19, 2017 4:24:54 PM | 26
Aha! A hint of how the pampered rapists were left exposed in Niger. According to that bastion of oppression, truth and the amerikan way, Foreign Policy DOT com, the government of Chad is somewhat discomfited by the inclusion of Chad on the most recent iteration of Trump's 'Muslim Ban' list. Hah, Chad is pissed at the latest moronity from Agent Orange eh, at least they have a coupla followers of Islam there, imagine how the population of Venezuela feel since last time anyone looked those Venezuelans who still bought into old wives' tales were prostrating themselves in front of two chunks of wood attached in two dimensional perpendicularity I.E. a cruciform.

Still Chad is pissed and you can hardly blame 'em as for more than 60 years the Chad army has performed vital step & fetchit roles for advancing amerikan and french imperial interests - raping and looting villages from Maghreb to the Sahel, from Nigeria through to Mali whenever it seemed the innate right of amerika to plunder whatever pleases them was being questioned.

From assorted tidbits on offer from the usual corrupt sources, we are told that the band of butchers were visiting a village in Niger to provide a 'pep talk' on anti-terror. when they were attacked by as yet unnamed terrorists; apart from the notion that any group of indigenous persons who attack a gang of armed foreign invaders could ever be called terrorists there is a further irony - the pentagon also asserts that there was no indication of prior 'terrorist activity' in the area where the village was located. If that is correct WTF were amerikan troops going there to provide 'anti-terrorist' information for?

This previously pristine region suddenly filled with alleged 'terrorists' who then proceeded to lay waste to the squad of imperial invaders. Since we know now that this was right after Chad's government, pissed at their inclusion on 'The List' , pulled its mercenary forces out of Niger, it would be fair to surmise that it was they, the Chad gang, who had been keeping the world safe for global exploitation in Niger, but that DC, not wishing to acknowledge the 'muslim ban' had caused such a major screw up, chose to ignore that reality and continued to send it's thugs out to 'disseminate information'.

"This wasn't in the brochure" whined one enabler of empire as he choked out his final words.

Fernando Arauxo | Oct 19, 2017 4:34:32 PM | 27
The USA's armed forces are deadly. We may mock them and while it is true, they don't "win" wars. However the damage they wreak is horrendous, the Armed Forces when unleashed will cause more damage than the mongols. People seem to forget the wars the USA did "win". It's wiped it's ass with the Dominican Republic and Haiti many times. Africa, Asia and Europe suffers under the boot of the G.I.
They don't win, but they don't really "lose" either.
Jagger | Oct 19, 2017 4:43:46 PM | 28
I was trying to figure out the purpose of this article. Since the author didn't list the downsides of serving in the military, I will assume the author has never actually served in the military. My suggestion would be for the author to join as soon as possible to gain access to that great military life and all those fantasic benefits. And since the author believes they are a force of wussies and scaredy-cats, the author should not have any problems getting in. Of course, after the author has spent his third tour humping the boonies in Afghanistan, survived his umpteenth road-side bomb or small arms ambush, should be interesting to see if he turns into a 20 year man so he can fully enjoy the good life.

The article was too one-sided, shallow and exaggerated to be written by anyone but a troll. Waste of time to read it.

Anonymous | Oct 19, 2017 4:57:18 PM | 29
Game over in Syria. After tripartite talks (Syria, Kurds, Russia) at al Qamishli over the Kurdish issue and the US bases in Syria, the Kurds have transferred control of the large Conoco oil facility to Russian ground forces. The Kurds now have no control of oil for financing the so-called 'state'. It looks like they have seen the US casting the Iragi Kurds aside and wondered - 'will the same happen to us?' and gone for the negotiated solution. No wonder Shoigu and Putin have gone on record as saying the Syria issue is nearly over.

http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/syrians-russians-and-kurds-discuss.html

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-russian-troops-take-control-key-gas-field-kurdish-forces-deir-ezzor/

gepay | Oct 19, 2017 5:01:41 PM | 30
I wonder if you included suicides or disability post service. WWI the military introduced metal helmets and mortality went down but brain injuries increased. My understanding is that brain injuries due to IED are very common. I would imagine the majority of soldiers returning from a war zone come home maimed in body/and or mind.

As the son of a 20+ year Army vet, I know these perks have been there for a long time. They were necessary to attract anybody before WW2. I imagine they have increased with the volunteer military. Mostly the Army is populated with the more competent people from the lower strata of American society. They have a choice of working at a fast food, convenience store, or motel along the interstate - or the Army - oh yeah being a prison guard is also an option as the burgeoning American prison population is housed in low income rural areas.

I imagine there is bloat in the officer corps - most of those golf courses you mentioned are for officers only. These officers are mainly not coming from low income families. The real bloat though, is in the military contractors - Eisenhower's military-industrial complex with an added national security complex. Amazing how the US has gone from being basically isolationist before WW2 to the militaristic society of today. The US military is the bitch enforcer for global elite. The police are being increasingly militarized. Many of them trained by those human rights paragons - the Israelis.

Just Sayin' | Oct 19, 2017 5:17:18 PM | 31
Amazing how the US has gone from being basically isolationist before WW2 to the militaristic society of today.

Posted by: gepay | Oct 19, 2017 5:01:41 PM | 30

LOL Seriously?

This is only a partial list of US military actions in foreign countries. This list only covers the 50 years from 1890 to WW2

---------------


ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone; Opened canal 1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
TEXAS 1915 Troops Federal soldiers crush "Plan of San Diego" Mexican-American rebellion
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
MEXICO 1923 Bombing
HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.

-------------
You know, I hear they have this new-fangled thing call "The Internet" now.
The hipster kids tell me you can actually connect to it and do things like research a statement before you go and say something stupid.
Can't make head nor tail of it myself, but the local hipster voung 'uns swear by it

ToivoS | Oct 19, 2017 5:28:30 PM | 32
In terms of the most dangerous occupations b seemed to have omitted loggers. From life insurance data published about 30 years ago the most dangerous occupations are (number of deaths per 100,000):

commercial fishermen (about 100)
loggers (70-80)
construction workers (20+)
taxi drivers and 24 hour store clerks (~10)
fire fighters (5)
policemen (4)

With policemen the leading cause of occupational fatalities are from traffic accidents. Every time, any where in the US if a cop is shot by a criminal it becomes front page news across the entire country and their funerals are attended by hundreds of uniformed cops to great press fanfare. This is followed by outpouring of press discussion about the horrible dangers our policemen are exposed to.

Edward | Oct 19, 2017 5:41:16 PM | 33
If you look at battlefield injuries, the picture is not so good; in the Iraq occupation, injuries were often debilitating but not fatal. One also has to worry about being poisoned by burn pits or uranium. The military people who are truly pampered, with a royal lifestyle, are the generals.

Another American group that receives special privileges is the police. Have you heard of the law enforcement bill of rights?

This military socialism resembles Israeli socialism. A technique the Israeli state uses to grant benefits to Israeli Jews and deny them to Palestinians is to tie the benefits to military service which is denied to Palestinians. As a result, Israeli Palestinians pay more taxes but receive less benefits then Israeli Jews.

Just Sayin' | Oct 19, 2017 6:21:27 PM | 34
One of the many "Socialist" benefits on offer to members of the USMilitary

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/19/genital-injuries-taliban-ieds

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/health/genital-injuries-among-us-troops.html


-------------

This military socialism resembles Israeli socialism. A technique the Israeli state uses to grant benefits to Israeli Jews and deny them to Palestinians is to tie the benefits to military service which is denied to Palestinians. As a result, Israeli Palestinians pay more taxes but receive less benefits then Israeli Jews.

Posted by: Edward | Oct 19, 2017 5:41:16 PM | 33

Nationalist and Socialist?

A bit of a mouthful, maybe someone should come up with a snappy acronym for it. . . .

wonder what they'd call it?

ERing46Z | Oct 19, 2017 6:23:14 PM | 35
"b" You just way out of your way to beat up the military. SO. The reason the "mortality rate" is so much lower is because better than 98% of us are not only armed, but are private fire arms owners at our homes and the criminal world knows that BUT YOU WENT OUT OF YOUR WAY TO IGNORE THAT! YOU "b" just took your credibility off the cliff, complete with a "snark" all the way to the rocks below. Yes, I served on SECARMY Staff in the E Ring at the Pentagon. So, "been there" all the way to the end. Deployments, sand, live fire convoys and all.
blues | Oct 19, 2017 6:26:34 PM | 36
Every dozen or whatever months I get this spam phone call from this big booming American voice asking me if I would be good enough to contribute to a charity for medical care and/or support of the loved ones of police officers slain or injured while on duty. It's pretty much sort of a shake down, since they do have my number.

This pisses me way off!

So I politely explain to them that my cat, Curly, has severe epilepsy and I must spend $2,000 a month for this Vimpat medicine to keep Curly from having dreadful seizures. So of course I have no leftover money for charity.

Screw them!

<== Jagger | Oct 19, 2017 4:43:46 PM | 28
Yup. Don't waste any more time reading this. (You didn't read the fine print on your auto insurance either, did you?)

Boyo | Oct 19, 2017 6:36:56 PM | 37
One day when the dollar fails and is no longer the petro dollar, then the military cuts will happen like the old USSR. This may be sooner than later after how Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Hezbollah and others stuck together in Syria and now Iraq.

This has scared the shit out of the Saudis. The Saudi king ran to Russia to meet with Putin. The petrodollars days are numbered.

Just Sayin' | Oct 19, 2017 6:38:08 PM | 38
Deployments, sand, live fire convoys and all.

Posted by: ERing46Z | Oct 19, 2017 6:23:14 PM | 35

Balls too?

Peter AU 1 | Oct 19, 2017 6:41:45 PM | 39
Good post b.
Looks like the yanks are out in force justifying/finding excuses for the numbers.
james | Oct 19, 2017 7:06:57 PM | 40
all those innocent people, not to mentioned the armed forces people being exposed to depleted uranium, and none of them are a statistic.. thank you barbaric usa..anyone who thinks the usa looks after their vets- i don't think so...
karlof1 | Oct 19, 2017 7:19:56 PM | 41
james @40--

One only need view the film Born on the Fourth of July to learn how vets were treated then and now. My partner's dad has a host of ailments, PTSD amongst them, and ought to be in a VA Nursing Home, but they are almost nonexistent nowadays--they were once called Old Soldiers Homes.

Jackrabbit | Oct 19, 2017 7:48:22 PM | 42
b, your post raises many good questions.

At what point does a military become mercenaries, out for their own good? Who has incentive to make them mercenaries? How can we tell when a military has been compromised? How can society guard against the slippery slope? Etc.

Peter AU 1 | Oct 19, 2017 8:17:07 PM | 43
United States of America = Americans?
In Europe, none of the countries are called Europe and the people collectivly are called Eropeans.
In Asia, no country has the name Asia, but collectivly the people are called Asians.
In Africa, South Africa has Africa in its name, and the people of South Africa a called South africans. Easy to say and people who live in Africa a collectively Africans.
The Americas. Only one country has America in its name, but who the fuck is going to say "United States of Americans" when refering to the arseholes that inhabit the place. Much easier to just say Americans, Canadians, Venezuelans - whatever.
Josh Stern | Oct 19, 2017 8:32:18 PM | 44
How do the life expectancies of adult an adult 'A', 'B', or 'C' compare? Who is most likely to be murdered soonest by Heine gang? Hard to know...most A's are off the map, shut off from any large scale publicity or commerce or media coverage. While the status of 'B' and 'C' is secret. Heine gang shortens the life expectancy of all in a significant way, but I don't know how the current stats would play out.
Edward | Oct 19, 2017 8:53:54 PM | 45
@34 Just Sayin,

That comparison gets made more often these days. In some ways the Israelis are worse then the Nazis.

peter | Oct 19, 2017 9:07:46 PM | 46
I guess if it's a country you like the soldiers are patriotic and morally upright.

If you don't like the country then they're all low-life scum looking for a free ride.

Debsisdead | Oct 19, 2017 10:17:22 PM | 47
The nonsense has started again. I have posted the same epistle twice and both times the missive has disappeared into the black hole, I shan't do it again until I'm certain the original has gone forever -in the meantime no one should be surprised if they both suddenly reappear.
barrisj | Oct 19, 2017 10:53:46 PM | 48
OK. give the reprobate Donald credit (maybe)...he was quoted in saying to the dead soldier's mum: "It's what he signed up for...",blah,blah. But, the Donald called it: Special Forces are nothing but trained assassination teams...they go in, off their target, fly out, end of story. Only this time, the buggers got caught with their shorts down, and...casualties...oh, boo-hoo. All these young bodies that sign up for the US military some time in their enlistment will be posted to "bases" that they didn't even realise existed. And so they get educated, really fast. Then those who go further in their military careers decide to go for the "elite" units: hard-core training, propaganda, "know your enemy",how to murder stealthily, etc. Then, after many "kills", they themselves get capped...it's how the game is played, yo. So, bottom-line - Trump let out the BIG secret: "We" kill, and should expect to be killed in return...who can cavil with that?
J Swift | Oct 19, 2017 11:07:32 PM | 49
@34 Just Sayin,
I'm still chuckling....

@42 Jackrabbit,
This is hugely important. Ditching the draft in the '70's wasn't for any altruistic reason, nor to make the US military "more professional." In draft days, even though most wealthy families could buy their way out of being impacted, a significant cross section of the citizenry could expect to find themselves contributing their pride and joy to some crazy war effort in some far off place. There had better be a damn good reason for it. One of the big lessons the Establishment learned from Vietnam was that even the terminally passive American people could become violently anti-war when it was a life or death situation for them personally. So the move was made to an "all volunteer" force, which would generally draw from a less politically powerful cross section, and there would automatically be less bitching because "those guys wanted to go fight--that's what they signed up for." And as Jackrabbit points out, haven't indeed you at least started down the road to mercenary when your current army must admit they're there for the money, and maybe the promise of adventure, not because they were drafted and just fulfilling their duty as a citizen and eager to get home to the plow?

This is doubly troubling, because now your soldiers are vastly more mercenary than before (and of course will be recruited as true mercenaries upon ETS to meet the growing demand for true mercs), but are fewer and more socially isolated, so they are getting 3, 4, MORE tours in some sand pit where they are basically a walking target and are rightly hated as foreign occupiers, so even the best of them cannot help but become resentful and sociopathic. But at the same time, the Deep State has divorced the military from the citizenry at large, so citizens care less and less how many wars the US is engaged in, how many destroyed young men come home, and not only does protest of wars evaporate, warfare is mythically transformed into something heroic and to be desired, not feared. All empires have gradually been forced to employ more and more mercenaries (or slaves) to maintain their wars, but it never ends well.

[Oct 19, 2017] McCain As Metaphor

Notable quotes:
"... The Senator from Arizona represents something relatively new on the American scene: the emerging class of colonial administrators, Pentagon contractors, and high-ranking military personnel, and their families, many of them stationed overseas. These people have a material interest in the expansion of our role as global cop, they number in the tens of thousands, and they are strategically placed in the social order, with enough social power to constitute an influential lobby. ..."
"... As the prototype of this mutant species of Homo Americanus , McCain is the perfect enemy of the new nationalism that handed the White House to Donald Trump and sundered the Brits from the EU. It's no surprise he's become the antipode of the Trumpian "America First" foreign policy doctrine – a doctrine that is almost never implemented, but that's another column. His latest philippic perfectly summarizes the spirit and content of the brazen imperialism that is his credo and the credo of his class, We get the whole grand tour of McCainism as a worldview, from the rather odd idea that "America is an idea" and not an actual place to the glories of the "international order." There is much shedding of blood "to make a better world" – a cause we are told has "made our own civilization more just, freer, more accomplished and prosperous than the America that existed when I watched my father go off to war on December 7, 1941." Now here is crackpot Keynesianism with a vengeance: the destruction of World War II was good for the economy! ..."
"... Having "liberated" the world from itself, the United States, as the champion of World Order, is in danger of turning away from its sacred duty to always be shedding lots and lots of blood on behalf of Others. And we know just who McCain is talking about: ..."
Oct 19, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Some people are living symbols, sheer embodiments of a concept that fits their persona as snugly as their skin: e.g. the Dalai Lama personifies Contemplative Piety, Harvey Weinstein is the incarnation of Brazen Vulgarity, and John McCain's very person exudes the sweaty blustery spirit of Empire. His entire history – born in the Panama Canal zone, son of an admiral, third-generation centurion, the War Party's senatorial spokesman – made it nearly impossible for him to be other than what he is: the country's most outspoken warmonger and dedicated internationalist.

As George Orwell remarked, "After forty, everyone has the face they deserve," and in McCain's case this is doubly true. That Roman head, fit for a coin of high denomination, looks as if it might sprout a crown of laurel leaves at any moment: Grizzled brow, wrinkled with the tension of an inborn belligerence, eyes alight with a perpetual flame of self-righteous anger, McCain is Teddy Roosevelt impersonating Cato the Elder. In the extreme predictability of his warlike effusions, he's become a bit of a cartoon character. Who can forget his enthusiastic rendition of " Bomb bomb bomb Iran! " to the tune of "Barbara Ann"?

The Senator from Arizona represents something relatively new on the American scene: the emerging class of colonial administrators, Pentagon contractors, and high-ranking military personnel, and their families, many of them stationed overseas. These people have a material interest in the expansion of our role as global cop, they number in the tens of thousands, and they are strategically placed in the social order, with enough social power to constitute an influential lobby.

As the prototype of this mutant species of Homo Americanus , McCain is the perfect enemy of the new nationalism that handed the White House to Donald Trump and sundered the Brits from the EU. It's no surprise he's become the antipode of the Trumpian "America First" foreign policy doctrine – a doctrine that is almost never implemented, but that's another column. His latest philippic perfectly summarizes the spirit and content of the brazen imperialism that is his credo and the credo of his class, We get the whole grand tour of McCainism as a worldview, from the rather odd idea that "America is an idea" and not an actual place to the glories of the "international order." There is much shedding of blood "to make a better world" – a cause we are told has "made our own civilization more just, freer, more accomplished and prosperous than the America that existed when I watched my father go off to war on December 7, 1941." Now here is crackpot Keynesianism with a vengeance: the destruction of World War II was good for the economy!

Having "liberated" the world from itself, the United States, as the champion of World Order, is in danger of turning away from its sacred duty to always be shedding lots and lots of blood on behalf of Others. And we know just who McCain is talking about:

"To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history."

The idea that we led and organized the world for the entire postwar era erases the cold war from history, a neat trick given McCain's record. And as for our "ideals" and this "last best hope" business, none of that is worth a single American soldier – nor does it have anything to do with a soldier's proper job, which is protecting this country. Yet what is one to expect from someone who actually believes "we live in a land of ideals, not blood and soil." Blood never comes into it for McCain unless it's being shed in some ill-conceived totally unnecessary war. And as for soil – there is none. There's just "ideals," floating in a void.

While admitting that the Trumpian version of American nationalism is somewhat undercooked – and, perhaps, not all that digestible – one has to wonder: where does a supporter of the Iraq war, who assured us it would be a glorious victory, get off calling anybody or anything half-baked?

McCain doesn't even try making a coherent argument: instead, he simply lies by claiming that, having taken the road to Empire, "we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we did." It's utter nonsense, of course: empires are an expensive luxury. We spend more on the military than the top ten powers combined, and the national debt is at historic heights. We're effectively bankrupt thanks to out-of-control military spending and McCain's favored wars of choice.

The idea that we have a "moral obligation" to enforce McCain's beloved "international order" is rooted in the crazed post-millennial pietism that has motivated so much that is mischievous in American history. The old religious impulse that motivated Prohibition and the "anti-vice" campaigns of the nineteenth century has, today, been secularized and internationalized. The old fundamentalists sought to remake the country, their secular successors seek to remake the world . This accounts for the quasi-religious tone of McCain's remarks, this talk of "moral obligation" and "shame" if we fail to take up the burden of Empire, manfully and willfully, because "We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn't deserve to."

In other words: Americans have no right to live their lives in peace, and to leave others in the same condition: they must perpetually be sticking their noses in other peoples' business, sniffing out "injustice" and making sure the trains run on time. McCain hails the crusade to "help make another, better world" – yet the American people don't want another world, they want to live in this world in peace and security, rather than sacrificing themselves to some imaginary "duty" to uplift the world on Uncle Sam's shoulders. That's one reason why Trump is in the White House and McCain is on the outside looking in.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement , with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey , a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon ( ISI Books , 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here .

[Oct 17, 2017] The Lobby British Style by Philip M. Giraldi

Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
Oct 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists. It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate a catastrophic war with Iran.

To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.

There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends. The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel is a liability to the United States and always has been.

And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.

That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate.

A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates, to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers and reputations.

Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe. The four-part documentary released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly filmed meetings and discussions.

The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.

The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.

Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom. When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal" to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.

On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias" prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life."

The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,

Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented "With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that debate."

Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel, he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so. The charges against the two men were, unfortunately, eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose classified information."

And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.

Rurik , October 17, 2017 at 4:29 am GMT

Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
googlecensors , October 17, 2017 at 5:00 am GMT
One is unable to open the documentary – all 4 parts – on YouTube suggesting that google/YouTube are censoring it and have caved into the Jewish Lobby
Malla , October 17, 2017 at 5:03 am GMT
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.

But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?

Frankie P , October 17, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT
@Rurik

He has been set free by the truth, proving the old maxim.

wayfarer , October 17, 2017 at 5:43 am GMT
Understand a Spoiled Child, and You Will Understand Israel. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiled_child

Discipline the Spoiled Child, and Boycott Israel. source: https://bdsmovement.net/

Israel Anti-Boycott Act – An Attack on Free Speech?

Dan Hayes , October 17, 2017 at 5:48 am GMT
Philip,

My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.

Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence of its patron, Ron!

Uebersetzer , October 17, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed so far.
JackOH , October 17, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).

That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.

I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah.

Cloak And Dagger , October 17, 2017 at 7:43 am GMT
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.

I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability to arrest its fall.

Mark James , October 17, 2017 at 9:32 am GMT
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy

I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).

Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.

Kevin , October 17, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.

Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!

Tyrion , October 17, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT

And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open.

London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the Muslim world, only more so.

The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier. Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.

All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.

Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so that they can further their specious arguments.

Randal , October 17, 2017 at 9:58 am GMT

"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did"

Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government, did.

The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.

But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are an anti-Semite and a hater.

The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.

geokat62 , October 17, 2017 at 9:59 am GMT
@Rurik

Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure.

Rare, indeed, Rurik.

And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.

Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran :

Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/october/16/president-trump-beats-war-drums-for-iran/

animalogic , October 17, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
The Alarmist , October 17, 2017 at 11:01 am GMT
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is only there to harass little people like you and me.
Bardon Kaldian , October 17, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT
@googlecensors

Not true.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:15 am GMT
@Malla

Abby Martin is amazingly sharp. Many of the things she says can be confirmed by Uri Avnery, both his books and articles.

Here's a link to his weekly columns.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery

Incredible stuff there; thanks for posting it.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT
@Malla

Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.

According to the first vid, those drones will be built by the goyim.

Maybe there's a message there for us.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with sorrow as this great nation crumbles

We are long past that point.

I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core from its inception.

For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist" are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.

Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.

The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.

*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.

ISmellBagels , October 17, 2017 at 11:45 am GMT
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans will finally wake up.
jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life."

I have news for that twister of words.

In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.

In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than the rest of us.

It's called accountability.

BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft of nuclear triggers from the US?

"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S. in the 80s and 90s."

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/netanyahu-implicated-in-nuclear-smuggling-from-u-s-big-story-in-israel.html

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT
Thank you Mr Giraldi. You covered an amazing number of issues in such a well written and compact article.

Thanks also to Mr Unz for publishing these sorts of things.

ISmellBagels , October 17, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

What she really meant by that was HOLOCAUST ALERT HOLOCAUST ALERT!!

Anon , Disclaimer October 17, 2017 at 12:42 pm GMT
@Malla

When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.

iffen , October 17, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT
NPR Morning Edition 10/17/17

Rachel Martin talks to Vahil Ali, the communications director for the Kurdish president.

In which she tries to steer him into calling for armed American intervention in Kurdistan to resist the Iranian sponsored militia.

LondonBob , October 17, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference. We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
Sherman , October 17, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.

Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.

Thanks for update Phil!

ChuckOrloski , October 17, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT
@geokat62

Hey geokat62,

Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.

http://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/congress/defaultZAC .

Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"

(Sigh)

History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.

At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on the table" & ready for a war with Iran.

Jake , October 17, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.

WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British Isles natives were not WASPs.

WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs. You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'

By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish. It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.

The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.

Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group of Semites.

And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.

The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man.

It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.

Michael Kenny , October 17, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.

Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.

Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection, could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"

Fran Macadam , Website October 17, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMT
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .)
Anon , Disclaimer October 17, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT
@wayfarer

Daphne Caruana Galizia exposed both local thieves and the CIA-Azerbaijan cooperation in supplying ISIS with arms:

https://www.rt.com/news/406963-assange-reward-caruana-galizia-death/ https://www.newsbud.com/2017/10/16/breaking-gladio-b-assassinates-journalist-with-car-bomb/

"Azerbaijan considers Malta to be "one of its provinces": https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2017/09/azerbaijan-considers-malta-one-provinces/
The Middle Eastern wars have repercussion .

[Oct 17, 2017] Ukrainian foreign trade deficit in January-August has grown to over three billion dollars

Slightly edited Google translation from Ukrainian
Please note that grivna generally kept its value and fluctuated in the band of 26-27 grivna per dollar for the same period. The general impression from 2015 to 2017 is slight growth of economic activity, especially in home building. Standard of living did not change much for this period and remains low. Food prices were more or less stable, which communal services costs especially house/apartment heating skyrocketed and even for one bedroom apartment now at winter can well exceed average pension.
Some percentage of foreign trade deficit might well be due to additional costs of import of coal (with some coming from the USA now) and gas (which is bought not directly but from Eastern European countries which has extra volumes at low prices from Russia). The continuing war at Donbass although at very low level still also attracts a lot funds.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukrainian foreign trade deficit in January-August has grown to 3.279 billion dollars, which is 2.3 times higher than the deficit for the same period last year - 1.448 billion dollars. ..."
"... The export coverage ratio was 0.89, while in January-August 2016 it was 0.94. ..."
"... For the whole 2016, Ukraine enjoyed a small surplus of foreign trade balance amounted to 337.3 million dollars. ..."
www.pravda.com.ua/

Ukrainian foreign trade deficit in January-August has grown to 3.279 billion dollars, which is 2.3 times higher than the deficit for the same period last year - 1.448 billion dollars.

Those data were reported by the Ukrainian National State Statistics Service.

Exports of goods from Ukraine over the period in comparison with the same period in 2016 increased by 21,1% - to 27,512 billion dollars, import - by 27,4%, to 30,791 billion dollars.

The export coverage ratio was 0.89, while in January-August 2016 it was 0.94. Foreign trade operations were conducted with partners from 219 countries of the world. For the whole 2016, Ukraine enjoyed a small surplus of foreign trade balance amounted to 337.3 million dollars.

[Oct 17, 2017] Kiev Should Give Up on the Donbass by Alexander J. Motyl

The article was written before April, 2017 and as such has only historical interest.
foreignpolicy.com

It didn't take long for things in Ukraine to go south in the Trump era.

Before last fall's U.S. election, Ukraine had finally appeared to be stabilizing after several tumultuous years. The country was receiving generally good grades and assistance from the International Monetary Fund; it enjoyed the political, diplomatic, and financial -- if not quite military -- support of the West; and it was making headway on internal reforms in the legal, economic, social, educational, health, and energy sectors. Finally, its armed forces had successfully transformed themselves from the 6,000 combat-ready troops available in mid-2014 to a powerful, battle-hardened army that managed to fight Russia and its proxies to a standstill in the east.

... ... ...

Kiev couldn't turn down such an offer, because it has continually insisted that the Donbass must, and will, be brought back into the Ukrainian fold. But the consequences of this gift would be ugly. Kiev would likely face an all-out war with the abandoned separatists, one that it would probably win, but then have to follow with enormous investments to fix the devastated region and try to win the hearts and minds of its anti-Kiev population. Estimates of how much it would cost to undo the damage done by Russia start at $20 billion, according to economist Anders Aslund; Ukraine's entire budget amounts to about $26 billion.

No less debilitating for Ukraine would be the political consequences of reintegrating the occupied Donbass. Several million anti-Western voters would be brought into the fold, to vote against Ukraine's pro-Western reforms. The pro-Russian political forces that ruled and still rule the region would get a second life. And the oligarchs and thieves who mismanaged the Donbass for decades would return to power. The Donbass would then play the same retrograde role it has played in Ukrainian politics since independence in 1991. Political tensions would increase, East-West polarization would return, Kiev would be rendered politically and economically impotent, and Putin would have achieved what he wanted all along -- a thoroughly unstable Ukraine, minus the cost of funding a low-level conflict in an economically doomed enclave.

Of course, it's impossible to say just which of these scenarios -- ranging from all-out war to dumping the Donbass to some other intermediate move -- will happen. The point is that, with Trump's unpredictability, radicalism, and pro-Russian sympathies, all of them are now possible or far more possible than they were before Trump's election.

The point is that, with Trump's unpredictability, radicalism, and pro-Russian sympathies, all of them are now possible or far more possible than they were before Trump's election.

Since the status quo that has held for the past two years is unlikely to do so for long, Ukraine needs to develop a realistic strategy toward the occupied Donbass -- one attuned to the new geopolitical circumstances -- and prepare for all of Trump and Putin's possible faits accomplis.

The good news is that Ukraine is prepared for all-out war with Russia; it is also prepared for and could cope with aid cutoffs from Washington and the end of sanctions. The bad news is that Kiev is thoroughly unprepared for the one scenario that could destroy Ukraine at little cost to Putin: Russia's return of the Donbass.

Whatever Kiev decides to do, Ukrainians must first decide what they believe is more important: independence or territorial integrity. The Minsk accords enabled Ukraine to enjoy the first and aspire to the second. This state of affairs could not have lasted forever, but Trump and Putin have brought it to a premature end.

Before Trump, Ukrainians could avoid making too many tough decisions about their strategic priorities. After Trump, they cannot.

[Oct 17, 2017] Empire's Workshop Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism (American Empire Project) Greg Grandi

There is a danger for Ukraine to become "European El Salvador" or, worse, "European Iraq"
Notable quotes:
"... After an opening chapter that makes the case for Latin America's role in the formation of the U.S. empire, the rest of this hook explores the importance of the region to the consolidation of what could be called a new, revolutionary imperialism. ..."
May 01, 2007 | www.amazon.com

After an opening chapter that makes the case for Latin America's role in the formation of the U.S. empire, the rest of this hook explores the importance of the region to the consolidation of what could be called a new, revolutionary imperialism.

Taken each on their own, the ideas, tactics, politics, and economics that have driven Bush's global policy are not original. An interventionist military posture, belief that America has a special role to play in world history, cynical realpolitik, vengeful nationalism, and free-market capitalism have all driven U.S.
diplomacy in one form or another for nearly two centuries. But whatis new is how potent these elements have become and how tightly they are bound to the ambitions of America's domestic ruling conservative coalition -- a coalition that despite its power and influence paints itself as persecuted, at odds not just with much of the world but with modern life itself. 6

The book goes on to explore the intellectual re-orientation or American diplomacy in the wake if Vietnam and the increasing willingness of militarists to champion human rights, nation building, and democratic reform. The third chapter considers how the rehabilitation of unconventional warfare doctrine in LI Salvador and Nicaragua by militarists in and around the Reagan White House laid the groundwork for today's offensive military posture. Here, the human costs of this resurgence of militarism will be addressed. In the many tributes that followed Reagan's death, pundits enjoyed repeating Margaret Thatcher's comment that Reagan won the Cold War "without firing a shot." The crescendo of carnage that overw helmed Central America in the 1980s not only gives the lie to such a legacy but highlights the inescapable violence of empire. The fourth chapter turns to the imperial home front, examining how r the Reagan administration first confronted and then began to solve the domestic crisis of authority generated by Vietnam and Watergate. It also argues that Reagan's Central American policy served as a crucible that forged the coalition that today stands behind George W. Bush. Chanter 5 is con cerned with the economics of empire, how the financial contraction of the 1970s provided an opportunity for the avatars of free-market orthodoxy -- the true core of the Bush Doctrine -- to join with other constituencies of the ascendant New Right, inaugurating first in Chile and then throughout Latin America a new, brutally competitive global economy.

The last chapter tallies the score of the new imperialism in Latin America. Celebrated by Bill Clinton, and now Bush, as a model of what the United States hopes to accomplish in the rest of the world, Latin America continues to be gripped by unrelenting poverty and periodic political instability, as the promise of living under a benevolent American imperialism has failed to materialize. As a result, new political movements and antagonists have emerged to contest the terms of
United States-promoted corporate globalization, calling for increased regional integration to offset the power of the United States and more social spending to alleviate Latin American inequality. With little to offer the region in terms of development except the increasingly hollow promises of free trade, Washington is responding to these and similar challenges by once again militarizing hemispheric relations, with all dissent now set in the crosshairs of the "global war on terror."

... ... ...

Over the last year, Washington has had some success in preventing leftists and nationalists from coming to power, in Peru, for instance, and in Mexico. But notwithstanding the outcome of specific votes, and despite the very real conflicts of interest among Latin American nations, the centrifugal forces pushing the region out of the U.S.'s orbit will continue.

What, then, will be Washington's long-term response to this independence movement? One could hope that the Democrats would seize the moment to assert their commitment to nonintervention and to work with economic nationalists to promote a fair and sustainable economic policy. Depending on the country, such a policy would include land reform, government regulation of foreign investment and currency speculation, more equitable contracts with multinationals, debt relief, increased spending on welfare, education, health care, and public works, and, in the U.S., a just immigration policy.

Don't count on it. Unlike after WWII, when a confident corporate class threw its backing behind New Deal political liberalism at home and at least some reform capitalism abroad, the financiers of today's Democratic Party are too deeply invested in war production and speculative capital and too intensely committed to keeping the third world open. They will not brook any sustained attempt to restructure the global economy in a more equitable direction. At the same time, the party's leadership -- unlike Republicans who are organically linked to their base -- is terrified of the antimilitarism of its rank-and-file. Thirty percent of the U.S. population opposed the war in Iraq even when it looked like a cakewalk, even as Dick Cheney and his cronies held a cocktail party to celebrate the PR-orchestrated toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad -- a significant minority that is much larger than anything the Goldwater insurgency and the Reagan Revolution started with.

But rather than building on this thirty percent, Democrats run away from it, with one after the other tripping over themselves to prove they are better equipped to fight the "war on terror'' than the Republicans. We may hope that the Democratic nominee in the 2008 election will challenge the ideology and the interests that
have capitalized on the problem of terrorism to launch a war for civilization. It's more likely we'll see him or her criticizing the way the "war" has been executed and demanding more of a say in how it is waged.

If there is change in American diplomacy, it will come from the citizens who mobilized to oppose the occupation of Iraq and who in 2006 gave back the Congress to the Democratic Party. But to truly break up the New Right, and not just temporarily slow it down, the reactive antimilitarism that so drives the neocons crazy will have to be converted into a forward-looking agenda, as cohesive and coherent as the one that led to the catastrophic war in Iraq. In this task, Latin America, long the workshop of U.S. elites, can provide a different kind of instruction.

Across the continent, political movements have emerged from decades of unrelenting state terror underwritten by imperial patronage to creatively and effectively oppose first corporate-driven neoliberalism and then a renewed U.S. militarism. Through exemplary courage, perseverance, and organizational skill, Latin American activists have provided a beacon of hope on an otherwise bleak global landscape. They have multiple agendas and objectives, yet they share a common set of values: human dignity, local autonomy, a vision of individual freedom rooted in collective solidarity, and a notion of democracy defined not simply by proceduralism or individual rights but by economic equity. It is they who are the world's true "democracy promoters" and who are fighting the real war on terror, and offering lessons to us all.

New York
December 2006

PABG, Somewhere in the world, on August 1, 2011

Unbelievable book

Have you ever wonder why the rest of America despises or doesn't trust the USA? Yes I wrote America so the people living in the USA will finally comprehend that America is a continent not a country, people please check your map!!! Well let me tell you why, is because the USA always interfere or sticks her big nose in the business of her American neighbors, just to name a few examples/ Guatemala 1954 and Chile 1973, and also a big part of the real problem is that the USA is not governed by the President, he or she is just a pawn or an employee of the big corporations, and the person in the Oval Office will do anything in his or her power to keep the big CEO's happy.

You want proof of this? Think about these recent events, 9\11, the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, the tax payer's money given to big corporations to cover the losses caused by their satanic greed and Guantanamo. Also I'm tired of hearing that illegal immigration has ruined the USA, let me tell you that if you keep your nose to your own business and leave the rest of America alone, you won't have a big immigration problem and just to keep in mind that the USA was built by immigrant hands. Please the USA has enough problems, public education, public health, a failed economic system and social disintegration just to mention a few, for the United States' Government to start thinking about building a global empire.

FYI I'm not a leftist or a USA hater, I like the USA and its people very much but I don't have affection for the neoconservatives and the capitalist pigs that think in big profits before their fellow human beings. Enough said, peace, live long and prosper. I'M PROUD OF BEING A REAL AMERICAN!!!!!

[Oct 17, 2017] The Lobby British Style by Philip M. Giraldi

Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
Oct 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists. It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate a catastrophic war with Iran.

To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.

There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends. The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel is a liability to the United States and always has been.

And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.

That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate.

A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates, to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers and reputations.

Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe. The four-part documentary released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly filmed meetings and discussions.

The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.

The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.

Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom. When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal" to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.

On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias" prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life."

The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,

Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented "With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that debate."

Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel, he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so. The charges against the two men were, unfortunately, eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose classified information."

And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.

Rurik , October 17, 2017 at 4:29 am GMT

Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
googlecensors , October 17, 2017 at 5:00 am GMT
One is unable to open the documentary – all 4 parts – on YouTube suggesting that google/YouTube are censoring it and have caved into the Jewish Lobby
Malla , October 17, 2017 at 5:03 am GMT
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.

But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?

Frankie P , October 17, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT
@Rurik

He has been set free by the truth, proving the old maxim.

wayfarer , October 17, 2017 at 5:43 am GMT
Understand a Spoiled Child, and You Will Understand Israel. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiled_child

Discipline the Spoiled Child, and Boycott Israel. source: https://bdsmovement.net/

Israel Anti-Boycott Act – An Attack on Free Speech?

Dan Hayes , October 17, 2017 at 5:48 am GMT
Philip,

My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.

Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence of its patron, Ron!

Uebersetzer , October 17, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed so far.
JackOH , October 17, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).

That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.

I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah.

Cloak And Dagger , October 17, 2017 at 7:43 am GMT
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.

I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability to arrest its fall.

Mark James , October 17, 2017 at 9:32 am GMT
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy

I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).

Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.

Kevin , October 17, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.

Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!

Tyrion , October 17, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT

And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open.

London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the Muslim world, only more so.

The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier. Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.

All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.

Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so that they can further their specious arguments.

Randal , October 17, 2017 at 9:58 am GMT

"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did"

Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government, did.

The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.

But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are an anti-Semite and a hater.

The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.

geokat62 , October 17, 2017 at 9:59 am GMT
@Rurik

Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure.

Rare, indeed, Rurik.

And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.

Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran :

Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/october/16/president-trump-beats-war-drums-for-iran/

animalogic , October 17, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
The Alarmist , October 17, 2017 at 11:01 am GMT
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is only there to harass little people like you and me.
Bardon Kaldian , October 17, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT
@googlecensors

Not true.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:15 am GMT
@Malla

Abby Martin is amazingly sharp. Many of the things she says can be confirmed by Uri Avnery, both his books and articles.

Here's a link to his weekly columns.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery

Incredible stuff there; thanks for posting it.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT
@Malla

Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.

According to the first vid, those drones will be built by the goyim.

Maybe there's a message there for us.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with sorrow as this great nation crumbles

We are long past that point.

I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core from its inception.

For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist" are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.

Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.

The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.

*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.

ISmellBagels , October 17, 2017 at 11:45 am GMT
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans will finally wake up.
jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life."

I have news for that twister of words.

In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.

In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than the rest of us.

It's called accountability.

BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft of nuclear triggers from the US?

"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S. in the 80s and 90s."

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/netanyahu-implicated-in-nuclear-smuggling-from-u-s-big-story-in-israel.html

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT
Thank you Mr Giraldi. You covered an amazing number of issues in such a well written and compact article.

Thanks also to Mr Unz for publishing these sorts of things.

ISmellBagels , October 17, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

What she really meant by that was HOLOCAUST ALERT HOLOCAUST ALERT!!

Anon , Disclaimer October 17, 2017 at 12:42 pm GMT
@Malla

When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.

iffen , October 17, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT
NPR Morning Edition 10/17/17

Rachel Martin talks to Vahil Ali, the communications director for the Kurdish president.

In which she tries to steer him into calling for armed American intervention in Kurdistan to resist the Iranian sponsored militia.

LondonBob , October 17, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference. We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
Sherman , October 17, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.

Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.

Thanks for update Phil!

ChuckOrloski , October 17, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT
@geokat62

Hey geokat62,

Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.

http://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/congress/defaultZAC .

Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"

(Sigh)

History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.

At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on the table" & ready for a war with Iran.

Jake , October 17, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.

WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British Isles natives were not WASPs.

WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs. You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'

By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish. It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.

The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.

Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group of Semites.

And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.

The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man.

It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.

Michael Kenny , October 17, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.

Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.

Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection, could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"

Fran Macadam , Website October 17, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMT
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .)
Anon , Disclaimer October 17, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT
@wayfarer

Daphne Caruana Galizia exposed both local thieves and the CIA-Azerbaijan cooperation in supplying ISIS with arms:

https://www.rt.com/news/406963-assange-reward-caruana-galizia-death/ https://www.newsbud.com/2017/10/16/breaking-gladio-b-assassinates-journalist-with-car-bomb/

"Azerbaijan considers Malta to be "one of its provinces": https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2017/09/azerbaijan-considers-malta-one-provinces/
The Middle Eastern wars have repercussion .

[Oct 17, 2017] For War Hawks, Iran Deal Dump Is Music to the Ears

As one commenter aptly said: " 'Moron', as Tillerson would say." and as another noted "Don the Neocon.. We can keep the military in the end-stateless, goal-less, sinkhole known as Afghanistan for decades, STILL subsidize the defense of rich EU and Asian countries, fight the latest "Al Qaeda offshoot" everywhere on the African continent but we can't afford universal healthcare like US welfare baby Israel or about every other developed country, or restore power or drinking water in a US territory."
Notable quotes:
"... the question is, who are these people all excited about Iran? Other than politicians who may be working for foreign lobbies? ..."
"... This is pure lawlessness. We are breaking an agreement and by advocating regime change against a govt that has not attacked us or even threatened us in a serious manner are breaking the U.N. charter. ..."
"... Screw Trump. I mean really, screw him. He got my vote because I thought he was going to first crush ISIS and then get us out of the Middle East. Instead he's intensifying nearly every aspect of our Middle East entanglements. ..."
"... Now he's creating a new mess of his own. And this crap he's pulling with Iran is for Saudi Arabia and Israel. America First really? ..."
"... Of all of the Obama-era foreign policy decisions Trump could pull back, he's hell-bent on crushing one of the only good ones. I'd be shocked if he has even an elementary understanding of the agreement. "Moron", as Tillerson would say. ..."
"... "Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore." ..."
"... It appears that Trump's strategy is to insult and ruin Ran's economy to the point where he can get Iran to do something that will allow him to declare war against Iran because they attacked us. ..."
"... And how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? And how many countries has Israel invaded in the last 80 years? ..."
"... We will really find out who the Swamp creatures are now. Any congressman or Senator who votes for new sanctions against Iran – a country that poses virtually no threat to the United States – exposes himself as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Saudi Arabia and the jihadist fanatics the Saudis support. ..."
"... it's less that Trump wants to undo what Obama did and more that he wants to do what Netanyahu wants. ..."
"... Any notion of American excellence has now been erased. Our country will not soon recover all that Trump has tossed away and as citizens, we cannot absolve ourselves from blame. We have elected the most odious leader in our history and have allowed (mostly) a Republican Party to participate in government without having made a single contribution to the welfare of the American republic. Cotton is not alone in his folly that dismisses all real national interest. Like others, there have been many times I have despaired at the state of affairs in our Country, but this is different. Trump and his vandal allies I believe have inflicted permanent and irreversible damage to our country. Joe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm One follow up to earlier post: with this action, Trump has proven beyond doubt that the Mullah regime in Iran is a far more trustworthy nation than the United States. Well done Donald ..."
Oct 13, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Fran Macadam , says: October 13, 2017 at 12:48 am

Making war in other people's countries is what an American government captured by globalist financial elites is all about. For elites, such wars, paid for by the deplorable ordinary Americans they loathe, have no downside and carry no risk to them. Lose-lose for the American public is win-win for them, they cannot lose, especially since wars that can't be won will never end, perfect profit streams.
80 Percent Polyester , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:39 am
"Cotton was among the fiercest and loudest opponents of the agreement before it was made, and he has continued to look for ways to sabotage it."

Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore.

He's more like a member of the Netanyahu government who somehow ended up in one of Arkansas's US Senate seats.

Early To Rise , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:58 am
Does anyone here know any real Americans who are pushing for this policy against Iran? My family and friends are nearly all real Americans, and not one of them has any interest in ending the deal with Iran. Most of them wish we would get out of the Middle East altogether.

So the question is, who are these people all excited about Iran? Other than politicians who may be working for foreign lobbies?

Christian Chuba , says: October 13, 2017 at 7:16 am
This is pure lawlessness. We are breaking an agreement and by advocating regime change against a govt that has not attacked us or even threatened us in a serious manner are breaking the U.N. charter.

We are doing this while condemning other countries for not following a 'liberal, rules based world order' (whatever that is, oh, wait, it is following Caesar's decrees). Our Hubris will catch up to us, whether it will be by the Almighty that the Haley's and Cotton's claim to serve or just the law of reciprocity, I don't know. No one is more blind than those corrupted by power.

John Quincy Adams, "But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

He was able to see this because we were not yet intoxicated by power.

Everything Must Go , says: October 13, 2017 at 8:01 am
Screw Trump. I mean really, screw him. He got my vote because I thought he was going to first crush ISIS and then get us out of the Middle East. Instead he's intensifying nearly every aspect of our Middle East entanglements.

Now he's creating a new mess of his own. And this crap he's pulling with Iran is for Saudi Arabia and Israel. America First really?

Frederick Martin , says: October 13, 2017 at 9:38 am
Of all of the Obama-era foreign policy decisions Trump could pull back, he's hell-bent on crushing one of the only good ones. I'd be shocked if he has even an elementary understanding of the agreement. "Moron", as Tillerson would say.
Fred Bowman , says: October 13, 2017 at 10:14 am
What seem to be missing here is anybody talking about Israel nuclear capability. That's the "dirty little secret" that nobody talks about. Imho, as long as Iran is in compliance the deal should. Of course Trump and the Hawks in Congress are going to do everything to scuttle it and bring about a war with Iran which will end up being a World War and will necessitate the US returning to a military draft to fight this war. It will be a sad way to "wake up" America to what is being done militarily in their name. But perhaps when they see their little "Johnny and Jill" marched off to war, they'll see what has been done in these endless, unwinnable wars in the Middle East.
AR complaint , says: October 13, 2017 at 10:31 am
[Tom Cotton gets] "Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified."

He got a $700,000 check from a single Israel donor in 2014. You think anybody in Arkansas not named "Walton" can match that? No sir. Tom Cotton does what Israel tells him to do. Scuttle the Iran deal? No problem.

It's time that my fellow Arkansans did for Tom Cotton what those upstanding Virginians did for Eric Cantor back in 2014, and for the same reason: we want our government back from corrupt politicians working for foreign interests.

SDS , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:53 am
I second EVERYTHING said above by all –
Steve Waclo , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:53 am
" the president made clear over the summer, he didn't "believe" Iran was in compliance and would not certify again."

Wait, what?! What does Trump know that the IAEA has been unable to learn and at the risk of compromising intelligence sources, why has he not shared that knowledge? As with many of the man's "beliefs", such attitudes do not make issues remotely true. We don't need to stir the Iran pot, for goodness sake. Has not this man kicked enough hornets nests around the world?

Stephen J. , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:58 am
I believe the "War Hawks"are leading Trump into another war. Therefore, I asked on: February 4, 2017 Will There Be War With Iran?
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/02/will-there-be-war-with-iran.html
Steve in Ohio , says: October 13, 2017 at 12:35 pm
"Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore."

Cotton is wrong on this issue, but he's hardly a Swamp politico. He understands the dangers of mass immigration and looks likely to replace Jeff Sessions as the leading immigration hawk in the Senate. Unfortunately, I suspect he has presidential ambitions and being pro Israel is a must in GOP primaries.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, like his dad, is good on foreign policy, but doesn't get the immigration issue. People like me who want a non interventionist FP and low immigration seldom have candidates that believe in both to support. I had high hopes for Trump, but he seems to have too many generals around him telling him the wrong things.

the times they are a'changing , says: October 13, 2017 at 1:23 pm
"Cotton is wrong on this issue, but he's hardly a Swamp politico. He understands the dangers of mass immigration and looks likely to replace Jeff Sessions as the leading immigration hawk in the Senate. Unfortunately, I suspect he has presidential ambitions and being pro Israel is a must in GOP primaries. "

No it's not. It was a litmus test for the old neocon Establishment GOP, and it's gone the way of Eric Cantor. You have to go to New York, DC, or some left coastal city to find anyone who gives a goddamn about it, and those places don't vote Republican anyway.

Politicians who take the Israel dollar care about it a lot, naturally. And Cotton's near the top of the list.

jk , says: October 13, 2017 at 2:04 pm
Don the Neocon.. We can keep the military in the end-stateless, goal-less, sinkhole known as Afghanistan for decades, STILL subsidize the defense of rich EU and Asian countries, fight the latest "Al qaeda offshoot" everywhere on the African continent but we can't afford universal healthcare like US welfare baby Israel or about every other developed country, or restore power or drinking water in a US territory.

"NO KIN IN THE GAME": STUDY FINDS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WITHOUT DRAFT-AGE SONS WERE MORE HAWKISH"

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/11/congress-war-hawkish-policies-study/

That explains "lifetime bachelor" Graham's behavior!

Kent , says: October 13, 2017 at 3:09 pm
To our neocon friends:

1. Even though Iran and Iraq are 4 letter words and share the first 3, they are very, very different animals. Iran is an industrial state of 85 million capable of designing and building effective rockets. It is highly unlikely the US can defeat Iran in a conventional war on its own turf.

2. Even if we did defeat them, there is nobody there yearning for American style pseudo-democracy. While they are not perfectly happy with their own government, they'll be dammed if they're going to accept one from us. So you'd have to put millions of American troops in harms way against the civilian population essentially forever.

And a note on the President. I don't believe he knows or cares a thing about Iran or their capabilities. What he does know, after watching Fox News for the last 8 years is: Obama bad. So the only reason, I'm certain, that Trump cares about this is because it was an Obama initiative.

Robert Charron , says: October 13, 2017 at 3:34 pm
It appears that Trump's strategy is to insult and ruin Ran's economy to the point where he can get Iran to do something that will allow him to declare war against Iran because they attacked us.

And how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? And how many countries has Israel invaded in the last 80 years?

As I recall we made a regime change in the Iranian government when we had the CIA along with the English intelligence by replacing the elected Prime Minister of Iran with the despotic, tyrannical Shah.

As an American, Trump has desecrated our flag with his flat out lies, not the NFL athletes who simps knelt during the National Anthem.

simon94022 , says: October 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm
We will really find out who the Swamp creatures are now. Any congressman or Senator who votes for new sanctions against Iran – a country that poses virtually no threat to the United States – exposes himself as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Saudi Arabia and the jihadist fanatics the Saudis support.

Let them be counted!

Ollie , says: October 13, 2017 at 4:26 pm
No president in history has been more feckless and reckless than Trump. The danger demands that the 25th amendment be asserted.
Why Does The Heathen Rage? , says: October 13, 2017 at 4:49 pm
"So the only reason, I'm certain, that Trump cares about this is because it was an Obama initiative."

I've heard this before, but if it were true than why is Trump helping the Saudis wreck and starve Yemen? That was an Obama initiative too. That's why I now think that it's not really the Obama connection so much as the Netanyahu connection that drives Trump. In other words, it's less that Trump wants to undo what Obama did and more that he wants to do what Netanyahu wants.

Joe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:05 pm
Any notion of American excellence has now been erased. Our country will not soon recover all that Trump has tossed away and as citizens, we cannot absolve ourselves from blame. We have elected the most odious leader in our history and have allowed (mostly) a Republican Party to participate in government without having made a single contribution to the welfare of the American republic.

Cotton is not alone in his folly that dismisses all real national interest. Like others, there have been many times I have despaired at the state of affairs in our Country, but this is different. Trump and his vandal allies I believe have inflicted permanent and irreversible damage to our country.

Joe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm
One follow up to earlier post: with this action, Trump has proven beyond doubt that the Mullah regime in Iran is a far more trustworthy nation than the United States. Well done Donald
Liam , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:21 pm
Regarding the 25th amendment option: how far down the line of succession must one go to find someone who has solid, bona fide cred to stop this inanity?
picture window , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:45 pm
The Economist today opines that Xi Jinping has more clout than Donald Trump.

And I read on TAC that Trump is p***ing away our wealth and power doing favors for Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, like scuttling the Iran deal and picking fights with the Iranian government. And I conclude that the reason that the Economist may be right about Xi Jinping is because Trump is doing what I read about in TAC, wasting our time, blood, money, and focus on appeasing a bunch of goddamn foreigners in the form of the Israel and Saudi lobbies.

Pretty damn grim.

[Oct 17, 2017] The Deep Unfairness of America's All-Volunteer Force by Dennis Laich and Lawrence Wilkerson

Notable quotes:
"... Fiscally, the AVF is going to break the bank. The land forces in particular are still having difficulties fielding adequate numbers -- even with lowered standards, substituting women for men (from 1.6 percent of the AVF in 1973 to more than 16 percent today), recruitment and reenlistment bonuses totaling tens of millions of dollars, advertising campaigns costing billions, massive recruitment of non-citizens, use of psychotropic drugs to recycle unfit soldiers and Marines to combat zones, and overall pay and allowances that include free world-class health care and excellent retirement plans that are, for the first time in the military's history, comparable to or even exceeding civilian rates and offerings. ..."
"... A glaring case in point is the recent recruitment by the Army of 62,000 men and women, its target for fiscal year 2016. To arrive at that objective, the Army needed 9,000 recruiting staff (equivalent to three combat brigades) working full-time. If one does the math, that equates to each of these recruiters gaining one-point-something recruits every two months -- an utterly astounding statistic. Additionally, the Army had to resort to taking a small percentage of recruits in Mental Category IV -- the lowest category and one that, post-Vietnam, the Army made a silent promise never to resort to again. ..."
"... Moreover, the recruiting and retention process and rich pay and allowances are consuming one half of the Army's entire annual budget slice, precluding any sort of affordable increase in its end strength. This end strength constraint creates the need for more and more private contractors on the nation's battlefields in order to compensate. The employment of private contractors is politically seductive and strategically dangerous. To those enemies we fight they are the enemy and to most reasonable people they are mercenaries. Mercenaries are motivated by profit not patriotism -- despite their CEOs' protestations to the contrary -- and place America on the slippery slope towards compromising the right of sovereign nations to the monopoly of violence for state purposes. In short, Congress and the Pentagon make the Army bigger than the American people believe that it is and the American people allow themselves to be convinced; thus it is a shared delusion that comforts both parties. ..."
"... There is yet another dimension to the AVF that is truly an "unmentionable." As President Barack Obama said to one of us in the Roosevelt Room in November 2015 -- referring to Washington, D.C. -- "There is a bias in this town toward war." ..."
"... What the president meant was quite clear: powerful forces such as the military-industrial complex, a less-than-courageous Congress that has abandoned its constitutional duty with respect to the war power, extreme ideologies, and a nation with no skin in the game, work together to persuade all presidents to consider war as the first instrument of national power rather than the last. ..."
"... Is there anyone among us who would not believe that having an all-volunteer (or, more to the point, an all-recruited) military coming only from the 1 percent does not contribute to the facility with which presidents call upon that instrument? In a rational world, we would be declared insane to believe otherwise. ..."
"... Said more explicitly, if the sons and daughters of members of Congress, of the corporate leadership, of the billionaire class, of the Ivy Leagues, of the elite in general, were exposed to the possibility of combat, would we have less war? From a socio-economic class perspective, the AVF is inherently unfair. ..."
"... "From a socio-economic class perspective, the AVF is inherently unfair." ..."
"... "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." ..."
"... Now, I, and maybe you, read the 13th amendment to the constitution as clearly banning conscription, but the courts don't think so. Their reasoning actually being, that since conscription was in place at the time of the 13th amendment's passage, the words written and printed couldn't possibly mean what they clearly mean as common English usage. ..."
"... I realize how unpopular this statement will be, but that 1 percent who are bleeding and dying are generally doing so in foreign wars that are not truly defending the 99 percent. They are doing it for the pro-war, pro-intervention subsets of various elite populations, popularly supported by misinformed people of the lower/middle classes. ..."
"... Perhaps the shortage of volunteer soldiers indicates war-weariness? ..."
"... In the late 60s -- early 70s we used to chide Pat Buchanan and his mates with "War is good business -- invest your sons". Of course, even then, he was investing other people's sons. His good mate Trump has already bragged about his "contribution" to the war effort, dodging STIs rather than bullets. ..."
"... The only ethical course of action when faced with an insufficient number of volunteers for a war is, of course, to cancel the war. ..."
"... Simple solution: Constitutional amendment stating, In order to vote in Federal Elections or to hold Federal office, appointed or elected, you must: ..."
"... a DD214 showing honorable discharge ..."
"... Nothing the US Army does "protects America". On the contrary it's a bigger threat than anything it can protect the US from. They fight for combinations of cash, training, education, travel, to carry on the family tradition , travel and adventure. The people who send them to fight do so for power and ego. Not "national interests" There are none only the interests of people who want power. ..."
"... What the old saying about war "Rich man's game with the poor man paying the price." ..."
"... Smedley Butler saw this happening in his time, too. The wars were smaller and less expensive, but they had the same root cause. Wherever our companies go and are thwarted by locals in any way, we find an excuse to deploy and make that area safe for commercial activity. Libya is a shambles now after Gaddafi's removal, but it's out of the news because organized, government-led resistance to oil companies benefiting from one-sided leases is impossible. This year, Libya hit a four-year high for oil production, in the middle of a six-cornered civil war. ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

As far as we know, the phrase "all-recruited force" was coined by Karl Marlantes, author of Matterhorn: A Novel of the Vietnam War , a book that provides vivid insight into the U.S. Marines who fought in that conflict. Mr. Marlantes used the expression to describe what's happened to today's allegedly "volunteer" force, to say in effect that it is no such thing. Instead it is composed in large part of people recruited so powerfully and out of such receptive circumstances that it requires a new way of being described. We agree with Mr. Marlantes. So do others.

In The Economist back in 2015 , an article about the U.S. All-Volunteer Force (AVF) posed the question: "Who will fight the next war?" and went on to describe how the AVF is becoming more and more difficult to field as well as growing ever more distant from the people from whom it comes and for whom it fights. The piece painted a disturbing scene. That the scene was painted by a British magazine of such solid reputation in the field of economics is ironic in a sense but not inexplicable. After all, it is the fiscal aspect of the AVF that is most immediate and pressing. Recruiting and retaining the force has become far too costly and is ultimately unsustainable.

When the Gates Commission set up the rationale for the AVF in 1970, it did so at the behest of a president, Richard Nixon, who had come to see the conscript military as a political dagger aimed at his own heart. One could argue that the decision to abolish conscription was a foregone conclusion; the Commission simply provided a rationale for doing it and for volunteerism to replace it.

But whatever we might think of the Commission's work and Nixon's motivation, what has happened in the last 16 years -- interminable war -- was never on the Commission's radar screen. Like most crises, as Colin Powell used to lament when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this one was unexpected, not planned for, and begs denial as a first reaction.

That said, after 16 years of war it is plain to all but the most recalcitrant that the U.S. cannot afford the AVF -- ethically, morally, or fiscally.

Fiscally, the AVF is going to break the bank. The land forces in particular are still having difficulties fielding adequate numbers -- even with lowered standards, substituting women for men (from 1.6 percent of the AVF in 1973 to more than 16 percent today), recruitment and reenlistment bonuses totaling tens of millions of dollars, advertising campaigns costing billions, massive recruitment of non-citizens, use of psychotropic drugs to recycle unfit soldiers and Marines to combat zones, and overall pay and allowances that include free world-class health care and excellent retirement plans that are, for the first time in the military's history, comparable to or even exceeding civilian rates and offerings.

A glaring case in point is the recent recruitment by the Army of 62,000 men and women, its target for fiscal year 2016. To arrive at that objective, the Army needed 9,000 recruiting staff (equivalent to three combat brigades) working full-time. If one does the math, that equates to each of these recruiters gaining one-point-something recruits every two months -- an utterly astounding statistic. Additionally, the Army had to resort to taking a small percentage of recruits in Mental Category IV -- the lowest category and one that, post-Vietnam, the Army made a silent promise never to resort to again.

Moreover, the recruiting and retention process and rich pay and allowances are consuming one half of the Army's entire annual budget slice, precluding any sort of affordable increase in its end strength. This end strength constraint creates the need for more and more private contractors on the nation's battlefields in order to compensate. The employment of private contractors is politically seductive and strategically dangerous. To those enemies we fight they are the enemy and to most reasonable people they are mercenaries. Mercenaries are motivated by profit not patriotism -- despite their CEOs' protestations to the contrary -- and place America on the slippery slope towards compromising the right of sovereign nations to the monopoly of violence for state purposes. In short, Congress and the Pentagon make the Army bigger than the American people believe that it is and the American people allow themselves to be convinced; thus it is a shared delusion that comforts both parties.

A more serious challenge for the democracy that is America, however, is the ethical one. Today, more than 300 million Americans lay claim to rights, liberties, and security that not a single one of them is obligated to protect and defend. Apparently, only 1 percent of the population feels that obligation. That 1 percent is bleeding and dying for the other 99 percent.

Further, that 1 percent does not come primarily or even secondarily from the families of the Ivy Leagues, of Wall Street, of corporate leadership, from the Congress, or from affluent America; it comes from less well-to-do areas: West Virginia, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and elsewhere. For example, the Army now gets more soldiers from the state of Alabama, population 4.8 million, than it gets from New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles combined, aggregate metropolitan population more than 25 million. Similarly, 40 percent of the Army comes from seven states of the Old South. As one of us has documented in his book, Skin in the Game: Poor Kids and Patriots , this is an ethically poisonous situation. And as the article in The Economist concludes, it's dangerous as well.

The last 16 years have also generated, as wars tend to do, hundreds of thousands of veterans. The costs of taking care of these men and women are astronomical today and will only rise over the next decades, which is one reason our veterans are already being inadequately cared for. Without the political will to shift funds, there simply is not enough money to provide the necessary care. And given the awesome debt America now shoulders -- approaching 20 trillion dollars and certain to increase -- it is difficult to see this situation changing for the better.

In fact, when one calculates today's U.S. national security budget -- not simply the well-advertised Pentagon budget -- the total expenditure of taxpayer dollars approaches $1.2 trillion annually, or more than twice what most Americans believe they are paying for national security. This total figure includes the costs of nuclear weapons (Energy Department), homeland security (Homeland Security Department), veteran care (Veterans Administration), intelligence needs (CIA and Defense Department), international relations (State Department), and the military and its operations (the Pentagon and its slush fund, the Overseas Contingency Operations account). The Pentagon budget alone is larger than that of the next 14 nations in the world combined. Only recently (September 2016), the Pentagon leadership confessed that as much as 50 percent of its slush fund (OCO) is not used for war operations -- the fund's statutory purpose -- but for other expenses, including "military readiness." We suspect this includes recruiting and associated costs.

There is still another dimension of the AVF that goes basically unmentioned and unreported. The AVF has compelled the nation to transition its reserve component forces from what they have been since colonial times -- a strategic reserve -- into being an operational reserve. That's military-speak for our having used the reserve components to make up for deeply felt shortages in the active force. Nowhere is this more dramatically reflected than in the rate of deployment-to-overseas duty of the average reservist, now about once every 3.8 years.

Such an operational tempo causes extreme problems for both civilian employers and for National Guard and reserve units. What employer, for example, wants to hire a young man or woman who will be gone for a year every four years on average, when that employer can reach out and hire someone from the 99 percent who will likely not be absent? And how do the reserve units keep up recruiting numbers when faced with such a situation?

Moreover, when we look at the reserve component deployment statistics over a decade or so of what now seems like interminable war, we discover how badly skewed such deployments are. For example, as of 2011, North Dakota, Mississippi, and South Dakota had Guard/Reserve deployment rates of over 40 per 10,000, and Iowa had a rate of over 30 per 10,000. In contrast, the Guard/Reserve deployment burdens for New York, California, and Texas were all less than 15 per 10,000. Perhaps surprisingly, Massachusetts had a higher Guard/Reserve deployment burden per 10,000 than Texas did (these numbers cover the 9/30/01 -- 12/31/10 timeframe).

A deeper look at the county levels within each state demonstrates that the Guard/Reserve deployment burden really is an urban/suburban vs. rural divide. New York is a case study. Niagara County (Niagara Falls and Lockport) had a deployment rate of over 30 per 10,000, while Jefferson County (Watertown) and Clinton County (Plattsburgh) had rates over 25 per 10,000. In contrast, New York State overall had a Guard/Reserve deployment rate a bit higher than 10 per 10,000, with Kings County (Brooklyn) and New York County (Manhattan) having rates well below 10 per 10,000.

Most Americans are completely ignorant of the facts outlined above, or understand only partial truths about them. In fact, the majority view the military in general and the way we man the force in particular through a lens of fear, apathy, ignorance, and guilt. The media is unhelpful in this regard because in the main journalists and TV personalities are as unknowing as the people. Few in the military leadership have the courage to speak up about these realities, or are themselves so brainwashed that they are incapable of doing so. But if the country does not wake up soon and demand action, we will be looking at another crisis and asking the question posed by The Economist : "Who will fight the next war?"

Worse, we might be asking the question that Skin in the Game poses: "What if we had a war and nobody came?"

When we put that question to a U.S. senator recently, he replied that "If the enemy were 'on the shore,' Americans would respond."

"Would they?" we asked. "And tell us how you know that, please."

"They just would, I know they would," the senator replied.

There is yet another dimension to the AVF that is truly an "unmentionable." As President Barack Obama said to one of us in the Roosevelt Room in November 2015 -- referring to Washington, D.C. -- "There is a bias in this town toward war."

What the president meant was quite clear: powerful forces such as the military-industrial complex, a less-than-courageous Congress that has abandoned its constitutional duty with respect to the war power, extreme ideologies, and a nation with no skin in the game, work together to persuade all presidents to consider war as the first instrument of national power rather than the last.

Is there anyone among us who would not believe that having an all-volunteer (or, more to the point, an all-recruited) military coming only from the 1 percent does not contribute to the facility with which presidents call upon that instrument? In a rational world, we would be declared insane to believe otherwise.

Said more explicitly, if the sons and daughters of members of Congress, of the corporate leadership, of the billionaire class, of the Ivy Leagues, of the elite in general, were exposed to the possibility of combat, would we have less war? From a socio-economic class perspective, the AVF is inherently unfair.

Major General (Ret) Dennis Laich served 35 years in the U.S. Army Reserve. Col. (Ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson is visiting professor of government and public policy at the College of William and Mary. He was chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell from 2002-05, special assistant to Powell when Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-93), and deputy director and director of the USMC War College (1993-97).

KevinS , , October 15, 2017 at 11:16 pm

"From a socio-economic class perspective, the AVF is inherently unfair."

The same can be said of American society more generally, which is fast becoming a plutocracy.

b , , October 16, 2017 at 12:22 am
These topics are widely discussed within the military. Not in staff meetings mind you. But the civilians wouldn't realize it regardless. So what is to be done? Is there an organization we can join that will speak up and get lobbyists to have the concerns heard? This is our national defense and we all have an interest in knowing that we leave something better behind for the next generation. Otherwise all our efforts truly are in vain.
theMann , , October 16, 2017 at 2:48 am
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Now, I, and maybe you, read the 13th amendment to the constitution as clearly banning conscription, but the courts don't think so. Their reasoning actually being, that since conscription was in place at the time of the 13th amendment's passage, the words written and printed couldn't possibly mean what they clearly mean as common English usage.

Well, leaving aside for the moment that every (so far at least) man who ever got drafted felt it was pretty effing involuntary, we can proceed to the greater question:

Why do we perpetually need a million men\women\hesheit qwerty's under arms? By all means, let us draft every 18 year old in the entire United States into our SJW Social Science\Daycare center joke of a military, it would at least be a far greater education than college. And having so infused our armed forces with so much fresh human material, we could spend EVEN MORE on Contracts, currently about 50% of the near trillion dollar war making budget.

Yea, that'll fix everything.

Zebesian , , October 16, 2017 at 4:25 am
I realize how unpopular this statement will be, but that 1 percent who are bleeding and dying are generally doing so in foreign wars that are not truly defending the 99 percent. They are doing it for the pro-war, pro-intervention subsets of various elite populations, popularly supported by misinformed people of the lower/middle classes.

Perhaps the shortage of volunteer soldiers indicates war-weariness? Less war would solve the problems of cost, volunteer shortages AND the burgeoning veteran population.

Chris Harris , , October 16, 2017 at 6:24 am
I served in six units during six years with the army military police. I can remember only one guy I knew whose father was a educated white collar professional (university professor).
mrscracker , , October 16, 2017 at 6:40 am
One of my children is about as far to the left as I am to the right politically,but we both agree that the draft should be brought back with a choice of military or community service. No exceptions made. Everyone serves at 18 for a year or two and can enlist longer if they choose to. Offers of college or vocational scholorships could apply.

We've had a couple or more generations of self centered, self absorbed young people who often become self destructive. They could benefit from the discipline, direction, and service to others.

Whine Merchant , , October 16, 2017 at 6:54 am
In the late 60s -- early 70s we used to chide Pat Buchanan and his mates with "War is good business -- invest your sons". Of course, even then, he was investing other people's sons. His good mate Trump has already bragged about his "contribution" to the war effort, dodging STIs rather than bullets.
William Murphy , , October 16, 2017 at 7:03 am
Wonderful article. The very serious concerns it raises were discussed some years ago by the philosopher Michael Sandel. He asked how can it be just for the wealthy to risk the lives of the children of the poor in an AVF when their own children are guaranteed far safer lifestyles.

From a British perspective, the same issues apply in an even more distorted form. In my two years working in Michigan (1998-2000), I met far more current and former servicemen than in the other 62 years of my life living in England. The British military is invisible to much of the middle and upper classes, except in emergencies, despite the fact that you are never far from a military base in such a small country.

At a recent dinner, I found myself, for the first time in my life, sitting at a table with three ex-British Army officers. I discussed the near-invisible profile of the Army. My very smart companion explained that for years Army personnel tried to avoid even wearing uniform in the street because of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The Troubles ended, but now, since the beheading of a soldier in London by an Islamist nutter, the Army has gone back to civvies for off duty wear.

And the class division is as scandalous as the American class divisions which this excellent article describes. As at least one scathing observer commented, would Tony Blair have been so ready to go to war in Iraq if any one of his four children been liable for military service? And, of course, Blair and his political contemporaries were the first generation not to be involved in a shooting war or to be liable for National Service (abolished around 1960). The only place they would see the horrible face of war was in a movie theatre.

Reinstate National Service in the UK and USA? It might be as politically popular as sending little children up chimneys or could some courageous politician air a desperately important issue which might find unexpected support in a dangerous world?

Rup. G , , October 16, 2017 at 7:41 am
The only ethical course of action when faced with an insufficient number of volunteers for a war is, of course, to cancel the war.
Mike Ford , , October 16, 2017 at 7:49 am
Simple solution: Constitutional amendment stating, In order to vote in Federal Elections or to hold Federal office, appointed or elected, you must:

A) Proof of citizenship

B) Current year 1040 showing net positive Income Tax paid and finally,

C) a DD214 showing honorable discharge

Problem solved

J Harlan , , October 16, 2017 at 9:10 am
"That 1 percent is bleeding and dying for the other 99 percent."

They are not. Nothing the US Army does "protects America". On the contrary it's a bigger threat than anything it can protect the US from. They fight for combinations of cash, training, education, travel, to carry on the family tradition , travel and adventure. The people who send them to fight do so for power and ego. Not "national interests" There are none only the interests of people who want power.

Fred Bowman , , October 16, 2017 at 9:21 am
What the old saying about war "Rich man's game with the poor man paying the price." Definely bring the Draft back if for no other reason to make those in Power think long and hard about what military misadventures they're committing America's young men and women to. Imho America would have been out of these Middle East wars of choice long ago if the draft was still in effect as the American public would be demanding hard answers to "Why are we still there?"
David Walters , , October 16, 2017 at 9:28 am
I served. I was young and stupid and got a draft lottery number that gave me a 50 / 50 chance of being drafted into the Army. I joined the Marines, instead. 1973 -- 1979, active and reserve included.

Went on with my life afterwards. I never wanted and never want my kids to serve. The USA is not the place I thought it was when I did. Heck, it wasn't the place I thought it was even then.

John , , October 16, 2017 at 10:15 am
Leave aside the ethical and moral implications, because America has told the world over and over again that they don't matter. We will support the second-worst regimes in the world in their struggles with the worst regimes, we will bomb weddings full of innocents if it gets us the one man we want, and we do not care how many of our fellow citizens enrolled in the military jobs programs are killed or maimed.

Smedley Butler saw this happening in his time, too. The wars were smaller and less expensive, but they had the same root cause. Wherever our companies go and are thwarted by locals in any way, we find an excuse to deploy and make that area safe for commercial activity. Libya is a shambles now after Gaddafi's removal, but it's out of the news because organized, government-led resistance to oil companies benefiting from one-sided leases is impossible. This year, Libya hit a four-year high for oil production, in the middle of a six-cornered civil war.

The only way any of this changes is if the public sees military activity as a threat to benefits on which it depends, or if the price of fielding regular units to deal with these problems becomes so large that companies will have to employ mercenaries to achieve their ends abroad.

Stephen J. , , October 16, 2017 at 10:44 am
I believe it is time "our leaders" show what they are made of. Therefore I ask:

Should We Have War Games for the World's Leaders?

Yesterday's enemies are today's friends and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies, such is the way of the world, and wars of the world. All these wars cause enormous bloodshed, destruction and suffering to those affected. Therefore, would it not be much simpler to have war games for all of the world's leaders and elites every few years? We have Olympic Games every four years where the world's athletes from different countries compete. And many of these countries are hostile to each other, yet they participate in the Olympics. So if enemies can participate for sport, why not for war games? All the leaders and elites of the world would have to lead by example, instead of leading from their political platforms, palaces and offshore tax havens, while the ordinary people have to do the dirty work in wars. The world's leaders and elites would all be in the front lines first. A venue could be arranged in a deserted area and the people of the world could watch via satellite TV their courageous leaders and other elites leading the charge in the war games .

[read much more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2009/03/should-we-have-war-games-for-worlds.html

Anna , , October 16, 2017 at 11:01 am
Okay, probably true as far as it goes, but aren't you ignoring an important issue? Say the U.S. re-established conscription to catch those elite kids -- what kind of military would you have? I suspect not one that would be an effective military in any sense.

I'm reminded of a conversation with a friend from Germany, who believed in his country's policy of universal service (that is, sort of universal -- they can do other volunteer work instead), but he readily admitted that he and his fellow-conscripts -- i.e., mostly spoiled children of the middle class -- were not real soldiers. He said it was totally normal in the barracks to hear 18 and 19-year-olds weeping on the phone to mama about how homesick they were, and that standards were very low for physical fitness and ability.

According to him, the real career soldiers saw the young conscripts as a completely useless drag on the military, that merely had to be endured for political reasons rather than for any actual military or strategic purposes.

Potato , , October 16, 2017 at 11:02 am
the draft should be brought back with a choice of military or community service. No exceptions made. Everyone serves at 18 for a year or two and can enlist longer if they choose to. Offers of college or vocational scholorships could apply.

I don't often agree with mrscracker, but this one is right on. Male and female, gay and straight, no exceptions but for people on life support. (There could be essential work available for all but the most severely disabled.)

For one thing I think this would bring the practice of getting involved in useless wars to a screeching halt. If the children of Congresspersons were in danger of being issued rifles and told to wade into a rice paddy or a desert to be shot at, the people in charge would suddenly be much more conservative about going to war.

James Korman , , October 16, 2017 at 11:18 am
Elimination of the draft is a stain, every adult mail should be available to serve his nation. This has been true throughout history.

[Oct 17, 2017] Empire's Workshop Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism (American Empire Project) Greg Grandi

There is a danger for Ukraine to become "European El Salvador" or, worse, "European Iraq"
Notable quotes:
"... After an opening chapter that makes the case for Latin America's role in the formation of the U.S. empire, the rest of this hook explores the importance of the region to the consolidation of what could be called a new, revolutionary imperialism. ..."
May 01, 2007 | www.amazon.com

After an opening chapter that makes the case for Latin America's role in the formation of the U.S. empire, the rest of this hook explores the importance of the region to the consolidation of what could be called a new, revolutionary imperialism.

Taken each on their own, the ideas, tactics, politics, and economics that have driven Bush's global policy are not original. An interventionist military posture, belief that America has a special role to play in world history, cynical realpolitik, vengeful nationalism, and free-market capitalism have all driven U.S.
diplomacy in one form or another for nearly two centuries. But whatis new is how potent these elements have become and how tightly they are bound to the ambitions of America's domestic ruling conservative coalition -- a coalition that despite its power and influence paints itself as persecuted, at odds not just with much of the world but with modern life itself. 6

The book goes on to explore the intellectual re-orientation or American diplomacy in the wake if Vietnam and the increasing willingness of militarists to champion human rights, nation building, and democratic reform. The third chapter considers how the rehabilitation of unconventional warfare doctrine in LI Salvador and Nicaragua by militarists in and around the Reagan White House laid the groundwork for today's offensive military posture. Here, the human costs of this resurgence of militarism will be addressed. In the many tributes that followed Reagan's death, pundits enjoyed repeating Margaret Thatcher's comment that Reagan won the Cold War "without firing a shot." The crescendo of carnage that overw helmed Central America in the 1980s not only gives the lie to such a legacy but highlights the inescapable violence of empire. The fourth chapter turns to the imperial home front, examining how r the Reagan administration first confronted and then began to solve the domestic crisis of authority generated by Vietnam and Watergate. It also argues that Reagan's Central American policy served as a crucible that forged the coalition that today stands behind George W. Bush. Chanter 5 is con cerned with the economics of empire, how the financial contraction of the 1970s provided an opportunity for the avatars of free-market orthodoxy -- the true core of the Bush Doctrine -- to join with other constituencies of the ascendant New Right, inaugurating first in Chile and then throughout Latin America a new, brutally competitive global economy.

The last chapter tallies the score of the new imperialism in Latin America. Celebrated by Bill Clinton, and now Bush, as a model of what the United States hopes to accomplish in the rest of the world, Latin America continues to be gripped by unrelenting poverty and periodic political instability, as the promise of living under a benevolent American imperialism has failed to materialize. As a result, new political movements and antagonists have emerged to contest the terms of
United States-promoted corporate globalization, calling for increased regional integration to offset the power of the United States and more social spending to alleviate Latin American inequality. With little to offer the region in terms of development except the increasingly hollow promises of free trade, Washington is responding to these and similar challenges by once again militarizing hemispheric relations, with all dissent now set in the crosshairs of the "global war on terror."

... ... ...

Over the last year, Washington has had some success in preventing leftists and nationalists from coming to power, in Peru, for instance, and in Mexico. But notwithstanding the outcome of specific votes, and despite the very real conflicts of interest among Latin American nations, the centrifugal forces pushing the region out of the U.S.'s orbit will continue.

What, then, will be Washington's long-term response to this independence movement? One could hope that the Democrats would seize the moment to assert their commitment to nonintervention and to work with economic nationalists to promote a fair and sustainable economic policy. Depending on the country, such a policy would include land reform, government regulation of foreign investment and currency speculation, more equitable contracts with multinationals, debt relief, increased spending on welfare, education, health care, and public works, and, in the U.S., a just immigration policy.

Don't count on it. Unlike after WWII, when a confident corporate class threw its backing behind New Deal political liberalism at home and at least some reform capitalism abroad, the financiers of today's Democratic Party are too deeply invested in war production and speculative capital and too intensely committed to keeping the third world open. They will not brook any sustained attempt to restructure the global economy in a more equitable direction. At the same time, the party's leadership -- unlike Republicans who are organically linked to their base -- is terrified of the antimilitarism of its rank-and-file. Thirty percent of the U.S. population opposed the war in Iraq even when it looked like a cakewalk, even as Dick Cheney and his cronies held a cocktail party to celebrate the PR-orchestrated toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad -- a significant minority that is much larger than anything the Goldwater insurgency and the Reagan Revolution started with.

But rather than building on this thirty percent, Democrats run away from it, with one after the other tripping over themselves to prove they are better equipped to fight the "war on terror'' than the Republicans. We may hope that the Democratic nominee in the 2008 election will challenge the ideology and the interests that
have capitalized on the problem of terrorism to launch a war for civilization. It's more likely we'll see him or her criticizing the way the "war" has been executed and demanding more of a say in how it is waged.

If there is change in American diplomacy, it will come from the citizens who mobilized to oppose the occupation of Iraq and who in 2006 gave back the Congress to the Democratic Party. But to truly break up the New Right, and not just temporarily slow it down, the reactive antimilitarism that so drives the neocons crazy will have to be converted into a forward-looking agenda, as cohesive and coherent as the one that led to the catastrophic war in Iraq. In this task, Latin America, long the workshop of U.S. elites, can provide a different kind of instruction.

Across the continent, political movements have emerged from decades of unrelenting state terror underwritten by imperial patronage to creatively and effectively oppose first corporate-driven neoliberalism and then a renewed U.S. militarism. Through exemplary courage, perseverance, and organizational skill, Latin American activists have provided a beacon of hope on an otherwise bleak global landscape. They have multiple agendas and objectives, yet they share a common set of values: human dignity, local autonomy, a vision of individual freedom rooted in collective solidarity, and a notion of democracy defined not simply by proceduralism or individual rights but by economic equity. It is they who are the world's true "democracy promoters" and who are fighting the real war on terror, and offering lessons to us all.

New York
December 2006

PABG, Somewhere in the world, on August 1, 2011

Unbelievable book

Have you ever wonder why the rest of America despises or doesn't trust the USA? Yes I wrote America so the people living in the USA will finally comprehend that America is a continent not a country, people please check your map!!! Well let me tell you why, is because the USA always interfere or sticks her big nose in the business of her American neighbors, just to name a few examples/ Guatemala 1954 and Chile 1973, and also a big part of the real problem is that the USA is not governed by the President, he or she is just a pawn or an employee of the big corporations, and the person in the Oval Office will do anything in his or her power to keep the big CEO's happy.

You want proof of this? Think about these recent events, 9\11, the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, the tax payer's money given to big corporations to cover the losses caused by their satanic greed and Guantanamo. Also I'm tired of hearing that illegal immigration has ruined the USA, let me tell you that if you keep your nose to your own business and leave the rest of America alone, you won't have a big immigration problem and just to keep in mind that the USA was built by immigrant hands. Please the USA has enough problems, public education, public health, a failed economic system and social disintegration just to mention a few, for the United States' Government to start thinking about building a global empire.

FYI I'm not a leftist or a USA hater, I like the USA and its people very much but I don't have affection for the neoconservatives and the capitalist pigs that think in big profits before their fellow human beings. Enough said, peace, live long and prosper. I'M PROUD OF BEING A REAL AMERICAN!!!!!

[Oct 17, 2017] Latin-Americanization of the xUSSR space is what essentially State Department tried to accomplish. They were successful in Ukraine. by Robert Parry

While the USA pursued their geopolitical goals in supporting the coup d'ιtat against corrupt Yanukovich government by less corrupt western-Ukrainian nationalists (and a difficult clan on oligarch, as Yanukovich was a puppet of Donetsk oligarch clan) , this is actually disaster capitalism in action... There is very little Ukrainians can do now to improve their standard of living which dropped at least two times since 2014. Civil war remains a drain on economy and selling assets to western companies does not improve the standard fo living iether. For 20K grivna (less then $740 a month) you can hire top level specialist in Ukraine (regular salary is less then $150 a month). Economy is still supported by the housing boom, but we know how such things might end.
The neocons are now as important factor in America's foreign policy today as they were during the darkest days of the Bush administration. And like on old time the Ukrainian coup has all traces of globalist bankers allied with local compradors operating under fig leaf of Western-Ukrainian nationalism (which were simply puppets in a much bigger financial and geopolitical game). It is the same aggressive push by the United States to topple governments and politicians in Latin America to advance the USA geopolitical or economic interests.
See also Empire's Workshop Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism " Latin America once again became a school where the United States studied how to execute imperial violence through proxies. After World War II, in the name of containing Communism, the United States, mostly through the actions of local allies, executed or encouraged coups in, among other places, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina and patronized a brutal mercenary war in Nicaragua. Latin America became a laboratory tor counter-insurgency, as military officials and covert operators applied insights learned in the region to Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. By the end of the Cold War, Latin American security forces trained, funded, equipped, and incited by Washington had executed a reign of bloody terror - hundreds of thousands killed, an equal number tortured, millions driven into exile - from which the region has yet to fully recover."
Parry provides an interesting perspective on neoconservative intellectuals who now are driving the expansion of the US-led neoliberal empire into xUSSR space. In this sense Ukrainian nationalists serve as a proxies of an American imperialism which is driven by a combination of neoliberalism, Neoconservatism and the euphoria from the victory Cold War, of which Ukraine civil war is the tragic endgame.
Parry does not addresses the controversial role of Russia, which actually helped to start the Donbass civil war as initially Putin promised that the Ukraine territories who will vote "yes" in referendums to join Russia will be accepted to Russia but soon changed his mind. And later supplied arms to the insurgents.
Notable quotes:
"... Thus, you have the current hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually provoked by the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but other influential Washington figures who were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington was as chief of Reagan's State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America. ..."
"... During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. After getting convicted and then pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George W. Bush's National Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global democracy strategy." Abrams is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ..."
"... These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of "perception management" from the likes of Raymond and Casey, but those propaganda skills have spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have now become an integral part of every U.S. foreign policy initiative. ..."
"... The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983 at the urging of CIA Director Casey and under the supervision of Walter Raymond's NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger budget, now exceeding $100 million a year. ..."
"... Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine crisis by financing activists, journalists and other operatives who supported the coup against elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda drums. [See Consortiumnews.com's " A Shadow Foreign Policy. "] ..."
"... Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important intellectual support for continuing U.S. interventionism around the world. Earlier this year, Kagan's article for The New Republic, entitled " Superpowers Don't Get to Retire ," touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan at a White House lunch and crafted the presidential commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of Kagan's criticism of Obama's hesitancy to use military force. ..."
"... According to the Times article, the husband-and-wife team share both a common world view and professional ambitions, Nuland editing Kagan's articles and Kagan "not permitted to use any official information he overhears or picks up around the house" a suggestion that Kagan's thinking at least may be informed by foreign policy secrets passed on by his wife. ..."
Dec 28, 2014 | consortiumnews.com

Thus, you have the current hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually provoked by the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yet, many of these same U.S. foreign policy operatives outraged over Russia's limited intervention to protect ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine are demanding that President Obama launch an air war against the Syrian military as a "humanitarian" intervention there.

In other words, if the Russians act to shield ethnic Russians on their border who are being bombarded by a coup regime in Kiev that was installed with U.S. support, the Russians are the villains blamed for the thousands of civilian deaths, even though the vast majority of the casualties have been inflicted by the Kiev regime from indiscriminate bombing and from dispatching neo-Nazi militias to do the street fighting.

In Ukraine, the exigent circumstances don't matter, including the violent overthrow of the constitutionally elected president last February. It's all about white hats for the current Kiev regime and black hats for the ethnic Russians and especially for Putin.

... ... ...

For this project, Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey sent his top propaganda specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to the National Security Council staff to manage the inter-agency task forces that would brainstorm and coordinate this "public diplomacy" strategy.

Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but other influential Washington figures who were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington was as chief of Reagan's State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America.

Now a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a columnist at the Washington Post, Kagan remains an expert in presenting foreign policy initiatives within the "good guy/bad guy" frames that he learned in the 1980s. He is also the husband of Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who oversaw the overthrow of Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February amid a very effective U.S. propaganda strategy.

During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. After getting convicted and then pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George W. Bush's National Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global democracy strategy." Abrams is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of "perception management" from the likes of Raymond and Casey, but those propaganda skills have spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have now become an integral part of every U.S. foreign policy initiative.

... ... ...

Though Reagan's creation of a domestic propaganda bureaucracy began more than three decades ago and Bush's vanquishing of the Vietnam Syndrome was more than two decades ago the legacy of those actions continue to reverberate today in how the perceptions of the American people are now routinely managed. That was true during last decade's Iraq War and this decade's conflicts in Libya, Syria and Ukraine as well as the economic sanctions against Iran and Russia.

Indeed, while the older generation that pioneered these domestic propaganda techniques has passed from the scene, many of their protégés are still around along with some of the same organizations. The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983 at the urging of CIA Director Casey and under the supervision of Walter Raymond's NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger budget, now exceeding $100 million a year.

Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine crisis by financing activists, journalists and other operatives who supported the coup against elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda drums. [See Consortiumnews.com's " A Shadow Foreign Policy. "]

Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important intellectual support for continuing U.S. interventionism around the world. Earlier this year, Kagan's article for The New Republic, entitled " Superpowers Don't Get to Retire ," touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan at a White House lunch and crafted the presidential commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of Kagan's criticism of Obama's hesitancy to use military force.

A New York Times article about Kagan's influence over Obama reported that Kagan's wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, apparently had a hand in crafting the attack on her ostensible boss, President Obama.

According to the Times article, the husband-and-wife team share both a common world view and professional ambitions, Nuland editing Kagan's articles and Kagan "not permitted to use any official information he overhears or picks up around the house" a suggestion that Kagan's thinking at least may be informed by foreign policy secrets passed on by his wife.

Though Nuland wouldn't comment specifically on Kagan's attack on President Obama, she indicated that she holds similar views. "But suffice to say," Nuland said, "that nothing goes out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it that way."

[Oct 16, 2017] Don't Be Afraid of Steve Bannon by David Atkins

Economic nationalism in key ideas is close to Mussolini version of corporatism. It is about the alliance of state with large corporation but of less favorable to large corporations terms then under neoliberalism, which is a flavor of corporatism as well, but extremely favorable to the interests of transactionals.
So grossly simplifying, this is Mussolini version of corporatism (Make Italy Great Again), minus foreign wars, minus ethnic component (replacing it with more modern "cultural nationalism" agenda).
Bannon is definitely overrated. It is jobs that matter and he has no real plan. Relying on tax cutting and deregulation is not a plan. In this sense, yes, he is a paper tiger. And not a real nationalist, but some kind of castrated variety.
One thing that plays into Bannon hands in the DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats led by Hillary Clinton) were completely discredited during the last elections.
Notable quotes:
"... But his statements show that it's all bluster and no real strategy. Democrats seem poised to take back Congress precisely because of Republican extremism, not because institutional Republicans are inadequately racist and nationalist. ..."
"... Like Karl Rove before him, Steven Bannon is a paper tiger. ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | washingtonmonthly.com

There is a tendency on the left to overestimate the abilities of conservative campaign gurus and spinmeisters after a bitter defeat. In the aughts, Karl Rove was seen as the Svengali mastermind of Republican politics, a nefarious force smarter and more cunning than all the left's braintrust put together. It turned out not to be true. Karl Rove didn't have "the math" and never really did: Rove mostly got lucky by a combination of butterfly ballots in Florida, and happening to hold power during a terrorist attack that saw Democrats cowed into submission rather than holding the president and his team accountable for their failure to protect the country.

Steve Bannon is taking on a similar mystique for some. But Bannon is no more special than Rove...

... ... ...

Bannon is going to war " with the GOP establishment, even going so far as to countermand Trump's own endorsement in the Alabama Senate race and force the president to back a loser.

But his statements show that it's all bluster and no real strategy. Democrats seem poised to take back Congress precisely because of Republican extremism, not because institutional Republicans are inadequately racist and nationalist.

And his prediction to the Values Voter Summit that Trump will win 400 electoral votes in 2020 is simply preposterous on its face. It's no better than even odds that Trump will even finish out his term, much less sweep to a Reaganesque landslide in three years. During the same speech, Bannon quipped a line destined to be fodder for the inevitable 2018 campaign commercials accusing Trump of actively blowing up the ACA exchanges and driving up premiums in a bid to kill the program.

Like Karl Rove before him, Steven Bannon is a paper tiger. Democrats need only muster courage, conviction and hard work to teach him the same lesson they taught Rove in 2006.

David Atkins is a writer, activist and research professional living in Santa Barbara. He is a contributor to the Washington Monthly's Political Animal and president of The Pollux Group, a qualitative research firm.

[Oct 16, 2017] Trump Looks Set to Start Blowing Up the Iran Deal by Eli Clifton

Notable quotes:
"... Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, tweeted yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading." ..."
"... The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak." ..."
"... Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's -- doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling. ..."
"... Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week, detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for regime change in Tehran. ..."
"... But perhaps a bigger pressure on Trump to de-certify comes from three of his biggest political donors : Sheldon Adelson , Paul Singer , and Bernard Marcus . All three have funded groups that sought to thwart the negotiations leading to the JCPOA, including Dubowitz's FDD, and have given generously to Trump. ..."
"... Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname "Bibiton." ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | fpif.org

The Post credits Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) with this "fix it or nix it" approach to U.S. compliance with the JCPOA. Indeed, Cotton laid out essentially this very strategy in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in which he proposed that the president should decertify Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal based on Iran's actions in unrelated areas and toughen key components of the agreement, arguing that the deal fails to serve U.S. national security interests.

This plan has a low likelihood of success because Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif says that the JCPOA will not be renegotiated and European governments have urged Trump to stick with the pact.

Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, tweeted yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading."

But Cotton has been clear that renegotiating the nuclear deal isn't his actual intention. In 2015, he made no secret of his desire to blow up diplomacy with Iran, saying :

The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak."

Later that same year, Cotton explained his terms for any agreement with Iran, qualities that more closely resemble a surrender document than anything the Iranians would agree to in a negotiation. Cotton said :

Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's -- doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling.

Indeed, Cotton and his fellow proponents of the president de-certifying Iranian compliance, despite all indications that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, have a not-so-thinly-veiled goal of regime change in Tehran, a position in which the JCPOA and any negotiations with Iran pose a serious threat. Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week, detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for regime change in Tehran.

But perhaps a bigger pressure on Trump to de-certify comes from three of his biggest political donors : Sheldon Adelson , Paul Singer , and Bernard Marcus . All three have funded groups that sought to thwart the negotiations leading to the JCPOA, including Dubowitz's FDD, and have given generously to Trump.

"I think that Iran is the devil," said Marcus in a 2015 Fox Business interview . Adelson told a Yeshiva University audience in 2013 that U.S. negotiators should launch a nuclear weapon at Iran as a negotiating tactic. Adelson may hold radical views about the prudence of a nuclear attack on Iran, but he appears to enjoy easy access to Trump. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who were Trump's biggest financial supporters by far during his presidential run, met with the president at Adelson's headquarters in Las Vegas recently, ostensibly to discuss the recent mass shooting there.

But Andy Abboud, senior vice president Government Relations for Adelson's Sands Corporation, told the Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review Journal that the meeting was "pre-arranged and set to discuss policy," according to the paper .

Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname "Bibiton."

Eli Clifton reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy. He's previously reported for the American Independent News Network, ThinkProgress, and Inter Press Service.

[Oct 16, 2017] President Trump Beats War Drums For Iran by Ron Paul

Notable quotes:
"... Nearly every assertion in the president's speech was embarrassingly incorrect. Iran is not allied with al-Qaeda, as the president stated. The money President Obama sent to Iran was their own money. Much of it was a down-payment made to the US for fighter planes that were never delivered when Iran changed from being friend to foe in 1979. The president also falsely claims that Iran targets the United States with terrorism. He claims that Iran has "fueled sectarian violence in Iraq," when it was Iranian militias who prevented Baghdad from being overtaken by ISIS in 2014. There are too many other false statements in the president's speech to mention. ..."
"... Unfortunately the American people are being neoconned into another war. Just as with the disastrous 2003 US attack on Iraq, the media builds up the fear and does the bidding of the warmongers without checking facts or applying the necessary skepticism to neocon claims. ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

President Trump has been notoriously inconsistent in his foreign policy. He campaigned on and won the presidency with promises to repair relations with Russia, pull out of no-win wars like Afghanistan, and end the failed US policy of nation-building overseas. Once in office he pursued policies exactly the opposite of what he campaigned on. Unfortunately Iran is one of the few areas where the president has been very consistent. And consistently wrong.

In the president's speech last week he expressed his view that Iran was not "living up to the spirit" of the 2015 nuclear agreement and that he would turn to Congress to apply new sanctions to Iran and to, he hopes, take the US out of the deal entirely.

Nearly every assertion in the president's speech was embarrassingly incorrect. Iran is not allied with al-Qaeda, as the president stated. The money President Obama sent to Iran was their own money. Much of it was a down-payment made to the US for fighter planes that were never delivered when Iran changed from being friend to foe in 1979. The president also falsely claims that Iran targets the United States with terrorism. He claims that Iran has "fueled sectarian violence in Iraq," when it was Iranian militias who prevented Baghdad from being overtaken by ISIS in 2014. There are too many other false statements in the president's speech to mention.

How could he be so wrong on so many basic facts about Iran? Here's a clue: the media reports that his number one advisor on Iran is his Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley. Ambassador Haley is a "diplomat" who believes war is the best, first option rather than the last, worst option. She has no prior foreign policy experience, but her closest mentor is John Bolton – the neocon who lied us into the Iraq war. How do these people live with themselves when they look around at the death and destruction their policies have caused?

Unfortunately the American people are being neoconned into another war. Just as with the disastrous 2003 US attack on Iraq, the media builds up the fear and does the bidding of the warmongers without checking facts or applying the necessary skepticism to neocon claims.

Like most Americans, I do not endorse Iran's style of government. I prefer religion and the state to be separate and even though our liberties have been under attack by our government, I prefer our much freer system in the US. But I wonder how many Americans know that Iran has not attacked or "regime-changed" another country in its modern history. Iran's actions in Syria are at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government. And why won't President Trump tell us the truth about Iranian troops in Syria – that they are fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda, both of which are Sunni extremist groups that are Iran's (and our) mortal enemies?

How many Americans know that Iran is one of the few countries in the region that actually holds elections that are contested by candidates with very different philosophies? Do any Americans wonder why the Saudis are considered one of our greatest allies in the Middle East even though they hold no elections and have one of the world's worst human rights records?

Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?

Jim Christian , October 16, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

"Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?"

The die was cast the minute they ended the draft and mandatory service. What the hell does anyone in this country care about the next war? Maybe some realize it's a theft, a looting, but as long as it isn't THEIR blood being spilt, nothing goes nuclear, they don't care. Few outside our little venue here even understand, they think it's still Rah! Rah! And then, I suppose if I were in Congress, I might demand votes on these deals. Civilian control of the military, funding the wars, etc. Of course, if I pushed the point, they'd put a bullet in my HEAD . Just because. And headline me, my Mistress and my wife on the front page of the Post. Because NSA just KNOWS shit. Probably set me up with my Mistress to begin with so they'd have something on me, heh. This is the dilemma the Hill has on a personal level. We don't vote on wars, we gave em a blank check after 9/11 and that's that. Keeping it all going? That's all private. None-ya.

No one can talk about it, they just do it.

[Oct 16, 2017] Instead of blaming herself for selling herself to Wall Street and converting into yet another warmonger Hillary is still acusing the Kremlin. What a pathetic loser

It is so convenient to blame Russians ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... "We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists, even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress." ..."
"... She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known, but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10 million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times. ..."
"... Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she said. ..."
"... "In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting." ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Originally from: Cyber cold war is just getting started, claims Hillary Clinton

This power hungry woman are just plain vanilla incompetent: "The Russian campaign was leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and a loss of faith in democracy, she said."

Democrats had urged her to be silent after her defeat to Trump but she was not going to go away, said Clinton. She vowed to play her part in an attempt to win back Democratic seats in the forthcoming midterm elections. She admitted she "just collapsed with real grief and disappointment" after her election defeat.

Clinton, who is touring the country to promote What Happened – her memoir reflecting on the election defeat, told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "Looking at the Brexit vote now, it was a precursor to some extent of what happened to us in the United States."

She decried the amount of fabricated information voters were given: "You know, the big lie is a very potent tool and we've somewhat kept it at bay in western democracies, partly because of the freedom of the press. There has to be some basic level of fact and evidence in all parts of our society."

She urged Britain to be cautious about striking a trade deal with Trump, saying he did not believe in free trade.

In other comments during the Cheltenham literary festival, she accused the Kremlin of waging an information war throughout the 2016 US election process. The tactics "were a clear and present danger to western democracy and it is right out of the Putin playbook", she said.

"We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists, even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress."

She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known, but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10 million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times.

Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she said.

"In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting."

The Russian campaign was leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and a loss of faith in democracy, she said.

[Oct 16, 2017] Assange: It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen

Lady Makbeth of the USA?
Oct 16, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
In an interview with the ABC's Four Corners program, to air on Monday night, Clinton alleges that Assange cooperated with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin , to disrupt the US election and damage her campaign for president.

"WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence," Clinton told the ABC's Sarah Ferguson .

Describing Putin as a "dictator", Clinton said the damaging email leaks that crippled her 2016 candidacy were part of a coordinated operation against her, directed by the Russian government.

Our intelligence community and other observers of Russia and Putin have said he held a grudge against me because as secretary of state, I stood up against some of his actions, his authoritarianism," Clinton told the ABC.

"But it's much bigger than that. He wants to destabilise democracy, he wants to undermine America, he wants to go after the Atlantic alliance, and we consider Australia an extension of that."

WikiLeaks received thousands of hacked emails from accounts connected to the Democratic campaign allegedly stolen by Russian operatives. The emails were released during a four-month period in the lead-up to the US election.

Emails from the Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, were leaked on the same day – 7 October 2016 – the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland security released a statement concluding the Russian government had been attempting to interfere in the election.

It was also the day the Washington Post published the 2005 Access Hollywood recording of Donald Trump's lewd comments about sexually harassing women .

Clinton told the ABC she believed the email leak was coordinated to disrupt the influence of the Access Hollywood tape.

"WikiLeaks, which in the world in which we find ourselves promised hidden information, promised some kind of secret that might be of influence, was a very clever, diabolical response to the Hollywood Access tape," she said. "And I've no doubt in my mind that there was some communication if not coordination to drop those the first time in response to the Hollywood Access tape."

Clinton is promoting her election memoir, What Happened, in which she details her thoughts on her unsuccessful campaign for president .

In September she told David Remnick from the New Yorker that she believed the Australian founder of WikiLeaks may be "on the payroll of the Kremlin" .

"I think he is part nihilist, part anarchist, part exhibitionist, part opportunist, who is either actually on the payroll of the Kremlin or in some way supporting their propaganda objectives, because of his resentment toward the United States, toward Europe," she said.

"He's like a lot of the voices that we're hearing now, which are expressing appreciation for the macho authoritarianism of a Putin. And they claim to be acting in furtherance of transparency, except they never go after the Kremlin or people on that side of the political ledger."

Assange has denied the emails came from the Russian government or any other "state parties".

In response to Clinton's comments, Assange said on Twitter there was "something wrong with Hillary Clinton".

"It is not just her constant lying," he wrote. "It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement.

"Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen."

Julian Assange 🔹 (@JulianAssange)

There's something wrong with Hillary Clinton. It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Watch closely. Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen. https://t.co/JNw2dkXgdu

October 15, 2017

[Oct 16, 2017] Trump acts like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Which might be the symptom of floundering, weakened, posturing US Empire -- decending into empty threats (Iran, NK) which are often rightly dismissed by others. Which make this historical period very dangerous indeed.

Notable quotes:
"... The reality is that the above situation outlined by Kerry two years ago has only worsened with Trump's inability to understand that reality leading to the current irrationality in policy-- unless --Trump is actually trying to further the Neocon policy of Full Spectrum Dominance. ..."
"... "Have you met America? That's the country that needs "lives matter" movements because of its prevailing culture of utter indifference to human welfare, but which trips over itself in its eagerness to wage war in defense of the petrodollar." ..."
"... I can easily envision a joint announcement by Russia, China and Iran that all trade conducted with them must be transacted in Yuan, Ruble, Rial, or Euro--that the dollar is no longer welcomed. And given the utter stupidity of the Republican controlled US Congress, more sanctions will be applied to Iran thus sealing the onset of the Outlaw US Empire's international isolation. ..."
"... Imho, the US political establishment, as publically projected, is moving closer to a realm where words, be they snide remarks, lofty pronouncements, declarations of intent, or vile accusations, become substitutes for action. ..."
"... US overt behavior is hapless unless entered into with cold calculation, a specific hidden aim in mind, and levers of control somewhere. Not the case imho, but dismissing Trump as a fool is not useful. We see symptoms of floundering, weakened, posturing Empire -- imho empty sorts o' threats (Iran, NK) are often dismissed by others, rightly so, but that is dangerous too: the US has to play the military domination position combined with the unpredictability card. Extremely volatile situation. ..."
"... Remember when Trump said he would never do a first nuke strike? :) ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 | Oct 15, 2017 5:22:59 PM | 12

In the final days of the Iran Deal negotiations, August 2015, I completely missed the interview Kerry did with Reuters, https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/08/245935.htm that Mercouris parses for his detailed article proving the Outlaw US Empire's Imperial Policy is now "irrational"--utterly I'd say since for me it's been irrational for decades when weighing the actual interests of the United States's populous. The key excerpt:

"But if everybody thinks, 'Oh, no, we're just tough; the United States of America, we have our secondary sanctions; we can force people to do what we want.' I actually heard that argument on television this morning. I've heard it from a number of the organisations that are working that are opposed to this agreement. They're spreading the word, 'America is strong enough, our banks are tough enough; we can just bring the hammer down and force our friends to do what we want them to.'

"Well, look – a lot of business people in this room. Are you kidding me? The United States is going to start sanctioning our allies and their banks and their businesses because we walked away from a deal and we're going to force them to do what we want them to do even though they agreed to the deal we came to? Are you kidding ?

"That is a recipe quickly, my friends, for them to walk away from Ukraine, where they are already very dicey and ready to say, 'Well, we've done our bit.' They were ready in many cases to say, 'Well, we're the ones paying the price for your sanctions.' We – it was Obama who went out and actually put together a sanctions regime that had an impact. By – I went to China. We persuaded China, 'Don't buy more oil.' We persuaded India and other countries to step back.

"Can you imagine trying to sanction them after persuading them to put in phased sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and when they have not only come to the table but they made a deal, we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them you're going to have to obey our rules on the sanctions anyway?

"That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world – which is already bubbling out there .." (Bold italics in original.)

The reality is that the above situation outlined by Kerry two years ago has only worsened with Trump's inability to understand that reality leading to the current irrationality in policy-- unless --Trump is actually trying to further the Neocon policy of Full Spectrum Dominance. If that is indeed the case, then Trump's behavior is rational in that the only alternative facing the Outlaw US Empire in its drive to enslave the planet is to launch a non-proxy hot war to achieve its goals.

Or... Trump's smarter than any of us as he expects the neocons to fold when faced with the possibility of escalating the ongoing Hybrid Third World War into one that's no longer Hybrid and promises to bring horrendous amounts of death and destruction to The Homeland.

karlof1 | Oct 15, 2017 5:23:58 PM | 13
Oops, forgot link to Mercouris article, http://theduran.com/donald-trump-decertifies-iran-us-foreign-policy-becomes-irrational/
Grieved | Oct 15, 2017 6:10:34 PM | 18
@12 karlof1

yes, I just read that Mercouris piece and I was excited to read about that Kerry interview, that everyone seems to have missed. So here's what seems to be the authoritative background on the the Iran deal.

b said in his last piece - October 14 , linked in his article above:

Obama pushed sanctions onto sanctions to make Iran scream. But the country did not fold. Each new U.S. sanction step was responded to with an expansion of Iran's nuclear program. In the end Obama had to offer talks to Iran to get out of the hole he had dug himself.

For me this was the first time I'd seen an explanation of why the Iran deal happened, and I really wanted to know more. Now this retrospective by Mercouris shows exactly how accurate b's assessment was, but fills in the detail to show that the EU was already on the verge of a major split from the dollar. Only the deal, which allowed EU to grow its trade with the huge market of Iran, saved this potential run from the dollar by Europe.

I read the full Reuters interview , and I find it debatable how much of Kerry's statement was applied to Russia and China and how much to Britain, France and Germany. I'll parse it as, Asia will say it out loud, Europe will think it silently - the unthinkable, that is. Mercouris seems sure it was Europe:

In other words the US was pushed into the JCPOA somewhat against its will at the insistence of its European allies, who were considering lifting sanctions on Iran unilaterally if the US rejected the deal which was on offer. The US submitted to their demands because it feared that the alternative – threatening economic war on its European allies by imposing sanctions on them – would have hastened the ending of the reserve currency status of the US dollar.

It is rare to say the least for US officials to so much as contemplate in public the possibility of the US dollar losing its reserve currency status. The fact that in August 2015 Secretary of State Kerry actually did so shows the pressure that the US was under.

Astonishing. Here we are two years later trying to think that if Trump does whatever nonsense he does with the Iran deal, it will encourage a rift between the US and the EU - but actually this has already come to be the situation, and two years ago at that.

This is some serious shit, that we all seem to have missed. EU leaders may be craven, but European business wants to trade with Iran, and it's simmering around the point of breaking away from the dollar in order to do it. Surely this calls for a large re-calculation of the situation.

What happens if Iran starts to negotiate payments settled in Yuan? Hezbollah can take down Israel militarily. But perhaps Iran can take down the US financially?

ben | Oct 15, 2017 7:27:42 PM | 19
karlof1 @ 13: Thanks for the link. Good read. Actually gives a little hope that the adults in the world can reign in the morons now running the U$A.
ben | Oct 15, 2017 7:32:32 PM | 20
From TRNN: "Decertifying Iran Deal, Trump Escalates His War"

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20220:Decertifying-Iran-Deal%2C-Trump-Escalates-His-War

Peter AU 1 | Oct 15, 2017 8:19:51 PM | 21
Part of Obama speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/?utm_term=.aac92dd70db9
..."Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the U.S. Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power, and it certainly wasn't based on a desire for regime change in Iran.

As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress' rejection would almost certainly result in multi-lateral sanctions unraveling.

If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world's largest banks. We'd have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise questions internationally about the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. That's part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived."...


Another time when Obama was covincing US to pass the Iran deal, he stated bluntly that not passing the deal would put the US dollar at risk. Have not been able to find it as yet.

Perimetr | Oct 15, 2017 10:44:48 PM | 26
RE: karlof1 | Oct 15, 2017 5:22:59 PM | 12 You write: "Or... Trump's smarter than any of us . . ."

Probably not

see: Donald Trump bodyslams, beats and shaves Vince McMahon at Wrestlemania XXIII
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I

psychohistorian | Oct 15, 2017 11:38:03 PM | 28
I just read this comment by Oh Homer at another site and felt motivated to share it here.

"Have you met America? That's the country that needs "lives matter" movements because of its prevailing culture of utter indifference to human welfare, but which trips over itself in its eagerness to wage war in defense of the petrodollar."

karlof1 | Oct 16, 2017 11:30:57 AM | 38
Grieved @18-

Good questions! The extremely rare candor shown by Kerry, as Mercouris notes, isn't being shared by the Trumpsters and is likely responsible for their outward state of high anxiety and knee-jerk reactions to just about anything.

Iran says it has a plan: "Speaker of Iran's parliament Ali Larijani said that Iran 'had a developed plan and a certain law,' should the United States withdraw from the agreement on Tehran's nuclear program, adding that Washington would 'regret it.'" https://sputniknews.com/world/201710161058275364-iran-plan-us-nuclear-deal/

RT reports Larijani thusly: "' We have a plan We've recently approved in parliament what we should do given the Americans undertake certain steps, ' Larijani told reporters Monday on the sidelines of the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in St. Petersburg.

' We will take steps so that the Americans will regret it. '" (Emphasis in original.) https://www.rt.com/news/406851-iran-has-plan-if-us-withdraws-nuclear/ If that is so, then what Iran plans to do ought to be discerned by looking at its parliamentary actions on the subject by those able to read Farsi. I rather doubt it's bluff and bluster.

And the EU won't support Trump's decertification: "After a closed-door meeting [of EU Foreign Ministers at Luxembourg] chaired by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini on how best to proceed on the Iran issue, ministers issued a joint statement saying that the 2015 deal was key to preventing the global spread of nuclear weapons." https://www.rt.com/newsline/406844-iran-eu-us-mogherini/

I can easily envision a joint announcement by Russia, China and Iran that all trade conducted with them must be transacted in Yuan, Ruble, Rial, or Euro--that the dollar is no longer welcomed. And given the utter stupidity of the Republican controlled US Congress, more sanctions will be applied to Iran thus sealing the onset of the Outlaw US Empire's international isolation.

Noirette | Oct 16, 2017 1:21:55 PM | 40
Imho, the US political establishment, as publically projected, is moving closer to a realm where words, be they snide remarks, lofty pronouncements, declarations of intent, or vile accusations, become substitutes for action.

Likewise, minor symbolic moves like withdrawing, "quitting" which is ambiguous, from e.g. UNESCO - *US didn't pay dues in any case.*

Trump is not alone, all the Dem. Russia-bashing/blaming leads nowhere, the Trump denigration as well, Trump threatening NK is similar.

The word is sufficient to itself! As are incantatory spells, religious appeals, etc. All one clumsy step beyond the Rovian "when we act, we create our own reality.." which rests on the power to act and transform reality (sometimes with sleight of hand, mirages..) transferring that power to symbols with hope and 'belief'... That's the comforting take.

US overt behavior is hapless unless entered into with cold calculation, a specific hidden aim in mind, and levers of control somewhere. Not the case imho, but dismissing Trump as a fool is not useful. We see symptoms of floundering, weakened, posturing Empire -- imho empty sorts o' threats (Iran, NK) are often dismissed by others, rightly so, but that is dangerous too: the US has to play the military domination position combined with the unpredictability card. Extremely volatile situation.

Remember when Trump said he would never do a first nuke strike? :)

[Oct 15, 2017] Russiagate And The Decline Of Journalism – Ron Paul interviews Robert Parry

Oct 15, 2017 | www.antiwar.com

Nathan abu Nevada , October 12, 2017 11:00 PM

500 People shot in Las Vegas and 500 People missing in California fires at the same time all seems pretty bland compared to Stephanie Leigh Ruhle American combat journalist, and her highly captivating conspiracy theories that those Russian Thugs could possibly have had some how colluded with that Man Trump to defeat the First Woman US President in history Hillary.

This is not the death of the media, just the US media. RT is fantastic and does not make me yell violent obscenities at the TV like the CFR programming.

Watosh Nathan abu Nevada , October 14, 2017 8:45 AM

I watch RTon the internet every day and used to watch it on TV before Time warner dropped it, and I found it very reliable and objective. I recall when one of the top journalists there abby Martin severely criticized and denounced the Russian government for accepting Crimea back into Russia, yet she was not fired even though she often criticized that action.

Many programs had American journalists. And news involving Russia, while generally non-critical, usually was confined to presenting the Russian view on something, which is a legitimate thing to do if you are informing people.

I never heard anyone on RT who spread rumors or made unfounded accusations like I hear on MSNBC every day. and no one on RT denied that they were founded by the Russian government, they did not hide this from their listeners. Americans I believe are the most propagandized people on the earth because they believe the news they get is factually reported by an independent "free" press.

My fellow Americans while they brag about their independence nevertheless are easily stampeded into becoming a lynch mob.

Dennis Boylon Watosh , October 14, 2017 9:16 AM

Modern propaganda was invented in the US by Edward Bernays. It was copied by the Nazi's Joseph Goebbels who had every book Bernays ever wrote in his library.

liveload , October 13, 2017 7:07 PM

It just occurred to me that the perfect Halloween decoration this year would be a Russian flag. That is, unless someone comes out with a Zombie Putin, or Dracula Putin...

[Oct 15, 2017] Trump Shoots the US in the Foot Over Iran by Eric Margolis

Notable quotes:
"... The US vociferous ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, is almost a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Las Vegas gambling mogul and uber Zionist billionaire, Sheldon Adelson – who is also a key financial backer of Trump and Netanyahu. ..."
"... Israel has just scored a major triumph by using Trump to sabotage the Iran nuclear pact. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long been adamant in insisting that the pact be scrapped. Having pushed the US to destroy its old foes, Iraq and Syria, Israel now has its big guns trained on Iran, the last regional power that can challenge Israel's domination of the Mideast. Iran, we should remember, is also the only important Mideast power backing the Palestinians and calling for a Palestinian state. ..."
"... Trump is surrounded by a coterie of ardently pro-Israel advisors and cronies aligned to that nation's far right wing. So far to the right, in fact, that their Israeli opponents often call them 'fascists.' Trump, with this Mussolini complex, fits right into this mind-set. ..."
"... If the Iran nuclear deal is abrogated, America will have shot itself in the foot and shown the world it has fallen under the control of special interests for whom America's national interests do not come first. Europe, already disgusted by the Trump carnival in Washington and its religious supporters, will pull further away from the US and closer to Russia and China. Who would trust America's word after deal-break Trump? ..."
"... Europe has lately signed billions in new trade accords with Iran, most notably and $18 billion deal with Airbus for the sale of commercial aircraft. Boeing wants to sell 80 aircraft to Iran worth $16 billion. Thus Trump's jihad against Iran will likely deny high-paid jobs to tens of thousands of American workers. This from the president who was going to create jobs, jobs, jobs. ..."
"... Iran handed over ten tons of medium-enriched uranium as part of the nuclear deal. Will Tehran get this trove back if Congress scuppers the Iran deal? Doubtful. Iran destroyed many of its uranium centrifuges as part of the deal. Can it sue Washington for breach of contract? ..."
"... Meanwhile, the US heads towards some sort of military conflict with Iran at a time when it may go to war any day with North Korea. Trump, who evaded the draft during the Vietnam War due to a trivial foot problem, is now clearly thrilled by all his new military toys. Many of Trump's close advisors fear Trump will trigger a nuclear war. It may be time for his top officials to step in and take away the president's nuclear launch codes. ..."
"... Israel is determined to destroy Iran so that it can never pose a military or political challenge to the Jewish state. Call it Iraq II. This means turning Iran's nuclear industry and its civilian economy to ruins. And maybe even breaking up Iran – as was done with Iraq – into Iranian, Azeri and Kurdish mini-states. ..."
"... Rome's famous statesman Cato the Elder used to end every speech with 'Carthago Delenda Est' – (Carthage, bitter rival and enemy of Rome, must be destroyed.') Now, it's Iran's turn. ..."
"... Trump, who evaded the draft during the Vietnam War due to a FAKE foot problem ..."
"... Why is it that so many chicken hawks, like Bush, Trump and Cheney are warmongers? ..."
"... Com·pen·sa·tion: Behavior that develops either consciously or unconsciously to offset a real or imagined deficiency, as in personality or physical ability. Yep, that's fits the "fuking moron in chief", alright. Just one of his many mental deficiencies. ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.commondreams.org

President Donald Trump has put the United States on the course for war with Iran. That was clearly his objective last Friday when he refused to certify the international nuclear accord with Iran and proclaimed heavy sanctions against Tehran's powerful paramilitary Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Trump's move was also a clever ploy to deflect blame for abrogating the key 2015 Iran nuclear treaty that the US signed with Iran, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union.

Accusing Iran of 'terrorism' and 'violating the spirit of the accord,' Trump threw the Iran issue into the hands of the Republican-dominated US Congress. He had to. All of Trump's senior national security officials and those from the treaty partners and UN reported that Iran had kept its end of the deal.

So Trump trotted out the old song and dance about terrorism – which means anything Uncle Sam does not like. The same United States that supports the murderous Islamic State and its allies in Syria and Iraq.

There won't be much doubt about how Congress handles this hot potato. The leading senators and congressmen who will deal with the issue, like Bob Corker, Tom Cotton, and Marco Rubio, are all firmly in the pocket of pro-Israel lobbies.

The US vociferous ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, is almost a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Las Vegas gambling mogul and uber Zionist billionaire, Sheldon Adelson – who is also a key financial backer of Trump and Netanyahu.

In fact, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have more influence on Capitol Hill than President Trump. He used to show it off by humiliating former president Barack Obama.

Israel has just scored a major triumph by using Trump to sabotage the Iran nuclear pact. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long been adamant in insisting that the pact be scrapped. Having pushed the US to destroy its old foes, Iraq and Syria, Israel now has its big guns trained on Iran, the last regional power that can challenge Israel's domination of the Mideast. Iran, we should remember, is also the only important Mideast power backing the Palestinians and calling for a Palestinian state.

Trump is surrounded by a coterie of ardently pro-Israel advisors and cronies aligned to that nation's far right wing. So far to the right, in fact, that their Israeli opponents often call them 'fascists.' Trump, with this Mussolini complex, fits right into this mind-set.

In addition, Trump's virulent hatred of Islam and his deep support from America's evangelicals fuels his antipathy to Iran. The Israeli lobby and so-called Christian Zionists that make up his electoral base are beating the war drums against Iran.

If the Iran nuclear deal is abrogated, America will have shot itself in the foot and shown the world it has fallen under the control of special interests for whom America's national interests do not come first. Europe, already disgusted by the Trump carnival in Washington and its religious supporters, will pull further away from the US and closer to Russia and China. Who would trust America's word after deal-break Trump?

Europe has lately signed billions in new trade accords with Iran, most notably and $18 billion deal with Airbus for the sale of commercial aircraft. Boeing wants to sell 80 aircraft to Iran worth $16 billion. Thus Trump's jihad against Iran will likely deny high-paid jobs to tens of thousands of American workers. This from the president who was going to create jobs, jobs, jobs.

Iran handed over ten tons of medium-enriched uranium as part of the nuclear deal. Will Tehran get this trove back if Congress scuppers the Iran deal? Doubtful. Iran destroyed many of its uranium centrifuges as part of the deal. Can it sue Washington for breach of contract?

Meanwhile, the US heads towards some sort of military conflict with Iran at a time when it may go to war any day with North Korea. Trump, who evaded the draft during the Vietnam War due to a trivial foot problem, is now clearly thrilled by all his new military toys. Many of Trump's close advisors fear Trump will trigger a nuclear war. It may be time for his top officials to step in and take away the president's nuclear launch codes.

Israel is determined to destroy Iran so that it can never pose a military or political challenge to the Jewish state. Call it Iraq II. This means turning Iran's nuclear industry and its civilian economy to ruins. And maybe even breaking up Iran – as was done with Iraq – into Iranian, Azeri and Kurdish mini-states.

Rome's famous statesman Cato the Elder used to end every speech with 'Carthago Delenda Est' – (Carthage, bitter rival and enemy of Rome, must be destroyed.') Now, it's Iran's turn.

Shantiananda

Many of Trump's close advisors fear Trump will trigger a nuclear war."

One does not need to be a close advisor to Trump in order to feel the same way!

WiseOwl

Trump, feeling so (rightly) unloved today embraces Bibi's CONDITIONAL love if only to attack Iran. Let's hope some four-stars can spare a bright an shiny among them and shove it up his ass. His? Trump and Bibi, of course. Grammar be damned.

ncycat

Netanyahu and his cronies are terrorists and war criminals. Nety and his wife are being investigated for fraud. The Israeli people are held hostage by organized crime, just as are Americans. We don't call them "mafioso," but mark my word, that is what we are dealing with: criminals of the vilest sort.

nighthawk

In addition, Trump's virulent hatred of Islam and his deep support from America's evangelicals fuels his antipathy to Iran. The Israeli lobby and so-called Christian Zionists that make up his electoral base are beating the war drums against Iran.

This one sentence says it all! Our foreign policy is now being controlled by an insane "Christian" minority and a racist foreign government.

Swagman

Israel is a ruinous parasite that, with great vigilance to consolidate power and quell opposition, seeks to control its host. Our screwed up plutocracy, illusory democracy, media control, and woeful so-called elites makes this in large measure possible.

buffalospirits

Trump, who evaded the draft during the Vietnam War due to a FAKE foot problem

Shantiananda

Why is it that so many chicken hawks, like Bush, Trump and Cheney are warmongers?

nighthawk

The answer is to be found in the psychological definition of compensation.

MCH

And apparently those close advisers don't fear it enough to demand impeachment proceedings. Unfortunately as long as Trump gives those corporate owned advisers a pass to rape the country, they will continue to risk rolling the nuclear war dice.

blaggard

Com·pen·sa·tion: Behavior that develops either consciously or unconsciously to offset a real or imagined deficiency, as in personality or physical ability. Yep, that's fits the "fuking moron in chief", alright. Just one of his many mental deficiencies.

Eric Margolis is a columnist, author and a veteran of many conflicts in the Middle East. Margolis recently was featured in a special appearance on Britain's Sky News TV as "the man who got it right" in his predictions about the dangerous risks and entanglements the US would face in Iraq. His latest book is American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World.

[Oct 15, 2017] The Carter Doctrine at 30 by Andrew J. Bacevich

Notable quotes:
"... each of Carter's successors has reinterpreted his eponymous doctrine, broadening its scope and using it to justify ever larger ambitions. The ultimate effect has been to militarize U.S. policy across various quarters of the Islamic world. ..."
"... The Carter Doctrine was intended to secure U.S. interests in a region of ostensibly great strategic importance. Those who have applied the Carter Doctrine have assumed that the presence of U.S. forces and the periodic application of American hard power serve to enhance regional stability. Yet the record of the past 30 years suggests just the opposite: The U. S. military presence and activities have served only to promote greater instability. Our exertions, undertaken at great cost to ourselves and others, are making things not better, but worse. ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.worldaffairsjournal.org

April 1, 2010 For most Americans, the 30th anniversary of the Carter Doctrine – promulgated by President Jimmy Carter during his January 1980 State of the Union Address – came and went without notice.

The oversight ranks as an unfortunate one. To an extent that few have fully appreciated, the Carter Doctrine has had a transformative impact on U.S. national security policy. Both massive and lasting, its impact has also been almost entirely pernicious. Put simply, the sequence of events that has landed the United States in the middle of an open-ended war to determine the fate of the Greater Middle East begins here.

The Carter Doctrine stands in relation to the ongoing Long War as the Truman Doctrine stood in relation to the Cold War.

In 1947, President Truman announced that it was "the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Truman's immediate purpose was to persuade Congress to approve his request for security assistance to Greece and Turkey. Yet under Truman's successors, his doctrine morphed into something more than he probably envisioned or intended. Under the guise of resisting Communist mischief-making, the Truman Doctrine provided a rationale for U. S. intervention, covert and overt, around the world.

Carter's immediate aim in January 1980 was also limited. When he declared that "an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States," to be "repelled by any means necessary," his primary purpose was to warn the Kremlin against entertaining any thoughts about asserting Soviet dominion over the world's energy heartland. Yet each of Carter's successors has reinterpreted his eponymous doctrine, broadening its scope and using it to justify ever larger ambitions. The ultimate effect has been to militarize U.S. policy across various quarters of the Islamic world.

Prior to January 1980, the Pentagon and the rest of the national security establishment had viewed the Middle East as a backwater. In terms of U. S. strategic priorities, that region of the world lagged well behind Europe and East Asia and probably behind Latin America, as well.

Jimmy Carter's announcement that the Persian Gulf constituted a vital U.S. national security interest changed all that. In short order, the aims implied by the Carter Doctrine expanded. Within a decade, the United States was not content to prevent outside powers from controlling the Gulf. It sought to claim for itself a dominant position in the region. Within two decades, the arena in which the United States sought that dominant role had expanded, eventually encompassing the entire Greater Middle East.

Directly or indirectly, the Carter Doctrine provided the rationale or justification for the following episodes involving the use of force by the United States:

  1. Afghanistan War I (1979-1989), the U.S.-led effort to punish the Soviet Union for occupying that country.
  2. The Beirut Bombing (1983), the name by which Americans choose to remember Ronald Reagan's intervention in Lebanon.
  3. The war against Khaddafi (1981-1988), a series of inconclusive skirmishes with the Libyan dictator, culminating in the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103.
  4. The Tanker War (1984-1988), waged by U. S. naval forces against Iran to maintain the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.
  5. Iraq War I (1990-1991), the first U. S. armed confrontation with Saddam Hussein, commonly but erroneously thought to have ended with the liberation of Kuwait.
  6. The Somalia Intervention (1992-1993), abruptly terminated by the notorious Mogadishu firefight.
  7. Afghanistan War II (2001-2003), launched in the wake of 9/11, but left in abeyance by the Bush administration's decision to shift the weight of U.S. military efforts elsewhere.
  8. Iraq War II (2003), the resumption of large-scale hostilities against Saddam Hussein, leading to his overthrow, but inducing chaos.
  9. Iraq War III (2004-2010?), a war to pacify Iraq in the face of resistance by indigenous insurgents and Islamic radicals raised up by Iraq War II.
  10. Afghanistan War III (2009 --), the conflict that Bush's successor rediscovered, renewed, and expanded; given the deepening U.S. military involvement in Pakistan, this war might alternatively be called the AfPak War.

The Carter Doctrine was intended to secure U.S. interests in a region of ostensibly great strategic importance. Those who have applied the Carter Doctrine have assumed that the presence of U.S. forces and the periodic application of American hard power serve to enhance regional stability. Yet the record of the past 30 years suggests just the opposite: The U. S. military presence and activities have served only to promote greater instability. Our exertions, undertaken at great cost to ourselves and others, are making things not better, but worse.

[Oct 15, 2017] Fake News and the New McCarthyism by John Buell

Dec 22, 2016 | www.commondreams.org

One of the most potent worries about the coming Trump presidency is concern about free speech. Trump's willingness to tolerate or even encourage violence against nonviolent critics of his agenda and personnel choices is alarming. The Washington Post recently carried a chilling cautionary tale about the fate of a young woman who challenged Trump's record on women's issues. Parallels with banana republic dictators tacitly encouraging or at least tolerating paramilitary forces seem not far- fetched. Though it is easy for the Washington Post to call attention to and criticize Trump's incitement to violence, the Post now practices its own more subtle efforts to police speech.

Behind the façade of a concern about fake news, the Post featured an article by Craig Timberg that cited -- without challenge -- an anonymous website, PropOrNot, listing numerous other sites purported to be purveyors of fake news. As Max Blumenthal reported for AlterNet , "the anonymous website argued that all of the named sites should be investigated by the federal government and potentially prosecuted under the Espionage Act as Russian spies. They were accused for wittingly or unwittingly spreading Russian propaganda."

This story especially caught my attention because one of the fingered websites -- Naked Capitalism -- has long been one of my favorite sources. In addition to meticulous coverage of finance, the site provides in depth analysis of both mainstream economics and contemporary and historic alternatives. All those upon whom economics 101 is being inflicted should consult entries by Philip Mirowski and Philip Pilkingotn. You will never think the same about simple supply and demand. Designating this site as a purveyor of fake -- even Russian supplied-- news while providing no evidence for the claim is surely libelous. Charges of Russian interference in our election -- thus far without any specific evidence beyond agency assertions -- should be investigated but ought not to become an occasion to harass domestic critics of US policy.

In any case, as numerous contributors to some of these libeled sites point out, the Post 's action is the digital equivalent of a McCarthyite blacklist. The Washington Post, which has "apologized" only by saying that it takes no responsibility for the factual accuracy of the claims made in Timberg's piece, is owned by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, who also does contractual work for the CIA

At the same time as this was happening, Congressional Democrats were getting involved in the blame Russia game. Norman Solomon reports:

A week ago, when the House approved by a 390-30 margin and sent to the Senate the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 2017, Schiff praised "important provisions aimed at countering Russia's destabilizing efforts -- including those targeting our elections." One of those "important provisions," Section 501 , sets up in the executive branch "an interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence.

While lacking public accountability, the committee is mandated to ferret out such ambiguous phenomena as Russian "media manipulation" and "disinformation." Along the way, the committee could target an array of activists, political opponents or irksome journalists. In any event, its power to fulfill "such other duties as the president may designate" would be ready-made for abuse.

What seems to be a common thread among many of the blacklisted groups is antagonism toward those critics of neoliberalism or of Obama/Clinton foreign policy who are seen as derailing the Clinton campaign. Solomon rightly makes a Cold War analogy, citing Democratic President Truman's issuing a loyalty act in order to toss a bone to the emerging Cold Warriors only to have it blow up into the full fledged fury of McCarthyism. I would, however, add another historical angle. As such International Relations scholars as David Campbell and James DerDerian have argued, the rhetoric of foreign affairs serves to discipline and support domestic identity as much as to fend off actual military threat. The Cold War was born as much of domestic anxiety as of Soviet military threat. The end of World War II saw contentious efforts by unions and liberals to establish a full employment politics coupled with a wave of strikes almost unprecedented in our history. Even key national security documents at the height of the Cold War indicated more worry about the political appeal of communism than its military might. That a cadre of Democratic centrists would strive to establish a top-secret surveillance committee targeting Russian links to dissident movements is an effort to escape blame for a failed campaign. Seen in broader perspective, however, it is also an effort to validate a badly wounded neoliberal agenda by tying left opponents of that agenda to a reviled foreign power.

Fake news is a real problem as is the violence it can incite. At the very least such violence should be identified and its perpetrators punished. Libel laws should be enforced with regard to innocents targeted by such mega giants as Bezos and his journalistic toy. The problems of fake news are not going to be resolved by establishing a private corporate cop or censor for the internet nor by establishing one more secretive watchdog. The Washington Post and the CIA are both propagators of fake news. This is one more argument for both net neutrality and a more robust anti-trust enforcement. The best answer to fake news is a more diverse media. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License John Buell lives in Southwest Harbor, Maine and writes on labor and environmental issues. His most recent book, published by Palgrave in August 2011, is "Politics, Religion, and Culture in an Anxious Age" . He may be reached at [email protected] .

[Oct 15, 2017] New McCarthyism Targets Trump by John V. Walsh

I thought the same way as John in January 2017. We both were definitely wrong. As were many people who voted for Trump in a hope to block ascendance of neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton to power. Now it is unclear whether Hillary Clinton would be so disastrous in foreign policy as Trump or slightly less so.
The period when Trump was at least formally ant-war is firmly in the past now and probably ended with inauguration. In April Trump folded to neocons and destroyed his anti-war credentials with Tomahawk salvo in Syria. Instead of fighting "the Washington swap" as he promised to his voters, he became a part of the swamp. In August Trump himself emerged as a bona-fide warmonger stoking the tension with North Korea. And in October he decertified Iran deal.
Notable quotes:
"... The implications of this move are, arguably, breathtaking. Trump treated Putin as his ally, not as a hated adversary. And he treated Obama and the bipartisan foreign policy elite of Washington as his adversaries, not his allies -- a move that makes perfect sense if Trump's desire is to rein in the War Party's New Cold War and to strive for a New Détente with Russia. ..."
"... If the main enemy is those who are stoking the New Cold War and risking worse, then Trump has placed himself squarely against these war hawks. And stop to consider for a moment who these folks are. Besides President Obama and Hillary Clinton, they represent a full-blown armchair army: neocons, liberal interventionists, the mainstream media, various Soros-funded "non-governmental organizations," virtually all the important think tanks, the leadership of both major parties, and the CIA and the other U.S. intelligence agencies. This array of Official Washington's power elite has been working 24/7 at demonizing Putin and stoking tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump took on all of them on with his tweet! ..."
"... As Trump looks for new allies in pursuit of a New Détente and a relaxation of U.S.-Russian tensions, Putin is foremost among them. Thus, in the struggle for peace, Trump has drawn new lines, and they cross national borders. Not since Ronald Reagan embraced Mikhail Gorbachev or Richard Nixon went to China have we seen a development like this. In this new battle to reduce tensions between nuclear powers, Trump has shown considerable courage, taking on a wide range of attackers. ..."
Jan 04, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

... ... ...

When President Obama expelled Russian diplomats over the hysterical and unproven accusation of Russia "hacking the election," Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to be drawn into a petty squabble, saying he would delay any response until Donald Trump assumed office. Instead Putin invited American diplomats and their families in Moscow to join the official holiday celebrations in the Kremlin.

Then came the shock that shook Official Washington: President-elect Trump, in the form of a tweet heard round the world, wrote: "Great move on delay (by V. Putin) -- I always knew he was very smart!"

And just to be sure that everyone saw it, Trump "pinned" the tweet which means it is the first thing seen by viewers of his account. This was a first use of "pinning" for Trump. And to be doubly sure, he posted it on Instagram as well. This was no spontaneous midnight outburst but a very deliberate action taken on Friday noon, Dec. 30, the day after Obama had issued his retaliation order.

The implications of this move are, arguably, breathtaking. Trump treated Putin as his ally, not as a hated adversary. And he treated Obama and the bipartisan foreign policy elite of Washington as his adversaries, not his allies -- a move that makes perfect sense if Trump's desire is to rein in the War Party's New Cold War and to strive for a New Détente with Russia.

If the main enemy is those who are stoking the New Cold War and risking worse, then Trump has placed himself squarely against these war hawks. And stop to consider for a moment who these folks are. Besides President Obama and Hillary Clinton, they represent a full-blown armchair army: neocons, liberal interventionists, the mainstream media, various Soros-funded "non-governmental organizations," virtually all the important think tanks, the leadership of both major parties, and the CIA and the other U.S. intelligence agencies. This array of Official Washington's power elite has been working 24/7 at demonizing Putin and stoking tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump took on all of them on with his tweet!

Putin as Ally Against the War Party

As Trump looks for new allies in pursuit of a New Détente and a relaxation of U.S.-Russian tensions, Putin is foremost among them. Thus, in the struggle for peace, Trump has drawn new lines, and they cross national borders. Not since Ronald Reagan embraced Mikhail Gorbachev or Richard Nixon went to China have we seen a development like this. In this new battle to reduce tensions between nuclear powers, Trump has shown considerable courage, taking on a wide range of attackers.

Later that afternoon, Maya Kosoff writing for Vanity Fair put out an article entitled "Twitter Melts Down over 'Treason' After Trump Praises Putin." The first batch of such tweets came from "journalists and other foreign policy experts," the next from Evan McMullin, the former CIA officer who tried to draw off Republican votes from Trump in the general election, who tweeted: "To be clear, @realDonaldTrump is siding with America's greatest adversary even as it attacks our democracy. Never grow desensitized to this."

Finally came the predictable rash of tweets calling Trump's words "treasonous" or "seditious." In response, Team Trump refused to issue a "clarification," saying instead that Trump's words spoke for themselves.

As stunning as Trump's tweet was in many ways, it was in other ways entirely predictable. Despite the mainstream media's scorn and Hillary Clinton's mocking him as Putin's "puppet," Trump has held firm to his promise that he will seek peace with Russia and look for areas of cooperation such as fighting terrorism.

So, even when Trump's Russia comments appeared to cost him politically, he stuck with them, suggesting that he believes that this détente is important. The rule of thumb is that if a politician says something that will win votes, you do not know whether it is conviction or opportunism. But if a politician says something that should lose her or him votes, then you can bet it is heartfelt.

Trump was bashed over his resistance to the New Cold War both during the Republican primaries when many GOP leaders were extremely hawkish on Russia and during the general election when the Clinton campaign sought to paint him as some sort of Manchurian Candidate. Even his vice presidential candidate Mike Pence staked out a more hawkish position than Trump.

Trump stood by his more dovish attitude though it presented few electoral advantages and many negatives. By that test, he appears to be sincere. So, his latest opening to Putin was entirely predictable.

A Choice of Peace or War

What is troubling, however, is that some Americans who favor peace hate Trump so much that they recoil from speaking out in his defense over his "treasonous" tweet though they may privately agree with it. Some progressives are uncomfortable with the mainstream's descent into crude McCarthyism but don't want to say anything favorable about Trump.

After all, a vote for President is either thumbs up or thumbs down -- nothing in between -- though voters may like or dislike some policy prescriptions of one candidate and other positions of another candidate. And progressives could list many reasons to not vote for Trump.

But a presidential administration is multi-issued -- not all or none. One can disagree with a president on some issues and agree on others. For instance, many progressives are outraged over Trump's harsh immigration policies but agree with him on scrapping the TPP trade deal.

In other words, there is no reason why those who claim to be for peace should not back Trump on his more peaceful approach toward Putin and Russia, even if they disdain his tough talk about fighting terrorism. That is the reality of politics.

What I've discovered is that many progressives -- as well as many on the Right -- who oppose endless war and disdain empire will tell you in whispers that they do support Trump's attempt at Détente 2.0, though they doubt he will succeed. In the meantime, they are keeping their heads down and staying quiet.

But clearly Trump's success depends on how much support he gets -- as weighed against how much grief he gets. By lacking the courage to defend Trump's "treasonous tweet," those who want to rein in the warmongers may be missing a rare opportunity. If those who agree with Trump on this issue stay silent, it may be a lost opportunity as well.

John V. Walsh, an anti-war activist, can be reached at [email protected]

[Oct 15, 2017] A New McCarthyism in Hollywood by Stephen Galloway

Notable quotes:
"... Seventy years ago this week -- on March 21, 1947, to be exact -- President Truman issued an executive order that caught some of his most die-hard supporters by surprise. ..."
"... The order, wrote Robert Justin Goldstein in Prologue ..."
"... their summons sent waves of fear coursing through the industry, enough to paralyze even liberal supporters such as Humphrey Bogart, and certainly more conservative ones such as Gary Cooper. ..."
"... By the end of the hearings, 10 of the witnesses had been cited for contempt of court, and soon some of the top movie executives issued what became known as the Waldorf Statement, a two-page press release vowing that "We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ, and we will not re-employ any of the ten until such time as he is acquitted or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a Communist." ..."
"... The Hollywood Ten would serve time in prison and emerge to find themselves banished from the studios, forced to scrimp and scrape and use "fronts" just to survive. More than a decade would pass before they were able to work freely again. ..."
"... I've often wondered whether McCarthyism could ever find a foothold in Hollywood or America again. I didn't think so, until now. That possibility was always present in the minds of the blacklisted, some of whom I came to know when I arrived in Los Angeles in the 1980s, among them Martin Ritt, the director of such pictures as Hud, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold and Norma Rae. ..."
"... Marty was blacklisted for several years and later made a movie about the experience, 1976's comedy-drama The Front ..."
"... Edge of the City ..."
"... Tom, Dick and Harry ..."
"... More than careers were hurt: friendships were sundered, relationships broken, families destroyed, lives ruined. Even those who weren't victims of the blacklist lived in constant fear that they might become victims, too. ..."
"... Because fear is the most contagious of diseases. It spreads with a will of its own, infecting innocent and guilty alike, poisoning the oppressor as well as the oppressed. Those who instill fear are often afraid. And the more they inflict fear on others, the more likely they are to feel it themselves. ..."
Mar 20, 2017 | www.hollywoodreporter.com
It's been 70 years since President Truman ordered his loyalty tests. Now Hollywood has a loyalty test of its own.

Seventy years ago this week -- on March 21, 1947, to be exact -- President Truman issued an executive order that caught some of his most die-hard supporters by surprise.

The order, wrote Robert Justin Goldstein in Prologue magazine, "required that all federal civil service employees be screened for 'loyalty.' [It] specified that one criterion would be a finding of 'membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association' with any organization determined by the attorney general to be 'totalitarian, Fascist, Communist or subversive' or advocating or approving the forceful denial of constitutional rights to other persons or seeking 'to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.'"

Two and a half years before Sen. Joseph McCarthy raised his ugly head and alleged massive Communist infiltration of the government, the "red scare" was underway. It would have a devastating impact on Hollywood.

Months after Truman's order, several dozen members of the film industry were summoned to appear as witnesses before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Nineteen of them, known as the "Unfriendly Nineteen" -- a term coined by the then-red-baiting Hollywood Reporter -- were left-wingers, hostile to the committee. Billy Wilder mordantly quipped that "only two of them have talent. The rest are just unfriendly." But their summons sent waves of fear coursing through the industry, enough to paralyze even liberal supporters such as Humphrey Bogart, and certainly more conservative ones such as Gary Cooper.

By the end of the hearings, 10 of the witnesses had been cited for contempt of court, and soon some of the top movie executives issued what became known as the Waldorf Statement, a two-page press release vowing that "We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ, and we will not re-employ any of the ten until such time as he is acquitted or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a Communist."

The Hollywood Ten would serve time in prison and emerge to find themselves banished from the studios, forced to scrimp and scrape and use "fronts" just to survive. More than a decade would pass before they were able to work freely again.

***

I've often wondered whether McCarthyism could ever find a foothold in Hollywood or America again. I didn't think so, until now. That possibility was always present in the minds of the blacklisted, some of whom I came to know when I arrived in Los Angeles in the 1980s, among them Martin Ritt, the director of such pictures as Hud, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold and Norma Rae.

Marty was blacklisted for several years and later made a movie about the experience, 1976's comedy-drama The Front , starring Woody Allen and Zero Mostel. He was a man of enormous integrity, who was blackballed without explanation, though he insisted he had never been a member of the Communist Party. Overnight, his work dried up and he was forced to return to his roots in the theater -- along with the racetrack, where he made his real money. He could have named names to get himself off the hook, but he didn't, in contrast to his close friend Elia Kazan, whose betrayal stung him to the quick.

Ritt was relatively lucky; he was allowed back into the Hollywood fold sooner than most, when he got to direct the low-budget feature Edge of the City (1957), the first of the 20-plus films he would make over the following three decades. Others were less fortunate. Paul Jarrico, a writer whom I also was privileged to meet and who'd been Oscar-nominated in his mid-20s for Tom, Dick and Harry (1941), fled to Paris, his career never to bounce back to the heights it had reached before.

More than careers were hurt: friendships were sundered, relationships broken, families destroyed, lives ruined. Even those who weren't victims of the blacklist lived in constant fear that they might become victims, too.

Because fear is the most contagious of diseases. It spreads with a will of its own, infecting innocent and guilty alike, poisoning the oppressor as well as the oppressed. Those who instill fear are often afraid. And the more they inflict fear on others, the more likely they are to feel it themselves.

[Oct 15, 2017] The New McCarthyism by Michael Rivero

Notable quotes:
"... in actuality the US Government was concerned that Hollywood was no longer as blindly supportive of government policy as it had been only a few years earlier at the height of WW2. In particular, J. Edgar Hoover had long held the opinion that the entertainment industry should be the propaganda arm for the government in peace time as well as war. ..."
"... However, as WW2 had ended, the defense establishment had lobbied for the creation of a "Cold" war against the Soviet Union, a war not actually to be fought, but constantly to be prepared for at huge cost to the taxpayers. This cost was the visible manifestation of the "Military Industrial Complex" President Eisenhower referred to in his farewell address, and many in Hollywood openly wondered just why so much more money had to be thrown into the war machine during a time of peace, and more to the point, just why we were supposed to be so afraid of the communists. ..."
"... In later years, FBI informants became permanent fixtures at movie studios, and spied for the FBI. ..."
"... While Senator Joseph McCarthy grabbed headlines with his shouts of "Communist", Hoover set about his self-appointed task of purging Hollywood of any he viewed as "disloyal" to the United States, which meant anyone unwilling to make the movies they were told to make, when and how they were told to make them. ..."
"... Stars such as Larry Parks were destroyed because they refused to "name names" of other actors who were party members. Actor Philip Loeb committed suicide. Edward G. Robinson, never a communist, was put on a "grey list," and spent the rest of his life making B movies (except for his final role opposite Charlton Heston in "Soylent Green"). Sam Jaffe, formerly a well-known actor and Oscar winner in 1950 was registered on the black list because he refused to cooperate with the committee. He spent the next 6 years working as a math teacher and living at his sister's until he was able to return to films in 1957. ..."
"... Of course, what was really involved was money. War is good for business. Business had been great during WW2 and the newly created "Cold War" was just a way to keep business good. The Military Industrial Complex NEEDED Hollywood to demonize the Soviets. Otherwise, too many people were going to ask why we were being told to be so afraid of them, and few in the government had a really convincing answer for that question. So, in order to perpetuate the Cold War, those in Hollywood who might sympathize with the designated villains had to be removed; their ruined lives a small price to pay for unending access to the taxpayers' wallets. ..."
"... But the Soviet Union has gone out of business. The word "communist" doesn't carry the same psychological impact it used to, so the war hawk smear squad has come up with a new one, "Anti-Semite." Like "Communist", "Anti-Semite" is used to ruin the lives of people who have not actually done anything wrong other than to challenge the war profiteers. It is a new word for an old trick, and I am amazed that they are still playing the same old game, but I guess the FBI can always find some dumb-assed idiot to fall for it and do their dirty work of wrecking a career for them. ..."
"... Charles Lindbergh the famous aviator commented in a speech in Des Moines in 1941... ..."
"... Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak. ..."
"... If there is a difference today it is that the American people are better educated. No longer dependent on the state schools, or controlled media, the public understands the tactics used to silence those who speak out. As a result, those who speak out are more and more not only accorded the sympathetic ear that their message deserves, but the effects of the smearing are far less ruinous than in times past. ..."
"... While people like Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard (and to step out of entertainment, former President Jimmy Carter) will be remembered and honored for their courage, history will lump the smear artists together with Stalin's "Useful idiots", little more than no-talent opportunists for whom ratting out someone was the fastest path to advancement. ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.whatreallyhappened.com

Back in the year 1947, the House Select Committee began an investigation into the Motion Picture Industry. Ostensibly the goal was to ferret out communists working in the film industry. But in actuality the US Government was concerned that Hollywood was no longer as blindly supportive of government policy as it had been only a few years earlier at the height of WW2. In particular, J. Edgar Hoover had long held the opinion that the entertainment industry should be the propaganda arm for the government in peace time as well as war.

However, as WW2 had ended, the defense establishment had lobbied for the creation of a "Cold" war against the Soviet Union, a war not actually to be fought, but constantly to be prepared for at huge cost to the taxpayers. This cost was the visible manifestation of the "Military Industrial Complex" President Eisenhower referred to in his farewell address, and many in Hollywood openly wondered just why so much more money had to be thrown into the war machine during a time of peace, and more to the point, just why we were supposed to be so afraid of the communists.

Hoover's desire to remake Hollywood into a gigantic propaganda machine had started at the end of WW1 when Hoover tried to persuade Charlie Chaplin to cease making films that portrayed authority figures as oafish buffoons. Chaplin refused, laughed at Hoover. Years later, as head of the FBI, Hoover was instrumental in having Charlie Chaplin's citizenship revoked in retaliation.

Hoover's mania with Hollywood was a seldom reported but constant factor in show business. The 1959 film, "The FBI Story" starring Air Force General Jimmy Stewart was reportedly directed by Mervyn LeRoy, but in actuality J. Edgar Hoover was personally supervising the film (and briefly appears in it, shown only from the back) to make certain the "correct" image of the FBI was shown.

In later years, FBI informants became permanent fixtures at movie studios, and spied for the FBI. When Disney Studios made "That Darned Cat", a pre-production copy of the screenplay "somehow" made its way to the FBI, which promptly sent Disney a memo expressing concern at how the FBI was to be portrayed.

[That Darned Cat]Click for full sized page. [That Darned Cat]Click for full sized page.

Likewise, when Paramount Pictures produced, "Skidoo", starring Jackie Gleason, it featured a single scene in which Gleason's character is seen fleeing a building marked, "FBI" carrying a file cabinet on his back. That one single scene prompted the following four page memo.

[Skidoo page 1]Click for full sized page. [Skidoo page 2]Click for full sized page.
[Skidoo page 3]Click for full sized page. [Skidoo page 4]Click for full sized page.

Along with "nudging" the film studios to portray certain things certain ways, the FBI did not hesitate to wreck the careers of those people it felt posed a dangerous threat to the government's public image. During the height of the FBI's COINTELPRO program, the FBI destroyed the career of actress Jean Seberg

Jean Seberg was considered a threat to the US Government because of her public support for civil rights at a time when the Civil Rights movement was starting to point out the racial bias in the draft system that placed a disproportionate percentage of black kids on the front lines of Vietnam. Seberg was also a supporter of the Black Panthers in their pre-militant days when their agenda was breakfasts for the ghetto kids, local control of school curriculum, and ending the draft.

Jean Seberg, a well known actress in the 60s, became pregnant and the FBI sent out letters to the gossip columnists identifying the baby's father as a Black Panther, in order to cheapen Seberg's image. Keep in mind that the 60s was an era in which sexual relations between blacks and whites was still considered taboo by most Americans.

The scans below are of the official FBI letter from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. asking permission for the scam.

[Seberg Letter Page 1]letter requesting permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.

[Seberg Letter Page 2]page two of request for permission to smear of Jean Seberg

The text of the letter:

"Bureau permission is requested to publicize the pregnancy of Jean Seberg, well-known movie actress by (name deleted) Black Panther (BPP) (deleted) by advising Hollywood "Gossip-Columnists" in the Los Angeles area of the situation. It is felt that the possible publication of Seberg's plight could cause her embarrassment and serve to cheapen her image with the general public.

" 'It is proposed that the following letter from a fictitious person be sent to local columnists:

"I was just thinking about you and remembered I still owe you a favor. So ---- I was in Paris last week and ran into Jean Seberg, who was heavy with baby. I thought she and Romaine [sic] had gotten together again, but she confided the child belonged to (deleted) of the Black Panthers, one (deleted). The dear girl is getting around!

" 'Anyway, I thought you might get a scoop on the others. Be good and I'll see you soon.

'Love,
" 'Sol.,

"Usual precautions would be taken by the Los Angeles Division to preclude identification of the Bureau as the source of the letter if approval is granted."

Permission to use the fake letter was granted, but with the suggestion that the smear be delayed until Jean Seberg's pregnancy was in a very obvious condition.

[Seberg Letter Page 1] letter granting permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.

The story was then run by Los Angeles Times propagandist Joyce Haber.

[Seberg Letter Page 2]Click for full size picture of the Haber Article that launched the smear.

The story was picked up by Newsweek and the international press. The shock of the story was so severe that Jean Seberg suffered a miscarriage. The funeral for the child was held with an open casket, so that the lie stood revealed in its most tragic form. Jean Seberg, her baby dead and her career shattered by this outright lie, attempted suicide several times, finally succeeding in a French Hotel.

[Seberg Letter Page 1] memo that accompanied copy of the Haber story sent to FBI files.

(The name which was redacted from the memo during the FOIA process is thought by many to have been Raymond Hewit, a Black Panther leader. His "outright lie" was far more direct. The FBI typed up a letter on official FBI stationary identifying Hewit as an informant and planted it where other Black Panthers would find it in the hopes that Hewit would then be killed.)

Following Seberg's death, the Los Angeles Times, the key instrument of her torment, issued a statement by the FBI.

"The days when the FBI used derogatory information to combat advocates of unpopular causes have long since passed. We are out of that business forever."

The Senate committee that looked into COINTELPRO disagreed, however.

"Cointelpro activities may continue today under the rubric of 'investigation.'

Finally, no single celebrity filled the government with more fear than did ex-Beatle John Lennon. Lennon's popularity, and hence his ability to influence popular opinion, coupled with his strong anti-war stance, made him a real threat in the event the United States decided it had to go to war. For this reason, Lennon was one of the most watched celebrities, and according to Lennon's youngest son, the victim of a government assassination plot.

[Lennon 1]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 2]Click for full sized page.
[Lennon 3]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 4]Click for full sized page.
[Lennon 5]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 6]Click for full sized page.
[Lennon 7]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 8]Click for full sized page.
[Lennon 9]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 10]Click for full sized page.

Having documented the FBI's willingness to destroy anyone they feel represents a threat to the government, let us return to the days of the House Select Committee on UnAmerican Activities.

While Senator Joseph McCarthy grabbed headlines with his shouts of "Communist", Hoover set about his self-appointed task of purging Hollywood of any he viewed as "disloyal" to the United States, which meant anyone unwilling to make the movies they were told to make, when and how they were told to make them. Senator McCarthy's screed of "Communist" provided Hoover with a bludgeon he could and did use with impunity on Hollywood's creative talents. Careers were ruined. Some 400 people, mostly innocent of any actual wrongdoing, were destroyed. Some, like Jean Seberg would later do, committed suicide. Ten men (the famous Hollywood Ten), Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Ring Lardner jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, Dalton Trumbo, and eminent director Edward Dmytryk were jailed for contempt of Congress.

Others punished for refusing to cooperate included Larry Adler, Stella Adler, Leonard Bernstein, Marc Blitzstein, Joseph Bromberg, Charlie Chaplin, Aaron Copland, Hanns Eisler, Carl Foreman, John Garfield, Howard Da Silva, Dashiell Hammett, E. Y. Harburg, Lillian Hellman, Burl Ives, Arthur Miller, Dorothy Parker, Philip Loeb, Joseph Losey, Anne Revere, Pete Seeger, Gale Sondergaard, Louis Untermeyer, Josh White, Clifford Odets, Michael Wilson, Paul Jarrico, Jeff Corey, John Randolph, Canada Lee, Orson Welles, Paul Green, Sidney Kingsley, Paul Robeson, Richard Wright and Abraham Polonsky. Lee Grant was registered on the black list because she refused to give evidence against her husband Arnold Manoff.

Stars such as Larry Parks were destroyed because they refused to "name names" of other actors who were party members. Actor Philip Loeb committed suicide. Edward G. Robinson, never a communist, was put on a "grey list," and spent the rest of his life making B movies (except for his final role opposite Charlton Heston in "Soylent Green"). Sam Jaffe, formerly a well-known actor and Oscar winner in 1950 was registered on the black list because he refused to cooperate with the committee. He spent the next 6 years working as a math teacher and living at his sister's until he was able to return to films in 1957.

Of course, what was really involved was money. War is good for business. Business had been great during WW2 and the newly created "Cold War" was just a way to keep business good. The Military Industrial Complex NEEDED Hollywood to demonize the Soviets. Otherwise, too many people were going to ask why we were being told to be so afraid of them, and few in the government had a really convincing answer for that question. So, in order to perpetuate the Cold War, those in Hollywood who might sympathize with the designated villains had to be removed; their ruined lives a small price to pay for unending access to the taxpayers' wallets.

But that was then and this is now.

Once again vast sums of money are being spent on a war, this time a hot one and getting hotter. Once again parties with a vested interest are out to smear and destroy anyone who dares ask if the wars are worth the sacrifice of our young people (not to mention the money), indeed if there really is any point at all to the wars aside from justifying the flow of money to defense contractors.

But the Soviet Union has gone out of business. The word "communist" doesn't carry the same psychological impact it used to, so the war hawk smear squad has come up with a new one, "Anti-Semite." Like "Communist", "Anti-Semite" is used to ruin the lives of people who have not actually done anything wrong other than to challenge the war profiteers. It is a new word for an old trick, and I am amazed that they are still playing the same old game, but I guess the FBI can always find some dumb-assed idiot to fall for it and do their dirty work of wrecking a career for them.

Of course, it really isn't that new a word. Oddly enough, Charles Lindbergh the famous aviator commented in a speech in Des Moines in 1941...

Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.

Today we are seeing once again the heavy hand of the war profiteers trying to reshape the film industry into a tool to propagandize the public into a high war-fever such that they will gladly trade their own blood for gold to line the pockets of the defense establishment. And those individuals who have the courage to speak out are attacked, and once again they are smeared to silence them. In the 1940s it was "Communist", today it is "Anti-Semite", but aside from the particular label used, the methods, goals, and morality are little changed from the days of Joseph McCarthy.

If there is a difference today it is that the American people are better educated. No longer dependent on the state schools, or controlled media, the public understands the tactics used to silence those who speak out. As a result, those who speak out are more and more not only accorded the sympathetic ear that their message deserves, but the effects of the smearing are far less ruinous than in times past.

Thus, when we see people like Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard speak out and survive, or when people like Tom Shadyac (or myself) voluntarily walk away from Hollywood because speaking the truth matters more to them, it sends a message that it is now permissible, indeed imperative to speak out. This is not to say that there are not risks. Rosie O'Donnell lost her spot on "The View", but the majority of Americans understand exactly why, and understand that Rosie sacrificed a great deal trying to get the truth out. Rosie is and will be remembered as a hero for truth long after her co-hosts on "The View" are properly forgotten.

In contrast, of course, we look back at those who aided the "Commie" witch-hunts of the 1940s with deserved contempt. No doubt many aided Hoover purely to rid themselves of competition, and then tried to lull themselves to sleep with the idea that in some way they had actually done something good for the nation by wrecking their neighbors' careers. I have no doubt strong liquor played a role in this grossest of self-deception. But if the informants and smear artists of the 1940s are remembered in a poor light, that should serve as a reminder to the informants and smear artists of today. It does not matter what you do with the rest of your life, aiding the new version of McCarthyism is how history will remember you. While people like Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard (and to step out of entertainment, former President Jimmy Carter) will be remembered and honored for their courage, history will lump the smear artists together with Stalin's "Useful idiots", little more than no-talent opportunists for whom ratting out someone was the fastest path to advancement.

They say that history repeats itself, and indeed that is the major thing wrong with history. We are seeing history repeat itself again. We have been down this path before, in the 1940s. Whether the word is "Communist" or "Anti-Semite", Hollywood is making the same mistake all over again. And Hollywood will have to live with that image in the coming decades.

[Oct 15, 2017] Is Trump the Heir to Reagan? by Patrick J. Buchanan

Bastard neoliberalism by Trump (and Bannon) are inconsistent. You can't be half pregnant -- to be a neoliberal (promote deregulation, regressive taxes) and be anti-immigration and anti-globalist. In this sense words Trump is doomed: neoliberal are determined to get rid of him.
Reagan was a former governor of California before becoming the President. hardly a complete outsider. Trump was an outsider more similar to Barak Obama in a sense that he has no political record and can ride on backlash against neoliberal globalization, especially outsourcing and offshoring and unlimited immigration, as well as ride anti-globalism sentiments and popular protest against foreign wars. Only quickly betraying those promised afterward. Much like king of "bait and switch" Obama .
Notable quotes:
"... Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy designed to prosper Americans first. ..."
"... Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot. ..."
"... He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally, but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a country any more. ..."
"... Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like Ike, both built up the military. ..."
"... Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security. ..."
"... Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time. ..."
"... As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the 1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and "America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s. ..."
"... Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war with GOP leaders on the Hill. ..."
"... And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly. Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics." ..."
"... It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class. ..."
"... Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political establishment. ..."
"... There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance was often as much a pretext as a real motive. ..."
"... Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live differently. ..."
"... As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves. ..."
"... Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete fuckup. ..."
"... Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence. ..."
"... you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people (like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process. ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

Both men were outsiders, and neither a career politician. Raised Democratic, Reagan had been a Hollywood actor, union leader and voice of GE, before running for governor of California.

Trump is out of Queens, a builder-businessman in a Democratic city whose Republican credentials were suspect at best when he rode down that elevator at Trump Tower. Both took on the Republican establishment of their day, and humiliated it.

Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy designed to prosper Americans first.

Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot.

He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally, but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a country any more.

Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like Ike, both built up the military.

Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time.

And both were regarded in this capital city with a cosmopolitan condescension bordering on contempt. "An amiable dunce" said a Great Society Democrat of Reagan.

The awesome victories Reagan rolled up, a 44-state landslide in 1980 and a 49-state landslide in 1984, induced some second thoughts among Beltway elites about whether they truly spoke for America. Trump's sweep of the primaries and startling triumph in the Electoral College caused the same consternation.

However, as the Great Depression, New Deal and World War II represented a continental divide in history between what came before and what came after, so, too, did the end of the Cold War and the Reagan era.

As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the 1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and "America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s.

Which bring us to the present, with our billionaire president, indeed, at the barricades.

The differences between Trump in his first year and Reagan in 1981 are stark. Reagan had won a landslide. The attempt on his life in April and the grace with which he conducted himself had earned him a place in the hearts of his countrymen. He not only showed spine in giving the air traffic controllers 48 hours to get back to work, and then discharging them when they defied him, he enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history with the aid of boll weevil Democrats in the House.

Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war with GOP leaders on the Hill.

Greg Bacon , Website October 13, 2017 at 10:24 am GMT

And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly. Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics."

It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class.

The only parts of the economy it helps are the builders of luxury mansions, antique and pricey art dealers, and the makers of luxury autos and private jets.

Randal , October 13, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT
@Mark James

when the US Government is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral process

Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political establishment.

Two pieces here at Unz you ought to read, and fully take on board the implications of, if you want to even begin the process of grasping reality, rather than living in the manufactured fantasy you appear to inhabit at the moment:

Randal , October 13, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT

Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time.

There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance was often as much a pretext as a real motive.

Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live differently.

As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves.

Here's the German government being unusually blunt yesterday about the stupidity of the Trump regime's seeming plans in this regard:

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Thursday said that any move by US President Donald Trump's administration to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal would drive a wedge between Europe and the US.

"It's imperative that Europe sticks together on this issue," Gabriel told Germany's RND newspaper group. "We also have to tell the Americans that their behavior on the Iran issue will drive us Europeans into a common position with Russia and China against the USA."

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-warns-donald-trump-against-decertifying-iran-deal/a-40933703

It's difficult to know whether the likes of Gabriel actually believe all the boilerplate nonsense they talk about a supposed Iranian nuclear program – the real reason the European nations want the deal to continue is that it stopped them having to pretend to believe all the outright lies the US told about Iran, and having to kowtow t0 costly and counterproductive sanctions against Iran that did immense general harm for the benefit only of Israel and Saudi Arabia and their US stooges.

The US pulling out of the deal would at least bring that issue of US dishonesty on Iran and past European appeasement of it to a head, I suppose.

John Jeremiah Smith , October 13, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT
Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete fuckup.

Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence. Assuming they won't kill Pence with the same bomb.

YetAnotherAnon , October 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Mark James

"As for Trump I think it's crystal clear his campaign involved the Russians in our election. "

It's crystal clear that some people will believe any crap that The Media Formerly Known As Hillary's broadcast.

reiner Tor , October 13, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT
@John Jeremiah Smith

I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety.

Often I feel like it'd be better if Hillary did the same insane policies. It's always worse when our guy does something wrong, and better when the hated enemy does it.

Hillary was a danger that she would start WW3 in Syria, but I don't think we can be certain she'd have started it. Given how risk-averse women are in general, I think the only issue was whether the Russians could've made it clear that shooting at Russian soldiers would mean war with Russia. And I think even Hillary's advisers would've blinked.

On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran. As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane domestic policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This would ultimately be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only used to evil ends in the world.

reiner Tor , October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT
@Randal

Unfortunately I can see Orbαn and the Poles torpedoing a common EU stance. I'm sure that will be the price for Netanyahu's meeting with the V4 leaders a few months ago.

reiner Tor , October 13, 2017 at 5:15 pm GMT
I think one good thing would be if US conservatives stopped their Reagan worship. He was certainly not a bad person, but he allowed the amnesty to happen, couldn't stop the sanctions on Apartheid South Africa, didn't (or couldn't?) do anything against the MLK cult becoming a state religion, and started the free trade and tax cuts cults, he's also responsible for promoting the neocons to positions of power. So overall he was a mixed bag from a nationalist conservative viewpoint.
Chris Mallory , October 13, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT
@Mark James

Private citizens are forbidden to ask for help from a foreign country, when the US Government is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral process.

You forgot the Clintons, Bush, McCain, Romney, and Obama. China and Israel worked on behalf of all five of them, even though three of them lost

Randal , October 13, 2017 at 5:33 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Yes, that's quite possible, but a common EU stance is not really all that important. What really matters is how far the Germans, and to a lesser extent the less relevant but still big European nations such as France and Italy and the more subservient US tool, the UK, are prepared to continue to kowtow to US and Israeli dishonesty on Iran.

All the signs seem to be that repudiating the deal and trying to return to the days of the aggressive and counter-productive US-imposed sanctions will be a step too far for many of those players.

As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane domestic policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This would ultimately be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only used to evil ends in the world.

Actually I suspect that repudiating the JCPOA, whether openly or by de facto breach, will go immensely farther, and much faster, towards destroying practical US influence and therefore power globally than any of those domestic policies, at least in the short run.

You can see that Trump is at least dimly aware of that likelihood from the way he keeps bottling and postponing the decision, despite his clearly evident and desperate desire to please his pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian advisers and instincts.

John Jeremiah Smith , October 13, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran.

An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.

reiner Tor , October 13, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
@John Jeremiah Smith

1) There's a chance foreign policy insanity starts a nuclear war, in which case all domestic policy issues will pale before such horror.

2) The US already has de facto open borders. Why does it matter if it becomes majority nonwhite in 30 or just 20 years?

3) For non-American whites, it's better the earlier the US sphere disintegrates. I bet you it's better for American whites as well. As long as this political/cultural center holds, the rot cannot be stopped.

The Alarmist , October 13, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT
I watched the movie Independence Day last night: Can we have that guy for President after Trump, or do we have to have an obligatory Democrat (Chelsea Clinton?) President for the next 8 years?
German_reader , October 13, 2017 at 6:57 pm GMT
@John Jeremiah Smith

An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.

That's understandable, but obviously the calculation must be somewhat different from a non-US perspective. Given how strongly many white Americans are in favor of pro-war policies and mindless Israel worship (how many US blacks or Hispanics care about Israel or confronting Iran?), I'm not even sure nationalists in Europe should really lament the Hispanicization of the US. It might at least have a positive effect in restricting US interventionism and eroding US power. The sooner the US is unable to continue with its self-appointed role as a global redeemer nation, the better.

RadicalCenter , October 13, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT
@Mark James

Glad you think it's "crystal clear." How about evidence?

nsa , October 13, 2017 at 9:10 pm GMT
History repeats first as tragedy (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly white air traffic controllers), then as farce (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly afro NFL jocks). Reagan was at least an American Firster. Trumpenstein is an obvious traitorous Izzie Firster, with little concern for the so-called deplorables except to convert them into deployables at the service of his jooie sponsors. Maybe Paddy should have titled his screed "Heir to Begin, not Reagan"?
Aren Haich , October 13, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT
Pat Buchanan points out that " it is far more likely that a major war would do for the Trump presidency and his place in history what it did for Presidents Wilson, Truman, LBJ and George W. Bush."

As for President Trump; Let us hope that war DOES NOT BECOME "The Last Refuge Of This Scoundrel"!

John Gruskos , October 13, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Orban has been critical of regime change wars.

John Gruskos , October 13, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT
@German_reader

Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).

If only non-White votes were counted, Hillary Clinton would have been elected unanimously by the electoral college, and Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.

The few reliable voices for foreign policy sanity in congress, such as Senator Rand Paul and Congressmen Walter Jones, John Duncan, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash, represent overwhelmingly White, Protestant, old-stock American districts.

German_reader , October 13, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT
@John Gruskos

Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).

Maybe, but is there any data indicating many blacks in Washington DC actually voted in the Republican primaries? Why would they when most of them are a solid Democrat voting block? I'd guess Rubio got his votes from white elites in DC.
As for Puerto Rico, I didn't know they actually have primaries, seems odd given they don't vote in US presidential elections.

Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.

Hillary was horrible all around, and I agree she might well have been disastrous as president given her dangerous proposals for no-fly zones in Syria, and the potential of conflict with Russia this entailed. But I'm no longer sure Trump is really better regarding foreign policy. His behaviour on the North Korea issue is irresponsible imo, and his willingness to wreck the nuclear deal with Iran at the behest of neoconservatives and Zionist donors like Sheldon Adelson is a big fat minus in my view. Sorry, but I think you guys who hoped for something different have all been (neo-)conned.

Jonathan Mason , October 13, 2017 at 11:42 pm GMT
Reagan said: My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

Trump said: We will totally destroy North Korea if the United States is forced to defend itself or its allies.

Reagan was a joker, Trump is a wildcard.

Carroll Price , October 14, 2017 at 1:51 am GMT
The only similarities I see between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump is that both live (lived) in a sort of la-la land, totally out of touch with reality. The only difference between them is that Reagan had sensible people around him (like Pat Buchannan) who wrote good speeches and make good decisions which he took full credit for. Trump, on the other hand delivers abbreviated, one-sentence speeches via Twitter while surrounded by mental midgets with military minds.
Carroll Price , October 14, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT
@Randal

There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism

Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced just in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets necessary to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.

Carroll Price , October 14, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT
@John Gruskos

Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).

but you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people (like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process.

Randal , October 14, 2017 at 7:48 am GMT
@Carroll Price

Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced just in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets necessary to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.

Well, yes and no. In both cases. It really is more complicated than that.

KA , October 14, 2017 at 11:18 am GMT
Reagan didn't undo Arab Israel Camp David Peace Treaty He didn't keep the Israeli side and undo the Egyptian side of the American obligation . He kept both.

Trump is dangerous malevolent anti-American and anti- anything that hurts his ego or pocket . He has malcontent displaced sycophants as inner circle supporters who want a piece in the pie denied to them by the establishment .

Here is a quote from antiwar -"In other words, it's all about the war that Trump and his still-loyal lieutenant Steve Bannon, assisted by UN ambassador Nikki Haley, have declared on the "deep state."

Also, Trump and Bannon aren't really interested in draining the foreign policy swamp in DC. They simply want to install their own cronies who will ensure that war and globalization benefit them rather than Kissinger and his ilk. It's a shell game designed to fool Trump's base, but the rest of the world has kept its eye on the ball." http://original.antiwar.com/feffer/2017/10/13/trump-signaling-unprecedented-right-turn-foreign-policy/

This war between elites have been predicted by a CT professor in an article in 2016 , to get more serious and dangerous by 2020 . The fights among elites are not new but another pathway an empire takes additionally to the final fate of the destruction from within

KA , October 14, 2017 at 11:49 am GMT
@KA

"A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions."

Another visible sign of increasing intra-elite competition and political polarization is the fragmentation of political parties

cliodynamic research on past societies demonstrates that elite overproduction is by far the most important of the three main historical drivers of social instability and political violence (see Secular Cycles for this analysis).

But the other two factors in the model, popular immiseration (the stagnation and decline of living standards) and declining fiscal health of the state (resulting from falling state revenues and rising expenses) are also important contributors.

: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-social-instability-lies.html#jCp

polskijoe , October 14, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Ideally Europe would be strong together, without US and more sane policies on morals and immigration.

Yes v4 is connected to CC, Neocon, Zios.

While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem is depending on US too much, and being stuck between Russia and Germany which would isolate it from Europe in some ways. Obviously Poles are not uniform, views on US, Russia, Germany, Ukraine are all over the place. I wish Poland was just European (in politics) but the US-EU connection is still strong.

polskijoe , October 14, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT
Commenting on US presidents. Presidents are puppets. All of them. Modern leaders in Western world are unlikable. Reagan at least had some balance, had some Catholic and Paleocon involvement. It wasnt all Neocons and Zios. Im quite sure Reagan (and his dad), people like Buchanan had connections to groups like Knights Malta or Knights Colombus. Cant prove it though. Kennedy was KC.

Today Neocon/Zionist influence is even stronger. Trump policies on NK and Iran are nuts. At best a war is avoided.

On the other side you have Clintons, Obamas. They would destroy the US, and have similar policies because again they are puppets. Clinton would likely be involved in Syria, just like Obama was.

German_reader , October 14, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT
@polskijoe

While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem is depending on US too much

Yes, that's a problem, and I think Polish national conservatives are somewhat in denial about what the modern US stands for the "values" pushed by the US establishment today are incompatible with the Polish right's vision for Poland (e.g. conservative values in sexual morality – no homo-lobbyism and transgender nonsense -, strong public role of Catholicism, restrictive and selective immigration policies that keep out Muslims).

I can understand to some degree why the Polish right is so pro-US, given history and apprehensions about Germany and Russia, but they should at least be aware that alliance with the US could have a rather pernicious influence on Poland itself.

[Oct 14, 2017] We May Miss Rex Tillerson When He's Gone by Daniel R. DePetris

Why everybody is encritically repeating the rumors about this "moron" story. Tillerson denies he weighed resigning or called boss 'moron', Fox Oc4, 2017 What if this is an insinuation, an attempt to undermine Trump ? Not that Trump behaviour in foreign policy area does not deserve some really strong epithet, but still Tillerson comes from corporate environment and he knows all two well consequences of uttering such a word even in "private, which is never private about your boss.
Defense Priorities think tank from which Daniel R. DePetris ytoed t steer the USA away from interventions in overseas wars and state a the mission: "To inform citizens, thought leaders, and policy makers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military - used more judiciously to protect America's narrowly defined national interests - and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure American security." and does have some unorthodox speakers (including Andrew Bacevich) and try to address important Issues - Defense Priorities
Notable quotes:
"... Tillerson was watching his back, knowing full well that the more vocal and ambitious Nikki Haley was likely itching for a promotion (Haley denies wanting Tillerson's job, but does anyone really believe that?). ..."
"... If Trump ever promotes Haley he'll lose my vote. She's bad news – ignorant, incompetent, with lots of bad friends. To the extent that Tillerson is saving us from that, all to the good. ..."
"... Maybe he was a good corporate CEO – I do not know. But no other administration would have nominated him for Secretary of State. Robert MacNamara was an Air Corps Colonel in WW II and a Harvard economics wizard when he was plucked from a brief tenure at Ford. He helped JFK to stare-down the generals who wanted to start WW III over Cuba. Tillerson is no MacNamara. ..."
"... Rex Tillerson has done a very good job so far. A lot of the problem is that he has inherited a terrible mess. A terrible terrible mess. Also Qatar did support Al Nusra. Its just that all the Gulf States are pretty much guilty of supporting terrorism. It should have been confronted but in a more diplomatic way. We are Americans shouldn't we hate Al Qaeda and be angry at those who support it? I'd almost favor nuking the Gulf States out of revenge. ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

All the stock Tillerson built up over the spring is now largely gone. The summer and fall were enormously tough times for the Secretary of State. Trump's undiplomatic tweets on everything from Qatar to North Korea helped undercut Tillerson's diplomatic endeavors before they'd even started. Back home, Tillerson received incoming from all quarters on Capitol Hill over his State Department budget proposal, a $10 billion reduction from the previous fiscal year. And within the administration, Tillerson was watching his back, knowing full well that the more vocal and ambitious Nikki Haley was likely itching for a promotion (Haley denies wanting Tillerson's job, but does anyone really believe that?).

In short, it's been largely downhill for Tillerson lately. Today, people all but assume that he'll either put in his papers for early retirement or be pushed out. Calling your boss (or widely reported that you called your boss) " a moron " to your colleagues in private and then getting challenged to an IQ test by the president of the United States are not exactly the circumstances of great job security.

How did it get so bad for Tillerson so quickly? Does he even want the job anymore, or is he burned out? Those are the questions that the Washington news media obsesses about. In the end, though, all of them are secondary to this one: What will the administration lose if Tillerson leaves?

Pundits and columnists make a decent living in the criticism business, and there's plenty to criticize about Rex Tillerson. But there are also things that Tillerson has gotten right. Along with Defense Secretary James Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly, there's no doubt that Tillerson is a crucial member of the administration's pragmatic wing. Using the phrases "axis of adults" and "adults in the room" has become a common trope in Washington these days, but it rings true on foreign policy, where Tillerson has beaten the drum of diplomacy as loud as he possibly can. Indeed, this is likely a major reason why friends and associates of Tillerson think he's worn out -- no matter how loud he bangs that drum, his best efforts get foiled by off-the-cuff remarks and 140-character statements.

To say that Tillerson is the most vital member of Trump's national security cabinet would be a stretch, but he is definitely a restraining influence. On the dispute between Qatar and its Gulf Arab neighbors, Tillerson has eagerly embraced the role of mediator , traveling to and from Riyadh, Doha, and Kuwait City this past summer to grease the skids for a diplomatic resolution. Unfortunately, as Mark Perry has reported in these pages , Tillerson has been undermined by the White House from the start. It is difficult to serve as a cool-headed mediator when the commander-in-chief practically labels Qatar a state sponsor of terrorism.

Normally, a secretary of state's job begins and ends with diplomacy. But in Tillerson's case, being a diplomat goes hand-in-hand with serving as the janitor, on hand to clean up the mess.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.

mail order bride, says: October 12, 2017 at 9:30 pm

If Trump ever promotes Haley he'll lose my vote. She's bad news – ignorant, incompetent, with lots of bad friends. To the extent that Tillerson is saving us from that, all to the good.
Whine Merchant , says: October 13, 2017 at 1:48 am
When one steps back to see the bigger picture, it is frightening that we look for moderating influence and stable guidance from someone who would usually be thought of as a spoof nominee for his role.

Maybe he was a good corporate CEO – I do not know. But no other administration would have nominated him for Secretary of State. Robert MacNamara was an Air Corps Colonel in WW II and a Harvard economics wizard when he was plucked from a brief tenure at Ford. He helped JFK to stare-down the generals who wanted to start WW III over Cuba. Tillerson is no MacNamara.

Thank you –

Johnny F. Ive , says: October 13, 2017 at 6:16 am
Rex Tillerson has done a very good job so far. A lot of the problem is that he has inherited a terrible mess. A terrible terrible mess. Also Qatar did support Al Nusra. Its just that all the Gulf States are pretty much guilty of supporting terrorism. It should have been confronted but in a more diplomatic way. We are Americans shouldn't we hate Al Qaeda and be angry at those who support it? I'd almost favor nuking the Gulf States out of revenge.

What can Secretary of State Rex Tillerson do when there is a history of US Congresses and Presidents are hostile to diplomacy? George W. Bush and Congress created the current North Korea situation by being hostile. America cannot maintain an Empire because it does not have a dictator which provides continuity of policy. Haley is a symptom and a product of the insanity that inflicts the American ruling class. If Trump does not pursue an America First foreign policy and instead pursues a George W. Bush foreign policy he will bear a terrible legacy.

Potato , says: October 13, 2017 at 9:41 am
Read up on Rex Tillerson. He comes off as a very able, very smart, very impressive guy. This administration is lucky to have him. I think they only have him because he believes he can be of service to the American people, not because he admires Mr. Trump.

The question is, when will he decided that he, essentially single-handed, cannot make enough of a difference to justify the personal costs of working with this band of lunatics. Certainly I don't always agree with Tillerson's politics, but he always comes across as solid, a man of integrity.

Cratylus , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:15 am
A poorly argued hit piece on Tillerson. The media and neocons are waging a campaign to undermine him and get him out. Does TAC have to play into it by publishing this drivel?
Fred Bowman , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:28 am
If people think Hillary Clinton was an awful "Madam Secretary" (and she was), wait till Nikki Haley gets the job. No doubt she'll "rubber stamp" every bad idea that Trump comes up with.
Peter Palms , says: October 13, 2017 at 12:19 pm
Secretary of State, Tillerson will remain in his post. Don't believe the rumors
Cary , says: October 13, 2017 at 1:07 pm
There's an under currant of Tillerson can't control Trump to this article that rubs me the wrong way. Trump is a narcissistic ass and the thing about narcissistic assess they aren't reasonable or controllable.

[Oct 14, 2017] Republican senator blasts Donald Trump for 'castrating' Rex Tillerson

Notable quotes:
"... Tillerson told a news conference in Beijing two weeks ago that the US was directly communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs, but it had shown no interest in dialogue. Trump took to Twitter the next day, saying Tillerson was "wasting his time" trying to negotiate with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. ..."
"... "The greatest diplomatic activities we have are with China, and the most important, and they have come a long, long way," Corker said. "Some of the things we are talking about are phenomenal. "When you jack the legs out from under your chief diplomat, you cause all that to fall apart." He added that working with China was the key to reaching a peaceful settlement with North Korea. ..."
"... "When you publicly castrate your secretary of state, you take that off the table," Corker said. ..."
"... If Tillerson is undermined by Trump, why is he hanging around. He can't be effective. Honorable thing to do is to hand over his resignation. He doesn't need the job. ..."
"... It's bad, but having experienced the 60s and early 70s (Nixon, Watergate, Vietnam, assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Kent State, 1960 Dem Convention, Weather Underground, etc.) I think it's safe to say that we are nowhere near that level. And then there's the Civil War, Andrew Johnson, etc. ..."
"... Forty years of Reagan's mantra that government, taxes, and unions are evil and business is the way, the truth, and the power. Forty years of his trickle down economics which has led to stagnating/declining wages, crumbling infrastructure and, importantly, divestment in k-16 education. Ongoing dog whistles to now include Christian persecution in a primarily Christian country. ..."
"... And remember, we're a big ass country with small, far flung towns. Trump's support is strongest in small, rural communities ..."
"... Trump picked up the GOP ball and ran with it to its natural conclusion -- a know nothing incompetent, narcissistic president who won on the back of the bigotry, fear, and economic lies the GOP's been peddling for decades. ..."
"... I think many people have been secretly hoping that the good cop/bad cop act was part of an agreed strategy for dealing with Kim and the DRK. It's not though is it? Dozza really is as pathetic as he looks. Absolutely out of his depth and endangering everybody with his bullshit. ..."
"... Sadly the typical American has very little to no awareness of the world outside of the US. Their world view and knowledge of the rest of the world is extremely limited and biased. That is why 'America First' is the perfect strap-line for this 'president'. ..."
"... Trump isn't evil. He's thin-skinned, easily goaded, petty and vindictive, and lacks foresight and self-awareness. His attempts to dismantle Obamacare will kill people, but that's not his aim and he doesn't think of it in those terms. He's not evil, just incompetent and irrational. ..."
"... Trump doesn't understand the word "negotiation" anyway. That's why he previously said that any negotiations with NK would be very short. It's because his definition of the word is, "we tell you what we demand, and you do it, regardless of your viewpoint." That's why he makes enemies of everyone he has contact with, a total lack of understanding that a Win-Win approach is better for all (what does it matter what the outcome for "all" is, as long as Trump appears to be the winner). Boils down to his mental condition meaning he has no empathy. ..."
"... Trump is "riding" the surge in jobs that is related entirely to a cyclical recovery from worldwide recession. ..."
"... I think everyone knows the keys the North Korea crisis are China and dialog. But who says the Corporate States and their military-industrial complex want peace? War drives profits. And as anyone who has travelled the US - outside of Vegas, 5th Ave and Hollywood and Vine - knows war is essential to the American identity and needed to maintain cohesion in that fracturing society. Pride in the US military is a foundation stone of the modern US. War is needed to distract the peasants from the rising poverty virtually nil opportunities at home. War on the Korean peninsula may be needed by the Corporate State and if it is it will happen. ..."
"... It is almost as if Donald Trump thinks the Secretary of State's job is to take notes on Donald Trump's statements. ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Bob Corker accuses the president of undercutting the secretary of state's efforts to rein in North Korea's nuclear program

US Republican senator Bob Corker stepped up his public feud with Donald Trump on Friday, saying the president's undermining of his secretary of state was like castrating him in public.

Corker told the Washington Post in an interview that Trump had undercut Rex Tillerson's efforts to enlist China in reining in North Korea's nuclear program by denigrating the diplomat.

"You cannot publicly castrate your own secretary of state" without limiting the options for dealing with North Korea, Corker, the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, told the Post.

Tillerson told a news conference in Beijing two weeks ago that the US was directly communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs, but it had shown no interest in dialogue. Trump took to Twitter the next day, saying Tillerson was "wasting his time" trying to negotiate with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un.

"The greatest diplomatic activities we have are with China, and the most important, and they have come a long, long way," Corker said. "Some of the things we are talking about are phenomenal. "When you jack the legs out from under your chief diplomat, you cause all that to fall apart." He added that working with China was the key to reaching a peaceful settlement with North Korea.

"When you publicly castrate your secretary of state, you take that off the table," Corker said.

Artgoddess 14 Oct 2017 17:05

Tillerson gets A LOT of $ if he lasts a year. Mnuchin, too.

humdum 14 Oct 2017 14:55

If Tillerson is undermined by Trump, why is he hanging around. He can't be effective. Honorable thing to do is to hand over his resignation. He doesn't need the job.

LibtardMangina -> imipak 14 Oct 2017 13:06

Like Sadam had no WMDs yet George and Tony pretended they cared whether they were there or not and went in guns blazing. We're still trying to pick up the pieces. Thanks guys. Dozza's adventures in NK is the next instalment of this shit show.

willyjack -> lochinverboy 14 Oct 2017 12:54

"This is the low point in America's political history"

It's bad, but having experienced the 60s and early 70s (Nixon, Watergate, Vietnam, assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Kent State, 1960 Dem Convention, Weather Underground, etc.) I think it's safe to say that we are nowhere near that level. And then there's the Civil War, Andrew Johnson, etc.

ConBrio -> CorvidRegina 14 Oct 2017 12:16

She came, she manipulated the nomination process, she lost! Get over it the precipitous canonization of damaged goods and try to elect someone competent. She ain't risin again.

CorvidRegina -> Abusedbythestate 14 Oct 2017 11:30

politicians playing on people's fears and telling them what they want to hear

That is the true culprit here. The role of politicians has always been to protect the country, including from its own citizens. Every politician makes use of some fear as a rhetorical tool, but the American conservatives really took this to a whole new level; they found an easy and lazy way to keep their support bolstered, by conflating the very worst traits of the ignorant and gullible with moral, even religious, superiority.

Of course they now consider themselves superior to even the politicians that fed them. It's hard to feel much pity.

john ayres -> colacj 14 Oct 2017 11:18

[Edited for clarity] Anyone other then primate chosen for this position would outshine him. Leave at the Russia BS. It is the result of $2B of propaganda from US agencies.

DAW188 14 Oct 2017 11:02

On an international scale what should probably be concerning American voters more than it is, are the US allies that appear to be pivoting away from them and towards each other. With an incompetent ninny of a POTUS and absolutely no clear military or diplomatic direction it is unsurprising that other global players are looking to each other for some security. The latest fallout over the Iran deal will only exasperate it.

I imagine it has caused some of the diplomats and bureaucrats in Washington to sit up and feel concerned. But as most US news reporting (even from internationally regarded publications like the NYT) seems to look no further than the end of its nose, I doubt its getting much, if any, play amongst US voters.

A fine example of this would be the machinations of the recent meetings between Theresa May and Shinzo Abe. They represent two of the closest political, economic and military allies of the US and are arguably key to the US' Atlantic and Pacific spheres of influence. Both countries find themselves in a bit of a bind. May turns up with a big empty bag labelled trade deals and Abe greets her with a tin-helmet on fearing a NK missile might drop on his head at any moment and that the US administration is not reliable enough to step in and diffuse the tension as it has in the past.

Abe conveniently has a country full of investors who would quite like to get access to the UK to buy up business on the cheap. May had a few hundred nuclear warheads in her back pocket that are all transferable anywhere in the world undetected and underwater (say for example in the South China Sea or the Sea of Japan), as well as a large intelligence agency and a UN security council seat. Not hard to see how tempting it would be for the two to cut a deal. The speech that the two leaders gave at the end of their little summit spelt it out. Abe bigged up Brexit, the opportunities it would afford and the strength of the Anglo-Nippon economic partnership, whilst May reaffirmed British commitments to defend its ally Japan's interests in a big two fingers up to Beijing and Pyongyang. Suddenly the US has two powerful allies turning away from it and towards each other, providing support that the US was once a bridge for.

This isn't restricted to the UK or Japan. Look at Macron in France and Merkel in Germany. Trudeau in Canada and Pena Nieto in Mexico. Even loyal old Bibi is getting in on the act when he recently invited India's Modi around for tea in Jerusalem.

Then you have theoretical allies, that have questionable intentions. Qatar and the Saudis remain at each others throats. The Emir of Qatar (or should that be his mother, the former Queen Moza, the power behind the curtain) certainly seems increasingly enamored with the Iranian's. Whilst the tensions in the Gulf are the way they are, it may not be the time to try and up-end again the relationship with Iran.

mbidding -> JEM5260 14 Oct 2017 11:00

Fifty years of the GOP putting party before country is how too many voters have been duped and misinformed.

Fifty years of Nixon's Southern Strategy and subsequent dog whistle politics aimed at convincing "real" Americans that people of color, liberals, intellectuals, and secular humanists are out to destroy their way of life and are the causes of all their woes.

Forty years of Reagan's mantra that government, taxes, and unions are evil and business is the way, the truth, and the power. Forty years of his trickle down economics which has led to stagnating/declining wages, crumbling infrastructure and, importantly, divestment in k-16 education. Ongoing dog whistles to now include Christian persecution in a primarily Christian country.

Thirty five years of repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by which "news" has become nothing more than politically propagandized infotainment.

And remember, we're a big ass country with small, far flung towns. Trump's support is strongest in small, rural communities -- communities with no experience with diversity of any type (political, economic, and social). These folks have been groomed by the GOP for fifty years to believe that liberal policies and non whites are out to get them and only the GOP and business have their backs.

Trump picked up the GOP ball and ran with it to its natural conclusion -- a know nothing incompetent, narcissistic president who won on the back of the bigotry, fear, and economic lies the GOP's been peddling for decades.

LibtardMangina 14 Oct 2017 10:44

I think many people have been secretly hoping that the good cop/bad cop act was part of an agreed strategy for dealing with Kim and the DRK. It's not though is it? Dozza really is as pathetic as he looks. Absolutely out of his depth and endangering everybody with his bullshit.

Abusedbythestate -> Conradsagent 14 Oct 2017 08:23

It will still end in tears for the yanks - a powerful military will not save the dollar - change is the one constant in the universe - where is the roman empire, the British empire, the Portuguese and Spanish empires, the Venetian empire now???? No one state stays the top dog for ever.

The rest of the world will see to that - the British and Europe are starting to look East and Trump is helping them do that to become so isolated, the US will become a backwater as quick as the USSR collapsed almost overnight. It only takes one extra straw to break the camel's back

Abusedbythestate -> digamey 14 Oct 2017 08:19

Indeed - I have many German friends and we talk about how any group of people in a nation can vote a nutter into power - Hitler being one of the most in(famous). At the end of the day, in all of the world in every nation state, there are a lot of very dumb people - the majority of the electorate to a greater or lesser degree - it's not their fault - we are all born entirely ignorant and our culture forms our opinions and our ability to question - do you remember how often at school, you were encouraged to question anything? or were facts, facts?

Pile on top of that a very powerful media, politicians playing on people's fears and telling them what they want to hear, and people's general gullibility and it's no great surprise that the Germans voted for Hitler, the Yanks voted for Trump and our dumb country voted .... well, vote the way they do - the fact that people seem happy with our so called democracies around the world that are far from democratic, depending on definition, and where we're often given a choice of just one or two options that seem incredibly similar in policy compared to the vast possible alternatives on how to run a country/economy - heaven forbid we might attempt an "extreme" alternative!!!

3melvinudall 14 Oct 2017 08:18

It seems some Republicans have decided now is the time to take down Trump. From what the country has seen of how Trump does "business" better to take him on now than deal with the disastrous consequences of his failures. Captain Trump is taking the ship down with his incompetence...problem is: we are all on that ship.

Gytaff -> Mordicant 14 Oct 2017 07:48

Sadly the typical American has very little to no awareness of the world outside of the US. Their world view and knowledge of the rest of the world is extremely limited and biased. That is why 'America First' is the perfect strap-line for this 'president'.

The Trump base doesn't give a toss about 'worldwide economic momentum', they only see what is happening in their own back yards. This is why Trump is doing well with his base, they see his posturing against North Korea, Iran and Syria as strength, they see his threats to trade deals as protectionist and have absolutely no problem with it, it's perfectly aligned with their views and mindset.

The Democrats are going to have a serious battle in the mid-terms, they need to find a way to appeal to the common man and give them what Trump keeps promising to deliver (but not, so far!). They need to show that they, as elitists can empathize with the common man's position, needs and beliefs, sadly the democrats have a long way to go! The Republicans are also screwed as Trump_vs_deep_state is anathema to their candidates too.

The next 12 months are going to be 'interesting times'!

Conradsagent -> ConBrio 14 Oct 2017 07:34

The US is one of the most fundamentalist, extreme religious whack job countries on the planet.

As for addiction to US protection...it is also one of the most (if not, the most) dangerously confused countries on earth. The world needs protecting 'from' it...not by it

corneilius -> pruneau 14 Oct 2017 07:24

Exactly the same can be said of the Tory party in the UK, especially the belief that you run a national economy on the same principles of a household budget.

saintkiwi -> Prumtic 14 Oct 2017 07:23

I think half the cabinet and half of Congress may actually go along with it; we know from whispers around the White House and Washington that many, if not most, Republicans think Trump is temperamentally/psychologically unfit for the post. Maybe Corker is the crack in the dam that eventually leads to catastrophic failure and flood; maybe not.

Pence is a total stiff, though. No way such a conservative guy would implement such an historic and radical action as forcibly* removing a sitting president, no matter how nuts that C-in-C was.

*(and yes, I can envisage Tump literally having to be dragged from the Oval Office)

UB__DK 14 Oct 2017 07:02

I hope the 25th amendment is on the agenda behind the scenes. It is clear to everyone that the president is unqualified. He is steadily eroding the credibility of the office he holds and of the entire West on the international political scene. And the longer his removal is delayed the worse it will get.

BeenThereDunThat -> ClearlyNow 14 Oct 2017 06:39

Oh dear, another Trumpkin. I am no fan of Merkel - a neoliberal to her boots. But at least she has some humanity and actually cares for other members of the human race outside of her immediate family - and to be honest, I doubt the Tango Tyrant cares for his family other than their being a projection of his own narcissistic ego.

As for Germany, its economy still marches along with it being the number 4 economy in the world and the top of the G5 group. It's standard of living remains high while social inequality is far lower than in countries such as the US or the UK.

So sorry, but another pathetically failed straw-man - or in this case, straw-woman - attempt to deflect attention from the discussion at hand.

Ramas100 14 Oct 2017 05:49

It's the military generals who are stroking Trump's ego by telling him there is a military solution to N Korea and Iran.

RichWoods -> blairsnemesis 14 Oct 2017 05:47

but Trump is the most evil and worst person to hold the post, ever.

Trump isn't evil. He's thin-skinned, easily goaded, petty and vindictive, and lacks foresight and self-awareness. His attempts to dismantle Obamacare will kill people, but that's not his aim and he doesn't think of it in those terms. He's not evil, just incompetent and irrational.

All those things were apparent during the election campaign, so whatever your politics you have no excuse if you voted for someone who is so patently unfit to hold public office.

blairsnemesis -> FrankRoberts 14 Oct 2017 05:23

I suspect he realised before he even took up the post that he was far too thick for the job. Reagan was an appalling bag of shit but Trump is the most evil and worst person to hold the post, ever. I only hope that if someone doesn't kill him (and they'd have my full backing because he is an immense threat to the world), he gets put behind bars, along with the rest of his thick-as-pigshit family, for life.

Prumtic -> HelpAmerica 14 Oct 2017 05:14

Trump doesn't understand the word "negotiation" anyway. That's why he previously said that any negotiations with NK would be very short. It's because his definition of the word is, "we tell you what we demand, and you do it, regardless of your viewpoint." That's why he makes enemies of everyone he has contact with, a total lack of understanding that a Win-Win approach is better for all (what does it matter what the outcome for "all" is, as long as Trump appears to be the winner). Boils down to his mental condition meaning he has no empathy.

MortimerSnerd 14 Oct 2017 05:11

Just trying to keep the faith here until the mid terms. Trump is more bluster than balls, and he is not The Emperor. There are checks and balances in the system and the system has thwarted him on many occasions.

peterxpto -> LondonFog 14 Oct 2017 05:03

Trump is "riding" the surge in jobs that is related entirely to a cyclical recovery from worldwide recession.

Kevin Cox -> WhigInterpretation 14 Oct 2017 04:46

Well said. Regarding Congress, people do not understand the way the US is hobbled by a constitution that facilitates the lobbying of special interests - so long as it is not the labor movement - and which is very, very hard to change. So much for the Founding Fathers and what they accomplished and made difficult to alter.

tippisheadrun -> simba72 14 Oct 2017 04:29

Absolutely.
President Ted Cruz, President Mike Huckabee, President Ben Carson, President Chris Christie, President Rick Santorum, President Marco Rubio - take your prick - none of them would promote any sense of security in the populace. With the exception of John Kasich, the GOP nominee was destined to be a dangerous character- either through lack of scruples or a misguided sense of their own righteousness.

daWOID -> digamey 14 Oct 2017 02:53

Fun fact: "the lifestyle of the good citizens of Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Texas etc., etc" collapsed a long time ago.

juster digamey 14 Oct 2017 02:50

The dollar is not going to stay the reserve currency forever. Its just math. If an average chinese can reach 25% productivity of an average amreican, and there is no reason they cant, they will have by all metrics the largest economy. At that stage USD keeping its present day status is impossible even if Abraham Lincoln gets revived an re elected.

charles47 -> RealityCheck2016 14 Oct 2017 02:22

I am involved in negotiations every day of my working life, with staff, with Trustees (directors), with local authorities, with suppliers.

I have good working relationships with most of them. Must be doing something right, while doing a job that matters to me personally. I've met Trump types. They wouldn't last five minutes in the world I live and work in. Too "entitled" and far too full of themselves. Generally, if I come across someone like that, they don't get our business because they are long on promise, short on delivery, and more interested in getting the "deal" than considering our needs as an organisation - which is the selling point I look for, as with most people. One-sided deals don't work and don't last.

As for affording to go to a Trump hotel...if I could, I wouldn't. I have my favourites, and my personal standards that don't involve glitter without substance.

jon donahue -> BhoGhanPryde 14 Oct 2017 01:57

Iran. At about 10,000 dead, it could go on for about three years with beaucoup contracts to be had. Perfect for all the flag-wavers.

Korea? No. Too many dead too fast, could run up to 25,000 in a hurry. Plus, Seoul smoked. Bad optics, no money in it...

jon donahue 14 Oct 2017 01:52

Trump is a train wreck. Incompetent. Unable to manage, unable to negotiate, unable to govern.

The good news is that we don't actually need a functioning President, with the world pretty much at peace and the economy doing well enough.
Everybody in the government and military can just work around the jerk.

digamey 14 Oct 2017 01:38

Republicans are experts at protecting their own butts. While Trump's numbers hold, they will bitch about him in private and suck up to him in public. Once his numbers start to tank, as inevitably they will, they will turn upon him and savage him in a manner with which even the most voracious hyenas could not compete.

BhoGhanPryde 14 Oct 2017 00:38

I think everyone knows the keys the North Korea crisis are China and dialog. But who says the Corporate States and their military-industrial complex want peace? War drives profits. And as anyone who has travelled the US - outside of Vegas, 5th Ave and Hollywood and Vine - knows war is essential to the American identity and needed to maintain cohesion in that fracturing society. Pride in the US military is a foundation stone of the modern US. War is needed to distract the peasants from the rising poverty virtually nil opportunities at home. War on the Korean peninsula may be needed by the Corporate State and if it is it will happen.

Mike Bray 13 Oct 2017 23:37

It is almost as if Donald Trump thinks the Secretary of State's job is to take notes on Donald Trump's statements.

[Oct 14, 2017] The Deep State's Bogus 'Iranian Threat' by David Stockman

Notable quotes:
"... The real answer, however, is both simple and consequential. To wit, the entire prosperity and modus operandi of the Imperial City is based on a panoply of "threats" that are vastly exaggerated or even purely invented; they retain their currency by virtue of endless repetition in the groupthink that passes for analysis. We'd actually put it in the category of cocktail party chatter. ..."
"... The truth is, the US defense budget is hideously oversized for a reason so obvious that it constitutes the ultimate elephant in the room. No matter how you slice it, there just are no real big industrialized, high tech countries in the world which can threaten the American homeland or even have the slightest intention of doing so. ..."
"... That gets us to the bogus Iranian threat. It originated in the early 1990s when the neocon's in the George HW Bush Administration realized that with the cold war's end, the Warfare State was in grave danger of massive demobilization like the US had done after every war until 1945. ..."
"... So among many other invented two-bit threats, the Iranian regime was demonized in order to keep the Imperial City in thrall to its purported national security threat and in support of the vast global armada of military forces, bases and occupations needed to contain it (including the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and US bases throughout the region). ..."
"... Likewise, what the Imperial City claims to be state sponsored terror is actually nothing more than Iran's foreign policy – something that every sovereign state on the planet is permitted to have. ..."
"... Thus, as the leader of the minority Shiite schism of the Islamic world, Iran has made political and confessional alliances with various Shiite regimes in the region. These include the one that Washington actually installed in Baghdad; the Alawite/Shiite regime in Syria; the largest political party and representative of 40 percent of the population in Lebanon (Hezbollah); and the Houthi/Shiite of Yemen, who historically occupied the northern parts of the country and are now under savage attack by American weapons supplied to Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... In the case of both Syria and Iraq, their respective governments invited Iranian help, which is also their prerogative as sovereign nations. Ironically, it was the Shiite Crescent alliance of Iran/Assad/Hezbollah that bears much of the credit for defeating ISIS on the ground in Mosul, Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and elsewhere in the now largely defunct Islamic State. ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

... ... ...

He was right. Russia today is a shadow of what Ronald Reagan called the Evil Empire. Its GDP of $1.3 trillion is smaller than that of the New York metro area ($1.6 trillion) and only 7 percent of total US GDP.

Moreover, unlike the militarized Soviet economy which devoted upwards of 40 percent of output to defense, the current Russian defense budget of $60 billion is just 4.5 percent of its vastly shrunken GDP.

So how in the world did the national security apparatus convince the Donald that we need the $700 billion defense program for FY 2018 – 12X bigger than Russia's – that he just signed into law?

What we mean, of course, is how do you explain that – beyond the fact that the Donald knows virtually nothing about national security policy and history; and, to boot, is surrounded by generals who have spent a lifetime scouring the earth for enemies and threats to repel and reasons for more weapons and bigger forces.

The real answer, however, is both simple and consequential. To wit, the entire prosperity and modus operandi of the Imperial City is based on a panoply of "threats" that are vastly exaggerated or even purely invented; they retain their currency by virtue of endless repetition in the groupthink that passes for analysis. We'd actually put it in the category of cocktail party chatter.

... ... ...

The truth is, the US defense budget is hideously oversized for a reason so obvious that it constitutes the ultimate elephant in the room. No matter how you slice it, there just are no real big industrialized, high tech countries in the world which can threaten the American homeland or even have the slightest intention of doing so.

Indeed, to continue with our historical benchmarks, the American homeland has not been so immune to foreign military threat since WW II. Yet during all those years of true peril, it never spent close too the Donald's $700 billion boondoggle.

For instance, during the height of LBJs Vietnam folly (1968) defense spending in today's dollars was about $400 billion. And even at the top of Reagan's utterly unnecessary military building up (by the 1980s the Soviet Union was collapsing under the weight of its own socialist dystopia), total US defense spending was just $550 billion.

That gets us to the bogus Iranian threat. It originated in the early 1990s when the neocon's in the George HW Bush Administration realized that with the cold war's end, the Warfare State was in grave danger of massive demobilization like the US had done after every war until 1945.

So among many other invented two-bit threats, the Iranian regime was demonized in order to keep the Imperial City in thrall to its purported national security threat and in support of the vast global armada of military forces, bases and occupations needed to contain it (including the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and US bases throughout the region).

The truth, however, is that according to the 2008 NIE ( National Intelligence Estimates) of the nation's 17 intelligence agency, the Iranian's never had a serious nuclear weapons program, and the small research effort that they did have was disbanded by orders of the Ayatollah Khamenei in 2003.

Likewise, what the Imperial City claims to be state sponsored terror is actually nothing more than Iran's foreign policy – something that every sovereign state on the planet is permitted to have.

Thus, as the leader of the minority Shiite schism of the Islamic world, Iran has made political and confessional alliances with various Shiite regimes in the region. These include the one that Washington actually installed in Baghdad; the Alawite/Shiite regime in Syria; the largest political party and representative of 40 percent of the population in Lebanon (Hezbollah); and the Houthi/Shiite of Yemen, who historically occupied the northern parts of the country and are now under savage attack by American weapons supplied to Saudi Arabia.

In the case of both Syria and Iraq, their respective governments invited Iranian help, which is also their prerogative as sovereign nations. Ironically, it was the Shiite Crescent alliance of Iran/Assad/Hezbollah that bears much of the credit for defeating ISIS on the ground in Mosul, Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and elsewhere in the now largely defunct Islamic State.

In tomorrow's installment we will address the details of the Iran nuke agreement and why the Donald is making a horrible mistake in proposing to decertify it. But there should be no doubt about the consequence: It will reinforce the neocon dominance of the Republican party and insure that the nation's $1 trillion Warfare State remains fully entrenched.

Needless to say, that will also insure that the America's gathering fiscal crisis will turn into an outright Fiscal Calamity in the years just ahead.

David Stockman has agreed to send every Antiwar.com reader a free copy of his newest book, Trumped! when you take his special Contra Corner offer. Click here now for the details.

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed , The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin And How to Bring It Back . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader .

Read more by David Stockman

[Oct 14, 2017] The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished by Mike Whitney

Anybody who subscript of NYT, or WaPo after this fiasco is simply paying money for state propaganda.
Notable quotes:
"... Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. " ..."
"... Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. ..."
"... This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts -- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. ..."
"... The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. ..."
"... How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any." ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
"... If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact. ..."
"... This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome. ..."
"... In the end, Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it. The American public will get the report, which it deserves. ..."
"... But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us. ..."
"... Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions, it is no longer important, just political theater. ..."
"... The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished. ..."
"... The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40 years. ..."
"... Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows; the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying. ..."
"... So what ? Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics: Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London ..."
"... Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff. ..."
"... If all we hear are endless allusions to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic level of rationality after this fiasco? ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

Originally from: The Senate Intelligence Committee Finds No Evidence of Russian Hacking or Collusion

The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. "

Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that's been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:

Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.

It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions, then what's the point? Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy. From the Intelligence Community Assessment:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts -- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be taken seriously.

Here's more from the ICA:

Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.

More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA's authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report's credibility.

To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:

"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr added that the committee's review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and they've interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The Nation)

That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."

Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story?

Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so they decided to scrub the story altogether?

But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.

So here's a question for critical minded readers:

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections, then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't really make sense, does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?

Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?

Don't bet on it.

What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.

Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a foreign government. McGovern's work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?

How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the hacking theory, as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the ICA.

Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not involved in the DNC email scandal.

Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?

Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.

So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?

It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.

Beckow > , October 13, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT

Where is this going? At some point in the next few years there will be a 'damning' report that will regurgitate what has already been endlessly publicised: VIP's meet each other (the horror!), somehow DNC emails got published, Facebook sold ads to 'Russia-linked' users, and Pokemon Go, whatever. That will be described in sinister terms and RT will be thrown in. How dare RT not to have the same views as CNN?

But what then? Let's even say that Trump is removed – he is at this point so emasculated that keeping him in the White House is the most stabilising thing the establishment could do. Is Congress going to declare a war on Russia? Or more sanctions? Are they going to ban RT? Break diplomatic relations? None of that makes sense because any of those moves would be more costly than beneficial, some dramatically so. Therefore nothing will happen.

All that will remain is permanent bitterness towards Russia, and vice-versa. And much reduced ability to do what the West has done for 75 years: heavy interference and media campaigns inside foreign countries to influence elections. If 'meddling' is so bad, the biggest meddlers – by far – will be less able to meddle. So how is this hysteria helping?

Sanity in public life is a precious thing. Once abandoned, all kinds of strange things start happening. Yeah, Pokemon GO – Putin was personally naming the characters to 'sow division'. It sounds like something Stalin would accuse his 'cosmopolitan' enemies of doing. This is really embarrassing.

utu > , October 14, 2017 at 4:35 am GMT

Incorrect parsing of reality. It was not about getting Trump but it was about making Trump administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with having Gen. Flynn fired. This mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with Russia than at the end of Obama administration.

Greg Bacon > , Website October 14, 2017 at 9:59 am GMT

If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact.

jacques sheete > , October 14, 2017 at 11:45 am GMT

@Johnny Rico

I have been convinced of the ridiculousness of the Russian-hacking/collusion narrative/scandal since it was created in 2016.

I, too, smelled a rat and figured that it was all BS right from the get go. So much so that I haven't followed it a bit. In fact it's so ridiculous on its face, that I have not and probably will not, waste time reading the article even though MW is a good guy, an unimpeachable source, a true journalist, and a fine writer.

Bless you, Mr Whitney, for having the energy to document what is no doubt a pack of lies from the usual suspects.

I stumbled on this yesterday, and it suggests, to no one's surprise, that it's always deja vu all over again. You'd think our "high IQ" masters would show a little originality once in a while, and that we, "Low IQ" as we are, would finally learn that it's all BS from the get-go.

Note the date.:

THESE books all belong to that literature of Katzenjammer which now flourishes so amazingly in the United States t hey all embody attempts to find out what is the matter with the Republic. I wish I could add that one or another of them solves the problem, or at least contributes something to its illumination , but that would be going somewhat beyond the facts.

-H.L. Mencken, Autopsy (4 Reviews), , September 1927 , pp. 123-125 – PDF

http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury-1927sep-00123

jacques sheete > , October 14, 2017 at 12:21 pm GMT

@Thorfinnsson

This makes me suspect that Mike Whitney is a censorious coward on the model of Razib Khan (thankfully expelled from unz.com) or even worse Paul Craig Roberts (who prohibits comments entirely).

While I agree with you about the latter two, and have written them off accordingly, along with Mercer, who I suspect "edits" (really, "purges" ) her comments too, I highly doubt that MW falls into the same categories as those mentioned. At least MW doesn't use the word, "insouciant" 3 or 4 times in every article!

If I am wrong and this article is simply strangely unpopular please let me know and I will apologize.

The article isn't so much unpopular as the subject is wearying. It's the same crud all over again,obviously false, and I suspect virtually everyone knows it. It's utterly boring and I give MW a lot of credit for having the persistence to even face the mindless mess, let alone think and write about it. He really is to be admired for that.

I've always thought it was a distraction as usual from other much more more important things but utu has a better take on it.

it was about making Trump administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with having Gen. Flynn fired. This mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with Russia than at the end of Obama administration. [ed note:And Flynn is gone too.]

I think that's a "Bingo!" and I also think you better formulate an apology and plan on getting on yer knees to deliver it!

PS: I'm curious as to why you think this is of much interest at all. (Aside from utu's take.)

Michael Kenny > , October 14, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT

We don't know who this author really is but, once again, what's interesting is that so many people are still so scared of an investigation which is supposedly producing "no evidence" (leaving aside Trump Junior's evidence, of course). If all this was a load of nonsense, why make such a fuss about it? If there's nothing to this, an "effort to support a theory", however "determined" will come up with nothing. The frantic attempts to kill off Russiagate suggest that those who are making such attempts know, or believe, that there actually is something to it which has not yet come to light. Probably something pretty dirty by the sound of it. What if some part of the US intelligence services took part in the manipulation of the election, either in collusion with the Russians or posing as Russians, and Putin can prove it? That would certainly explain the plethora of retired intelligence agents who are so assiduously defending a foreign government. If Putin really is innocent, the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take its natural course.

Captain Nemo > , October 14, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT

Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia.

Really? Only "now"?! I thought it was pretty much clear from the beginning.

Ludwig Watzal > , Website October 14, 2017 at 1:59 pm GMT

This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome.

In the end, Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it. The American public will get the report, which it deserves.

TG > , October 14, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

Indeed, well said. But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us.

Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions, it is no longer important, just political theater.

The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished.

Flavius > , October 14, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT

Mike – good article. The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40 years.

If it can be gotten wrong, the Borg will get it wrong; it will be gotten wrong at the worst possible time; it will move on to get it wrong again. These are three things that you can absolutely count on.

Joe Hide > , October 14, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows; the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying.

jilles dykstra > , October 14, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

So what ? Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics: Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London

Pericles > , October 14, 2017 at 6:42 pm GMT

@Mike Whitney Russia collusion does lack credibility, but you're still doing us a great service by following the twists and turns of this beheaded snake. The details are worth reading about, even if there isn't much to argue about regarding the conclusion. So thanks for that.

Biff > , October 14, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT

Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff.

Beckow > , October 14, 2017 at 7:49 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

"If Putin really is innocent, the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take its natural course."

Innocent of what? What is it exactly that Russia supposedly did? Let me list a few things that are still perfectly legal in our world (that would include US, I hope):

None of the above is either unusual or illegal. It might not look good to some people, but it is what international life has consisted for at least 200 years. If you call that 'meddling', you just might be too naive for the world as it is.

What is the 'natural course' for the investigation? If all we hear are endless allusions to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic level of rationality after this fiasco?

Putin named Pokemon GO characters after BLM victims to stir up racial hatreds in US. How does one answer that? Where would you even start dealing with people who are capable of this level of nonsense?

[Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

Highly recommended!
Biting satire...
Notable quotes:
"... The Tonight Show ..."
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Oct 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the "Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.

Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced by the lone wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was already clear that Donald Trump was literally the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic primaries, mostly because of his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President, and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst. Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President, because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).

Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.

No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.

This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without , and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis, it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs. neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.

Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in The European Financial Review , or this report by Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate power.

So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia, or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

jilles dykstra, October 13, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the box'.

They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.

Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.

How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.

Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of Brussels.

You can fool all people .

Che Guava, October 13, 2017 at 4:22 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

Jilles,

I am thinking you take the article too literally.

jacques sheete, October 13, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT

Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.

No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.

A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. (And everything else.)

"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories.

Does anyone else smell a rat or two?

Anon-og , October 13, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT

"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook."

Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is now changing!

[Oct 13, 2017] Lunatic Russia-Hating in Washington Is 70 Years Old by John Helmer

Why he calls its lunatic. It's pretty rations. Russia now represent an obstacle for global neoliberal empire and being the weakest link in Russia-China alliance it is only logical to attack it first
Notable quotes:
"... Russia-hating was an American upper-class phenomenon, cultivated in the offices, cocktail parties, clubs, and mansions of the deep state, as it emerged out of World War II. It needed a new enemy to thrive; it fastened on Russia (aka the Soviet Union) as the enemy. ..."
"... McCarthyism was an American lower-class phenomenon. It focused on the loyalty or disloyalty of the upper-class deep-staters. That wasn't the same thing as Russia-hating; Wall Street bankers, Boston lawyers, homosexuals, Jews, communists, were all the enemy. As the Senator from Wisconsin characterized it himself in 1952, "McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled." He implied – without a middle-class tie; certainly not an upper-class bow-tie. ..."
"... In covering the period from 1946 to 1975, Herken's research does repeat much of the history of the Cold War which has been told elsewhere. It starts on February 22, 1946, the date of the "Long Telegram", No. 511 -- Kennan's despatch from the US Embassy in Moscow to the State Department, setting out his strategy of so-called containment and much more besides. Read it in the declassified original . Most of the war-fighting and other war crimes which the telegram set in motion under Kennan's 1948 rubrics, "organized political warfare" and "preventive direct action", are reported in Herken's book; so too are Kennan's frequent funks, failures of conviction, reversals of judgment, and pleas for help. ..."
"... "Interestingly enough, the term "Russophobia" was first used by Fyodor Tyutchev (1803 -- 1873), famous Russian poet, diplomat and politician in reference to growing Western hostilities against Russia on the "eve" of the Crimean War (1854-56) between the Russian Empire and an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia. ..."
"... Historians elaborate that the so-called "Russophobia campaign" actually started as early as the 1820s -- instigated by Britain -- following Russia's glorious victory over Napoleonic France in 1812-13. ..."
"... "British hostility towards Russia had recurred periodically ever since the late eighteenth century. In had become increasingly apparent, albeit in a gradual and evolutionary fashion, in the years after Waterloo Fear of Russia's aims in Europe and Asia surfaced as early as 1817," American historian Edward M. Spiers wrote in his book "Radical General: Sir George de Lacy Evans, 1787-1870." ..."
Oct 12, 2017 | russia-insider.com
Joseph Alsop (lead image, centre) and George Kennan (right) started the kind of Russia-hating in Washington which, today, President Vladimir Putin, like the businessmen around him, think of as a novelty that cannot last for long.

Alsop was a fake news fabricator, and such a narcissist as to give the bow-ties he wore a bad name. Kennan was a psychopath who alternated bouts of aggression to prove himself with bouts of depression over his cowardice. For them, Russia was a suitable target. The Washington Post was the newspaper which gave their lunacy public asylum. This, according to a fresh history by a university professor from California, started in 1947, long before the arrival in Washington of the anti-communist phobia known after the name of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Russia-hating was an American upper-class phenomenon, cultivated in the offices, cocktail parties, clubs, and mansions of the deep state, as it emerged out of World War II. It needed a new enemy to thrive; it fastened on Russia (aka the Soviet Union) as the enemy.

McCarthyism was an American lower-class phenomenon. It focused on the loyalty or disloyalty of the upper-class deep-staters. That wasn't the same thing as Russia-hating; Wall Street bankers, Boston lawyers, homosexuals, Jews, communists, were all the enemy. As the Senator from Wisconsin characterized it himself in 1952, "McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled." He implied – without a middle-class tie; certainly not an upper-class bow-tie.

Russia was not an enemy which united the two American lunacies, for they hated each other much more than they hated the Russians. The Soviet Politburo understood this better then than the Kremlin does now.

Gregg Herken's The Georgetown Set , is so named because it records the activities of Alsop, Kennan and several other State Department, Central Intelligence Agency and White House officials who lived as neighbours in the Georgetown district of the capital city, together with Katharine (Kay) and Philip Graham, proprietor managers of the Washington Post. The district – once a chartered city of Maryland and river port, which was absorbed into the federal District of Columbia in 1871 -- was expensive, relatively speaking then; more so now. The richest of the set, including Alsop, had town houses in Georgetown, and rural retreats in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.

They were a set because because, as Herken said succinctly to an interviewer , "they got together every Sunday for supper and, basically, they ran the country from those meetings." As the book elaborates, they thought they were running the world. With a longer time lapse in which to view the evidence, they were also losing it.

Newspapers exposed in the book for collaborating in all the deceits, failures and war crimes of the history have reacted by calling Herken's effort a "provincial corner". The New Yorker opined that the Russia-hating and Russia war-making which Herken retells are dead and gone. "The guests at the Sunday soirées no doubt felt that they were in the cockpit of history. But the United States is a democracy, not a Wasp Ascendancy There was once an atmosphere of willingness that made a system of bribes and information exchanges seem, to the people involved, simply a way of working together for a common cause in a climate of public opinion that, unfortunately, required secrecy. No one got rich from the arrangement. People just lost track of what was inside their bubble and what was outside, as people tend to do. Vietnam was the reality check. 'I've Seen the Best of It' was the title Alsop gave to his memoirs. Things hadn't been the same since, he felt. He was right about that, and we should be thankful." In the New York media business these days it's possible to publish a selfie of pulling your own leg.

The Washington Post has deflected the indictment against itself by describing Herken's work as "a very strange book (A) a rehash of the history of the Cold War as experienced in certain Washington circles and (B) an almost obsessive recapitulation of the life and journalism of Joseph Alsop." Alsop is dismissed as unworthy of a history at all because he was "utterly repellent: arrogant, patronizing, imperious, uninterested in anyone except himself."

That's the truth about Alsop. The truth about the Washington Post is buried in this line by the Post's books editor about the hand that fed him: "it must be very hard for people who did not live through the '50s and '60s to understand how obsessed the American people were with the threat from Moscow." That line appeared in print on November 7, 2014. It was already history, that's to say, a misjudgment. How monumentally mistaken is obvious now.

In covering the period from 1946 to 1975, Herken's research does repeat much of the history of the Cold War which has been told elsewhere. It starts on February 22, 1946, the date of the "Long Telegram", No. 511 -- Kennan's despatch from the US Embassy in Moscow to the State Department, setting out his strategy of so-called containment and much more besides. Read it in the declassified original . Most of the war-fighting and other war crimes which the telegram set in motion under Kennan's 1948 rubrics, "organized political warfare" and "preventive direct action", are reported in Herken's book; so too are Kennan's frequent funks, failures of conviction, reversals of judgment, and pleas for help.

The book ends on December 30, 1974, the date of Alsop's last column. Alsop concluded with the line: "I have never known the American people to be really badly wrong, if only they were correctly and fully informed."

Herken shows how self-deluded and professionally delusional that was -- not because of Alsop's character but because of his sources. Herken documents that they ran upwards from foot-soldiers (also lubricious sailors) to presidents and cabinet secretaries. Herken doesn't think the same of Kennan, who gets to walk off stage, aged 101, sounding more sceptical of overthrowing Saddam Hussein than he ever was in his prime and in power to direct schemes of what we call state terrorism today.


Left to right: Kennan died in 2005, aged 101; Alsop died in 1989 aged 78; Frank Wisner died in 1965 aged 56. The deeper Herken gets into the private papers, the more he refers to his subjects by their diminutives and nicknames – Joe, Oppie, Beetle, Dickie, the Crocodile, Wig, Jack, Wiz, Soozle, Vangie, et al.

What is fresh about the sources is that Herken has had access to the private notes, letters and diaries of the Alsop family; the Kennan diaries and letters; and the private papers of Frank Wisner, the first director of covert operations against Russia. Wisner went mad and killed himself, as did Graham. There's no doubt about the suicide outcome of their madness.

In the case of the mad ex-Defence Secretary James Forrestal his fatal jump from the window of the Navy hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, in May 1949 might have been a homicidal push. Herken concludes that Forrestal's death was "the first senior-ranking American casualty of the Cold War." Herken thinks of their madness as anomalies. The history shows they were normalities.

Missing from this history is any reference to official documents, now declassified; press reporting of the time; or interviews with veterans of the same events but on other sides – Russian and Soviet; British; German; French; Polish; Vietnamese; Chinese. This isn't so much a fatal flaw in Herken's (right) book as the reason why his history is repeating itself today. Call this a variation on Karl's Marx's apothegm that history starts as tragedy and repeats itself as farce. Herken's blindness to this is as revealing as the Washington Post's madness, not yet as suicidal as its former proprietor's, today.

So mesmerized is Herken by the moneyed backgrounds of his subjects and sources, and by the amount of black cash from the US Government they spent on operations, he forgets to report what they did to fill their own pockets. The claim by the New Yorker that "no one got rich from the arrangement" – Alsop's fake news fabrications – is false, but Herken touches only in passing on how they made (or kept) their money. Alsop's column, for example, was sold to 200 newspapers, and at one time claimed a readership of 25 million. His family inheritance is recorded, but not its annual revenue value. Alsop's payola included silk shirts from Alfred Kohlberg, a textile importer from China who backed Chiang Kai-shek against Mao Tse-tung, as did Alsop. Alsop's patrons included Convair (General Dynamics), the company building the US Air Force Atlas missile for procurement of which Alsop reported fictions about Soviet missile strength.

In the US power which Alsop, Kennan and Wisner believed without hesitation, Herken is not less a believer. "Anything could be achieved", Herken quotes a New York Times reporter quoting Wisner. When the US force multiple changed, however, and US allies or agents were outgunned, outspent, outnumbered, or outwitted, they were unable to acknowledge miscalculation, attributing defeat instead to the superior force or guile of their adversaries, especially the Russians.

This is madness, and there is good reason for recognizing the symptoms again. In 1958, when Herken says Wisner's paranoid manias were becoming obvious to his friends and colleagues, "Frank put forward a theory that the careless comment which had gotten George Kennan kicked out of the Soviet Union was evidence the Soviets had succeeded in an area where the CIA's own scientists had failed: mind control. Some agency hands alleged that Wisner attributed his own increasingly bizarre behaviour to the Kremlin's sly manipulation."

A cell from the comic "Is This Tomorrow? America Under Communism"(1947). Test your mind, read more: https://archive.org/details/IsThisTomorrowAmericaUnderCommunismCatecheticalGuild

From Washington in 1958, fast forward to Washington in 2017; for mind control and sly manipulation, read Russian hacking and cyber warfare. From Wisner's and Kennan's balloon drops of leaflets and broadcasts by Radio Free Europe, fast forward to Russia Today Television and Russian infiltrations of Twitter, Google, the Democratic National Committee, and the Trump organization.

It stands to reason (ahem!) that if you think what the US Government and its journalists were doing then was mad, you are might conclude that what they is doing now is just as mad – and not very different. When the incumbent president and his Secretary of State publicly call for IQ tests on each other, all reason has failed. "The nation," as Alsop had written, "had simply taken leave of all sense of proportion." That was in March 1954.

If you fast forward to now, there's one difference. Today the lunatic Russia warfighters don't retire. They also don't fade away. Today's sleek successors to mad Wisner and mad Graham sleep easily in their beds a-nights. For what they've done and do, they wouldn't dream of taking shotguns to their heads.

Herken retells the story of the campaign Alsop waged against McCarthyism at the State Department, against McCarthy himself, and the vulnerability Alsop himself presented until the Boston lawyer Joseph Welch put an end to McCarthy on June 9, 1954 : "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Welch famously said. "Have you left no sense of decency?" The recurring history reveals why, even if there are plenty of people to say the same thing today to the Washington Post, New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the madness will continue repeating itself.

Source: Dances With Bears

Tommy Jensen , October 12, 2017 8:47 AM

..and what happened exactly 70 years ago? You said it, not me.....you said Israel!

Slick Tommy Jensen , October 12, 2017 6:52 PM

Wisner has a son named Frank, who is a pro-Kosovo Albanian/anti-Serb/anti-Russian fiend. Kennan later became a responsibly more calming voice on Russia. Concerning the Capitol Hill establishment -

https://www.strategic-cultu...

Be hard pressed to find a better article on the subject.

Carlo - , October 12, 2017 11:18 AM

Nonetheless, I remember that Kennan was a strong opponent against NATO expansion in the 90's, after the collapse of the USSR. I think there were good reasons to make an alliance against the spread of communism, but after this ended in Europe, of course, NATO should have dissolved just like the Warsaw Pact.

Kjell Hasthi Edward Mercer , October 13, 2017 2:35 PM

Wages are low in Estonia compared to Sweden. So the Swedish corporations will move some factories to Estonia to make more money. That is the "powerhouse". The Estonians will not see much to the money. But they get what is wages in Estonia of course.

Koroviev,Behemoth&Woland LLP , October 13, 2017 8:39 AM

Why did the Warburg Brothers and Jacob Schiff finance the Bolsheviks when the rest of America was instructed to hate the Russians?

Just another one of those unexplained oddities of history.

Gonzogal , October 12, 2017 4:25 PM

It is MUCH older than 70 years!

"The Cold War, I would remind readers, started in November 1917 when the Bolsheviks took power in Russia Undiscouraged and terrified of a socialist revolution in Russia, the so-called Entente [Great Britain and France] tossed fat rolls of banknotes to anyone who said he would fight the Soviets. The Entente sent its own forces to the four distant corners of Russia to do the job themselves. This was the 'Allied' intervention which continued until the beginning of 1921 in the west and until 1922 in Eastern Siberia," ~ Professor Michael Jabara Carley of the University of Montreal

"Interestingly enough, the term "Russophobia" was first used by Fyodor Tyutchev (1803 -- 1873), famous Russian poet, diplomat and politician in reference to growing Western hostilities against Russia on the "eve" of the Crimean War (1854-56) between the Russian Empire and an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia.

Historians elaborate that the so-called "Russophobia campaign" actually started as early as the 1820s -- instigated by Britain -- following Russia's glorious victory over Napoleonic France in 1812-13.

"British hostility towards Russia had recurred periodically ever since the late eighteenth century. In had become increasingly apparent, albeit in a gradual and evolutionary fashion, in the years after Waterloo Fear of Russia's aims in Europe and Asia surfaced as early as 1817," American historian Edward M. Spiers wrote in his book "Radical General: Sir George de Lacy Evans, 1787-1870."

"Britons were especially concerned about their dominance in Central Asia and the "Russian threat" to their hegemonic ambitions in the region. According British diplomat Sir Martin Ewans, in the 1820s-30s London deemed that it would be "unwise" to allow the Russian Empire to extend its influence over Caucasus, Persia and Afghanistan. "That Russophobia existed is undeniable," Sir Ewans remarked in his book "Conflict in Afghanistan: Studies in Asymmetric Warfare."

"Remarkably, in the 1860s, Russian ethnologist, philosopher and historian Nikolai Danilevsky slammed the Western propaganda machine for spreading distorted information and blatant lies about the "Russian threat" and imaginary "expansionist ambitions" of the Russian Empire in his book "Russia and Europe." https://sputniknews.com/pol...

Tommy Jensen Gonzogal , October 13, 2017 5:05 AM

Its incredible one country can sit half the planet away "not allowing" another country "to spread its influence" to its neighbours. When this is the case, this country´s culture is pervercy and sick.

[Oct 12, 2017] Wheres the Beef The Senate Intel Committee and Russia by Mike Whitney

Neocons already poisoned the well of US-Russian cooperation. They already unleashes witch hunt in best McCarthyism traditions. What else do they want ? Why they continue to waive this dead chicken?
Notable quotes:
"... people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: ..."
"... Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story? ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. ..."
"... Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
Oct 12, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said:

We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee.

Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that's been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:

Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.

It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions, then what's the point?

Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy.

From the Intelligence Community Assessment:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts– who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security– would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be taken seriously.

Here's more from the ICA:

Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.

More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA's authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report's credibility.

To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:

"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr added that the committee's review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and they've interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The Nation)

That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem:

"There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."

Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story?

Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so they decided to scrub the story altogether?

But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.

So here's a question for critical minded readers:

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections, then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't really make sense, does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?

Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple.

That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?

Don't bet on it.

What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.

Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a foreign government. McGovern's work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?

How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the hacking theory, as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the ICA.

Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not involved in the DNC email scandal.

Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?

Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.

So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?

It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.

[Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

Highly recommended!
Chris Hedges, who is doubtless a courageous journalist and an intelligent commentator, suggests that if we are to discuss the anti-Russia campaign realistically, as baseless in fact, and as contrived for an effect and to further/protect some particular interests, we can hardly avoid the question: Who or what interest is served by the anti-Russia campaign?
An interesting observation "The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out."
The other relevant observation is that there is no American left. It was destroyed as a political movement. The USA is a right wing country.
Notable quotes:
"... This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. ..."
"... It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions. ..."
"... Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater. ..."
"... These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes. ..."
"... The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced. ..."
"... The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left." ..."
"... Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease. ..."
"... For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch. ..."
"... The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down. ..."
"... The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. ..."
"... The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison! ..."
"... Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

Originally from: The elites "have no credibility left" by Chris Hedges

But the whole idea that the Russians swung the election to Trump is absurd. It's really premised on the unproven claim that Russia gave the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks, and the release of these emails turned tens, or hundreds of thousands, of Clinton supporters towards Trump. This doesn't make any sense. Either that, or, according to the director of national intelligence, RT America, where I have a show, got everyone to vote for the Green Party.

This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. It is the result of disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA that abolished good-paying union jobs and shipped them to places like Mexico, where workers without benefits are paid $3.00 an hour. It is the result of the explosion of a system of mass incarceration, begun by Bill Clinton with the 1994 omnibus crime bill, and the tripling and quadrupling of prison sentences. It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country.

Police forces have been turned into quasi-military entities that terrorize marginal communities, where people have been stripped of all of their rights and can be shot with impunity; in fact over three are killed a day. The state shoots and locks up poor people of color as a form of social control. They are quite willing to employ the same form of social control on any other segment of the population that becomes restive.

The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions.

Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Without Wall Street money, they would not hold political power. The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater.

These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes.

... ... ...

DN: Let's come back to this question of the Russian hacking news story. You raised the ability to generate a story, which has absolutely no factual foundation, nothing but assertions by various intelligence agencies, presented as an assessment that is beyond question. What is your evaluation of this?

CH: The commercial broadcast networks, and that includes CNN and MSNBC, are not in the business of journalism. They hardly do any. Their celebrity correspondents are courtiers to the elite. They speculate about and amplify court gossip, which is all the accusations about Russia, and they repeat what they are told to repeat. They sacrifice journalism and truth for ratings and profit. These cable news shows are one of many revenue streams in a corporate structure. They compete against other revenue streams. The head of CNN, Jeff Zucker, who helped create the fictional persona of Donald Trump on "Celebrity Apprentice," has turned politics on CNN into a 24-hour reality show. All nuance, ambiguity, meaning and depth, along with verifiable fact, are sacrificed for salacious entertainment. Lying, racism, bigotry and conspiracy theories are given platforms and considered newsworthy, often espoused by people whose sole quality is that they are unhinged. It is news as burlesque.

I was on the investigative team at the New York Times during the lead-up to the Iraq War. I was based in Paris and covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East. Lewis Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and maybe somebody in an intelligence agency, would confirm whatever story the administration was attempting to pitch. Journalistic rules at the Times say you can't go with a one-source story. But if you have three or four supposedly independent sources confirming the same narrative, then you can go with it, which is how they did it. The paper did not break any rules taught at Columbia journalism school, but everything they wrote was a lie.

The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced.

DN: The CIA pitches the story, and then the Times gets the verification from those who pitch it to them.

CH: It's not always pitched. And not much of this came from the CIA The CIA wasn't buying the "weapons of mass destruction" hysteria.

DN: It goes the other way too?

CH: Sure. Because if you're trying to have access to a senior official, you'll constantly be putting in requests, and those officials will decide when they want to see you. And when they want to see you, it's usually because they have something to sell you.

DN: The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left."

CH: Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease.

If you attempt to debate most of those on the supposedly left, they reduce discussion to this cartoonish vision of politics.

The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical movements under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually destroyed our labor movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s. For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch.

I've battled continuously with Antifa and the Black Bloc. I think they're kind of poster children for what I would consider phenomenal political immaturity. Resistance is not a form of personal catharsis. We are not fighting the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down.

So Trump's not the problem. But just that sentence alone is going to kill most discussions with people who consider themselves part of the left.

The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. The New York Times , if they review your book, will turn it over to a dutiful mandarin like George Packer to trash it -- as he did with my last book. The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison!

Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors.

[Oct 11, 2017] The Myths of Interventionists by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars. ..."
"... The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. ..."
"... It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes. ..."
"... At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Dakota Wood makes the usual alarmist case for throwing more money at the military. This passage stood out for how wrong it is:

Churchill repeatedly warned his countrymen of the dangers of complacency, misguided priorities, and weakness of will, of the foolishness to see the world and major competitors as being anything other than what they truly are. While praising the virtues and spirit of moderation that defined the English-speaking peoples of his day, he also urged them to recognize the necessity of having the courage to take timely action when dangers threatened and clearly visible trends in an eroding ability to provide for their common defense were leading toward disaster.

A similar state of affairs afflicts the United States today. To the extent America intervenes in the affairs of others, it is because the United States has been attacked first, an ally is in dire need of assistance, or an enemy threatens broader regional stability [bold mine-DL].

Over ten years ago, Rick Santorum talked incessantly about "the gathering storm" in a very conscious echo of Churchill, and subsequent events have proven his alarmism to have been just as unfounded and ridiculous as it seemed to be at the time. Hawks are often eager to invoke the 1930s to try to scare their audience into accepting more aggressive policies and more military spending than our security actually requires. Some of this may come from believing their own propaganda about the threats that they exaggerate, and some of it may just be a reflex, but as analysis of the contemporary scene it is always wrong. There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars.

Churchill-quoting alarmists aren't just bad at assessing the scale and nature of foreign threats, but they are usually also oblivious to the shoddy justifications for intervening and the damage that our interventionist policies do. The section quoted above reflects an almost touchingly naive belief that U.S. interventions are always justified and never cause more harm than they prevent. Very few U.S. interventions over the last thirty years fit the description Wood gives. The only time that the U.S. has intervened militarily abroad in response to an attack during this period was in Afghanistan as part of the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks. Every other intervention has been a choice to attack another country or to take sides in an ongoing conflict, and these interventions have usually had nothing to do with coming to the defense of an ally or preventing regional instability. Our interference in the affairs of others is often illegal under both domestic and/or international law (e.g., Kosovo, Libya, Iraq), it is very rarely related to U.S. or allied security, and it tends to cause a great deal of harm to the country and the surrounding region that are supposedly being "helped" by our government's actions.

The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. The U.S. didn't invade Panama in 1989 to help an ally or because we were attacked, but simply to topple the government there. Intervention in Haiti in 1994 didn't come in response to an attack or to assist an ally, but because Washington wanted to restore a deposed leader. Bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 was an attack on a country that posed no threat to us or our allies. The Libyan war was a war for regime change and a war of choice. A few allies did urge the U.S. to intervene in Libya, but not because they were in "dire need of assistance." The only thing that Britain and France needed in 2011 was the means to launch an attack on another country whose government posed no threat to them. Meddling in Syria since at least 2012 had nothing to do with defending the U.S. and our allies. Wood's description certainly doesn't apply to our support for the shameful Saudi-led war on Yemen, as the U.S. chose to take part in an attack on another country so that our despotic clients could be "reassured."

It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes.

Posted in foreign policy , politics .

Tagged Syria , Rick Santorum , Yemen , Iraq war , Panama , Libyan war , Saudi Arabia , Haiti , Winston Churchill , Dakota Wood .

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Democracy Vs. Hegemonism? In Defense Of Mary Grabar

Christian Chuba , says: October 11, 2017 at 4:22 pm

'The gathering storm' I read that and I was dying to know which storm he was referring too.

At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'.

It's surprising how low on the list N. Korea typically ranks as the hawks try to turn attention quickly back to Iran. 'Iran is funding and developing their nuclear program, Iran is going to buy their nuclear weapons'. At least in the case of N. Korea we do have a country that obviously does possess WMD and is developing ICBM's and is likely to sell them in the future (even to our best friends the Saudis).

[Oct 11, 2017] US pseudo left does not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They resist everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.

Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

polistra, Website October 11, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT

Hedges doesn't seem to understand that the "Resistance" is openly and obviously working FOR Deepstate. They do not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They resist everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.

Nothing mysterious or hidden about this, no ulterior motive or bankshot. It's explicitly stated in every poster and shout and beating.

[Oct 11, 2017] The Perils of Arming Ukraine by Daniel Larison

Oct 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Rajan Menon and Will Ruger elaborate on why arming Ukraine would be an extremely foolish thing for the U.S. to do:

The proposition that Putin won't be provoked by a U.S. decision to send lethal arms to Ukraine amounts to a hunch. It's not supported by evidence, and Putin's past behavior contradicts it. This is not a minor point: if he does ramp up the war and the Ukrainian army is forced into retreat, the United States will face three bad choices.

First, Washington could pour even more arms into Ukraine in hopes of concentrating Putin's mind; but he can easily provide additional firepower to the Donbas insurgents. Second, it could deepen its military involvement by sending American military advisers, or even troops, to the frontline to bolster the Ukrainian army; but then Russia could call America's bluff. Third, the United States could decide not to respond to Russia's escalation given the geographical disadvantage and the limited strategic interests at stake. That would amount to backing down, abandoning Ukraine, and shredding the oft-repeated argument that American and European security hinges on the outcome of the Donbas war.

As hawks often do, advocates of arming Ukraine minimize the potential risks of their proposal while exaggerating the benefits that it will produce. On the one hand, they insist that they are "merely" calling for the U.S. to help Ukraine defend itself (they are actually calling for enabling Ukraine's government to go on the offensive), but at the same time they believe that in doing so they will "raise the costs" for Russia to such an extent that it will significantly alter Russian behavior in and towards Ukraine. If the policy is as likely to change Moscow's behavior as they say, it can't be as low-risk as they claim, but if it doesn't pose a serious risk it is probably going to have no positive effects at all. In the worst case, arming Ukraine sets them up for a disastrous defeat that the U.S. will have helped to enable.

The other flaw in the pro-arming case is that advocates of sending weapons to the Ukrainian government simply dismiss the negative consequences that are very likely to follow. They assume that the Russian government has a low tolerance for casualties, but they conveniently forget that it was Russian casualties in Tskhinvali that served as part of the rallying cry for the invasion of Georgia in the August 2008 war. The same people that called for pulling Ukraine out of Moscow's orbit in 2014 didn't anticipate the Russian response to Yanukovych's overthrow, but they still think that Moscow will be more inclined to back down now when faced with new provocations. Western hawkish analysts and pundits have consistently underestimated how far Moscow will go in this conflict, so why should their assurances be trusted now? We should have learned over the last decade that Moscow is much more likely to respond forcefully to provocative Western actions than most of us have assumed, and that means that the U.S. should approach this conflict with greater caution instead of increased recklessness.

Menon and Ruger make another important point that tends to get lost in the debate on this question:

The case for arming Ukraine also tends to be made in a vacuum, never mind that what the United States does in Ukraine could determine what Russia does elsewhere. Moscow could respond by putting more pressure on the Baltics, acting as a spoiler in North Korea or Iran, or even arming the Taliban (that would be an ironic turn: in the 1980s, the United States bled the Soviets by arming the Afghan mujahideen). If these outcomes seem impossible, consider the United States' awful record in foreseeing the effects of its military moves [bold mine-DL].

The explicit purpose of sending arms to Ukraine is to give their government the means to kill more Russians and Russian proxies. This may be dressed up in euphemisms by advocates (e.g., "raising costs," "making them pay a price"), but that is what they expressly hope to achieve with this policy. If our positions were reversed, our government would not respond to the deaths of our soldiers and proxies by yielding to the preferences of the government that provided the weapons that killed them. On the contrary, our government would intensify its support for whatever policy that government was trying to thwart. It would be foolish to assume that the Russian government would respond differently. We should assume that they would respond both directly in Ukraine by increasing their support for separatists and indirectly by aiding our enemies in other wars. This last part was the point that analyst Michael Kofman made in a report from August:

Russia's response to scattering Javelins among Ukrainian ground forces should factor into the decision, Kofman said.

"The Russians have a very clear policy of reciprocity, as we saw in the recent diplomatic purge. They see this as a premise of the U.S. wanting to kill Russians," Kofman said.

"The answer to this won't come in Ukraine."

[Oct 11, 2017] The Infantilization of President Trump by David A. Graham

Atlantic used to have a strong pro-Hillary bias and stooges are prominent among its correspondents, so all information should be take with huge grain of salt. may be this is just a "color revolution" style campaign to provoke the President of some outburst that hurts him politically.
But Trump behaviour in case of North Korea speaks for itself so this is not pure insinuations...
Notable quotes:
"... On the North Korean front, the president has repeatedly made bellicose remarks for months, even as aides try to slow-walk the slide toward war, warning of the catastrophic destruction that would result, insisting that all options remain on the table, and trying to keep diplomatic channels open -- only to see Trump repeatedly undercut them. Even as the president seems eager for confrontation, more prudent members of the team have sought to redirect his anger. ..."
"... Bargaining is another technique, as recent news about Iran shows. While many of Trump's aides had their gripes about the 2015 deal with Tehran to prevent nuclear proliferation, most of them seem to agree that keeping the deal in place is far preferable to eliminating it. ..."
"... Trump's childish behavior was worrying when it involved belittling his opponents, discussing his genitalia, or taking swipes at former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, but it takes on a new level of danger when it affects U.S. military policy ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com

... Or, for that matter, whether the U.S. might go to war soon with either North Korea or Iran, as I wrote yesterday . On the North Korean front, the president has repeatedly made bellicose remarks for months, even as aides try to slow-walk the slide toward war, warning of the catastrophic destruction that would result, insisting that all options remain on the table, and trying to keep diplomatic channels open -- only to see Trump repeatedly undercut them. Even as the president seems eager for confrontation, more prudent members of the team have sought to redirect his anger.

Bargaining is another technique, as recent news about Iran shows. While many of Trump's aides had their gripes about the 2015 deal with Tehran to prevent nuclear proliferation, most of them seem to agree that keeping the deal in place is far preferable to eliminating it. But now the administration seems likely to punt the issue, decertifying the deal but leaving it to Congress to either let it stand or fall. (So much for Harry S. Truman's "the buck stops here.") Why take this halfway step? Part of it is that, just as on DACA, Trump wants to keep a campaign promise to end the deal without suffering the consequences, but another part is childish petulance: Olivier Knox reports Trump simply hates being confronted with the need to recertify the deal every 90 days.

And then, as every parent knows, sometimes you just have to give in -- let the kid have a victory on something less significant. Aides can try to prevent war with North Korea, and they can seek compromise on the Iran deal, and they can quietly kill the demand for more nukes, but they've got to let the president have his way on occasion. When Trump demands "goddamned steam" to power catapults on aircraft carriers, aides shrug and let it go.

Trump's childish behavior was worrying when it involved belittling his opponents, discussing his genitalia, or taking swipes at former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, but it takes on a new level of danger when it affects U.S. military policy, from Iran to North Korea to the nuclear arsenal.

There's a powerful, perhaps too powerful, urge to seek historical analogues for Trump , but seldom has there been a president whose own loyalists and insiders were so dismissive of his maturity, judgment, and prudence. So how does the presidency work when the president's aides treat him like a child? The immediate answer is, not very well. The longer-term answers are murkier and scarier.

[Oct 11, 2017] The Myths of Interventionists by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars. ..."
"... The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. ..."
"... It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes. ..."
"... At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Dakota Wood makes the usual alarmist case for throwing more money at the military. This passage stood out for how wrong it is:

Churchill repeatedly warned his countrymen of the dangers of complacency, misguided priorities, and weakness of will, of the foolishness to see the world and major competitors as being anything other than what they truly are. While praising the virtues and spirit of moderation that defined the English-speaking peoples of his day, he also urged them to recognize the necessity of having the courage to take timely action when dangers threatened and clearly visible trends in an eroding ability to provide for their common defense were leading toward disaster.

A similar state of affairs afflicts the United States today. To the extent America intervenes in the affairs of others, it is because the United States has been attacked first, an ally is in dire need of assistance, or an enemy threatens broader regional stability [bold mine-DL].

Over ten years ago, Rick Santorum talked incessantly about "the gathering storm" in a very conscious echo of Churchill, and subsequent events have proven his alarmism to have been just as unfounded and ridiculous as it seemed to be at the time. Hawks are often eager to invoke the 1930s to try to scare their audience into accepting more aggressive policies and more military spending than our security actually requires. Some of this may come from believing their own propaganda about the threats that they exaggerate, and some of it may just be a reflex, but as analysis of the contemporary scene it is always wrong. There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars.

Churchill-quoting alarmists aren't just bad at assessing the scale and nature of foreign threats, but they are usually also oblivious to the shoddy justifications for intervening and the damage that our interventionist policies do. The section quoted above reflects an almost touchingly naive belief that U.S. interventions are always justified and never cause more harm than they prevent. Very few U.S. interventions over the last thirty years fit the description Wood gives. The only time that the U.S. has intervened militarily abroad in response to an attack during this period was in Afghanistan as part of the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks. Every other intervention has been a choice to attack another country or to take sides in an ongoing conflict, and these interventions have usually had nothing to do with coming to the defense of an ally or preventing regional instability. Our interference in the affairs of others is often illegal under both domestic and/or international law (e.g., Kosovo, Libya, Iraq), it is very rarely related to U.S. or allied security, and it tends to cause a great deal of harm to the country and the surrounding region that are supposedly being "helped" by our government's actions.

The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. The U.S. didn't invade Panama in 1989 to help an ally or because we were attacked, but simply to topple the government there. Intervention in Haiti in 1994 didn't come in response to an attack or to assist an ally, but because Washington wanted to restore a deposed leader. Bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 was an attack on a country that posed no threat to us or our allies. The Libyan war was a war for regime change and a war of choice. A few allies did urge the U.S. to intervene in Libya, but not because they were in "dire need of assistance." The only thing that Britain and France needed in 2011 was the means to launch an attack on another country whose government posed no threat to them. Meddling in Syria since at least 2012 had nothing to do with defending the U.S. and our allies. Wood's description certainly doesn't apply to our support for the shameful Saudi-led war on Yemen, as the U.S. chose to take part in an attack on another country so that our despotic clients could be "reassured."

It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes.

Posted in foreign policy , politics .

Tagged Syria , Rick Santorum , Yemen , Iraq war , Panama , Libyan war , Saudi Arabia , Haiti , Winston Churchill , Dakota Wood .

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Democracy Vs. Hegemonism? In Defense Of Mary Grabar

Christian Chuba , says: October 11, 2017 at 4:22 pm

'The gathering storm' I read that and I was dying to know which storm he was referring too.

At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'.

It's surprising how low on the list N. Korea typically ranks as the hawks try to turn attention quickly back to Iran. 'Iran is funding and developing their nuclear program, Iran is going to buy their nuclear weapons'. At least in the case of N. Korea we do have a country that obviously does possess WMD and is developing ICBM's and is likely to sell them in the future (even to our best friends the Saudis).

[Oct 11, 2017] The Perils of Arming Ukraine by Daniel Larison

Oct 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Rajan Menon and Will Ruger elaborate on why arming Ukraine would be an extremely foolish thing for the U.S. to do:

The proposition that Putin won't be provoked by a U.S. decision to send lethal arms to Ukraine amounts to a hunch. It's not supported by evidence, and Putin's past behavior contradicts it. This is not a minor point: if he does ramp up the war and the Ukrainian army is forced into retreat, the United States will face three bad choices.

First, Washington could pour even more arms into Ukraine in hopes of concentrating Putin's mind; but he can easily provide additional firepower to the Donbas insurgents. Second, it could deepen its military involvement by sending American military advisers, or even troops, to the frontline to bolster the Ukrainian army; but then Russia could call America's bluff. Third, the United States could decide not to respond to Russia's escalation given the geographical disadvantage and the limited strategic interests at stake. That would amount to backing down, abandoning Ukraine, and shredding the oft-repeated argument that American and European security hinges on the outcome of the Donbas war.

As hawks often do, advocates of arming Ukraine minimize the potential risks of their proposal while exaggerating the benefits that it will produce. On the one hand, they insist that they are "merely" calling for the U.S. to help Ukraine defend itself (they are actually calling for enabling Ukraine's government to go on the offensive), but at the same time they believe that in doing so they will "raise the costs" for Russia to such an extent that it will significantly alter Russian behavior in and towards Ukraine. If the policy is as likely to change Moscow's behavior as they say, it can't be as low-risk as they claim, but if it doesn't pose a serious risk it is probably going to have no positive effects at all. In the worst case, arming Ukraine sets them up for a disastrous defeat that the U.S. will have helped to enable.

The other flaw in the pro-arming case is that advocates of sending weapons to the Ukrainian government simply dismiss the negative consequences that are very likely to follow. They assume that the Russian government has a low tolerance for casualties, but they conveniently forget that it was Russian casualties in Tskhinvali that served as part of the rallying cry for the invasion of Georgia in the August 2008 war. The same people that called for pulling Ukraine out of Moscow's orbit in 2014 didn't anticipate the Russian response to Yanukovych's overthrow, but they still think that Moscow will be more inclined to back down now when faced with new provocations. Western hawkish analysts and pundits have consistently underestimated how far Moscow will go in this conflict, so why should their assurances be trusted now? We should have learned over the last decade that Moscow is much more likely to respond forcefully to provocative Western actions than most of us have assumed, and that means that the U.S. should approach this conflict with greater caution instead of increased recklessness.

Menon and Ruger make another important point that tends to get lost in the debate on this question:

The case for arming Ukraine also tends to be made in a vacuum, never mind that what the United States does in Ukraine could determine what Russia does elsewhere. Moscow could respond by putting more pressure on the Baltics, acting as a spoiler in North Korea or Iran, or even arming the Taliban (that would be an ironic turn: in the 1980s, the United States bled the Soviets by arming the Afghan mujahideen). If these outcomes seem impossible, consider the United States' awful record in foreseeing the effects of its military moves [bold mine-DL].

The explicit purpose of sending arms to Ukraine is to give their government the means to kill more Russians and Russian proxies. This may be dressed up in euphemisms by advocates (e.g., "raising costs," "making them pay a price"), but that is what they expressly hope to achieve with this policy. If our positions were reversed, our government would not respond to the deaths of our soldiers and proxies by yielding to the preferences of the government that provided the weapons that killed them. On the contrary, our government would intensify its support for whatever policy that government was trying to thwart. It would be foolish to assume that the Russian government would respond differently. We should assume that they would respond both directly in Ukraine by increasing their support for separatists and indirectly by aiding our enemies in other wars. This last part was the point that analyst Michael Kofman made in a report from August:

Russia's response to scattering Javelins among Ukrainian ground forces should factor into the decision, Kofman said.

"The Russians have a very clear policy of reciprocity, as we saw in the recent diplomatic purge. They see this as a premise of the U.S. wanting to kill Russians," Kofman said.

"The answer to this won't come in Ukraine."

[Oct 11, 2017] Donald Trump is exposing the contradictions of the elite by David Callahan

That's neoliberal elite after all. Why the author expects them to be ashamed is unclear
Notable quotes:
"... Business practices aimed at boosting shareholder value – like outsourcing, offshoring, automation, union-busting, predatory lending, and a range of anti-competitive abuses – have undermined the security of large swaths of the country. In turn, a flood of business dollars for campaign donations and lobbying over decades has helped thwart effective government responses to rising pain on Main Street. ..."
"... History tells us that societies with extractive and self-serving upper classes tend to fall into decline – whereas societies with inclusive elites are more likely to thrive. With the rise of Trump, we're seeing what an unraveling of the social fabric looks like after decades in which nearly all the nation's income gains have flowed upwards to a tiny sliver of households. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Since January, though, we've also seen a new level of rapaciousness by corporate interests in Washington DC that seem intent on extracting as much wealth as they can from wherever they can: consumers, investors, public lands, student borrowers, the tax code and even the war in Afghanistan.

Longtime watchers of the .01% won't be surprised by this bifurcated picture. For over two decades, an ever more educated wealthy elite has trumpeted its belief in tolerance, diversity, and meritocracy – even as it's also helped usher in record levels of inequality that have left many Americans feeling economically excluded and increasingly angry.

Trump's retrograde presidency has revealed the profound contradictions at the top of the US income ladder.

... ... ...

Corporate leaders have already been supportive of Trump's sweeping push to gut regulations in ways that would tilt the rules governing the economy more in favor of business and the wealthy. Social inclusion may be a growing public mantra of the far upper class. But economic extraction remains among its core operating principles.

... ... ...

Social inclusion is a public mantra of the upper class. But economic extraction remains a core operating principle

The answer is that many corporate and financial leaders were, and still are, a big part of the problem. These leaders have fostered the economic conditions that have thrown the values of tolerance and diversity on the defensive in America.

Business practices aimed at boosting shareholder value – like outsourcing, offshoring, automation, union-busting, predatory lending, and a range of anti-competitive abuses – have undermined the security of large swaths of the country. In turn, a flood of business dollars for campaign donations and lobbying over decades has helped thwart effective government responses to rising pain on Main Street.

... ... ...

History tells us that societies with extractive and self-serving upper classes tend to fall into decline – whereas societies with inclusive elites are more likely to thrive. With the rise of Trump, we're seeing what an unraveling of the social fabric looks like after decades in which nearly all the nation's income gains have flowed upwards to a tiny sliver of households.

Rarely has the American experiment – the notion of a country united by ideas rather than shared heritage – felt more fragile than it does right now. It's an ugly picture of division and resentment, but a predictable one given the economic trauma inflicted on millions of people over recent decades.

... ... ...

David Callahan is the author of The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age. He is the founder and editor of Inside Philanthropy

[Oct 11, 2017] US pseudo left does not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They resist everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.

Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

polistra, Website October 11, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT

Hedges doesn't seem to understand that the "Resistance" is openly and obviously working FOR Deepstate. They do not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They resist everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.

Nothing mysterious or hidden about this, no ulterior motive or bankshot. It's explicitly stated in every poster and shout and beating.

[Oct 11, 2017] The Sordid Double Life of Washingtons Most Powerful Ambassador

Something about real foreign influence in Washington corridors of power ... Bankrolling think tanks is pretty slick idea.
Notable quotes:
"... Close with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top national security officials, Otaiba has bankrolled nearly every major think tank in Washington. ..."
"... The diplomat has worked tirelessly for nearly two decades to push Washington's defense and foreign policy establishment to adopt MBZ's hawkish ideas on Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other contentious policy areas. Otaiba has been a leading voice in Washington for the war in Yemen, where the UAE operates torture warehouses and funds death squads. The conflict has left more than 10,000 dead and countless more starving and stricken with a cholera epidemic of historic proportions. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | theintercept.com

Otaiba has become one of the most powerful and well-connected men in Washington, reportedly in touch with Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and adviser, on a weekly basis. His spending on galas, hospital wings, dinner parties, and birthday bashes has become legendary. Close with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top national security officials, Otaiba has bankrolled nearly every major think tank in Washington.

The Emirati envoy's cachet stems in part from his close relationship with Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, who is widely considered to be the effective ruler of the UAE. The crown prince of Abu Dhabi, he is known in the region and in Washington by his initials MBZ. Since 2000, Otaiba has reported directly to MBZ as his head of international affairs, and then as the ambassador in Washington. "Before I was introduced to him, the way he was described to me was the guy MBZ trusts most on foreign issues and one of the smartest people in the UAE," said Kristofer Harrison, a former Bush administration official who worked closely with Otaiba.

The diplomat has worked tirelessly for nearly two decades to push Washington's defense and foreign policy establishment to adopt MBZ's hawkish ideas on Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other contentious policy areas. Otaiba has been a leading voice in Washington for the war in Yemen, where the UAE operates torture warehouses and funds death squads. The conflict has left more than 10,000 dead and countless more starving and stricken with a cholera epidemic of historic proportions.

A fixture among Washington society, Otaiba spent much of the last decade carefully constructing the image of an enlightened Persian Gulf diplomat -- forward-thinking on women's rights, secularism, and embracing the modern world. On International Women's Day this year, he published an open letter to his young daughter to drive the point home.

Otaiba's homeland, meanwhile, does not often live up to such values. The UAE has some of the most draconian sex crime laws of any place in the world. Just last week, a man and a woman were arrested for having a conversation in a car while being unrelated and unmarried. This week, two defendants were spared prison time for the crime of " indecent attire ," but fined and deported nonetheless.

[Oct 11, 2017] An Al Jazeera Reporter Went Undercover with the Pro-Israel Lobby In Washington

Oct 11, 2017 | theintercept.com

Swisher wouldn't confirm or deny the identity of the American operative, but he said that with the American political class focused on foreign intervention in the affairs of the United States, now is an appropriate time to run the follow-up investigation. "I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that debate," he said.

[Oct 11, 2017] A documentary focused on Israeli influence in the US, the existence of which has previously been suspected but had yet to be made public.

Notable quotes:
"... Is not all this noise about Rooskies has one and only one goal – to divert attention from the "gorilla" and her "struggle for survival" in the Middle East and in the US Congress? https://theintercept.com/2017/10/09/an-al-jazeera-reporter-went-undercover-with-the-pro-israel-lobby-in-washington/ ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anon , Disclaimer October 11, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

@Johnny F. Ive

They need Russia to be an enemy to justify their actions and the Europeans want to use the US to threaten Russia. Its a shame this can't be generalized against all foreign agents of influence. The US Mainstream Media is basically an arm of the Hasbara. Their guest from think tanks are foreign agents of influence. Its not fun watching a bunch of foreigners and their domestic owned Americans run the US Empire into the ground.

Is not all this noise about Rooskies has one and only one goal – to divert attention from the "gorilla" and her "struggle for survival" in the Middle East and in the US Congress? https://theintercept.com/2017/10/09/an-al-jazeera-reporter-went-undercover-with-the-pro-israel-lobby-in-washington/

" a documentary focused on Israeli influence in the U.S., the existence of which has previously been suspected but had yet to be made public. The four-part series, "The Lobby," dug into the Israeli embassy in London, as well as several other pro-Israel lobby groups, and their campaign to "take down" British Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.

The investigation led to the resignation of a top Israeli official in London, as well as a high-profile complaint that Al Jazeera had broken broadcasting regulations in the United Kingdom. One of the complaints charged the investigation with anti-Semitism, but the government board ruled that imputing such a motive to a film critical of Israel would be akin to calling a series on gang violence racist.

Ofcom received complaints about the series from pro-Israel British activists and a former Israel embassy employee. It dismissed all charges, which included anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing, and the infringement of privacy. It ruled that as per the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's guidance: "It did not consider that such a critical analysis of the actions of a foreign state constituted anti-Semitism, particularly as the overall focus of the programme was to examine whether the State of Israel was acting in a manner that would be expected of other democratic nations."

[Oct 10, 2017] How to Turn Battleground Ukraine Into a Success Story

Notable quotes:
"... The US on the other hand is very keen on keeping control over its newest vassal, since, to quote Brzezinski's grand chess board, "without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire" . ..."
Oct 10, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

Pifer's narrative suggests that Putin's proposal concerning peace in Donbass is not serious so long as it does not comply with the deployment scheme suggested by the West. This statement is also quite erroneous. Putin's proposal is serious. The president of Russia does want peace . But his rules imply the conservation of non-bloc status of Ukraine.

Additionally, the rules mandate that Ukraine cease its attempts to discredit Russia-Europe energy cooperation vis-à-vis Nord Stream II, bring the "Crimean question" to a close, remove sanctions, and, presumably, pay special attention and respect to the rights of the Russian-speaking community in Ukraine.

PERICLES--- , October 9, 2017 10:36 PM

No offense is intended to the authors of this article, but it wasn't hard to tell they were Russian even just judging on the contents of the proposal. The entire point of any sort of DMZ in Ukraine is to make static potentially temporary Russian gains in a fluid battleground. This hypothetical DMZ would essentially be a third-party Maginot Line for Russia. Russia has stolen a comfy little buffer zone and would like to see that maintained. That's why the US would undoubtedly veto this.

Alternatively, the US could call Putin's bluff and use armored units and heavy bombers to retake Donbas for the Ukrainians, but pointedly stop short of Crimea. Russia maintains un-plausible deniability in the Donbas, so Putin would be able to save a least a little face. Crimea is claimed as full Russian territory, Putin would be politically unable to stop war from occurring if it was retaken by Ukrainian forces. After this a full withdrawal of US forces would be advisable so as not to trigger Russian fears of encirclement. Ukraine could be a neutral- but sovereign- nation. It could do more as a positive example to potential Russian dissidents than it ever could as a NATO member. A full-blown conflict with NATO would mean Putin's fall from power, and so it is very much in his interests to avoid it. We are operating from a position of strength, let's take advantage of it.

Andrey Kuleshov -> PERICLES--- , October 9, 2017 10:58 PM

"Alternatively, the US could call Putin's bluff and use armored units and heavy bombers to retake Donbas for the Ukrainians"..."

Wet dreams

0x7be -> PERICLES--- , October 10, 2017 4:03 PM

Somewhy US doesn't want to operate from "position of strength". May be because there is no position of strength...

Midnight -> PERICLES--- , October 10, 2017 10:21 AM

Lesson of geopolitics from redneck?

PERICLES--- -> Midnight , October 10, 2017 3:51 PM

I'm a Northerner.

Sascha Gruss -> Midnight , October 10, 2017 3:21 PM

The west will act tough and send more Ukrainians to die.

Midnight -> Sascha Gruss , October 10, 2017 3:33 PM

In Russia there is such a sad joke - the Americans will fight with Russia until the last Ukrainian ((

Sascha Gruss -> Midnight , October 10, 2017 4:39 PM

It should be the US will fight Russia until the last european dies.

Fake News Russian Troll , October 10, 2017 5:44 AM

Ukraine and the West have no interest in ending the war. This is why Minsk 2 failed, this is why the peace keeper proposal is bound to fail. Putins proposal is the separation of the opposing forces.

Again: Ukraine has no interest in it. It didn't adhere to it after Minsk, instead using it to occupy territory vacated by Donbass militias adhering to the peace agreement. The Western proposal is a complete occupation of the Donbass.

The peace troops would not be impartial, instead they want them to be posed by the West. It basically is the demand to hand everything over. A demand with no correlation to the political or military situation on the ground.

And handing over the control of the borders would not merely stop the weapons flow into Ukraine (something the Donbass never depended on, since some of the worlds largest weapons storages in the world were located right there and they've got them in abundance), but would surely be abused to stop any crossings and any trade across this border whatsoever.

Ukraine is blocking almost all trade between the Donbass and the rest of the country. They don't want them to trade with anyone else. They simply want to starve them out.

And finally: The worst thing that could happen to the regime in Kiev and its Western backers would be peace. Peace would force them to give up on blaming every fault on everyone else. Peace would make the Ukrainians wonder what has happened to their country since their coup. Peace would make them wonder what has happened to their economy since. Peace would make them wonder what had happened to the tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers who simply "disappeared" since the government tried to keep the already colossal losses down and the cost of paying annuities to their relatives.

Russia has no interest in this war. It knows that the economic future of Ukraine depends on Russia, and therefore has ample means to influence its neighbour.

The US on the other hand is very keen on keeping control over its newest vassal, since, to quote Brzezinski's grand chess board, "without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire" .

TotalBS -> Fake News Russian Troll , October 10, 2017 12:39 PM

Amen.

bakbaklazhan , October 10, 2017 4:26 PM

"To vanquish strategically, one often needs to take a tactical step back. "

in this phrase the authors are coming clear with regards to their goal of genociding russian speaking population of the eastern Ukraine and sucking "the Ukraine" into NATO...

[Oct 10, 2017] How to Turn Battleground Ukraine Into a Success Story

Notable quotes:
"... The US on the other hand is very keen on keeping control over its newest vassal, since, to quote Brzezinski's grand chess board, "without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire" . ..."
Oct 10, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

Pifer's narrative suggests that Putin's proposal concerning peace in Donbass is not serious so long as it does not comply with the deployment scheme suggested by the West. This statement is also quite erroneous. Putin's proposal is serious. The president of Russia does want peace . But his rules imply the conservation of non-bloc status of Ukraine.

Additionally, the rules mandate that Ukraine cease its attempts to discredit Russia-Europe energy cooperation vis-à-vis Nord Stream II, bring the "Crimean question" to a close, remove sanctions, and, presumably, pay special attention and respect to the rights of the Russian-speaking community in Ukraine.

PERICLES--- , October 9, 2017 10:36 PM

No offense is intended to the authors of this article, but it wasn't hard to tell they were Russian even just judging on the contents of the proposal. The entire point of any sort of DMZ in Ukraine is to make static potentially temporary Russian gains in a fluid battleground. This hypothetical DMZ would essentially be a third-party Maginot Line for Russia. Russia has stolen a comfy little buffer zone and would like to see that maintained. That's why the US would undoubtedly veto this.

Alternatively, the US could call Putin's bluff and use armored units and heavy bombers to retake Donbas for the Ukrainians, but pointedly stop short of Crimea. Russia maintains un-plausible deniability in the Donbas, so Putin would be able to save a least a little face. Crimea is claimed as full Russian territory, Putin would be politically unable to stop war from occurring if it was retaken by Ukrainian forces. After this a full withdrawal of US forces would be advisable so as not to trigger Russian fears of encirclement. Ukraine could be a neutral- but sovereign- nation. It could do more as a positive example to potential Russian dissidents than it ever could as a NATO member. A full-blown conflict with NATO would mean Putin's fall from power, and so it is very much in his interests to avoid it. We are operating from a position of strength, let's take advantage of it.

Andrey Kuleshov -> PERICLES--- , October 9, 2017 10:58 PM

"Alternatively, the US could call Putin's bluff and use armored units and heavy bombers to retake Donbas for the Ukrainians"..."

Wet dreams

0x7be -> PERICLES--- , October 10, 2017 4:03 PM

Somewhy US doesn't want to operate from "position of strength". May be because there is no position of strength...

Midnight -> PERICLES--- , October 10, 2017 10:21 AM

Lesson of geopolitics from redneck?

PERICLES--- -> Midnight , October 10, 2017 3:51 PM

I'm a Northerner.

Sascha Gruss -> Midnight , October 10, 2017 3:21 PM

The west will act tough and send more Ukrainians to die.

Midnight -> Sascha Gruss , October 10, 2017 3:33 PM

In Russia there is such a sad joke - the Americans will fight with Russia until the last Ukrainian ((

Sascha Gruss -> Midnight , October 10, 2017 4:39 PM

It should be the US will fight Russia until the last european dies.

Fake News Russian Troll , October 10, 2017 5:44 AM

Ukraine and the West have no interest in ending the war. This is why Minsk 2 failed, this is why the peace keeper proposal is bound to fail. Putins proposal is the separation of the opposing forces.

Again: Ukraine has no interest in it. It didn't adhere to it after Minsk, instead using it to occupy territory vacated by Donbass militias adhering to the peace agreement. The Western proposal is a complete occupation of the Donbass.

The peace troops would not be impartial, instead they want them to be posed by the West. It basically is the demand to hand everything over. A demand with no correlation to the political or military situation on the ground.

And handing over the control of the borders would not merely stop the weapons flow into Ukraine (something the Donbass never depended on, since some of the worlds largest weapons storages in the world were located right there and they've got them in abundance), but would surely be abused to stop any crossings and any trade across this border whatsoever.

Ukraine is blocking almost all trade between the Donbass and the rest of the country. They don't want them to trade with anyone else. They simply want to starve them out.

And finally: The worst thing that could happen to the regime in Kiev and its Western backers would be peace. Peace would force them to give up on blaming every fault on everyone else. Peace would make the Ukrainians wonder what has happened to their country since their coup. Peace would make them wonder what has happened to their economy since. Peace would make them wonder what had happened to the tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers who simply "disappeared" since the government tried to keep the already colossal losses down and the cost of paying annuities to their relatives.

Russia has no interest in this war. It knows that the economic future of Ukraine depends on Russia, and therefore has ample means to influence its neighbour.

The US on the other hand is very keen on keeping control over its newest vassal, since, to quote Brzezinski's grand chess board, "without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire" .

TotalBS -> Fake News Russian Troll , October 10, 2017 12:39 PM

Amen.

bakbaklazhan , October 10, 2017 4:26 PM

"To vanquish strategically, one often needs to take a tactical step back. "

in this phrase the authors are coming clear with regards to their goal of genociding russian speaking population of the eastern Ukraine and sucking "the Ukraine" into NATO...

[Oct 10, 2017] Izreal gets 77 percent of oil from Kurdistan. No wonder Israel is making ties to Kurdistan and bucking the central government of Iraq

Notable quotes:
"... The Kurdish leadership is being very short-sighted – no one is going to back them if they get attacked by those three parties. Is the US going to tango with a NATO member? But it could just be that their army gets trounced in the field after putting up a solid resistance and they are able to use that to get reassurances from those various states that Kurds will have a better seat at their respective national assemblies. I certainly don't know the future, but it just seems like the current trajectory is bad. ..."
Oct 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Talha, October 10, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

@RobinG Hi Talha,

Here's an articulate source. Until the web gets outright censored, beyond the select eliminating and demonetizing that's happening now. See also Ryan Dawson's interview of Phil at comment #28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybIee-u7qnY

War for Oil? (((Whose oil?))) Wow – thanks RobinG! I actually had no clue about that angle!!!

This article backs that up – 77% – that is massive!

http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Israel-importing-77-percent-of-its-oil-from-Iraqi-Kurdistan-report-says-413056

No wonder Israel is making ties to Kurdistan and bucking the central government of Iraq. If the central govt was to assert control, those numbers would change fairly quickly.

And – damn – Kushner's in on this stuff (it's amazing what that guy is up to in a completely unofficial capacity): http://al-monitor.com/pulse/afp/2017/04/us-politics-iraq-kushner-diplomacy.html

The Kurdish leadership is setting themselves up for disaster.

Peace.

Talha, October 10, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT

@iffen

What's going to happen when "the Iranians" attack the Kurds?

Not sure if that'll happen – there's still time to prevent that from taking place. But if it does, it'll likely come from three sides; Turks, Persians and Arabs – since a new Kurdish territory is going to affect the territorial integrity of each one of those existing states.

Uncle Sam to the rescue?

The guy who spilled the milk comes back to spill some more – no thanks. Certainly Israel isn't going to lift a finger – maybe they'll give the Kurdish leadership exile status in Haifa or something for being good pets.

The Kurdish leadership is being very short-sighted – no one is going to back them if they get attacked by those three parties. Is the US going to tango with a NATO member? But it could just be that their army gets trounced in the field after putting up a solid resistance and they are able to use that to get reassurances from those various states that Kurds will have a better seat at their respective national assemblies. I certainly don't know the future, but it just seems like the current trajectory is bad.

Peace.

iffen, October 10, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT

@Talha

What's going to happen when "the Iranians" attack the Kurds?

Where there is war, a cause can be found.

Talha, October 10, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT

@RobinG Hey RobinG,

I've had some good exchanges with iffen – though rarely on the subject of Israel. We agree to disagree. But others might gain benefit in a serious reply that brings together some things they haven't thought about.

I think what the Kurdish leadership is doing is deplorable and will not lead to anything good – but unfortunately it seems much of their desire for a Kurdistan is being backed by a lot of their population. That being said; I do not want any more Muslim blood (or anybody else's) being shed by other Muslims in that region.

This fratricide has to end: "The believers are but a single brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your brethren; and fear God, that you may receive Mercy." (49:10)

Peace.

[Oct 10, 2017] The Israeli algorithm criminalizing Palestinians for online dissent

Notable quotes:
"... "Israeli intelligence has developed a predictive policing system – a computer algorithm – that analyzes social media posts to identify Palestinian "suspects." " ..."
Oct 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

SolontoCroesus > , October 10, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT

@Talha

How to fix it? I don't know – maybe the internet . . . that is also a big IF – since there is so much on the internet which is just trash and lacks any sort of serious vetting.

The Israeli algorithm criminalizing Palestinians for online dissent
Oct 4 2017

https://www.opendemocracy.net/north-africa-west-asia/nadim-nashif-marwa-fatafta/israeli-algorithm-criminalizing-palestinians-for-o?utm_source=Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=d2cd3e7ec3-DAILY_NEWSLETTER_MAILCHIMP&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_717bc5d86d-d2cd3e7ec3-407397135

"Israeli intelligence has developed a predictive policing system – a computer algorithm – that analyzes social media posts to identify Palestinian "suspects." "

[Oct 10, 2017] Sputnik and RT are too small, especially Sputnik. They are forced to be on the defensive all the time and have no ability to created successful memes or "fake news" that would put the western MSM on the defensive

Notable quotes:
"... According to SimilarWeb, it only gets a total of 2.5 million monthly visitors from the US. That's almost an Unz.com like level of visitorship even though Ron's budget and attention of social media/advertising crap is many orders of magnitude lower than Sputniks. Russian taxpayers don't deserve this. ..."
"... What was made clear by Mr. Lincoln and his Civil War was that the WASP Elites, the Yankee rich and powerful, saw the 1st Amendment as meaning all speech they supported would be actively promoted by Government while all speech they opposed would be shut down. ..."
"... It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair game. ..."
"... Without Russia the US Army would have no real reason to exist, ..."
"... the US Army is a large political force with many bases, half a million people, and a huge budget. ..."
"... The big corps are using their bought government to eliminate competition to their concentrated domestic media oligarchy. They can buy up all the domestic outlets, those outside have to be banned. It is ludicrous to blame foreigners for all your ills, when the vast majority of your country is itself made up of foreigners and their descendants, except for the tiny remainder of American Indians. Which identifies properly another way to identify the enemy destroying your nation: look in the mirror first. ..."
"... I think the big issue is that money runs the show. Big media, which is where many people still get their information is just rotten at the core. How to fix it? I don't know – maybe the internet (which is still relatively young) will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses. ..."
"... "Russiagate" has been a farce from the very beginning, an attempt by that fat-ass witch to divert attention from the 30K emails–which is where the REAL scandal lies!! And where do we stand on that issue anyway? I won't hold my breath waiting. ..."
"... Propaganda? Our political class is going to protect us from Propaganda? Our bureaucracies, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, are going to protect us from Propaganda? If it doesn't jibe with what our media organs of record are putting out, they're going to stamp it Propaganda? Don't make me laugh! The Propaganda is that those clowns wouldn't call a pig a duck for a dime's worth of advantage. ..."
"... This action on the part of the Sessions DOJ is hypocritical in light of the fact that we routinely undermine governments and institutions in Ukraine and Russia via our NGO's and in any nation whose foreign policy is deemed an impediment to the goals Israel and their American vassal state. ..."
"... Every banned political speech has always been banned because it was deemed 'subversive' or 'divisive'. Or the new 20th century term 'propaganda'. This has been the case for thousands of years, the censors always say that. No censor ever just banned free expression or said that it has to be banned because it is true. The banning is also often done by admin harassment, 'foreign agent' label, cutting access, etc.. ..."
"... So the latest hysteria about banning RT/Sputnik is squarely in the mainstream of censorship. It meets all the usual criteria: foreign influence, trying to stir up discord, undermining the system (that would be 'democracy' in US). And the methods are also the usual one: registration, harassment, restriction on distribution, etc ..."
Oct 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anatoly Karlin , Website October 10, 2017 at 1:00 pm GMT

To be quite frank I hope that the US declares RT/Sputnik foreign agents (or bans them outright).

1. They are more interested in Putin hagiography and idiotic conspiracy theories than intelligent propaganda anyway.

2. They are ineffective, especially Sputnik. According to SimilarWeb, it only gets a total of 2.5 million monthly visitors from the US. That's almost an Unz.com like level of visitorship even though Ron's budget and attention of social media/advertising crap is many orders of magnitude lower than Sputniks. Russian taxpayers don't deserve this.

3. Gives Russia a great excuse to kick out dishonest Western journalists (about 75% of them).

Andrei Martyanov , Website October 10, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT

@Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften

The Europeans don't want to have American military bases there.

Not true. Some Europeans may not want that, but many others are perfectly content with the state of the affairs. As per Eastern Europe–majority of them want US military bases.

Jake , October 10, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT

What was made clear by Mr. Lincoln and his Civil War was that the WASP Elites, the Yankee rich and powerful, saw the 1st Amendment as meaning all speech they supported would be actively promoted by Government while all speech they opposed would be shut down.

That was in keeping with the culture's source: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. Puritans spouted Free Speech all day and all of the night, and if you dared speak against Cromwell or the Revolution, you paid dearly.

Hypocrisy about free speech is deep in the WASP DNA.

Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes. WASP culture is Germanic. Germanics have always seen Slavs as inferior peoples they should war against perpetually, to steal their best land and make serfs of the survivors. This obsession with screwing with Russia is simply the contemporary manifestation of that part of the problem of unrestrained Germanic culture.

iffen , October 10, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

we are allowed to air views that are essentially banned on the mainstream media to include critique of maladroit policies in places like Syria and Afghanistan and biting critiques of the war on terror.

It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair game.

Almost! Almost made it!

Jake , October 10, 2017 at 1:20 pm GMT

@Anonymous

I don't trust Russia any more than you do. I have even less, much less, trust, for the UK, Germany, France, the EU, as well as America's Democrats and Neocons.

JoaoAlfaiate , October 10, 2017 at 1:22 pm GMT

Russia: White and Christian, sounds like an ideal ally for the United States.

John Fitzgerald , October 10, 2017 at 1:40 pm GMT

If the Feds are going to make RT register as a foreign agent due to foreign funding, where does it stop? On the same basis, all nationally owned news outlets must be forced to register, e.g., BBC, Al Jezeera, etc. And what about nominally non-government owned news entities that a home government renders financial assistance, eg, the London Times, if it needed government loans to survive? Would it be a British foreign agent?

And what about the New York Times, which in its perilous financial state appears to be substantially supported by loans from a Mexican National, Carlos Slim who in turn must be assumed to work hand-in-hand with the Mexican government, since most of his wealth comes from Mexican government-granted franchises.

Should the New York Times be registered as a Mexican foreign agent (its news coverage and editorials regarding immigration certainly would be evidence it is acting in that capacity)?

Wade , October 10, 2017 at 2:04 pm GMT

OT If anyone wants to catch a nice laid back interview with Phil Geraldi they can do so here:

A lengthy discussion about his sacking at TAC and AIPAC is had with Ryan Dawson. Both put in nice plugs for unz.com. I was really happy to see Phil being interviewed by Ryan. I hope they do this again sometime.

I came to Unz for Steve Sailer but Geraldi is slowly becoming my favorite author here. Thanks for sticking with things Phil. You're doing great work.

Sam Shama , October 10, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Priss, your comments are really funny. "Clown Streicher is a 'gypsy nazi'" Is Anglin a violent fruitboy like Streicher?

SolontoCroesus , October 10, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT

@Jake

That was in keeping with the culture's source: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. Puritans spouted Free Speech all dan and all of the night, and if you dared speak against Cromwell or the Revolution, you paid dearly.

Hypocrisy about free speech is deep in the WASP DNA.

Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes. WASP culture is Germanic. Germanics have always seen Slavs as inferior peoples they should war against perpetually, to steal their best land and make serfs of the survivors. This obsession with screwing with Russia is simply the contemporary manifestation of that part of the problem of unrestrained Germanic culture.

What of King Arthur? How did Britain go from Arthur to Cromwell? What role Henry VIII, and Dutch banking/ Bank of England?

How did Russia go from Tolstoy to Trotsky? What role Jacob Schiff and atheist Bolshevism/Communism?

How did Germany go from Wagner to Merkel( after a brief Hitler Interruptus )? What role Rothschild, Marx/Zinoviev and Zionism?

FDR and Churchill were determined to keep organizationally strong Germany and resource-rich Russia -- Christian Russia -- from uniting; Cromwell's England and Morgenthau's USA wanted to control German skill and Russian resources; their heirs want the same today.

Arthur's Britain and Wagner's Germany are natural allies of Tolstoy's Russia (and also of Virgil's Italy and Ferdowsi's Persia, btw).

Toss over this White nonsense, it tells no story, moves no souls.

... ... ...

RobinG , October 10, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT

"Sputnik ..has been under investigation due to the accusations made by a fired broadcaster named Andrew Feinberg."

The amazing thing is that Feinberg ever had the job. In this painful interview, he readily admits to little knowledge and less interest in the particulars of Ukrainian/Crimean/Russian history, politics and recent events. Despite this inadequacy, he's managed to use his dismissal for self-promotion.

Talking to ex-Sputnik employee Andrew Feinberg about "Russian propaganda"

anon , Disclaimer October 10, 2017 at 2:36 pm GMT

And on the flip side maybe all the Jewish/Israeli news organizations will register too, maybe even AIPAC. Foreign is foreign and fighting wars for foreign interests is no virtue.

It's no wonder we are able to make so many new frands and they just moving into the west everywhere. Spending taxpayer money in foreign countries is helping the US taxpayer. I guess moving a quarter of the population that said foreign country can't take care of and dumping them on the US taxpayer and their children is our gift. Then give them jobs here too.

This lovely idea was signed initially during the Clinton admin with the UN, and put into place during the Bush admin. Dems just hate corps except when they are their own. (Hegelian Dialectic at play everywhere) 20 Rillion in Debt. Millennium Challenge Corporation

MCC forms partnerships with some of the world's poorest countries, but only those committed to: good governance, economic freedom, and investments in their citizens."

https://www.mcc.gov/about

Anon , Disclaimer October 10, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT

@Wade Interesting interview. Kind of disappointed not to see any evidence of Christianity in Giraldi's home, or at least not in that camera shot. Maybe his naïveté in approaching the issue, which brought on the artillary barrage, is due to his being oblivious to the larger spiritual, civilizational, battle going on. Forest/trees.

"Accumulating knowledge is a form of avarice and lends itself to another version of the Midas story man is so avid for knowledge that everything that he touches turns to facts; his faith becomes theology; his love becomes lechery; his wisdom becomes science; pursuing meaning, he ignores truth." -Malcolm Muggeridge

Don Bacon , October 10, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT

@Johnny F. Ive

Without Russia the US Army would have no real reason to exist, Canada and Mexico being benign, because we all know that the US taxpayers are on the hook to defend Europe against the nasty powerful Russians which (mainly) defeated Germany in the last big one, and the US Army is a large political force with many bases, half a million people, and a huge budget.

Talha , October 10, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

As per Eastern Europe–majority of them want US military bases.

"Let's you and him fight!" Peace.

Fran Macadam , October 10, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT

The big corps are using their bought government to eliminate competition to their concentrated domestic media oligarchy. They can buy up all the domestic outlets, those outside have to be banned. It is ludicrous to blame foreigners for all your ills, when the vast majority of your country is itself made up of foreigners and their descendants, except for the tiny remainder of American Indians. Which identifies properly another way to identify the enemy destroying your nation: look in the mirror first.

RobinG , October 10, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT

@Wade Thank you for posting. Not only is this a great interview with Phil, it's (for me) a much appreciated introduction to Ryan Dawson.

Fran Macadam , Website October 10, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin What you hope for is not in the interest of those of us who believe in free and unfettered discourse, which principle is one of the core reasons to believe in ideals that are supposed to define America.

It's fine to question foreign funded media, but it's against everything we are supposed to stand for to ban them.

As the famous jurist wrote, the answer to bad speech is more speech.

Let's debate what's said by foreigners, and their advocates, whether Russian, British, Israeli or any other. Our own government is not famous for truthfulness to the public, either. Let our own government answer them, if they question it, and let us determine where the truth lies, instead of being lied to.

John Jeremiah Smith , October 10, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT

I watch programs on RT fairly frequently, and moreso with the arrival of the current crop of sitcoms, mindlessly insane 'dramas', firemen and cops shows, etc. Lotsa good stuff on RT. If you read the credits, you will find that most of the specials and magazines are not Russian productions. It's a good place to learn that much of the rest of world journalism bears no resemblance to the propaganda machines of the US networks.

US TV and radio production is a vast web of fabrications designed for social control, to manipulate public opinion, and to reinforce the will of the wealthy and powerful. The US government is corrupt throughout; the purpose of US media is to turn the public eye away from that corruption.

The Alarmist , October 10, 2017 at 3:49 pm GMT

@Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften A decade or so ago, when we still had a number of US bases in Germany, my German colleagues and neighbors used to ask why most of the GIs never left the base and only used Dollars for most of their commerce, again mostly on base, though a few merchants took Dollars on a rather good exchange basis that a local could arbitrage if he was paying attention. I experienced some of that a few decades ago myself when on TDY in Europe. The US might want bases there, but a non-trivial number of the troops can't be bothered to wander outside the gates very often, and may as well be in Nebraska or South Dakota for all their interest in being there.

As for the Europeans, a lot of the local merchants did want the bases there, and a lot of the locals welcomed the Amis. There were also places where the Amis represented a big payoff for the smallest things; you would be surprised how productive egg-layers Portuguese chickens were after you ran over one and found yourself compensating the farmer for all the eggs it would have laid in its life.

Anon , Disclaimer October 10, 2017 at 3:55 pm GMT

I'm not sure why it is but we always seem to be on the Muslims side, everywhere to the detriment of our own societies.

"Russia may be tightening its grip on Crimea, with little resistance to date, but they have yet to face the Crimean Tatar factor.

There are 266,000 Crimean Tatars in Crimea, over 13% of the local population. They are Sunni Muslim, traditionally pro-Ukrainian, and much better organized than the local Ukrainians, who make up 23% of the population."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/tartar-ukraine-sunni-muslims-threat-russian-rule-crimea

"For more than a year, Chechens, Muslims from southwestern Russia, have been fighting on both sides of Ukraine's struggle against Russian occupation.

The undeniably frank reason one anti-Russia militiaman recently gave The New York Times? "We always fight the Russians."

The Chechens have had a long and tense relationship with Russia's central government, alternatively fighting for independence and courting special favor from the rulers in Moscow. When Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in March 2014, it once again gave Chechens a reason to push back against Russian overreach"

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/22/russian-muslims-traveling-to-fight-against-russias-ukraine-invasion/

We have plenty of Muslims in Congress to represent their people. I'm sure our alphabet agencies have plenty too. According to Wikipedia almost no one likes Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Russian_sentiment

"Widespread ethnic cleansing accompanied the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–95), as large numbers of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and Bosnian Croats were forced to flee their homes and were expelled by Bosnian Serbs;[1] and some Bosnian Croats also carried out similar campaign against Bosniaks and Serbs. Also, Bosnian Muslims conducted similar acts against Croats, especially in Central Bosnia.[2]"

https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=ethnic+cleansing+in+bosnia

Fought for these in Afghanistan. Ex president made a home at the UN.
"The Afghan Northern Alliance, officially known as the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (Persian: جبهه متحد اسلامی ملی برای نجات افغانستان‎‎ Jabha-yi Muttahid-i Islāmi-yi Millī barāyi Nijāt-i Afghānistān), was a military front that came to formation in late 1996 after the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban) took over Kabul. The United Front was assembled by key leaders of the Islamic State of Afghanistan, particularly president Burhanuddin Rabbani and former Defense Minister Ahmad Shah Massoud. Initially it included mostly Tajiks but by 2000, leaders of other ethnic groups had joined the Northern Alliance. This included Abdul Rashid Dostum, Mohammad Mohaqiq, Abdul Qadir, Asif Mohseni and others."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance

"The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe By Evan F. Kohlman" http://www.aina.org/reports/tabmnie.pdf Wow it just goes on.

Talha , October 10, 2017 at 4:01 pm GMT

@Fran Macadam

Hey Fran,

I like what you're bringing to the table here. I think the big issue is that money runs the show. Big media, which is where many people still get their information is just rotten at the core. How to fix it? I don't know – maybe the internet (which is still relatively young) will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses.

But that is also a big IF – since there is so much on the internet which is just trash and lacks any sort of serious vetting. Peace.

Paranam Kid , October 10, 2017 at 4:03 pm GMT

@animalogic

The huge lumbering predator, as it's strength slowly, slowly fades lashes out at the flies & mozzies that encircle it .

That is a nice succinct way of describing the failing Empire

anonymous , Disclaimer October 10, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT

"Russiagate" has been a farce from the very beginning, an attempt by that fat-ass witch to divert attention from the 30K emails–which is where the REAL scandal lies!! And where do we stand on that issue anyway? I won't hold my breath waiting.

iffen , October 10, 2017 at 4:23 pm GMT

@Talha will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses

Whose truth?

Plus, there is a difference between discourse and propaganda.

The 88s here are not confounded so much by not being allowed free discourse as they are whinging about the fact that their propaganda and motivated opinion pieces are not carried 24/7 by every available outlet.

RobinG , October 10, 2017 at 4:37 pm GMT

@Talha Hi Talha,

Here's an articulate source. Until the web gets outright censored, beyond the select eliminating and demonetizing that's happening now. See also Ryan Dawson's interview of Phil at comment #28.

War for Oil? (((Whose oil?)))

RobinG , October 10, 2017 at 4:42 pm GMT

@iffen Thanks for volunteering to give us a review. I just watched a minute. (((Don't know how I missed this.)))

Decades of Deception

Reality Checker , October 10, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT

@Anonymous I don't trust Russia one bit . . .

And why is that? Because your government and their MSM sycophants have brainwashed you to think that way? It's time people like you that have this inherent distrust of Russia get a grip and start using some critical thinking skills. I know that's really hard but give it a try, o.k.?

Talha , October 10, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT

@iffen will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses

Whose truth? Plus, there is a difference between discourse and propaganda. The 88s here are not confounded so much by not being allowed free discourse as they are whinging about the fact that their propaganda and motivated opinion pieces are not carried 24/7 by every available outlet.

Whose truth?

I'll just be happy to get facts at this point. Most can't be bothered to get that part straight. The MSM dropped the baton big time. Now people all over the internet are picking it up – the problem I see is information glut. How does one sift through the incredible amount of information.

Peace.

Sloopyjoe , October 10, 2017 at 5:58 pm GMT

Sputnik and RT are targeted in order to keep the "Boogey Man" alive by the following parties:

1) Globalist Banksters – They desperately need continued wars to distract the global peasants from the banker-caused multi-hundred trillion $ coming derivatives time-bomb and to keep their drug wash flow going. Also, its getting more and more difficult to keep under wraps the Dual-Financing of the "Official" Govts and "Deep State (SSP)" Govts. "Gotta keep those Kabbalistic Blood Sacrifices going or our Invisible Sky Daddy will be mad at us and won't let us on the Space Ship".

2) Big Pharma Slime (Vaccines/Viruses), GMO Sickos, Trans-Humanist Psychos, and Fascist Neo-Cons – "Just trying to get that Agenda21 Borg World going". 500 million micro-chipped global population is the goal.

3) The MIC – "We need more wars so we can keep force feeding our over-priced pieces of crap to our satellite colonies" and multi-trillion $ financial redirect to the SSP.

4) Israel – Russia and Iran (Persia) are the perennial enemies of the Talmudic Terrorists for kicking the Fake Jewish Khazarians/AshkeNAZIs out of their Western Asian homelands around 1250 AD. The psychotic and retarded (613 Talmudic Commandments, REALLY?) Clan Circumcision has a thing for blood feuds. Did you lose another Dolphin-Class Submarine?

5) The dying USSA Empire of Tampons and associated prostitute Politicos – Former colonies are fleeing East faster than Barry from his wife Michael er, I meant Michelle. Petro-Dollar going poof. USSA economy heading for the big flush regardless of the jiggered Plunge Protection Team numbers. "Must keep distracting our willfully-gullible peasant masses with more False Flags and Wars else they wise up and HANG US ALL".

And lastly

6) Hillawi Bin-Gazi Dykehar – Former candidate with continued delusional desires for Puppet Pres. of the USSA and current Jihadi commandante of Al-Shiksa. Al-Shiksa was last seen campaigning at Costco. This terrorist group is populated by fat ill-tempered donut-bumping Psycho Wenches and Cucked Eunuchs. Their battle cry is rumored to be "We love chocolate cake!!!" or "Damn those Weiner Tapes!!!". Sorry, my Shiksanese is not up to speed.

Did I miss anybody? Thanks for viewing.

polskijoe , October 10, 2017 at 6:15 pm GMT

RT talks about mass immigration problems, shows more inside of Israel including their nasty policies, questions neocons and liberals. For an English speaking forum that is rare. The comment section.. sometimes its okay, sometimes bad.

You will find conservative/traditional posters majority. Go to BBC, CNN, etc its liberal/"progressive" dominated. In the West Neocons and Liberals dominate the media. RT obviously has an agenda, probably divide. Sometimes comments get deleted.

nsa , October 10, 2017 at 6:22 pm GMT

A "reporter" named Feinberg turns out to be a traitorous rat actually working for the DOJ (Dept of Joostice). Who woulda thunk?

Flavius , October 10, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT

Propaganda? Our political class is going to protect us from Propaganda? Our bureaucracies, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, are going to protect us from Propaganda? If it doesn't jibe with what our media organs of record are putting out, they're going to stamp it Propaganda? Don't make me laugh! The Propaganda is that those clowns wouldn't call a pig a duck for a dime's worth of advantage.

"The Russians tried to influence our election" taken at face value and removed from the context of 65 years of American Foreign Policy is probably the most pernicious little bit of self serving swamp propaganda that I've ever seen. It appears to be the factoid that the Uniparty and its legions have chosen upon which to make their last stand and to hell with the American people.

utu , October 10, 2017 at 7:15 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

To be quite frank I hope that the US declares RT/Sputnik foreign agents (or bans them outright). – I hope you wrote this thoughtlessly because you were exasperated or upset or something. You should perhaps take it back. There is no question that Russia is better off with RT and Sputnik than w/o them. Any child understands it.

Vidi , October 10, 2017 at 9:02 pm GMT

This assault on the First Amendment shows that the driving force behind the neocons is not American. A real American would tend to value the Constitution more.

KenH , October 10, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT

As Priss Factor mentioned, RT and Sputnik do tend to be left of center on many issues, but they do appear to be sincere and independent leftists in contrast to the American prog establishment which has become just a dog and pony show controlled and directed by Jewish billionaires like Soros. RT especially is no friend of white nationalism although they have given figures on the racialist right air time on occasion.

I do find they are more objective in foreign policy matters whereas the U.S. media , including, FOX, all sing from the same song sheet on foreign policy matters and only differ slightly in degree. But they rarely seem to criticize Israel.

This action on the part of the Sessions DOJ is hypocritical in light of the fact that we routinely undermine governments and institutions in Ukraine and Russia via our NGO's and in any nation whose foreign policy is deemed an impediment to the goals Israel and their American vassal state.

Beckow , October 10, 2017 at 9:32 pm GMT

Every banned political speech has always been banned because it was deemed 'subversive' or 'divisive'. Or the new 20th century term 'propaganda'. This has been the case for thousands of years, the censors always say that. No censor ever just banned free expression or said that it has to be banned because it is true. The banning is also often done by admin harassment, 'foreign agent' label, cutting access, etc..

So the latest hysteria about banning RT/Sputnik is squarely in the mainstream of censorship. It meets all the usual criteria: foreign influence, trying to stir up discord, undermining the system (that would be 'democracy' in US). And the methods are also the usual one: registration, harassment, restriction on distribution, etc

It is a minor issue and mainly matters symbolically. But it is going to give US democracy and freedom of speech reputation a black eye. How does recover once speech is banned because it is causing 'division in the society'? The problem is that the ruling class simply doesn't understand what classical liberal values are – they talk a lot, they 'lawyer' a lot, but have no understanding of what a free society looks like.

Priss Factor , Website October 10, 2017 at 10:17 pm GMT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5854-qAqkM

Vinteuil , October 10, 2017 at 11:12 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin Never even knew Sputnik existed. RT I knew about – but it's got about the same profile as Al Jazeera in the USA: i.e., next to none.

Avery , October 10, 2017 at 11:45 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

{3. Gives Russia a great excuse to kick out dishonest Western journalists (about 75% of them).}

Interesting perspective.

Seamus Padraig , October 10, 2017 at 11:55 pm GMT

At least the Russians have a sense of humor about the whole thing. Here's their new ad campaign for RT UK: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1438856412889207&set=a.117074591734069.21731.100002945854869&type=3&theater

[Oct 10, 2017] Sputnik and RT Under Investigation

FARA was a powerful tool against attempts to stage a color revolution in the particular county. But it can't save decaying neolineraim. which by now probably exceeed useful shelf life. The only thing that is keeping it afoot is there is no political force capable to provide viable alternative. That's it. Bastard neoliberalism of Trump is essentially the acceptance of the defeat.
The charge "Intended to discredit the United States government and its institutions" is too broad change and if applied indiscriminately no other entity other then government controlled press can operate in the country.
As a short term measure it definitely will be effective (although it increase popularity of RT.uk or RT.ca) as this essentially shut down both in the USA. RT can operate much like Guardian . But in a longer term, blacklisting RT (Sputnik is not that important) is a sign of weakness, not strength.
But eventually the boomerang might return and not necessary for entities like "Voice of America" (which after the collapse of the USA became a zombie for the xUSSR audiences). While influence of Voice of America on foreign audience now is minuscule and this is mostly money wasted due to decline of neoliberal ideology (and with it prestige and influence of the USA) , they can now be shut down with impunity, by any foreign government inclined to do so.
So in a way, the US actions engager crown jewels of its propaganda machine. also any such action is a sign of weakness not strength by definition. It just signify that the tratment of neoliberalism in RT can't be fought by directly.
And not only Voice of America but also similar, potentially more effective propaganda entities. In effect that is the acceptable of the fact that neoliberal MSM are losing grip on the population and require coercive measures against competitors.
Notable quotes:
"... The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading disinformation ..."
"... This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. ..."
"... Feinberg, the former Sputnik White House correspondent, reportedly took with him a thumb drive containing some thousands of internal business files when he left his office. ..."
"... News organizations are normally considered to be exempt from the requirements of FARA. ..."
"... The DOJ is in effect saying that RT and Sputnik are nothing more than propaganda organs and do not qualify as journalism. I would have to disagree if one goes by the standards of contemporary journalism in the United States. ..."
"... they have been as often as not leading propaganda organs for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, pushing a particular agenda and denigrating Donald Trump. They differ little from the admittedly biased television news reporting provided by Fox News and MSNBC. ..."
"... Regarding Sputnik, Feinberg claimed inter alia ..."
"... Voice of America ..."
Oct 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Somehow everything keeps coming back around to Russia. In one of its recent initiatives, the Justice Department (DOJ) appears to be attacking the First Amendment as part of the apparent bipartisan program to make Vladimir Putin the fall guy for everything that goes wrong in Washington. In the past month, the DOJ has revealed that the FBI is investigating Russian owned news outlets Sputnik News and RT International and has sent letters to the latter demanding that one of its business affiliates register as a foreign agent by October 17 th . The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading disinformation that is intended to discredit the United States government and its institutions.

This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.

Sputnik , which is owned by a Russian government media group headed by Putin consigliere Dimitri Kiselyov, has been under investigation due to the accusations made by a fired broadcaster named Andrew Feinberg. Feinberg, the former Sputnik White House correspondent, reportedly took with him a thumb drive containing some thousands of internal business files when he left his office. He has been interviewed by the FBI, has turned over his documents, and has claimed that much of the direction over what the network covered came from Moscow.

RT America , more television oriented than Sputnik, operates through two business entities : RTTV America and RTTV Studios. The Department of Justice has refused to identify which of the businesses has been targeted by a letter calling for registration under FARA, but it is believed to be RTTV America, which provides both operational support of the broadcasting as well as the production facilities. Both companies are actually owned by Russian-American businessman Alex Yazlovsky, though the funding for them presumably comes from the Russian government.

I have noticed very little pushback in the U.S. mainstream and alternative media regarding the Department of Justice moves, presumably because there is a broad consensus that the Russians have been interfering in our "democracy" and have had it coming. If that assumption on my part is correct, the silence over the issue reflects a certain naïvete while also constituting a near perfect example of a pervasive tunnel vision that obscures the significant collateral damage that might be forthcoming.

News organizations are normally considered to be exempt from the requirements of FARA. The Department of Justice action against the two Russian major media outlets is unprecedented insofar as I could determine. Even Qatar owned al-Jazeera, which was so vilified during the early stages of the Afghan War that it had its Kabul offices bombed by the U.S., did not have to register under FARA, was permitted to operate freely, and was even allowed to buy a television channel license for its American operations.

The DOJ is in effect saying that RT and Sputnik are nothing more than propaganda organs and do not qualify as journalism. I would have to disagree if one goes by the standards of contemporary journalism in the United States. America's self-described "newspapers of record" the New York Times and the Washington Post pretend that they have a lock on stories that are "true." The Post has adopted the slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness" while the Times proclaims "The truth is more important now than ever," but anyone who has read either paper regularly for the past year knows perfectly well that they have been as often as not leading propaganda organs for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, pushing a particular agenda and denigrating Donald Trump. They differ little from the admittedly biased television news reporting provided by Fox News and MSNBC.

What exactly did the Russians do? According to last January's report signed off on by the FBI, CIA and NSA, which may have motivated the DOJ to take action, RT and Sputnik "consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional U.S. media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment." Well, they certainly got that one right and did better in their reporting of what was going on among the American public than either the Washington Post or New York Times .

Regarding Sputnik, Feinberg claimed inter alia that he was "pushed" to ask questions at White House press briefings suggesting that Syria's Bashar al-Assad was not responsible for some of the chemical attacks that had taken place. One wonders at Feinberg's reluctance as Sputnik and RT were not the only ones expressing skepticism over the claims of Syrian involvement, which have been widely debunked. And why is expressing a credible alternative view on an event in Syria even regarded as propaganda damaging to the American public?

There is a difficult to distinguish line between FARA restricted "trying to influence opinion" using what is regarded a fake news and propaganda and legitimate journalism reporting stories where the "facts" have been challenged. Even real journalists choose to cover stories selectively, inevitably producing a certain narrative for the viewer, listener or reader. All news services do that to a greater or lesser extent.

I have considerable personal experience of RT in particular and, to a lesser extent, with Sputnik. I also know many others who have been interviewed by one or both. No one who has done so has ever been coached or urged to follow a particular line or support a specific position insofar as I know. Nor do I know anyone who has actually been paid to appear. Most of us who are interviewed are appreciative of the fact that we are allowed to air views that are essentially banned on the mainstream media to include critique of maladroit policies in places like Syria and Afghanistan and biting critiques of the war on terror.

Sputnik, in my opinion, does, however, lean heavily towards stories that are critical of the United States and its policies, while RT has a global reach and is much more balanced in what it covers. For sure, it too criticizes U.S. policies and is protective of the Russian government, but it does not substantially differ from other national news services that I have had done interviews for. I find as much uniquely generated negative reporting about the U.S. (usually linked to violence or guns) on BBC World News, France24 and Deutsche Welle as I do on RT International . To describe it as part of an "influence campaign" driven by a "state-run propaganda machine" has a kernel of truth but it is nevertheless a bit of a stretch since one could make the same claims about any government financed news service, including Voice of America . Governments only get into broadcasting to promote their points of view, not to inform the public.

There is a serious problem in the threats to use FARA as it could advance the ongoing erosion of freedom of the press in the United States by establishing the precedent that a foreign news services that is critical of the U.S. will no longer be tolerated. It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair game.

Going after news outlets also invites retaliation against U.S. media operating in Russia and, eventually, elsewhere. Currently Western media reports from Russia pretty much without being censored or pressured to avoid certain stories. I would note a recent series that appeared on CBS featuring the repulsive Stephen Colbert spending a week in Russia which mercilessly lampooned both the country and its government. No one arrested him or made him stop filming. No one claimed that he was trying to undermine the Russian government or discredit the country's institutions, even though that is precisely what he was doing.

And then there is the issue of the "threat" posed by news media outlets like RT and Sputnik. Even combined the two services have limited access to the U.S. market, with a 2014 study suggesting that they have only 2.8 million actual weekly viewers . RT did not make the cut and is not included on the list of 100 most popular television channels in the U.S. and it has far less market penetration than other foreign news services like the BBC. It can be found on only a limited number of cable networks in a few, mostly urban areas. It does better in Europe, but its profile in the U.S. market is miniscule. As even bad news is good news in terms of selling a product, it probably did receive higher ratings when the intelligence agency report slamming it came out on it in January. Everyone probably wanted to learn what RT was all about.

So it seems to me that the United States' moves against RT and Sputnik are little more than lashing out at a problem that is not really a problem in a bid to again promote the Russian "threat" to explain the ongoing dysfunction that prevails in America's democratic process. One keeps reading or hearing how the American government has "indisputable" proof of Moscow's intentions to subvert democracy in the U.S. as well as in Europe but the actual evidence is still elusive. Will Russiagate end with a bang or a whimper? No one seems to know.

Priss Factor > , Website October 10, 2017 at 4:52 am GMT

The irony is RT news is pretty much dominated by Progs and Leftists. It's not Russian Nationalist or Conservative. But it features the kinds of Progs who do question and challenge Globalist Oligarchs of the West.

Johnny F. Ive > , October 10, 2017 at 5:43 am GMT

They need Russia to be an enemy to justify their actions and the Europeans want to use the US to threaten Russia. Its a shame this can't be generalized against all foreign agents of influence. The US Mainstream Media is basically an arm of the Hasbara. Their guest from think tanks are foreign agents of influence. Its not fun watching a bunch of foreigners and their domestic owned Americans run the US Empire into the ground.

Backwoods Bob > , October 10, 2017 at 5:59 am GMT

As psychopaths lose their grip over the target, they change from cool, calm, lie-to-your face con men to pathetic, shrieking cartoons of themselves.

The shredders were working overtime, bleach bit, hammers, cell phones wiped, people bumped off, closing up all of the criminal gangster operations of the government before Trump got in.

They can't get rid of him, not suing for re-counts, not getting him declared incompetent, not stage-managed riots of Soros stooges, not a fake dossier with Russian whores peeing on the Donald's bed, not screeching about Russia

Eventually, if our Republic is worth a shit at all, these crimes will finally be acknowledged and the hysteria over Russia will subside.

Ronald Thomas West > , Website October 10, 2017 at 6:26 am GMT

What the Russians appear to have clearly recognized is how to take advantage of the corrupt nature of the western 'mainstream' press, an institution which has been co-opted by western intelligence agencies for a very long time.

The Russian method? It could not be more simple; report the actual facts in the geopolitical contest and when this is inconvenient, practice lies by omission

Depending on the geopolitical reality of the day, for instance whether the paranoid ego-maniac Sultan Erdogan of Turkey is behaving well or not, the stories by western dissident journalists that will withstand a close scrutiny are run in Russian or Russia friendly media outlets. The result? Odds are 100:1 you'll get more reliable information from Russian state TV or Russian sponsored websites than from ABC, CBS, CNN or NBC

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2016/12/03/propaganda-spy-vs-spy/

My take from 10 or so months ago. I don't really think much has changed except for the 'Russia hacked the election' story is clearly more false than ever; with narcissism queen Julian Assange holding the story hostage:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/09/16/incompetent-espionage-wikileaks-iii/

Verymuchalive > , October 10, 2017 at 6:46 am GMT

Russia has been remarkably restrained in its counteractions. But retaliate fully it will. China is getting its retaliation in first, with plans for an oil futures market, trading in yuan, in Shanghai already near completion. The days of the Petro-dollar seem numbered. Will American hegemony collapse with a bang or a whimper? No one seems to know.
Either way, ten years from now, " Russiagate ", a fake scandal, will be almost completely forgotten, rather like major real scandals earlier this century like Enron. The latter seems to have been pushed right down the memory hole.

exiled off mainstreet > , October 10, 2017 at 7:51 am GMT

This is further evidence that the yankee regime walks and talks like a fascist duck. Its deep state and its media acolytes, Carlos Slim's New York Times, CIA contractor Bezos' Washington Post, PBS, the corporate parasite broadcast system, CNN, the Clinton News Network, NBC, home of professional lesbian deepstate lackey Rachel Maddow, CBS and ABC (along with government owned satellite state medias like BBC, CBC and Australia's ABC are quintessential propaganda outlets. While the Russian outlets are naturally pro-Russian, they are less openly propagandistic than the US-controlled propaganda press, which is on the side of barbarism in its attitudes toward the middle east and NATO issues.

LondonBob > , October 10, 2017 at 8:10 am GMT

I actually find the quality of guests on RT to be far superior to what the British news channels offer, embarrassingly so really as these guests seem easy enough to find whilst the likes of the BBC believe the ill informed opinions of journalists is only of interest. RT UK is also a lot more politically balanced with most of the media seemingly having ditched the old ethos that they should at least make some vague attempt at balance. RT's coverage of the migrant crisis was in stark contrast to the British media's cheer leading. In addition in the past few years Palestine has completely disappeared from British screens however RT still covers the occupation as well as matters such as the USS Liberty.

Anyway this does seem like part and parcel of the attempt to increasingly suppress the press and free speech in the West, whether that is driven by lefty ideologues, zionists, an unthinking security apparatus or a military with no purpose.

[Oct 10, 2017] DECAMERON NEO-CON RESET

Oct 10, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Last week saw the Senate Intelligence Committee going after Russia's influence in the "free market places of ideas": Twitter, Facebook, etc. Senators fulminated over Twitter's failure to appreciate the magnitude of the danger of Russia's interference in free elections. Cartoonists lampooned Russia with caricatures of the famous Russian military parades showing the Facebook and Twitter logos as displays in the parade along with tanks and missiles.

Suddenly the Senate was all atwitter over, well, Twitter. Who's feeding this sudden awareness?

The recently created Alliance for Securing Democracy, housed (at least for now) at the German Marshall Fund--USA is one of the core anti-Putin, anti-Russia operations that merits keeping an eye on, especially as it impacts Congressional hearings, resolutions, and media. It's an alliance of hard core neo-cons who were in the thick of promoting the 2003 Iraq war and the "axis of evil" attacks on Iran-Iraq-North Korea during Bush 43 administration, with the hillary-cons.

They're determined to turn up the heat against Moscow, not just in the United States, but to spread the Cold War mania to Europe through its GMF network.

For now, the Alliance's money seems to be limited, but it is a clear move to migrate the "Never Trump" Republicans into alliance with the Democratic Party, even further polluting and destroying that party on the foreign policy front.

With a network of some 2 dozen operatives in the USA and Europe (including former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Obama, Derek Chollet) the Alliance for Securing Democray blog is churning out steady stream of articles about Russian interference in elections (including big focus on the latest German elections) and demanding that Congress take action to further investigate/stop Russian interference in said elections. They claim to be monitoring 600 Russian twitter accounts that they think are threatening democracy.

A significant part of the apparatus comes from the group, Foreign Policy Initiative which went belly up in August, 2017, when it ceased operations. According to The Nation, FPI's demise was largely due to the dropping off of funds in 2017 after the Trump election. The FPI was led by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. These "never Trump'ers" were apparently an albatross after the 2016 elections for some Republican and conservative deep pockets who always want to keep a path open to the White House, no matter who they preferred.

Now Kristol has a new home on the Advisory Board of the Alliance for Securing Democracy along with Michael Chertoff, and the anti-Putin ex-Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. Also on the Board is Jake Sullivan, a top Hillary operative at the State Dept. Chertoff recently landed a Wall Street Journal article on September 6 th , headlined, Congress Can Help Prevent Election Hacking. I expect there will be a lot of Congressional action on this front if the "Alliance for Securing Democracy" has its way.

Securing democracy? The crowd that brought us Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011?

Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald did an impressive first expose of this outfit in July of this year, identifying the alliance between the war party neo-cons and the Democratic Party, but there's a lot more to watch in its continuing operations to promote its Cold War agenda, especially in Congress.

james , 08 October 2017 at 07:13 PM

these neo con bloodsuckers are becoming irrelevant.. sure, they continue to suck on the blood of a number of countries, but it is going to come to an end. if fact, it looks like the end is in motion at present.. they want their war where-ever, and the corporations are all in tow on this.. meanwhile ordinary people can see it for what it is..

i saw an article in fox news from kagan.. what was interesting were the comments in response to his drivel... it gave me hope that people who are crazy enough to even read something on fox news, can see bullshit when they see it and are willing to call it as such.. people aren't beholden to the western msm as much as some would like to think..

tpcelt , 08 October 2017 at 09:40 PM
How can ordinary people, like me, be informed and make sound decisions? Common sense with a strong bu****t meter helps. But there's so much going on and cross currents.
1664RM , 08 October 2017 at 10:03 PM
Are sure you have the title correct? 'Reset'

- Personally I don't think there has ever been a 'reset'.

It's the same as it ever was - they are still there operating in plain sight & pulling the strings & levers of power in both the US Senate & Congress, of course the influence of the AIPAC 'bloc' cannot be overlooked.

HRC was their candidate, as was BHO, as was Bush the younger, as was WJC et al.

PNAC is alive & well, the plan is still to destroy any nation which can independently produce/supply hydrocarbons outside of the control of the US/Saudi hydrocarbon cartel, or act as a third party transit corridor to China or Europe.

These nations typically fall foul of 'coloured revolutions', or ethinc minorities within them - normally Sunni Muslims suddenly become the victims of 'ethnic cleansing' by State Govt forces, no proof of this (pictures, moving images etc is ever provided by the MSM). The issue is presented to the world as an 'uman rights issue. Often local Sunni extremists (sometime in neighbouring states) then wage 'Jihad' & thus the state in question is totally destroyed & 'Balkanised in the process.

Coupled with this is the ongoing operation to isolate Russian geopolitical & economic influence over Festung Europa whilst drawing an ever more 'Balkanized 'Europa' into more reliance on US influenced sources of hydrocarbons.

Simultaneous to this is the encirclement of Russia on 3 sides with THAAD style weapons & conventional military forces to create a preemptive Nuclear/Conventional Strike Scenario a reality.

In the Asia Pacific region its also a similar plan directed against China.

All of this is directly linked to maintaining the economic hegemony of the US 'Empire' into the 21st Century.

Its not that simple to work out or follow.

Just my vacant ramblings this fine Monday morning 'downunder' feel free to rip it apart as you wish.

Linda , 08 October 2017 at 11:08 PM
And now Possibly Iran in 2017
1664RM -> Linda... , 09 October 2017 at 10:16 AM
Myanmar - shaping up to become a new hydrocarbon overland transit route from the Gulf for China (avoiding the Malacca Straights maritime chokepoint) in exchange for an invitation into the OBOR Project - Well it was until -

All of a sudden the Royhingas have been murdered en masse & driven into exile into neighbouring Bangladesh (incidentally has anybody actually seen ANY pictorial moving footage evidence of ANY of this?)

Bangladesh ... where the 'jihad' to avenge the Royhinga pogrom will be launched into Myanmar ... has just 'accepted' an offer from the Kingdom of Saudi to construct hundreds of new Mosques & Madrassas ... the perfect breeding ground to hatch a new generation of Jihadis in SE Asia. Bangladesh will be in a perfect geographic position to threaten neighbouring Indian provinces too. India has the largest Muslim population outside of the Muslim world. There several million Bangladeshi migrant workers inside The Gulf states working for a pittance ... who knows what some of them are up too.

Catlonia ... is/was setting itself up as a major LNG entry point into the EU from North Africa ... primarily Algeria, since the predicted US 'Shale Boom' has not actually materialised in sufficient volume to 'wean' the EU away from Russian Gas supplies.

Syria & now the likely formation of this quasi Kurdish state straddling the Shia Crescent ... it really IS all about the Gas ... how can the Syrian state access its hydrocarbons & move them abroad to the foreign market if somebody else has been encouraged to create a quasi state right on top of them?

The Phillipines ... the southern half of the Island chain is predominantly Muslim & since Duterte began making friendly overtures to regional players i.e. China they now have a full blown 'insurgency' in the south despite plenty of US Military hardware in the very local region (or is id direcly BECAUSE of the proximity of US Military forces?).

The Ukraine ... I could go on ....

Pacifica Advocate -> 1664RM ... , 09 October 2017 at 12:36 PM
>>>The Ukraine ... I could go on ....

Nah. You couldn't've, because you were running on empty why you started your screed.

>>>The Phillipines ... the southern half of the Island chain is predominantly Muslim & since Duterte began making friendly overtures to regional players i.e. China they now have a full blown 'insurgency' in the south ...

A) Mindanao is the locus of the insurgency, and it has been that way ever since Spain annexed it into its "The Philippines" administrative region.

B) The Muslim population of Mindanao is hardly the "southern half" of the Philippines; at best, they are the "Southern sixteenth."

C) The Muslim portion of the "Southern Half of the Island Chain" makes up a total of about 6% of the total population of the Philippines. How you jump from there to "the southern half of the Island chain is predominantly Muslim" is beyond me. That's simply factually false.

D) Duterte's overtures towards China have been overwhelmingly supported by the local population, a vast number of whom have relatives who are overseas laborers working in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Canton/Guangdong, etc. In fact, the local Muslims in Mindanao were trained by the US, and those currently financed by the Saudis (and, in the 70s, trained by the U.S.) are staunchly opposed to Duterte's campaign to open up the Philippines to Chinese investment.

Long-story-short: you're wrong on pretty much everything I am in a position to criticize you on, and I suspect the rest of your screed can be similarly debunked.

Serge -> Pacifica Advocate... , 09 October 2017 at 11:15 PM

Pacifica Advocate,

Yep, the usual economic determinism mumbo jumbo from this guy, an epidemic in amateur and professional poli sci circles conducting analysis on US geopolitical actions since 2003. Cast aside the wide scope of history into the dustbin and focus on the US as some omnipotent robot machine that runs on plundered oil. If the Colonel is reading this, what got me hooked on SST was a comment of his back in 2014 in which he shot down that economic determinism crap as it related to Iraq

Tim B. , 08 October 2017 at 11:24 PM
This is a great read from the left wing Nation magazine. https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-is-more-fiction-than-fact/
The Porkchop Express , 09 October 2017 at 01:00 AM
It is just beyond belief that the majority of these clowns continue to be treated as if they have a shred of credibility left or that their ideas carry ANY weight when it comes to their outrageously incompetent foreign policy decisions/actions. That their ideological ideas have any value at all, particularly when there has been no admission of a mistake or a reorientation of their ideas, is just astounding. To be wrong so repeatedly and so publicly should have engendered a least some, however small, sense of shame or humility.

On the other hand, it says something about our polity, too, that we continue to tolerate this bullshit.

semiconscious -> The Porkchop Express... , 09 October 2017 at 09:20 AM
'On the other hand, it says something about our polity, too, that we continue to tolerate this bullshit.'

absolutely. that these clowns, along with the various members of the pundit class (friedman, krugman) who, after being repeatedly wrong about any number of things, continue to be provided their bully pulpits tells you all you really need to know...

Yeah, Right , 09 October 2017 at 06:50 AM
Every time I read about William Kristol's latest career move I am reminded of those old Hammer Horror movies with Christopher Lee.

The dude comes to a grisly end in every movie, yet there he is in the next one, back from the grave and - inevitably - none the wiser for the experience.

Ol' Dracula never once stops to think: Ya' know what, these always end badly. Maybe I should sit this one out?

Neither does Kristol, apparently.

LeaNder , 09 October 2017 at 08:57 AM
Good article by Glenn, he is one of the best.
Matthew , 09 October 2017 at 09:42 AM
I just finished Simon Montefiore's two books on Stalin (Young Stalin and The Court of the Red Czar).

With every passing day, the Neo-Cons and their fellow travelers are introducing the Soviet method into American politics: Denunciations, Conspiracies, and the Never-Ending Search for Wreckers.

LeaNder , 09 October 2017 at 11:37 AM
Jacob Heilbrunn, via, I know, I know, the NYT. But, Heilbrunn, JULY 5, 2014

WASHINGTON -- AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement's interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.

Does anyone remember the curious renaissance of the neocons? Quite a time before the election officially started or heated up?

Iraq, looked at in hindsight with the appropriate and needed distance in time, may not have been that wrong after all? At least once there was someone else to blame? The appropriate public period of repentance seemed to be over. New servants available, that might escape the probling public eye?

Now the Americans may not have chosen the right "cherry blossom king" (Tyler) in their opinion, or backed the right horse in the race. But does that matter? Strictly, hadn't the winner delivered the new meme variant quite dutifully?

One has to keep open to twists of fate, seize the day, I would assume Trump knows that too. Let's see. ...

******

Yes, now I remember a tale in Boccaccio's The Decameron, Sixth Day, Tenth Tale, Friar Cipolla and a Feather of the Angel Gabriel. Which might fit. One of my favorites really.

http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/authors/boccaccio/boc-6-10.html

SmoothieX12 , 09 October 2017 at 04:29 PM
I just finished Simon Montefiore's two books on Stalin (Young Stalin and The Court of the Red Czar).

Judging by the "level" of Western historic narrative (granted with some notable exceptions) on Russian/Soviet history of the 20th Century, I would be very cautious when reading anything from Great Britain, especially from people with Montefiore's background. Not to mention people who praise him--from WSJ, NYT etc. Western awareness of actual, real Russian history is extremely low.

Joseph Moroco , 09 October 2017 at 05:43 PM
This is the first I've heard of the German Marshall Fund other than on The Ministry of Information, I mean NPR, they are occasionally mentioned as providing money for some of the propaganda uh, programming. I thought it was a fund to thank us for lending Les Boches a helping hand after we were done bombing them to smithereens.

Here is a link to Der Spiegel that is a tribute to the founder, but is also a history of the GMF. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/founder-of-german-marshall-fund-guido-goldman-retires-a-834696.html

It appears to be Neocon safe space. Can there be too many.

Virginia Slim , 09 October 2017 at 05:43 PM
Forgive me, but "Alliance for Securing Democracy" sounds like a Münzenberg-era front organization.

[Oct 10, 2017] Facebook must 'follow the money' to uncover extent of Russian meddling by Diana Pilipenko

Oct 10, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Robzview2 -> BaronVonAmericano , 9 Oct 2017 21:51

100% with you my rational thinking brother. I have another post here somewhere, Facebook excecs had to be asked 3 times before they "found" these alleged Russian election changing ads- just writing that makes me laugh- and stated that approximately 56% of these ads only ran after the election. I mean we no those evil Russians are ultra cunning and highly sophisticated but even so that takes some doing.
Principleagentprob -> Cato1836 , 9 Oct 2017 19:50
And the NSA, GCHQ, CIA does not have trolls apparently despite their massive budgets? Bear in mind lefty news outlets are favourite covers for western security services. An example of this is Kim Philby who while ostensibly working for MI6 was posted to the middle east working for the Sunday edition. You know before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed the wall to wall anti-Russian propaganda and the extremely close relationship between the Clinton campaign and the US media indicates the trolls are running mainstream media in the US and the UK.
It's the sense of entitlement that gets me, candidates throw as much questionable campaign contributions at an election (such as Singer) and believe the electorate has a duty to vote for them, and if the dont then the it must of been because of the opposition corruption and the stupidity of the lower orders rather than incompetence or policy failure such as representing wall St. rather than main St. on their part.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/28/kim-philby-david-astor-observer

Robzview2 -> Cato1836 , 9 Oct 2017 18:49
I'll do that English course when I have time, at the moment - and for the foreseeable- future I'm flat out ridiculing the Russia-gate nonsense and the fools who are eager to champion any old nonsense, no matter how ludicrous and continue to do so even when it is comprehensively demolished.
anonym101 , 9 Oct 2017 18:48
There is tonnes of more proof that refugee numbers in Europe and the illegal bombing of Libya and arming of 'rebels' in Syria are connected, yet everyone avoids that question.
There is also video proof that McCain and Nuland had incited the violent overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine a few years ago. Before accusing me of being a Russian troll, I am Hungarian.
multilis , 9 Oct 2017 18:45
Hilary Clinton election spending $581m. Donald Trump election spending $340 million according to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/09/trump-and-clintons-final-campaign-spending-revealed

Facebook spending by "russia" $100,000, unclear that was russian government.

Presidential salary of Bill Clinton $400,000/year. Clinton's at start had little net worth according to them, now they have estimated net worth of $110 million+, much of it comes from speeches, including to groups in places like Saudi Arabia.

Clinton foundation charity received donations from foreign governments and individuals, including millions from some in saudi arabia. Not possible to see exact amounts.

US spending in ukraine over 20 years according to politfacts.com: About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million).... of course not all money by CIA may be disclosed here.

I suspect Russia, US, and many other countries do spend on influencing other countries, small potatoes though compared to how much Hillary and Trump spent, and those hundreds of millions of dollars given to Hillary and Trump were probably partially to influence/bribe them for later government decisions.

Principleagentprob , 9 Oct 2017 18:41
Are you not embarrassed writing this?
McCarthy is dead, the 50s are over, the Soviet Union no longer exists, The Billion Dollar Brain and Dr Strangelove was not advice on how to run a successful US foreign policy, nobody believes this nonsense anymore.

Quite honestly it is articles like this make me wish the Guardian would hurry up and go bankrupt, although I hope your more reputable Journalists (such as Larry Elliot) continue their journalism in another form. You are dragging a paper with a proud history from Manchester radicalism into the mud and besmirching real journalists trying to carry out real journalism.

To quote another 'article' in the Guardian (I use the word loosely) that does not have comments "Russian operatives spent thousands of dollars on Google ads, source claims". Really $1000s of Dollars, there are pet food ad campaigns that spend more than this.
Is the Guardian world news just run out of somebody else's office?

Yes, lets follow the money, using facts who made campaign contributions to the Democratic and Republican party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance /

Hilary Clinton campaign $1.4Bn
Trump $957.6 M

And who contributed a little more than $1000s to the democratic campaign?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/superpac-donors-2016 /

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/top-presidential-donors-campaign-money.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-is-putting-money-behind-these-presidential-candidates_us_55b143e7e4b08f57d5d414ad

Yes, there is a conspiracy all right, it's the old one of the plutocrats conspiring against the poor. To ensure their man or woman would represent wall street not the electorate such as by ensuring Sanders was blocked by the super delegates. Then trying to ensure the more finance friendly candidate became president, such as by google working closely with the Clinton campaign. And no this is not misogyny as Bill Clinton was Americas worst domestic president in history. 3 strikes and you're out, workfare mass incarceration of black people, deregulation of finance. George W gets the crown as worst US president in foreign affairs due to Iraq.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/31/the-podesta-emails-show-who-runs-america-and-how-they-do-it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/08/hillary-clinton-hires-google-executive-to-be-chief-technology-officer /

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-was-paid-millions-by-tech-industry-for-speeches/2015/05/18/f149d598-fd86-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/zuckerberg-hires-clintons-chief-strategist

Yes, lets follow the money.

And the Russians according to evidence free speculation spent $1000s and were successful? You are aware that $1.4bn is larger than $1000s? The US are obviously not very good at advertising or capatalism or democracy, and if you want a cost-effective ad campaign go to Russia, as nobody in history has run such a cost effective ad campaign where 1000s can be more effective than Bns.

Quite frankly I am insulted this article is being presented in what used to be a reputable newspaper.

Robzview2 , 9 Oct 2017 18:31
For a good laugh go to Consotiumnews. com, read the article headed The mystery of the Russiagate puppies. There is a lot there but essentially Clinton's desperate losers would have us believe that a page set up for puppy lovers was Trojan horse to start slipping in anti Clinton stuff. Those evil evil Rooskies, is there no end to their perfidy! puppies! is nothing sacred?! A line that got a laugh for me is:' if some fact, like the puppies page doesn't seem to fit the sinister conspiracy theory you simply pound it into place until it does
technotherapy , 9 Oct 2017 18:25
If we can only fully understand something by following the money Diana, why does your organisation, the Center for American Progress Action Fund - which Politico says 'openly runs political advocacy campaigns, and plays a central role in the Democratic Party's infrastructure' - refuse to disclose who its donors are?
Robzview2 -> Sutir Comed , 9 Oct 2017 18:17
There's a mountain of pig flop, most of the alleged "evidence" has collapsed under relatively mild scrutiny. Remember the "hacked" voting machines and electric utility computer system? not only not the evil Russians, just didn't happen at all and there are other tissue thin bits of "evidence". No convincing any of Clinton's sore loser bleaters of course but I assume you are aware that 25% of the alleged Russian ads were not viewed by anyone and that many were not run til AFTER the election. Is there no end to those devilish Rooskies that they can impact an election result AFTERWARDS!
GriseldaLamington -> Sutir Comed , 9 Oct 2017 17:51
It wasn't the entire US intelligence community - it was hand picked representatives from four agencies. By the way, how are you going with all those weapons of mass destruction that the entire US intelligence community was so sure of?
GriseldaLamington , 9 Oct 2017 16:45
Let me get this straight. The USA, which holds the modern record for interfering in other people's elections, for engineering coups, for doing dodgy deals with cocaine and heroin merchants to fund death squads, which BOASTED (on the front cover of Time no less) of fixing the 1996 election in Russia, has now got it's tits in a tangle because some maybe, might be, could possibly be if you hold them edge on against a red light, Russians bought some Facebook ads. Seriously?

Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad

Robert Furst , 9 Oct 2017 16:36
In previous elections China has been linked to helping Democrats I don't see anyone complaining, perhaps because the Democrats won. The USA, under a Democratic Preisdent spent nearly $100 million dollars on an attempt to affect the election of an ally Israel in a vain attempt to get rid of Netanyahu as Prime Minister. Welcome to politics.
freeandfair -> Landish , 9 Oct 2017 16:20
> So, it's not Facebook's problem that they are aiding and abetting treason?

So, if the let's say an entity connected to the US government pays for an article/ advert that could be linked to some protests or a controversial issue in a foreign country, then the entity who sold the media space is guilty of treason?
Be careful what you wish for.

The reason you don't even see how wrong you points to the fact that the US is a semi-totalitarian state already.

jackrousseau , 9 Oct 2017 16:14
So wait, I'm trying to follow the logic of continuing to beat the Russia drum after it's so clearly jumped the shark. Let me see if I understand...

What you're now telling me is that Clinton and her cadre of policy wonks and election experts had the entire media behind them (including the owners of Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and spent $1,200,000,000 to win the election.

Nevertheless, they still lost against *Donald Trump*. ...Because...because the Russians "hacked the election" with $150,000 and a few online trolls. Is this what it's come to? Say it ain't so.

Also, why isn't the actual content of these election-changing ads being disclosed? What did they say? What propaganda did "The Russians" use that was so effective on the American public?

So far I've only seen that the Russians supported BLM and created various "blacktivist", feminist, and LGBTI accounts promoting the same brand of identity politics peddled by The Guardian for clicks. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/30/blacktivist-facebook-account-russia-us-election

I mean, did "The Russians" promote any ideas that were actually *more* offensive than what the Guardian publishes on a daily basis? I'd like to see the Russian identity politics ads to compare...

BaronVonAmericano -> Durangotang , 9 Oct 2017 16:08
The only trolls are the ones claiming that unproven allegations of Russians buying a handful of ads on facebook are somehow more important than the fact that both our political parties are owned and operated by private corporate interests.
freeandfair , 9 Oct 2017 16:05
> Only through this method can we fully understand the Russian corporate hydra behind the ad buys

Lol. I am here with my popcorn to be entertained. Bring it on.

American politicians spend billions on their campaigns , but, sure, facebook has to investigate those few allegedly Russian linked ads. They are just a drop in a sea of political propagandizing and manipulation that goes on daily.

Also, how does this align with the freedom of speech? The way I look at it - as long as information is truthful, it doesn't matter what source it is coming from, friendly or unfriendly. Going after the source just because you don't like what being said seems to be the old method of killing the messenger.

And who is the author of this article? "Diana Pilipenko is a principal investigator for the Moscow Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund."

It figures. Someone who works for whatever "Center for American Progress Action Fund" is. She is basically a lobbyist.

furryandrew -> Gunsarecivilrights , 9 Oct 2017 15:55
Whats truly laughable is this whole "was Russia involved" witch-hunt particularly in light of all the US involvement in swinging Latin American elections etc for DECADES! We are basically encouraging the people who live in glass houses to throw as many stones as possible and get away with it!

Much as I don't like Trump that whole "was Russia involved in the Hillary-wikileaks" was also purely a diversionary tactic. Don't talk about the content talk about who might have provided it. Personally I don't care whether it was North Korea who dug it up, what should have been THE story was the appalling corrupt stuff that was in those shocking leaks, and it surely would have been front-page news for months had the target been Sanders or Trump and not Wall Streets chosen favourite! IMHO we the public are being taken for mugs!

WalterCronkiteBot , 9 Oct 2017 15:03
During the Cold War you had "Team B" looking for non-existent nefarious Russian schemes. It was staffed by the now infamous Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

At least they looked into matters of import such as nuclear missiles and submarines, this is more like "Team Z".

Ironically the people devoting the most effort to investigating Russiagate are Wolofowitz/Rumsfeld's brothers in arms from the Iraq days, like Bill Kristol.

TheWindsOfWinter93 -> EAlbee , 9 Oct 2017 14:32
The FSB chief and Putin must be having a right laugh. Western journos who are still sore over HRC losing the American Presidential Election are making for the best unpaid shills to extol Russian intelligence and political power.
TheWindsOfWinter93 , 9 Oct 2017 14:30
It seems to me that pundits like the one that wrote this risible article are doing far more to promote KGB and Russian propaganda around the world and in the West than the Russians themselves, through their screaming of "BIG BAD RUSSIAN BEAR!!!!!" from every soap box they can find.

Putin should invite them to the Kremlin and decorate them for service to the Motherland. Even CIA couldn't dream of such mythologising by the mass media.

kasprowy , 9 Oct 2017 14:12
"Some have argued that $150,000 is an insignificant fraction of the total spent on political ads in 2016 ..."

0.00153% to be exact. Same proportion of total voters who voted for anybody would be 2000 people. Or 0.115 cents per voter. Yeah, this is a big news story.

I cannot resist another analogy. A Super Bowl commercial (and we all know what big fans of the NFL the Left is) goes for $5 million per 30 seconds. The amount mentioned in this article would buy a 900 millisecond ad (that's 0.9 seconds for those who missed it). Need some good subliminal flash advertising to get your money's worth.

Pete green , 9 Oct 2017 13:53
Let me know when the investigation reveals that the $150,000 spent on Facebook ads by the Russians starts to be significant compared to the $9.8 billion spent on the campaign adverts.

Clinton vastly outspent Trump and still lost because she was a deplorable candidate.

http://adage.com/article/media/2016-political-broadcast-tv-spend-20-cable-52/307346 /

Romka Stomka -> Supermind , 9 Oct 2017 13:48
The ads could have been easily paid by pro-Ukrainians living in Russia,to try and put Russia in the spotlight.
LiviaDrusilla , 9 Oct 2017 13:30

Some have argued that $150,000 is an insignificant fraction of the total spent on political ads

And they would be correct. Out of the $7 billion or so spent on the American elections, it's a piddling amount. However, you are clinging to it for dear life because, almost a year on, you can't accept that Clinton was a horrible candidate, so much so that even someone as obscene as Trump could beat her (and yes I know she got more votes thank you very much).

You're really coming across as desperate now. Not a good look.

Supermind , 9 Oct 2017 13:29
Most of these ads look more like click bait than any kind active measures campaign. As usual, there is no evidence that the ads are in anyway connected to the Russian government. Even if they were, $150,000 worth of ads are insignificant in an election where over $1billion was spent on digital advertising. American elites should spend more time pondering how their policy failures contributed to Trump's election and less chasing the chimera of Russian interference.
JJ139 , 9 Oct 2017 13:22
This whole Russian meddling is getting more and more absurd. Clinton spent billions on advertising and lost. Some supposed Russian investors spent thousands on puppy photo sites as part of a cunning plan to suck Americans in. Russia is behind black lives matter, Russia is behind taking the knee at american football matches, Russia is behind the Catalan referendum, Russia is behind Brexit, Russia is probably behind the Dove advert. And anyone who finds the whole farrago of mudslinging at Russia is obviously a Putinbot from a troll farm somewhere in St Petersburg. The lunatics have very definitely taken over the asylum in America.
Laplace_Transforms , 9 Oct 2017 13:12
Roy Greenslade wrote an excellent column today on fake news. The hysteria regarding Russian involvement in US politics could well be a prime example of which Roy writes. The Nation, in an article titled Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact details exactly how this tale of innuendo, supposition but very little evidence has been pushed. The Nation examines in detail the Facebook accusations, and records:

Then there is Facebook's disclosure that fake accounts "likely operated out of Russia" paid $100,000 for 3,000 ads starting in June 2015. The New York Times editorial board described it as "further evidence of what amounted to unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy." A $100,000 Facebook ad buy seems unlikely to have had much impact in a $6.8 billion election. According to Facebook, "the vast majority of ads didn't specifically reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate" but rather focused "on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum -- touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights." Facebook also says the majority of ads, 56 percent, were seen "after the election." The ads have not been released publicly. But by all indications, if they were used to try to elect Trump, their sponsors took a very curious route.

The ads are commonly described as "Russian disinformation," but in the most extensive reporting on the story to date, The Washington Post adds multiple qualifiers in noting that the ads "appear to have come from accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency," itself a Kremlin-linked firm (emphasis added).

The Post also reveals that an initial Facebook review of the suspected Russian accounts found that they "had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren't working for a foreign government." Furthermore, "the security team did not find clear evidence of Russian disinformation or ad purchases by Russian-linked accounts." But Russiagate logic requires a unique response to absent evidence: "The sophistication of the Russian tactics caught Facebook off-guard."

Would it be too much to ask for actual evidence of Russian interference, rather than this leap to conviction?

[Oct 09, 2017] Corker Strikes Back by Daniel Larison

And this guy was elected with the mandate to end all foreign wars, although regarding Iraq he always was pretty crazy and jingoistic.
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
Oct 09, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Bob Corker followed up on his initial response to Trump's attack on him with some scathing criticism in an interview with The New York Times :

Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, charged in an interview on Sunday that President Trump was treating his office like "a reality show," with reckless threats toward other countries that could set the nation "on the path to World War III."

In an extraordinary rebuke of a president of his own party, Mr. Corker said he was alarmed about a president who acts "like he's doing 'The Apprentice' or something."

"He concerns me," Mr. Corker added. "He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation."

Corker isn't saying anything that many others haven't already said, but it is significant that it is coming from such a high-profile elected Republican. The senator was among a very few in the Senate inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in the past, and he sometimes went out of his way to say positive things about Trump's foreign policy. During the election, he was saying that Trump was bringing a "degree of realism" and "maturity" to foreign policy. That was always wishful thinking, and Corker's criticism now is a belated admission that he was wrong about all of that. It is fair to fault Corker for not realizing or saying any of these things sooner, but that doesn't make it any less extraordinary that he is saying it on the record. Thanks to Trump's foolish attack on him yesterday, he evidently no longer feels obliged to keep quiet about the problems he has with the president.

One of the more interesting things that Corker confirmed concerned Trump's repeated undermining of Tillerson:

The senator, who is close to Mr. Tillerson, invoked comments that the president made on Twitter last weekend in which he appeared to undercut Mr. Tillerson's negotiations with North Korea.

"A lot of people think that there is some kind of 'good cop, bad cop' act underway, but that's just not true," Mr. Corker said.

Without offering specifics, he said Mr. Trump had repeatedly undermined diplomacy with his Twitter fingers. "I know he has hurt, in several instances, he's hurt us as it relates to negotiations that were underway by tweeting things out," Mr. Corker said.

We already knew this, but it is important that someone in Corker's position is acknowledging that the administration's foreign policy is every bit as dysfunctional as it appears to be. It remains to be seen whether Corker's break with Trump will translate into meaningful opposition to any part of Trump's foreign policy, but his remarks in this interview suggest that it might.

[Oct 09, 2017] A Visit to Russia Can Relations Be Improved

The official US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. that excludes any friendship. The best that can be done is to avoid WWIII. And due to Putin patience that might be possible. After Putin is gone, who knows. If nationalist come to power, the neocon might really feel the depth of Russian anger at the US imperial policies.
Bunch of neocons travel to Moscow to test waters for rapprochement. After then pissed Russia and launched neo-McCarthyism campaign for the last two years... such a great diplomats.
Those neocons completely poisoned the well and now want to drink clean water. No way.
Notable quotes:
"... President Vladimir Putin's recent hint that the Kremlin could cut another 155 people from the number permitted to work at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. ..."
"... because Mr. Putin does not seem to feel real pressure from U.S. sanctions, he is unlikely to be disposed to offer major concessions to the United States simply to reach agreement, especially in the runup to Russia's 2018 presidential elections ..."
"... Keep pretending that Russia has hacked your elections. There is zero interest from the US side in improving relations and we know this quite well here. There is no question that the fat defense and intelligence budgets and all the extra power that the spooks now got is a direct outcome of destroyed Russia-US relations. The democrats sour grapes and election rigging cover up with Russiagate is also undeniable. Keep living the lie ..."
"... It is sad that the media, the Democratic party, and the "deep state" are all working together to try to keep the phony Trump-Russia collusion story alive - but it has almost run its course and less and less people believe it. ..."
"... The US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. That is a very foolish and self defeating way in the 21st century. The West would have been better off when the bankers did not have such controls and the American congress grew real courage and paid down the national debt. ..."
"... I don't know to what degree the author of this article and those he went with have real influence on either side, but we, the American public, have yet to be presented with any real proof that Russia (and specifically its government, directly) actually did anything significant with regard to the election. To the degree that we've been shown any evidence, it appears completely inconsequential, extremely minor dabbling at most. The latest is that "Russia" (nebulously defined) spent $100,000 on Facebook ads... Meanwhile the Clinton campaign spent $1 BILLION. This is a joke. ..."
"... The situation in Ukraine is a million times more of a significant obstacle to improved relations. ..."
"... Russia and US have all the reasons to be adversaries. Because US seeks global domination but will never be able to achieve it as long as Russia exists as subject of global politics. US invests huge resources into making harm to Russia in every possible way. And it been this way at least since Truman administration. ..."
"... NATO cannot save a non-existent failed state. There are at least three different and geographically separate Ukraines. Catholic Galicia has nothing to do with the rest of the country. And the East wants to separate. It is another case of former Yugoslavia. ..."
"... trump was given a choice by the deep state of you either work with us or else... so he has become a puppet of the swamp ..."
"... Swamp Puppet! That's catchy! ..."
www.theamericanconservative.com
Russian officials were largely dismissive of U.S. and European economic sanctions, which some indirectly credit with significantly strengthening Russia's agricultural sector -- to such an extent that they claimed Russian products may fiercely compete in Europe if and when the European Union eases it sanctions and Russia lifts its protectionist counter-sanctions. Indeed, the U.S. Department of State itself asserted in 2016 that a loss of "at most 1 percent of GDP can be potentially explained by sanctions" as opposed to declining global energy prices. The combination of "at most" and "potentially" in this sentence suggests that there is little empirical evidence that sanctions have caused real damage to Russia's economy. Moreover, since U.S. sanctions could account for only a small part of this -- because Europe's economic relationship with Russia is far larger than America's -- there is no reason to think that new U.S. sanctions, which have yet to be fully implemented, will make a material difference at the macroeconomic level. (The State Department did find that sanctioned companies appeared to lose significant revenue and assets.) Still, some officials did privately admit that the sanctions undermine Russia's investment climate, especially among foreign investors.

At the same time, however, some officials reacted quite strongly to the Trump administration's decision to close Russia's consulate in San Francisco, the latest move in an escalating diplomatic spat that began with the Obama administration's expulsion of thirty-five Russian diplomats and seizure of two diplomatic properties in December, following a widely publicized intelligence community report on Russia's election interference.

Even in this area, however, our interlocutors seemed to prefer curtailing the dispute over extending it -- notwithstanding President Vladimir Putin's recent hint that the Kremlin could cut another 155 people from the number permitted to work at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.

Yet containing this battle between the State Department and Russian Foreign Ministry bureaucracies may well be the easiest step in working toward a functional U.S.-Russia relationship. Far more important and more challenging will be addressing Russia's election interference, which has poisoned the relationship to an extent that Russian officials -- who describe the matter strictly as a U.S. partisan slugfest brought on by sour-grapes Democrats -- did not seem to appreciate....

... Russia's diplomatic, economic, military and security officials will each seek to pursue their own objectives, sometimes contradicting one another. Also, because Mr. Putin does not seem to feel real pressure from U.S. sanctions, he is unlikely to be disposed to offer major concessions to the United States simply to reach agreement, especially in the runup to Russia's 2018 presidential elections .

Thus "getting to yes" on these or other issues will take persistence and creativity.

Paul J. Saunders, associate publisher of the National Interest, is executive director of the Center for the National Interest.

pavel , October 7, 2017 3:36 AM

Keep pretending that Russia has hacked your elections. There is zero interest from the US side in improving relations and we know this quite well here. There is no question that the fat defense and intelligence budgets and all the extra power that the spooks now got is a direct outcome of destroyed Russia-US relations. The democrats sour grapes and election rigging cover up with Russiagate is also undeniable. Keep living the lie

dannyboy116 -> pavel , October 7, 2017 9:52 AM

I agree with you that Russia probably did not hack the US elections. Julian Assange, head of WikiLeaks, has made it quite clear that he received the Clinton campaign emails from elsewhere. (and he has a 100% history of being truthful with regard to what he releases) But I would say to Russia to not give up on better relations with America. It is true that the "deep state" and the Military Industrial Complex make a lot of money from "bad relations" with Russia, but I think Trump understands that improving relations will be good for both sides and potentially save a lot of money for America's citizens. Give it some time.....

sergey_hv -> dannyboy116 , October 7, 2017 2:34 PM

It's not the time he needs, but an adequate congress and fewer idiots of Russophobes who rule the US foreign policy, twisting Trump's hands.

pavel -> dannyboy116 , October 7, 2017 3:49 PM

Wow, good to hear a sober voice! I have felt some backlash personally in the commercial world, and it really feels nasty (basically just like racism), especially since I feel like 1/2 American, having lived in the US for 11 years. So this has gone very deep even in private sector.

Not too sure about good prospects coming up soon. I'm following both the foreign and domestic policies of the current government in Washington and its a bit scary - Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, NK, China, Iran - all are becoming enemies, sanctions reintroduced, and all the ultra-right wing stuff home like getting rid of health insurance, removing all regulations, now 20% poverty rate in CA, I don't recognize the country I used to live a couple decades ago!

dannyboy116 -> pavel , October 9, 2017 7:38 PM

It is sad that the media, the Democratic party, and the "deep state" are all working together to try to keep the phony Trump-Russia collusion story alive - but it has almost run its course and less and less people believe it. It is now looking like it was the Obama Admin's justice department that actually paid for the phony "Trump Dossier" that was used as an excuse to wiretap the Trump campaign. Once that story blows up (Senator Grassley has subpoenaed the background docs) I think you will see a rapid improvement in relations.

KlingOn2K -> pavel , October 8, 2017 9:46 PM

pavel , Russia made its choices. The onus is not on the US to pacify Russia with any standard of proof that it may find convincing. Its up to the US authorities to interpret the Russian actions as being either confrontational or friendly. Russia has no say over it.

cvxxx -> KlingOn2K , October 9, 2017 3:38 PM

The US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. That is a very foolish and self defeating way in the 21st century. The West would have been better off when the bankers did not have such controls and the American congress grew real courage and paid down the national debt.

bscook111 , October 7, 2017 10:57 AM

It is testimony to the gross malfeasance of American media and pols (both sides but especially Ds like both idiotic Clintons) that America has no working relationship with Russia. The good news, once again in time Trump will be proved right.

JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 10:09 PM

I don't know to what degree the author of this article and those he went with have real influence on either side, but we, the American public, have yet to be presented with any real proof that Russia (and specifically its government, directly) actually did anything significant with regard to the election. To the degree that we've been shown any evidence, it appears completely inconsequential, extremely minor dabbling at most. The latest is that "Russia" (nebulously defined) spent $100,000 on Facebook ads... Meanwhile the Clinton campaign spent $1 BILLION. This is a joke.

But apparently this group went over there and acted as if the American people are outraged. No, dishonest Democrat hacks and never-Trump Republicans inside the Beltway are obsessed with it, because they hate the outcome of the election and want to discredit Trump. But they've been fishing for a year and a half and can't find anything, despite furiously leaking every innuendo they can, that turns out to be a false smear against Trump and completely falls apart on inspection.

The situation in Ukraine is a million times more of a significant obstacle to improved relations.

... ... ...

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 10:31 PM

"If Russia can't be trusted to respect the borders of its neighbors, we can't have good relations."

Says who? Citizen of a country which invaded 100+ countries since 1890, including Russia twice? Learn how to respect borders and sovereignity or others yourself. Otherwise it is not going to end well for you.

JoeS54 -> Stalinist , October 7, 2017 10:41 PM

Given your namesake, I'm not sure what point you think you're making. My point is that now, today, the US and Russia have no reason to be adversaries. The past is the past. This is just practical reality. We have allies in Europe who are worried about Russian expansionism. Again, because of your namesake. If Russia makes moves to its west, relations cannot improve.

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 10:52 PM

"My point is that now, today, the US and Russia have no reason to be adversaries."

Russia and US have all the reasons to be adversaries. Because US seeks global domination but will never be able to achieve it as long as Russia exists as subject of global politics. US invests huge resources into making harm to Russia in every possible way. And it been this way at least since Truman administration.

'This is just practical reality."

Exactly. And reality is that US stirs up troubles all over the world, including sphere of vital interests of Russia like Ukraine.

"We have allies in Europe who are worried about Russian expansionism."

Russian expansionism? Oh please, there never was any at all. Its been EXACTLY Europe which hundreds of times tried to expand into Russia. The only way Russia expanded over centuries was by defeating and absorbing those who tried to conquer Russia first. If western degenerate elites will not learn this important lesson, of cource Russia will defeat and absorb the west. It will be civilizational self defense.
You better leave Russia alone, and stop meddling in its business.

" If Russia makes moves to its west, relations cannot improve."

Russia does not need any improvement in relations with the west. At all. Over centuries we learned that force is only language you barbarians do understand. You can not be reasoned with. That is why we will always keep you at the gunpoint. And out gun will always be bigger than yours.

JoeS54 -> Stalinist , October 7, 2017 10:59 PM

If you are, presumably, Russian, it doesn't sound as if your government shares your mindset. Which is good. I can tell you that the American people do not "seek global domination". And European nations basically have no military to speak of, so the idea that they would expand into Russia is ridiculous. You are very much stuck far in the past. In the modern world, with the threat of Islamic terrorism and the rising economic power of China, the US and Russia, as allies, would be an insurmountable bulwark. To the extent there would be "global domination", it would be mutual.

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 11:20 PM

"government shares your mindset."

As imperfect as our goverment is, it still orders of magnitude more intelligent and competent than yours. Especialy when it comes to geopolitics. Russia always plays chess, while your nations can`t handle checkers nowadays.

"American people do not "seek global domination""

Every people has government which it deserves. So do not try to shift blame to your government as if you are not responsible for it. You gave them mandate.

"European nations basically have no military to speak of"

Nice excuse to expand NATO east it was, wasn`t it? So much for this "Russian expansionism" B-S.

"so the idea that they would expand into Russia is ridiculous"

Sorry, but we are not buying that. NATO heavily expanded east breaking all past promises. NATO now tries to sиck in even Ukraine. So please, we are not going to just sit idle and watch how your goverments loom another 1812 or 1941.

" You are very much stuck far in the past"

Because we have memory. Do not take us for idlots who was born yesterday.

" In the modern world, with the threat of Islamic terrorism "

Which your goverment created and keeps massively supporting. Oh yes we know that better than you can imagine.

"rising economic power of China"

Nothing wrong with rising economic power of China.

", the US and Russia, as allies,"

US and Russia are not allies.

"To the extent the would be "global domination", it would be mutual."

Russia seeks no global domination. It just wants to be left completely alone on its backyard and mainland which has size of a planet.

JoeS54 -> Stalinist , October 7, 2017 11:24 PM

You have plenty of knowledge of history, but no wisdom. I did not say the US is blameless in the continued conflicts. What I said is that both governments have shown short sightedness, and are stuck in the past - and you provide an extreme example of someone stuck in the past.

You have also said numerous things that are not true, but it's not worth the time to argue. You should go out for a walk, breathe some fresh air and relax.

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 11:28 PM

"both governments have shown short sightedness"

Yes. Our government used to be naive enough to trust west and expect it to live up their promises. And yours by poking the Bear in every possible way. When you poking sleeping Bear with a short sight and shorter stick, do not complain whole situation exploding into your face.

"and are stuck in the past "

No. Only your government stuck in its past, past dreams about "the end of history" and unrestrained global domination. Russia exactly learned from the past and moved on, that is why your elites are panicking trying to hold on to their sweet illusions.

JoeS54 -> Stalinist , October 7, 2017 11:34 PM

If you had more wisdom and less hostility, you would see that what I'm saying is more favorable to you than you think. The ideal outcome, ultimately, would be for Russia to join NATO. Putin has voiced that idea himself, as have past US presidents. But the continual back and forth of spats been the US, Europe and Russia prevents it. I'm talking about a bigger, more positive vision of the future, and you can only see small bitterness about the past.

Sane people want peace and prosperity. You do not seem to be one of them.

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 11:40 PM

"The ideal outcome, ultimately, world be for Russia to join NATO."

The ideal outcome, ultimately, would be for NATO to join Russia. Perfectly without Russia making it the hard way.

"Putin has voiced that idea himself, as have past US presidents. "

Look up what does sarcasm means.

"more positive vision of the future"

Russia has only two allies, its army and fleet. - Tsar Alexander III.

Today its also RuASF and SRF. We do not need any more allies than that. You choose if you want to be or enemy. It was not Russia who started all this mess.

JoeS54 -> Stalinist , October 7, 2017 11:43 PM

I've seen Putin talk about this, on video. He was not being sarcastic. You are an extreme example of the mindset I'm criticizing, on both sides. The people of both of our countries are not served by it, at all. It's a useless waste of energy and resources.

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 11:47 PM

" He was not being sarcastic."

For any native Russian speaker who has even slightest idea on what happening during historic period he was talking about his sarcasm was clear and transparent. The very idea of "Russia joining NATO" is an insult.

" The people of both of our countries are not served by it, at all."

We had no choice but to arm ourselves. You however always had. Russia and the USSR used to lend you a hand with an olive branch many times. You choosen to spit on it.

JoeS54 Stalinist , October 7, 2017 11:49 PM

What is the ultimate outcome of your mindset? Nuclear war, wiping out both countries? You can't see any better solution?

Your namesake was a mass murderer, of his own people. I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you. If you actually cared about the Russian people, you would not use that name.

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 11:55 PM

" Nuclear war, wiping out both countries? "

We will not fire it first, but if it will ever come to this, Russia has all means it needs to win it.

"You can't see any better solution?"

Yes, accept the idea that we are simply not interested in playing your ball. And we are against you playing your ball on our lawn too. So figuratively speaking, we need you to get lost from our horizon and never come back without an invitation. Your "civilization" reminds me of jehovah`s whitness preachers annoying everybody with their nonsense. With the difference that you tend to kill those who not agree to listen to your gospel.

"Your namesake was a mass murderer, of his own people."

See? Jehova's whitness mode on again. Sorry but he was not any kind of mass murderer, he is ultimate hero for us Russians, and we do not need you to lecture us on our own history. We can figure it out ourselves.

JoeS54 -> KlingOn2K , October 9, 2017 12:35 AM

" Russia is attempting to subvert the process that stands at the very heart of the US democratic system"

Still waiting for any real evidence, much less actual proof. As the calendar flips by.

What we've been told so far is that Hillary's $1B campaign was apparently helpless against a few internet memes, which we're told were sponsored by the Russian government, without any proof.

WTF -> JoeS54 , October 9, 2017 12:51 AM

Proof? Its too inconvenient. Get on with the times. We don't need proof in the 21st century.

MAGA Big League , October 7, 2017 11:43 AM

Russia is not going to unilaterally apologize for perceived influence in the US election. Quite the contrary. Their tiny amount of influence will simply continue with tiny Facebook purchases and commenters as well as RT coverage etc. becoming a permanent fixture of US politics (if it wasn't before, which it likely was, but as long as Democrats were winning no one in the media cared).

It shouldn't be hard for a US politician to win an election going up against this small degree of influence which is probably less influential than that of other foreign countries in America (Israel, Saudi and China come to mind). Hillary Clinton, however, was just that awful of a candidate that she needed the whole system rigged for her just to get close. If even one world power center was against her she couldn't win. One wasn't and she didn't.

Meanwhile Donald Trump's foreign policy is dangerous without Russian rapprochement. We are antagonizing other rivals that in the past we have had to keep isolated from cooperating with Russia (Iran, China).

This is what the Russians are waiting for Washington to realize. No current American policy goal in the world can be achieved cheaply (less than an Iraq War level of engagement and cost) without a working relationship with Russia. Our strategy becomes a binary trade off- do we sacrifice our interests everywhere but Europe (Russia) or do we sacrifice them in Europe for everywhere else?

My sense is that the Trump policy is a natural consequence of the Asian continent becoming equal to Europe in economic might by 2020 (it already nearly is). We can no longer treat the rest of the globe as ancillary to our objectives in Europe (although that is certainly our habit now).

Whoever follows Trump will fall into this same strategic trap. Hemming in Russia is now quite painful for Washington to accomplish. Ham fisted half measures don't work and bringing to bear the full measure of our influence entails great sacrifice in areas equally or more important.

Primavera Allie Youpe , October 9, 2017 3:41 AM

None of the recent terror attacks in Europe and US have been traced to Iran. Please stop beating the war drum against this country, chances are you will lose again.

siberiankitten Allie Youpe , October 9, 2017 7:09 PM

Iran is a #1 perceived threat to Israel, and a sponsor to Hezbollah. Beyond Hezbollah support there is nothing that qualifies Iran as a sponsor of terrorism

VadimKharichkov Allie Youpe , October 9, 2017 4:11 AM

Allie, is your worldview formed solely by mainstream media? Have you tried independent media? You sure you get the other side's story? You know, you can't really claim you comprehend the situation without hearing both sides?

Edward Easterling Allie Youpe , October 8, 2017 2:26 PM

How is the Syrian government a "genocidal regime"?

Edward Easterling Allie Youpe , October 8, 2017 9:24 PM

I can't recall which one it was, but one of the chemical attacks has been proven to be carried out by rebels. Also, a chemical attack has been proven to be a hoax. Like I said, I can't recall all the details. If you are interested you are free to look them up.

Primavera Edward Easterling , October 9, 2017 3:42 AM

Ghouta attack I think

siberiankitten Primavera , October 9, 2017 7:11 PM

Read what Seymour Hersh and Theodore Postol had to say about this attack

Sascha Gruss , October 9, 2017 4:15 PM

Russia will never support the imperial ambitions of the USA. The current situation is a result of a long chain of anti-Russian decisions by the US. The USA tries to assault the Russian economy, its harming the people, destroying families and futures. No Russian citizen should forget that.

enoch arden -> timmay timmy , October 8, 2017 9:43 AM

NATO cannot save a non-existent failed state. There are at least three different and geographically separate Ukraines. Catholic Galicia has nothing to do with the rest of the country. And the East wants to separate. It is another case of former Yugoslavia.

Stalinist -> timmay timmy , October 7, 2017 11:17 PM

"We have American and NATO boots on the Ground. "

I have bad news for ya http://freetexthost.com/m6b ... NATO can not stop Russia from doing whatever it wants.

" Our NATO training base we are setting up in Ukraine will ensure the Russians do not encroach. "

Adolf Hitler told something like that around 1944 when the Red Army was steam rolling his goons and his Ostwall. You are even more deluded than him if you believe that few twirpy little bases where your deуenerate men will get drunk and do local рrostitutes can scare RussiaLOL

"Any drain on the Russian economy such as supporting the Crimea is less money for the military."

Russian economy is booming since 2014. Russian reserves are growing. And Russian average living standards are higher than US has it. But whatever makes you sleep at nights, keep dwelling in russophrenic fantasies induced by your elites.

CB -> Stalinist , October 8, 2017 7:06 PM

You are deluded if you think living standards in Russia are higher than the USA. It's not even close. I guess you are spoon fed a steady diet of propaganda. The USA is by far the most professional military in the world, and this military constantly foils Russian plans at expansion.

Stalinist -> CB , October 8, 2017 7:17 PM

"You are deluded if you think living standards in Russia are higher than the USA. "

No, i just well informed. http://freetexthost.com/nyy...

"The USA is by far the most professional military in the world"

US has most expensive military in the world. And most inept. US never won any major war at all and can not even deal with cave dwellers in Afganistan for 16 long years.

"and this military constantly foils Russian plans at expansion."

Russia has no plans for expansion. And if it ever will get one, nobody on this planet can stop Russia from successfuly completing it.

CB -> Stalinist , October 9, 2017 9:19 AM

Misinformed. Not a verifiable source. The USA has won plenty of wars, including the war to topple the taliban in Afghanistan. Saying otherwise is nothing more than a talking point of Russian propaganda. I've seen you say in other posts Russia will eventually reclaim Kiev Rus, so which one is it? Try not contradicting yourself when debating educated people. You will lose credibility. Russia literally just expanded to take the Crimea. They tried to expand into Afghanistan, so you'd think you would have more respect for the USA effort there. Hightailed it out of there after those goat herders whooped that @ss huh?

WTF -> CB , October 9, 2017 12:08 PM

You won over the all powerful state of Grenada. Give you that.

Whooped the Taliban? After 16 years you're still stuck there and Trump adding more troops to America's longest war to date. How long more to beat the goat herders, in your honest opinion?

CB -> WTF , October 9, 2017 6:21 PM

Stuck there? We could leave anytime we wanted. If the taliban took control of the country again we could topple them again. Reconstructing a tribal society is not the same as fighting a war. The war was over before it started. Unfortunately some people from our side are benefiting from the status quo, and so allow it to persist. It is a drain on the country, but not to the point that I'd call it losing a war. Not even close. Would you rather be in some skyscraper in NYC or some cave in Baluchistan?

JoeS54 timmay timmy , October 7, 2017 11:08 PM

This guy is a nut. His name is proof enough. You shouldn't assume he speaks for Russia.

bakbaklazhan , October 7, 2017 9:30 AM

"President Donald Trump will succeed in overcoming political opposition"

trump was given a choice by the deep state of you either work with us or else... so he has become a puppet of the swamp

ScratInTheHat bakbaklazhan , October 7, 2017 9:51 AM

Swamp Puppet! That's catchy!

enoch arden -> PERICLES--- , October 7, 2017 4:18 PM

The development and production of new weapon systems is the most efficient way to advance the technology and, in this way, the economic productivity. All the technological breakthroughs which provided the current prosperity were financed by the governments with absolutely non-commercial purpose. Therefore, the fact that Russia finally started developing new weapon systems is quite promising for its future economic progress.

PERICLES--- enoch arden , October 7, 2017 4:47 PM

They are spending about 5% of GDP on their military, not counting intelligence agencies and secret police and the money going towards the "rebels" in Ukraine. For a nation with the domestic issues of Russia, it's quite a lot. Russia's oligarchs aren't spending that money because it's a good use of the budget, they're doing it because they need the military to distract the Russian public abroad and crush opposition at home. It's a sign of weakness, not strength.

enoch arden -> PERICLES--- , October 7, 2017 5:15 PM

You don't seem to disagree with my point. Developing new weapon system is much more useful for the economic development than production of consumer goods.

PERICLES--- enoch arden , October 7, 2017 6:07 PM

Who's buying? Russia's list of allies is small, many of their new weapon systems are quite pricey, and that's all technology the US had years ago. And when it comes to low quality, high quantity guns they are now competing with China.

enoch arden -> PERICLES--- , October 7, 2017 7:14 PM

I don't think you understand what you are talking about. Technological development is a strategic project, it is ridiculous to discuss it commercially. Private business would have never paid for the development of jet engines, laser, computer, nuclear reactor and internet. They are parasites using the technology developed on the taxpayers money for commercial purpose.

Concerning the customers: the US are still buying the Russian rockets. The Saudis and Turkey have recently bought anti-aircraft defence systems. Avoid discussing what is beyond you competence scope.

PERICLES--- enoch arden , October 7, 2017 8:06 PM

My, my, someone is feeling tense. Technological development is certainly helpful. It's less helpful, however, if your competitors are there a few years before you. No enterprise exists in a vacuum. If the primary strategic objective in Russia's development of technology is in order to sell it, they will have to arrive there ahead of the US and others. Given Russia's current situation, that seems... unlikely.

VadimKharichkov PERICLES--- , October 9, 2017 4:19 AM

Hmm... I once read a Stratfor's report on the subject I actually know - it was about business development in Islamic republics of Russia, and at the time I was one of the analysts in Investment Promotion Agency of Bashkortostan.

The report was strait idiotic - a crazy mince of facts and fiction. I'm pretty sure now these dudes are in business of making propaganda and have nothing to do with the truth but to turn it into half-truths.

bakbaklazhan -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 9:30 AM

"Hacking the US elections was way below the belt and will not be readily forgotten."

ahahaha. any solid proof of that?

dannyboy116 -> bakbaklazhan , October 7, 2017 9:55 AM

There is no proof because it didn't happen. The US media was heavily invested in trying to get Hillary elected (they were even sending her debate questions in advance) - and needed a scapegoat (the terrible Russians) for her loss. I think the truth will eventually come out.

pavel -> dannyboy116 , October 7, 2017 3:58 PM

The truth has come out - besides having zero evidence of Russian government involvement, there was no internet transfer of data from the DNC servers, its was a local leak. As you probably know, DNC didn't allow FBI access to the servers, and instead hired a private firm to conclude that it was Russian hacking (the zero-evidence conclusions of this private firm were later used in intelligence agencie's reports). But nobody is listening to this, because Russiagate is just so beneficial to so many actors.

Drinas -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 3:48 AM

"Hacking the election". Could you define what that means and present a single shred of evidence of it? Or we simply follow the Goebelsian "A lie you keep repeating becomes the truth.."

SurfaceUnits -> Drinas , October 7, 2017 12:01 PM

In the mid 70s, Vladimir Putin and the Russians began the systematic depopulation of Detroit so that 40 years later Donald J Trump would win Michigan. It's true, ask a Dimocrat.

KlingOn2K -> Drinas , October 8, 2017 2:36 AM

Maybe you might want to take a gander at this: https://www.nytimes.com/201...
But I guess when you're in total denial, any amount of "proof" will be insufficient. All I'd say to the Russians is, keep it going.

Drinas -> KlingOn2K , October 8, 2017 3:48 AM

bahaha That's the proof?! That's the best you can come up with? You fail to see that it is people like you because of your toxic hatred and dogmatism that jump on any crazy theory to support your hacking claims. The most probable underlying reason-excluding racist russophobia? You just can't fathom why Trump won. That's the side-effect of reading the coastal elites narratives instead of focusing on what has been happening on "fly-over country" for a couple of decades. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

CB -> Drinas , October 8, 2017 7:23 PM

Are you serious? You ask for proof, it is provided, and then you just go on pretending it wasn't? You do realize that with all the resources and technology at the disposal of our government, the notion of tracking the origins of certain content on the web is not at all far fetched. And why would any American patriot not be alarmed at the fact that the Russian government, the offspring of the USSR, our rival from the Cold War period, was involved in a concerted effort to target voters with information that was proven to be false. This is information warfare, and you would respond by rewarding the culprit. I hope you don't have kids. Maybe you Greeks ought to learn how to run your country before commenting on international affairs.

Drinas -> CB , October 9, 2017 3:56 AM

"You ask for proof, it is provided" Ahh..No, it wasn't. The only thing provided was a report by US intelligence services-the last entity one could call a neutral party to this-that basically said, "Trust us, we tell you the truth".

Again, until a shred of evidence is provided, the whole "russiagate" is BS of the first order. A fact that even mainstream commentators in the US reluctantly begin to accept. e.g.- "Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact" https://www.thenation.com/a...

As for Greece, thank you for your advice considering us running our country. If you adhered to the same principle of not being involved in the affairs of our nation-you helped install a junta in Greece in 1967, you still interfere in our politics-we would refrain from criticising your foreign policy that has a bad habit of sticking its dirty fingers everywhere.

CB -> Drinas , October 9, 2017 9:26 AM

I see you buy into the conspiracy theories. In terms of global development, peace and prosperity, Russia is not on the same page as the USA. One simply has more credibility than the other. This is for historical reasons which you needlessly discard. Either way, it is not just an intelligence report. Try browsing the web a bit. Finding Russian misinformation is not difficult at all. Facebook, a private entity with no dog in this fight, has verified Russian interference.

I'm sorry about the junta. A part of history I'm not familiar enough with. My understanding was this was part of the fight against communism. The ends don't justify the means, but our interests must be protected. Sometimes that means others go under the boot. We are able to do that because our house is in order, and we are the most powerful country there ever was. You may hate the fact, but it's the simple truth. No other nation has the same ability to project power. Intelligent minds wouldn't disagree.

Drinas -> CB , October 9, 2017 4:07 PM

Lol..You simply cherish raw power-just like the naz.s did for that matter. Of course the US is powerful, the most powerful country in terms of power projection. But being powerful does not make one right. Your founding fathers remembered that but you have long forgotten it, corrupted by power.
You actually believe your own megalomanic and delusional propaganda about being morally "exceptional" with a mandate to do as you like. You are as exceptional as the other empires before you were and headed to the same direction-decline and fall.

We Greeks have been around for a few millennia. We had our fair share of fights and helped destroy some empires as well-the Persians, the Ottomans. We also had the distinction of having our own empire twice-a feat very very few people can claim.

Today on your struggle with Russia no matter what the power balance might look (and it keeps shifting on Russia's favor), Russia is morally right. But even excluding morality and Russia and what not, and looking at the raw facts the fate of your Empire seems sealed.

A favorite metric of your money-obsessed society is GDP. In 1945 the US GDP was equal to almost 50% of the World GDP. In 1990 it was about 25%. Today it is close to 16% and in relation to the World GDP it keeps falling. Your military is in need of modernization but more importantly it simply cannot bare the costs of maintaining a global presence, much less engage in numerous conflicts.

But I think you already know those facts, that is why you shield your argument behind the "we are the most powerful blah, blah, blah".

As I said, all this is not knew, even the creation of scapegoats-Russia, N.Korea, Iran ,China etc are typical of every failing Empire, we 've seen this before.

I have a nice Greek term for you, it is a fundamental pillar of our way of viewing the world. It's called Hubris and the US is so full of it it can't see past its own nose.

CB -> Drinas , October 9, 2017 7:54 PM

I don't cherish power, just understand and respect it. And the USA is full of it, and admittedly full of hubris too. I wouldn't be quite so certain that the empire is over, but agreed overstretched. Adjustments are being made, though only time will tell if it is too little too late. Your reading of history is accurate, but history doesn't predict the future. It simply provides proper context for discussion. Your entire comment seems more ideological than logical. Where did I claim exceptionalism? I apologized about the junta, said it wasn't justified, but acknowledged the underlying dynamics. Your response was to compare me to the nazis? Wow. I will say this. You think Russia is "right". Good for you. I think it's quite a bit more complicated. I certainly think the socioeconomic and political systems in be USA are far superior to that of Russia, not inherently, but because of the institutions that have been created. Russia has chosen to emphasize nationalism versus the USA where individualism is still the prevailing ideological force. Nationalism was what the nazis promoted. Luckily I don't share your assessment about the global balance of power. The USA, land of the free and home of the brave, will continue to promote its interests abroad for quite some time to come.

Drinas -> KlingOn2K , October 8, 2017 4:34 PM

I don't know about "us Russians" because no matter how unfathomable it might seem to you, not everyone even mildly supportive of Russia is a Russian. I am Greek and I consider Russia a friendly state, with ties going back 1000 years, a state which is wrongfully demonized by the Western elites. You claim that everyone speaking vs Putin is targeted somehow. Obivously you have never been to Russia or spoke to Russians or have the vaguest clue of public discourse in Russia both online and on the street.

Oh, and in case you missed it, I asked for a single proof of "Russia hacking the election". Or anyone "hacking the election" for that matter. I did not ask any proof about Russia's internal politics or whether it conforms to your hypocritical and selective notions of democracy, ones that you care not apply to a host of tyranical nations you openly support.

Drinas -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 9:34 AM

Oh, what a brilliant idea you got there..The one accused being responsible for providing evidence of his innocence while the accuser having no need to present evidence to support his case. Just relying on-"but it's Russia! It's evil and all that s..t!"

And neither Putin nor any Russian official ever made such an admission. Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate whose own actions fueled a populist backlash against her and the Washington consensus policies she espoused.

kelly bako -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 9:38 AM

So, you presume that russia is guilty because you don't have any proof of its innocence or culpability when it comes to assert if there were any interference in America's elections?

Andrew -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 10:20 AM

When was it caught, doing what?

Mrm Penumathy -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 1:02 PM

KingOn2K your assertion and the greatest press in the universe repeating continuously that Russians did it without providing any shred of evidence after more than one and half year of investigations (Sorry I forgot, they the press do mention that our $100 Billion + intelligence agencies say so the same guys who got us in the mess in Iraq good luck believing these guys). In the meanwhile we have an opioid epidemic and crumbling infrastructure.

KlingOn2K -> Mrm Penumathy , October 8, 2017 11:12 PM

Mrm Penumathy maybe, just maybe, it might dawn on Russia that the US is not in any way hinged to Russia. The status quo would do just fine. Apart from denials and raising a non-sequitur like Iraq the arguments for a reset don't look convincing. It is always amusing to see arguments on relative economic strengths coming from Russians when 68% of their exports come from oil !!

SurfaceUnits -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 12:24 PM

The reason Hillarity was stumbling and falling during the campaign is because Vladimir Putin and the Russians spiked her GERITOL(R)(TM). It's true, ask a Dimocrat.

Midnight -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 4:59 AM

In order to become a successful economy as the US needs to have 20 trillion foreign debt? The Russian economy is not so dependent on oil as it is told on CNN ..

Russia is not bad at earning rocket engines for the USA (rd180) and delivering American astronauts to the ISS ;) Economy of Russia - GDP rank 12th (nominal) / 6th (PPP) (2017) https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

[Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government. ..."
"... Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium, this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with "over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we ignore our own problems here at home." ..."
"... This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts to cash in. ..."
"... Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war." ..."
Oct 09, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

In a new interview with host Jesse Ventura at RT, former United States presidential candidate and House of Representatives Member Dennis Kucinich stressed the importance of the American people challenging the "two-party duopoly that's committed to war."

In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government.

Regarding the Iraq War, Kucinich, who is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, explains that his research showed that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with al-Qaeda's role in 9/11, didn't have any connection to the anthrax attack, didn't have the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, and didn't have the weapons of mass destruction that were being claimed." This information, Kucinich relates, he provided to US Congress members in an October 2, 2002 report showing "there was no cause for war."

Despite Kucinich and other individuals' efforts to stop the march toward war, Congress passed an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) against Iraq later in October, and the invasion of Iraq commenced in March of 2003.

Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium, this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with "over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we ignore our own problems here at home."

Why are we "wasting the blood of our nation, the treasure of our nation, our young people" on these overseas activities that are "causing catastrophes among families in other countries?" Kucinich asks. He answers as follows:

This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts to cash in.
Continuing with his explanation for the support for the Iraq War and other US military intervention abroad, Kucinich says:
The problem today we have in Washington is that both political parties have converged with the military-industrial complex, fulfilling President Eisenhower's nightmare and setting America on a path toward destruction.

Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war."

Watch Kucinich's complete interview here:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3n5w1xYmV8A


Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter

Highly recommended!
US Congress allowed to drag itself into this propaganda swamp by politized Intelligence community, which became a major political player, that can dictate Congress what to do and what not to do. Now it is not that easy to get out of this "intelligence swamp"
Notable quotes:
"... The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from. ..."
"... This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts ..."
"... iven the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee does not engender confidence. ..."
"... It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy and ultimate victory. ..."
"... One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard. ..."
"... purchase of advertisements on various social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, by the Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level." ..."
"... No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter, a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs. ..."
"... the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy. ..."
"... There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri) or immigration ("The Wall"). ..."
"... These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it. ..."
Oct 09, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The 'briefing' is just another exercise in preferred narrative boosting.

The co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a press briefing Thursday on the status of their ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the American electoral process. Content-wise, the press briefing and the question and answer session were an exercise in information futility -- they provided little substance and nothing new. The investigation was still ongoing, the senators explained, and there was still work to be done.

Nine months into the Committee's work, the best Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), could offer was that there was "general consensus" among committee members and their staff that they trust the findings of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of January 2017, which gave high confidence to the charge that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The issue of possible collusion between Russia and members of the campaign of Donald Trump, however, "is still open."

Frankly speaking, this isn't good enough.

The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from.

This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts from three of the Intelligence Community's sixteen agencies (the CIA, NSA, and FBI) who operated outside of the National Intelligence Council (the venue for the production of Intelligence Community products such as the Russian ICA), and void of the direction and supervision of a dedicated National Intelligence Officer. Overcoming this deficient family tree represents a high hurdle, even before the issue of the credibility of the sources and methods used to underpin the ICA's findings are discussed. Given the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee does not engender confidence.

It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy and ultimate victory. Insofar as the committee's investigation serves as a legitimate search for truth, it does so as a post-conviction appeal. However, as the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna noted in his opinion in Berger v. United States (1921):

The remedy by appeal is inadequate. It comes after the trial, and, if prejudice exist, it has worked its evil and a judgment of it in a reviewing tribunal is precarious. It goes there fortified by presumptions, and nothing can be more elusive of estimate or decision than a disposition of a mind in which there is a personal ingredient.

One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard.

The two senators proceeded to touch on a new angle recently introduced into their investigation, that of the purchase of advertisements on various social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, by the Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level."

No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter, a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs.

Nevertheless, the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy.

There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri) or immigration ("The Wall").

These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it.

The take away from the press briefing given by Senator's Burr and Warner was two-fold: One, the Russians meddled, and two, we don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians. The fact that America is nine months into this investigation with little more to show now than what could have been said at the start is, in and of itself, an American political tragedy. The Trump administration has been hobbled by the inertia of this and other investigations derived from the question of Russian meddling. That this process may yet vindicate President Trump isn't justification for the process itself; in such a case the delay will have hurt more than the truth. As William Penn, the founder of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, so eloquently noted:

Delays have been more injurious than direct Injustice. They too often starve those they dare not deny. The very Winner is made a Loser, because he pays twice for his own; like those who purchase Estates Mortgaged before to the full value.

Our law says that to delay Justice is Injustice. Not to have a Right, and not to come of it, differs little. Refuse or Dispatch is the Duty of a Good Officer.

Senators Burr and Warner, together with their fellow members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and their respective staffs, would do well to heed those words.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of "Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War" (Clarity Press, 2017).

[Oct 09, 2017] Autopilot Wars by Andrew J. Bacevich

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality. ..."
"... Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ..."
"... The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. ..."
"... On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. ..."
"... Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. ..."
"... Blather crowds out substance. ..."
"... Besides, we're too busy. ..."
"... Anyway, the next president will save us. ..."
"... Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. ..."
"... Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question. ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

Autopilot Wars Sixteen Years, But Who's Counting?

Consider, if you will, these two indisputable facts. First, the United States is today more or less permanently engaged in hostilities in not one faraway place, but at least seven . Second, the vast majority of the American people could not care less.

Nor can it be said that we don't care because we don't know. True, government authorities withhold certain aspects of ongoing military operations or release only details that they find convenient. Yet information describing what U.S. forces are doing (and where) is readily available, even if buried in recent months by barrages of presidential tweets. Here, for anyone interested, are press releases issued by United States Central Command for just one recent week:

Ever since the United States launched its war on terror, oceans of military press releases have poured forth. And those are just for starters. To provide updates on the U.S. military's various ongoing campaigns, generals, admirals, and high-ranking defense officials regularly testify before congressional committees or brief members of the press. From the field, journalists offer updates that fill in at least some of the details -- on civilian casualties, for example -- that government authorities prefer not to disclose. Contributors to newspaper op-ed pages and "experts" booked by network and cable TV news shows, including passels of retired military officers, provide analysis. Trailing behind come books and documentaries that put things in a broader perspective.

But here's the truth of it. None of it matters.

Like traffic jams or robocalls, war has fallen into the category of things that Americans may not welcome, but have learned to live with. In twenty-first-century America, war is not that big a deal.

While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.

Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ]?

Perhaps just posing such a question propels us instantly into the realm of the unanswerable, like trying to figure out why people idolize Justin Bieber, shoot birds, or watch golf on television.

Without any expectation of actually piercing our collective ennui, let me take a stab at explaining why we don't give a @#$%&! Here are eight distinctive but mutually reinforcing explanations, offered in a sequence that begins with the blindingly obvious and ends with the more speculative.

Americans don't attend all that much to ongoing American wars because:

1. U.S. casualty rates are low . By using proxies and contractors, and relying heavily on airpower, America's war managers have been able to keep a tight lid on the number of U.S. troops being killed and wounded. In all of 2017, for example, a grand total of 11 American soldiers have been lost in Afghanistan -- about equal to the number of shooting deaths in Chicago over the course of a typical week. True, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries where the U.S. is engaged in hostilities, whether directly or indirectly, plenty of people who are not Americans are being killed and maimed. (The estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed this year alone exceeds 12,000 .) But those casualties have next to no political salience as far as the United States is concerned. As long as they don't impede U.S. military operations, they literally don't count (and generally aren't counted).

2. The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. In a famous speech , dating from early in his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower said that "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dollars spent on weaponry, Ike insisted, translated directly into schools, hospitals, homes, highways, and power plants that would go unbuilt. "This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense," he continued. "[I]t is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." More than six decades later, Americans have long since accommodated themselves to that cross of iron. Many actually see it as a boon, a source of corporate profits, jobs, and, of course, campaign contributions. As such, they avert their eyes from the opportunity costs of our never-ending wars. The dollars expended pursuant to our post-9/11 conflicts will ultimately number in the multi-trillions . Imagine the benefits of investing such sums in upgrading the nation's aging infrastructure . Yet don't count on Congressional leaders, other politicians, or just about anyone else to pursue that connection.

On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. Others have made the point so frequently that it's the equivalent of hearing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" at Christmastime. Even so, it bears repeating: the American people have defined their obligation to "support the troops" in the narrowest imaginable terms , ensuring above all that such support requires absolutely no sacrifice on their part. Members of Congress abet this civic apathy, while also taking steps to insulate themselves from responsibility. In effect, citizens and their elected representatives in Washington agree: supporting the troops means deferring to the commander in chief, without inquiring about whether what he has the troops doing makes the slightest sense. Yes, we set down our beers long enough to applaud those in uniform and boo those who decline to participate in mandatory rituals of patriotism. What we don't do is demand anything remotely approximating actual accountability.

4. Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. While international terrorism isn't a trivial problem (and wasn't for decades before 9/11), it comes nowhere close to posing an existential threat to the United States. Indeed, other threats, notably the impact of climate change, constitute a far greater danger to the wellbeing of Americans. Worried about the safety of your children or grandchildren? The opioid epidemic constitutes an infinitely greater danger than "Islamic radicalism." Yet having been sold a bill of goods about a "war on terror" that is essential for "keeping America safe," mere citizens are easily persuaded that scattering U.S. troops throughout the Islamic world while dropping bombs on designated evildoers is helping win the former while guaranteeing the latter. To question that proposition becomes tantamount to suggesting that God might not have given Moses two stone tablets after all.

5. Blather crowds out substance. When it comes to foreign policy, American public discourse is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- vacuous, insipid, and mindlessly repetitive. William Safire of the New York Times once characterized American political rhetoric as BOMFOG, with those running for high office relentlessly touting the Brotherhood of Man and the Fatherhood of God. Ask a politician, Republican or Democrat, to expound on this country's role in the world, and then brace yourself for some variant of WOSFAD, as the speaker insists that it is incumbent upon the World's Only Superpower to spread Freedom and Democracy. Terms like leadership and indispensable are introduced, along with warnings about the dangers of isolationism and appeasement, embellished with ominous references to Munich . Such grandiose posturing makes it unnecessary to probe too deeply into the actual origins and purposes of American wars, past or present, or assess the likelihood of ongoing wars ending in some approximation of actual success. Cheerleading displaces serious thought.

6. Besides, we're too busy. Think of this as a corollary to point five. Even if the present-day American political scene included figures like Senators Robert La Follette or J. William Fulbright , who long ago warned against the dangers of militarizing U.S. policy, Americans may not retain a capacity to attend to such critiques. Responding to the demands of the Information Age is not, it turns out, conducive to deep reflection. We live in an era (so we are told) when frantic multitasking has become a sort of duty and when being overscheduled is almost obligatory. Our attention span shrinks and with it our time horizon. The matters we attend to are those that happened just hours or minutes ago. Yet like the great solar eclipse of 2017 -- hugely significant and instantly forgotten -- those matters will, within another few minutes or hours, be superseded by some other development that briefly captures our attention. As a result, a dwindling number of Americans -- those not compulsively checking Facebook pages and Twitter accounts -- have the time or inclination to ponder questions like: When will the Afghanistan War end? Why has it lasted almost 16 years? Why doesn't the finest fighting force in history actually win? Can't package an answer in 140 characters or a 30-second made-for-TV sound bite? Well, then, slowpoke, don't expect anyone to attend to what you have to say.

7. Anyway, the next president will save us. At regular intervals, Americans indulge in the fantasy that, if we just install the right person in the White House, all will be well. Ambitious politicians are quick to exploit this expectation. Presidential candidates struggle to differentiate themselves from their competitors, but all of them promise in one way or another to wipe the slate clean and Make America Great Again. Ignoring the historical record of promises broken or unfulfilled, and presidents who turn out not to be deities but flawed human beings, Americans -- members of the media above all -- pretend to take all this seriously. Campaigns become longer, more expensive, more circus-like, and ever less substantial. One might think that the election of Donald Trump would prompt a downward revision in the exalted expectations of presidents putting things right. Instead, especially in the anti-Trump camp, getting rid of Trump himself (Collusion! Corruption! Obstruction! Impeachment!) has become the overriding imperative, with little attention given to restoring the balance intended by the framers of the Constitution. The irony of Trump perpetuating wars that he once roundly criticized and then handing the conduct of those wars to generals devoid of ideas for ending them almost entirely escapes notice.

8. Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. As recently as the 1990s, the U.S. military establishment aligned itself with the retrograde side of the culture wars. Who can forget the gays-in-the-military controversy that rocked Bill Clinton's administration during his first weeks in office, as senior military leaders publicly denounced their commander-in-chief? Those days are long gone. Culturally, the armed forces have moved left. Today, the services go out of their way to project an image of tolerance and a commitment to equality on all matters related to race, gender, and sexuality. So when President Trump announced his opposition to transgendered persons serving in the armed forces, tweeting that the military "cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail," senior officers politely but firmly disagreed and pushed back . Given the ascendency of cultural issues near the top of the U.S. political agenda, the military's embrace of diversity helps to insulate it from criticism and from being called to account for a less than sterling performance in waging wars. Put simply, critics who in an earlier day might have blasted military leaders for their inability to bring wars to a successful conclusion hold their fire. Having women graduate from Ranger School or command Marines in combat more than compensates for not winning.

A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America. But don't expect your neighbors down the street or the editors of the New York Times to lose any sleep over that fact. Even to notice it would require them -- and us -- to care.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is the author, most recently, of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History .

Dan Hayes > , October 9, 2017 at 2:30 am GMT

You have enumerated ten general reasons why Americans "don't attend" to ongoing wars.

Let me add a further specific one: the draft or lack of same. If there were a draft in place either the powers-that-be would not even dare to contemplate any of our present martial misadventures, or failing that the outraged citizenry would burn down the Congress!

BTW I had never thought about reason #8: the military's embrace of diversity helps to insulate it from criticism. This explains General Casey's inane statement that diversity shouldn't be a casualty of the Fort Hood massacre by a "diverse" officer!

Carlton Meyer > , Website October 9, 2017 at 5:17 am GMT

One reason Trump won is that he promised to pull back the empire, while suggesting the Pentagon already has plenty of money. After the election, he demanded a 10% increase, and threatens North Korea to justify it! This increase alone is bigger than the entire annual military budget of Russia! The public is informed that this is because of cuts during the Obama years, but there were no cuts, only limits to increases.

How did the Democrats react? Most voted for a bigger military budget than the mindless increase proposed by Trump! That news was not reported by our corporate media, as Jimmy Dore explained:

Miro23 > , October 9, 2017 at 6:52 am GMT

A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America.

Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question.

So who are Mr & Mrs Indifferent, the emblems of contemporary America? https://www.yahoo.com/news/29-couples-boudoir-photos-almost-172445904.html ?.tsrc=fauxdal – Thanks to Priss

Backwoods Bob > , October 9, 2017 at 7:37 am GMT

Structurally, you have arms production, military bases, hospitals, and related service industries across nearly all the congressional districts in the country.

So it is an enormous set of vested interests with both voting power and corporate money for campaign treasuries.

Quoting Ike was good, and he mentions the opportunity cost in schools, roads, etc. – but also the organizing political and economic power of the military industrial complex.

The government schools are with some exceptions worthless. No subject, let alone war, is taken on seriously.

The legacy media has been co-opted by the MIC/Financial interests. The state is spying on everyone and everyone knows so. Free speech, free association, free assembly, right to bear arms, confront your accuser, trial by jury, habeas corpus – all gone now.

So the sheep behave. They walk by the dead whistling, and look straight ahead.

Robert Magill > , October 9, 2017 at 9:27 am GMT

While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.

He was dead wrong about this in the 60′s as it soon became obvious to everyone else. But we learned how "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." Cut out the military draft and embed the press into the ranks so they dare not report the actions they witness.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

[Oct 09, 2017] SHOCKING!!! Google discovers ads placed on its site from Russia, proving America's democracy was hacked by

Oct 09, 2017 | theduran.com

It was only a matter of time before Google and its subsidiaries (most notably
YouTube) would jump on the "Russia hacked the election" narrative concocted by

Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

Executive Chairman of Alphabet, Inc., (Google's parent company), Eric Schmidt
was after all advising the Hillary Clinton campaign.

What took Schmidt and Google execs so long to join in on the never ending
litigation of the US presidential election, that Hillary lost almost one year ago?

Via The Daily Caller...

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google's parent company
Alphabet, wanted to be "head outside advisor" to the Hillary
Clinton campaign, according to Clinton campaign chairman
John Podesta in an email released by WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks has continued to reveal Schmidt's cozy relationship with
the Clinton campaign. In a previously leaked email,
a memo showed that Schmidt was working directly with the Clinton
campaign on setting up various backend features to their website.

[Oct 09, 2017] Corker Strikes Back by Daniel Larison

And this guy was elected with the mandate to end all foreign wars, although regarding Iraq he always was pretty crazy and jingoistic.
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
Oct 09, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Bob Corker followed up on his initial response to Trump's attack on him with some scathing criticism in an interview with The New York Times :

Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, charged in an interview on Sunday that President Trump was treating his office like "a reality show," with reckless threats toward other countries that could set the nation "on the path to World War III."

In an extraordinary rebuke of a president of his own party, Mr. Corker said he was alarmed about a president who acts "like he's doing 'The Apprentice' or something."

"He concerns me," Mr. Corker added. "He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation."

Corker isn't saying anything that many others haven't already said, but it is significant that it is coming from such a high-profile elected Republican. The senator was among a very few in the Senate inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in the past, and he sometimes went out of his way to say positive things about Trump's foreign policy. During the election, he was saying that Trump was bringing a "degree of realism" and "maturity" to foreign policy. That was always wishful thinking, and Corker's criticism now is a belated admission that he was wrong about all of that. It is fair to fault Corker for not realizing or saying any of these things sooner, but that doesn't make it any less extraordinary that he is saying it on the record. Thanks to Trump's foolish attack on him yesterday, he evidently no longer feels obliged to keep quiet about the problems he has with the president.

One of the more interesting things that Corker confirmed concerned Trump's repeated undermining of Tillerson:

The senator, who is close to Mr. Tillerson, invoked comments that the president made on Twitter last weekend in which he appeared to undercut Mr. Tillerson's negotiations with North Korea.

"A lot of people think that there is some kind of 'good cop, bad cop' act underway, but that's just not true," Mr. Corker said.

Without offering specifics, he said Mr. Trump had repeatedly undermined diplomacy with his Twitter fingers. "I know he has hurt, in several instances, he's hurt us as it relates to negotiations that were underway by tweeting things out," Mr. Corker said.

We already knew this, but it is important that someone in Corker's position is acknowledging that the administration's foreign policy is every bit as dysfunctional as it appears to be. It remains to be seen whether Corker's break with Trump will translate into meaningful opposition to any part of Trump's foreign policy, but his remarks in this interview suggest that it might.

[Oct 09, 2017] SHOCKING!!! Google discovers ads placed on its site from Russia, proving America s democracy was hacked

Oct 09, 2017 | theduran.com

Menu

[Oct 08, 2017] A Vet Remembers

Oct 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anonymous > , Disclaimer October 6, 2017 at 4:15 pm GMT

@Auntie Analogue Every time someone says to me, "Thank you for your service," above my head appears a cartoon thought balloon containing a wisp of the smoke of exasperation. It's weird how or when this reverent, pro-military bullshit toward veterans of the military (NB: very few ever in life-threatening combat) began. It seemed to be right around when our wars were solely about Zionist interests. My dad saw combat as an Army infantryman in the most ferocious battles of WWII. He received Purple Hearts (injuries from grenades and bullets) and medals of valor. When I was growing up he never discussed it unless you asked him questions. He never sought nor thought he was ever entitled to any benefits from it. Never went to the VA. All of his friends were the same way. It was only at the funeral of a close friend's dad that I learned that he had been in the military, and the Battle of the Bulge! I used to see this guy daily for years and stayed at their house all the time. Never once did he mention it. But back then, when being in the military meant being in combat, it was just something all men were expected to do and move on. Even if you were a major leaguer like Ted Williams you had to put your pro baseball career on hold and go off to combat and then return and resume things. They didn't expect or want any adulation. These kinds of guys would be embarrassed by it.

Nowadays every military veteran I know left with a disability and generous VA benefits and wears his military service on his soldier. Guys and gals who spent 3 years at Fort Huachuca or Lackland AFB or were "deployed" (PCS) to Okinawa, Japan or South Korea, expect to worshipped because they "defended freedom and put their lives on the line for all Americans".

The modern military, which became a jobs program, has been disasterous for white middle America. It destroyed families and created a bunch of less-than-manly white males who are worse than welfare queens living large on the MIC. But nowadays the military of today, 2017, is very diverse and third world. Today you're more likely to see the children of immigrants from West Africa or Latin America at basic training rather than some white kid.

Cato > , October 8, 2017 at 5:30 am GMT

I was a 15 year old freak when I first met the returning vets, at the city park where freaks hung out. At that time I thought that I too would be sent to Vietnam, and, in a way, I (and my friends) had prepared for that our whole lives–our parents had stories about WWII, and many also had stories about Korea. Today I feel grateful that it didn't happen (the draft ended the year I turned 19, and I got my adventure a different way). But at the time, the stories of the returning vets were all about drugs, and hot women, and power, and not about casualties. So, for some years I thought I had missed out on something. But think about it: 50,000 dead, four times what we've lost in the Bush-Obama-Trump wars. I knew some of those guys who died, and I also knew some of the guys who, like Fred, did things beyond what most of us have done. But none of the latter seemed particularly happy about having done those things. Overall, it seems that war sucks. A lot. Someone please inform Bill Kristol.

Uebersetzer > , October 8, 2017 at 6:35 am GMT

The combat soldier who goes home or at least on leave and meets incomprehension is a literary theme going back some decades if not centuries. All Quiet On The Western Front has a main character who goes on leave and finds the civilians have no comprehension of the war although they are enthusiastic about it, sometimes offering him patronising advice about how to win it. Remarque's book was banned in the Third Reich, though many German memoirs were not which extolled war as the highest of human experiences and expressed contempt for the Etappenschweine (rear echelon MFs) and, slightly less overtly, mere civilians. The scorned veteran who enjoyed the war or at least had trouble dealing with postwar civilian life was part of the soil in which fascism took root.

gdpbull > , October 8, 2017 at 12:38 pm GMT

I watched on line the portion of the Burns documentary that covered the period of time that I was in Nam to get a sense of its accuracy since I had direct knowledge of that time period. The coverage was completely perfunctory. I had hoped that the long multi-part documentary of the war would be a well an actual documentary of the war for a change. You know, showing not only the high level politics and overall strategy end, but also the nuts and bolts of the war. Well, it really didn't even show the high level strategic aspects to much detail, let alone the nuts and bolts. It was just one more navel gazing piece of crap. So I didn't bother watching any of the other segments.

DESERT FOX > , October 8, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT

To see who was behind getting America into the Vietnam war , read the book JFK, THE CIA and VIETNAM by L. Fletcher Prouty, can be had on Amazon.com. This book also tells who killed JFK.

[Oct 08, 2017] Todays Republicans Democrats are just two sides of the same coin. We ought to just call them what they really all are -- Neocons.

Notable quotes:
"... I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters. ..."
"... "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | steemit.com

steemihal last month

People need to learn, relearn, and talk to others about this. Let's admit it: today's Republicans & Democrats are just two sides of the same coin. We ought to just call them what they really all are -- "Neocons."

Both sides need to be replaced by truly independent voters giving strength to an administration that is neither R nor D, and that should be the Libertarians. Trump is not one, but he's going to end up making the way for them during his four years.

I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters.

cve3 2 months ago

It was either Mark Twain or Samuel Clemens who said "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

[Oct 08, 2017] A Vet Remembers

Oct 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anonymous > , Disclaimer October 6, 2017 at 4:15 pm GMT

@Auntie Analogue Every time someone says to me, "Thank you for your service," above my head appears a cartoon thought balloon containing a wisp of the smoke of exasperation. It's weird how or when this reverent, pro-military bullshit toward veterans of the military (NB: very few ever in life-threatening combat) began. It seemed to be right around when our wars were solely about Zionist interests. My dad saw combat as an Army infantryman in the most ferocious battles of WWII. He received Purple Hearts (injuries from grenades and bullets) and medals of valor. When I was growing up he never discussed it unless you asked him questions. He never sought nor thought he was ever entitled to any benefits from it. Never went to the VA. All of his friends were the same way. It was only at the funeral of a close friend's dad that I learned that he had been in the military, and the Battle of the Bulge! I used to see this guy daily for years and stayed at their house all the time. Never once did he mention it. But back then, when being in the military meant being in combat, it was just something all men were expected to do and move on. Even if you were a major leaguer like Ted Williams you had to put your pro baseball career on hold and go off to combat and then return and resume things. They didn't expect or want any adulation. These kinds of guys would be embarrassed by it.

Nowadays every military veteran I know left with a disability and generous VA benefits and wears his military service on his soldier. Guys and gals who spent 3 years at Fort Huachuca or Lackland AFB or were "deployed" (PCS) to Okinawa, Japan or South Korea, expect to worshipped because they "defended freedom and put their lives on the line for all Americans".

The modern military, which became a jobs program, has been disasterous for white middle America. It destroyed families and created a bunch of less-than-manly white males who are worse than welfare queens living large on the MIC. But nowadays the military of today, 2017, is very diverse and third world. Today you're more likely to see the children of immigrants from West Africa or Latin America at basic training rather than some white kid.

Cato > , October 8, 2017 at 5:30 am GMT

I was a 15 year old freak when I first met the returning vets, at the city park where freaks hung out. At that time I thought that I too would be sent to Vietnam, and, in a way, I (and my friends) had prepared for that our whole lives–our parents had stories about WWII, and many also had stories about Korea. Today I feel grateful that it didn't happen (the draft ended the year I turned 19, and I got my adventure a different way). But at the time, the stories of the returning vets were all about drugs, and hot women, and power, and not about casualties. So, for some years I thought I had missed out on something. But think about it: 50,000 dead, four times what we've lost in the Bush-Obama-Trump wars. I knew some of those guys who died, and I also knew some of the guys who, like Fred, did things beyond what most of us have done. But none of the latter seemed particularly happy about having done those things. Overall, it seems that war sucks. A lot. Someone please inform Bill Kristol.

Uebersetzer > , October 8, 2017 at 6:35 am GMT

The combat soldier who goes home or at least on leave and meets incomprehension is a literary theme going back some decades if not centuries. All Quiet On The Western Front has a main character who goes on leave and finds the civilians have no comprehension of the war although they are enthusiastic about it, sometimes offering him patronising advice about how to win it. Remarque's book was banned in the Third Reich, though many German memoirs were not which extolled war as the highest of human experiences and expressed contempt for the Etappenschweine (rear echelon MFs) and, slightly less overtly, mere civilians. The scorned veteran who enjoyed the war or at least had trouble dealing with postwar civilian life was part of the soil in which fascism took root.

gdpbull > , October 8, 2017 at 12:38 pm GMT

I watched on line the portion of the Burns documentary that covered the period of time that I was in Nam to get a sense of its accuracy since I had direct knowledge of that time period. The coverage was completely perfunctory. I had hoped that the long multi-part documentary of the war would be a well an actual documentary of the war for a change. You know, showing not only the high level politics and overall strategy end, but also the nuts and bolts of the war. Well, it really didn't even show the high level strategic aspects to much detail, let alone the nuts and bolts. It was just one more navel gazing piece of crap. So I didn't bother watching any of the other segments.

DESERT FOX > , October 8, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT

To see who was behind getting America into the Vietnam war , read the book JFK, THE CIA and VIETNAM by L. Fletcher Prouty, can be had on Amazon.com. This book also tells who killed JFK.

[Oct 07, 2017] Us can win against Russi or china but not both of them. And niether Russia or china would allow the other to be destroyed byt he USA. That means end of the US world

Oct 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anonymous > , Disclaimer October 5, 2017 at 8:55 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Yeah, right. Perhaps you should reread your history rather than take it simply from pop culture.

Also, Serbia folded quickly once US got involved.

Only after Russia abandoned them, and even so, they still held on for quite some time. This was also when the US forces were more competent.

US held their ground in Korea against millions of Chinese troops.

The "millions" only were perceived so by the Marines during the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River because the Chinese troops had achieved almost complete envelopment – in reality, it was pretty much equal numbers, and American formations shattered would never recover for the remainder of the war. Although the UN forces did better in the second half, it was battles like that of Bloody Ridge and Heartbreak Ridge – which were named for specifically that reason – which proved that total victory was unattainable due to the casualties that Communist forces could inflict upon the UN.

It was far from a cakewalk.

In strength disposition at this point, the US might be able to win a war against either Russia or China alone. But they would obviously not allow the other to be destroyed, and any attack on one of them would result in both of them retaliating.

Its over for the US in terms of unilateral military solutions.

[Oct 07, 2017] Wars are costly and uncertain events even in case of overwhelming technical superiority that the USA still enjoys (against most non-nuclear countries)

Oct 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

FB, October 5, 2017 at 11:20 pm GMT

@Priss Factor

US won every major battle in Vietnam.

And here's the rest of the story

So that's a kill ratio of what, 50 to 1 for third world air force Vietnam against 'superpower' United States ?

Lopsided much ?

That has to be some kind of record for losing aircraft not seen since WW2

Oh and let's not forget the US fleeing their embassy in Saigon by rooftop helicopter

US held their ground in Korea against millions of Chinese troops.

Oh yes let's see

' The defeat of the U.S. Eighth Army resulted in the longest retreat of any American military unit in history The Chinese offensive continued pressing American forces, which lost Seoul, the South Korean capital. Eighth Army's morale and esprit de corps hit rock bottom, to where it was widely regarded as a broken, defeated rabble '

Also, Serbia folded quickly once US got involved.

Hmm interesting.

' The shootdown of an F-117 stealth aircraft over Kosovo in 1999 served as a wake-up call for the Air Force NATO never fully succeeded in neutralizing the Serb integrated air defense system '

and

'Operation Allied Force was the most intense and sustained military operation to have been conducted in Europe since the end of World War II .'

and

'The air campaign over Kosovo severely affected the readiness rates of the United States Air Force's Air Combat Command during that period many aircraft will have to be replaced earlier than previously planned, as their planned fatigue life was prematurely expended. PGM inventories needed to be re-stocked, the warstock of the AGM-86C Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile dropping to 100 or fewer rounds.[11]

Of the more than 25,000 bombs and missiles expended, nearly 8,500 were PGMs, with the replacement cost estimated at $US1.3 billion.[12] Thus the USAF suffered from virtual attrition of its air force without having scored a large number of kills in theater. Even if the United States' best estimates of Serbian casualties are used, the Serbians left Kosovo with a large part of their armored forces intact '

So the combined might of 19 Nato countries with a population of 900 million vs little Serbia and its 7 million people a NATO air armada of over 1,000 aircraft and still little Serbia stood its ground. As for Afghanistan US still hasn't won anything in 16 years. . As Paul Craig Roberts regularly reminds us, the US hasn't won a real war since the pacific war in ww2. Thanks for the opportunity Mr. Priss hope we can dance again sometime oh and have fun in Disneyland

[Oct 07, 2017] US Intelligence Unit Accused Of Illegally Spying On Americans' Financial Records

Oct 07, 2017 | www.buzzfeed.com

The intelligence division at the Treasury Department has repeatedly and systematically violated domestic surveillance laws by snooping on the private financial records of US citizens and companies, according to government sources.

Over the past year, at least a dozen employees in another branch of the Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, have warned officials and Congress that US citizens' and residents' banking and financial data has been illegally searched and stored. And the breach, some sources said, extended to other intelligence agencies, such as the National Security Agency, whose officers used the Treasury's intelligence division as an illegal back door to gain access to American citizens' financial records. The NSA said that any allegations that it "is operating outside of its authorities and knowingly violating U.S. persons' privacy and civil liberties is categorically false."

In response to detailed questions, the Treasury Department at first issued a one-sentence reply stating that its various branches "operate in a manner consistent with applicable legal authorities." Several hours after this story published, the department issued a more forceful denial : "The BuzzFeed story is flat out wrong. An unsourced suggestion that an office within Treasury is engaged in illegal spying on Americans is unfounded and completely off-base." It added that "OIA and FinCEN share important information and operate within the bounds of statute."

Still, the Treasury Department's Office of the Inspector General said it has launched a review of the issue. Rich Delmar, a lawyer in that office, offered no further comment.

But a senior Treasury official, who is not authorized to speak on the matter so requested anonymity, did not mince words: "This is domestic spying."

Sources said the spying had been going on under President Barack Obama, but the Donald Trump appointees who now control how the department conducts intelligence operations are Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker.

At issue is the collection and dissemination of information from a vast database of mostly US citizens' banking and financial records that banks turn over to the government each day. Banks and other financial institutions are required, under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, to report suspicious transactions and cash transactions over $10,000. The database is maintained by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN , a bank regulator charged with combatting money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. Under the law, it has unfettered powers to peruse and retain the data.

In contrast to FinCEN, Treasury's intelligence division, known as the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, or OIA, is charged with monitoring suspicious financial activity that occurs outside the US. Under a seminal Reagan-era executive order, a line runs through the Treasury Department and all other federal agencies separating law enforcement, which targets domestic crimes, from intelligence agencies, which focus on foreign threats and can surveil US citizens only in limited ways and by following stringent guidelines.

FinCEN officials have accused their counterparts at OIA, an intelligence unit, of violating this separation by illegally collecting and retaining domestic financial information from the banking database. Some sources have also charged that OIA analysts have, in a further legal breach, been calling up financial institutions to make inquiries about individual bank accounts and transactions involving US citizens. Sources said the banks have complied with the requests because they are under the impression they are giving the information to FinCEN, which they are required to do.

One source recalled an instance from 2016 in which OIA personnel, inserting themselves into a domestic money-laundering case, sought information from a Delaware financial institution. In other cases, according to a second source, FinCEN gave OIA reports with the names of US citizens and companies blacked out. OIA obtained those names by calling the banks, then used those names to search the banking database for more information on those American citizens and firms. "This is such an invasion of privacy." -- Treasury Department official

Sources also claimed that OIA has opened a back door to officers from other intelligence agencies throughout the government, including the the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Officials from those agencies have been coming to work at OIA for short periods of time, sometimes for as little as a week, and thereby getting unrestricted access to information on US citizens that they otherwise could not collect without strict oversight.

"This is such an invasion of privacy," said another Treasury Department official, who, lacking authorization to speak on the matter, asked not to be named. This person predicted that banks "would lose their minds" if they knew that their customers' records were being used by government intelligence officers who did not have the legal authority to do so.

The Defense Intelligence Agency did not respond to a request for comment. CIA spokesman Dean Boyd said, "Suggestions that the Agency may be improperly collecting and retaining US persons data through the mechanisms you described are completely inaccurate."

Sources claimed the unauthorized inspection and possession of Americans' financial data have been going on for years but only became controversial in 2016, when officials at FinCEN learned about it and began objecting. Early last year, Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, which oversees OIA, proposed transferring much of FinCEN's work to OIA.

In a bureaucratic turf war, FinCEN officials objected to the proposal, which would have shifted numerous employees and a portion of FinCEN's budget to OIA. They said the move was illegal without prior approval from Congress.

[Oct 05, 2017] Tillerson Summoned to White House Amid Presidential Fury

MSm stil trying to sing Trump, and it looks like he is helping them. Campaign of well times and damaging leaks continue.
Notable quotes:
"... Additional reporting from Peter Alexander, Hallie Jackson and Vivian Salama. ..."
Oct 05, 2017 | www.msn.com
Additional reporting from Peter Alexander, Hallie Jackson and Vivian Salama.

WASHINGTON -- John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, abruptly scrapped plans to travel with President Donald Trump on Wednesday so he could try to contain his boss's fury and manage the fallout from new revelations about tensions between the president and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, according to six senior administration officials.

Kelly summoned Tillerson, and their ally Defense Secretary James Mattis, to the White House, where the three of them huddled to discuss a path forward, according to three administration officials. The White House downplayed Kelly's decision to stay in Washington, saying he did so to manage day-to-day operations.

Vice President Mike Pence, meanwhile, was fuming in Phoenix, where he was traveling, seven officials told NBC News. He and Tillerson spoke on the phone before the secretary's public appearance on Wednesday morning.

Pence was incensed upon learning from the NBC report that Tillerson's top spokesman had said he once privately questioned the value of Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Officials said the spokesman, R.C. Hammond, fabricated an anecdote that Pence had asked Tillerson in a meeting whether Haley, who is seen as a possible successor if Tillerson, is helpful or harmful to the administration.

NBC reported Wednesday that Tillerson had threatened to resign in July after a series of clashes with the president, at one point venting his frustrations among his colleagues by calling the president a "moron," according to multiple senior administration officials who were aware of the matter at the time.

Four senior administration officials said Trump first learned on Wednesday that Tillerson had disparaged him after a July 20 national security meeting at the Pentagon. Trump vented to Kelly Wednesday morning, leading Kelly to scrap plans to travel with the president to Las Vegas to meet with victims and first responders in Sunday's mass shooting.

Trump was furious when he saw the NBC News report, which was published shortly before 6 a.m. Wednesday. For the next two hours the president fumed inside the White House, venting to Kelly, officials said. He left for Las Vegas shortly after 8 a.m., 20 minutes behind schedule. Tillerson scrambled to pull together a statement, while his spokesman publicly apologized for his comments about Pence and Haley, saying he "spoke out of line about conversations I wasn't privy to."

Tillerson delivered a statement praising Trump and insisting he never considered resigning, but it's what he didn't say that further enraged Trump, officials said.

The secretary's refusal to deny that he had called the president a "moron" in his opening statement and in his responses to questions from reporters stoked Trump's anger and widened the rift between the two men, officials said. After watching the secretary's response Wednesday, one White House official said, "When Tillerson didn't deny it, I assumed it was true." Hammond is seen by the White House, particularly Pence's office, as untrustworthy, officials said. It's unclear if he will remain in his post, according to three administration officials.

Pence was "very annoyed anyone would misrepresent anything he said, particularly in private meetings," one White House official said. On Wednesday, this source said, White House officials spoke to State Department officials to make it clear that Hammond's comment was "false" and needed to be corrected. The revelations followed Trump's frustrations over the weekend after Tillerson said the U.S. would talk to North Korea.

State Department officials tried to reach Tillerson on his government aircraft during his flight from Beijing to Japan, but they couldn't reach him, sources said. The secretary and his team didn't want to issue a clarification, further stoking tensions with the White House, on administration official said.

Trump took to Twitter, telling Tillerson not to waste his time trying to negotiate with the North Korean regime.

Related:

[Oct 05, 2017] "Die" The Unlimited Radicalism Of Antifa by

Alt-left paramilitaries remind me Bolsheviks armed squads, the underground, militant part of the party.
Notable quotes:
"... Independence Day, ..."
"... Of course, most Establishment conservatives were using the term " Alt " as simply a synonym for "bad." And their typical criticism of the black-clad thugs was that they were "the real fascists ." ..."
"... America: Imagine A World Without Her , ..."
"... CounterCurrents, ..."
"... It argues the entire debate about fascism and "anti-fascism" is essentially backwards: Fascism arose as a reaction to the Communist revolution in Russia and the attempted Communist revolutions in Hungary, Slovakia and parts of Germany: ..."
"... "Without communist revolution and without the vanguard leftist parties that launched those revolutions, there would have been no reason for fascism ever to exit," the anonymous author writes. "Essentially, the communist revolutionaries and their 'direct action' tactics had created their own nemesis capable of defeating them in the streets and willing to compete with them for the loyalty of the workers. ..."
"... Homage To Catalonia ..."
"... Antifa: What Americans Need To Know About The Alt-Left ..."
"... No Pasarán! ..."
"... Antifa: What Americans Need To Know About The Alt-Left ..."
"... Just as every Communist regime has always violently targeted " wreckers " to explain policy failures, so must Antifa target ever increasing number of "fascists" as the impossible (and undesirable) goal of "equality" remains forever over the horizon. ..."
"... In any event, this is not "Weimar America". We are in the process of losing two or three colonial wars (a good thing) but most of the people in the US don't even really notice we are involved in those wars. It's not like Germany losing WWI and then suffering a million starvation deaths from the British blockade. But let's see what happens November 4, shall we? I'm expecting saturation media coverage but not much else. ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

In the alien invasion movie Independence Day, the beleaguered President of the United States, hoping he can forge some kind of a peace which will at least allow the survival of the human race, pleads, "What is it you want us to do?" The alien 's response is simple. "Die."

The mind of a rational person rebels at the suggestion of such an unlimited, existential conflict. After all, reasonable people should always be able to come to some kind of a compromise, some settlement which will avoid violence and chaos. But there are some people who cannot be reasoned with, whose objectives are so unlimited and irrational that not only compromise, but co-existence with them is impossible.

Americans face such an existential threat in the form of the Leftist vigilante group that calls itself AntiFa. And now American have the first examination of the so-called "anti-fascists" from a patriot perspective in a new book basically orthodox conservative website WND, the book oddly lists no author).

Antifa have been plaguing immigration patriots for many years. But it's only recently that the average American has become aware of their existence. The attacks on Trump supporters during and after the presidential campaign has made Americans aware of what the president eventually termed the " Alt-Left. "

Of course, most Establishment conservatives were using the term " Alt " as simply a synonym for "bad." And their typical criticism of the black-clad thugs was that they were "the real fascists ." The huckster Dinesh D'Souza has built an entire career in presenting this alternate history to the gullible and well-meaning [ America: Imagine A World Without Her , by Gregory Hood, CounterCurrents, July 17, 2017].

Structured as a "Special Report," Antifa rejects this Conservatism Inc. cliché and provides an accurate history of the rise of fascism as well as anti-fascism. It argues the entire debate about fascism and "anti-fascism" is essentially backwards: Fascism arose as a reaction to the Communist revolution in Russia and the attempted Communist revolutions in Hungary, Slovakia and parts of Germany:

"Without communist revolution and without the vanguard leftist parties that launched those revolutions, there would have been no reason for fascism ever to exit," the anonymous author writes. "Essentially, the communist revolutionaries and their 'direct action' tactics had created their own nemesis capable of defeating them in the streets and willing to compete with them for the loyalty of the workers.

... ... ...

"Anti-fascism," as the author details, has been a remarkably consistent slogan of the Totalitarian Left in all its manifestations. From the Berlin Wall (the "Anti Fascist Protection Rampart ") to the British "Anti Nazi League" (a creation of the Socialist Workers Party), this Left (including left-anarchists such as the " autonomists ") always frames itself as the only defense against "fascism." Of course, by "fascists," it means everyone else in the world.

Given current events, it's worth noting most of Orwell's Homage To Catalonia is about the vicious infighting between various Spanish leftist factions, all ostensibly at war with Francisco Franco. And as Antifa: What Americans Need To Know About The Alt-Left points out, Spanish Republican heroine Dolores Ibarruri, who famously utilized the Antifa No Pasarán! slogan during the Battle for Madrid , was a Stalinist who thoroughly approved of the bloody purges against Trotskyists and anarchists because she claimed they were "fascists."

Indeed, Antifa: What Americans Need To Know About The Alt-Left is a critical warning to every American, not just conservatives, that they are all being targeted by Antifa. Just as every Communist regime has always violently targeted " wreckers " to explain policy failures, so must Antifa target ever increasing number of "fascists" as the impossible (and undesirable) goal of "equality" remains forever over the horizon.

... ... ...

Jim Christian > , October 4, 2017 at 12:18 pm GMT

Pretty slick. TPTB turned Occupy Wall Street into an anti-Alt.Right terror group which allows Wall Street to go about their thievery without examination by their former tormentors. Most are Bernie supporters, but Hillary's "people" are sprinkled in, too. Antifa is vile, hooded, violent and protected by police departments all over the country for pretty much anything they want to do and whatever crimes they wish to commit.

All their protest years ago against the thievery Wall Street, the banks, especially the IMF and World Bank commits is over. Protests against the endless wars, over. They are now reassigned the task of terrorizing the campuses, Republican events and gatherings.

Which means, they were only ever a terror group and it doesn't and never did matter the who or the why, only the "when", as directed. Well done, banks and Wall Street. Well done.

Talha > , October 4, 2017 at 3:47 pm GMT

@Jim Christian

Hey Jim,

Very interesting take. That would be an incredibly masterful strategic move if what you say is true. And you are right – the Occupy movement seems to have done a complete about face.

Peace.

Achmed E. Newman > , Website October 4, 2017 at 8:58 pm GMT

First of all, another great article, Mr. Kirkpatrick, with some truth you don't hear very much. I just read Mr. Gleimhart's comment, but I am still surprised that World Net Daily wrote some of this. I used to read a few articles on their site a decade ago or so, and they seemed like a branch office of Conservative, Inc.

Another reason I'm glad to see the word "Communist" in use here, along with those comparisons to the commies of yesteryear is this: It seems like many of the alt-righters, here and elsewhere, are always bringing up points about using the "correct" terms for these antifa people. "No, they are not Communists. They don't even know what Marxism is. No, 'Cultural Marxism" is the wrong term.", etc. Many think calling these people Communists is just out-of-date Cold-War-era stuff, and we are hold-outs from a different era. They never think about the fact that we won the EXTERNAL Cold War, but have been almost completely defeated in the INTERNAL Cold War.

I don't know all the local history of a century ago, but I kind of wonder if most of the Commies of old didn't really give a rat's ass about Karl Marx either. Sure, the useful idiots didn't, but I think even some of the bigger shots did not really care what it was all about in principle. Like the antifa violent clueless morons of today, they just want to gain power and stuff. Hard work, diligence, and morals are just too much effort for them.

The tactics of the antifa very much resemble those of the people the brownshirts formed up to fight in the streets back then, like rhyming history. Those brownshirts were derided for using the same tactics, fighting fire with fire. If you're a Commie, you can't have that. I don't know how it will go down here – America is laid out much differently geographically, economically, and politically, but mainly, we have lots more guns. More here on these new Commies.

Kirt > , October 4, 2017 at 10:10 pm GMT

Sounds like an interesting book and a valid analysis. That said, the Antifa is far from being an existential threat to the country or even especially terrifying unless you happen to be caught in the middle of a bunch of them.

Communist street action and terrorism was far more widespread in the US during the late 1960′s and early '70′s. The apparent desire of many on the right to recruit Vegas shooter Paddock for the Antifa is the strange mirror image of the desire of the Daesh jihadists to recruit him for themselves.

Without Paddock, I don't think the Antifa have taken even one life. Now maybe Paddock will turn out to be Antifa or something pretty close to that but I think we need a bit more evidence than an Asian girlfriend.

In any event, this is not "Weimar America". We are in the process of losing two or three colonial wars (a good thing) but most of the people in the US don't even really notice we are involved in those wars. It's not like Germany losing WWI and then suffering a million starvation deaths from the British blockade. But let's see what happens November 4, shall we? I'm expecting saturation media coverage but not much else.

Logan > , October 5, 2017 at 5:43 am GMT

Pretty much true.

However, I'd like to point out that antifa is a threat to the US in the same sense as Islamism is a threat to western civilization. Both movements do not of themselves begin to have enough power to destroy their enemies. Their only real advantage is that their enemies appear to be determined to commit suicide.

Wally > , October 5, 2017 at 5:45 am GMT

Undercover video shows Democrat "operatives" admitting they incited violence at Trump rallies.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-17/caught-tape-clinton-funded-democrat-operatives-inciting-anarchy-trump-rallies

Logan > , October 5, 2017 at 6:01 am GMT

@Achmed E. Newman First of all, another great article, Mr. Kirkpatrick, with some truth you don't hear very much. I just read Mr. Gleimhart's comment, but I am still surprised that World Net Daily wrote some of this. I used to read a few articles on their site a decade ago or so, and they seemed like a branch office of Conservative, Inc.

Another reason I'm glad to see the word "Communist" in use here, along with those comparisons to the commies of yesteryear is this: It seems like many of the alt-righters, here and elsewhere, are always bringing up points about using the "correct" terms for these antifa people. "No, they are not Communists. They don't even know what Marxism is. No, 'Cultural Marxism" is the wrong term.", etc. Many think calling these people Communists is just out-of-date Cold-War-era stuff, and we are hold-outs from a different era. They never think about the fact that we won the EXTERNAL Cold War, but have been almost completely defeated in the INTERNAL Cold War.

I don't know all the local history of a century ago, but I kind of wonder if most of the Commies of old didn't really give a rat's ass about Karl Marx either. Sure, the useful idiots didn't, but I think even some of the bigger shots did not really care what it was all about in principle. Like the antifa violent clueless morons of today, they just want to gain power and stuff. Hard work, diligence, and morals are just too much effort for them.

The tactics of the antifa very much resemble those of the people the brownshirts formed up to fight in the streets back then, like rhyming history. Those brownshirts were derided for using the same tactics, fighting fire with fire. If you're a Commie, you can't have that. I don't know how it will go down here - America is laid out much differently geographically, economically, and politically, but mainly, we have lots more guns. More here on these new Commies. This is all perhaps an argument over semantics, but I suggest that there is very little indeed that is Marxist about antifa, at least if by "Marxist" you mean "follower of the teachings of Karl Marx."

Marx built a very well-developed ideology. But among its absolutely key points were the unimportance of any divisions between people other than socio-economic ones, the critical importance of "ownership of the means of production," and the dialectic process of society advancing with scienticfic inevitability toward a bright and equal future. Embedded in this was of course an antagonism towards capitalism and western civilization.

Antifa, to the degree it has an identifiable ideology as opposed to simply being oppositionist, has completely thrown overboard the first three points I mentioned, while continuing to follow the last two and no doubt other aspects of the original doctrines of Marx.

Antifa pretty much ignores socio-economic class, being apparently down with the moguls of Google and Facebook because they are also anti-white. The divisions they are trying to exploit are instead racial/ethnic and sexual/gender. Identity politics is about as inherently contradictory to what Marx taught as anything that can be imagined.

Antifa, and the Left in general, isn't interested in owning or running the means of production, that would be far too much like actual work. They'd much rather create dicta as to how the owners/managers of the MOP will operate, leaving them to figure out how to comply, and also tax the bejeebers out of them to pay for their programs.

From what I can see there is nothing at all left in antifa and the left in general of a belief in the dialectic, the absolute core of Marxism as such.

I will cheerfully agree that antifa is descended in a direct line from Marx and Lenin. It just seems that at some point a movement can have diverged so much from what was taught by its founder that it starts to seem silly to call it by the original name. For instance, Christianity was originally a Jewish heresy. But nobody calls Christianity a Jewish sect any longer. It used to be, but it isn't any more.

Or, possibly I'm being over-precise.

Mark Green > , October 5, 2017 at 6:44 am GMT

Kirkpatrick slams another home run. The aggressive, totalitarian nature of Antifa must not be taken lightly. Kirkpatrick makes this abundantly clear. But the sympathetic coverage that this thug-left movement gets from the MSM is an outrage.

Kirkpatrick reminds us also that 'fascism' (which emerged in Italy in the 1920s) was a populist bulwark against the most aggressive and murderous political movement in human history: revolutionary communism. Indeed, without the bloodletting impact of international communism, fascism might never have arisen.

It's also worth noting that the infamous crimes now associated with fascism and Naziism occurred only during the final three years of the most brutal (on all sides) military conflict in world history (WWII).

Communist extremism and communist atrocities however preceded fascism and they have outlived fascism. Far Left extremism remains a growing and permutating movement. Yet it often gets sympathetic news coverage; despite the fact that communism has not only claimed far more lives than fascism, but has commonly erupted even during times of peace. As a 'utopian' ideology, communism has been an unmatched global disaster.

Indeed, in the name of equality, commies murdered tens of millions of civilians in the 20th century alone. Yet unlike the defeated Nazis, only a handful of the commie perpetrators responsible for these crimes have ever been brought to justice. Even their reputations remain, in some cases, largely untarnished.

True to form, today's generation of politically-correct extremists (and their sympathizers) have successfully infiltrated American classrooms, courts, and our 'mainstream' media. These operatives foment discord guilt-free, often using their powerful positions to disparage and humiliate populist 'deplorables'.

Today, Antifa's street warriors are ready and waiting to violently deny the right of Free Speech to their political opponents as they simultaneously unleash premeditated, physical attacks. This is pure, unadulterated totalitarianism.

The rise of Antifa represent a real and growing threat to civil discourse and political liberty.

Seamus Padraig > , October 5, 2017 at 7:42 am GMT

Republican heroine Dolores Ibarruri was a Stalinist who thoroughly approved of the bloody purges against Trotskyists and anarchists because she claimed they were "fascists."

The purging of the (((Trotskyites))) is actually a pretty good reason to respect Stalin.

alexander > , October 5, 2017 at 8:10 am GMT

@Jim Christian Pretty slick. TPTB turned Occupy Wall Street into an anti-Alt.Right terror group which allows Wall Street to go about their thievery without examination by their former tormentors. Most are Bernie supporters, but Hillary's "people" are sprinkled in, too. Antifa is vile, hooded, violent and protected by police departments all over the country for pretty much anything they want to do and whatever crimes they wish to commit. All their protest years ago against the thievery Wall Street, the banks, especially the IMF and World Bank commits is over. Protests against the endless wars, over. They are now reassigned the task of terrorizing the campuses, Republican events and gatherings.

Which means, they were only ever a terror group and it doesn't and never did matter the who or the why, only the "when", as directed.

Well done, banks and Wall Street. Well done. Good points Jim,

It says something to me that the "Antifa" manifesto, or "explique" has no author attached to it.

None.

I wonder who the mega donors are, who are nursing this baby ..don't you ?

There was , on the other hand, enormous legitimacy to the Occupy Movement. as there was enormous legitimacy to the Antiwar Movement.

There was, and is, enormous legitimacy to Bernie Sanders salient comment that too much of our nation's wealth has migrated into the hands of a very few billionaire oligarchs, and our middle class is vanishing.

The vanishing wealth of the middle class has substantially drained its political power and consequently, the right to control its own destiny. Nothing proved this point more then when the oligarchs, displaying their utter contempt for the peoples say, simply "gifted " the DNC nomination to Queen Hillary.

Antifa, at first blush, does not give two sh#ts about any of this, it seems hollow to the core right out of the gate. Which, I imagine, is why Big Media has given it such a warm welcome.

Randal > , October 5, 2017 at 8:24 am GMT

As "Anti-fascism" quite explicitly defines itself as anti-liberal (in the classical sense of liberalism), repudiates the right to free speech and takes upon itself the responsibility to enforce though violence a remarkably narrow definition of what people can and cannot say, it is of course quintessentially totalitarian.

Exactly so. It's the street manifestation of the basic violent intolerance inherent in the modern left, and of the self-righteous arrogance of the crusading antifascist/anti-racist/anti-anti-Semite/anti-homophobe (etc etc.), that is visible everywhere in modern political discourse.

Threats of violence and expressions of wishes for suffering to be imposed on those they disagree with are commonplace from such people, from the "antiracist" academic calling for "white genocide" to the directly menacing abuse and actual physical violence ("it's ok to punch a fascist") directed at those who breach the taboos of the left, and routinely unpunished by any legal process despite the supposed modern politically correct concern to use the law to punish any kind of "offence" or "hatred" directed at special categories of victim.

Greg Bacon > , Website October 5, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT

What's Antifa got planned for us deplorables?

The "Resources" page of the group's website offers a number of publications that promote violence, including a 36-page manual called the "Mini-Manual of the Urban Guerrilla," which advises readers on how to conduct urban warfare, with sections on "sabotage," "kidnapping," "executions," and even "terrorism."

https://conservativepost.com/this-antifa-manual-was-recovered-from-charlottesvill/

Terrorism like what happened in Las Vegas?

AMAZON has a number of these pro-Antifa books, preaching hate and overthrowing the govt using any means necessary. Guess promoting hate and violence is OK with AMAZON, just don't ask any questions about WW II.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_6?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=antifa&sprefix=Antifa%2Cstripbooks%2C226&crid=OJDJN72GWI3I

Jim Christian > , October 5, 2017 at 11:11 am GMT

@alexander

I wonder who the mega donors are, who are nursing this baby ..don't you ?

Man, follow the donor-tree from Soros down through dozens of organizations, NGOs, the Clinton Foundation, the Global Initiative, and offshoots from all of these, to boot. They churn. And, I have to figure there are briefcases full of cash fronting riots and contrived horseshit like Charlottesville. If a stat that says the kill ratio is 18:1 cops:perps, so I'm not sure what #blacklivesmatter is but B/S. Yet, it lives on, with lots of franchisees out there, waiting. I expect marches throughout the season when the cold weather subsides with trouble clear to the election and trust me, the good folks at Antifa and #blm will be there. Well, who feeds them? These aren't brain surgeons, these peeps. Where do they sleep when they're in town? Who has their weapons and masks and transportation lined up when they get there? For added fun, like in Charlottesville and elsewhere, fringes, local Blacks, playing the #blm card, will be niggling at the edges, robbing the Whites trying to get out of a scuffle. Funny: more virtue-signaling Antifa Whites got robbed than Unite-Right Whites. Funnier: These guys, after they robbed them, they pulled off their pants and left them in the alley sans wallet, keys, phone and britches. It's unbelievaboo.

Antifa. #blacklivesmatter. Friends of Soros and Democrat-based NGOs worldwide! And, fun for the whole family! Come on down!

Buba Zanetti > , October 5, 2017 at 12:38 pm GMT

Antifa is one part of myriad of internal contradictions beginning to tear the United States apart...

helena > , October 5, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT

@Mark Green Yes but how do we tackle it? The British youth have fallen for it and are ostracising other youth who haven't, it's a wholesale cultural collapse achieved by holding festival-style protests, controlling people through reward and punishment, and promising hand outs, which the country cannot afford.

Young people are being brainwashed into accepting a massive loan with an undeclared interest rate.

c matt > , October 5, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

@alexander The only reason any politician give's a rat's behind about the middle class is because it is the tax cash cow. I have yet to see any tax reform for the middle class actually lower the taxes on the middle class. Whether GOP or Dem, as soon as they say "middle class tax cut" get ready for the middle class to take it up the a$$.

densa > , October 5, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT

Great article and comments. The far left organization known as anti-fa meets the definition of domestic terrorism, yet they remain untroubled, as far as we know, by DHS or even many local police. But even more troubling is that without the media's collusion, they would never have become the force they are now.

Consider the NFL kneeling issue. This was to support BLM. When it was seen as disrespecting the flag the NFL's solution was to make it about freedom of speech and stand but link arms to show "solidarity" with BLM. But done once, when will it stop? Do the players plan on continuing to show solidarity throughout the season? What about next year? After you've been bullied into obeying anti-fa, at what point can these sympathizers say it's enough? Thus, the national anthem has been hijacked from being about national unity to being a symbol of our continued submission to political extremists.

They want to destroy us, by that I mean white America, and a shockingly large number of whites are good with that. Meeting their demands only results in new demands. Reparations are a goal, but no doubt by the time we get there that won't be enough either.

[Oct 04, 2017] Wheels and Deals Trouble Brewing in the House of Saud by Pepe Escobar

The quote attributed to Mark Twain and Yogi Berra "It's Difficult to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future" still holds. This assessment by Pete Escobar about forthcoming bankruptcy of KAS need to be verified in three years from now. It is unclear whether the key future events (such as prediction that the current Crown Prince might be deposed with the CIA help) will take place.
It is, nevertheless, clear that KAS economics is under considerable stress due to low oil prices and that eventually can bankrupt the kingdom as foreign currency reserves shrink rapidly. What such economic crisis might entail for KAS we can only guess by reshuffling at the top is quite probably in this case. So in a way the future of KAS hangs on how soon oil prices will be pushed back into $100 range.
Notable quotes:
"... MBS is surrounded by inexperienced thirty-something princes, and alienating just about everyone else. ..."
"... "the CIA is outraged that the compromise worked out in April, 2014 has been abrogated wherein the greatest anti-terrorist factor in the Middle East, Mohammed bin Nayef, was arrested." That may prompt "vigorous action taken against MBS possibly in early October." And it might even coincide with the Salman-Trump get together. ..."
"... Asia Times' Gulf business source stresses how "the Saudi economy is under extreme strain based on their oil price war against Russia, and they are behind their bills in paying just about all their contractors. That could lead to the bankruptcy of some of the major enterprises in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia of MBS features the Crown Prince buying a US$600 million yacht and his father spending US$100 million on his summer vacation, highlighted on the front pages of the New York Times while the Kingdom strangles under their leadership." ..."
"... MBS's pet project, the spun-to-death Vision 2030, in theory aims to diversify from mere oil profits and dependency on the US to a more modern economy (and a more independent foreign policy). That's completely misguided, according to the source, because "the problem in Saudi Arabia is that their companies cannot function with their local population and [are] reliant on expatriates for about 70% or more of their staff. Aramco cannot run without expatriates. Therefore, selling 5% of Aramco to diversify does not solve the problem. If he wants a more productive society, and less handouts and meaningless government jobs, he has to first train and employ his own people." ..."
"... The similarly lauded Aramco IPO, arguably the largest share sale in history and originally scheduled for next year, has once again been postponed – "possibly" to the second half of 2019, according to officials in Riyadh. And still no one knows where shares will be sold; the NYSE is far from a done deal. ..."
"... I n parallel, MBS's war on Yemen, and the Saudi drive for regime change in Syria and to reshape the Greater Middle East, have turned out to be spectacular disasters. ..."
"... The Islamic State project was conceived as the ideal tool to force Iraq to implode. It's now public domain that the organization's funding came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Even the former imam of Mecca has publicly admitted ISIS' leadership "draw their ideas from what is written in our own books, our own principles." ..."
"... Salafi-jihadism is more than alive inside the Kingdom even as MBS tries to spin a (fake) liberal trend (the "baby you can drive my car" stunt). The problem is Riyadh congenitally cannot deliver on any liberal promise; the only legitimacy for the House of Saud lies in those religious "books" and "principles." ..."
"... In Syria, besides the fact that an absolute majority of the country's population does not wish to live in a Takfiristan , Saudi Arabia supported ISIS while Qatar supported al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra). That ended up in a crossfire bloodbath, with all those non-existent US-supported "moderate rebels" reduced to road kill. ..."
"... In Enemy of the State, the latest Mitch Rapp thriller written by Kyle Mills, President Alexander, sitting at the White House, blurts, "the Middle East is imploding because those Saudi sons of bitches have been pumping up religious fundamentalism to hide the fact that they're robbing their people blind." That's a fair assessment. ..."
"... In terms of what Washington wants, the CIA is not fond of MBS, to say the least. They want "their" man Nayef back. As for the Trump administration, rumors swirl it is " desperate for Saudi money , especially infrastructure investments in the Rust Belt." ..."
"... This piece first appeared in Asia Times . ..."
Oct 04, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

No wonder, considering that the ousted Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef – highly regarded in the Beltway, especially Langley – is under house arrest. His massive web of agents at the Interior Ministry has largely been "relieved of their authority". The new Interior Minister is Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Nayef, 34, the eldest son of the governor of the country's largely Shi'ite Eastern Province, where all the oil is. Curiously, the father is now reporting to his son. MBS is surrounded by inexperienced thirty-something princes, and alienating just about everyone else.

Former King Abdulaziz set up his Saudi succession based on the seniority of his sons; in theory, if each one lived to the same age all would have a shot at the throne, thus avoiding the bloodletting historically common in Arabian clans over lines of succession.

Now, says the source, "a bloodbath is predicted to be imminent." Especially because "the CIA is outraged that the compromise worked out in April, 2014 has been abrogated wherein the greatest anti-terrorist factor in the Middle East, Mohammed bin Nayef, was arrested." That may prompt "vigorous action taken against MBS possibly in early October." And it might even coincide with the Salman-Trump get together.

ISIS playing by the (Saudi) book

Asia Times' Gulf business source stresses how "the Saudi economy is under extreme strain based on their oil price war against Russia, and they are behind their bills in paying just about all their contractors. That could lead to the bankruptcy of some of the major enterprises in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia of MBS features the Crown Prince buying a US$600 million yacht and his father spending US$100 million on his summer vacation, highlighted on the front pages of the New York Times while the Kingdom strangles under their leadership."

MBS's pet project, the spun-to-death Vision 2030, in theory aims to diversify from mere oil profits and dependency on the US to a more modern economy (and a more independent foreign policy). That's completely misguided, according to the source, because "the problem in Saudi Arabia is that their companies cannot function with their local population and [are] reliant on expatriates for about 70% or more of their staff. Aramco cannot run without expatriates. Therefore, selling 5% of Aramco to diversify does not solve the problem. If he wants a more productive society, and less handouts and meaningless government jobs, he has to first train and employ his own people."

The similarly lauded Aramco IPO, arguably the largest share sale in history and originally scheduled for next year, has once again been postponed – "possibly" to the second half of 2019, according to officials in Riyadh. And still no one knows where shares will be sold; the NYSE is far from a done deal.

I n parallel, MBS's war on Yemen, and the Saudi drive for regime change in Syria and to reshape the Greater Middle East, have turned out to be spectacular disasters. Egypt and Pakistan have refused to send troops to Yemen, where relentless Saudi air bombing – with US and UK weapons – has accelerated malnutrition, famine and cholera, and configured a massive humanitarian crisis.

The Islamic State project was conceived as the ideal tool to force Iraq to implode. It's now public domain that the organization's funding came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Even the former imam of Mecca has publicly admitted ISIS' leadership "draw their ideas from what is written in our own books, our own principles."

Which brings us to the ultimate Saudi contradiction. Salafi-jihadism is more than alive inside the Kingdom even as MBS tries to spin a (fake) liberal trend (the "baby you can drive my car" stunt). The problem is Riyadh congenitally cannot deliver on any liberal promise; the only legitimacy for the House of Saud lies in those religious "books" and "principles."

In Syria, besides the fact that an absolute majority of the country's population does not wish to live in a Takfiristan , Saudi Arabia supported ISIS while Qatar supported al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra). That ended up in a crossfire bloodbath, with all those non-existent US-supported "moderate rebels" reduced to road kill.

And then there's the economic blockade against Qatar – another brilliant MBS plot. That has only served to improve Doha's relations with both Ankara and Tehran. Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani was not regime-changed, whether or not Trump really dissuaded Riyadh and Abu Dhabi from taking "military action." There was no economic strangulation: Total, for instance, is about to invest US$2 billion to expand production of Qatari natural gas. And Qatar, via its sovereign fund, counterpunched with the ultimate soft power move – it bought global footballing brand Neymar for PSG , and the "blockade" sank without a trace.

"Robbing their people blind"

In Enemy of the State, the latest Mitch Rapp thriller written by Kyle Mills, President Alexander, sitting at the White House, blurts, "the Middle East is imploding because those Saudi sons of bitches have been pumping up religious fundamentalism to hide the fact that they're robbing their people blind." That's a fair assessment.

No dissent whatsoever is allowed in Saudi Arabia. Even the economic analyst Isam Az-Zamil, very close to the top, has been arrested during the current repression campaign. So opposition to MBS does not come only from the royal family or some top clerics – although the official spin rules that only those supporting Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey, Iran and Qatari "terrorism" are being targeted.

In terms of what Washington wants, the CIA is not fond of MBS, to say the least. They want "their" man Nayef back. As for the Trump administration, rumors swirl it is " desperate for Saudi money , especially infrastructure investments in the Rust Belt."

It will be immensely enlightening to compare what Trump gets from Salman with what Putin gets from Salman: the ailing King will visit Moscow in late October. Rosneft is interested in buying shares of Aramco when the IPO takes place. Riyadh and Moscow are considering an OPEC deal extension as well as an OPEC-non-OPEC cooperation platform incorporating the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF).

Riyadh has read the writing on the new wall: Moscow's rising political / strategic capital all across the board, from Iran, Syria and Qatar to Turkey and Yemen. That does not sit well with the US deep state. Even if Trump gets some Rust Belt deals, the burning question is whether the CIA and its friends can live with MBS on the House of Saud throne.

This piece first appeared in Asia Times .

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). His latest book is Empire of Chaos . He may be reached at [email protected] .

[Oct 04, 2017] Trump Administration Policies in North Korea and Yemen Show Costs of Empire

Oct 04, 2017 | www.usnews.com

The idea that North Korea's nuclear capacity is a threat to the U.S., in particular because Kim might be crazy enough to attack us, was dismissed in a recent New York Times report :

The fear is not that Mr. Kim would launch a pre-emptive attack on the West Coast; that would be suicidal, and if the 33-year-old leader has demonstrated anything in his five years in office, he is all about survival. But if Mr. Kim has the potential ability to strike back, it would shape every decision Mr. Trump and his successors will make about defending America's allies in the region.
In other words, if North Korea could retaliate against a U.S. attack, Washington would have less power in Asia. It seems that when we dig beneath the surface of "national security" arguments for terribly dangerous or violent foreign policies, it is more often power, rather than the security or well-being of Americans, that underlies them. Otherwise, the negotiation of peaceful solutions would be the first priority. But as recently as June, the Trump administration dismissed an offer from North Korea and China to negotiate a deal in which North Korea would freeze its missile and nuclear testing in return for the U.S. freezing its "big, large-scale military exercises" in the Korean peninsula. The same imperial priorities that prevent a negotiated solution with North Korea appear to be a major reason for U.S. participation in the war and atrocities in Yemen. In this case it is part of Washington's strategic alliance with the Saudi dictatorship, which has recently been subjected to increasing criticism for its support for terrorist groups, including ISIS. Fortunately, members of Congress are pushing back against the unconstitutional, unauthorized participation in the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

[Oct 04, 2017] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
"... These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org . ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.

Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.

Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.

The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.

Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.

Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.

These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth .

Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org .

[Oct 04, 2017] How Kurdish Independence Underpins Israel's Plan to Reshape the Middle East by Jonathan Cook

Notable quotes:
"... It began with Israel's founding father, David Ben Gurion, who devised a strategy of "allying with the periphery" – building military ties to non-Arab states like Turkey, Ethiopia, India and Iran, then ruled by the shahs. The goal was to help Israel to break out of its regional isolation and contain an Arab nationalism led by Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. ..."
"... Israeli general Ariel Sharon expanded this security doctrine in the early 1980s, calling for Israel to become an imperial power in the Middle East. Israel would ensure that it alone in the region possessed nuclear weapons, making it indispensible to the US. ..."
"... Sharon was not explicit about how Israel's empire could be realised, but an indication was provided at around the same time in the Yinon Plan, written for the World Zionist Organisation by a former Israeli foreign ministry official. ..."
"... Oded Yinon proposed the implosion of the Middle East, breaking apart the region's key states – and Israel's main opponents – by fuelling sectarian and ethnic discord. The aim was to fracture these states, weakening them so that Israel could secure its place as sole regional power. ..."
"... The strategy of "Balkanising" the Middle East found favour in the US among a group of hawkish policymakers, known as neoconservatives, who came to prominence during George W Bush's presidency. ..."
"... Heavily influenced by Israel, they promoted the idea of "rolling back" key states, especially Iraq, Iran and Syria, which were opposed to Israeli-US dominance in the region. They prioritised ousting Saddam Hussein, who had fired missiles on Israel during the 1991 Gulf war. ..."
"... Last month at the Herzliya conference, an annual jamboree for Israel's security establishment, justice minister Ayelet Shaked called for a Kurdish state. She has stated that it would be integral to Israeli efforts to "reshape" the Middle East. ..."
"... The unravelling of Britain and France's map of the region would likely lead to chaos of the kind that a strong, nuclear-armed Israel, with backing from Washington, could richly exploit. Not least, yet more bedlam would push the Palestinian cause even further down the international community's list of priorities. ..."
Oct 04, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

Palestinians and Israelis watched last week's referendum of Iraq's Kurds with special interest. Israeli officials and many ordinary Palestinians were delighted – for very different reasons – to see an overwhelming vote to split away from Iraq.

Given the backlash from Baghdad and anger from Iran and Turkey, which have restive Kurdish minorities, the creation of a Kurdistan in northern Iraq may not happen soon.

Palestinian support for the Kurds is not difficult to understand. Palestinians, too, were overlooked when Britain and France carved up the Middle East into states a century ago. Like the Kurds, Palestinians have found themselves trapped in different territories, oppressed by their overlords.

Israel's complex interests in Kurdish independence are harder to unravel.

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the sole world leader to back Kurdish independence, and other politicians spoke of the Kurds' "moral right" to a state. None saw how uneasily that sat with their approach to the Palestinian case.

On a superficial level, Israel would gain because the Kurds sit on plentiful oil. Unlike the Arab states and Iran, they are keen to sell to Israel.

But the reasons for Israeli support run deeper. There has been co-operation, much of it secret, between Israel and the Kurds for decades. Israeli media lapped up tributes from now-retired generals who trained the Kurds from the 1960s. Those connections have not been forgotten or ended. Independence rallies featured Israeli flags, and Kurds spoke of their ambition to become a "second Israel".

Israel views the Kurds as a key ally in an Arab-dominated region. Now, with Islamic State's influence receding, an independent Kurdistan could help prevent Iran filling the void. Israel wants a bulwark against Iran transferring its weapons, intelligence and know-how to Shiite allies in Syria and Lebanon.

Israel's current interests, however, hint at a larger vision it has long harboured for the region – and one I set out at length in my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations.

It began with Israel's founding father, David Ben Gurion, who devised a strategy of "allying with the periphery" – building military ties to non-Arab states like Turkey, Ethiopia, India and Iran, then ruled by the shahs. The goal was to help Israel to break out of its regional isolation and contain an Arab nationalism led by Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Israeli general Ariel Sharon expanded this security doctrine in the early 1980s, calling for Israel to become an imperial power in the Middle East. Israel would ensure that it alone in the region possessed nuclear weapons, making it indispensible to the US.

Sharon was not explicit about how Israel's empire could be realised, but an indication was provided at around the same time in the Yinon Plan, written for the World Zionist Organisation by a former Israeli foreign ministry official.

Oded Yinon proposed the implosion of the Middle East, breaking apart the region's key states – and Israel's main opponents – by fuelling sectarian and ethnic discord. The aim was to fracture these states, weakening them so that Israel could secure its place as sole regional power.

The inspiration for this idea lay in the occupied territories, where Israel had contained Palestinians in a series of separate enclaves. Later, Israel would terminally divide the Palestinian national movement, nurturing an Islamist extremism that coalesced into Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

In this period, Israel also tested its ideas in neighbouring southern Lebanon, which it occupied for two decades. There, its presence further stoked sectarian tensions between Christians, Druze, Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

The strategy of "Balkanising" the Middle East found favour in the US among a group of hawkish policymakers, known as neoconservatives, who came to prominence during George W Bush's presidency.

Heavily influenced by Israel, they promoted the idea of "rolling back" key states, especially Iraq, Iran and Syria, which were opposed to Israeli-US dominance in the region. They prioritised ousting Saddam Hussein, who had fired missiles on Israel during the 1991 Gulf war.

Although often assumed to be an unfortunate side effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Washington's oversight of the country's bloody disintegration into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish fiefdoms looked suspiciously intentional. Now, Iraqi Kurds are close to making that break-up permanent.

Syria has gone a similar way, mired in convulsive fighting that has left its ruler impotent. And Tehran is, again, the target of efforts by Israel and its allies in the US to tear up the 2015 nuclear accord, backing Iran into a corner. Arab, Baluchi, Kurdish and Azeri minorities there may be ripe for stirring up.

Last month at the Herzliya conference, an annual jamboree for Israel's security establishment, justice minister Ayelet Shaked called for a Kurdish state. She has stated that it would be integral to Israeli efforts to "reshape" the Middle East.

The unravelling of Britain and France's map of the region would likely lead to chaos of the kind that a strong, nuclear-armed Israel, with backing from Washington, could richly exploit. Not least, yet more bedlam would push the Palestinian cause even further down the international community's list of priorities.

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net .

[Oct 04, 2017] The American Religion of War by William J. Astore

Notable quotes:
"... We are not a rational society. We are a faith-based society. And our temples and crosses are military bases and weaponry, which we export globally. The U.S. has 800 overseas bases, and America dominates the international trade in arms. Meanwhile, our missionaries are our Special Ops troops, which we send to 130 countries, spreading the American gospel. The gospel of war and the gun. ..."
"... A xenophobic form of patriotism exacerbates a religion of violence. Exclusive rather than inclusive, it sets the boundaries of "us" versus "them." Critics and dissenters are cast out and exiled. ..."
"... Our TV shows reinforce our belief in violence and militarism. ..."
"... America is being consumed by a religion of violence and mayhem. We're trapped in a dark maelstrom of death and destruction. Yet how can we repudiate our god of war when we are so busy feeding him? When we talk of "thoughts and prayers" after each tragedy, do we truly know which god we're calling upon? ..."
Oct 04, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

A few thoughts on violence and military idolatry in America

If you believe the polls, America is a nation of believers. A nation of faith. But is our faith truly in a pacific god of love? Or do we instead worship a god of war? Current and past events suggest that too often Americans place their faith in war and the military. We continue to believe despite the evidence our belief is both wrongheaded and destructive.

We have a cult-like affection for war and the military. It drives what we see – what we perceive. Believing is seeing. The military confesses to believe in "progress" in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, so we invent metrics that show how we're winning (which is exactly what we did fifty years ago in Vietnam).

We are not a rational society. We are a faith-based society. And our temples and crosses are military bases and weaponry, which we export globally. The U.S. has 800 overseas bases, and America dominates the international trade in arms. Meanwhile, our missionaries are our Special Ops troops, which we send to 130 countries, spreading the American gospel. The gospel of war and the gun.

The icons of American militarism are our weapons. Our warplanes, our drones, big bombs (the MOAB), the list goes on. They have become the iconic symbols of an idolatry of destruction.

A xenophobic form of patriotism exacerbates a religion of violence. Exclusive rather than inclusive, it sets the boundaries of "us" versus "them." Critics and dissenters are cast out and exiled.

Meanwhile, in far-off foreign lands, we reject the reality of ruins and rubble. We couch it instead in terms of salvation: "we had to destroy the village to save it." It's another aspect of our evangelical approach to war. It's like being born again. You must tear yourself down before you're born again in the spirit of Christ. We seem to believe cities must be ruined before we can declare victory over the enemy.

Consider 9/11/2001. An inward-looking people may have kept the ruins of 9/11 as a monument to the victims. But not us. That's expensive real estate, and on those ruins we were born again, building Freedom Tower , exactly 1776 feet in height. Thus our fall was reinterpreted as rebirth, our defeat as victory, tragedy as triumph. Even 9/11 itself is now celebrated as a day of patriotism.

Yes, we can reconstruct our own rubble, as we did after 9/11. But will foreign rubble ever be reconstructed? Cities like Mosul ? Well, who cares? They are not of the body. They are not us. They are outcasts. Let them survive in what's left of their blasted buildings and homes.

Our TV shows reinforce our belief in violence and militarism. New ones include " The Brave " on NBC, which begins by focusing on a pretty White female doctor kidnapped by Muslim terrorists and "brave" efforts to rescue her; " Valor " on the CW channel, featuring lots of helicopters and flags and automatic weapons; and the rather obvious " SEAL Team " on CBS, with elite Navy SEALs standing in for the superheroes of the past. If you get tired of watching military heroics on TV, there's always military-themed "shooter" video games. Indeed, the military experience is everywhere, even in Madden football, where in "story mode" you can play against quarterback Dan Marino on an Army base in Iraq. (The field is surrounded by a fortified fence, rocky hills, and a helicopter pad, among other exotic military features.)

America is being consumed by a religion of violence and mayhem. We're trapped in a dark maelstrom of death and destruction. Yet how can we repudiate our god of war when we are so busy feeding him? When we talk of "thoughts and prayers" after each tragedy, do we truly know which god we're calling upon?

William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.

[Oct 04, 2017] Neocons credo: We have earned the right to influence public debate, we have earned the right to be heard, we have contributed disproportionately to success of this country...

Oct 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

Franklin Ryckaert > , October 3, 2017 at 11:59 am GMT

Dershowitz : " We have earned the right to influence public debate, we have earned the right to be heard, we have contributed disproportionately to success of this country "

Success of "this country" or success of a tiny minority of "this country"?

Dershowitz : " "Anyone that does [that] has to be treated with economic consequences. We have to hit them in the pocketbook "

That is called Mafia methods in Goyim-speech.

Did this man not write a book called "Chutzpah" ?

(and I don't believe his frequent visits to Jeffrey Epstein's "paedophile -island" were that innocent either.)

[Oct 04, 2017] Why talk about Jewish influence is mostly baloney. People are better then ideologies. neocon are lobbists for MIC first, and only then Israeli firsters

We can talk about Anglo Zionism as a particular version of neocolonial ideology, but to substitute the ideology for nationality or ethnicity is a great mistake. In this sense Russophobia is the new politically correct Anti-Semitism, actually practiced by neocons (many of whom are Jewish ;-). As Marx noted history repeats itself...
Notable quotes:
"... I really don't believe they [Jews] are the only ones. There are others very interested in fomenting war, who aren't Jewish. The war alliance in this instance is one of convenience, where the various proponents of war pursue their own ends. While Likud influence is pervasive, due to the influence of wealth interests on their behalf, there are also others for whom war is an incredible source of profit, as per Gen. Butler's timeless War Is A Racket, and the religion of all of them is money and power, with their ethnicity, not Jewish, irrelevant to that. I haven't seen Dick Cheney wearing a yarmulke. His ilk have their own reasons, which don't have any coincidence with the tenets of either Christianity or Judaism. ..."
"... If Hitler's adherents had succeeded in his so-called Final Solution of genocide of Jews and the many others his followers intended to do in as well as a secondary priority – guess what? There would still be war and imperialism, massacres, genocides, bloodbaths and tortures. ..."
"... To believe anything else, is to be as delusional as that high non Jewish official, James Clapper, who posited that the Russians are genetically programmed to be our eternal enemies. It's more likely that the sin nature Jim Clapper shares with the rest of us has been genetically inherited to look for enemies to destroy and create them where they didn't exist before, absent the corrective of God's Holy Spirit. ..."
"... There is such a thing as being right, but for all the wrong reasons. That leads to actions taken that produce unintended baleful consequences. ..."
"... I don't think that what TAC is engaging in is censorship; no magazine has an obligation to publish anyone, or promote something they think contrary to their objectives. ..."
"... The surest way to defeat an antiwar policy is to yoke it to opinions that will discredit that. I do think a principled rejection of the extremist antisemitic comments that for whatever reasons Phil's comments attract, would go a long way to dispel the impression that perhaps he approves of the untoward things they promote, even if he chooses to let them use his column as an act of live and let live toleration. ..."
"... The problem with Phil's piece isn't that it tells the truth, but that the way it was written, it appeared to tar "the Jews" without differentiation, which would be an arguably racist and a false accusation It then went further, perhaps in a fit of understandable but not completely excusable pique, to suggest that a religious and racial test be established to forbid Jews from being involved in government. ..."
"... As unfortunate as the consequences are, to have any effectiveness in its mission, TAC had to distance itself from what Phil seemed to express, and they can't be blamed for not wanting to identify with a proposal to purge Jewish people from government service. I mean, that makes the assumption that Jewish people, per se, are unsuitable for full citizenship. That really is dangerously close to the arguments of post Weimar Germany, and we are going to at some point have our own post-Weimar America, with all its attendant and destructive temptations. ..."
"... Their influence seems to have been important in getting the US into the Iraq debacle, although Americans Jews were probably more anti war than pro war as compared to the general population and so it is a bit mad to blame Jews for that. ..."
"... As for your firing from TAC: the article was pretty sloppy and rather taints the conservative anti war movement by bridging from it to the type of comments made below your article. Should someone be fired for one poorly conceived and unproductive article? ..."
"... Their descriptions of Jews are insurmountable in their nastiness. Who are these people? Does anyone really think this way about anyone? ..."
"... The problem with neocons and their fellow travelers, many of the latter less Jewish than Hitler himself, is their faulty and destructive values, not their genetic origin. ..."
"... Jew baiters and Jew haters, have nothing of any value to contribute to understanding, blinded as they are by their obsessions. In fact if the neocons have come from the dark side, they surely share the same malignant inspiration. ..."
"... Unfortunately, I think your justified focus on damaging Likudnik policies that are harmful not just to the United States, but ultimately to Israel, caused you to fall into a baleful trap in which you did not disarm this predictable response at the same time. Sure, perhaps you ought not to have to take that much care, but that is the world of a politics that is practiced as if any means is justified to win. ..."
Oct 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

Fran Macadam > , October 4, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi

I really don't believe they [Jews] are the only ones. There are others very interested in fomenting war, who aren't Jewish. The war alliance in this instance is one of convenience, where the various proponents of war pursue their own ends. While Likud influence is pervasive, due to the influence of wealth interests on their behalf, there are also others for whom war is an incredible source of profit, as per Gen. Butler's timeless War Is A Racket, and the religion of all of them is money and power, with their ethnicity, not Jewish, irrelevant to that. I haven't seen Dick Cheney wearing a yarmulke. His ilk have their own reasons, which don't have any coincidence with the tenets of either Christianity or Judaism.

If Hitler's adherents had succeeded in his so-called Final Solution of genocide of Jews and the many others his followers intended to do in as well as a secondary priority – guess what? There would still be war and imperialism, massacres, genocides, bloodbaths and tortures.

War is most often begun by those making the decisions above the people, to take what belongs to someone else. Propaganda techniques manufacture public opinion to the extent necessary for at least minimal support.

Jewish people aren't any different from others in terms of the character found among them from anyone else.

I have been subjected to prejudice from some Jewish people, and also been befriended by others. That's the experience I've had across the board with humanity, and it's even included the same run of experience among folks from Iran, including Zoroastrians.

To believe anything else, is to be as delusional as that high non Jewish official, James Clapper, who posited that the Russians are genetically programmed to be our eternal enemies. It's more likely that the sin nature Jim Clapper shares with the rest of us has been genetically inherited to look for enemies to destroy and create them where they didn't exist before, absent the corrective of God's Holy Spirit.

Blessed are the peacemakers. Peace is not going to be served by going metaphorically to war with "the Jews," seeing them as intrinsically any more a nefarious force than the face of humanity that stares back from the mirror.

There is such a thing as being right, but for all the wrong reasons. That leads to actions taken that produce unintended baleful consequences.

Fran Macadam > , October 4, 2017 at 4:13 am GMT

If it was the editor, Robert W. Merry holds that post. There are a lot of antiwar folks there who hold official titles as editors as well, some prominent on sites like antiwar.com, who aren't shy about going after neocon policies and those who advance them. It would be interesting to hear their take on this imbroglio, because they are not exactly shy about going up against the status quo, and have regarded Phil collegially in common cause.

I think at one time or another, I've disagreed on some point with all of them, probably the least of all with Phil Giraldi. But I can tell you, I regard all who oppose warmaking anyhow as allies for that purpose. As for the SJW types, my opinion of them can be determined by the doxxing internet campaign they conducted to try to destroy my livelihood and to shut me up through intimidation and fabrication.

I don't think that what TAC is engaging in is censorship; no magazine has an obligation to publish anyone, or promote something they think contrary to their objectives.

The surest way to defeat an antiwar policy is to yoke it to opinions that will discredit that. I do think a principled rejection of the extremist antisemitic comments that for whatever reasons Phil's comments attract, would go a long way to dispel the impression that perhaps he approves of the untoward things they promote, even if he chooses to let them use his column as an act of live and let live toleration.

That said, I've had several instances of being given the chance to pursue other opportunities, and I have to admit the experience did nothing to make me think well of those who made it clear it wasn't just a suggestion.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 10:17 pm GMT

The problem with Phil's piece isn't that it tells the truth, but that the way it was written, it appeared to tar "the Jews" without differentiation, which would be an arguably racist and a false accusation It then went further, perhaps in a fit of understandable but not completely excusable pique, to suggest that a religious and racial test be established to forbid Jews from being involved in government.

Well perhaps an argument could be made for recusal where there really are dual loyalties conflicting. But that would have to be made on a fair case by case basis. Phil said he would have rephrased it if he had it to do over. Sadly, what could likely happen now since pride so often becomes more important than truth, is that Phil's heart will harden, and although a coterie of anti semites will claim victory in making him one of their own, the effectiveness if the main effort to reclaim U.S. Policy from foreign interests contrary to those of the American people will be made less effective.

As unfortunate as the consequences are, to have any effectiveness in its mission, TAC had to distance itself from what Phil seemed to express, and they can't be blamed for not wanting to identify with a proposal to purge Jewish people from government service. I mean, that makes the assumption that Jewish people, per se, are unsuitable for full citizenship. That really is dangerously close to the arguments of post Weimar Germany, and we are going to at some point have our own post-Weimar America, with all its attendant and destructive temptations.

Tyrion > , October 4, 2017 at 1:50 am GMT

Mr Giraldi,

Being Jewish but also a Brit, I don't really get your article. It seems that there were about 15 mostly Jewish intellectuals who had a dream of democratising the Middle East.

Part of the reason they wanted to do this was to improve Israel's neighbourhood, and they have also been pretty anti-Assad and the Iran deal for the same reason.

Their influence seems to have been important in getting the US into the Iraq debacle, although Americans Jews were probably more anti war than pro war as compared to the general population and so it is a bit mad to blame Jews for that.

Assad has also remained in power and the Iran deal is being kept to, so, again, not sure what the fuss is about.

As for your firing from TAC: the article was pretty sloppy and rather taints the conservative anti war movement by bridging from it to the type of comments made below your article. Should someone be fired for one poorly conceived and unproductive article? Probably not, that is what editing is for, so you have my full sympathies.

As for the comments, I tried to come up with an hyperbolic way to describe them to make a point, but I couldn't. Their descriptions of Jews are insurmountable in their nastiness. Who are these people? Does anyone really think this way about anyone?

I appreciate that asking a journalist to criticise his biggest fans is unfair, but since your biggest fans seem to be people in the grips of paranoid schizophrenic delusions about some sort of synagogue of Satan controlling the world – does this not cause you at least a little concern?

As for you general anti-war journalism. Best of luck!

Not one of the countries we have intervened in has been worth the sacrifice of our young servicemen.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 9:49 pm GMT

Pretty soon they'll be singing the praises of Adolf Hitler, except that he failed. Yes?

I wouldn't console myself with the praises of those so possessed, were they the last people on earth.

The problem with neocons and their fellow travelers, many of the latter less Jewish than Hitler himself, is their faulty and destructive values, not their genetic origin.

Jew baiters and Jew haters, have nothing of any value to contribute to understanding, blinded as they are by their obsessions. In fact if the neocons have come from the dark side, they surely share the same malignant inspiration.

Anon > , Disclaimer October 4, 2017 at 1:40 am GMT

"The problem with neocons and their fellow travelers, many of the latter less Jewish than Hitler himself, is their faulty and destructive values, not their genetic origin."

No, that's a distortion. Your comment suggests that it is mere happenstance that neocons are the way they are, as if their beliefs just happened to have fallen from the sky. That's usually not the case.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that many neocons are motivated by an inappropriate attachment to a foreign country given:

1. the most influential neocons are disproportionately Jewish

2. many of these same people are strongly pro-Israel (is there even one example of an anti-Israeli neocon even one?)

3. many of their views track with the current government of Israel's policies (something pointed out in the Israel Lobby)

4. there exists a series of organizations with breathtaking influence and wealth dedicated to advancing neocons and their policies – organizations that also just happen to be heavily pro-Israel

5. neocons seem more heavily fixated on Israel's immediate neighborhood than many other important locations around the planet.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 6:36 am GMT

Phil, I concur in your evaluation of how you ought to have rewritten your article. When I read it, I did get the intimation that there seemed to be a generic anti-Jewish animus because you didn't explain how you have no problem with some clear thinking folks who are also Jewish.

Given that these political critiques are going to generate opposition, because of the high political stakes in which there is going to be no nuance or quarter given, it's practically important that no ammunition for defenestration be even inadvertently proferred.

Unfortunately, I think your justified focus on damaging Likudnik policies that are harmful not just to the United States, but ultimately to Israel, caused you to fall into a baleful trap in which you did not disarm this predictable response at the same time. Sure, perhaps you ought not to have to take that much care, but that is the world of a politics that is practiced as if any means is justified to win.

What isn't helpful, as well, are the commenters who clearly express genuine anti-semitic bigotry, who tar your own insights with their connotation of outright hatred of Jews and Holocaust denial by association. I suggest that moderating these comments to eliminate them would be prudent. I am sure some of them are even Hasbara false flag efforts, but whether or not, they serve no purpose at all useful to a sane discussion of how poorly conceived Israeli policies are actually counterproductive for the wellbeing of all of us, Jew and non-Jew alike.

I would like to know the name of the editor who delivered the blow. I think given your explanation, he ought to reconsider and that we should be able to complain. But then, perhaps you are being more generous than he, because surely it would subject him to destructive personal doxxing by some of those associated with the more unhinged commenters here.

I know from personal experience how unethical such mob driven personal destruction can be, having been doxxed by a campaign of falsehoods designed to destroy, even if it wasn't for the same reason – except the commonality of being effective at debunking status quo opinion.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 6:50 am GMT

In fact, to more accurately reflect your views, why not rewrite the article now? I believe it's not yet too late, and in fact would help the cause of truth and a more peaceful world, our most important goals. I recently had to do something like that in regards to some different more personal issues myself, as I had momentarily lost perspective due to emotional involvement, and I valued truth at least this time more than my ego. The outcome was good and I was forgiven for my lapse, and I didn't violate my integrity either. You can choose not to publish this comment, as it is somewhat personal. God bless.

JackOH > , October 3, 2017 at 10:55 am GMT

@Fran Macadam In fact, to more accurately reflect your views, why not rewrite the article now? I believe it's not yet too late, and in fact would help the cause of truth and a more peaceful world, our most important goals. I recently had to do something like that in regards to some different more personal issues myself, as I had momentarily lost perspective due to emotional involvement, and I valued truth at least this time more than my ego. The outcome was good and I was forgiven for my lapse, and I didn't violate my integrity either. You can choose not to publish this comment, as it is somewhat personal. God bless. "In fact, to more accurately reflect your views, why not rewrite the article now?"

Fran, I agree with you. I scanned Phil's article quickly, and clearly understood "Jews" to mean a clique of unduly influential and like-minded Jews in power and media centers. Not all Jews, not at all. But, I can sort of understand–sort of–how some casual readers could believe Phil's piece to be a smear job.

Phil, any chance of a rewrite to clarify your thinking and add robustness to it?

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 12:17 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi Maybe. I had intended that this piece be in part a clarification of what I was thinking. Dunno if it merits a full rewrite. Will sleep on it! Phil, I pray that you do. Your influence in the larger scheme of things and your insights are too good to lose. We are all being driven by societal currents into identity politics, whether we agree with it or not. It is more harmful than useful to individual freedom, because it can never tell us the particular character or principles of any person we will personally encounter. I think of the negative reaction and controversy that the great political philosopher, Hannah Arendt became embroiled in, during the aftermath of the Eichmann trial and her articles about it as an eyewitness. Her own value was her integrity, yet she lost lifetime friendships because she said she would not make her own identity that of a tribe, to the detriment of the truth, which had been demanded of her. We owe it to such brave individuals not to make the mistake of inadvertently tarring them by association to their ethnic or religious origins they may share with the mistaken or even the ill-intentioned, but make it clear that our critiques are over faulty policies driven by mistaken thinking. I think that this satisfies even the question, "Is it good for the Jews?" What is truly good for all, if considered in all consequences, will be policies that are charitable to all. The best practical friend anyone could have, is the one who may not do just what you want, but what is best, keeping you accountable. And so it ought to be, in fairness to friend and foe alike, some of the latter we may even convince if we don't place them beyond the pale.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi Thank you Randal - your last para precisely represents my concern about doing what looks like a rewrite as it could be twisted to look like a recantation. Phil, I successfully negotiated the landmine of feeling that revising a few words of what I wrote would be tantamount to recantation of my fairly held main points. Despite my fears and the feelings that I was being betrayed, the courage to do this, in my own case, resulted in even stronger support for me. I did not recant, I took my friends' concerns sympathetically and seriously, and explained my choice of words. In the end, this allowed them to mount a strong defense on my behalf, instead of dividing us as was the objective of those who didn't like the overall assessment.

I think it understandable that when considering the foreign intelligence information you have seen, which would stun many folks not privy to it, would produce a level of outrage that could lead to wording that could look unfair. Still, it is very important to clarify that there ought not to be a religious or ethnic test for serving in any capacity, merely an open vetting of any particular individual's real views with the policy implications for that. As you may have surmised, as an evangelical Christian, my policy views if not my orthodoxy are outside the group mainstream. So it's the what, not the who, that's important.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi He is constantly self-promoting and also considers a number of neocons friends. He routinely bans comments critical of Israel from his pieces and is quite open about doing so. I don't think he's terribly fond of me, but he has allowed near 100% of my comments, which wasn't the case several years ago. As for self-promotion, he's not retired and isn't going to be getting a government or corporate pension, and given his public opinions neither would he be employable by either, so in that position it's an economic necessity.

John Jeremiah Smith > , October 3, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

@Fran Macadam Phil, I concur in your evaluation of how you ought to have rewritten your article. When I read it, I did get the intimation that there seemed to be a generic anti-Jewish animus because you didn't explain how you have no problem with some clear thinking folks who are also Jewish. Given that these political critiques are going to generate opposition, because of the high political stakes in which there is going to be no nuance or quarter given, it's practically important that no ammunition for defenestration be even inadvertently proferred. Unfortunately, I think your justified focus on damaging Likudnik policies that are harmful not just to the United States, but ultimately to Israel, caused you to fall into a baleful trap in which you did not disarm this predictable response at the same time. Sure, perhaps you ought not to have to take that much care, but that is the world of a politics that is practiced as if any means is justified to win.

What isn't helpful, as well, are the commenters who clearly express genuine anti-semitic bigotry, who tar your own insights with their connotation of outright hatred of Jews and Holocaust denial by association. I suggest that moderating these comments to eliminate them would be prudent. I am sure some of them are even Hasbara false flag efforts, but whether or not, they serve no purpose at all useful to a sane discussion of how poorly conceived Israeli policies are actually counterproductive for the wellbeing of all of us, Jew and non-Jew alike.

I would like to know the name of the editor who delivered the blow. I think given your explanation, he ought to reconsider and that we should be able to complain. But then, perhaps you are being more generous than he, because surely it would subject him to destructive personal doxxing by some of those associated with the more unhinged commenters here.

I know from personal experience how unethical such mob driven personal destruction can be, having been doxxed by a campaign of falsehoods designed to destroy, even if it wasn't for the same reason - except the commonality of being effective at debunking status quo opinion.

What isn't helpful, as well, are the commenters who clearly express genuine anti-semitic bigotry, who tar your own insights with their connotation of outright hatred of Jews and Holocaust denial by association.

Something like the American patriots who attacked the British Crown in print? Something like the Negros who attacked Jim Crow? Americans who attacked Hitler's policies and actions as head of state?

You mean people who speak truth? You mean people who speak truth plainly ? Icky people like that?

Are you familiar with the term "Pharisee"?

Andrei Martyanov > , Website October 3, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT

@Jake I think Rod Dreher is a very easily excitable girly-boy. His heart bleeds and bleeds. His instincts are usually very good, but then something will get his heart bleeding, and then he sounds like another hysterical Liberal woman.

The Left plays Dreher like an old drum, and he always delivers.

His instincts are usually very good

I would disagree with that. But it is just me.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

There are plenty of Jewish individuals who are appalled by the bullying tactics of Benjamin Netanyahu and Sheldon Adelson, but if lumped in with them through identity politics, will feel they have to reluctantly support them, just like a lot of beleaguered folks feel corraled into supporting Donald Trump as a matter of self defense.

What can we say about any of our tribes, except that in any of them, those who exemplify our best character and principles will always be in the minority. It's counterproductive to then double down on victimizing those innocents who will also be attacked by the powerful members of their tribes that all of us in the minority are trying to hold accountable.

Flavius > , October 3, 2017 at 3:47 pm GMT

Phil – Samuel Johnson dismissed faux patriotism by calling it "the last refuge of the scoundrel." When the charge of anti-semitism is faux, it lands the accusers squarely in the same contemptible category.

I wouldn't go re-writing anything. People who know the body of your work know that you are not an anti-semite. There is no explanation or refinement that will satisfy the scoundrel. With this set, it is best to "never complain, never explain."

I was a charter subscriber to American Conservative when it had the bona fide cajones to speak truth to power. The election of Barack Obama changed all that. It continued to speak truth to power alright, only it was the power that had been. Now it's just a pathetic wraith of its former self wallowing in sanctimony and sentimental claptrap. Too bad.

Thank you for having placed an indelible underscore on what was once a fine opinion magazine that had become a bad job. Thank you also for taking the heat on showing up a collection of scoundrels that otherwise are never, ever held to accountability for their mis and malfeasance.
Keep up the good work.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

The comments section is filled too full by those cranks who ascribe all the problems of humanity to Jewish hands. They are delusional, but certainly are useful for neutralizing serious critique of Likudnik policies. I wouldn't take any solace in having marginal folks like that being my defenders. I find it interesting that many are also hostile to Christianity. I suppose that they find it too Jewish. I note that recent congressional hearings posited that Christianity could be a bar to serving in government as well. This is a road that leads to major trouble.

SolontoCroesus > , October 3, 2017 at 6:15 pm GMT

@Fran Macadam In fact, to more accurately reflect your views, why not rewrite the article now? I believe it's not yet too late, and in fact would help the cause of truth and a more peaceful world, our most important goals. I recently had to do something like that in regards to some different more personal issues myself, as I had momentarily lost perspective due to emotional involvement, and I valued truth at least this time more than my ego. The outcome was good and I was forgiven for my lapse, and I didn't violate my integrity either. You can choose not to publish this comment, as it is somewhat personal. God bless.

In fact, to more accurately reflect your views, why not rewrite the article now? I believe it's not yet too late, and in fact would help the cause of truth and a more peaceful world, our most important goals

.

This explication of Dr. Giraldi's position is very well done.

I think it would be a terrible mistake to "rewrite the article."
Fran Macadam, you cite a personal situation in which, if I'm not over interpreting, you issued a mea culpa. You stated that you did so because you had "lost perspective;" apparently you reined in "ego" and were "forgiven."

The example of your personal situation in conjunction with your suggestion that Phil "rewrite" the article highlights all the reasons why neither Phil nor any American who upholds American principles and interests agains what they may consider infringements by another set of individuals who advocate for the interests of a foreign government, should do so: Why should someone who is an American, and who supports and defends American interests, seek "forgiveness" from the offending party(ies)?

Did the authors of the Declaration of Independence struggle to rein in their uppityness and ego-driven perspective (i.e. self-interest) when they set out to
"assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them?"

When Vladimir Jabotinsky arrived in the USA in January, 1935, a reporter asked him,
""How can the Jews achieve a true Homeland in the Holy Land?"
"By demanding it," Jabotinsky said quietly."

http://www.jta.org/1935/01/27/archive/revisionism-is-inevitable-says-jabotinsky-here-for-wide-tour

Why should Americans be any less firm in their demand that the United States be the "true homeland of the American people," above all else?

Jabotinsky never rewrote his intention to displace Palestinians; rather, he doubled-down, crafting the Iron Wall policy; Dennis Ross has never sought forgiveness for his "emotional attachment" to Israel (so intense that he chaired the JCPPPI) or abusing his position in US government to advance Israel's interests.

@ 5. Nicholas Flavius mentioned E Michael Jones.

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/how-i-got-fired/#comment-2029315

In one of his video lectures Jones discussed how Catholics

"love to internalize the commands of their oppressor. He loves to be considered a good person in the eyes of people who are his enemy, and as a result he becomes completely ineffective."

Jones then reminds his audience that Catholics are enjoined to "love your enemy." And so he "loves Jews."
The implication is clear: We have to be as certain as Jabotinsky what we stand for, and we must not be cowed by the adversary; in fact, we should clarify our thinking to the point that we understand who the adversary is, and having clarified our relative positions, we must assertively speak our truth -- in love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obtgaZ97Kdc

polskijoe > , October 3, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT

@Fran Macadam The comments section is filled too full by those cranks who ascribe all the problems of humanity to Jewish hands. They are delusional, but certainly are useful for neutralizing serious critique of Likudnik policies. I wouldn't take any solace in having marginal folks like that being my defenders. I find it interesting that many are also hostile to Christianity. I suppose that they find it too Jewish. I note that recent congressional hearings posited that Christianity could be a bar to serving in government as well. This is a road that leads to major trouble. Problem groups

a)Neoconservatives (Jewish, Christian, other).
b)"Progressive" SJW (Jewish, Christian, atheist, other).

Jews

"Big Jews" are overrepresented in the positions of power (media, financiers)
"Small Jews" majority vote for those two groups. (most their cons are neocon, most of their liberals are progressives).

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 9:39 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus


In fact, to more accurately reflect your views, why not rewrite the article now? I believe it's not yet too late, and in fact would help the cause of truth and a more peaceful world, our most important goals
.

This explication of Dr. Giraldi's position is very well done.

I think it would be a terrible mistake to "rewrite the article."
Fran Macadam, you cite a personal situation in which, if I'm not over interpreting, you issued a mea culpa. You stated that you did so because you had "lost perspective;" apparently you reined in "ego" and were "forgiven."

The example of your personal situation in conjunction with your suggestion that Phil "rewrite" the article highlights all the reasons why neither Phil nor any American who upholds American principles and interests agains what they may consider infringements by another set of individuals who advocate for the interests of a foreign government, should do so: Why should someone who is an American, and who supports and defends American interests, seek "forgiveness" from the offending party(ies)?

Did the authors of the Declaration of Independence struggle to rein in their uppityness and ego-driven perspective (i.e. self-interest) when they set out to
"assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them?"

When Vladimir Jabotinsky arrived in the USA in January, 1935, a reporter asked him,
""How can the Jews achieve a true Homeland in the Holy Land?"
"By demanding it," Jabotinsky said quietly."

http://www.jta.org/1935/01/27/archive/revisionism-is-inevitable-says-jabotinsky-here-for-wide-tour
Why should Americans be any less firm in their demand that the United States be the "true homeland of the American people," above all else?

Jabotinsky never rewrote his intention to displace Palestinians; rather, he doubled-down, crafting the Iron Wall policy; Dennis Ross has never sought forgiveness for his "emotional attachment" to Israel (so intense that he chaired the JCPPPI) or abusing his position in US government to advance Israel's interests.

@ 5. Nicholas Flavius mentioned E Michael Jones.
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/how-i-got-fired/#comment-2029315
In one of his video lectures Jones discussed how Catholics


"love to internalize the commands of their oppressor. He loves to be considered a good person in the eyes of people who are his enemy, and as a result he becomes completely ineffective."
Jones then reminds his audience that Catholics are enjoined to "love your enemy." And so he "loves Jews."
The implication is clear: We have to be as certain as Jabotinsky what we stand for, and we must not be cowed by the adversary; in fact, we should clarify our thinking to the point that we understand who the adversary is, and having clarified our relative positions, we must assertively speak our truth -- in love.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obtgaZ97Kdc It might surprise you, so thoroughly uninformed as you are, wilfully or otherwise, that there are millions of Americans who are Jewish, and their American citizenship and humanity at least equal to yours and mine.

And yes, some of them can be as mistaken just as we are capable of as well.

[Oct 04, 2017] Elizabeth K bler-Ross' five stages of grief, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance are important for understanding not only individual behavior when we are faced with personal loss but entire societies and civilizations

Oct 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

JNDillard > , October 4, 2017 at 12:07 pm GMT

Elizabeth Kübler-Ross' five stages of grief, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance are important for understanding not only individual behavior when we are faced with personal loss but entire societies and civilizations.

At this point Lieberman, Israel, the CIA, the US deep state, NATO and the EU are still fluctuating between denial and anger. The anger isn't even totally authentic yet; it is still mostly "Big Bad Wolf" winning by intimidation anger.

As it starts to dawn on these good people in the West that they are seriously screwed, we will begin to see authentic anger emerge.

That is, of course, the most dangerous stage, because that is when the sense of threat to hubris, arrogance, assumed privilege, control and power is greatest. We will mostly have to rely on cooler heads, like Putin, Xi, and Assad, to pull us through without WWIII.

You will know that we are through the worst when these disciples of freedom and democracy start wanting to do some authentic, serious bargaining, of the type where they actually have to give up something valuable. They are only play bargaining at this point. You can see the same thing with the US "bargaining" with N. Korea and Iran as with Syria; nowhere near actually bargaining.

Kurdistan will have to clearly be impossible and the Americans on the verge of being forced out before there is anything like serious bargaining.

If Putin, Xi, and Assad refuse to take the first, pathetic excuses for offers and instead recognize that they never would be getting serious negotiations if these folks had any cards whatsoever left to play, they will be able to watch the collapse of the West.

[Oct 03, 2017] The Vietnam Nightmare -- Again by Eric Margolis

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The US military understands it has long ago lost the Afghan War but cannot bear the humiliation of admitting it was defeated by lightly-armed mountain tribesmen fighting for their independence. ..."
"... Vietnam was not a 'tragedy,' as the PBS series asserts, but the product of imperial geopolitics. The same holds true for today's Mideast wars. To paraphrase a famous slogan from Vietnam, we destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to make them safe for 'freedom.' ..."
"... The war became aimless and often surreal. We soldiers all knew our senior officers and political leaders were lying. Many soldiers were at the edge of mutiny, like the French Army in 1917. Back in those ancient days, we had expected our political leaders to be men of rectitude who told us the truth. Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor. ..."
"... This same dark cloud hangs over our political landscape today. We have destroyed large parts of the Mideast, Afghanistan and northern Pakistan without a second thought – yet wonder why peoples from these ravaged nations hate us. Now, North Korea seems next. ..."
"... In spite of all, our imperial impulse till throbs. The nightmare Vietnam War in which over 58,000 American soldiers died for nothing has been largely forgotten. ..."
"... For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that they live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't be controlled at a distance ..."
"... So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland. ..."
"... Americans at-large have no power. A small cadre runs things now. Once Americans didn't have a draft to worry over, they vacated the streets and left the dying to the farmers' sons (metaphor for the poor). ..."
"... War after war lost, yet the Generals are still revered, money to the pro-war think tanks is never ending and the revolving door between the Pentagon, White House and defense contractors (and their corporate boards) has never been richer. Doesn't matter the war industry doesn't win wars, the money is just so damned good they can't stop, won't stop. And who is to stop them? These are the folks that kill people, that have a file on each of us. Indeed, it is our only remaining industry, flawed and failed though it may be. It certainly is a rich one. And it IS unstoppable. Completely. Utterly. ..."
"... When the communists gave up and joined the party, our globalist masters realized that they could not only amass further wealth by spreading these things to the former communist bloc and under-exploited non-aligned nations, but they could now squeeze even more profit-margin out of the home territories by wearing down the power of the local workforce at all levels, except, of course, for the very pinnacle, by outsourcing production and even many services to the newly "developing world." ..."
"... Ironically, fighting the communist threat probably kept our leadership more honest than they have been in the new world order since the fall of communism. ..."
"... I know opinions vary on Ken Burns/PBS's "Vietnam" documentary, but what struck me is that we're following the same script in Afghanistan and the Middle East as we were in Vietnam and expecting a different (i.e., more favorable) outcome. The script being "pacification" through providing medicine, foodstuffs, soccer balls and American smiles to the local populations combined with placing massive amounts of ordnance on targets deemed hostile. It didn't win hearts and minds then nor is it now. ..."
"... The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all who knew nothing, ..."
"... We have legions of McNamara's calling the shots today. They are called neoconservatives and liberal interventionists. The big brains of the Ivy league do seem to excel at steering us into icebergs time and again. ..."
"... What don't you understand about Clausewitz's dictum "war is the mere continuation of politics with other means"? War is what you do when you can't achieve your political objectives by other means. The United States' political objective in Vietnam was to prevent the American satrapy in the south being re-united by the nationalists in the north. So, where the f ** k is South Vietnam? The United States might believe it won every battle (slight exaggeration) but it still lost the American war. ..."
"... I bet they didn't cover the mutiny in the ranks which is the main reason the US had to withdraw because of a "broken army." That included fragging, mission refusal, and an overall negative attitude as you suggest. Now we have a volunteer army, a warrior class, which changes that dynamic. ..."
"... Too many of the volunteers are really economic draftees. You can have plenty of discipline problems with volunteers, I've seen it up close and personal, although never reaching the level of mutiny. ..."
Sep 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

The current 17-year old US war in Afghanistan has uncanny resemblances to the Vietnam War. In Kabul and Saigon, the US installed puppet governments that command no loyalty except from minority groups. They were steeped in drugs and corruption, and kept in power by intensive use of American air power. As in Vietnam, the US military and civilian effort in Afghanistan is led by a toxic mixture of deep ignorance and imperial arrogance.

The US military understands it has long ago lost the Afghan War but cannot bear the humiliation of admitting it was defeated by lightly-armed mountain tribesmen fighting for their independence. In Vietnam, Washington could not admit that young Vietnamese guerillas and regulars had bested the US armed forces thanks to their indomitable courage and intelligent tactics. No one outside Vietnam cared about the 2-3 million civilians killed in the conflict

Unfortunately, the PBS program fails to convey this imperial arrogance and the ignorance that impelled Washington into the war – the same foolhardy behavior that sent US forces into Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq and perhaps may do so in a second Korean War. The imperial spirit still burns hot in Washington among those who don't know or understand the outside world. The lessons of all these past conflicts have been forgotten: Washington's collective memory is only three years long.

Vietnam was not a 'tragedy,' as the PBS series asserts, but the product of imperial geopolitics. The same holds true for today's Mideast wars. To paraphrase a famous slogan from Vietnam, we destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to make them safe for 'freedom.'

One of the craziest things about the Vietnam War has rarely been acknowledged: even at peak deployment, the 550,000 US soldiers in Vietnam were outnumbered by North Vietnamese fighting units.

That's because the huge US military had only about 50,000 real combat troops in the field. The other half million were support troops performing logistical and administrative functions behind the lines: a vast army of typists, cooks, truck drivers, psychologists, and pizza-makers.

Too much tail to teeth, as the army calls it. For Thanksgiving, everyone got turkey dinner with cranberry sauce, choppered into the remotest outposts. But there were simply not enough riflemen to take on the Viet Cong and tough North Vietnamese Army whose Soviet M1954 130mm howitzer with a 27 km range were far superior to the US Army's outdated WWII artillery.

Poor generalship, mediocre officers, and lack of discipline ensured that the US war effort in Vietnam would become and remain a mess. Stupid, pointless attacks against heavily defended hills inflicted huge casualties on US troops and eroded morale.

The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all who knew nothing, turned the war into a macabre joke. This was the dumbest command decision since Louis XV put his girlfriend Madame de Pompadour in charge of his armies.

We soldiers, both in Vietnam and Stateside, scorned the war and mocked our officers. It didn't help that much of the US force in 'Nam' were often stoned and rebellious.

The January 30, 1968 Tet Offensive put the kibosh on US plans to pursue the war – and even take it into south-west China. Tet was a military victory of sorts for the US (and why not, with thousands of warplanes and B-52 heavy bombers) but a huge political/psychological victory for the Communists in spite of their heavy losses.

I vividly recall standing with a group of GI's reading a typed report on our company barracks advising that the Special Forces camp in the Central Highlands to which many of our company had been assigned for immediate duty had been overrun at Tet, and all its defenders killed. After that, the US Army's motto was 'stay alive, avoid combat, and smoke another reefer.'

The war became aimless and often surreal. We soldiers all knew our senior officers and political leaders were lying. Many soldiers were at the edge of mutiny, like the French Army in 1917. Back in those ancient days, we had expected our political leaders to be men of rectitude who told us the truth. Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor.

This same dark cloud hangs over our political landscape today. We have destroyed large parts of the Mideast, Afghanistan and northern Pakistan without a second thought – yet wonder why peoples from these ravaged nations hate us. Now, North Korea seems next.

Showing defiance to Washington brought B-52 bombers, toxic Agent Orange defoliants and endless storms of napalm and white phosphorus that would burn through one's body until it hit bone.

In spite of all, our imperial impulse till throbs. The nightmare Vietnam War in which over 58,000 American soldiers died for nothing has been largely forgotten. So we can now repeat the same fatal errors again without shame, remorse or understanding.

(Republished from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)

anonymous, Disclaimer September 30, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that they live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't be controlled at a distance. Of course the morale of US soldiers ends up being bad when they realize there's nothing for them to fight for. No one wants to die to help some politician save face. Insofar as the current much publicized Vietnam documentary goes there doesn't seem to be anything that's new or original. All of it has been known for many years to anyone who would bother to brush up on the subject. The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the past and the answer seems to be no for the vast majority.

anonymous, Disclaimer September 30, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that they live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't be controlled at a distance. Of course the morale of US soldiers ends up being bad when they realize there's nothing for them to fight for. No one wants to die to help some politician save face. Insofar as the current much publicized Vietnam documentary goes there doesn't seem to be anything that's new or original. All of it has been known for many years to anyone who would bother to brush up on the subject. The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the past and the answer seems to be no for the vast majority.

Cranky, September 30, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT

So whose name gets to be the last American killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc? Dying for a place on the memorial, boys. "The war was being run by a bunch of four-star clowns who were going to end up giving the whole circus away."

Some things don't change- I wonder if Rand has a new copy of the Pentagon Papers regarding post 9/11. And a new Nixon in office .he vowed to get out too -- and yet pushed more into it simply amazing.

nsa, September 30, 2017 at 5:55 pm GMT

@Sam McGowan First, I was heavily involved in Vietnam from 1965 to 1970. Second, I have written extensively about the war and read the books. The fact is that the US didn't "lose" the war, the left-wing presidents that got us into it, JFK and LBJ, has no intention of defeating the communist insurgency, they just wanted "to contain it". Cam Ranh Bay and made a speech in which he commented to the troops present that he wanted them to "nail the coonskin to the wall." Richard Nixon began withdrawing troops immediately after his inauguration and gave Abrams an edict to "reduce American casualties" shortly afterwards. In fact, Vietnam as well as Korea - as well as other wars around the world - were continuations of World War II, which Americans thought ended when the Japanese surrendered. By the way, I am not watching Ken Burn's latest left-wing propaganda piece nor do I intend to. I don't need him to tell me what happened in Southeast Asia, I was there. Save your senile hot air for the other menopausal drunks drooling in the VFW lounge. The conscript US military completely collapsed fragging, rampant drug usage, desertion, abject morale, chain of command disintegration, and the usual commissioned officer cowardice. Any western country stupid enough to pursue a land war in Asia deserves what it gets .inevitable defeat and humiliation.

Priss Factor, Website September 30, 2017 at 7:27 pm GMT

I don't think CucKen Burns is entirely wrong in empathizing with those who got involved. Sure, there were warmongers. Sure, they were profiteers. Sure, there were power-maniacs. Sure, there were paranoids.

But Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were not particularly sadistic or cruel men. Eisenhower could be aloof and mean. Kennedy could be vain. Johnson was plenty corrupt. Nixon could be nasty. But were not psychos or radicals like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.

As for military men, well, whaddya expect? They were trained to think of the world in terms of military power. As for CIA, we are talking of more sinister elements, but let's keep in mind that Soviets had their intelligence organizations and methods of subversion. Let's remember Soviets had infiltrated FDR's government and pulled dirty trick. Even got the Bomb during Truman era.
Also, Soviets could be utterly ruthless in their own empire.

Now, would the US have intervened in Vietnam if the nation was to be united by a non-communist nationalist? Probably not. US didn't intervene in Indonesia when it gained independence under Sukarno. The only reason US got involved was because Ho was a Soviet-leaning communist. And even though Domino theory has been 'debunked', it made sense at the time. Even Soviets believed in it. Mao believed in it. Soviets believed that sign of US weakness could spread the revolution all around. Che Guevara believed in the Domino Theory. Communist victory over Cuba, he thought, would herald spread of communism all over Latin America, and then it would spread into US itself. Che really believed this, which is why he died in Bolivia trying to start an insurgency.

Also, in a way, Domino Theory did come true, at least for awhile. Not so much in Southeast Asia, though Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. And keep in mind Indonesia almost could have become communist if the Peking-backed coup had succeeded. And keep in mind it took lots of British brutality and ruthlessness to stem the communist movement in Malaysia. Brits built huge hamlets and concentration camps. They took extreme measures.

At any rate, communism did continue to spread after the fall of Vietnam. US power seemed to be declining. And not only communists were emboldened by US defeat in Vietnam. Vietnam became a metaphor for anti-Americanism all over the world. May 68 movement that almost brought down the French government was fired up partly by Vietnam(though it began as some silly stuff about dorms and sex). Vietnam was bigger than Algeria because US was seen as the Great Power. French defeat wasn't all that surprising in Algeria. So, after US left from Vietnam, there was a sense that David could beat American Goliath. Iran regime fell and Islamists came to power. Afghanistan turned communist, and Soviets felt emboldened in rolling in tanks. Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola turned communist. Communists won in Nicaragua and almost won in El Salvador. There was a raging Maoist insurgency in Peru. Allende came to power through elections, and he was pro-Soviet and pro-Cuba. He was removed only by US-backed coup that did as much harm as good. It blackened US reputation around the world. So, in a way, the Domino Theory wasn't all wrong. Vietnam did signal a sea-change in world politics at least for awhile.

In the end, communism wasn't defeated by the US. It defeated itself. Soviet economics just couldn't sustain the empire. Its subsidies to Cuba were costly. Its support of Marxist regimes in Africa drained Soviet economy. USSR had to prop up Iron Curtain nations economically. And Vietnamese communism was a disaster. Maoism was hell on earth. Some might say communism failed cuz Capitalist West froze the communists out of world trade. But considering that the communist world encompassed resource-rich Soviet Empire, people-rich China, and lots of nations willing to do business with communist nations -- India and Arab nations had good relations with Soviets -- , the real reason for failure of communism was it was its own worst enemy.

And when we look at the aftermath of communist victory in Indochina -- brutal repression in Vietnam and Laos and psychotic democide in Cambodia -- and when we consider how even communist nations like China and Vietnam switched to market economics, it's clear that US was on the right side of history on many issues.

Also, the conflict was complicated because both sides were aggressors. US was the aggressor in working with the French to divide Vietnam in half, in occupying the southern half, and dropping bombs and using Viet women as whores. But the communists were also aggressors because they tried to impose a form of Stalinism on people in the South, most of whom didn't want communism. After all, many more people fled the north to the south than vice versa. Why? There is something prison-like about communism. The commissars never leave you alone. Also, North Vietnamese leaders, though inspired and patriotic, were utterly ruthless in their own way, willing to sacrifice any number of people for victory just like Japanese militarists were willing to Go All the Way instead of calling it quits to save lives.

Still, in retrospect, Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot, a legendary figure much beloved by many Viets. And for that reason, US shouldn't have intervened, and the whole mess could have been avoided.

CucKen Burns makes my skin crawl, but at his best, he can look at both sides of the issue instead of going for b/w version of history with good guys vs bad guys.

That said, maybe his position reflects globalism. As Proglobalists now control the US, the neo-Pax-Americana is about the spread of agendas favored by the likes of CucKen Burns, like homomania, Jewish Power, anti-nationalism, and Afromania. Today's progs want the world to become neo-Americanized.

And in Vietnam, as Linh Dinh reported, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery. So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland.

After all, where was CucKen Burns when Obama and Hillary were destroying Libya, Ukraine, Syria, and etc. Where were he and his ilk when Jews were cooking up New Cold War with Russia with hysteria that would make McCarthy blush?

Anon, Disclaimer October 1, 2017 at 4:37 am GMT

Is the view that JFK wanted out of Vietnam merely a conspiratorial fantasy?. The following articles are easy reads:

Exit Strategy: In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam
James K. Galbraith, BOSTON REVIEW

JFK's Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation
A response to Rick Perlstein.
By James K. Galbraith, THE NATION

Jim Christian, October 1, 2017 at 6:03 am GMT

@anonymous

"The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the past and the answer seems to be no for the vast majority."

Americans at-large have no power. A small cadre runs things now. Once Americans didn't have a draft to worry over, they vacated the streets and left the dying to the farmers' sons (metaphor for the poor). That's all it is. The damage done to the economy, the sheer quantities of cash vacuumed up from the rest of the country and showered over the Washington DC region escapes the imagination of us out here in the country with our local issues and problems. These, rooted in the sheer theft of our taxes and handed over to the war-mongers of DC because there simply isn't enough left over after feeding The Beast in Washington. We have aircraft carriers that can't launch aircraft, planes that won't fly, weapons that won't work and wrong strategies followed in war-fighting and procurement, yet still, the theft goes on.

War after war lost, yet the Generals are still revered, money to the pro-war think tanks is never ending and the revolving door between the Pentagon, White House and defense contractors (and their corporate boards) has never been richer. Doesn't matter the war industry doesn't win wars, the money is just so damned good they can't stop, won't stop. And who is to stop them? These are the folks that kill people, that have a file on each of us. Indeed, it is our only remaining industry, flawed and failed though it may be. It certainly is a rich one. And it IS unstoppable. Completely. Utterly.

Jim Christian, October 1, 2017 at 6:22 am GMT

@Sam McGowan Concur all, McGowan, good takes. Yeah, my Pop was into Naval spook communications and messaging, he'd pick up the WashPost off the driveway and see various and sundry in the paper lying and white-washing the effort and just be wild by the time he left for work. He knew the carriers were having no success, he knew the air-war was a mess, he knew the Marines were getting killed all over the country. People that knew the truth from the inside hadda keep their traps shut.

By the time I joined up for a 6 year dose of USN carrier decks in 1976 I got the scoop from a few of our officers, almost all of whom had flown with VA35 over Vietnam in A-6′s. Clusterfuck, they could then acknowledge just those few years later, only the most junior officers hadn't served in the air war over Vietnam. And they had good stories that pointed out the folly throughout.

Now? The military is just a revenue-stream, nothing produced, much destroyed to the enrichment of a few insiders.

2/1Doc RVN 68-89, October 1, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT

Sir
Recently came across some startling statistics about men who served in Vietnam like you and me. Of the 2.7 million who served only 850,000 are still alive at last census!!!!!! 700,500 died prematurely between 1995 census and 2000 census. No country for old men .

The Alarmist, October 1, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT

@Priss Factor

"And in Vietnam, as Linh Dinh reported, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery. So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland."

Bingo! The only problem is that the globalists are now using the opportunity to also wear down the populations of the home territories as well. The only reason our national economic imperialism wasn't enough of a raging success (don't get me wrong by any rational measure it was) was that it was kept in check by the opposing communist bloc, and still America managed to conquer the so-called free world with Coca Cola, McDonalds, Hollywood Inc., etc.

When the communists gave up and joined the party, our globalist masters realized that they could not only amass further wealth by spreading these things to the former communist bloc and under-exploited non-aligned nations, but they could now squeeze even more profit-margin out of the home territories by wearing down the power of the local workforce at all levels, except, of course, for the very pinnacle, by outsourcing production and even many services to the newly "developing world."

Ironically, fighting the communist threat probably kept our leadership more honest than they have been in the new world order since the fall of communism.

The Alarmist, October 1, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT

"No one in Washington seemed to know that China and the Soviet Union had split and become bitter enemies. As ever, our foreign human intelligence was lousy."

They knew of the rift that had grown since 1960 or so, but they didn't believe it until the short border war in 1969. The same way that a number of indicators suggested as early as 1983 that the USSR was imploding, but the menace of the USSR was used to keep justifying a buildup and procurement of new systems until and even beyond its actual implosion a few years later.

Evil, stupid, or merely blind. You decide.

KenH, October 1, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT

I know opinions vary on Ken Burns/PBS's "Vietnam" documentary, but what struck me is that we're following the same script in Afghanistan and the Middle East as we were in Vietnam and expecting a different (i.e., more favorable) outcome. The script being "pacification" through providing medicine, foodstuffs, soccer balls and American smiles to the local populations combined with placing massive amounts of ordnance on targets deemed hostile. It didn't win hearts and minds then nor is it now.

The generals keep telling us that with just a few more antibiotics, soccer balls and troops victory is around the bend.

Hindsight's always 20/20, but to be fair a military force in Vietnam did seem like the right thing do at least in the early years. Any de-escalation and/or withdrawals would have been perceived by a rabidly anti-communist population as surrendering to communist aggression and political suicide for any president proposing it.

The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all who knew nothing,

We have legions of McNamara's calling the shots today. They are called neoconservatives and liberal interventionists. The big brains of the Ivy league do seem to excel at steering us into icebergs time and again.

As it was former allies Vietnam and China briefly fought each other in 1979 and Vietnam didn't have the desire or the ability to project power much beyond Cambodia and Laos.

DB Cooper, October 2, 2017 at 4:38 am GMT

"We really believed that if the US did not make a stand in Vietnam the Soviets and Chinese would overrun all of South Asia."

India played a big role in shaping this narrative. Just five years ago before 1967 China finally responded to India's creeping land grab after years of trying to warn New Delhi's to stop its 'Forward Policy' by launching a massive anticipatory strike into India. India was defeated militarily but India was able to fool the world that India was a hapless victim against an agressive China when in fact the reverse is true.

Diversity Heretic, October 2, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT

@Jim Christian A bit off topic, but, since I know that you had naval experience, any take on why Navy ships keep colliding with merchantmen? Is it reduced competence because of racial and sexual preferences, or overworked sailors because deployed ships are short-staffed as a result of pregnancies? Or is it just a run of bad luck? I've read some different theories but I've seen you post often enough to know that you'll have an informed opinion.

Blowback, October 2, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT

@Sam McGowan What don't you understand about Clausewitz's dictum "war is the mere continuation of politics with other means"? War is what you do when you can't achieve your political objectives by other means. The United States' political objective in Vietnam was to prevent the American satrapy in the south being re-united by the nationalists in the north. So, where the f ** k is South Vietnam? The United States might believe it won every battle (slight exaggeration) but it still lost the American war.

Jim Christian, October 2, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic The military is off-kilter all over. Navigation? Routine. Ought to be. Not anymore. Procurement? Driven by inertia and the corruption of planners that know a carrier's planes are useless if the ship has to stand off 500-1000 miles because of a cruise missile environment that they KNOW every third-world shitbox has been building for 30 years now, starting with the Norks. From aircraft to ships, a complete clusterfuck.

Personnel? Ya gotta be shitting me, right? Between the sexism, reverse-racism and the cultural kookiness from the top of a terrorized Central Command and throughout the military, right down to the pretty little Blonde Hispanic Black Dwarf tranny just dying to terrorize said command with a complaint, we really haven't much good to say about our staffing. It's not a meritocracy anymore, hasn't been since Reagan. The entire thing is sitting there waiting to be taken down and humiliated.

And still? We sprinkle the trillions onto the DC region, make the war planners rich, we still lionize Generals and Admirals that haven't won shit in 75 years and we cycle them through the think tanks and corporate boards of the defense contractors and make THEM rich too. Then we even put them in charge at the White House, having discarded the notion of Congressional approval for the wars they "fight" in our names. And they start wars. And finally, the notion that we have civilian control of our military is long gone. We are a Junta. There is a coup ongoing, two or more in our past and we're no more than a broke but dangerous and heavily armed danger to the rest of the world run by the thugs of the Pentagon, the think tanks, the defense contractors and the lazy sloth of Congress, who is supposed to keep this shit straight and Constitutional. Doom. Yes, the word doom comes to mind.

Don Bacon, October 2, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT

@anonymous re: "No one wants to die to help some politician save face."

I don't have a teevee, but I bet they didn't cover the mutiny in the ranks which is the main reason the US had to withdraw because of a "broken army." That included fragging, mission refusal, and an overall negative attitude as you suggest. Now we have a volunteer army, a warrior class, which changes that dynamic.

Jim Christian, October 2, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic

Thanks! Always appreciate your candor!

One man's opinion. I do wish someone would show me where I'm wrong, but I spent too many years down in DC doing their tech stuff after I left the Navy (too many women that couldn't, at that point in 82, go to sea) and so they only had more sea duty because the shore billets were all taken in their haste to "integrate" women into the Navy. Even instructor duty for Naval Air Maintenance was hosted by women that had never served a day in carrier air, training the young mice how to do business on a flight deck. They did offer me, for variety, another four year hitch in a WestPac squadron aboard one damned carrier deck or another. Already having done 5, I said no thanks and went back home to Virginia. And so I got familiar with the workings of the spooks, Booze, Allen, Heritage, Cato, Brookings, the Pentagon, NSA, FBI, Quantico, there were hundreds of them, most with two or three names in the chain of title. I did their phones for decades, they're psychos, they're paranoid, everything classified and spooky and ooga-booga. Worthless ants on a big log and they each think they're steering it down the river.

Bunch of fucking Frank Burns's is what they are..Cheers.

Diversity Heretic, October 2, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT

@Jim Christian Take care of yourself. People like you are a national asset, appreciated by at least some of us.

anonymous, Disclaimer October 2, 2017 at 11:03 pm GMT

There never was a communist threat. Not since at least the 1920s, when Stalin defeated Trotsky. Trotsky wanted world revolution. Stalin, for all his bloodthirsty antics in Russia, realised this was all nonsense. He just wanted Socialism in One Country, developing the country economically. He wasn't really interested in the outside world.

In the 1930s he was willing to cooperate with right wing western governments till they did a deal with Hitler in 1938. He was never interested in invading countries to grab land and resources. Whenever he did so, Poland in 1939, or Eastern Europe post 1945, it was for security reasons. The part of Poland he occupied in 1939 had been taken from Russia by force in 1920. It was inhabited by 1o million White Russians and Ukrainians and no Poles.

Jack Spratt, October 3, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

Wissing's book "Funding the enemy" details the totally corrupt Afghan government and is a compelling argument why we should pull out at once and needs to be read by anyone with half a brain. I served in Vietnam also, in 1967, and its deja vu all over again.

Capn Mike, October 3, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT

@The Alarmist Having been on – site at the time (North Tonkin Gulf), I can tell you that China gave U.S.N. units free rein over those waters, including Chinese waters. The fix was in. In 1969 onwards. China and Viet Nam were NEVER friends. Did CIA realize this? I don't know.

Vidi, October 3, 2017 at 6:15 am GMT

@DanC

Anyways, expect the US to keep on wasting money in Afghanistan (and Pakistan and Tajikistan) until it gets bankrupted by the next Big War!

Or until all the routes into Afghanistan are blocked. At the moment, the only route still open passes through Pakistan, and that may close at any time.

wayfarer, October 3, 2017 at 6:19 am GMT

Of the 58,220 Americans who were sacrificed by the U.S. Government during the Vietnam War, 270 were Jewish. That's approximately 0.46 percent of the total number of American kids who died, or less than a half of one-percent.

"Statistical Information About Casualties of the Vietnam War"

https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html

" 9/11 Israel Did It! "

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

Hibernian, October 3, 2017 at 10:57 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie The Japanese trained their naval cadets using a mock Pearl Harbor type exercise annually for a fair number of years prior to WW2. The Russo-Japanese War of 1905 began with a Japanese surprise attack. You have the unmitigated gall to attack Margolis as an establishment mouthpiece when you yourself are whitewashhing the "sainted" FDR. No prudent military planner would absolutely assume that the attack would come in one particular place, whether the Phillipines, Pearl, or elsewhere.

Hibernian, October 3, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT

@Don Bacon Too many of the volunteers are really economic draftees. You can have plenty of discipline problems with volunteers, I've seen it up close and personal, although never reaching the level of mutiny.

Che Guava, October 3, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT

@Capn Mike That is interesting to me. As is the Margolis artictle, never knew he had been a USA soldier, very interesting article. Thought he was a Canada person.

I have a question for you, Capn Mike.

If the PRC had allowed the USA free rein in Gulf of Tonkin, where were the supply lines to the Nth. Viet military and Viet Cong?

Must it not still have been overland from PRC at that time you say (1969)?

Hu Mi Yu, October 3, 2017 at 12:52 pm GMT

@Cranky

I don't for a moment believe that the 'saintly' President John Kennedy planned to end the war but was assassinated by dark, rightwing forces, as is claimed. This is a charming legend. Richard Nixon, Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson all feared that a withdrawal from Vietnam would lose them the next election. Republicans were still snarling over 'who lost China'.

I didn't like Kennedy either, but go back and reread the newspapers from the early days of the Kennedy administration. The oval office was bugged, and the information leaked in ways to embarrass Kennedy and UN Ambassador Adelai Stevenson. There is only one way that could have happened. Eisenhower installed those bugs before he left. These same bugs brought down Nixon in the Watergate crisis. The swamp wanted war, and they pulled the rug out from under both presidents as soon as they brought peace.

And a new Nixon in office .he vowed to get out too- and yet pushed more into it simply amazing.

He promised to get out and he did get us out. The peace treaty was announced just before the election in 1972. He knew it was his only hope for re-election. The Vietnamese disputed some of the terms, and that resulted in the Christmas bombing that year. The American withdrawal began in January 1973.

Trump promised to get us out of the Middle East. We should give him some rope. Maybe he hangs himself, or just maybe he can pull it off. He will need to be re-elected in three years.

Max Havelaar, October 3, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

Nice personal account of Vietnam.

However, the US foreign policy keeps holocausting the 3-rd world and lately the 2 -cond world.

The holocausts keep coming from US foreign policy of "exceptionalism" = "Nazi άbermensch"="the chosen ones" over this planet, many executed by the CIA-Nazi's:
The Syrian holocaust
The Yemen holocaust
The Ukranοan holocaust (Euromaidan) by Poroshenko/Nuland neo-nazi"s.
The Libyan holocaust
The Irak holocaust
The Afghanistan holocaust

The Belgrad holocaust

The Indonesian holocaust (Kissiger e.a.)
The Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia/Thailand holocaust (Kissinger e.a)
The Korean holocaust

During WWII:

The Jewish/Polish/Russian holocaust by Nazi's funded by Wallstreet/London bankers
The German holocaust (Die Rheinweisen lager) by US army Morgenthau plan.

Before WWII:
The Ukranian and Russain holocausts 1921-22, 1932-33 (holodomor) by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin.

All these, were and are financed by the Wallstreet elite owners, the Billionaires who are mega-fascists, eugenic and satanic in character. Their credo is GREED.

(sources: Antony Sutton, Carrol Quickley, W.F. Engdahl)

jacques sheete, October 3, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT

Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor.

A couple of the biggest lies were exposed, but the myths still live that the US government is an effective and dependable force for peace and freedom, and that the US military is an institution of dignity worthy of honor.

And people still put their faith (or is it hope) in the heartless cynics ( eunichs, really) with no balls, fewer brains, no soul, and even less honor.

[Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign

Highly recommended!
This is particular dirty campaign to implicate Trump and delegitimize his victory is a part of color revolution against Trump.
The other noble purpose is to find a scapegoat for the current problems, especially in Democratic Party, and to preserve Clinton neoliberals rule over the party for a few more futile years.
Notable quotes:
"... Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump. ..."
"... The mini-ads were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the issue. ..."
"... A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be automatized. ..."
"... This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates "news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it. ..."
"... We learned after the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of dollars by selling advertisements on their sites: ..."
"... The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he dropped nuggets of journalism advice. ..."
"... After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube. ..."
"... Russian Car Crash Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum". ..."
"... "Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the oligarchs. This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes). ..."
"... The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation . ..."
"... Great article. I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM business model. Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for. ..."
"... Russia gate, since it is unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites. ..."
"... The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these companies will bleed ad revenues. ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump.

It now turns out that these Facebook ads had nothing to do with the election. The mini-ads were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the issue.

On September 6 the NYT asserted :

Providing new evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Facebook disclosed on Wednesday that it had identified more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on hot-button issues purchased by a shadowy Russian company linked to the Kremlin.
...
The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign, which American intelligence agencies concluded was designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election.

Like any Congress investigation the current one concerned with Facebook ads is leaking like a sieve. What oozes out makes little sense.

If "Russia" aimed to make Congress and U.S. media a laughing stock it surely achieved that.

Today the NYT says that the ads were posted "in disguise" by "the Russians" to promote variously themed Facebook pages:

There was "Defend the 2nd," a Facebook page for gun-rights supporters, festooned with firearms and tough rhetoric. There was a rainbow-hued page for gay rights activists, "LGBT United." There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies that spread across the site with the help of paid ads

No one has explained how these pages are supposed to be connected to a Russian "influence" campaign. It is unexplained how these are supposed to connected to the 2016 election. That is simply asserted because Facebook said, for unknown reasons, that these ads may have come from some Russian agency. How Facebook has determined that is not known.

With each detail that leaks from the "Russian ads" investigation the propaganda framework of "election manipulation" falls further apart:

Late Monday, Facebook said in a post that about 10 million people had seen the ads in question. About 44 percent of the ads were seen before the 2016 election and the rest after, the company said

The original story propagandized that "Russia" intended to influence the election in favor of Trump. But why then was the majority of the ads in questions run later after November 9? And how would an animal-lovers page with adorable puppy pictures help to achieve Trumps election victory?

More details via the Wall Street Journal:

Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone. That's because advertising auctions are designed so that ads reach people based on relevance, and certain ads may not reach anyone as a result.
...
For 50% of the ads, less than $3 was spent; for 99% of the ads, less than $1,000 was spent.

Of the 3,000 ads Facebook originally claimed were "Russian" only 2,200 were ever viewed. Most of the advertisements were mini-ads which, for the price of a coffee, promoted private pages related to hobbies and a wide spectrum of controversial issues. The majority of the ads ran after the election.

All that "adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign ... designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election"?

No.

But the NYT still finds "experts" who believe in the "Russian influence" nonsense and find the most stupid reasons to justify their claims:

Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent now at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, said Russia had been entrepreneurial in trying to develop diverse channels of influence. Some, like the dogs page, may have been created without a specific goal and held in reserve for future use.

Puppy pictures for "future use"? Nonsense. Lunacy! The pages described and the ads leading to them are typical click-bait, not a political influence op.

The for-profit scheme runs as follows: One builds pages with "hot" stuff that attracts lots of viewers. One creates ad-space on these pages and fills it with Google ads. One promotes the spiked pages by buying $3 Facebook mini-ads for them.

A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be automatized.

This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates "news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it.

We learned after the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of dollars by selling advertisements on their sites:

The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he dropped nuggets of journalism advice.

"You have to write what people want to see, not what you want to show," he said, scrolling through The Political Insider's stories as a large banner read "ARREST HILLARY NOW."

The 3,000 Facebook ads Congress is investigating are part of a similar scheme. The mini-ads promoted pages with hot button issues and click-bait puppy pictures. These pages were themselves created to generate ad-clicks and revenue. As Facebook claims that "Russia" is behind them, we will likely find some Russian teens who simply repeated the scheme their Macedonian friends were running on.

With its "Russian influence" scare campaign the NYT follows the same business model. It is producing fake news which attracts viewers and readers who's attention is then sold to advertisers. Facebook is also profiting from this. Its current piecemeal release of vague information keeps its name in the news.

After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube.

Russian Car Crash Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum".

The car crash compilations, like the puppy pages, are another sign that Russia is waging war against the people of the United States!

You don't believe that? You should. Trust your experienced politician!

Samantha Power @SamanthaJPower - 3:45 PM - 3 Oct 2017

This gets more chilling daily : now we learn Russia targeted Americans on Facebook by "demographics, geography, gender & interests," across websites & devices, reached millions, kept going after Nov. An attack on all Americans, not just HRC campaign washingtonpost.com/business/econo

It indeed gets more chilling. It's fall. It also generates ad revenue.

Posted by b on October 3, 2017 at 02:09 PM | Permalink

nmb | Oct 3, 2017 2:20:52 PM | 1

As Shock Therapy failed miserably in the 90s, the neocon dynasty seeks now direct confrontation with Russia
Jackrabbit | Oct 3, 2017 2:32:24 PM | 2
"Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the oligarchs. This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes).

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation .

Taxi | Oct 3, 2017 2:32:34 PM | 3
Oh dear intrepidus, why are you still talking about MSM's favorite weapon of mass distraction?

Even though you make a fine point or two, at this stage, you're actually adding to the whirling stupidity by indulging it it yourself, methinks.

I'm so very, very over Russiagate and it's non-existent tentacles. Pfft!

Grieved | Oct 3, 2017 2:49:24 PM | 4
Thanks, b.

You're presenting a very good concept/meme to understand: Fake news is click bait for gain.

The same can be said for any sensationalism or shocking event - like the Kurdish referendum, like the Catalonia referendum, like the Vegas shooting - or like confrontational or dogmatic comments in threads about those events.

Everywhere we turn someone is trying to game us for some kind of gain. What matters is to step back from the front lines where our sense is accosted and offended, to step back from the automatic reflex, and to remember that someone triggered that reflex, deliberately, for their gain, not ours.

We have to reside in reason and equanimity, because the moment we indulge in our righteous anger or our strong convictions, the odds are extremely good that someone is playing us.

It's a wicked world, but in fact we live in an age when we can see its meta characteristics like never before.

Anon | Oct 3, 2017 2:49:39 PM | 5
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.

What we see is the biggest psyop., propaganda disinformation campaig ever in the western media, far more powerful than "nuclear Iraq" of 2003.
Still, and this should be a warning, majority of people in EU/US believe this nonsense.

the pair | Oct 3, 2017 3:07:19 PM | 6
$3 ads on facebook seen by nobody:

"russian meddling! their puppies hate our freedom!"

pharmaceutical ads on every evening news show and boeing/lockheed sponsoring the "p"bs news hour?"

"nothing to see here! take off your tin foil hat you f_cking alex jones putinbot!!!!"

you'd think by now most americans would realize the actual threat is other americans. the rest of the world realized it long ago.

sejomoje | Oct 3, 2017 3:08:47 PM | 7
I lol'd. But seriously the next step is a false flag implicating Russia. They're getting nowhere assassinating Russian diplomats and shooting down Russian aircraft, both military and civilian. Even overthrowing governments who are Russia-friendly hasn't seem to provoke a response.

But I consider the domestic Russia buzz to be performance art, and I imagine it's become even grating to some of its participants. How could it not be, unless everyone is heavily medicated(a lot certainly are)? Anyway it's by design that the western media and the political classes they serve need a script, they're incapable of discussing actual issues. Independence has been made quaint.

karlof1 | Oct 3, 2017 3:10:42 PM | 8
Hi Grieved--

I posted this link at the Vegas thread, but the item's contents are valid here too, and speaks to the content of your above comment, https://sputniknews.com/viral/201710031057912410-google-facebook-youtube-vegas-fake-news/

somebody | Oct 3, 2017 3:11:44 PM | 9
The line between politics and product marketing has gone.

But no matter if "the Russians" influenced the US election or not - after all that is what most countries do to each other - the FBI is correct that to be able to target audiences according to demographics and individual traits is a powerful tool.

Like the double hoax of " The War of Worlds broadcast ".

The newspapers had a clear agenda. An editorial in The New York Times, headlined In the Terror by Radio, was used to censure the relatively new medium of radio, which was becoming a serious competitor in providing news and advertising. "Radio is new but it has adult responsibilities. It has not mastered itself or the material it uses," said the editorial leader comment on November 1 1938. In an excellent piece in Slate magazine in 2013, Jefferson Pooley (associate professor of media and communication at Muhlenberg College) and Michael J Socolow (associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of Maine) looked at the continuing popularity of the myth of mass panic and they took to task NPR's Radiolab programme about the incident and the Radiolab assertion that "The United States experienced a kind of mass hysteria that we've never seen before." Pooley and Socolow wrote: "How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America's newspapers. ... AND IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO COPY ORSON WELLES . . . In February 1949, Leonardo Paez and Eduardo Alcaraz produced a Spanish-language version of Welles's 1938 script for Radio Quito in Ecuador. The broadcast set off panic. Quito police and fire brigades rushed out of town to fight the supposed alien invasion force. After it was revealed that the broadcast was fiction, the panic transformed into a riot. The riot resulted in at least seven deaths, including those of Paez's girlfriend and nephew. The offices Radio Quito, and El Comercio, a local newspaper that had participated in the hoax by publishing false reports of unidentified flying objects in the days preceding the broadcast, were both burned to the ground.
ashley albanese | Oct 3, 2017 3:13:06 PM | 10
Jackrabbit 2
No - the two words the Capital system fears the most are SURPLUS VALUE , the control of the 'profit principle' for social not private ends .
Lea | Oct 3, 2017 3:42:35 PM | 11
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.

The "Russiadunnit" thingy has turned into a business in the US. And when a new market is launched in the US, as people depend on it for their living and careers, it generally doesn't go away.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/28/the-slimy-business-of-russia-gate/

OJS | Oct 3, 2017 3:45:59 PM | 12
god bless amerika

somebody | Oct 3, 2017 3:11:44 PM | 9
The American panic was a myth, the Equadorian panic in 1949 not so much. I listened to this Radiolab podcast about same ... the details of how they pulled it off in a one-radio station country pre-internet are interesting and valuable (they widely advertised a very popular music program which was then "interrupted" by the hoax to ensure near-universal audience (including the police and other authorities). Very very fews were "in on the joke" and it wasn't a joke. whole page on WooW: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91622-war-of-the-worlds/

specific could it happen again? http://www.radiolab.org/story/91624-could-it-happen-again-and-again/

c1ue | Oct 3, 2017 3:58:38 PM | 14
Great article. I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM business model. Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for.
Christian Chuba | Oct 3, 2017 3:58:49 PM | 15
Russian Trolls outed as kids from Oregon: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/taibbi-latest-fake-news-panic-appears-to-be-fake-news-w506396
"Lankford shocked the world this week by revealing that "Russian Internet trolls" were stoking the NFL kneeling debate. ... Conservative outlets like Breitbart and Newsmax and Fox played up the "Russians stoked the kneeling controversy" angle because it was in their interest to suggest that domestic support for kneeling protests is less than what it appears....

The Post reported that Lankford's office had cited one of "Boston Antifa's" tweets. But the example offered read suspiciously like a young net-savvy American goofing on antifa stereotypes "More gender inclusivity with NFL fans and gluten free options at stadiums We're liking the new NFL #NewNFL #TakeAKnee #TakeTheKnee." ...

The group was most likely a pair of yahoos from Oregon named Alexis Esteb and Brandon Krebs. "

Christian Chuba | Oct 3, 2017 4:00:46 PM | 16
Pity Rolling Stone got caught up in that fake college rape allegation, they have actually done some solid reporting. Every MSM outlet has had multiple fake stories, so should RS be shunned for life for one bad story?
Kalen | Oct 3, 2017 4:03:18 PM | 17
It is time that sane part of independent media understood that there is no more need to rationally respond to psychotic delusions of Deep State puppets in Russia gate, since it is unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites.

There are only two effective responses to provocation namely silence or violence, anything else plays the book of provocateurs.

Susan Sunflower | Oct 3, 2017 4:13:28 PM | 18
Now they're seriously undermining their claims of intentionality ... as well as their wildly inflated claims effect on outcome or even effective "undermining" ... again, compared to Citizens United and the long-count of 2000 ... negligible....

And still insisting that Hillary Clinton is Russia's Darth Vader against whom unlimited resources are marshalled because she must be stopped ... even though she damn near won... and the reasons she lost seems unrelated to such vagaries as the DNC e-mails or facebook campaigns (unless you believe she had a god-given right to each and every vote)

Don Bacon | Oct 3, 2017 4:13:47 PM | 19

Lucky for us that television "news" doesn't use this business model. /s
Pnyx | Oct 3, 2017 5:02:54 PM | 20
Why do you think this is important enough to make the effort to write another blog entry B? Everyone who wants to know that this is all fantasy knows by now.
Mina | Oct 3, 2017 5:05:12 PM | 21
https://mobile.twitter.com/dgaytandzhieva/status/913545591757697024
brian | Oct 3, 2017 5:09:39 PM | 22
'Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump.

This is the same US congress that regularly marches off to Israel to receive orders

https://www.amazon.com/They-Dare-Speak-Out-Institutions/dp/155652482X

those who dont obey orders: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/how-i-got-fired/

Susan Sunflower | Oct 3, 2017 5:36:59 PM | 23
@ Posted by: Pnyx | Oct 3, 2017 5:02:54 PM | 20

This isn't about the "truth" (or lies) wrt Russian involvement, it's about the increasingly rapid failure of the Government/Establishment's narrative ...

Increasingly they can't even keep their accusations "alive" for more than a few days ... and some of their accusations (like the one here, that some "Russian" sites were created and not used, but to be held for use at some future date) become fairly ridiculous ... and the "remedy" to "Russians" creating clickbait sites for some future nefarious use, I think can only be banning all Russians from creating sites ... or maybe using facebook altogether ... all with no evidence of evil-doers actually doing evil...

It's rather like Jared Kushner's now THIRD previously undisclosed private e-mail account ... fool me once versus how disorganized/dumb/arrogant/crooked is this guy?

Lochearn | Oct 3, 2017 6:43:01 PM | 24
Sorry to be off topic but yesterday the Saker of the Vineyard published a couple of articles about Catalonia. The first was a diatribe, a nasty hatchet job on the Catalan people which included the following referring to the Catalan people:

"The Problems they have because with their corruption, inefficiency, mismanagement, inability and sometimes the simplest stupidity, are always the fault of others (read Spaniards here) which gives them "carte blanche" to keep going on with it."

"... They (the independistas) are NATIONAL SOCIALIST (aka NAZI) in their Ideology"

Then Saker published an article by Peter Koenig that was reasonable and what we have come to expect. Then he forbade all comments on either of the two articles. My comment was banned, which simply said in my opinion from working for fourteen years in Spain that the Catalans were extremely efficient in comparison with their Madrid counterparts.

ToivoS | Oct 3, 2017 7:32:04 PM | 25
I must admit that I became a fan of watching those Russian car crashes that were captured by the cams many russian drivers keep on their dash boards. Some of these were very funny. I was not aware that made me a victim of Putin propaganda. In any case, they are not that interesting anymore once they were commercialized. That was about 10 years ago.
Susan Sunflower | Oct 3, 2017 7:43:29 PM | 26
I'm waiting for the expose of the Russian mail-order bride business (Do they still exist?)
ab initio | Oct 3, 2017 8:29:04 PM | 27
Very good analysis.

The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these companies will bleed ad revenues.

ben | Oct 3, 2017 8:30:46 PM | 28
Jackrabbit @ 2: Yep!!

And here is another part to the puzzle:

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19516:Empire-Files%3A-The-Hidden-Purging-of-Millions-of-Voters

Chipnik | Oct 3, 2017 8:42:54 PM | 29
Your answer can be found ...right ...here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yc7kskox
james | Oct 3, 2017 8:44:05 PM | 30
OT - more from comedy central - daily USA press briefing from today...

"QUESTION: On Iran, would you and the State Department say, as Secretary Mattis said today, that staying in the JCPOA would be in the U.S. national interest?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is this a position you share?

MS NAUERT: So I'm certainly familiar with what Secretary Mattis said on Capitol Hill today. Secretary Mattis, of course, one of many people who is providing expertise and counsel to the President on the issue of Iran and the JCPOA. The President is getting lots of information on that. We have about 12 days or so, I think, to make our determination for the next JCPOA guideline.

The administration looks at JCPOA as – the fault in the JCPOA as not looking at the totality of Iran's bad behavior. Secretary Tillerson talked about that at length at the UN General Assembly. So did the President as well. We know that Iran is responsible for terror attacks. We know that Iran arms the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which leads to a more miserable failed state, awful situation in Yemen, for example. We know what they're doing in Syria. Where you find the Iranian Government, you can often find terrible things happening in the world. This administration is very clear about highlighting that and will look at Iran in sort of its totality of all of its bad behaviors, not just the nuclear deal.

I don't want to get ahead of the discussions that are ongoing with this – within the administration, as it pertains to Iran. The President has said he's made he's decision, and so I don't want to speak on behalf of the President, and he'll just have to make that determination when he's ready to do so."

https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2017/10/274592.htm

[Oct 03, 2017] North Koreans remember well that their country was literally flattened by US bombing, and many may recall how US forces bombed major dams when there were no other targets left

Notable quotes:
"... The North Korean dictatorship may well win the prize for brutality and repression, but it is seeking and to some extent carrying out economic development, despite the overwhelming burden of a huge military system. That system includes, of course, a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and missiles, which pose a threat to the region and, in the longer term, to countries beyond -- but its function is to be a deterrent, one that the North Korean regime is unlikely to abandon as long as it remains under threat of destruction. ..."
"... Today, we are instructed that the great challenge faced by the world is how to compel North Korea to freeze these nuclear and missile programs. Perhaps we should resort to more sanctions, cyberwar, intimidation; to the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system, which China regards as a serious threat to its own interests; perhaps even to direct attack on North Korea -- which, it is understood, would elicit retaliation by massed artillery, devastating Seoul and much of South Korea even without the use of nuclear weapons. ..."
"... But there is another option, one that seems to be ignored: we could simply accept North Korea's offer to do what we are demanding. China and North Korea have already proposed that North Korea freeze its nuclear and missile programs. The proposal, though, was rejected at once by Washington, just as it had been two years earlier, because it includes a quid pro quo: it calls on the United States to halt its threatening military exercises on North Korea's borders, including simulated nuclear-bombing attacks by B-52s. ..."
"... The 2017 South Korean elections may offer a ray of hope. Newly elected President Moon Jae-in seems intent on reversing the harsh confrontationist policies of his predecessor. He has called for exploring diplomatic options and taking steps toward reconciliation, which is surely an improvement over the angry fist-waving that might lead to real disaster. ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

Barsamian: What are the strategic issues where Korea is concerned? Can anything be done to defuse the growing conflict?

Chomsky: Korea has been a festering problem since the end of World War II, when the hopes of Koreans for unification of the peninsula were blocked by the intervention of the great powers, the United States bearing primary responsibility.

The North Korean dictatorship may well win the prize for brutality and repression, but it is seeking and to some extent carrying out economic development, despite the overwhelming burden of a huge military system. That system includes, of course, a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and missiles, which pose a threat to the region and, in the longer term, to countries beyond -- but its function is to be a deterrent, one that the North Korean regime is unlikely to abandon as long as it remains under threat of destruction.

Today, we are instructed that the great challenge faced by the world is how to compel North Korea to freeze these nuclear and missile programs. Perhaps we should resort to more sanctions, cyberwar, intimidation; to the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system, which China regards as a serious threat to its own interests; perhaps even to direct attack on North Korea -- which, it is understood, would elicit retaliation by massed artillery, devastating Seoul and much of South Korea even without the use of nuclear weapons.

But there is another option, one that seems to be ignored: we could simply accept North Korea's offer to do what we are demanding. China and North Korea have already proposed that North Korea freeze its nuclear and missile programs. The proposal, though, was rejected at once by Washington, just as it had been two years earlier, because it includes a quid pro quo: it calls on the United States to halt its threatening military exercises on North Korea's borders, including simulated nuclear-bombing attacks by B-52s.

The Chinese-North Korean proposal is hardly unreasonable. North Koreans remember well that their country was literally flattened by U.S. bombing , and many may recall how U.S. forces bombed major dams when there were no other targets left. There were gleeful reports in American military publications about the exciting spectacle of a huge flood of water wiping out the rice crops on which "the Asian" depends for survival. They are very much worth reading, a useful part of historical memory.

The offer to freeze North Korea's nuclear and missile programs in return for an end to highly provocative actions on North Korea's border could be the basis for more far-reaching negotiations, which could radically reduce the nuclear threat and perhaps even bring the North Korea crisis to an end. Contrary to much inflamed commentary, there are good reasons to think such negotiations might succeed. Yet even though the North Korean programs are constantly described as perhaps the greatest threat we face, the Chinese-North Korean proposal is unacceptable to Washington, and is rejected by U.S. commentators with impressive unanimity. This is another entry in the shameful and depressing record of near-reflexive preference for force when peaceful options may well be available.

The 2017 South Korean elections may offer a ray of hope. Newly elected President Moon Jae-in seems intent on reversing the harsh confrontationist policies of his predecessor. He has called for exploring diplomatic options and taking steps toward reconciliation, which is surely an improvement over the angry fist-waving that might lead to real disaster.

[Oct 03, 2017] US military vehicles paraded 300 yards from the Russian border by Michael Birnbaum

Th at reckless demonstration of force on the border is the essence of Obama administration approach to Russia. With the foreign policy dominated by people from CIA
Notable quotes:
"... Americans need to stop and look again at the Cuban Missile Crisis. If he had listened to the generals Washington would have been vaporized and we would have had full scale nuclear war. ..."
"... Oh, and by the way, whoever gave the order to participate in such an "in your face" demonstration 300m from the border of a country that already fears for their security, should be COURT MARTIALED!! THIS WHOLE THING IS GOING TO TURN OUT REALLY BAD FOR BOTH COUNTRIES!!!!!! ..."
"... Mutually assured provocation. ..."
"... The U.S. has been "at war" 93% of the time since 1776. 97% if counting the proxy wars. ..."
"... If the EU and US were interested in any Peace they would not be arming and funding terrorist groups like ISIS / Al-Qaeda but would actually fight them. ..."
Feb 24, 2015 | www.washingtonpost.com

MOSCOW - U.S. military combat vehicles paraded Wednesday through an Estonian city that juts into Russia, a symbolic act that highlighted the stakes for both sides amid the worst tensions between the West and Russia since the Cold War.

The armored personnel carriers and other U.S. Army vehicles that rolled through the streets of Narva, a border city separated by a narrow frontier from Russia, were a dramatic reminder of the new military confrontation in Eastern Europe.

Frazzled2 3/9/2015 8:57 PM EDT

Americans need to stop and look again at the Cuban Missile Crisis. If he had listened to the generals Washington would have been vaporized and we would have had full scale nuclear war.

It was only after they did all they could to try to convince Kennedy to bomb Cuba, and many years had passed, that it was found out that the nuclear missiles were operational.

If the Generals (especially Lemay) had been listened to history would have been a WHOLE LOT different!

Another widely unknown fact was that it was not a case of the Russian simply backing down. We gave up missiles in Turkey in return for the removal of the Russian missiles.

So what does any of this have to do with today? Then we had Kennedy who had the strength to do what was right and the foreign affairs intelligence to override his generals and do what was right. Today we have "The Community Organizer" who has to find the wisdom to do what's right.

Oh, and by the way, whoever gave the order to participate in such an "in your face" demonstration 300m from the border of a country that already fears for their security, should be COURT MARTIALED!! THIS WHOLE THING IS GOING TO TURN OUT REALLY BAD FOR BOTH COUNTRIES!!!!!!

Benjamin Jowett 3/9/2015 11:55 AM EDT
"The United States has sent hundreds of military personnel to joint NATO exercises in the Baltics". Hundreds? We sent "hundreds" of "personnel" (of whom only a small proportion were probably combat soldiers)? And that is supposed to intimidate Putin? ...
Arreb 3/9/2015 10:59 AM EDT [Edited]
What a load of bull crap. Most of the people in the UKraine voted against having anything to do with the West controlled EU because they knew they would be raped and pillaged like that has been done to them since the West overthrew their elected government. This vote of the people against the EU was what sparked the US over throw of the Ukraine.

The US had the new Ukraine leader already selected for the take over two months before we over threw their governement.

Not even two weeks after the over throw the US was already talking about starting to frak for gas there .

This take over is all about controlling Russia and pushing Russia into corner and to try to force Russais into another World War when Russia did nothing wrong but bow to the wishes of the people in Crimea and try to protect their people and assets.
The real criminal here is the US and the EU. ... more See More Like Share

Steve Collins 3/9/2015 9:10 AM EDT
NATO is a defense organization. Why is Russia. "NOT" wanting neighbors to have adequate defenses? An Even bigger question; Why do Russian neighbors feel a need to join a defense organization?
Frazzled2 3/9/2015 9:06 PM EDT
Russia LOST 24 MILLION people the last time the west moved up to their borders. Remember how we felt when we lost 3000 on 9/11? how about the 2500 or so 12/7/1941, for that matter how about when we simply had Russian missiles pointed at us in Cuba??

WE still haven't gotten over the effects of either, so imagine how Russia feels about 24 million DEAD and US combat troops right on their borders. I hope that maybe those FACTS puts a little perspective on this, but I doubt it......

Lets all chant together as we watch American and Russian cities go up in a mushroom cloud, "USA USA USA"

SocialistSecurity 3/2/2015 9:57 AM EST
Mutually assured provocation.
jRahall727 2/28/2015 1:50 PM EST
The U.S. has been "at war" 93% of the time since 1776. 97% if counting the proxy wars.
Oleg Moseev 2/28/2015 2:54 AM EST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKiFCIS2GJU

if one Russian isn't afraid to stand with a flag on your parade, think that will be if we get up all. we want the peace, but we will be able to protect ourselves

Arreb 3/9/2015 11:06 AM EDT [Edited]
The trouble is the US and EU have never has been intersted in peace but only control of every country. This is why they over throw any world government who refuses to join the EU.

We saw this in Syria, Egypt, Iran, other countries as well in the Ukraine and they are not done yet.

If the EU and US were interested in any Peace they would not be arming and funding terrorist groups like ISIS / Al-Qaeda but would actually fight them.

Sergey Alferov 2/28/2015 2:30 AM EST
US became the evil empire and want to unleash the world's third world war. Nuclear.
Sergey Alferov 2/28/2015 2:27 AM EST
Russia defended Europe from the Mongols, the Turks, from fascism and liberated from Napoleon. Russia allowed without blood disconnect from its territory of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbadzhana, Moldova, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan. Russia helped to reunite Germany. Russia defended in 2008 from Georgia and genocide on its part of the Orthodox Ossetians. Crimea hundreds of years was Russian territory, Russian and live there.

Crimeans happily separated from the Ukraine. US $ 5 billion overthrew the legitimate government of Ukraine and put him in the leadership of the military junta. Ukrainian fascists beginning of genocide against Russian speaking population in the Donbas and Lugansk, Russian volunteers help self-defense forces of the People's Republic of Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic. Russian-speaking population is oppressed in Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov. MH-17 downed Ukrainian military fighters, for what would provoke hatred of Russia.

Now NATO is defiantly holds military march near the border with Russia. This unfriendly and can have extremely negative consequences.

jRahall727 2/28/2015 1:52 PM EST
Ask Western-backed mercenary assassins.

[Oct 03, 2017] Are You Ready to Die by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards." ..."
"... In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that they are sophisticated and in the know. ..."
"... Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia are false. ..."
"... This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to military attack. ..."
"... What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes? ..."
"... I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. ..."
Oct 02, 2017 | www.unz.com

Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept exposes the fake news put out by the US Department of Homeland Security (an euphemistic name for a Big Brother operation that spies on US citizens) that Russia hacked 21 US state elections, news that was instantly spread around the world by the presstitute media. The propagandists running Homeland Security were contradicted by the state governments, forcing Homeland Security to retract its fake news claims. https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

The unasked/unanswered question is why did Homeland Security put out a FAKE NEWS story?

Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards."

In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that they are sophisticated and in the know.

What Greenwald doesn't address is the effect of the massive amount of fake news on Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia are false. So why is Washington making false accusations against Russia?

This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to military attack.

Iran and North Korea cannot attack the US and its European vassals, but Russia and China can. I have written about the Operational Command of the Russian armed forces conclusion that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. Instead of reassuring the Russians that no such planning is in the works, Washington has instead pushed further the fake news Russiagate story with the false report that Russia had hacked the elections of 21 states.

What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes?

If you were the Russian government, would you conclude that your country was the next to be attacked militarily by Washington? If you were the Russian government, you would know that Washington/NATO cannot possibly attack Russia except by surprise nuclear strike. Knowing this, if you were the Russian government, would you sit there and wait on the strike? Imagine yourself the Russian government listening day in, day out, to endless wild improbable charges against Russia. What can Russia possibly conclude other than this is preparation of Western peoples for a nuclear attack on Russia?

Russia is not going to be hung like Saddan Hussein or murdered like Gaddafi.

I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. The crazed morons in Washington are risking the life of the planet. The presstitutes are worse than the whores that they are. They never question the path to war; they only amplify it. Washington's craven, cowardly, moronic vassal states in UK, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, and the rest of the EU/NATO idiots are, by their cooperation with Washington, begging for their own destruction.

Nowhere in the West is there a sign of intelligence.

Will Washington follow Adolf Hitler's folly and march into Russia?

[Oct 02, 2017] High Tech Pork The Pentagon's New Wonder Weapons for World Dominion

Notable quotes:
"... As part of his own contribution to that complex, Eisenhower had overseen the creation of both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, and a "high-risk, high-gain" research unit called the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, that later added the word "Defense" to its name and became DARPA. ..."
"... Even when defeated or fought to a draw, as in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's research matrix has demonstrated a recurring resilience that could turn disaster into further technological advance. ..."
"... The Vietnam War, for example, was a thoroughgoing tactical failure, yet it would also prove a technological triumph for the military-industrial complex. Although most Americans remember only the Army's soul-destroying ground combat in the villages of South Vietnam, the Air Force fought the biggest air war in military history there and, while it too failed dismally and destructively, it turned out to be a crucial testing ground for a revolution in robotic weaponry. ..."
"... At a cost of $800 million a year, Operation Igloo White laced that narrow mountain corridor with 20,000 acoustic, seismic, and thermal sensors that sent signals to four EC-121 communications aircraft circling ceaselessly overhead. ..."
"... However, after more than 100,000 North Vietnamese troops with tanks, trucks, and artillery somehow moved through that sensor field undetected for a massive offensive in 1972, the Air Force had to admit that its $6 billion "electronic battlefield" was an unqualified failure ..."
"... In the pressure cooker of history's largest air war, the Air Force also transformed an old weapon, the "Firebee" target drone , into a new technology that would rise to significance three decades later. By 1972, the Air Force could send an "SC/TV" drone, equipped with a camera in its nose, up to 2,400 miles across communist China or North Vietnam while controlling it via a low-resolution television image. The Air Force also made aviation history by test firing the first missile from one of those drones. ..."
"... To effect this technological transformation, starting in 2009 the Pentagon planned to spend $55 billion annually to develop robotics for a data-dense interface of space, cyberspace, and terrestrial battle space. ..."
"... By 2025, the United States will likely deploy advanced aerospace and cyberwarfare to envelop the planet in a robotic matrix theoretically capable of blinding entire armies or atomizing an individual insurgent. ..."
"... Within a decade, the Pentagon apparently hopes to patrol the entire planet ceaselessly via a triple-canopy aerospace shield that would reach from sky to space and be secured by an armada of drones with lethal missiles and Argus-eyed sensors, monitored through an electronic matrix and controlled by robotic systems. It's even possible to take you on a tour of the super-secret realm where future space wars will be fought, if the Pentagon's dreams become reality, by exploring both DARPA websites and those of its various defense contractors. ..."
Oct 02, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

... ... ...

In 2009, building on advances in digital surveillance under the Bush administration, Obama launched the U.S. Cyber Command. Its headquarters were set up inside the National Security Agency (NSA) at Fort Meade, Maryland, and a cyberwar center staffed by 7,000 Air Force employees was established at Lackland Air Base in Texas. Two years later, the Pentagon moved beyond conventional combat on air, land, or sea to declare cyberspace both an offensive and defensive "operational domain." In August, despite his wide-ranging attempt to purge the government of anything connected to Barack Obama's "legacy," President Trump implemented his predecessor's long-delayed plan to separate that cyber command from the NSA in a bid to "strengthen our cyberspace operations."

And what is all this technology being prepared for? In study after study, the intelligence community , the Pentagon , and related think tanks have been unanimous in identifying the main threat to future U.S. global hegemony as a rival power with an expanding economy, a strengthening military, and global ambitions: China, the home of those denizens of the Gobi Desert who would, in that old Buck Rogers fable, destroy Washington four centuries from now. Given that America's economic preeminence is fading fast, breakthroughs in "information warfare" might indeed prove Washington's best bet for extending its global hegemony further into this century -- but don't count on it, given the history of techno-weaponry in past wars.

Techno-Triumph in Vietnam

Ever since the Pentagon with its 17 miles of corridors was completed in 1943, that massive bureaucratic maze has presided over a creative fusion of science and industry that President Dwight Eisenhower would dub "the military-industrial complex" in his farewell address to the nation in 1961. "We can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense," he told the American people. "We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions" sustained by a "technological revolution" that is "complex and costly." As part of his own contribution to that complex, Eisenhower had overseen the creation of both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, and a "high-risk, high-gain" research unit called the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, that later added the word "Defense" to its name and became DARPA.

For 70 years, this close alliance between the Pentagon and major defense contractors has produced an unbroken succession of "wonder weapons" that at least theoretically gave it a critical edge in all major military domains. Even when defeated or fought to a draw, as in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's research matrix has demonstrated a recurring resilience that could turn disaster into further technological advance.

The Vietnam War, for example, was a thoroughgoing tactical failure, yet it would also prove a technological triumph for the military-industrial complex. Although most Americans remember only the Army's soul-destroying ground combat in the villages of South Vietnam, the Air Force fought the biggest air war in military history there and, while it too failed dismally and destructively, it turned out to be a crucial testing ground for a revolution in robotic weaponry.

To stop truck convoys that the North Vietnamese were sending through southern Laos into South Vietnam, the Pentagon's techno-wizards combined a network of sensors, computers, and aircraft in a coordinated electronic bombing campaign that, from 1968 to 1973, dropped more than a million tons of munitions -- equal to the total tonnage for the whole Korean War -- in that limited area. At a cost of $800 million a year, Operation Igloo White laced that narrow mountain corridor with 20,000 acoustic, seismic, and thermal sensors that sent signals to four EC-121 communications aircraft circling ceaselessly overhead.

At a U.S. air base just across the Mekong River in Thailand, Task Force Alpha deployed two powerful IBM 360/65 mainframe computers, equipped with history's first visual display monitors, to translate all those sensor signals into "an illuminated line of light" and so launch jet fighters over the Ho Chi Minh Trail where computers discharged laser-guided bombs automatically. Bristling with antennae and filled with the latest computers, its massive concrete bunker seemed, at the time, a futuristic marvel to a visiting Pentagon official who spoke rapturously about "being swept up in the beauty and majesty of the Task Force Alpha temple."

However, after more than 100,000 North Vietnamese troops with tanks, trucks, and artillery somehow moved through that sensor field undetected for a massive offensive in 1972, the Air Force had to admit that its $6 billion "electronic battlefield" was an unqualified failure. Yet that same bombing campaign would prove to be the first crude step toward a future electronic battlefield for unmanned robotic warfare.

In the pressure cooker of history's largest air war, the Air Force also transformed an old weapon, the "Firebee" target drone , into a new technology that would rise to significance three decades later. By 1972, the Air Force could send an "SC/TV" drone, equipped with a camera in its nose, up to 2,400 miles across communist China or North Vietnam while controlling it via a low-resolution television image. The Air Force also made aviation history by test firing the first missile from one of those drones.

The air war in Vietnam was also an impetus for the development of the Pentagon's global telecommunications satellite system, another important first. After the Initial Defense Satellite Communications System launched seven orbital satellites in 1966, ground terminals in Vietnam started transmitting high-resolution aerial surveillance photos to Washington -- something NASA called a "revolutionary development." Those images proved so useful that the Pentagon quickly launched an additional 21 satellites and soon had the first system that could communicate from anywhere on the globe. Today, according to an Air Force website, the third phase of that system provides secure command, control, and communications for "the Army's ground mobile forces, the Air Force's airborne terminals, Navy ships at sea, the White House Communications Agency, the State Department, and special users" like the CIA and NSA.

At great cost, the Vietnam War marked a watershed in Washington's global information architecture. Turning defeat into innovation, the Air Force had developed the key components -- satellite communications, remote sensing, computer-triggered bombing, and unmanned aircraft -- that would merge 40 years later into a new system of robotic warfare.

The War on Terror

Facing another set of defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq, the twenty-first-century Pentagon again accelerated the development of new military technologies. After six years of failing counterinsurgency campaigns in both countries, the Pentagon discovered the power of biometric identification and electronic surveillance to help pacify sprawling urban areas. And when President Obama later conducted his troop "surge" in Afghanistan, that country became a frontier for testing and perfecting drone warfare

deployed in the Balkans that very year for photo-reconnaissance. In 2000, it was adapted for real-time surveillance under the CIA's Operation Afghan Eyes. It would be armed with the tank-killing Hellfire missile for the agency's first lethal strike in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in October 2001. Seven years later, the Air Force introduced the larger MQ-9 "Reaper" drone with a flying range of 1,150 miles when fully loaded with Hellfire missiles and GBU-30 bombs, allowing it to strike targets almost anywhere in Europe, Africa, or Asia. To fulfill its expanding mission as Washington's global assassin , the Air Force plans to have 346 Reapers in service by 2021, including 80 for the CIA

Between 2004 and 2010, total flying time for all unmanned aerial vehicles rose sharply from just 71 hours to 250,000 hours. By 2011, there were already 7,000 drones in a growing U.S. armada of unmanned aircraft. So central had they become to its military power that the Pentagon was planning to spend $40 billion to expand their numbers by 35% over the following decade. To service all this growth, the Air Force was training 350 drone pilots, more than all its bomber and fighter pilots combined.

Miniature or monstrous, hand-held or runway-launched, drones were becoming so commonplace and so critical for so many military missions that they emerged from the war on terror as one of America's wonder weapons for preserving its global power. Yet the striking innovations in drone warfare are, in the long run, likely to be overshadowed by stunning aerospace advances in the stratosphere and exosphere.

The Pentagon's Triple Canopy

As in Vietnam, despite bitter reverses on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington's recent wars have been catalysts for the fusion of aerospace, cyberspace, and artificial intelligence into a new military regime of robotic warfare.

To effect this technological transformation, starting in 2009 the Pentagon planned to spend $55 billion annually to develop robotics for a data-dense interface of space, cyberspace, and terrestrial battle space. Through an annual allocation for new technologies reaching $18 billion in 2016, the Pentagon had, according to the New York Times , "put artificial intelligence at the center of its strategy to maintain the United States' position as the world's dominant military power," exemplified by future drones that will be capable of identifying and eliminating enemy targets without recourse to human overseers. By 2025, the United States will likely deploy advanced aerospace and cyberwarfare to envelop the planet in a robotic matrix theoretically capable of blinding entire armies or atomizing an individual insurgent.

During 15 years of nearly limitless military budgets for the war on terror, DARPA has spent billions of dollars trying to develop new weapons systems worthy of Buck Rogers that usually die on the drawing board or end in spectacular crashes. Through this astronomically costly process of trial and error, Pentagon planners seem to have come to the slow realization that established systems, particularly drones and satellites, could in combination create an effective aerospace architecture.

Within a decade, the Pentagon apparently hopes to patrol the entire planet ceaselessly via a triple-canopy aerospace shield that would reach from sky to space and be secured by an armada of drones with lethal missiles and Argus-eyed sensors, monitored through an electronic matrix and controlled by robotic systems. It's even possible to take you on a tour of the super-secret realm where future space wars will be fought, if the Pentagon's dreams become reality, by exploring both DARPA websites and those of its various defense contractors.

Drones in the Lower Stratosphere

At the bottom tier of this emerging aerospace shield in the lower stratosphere (about 30,000 to 60,000 feet high), the Pentagon is working with defense contractors to develop high-altitude drones that will replace manned aircraft. To supersede the manned U-2 surveillance aircraft, for instance, the Pentagon has been preparing a projected armada of 99 Global Hawk drones at a mind-boggling cost of $223 million each, seven times the price of the current Reaper model. Its extended 116-foot wingspan (bigger than that of a Boeing 737) is geared to operating at 60,000 feet. Each Global Hawk is equipped with high-resolution cameras, advanced electronic sensors, and efficient engines for a continuous 32-hour flight, which means that it can potentially survey up to 40,000 square miles of the planet's surface daily. With its enormous bandwidth needed to bounce a torrent of audio-visual data between satellites and ground stations, however, the Global Hawk, like other long-distance drones in America's armada, may prove vulnerable to a hostile hack attack in some future conflict.

... ... ...

[Oct 02, 2017] the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens 'Double standard hypocrisy' Serbian president on EU denouncement of Catalan refere

Oct 02, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

'Double standard & hypocrisy': Serbian president on EU denouncement of Catalan referendum Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has accused the EU of hypocrisy and double-standards following its denouncement of the Catalonian referendum as illegal, while acknowledging the independence of the breakaway province of Kosovo.
" The question every citizen of Serbia has for the European Union today is: How come that in the case of Catalonia the referendum on independence is not valid, while in the case of Kosovo secession is allowed even without a referendum, " B92 quoted Vucic as saying during a news conference.
" How did you proclaim the secession of Kosovo to be legal, even without a referendum, and how did 22 European Union countries legalize this secession, while destroying European law and the foundations of European law, on which the European policy and EU policy are based? "
On Monday the European Commission echoed the Spanish government's stance that the referendum held in Catalonia was illegal, describing the events on Sunday, which saw voters being beaten by Spanish riot police, as an "internal matter". By contrast in 2010, the European Parliament adopted a resolution urging its member states to recognize Kosovo's independence.
" This is the best example of the double standards and hypocrisy of the world politics, " Vucic said.

[Oct 02, 2017] The Kurdish independence referendum was a political miscalculation

Independence of small nations always depends on great powers. They are essentially pawns in a bigger game, national aspirations and all that as a tool in often pretty dirty game.
Notable quotes:
"... The Iraqi government has banned international flights to the Kurdish capital Irbil from 6pm this Friday, isolating the Kurds in Iraq to a degree they have not experienced since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The isolation is political as well as geographical as traditional Kurdish allies, like the US, UK, France and Germany, have opposed the referendum on Kurdish independence while near neighbours in Turkey, Iran and Baghdad are moving to squeeze the Kurds into submission. ..."
"... The four countries with Kurdish minorities fear that secessionism might spread, but a further problem is that they do not believe that an Iraqi Kurdish state would be truly independent, but would shift into the orbit of another power. The Iranians are paranoid about the possibility that such a state would be an American base threatening Iran. Politicians in Baghdad say that, if the Kurds are serious about self-determination, they would cling onto the oil fields of Kirkuk and be dependent on Turkey through which to export their crude. ..."
Oct 02, 2017 | www.unz.com

The Iraqi government has banned international flights to the Kurdish capital Irbil from 6pm this Friday, isolating the Kurds in Iraq to a degree they have not experienced since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The isolation is political as well as geographical as traditional Kurdish allies, like the US, UK, France and Germany, have opposed the referendum on Kurdish independence while near neighbours in Turkey, Iran and Baghdad are moving to squeeze the Kurds into submission.

The referendum succeeded in showing that the Kurds, not just in Iraq but in Turkey, Iran and Syria, still yearn for their own state. Paradoxically, the outcome of the poll has demonstrated both the strength of their demand for self-determination and the weakness of their ability to obtain it. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is revealed as a minnow whose freedom of action – and even its survival – depends on playing off one foreign state against the other and keeping tolerable relations with all of them, even when they detested each other. In the past an American envoy would go out one door just as the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards came in the other.

The referendum has ended, perhaps only temporarily, these delicate balancing acts at which the Kurdish leadership was very skilled. In the last few weeks, the US has denounced the referendum in forthright terms, emboldening Iraq, Turkey and Iran to punish the Kurds for their undiplomatic enthusiasm to be an independent nation.

The poll was always a dangerous gamble but it is too early to say that it has entirely failed: minority communities and small nations must occasionally kick their big power allies in the teeth. Otherwise, they will become permanent proxies whose agreement with what their big power ally wants can be taken for granted. The skill for the smaller player is not to pay too high a price for going their own way. Iraq, Turkey and Iran have all made threatening statements over the last few days, some of them bombast, but they can hit the Kurds very hard if they want to.

The Kurds are in a fix and normally they would look to Washington to help them out, but under President Trump US foreign policy has become notoriously unpredictable. Worse from the Kurdish point of view, the US no longer needs the Iraqi Kurds as it did before the capture of Mosul from Isis in July. In any case, it was the Iraqi armed forces that won a great victory there, so for the first time in 14 years there is a powerful Iraqi army in the north of the country. We may not be on the verge of an Arab-Kurdish war, but the military balance of power is changing and Baghdad, not Irbil, is the gainer.

Anxious diplomats and excited journalists describe Iraq as "being on a collision course", but the different parties will not necessarily collide. Muddling through is not only a British trait. But there is no doubt that the situation has become more dangerous, particularly in the disputed territories stretching across northern Iraq from Syria to Iran.

The referendum always had a risky ambivalence about it which helped ignite the present crisis. It all depended on what audience Kurdish President Masoud Barzani was addressing: when he spoke to Kurdish voters, it was a poll of historic significance when the Kurds would take a decisive step towards an independent state.

But addressing an international and regional audience, Barzani said he was proposing something much tamer, more like an opinion poll, in which the Iraqi Kurds were politely indicating a general preference for independence at some date in the future. Like many leaders who play the nationalist card, Barzani is finding that his rhetoric is being taken more seriously than his caveats. "Bye, Bye Iraq!" chanted crowds in Irbil on the night of the referendum.

Much of this was born of Barzani's bid to outmanoeuvre his political rivals in Kurdistan by re-emerging as the standard bearer of Kurdish nationalism. He will benefit from his decision to defy the world and press ahead with the vote when it comes to the presidential and parliamentary elections in KRG on 1 November.

But the price of this could be high. It is not only Barzani who is facing an election in which national self-assertion is an issue in the coming months. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has a parliamentary election in 2018 and does not want to be accused of being insufficiently tough on the Kurds. Banning of international flights to Irbil is far less than many Iraqi MPs say they want.

By holding a referendum in the disputed territories, Barzani promoted this issue to the top of the Iraqi political agenda. It might have been in the interests of the Kurds to let it lie since the contending claims for land are deeply felt and irreconcilable. Optimists believe that Irbil and Baghdad could never go to war because they are both too dependent militarily on foreign powers. It is true that the Iraqi armed forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga alike could not have held off and defeated Isis without close air support from the US-led coalition. But by putting the future status of the KRG and the territories in play, Barzani has presented the Iraqi government, Turkey and Iran with a threat and an opportunity.

The four countries with Kurdish minorities fear that secessionism might spread, but a further problem is that they do not believe that an Iraqi Kurdish state would be truly independent, but would shift into the orbit of another power. The Iranians are paranoid about the possibility that such a state would be an American base threatening Iran. Politicians in Baghdad say that, if the Kurds are serious about self-determination, they would cling onto the oil fields of Kirkuk and be dependent on Turkey through which to export their crude.

Once the KRG dreamed of becoming a new Dubai with gleaming malls and hotels, but since 2014 it has looked more like Pompeii. The skyline is punctured by dozens of half completed tower blocks beside rusting cranes and abandoned machinery. The boom town atmosphere disappeared in 2014 when the price of oil went down, money stopped coming from Baghdad and Isis seized Mosul two hours' drive away. The state is impoverished and salaries paid late, if at all. This will now all get a lot worse with airports and border crossings closed and 35,000 federal employees no longer being paid.

At all events, the political landscape in Iraq and Syria is changing: we are at the beginning of a new political phase in which the battle to defeat Isis is being replaced by a power struggle between Arabs and Kurds.

[Oct 02, 2017] Presidential Candidates Push American Supremacy, Not National Defenss and anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt

Notable quotes:
"... we should take anything that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton has to say with a grain of salt. They will say whatever they think will improve their chances of being elected in the fall. That said, I would not expect either of them, if elected, to bring about any serious rethinking of U.S. national security policy. As I suggested in that Harper's piece, they are different versions of hawks. ..."
"... I think that the meeting between FDR and the Saudi King that you cite is a very important waystation. That committed the United States to securing the monarchy, in return for expectations that we would have privileged access to oil in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... However, I think the real turning point happens in 1980. Prior to 1980, there certainly was a U.S. policy in the greater Middle East, but it was not a U.S. policy that found expression in any serious military commitment. That changes in 1980, when Jimmy Carter promulgates the Carter doctrine. If you recall, that's a statement that designates the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. national security interest, and explicitly a place that we're now willing to fight for. ..."
"... At our present moment, as you and I are speaking, the concern is about ISIS. Certainly it's a, it's reasonable to view ISIS as a threat. It's also true that ISIS would not exist had not the United States invaded Iraq back in 2003. We shattered Iraq, and out of the chaos of Iraq has emerged this new terrorist entity. ..."
"... The foundation of our expectations of being the indispensable nation lie in the belief that we possess military might such as the world has never seen. And yet what we have found time and again in the greater Middle East is our military might is inadequate to the challenge. And we're not willing to admit that. Foreign policy establishment is not willing to admit that. And frankly, I think the majority of the American people are not willing to admit that. Not willing to admit that we are not history's agent. ..."
Jul 09, 2016 | therealnews.com

BACEVICH: Well, I think that's true. I mean, for the moment, we should take anything that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton has to say with a grain of salt. They will say whatever they think will improve their chances of being elected in the fall. That said, I would not expect either of them, if elected, to bring about any serious rethinking of U.S. national security policy. As I suggested in that Harper's piece, they are different versions of hawks.

... ... ...

BACEVICH: Well, I think, I think that the meeting between FDR and the Saudi King that you cite is a very important waystation. That committed the United States to securing the monarchy, in return for expectations that we would have privileged access to oil in the Persian Gulf.

However, I think the real turning point happens in 1980. Prior to 1980, there certainly was a U.S. policy in the greater Middle East, but it was not a U.S. policy that found expression in any serious military commitment. That changes in 1980, when Jimmy Carter promulgates the Carter doctrine. If you recall, that's a statement that designates the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. national security interest, and explicitly a place that we're now willing to fight for. So prior to 1980, no major U.S. military involvement in the region. Beginning in 1980, a pattern of armed interventionism in the greater Middle East that continues down to the present day, and at least in my judgment has been unsuccessful, and indeed, counterproductive. So the military narrative really begins in 1980.

JAY: Yeah, it's interesting with a Democratic president, from the Democratic Party, certainly under the sway of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was more or less the architect, I think, of the Carter doctrine, and leads to the war in Afghanistan. I guess--I hope most people know the basic story there, that the Americans funded jihadists in Afghanistan to suck the Russians in, and then successfully so, into a quagmire. And even though that led to the forming of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden.

And I think you can probably draw a straight line from that Carter doctrine right to 9/11, in terms of--it's a good example, I think, of what you're talking about, how this foreign policy--.

BACEVICH: I don't, I don't know that I'd call it a straight line, but there's a line. I mean, there certainly are a whole bunch of dots that can be connected. And I think that the Afghanistan experience, we're supporting the jihadists, is a good example of the unexpected consequences of U.S. interventionism.

At our present moment, as you and I are speaking, the concern is about ISIS. Certainly it's a, it's reasonable to view ISIS as a threat. It's also true that ISIS would not exist had not the United States invaded Iraq back in 2003. We shattered Iraq, and out of the chaos of Iraq has emerged this new terrorist entity.

So both of these, Afghanistan in the '80s, Iraq beginning in 2003, illustrate the larger point that U.S. military interventionism in this region simply has not produced the positive outcomes that policymakers have, have expected.

... ... ....

BACEVICH: ...The foundation of our expectations of being the indispensable nation lie in the belief that we possess military might such as the world has never seen. And yet what we have found time and again in the greater Middle East is our military might is inadequate to the challenge. And we're not willing to admit that. Foreign policy establishment is not willing to admit that. And frankly, I think the majority of the American people are not willing to admit that. Not willing to admit that we are not history's agent.

[Oct 01, 2017] Republican civil war looms as Steve Bannon takes aim at the establishment

Notable quotes:
"... Bardella said Bannon had helped villainise McConnell, making him a toxic symbol of the Republican establishment and an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans such as Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada. A seat in Tennessee following Senator Bob Corker's announcement that he would not seek re-election in 2018 could also be a target. ..."
"... Among the "establishment" donors likely to oppose Bannon in a series of running battles are the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Bannon himself has admitted there is not "a deep bench" of viable candidates to represent his agenda. ..."
"... "The floodgates are open. You'll see a lot of this, one after another, and Steve Bannon's going to be at the centre of it. He's one for one. It'll be a civil war; it has been for quite some time." ..."
"... Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House, told USA Today: "Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican establishment. I think it's fair to say that if you're tied to Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen in the consulting class, or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary challenge." ..."
"... Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs ..."
Oct 01, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Already Bannon is touring the country and meeting with candidates who will carry forward such an agenda. He told the Bloomberg agency: "The populist-nationalist movement proved in Alabama that a candidate with the right ideas and a grassroots organization can win big. Now, our focus is on recruiting candidates to take over the Republican party."

The election eve rally in Alabama was a reunion of sorts of those in Bannon's political orbit. Two potential candidates, Chris McDaniel of Mississippi and Mark Green of Tennessee, attended along with Paul Nehlen, a primary challenger last year to the House speaker, Paul Ryan, whose campaign was heavily promoted by Breitbart.

McDaniel described Moore's win as "incredibly inspiring" for his own challenge to Senator Roger Wicker in 2018. "We know Mitch McConnell was rejected tonight and Roger Wicker is just another part of Mitch McConnell's leadership apparatus," McDaniel told the Associated Press.

"We supported Donald Trump because he was an agent of change, and he's still an agent of change. In this instance, he must have been given bad advice to retain this particular swamp creature."

On Thursday, Bannon spent two hours with Tom Tancredo, who worked on Nehlan's behalf and is considering a run for Colorado governor next year. Tancredo, a former congressman, told the Guardian: "He was encouraged by what happened in Alabama and was certainly hoping he can replicate it.

"He's trying to establish an awareness of the fact the Republican party should be standing for the values he and others have tried to articulate over the years. It's a hugely difficult undertaking when you consider the power of the establishment and the swamp. He just kept reiterating: 'I need to try to save the country.'"

Asked about the prospect of a Republican civil war, Tancredo replied: "A good philosophic blood letting is not necessarily a bad thing."

... ... ...

Bardella said Bannon had helped villainise McConnell, making him a toxic symbol of the Republican establishment and an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans such as Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada. A seat in Tennessee following Senator Bob Corker's announcement that he would not seek re-election in 2018 could also be a target.

"Every dollar that is spent on a candidate by Mitch McConnell and the Republican party is a dollar spent against them," Bardella added. "And that's because it plays right into the theme that they're bought and paid for by the establishment."

Among the "establishment" donors likely to oppose Bannon in a series of running battles are the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Bannon himself has admitted there is not "a deep bench" of viable candidates to represent his agenda.

But he can expect at least tacit backing from Trump, who was said to be furious about having backed the wrong horse in Alabama: the president even deleted three tweets that endorsed Strange. Bannon also has powerful benefactors in the shape of the billionaire hedge fund investor Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah Mercer. The New York Times reported that Bannon and Robert Mercer began working out a rough outline for a "shadow party" that would advance Trump's nationalist agenda during a five-hour meeting last month at the family's Long Island estate.

Bannon has also been consulting with Henry Kissinger and other foreign policy veterans, Bloomberg reported, and is preparing make the threat posed by China a central cause. "If we don't get our situation sorted with China, we'll be destroyed economically," he said.

Rick Tyler, a political analyst and former campaign spokesman for the Texas senator Ted Cruz, said: "Roy Moore has demonstrated that the establishment and all its money can be beaten. You can only spend so much money in Alabama before it becomes irritating: you can only stuff so much in people's mailboxes or run so many ads on TV.

"The floodgates are open. You'll see a lot of this, one after another, and Steve Bannon's going to be at the centre of it. He's one for one. It'll be a civil war; it has been for quite some time."

Republican memories are still raw from 2014, when the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, was beaten in a primary contest by Dave Brat, a little-known professor backed by the Tea Party. But Bannon could make the establishment versus Tea Party battle look like a mere skirmish.

Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House, told USA Today: "Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican establishment. I think it's fair to say that if you're tied to Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen in the consulting class, or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary challenge."

Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs

[Oct 01, 2017] Tea Party Patriots against Neoliberalism by Bhaskar Sunkara

Notable quotes:
"... The Tea Party recognizes that "one of the primary sort of marks of the triumph of neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of illegal immigration, and that illegal immigration is the kind of one plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires." The rise of illegal immigration represents a new form of capitalism, as opposed to the old "meritorious" capitalism of the post-war period. When right-wing ideologues attack "communism," the argument goes, they are actually conceptualizing neoliberalism. ..."
"... Michaels concedes that the Tea Party is a disproportionately upper middle class movement, but argues that even segments of the top twenty percentile of Americans by income have been hit hard in recent decades. ..."
"... The top one percent have been the big winners of the neoliberal era, while the other 19 percent in that bracket anxiously see their position falter in comparison. ..."
"... people in the Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than "White male status anxiety," that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more extreme inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people may be unhappy because of loss of status, but many millions more are going to be unhappy because of the loss of actual money. ..."
Oct 01, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com

Ideas spread in all sorts of directions. I've heard Christian right "intellectuals" haphazardly invoke Gramsci and counter-hegemony and I myself have spent more of my youth than I'm willing to admit reading back issues of National Review . It's probably less of a stretch that some Tea Partiers have favorably nodded toward the ideas on their movement that our friend Walter Benn Michaels expresses in his interview in the inaugural Jacobin .

Here's my summary of Michaels's argument on the Tea Party and immigration, which brings up the question, a question that shouldn't really be a question at all, about the left and open borders. (My thoughts on the over-hyped and over-exposed Tea Party can be found over at New Politics .)

Michaels identifies the Tea Party as a reaction against neoliberalism. He doesn't view the challenge as a serious one, but also stresses that the movement, "is not simply a reaction against neoliberalism from the old racist right." Michaels contests the American left's desire to summarily reduce the Tea Party to racists: "They're thrilled when some Nazis come out and say 'Yeah, we support the Tea Party' or some member of the Tea Party says something racist, which is frequently enough." Michaels finds the subversive content of their political program in an opposition to illegal immigration.

The Tea Party recognizes that "one of the primary sort of marks of the triumph of neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of illegal immigration, and that illegal immigration is the kind of one plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires." The rise of illegal immigration represents a new form of capitalism, as opposed to the old "meritorious" capitalism of the post-war period. When right-wing ideologues attack "communism," the argument goes, they are actually conceptualizing neoliberalism.

Michaels concedes that the Tea Party is a disproportionately upper middle class movement, but argues that even segments of the top twenty percentile of Americans by income have been hit hard in recent decades.

The top one percent have been the big winners of the neoliberal era, while the other 19 percent in that bracket anxiously see their position falter in comparison. Responding to those who place the roots of this angst in the growing diversification of the elite, Michaels says:

. . . people in the Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than "White male status anxiety," that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more extreme inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people may be unhappy because of loss of status, but many millions more are going to be unhappy because of the loss of actual money. So my point isn't really to deny the phenomenon of status anxiety, it's just to point out the extraordinary eagerness of American liberals to identify racism as the problem, so that anti-racism (rather than anti-capitalism) can be the solution.

Michaels's conclusion is, in sum, that students of Friedrich Hayek and exalters of Ayn Rand are the most visible source of resistance to neoliberalism on the American scene. Such a view, I believe, is as contradictory as it appears...

Bhaskar Sunkara is the founding editor of Jacobin .

[Oct 01, 2017] Goodbye, American neoliberalism. A new era is here by Cornel West

Notable quotes:
"... The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness. ..."
"... This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. ..."
"... In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist outcome! ..."
"... The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang ..."
"... The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised. ..."
"... if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial! ..."
"... The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad. ..."
"... Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob? Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back. ..."
"... He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position. He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people to go along much better than HRC ever did. ..."
"... Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do it, yet he never even tried. ..."
Nov 17, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians.

The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness.

White working- and middle-class fellow citizens – out of anger and anguish – rejected the economic neglect of neoliberal policies and the self-righteous arrogance of elites. Yet these same citizens also supported a candidate who appeared to blame their social misery on minorities, and who alienated Mexican immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, gay people, women and China in the process.

This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future.

What is to be done? First we must try to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering of poor and working people and obsessed with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness to justice. We must ground our truth-telling in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist domination. Third we must remember courageous exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral and spiritual inspiration as we build multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall Street crimes and war crimes, global warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and liberties.

Feminists misunderstood the presidential election from day one Liza Featherstone By banking on the idea that women would support Hillary Clinton just because she was a female candidate, the movement made a terrible mistake Read more

The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad.

Rightwing attacks on Obama – and Trump-inspired racist hatred of him – have made it nearly impossible to hear the progressive critiques of Obama. The president has been reluctant to target black suffering – be it in overcrowded prisons, decrepit schools or declining workplaces. Yet, despite that, we get celebrations of the neoliberal status quo couched in racial symbolism and personal legacy. Meanwhile, poor and working class citizens of all colors have continued to suffer in relative silence.

In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist outcome!

Click and elect: how fake news helped Donald Trump win a real election Hannah Jane Parkinson The 'alt-right' (aka the far right) ensnared the electorate using false stories on social media. But tech companies seem unwilling to admit there's a problem

In this bleak moment, we must inspire each other driven by a democratic soulcraft of integrity, courage, empathy and a mature sense of history – even as it seems our democracy is slipping away.

We must not turn away from the forgotten people of US foreign policy – such as Palestinians under Israeli occupation, Yemen's civilians killed by US-sponsored Saudi troops or Africans subject to expanding US military presence.

As one whose great family and people survived and thrived through slavery, Jim Crow and lynching, Trump's neofascist rhetoric and predictable authoritarian reign is just another ugly moment that calls forth the best of who we are and what we can do.

For us in these times, to even have hope is too abstract, too detached, too spectatorial. Instead we must be a hope, a participant and a force for good as we face this catastrophe.

theomatica -> MSP1984 17 Nov 2016 6:40

To be replaced by a form of capitalism that is constrained by national interests. An ideology that wishes to uses the forces of capitalism within a market limited only by national boundaries which aims for more self sufficiency only importing goods the nation can not itself source.

farga 17 Nov 2016 6:35

The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang.

Really? The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised.

That in recent decades middle ground politicians have strayed from the true faith....and now its time to go back - popular capitalism, small government, low taxes.

if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial!

Social36 -> farga 17 Nov 2016 8:33

Maybe, West should have written that we're now in neoliberal, neofascist era!

ForSparta -> farga 17 Nov 2016 14:24

Well in all fairness, Donald Trump (horse's ass) did say he'd 'pump' money into the middle classes thus abandoning 'trickle down'. His plan/ideology is also to increase corporate tax revenues overall by reducing the level of corporation tax -- the aim being to entice corporations to repatriate wealth currently held overseas. Plus he has proposed an infrastructure spending spree, a fiscal stimulus not a monetary one. When you add in tax cuts the middle classes will feel flushed and it is within that demographic that most businesses and hence jobs are created. I think his short game has every chance of doing what he said it would.

SeeNOevilHearNOevil 17 Nov 2016 6:36

The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad.

Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob? Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back.

He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position. He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people to go along much better than HRC ever did.

But that lip service is where his progressive views begin and stop. It's the very reason none of his promises never translated into actions and I will argue that he was the biggest and smoothest scam artist to enter the white house who got even though that wholly opposed centre-right policies, to flip and support them vehemently. Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do it, yet he never even tried.

ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 6:37

I agree with some of this, but do we really have to throw around hysterical terms like 'fascist' at every opportunity? It's as bad as when people call the left 'cultural Marxists'.

LithophaneFurcifera -> ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 7:05

True, it's sloganeering that drowns out any nuance, whoever does it. Whenever a political term is coined, you can be assured that its use and meaning will eventually be extended to the point that it becomes less effective at characterising the very groups that it was coined to characterise.

Keep "fascist" for Mussolini and "cultural Marxist" for Adorno, unless and until others show such strong resemblances that the link can't seriously be denied.

I agree about the importance of recognising the suffering of the poor and building alliances beyond, and not primarily defined by, race though.

l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 6:40
Hang about Trump is the embodiment of neo-liberalism. It's neo-liberalism with republican tea party in control. He's not going to smash the system that served him so well, the years he manipulated and cheated, why would he want to change it.
garrylee -> l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 9:38
West's point is that it's beyond Trump's control. The scales have fallen from peoples eyes. They now see the deceit of neo-liberalism. And once they see through the charlatan Trump and the rest of the fascists, they will, hopefully, come to realize the only antidote to neo-liberalism is a planned economy.

Nash25 17 Nov 2016 6:40

This excellent analysis by professor West places the current political situation in a proper historical context.

However, I fear that neo-liberalism may not be quite "dead" as he argues.

Most of the Democratic party's "establishment" politicians, who conspired to sabotage the populist Sanders's campaign, still dominate the party, and they, in turn, are controlled by the giant corporations who fund their campaigns.

Democrat Chuck Schumer is now the Senate minority leader, and he is the loyal servant of the big Wall Street investment banks.

Sanders and Warren are the only two Democratic leaders who are not neo-liberals, and I fear that they will once again be marginalized.

Rank and file Democrats must organize at the local and state level to remove these corrupt neo-liberals from all party leadership positions. This will take many years, and it will be very difficult.


VenetianBlind 17 Nov 2016 6:42

Not sure Neo-Liberalism has ended. All they have done is get rid of the middle man.

macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 6:46

It would seem that there is a great deal of over simplifying going on; some of the articles represent an hysteric response and the vision of sack cloth and ashes prevails among those who could not see that the wheels were coming off the bus. The use of the term 'liberal' has become another buzz word - there are many different forms of liberalism and creating yet another sound byte does little to illuminate anything.

Making appeals to restore what has been lost reflects badly upon the central political parties, with their 30 year long rightward drift and their legacy of sucking up to corporate lobbyists, systems managers, box tickers and consultants. You can't give away sovereign political power to a bunch of right wing quangos who worship private wealth and its accumulation without suffering the consequences. The article makes no contribution (and neither have many of the others of late) to any kind of alternative to either neo-liberalism or the vacuum that has become a question mark with the dark face of the devil behind it.

We are in uncharted waters. The conventional Left was totally discredited by1982 and all we've had since are various forms of modifications of Thatcher's imported American vision. There has been no opposition to this system for over 40 years - so where do we get the idea that democracy has any real meaning? Yes, we can vote for the Greens, or one of the lesser known minority parties, but of course people don't; they tend to go with what is portrayed as the orthodoxy and they've been badly let down by it.

It would be a real breath of fresh air to see articles which offer some kind of analysis that demonstrates tangible options to deal with the multiple crises we are suffering. Perhaps we might start with a consideration that if our political institutions are prone to being haunted by the ghost of the 1930's, the state itself could be seen as part of the problem rather than any solution. Why is it that every other institution is considered to be past its sell by date and we still believe in a phantom of democracy? Discuss.

VenetianBlind -> macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 7:00

I have spent hours trying to see solutions around Neo-Liberalism and find that governments have basically signed away any control over the economy so nothing they can do. There are no solutions.

Maybe that is the starting point. The solution for workers left behind in Neo-Liberal language is they must move. It demands labor mobility. It is not possible to dictate where jobs are created.

I see too much fiddly around the edges, the best start is to say they cannot fix the problem. If they keep making false promises then things will just get dire as.

[Oct 01, 2017] The Bombs Are Still Falling - MSNBC Urges Government Censorship Of Social Media To Protect Democracy

An interesting slide of opinions in this comment thread. Nobody mentions the term McCarthyism though.
Oct 01, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

The segment started off with Geist introducing the latest reporting on the topic:

GEIST: Twitter says it has shut down more than two-hundred accounts that were tied to the same Russian operatives who bought political ads on Facebook. Of the 450 accounts released by Facebook as part of its investigation, Twitter was able to match 22 of them to its own site. The disclosure by Twitter followed a briefing by company officials to staffers of the Senate and House Intel committees yesterday. Following that meeting, the top Democrat on the Senate committee, Mark Warner, slammed Twitter for its presentation.

SEN. MARK WARNER [D-VA]: [playing clip] The presentation that the Twitter team made to the Senate Intel staff today was deeply disappointing. The notion that their work was basically derivative based upon accounts that Facebook had identified showed enormous lack of understanding from the Twitter team of how serious this issue is, the threat it poses to democratic institutions, and, again, begs many more questions than they offered.

(...)

GEIST: The top Democrat on the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff, also weighed in on Twitters briefing to his committee, releasing a statement that read, in part: "... it is clear that Twitter has significant forensic work to do to understand the depth and breadth of Russian activity during the campaign. This additional analysis will require far more robust investigation into how Russian actors used their platform as a part of their active measures campaign..."

Without any perceptible degree of skepticism about the Democratic Congressmen's claims, Geist then teed up Nicolle Wallace, host of the MSNBC afternoon show Deadline: White House , to talk about social media and the 2016 election more generally:

GEIST: You do get the sense, Nicolle, that Facebook, Twitter, social media was totally clueless about what was happening on their sites during the 2016 campaign.

WALLACE: It's worse than that [...]. The social media companies are sort of like the worst stereotype of a Republican political organization. They're reactive, theyre opaque, they're defensive, they are very slow to understand the value of transparency. They're totally lawyered up, lobbied up. And they are as a culture, the hubris of thinking that they're all about the public good, when if you take a low-tech analogy, its basically like someone got mugged in your backyard and their position is: well, it's not our problem, I mean, we just bought the lot on which the house was built, not our problem.

Giant Meteor , Sep 30, 2017 7:01 PM

Lordy, it's a cookbook !

overbet -> Giant Meteor , Sep 30, 2017 7:06 PM

How about $10m fine for citing anonymous sources.

AlaricBalth -> overbet , Sep 30, 2017 7:30 PM

The MSM does not report news. They provide entertainment for their demographic base of couch riding spectators. Controversy, salaciousness and division increase the amount of eyeballs, which allow these channels of distraction to charge exorbitant fees to advertisers who are selling crap most don't need or want. It's all just "chewing gum" for the eyes.

AtATrESICI -> AlaricBalth , Sep 30, 2017 7:37 PM

But, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. OMG! What happened?

This shit is a sad fucking joke...

AtATrESICI -> AtATrESICI , Sep 30, 2017 7:51 PM

One more thing. Folks that are Russian hack the election people, believe the .gov story on 911 to the letter. That does not wash with me.

Paul Kersey -> AlaricBalth , Sep 30, 2017 7:41 PM

"This isn't new, this is the Kremlin playbook. They have been exacerbating racial tensions in the US [for years]... "

So it's the Russians that have caused racial tensions in the U.S., who knew? Racial voting patterns in this country are almost the same today as they were before the Civil War. In any Presidential election, for instance, 95% of blacks vote Democrat, regardless of who is running, and over 80% of Christian Fundamentalists vote Republican, regardless of who is running.

During this last Presidential election, if you flipped the State of Virginia with the State of Pennsylvania, the election turned on the Mason-Dixon line. Unless the Russians can be blamed for the racism this nation was born into, it's probably absurd to blame today's racial tensions on them.

Skeero , Sep 30, 2017 7:04 PM

"Black Lives Matter and targeting, specifically, ethnic groups [...] and allowing people to target, not only for Russian influence, but also target housing ads, employment ads."

Shame on them for trying to get people to get a job!

Blankone , Sep 30, 2017 7:07 PM

How long until they declare antifa is a Russian sponsored terrorist org.? I know it is not time yet but once the violence of antifa generates general rejection by the middle class due to fear - perhaps then they will throw them under the bus. And use antifa as justification for oppressive policies/laws.

Dickweed Wang , Sep 30, 2017 7:11 PM

Who the fuck watches shit like this anyway?

AriusArmenian , Sep 30, 2017 7:41 PM

Instead of America taking responsibility for its racial tensions it tries to find some foreign demon to make responsible.

Everything negative in America is now the fault of Russia, Iran, or others.

Very convenient.

Just destroy Russia, Iran, etc., then America will be perfect.

Destroy the world and everything will then be perfect.

If this is what is operating in the American unconscious psyche then the world is screwed.

xrxs , Sep 30, 2017 7:42 PM

Thinking about Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent really opened my eyes to what democratization of the media could do. Why are we having this conversation about 2016, and not 2008 or 2012? I have a number of theories about this. I think the endgame here is to create a Great Firewall for major social media platforms to keep people from finding out certain truths (I think you won't be hearing from Wikileaks, for example). It's a dark time, and I'm sad we're here.

GreatUncle , Sep 30, 2017 7:44 PM

Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwn ... I don't do social media full stop.

So any government control mechanism actually fails and if anything with all the proactive advertising, fake news and now mostly junk content I know people who are dumping it prefering alternative forms of communication ... like talking to real people.

I never knew ... me dear old mum well retired now curses google and facebook with all the shit they come out with.

Mwhahahahaha ... it's spreading.

To the point just refuse to talk to people who use social media, let them keep their dumbed down universe to themselves.

Hikikomori , Sep 30, 2017 7:47 PM

Clearly, we have to destroy our democracy to save it.

TomGa , Sep 30, 2017 7:52 PM

MSNBC is a network of wackos. So are the ideas they promote as well as the usual suspects they interview. No one takes this network or the nonsense they spew seriously.

Disgruntled Goat , Sep 30, 2017 8:01 PM

Sure, lets invent another huge government bureaucracy in order to maintain the monopoly of a dying, legacy media dinosaur !!!!

Through censorship no less

Its fucking both pathetic and laughable.... the MSM is a Dead Media Walking....

You think Bezos wanted to buy WaPo to enhance its journalistic character? No fucking chance... he took it over in order to save a mouthpiece of the elite that was ready to go TU..... for a huge Qid Pro Quo I might add ( to wit, you may recall that shortly after Bezos took over WaPo, Amazon was suddenly given the ok to accept EBT, with not a peep of protest or a question from Congress. So now, we have welfare queens ordering online and getting wildly expensive Amazon Fresh deliveries IN THE FUCKING GHETTO.... ISNT THIS COUNTRY GREAT !!!!)

What cannot be controlled or co-opted by these fucks must somehow be "regulated" or eliminated.

WELL FUCK THAT!!! Keep stacking pms, lead and brass

[Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards. ..."
"... Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma – it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election), even if they end up being debunked. ..."
"... A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled (this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper) – calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war with Russia"). ..."
"... The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic: they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism." ..."
"... That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties. ..."
"... No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. ..."
"... Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. ..."
Sep 28, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Last Friday, most major media outlets touted a major story about Russian attempts to hack into U.S. voting systems, based exclusively on claims made by the Department of Homeland Security. "Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states in the run-up to last year's presidential election, officials said Friday," began the USA Today story, similar to how most other outlets presented this extraordinary claim.

This official story was explosive for obvious reasons, and predictably triggered instant decrees – that of course went viral – declaring that the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election is now in doubt.

Virginia's Democratic Congressman Don Beyer, referring to the 21 targeted states, announced that this shows "Russia tried to hack their election":

MSNBC's Paul Revere for all matters relating to the Kremlin take-over, Rachel Maddow, was indignant that this wasn't told to us earlier and that we still aren't getting all the details. "What we have now figured out," Maddow gravely intoned as she showed the multi-colored maps she made, is that "Homeland Security knew at least by June that 21 states had been targeted by Russian hackers during the election. . .targeting their election infrastructure."

They were one small step away from demanding that the election results be nullified, indulging the sentiment expressed by #Resistance icon Carl Reiner the other day: "Is there anything more exciting that [sic] the possibility of Trump's election being invalidated & Hillary rightfully installed as our President?"

So what was wrong with this story? Just one small thing: it was false. The story began to fall apart yesterday when Associated Press reported that Wisconsin – one of the states included in the original report that, for obvious reasons, caused the most excitement – did not, in fact, have its election systems targeted by Russian hackers:

The spokesman for Homeland Security then tried to walk back that reversal, insisting that there was still evidence that some computer networks had been targeted, but could not say that they had anything to do with elections or voting. And, as AP noted: "Wisconsin's chief elections administrator, Michael Haas, had repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted."

Then the story collapsed completely last night. The Secretary of State for another one of the named states, California, issued a scathing statement repudiating the claimed report:

Sometimes stories end up debunked. There's nothing particularly shocking about that. If this were an isolated incident, one could chalk it up to basic human error that has no broader meaning.

But this is no isolated incident. Quite the contrary: this has happened over and over and over again. Inflammatory claims about Russia get mindlessly hyped by media outlets, almost always based on nothing more than evidence-free claims from government officials, only to collapse under the slightest scrutiny, because they are entirely lacking in evidence.

The examples of such debacles when it comes to claims about Russia are too numerous to comprehensively chronicle. I wrote about this phenomenon many times and listed many of the examples, the last time in June when 3 CNN journalists "resigned" over a completely false story linking Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci to investigations into a Russian investment fund which the network was forced to retract:

Remember that time the Washington Post claimed that Russia had hacked the U.S. electricity grid, causing politicians to denounce Putin for trying to deny heat to Americans in winter, only to have to issue multiple retractions because none of that ever happened? Or the time that the Post had to publish a massive editor's note after its reporters made claims about Russian infiltration of the internet and spreading of "Fake News" based on an anonymous group's McCarthyite blacklist that counted sites like the Drudge Report and various left-wing outlets as Kremlin agents?

Or that time when Slate claimed that Trump had created a secret server with a Russian bank, all based on evidence that every other media outlet which looked at it were too embarrassed to get near? Or the time the Guardian was forced to retract its report by Ben Jacobs – which went viral – that casually asserted that WikiLeaks has a long relationship with the Kremlin? Or the time that Fortune retracted suggestions that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN's network? And then there's the huge market that was created – led by leading Democrats – that blindly ingested every conspiratorial, unhinged claim about Russia churned out by an army of crazed conspiracists such as Louise Mensch and Claude "TrueFactsStated" Taylor?

And now we have the Russia-hacked-the-voting-systems-of-21-states to add to this trash heap. Each time the stories go viral; each time they further shape the narrative; each time those who spread them say little to nothing when it is debunked.

None of this means that every Russia claim is false, nor does it disprove the accusation that Putin ordered the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email inboxes (a claim for which, just by the way, still no evidence has been presented by the U.S. government). Perhaps there were some states that were targeted, even though the key claims of this story, that attracted the most attention, have now been repudiated.

But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards.

Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma – it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election), even if they end up being debunked.

A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled (this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper) – calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war with Russia").

The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic: they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism."

They do it all in secret, and you're just supposed to trust them: Bill Kristol, Mike Chertoff and their national security state friends. And the New York Times is apparently fine with this demand, as evidenced by its uncritical acceptance yesterday of the claims of this group – a group formed by the nation's least trustworthy sources.

But no matter. It's a claim about nefarious Russian control. So it's instantly vested with credibility and authority, published by leading news outlets, and then blindly accepted as fact in most elite circles. From now on, it will simply be Fact – based on the New York Times article – that the Kremlin aggressively and effectively weaponized Twitter to manipulate public opinion and sow divisions during the election, even though the evidence for this new story is the secret, unverifiable assertions of a group filled with the most craven neocons and national security state liars.

That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties.

No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. And the penalty for desiring to see evidence for official claims, or questioning the validity and persuasiveness of the evidence that is proffered, are accusations that impugn one's patriotism and loyalty (simply wanting to see evidence for official claims about Russia is proof, in many quarters, that one is a Kremlin agent or at least adores Putin – just as wanting to see evidence in 2002, or questioning the evidence presented for claims about Saddam, was viewed as proof that one harbored sympathy for the Iraqi dictator).

Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. Just look at how many major, incredibly inflammatory stories, from major media outlets, have collapsed. Is it not clear that there is something very wrong with how we are discussing and reporting on relations between these two nuclear-armed powers?

[Sep 30, 2017] Yanis Varoufakis Schauble Leaves but Schauble-ism Lives On by Yanis Varoufakis

Notable quotes:
"... Why did Dr Schδuble aim at maintaining the eurozones fragility? Why was he, in this context, ever so keen to maintain the threat of Grexit? The simple answer is: Because a state of permanent fragility was instrumental to his strategy for using the threat of expulsion from the euro (or even of Germanys withdrawal from it) to discipline the deficit countries – chiefly France. ..."
"... Deep in Dr Schδuble thinking there was the belief that, as a federation is infeasible, the euro is a glorified fixed exchange rate regime. ..."
"... It really seems that the outcomes of both versions of economic conservatism produce similar neoliberal outcomes in aggregate: reduced wages, precarious working conditions, increasing economic inequality, reduced services, tax money being funnelled to businesses, and vanishing/crumbling infrastructure ..."
"... Then again, Obsourne* was all about the rhetoric of balanced budgets – that is, balanced budget for the poor, unbalanced budget stimulus for the rich. So, there can also be a Tory similarity with the German type of economic conservative strand. ..."
"... For the average working punter the situation, in toto, just keeps getting worse. ..."
"... I think ordoliberal is the appropriate term of art for schauble, a lawyer not an economist, and one with a rather dredd like approach to jurisprudence (bribes being acceptable business expenses in Germany until recently). ..."
"... I think ordoliberal is the appropriate term of art for schauble ..."
"... with a rather dredd like approach to jurisprudence ..."
"... I agree that he is on board with ordoliberallism which is basically a nutcase extremist version of neoliberalism that is mainstream in Germany but I didn't want to over-egg the pudding. Let us not forget that the non-ordoliberal IMF has fronted for the Troikas tender ministrations to debtor countries during pretty much all of Schaubles tenure, save its pushback in the latest round of financing for Greece over the refusal of EU state lenders to Greece to write off some of the debt owed. And the IMF still capitulated. ..."
"... So if the IMF stood shoulder to shoulder with Schauble, does the fact that he was an ordoliberal as opposed to neoliberal make any difference in practice? ..."
"... On the other hand, while Neoliberals are True Believers on the benefits of free movement and trade, Ordoliberals are far more pragmatic, and are at heart mercantilists and corporatists (and this includes being quite happy to keep Trade Unions and other social sectors on board rather than seeing them as enemies). This is clearly reflected in the constitutional make-up of the EU. ..."
"... Its also worth pointing out that while in the Anglosphere liberals have a unified approach and dominate the main parties, in many European countries, in particular Germany, there are, and always have been, distinct parties representing the different shades of liberal views, with Christian Democrats being Ordos, while smaller parties such as the Free Democrats representing a purer form of liberalism. As Yanis points out, a strengthened FDP is a disaster for Europe, we can only hope that the Greens somehow manage to wrestle away some of the economic portfolio from them. ..."
"... Philip Mirowski, who seems to have tried as much as anyone to clarify what is and isn't neoliberalism, considers ordoliberalism one of at least three or four variants: ordo, Austrian, Chicago School and, probably, James Buchanans public choice. He identifies Carl Schmitt as a key influence on Hayek, particularly Schmitts notions that the economy was too important to be left to the whims of democracy (only a strong state can preserve and enhance a free-market economy) and the exception, which is to say that the state should stay out of the economy at all times (i.e. no bailouts for you) except when preserving the market requires state intervention. Think Obama and big banks. ..."
"... I agree that Im surprised so many German workers have blithely accepted this constriction on their incomes. ..."
Sep 30, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Posted on September 29, 2017 by Yves Smith

Originally published at his website

Yves here. It was painful to read the encomiums for Wolfgang Schδuble yesterday as he is about to leave his post as German finance minister and become speaker of the Bundestag.

The New York Times and Financial Times, among others, praised for his role as austerity enforcer and depicted him as the truest defender of European unity. In fact, the neoliberal policies that Schauble backed increased the centrifugal forces in the Eurozone, weakened an already anemic recovery, and provided powerful evidence that Europeans are anti-democratic, which in turn helped fuel Brexit and the rise of nationalist parties, particularly in France and Germany.

These accounts also either failed to mention or greatly underplayed the fact that Schδuble took bribes from an arms merchant, which put an end to his aspirations to become Chancellor.

Yanis Varoufakis

Wolfgang Schδuble may heave left the finance ministry but his policy for turning the eurozone into an iron cage of austerity, that is the very antithesis of a democratic federation, lives on.

What is remarkable about Dr Schδubles tenure was how he invested heavily in maintaining the fragility of the monetary union, rather than eradicating it in order to render the eurozone macro-economically sustainable and resilient. Why did Dr Schδuble aim at maintaining the eurozones fragility? Why was he, in this context, ever so keen to maintain the threat of Grexit? The simple answer is: Because a state of permanent fragility was instrumental to his strategy for using the threat of expulsion from the euro (or even of Germanys withdrawal from it) to discipline the deficit countries – chiefly France.

Deep in Dr Schδuble thinking there was the belief that, as a federation is infeasible, the euro is a glorified fixed exchange rate regime. And the only way of maintaining discipline within such a regime was to keep alive the threat of expulsion or exit. But to keep that threat alive, the eurozone could not be allowed to develop the instruments and institutions that would stop it from being fragile. Thus, the eurozones permanent fragility was, from Dr Schδubles perspective an end-in-itself, rather than a failure.

The Free Democratic Partys ascension will see to it that Wolfgang Schδubles departure will not alter the policy of doing whatever it takes to prevent the eurozone s evolution into a sustainable macroeconomy. The FDPs sole promise to its voters was to prevent any of Emmanuel Macrons plans, for some federation-lite, from being agreed to, and for pursuing Grexit. Even worse, whereas Wolfgang Schδuble understood that austerity plus new loans were catastrophic for countries like Greece (but insisted on them as part of his campaign to discipline France and Italy), his FDP successors at the finance ministry will probably be less enlightened believing that the tough medicine is fit for purpose.

And so the never ending crisis of Europes social economy, that feeds the xenophobic political monsters, continues.

PlutoniumKun , September 29, 2017 at 3:23 am

Just a slight – perhaps pedantic – point. Im not sure its correct except in its loosest sense to say that Schauble is a neoliberal. I think it can be deceptive sometimes to label everything we leftists dont like as neoliberal. He comes from quite a distinct line of German thought which explicitly rejects Keynesianism (even though the German economy has in reality many carefully built in counter-cyclical stabilisers) but mixes some Hayek with old fashioned mercantilism. The obsession with trade surpluses is one obvious differential between them and what we would consider neoliberalism. There is a good discussion of the distinctiveness of German conservative economic thought here .

As for the praise Schauble gets, it continually astonishes me, even in the victim countries, that Merkel and Schauble get such a free pass for the enormous damage they have done to Europe in the past 10 years, and that includes from many on the notional left. I think it shows just how hard it is to shift the notion of balanced budgets and living within our needs as a form of virtue . The (in many ways justified) worldwide admiration for the German economic model is such that people find it very hard not to feel somehow that they are always right. Even in Germany of course the potential for long term ruin has been set by the almost complete absence of investment in infrastructure over the last 2 decades.

Frenchguy , September 29, 2017 at 4:48 am

While I agree that German economic thought is archaic and that Merkel/Schauble were quite narrow-minded during the euro crisis, one criticism that I think is unfair is the one where they supposedly imposed austerity. Schauble in particular was always quite clear: if you want to stay in the Eurozone, you have to respect the fiscal rules that were agreed beforehand otherwise no worries, we will help you leave. Ill repeat that, Schauble was aware that Grexit might be the better option and was prepared to help but he left the choice to Greek leaders (side note, its actually the French that ruled out an exit from the Eurozone). The rules might have been dumb but the time to complain was before signing them, not after (newsflash: Germans are stickler for rules). Of course, peripheral countries knew that exiting the eurozone was actually not a panacea and Varoufakis in particular hoped to blackmail Germany into accepting his plans, that went well

So yeah, to say that they saved the Eurozone is far-fetched and they were certainly not visionnary in any sense of the world but they did bend the rules and they did spend a lot of domestic political capital on that (on the other hand, a bailout for the periphery was not that unpopular in France but French leaders pretty much capitulated on the issue). If you want a comparison, Merkel allowed the AfD to take flight in order to help the periphery while Tories in the UK did bail out of the EU in order to woo back UKIP voters. And of course, I am still waiting for the US governement to send any money to the Euro periphery since it is so simple.

There were few good guys during the euro crisis: Trichet was a disaster, Sarkozy signed on the Deauville accord a bit too enthusiastically, the Greeks did fake their deficit numbers (something that people forget too quickly, it was a major breach of trust) and Varoufakis played the blackmail game, Spanish politicians gunned for new records of corruption, Ireland set up one of the biggest corporate tax heavens of all time, Berlusconi was morally the worst of the bunch, even Draghi was perhaps a bit too slow to push spreads back to down (though he probably did the best he could) Among all of that mess, I think you can argue that Merkel was relatively the best of all, not that much of a compliment though.

makedoanmend , September 29, 2017 at 4:55 am

Yes, these are all very good points, excellent points in fact. And one should be able understand and delineate the differences between German conservatism and its UK variety of tory conservatism for instance. Id just interpret/input your points in a slightly different perspective.

It really seems that the outcomes of both versions of economic conservatism produce similar neoliberal outcomes in aggregate: reduced wages, precarious working conditions, increasing economic inequality, reduced services, tax money being funnelled to businesses, and vanishing/crumbling infrastructure.

It really seems to be a matter of degree rather absolutes.

UK infrastructure seems to be in decent shape and with PPP even the Tories can buy into a degree of Keynesian stimulus via public works, whilst it seems the Germans have largely dropped the ball. Then again, Obsourne* was all about the rhetoric of balanced budgets – that is, balanced budget for the poor, unbalanced budget stimulus for the rich. So, there can also be a Tory similarity with the German type of economic conservative strand.

So, I suppose, like everything else, the complexity is revealing in itself; and knowing how the different strands of economic conservatism evolved might help us understand how to counteract the pernicious effects.

For the average working punter the situation, in toto, just keeps getting worse.

[*To all NCers, Osbourne was finance minister under Cameron in the UK. If you should ever meet him, dont ask him what the product of 8 x 7 is. He thinks that kind of question isnt cricket and is basically a subversive type of activity.]

paul , September 29, 2017 at 5:37 am

To be fair, he was the only person to publicly shed tears over Margaret Thatcher's quite natural death. I'm sure he mopped his eyes afterward with an old hang mandela t shirt (de rigeur for his generation) before popping out to walk the dog with his old pal natalie rowe

skippy , September 29, 2017 at 4:56 am

Its not all black: European Parliament members decide to bar Monsanto lobbyists

https://www.ft.com/content/5c1c61e6-a457-11e7-b797-b61809486fe2

paul , September 29, 2017 at 5:20 am

I think ordoliberal is the appropriate term of art for schauble, a lawyer not an economist, and one with a rather dredd like approach to jurisprudence (bribes being acceptable business expenses in Germany until recently).

That gross chancellor kohls bagmans career was eclipsed by agent Angela must have been a terrible stone in his shoe.

I still remember him gelatinising Michael Portillo in one of his many TV license funded flounces around Europe. He pummelled poor Michael with his hausfrau hogwash as mercilessly as he vivisected Greece.

It was noticeable that Michael assumed that Germanys strength was due to Schaubles character rather than seeing a rather rank case of institutional inheritance.

Mark P. , September 29, 2017 at 5:56 am

I think ordoliberal is the appropriate term of art for schauble

It is. And the first responder to the OP, Plutonium Kun, up top, in fact provides a link to an analysis of ordoliberalism, and how it played out during and since the GFC.

with a rather dredd like approach to jurisprudence

I like the way you put that

Yves Smith Post author , September 29, 2017 at 6:06 am

I agree that he is on board with ordoliberallism which is basically a nutcase extremist version of neoliberalism that is mainstream in Germany but I didn't want to over-egg the pudding. Let us not forget that the non-ordoliberal IMF has fronted for the Troikas tender ministrations to debtor countries during pretty much all of Schaubles tenure, save its pushback in the latest round of financing for Greece over the refusal of EU state lenders to Greece to write off some of the debt owed. And the IMF still capitulated.

So if the IMF stood shoulder to shoulder with Schauble, does the fact that he was an ordoliberal as opposed to neoliberal make any difference in practice?

paul , September 29, 2017 at 6:27 am

It is probably splitting hairs from the same mangy dog, but I think ordoliberalism captures the prim sanctimony of monsters like schauble.

PlutoniumKun , September 29, 2017 at 6:57 am

Second try here (I wrote a reply to you which disappeared into cyberspace, it may pop up again).

I agree that the distinction between ordoliberalism, liberalism and neoliberalism is a bit irrelevant when the outcome is the same. And they do agree with each other on most subjects. I just think its worth paying attention to the distinct differences between the mainstream German version of liberalism and Anglo liberalism.

To take the issue of austerity, it always seems to me that the Germans are True Believers. They have a moral belief that excess spending, government deficits, and trade deficits are wrong in every circumstances. Neoliberals pay lip service to this but (correctly) ignore this in practice. Tories and Republicans are always quite happy to bust budgets when it suits them and in reality dont seem to care about trade deficits.

On the other hand, while Neoliberals are True Believers on the benefits of free movement and trade, Ordoliberals are far more pragmatic, and are at heart mercantilists and corporatists (and this includes being quite happy to keep Trade Unions and other social sectors on board rather than seeing them as enemies). This is clearly reflected in the constitutional make-up of the EU.

I think that one of the crucial failures in the Eurozone is that for a whole series of reasons the structural design of the Eurozone was hijacked by liberal True Believers, and much of the fault for this was the intellectual failure of the broader left to understand the importance of controlling monetary policy.

Its also worth pointing out that while in the Anglosphere liberals have a unified approach and dominate the main parties, in many European countries, in particular Germany, there are, and always have been, distinct parties representing the different shades of liberal views, with Christian Democrats being Ordos, while smaller parties such as the Free Democrats representing a purer form of liberalism. As Yanis points out, a strengthened FDP is a disaster for Europe, we can only hope that the Greens somehow manage to wrestle away some of the economic portfolio from them.

Left in Wisconsin , September 29, 2017 at 12:16 pm

Philip Mirowski, who seems to have tried as much as anyone to clarify what is and isn't neoliberalism, considers ordoliberalism one of at least three or four variants: ordo, Austrian, Chicago School and, probably, James Buchanans public choice. He identifies Carl Schmitt as a key influence on Hayek, particularly Schmitts notions that the economy was too important to be left to the whims of democracy (only a strong state can preserve and enhance a free-market economy) and the exception, which is to say that the state should stay out of the economy at all times (i.e. no bailouts for you) except when preserving the market requires state intervention. Think Obama and big banks.

For those who arent familiar with Mirowski, here is a good piece on Defining Neoliberalism (in which, parenthetically, he provides an excellent takedown of Wikipedia as a forum for learning about anything controversial). To some, he takes a bit of getting used to but he is a terrific writer and you are bound to learn some new words. Have dictionary at the ready!
Defining Neoliberalism

PlutoniumKun , September 30, 2017 at 5:15 am

Ive read a little of Mirowski before, a very good writer, thanks for the link.

digi_owl , September 29, 2017 at 12:53 pm

The basic problem with EU is that what left there is present in it, is of the student/champagne left that is more about glitz and humanitarian causes than they are workers rights and similar that used to define the left both before and after WW2.

I keep bumping into students and young professionals that praise the EU because first of all they got to study abroad under some EU scheme, and now can take their credit card and smartphone and set up camp anywhere their hearts desire within the euro zone.

They are effectively blind to the problems this freeflow cause for long fought for rights and protections of the working man and woman. This while parroting the idea that EU is what has not caused a major European war in a generation or two

makedoanmend , September 30, 2017 at 4:32 am

Being a European leftist myself, I seldom bump into my compatriots who are drinking champagne as if its fizzy water, flashing credit cards and so on. Many are working middle class people struggling to get by; many others are working poor; and some are getting along just fine. In other words, there is an entire gamut of socio-economic backgrounds represented in the left in Europe.

Many of my compatriots are educated. When did leftists have to eschew higher and further education? One of the primary acts of socialist leaning peoples in the late nineteenth century was to lobby for and provide additional channels of education to sections of the community who previously didnt have the resources to study, or simply didnt have time during the day and were denied physical facilities when they did have the time.

Yes, there are many people who seem to be doing fairly well and might espouse leftist viewpoints without bothering to understand better why they espouse such views. I would suggest this is the case with many of our compatriots, whatever their political leanings. And its not so easy either to categorise and identify the working class. I know of several manual labourers who would go ballistic if you suggested they were anything less than middle class citizens.

Also, its rather easy to conflate liberals with leftists? I would argue they are not the same political beast.

Some students in my biology course (an admixture of biochem & agrics) just started an anarchist society. The first in the universitys history. I hope these young and well educated people, who come from many different backgrounds and from several European countries, can explore what leftism means and how it impacts on everyone for good or ill. Equally, I hope they are successful in better understanding the human condition as they down pints of wallop in some pub around town.

Terry Flynn , September 29, 2017 at 7:58 am

Thank you. Just an anecdotal observation that supports this based on 15+ years of Spanish holidays. I always had an apartment so I had options to go eat out with friends I made in the complex or cook for myself.

Spanish restauranteurs, if you got them to give their private views, hated German tourists compared to Brits: the latter would far more often go sod it, were eating out thus benefiting the local hospitality industry (and deal with the resulting credit card debt later!) . I and others noted how less often Germans did this. They clearly had a food budget which dictated finding the nearest LIDL/ALDI and cooking dinner for themselves in their apartments. In the shops (in areas that definitely werent dominated by German holidaymakers) youd see a disproportionate number of Germans buying pasta/bread/sauces – obviously intending to cook most nights.

Ive read on NC the increasing pressure on German domestic budgets following the schroeder reforms etc and anecdotally I saw plenty of living strictly within ones means on display on holidays And Spanish restauranteurs saw it too.

PlutoniumKun , September 29, 2017 at 8:07 am

Ask any tourist town hustler and theyll tell you the way to sell to Brits is to say its on discount! while the way to sell to Germans is to say its the best quality!.

Mind you, its also a cultural thing. I had a French acquaintance say that the big complaint in her small village is that the Dutch insist on bringing their horrible tasteless tomatoes with them on holiday. The Brits will always eat out of course, there is no point to being on holiday otherwise and quite right too.

But on a purely anecdotal basis Id agree with you that Germans seem much less inclined to splash out on holiday (Ive noticed that about supermarkets in Spain/France too). German incomes certainly have been squeezed unnecessarily for 2 decades now (its still amazes me that the German workers blandly accept this in most sectors). Germans used to be known as big spenders when they holidayed in Ireland, but they dont have that reputation anymore.

Terry Flynn , September 29, 2017 at 8:28 am

I agree that Im surprised so many German workers have blithely accepted this constriction on their incomes.

Again, there must be cultural factors at play that mean they have accepted that this is all part of how Germany apparently works so well as a country /society.

I am curious how long this mindset will continue as neoliberalism – even with the better German constraints on its effects – inevitably creeps further up the income distribution. Things like the balanced budget law (if fully adopted and adhered to) will cause increasing problems The AfD electoral success may be the canary in the coalmine.

paul , September 29, 2017 at 9:33 am

while I havent been in Germany in the last few years,last time I was in berlin,amid the cranes(the parliament island seemed to be a noble attempt at architectural landfill) and the infrastructure that was clearly behind demand, I was astonished at how many familiblogged characters were there, on the trams,busses, streets.
Went into a local bar, (much to my better 50% advice), we were the only ones that were not chronically disabled,no beer on tap but they all could hardly been nicer to us.
The german miracle is being worn to a thread was my conclusion.

paul , September 29, 2017 at 10:01 am

Wander into a german village town and you will see how unhappily this is playing out. Visiting the charmingly understated max ernst museum outside koln, I remember a well pensioned hausfrau rolling her eyes in our direction at a couple of young lads (dark skinned of course),her face would have turned milk.
They were just young lads talking loudly.
Because we are both tall and blue eyed she did not seem to have a problem with us at all.

Left in Wisconsin , September 29, 2017 at 12:29 pm

I agree that Im surprised so many German workers have blithely accepted this constriction on their incomes.

The German manufacturing economy is very strong but German workers in the exposed sector are no less subject to job relocation blackmail than workers anywhere else. The macro-economic data might prove that German workers are underpaid, but German wages are based off the export economy and the relocation threat is real. German manufacturing workers are already probably the highest paid in the world (depending on choice of measure). Widening the cost differential with Eastern and Southern Europe, not to mention other places with even lower wages, I think is rightly perceived as risky.

Ignacio , September 29, 2017 at 7:07 pm

I think you have a point here and it has to do with mercantilism. Probably, those workers employed in large factories exporting all around the world know that such mercantilism helps them keep their positions and relatively well paid positions compared with their peers in other countries. This must be the way CDU attracts labor to their side.

Nevertheless, if german tourists spent more in Spain, we would have more money to spend in their factories, somebody should educate them, HA,HA, HA!!!

digi_owl , September 29, 2017 at 1:09 pm

Apparently it has been sold as a way to keep Germany as an export powerhouse, thus allowing the nation to run a trade surplus.

Never mind that especially since the intro of the Euro, this has lead Germany to effectively operating a beggar-thy-neighbor policy.

Keep in mind that before the Euro, many neighboring nations would operate with a exchange rate hitched to the D-Mark. So if ever (West) Germany tried to push ahead, the others would devalue, and appear to drag Germany back down.

But since the Euro, Germany have been (not necessarily intentionally) using their domestically suppressed wages to muscle the products and services into neighboring markets.

Notice btw that much of the loans causing troubles in the PIIGS came from German banks (French banks were also involved, but to a lesser extent as France do not have the suppressed local wages). So if they fold, effectively Germany banking folds.

Oregoncharles , September 29, 2017 at 2:49 pm

one obvious differential between them and what we would consider neoliberalism is Germanys enormous economic and political success over the last decade or more. Of course, the recent election indicates that a lot of Germans disagree with that judgement, so evidently the bag is mixed in ways not so obvious from here.

That huge accumulation of power is the reason for the sometimes grudging respect granted to Schaueble and Merkel. Its also a great danger to Germany, because in a continent with long historical memories (compared to Americans), it looks more and more like a Fourth Reich. Even though his domestic policies are so extremely neoliberal, Macrons speech looks like the beginning of a rebellion, from the country qualified to lead it. Well see how that goes.

digi_owl , September 29, 2017 at 7:22 pm

Economic might that has since at least the reunification, if not earlier, have been predicated on a, in practice, beggar-thy-neighbor trade policy.

This by suppressing German wages to make German products and services cheaper than local equivalents.

This has been particularly effective since the Euro came into use, as now the Euro nations cant devalue their currencies to counteract this effect.

pietro gori , September 29, 2017 at 5:39 am

What is remarkable about Dr Schδubles tenure was how he invested heavily in maintaining the fragility of the monetary union, rather than eradicating it in order to render the eurozone macro-economically sustainable and resilient

Well, yes, but the fact is that the eurozone cannot possibly be redered maco-economically sustainable
and resilient. That is just well-entrenched wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Varoufakis

Yves Smith Post author , September 29, 2017 at 5:51 am

Thats not quite right. Varoufakis and Jamie Galbraith published a series of finesses, the biggest of which would have been creating an infrastructure bank that would invest, particularly in deficit countries.

A big flaw of government accounting is that it does everything on a cash-flow basis, when private sector accounting separates balance sheet and income statement items. Germany could have supported this work around, using the accounting justification or other pretexts. It didnt want to. By contrast, theyve been extremely creative in figuring out ways to create much more complicated facilities and financial structures to shore up the banks.

Chauncey Gardiner , September 29, 2017 at 2:35 pm

Thank you for this suggestion. I appreciate the values, intelligence, energy and experience of Yanis Varoufakis, and especially his insightful thoughts here on both the nature of the eurozone, Schaubles desire to preserve its fragility, and his wish to strengthen it.

Jamie Galbraith is no slouch, either. I would like to see their suggestions regarding policy initiatives both within and outside existing EU and other supranational structures that they believe could enable Greece to negate further abuse of its citizens, minimize the effects of Teutonic ordoliberal austerity, reverse privatization of the nations public assets, and strengthen the Greek economy. Hard to do when you dont have a sovereign currency and must seek to build alliances. Might have applications elsewhere in the world.

digi_owl , September 29, 2017 at 1:11 pm

That is sadly the one big flaw of Varoufakis, that he is of the champagne left that think the EU both can be saved and is worth saving.

This means that when push comes to shove he will not go all the way, driving for reforms rather than disbandment.

Ignacio , September 30, 2017 at 6:55 am

Well, despite it flaws, the EU is worth saving if it is to the better. There are quite good initiatives coming from the EU and it provides a political framework above traditional nationalism that by itself is very positive. I like that from Varoufakis, his priorities are well positioned.

Mickey Hickey , September 29, 2017 at 6:17 am

@Frenchguy

You hit the nail on the head with Ireland set up one of the biggest tax heavens of all time.. With the help of corporate lobbyists at the European Commission in Brussels without that it would have been shut down quickly. My take on Germany is that they have still not recovered from the Weimar era hyperinflation and economic collapse. Germany tends to cling tightly to strategies whether they be winners or losers. The currency printing presses were cranked up to insane levels. Money was something to be turned into goods or services within minutes.

Then overnight the gold backed Reichsmark was introduced and became an object of adoration that should under no circumstances be spent except for absolute necessities.

The Reichsmark precipitated economic collapse. The inflation phobia of todays Germany stems from the 1920s. Frau Merkel was not and is not a political leader. She is above all a successful politician who tests the direction of the political winds daily and makes micro adjustments accordingly. As for Germans being sticklers for rules, I have a 9 year old grandson who is a stickler for rules even a good portion of Irishness did not save him. I found that he was amenable to changing the rules so I encouraged that and now he is almost Irish.

With respect to German spending on infrastructure over the past twenty years. German infrastructure is in excellent shape compared to the rest of the developed world. Their public transit system is amongst the best in the world. Only in Canada (where I live normally) will you find better infrastructure than in Germany and that is due to large population increases resulting in newer infrastructure. Infrastructure lobbyists are preaching gloom and doom all over the developed world, a grain of salt is advised.

PlutoniumKun , September 29, 2017 at 7:08 am

Its complete hyperbole to describe Ireland as one of the biggest tax havens of all time. It is dwarfed within Europe by Luxembourg (which is a true tax haven in the literal sense) and the various UK off-shore havens. Vastly more money is moved through Switzerland and London for crooked or tax purposes and the Netherlands is an equal in using questionable rules to encourage investment.

Irelands dodgy tax policies, largely designed by T.K. Whitaker , actually predate membership of the EU (1958 to be precise) and were implicitly accepted upon its membership.

Oregoncharles , September 29, 2017 at 2:56 pm

Sort of like Greeces dodgy balance sheets (if thats the right term), intentionally overlooked when it applied for Eurozone membership?

Of course, if youre right about the others, the EU had compelling reason to overlook a few foibles. I gather Ireland rather paid for it after the GFC, though, and Greece is still paying for it.

PlutoniumKun , September 30, 2017 at 5:28 am

Not really – Ireland was a pioneer in using favourable taxes to bring in jobs to poorer areas. So much so that even China essentially copied the Irish model (so the Tiger economies were actually copying the Celtic tiger, not vice versa to some extent). Essentially, the Irish model was to allow transfer pricing in exchange for screwdriver plants – in addition to special secret deals for promising new companies, like Apple (its often forgotten just how small Apple was when it first moved into Ireland – it was something of a triumph of the Irish development agencies to have identified it). This was all open and obvious when Ireland joined the EU. Essentially, it was considered legitimate at the time for smaller countries to use tactics like this – it was completely in line with academic theory on the time in development economics, especially clustering theories (the idea that if you get enough factories in one area together, they will organically develop into more integrated industries). There was nothing hidden from the EU. If anything, the EU approved as it was seen as important to have star pupils among the smaller members.

Ireland is not a tax haven in the sense that its not a large repository for dodgy money. There are some elements of tax haven laws in the Irish banking system, but its not considered a tax haven in international terms. The main issue is that manufacturing companies based in Ireland are allowed to use loopholes in Irish laws to hide profits. Thats something of a different matter – all countries do this to some extent, Ireland is just a more egregious offender.

And its not really appropriate to compare it to Greece. Greece has been ruined by its poor model and its betrayal by the Eurozone. Ireland has gone from developing country status in the 1950s to one of the most prosperous countries in Europe. The losses from the crash of the Celtic Tiger have been more or less made up. Much as I hate to say it, the Irish economic development model has by any measures been a stunning success. This is why neoliberals love Ireland so much.

digi_owl , September 29, 2017 at 1:17 pm

You are right, and perhaps what is making the workforce willing to accept wage suppression.

This because the cause of the hyperinflation was exchange rates and trade deficits. Germany were forced to pay reparations denominated in foreign currency, but had little to no export industry to earn said currency with (the Ruhr were under French administration for one). Thus they had to print ever more notes to buy the currency to make the payments, and each round would lead to worse inflation.

The crazy thing is that Keynes warned about this, but was ignored.

So based on this, it may well be that German leadership is hell bent on maintaining a trade surplus, even if it means beggaring neighbors and in the long run create a massive buildup of ill will against Germany.

Distrubed Voter , September 29, 2017 at 6:38 am

Thanks for quoting Varoufakis, and thanks for allowing wonderful commentaries again by such knowledgeable readers.

Futility , September 29, 2017 at 10:18 am

Incidentally, Der Spiegel published today an article about a photographer who documented the plight of prostitutes in Greece. There one can see the real world consequences of Schδubles policies. The women (and men) work for 15 Euro or less per customer. A lot of people see this as their last resort to feed their family. The article mentions that Greece increased the VAT from 13% to 24%, making condoms prohibitively expensive for the prostitutes which resulted in a marked increase in HIV infections. How Schδuble can live with himself, I dont know.

WARNING: The article is in German and some of the pictures are not fit for work.

Eustache De Saint Pierre , September 29, 2017 at 11:12 am

There was once an article that was I believe posted here which outlined the fact that the legalised & supposedly efficient German prostitution industry was not all it was cracked up to be – it appeared around the same time that a German woman had her benefits sanctioned due to refusing to work in the industry.

I would just like to say that there is at least one Englishmen who finds cooking a pleasurable experience when on holiday, which when I can manage it due to the lady in my lifes preference would be Italy. Beautiful bread, real mozzarella, white creamy butter, divine proscuitto, & large perfect for Caprese salad tomatoes bought from small grocers – Just some of the treats on offer the make the break very special.

Synoia , September 29, 2017 at 3:54 pm

Even worse, whereas Wolfgang Schδuble understood that austerity plus new loans were catastrophic for countries like Greece (but insisted on them as part of his campaign to discipline France and Italy), his FDP successors at the finance ministry will probably be less enlightened believing that the tough medicine is fit for purpose.

And now perhaps one understands the 30 years war, the Franco-Prussian war, WW I and WW II.

The Im certain Im correct in the face of a other reasonableness.

digi_owl , September 29, 2017 at 7:27 pm

It is effectively a variant of the problem of becoming a monster while one believe one is defeating monsters

Scott , September 29, 2017 at 11:28 pm

Keynes was perceptive, and I can believe his warnings were understood, if not at the time, later. His portrait of Woodrow Wilson out of his depth completely when seated with politicians of France who were adept at bypassing and then destroying the Points the Germans had signed the Armistice because of.

America was not successful at out witting the French. Moral leadership? Wilson just turned into a sidelined ignored & defeated character. It is no wonder Germany went to war again.

The question now is whose warnings are we to hear now?

Michael Hudson would say that capitalism is destroying itself. I have yet to see him on Rachel Maddow who often has David Cay Johnston on, though the questions are about Trump, not the Tax Code. Mr. Johnston could give us a good Tax Code.

Mr. Hudson? Who in Government is listening to him?

Mark P. , September 30, 2017 at 4:08 am

Whos listening to Hudson in the U.S. government?

Well, maybe they arent now. Lots of folks at the DoD and State read him in 1972, right after he left off working for David Rockefeller and wrote SUPER IMPERIALISM: THE ECONOMIC STRATEGY OF AMERICAN EMPIRE as a diagnosis of how the dollar as global reserve currency was going to work once Nixon and Kissinger had taken the U.S. off the gold standard. They used Hudsons book as a how-to manual and did their best to buy up all the copies.

You arent going to see Hudson on the Rachel Maddow show, in short.

[Sep 30, 2017] The Slimy Business of Russia-gate Comments to the article at Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... Is it possible that the left is being played? Is it possible that the media who almost exclusively report what the establishment wants are being told to report BS? Is it disinfo campaign aimed at ruining the lefts chances of coming back to power? I know the public can easily be made to have their collective heads explode over anything but are journalists that brainwashed too? I'm starting to see a birther parallel here. ouch. Is that ironic or what? ..."
"... The influence on the election from the Russians to me is absurd to the naked eye. Israel has far more influence on American elections through AIPAC. Saudi Arabia has influence through money Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have much more influence on American elections And the prime minister of Israel comes to our country and addresses Congress to criticize the presidents policy in Iran at the time – thats pretty outrageous. ..."
"... Our country is very much in the grip of a dictator: The dictator is money, the military-industrial-complex. ..."
"... This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is going to annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the majority of seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the presidency. ..."
"... It does not make an iota of difference which party is in power. The party of the People was in power, when Obama took office. Look what happened. They started more wars, finished off Libya as a Nation, started the destruction of Syria, started extermination in Yemen . . . . Obama set up more U.S. bases in Africa – the land of his ancestors to bring them back under control. And don't forget the Drone Wars of Obama. ..."
"... All this Russia Gate mess was started by Obama, and largely fueled by The Party of the People. If they come to power, they are going to double up on it. Dont we watch the likes of Adam Schiff On TV every day spitting out their lies and and hatred towards Russia! The party of Bill and Hillary are clamoring for more action – like setting up no Fly Zones – in Syria. They want to subjugate Russia. ..."
"... Mike K. in his post yesterday under Rise of New McCarthyism had this link to an interesting article on the Neocons. ..."
Sep 30, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

SteveK9 , September 28, 2017 at 5:30 pm

At some point, you would like to believe that this stuff is so over the top, it would be self-defeating. Are there any accurate polls of what the general public thinks of all this? If it weren't for the threat of a thermonuclear Armageddon, it would only mean more resources wasted on the war party and less for social security, etc. Russia is not going anywhere, and I believe is beyond our ability to harm it, unless said nuclear holocaust ensues. Our attempts to isolate Russia are doomed to fail.

Sam F , September 28, 2017 at 9:41 pm

Yes, the charade is doomed to fail to persuade, let alone hurt Russia, but will succeed in creating the foreign monster needed by tyrants to demand domestic power. In our modern witch hunts we all know that there are no witches – the whole performance is a declaration of tyranny over public information, a statement to the common man that he must follow his master the mass media, he must avow that he is the slave of the rich, and pretend that the declared enemy is his own. He must praise the flag betrayed by his masters the oligarchy.

hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 11:08 am

Is it possible that the left is being played? Is it possible that the media who almost exclusively report what the establishment wants are being told to report BS? Is it disinfo campaign aimed at ruining the lefts chances of coming back to power? I know the public can easily be made to have their collective heads explode over anything but are journalists that brainwashed too? I'm starting to see a birther parallel here. ouch. Is that ironic or what?

Abe , September 29, 2017 at 11:26 pm

During a discussion with The Nation concerning the documentary series The Putin Interviews, first broadcast in June 2017, Academy Award winning film producer Oliver Stone addressed the hacking allegations and questions of influence on the American election:

The influence on the election from the Russians to me is absurd to the naked eye. Israel has far more influence on American elections through AIPAC. Saudi Arabia has influence through money Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have much more influence on American elections And the prime minister of Israel comes to our country and addresses Congress to criticize the presidents policy in Iran at the time – thats pretty outrageous.

Our country is very much in the grip of a dictator: The dictator is money, the military-industrial-complex. Its beyond absurd to have this kind of expenditure every year on military.

https://www.thenation.com/article/oliver-stone-talks-to-the-nation-about-his-new-documentary-the-putin-interviews/

Joe Tedesky , September 28, 2017 at 5:36 pm

If there is any comfort to be found in any of this, all this blaming Russia on everything and anything is getting all to outrageous as each day goes by. In other words the MSM overkill on this Russia-Gate silliness, is losing its credibility, with all this nonsense and coverage saying so.

eole , September 29, 2017 at 6:34 am

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, here in Europe, there are still a lot of countries which blindly follow whatever the USA think or do, particularly with NATO which would so like to step by mistake of course across the Baltic and Polish borders.

I must say that I admire the strength of Putins nerves. How long will it last? Also there are elections next year, and we can observe that Washington is arleady trying to plant seeds of revolution. I dont think it'll work. According to Xavier Moreau a French political observer living in Moscow, Putin enjoys a popularity that lots of foreign politicians would be envy!

Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:22 am

I wish eole, likeminded Europeans and us in the U.S. were to band together to protest, and petition, our governments to stop with all this warring madness. From the Donbass, to Deir Ezzor, and all the way across the globe to Seoul Korea, we the people for peace should stand arm and arm to defy this ugly monster whos only goal is to marginalize us citizens with their ultimate military strength towards having their ownership over all of the worlds precious natural resources. All this to make a few bankers rich. Joe

mike k , September 28, 2017 at 5:46 pm

Money controls everything. ETHICS DOESNT STAND A CHANCE IN COMPETITION WITH MONEY. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ WELCOME TO THE WONDERLAND OF Capitalism, where you can have anything you want, if only you have the MOOLA! Souls for sale here – CHEAP!
Just sign here in blood, and have we got a deal for you….

Leslie F , September 28, 2017 at 7:51 pm

The only poll I know about was an internal Democratic Party poll showing that rank and file Democrats resented the incessant Russia did it mantra as not responsive to their concerns. I don't remember whether people believed it or not but they definitely through it was getting too much attention from Democratic leaders at the expense of more important issues.

Joe Tedesky , September 28, 2017 at 9:23 pm

This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is going to annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the majority of seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the presidency. It will serve the Democrates well, for allowing themselves for being used as a tool for the Shadow Government.

Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 4:07 am

Joe – This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is going to annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the majority of seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the presidency.

It does not make an iota of difference which party is in power. The party of the People was in power, when Obama took office. Look what happened. They started more wars, finished off Libya as a Nation, started the destruction of Syria, started extermination in Yemen . . . . Obama set up more U.S. bases in Africa – the land of his ancestors to bring them back under control. And don't forget the Drone Wars of Obama.

All this Russia Gate mess was started by Obama, and largely fueled by The Party of the People. If they come to power, they are going to double up on it. Dont we watch the likes of Adam Schiff On TV every day spitting out their lies and and hatred towards Russia! The party of Bill and Hillary are clamoring for more action – like setting up no Fly Zones – in Syria. They want to subjugate Russia.

The way the things are in the country, of all the bad options available, Trump probably is the best to have – he can not make the case for more wars effectively, like the slick politician Obama did.

Mike K. in his post yesterday under Rise of New McCarthyism had this link to an interesting article on the Neocons.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html

Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:40 am

Dave you are right. The reason I mentioned the Democrates was because they were the last party that I can recall who did once stand for the we the people. My memory also can recall how even when at their best the Democrates weren't all that great to living up to their overrated motto. So what I was referring too in many ways doesnt exist, and some would say never did. These presidents we all find fault with, in my mind are only front people for our Shadow Government (look up YouTube of Kevin Shipp). In fact watching Trump turn over his staff, and his redo of his campaign promises, is like seeing the Shadow Government take over in real time. You and I Dave are most definitely living inside of the matrix. Thanks Dave for moving this conversation along in the right direction. Joe

Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 11:53 am

Yes Joe. There was lot of good in that old Democratic Party of the 1960s and 70s – my wife and I took part in the McGoverns campaign. And in those days, in old main street type conservative Republicans, I found lot of good too. In fact, when I came to this country during mid 1960s, the city council of Ann Arbor was Republican, and they were good people. And now the city council of Ann Arbor is in Democratic Party hands – all Hillary supporters, and Russia bashers too.

I wonder what they are teaching in these schools now. This is what this very effective propaganda machine of this new age Edward Bernays is doing to the young minds and to the public at large.

Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 12:24 pm

Dave you bring up the 1972 McGovern presidential run, and the way that all went down. I quit voting after that all took a turn for the worst, and for the following next twenty years I stayed away from the voting booth. That no doubt wasnt a smart way of dealing with my disappointment, but at that time I thought it appropriate because I could see then that I didnt necessarily agree with the majority of my fellow countrymen and woman. No big deal, I just did what needed done to get my family food on the table. To be honest Dave, I still dont know why I vote. Although you are right the Democrates arent in anyway much better than the Republicans, and with that we all suffer. Joe

Laninya , September 28, 2017 at 5:57 pm

Quote: And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental organizations if they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic process no matter how sloppy the research or how absurd the findings.

Ha!ha! You know whats funny about this? Its that all the money poured into the NGOs in Russia in the past quarter century that was intended to, not just meddle in, but to shape the Russian political, social, and economic realities has, under Putins wise and delicate rule, been squeezed into an ineffectual state of presence. And because their attempts on the ground in real life have failed over there, a theatrical inversion of reality has to be created over here.

Ah!ha!ha! This is SUCH an amazing movie. And, better when wearing 3-D glasses! Cant wait to see how it ends.

Joe Tedesky , September 28, 2017 at 6:19 pm

Your right, Putin seems to out smart these clever American instigators every step of the way. I will now take a knee for injustices committed against Blacks, and Native-Americans (remember Dakota Access), and stay down on my knee a little while longer with the hope that my beloved USA may come to its senses, and that my country will finally wise up.

laninya , September 29, 2017 at 12:44 am

Joe,

I appreciate your taking a knee for injustices committed against certain of those who share this continent with us English-speaking peoples (who seem to have have claimed it as our own), as I have long appreciated the tone and substance of your comments on this site.

So, Im gonna quibble (in a friendly way) with you on the idea that Putin out smarts American instigators at every step. Ive been spying on that guy for about three years, now, and Id say its just that hes playing a different game. One the American players dont understand, and dont believe even exists or maybe theyve heard rumours of such a game, but they think its mythical.

See: our people -- yours and mine: your beloved USA and my Canada, heirs of the British Empire -- our people make war for fun and profit. Always have done. We rule the waves, and privateering is our game.

Putins people, on the other hand, have occupied the crossroads at the centre of the major overland trade routes (north-south as well as east-west) since ancient times, and, due to the geography and the demographics, have been fighting off invaders from all direction the whole time. Its a whole different game.

And, its a game VV Putin takes seriously, cause he has no other choice. After perestroika, after the Harvard boys [did] Russia ( ref: https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/ ), that huge nation (11 time zones!) was on the brink of total collapse and dismemberment. For the stability, security and prosperity of (what was left of) his people and the 1000-year history of the nation, he just couldnt afford to make any mistakes or false steps.

For him and his team (Putin doesnt work alone by any stretch of the imagination), this isnt a pissing contest. Its the life of their nation.

Whole different game.

I hope our countries wise up, too. Were really blowing it.

Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 1:46 am

There are two things here I see as interesting, and possibly crucial, laninya.

One, is the U.S. and Canada by the standards of a countrys age are fairly young. In fact Russia got our countries beat by, probably would you say 4 fold? Anyway, our time at bat as being an Empire of somekind would even be shorter by the standards of empire time. So for America being stupid and young enough to be excused for at least this kind of uncontrolled blind patriotism we have seen of late in the U.S., added to the total absence of attentioned paid to all these American instigated wars, why us Americans are like distracted children in a playground, so our youth is our only plead. I could be wrong, but this collective mindset in our society here, makes me believe we need to do a lot of growing up in this nation, and the world will be happy to throw the U.S. a coming of age party if peace is the prize.

The second matter is, is that I agree that Russia by having a defense oriented military strategy is in better shape than like the U.S. having ourselves stretched out all over the global network we have wove. You see I dont trust big, and Im leery of to much technology as wellbut thats me. In fact, if a body existed like the UN who had some real juice were to laid down some enforceable laws, I would then hedge towards them making nations have their militaries situated more like the Russian Federation does.defensive. With the NFL in the news so much these days this Good Defense thinking should make sense to no matter who stands or kneels.

Lastly, the U.S. has already over spent itself on war, now the U.S. only needs to go on a frantic rampage of somekind.lets hope it just boils down to rhetorical saber rattlings, and the world laughs with us. Kim looks to be having a ball. I shouldnt have said that, but sometimes a little humor lightens the reality.oh its very American to laugh when we should be worried, but I digress..

Big isnt always better. You may look better in a $1,000. 00 suit than I do in my $10,000.00 suit, and oh by the way these clothes we have on are still suits.

Nice conversation laninya. Joe

Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 4:19 am

Ianinya – An excellent analysis. Right on the mark. Putin is not a dictator as they malign him in the Media in The West. He is leading a team – very astute and shrewd team. For Russia it is an existential struggle – a fight they can not lose. They have been subjected to it during their entire History as you pointed out.

Americans – even our politicians and experts – do not have much understanding of other peoples history – they do not understand Russia.

laninya , September 29, 2017 at 12:48 pm

Dave,

Well, its interesting what a person can learn these days just sitting in a chair, poking at a few buttons on a keyboard. Never in the history of the world have ordinary people had so many resources at their disposal and so much information at their fingertips. Yet, your last sentence still seems accurate.

Why is that? In the US and Canada, we do have experts who are very knowledgable about other peoples history and culture, including Russias. But, for some reason or another, there are times when we just collectively choose to sideline and ignore them. In the US you have Stephen F. Cohen Jack Matlock, and Sharon Tennison, among others, who can speak intelligently about Russia. In Canada we have the voices of Patrick Armstrong, Paul Robinson, and the blogger Mark Chapman (The Kremlin Stooge). Armstrong and Robinson both come from a military background, both also publish easily accessible blogs.

I believe it was thanks to a commenter over at the Kremlin Stooge that I discovered a book, then newly available in English translation, titled Russia and Europe / The Slavic Worlds Political and Cultural Relations with the Gremanic-Roman West by Nikolai Danilevskii, originally published c.1868.

Let me show you a quote from that book. A hundred and fifty years ago, Danilevskii wrote this:
It is still in fashion among us to attribute everything to our unfamiliarity with Europe, and to its ignorance concerning Russia. Our press says nothing, at least until recently, but our enemies slander us. How would poor Europe learn the truth? It is shrouded in fog and befuddled. Risum teneatis, amici; or, as we say in Russian, it would make a chicken laugh, my friends. How could Europe -- which knows everything from the Sanskrit language to the Iroquois dialects, from the laws of motion of complex solar systems to the structures of microscopic organisms -- not know a thing about Russia? Such excuses -- ignorance, naivety, and gullibility, as if we are talking about an innocent schoolgirl -- are laughable coming from Europe, shrewd as a serpent.

Funny, eh?

Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 8:37 pm

My comments have been in moderation for couple of hours, may be due to links to The Saker I put in. I am posting it again without the links.

laninya,

The last paragraph in your comments, quotation from Danilevsky is very interesting. Yes, you are right. There are quite a few people in academia and outside, like Stephen Cohen, Matlock, and others. Matlock has been trying to calm the waters with his appearances on RT, and a few other places, and also at the Valdai International discussion club forum. But these people have no power.

Just about all the power – finance, media, TV, entertainment industry, foreign policy, and to a large extent defense policy, in the U.S. is in the hands of the NeoCons, mostly Zionists, in complicity with Israel.

You wrote about the Harvard Boys doing all this financial engineering on Russia during 1990s under that charlatan Yeltsin, who was in U.S. hands. I really thought The West has finally finished Russia off – and that Russia can not recover in hundred years , as the media was proclaiming here. Putin and his team has resurrected Russia once again – it is almost a miracle. They – Russia – are not in good shape yet, but it seems like they can defend themselves.

As you wrote, Russia, being at the cross roads, has faced invasions, and dangers throughout its history – Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, under Tatar yoke for two centuries, nomads from the steppes and Central Asia, Turks from the South, and from Caucasus warrior tribes. From the West – Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Germany, and France.

Russia has been under constant existential threat through out its history, and so is today under threat form U.S., and the rest of The West. Wests intervention in Syria for regime change, and then Iran as target is all aimed at Russia. Russia had no other recourse but help Syria against the Jihadis, armed and supported by The West.

But Syria still is not out of danger. There are some articles in the Saker today related to it and Kurdistan issue. In Syria , it seems like U.S., SDF, and ISIS are working in tandem to stop the advance of Syrian Army supported by Russia.

Laninya , September 30, 2017 at 12:15 am

Hey Dave,

Glad you tweaked to the Danilevskii quote. When I read it, I thought: wow! has time stood still?

Let me address what you said about power, though. You wrote:

But these people have no power. Just about all the power – finance, media, TV, entertainment industry, foreign policy, and to a large extent defense policy, in the U.S. is in the hands of the NeoCons, mostly Zionists, in complicity with Israel.

See, I dont go along with that cop out. The population at large has the power to make or break any of the entities listed above. If Neocons have power, its because people are buying what theyre selling. Stephen Cohen and Jack Matlock do not because few want to hear what they have to say right now.

As I said above, our Western economy was built on privateering. We know what butters our bread (plunder), yet we also want to present ourselves as being on the side of the angels. So we give power to the murders and thieves among us and then pretend were not responsible for what they do. I read that as being the shrewd as a serpent part of what Danilevskii was talking about.

As for the Saker, I frequent the Vineyard myself.

Thanks for the conversation.

Karl Sanchez , September 28, 2017 at 6:04 pm

Essentially, in other words, the CIAs having another recruiting drive to further undermine what little remains of honest, deeply investigative journalism within the Outlaw US Empire. The Big Black Hole gets dug deeper daily. The success of CIA brainwashing can be seen by the number of people denouncing those Taking a Knee.

MaDarby , September 28, 2017 at 7:56 pm

Clearly propaganda works. People rage against the empire and then swallow whole its fear mongering and demonizing of Russia ultimately siding with the Empire.

There are so many people journalists and persons loved by the left who have clearly now sided with the Empire big names who just cave in and say oh just one more election in our wonderful democracy please its pathetic. There is no such thing as democracy in an Empire.

Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 9:14 am

what has been revealed by Republican government officials to be facts, like the intrusion of voting machines in 21 states

One should be very careful about such facts – much of it has been retracted, and usually the retraction receives much less attention than the original allegation. As far as Wisconsin is concerned, the allegations have already been retracted: https://www.apnews.com/10a0080e8fcb4908ae4a852e8c03194d Based on our external analysis, the WI IP address affected belongs to the WI Department of Workforce Development, not the Elections Commission, said the email from Juan Figueroa, with Homeland Securitys Office of Infrastructure Protection. So, while the attribution of the source of the probing to the Russian state is speculative, in the case of Wisconsin, the target was not even the elections commission, but the department of workforce development.

Of course, not everything has explicitly been retracted, but when we look at this pattern of allegations about Russia (like that they hacked the electric grid in Vermont) that are later retracted, that should rather lead people to be skeptical about all these allegations.

Constantine , September 29, 2017 at 1:44 pm

Your very mention of hacked e-mails reveals your extreme bias on the issue. In your view, it would be impossible to expect one or more individuals with integrity in the IT department of the DNC being horrified by the revelations and the dealings these revealed about the pre-selected candidate Clinton. Some people may have been genuinely outraged by the attempt of the DNC establishment hacks to undermine Sanders in violation of the partys own rules and proceed to leak this sensitive info to Wikileaks. But for people like you it had to be Russia.

If anything, the pitiful arguments and non-facts used to promote the fake Russia-gate scandal further reinforce the certainty that this was concocted to attack Trumps presidency. And what people like you fail to understand is that had a leftist candidate won the elections, one who would be sincerely interested to change the course of the US in numerous aspects of domestic and foreign policy, such an individual would face the same implacable hostility by the neoliberal establishment.

And it is the servile mentality of a large number of the US/western citizenry – to which part you obviously belong – that allows the same people who have spewing lies and fantastic narratives that serve the countrys corporate oligarchy to get away again and again and proceed to do so in every occasion it is required of them. There are no consequences for deliberately spreading falsehoods and it always works.

As for the threat of an armageddon, if you honestly believe that penalizing diplomacy with Russia (a fantastic achievement that was not seen during the Cold War) doesnt carry any dangers, you have an extremely limited perception of international politics.

Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 2:57 pm

Mr. Goldman, your comments on this site are entertaining and obfuscating at once. You say, as though speaking truth, …it did appear that the hacked e-mails and Trumps closing arguments in the election, were coordinated. What hacked emails? There were no hacked emails, though, like you, newspapers repeat that phrase to establish it as a given in peoples minds, cementing the propaganda at which point it is no longer questioned. Seeit worked with you. Hacking and leaking are entirely different processes. The emails were LEAKED from the DNC to Julian Assange/Wikileaks. Period. Provable. Fact. Ground zero is the leaked emailsproving Hilary wanted to discredit Sanders as an opponent, move forward on war with Iran and Russia (both would be as illegal as all our other wars in the past 70 years), strengthen her connections with the banking world, and become president. Since you say you want facts to prevail, let them.

Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:15 pm

To say there is no proof of mischief is a conclusion that defies logic and fact. Firstly we have every right to investigate this issue, and secondly Trump operatives and Russian behavior created this investigation, not the other way around, and the evidence appears to be growing.

I think this person is a True Believer in what is the logical extension of the Cheney Doctrine. <and here I've been saying that the BushBots were all gone!) From the wiki:

If theres a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. Its not about our analysis Its about our response.

In other words, the Bushies were going to do what they damned well pleased. Fast Forward to 2017. From the essay above:

The Times article also might have mentioned that Twitter has 974 million accounts. So, this alarm over 600 accounts is a bit disproportionate for a front-page story in the Times, dont you think?

As Mr. Golden says, it defies logic not to treat this as a genuine Threat To American Democracy. Approximately 1/10,000th of 1% of Twitter accounts are in on this scheme – Mr. Parry is clearly being a contrary stick-in-the-mud for denying evidence which is perfectly obvious to the most casual observer.

Seer , September 29, 2017 at 8:29 am

Do you type with a straight face? From your previous post: Trump operatives and Russian behavior created this investigation

anon , September 28, 2017 at 7:35 pm

More propaganda from the zionist scammer Golden:
1. The professional investigators did any usable internet tracing in 2016: routers do not have second thoughts; the investigators made serious and amateurish mistakes and false statements recently;
2. An abundance of caution was allowed in 2016 and is propaganda now;
3. It is absurd to say that statements of the lack of evidence defy logic and fact and then be unable to cite a single bit of evidence;
4. More zionist lies pretending that the US Mideast policy is not dictated by Israeli bribes;
5. More zionist lies that Russia and the US have conflicting, geo-political interests in the Middle East, that have nothing to do with Israel
6. Spare us the fantasy and stick to the facts or go preach to your zionist paymasters.

D5-5 , September 28, 2017 at 6:27 pm

right track wrong track polling with current sept figures

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_wrong_track_25

right track wrong track polling shows similar to above a year ago

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

D5-5 , September 28, 2017 at 6:42 pm

Right track wrong track polling, links now waiting moderation, show in the 60 percentiles America on the wrong track in successive years. In pursuing this type of polling I find in similar sources, consistent over the past year, discontent with the government spending time on the Russia conspiracy instead of getting after health care and other issues considered more important. I also find 84% currently support the NFL athletes right to protest, but only 39% think taking a knee is acceptable. Also found a somewhat amusing reference to the Lingerie Football League, which Id never heard of, females playing football in skimpy outfits, and this (should I say body) states that the flag is too sacred to be protested. Well, the Russkies didnt get to these lingerie football players yet, I am relieved to report.

I found results in duck duck go under right track wrong track polling and do Americans believe in Russia-gate and do Americans support NFL players protesting.

Robert Golden , September 28, 2017 at 7:38 pm

I think 12% of Americans favored the R health care plan. They have spent 9 months on it, and havent given up. Two years pitching Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi as a complete fabrication, so what is your point again? Further, check your data on the Russian investigation again. I dont know anyone who doesnt support the investigation and Rachael Maddow is now #1 on cable news (from 3rd), and thats all she talks about.

D5-5 , September 28, 2017 at 8:12 pm

This comment appears to be typical of your thinking, Robert, and Im sorry to say it does no credit. You have taken what I said and twisted it. According to poll reports I was looking at earlier, and some of these are now waiting moderation 65% of Americans felt the emphasis on Russia-gate overdone and want the government to spend time on more important matters, such as health care, which you dismiss here as outright incorrect. In your previous reply to me you revealed what your certainty about fact rests on: in your own words that is hunch. Well, hunch wont do it for the critical thinking youre calling for, Robert, which I respectfully suggest you do more of. Your cred here is pretty low at the moment. I mean no malice by saying so.

Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm

R. Golden, Here are some facts: Healthcare for all citizens in this country would be half the cost for twice the care. Period. Read T.R. Reids book, investigating other countries with free health care for all. It is amusing that Fidel Castro once pointed out the Cuban education and health care systems compared to the US.
All citizens want healthcare for all, except those few who are made wealthy keeping the status quo (pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, those doctors in the AMA who are paid off for supporting certain markets in the medical fields and encouraging use of certain drugs, and paid-off politicians who lobby for these thieves and get funding for their elections). Why should those handful of money hungry men control our health system? You may be interested to learn that the people in the medical field who actually care about patients, the vast majority, want Medicare from birth forward.

Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 3:51 pm

R. Golden, Rachael Maddow has lost her creditability with her rants about Russia and pro-militarism, neither stance defendable. If shes now ranked 3rd, that is indicative of the low level of intelligence and critical thinking in the country. After all, Russia/Putin is innocent until proven otherwise (not by guesses, hunches, innuendos, suggestions, quotes by unnamed officials, and outright lies). After all, ALL our wars since WWII have been illegal and against international law, and are engaged with false flags. Should we support soldiers who are sent into battle to murder innocent civilians in sovereign lands? No. That would be insanity.

WC , September 28, 2017 at 6:53 pm

Bad enough on my safe space that I have Paul Craig Roberts harping on these same issues, now Parry joins the fray. I need to be reassured that there is no profit in a nuclear wasteland and even political sociopaths and the bankers that own them have an instinct for survival. In the back of my head I keep hearing George C. Scotts character in Strangelove saying, http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003295/quotes

floyd gardner , September 28, 2017 at 8:26 pm

WaterCloset, a courtesy flush please?

WC , September 29, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Good one. :) But you cant flush the level of BS that has been fed to the public over the past number of years. Thats why Trump the plumber was elected, to drain the swamp etc.

So now what happens? 20+ trillion in debt with 100+ trillion in unfunded liabilities, let alone off-shoring all those jobs is a fairly good indicator the shit is backed up to the ceiling. If we are to believe Trump actually makes any decisions, what are his choices? QE4? Austerity to piss people off even more? Or start another war someplace to take peoples minds off the collapsing economy?

To quote Bachman Turner Overdrive – You Aint Seen Nothing Yet.

Danny Weil , September 28, 2017 at 7:17 pm

America is stumbling into a diystopic future with a clueless public and a corporate fascist government.

Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:30 pm

The motivation of the neocon NYT is worth speculating about. Yes, they've been wanting to smash Muslim nations for israel for ages. What other possible motives might there be?

Why are these billionaires doubling down on Israeli Investments?

What do Bill Gates, Carlos Slim Helu, Mark Cuban, Donald Trump, and Warren Buffett all have in common?

Speculation – it might be as simple as money. Remember, Israel OWNS the US Congress, and has managed to put the fear of God into every last one of them. This unprecedented influence could easily be translated into some enormous financial benefits for those Rich Guys who suck up in the proper and approved manner. It would be as simple as slipping in some innocent-looking phrases into some of the boring legislation hardly anybody reads. You can bet that it would pass, and you can also bet that the Corporate Media will keep their yaps shut about it.

So thats another theory – plain and simple corruption midwifed by the thieving and murdering little shithole of an apartheid nation.

Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:31 pm

http://blog.ourcrowd.com/why-are-these-billionaires-doubling-down-on-israeli-investments/

Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:34 pm

I seem to have forgotten to mention that Carlos Slim is supposed to be a major stockholder of the neocon NYT.

Robert Golden , September 28, 2017 at 7:48 pm

Please do some reading. Your first stop should be the Koch Bros who own the largest track of Canadian Tar Sands, and are potentially going to be twice as rich, after Trump approved the Keystone Pipeline, from Canada through the middle of America all the way to the flooded and toxic plains, to Houston (final destination Asia). Youll find they already own most of the global warming denying Congress (not Israel), and their next extraction site will probably be the Grand Canyon. After you have read up on the Kochs, check out the Mercers.

Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 8:24 pm

koch Bros
Canadian Tar Sands
Keystone Pipeline

Mercers

The connection of these places and people to the BS peddling by the NYT isnt entirely clear to me.

Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 9:21 am

The connection is that this modern Roman Empire is very big: the inheritors of the Roman Empire (France, Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, and so on) have been wanting to smash Muslim Empires for 1500 years, having lost their M.E. and N. African Provinces to them. Since the Zion project was hatched by Cecil Rhodes RoundTable Group in the19th century, the Israel Project is a project of the British Province of the modern Roman Empire, which ALSO commands considerable influence in its Western Provinces Canada and USA, hence: Koch Bros.,Canadian Tar Sands, Keystone Pipeline, Mercers. Of course Im talking about the integrated community of 1%er Oligarchs, NOT The People of these Provinces. Corbyn and Sanders (and whoever the Canadian and Israeli equivalents would be) can throw a gigantic Monkey Wrench into these imperial shenanigans

Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 9:26 am

Israel is a way of continuing the smashing process of Muslim Empires by the modern Roman Empire, and I forgot to say that Germany is also a very big part of the modern Roman Empire, which carried the name Holy Roman Empire up to Napoleonic times (which, BTW, ole Nappie himself became their model for a modern Fascist Roman Emperor, as his Generals and extremely regressive factions within the Catholic Church hatched the Synarchy Internationale Project mid-19th century).

hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 11:59 am

ok, you brought it up, so i will run with it..

bringing it around full circle.

modern roman empire. yes. agreement . but

only british monarchy. with allies, not partners. why is this important? if one looks at the history of the royal institute for international affairs, one can see that the crown had to figure out how to maintain control of their assets. fast forward to the american branch. its called the council on foreign relations. the number of members in our government over years and years is staggering. just keep that in mind.

there is ample evidence of british involvement in the us war of northern aggression. and not just because they traded with the south. did you know that the monarchys cousins, the russian crown, sent warships to california in defense of the union?

its my opinion that this act is what sealed the fate of the romanovs in 1917. payback. for whatever reason the british crown holds grudges. im irish. not sure what my ancestors did to piss them off but they havent let off on our people in a thousand years…

this anti russia thing started before obama although it was not as overt.

the orange color revolution happened in (wait for it….) ukraine under bush. and while not reported as a cia supported venture, i think we know what happened.

does anyone remember 8/8/08? opening day of the olympics in china. but a mini war was started in south ossetia. american media initially reported that russians had attacked un soldiers there.

the present anti russian hysteria started when putin checkmated the neo libs/neo cons when their attempt to destabilize syria failed. thats when i observed the overt media attacks begin.

funny thing. i have actually been to russia and ukraine. in 1979. it was the first time in my life that i had been outside of the usa. the government propaganda of the previous 60 years had made me think of all russians as evil bond villians. it was eye opening to finally meet real russians. understand they were just people like me. i was 16 and it was the first time i had the blinders lifted. a real learning moment.

so, i guess that makes me guilty of collusion. sorry to you hillary supporters.

Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 2:21 pm

Yes, hated, I agree with you on all points. Czar Alexander II was killed (he was Lincolns Ally against British and French plans to join battle with Davis against Lincoln. Lincoln was killed for the Greenback maneuver around British monetary control (a Venetian style of Empire via monetary control & manipulation). Lincolns war of agression was a war against the superpower British Empire and its puppet the Confederacy (Planter Oligarchs), Wall Street assets (J.P. Morgan & Co., money handlers for the Planters), and the Essex Country Junto (New England Blue Bloods in shipping for the Empires slave and Opium trade). The Planter oligarchy was crushed. The Wall Streeters lived on (Essex County Junto bluebloods tooour Axis of Evil against the Republic, and Independence from Empire). Lincolns GreenBacks was a typical example of the American Credit System of Political Economy (control of economy by a Sovereign Nation-States Government in the hands of We The People via House of Representatives, a deadly threat to the British-Style of Empire via a Venetian Monetary System manipulated & controlled by oligarchs. Russia always supported USA Revolution as a counter-balance to British Empire designs on Russia (enemy of my enemy is my friend),(and French Empire and Ottoman Empire too, as evidenced by Crimean War 1856).

Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 2:25 pm

British Crown is Princeps? (First among Equals)

Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 4:15 pm

Im of Welsh-Irish ancestry (Irish on my mothers side). Her grand father came over as a stow-a-way to flee the potato famine (neo liberal economics at its purestancestor of TINA Thatcherism and austerities, deficits, balanced budgets and suchlike wicked gaming with peoples lives (but Banks and MIIC are too big to fail of course). Lincoln would have just GreenBacked his way out of Depression and imminent economic collapse (a Credit System recognizing it is LABOR upon raw materials that is the SOURCE of ALL wealth, NOT Venetian Fondi in an oligarchs off-shore piggy bank). The grudge against the Celtic Fringe (Welsh and Scotts too) comes from the fact that we were on the the Islands first, by many Centuries before the Angels, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians showed up. This is just flawed human nature in action. I suppose the Picts can claim the same grievance against us Celts; American Indians too. The enemy is Oligarchy. It s class warfare, not Tribal warfare, and THEY are masters at divide-to-conquer, seeking out all useful flaws and weaknesses.

Nancy Gillard-Bartels , September 28, 2017 at 7:37 pm

As the rest of the world also sees the US fabrications, American may one day find itself under fire from many directions. No one likes a dirty player.

Louise , September 28, 2017 at 7:47 pm

While it may appear to become a nuisance after more than a year, it may also become very dangerous. It could be a serious effort to get the populace to condone an illegal war in Syria involving Russia. People dont pay much attention to Assad and the Syrians, but the Russians are already complaining about US forces working with ISIS. If those reports are true the plausible deniability will work if the people are preconditioned to disbelieve whatever comes from the Kremlin.

Common Tater , September 28, 2017 at 8:43 pm

Washington accuses others of nefarious tactics it employs itself. Now Washington accuses the Syrian Arab Army of colluding with the wahabist militants bent on genocide in Syria. This accusation alone informs the audience that Washington is in collusion with the wahabist militant gangs operating across the globe.
In the link you will see how the SDF seems to cut through wahabist gang territory like a hot knife through butter. Easily securing the region north of Deir es-Zor, and are currently cutting west across the desert as fast as those ubiquitous toyota trucks can carry them without showing any evidence of fighting, according to Russian surveillance.

Eva , September 28, 2017 at 8:32 pm

Slimy business has been going on too long….To anyone with an open ear, the door closes on 9/30/2017…

Sam F , September 29, 2017 at 7:18 am

Which door closes and why then? Q3 financials?

Gary Severson , September 28, 2017 at 9:14 pm

Russia is all about protecting its buffer zone & rightly so. The West plays the Great Game while an unwitting public buys the rationale for standing up to Russia, China, Iran etc. Why wouldnt the Russians use the Trump admin to shore up its borders to protect them from NATO expansion? Trump is surely engaged in laundering the Russian oligarchs money. How else could it be after the US did everyting it could to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union & let it be taken over by industries privatized by Yeltzin as a schill for America. As Putin has pointed out, the collapse of the SU was the worst thing that happened in the 20th cent.

Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 10:17 am

As far as I know, Putin did not say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that happened (to Russia?) in the 20th century. That would hardly be plausible – even if the 90es were very bad for Russia, the Holocaust and Nazi Germanys attack on the Soviet Union with about 20 million Soviet victims was almost certainly worse. Also the crimes of Stalinism are certainly on a larger scale than the collapse of the Soviet Union.

What Putin said was: Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.

a major geopolitical disaster of the century does not necessaily mean the greatest geopolitical disaster of the century

As with some other statements (for example the canard that Putin allegedly praised Trump as a genius in December 2015), the basis of the claim is a translation problem. This question is discussed here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10457/what-is-the-basis-for-putin-describing-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-as-the/10549 Putin used a superlative form krupneyshaya. The meaning of this form is similar to the Italian grandissima and means very big. But it does not necessarily mean the biggest, although it could in some contexts.

hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 12:06 pm

i like your comment. well researched.

Constantine , September 29, 2017 at 2:02 pm

The crimes of Stalin did not leave the country – USSR or Russia – a moribund state. The population was increasing in the end of the 30s and the country was an industrialized power that could not be easily threatened by other forces, short of being hit by the most powerful army in the world (which is what happened). Russia by the late 90s was a post-apocalyptic gangland with a fast decreasing population and a swiftly unraveling state and society. That was a product of the collapse of the USSR and the ensuing neoliberal shock treatment.

Since the countrys descent into the abyss was stopped by Putin & Co, it goes without saying that this was the cause of the recent outburst of Putinophobia.

Lois Gagnon , September 28, 2017 at 9:39 pm

It all reeks of desperation on the part of the Empires power trippers. They know in the back of their minds that their criminal racket is faltering. Russiagate is the duct tape holding the house of cards together. At least until they can finish looting every last drop of profit from as many colonies (including this one) as they can.

Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:52 am

Well put.

aletho , September 28, 2017 at 10:26 pm

Sorry to say, the same phenomenon has been at work in climate science for quite some time.

Apparently its all about providing fodder for propaganda outlets and requiring conformity on the part of the white collar set.

Whether or not its convincing to the masses is not an issue.

Russiagate will be easier to fudge over the long term, and short of an upset in the power structure may prevail for some decades until revision finally takes place.

Hide Behind , September 28, 2017 at 11:46 pm

The original inveztigation was begun by a man since fired, N. Y. STAtes attorney General, and it had to do nothing at all about election interference by Russia proper,:It was about Trumps illegally laundering Russian Oligarchs stolen funds from Russia.
Trail led to and thru AGI bank of Germany and off shore banking in Bahamas. Same facilitys Clinton Foundation uses.
This got into a cluster fu.. when Feds and Congress intervened. As the Investigation also uncovered many a counts to politicly connected elected and appointed officials who like as Russia showed Mc Cains letters Doing for contributions from high ranking Russians during his run for Prez.
Same formula as used clear back to Arizona 5s embezzlement of Fed HUD and FHA funds and
original Clintons when in Arkansas of same embezzlement that got sidetracked into a Lie about a BJ in white house by girl.
Smoke and mirrors have hid many many a prominent and financial miscreants deeds in US.
Yet the brain washed still a t as if they live in a
Democracy, And like Little Ikemens salute the flag and let children never learn difference of indoctrinated Nationalism from Ideals of
patriotism.
Dumb As Rocks Spout, Support The Troop, But Not The War, As the volunteer troop slaughter hundreds of thousands and displace millions.
into eternal poverty by just following orders.
Go watch your military recruitment indoctrination and show your loyalty to permanent warfare as millions of Americans suffer from your as S ki

Hide Behind , September 29, 2017 at 1:47 am

I would like to recommend George Orwells collection of essays, All art is propaganda, it is not so much of a heavy read as it is time consuming as so many essays when finished invade ones mind that one pauses to assimilate and judge the content fully before beginning next.
As for slime:
It is said that government began in Mespotamia and it was quite a model for each following social order; That is until the Greeks invented politics and since them chaos reigns.
Politics defy treason and logic as well as natural physical laws.
For unlike in natures scheme of things pond slime sinks to the bottom. Whereas in politics the slime raises to the top.
Not of Orwell s caliber of writing, just my own observation of USA politi Al system.

Realist , September 29, 2017 at 2:53 am

This Spanish Inquisition being run by the Congress is getting to the point of absurdity. They ought to be prosecuted for trying to deliberately deceive the public, and simply for insulting the intelligence of everyone on the planet earth.

RT reports the following, they are usually spot on accurate with their reporting since Washington is always trying to debunk them:

Earlier this month, Facebook said that it had identified up to $150,000 in advertising, purchased between June 2015 and May 2017, that was connected to roughly 470 inauthentic accounts and pages that were likely operated out of Russia, Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos wrote. Stamos admitted that the vast majority of ads run by these accounts had nothing to do with the election, voting, or a particular candidate.

Google said it had failed to unearth any facts that would implicate Moscow in exploiting advertising to manipulate the election. Were always monitoring for abuse or violations of our policies and weve seen no evidence this type of ad campaign was run on our platforms, Google said last week, according to Reuters.

During the 2016 election, Twitter said they deleted thousands of tweets and accounts that attempted to suppress or otherwise interfere with the exercise of voting rights, including the right to have a vote counted, by circulating intentionally misleading information. This included tweets that told users they could cast their ballots by text or tweet, which is not true. Twitter also said that they shared the content of deleted tweets with investigators on Thursday. The company however noted that they did not find any of those accounts had obvious Russian origin. All these things were presented before Congress on Thursday.

So, Facebook, Google and Twitter all provide scant evidence, if any, that Russia or Russians directed any disinformation at the American voter to try to sabotage our democracy. If anything of the sort got through, it was certainly like a single tear drop in the deluge of mud-slinging that the American candidates and their two parties constantly cast at one another. Any sane person would realise nothing consequential was or really could be attempted against that torrent of genuine American-made bullcrap, so there was zero motive to do so, and we know that Putin is no fool to waste his time or resources. Yet, Adam Schiff presents his hideous visage, peanut brain and deceptive words on American network television yesterday and claims that its certain fact that the Russian government sabotaged our election by purchasing ads on Facebook and tweeting mean things about Hillary Clinton on Twitter. For good measure, he says Russia is also guilty of stirring up the whole Black lives matter campaign and the bruhaha about taking a knee during the national anthem played at sporting events. They wouldnt try making this stuff up even in Alices Wonderland. It would fail to get a laugh in the Onion, even on April 1st. These people are a national embarrassment for being so blatantly and shamelessly dishonest. These are the same knuckleheads who thought Baghdad Bob was the propaganda parody to end them all, and theyve gone him one better far better.

I eagerly hope to see examples of the handful of ads and tweets that the conspiracy freaks in the Congress have made the centerpiece of their case against Russia. But if they are nothing more than blurbs advertising their media productions (like watch Larry King, Ed Schultz or Tom Hartmann), I doubt we will ever will. Or, maybe they said something extremely provocative like watch RT and evaluate the facts for yourself. Wow, that would be tantamount to an act of war (in the minds of neocons), but still not enough to warrant a viewing by the American public which still might harbor some sane individuals.

GMC , September 29, 2017 at 3:50 am

Trust me – as an Amerikanska in Russia – I think some Russians are hating me when they hear me speak some English while from the other side –America – I no longer get e-mails from -- Anyone. I understand where the Russians are coming from because I see the demonization of their country coming from the Americans and their axis, but to see the Americans get sooo programmed in propaganda that they cant even listen to someone theyve known for decades -- is pretty disgusting , especially when some of them are/ used to be – rather intelligent. Spacibo Mr. Parry and commenters.

mike k , September 29, 2017 at 6:51 am

Why Americans ever put any stock in the self-serving propaganda put out by the wealthy owners of the major media is a mystery, until you consider all the false ideas about America that have already been shoveled into their heads by their long public education brainwashing and numbing experience. The basic idea promoted by our culture is just shut up and accept whatever garbage you are told, and you will get along fine (conform). Start asking a lot of challenging questions, and you are in for a lot of trouble. I know this from personal experience, I was always in a lot of trouble with the self-satisfied authorities in my life, including my parents and teachers. I am forever grateful that I stubbornly persisted in questioning authority, in spite of all the difficulties it has caused me.

mike k , September 29, 2017 at 7:03 am

The football players who are taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem, are experiencing the fury of those who clutch their societal group-think like a precious security blanket. Our public opinion manipulator in chief D. Trump is making it clear why it was said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Score one propaganda ploy for the scoundrel in chief.

Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:59 am

Yes all this nonsense while at the same time, once again I might add, the 1st Amendment takes a backseat to Private Ownership.now stand up damn it.

Sam F , September 29, 2017 at 10:19 am

Yes, the groupthink of mass media is accepted by most for personal security.
Mass media tell them the oligarchy line as what other people think so they dare not disagree.
Mass media say that all are unethical so why pay a price to be good citizens.
But it is very significant that the football players refused to display nationalism.

D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 12:12 pm

It is also significant in signaling automatic (pavlovian) behavior, no questions asked, and right in line with my country right or wrong and blind obedience, attitudes historically is associated with autocracy and repression. I have yet to see any commentary on what the flag means, or possible contexts of meaning, including that it stands for the current governing system, as well as for historical considerations. Sorry to harp on this, but the scantily dressed females of the Lingerie Football League in stating the flag is too sacred evidently found no inconsistency in their salutes with serious faces while scantily clad. This seems to me akin to going to church in a bikini and somehow contradictory to sacred. But sacred in itself hearkens back to the 1690s and the Salem witch trials before separation of church and state became understood as more rational. Any kind of worship can be taken too far into mindlessness, which is contradictory to the ideals this country was founded on in terms of equality and the first amendment. Beware of the scoundrels indeed.

Lee , September 29, 2017 at 6:35 am

I have always wondered why you seldom get reflections of the illness in American society, after reading articles like this. Trump is mad, Hillary is evil, the MS media is corrupt and dishonest. But its American culture that is responsible for thisthese arent accidents or untypical. Self-honesty is the least common of all American characteristics. Hunting for excuses and boogeymen, one of the most common.

mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:25 am

The tacit belief in our exceptionalism makes us immune to self-criticism. Another name for American Hubris. Our belief that we are Gods chosen ones explains in part our strange affinity with Israel.

Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 11:39 am

The American Culture was concocted with Malice Afore Thought by the Congress of Cultural Freedom (CCF) starting in the Post-War years: from EIR search box; Congress of cultural freedom; making the world safe for fascism, also from search box; Synarchy against America.

Clif , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am

NPR is complicit, giving Mark Jacobson of Georgetown a platform on Sept. 28 All Things Considered to pontificate about how Americans are falling prey to Russian disinformation. This entire sequence has drained me of any faith in American Intelligence operations, and MSM.

napier , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am

The researchers defined junk news as propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyperpartisan, or *conspiratorial political news and information*.

I face-palmed when I read this. The lack of self-awareness on the part of the researchers is truly amazing.

Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am

Often with such propagandistic allegations – be it WMD in Iraq or Russian meddling -, there are problems that go beyond the lack of evidence. People without access to secret information could not know, of course, whether these was a good basis for the allegations about WMD. Certainly, people should have demanded that some of the evidence is made public, but even if someone accepts that some things must remain secret, it simply did not make sense to use the presentation of Colin Powell before the UN as a basis for starting a war. It could have been a basis for intensifying the inspections – and at that time, after some pressure, the Iraqi government allowed inspections everywhere -, but it certainly was no basis for stopping the inspections and starting a war of aggression.

Similarly, it is clear that those who put forward allegations about Russian meddling (some are regularly retracted, some arent and their status remain unclear) have the burden of proof. But the problem is not just that evidence is lacking, but many of these allegations are not very plausible and make little sense.

The first problem is that many statements in US media presuppose a worldview of international politics as a kind of zero sum game and dont even ask the question whether such a worldview is appropriate and whether it is common in Russia. It is just assumed that Russia and the United States are enemies and that anything that is bad for the United States is good for Russia and anything that is bad for Russia is good for the United States. Of course, there are areas in international politics where the United States have conflicting positions, but such a worldview based on a zero-sum game is far from obvious. What exactly should be the advantage for Russia when internal divisions in the United States are increased? Is it plausible that the United States is more likely to take the Russian perspective more seriously or be ready for compromises if it has more severe internal divisions? Not necessarily, I would even think that the opposite is more likely. Probably, the proponents of this theory could come up with a story why in that case it would make sense for Russia to increase internal divisions in the United States, but mostly, this question is not even asked, and these stories look more like an ad-hoc justification for a preconceived story.

Then, ignoring the doubts whether it would really make sense from a strategic point of view for Russia to exacerbate internal divisions in the United States for a moment, what would someone who, indeed, has the goal to increase internal divisions in the United States do? At first sight, it might seem that supporting both sides in existing conflicts (e.g. for and against BLM, for and against gun rights, for and against NFL players kneeling down etc.) may make sense. But the problem is that such a line of reasoning ignores the question of effectiveness. As far as these matters are concerned, there are already many US citizens who passionately support one of the two sides, and there are US donors who are ready to support one of these sides. If, in addition to those passionate supporters of one side, someone who is interested in increasing the divisions also supports both sides, the effect relative to the resources that are needed is relatively small. This may not be a strong counter-argument if we were talking about a large rich country attempting to meddle in a small poor one, but that is hardly an adequate description of the relationship of Russia to the United States. Certainly, on the whole, the Russian state still has quite a lot of resources, but if it had the goal to increase internal divisions in the United States, adding a bit more to both sides of existing conflicts about which many Americans are so passionate that they are ready to use time and in some cases money to support one of the two sides would probably so ineffective that it would hardly make sense. Attempting to create new conflicts could theoretically make sense – then, we should see ads and social media campaigns about conflicts that are not very prominent in public discourse (I dont know about any evidence or even indications that this is actually done) -, but when there are just ads and social media messages from fake accounts for both sides of common existing conflicts, other explanations are more plausible. For instance, it can be that it only seems that they come from a common source because of some superficial features, but are in fact from opposing sides (i.e. people who want to support one of the sides in the conflict, not to increase the conflict by supporting both sides), or it could be that there is a common source, but that the common source is a commercial entity that conducts campaigns for both sides for money (and maybe there are some people who use Russian language settings or some parts of that business are in Russia).

mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:29 am

To expect most American citizens to think rationally is to expect the impossible. Not only were they not taught to think critically; they were taught not to do that.

mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:35 am

And because of that deficiency in the public, if we wish to effect some change in their thinking, we are reduced to employing the same emotion based methods that have proven so successful for the establishment and its propagandists. The simple truth has zero effect on the typical American Zombie – he is too dead sure that his conditioning trumps reality.

D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 11:37 am

It is almost amusing, as with this mainstream analysis from CNN (Sept 26), that states the FB ads were meant to sew divisions and chaos in the electorate, with many of the messages at cross-purposes.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/26/media/facebook-russia-ads/index.html

The apparent goal of the ads, the sources who spoke with CNN said, was to amplify political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos around the 2016 presidential campaign, not necessarily to promote one candidate or cause over another.

This assessment is spoken with great seriousness and a recommendation that these ads be made accessible to the public. This MSM report also assumes that the Russia-bought accounts stem from official Russia or the Kremlin, with no further discussion. A CNN poll claims 54% of Americans believe Russia interfered via these FB ads. Further breakdown in that polling indicates the lions share comes from whites who believe this.

But as you point out, Adrian, the body politic is (and was during the election period) already riven and in a state of incivility (another claim of the purpose of these FB ads) as we could see by reviewing behaviors in the election itself, to include Trumps statements at his rallies and Hillary Clintons actions in consort with a corrupted DNC. Common sense would indicate these widely exposed rogue behaviors at the time would out-do a mere 100,000 spent on FB, as has already been pointed out, so the CNN report is in danger of desperate exaggeration.

As far back as 2014 surveys of that time indicates the American publics trust in MSM had plummeted to something like 40%, and although I cannot find current figures on this (in 2016 RT found that only 6% of Americans trust MSM, but thats RT) but especially given the fiasco of the 2016 election, plausibly, that sense of trust is not increasing much. So that, given the already fractious and uncivil state of the country in many respects what were seeing is a continuation of desperate efforts to use the Russia did it meme for various political and opportunistic purposes. Further, MSM besides in the employ of special interests, has a naturally in-built bias toward presentation of dramatic, simplistic viewpoints that incite emotionalism and nationalism.

As I noted yesterday, the NFL controversy currently includes, with a straight face, scantily dressed female football players of the Lingerie Football League claiming that the flag is too sacred to be protested as they stand there with their booties exposed in the wind clutching their chests with straight faces. This sort of high drama is surely could for MSM audiences and ratings.

As to why a lot of Americans dont think critically about these matters there are, again, the problems of survival, job-holding, paying rent, dealing with an outrageous health care scheme which treats them as profit opportunities, increasing police management, and rising inflation, let alone the morbidity and turn-off that considering politics has become.

Methinks the MSM furor now turning to FB in its puny weight to be taken seriously is getting more and more desperate–and ridiculous.

Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 12:01 pm

D5-5 –

Your comments: As to why a lot of Americans dont think critically about these matters there are, again, the problems of survival, job-holding, paying rent, dealing with an outrageous health care scheme which treats them as profit opportunities, increasing police management, and rising inflation, let alone the morbidity and turn-off that considering politics has become.

You have summed up the state in which an average person lives here now.

hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 12:24 pm

ok, i have to say it.

everybody is stupid. all over the world. and yet.everybody is a genius. even though i partake in this complaining about how
stupid people are sometimes. its really not true. people are smart. just easily led.

i find that americans are just used to being propagandized. its a habit. that only some of us are starting to come out of. if the workings of propaganda and advertising were taught in school, at a young age, the world would be a better place. i think most of the commenters here at consortium news have probably made that jump from believing the media blindly. but we are still a minority. and to be honest, some views i see repeated here still seem to reflect this instinctive belief in doctrines put forth in the media. remember that its only been about 8 generations of people since we threw off the monarchy here. talk about indoctrination…thats really not a long time. the history of kings/queens as rulers takes up a much larger part of the history of human existence. one could even say its in our genes..epi-genetics…

modern propaganda is only 100 years old or so.

so a modern antidote should be thought of.

well hopefully figure it out.

D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 12:31 pm

Dave, Im privileged in being able to spend so much time here in this forum and do some thinking. But out on the street I find a different situation than what were discussing here so often with (including myself) the tendency to talk of the American sheeple and stupidity and such. I find people in supermarket parking lots in a state of despair, asking me for a quarter, their misery plain on their faces. Im told 45 million Americans are on the verge of poverty and in poverty. Where I go, too, I find my community members trying to be civil, most of them, and theres not a whole lot of political talk at the cashier stands in the grocery stores. I despair that this beautiful country, which still has a great deal going for it, is knuckled under to the worst political system Ive seen in my lifetime going back decades. I do not understand that an opposition party could become so inept and corrupted into incompetence, and the ruling party in a state of incoherence and stupidity. And yet I can give all this sort of thing time and thinking, but how many can? I love this country and the people, and am very saddened at the travesty, and where we now stand in world opinion.

Stephen J. , September 29, 2017 at 1:32 pm

January 10, 2017
Blame It On Putin

There is endless wars and devastation around the world
Western war criminals have their war banners unfurled
Millions dead and many millions uprooted
And the financial system is corrupted and looted
Blame it on Putin

The war criminals are free and spreading bloody terror
And their dirty propaganda says Putin is an aggressor
These evil plotters of death and destruction
Should be in jail for their abominable actions
But, Blame it on Putin.

The American election is won by Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton loses and gets politically dumped
The media is frenzied and foaming at their mouths
They are crying and lying, these corporate louts
They Blame it on Putin

Hollywood, too, is getting in on the act
The B.S. merchants are able to twist facts
In their fantasy world of channel changers
They do not approve of a political stranger
They Blame it on Putin

The spymasters and their grovelling politicians
All agree that their democracy is lost in transmission
Their comfortable and controlled system is now in danger
And these powerful parasites are filled with anger
They Blame it on Putin

One loose canon talks and babbles of an act of war
Could nuclear hell be started by a warmongering whore?
If the madmen of the establishment get their way
Could we all be liquidated in the nuclear fray?
Blame it on Putin

There is no doubt that the ruling class
Are all worried about saving their ass
Could there be huge changes and still more coming?
Is the sick and depraved society finally crumbling?
Hey, Blame it on Putin
[more info at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/01/blame-it-on-putin.html

Stephen J. , September 29, 2017 at 1:39 pm

March 3, 2017
Is Blaming Russia a Diversion, Designed to Hide the Treachery of Western War Criminals?
[much more info at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/03/is-blaming-russia-diversion-designed-to.html

Dominic Pukallus , September 29, 2017 at 6:52 pm

Having just watched the episode of Oliver Stones excellent Untold History of the United States which deals with the earliest historical political period which I can remember from first hand experience, I found the revisiting of Ronald Reagan bald-faced lies delivered with absolute seeming sincerity to be truly frightening. He was either a truly underestimated first-rate actor, a complete psychopath, or he really was just a carefully picked figurehead. Perhaps it really was as intimated in the episode that it was more a Bush II/Cheney sort of thing, the first two options sort of meld into each other if the lies he repeated were done so knowingly and he just didnt seem to have the intellectual capacity for much of anything arduous like being an actual Machiavellian.

The most important thing about this was just how easy it was, at the time, to just take the edifice of lies at face value. I was in my teens at the time, but I did consider myself to be of a rather independent mindset and much of what was bandied by these Republican Party Reptiles (not a funny proposition at all really in the end despite ORourkess seductiveness) rang false. That did not stop them from acquiring the patina of Truth, albeit ever so superficial, due to the hypnotic authoritative method of their delivery. Im glad I properly discovered the work of Robert Parry even if it is belatedly, due to my own Sleep of Reason because of this saturation of falsehoods despite his tireless work along with other similar-minded people. I can sense some frustration here in his phrasing with the seeming lack of difference this tireless work seems to be making to the general perception but I am grateful for his lucidity, which contributes to mine. How long will such lucidity be allowed to be disseminated, one can only wonder.

Michael Eremia , September 29, 2017 at 7:12 pm

Another home-run by Robert Parry.

[Sep 30, 2017] Exposing The Slimy Business Of 'Russia-Gate' (What The Mainstream Media Doesn't Want You To Know) Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental organizations if they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic process no matter how sloppy the research or how absurd the findings. ..."
"... And, if you think the pillars of the U.S. mainstream media – The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN and others – will apply some quality controls, you havent been paying attention for the past year or so. The MSM is just as unethical as the NGOs are. ..."
"... So, we are now in a phase of Russia-gate in which NGO scholars produce deeply biased reports and their nonsense is treated as front-page news and items for serious discussion across the MSM. ..."
"... The story, which fits neatly into the current U.S. propaganda meme that the Russian government somehow is undermining American democracy by stirring up dissent inside the U.S., quickly spread to other news outlets and became the latest proof of a Russian war against America. ..."
"... The vague wording doesn't even say the Russian government was involved but rather presents an unsupported claim that some Twitter accounts are suspected of being part of some network and that this network may have some ill-defined connection – or links – to Russia, a country of 144 million people. ..."
Sep 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

As the U.S. government doles out tens of millions of dollars to 'combat Russian propaganda', one result is a slew of new 'studies' by 'scholars' and 'researchers' auditioning for the loot ...

The Field of Dreams slogan for Americas NGOs should be: If you pay for it, we will come.

And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental organizations if they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic process no matter how sloppy the research or how absurd the findings.

And, if you think the pillars of the U.S. mainstream media – The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN and others – will apply some quality controls, you havent been paying attention for the past year or so. The MSM is just as unethical as the NGOs are.

So, we are now in a phase of Russia-gate in which NGO scholars produce deeply biased reports and their nonsense is treated as front-page news and items for serious discussion across the MSM.

Yet, there's even an implicit confession about how pathetic some of this scholarship is in the hazy phrasing that gets applied to the findings, although the weasel words will slip past most unsuspecting Americans and will be dropped for more definitive language when the narrative is summarized in the next days newspaper or in a cable-news crawl.

For example, a Times front-page story on Thursday reported that a network of Twitter accounts suspected of links to Russia seized on both sides of the [NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem] issue with hashtags, such as #boycottnfl, #standforouranthem and #takeaknee.

The story, which fits neatly into the current U.S. propaganda meme that the Russian government somehow is undermining American democracy by stirring up dissent inside the U.S., quickly spread to other news outlets and became the latest proof of a Russian war against America.

However, before we empty the nuclear silos and exterminate life on the planet, we might take a second to look at the Times phrasing a network of Twitter accounts suspected of links to Russia.

The vague wording doesn't even say the Russian government was involved but rather presents an unsupported claim that some Twitter accounts are suspected of being part of some network and that this network may have some ill-defined connection – or links – to Russia, a country of 144 million people.

Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon

Its like the old game of six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon. Yes, perhaps we are all linked to Kevin Bacon somehow but that doesnt prove that we know Kevin Bacon or are part of a Kevin Bacon network that is executing a grand conspiracy to sow discontent by taking opposite sides of issues and then tweeting.

Yet that is the underlying absurdity of the Times article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Scott Shane. Still, as silly as the article may be that doesn't mean its not dangerous. The Times high-profile treatment of these gauzy allegations represents a grave danger to the world by fueling a growing hysteria inside the United States about being at war with nuclear-armed Russia. At some point, someone might begin to take this alarmist rhetoric seriously.

Yes, I understand that lots of people hate President Trump and see Russia-gate as the golden ticket to his impeachment. But that doesnt justify making serious allegations with next to no proof, especially when the outcome could be thermonuclear war.

However, with all those millions of dollars sloshing around the NGO world and Western academia – all looking for some study to fund that makes Russia look bad – you are sure to get plenty of takers. And, we should now expect that new findings like these will fill in for the so-far evidence-free suspicions about Russia and Trump colluding to steal the presidency from Hillary Clinton.

If you read more deeply into the Times story, you get a taste of where Russia-gate is headed next and a clue as to who is behind it:

Since last month, researchers at the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a bipartisan initiative of the German Marshall Fund, a public policy research group in Washington, have been publicly tracking 600 Twitter accounts -- human users and suspected bots alike -- they have linked to Russian influence operations. Those were the accounts pushing the opposing messages on the N.F.L. and the national anthem.

Of 80 news stories promoted last week by those accounts, more than 25 percent had a primary theme of anti-Americanism, the researchers found. About 15 percent were critical of Hillary Clinton, falsely accusing her of funding left-wing antifa -- short for anti-fascist -- protesters, tying her to the lethal terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 and discussing her daughter Chelseas use of Twitter. Eleven percent focused on wiretapping in the federal investigation into Paul Manafort, President Trumps former campaign chairman, with most of them treated the news as a vindication for President Trumps earlier wiretapping claims.

The Neocons, Again!

So, lets stop and unpack this Times reporting.

First, this Alliance for Securing Democracy is not some neutral truth-seeking organization but a neoconservative-dominated outfit that includes on its advisory board such neocon luminaries as Mike Chertoff, Bill Kristol and former Freedom House president David Kramer along with other anti-Russia hardliners such as former deputy CIA director Michael Morell and former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers.

Neoconservative pundit William Kristol. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

How many of these guys, do you think, were assuring us that Iraq was hiding WMDs back in 2003?

This group clearly has an ax to grind, a record of deception, and plenty of patrons in the Military-Industrial Complex who stand to make billions of dollars from the New Cold War.

The neocons also have been targeting Russia for regime change for years because they see Russian President Vladimir Putin as the chief obstacle to their goal of helping Israel achieve its desire for regime change in Syria and a chance to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran. Russia-gate has served the neocons well as a very convenient way to pull Democrats, liberals and even progressives into the neocon agenda because Russia-gate is sold as a powerful weapon for the anti-Trump Resistance.

The Times article also might have mentioned that Twitter has 974 million accounts. So, this alarm over 600 accounts is a bit disproportionate for a front-page story in the Times, dont you think?

And, theres the definitional problem of what constitutes anti-Americanism in a news article. And what does it mean to be linked to Russian influence operations? Does that include Americans who may not march in lockstep to the one-sided State Department narratives on the crises in Ukraine and Syria? Any deviation from Official Washingtons groupthink makes you a Moscow stooge.

And, is it a crime to be critical of Hillary Clinton or to note that the U.S. mainstream media was dismissive of Trumps claims about being wiretapped only for us to find out later that the FBI apparently was wiretapping his campaign manager?

However, such questions arent going to be asked amid what has become a massive Russia-gate groupthink, dominating not just Official Washington, but across much of Americas political landscape and throughout the European Union.

Why the Bias?

Beyond the obvious political motivations for this bias, we also have had the introduction of vast sums of money pouring in from the U.S. government, NATO and European institutions to support the business of combatting Russian propaganda.

President Obama in the Oval Office.

For example, last December, President Obama signed into law a $160 million funding mechanism entitled the Combating Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. But that amounts to only a drop in the bucket considering already existing Western propaganda projects targeting Russia.

So, a scramble is on to develop seemingly academic models to prove what Western authorities want proven: that Russia is at fault for pretty much every bad thing that happens in the world, particularly the alienation of many working-class people from the Washington-Brussels elites.

The truth cannot be that establishment policies have led to massive income inequality and left the working class struggling to survive and thus are to blame for ugly political manifestations – from Trump to Brexit to the surprising support for Germanys far-right AfD party. No, it must be Russia! Russia! Russia! And theres a lot of money on the bed to prove that point.

Theres also the fact that the major Western news media is deeply invested in bashing Russia as well as in the related contempt for Trump and his followers. Those twin prejudices have annihilated all professional standards that would normally be applied to news judgments regarding these flawed studies.

On Thursday, The Washington Post ran its own banner-headlined story drawn from the same loose accusations made by that neocon-led Alliance for Securing Democracy, but instead the Post sourced the claims to Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma. The headline read: Russian trolls are stoking NFL controversy, senator says.

The evidence cited by Lankfords office was one Twitter account calling itself Boston Antifa that gives its geolocation as Vladivostok, Russia, the Post reported.

By Thursday, Twitter had suspended the Boston Antifa account, so I couldnt send it a question, but earlier this month, Dan Glaun, a reporter for Masslive.com, reported that the people behind Boston Antifa were a pair of anti-leftist pranksters from Oregon who started Boston Antifa as a parody of actual anti-fascist groups.

In an email to me on Thursday, Glaun cited an interview that the Boston Antifa pranksters had done with right-wing radio talk show host Gavin McInnes last April.

And, by the way, there are apps that let you manipulate your geolocation data on Twitter. Or, you can choose to believe that the highly professional Russian intelligence agencies didnt notice that they were telegraphing their location as Vladivostok.

Mindless Russia Bashing

Another example of this mindless Russia bashing appeared just below the Posts story on Lankfords remarks. The Post sidebar cited a study from researchers at Oxford Universitys Project on Computational Propaganda asserting that junk news on Twitter flowed more heavily in a dozen [U.S.] battleground states than in the nation overall in the days immediately before and after the 2016 presidential election, suggesting that a coordinated effort targeted the most pivotal voters. Cue the spooky Boris and Natasha music!

Boris and Natasha, the evil spies from the Rocky and Bullwinkle shows.

Of course, any Americans living in battleground states could tell you that they are inundated with all kinds of election-related junk, including negative TV advertising, nasty radio messages, alarmist emails and annoying robo-calls at dinner time. Thats why theyre called battleground states, Sherlock.

But whats particularly offensive about this study is that it implies that the powers-that-be must do more to eliminate what these experts deem propaganda and junk news. If you read deeper into the story, you discover that the researchers applied a very subjective definition of what constitutes junk news, i.e., information that the researchers dont like even if it is truthful and newsworthy.

The Post article by Craig Timberg, who apparently is using Russia-gate to work himself off the business pages and onto the national staff, states that The researchers defined junk news as propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyperpartisan, or conspiratorial political news and information.

The researchers also categorized reports from Russia and ones from WikiLeaks – which published embarrassing posts about Democrat Hillary Clinton based on a hack of her campaign chairmans emails – as polarizing political content for the purpose of the analysis.

So, this study lumped together junk news with accurate and newsworthy information, i.e., WikiLeaks disclosure of genuine emails that contained such valid news as the contents of Clintons speeches to Wall Street banks (which she was trying to hide from voters) as well as evidence of the unethical tactics used by the Democratic National Committee to sabotage Sen. Bernie Sanderss campaign.

Also dumped into the researchers bin of vile disinformation were reports from Russia, as if everything that comes out of Russia is, ipso facto, junk news.

And, what, pray tell, is conspiratorial political news? I would argue that the past year of evidence-lite allegations about Russian meddling in the U.S. election accompanied by unsupported suspicions about collusion with the Trump campaign would constitute conspiratorial political news. Indeed, I would say that this Oxford research constitutes conspiratorial political news and that Timbergs article qualifies as junk news.

Predictable Outcome

Given the built-in ideological bias of this research, it probably wont surprise you that the reports author, Philip N. Howard, concludes that junk news originates from three main sources that the Oxford group has been tracking: Russian operatives, Trump supporters and activists part of the alt-right, according to the Post.

The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)

I suppose that since part of the methodology was to define reports from Russia as junk news, the appearance of Russian operatives shouldnt be much of a surprise, but the whole process reeks of political bias.

Further skewing the results, the report separated out information from professional news organizations [and] political parties from some junk news source, according to the Post. In other words, the researchers believe that professional news organizations are inherently reliable and that outside-the-mainstream news is junk – despite the MSMs long record of getting major stories wrong.

The real junk is this sort of academic or NGO research that starts with a conclusion and packs a study in such a way as to guarantee the preordained conclusion. Or as the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.

Yet, its also clear that if you generate research that feeds the hungry beast of Russia-gate, you will find eager patrons doling out dollars and a very receptive audience in the mainstream media.

In a place like Washington, there are scores if not hundreds of reports generated every day and only a tiny fraction get the attention of the Times, Post, CNN, etc., let alone result in published articles. But studies that reinforce todays anti-Russia narrative are sure winners.

So, if youre setting up a new NGO or youre an obscure academic angling for a lucrative government grant as well as some flattering coverage in the MSM, the smart play is to join the new gold rush in decrying Russian propaganda.

[Sep 30, 2017] The Rise of the New McCarthyism by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... A difference, however, from the McCarthyism of the 1950s is that this New McCarthyism has enlisted Democrats, liberals and even progressives in the cause because of their disgust with President Trump; the 1950s version was driven by Republicans and the Right with much of the Left on the receiving end, maligned by the likes of Sen. Joe McCarthy as un-American and as Communisms fellow travelers. ..."
"... The real winners in this New McCarthyism appear to be the neoconservatives who have leveraged the Democratic/liberal hatred of Trump to draw much of the Left into the political hysteria that sees the controversy over alleged Russian political meddling as an opportunity to get Trump. ..."
"... Already, under the guise of combating Russian propaganda and fake news, Google, Facebook and other tech giants have begun introducing algorithms to hunt down and marginalize news that challenges official U.S. government narratives on hot-button issues such as Ukraine and Syria. Again, no evidence is required, just the fact that Putin may have said something similar. ..."
"... The New McCarthyism with its Orwellian-style algorithms might seem like a clever way to neutralize (or maybe even help oust) Trump, but – long after Trump is gone – a structure for letting the neocons and the mainstream media monopolize American political debate might be a far greater threat to both democracy and peace. ..."
"... Americas Stolen Narrative, ..."
Sep 30, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Special Report: As the New McCarthyism takes hold in America, the neocon Washington Post makes Russia the villain in virtually every bad thing that happens, with U.S. dissidents treated as fellow-travelers, writes Robert Parry.

Make no mistake about it: the United States has entered an era of a New McCarthyism that blames nearly every political problem on Russia and has begun targeting American citizens who dont go along with this New Cold War propaganda.

A difference, however, from the McCarthyism of the 1950s is that this New McCarthyism has enlisted Democrats, liberals and even progressives in the cause because of their disgust with President Trump; the 1950s version was driven by Republicans and the Right with much of the Left on the receiving end, maligned by the likes of Sen. Joe McCarthy as un-American and as Communisms fellow travelers.

The real winners in this New McCarthyism appear to be the neoconservatives who have leveraged the Democratic/liberal hatred of Trump to draw much of the Left into the political hysteria that sees the controversy over alleged Russian political meddling as an opportunity to get Trump.

Already, the neocons and their allies have exploited the anti-Russian frenzy to extract tens of millions of dollars more from the taxpayers for programs to combat Russian propaganda, i.e., funding of non-governmental organizations and scholars who target dissident Americans for challenging the justifications for this New Cold War.

The Washington Post, which for years has served as the flagship for neocon propaganda, is again charting the new course for America, much as it did in rallying U.S. public backing for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and in building sympathy for abortive regime change projects aimed at Syria and Iran. The Post has begun blaming almost every unpleasant development in the world on Russia! Russia! Russia!

For instance, a Post editorial on Tuesday shifted the blame for the anemic victory of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the surprising strength of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) from Merkels austerity policies, which have caused hardship for much of the working class, or from her open door for Mideast refugees, which has destabilized some working-class neighborhoods, to – you guessed it – Russia!

The evidence, as usual, is vague and self-interested, but sure to be swallowed by many Democrats and liberals, who hate Russia because they blame it for Trump, and by lots of Republicans and conservatives, who have a residual hatred for Russia left over from the Old Cold War.

The Post cited the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab, which has been pushing much of the hysteria about alleged Russian activities on the Internet. The Atlantic Council essentially is NATOs think tank and is financed with money from the U.S. government, Gulf oil states, military contractors, global financial institutions and many other sources which stand to gain directly or indirectly from the expanding U.S. military budget and NATO interventions.

Blaming Russia

In this New Cold War, the Russians get blamed for not only disrupting some neocon regime change projects, such as the proxy war in Syria, but also political developments in the West, such as Donald Trumps election and AfDs rise in Germany.

Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

The Atlantic Councils digital lab claimed, according to the Post editorial, that In the final hours of the [German] campaign, online supporters of the AfD began warning their base of possible election fraud, and the online alarms were driven by anonymous troll accounts and boosted by a Russian-language bot-net."

Of course, the Post evinces no evidence tying any of this to the Russian government or to President Vladimir Putin. It is the nature of McCarthyism that actual evidence is not required, just heavy breathing and dark suspicions. For those of us who operate Web sites, trolls – some volunteers and some professionals – have become a common annoyance and they represent many political outlooks, not just Russian.

Plus, it is standard procedure these days for campaigns to issue last-minute alarms to their supporters about possible election fraud to raise doubts about the results should the outcome be disappointing.

The U.S. government has engaged in precisely this strategy around the world, having pro-U.S. parties not only complain about election fraud but to take to the streets in violent protests to impugn the legitimacy of election outcomes. That U.S. strategy has been applied to places such as Ukraine (the Orange Revolution in 2004); Iran (the Green Revolution in 2009); Russia (the Snow Revolution in 2011); and many other locations.

Pre-election alerts also have become a feature in U.S. elections, even in 2016 when both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton raised questions about the legitimacy of the balloting, albeit for different reasons.

Yet, instead of seeing the AfD maneuver as a typical ploy by a relatively minor party – and the German election outcome as an understandable reflection of voter discontent and weariness over Merkels three terms as Chancellor – the Atlantic Council and the Post see Russians under every bed and particularly Putin.

Loving to Hate Putin

In the world of neocon propaganda, Putin has become the great bête noire, since he has frustrated a variety of neocon schemes. He helped head off a major U.S. military strike against Syria in 2013; he aided President Obama in achieving the Iran nuclear agreement in 2014-15; Putin opposed and – to a degree – frustrated the neocon-supported coup in Ukraine in 2014; and he ultimately supplied the air power that defeated neocon-backed rebel forces in Syria in 2015-17.

President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

So, the Post and the neocons want Putin gone – and they have used gauzy allegations about Russian meddling in the U.S. and other elections as the new propaganda theme to justify destabilizing Russia with economic sanctions and, if possible, engineering another regime change project in Moscow.

None of this is even secret. Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, publicly proclaimed the goal of ousting Putin in an op-ed in The Washington Post, writing: The United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so.

But the way neocon propaganda works is that the U.S. and its allies are always the victims of some nefarious enemy who must be thwarted to protect all that is good in the world. In other words, even as NED and other U.S.-funded operations take aim at Putin and Russia, Russia and Putin must be transformed into the aggressors.

Mr. Putin would like nothing better than to generate doubts, fog, cracks and uncertainty around the German pillar of Europe, the Post editorial said. He relishes infiltrating chaos and mischief into open societies. In this case, supporting the far-right AfD is extraordinarily cynical, given how many millions of Russians died to defeat the fascists seven decades ago.

Not to belabor the point but there is no credible evidence that Putin did any of this. There is a claim by the virulently anti-Russian Atlantic Council that some anonymous troll accounts promoted some AfD complaint about possible voter fraud and that it was picked up by a Russian-language bot-net. Even if that is true – and the Atlantic Council is far from an objective source – where is the link to Putin?

Not everything that happens in Russia, a nation of 144 million people, is ordered by Putin. But the Post would have you believe that it is. It is the centerpiece of this neocon conspiracy theory.

Silencing Dissent

Similarly, any American who questions this propaganda immediately is dismissed as a Kremlin stooge or a Russian propagandist, another ugly campaign spearheaded by the Post and the neocons. Again, no evidence is required, just some analysis that what youre saying somehow parallels something Putin has said.

The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)

On Tuesday, in what amounted to a companion piece for the editorial, a Post article again pushed the unproven suspicions about Russian operatives buying $100,000 in Facebook ads from 2015 into 2017 to supposedly influence U.S. politics. Once again, no evidence required.

In the article, the Post also reminds its readers that Moscow has a history of focusing on social inequities in the U.S., which gets us back to the comparisons between the Old McCarthyism and the new.

Yes, its true that the Soviet Union denounced Americas racial segregation and cited that ugly feature of U.S. society in expressing solidarity with the American civil rights movement and national liberation struggles in Africa. Its also true that American Communists collaborated with the domestic civil rights movement to promote racial integration.

That was a key reason why J. Edgar Hoovers FBI targeted Martin Luther King Jr. and other African-American leaders – because of their association with known or suspected Communists. (Similarly, the Reagan administration resisted support for Nelson Mandela because his African National Congress accepted Communist support in its battle against South Africas Apartheid white-supremacist regime.)

Interestingly, one of the arguments from liberal national Democrats in opposing segregation in the 1960s was that the repression of American blacks undercut U.S. diplomatic efforts to develop allies in Africa. In other words, Soviet and Communist criticism of Americas segregation actually helped bring about the demise of that offensive system.

Yet, Kings association with alleged Communists remained a talking point of die-hard segregationists even after his assassination when they opposed creating a national holiday in his honor in the 1980s.

These parallels between the Old McCarthyism and the New McCarthyism are implicitly acknowledged in the Posts news article on Tuesday, which cites Putins criticism of police killings of unarmed American blacks as evidence that he is meddling in U.S. politics.

Since taking office, Putin has on occasion sought to spotlight racial tensions in the United States as a means of shaping perceptions of American society, the article states. Putin injected himself in 2014 into the race debate after protests broke out in Ferguson, Mo., over the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an African American, by a white police officer.

'Do you believe that everything is perfect now from the point of view of democracy in the United States? Putin told CBSs 60 Minutes program. If everything was perfect, there wouldnt be the problem of Ferguson. There would be no abuse by the police. But our task is to see all these problems and respond properly."

The Posts speculative point seems to be that Putins response included having Russian operatives buy some ads on Facebook to exploit these racial tensions, but there is no evidence to support that conspiracy theory.

However, as this anti-Russia hysteria spreads, we may soon see Americans who also protest the police killing of unarmed black men denounced as Putins fellow-travelers, much as King and other civil rights leaders were smeared as Communist dupes.

Ignoring Reality

So, instead of Democrats and Chancellor Merkel looking in the mirror and seeing the real reasons why many white working-class voters are turning toward populist and extremist alternatives, they can simply blame Putin and continue a crackdown on Internet-based dissent as the work of Russian operatives.

Already, under the guise of combating Russian propaganda and fake news, Google, Facebook and other tech giants have begun introducing algorithms to hunt down and marginalize news that challenges official U.S. government narratives on hot-button issues such as Ukraine and Syria. Again, no evidence is required, just the fact that Putin may have said something similar.

As Democrats, liberals and even some progressives join in this Russia-gate hysteria – driven by their hatred of Donald Trump and his supposedly fascistic tendencies – they might want to consider whom theyve climbed into bed with and what these neocons have in mind for the future.

Arguably, if fascism or totalitarianism comes to the United States, it is more likely to arrive in the guise of protecting democracy from Russia or another foreign adversary than from a reality-TV clown like Donald Trump.

The New McCarthyism with its Orwellian-style algorithms might seem like a clever way to neutralize (or maybe even help oust) Trump, but – long after Trump is gone – a structure for letting the neocons and the mainstream media monopolize American political debate might be a far greater threat to both democracy and peace.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, Americas Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

SteveK9 , September 26, 2017 at 5:46 pm

Its been going on since the arrival of the national security state after World War II. At least for decades there really was a contest between Capitalism and Communism, not that it excuses the lying and killing of millions. Now, its just a we rule the World habit. Is it really getting worse? Perhaps so.

Erik G , September 26, 2017 at 7:17 pm

I would say that the dominance of economic power over democratic institutions has been completely consolidated since WWII, accelerated under Reagan and after the collapse of the USSR, and has been completed since 911. The articles conclusion that letting mainstream media monopolize American political debate is a greater threat than Trump is quite an understatement, appropriate to new readers.

Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
While Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

SteveK9 , September 26, 2017 at 7:49 pm

More even than economic power (banks?) it is the intelligence agencies (all revolving around the CIA) and the military-industrial complex. We could make progress in a lot of areas if we could simply stop waging war, overt or covert, but it doesnt seem possible, partly because the Deep State has become smart enough not to wage a war that requires a draft or kills too many Americans. Its OK to spend trillions though, especially since having the Worlds reserve currency allows us to create as much as we need.

Dave P. , September 27, 2017 at 11:41 am

SteveK9 – Your comments: Its OK to spend trillions though, especially since having the Worlds reserve currency allows us to create as much as we need.

That is how we suck the blood of the people of the World beyond the Wests borders – by printing unlimited money, using cheap labor, taking over and exploiting their resources.

The oppressed have also to pay to the oppressor for their own subjugation. That is how we maintain our grand life style – as they boast every day on TV channels and elsewhere – for the top 10%.

During the Soviet days, USSR was a hindrance to this Western Imperialism. And now again some how it turns out that Russia is again becoming the protector of the Oppressed – though they have themselves a kind of makeshift type of Capitalism at this stage.

Sam F , September 27, 2017 at 5:50 pm

The complete economic power of oligarchy (zionists/MIC/WallSt/corporations) over Congress, judiciary, federal agencies, and mass media, results in thedeep state structure. Doubtless there is further deep state gangsterism.

The US has been dominated by the economic power that arose in the 19th century, because the emerging middle class failed to see that this would corrupt democratic institutions if not severely regulated, and of course oligarchy soon controlled the press and excluded the issue from public debate.

Kiza , September 26, 2017 at 9:09 pm

I find it truly fascinating that the US Deep State has changed the narrative through its liberal MSM mouthpieces, since Zuckcrook $100K ad saga, that the Russian goal was not so much to elect President Swamp then to saw chaos and discord in US. Let us look at the hidden meaning of this:
1) the Deep State feels confident that President Swamp has been brought under control; only the quasi-liberal wing of the Deep State still wants to impeach him (fat chance now that he is well under control, if he ever was not yet another faux agent of change – YAFAOC)
2) the rulers are truly concerned about the forthcoming challenge to their rule, which would begin as unrest, chaos and possibly a civil war; ironically they are delivering a very powerful tool to Putin by establishing parallels between US sedition and Putins words; this means that, if he wanted, Putin could just state some obvious criticisms, a sore point of the US/Global system and this becomes a point of oppression in US; such oppression can ultimately have only one outcome for the oppressors.

In brief, it is always useful to monitor the official statements to deduce what is on the rulers minds. They do not appear terribly self confident with their Putin ate my homework stories. Putin is both the leader of the hated Eurasia and Putins face is morphing into the face of the internal enemy Emanuel Goldstein .

Peter Loeb , September 27, 2017 at 7:22 am

STEVEK9

An excellent comment, Stevek9.

To continue responding is to play by the McCarthyist rules. Do I want
to circulate Robert Parrys excellent article (for the most part)? There
would be a collective reply that :the Russians are coming and a
groupthink diversions from WHAT the issues really are (oppression of
blacks in the US -- the real point of the NFL -- discussions usually hidden
under Do you like Trump?Do you hate Russia?And thus not
addressed or an article in Consortium yesterday on the Palestine/
Israeli conflict which was responded to mainly in terms of what
the Russians are doing etc. etc.

I remember the McCarthy era. My Dad had to sign a loyalty
oath. There were other forms such as the Harry Trumans
the Attorney Generals list, The Truman Doctrine, domino
theories etc.

The late historian Gabriel Kolko discussed this in the subsection
Violence and Social Control of his major work MAIN CURRENTS
IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY (part of Chapter 5 of that work).

No one is talking about the raw courage of so many black players
(mostly) who suddenly step away from their roles as entertainers
of the American society to remind us all that the US is considering
the murder of unarmed blacks as patriotic…heroic.

Instead, the issue is President Donald Trump and I can guess
that , like Hitler and Mussolini, he loves it with a passion.

What a dirty shame that in the US blacks demonstrating for
justice, for life, are attacked by police funded by the US
via private organizations such as those of Israel which provide
their particular expertise in how to oppress minorities --
accompanied by junkets for US law enforcement officials
for training in the Israeli efficiency in murder, oppression,
and inhuman treatment of those Zionists consider inferior
if human at all.

Dont read the above if you fear that its all the
fault of the Russians.

In French one once said Le revolution se mange..
(The revolution eats itself (se))

-- –Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

Susan Sunflower , September 27, 2017 at 12:12 pm

Yes, I think the Woodrow Wilson 14-point plan legacy of helping to keep most of Europe from going communist or trying to do so is overlooked For all of Wilsons lies, deals and broken promises, I think his inclusive idealistic promise to ordinary people that is still felt today (and may provide some of the origin of American accepted world leadership in anti-communism). European democratic socialism arose to quell the unrest, expectations and dissatisfaction of those same people after the fall of the empires. Remember all those Frank Capra movies in which Americanism was a non-communist path to egalitarian future. (yes, Capra was an anti-communist)

Counterpunch has an article -- link next comment

Susan Sunflower , September 27, 2017 at 12:12 pm

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/26/world-war-i-continues-to-haunt-america/

Susan Sunflower , September 26, 2017 at 6:18 pm

Heres a fun fact

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security reversed course Tuesday and told Wisconsin officials that the Russian government did not scan the states voter registration system.

Homeland Security told state elections officials on Friday that Wisconsin was one of 21 states targeted by the Russians, raising concerns about the safety and security of the states election systems even though no data had been compromised. But in an email to the states deputy elections administrator that was provided to reporters at the Wisconsin Elections Commission meeting on Tuesday, Homeland Security said that initial notice was in error.

Based on our external analysis, the WI IP address affected belongs to the WI Department of Workforce Development, not the Elections Commission, said the email from Juan Figueroa, with Homeland Securitys Office of Infrastructure Protection.

It wasnt immediately known if Homeland Security made similar mistakes with any of the other 20 states. Figueroa did not immediately reply to an email seeking an explanation of how the mistake was made.

Dr. Ip , September 26, 2017 at 6:28 pm

Ive lived in Germany for over 30 years now, and what has been clear since the infamous Agenda 2010 introduced during the reign of the SPD government under Schroeder, and the reforms introduced by pseudo-Socialist governments in France, is that the same right wing forces that have captured the US, Poland, Hungary and are threatening France and Spain, have their roots (and subtle support) from the neoliberals preoccupied with wealth creation for the few and the destruction of the social net for the many.

Endless war – a perpetuum mobile cash machine – and the attempt to actually own the whole world, has led to a situation that is an updated version of the corporatist fascism of the 30s and 40s. Destruction of the Left is acceptable because it clears a path toward endless profit, and arousal of the Right is seen as profit-beneficial because the uneducated masses that comprise this sector are in love with the illusion of one day belonging to a group that will allow them to achieve wealth and power. Of course it never will. But the unleashing of their anger and violence against all those perceived as superior, especially in intelligence, allows them a catharsis of blood and death which eventually consumes them.

There is a wonderful drawing by Paul Weber entitled Deutsches Verhängnis 1931/1932 which illustrates this point superbly.
( http://www.weber-museum.de/werk/widerstand/ )

Annie , September 26, 2017 at 7:15 pm

People who are registered democrats often see the party as liberal, when in fact it is not. Under Bill Clintons administration the party was pushed even further to the right. I know many democrats who define themselves as progressive or liberals, and have bought into the nonsense that Russia rigged the US election. I never perceived these people as progressive, or liberal and most kept their mouths shut throughout the Obama administration, although he engaged in policies, and practices that no real progressive, or liberal would, or should find acceptable. If they were liberal or progressive in their thinking why would they be so vulnerable to propaganda? Why would they be so easily manipulated if they were truly progressive in their thinking, or not be able to see things from a broader perspective? To me many democrats simply hate Trump, and cant accept that their whining, war candidate lost. And how can you define yourself as progressive when you supported Hillary Clinton in the first place? We should be careful how we use the word liberal, or progressive. It was under the Obama administration that the new cold war really got underway.

Realist , September 27, 2017 at 8:43 am

What you are saying is so true, Annie, but far too many people allow these truths to be obscured by the stereotypes they would rather cling to. I look at Obama as the great betrayer of liberal or progressive causes. He was about as progressive as a Wall Street banker investing his yearly bonus on choice foreclosed properties, or Mitt Romney picking the bones of companies he buys to strip of assets.

Susan Sunflower , September 26, 2017 at 7:18 pm

Recommend Richard Wolfe on fire on RT tonight -- are we at the end of capitalism . cant find a link to youtube.. but while this new mccarthyism hysteria probably (not) the sort of death-throes ravings what one might hope for the reality is that we are past pablum, nostrums, teaks and fixes -- none of which are still operative
Wolfe here is in fine form .

D5-5 , September 26, 2017 at 7:50 pm

b who runs the Moon of Alabama site has a similar view to Parrys on the WAPOs view of the German election (and as always comments recommended):

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/09/the-russian-influence-story-falls-apart-a-new-fairy-tale-is-needed.html

[Sep 29, 2017] Bernie Sanders To Democrats This Is What a Radical Foreign Policy Looks Like

It is impossible to understand the current wave of the US militarism without understanding neoliberalism and, especially, neoconservatism -- the dominant force in the US foreign policy since Reagan.
Sep 29, 2017 | theintercept.com

... ... ...

Many of my colleagues, Republican colleagues, here in the Senate, for example, disparage the United Nations, he says, sitting across the table from me, in front of a wall of Vermont tourism posters. While clearly the United Nations could be more effective, it is imperative that we strengthen international institutions, because at the end of the day, while it may not be sexy, it may not be glamorous, it may not allow for great soundbites, simply the idea of people coming together and talking and arguing is a lot better than countries going to war.

... ... ...

The senator makes clear that unilateralism, the belief that we can simply overthrow governments that we dont want, that has got to be re-examined. After referencing the Iraq War -- one of the great foreign policy blunders in the history of this country -- the senator touches on another historic blunder which, to his credit, few of his fellow senators would be willing to discuss, let alone critique. In 1953, the United States, with the British, overthrew [Mohammed] Mossadegh, the prime minister of Iran – and this was to benefit British oil interests, he reminds me. The result was the shah came into power, who was a very ruthless man, and the result of that was that we had the Iranian Revolution, which takes us to where we are right now.

...So far this year, Sanders has hired Matt Duss , a respected foreign affairs analyst and former president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP), as his foreign policy adviser, and has given speeches at the liberal Jewish lobbying group, J Street, where he condemned Israels continued occupation of Palestinian territories as being contrary to fundamental American values, and at the centrist Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, where he rebuked Russian President Vladimir Putin for trying to weaken the transatlantic alliance.

Last week, my colleague Glenn Greenwald penned a column in The Intercept headlined, The Clinton Book Tour Is Largely Ignoring the Vital Role of Endless War in the 2016 Election Result. Greenwald argued that Clintons advocacy of multiple wars and other military actions pushed some swing voters into the arms of both Donald Trump and third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein. I ask Sanders whether he agrees with this analysis.

I mean, thats a whole other issue. And I dont know the answer to that. I persist. Surely hed concede that foreign policy was a factor in Clintons defeat? He doesnt budge. I want to talk about my speech, not about Hillary Clinton. So foreign policy plays no role in elections?

... ... ...

The U.S. funding plays a very important role, and I would love to see people in the Middle East sit down with the United States government and figure out how U.S. aid can bring people together, not just result in an arms war in that area. So I think there is extraordinary potential for the United States to help the Palestinian people rebuild Gaza and other areas. At the same time, demand that Israel, in their own interests in a way, work with other countries on environmental issues. He then, finally, answers my question: So the answer is yes.

It is -- by the depressingly low standard of modern U.S. politics -- a remarkable and, dare I say it, radical response from Sanders. Aid to Israel in Congress and the pro-Israel community has been sacrosanct, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted earlier this year, and no president has seriously proposed cutting it since Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s.

[Sep 29, 2017] Escalating Tensions Over Kurdish Referendum by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... A unilateral declaration of independence wont be accepted by any of the surrounding states, and very few other governments would recognize the new state because of the manner of its separation. ..."
"... Turkey, Iran, and the Iraqi government were already ratcheting up economic pressure on the region because of the vote, but a declaration of independence would likely trigger immediate military responses from one or more of them. ..."
"... The situation has quickly escalated to a point where none of the governments involved is willing to back down or compromise, and that makes it much harder to avoid the worst-case scenario of a major armed conflict breaking out. Both Turkey and Iran fear the creation of a Kurdish state because of the possible implications for the aspirations of their own Kurdish minorities. ..."
Sep 29, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
... continue to rise following the independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan:

Iraqi Kurds overwhelmingly voted in favor of independence in a referendum on Monday, which Mr. Ali said obliges Mr. Barzani to negotiate independence from the rest of Iraq. Baghdad has refused to enter such negotiations, and Mr. Ali said that if it maintained that attitude, Kurdistan would be forced to unilaterally declare independence.

A unilateral declaration of independence wont be accepted by any of the surrounding states, and very few other governments would recognize the new state because of the manner of its separation.

Turkey, Iran, and the Iraqi government were already ratcheting up economic pressure on the region because of the vote, but a declaration of independence would likely trigger immediate military responses from one or more of them.

The situation has quickly escalated to a point where none of the governments involved is willing to back down or compromise, and that makes it much harder to avoid the worst-case scenario of a major armed conflict breaking out. Both Turkey and Iran fear the creation of a Kurdish state because of the possible implications for the aspirations of their own Kurdish minorities.

Ariane Tabatabai explained the Iranian governments view earlier this week:

Rather than seeing it as a single, contained event, Tehran views it as opening the door to a more comprehensive effort at cleaving the Kurdish territories off Iran, Syria, and Turkey to create a new country in the region.

Because Baghdad opposed the referendum and opposes the creation of a Kurdish state, Turkey and Iran can both dress up their respective responses as helping the Iraqi government to preserve its territorial integrity.

If Barzani were reckless enough to follow through on the threat his spokesman made, he would be setting up his new state for a fall.

The U.S. should do what it can to dissuade Barzani from doing this, and it should appeal to all of the parties to dial down their rhetoric and refrain from taking any more provocative actions. If tensions continue to escalate as they have over the last week, the disaster that many observers feared will follow.

[Sep 28, 2017] John Kiriakou on blowing the whistle on the CIA torture network

Notable quotes:
"... Doing Time Like A Spy: How the CIA Taught Me to Survive and Thrive in Prison ..."
Sep 15, 2017 | www.antiwar.com
Famed whistleblower John Kiriakou, the former chief of counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan, returns to the show to discuss his latest book on Abu Zubaydah "The Convenient Terrorist" which he co-authored with Guantanamo whistleblower Joseph Hickman. Kiriakou retells his history at the CIA and explains why the crux of the Abu Zubaydah saga were Zubaydah's lies about supposed ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, which helped the U.S. spin the lies that led to the Iraq War. Kiriakou explains the American fetish with torture and his role in blowing the whistle on the torture network within the CIA and explains how the United States made the decision to invade Iraq long before the invasion. Finally Kiriakou discusses how the drone program is the greatest recruitment tool for Islamic terrorists.

John Kiriakou is a former CIA officer and author of Doing Time Like A Spy: How the CIA Taught Me to Survive and Thrive in Prison. Kiriakou was the only CIA officer to be jailed over the CIA's torture regime-for telling the truth. Follow him on Twitter @JohnKiriakou .

[Sep 28, 2017] The Russia-Blamers Think Youre Stupid by Thomas L. Knapp

Notable quotes:
"... Lets assume for a moment that the basic claim is true, although so far the actual evidence indicates a tiny propaganda operation in the scale of things. If its true, the conclusion it points to is: American voters are morons who can be gamed into doing anything by anyone with the ability to buy ads on Facebook and Twitter. ..."
"... I didnt say that. Russian hackers didnt say that, at least in public. Thats what the propagators of the new Red Scare are claiming. ..."
"... If the American electorate is really as abjectly stupid as the blame the Russians crowd insists, it seems to me that instead of blaming the Russians, they should get to work on either making the electorate smarter or coming up with a system that doesnt leave important political decisions in the hands of the gullible. Just sayin ..."
Sep 28, 2017 | www.antiwar.com

Russian operatives used Facebook ads to exploit Americas racial and religious divisions, the Washington Post claims in a September 25 headline .

Over at The Daily Beast , Dean Obeidallah explains How Russian Hackers Used My Face to Sabotage Our Politics and Elect Trump.

And US Senator James Lankford (R-OK) thinks that the Russians and their troll farms (as opposed to Donald Trump and professional football players) are behind the current take a knee kerfuffle between Donald Trump and professional football players.

Because, you know, Americans never had rowdy disagreements with each other over race and religion until last year, and wouldnt be having them now if not for those dirty, no-good Russian hackers who stole the 2016 presidential election from the second most hated candidate in history, on behalf of the most hated candidate in history, operating through subterfuge to achieve the outcome that some of us predicted months in advance, long before anyone mentioned Russian hackers. *

Evidence? Who needs evidence? The people who hated the outcome and have been railing against it for nearly a year now have told us what happened, and why, and whodunit, and theyd never lie to us about something like that, would they? They lied about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, and about illegal wiretapping by the NSA, and about a thousand other things, but THIS is DIFFERENT.

Keep in mind that when all the most wild and baseless accusations (e.g. that !THEM RUSSIANS! hacked the voting machines) are discarded, the basic claim remaining is this: By spreading fake news through social media, !THEM RUSSIANS! fooled a bunch of Americans into voting the wrong way.

Lets assume for a moment that the basic claim is true, although so far the actual evidence indicates a tiny propaganda operation in the scale of things. If its true, the conclusion it points to is: American voters are morons who can be gamed into doing anything by anyone with the ability to buy ads on Facebook and Twitter.

I didnt say that. Russian hackers didnt say that, at least in public. Thats what the propagators of the new Red Scare are claiming.

If the American electorate is really as abjectly stupid as the blame the Russians crowd insists, it seems to me that instead of blaming the Russians, they should get to work on either making the electorate smarter or coming up with a system that doesnt leave important political decisions in the hands of the gullible. Just sayin

*In May of 2016, I predicted that Donald Trump would carry every state Mitt Romney carried in 2012, plus Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. I didnt predict Wisconsin and Iowa, but 48 of 50 states from six months out aint too shabby, is it?

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

[Sep 27, 2017] Moore Victory Shows Populist Movement Bigger Than Trump by James Kirkpatrick

Notable quotes:
"... If Only The God-Emperor Knew: Using Trump_vs_deep_state Against The Trump Administration" ..."
"... Republican Sen. Corker announces he won't seek re-election ..."
"... Associated Press, ..."
"... Corker's departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment's inability to control the GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives to Republican primary voters in line [ Sen. Bob Corker's retirement is notable for when it's happening ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore, one of the most persistent targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate. And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself. ..."
"... Of course, Strange didn't just have Trump in his corner. He also had Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell using his PAC to run negative ads against Moore, ads which conservative websites called "defamatory" and which cost many millions of dollars [ McConnell's Super PAC accused of 'defaming ' Roy Moore ..."
"... McConnell's mortal enemy might soon be in his caucus ..."
"... Alabama rally: Trump campaigns in last-ditch effort for Senate candidate Luther Strange ..."
"... President Trump admits he doesn't 'know that much' about Alabama Senate contender Roy Moore, gets his name wrong in interview ..."
"... New York Daily News, ..."
"... During a debate with Strange, Moore suggested President Trump was being "redirected" by Mitch McConnell and others who "will not support his [Trump's] agenda" [ Alabama Senate debate erupts over whether McConnell is manipulating Trump ..."
"... Brexit Hero Farage in Alabama: Judge Roy Moore 'Not Going To Be Sucked Into The Swamp' ..."
"... Sarah Palin endorses Judge Roy Moore for US Senate ..."
"... Western Journalism, ..."
"... Ben Carson Splits With Trump, Basically Endorses Roy Moore in Alabama ..."
"... Talking Points Memo, ..."
"... Gorka: Trump Was Pressured to Endorse 'Swamp Dweller' Strange ..."
"... , Fox News, ..."
"... The Breitbart Universe Unites For Roy Moore ..."
"... The Atlantic, ..."
"... Trump's advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News ..."
"... Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama ..."
"... How Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump's Impeachment ..."
"... Trump supports Strange, but says it may be "mistake," ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... Roy Moore: 'I can't wait' for Trump to 'campaign like hell' for me ..."
"... Washington Examiner, ..."
"... Chamber of Commerce: 'Shut Down' Roy Moore & 'Remind Bannon Who's In Charge' ..."
"... Trump should seize on the narrative of his supposed opponents. He is unquestionably being given objectively poor political counsel by his aides!not surprising how utterly incompetent the Republican Establishment is when it comes to political strategy. [ Steve Bannon: We Need A Review After This Alabama Race To See How Trump Came To Endorse Someone Like Luther Strange ..."
"... Trump's N.F.L. Critique a Calculated Attempt to Shore Up His Base ..."
"... New York Times, ..."
"... Today, those who defeated Trump in the Republican army are still proclaiming their loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief. But Donald Trump, memes aside, is not a sovereign or just a symbol. He is a man who created a political movement!and that movement expects results. The movement he created, and which put him in office, is desperate for him to lead on an America First agenda. ..."
"... If Trump does not give it results, the movement will eventually find a new leader. Roy Moore is almost certainly not that leader on a national scale. But in Alabama tonight, Moore proved he is stronger than the president himself. ..."
"... James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc. ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

[See: If Only The God-Emperor Knew: Using Trump_vs_deep_state Against The Trump Administration" by James Kirkpatrick]

He must have known what was coming. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, a pillar of the cowardly GOP Establishment , announced he would not be running for re-election on Tuesday [ Republican Sen. Corker announces he won't seek re-election , by Richard Lardner and Erik Schelzig, Associated Press, September 26, 2017]. Corker's departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment's inability to control the GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives to Republican primary voters in line [ Sen. Bob Corker's retirement is notable for when it's happening , by Amber Phillips, Washington Post, September 26, 2017]

And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore, one of the most persistent targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate. And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself.

Of course, Strange didn't just have Trump in his corner. He also had Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell using his PAC to run negative ads against Moore, ads which conservative websites called "defamatory" and which cost many millions of dollars [ McConnell's Super PAC accused of 'defaming ' Roy Moore , by Bob Unruh, WND, August 3, 2017] As a result, Judge Moore openly campaigned against his party's own Senate leader during the primary, claiming a victory for him would mean the end of McConnell's hapless leadership. [ McConnell's mortal enemy might soon be in his caucus , by Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim, Politico, September 18, 2017]

However, and significantly, Moore never campaigned against President Trump himself. Yet Trump certainly gave Moore ample cause. He openly campaigned for Luther Strange, speaking with the incumbent Senator at a major rally, with Strange sporting a red MAGA hat [ Alabama rally: Trump campaigns in last-ditch effort for Senate candidate Luther Strange , by Alex Pappas, Fox News, September 22, 2017]. Trump also said Moore would have a hard time beating the Democrats because they would pour in so much money. He even called Moore by the wrong first name [ President Trump admits he doesn't 'know that much' about Alabama Senate contender Roy Moore, gets his name wrong in interview , by Jason Silverstein, New York Daily News, September 25, 2017]

And yet, revealingly, Moore and his allies framed their insurgency against Trump's wishes as an act of loyalty.

During a debate with Strange, Moore suggested President Trump was being "redirected" by Mitch McConnell and others who "will not support his [Trump's] agenda" [ Alabama Senate debate erupts over whether McConnell is manipulating Trump , by Alex Isenstadt and Daniel Strauss, Politico, September 21, 2017]

UKIP's former leader Nigel Farage said "absolutely" that "the point is to help the president" by electing Roy Moore and suggested The Judge would help deliver on President Trump's agenda [ Brexit Hero Farage in Alabama: Judge Roy Moore 'Not Going To Be Sucked Into The Swamp' by Ian Mason, Breitbart, September 25, 2017]

Sarah Palin channeled Trump's rhetoric by saying Moore would take on "DC's swamp monsters" and "help Make America Great Again" [ Sarah Palin endorses Judge Roy Moore for US Senate , by Randy DeSoto, Western Journalism, August 24, 2017]

Some of President Trump's best-known advisors also backed Moore.

Ben Carson, one of President Trump's own Cabinet secretaries, essentially endorsed Moore, saying he was "delighted" he was running and that he "wished him well" [ Ben Carson Splits With Trump, Basically Endorses Roy Moore in Alabama , by Cameron Joseph, Talking Points Memo, September 22, 2017]. Sebastian Gorka endorsed Moore, hinted the president was pressured into backing Strange, and said it would be a "very great day" for Trump if Strange was defeated [ Gorka: Trump Was Pressured to Endorse 'Swamp Dweller' Strange , Fox News, September 23, 2017]. And of course, Breitbart's Steve Bannon endorsed Moore, but said "we did not come here to defy Donald Trump, we came here to praise and honor him" [ The Breitbart Universe Unites For Roy Moore , by Rosie Gray, The Atlantic, September 26, 2017]

Even before Trump's inauguration, when there were troubling signs the new President was surrounding himself with the Republican Establishment, it was clear that the President's supporters would need to rise against Trump in his own name . The victory of Roy Moore is the best example so far of how this insurgency will play out.

And most importantly, it shows how the populist and nationalist movement is larger than Trump himself.

Trump's advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News interview referenced above, Dr. Gorka claimed "no one voted for Trump, we voted for his agenda." And during his speech in support of Moore, Bannon referenced Jeff Sessions, not Trump, as the "spiritual father of the populist and nationalist movement."

But does Trump himself know this? Already, the Main Stream Media is trying to present this as a devastating defeat for the president personally. The New York Times kvetched about Moore's social views and sneered that his victory "demonstrated in stark terms the limits of Mr. Trump's clout" [ Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama , by Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, September 26, 2017]. Jason Le Miere at Newsweek suggested Trump had suffered his first major political defeat at the ballot box and hinted his political weakness could trigger his impeachment. [ How Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump's Impeachment , September 26, 2017]

This wildly overstates the case. Trump had hedged his bets, suggesting at one point he made a "mistake" in endorsing Strange [ Trump supports Strange, but says it may be "mistake," Washington Post, September 25, 2017]. He also said he would "campaign like hell" for Moore if Moore won [ Roy Moore: 'I can't wait' for Trump to 'campaign like hell' for me , by Sean Langille, Washington Examiner, September 25, 2017].

It's hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are fanatically loyal to him and his "allies" can't wait to stab him in the back.

But there is still a lesson for Trump. The Chamber of Commerce and Republican Establishment picked this fight to "shut down" Moore and show populists who was in charge. [ Chamber of Commerce: 'Shut Down' Roy Moore & 'Remind Bannon Who's In Charge' by Joel Pollak, Breitbart, September 24, 2017] They just got their answer. It's not them.

Trump should seize on the narrative of his supposed opponents. He is unquestionably being given objectively poor political counsel by his aides!not surprising how utterly incompetent the Republican Establishment is when it comes to political strategy. [ Steve Bannon: We Need A Review After This Alabama Race To See How Trump Came To Endorse Someone Like Luther Strange , by Allahpundit, Hot Air, September 26, 2017]

Tellingly, Trump in his messy intuitive way is already embarking on a movement to shore up his base by taking on the pro-Black Lives Matter and anti-American antics of the National Football League [ Trump's N.F.L. Critique a Calculated Attempt to Shore Up His Base , by Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman, New York Times, September 25, 2017]. But such symbolic fights are meaningless unless they are coupled with real action on trade and immigration policy.

Today, those who defeated Trump in the Republican army are still proclaiming their loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief. But Donald Trump, memes aside, is not a sovereign or just a symbol. He is a man who created a political movement!and that movement expects results. The movement he created, and which put him in office, is desperate for him to lead on an America First agenda.

If Trump does not give it results, the movement will eventually find a new leader. Roy Moore is almost certainly not that leader on a national scale. But in Alabama tonight, Moore proved he is stronger than the president himself.

Trump has given the Establishment Republicans their chance and they have failed him. It's time for him to return to the people who have supported him from the very beginning.

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

Parsifal > , September 27, 2017 at 7:44 am GMT

Look people, it's time to grasp some basic politics. The heart might have said Roy Moore but a leader can not think with his heart alone. Whatever happened in the GOP primary, Luther Strange was going to remain in the Senate until January. There are big, important votes coming up in Congress and Trump's margin of error in the Senate is virtually non-existent. What sense does it make to alienate, even slight, a sitting Senator that has always voted your way and has never trashed you in public?

Realist > , September 27, 2017 at 8:13 am GMT

Moore's victory means nothing. If Moore is elected it will change nothing. The Deep State rules .they will eat Moore for lunch.

"Trump has given the Establishment Republicans their chance and they have failed him."

Trump has caved to the Establishment Republicans. He will never return.

Randal > , September 27, 2017 at 9:20 am GMT

All seems pretty much directly on target.

It's hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are fanatically loyal to him and his "allies" can't wait to stab him in the back.

As a man who supposedly highly values personal loyalty, does Trump really not understand that the men who pushed him to support Strange are also the men who will be first in line to vote for impeachment the moment it looks as though the leftist establishment has found a pretext that will succeed?

Greg Bacon > , Website September 27, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT

Like Bannon said, the Trump people voted for is gone. If he was ever around, or just being smart enough to know what to say to get votes.

President Kushner, er Trump will not be draining any Swamp anytime soon, not until he drags himself out of the Swamp and back onto sane, dry land.

WhiteWolf > , September 27, 2017 at 9:41 am GMT

The movement better start paying attention to the thoughtcrime laws being passed right now under the banner of "hatespeech". The first amendment isn't just a nice concept. People in other countries are jailed for speaking their mind in the way Americans take for granted.

[Sep 27, 2017] Bannon Roy Moore Is a Bannonite on Foreign Policy Too by Curt Mills

Notable quotes:
"... We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President, Moore writes on his site. We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated. ..."
"... It's too early to tell whether the nationalist hawks will be more or less interventionist overall than the internationalist, neocon hawks were, Daniel McCarthy, editor-at-large at the American Conservative ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

...Steve Bannon told me Wednesday afternoon that he and Moore, who defeated Sen. Luther Strange (whom President Trump had backed) for the Republican primary nomination in Alabama on Tuesday, see eye to eye on global affairs, as well, and that, yes, he is every bit the Bannonite on foreign policy.

Moore, the twice-ousted Alabama Chief Justice, is likely headed to the United States Senate. Bannon and the Trump movement have often been depicted as essentially non-interventionist. My recent reporting indicates a caveat to that, however. While Bannon and his cohort might differ with the blob on confronting Kim Jong Un in North Korea or Bashar al-Assad in Syria or Vladimir Putin in Russia, they are much more suspicious of the government of Iran. ...

... ... ...

The judges website, Roymoore.org, features such language. We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President, Moore writes on his site. We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated.

But there are notable divergences from the paleocons. Like Bannon, Moore is a hawk for Israel. We should pass the Taylor Force Act and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. His writing that the U.S. should not rely on nuclear reduction treaties which leave us vulnerable to foreign powers and that it should reject agreements or policies that undermine Israel's security clearly alludes to the Iran deal. The pair would part company with Buchanan on that.

And like President Trump, Moore, a graduate of West Point, wants a bigger military. More funding should be available to develop a missile defense system and to provide our Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines, and Coast Guard with the most modern technology including weapon systems. Respect for our strength is the best defense. Walk softly and carry a big stick is and should be our guide.

... ... ...

It's too early to tell whether the nationalist hawks will be more or less interventionist overall than the internationalist, neocon hawks were, Daniel McCarthy, editor-at-large at the American Conservative , tells me. My guess is that while the nationalists will speak more provocatively, abort diplomatic agreements, and ramp up `political warfare, they'll engage in fewer large-scale, nation-building interventions. McCarthy adds that religion is important here, as well. Moore and Bannon are both on record as deeply religious. Neoconservative foreign policy is sold as a scheme for secular salvation, bringing the blessings of liberalism and democracy and human rights to a world that eagerly awaits them, says McCarthy. Moore's religious convictions might help to immunize him against a belief in worldly salvation through American arms and advisers...

Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills.

[Sep 27, 2017] Come You Masters of War by Matthew Harwood

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. ..."
"... The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. ..."
"... he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he said. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. ..."
"... Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment, one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human rights. ..."
"... They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.) ..."
"... History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly, The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning. ..."
"... Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives. ..."
"... The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power. ..."
"... Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts. ..."
"... As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power of American violence. ..."
"... Expect Uncle Sams fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge. ..."
"... Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue, Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome. ..."
Sep 26, 2017 | www.fff.org

Review of America's War for the Greater Middle East by Andrew J. Bacevich (New York: Random House, 2016; 480 pages)

Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Over time, other considerations intruded and complicated the wars conduct, but oil as a prerequisite of freedom was from day one an abiding consideration.

By 1969, oil imports already made up 20 percent of the daily oil consumption in the United States. Four years later, Arab oil exporters suspended oil shipments to the United States to punish America for supporting Israel in the October War. The American economy screeched to a halt, seemingly held hostage by foreigners -- a big no-no for a country accustomed to getting what it wants. Predictably the U.S. response was regional domination to keep the oil flowing to America, especially to the Pentagon and its vast, permanent war machine.

The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. Before him, Richard Nixon was content to have the Middle East managed by proxies after the bloodletting America experienced in Vietnam. His arch-proxy was the despised shah of Iran, whom the United States had installed into power and then armed to the teeth. When his regime collapsed in 1979, felled by Islamic revolutionaries who would eventually capture the American embassy and initiate the Iranian hostage crisis, so too did the Nixon Doctrine. That same year, the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan. The world was a mess, and Carter was under extreme pressure to do something about it, lest he lose his bid for a second term. (He suffered a crushing defeat anyway.)

Furies beyond reckoning

The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Months earlier, in his infamous malaise speech, Carter asked Americans to simplify their lives and moderate their energy use. Now he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he said. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment, one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human rights.

It is illustrative, and alarming, to list Bacevichs selected campaigns and operations in the region since 1980 up to the present, unleashed by Carter and subsequent presidents. Lets go in alphabetical order by country followed by the campaigns and operations:

  1. Afghanistan (Cyclone, 1980–1989; Infinite Reach, 1998; Enduring Freedom, 2001–2015; Freedoms Sentinel, 2015–present);
  2. Bosnia (Deny Flight, 1993–1995; Deliberate Force, 1995; Joint Endeavor, 1995–1996);
  3. East Africa (Enduring Freedom -- Trans Sahara, 2007–present);
  4. Egypt (Bright Star, 1980–2009);
  5. Iraq (Desert Storm, 1991; Southern Watch, 1991–2003; Desert Strike, 1996; Northern Watch, 1997–2003; Desert Fox, 1998; Iraqi Freedom, 2003–2010; New Dawn, 2010–2011; Inherent Resolve, 2014–present);
  6. Iran (Eagle Claw, 1980; Olympic Games, 2007–2010)
  7. Kosovo (Determined Force, 1998; Allied Force, 1999; Joint Guardian, 1999–2005);
  8. Lebanon (Multinational Force, 1982–1984);
  9. Libya (El Dorado Canyon, 1986; Odyssey Dawn, 2011);
  10. North/West Africa (Enduring Freedom -- Trans Sahara, 2007– present);
  11. Pakistan (Neptune Spear, 2011);
  12. Persian Gulf (Earnest Will, 1987–1988; Nimble Archer, 1987; Praying Mantis, 1988);
  13. Saudi Arabia (Desert Shield, 1990; Desert Focus, 1996);
  14. Somalia (Restore Hope, 1992–1993; Gothic Serpent, 1993); Sudan (Infinite Reach, 1998);
  15. Syria (Inherent Resolve, 2014–present);
  16. Turkey (Provide Comfort, 1991);
  17. Yemen (Determined Response, 2000)

While Bacevich deftly takes the reader through the history of all those wars, the most important aspect of his book is his critique of the United Statess permanent military establishment and the power it wields in Washington. According to Bacevich, U.S. military leaders have a tendency to engage in fantastical thinking rife with hubris. Too many believe the United States is a global force for good that has the messianic duty to usher in secular modernity, a force that no one should ever interfere with, either militarily or ideologically.

As Bacevich makes plain again and again, history does not back up that mindset. For instance, after the Soviet Unions crippling defeat in Afghanistan, the Washington elite saw it as an American victory, the inauguration of the end of history and the inevitable march of democratic capitalism. They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.)

Over and over again after 9/11, America would be taught this lesson, as Islamic extremists, both Sunni and Shia, bloodied the U.S. military across the Greater Middle East, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly, The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning.

Yet across Americas War for the Greater Middle East, presidents would speak theologically of Americas role in the world, never admitting the United States is not an instrument of the Almighty. George H.W. Bush would speak of a new world order. Bill Clintons Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would declare that America is the indispensable nation. George W. Bushs faith in this delusion led him to declare a global war on terrorism, where American military might would extinguish evil wherever it resided and initiate Condoleeza Rices 'paradigm of progress -- democracy, limited government, market economics, and respect for human (and especially womens) rights across the region. As with all zealots, there was no acknowledgment by the Bush administration, flamboyantly Christian, that evil resided inside them too. Barack Obama seemed to pull back from this arrogance in his 2009 Cairo speech, declaring, No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. Yet he continued to articulate his faith that all people desire liberal democracy, even though that simply isnt true.

All in all, American presidents and their military advisors believed they could impose a democratic capitalist peace on the world, undeterred that each intervention created more instability and unleashed new violent forces the United States would eventually engage militarily, such as Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda, and ISIS. Bacevich explains that this conviction, deeply embedded in the American collective psyche, provides one of the connecting threads making the ongoing War for the Greater Middle East something more than a collection of disparate and geographically scattered skirmishes.

War and diplomacy

Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives.

This logic would run aground in Iraq after 9/11 during what Bacevich calls the Third Gulf War. In an act of preventive war, the Bush administration shocked and awed Baghdad, believing U.S. military supremacy and its almost divine violence would bring other state sponsors of terrorism to heel after America quickly won the war. Vanquishing Saddam Hussein and destroying his army promised to invest American diplomacy with the power to coerce. Although the Bush administration believed the war ended after three weeks, Bacevich notes, the Third Gulf War was destined to continue for another 450. The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power.

There was hope that Barack Obama, a constitutional professor, would correct the Bush administrations failures and start to wind down Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Instead, he expanded it into Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and West Africa through drone warfare and special-operations missions. Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts.

Now this war is in the hands of Donald J. Trump. If there is any upside to a Trump presidency -- and I find it hard to find many -- its the possibility that the intensity of American imperialism in the Middle East will wane. But I find that likelihood remote. Trump has promised to wipe out ISIS, which means continued military action in at least Iraq, Syria, and Libya. He has also called for more military spending, and I find it hard to believe that he or the national-security establishment will increase investment in the military and then show restraint in the use of force overseas.

As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power of American violence. They persist in this belief despite all evidence to the contrary. These are the men and women who will be whispering their advice into the new presidents ear. Expect Uncle Sams fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge.

Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue, Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome. And to this its not hard to hear Trump retort, Loser! And so the needless violence will continue on and on with no end in sight unless the American population develops a Middle East syndrome to replace the Vietnam syndrome that once made Washington wary of war.

That lack of confidence in the masters of war cant come soon enough.

This article was originally published in the July 2017 edition of Future of Freedom .

[Sep 27, 2017] Philip Giraldi's Remedy for Wars by Israel Shamir

Accept in Jewishness of neocons is counterproductive. They perform their role because this is what MIC which controls and pays them want them to perform. The fact that there are selected for this role is no different then large percent of Jews in academia: they provide to be talented propagandists.
Some commenters definitely mix effects of neoliberalism on the US society with the influence of Jews. That's pathetic.
Notable quotes:
"... [Choose a single Handle and stick with it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments will be trashed.] ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

...The recent example is a piece by Philip Giraldi on the Unz.com, which still produces waves on the web. In his piece he rolled the list of Jews who were keen on Iraq invasion, and who are pushing the US now into an attack on Iran: "David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen And yep, they're all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neo-conservatives."

Giraldi proposed to keep Jews out of the positions of influence on the foreign affairs, in order to keep the US out of wars it does not need. Giraldi wrote: "We don't need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to deliver."

Actually, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote at the time (in April 2003): "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible."

I also wrote things in the same vein during Iraq invasion, and it is good to see that this thesis did not die but keeps resurging from time to time. One could add that these very persons are pushing for conflict with Russia, demonise Putin and attack Trump, though the Orange Man tries to fulfill their wishes as an eager Santa Claus of diligent Lizzie.

While agreeing with Giraldi on the malady, let us discuss the remedy. Would keeping Jews out of foreign policy making actually help? Did the US keep out of wars before the Rise of Jews in late 1960s? The Jews weren't specially prominent before that time, and certainly weren't overrepresented in the establishment. A Jewish couple, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg has been fried on the electric chair in 1953, and there were few objections. McCarthy terrorized Jews. The word Holocaust had yet to make its first appearance (in 1968). Jews were still kept out of clubs and out of high level politics. Israel had been threatened by the US (in 1956) rather than assisted.

And still, the free-from-Jews US had fought in Korea the terrible three-year long war (1950-1953), and in Vietnam (up to 1974), invaded and caused regime change in Guatemala and Iran, violently interfered in elections in France and Italy, and had fought the fierce Cold War against the USSR. In all these campaigns, the US Jews were actually for peace and against war. The Jews were nowhere in power when the US fought its wars against Spain and Mexico. The non-Jewish US made a coup in Iran, and non-Jewish and not-pro-Israel President Carter tried to invade Iran. Jews weren't involved in the conquest of Panama, in Nicaragua intervention, in Granada operation.

Perhaps the Jews had moved the arena of wars to the Middle East and out of Latin America. Less Jewish-influenced America would rather invade Venezuela than Iraq or Iran. But is it so wonderful?

The idea of correcting or channelling the excessive Jewish influence is a reasonable one, but can this goal be achieved by keeping Kristol and Krauthammer out of media (an excellent thought anyway)?

The Jewish prominence in the US is inbuilt in the US culture and tradition. Karl Marx wrote that "in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression". He said that all Yankees are Jews, behave like Jews, aspire to be Jews and even are circumcised like Jews. So it is natural that real Jews succeed better in being Jews than their Gentile neighbours. Werner Sombart added that Jews were prominent from the very dawn of America and they created American-style capitalism the way that fits them. The Jews are prominent now because America is custom-built for Jews to fit and suit them, he said.

This is what should be corrected, and then the Jewish scribes, these Krauthammers will be out of business of inciting wars. Stop subscribing to Jewish success model, and the Jews won't be able to influence the Senate. Make the US Christian as Christ taught, share labour and wealth, aspire to God instead of Mammon, make the first last and the last first, love thy neighbour and the problem will be solved.

If this is too tall an order, make it a smaller one. Unseating Ledeens and Frums (and I think they deserve tar and feathers all right) will not do the trick unless the rich Jews are un-wealthed. Without excessive Jewish wealth, there will be no excessive Jewish push for wars. And provided that more than half of all US wealth is in few Jewish hands, freeing it will make a colossal effect of improving life of every American, even every person on earth.

And why to stop there? The super-rich non-Jews are as Jewish as any Jew. They share the same aspirations. Strip them of their assets. Why should we worry whether Jeff Bezos is a Jew by blood or faith, or he is not? He behaves like a Jew, and that is enough. Establish a ceiling of wealth, a counterpart of minimal wage. This idea has been mulled: Jeremy Corbyn called for the maximum wage. Taxes can do it easily – in wonderful Sweden of 1950s, top tax rate was 102%. Or this can be achieved in a more festive way of stripping the richest men of their ill-gotten wealth on the main square of Washington, DC on Mardi Gras Sunday. Do not say this is a punishment for their diligence – other way around, this is assistance on their way to spiritual improvement. Too many assets imprison the spirit.

This would be good for Jews and for all concerned: while the average Jewish wealth in the US had been lagging below total average (that is as long as Jews were less wealthy than Gentiles), the Jews acted in the interests of the people. Around 1968-1970 the Jews became more wealthy than all Americans, and that was it: they ceased to strive for the common good.

Jews could be a force for good if their excessive tendency to collect material goods is nipped in the bud. So it was in the USSR: as the Jews could not make money, they went into science and worked for the common good. Even oligarchs could be good managers instead of pain in the neck for the society.

This is not more complicated than booting Max Boot out of writing business. So why to go for a palliative if you can go for the jugular?

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

Anonymous > , Disclaimer September 27, 2017 at 4:27 am GMT

I thought the ascent of Jewish power in America started in 1913?

One year after that, America entered WWI

SimplePseudonymicHandle > , September 27, 2017 at 5:33 am GMT

@Anonymous I thought the ascent of Jewish power in America started in 1913?

One year after that, America entered WWI... The US entered WWI in 1917

Grandpa Charlie > , September 27, 2017 at 5:45 am GMT

Israel Shamir is an entertaining writer and sometimes informative (especially about Russia). But he is prone to hyperbole. For example:

[N]on-Jewish and not-pro-Israel President Carter tried to invade Iran

Perhaps the Jews had moved the arena of wars to the Middle East and out of Latin America. Less Jewish-influenced America would rather invade Venezuela than Iraq or Iran. But is it so wonderful?

– Shamir

The Special Forces operation to extract USA's hostages in Iran fell way short of anything that anyone would call an "invasion." As for Venezuela:

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) fired back at President Trump on Friday, saying Congress "obviously isn't authorizing war in Venezuela" after Trump said he wouldn't rule out using a military option in the country.

"No, Congress obviously isn't authorizing war in Venezuela," Sasse, a member of the Senate Armed Services committee, said in a statement. "Nicolas Maduro is a horrible human being, but Congress doesn't vote to spill Nebraskans' blood based on who the Executive lashes out at today."

– The Hill

This entire article is based on Shanir's exaggerationa: First, as I recall, Giraldi never suggested any form of censorship of news media or commentary; more likely Giraldi would like to see effectively less censorship, especially censorship on behalf of Israel and Zionism. Second, Giraldi, as I recall, never made his suggestions as promising an end to war in general. Third, Giraldi never suggested that removing Jews from positions of influence relating to USA's global security/strategy would keep the USA out of all unnecessary wars, only that it would help in getting the USA out of unnecessary wars in the ME -- wars that do not enhance and indeed detract from our national security.

I feel certain that Giraldi knows as much as anyone about the evil influence of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex -- which obviously includes major gentile players as well as Zionist neocons. For me, the matter is simple: anyone whose loyalty is divided between the USA and Israel should be barred from any position of influence in USA's military or related governmental activities. The same is true for anyone whose loyalty is divided between the USA and the People's Republic of China or Ireland or Russia or the Vatican or wherever.

Edgar > , September 27, 2017 at 5:56 am GMT

It's been a week or so since I read Giraldi's piece, but I recall him saying keep Jews in the US out of policy matters relating to Israel. "Put the Jewish members in charge of Korea Policy. . . " I believe was Giraldi's example. You seem to be punching a straw man with your otherwise pedestrian argument. But thanks for supporting Giraldi's basic thesis!

Now these pitiful William-F-Buckley-tards should put Giraldi's article back up; Shamir confirms that Giraldi is right.

Priss Factor > , Website September 27, 2017 at 6:19 am GMT

While agreeing with Giraldi on the malady, let us discuss the remedy. Would keeping Jews out of foreign policy making actually help? Did the US keep out of wars before the Rise of Jews in late 1960s? The Jews weren't specially prominent before that time, and certainly weren't overrepresented in the establishment.

This is an interesting question, but there is a difference between Then and Now.

In the past, US expansionism was part of the global norm. Imperialism was common and accepted all over the world. Ottomans ruled over a giant empire. Russians kept expanding into Siberia and Central Asia. It also swallowed parts of Central Europe. Manchus took over China and gobbled up more territory as part of Chinese empire. There were native imperialist wars in Africa before white man came. And Mexico was also the product of empire building. Spanish took it from Aztec Imperialists, and the Conquis took more land. And Spanish also took Philippines. Brits and French were creating vast empires. US was created out of empire-building and continued as such.

So, US warmongering in the past was part of the world norm. Everyone did it. Also, empire-building was seen as glorious for the Whole People. So, even though the elites benefited the most, there was a sense of shared glory among all Britons over the British Empire. All Frenchmen were to share the glory of the French Empire. And US expansion into SW territories was great not only for elites but for Anglo settlers who built new lives in those areas. And it was even good for Mexers in the region because Anglos did so much than Mexers had done before when SW territories had belonged to Mexico. It's like Ramon has it pretty good working for gringos. He was like the Guillermo of his day.

Alfred > , September 27, 2017 at 6:34 am GMT

@Anonymous I thought the ascent of Jewish power in America started in 1913?

One year after that, America entered WWI... WWI was planned and executed to plan by a British elite – just like the 2 Boer wars. In all these wars, wealthy Jewish bankers helped get them started – the Cassels and the Rothschilds principally. Many leading British politicians – e.g. Winston Churchill and his father – were deeply in debt to these people. The much touted "Balfour Declaration" was the product of a British prime minister who was in debt to them – as was his uncle Lord Salisbury.

Randolph Churchill died with debts of the order of $8m in today's money to these bankers. It is all well-documented.

Suggested reading:

"The Secret Origins of the First Wold War" by Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor

https://amzn.com/1780576307

However, blaming ordinary Jews or American Jews for WWI is as ridiculous as blaming the French for their corrupt Poincaré or the ordinary British for the warmonger Churchill.

Grandpa Charlie > , September 27, 2017 at 6:53 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie It occurs to me that it's possible that Shamir intended the article as humor, as camp, as a parody of ((anti-Jewish)) commentary here at UR. It's complicated.

Proud_Srbin > , September 27, 2017 at 7:03 am GMT

Mother Nature, no make monoliths. Monolithic nations or states do not exist, have never existed and never will.

Kiza > , September 27, 2017 at 7:05 am GMT

This article is a mix of truths and bull. But the key problem with the article is that it never mentions the main tool of the Zionists – the petrodollar and the main conduit of the Zionist power in US – The Federal Reserve. Luckily, China and Russia are working on dethroning FED by diminishing petrodollar. This will have the world-wide beneficial effect of deglobalisation: removing the ability to print money indefinitely will curb the ambitions of both "the rich Jews and the rich who want to be Jews" to rule the World. Power will become distributed again and the Jews will have to compete with the Chinese for domination.

Diminishing petrodollar is a much healthier solution than the Marxist's solution of removing wealth from the wealthy Jews and wannabe Jews. Once one starts removing wealth from individuals, one does not know where and when to stop.

Tom Welsh > , September 27, 2017 at 7:53 am GMT

@Anonymous It's quite hard to know such things for certain, since a lot of highly-paid professional effort has gone into concealing them from public scrutiny.

For some reason I am reminded of George Carlin's weirdly logical observation, "One can never know for sure what a deserted area looks like".

Art > , September 27, 2017 at 7:56 am GMT

Around 1968-1970 the Jews became more wealthy than all Americans, and that was it: they ceased to strive for the common good.

For the next 30 years through excessive debt the Jew Allen Greenspan, head of the Fed, put a stake in the heart of America's economy – end of story.

Jew dominated corporate America turned its head away from its fiduciary responsibilities to customers, employees, neighbors, investors, and country – they instead turned to raw, naked, personal greed. Junk bonds got the ball rolling.

In America you no longer do business with your neighbors – you must do business with Wall Street – Wall Street gets a slice of all your spending. Guess what – unlike you neighbors – Wall Street doesn't give dam about you – PERIOD.

Companies change ownership with the tough of a keyboard creating great uncertainty for all those invoved. This creates instability.

Ownership must be returned to local people. Then stability will return to culture.

Think Peace -- Art

The Alarmist > , September 27, 2017 at 8:23 am GMT

Remember the old adage for success in the world of WASPs: "Think Yiddish, dress British."

A serious case can be made for replacing the income tax, which has the potential to keep people from becoming wealthy, with a wealth tax, which has the effect of making people pay in proportion to their longer-term success and influence in the system. A millennial might say that this would be a more sustainable way to run things.

Randal > , September 27, 2017 at 8:45 am GMT

This is not more complicated than booting Max Boot out of writing business. So why to go for a palliative if you can go for the jugular?

If you think that imposing a general prohibitive wealth tax or somehow banning being rich is "not more complicated" than simply recognising the problems of dual loyalty and ulterior group motives, both in general and in particular relation to jewish elites, and addressing them in some form, then you would seem rather unrealistic to me.

There has been no convincing argument raised against Giraldi's point – the closest to a response so far seems to be the one you raise here – that jews aren't the only people or groups pushing the US towards war, which is rather irrelevant, and the insistence that not all jewish people do so, which is both obvious and likewise irrelevant.

Regardless, and whether or not one agrees with Giraldi's particular diagnosis of one aspect of the ills of modern US sphere society (I do, broadly), one should support him and it anyway simply because its expression is so obviously being punished by those who seek to suppress it. His prompt dismissal by the contemptible American Conservative illustrates the truth of the point made by those who complain of politically correct censorship being used by identity lobbyists and those who kowtow to them to control dissent.

The latter is a far bigger problem in the societies of the modern US sphere than the particular issue of foreign policy identified by Giraldi.

Jean de Peyrelongue > , Website September 27, 2017 at 9:14 am GMT

I like what is being said:
Before the 1960s the Jews in the US were not occupying the front stage but their influence was far from being negligeable. They were acting like a fifth column and as such, they have been active in triggering and supporting the Bolsheviks revolution, in getting the US to enter WW I and latter on WW II.
It is also obvious that when they were not occupying the front stage, they were courting the people in the US and in all the countries where they were living; to get accepted and their contribution to the societies was important.
Today as they are running the show in the western world, they are acting like slaves drivers and are treating others like they treat the Palestinians.
Having conquered the US and its dominions in Europe, they want to get the rest of the world. They never have enough. It looks like they want to take a revenge against all the others like they have done against the Russian during the revolution. They are no more working for improving the world but for running it and wreaking a revenge for having living the Diaspora .

The only way to stop them driving us to Armageddon is to have them bankrupted; the whole world might be in jeopardy but that is the only way to avoid a nuclear apocalypse.

Paul Harrison > , September 27, 2017 at 9:22 am GMT

[Choose a single Handle and stick with it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments will be trashed.]

I have never found Jews particularly cheap or materialistic. Maybe as a Scot I have a warped perspective. Denied the chance at noble titles or churchly favor, money has been their only path to power and distinction. What I do see as a problem is the combination of extreme ability and extreme solidarity. Put that together with their adversarial relationship to the gentile world developed over the centuries and you have a recipe for harmful culture war. Producing sexy movies and violent rap, the war on Christmas, the attempt to limit free speech -- all are forms of aggression or payback for aggression, as I see it. To be sure, not all Jews or even most feel this emotion, but the ones that do work hard to promote it. According to Pew Research, 94% of self-identified Jews identify as pro-choice. The next highest group is mainline Protestants at 59%. Such a great disparity suggests to me that the issue is largely symbolic for them. I suspect you would find similar disparities on gun rights, attitudes to pornography, and religion in the public square. It's rare for Muslims or Hindus to complain about having to hear Christmas carols, but many Jews want to sick the Homeland Security SWAT Team on the school choir if a few syllables of Hark the Herald Angels are overheard. For that reason, I feel more threatened by the billions of Adelson, Bezos, Saban, Soros, and Singer than by Gates or Buffett, even though the latter are also quite liberal.

Wrenchturner > , September 27, 2017 at 9:23 am GMT

@Anonymous This is typical obfuscation. Goyim we didn't have power we just controlled the newspapers.

Serg Derbst > , September 27, 2017 at 9:43 am GMT

Why focus so much on Jewish wealth? The main problem of the American system has a simple name: capitalism. It is wealth and excessively rich people as such, who are the problem, and with a certain amount of wealth, you stop giving a fork about your religious, ethnic, national, or other alliances. All you care about are interests rates. Rich people also have a tendency to turn psychopath and get hooked on power – after all, you need to utilize that money, and you can only buy so many yachts, ferraris and mansions, right?

Scratch capitalism by changing the monetary system from a debt money system to a full or free money system, in which private banking based on loans and credits is called out for what it is: criminal fraud. The debt of the many – including government – is the wealth of a few. You wouldn't have this sick connection between wealth and poverty, if money creation wasn't based on debt, and only allowed to a (computerized and automated) fourth state power called the monetative. Read German thinkers to understand that, start with Karl Marx to understand the social and spiritual errors of capitalism, read Silvio Gesell and, more up-to-date, German economist Bernd Senf and Austrian economist Franz Hörmann to understand the possible alternatives. Educate yourself about The Wörgl Experiment to get an historical example from Austria where Free Money worked wonders before it was scrapped by the bankster elite and their political servants during the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Only free money could guarantee free markets (and you wouldn't even need taxes anymore). In capitalism with debt money, all you ever get is monopolies and corporate cartels.

Add to that a real democracy – no congress, no parliament, no parties, the legislative shall only be the people based on direct democracy. We now have the technological means to realize what has never been realized in human history: free markets, democracy, and something which could be called communism. Don't flinch from reading this last word, the stuff you commonly refer to as communism must be called bolshevism and has had nothing to do with actual communist ideals, which can never be realized in a centralized fashion as in capitalism (centralized wealth) or in bolshevism (centralized state power). But thanks to IT at our disposal, it can now be realized in form of free money and direct democracy.

daniel le mouche > , September 27, 2017 at 9:44 am GMT

'Stop subscribing to Jewish success model, and the Jews won't be able to influence the Senate. Make the US Christian as Christ taught, share labour and wealth, aspire to God instead of Mammon, make the first last and the last first, love thy neighbour and the problem will be solved.'

Would that this were possible. Great ideas in this article, but realistically, could any of it be implemented? It would take great anti-Jewish fervency, which, as you note, Americans don't have as they have always behaved as Jews.

Greg Bacon > , Website September 27, 2017 at 10:04 am GMT

What about the American Jewish bankers–like Schiff–that bankrolled Lenin and his thugs to sneak back into Russia, then proceeded–with his Jewish buddies–to steal the Revolution from Russians that had deposed the Czar?

Lenin's Bolshevik Jew radicals turned that Christian nation into a Commie nightmare, murdering around 60 million Russians in the process and turned a Christian nation that had been on friendly terms with the USA into an implacable foe, eventually leading to a five decades long 'Cold War.'

The USSR Commies tried to export their madness to Europe, specifically Germany, which led to the popularity and rise of Hitler and eventually WW II.
During WWII, FDR had a number of Jewish advisers, like Henry Morgenthau, Jr. whose post-WW II plan for Germany was so punitive, it gave Germans the will to fight harder in the closing days to prevent the plans implementation, thereby dragging out the war.

It was President Truman's support for creating Israel–by stealing it from Palestine–and his recognition of that apartheid nightmare that led to many an ill, including 9/11.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/06/03/truman-and-israel/

I like Mr. Shamir's writings, but I think he needs to hit the history books again and refresh his memory.
Just stay away from Wikipedia, which publishes a lop-sided version of the past.

[Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar

Highly recommended!
I think the key to collapse of Soviet society and its satellites was the victory of neoliberal ideology over communism. It was pure luck for neoliberalism was that its triumphal march over the globe coincide with deep crisis of both communist ideology and the Soviet elite (nomenklatura) in the USSR. Hapless, mediocre Gorbachov, a third rate politician who became the leader of the USSR is a telling example here. Propaganda, especially "big troika" (BBC, Deutsche Welle and Voice of America), also played a very important role in this. Especially in Baltic countries and Ukraine.
Domestic fake new industry always has huge advantage over foreign one in the USA and other Western countries, because of general cultural dominance of the West.
The loss of effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda now is the same as the reason for loss of effectiveness of communist propaganda since 60th. In the first case it was the crisis of communist ideology, in the second is the crisis of neoliberal ideology. Everybody now understands that the neoliberal promises were fake, and "bait and switch" manuver that enriched the tiny percentage of population (top 1% and even more 0.01%).
When the society experience the crisis of ideology it became inoculated toward official propaganda -- it simply loses its bite.
Notable quotes:
"... As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only 0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board. ..."
"... RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets. ..."
"... Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to it. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's Southern segregationist ticket. ..."
"... Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?") ..."
"... Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of Americans. ..."
"... In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience. ..."
Sep 26, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Russians can dish it out, but don't expect Americans to swallow everything.

During the Cold War, it became an article of faith among Western policymakers and journalists: One of the most effective ways to discredit the leaders of Communist countries would be to provide their citizens with information from the West. It was a view that was shared by Soviet Bloc regimes who were worried that listening to the Voice of America (VOA) or watching Western television shows would induce their people to take political action against the rulers.

So it was not surprising that government officials in East Germany, anxious that many TV stations from West Germany could be viewed by their citizens, employed numerous means!such as jamming the airwaves and even damaging TV antennas that were pointing west!in order to prevent the so-called "subversive" western broadcasts from reaching audiences over the wall.

After the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, communication researchers studying public attitudes in former East German areas assumed that they would discover that those who had access to West German television!and were therefore exposed to the West's political freedom and economic prosperity!were more politically energized and willing to challenge the communist regime than those who couldn't watch Western television.

But as Evgeny Morozov recalled in his Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom , a study conducted between 1966 and 1990 about incipient protests in the so-called "Valley of the Clueless"!an area in East Germany where the government successfully blocked Western television signals!raised questions about this conventional wisdom.

As it turns out, having access to West German television actually made life in East Germany more endurable. Far from radicalizing its citizens, it seemed to have made them more politically compliant. As one East German dissident quoted by Morozov lamented, "The whole people could leave the country and move to the West as a man at 8pm, via television."

Meanwhile, East German citizens who did not have access to Western German television were actually more critical of their regime, and more politically restless.

The study concluded that "in an ironic twist for Marxism, capitalist television seems to have performed the same narcotizing function in communist East Germany that Karl Marx had attributed to religious beliefs in capitalist society when he condemned religion as the 'opium of the people.'"

Morozov refers to the results of these and other studies to raise an interesting idea: Western politicians and pundits have predicted that the rise of the Internet, which provides free access to information to residents of the global village, would galvanize citizens in Russia and other countries to challenge their authoritarian regimes. In reality, Morozov contends that exposure to the Internet may have distracted Russian users from their political problems. The young men who should be leading the revolution are instead staying at home and watching online pornography. Trotsky, as we know, didn't tweet.

Yet the assumption that the content of the message is a "silver bullet shot from a media gun to penetrate a hapless audience," as communication theorists James Arthur Anderson and Timothy P. Meyer put it, remains popular among politicians and pundits today, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Hence the common assertion that a presidential candidate who has raised a lots of money and can spend it on buying a lots of television commercials, has a clear advantage over rivals who cannot afford to dominate the media environment. But the loser in the 2016 presidential race spent about $141.7 million on ads, compared with $58.8 million for winner's campaign, according to NBC News . Candidate Trump also spent a fraction of what his Republican rivals had during the Republican primaries that he won.

Communication researchers like Anderson and Meyers are not suggesting that media messages don't have any effect on target audiences, but that it is quite difficult to sell ice to Eskimos. To put it in simple terms, media audiences are not hapless and passive. Although you can flood them with messages that are in line with your views and interests, audiences actively participate in the communication process. They will construct their own meaning from the content they consume, and in some cases they might actually disregard your message.

Imagine a multi-billionaire who decides to produce thousands of commercials celebrating the legacy of ISIS, runs them on primetime American television, and floods social media with messages praising the murderous terrorist group. If that happened, would Americans be rallying behind the flag of ISIS? One can imagine that the response from audiences would range from anger to dismissal to laughter.

In 2013 Al Jazeera Media Network purchased Current TV , which was once partially owned by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, and launched an American news channel. Critics expressed concerns that the network, which is owned by the government of Qatar and has been critical of U.S. policies in the Middle East, would try to manipulate American audiences with their anti-Washington message.

Three years later, after hiring many star journalists and producing mostly straight news shows, Al Jazeera America CEO Al Anstey announced that the network would cease operations. Anstey cited the "economic landscape" which was another way of saying that its ratings were distressingly low. The relatively small number of viewers who watched Al Jazeera America 's programs considered them not anti-American but just, well, boring.

You don't have to be a marketing genius to figure out that in the age of the 24/7 media environment, foreign networks face prohibitive competition from American cable news networks like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, social media, not to mention Netflix and yes, those online porno sites. Thus the chances that a foreign news organization would be able to attract large American audiences, and have any serious impact on their political views, remain very low.

That, indeed, has been the experience of not only the defunct Al Jazeera America , but also of other foreign news outlets that have tried to imitate the Qatar-based network by launching operations targeting American audiences. These networks have included CGTN (China Global Television Network), the English-language news channel run by Chinese state broadcaster China Central Television ; PressTV, a 24-hour English language news and documentary network affiliated with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting ; or RT (formerly Russia Today), a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government that operates cable and satellite television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia.

After all, unless you are getting to paid to watch CTGN, PressTV, or RT -- or you are a news junkie with a lot of time on your hands -- why in the world would you be spending even one hour of the day watching these foreign networks?

Yet if you have been following the coverage and public debate over the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, you get the impression that RT and another Russian media outlet, Sputnik (a news agency and radio broadcast service established by the Russian government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya ), were central players in a conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and the Kremlin to deny the presidency to Hillary Clinton.

In fact, more than half of the much-cited January report on the Russian electoral interference released by U.S. intelligence agencies was devoted to warning of RT's growing influence in the United States and across the world, referring to the "rapid expansion" of the network's operations and budget to about $300 million a year, and citing the supposedly impressive audience numbers listed on the RT website.

According to America's spooks, the coordinated activities of RT and the online-media properties and social-media accounts that made up "Russia's state-run propaganda machine" have been employed by the Russian government to "undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."

And in a long cover story in The New York Times Magazine this month, with the headline, " RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War, " Jim Rutenberg suggested that the Kremlin has "built one of the most powerful information weapons of the 21st century" and that it "may be impossible to stop."

But as the British Economist magazine reported early this year, while RT claims to reach 550 million people worldwide, with America and Britain supposedly being its most successful markets, its "audience" of 550 million refers to "the number of people who can access its channel, not those who actually watch it."

As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only 0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board.

The Times' s Rutenberg argues that the RT's ratings "are almost beside the point." RT might not have amassed an audience that remotely rivals CNN's in conventional terms, "but in the new, 'democratized' media landscape, it doesn't need to" since "the network has come to form the hub of a new kind of state media operation: one that travels through the same diffuse online channels, chasing the same viral hits and memes, as the rest of the Twitter-and-Facebook-age media."

Traveling "through the same diffuse online channels" and "chasing the same viral hits and memes" sounds quite impressive. Indeed, RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets.

But as The Economist points out, when it comes to Twitter and Facebook, RT's reach is narrower than that of other news networks. Its claim of YouTube success is mostly down to the network's practice of buying the rights to sensational footage -- for instance, Japan's 2011 tsunami -- and repackaging it with the company logo. It's not clear, however, how the dissemination of a footage of a natural disaster or of a dog playing the piano helps efforts to "undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."

It is obvious that the Russian leaders have been investing a lot of resources in RT, Sputnik, and other media outlets, and that they employ them as propaganda tools aimed at promoting their government's viewpoints and interests around the world. From that perspective, these Russian media executives are heirs to the communist officials who had been in charge of the propaganda empire of the Soviet Union and its satellites during much of the 20th Century.

The worldwide communist propaganda machine did prove to be quite effective during the Great Depression and World War II, when it succeeded in tapping into the economic and social anxieties and anti-Nazi sentiments in the West and helped strengthen the power of the communist parties in Europe and, to some extent, in the United States.

But in the same way that Western German television programs failed to politically energize East Germans during the Cold War, much of the Soviet propaganda distributed by the Soviet Union at that time had very little impact on the American public and its political attitudes, as symbolized by the shrinking membership of the American Communist Party.

Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to it.

Soviet propaganda may have scored limited success during the Cold War when it came to members of the large communist parties in France, Italy, and Japan, as well as exploited anti-American sentiments in some third-world countries. In these cases, the intentions of the producer and the convention of the message seemed to be in line with the interpretations of the receivers.

There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's Southern segregationist ticket.

Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?")

Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of Americans.

In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience.

Leon Hadar is a writer and author of the books Quagmire: America in the Middle East and Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, The Washington Post, Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and the National Interest.

The Color of Celery , says: September 26, 2017 at 1:20 am

For an example of the success of propaganda, look at Breitbart. The messages online during the 2016 election were pervasive and insidious. I think this post underestimates the threat by focusing on traditional media instead of social interaction.

RT covered Assange during the election better than other outlets.

It's easy to see everything from a personal perspective and forget that we are very diverse. We don't live in an ABC, CBS, and NBC world anymore, with information controlled. Changes in thought and belief happen online now, in many, many different venues.

polistra , says: September 26, 2017 at 3:39 am
A government that has confidence in its own support doesn't need to fight foreign information. In the '30s and '40s the US government encouraged shortwave listening, and manufacturers made money by adding SW bands to their radios. We were going through a depression and then a war, but our government was CONFIDENT enough to encourage us to understand the world.

Since 1950 the government has been narrowing the focus of external input because it knows that it no longer has the natural consent of the governed. TV and the Web are intentional forms of jamming, filling our eyes and ears with internally produced nonsense to crowd out the external info.

Meddlesome , says: September 26, 2017 at 7:44 am
The ones you have to worry about are those much closer to home – "inside the tent".

Friends in the UK, Canada, and Europe are appalled at the distorting effect Israeli propaganda has on American news sources, and how unaware of it typical Americans seem to be.

Indeed, it is odd and more than a little worrying that all the concern about "foreign meddling" has so far failed to engage with Israel, which is hands down the best funded, most sophisticated and successful foreign meddler.

The FBI annually reports that Israel spies on us at the same level as Russia and China. But we have yet to fully register that Israeli spying includes systematic efforts to influence American elections and policies, efforts that dwarf those of Putin's Russia both in scale and impact.

Fran Macadam , says: September 26, 2017 at 9:24 am
I think that the corporate masters of propaganda media and politics in these United States, have, in the words of Edward G. Robinson's Rico in Little Caesar, "gotten to where you can dish it out, but you can't take it anymore."

It's counterfactual to conflate Soviet propaganda with the perspective of Russians today, unless Communism never really was the real point. In fact, it's our own leaders in media and politics who now increasingly issue dogmatic and insulting derogatory language, sounding more and more like late Soviet propagandists themselves.

Pelayo Viriato , says: September 26, 2017 at 10:20 am
@The Color of Celery:

So what? What's wrong with people being exposed to a broad array of points of view, trying to better understand the world and constantly challenging, refining, and reshaping their worldview in the process?

You're coming perilously close to suggesting that Americans who are critical of their government are dupes of hostile foreign powers ! an unfair, unhelpful, and undemocratic assertion.

ZGler , says: September 26, 2017 at 11:45 am
The problem with Russian trolls is that people don't know they are Russian trolls. They think they are their fellow Americans and neighbors on Facebook. The influence of foreign propaganda on Americans is not due to transparent media like Al Jazeera. It's due to propaganda disguised as your neighbor's opinion.
Mike Johnson , says: September 26, 2017 at 3:33 pm
this conversation cant be taken serious without a serious discussion on Israel, who by the way provides the perfect case and point of how effective foreign propaganda can be. They work through our media, school systems and even our churches. Just look at what happened to McGraw Hill for daring to show before and after maps of the Palestine over the years.

[Sep 26, 2017] Neocons and Hollywood Liberals Go to War on Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Anyway, the whole Russiagate thing will either explode into nothing or drift off into nothing. Why? Because there's no "there" there. ALL just fabricated hype. Too many people fall prey to surmises and suggestions and baseless conclusions. ..."
"... Read Robert Parry, and, please, interview him and others from consortiumnews.com , my best go to source for truth. Thanks for this interview with Max, a man I greatly admire. ..."
"... Fabricated hype yes, but for what reason? The last thing the 'elites' want is Trump making friends with Russia, they are scared it would expose their NATO scam. No enemies = no money for MIC! ..."
"... Neocons make military war while neoliberals make economic war. Neither group makes any sense and both groups are destroying the human race with synthetic ideologies based on nothing but greed, fear, hatred and greed. Both groups represent extreme wealth and the project to enslave and impoverish the whole world. It's them or us and so far we're clueless ..."
"... Right on, and well said Max! Now then, we know who the neocons are, nastiness is embedded in their DNA and makeup. I could go and on to an eternity, using a plethora of adjectives to describe their repugnant ideas and beliefs; but I won't. ..."
"... SCAM is the correct word. Now after failing to get a Russian "hack" dismissed by former CIA & NSA experts and Wikileaks (Never lied yet to my knowledge) NOW we get Russian FB accounts ( most of which have nothing to do with clinton). ..."
Sep 22, 2017 | therealnews.com

The promotional video of the Committee to Investigate Russia features actor Morgan Freeman in what is 'probably his worst role since Driving Miss Daisy,' says AlterNet's Max Blumenthal

Outside the government, there's a lot of going on, too. Media outlets and liberal organizations have devoted extensive time and energy to Russiagate. This week, a new group joined the fray. It's called the Committee to Investigate Russia. Its board includes Rob Reiner, the well-known actor, producer, and liberal activist, and several right-wing pundits, including David Frum, the man who coined George W. Bush's infamous phrase, the 'axis of evil.'

The committee's kickoff video features the actor Morgan Freeman.

MORGAN FREEMAN: We have been attacked. We are at war. We need our president to speak directly to us and tell us the truth. We need him to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office and say, "My fellow Americans, during this past election, we came under attack by the Russian government. I've called on the Congress and our intelligence community to use every resource available to conduct a thorough investigation to determine exactly how this happened. The free world is counting on us for leadership. For 241 years, our democracy has been a shining example to the world of what we can all aspire to, and we owe it to the brave people who have fought and died to protect this great nation and save democracy, and we owe it to our future generations, to continue the fight."

VOICEOVER: Join the Committee to Investigate Russia. Join the fight.

AARON MATE: Joining me is Max Blumenthal, bestselling author, journalist, senior editor of AlterNet's Grayzone Project, and cohost of the new podcast Moderate Rebels. Max, welcome. I'm going to predict that you're not joining this fight.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: This is sad. It's sad for Morgan Freeman, and I think whatever you think about Russia, you can agree with me that this is probably his worst role since Driving Miss Daisy. Now he's driving, basically, the PNAC train, Project for a New American Century, driving the neocons. This is highly unusual for me, maybe I'm wrong here, to hear a black American say that America has been a shining example of democracy for 241 years. It sounds like something a neocon would write in a script and put for Morgan Freeman in a teleprompter. 200 years ago, or longer, he would have been scrubbing Thomas Jefferson's chamberpot, so this is just deeply disturbing American exceptionalism.

Beyond that, Morgan Freeman has basically been brought into this by Rob Reiner, who's been brought in by a cast of neocons, not just unindicted Iraq War criminal David Frum, who crafted the axis of evil phrase, which has helped spread instability and death around the world, but Max Boot, the neoconservative pundit and self-styled historian who's never met a war he didn't like. We also have James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence and NSA director affiliated with this group, the Committee to Investigate Russia. Max Boot is a fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, which is run by Kimberly Kagan, who's part of the neoconservative Kagan dynasty. The Institute for the Study of War is funded primarily by the arms industry and surveillance industry, and their job is basically to gin up wars and consult for generals, and make a windfall profit in the process.

That's what the Committee to Investigate Russia is about. It brings this Hollywood element to it. Rob Reiner's involvement helps get David Frum on CNN and a host of radio and MSNBC programs. It almost makes a neocon like him seem likable, although he and Max Boot were welcomed with open arms by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, so in many ways we're experiencing still the toxic alluvia of the Clinton camp with this bizarre initiative.

We have to first ask, what is the Committee to Investigate Russia? It reminds me of the Committee on the Present Danger, which was a Cold War collection of neoconservatives, as well as the Project for a New American Century, which was a larger conglomeration of neoconservatives looking to take advantage of the post-Cold War atmosphere to gin up a war on terror. What they said in their initial document was that, "Short of a catalyzing event, we won't be able to realize our goals." Three years later, 9/11 happened, and that was the catalyzing event.

They are attempting to manufacture a catalyzing event through the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion in order to ramp up hostilities with Russia, not just in Russia's near abroad in Ukraine, but also in Syria and across the world. This is an incredibly dangerous prospect.

AARON MATE: There was a piece today in the Daily Beast picking up on this Facebook story, which you and I haven't discussed yet on the Real News, but it's gotten a lot of attention. A few weeks ago, Facebook disclosed that some $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads by suspected Russian accounts that may be tied to the Kremlin. It was a bit ambiguous. Most of the ads were in 2015, a year before the election, and most of the ads, Facebook said, were not even directly to do with the election but about divisive social issues. This was taken as another new level of Russian influence in the U.S.

Just today, on the Daily Beast, which has been all over this story, there's an exclusive story written by four reporters. A team of four reporters writes, "Exclusive. Russians appear to use Facebook to push Trump rallies in 17 U.S. cities." Subheading is, "Being Patriotic, a Facebook group uncovered by the Daily Beast, is the first evidence of suspected Russian provocateurs explicitly mobilizing Trump supporters in real life."

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Maybe it's true. Maybe these four reporters found something that might be true, but if you read into the ninth paragraph of that article, like so many articles about Russiagate, these four reporters, the finest minds of the Daily Beast, including Spencer Ackerman, who wrote the foreword to Russiagate huckster Malcolm Nance's book on how the election was stolen, and I think his book might have come out before the election was decided, if you read into the ninth paragraph that the story is not confirmed, that Facebook explicitly states that it cannot confirm that any of these accounts are Russian accounts. Throughout the article, the authors are forced to refer to them as suspected Russian accounts. I don't know how this got past an editor, except that there is so much zeal at the Daily Beast to keep up the Trump-Russia collusion narrative that generates clicks.

That's the same, I would assume, mentality that prevails among the producers among Rachel Maddow's show, which you wrote about really clearly and effectively. I think it's not just the narrative that's driven by political zeal but also the desire for ratings and clicks. At no point in this piece do they ever establish that these are Russian accounts. It is possible that this Facebook accounting question, was a Facebook account turned to a Russian bot farm, that's what a lot of accounts do. They pay some bot farm to boost their profile on Facebook. One of the things that bot farms do is they'll direct users to political ads, political hot button issues, because that's what gets people engaged.

Again, there's no evidence here. What I found really interesting about this article, and this is true for the previous Daily Beast article that Spencer Ackerman published about Facebook suspected, alleged, possible Russian bots, is that he turns to a fake Russia expert named Clint Watts, who's a former FBI agent. If you actually look at Clint Watts's work, and you're just remotely informed about politics in the U.S., I think you'll realize that character is a complete crank. If we actually lived in an actual meritocracy that relied on real experts, he would be out with a metal detector looking for loose change on the beach or in some public park, but instead, he was testifying before Congress.

He testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Clint Watts, that the chaos of Black Lives Matter was spawned by RT and Sputnik. He links to an RT article about Black Lives Matter as his evidence. Along with the Bundy ranch chaos. This too was a Russian active measure. Yeah, the Bundy ranch. Russia had a huge hand in that. This is someone testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Even worse, he goes on to talk about an article he wrote with Will McCants and Mike Doran, who are these Beltway think tankers presented as terror experts. He wrote it in Foreign Affairs, which is the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. It was an article lobbying the U.S. government, the Obama administration, to send arms to Ahrar Al-Sham, which is a Salafi jihadist rebel group in Syria. The teaser of this article, it's unbelievable, is, "An Al Qaeda-linked group we can be friends with."

The article comes out. Clinton Watts gets mocked heavily on Twitter. I think I might have been among the people mocking him, but again, I'm a Russian bot. [Inaudible]. I'm malfunctioning right now. No, actually, real people mocked Clint Watts on Twitter justifiably. He was calling for supporting an Al Qaeda alliance in Syria. He goes before the Senate and says that, "This is when I noticed that there were Russian active measures and an influence campaign, because I was being mocked on Twitter for this article." He doesn't say what the article is. He covers up the content.

This testimony elucidates the kind of Russia experts that are being relied on to prove that there's this vast information warfare campaign, this Gerasimov doctrine, employed by Russia. Clint Watts is part of a larger initiative spun out of the failed Clinton campaign. It includes people like Laura Rosenberger, who was a former policy advisor of Hillary Clinton. This should scare anyone. Consider that these people would have been involved in foreign policy decisions. Andrew Weisberg I think is another, and then there's J.M. Berger, who's part of the terror jihadology industry. He never really established himself as much of a major expert there, but now the hype is all around Russia, so he's rebranded himself as a Russia expert.

They have an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. If you go on the Alliance for Securing Democracy's website, it's almost as entertaining as the Committee to Investigate Russia. They have a chart that shows the Russia information threat matrix. They're addressing all of the different websites, including the National Review, maybe they'll name the Real News today, that are echoing Kremlin propaganda. How do they determine what the Kremlin's propaganda is? They not only look at RT and Sputnik, they have a list that they've refused to release of 600 Russian bots or Russian-controlled social media accounts. As I said, they refuse to name what these social media accounts are.

Scott Shane, the New York Times reporter, he published another one of these exposes that exposes nothing, and by the ninth paragraph, you realize the whole thing is unconfirmed and it's based on suspicions and speculation. He determined that a lot of these supposed Russian bots he was supposed to be looking at were actually real people, one you can look it is Marcel Sardo, real people who just simply don't believe in a unipolar world, and they support Russia as a counterhegemonic force. I know this is impossible for Beltway insiders and coastal elites to believe, but there are people who actually think that way and are on Twitter.

You're basically looking at a gigantic scam. Scams are bad as they are. Amway's bad. It rips a lot of people off and makes money for right-wingers. This is a pro-war scam that has effectively deep-sixed diplomacy with Russia, which could have been effective in establishing stability in certain areas. 1.4 million people are displaced in Ukraine. Syria's a complete mess. The U.S. has to work with Russia there to defeat ISIS. This is just dangerous on a global scale, and so it's important to call out these scam initiatives and to completely scrutinize and hound the fraudmeisters and neocons behind it.

AARON MATE: All right, that's going to wrap part one of this discussion with Max Blumenthal. Stay tuned for part two.

Max Blumenthal is a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of Goliath, Republican Gomorrah, and The 51 Day War. He is the co-host of the podcast, Moderate Rebels. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal.

Rob Roy 4 days ago

Why isn't Max Blumenthal's great book, "The 51 Day War," listed above? Its omission seems odd and deliberate. Also, "Driving Miss Daisy" was not a bad role for Morgan. It was an excellent snap shot of the south at the time and the reduction of two representatives of that era into real people. Never mind.

Anyway, the whole Russiagate thing will either explode into nothing or drift off into nothing. Why? Because there's no "there" there. ALL just fabricated hype. Too many people fall prey to surmises and suggestions and baseless conclusions.

Read Robert Parry, and, please, interview him and others from consortiumnews.com , my best go to source for truth. Thanks for this interview with Max, a man I greatly admire. see more

kober Rob Roy 7 hours ago

Agreement on Parry, a bit verbose but cuts Reagan and GHW Bush to bite size pieces over Iran gate! see more

ollo10 Rob Roy 3 days ago

Fabricated hype yes, but for what reason? The last thing the 'elites' want is Trump making friends with Russia, they are scared it would expose their NATO scam. No enemies = no money for MIC!

Now the dollar is starting to collapse, note each nation America are at loggerheads with, have all stopped using or want to stop using the dollar. So, yes, they fabricated the hype and move onto N Korea, because Russia wouldn't play ball and fire the first shot!

Perhaps Kim Jung-Un can be tricked into this move? It also throws a spanner in the works against the Chinese One Belt One Road [Eurasian Union] that also threatens American hegemony & dollar. see more

Palimpsestuous 4 days ago

Neocons make military war while neoliberals make economic war. Neither group makes any sense and both groups are destroying the human race with synthetic ideologies based on nothing but greed, fear, hatred and greed. Both groups represent extreme wealth and the project to enslave and impoverish the whole world. It's them or us and so far we're clueless.

Maria M Cummings 4 days ago

Right on, and well said Max! Now then, we know who the neocons are, nastiness is embedded in their DNA and makeup. I could go and on to an eternity, using a plethora of adjectives to describe their repugnant ideas and beliefs; but I won't.

On the other hand, here we have the "liberals" of the West coast. Bad losers! Alas, Hillary, "the queen of chaos" lost, and the Hollywood crowd "lost their mind."
And regarding Morgan Freeman, highly disappointing and utterly pathetic.

truthynesslover 4 days ago

Democrats and Neo-CONs want WW3...

Seer 4 days ago

Morgan is a "natural character actor"- while I enjoy some of his movies, he could easily be "Morgan Freeman" in each role. I understand his desire to work and perhaps make more money-he is a paid spokesman I presume. Morgan possesses mo particular geopolitical or economic expertise that I am aware of: enough about Morgan.

SCAM is the correct word. Now after failing to get a Russian "hack" dismissed by former CIA & NSA experts and Wikileaks (Never lied yet to my knowledge) NOW we get Russian FB accounts ( most of which have nothing to do with clinton).

Why won't Clinton go away?- she is just Not personable enough to get elected against someone more personable. This is why Trump and Obama won.

I believe she could have beat Jeb and some other GOP hopefuls who also are not as personable. This DEM meme is all about trying to set itself up for 2018 elections and perhaps to try to bring Trump down before he does some AWFUL things such as: Open up a truly independent 911 investigation; release the JFK files "unclassified" (The CIA would probably not comply)

Incidentally the CIA was never Congressionally approved -- Trump could eliminate them with an executive order; of course then we would see direct evidence of the shadow governments power. What concerns me is that we do not see: Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, Kevin Shipp, Robert Steele, Stephen Cohen in RN interviews? Is RN reporting its funding sources on its site?

Donatella • 4 days ago

A sign of the Democrat party's desperation is its embrace of the always-wrong warmongering neocons. Hillary embraced them during her campaign assuming that it would bring her Republican votes as Chuck Schumer seemed to think. Max Boot is part of this joint Democrat/Neocon propaganda "Committee to Investigate Russia", there is an excellent interview of him at the link below.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

[Sep 26, 2017] US Lawmakers Accuse Russian Outlet of Time Travel

www.moonofalabama.org

Lawmakers want the FCC to investigate the Russia-backed Sputnik Radio for using "U.S. airwaves to influence the 2016 presidential election," apparently not realizing that Sputnik wasn't on the radio until July 2017, says Max Blumenthal

[Sep 26, 2017] The Russian Influence Story Falls Apart - A New Fairy Tale Is Needed

Notable quotes:
"... It is of course idiotic to believe that 3,000 ads for which some $100,000 was spent over two years would somehow effect a U.S. election. In a U.S. presidential election more than $2 billion is spend on advertising. Facebook's ad revenue per year is some $27 billion. ..."
"... The whole ugly mess would be a farce through and through if not for the suffering of innocents and the endless, meaningless attempted destruction of everything noble in the human spirit. ..."
"... "The lack of objectivity and journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence" could ever be." ..."
"... Whats most outrageous about this is that same western liberal media daily could whine about Russian propaganda, meanwhile themselves could write propaganda everyday! These people are brainwashed, and unfortunately they fool a lot of westerners. ..."
"... There is no end to this, these liberals wont stop until Trump declare war on Russia, they are sick in their heads, racist against Russians, no other way to define their irrational hatred. ..."
"... Ah Ha! The Bezos Bozo strikes again! The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com pocketbook. Boycott the disgusting online retailer and urge everyone to, explaining that Bezos is a far bigger threat to peace and democracy than Russia, China, and DPRK combined. ..."
Sep 26, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The Obama White House and some Democratic officials pressed Facebook to find evidence for alleged "Russian interference" in the U.S. election. When Facebook found none, the pressure increased. Facebook went back, again found nothing and political pressure increase further. Congress threatened to investigate. Senator Warner flew to California and demanded the "right" results. Eventually Facebook gave in:

By early August, Facebook had identified more than 3,000 ads addressing social and political issues that ran in the United States between 2015 and 2017 and that appear to have come from accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency.

All hailed Facebook - finally there was something they could build their anti-Russian campaign on.

It is of course idiotic to believe that 3,000 ads for which some $100,000 was spent over two years would somehow effect a U.S. election. In a U.S. presidential election more than $2 billion is spend on advertising. Facebook's ad revenue per year is some $27 billion.

Moreover - as it now turns out these 3,000 advertisements which "appeared" to be "associated" with something "Russian" were not anti-Clinton or pro-Trump but were a mix of pro- and contra ads on various social issues:

The batch of more than 3,000 Russian-bought ads that Facebook is preparing to turn over to Congress shows a deep understanding of social divides in American society, with s ome ads promoting African American rights groups, including Black Lives Matter, and others suggesting that these same groups pose a rising political threat , say people familiar with the covert influence campaign.

The Russian campaign ! taking advantage of Facebook's ability to send contrary messages to different groups of users based on their political and demographic characteristics ! also sought to sow discord among religious groups. Other ads highlighted support for Democrat Hillary Clinton among Muslim women.

(Note again - there is no evidence that any of the ads were "Russian bought" or part of a "Russian campaign". Those are mere assertions by the Washington Post authors.)

As we now learn that these ads were not, as earlier assumed, pro-Trump and anti-Clinton, the narrative has to change. Earlier it was claimed that the alleged Russian aim was to get Trump elected. That no longer holds:

"Their aim was to sow chaos," said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "In many ­cases, it was more about voter suppression rather than increasing turnout."

How pro- and anti-Black Lives Matter ads might have suppressed voter turnout will stay Senator Warner's secret.

Instead of "Russia helped Trump" we now get an even more implausible "Russia wanted to sow discord" narrative. As if Donald Trump's campaign style had not been enough to cause controversies.

The Washington Post has been the major outlet to push the "Russian influence" baloney . It has long left all journalistic standards behind. Today it goes even further. An editorial now claims that Russia interfered in the German elections by pushing the right-wing AfD vote through last minute tweets from some Twitter bots:

The party was buoyed by social-media campaigns of the kind Russia has used elsewhere ! faceless bots that multiply messages over and over. Once again, the Kremlin's quest to disrupt democracy, divide the West and erode the rules-based liberal international order may have found a toehold.

No evidence is presented that any online activity "buoyed" the AfD. No evidence is presented that anything Russian was involved. Here is the sole point the editorial builds on:

In the final hours of the campaign, online supporters of the AfD began warning their base of possible election fraud, and the online alarms were "driven by anonymous troll accounts and boosted by a Russian-language botnet," according to the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab.

The Atlantic Council is financed by foreign (Middle East) interest, NATO and the oil- and weapon industry. It has been a major driver of the anti-Russian new Cold War narrative. Its "Digital Forensic Research Lab" indeed claims to have found a few Twitter accounts which have their names written in Cyrillic(!) letters. Only Russian influence accounts would ever do that! It even found one tweet warning about election fraud that was retweeted 500(!) times. That MUST have helped the AfD to receive more than 12% of the 47 million cast votes in Germany - (not!).

Election fraud in the German pen and paper balloting is nearly impossible. No one will take vague claims thereof as serious. It is simply not an issue in Germany and any such claim would not effect the vote. German officials have found no sign of "Russian" election hacking or of voting fraud.

What the Washington Post editors and the Atlantic Council have missed in their search for undue election influence in the German election is the large support of a islamophobic US megadonor for the rightwing Germany AfD party:

[O]ne of the major publishers of online content friendly to the far-right [German] party is an American website financed in large part and lead by Jewish philanthropist Nina Rosenwald.

Rosenwald's site, the Gatestone Institute, publishes a steady flow of inflammatory content about the German election, focused on stoking fears about immigrants and Muslims.

The fake news stories by the Zionist agitators were translated into German and disseminated to support the AfD.

Allegations of "Russian influence" in U.S., French and German elections is made up from hot air. No evidence is or ever was presented to support these claims. Massive election interference by other foreign interests, like large Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation, or Zionist Jewish financier support for extremist positions in Germany and France is ignored.

The story about "Russian influence" was made up by the Democrats to explain Clinton's loss of the election and to avoid looking at her personal responsibility for it. It also helps to push the new cold war narrative and to sell weapons. As no evidence was ever found to support the "Russian influence" campaign, Facebook and others come under pressure to deliver the "evidence" the U.S. intelligence services could not produce. The now resulting story of "sowing chaos" is something out of la-la-land.

If there is something to learn from this sad story it is this: The lack of objectivity and journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence" could ever be.

Posted by b on September 26, 2017 at 01:50 PM | Permalink

bc | Sep 26, 2017 2:10:09 PM | 1

Once again, the Kremlin's quest to disrupt democracy, divide the West and erode the rules-based liberal international order may have found a toehold.

O, it hurts. The irony, it hurts. Repeating myself from the end of the last thread: The whole ugly mess would be a farce through and through if not for the suffering of innocents and the endless, meaningless attempted destruction of everything noble in the human spirit.

ralphieboy | Sep 26, 2017 2:11:56 PM | 2
There is nothing illegal about attempting to influence another nation's elections. However, in most countries, it is illegal for citizens to actively work with foreign governments to do so.
Peter AU 1 | Sep 26, 2017 2:28:05 PM | 3
"The lack of objectivity and journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence" could ever be."

Without journalistic integrity, there is no democracy as the average voter cannot make an informed choice. The threat won some time ago.

Anon | Sep 26, 2017 2:32:34 PM | 4
Whats most outrageous about this is that same western liberal media daily could whine about Russian propaganda, meanwhile themselves could write propaganda everyday! These people are brainwashed, and unfortunately they fool a lot of westerners.

Not sure what illegal thing there is with political ads to begin with? Again there is no logic to the brainwashed liberal.

Anon | Sep 26, 2017 2:47:31 PM | 5
There is no end to this, these liberals wont stop until Trump declare war on Russia, they are sick in their heads, racist against Russians, no other way to define their irrational hatred.

'Where are the Russians?': No sign of Russian meddling reported during ongoing German elections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCYpfV_XLNk

somebody | Sep 26, 2017 2:50:53 PM | 6
Re: 2

That is news to me. I think you have to label it ' treason ' and the country concerned 'enemy' to get anywhere in law. Or some illegality has to be involved. Is Russia America's Enemy?

ralphieboy | Sep 26, 2017 3:12:48 PM | 7
From http://www.businessinsider.de/collusion-russia-trump-crime-2017-6?r=US&IR=T

"James Gardner, an election law expert at SUNY Buffalo Law School, said the answer to whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia "depends on what specific actions formed the basis of collusion." Political historian Allan Lichtman agreed, saying indictments and prosecutions would depend upon the particular circumstances of a case and interpretations of the law that are not always clear.

Both Lichtman and Gardner said the federal statute criminalizing treason could apply. But putting aside treason, "there are numerous laws" that could be implicated by collusion with any foreign government, Lichtman said.

Those include the Logan Act, which forbids dealings by private individuals with foreign governments involved in disputes with the US; the Stored Communications Act, which creates Fourth Amendment-like privacy protections for email and other digital communications; and the Espionage Act.

John Coates, an election law expert at Harvard University Law School, pointed to relevant federal statutes that could apply, including at least two federal statutes governing campaign contributions and donations by foreign nationals and two governing fraud and conspiracy offenses."

karlof1 | Sep 26, 2017 3:13:08 PM | 8
Ah Ha! The Bezos Bozo strikes again! The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com pocketbook. Boycott the disgusting online retailer and urge everyone to, explaining that Bezos is a far bigger threat to peace and democracy than Russia, China, and DPRK combined.
Mr. Unpopular | Sep 26, 2017 3:23:50 PM | 9
@4 and 5

@b - the US papers were bought out at least as early as 1915 in the run up WWI.

Nothing here Cicero couldn't have commented on.

And so it goes.

Mr. Unpopular | Sep 26, 2017 3:24:45 PM | 10
@ 4 and 5 f'reals this time...

What the hell does liberal have to do with any of this? It's all neo-con, eh?

Anon | Sep 26, 2017 3:32:49 PM | 11
Mr Unpopular

Are you joking or perhaps a liberal yourself? The russian conspiracy bs is spread by liberal media companies.

AriusArmenian | Sep 26, 2017 3:36:22 PM | 12
I usually can't miss by always first assuming that reports by officials or media in the West are disinformation narratives.

I also am usually right to assume that they project on some other what these vermin in the West are in themselves. They tell us what they are planning or already doing right out of their mouths if you listen carefully.

likklemore | Sep 26, 2017 3:36:44 PM | 13
@ Karlofi 8
"The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com pocketbook."

Untouchable he is. In addition to being well subsidized on every shipment by the taxpayers, he is owned by that famous 3-letter agency. Look up the contract.

Oilman2 | Sep 26, 2017 3:41:48 PM | 14
@ Anon 11...

AND... endlessly parroted at need by the neocons. This entire thing really isn't a left/right or red/blue deal - it's pro-war and pro-intervention propaganda from the elite rich of both sides in the US.

james | Sep 26, 2017 3:53:50 PM | 15
if only hillary clinton could have spent 100,000 over the course of 2 years to influence the election, LOLOL...
james | Sep 26, 2017 3:59:25 PM | 16
in other related news, hillary clinton has influenced her good friends in saudi arabia to let women drive.... for all the money they gave her to lose the election, that was the least she could do for the women of saudi arabia!
scottindallas | Sep 26, 2017 4:08:58 PM | 17
there is no liberal foreign paper, you're confusing their domestic narrative with the foreign one
somebody | Sep 26, 2017 4:12:54 PM | 18
7

Sounds like they would have to stretch that a lot. But that is what lawyers are for.

The Logan Act does not seem to apply as influencing an election is not "negotiating with foreign governments".

They are basically doing to Trump what Republicans did to Clinton with the Libyan investigation - keep going on and on to accidentally uncover something relevant in the end.

financial matters | Sep 26, 2017 4:15:13 PM | 19
My iphone gives me a news feed that is often from CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, ABC/NBC news. It is constant Trump bashing. No useful news if any at all on such things as Syria, economic issues (other than the DOW), health care (other than insurance friendly Congressional nonsense). All useful news has to be found on alternative media of which this site is definitely one of the best on Syria.
steven t johnson | Sep 26, 2017 4:16:23 PM | 20
Look, if Whitewater, Vince Flynn's murder, Benghazi, Clinton Cash, Pizzagate don't need evidence that leads somewhere, neither does Russian hacking. Pussies whining because their loser boy Trump doesn't have the prestige actually winning the election would give him is stupid, useless and boring. Go cry in the Electoral College.

Puting favored Trump. Tough shit if jingo xenophobia is dogmatically acceptable to conservatives. That's going to be an embarrassment.

It's true that Putin was a gigantic fool for favoring Trump, but that's his shame to bear.

zeke | Sep 26, 2017 4:36:24 PM | 21
20

Stop being emotional, of Course Trump is better than Hillary on Russia.

Gareth | Sep 26, 2017 4:36:44 PM | 22
And another alleged Russki conspiracy bites the dust!

In reversal, feds say Russian hacking attempt didn't hit Wisconsin election systems

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/in-reversal-feds-say-russian-hacking-attempt-didn-t-hit/article_c75959b6-3fb5-5c93-91c8-f8ae3fa9c10a.html

frances | Sep 26, 2017 4:40:16 PM | 23
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 26, 2017 4:15:13 PM | 19
I backed Bernie and several Dem candidates back when that seemed to matter. Because of that I get about 50 plus emails a day asking for money. ALL without exception begin with a Trump bashing statement, each more strident than the last (probably because I am not giving them anything).
As you noted, there is nothing about Syria, loads about Russians, vague invasion hysteria regarding Ukraine,endless black/white nonsense and don't get me started on the latest flag/NFL rants.
I've protested in person and in writing just about every military adventure the US was ever involved in during my life time and until the last few years it was a fairly lonely process. But now, the level of information on and rejection of the Syrian war appears to be as high as it was at the end of the Vietnam war. So we are getting somewhere, maybe. What is that number, is it 13 percent of a population that is needed to create real change?
sejomoje | Sep 26, 2017 4:57:45 PM | 24
Bezos is nothing more than an apparatchik of the new USSA. Amazon is the company store. There is no "boycotting" the company store. And anyway it's too late for that. You WILL read the company newsletter, you WILL watch those writings being reinforced on the Company Channel Network, you WILL shop at the company store, you WILL be surveilled by the company in order to maintain company supremacy and ever-increasing profits.

As long as the company 'owns' the water you drink and the land you live on at least. And it's not Bezos who owns the company, he's just on the board.

somebody | Sep 26, 2017 5:25:59 PM | 25
21 :-))

Trump is not my Bride, Putin says

"It's hard to deal with people who confuse Austria and Australia, but there's nothing you can do about this," he said, probably referring generally to Washington foreign policy circles, though the original gaffe is attributed to former President George W. Bush. "Apparently, this is the level of political culture within a certain part of the U.S. establishment."
nonsense factory | Sep 26, 2017 5:30:20 PM | 26
The Russian conspiracy claim is just the corporate Democrats excuse for losing the election to a blowhard reality TV star and real estate hustler who had to be bailed out from several bankruptcies by the Saudis and the US government. Despite having almost every media outlet and government bureaucrat on her side, Hillary Clinton lost.

Where'd she lose? In the Rust Belt states that have been hit hardest by neoliberal trade policies that have wrecked the local economies in those states.

The whole Russia thing really doesn't even involve the Republican Party - its mostly internal Democratic Party politics, with Sanders Democrats trying to use Clinton's loss to unseat the corporate Wall Street crowd, and the Clintonites fighting to stay in power by claiming that their loss wasn't due to their crappy policies and incompetence, but rather to a massive Russian conspiracy.

Don't forget, the American oligarchs who control the media were really hoping for a Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton election, and despite pushing hard for that, it almost came up as a Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump election. Indicating a loss of control by the plutocracy - that's the take home message. They're still struggling to re-establish control, which is what flogging the Russia hype is all about.

Truth is, America would be better off with someone like Putin in the executive office, someone who wouldn't be afraid to imprison at least a few leading Wall Street financiers for their role in the 2008 economic collapse.

Christian Chuba | Sep 26, 2017 5:30:26 PM | 27
That story in the Washington Post was pathetic. It reminds me of a saying, 'if you torture the data, it will eventually confess'
karlof1 | Sep 26, 2017 5:37:11 PM | 28
sejomoje @24--

Fortunately, it's not that bad--yet. But it will probably need to get close to that before the disparate US citizenry arises in an attempt to overcome it all.

james | Sep 26, 2017 5:39:17 PM | 29
take the iphone, amazon, wapo and etc. etc. and flush them down the toilet.... alternatively - take a ride into the toilet, lol..

[Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him. ..."
"... The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint. ..."
"... Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats. ..."
"... What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street. ..."
"... I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed. ..."
"... Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge. ..."
"... David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him. ..."
"... But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself. ..."
"... When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people ..."
"... The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof. ..."
"... Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on ..."
"... The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America ..."
"... "In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia. ..."
"... This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off . ..."
"... Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe... ..."
"... Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Jenny G · 3 days ago

Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him.

Every time he walks out on a stage clapping his hands, encouraging applause, like a daytime TV game show host, I want to puke.

I honestly don't think Trump really expected to win the presidency. And when he did, he was clueless. His "Mission Accomplished" party at the White House for a bill which would never pass the senate, was pure Dubya Bush. The orange haired POS is an embarrassment to the country.

Felix · 4 days ago
The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint.
follyofwar · 3 days ago
Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats.
olde reb · 3 days ago
What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street.

Detailed in --. http://farmwars.info/?p=15338 . A FACE FOR THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT

The "ultimate goal" (according to internal memos), is to collect on the fraudulent $20 trillion national debt which will result in Wall Street owning the United States. Hello, Greece.

Guysth · 3 days ago
I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed.

Peace is not in their books,war is. John Kennedy had an epiphany and was wanting to make peace with the USSR at the time, after the Cuban crisis, and this could not be allowed to happen .

Same $hit different pile.

doray · 3 days ago
Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge.
astraeaisabella · 3 days ago
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/10/25... This may seem relevant, but considering Trump's visit to SAudi Arabia and then immediately "Israel", you might find it interesting.
follyofwar · 3 days ago

David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him.

But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself.

RedRubies · 3 days ago
Stockman has only been a Congressman. They are allowed more leeway.

When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people, themselves.

The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof.

Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on (http://headlinebits.com/2017-06-21/deep-state-hillary-clinton-staffers-still-have-security-clearances-access-to-sensitive-governmen.AlsHBgBSVVwAV1FWVwdSAwBWAg8HXQYE.html) .

You can't write an article about a 'soft coup' and NOT mention her name in connection with it!

The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America.

Stephen M. St. John · 3 days ago

"In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia.

This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off .

Schlόter 91p · 3 days ago
Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe...
Dick · 3 days ago
Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village.

Emotional ignorance and blindness to the rational reality will only lead to more tears.

[Sep 25, 2017] Russophobia - Symptom Of US Implosion by Finian Cunningham

Implosion or not, it is definitely an attempt to internal problems including the collapse of neoliberal ideology by unleashing a witch hunt in best Senator McCarthy style. One motivation might be suppressing any critique of neoliberalism by equating it to pro-Russian propaganda. This is very much in best USSR traditions, where propaganda was preoccupied with foreign enemies which were constantly trying to undermine the state...
So far it proved to be a very effective tool for marginalizing the dissent. As in 1984: "Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
Mar 24, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Finian Cunningham, via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

There was a time when Russophobia served as an effective form of population control – used by the American ruling class in particular to command the general US population into patriotic loyalty. Not any longer. Now, Russophobia is a sign of weakness, of desperate implosion among the US ruling class from their own rotten, internal decay.

This propaganda technique worked adequately well during the Cold War decades when the former Soviet Union could be easily demonized as "godless communism" and an "evil empire". Such stereotypes, no matter how false, could be sustained largely because of the monopoly control of Western media by governments and official regulators.

The Soviet Union passed away more than a quarter of a century ago, but Russophobia among the US political class is more virulent than ever.

This week it was evident from Congressional hearings in Washington into alleged Russian interference in US politics that large sections of American government and establishment media are fixated by Russophobia and a belief that Russia is a malign foreign adversary.

However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population seems to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday. This is partly due to more diverse global communications which challenge the previous Western monopoly for controlling narrative and perception. Contemporary Russophobia – demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin or Russian military forces – does not have the same potency for scaring the Western public. Indeed, due to greater diversity in global news media sources, it is fair to say that "official" Western depictions of Russia as an enemy, for example allegedly about to invade Europe or allegedly interfering in electoral politics, are met with a healthy skepticism – if not ridicule by many Western citizens.

What is increasingly apparent here is a gaping chasm between the political class and the wider public on the matter of Russophobia. This is true for Western countries generally, but especially in the US. The political class – the lawmakers in Washington and the mainstream news media – are frenzied by claims that Russia interfered in the US presidential elections and that Russia has some kind of sinister leverage on the presidency of Donald Trump.

But this frenzy of Russophobia is not reflected among the wider public of ordinary American citizens. Rabid accusations that Russia hacked the computers of Trump's Democrat rival Hillary Clinton to spread damaging information about her; that this alleged sabotage of American democracy was an "act of war"; that President Trump is guilty of "treason" by "colluding" with a "Russian influence campaign" – all of these sensational claims seem to be only a preoccupation of the privileged political class . Most ordinary Americans, concerned about making a living in a crumbling society, either don't buy the claims or view them as idle chatter.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov this week dismissed the Congressional hearings into alleged Russian interference in US politics. He aptly said that US lawmakers and the corporate media have become "entangled" in their own fabrications. "They are trying to find evidence for conclusions that they have already made", said Peskov.

Other suitable imagery is that the US political class are tilting at windmills, chasing their own tails, or running from their own shadows. There seems to be a collective delusional mindset.

Unable to accept the reality that the governing structure of the US has lost legitimacy in the eyes of the people, that the people rebelled by electing an outsider in the form of business mogul-turned-politician Donald Trump, that the collapse of American traditional politics is due to the atrophy of its bankrupt capitalist economy over several decades – the ruling class have fabricated their own excuse for demise by blaming it all on Russia.

The American ruling class cannot accept, or come to terms, with the fact of systemic failure in their own political system. The election of Trump is a symptom of this failure and the widespread disillusionment among voters towards the two-party train wreck of Republicans and Democrats. That is why the specter of Russian interference in the US political system had to be conjured up, by necessity, as a way of "explaining" the abject failure and the ensuing popular revolt.

Russophobia was rehabilitated from the Cold War closet by the American political establishment to distract from the glaring internal collapse of American politics.

The corrosive, self-destruction seems to know no bounds. James Comey, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, told Congress this week that the White House is being probed for illicit contacts with Russia. This dramatic notice served by Comey was greeted with general approval by political opponents of the Trump administration, as well as by news media outlets.

The New York Times said the FBI was in effect holding a "criminal investigation at the doorstep of the White House".

Other news outlets are openly airing discussions on the probability of President Trump being impeached from office.

The toxic political atmosphere of Russophobia in Washington is unprecedented. The Trump administration is being crippled at every turn from conducting normal political business under a toxic cloud of suspicion that it is guilty of treason from colluding with Russia.

President Trump has run afoul with Republicans in Congress over his planned healthcare reforms because many Republicans are taking issue instead over the vaunted Russian probe.

When Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was reported to be skipping a NATO summit next month but was planning to visit Moscow later in the same month, the itinerary was interpreted as a sign of untoward Russian influence.

What makes the spectacle of political infighting so unprecedented is that there is such little evidence to back up allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. It is preponderantly based on innuendo and anonymous leaks to the media, which are then recycled as "evidence".

Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said earlier this week that he has seen no actual evidence among classified documents indicating any collusion between the Trump campaign team and the Russian government.

Even former senior intelligence officials, James Clapper and Michael Morell who are no friends of Trump, have lately admitted in media interviews that there is no such evidence.

Yet, FBI chief James Comey told Congress that his agency was pursuing a potentially criminal investigation into the Trump administration, while at the same time not confirming or denying the existence of any evidence.

And, as already noted, this declaration of open-ended snooping by Comey on the White House was met with avid approval by political opponents of Trump, both on Capitol Hill and in the corporate media.

Let's just assume for a moment that the whole Trump-Russia collusion story is indeed fake. That it is groundless, a figment of imagination. There are solid reasons to believe that is the case. But let's just assume here that it is fake for the sake of argument.

That then means that the Washington seat of government and the US presidency are tearing themselves apart in a futile civil war.

The real war here is a power struggle within the US in the context of ruling parties no longer having legitimacy to govern.

This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics.

trulz4lulz -> Logan 5 •Mar 24, 2017 9:15 PM

I've been MSM-free for so long now, I forgot who I'm supposed to be hating this week!! I see the effects in sooo many of my friends though, more so on the left, than the right. Which is odd....? Or maybe it isn't, due to their mental retardation. Ohh well...game on.
stizazz -> trulz4lulz •Mar 24, 2017 9:44 PM

Russophobia has been ongoing since W Bush. They just want to keep Trump on the World War 3 track.

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-truth-about-the-c...

oncemore -> Logan 5 •Mar 25, 2017 5:11 AM

Bolsevism, apart being a russian word, is at home in US, originated in US, was nurtured by US money and was, still is, the main US export (topic: imperial US wars).

hoyeru (not verified) •Mar 24, 2017 9:17 PM

Whether the Soviet Union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an enemy to divert the sheeple's attention that their so called American dream is really a nightmare.

Besides, USA's empire is failing and Russia is getting stronger. of course USA will be pissed off about it.

daveO -> hoyeru •Mar 24, 2017 9:34 PM

"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."

I'm glad to have lived to see them almost fail. When I first read this in 1984, by coincidence, there seemed to be no end in sight.

As soon as the USSR failed they replaced it with terrorism(Eastasia)...

MEFOBILLS -> daveO •Mar 25, 2017 3:31 AM

Oceania is always against a land power arising, including Eurasia.

Another wrinkle that is important: Feminized Western Societies. Russia is now a traditional masculine society, while the west has been feminized. (Judaized and Feminized are similar - both operate with deception)

http://www.heretical.com/sgs-2014/fem-war.html

Femine societies lash out, don't forgive, make dubious alliances, and fight underhanded.

The table at the bottom of link above describes the differences in wartime behavior between the two types of societies.

Since Trump is masculine, he naturally will be more instinctively in alignment with Putin and Russia.

nmewn •Mar 24, 2017 9:22 PM

Isn't it interesting that Russian government officials simply say "Veee don't comment on state spying activities" while in American government officials simply pass it directly to their media cronies who are quoted in newspapers and on TeeeVeee?

Anonymously...of course ;-)

DuneCreature •Mar 24, 2017 9:31 PM

Did we declare war on Russia while I was taking a nap?

What is the hell is going on with the raving Russian hacker meltdown horseshit? ... Bill Gates and the NSA camps out on my network every time I turn it on? .. Do I get to declare war and run to the UN for sanctions on Ft Meade?

Will Insane McCain get charged for fraternizing with ISIS Big Bagdaddy?
... ... ...

Cabreado •Mar 24, 2017 9:49 PM

"This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics."

More importantly, it is a decay in the electorate and how it relates to the elected (isn't that the real heart of US politics?)

And so the elected, naturally, have become a corrupt mass of opportunists. This is why they ("We") invented Rule of Law. We just have to give a damn like We mean it.

francis scott f... •Mar 24, 2017 10:14 PM

Russophobia - Symptom Of US Implosion ? may be Symptom of Deep State implosion

dark_matter •Mar 24, 2017 10:36 PM

The Americans are poor haters in international affairs because of their innate feeling of superiority over all foreigners. An American's hatred for a fellow American (for Hoover or Roosevelt) is far more virulent than any antipathy he can work up against foreigners. Should Americans begin to hate foreigners wholeheartedly, it will be an indication that they have lost confidence in their own way of life. ~Eric Hoffer in True Believer

Escapeclaws -> dark_matter •Mar 25, 2017 2:49 AM

That book was written eons ago in "historical time". Now Americans, being ever more stomped upon and ground down are identifying with the victims of totalitarian ideologies, like the Russians under Bolshevism. We have our our own Bolsheviks. Like the Bolsheviks, they will kill millions of their fellow citizens if all goes according to plan (20 Million in Russia under the Bolsheviks). History doesn't rhyme, it repeats. THE NEOCONS--THEY WANT YOU DEAD!

Batman11 •Mar 25, 2017 3:37 AM

Look at US inequality:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/557ef766ecad04fe50a257cd-960/screen shot 2015-06-15 at 11.28.56 am.png

A picture paints a thousand words. American philanthropists sponsor right wing think-tanks to make people believe those at the top need more.
Look behind Trump when he talks from one of his residences, not everything is covered in gold leaf. He does need more. The US is being ransacked by its own elite and who are not going to take any responsibility for their own greed, so they are blaming the Russians.

Looking on the bright side. A nation with military bases in almost every nation on Earth is ransacked by its own elite, a source of great amusement for generations to come (outside the US). American exceptionalism – exceptionally stupid.

Batman11 -> Batman11 •Mar 25, 2017 4:03 AM

Add it to the list of things that will last forever: The British Empire, The Thousand Year Reich, American exceptionalism

krage_man •Mar 25, 2017 5:02 AM

Russophobia is just the result of the clash of 2 irreconcilable things. The first one is about USA being the superpower, controlling world affairs. The second one is that Russia's economy, influence, military power and state management by Putin government actually prevent USA from dominating Russia and its affairs.

It is internal conflict in the mind of Deep State figures. The only way is to either prove that the USA status by dominating Russia, or to adjust self vision as the only superpower and accept the changing world. Trump was elected to follow the later, but the deep state/establishment is unable to see anything other that the former as the way forward. So Russophobia is to keep all society following the way of dominance and to prevent Trump adopting more rational way of agreeing on sphere of influence with Russia.

BritBob •Mar 25, 2017 6:15 AM

Can Russia be trusted?

Russia tells Britain give back Gibraltar & Falklands before telling US what to do.
RUSSIA has told Britain it should "clean its conscience" and give back Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands before it criticises them over their involvement in Ukraine.

Moscow's ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin made the shocking remarks when responding to his British counterpart Matthew Rycroft at a UN security council meeting in New York. (Daily Express 4 Feb 2017)

Do the Spanish have a claim to the Rock? Gibraltar - Some Relevant International Law: https://www.academia.edu/10575180/Gibraltar_-_Some_Relevant_Internationa...

Perhaps not.

Funny thing to say when Argentina has never legally owned the Falklands. So how can they 'be returned' ?

Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina:

https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina

brushhog -> BritBob •Mar 25, 2017 7:42 AM

No, of course Russia cannot be "trusted". Their governmen is no better than anyone elses.

Mimir -> BritBob •Mar 25, 2017 9:44 AM

Spain is continuously claiming the return of Gibraltar to Spain. (Was conquered in 1704)

When it comes to Falkland Islands, according to all International maritime agreements and especially United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it is very difficult to argue that the Falkland Islands is part of the UK. It would be for the International Court of Justice to solve the dispute.

I think Russia has a point.

d edwards -> Last of the Middle Class •Mar 25, 2017 8:12 AM

Seems the only one's with Russophobia are the f ing neomarxist dems who need a scapegoat for their loses over the last eight years under 0dumbo.

brushhog •Mar 25, 2017 7:40 AM

Its very simple, those in charge need an outside enemy to blame and to try to unite the people against. The worse things get, the louder they will cry wolf and the more threatening they will become towards Russia.

The global elitists would rather end the world in a nuclear holocaust then let go of power and admit they're to blame.

Beans •Mar 25, 2017 7:53 AM

The whole Russophobia gimmick in the West is purely a Zionist fiction created to punish the White Christian Russians for daring to assert themselves. Connect the dots between Jewish political/business interests in Ukraine, Russia and the US Congress/Executive branch/Governmental agencies and you quickly see how everything falls into place. Free yourselves, White Christian Americans.

Faeriedust -> Beans •Mar 25, 2017 1:38 PM

Not all Jews are Bankers. Not all Bankers are Jewish. There is, however, a significant overlap.

Beans -> Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 4:16 PM

Yeah sure, you're absolutely right. Another way of putting it is by saying; 'Not all Jews were Bolsheviks. Not all Bolsheviks were Jews'... The historically indisputable fact however, is that about 85 to 90% of the members of the first Bolshevik government of 'Soviet' Russia was indeed Jewish ;)

Faeriedust -> StopBeingParanoid •Mar 25, 2017 12:51 PM

Of course they try to influence our elections. Now step back. Ever heard the name Victoria Nuland? Phillip of Makedon? Or perhaps The Great Game? In point of fact, major players in world domination ALWAYS try to influence both rivals and all the bit players who have something they want. And the Russians play hardball, no question about that. But generally, with their OWN dissidents, not other people's. Ask Trotsky's ghost. Politics is a full-contact sport. The only exception is when all the players belong to the same League, and the League bans anyone who breaks the rules. Right now, there IS no league. So yes, Putin plays hard. The CIA does, too.

aloha_snakbar •Mar 25, 2017 9:44 AM

However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population seems to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday.

Im hiding under a desk... I cant hear you...

VW Nerd •Mar 25, 2017 10:46 AM

Commiey is a stooge of the deep state. Someone has some serious dirt on him.

Caleb Abell -> VW Nerd •Mar 25, 2017 11:01 AM

Along those lines, Comey may have derailed Clinton because elements of the deep state wanted her gone, and they were willing to accept Trump on a temporary basis. Now that Clinton is out of the picture, they can work on replacing Trump (one way or the other) with the much more compliant Pence.

CRM114 •Mar 25, 2017 12:31 PM

This article would have an even stronger case if it weren't based on a false premise. The Soviet Union WAS a threat to the West; that wasn't propaganda. Now Russia isn't a threat and it is propaganda.

Thus it is even more obvious that the US/Western elite are hunting for a way to demonize Russia, and we need look no further than Russia/China's efforts to escape the World banking structure for the reason.

Faeriedust -> CRM114 •Mar 25, 2017 12:42 PM

That's really debateable. Remember, the Soviet Union was our ALLY in WWII. Stalin was a batshit thug, and we (not to mention the Russians) were well rid of him. BUT -- immediately after his death the USSR was taken over by a committee of Experienced Old Men who were willing and able to be pragmatic.

Try to remember that when the Bolshevik Revolution started, both the English and the Americans weren't sure whether to support it or oppose it. Then Lenin and Trotsky decided to default on the Russian war debt -- which they had NO way of paying. Suddenly they became the world's greatest evil. Many high-ranking foreign service specialists in Britain even supported Hitler, initially, with the idea that they would turn him loose against the Russians and sit back to watch the fireworks. Of course, that was before Hitler repudiated Germany's WWI war debt. Do you see a pattern yet?

The issue was ALWAYS the wealth, profit, and survival of the banks. ALWAYS.

CRM114 -> Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 1:12 PM

I suggest you read some more history. You are making links for which there is only circumstantial evidence, whereas the alternatives have an abundance of evidence. I am vehently against the current role of the bankers, but...

Now, the bankers sought to exploit all of this and make a profit, immoral or otherwise, but they didn't start it,and they couldn't have stopped it.

I am prepared to consider the idea that they now can exert such a high level of influence, and are doing so, but this was not true in the past.

Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 12:35 PM

Washington has had a problem with groupthink for a long time, but now it's become obvious to the entire world, not to mention the mythical Average American. Neither Millenials nor Boomers were ever likely to fall for McCarthyism 2.0. Instead, they see the political leadership for what it is -- a senile elite that has entirely lost its grip on reality. This is common in dying empires; in fact it's the fundamental reason why empires collapse.

Yes, running through all your resources, hollowing out your military, and destroying international goodwill aren't exactly the way to Win Friends And Influence People. But they happen, because the 1% at the top of the totem pole become so divorced from what life is like for the other 99%, that they lose the ability to make intelligent or rational decisions.

It's like an oil tanker trying to thread its way through a gap in a reef -- with good steering and a willing crew, it can be done. But if the captain's passed out drunk and the Exec is high on meth, with half the crew already taking off in the lifeboats against orders . . . it takes a miracle to avoid the rocks.

[Sep 24, 2017] How Sony, Obama, Seth Rogen and the CIA Secretly Planned to Force Regime Change in North Korea by Tim Shorrock

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S., he warned in a recent speech on Capitol Hill that I attended, must deliver Kim a simple message: "We know the only thing you care about is your regime's survival. Either denuclearize or we will take actions politically to destabilize your regime." His talk was a basic primer for this "uprising" from within, which is exactly what the Bush administration sought in Iraq when it invaded in 2003. ..."
"... K-Pop, the South Korean musical genre that's popular around the world, could be another weapon: "It's acidic as far the regime is concerned." And commercials about South Korean life planted in DVDs smuggled into the North "would be terrible for Kim Jong-un." ..."
"... The purpose of the operation, he said, is to convince the people of the DPRK that their "paranoid" leader is not a "god," and to plant the idea that his country is unstable: "If that's in his mind, it will affect his behavior." In short, a psy-op. ..."
"... Why Bennett? His official biography states that he has worked for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Forces in South Korea and Japan, the U.S. Pacific Command as well as the South Korean and Japanese militaries. According an email he wrote to Sony's Lynton in 2014, he got his start in Asia as a Mormon missionary to Japan and began working on Korea in 1989 "at the request of the Pentagon." By 2014, he said, he had made over 100 trips to South Korea to advise the U.S. Army and senior South Korean military personnel "on how to deter North Korea." Even though he has never been to the DPRK, he bases his knowledge of the country on his "extensive interviews with senior North Korean defectors." ..."
"... The film allegedly sparked North Korea to hack Sony and leak thousands of internal Sony emails. North Korea also warned the Obama administration not to allow the film to be released, branding it "an act of terrorism." So, when Bennett invited questions at his congressional briefing, I asked him: what was his involvement in The Interview , and did he think it was effective? ..."
"... As Americans come to grips with Trump's confrontational policies with North Korea, it's easy to forget that U.S. relations with North Korea reached a nadir under Barack Obama. Here's why: Bennett's regime change proposals were, and are, the culmination of policies hatched by Obama's left-liberal administration to weaken Kim's hold on power and hasten what they considered North Korea's inevitable collapse. Obviously they failed, yet elements of the plan still abound. ..."
"... To head off that development, in 1994 President Bill Clinton negotiated an agreement with North Korea's founding leader, Kim Il-sung, that sought to allay his government's fears by ending America's hostile policies. Under the "Agreed Framework," the DPRK shut down its one test reactor -- its only source for plutonium -- in return for U.S. shipments of oil for its power grid and two new light-water reactors to be built by an international consortium. Most importantly, both sides agreed to end mutual hostility by fully normalizing their economic and political relations. ..."
"... The agreement, which froze North Korea's nuclear program for 12 years, held for several years. But in 2002, the Bush administration accused the DPRK -- falsely it turned out -- of building a secret uranium program as a second route to a bomb and tore up the framework. In response, North Korea, which was by now led by Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un's father, restarted its nuclear program, and by 2006 had exploded its first nuclear device. ..."
"... Surprisingly, Bush reopened negotiations only three weeks later, and by 2007, under the rubric of the Six Party Talks, the DPRK agreed again to freeze its program. That accord was still pending when Obama was elected in 2009. He had run for president pledging to talk to Iran and North Korea, but quickly changed course on Korea. ..."
"... Obama and his top adviser on Asia, Jeff Bader, decided in 2009 to side with the new, conservative president of South Korea, Lee Myung Bak, who had campaigned against engagement and demanded stronger pressure tactics against the DPRK. Soon, the idea of direct talks and regular was abandoned. Officially, the doctrine for replacing direct engagement with pressure tactics was known as "strategic patience." Behind it was a mistaken assumption!the same one made by Bennett today!that North Korea was headed for collapse, making even the chance of an agreement a futile exercise. ..."
"... It's difficult to overstate how reactionary Obama's policies became. In contrast to Bush, and even Trump, Obama flatly rejected the idea of negotiating with the North without a prior commitment to denuclearization. He also expressed no interest in the DPRK's offer to sign a peace agreement. More disturbingly, he was the first president in history to refer to the Korean War, which has been universally recognized as a bloody stalemate, as a "victory." In doing so, Obama revived a right-wing trope that was first used in the 1950s and resurrected during the Bush years by David Frum and other neocons. So from the onset, Obama caused America's policy toward Korea to take a sharp right turn. ..."
"... But the U.S. government had no doubts at all. In January 2015, Obama called the DPRK's alleged hack an "act of war" and used it as an excuse to launch one of the most aggressive American actions on behalf of a private corporation in U.S. history. His executive order imposed sanctions against three North Korean agencies and nearly a dozen "critical North Korean operatives" in retaliation for the hack. The Treasury Department said the sanctions were in direct response to North Korea's "numerous provocations, particularly the recent cyber-attack targeting Sony Pictures Entertainment." The action marked a major escalation, returning "the U.S. to a posture of open hostility with its oldest remaining Cold War adversary," the Wall Street Journal noted . ..."
"... Shortly after these actions were taken, the New York Times published a revelation that raised serious questions about the hack, reporting that the NSA had broken into the DPRK's computer systems as early as 2010 and "penetrated directly into the North with the help of South Korea and other American allies." If that was true, the NSA might have watched the alleged hackers and allowed them to do their work. Here's what the Times concluded: ..."
"... Today, Kim Jong-un remains firmly in control of North Korea, and the Trump administration -- despite Trump's tweets on Sunday equating engagement with "appeasement " -- appears to be slowly moving toward negotiations of some kind with his government. Bruce Bennett continues to fantasize about bringing the leader down. Kim, he argued in a recent post , craves his weapons not for self-defense but because "nukes are one way to show his subjects he's a god." Kim is "a weak leader consumed by paranoia," he wrote in a separate piece. ..."
"... And on August 29, in a departing interview with Fox News, ousted White House adviser Sebastian Gorka let it slip that the cyber attacks on North Korea probably continue. "On the more covert side of things, you have seen a lot of missile tests fail," he said . "Most tests actually fail. Sometimes there may be reasons beyond just incompetence by North Korea." ..."
"... And there was an intriguing exchange recently between one of Obama's top national security officials and South Korea's new president, Moon Jae-in . On August 4, Moon spoke out against Korean right-wingers who send anti-DPRK propaganda over the border in large balloons!one of the tactics frequently suggested by Bennett and carried out by neocons Kirchick and Halvorssen. These actions, he warned , unnecessarily aggravate the North, and particularly during times of severe tension, "could prompt accidental clashes." ..."
"... That sparked an angry tweet from Samantha Power, the Obama administration's former U.N. ambassador and perhaps the most famous proponent of "humanitarian intervention" against enemy states like North Korea. "So mistaken," Power tweeted in response to Moon. "Information is what Kim Jong-un fears most. ..."
Sep 05, 2017 | www.alternet.org

Grayzone Project 294 COMMENTS

Over the past month, President Trump's incendiary threats to rain " fire and fury " on North Korea in response to its ballistic missile program set off a chain of military escalations that climaxed this week with Pyongyang's sixth test of a nuclear device , a hydrogen bomb three to five times more powerful than the American bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As the crisis unfolded, the Rand Corporation, a military-intelligence think tank founded during the Cold War, relentlessly promoted the views of Bruce W. Bennett, a defense researcher it calls "one of the leading experts on the world's most reclusive country." Two or three times a day, Rand's media shop tweets out links to Bennett's writings on Kim Jong-un, the 33-year-old who rules the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK), its formal and preferred name.

While Trump has vowed to use sanctions, war threats and diplomacy to stop Kim from developing a ballistic missile that could fire nuclear weapons at the United States!exactly what Kim claimed to do on Sunday!Bennett believes that the only target worth considering is North Korea's " Supreme Leader " himself.

Bennett's basic theme is that North Korea is teetering on collapse and internal unrest because the military and technocratic elite who run the country have given up on Kim and his dynastic family. It's a theory that's been around for decades , but has picked up steam in reaction to Kim's recent purges, including possibly his own brother and a string of high-level defections that includes Thae Yong-ho , the erudite former North Korea ambassador to London.

In glossy books and pamphlets ("Preparing North Korean Elites for Unification") and in appearances from CNN to Fox to Teen Vogue , Bennett lays out his plan for overthrowing the North Korean government by saturating the country with leaflets and propaganda and providing assurances to potential plotters in the North that they would have a place within a new, unified Korea!but only under South Korean and U.S. control.

The U.S., he warned in a recent speech on Capitol Hill that I attended, must deliver Kim a simple message: "We know the only thing you care about is your regime's survival. Either denuclearize or we will take actions politically to destabilize your regime." His talk was a basic primer for this "uprising" from within, which is exactly what the Bush administration sought in Iraq when it invaded in 2003.

The plan, Bennett said, might begin with the U.S. Air Force dropping leaflets on North Korean missile bases that invite North Korean soldiers to defect. "If there were one or two, that would be a political loss of face." K-Pop, the South Korean musical genre that's popular around the world, could be another weapon: "It's acidic as far the regime is concerned." And commercials about South Korean life planted in DVDs smuggled into the North "would be terrible for Kim Jong-un."

The purpose of the operation, he said, is to convince the people of the DPRK that their "paranoid" leader is not a "god," and to plant the idea that his country is unstable: "If that's in his mind, it will affect his behavior." In short, a psy-op.

As I listened to his spiel, I was reminded of Bennett's advisory role in the 2014 Seth Rogen comedy The Interview , about two Hollywood stoners hired by the CIA to kill Kim. It depicted, in graphic detail, Kim's head being blown apart by a guided missile fired by fed-up North Korean "elites" who had come over to the U.S. side after their conversations with the fake American journalists, played by Rogen and his sidekick James Franco.

The film was produced by Japan's Sony Pictures, but finalized only after receiving critical advice and assistance from the Obama State Department, the Rand Corporation, and according to a 2014 interview Rogen gave to the New York Times, the CIA ("We made relationships with certain people who work in the government as consultants, who I'm convinced are in the CIA") But it was all under the tutelage of Bruce Bennett, who was brought into the project by Sony Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton, a prominent member of Rand's board of directors and a close confidante of President Obama.

Why Bennett? His official biography states that he has worked for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Forces in South Korea and Japan, the U.S. Pacific Command as well as the South Korean and Japanese militaries. According an email he wrote to Sony's Lynton in 2014, he got his start in Asia as a Mormon missionary to Japan and began working on Korea in 1989 "at the request of the Pentagon." By 2014, he said, he had made over 100 trips to South Korea to advise the U.S. Army and senior South Korean military personnel "on how to deter North Korea." Even though he has never been to the DPRK, he bases his knowledge of the country on his "extensive interviews with senior North Korean defectors."

The movie's plot closely follows Bennett's vision for regime change from within, and is illustrated in two key scenes.

"We're aware of a small faction in the existing leadership that already wants him gone," the CIA agent overseeing the assassination plot tells her American recruits early on. "They want change and they're too scared to act alone. And they need you two to go in there and remove Kim and embolden them to revolt." Later, "Sook," the sexy assistant to Kim who joins the regime change plot, pleads with Rogen: "How do you prove to the 24 million people of North Korea that their god is a murderer and a liar? The people need to be shown that he's not a god."

The film allegedly sparked North Korea to hack Sony and leak thousands of internal Sony emails. North Korea also warned the Obama administration not to allow the film to be released, branding it "an act of terrorism." So, when Bennett invited questions at his congressional briefing, I asked him: what was his involvement in The Interview , and did he think it was effective?

At first, Bennett was elusive, saying, "I did not work on the movie." When I reminded him that he had been listed as an adviser, he changed course. "I heard about it for the first time when I was sent a copy of the DVD by the president of Sony Pictures, who was asking, do we need to be worried about this?" he explained, inspiring a ripple of laughter throughout the room. Bennett continued: "So I had a tail-end role in trying to help them appreciate what they might be worried about."

But there's a lot more to the story. Now that Kim is dominating the news once again, it's time to revisit this film and how it became a weapon in the long-running American war against North Korea.

Obama's hard line on DPRK

As Americans come to grips with Trump's confrontational policies with North Korea, it's easy to forget that U.S. relations with North Korea reached a nadir under Barack Obama. Here's why: Bennett's regime change proposals were, and are, the culmination of policies hatched by Obama's left-liberal administration to weaken Kim's hold on power and hasten what they considered North Korea's inevitable collapse. Obviously they failed, yet elements of the plan still abound.

Let's start with some basic background. The hostile U.S. relationship with the DPRK dates back to the Korean War, when U.S. bombers turned the country into cinders in a destructive campaign of carpet-bombing that killed millions of people. In 1953, an armistice ended the fighting, leaving the country divided and in a perpetual state of war. A peace treaty was never signed. Sometime in the late 1980s, with the border still tense and the U.S. showing no signs of withdrawing its military forces from the South, the DPRK decided to embark on a nuclear program to defend itself from wars of regime change and guarantee its sovereignty.

To head off that development, in 1994 President Bill Clinton negotiated an agreement with North Korea's founding leader, Kim Il-sung, that sought to allay his government's fears by ending America's hostile policies. Under the "Agreed Framework," the DPRK shut down its one test reactor -- its only source for plutonium -- in return for U.S. shipments of oil for its power grid and two new light-water reactors to be built by an international consortium. Most importantly, both sides agreed to end mutual hostility by fully normalizing their economic and political relations.

The agreement, which froze North Korea's nuclear program for 12 years, held for several years. But in 2002, the Bush administration accused the DPRK -- falsely it turned out -- of building a secret uranium program as a second route to a bomb and tore up the framework. In response, North Korea, which was by now led by Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un's father, restarted its nuclear program, and by 2006 had exploded its first nuclear device.

Surprisingly, Bush reopened negotiations only three weeks later, and by 2007, under the rubric of the Six Party Talks, the DPRK agreed again to freeze its program. That accord was still pending when Obama was elected in 2009. He had run for president pledging to talk to Iran and North Korea, but quickly changed course on Korea.

According to Leon Sigal, a former State Department official who has met with North Korea many times in unofficial talks, Obama and his top adviser on Asia, Jeff Bader, decided in 2009 to side with the new, conservative president of South Korea, Lee Myung Bak, who had campaigned against engagement and demanded stronger pressure tactics against the DPRK. Soon, the idea of direct talks and regular was abandoned. Officially, the doctrine for replacing direct engagement with pressure tactics was known as "strategic patience." Behind it was a mistaken assumption!the same one made by Bennett today!that North Korea was headed for collapse, making even the chance of an agreement a futile exercise.

It's difficult to overstate how reactionary Obama's policies became. In contrast to Bush, and even Trump, Obama flatly rejected the idea of negotiating with the North without a prior commitment to denuclearization. He also expressed no interest in the DPRK's offer to sign a peace agreement. More disturbingly, he was the first president in history to refer to the Korean War, which has been universally recognized as a bloody stalemate, as a "victory." In doing so, Obama revived a right-wing trope that was first used in the 1950s and resurrected during the Bush years by David Frum and other neocons. So from the onset, Obama caused America's policy toward Korea to take a sharp right turn.

The tensions were exacerbated by the covert cyber war Obama launched against North Korea to damage and slow its missile program. During the Obama years, North Korea tested three more nuclear bombs, and despite the cyber war, rapidly expanded its missile abilities. As the situation deteriorated, Obama embarked on a series of military exercises with South Korea that increased in size and tempo over the course of his administration. They included unprecedented overflights by B-52 and stealth B1-B bombers as well as training in " decapitation strikes " designed to take out Kim and his leadership. All of this led straight to the crisis Trump inherited and has only made worse.

But while Trump critics rightly chafe over his reckless allusions to a nuclear attack on Korea, it's often forgotten that Obama himself made similar statements, couched in his trademark cool. "We could, obviously, destroy North Korea with our arsenals," Obama told CBS News in April 2016. A few months later, Daniel Russel, the president's senior diplomat on Asia who had earlier viewed The Interview at Sony's request, actually threatened North Korea's destruction. If Kim gets "an enhanced capacity to conduct a nuclear attack," Russel told defense reporters, he would "immediately die."

At the time, these threats hardly caused a ripple in the media, and sparked few complaints from the liberals who now criticize Trump for pushing the U.S. to war or the progressive reporters who criticized Bush for his invasion of Iraq.

Seth Rogen 'melted head' assassination scene

Although the idea for The Interview had been around for a while, the real inspiration, director Seth Rogen told the Los Angeles Times, was some "idle kidding around" he did with his friends after the assassination of Osama bin Laden in 2011. He and Sony were also encouraged by the wild success of the 2004 hit movie Team America , which ridiculed Kim Jong-il's big glasses and bouffant hair-do. But what sparked Sony's decision to go ahead with its $35 million investment was the crisis that shook the Korean Peninsula when the DPRK tested its third nuclear device in February 2013.

The nuclear test vaulted Kim Jong-un into the headlines for the first time, giving Sony the moment it had been seeking. In a "strategic marketing and research" paper later leaked by hackers, the studio told promoters to push the theme of "the dictator's bizarre behavior!he's a young, inexperienced guy with self-esteem and 'daddy' issues." The film used every racist image and trope that Rogen could dream up, from the sing-songy caricatures of Asian speech that were a film staple in the 1940s and '50s, to the concept that Koreans are either robotic slaves (like Kim's security guards) or sex-starved submissives who crave American men (like Sook, the "elite" aide to Kim who falls for the Rogen character).

In the end of the film, the Hollywood rebels triumph after badgering Kim with tough questions about his ability to feed his own people, an allusion to the terrible famine that occurred in the late-1990s. Kim goes crazy, forcing "a man once revered among mortals to cry and shit in his pants," the Rogen character explains. After the stoner character screams, "he's no god, he's a butthole," Kim is struck on his helicopter by the fatal missile shot by Sook's rebels, and his head explodes in a fireball. The rebels' job now "is to make sure power is transferred to the right hands," the Americans explain.

It was that ending that caused most of the controversy, both at the studio and when the film was later pre-screened to select officials of the Obama administration. When the first takes were shown in June 2014, some of Sony's Japanese executives were disturbed by both the violence and the racism. By this time, North Korea (which relentlessly monitors U.S. media) had got wind of the film and its theme of assassinating its head of state. So the studio asked Rogen to tone it down by removing one scene in which moviegoers watched Kim's face slowly melt and slide off his head. This sent Rogen on a tirade.

"We feel the story of censorship and trying to appease North Korea WILL in fact hurt the film critically, and thus financially," he wrote to Amy Pascal , Sony Pictures' top executive at the time. "The head melting shot described vividly in all these articles is universally received as awesome by the articles writing about them, and when these critics see a shot that is decidedly LESS awesome, regardless of what story we put out there, the truth will be apparent: it's a compromised product." (The head-melting scene was removed, but Rogen's Hollywood version of selective morality was revealing nonetheless).

By this point, North Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs was denouncing the film as tantamount to "an act of war," and threatening "a decisive and merciless countermeasure" if the Obama administration allowed it to be shown. That was apparently the result Rogen was looking for.

"There was a lot of high-fiving," he told the Los Angeles Times. Even if it caused a war?

"Hopefully," Rogen said, "people will say, 'You know what? It was worth it. It was a good movie!'"

It was then that Sony turned to the government for help, through Rand and its Korea expert, Bruce Bennett.

With top Obama contacts, Sony and Rand collaborate on coup narrative

The Rand Corporation first became famous in 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg, a Rand analyst, leaked the Pentagon Papers that exposed the secret history of the Vietnam War. The incredible tale of official lies that unfolded in pages of the New York Times and other papers helped end the war four years later and triggered the beginning of the end of Richard Nixon. After shaking off that incident, Rand emerged as one of the premiere research centers for the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence.

As a result of 9/11 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Rand returned full force to refining the practice of counterinsurgency , or COIN, the "soft power" side of empire-building that got its start in Vietnam and aims at winning "hearts and minds" of countries that the United States invades or subverts. Bennett's policy proposals to divide members of the North Korean "elite" from their government with offers of political support and financial assistance come right out of the COIN playbook .

The link between Rand and Sony was made shortly after the first public viewing of the film by Rand CEO Michael Rich, a lifelong employee of the think tank. Under his leadership, Rand developed close ties with U.S. intelligence. In November 2014, for example, Rich presided over a "rare dialogue" with the National Security Agency that took place at Sony's headquarters in Century City and included then NSA director Michael Rogers as well as Michael Leiter, the former director of the CIA's National Counterterrorism Center.

In June 2014, after the first clips of the movie where shown, Rich emailed Bennett, informing him he had recommended that Rand "trustee Michael Lynton, CEO of Sony Entertainment, get in touch with you for some quick assistance." Lynton, too, had high-level connections. As the hacked Sony emails collected by Wikileaks would later reveal , he had attended dinners at Martha's Vineyard with President Obama, and as a Rand board member, had contacts throughout government. From June on, Bennett, through Lynton, became a critical adviser to the film and acted as a liaison between the studio and the Obama administration.

The makers of The Interview were especially interested in advice on crafting the ending of the film. The scene of Kim's head exploding pleased Bennett, as he wrote in one of his emails. "I have been clear that the assassination of Kim Jong-Un is the most likely path to a collapse of the North Korean government," he wrote .

Bennett continued: 'Thus while toning down the ending may reduce the North Korean response, I believe that a story that talks about the removal of the Kim family regime and the creation of a new government by the North Korean people (well, at least the elites) will start some real thinking in South Korea and, I believe, in the North once the DVD leaks into the North (which it almost certainly will). So from a personal perspective, I would personally prefer to leave the ending alone."

Bennett firmly believed the film could spark the U.S.-led coup he had dreamed about for so long. "There are many ways that United States and even Sony Pictures could affect North Korean internal politics," he wrote on the Rand website. "Slipping DVDs of at least parts of The Interview into the North, including a narration describing what their 'god' Kim is really like is one way." (In fact, a version of this stunt was attempted right after the film came out by two of the more fanatical regime-changers in Washington, the neocon writer Jamie Kirchik and right-wing human rights hustler Thor Halvorssen .)

To make sure the film was on the right track, Sony arranged to show the ending to officials at the State Department. Lynton emailed Daniel Russel, who was the assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, that the studio was "concerned for the safety of Americans and American and North Korean relations." He and other U.S. officials gave their blessing to the film's violent ending. After word of Russel's involvement leaked out, the State Department denied any role, only to be contradicted by Russel himself. In a 2016 speech in Los Angeles, he said , "I'm the U.S. government official who told Sony there was no problem 'greenlighting' the movie The Interview ."

Despite the official go-ahead, Sony agreed at first to only release The Interview on DVD. Then, when Sony temporarily pulled the film in December 2014, Obama became its champion, declaring that "we cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States." That led to the remarkable sight of Hollywood actors and directors from the liberal left, led by the likes of George Clooney and Michael Moore, defending the film as an act of free speech and urging Americans to defy Kim's "censorship" and go see it in a theater.

By this time, Sony had been hacked by a group that called itself the " Guardians of Peace ." The FBI later claimed this group was secretly working for North Korea. The Obama administration agreed, and said its top intelligence officials had concluded that North Korea was "centrally involved." This finding was questioned by many cyber-security experts (especially Gregory Elich's critique in Counterpunch and Kim Zetter's analysis in Wired). They concluded that the FBI's "evidence" found in servers in Thailand, Singapore and elsewhere was thin and speculative, and found signs that the real hackers (who had an uncanny insider knowledge of Hollywood) could still be at large and might have been former Sony employees.

But the U.S. government had no doubts at all. In January 2015, Obama called the DPRK's alleged hack an "act of war" and used it as an excuse to launch one of the most aggressive American actions on behalf of a private corporation in U.S. history. His executive order imposed sanctions against three North Korean agencies and nearly a dozen "critical North Korean operatives" in retaliation for the hack. The Treasury Department said the sanctions were in direct response to North Korea's "numerous provocations, particularly the recent cyber-attack targeting Sony Pictures Entertainment." The action marked a major escalation, returning "the U.S. to a posture of open hostility with its oldest remaining Cold War adversary," the Wall Street Journal noted .

Shortly after these actions were taken, the New York Times published a revelation that raised serious questions about the hack, reporting that the NSA had broken into the DPRK's computer systems as early as 2010 and "penetrated directly into the North with the help of South Korea and other American allies." If that was true, the NSA might have watched the alleged hackers and allowed them to do their work. Here's what the Times concluded:

"The extensive American penetration of the North Korean system raises questions about why the United States was not able to alert Sony as the attacks took shape last fall, even though the North had warned, as early as June, that the release of the movie would be 'an act of war.'"

By this time, however, the film had done its damage by convincing Kim's government that the Obama administration did indeed want its destruction. More missile and nuclear tests followed, and by the end of the Obama administration relations were far worse than they were when Bush left office in 2009. In other words, the film had the opposite of its intended effect, prompting a clampdown by Kim and suppressing whatever internal dissent existed.

Today, Kim Jong-un remains firmly in control of North Korea, and the Trump administration -- despite Trump's tweets on Sunday equating engagement with "appeasement " -- appears to be slowly moving toward negotiations of some kind with his government. Bruce Bennett continues to fantasize about bringing the leader down. Kim, he argued in a recent post , craves his weapons not for self-defense but because "nukes are one way to show his subjects he's a god." Kim is "a weak leader consumed by paranoia," he wrote in a separate piece.

At the same time, there is abundant evidence that the combination regime-change/cyber war project adopted by the Obama administration is still in force. A few weeks ago, CIA Director Mike Pompeo told a crowd at the Aspen Forum that he's been ordered to find ways to "separate" Kim from his "missiles and nuclear weapons" -- a "strong hint," the New York Times reported , "that the United States was considering seeking a regime change in North Korea." And on August 29, in a departing interview with Fox News, ousted White House adviser Sebastian Gorka let it slip that the cyber attacks on North Korea probably continue. "On the more covert side of things, you have seen a lot of missile tests fail," he said . "Most tests actually fail. Sometimes there may be reasons beyond just incompetence by North Korea."

The Democrats haven't let up, either. Last month, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal told NBC News that the Obama administration should have responded more aggressively to North Korea's alleged hack of Sony in 2014. And there was an intriguing exchange recently between one of Obama's top national security officials and South Korea's new president, Moon Jae-in . On August 4, Moon spoke out against Korean right-wingers who send anti-DPRK propaganda over the border in large balloons!one of the tactics frequently suggested by Bennett and carried out by neocons Kirchick and Halvorssen. These actions, he warned , unnecessarily aggravate the North, and particularly during times of severe tension, "could prompt accidental clashes."

That sparked an angry tweet from Samantha Power, the Obama administration's former U.N. ambassador and perhaps the most famous proponent of "humanitarian intervention" against enemy states like North Korea. "So mistaken," Power tweeted in response to Moon. "Information is what Kim Jong-un fears most."

[Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. ..."
"... "In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians." ..."
"... The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton. The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they knew it or not. ..."
"... Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression, harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too. ..."
"... The Reagan Era kicked off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s - defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein & Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy. ..."
"... The image at the top of this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator, published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism may be interested in you. ..."
"... It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election cycle later in the Reagan Revolution. ..."
"... Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts, the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian prostitutes in our current panic. . . . ..."
"... To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office in 1986. ..."
"... Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis - now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally appropriated from the alt-Right's guru. ..."
"... Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors. I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons. ..."
"... These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically opposed on so many other issues. ..."
"... The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution. Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin "active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans. Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album". ..."
"... 'Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any way, shape or form. ..."
"... The Cold War is over, so now the US can reveal its truly feral nature. ..."
"... American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common good of the Syrians today. ..."
"... It's always 'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world, how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever we can and enrich the 1%. ..."
"... It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence. ..."
"... Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could get their hands on them [ Operation Paperclip ] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they say ..."
"... American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet Union. ..."
"... A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ ..."
"... It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies, the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media. ..."
"... They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors, and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger. ..."
"... Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but an excuse for warmongering since 1989. ..."
"... I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious ipso facto ..."
"... Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace. ..."
"... Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at all times though! ..."
"... The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. ..."
"... Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100 million to the Foundation. ..."
Jun 03, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here. Originally published at The eXiled

Mother Jones recently announced it's "redoubling our Russia reporting"-in the words of editor Clara Jeffery. Ain't that rich. What passes for "Russia reporting" at Mother Jones is mostly just glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks - a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos, destroying freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate us, because we're free.

Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called "Russia reporting" of the last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths - whether it's from Mother Jones or MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.

But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic about Russian "disinformation". It wasn't too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones for spreading "Kremlin disinformation" and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to the media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin "disinformation" and "active measures" in America, and the American "dupes" who helped Moscow subvert our way of life. That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America, using "terrorism" as the main threat, and "disinformation" as terrorism's fellow traveller. The way the the SST committee put it, "terrorism" and "Kremlin disinformation" were one and the same, a meta-conspiracy run out of Moscow to weaken America.

And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee's sites.

Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording of an interview between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, and a committee witness- a "disinformation expert" named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling spy novel called "The Spike" - about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation, and thereby rule the world.

Here's how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:

"In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians."

Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the "Kremlin disinformation" conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas power . . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation dupe whether they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and who isn't a Kremlin agent.

Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another "Red Scare", warning,

"[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little sense as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism. When Mr. de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation, the accusation is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel law than if he were to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.

" Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America's news media, then anything must seem possible."

It's a damn shame today's editorial staff at Mother Jones aren't aware of their own magazine's history.

Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn't care if you shoved their faces in their own recent history - they're way too donor-deep invested in pushing this "active measures" conspiracy. Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.

PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of RealNetworks, to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can't stand Trump or his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on - this?

One would've thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that running against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem is they didn't fear-monger enough, so they're "redoubling" on the Russophobia. Donor money is driving this - donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones' editorial focus. And it really is this crude.

Take for example a PutinTrump section titled "Russian Expansion" - the scary Red imagery and language are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when, it so happens, Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored alien soldiers over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones' donor-partner promotes a classic Cold War propaganda line about Russian/Soviet expansionism-a lie that has been the basis for so many wars launched to "stop" this alleged "expansionism" in the past, wars that Mother Jones is supposed to oppose. Here's what MJ's partner writes now:

RUSSIAN EXPANSION

Through unknowing manipulation, or by direct support, Trump will become an accessory to the continual expansionism committed by Putin. Might does not equal right-and it never has for Americans-but Putin's Russia plays by different rules. Or maybe no rules at all.

The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton. The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they knew it or not.

* * *

What's kind of shocking to me as someone who was alive in the Reagan scare is how unoriginal this current one is. Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression, harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too.

Today we're supposed to remember how cheerful and optimistic the Reagan Era was. But that's now how I remember it, it's not how it looked to Mother Jones at the time - and it's not how it looks when you go back through the original source material again and relive it. The Reagan Era kicked off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s - defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein & Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy.

As soon as the new Republican majority in the Senate took power in 1981, they set up a new subcommittee to investigate Kremlin disinformation dupes, called the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism. Staffers leaked to the media they intended to investigate Mother Jones. Panic spread across the progressive media world, and suddenly all those cool Ivy League kids who invested everything in becoming the next Woodward-Bernsteins - the cultural heroes at the time - got scared. The image at the top of this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator, published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism may be interested in you.

It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election cycle later in the Reagan Revolution.

By the end of Reagan's first year in office, there was still no formal investigation into Mother Jones, but the harassment was there and it wasn't subtle at all - such as the Republican Senate mailer accusing the magazine of being KGB disinformation dupes. At the end of 1981, MJ editor/founder Adam Hochschild announced he was stepping aside, and in his final note to readers and the public, he wrote:

To Senator Jeremiah Denton, chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism: If your committee investigates Mother Jones, a plan hinted at some months ago, I demand to be subpoenaed. I would not want to miss telling off today's new McCarthyites.

So here we are a few decades later, and Mother Jones' editor Clara Jeffery is denouncing WikiLeaks - yesterday's journalism stars, today's traitors - as "Russia['s] willing dupes and propagandists" while Mother Jones magazine turned itself into a mouthpiece for America's spies peddling the same warmed-over conspiracy theories that once targeted Mother Jones.

* * *

Jeremiah Denton - the New Right senator from Alabama who led the SST committee investigation into Kremlin "disinformation" and its dupes like Mother Jones - believed that America was being weakened from within and had only a few years left at most to turn it around. As Denton saw it, the two most dangerous threats to America's survival were a) hippie sex, and b) Kremlin disinformation. The two were inseparable in his mind, linked to the larger "global terrorism" plot masterminded by Moscow.

To fight hippie sex and teen promiscuity, the freshman senator introduced a "Chastity Bill" funding federal programs that promoted the joys of chastity to Americans armies of bored, teen suburban long-hairs. A lot of clever people laughed at that, because at the time the belief in linear historical progress was strong, and this represented something so atavistic that it was like a curiosity more than anything - Pauly Shore's "Alabama Man" unfrozen after 10,000 years and unleashed on the halls of Congress.

Less funny were Denton's calls for death penalty for adulterers, and laws he pushed restricting women's right to abortion.

Jeremiah Denton was once a big name in this country. Americans have since forgotten Denton, because John McCain pretty much stole his act. But back in the 70s and early 80s, Denton was America's most famous Vietnam War hero/POW. Like McCain, Denton was a Navy pilot shot down over Vietnam and taken prisoner. Denton spent 1965-1973 in North Vietnamese POW camps-two years longer than McCain-and he was America's most famous POW. His most famous moment was when his North Vietnamese captors hauled him before the cameras to acknowledge his crimes, and instead Denton famously blinked out a Morse code message: "T-O-R-T-U-R-E".

In the 1973 POW exchange deal between Hanoi and Nixon, "Operation Homecoming," it was Denton who was the first American POW to come off the plane and speak to the American tv crews (McCain was on the same flight, but not nearly as prominent as Denton). I keep referring back to McCain here because not only were they both famous Navy pilot POWs, but they both wind up becoming the most pathologically obsessive Russophobes in the Senate. Just a few days ago, McCain said that Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State. Something real bad must've happened in those Hanoi Hiltons, worse than anything they told us about, because those guys really, really hate Russians - and they reallywant the rest of us to hate Russians too.

Everything they loathed about America, everything that was wrong with America, had to be the fault of a hostile alien culture. There was no other explanation for what happened in the 1970s. The America that Denton came home to in 1973 was under some kind of hostile power, an alien-controlled replica of the America he last saw in 1965. Popular morality had been turned on its head: Hollywood blockbusters with bare naked bodies and gutter language! Children against their parents! Homosexuals on waterskis! Sex and treason! Patriots were the enemy, while America-haters were heroes! Denton re-appeared like some reactionary Rip Van Winkle who went to sleep in the safe feather-bed world of J Edgar Hoover's America - only to wake up eight years later on Bernadine Dohrn's futon, soaked in Bill Ayers' bodily fluids. For Denton, the post-60s cultural shock came on all at once - as sudden and as jarring as, well, the shock so many Blue State Americans experienced when Donald Trump won the election last November.

Sex, immorality & military defeat-these were inseparable in Denton's mind, and in a lot of reactionaries' minds. Attributing all of America's social convulsions of the previous 15 years to immorality and a Kremlin disinformation plot was a neat way of avoiding the complex and painful realities - then, as now.

"No nation can survive long unless it can encourage its young to withhold indulgence in their sexual appetites until marriage." - Jeremiah Denton

What hit Denton hardest was all the hippie sex and the pop culture glorification of hippie sex. It's hard to convey just how deeply all that smug hippie sex wounded tens of millions of Americans. It's a hate wound that's still raw, still burns to the touch. A wound that fueled so much reactionary political fire over the past 50 years, and it doesn't look like it'll burn out any time soon.

Back in 1980, Denton blamed all that pop culture sex on Russian active measures, and he did his best to not just outlaw it, but to demonize sex as something along the lines of treason.

Just as so many people today cannot accept the idea that Trump_vs_deep_state is Made In America-so Denton and his Reagan Right constituents believed there had to be some alien force to explain why Americans had changed so drastically, seeming to adopt values that were the antithesis of Middle America's values in 1965. It had to be the fault of an alien voodoo beam! It had to be a Russian plot!

And so, therefore, it was a Russian plot.

A 1981 Time magazine profile of the freshman Senator begins, Denton believes that America is being destroyed by sexual immorality and Soviet-sponsored political 'disinformation'-and that both are being promoted by dupes, or worse, in the media. By the mid-1980s, he warns, "we will have less national security than we had proportionately when George Washington's troops were walking around barefoot at Valley Forge."

Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts, the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian prostitutes in our current panic. . . .

To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office in 1986.

Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis - now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally appropriated from the alt-Right's guru.

Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors. I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons.

These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically opposed on so many other issues. I don't think this is something as simple as hypocrisy - it's actually quite consistent: Establishment faction wakes up to a world it doesn't recognize and loathes and feels threatened by, and blames it not on themselves or anything domestic, but rather on the most plausible alien conspiracy they can reach for: Russian barbarians. Anti-Russian xenophobia is burned into the Establishment culture's DNA; it's a xenophobia that both dominant factions, liberal or conservative, view as an acceptable xenophobia. When poorer "white working class" Americans feel threatened and panic, their xenophobia tends to be aimed at other ethnics - Latinos and Muslims these days - a xenophobia that the Establishment views as completely immoral and unacceptable, completely beyond the pale. The thought never occurs to them that perhaps all forms of xenophobia are bad, all bring with them a lot of violence and danger, it just depends on who's threatened and who's doing the threatening

The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution. Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin "active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans. Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album".

I'll get to that "FBI Terrorist Photo Album" story later. There's a lot of recent "Kremlin disinformation" history to recover, since it seems every last memory cell has been zapped out of existence.

After Reagan's inauguration (the most expensive, lavish inauguration ball in White House history), Senator Denton sent a chill through the liberal and independent media world with all the talk coming out of his committee about targeting activists, civil rights lawyers and journalists. Denton tried to come off as reasonable some of the times; other times, he came right out and said it: "disinformation" is terrorism: When I speak of a threat, I do not just mean that an organization is, or is about to be, engaged in violent criminal activity. I believe many share the view that support groups that produce propaganda, disinformation or legal assistance may be even more dangerous than those who actually throw the bombs.

Congratulations Mother Jones, you've come a long way, baby! Next post, I'll recover some of the early committee hearings, and the rightwing hucksters, creeps and spooks who fed Denton's committee.

glmmph , June 3, 2017 at 7:00 am

I think that John McCain may well be correct, if for the wrong reasons. 'Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any way, shape or form.

Disturbed Voter , June 3, 2017 at 7:23 am

This is now, that was then. There is no comparison. The Cold War is over, so now the US can reveal its truly feral nature. It seems both parties are struggling to bring back the 1960s with Cold War 2.0. We need to pull out of the Middle East, and invade Vietnam, again ;-( And yes, probably even back then, Mother Jones was controlled opposition. They just don't bother hiding it anymore.

John Zelnicker , June 3, 2017 at 3:18 pm

@Disturbed Voter – Dontcha know. We just signed deals with Viet Nam that will bring "billions of dollars" to the U.S. Trump said so last week after meeting with the Vietnamese Prime Minister, so it must be true. They're safe for now. :-)

witters , June 3, 2017 at 7:29 am

"Might does not equal right-and it never has for Americans-" Is there a Darwin Award for this?

Disturbed Voter , June 3, 2017 at 9:30 am

American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common good of the Syrians today.

oh , June 3, 2017 at 3:18 pm

Our nation worries about other countries' problems but we never care about ours! It's always 'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world, how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever we can and enrich the 1%.

Magazines (tabloids) and (fake)news organization are cheer leaders to this effort because they cash in on the chant du jour.

Baby Gerald , June 3, 2017 at 8:16 am

Thank you so much for exposing in such great detail the hypocrisy regarding MJ s recent neo-Red Scare leanings. If only the editorial staff at dear MJ would educate themselves not only about their own organization's history, but history in general, they might avoid looking like complete fools and enemies to their own institution's founding principles when we collectively reminisce on this bizarre era at some point in the future.

It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence.

Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could get their hands on them [ Operation Paperclip ] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they say

American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet Union.

As a kid in the 80s I remember MJ being singled out as a leftist commie rag by Reaganites of the day. Through college this was about all I knew about the magazine– as an epithet for what hippie commie liberals read before trying to ruin our country. Despite it leaning to my political inclinations, I never paid it any attention.

A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ to my news stream. Once Sanders- then later Trump- started looking like an actual threat to the Clinton campaign, their headlines started turning snippy and trite toward her opposition. I turned them off my feed last year, so the only exposure to their drivel is thanks to the links here at NC . Now with the advent of twitter, their staff have taken the extra step of proving how twisted their personal Russophobian views really are. Between just Corn and Jeffery, there's enough material to make any McCarthyite proud.*

[* – I was going to close with ' and make Adam Hochschild roll in his grave' but then I googled him and discovered that he's still alive. Wonder what he thinks about this current turn at the magazine he co-founded?]

Damson , June 3, 2017 at 8:40 am

Reposting a comment that IMV, snapshots the reality of Russophobia far better than Ames (it was in response to a Ray McGovern article on Trump's visit to NATO HQ) :

"Ray has written well to the general audience, bridging the information gap for those heavily propagandized. He has properly shown the expansion of NATO as an act of calculated betrayal, a policy of aggression in the face of zero threat.

It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies, the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media.

They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors, and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger.

Tyranny is a subculture, a groupthink of bullies who tyrannize each other and compete for the most radical propositions of nonexistent foreign threats. They fully well know that they are lying to the people of the United States to serve a personal and factional agenda that involves the murder of millions of innocents, the diversion of a very large fraction of their own and other nations' budgets from essential needs, and they have not an ounce of humanity or moral restraint among them. Those who waver are cast aside, and the worst of the bullies rise to the top. This is why the nation's founders opposed a standing military, and they were right.

Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but an excuse for warmongering since 1989.

Let us hope that Trump pulls the plug on NATO interventionism, accidentally or otherwise. The Dem leaders have now joined the Reps in their love of bribes for genocide, but at the least the Reps still don't like paying for it. Perhaps the last duopoly imitation of civilization."

nowhere , June 3, 2017 at 11:26 am

Hmm "but at the least the Reps still don't like paying for it." I strongly disagree. War is the only thing Rs don't mind openly supporting.

Ptolemy Philopater , June 3, 2017 at 3:15 pm

One can not repeat often enough: War Crimes Tribunals! How to disincentivize the madness.

Skip Intro , June 4, 2017 at 2:14 am

I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious ipso facto .

Mary Wehrhein , June 3, 2017 at 9:40 am

Having lived in Kansas for 60 some years which is the poster-child for trickle-down necromancy and a land heavily infused with rural, German-Catholic sensibilities, I can vouch for the deeply felt attitudes towards sex as a primary issue. "Family Values" being the code word for the whole sex and reproductive moral prism.

Like Cuba with its 50s autos, the conservatives have never given up their 60s conception of the Democrats as the party of free love, peace-nicks (soft on commies hard on guns) and tax and spend bleeding hearts coddling dependent malingerers.

The GOP here campaigns against a democrat party that no longer exists (if it ever did). They seem oblivious to the fact that the democrats have become the moderate republicans of yore. Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace.

GERMO , June 3, 2017 at 9:42 am

Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at all times though!

Pespi , June 3, 2017 at 10:33 am

This is a great piece. The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. Tell me about why South African dupes are causing all the problems in society, tell me that the people of the Maldives each own a nuclear capable artillery piece and are burning American flags.

Susan the other , June 3, 2017 at 11:25 am

Thanks for this post down memory lane. I assumed MJ was liberal. And Jane Fonda was a conservative. And by 1981 I was completely confused about where the media stood on any given issue. And now finally the mask is coming off and we can see (Phillip K. Dick style) that left is right and right is left. And we are all fascists. Will the real Atilla please stand up? #Resistance is a little over the top and so is putintrump. But what looks like actual progress is the fact that Bernie was not completely destroyed by the state paranoia. There has to be a certain bed-rock decency that can rise above this eternal crap. Just a note of interest on the young Orrin Hatch being on the SST as a freshman senator. Orrin was the subject of local rumors that claimed he had been put in the senate by the mafia (some mormon-mafia connection in las vegas) and the fact that they did use entrapment with a hooker to disgrace his opponent was mafia-enough to make the story convincing. The story died out fast. But we should all remember that the mafia was involved in its own anti-commie terrorist tactics for decades.

Susan the other , June 3, 2017 at 2:28 pm

file under Too Weird: 15 minutes after I posted the above I got a call from Orrin Hatch's robo-computer inviting me to a local discussion call me paranoid.

John Zelnicker , June 3, 2017 at 2:45 pm

@Susan the other – It's not paranoia if someone really is out to get you. Or, to get all of us. Or, demonstrates that they have the ability to do so at will.

REDPILLED , June 3, 2017 at 11:39 am

Only 16% of people surveyed are very worried about climate change.

Corporate news is consumed with covering the Trump/Russia affair, but whatever the truth of all this turns out to be, it pales in significance to the real existential threat that is upon us. Largely due to a lack of coverage by corporate television news, there is a dangerous lack of public awareness of it.

Susan the other , June 3, 2017 at 11:42 am

land of the free and home of the brave you have to be brave to live in this free-for-all. Just want to pass on this killer quote from Discover Magazine: "It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately judge all possible moves with the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished information." what a nightmare world.

mpalomar , June 3, 2017 at 9:43 pm

"It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately judge all possible moves with the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished information."

Accepting that premise does not rule out the possibility of free will, it only suggests that our free will is likely mired in a blind stumbling, darkness of unknowing.
Hallelujah.

sunny129 , June 3, 2017 at 1:57 pm

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell. Every one has that 'right', right or wrong! But it is your right & duty to develop 'critical' thinking to DISCERN the difference

Darn , June 4, 2017 at 4:48 am

Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100 million to the Foundation. The book "Shattered" says her campaign did internal polling which found Uranium One was the most damaging line to use against Clinton so she decided to get her retaliation in first and use the Russia charge at every opportunity. And on election night when they realised they had been defeated they decided to blame Russia again. What has Trump done for Russia so far? He's kept up sanctions and bombed their client state Syria. Whereas Clinton had a pattern of arms sales to Foundation donors. Prefer Clinton? Fine, but not over this.

[Sep 24, 2017] Trump allies see vindication in reports on Manafort wiretapping

Obama did spied on his political opponents... He really was a well connected to intelligence agencies wolf in sheep's clothing.
Notable quotes:
"... For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. ..."
"... Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their true target to be in communication. ..."
Sep 24, 2017 | www.msn.com

For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

... ... ...

Longtime advisor Roger Stone has gleefully circulated a segment from Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News in which the host says "all those patronizing assurances that nobody is spying on political campaigns were false" and "it looks like Trump's tweet may have been right."

... ... ...

A spokesperson for Manafort, Jason Maloni, has characterized the court orders as an abuse of power by the Obama administration, which he says wanted to spy on a political opponent.

"It's unclear if Paul Manafort was the objective," Maloni told The Journal. "Perhaps the real objective was Donald Trump."

Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their true target to be in communication.

If the president were in fact the oblique target of government surveillance - either as a candidate or as the president-elect - both Eddington and Shedd say, it would have been so explosive that it would have almost certainly been leaked to the press.

... ... ...

The disclosure of the warrants targeting Manafort have drawn legitimate scrutiny as a violation of Manafort's civil liberties and a possible criminal leak - the mere existence of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrant is classified.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who first raised alarm about the practice of "unmasking" the names of Americans caught up in government surveillance, is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegedly exposing classified information when he disclosed his findings to reporters.

[Sep 24, 2017] Trump allies see vindication in reports on Manafort wiretapping

Obama did spied on his political opponents... He really was a well connected to intelligence agencies wolf in sheep's clothing.
Notable quotes:
"... For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. ..."
"... Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their true target to be in communication. ..."
Sep 24, 2017 | www.msn.com

For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

... ... ...

Longtime advisor Roger Stone has gleefully circulated a segment from Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News in which the host says "all those patronizing assurances that nobody is spying on political campaigns were false" and "it looks like Trump's tweet may have been right."

... ... ...

A spokesperson for Manafort, Jason Maloni, has characterized the court orders as an abuse of power by the Obama administration, which he says wanted to spy on a political opponent.

"It's unclear if Paul Manafort was the objective," Maloni told The Journal. "Perhaps the real objective was Donald Trump."

Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their true target to be in communication.

If the president were in fact the oblique target of government surveillance - either as a candidate or as the president-elect - both Eddington and Shedd say, it would have been so explosive that it would have almost certainly been leaked to the press.

... ... ...

The disclosure of the warrants targeting Manafort have drawn legitimate scrutiny as a violation of Manafort's civil liberties and a possible criminal leak - the mere existence of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrant is classified.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who first raised alarm about the practice of "unmasking" the names of Americans caught up in government surveillance, is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegedly exposing classified information when he disclosed his findings to reporters.

[Sep 24, 2017] Trump misreads North Koreas sacred dynasty at his peril by Michael Brabazon

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's threat of fire and fury is the worst response imaginable ..."
"... The Korean War ended with an armistice, or stand-off, but never a peace treaty, and the US is, in essence, still fighting the Korean War. That is the crux of the problem. ..."
"... I would also add that who started the Korean War is open to some debate. There is some evidence that the North invaded in response to an incursion started from the South. Both sides were attacking each other across the parallel before the 'War' started and there's documentation that the South was keen to invade the North. The Korean leadership on both sides saw the division as unacceptable and themselves as the legitimate government of the entire country. ..."
"... I think you have hit on something I've been thinking about. I believe Trump is deliberately stirring the pot in an attempt to goad Kim Jong Un into doing things that actually rile the Chinese. ..."
"... During the Cold War, the Soviet arsenal posed a far greater danger than North Korea does now. Nevertheless, no US president was so stupid to try and solve the crisis by pressing the USSR into giving up its missiles. Everybody knew we could just lean back and wait for the Soviet Empire to collapse by itself. And that's what happened ..."
"... But Trump doesn't know jacksh*t about history, and he certainly has no patience ..."
"... You certainly have a point. Anyone who thinks that we in the West are not susceptible to propaganda is the best proof that we are. However, flawed as it may be, I still prefer the Western Way of Life to anything else. There is a reason why the East German government had to build the Berlin Wall to keep its own citizens from running off to the West. There is a reason why there are no Americans applying for Russian or Chinese citizenship, but hundreds of Russians and Chinese standing in line in front of US embassies for a Green Card. ..."
"... How about the indoctrination of say people in the USA. Children are taught to sing the National anthem. This is sung at sports and other events in almost mandatory fashion. You see the Star Spangled banner in homes, public buildings almost everywhere. ..."
"... Hollywood and the American media feed the public a constant and pervasive diet of movies, television shows and propaganda about America's might, values and glory. Books,literature, clothing, toys you name it highlight and accentuate this. Try spending a week watching CNN, Fox news MSNBC, BBC et al. ..."
"... The US walked away from negotiations in 2002, after six years of talks, because NK refused to give in on some unreasonable pre-conditions. ..."
Sep 24, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
... ... ...

Dealing with Kim is not the same as dealing with a fanatic like Osama bin Laden or an apparatchik like Khrushchev. He is impervious to realpolitik, and the lives of perhaps tens of millions of people are at stake – by privation, if not war.

Trump's threat of fire and fury is the worst response imaginable to a religious extremist who believes he alone can save humanity – and that the US and her allies are all that stand in the way of Korea fulfilling its own destiny.

Eisvogel , 24 Sep 2017 13:37

The Korean War ended with an armistice, or stand-off, but never a peace treaty, and the US is, in essence, still fighting the Korean War. That is the crux of the problem.

The solution lies in a peace treaty that demilitarizes the whole Korean peninsula and this treaty must include China, since China was the main adversary to the US during a war that never really ended after more than 60 years.

Babis_K , 24 Sep 2017 12:05
No one (Trump or Kim) is so insane that will dare to escalate this verbal war into a real war that can easily turn into a nuclear war.

If Kim fires first he knows that he, his regime and a great part of his people will be annihilated by the American fire and fury.

If the US strike first they can't endure the consequences of a nuclear counter- attack by N. Korea with millions of dead in the ally countries of S. Korea and Japan but even in the US territory from 60 nukes Kim processes today.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/north-korea-now-making-missile-ready-nuclear-weapons-us-analysts-say/2017/08/08/e14b882a-7b6b-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.b761ade32408

I see this verbal dispute as a repetition of cold war Cuba tension some 55 years ago but in a less diplomatic and more hoodlum language.

Diplomats from the US and N. Korea should sit at the same table and find a way to relax this tension.

Tom1982 , 24 Sep 2017 10:28
Interesting the author puts so much emphasis on Juche in his assessment of North Korean political deliberations.

B. R. Myers wrote an influential book on North Korea that made the case that Juche is a non-philosophy designed solely for the purpose of bamboozling foreigners, and that the motivations of the DPRK leadership are based around racial nationalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cleanest_Race

AshesToAshes -> Blenheim , 24 Sep 2017 10:28
It is realpolitik sharpened to a knife edge. The USA acts as nuclear hegemon, because it is in their own interests to do so. The USSR would like to have done so, and China would still if it could. We benefit from the status quo.

North Korea having nuclear weapons is odious to the USA as hegemon, so it will not be allowed to happen. Morality is irrelevant. The only question is who has the will and the power to enforce that will.

AshesToAshes -> TragicomedyBeholder , 24 Sep 2017 10:21
Unfortunately if he so desperately wants war, the price will be immeasurable.

Imagine h actually fires a handful of ICBMs at the continental USA. It really doesn't matter much at that point whether US missile defence takes them down before impact or not. Either way, the US would then counterstrike with a force not dissimilar to the hammer of God.

Trump might decide that the best way to stop Seoul getting pulverised by DPRK artillery is to carpet the area north of the DMZ with small tactical nuclear strikes, and then unleash dozens, perhaps hundreds of strategic warheads on Pyongyang and every single other target of any value. It would be over in a morning, but NK would be utterly incinerated.

jdanforth -> Andrei Lankov , 24 Sep 2017 09:37
Yeah, Vietnam, Cuba and China have done some privatizations, so what you say about North Korea sounds correct to me, but the core of heavy industry there and in all of these countries is still state-owned.

The only way for any of them to once again be ruled by a capitalist class would be a counterrevolutionary collapse like the one that happened in the USSR in 1991-92. Such an event would be unmistakeable, cataclysmic, and most likely catastrophic, for the inhabitants of the country in question, just as it was in the USSR. It cannot happen as some sort of gradual evolution in the policies of the governing bureaucracy, although the privatizations and corruption that you mention do make it a more likely outcome than before. A US invasion and military regime would be a way to restore capitalist rule to North Korea, though it could easily backfire, and anyway, I don't think the imperialists could conquer North Korea without first exterminating its entire population, which I guess is what Trump is threatening.

It's interesting that you say that the North Korean fishing industry started getting privatized right around the time of the Soviet collapse. That΄s also when China started charging university fees, and when Cuba entered its "Periodo Especial."

WallyWillage -> FobRoared , 24 Sep 2017 09:18
They could buy a dozen nuclear weapons and delivery systems before breakfast if they wanted one - and would happily use it on Iran not Israel (who have plenty too - including submarine based ones).

Saudis were the majority of the mujahadeen and AQ funders and leaders and the pilots of the 9/11 attackers.

They also have a major US base. Prob with nukes if not all the biggest and deadliest weapons.

Adam Yusaf -> Engelbach , 24 Sep 2017 08:53
A redkneck hillbilly,his thought process doesent stretch that far
rhytrn -> Phil Atkinson , 24 Sep 2017 08:47
And one would add the Americans and then the person put in place to run South Korea, Syngman Rhee, depended on Japanese collaborators, not a few of whom had already been involved in war crimes before the end of WWII.

I would also add that who started the Korean War is open to some debate. There is some evidence that the North invaded in response to an incursion started from the South. Both sides were attacking each other across the parallel before the 'War' started and there's documentation that the South was keen to invade the North. The Korean leadership on both sides saw the division as unacceptable and themselves as the legitimate government of the entire country.

rhytrn -> Phil Atkinson , 24 Sep 2017 08:33
Or Xi Jinping whose grandfather fought against the Japanese. The Chinese have in the past been very critical of Shinzo Abe's visiting a memorial to people they consider war criminals.
Steven J. Barber -> theAthensdog , 24 Sep 2017 08:26
I think you have hit on something I've been thinking about. I believe Trump is deliberately stirring the pot in an attempt to goad Kim Jong Un into doing things that actually rile the Chinese.

If you have noticed the Chinese have only recently began to get serious about reigning in North Korea by enforcing sanctions.

North Korea's increased provocations, a reaction to US and her allies have seriously angered China. Also the threats of economic retaliation on Chinese entities doing business with North Korea have caused the Chinese to weigh the cost of doing business with the Norks vs the cost of sanctions.

It seems recently the Chinese have been considering the DPRK as more of a detriment.

VirginMary , 24 Sep 2017 07:31
I do not believe that KJU could be convinced to change is behaviour. Is practically a God so what else can be given? Nothing can compare.

I believe there will be war in the Korean peninsular. If we are lucky it will be a sudden military intervention from China (and perhaps Russia) into North Korea to replace KJU and a few other people. The objective is to maintain the existence of North Korea as a country and largely a status quo and NOT a country under the influence of US.

If we are not lucky it will be a messy war US first will battle North Korea and win then US forces will get involved in a messy and prolonged confrontation on the ground with "local" NK troops: troop supported by Russian and Chinese volunteers (special forces). It will ultimately result again in a stalemate but a few millions of people will be dead

Dominguini -> Blenheim , 24 Sep 2017 07:04
"Since the end of WW", the US has only ever been about America first".

Absolutely. You would never catch the Russians, or the Chinese, or the French, putting THEIR country first, would you?

Ladegast -> Alex Ira , 24 Sep 2017 06:12
... and by the way, who said the world "needs to respond to the threats"? That's exactly the kind of one-dimensional thinking that led mankind into the First World War.

The more attention the Fat Kid gets, the more noise he makes. Just let him have his silly rockets and ignore him. What do we care about North Korea? They do not even have oil. Just forget about that country and let it rot away. This has worked for the last 64 years, and so far North Korea has not harmed one American soldier.

During the Cold War, the Soviet arsenal posed a far greater danger than North Korea does now. Nevertheless, no US president was so stupid to try and solve the crisis by pressing the USSR into giving up its missiles. Everybody knew we could just lean back and wait for the Soviet Empire to collapse by itself. And that's what happened.

But Trump doesn't know jacksh*t about history, and he certainly has no patience.

Conanbarbarian -> SchakarMevsky , 24 Sep 2017 06:08
"Its central doctrine, the supremacy of man, is based directly on the founding belief of the Cheondogyo sect: in nae Cheon – 'man is God'. Hmmm. Sounds like Marxism-Leninism to me. You don't get this kind of crap in anything ancient."---erm, Jesus the man is held by Christians to be God.
Conanbarbarian -> Hermann Steinpilz , 24 Sep 2017 06:06
The correct comparison is surely Japan up to the end of the 2nd World War and even up to today for some Japanese, and its cult of Emporer-God.
Ladegast -> Alex Ira , 24 Sep 2017 05:47
Avoiding nuclear war by provoking it makes little sense.

"History crap" is exactly what this idiot in the White House is "thinking". Everyone knows Trump doesn't read books and has no understanding of history. That's why he is incapable of solving international problems.

All he can do is insult people and bully them into obedience.

This might work with some provincial politician from Hillbilly Creek, Oklahoma. But it certainly does not get you anywhere when you are dealing with some Asian dictator and mass-murderer.

You have to know your enemies thoughts - this has been known since the days of Sun Tzu.

Ladegast -> studio1reggae , 24 Sep 2017 05:35
You certainly have a point. Anyone who thinks that we in the West are not susceptible to propaganda is the best proof that we are. However, flawed as it may be, I still prefer the Western Way of Life to anything else. There is a reason why the East German government had to build the Berlin Wall to keep its own citizens from running off to the West. There is a reason why there are no Americans applying for Russian or Chinese citizenship, but hundreds of Russians and Chinese standing in line in front of US embassies for a Green Card.

There is a reason why Syrian refugees turn their hopes to Europe and not to Saudi Arabia or Russia.

studio1reggae , 24 Sep 2017 04:07
Interesting article Mr Brabazon

You talk about the indoctrination of the Korean people and how it is perpetuated. You approach this from a more introspective level than many others.

How about the indoctrination of say people in the USA. Children are taught to sing the National anthem. This is sung at sports and other events in almost mandatory fashion. You see the Star Spangled banner in homes, public buildings almost everywhere.

Hollywood and the American media feed the public a constant and pervasive diet of movies, television shows and propaganda about America's might, values and glory. Books,literature, clothing, toys you name it highlight and accentuate this. Try spending a week watching CNN, Fox news MSNBC, BBC et al.

America presidents and the West loves to holler on about the "Free World". What is this bull-shit about the Free world. Oh yes it has to be run by them. The American and them has to lead and run it of course.

The pentagon/NATO loves to talk about defending the west values, ideology and human rights. So here in the West and America propaganda and indoctrination abounds. It has been this ways for hundreds of years now.

xoffox -> SchakarMevsky , 24 Sep 2017 03:03
The roman emperors were considered gods to be venerated by the people. The god-like status of the North Korean leaders does not look that different.
Andrei Lankov -> jdanforth , 24 Sep 2017 01:13
Funny. You could not choose worse examples. Fishing in North Korea is roughly 90% privately owned, and this has been the case since the early 1990s. Mines, if you mean coal mines, are indeed largely state-owned, but tonchu (rich private investors, operating with tacit or open permit of the party-state) control a noticeable part of the industry. The agriculture, which was remarkably good in generating famines when it was indeed done by the state, has been privatized after '6-28 instructions', in 2012-2014, and is now run more or less along the Chinese lines.
Will Will , 24 Sep 2017 01:05
Very interesting article, Mr Brabazon. But my suspicion is that you might be confusing the regime's religious-nationalist claim to legitimacy with the actual thinking processes of the regime's leader himself. Specifically, is Kim Jong-un really 'a religious extremist' in person - something that would suggest he is not entirely rational - and possibly even quite unhinged?

All signs suggest he is rather in fact an extremely rational, calculating, cold-hearted manipulator. He has a well-documented history of ramping up diplomatic/military hostilities and then pivoting at the last moment to extract advantage or concessions (sanctions relief, aid, import/export access, etc). So to say then that he's 'impervious to realpolitik' seems quite odd indeed. He appears to be very good at cynical real-political gamesmanship. He just doesn't appear to define NK's national interest as the pursuit of power for its own sake (as in the European realpolitik tradition), but for the sake of the survival of his dynastic regime. Similarly, the NK foreign minister reportedly said just recently that NK's nuclear ambition is 'to balance' the US. The idea of a balance of power stands at the heart of realpolitik thought.

Kim Jong-un appears driven less by non-rational religious conviction than by a very rational quest to achieve mutual deterrence with the US by developing nuclear ICBMs. Juche may help explain why he can't/won't/doesn't need to accept any bribe to abandon this quest, but more likely its main role is to maintain domestic political control in the face of widespread privation and fear.

Kevskos -> ThanksNeolibZombies , 24 Sep 2017 00:08
Yes we had an agreement with North Korea that President Carter had negotiated for Clinton that Bush II trashed and NK started building nukes. Felt for some reason they could not trust the US since we had invaded Iraq for trying to make nukes when they were not. Felt they needed nukes as the only way to protect themselves from US invasion.
spiral batholith -> sejong , 24 Sep 2017 00:04
While US politics, society, and global respect obviously decline at the hands of this idiotic potus...US military spending and force has increased exponentially since 2011. It does not bode well for anyone on the Korean peninsula that these two pinheads keep hurling childish insults that could eventually turn into catastrophic military decisions. Trump and Kim will go down in history as the morons that fought a war over battered little fucktard egos...and that cost a lot of innocent people their lives. We have to evolve...this is the same damn game cavemen played except instead of throwing rocks we're throwing globally fatal neutron bombs. Sad.
Phil Atkinson -> clshannon , 23 Sep 2017 23:47
Try this on for size:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/north-korea-missile-test-us-1994-agreed-framework-pyongyang-programme-kim-jong-un-donald-trump-a7876446.html

Phil Atkinson -> Ian Maitland , 23 Sep 2017 23:44
You must believe every single word printed in the media.

"...and his firing of missiles over our ally..."

The way this is portrayed in the media is akin to deadly missiles flying over Japan at head height, or at least inside Japanese air space. The facts, of course, are different.

Because of Japan's proximity to the Korean peninsular, test missiles have to be fired from sea level, straight into space (100kms above sea level) to avoid Japanese air space. The missiles' trajectories ensure Japanese air space is not encroached upon and while this practice is less than neighbourly, it's not illegal. The Japanese, given their historical animosity towards Korea, make such propaganda of these test firings as they can and the western media laps it up.

Phil Atkinson -> iRtRb7suiJLtkfuPvJFa , 23 Sep 2017 23:37
Michael Brabazon's a historian, not a statesman. We need statesmen, not politicians to fix this mess, ideally a group comprising representatives from both Koreas, China, Russia and the US. NOT Japan. Lock them all in a room and don't let them out until the Korean question is resolved.
Phil Atkinson -> Mark Williams , 23 Sep 2017 23:29
"The war ended 70 years ago for everyone else..."

No it didn't and many people ignore this when commenting on various North Korean responses. Let's be clear - a state of war still exists between North Korea and its allies and South Korea and its allies. All that was signed in 1953 was an armistice - a cease-fire. It was not a peace treaty.

North Korea correctly(?) feels that the US may breech the cease fire and is arming itself accordingly. While the US and South Korea keep playing war games near the DMZ, that view won't change.

Igloo -> id0102 , 23 Sep 2017 23:27
I know, I know, the guy dropping the bombs is always in the wrong.
Do you accept that the Korean war began because a large force came over the 38th parallel from the north and among other things, occupied Seoul? And that hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops joined in on the NK side? Not to mention Russian fighter pilots? There is always a context when bombs are dropping.
It's not just the North Koreans who have existential fears- the South Koreans do as well, and their worst nightmare would be living under a Kim regime.
monicamac -> Videogamesatemycat , 23 Sep 2017 23:19
I doubt it to be honest.
jdanforth -> BrianMonaghan , 23 Sep 2017 23:18
Capitalism is defined in any dictionary as private ownership of the means of production. North Korea has overthrown it. That is why the country got bombed in the 1950s, and that is why America's capitalist government has been threatening it ever since with more bombing.

Who owns the fishing industry, agriculture and the coal mines in North Korea? The state! These industries can't be bought by US "investors" because no individual owns them, so the only solution is to try to erase North Korea from the map again. This plan, if it is a plan, is raving madness, of course, but capitalism is not a rational system.

monicamac -> dack72 , 23 Sep 2017 23:13
Go USA, go the Trump man who knows nothing - he is just a fool and those who follow him have got blinkers on - thinking make America great again - WTF?? Mate this is not the wild west anymore nor the movies where you go in with your guns blazing and you always win - you need some sophistication and some brains to know how to handle these issues. Trump the man and Trump the President are duds!!

If Obama behaved as Trump has been doing - he would have been shouted down as the black man behaving badly.

Trump needs to be shouted down as the white man who is behaving extremely badly - get rid of him through empeachment and get someone who knows that they are doing!!!

awilson5280 , 23 Sep 2017 23:11
Thank you for this article, Mr. Brabazon. I now understand North Korea and the dynamic on the Korean peninsula better. Your point that Trump doesn't know what he's messing with is well-taken, but that is something that is true with regards to nearly any topic you could name.

The fact that North Korea has a national indoctrination program of an ideology that has no grounding in a modern reality - and that cares nothing for the international order that attempts to keep us all from killing each other - gives valuable perspective. However, it does not change the fact that North Korea is going to continue to act in ways that threaten other countries, and that (especially due to its ideology and its disconnection from any real allies) it miscalculate and find itself erased from the map, likely taking a lot of South Koreans with it.

This has the potential to be a really bad situation: the best result is reform from within, second best result is implosion of the regime. Everything else looks to involve significant loss of life.

Phil Atkinson -> Mark Williams , 23 Sep 2017 23:04
"...launched a surprise invasion of South Korea."

Surprise?

From 1948 until the invasion, north and south Koreans were facing-off across the DMZ and there were a significant number of violent incursions by both sides - mostly initiated by South Koreans, who were itching for a fight. (That's according to the US general in charge of South Korean forces at the time). The north's invasion was no surprise and the only reason it occurred in June 1950 was because the north had a division of troops fighting with the Chinese communists. Those troops didn't return to North Korea until early 1950

Phil Atkinson -> rhytrn , 23 Sep 2017 22:30
This is also a good read and covers the period 1910 on:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n10/bruce-cumings/a-murderous-history-of-korea

This goes into a little more detail in some aspects:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/north-korea/3352778

Phil Atkinson -> kasprowy , 23 Sep 2017 22:28
"But he thinks he is descended from gods? So which is it?"

Neither. The people are taught that Kim is a godlike figure. I doubt Kim believes that himself - he's western educated.

Phil Atkinson -> luckysue , 23 Sep 2017 22:24
" It may be too late, but have we tried this?"

No.

North Korea has put peace proposals to the UN/US which included offers to cease their nuclear ambitions, or at least put them on hold. Both the US and South Korea have rejected the offers out of hand.

Phil Atkinson -> rhytrn , 23 Sep 2017 22:21
It's hard to imagine Shinzo Abe and Kim Jong-un at the same conference table - the two grandchildren of two of the original protagonists during the Japanese occupation of Korea 1910-45. Some people have long memories.
Phil Atkinson -> rhytrn , 23 Sep 2017 22:16
The Korean situation is different, in that it was one national entity until 1945, when Japan ceded Korea to the US as part of the surrender terms. At the time, then (Soviet) Russians, who were nominally our allies, had moved into northern Korea as part of their push against the Japanese. This concerned the US, who wanted Korea to remain in their control, so John J. McCloy instructed Dean Rusk to divide Korea in two and Rusk drew a line through the 38th parallel. The Soviets administered the north and the US the south until 1948.

You can imagine how Kim Il-sung felt about this - he'd spent the previous 13 years actively fighting the Japanese invaders in order to reclaim his country and was one of the few surviving guerrilla leaders. The Japanese had murdered his wife and had ruthlessly suppressed any dissent. Now all of that was for nothing - all that happened was that other invaders had moved in and split the country. It was the direct cause of North Korea invading the south in 1950.

Phil Atkinson -> Sasha Rieger , 23 Sep 2017 21:53
"...this article merely makes the point that the current Kim cannot be reasoned with ..."

That's drawing a bit of a long bow. Kim may be many things, but stupid doesn't appear to be one of them. The same can't be said for Trump. North Korea recently submitted a plan to the UN/US with a proposal that the north puts a hold on its nuclear weapons development. In return, North Korea asked for (a) a formal treaty ending the Korean War, with non-aggression guarantees from both sides, (b) South Korea and the US to cease military exercises close to the DMZ and (c) a timetable for the reduction of US troops in South Korea. This plan was backed by both Russia and China. The US and South Korea refused the offer point-blank.

Now who is being unreasonable?

id0102 -> garpalgumnut , 23 Sep 2017 21:52
Kim played the anti-US card simply for a political grip on power, and keeps that grip very tight after the recent displays of nuclear weapons. He's probably even more popular now, in spite of the famine and poverty.
Phil Atkinson -> AndrewWatkins , 23 Sep 2017 21:46
An excellent point, very likely totally missed by the US administration (such as it is). It's impossible to fight an enemy unless you understand them.
Phil Atkinson -> Telvannah , 23 Sep 2017 21:43
The jury returned a unanimous verdict that Trump has the attention span of a loaf of wet bread.
Phil Atkinson -> PJL1234 , 23 Sep 2017 21:42
"...the article reinforces the need to take action before North Korea loses all sense of rational and morale judgement."

The only problem there is that we're 64 years too late - any resolution should have been in 1953, even if it had meant open war with China. Now, 3, 4 or 5 generations later, the North Koreans are not going to change their beliefs or mindset. We've missed the boat, unfortunately for all concerned.

BrianMonaghan , 23 Sep 2017 21:42
Excuse me but the CIA and ihe intelligence services of the world ate all well informed about Juche. Since when does the US regard the DPRK as Marxist in any sense? If an analogy is required, the DPRK, with its emperor worship and nonsense about the divinity of its people, is closer to 1930's Japan than it is to communism. It's a nationalistic monarchy, for goodness sake.
honeycomb42 -> Michael_GPF , 23 Sep 2017 21:10
The US led the attack. The US is the superpower. And Clinton had a personal hatred for Gadhafi. It was a US drone that tracked him and directed the terrorists to his location where he was raped with a bayonet and shot.
id0102 -> Igloo , 23 Sep 2017 21:10
3 million Koreans dead was not a repel, it was a massacre. Note that North Korea did not have an air force so so speak. Within a year the US and UK ran out of military targets, and bombed civilians mercilessly.
ThanksNeolibZombies -> stuart255 , 23 Sep 2017 21:09

"If you want peace, prepare for war" is about the most ancient wisdom there is and over thousands of years it has proven to be pretty sound advice.

I'm not sure how helpful this is in a nuclear age. We live perilously close to nuclear annihilation, there are obvious incentives for states to obtain nuclear weapons, and preparation for war does not seem to be the answer to this problem.

khoffman -> Engelbach , 23 Sep 2017 21:07
You don't understand what gualtiero is saying. It's very logical. As NK develops ICBM with nuclear warheads they neutralize the US nuclear option. In 10-20 years, NK could have enough nuclear armed ICBMs to overwhelm
ThanksNeolibZombies -> dack72 , 23 Sep 2017 20:49

In other words he is a nut and the people supressed so we just pussy foot around him and he has the world just where he wants them - living on edge- just like we do with the terrorism of the world now from our fanatics.

Are you describing Trump here or Kim Jong-un?

There doesn't seem to be a good alternative to diplomacy and negotiation here.
In any case, strategically it seems a good idea to understand where people are coming from.

Also you should ask how on gods earth did such a nut get to have this ability- perhaps another Obama disaster .

Didn't the North Korean nuclear tests begin under George W Bush?

Engelbach -> AlexFishy , 23 Sep 2017 20:14
There haven't been recent attempts at negotiation and diplomacy with North Korea by the United States.

The US walked away from negotiations in 2002, after six years of talks, because NK refused to give in on some unreasonable pre-conditions.

Kim is a dictator who uses fear and hatred of an outside enemy to solidify his hold on his people. He's not suicidal. Destruction of North Korea would be fatal to his goal of spreading his ideology to the world.

Knee jerk reactions to obvious evil are neither a revelation nor a basis for a practical solution to the tensions.

[Sep 24, 2017] Kabuki Politics by Israel Shamir

Sep 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

- The Unz Review

However, for an American President in the United Nations his speech was unbecoming and shockingly brutal. The people of the world listened to his United Nations General Assembly speech, and experienced a touch of nostalgia for the late Mr Adolf Hitler, a kind and mild man of subtle messages in comparison to the fiery US President.

The German Chancellor allegedly killed six million civilians, and this sublime sacrifice (do not ask me to what deity, this is just a translation of the Greek 'holocaust') is considered the worst crime in the bloody history of mankind. Mr Trump publicly and loudly promised to incinerate five or six times that amount. While the German never boasted of that crime, the American already boasts of his still undone crime. His desire to "totally destroy North Korea", to wipe out an entire nation of 25 million, and in addition to cause the death of millions of Koreans in the South of the peninsula as well, secures him a unique place among the villains.

Kim, the brazen King of the North, dismissed Trump as a 'barking dog' who, people say, never bites, and this is surely a comforting thought, but not as comforting as a muzzle for the beast. This barking dog is obviously dangerous and should be restrained, or put out of its misery. The hound has been hounded by his domestic enemies, and thus he became possessed by a demon, for just a few months ago Trump was a peace-loving creature who wanted to attend to the US infrastructure, who refused to bow to AIPAC and was friendly to Putin. It's Mrs Clinton who was the warmonger. But invocation magic worked on him.

... ... ...

Every statesman on the planet knows you can't cross the US. America is powerful, vindictive and vicious, and you must obey or else. They will destroy you and/or your country sooner or later for your disobedience. If they can't invade, they will bomb, if they can't bomb, they will starve first – and then bomb, and only afterwards, invade. One should be crazy to resist. But the little Korean resisted. He is definitely crazy. But we humans adore such crazy rebels against supreme authority, be it Che Guevara or Luke Skywalker. Or McMurphy.

Yes, by his suicidal courage, Kim reminds me of 'Mac', Randle McMurphy, the protagonist of Ken Kesey's novel and Milos Forman's movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Probably you remember his hopeless stand and a futile, doomed fight against the almighty Nurse Ratched. She rules supreme over the inmates. Against her will, there is no appeal. The inmates tremble before her. But she can't break Mac. She is forced to burn his brain, to kill him by other means, and this evil deed releases the inmates. Until then, they supported and obeyed the Nurse like the nations of the world obeyed the Judeo-American power. Incineration of Mac's brain puts paid to her dominion. In revulsion, the placid inmates leave the ward, chose freedom and leave her behind, broken. This is human nature. There is no way for the US to prevail in its fight against Kim the Bold. They can kill him and thirty million of other Koreans, but they can't prevail.

... ... ...

The Russians were dismayed with Trump's plans to reform the UN and eliminate or undermine their right of veto. They noticed an uncanny similarity of Trump's call for the UN reform 2017 with Adolf Hitler's call to reform the League of the Nations in 1937. They aren't likely to agree to any attempt to cancel their veto. They will not leave the UN, either. They tried to walk out once, and it did not work out well.

In January 1950, the Russians were dismayed by America's steadfast refusal to transfer the seat in the UN Security Council to the new Chinese Government of Chairman Mao. They insisted the seat should be occupied by Kuomintang-ruled Taiwan. The Russians boycotted the Security Council to their peril: the Security Council (sine Russians) voted to invoke military action by the United Nations for the first time in the organization's history. The Russians could have blocked the action in the Security Council, since they had absolute veto power, but no Russian delegate was present.

In just a short time, a multinational U.N. force under American leadership arrived in South Korea and the grueling three-year Korean War was underway. The Russians immediately returned to the Security Council but they never could reverse the decision, and until today the US troops in Korea use the UN banner.

The Russians remember that, and they will never repeat the mistake. Even if Trump takes his allies out, the Russians and the Chinese will remain and they will keep the Security Council running, if necessary, without the Americans.

The Americans want to have the UN without the Russians. Trump-proposed declaration of intent to revamp the UN has been endorsed by many small states, but the great ones declined to join. In a brazen act, countries that were hesitant or unwilling to sign the declaration – which include Russia, China, Brazil and South Africa – were not invited to the launch. An organization without them, will not be the United Nations, perhaps NATO 2.0.

The Russian feelings towards the US hardened a lot in the aftermath of the General Assembly. The Russians helped the Syrian government army cross Euphrates and seize the east bank, despite American demands to stay away on the other side of the great river. For the first time ever, they threatened the Americans present in Syria with using their supreme fire power if their troops will be jeopardized like they were a few days ago, when the Islamists led by American instructors made an attempt to snatch a group of Russian policemen.

Mike Johnson > , September 23, 2017 at 6:28 am GMT

Excellent article! One thing I remember about a few months ago was Trump showing up at the AIPAC conference kissing some serious ass, so you must be referring to before that when he threw little hints at being an independent player but even back then didn't he have Sheldon in his corner??

animalogic > , September 23, 2017 at 9:41 am GMT

" The people of the world listened to his United Nations General Assembly speech, and experienced a touch of nostalgia for the late Mr Adolf Hitler, a kind and mild man of subtle messages in comparison to the fiery US President".
The above gave me a genuine LOL moment though nothing else did.
It's no wonder Paul Craig Roberts is now referring to the US as the "fourth Reich". Makes one almost nostalgic for the days of GWB: he was merely stomping on weaker nations – not directly poking a sharp stick at a bear AND a dragon at the same time
The US gave birth to itself from revolution: nothing less will likely save it save all of us .

Parbes > , September 23, 2017 at 9:56 am GMT

The U.S. government and ruling elites are nothing but a collection of evil criminals that constitute the greatest threat to the planet. They should be punished accordingly, preferably by their own people – but that would require today's American population to be something other than a mixture of braindead ignorant sheeple, chauvinist jingoist patriotards, and narcissistic degenerate hedonists.

In other words – the vast majority of Americans deserve whatever happens and will happen to them.

[Sep 24, 2017] A German Election Analysis

Sep 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The result is bad for the top-candidates Merkel (CDU) and Schulz (SPD). The CDU lost 9 percentage points compared to the 2013 election, the SPD lost 5.

Voter migration analysis will show that the CDU loss was caused by Merkel's centrist policies and especially her gigantic immigration ("refugees") mistake. It caused the right-wing CDU voters to go over to the new right-wing party AFD.

Her party will punish Merkel for this catastrophic result. I doubt that she has two years or more years left in her position. Her party will shun her and move away from the center and back into its traditional moderate-right corner.

The voters lost by the formerly moderate-left, now also centrist SPD went over to the liberal-leftish FDP. The FDP is back in the game after having been kicked out of parliament is the 2013 elections.

The Greens and the Left Party results are mostly unchanged.

Over the last 20 years both of the traditionally big parties, CDU and SPD, had moved from their moderate-right, respectively moderate-left positions towards centrist neo-liberalism. In consequence The Left split off the SPD and now the AFD from the CDU.

The AFD is by no means a "Nazi" party though a few Nazis may try to hide under its mantle. The voters are mostly traditionalist, staunch conservatives and anti-globalization. They were earlier part of the CDU.

The SPD will not want to enter another government coalition with Merkel, It played Merkel's junior partner over the last eight years and that led to ever increasing voter losses. It nearly killed the party. The mistake of selecting the colorless Schulz as top-candidate will lead to some (necessary) blood loss in the party's leadership. SPD head Gabriel will, like Schulz, have to step back from leadership positions.

Merkel will have difficulties forming a coalition. She will avoid the AFD as her campaign had discriminated that party as "Nazi" (in itself a huge strategic mistake). She will try to build a coalition with the Green and the FDP. It will be enough to rule for a while but is a somewhat unstable configuration.

We will likely have new elections within the next two years.

Anon | Sep 24, 2017 1:53:15 PM | 1

Just like the American election with Clinton, western media doing everything to uncritically support Merkel and demonize, especially AFD, the oppostional parties. Propaganda all over.
dan of steele | Sep 24, 2017 2:10:19 PM | 2
having just been exposed to the AFD party and somewhat taken aback by their huge gains, I used the google to find out a bit about them. one of the first hits is from the Intercept where they talk about a very wealthy woman who just happens to be a Trump supporter as well funneling money and fake news to support this "scary" new party. B wrote about how right wing parties gained support because the traditional left has abandoned them. this is probably the case in Germany as well with the SPD being quite disappointing to many. The FDP seems to have gained a bit due to time passing and people not remembering how badly they got screwed by Westerwelle and his crew some years back.

anyway, for what it is worth, here is the link to the Intercept story

[Sep 24, 2017] Donald Trump is now embarked on a Pyongyang-style military-first policy in which resources, money, and power are heading for the Pentagon and the U.S. nuclear arsenal, while much of the rest of the government is downsized

See also http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nuclear-weapons-mini-nukes-targeted-strike-conflict-war-north-korea-russia-a7938486.html
Sep 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

Originally from Empire of Madness - The Unz Review

You think not? When it comes to America's endless wars and conflicts across the Greater Middle East and Africa, you can't imagine a more-of-the-same scenario eight years into the future? If, in 2009, eight years after the war on terror was launched, as President Obama was preparing to send a "surge" of more than 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan (while swearing to end the war in Iraq), I had written such a futuristic account of America's wars in 2017, you might have been no less unconvinced.

Who would have believed then that political Washington and the U.S. military's high command could possibly continue on the same brainless path (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say superhighway) for another eight years? Who would have believed then that, in the fall of 2017, they would be intensifying their air campaigns across the Greater Middle East, still fighting in Iraq (and Syria), supporting a disastrous Saudi war in Yemen, launching the first of yet another set of mini-surges in Afghanistan, and so on? And who would have believed then that, in return for prosecuting unsuccessful wars for 16 years while aiding and abetting in the spread of terror movements across a vast region, three of America's generals would be the most powerful figures in Washington aside from our bizarre president (whose election no one could have predicted eight years ago)? Or here's another mind-bender: Would you really have predicted that, in return for 16 years of unsuccessful war-making, the U.S. military (and the rest of the national security state) would be getting yet more money from the political elite in our nation's capital or would be thought better of than any other American institution by the public?

Now, I'm the first to admit that we humans are pathetic seers. Peering into the future with any kind of accuracy has never been part of our skill set. And so my version of 2025 could be way off base. Given our present world, it might prove to be far too optimistic about our wars.

After all ! just to mention one grim possibility of our moment ! for the first time since 1945, we're on a planet where nuclear weapons might be used by either side in the course of a local war, potentially leaving Asia aflame and possibly the world economy in ruins. And don't even bring up Iran, which I carefully and perhaps too cautiously didn't include in my list of the 15 countries the U.S. was bombing in 2025 (as opposed to the seven at present). And yet, in the same world where they are decrying North Korea's nuclear weapons, the Trump administration and its U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley , seem to be hard at work creating a situation in which the Iranians could once again be developing ones of their own. The president has reportedly been desperate to ditch the nuclear agreement Barack Obama and the leaders of five other major powers signed with Iran in 2015 (though he has yet to actually do so) and he's stocked his administration with a remarkable crew of Iranophobes, including CIA Director Mike Pompeo , Secretary of Defense James Mattis , and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster , all of whom have been itching over the years for some kind of confrontation with Iran. (And given the last decade and a half of American war fighting in the region, how do you think that conflict would be likely to turn out?)

Donald Trump's Washington, as John Feffer has recently pointed out , is now embarked on a Pyongyang-style "military-first" policy in which resources, money, and power are heading for the Pentagon and the U.S. nuclear arsenal , while much of the rest of the government is downsized. Obviously, if that's where your resources are going, then that's where your efforts and energies will go, too. So don't expect less war in the years to come, no matter how inept Washington has proven when it comes to making war work.

... ... ...

Imagine the government of that same country, distracted by its hopeless wars and the terrorist groups they continue to generate... and not lifting a finger to deal with the situation...

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com. His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

[Sep 23, 2017] North Korea: The poorest advanced economy in the World.

Sep 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Amanita Amanita | Sep 23, 2017 7:49:12 PM | 36

North Korea: The poorest advanced economy in the World.

http://www.38north.org/2017/09/jbaron090717/

nonsense factory | Sep 23, 2017 8:12:14 PM | 37
@Kalen 12,
I think b is correct when he says: The U.S. military is too afraid to use its $300 billion missile defense boondoggle because that would prove that it is one gigantic scam.

It's not just that advanced countermeasures can defeat the system, it's that even a single ballistic missile without any tricks would be hard to shoot down at best. See this for example, from a writer who generally promotes U.S. military technology, noting there's a very high probability they'd have missed if they tried to shoot down a North Korean test. . .
https://arstechnica.com. . . -us-have-shot-it-down/

Missing a shot at a missile just passing over Japan could have far-reaching political implications, as it would suggest that anti-ballistic missile systems are incapable of protecting people in South Korea, Japan, or Guam.

For more evidence that the system is completely over-hyped, see this:

The US has tested the interceptor system 19 times since 1999, succeeding about half the time. The most recent test, three years ago, marked another success, but three prior attempts fizzled. That kind of success rate is troubling, given the meticulously managed conditions. "These tests are scripted for success," says Philip Coyle, senior fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and former head of the Pentagon's test and evaluation office. "What's been surprising to me as that they have failed as often as they have in spite of that."
Those failures are all with single standard ballistic missiles, without any add-ons, lined up under optimal conditions and optimal trajectories, with advance warning - and they still fail a lot of the time. That sure looks like a massive scam/cash cow.
Kalen | Sep 23, 2017 8:33:00 PM | 38
@37
NK also would use decoys if they decide to retaliate, low efficiency of interception you pointed out will be even worse than half hits in controlled tests, may be one in ten or less in operational circumstances.

In other words Anti Missile Systems are useless against ICBMs except for narrow circumstances of none nuke ICBMs.

Grieved | Sep 23, 2017 8:54:04 PM | 39
@36 Amanita Amanita

Thanks for that link. Do you read that website? It was new to me: "38 North...a program of the US-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC." Seems at first glance like a useful clearinghouse for policy discussion, with views from all sides.

Very interesting view into North Korea, a developing country by all definitions, and yet an advanced one in terms of ability to produce capital goods, and all from sheer self-grown application. Interesting information on its agriculture and socialist system. The information seems credible.

The view points to the conclusion that extreme sanctions on NK - similar to the oil embargo on Japan that pushed it to attack the US first at Pearl Harbor - could push NK to attack the US, knowing that it couldn't "win", but doing so preemptively before it ran out of fuel to resist attack from the US.

I've seen other analysis that shows NK would have sufficient fuel regardless. And we have to factor China and Russia into this equation too. But the speaker was an economist not a geo-political analyst. It seemed like an even-handed discussion.

Perimetr | Sep 23, 2017 9:27:21 PM | 40
In other words, Finland and Sweden have both become de facto members of NATO, creating a new 833 mile long "northern front" for NATO on the Russian border.
Perimetr | Sep 23, 2017 9:30:48 PM | 41
Apparently my links to the Swedish and Finish MOUs signed with NATO were deleted. WTF? These links to the text of the agreements are hard to find. I would think that some of the readers might wish to read them?

These MOUs state:

· The HN [Host Nation, Sweden and Finland] will provide support within its fullest capacity, subject to availability and within the practical limitations of the circumstances that then exist, to the forces deployed on NATO-led military activities.
· NATO Military Activities: Military actions including exercises, training, operational experimentation and similar activities, or the carrying out of a strategic, tactical, service, training, or administrative military mission performed by forces; the process of carrying on combat, including attack, movement, supply and manoeuvres needed to gain the objectives of any battle or campaign.
· The provisions of this MOU apply in peace, emergencies, crisis and conflict or periods of international tension as may be jointly determined by the appropriate HN [Host Nation, Sweden and Finland] and NATO authorities.
· Host Nation Support (HNS). The civil and military assistance rendered in peace, emergencies, crisis and conflict by a Host Nation to allied forces and organisations, which are located on, operating in or transiting through the Host Nation's territory, territorial waters or airspace.
· NATO military activities supported by this MOU may require multinational support air operations by fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, and in the case of ports, by merchant and military support vessels. The HN [Sweden and Finland] acknowledges that movement of such aircraft, helicopters, ships and their crews in and through HN [Swedish and Finnish] territorial areas, will take place under a general clearance for the duration of the NATO military activity.

It is discouraging to spend time putting together a detailed post with links and then have it immediately vanish. Would you prefer unsubstantiated opinions?

RC | Sep 23, 2017 9:34:18 PM | 42
Ironic that Reagan's "star wars" missile defense scam, successful maybe in scaring the Soviet's into bankruptcy in the 80's, is now accepted as military fact by the monkeys on Capital Hill.
daffyDuct | Sep 23, 2017 9:41:28 PM | 43
Amanita #34 and #36

Stunning articles.

The reference to 1941 I believe is in another article

# Getting Tough on North Korea: Iran and Other Mirages

http://www.38north.org/2017/09/jdethomas090117

"In July 1941, in response to the Japanese invasion of Indochina, President Roosevelt took a series of steps that look very much like the sanctions advocated by those who want to get tough on the DPRK. He froze Japanese assets and required that Japan obtain specific export licenses to obtain any US goods!including oil upon which the Japanese economy and military was dependent. Subsequently, the US government denied Japan the right to use the US dollar to purchase goods, thus making it impossible to obtain oil even if licenses were granted. Those who made the decision to take this step were confident Japan would not go to war over the sanctions, since both US and Japanese leaders knew it would be a suicidal act for Japan to do so. The Japanese military chose to gamble on an attack on the US fleet and a simultaneous invasion of South East Asian oil fields. Four years of total war in the Pacific ensued. The Japanese decision was indeed suicidal, but it cost a great deal in American blood and treasure to confirm it."

[Sep 23, 2017] The Crazy Imbalance of Russia-gate by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet states." ..."
"... But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia? ..."
"... After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe. ..."
"... Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with Israel's new regional ally, Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Israel's influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby's conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was not there to "pander" and then pandered his pants off. ..."
"... And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Paris peace talks; take a serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan's campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter's efforts to free 52 American hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey's covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms. ..."
"... But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic means to a political end. ..."
"... As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match. ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

The core absurdity of the Russia-gate frenzy is its complete lack of proportionality. Indeed, the hysteria is reminiscent of Sen. Joe McCarthy warning that "one communist in the faculty of one university is one communist too many" or Donald Trump's highlighting a few "bad hombres" raping white American women.

It's not that there were no Americans who espoused communist views at universities and elsewhere or that there are no "bad hombre" rapists; it's that these rare exceptions were used to generate a dangerous overreaction in service of a propagandistic agenda. Historically, we have seen this technique used often when demagogues seize on an isolated event and exploit it emotionally to mislead populations to war.

Today, we have The New York Times and The Washington Post repeatedly publishing front-page articles about allegations that some Russians with "links" to the Kremlin bought $100,000 in Facebook ads to promote some issues deemed hurtful to Hillary Clinton's campaign although some of the ads ran after the election.

Initially, Facebook could find no evidence of even that small effort but was pressured in May by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia. The Washington Post reported that Warner, who is spearheading the Russia-gate investigation in the Senate Intelligence Committee, flew to Silicon Valley and urged Facebook executives to take another look at possible ad buys.

Facebook responded to this congressional pressure by scouring its billions of monthly users and announced that it had located 470 suspect accounts associated with ads totaling $100,000 – out of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue.

Here is how the Times described those findings: "Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign." (It sometimes appears that every Russian -- all 144 million of them -- is somehow "linked" to the Kremlin.)

Last week, congressional investigators urged Facebook to expand its review into "troll farms" supposedly based in Belarus, Macedonia and Estonia – although Estonia is by no means a Russian ally; it joined NATO in 2004.

"Warner and his Democratic counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, have been increasingly vocal in recent days about their frustrations with Facebook," the Post reported

Facebook Complies

So, on Thursday, Facebook succumbed to demands that it turn over to Congress copies of the ads, a move that has only justified more alarmist front-page stories about Russia! Russia! Russia!

In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet states."

So, it appears that not only are all Russians "linked" to the Kremlin, but all former Soviet states as well.

But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia?

After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe.

And, let's not forget the 8,000-pound gorilla in the room: Israel. Does anyone think that whatever Russia may or may not have done in trying to influence U.S. politics compares even in the slightest to what Israel does all the time?

Which government used its pressure and that of its American agents (i.e., the neocons) to push the United States into the disastrous war in Iraq? It wasn't Russia, which was among the countries urging the U.S. not to invade; it was Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Indeed, the plans for "regime change" in Iraq and Syria can be traced back to the work of key American neoconservatives employed by Netanyahu's political campaign in 1996. At that time, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other leading neocons unveiled a seminal document entitled " A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," which proposed casting aside negotiations with Arabs in favor of simply replacing the region's anti-Israeli governments.

However, to make that happen required drawing in the powerful U.S. military, so after the 9/11 attacks, the neocons inside President George W. Bush's administration set in motion a deception campaign to justify invading Iraq, a war which was to be followed by more "regime changes" in Syria and Iran.

A Wrench in the Plans

Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with Israel's new regional ally, Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

As Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren explained , the goal was to shatter the Shiite "strategic arc" running from Iran through Syria to Lebanon and Israel's Hezbollah enemies.

How smashing this Shiite "arc" was in the interests of the American people – or even within their consciousness – is never explained. But it was what Israel wanted and thus it was what the U.S. government enlisted to do, even to the point of letting sophisticated U.S. weaponry fall into the hands of Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate.

Israel's influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby's conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was not there to "pander" and then pandered his pants off.

And, whenever Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to show off his power, he is invited to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress at which Republicans and Democrats compete to see how many times and how quickly they can leap to their feet in standing ovations. (Netanyahu holds the record for the number of times a foreign leader has addressed joint sessions with three such appearances, tied with Winston Churchill.)

Yet, Israeli influence is so engrained in the U.S. political process that even the mention of the existence of an "Israel Lobby" brings accusations of anti-Semitism. "Israel Lobby" is a forbidden phrase in Washington.

However, pretty much whenever Israel targets a U.S. politician for defeat, that politician goes down, a muscle that Israel flexed in the early 1980s in taking out Rep. Paul Findley and Sen. Charles Percy , two moderate Republicans whose crime was to suggest talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

So, if the concern is the purity of the American democratic process and the need to protect it from outside manipulation, let's have at it. Why not a full-scale review of who is doing what and how? Does anyone think that Israel's influence over U.S. politics is limited to a few hundred Facebook accounts and $100,000 in ads?

A Historical Perspective

And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Paris peace talks; take a serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan's campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter's efforts to free 52 American hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey's covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms.

If such an effort were ever proposed, you would get a sense of how sensitive this topic is in Official Washington, where foreign money and its influence are rampant. There would be accusations of anti-Semitism in connection with Israel and charges of conspiracy theory even in well-documented cases of collaboration between U.S. politicians and foreign interests.

So, instead of a balanced and comprehensive assessment of this problem, the powers-that-be concentrate on the infinitesimal case of Russian "meddling" as the excuse for Hillary Clinton's shocking defeat. But the key reasons for Clinton's dismal campaign had virtually nothing to do with Russia, even if you believe all the evidence-lite accusations about Russian "meddling."

The Russians did not tell Clinton to vote for the disastrous Iraq War and play endless footsy with the neocons ; the Russians didn't advise her to set up a private server to handle her State Department emails and potentially expose classified information; the Russians didn't lure Clinton and the U.S. into the Libyan fiasco nor suggest her ghastly joke in response to Muammar Gaddafi's lynching ("We came, we saw, he died"); the Russians had nothing to do with her greedy decision to accept millions of dollars in Wall Street speaking fees and then try to keep the speech contents secret from the voters; the Russians didn't encourage her husband to become a serial philanderer and make a mockery of their marriage; nor did the Russians suggest to Anthony Weiner, the husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, that he send lewd photos to a teen-ager on a laptop also used by his wife, a development that led FBI Director James Comey to reopen the Clinton-email investigation just 11 days before the election; the Russians weren't responsible for Clinton's decision not to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan; the Russians didn't stop her from offering a coherent message about how she would help the struggling white working class; and on and on.

But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic means to a political end.

As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

This article was first published by Consortium News

[Sep 23, 2017] Would Putin Make a Better President Than Obama by Mike Whitney

Notable quotes:
"... Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. ..."
"... We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? ..."
"... Can you see why Washington gave up on Putin? The speech identifies the United States reckless behavior as the single greatest threat to global security today. Putin says that the unipolar world-model which operates from "one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making" is unacceptable, has no "moral foundation", and "plunges the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." The speech is a straightforward repudiation of Washington's lunatic ambition to rule the world, which is why Putin is presently on America's list of enemies. ..."
"... Putin's domestic vision also conflicts with US policy, which is dominated by neoliberal, trickle-down, austerity-crazed, deficit hawkery that transfers the nations wealth to the 1 percent plutocrats at the top of the economic foodchain. The Russian president has made great strides in reducing poverty, eliminating illiteracy, improving healthcare, and raising the standard of living for millions of working people. Here's an excerpt from a speech by Putin that outlines his domestic priorities: ..."
"... "Russia is a social welfare state .Social policy has many objectives and many dimensions. It entails providing support for the poor and those who are unable to earn a living for valid reasons. It means implementing social mobility and providing a level playing field for every person on the basis of his or her capabilities and talents. The effectiveness of social policy is measured by whether popular opinion believes the society we live in is a just one or not. ..."
"... The glaring income disparity is unacceptably high. Every eighth Russian citizen still lives below the official poverty line . ..."
"... People, primarily the "middle class," well-educated and well-paid individuals, are dissatisfied with the level of social services on the whole. The quality of education and healthcare is still quite low, despite higher budgetary allocations. Services that you have to pay for in these areas are still rife. The goal of creating a comfortable living environment is still a long way off ..."
"... The decline in the national workforce and an increasingly ageing population means the efficiency of social spending has to be increased. We simply have no choice, if we want to preserve and improve the situation . ..."
"... Every country looks upon its teachers, doctors, scientists and cultural workers as the backbone of the "creative class", as the people who contribute to the sustained development of society and serve as the pillar of public morality . ..."
"... I believe that healthcare and education reforms are only possible when they guarantee decent pay for public sector professionals. A doctor, teacher or professor should be able to earn enough on their basic jobs not to have to seek outside earnings. If we fail to fulfill this condition our efforts to change the organisation of the economic mechanisms and renew the material base of these sectors will come to nothing . ..."
"... Starting on September 1, we will raise the pay of lecturers in state educational establishments – up to the average salary for the region. In the course of 2013-2018, the average salary of professors and lecturers will be gradually increased twofold to double the average in the economy .In the case of doctors and researchers, the target for 2018 is the same as for higher school lecturers – 200% of the average pay across the region .. ..."
"... Together with the trade unions we have to consider legislation to broaden the participation of workers in the management of enterprises. This kind of participation is practiced, for example, in Germany in the form of what are known as works councils . ..."
"... In the next few years, we must create a system to help every disabled person who is able and willing to learn and work find their educational and professional niche in life: from specialised educational programmes to jobs adapted to an individual's specific requirements . ..."
"... While incomes are growing, the gap between the richest and the poorest population groups is decreasing too slowly. Income disparity in Russia is comparable to that in the Untied States but is considerably higher than in Western Europe. A certain degree of income differentiation is logical for a mature market economy, but too large a gap can be seen as inequality and can fuel social tensions. Hence our priority is to reduce material inequality by making social policy more targeted and effective, but above all by giving people an opportunity to earn enough to ensure a desirable level of income ..This will allow us to perceive Russia as a more equitable country where everyone earns his or her income with their own labour and talent . ..."
"... And the government will provide targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work . ..."
"... The government is taking measures to support families' desire to have two or more children . ..."
"... It is absolutely unacceptable for the birth of a child to bring a family to the edge of poverty. A national goal for the next three or four years is to make this totally impossible. Today the regional governments approve the size of most child benefits, and it should be said that they are scandalously small in many regions .However, such assistance should not be provided to families with high incomes (Read the whole speech here: http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18071/ ..."
"... Sure, it's a political speech, but when was the last time you heard Obama talk about "social mobility" or "support for the poor" or "glaring income disparity" or "healthcare and education reforms" (that didn't involve privatization) or "decent pay for public sector professionals" or strengthening unions or doubling the "salary of professors and lecturers" or increasing "child benefits and education" or "creating a system to help every disabled person" or "providing targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work" etc etc etc. On every issue, Putin's platform is more progressive than Obama's, and yet, idiot Americans still think President Hopium is working for them. Right. ..."
"... Putin's motto is: "Each rouble spent in the social sphere must 'produce justice.'" That alone proves that he'd make a better president than Obama. ..."
"... MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion . He can be reached at [email protected] ..."
Jul 20, 2012 | www.unz.com

"Every rouble spent in the social sphere should 'generate justice.' An equitable social and economic system is the main requirement for ensuring our sustained development during these years."

– Russian President Vladimir Putin

Is Vladimir Putin really the "KGB thug" the US media makes him out to be?

Take a look at this except from a book review in the New York Times and see what you think.

"A decade ago it was possible to imagine two inner Putins wrestling for his soul: the K.G.B. thug versus the modernizer. Sadly, events since then suggest that the inflexible misanthrope we see is the only Putin we get

Even the most casual Putin-watcher has marveled at his narcissism, manifested in his odd habit of inviting cameras to record him bare-chested on horseback, swimming the butterfly stroke in a Siberian river, scuba diving and collecting skin samples from whales, among other stunts. Gessen traces his self-absorption back to his youth.

Putin's childhood ambition was to be a spy in the K.G.B., but Gessen reveals that his actual experience was more Walter Mitty than James Bond. He was basically a paper-pusher, collecting press clippings in Dresden while the East German Stasi did the real dirty work of recruiting informers and policing dissent .Putin soon hitched himself to the first of a series of flawed, small-d democrats, who would propel him to power." ("Reclaiming the Kremlin", Bill Keller, New York Times)

Read enough?

Okay, so according to the Times, Putin is an ass-kissing, paper-pushing, self-adsorbed, autocratic thug who has dreams of greatness. Did we miss something? Oh yeah, he's also a misanthropic slacker who let's everyone else do the heavy lifting.

Is that what they call objective journalism at the NYT? Its worth noting that this laughable bit of propaganda was written by the Times editor himself, Bill Keller! Can you believe it? I mean, wouldn't you think that the editor of the nation's number 1 newspaper would make some effort to hide his bias?

But, no, when it comes to serving the folks in power, Keller is just as willing to run his credibility through the mud as the next guy. And, so he has, but what does that tell us about Putin?

It tells us that Putin is despised by powerful members of the US policy establishment. That's what it tells us. After all, it's their views that are reflected in the mainstream media via propagandists like Keller.

But, why? Putin is not a fiery leftist like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. He's a right-of-center nationalist who's not particularly ideological, confrontational, or unreasonable. so, what's the problem? Besides, Putin has bent over backwards to accommodate the US on everything from nuclear disarmament to the War on Terror. So why the hostility?

It's because Putin wants to be a partner on global issues, particularly security issues. But the US doesn't want partners; it wants lackeys and puppets who will follow orders. And that's why the NY Times and the others in the moron media are ganging up on him, because–in Washington's eyes–if your not a lackey, your the enemy. It's that simple.

If you want to know why Russian-US relations have steadily deteriorated, you might want to read this excerpt from an article by Pat Buchanan who asks "Doesn't Putin Have a Point?"

"Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch. Now, there is a scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.

Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, to bypass Russia.

Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.

Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states like North Korea, we now learn we are going to put anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they directed?

Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations, and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, and Russia herself.

U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia, but failed in Belarus. Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without justification, as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.

Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her territory to take over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest in the Orthodox states of the Balkans.

These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?"

There it is in a nutshell. The world's biggest troublemaker (guess who?) has broken its promises, surrounded Russia with military bases, put NGOs on the ground to incite revolution in all the former Soviet states (and Russia), and now wants to situate nuclear missile sites a few hundred miles from Moscow. This is how Washington strengthens ties with its former adversaries, by poking a thumb in their eye at every opportunity.

The Obama administration has assured Putin that its anti-ballistic missile defense system, which will be deployed in former Warsaw pact countries in E Europe, is strictly defensive and will only be aimed at Iran. But it isn't true. In fact, the system will be aimed at Russia and poses a direct threat to Russian national security. Everyone knows this, even though the media continues to soft-peddle the dangers of the proposed system. The Washington Post even characterized it as "a small missile defense system" which has set off "waves of paranoia about domestic and foreign opponents".

Sure, what's a few nuclear weapons among friends?

Naturally, Putin has seen through this ruse and protested. Here's what he at a press conference 6 years ago:

"Once the missile defense system is put in place it will work automatically with the entire nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability.

"For the first time in history there will be elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security ..Of course, we have to respond to that."

Putin is right. The "so-called" defense system is actually an expansion (and integration) of America's existing nuclear weapons system which will now function as one unit. The dangers of this are obvious.

The US (under Bush and Obama) wants to achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle, calls the "longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia". That's what missile defense is all about.

In Boyle's article "US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First Strike Threat" he states:

"By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."

By "compellence" Boyle means that first strike capability will allow the US to force Moscow to meet its demands or face certain annihilation.

So what should Putin do? Should he sit back on his haunches and wait for the US to come to its senses or threaten to remove the new installations by force? The issue remains unresolved.

As for the US NGOs, it's long been known that they're up to no good, and that they function as the civilian component of a larger military strategy to rule the world. There was an interesting piece by Paul Craig Roberts in CounterPunch on Thursday which fleshes out the activities of these groups and their real purpose. Here's an excerpt from the article:

"The Russian government has finally caught on that its political opposition is being financed by the US taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy and other CIA/State Department fronts in an attempt to subvert the Russian government and install an American puppet state in the geographically largest country on earth, the one country with a nuclear arsenal sufficient to deter Washington's aggression ..

Much of the Russian political opposition consists of foreign-paid agents .. The Itar-Tass News Agency reported on July 3 that there are about 1,000 organizations in Russia that are funded from abroad and engaged in political activity .

The Washington-funded Russian political opposition masquerades behind "human rights" and says it works to "open Russia." What the disloyal and treasonous Washington-funded Russian "political opposition" means by "open Russia" is to open Russia for brainwashing by Western propaganda, to open Russia to economic plunder by the West, and to open Russia to having its domestic and foreign policies determined by Washington."

That sums it up pretty well, doesn't it? Of course, any action taken by Putin to impede the the activities of foreign spies (and agents for global capital) is denounced in the media as an attack on civil liberties and democracy.

Talk about hypocrisy? Do we really need to hear the world's biggest civil rights abuser scold Russia for defending itself from foreign invasion? When was the last time Putin bombed a wedding party in Pakistan or blew up one of its own citizens in a drone attack or incarcerated and tortured mere "suspects" without charging them with a crime? Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?

Did you know that the Bush administration thought they could co-opt Putin and bring him into the imperial fold like America's other puppets around the world?

It's true. Bush actually liked Putin and tried to get him to fall in line. But then something happened at a Conference on Security Policy in Munich in February 2007, where all the top brass in the administration and the far-right think tanks realized that Putin couldn't be co-opted; that he was ferociously nationalistic and would not do their bidding. So the entire strategy was scrapped and the demonisation began. Here's a clip from the speech that Putin gave in Munich that turned things around. It's a rather long because I wanted you to get a sense of the man, his sincerity, his earnestness, and his genuine desire for fundamental change in US-Russian relations:

"Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.

This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community's and the world's agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.

The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place.

The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn't happened in world history?

However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today's – and precisely in today's – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.

Along with this, what is happening in today's world – and we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.

And what have the results been?

Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.

And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this ! no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

The force's dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security." (Russian President Vladimir Putin, Conference on Security Policy in Munich in February 2007)

Can you see why Washington gave up on Putin? The speech identifies the United States reckless behavior as the single greatest threat to global security today. Putin says that the unipolar world-model which operates from "one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making" is unacceptable, has no "moral foundation", and "plunges the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." The speech is a straightforward repudiation of Washington's lunatic ambition to rule the world, which is why Putin is presently on America's list of enemies.

Putin's domestic vision also conflicts with US policy, which is dominated by neoliberal, trickle-down, austerity-crazed, deficit hawkery that transfers the nations wealth to the 1 percent plutocrats at the top of the economic foodchain. The Russian president has made great strides in reducing poverty, eliminating illiteracy, improving healthcare, and raising the standard of living for millions of working people. Here's an excerpt from a speech by Putin that outlines his domestic priorities:

"Russia is a social welfare state .Social policy has many objectives and many dimensions. It entails providing support for the poor and those who are unable to earn a living for valid reasons. It means implementing social mobility and providing a level playing field for every person on the basis of his or her capabilities and talents. The effectiveness of social policy is measured by whether popular opinion believes the society we live in is a just one or not.

The glaring income disparity is unacceptably high. Every eighth Russian citizen still lives below the official poverty line .

People, primarily the "middle class," well-educated and well-paid individuals, are dissatisfied with the level of social services on the whole. The quality of education and healthcare is still quite low, despite higher budgetary allocations. Services that you have to pay for in these areas are still rife. The goal of creating a comfortable living environment is still a long way off

The decline in the national workforce and an increasingly ageing population means the efficiency of social spending has to be increased. We simply have no choice, if we want to preserve and improve the situation .

Every country looks upon its teachers, doctors, scientists and cultural workers as the backbone of the "creative class", as the people who contribute to the sustained development of society and serve as the pillar of public morality .

I believe that healthcare and education reforms are only possible when they guarantee decent pay for public sector professionals. A doctor, teacher or professor should be able to earn enough on their basic jobs not to have to seek outside earnings. If we fail to fulfill this condition our efforts to change the organisation of the economic mechanisms and renew the material base of these sectors will come to nothing .

Starting on September 1, we will raise the pay of lecturers in state educational establishments – up to the average salary for the region. In the course of 2013-2018, the average salary of professors and lecturers will be gradually increased twofold to double the average in the economy .In the case of doctors and researchers, the target for 2018 is the same as for higher school lecturers – 200% of the average pay across the region ..

Together with the trade unions we have to consider legislation to broaden the participation of workers in the management of enterprises. This kind of participation is practiced, for example, in Germany in the form of what are known as works councils .

In the next few years, we must create a system to help every disabled person who is able and willing to learn and work find their educational and professional niche in life: from specialised educational programmes to jobs adapted to an individual's specific requirements .

While incomes are growing, the gap between the richest and the poorest population groups is decreasing too slowly. Income disparity in Russia is comparable to that in the Untied States but is considerably higher than in Western Europe. A certain degree of income differentiation is logical for a mature market economy, but too large a gap can be seen as inequality and can fuel social tensions. Hence our priority is to reduce material inequality by making social policy more targeted and effective, but above all by giving people an opportunity to earn enough to ensure a desirable level of income ..This will allow us to perceive Russia as a more equitable country where everyone earns his or her income with their own labour and talent .

And the government will provide targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work .

The government is taking measures to support families' desire to have two or more children .

It is absolutely unacceptable for the birth of a child to bring a family to the edge of poverty. A national goal for the next three or four years is to make this totally impossible. Today the regional governments approve the size of most child benefits, and it should be said that they are scandalously small in many regions .However, such assistance should not be provided to families with high incomes (Read the whole speech here: http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18071/

Sure, it's a political speech, but when was the last time you heard Obama talk about "social mobility" or "support for the poor" or "glaring income disparity" or "healthcare and education reforms" (that didn't involve privatization) or "decent pay for public sector professionals" or strengthening unions or doubling the "salary of professors and lecturers" or increasing "child benefits and education" or "creating a system to help every disabled person" or "providing targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work" etc etc etc. On every issue, Putin's platform is more progressive than Obama's, and yet, idiot Americans still think President Hopium is working for them. Right.

Putin's motto is: "Each rouble spent in the social sphere must 'produce justice.'" That alone proves that he'd make a better president than Obama.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion . He can be reached at [email protected]

[Sep 23, 2017] The Iraqi regime was completely transparent to U.S. intelligence. They had an asset right at the top of the government, at the cabinet level, for example, somebody who would have known whether Iraq had WMD or not.

Notable quotes:
"... The Iraqi regime was completely transparent to U.S. intelligence. They had an asset right at the top of the government, at the cabinet level, for example, somebody who would have known whether Iraq had WMD or not. And they surely had informers throughout the Iraqi government, it was totally infiltrated. If U.S. Intelligence knew what was going on in Iraq, you can be pretty damned sure that Mossad knew whatever they did. ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Thanks for that link to the Telegraph story. It incidentally offers an explanation for Cheney's urging the CIA to come up with an Iraq connection as shown in the PBS doco "The Secret History of ISIS". After all if Mossad had been ahead of the CIA on the main plot they might well be right about Iraq. It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.

It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.

Oh, well, this is all just total bullshit. But hey, what can one expect from some pathetic old Aussie shit eater who thinks that the proof of the official story is that it's the official story?

The Iraqi regime was completely transparent to U.S. intelligence. They had an asset right at the top of the government, at the cabinet level, for example, somebody who would have known whether Iraq had WMD or not. And they surely had informers throughout the Iraqi government, it was totally infiltrated. If U.S. Intelligence knew what was going on in Iraq, you can be pretty damned sure that Mossad knew whatever they did.

The whole idea that Mossad or CIA sincerely believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, this is complete nonsense, of course. Everybody who knows anything knows that at this point. Of course, you don't know anything, which is why you don't know that.

This is another characteristic of a shit eater. They just manage, year after year, to remain ignorant of the most basic facts that are available.

[Sep 23, 2017] "The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.

Sep 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

KA > , September 13, 2016 at 12:28 am GMT

@Boris


Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Millions of people live in New York.

Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of witnesses and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that no one videotaped the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from...somewhere? It's just crashing a plane into a building. That is so easy compared to your ludicrous scenario. The reason that you find whatever 9/11 CGI video you've seen convincing is because you just don't understand much about the evidence you're watching. And you show this behavior with the other evidence too, focusing in on car rentals. I don't know why that's in his Wiki page, but no one says it's important or vital.

I mean, I fully intended to just keep mocking you because your persona is so grating, but...I'm just out of juice here. I mean, honestly, you're probably a nice guy. I don't know. I think you're confused on some things, but we're all confused about some things, and I understand you don't trust the government. I don't either--it just seems like there's this disconnect, that you let your distrust carry you away. I don't know, it just feels sad piling onto you at this point. And not in a sense that you're pathetic, but just in the sense that there's no common language here at all. We see logic and evidence in very different ways, at least when it comes to these topics.

And you are not alone, lots of people believe these things. From my point of view, that's terrifying not because of 9/11 but because if people give in to their own biases when evaluating the world, then that has massive implications. That's one of the reasons I seek out places like Unz: to always challenge my own thinking. That's why I'm sitting here, slowing down and thinking about things you've written.

If you said Bush and Cheney knew exactly what the hijackers were going to do, I might, at times, share that suspicion. But that's an unproveable conjecture with only a bit of evidence hinting at the possibility. I'm okay with never knowing. It sucks, but here we are.

Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best. Sure I could be lying, but I hope you'll consider that it's sincere. Unless you ARE an actual Nazi, in which case I meant every word. :) Israeli did warn about potential attack by terrorist on US soil. But Israel packaged the entire information mixing with Saddam Hussen and likely terrorism from Iraqi administration. against US .That made sure that the entire information would be treated as disinformation ,because no one in intelligence ever believed

that Saddam would attack US on its soil or anywhere .

"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.

"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.

""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.html

Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?

[Sep 23, 2017] The Nuclear War That Almost Was and the Man Who Prevented It

www.moonofalabama.org
Yesterday, Trump spoke in front of the United Nations and declared that, if necessary, the United States would do "what it needed to do" to protect itself against North Korean threats.

Standing on the floor of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump stated:

"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself."

This isn't the first time Trump has threatened North Korea with the prospect of nuclear war. Just last month, he promised to "unleash fire and fury" against the country, which had just launched its own ballistic missile over neighboring Japan. Since then, tensions have been mounting.

But as the two countries move closer to the brink of nuclear war, the world is about to celebrate the 34th anniversary of the nuclear war that almost was.

Apocalypse Almost

Stanislav Petrov was working the overnight shift on September 26, 1983 when he inadvertently saved the world from nuclear war.

The heightened tension between the two global superpowers made the decision forced on Petrov even more grave.

As a lieutenant colonel in the Soviet Union's Air Defense Forces, Petrov was tasked with monitoring the country's satellites, looking for possible nuclear weapons launched by the United States. There was nothing particularly unusual about this shift until the alarms began to sound at dawn.

The alarm had indicated a warning that America had launched five nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. And it was Petrov's job to sound the alarm that would initiate a retaliation before it was too late.

"The siren howled, but I just sat there for a few seconds, staring at the big, back-lit, red screen with the word 'launch' on it," Petrov remembered.

Earlier that same month, the Cold War had further escalated after the USSR had shot down a Korean commercial airliner that had flown into its airspace. The incident resulted in the deaths of 269 people including a United States Congressman from Georgia, Larry McDonald.

The heightened tensions between the two global superpowers made the decision forced on Petrov even more grave.

Petrov recalled:

"There was no rule about how long we were allowed to think before we reported a strike. But we knew that every second of procrastination took away valuable time, that the Soviet Union's military and political leadership needed to be informed without delay. All I had to do was to reach for the phone; to raise the direct line to our top commanders ! but I couldn't move. I felt like I was sitting on a hot frying pan."

Countless Lives Saved

Petrov hesitated because he had a gut instinct that something was off. This technology was still fairly new, and he was sure it had some kinks to be worked out. In his training, he was taught that any strike from the U.S. would most likely come as a full-fledged attack. Yet, the satellite system was only showing a handful of missiles. This hardly constituted all-out warfare. What if the satellite was incorrect? Was he willing to call in his superiors and start a nuclear war over a system error?

On the other hand, if the monitors were correct, Petrov only had 20 minutes to act before the missiles struck. After a torturous internal debate, Petrov decided not to act in haste. He quickly checked to see if the satellite had malfunctioned, causing it to report a false launch.

He soon discovered that there had in fact been an error and no missiles had been launched at all.

If Petrov had simply sounded the alarm for his superiors, as he was trained and ordered to do, there is a good chance counterstrikes would have been launched on behalf of the USSR and the world may not be as it is today.

Commenting on this historic event that almost was, arms control expert Jeffrey Lewis told NPR:

"[Petrov] just had this feeling in his gut that it wasn't right. It was five missiles. It didn't seem like enough. So even though by all of the protocols he had been trained to follow, he should absolutely have reported that up the chain of command and, you know, we should be talking about the great nuclear war of 1983 if any of us survived."

The New Cold War

Petrov passed away in May of this year, avoiding having to witness America's current flirtation with nuclear war.

The escalation between the United States and North Korea builds by the day.

Aside from the Cuban Missile Crisis, the September 26th incident was the closest the United States had ever been to a nuclear war ! until now.

The escalation between the United States and North Korea builds by the day. As each president continues to taunt the other, either by showing off military might or dishing out childish insults, the world gets closer to the possibility of nuclear war: one that could also involve the nuclear arsenals of China, even Russia. Unlike Petrov, neither world leader has taken a moment to fully think this through. A nuclear war is in absolutely no one's interest.

The US government has been ratcheting up tensions with nuclear Russia over Ukraine and the Middle East and with nuclear China over North Korea and disputed islands in the South China Sea. As relations between nuclear powers deteriorate, incidents like what happened on September 26, 1983 become more likely. We're all alive today because a man like Stanislav Petrov was the one on duty that day. Will we be so fortunate the next time? What if a more obedient and "by the book" officer is at the helm the next time a system malfunctions or a message is miscommunicated when nuclear stakes are on the line? As a BBC article reported:

He says he was the only officer in his team who had received a civilian education. "My colleagues were all professional soldiers, they were taught to give and obey orders," he told us.

So, he believes, if somebody else had been on shift, the alarm would have been raised.

Petrov was ominously right when he said, "...they were lucky it was me on shift that night." Brittany Hunter

Brittany Hunter
Sep 23, 2017 | fee.org

Brittany Hunter is an associate editor at FEE. Brittany studied political science at Utah Valley University with a minor in Constitutional studies.

[Sep 23, 2017] MoA - NATO's Fakenews Russia Scare Increases Defense Waste

Sep 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

There was no public outrage over this increase. Meanwhile Russia cut its 2018 defense budget by 25.5% down to a total of some $48 billion.

There is obviously little fear in Russia that the U.S. budget increase will effect U.S. military capabilities. The Russians are right. Most of the Pentagon budget goes to waste. The military as well as the politicians know this well.

Anonymous | Sep 23, 2017 1:17:44 PM | 3

Not to mention that Nato itself is now featuring in a 3-week long gigantic military exercise in Sweden against Russia, right now on Russia's doorstep, apparently that is just fine according to the same lying journalists that fearmongered and 24/7-lied about Zapad.

'Aurora', the Largest Military Exercise in "neutral" Sweden in 20 years, Aligns Sweden Even Closer with NATO
https://www.globalresearch.ca/directed-against-russia-aurora-the-largest-military-exercise-in-sweden-in-20-years-aligns-sweden-even-closer-with-nato/5601267


PavewayIV | Sep 23, 2017 1:31:45 PM | 4
Russia is clearly undermining the security of the United States, and by extension Israel, by intentionally not wasting as much money on their defense as we do. This is outrageous! The UN should demand that Russia - at the very least - buy our F-35 to stabilize the balance of terror... er, power.

'Efficient defense spending' by Russia is tantamount to a declaration of war on the US. We know what you're up to Putin, and you're NOT going to get away with it!

WG | Sep 23, 2017 1:50:22 PM | 5
I'm shocked that Russia has apparently cut their 2018 defence budget by a quarter. They have so many long lead time items they need to replace (such as subs and surface ships), not to mention their restarting of Tu-160 production and upgrading of current bombers. Their '5th gen' Sukoi is nearing production, and they've just completed design of Armata armoured vehicle family. They are also getting ready to replace the SS-18 'satan' land based nuclear missiles which are nearing end of life.
They have sufficient foreign currency reserves, I find this baffling. All of the things mentioned above require years if not a decade or more to build up institutional expertise in the production facilities that are supposed to build these large and complex machines.
Pnyx | Sep 23, 2017 1:57:48 PM | 6
The BBC has just reported that the u. s. Air Force has staged another show at the North Korean border. It's called demonstrating military strength. Dumb as hell.
Harry | Sep 23, 2017 2:04:01 PM | 7
@ WG

The numbers are different, according to Jane's article published few days ago:

2018: -5%
2019: +3.7%
2020: -0.5%

The Russian defence budget is expected to be cut by approximately 5.0% to RUB2.73 trillion (USD47.13 billion) in 2018, according to budgetary guidance published by the Ministry of Finance. The reduction in spending is in line with plans laid out under the previous 2017–19 budget.

According to the document outlining the main directions of budgetary policy for 2018–20, spending on National Defence is expected to receive a 3.7% increase in 2019 to reach RUB2.83 trillion before a further marginal 0.5% cut in 2020 to RUB2.82 trillion. The new plans are in line with previous projections for 2018. However, the defence allocation for 2019 is around 0.5% higher than previously expected.

https://goo.gl/RgHP6G

Kalen | Sep 23, 2017 2:47:17 PM | 12
While b conclusions are right, ABMMS DOES NOT WORK is not because bullet argument but cheap countermeasures, like multiple warheads per single missile, up to 20, up to 9 nukes and 11 decoys capable of simulating small nukes explosions via radioactive gas explosions, realeasing suppose products of fusion or fission.

Moreover, ballistic missiles have guided non ballistic heads, highly unpredictable trajectory, almost impossible to shoot down at hypersonic speeds.

Moreover all scenarios assume satellite war that would impair any practical tracking.

The only possible but not guaranteed way to shoot down ICBM is to be located very near the launch site, but even that approach fails for nuke subs.

But most of all , the true reason of futility of the ICBM defense are cheap electronic countermeasures, creating fake signatures of thousands of launches from variety of locations, impossible to track and recognize fake from real within just few minutes window to act.

When hell breaks loose real hell will brake loose and rulers will have minutes to hide in their bunker tunnels while we incinerate.


Virgile | Sep 23, 2017 2:50:51 PM | 13
The American Enterprise and Institute of war views on the "Syrian theater" sept 2017

Intelligence Estimate and Forecast: The Syrian Theater

jayc | Sep 23, 2017 2:51:06 PM | 14
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Grieved | Sep 23, 2017 4:28:00 PM | 18
@ b

If the NYT could only hear its own logic, in your quoted article - "If the American antimissile systems missed...it would undercut confidence in an infrastructure the United States has spent $300 billion..."

In other words, We don't dare test it because it may not work. And it's a system intended exactly for the purpose of working, and for no other purpose.

The smart engineering managers push aggressively for a new design to fail as early in its development as possible. As Google (yes, I know, but their IT has always been groundbreaking) always said, better to spend $20 million and scrap an idea entirely than to invest a billion in something that's going to give problems.

I have a suspicion the Russians operate the same way - although their particular thing seems to be to build well to begin with, and constantly add improvements over time. They seem to love to tinker. And the Saker said once that the Russians love their weapons. They love to build as many different types of weapon as they can think of.

~~

I read somewhere an analysis of the Russian budget cut that explained how this was not going to result in lowered performance anywhere in the RF military. It may have been Mercouris at the Duran, who is good with this kind of demystifying.

The difference lay, as I recall, in the fact that the military budget had already been under a bit of supercharging for the last few years, and was now easing back to normal. In other words, a budget reduction speaks of past success rather than future failure.

I think we're accustomed to thinking that a budget cut is punishment or will reduce services. In RF it's just an annual allocation of money according to plan. And the MIC is run by soldiers - all materiel and weaponry is designed to meet the specifications of soldiers. In the US the designers lead the process and the soldiers have to take what results.

Anyone who wonders can rest assured that Russia is not going to let its military capabilities plummet.

Piotr Berman | Sep 23, 2017 4:29:22 PM | 19
"The only possible but not guaranteed way to shoot down ICBM is to be located very near the launch site, but even that approach fails for nuke subs."

Another problem is that the Eurasia is big. From Wiki: the Eurasian Pole of Inaccessibility (or "EPIA") 46°17′N 86°40′E, in China's Xinjiang region near the Kazakhstan border. Calculations have commonly suggested that this point, located in the Dzoosotoyn Elisen Desert, is 2,645 km (1,644 miles) from the nearest coastline. Russia had a lot of places that are more than 2000 km from the sea, and the nearby sea is the Arctic Ocean, so the interceptors would need to be stationed under ice and close to Russian observators. So it is like intercepting Atlantic submarine launched missiles from Wyoming.

fast freddy | Sep 23, 2017 5:55:27 PM | 25
American weapons manufacturing:

Begin with a huge pile of money and a bunch of crooked congressmen. Commence bidding process. Disburse funds according to the most crooked congressmen and distribute parts production to a number of states. Prioritize "right to work" states. Institute local and federal tax incentives. Line insurance companies' pockets. Maybe parts fit together to produce a cohesive unit. If not, make new parts with significant cost overruns and delays. Be sure to attain cost overruns and ensure that money falls into the right pockets. Common workers must benefit the least. Rinse and repeat as needed.

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 23, 2017 6:06:23 PM | 26
It's, maybe, because 1st Guards Tank Army is there. :O

The elite unit (Kursk, Moscow, Berlin, Stalingrad) that is going to receive T-14 tank and new APC.

But not all west's outlets are sharing a view of what is of Anglo-Saxon's origin and view that is "...zoological hatred against other peoples" (G. Dimitrov).

One non-Anglos, a puppet through and through, who has fully participated in this propaganda is the Secretary of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg. The second one is the UK Secretary of Defence.

Of course on the top is the US political/military establishment and Obama's General NATO ex-commander (retired) General Philip Breedlove. So this is not the Trump's affair. It is continuation and taken from previous administration. For him Spiegel says: He is the super hawk. He is so extreme that even German gov. was alarmed.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-concerned-about-aggressive-nato-stance-on-ukraine-a-1022193.html

"The pattern has become a familiar one. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.

The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda." Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove's comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg."

karlof1 | Sep 23, 2017 6:11:56 PM | 27
Certainly OT for this thread; however, elsewhere I announced that Syria would not have its representative speak at the UNGA as stated by the UNGA's schedule of speakers. Fortunately, I was incorrect and H.E. Walid Al-Moualem, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates addressed the UNGA, although I don't know how full the hall was during his speech. It's a very pointed and critical speech as one would imagine, although the Minister's diplomatic enough to not directly name particular nations aside from the Zionist Abomination. The transcript's available in pdf here, https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/72/sy_en.pdf
Charles R | Sep 23, 2017 6:15:36 PM | 28
Maybe it's just one of those far-out ideas, but perhaps the waste is not simply waste, but certain aspects of the black world's investigation of (radically) alternative weapons systems or entirely non-standard ways of waging war, from large scale geoengineering to multidimensional or non-linear warfare. It's a crazy universe, and we're not all invited to The Show.

Or, suppose it's all just conventional padding and profits, where does the money go once it goes to the MIC? How do they distribute the money? I think a lot of the comments deploring USA's commitment to MIC profits stop at the money ending up in corporations, but once there, where does the money go?

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 23, 2017 6:22:20 PM | 29
He, he, he

Gleiwitz incident, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, are not working.

"There are plenty of examples. Just over three weeks ago, during the cease-fire talks in Minsk, the Ukrainian military warned that the Russians -- even as the diplomatic marathon was ongoing -- had moved 50 tanks and dozens of rockets across the border into Luhansk. Just one day earlier, US Lieutenant General Ben Hodges had announced "direct Russian military intervention."

Senior officials in Berlin immediately asked the BND for an assessment, but the intelligence agency's satellite images showed just a few armored vehicles. Even those American intelligence officials who supply the BND with daily situation reports were much more reserved about the incident than Hodges was in his public statements. One intelligence agent says it "remains a riddle until today" how the general reached his conclusions."

nobody | Sep 23, 2017 6:29:58 PM | 30
"Due to his lacking of common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the supreme dignity of my country by comparing it to a rocket. By doing so, however, he made an irreversible mistake of making our rockets visit the entire US mainland inevitable all the more.

None other than Trump himself is on a suicidal mission. In case that innocent lives in US are harmed because of this suicide attack, Trump will be responsible.

The respected supreme leader of DPRK [said Trump] will pay dearly for his speech calling for total destruction of DPRK."

North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho addressing the UN General Assembly:

https://youtu.be/ybkRBp6TnnI

[Sep 23, 2017] A conspiracy theory is a theory based on facts but without MSM backing. Theres no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.

Notable quotes:
"... So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight. ..."
"... People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority". ..."
www.unz.com
LondonBob > , September 6, 2016 at 5:39 pm GMT

@Paul Jolliffe Mr. Unz,

Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news management.

Abraham > , September 6, 2016 at 6:28 pm GMT

@Lot Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.

Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.

The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra. Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.

A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.

Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control.

Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed would have damaging repercussions for them.

For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.

It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites. After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out to dry.

The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.

How is this a problem?

WorkingClass > , September 6, 2016 at 9:12 pm GMT

The CIA is the presidents private secret army. Nothing it does is legal.

Ron Unz > , September 6, 2016 at 9:53 pm GMT

For those without convenient access to a copy of the deHaven-Smith book, I've discovered there are some lengthy extracts available on the web:

https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/04/are-you-a-mind-controlled-cia-stooge/

Boris > , September 6, 2016 at 10:48 pm GMT

@biz

He is really very good.

He has a book https://www.amazon.com/Guilt-Association-Deception-Self-Deceit-America/product-reviews/098213150X/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent

anti_republocrat > , September 7, 2016 at 1:48 am GMT

@Chief Seattle So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.

Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its proponents to take off their tin foil hats. Note also that the allegations immediately become "fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee ," without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, " we are not quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7

Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines. You can't make this s ** t up.

Nathan Hale > , September 7, 2016 at 4:12 am GMT

@Jason Liu

...In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst to the employees or shareholders.

NoseytheDuke > , September 7, 2016 at 4:32 am GMT

@Alfred1860 I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about what are obviously very sacred cows.

People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".

Gerald Massey

Ed Rankin > , Website September 7, 2016 at 8:42 pm GMT

In Dispatch 1035-960 mailed to station chiefs on April 1, 1967, the CIA laid out a series of "talking points" in its memo addressing the "conspiracy theorists" who were questioning the Warren Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They include the following:

I have found numerous examples of these exact points being made in televised news segments, newspapers, magazines and even some academic articles and scholarly books.

Additionally, some of the most influential and frequently-cited authors who are the most critical of "conspiracy theorists", both academic and lay people, have very direct ties to government, foundations and other institutions of authority.

While we can't know if the CIA was primarily responsible for the creation of the pejorative, but what we do know from the Church Committee hearings, was that the Agency did have paid operatives working inside major media organizations as late as the 1970s. In fact, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper has acknowledged ties to the CIA

With recent lifting of restrictions on the government's use of domestic propaganda with the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, I think reasonable people would expect this type of pejorative construction to resume if in fact, it ever ceased.

Bill Jones > , September 7, 2016 at 9:47 pm GMT

A nice little piece on one of the players in the big conspiracy: https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-philip-zelikow/

Marie > , September 8, 2016 at 4:01 am GMT

Literally every article I've ever read about conservatives and/or the conservative movement within the pages of the New Yorker – and I've read going back decades, unfortunately – has judiciously referenced 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'.

I mean, EVERY SINGLE article regarding Republicans, conservatives and/or opposition to leftism has the Hofstadter quote somewhere – it must be a staple on the J-School syllabi.

It seems Prof. Hofstadter was something of an adherent to the Frankfurt School nonsense – Marxism-meets-dime-store-Freud being every New Yorker writer's stock in trade, of course

Hippopotamusdrome > , September 9, 2016 at 8:21 am GMT

@biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.

The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.

... ... ...

[Sep 22, 2017] The Sci-Fi Roots of the Far Right!From 'Lucifer's Hammer' to Newt's Moon Base to Donald's Wall by David Auerbach

Notable quotes:
"... Lucifer's Hammer ..."
"... In partnership with Niven, Pournelle's science-fiction married aggressive military might with Atlas Shrugged-style techno-futurist fantasies and nativist paranoia, offering what in retrospect looks like an uncannily prescient portrait of the Trump era and its cultural overtones. ..."
"... Lucifer's Hammer, ..."
"... "They'll all be here, all that can get here," Christopher shouted. "Los Angeles, and the San Joaquin, and what's left of San Francisco How long can we keep it up, lettin' those people come here?" ..."
"... "Be n**gers too," someone shouted from the floor. He looked self-consciously at two black faces at the end of the room. "Okay, sorry!no. I'm not sorry. Lucius, you own land. You work it. But city n**gers, whining about equality!you don't want 'em either!" ..."
"... The black man said nothing. He seemed to shrink away from the group, and he sat very quietly with his son. ..."
"... "Lucius Carter's all right," George Christopher said. "But Frank's right about the others. City people. Tourists. Hippies. Be here in droves pretty soon. We have to stop them." ..."
"... Lucifer's Hammer ..."
"... Lucifer's Hammer ..."
"... Before he was great he had been George Washington Carver Davis. His mother had been proud of that name. She'd said the family was named for Jefferson Davis. That honky had been a tough dude, but it was a loser's name, no power in it ... Alim Nassor meant wise conqueror in both Arabic and Swahili. Not many knew what it meant, and so what? The name had power And he could still walk into City Hall and get in to see people. He'd been able to do that ever since he broke up a riot with his switchblade and the razor blades in his shoes and the chain he carried around his waist. There was all that Federal money around for a tough dude. The honkies shoveled out money. Anything for quiet in the black ghetto. It had been a damn good game, and too bad it was over. ..."
"... Lucifer's Hammer ..."
"... Oath of Fealty ..."
"... Oath of Fealty ..."
"... Another obsession of Pournelle, who worked for years in the aerospace industry, was military conflict and how that might play out on, and beyond, our Earth. In the 80's, he served as chair of the Citizen Advisory Council on National Space Policy. Alongside astronauts and physicists, the council included sci-fi luminaries such as Niven, Robert Heinlein, Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, and publisher Jim Baen. ..."
"... Pournelle's council provided the blueprint for SDI! as the author explained , Reagan's 1983 speech inaugurating the "Star Wars" project came from work the council had done beginning in 1980. And in 1984, Baen published Pournelle's Mutual Assured Survival ..."
"... Window of Opportunity: A Blueprint for the Future ..."
"... Window of Opportunity ..."
"... There Will Be War ..."
"... Oath of Fealty ..."
"... Because I don't share the black experience? That's what my roommate at Howard would have said. ..."
"... Or because we're all doing something we believe in? We're running a civilization, something new in this world, and don't bother to tell me how small it is. It's a civilization. The first one in a long time where people can feel safe. ..."
"... There Will Be War ..."
"... Lucifer's Hammer ..."
"... Oath of Fealty ..."
Sep 22, 2017 | www.thedailybeast.com

Star Wars & God Emperors The Sci-Fi Roots of the Far Right!From 'Lucifer's Hammer' to Newt's Moon Base to Donald's Wall Pournelle, Gingrich and Trump see a future that must be secured by authoritarian institutions that group together humanity's best and prevent the rest from stifling them. 09.17.17 1:00 AM ET There is a tendency to see President Donald Trump as a radical break from the past.

But conservative techno-futurist Newt Gingrich sees Trump as ushering in a revolution ! with a subsequent utopian space-age.Gingrich has envisioned such a breakthrough, and hopes Trump will be an agent of it, for decades. Gingrich's vision is one stop on a straight line that goes through his friend and legendary science-fiction novelist Jerry Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer to Ronald Reagan's Star Wars to Bill Clinton's impeachment to Trump.

Pournelle ! who died earlier this month ! first rose to prominence as part of an influential group of right-wing science-fiction writers in the 1970s and 1980s that also included Larry Niven, David Drake, Janet Morris, and S. M. Stirling. All envisioned the best of a militarized humanity breaking away from the evils of bureaucracy and bleeding-hearts and aggressively colonizing and conquering space, exploiting its military and financial potential. Unlike most conservatives, all were less concerned with preserving the past for its own sake than for planning for the future!their preferred future.

In partnership with Niven, Pournelle's science-fiction married aggressive military might with Atlas Shrugged-style techno-futurist fantasies and nativist paranoia, offering what in retrospect looks like an uncannily prescient portrait of the Trump era and its cultural overtones. Take, for example, the pair's Hugo-nominated 1977 novel Lucifer's Hammer, which depicts a small ranch of patriotic American farmers as they struggle to survive after a comet hits earth. Early on, the farmers debate how to keep out undesirables:

"They'll all be here, all that can get here," Christopher shouted. "Los Angeles, and the San Joaquin, and what's left of San Francisco How long can we keep it up, lettin' those people come here?"

"Be n**gers too," someone shouted from the floor. He looked self-consciously at two black faces at the end of the room. "Okay, sorry!no. I'm not sorry. Lucius, you own land. You work it. But city n**gers, whining about equality!you don't want 'em either!"

The black man said nothing. He seemed to shrink away from the group, and he sat very quietly with his son.

Relate"Lucius Carter's all right," George Christopher said. "But Frank's right about the others. City people. Tourists. Hippies. Be here in droves pretty soon. We have to stop them."

This kind of scene ! the asterisks are mine; they spelled the word out ! plays on the same fears Trump stoked in his campaign of immigrants and undesirables invading the "real" America. Yet Pournelle and Niven yoked this divisiveness to an Ayn Randian view of technological progress, in which there are those who work and those who leech.

In Lucifer's Hammer , the free-thinking libertarian survivors, naturally, win the day over their wrong-thinking competition. The hippy-dippy Shire collective, who attempt to rebuild society according to principles of socialism and environmentalism, is wiped out because of its weakness, forced to submit to the cannibalistic New Brotherhood Army!led by the inhumane Sergeant Hooker, a black man. Strong leader Senator Jellison (who is white) then asks former Shire founder Hugo Beck what went wrong, and Beck says his fellow hippies just never realized how great technology and laissez-faire economics were, and now all his old friends are dining on human flesh under the thumb of a scary black communist.

We also learn that the New Brotherhood Army is very politically correct!they are genuine Social Justice Warriors !and forces equality on its members: "And you never say anything bad about blacks, or chicanos, or anybody else. First couple of days they just slap you for it but if you don't learn fast they figure you're not really converted "

One antagonist of Lucifer's Hammer is Alim Nassor, a black man who loots during the day of the comet, then goes on to start a gang that eventually links up with the New Brotherhood Army. (At one point, he kills a follower who won't eat human flesh.) Nassor's name is of his own choosing:

Before he was great he had been George Washington Carver Davis. His mother had been proud of that name. She'd said the family was named for Jefferson Davis. That honky had been a tough dude, but it was a loser's name, no power in it ... Alim Nassor meant wise conqueror in both Arabic and Swahili. Not many knew what it meant, and so what? The name had power And he could still walk into City Hall and get in to see people. He'd been able to do that ever since he broke up a riot with his switchblade and the razor blades in his shoes and the chain he carried around his waist. There was all that Federal money around for a tough dude. The honkies shoveled out money. Anything for quiet in the black ghetto. It had been a damn good game, and too bad it was over.

Today, Lucifer's Hammer reads as a depiction of a post-apocalyptic war between Trump counties and Clinton counties, simultaneously promising American renewal even as it depicts unavoidable catastrophe. The comet acts as a cleansing, wiping away so much dead wood of civilization. (Feminism, too, comes in for repeated knocks.)

Pournelle and Niven's attitude toward civil-rights struggles and feminism wavers between condescension and irritation. Progressive issues are bumps on the road of progress. At their most dangerous, they radicalize lumpen segments of the population into dangerous terrorists: Antifa is one step on the way to the New Brotherhood Army.

Consequently, their attitudes on race and immigration come off as callous. In 2008, Niven told a DHS conference that " The problem [of hospitals going broke] is hugely exaggerated by illegal aliens who aren't going to pay for anything anyway ," and then suggested spreading rumors in the Spanish Latino community that hospitals were killing patients to harvest their organs.

They attempted to address race more sympathetically in 1981's Oath of Fealty , making one of the main characters, Preston Sanders, black. ("His family had never been enslaved," they write.) But since Sanders' first words are affirming to the genius John Galtian protagonist (named, not coincidentally, Tony Rand) that the white hero isn't prejudiced, it's not terribly convincing.

Oath of Fealty chronicles the conflict between a futuristic, closed city!a privately-run, utopian "arcology" that elevates the best and the brightest!and the backwards-looking bureaucratic government of a Los Angeles in urban decline. The corporate-run, authoritarian arcology does an end-run around all of Los Angeles' pesky government and regulations, which turn out to bring great benefits to Los Angeles as a side effect. When ecoterrorists led by an evil UCLA sociology professor attack the arcology, the arcology plays its trump card by harming LA's infrastructure, which they have done so much to improve and operate. Check and mate.

Another obsession of Pournelle, who worked for years in the aerospace industry, was military conflict and how that might play out on, and beyond, our Earth. In the 80's, he served as chair of the Citizen Advisory Council on National Space Policy. Alongside astronauts and physicists, the council included sci-fi luminaries such as Niven, Robert Heinlein, Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, and publisher Jim Baen.

The council also included Ronald Reagan's adviser Lt. General Daniel O. Graham, whose advocacy firm High Frontier provided the primary political push for the president's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Better known as "Star Wars," SDI represented the ultimate science-fiction defense project, a "shield" aimed at shooting down nuclear missiles with lasers from land and from space.

Pournelle's council provided the blueprint for SDI! as the author explained , Reagan's 1983 speech inaugurating the "Star Wars" project came from work the council had done beginning in 1980. And in 1984, Baen published Pournelle's Mutual Assured Survival , based on the council's reports on how to defend against intercontinental ballistic missiles!"ICBM'S [sic] WILL SOON BE OBSOLETE," the cover declares!and blurbed by Ronald Reagan himself.

SDI was only one part of a larger right-wing techno-futurist project. SDI historian Edward Linenthal cites a 1983 interview with Newt Gingrich in which the young conservative Congressman predicted that SDI would not just destroy Russia's Communists but liberalism, too. SDI would be "a dagger at the heart of the liberal welfare state" because it destroys "the liberal myth of scarcity," leaving only "the limits of a free people's ingenuity, daring, and courage."

A year later, in 1984, science-fiction publisher Tor Books issued Gingrich's first book, Window of Opportunity: A Blueprint for the Future , which had also been commissioned by publisher Jim Baen. Co-written with science-fiction writers David Drake and Janet Morris as well as Gingrich's then-wife Marianne, Window of Opportunity has one leg firmly planted in the geek world. The preface was written by Pournelle, who praised Gingrich's "practical program that not only proves that we can all get rich, but shows how."

Gingrich subsequently secured a job for Pournelle's son with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher in 1994, who like Gingrich is now a stalwart space booster and Trump supporter.

Gingrich's futurist political perspective has long differentiated him from many Republicans. He distinguished himself early on with his interest in space, drawn partly from his fascination with large-scope future histories like Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy. When Gingrich told his aides to read the Foundation trilogy and one asked what the books had to do with politics, Gingrich replied: " I'm a figure who thinks in terms of 100-year increments and I think in terms of civilization's rising and falling over 500-year increments ." Central to his failed 2012 presidential run was the plan for an American moonbase by 2020.

In their science fiction as in life, Gingrich and Pournelle shared an optimistic belief in power of technology!and an equally powerful insistence on the inevitability of conflict. They believed this required a robust, authoritarian state apparatus to preserve order and bind citizens together. Indeed, while backing Reagan, Gingrich had promoted a techno-futurism that was less conservative than it was authoritarian: he called for pruning inefficiency while aggressively promoting expansion and military technology. For his part, Pournelle published anthologies of science-fiction and techno-military essays through the 1980s under the name There Will Be War .

Under Reagan, that inevitable conflict was with Red Russia. But with communism a fading threat by the late 80's, Gingrich shifted his focus to the specter of a new enemy, arguing in 1989 that " Islamic extremism may well be the greatest threat to Western values and Western security in the world ." Such fear-mongering!Islamic extremism remains a fraction as destructive as the nuclear Soviet Union!may seem ill-suited to optimism in mankind's future, but as a political project it can be uncannily effective. Pournelle wrote that Islam demands adherence to a principle of " Islam or the sword ," and that an aggressive military response is not only justified but demanded: we are at war with the Caliphate .

Given Trump's aggression and autocratic tendencies, it makes sense that Gingrich steadfastly supported him from the beginning, encouraging and advising his campaign. During election season, Gingrich spoke with Trump daily . Gingrich views Trump as a tool to get America to where he wants to go faster. "Trump must keep going at breakneck speed to keep his opponents off balance," he writes. He's also expressed hope that the Trump era will provide the conditions for future space travel: "With a few breaks and some entrepreneurial daring, Americans could land on Mars either in Trump's last year of his second term or in the first term of his successor."

Trump's ideology and governing style are far from a perfect fit for the conservative techno-futurists. Gingrich has expressed frustration with Trump's lack of focus, and Trump lacks any clear vision of the future beyond making America great again. Still, for Pournelle, Trump beats anyone else out there : "Trump is not a movement conservative, but his inclination is to set goals and get people working on them, not to jail and fine them for not doing so. Compared to Hillary or Sanders or anyone in Obama's train, I'll take Trump any day. Trump is a pragmatic populist. I can live with that."

One of the things Gingrich admires about Trump, as he told me in an interview, is the president's sheer capacity for change and interruption: "Trump is the personification of enormous underlying forces, an eruption of personality and capability in which you then have to reset your analysis around their reality."

In speaking to me, Gingrich also celebrated Trump as a "disruptive politician" on the order of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.

In other words, Gingrich and Pournelle's enthusiasm had less to do with Trump's particular ambitions than with his capacity for destruction of the status quo. Much of the chaos Trump foments is, to Gingrich and Pournelle, a key feature to induce the future they want!the one where the feminists and "eco-terrorists" and university professors are soundly defeated. Gingrich has always been fond of revolution, as evidenced by one rationale he quoted for supporting Trump: " We have to kick over the table in Washington. " (Or as he wrote in 1984: " Revolutions have to occur fast or not at all .") What Trump does is less important than the fact that he kicks over the table, strengthening America's military state while demolishing bureaucracy and ignoring niceties. Democracy and law matter less than security and innovation.

We're back at authoritarianism!the through-line for Trump and Pournelle and Gingrich alike. Indeed, many of Trump's online supporters refer to him as "God Emperor" with varying levels of irony, referring in part to the benevolent tyrant of Frank Herbert's Dune series, Leto II, who transforms himself into a gigantic worm in order to direct humanity on his "Golden Path" for 3,500 years.

Pournelle and Niven charted their own Golden Path in Oath of Fealty . Early in that book, black protagonist Preston Sanders, reflects on why he hates the rich white bigots of the arcology less than the preppie liberals he grew up with:

Because I don't share the black experience? That's what my roommate at Howard would have said.

Or because we're all doing something we believe in? We're running a civilization, something new in this world, and don't bother to tell me how small it is. It's a civilization. The first one in a long time where people can feel safe.

The only things standing in the way of that Golden Path are the liberal bureaucrats and wrong-thinkers that Gingrich elsewhere termed the "prison guards of the past (who) use centralized bureaucracy, litigation, regulations, and red tape to delay or kill break through innovations in many fields. They squander America's potential in order to protect their privileges and their old ideas, and they rely on our complacency not to do anything about it."

And those guards, in Gingrich's view, are so wedded to their ideologies that nothing short of outright conflict will sway them. Or as Trump said of the media in his Arizona speech , "These are sick people. You would think they'd want to make our country great again, and I honestly believe they don't."

No science-fiction writer since has exerted as significant a political influence as Pournelle. But Pournelle does have a spiritual successor in Castalia House, the independent science-fiction publisher run by white nationalist Theodore Beale, aka Vox Day. Beale, like Gingrich, has said that his job is to save Western Civilization !and that it is in dire need of saving. Beale, however, is far more explicit about race. In his definition of the Alt-Right, Beale proposes the 14th tenet , "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," stressing that homogeneous ethno-states are the only viable future for the world!and that the United States must be a white, Christian ethno-state. Though Beale has repeatedly denounced neo-Nazis, this tenet is near identical with the "Fourteen Words" of white supremacy, and its placement as the fourteenth item reads as a dog whistle.

Pournelle has dissociated himself from Beale's politics, but Castalia House's republishing of Pournelle's 1980s There Will Be War series (as well as publishing a new volume 10) is no mere coincidence. Rather, they are indications of a shared worldview. To these writers, civil rights, equality, and civil liberties are irritants and impediments to progress at best. At worst, they are impositions on the holy forces of the market and social Darwinism ("evolution in action") that sort out the best from the rest. And to all of them, the best tend to be white (with a bit of space for "the good ones" of other races). If there has been a shift in thought between the 1970s and today, it's that the expected separation of wheat from chaff hasn't taken place, and so now more active measures need to be taken!building the border walls and deportations, for example. Trump is an agent of these active measures!an agent of revolution, or at least the destruction that precedes a revolution.

The line that connects Pournelle, Gingrich and Trump is a view that the future must be secured through aggressive force, and specifically through authoritarian institutions (governmental or non-governmental) that group together humanity's best and prevent the rest from stifling them. The difficulty, as always, lies in identifying "the best," and in who's doing the identification.

At the bottom of Pournelle's website is the quote, "Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free." It's not attributed, but the sentiment is an old saw of the far right, going back at least to John Birch Society co-founder and segregationist Thomas J. Anderson in 1961 . Today, Pournelle's particular phrasing is most commonly attributed to white supremacist and anti-semite Richard Cotten . It's one more indicator that Trump was far from the first to eliminate the line between right-wing thought and outright bigotry.

Whether in the apocalypse of Lucifer's Hammer or the quasi-utopia of Oath of Fealty , there will be war between the visionaries and the prison guards!and the visionaries will win.

[Sep 21, 2017] Trump's UN Speech A Neocon Dream by Daniel McAdams

Please listen to the audio at the link...
Sep 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
President Trump's speech yesterday at the United Nations got rave reviews from neocons like John Bolton and Elliot Abrams. The US president threatened North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. At the same time he claimed that the US is the one country to lead by example rather than by violating the sovereignty of others. Are the neocons on a roll as they push for more war? Have they "won" Trump?

[Sep 21, 2017] Why Isn't There a Debate about America's Grand Strategy

Notable quotes:
"... Sustainable Security: Rethinking American National Security ..."
"... There has been neither a major retrenchment, nor even a debate over whether such a retrenchment is warranted or wise. In other words, Valentino noted, we seem headed for the worst of all worlds: status quo by default. ..."
"... The window hasn't closed on a serious strategic debate, but the ball is now in Congress's hands . Alas, nearly everyone in Congress seems utterly disinterested. ..."
"... Christopher Preble is vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute and the author of ..."
Sep 21, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

"The United States needs a new set of ideas and principles to justify its worthwhile international commitments, and curtail ineffective obligations where necessary," argue Jeremi Suri and Benjamin Valentino, in the introduction to their edited volume Sustainable Security: Rethinking American National Security .

"Balancing our means and ends requires a deep reevaluation of U.S. strategy, as the choices made today will shape the direction of U.S. security policy for decades to come."

... ... ...

In a recent discussion at the Cato Institute, Valentino observed how the reaction to Trump's victory had divided into two camps.

One side was gripped with utter horror. A vast array of policy insiders!on both the left and the right!were appalled by the mere suggestion that the United States would revisit any of its international obligations, or abandon long-time allies. Even Barack Obama, who defied the foreign policy establishment from time-to-time, urged the incoming president "to sustain the international order that's expanded steadily since the end of the Cold War." "American leadership in this world really is indispensable," Obama explained in a letter to his successor.

Another group of individuals was willing to entertain challenges to the status quo. Though largely appalled by Trump's antics and rhetoric, they were cautiously optimistic that his rise would stimulate a long-overdue grand strategic debate.

Both sides were wrong. There has been neither a major retrenchment, nor even a debate over whether such a retrenchment is warranted or wise. In other words, Valentino noted, we seem headed for the worst of all worlds: status quo by default.

The window hasn't closed on a serious strategic debate, but the ball is now in Congress's hands . Alas, nearly everyone in Congress seems utterly disinterested.

Consider, for example, the stifling of any discussion surrounding a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

This week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) threatened to bring the Senate to a crawl unless it debated a new AUMF, but very few other elected officials are prepared to challenge the president's authority to wage perpetual war at will. Sen. John McCain went so far as to dismiss Paul's call for an AUMF debate as a waste of his time. There is a similar lack of interest in the House. Back in July, GOP leaders blocked Rep. Barbara Lee's attempt to force an AUMF debate. Although Lee's proposal won bipartisan support in the House Appropriations Committee, Speaker Paul Ryan's office called it "an irresponsible measure" that "endangers our national security."

... ... ...

Christopher Preble is vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute and the author of The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free .

[Sep 21, 2017] Trump's UN Speech A Neocon Dream by Daniel McAdams

Please listen to the audio at the link...
Sep 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
President Trump's speech yesterday at the United Nations got rave reviews from neocons like John Bolton and Elliot Abrams. The US president threatened North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. At the same time he claimed that the US is the one country to lead by example rather than by violating the sovereignty of others. Are the neocons on a roll as they push for more war? Have they "won" Trump?

[Sep 21, 2017] The Worst Mistake in US History by Jacob G. Hornberger

Notable quotes:
"... Bush and his people were simply lying. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a president had lied in order to garner support for a war. Lyndon Johnson's lies regarding a supposed North Vietnamese attack on US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam come to mind. Two, Bush didn't secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, most likely because he knew that congressional hearings on the issue would expose his WMD scare for the lie it was. And three, only the UN, not the US government, was entitled to enforce its resolutions regarding Iraq's WMDs. ..."
"... Moreover, the circumstantial evidence establishes that Bush was lying and that the WMD scare was entirely bogus. Many people forget that throughout the 1990s the US government was hell-bent on regime change in Iraq. That's what the brutal sanctions were all about, which contributed to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children. When US Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright was asked on Sixty Minutes whether the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions were "worth it," she responded that such deaths were "worth it." By "it," she was referring to regime change. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation . ..."
Sep 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

A good example of how the national-security state has adversely affected the thinking of US soldiers was reflected in an op-ed entitled "What We're Fighting For" that appeared in the February 10, 2017, issue of the New York Times. Authored by an Iraq War veteran named Phil Klay, the article demonstrates perfectly what the national-security state has done to soldiers and others and why it is so imperative for the American people to restore a constitutional republic to our land.

Klay begins his op-ed by extolling the exploits of another US Marine, First Lt. Brian Chontosh, who, displaying great bravery, succeeded in killing approximately two dozen Iraqis in a fierce firefight during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Klay writes:

When I was a new Marine, just entering the Corps, this story from the Iraq invasion defined heroism for me. It's a perfect image of war for inspiring new officer candidates, right in line with youthful notions of what war is and what kind of courage it takes ! physical courage, full stop.
Klay then proceeds to tell a story about an event he witnessed when he was deployed to Iraq in 2007. After doctors failed to save the life of a Marine who had been shot by an Iraqi sniper, those same doctors proceeded to treat and save the life of the sniper, who himself had been shot by US troops. Klay used the story to point out the virtuous manner in which US forces carried out their military mission in Iraq.

Well, except perhaps, Klay observes, for Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison in which Saddam Hussein's government had tortured and abused countless Iraqis and which the US military turned into its own torture and abuse center for Iraqis captured during the 2003 US invasion of the country. Klay tells the story of a defense contractor named Eric Fair, who tortured an Iraqi prisoner into divulging information about a car-bomb factory. Encouraged by that successful use of torture, Fair proceeded to employ it against many other Iraqis, none of whom had any incriminating evidence to provide.

Klay points out that both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were major turning points in the Iraq War because prisoner abuse at both camps became a driving force for Iraqis to join the insurgency in Iraq. Thus, while Fair may have saved lives through his successful use of torture, he and other US personnel who tortured and abused people at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay may well have cost the lives of many more US soldiers in the long term.

Klay, however, suggests that none of that was really Fair's fault. While he might have crossed some moral lines, everything he did, Klay suggests, was in accordance with legal rules and regulations. Klay writes:

And Eric did what our nation asked of him, used techniques that were vetted and approved and passed down to intelligence operatives and contractors like himself. Lawyers at the highest levels of government had been consulted, asked to bring us to the furthest edge of what the law might allow. To do what it takes, regardless of whether such actions will secure the "attachment of all good men," or live up to that oath we swear to support and defend the Constitution.
Klay refers to the oath that US soldiers take to support and defend the Constitution. Clearly patting himself and other members of the US military on the back, he says US soldiers fight with honor to defend a "set of principles" that are reflected in the Constitution and that define America.

It would be difficult to find a better example of a life of the lie than that of Phil Klay. He provides an absolutely perfect demonstration of what a national-security state does to soldiers' minds and why the Founding Fathers were so opposed to that type of governmental structure.

The rights of invaders

Notice one big omission from Klay's self-aggrandizing article: Iraq never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Instead, it was the U.S government, operating through its troops, that was the aggressor nation in the Iraq War. Wars of aggression ! i.e., attacking, invading, and occupying other countries ! were among the crimes of which the defendants at Nuremburg were convicted.

It is absolutely fascinating that that critically important point seems to escape Klay so completely. It's as if it just doesn't exist or just doesn't count. His mindset simply begins with the fact that US troops are engaged in war and then it proceeds from there to focus on the courage and humanity of the troops, how their bravery in battle inspired him, and how they treated the enemy humanely. It never occurs to him to ask the vital question: Did US troops have any legal or moral right to be in Iraq and to kill anyone there, including Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, civilians, and civil servants working for the Iraqi government?

Many years ago, I posed a question about the US invasion and occupation of Iraq to a libertarian friend of mine who was a Catholic priest. I asked him, If a US soldier is placed in Iraq in a kill-or-be-killed situation, does he have a right to fire back at an Iraqi who is shooting at him?

My friend's answer was unequivocal: Absolutely not, he responded. Since he has no legitimate right to be in Iraq, given that he is part of the aggressor force that initiated the war, under God's laws he cannot kill anyone, not even by convincing himself that he is only acting in "self-defense."

I responded, "Are you saying that his only choice is to run away or permit himself to be killed"? He responded, "That is precisely what I am saying. Under the laws of God, he cannot kill anyone in Iraq because he has no right to be there."

Suppose a burglar enters a person's home in the dead of night. The homeowner wakes up, discovers the intruder, and begins firing at him. The burglar fires back and kills the homeowner.

The burglar appears in court and explains that he never had any intention of killing the homeowner and that he was simply firing back in self-defense. He might even explain to the judge how bravely he reacted under fire and detail the clever manner in which he outmaneuvered and shot the homeowner.

The judge, however, would reject any claim of self-defense on the part of the burglar. Why? Because the burglar had no right to be in the homeowner's house. Like the US soldier in Iraq, when the homeowner began firing the burglar had only two legal and moral options: run away or be killed.

That's what my Catholic priest friend was pointing out about US soldiers in Iraq. They had no right to be there. They invaded a poor, Third World country whose government had never attacked the United States and they were killing, torturing, and abusing people whom they had no right to kill, torture, or abuse.

That's what Klay as well as most other members of the US military and, for that matter, many Americans still don't get: that the Iraqi people were the ones who wielded the right of self-defense against an illegal invasion by a foreign power and that US forces, as the aggressor power in the war, had no legal or moral right to kill any Iraqi, not even in "self-defense."

Klay waxes eloquent about the US Constitution and the oath that soldiers take to support and defend it, but it's really just another perfect demonstration of the life of the lie that he and so many other US soldiers live. The reality is that when US soldiers vow to support and defend the Constitution, as a practical matter they are vowing to loyally obey the orders and commands of the president, who is their military commander in chief.

There is no better example of this phenomenon than what happened in Iraq. The US. Constitution is clear: The president is prohibited from waging war without a declaration of war from Congress. No declaration, no war. Every US soldier ordered to invade Iraq knew that or should have known that.

Everyone, including the troops, also knew that Congress had not declared war on Iraq. Yet, not a single soldier supported or defended the Constitution by refusing George Bush's order to attack and invade Iraq. Every one of them loyally obeyed his order to attack and invade, knowing full well that it would mean killing people in Iraq ! killing people who had never attacked the United States. And they all convinced themselves that by following the president's orders to invade Iraq and kill Iraqis, they were supporting and defending the Constitution.

How do US soldiers reconcile that? They convince themselves that they are supporting and defending the Constitution by obeying the orders of the president, who has been democratically elected by the citizenry. It's not their job, they tell themselves, to determine what is constitutional and what isn't. Their job, they believe, is simply to do what the president, operating through his subordinates, orders them to do. In their minds, they are supporting and defending the Constitution whenever they loyally and obediently carry out the orders of the president.

That means, then, that the standing army is nothing more than the president's private army. As a practical matter, soldiers are going to do whatever they are ordered to do. If they don't, they are quickly shot or simply replaced, which provides a good incentive for others to do as they are told. That's why soldiers invaded Iraq, which had never attacked the United States, and killed people who were defending their country against an unlawful invasion. That's also why soldiers and defense contractors tortured and abused people at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. They all believed they were carrying out the orders of their superiors, from the president on down, and that they were supporting and defending the Constitution in the process.

As people throughout history have learned, that is also why a standing army constitutes such a grave threat to the freedom and well-being of the citizenry. It is the means by which a tyrant imposes and enforces his will on the citizenry. Just ask the people of Chile, where the troops of a military regime installed into power by the US national-security establishment rounded up tens of thousands of innocent people and incarcerated, tortured, raped, abused, or executed them, all without due process of law and with the support of the US government.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, I read that some Catholic soldiers were deeply troubled by the prospect of killing people in a war that the US government was initiating. I was stunned to read that a US military chaplain told them that they had the right under God's laws to obey the president's order to invade Iraq and kill Iraqis. God would not hold it against them, he said, if they killed people in the process of following orders.

Really? Are God's laws really nullified by the orders of a government's military commander? If that were the case, don't you think God's commandment would have read: "Thou shalt not kill, unless your ruler orders you to do so in a war of aggression against another nation"?

To this day, there are those who claim that George W. Bush simply made an honest mistake in claiming that Saddam Hussein, Iraq's dictator, was maintaining weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that US soldiers were justified in trusting him by loyally obeying his orders to invade and occupy Iraq to "disarm Saddam."

They ignore three important points: it was a distinct possibility that Bush and his people were simply lying. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a president had lied in order to garner support for a war. Lyndon Johnson's lies regarding a supposed North Vietnamese attack on US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam come to mind. Two, Bush didn't secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, most likely because he knew that congressional hearings on the issue would expose his WMD scare for the lie it was. And three, only the UN, not the US government, was entitled to enforce its resolutions regarding Iraq's WMDs.

Moreover, the circumstantial evidence establishes that Bush was lying and that the WMD scare was entirely bogus. Many people forget that throughout the 1990s the US government was hell-bent on regime change in Iraq. That's what the brutal sanctions were all about, which contributed to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children. When US Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright was asked on Sixty Minutes whether the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions were "worth it," she responded that such deaths were "worth it." By "it," she was referring to regime change.

That desire for regime change in Iraq grew with each passing year in the 1990s, both among liberals and conservatives. Demands were ever growing to get rid of Saddam. Therefore, when Bush started coming up with his WMD scare after the 9/11 attacks, everyone should have been wary because it had all the earmarks of an excuse to invade Iraq after more than 10 years of sanctions had failed to achieve the job.

The best circumstantial evidence that Bush lied about the WMD scare appeared after it was determined that there were no WMDs in Iraq. At that point, if Bush had been telling the truth, he could have said, "I'm very sorry. I have made a grave mistake and my army has killed multitudes of people as a consequence of my mistake. I am hereby ordering all US troops home and I hereby announce my resignation as president."

Bush didn't do that. In fact, he expressed not one iota of remorse or regret over the loss of life for what supposedly had been the result of a mistake. He knew that he had achieved what the US national-security state had been trying to achieve for more than a decade with its brutal sanctions ! regime change in Iraq ! and he had used the bogus WMD scare to garner support for his invasion. And significantly, the troops were kept occupying Iraq for several more years, during which they killed more tens of thousands of Iraqis.

One thing is for sure: By the time Phil Klay arrived in Iraq in 2007, he knew full well that there had been no WMDs in Iraq. He also knew that Iraq had never attacked the United States. By that time, he knew full well that the US government had invaded a country under false or, at the very least, mistaken pretenses. He knew there had been no congressional declaration of war. He knew that there was no legal or moral foundation for a military occupation that was continuing to kill people in an impoverished Third World country whose worst "crime" was simply trying to rid their country of an illegal occupier.

Yet, reinforced by people who were thanking them for "their service in Iraq," Klay, like other US troops, convinced himself that their "service" in Iraq was a grand and glorious sacrifice for his nation, that they were defending Americans' rights and freedoms, and that they were keeping us safe. It was a classic life of the lie because our nation, our rights and freedoms, and our safety were never threatened by anyone in Iraq, including the millions of Iraqis who were killed, maimed, injured, tortured, abused, or exiled, or whose homes, businesses, or infrastructure were destroyed by bombs, missiles, bullets, and tanks.

In fact, the entity that actually threatened the rights and freedoms of the American people was the US government, given the totalitarian-like powers that it assumed as part of its effort to keep us safe from the enemies its interventionist policies were producing. Coming to mind are the totalitarian-like power to assassinate Americans, secret mass surveillance, and the incarceration and torture of American citizens as suspected terrorists ! all without due process of law and without trial by jury.

This is what a national-security state does to people ! it warps, damages, or destroys their conscience, principles, and values; induces them to subscribe to false bromides; and nurtures all sorts of mental contortions to enable people to avoid confronting reality.

Many years after Brian Chontosh's exploits in Iraq, Phil Klay was surprised to learn that Chontosh was experiencing some ambivalence about what he had done. "It's ugly, it's violent, it's disgusting. I wish it wasn't part of what we had to do," Chontosh later wrote.

Perhaps that's because conscience was beginning to stir within him. That's a good sign. Maybe it will begin to stir in Phil Klay too. And other members of the military as well.

Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation .

[Sep 21, 2017] Donald Trump yesterday spoke from the gut without thinking through the consequences

Notable quotes:
"... His threat to wipe out North Korea reminded me of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. Great theater but makes one thing that the shoe banger is crazy. There is no acceptable military option in North Korea. ..."
"... But Trump is not the only one spouting such madness. We've heard the same delusional threats from SecDef Mattis and National Security Advisor McMaster. ..."
Sep 21, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

That's essentially what Donald Trump did yesterday. He spoke from the gut without thinking through the consequences.

His threat to wipe out North Korea reminded me of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. Great theater but makes one thing that the shoe banger is crazy. There is no acceptable military option in North Korea.

But Trump is not the only one spouting such madness. We've heard the same delusional threats from SecDef Mattis and National Security Advisor McMaster.

I learned a long time ago that you do not make threats you are not will to carry out. In fact, I'm a firm believer in the sucker punch. Why tell someone what you are going to do and how you are going to do it? That stuff only works in Hollywood.

Remember this clip from Billy Jack?

[Sep 20, 2017] The Empire's Hustle Why Anti-Trump_vs_deep_state Doesn't Include Anti-War by Ajamu Baraka

Notable quotes:
"... Similarly on the war issue, the only let-up in the constant barrage of negative press that Trump experienced was when he launched an attack on Syria, demonstrating once again that a consensus exists among the oligarchy on what instrument will be used to ensure their continued global dominance. ..."
"... Therefore, anti-Trump_vs_deep_state does not include a position against war and U.S. imperialism. ..."
"... The Democrat's are playing games with the people by pretending they are going to block increases in military spending during the appropriation stage of the process. And their criticisms of Trump's bellicosity and claims that he is reckless also are disingenuous because if they thought he was militarily reckless, they wouldn't have joined Republicans in supporting increased military spending. ..."
"... Both parties support militarism because both parties support the interests of the oligarchy and the oligarchy is interested in one thing!maintaining the empire. ..."
"... And to maintain the empire, they are prepared to fight to the last drop of our blood. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

With these words, Paul became one of the few voices to oppose the obscenity that is known as U.S. war policy. But only two other senators joined him: Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR). But there is a wrinkle here: Paul is not concerned with the size of the military budget. He's pointing his finger at the continuation of the Authorization to Use Military Force Act (AUMF) of 2001, which was the "legal" basis for the U.S. global "war on terror." He wants Congress to re-assess this legislation that has prompted endless wars abroad.

... ... ...

Nothing rehabilitates an unpopular president in capitalist "America" like war. In fact, the only sustained negative press that Barack Obama received was when he seemed reluctant to fully immerse the United States in direct efforts to cause regime change in Syria by attacking that nation and committing to significant "boots on the ground." For the Neo-cons and liberal interventionists driving U.S. policy, allowing U.S. vassal states to take the lead in waging war in that country was an unnecessary and inefficient burden on those states.

Similarly on the war issue, the only let-up in the constant barrage of negative press that Trump experienced was when he launched an attack on Syria, demonstrating once again that a consensus exists among the oligarchy on what instrument will be used to ensure their continued global dominance.

With the escalating decline in U.S. influence from the Bush administration through Obama and now to Trump, U.S. global dominance increasingly depends on its ability to project military power. Obama's "pivot to Asia," the veritable rampage by the United States through West Asia and North Africa since 2003, the expansion of AFRICOM to offset Chinese influence in Africa, the commitment to a permanent military occupation of Afghanistan to facilitate blocking China's New Silk Road and to exploit Afghan mineral wealth all attest to the importance of continued popular support for the permanent war agenda.

Therefore, the state is vulnerable because it has to generate public support for its war agenda and that provides the domestic anti-war and anti-imperialist opposition with a strategic opportunity.

The abysmal levels of popular support for Congress reflect a serious crisis of legitimacy. That erosion of confidence in Congress must be extended to a critical stance on congressional expenditures related to the Pentagon budget and the rationalization for military/security spending. An ideological opening exists for reframing military spending and the war agenda for what it is: An agenda for the protection of the interests of the 1 percent. And for disrupting the acceptance of patriotic pride in U.S. military adventures beyond the borders of the country.

The current work on the part of the United National Antiwar Coalition to encourage concentrated public educational work on Afghanistan in October, the new coalition to oppose U.S foreign military bases and CODEPINK's military divestment campaign being launched in October are just some of the efforts being organized to take advantage of the moment.

... ... ...

Opposition to Trump has been framed in ways that supports the agenda of the Democratic Party!but not the anti-war agenda. Therefore, anti-Trump_vs_deep_state does not include a position against war and U.S. imperialism.

When the Trump administration proposed what many saw as an obscene request for an additional $54 billion in military spending, we witnessed a momentary negative response from some liberal Democrats. The thinking was that this could be highlighted as yet another one of the supposedly demonic moves by the administration and it was added to the talking points for the Democrats. That was until 117 Democrats voted with Republicans in the House !including a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus!to not only accept the administration's proposal, but to exceed it by $18 billion. By that point, the Democrats went silent on the issue.

The progressive community and what passes for the Left was not that much better. When those forces were not allowing their attention to be diverted into re-defining opposition to White supremacy in the form of the easy opposition to the clownish, marginal neo-Nazi forces, they were debating the violence of Antifa. And since hypocrisy has been able to reconcile itself with liberalism, they didn't see that their concerns with the violence of Antifa was in conflict with their support for violent interventions by the U.S. state in places like Libya and Syria. So for that sector since war and violence had been normalized unless it is carried out by unauthorized forces like oppressed peoples,Antifa forces and nations in the crosshairs of U.S. imperialism!it is opposed. Why bother with the issues of war and militarism. And so the anti-war and anti-imperialist position was not included as part of anti-Trump_vs_deep_state!

The Democrat's are playing games with the people by pretending they are going to block increases in military spending during the appropriation stage of the process. And their criticisms of Trump's bellicosity and claims that he is reckless also are disingenuous because if they thought he was militarily reckless, they wouldn't have joined Republicans in supporting increased military spending.

Both parties support militarism because both parties support the interests of the oligarchy and the oligarchy is interested in one thing!maintaining the empire.

And to maintain the empire, they are prepared to fight to the last drop of our blood. But we have a surprise for them.

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch magazine.

[Sep 20, 2017] Where Are the Brave Military Voices Against Forever War by Maj. Danny Sjursen

Notable quotes:
"... Today, my peers are silent. ..."
"... Siegfried Sassoon ..."
"... For all the celebration (and mythologizing) over World War II, at least we had Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller to burst our comfortable, patriotic bubble. And, though it likely lost him the presidency, Senator John Kerry (and his Vietnam Vets against the War mates) showed the courage to testify to the truth in the Winter Soldier Hearings. ..."
"... In 2017, it's near impossible to remember that today's professional, volunteer army is less than half a century old, a product of epic failure in Vietnam. Most of America's Founding Fathers, after all, scorned standing armies and favored a body of august, able citizen-soldiers. Something more akin to our National Guard. Deploy these men to faraway lands, so the thinking went, and each town would lose its blacksmith, carpenter, and cobbler too. Only vital interests warranted such sacrifice. Alas, it is no longer so. ..."
"... So today, my peers are silent. Professional officers are volunteers; dissenters are seen as little more than petulant whiners, or oddball nuts. It is hard to know why, exactly, but the increasing cognitive and spatial distance of contemporary soldiers from society at large seems a likely culprit. Combine that with the Republican Party's veritable monopoly on the political loyalties of the officer corps and you have yourself a lethal combination. ..."
"... By now, the wars are lost, if ever they were winnable. Iraq will fracture, Syria collapse, and Afghanistan wallow in perpetual chaos. It will be so. The people will forget. Our professional, corporate regiments will, undoubtedly, add banners to their battle flags -- sober reminders of a job well done in yet another lost cause. Soldiers will toast to lost comrades, add verses to their ballads, and precious few will ask why. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Today, my peers are silent.

But they've been taught the way to do it

Like Christian soldiers; not with haste

And shuddering groans; but passing through it

With due regard for decent taste

-- Siegfried Sassoon , How to Die (1918)

It is my favorite moment. Of World War I, that is. The one that stays with me.

Christmas, 1914: Nearly a million men are already dead, and the war is barely four months old. Suddenly, and ultimately in unison, the opposing German and British troops begin singing Christmas carols. At first light, German troops emerge unarmed from their trenches, and walk out into "no-man's land." Despite fearing a ruse, the Brits eventually joined their sworn enemies in the churned earth between the trench lines. Carols were sung, gifts of cigarettes exchanged -- one man even brought out a decorative tree. It only happened once. Though the bloody, senseless war raged across three more Christmases, the officers on each side quashed future attempts at a holiday truce. And yet, for that brief moment, in the ugliest of circumstances, the common humanity of Brits and Germans triumphed. It must have been beautiful.

Ultimately, nearly ten million men would die in battle. For all that, little was settled. It rarely is. The ruling classes still ruled, the profiteers profited, and Europe went to war again not twenty years later. So it went, and so it goes.

Nonetheless, World War I boasted countless skeptics and anti-war activists both in and out of uniform. Their poetry and prose was dark, but oh was it ever powerful. Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen from the Brits; Erich Maria Remarque for the stoic Germans; and our own Ernest Hemingway. A lost generation, which sacrificed so much more than youth: their innocence. They call to us, these long dead dissenters, from the grave.

They might ask: Where are today's skeptical veterans? Tragically, silence is our only ready response.

It was not always so in America. During the brutal Seminole Indian Wars, 17 percent of army officers resigned in disgust rather than continue burning villages and hunting natives down like dogs in Florida's Everglades' swamps. Mark Twain's cheeky prose demolished the Philippine-American colonial war at the turn of the century (some 30 years after he briefly served in the Missouri state militia during the Civil War). Hemingway, laid the truth bare after being wounded in the First Great War while serving as a Red Cross ambulance driver. And Major General Smedley Butler -- two-time Medal of Honor recipient though he was -- emerged from the Caribbean "Banana Wars" to admit he'd been naught but a "high class muscle man for Big Business," a "gangster for capitalism."

For all the celebration (and mythologizing) over World War II, at least we had Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller to burst our comfortable, patriotic bubble. And, though it likely lost him the presidency, Senator John Kerry (and his Vietnam Vets against the War mates) showed the courage to testify to the truth in the Winter Soldier Hearings.

Today, despite a few brave attempts, we are treated to nothing of the sort. Why, you ask?

To begin with, most of the above mentioned wars were fought by draftees, militiamen, and short-term volunteers: in other words, citizen-soldiers. Even now, the identity of "citizen-soldier" ought to emphasize the former term: citizen . It doesn't. Now, as we veterans are constantly reminded, we are warriors . Professionals. Hail Sparta!

In 2017, it's near impossible to remember that today's professional, volunteer army is less than half a century old, a product of epic failure in Vietnam. Most of America's Founding Fathers, after all, scorned standing armies and favored a body of august, able citizen-soldiers. Something more akin to our National Guard. Deploy these men to faraway lands, so the thinking went, and each town would lose its blacksmith, carpenter, and cobbler too. Only vital interests warranted such sacrifice. Alas, it is no longer so.

In truth, the "citizen-soldier" is dead, replaced -- to the sound of cheers -- by self-righteous subalterns hiding beneath the sly veil of that ubiquitous corporate idiom: professionalism. Discipline, motivation, teamwork -- these are all sleek, bureaucratic terms certain to mold terrific middle managers, but they remain morally bare. And, ultimately, futile.

So today, my peers are silent. Professional officers are volunteers; dissenters are seen as little more than petulant whiners, or oddball nuts. It is hard to know why, exactly, but the increasing cognitive and spatial distance of contemporary soldiers from society at large seems a likely culprit. Combine that with the Republican Party's veritable monopoly on the political loyalties of the officer corps and you have yourself a lethal combination.

Only don't rule out cowardice. Who isn't fearful for their career, income, and family stability? It is only natural. After all, this business -- despite protestations to the contrary -- does not tend to value intellectualism or creative thinking. Trust me. Besides, in this struggling transitory economy, the military "welfare state" is a tempting option for America's declining middle class. Ironic, isn't it, that the heavily conservative officer corps loves their socialized medicine and guaranteed pensions?

Under the circumstances, perhaps silence is understandable. But it is also complicity.

By now, the wars are lost, if ever they were winnable. Iraq will fracture, Syria collapse, and Afghanistan wallow in perpetual chaos. It will be so. The people will forget. Our professional, corporate regiments will, undoubtedly, add banners to their battle flags -- sober reminders of a job well done in yet another lost cause. Soldiers will toast to lost comrades, add verses to their ballads, and precious few will ask why.

Perhaps a good officer suppresses such doubt, maintains a stoic, if dour, dignity, and silently soldiers on. As for me, I am not made of such stuff, and more's the pity. I buried seven men in the fields of the Forever War, casualties of combat and the muted sufferings of suicide.

Their banal sacrifice demands explanation. They deserve as much. For those lonely few, we who publicly dissent, the audience is scant, interest meagre, and our existence: solitary.

Major Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wrote a memoir, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet .

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.)

*** This article has been edited to reflect Mark Twain's brief stint in the Missouri state militia, not the regular Confederate army; and the fact that Ernest Hemingway served the Red Cross during World War I.

[Sep 20, 2017] Trumps Belligerent U.N. Speech by Daniel Larison

The message to the global community has been clear: it's Trump's way or the highway.
Notable quotes:
"... Paired with his confrontational rhetoric directed towards North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Syria, Trump's choice to cast these states as the "wicked few" portends more aggressive and meddlesome policies and gives the leaders of all of these governments reason to assume the worst about our intentions. It was similar to Bush's foolish "axis of evil" remarks in 2002. ..."
"... All of this belligerent and confrontational rhetoric just raises tensions in several different parts of the world, and it appears to commit the U.S. to more meddling around the world and potentially risks getting the U.S. into more avoidable wars. ..."
"... None of that has anything to do with putting American interests first. Much of Trump's speech was an assertion of a desire to dictate terms to other states, and as such it is likely to be poorly received by most of the governments of the world. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Trump's speech at the U.N. General Assembly this morning contained a lot of ill-advised and dangerous remarks, but this one stood out:

If the righteous many don't confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.

U.S. foreign policy already suffers from far too much self-congratulation and excessive confidence in our own righteousness, so it was alarming to hear Trump speak in such stark, fanatical terms about international affairs. Paired with his confrontational rhetoric directed towards North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Syria, Trump's choice to cast these states as the "wicked few" portends more aggressive and meddlesome policies and gives the leaders of all of these governments reason to assume the worst about our intentions. It was similar to Bush's foolish "axis of evil" remarks in 2002.

The statement itself is also rather odd in that it talks about the many being righteous, when religious texts normally present the righteous as being the relatively few and embattled against the wicked multitude.

If the "wicked" are so few, they must be badly outnumbered and don't pose as much of a threat as Trump claims elsewhere. It also strains credulity that Trump speaks on behalf of righteousness when he embraces so many abusive despots and enables Saudi-led coalition crimes in Yemen.

Trump declared the nuclear deal an "embarrassment," which strongly suggests that he won't agree to recertify the deal when the next deadline comes up in mid-October. He emphasized the importance of sovereignty for the U.S., but in everything else he had to say he showed that he was happy to trample on the sovereignty of other states when it suited him. While his threat to "destroy" North Korea was framed as a defense of the U.S. and allies, it will only make the North Korean government more determined than ever to develop its nuclear arsenal and missiles. He hinted that the U.S. would interfere more in Venezuela , which will almost certainly be used by Maduro and his allies to their advantage.

All of this belligerent and confrontational rhetoric just raises tensions in several different parts of the world, and it appears to commit the U.S. to more meddling around the world and potentially risks getting the U.S. into more avoidable wars.

None of that has anything to do with putting American interests first. Much of Trump's speech was an assertion of a desire to dictate terms to other states, and as such it is likely to be poorly received by most of the governments of the world.

[Sep 20, 2017] Foreign Policy Realists Hit Nerve With Establishment Elite by Andrew J. Bacevich

The problem with neocon chickenhawks is that they all want money from MIC. So their jingoism is a king of prostitution...
Notable quotes:
"... "Saving Realism" is the handiwork of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver, well-connected scholars employed by elite institutions. Brands teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and, according to his bio, has "consulted with a range of government offices and agencies in the intelligence and national security communities." Feaver teaches at Duke University. During the George W. Bush administration, he served on the staff of the National Security Council. They are classic policy intellectuals, one foot planted in academe, the other in the corridors of power. ..."
"... Especially since the end of the Cold War, reality itself is impinging on the prerogatives to which members of the American foreign-policy establishment have grown accustomed and to the arrangements that sustain those prerogatives. It therefore becomes incumbent upon scholars who serve that establishment to deflect such threats. They do so by contriving a "reality" conducive to affirming existing prerogatives and arrangements. ..."
"... The only past that matters is the Cold War, carefully curated as a narrative of American triumphalism. Anything that happened before the Cold War qualifies as irrelevant. Cold War episodes that turned out to be less than triumphal!Vietnam, for example!receive the barest acknowledgment. As for misfortunes that may have befallen the United States since the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, Brands and Feaver shrug them off as insignificant. Sure, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq did prove far costlier than expected." But so what? Stuff happens! ..."
"... Stripped to its essentials, their argument reduces to a brazen tautology: Approaches to policy that worked during the Cold War will work today because they worked during the Cold War. Of course, the argument presumes that the world in which we live today is more or less comparable to the world that existed back in the Forties and Fifties. As to how the supple, nuanced doctrine advanced by realists during that Golden Age yielded such dubious propositions as bipolarity, the domino theory, and the bogus enterprise known as nuclear strategy, Brands and Feaver are conveniently silent. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In the September issue of Commentary, a magazine of distinguished lineage, there appears an essay bearing the title "Saving Realism from the So-Called Realists." Once upon a time, essays published by Commentary , penned by such eminences as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Hans Morgenthau, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Robert C. Tucker, shaped the debate over U.S. foreign policy. Those days have long since passed. If "Saving Realism" serves any purpose, it is to expose the intellectual exhaustion of the foreign-policy establishment. Those who fancy themselves the source of policy-relevant ideas have given up on actually thinking.

"Saving Realism" is the handiwork of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver, well-connected scholars employed by elite institutions. Brands teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and, according to his bio, has "consulted with a range of government offices and agencies in the intelligence and national security communities." Feaver teaches at Duke University. During the George W. Bush administration, he served on the staff of the National Security Council. They are classic policy intellectuals, one foot planted in academe, the other in the corridors of power.

The chief purpose their essay is to mount a frontal assault on a group of individuals they deride as "academic realists." Of course, when not occupying positions on the fringes of power, Brands and Feaver are themselves academics. Here, however, their use of the term drips with ridicule and condescension. "Academic" becomes a synonym for naοve or wooly-headed or simply irresponsible.

To their credit, Brands and Feaver do not balk at naming names, fingering Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, Barry Posen, and Christopher Layne, prominent political scientists, as dangerous proponents of academic realism.

Take the claims made by Brands and Feaver at face value and this Gang of Four poses a direct threat not only to U.S. national security but to the very possibility to creating a decent global order. "Today's academic realists essentially argue," they write, "that the United States should dismantle the global architecture that has undergirded the international order" ever since World War II. Academic realists seek "the deliberate destruction of arrangements that have fostered international stability and prosperity for decades." They are intent on tearing down "the pillars of a peaceful and prosperous world." They are, in short, a wrecking crew.

Brands and Feaver do not explain what motivates Walt et al., to undertake this nefarious plot, merely hinting that personal pique is probably a factor. "Having lost policy arguments that they thought they should have won," on issues such as NATO expansion and invading Iraq, "academic realists decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater." They are, in effect, soreheads.

For this reason alone, their critique of U.S. policy, suggesting that since the end of the Cold War the United States has squandered a uniquely advantageous position, is without merit. So too with their complaint that in recent decades the United States has misused its military power. What academic realists are actually proposing, Brands and Feaver charge, is to "stake everything on a leap into the unknown." Their calls for greater restraint amount to little more than a pose. In reality, they advocate unvarnished recklessness.

Worse still, Brands and Feaver see worrisome signs that the Gang of Four is making headway. In Donald Trump's White House academic realism "seems to be finding a sympathetic hearing." Indeed, they write, "One of the least academic presidents in American history may, ironically, be buying into some of the most misguided doctrines of the ivory tower."

This is pretty wild stuff. Let me acknowledge that I know each member of this Gang of Four and hold them in high regard. That said, whether individually or collectively, they wield about as much clout in present-day Washington as Karl Marx.

Indeed, the reader will search "Saving Realism" in vain for evidence actually linking the Gang of Four to President Trump. To my knowledge none of the four are Trump supporters. I am unaware of any of them having endorsed the policies of the Trump administration. As for Trump himself, my bet is that he could care less about anything Walt, Mearsheimer, Posen, and Layne have to say. If our president has absorbed the Gang of Four's policy perspective, he must be doing it by osmosis.

In short, the case presented by Brands and Feaver comes precariously close to being a McCarthyite smear!guilt by association without even establishing that any association actually exists.

To which the average American citizen, tested by the trials of everyday life, might well respond: Who cares? An intramural tiff among privileged members of the professoriate might merit a panel at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. But should it qualify as a matter of general interest?

In one specific sense, perhaps it ought to. While it may not be their intended purpose, by mounting their overheated attack on "academic realism," Brands and Feaver succeed in demonstrating why genuine realism rarely receives a serious hearing inside the Beltway. The answer is simply this: Especially since the end of the Cold War, reality itself is impinging on the prerogatives to which members of the American foreign-policy establishment have grown accustomed and to the arrangements that sustain those prerogatives. It therefore becomes incumbent upon scholars who serve that establishment to deflect such threats. They do so by contriving a "reality" conducive to affirming existing prerogatives and arrangements.

Brands and Feaver do their very best to conjure up such a "reality." Having established to their own satisfaction that Trump and the Gang of Four are somehow colluding with each other, they offer their own prescription for a "reformed realism" to be built on "seven bedrock insights."

The seven insights share this common quality: They are unflaggingly banal. Yet the last of the seven manages to be both banal and immensely instructive: Realism, Brands and Feaver write, "requires not throwing away what has worked in the past."

Here we come to the heart of the matter. What exactly is the "the past" that remains relevant to the present and that provides the basis for their version of authentic (as opposed to academic) realism?

On this point, Brands and Feaver, are admirably candid. The only past that matters is the Cold War, carefully curated as a narrative of American triumphalism. Anything that happened before the Cold War qualifies as irrelevant. Cold War episodes that turned out to be less than triumphal!Vietnam, for example!receive the barest acknowledgment. As for misfortunes that may have befallen the United States since the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, Brands and Feaver shrug them off as insignificant. Sure, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq did prove far costlier than expected." But so what? Stuff happens!

Rather than get hung up on Iraq or Afghanistan or the ongoing debacle of U.S. interventionism in the Islamic world, Brands and Feaver keep their focus on the early Cold War, which they depict as a veritable Golden Age of realism and by extension of American statecraft. Peppering their account are favorable references to "Cold War-era realism" and "Cold War realists." After World War II, "realist thinkers understood that America was uniquely capable of stabilizing the international order and containing Soviet power." Back then, serious realists!in contrast to today's academic types!were the very inverse of wooly-headed. "Cold War realists were willing to see the world as it was," according to Brands and Feaver. "During the Cold War, then, realism was a supple, nuanced doctrine."

Stripped to its essentials, their argument reduces to a brazen tautology: Approaches to policy that worked during the Cold War will work today because they worked during the Cold War. Of course, the argument presumes that the world in which we live today is more or less comparable to the world that existed back in the Forties and Fifties. As to how the supple, nuanced doctrine advanced by realists during that Golden Age yielded such dubious propositions as bipolarity, the domino theory, and the bogus enterprise known as nuclear strategy, Brands and Feaver are conveniently silent.

"Contemporary academic realists," Brands and Feaver charge, "sit atop a pyramid of faulty assumptions." They themselves require no such pyramid. Their version of realism rests on just a single assumption: That history is a menu from which Americans can pick and choose. To escape from currently bothersome predicaments, in no small part the product of our folly, Brands and Feaver would have the United States choose from that menu only those bits that we find congenial. The rest we can simply ignore.

Come to think of it, that's an approach that might find favor with Donald Trump himself.


Andrew J. Bacevich is The American Conservative 's writer-at-large.

[Sep 20, 2017] The Politics of Military Ascendancy by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities. ..."
"... We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition. ..."
"... The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. ..."
"... The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China. ..."
"... After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'. ..."
"... Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones. ..."
"... The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price. ..."
"... While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders. ..."
"... The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. ..."
"... Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses. ..."
"... The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons: ..."
"... the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. ..."
"... Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees. ..."
"... Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains. ..."
"... Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities. ..."
"... American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. ..."
"... They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter. ..."
"... How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ... ..."
"... It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself ..."
Sep 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Clearly the US has escalated the pivotal role of the military in the making of foreign and, by extension, domestic policy. The rise of ' the Generals' to strategic positions in the Trump regime is evident, deepening its role as a highly autonomous force determining US strategic policy agendas.

In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities.

We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition.

The Prelude to Militarization: Obama's Multi-War Strategy and Its Aftermath

The central role of the military in deciding US foreign policy has its roots in the strategic decisions taken during the Obama-Clinton Presidency. Several policies were decisive in the rise of unprecedented military-political power.

The massive increase of US troops in Afghanistan and their subsequent failures and retreat weakened the Obama-Clinton regime and increased animosity between the military and the Obama's Administration. As a result of his failures, Obama downgraded the military and weakened Presidential authority. The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. The US military intervention in Iraq was only a secondary contributing factor in the defeat of ISIS; the major actors and beneficiaries were Iran and the allied Iraqi Shia militias. The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures.

The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China.

The Obama 'legacy' consists of an international order of globalized capital and multiple wars. The continuity of Obama's 'glorious legacy' initially depended on the election of Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump's presidential campaign, for its part, promised to dismantle or drastically revise the Obama Doctrine of an international order based on multiple wars , neo-colonial 'nation' building and free trade. A furious Obama 'informed' (threatened) the newly-elected President Trump that he would face the combined hostility of the entire State apparatus, Wall Street and the mass media if he proceeded to fulfill his election promises of economic nationalism and thus undermine the US-centered global order.

Trump's bid to shift from Obama's sanctions and military confrontation to economic reconciliation with Russia was countered by a hornet's nest of accusations about a Trump-Russian electoral conspiracy, darkly hinting at treason and show trials against his close allies and even family members.

The concoction of a Trump-Russia plot was only the first step toward a total war on the new president, but it succeeded in undermining Trump's economic nationalist agenda and his efforts to change Obama's global order.

Trump Under Obama's International Order

After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'.

Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones.

Trump's military priorities were supposed to focus on strengthening domestic frontiers and overseas markets. He started by demanding that NATO partners pay for their own military defense responsibilities. Obama's globalists in both political parties were aghast that the US might lose it overwhelming control of NATO; they united and moved immediately to strip Trump of his economic nationalist allies and their programs.

Trump quickly capitulated and fell into line with Obama's international order, except for one proviso – he would select the Cabinet to implement the old/new international order.

A hamstrung Trump chose a military cohort of Generals, led by General James Mattis (famously nicknamed ' Mad Dog' ) as Defense Secretary.

The Generals effectively took over the Presidency. Trump abdicated his responsibilities as President.

General Mattis: The Militarization of America

General Mattis took up the Obama legacy of global militarization and added his own nuances, including the 'psychological-warfare' embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.

The ' Mattis Doctrine' combined high-risk threats with aggressive provocations, bringing the US (and the world) to the brink of nuclear war.

General Mattis has adopted the targets and fields of operations, defined by the previous Obama administration as it has sought to re-enforce the existing imperialist international order.

The junta's policies relied on provocations and threats against Russia, with expanded economic sanctions. Mattis threw more fuel on the US mass media's already hysterical anti-Russian bonfire. The General promoted a strategy of low intensity diplomatic thuggery, including the unprecedented seizure and invasion of Russian diplomatic offices and the short-notice expulsion of diplomats and consular staff.

These military threats and acts of diplomatic intimidation signified that the Generals' Administration under the Puppet President Trump was ready to sunder diplomatic relations with a major world nuclear power and indeed push the world to direct nuclear confrontation.

What Mattis seeks in these mad fits of aggression is nothing less than capitulation on the part of the Russian government regarding long held US military objectives – namely the partition of Syria (which started under Obama), harsh starvation sanctions on North Korea (which began under Clinton) and the disarmament of Iran (Tel Aviv's main goal) in preparation for its dismemberment.

The Mattis junta occupying the Trump White House heightened its threats against a North Korea, which (in Vladimir Putin's words) ' would rather eat grass than disarm' . The US mass media-military megaphones portrayed the North Korean victims of US sanctions and provocations as an 'existential' threat to the US mainland.

Sanctions have intensified. The stationing of nuclear weapons on South Korea is being pushed. Massive joint military exercises are planned and ongoing in the air, sea and land around North Korea. Mattis twisted Chinese arms (mainly business comprador-linked bureaucrats) and secured their UN Security Council vote on increased sanctions. Russia joined the Mattis-led anti-Pyongyang chorus, even as Putin warned of sanctions ineffectiveness! (As if General ' Mad Dog' Mattis would ever take Putin's advice seriously, especially after Russia voted for the sanctions!)

Mattis further militarized the Persian Gulf, following Obama's policy of partial sanctions and bellicose provocation against Iran.

When he worked for Obama, Mattis increased US arms shipments to the US's Syrian terrorists and Ukrainian puppets, ensuring the US would be able to scuttle any ' negotiated settlements' .

Militarization: An Evaluation

Trump's resort to ' his Generals' is supposed to counter any attacks from members of his own party and Congressional Democrats about his foreign policy. Trump's appointment of ' Mad Dog' Mattis, a notorious Russophobe and warmonger, has somewhat pacified the opposition in Congress and undercut any 'finding' of an election conspiracy between Trump and Moscow dug up by the Special Investigator Robert Mueller. Trump's maintains a role as nominal President by adapting to what Obama warned him was ' their international order' – now directed by an unelected military junta composed of Obama holdovers!

The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price.

While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders.

In sum, under a weakened President Trump, the militarization of the White House benefits the military junta and enlarges their power. The ' Mad Dog' Mattis program has had mixed results, at least in its initial phase: The junta's threats to launch a pre-emptive (possibly nuclear) war against North Korea have strengthened Pyongyang's commitment to develop and refine its long and medium range ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapons. Brinksmanship failed to intimidate North Korea. Mattis cannot impose the Clinton-Bush-Obama doctrine of disarming countries (like Libya and Iraq) of their advanced defensive weapons systems as a prelude to a US 'regime change' invasion.

Any US attack against North Korea will lead to massive retaliatory strikes costing tens of thousands of US military lives and will kill and maim millions of civilians in South Korea and Japan.

At most, ' Mad Dog' managed to intimidate Chinese and Russian officials (and their export business billionaire buddies) to agree to more economic sanctions against North Korea. Mattis and his allies in the UN and White House, the loony Nikki Hailey and a miniaturized President Trump, may bellow war – yet they cannot apply the so-called 'military option' without threatening the US military forces stationed throughout the Asia Pacific region.

The Mad Dog Mattis assault on the Russian embassy did not materially weaken Russia, but it has revealed the uselessness of Moscow's conciliatory diplomacy toward their so-called 'partners' in the Trump regime.

The end-result might lead to a formal break in diplomatic ties, which would increase the danger of a military confrontation and a global nuclear holocaust.

The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. These are Mattis' short-term gains over the excessively pliant Chinese bureaucrats. However, if Mad Dog intensifies direct military threats against China, Beijing can retaliate by dumping tens of billions of US Treasury notes, cutting trade ties, sowing chaos in the US economy and setting Wall Street against the Pentagon.

Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses.

Conclusion

The militarization of US foreign policy, the establishment of a military junta within the Trump Administration, and the resort to nuclear brinksmanship has not changed the global balance of power.

Domestically Trump's nominal Presidency relies on militarists, like General Mattis. Mattis has tightened the US control over NATO allies, and even rounded up stray European outliers, like Sweden, to join in a military crusade against Russia. Mattis has played on the media's passion for bellicose headlines and its adulation of Four Star Generals.

But for all that – North Korea remains undaunted because it can retaliate. Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and remains a counterweight to a US-dominated globe. China owns the US Treasury and its unimpressed, despite the presence of an increasingly collision-prone US Navy swarming throughout the South China Sea.

Mad Dog laps up the media attention, with well dressed, scrupulously manicured journalists hanging on his every bloodthirsty pronouncement. War contractors flock to him, like flies to carrion. The Four Star General 'Mad Dog' Mattis has attained Presidential status without winning any election victory (fake or otherwise). No doubt when he steps down, Mattis will be the most eagerly courted board member or senior consultant for giant military contractors in US history, receiving lucrative fees for half hour 'pep-talks' and ensuring the fat perks of nepotism for his family's next three generations. Mad Dog may even run for office, as Senator or even President for whatever Party.

The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons:

First of all, the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. Intimidation via sanctions can succeed in imposing significant economic pain on oil export-dependent regimes, but not on hardened, self-sufficient or highly diversified economies.

Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees.

High intensity military brinksmanship carries major risk of massive losses in lives, allies, territory and piles of radiated ashes – a pyrrhic victory!

In sum:

Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains.

Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities.

Raffler, September 15, 2017 at 2:25 pm GMT

American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. Those policy thrusts will accomplish the opposite of the stated intention.

They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter.

nsa, September 16, 2017 at 4:03 am GMT

Anyone with military experience recognizes the likes of Mad Poodle Mattis arrogant, belligerent, exceptionally dull, and mainly an inveterate suck-up (mil motto: kiss up and kick down).

Every VFW lounge is filled with these boozy ridiculous blowhards and they are insufferable. The media and public, raised on ZioVision and JooieWood pablum, worship these cartoonish bloodletters even though they haven't won a war in 72 years .not one.

How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ...

KA, September 16, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT

It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself .

Now military has decided to reverse the roles . At least the military leaders don't have to campaign for re employment . But very soon the forces that corrupt and abuse the civilian power structure will do same to military .

The Alarmist, September 19, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

Never met him at any of the parties I attended in the '70s and '80s, so I don't know much about Mad Dog, but I can say that only in America can the former commander of a recruiting station grow up to pull the strings of the President.

[Sep 20, 2017] Trumps Belligerent U.N. Speech by Daniel Larison

The message to the global community has been clear: it's Trump's way or the highway.
Notable quotes:
"... Paired with his confrontational rhetoric directed towards North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Syria, Trump's choice to cast these states as the "wicked few" portends more aggressive and meddlesome policies and gives the leaders of all of these governments reason to assume the worst about our intentions. It was similar to Bush's foolish "axis of evil" remarks in 2002. ..."
"... All of this belligerent and confrontational rhetoric just raises tensions in several different parts of the world, and it appears to commit the U.S. to more meddling around the world and potentially risks getting the U.S. into more avoidable wars. ..."
"... None of that has anything to do with putting American interests first. Much of Trump's speech was an assertion of a desire to dictate terms to other states, and as such it is likely to be poorly received by most of the governments of the world. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Trump's speech at the U.N. General Assembly this morning contained a lot of ill-advised and dangerous remarks, but this one stood out:

If the righteous many don't confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.

U.S. foreign policy already suffers from far too much self-congratulation and excessive confidence in our own righteousness, so it was alarming to hear Trump speak in such stark, fanatical terms about international affairs. Paired with his confrontational rhetoric directed towards North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Syria, Trump's choice to cast these states as the "wicked few" portends more aggressive and meddlesome policies and gives the leaders of all of these governments reason to assume the worst about our intentions. It was similar to Bush's foolish "axis of evil" remarks in 2002.

The statement itself is also rather odd in that it talks about the many being righteous, when religious texts normally present the righteous as being the relatively few and embattled against the wicked multitude.

If the "wicked" are so few, they must be badly outnumbered and don't pose as much of a threat as Trump claims elsewhere. It also strains credulity that Trump speaks on behalf of righteousness when he embraces so many abusive despots and enables Saudi-led coalition crimes in Yemen.

Trump declared the nuclear deal an "embarrassment," which strongly suggests that he won't agree to recertify the deal when the next deadline comes up in mid-October. He emphasized the importance of sovereignty for the U.S., but in everything else he had to say he showed that he was happy to trample on the sovereignty of other states when it suited him. While his threat to "destroy" North Korea was framed as a defense of the U.S. and allies, it will only make the North Korean government more determined than ever to develop its nuclear arsenal and missiles. He hinted that the U.S. would interfere more in Venezuela , which will almost certainly be used by Maduro and his allies to their advantage.

All of this belligerent and confrontational rhetoric just raises tensions in several different parts of the world, and it appears to commit the U.S. to more meddling around the world and potentially risks getting the U.S. into more avoidable wars.

None of that has anything to do with putting American interests first. Much of Trump's speech was an assertion of a desire to dictate terms to other states, and as such it is likely to be poorly received by most of the governments of the world.

[Sep 20, 2017] Where Are the Brave Military Voices Against Forever War by Maj. Danny Sjursen

Notable quotes:
"... Today, my peers are silent. ..."
"... Siegfried Sassoon ..."
"... For all the celebration (and mythologizing) over World War II, at least we had Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller to burst our comfortable, patriotic bubble. And, though it likely lost him the presidency, Senator John Kerry (and his Vietnam Vets against the War mates) showed the courage to testify to the truth in the Winter Soldier Hearings. ..."
"... In 2017, it's near impossible to remember that today's professional, volunteer army is less than half a century old, a product of epic failure in Vietnam. Most of America's Founding Fathers, after all, scorned standing armies and favored a body of august, able citizen-soldiers. Something more akin to our National Guard. Deploy these men to faraway lands, so the thinking went, and each town would lose its blacksmith, carpenter, and cobbler too. Only vital interests warranted such sacrifice. Alas, it is no longer so. ..."
"... So today, my peers are silent. Professional officers are volunteers; dissenters are seen as little more than petulant whiners, or oddball nuts. It is hard to know why, exactly, but the increasing cognitive and spatial distance of contemporary soldiers from society at large seems a likely culprit. Combine that with the Republican Party's veritable monopoly on the political loyalties of the officer corps and you have yourself a lethal combination. ..."
"... By now, the wars are lost, if ever they were winnable. Iraq will fracture, Syria collapse, and Afghanistan wallow in perpetual chaos. It will be so. The people will forget. Our professional, corporate regiments will, undoubtedly, add banners to their battle flags -- sober reminders of a job well done in yet another lost cause. Soldiers will toast to lost comrades, add verses to their ballads, and precious few will ask why. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Today, my peers are silent.

But they've been taught the way to do it

Like Christian soldiers; not with haste

And shuddering groans; but passing through it

With due regard for decent taste

-- Siegfried Sassoon , How to Die (1918)

It is my favorite moment. Of World War I, that is. The one that stays with me.

Christmas, 1914: Nearly a million men are already dead, and the war is barely four months old. Suddenly, and ultimately in unison, the opposing German and British troops begin singing Christmas carols. At first light, German troops emerge unarmed from their trenches, and walk out into "no-man's land." Despite fearing a ruse, the Brits eventually joined their sworn enemies in the churned earth between the trench lines. Carols were sung, gifts of cigarettes exchanged -- one man even brought out a decorative tree. It only happened once. Though the bloody, senseless war raged across three more Christmases, the officers on each side quashed future attempts at a holiday truce. And yet, for that brief moment, in the ugliest of circumstances, the common humanity of Brits and Germans triumphed. It must have been beautiful.

Ultimately, nearly ten million men would die in battle. For all that, little was settled. It rarely is. The ruling classes still ruled, the profiteers profited, and Europe went to war again not twenty years later. So it went, and so it goes.

Nonetheless, World War I boasted countless skeptics and anti-war activists both in and out of uniform. Their poetry and prose was dark, but oh was it ever powerful. Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen from the Brits; Erich Maria Remarque for the stoic Germans; and our own Ernest Hemingway. A lost generation, which sacrificed so much more than youth: their innocence. They call to us, these long dead dissenters, from the grave.

They might ask: Where are today's skeptical veterans? Tragically, silence is our only ready response.

It was not always so in America. During the brutal Seminole Indian Wars, 17 percent of army officers resigned in disgust rather than continue burning villages and hunting natives down like dogs in Florida's Everglades' swamps. Mark Twain's cheeky prose demolished the Philippine-American colonial war at the turn of the century (some 30 years after he briefly served in the Missouri state militia during the Civil War). Hemingway, laid the truth bare after being wounded in the First Great War while serving as a Red Cross ambulance driver. And Major General Smedley Butler -- two-time Medal of Honor recipient though he was -- emerged from the Caribbean "Banana Wars" to admit he'd been naught but a "high class muscle man for Big Business," a "gangster for capitalism."

For all the celebration (and mythologizing) over World War II, at least we had Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller to burst our comfortable, patriotic bubble. And, though it likely lost him the presidency, Senator John Kerry (and his Vietnam Vets against the War mates) showed the courage to testify to the truth in the Winter Soldier Hearings.

Today, despite a few brave attempts, we are treated to nothing of the sort. Why, you ask?

To begin with, most of the above mentioned wars were fought by draftees, militiamen, and short-term volunteers: in other words, citizen-soldiers. Even now, the identity of "citizen-soldier" ought to emphasize the former term: citizen . It doesn't. Now, as we veterans are constantly reminded, we are warriors . Professionals. Hail Sparta!

In 2017, it's near impossible to remember that today's professional, volunteer army is less than half a century old, a product of epic failure in Vietnam. Most of America's Founding Fathers, after all, scorned standing armies and favored a body of august, able citizen-soldiers. Something more akin to our National Guard. Deploy these men to faraway lands, so the thinking went, and each town would lose its blacksmith, carpenter, and cobbler too. Only vital interests warranted such sacrifice. Alas, it is no longer so.

In truth, the "citizen-soldier" is dead, replaced -- to the sound of cheers -- by self-righteous subalterns hiding beneath the sly veil of that ubiquitous corporate idiom: professionalism. Discipline, motivation, teamwork -- these are all sleek, bureaucratic terms certain to mold terrific middle managers, but they remain morally bare. And, ultimately, futile.

So today, my peers are silent. Professional officers are volunteers; dissenters are seen as little more than petulant whiners, or oddball nuts. It is hard to know why, exactly, but the increasing cognitive and spatial distance of contemporary soldiers from society at large seems a likely culprit. Combine that with the Republican Party's veritable monopoly on the political loyalties of the officer corps and you have yourself a lethal combination.

Only don't rule out cowardice. Who isn't fearful for their career, income, and family stability? It is only natural. After all, this business -- despite protestations to the contrary -- does not tend to value intellectualism or creative thinking. Trust me. Besides, in this struggling transitory economy, the military "welfare state" is a tempting option for America's declining middle class. Ironic, isn't it, that the heavily conservative officer corps loves their socialized medicine and guaranteed pensions?

Under the circumstances, perhaps silence is understandable. But it is also complicity.

By now, the wars are lost, if ever they were winnable. Iraq will fracture, Syria collapse, and Afghanistan wallow in perpetual chaos. It will be so. The people will forget. Our professional, corporate regiments will, undoubtedly, add banners to their battle flags -- sober reminders of a job well done in yet another lost cause. Soldiers will toast to lost comrades, add verses to their ballads, and precious few will ask why.

Perhaps a good officer suppresses such doubt, maintains a stoic, if dour, dignity, and silently soldiers on. As for me, I am not made of such stuff, and more's the pity. I buried seven men in the fields of the Forever War, casualties of combat and the muted sufferings of suicide.

Their banal sacrifice demands explanation. They deserve as much. For those lonely few, we who publicly dissent, the audience is scant, interest meagre, and our existence: solitary.

Major Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wrote a memoir, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet .

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.)

*** This article has been edited to reflect Mark Twain's brief stint in the Missouri state militia, not the regular Confederate army; and the fact that Ernest Hemingway served the Red Cross during World War I.

[Sep 20, 2017] America Is Getting Outclassed by Russian Electronic Warfare The National Interest

Sep 20, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

Rokoss , September 19, 2017 9:06 PM

This article will be used by some lobbyist working for Northrop Grumman during his next meeting with a bunch of congressmen. "I told you, those evil russkies are back at it again, we are getting outclassed and thus we need more money. $700 billion is not enough".
The congressmen will cry about the electronic warfare gap, the new increased defense budget will be adopted, multi-billion contracts will be singed, the congressmen will get their fat kickbacks and everyone will be happy. Only in America

1 KoolKat Rokoss , September 20, 2017 4:49 AM

Only in America is money or technology the solution to the problems. I am sorry to to say that ain't going to cut. It all boils down to strategy and tactics that's where the US has its greatest deficit.

WTF 1 KoolKat , September 20, 2017 9:03 AM

One theme stands out in every aspect when it comes to the U.S.A.

Gross mismanagement.

Bongstar420 WTF , September 20, 2017 2:07 PM

So which country do you propose as the paragon of virtue?

The model by which the world is better to progress?

WTF Bongstar420 , September 20, 2017 4:21 PM

Military procurement management. Are you ready? China, Russia and even North Korea. Trackable progress.

US. Dreams and reality. Hit and miss. Promises and delays. Launches and problems.

Bongstar420 1 KoolKat , September 20, 2017 2:05 PM

If we don't free the commoner of social brainwashing, yes, russia will win. They are really good at that game and that game creates a society like current russia.

Bongstar420 Rokoss , September 20, 2017 2:04 PM

So the ruskies didn't do this?
Or do you expect us to lay over and let them pillage our bottom ends?

Do you want to live in russia? Is the American oligarchy just too class mobile for you and you want the russian version with even worse social structures?

cavedave , September 20, 2017 7:47 AM

Almost every article I read distresses about how America's military is inferior to Russia, China and even Iran. We are threatened that our aircraft carriers will soon be sunken nuclear waste sites, our submarines are inferior, aircraft vulnerable, our tactics outdated, our civilian leaders corrupt, military leaders incompetent, and sailors, soldiers, airman, and Marines poorly trained and equiped thugs. Let's save a bunch of money and tell the rest of the world we are no longer their protector. Bring our men and women home from these hell-holes and use the money to rebuild our own infrastructure, health and education systems, and take care of America's citizens.

Bongstar420 cavedave , September 20, 2017 2:09 PM

Its psyops. Fits in with the russian EWar bit.

The win is American loss of dominance. You propose we let them accomplish their goal.

cavedave Bongstar420 , September 20, 2017 2:40 PM

Yup!

mrakobeskopf , September 20, 2017 7:05 AM

the point is that russina EW is focused on defense
by means of disruption

tells you much about who is the aggressor (the one developing offensive means)
and who is only trying to protect his realm (by defensive weapons)

understand?

Bongstar420 mrakobeskopf , September 20, 2017 2:12 PM

Its highly probable that the ruskies are planning for replacing America.

cavedave Bongstar420 , September 20, 2017 2:42 PM

For what Amerika has become we not only deserve it; but we probably wouldn't notice much difference.

obama , September 20, 2017 4:07 PM

Still, the Russian are still silently sucking it up after the Israel Air Forces sneaked up under the S400 radar to bomb Syrian chemical bomb assembly plant in early September 2017.

Mark Thomason , September 20, 2017 1:34 PM

The Russians took a very different approach to electronic warfare.

In the US, it was pursued as a method to enable air strike packages to get in and hit a target. Hence, it focused on installations in aircraft.

In Russia, it was pursued as an element of land warfare, part air defense, and part to enable armored forces to operate. Much of it was put in trailers on the ground, near army HQ and signals units.

The different locations and roles produced different abilities. They got different things because they sought different things.

Now the US wants it all. What it got, and what the Russians got. Understandable, but the Russians are not so much "ahead" as just doing different things.

Bongstar420 Mark Thomason , September 20, 2017 2:14 PM

Detonate a low yield nuke several miles above the conflict zone.

How many devices are properly shielded from such an act?

Is this website a putin rag or what?

Mark Thomason Bongstar420 , September 20, 2017 3:11 PM

True, nuclear war would change everything. However, the whole point of conventional forces is that nuclear war is not the automatic event.

a new hope , September 19, 2017 10:41 PM

We are outclassed in EW by the Russians and our AAMs and ASMs and ATACS missiles are also inferior.
Who in the US military will be courageous enough to take responsibility?

1 KoolKat a new hope , September 20, 2017 4:59 AM

The Russians have been watching, studying and learning about the US military (putting all their eggs in one basket - technology) for quite awhile. EW is simply a "Method" or strategy to counter US tech. Blunder after blunder... within the US military to always first seek advance technology for the solution. They can't seem to grasp that it's all about philosophy of use and implementation. Strategy and tactics have always won on the battlefield and always will

Bongstar420 1 KoolKat , September 20, 2017 2:21 PM

I'm sure

Historian , September 19, 2017 9:40 PM

Good to keep pace. If I jam you, you jam me. What is there to battle?

mrakobeskopf Historian , September 20, 2017 7:06 AM

american military tech is to a much more degree reliant on hi-tech solutions

disrupt connectivity - and american military is a sitting duck

0x7be Historian , September 20, 2017 6:17 AM

You can still use knives and bayonets :)

vpurto 0x7be , September 20, 2017 9:12 AM

Bayonet? Do Historian really want to see bayonet match between American mercenaries hired by promise to became US citizens and Russian marines?

[Sep 20, 2017] None of what Trump describes as a "strategy for victory" in Afghanistan is, in fact, a strategy

It's "yet another surge"... With probably the same results. Military contractors will became richer. Some US solders will be dead of maimed. A lot of afghans will be killed.
Notable quotes:
"... From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operation, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians. I have also totally changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist groups. ..."
"... In fact, the US has not had anything remotely resembling a strategy in Afghanistan for years already. If it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable, really. What he really see here is the total absence of any strategy and, again, a total reliance on magical thinking. ..."
"... The amazing reality is that they don't have a goal even defined. How one achieves "victory" when no goal is even defined is anybody's guess. ..."
"... I would say that the only chance to get anything done, any viable result at all, is to negotiate a deal with all the parties that matter: the various Afghan factions, of course, but also with the Taliban, Pakistan, Iran and even Russia. ..."
"... Pakistan and Iran have a de-facto veto power over any outcome for Afghanistan. This may not be what the US would want, but this is the reality. Denying reality is just not a smart approach to these issues, especially if "victory" is the goal ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

Last month I announced a new strategy for victory in the fight against this evil in Afghanistan. From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operation, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians. I have also totally changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

What we see here is undeniable evidence that far from being "real warriors" or "strategists" the military gang around Trump (Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, etc.) are either primitive grunts or folks who owe their rank to political protection. Why do I say that?

Because none of what Trump describes as a "strategy for victory" is, in fact, a strategy. In fact, the US has not had anything remotely resembling a strategy in Afghanistan for years already. If it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable, really. What he really see here is the total absence of any strategy and, again, a total reliance on magical thinking.

Ask yourself a basic question: have you ever heard from any Trump administration or any US General anything which would suggest to you that these guys have i) a clear goal in mind ii) an understanding of what it would take to achieve this goal and iii) a timeframe to achieve this goal and iv) an exit strategy once this goal is achieved? No? Well, that is not your fault, you did not miss anything. They really don't have it.

The amazing reality is that they don't have a goal even defined. How one achieves "victory" when no goal is even defined is anybody's guess.

[Sidebar: without going into a lengthy discussion of Afghanistan, I would say that the only chance to get anything done, any viable result at all, is to negotiate a deal with all the parties that matter: the various Afghan factions, of course, but also with the Taliban, Pakistan, Iran and even Russia.

Pakistan and Iran have a de-facto veto power over any outcome for Afghanistan. This may not be what the US would want, but this is the reality. Denying reality is just not a smart approach to these issues, especially if "victory" is the goal]

[Sep 20, 2017] The hubris, ignorance and stupidity in face of the failure of "regime change" operation in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... The truth is that it was the Americans who created this Wahabi monster and that they aided, protected, financed, trained and armed it through all these years. ..."
"... The US also viciously opposed all the countries which were serious about fighting this Wahabi abomination. ..."
"... And then, just to make things worse, The Donald *proudly* mentions the failed attack against a Syrian air force base which had nothing to do with a false flag fake chemical attack. Wow! For any other political leader recalling such an event would be a burning embarrassment, but for The Donald it is something he proudly mentions. The hubris, ignorance and stupidity of it all leaves me in total awe ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

In Syria and Iraq, we have made big gains toward lasting defeat of ISIS. In fact, our country has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many, many years combined. The actions of the criminal regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the use of chemical weapons against his own citizens, even innocent children, shock the conscience of every decent person. No society could be safe if banned chemical weapons are allowed to spread. That is why the United States carried out a missile strike on the airbase that launched the attack.

When I heard these words I felt embarrassed for Trump. First, it is absolutely pathetic that Trump has to claim as his success the victories with the Syrians, the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah have achieved against the Wahabi-crazies of Daesh/al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/etc, especially since the latter are a pure creation of the US CIA!

The truth is that it was the Americans who created this Wahabi monster and that they aided, protected, financed, trained and armed it through all these years.

The US also viciously opposed all the countries which were serious about fighting this Wahabi abomination.

And now that a tiny Russian contingent has achieved infinitely better results that all the power of the mighty CENTCOM backed by the Israeli and Saudi allies of the US in the region, The Donald comes out and declares victory?!

Pathetic is not strong enough a word to describe this mind-bogglingly counter-factual statement.

And then, just to make things worse, The Donald *proudly* mentions the failed attack against a Syrian air force base which had nothing to do with a false flag fake chemical attack. Wow! For any other political leader recalling such an event would be a burning embarrassment, but for The Donald it is something he proudly mentions. The hubris, ignorance and stupidity of it all leaves me in total awe

[Sep 20, 2017] Sovereign Nations Is Main Theme Of Trump's UN Speech

Sovereignty is oppose of neoliberal globalization, so in a way this is an some kind of affirmation of Trump election position. How serious it is is not clear. Probably not much as Imperial faction now controls Trump, making him more of a marionette that a political leader of the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He forgot to mention pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. ..."
"... The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in. ..."
"... There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you endanger yourself if you don't do as told". ..."
"... "The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in" ..."
"... The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005. The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had. ..."
"... He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the Libya invasion. ..."
"... Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to 2011. ..."
"... How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces. ..."
"... Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi gaining in economic, science and technology ..."
"... I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open. ..."
"... Trump - the Republican Obama ..."
"... "The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet to accept this new reality. ..."
"... The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well. Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the ship(s) materialize?" ..."
"... it seems to me with Trump an era of so-called globalization has come to its end. ..."
"... Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with sovereignty. They are ..."
"... baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking. ..."
"... In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Today the President of the United States Donald Trump spoke (rush transcript) to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech's main the me was sovereignty. The word occurs 18(!) times. It emphasized Westphalian principles .

[W]e do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties, to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation

All leaders of countries should always put their countries first, he said, and "the nation state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition ."


The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 - bigger

Sovereignty was the core message of his speech. It rhymed well with his somewhat isolationist emphasis of "America first" during his campaign. The second part of the speech the first by threatened the sovereignty of several countries the U.S. ruling class traditionally dislikes. This year's "axis of evil" included North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba:

The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary."

Many people will criticize that as an outrageous and irresponsible use of words. It is. But there is nothing new to it. In fact the U.S., acting on behalf of the UN, totally destroyed Korea in the 1950s. The last U.S. president made the same threat Trump made today:

President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to North Korea on Tuesday, reminding its "erratic" and "irresponsible" leader that America's nuclear arsenal could "destroy" his country.

The South Korean military sounds equally belligerent :

A military source told the Yonhap news agency every part of Pyongyang "will be completely destroyed by ballistic missiles and high-explosives shells". ... The city, the source said, "will be reduced to ashes and removed from the map".

Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He forgot to mention pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. There was essentially nothing in Trump's threats than the claptrap the last two U.S. presidents also delivered. Trump may be crazy, but the speech today is not a sign of that.

The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in.

Posted by b on September 19, 2017 at 01:05 PM | Permalink

somebody | Sep 19, 2017 1:32:33 PM | 2
There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you endanger yourself if you don't do as told".
If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our nations, their interests and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty from the Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.

And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront together those who threatens us with chaos, turmoil, and terror. The score of our planet today is small regimes that violate every principle that the United Nations is based. They respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries. If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and strength.

b | Sep 19, 2017 1:51:10 PM | 3
@1 somebody - thanks - link corrected.

@2 somebody - yes, unaimed hostile prose from the speechwriter. Such is in the speech of every U.S. president. But it is not the general theme of the Trump speech when one reads it as one piece. The weight is put in the other direction (though the media will likely point to the threats instead of reading the more extraordinary parts where Trump pushes national sovereignty.)

Luther Blissett | Sep 19, 2017 1:53:43 PM | 4

If there is more to this than the usual US double-speak, I don't see it.

james | Sep 19, 2017 1:57:07 PM | 5
thanks b... ''the criminal regime of donald trump'' is much more on target....
Perimetr | Sep 19, 2017 2:02:47 PM | 6
"The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in"

It appears that his generals are instructing him what to "believe in". At least, he certainly doesn't seem to "believe in" most of his campaign promises, not unlike his recent predecessors. The whole "democracy and freedom" thing in the US is just a charade, as far as I am concerned.

financial matters | Sep 19, 2017 2:22:58 PM | 7
The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005. The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had.

I think this was a very good interview of Vijay Prashadby by Chris Hedges

Prashad

He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the Libya invasion.

Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to 2011.

--------

The good news is that Syria is turning out much different than Libya. Would be great to see the US cooperate with the China/Russia etc economic goals rather than stirring up trouble in the Phillippines, Myanmar etc. The first test will be to see if Trump can deliver single payer health care to the US. :) ie start to back off on the anti socialism rhetoric

Jeff Kaye | Sep 19, 2017 2:24:19 PM | 8
The "nation state" brought us the millions slaughtered in World War 1. The nation states threatened by the internationalist communist ideology of the USSR (in its early days) ultimately brought us World War 2. The hypertrophied nation state that is the United States of America will bring us World War 3 in its drive to secure its total supremacy. Luckily for us, there will be no World War 4.
Christophe Douté | Sep 19, 2017 2:27:49 PM | 9
How can a country A be "forced to defend itself" by a country B so weak comparatively to country A it can actually be "totally destroyed" by country A?

How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces.

Robert Beal | Sep 19, 2017 2:34:28 PM | 10
beyond hypocrisy, refined doublespeak
OJS | Sep 19, 2017 2:40:10 PM | 11
Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi gaining in economic, science and technology
Don Bacon | Sep 19, 2017 2:43:24 PM | 12
The United Nations is based upon the equal sovereignty of nations.
--from the UN Charter --
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations
Krollchem | Sep 19, 2017 2:46:18 PM | 13
Trump's speech seemed to represent an ignorant mouthy bully with a big stick who is threatening any nation he is told to hate. I have to agree with Paveway IV that Trump is just the announcer. The "national sovereignty" comments were just for internal consumption for his base of supporters.

The "Trump world: appears to be getting very crazy given the agendas of the people who handle Trump:
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_77417.shtml
http://www.unz.com/jpetras/who-rules-america-2/

To a major extent Trump's focus on the "great leader" of countries opposed to the US helps simplify the hate for the "little people" in the US. They have not noticed that the US (as in most other Western countries) has many mini "great leaders" who work toward the same goals while distracting the "little people" with political theatre.

Linda O | Sep 19, 2017 3:05:11 PM | 14
I really don't know what the purpose of this rambling threat to the rest of the world was supposed to accomplish.

Yes, it really was nothing new. The fundamental material of the speech was the very same garbage written by the same Washington establishment of previous administrations - essentially the nuclear armed US regime is 'special' and reserves the right to attack and destroy any country it chooses to.

While the Trump speech is rightly being both ridiculed around the world, what is very scary is the humiliated Trump base is seizing on it.

The Trump base is begging for their failed 'God Emperor' to attack someone to feel better about their own humiliation.

Very, very scary.

Don Bacon | Sep 19, 2017 3:10:41 PM | 15
Sovereignty is also an excuse for US intervention, get it? . . .Trump does....
America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety, their interests, and their well-being, including their prosperity.
duplicitousdemocracy | Sep 19, 2017 3:27:35 PM | 16
His speechwriters deserve to be fired and the text size on both teleprompters should have been increased. Alternatively, he should wear glasses (along with a more suitably fitted toupee). Sarah Palin would seem like Einstein at the side of this clown.
Ort | Sep 19, 2017 3:32:27 PM | 17
Trump's speech is Orwellian! Not just generally-- it is arguably an elaboration of a close paraphase of an Orwell quote, to wit: "All nations are sovereign, but some nations are more sovereign than others."

I have a strongly ambivalent reaction to Trump's UN appearance-- although I confess that I can only stand to watch and listen to him for brief time periods. It's appalling and embarrassing to watch any of the US's seemingly inexhaustible supply of lizard-brained degenerates at the UN. But part of me thinks it's better to have the quintessential Ugly Amerikan beating his chest and engaging in rhetorical feces-flinging. At least the rest of the world won't be bamboozled, the way they might be by a smooth, silver-tongued liar.

likklemore | Sep 19, 2017 3:50:54 PM | 18
@OJS 11

Putin, Xi and other leaders did not attend this year's UN gathering. They are busy attending the affairs of their citizens.

We are being distracted from the game changer ahead – de-dollarization now on the fast track.
While the toothless dog barks,

Putin orders to end trade in US dollars at Russian seaports

https://www.rt.com/business/403804-russian-sea-ports-ruble-settlements/

This is on the heels of Trump's threatening to exclude China from use of SWIFT (the USD) and China's gold yuan oil futures contract coming mid October as opposed to USD. The petro-yuan is a game changer; hitting the petro-dollar hegemony that keeps the dollar in worldwide demand.

The toothless dog has only his bark. Are Americans prepared for hyper-inflation?

psychohistorian | Sep 19, 2017 4:08:53 PM | 19
I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open.

The abuse of the term sovereignty by Trump is part of a crafted Big Lie message. Just like Trump linking to the poster of him, with a rope over his shoulder, dragging a barge of companies back to America......the internationalism genie will never go completely back into the bottle and is counterproductive to all.

Christian Chuba | Sep 19, 2017 4:46:02 PM | 20
John Bolton and the moron, Sean Hannity, love the speech. That should be all anyone needs to know. It was Orwellian, super-villain, double-speak.
If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.
Madman. How has Iran violated the U.N. charter? They were invited into Iraq and Syria by the UN recognized govts. Okay, they make veiled threats against Israel, they get a demerit for that. Even if you argue that they are 'predicting' rather can 'threatening to cause' Israel's demise, I'd take that as a veiled threat. But Israel makes equally hostile comments towards Iran albeit, in a passive / aggressive manner. Netanyahu, 'We recognize Iran's right to exist but truth be told the planet, no wait, the entire universe itself would be better off if they disappeared'.
Jackrabbit | Sep 19, 2017 5:02:50 PM | 21
Trump - the Republican Obama
Jackrabbit | Sep 19, 2017 5:12:32 PM | 22
If you like your sovereignty, you can keep your sovereignty.
Andy | Sep 19, 2017 5:12:41 PM | 23
Well, it has finally arrived at the U.N. speech. Trump is showing his real colors, whether they are forced or were originally his own. It doesn't matter. He is spouting the same nonsenze as the neocons and the rest of them. He has crossed over - he maybe never knew the way through, but was only parroting other's views. He is clearly a chameleon, willing to change his stripes on a dime. The man is darkly lost in the woods, or is it the swamp?
chet380 | Sep 19, 2017 5:26:05 PM | 24
Sorry, somewhat off-topic --

While there have been hints that the Rohingya "rebels" are receiving funds from expatriates in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is there anything concrete that connects the CIA to the rebels?

Laguerre | Sep 19, 2017 5:42:58 PM | 25
Frankly Trump is a big mouth, but there's no evidence that he's more than that. If he wanted war, we'd already be there. It's different from Saddam in the old days, who went to war within a year of becoming leader, or the Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, who launched the war against Yemen.

59 Tomahawks, that's the style. I haven't seen different from then.

Taxi | Sep 19, 2017 5:46:38 PM | 26
Hypocrisy - huuuge hypocrisy, believe me it was tremendous hypocrisy!
mcohen | Sep 19, 2017 5:47:45 PM | 27
trump is mr thunder thump
Bart in VA | Sep 19, 2017 5:50:25 PM | 28
He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos."

Like the pundits who shadow him, he really has no understanding of irony.

Bart in VA | Sep 19, 2017 5:52:58 PM | 29
#4 - "Failed State" - A country too poor for us to exploit.
Lochearn | Sep 19, 2017 6:01:13 PM | 30
The advantage of having Trump around is that he seems to diffuse energy. He is not building a case against N. Korea like Bush did with Iraq, but instead he is big on bluster. There is no appeal to the emotions of people and their fears and as such he is not marketing it, something he knows a lot about. In his own way I believe he is defusing the situation by talking big but remebering Bannon's comments when he left. And as a consummate player at the table of power (unlike the novice Obama) he has his status.

What interests me is Tillerson and the State Department and its attitude to Israel. Syria is where Israel met its match and was soundly thrashed. The world will never be the same again, And the State Department is recognizing this reality. I think there is a recognition in certain powerful quarters that whole neocon-Zionist shit has got America nowhere. As Talking Heads said, "We're on the road to nowhere."

Extra | Sep 19, 2017 6:12:58 PM | 31
Andy@23
It's the swamp. Sounds like Pete Seeger's 'Waist deep in the Big Muddy' all over again.
Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 6:15:58 PM | 32
The speech (it reminds me on movie The Kings Speech https://youtu.be/PPLIw64rLJc TERRIBLE MOVIE) is for internal the US purpose, for Amerikkaans. Majority of them, according to the Gov. media outlets, support military action against DPRK and mostly likely against Iran (the most hatred nation by far) as well. Amerikkaans will support any crime anywhere and probably destruction of whole planet Earth.

In the same time his words and deeds are the most irrelevant of any US presidents. I bet he never heard of that word "sovereignty" before nor for "nation state". This morning when Trump woke up some member of National Security Council put sheet of paper with the speech on his desk and tell him "Read this!". Just as they did to Obama in many occasions, one of example is this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/may/04/obama-drinks-flint-water-video

There some people in the US who knows what is going on:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/redefining-winning-afghanistan-22176

For all the very considerable expense, however, the American military does not have a very impressive record of achieving victory. It has won no wars since 1945!especially if victory is defined as achieving an objective at acceptable cost!except against enemy forces that essentially didn't exist.
james | Sep 19, 2017 6:24:49 PM | 33
@7 financial matters.. good comment and relevant.. i agree with you.. unipolar no more.. however, not quite multipolar yet either... we are still in a transitional place.. syria is no libya fortunately.. but causing this kind of shit around the globe is what the usa is known for.. they will continue to make war projects, especially if you believe as b notes a couple of threads ago - trump is no longer calling the shots.. it is military guys full on..
Lochearn | Sep 19, 2017 6:26:51 PM | 34
@ 52

I rather liked the film "The King's Speech because it was about speech. Your English is fucking awful Chancey, not good enough for this forum. Get some lessons and come back.

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 6:28:50 PM | 35
@Lochearn | Sep 19, 2017 6:26:51 PM | 34

Read this Nazi. https://www.sprottmoney.com/Blog/actions-of-a-bully-child-or-dying-empire-sanctions-and-threats-rory-hall.html

"The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet to accept this new reality.

The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well. Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the ship(s) materialize?"

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 6:29:56 PM | 36
Lochearn | Sep 19, 2017 6:26:51 PM | 34

You like a movie. Of course, it is for morons.

Lozion | Sep 19, 2017 6:38:33 PM | 37
Comment @4 is spot on..
Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 6:39:43 PM | 38
@Lochearn aka Nazi

I recognize you from before, but how do you like these links?

https://www.sprottmoney.com/Blog/actions-of-a-bully-child-or-dying-empire-sanctions-and-threats-rory-hall.html

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/redefining-winning-afghanistan-22176

Where have you raised, under rock or in cave?

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 6:51:12 PM | 39
For a Nazi. A question, do you believe in science? Here is one. But does one need to be scientist to figure this out?"The Rise of Incivility and Bullying in America"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201207/the-rise-incivility-and-bullying-in-america

you are lost case anyway but here is good text from fellow Amerikkaan. But "Rise" from where? I would argue not from Zero but from 60 on scale of 100.

Agree?

karlof1 | Sep 19, 2017 6:56:49 PM | 40
Violating the sovereign sanctity of nations is what the Outlaw US Empire has done without parallel since the United Nation's formation. One of those nations was Vietnam, and a somewhat respected documentary film maker looks like he's going to try--again--to pull wool over the eyes of his intended audience by trying to legitimate the Big Lie that provided the rationale for the Outlaw US Empire's illegal war against Vietnam. The detailed argument regarding Ken Burns's effort to "correct" the actual historical record can be read here, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/19/getting-the-gulf-of-tonkin-wrong-are-ken-burns-and-lynn-novick-telling-stories-about-the-central-events-used-to-legitimize-the-us-attack-against-vietnam/ and it is probably the sort of history Trump would enjoy since he doesn't seem to know any better.
Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 7:09:16 PM | 41
@Lochearn aka Nazi

How many nick/names do you have? You may hide under this and that stupid but your associations are still here. You stay stupid. I know, I know the truth hurts. You Amerikkaans are not used to it. Go and watch a porn, before de-dollarization is in full swing. Than you are going to stave to death, no more credit cards and quantitative easing. That's is Trump's speech for.

https://www.opednews.com/articles/What-Happened-to-All-Those-by-Jim-Hightower-Banksters_Homeownership_Housing-170819-119.html

Wall Street bought them -- and is now leasing them out and driving up rents.

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 7:13:05 PM | 42
Oh my terrible English. Forgive me, would you?

Instead "stave" should be "starve".

All this has to do with shitty Europe, Germany first and foremost.

MadMax2 | Sep 19, 2017 7:14:02 PM | 43
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 19, 2017 2:22:58 PM | 7
Nice interview from a couple of years back. Prashad's worldview is worthy of reposting. Enjoyable. Cheers.

US Americans might have proved themselves very adept at destroying both nation states and the English language, though it will be Syria who restores true meaning to the word 'sovereign' - with some collective help of course.

The almost failed state will emerge from this steeled with a sense of identity, pride and purpose. The minnow that refused to buckle.

The Don putting together some performances that finally warrant the unified, rabid reaction from the press....

Oilman2 | Sep 19, 2017 7:42:50 PM | 44
"But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in."

Are you serious? Everything coming out of DC is still the same - sanctions against other sovereign countries who do not tow the line the US demands, cruise missiles for the little guys, disavowing and de-legitimizing the JCPOA, unrelenting 'freedom of navigation' patrols, threats to cut nations off from the SWIFT system, every word out of Nikki Haleys' mouth... It's really easy to go on and on, and his first year isn't even done.

The amount of disrespect for other sovereign nations by the USA is mind boggling, and that is only the official stuff. Throw in CIA ops and NGO ops and there you have an entire other level of the failure to recognize sovereignty.

Can you send me some of what you are smoking? Because it obviously makes you oblivious to the obvious, and that may help my mood...

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 7:48:40 PM | 45
Obviously, the UN has became an arena of the one country show and that country puppets. Zionist PM, the West most "faithful ally" on Middle East, and his speech. Mix of infantilism, rhetoric and implicit racism of "God Chosen People". And sea of self-congratulating lies.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47844.htm

In par with Trump's speech.

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 7:56:52 PM | 46
Oilman2!

is that you?

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 8:05:13 PM | 47
What is Trump's speech for?

Senate backs massive increase in military spending
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-congress/senate-backs-massive-increase-in-military-spending-idUSKCN1BT2PV

V. Arnold | Sep 19, 2017 8:12:32 PM | 48
karlof1 | Sep 19, 2017 6:56:49 PM | 40

Great comment re: Vietnam. The Ken Burns documentary is just one more fairy tale of the U.S. involvement/war in Vietnam.
Among the many myths, foremost is that Ho Chi Minh was a communist; he most assuredly was not. Yes, he was a member of the party in France, but it is irrelevent to history (Ho was a nationalist).
Did you know he tried to engage FDR?
Below is a remarkable interview with John Pilger on the real history of the U.S. and Vietnam; it ain't pretty. Even Mao tried to engage the U.S., which the U.S. duly ignored.

https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/403760-nuclear-standoff-crisis-china/

PavewayIV | Sep 19, 2017 8:12:34 PM | 49
Why is everyone hating on Trump? Be realistic: sometimes you have to genocide 25 million people to save them. We're the God damn hero here - you bastards should be thanking the USA.

Well, I guess we're really not trying to save the North Koreans at all. But they refuse to leave the buffer zone (all of North Korea) that is protecting the world from red Chinese expansion south. Worse than that, the North Koreans insist on protecting themselves BY FORCE from the US. How evil is that?

Reminds me of those evil Syrians and Iraqis who refuse to vacate the buffer zone protecting Israel from Iran. The nerve!

Only US lapdog nations have the right to defend themselves - as long as its with US-made weapons and they're protecting themselves from anybody except the US. And we get to build US bases on their soil. Who wouldn't want that? Because the US is... what did Trump say... RIGHTEOUS. You know:

"...good, virtuous, upright, upstanding, decent; ethical, principled, moral, high-minded, law-abiding, honest, honorable, blameless, irreproachable, noble; saintly, angelic, pure..."

Tell me which one of those synonyms DOES NOT apply to the US? I prefer 'angelic'.

The first thing psychopaths do when they attain any measure of power and control is to redefine evil as anything that threatens their power and control. Then constantly hammer that threat into the minds of the little people so the little people don't think too hard about stringing them up from the lamp posts.

Everything the US has done in my lifetime has been about preserving and protecting the US government no matter how corrupt, evil or immoral it acts. Protecting the people is only given lip service when it can be used to justify further protections for the state. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security Stazi is probably the end stage for full-spectrum dominance over the little people - it is slowly morphing (as planned) into a federal armed force to protect the US government FROM the little people. I guess the FBI wasn't up to the task.

"The government you elect is the government you deserve" Thomas Jefferson, Founding Terrorist.

V. Arnold | Sep 19, 2017 8:14:56 PM | 50
PavewayIV | Sep 19, 2017 8:12:34 PM | 49

Spot on...

Krollchem | Sep 19, 2017 8:26:44 PM | 51
Chauncey Gardiner@ 32

Do you agree that to point of National Interest article seem to be that the US is not capable of invading and controlling non-European countries?

I did find the Cato Institute author to be very poorly informed about the US invasions of Granada and Panama, the Balkan wars, the Kosovo invasion and the Syrian war.

As for ISIS, the author does not know anything about the incubation of ISIS by the US administrations and the Libyan war (Hillary/Obama/Sarkozy) connection . He also does not discuss the billions in military hardware that the US allowed ISIS to capture in Iraq.

As for the US efforts they are more about preventing the formation of an integrated economic sphere between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanese Republic. The war efforts by the US in fighting ISIS are minimal compared to the Syrian and Russian efforts, yet he lies by omission to pump up the US efforts. At least he didn't attempt to praise Turkey (sic) for their efforts in cutting off aid to ISIS and Al Qaeda (under all its names).

Remember that the Cato Institute is another flavor of the NGO spider supporting the deep state!

Please understand that this is not a personal attack as I am here to learn and share.

John Gilberts | Sep 19, 2017 8:44:57 PM | 52
Canada's Trudeau will follow Trump at the UN on Thursday. Today he received an award from the Atlantic Council: 'Worldwide the long established international order is being tested..' And obviously the sexy northern selfie-king knows his place in it...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kp49TFRMR8g
Don Bacon | Sep 19, 2017 8:51:24 PM | 53
@ 49
Yes, to save the 25 million North Koreans the US must destroy them!

"No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of countless more."
. ..but there are limits. . .

"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."

So give me that "no more contempt" line again, Donald? (Personally, I can't imagine Hillary doing any less. So much for elections.)

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 8:56:49 PM | 54
"Why is everyone hating on Trump?" Preposterous. You give him too much importance. He is rather the object of ridicule.

"The word occurs 18(!) times."

While the word Sovereignty

Maybe by accident maybe not just conspicuous coincidence. But it seems to me with Trump an era of so-called globalization has come to its end. With self-inflicted wounds ($20T Gov. debt) and new president who is (initially) inward looking, it is time to talk about old stuff. As if the US statehood has been in question for a moment. Old trick of capitalist class.

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 9:04:30 PM | 55
I was looking for Putin and Sovereignty and I've found this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-uses-putins-arguments-to-undermine-the-world
nonsense factory | Sep 19, 2017 9:21:01 PM | 56
File under "propaganda for domestic consumption"

Targeting Iran was never about nuclear weapons (the U.S. let Pakistan expand its nuclear weapons program without interfering, despite knowing all about the AQ Khan network, because Pakistan was cooperating with the U.S. agenda in Afghanistan and elsewhere), it was about the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (during the GW Bush era) and the expansion of economic ties with Syria (during the Obama era).

Now, with the easing of sanctions, Iran's pipeline deals have been revived, such as Iran-Pakistan, or Iran-India (undersea) , Iran-Europe, with China and Russia and Turkey as potential partners. Meanwhile, the proposed TAPI pipeline backed by the Clinton, Bush & Obama State Departments, as well as Chevron and Exxon, from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean, is still held up due to instability in Afghanistan (i.e. the Taliban would immediately blow it up). Obama's 30,000 troop surge to 100,000 couldn't solve that, and the recent Trump troop surge (much smaller) will have little effect on that either.
TAPI pipe dreams continue, Sep 17 2017

There's no way Trump or Tillerson would ever be honest about this in an international forum, any more than Obama and Clinton would, or Bush and Condi Rice, but it's the same old "great game" for Central Asian oil and gas that's dominated U.S. regional foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.

Don Bacon | Sep 19, 2017 9:26:11 PM | 57
@ 54/55
Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with sovereignty. They are subject to baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking.
b4real | Sep 19, 2017 10:12:08 PM | 59
[throws meat to the lions] Orlov has a great read up
Debsisdead | Sep 19, 2017 10:16:10 PM | 60
It is foolish to consider the trumpet's lunatic ravings in isolation, according to that organ of empire foreign policy dot com , the amerikan airforce is ready and rearing to go and blast the bejeezuz outta North Korea.
Sure it may be bluster when they come out with seeming tosh like:
""We're ready to fight tonight," Gen. Robin Rand, commander of the Air Force's Global Strike Command, told reporters at an Air Force conference in Washington on Monday. "We don't have to spin up, we're ready.""

Because everyone knows that a manned tactical airforce is on the way out, that bombing a population has only ever served to strengthen resolve within that population, but the first point that the airforce of jocks n fighters is verging on obsolescence, might just drive the generals of middle management, concerned that their career is about to hit a brick wall, to go for one last roll of the dice. Blow some shit up, create a few heroes and maybe the inevitable can be staved off for long enough for their scum to rise to the surface, jag a great gig with a contractor, then retire in luxury. I mean to say it's gotta be worth a shot right? The alternative of layoffs and all the sexy fighting stuff being done by unsexy drones, is just too awful to consider.

So what if Guam gets wasted, a good memorial at Arlington will balance that shit and when it is all said and done, most of the people who will get nuked by DPRK aren't amerikans - but here's the best bit, we can sell them to the idjits just like they were, while we build the anger and bloodlust, then backpedal on that when it comes down to lawsuits, compensation or whatever it is those whale-fuckers whine about - right?

A pre-emptive attack based on the possibility that DPRK hasn't yet developed nuke tech sufficiently, but will do so "if we continue to sit on our asses" would be an easy sell to an orange derp whose access to alternative points of view has been cut off.
The only real question is whether the rest of the military (the non-airforce parts) go for it.
The navy likely will because they are in the same boat (pun intended) as the airforce when it comes down to usefulness as a front line conflict agent and they too will likely get a role to play in the destruction of North Korea - at the very least as a weapons platform (just like with the mindless Syria aggression) and may even get to be the forward C&C base since South Korea isn't mobile and may cop a fair amount of DPRK reaction.

Only the army for whom a pre emptive attack on the people of North Korea has little upside, but lots of downside, may oppose this insane butchery. The army will be tasked with neutralising a population whose innate loathing of all things amerikan has just been raised by about ten notches. So soon after the Iraq debacle, they may see an attack as all negative in that once again they will cop the blame and even worse the old enemies - the airforce and navy - will come out smelling like roses. It is true that the bulk of the yellow monkey's 'advisors' are army types, so under normal circumstances they would obstruct any such bullshit grabs for the brass ring by the navy & airforce upstarts - but there is a high probability that the army leadership will do no such thing.
The reason for that is as old as humanity itself and I was sad to see that it copped little mention in the last thread about the 'soft' coup at the whitehouse.

Many people were cheering the takeover by the military doubtless the same people who imagine that "amerika could be great again - if only we go back to the way it was in the 1950's and 60's". What they miss is that everything is fluid; nothing is held in stasis as a proof that perfection has been reached. The 'eisenhower/johnson years were merely steps on the path, the world was never gonna stay in white bourgeois contentment no matter whether unwhites kicked up or not. There are diverse reasons for that from ambitious careerism forcing change so a lucky few can ascend one more rung on the ladder, to the reality that it is impossible for all humans to be content all the time -some groups will be disadvantaged, advertise that then be 'adopted' by careerists as an excuse for forcing change. That is inevitable - as inevitable as the reality that once the military gained power, their next move would be to consolidate it and to try ensure that they kept it for ever.

In other words the initial coup may have been largely bloodless (altho several million dead mid easterners would strongly disagree if they could) but any study of human behavior reveals that it is the need to hold on to power which is what really incites oppression violence and mass murder.
The Pennsylvania Avenue generals understand that the simplest way of retaining control is gonna be if the orange 'whipped* gains re-election. If the orange chunder is gonna win the next one he needs to hit some home runs and have a lot less ties or outright defeats.

At this stage it doesn't matter what turkey kicked up the Korea bizzo, or even it it has any moral dimension at all, what matters is that the trumpet has made it a major issue and if he doesn't 'prevail' in the short-term, the odds of him retaining support much less gaining more support, are gone - very likely for the duration of the tangerine prezdency. It's not as if the ME situation offers the slightest chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Syria is history now and that Iran thing has a good chance of dividing europe from amerika, just as climate change has. I reckon that the junta who, individually & institutionally have a big investment in Nato, will be looking to steer the orange nit away from inciting a confrontation over the nuke deal. Korea could be the alternate shiny thing the junta draws trumpet's attention to in order to distract the dingbat.

So even though it is a total cleft stick that the junta is in, I reckon it is extremely probable that the army branch of the amerikan government will allow the airforce and possibly the navy as well, their moment in the sun.

The way this fuckwittery is shaping up, people of Korea are more likely to be enduring Predators up their jacksies than not, before the end of "the summer of '18'

*anyone who doesn't see that the trumpet displays all the signs (boasting of alleged performance, number of 'conquests' size of penis etc) of a man who is unable to have his voice heard above the demands of the women around him, doesn't comprehend the nature of inter-gender relationships (doncha love 'inter-gender' it sounds exactly like the type of pallid word the identity-ists would use heheh).

Forest | Sep 19, 2017 10:45:08 PM | 61
Ah sovereignty vs. solvency.

There's the rub.

V. Arnold | Sep 19, 2017 10:47:15 PM | 62
Debsisdead | Sep 19, 2017 10:16:10 PM | 60

The main problem I have with your post is China. You do not say anything about China. The Chinese made it clear that if the U.S. pre-emptively attacks the DPRK; China will get involved; and I should think Russia will be somehow involved as well. Moon Jae-In has told the U.S. it (SK) will be the one to decide on an attack, as it should.

But, I do get your drift; I just hope the U.S. will not act...for once. That said; I do think the U.S. lost its tether decades ago...

V. Arnold | Sep 19, 2017 11:00:10 PM | 63
The other possiblity the U.S. won't attack DPRK is that the U.S., cowardly as it is; hasn't attacked a country of any military consequence since WWII.
Don Bacon | Sep 19, 2017 11:36:48 PM | 64
There's one little factor about getting it on with DPRK, besides the ones mentioned, and that is that SecDef Gates several years ago declared that Korea was safe enough to allow it to be an accompanied tour, i.e. soldiers could have their families join them in the Land of the Morning Calm. This coincided with the consolidation of US bases, with a ten billion dollar expansion of Camp Humphreys about seventy miles south of the DMZ. So now we have high-rise apartments with wives, kids, pets, etc. in this "safe" place, now 35,000 strong including all. They practice evacuation. From a recent report --

The noncombatant evacuation operations, or NEO, are aimed at making sure everybody knows their roles in the event of a noncombatant evacuation, which may be ordered in the event of war, political or civil unrest, or a natural or man-made disaster. "I liken the NEO operation to being a scaffolding. It's not a fully fleshed out plan because it's preparing for a million different worst-case scenarios," 1st Lt. Katelyn Radack, a spokeswoman for the 2nd Combat Aviation Brigade, told Stars and Stripes. ... Brandy Madrigal, 32, was participating in her third NEO -- so she knew exactly what to pack when she got the call to report to the Assembly Point at the main gym at Camp Humphreys on June 5. She ticked off the list -- clothes, food for the kids, documents, phone, toiletries -- before driving with her two children from their first-floor apartment to the base to be processed.

Imagine that -- all those people assembling in one place for "processing." They'd get processed, all right. So the US Army won't be red-hot for the mighty US Air Force to (again) conduct its aerial murder in North Korea, with their loved ones being in rocket range of a counter-attack. That's in addition to any feelings people have for the ten million plus South Koreans in Seoul, close to the border.

Stumpy | Sep 19, 2017 11:54:05 PM | 65
Karlof @ 40

re: Ken Burns Viet Nam -- one only has to look at the sponsors. Burns will cleave to the line only more so. Darling of the aristocratic charities. Somehow reaching the glory 50 years later. Now that Agent Orange has nearly completed the harvest.

Action against Iran and NK, could it really be termed "war", anymore?

ben | Sep 20, 2017 12:16:54 AM | 66
Luther Blissett @ 4 said:"sovereign nation" = a country that obeys the US over its own interests

"rogue nation" = a country that has actual sovereignty

Succinct but true..

The fucking hypocrisy in that UN speech takes my breath away. Trump and his mannerisms sure do remind me of "il Duce".

Debsisdead | Sep 20, 2017 12:19:55 AM | 67
@ V Arnold # 62

I deliberately left China outta the equation because the conflict with DPRK will be engineered to be kicked off with a provocation allegedly committed by DRPK, amerika will 'respond' andthe war will quickly escalate. Yes PRC may become involved, but getting into a war with amerika right now is not great for the PRC either, if the most vital concern is the proximity of amerikan troops to the China border, amerika can give an agreement signed in blood that amerikan military will pull back behind the 38th parallel once the 'regime has been changed' and that only Korean men and equipment will remain.

Of course China would be smart to distrust that but sold correctly with incentives and maybe even the use of some mutually trusted referee, China might decide that is a superior option to kicking off ww3.

As for the enlisted mens families somehow I doubt that the military cares any more about them than it does the men and women they have in their forces - so not very much - smart officer class types will be considering the need to 'further their children's education back home' right now, whether or not the trump decides to go for broke. As I pointed out before, the plan will require that DRPK feels trapped into committing some type of really egregious provocation, or false flagging such a provocation.

Imagine Guam got nuked and all initial evidence pointed to DRPK, China is in a tough spot plus most amerikans will be of the opinion that protecting the families in South Korean barracks comes second to vengeance. That would be an easy sell on fox and msnbc.

Amerika seemingly being attacked is also gonna end msnbc & the rest's potshots at the orange derp, just as 911 halted just about all reference to the view shrub stole the election from Gore in the MSM.

Linda O | Sep 20, 2017 12:20:32 AM | 68
Ignoring Trump.

What scares me the most about the US regime's threats to attack and destroy North Korea is I had naively assumed that all the talk was just the standard game theory back and forth. There never was any real threat beyond the occasional minor incident like there have been in the past few decades.

And I didn't understand why China would so openly and absolutely support North Korea with any sort of attack by the US regime.

But then I read some of the neocon online postings or writings about North Korea and it was a sickening shock to realize that I had been so foolish to believe the Korean crisis was not about Korea, but China.

Getting the US regime's military directly on the Chinese border is something the neocons are perfectly willing, and most likely gleefully happy, to trade millions to tens of millions of North and South Korean lives for.

I can't imagine the revulsion and horror the rest of the world must be feeling towards the United States right now.

Nuff Sed | Sep 20, 2017 12:33:07 AM | 69
Talking of Westphalia... Here is an excerpt from an article of mine which which appeared in the Vineyard of the Saker's site earlier this year:
https://thesaker.is/sacred-communities-and-the-emergent-multipolar-landscape/

The German philosopher and sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855 – 1936) distinguished between two types of social groupings. Gemeinschaft (often translated as community or left untranslated) and Gesellschaft (often translated as society). Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft describe the crucial distinction between community and "Civil Society"; community being characterized by a dispensationalist consensus or a sacred communal consensus on a dispensation sent down from on high, and the latter being characterized as a consensus to "agree to disagree" and to agree that a consensus in any meaningful form can no longer be reached, paving the way to a "conventional" polity (agreed to by secular-humanist convention). This "agreement to disagree" which crystalized between the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1644 – 1648) was, in effect, the West's long and excruciating decision to throw out the baby of Community with the bathwater of the Church's malfeasance in the revolutionary fervor of the Reformation and the "Enlightenment" that followed in its wake. But whereas the integrality of church and state was lost with the Peace of Westphalia circa 1648 whereat pre-Westphalian communities gave way to the Westphalian order of "Civil Societies", the Islamic Revolution of 1979 restored community to the Moslem nation of Iran.

psychohistorian | Sep 20, 2017 12:49:38 AM | 70
I posted this comment over in the latest Syria summary thread but then thought that it belongs here as an example of the craven duplicity of empire about Syria sovereignty.

The following is a link and article quote from China news that says Russia is accusing the US of chickenshit (my term) tactics in Syria

"He said the advancing Syrian government troops supported by the Russian Air Force managed to break the fierce resistance and liberate
more than 60 square km of territory on the left bank of the Euphrates River in the last 24 hours.

But their advance was hampered by a sudden rise of the water level in the Euphrates and a two-fold increase of the speed of its current
after the government troops started crossing the river, Konashenkov said.

In the absence of precipitation, the only source of such changes in the water level could be a man-made discharge of water at the dams
north of the Euphrates, which are held by the opposition formations controlled by the international coalition led by the United States, he said.
"

Russia accuses U.S., opposition of hampering Syrian gov't troops' advance

ProPeace | Sep 20, 2017 1:02:39 AM | 71
What's worries me the most in Trumps speech, sounds actually ominously, is the phrases "dead Poles, fighting [???!!!] French, strong[!] English" ... Is this what's planned for the near future? I'm not liking it a bit.

What about Syria's sovereignty? VoltaireNet predicts launching a big campaign to carve out AnloZio run "Kurdistan" (a la Kosovo) from her right after illegal Sep 25th referendum organized by the Barzani mob. Was the speech (written by Jewish ) hinting to POTUS support for that? Meyssan says that Trump could go both ways. I concur, confusing the enemy has been the name of his game so far.

Orwellian "two minutes of hate" against Trump in the lame-scream media does it stop either:

Situation in the US is getting worse, seems that this Fall big changes are coming, and no lies can hide the truth: LIES, LIES & OMG MORE LIES Who is the enemy? Some names can be found here (and in a recent Eric Zuesse piece):

Southern Poverty Law Center Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities

ProPeace | Sep 20, 2017 1:08:39 AM | 72
Hitlary Killton just can't go away:

Hillary Clinton May Challenge Legitimacy of Presidential Election

The Borg, the AngloZio pedo-satanic cabal of the City of London Crown Corporation, the web of merchants of death and corporate oligarchy have been doing whatever possible to help her stay relevant and expand information war, blame Russia:

Amazon Censor Bad Reviews of Hillary Clinton's New Book

Why Is Google Hiring 1,000 Journalists To Flood Newsrooms Around America?

Hysterical US Lawmakers Breach Time and Space Limits in Fight With Radio Sputnik

james | Sep 20, 2017 1:43:12 AM | 73
@59 b4real.. thanks.. great article.. here it is again for anyone interested..

http://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2017/09/military-defeat-as-financial-collapse.html

psychohistorian | Sep 20, 2017 3:10:44 AM | 74
@ james #72 with Orlov link

Nice summary but I disagree with the dedollarization part. To me, ending the US dollar as reserve Currency is just a part of the issue. If that occurs American paper money becomes worthless as the article states. While this bankrupts the US, what will it do to the global world of private finance, BIS, SWIFT, IMF, etc.? Does private finance, private property and inheritance all get dealt with in this adjustment? How long will the adjustment period take?

What is clear though now is that there are two factions that are moving in "opposite" directions and the implications will lock up global commerce at some point....fairly soon (weeks/months)......and hopefully adults from all sides will work things out peacefully.

dirka dirka | Sep 20, 2017 4:15:13 AM | 75
Pistachio imperialism -- Bring it on --
john | Sep 20, 2017 5:25:11 AM | 76
these 16 years of bin laden wars constitute the most concerted assault on sovereignty since time out of mind. conspicuously in the cradle of civilization...cultural harmonies undermined and religious sects set at each others throats, tribes ripped from their roots, their facilities and systems desecrated, their families ravaged by rack and ruin and displacement, an alien scourge unleashed on their landscape.

but as someone upstream suggested, the window on these destructive incursions might be closing, what with Russia and China being unconquerable and all.

of course there are other dark forces gnawing at sovereignty , possibly even more stealthily treacherous ones...

like the alien scourge of mass tourism.

b | Sep 20, 2017 5:35:41 AM | 77
Others pointing out the "sovereignty" contradictions: Obama lover and liberal (zionist) interventionist Peter Beinart:

A Radical Rebuke of Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy - Donald Trump used his first address at the United Nations to redefine the idea of sovereignty.

On the one hand, Trump defended sovereignty as a universal ideal. On the other, he demanded that America's enemies stop mistreating their people. The result was gobbledygook.
...
to make his incoherence even more explicit, Trump declared that "our respect for sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety, their interests and their well-being." That's like saying that my respect for your right to do whatever you want in your garden should be a call to action for you to stop growing weed.
...
For Trump, by contrast, sovereignty means both that no one can tell the United States what to do inside its borders and that the United States can do exactly that to the countries it doesn't like. That's not the liberal internationalism that Obama espoused. Nor is it the realism of some of Obama's most trenchant critics. It is imperialism. General Pershing, in the Philippines, would have approved.

The Saker at UNZ: Listening to the Donald at the UN

In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. Sure, the Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing nothing. That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting, is a blessing for the rest of the planet because it allows everybody else to get things done.
ashley albanese | Sep 20, 2017 5:57:26 AM | 78
Pressure will be intense on U S business in east coast China to refrain from converting their 'yuan' profits into gold .
What a contradictory set of pressures much
ashley albanese | Sep 20, 2017 5:59:47 AM | 79
what a contradictory set of pressures much U S business will be under . That's the nature of Capitalism , isn't it ?
anonymus | Sep 20, 2017 6:49:13 AM | 80
Wtf? Actor Morgan Freeman featuring in cold war warmongering propaganda campaign directed against Russia and Putin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz9PNoecNxU
notlurking | Sep 20, 2017 7:10:22 AM | 81
anonymus | Sep 20, 2017 6:49:13 AM | 79

I would think that most of Hollywood is neolib heavy on foreign policy.....

Linda O | Sep 20, 2017 8:03:48 AM | 82
My god... That Morgan Freeman video is bizarre and sickening. I see that dimwitted lowlife Rob Reiner was one of the people who funded that garbage.

[Sep 20, 2017] MIC bonanza from Trump: We will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense

Notable quotes:
"... "We will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been" ..."
"... while the US military is extremely good at killing people in large numbers, it is also extremely bad at winning wars ..."
"... Trump is under the illusion that spending a lot of money "buys" you a better military. This is completely false ..."
"... If spending money was the key to a competent military force, the US armed forces would have already conquered the entire planet many times over. In reality, they have not won anything meaningful since the war in the Pacific. ..."
"... just like all this predecessors, Trump conflates handing out money to the Military Industrial Complex with preparing for war. ..."
"... Frankly, this is good news: let the Americans spend themselves into bankruptcy, let them further neglect their military and let them continue to believe that this kind of magical thinking will bring them to victory. ..."
"... Sidebar: for the record, I have met and studied with plenty of excellent, well-educated, honorable, courageous and patriotic American officers and the kind of money-centered hubris I describe above is in no way directed at them, if only because they know even much better than I how bad the situation really is. There are plenty of highly-educated officers in the US armed forces who understand history and who know that money bring corruption, not victory. But they are mostly kept at ranks no higher than Colonel and you will often find them in military teaching institutions and academies. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

You can read the full (rush,not official) text here or watch the video here . Most of it is so vapid that I won't even bother posting the full thing. But there are a few interesting moments including those:

"We will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been"

This short sentence contains the key to unlock the reason behind the fact that while the US military is extremely good at killing people in large numbers, it is also extremely bad at winning wars. Like most Americans, Trump is under the illusion that spending a lot of money "buys" you a better military. This is completely false, of course. If spending money was the key to a competent military force, the US armed forces would have already conquered the entire planet many times over. In reality, they have not won anything meaningful since the war in the Pacific.

Having surrounded himself with "Mad Dog" kind of "experts" on warfare, Trump is now reusing that old mantra about how money buys you victory and this is something extremely important. This kind of magical thinking signals to the countries most threatened by the US that the Americans are unable to engage in a basic "lessons learned" kind of exercise, that history teaches them nothing and that, just like all this predecessors, Trump conflates handing out money to the Military Industrial Complex with preparing for war.

Frankly, this is good news: let the Americans spend themselves into bankruptcy, let them further neglect their military and let them continue to believe that this kind of magical thinking will bring them to victory.

[ Sidebar: for the record, I have met and studied with plenty of excellent, well-educated, honorable, courageous and patriotic American officers and the kind of money-centered hubris I describe above is in no way directed at them, if only because they know even much better than I how bad the situation really is. There are plenty of highly-educated officers in the US armed forces who understand history and who know that money bring corruption, not victory. But they are mostly kept at ranks no higher than Colonel and you will often find them in military teaching institutions and academies. Having studied with them and become good friends with many of them, I feel sorry for them and I know that if they had the means to stop this insanity they would]

[Sep 19, 2017] The Glaring Omissions in Trumps U.N. Speech by Daniel Larison

Highly recommended!
Sep 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
harmful and dangerous things in this U.N. speech today, but it is also worth noting the things that he chose to leave out. Many observers have already pointed out how the worsening crisis in Myanmar and the military's large-scale ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya didn't rate a mention in the speech, but then I suppose Trump wouldn't have anything constructive to say about the violent mass expulsion of a Muslim population in any case. The most obvious omission in the speech was also the most predictable: Trump said nothing about the Saudi-led war on Yemen or its role in causing the world's worst humanitarian crisis, and when he did mention Yemen at one point it was perversely to claim credit for providing humanitarian aid for the catastrophe that our government has helped create.

There was no attempt to justify ongoing U.S. support for the war, and there wasn't even any acknowledgment that the Saudi-led war effort was happening. Trump's enthusiasm for the Saudi relationship means that he isn't going to call attention to the disaster the Saudis and their allies have created with our help, and the only other time he referred to Yemen was to use it to criticize Iran. Iran is faulted for supposedly fueling "Yemen's civil war," which exaggerates their involvement, but there is no mention of the Saudi-led coalition's role in escalating the conflict and wrecking the country for over two years. It is a given that the Saudis and Iranians are judged by two very different standards by this administration, but emphasizing the minimal Iranian role in Yemen while completely ignoring the massive, devastating role that the Saudis and their allies (and the U.S.) have had is as bad as it gets. As usual, those most responsible for the suffering of the people of Yemen weren't held responsible, the war on Yemen was ignored, and Trump's Iran obsession won out.

[Sep 19, 2017] Trump behaviour at UN and Nixon's "madman gambit" against Soviets

Highly recommended!
Trump said nothing about the Saudi-led war on Yemen or its role in causing the world's worst humanitarian crisis.
Sep 19, 2017 | www.msn.com

Trump's address to the United Nations on Tuesday should erase any doubts that he is threatening a completely unprecedented military strike against North Korea. This seems to be Trump even more fully embracing the so-called Madman Theory, in which he makes himself so unpredictable that other world leaders fear setting him off.

But that approach isn't without its downsides. Former general David Petraeus described it thusly a few days back :

"There is some merit to this. You can argue perhaps there is some merit to it in international relations, although it obviously can go too far. My concern there with the so-called 'madman theory -- that actually (Richard) Nixon put forward through Kissinger where he had Kissinger tell the Soviets, 'You know, Nixon's under a lot of pressure right now and, you know, he drinks at night sometimes, so you guys ought to be real careful. Don't push this into a crisis.' There may, again, be some merit into the madman theory until you get in a crisis. But you do not want the other side thinking you are irrational in a crisis. You do not want the other side thinking that you might be sufficiently irrational to conduct a first strike or to do something, you know, so-called 'unthinkable.'"

Polls show the American people are not confident in Trump's ability to handle the North Korea situation, with 61 percent saying they are "uneasy" Trump's words Tuesday likely won't calm many fears, but he's clearly gambling on North Korea backing down in the face of big talk.

[Sep 19, 2017] Since the initial strike in April, the Trump administration has deliberately attacked regime or allied forces an additional five times

Notable quotes:
"... Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now is to limit the Assad regime's territorial gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border at al-Tanf, and cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks mentioned above was about). ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

matt > , September 19, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT

@WJ Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump been a warmonger?

I remember the debate between Pence and the hideous Tim Kaine where the Democrat vowed that there would be No Fly Zone over Syria which would certainly have allowed the head chopping rebels to gain a stronger foothold.

In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic. US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.

Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump been a warmonger?

You haven't been paying attention. Since the initial strike in April, the Trump administration has deliberately attacked regime or allied forces an additional five times. ( one , two , three , four , five ).

Including the Tomahawks in April, that's a total of 6 deliberate attacks on the Syrian Arab Republic or its allies (so far), which is already 6 more than Obama carried out during his entire presidency. And it's not like this is the end of Trump's tenure, either; it's the 9th goddamn month since he's been in office. I'm sure the war hawks in Wahington are quite pleased with his progress, as they should be.

In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic.

Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now is to limit the Assad regime's territorial gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border at al-Tanf, and cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks mentioned above was about).

After that, the Trump administration put all its eggs in the "Syrian Democratic Forces/People's Protection Units (SDF/YPG) basket, the mainly Kurdish (with some Arab fighters) militia that the US has been using to fight ISIS since 2015 (it's also, ironically, a hard left socialist organization. Think Kurdish Antifa. Though I doubt Trump knows or cares or could do anything about it even if he did). Trump has given the SDF <a title="" https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/&quot ; https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/&quot ;heavy weaponry with the aim of confronting Assad and limiting his territorial gains. They've also been pressuring the rebel groups they formerly supported to join the SDF.

I have sympathy for the SDF/YPG and the Syrian Kurds, and it made sense to support them when they were under direct assault from ISIS (though US motives were hardly altruistic even then). But ISIS is all but beaten now, and this is a dangerous game the US is playing, which could readily lead to a military confrontation betweeen the US and Russia and/or Iran. In fact, just a few days ago, the SDF seized part of Deir ez-Zor after SAA forces reached the city, and the Pentagon is now accusing Russia (which has in the past at least had good relations with the SDF/YPG), of deliberately bombing SDF fighters, in close proximity to American special forces.

US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.

Only 15,000! I guess you wouldn't mind, then, if they Taliban, or the Afghan Army for that matter, or any other country, put 15,000 troops on American soil, as a "symbolic" gesture.

Trump has also accelerated US collaboration in the sadistic torture of Yemen by the Saudis, past the levels under even Obama, which was already shameful.

And again, we should also keep in mind that it's only been 9 months. For his next act, Trump might be thinking about ending the Iran deal in October.

[Sep 19, 2017] Rolling Back the Warfare State by Ron Paul

Notable quotes:
"... In the end, Sen. Paul did not back down and he got his vote. Frankly, I was more than a little surprised that nearly 40 percent of the Senate voted with Rand to allow a vote on repealing authority for the two longest wars in US history. I expected less than a dozen "no" votes on tabling the amendment and was very pleasantly surprised at the outcome. ..."
"... Are more Senators starting to see the wars his way? We can only hope so. As polls continue to demonstrate, the American people have grown tired of our interventionist foreign policy, which burns through trillions of dollars while making the world a more dangerous place rather than a safer place. ..."
"... The first step toward rebalancing the separation of powers is for Congress to reassert its authority and responsibility for declaring war. To this point, Congress has preferred to transfer its war responsibility to the president. ..."
"... The second step, once Congress understands its obligations, is to convince our representatives that war was not designed to be the first choice in foreign policy, but rather to be the last resort when we are under attack or when a direct attack is imminent! ..."
"... Just because Congress decides to approve the use of force does not mean that the war is just, justified, or wise. Congress is just as susceptible to war propaganda as the rest of America and unfortunately it is dominated by the false opinion that if you are not enthusiastic about US military solutions to disputes overseas then you are not being tough enough. In fact, it takes far more strength to exercise restraint in the face of the constant war propaganda and disinformation coming from the media and the neocons. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | original.antiwar.com
Last week, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) reminded Congress that in matters of war, they have the authority and the responsibility to speak for the American people. Most Senators were not too happy about the reminder, which came in the form of a forced vote on whether to allow a vote on his amendment to repeal the Afghanistan and Iraq war resolutions of 2001 and 2002.

It wasn't easy. Sen. Paul had to jump through hoops just to get a vote on whether to have a vote. That is how bad it is in Congress! Not only does Congress refuse to rein in presidents who treat Constitutional constraints on their war authority as mere suggestions rather than as the law of the land, Congress doesn't even want to be reminded that they alone have war authority. Congress doesn't even want to vote on whether to vote on war!

In the end, Sen. Paul did not back down and he got his vote. Frankly, I was more than a little surprised that nearly 40 percent of the Senate voted with Rand to allow a vote on repealing authority for the two longest wars in US history. I expected less than a dozen "no" votes on tabling the amendment and was very pleasantly surprised at the outcome.

Last week, Rand said, "I don't think that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes that these authorizations from 16 years ago and 14 years ago authorized war in seven different countries."

Are more Senators starting to see the wars his way? We can only hope so. As polls continue to demonstrate, the American people have grown tired of our interventionist foreign policy, which burns through trillions of dollars while making the world a more dangerous place rather than a safer place.

Some might argue that losing the vote was a defeat. I would disagree. For the first time in years we saw US Senators on the Senate Floor debating whether the president should have authority to take the US to war anywhere he pleases. Even with just the small number of votes I thought we might have gotten on the matter, that alone would have been a great victory. But getting almost 40 percent of the Senate to vote our way? I call that a very good start!

The first step toward rebalancing the separation of powers is for Congress to reassert its authority and responsibility for declaring war. To this point, Congress has preferred to transfer its war responsibility to the president.

The second step, once Congress understands its obligations, is to convince our representatives that war was not designed to be the first choice in foreign policy, but rather to be the last resort when we are under attack or when a direct attack is imminent!

Just because Congress decides to approve the use of force does not mean that the war is just, justified, or wise. Congress is just as susceptible to war propaganda as the rest of America and unfortunately it is dominated by the false opinion that if you are not enthusiastic about US military solutions to disputes overseas then you are not being tough enough. In fact, it takes far more strength to exercise restraint in the face of the constant war propaganda and disinformation coming from the media and the neocons.

We have achieved a small victory last week, thanks to Senator Paul. But we still have a lot of work to do! We must keep the pressure on and convert more to the cause of peace and prosperity!

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity .

[Sep 19, 2017] Senate Backs Bill to Pump $700 Billion into Military by Jason Ditz

Sep 18, 2017 | news.antiwar.com
89-8 vote , the Senate today overwhelmingly passed their version of the National Defense Authorization Act, a $700 billion military spending bill for the year. The bill still needs to be reconciled with the House version before it goes to the White House for signature.

The bill is more than the Pentagon requested, and more than the large spending increase the White House requested. At present both the House and Senate seem to be competing to see who can outspend the other with their version of the bill, while rejecting all cuts proposed by the Pentagon to keep the budget in line.

It was this massive increase that had the normally hawkish Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) as a surprise no vote on the bill. Corker said the bill blows through budget caps, and he also objected continuing to put money into "Overseas Contingency Operations" budget, where it can be shifted around at will, saying that fund has been repeatedly abused.

Though President Trump has publicly objected to several aspects of the NDAA, including the "premature" increase in spending on missile defense, there are no signs a veto is being considered, and he is expected to sign whatever Congress ultimately puts in front of him.

[Sep 19, 2017] How Trumps advisers schooled him on globalism

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's national security team had become alarmed by the president's frequent questioning about the value of a robust American presence around the world. When briefed on the diplomatic, military and intelligence posts, the new president would often cast doubt on the need for all the resources. ..."
"... The session was, in effect, American Power 101 and the student was the man working the levers. ..."
"... brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the "globalist" worldview ..."
"... In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain -- if not expand -- the American footprint and influence abroad. ..."
"... In the weeks since the briefing in the Tank, Trump has split with top adviser Steve Bannon, the engine of many of his nationalist, isolationist policies. He threatened war with North Korea and agreed to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, abandoning his promise to withdraw quickly. Announcing the plan, Trump acknowledged the influence of his advisers. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | apnews.com

On a sweltering Washington summer day, President Donald Trump's motorcade pulled up to the Pentagon for a meeting largely billed as a briefing on the Afghanistan conflict and the fight against the Islamic State group.

There, in the windowless meeting room known as "The Tank", Trump was to be briefed on the state of America's longest-running war as he and his top aides plotted ways ahead. But, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the meeting, it was, in reality, about much more.

Trump's national security team had become alarmed by the president's frequent questioning about the value of a robust American presence around the world. When briefed on the diplomatic, military and intelligence posts, the new president would often cast doubt on the need for all the resources. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson organized the July 20 session to lay out the case for maintaining far-flung outposts -- and to present it, using charts and maps, in a way the businessman-turned-politician would appreciate.

The session was, in effect, American Power 101 and the student was the man working the levers. It was part of the ongoing education of a president who arrived at the White House with no experience in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the "globalist" worldview .

In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain -- if not expand -- the American footprint and influence abroad.

The result of the meeting and other similar entreaties may start to become clear this week, as Trump heads to New York for his first address to the United Nations General Assembly. The annual gathering of world leaders will open amid serious concerns about Trump's priorities, his support for the body he is addressing and a series of spiraling global crises.

Trump, who seized as his mantra "America First" and at times unnerved world leaders with his unpredictability, is expected to offer warmth to the United States' allies and warnings to its adversaries, particularly North Korea and Iran. The president's envoy to the global body suggested a presidential message that would focus on the basics on America's role in the world.

"I personally think he slaps the right people, he hugs the right people, and he comes out with the U.S. being very strong in the end," Ambassador Nikki Haley said.

In the weeks since the briefing in the Tank, Trump has split with top adviser Steve Bannon, the engine of many of his nationalist, isolationist policies. He threatened war with North Korea and agreed to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, abandoning his promise to withdraw quickly. Announcing the plan, Trump acknowledged the influence of his advisers.

[Sep 18, 2017] Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish partnerships with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Notable quotes:
"... In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California. ..."
"... Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story. ..."
"... Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats". ..."
"... US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China. ..."
"... The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth. ..."
"... The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect. ..."
"... In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site. ..."
Sep 18, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Yellow journalism now employs "open source and social media investigation" scams foisted by Eliot Higgins and the Bellingcat disinformation site.

Bellingcat is allied with the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two principal mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the First Draft Coalition "partner network".

In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Google-sponsored "post-Truth" Propaganda 3.0 coalition declares that member organizations will "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".

The New York Times routinely hacks up Bellingcat "reports" and pretends they're "verification"

Malachy Browne, "Senior Story Producer" at the New York Times, cited Bellingcat to embellish the media "story" about the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident in Idlib Syria.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/insider/the-times-uses-forensic-mapping-to-verify-a-syrian-chemical-attack.html

Before joining the Times, Browne was an editor at "social news and marketing agency" Storyful and at Reported. ly, the "social reporting" arm of Pierre Omidyar's First Look Media.

Browne generously "supplemented" his "reporting" on the Khan Shaykun incident with "videos gathered by the journalist Eliot Higgins and the social media news agency Storyful".

Browne encouraged Times readers to participate in the Bellingcat-style "verification" charade: "Find a computer, get on Google Earth and match what you see in the video to the streets and buildings"

Browne of Storyful and Higgins of Bellingcat are founding members of the Google-funded "First Draft" coalition.

Browne demonstrates how the NYT and other "First Draft" coalition media outlets use video to "strengthen" their "storytelling".

In 2016, the NYT video department hired Browne and Andrew Glazer. a senior producer on the team that launched VICE News, to help "enhance" the "reporting" at the Times.

Browne represents the Times' effort to package its dubious "reporting" using the Storyful marketing strategy of "building trust, loyalty, and revenue with insight and emotionally driven content" wedded with Bellingcat style "digital forensics" scams.

In other words, we should expect the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, UK Guardian, and all the other "First Draft" coalition media "partners" to barrage us more Bellingcat / Atlantic Council-style Facebook and YouTube video mashups, crazy fun with Google Earth, and Twitter campaigns.

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm

There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged flag-waving "patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and able to make mischief.

For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews also emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400 thousand Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent) hail from Ukraine. Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the nations of Russia or Ukraine, and quite capable of all manner of mischief.

A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's parents were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979 when their son was five years old.

Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.

In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".

In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of bias: "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."

The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing evil".

This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and engaging in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for you.

Google has been enthusiastically promoting Eliot Higgins "arm chair analytics" since 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbWhcWizSFY

Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.

In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New York City. Google Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song and dance via their YouTube page.

Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing imagery in Google Earth.

Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses satellite images provided by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of Defense (DoD) with deep connections to both the military and intelligence communities.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under the United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States Intelligence Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital Globe as "a true mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of Directors of Digital Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA

Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy" scandal, it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload data, including personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical addresses, and a conversation between two married individuals planning an extra-marital affair were all cited by the FCC. In a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for overriding privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission had ever imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as little more than symbolic for a company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.

Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel invested "under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded. The company developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter accounts.

In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California.

Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.

Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank. Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high confidence" it was "Russian hackers". "But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post interview.

Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".

The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive operations.

Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose commander is also the head of the NSA.

US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China.

The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth.

Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.

The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect.

In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm

Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives (DNI).

Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in news verification".

Higgins claims the DNI funding "allowed us to push this to the next level".
https://digitalnewsinitiative.com/news/case-study-codifying-social-conflict-data/

In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man" now busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins' role as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.

Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of disinformation operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their "online investigations".

The Atlantic Council donors list includes:

– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army, US Marines.

– The NATO military alliance

– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips, and Dow Chemical

– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at least $1 million), Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland, Embassy of Latvia, Estonian Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia

– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of New America Foundation), Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security), Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution.

Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and was principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.

Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster anti-Russian propaganda:

Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And none of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use social media forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)

However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by government sources is an obvious lie.

Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western intelligence's "hybrid war" against Russia.

The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his service to the Atlantic Council:

"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia, uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight", which used open source information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."

While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to mention that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.

King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author of the April 2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.

The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.

Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.

There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the "regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.

Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake "citizen investigative journalist" Higgins.

[Sep 18, 2017] How The Military Defeated Trumps Insurgency

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist foreign policy. That hope is gone. The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. ..."
"... The military has taken control of the White House process and it is now taking control of its policies. ..."
"... a president who arrived at the White House with no experience in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the "globalist" worldview. In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain -- if not expand -- the American footprint and influence abroad ..."
"... It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC. They came to power over decades by shaping culture through their sponsorship of Hollywood, by manipulating the media through "embedded" reporting and by forming and maintaining the countries infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers. The military, through the NSA as well as through its purchasing power , controls the information flow on the internet. Until recently the military establishment only ruled from behind the scene. The other parts of the power triangle , the corporation executives and the political establishment, were more visible and significant. But during the 2016 election the military bet on Trump and is now, after he unexpectedly won, collecting its price. ..."
"... Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary" candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law. ..."
"... It is no great surprise that Trump has been drawn into the foreign policy mainstream; the same happened to President Obama early in his presidency. More ominous is that Trump has turned much of his power over to generals. Worst of all, many Americans find this reassuring. They are so disgusted by the corruption and shortsightedness of our political class that they turn to soldiers as an alternative. It is a dangerous temptation. ..."
"... This is no longer a Coup Waiting to Happen The coup has happened with few noticing it and ever fewer concerned about it. Everything of importance now passes through the Junta's hands: ..."
"... Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy towards Iran . ..."
"... Asked whether he was predicting war [with North Korea], [former defence minister of Japan, Satoshi] Morimoto said: "I think Washington has not decided ... The final decision-maker is [US Defence Secretary] Mr Mattis ... Not the president." ..."
"... Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase. Military control will creep into ever extending fields of once staunchly civilian areas of policy. (Witness the increasing militarization of the police.) ..."
"... It is only way to sustain the empire. ..."
"... It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him. Any flicker of resistance will be smashed. The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won. ..."
"... The U$A corporate empire is driven by, and according to, the dictates of the mega-corporate desires. The Generals dance to their tune. ..."
"... I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks for their retirement funds; people fearful of being blackmailed and destroyed by the NSA and CIA and Mossad; people who rose to senior posts during prior administrations because they were flunkies to the establishment . ..."
"... Trump's wealth (at least in the high hundreds of millions $) and his election victory say he's no moron. He probably knows what he is doing. He's either a guy who gave up the struggle after getting the proverbial political hell beaten out of him in the first months of his administration, or he willingly misled his electoral base when campaigning. Perhaps a little of both. He's known for being a BS merchant. Myself, I think he lied outright to the voters during his run for president. It's not a wild idea: so did Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Bigly. ..."
"... Trump made the decisions that we criticse so much. Trump decided to let the Obama holdovers stay in the administration. He decided to hire Goldman Sachs flunkies. He decided to send cruise missiles to strike Shayrat. He decided to approve US assistance to Saudi Arabia in Yemen. H decided to let his zionist son-in-law, who is indebted to George Soros, into the White House. He decided to fire Bannon almost as soon as Bannon came out publicly against war with North Korea. (Possibly a deliberate, desperate attempt at a 'spoiler' tactic on Bannon's part, to prevent conflict.) Trump decided to renege on his promises to the electorate about immigration. He decided to sign an unprecedented, unconstitutional law that bound his hands and imposed sanctions on Russia. He decided to go along with the Russian hacking lie by saying that Russia could, maybe, have hacked the DNC and HRC and whoever else (probably including Disney, the Shriners, and my mother). He decided to employ Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus, Scaramucchi and everyone else. He approved all of those things. ..."
"... It is not especially clear to me (being an outsider to US politics) which of the groups (or combination of groups) seems to have come out on top and have their guys as the gate-keeping, information-vetting guys doing the briefing of Trump. My feel of it is that the Pentagon has gained while JSOC, the black ops contractors, and black-on-black ops contractors have lost. The CIA seems to have broken even. Is this a fair read? ..."
"... Is the possibility of Trump as controlled opposition so far-fetched? Do you think the "power elite's political wing" only runs one candidate? Have you heard of "illusion of choice"? Do you think sheepdog Bernie was a real candidate? ..."
"... Obama and Trump both gained greater apparent legitimacy by: 1) beating the establishment candidate; and 2) being besieged by bat-shit crazy critics (birthers; anti-Russians & antifa). ..."
"... As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell. ..."
Sep 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist foreign policy. That hope is gone. The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one). The military has taken control of the White House process and it is now taking control of its policies.

It is schooling Trump on globalism and its "indispensable" role in it. Trump was insufficiently supportive of their desires and thus had to undergo reeducation:

When briefed on the diplomatic, military and intelligence posts, the new president would often cast doubt on the need for all the resources. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson organized the July 20 session to lay out the case for maintaining far-flung outposts -- and to present it, using charts and maps, in a way the businessman-turned-politician would appreciate

Trump was hauled into a Pentagon basement 'tank' and indoctrinated by the glittering four-star generals he admired since he was a kid:

The session was, in effect, American Power 101 and the student was the man working the levers. It was part of the ongoing education of a president who arrived at the White House with no experience in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the "globalist" worldview. In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain -- if not expand -- the American footprint and influence abroad

Trump was sold the establishment policies he originally despised. No alternative view was presented to him.

It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC. They came to power over decades by shaping culture through their sponsorship of Hollywood, by manipulating the media through "embedded" reporting and by forming and maintaining the countries infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers. The military, through the NSA as well as through its purchasing power , controls the information flow on the internet. Until recently the military establishment only ruled from behind the scene. The other parts of the power triangle , the corporation executives and the political establishment, were more visible and significant. But during the 2016 election the military bet on Trump and is now, after he unexpectedly won, collecting its price.

Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary" candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.

Stephen Kinzer describes this as America's slow-motion military coup:
Ultimate power to shape American foreign and security policy has fallen into the hands of three military men [...]
...
Being ruled by generals seems preferable to the alternative. It isn't.
...
[It] leads toward a distorted set of national priorities, with military "needs" always rated more important than domestic ones.
...
It is no great surprise that Trump has been drawn into the foreign policy mainstream; the same happened to President Obama early in his presidency. More ominous is that Trump has turned much of his power over to generals. Worst of all, many Americans find this reassuring. They are so disgusted by the corruption and shortsightedness of our political class that they turn to soldiers as an alternative. It is a dangerous temptation.

The country has fallen to that temptation even on social-economic issues:

In the wake of the deadly racial violence in Charlottesville this month, five of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were hailed as moral authorities for condemning hate in less equivocal terms than the commander in chief did.
...
On social policy, military leaders have been voices for moderation.

The junta is bigger than its three well known leaders:

Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
...
the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the senior staff.

This is no longer a Coup Waiting to Happen The coup has happened with few noticing it and ever fewer concerned about it. Everything of importance now passes through the Junta's hands:

[Chief of staff John] Kelly initiated a new policymaking process in which just he and one other aide [...] will review all documents that cross the Resolute desk.
...
The new system [..] is designed to ensure that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency reports and even news articles that haven't been vetted.

To control Trump the junta filters his information input and eliminates any potentially alternative view:

Staff who oppose [policy xyz] no longer have unfettered access to Trump, and nor do allies on the outside [.. .] Kelly now has real control over the most important input: the flow of human and paper advice into the Oval Office. For a man as obsessed about his self image as Trump, a new flow of inputs can make the world of difference.

The Trump insurgency against the establishment was marked by a mostly informal information and decision process. That has been destroyed and replaced:

Worried that Trump would end existing US spending/policies (largely, still geared to cold war priorities), the senior military staff running the Trump administration launched a counter-insurgency against the insurgency.
...
General Kelly, Trump's Chief of Staff, has put Trump on a establishment-only media diet.
...
In short, by controlling Trump's information flow with social media/networks, the generals smashed the insurgency's OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, act). Deprived of this connection, Trump is now weathervaning to cater to the needs of the establishment ...

The Junta members dictate their policies to Trump by only proposing to him certain alternatives. The one that is most preferable to them will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no alternatives," Trump will be told again and again.

Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy towards Iran.

Other countries noticed how the game has changed. The real decisions are made by the generals, Trump is ignored as a mere figurehead:

Asked whether he was predicting war [with North Korea], [former defence minister of Japan, Satoshi] Morimoto said: "I think Washington has not decided ... The final decision-maker is [US Defence Secretary] Mr Mattis ... Not the president."

Climate change, its local catastrophes and the infrastructure problems it creates within the U.S. will further extend the military role in shaping domestic U.S. policy.

Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase. Military control will creep into ever extending fields of once staunchly civilian areas of policy. (Witness the increasing militarization of the police.)

It is only way to sustain the empire.

It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him. Any flicker of resistance will be smashed. The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won.

Posted by b on September 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

Stephen | Sep18, 2017 11:32:00 AM | 1

Only good news: The mask has been torn off US elections. They simply don't matter. Waste of time and money. US has become Saddam's Iraq, Sisi's Egypt, Mugabe's Zimbabwe etc....expect to see Trump win 90% of vote in 2020....hahaha...
Hogwash | Sep18, 2017 11:32:04 AM | 2
Hogwash - The SAA just crossed the Euphrates. If the neocons were really in control, WW3 would start before dawn tomorrow. Otherwise, Assad will get his biggest oil field back from ISIS.

The Russians are hinting that the SDF isn't really fighting ISIS but just pretending to while ISIS soldiers switch uniforms. If that's true, it means the neocons may still be in charge, but what are they going to do about the Syrian Army blocking them now?

Ken Nari | Sep18, 2017 11:46:59 AM | 3
Interesting, and certainly a possible explanation of what's going on. Still, if the military is running the show, why the growth of private mercenary businesses? (A new meaning for "corporate warriors."). My own feeling, based on nothing except decades of experience working with the military, is that the generals don't mind a few little wars, but they well know the risks of a big one.

For that reason, the military leadership seems to be trying to cool things down -- that the U.S. didn't go to war with Iran, Russia, China or North Korea (yet) may be due to the influence of the top brass.

b: It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him.

hmmm...I'm not sure there's any pressure at all on Trump. Since Kennedy was removed the president has little real power and is mostly to provide the trappings of democracy and keep the proles entertained. Over 100 years ago T. Roosevelt noticed the lack of presidential freedom to act -- the bully pulpit and all that.

financial matters | Sep18, 2017 11:47:33 AM | 4
One of the main reasons I was pleased to see Trump get elected was that he wanted to get us out of Syria. Somewhat amazingly I'd say, that has pretty much happened.

Russia, Iran and China have shown themselves to be responsible players and have the strength to back that up.

So, I think in reality the US military will be forced by facts on the ground, as well as a weakening of their propaganda, to go along with Trump's original more accommodating posture.

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 12:06:26 PM | 5
It's probably inevitable that the military would rule in the twilight of US world dominance.

Back in the true USA#1 days it was different. A couple of President Truman quotes: "It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail."

The main problem with generals is that most (not all) of them got to where they are by sucking up to higher authority, or "go along to get along." Then couple that with all the perks they get including fine housing, enlisted servants and a fat $250K pension for full generals, and they look at themselves in the mirror with all their fancy ribbons and medals and naturally adopt Harry Truman's "gods in uniform" opinion of themselves, forgetting that they have become successful in an isolated military milieu that favors appearance and disregards lack of accomplishment. And the current crop of generals certainly lacks accomplishment.

Lemur | Sep18, 2017 12:19:50 PM | 6
"Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase."

If that were true, why is the historic American nation being replaced by mystery meats from the global south? The Washington machine certainly produces oodles of propaganda, but it is virulently opposed to ethnocentrism at home and abroad, because that might lead to groups with the solidarity to stand up to a degenerate empire.

The indoctrination taking place here is militaristic globalism. And everyone is invited.

ben | Sep18, 2017 12:27:31 PM | 7
b said:"Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist foreign policy."

Only by those who don't fully understand the TRUE American system, and those who dream of a system that actually provides " truth, liberty and justice for all".

The better liar won the "election".

The swamp (sewer) in Washington getting muddier each day

Posted by: OJS | Sep18, 2017 12:44:21 PM | 8

The swamp (sewer) in Washington getting muddier each day
ben | Sep18, 2017 12:48:52 PM | 9
P.S...The U$A corporate empire is driven by, and according to, the dictates of the mega-corporate desires. The Generals dance to their tune.

"It's just business" Trump has NEVER intended to be anything but what the elites wanted him to be....A wealthy puppet..

Michael McNulty | Sep18, 2017 12:49:32 PM | 10
I think the US is weak militarily for two deep and fundamental reasons, both of which have US politicians to blame.

First, the US has not had able generals and admirals since WWII because politicians today[especially since 9/11] cannot take criticism. Therefore men like MacArthur and Kimmel, who would tell them a war can't be won like that or this strategy is a bad idea, no longer get the promotions. Yes-men get promoted over more able men.

Second, this promotion of yes-men allows politicians to take over the planning of a war. Whereas MacArthur would have shut the door on the neo-cons and told them he'll let him know when his plan is ready, today politicians use political strategy to try and defeat the war strategy of an opponent. For example, Rumsfeld should have been told that if he wanted to steal Iraq he'd need half a million men - but the generals tried to do the impossible and steal Iraq with a third that number because more was politically sensitive.

If politicians are going to have a war, leave it to able generals to plan it. Or lose.

karlof1 | Sep18, 2017 12:50:31 PM | 11
There's no saving the Unipolar attempt to establish Full Spectrum Dominance -- not even nuclear war -- and I think the generals and their minders actually know this, although they seem to be keeping up appearances. Escobar's latest from last Friday details why this is so, http://www.atimes.com/article/iran-turns-art-deal-upside/

Even the Brazilian regime change project is becoming a loser as the massive corruption scandal is about to devour the neocon favorite Temer, while Lula is rising like the Phoenix. The latest leak scandal over the meeting between Rohrabacher and Kelly regarding Russiagate and the status of Julian Assange reveals more than the leak itself, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47818.htm

And finally, we have another great op/ed by Finian Cunningham who's on a roll of late at the Outlaw US Empire's expense, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201709161057451619-us-alien-peace/

likklemore | Sep18, 2017 12:54:41 PM | 12

Always follow the money. There is only so far a $1 will go. Shrinkflation. The USD, as reserve currency, allowed the US to fund wars, everyday essentials and live high on the hog at the expense of the rest of the world. This exceptional privilege is coming to an end.

When the US declared war; [excluded Iran from use of SWIFT/ the USD] that was the shot heard far and wide. Putin and Xi noted, we could be next and put in place CHIPS.

Lately, Russia and then China has been threatened with sanctions; latest folly of Mnuchin, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. The petro-Yuan Exchange for gold was announced and less than 005% of Americans realize the impact of bypassing the USD.

USA has met its comeuppance. Russia and China need not fire a shot. Prosperity of the exceptional ones is an illusion built on hundreds of trillions of debt. We are kept diverted from de-dollarization by the focus on unschooled Trump. Eight+ months after the selection, it's "Russiagate" – Putin did it; are angels male or female? What happened?

sleepy | Sep18, 2017 1:35:10 PM | 13
Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy towards Iran.

As a candidate way before any junta was installed, Trump always vowed to rip up the Iran nuclear deal. Now why on earth would North Korea trust that any nuclear agreement it made with the US would not similarly be ripped up and shredded a couple years down the road?

Oilman2 | Sep18, 2017 1:35:11 PM | 14
If the handling of "local catastrophes" such as Harvey and Irma are any indication of the power of this junta, then I am not very much worried. The FEMA folks, Red Cross and many others showed their ineffectiveness in spades here in Houston. What's even more revealing is just how quickly they dashed out of here to remain in the news when Irma hit Florida.

I met two ATF guys driving down here after Harvey - and they had no idea why they were coming here. Couldn't articulate a thing to me except to say, repeatedly, "We are ATF and coming to assist." They had ZERO specifics on what they were going to do to help anyone. But they were very much enjoying wearing their ATF t-shirts and sporting their pistols on hip. But it's Texas, and that just made me smile and shake my head. Made me realize that whatever happens here in America, DC and the central government are so incredibly out of touch and living "in the bubble" that they are of very limited use for locals (those outside the East Coast) in any way.

The Feds plan for national, not local catastrophes - and their primary issue is COG, period. They are much more concerned about maintaining government and their own little fiefdoms than in assisting people far away from the DC/NYC corridor.

Further, the math just doesn't work for the junta doing much more than controlling foreign policy (who we next attack) - to try that same thing across America would result in rapid expulsion and failure, as we outnumber them most significantly.

When the pain they cause becomes enough, then things will change. Unfortunately, it seems that change via the national elections has now been abrogated. Something else is likely to ensue, eventually.

Permafrost | Sep18, 2017 1:36:52 PM | 15
The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won.

The problem here ie that the cost for the system to win keeps rising, and the law of diminishing returns remains valid. So for how long? not long.

NemesisCalling | Sep18, 2017 2:34:52 PM | 16
I just don't understand how people can fall for the line that "nationalism" somehow equates to an undesirable movement akin to the rise of nazism. The media has been blitzing this as of late and rallying cries around the antifa demonstrations have been taking this buzzword and running with it, equating proponents of it to racist KKK members in some silly way or another. Even here, b, you seem to be eating right out of the hands of these pagemasters who dictate what words mean.

I'm sorry, but there is a glaring doublestandard when you praise the policy of say Venezuela which "nationalized" their oil industry and condemn all of us Americans who are begging to disassociate from global mechanisms which are crippling fair-spending of tax dollars here in the state. It is fair to assume that military junta historically use the energy of nationalism's lexicon to promote their agenda, but in this case, as you point out, the junta and the status quo of globalism's iron hand seem to fit together nicely. I read that as nationalism never even taking flight here.

I get your trepidation with this terminology considering the history of your country, but America IS different and we deserve an attempt to put America first...shocking, I know.

Kalen | Sep18, 2017 2:49:10 PM | 17
B fell pray of partisan propaganda, Trump - the coup d'etat enabler DNC MANTRA.. So please inform me when generals were not in executive charge of the US government. On behave of oligarchic ruling elite ? Where were those civilian rulers during documented 250 conflicts or war US was engaged during 228 years of existence

The first president was a general and since then US generals executed basic US imperial economic model of aggression and exploitation, military land grab from Indians and Mexicans to suppression of workers strikes by shelling their families at home in US as well in its conquered colonies in CA and Caribbean we have proof thanks to Gen. Butler.

It was a Gen. Eisenhower who warned us the junta refused to disarm after WWII and constitutes coear and present danger to even a facade of republican order.

Anybody who believe that imperial US is run by civilians is SIMPLY gullible since no emporia were ever run by civilians by definition. Roman Empire was run over last 200 year explicitly by generals COMMANDING armies of foreign mercenaries like US today in NATO and ASEAN .

What has changed is that veil of deceit has failed and with Trump those warmongering cockroaches came out of WH woodwork to see a light and tookbopenly control f what they already controlled clandestinely.

Peter AU 1 | Sep18, 2017 2:49:47 PM | 18
16
If you think US is different to nazi it might be worth reading saker's piece on it. If you think US nationalism is any different to Nazi Germany in aggression then think again. The US population, and much of the so called west, is swamped in propaganda while the US attacks country after country.
NemesisCalling | Sep18, 2017 3:06:17 PM | 19
@18 Peter

But once again, many here think that Europe is already one big vassal state of the global/US empire. So if anything, we are all already under the jack boot of empire. To dislodge one piece (US), indeed, the central piece, seems to me that the world would be in recovery mode from "the global reich." Please correct if I'm wrong, but your logic does not compute. Furthermore, I don't think a reeling US economy and population, freshly liberated, is going to be convinced any time soon to wage wars abroad for precious metals and the like. "Helping" the world would probably take a back seat.

Hoarsewhisperer | Sep18, 2017 3:39:20 PM | 20
...
"I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail."
...
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 12:06:26 PM | 5

And, despite the fact that Trump rubbed shoulders with dozens of these wannabe Generals at Military Academy, and was exposed to the same claptrap, it seems safe to assume that he realised that a Life spent in the US Military would be pointless, unimaginative and frustrating.

WithAllWindsAhead | Sep18, 2017 3:40:39 PM | 21
Re. Ben #7:

To be fair he did put an end to Timber Sycamore. The deep state wouldn't have pushed so hard on the Russian angle if there weren't a real upheaval. IMO, it went beyond simply covering for the DNC leaks. The whole establishment dog piled the Russian angle. It was for a time the principal means of disrupting Trump's agenda. I think Trump's token strike on the Syrian airbase is evidence of all of this. It was the absolute minimum he could have done in the face of a tidal wave of internal war pressures. And, they certainly could have gotten away with way more of the "trump is a Nazi angle," but they appear to have stopped after they got Bannon out.

Prescribing Trump, a monster though he is, as being at least the lesser war candidate holds IMO. What his presidency has illuminated above all else is the wild degree to which US is first and foremost of war. It is perhaps the most ubiquitous force that charges the US system.

That all said, we are going to find out real soon what the military is after. The SDF and SAA meeting in Deir Ezor is going to tell us a lot. This is perhaps their last chance at balkanization of Syria. A glimmer of hope still resides however in the supposed Pentagon revolt that took place over Obama's red line in the sand, as reported by Sy Hersh and others. As evil as the US military is, they dont seem to actually want war with Russia, unlike the intelligence complex. I, personally, am still hopeful at least about Syria.

somebody | Sep18, 2017 4:17:08 PM | 24
16 - let Putin explain it to you
The Russian leader expressed confidence that "one of the key components of our self-consciousness, one of the values and ideas is patriotism." Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism drastically differs from nationalism. "Nationalism is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism is love for your motherland," Putin cited his words.
somebody | Sep18, 2017 4:38:26 PM | 25
add to 24

Or more historical: "Patriotism" was coined in Europe by the French revolution, forming a common state of citizens open to all who can identify with common values and culture. But American Patriots came before that and that is probably where the French got the word.

As a group, Patriots represented a wide array of social, economic and ethnic backgrounds.

"Nationalism" was a 19th century reaction to the export of the French revolution when European kingdoms tried a legitimization of borders based on language and genetics. It was all war from there to the Second World War and Auschwitz. If you want to sink the US in an internal Civil War try nationalism.

Jackrabbit | Sep18, 2017 4:42:09 PM | 26
I think there is some hyperventilating here. Was Trump 'turned'? Was his administration 'taken over' or was he always a figurehead? I decided several months ago that it was the latter:
> How Things Work: Betrayal by Faux Populist Leaders

> Taken In: Fake News Distracts Us from Fake Election

During his campaign Trump was vocally pro-military.

PS Hillary has always been pro-military also.

broders | Sep18, 2017 5:09:57 PM | 27
well, the system cannot "win"... dialectics... every steps it takes to control and secure "things", brings it closer to its end, and this, inevitably. no one wins, ever. no one looses even. the only way to fight and defeat evil is a decisive progress in goodness, to ignore it... the reality on the ground allows us to think that way, to set up concerts in the ruins, for good. thank you russia (as for the us military, they need 5 or 6 years to just cath up with last year's stand... but they still can agitate their little arms, so they do).
Christian Chuba | Sep18, 2017 5:40:56 PM | 28
Location, location, location
I am in shock and awe of our Pentagon (and CIA)'s ability to market themselves. I am convinced that this is their core area of competency as I read the slick consultant generated talking points on how $600B equals a dilapidated military instead of one that needs a purge. If we really have a readiness problem, heads should roll before they get more money but instead we cry for the incompetents.

The vaunted sea lanes and free trade

I used for fall for this nonsensical argument, that we needed 20 carrier groups to patrol the oceans to ensure free trade. Really? All we need is an international system of Coast Guards augmented by a few missile boats if there are some countries that don't have the budget for a coast guard to prevent piracy. We don't need aircraft carriers for that. Why do we assume that we need 24x7 aircraft coverage in the Pacific, Persian Gulf and Mediterranean? I have a vague memory of the 80's where it was a big deal that we 'sent our fleet' to the Mediterranean for some occasions. It wasn't assumed that we had a task force parked there 100% of the time.

I don't see why we can't get by with 6 or at most 8 carrier groups with the understanding that we would never deploy more than 2 for special occasions so that they can rotate assignments.

I don't want to think of one | Sep18, 2017 5:41:53 PM | 29
Disappointed in your post, b. Expected better.

"The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one)"

The USA was on the winning side for the Boxer Rebellion, the 1899-1902 Philippine Insurrection, and a lot of other counter-insurgency operations. Basic military history. Just wanted to mention that to set the correct tone, because your blog post started out factually incorrect and carried on that way until the end.

Basic reasoning test, b:

i) Do you think Trump has been defeated by 'the US military', or ii) do you think a small number of senior military men have thwarted Trump? Because the two are very different things.

I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks for their retirement funds; people fearful of being blackmailed and destroyed by the NSA and CIA and Mossad; people who rose to senior posts during prior administrations because they were flunkies to the establishment .

Do you think Trump is a weak-minded cretin? Because that's what your theory requires. That the guy can't remember his oft-repeated positions and statements after some briefings and a few months. I say that nobody loses their wits that fast, and nobody does a 180 on so many core policies without knowing that they're doing it.

Trump's wealth (at least in the high hundreds of millions $) and his election victory say he's no moron. He probably knows what he is doing. He's either a guy who gave up the struggle after getting the proverbial political hell beaten out of him in the first months of his administration, or he willingly misled his electoral base when campaigning. Perhaps a little of both. He's known for being a BS merchant. Myself, I think he lied outright to the voters during his run for president. It's not a wild idea: so did Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Bigly.

Trump made the decisions that we criticse so much. Trump decided to let the Obama holdovers stay in the administration. He decided to hire Goldman Sachs flunkies. He decided to send cruise missiles to strike Shayrat. He decided to approve US assistance to Saudi Arabia in Yemen. H decided to let his zionist son-in-law, who is indebted to George Soros, into the White House. He decided to fire Bannon almost as soon as Bannon came out publicly against war with North Korea. (Possibly a deliberate, desperate attempt at a 'spoiler' tactic on Bannon's part, to prevent conflict.) Trump decided to renege on his promises to the electorate about immigration. He decided to sign an unprecedented, unconstitutional law that bound his hands and imposed sanctions on Russia. He decided to go along with the Russian hacking lie by saying that Russia could, maybe, have hacked the DNC and HRC and whoever else (probably including Disney, the Shriners, and my mother). He decided to employ Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus, Scaramucchi and everyone else. He approved all of those things.

"It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC."
Yeah, nah. Pretty sure that's still the Wall St lobby, the Israel lobby, the CFR and the usual mob. Generals are just hired thugs, as Smedley Butler put it. Or as Kissinger put it, the US military is made up of "Military men" who "are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns."

What you've done, b, is to pull together some half-formed thoughts and mashed them all together. It sounds badass as a righteously indignant blog post, and I bet the Huffpost crowd would love it – but it fails as logic.

NemesisCalling | Sep18, 2017 5:58:47 PM | 30
@25 somebody

Nice play of semantics. But it still sounds like "patriotism" is a nice euphemism for nationalism. Why else would Putin be the scourge of the west? Reminds me too of how Putin played nice all through the Syrian War calling the US their "partner." Another euphemism. Seems like Putin likes to sound like the better man (and he is) but part of his strategy has always been to underplay his hand in the mix.

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 6:09:44 PM | 31
@CC #28
re: aircraft carriers

New carriers cost about $12B each, plus the cost of the 5,000 crew-members and aircraft, plus the cost of the accompanying fleet that goes with every carrier. Carriers have been mainly used in the last decade in the Gulf area to launch aircraft to bomb third world countries. Most carriers are in port most of the time because they require a lot of maintenance, which adds a lot more to expense. They are also used to sail near enemy countries, Washington believing that they are useful to scare third world countries into thinking that they may be bombed, which might make some sense except the results are questionable. As you indicate, the main threat to world shipping is piracy for which carrier fleets are useless. The good thing about having a carrier in the Persian Gulf much of the time is that it ensures that Iran would not be attacked; it would be a sitting duck.

The current location of the eleven US carriers is below taken from here . There is a new addition to the fleet, CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford.
1 - Persian Gulf
1 - hurricane duty
1 - off Carolina coast
1- off Japan coast
7 - port

les7 | Sep18, 2017 6:22:59 PM | 32
There are generals and then there are generals... Just which ones are taking over? The Neo-con backed guys? The Pro-pentagon guys? The CIA/JSOC guys? The Black Ops Guys? or the Black on Black Ops guys? The reason I ask is that at one time they were all fighting each other in N.Syria.

It is not especially clear to me (being an outsider to US politics) which of the groups (or combination of groups) seems to have come out on top and have their guys as the gate-keeping, information-vetting guys doing the briefing of Trump. My feel of it is that the Pentagon has gained while JSOC, the black ops contractors, and black-on-black ops contractors have lost. The CIA seems to have broken even. Is this a fair read?

If so... I think it is overall a good thing (the beso of an bunch of bad) because the Pentagon have shown themselves to be a lot more sane when it comes to creating conflict zones. They tend to be less covert, a lot more overt and a lot less likely to forment war for the sake of some corporation or political subset of the ruling elite.

thoughts anyone?

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 6:24:14 PM | 33
#29
You're wrong. It's obvious who's in charge in Washington currently. There is no doubt that, politically speaking, the insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. Generals Mattis, McMaster and Kelly are paramount in the new administration. Mattis has been given decision power on war, which Trump had promised to curtail.

McMaster, with no diplomatic experience, is national security and Kelly manages Trump's office.

The whole administration has taken a new tack with these generals and their military cohorts -- they do no stand alone, they are part of an institution -- managing US foreign policy. Concomitant to this are other factors including the cut in the State Department budget, the appointment of neophyte and hawkish Haley at the UN and Trump's romance with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Palloy | Sep18, 2017 6:45:10 PM | 34
Politics is always complex and messy and no one ever "rules" in the way being assumed. The military have always had a big say - how else did they get such a huge budget for years on end? CIA have always played a big part, likewise FBI, NSA, Wall St., CFR, Fed, IMF and so on. Three, maybe six , Generals now have a bigger influence. Bannon has gone, so less influence for the deplorables. That is only a subtle change in the big scheme of things.

And now we are going to have a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on 4th of July, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-18/day-fire-and-fury-trump-considers-military-parade-down-pennsylvania-avenue (sorry -don't know what you want for links), just like that other fat person with a funny hair-cut, inexperienced, erratic and unpredictable, nuclear-armed and dangerous.

This is the just the death throes of an empire that is meeting the Limits to Growth. Expect MUCH MUCH worse to come. I think it will be SO horrible, many people will take the suicide option.

Linda O | Sep18, 2017 7:22:25 PM | 35
Obviously any 1000 or so word article is going to woefully simplified compared to the decades of historical and political research that will dissect the Trump presidency in the finest detail, I will say that this article has one glaring flaw that significantly lessens its value. Trump has rolled over for EVERYTHING and EVERYONE in Washington. There really is nothing special about the military's ease with which they captured and neutered Trump.

I don't think there is a single area of his campaign platform that he has given up on or flip-flopped on. I don't think there is any other president who has been a comparable ACROSS THE BOARD FAILURE like Trump.

No one has ever been surprised that the wacky, inane, or divorced from reality promises presidents made to get themselves elected never were followed through on. But every single president before Trump at the very least had a core set of priorities they immediately set in motion.

The failure of the Trump presidency should for once and for all put to rest the silly and juvinille dream of the lone super man heading off to Washington to FINALLY TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS and show those sleazy career politicians who things are done in the real world.

Trump walked into the White House with absolutely no governing apparatus ready to go on day one like every other presidential candidate has in the past.

Presidential candidates spend decades building up a vast network of people ready to hit the ground running and know how Washington works from the moment the election is over.

One has to wonder if Trump really ever expected to win. Or just has a complete lack of interest in the massive network o loyal and knowledgeable people needed to setup a brand new presidential administration.

And there is no check on how badly the Trump administration can fail. His base appears to be currled up in fetal position on Breitbart collectively chanting 'this is not happening, this is not happening.'

I don't think I've ever felt more joy than seeing that ABSOLUTE FILTH Hillary Clinton get here murderous and vile ass get handed to her by a TV personality.

Never in my dreams did I think Trump wouldn't accomplish ANYTHING.

So Trump fans, keep posting those MEMES and WINNING --

VietnamVet | Sep18, 2017 7:30:08 PM | 36
b's analysis rings true. The establishment has reined in Donald Trump. On their return from Florida, it appeared that Melania Trump is well aware of the history of the House of Bourbon. One does not become a Four-star General in the establishment today without an instinctive understanding of the needs of the organ grinder. The end stage of an Empire is everybody for themselves. The open source insurrection is over until it isn't anymore. Periodic combat takeoffs from Joint Base Andrews are not reassuring. The desire to stay alive is the only brake on the rush to a nuclear war with North Korea or the heating up of the Cold War with Russia.
Madmen | Sep18, 2017 7:58:27 PM | 38
A great follow-up article to an UNZ article early this year which stated:

During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.

http://www.unz.com/article/political-sciences-theory-of-everything-on-the-2016-us-election/

PavewayIV | Sep18, 2017 8:15:14 PM | 39
I respectfully disagree with everyone. There is nobody in charge in Washington DC and hasn't been for a long time.

There are psychopathic oligarchs, warlords, fiefdoms and secret cabals milking their power and authority for a variety of self-serving interests with varying degrees of success and failure. The entire government has mutated to an arena where the above powers spar for more control and more money day after day. There is no real oversight. It's too complex and secretive for any one person or group to be 'in charge'.

The announcer is not 'in charge'. He's just the announcer, nothing more. And the little people are just spectators, nothing more.

MadMax2 | Sep18, 2017 8:23:13 PM | 40
@34 Palloy

Couldn't agree more re: Limits to Growth. And no prizes for guessing which major economies have gone about insulating themselves against the pitfalls of cowboy economics... nothing was fixed, repaired, refitted or replaced after 2008...crazy that any chance of sensible, sustainable capitalism in the west might be lost to the cannibals need of rampant consumerism. I'll side with the nations that keep an interest in public banking systems rather than the one's that encourage it citizens ro eat the face off one another.

It's not all dark though, The Tale of The Don is really a romantic one... Of the wild west never ending... Of the railroad tycoons that never really died.

Jackrabbit gets more right with every passing day... there is no such thing as an outsider the moment you win.

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 8:27:27 PM | 41
@ 38
Yes, the power elite's military faction. Not: "I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks. . ."

Outsiders don't appreciate the power of the strengthening military-industrial complex that Eisenhower cautioned about in his farewell address.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 8:31:06 PM | 42
from "The Hill": Overnight Defense: Senate passes $700B defense bill | 3,000 US troops heading to Afghanistan | Two more Navy officials fired over ship collisions
V. Arnold | Sep18, 2017 8:34:04 PM | 43
A Chinese fire drill best describes what passes for the U.S.'s present level of policy. Most of the world watches; aghast at the spectacle, while cowering with fear at the hubris...
Jackrabbit | Sep18, 2017 8:38:28 PM | 44
@spudski

But other commenters have also been critical, though less colorful.

@Madmen

Is the possibility of Trump as controlled opposition so far-fetched? Do you think the "power elite's political wing" only runs one candidate? Have you heard of "illusion of choice"? Do you think sheepdog Bernie was a real candidate?

Obama and Trump both gained greater apparent legitimacy by: 1) beating the establishment candidate; and 2) being besieged by bat-shit crazy critics (birthers; anti-Russians & antifa).

As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell.

V. Arnold | Sep18, 2017 9:00:19 PM | 45
Jackrabbit @ Sep18, 2017 8:38:28 PM | 44

As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell.

Nice, I like it...

spudski | Sep18, 2017 9:01:53 PM | 46
@Jackrabbit

Agreed. I had no problem with the substance, in fact I like the fact that there are diverse opinions here and I learn a lot from the discussions. I just didn't need the gratuitous insults to b given how much effort he puts in here.

[Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times is prepping the American people for what could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to that. ..."
"... At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism. Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been demonized in the Western media. ..."
"... The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists." ..."
"... Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate. ..."
"... For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and honest journalism. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit, relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets, to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked to build. ..."
"... THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and see their plight). ..."
"... The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record? ..."
"... To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words, the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just might find it. Good luck. ..."
Sep 18, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia September 15, 2017

Exclusive: The New York Times' descent into yellow journalism over Russia recalls the sensationalism of Hearst and Pulitzer leading to the Spanish-American War, but the risks to humanity are much greater now, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Reading The New York Times these days is like getting a daily dose of the "Two Minutes Hate" as envisioned in George Orwell's 1984, except applied to America's new/old enemy Russia. Even routine international behavior, such as Russia using fictitious names for potential adversaries during a military drill, is transformed into something weird and evil.

In the snide and alarmist style that the Times now always applies to Russia, reporter Andrew Higgins wrote – referring to a fictitious war-game "enemy" – "The country does not exist, so it has neither an army nor any real citizens, though it has acquired a feisty following of would-be patriots online. Starting on Thursday, however, the fictional state, Veishnoriya, a distillation of the Kremlin's darkest fears about the West, becomes the target of the combined military might of Russia and its ally Belarus."

This snarky front-page story in Thursday's print editions also played into the Times' larger narrative about Russia as a disseminator of "fake news." You see the Russkies are even inventing "fictional" enemies to bully. Hah-hah-hah -- The article was entitled, "Russia's War Games With Fake Enemies Cause Real Alarm."

Of course, the U.S. and its allies also conduct war games against fictitious enemies, but you wouldn't know that from reading the Times. For instance, U.S. war games in 2015 substituted five made-up states – Ariana, Atropia, Donovia, Gorgas and Limaria – for nations near the Caucasus mountains along the borders of Russia and Iran.

In earlier war games, the U.S. used both fictitious names and colors in place of actual countries. For instance, in 1981, the Reagan administration conducted "Ocean Venture" with that war-game scenario focused on a group of islands called "Amber and the Amberdines," obvious stand-ins for Grenada and the Grenadines, with "Orange" used to represent Cuba.

In those cases, the maneuvers by the powerful U.S. military were clearly intended to intimidate far weaker countries. Yet, the U.S. mainstream media did not treat those war rehearsals for what they were, implicit aggression, but rather mocked protests from the obvious targets as paranoia since we all know the U.S. would never violate international law and invade some weak country -- (As it turned out, Ocean Venture '81 was a dress rehearsal for the actual U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983.)

Yet, as far as the Times and its many imitators in the major media are concerned, there's one standard for "us" and another for Russia and other countries that "we" don't like.

Yellow Journalism

But the Times' behavior over the past several years suggests something even more sinister than biased reporting. The "newspaper of record" has slid into yellow journalism, the practice of two earlier New York newspapers – William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal and Joseph Pulitzer's New York World – that in the 1890s manipulated facts about the crisis in Cuba to push the United States into war with Spain, a conflict that many historians say marked the beginning of America's global empire.

Except in today's instance, The New York Times is prepping the American people for what could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to that.

At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism. Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been demonized in the Western media.

Even as neo-Nazi and ultranationalist protesters hurled Molotov cocktails at police, Yanukovych signaled a willingness to compromise and ordered his police to avoid worsening violence. But compromise wasn't good enough for U.S. neocons – such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland; Sen. John McCain; and National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman. They had invested too much in moving Ukraine away from Russia.

Nuland put the U.S. spending at $5 billion and was caught discussing with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who should be in the new government and how to "glue" or "midwife this thing"; McCain appeared on stage urging on far-right militants; and Gershman was overseeing scores of NED projects inside Ukraine, which he had deemed the "biggest prize" and an important step in achieving an even bigger regime change in Russia, or as he put it: "Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."

The Putsch

So, on Feb. 20, 2014, instead of seeking peace , a sniper firing from a building controlled by anti-Yanukovych forces killed both police and protesters, touching off a day of carnage. Immediately, the Western media blamed Yanukovych. Sen. John McCain appearing with Ukrainian rightists of the Svoboda party at a pre-coup rally in Kiev.

Shaken by the violence, Yanukovych again tried to pacify matters by reaching a compromise -- guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland -- to relinquish some of his powers and move up an election so he could be voted out of office peacefully. He also pulled back the police.

At that juncture, the neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists spearheaded a violent putsch on Feb. 22, 2014, forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. Ignoring the agreement guaranteed by the three European nations, Nuland and the U.S. State Department quickly deemed the coup regime "legitimate."

However, ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which represented Yanukovych's electoral base, resisted the coup and turned to Russia for protection. Contrary to the Times' narrative, there was no "Russian invasion" of Crimea because Russian troops were already there as part of an agreement for its Sevastopol naval base. That's why you've never seen photos of Russian troops crashing across Ukraine's borders in tanks or splashing ashore in Crimea with an amphibious landing or descending by parachute. They were already inside Crimea.

The Crimean autonomous government also voted to undertake a referendum on whether to leave the failed Ukrainian state and to rejoin Russia, which had governed Crimea since the Eighteenth Century. In that referendum, Crimean citizens voted by some 96 percent to exit Ukraine and seek reunion with Russia, a democratic and voluntary process that the Times always calls "annexation."

The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists."

But what is particularly remarkable about the endless Russia-bashing is that – because it started under President Obama – it sucked in many American liberals and even some progressives. That process grew even worse when the contempt for Russia merged with the Left's revulsion over Donald Trump's election.

Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate.

The Times, The Washington Post and pretty much the entire U.S. news media joined the "resistance" to Trump's presidency and embraced the neocon "regime change" goal for Putin's Russia. Very few people care about the enormous risks that this "strategy" entails.

For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother Russia.

The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and honest journalism.

The Times and rest of the mainstream media are just having too much fun hating Russia and Putin to worry about the possible extermination of life on planet Earth.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

jo6pac , September 15, 2017 at 4:51 pm

Amerikas way of bring the big D to your nation. Death

http://www.globalresearch.ca/unknown-snipers-and-western-backed-regime-change/27904

Thanks RP for reading the times so I don't have to not that would.

Common Tater , September 16, 2017 at 2:05 pm

Thanks for the link, I knew about the use of snipers in Venezuela '02, did not realize there were so many more.

BayouCoyote , September 18, 2017 at 11:13 am

Kinda reminds me of what our only "Ally in the ME" did to our Marines in Iraq.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIiGfUjZnbU

JWalters , September 16, 2017 at 7:29 pm

Bingo -- In a surely related story, the mainstream press is equally relentless in AVOIDING telling Americans the facts about Israel, and especially about its control over the American press.
"Israel lobby is never a story (for media that is in bed with the lobby)"
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/09/israel-lobby-never/

Virtually everything average Americans have been told about Israel has been, amazingly, an absolute lie. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor shape and would be unable to resist the zionist army. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of equal human rights for all.

How has this gigantic package of outright lies has been foisted upon the American public for so long? And how long can it continue? It turns out they did not foresee the internet, and the facts are leaking out everywhere. So it appears they're desperately coercing facebook and google to rig their rankings, trying to hide the facts. But one day soon there will be a 'snap' in the collective mind, and everybody will know that everybody knows.

For readers who haven't seen it yet,
"War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror"
http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

Common Tater , September 17, 2017 at 3:48 am

JWalters
I can tell you are angry. I too was angry when I figured it out.
Long before I figured it out, I was a soldier. Our unit was prepared for an exercise and we were all sleeping at the regiment compound, the buses would arrive at zero-dark thirty. I was reading a book about the ME(this was shortly after 9-11). A friend, came up and asked what I was reading. I told him I was reading about the Balfour paper and how that had a significant effect on the ME. He began explaining to me how the zionist movement had used the idea that no one lived on that land, to force the people from that land, out of that land.
I quickly responded that Israel had defended that land against 5 Arab armies and managed to hold on to that land. I informed him he was mistaken.
He agreed to disagree, and walked away.
This happened way back in 2002 if only I could pick his mind now. How did he know about this, way back before the internet was in any shape to wake people up?
There is hope still that guys who are young as i was, will say "Fuck You I defend this line and no further."
Without their compliance, there can be no wars.

Bernard Fisher , September 17, 2017 at 8:57 am

CommonTater your story parallels mine -- I was in the military, went to Vietnam to 'defend our nation against communism', felt horror at the Zionist stories of how Palestinians rocketed them, was told by senior officer about what Zionism is really about and I, like you, disbelieved him. That was in 1974 -- -- Now, with all the troubles in the world I won't read the MSP but look towards the alternative news sources. They make more sense. But as I try to educate others on what I have learned I am as disappointed as my senior officer must have been back them. Articles such as this one reproduced by ICH are gems: I save and print them in a compendium detailing ongoing war crimes.

Common Tater , September 17, 2017 at 2:35 pm

Bernard Fisher
Thanks for your response.
Good Idea to save and print these "gems" on consortiumnews.
Hopefully they wake more Americans.
Cheers

michael fish , September 15, 2017 at 5:44 pm

Thanks Mr. Parry,
You are a voice in the hurricane of hatred and lies propagated by the richest people on the planet.
Eventually some moron who believes this new York Times garbage will actually unleash the bomb and we will all be smoke.
That has always been the result of such successful propaganda. And it is very successful. It has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners .
Michael Fish

Yomamama , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 am

Agreed. I wish this clear and comprehensive article could be stapled on every American voter's door (wanted to say forehead but violence is bad). Many would toss it in the trash. Many would not agree even with full comprehension because of their own horrid beliefs. But maybe a few would read it and have an epiphany. It's very hard work to find an avenue to change the minds of millions of people who've been inculcated by nationalist propaganda since birth. Since 4 years old seeing the wonderful National Anthem and jets fly over the stadium of their favorite sports team. Since required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

I refused to stand for or recite the Pledge when I was seven or eight years old. I was sent to detention. My awesome mom though intervened and afterwards I could remain seated while most or all other kids stood up to do the ritual. I refuse to stand up and place hand-on-heart and remove cap during any sporting contests when the Anthem is played. I've been threatened with physical violence by many strangers around me.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307

Thanks Mr. Parry, your voice is appreciated, your articles and logic are top-notch. Very valuable stuff, available for the curious, the skeptical. Well, until Google monopolizes search algorithms and calls this a Russian fake news site, perhaps or Congress the same

Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 1:49 pm

Excellent link, Yomamama.

Common Tater , September 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm

My hat is off to you sir, I have not been to any sporting events since I woke up, but I imagine it would be very difficult to remain seated and hatted during the opening affirmation of nationalism. My waking up coincides with a drastic drop in sports viewing. I used to be an NFL fan, rooted for the Niners (started watching NFL in the late eighties), the last full season I followed was the 2013-14 season.

It was the Ukraine coup that woke me up. It started when watching videos on youtube of guys stomping on riot cops, using a fire hose on them like a reverse water cannon. Then I realized these guys were the peaceful protesters being talked about on t.v. It was like a thread hanging in front of me, I began pulling and pulling until the veil in front of my eyes came apart. It was during this time I discovered consortiumnews.com.

Thomas Dickinson , September 16, 2017 at 3:03 pm

Mr Common Tater–just appreciating reading that someone else "woke up". That is the way it has felt to me. For me it was Oct 2002 and Bush's speech that was clearly heading us to war in Iraq. The "election" (appointment) of Bush in 2000 though was the first alarm clock that I started to hear. Most recent wake up is connected to Mr Parry's relentless (I hope) and necessary debunking of the myth of Russian nastiness and corresponding myth of US rectitude. Been watching The Untold History of the United States and have been dealing with the real bedrock truth that my government invented and invents enemies as a tactic in a game–ie. it's a bunch of boys thinking foreign relationship building is first and foremost a game. It has been hard to wash away all this greasy insidious smut from my life.

Common Tater , September 16, 2017 at 4:28 pm

Thomas Dickinson

It sucks to wake up, in a way. Once one gets past the denial, Tom Clancy novel type movies lose some of it's fun, although still entertaining. One secretly knows the audience in the cinema is just eating it all up and loving it. The American hero yells "yippie kayay mother f -- -r" as he defeats the post-Soviet Russian villain in Russia blowing up buildings, and destroying s–t as he saves the world for democracy. The Russian authorities amount to some guy in Soviet peaked hat, and long coat, begging for a bribe.

Oliver Stone's series is really good, it turns history on his head and shakes all the pennies out his pockets. Another good reporter is John Pilger, he has a long list of docs he has done over several decades.

Cheers

Homer Jay , September 16, 2017 at 5:44 pm

I have been watching that same series, about 3 episodes in. The most mind blowing part to think about is how the establishment consipired to block the nomination of the progressive Henry Wallace as a repeat VP for Roosevelt, leading instead to Harry Truman's nomination as VP, and then you know the rest of the story.

Funny how history repeated itself with the nomination of Clinton instead of Sanders. Btw, after Sanders mistakenly jumped on the Russia bashing bandwagon he was one of the few who voted against the recent sanctions being imposed against Russia, Iran, and North Korea. So yeah, I'd feel alot better with a Sanders president at this point.

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:21 pm

Apart from the obvious Exceptionalist and Zionazi imperative to destroy Russia and China in order that God's Kingdom of 'Full Spectrum Dominance' be established across His world by his various 'Chosen People', the USA always needs an enemy. Now, more than ever, as the country crumbles into disrepair and unprecedented inequality, poverty and elite arrogance, the proles must be led to blame their plight on some Evil foreign daemon.

Only this time its no Saddam or Gaddaffi or Assad that can be easily bombed back to that Stone Age that all the non-Chosen must inhabit. This time the bullying thugs will get a, thermo-nuclear, bloody nose if they do not back off. Regretably, their egos refuse to withdraw, even in the interest of self-survival.

Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:13 am

" It has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners."

You are so right about that, I notice it every day on other forums on which I discuss current affairs with others: the US views are the accepted ones, and I get a lot of stick for stating different views. It is actually frightening to see how few people can think for themselves.

mike k , September 15, 2017 at 5:47 pm

The American people are being systematically lied to, and they don't have a clue that it is happening. There is no awake and intelligent public to prevent what is unfolding. The worst kind of criminals are in charge of our government, media, and military. The sleeping masses are making their way down the dark mountain to the hellish outcome that awaits them.

"These grand and fatal movements toward death: the grandeur
of the mass
Makes pity a fool, the tearing pity
For the atoms of the mass, the persons, the victims, makes it
seem monstrous
To admire the tragic beauty they build.
It is beautiful as a river flowing or a slowly gathering
Glacier on a high mountain rock-face,
Bound to plow down a forest, or as frost in November,
The gold and flaming death-dance for leaves,
Or a girl in the night of her spent maidenhood, bleeding and
kissing.
I would burn my right hand in a slow fire
To change the future I should do foolishly. The beauty
of modern
Man is not in the persons but in the
Disastrous rhythm, the heavy and mobile masses, the dance of the
Dream-led masses down the dark mountain."

Robinson Jeffers

HopeLB , September 15, 2017 at 10:36 pm

Great, Dark and Accurate poem -- Thank You -- Think I'll send it to Rachel Maddow, Wapo and the NYTimes.Might do them some good. Wouldn't that be lovely.

Patrick Lucius , September 16, 2017 at 12:42 am

Which poem is that? Not Shine, perishing Republic, is it?

Thomas Dickinson , September 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm

Rearmament by Robinson Jeffers. I liked that a lot, too, so looked it up. https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/rearmament/

Jeff Davis , September 18, 2017 at 11:35 am

Fabulous reply. Back atcha:

Dulce et Decorum Est
BY WILFRED OWEN

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas -- GAS -- Quick, boys -- -- An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime. --
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, --
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

******************************

And this, from Bob Dylan's "Jokerman" .

Freedom just around the corner for you
But with the truth so far off, what good will it do?

******************************

I love life and am by nature a cockeyed optimist, but I find myself intermittently gloomy, my optimism overwhelmed by cynicism, when I see the abundance of moronic belligerence so passionately snarled out in the comments sections across the internet. Clearly, humans are cursed with an addiction to violence For my part, I am old and will die soon and have no children, plus I live in a quiet backwater far away from the nuclear blast zone. Humanity seems on course for a major "culling". Insane and sad.

Mike Morrison , September 15, 2017 at 5:48 pm

Over three years now the war in Donbass, Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BoKj39HKls

Dr. Ando Arike , September 15, 2017 at 5:49 pm

I'd like to see more investigative reporting on the NYT's and other major media outlets' links to the CIA and other Deep State info-war bureaus. What the Times is doing now is reminiscent of the Michael Gordon-Judith Miller propaganda in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Operation Mockingbird, uncovered during the mid-70s Church Hearings, is an ongoing effort, it would seem. Revealing hard links to CIA information ops would be a great service to humanity.

SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:22 pm

After 'Michael Gordon-Judith Miller' I stopped reading the Times.

Beard681 , September 18, 2017 at 11:52 am

I am amazed at how many conspiracy types there are who want to see some sort of oligarch, capitalist, zionist or deep state cabal behind it all. (That is a REALLY optimistic view of the human propensity for violent conflict.) It is just a bunch of corporate shills pushing for war (hopefully cold) because war sells newspapers.

Rich Rubenstein , September 15, 2017 at 5:53 pm

Robert Parry has gotten this exactly right -- I'm a regular NYTimes subscriber /-have been for years -- and I have NEVER read anything about Russia that has not been written by professional Russia-haters like Higgins. Frankly, I don't get it. What accounts for this weird and dangerous bias?

mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:03 pm

Have you looked into who owns the NYT?

Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:32 am

Why do you keep reading the NYT? Not only the Russia stories are heavily biased, but all their stories are. Most op-ed's about Israel/Palestine are written by zealous pro-Israel/pro-Zionists, against very few pro-Palestine people.

Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:07 am

The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit, relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets, to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked to build.

THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and see their plight).

Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:08 am

Progs=propaganda stupid iPad.

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm

Here in Aust-failure I read the papers for many years until they became TOO repulsive, particularly the Murdoch hate and fear-mongering rags. I also, and still do, masochistically listen to the Government ABC and SBS. In all those years I really cannot recall any articles or programs that reported on Russia or China in a positive manner, save when Yeltsin, a true hero to all our fakestream media, was in charge. That sort of uniformity of opinion, over generations, is almost admirable. And the necessity to ALWAYS follow the Imperial US ('Our great and powerful friend') line leads to some deficiencies in the quality of the personnel employed, as I one again reflected upon the other day when one hackette referred to (The Evil, of course)Kim Jong-un as 'President Un', several times.

Jeff Davis , September 18, 2017 at 12:31 pm

"What accounts for this weird and dangerous bias?"

Several points:

The Russian -- formerly Commie -- -- boogieman is a profit center for the military, their industrial suppliers, and the political class. That's the major factor. But also, the Zionist project requires a bulked up US military "tasked" with "full spectrum" military dominance -- the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the American jackboot on the world's throat forever -- to insure the eternal protection of Israel. Largely unseen in this Israeli/Zionist factor is the thousand-year-old blood feud between the Jews and Russians. They are ancient enemies since the founding of Czarist Russia. No amount of time or modernity can diminish the passion of that animus. (I suspect that the Zionist aim to "destroy" Russia will eventually backfire and lead instead to the destruction of Israel, but really, we shouldn't talk about that.)

mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:26 pm

The richest man in the world has the controlling interest in the NYT. Draw your own conclusions.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/mexican-billionaire-carlos-slim-becomes-top-owner-of-new-york-times/

Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:36 am

Mexico, ground zero for the world fascist movement in the 20s and 30s (going by name Synarchy Internationale still does) throuout Ibero-America, centered in PAN. The Spanish-speaking World had to contend with Franco, and Salazar being in power so long in the respective "Mother Countries" of the Iberian Peninsula. This was the main trail for the ratlines to travel.

I saw a dead coyote on the side of the road the other day. I know you know what that means to me, Mike. Omens are a lost art in these modern times, and I have no expertise in these matters, but it struck my attention hard. It was on the right side of the road: trouble for Trump coming from The Right? They are more potent than the ineffective Left, so this might be the way Trump is pulled down.

Sfomarco , September 16, 2017 at 3:37 pm

Carlos Slim (f/k/a Salim)

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:31 pm

Yes, but who bankrolls Slim?

Stiv , September 15, 2017 at 6:51 pm

I wouldn't even need to read this to know what's going to be said. After the last article from Parry, which was very good and interesting .plowing new ground for him he's back to rehashing the same old shit. Not that it's necessarily wrong, only been said about a hundred times. Yawn

D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:46 am

After months of so many people pointing out how and why the "Russia stole the election" claim is false, it came roaring back (in liberal media) in recent days. It demands a response.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:26 am

No one is required to read anything on CN.

Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm

RP brought lots of new things into play in his article and showed how they mesh together and support one another "against Trump." I almost skipped it because so familiar with the topic, but RP brought new light to the subject, in my humble opinion.

Common Tater , September 16, 2017 at 2:40 pm

I do not need to read or watch established "news" media to know what's going to be said. After the last b.s. story from the usual talking heads which was low brow and insulting to the intelligence of the audience, they are back at it again same ol'shit by the same talking heads. It is most definitely wrong, and it needs to be countered as much as possible not yawning.

Gregory Herr , September 16, 2017 at 8:18 pm

That's what struck me just how absurdly insulting will the Times get?

And I think the point that trying to destabilize the Russian Federation may very well bring about a more militant hardline Russia is important to stress.

anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:02 am

"Stiv" is a troll who makes this junk comment every time. Better to ignore him.

Colin , September 18, 2017 at 11:54 am

Were you planning to contribute anything useful to the discussion?

SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:19 pm

I always wonder what motivation the accusers believe you have when they call you a 'Putin stooge'. Why would you be one? Are you getting paid? Of course not, so this is just a judgment on your part. They could call you a fool, but accuse you of 'carrying water for the Kremlin' as I heard that execrable creature, Adam Schiff say to Tucker Carlson? That just makes no sense. Of course, none of it is rational.

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:38 pm

They're insane. A crumbling Empire which was supposed to rule the world forever, 'Under God' through Full Spectrum Dominance, but which, in fact, is disintegrating under its own moral, intellectual and spiritual rottenness, is bound to produce hate-crazed zealots looking for foreign scape-goats. Add the rage of the Clintonbots whose propaganda had told then for months that the She-Devil would crush the carnival-huckster, and her vicious post-defeat campaign to drive for war with Russia (what a truly Evil creature she is)and you get this hysteria. Interestingly, 'hysteria' is the word used to describe Bibi Nutty-yahoo, the USA's de facto 'capo di tutti capi', in Sochi recently when Putin refused to follow orders.

David Grace , September 15, 2017 at 7:30 pm

I have another theory I'd like to get reviewed. These are corporate wars, and not aimed at the stability of nations. It is claimed that in 1991, at the fall of the Soviet Union, the oligarchs were created by the massive purchasing of the assets of the collapsing nation. The CIA was said to have put together a 'bond issue' worth some $480 Billion, and it was used to buy farms, factories, mineral rights and other formerly common holdings of the USSR. This 'bond issue' was never repaid to the US taxpayers, and the deeds are in the hands of various oligarchs. Not all of the oligarchs are tied to the CIA, as there were other wells of purchasers of the country, but the ties to Trump are actually ties to dirty CIA or other organized crime entities.

The NY Times may be trying to capture certain assets for certain clients, and their editorial policy reflects this.

I'd appreciate feedback on this.

Thanks,
David

David Grace , September 15, 2017 at 7:33 pm

There are many on-line videos on this theme. Searching 'Black Eagle Trust' is one form. Here is one link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhBZJEqoe0A

stephen sivonda , September 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm

David Grace . what have we here, a thinking man? I like your premise, and I haven't even watched the link you supplied. That being said, I'll sign off and investigate that link.

D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:39 am

Conspiracy theories upon conspiracy theories, ensuring that the public will never be able to root out the facts. People still argue about the Kennedy assassination 54 years later.

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:39 pm

There is no rational 'argument' about what really happened to JFK.

Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:12 pm

Most conspiracy theories are fantasy fiction. If you have real evidence, based on verifiable facts, then it's not a theory any more. But most of the conspiracy theories popular in the USA just serve popular vanity. We never have to accept our mistakes, our crimes against humanity, etc. It's always THEIR fault.

We Americans over all are like small children, always making excuses.

mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:23 pm

Some of the material on the Black Eagle Trust are suspect. It gives figures for stolen Japanese war loot, for example, that are simply ludicrous. Figures of so many thousand tons of gold, for example, when the references should probably be to OUNCES of gold.

RBHoughton , September 15, 2017 at 8:03 pm

One sniper in Ukraine overthrew the democratic government. Previously one sniper in Dallas overthrew another democratic government. Are there any other examples?

Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens into supposing they have value beyond their labour?

AshenLight , September 15, 2017 at 10:13 pm

> Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens into supposing they have value beyond their labour?

It's about control -- those who know they are slaves will resist and fight, but those who mistakenly believe they are free will not (and if you give them even just a little comfort, they'll tenaciously defend their own enslavement). It turns out this "inverted totalitarianism" thing works a lot better than the old-fashioned kind.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:19 am

Indeed. Gurdjieff told the tale of a farmer whose sheep were always wandering off due to his being unable to afford fences to keep them in. Then he had an idea, and called them all together. He told some of them they were eagles, and others lions etc. They were now so proud of their new identities that it never occurred to them anymore to escape from their master's small domain.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:23 am

MLK is another example, as is Robert Kennedy.

Anna , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm

The American patriots are coming out: "CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The Shadow Government" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHbrOg092G That would be the end of the Lobby, mega oilmen and the FedReserve criminals

mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm

Yes, snipers on rooftops in Deraa, southern Syria, in 2011. These mysterious figures fired into crowds, deliberately targeting women and young children to inflame the crowd. At the same time the same snipers killed 7 police officers. Unarmed police had been sent in to deal with unrest without bloodshed. These police officers were armed only with batons.

This is a standard page from the CIA playbook. The mysterious snipers in Maidan Square in 2014 are believed to have been Yugoslavian mercenaries hired by the CIA

Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:14 pm

The US has had oligarchy since 1789.

BobH , September 15, 2017 at 8:06 pm

We all have some kind of a bias but fortunately most of us here know the difference between bias and propaganda. Bias based on facts and our own values is often constructive but the N.Y. Times(like most msm) has descended into disseminating insidious propaganda. Unfortunately the search for truth requires a bit more research and time than most people are willing to invest. Thankfully, Robert Parry continues his quest but the dragons are not easy to slay. My own quest for truth once led to a philosophical essay. The cartoon at the bottom(SH Chambers) sums it up.
https://crivellistreetchronicle.blogspot.com/2016/07/truth-elusive-concept.html

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:13 am

I put a comment on your blog.

BobH , September 16, 2017 at 11:15 am

Mike, thanks so much, I'll look forward to reading it(so far, I don't see it Moderation?)

Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm

If we have a bias towards honesty, that helps. It keeps one's mind more open and provides a willingness to entertain various points of view. It's not naivete, however, but thoughtful consideration coupled with awareness and that protects one from being easily manipulated. But then, oppositely, there's a human tendency to want to be popular which inclines one towards groupthink. But why that so entrenches itself, making people impervious to truth, is a conundrum -- Maybe if the "why" can be answered, the "how" will become apparent -- how to reach individuals with the truth as so oft told, though hard on the ears, at CN.

Jacob Leyva , September 15, 2017 at 10:12 pm

So what do you think of the Russia-Facebook dealings? When will we get an article on that?

Fuzzy , September 18, 2017 at 7:19 am

Really? You think this is important?

http://davidswanson.org/warlist/?link_id=3&can_id=ed31bf4cbc8f991980718b21b49ca26d&source=email-how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928-2&email_referrer=email_232560&email_subject=how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928

John , September 15, 2017 at 10:47 pm

The Russian /Iranian vs the Ashkenazi has been going on for many, many years ..The USA is to a large extent controlled by the Ashkenazi / Zionist agenda which literally owns most of the MSM outlets .Agendas must be announced through propaganda to sway the sleeping public toward conformity .The only baffling question that remains is why do Americans allow Zionist to control such a large part of their great republic ?

Art , September 16, 2017 at 1:43 am

Robert, you come from intelligence. Why don't you look at Russia-gate from all possible angles?
I suggest the following. Putin is an American spy. Russia-gate is created to make him a winner, a hero.
And the specious confrontation is a good cover for Putin.
This is in a nutshell.
I can obviously say mu-uch more.

D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:33 am

Throughout 2017, we've seen a surge of efforts by both parties -- via the media that serve them -- to build support for a final nuclear war. The focus jumps from rattling war sabers at China (via Korea, at the moment) to rattling them at Russia, two nuclear-armed world powers. This has been working to bring Russia and China together, resolving their years of conflict in view of a potential world threat -- the US. Whatever their delusions, and regardless of their ideology, our political leaders are setting the stage for the deaths of millions of us, and the utter destruction of the US.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:59 am

Our political leaders have betrayed us.

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:42 pm

Thermo-nuclear war would cause human extinction, not just billions of casualties.

Jim Glover , September 16, 2017 at 3:15 am

It is the same now with North Korea and China. So what would happen if those nations were destabilized by Sanctions or worse Russia, China Iran and more would support Kim. How to make peace?

Dennis Rodman has the guts to suggest call and talk with Kim or "Try it you might like it better than total mutual destruction". Think Love and Peace it can't hurt like all the war, hate and fear the media keeps pushing for advertising profits. War and Fear is the biggest racket on the planet. What can I do? Fighting a losing battle but it is fun tryin' to win.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:57 am

We may be losing now, but who knows? It ain't over till it's over. Hang in there.

GMC , September 16, 2017 at 3:20 am

Great article- again . I used to live in the US, I used to live in Alaska, I used to live in Crimea, Ukraine but now I live in Crimea, Russia and Smolensk, Ru. I watched this all go down but it took awhile to see the entire picture. I seldom get any more emails from the states – even my brother doesn't get it. They think I'm now a " commie" , I guess. I see it as the last big gasp of hot, dangerous air from an Empire -- Exposed. Unfortunately, its not over yet and maybe we/you will have more bad times ahead. Crimea this summer is doing well with much work going on – from the badly needed new infrastructure to the new bridge, the people are much better off than in Ukraine. They made the right choice in returning to Mother Russia even though it was a no-brainer for them. The world is lucky to have free writers like, Parry, Roberts, Vltchek, Pepe', the Saker and the intelligent commenters are as important as the writers in spreading the Pravda. Spacibo Mr. Parry

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:54 am

Thanks for sharing with us GMC. And good luck to you.

ranney , September 16, 2017 at 4:22 am

YES -- -- -- -- -- Yes to all that you wrote Robert -- Thank you again for writing clearly and saying what obviously needs to be said, but no one else will. We've been down this road before -i.e. the media pulling us into wars of Empire – first the Spanish- American one, then a bunch of others working up to Viet Nam, and then Iraq. Each one gets worse and now we're reaching for a nuclear one. Keep writing; your voice gives some of us hope that just maybe others will join in and stop the media from their constant "messages of hate" and the urging of the public to a suicidal conflagration.

Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 8:55 am

The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record?

Come to think of it, the 'fake news' theme is brilliant considering that now we have no bench mark for what the truth is, and by not having that bench mark for the truth we all go our separate ways believing what we believe, because certainly my news source is the only truthful one, and your news source is beyond questionable of how the news should be reported.

People read headlines, but hardly do they ever read the article. Many hear news sound bites, but never do they do the research required, in order to verify the stories accuracy. Hear say works even more to rain in the clouds of mass deception. Then there are those who sort of buy whatever it is the established news outlets are selling based on their belief that it doesn't much matter anyway, because 'the establishment' lies to us all the time as a rule, so what's the big deal to keep up on the news, because it's all obviously one big lie isn't it? So not only do we have irresponsible news journalist, we also have a very large number of a monopolized unqualified news gatherers who must accept what the various news agencies report, regardless of what the truth may be. It's better the Establishment keep it this way, because then the Establishment has better control over the 'mob grabbing the pitchforks and sickles' and crying out justice for somebody's head. It's kind of like job security for the Establishment, but in their case it's more like a 'keeping your elitist head' security, if you know what I mean.

To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words, the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just might find it. Good luck.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:29 am

The truth has never been that easy to find Joe. Actually all the beyond obvious propaganda on the MSM might wake some people up to do the searching necessary to get closer to what is really happening in their world. Maybe the liars have finally overplayed their hand? Or are we the people really that dumb? (I am scared to hear the answer to that one -- )

Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 12:04 pm

I could be a wise guy, and say to you 'or so you say' in reply to your kind comment, but then that would make me a troll.

All I'm saying mike is that in this era of 'fake news' we are all running about on different levels, and never shall the two of us meet. That is unless you and I get our news from the same source, but what are the odds of all of us getting the same news? It's impossible, and I'm not quite that sure that that would be what we want either. Still without an objective, and honest large media to set the correct narrative we end up in this place, where you might find yourself doing a spread sheet study to come to some conclusion of what is true, and what isn't.

Case in point, read about Russia-Gate here on consortiumnews, and then go listen to Rachel Maddow report on the same thing. Two different sets of stories. Just try and reconcile what you read on sites like this one concerning Ukraine, then go watch MSNBC or CNN. Never a match. So you mike read consortiumnews, and your in laws read the NYT and watch CNN, and there you go, a controversy arises between you and the in laws and with that life goes on, but where is the correct news to be found to settle the score?

Once upon a time the established news agencies such as CNN, and the NYT, were the hallmark of the news, and sites such as this one were the ones on the edge, now I'm convinced this conviction has reversed itself.

Thanks mike for the reply. Joe

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:07 am

Wouldn't it be hilarious mike, if the dumbed down people attacked the Bastille under false pretense? Especially if the lie had been concocted by the blinded by their own hubris sitting powers to be. Talk about poetic justice, and well placed irony. Priceless --

Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:38 pm

Joe, Apparently people take the easy way out. And that's just it -- "the way out." Extinction -- Maybe they haven't learned there's something worth learning about and living for. I'm gonna concentrate on that. Open eyes that they might see

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:08 am

You are right Virginia, it is probably 'a way out', and God bless them for it. My late Mother was like that, but I'll tell you why. When my Mother was growing up in a family of eleven children, her father would rent out their street level basement to the voting polls. A block away my uncle who was quite older than my Mother owned a corner saloon. Now on Election Day my Mother said how the men in suits would pull up in their big expensive cars, and they would descend upon my uncles corner bar. Soon after one by one drunks would come out of the tavern wearing Republican buttons then they would go into grandpap's basement voting booth, and vote. Not long after my Mom said, the same drunks would come pouring out of my uncles tavern and this time they were wearing Democratic buttons, and they would go vote once or as many times as it would take to thank the big guys in the suits for the free drinks. My Mom said this went on all day. She said a lot dead people voted whether they knew it or not, and that's the truth. She would follow up by saying, 'yeah a lot of politicians won on the drunk vote'.

So Virginia some can't take the decept and lying, and with that they give up. I myself don't feel this way, but then there are the times I can't help but think of how my dear sweet Mother probably did have it right for the sake of living your life in the most upright and honest way. Sadly, there is no virtue in politics, or so it seems.

Oh yeah, that uncle who owned the corner saloon, he did go into politics holding nominee appointed positions, until he got wise and got a honest job, as he would jokingly say.

For the record my Mother did vote, but she was the lady standing in line who looked reluctant and pissed off to be there, but never the less my Mum was a voter. Oh, the candidate my Mother loved the most was JFK. John F Kennedy's was the only presidential picture my Mother ever hung in our humble home.

My message here, was only meant to give some cover, and an explanation for those who shy away from politics, and not an excuse to stay uninvolved. For even my non political Mum did at least in the end break down, and do the right thing. We should all at least try, and keep up on the events of our time, and vote with the best intentions we can muster up.

Okay, I'm sorry for the length of my reply, but you are always worth taking time for me to give a reasonable answer to. I also hope I'm entertaining with these stories I seem to tell from time to time. Take care Virginia. Joe

Tannenhouser , September 17, 2017 at 7:28 pm

Humans are approximately 90% water, give or take depending on evaporation (Age). Water always takes the path of least resistance. Oh I wish and hope for the day when most realize they are much more than 'just' water:)

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:47 pm

The fakestream media lies incessantly, and has for generations. Chomsky and Herman's 'Manufacturing Consent' outlines the propaganda role of the 'mass media', and is twenty-five years old, in which period things have gotten MUCH worse (just look at the fate of the UK 'Guardian' for an example). Yet the fakestream presstitutes STILL have the unmitigated gall to call others 'fake' and demand that we believe their unbelievable narratives. That's real chutzpah.

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:26 am

You know Mulga you are correct, many generations have listened to many, many, lies upon their way to the voting booths. It goes without saying, how the aristocrats when they find it necessary, as they often do find it necessary, they lie to their flock for a whole host of reasons. Why we could pick anytime in history, and find out where lies have paved the way to a leaders greater conquest, or a leaders said greater conquest if not met with defeat, but never the less the public was used to propel some leaders wishes onward and upward whether for the good or the bad.

But here we are Mulga, you and the rest of us here, straddling on the fence over what might be right to what possibly could be wrong. Without a responsible press you and us Mulga need to learn from each other. Like when comment posters leave links, that's always been something good for me to follow through on.

We live in a unique time, but a time not that unique, as much as it is our time. Our great, great, grandparents were straddling the same fence, and I'm guessing they too relied on each other to navigate there way through the twisting maze of politics, and basically what they all wanted, was a little peace on earth. So Mulga I also guess that you and we the people are just carrying on a tradition that us common folk have been assigned too continue.

Like reading your comments Mulga, good to see you here. Joe

Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:44 pm

Fake news has always been common. Critical thinking has never been popular because Occam's Razor might slice your favorite story to shreds. Personally, I give full credence to few things in life, but suspect many more, to some degree. I trust my own experiences more than what I read in the media and try to reject conventional wisdom as much as possible.

Herman , September 16, 2017 at 9:39 am

Observing Putin's behavior, you have to be impressed with his continue willingness to extend the olive branch and to seek a reasonable settlement of differences. His language always leaves open the possibility of détente with the understanding that Russia is not going to lay down to be run over. On the contrary, the language of Obama and Trump, and their representatives is consistently take it or leave and engaging in school yard insults of Russia, Putin, Lavrov and others. We have consistently played the bully in the school yard encouraging others to join in the bullying. We talk about the corrosive discourse at home, but observe the discourse in foreign affairs. Trump and his associates are guilty, but slick talking Obama and his subordinates was often worse. .As has so often been said, we have only two arrows in our foreign affairs quiver, war and sanctions. We lack the imagination and will to actually engage in civil discussions with those on our enemies' list.

Parry is of course correct in his opinion of the New York Times but it doesn't stop there, only that the New York Times undeservedly is the "newspaper of record." His citing of Orwell is on the mark. Just turn your TV on for the news and see for yourself.

Dave P. , September 16, 2017 at 8:27 pm

Very well said, Herman. Very true.

Patricia Victour , September 16, 2017 at 9:54 am

I don't subscribe to the NYT for this reason, and it is galling to me that our local rag, "The Santa Fe New Mexican," while featuring excellent local coverage for the most part, gets all it's "national" news from the likes of the NYT, WaPo, and AP. These stories, much of it "fake news" in my opinion, are offered as gospel by the "New Mexican", with no journalistic effort to print opposing views. People I know seem so proud of themselves that they subscribe to "The Times," and I don't even dare try to point out to them that they are being duped and propagandized into believing the most outrageous (and dangerous) crap.

To add another dimension, these sources are so jealous of their position as the ultimate word on what Americans are to believe, and also so worried about their waning influence, that now RT and Sputnik, both Russia-sponsored news outlets, may be forced to register as "foreign agents" in the U.S. I am not familiar with Sputnik, but I have been watching RT on TV for several years and find it to be an excellent source of national and foreign news. Stories I see first on RT are usually confirmed soon after by other reliable sources, such as this excellent site – Consortiumnews. At no point did I feel I was being coerced by Russia during the 2016 election – I needed no confirmation that both Trump and Clinton were probably the worst candidates ever to run for President.

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:31 am

You know what I find interesting is how a reporter such as Robert Parry will pinpoint his details to a critique of say the NYT, but when or if a NYTer is to write a likewise article of the Alternative Internet Press the NYTer will just simply critique their internet rival as a 'conspiracy theorist' or as now as in 2017 they refer to them as 'fake news artist'. I mean no rebuttal back referencing certain details such as what Parry mentioned, but just rhetorical words written over tabloid written headlines finalized under the heading of 'fake news'. This must be being taught in journalism school these days, because it's popular in the MSM.

Just like you have never heard or read from the MSM a detailed answered rebuttal to the pointed questions of say the '911 Truthers' or a 'JFK Assassination Researcher' a valid bona fide answer. No, but you do hear the masters and mistresses of the corporate media world call writers such as Parry, Roberts, and St Clair, 'fake newscasters', 'Putin Puppets', and or a whole host of other nasty names, as they feel fit to write, but never a honest too goodness rebuttal. Then they talk about Trump not sounding or acting presidential hmm the nerve of these wordsmiths.

BTW, I don't care much for Trump, and I even care less for our MSM. Just wanted to get that straight.

Nice comment Patricia. Joe

hatedbyu , September 16, 2017 at 10:57 am

let's not forget about the nytimes grossly negligent reporting on syria and libya. judith miller? russian doping scandal. lying about the holdomor . man i could do this all day ..

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 10:12 am

You mean the on air hours of punditry explaining away their professions mistakes, or the honest rebuttal? It's at those particular times and occurrences of ignored self reflection our honorable (not) MSM falls back on Orwell's 1984. Like it never happened. The dog didn't eat no home work, because there never was a dog, nor was there any homework .stupid us. Life goes on uninterrupted and non commercial time can be filled with an update on Bill Cosby's past alleged sexual predator attacks, and this is our professional news casting doing its best to entertain us, not inform us god forbid, but entertain us the ignorant masses of their workless society.

One day hatedbyu the ignorant masses may just show the corporate infotainment duchess and dudes that they 'the people' ain't so ignorant, and things must change. Well at least that's the dream, but it's still a work in progress, and then there's the historical seesaw.

I think it's the power of empire to expand, just like a balloon, until it reaches it's bursting point. But just what that bursting point is, is without a doubt the most disputable of arguments to be made. I am coming to the belief we are, as always, continually getting to that point, and we may of course be very close to igniting that spark in the not so far off future. I would prefer the spark to be completely financial, and dealt with accordingly, but I'm a dreamer purest and a conspiracy theorist, so that means when the crap starts going down, I'll be the old man on the hill lighting up a big fat doobie cue soundtrack 'Fool On the Hill'.

Sorry just had to get carried away, but it's Sunday morning hatedbyu and I'm home alone and nobody's trying to break in .. Good comment hatedbyu. Joe

Stephen J. , September 16, 2017 at 11:27 am

A Compilation Not seen in Corporate Media: See Link Below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
US Wars and Hostile Actions: A List
By David Swanson

http://davidswanson.org/warlist/?link_id=3&can_id=ed31bf4cbc8f991980718b21b49ca26d&source=email-how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928-2&email_referrer=email_232560&email_subject=how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928

Bob Van Noy , September 16, 2017 at 9:42 pm

Stephen J. Thank you for introducing me to David Swanson. Great link.

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 11:29 am

Im with you on that Bob, Stephen J providing the Swanson link should be a must read, to keep things fair and balanced. I also do wonder if Swanson's message isn't getting out there, and we all don't already know it? I'm a glass half full kind of guy, but what do we really know about each other, other than what the corporate media instills on us? I wish cable news would air a program made up of Swanson, Pilger, and Parry, for that at least could put some well needed balance finality back, if it ever was there in the first place, back into the public narrative .but there go I.

Good to see you Bob. Joe

Hank , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am

The deep state sticks with what works: controlling the media keeps the masses ignorant and malleable. "Remember the Maine"
Germans are bayoneting Belgium babies and "remember the Lusitania" , some evidence shows higher ups knew the Japanese fleet was 400 miles from Hawaii, recall "Tonkin Gulf" episode, Iran Contra , invasion of Granada, Panama, and of course 911 and war on terror, patriot act, weapons of mass destruction, and Russia hacking the election. The masses "believe" these to be true and react and respond accordingly.

"
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

–Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm

Thanks Hank. Same ole same ole, eh? When will we ever learn?

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am

"Trump might well go down in history of the President who screwed-up a historical opportunity to really change our entire planet for the better and who, instead, by his abject lack of courage and honor, his total lack of political and diplomatic education and by his groveling subservience to the "swamp" he had promised to drain ended up being as pathetically clueless as Obama was." (The Saker)

My sentiments exactly.

Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 11:49 am

What a glaring lie this article is, its' author being either "useful idiot" played by Kremlin, or maybe not so much of an idiot. What are you talking about here in comments, those who applaud this article, this bunch of lies? You live in Ukraine, you know anything about that so-called "putch"? How dare you to insult the whole nation – Ukrainian nation? Shame on you, people. You don't know (author of the article including) anything about Russia, Ukraine and that bloody Putin, but you have problems with the US and its' politics. US are your business, Ukraine definitely not. Find some other examples of NYT and USA malfeasance, some you know something about. Stop insulting other nations.

anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:53 am

You are not from Ukraine, and you care not for Ukraine, or you would seek unity not dominance of East over West Ukraine. Tell us about your life in Ukraine, and show us the evidence of "that bloody Putin."

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Yellow journalism now employs "open source and social media investigation" scams foisted by Eliot Higgins and the Bellingcat disinformation site.

Bellingcat is allied with the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two principal mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the First Draft Coalition "partner network".

In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Google-sponsored "post-Truth" Propaganda 3.0 coalition declares that member organizations will "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".

The New York Times routinely hacks up Bellingcat "reports" and pretends they're "verification"

Malachy Browne, "Senior Story Producer" at the New York Times, cited Bellingcat to embellish the media "story" about the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident in Idlib Syria.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/insider/the-times-uses-forensic-mapping-to-verify-a-syrian-chemical-attack.html

Before joining the Times, Browne was an editor at "social news and marketing agency" Storyful and at Reported. ly, the "social reporting" arm of Pierre Omidyar's First Look Media.

Browne generously "supplemented" his "reporting" on the Khan Shaykun incident with "videos gathered by the journalist Eliot Higgins and the social media news agency Storyful".

Browne encouraged Times readers to participate in the Bellingcat-style "verification" charade: "Find a computer, get on Google Earth and match what you see in the video to the streets and buildings"

Browne of Storyful and Higgins of Bellingcat are founding members of the Google-funded "First Draft" coalition.

Browne demonstrates how the NYT and other "First Draft" coalition media outlets use video to "strengthen" their "storytelling".

In 2016, the NYT video department hired Browne and Andrew Glazer. a senior producer on the team that launched VICE News, to help "enhance" the "reporting" at the Times.

Browne represents the Times' effort to package its dubious "reporting" using the Storyful marketing strategy of "building trust, loyalty, and revenue with insight and emotionally driven content" wedded with Bellingcat style "digital forensics" scams.

In other words, we should expect the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, UK Guardian, and all the other "First Draft" coalition media "partners" to barrage us more Bellingcat / Atlantic Council-style Facebook and YouTube video mashups, crazy fun with Google Earth, and Twitter campaigns.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 1:47 pm

Thanks Abe. Sounds like these guys all read 1984, and decided it was just the thing for 2017 Amerika.

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:49 pm

"Our investigation debunks the claims"

Browne keeps the April 2017 NYT video positioned at the top of his Twitter feed
https://twitter.com/malachybrowne/status/857290743068721152

Obviously Browne is proud of the "investigation" even though merely shared a "story" fed to him by Higgins' Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council .

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm

Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives (DNI).

Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in news verification".

Higgins claims the DNI funding "allowed us to push this to the next level".
https://digitalnewsinitiative.com/news/case-study-codifying-social-conflict-data/

In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man" now busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins' role as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.

Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of disinformation operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their "online investigations".

The Atlantic Council donors list includes:

– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army, US Marines.

– The NATO military alliance

– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips, and Dow Chemical

– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at least $1 million), Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland, Embassy of Latvia, Estonian Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia

– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of New America Foundation), Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security), Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution.

Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and was principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.

Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster anti-Russian propaganda:

Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And none of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use social media forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)

However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by government sources is an obvious lie.

Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western intelligence's "hybrid war" against Russia.

The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his service to the Atlantic Council:

"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia, uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight", which used open source information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."

While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to mention that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.

King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author of the April 2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.

The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.

Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.

There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the "regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.

Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake "citizen investigative journalist" Higgins.

Dave P. , September 17, 2017 at 12:26 am

Abe – Thanks for all the invaluable information you have been providing.

jaycee , September 16, 2017 at 1:52 pm

The meme of an aggressive assertive Russia, based on what happened in Crimea, is a deliberate lie expressed with the utmost contempt towards principled diplomacy. The average consumer of mainstream news is also being shamelessly and contemptuously manipulated.

First, the people of Crimea did not want to be part of Ukraine after the USSR dissolved, and had previously expressed their opinion through referenda. The events of 2014 were part of an obvious pattern of previously expressed opinion.

Second, around the time of the so-called Orange Revolution, NATO analysts forecast what would probably happen should Ukraine embrace European "security architecture" (i.e. NATO), and concluded that Russia would take steps to protect their naval facilities in Crimea. Yet, in 2014, NATO officials would disingenuously express their utmost shock and surprise at the event.

Third, Viktor Yushchenko, who came to power in Ukraine in 2005 through the NED-financed Orange Revolution, consistently described his intention to join Ukraine with European institutions, including its "security architecture" (NATO), although acknowledging that the Ukrainian citizenry would have to be manipulated into accepting such a controversial and adversarial position. He would downplay presumed Russian reaction to potential removal from Crimea despite the obviousness and predictability of a serious crisis (see Sept 23, 2008 "Conversation with Viktor Yushchenko" Council On Foreign Relations). Yushchenko polled at 5.45% when he lost the Presidency in 2010, running on a platform of European integration.

Fourth, Russian officials at the highest level told their American counterparts in 2009 that any attempt to integrate Ukraine into NATO, and a corresponding threat to the Crimean naval facilities, would result in moves similar to what would later happen in 2014. Yet the United States, after instigating and legitimizing the Ukraine coup, would react to the Crimean referendum as an aggressive act which represented an unexpected security crisis requiring a reluctant but firm response of militarizing the entire region, and portraying the Russian state to the public as a dangerous and aggressive rogue power.

The deliberate omission of relevant contextual background by politicians, military officials, and the mainstream media demonstrates that none of these institutions can be trusted, and it is they who represent the greatest threat to international security. Putin has been relentlessly demonized, but it can be argued that his swift and essentially bloodless moves in Crimea in 2014 avoided what could have been a major international crisis on the level of the Berlin blockade in 1961. It appears, in hindsight, that such a crisis is exactly what the NATO alliance desired all along.

Sam F , September 17, 2017 at 9:58 am

Well said.

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:02 pm

Nicely put jaycee. What you wrote took me back to a time of some eight months before Maiden Square, when my niece decided to live in Kiev. A bit of a ways away from Pittsburgh, so I started researching Ukraine. I also discovered RT & Moonofalabama, and sites like that.

What you wrote jaycee, in my humble opinion should be said in our MSM news. If for no other reason but to give an alternative fair and balance to say the likes of Rachel Maddow, or Joy Ann Reed. The way the MSM picks and chooses, and skims across important events in Ukraine, like Odessa, are criminal if ever the Press is to be judged for crimes of war. To the crys of a destroyed empire's vanquished population would then your small essay be heard jaycee, and yet that's the world we live in, but at least you said it.

Thanks jaycee (that's the first time I wrote your name and the j didn't go capital what does that mean? Who cares.)
Joe

rosemerry , September 16, 2017 at 2:04 pm

Of course the NYT liars would not bother to watch Oliver Stone's interviews with Pres. Putin, but during them he explained at length about his cooperation during the years after Ukraine elected a pro-Western president, managing to carry out mutual agreements and policies, but after the new pro- Russian president was elected, the USA did not accept him and overthrew him, which preceded the antics of Nuland et al in 2014 and the rest which followed.

MaDarby , September 16, 2017 at 2:05 pm

It appears to me that the elites decided long ago that the best solution to overpopulation is just to let climate change take care of three or four billion people while the Saud family and the Cargill family live on in their sheltered paradises with every convenience AI can provide.

It is clear these mega-rich families DO NOT CARE about society, about mass human extension or even about nature itself. They are the pinnacle of human evolution. Psycho-pathological loss of empathy might have been a bad evolutionary experiment.

This is derangement on a human specie scale, no leader no one in power has been willing to do anything but exploit every opportunity to make money and increase global domination, the great powers knew this day was coming when they made their decisions to hide it 50 years ago. The consequences are acceptable to the decision makers.

A mass extension of organic life is taking place before our eyes, nothing can stop it, THEY DO NOT CARE.

They sure as hell don't care if millions don't believe the Russia crap they just move ahead as the Imperial power, might makes right. In the end it is a religious project, the biblical slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful god and rid the world of evil.

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:19 pm

What you bring up MaDarby takes me towards the direction of wondering what all those other Departments, other than State & Defense, of the Presidential Cabinet are up too? If our news were done and somehow properly organized, in such away as to educate us peons, then whatever the time allowed would be to broadcast and print out what each Federal Agency is up to. Now I know a citizen can seek out this information, but why can't there be a suitable mass media representation to reach us clunkheads like me, not you?

What should be exposed is the corporate ownership of the very agencies that were put in place to protect the 'Commons' has been corrupted to the point of no return. This dilemma will take a huge public referendum short of a mob revolution to change this atmosphere of complacency. The public will get blamed, but the real blame should be put on the massive leadership programs which were bolted down on to their citizens masses knowledge of said events, and there in lies the total crime of deception.

MaDarby your concern for nature is where a smart person should put their number one priority concern, no arguing there, but just a lifting word of approval of how you put it. Joe

Donald Patterson , September 16, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Consortium has been a clear voice on the lunacy of the Russia-Gate scandal. But to paint Yanukovych former President of the Ukraine as an injured party considering his history in government with what appears to be large scale corruption is part of the story as well. A treason trial started in May. More info needed on what looks like a complicated story. This would be a good piece of investigative journalism as well.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 9:03 pm

Can you imagine what a huge can of worms would be revealed if there was a thorough investigation on every congressperson and public official in Washington DC? It would make Yanukovych look like a saint. And in addition, let's investigate the 10,000 richest people in the US, including all their offshore fortunes gained by illegal means. Wouldn't it make sense to do that? Isn't there enough evidence of probable criminal activity to open these investigations? Where is our ethical sense when it comes to our own dirty laundry? I guess it's easier to speculate about other's crimes than look into our own, eh?

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:40 pm

The focus I get isn't so much focused on Yanukovych, even Putin wasn't all that crazy about his style of leadership, but my focus on a viable democratically created government doesn't necessarily start with an armed public coup. Yes, leading up to the violence, peaceful protesters took to the streets, but as we both know this is always the case until the baton twirling thugs come to finally ramp up the protest to a marathon of violent clashes and whatever else gets heads busted, until we have a full fledged revolution on our hands pass out the cookies. I mean by by-passing the voting polls, even to somehow ad hoc a temporary government in some manner of government overthrow were done peacefully, well then maybe I could get on board with this new Ukrainian government, but even the NYT finds it impossible to cover up everything.

And what about the people of Donbass? Shouldn't they have a say in this new government realignment? Ukraine has, and has always had a East meets West kind of problem. That area has been ruled over for centuries by each other, and one another, to a point of who's who and what's what is hard to figure out. Donbass, should in my regard be separate from the Now Kiev government. (Be kind with your critique of me for I am just an average American telling you what I see from here)

It's like everything else, where we should let the people of the region sit down with each other and work it out, we instead blame it on Putin, or whoever else Putin appears to be, and there you have it MIC spending up the ying-yang, for the lack of a better portrayal, but still a portrayal of what ills our modern geopolitical society.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 2:49 pm

"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays this outcome and allows this abomination to to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say "enough is enough"? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?" (the Saker)

Please go to the entire article on today's Saker Blog.

Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 3:48 pm

Sick edition consortiumnews, sick readers. Elites, Deep State, Evil Empire USA Dove Putin with olive branch Guys, why don't you watch, say for a week, Russian TV, if you have somebody around who can translate from Russian. If you want to hear real nazi racist alt-whatever crap, Russian TV is the place. But you'll enjoy it, most probably. Thankfully, you guys, are obviously, minority, with all your pseudo intellectual delusions, discussions and ideas. "Useful idiots" – that's what Lenin said about the likes of you.

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm

There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged flag-waving "patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and able to make mischief.

For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews also emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400 thousand Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent) hail from Ukraine. Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the nations of Russia or Ukraine, and quite capable of all manner of mischief.

A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's parents were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979 when their son was five years old.

Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.

In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".

In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of bias: "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."

The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing evil".

This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and engaging in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for you.

Google has been enthusiastically promoting Eliot Higgins "arm chair analytics" since 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbWhcWizSFY

Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.

In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New York City. Google Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song and dance via their YouTube page.

Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing imagery in Google Earth.

Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses satellite images provided by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of Defense (DoD) with deep connections to both the military and intelligence communities.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under the United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States Intelligence Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital Globe as "a true mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of Directors of Digital Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA

Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy" scandal, it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload data, including personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical addresses, and a conversation between two married individuals planning an extra-marital affair were all cited by the FCC. In a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for overriding privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission had ever imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as little more than symbolic for a company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.

Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel invested "under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded. The company developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter accounts.

In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California.

Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.

Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.

Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high confidence" it was "Russian hackers".

"But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post interview.

Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".

The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive operations.

Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose commander is also the head of the NSA.

US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China.

The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth.

Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.

The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect.

In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 8:50 pm

Thanks Abe. Your insights are invaluable.

GMC , September 17, 2017 at 4:53 am

I live in Russia and see those shows that you speak of. The Nazi rants are from the Ukraine folks invited on the show – you want to see Ukraine shows like the ones in RU. – well, you won't see any Russians invited to talk -- -- NONE --

Gregory Herr , September 17, 2017 at 10:33 am

Your posts are so blatantly contrived it's almost funny. Do you write for sitcoms as well?

mrtmbrnmn , September 16, 2017 at 4:48 pm

Is this a great country, or wot???

Stupid starts at the very top and there is no bottom to it .

Dominic Pukallus , September 16, 2017 at 10:13 pm

The Washington Post has its own ironically self-describing slogan. Perhaps that of the NYT these days should be, in the same vein, "The Sleep of Reason begets monsters". And who will soon then be able to whistle in the darkness full of these things?

mike k , September 17, 2017 at 8:03 am

When looking for monsters, the WaPo should start by looking at themselves.

Walter DuBlanica , September 17, 2017 at 2:26 pm

The chaos in Ukraine was engineered by Victoria Nuland at Hillary's request. Good that she is not president. The Ukrainians and Russians are one and the same people, same DNA, same religion Orthodoxy., Slavic, languages very close to each other, Cyrillic alphabet and a long common history .

Russian_angel , September 17, 2017 at 9:43 pm

Thank you for the truth about Russia, it hurts the Russians to read about themselves in the American newspapers a lie.

Florin , September 18, 2017 at 2:15 am

Gershman, Nuland, Pyland, Feltman . essentially ths four biggest US (quasi) diplomats, like Volodymyr Groysman, Petro Poroshenko and perhaps 'our guy' Yats – are Jewish.

Add to this the role of Israeli 'ex' military, some hundreds, which means Mossad, and of Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine – and consider that Jews are less than 1% of the population.

The point is if we were free to speak plainly, the Ukraine coup looks to be one in which American and Ukrainian Jews acted in concert to benefit Jewish power. There is more to be said on this, but this glimpse will suffice because, of course, one is not free to speak plainly even where plain speaking is, on the face of it, encouraged.

Jamie , September 18, 2017 at 12:03 pm

Where was fake Antifa when Obama armed Nazi's in the Ukraine?

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/12/u-s-house-admits-nazi-role-in-ukraine/

Obama then put Joe Biden's sleazy son, Hunter, on the board of the largest gas company there:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/14/hunter-bidens-new-job-at-a-ukrainian-gas-company-is-a-problem-for-u-s-soft-power/

By ignoring the fascism of one political party, Antifa is actually pro-fascist. This fits in well with their Hitler-like disdain for freedom of press, speech and assembly. And their absolute love of violence, we also saw in the 1930s among Nazi groups

[Sep 18, 2017] Nikki Haley Meltdown Assad Must Go... and War With North Korea! - Antiwar.com Original

Sep 18, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Nikki Haley Meltdown: Assad Must Go and War With North Korea!

by Daniel McAdams Posted on September 18, 2017 September 16, 2017 There must be something about being named US Ambassador to the UN that brings out the inner mass murderer in people. Madeline Albright famously admitted that she thought 500,000 dead Iraqi children due to US sanctions was "worth it." John Bolton never met a disagreement he didn't want to turn into a war. Samantha Power barked about human rights while her Administration's drones snuffed out human life in unprecedented numbers. The real "butcher of the Balkans" Richard Holbrooke sold the Yugoslavia war on lies . John "Death Squad" Negroponte sold the lie that Saddam Hussein needed to be killed and his country destroyed for democracy to flourish, and so on.

Considering how many millions of civilians have been killed on the war propaganda of US ambassadors to the UN, perhaps the equivalent of another Holocaust could have been avoided if Ron Paul's HR 1146 has passed 30 years ago.

But nothing could have prepared us for Nikki "Holocaust" Haley, who has thundered into the Trump Administration as US Ambassador to the UN despite hating Trump and Trump hating her . Why would President Trump pick someone for such an influential position despite her being vocally and publicly opposed to the foreign policy that provided the margin of victory for him? We can only guess. Was Trump lying on the campaign trail? Possibly. Does he not bother to notice that he has surrounded himself with people who are deeply opposed, at the DNA level, to the policies he ran and won on? Seems more likely. As Johnny Rotten famously ended the Sex Pistols run, "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

In fact yes. One-time top Trump supporter Ann Coulter today Tweeted the question "is there anyone out there left who doesn't want Trump impeached?"

Coulter meant the wall or something else, but she could just as well have been complaining about the foreign policy about-face. Trump ran as a Ron Paul Republican, he governs as a George W. Bush Republican. Cheated? Yes, once again.

Which brings us back to the odious Nikki Haley. Today she no doubt thought she was being clever Tweeting in response to the predictable fact that yet another round of sanctions against North Korea did not result in Kim Jong-Un doing a Gaddafi suicide knife dance, that since the sanctions destroying the North Korean economy – such as it is – have not resulted in Kim's surrender it was time to hand the matter over to Defense Secretary James Mattis.

Said US top UN diplomat Nikki: "We cut 90% of trade & 30% of oil. I have no problem kicking it to Gen. Mattis because I think he has plenty of options."

We killed their trade, we destroyed their oil imports and still they have the nerve to defy us and not surrender so time for World War Three! That's Nikki. No foreign policy experience beyond the fetid breath of the neocon "experts" whispering in her all-too-willing ear.

But Nikki was not done today. After threatening a war on North Korea that would likely leave ten or more thousand US troops dead, hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians dead, and maybe another million North Koreans dead, she decided to opine on the utterly failed six year US regime change operation in Syria. Today, as Deir Ezzor has finally been liberated by the Syrian government from the scourge of ISIS, Nikki Haley chose to go on record defending ISIS and al-Qaeda by repeating Obama's line that Assad must go.

Ponder this for a minute: Assad has just defeated ISIS in Deir Ezzor. ISIS is the reason the US has invaded Syrian sovereignty and initiated military action. Yet according to Nikki Haley Assad's reward for wiping out ISIS is that he must be deposed – presumably in favor of US-backed rebels who have been in bed with ISIS for six years!

Is Nikki Haley pro-ISIS? Is she pro-al-Qaeda? Is she evil or just stupid?

You decide.

But if she is not removed from office soon, she will be leading perhaps a million people to their graves.

Daniel McAdams is director of the The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity . Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

[Sep 18, 2017] Americas Deadliest Export -- Democracy - The Truth about US Foreign Policy and Everything Else by Gary Corseri

Notable quotes:
"... "If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue State." ..."
Amazon.com

William Blum's "Cri de Coeur", February 9, 2013

William Blum's Cri de Coeur
A review of "America's Deadliest Export: Democracy" by William Blum (Zed Books, London/New York, 2013.)

(As it has appeared at DissidentVoice, OpEdNews, etc.):

In activist-author-publisher William Blum's new book, America's Deadliest Export: Democracy, he tells the story of how he got his 15 minutes of fame back in 2006. Osama bin Laden had released an audiotape, declaring:

"If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue State."

Bin Laden then quoted from the Foreword of Blum's 2000 book, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, in which he had mused:

"If I were... president, I could stop terrorist attacks [on us] in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize... to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America's global interventions... have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but... a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. ... That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

Unfortunately, Blum never made it to the White House! But, fortunately, for those who have read his books or follow his "Anti-Empire Reports" on the Web, he was not assassinated! And now he has collected his reports and essays of the last dozen years or so into a 352-page volume that will not only stand the test of time, but will help to define this disillusioned, morose, violent and unraveling Age.

America's Deadliest... is divided into 21 chapters and an introduction--and there's something to underline or memorize on every page! Sometimes it's just one of Blum's irrepressible quips, and sometimes it's a matter of searing American foreign or domestic policiy that clarifies that Bushwhackian question of yore: "Why do they hate us?"

Reading this scrupulously documented book, I lost count of the times I uttered, "unbelievable!" concerning some nefarious act committed by the US Empire in the name of freedom, democracy and fighting communism or terrorism. Reading Blum's book with an open mind, weighing the evidence, will bleach out any pride in the flag we have planted in so many corpses around the world. The book is a diuretic and emetic!

Blum's style is common sense raised to its highest level. The wonder of America's Deadliest ... is that it covers so much of the sodden, bloody ground of America's march across our post-Second-World-War world, yet tells the story with such deftness and grace-under-fire that the reader is enticed--not moralized, not disquisitionally badgered--, but enticed to consider our globe from a promontory of higher understanding.

Some of the themes Blum covers (and often eviscerates) include:

  1. Why they hate us;
  2. America means well;
  3. We cannot permit a successful alternative to the capitalist model to develop anywhere in the world;
  4. We will use whatever means necessary--including, lies, deception, sabotage, bribery, torture and war--to achieve the above idea.

Along the way, we get glimpses of Blum's experientially rich life. A note "About the Author" tells us that, "He left the State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service Officer because of his opposition to what the US was doing in Vietnam. He then became a founder and editor of the Washington Free Press, the first "alternative" newspaper in the capital."

In his chapter on "Patriotism," Blum relates how, after a talk, he was asked: "Do you love America?" He responded with what we may take for his credo: "I don't love any country. I'm a citizen of the world. I love certain principles, like human rights, civil liberties, meaningful democracy, an economy which puts people before profits."

America's Deadliest... is a book of wisdom and wit that ponders "how this world became so unbearably cruel, corrupt, unjust, and stupid?" In a pointillistic approach, sowing aphoristic seeds for thought, Blum enumerates instances of that cruelty, often with wry, pained commentary. "War can be seen as America's religion," he tells us. Reflecting on Obama's octupling Bush's number of drones used to assassinate, collaterally kill and terrorize, he affirms:

"Obama is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the American left." And, he avers, "Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow produce the most good." And then turns around and reminds us--lest we forget--how the mass media have invaded our lives, with memes about patriotism, democracy, God, the "good life": "Can it be imagined that an American president would openly implore America's young people to fight a foreign war to defend `capitalism'?" he wonders.

"The word itself has largely gone out of fashion. The approved references now are to the market economy, free market, free enterprise, or private enterprise."

Cynthia McKinney writes that the book is "corruscating, eye-opening, and essential." Oliver Stone calls it a "fireball of terse information."
Like Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Cindy Sheehan and Bradley Manning, Blum is committed to setting the historical record straight. His book is dangerous. Steadfast, immutable "truths" one has taken for granted--often since childhood--are exposed as hollow baubles to entertain the un/mis/and dis-informed. One such Blumism recollects Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez's account of a videotape with a very undiplomatic Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and cowboy George Bush: "`We've got to smash somebody's ass quickly,'" Powell said. "`We must have a brute demonstration of power.'

Then Bush spoke: `Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! ... Stay strong! ... Kill them! ... We are going to wipe them out!'"

Blum's intellectual resources are as keen as anyone's writing today. He also adds an ample measure of humanity to his trenchant critiques. He juxtaposes the noble rhetoric of our professed values with the mordant facts of our deeds. The cognitive dissonance makes for a memorable, very unpretty picture of how an immensely privileged people lost themselves, while gorging on junk food, junk politics, junk economics, junk education, junk media. Like an Isaiah, a Jeremiah, he lambastes his own--us!--flaying layers of hypocrisy and betrayals while seeking to reveal the core values of human dignity, empathy and moral rectitude.

Gary Corseri has published and posted prose, poetry and dramas at hundreds of periodicals and websites worldwide, including CommonDreams, Countercurrents, BraveNewWorld.in, OpEdNews, CounterPunch, Outlook India, The New York Times, Dissident Voice. He has published novels, poetry collections and a literary anthology (edited). His dramas have been presented on PBS-Atlanta and elsewhere, and he has performed his work at the Carter Presidential Library. He has taught in US public schools and prisons, and at American and Japanese universities. Contact: [email protected].

[Sep 18, 2017] Trump won but he is completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies by The Saker

Although he speaks about the USA being occupied, looks like Saker does not understand that that the US empire is actually a global neoliberal empire where multinationals and financial oligarchy have political control. And without a viable alternative it probably will not collapse, as any collapse presuppose the withdrawal of support. The necessary level of isolation is possible only if a an alternative is present
Now like in befor the World War Ii there is struggle for "spheres of influence", in which the USA is gradually losing as both Germany and Japan restored their industrial potential and China is a new powerful player on the world scene, which now is allied with Russia with its formidable nuclear deterrent that now anti-missile defense can neutralize"
Also the USA venture into Ukraine means the completion of revision of the results of WWII, which opened a new can of worms for the USA making Russia essentially a hostile power (which neocon admit and try to exploit via the current neo-McCarthism witch hunt)
Notable quotes:
"... Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. ..."
"... In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. ..."
"... And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse. ..."
"... Externally, the US foreign policy is basically "frozen" and in lieu of a foreign policy we now only have a long series of empty threats hurled at a list of demonized countries which are now promised "fire and brimstone" should they dare to disobey Uncle Sam. ..."
"... This bizarre, and illegal, form of a "vote of no-confidence" further hammers in the message that Trump is either a madman, a traitor, or both. ..."
"... Organizationally, it is clear that Trump is surrounded by enemies as illustrated by the absolutely outrageous fact that he can't even talk to a foreign head of state without having the transcript of his conversation leaked to the Ziomedia . ..."
"... I believe that these all are preparatory steps to trigger a major crisis and use it to remove Trump, either by a process of impeachment, or by force under the pretext of some crisis. Just look at the message which the Ziomedia has been hammeing into the brains of the US population. ..."
"... just imagine the reaction in South Korea and Japan if some crazy US strike on the DPRK results in Seoul and Tokyo being hit by missiles! ..."
"... when the cat is gone, the mice dance ..."
"... The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify the cat ..."
"... Third, for all the encouraging statistics about the Dow Jones, unemployment and growth, the reality is that the US society is rapidly transforming itself in a three-tired one: on top, a small number of obscenely rich people, under them, a certain amount of qualified professionals who service the filthy rich and who struggle to maintain a lifestyle which in the past was associated with the middle-class. And then the vast majority of Americans who basically are looking at making "minimal wage plus a little something" and who basically survive by not paying for health insurance, by typically working two jobs, by eating cheap and unhealthy "prolefeed" and by giving up on that which every American worker could enjoy in the 1950s and 1960s (have one parent at home, have paid holidays, a second vacation home, etc.). Americans are mostly hard workers and, so far, most of them are surviving, but they are mostly one paycheck away from seriously bad poverty. A lot of them only make ends meet because they get help from their parents and grand-parents (the same is true of southern Europe, by the way). A large segment of the US population now survives only because of Walmart and the Dollar Store. Once that fails, food stamps are the last option. That, or jail, of course. ..."
"... No wonder that when so many Americans heard Hillary's comment about the "basket of deplorables" they took that as declaration of war. ..."
"... Whatever may be the case, by their manic insistence, on one hand, to humiliate and crush Trump and, on the other, to repress millions of Americans the Neocons are committing a double mistake. First, they are showing their true face and, second, they are subverting the very institutions they are using to control and run this country. ..."
"... What makes the gradual collapse of the AngloZionist Empire so uniquely dangerous is that it is by far the biggest and most powerful empire in world history. No empire has ever had the quasi monopoly on power the USA enjoyed since WWII. By any measure, military, economic, political, social, the US came out of WWII as a giant and while there were ups and downs during the subsequent decades, the collapse of the USSR only reaffirmed what appeared to be the total victory of the United States. ..."
"... And if Obama was probably the most incompetent President in US history, Trump will be the first one to be openly lynched while in office. As a result, the AngloZionist Empire is now like a huge freight train which has lost its locomotive but still has an immense momentum pushing it forward even though there is nobody in control any more. The rest of the planet, with the irrelevant exception of the East Europeans, is now scrambling in horror to get out of the path of this out of control train. So far, the tracks (minimal common sense, political realities) are more or less holding, but a crash (political, economic or military) could happen at any moment. And that is very, very scary. ..."
"... The US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases worldwide, the entire international financial system is deeply enmeshed with the US economy, the US Dollar is still the only real reserve currency, United States Treasury securities are held by all the key international players (including Russia and China), SWIFT is politically controlled by the US, the US is the only country in the world that can print as much money as it wants and, last but not least, the US has a huge nuclear arsenal. As a result, a US collapse would threaten everybody and that means that nobody would want to trigger one. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the rest of mankind only in one way: by its nuclear arsenal. In contrast, any collapse of the United States would threaten everybody in many different ways. ..."
"... This is the irony of our situation: even though the entire planet is sick and tried of the incompetent arrogance of the AngloZionists, nobody out there wants their Empire to catastrophically collapse. And yet, with the Neocons in power, such a collapse appears inevitable with potentially devastating consequences for everybody. ..."
"... This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?! ..."
"... My biggest hope with Trump was that he would be willing to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the US (the opposite of what the Neocons are doing: they are willing to sacrifice the US for the sake of their Empire) and that he would manage a relatively safe and hopefully non-violent transition from Empire to "normal country" for the US. Clearly, this is ain't happening. Instead, the Neocons are threatening everybody: the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans and the Venezuelans of course, but also the Europeans (economically), the entire Middle-East (via the "only democracy in the Middle-East"), all the developing countries and even the American people. Heck, they are even threatening the US President himself, and in not-so-subtle ways! ..."
"... my overwhelming sense is that Trump will be removed from office, either for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or for "medical reasons" (they will simply declare him insane and unfit to be the President). ..."
"... The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains to understand what is taking place). The (pseudo-) "Left" will rejoice. ..."
"... Should this course of action result in an unexpected level or resistance, either regional or social, a 9-11 false flag followed by a war will the most likely scenario (why stray away from something which worked so well the first time around?!). ..."
"... in 1991 when the US sent the 82nd AB to Iraq there was nothing standing between this light infantry force and the Iraqi armored divisions. Had the Iraqis attacked the plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons. Then this was all quickly forgotten ..."
"... There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

First, my writing on the wall

In October of last year a wrote an analysis I entitled The USA are about to face the worst crisis of their history and how Putin's example might inspire Trump and I think that this is a good time to revisit it now. I began the analysis by looking at the calamities which would befall the United States if Hillary was elected. Since this did not happen (thank God!), we can safely ignore that part and look at my prediction of what would happen if Trump was elected. Here is what I wrote:

Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid " crazies in the basement "? Consider the vicious hate campaign which all these "personalities" (from actors, to politicians to reporters) have unleashed against Trump – they have burned their bridges, they know that they will lose it all if Trump wins (and, if he proves to be an easy pushover his election will make no difference anyway). The Neocons have nothing to lose and they will fight to the very last one.

What could Trump possibly do to get anything done if he is surrounded by Neocons and their agents of influence? Bring in an entirely different team? How is he going to vet them? His first choice was to take Pence as a VP – a disaster (he is already sabotaging Trump on Syria and the elections outcome). I *dread* the hear whom Trump will appoint as a White House Chief of Staff as I am afraid that just to appease the Neocons he will appoint some new version of the infamous Rahm Emanuel And should Trump prove that he has both principles and courage, the Neocons can always "Dallas" him and replace him with Pence. Et voilΰ !

I went on to suggest that Trump's only option would be to follow Putin's example and do the the Neocons what Putin did to the oligarchs. Clearly that did not happen. In fact, one month after the election of Trump I wrote another analysis entitled " The Neocons and the "deep state" have neutered the Trump Presidency, it's over folks! ".

Less than a month ago I warned that a 'color revolution ' was taking place in the USA . My first element of proof was the so-called "investigation" which the CIA, FBI, NSA and others were conducting against President Trump's candidate to become National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Tonight, the plot to get rid of Flynn has finally succeeded and General Flynn had to offer his resignation . Trump accepted it. Now let's immediately get one thing out of the way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise man who would single handedly saved the world. That he was not. However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone of Trump's national security policy . ( ) The Neocon run 'deep state' has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that he had a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian ambassador. And Trump accepted this resignation. Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. But now Trump has betrayed us all. Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump's hero. And Trump betrayed him. The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It took the 'deep state' only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be . Those who would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they will all move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst enemy and emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again. It's over, folks, the deep state has won.

I then concluded that the consequences of this victory would catastrophic for the United States:

In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. In other words, just like Israel, the USA has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse.

I think that what we are seeing today are the first signs of the impending collapse.

The symptoms of the agony

Externally, the US foreign policy is basically "frozen" and in lieu of a foreign policy we now only have a long series of empty threats hurled at a list of demonized countries which are now promised "fire and brimstone" should they dare to disobey Uncle Sam. While this makes for good headlines, this does not qualify as a "policy" of any kind (I discussed this issue at length during my recent interview with SouthFront ). And then there is Congress which has basically stripped Trump from his powers to conduct foreign policy . This bizarre, and illegal, form of a "vote of no-confidence" further hammers in the message that Trump is either a madman, a traitor, or both. Internally, the latest riots in Charlottesville now being blamed on Trump who, after being a Putin agent is now further demonized as some kind of Nazi (see Paul Craig Roberts' first and second warnings about this dynamic) Organizationally, it is clear that Trump is surrounded by enemies as illustrated by the absolutely outrageous fact that he can't even talk to a foreign head of state without having the transcript of his conversation leaked to the Ziomedia .

I believe that these all are preparatory steps to trigger a major crisis and use it to remove Trump, either by a process of impeachment, or by force under the pretext of some crisis. Just look at the message which the Ziomedia has been hammeing into the brains of the US population.

The psychological preparation for the forthcoming coup: scaring them all to death Here are three very telling examples taken from Newsweek's front page:

... ... ...

Ask yourself, what is the message here? Trump is a traitor, he works for Putin, Putin wants to destroy democracy in the United States and these two men together are the most dangerous men on the planet . This is a " plot against America ", no less! Not bad, right? "They" are clearly out there go get "us" and "we" are all in terrible danger: Kim Jong-un is about to declare nuclear war on the US, Xi and Putin are threatening the world with their armies, and "our" own President came to power courtesy of the "Russian KGB" and "Putin's hackers", he now works for the Russians, he is also clearly a Nazi, a White supremacist, a racist and, possibly, a " new Hitler " ( as is Putin , of course!).

And then, there are those truly scary Mooslims and Aye-rabs who apparently want only two things in life: destroy "our way of life" and kill all the "infidels". This is why we need the TSA, 16 intelligence agencies and militarized police SWAT teams everywhere: in case the terrorists come to get us where we live.

Dangerous international consequences

This would all be rather funny if it was not also extremely dangerous. For one thing, the US is really poking at a dangerous foe when it constantly tries to scare Kim Jong-un and the DPRK leadership. No, not because of the North Korean nukes (which are probably not real nuclear capable ICBMs but a not necessarily compatible combination of nuclear 'devices' and intermediate range ballistic missiles) but because of the huge and hard to destroy conventional North Korean military. The real threat are not missiles, but a deadly combination of conventional artillery and special forces which present very little danger to the US or the US military, but which present a huge threat for the population of Seoul and the northern section of South Korea. Nukes, in whatever form, are really only an added problem, a toxic "icing" on an already very dangerous 'conventional cake'.

[Sidebar - a real life nightmare : Now, if you *really* want to terrify yourself and stay awake all night then consider the following. While I personally believe that Kim Jong-un is not insane and that the main objective of the North Korean leadership is to avoid a war at all costs, what if I am wrong? What if those who say that the North Korean leaders are totally insane are right? Or, which I think is much more likely, what if Kim Jong-un and the North Korean leaders came to the conclusion that they have nothing to lose, that the Americans are going to kill them all, along with their families and friends? What could they, in theory, do if truly desperate? Well, let me tell you: forget about Guam; think Tokyo! Indeed, while the DPRK could devastate Seoul with old fashioned artillery systems, DPRK missiles are probably capable of striking Tokyo or the Keihanshin region encompassing Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe including the key industries of the Hanshin Industrial Region . The Greater Tokyo area (Kanto region) and the Keihanshin region are very densely populated (37 and 20 million people respectively) and contain an immense number of industries, many of which would produce an ecological disaster of immense proportions if hit by missiles. Not only that, but a strike on the key economic and financial nodes of Japan would probably result in a 9-11 kind of international economic collapse. So if the North Koreans wanted to really, really hurt the Americans what they could do is strike Seoul, and key cities in Japan resulting in a huge political crisis for the entire planet. During the Cold War we used to study the consequences of a Soviet strike against Japan and the conclusion was always the same: Japan cannot afford a war of any kind. The Japanese landmass is too small, too densely populated, to rich in lucrative targets and a war lay waste to the entire country. This is still true today, only more so. And just imagine the reaction in South Korea and Japan if some crazy US strike on the DPRK results in Seoul and Tokyo being hit by missiles! The South Koreans have already made their position unambiguously clear , by the way. As for the Japanese, they are officially placing their hopes in missiles (as if technology could mitigate the consequences of insanity!). So yeah, the DPRK is plenty dangerous and pushing them into their last resort is totally irresponsible indeed, nukes or no nukes]

What we are observing now is positive feedback loop in which each move by the Neocons results in a deeper and deeper destabilization of the entire system. Needless to say, this is extremely dangerous and can only result in an eventual catastrophe/collapse. In fact, the signs that the US is totally losing control are already all over the place, here are just a few headlines to illustrate this:

Iran could quit nuclear deal in 'hours' if new U.S. sanctions imposed: Rouhani Israel: Netanyahu declares support for a Kurdish state Syrian forces take 3 more towns en route to Deir ez-Zor in first airborne operation Maduro calls for nationwide 'anti-imperialist' drills after Trump's threat of 'military option' Soldiers of the 201st (Russian) base in Tadjikistan have been put on high alert as part of a military exercise Confirmed: Turkey to end support for anti-government terrorists in Syria Russia Plans Huge Zapad 2017 Military Exercises With Belarus

A French expression goes " when the cat is gone, the mice dance ", and this is exactly what is happening now: the US is both very weak and basically absent. As for the Armenians, they say " The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify the cat ". Well, the "mice" of the world are dancing and dreaming and simply ignoring the "cat". Every move the cat makes only makes things worse for him. The world is moving on, while the cat is busy destroying himself.

Dangerous domestic consequences

First on my list would be race riots. In fact, they are already happening all over the United States, but they are rarely presented as such. And I am not talking about the "official" riots of Black Lives Matter, which are bad enough, I am talking about the many mini-riots which the official media is systematically trying to obfuscate. Those interested in this topic should read the book here ). The simple truth is that no regime can survive for too long when it proactively supports the exact opposite of what it officially is supposed to stand for. The result? I have yet to meet an adult American who would sincerely believe that he/she lives in the "land of the free and the home of the brave". Maybe infants still buy this stuff, but even teenagers know that this is a load of bull.

Third, for all the encouraging statistics about the Dow Jones, unemployment and growth, the reality is that the US society is rapidly transforming itself in a three-tired one: on top, a small number of obscenely rich people, under them, a certain amount of qualified professionals who service the filthy rich and who struggle to maintain a lifestyle which in the past was associated with the middle-class. And then the vast majority of Americans who basically are looking at making "minimal wage plus a little something" and who basically survive by not paying for health insurance, by typically working two jobs, by eating cheap and unhealthy "prolefeed" and by giving up on that which every American worker could enjoy in the 1950s and 1960s (have one parent at home, have paid holidays, a second vacation home, etc.). Americans are mostly hard workers and, so far, most of them are surviving, but they are mostly one paycheck away from seriously bad poverty. A lot of them only make ends meet because they get help from their parents and grand-parents (the same is true of southern Europe, by the way). A large segment of the US population now survives only because of Walmart and the Dollar Store. Once that fails, food stamps are the last option. That, or jail, of course.

Combine all this and you get a potentially extremely explosive situation. No wonder that when so many Americans heard Hillary's comment about the "basket of deplorables" they took that as declaration of war.

And how do the Neocons plan to deal with all this? By cracking down on free speech and dissent, of course! What else? Their only response – repression of course!

YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter – they are all cracking down on "bad" speech which includes pretty much any topic a garden variety self-described 'liberal' frowns upon. GoDaddy and Google are even going after domain names. Oh sure, nobody gets thrown in jail for, say, defending the 2nd Amendment, but they get "demonetized" and their accounts simply closed. It's not the cops cracking down on free speech, it's "Corporate America", but the effect is the same. Apparently, the Neocons do not realize that censorship is not a viable strategy in the age of the Internet. Or maybe they do, and they are deliberately trying to trigger a backlash?

Then there is the vilification campaign in the media: unless you are some kind of 'minority' you are assumed to be nefarious by birth and guilty of all the evils on the planet. And your leader is Trump, of course, or maybe even Putin himself, vide supra. Christian heterosexual White males better run for cover

Whatever may be the case, by their manic insistence, on one hand, to humiliate and crush Trump and, on the other, to repress millions of Americans the Neocons are committing a double mistake. First, they are showing their true face and, second, they are subverting the very institutions they are using to control and run this country. That, of course, only further weaken the Neocons and the United States themselves and that further accelerates the positive feedback loop mentioned above which now threatens the entire international system.

Us and Them

What makes the gradual collapse of the AngloZionist Empire so uniquely dangerous is that it is by far the biggest and most powerful empire in world history. No empire has ever had the quasi monopoly on power the USA enjoyed since WWII. By any measure, military, economic, political, social, the US came out of WWII as a giant and while there were ups and downs during the subsequent decades, the collapse of the USSR only reaffirmed what appeared to be the total victory of the United States. In my admittedly subjective opinion, the last competent (no, I did not say 'good', I said 'competent') US President was George Herbert Walker Bush who, unlike his successors, at least knew how to run an Empire. After that, it is all downhill, faster and faster. And if Obama was probably the most incompetent President in US history, Trump will be the first one to be openly lynched while in office. As a result, the AngloZionist Empire is now like a huge freight train which has lost its locomotive but still has an immense momentum pushing it forward even though there is nobody in control any more. The rest of the planet, with the irrelevant exception of the East Europeans, is now scrambling in horror to get out of the path of this out of control train. So far, the tracks (minimal common sense, political realities) are more or less holding, but a crash (political, economic or military) could happen at any moment. And that is very, very scary.

The US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases worldwide, the entire international financial system is deeply enmeshed with the US economy, the US Dollar is still the only real reserve currency, United States Treasury securities are held by all the key international players (including Russia and China), SWIFT is politically controlled by the US, the US is the only country in the world that can print as much money as it wants and, last but not least, the US has a huge nuclear arsenal. As a result, a US collapse would threaten everybody and that means that nobody would want to trigger one. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the rest of mankind only in one way: by its nuclear arsenal. In contrast, any collapse of the United States would threaten everybody in many different ways.

So the real question now is this: can the rest of the planet prevent a catastrophic collapse of the AngloZionist Empire?

This is the irony of our situation: even though the entire planet is sick and tried of the incompetent arrogance of the AngloZionists, nobody out there wants their Empire to catastrophically collapse. And yet, with the Neocons in power, such a collapse appears inevitable with potentially devastating consequences for everybody.

This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?!

And the next obvious question: can we still stop them?

I honestly don't know. I hope so, but I am not sure. My biggest hope with Trump was that he would be willing to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the US (the opposite of what the Neocons are doing: they are willing to sacrifice the US for the sake of their Empire) and that he would manage a relatively safe and hopefully non-violent transition from Empire to "normal country" for the US. Clearly, this is ain't happening. Instead, the Neocons are threatening everybody: the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans and the Venezuelans of course, but also the Europeans (economically), the entire Middle-East (via the "only democracy in the Middle-East"), all the developing countries and even the American people. Heck, they are even threatening the US President himself, and in not-so-subtle ways!

So what's next?

Truly, I don't know. But my overwhelming sense is that Trump will be removed from office, either for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or for "medical reasons" (they will simply declare him insane and unfit to be the President). Seeing how weak and spineless Trump is, he might even be "convinced" to resign. I don't see them simply murdering him simply because he is no Kennedy either. After that, Pence comes to power and it will all be presented like a wonderful event, a group-hug of the elites followed by an immediate and merciless crackdown on any form of political opposition or dissent which will immediately be labeled as racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, terrorist, etc.

The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains to understand what is taking place). The (pseudo-) "Left" will rejoice.

Should this course of action result in an unexpected level or resistance, either regional or social, a 9-11 false flag followed by a war will the most likely scenario (why stray away from something which worked so well the first time around?!). Unless the US decides to re-invade Grenada or give Nauru a much deserved thrashing, any more or less real war will result in a catastrophic failure for the US at which point the use of nukes by the Neocon crazies might become a very real risk, especially if symbolic US targets such as aircraft carriers are hit ( in 1991 when the US sent the 82nd AB to Iraq there was nothing standing between this light infantry force and the Iraqi armored divisions. Had the Iraqis attacked the plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons. Then this was all quickly forgotten ).

There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around.

This analysis was written for The Unz Review

[Sep 18, 2017] Why Petraeus, Obama And Brennan Should Face 5,000 Years In Prison

Notable quotes:
"... add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people. ..."
"... "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus." ..."
"... one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA ..."
"... Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012) ..."
"... The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program: ..."
"... Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS). ..."
"... Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet. ..."
"... But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives ..."
"... I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well ..."
"... What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy. ..."
"... Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan. ..."
"... As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/ ..."
"... While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around. ..."
"... That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable. ..."
"... Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back). ..."
"... I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. ..."
"... Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal. ..."
"... His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo ..."
"... John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads. ..."
"... WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria. ..."
"... The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government. ..."
"... Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. ..."
"... b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners. ..."
"... NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. ..."
"... Brennan : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBG81dXgM0Q ..."
"... Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks. ..."
Aug 04, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

California CEO Allegedly Smuggled Rifle Scopes to Syria - Daily Beast, August 1 2017

Rasheed Al Jijakli,[the CEO of a check-cashing business who lives in Walnut,] along with three co-conspirators, allegedly transported day and night vision rifle scopes, laser boresighters used to adjust sights on firearms for accuracy when firing, flashlights, radios, a bulletproof vest, and other tactical equipment to Syrian fighters.
...
If Jijakli is found guilty, he could face 50 years in prison . Jijakli's case is being prosecuted by counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys. An FBI investigation, in coordination with other agencies, is ongoing.
---

Under Trump, a Hollowed-Out Force in Syria Quickly Lost CIA Backing - NY Times * , August 2, 2017

CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels
...
Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs [...] and reports that some of the CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda
...
In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus , who was then CIA director, first proposed a covert program of arming and training rebels
...
[ Mr. Obama signed] a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to covertly arm and train small groups of rebels
-...
John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's last CIA director, remained a vigorous defender of the program ...

When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Where are the counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys prosecuting them? Those three men engaged in the exactly same trade as Mr. Jijakil did, but on a much larger scale. They should be punished on an equally larger scale.

* Note:

The NYT story is largely a whitewash. It claims that the CIA paid "moderate" FSA rebels stormed Idleb governate in 2015. In fact al-Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham were leading the assault. It says that costs of the CIA program was "more than $1 billion over the life of the program" when CIA documents show that it was over $1 billion per year and likely much more than $5 billion in total. The story says that the program started in 2013 while the CIA has been providing arms to the Wahhabi rebels since at least fall 2011.

Posted by b on August 3, 2017 at 05:15 AM | Permalink

nmb | Aug 3, 2017 5:31:09 AM | 1

Easy: because they are war criminals.
V. Arnold | Aug 3, 2017 5:47:16 AM | 4
But, but, b; you're dealing with a rogue government of men; not laws. Should have been obvious in 2003, March 19th...
Igor Bundy | Aug 3, 2017 5:47:28 AM | 5
In case there is any doubt, North Korea has already said arming "rebels" to over throw the government would face nuclear retaliation.
Igor Bundy | Aug 3, 2017 5:52:50 AM | 6
India and Pakistan spends insane amounts of money because Pakistan arms "rebels" both countries could use that money for many other things. Especially Pakistan which has a tenth the economy of India. BUT Pakistan is controlled by the military or MIC so arming terrorists is more important than such things as schools and power supplies etc. Their excuse is India is spending so much on arms. Which India says is because in large part due to Pakistan. US says well move those 2 million troops to attack China instead. Everyone is happy except the population in those 3 countries which lack most things except iphones. Which makes US extremely happy.
Emily | Aug 3, 2017 5:54:48 AM | 7
It would interesting to get to the truth about Brennan. Is he an islamist himself? Did he actually convert to islam in Saudi Arabia? Lots of stories out there.
Has he been acting as a covert agent against his own country for years?Selling out the entire west and every christian on the planet. Time to find this out, methinks.

Is treason in the USA a death penalty issue?. Its certainly what he deserves.

Mina | Aug 3, 2017 5:55:21 AM | 8
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/274688/World/Region/,-Syrian-refugees-and-fighters-return-home-from-Le.aspx
V. Arnold | Aug 3, 2017 6:25:03 AM | 9
Mina | Aug 3, 2017 5:55:21 AM | 8

Informative link; thanks.

Peter AU 1 | Aug 3, 2017 6:30:12 AM | 10
"a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels."

A four year effort to arm the f**kers? Doubtful it was an effort to arm them, but training them to act in the hegemon's interests... like upholders of democracy and humanitarian... headchopping is just too much of an attraction

somebody | Aug 3, 2017 6:52:48 AM | 12
add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people.
Anonymous | Aug 3, 2017 6:54:31 AM | 13
Mina @3. The title of the article is deceptive.

"7,000 Syrian refugees and fighters return home from Lebanon"

The 'al-Qaeda linked' fighters are mostly foreigners, paid mercenaries. They have been dumped in Idlib along with the other terrorists. In the standard reconciliation process, real Syrians are given the option of returning home if they renounce violence and agree to a political solution. Fake Syrians are dumped in with the foreigners. The real Syrian fighters who reconcile have to join the SAA units to fight against ISIS etc.

ISIS fighters were encouraged to bring their families with them (for use as human shields and to provide settlers for the captured territory). ISIS documents recovered from Mosul indicate that unmarried foreign mercenaries fighting with them were provided with a wife (how does that work? do the women volunteer or are they 'volunteered'?), a car and other benefits. These families and hangers-on would probably be the 'Syrian refugees'.

On a side note, the Kurds have released a video showing the training of special forces belonging to their allies, the 'Syrian Defense Force' (composed largely of foreigners again). The SDF fighters fly the FSA flag, ie they are the carefully vetted moderate head chopping rebels beloved of the likes of McCain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHBFkZZ1y40

librul | Aug 3, 2017 8:20:55 AM | 14
somebody @12,

Thanks for the link, it is a keeper.

"It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus."

My own addition to the Brennan record:

Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for 9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington, they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.

somebody | Aug 3, 2017 8:36:06 AM | 15
14 add this New York Times link: U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities. ... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.

From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.

...

The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known as the "Safari Club" -- a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France -- that ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings over years of abuses.

...

Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through a Cayman Islands bank account.

When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence E. Walsh, the independent counsel.

In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."

michaelj72 | Aug 3, 2017 8:43:35 AM | 16

"Many commit the same crime with a very different result. One bears a cross for his crime; another a crown." ― Juvenal, The Satires

librul | Aug 3, 2017 9:09:59 AM | 17
somebody @15

one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA

Greenbean950 | Aug 3, 2017 9:47:03 AM | 18
NYT's article was a white wash. It was cover. NYT = CIA
paul | Aug 3, 2017 9:47:16 AM | 19
The art of limited hangout as practiced by the NYT
nonsense factory | Aug 3, 2017 10:15:14 AM | 20
Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012)
In particular:
A fourth trend is that the Arab Spring has become a springboard for playing great-power geopolitics.

Syria, at the center of the region's sectarian fault lines, has emerged as the principal battleground for such Cold War-style geopolitics. Whereas Russia is intent on keeping its only military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, the U.S. seems equally determined to install a pro-Western regime in Damascus.

This goal prompted Washington to set up a London-based television station that began broadcasting to Syria a year before major protests began there. The U.S. campaign, which includes assembling a coalition of the willing, has been boosted by major Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and UAE help, including cross-border flow of arms into Syria and the establishment of two new petrodollar-financed, jihad-extolling television channels directed at Syria's majority Sunni Arabs.

The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...Leon-Panetta-supports-Hillary-Clinton-plan-to-arm-Syrian-rebels.html (Feb 2013)

Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS).

Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet.

Send the lot to Scheveningen Prison - for the most notorious war criminals. Pretty luxurious as prisons go, by all accounts.

Jackrabbit | Aug 3, 2017 10:36:48 AM | 21
But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives
karlof1 | Aug 3, 2017 10:45:27 AM | 22
Within the Outlaw US Empire alone, there're several thousand people deserving of those 5,000 year sentences, not just the three b singled out. But b does provide a great service for those of us who refuse to support terrorists and terrorism by not paying federal taxes by providing proof of that occurring. I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well. Thanks b!
james | Aug 3, 2017 12:07:05 PM | 23
it's the usa!!!! no one in gov't is held accountable.. obama wants to move on, lol... look forward, not backward... creating a heaping pile of murder, mayhem and more in other parts of the world, but never examine any of it, or hold anyone accountable.. it is the amerikkkan way...
stumpy | Aug 3, 2017 12:46:57 PM | 26
What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy.

Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan.

As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/

RUKidding | Aug 3, 2017 12:56:29 PM | 27
While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around.

That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable.

At least with Trump, we can clearly witness his idiocy and grasp the level of at least some of his damage.

Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back).

Agree with b. NYT is worthless. Limited hangout for sure.

stumpy | Aug 3, 2017 1:15:55 PM | 28
Speaking of who DID get arrested, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/03/fbi-arrests-wannacry-hero-marcus-hutchins-las-vegas-reports/

Gee, wouldn't we like to see the arrest warrant?

NemesisCalling | Aug 3, 2017 1:16:29 PM | 29
@27 beating a dead horse, but I agree.

I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. He'll bring it down without going true believer on us, a la Clinton and ilk who were busy scheduling the apocalypse.

Trump has not been tested yet with a rapidly deteriorating economy which as we all know is coming. Something is in the air and Trump will have to face it sooner or later. The weight of the anger of millions will be behind it...will it be too late? Will Trump finally go MAGA in what he promised: Glas-Steagall, making trade fair for US interests, dialing back NATO...etc. etc. I fear he can not articulate the issues at hand, like Roosevelt or Hitler. He is too bumbling. I guess really we can only hope for an avoidance of WW. Will the world even weep for a third world USA?

Mina | Aug 3, 2017 1:23:53 PM | 30
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/274706/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-and-Russia-broker-truce-between-Syrian-regim.aspx
harrylaw | Aug 3, 2017 2:14:24 PM | 31
Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.

His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria.

"We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and send them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles of warfare as I understand it," McCain said. https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/

virgile | Aug 3, 2017 2:23:20 PM | 32
They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position.
harrylaw | Aug 3, 2017 2:44:11 PM | 33
The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government.

Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates and democrats seeking to change Syria's autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written off as an Assad apologist or worse.

Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange with then-ex Ambassador Ford: http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906

Noirette | Aug 3, 2017 2:48:20 PM | 34
Specially Petraeus. A US Army General, and director of the CIA You don't get more 'pillar' of the State than that! And off he goes doing illegal arms trades, in the billions, see for ex. Meyssan, as an ex.:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article197144.html

In other countries / times, he'd be shot at dawn as a traitor. But all it shows really is that the USA does not really have a Gvmt. in the sense of a 'political structure of strong regulatory importance with 'democratic' participation..' to keep it vague.. It has an elaborate public charade, a kind of clumsy theatre play, that relies very heavily on the scripted MSM, on ritual, and various distractions. Plus natch' very vicious control mechanisms at home.. another story.

Meanwhile, off stage, the actors participate and fight and ally in a whole other scene where 'disaster capitalism', 'rapine', 'mafia moves' and the worst impulses in human nature not only bloom but are institutionalised and deployed world-wide! Covering all this up is getting increasingly difficult -Trump presidency - one would hope US citizens no not for now.

The other two of course as well, I just find Petraeus emblematic, probably because of all the BS about his mistress + he once mis-treated classified info or something like that, total irrelevance spun by the media, which works.

OJS | Aug 3, 2017 2:49:46 PM | 35
@virgile, 32

"They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position."

I humbly disagree, and they sincerely believe they are helping the Syrians (plus other states) - freedom and democracy against the brutality of Dr. Assad. I believe all these murderers are sincere doing god works and will all go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why I refuse to go to heaven even if gods beg me. Fuck it!

My apologies if I offend you or anyone. It's about time we look carefully beside politic and wealth, what religion does to a human?

karlof1 | Aug 3, 2017 3:26:11 PM | 36
OJS @35--

Have you read Reg Morrison's Spirit in the Gene ? Here's a link to one of his related essays with many more of relevance on his website, https://regmorrison.edublogs.org/1999/07/20/plague-species-the-spirit-in-the-gene/

ben | Aug 3, 2017 3:35:09 PM | 37
b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners.

You can include ALL the POTUS's and their minions, since the turn of the century. " It's just business, get over it."

john | Aug 3, 2017 4:16:52 PM | 38
ben says:

Duh, like never..Most here understand this, I'm sure right. like voyeurs, we like to watch , and watch , and watch .

somebody | Aug 3, 2017 4:23:25 PM | 39
35 Religion has nothing to do with it.

How to spot a Sociopath

6 Look for signs of instigating violent behavior. As children some sociopaths torture defenseless people and animals. This violence is always instigating, and not defensive violence. They will create drama out of thin air, or twist what others say. They will often overreact strongly to minor offenses. If they are challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger the other way, counting on the empathic person's empathy and consideration of people to protect them, as long as they can remain undetected. Their attempt to point the finger the other way, is both a smokescreen to being detected, and an attempt to confuse the situation.

The link is a pretty good summary. It is easy to find more respectable psychological sources for the disorder on the internet.

fast freddy | Aug 3, 2017 5:45:24 PM | 40
NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. /s
OJS | Aug 3, 2017 8:12:07 PM | 42
@karlof1, 36

" Here, evolution had hit on the sweetest of solutions. Such perceptions were guaranteed to produce a faith-dependent species that believed itself to be thoroughly separate from the rest of the animal kingdom, ...."

Interesting article, but stop reading years ago when struggled to raise a family, make a living to survive. Debatable Is "sociopath" (Antisocial Personality Disorder) or the genes make humanly so brutally? Very often hard to fathom the depth of human suffering be it USA, Syria or elsewhere. Thanks sharing you thought.

falcemartello | Aug 3, 2017 9:03:06 PM | 43
What most of the msm and the echo chamber seem to be deliberately missing is all intentional. The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the free world ,debunked.

Hence I expect that the western oligarchs along with their pressitute and compromised politicians will be bying up alot of bleach. They will be whitewashing for the next three months all semblance of anything related to their fraudulent existence.

Nurenberg 2, the Hague would be to soft for these vile criminals of humanity. Look how they had to back track on the Milosevic conviction mind u post death.
Just another day in the office for these criminals of humanity. Gee can't wait until this petro-dollar ponzi scheme crashes hopefully we can get back o being human again. The emperor has no clothes.

runaway robot | Aug 3, 2017 9:07:30 PM | 44
karlof1@36:
Thanks for reminding me about Reg Morrison! I need to re-read that book, slowly.
fast freddy | Aug 3, 2017 9:20:33 PM | 45
43 The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the free world,debunked.

Optimistic. Has Trump been instrumental in these? Perhaps. This would be a good reason for Zionists to hate him. But how is it that Trump is such a bumbling idiot? Now the Senate has ratfcked him with recess appointments. And he signed that stupid Russia Sanctions bill.

Temporarily Sane | Aug 4, 2017 12:06:50 AM | 46
@45 fast freddy
This would be a good reason for Zionists to hate him.

Except they don't hate him. Quite the opposite in fact. Looking to Trump as some sort of savior figure is absolutely ridiculous.

rm | Aug 4, 2017 12:17:56 AM | 47
Brennan : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBG81dXgM0Q

Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.

[Sep 18, 2017] The Russian Hacking Story Continues to Unravel by Mike Whitney

The key problem with the "official" story of DNS hack is the role of Crowdstrike and strangely coincident murder of Seth Rich. Que bono analysis here might also help: the main beneficiary of "Russian hack" story was Hillary camp as it allowed them to put a smoke screen shadowing allegation that they nefariously has thrown Sanders under the bus. A very serious allegation which has substantial supporting evidence. In a way they were fighting for their lives. Also Imran Awan story is omitted from the official narrative. Was not this another proved large scale hacking case? They also have a motive and opportunity in DNC case.
Notable quotes:
"... The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't involved. There's nothing more to it than that. ..."
"... As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. ..."
"... He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders' ..."
"... Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists." . ..."
"... Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election. ..."
"... 'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that." ..."
"... Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year now. ..."
"... But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case? ..."
"... Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump? How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator called "The crime of the century"? ..."
"... "It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden) ..."
"... What the author is saying is that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple. ..."
"... But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists. Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers? ..."
"... The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense. ..."
"... "The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access. ..."
"... 4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ." ..."
"... The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious doubt on their conclusions? ..."
"... It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people. ..."
"... "Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. – That information has never been disclosed." ..."
"... What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg. ..."
"... Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest. ..."
"... Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.) and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome. Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global rival. ..."
"... Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations. Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016. The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance." In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers were hacked from Romania.) ..."
"... "There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation) ..."
"... Read the whole report here: " Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", Skip Folden, Word Press. ..."
Sep 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

A new report by a retired IT executive at IBM, debunks the claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign by hacking Democratic computers and circulating damaging information about Hillary Clinton. The report, which is titled " The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", provides a rigorous examination of the wobbly allegations upon which the hacking theory is based, as well as a point by point rejection of the primary claims which, in the final analysis, fail to pass the smell test. While the report is worth reading in full, our intention is to zero-in on the parts of the text that disprove the claims that Russia meddled in US elections or hacked the servers at the DNC.

Let's start with the fact that there are at least two credible witnesses who claim to know who took the DNC emails and transferred them to WikiLeaks. We're talking about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ally, Craig Murray. No one is in a better position to know who actually took the emails than Assange, and yet, Assange has repeatedly said that Russia was not the source. Check out this clip from the report:

Assange has been adamant all along that the Russian government was not a source; it was a non-state player.

ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party

HANNITY (Conservative talk show host): Can you say to the American people unequivocally that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the American people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia

ASSANGE: Yes.

HANNITY: or anybody associated with Russia?

ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party

("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)

Can you think of a more credible witness than Julian Assange? The man has devoted his entire adult life to exposing the truth about government despite the risks his actions pose to his own personal safety. In fact, he is currently holed up at the Ecuador embassy in London for defending the public's right to know what their government is up to. Does anyone seriously think that a man like that would deliberately lie just to protect Russia's reputation?

No, of course not, and the new report backs him up on this matter. It states: "No where in the Intelligence Community's Assessment (ICA) was there any evidence of any connection between Russia and WikiLeaks." The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't involved. There's nothing more to it than that.

As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. Check out this except from an article at The Daily Mail:

(Murray) "flew to Washington, D.C. for emails. He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'

Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists." .

Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election.

'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that."

(EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails", Daily Mail)

Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year now.

But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case?

Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump? How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator called "The crime of the century"?

Here's something else from the report that's worth mulling over:

"It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)

This is a crucial point, so let's rephrase that in simple English. What the author is saying is that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple.

But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists. Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers?

Why? Why this conspiracy of silence on a matter that is so fundamental to the case that the NSA and the other Intel agencies are trying to make?

The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense.

According to the media, Intelligence agents familiar with the matter have "high confidence' that Russia was involved.

Okay, but where's the proof? You can't expect to build a case against a foreign government and a sitting president with just "high confidence". You need facts, evidence, proof. Where's the beef?

We already mentioned how the FBI never bothered to question the only eyewitnesses in the case. That's odd enough, but what's even stranger is the fact that the FBI never seized the DNC's servers so they could conduct a forensic examination of them. What's that all about? Here's an excerpt from the report:

"The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access.

The apparent single source of information on the purported DNC intrusion(s) was from Crowdstrike.

3. Crowdstrike is a cyber security firm hired by the Democratic Party.

4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ."

( "The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge)

Have you ever read anything more ridiculous in your life? The FBI's negligence in this case goes beyond anything I've ever seen before. Imagine if a murder was committed in the apartment next to you and the FBI was called in to investigate. But when they arrive at the scene of the crime, they're blocked at the door by the victim's roommate who refuses to let them in. Speaking through the door, the roommate assures the agents that the victim was shot dead with a single bullet to the head, and that the smoking gun that was used in the murder is still on the floor. But "don't worry", says the obstructing roommate, "I've already photographed the whole thing and I'll send you the pictures as soon as I get the chance."

Do you really think the agents would put up with such nonsense?

Never! They'd kick down the door, slap the roommate in handcuffs, cordon-off the murder scene, and start digging-around for clues. That's what they'd do. And yet we are supposed to believe that in the biggest case of the decade, a case that that allegedly involves foreign espionage and presidential treason, that the FBI has made no serious effort to secure the servers that were allegedly hacked by Russia?

The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious doubt on their conclusions?

It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.

Here's another interesting clip from the report:

"Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. – That information has never been disclosed."

("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)

Read that excerpt over again. It's mind boggling. What Carter is saying is that, they have nothing, no evidence, no proof, no nothing. If you don't have a disk image, then what do you have?

You have nothing, that's what. Which means that everything we've read is 100 percent conjecture, not a shred of evidence anywhere. Which is why the focus has shifted to Manafort, Flynn, Trump Jr and the goofy Russian lawyer?

Who gives a rip about Manafort? Seriously? The investigation started off with grave allegations of foreign espionage and presidential collusion (treason?) and quickly downshifted to the illicit financial dealings of someone the American people could care less about. Talk about mission creep!

What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg.

A few words about the ICA Report

Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest.

Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.) and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome. Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global rival. And the report was moderately successful in that regard too, except for one paradoxical disclaimer that appeared on page 13. Here it is:

"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

What the authors are saying is that, 'Everything you read in this report could be complete baloney because it's all based on conjecture, speculation and guesswork.'

Isn't that what they're saying? Why would anyone waste their time reading a report when the authors openly admit that their grasp of what happened is "incomplete or fragmentary" and they have no "proof" of anything?

Gregory Copley, President, International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) summed it up best when he said: "This is a highly politically motivated and a subjective report which was issued by the intelligence community. does not present evidence of successful or even an attempt to actually actively manipulate the election process."

Like we said, it's all baloney.

Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations. Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016. The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance." In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers were hacked from Romania.)

The Nation summed it up perfectly in this brief paragraph:

"There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation)

Bingo.

Bottom line: A dedicated group of independent researchers and former Intel agents joined forces and produced the first hard evidence that "the official narrative implicating Russia" is wrong. This is a stunning development that will, in time, cut through the fog of government propaganda and reveal the truth. Skip Folden's report is an important contribution to that same effort.

Read the whole report here: " Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", Skip Folden, Word Press.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

Seamus Padraig > , September 14, 2017 at 12:43 pm GMT

In related news, Craig Murray is now being sued for libel in the UK over specious accusations stemming from the Jeremy Corbyn 'anti-Semitism' scandal. Murry writes:

I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate Editor of the Daily Mail Online. Mr Wallis Simons is demanding £40,000 in damages and the High Court has approved over £100,000 in costs for Mark Lewis, Mr Wallis Simons' lawyer. I may become liable for all of this should I lose the case, and furthermore I have no money to pay for my defence. I am currently a defendant in person. This case has the potential to bankrupt me and blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with bankruptcy.

Source: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/09/save-craig-murray/

Britain is notorious for having libel laws with a reversed burden of proof , meaning that the defendant (in this case, Murray) must prove himself innocent! Some shady plaintiffs, when jurisdiction-shopping for a libel case, have been known to try and file libel charges in Britain for this very reason.

Somebody's after Craig Murray big-time.

elmer t. jones > , September 14, 2017 at 7:09 pm GMT

The ICA report was a joke to anyone with rudimentary internet skills. It had a page of infographics featuring the iconic hacker-in-a-hoodie, a short list of perps ("hairyBear69″ etc etc) and the rest of it looked like a generic corporate PowerPoint on good cyber security practices. The media of course acted like it was all damning evidence of collusion.

Jonathan Mason > , September 15, 2017 at 12:56 am GMT
Reading Unz Review you will be better off replacing the word "Jew" with the term "the member of financial oligarchy". That's also will be more correct as tribal interests of financial oligarchy are the same as attributed to Jews in Protocols of Zion Elders...

The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's (sic) conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest.

Well, at the time, I, and probably most other people of moderate intelligence, said: "It is highly unlikely that all seventeen intelligence agencies have carried out independent investigations and come to identical conclusions without any of them being able to produce hard evidence. So this can safely be dismissed as bullshit."

People are not stupid, just like almost no one believed in Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Apparently Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were the only people who were fooled. And Hillary Clinton also believed that she came under fire in Serbia, having been sent as First Lady to a place where it was too dangerous for the President to go, even though he had been there in person only a few months earlier.

There is a pattern here, I think.

Miro23 > , September 15, 2017 at 3:29 am GMT

The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.

The same that they were told to "stand down " on the plentiful 9/11 evidence that contradicts the government story (see especially what they were doing down in Florida, Daniel Hopsicker "Welcome to Terrorland" https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0970659164/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1505445435&sr=8-2&keywords=daniel+hopsicker ).

I'm not sure that the FBI and CIA operatives are having a good laugh. To some extent they ARE the American people, and will have some basic ideas of justice and honesty. Their political masters can bribe and coerce them but there are limits to the efficiency of a (US) system run on fear and greed.

exiled off mainstreet > , September 15, 2017 at 3:36 am GMT

Despite the massive amount of evidence exposing the fraudulent nature of the story the media keeps going along based on the assumption that the lies are facts. Many if not most of those who consume the media propaganda continue to believe this crap. It is a sort of 21st century iteration of Goebbels propaganda but with the risk of nuclear war.

dc.sunsets > , September 15, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT

Fake news is gonna be fake.

Until recently, people believed. They believed in The System (and the System's Narrative) more fervently than did their 14th Century European ancestors believe in Christianity.

They believed we could all get rich by Government and corporations issuing more and more and more debt. They believed that a promise to pay future cash flows, from Social Security or a Teacher's Pension or a Treasury Bond maturing, it was ALL as certain as if the money was already sitting on a table in front of their eyes.

Every institution in the West is being destroyed from within by the very people who staff it and who count on it for financial income. Those working in The News make stuff up out of whole cloth, apparently believing that a public that sees their output as fiction will continue to fund the channel that accrues to their paycheck. The same holds true of FB and social media. Government officials can't keep their lies straight anymore, and everywhere we look we see a wave of awakening, as members of the public each come to reframe that which they can see.

We are past apogee on the wave of pathological trust. The path ahead is of growing distrust, and while healthy in part, it will likely overshoot a better place by as much on the downside as it trust overshot wisdom on the upside.

View everything with distrust and suspicion; by doing so now, you'll be the rush.

Backwoods Bob > , September 15, 2017 at 9:48 pm GMT

It's exasperating but the strategy from the beginning has been psychological, not evidence-based, and it has been working.

All they have to do is keep repeating the three words Russia, Trump, and Hacking in close proximity to one another. They got the vast majority of people to believe Saddam Hussein did 9/11. I visit my mother in a retirement home and the mainstream television media has them completely in their grip.

I occasionally check in with the nauseating mainstream press or talking head shows, and watched a gaggle of clowns devolve into a shouting match over Trump/Russia. It was perfectly choreographed to make sure no coherent sentence, no complete thought was ever uttered. It was just noise – which is what the CIA is paying for and the producers are serving up.

In the meantime the Awan spy ring in Congress is being investigated by citizen journalists and studiously ignored by both Congress and the media. Does that tell you anything? They're mostly either safely blackmailed or paid off. The FBI can't find a crime being committed right in front of them in broad daylight so long as the criminal is helping out the country with weapons deliveries to Al Qaeda and ISIS, opium from Afghanistan, and other charitable efforts.

CalDre > , September 16, 2017 at 7:38 am GMT

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.

The Alarmist > , September 16, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT

The term "Stand Down" seems to crop up a lot in matters involving Hillary Clinton, no?

Anonymous > , Disclaimer September 16, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT

I put some effort into editing the original text by Skip Folden and put into into .odt and .pdf. Also checked the links and highlighted some problems.

Have a go, I put it on Amazon S3 (imma supporting Bezos, here), it's easier to read on the train, too:

The+Non+Existent+Foundation+of+the+Russian+Hacking+Charge.pdf

The+Non+Existent+Foundation+of+the+Russian+Hacking+Charge.odt

Logging is off BTW.

El Dato > , September 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm GMT

Meanwhile, Stripped Nuts and Loose Screws:

https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=66BF6DAD-0C50-4279-8EA2-018A8B17CAD7

"There is no credible doubt that Russia attacked our election infrastructure in 2016," said Gillibrand. "We need a public accounting of how they were able to do it so effectively, and how we can protect our country when Russia or any other nation tries to attack us again. The clock is ticking before our next election, and these questions are urgent. We need to be able to defend ourselves against threats to our elections, our democracy, and our sacred right to vote. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation to create a 9/11-style Commission to defend our democracy and protect ourselves against future attacks on our country."

Lying and not realising you created the problem in the first place (Closed-source Diebold QUALITY machines etc.)

Just go back to paper, you fcsking idiots.

Seamus Padraig > , September 16, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT

@CalDre Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against.

Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.

Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

Backwoods Bob > , September 16, 2017 at 6:44 pm GMT

@El Dato I can't remember hearing much about Sibel Edmond's revelations either recently.

That story disappeared faster than Oswald exiting a bookstore.

At least she's still alive. So true, El Dato. Even after the 29 pages came out and pointed to Saudi Arabian involvement like suspected, it was just dropped.

Or any number of other ghastly acts like Fast and Furious, the IRS and other organs of government being used to harass and suppress. We overthrew Ukraine and the mockingbird media made it sound like it was a Russian invasion, the story could not have been more backwards.

It's the Church Committee, Iran-Contra, and the Rosenberg's except bigger. Judicial Watch keeps digging out pay-to-play emails. A person would have to be brain dead not to see Comey obstructed investigations and let them destroy evidence. It is clear Congressmen are implicated directly, both parties, Clinton and McCain represent all the worst of our corruption. Aiding Al Qaeda and ISIS.

We have whole shipping containers at a time going to and fro from our ports under diplomatic immunity. Talk about a grotesque corruption of the diplomatic "pouch" immunity. The USSR did its industrial and defense espionage through diplomatic immunity, read Major Jordan's Diaries on the ratline through Alaska via the Lend-Lease program. But now instead of brief cases, it is international shipping containers.

Clear and Present Danger.

CalDre > , September 16, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

You want us to reverse the burden of proof

First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's not reversing the burden of proof – in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.

Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you know.

Lawrence Fitton > , September 16, 2017 at 7:51 pm GMT

in 1947 the national security act was passed which meant politicians can lie to the American public as long as the lie is to protect national security. everything is a national security issue now. Not that politicians weren't liars before the act. but today they have cover. Remember james clapper's lies on tv? But he also lied to congress. Congress has no balls or they would have prosecuted him. they have given up their power, of which they have much. particularly when it comes to war. congress declares it; congress funds it; congress can end it. The bums we elect just know to do one thing – hold out their hands.

JackOH > , September 16, 2017 at 11:51 pm GMT

I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC's skivvies.

CalDre > , September 17, 2017 at 3:25 am GMT

@JackOH I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC's skivvies. Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew, being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.

Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even posthumous to be effective.

Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me.

Seamus Padraig > , September 17, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT

@CalDre

You want us to reverse the burden of proof
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's not reversing the burden of proof - in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you know.

First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it.

In a technical sense, you are right. Whitney did once above use (or misuse, actually) the word 'disprove' to mean that the other side had failed to prove it's case. But in our legal system, simply showing that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case is quite sufficient to get your man acquitted. You don't have to have proof positive of your man's innocence, so long as the prosecution has no proof of his guilt. Why? Because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Whitney's semantic gaffe here doesn't change that fundamental fact.

Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you know.

He confirmed having met the leaker in person inside the US, though it's true he never mentions Rich by name. Wikileaks strives to protect the anonymity of their sources wherever possible. However–and rather tellingly–Assange did offer a cash reward for information leading the arrest of Rich's murderer(s). Again, Assange did not come out and say plainly that Rich was the source, but it's hard to imagine him offering a reward for just anybody out there in world with no connection to Wikileaks whatsoever.

And while Craig Murray may still be alive, as I pointed out above in comment #1, he is now facing a potentially ruinous trial in Britain. A bit like the mysterious Swedish rape allegations against Assange, one could argue that this is all just some remarkably timed coincidence; but then again, it could just as well be the system's way of signalling its displeasure with Murray for cooperating with Wikileaks.

FKA Max > , Website September 18, 2017 at 1:48 am GMT

This is a pretty amusing and insightful article, that might interest Unz Review readers:

'I Get Called a Russian Bot 50 Times a Day'

How a network of little-known Twitter "rooms" helps die-hard fans amplify Trump's message, attack CNN, and spread #MAGA to the world.

[Hide MORE]

Microchip, a Twitter user who uses several different accounts and is routinely banned from the site, told POLITICO the pro-Trump rooms help him spread racist and otherwise controversial material. His dual aims are to prod the left and entice the media into covering the latest online controversy he helped stoke.

Microchip said he started several rooms in November 2015. A handful of people in other rooms confirmed that he was an "early player." But he has been blocked from many rooms because of his "wild claims," one said, as well as anti-Semitic and inflammatory remarks.
[...]
But Microchip, who described himself as an "atheist liberal that just hates immigration" and transgender people, has open contempt for most of Trump's base.

"Conservatives are generally morons," he said. "It's like herding cats."

He's just as frank about what he's peddling to Trump supporters.

"You know how I know they're spreading lies?" Microchip asked one die-hard this week. "Because I do the same thing, it's fake news and spin."
[...]
Lotan said Microchip's claims explain the link between the boomer generation in the mainstream rooms and the younger meme producers on 4chan and reddit.

"The boomers are there, thirsty for ammunition. And 4chan is so good at generating ammunition," Lotan said. "But the boomers will not go to 4chan."

People in the mainstream pro-Trump rooms said Microchip had not been active there for many months. In turn, Microchip said he maintains pseudonymous accounts to hide his identity from "brain dead" Trump supporters.

– http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/09/twitter-trump-train-maga-echo-chamber-215470

... ... ...

JackOH > , September 18, 2017 at 8:34 am GMT

@CalDre Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew, being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.

Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even posthumous to be effective.

Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me. CalDre, thanks. This whole story stinks badly, and the "Russian hack" blather put out on the TV blab shows by Washington gamesmen just seems to me self-serving careerism.

We're asked to believe that Russian intelligence has gathered damaging information on Hillary Clinton, then the front-runner among Democrat candidates, by hacking the DNC's computers. Then, instead of reserving this information to blackmail a future President Hillary Clinton, they turn the information over to Julian Assange. Why in hell would I, i. e ., Russian intelligence, squander good leverage over President Hillary? Are we expected to believe Russian intelligence actually thought it could swing an election by using Assange as a sort of sub-contractor?

Seth Rich, on the other hand, is an idealistic, low-level guy who has a strong motive to hurt the organization that's betrayed him.

As I mentioned, my knowledge of the story is pretty superficial, but it really does seem to me a pile of horse dung.

jilles dykstra > , September 18, 2017 at 10:50 am GMT

Even if Russia tried to interfere in USA elections, what is it in comparison with the CIA organising the murder of Allende, or Soros trying to change Hungarian law ?

Joe Hide > , September 18, 2017 at 1:13 pm GMT

This is great news. The fraudulent stories about Russia and Trump are great news. The other deep state and shadow government false propaganda are great news. This is because the level of this false propaganda is so low, so poor, so unbelievable, that sane people wake up and withdraw any allegiance to the sources of this misinformation. It is great news, because many of the politically insane citizens are becoming sane due to the misinformation being so obviously a pack of lies, that even they have to think differently.
By the way, Great Article!

Wizard of Oz > , September 18, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig Forgive me if I am out of date but to say that there is a reverse burden of proof in libel cases in Britain (sic – Scotland too?) is BS according to my recollection. (I set aside the possibility that you S P are confusing a civil tort action with a criminal prosecution although your use of the wςrd "innocence" suggests that you may be).

Here's how it was for at least 150 years. Once the court decided that the words complained of were defamatory so at least some general damages were possibly claimable (maybe a farthing which meant the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's costs) the defendant had several possible avenues of defence. One was that the words were true. If you call a man a thief you have committed an assault on his reputation and you had better have some justification for that. Are you really complaining about that? Complain all you like about so-called "stop writs" where a (typically) rich plaintiff starts proceedings which he suspects the defendant will not have the means to defend properly, and then just sits on the cade having achieved intimidation.

Then there is the defense of "fair comment on a matter of public interest" which is available to the defendant even if he can't prove the truth of his libel. Logically that can't succeed if the defendant is found to have been actuated by malice.

Finally, without pretending to cover the whole subject, the defendant can contend and provide evidence that the plaintiff had no good reputation to lose.

Having read the link I see that it does look like a move to shut him up. If the plaintiff wanted real compensation he would be suing Sky Television which didn't cut the defamatory remarks. Or has that been settled by an apology – which wouldn't be usual for Sky would it?

I am intrigued by the £100,000 costs approved by the court. Presumably this is some procedural innovation which was introduced well after I learned about libel actions and which could be justified .. except it surely leaves the law looking like an ass if the damages clImed are only £40,000!

Finally .can you tell us what the actual libel was? What did Murray say? This is a US site so the First Amendment should look after us.

Wizard of Oz > , September 18, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie

The most interesting thing in your Comment is what you claimed to have found by your "background checks" on the new Senator Obama. What can you tell us to substantiate the novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA What sources? What relationships? What facts?

[Sep 17, 2017] Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt.

Notable quotes:
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

LondonBob says: July 11, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT

http://mihsislander.org/2017/06/full-transcript-james-mattis-interview/

Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.

[Sep 16, 2017] Empire of Capital by George Monbiot

Highly recommended!
Apr 30, 2012 | www.monbiot.com

Colonialism never ended, it continues by different means.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 1st May 2012

The conviction of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, is said to have sent an unequivocal message to current leaders: that great office confers no immunity. In fact it sent two messages: if you run a small, weak nation, you may be subject to the full force of international law. If you run a powerful nation, you have nothing to fear.

While anyone with an interest in human rights should welcome the verdict, it reminds us that no one has faced legal consequences for launching the illegal war against Iraq. This fits the Nuremberg Tribunal's definition of a "crime of aggression", which it called "the supreme international crime"( 1 ). The charges on which, in an impartial system, George Bush, Tony Blair and their associates should have been investigated are far graver than those for which Taylor was found guilty.

The foreign secretary, William Hague, claims that Taylor's conviction "demonstrates that those who have committed the most serious of crimes can and will be held to account for their actions."( 2 ) But the International Criminal Court, though it was established ten years ago, and though the crime of aggression has been recognised in international law since 1945, still has no jurisdiction over "the most serious of crimes"( 3 ). This is because the powerful nations, for obvious reasons, are procrastinating. Nor have the United Kingdom, the United States and other western nations incorporated the crime of aggression into their own legislation. International law remains an imperial project, in which only the crimes committed by vassal states are punished.

In this respect it corresponds to other global powers. Despite its trumpeted reforms, the International Monetary Fund remains under the control of the United States and the former colonial powers. All constitutional matters still require an 85% share of the vote( 4 ). By an inexplicable oversight, the United States retains 16.7%, ensuring that it possesses a veto over subsequent reforms( 5 ). Belgium still has eight times the votes of Bangladesh( 6 ), Italy a bigger share than India and the United Kingdom and France between them more voting power than the 49 African members(7). The managing director remains, as imperial tradition insists, a European, her deputy an American.

The IMF, as a result, is still the means by which western financial markets project their power into the rest of the world. At the end of last year, for example, it published a paper pressing emerging economies to increase their "financial depth", which it defines as "the total financial claims and counterclaims of an economy"( 8 ). This, it claimed, would insulate them from crisis.

As the Bretton Woods Project points out, emerging nations with large real economies and small financial sectors were the countries which best weathered the economic crisis, which was caused by advanced economies with large financial sectors(9). Like the modern opium war it waged in the 1980s and 1990s – when it forced Asian countries to liberalise their currencies, permitting western financial speculators to attack them(10) – the IMF's prescriptions are incomprehensible until they are understood as instruments of financial power.

Decolonisation did not take place until the former colonial powers and the empires of capital on whose behalf they operated had established other means of retaining control. Some, like the IMF and World Bank, have remained almost unchanged. Others, like the programme of extraordinary rendition, evolved in response to new challenges to global hegemony.

As the kidnapping of Abdul Hakim Belhaj and his wife suggests, the UK's foreign and intelligence services see themselves as a global police force, minding the affairs of other nations. In 2004, after Tony Blair, with one eye on possible contracts for British oil companies, decided that Gaddafi was a useful asset, the alliance was sealed with the capture, packaging and delivery of the regime's dissenters( 11 ).

Like the colonial crimes the British government committed in Kenya and elsewhere( 12 ), whose concealment was sustained by the Foreign Office until its secret archives were revealed last month( 13 ), the rendition programme was hidden from public view. Just as the colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to parliament about the detention and torture of the Kikuyu(14), in 2005 Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, told parliament that "there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition."( 15 )

Reading the emails passed between the offices of James Murdoch and Jeremy Hunt, it struck me that here too is a government which sees itself as an agent of empire – Murdoch's in this case – and which sees the electorate as ornamental. Working, against the public interest, for News Corporation, the financial sector and the billionaire donors to the Conservative party, its ministers act as capital's district commissioners, governing Britain as their forebears governed the colonies.

The bid for power, oil and spheres of influence that Bush and Blair launched in Mesopotamia, using the traditional camouflage of the civilising mission; the colonial war still being fought in Afghanistan, 199 years after the Great Game began; the global policing functions the great powers have arrogated to themselves; the one-sided justice dispensed by international law: all these suggest that imperialism never ended, but merely mutated into new forms. The virtual empire knows no boundaries. Until we begin to recognise and confront it, all of us, black and white, will remain its subjects.

www.monbiot.com

[Sep 16, 2017] Germany Is About to Choose a Leader. Heres the Situation

Sep 16, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

After Mr. Trump's victory last year, Ms. Merkel emerged as the " last powerful defender of Europe and the trans-Atlantic alliance ," wrote Alison Smale and Steven Erlanger, then the Times bureau chiefs for Berlin and London.

Ms. Smale and Glenn Thrush, a White House correspondent for The Times, took a look at Ms. Merkel and Mr. Trump, two powerful leaders "estranged by widely diverging temperaments, worldviews, leadership styles and visions of Europe." Ms. Merkel -- who, in more than 11 years in power, has "proved uncommonly adept at solving the puzzle-box challenges posed by the world's most unpredictable leaders" -- may realize there isn't a method with Mr. Trump, they wrote.

The best she has come up with so far is to cultivate a backdoor channel through the president's daughter Ivanka, who tried unsuccessfully to persuade her father to remain in the Paris accord.

But Ms. Merkel is up for re-election in the fall, and challenging Mr. Trump has become essential in German politics. So Ms. Merkel, the courteous daughter of a Protestant cleric, is doing something she finds awkward: calling out Mr. Trump in public and questioning his commitment to the American leadership that Europeans had taken for granted since World War II.

To understand Ms. Merkel's relationship with Mr. Putin, don't miss this in-depth piece on their rivalry of history, distrust and power (Mar. 12) by Ms. Smale and Andrew Higgins, a Moscow correspondent:

Their relationship, and rivalry, is a microcosm of the sharply divergent visions clashing in Europe and beyond, a divide made more consequential by the uncertainty over President Trump's policy toward Russia and whether he will redefine the traditional alliances of American foreign policy.

The Merkel-Putin relationship is defined by wariness, mutual suspicion, if also mutual respect. Yet along the way, there have been missed opportunities and misjudgments, which are culminating now in a moment of reckoning, as Ms. Merkel tries for another term -- and Mr. Putin's Russia is accused of working to thwart her.

That piece also includes a nugget about talks between the two leaders in 2007: Mr. Putin let his large black Labrador into their meeting room, even though the Kremlin had been told that Ms. Merkel was uneasy around dogs.

[Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... He aimed, in short, to save capitalism from democracy. ..."
Sep 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

theguardian.com

George Monbiot's the missing chapter: a key to understanding the politics of the past half century. To read Nancy MacLean's new book, Democracy in Chains : The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, is to see what was previously invisible.

The history professor's work on the subject began by accident. In 2013 she stumbled across a deserted clapboard house on the campus of George Mason University in Virginia. It was stuffed with the unsorted archives of a man who had died that year whose name is probably unfamiliar to you: James McGill Buchanan. She says the first thing she picked up was a stack of confidential letters concerning millions of dollars transferred to the university by the billionaire Charles Koch .

Her discoveries in that house of horrors reveal how Buchanan, in collaboration with business tycoons and the institutes they founded, developed a hidden programme for suppressing democracy on behalf of the very rich. The programme is now reshaping politics, and not just in the US.

Buchanan was strongly influenced by both the neoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises , and the property supremacism of John C Calhoun, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that freedom consists of the absolute right to use your property (including your slaves) however you may wish; any institution that impinges on this right is an agent of oppression, exploiting men of property on behalf of the undeserving masses.

James Buchanan brought these influences together to create what he called public choice theory . He argued that a society could not be considered free unless every citizen has the right to veto its decisions. What he meant by this was that no one should be taxed against their will. But the rich were being exploited by people who use their votes to demand money that others have earned, through involuntary taxes to support public spending and welfare. Allowing workers to form trade unions and imposing graduated income taxes were forms of "differential or discriminatory legislation" against the owners of capital.

Any clash between "freedom" (allowing the rich to do as they wish) and democracy should be resolved in favour of freedom. In his book The Limits of Liberty , he noted that "despotism may be the only organisational alternative to the political structure that we observe." Despotism in defence of freedom.

His prescription was a "constitutional revolution": creating irrevocable restraints to limit democratic choice. Sponsored throughout his working life by wealthy foundations, billionaires and corporations, he developed a theoretical account of what this constitutional revolution would look like, and a strategy for implementing it.

He explained how attempts to desegregate schooling in the American south could be frustrated by setting up a network of state-sponsored private schools. It was he who first proposed privatizing universities, and imposing full tuition fees on students: his original purpose was to crush student activism. He urged privatization of social security and many other functions of the state. He sought to break the links between people and government, and demolish trust in public institutions. He aimed, in short, to save capitalism from democracy.

In 1980, he was able to put the programme into action. He was invited to Chile , where he helped the Pinochet dictatorship write a new constitution, which, partly through the clever devices Buchanan proposed, has proved impossible to reverse entirely. Amid the torture and killings, he advised the government to extend programmes of privatisation, austerity, monetary restraint, deregulation and the destruction of trade unions: a package that helped trigger economic collapse in 1982.

None of this troubled the Swedish Academy, which through his devotee at Stockholm University Assar Lindbeck in 1986 awarded James Buchanan the Nobel memorial prize for economics . It is one of several decisions that have turned this prize toxic.

Koch officials said that the network's midterm budget for policy and politics is between $300m and $400m, but donors are demanding legislative progress

But his power really began to be felt when Koch, currently the seventh richest man in the US, decided that Buchanan held the key to the transformation he sought. Koch saw even such ideologues as Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan as "sellouts", as they sought to improve the efficiency of government rather than destroy it altogether . But Buchanan took it all the way.

MacLean says that Charles Koch poured millions into Buchanan's work at George Mason University, whose law and economics departments look as much like corporate-funded thinktanks as they do academic faculties. He employed the economist to select the revolutionary "cadre" that would implement his programme (Murray Rothbard, at the Cato Institute that Koch founded, had urged the billionaire to study Lenin's techniques and apply them to the libertarian cause). Between them, they began to develop a programme for changing the rules.

The papers Nancy MacLean discovered show that Buchanan saw stealth as crucial. He told his collaborators that "conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential". Instead of revealing their ultimate destination, they would proceed by incremental steps. For example, in seeking to destroy the social security system, they would claim to be saving it, arguing that it would fail without a series of radical "reforms". (The same argument is used by those attacking the NHS). Gradually they would build a "counter-intelligentsia", allied to a "vast network of political power" that would become the new establishment.

Through the network of thinktanks that Koch and other billionaires have sponsored, through their transformation of the Republican party, and the hundreds of millions they have poured into state congressional and judicial races, through the mass colonisation of Trump's administration by members of this network and lethally effective campaigns against everything from public health to action on climate change, it would be fair to say that Buchanan's vision is maturing in the US.

But not just there. Reading this book felt like a demisting of the window through which I see British politics. The bonfire of regulations highlighted by the Grenfell Tower disaster, the destruction of state architecture through austerity, the budgeting rules, the dismantling of public services, tuition fees and the control of schools: all these measures follow Buchanan's programme to the letter. I wonder how many people are aware that David Cameron's free schools project stands in a tradition designed to hamper racial desegregation in the American south.

In one respect, Buchanan was right: there is an inherent conflict between what he called "economic freedom" and political liberty. Complete freedom for billionaires means poverty, insecurity, pollution and collapsing public services for everyone else. Because we will not vote for this, it can be delivered only through deception and authoritarian control. The choice we face is between unfettered capitalism and democracy. You cannot have both.

Buchanan's programme is a prescription for totalitarian capitalism. And his disciples have only begun to implement it. But at least, thanks to MacLean's discoveries, we can now apprehend the agenda. One of the first rules of politics is, know your enemy. We're getting there.

[Sep 13, 2017] Chelsea Manning: The Dystopia We Signed Up for

Notable quotes:
"... The real power of mass data collection lies in the hand-tailored algorithms capable of sifting, sorting and identifying patterns within the data itself. When enough information is collected over time, governments and corporations can use or abuse those patterns to predict future human behavior. ..."
Sep 13, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

...We file our taxes. We make phone calls. We send emails. Tax records are used to keep us honest. We agree to broadcast our location so we can check the weather on our smartphones. Records of our calls, texts and physical movements are filed away alongside our billing information. Perhaps that data is analyzed more covertly to make sure that we're not terrorists "" but only in the interest of national security, we're assured.

Our faces and voices are recorded by surveillance cameras and other internet-connected sensors, some of which we now willingly put inside our homes. Every time we load a news article or page on a social media site, we expose ourselves to tracking code, allowing hundreds of unknown entities to monitor our shopping and online browsing habits. We agree to cryptic terms-of-service agreements that obscure the true nature and scope of these transactions.

Biometric information such as fingerprints, retinal scans and DNA helps governments and corporations track people around the world. In Iraq, United States Army soldiers scan a man's eye to see whether he is a known insurgent. Credit Michael Kamber for The New York Times

According to a 2015 study from the Pew Research Center, 91 percent of American adults believe they've lost control over how their personal information is collected and used. Just how much they've lost, however, is more than they likely suspect.

The real power of mass data collection lies in the hand-tailored algorithms capable of sifting, sorting and identifying patterns within the data itself. When enough information is collected over time, governments and corporations can use or abuse those patterns to predict future human behavior. Our data establishes a "pattern of life " from seemingly harmless digital residue like cellphone tower pings, credit card transactions and web browsing histories.

The consequences of our being subjected to constant algorithmic scrutiny are often unclear. For instance, artificial intelligence Silicon Valley's catchall term for deepthinking and deep-learning algorithms is touted by tech companies as a path to the high-tech conveniences of the so-called internet of things. This includes digital home assistants, connected appliances and self-driving cars.

Simultaneously, algorithms are already analyzing social media habits, determining creditworthiness, deciding which job candidates get called in for an interview and judging whether criminal defendants should be released on bail . Other machine-learning systems use automated facial analysis to detect and track emotions, or claim the ability to predict whether someone will become a criminal based only on their facial features .

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

... ... ...

Such programmatic, machine-driven thinking has become especially dangerous in the hands of governments and the police.

In recent years our military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies have merged in unexpected ways. They harvest more data than they can possibly manage, and wade through the quantifiable world side by side in vast, usually windowless buildings called fusion centers .

Such powerful new relationships have created a foundation for, and have breathed life into, a vast police and surveillance state. Advanced algorithms have made this possible on an unprecedented level. Relatively minor infractions, or "microcrimes," can now be policed aggressively. And with national databases shared among governments and corporations, these minor incidents can follow you forever, even if the information is incorrect or lacking context.

At the same time, the United States military uses the metadata of countless communications for drone attacks , using pings emitted from cellphones to track and eliminate targets.

In literature and pop culture, concepts such as "thoughtcrime" and "precrime" have emerged out of dystopian fiction. They are used to restrict and punish anyone who is flagged by automated systems as a potential criminal or threat, even if a crime has yet to be committed. But this science fiction trope is quickly becoming reality. Predictive policing algorithms are already being used to create automated heat maps of future crimes, and like the "manual" policing that came before them, they overwhelmingly target poor and minority neighborhoods .

The world has become like an eerily banal dystopian novel. Things look the same on the surface, but they are not. With no apparent boundaries on how algorithms can use and abuse the data that's being collected about us, the potential for it to control our lives is ever-growing.

Our drivers' licenses, our keys, our debit and credit cards are all important parts of our lives. Even our social media accounts could soon become crucial components of being fully functional members of society. Now that we live in this world, we must figure out how to maintain our connection with society without surrendering to automated processes that we can neither see nor control.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter , and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter .

This is an article from World Review: The State of Democracy , a special section that examines global policy and affairs through the perspectives of thought leaders and commentators. A version of this op-ed appears in print on September 14, 2017, on Page S3, in The International New York Times.

[Sep 05, 2017] Should Tillerson Resign by Daniel Larison

for some reasons Larison support neocon blabbering of Daniel W. Drezner in WaPo Why Secretary of State Rex Tillerson should resign - The Washington Post ez
If Critics such as neocon Max Boot are calling for him to resign, I want him to stay.
The "wrecking of the State Department" that By Daniel Larison is concerned, is necessary as it is too infested with neocons leftover from Hillary days, including cadre of female warmongers.
Also color revolutions zeal needs to be tamed.
Taking into account that Trump effectivly changed sided starting from infamous Tomahawk attack, the nes round of sanctions for Russia and sabersrattling with Iran and North Korea, it is difficult to forsee how the Secratary of State can be effective with such a boss. Being a bully in the schoolyard was the policy the the USA sucessfully tried for all presidencies since Reagan, so in a sense Trump is proud hier f this noble tradition.
Notable quotes:
"... Tillerson was a CEO of for the longest time head of the US largest corporation by market cap. His problem or problems no doubt reflect his tenure in the corporate world. A world where you have to get things done some work out some don't. ..."
"... Point is he is a non fit in the Swamp where dysfunction is implanted. Can readers recall how an experience career politician like John Boy ran all over the world and in the end was manipulated by the Russians to their advantage. Hillary logged millions of miles obviously to the benefit of the Clinton foundation. So until the prior ruling class gets back in office a new diplomat will have to wait. ..."
"... Even setting aside the critical matter of civilian control of the government and military in a democratic society, these days our military isn't exactly a by-word for competency, success, or even sound judgment. ..."
Aug 31, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
calls for Rex Tillerson's resignation:

In less than seven months in the job, Tillerson has proven to be a feckless manager of his organization and a poor handler of the president of the United States. To be fair, even the savviest secretary of state would have his or her hands full with a president like Trump. The sharp contrast between Tillerson's fumblings and the more nimble footwork of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis shows that Tillerson is the opposite of a good secretary of state. Most of Trump's private-sector cabinet officials have been dreadful, but Tillerson is the worst of the lot.

Tillerson has been presiding over the wrecking of the State Department ever since he was confirmed, and he has very little else to show for his tenure. It's safe to say that the demoralization and hollowing out of the department will just keep getting worse the longer he is in charge. The trouble is that replacing Tillerson probably won't change any of that, because the gutting of the State Department has been and continues to be an administration priority. The person Trump chooses to replace Tillerson is likely to have the same disdain for diplomacy and diplomats that he has.

So while I am inclined to agree with the call for Tillerson's resignation, I can't agree with Drezner when he says "I am no longer worried about who Trump would pick to replace him." This is exactly what we should be worrying about.

Tillerson got the job at State in part because all of the other people Trump was considering were so fanatical, ethically compromised, or otherwise awful that he seemed the best of a bad lot at the time. That may have been true, but that process produced one of the least effective Secretaries of State in modern times.

Now imagine Trump going through a similar process a second time. Is he likely to choose someone more capable than Tillerson? Considering the state of Trump's administration after just seven months, would anyone who fits that description be willing to take the job? If there is someone willing, I am concerned Trump would end up choosing another former general on account of his fascination with military officers, and that would be at least one too many in this Cabinet.

Tillerson reportedly never wanted the job, so it shouldn't take much to persuade him to leave. That said, the damage already done to the State Department isn't going to be repaired anytime soon, and as long as Trump is president we should assume it will continue regardless. I have been very critical of how Tillerson has been running his department, but as one his critics I think we should acknowledge that his successor could still be even worse.

Dan Green , August 31, 2017 at 10:07 am

Tillerson was a CEO of for the longest time head of the US largest corporation by market cap. His problem or problems no doubt reflect his tenure in the corporate world. A world where you have to get things done some work out some don't.

Point is he is a non fit in the Swamp where dysfunction is implanted. Can readers recall how an experience career politician like John Boy ran all over the world and in the end was manipulated by the Russians to their advantage. Hillary logged millions of miles obviously to the benefit of the Clinton foundation. So until the prior ruling class gets back in office a new diplomat will have to wait.

icarusr , August 31, 2017 at 10:15 am
Looks like what's good for Exxon is not necessarily good for the United States.
Seven Months In 2017 , August 31, 2017 at 10:47 am
"I am concerned Trump would end up choosing another former general on account of his fascination with military officers, and that would be at least one too many in this Cabinet."

And you should be concerned. Even setting aside the critical matter of civilian control of the government and military in a democratic society, these days our military isn't exactly a by-word for competency, success, or even sound judgment.

It has failed to win on multiple battlegrounds. Judging by the recent Three Stooges performance of the Pacific Fleet, there are basic competency issues at the highest levels of command. And now we learn that both Gens. Mattis and McMaster strongly urged Trump to double down in Afghanistan, one of the worst examples of judgment and decision-making in recent memory.

So far as I know, Tillerson had nothing to do with that idiocy, so I'd leave him where he is and pray that Trump will eventually be disabused of the instinct to defer to (or rather cringe before) his generals.

collin , August 31, 2017 at 11:20 am
TBH, I can't figure out exactly why Tillerson has been so bad but I assume his lack of experience of the State Department makes him a very poor choice for President Trump. Judging by the Trump's administration G&G (General & Goldman) cabinet is very experience expertise with Job-like patience is needed to work with President Trump. Basically, it fits Drezner's toddler comments that Mattis works well with Trump because Mattis knows a lot more than the President and is willing to allow Trump to throw two hour tantrums for his policy. It is to the point that we almost need Mattis to be Secretary of State as at least we know that he can work with the President. (Dear God is wrong to state that an ex-General be our chief Diplomat.)

However, one area where Tillerson does work well is he truly dislikes taking media oxygen away from Trump so he may last awhile.

JEinCA , August 31, 2017 at 11:28 am
Why doesn't everyone resign and we'll make little "Billy" Kristol of the Weekly Standard the official Emperor of United States? Tillerson is the last voice of reason (and bulwark against the psychotic war mongering neocons) lefy in Trump's Administration.
Viriato , August 31, 2017 at 12:46 pm
@collin: We've had at least two generals serve as Secretary of State before: George Marshall and Colin Powell. And those are just two examples that I can name off the top of my head. I would not be surprised to find out that there have been other generals who served as our nation's Chief Diplomat.
Viriato , August 31, 2017 at 12:54 pm
Personally, I think Tillerson has been doing reasonably well at State. He seems to be a very articulate, thoughtful person. Certainly I much prefer Sec. Tillerson's ineffectiveness to Sec. Clinton's deadly effectiveness in Libya.

As to the gutting of the State Department. Tillerson recently stated that the hiring freeze was temporary and indeed announced a major hiring initiative: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s8LynW4TmTU

MB , August 31, 2017 at 12:56 pm
There's probably an easily identifiable formula out there for who Trump might chose as a Tillerson replacement, based on who donated to his campaign, who has more money than Trump himself, and/or who has suspicious ties to Russian interests. Rohrabacher? Royce?
Cynthia McLean , August 31, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Tillerson should probably resign to retain his integrity and save his soul.
Swami , August 31, 2017 at 4:36 pm
Rumor is that Hillary Clinton is currently between gigs.

[Sep 03, 2017] Steve Bannon and Trumps Populist Victory

Notable quotes:
"... over $100 million ..."
"... Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , ..."
"... Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency ..."
"... Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon ..."
"... Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties, ..."
"... When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years." ..."
"... Devil's Bargain ..."
"... the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules!for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days. ..."
"... Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017] ..."
"... But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing. ..."
"... Nixon's White House Wars ..."
get=

Republished from VDare.com

Throughout 2016, I would occasionally turn on the television to see how the punditocracy was responding to the mounting Trump tsunami . If you get most of your news online, watching cable news is frustrating. The commentary is so dumbed down and painfully reflective of speaker's biases, you can always basically guess what's coming next. With a few exceptions!above all Ann Coulter 's famous June 19, 2015 prediction of a Trump victory on Bill Maher !these pundits again and again told us that Trump would eventually go away, first after he made this or that gaffe, then after he "failed" in a debate, then after people actually started voting in the primaries.

Finally, after having been wrong at every point during the primaries, they just as confidently predicted that the Republican primary voter had foolishly done nothing more than assure that Hillary Clinton would be the next president.

The most interesting cases to me: the " Republican strategists ," brought on to CNN and MSNBC to give the audience the illusion that they were hearing both sides: Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Ana Navarro, Rick Wilson, Margaret Hoover, Todd Harris. Mike Murphy even convinced donors to hand him over $100 million to make Jeb Bush the next president! [ Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , By Maeve Reston, February 22, 2016]

With campaigns and donors throwing money at these people, and the Main Stream Media touting them, it was easy to assume they must know what they were talking about. Significantly, each of these pundits was a national security hawk, center-right on economic issues, and just as horrified by " racism " and " sexism " as their Leftist counterparts . By a remarkable coincidence, the " strategic " advice that they gave to Republican candidates lined up perfectly with these positions. Their prominence was a mirage created by the fact that the MSM handed this token opposition the Megaphone because they did not challenge the core prejudices of the bipartisan Ruling Class.

And of course they were all humiliated in a spectacular fashion, November 8 being only the climax. Joshua Green begins his book Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency by giving us a view inside the Trump campaign on election night, before tracing Steve Bannon's path up to that point. Reliving the journey is one of the joys of Green's work, which is mostly an intellectual biography of Steve Bannon, with a special focus on his relationship with Trump and the election.

Bannon joined the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 without any previous experience in electoral politics. But like the candidate himself, the Breitbart editor showed that he understood the nature of American politics and the GOP base better than Establishment Republicans. The "strategists'" supposed "expertise," "strategic advice," and "analysis" was in reality built on a house of cards. (In fact, the Bannon-Trump view of the electorate is closer to the consensus among political scientists that, unlike more nationalist and populist policies, Republican Establishment positions have relatively little popular support. [ Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon d | Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties, Voter Study Group, June 2017]).

One key example: Green recounts how after Obama's re-election, the GOP Establishment was eager to surrender on immigration, supporting the bipartisan Amnesty/ Immigration Surge Gang of Eight bill . GOP leaders had neutralized Fox News, leaving Breitbart.com, talk radio and guerilla websites like VDARE.com as the only resistance. But the bill died due to a grass-roots revolt, partly inspired by Breitbart's reporting on the flood of Central American "child" refugees t he Obama Regime was allowing across the southern border. GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his congressional seat in a shock upset in the primaries. And little over a year later, Donald Trump became a candidate for president with opposition to illegal immigration as his signature issue.

Bannon at Breitbart.com gave the Republican base what it wanted. Moral: in a democracy, you always have a chance at winning when public opinion (or at least intraparty opinion) is on your side.

Green traces Bannon's journey from his Irish-Catholic working-class roots and traditionalist upbringing, to his time in the Navy, at Harvard Business School and Goldman Sachs, and finally Breitbart.com and the pinnacle of American politics. The picture that emerges is of a man with principles and vigor, refusing to submit to the inertia that is part of the human condition, with enough confidence to realize that life is too short to not make major changes when staying on the current path is not going to allow him to accomplish his goals.

For example, Bannon originally wanted a career in defense policy, and took a job in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Yet he was off to Harvard Business School when he realized that the rigid bureaucracy that he was a part of would not let him move up to a high-level position until he was middle-aged. Decades later, after taking over his website upon the unexpected death of Andrew Breitbart in 2012, it would have been easy to go low-risk!sticking to Establishment scripts, making life comfortable for Republican elites, implicitly submitting to the taboos of the Left. Instead , he helped turn Breitbart News into a major voice of the populist tide that has been remaking center-right politics across the globe.

When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years."

From Green, we learn much about Bannon's intellectual influences. Surprisingly, although he was raised as a Roman Catholic and maintains that faith today, we find out that Bannon briefly practiced Zen Buddhism while in the Navy. There are other unusual influences that make appearances in the book, including Rightist philosopher Julius Evola and Renι Guιnon, a French occultist who eventually became a Sufi Muslim. Although not exactly my cup of tea, such eccentric intellectual interests reflect a curious mind that refuses to restrict itself to fashionable influences.

It's incorrect to call Devil's Bargain a biography. There is practically no mention of Bannon's personal life!wives, children. I had to Google to find out that he has three daughters. His childhood is only discussed in the context of how it may have influenced his beliefs and political development.

Rather, we get information on Bannon's intellectual and career pursuits and his relationships with consequential figures such as mega-donor Robert Mercer, Andrew Breitbart and Donald Trump.

As Bannon exits the White House and returns to Breitbart, we must hope that Bannon and the movement he's helped to create accomplish enough in the future to inspire more complete biographies.

But the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules!for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days.

Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017]

But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing.

In his memoir Nixon's White House Wars , Pat Buchanan writes about how, despite playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was mostly shut out of high-level jobs:

Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were

playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was mostly shut out of high-level jobs:

Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were veterans of a victorious presidential campaign, few of us had served in the executive branch. We lacked titles, resumes, credentials Our pool of experienced public servants who could seamlessly move into top positions was miniscule compared to that of the liberal Democrats who had dominated the capital's politics since FDR arrived in 1933.

History repeated itself in 2016, when Donald Trump would win the presidency on a nationalist platform but find few qualified individuals who could reliably implement his agenda.

If nationalists want to ensure that their next generation of leaders is able to effectively implement the policies they run on, they are going to have to engage in the slow and tedious project of working their way up through powerful institutions.

Bannon may have been and remains an "outsider" to the political Establishment. But nonetheless, throughout his life he has leveraged elite institutions such as Harvard, Goldman Sachs, the Republican Party, and even Hollywood in order to become financially independent and free to pursue his political goals.

If enough of those on the Dissident Right forge a similar path, we can be sure that future nationalist political victories will be less hollow. Jeremy Cooper is a specialist in international politics and an observer of global trends. Follow him at @NeoNeoLiberal .

Clyde Wilson > , August 29, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices?

Jobless > , August 30, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT

@Clyde Wilson Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices? Having dabbled ever so slightly in this process in the spring, my impression is that there is a mechanism run largely by lawyers from the big DC law firms (presumably one for each party) who are the gatekeepers for applicants. The result of this system, which I have little doubt that the "Trump Team" did not try to take on (after all, they had only a couple of months to put together the beginnings of a team, and that left little or no time replacing The Swamp Machine ) is that the key positions throughout the administration are largely filled with lawyers from connected law firms. After all, who better to administer the government than lawyers!?!?

At any rate, my experience with the process was: on your marks, get set, nothing. 30 years experience in and around federal government, but not a lawyer. Don't call us, we don't want to talk to you. (I also made clear in my cover letter that the key motivator for my application -- and first ever political contributions -- was Trump and his agenda. In retrospect, this "admission" was probably a kiss of death. I was a Trumpite. Eeeewww!!! (I may well not have been qualified for anything, but I'm SURE I was disqualified by my support for Trump )

The triumph of the Swamp.

Clyde Wilson > , August 30, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT

We have here perhaps the key to Trump's tragic failure. It was our last shot.

Sep 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

[Sep 02, 2017] No Russian Hacking In Durham Election - NY Times Report Belies Its Headline

NYT = neocon/neolib fear mongering and neo-McCarthyism.
If we assume that Russians can control election machine, the question arise about the CIA role in the US elections. They are much more powerful and that's their home turf. And they can pretend to be Russians of Chinese at will. Then they can cry "Thief" to divert attention. Does this that promoting Russia hacking story they implicitly reveal to us that elections are controlled by Deep State and electronic voting machines and voter rosters are just a tool to this end. They allow to get rid of human vote counting and that alone makes hijacking of the election results really easy. machine magically calculates the votes and you are done. As Stalin said it doesn't matter how people are voting, what matters is who is calculating the votes.
Dems should concentrate on removing neoliberal/Clinton wing of the Party from the leadership and making it at lease "A New Deal" Party, not sold to Wall Steer bunch of fear mongering neocons. Anti-Russian campaign is designed to sabotage those efforts.
Notable quotes:
"... All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various innocent causes ..."
"... Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems: ..."
"... The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by the editors of the New York Times. ..."
"... The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services) ..."
"... The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence for them. In many cases they hide behind " intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments" of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and not reported at all. ..."
"... "Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this. ..."
"... At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines, and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian hacking"! ..."
"... The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians? ..."
Sep 02, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The last piece pointed out that the NYT headline " U.N. Peacekeepers in Lebanon Get Stronger Inspection Powers for Hezbollah Arms " was 100% fake news. The UNIFIL U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon were not getting any stronger inspection powers. The relevant UN Security Resolution, which renewed UNIFIL's mandate, had made no such changes. No further inspection powers were authorized.

Today we find another similarly lying headline in the New York Times.

Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny

By NICOLE PERLROTH, MICHAEL WINES and MATTHEW ROSENBERGSEPT. 1, 2017

The piece is about minor technical election trouble in a district irrelevant to the presidential election outcome. Contradicting the headline it notes in paragraph five:

There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns -- local officials blamed human error and software malfunctions -- and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a Russian role in it
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state," said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House. "If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research and investigation, and you may not find out even then."

...

the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.

All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various innocent causes. The officials handling these systems deny that any "Russian hacking" was involved. Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:

Despite the disruptions, a record number of votes were cast in Durham, following a pattern there of overwhelming support for Democratic presidential candidates , this time Hillary Clinton.

The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by the editors of the New York Times.

This scheme is the gist of ALL reporting about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S. presidential election. There exists zero evidence that Russia was involved in anything related to it. No evidence -none at all- links the publishing of DNC papers or of Clinton counselor Podesta's emails to Russia. Thousands of other circumstances, people or political entities might have had their hands in the issue. There is zero evidence that Russia was involved at all.

The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services) to:

The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence for them. In many cases they hide behind " intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments" of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and not reported at all.

Posted by b on September 1, 2017 at 11:26 PM | Permalink

WG | Sep 2, 2017 1:27:08 AM | 1

Look at what happened today in San Francisco - after ordering the Russians to shut down their embassy there in an unreasonably short timeframe, they then had the fire department respond to smoke coming out of the chimney of the building. Conveniently this brings attention to the situation and continues the narrative of 'ongoing conflict' to the American people.

The end of this story has already decided. It didn't matter who won the election, it doesn't matter that the people chose the candidate who wanted peace, and it doesn't matter that there wasn't any Russian election hacking.

blues | Sep 2, 2017 1:37:27 AM | 2
"Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this.

At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines, and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian hacking"!

Get strategic hedge simple score voting today!

psychohistorian | Sep 2, 2017 1:59:38 AM | 3
The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians?

Yes, of course.....thats the plan.....is it working?

If not, invade Venezuela on some pretext and claim ownership of their oil....someone has to make Israel look reasonable.

Bob | Sep 2, 2017 2:01:39 AM | 4
What a bizarre article.
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state," said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House. "If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research and investigation, and you may not find out even then."

...

the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.

They don't even know what happened. Best blame it on the Russians anyway.

Perimtr | Sep 2, 2017 3:07:52 AM | 5
The "paper of record" is just another outlet for the Ministry of Propaganda.
Kalen | Sep 2, 2017 3:22:15 AM | 6
B of course realizes that the headline of an article is almost never written by author but by an editor.

Such as blatant nonsense at NYT and elsewhere I think is possible when author wanting to get published on good NYT page would lie to editor about its contents.

Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure {actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations however baseless.

Shakesvshav | Sep 2, 2017 3:31:33 AM | 7
The Guardian still sees mileage in Pussy Riot, or at least one former member: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/01/pussy-riot-mariya-alyokhina-russian-activist-jailed-white-house
Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 2, 2017 7:21:37 AM | 8
...
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure {actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations however baseless.
Posted by: Kalen | Sep 2, 2017 3:22:15 AM | 6

I like the theory that NYT's sub-editors are too lazy/busy/careless to read the articles they're paid to summarise and add an appealing headline. It's certainly food for thought when pondering possible Chain Of Command issues within the MSM.

When I was a regular lurker at What's Left, one notable aspect was the frequency with which Gowans' most stunning revelations were sourced from the nether regions of articles published in the NYT, WaPo et al.

Lawrence Smith | Sep 2, 2017 9:59:42 AM | 9
What this all speaks of is ineptitude and malfeasance at all levels of government. Lies covering more lies. The only things that gets done in Washington iare covering asses and those, like their wars without end, are complete and utter failures. That the Clinton mob are sore losers and press on with delegitimization of a clown president who, unlike the wicked witch of the West, feigned disinterest in war and won what's left of a hollowed out presidency is theatre of the absurd par excellence. Build the fence around the beltway and keep the psychopaths in the asylum in.
doug | Sep 2, 2017 10:44:46 AM | 10
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:

Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...

james | Sep 2, 2017 11:01:34 AM | 12
yeah - more stories on pussy riot.. a story like how pussy riot ate george soros, or putins breakfast would be good..... when i read the nyt, i want a story filled with lies and deception... i'm running away from reality and heading straight for the nyt, lol..
Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 2, 2017 11:20:17 AM | 14
...
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
Posted by: doug | Sep 2, 2017 10:44:46 AM | 10

It would only be a logical fallacy if it said... "Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in more than one district would have effected the general election." ...but it doesn't, so it isn't.

[Sep 02, 2017] A Politically Incorrect Question About Our Fender-Bender Navy

Sep 02, 2017 | www.unz.com

Diversity Heretic > , August 28, 2017 at 7:37 am GMT

I'll ask an even more politically-incorrect question: To what extent is the United States Navy still our navy? What does the U.S. Navy's presence in the South China Sea, or near Singapore, or anywhere west of Hawaii, have to do with the security of the people of the United States? If the combined naval forces of China and Japan and the other nations of the region can't protect merchantmen from pirates, well, re-route ships away and out of range.

Almost nothing the United States military does today provides any meaningful defense for the American nation. The fact that we have a Department of "Defense" and a separate Department of Homeland Security really ought to be a clue to the genuine mission of the U.S. military: maintenance of the AngloZionist Empire.

I know that John has a son in the U.S. Army. I hope that he leaves when his enlistment is up. If he still aspires to a military career I suggest the French Foreign Legion or some country that accepts foreign volunteers. The Army training he got will improve his situation and he might be working for an organization that actually defends its own people, or at least its own organization (in the case of the Legion). I applied to West Point years ago–today I would counsel a son to take all steps necessary to avoid conscription. It's no longer our military.

Jim Christian sometimes coments on Navy issues here at Unz. I wonder what his take on the situation is?

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 28, 2017 at 12:19 pm GMT

I have a job connected with military recruiting. Most Americans wouldn't believe who's joining the U.S. military these days. It's largely a jobs program for third-world immigrants or the white underclass. It's common to see 18/19-year old recent immigrants from Africa who were living in villages without street names just 3 years prior. Or young Latinas with a child (who's being taken care of by her parents) who are working security or MP with goal of becoming a civilian cop.

But hey, the young people who join will be fairly well-compensated (compared to the private-employer world) and will receive life-long benefits, including preference in all government employment hiring.

The Anti-Gnostic > , Website August 28, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic I'll ask an even more politically-incorrect question: To what extent is the United States Navy still our navy? What does the U.S. Navy's presence in the South China Sea, or near Singapore, or anywhere west of Hawaii, have to do with the security of the people of the United States? If the combined naval forces of China and Japan and the other nations of the region can't protect merchantmen from pirates, well, re-route ships away and out of range.

Almost nothing the United States military does today provides any meaningful defense for the American nation. The fact that we have a Department of "Defense" and a separate Department of Homeland Security really ought to be a clue to the genuine mission of the U.S. military: maintenance of the AngloZionist Empire.

I know that John has a son in the U.S. Army. I hope that he leaves when his enlistment is up. If he still aspires to a military career I suggest the French Foreign Legion or some country that accepts foreign volunteers. The Army training he got will improve his situation and he might be working for an organization that actually defends its own people, or at least its own organization (in the case of the Legion). I applied to West Point years ago--today I would counsel a son to take all steps necessary to avoid conscription. It's no longer our military.

Jim Christian sometimes coments on Navy issues here at Unz. I wonder what his take on the situation is?

To what extent is the United States Navy still our navy?

That's a good question, and it could be asked of the whole military. Historically, the military defends the nation in its geographic redoubt. Our military's mission, much less Europe's, seems to be the defense of a global ideological order. Hence, I wonder if the partial intent is to keep the nation's elite fighters tied up overseas rather than garrisoned on home soil lest they get any ideas about defense of the Nation as opposed to the NWO. Apparently there was serious talk within the British military when the Labour government decided to experiment with nationalization after World War II.

On the other hand, I think pensions, medical care and housing are keeping the US military quiescent, and this gets back to Derb's point. A lot of people join the military out of economic necessity; they are there for the paycheck, and when the mission becomes Diversity they are happy to follow orders. Soldiers with poor prospects in the private sector will do awful things to their own countrymen to keep the benefits flowing. Venezuela frankly needs a military coup, but they're apparently well-fed and their generals don't know economics.

Nick Granite > , August 29, 2017 at 12:04 pm GMT

John,

Lived it, have the T-shirt. Retired from the Navy 11 years ago. You put young men and women of breeding age on a vessel and you have fraternization and pregnancies. Duh. Walking by the mess (dining) decks on an aircraft carrier was sometimes like walking by a high school cafeteria with the guys checking out the chicks and vice versa. Pregnancies of course rose mysteriously just before deployment. I lost the same female twice to pregnancy, both times before a six month deployment and finally, remember you have the same male/female dynamic at watch stations in the middle of the night

I guess you can an add a much larger homosexual element to the issue since I retired as well. Who knows what's going on in the fan rooms of some of those ships these days.

TheJester > , August 29, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT

@El Dato In truth, engagements are supposed to be over fast.

If you have a few missiles coming at you from the horizon and you miss less than 100% of them with your Phalanx or whatever else you have (a functional Aster system? An non-experimental Laser gun?), it's Game Over Man, whether you are in a thin-shelled floating server room or a thick-shelled floating server room.

Shell, bomb, and kamikaze damage just ain't gonna happen anymore.

OUCH TIME Missiles are just another way of delivering warheads that used to be called "shells". Navy ships used to be armored to take shell fire and survive. Today, they are thin-skinned electronic "gaming" machines that cannot survive a "pin prick".

The Navy was shocked in the first Gulf War when an Iraqi Exocet missile (one hit) totally disabled the missile frigate, USS Stark. However, nothing changed with respect to thin-skinned naval ship design.

What this means is that swarming Iranian speed boats probably do have the capability of disabling and/or destroying US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf in time of war. Missiles are cheap. Thin-skinned $1.5 billion electronic missile frigates are not.

The Russians and Chinese are also following this strategy cheap missiles to disable and/or destroy US Navy capital (including aircraft carriers) and support ships with hypersonic missiles that cannot be defended against.

Physical damage aside, there is also a growing capability on the part of the Russians and Chinese to turn off a ship's electronics via electronic warfare. In 2014, a Sukhoi Su-24 overflying the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea was able to electronically disable the ship using the "Khibiny" electronic warfare suite.

The point is that thin-skinned navy ships packed with electronics are no match for today's offensive missiles or electronic warfare suites. As a cost comparison, it is ridiculous to procure fleets of billion dollar ships that can be disabled or destroyed by relatively low-cost missiles and electronic warfare suites.

El Dato > , August 29, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT

@TheJester Missiles are just another way of delivering warheads that used to be called "shells". Navy ships used to be armored to take shell fire and survive. Today, they are thin-skinned electronic "gaming" machines that cannot survive a "pin prick".

The Navy was shocked in the first Gulf War when an Iraqi Exocet missile (one hit) totally disabled the missile frigate, USS Stark. However, nothing changed with respect to thin-skinned naval ship design.

What this means is that swarming Iranian speed boats probably do have the capability of disabling and/or destroying US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf in time of war. Missiles are cheap. Thin-skinned $1.5 billion electronic missile frigates are not.

The Russians and Chinese are also following this strategy ... cheap missiles to disable and/or destroy US Navy capital (including aircraft carriers) and support ships with hypersonic missiles that cannot be defended against.

Physical damage aside, there is also a growing capability on the part of the Russians and Chinese to turn off a ship's electronics via electronic warfare. In 2014, a Sukhoi Su-24 overflying the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea was able to electronically disable the ship using the "Khibiny" electronic warfare suite.

The point is that thin-skinned navy ships packed with electronics are no match for today's offensive missiles or electronic warfare suites. As a cost comparison, it is ridiculous to procure fleets of billion dollar ships that can be disabled or destroyed by relatively low-cost missiles and electronic warfare suites.

it is ridiculous to procure fleets of billion dollar ships that can be disabled or destroyed by relatively low-cost missiles and electronic warfare suites.

"Only two kinds of ships in the Navy: submarines and targets"

KenH > , August 29, 2017 at 9:03 pm GMT

@Chris Mallory What fever dreams do you have that entail American troops fighting Hezbollah? Keep our troops out of Lebanon and Hezbollah is not an issue.

Only an idiot would invade North Korea. Sign your kids up for that, leave mine out of it. I didn't say I wanted war and don't see how you could conclude that I did. But Trump is daring N. Korea to knock the chip off his shoulder and looking for reasons to marginalize Iran further, so I'd be surprised if we don't find ourselves in a shooting war with one of them, most likely Iran since they're atop Israel's shit list.

Bill Jones > , August 29, 2017 at 9:22 pm GMT

What a dyed in the wool piece of statist filth.

What is "our military"
I don't have one the DC filth does.

What is "serving"?
the parasities will to murder when ordered.

Rich > , September 1, 2017 at 1:25 am GMT

@QuestionMan What does affirmative action have to do with the Commanding Officer, Executive Officer and Command Master Chief of the USS Fitzgerald? I'll take a stab at explaining it to you. Because of affirmative action, competent folks are passed over in favor of less competent, or incompetent folks, because some of the incompetent folks ancestors may, or may not have, suffered under a various set of circumstances in the past. Believe it or not, there may even be incompetent White folks, but in a more merit based time, these incompetent Whites were kept to a minimum. Having promoted every minority above his skill level, you still have a certain percentage of incompetent Whites in the field, and because there are a limited number of positions, you now have more incompetents in charge. Picture a pool of 100 commander positions, you have a 10% to 20% incompetency level of Whites, in a merit based organization, they would take up 10% to 20% of command positions. Now we know that in all probability, every minority commander was promoted based not on his skill, bit his minority status, you add all those incompetents to the command structure, increasing it from 10%, to up to 50% of incompetent commanders depending on how many minorities were promoted unjustly.

wayfarer > , September 2, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT

As a USCG seaman who once experienced the brutal 18-hour work days underway on 30-day patrols conducting search-and-rescue or law enforcement operations, it's almost impossible to articulate the intellectual stamina required of the officer-class as-well-as the physical/psychological stamina required of the enlisted-class.

wayfarer > , September 2, 2017 at 6:42 am GMT

@SteveRogers42 Lighter side: Most minorities eschew the combat arms MOS's. The closer you get to the tip of the spear in the U.S. military, the paler and maler the picture becomes. Special operations units and the pilot/aviator jobs are overwhelmingly white.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/05/diversity-seals-green-berets/31122851/ "White Privilege," Was a Non-Existent Fact During the Vietnam War.

Of the 58,220 Americans Killed, 49,830 (86%) Were White.

"Statistical Information About Casualties of the Vietnam War"

https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html

[Sep 01, 2017] McCain's Transmutation from Cautious Realist to Super-Hawk - The Unz Review

Sep 01, 2017 | www.unz.com

For many years, John McCain has been one of the major war hawks in the Senate, but he was not that way for more than a decade after he was first elected to Congress. When he entered the House of Representatives in 1983, he was a cautious realist, holding the position that U.S. military power should only be used to protect vital national interests. He developed this view as a result of his experience in the Vietnam War and his post-Vietnam studying of the origins of that war at the National War College. [1] John B. Judis, "Neo-McCain," New Republic, October 16, 2006, https://newrepublic.com/article/60839/neo-mccain That view loomed large among military leaders at this time and was exemplified by General Colin Powell.

In his first year in Congress, McCain, although a strong supporter of then President Reagan, voted against the latter's decision to continue the deployment of troops in Lebanon during that country's civil war. The measure would pass in both Houses of Congress, with substantial support from Democrats, and with only a small minority of Republicans daring to oppose Reagan. In his floor speech on this issue, McCain stated:

"The fundamental question is: What is the United States' interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region? . . . . The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.

"What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event." [2] Quoted in Justin Raimondo, "The Madness of John McCain," February 11, 2008, The American Conservative, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the...ccain/

[3} Quoted in Norman Kempster, "Vietnam War Leaves Legacy of Anguish," Los Angeles Times, April 28, 1985, http://articles.latimes.com/1985-04-28/news/mn-2129...-war/2

After a truck filled with explosives rammed into the Marine compound in Beirut, killing 241 service members, Reagan opted to remove the remaining troops a few months later. McCain was vindicated and he gained considerable attention from the mainstream media for his prescience and courage to take such a stand against a popular President from his party. This helped to develop his reputation as a "maverick."

"The American people and Congress now appreciate that we are neither omniscient nor omnipotent," McCain would later tell the Los Angeles Times , "and they are not prepared to commit U.S. troops to combat unless there is a clear U.S. national security interest involved. If we do become involved in combat, that involvement must be of relatively short duration and must be readily explained to the man in the street in one or two sentences."[3]

In 1987, during the Iran-Iraq War, in which the United States was supporting Iraq, McCain, now a Senator, opposed President Reagan's move to put American flags on Kuwaiti oil tankers and have the U.S. Navy protect them against possible Iranian attacks. In the Arizona Republican , he described Reagan's action as a "dangerous overreaction in perhaps the most violent and unpredictable region in the world." He continued: "American citizens are again being asked to place themselves between warring Middle East factions, with no tangible allied support and no real plan on how to respond if the situation escalates." [4] Quoted in Matt Welch, McCain, The Myth of a Maverick (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), p. 157.

McCain did support the Gulf War in 1991, but even here he was something of a moderate. McCain biographer Matt Welch writes: "When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the summer of 1990, McCain oscillated between hawkishness and reluctance, denouncing the Iraqi dictator and then the U.S. government for having cozied up too closely to Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, but at the same time warning against a protracted land battle." [5] Welch, p. 158. McCain stated: "If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood." [6] Quoted in Michael Wines, "Confrontation in the Gulf," New York Times, August 19, 1990, http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/19/world/confrontati...cubz=0

Under Republican Presidents Reagan and the elder Bush, it must be acknowledged that McCain was not an actual non-interventionist since he supported the American opposition to the Soviet Union, and what he considered to be pro-Soviet forces in Central America. Moreover, he supported the removal of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega by the U.S. military in 1989. But this was still a far cry from the global interventionist that McCain would become.

Moreover, during Bill Clinton's presidency, McCain would be even more non-interventionist until his radical change during the last years of Clinton's term. In a commencement address he made to the Marine Corps Command and Staff College in Quantico, Virginia in June 1994, McCain emphasized that his cautious approach to war resulted from his Vietnam experience. He solemnly orated that he had not forgotten "the friends who did not return with me to the country we loved so dearly. The memory of them, of what they bore for honor and country, causes me to look in every prospective conflict for the shadow of Vietnam." [7] Address by Senator John McCain National Defense University Graduation, June 16, 1999, https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/1999/...ea4e56

In December 1992, after losing the November election to Bill Clinton, the elder George Bush dispatched American troops to Somalia, then embroiled in a many-sided civil war, to facilitate the provision of food to the starving civilian population. This was part of a United Nations effort. By the fall of 1993, this military mission morphed into one of arresting war lords and nation-building. In October 1993, a 15-hour battle took place in Mogadishu that left 18 Americans dead and 73 injured, with many of these casualties the result of two Black Hawk helicopters being shot down. [8] NPR Staff, "What A Downed Black Hawk In Somalia Taught America," NPR, October 5, 2013, http://www.npr.org/2013/10/05/229561805/what-a-down...merica

Because of this loss of American lives, there was a Senate bill supported by President Clinton which planned to remove American troops from Somalia. Demanding a quicker troop exit, McCain stated: "Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another six months of United States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not."

Drawing an analogy to what happened in Lebanon in 1983, McCain contended: "240 young Marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia, as rapidly, and as promptly, and as safely as possible."

"The longer we stay the more difficult it will be to leave," McCain asserted. "The loss of American lives is not only tragic, it is needless." [9] Quoted in "Backing Clinton, Senate Rejects Bid to Speed Somalia Pullout," Clifford Krauss, October 15, 1993, http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/15/world/backing-cli...t.html His proposed amendment for a quicker departure, however, was voted down.

McCain also opposed Clinton's intervention in Haiti to bring back President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who had been elected in 1990 and then overthrown in a coup in 1991. After a UN resolution authorized the use of military force to return Aristide to power, the United States would ultimately do so on October 15, 1994. In late August 1994, McCain declared: "It is the post-invasion circumstances that I fear will bog down U.S. forces in a low-level, open-ended, ill-defined conflict which will require U.S. servicemen and women to serve as a virtual palace guard for President Aristide once he is returned to power." [10] "McCain Firm in Opposition to Invasion of Haiti," August 31, 1994, https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press...c9b56d

The major international concern in the 1990s was the conflict in Yugoslavia!with the focus first on Bosnia and then Kosovo. After the downfall of Communism, Yugoslavia dissolved, with the secession, in 1992, of Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia. Bosnia also declared its independence despite the staunch opposition of Bosnian Serbs, who wanted to remain united with Serbia. Civil war broke out between the Bosnian Serbs, supported by Serbia, and the Muslim-dominated Bosnian government. Thousands of people were killed, raped, and expelled from their homes. The West generally looked upon the atrocities, real and imagined, as being primarily perpetrated by the Serbs. In the United States, this was especially the case among American liberals who would advocate "humanitarian" military intervention to protect the Muslims.

In 1992, the UN peacekeeping forces intervened for humanitarian reasons and set up several so-called safe areas for refugees, which often turned out to be not very safe. The UN forces were composed of non-American troops, while American ships and airplanes enforced an arms embargo.

The wars in Yugoslavia would ultimately lead to a sea change in McCain's position on American military intervention, but this did not occur all at once. Initially, McCain was, like many Republicans, opposed to American involvement in the conflict. In fact, biographer Matt Welch describes McCain as having been "one of the Senate's most stubborn opponents to US military intervention against Serbs." [11] Welch, p. 162. McCain contended that any American military "peace-keeping" effort in Bosnia would likely lead to a quagmire. "I think you can draw a parallel to the military challenge in Bosnia with what the Russians faced in Afghanistan," McCain opined in May 1993. "Even with ground forces and with overwhelming air superiority, they were unable to defeat a motivated, very capable enemy." [12] Quoted in Michael Wines, "Conflict in the Balkans; Senator Who Saw War Up Close Doesn't Want to See Another," New York Times, May 5, 1993, http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/05/world/conflict-in...r.html

In December 1994, McCain, whom the Los Angeles Times described as a "a leading opponent of greater American military involvement in the war," stated: "I think we have a very full plate of a legislative agenda, which are the commitments we made to the American people–and Bosnia wasn't one of those." [13] Quoted in Ronald Brownstein, "Leaders Clash on U.S. Role in Bosnia," Los Angeles Times, December 9, 1994, http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-09/news/mn-7054...h-push In May 1995, McCain held that U.S. efforts in the Balkans were "doomed to failure from the beginning, when we believed that we could keep peace in a place where there was no peace." [14] Quoted in Franklin Foer, Election 2008: A Voter's Guide, p. 105. Neocon Robert Kagan bemoaned the fact that on Bosnia, Senator McCain led the Republican attack, warning that any use of military power there would result in "another failure like Vietnam or Lebanon." [15] Robert Kagan, "A Retreat from Power?," Commentary, July 1, 1995, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/a-retrea...power/

Prospects for peace, however, improved in the summer of 1995 when NATO, led by the United States, launched airstrikes against Bosnian Serb targets, which combined with better-equipped Muslim and Croatian forces pressured the Bosnian Serbs into participating in peace negotiations. This led to the Dayton Accords in November 1995, which ended the war in Bosnia. NATO would provide peace-keeping troops, including 20,000 from the U.S.

After NATO's success, McCain quickly dropped his staunch anti-interventionist position. McCain later claimed that his position had begun to change as a moral reaction to the Serbs' massacre of thousands of unarmed Bosnian Muslims in July 1995. [16] David D. Kirkpatrick, "Response to 9/11 Offers Outline of McCain Doctrine," New York Times, August 16, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/us/politics/17mcc...n.html While most Republican members of Congress were opposed to sending American troops to Bosnia, McCain joined Senator Robert Dole (Republican!Kansas) in putting forth the nonbinding Dole-McCain resolution which permitted Clinton to send troops, though limiting the deployment to one year–which was Clinton's stated time period!and requiring the United States to lead an effort to arm and train Bosnian troops. The resolution passed in the Senate but was not taken up in the House. [17] Jonathan S. Landay, "Congress Tiptoes Into Delicate Issue Of Dispatching GIs," Christian Science Monitor, December 13,1995, https://www.csmonitor.com/1995/1213/13013.html; Helen Dewa and Guy Gugliotta, "Senate Backs Troops to Bosnia," Washington Post, December 14, 1995, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995...d75dac

Showing that he had not completely dropped his previous cautious approach to intervention, McCain emphasized that the Dole-McCain resolution was not seeking support for President Clinton's decision to deploy the troops. "It asks that you support the deployment after the decision has been made," he said. "The decision has been made by the only American elected to make such decisions [i.e., the President]." However, McCain also expressed a firm interventionist conviction: "When we arrive at the moment when less is expected from our leadership by the rest of the world, then we will have arrived at the moment of our decline." And he said, "We cannot withdraw from the world into our prosperity and comfort and hope to keep those blessings." [18] Quoted in Katherine Q. Seeleye, "Anguished, Senators Vote to Support Bosnia Mission," New York Times, December 14, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/14/world/balkan-acco...ed=all

While a change from his previous strong opposition to American intervention abroad, supporting this peace effort in Bosnia did not portend McCain's radical transmutation to the global super-hawk that he would become. That final step would require the involvement of the neoconservatives. This connection began when, in 1997, McCain and his advisers read an article in the Wall Street Journal editorial page by neoconservatives Bill Kristol and David Brooks who were promoting the idea of "national greatness" conservatism, which consisted of a more activist domestic agenda and a more interventionist global role. [19] Kirkpatrick.

While this article may have fit in with the direction that McCain's thinking was moving, it had political implications as well: McCain had been eyeing the presidency for a number of years. According to John Weaver, a major political adviser to McCain at this time: "I wouldn't call it a 'eureka' moment, but there was a sense that this is where we are headed and this is what we are trying to articulate and they [Kristol and Brooks] have already done a lot of the work. . . . And, quite frankly, from a crass political point of view, we were in the making-friends business. The Weekly Standard represented a part of the primary electorate that we could get." [20] Quoted in Kirkpatrick. And it should be emphasized that McCain's change was not a gradual one but rather one that was quite radical and took place in a very short period of time.

After reading this article, McCain and staff were consulting regularly with leading neocons, including Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Randy Scheunemann [21] Scheunemann was a member of the Board of Directors of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and would later be Director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and McCain's foreign policy adviser in his 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns. , to, in the words of journalist David Kirkpatrick, "develop the senator's foreign policy ideas and instincts into the broad themes of a presidential campaign." [22] Kirkpatrick. In short, McCain realized that he needed the neocons' intellectual and political support if he were to achieve higher office. The neocons were already well-known and had played a significant role in the Reagan administration. And during the Clinton years, neocons promoted their views from a strong interlocking network of think tanks which have had a significant influence in shaping American foreign policy.

McCain would begin to support neocon positions. On January 26, 1998, the neocon-dominated Project for a New American Century (PNAC), created in 1997 and headed by Bill Kristol, sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to take unilateral military action against Iraq to overthrow Saddam and offered a plan to achieve that objective. After the Clinton administration failed to take action, another neocon-front group, the resurrected Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, which had promoted the 1991 Gulf War, sent another letter urging war. And, because of Clinton's continued inaction, PNAC would send another such letter in May.

While President Clinton failed to take action, McCain pushed for military action against Saddam in 1998. McCain co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, committing the United States to support the overthrow of Saddam and funding opposition groups, most importantly the Iraqi National Congress. Headed by the notorious neocon-favorite Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi National Congress would provide much of the spurious information that generated support for the war on Iraq in 2003. The bill passed in both houses of Congress and on October 31, 1998, President Clinton signed it into law. Clinton, however, did not intend to implement this measure and George Bush made no mention of it during the 2000 campaign. [23] Justin Vaisse, Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2010), p. 248. McCain, however, remained in lock-step with the neocons on Iraq and would be made Honorary Co-chair of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq when it was created in 2002.

McCain had been in line with the neocons as a strong supporter of Israel even during the time he adhered to a cautious realist position regarding U.S. military interventionism. He was the 1999 recipient of the Defender of Jerusalem award, given by the National Council of Young Israel. In his acceptance speech, McCain in effect told his pro-Zionist audience that the United States should be prepared to make war for Israel's sake. "Certainly, no one would argue with the proposition that our armed forces exist first and foremost for the defense of the United States and its vital interests abroad," McCain intoned. "We choose, as a nation, however, to intervene militarily abroad in defense of the moral values that are at the center of our national conscientiousness even when vital national interests are not necessarily at stake. I raise this point because it lies at the heart of this nation's approach to Israel. The survival of Israel is one of this country's most important moral commitments. . . . Like the United States, Israel is more than a nation; it is an ideal." [24] "Remarks of Senator John McCain to the National Council of Young Israel in New York City," John McCain Press Release, March 14, 1999, quoted in Joseph Sobran, "The Patriot Game," Wanderer, February 24, 2000, p. 6. Note that this was diametrically opposed to his former view that American intervention abroad should only take place to protect vital American interests.

However, it was not Iraq or any of Israel's enemies that put McCain in the national limelight but rather the U.S.-led NATO war on Serbia over Kosovo in 1999. As Washington Post staff writer Dan Balz wrote in early April 1999, "no politician has been more visible on the issue of Kosovo the past two weeks than the former Vietnam prisoner of war, and a number of political analysts say his performance has given a boost to his presidential aspirations." [25] Dan Balz, "Kosovo Conflict Gives McCain Prominence," Washington Post, April 7, 1999, A4, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campa...99.htm

President Clinton orchestrated the NATO war on Serbia, because of the Serbs "ethnic cleansing" of Muslims in their territory of Kosovo. Since Serbia could not possibly threaten the United States, the war was presented as being largely for humanitarian reasons. At this time, there were all types of stories of Serb mass killings of Kosovars, with figures up to 100,000 Kosovar civilians being missing and conceivably murdered. [26] Tom Doggett, "Cohen Fears 100,000 Kosovo Men Killed by Serbs," Washington Post, May 16, 1999, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm...99.htm Physical evidence for these extreme claims was not found and former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic was not even charged with crimes of such great magnitude at his trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). And according to German government documents no "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovar Albanians took place until after the NATO bombing. [27] Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn, "Internal Documents from Germany's Foreign Office Regarding Pre-Bombardment Genocide in Kosovo," CounterPunch, April 24, 1999, https://www.counterpunch.org/1999/04/24/internal-doc...osovo/

Unlike many Republicans, McCain supported Clinton's decision for war. But while Clinton limited American actions to air strikes, McCain maintained that it was essential to win this military confrontation at all costs and called on the Clinton Administration to deploy ground troops if the reliance on air strikes alone appeared to be insufficient to achieve victory. [28] CNN, "McCain resolution urges use of 'all necessary force' in Yugoslavia," April 20, 1999, http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/20/k...gress/]

McCain thus sponsored a resolution that would have given President Clinton congressional authorization to use all means necessary to win the military campaign in Kosovo. The leaders of both parties opposed this resolution and it was tabled. McCain complained: "The president doesn't want the power he possesses by law because the risks inherent in its exercise have paralyzed him." [29] McCain quoted in CNN, "Senate tables Kosovo resolution authorizing 'all necessary force,'' May 4, 1999, http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/04/k...gress/

McCain's hawkish position reflected the views of the neoconservatives. And obviously, his pro-intervention stance represented a sea change from his previous emphasis on caution and support of war only if it involved a vital American interest.
. Members of the interventionist Balkan Action Committee, which advocated NATO ground troops for Kosovo, included such prominent neoconservative mainstays as Richard Perle, Max M. Kampelman, Morton Abramowitz, and Paul Wolfowitz. Other neoconservative proponents of a tougher war included Eliot Cohen, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Norman Podhoretz. [30] Balkan Action Council, Press Release, "Balkan Action Council Urges NATO Intervention, Ground Forces in Kosovo," January 25, 1999, Bosnian Institute, http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news/260199_6.cfm

Largely because of his bellicose position on Kosovo, McCain was the favorite presidential candidate for many leading neoconservatives in 2000. As Franklin Foer, editor of the liberal New Republic, put it: "Jewish neoconservatives have fallen hard for John McCain. It's not just unabashed swooner William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard . McCain has also won over such leading neocon lights as David Brooks, the entire Podhoretz family, The Wall Street Journal 's Dorothy Rabinowitz, and columnist Charles Krauthammer, who declared, in a most un-Semitic flourish, 'He suffered for our sins.'" [31] Francis Foer, "The neocons wake up: Arguing the GOP," New Republic, March 20, 2000, p. 13.

McCain was especially championed by Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard , and his associate David Brooks. They held that McCain would promote their idea of "national greatness," as opposed to what they regarded as the standpatness of the conservative Republicans. The "national greatness" program would entail a greater role for the federal government and more extensive intervention throughout the world to promote American values.

Neoconservatives admired McCain for his support of the American war on Serbia, toward which many mainstream conservatives were decidedly cool. The attack on Serbia, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons, provided the intellectual groundwork for the attack on Iraq, the neocons' fundamental target, since it set the precedent of violating international law's prohibition against initiating offensive wars. No longer would the United States have to be attacked, or even threatened, to engage in war. As Kristol and Brooks put it: "For all his conventional political views, McCain embodies a set of virtues that today are unconventional. The issue that gave the McCain campaign its initial boost was Kosovo. He argued that America as a great champion of democracy and decency could not fail to act. And he supported his commander in chief despite grave doubts about the conduct of the war–while George W. Bush sat out the debate and Republicans on the Hill flailed at Clinton." [32] William Kristol and David Brooks, "The McCain Insurrection," Weekly Standard, February 14, 2000, http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-mccain-insurrecti.../11707

But the neocons did not support McCain simply because of his defense of the Kosovars, but rather because of his broader interventionist position of "rogue state rollback," which pointed directly at the enemies of Israel. While participating in a Republican debate moderated by CNN's Larry King on February. 15, 2000, the candidates were asked: "What area of American international policy would you change immediately as president?" McCain replied: "I'd institute a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically-elected governments." And he added: "As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security." [33] Talal Al-Khatib, "McCain Rewrites History on 'Rogue-State Rollback'," ABC News, April 17, 2008, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/mcc...s.html

What caused McCain's radical shift from cautious realist to super hawk? Biographer Matt Welch sees it as essentially a return to his basic world view, largely derived from the family's military background, after the non-interventionist effect of the Vietnam Syndrome. Welch writes: "But much less understood is the extent to which interventionist hegemony has been literally seared into McCain's skull and then reignited late in life after the long intellectual detour of Vietnam." [34] Welch, p. xxv.

Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer ambition." He goes on: "He was positioning himself against his own party, while staking out a distinctive stance independent of the Democrats. It was, in short, an instance of a presidential candidate maneuvering himself to increase his appeal to the electorate!and, most importantly, the media." [35] Raimondo, "Madness of John McCain."

In an article in Rolling Stone , Tim Dickerson expresses a view similar to that of Raimondo, describing McCain as "a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather." Dickerson continues: "Few politicians have so actively, or successfully, crafted their own myth of greatness." [36] Tim Dickerson, "John McCain: Make-Believe Maverick," Rolling Stone, October 16, 2008, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/make-beli...081016

McCain has flip-flopped on domestic issues, sometimes supporting a conservative position and at other times a more liberal one which wins him the plaudits of the mainstream media!but once he moved into the neocon orbit regarding U.S. foreign policy, he has stayed there. It is obviously beneficial for a politician to have the broad neocon network of organizations on one's side. And more than a few of these neocons!such as Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, David Brooks, are featured regularly in the mainstream media. Moreover, the mainstream liberal media itself has adopted many neocon interventionist positions in foreign policy in regard to Russia and the Middle East, so McCain's positions are held in esteem there, too.

So while McCain portrays himself as a "maverick" and "straight-talker" who is above politics– and this image is largely accepted by the mainstream media!it would seem most likely that his political positions have been adopted to advance his own political interests. [37] McCain's marriage in 1980 to his second wife appears to have been done, at least in part, for political reasons. McCain left his first wife that same year to marry Cindy Hensley, a young Phoenix, Arizona, heiress whose worth has been estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars. Cindy's father, Jim, was the owner of the area's Anheuser-Busch distributorship, one of the largest beer distributors in the U.S. Without the Hensley connections and, especially, great wealth, it seems highly doubtful that McCain would have been able to win a Congressional seat, which he did in 1982. While this approach did not enable him to become President, it did serve to make him something of a public icon, which is a position few politicians attain. However, the war-oriented policies he has advocated have been disastrous for the United States. It is only fortunate that John McCain has not attained the power to have his positions adopted in their entirety.

Antiwar7 > , September 1, 2017 at 5:41 am GMT

Yes, I remember when McCain was more anti-interventionist than average. Eerie, the striking change.

I also seem to remember Cheney being more anti-intervention, or so it seemed. That was a few administrations before W.

Priss Factor > , Website September 1, 2017 at 5:44 am GMT

Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer ambition."

It's more Hambition than ambition.

If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled and despised political figure(and rightly so).

So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?

McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper, he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.

Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So, the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s. Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus, Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him. Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he became the most loyal henchman of Vito.

[MORE]

McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy Holocaust people with lots of money and brains.

Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt' and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose. And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.

Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is. McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him. Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over. McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy.

jilles dykstra > , September 1, 2017 at 7:07 am GMT

I saw how McCain reacted in the Senate when his effort to smuggle Montenegro into NATO failed, a child not getting his icecream.
Tiny Montenegro of course is just a pain in the ass for peace.
Who in his right mind wants the government of this tiny state to be able to provoke the last world war ?
People who have seen Russia as the USA arch enemy in fact are religious, religion defined as 'deep seated irrational conviction'.
That Russia just wants to sell oil and gas, and wants to remain independent, impossible.
So McCains invented Russian militarism, as bible belters invented creationism.

ChrisD > , September 1, 2017 at 7:27 am GMT

McCain was braindead during Comey's testimony in the Senate, even Comey had to screw up his face in painful confusion as McCain rambled. McCain is no longer fit to water the garden lawn let alone vote on key bills in congress. He needs to be forcefully removed from the Senate and replaced by a pro-Trump candidate from Arizona. I like my war heroes uncaptured by the way.

Realist > , September 1, 2017 at 9:07 am GMT

McCain has always been an asshole. The worst defeat suffered by the US at the hands of the North Vietnamese was the return of McCain alive.

ThereisaGod > , September 1, 2017 at 9:14 am GMT

He's a traitor like his father, the captain of the USS Liberty attacked by Israel in 1967 with the loss of 34 American lives the man who betrayed his men by falling in line with the cover-up to keep the truth of this war crime from the American people. One degenerate shitbag begot another. Maybe Junior just can't help it.

jacques sheete > , September 1, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT

Another excellent piece of work on a very putrid subject.

McCain intoned. "We choose, as a nation, however, to intervene militarily abroad in defense of the moral values

Whenever anyone, especially a politician, starts yapping about defending or promoting moral values, it's time to grab both your wallet and to head to the toilet.

lucidian > , September 1, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT

Alas, I miss Realism. I hoped Trump was a Realist. I despise Idealists. Neocons are Idealists. Communists are Idealists. They are all monsters. So much blood has been shed in the name of Idealism. Idealists don't care about inconvenient things like body counts, so long as their Ideals are being pursued.

I want America to be friends with Russia, and fight radical Islam. This is the only course that makes sense, but the Idealists aren't having any. It appears that the Neocons still have their claws around our country's throat. I had hoped Trump could resist this, but apparently he cannot.

jacques sheete > , September 1, 2017 at 11:40 am GMT

@Priss Factor Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer ambition."

It's more Hambition than ambition.

If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled and despised political figure(and rightly so).

So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?

McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper, he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.

Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So, the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s. Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus, Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him. Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he became the most loyal henchman of Vito.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE

McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy Holocaust people... with lots of money and brains.

Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt' and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose. And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.

Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is. McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him. Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over. McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy.

So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power.

I've noticed that in a lot of the sappy, worthless goons in positions of power, even minor positions.

BTW, your comment is far beyond even some of the best columnists here. Bravo!

jacques sheete > , September 1, 2017 at 11:48 am GMT

@lucidian Alas, I miss Realism. I hoped Trump was a Realist. I despise Idealists. Neocons are Idealists. Communists are Idealists. They are all monsters. So much blood has been shed in the name of Idealism. Idealists don't care about inconvenient things like body counts, so long as their Ideals are being pursued.

I want America to be friends with Russia, and fight radical Islam. This is the only course that makes sense, but the Idealists aren't having any. It appears that the Neocons still have their claws around our country's throat. I had hoped Trump could resist this, but apparently he cannot.

I want America to be friends with Russia, and fight radical Islam. This is the only course that makes sense, but the Idealists aren't having any. It appears that the Neocons still have their claws around our country's throat.

Neocons are the ones promoting and braying about radical Islam as a threat.

The biggest threat we face is the moneyed neocon crowd, and their water carriers and boot lickers like Little Johnny Boy. Forget Islam as an enemy, radical or otherwise. It's obviously nothing more than a threat hatched by the usual reptiles to distract our attention from themselves.

If we can manage to get rid of neocon influence, we'll see radical Islam and many other "threats" disappear like magic. Unfortunately that's not likely to happen any time soon.

n230099 > , September 1, 2017 at 12:03 pm GMT

"If they've nothing to contribute to today, they drown their sorrows in what they perceive as the heroism of yesterday. "

This dude's time is short and he wants one with his name on it we are all in grave danger.

DESERT FOX > , September 1, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT

McCain wet started his plane on the deck of the USS FORRESTAL which caused a rocket to cook off and fire causing a chain reaction which caused and explosion and fire that killed 134 men and wounded 161 McCain was the only one removed from the ship to keep him away from the crew of the Forrestal. This happened on July 29, 1967.

When McCain was in prison in North Vietnam he was given the name SONG BIRD by the North Vietnese because he made some 40 tapes condeming the U.S. and this was not because of torture as he was not tortured and the injuries he sustained were from ejecting from the plane.

McCain has done every thing in his power to cover up the fact that America POWS were left behind in North Vietnam and there is a youtube video showing McCain at a Senate hearing cursing a woman who was investigating the issue of POWS left behind in Vietnam and that is not the only video of McCain cursing out people who asked him questions on this issue.

McCain is one of the supporters of ISIS and he is pictured with members of ISIS numerous times and as such is of course a TRAITOR just as he was in prison in North Vietnam.

McCain is a TRAITOR and a disgrace to the United States.

Pandos > , September 1, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT

@ThereisaGod The Captain was not McCain. The Captain was awarded the Medal of Honor. Admiral McCain did the coverup though.

Beckow > , September 1, 2017 at 2:15 pm GMT

@Priss Factor

"McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power."

Great summary. There is a yearning for acceptance and 'being something more' among the semi-retarded an completely uneducated in US. They know very little and have minimal experience. They are completely lost in culture, history, geography, languages, economics, etc But they are living in a wealthy, resources-rich environment. That leads to a disconnect from the real world, they mix up myths and reality, there is chaos reigning in their minds. They suffer from a sense of inferiority, so they overcompensate and latch on a few ideas. It is a result of lack of selectivity and diligence in US education. That permissiveness allows for creativity and openness, but it also allows total simpletons to rise up because of connections (McCain) or industriousness. Lately this model has been spreading around the world. McCain is simply too stupid to be where he is.

A lot of today's problems can be traced to the NATO bombing of Serbia. That's when all rules, common sense and minimal fairness were tossed out. That's when the western media lost any sense of standards or basic decency. That's when 'international' law and agreed on rules was abandoned. Kosovo established a precedence – from changing existing borders by force and 'we bomb because nobody can really stop us', from media reporting what governments tell them and unhinged 'journalists with a cause' – it all started with bombing Serbia to force Kosovo separation. It has been downhill since then with ever-escalating use of force and lying by the media. McCain was prominent in that fiasco, but so were Blair and Clintons, European 'leftists' and Islamic expansionists. Kosovo created a template: it combined Neo-cons with unhinged liberal bombers, and added Islamic fanatics dreaming about taking over Europe. We are simply living with the consequences. McCain was there from the beginning.

anonymous > , Disclaimer September 1, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT

So what happened? Has there been a gradual onset of dementia that's gone undiagnosed? Or was he "eying the presidency" and needed the sponsors that would carry him there? Either way the man has been mentally and morally unfit all along for his entire life. He's a spoiled brat who graduated at the bottom of his class yet was allowed to hold positions he should never have had due to family clout. He has an irrational animus towards the Russians which has led him to try to drag the US into unnecessary confrontations with them and which has had the effect of spurring them into building up their military even quicker as they realize that it may not be possible to make any worthwhile peace agreements from a position of weakness. Of course we haven't gone into his immigration stance which has harmed this country immeasurably. He's been bad, always, from childhood on. It's strange to see that the voters of Arizona kept returning this cretin to the Senate over and over. He's been there far too long for anything worthwhile he may have done. Go away, just go.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer September 1, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT

McCain is owned by the MIC. He came home drunk with a job in politics waiting for him. McCain's role is to collude with his defense contractors for costly welfare that undermines US security. He's just like any other scumbag Senator, a puppet for the mafia.

Haven't we learned that what a politician says is at any given time to be typically worth less than worn out tires? Not the twiddling author of this drawn out character assessment. Conservatives are hopelessly delusional.

There's no better example of standard issue duplicitu than the Orange Realtor who claimed he was going to cut defense spending, the F-35 and John McCain's legacy all at once. All horseshit – all of it.

Incompetent officers running the obsolete USS John McCain into a cargo ship. That about sums it up.

geokat62 > , September 1, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT

Members of the interventionist Balkan Action Committee , which advocated NATO ground troops for Kosovo, included such prominent neoconservative mainstays as Richard Perle, Max M. Kampelman, Morton Abramowitz, and Paul Wolfowitz. Other neoconservative proponents of a tougher war included Eliot Cohen, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Norman Podhoretz.

Well, what do ya know? Look who was behind the push for war against Serbia. And the author of this fine article clearly articulates the motivation for this supposed R2P intervention against Serbia:

The attack on Serbia, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons, provided the intellectual groundwork for the attack on Iraq, the neocons' fundamental target, since it set the precedent of violating international law's prohibition against initiating offensive wars .

And we have these hasbarists (both xian and Jewish) trying to convince us that all these wars are truly for humanitarian reasons. What chutzpah!

Rurik > , Website September 1, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT

@jacques sheete

So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power.

another word for 'the Power', is The Fiend

which I consider somewhat more accurate in its description

in a word, McCain is a traitor

a man willing to betray his office, his constituents, the men and women in uniform, his sacred vows, and all notions of honor or decency in service to our nations most determined enemies. If he thinks doing so will advance his personal ambitions.

a crack whore has a thousand times more integrity

dog vomit in the grass is heroic by comparison

I'm reminded of that Detroit physician who diagnosed healthy patients as having cancer and requiring expensive chemo treatments, so that the physician could get richer and also bask in the grandeur of being a 'great healer', once his patients were declared 'healed'. At least the ones who didn't die from the chemo (many). A man who is trusted with the health and welfare of others, and then betrays that trust and sees those people die for his personal gain.

and then any article on John McBloodstain that leaves out his wanton corruption vis-a-vis the Savings and Loan mass looting, the 2008 mass looting, his treason in Vietnam, his treason vis-a-vis the USS Liberty and all the other remarkable acts of betrayal and craven venality that this singularly loathsome man has wrought upon the people of this planet is wholly inadequate for a person to get a grasp on just what a spectacularly vile little man the Bloodstain really is.

It says something about the Jews that own and control our fecal government and media when their favorites to play POTUS are the very worst human beings in the nation. Hillary Clinton and John McBloodstain are arguably the most repulsive people in human memory.

the lying, vicious cackling gorgon and that murderous little Igor to the Fiend

two peas in a pod

Linda Green > , September 1, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer ambition."

It's more Hambition than ambition.

If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled and despised political figure(and rightly so).

So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?

McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper, he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.

Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So, the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s. Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus, Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him. Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he became the most loyal henchman of Vito.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE

McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy Holocaust people... with lots of money and brains.

Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt' and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose. And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.

Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is. McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him. Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over. McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy. Excellent synopsis. Sounds about right.

Keeping Obamacare was McCain's final act to really stick it to the people who doubted he has the power. See! Look what I can do! The liberals swooned. John received congratulatory calls and emails from Dems all week, in the end they reiterated how they always know they can depend on John. Pitiful.

geokat62 > , September 1, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

the planet will be a noticeably better place. The air will taste less of sulfur and children and dogs will smile more. There'll be a frolic in the mood of people everywhere, and a new light of hope and beauty will dance in people's eyes.

Unfortunately, Rurik, for every Killary and McBloodstain that pass away, there are dozens more to take their place. I need not run down the list of the candidates from both major parties that ran in the presidential primaries.

Beefcake the Mighty > , September 1, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer ambition."

It's more Hambition than ambition.

If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled and despised political figure(and rightly so).

So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?

McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper, he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.

Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So, the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s. Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus, Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him. Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he became the most loyal henchman of Vito.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE

McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy Holocaust people... with lots of money and brains.

Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt' and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose. And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.

Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is. McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him. Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over. McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy. Yes. Basically, McCain is mentally unstable. He may have been able to keep it under control for a while, but whatever caused him to snap in the late 90′s (and doubtless raw ambition played a role), he has long passed the point of no return (as has America, sadly).

Antiwar7 > , September 1, 2017 at 3:41 pm GMT

@geokat62 It was also a war to justify Nato's existence, just in time for its 50th anniversary, when everyone was asking why it was still around.

Also, the neocons have always been strongly anti-Russian, and Serbia was viewed as a natural Russian ally, due to history and religion.

Rurik > , Website September 1, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

@geokat62


the planet will be a noticeably better place. The air will taste less of sulfur and children and dogs will smile more. There'll be a frolic in the mood of people everywhere, and a new light of hope and beauty will dance in people's eyes.
Unfortunately, Rurik, for every Killary and McBloodstain that pass away, there are dozens more to take their place. I need not run down the list of the candidates from both major parties that ran in the presidential primaries.

there are dozens more to take their place.

true Geo, but at least the world can be rid of a spectacularly execrable pestilence that has plagued it for so terribly long. Even if Tom Cotton is waiting in the wings to take its place.

just think of all the millions of people who suffer the Bloodstain's every feculent breath.

the POWs in Vietnam and their families

the survivors of the Liberty and their families

the murdered souls throughout the world, from Ukraine to Syria whose unimaginable suffering can be laid directly at the feet of the Stain

all the people who have been tortured or crucified by ISIS

those people in Odessa, Ukraine who were burned alive, or the villagers in Donbas, and so many other places who have lost loved ones or been maimed by the Bloodstain's relentless, relentless, relentless war mongering.

all these people will be able to wake to a new day knowing that John McCain is no longer befouling the air we all breath with his rotten lungs.

sure, Tom Cotton is being groomed, and there's no doubt a bevy of would-be traitors and assholes waiting to take McCain's place, but at least he will be dead and burning in hell.

Dutch Boy > , September 1, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT

Simple explanation: becoming an agent of influence for Israel is the sure route to the sort of $$ you need to run a presidential campaign (unless you are already loaded like DT).

WorkingClass > , September 1, 2017 at 6:04 pm GMT

McStain is what he is. The real problem is the people who vote for him.

DB Cooper > , September 1, 2017 at 6:35 pm GMT

@Priss Factor I agree with Justin Raimondo that McCain's evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer ambition. People may argue that many of his policies are not populist, but that is precisely the point. His strategy is to strike out a different stance in order to differentiate himself from the many other politicians who have the same ambitions. Hillary Clinton's strategy is to be a populist, McCain's strategy is to be an anti-populist.

Priss Factor > , Website September 1, 2017 at 6:37 pm GMT

Antifa, McCain's latest basket case of 'freedom fighters'.

geokat62 > , September 1, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT

@WorkingClass McStain is what he is. The real problem is the people who vote for him.

The real problem is the people who vote for him.

What are the people to do when the senate passes 98-2 a resolution to impose sanctions on Iran, Russia, NK?

The real problem is the swamp and how to drain it.

It was encouraging to see that the most popular candidates from the two major parties during the previous presidential primaries were both putting forward policies that were against the status quo. And more and more people are beginning to realize the Luggenpresse of Weimerica is pumping out fake news. My prediction is the establishment will manage to remove trump either by impeachment or at the ballot box in 2020 and install one of their puppets who will resume their program of globalism (mass immigration, international trade agreements, and more regime change wars) to the point where things will become intolerably unbearable for the average American. Once that happens, the conditions will have been satisfied for the swamp draining to begin in earnest.

Bottom line: things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get any better.

[Aug 31, 2017] Direct attack on Tillerson by neocon mafia using WaPo as a loudspeaper by Daniel Drezner

Citing Max Boot instantly destroys any credibility of this "professor" and makes him more of hired gyun, then a political commentator. With experts like max boot the only question is why Wolfowitz in not the Secretary of state.
Neocons in State Department, like any powerful bureaucracy is going to fight tooth and nail to keep its size and turf. Drezner's just carrying water for the neocons at State.
Hired gun? From "He is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Project on International Order and Strategy at the Brookings Institution . [2] ". Drezner supported the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq , writing that "a successful invasion not only eliminates the Iraqi threat, but over the long run it reduces the Arab resentment that feeds Al-Qaeda." [5] he is also the author of Drezner, Daniel W. (March 1997). "Allies, adversaries, and economic coercion: Russian foreign economic policy since 1991" . Security Studies . Taylor and Francis . 6 (3): 65–111. doi : 10.1080/09636419708429315
He is a staunch support of American empire: Drezner, Daniel W. (January 2001). "State structure, technological leadership and the maintenance of hegemony" . Review of International Studies . Cambridge Journals . 27 (1): 3–25. JSTOR 20079588 . doi : 10.1017/S0260210501000031 .
As for State Department, all diplomats who signed infamous "color revolution" style letter in support of Hillary jingoism and neocon policies need to be eliminated from State Department if we wnat the USA survive and prosper. So Tillerson action are not enough. Much deeper shake up is needed by political forces for that are absent.
And Tilleson decision to spurned all of the Council on Foreign Relations' International Affairs Fellows (infested with neocons) is to be applauded, not scorned. Empire building should stop at some point. And the sooner, the better.
When reading comments you instantly understands why Washington is still an imperial capital... And why neocon will lead the USA off the cliff is given a chance. The level of coments has such an amazingly strong neocon tilt, that you can question sanity of some commenters. It also shows the level of McCarthyism hysteria in the USA. For example "raylo 3:08 PM EDT [Edited] It's like the Russians have moles in our government and are working to destroy it from the inside. Oh, wait"
As of preserving the hegemon position of the USA is a realistic perspective and will not destroy the USA or all the world, as this is forging alliance of the Russia and China among other trends. BTW I did not find a single instance of the words of "neocon", "Neoconservatism", and "neoliberalism" neither in the article, nor in the comments.
Notable quotes:
"... You wonks live with no consequences, watching the battle from a safe distance. Most of those high ranking diplomats who left or were forced out had aligned themselves with politicians long before Trump. ..."
"... Yup, the state department was a model agency before Tillerson arrived....what a joke....do these WAPO people even read their own drivel. ..."
"... If so, judging by today's headlines, I'm thinking President Putin's got buyer's remorse. ..."
"... The opposition to change is a hallmark of the Washington bureaucracy. Is anyone really surprised? ..."
Aug 31, 2017 | washingtonpost.com

Critics such as Max Boot are calling for him to resign. Axios is reporting that even President Trump is apparently disenchanted with Tillerson.

... ... ...

If Trump no longer trusts Tillerson, then he has no other political goodwill to draw upon. He has made zero deposits in Washington's favor bank.


Second, Tillerson has prioritized the reorganization of Foggy Bottom to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. This has led to some truly bizarre outcomes. His reliance on outside consultants has led to much derision within the diplomatic corps

Tillerson is such a bad manager that he has spurned both free money and free talent. The State Department has not spent $80 million authorized by Congress to fight misinformation and Russian propaganda. According to Politico, "Tillerson aide R.C. Hammond suggested the money is unwelcome because any extra funding for programs to counter Russian media influence would anger Moscow, according to a former senior State Department official." ( UPDATE: A State Department official wrote me after this post was published to say that last week, Tillerson approved the release of $19.8 million from that fund. Politico reported the same thing this afternoon, also after this was published.) Furthermore, State has spurned all of the Council on Foreign Relations' International Affairs Fellows . This is a program that makes talented scholars freely available to U.S. foreign affairs agencies for a year. Council president Richard Haass confirmed to me that State has not accepted any of this year's fellows, despite the fact that they come with zero cost.

dennis827, 7:30 PM EDT

So a professor of something or other says the previous CEO of Exxon is a bad manager? Yeah, makes sense.

dennis827, 8:22 PM EDT [Edited]

Tillerson is such a bad manager that he has spurned both free money and free talent. The State Department has not spent $80 million authorized by Congress to fight misinformation and Russian propaganda. According to Politico, "Tillerson aide R.C. Hammond suggested the money is unwelcome because any extra funding for programs to counter Russian media influence would anger Moscow, according to a former senior State Department official."

See, I don't think a professor understands a good manager doesn't understand "free" money isn't really a thing. And I suppose I'm using "A" professor kinda like Game of Thrones speak.

zappa912, 7:18 PM EDT

Ouch!!! I must say this though, even with my non-expert knowledge of the intracies of the operation of the State Department. If in reality, Tillerson is helping to keep Tweeter from pulling the military trigger against North Korea or other international adversaries, then I hope he at least stays around until Tweeter is gone from the Trump Dump House. Tillerson does appear to me to at least be working to keep us out of military conflicts, which considering the impulsiveness, intentional ignorance and frequent war like tone of the Tweeter, is a good thing in my opinion.

Isaac 65, 6:00 PM EDT

If a Trump sycophant had replaced Tillerson we'd probably be at war with DPRK. Seriously, list the sane people in the administration: Jim Mattis, Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and Rex Tillerson - did I miss any?

akpat, 5:48 PM EDT

Critics such as Max Boot are calling for him to resign
)))

Who is max boot and who cares what they think

akpat, 5:43 PM EDT

Well Drezner I dont think it was Tillertson who brought us Egypt, Libya and Syria nor was it him who brought Iraq, NK and Iran.

It was the other so called experts you like.

mmcind, 5:57 PM EDT

Actually, most of the significant increase in those problems can be traced to dick cheney, war criminal.

berrymonster11, 5:09 PM EDT

An honorable man, whose sense of duty, respect and patriotism was developed in an entire of life of service in the Boys Scouts. A successful businessman, who has led one the largest companies in the world, and who knows how to deal with all kinds of people. I thought Mr Tillerson would become a great Secretary of State.

What a disappointment!! Countless mistakes, from the very beginning.

On April 2017, the entire US-China relationship was defined at... Mar-a-Lago!!! The key points: the US would not start a trade war with China; in exchange, China would ease whatever problems Ivanka's business had over there... and try to talk to the North Koreans about their nuclear program. Period. The US went to that meeting completely unprepared, and ended up with nothing.

Then, the trip to Saudi Arabia. A yuuuuge embarrassment. The US threw all human values to the trash bin, in the name of business. Dirty business. At that moment, I realized Rex Tillerson was the either extremely stupid or extremely corrupt, or both.

Then, an endeless list of fiascos: NATO, the Paris agreement, Qatar, the surge in Afghanistan, and so on.

Finally, Tillerson tries to distance himself from Trump!!!! Hey, Rex: you negotiated the deal with the Saudis. What values are you talking about!!!!

Virginia Reader, 4:57 PM EDT

Tillerson is so bad that he makes Secretary Smoking Gun/Mushroom Cloud Rice look positively brilliant. Get rid of him.

But, you should look even more closely at the career civil servants in the Department. They have been sidelined over the last five years and replaced with senior foreign service officers with no places to go. That means that much of the institutional memory in highly technical fields such as arms control, export control, and economics has been forced out of the Truman Building.

It's not all Tillerson's fault, since it's a long-standing problem, but he is surely exacerbating it. It's already Time for Him to Go, to quote a Bill Clinton campaign slogan in 1992.

gregdn, 4:49 PM EDT

Every bureaucracy is going to fight to keep its size and turf. Drezner's just carrying water for the career guys at State.

jvv62, 5:33 PM EDT

(sarcasm trigger warning)
Nah, we have the biggest military in the world, why do we need people talking to all those little people in little countries with little problems? All those diplomats ever do is talk, talk, talk. We need more $100,000,000 planes and billion dollar carriers, not more talkers. Why bother with a staff and assistant secretaries anyway? they just make all those pesky lists and reply to calls from pesky people from foreign countries and stuff. America First!

James A. Fuller, 4:47 PM EDT

Replace "State Department" with the name of the company I work for and you get the exact same experience. I've lost count of how many consultants have been brought in, how many surveys we've had to complete and how many reorganizations we've been through in the last three years. Nothing has changed and nothing has gotten better. In fact, the opposite. The company is circling down the drain and senior leadership is disconnected and out of touch. So this is what you get when you bring in corporate America to run the government. SSDD.

Sutton Parker, 4:43 PM EDT

As much as he has not done good things for the State Department, at least he is not afraid to speak his mind about DJT--or at least, so far. We need voices in the Cabinet of people who are willing to speak up. The time has come. We are in too much danger with DJT in office.

Pogo4, 4:28 PM EDT [Edited]

In addition to his terrible management of State, Tillerson has been humiliated again and again by Trump -e.g. when Trump invited the Mexican Foreign Minister to DC and didn't even tell him or invite him to meet with his counterpart. He has no credibility internationally. He has been used as an errand boy to set up meetings for more important people.

I thought someone with his international experience would understand the value of diplomacy, but apparently not. Trump's biggest failing has been the unwillingness to focus on details and not asking for the interagency developed background, recommendations and talking points a real President would get.

That has led to numerous embarrassing mistakes including his first call to Pakstan, his first call to Australia, and congratulating Lebanese Prime Minister Harriri on his struggle against Hezbollah (not realizing that Hezbollah is a member of the coalition government in Lebanon).

Bannon wanted to destroy the US Government. What is Tillerson's excuse? He should resign.

aikawarazu, 5:40 PM EDT

Of course, Hillary Clinton would be better.

Hillary manipulated Putin into reversing his Security Council veto on multi-national sanctions on Iran's nuclear weapons program. As a result, Iran dumpstered their uranium centrifuges. Get back to us when Tillerson does anything comparable to that.

eduvina41, 4:21 PM EDT

He has tempered some of Trumps more outrageous comments.....

threesides, 4:00 PM EDT

Daniel, you have provided us your perspective as an unabashed progressive liberal, so no surprise you would be against anything trump-related (including Tillerson). You need to take deep breaths and mitigate your Trump Derangement Syndrome

BPerked, 3:50 PM EDT

I actually think the point IS to break the foreign service. His inaction is a passive-aggressive way of drastically reducing the size and cost of the agency he heads. He, like many other Trump appointees are doing a brilliant job in this respect.

And who can be surprised at his hiring outside consultants for everything? I've been in many large corporations (including as a consultant) and I've met very few CEOs who weren't trailing a few thirty-year-old Bain or McKinsey people around, fresh from their MBAs. That's what too many CEOs do. Come in, spend millions on consulting to basically come up with a new powerpoint org chart, layoff a few thousand, and then depart the company with millions in stock and cash. He's just following the mega-corp. playbook.

BarleyMalt, 3:50 PM EDT

Trump and diplomacy mix like oil and water. Take Trump out of the equation and then maybe someone could run the State Department.

kt, 3:37 PM EDT

You wonks live with no consequences, watching the battle from a safe distance. Most of those high ranking diplomats who left or were forced out had aligned themselves with politicians long before Trump. This Tillerson omelette may require a messy number of broken eggs, but it will leave the country with a truer diplomatic corps.

Susan Wood, 3:20 PM EDT

"Let's run X like a business!" Yeah, right. In higher education we've seen how that approach has gutted some of the finest research universities in the Midwest. For people who worship the infallibility of the free market and the great wisdom of businessmen, I have one word for you: Enron.

rdgolden, 3:36 PM EDT

Here's a two-word: two-word: Great Recession

padnactap92, 2:58 PM EDT

"Second, Tillerson has prioritized the reorganization of Foggy Bottom to the exclusion of pretty much everything else."
1. Reorganizing the deck chairs on the Dump-tanic.
2. "Dismantling the 'administrative state.'"

pragmatic dothraki, 2:15 PM EDT

i actually find myself disagreeing with the conclusion of this article. the writer is forgetting one important proviso - this is the Trump administration and Tillerson is better than most we can expect.

A replacement would just continue the litany of disappointment for the time taken to settle into office, it may get worse afterwards. that is important to remember and something that'll no doubt be on my tombstone - things can always get worse.

And i'm not a fan of companies whose income dwarfs that of many nations, especially Exxon-Mobil.

But Tillerson is a facts and figures kind of guy used to working with experts. Unlike many potential replacements who disavow anything factual they're not comfortable with (yes, Exxon changed their tune on warming).

Russpublicans are traitors, 2:19 PM EDT

Oil companies are not typically businesses. Tillerson is not a facts and figures guy. He is comfortable around dictators from 3rd world countries.

pragmatic dothraki, 2:21 PM EDT

he is a facts and figures guy as he deals with scientists and engineers at every level in an oil company. and yeah you're not wrong with the cozying.

timetogetreal , 2:06 PM EDT

Yup, the state department was a model agency before Tillerson arrived....what a joke....do these WAPO people even read their own drivel.

jagrmeister721 , 2:04 PM EDT

Not well written or persuasive. Of course career bureaucrats would object to hiring external consultants. And not spending money is only a sin to DC insiders. He's unremarkable, but he's done nothing to warrant termination.

Russpublicans are traitors, 2:01 PM EDT

I am not sure how many times I need to say this...

The "election" was a coup d'etat orchestrated by Putin and the Kremlin. They have an installed a band of mentally ill criminals in government whose marching orders are to weaken the US and diminish its influence in the world. They have found a willing vehicle in the trump and the republican party. Tillerson is just one more piece of the machine...same as Bannon, Sessions, Pence, Flynn, Miller, Gorka, Conway, Sanders, Pruitt, Haley, De Vos, etc...

He will not resign. He is doing what the Russians want him to do. He has a medal pinned on him from Putin himself. And after the meddling in the election he has NOT RETURNED his medal.

JeffZaun , 2:03 PM EDT

If so, judging by today's headlines, I'm thinking President Putin's got buyer's remorse.

GrumpyOldPhart , 2:33 PM EDT [Edited]

Sigh... @Russpublicans are traitors you're living proof that even liberals are prone to conspiracy theories worthy of publication by InfoWARS and Breitbart.

The Russians did a lot of propagandizing--that's absolutely clear. That propaganda probably helped swing some votes Trump's way. And the Russians also clearly put out feelers to see how much they could manipulate and/or compromise the Trump gov't. But "coup d'etat"? Seriously? Bud, you should invest in a better brand of tinfoil.

Six things have contributed to making the US the mess that it is today and ALL of those things are 100% home-grown American. No Russia involved.

1) Greed. Corporate greed. And individual greed, especially among the so-called 1%.

2) Lack of education. This is particularly acute among the grade school through high school years. This leads to obsessive levels of asinine bible banging and science denying, as well as an inability to grasp the concepts of fact and reality.

3) Bigotry. Every country has its bigots, racists, and nativists. America arguably has more than most other leading nations of the world. And it's more actively on display. This shows up in the paranoia about gun ownership, the numbers of guns, the fight over America's racist past, and the abject fear that seems to dominate so many American's psyches and lives.

4) Antiquated electoral system. The Electoral College has long outlived its purpose. It now contributes significantly to giving unjustified power to the lowest population areas of the country.

5) Gerrymandering. Done by both parties, although arguably Republicans have taken this from an art form and turned it into science.

6) Republican voter suppression. One needs look only at Texas and North Carolina to see what this means in action. Florida would appear to be a close third.

Thomas29, 2:25 PM EDT

This is not the only instance of an administration who seems to be appointing people to fight or weaken their own agencies. To some extent, this follows the anti-government appointments in the Bush years where people with little belief or interest in agencies and their missions were routinely sent there to reign them in. However, the Bush people understood the role of the State Department and the need for it to function in the national interest. This administration appears to be following a Putin foreign policy designed to weaken America's reach in the world in the interest of strengthening Russian power and influence. Once again, the big question is where is Congressional oversight? Besides a few outspoken Senators, there are many patriots who for reasons of support of the President or fear of the base have chosen to allow this "American Carnage" to continue. They should be ashamed!

Empiricist, 1:56 PM EDT

A major problem is that the rest of the Republican party just lies around letting Tillerson and Trump do this to our country. I have voted for various Republicans in the past, but I'll never vote for another as long as I live. What they are doing to our country makes me sick.

blurbologist, 2:00 PM EDT

Hear, hear. I will never trust Republicans to do anything constructive for our country, ever again. They have become a wholly destructive force in American politics. It's not that the R's are putting "Party over country" they put maintaining their power over every other consideration. Shameful.

JaneMP, 2:05 PM EDT

They have only one policy: cut taxes for the rich and corporations. IF cutting taxes on the rich and corporation increased jobs, after W's tax cuts we should have been overwhelmed by jobs. Never happened. Never will. Give money to the middle class. They will spend it. Jobs will grow to make and sell these products.

blurbologist, 2:07 PM EDT

Actually, they have one more - deregulate everything and put foxes in charge of every henhouse.

Empiricist, 2:01 PM EDT

So true. You can't count on the Republican Senate or Congress to behave competently or in the best interests of the US, either.

mercurysnake77, 1:56 PM EDT

Let's not forget the ultimate aim, which is "the deconstruction of the administrative state."

8675309 and me, 1:50 PM EDT

The opposition to change is a hallmark of the Washington bureaucracy. Is anyone really surprised?

ChrisCantwellsDeliciousTears, 1:53 PM EDT

Who knew everything was so complicated?

JeffZaun, 1:59 PM EDT

Have to agree. I think the Trump administration is mostly bad. But in this case Secretary Tillerson is executing one of the President's campaign promises. He seems to be cutting a lot of sinew along with fat, but it's easy to grow that back.

It's like when a private equity company takes over a failed firm.

[Aug 31, 2017] Direct attack on Tillerson by neocon mafia using WaPo as a loudspeaper by Daniel Drezner

Citing Max Boot instantly destroys any credibility of this "professor" and makes him more of hired gyun, then a political commentator. With experts like max boot the only question is why Wolfowitz in not the Secretary of state.
Neocons in State Department, like any powerful bureaucracy is going to fight tooth and nail to keep its size and turf. Drezner's just carrying water for the neocons at State.
Hired gun? From "He is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Project on International Order and Strategy at the Brookings Institution.[2]". Drezner supported the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, writing that "a successful invasion not only eliminates the Iraqi threat, but over the long run it reduces the Arab resentment that feeds Al-Qaeda." [5] he is also the author of Drezner, Daniel W. (March 1997). "Allies, adversaries, and economic coercion: Russian foreign economic policy since 1991". Security Studies. Taylor and Francis. 6 (3): 65–111. doi:10.1080/09636419708429315
He is a staunch support of American empire: Drezner, Daniel W. (January 2001). "State structure, technological leadership and the maintenance of hegemony". Review of International Studies. Cambridge Journals. 27 (1): 3–25. JSTOR 20079588. doi:10.1017/S0260210501000031.
As for State Department, all diplomats who signed infamous "color revolution" style letter in support of Hillary jingoism and neocon policies need to be eliminated from State Department if we wnat the USA survive and prosper. So Tillerson action are not enough. Much deeper shake up is needed by political forces for that are absent.
And Tilleson decision to spurned all of the Council on Foreign Relations' International Affairs Fellows (infested with neocons) is to be applauded, not scorned. Empire building should stop at some point. And the sooner, the better.
When reading comments you instantly understands why Washington is still an imperial capital... And why neocon will lead the USA off the cliff is given a chance. The level of coments has such an amazingly strong neocon tilt, that you can question sanity of some commenters. It also shows the level of McCarthyism hysteria in the USA. For example "raylo 3:08 PM EDT [Edited] It's like the Russians have moles in our government and are working to destroy it from the inside. Oh, wait"
As of preserving the hegemon position of the USA is a realistic perspective and will not destroy the USA or all the world, as this is forging alliance of the Russia and China among other trends. BTW I did not find a single instance of the words of "neocon", "Neoconservatism", and "neoliberalism" neither in the article, nor in the comments.
Notable quotes:
"... You wonks live with no consequences, watching the battle from a safe distance. Most of those high ranking diplomats who left or were forced out had aligned themselves with politicians long before Trump. ..."
"... Yup, the state department was a model agency before Tillerson arrived....what a joke....do these WAPO people even read their own drivel. ..."
"... If so, judging by today's headlines, I'm thinking President Putin's got buyer's remorse. ..."
"... The opposition to change is a hallmark of the Washington bureaucracy. Is anyone really surprised? ..."
get=

Critics such as Max Boot are calling for him to resign. Axios is reporting that even President Trump is apparently disenchanted with Tillerson.

... ... ...

If Trump no longer trusts Tillerson, then he has no other political goodwill to draw upon. He has made zero deposits in Washington's favor bank.


Second, Tillerson has prioritized the reorganization of Foggy Bottom to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. This has led to some truly bizarre outcomes. His reliance on outside consultants has led to much derision within the diplomatic corps

Tillerson is such a bad manager that he has spurned both free money and free talent. The State Department has not spent $80 million authorized by Congress to fight misinformation and Russian propaganda. According to Politico, "Tillerson aide R.C. Hammond suggested the money is unwelcome because any extra funding for programs to counter Russian media influence would anger Moscow, according to a former senior State Department official." (UPDATE: A State Department official wrote me after this post was published to say that last week, Tillerson approved the release of $19.8 million from that fund. Politico reported the same thing this afternoon, also after this was published.) Furthermore, State has spurned all of the Council on Foreign Relations' International Affairs Fellows. This is a program that makes talented scholars freely available to U.S. foreign affairs agencies for a year. Council president Richard Haass confirmed to me that State has not accepted any of this year's fellows, despite the fact that they come with zero cost.

dennis827, 7:30 PM EDT

So a professor of something or other says the previous CEO of Exxon is a bad manager? Yeah, makes sense.

dennis827, 8:22 PM EDT [Edited]

Tillerson is such a bad manager that he has spurned both free money and free talent. The State Department has not spent $80 million authorized by Congress to fight misinformation and Russian propaganda. According to Politico, "Tillerson aide R.C. Hammond suggested the money is unwelcome because any extra funding for programs to counter Russian media influence would anger Moscow, according to a former senior State Department official."

See, I don't think a professor understands a good manager doesn't understand "free" money isn't really a thing. And I suppose I'm using "A" professor kinda like Game of Thrones speak.

zappa912, 7:18 PM EDT

Ouch!!! I must say this though, even with my non-expert knowledge of the intracies of the operation of the State Department. If in reality, Tillerson is helping to keep Tweeter from pulling the military trigger against North Korea or other international adversaries, then I hope he at least stays around until Tweeter is gone from the Trump Dump House. Tillerson does appear to me to at least be working to keep us out of military conflicts, which considering the impulsiveness, intentional ignorance and frequent war like tone of the Tweeter, is a good thing in my opinion.

Isaac 65, 6:00 PM EDT

If a Trump sycophant had replaced Tillerson we'd probably be at war with DPRK. Seriously, list the sane people in the administration: Jim Mattis, Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and Rex Tillerson - did I miss any?

akpat, 5:48 PM EDT

Critics such as Max Boot are calling for him to resign
)))

Who is max boot and who cares what they think

akpat, 5:43 PM EDT

Well Drezner I dont think it was Tillertson who brought us Egypt, Libya and Syria nor was it him who brought Iraq, NK and Iran.

It was the other so called experts you like.

mmcind, 5:57 PM EDT

Actually, most of the significant increase in those problems can be traced to dick cheney, war criminal.

berrymonster11, 5:09 PM EDT

An honorable man, whose sense of duty, respect and patriotism was developed in an entire of life of service in the Boys Scouts. A successful businessman, who has led one the largest companies in the world, and who knows how to deal with all kinds of people. I thought Mr Tillerson would become a great Secretary of State.

What a disappointment!! Countless mistakes, from the very beginning.

On April 2017, the entire US-China relationship was defined at... Mar-a-Lago!!! The key points: the US would not start a trade war with China; in exchange, China would ease whatever problems Ivanka's business had over there... and try to talk to the North Koreans about their nuclear program. Period. The US went to that meeting completely unprepared, and ended up with nothing.

Then, the trip to Saudi Arabia. A yuuuuge embarrassment. The US threw all human values to the trash bin, in the name of business. Dirty business. At that moment, I realized Rex Tillerson was the either extremely stupid or extremely corrupt, or both.

Then, an endeless list of fiascos: NATO, the Paris agreement, Qatar, the surge in Afghanistan, and so on.

Finally, Tillerson tries to distance himself from Trump!!!! Hey, Rex: you negotiated the deal with the Saudis. What values are you talking about!!!!

Virginia Reader, 4:57 PM EDT

Tillerson is so bad that he makes Secretary Smoking Gun/Mushroom Cloud Rice look positively brilliant. Get rid of him.

But, you should look even more closely at the career civil servants in the Department. They have been sidelined over the last five years and replaced with senior foreign service officers with no places to go. That means that much of the institutional memory in highly technical fields such as arms control, export control, and economics has been forced out of the Truman Building.

It's not all Tillerson's fault, since it's a long-standing problem, but he is surely exacerbating it. It's already Time for Him to Go, to quote a Bill Clinton campaign slogan in 1992.

gregdn, 4:49 PM EDT

Every bureaucracy is going to fight to keep its size and turf. Drezner's just carrying water for the career guys at State.

jvv62, 5:33 PM EDT

(sarcasm trigger warning)
Nah, we have the biggest military in the world, why do we need people talking to all those little people in little countries with little problems? All those diplomats ever do is talk, talk, talk. We need more $100,000,000 planes and billion dollar carriers, not more talkers. Why bother with a staff and assistant secretaries anyway? they just make all those pesky lists and reply to calls from pesky people from foreign countries and stuff. America First!

James A. Fuller, 4:47 PM EDT

Replace "State Department" with the name of the company I work for and you get the exact same experience. I've lost count of how many consultants have been brought in, how many surveys we've had to complete and how many reorganizations we've been through in the last three years. Nothing has changed and nothing has gotten better. In fact, the opposite. The company is circling down the drain and senior leadership is disconnected and out of touch. So this is what you get when you bring in corporate America to run the government. SSDD.

Sutton Parker, 4:43 PM EDT

As much as he has not done good things for the State Department, at least he is not afraid to speak his mind about DJT--or at least, so far. We need voices in the Cabinet of people who are willing to speak up. The time has come. We are in too much danger with DJT in office.

Pogo4, 4:28 PM EDT [Edited]

In addition to his terrible management of State, Tillerson has been humiliated again and again by Trump -e.g. when Trump invited the Mexican Foreign Minister to DC and didn't even tell him or invite him to meet with his counterpart. He has no credibility internationally. He has been used as an errand boy to set up meetings for more important people.

I thought someone with his international experience would understand the value of diplomacy, but apparently not. Trump's biggest failing has been the unwillingness to focus on details and not asking for the interagency developed background, recommendations and talking points a real President would get.

That has led to numerous embarrassing mistakes including his first call to Pakstan, his first call to Australia, and congratulating Lebanese Prime Minister Harriri on his struggle against Hezbollah (not realizing that Hezbollah is a member of the coalition government in Lebanon).

Bannon wanted to destroy the US Government. What is Tillerson's excuse? He should resign.

aikawarazu, 5:40 PM EDT

Of course, Hillary Clinton would be better.

Hillary manipulated Putin into reversing his Security Council veto on multi-national sanctions on Iran's nuclear weapons program. As a result, Iran dumpstered their uranium centrifuges. Get back to us when Tillerson does anything comparable to that.

eduvina41, 4:21 PM EDT

He has tempered some of Trumps more outrageous comments.....

threesides, 4:00 PM EDT

Daniel, you have provided us your perspective as an unabashed progressive liberal, so no surprise you would be against anything trump-related (including Tillerson). You need to take deep breaths and mitigate your Trump Derangement Syndrome

BPerked, 3:50 PM EDT

I actually think the point IS to break the foreign service. His inaction is a passive-aggressive way of drastically reducing the size and cost of the agency he heads. He, like many other Trump appointees are doing a brilliant job in this respect.

And who can be surprised at his hiring outside consultants for everything? I've been in many large corporations (including as a consultant) and I've met very few CEOs who weren't trailing a few thirty-year-old Bain or McKinsey people around, fresh from their MBAs. That's what too many CEOs do. Come in, spend millions on consulting to basically come up with a new powerpoint org chart, layoff a few thousand, and then depart the company with millions in stock and cash. He's just following the mega-corp. playbook.

BarleyMalt, 3:50 PM EDT

Trump and diplomacy mix like oil and water. Take Trump out of the equation and then maybe someone could run the State Department.

kt, 3:37 PM EDT

You wonks live with no consequences, watching the battle from a safe distance. Most of those high ranking diplomats who left or were forced out had aligned themselves with politicians long before Trump. This Tillerson omelette may require a messy number of broken eggs, but it will leave the country with a truer diplomatic corps.

Susan Wood, 3:20 PM EDT

"Let's run X like a business!" Yeah, right. In higher education we've seen how that approach has gutted some of the finest research universities in the Midwest. For people who worship the infallibility of the free market and the great wisdom of businessmen, I have one word for you: Enron.

rdgolden, 3:36 PM EDT

Here's a two-word: two-word: Great Recession

padnactap92, 2:58 PM EDT

"Second, Tillerson has prioritized the reorganization of Foggy Bottom to the exclusion of pretty much everything else."
1. Reorganizing the deck chairs on the Dump-tanic.
2. "Dismantling the 'administrative state.'"

pragmatic dothraki, 2:15 PM EDT

i actually find myself disagreeing with the conclusion of this article. the writer is forgetting one important proviso - this is the Trump administration and Tillerson is better than most we can expect.

A replacement would just continue the litany of disappointment for the time taken to settle into office, it may get worse afterwards. that is important to remember and something that'll no doubt be on my tombstone - things can always get worse.

And i'm not a fan of companies whose income dwarfs that of many nations, especially Exxon-Mobil.

But Tillerson is a facts and figures kind of guy used to working with experts. Unlike many potential replacements who disavow anything factual they're not comfortable with (yes, Exxon changed their tune on warming).

Russpublicans are traitors, 2:19 PM EDT

Oil companies are not typically businesses. Tillerson is not a facts and figures guy. He is comfortable around dictators from 3rd world countries.

pragmatic dothraki, 2:21 PM EDT

he is a facts and figures guy as he deals with scientists and engineers at every level in an oil company. and yeah you're not wrong with the cozying.

timetogetreal, 2:06 PM EDT

Yup, the state department was a model agency before Tillerson arrived....what a joke....do these WAPO people even read their own drivel.

jagrmeister721, 2:04 PM EDT

Not well written or persuasive. Of course career bureaucrats would object to hiring external consultants. And not spending money is only a sin to DC insiders. He's unremarkable, but he's done nothing to warrant termination.

Russpublicans are traitors, 2:01 PM EDT

I am not sure how many times I need to say this...

The "election" was a coup d'etat orchestrated by Putin and the Kremlin. They have an installed a band of mentally ill criminals in government whose marching orders are to weaken the US and diminish its influence in the world. They have found a willing vehicle in the trump and the republican party. Tillerson is just one more piece of the machine...same as Bannon, Sessions, Pence, Flynn, Miller, Gorka, Conway, Sanders, Pruitt, Haley, De Vos, etc...

He will not resign. He is doing what the Russians want him to do. He has a medal pinned on him from Putin himself. And after the meddling in the election he has NOT RETURNED his medal.

JeffZaun, 2:03 PM EDT

If so, judging by today's headlines, I'm thinking President Putin's got buyer's remorse.

GrumpyOldPhart, 2:33 PM EDT [Edited]

Sigh... @Russpublicans are traitors you're living proof that even liberals are prone to conspiracy theories worthy of publication by InfoWARS and Breitbart.

The Russians did a lot of propagandizing--that's absolutely clear. That propaganda probably helped swing some votes Trump's way. And the Russians also clearly put out feelers to see how much they could manipulate and/or compromise the Trump gov't. But "coup d'etat"? Seriously? Bud, you should invest in a better brand of tinfoil.

Six things have contributed to making the US the mess that it is today and ALL of those things are 100% home-grown American. No Russia involved.

1) Greed. Corporate greed. And individual greed, especially among the so-called 1%.

2) Lack of education. This is particularly acute among the grade school through high school years. This leads to obsessive levels of asinine bible banging and science denying, as well as an inability to grasp the concepts of fact and reality.

3) Bigotry. Every country has its bigots, racists, and nativists. America arguably has more than most other leading nations of the world. And it's more actively on display. This shows up in the paranoia about gun ownership, the numbers of guns, the fight over America's racist past, and the abject fear that seems to dominate so many American's psyches and lives.

4) Antiquated electoral system. The Electoral College has long outlived its purpose. It now contributes significantly to giving unjustified power to the lowest population areas of the country.

5) Gerrymandering. Done by both parties, although arguably Republicans have taken this from an art form and turned it into science.

6) Republican voter suppression. One needs look only at Texas and North Carolina to see what this means in action. Florida would appear to be a close third.

Thomas29, 2:25 PM EDT

This is not the only instance of an administration who seems to be appointing people to fight or weaken their own agencies. To some extent, this follows the anti-government appointments in the Bush years where people with little belief or interest in agencies and their missions were routinely sent there to reign them in. However, the Bush people understood the role of the State Department and the need for it to function in the national interest. This administration appears to be following a Putin foreign policy designed to weaken America's reach in the world in the interest of strengthening Russian power and influence. Once again, the big question is where is Congressional oversight? Besides a few outspoken Senators, there are many patriots who for reasons of support of the President or fear of the base have chosen to allow this "American Carnage" to continue. They should be ashamed!

Empiricist, 1:56 PM EDT

A major problem is that the rest of the Republican party just lies around letting Tillerson and Trump do this to our country. I have voted for various Republicans in the past, but I'll never vote for another as long as I live. What they are doing to our country makes me sick.

blurbologist, 2:00 PM EDT

Hear, hear. I will never trust Republicans to do anything constructive for our country, ever again. They have become a wholly destructive force in American politics. It's not that the R's are putting "Party over country" they put maintaining their power over every other consideration. Shameful.

JaneMP, 2:05 PM EDT

They have only one policy: cut taxes for the rich and corporations. IF cutting taxes on the rich and corporation increased jobs, after W's tax cuts we should have been overwhelmed by jobs. Never happened. Never will. Give money to the middle class. They will spend it. Jobs will grow to make and sell these products.

blurbologist, 2:07 PM EDT

Actually, they have one more - deregulate everything and put foxes in charge of every henhouse.

Empiricist, 2:01 PM EDT

So true. You can't count on the Republican Senate or Congress to behave competently or in the best interests of the US, either.

mercurysnake77, 1:56 PM EDT

Let's not forget the ultimate aim, which is "the deconstruction of the administrative state."

8675309 and me, 1:50 PM EDT

The opposition to change is a hallmark of the Washington bureaucracy. Is anyone really surprised?

ChrisCantwellsDeliciousTears, 1:53 PM EDT

Who knew everything was so complicated?

JeffZaun, 1:59 PM EDT

Have to agree. I think the Trump administration is mostly bad. But in this case Secretary Tillerson is executing one of the President's campaign promises. He seems to be cutting a lot of sinew along with fat, but it's easy to grow that back.

It's like when a private equity company takes over a failed firm.

[Aug 30, 2017] Weather Underground Members Speak Out on the Media, Imperialism and Solidarity in the Age of Trump

Highly recommended!
This is way too simplistic interpretation of the events, but still she shed a light on the problems of anti war movement in the USA. As sson as soch movemetn grow to represnt a threat to status wquo they instantly get in cross hears of intelligence agencies. Arrests follow.
Bill Ayers part is better and he managed to land a couple of quotes with rather deep observations about the nature of the problems with the US media.
Notable quotes:
"... UnAmerican Activities ..."
"... "Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous: the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense of freedom and democracy." ..."
"... "The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing its efforts and turning reality on its head." ..."
"... The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan ..."
"... Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq ..."
"... The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible ..."
Aug 30, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

... ... ...

In 1970, the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), a group that emerged out of Students for a Democratic Society, issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the US government, and shortly thereafter began carrying out bombings against symbols of US Empire, including even the Pentagon itself. Targeting mostly government buildings and several banks -- and taking care not to injure human beings -- the actions were designed to "bring the war home" in order to highlight imperial injustices against the oppressed, and the egregious violence of US imperialism.

... ... ...

"[The Media's role was] so important that the US military learned to never again allow independent journalists into their war zones," Dohrn explained. "[Significantly], the mainstream media never again allowed images of human people, families, women or children who suffer the consequences of US bombings or invasions."

With the dominant media avoiding these responsibilities, one of the many roles the WUO played was, according to Dohrn, to communicate to the public the ways in which people, cultures and whole civilizations were suffering under US air strikes and CIA repression.

"The media was plenty corporatized during the '60s and '70s, and it was the anti-war movement in concert with the Black Freedom Movement and the returning vets who changed the hearts and minds of the US people from 1965-1968," she said.

WUO member David Gilbert told Truthout he believes it was the strength of the anti-war movement, and the US losses in Vietnam, that finally pushed sectors of the media to start reporting some of the truth about the war.

He echoes Dohrn's point that the media was already corporatized back then (though the conglomerates were not nearly as large as they are today), and the pro-war bias of the media was just as real as it is now.

"An example was the use of napalm bombs, designed to cling to and burn through flesh, on civilians," Gilbert said. "The mainstream media completely whited-out these horrible war crimes."

In fact, in January 1967 a radical magazine, Ramparts, published a series of color photos of children and babies burned by napalm.

"That's the point when some of us became absolutely frantic to stop the war," Gilbert said. "But it also exposed the mainstream media for what they were covering up."

According to Gilbert, by 1967 a whole network of small radical papers had a combined readership of roughly 6 million, making up a crucial wing of the movement. Of course, it was therefore ripe for targeting by intelligence agencies.

"An important part of the FBI and police offensive to beat the radical movements was to destroy the radical media, a campaign that's detailed in Geoffrey Rips's UnAmerican Activities ," he said.

By the late '60s, largely due to constant pressure from the increasingly powerful anti-war movement, portions of the media started to come around to presenting some of the realities of the Vietnam War. Plus, by then, it was clear the US was likely going to lose the war, US brutality abroad was being exposed to the world, and the political upheaval on the home front was becoming white hot.

Gilbert went on to explain how, then as now, "The hawks waged a concerted campaign to blame that on 'the liberal media,' to the point that this lie has become accepted today."

At that time, the myth of the "liberal media" accomplished several things for the right wing, according to Gilbert. "It's covered up the truth that the US military machine was defeated by a Global South nation, it's convinced the public that the 'truth lies somewhere in between' the hawks and the media, when in fact the media didn't do nearly enough to expose the injustice and horrors of the war, and it's intimidated the media, which fell into line as pure propaganda organs in subsequent wars."

Naomi Jaffe, one of the WUO's founding members who joined in solidarity with movements for Black self-determination, agreed with Gilbert in that pressure from the anti-war movement was a leading factor that pushed the media to share more images of the war. However, she was quite critical of the overall role the media played during Vietnam.

"Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Not a hint of independent reporting ever questioned it until long after the war was over," Jaffe told Truthout. "The body counts? Regular reports of how the US was winning by killing more 'Viet Cong' every week than could possibly have existed overall."

Bill Ayers, who is married to Dohrn, was also a leader and cofounder of the WUO.

"Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous: the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense of freedom and democracy."

For example, Ayers says, the New York Times announced that it saw the "light at the end of the tunnel" -- the turning point when the war would at long last be turned around and won -- days before the decisive defeat during the Tet Offensive in 1968. In 1966, Walter Cronkite, CBS anchor and the most trusted journalist of his generation, presented a fawning interview with the puppet and fascist Nguyen Cao Ky and called him the George Washington of Viet Nam.

"The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing its efforts and turning reality on its head."

Ayers said it wasn't the media that played a role in helping end the war in Vietnam, it was, by far, the decisive actions of the Vietnamese people themselves "in defeating the most potent military force on earth." He pointed out, "Vietnam was engaged in an authentic social revolution, deep and broad, in which peasants and workers were massively engaged in the overthrow of colonialism and foreign control as well as feudal relationships and capitalism itself."

Moreover, Ayers said, this revolution was part of "the anti-colonial and Third World moment, a context that allowed us to understand the revolution in Vietnam as part of a world phenomenon sweeping from South Africa to Egypt to Chile to Indonesia."

He also pointed to "the important role of the underground -- popular or alternative or movement -- press in the US, and its ability to tap international sources like the Cuban media, for example, to uncover the truth of events."

He sees the typical narrative -- the idea that the military draft made the war real in the eyes of the US public, and the media cemented that reality, helping to end the war -- as skewed. It "buys into a simplistic and largely self-serving explanation," Ayers said. "The Vietnamese revolution and war resistance at home impacted the media coverage, not the other way around."

... ... ... DAHR JAMAIL

Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan (Haymarket Books, 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last 10 years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, among other awards.

His third book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible , co-written with William Rivers Pitt , is available now on Amazon.

Dahr Jamail is also the author of the book, The End of Ice , forthcoming from The New Press. He lives and works in Washington State.

[Aug 30, 2017] Selected quotes from antiwar.com

Notable quotes:
"... In war, truth is the first casualty. ..."
"... The great armies, accumulated to provide security and preserve the peace, carried the nations to war by their own weight ..."
"... Force always attracts men of low morality ..."
"... The slightest acquaintance with history shows that powerful republics are the most warlike and unscrupulous of nations. ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

Below is a listing of the quotes you see displayed on all Antiwar.com pages. .

  1. History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. ~Abba Eban About the quote: Israeli diplomat (1915-2002)

  2. Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both. ~Abraham Flexner

  3. Force is all-conquering, but its victories are short-lived. ~Abraham Lincoln
  4. I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends. ~Abraham Lincoln
  5. America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. ~Abraham Lincoln
  6. We must recognize the chief characteristic of the modern era -- a permanent state of what I call violent peace. ~Admiral James D. Watkins
  7. Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. ~Adolph Hitler
  8. In war, truth is the first casualty. ~Aeschylus
  9. Any excuse will serve a tyrant. ~Aesop
  10. One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one. ~Agatha Christie
  11. The great armies, accumulated to provide security and preserve the peace, carried the nations to war by their own weight. ~A. J. P. Taylor
  12. No matter what political reasons are given for war, the underlying reason is always economic. ~A. J. P. Taylor
  13. Wars based on principle are far more destructive... the attacker will not destroy that which he is after. ~Alan Watts About the quote: from the book "The Way of Zen"
  14. We used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives...inside ourselves. ~Albert Camus

  15. When a war breaks out, people say: "It's too stupid, it can't last long." But though a war may be "too stupid," that doesn't prevent its lasting. ~Albert Camus
  16. The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants. ~Albert Camus
  17. Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. ~Albert Einstein
  18. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. ~Albert Einstein
  19. The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one. ~Albert Einstein
  20. Force always attracts men of low morality. ~Albert Einstein
  21. Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. ~Albert Einstein
  22. The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. ~Albert Einstein
  23. It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. ~Albert J. Nock
  24. What is absurd and monstrous about war is that men who have no personal quarrel should be trained to murder one another in cold blood. ~Aldous Huxley
  25. Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
  26. The next war ... may well bury Western civilization forever. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
  27. Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
  28. The demands of internal growth are incomparably more important to us...than the need for any external expansion of our power. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
  29. Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
  30. War paralyzes your courage and deadens the spirit of true manhood. ~Alexander Berkman
  31. Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. ~Alexander Hamilton
  32. O peace! how many wars were waged in thy name. ~Alexander Pope
  33. All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it. ~Alexis de Tocqueville
  34. Our modern states are preparing for war without even knowing the future enemy. ~Alfred Adler
  35. War is organized murder and torture against our brothers. ~Alfred Adler
  36. Our modern states are preparing for war without even knowing the future enemy. ~Alfred Adler
  37. War is not the continuation of politics with different means, it is the greatest mass-crime perpetrated on the community of man. ~Alfred Adler
  38. At least we're getting the kind of experience we need for the next war. ~Allen Dulles
  39. The slightest acquaintance with history shows that powerful republics are the most warlike and unscrupulous of nations. ~Ambrose Bierce
  40. Since the end of the World War II, the United States has fought three "small" wars...we lost all three of them and for the same reason--hubris. ~Andrew Greely About the quote: Andrew Greely is a columnist at the Chicago Sun-Times. You can read his articles at http://www.suntimes.com/index/greeley.html
  41. Today the real test of power is not capacity to make war but capacity to prevent it. ~Anne O'Hare McCormick
  42. A great war leaves a country with three armies: an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves. ~Anonymous (German) About the quote: (quote from 'The Anti-War Quote Book,' edited Eric Groves, Sr., pub. Quirk Books, 2008)
  43. Brute force is not our salvation, especially as directed by State central planning and done with little regard for the innocents... ~Anthony Gregory About the quote: Anthony Gregory is a writer and musician from Berkeley, CA. You can read his articles at www.lewrockwell.com About the quote: Anthony Gregory is a writer and musician from Berkeley, CA. You can read his articles at www.lewrockwell.com War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. ~Antoine De Saint-Exupery
  44. Make wars unprofitable and you make them impossible. ~A. Philip Randolph About the quote: Randolph (1889-1979) was an African American civil rights leader. (quote from 'The Anti-War Quote Book,' edited Eric Groves, Sr., pub. Quirk Books, 2008)
  45. Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor. ~A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"
  46. Old men declare war because they have failed to solve complex political and economic problems. ~Arthur Hoppe About the quote: Hoppe (1925-2000) was an American writer. (quote from 'The Anti-War Quote Book,' edited Eric Groves, Sr., pub. Quirk Books, 2008)
  47. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~Arthur Schopenhauer
  48. Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths...I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? ~Barbara Bush About the quote: Mrs. Bush spoke these words on ABC's "Good Morning America," March 18, 2003.
  49. No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots. ~Barbara Ehrenreich
  50. War is the unfolding of miscalculations. ~Barbara Tuchman
  51. You've got to forget about this civilian. Whenever you drop bombs, you're going to hit civilians. ~Barry Goldwater
  52. The world cannot continue to wage war like physical giants and to seek peace like intellectual pygmies. ~Basil O'Connor
  53. War is never a solution; it is an aggravation. ~Benjamin Disraeli
  54. There never was a good war or a bad peace. ~Benjamin Franklin
  55. All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones. ~Benjamin Franklin
  56. When will mankind be convinced and agree to settle their difficulties by arbitration? ~Benjamin Franklin
  57. I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats... ~Benjamin Franklin
  58. Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
  59. We Americans have no commission from God to police the world. ~Benjamin Harrison About the quote: from an 1888 address to Congress
  60. The Atomic Age is here to stay-- but are we? ~Bennett Cerf
  61. Let us not deceive ourselves; we must elect world peace or world destruction. ~Bernard M. Baruch
  62. War does not determine who is right, only who is left. ~Bertrand Russell
  63. Can anything be more ridiculous than that a man has a right to kill me because he lives on the other side of the water, and because his ruler has quarrel with mine, although I have none with him? ~Blaise Pascal
  64. The terrorist is the one with the small bomb. ~Brendan Behan
  65. After each war there is a little less democracy left to save. ~Brooks Atkinson About the quote: Atkinson was an American journalist who lived from 1864-1984. (quote from 'The Anti-War Quote Book,' edited Eric Groves, Sr., pub. Quirk Books, 2008)
  66. Blind faith in your leaders or in anything will get you killed. ~Bruce Springsteen About the quote: This was part of Springsteen's introduction to his 1985 version of Edwin Starr's song 'War.' In this war – as in others – I am less interested in honoring the dead than in preventing the dead. ~Butler Shaffer
  67. No nation ever had an army large enough to guarantee it against attack in time of peace, or ensure it of victory in time of war. ~Calvin Coolidge
  68. The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes. ~Carl P. G. von Clausewitz
  69. War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means. ~Carl P. G. von Clausewitz
  70. Politics is the womb in which war develops. ~Carl P. G. von Clausewitz
  71. The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. ~Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu About the quote: from "The Spirit of Laws" (1748)
  72. The voice of protest...is never more needed than when the clamor of fife and drum...is bidding all men...obey in silence the tyrannous word of command. ~Charles Eliot Norton
  73. If a war be undertaken...before the resources of peace have been tried and proved vain to secure it, that war has no defense, it is a national crime. ~Charles Eliot Norton
  74. War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals. ~Charles Evans Hughes
  75. The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded. ~Charles-Louis De Secondat About the quote: From "The Spirit of Laws," 1748
  76. [War] is a positive, precise and specific evil, of gigantic proportions ...making within the sphere of its influence all true grandeur impossible. ~Charles Sumner About the quote: From his 1845 speech "The True Grandeur of Nations."
  77. Almost all war making states borrow extensively, raise taxes, and seize the means of combat- including men--from reluctant citizens... ~Charles Tilly
  78. Name me an emperor who was ever struck by a cannonball. ~Charles V of France
  79. The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests. ~Charley Reese
  80. War, n: A time-tested political tactic guaranteed to raise a president's popularity rating by at least 30 points. It is especially useful during election years and economic downturns. ~Chaz Bufe
  81. The failure to dissect the cause of war leaves us open for the next installment. ~Chris Hedges
  82. After victory, you have more enemies. ~Cicero
  83. True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else. ~Clarence Darrow
  84. Hell hath no fury like a non-combatant. ~C.L. Montague About the quote: Quote from "Among the Dead Cities," by A.C. Grayling (Walker & Co., 2006).
  85. Chauvinism is a proud and bellicose form of patriotism...which equates the national honor with military victory. ~Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps
  86. The dangerous patriot...is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory. ~Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps
  87. War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures. ~Congressman Ron Paul

  88. Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. ~Congressman Ron Paul
  89. As a rule of thumb, if the government wants you to know it, it probably isn't true. ~Craig Murray
  90. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive. ~C. S. Lewis
  91. Do not waste time bothering whether you "love" your neighbor; act as if you did. ~C.S. Lewis
  92. You cannot win a War on Terrorism. It's like having a war on jealousy. ~David Cross
  93. We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
  94. Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower About the quote: from 1953 There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
  95. "Rules of engagement" are a set of guidelines for murder. ~Dr. Teresa Whitehurst
  96. We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
  97. Tyrants seldom want pretexts. ~Edmund Burke
  98. A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. ~Edward Abbey
  99. Our "neoconservatives" are neither new nor conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell. ~Edward Abbey About the quote: A naturalist and author, Abbey lived from 1927-1989.
  100. The tragedy of modern war is that the young men die fighting each other--instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals. ~Edward Abbey About the quote: A naturalist and author, Abbey lived from 1927-1989.
  101. Violence is an admission that one's ideas and goals cannot prevail on their own merits. ~Edward M. Kennedy About the quote: Kennedy (b. 1932) is a U.S. Senator (D, MA). (from 'The Anti-War Quote Book,' Quirk Books, Ed. by Eric Groves Sr.)
  102. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it. ~Edward R. Murrow
  103. History is littered with wars which everybody knew would never happen. ~Enoch Powell
  104. The first casualty of war is not truth, but perspective. Once that's gone, truth, like compassion, reason, and all the other virtues, wanders around like a wounded orphan. ~Ente Grillenhaft
  105. We must get away from the idea that America is to be the leader of the world in everything. ~Francis John McConnell
  106. The State acquires power... and because of its insatiable lust for power it is incapable of giving up any of it. The State never abdicates. ~Frank Chodorov
  107. The pertinent question: if Americans did not want these wars should they have been compelled to fight them? ~Frank Chodorov
  108. It is not that power corrupts but that power is a magnet to the corruptible. ~Frank Herbert
  109. All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. ~Frank Herbert
  110. War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. ~General Smedley Butler
  111. War is just a racket...I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. ~General Smedley Butler
  112. Our enemies are innovative and resourceful...They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. ~George W. Bush About the quote: From remarks by the president at the signing of The Defense Appropriations Act for 2005 (8/5/04)
  113. What experience and history teach is this-that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it. ~Georg W. Hegel
  114. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. ~Herman Goering
  115. The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. ~James Madison
  116. Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~John Adams
  117. Whether or not patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, national security can be the last refuge of the tyrant. ~Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe About the quote: from 1/14/05
  118. The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign hands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall. ~Marcus Tullius Cicero
  119. What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. ~Marcus Tullius Cicero
  120. Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. ~Margaret Mead
  121. The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. ~Marie Beyle
  122. It takes more courage to get out of a war than it does to get into one. ~Mark Couturier
  123. Look at you in war...There has never been a just one, never an honorable one, on the part of the instigator of the war. ~Mark Twain About the quote: from "The Mysterious Stranger," published 1910.
  124. Man is the only animal that is cruel. It kills just for the sake of it. ~Mark Twain

  125. Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. ~Mark Twain
  126. Why, the Government is merely...a temporary servant...Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. ~Mark Twain
  127. Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. ~Mark Twain
  128. The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is being attacked, and every man will be glad of these conscience-soothing falsities ~Mark Twain
  129. I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. ~Mark Twain About the quote: From an interview, 9/15/1900
  130. Be loyal to your country always, and to the government only when it deserves it. ~Mark Twain
  131. Let not your zeal to share your principles entice you beyond your borders. ~Marquis de Sade
  132. Social order at the expense of liberty is hardly a bargain. ~Marquis de Sade
  133. Is it not a strange blindness on our part to teach publicly the techniques of warfare and to reward with medals those who prove to be the most adroit killers? ~Marquis de Sade
  134. What is more immoral than war? ~Marquis de Sade
  135. There are many terrorist states in the world, but the United States is unusual in that it is officially committed to international terrorism. ~Noam Chomsky About the quote: from his book "Necessary Illusions" (p. 270)
  136. Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. ~Noam Chomsky
  137. Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich. ~Sir Peter Ustinov
  138. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. ~Sun Tzu
  139. The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more and tolerated by all. ~Tacitus
  140. To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace. ~Tacitus
  141. The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media. ~William Colby, former CIA director About the quote: as quoted by Dave McGowan in his book "Derailing Democracy"
  142. If you want war, nourish a doctrine. Doctrines are the most frightful tyrants to which men ever are subject... ~William Graham Sumner
  143. The greatest crime since World War II has been US foreign policy. ~William Ramsey Clark About the quote: William Ramsey Clark was US Attorney General under Lyndon B. Johnson
  144. The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. ~Winston Churchill
  145. When you are winning a war almost everything that happens can be claimed to be right and wise. ~Winston Churchill
  146. Wars teach us not to love our enemies, but to hate our allies. ~W. L. George
  147. To fight, you must be brutal and ruthless, and the spirit of ruthless brutality will enter into the very fibre of national life... ~Woodrow Wilson

[Aug 29, 2017] 9 reasons Trumps dream of Russian reconciliation is now impossible

Notable quotes:
"... Dr. Samuel Johnson said that "the road to hell is good intentions". Donald Trump's good intentions in respect of Russia have led not to a new kind of hell but to the status quo becoming more entrenched. ..."
"... When Donald Trump took office, he bravely embarked on what could rightly be called 'mission difficult'. Now, the American deep state/military industrial complex has revealed that in reality, it was always going to be mission impossible due to geo-strategic realities, uniquely American arrogance which is embedded into the thinking of even many Washington moderates and finally, because we have learnt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the President of the United States is only as powerful as those around him, allow him to be. ..."
Aug 29, 2017 | theduran.com

"I hope that we do have good relations with Russia. I say it loud and clear, I've been saying it for years: I think it's a good thing if we have great relationships, or at least good relationships with Russia.

It's a big country, it's a nuclear country, it's a country that we should get along with, and I think we will eventually get along with Russia".

In spite of Trump's stated wishes, the policies of his administration, irrespective of who is actually authoring them, are in total opposition to Russia's stated geo-political goals and Russia's geo-strategic interests.

The Trump administration's approach to Venezuela, Afghanistan (and South Asia as a whole) and North Korea (and East Asia as a whole) and beyond is totally antithetical to the interests and stated desires of Russia and Russia's closest partners.

READ MORE: Venezuela, Afghanistan and North Korea: 3 conflicts which represent the US vs. China and Russia

Here are the key places where US policy under Trump and Russia's geo-political positions are in total opposition

1. Venezuela

In Venezuela Trump has threatened war and implemented sanctions against the government of Nicolas Maduro. Russia by contrast vehemently opposes sanctions and war.

2. Afghanistan

Trump's flagship policy of a troop surge in Afghanistan is opposed by Russia as is his policy to effectively bomb the Taliban to the peace table.

Russia favours a process which would see moderate rebel elements of the Taliban invited to a peace table in conjunction with a cease-fire in order to develop a lasting peace based on reconciliation between the Taliban and the government in Kabul, something which in reality means a reconciliation between Pashtun Afghans and the ethnic minorities who are in the current government.

Russia also takes exception to Trump's threats and criticisms against Pakistan, a country which is rapidly becoming an important Russian partner in South Asia.

3. North Korea

Just this morning, Donald Trump once again threatened war on North Korea. By contrast, Russia has said multiple times that war can never be considered an option on the Korean peninsula and has called for the US to cease its delivery of THADD missile systems to South Korea and has also called for a cessation of US-South Korea military drills. In each of these cases, the US has totally ignored Russia and China's requests, in spite of the fact that both states border the Korean peninsula.

Russia like China also calls for direct talks between Washington and Pyongyang, something the Trump administration is apparently not considering seriously at this time.

4. South China Sea

While Russia is not directly involved with the South China Sea dispute, America's provocative stance on the region has infuriated Russia's most important partner, China. America's imperial actions in the region, confusingly called 'freedom of navigation' by Washington, do not bode well for Moscow which wants to see cooperation rather than confrontation in Asia.

5. Turkey

While Russia is fast becoming an important partner of Ankara, the US seems to be t hrowing out its nearly century long alliance with Turkey.

The US has blatantly disregarded Turkish concerns about America's arming and funding of Kurdish militants in Syria while Russia continues to show courtesy and countenance for Turkey's position which is shared by Iran.

6. Europe

Russia has constantly called for NATO to de-escalate its presence in Europe, but under the Trump administration, Obama's own European 'troop surge' has continued with no signs of stopping. Donald Trump's recent speech in Poland where he quoted deeply Russophobic propaganda does not bode well for reconciliation between America's EU allies and Russia.

7. Palestine/Israel

While the US approach to the conflict in the Levant is completely one-sided, Russia maintains uniquely good relations with both Palestinian leaders and Israeli leaders in Tel Aviv. While Russia's approach is clearly a conflict aversion tactic, if the US supported Israel in any aggression against Syria, this would clearly end any attempts at fledgling cooperation between the US and Russia in a Syrian conflict which is in any case, drawing to a close. Russia is carefully balancing the interests of its Syrian partner with trying to contain the aggressive military posturing of the Israeli regime with which Russia continues to do business.

Any US support of an Israeli strike against any Middle Eastern country would throw theSyrian de-escalation zone which is jointly policed by America, Russia and Jordan, into disarray. To this end, the south western Syrian de-escalation zone is thus far the only area where the Trump administration has made any progress in respect of improving relations with Russia. Currently, it hangs by a thread for more reasons than one.

8. Iran and the Persian Gulf

While Donald Trump's Tweets indicate a policy that is fully pro-Saudi, even as his own state department emphases a US position of neutrality, as Qatar works to re-normalise relations with Iran, the US could find itself increasingly at odds with its technical ally in Doha.

In respect of Iran itself, Donald Trump continues to advocate hostile policies against Tehran which include threats to tear up the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal as well as false accusations of Iran sponsoring terrorism.

Russia by contrast is an economic partner of Iran and is working with Iran to combat Salafist terrorists in Syria. In the Persian Gulf, Russia has won respect from Qatar for adopting a genuine and unambiguous position of neutrality. This has also allowed Russia to maintain healthy relations with Saudi through out the conflict.

9. Libya

The US and the west more broadly seems to have no coherent strategy to deal with the Libyan failed state, beyond propping up the fledgling Government of National Accord, which is competing with the National Salvation Government as well as assorted militant groups for control of Tripoli.

By contrast, Russia continues to engage with Khalifa Haftar, the leader of Libya's only successful and well organised military, the Libyan National Army. The LNA is also the only force in Libya that has successfully liberated important cities from terrorist control, namely the eastern city of Benghazi.

Egypt continues to support Haftar and the Libyan House of Representatives from which he derives political legitimacy. As Russia becomes ever closer to the government in Cairo, it would appear that Russia's plan to help reconcile Haftar's forces with what's left of the UN backed government in Tripoli, is the closest thing any non-Arab power has to a plan for Libya.

The US appears to have no plans at all, but one can count on the US opposing Russian involvement in Libya, even though there is now little the US could conceivably do to stop Moscow and Cairo from cooperating in a country the US first destroyed and later abandoned.

CONCLUSION

As I warned prior to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's first meeting,

"With all the fuss over Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump meeting later this week at the G20 summit, many have conspicuously failed to grasp that the monumental task ahead of both leaders has little to do with their own period in government and even less to do with their personalities. These things of course do matter, but their importance is dwarfed by larger historical and present economic and geo-strategic concerns.

With that in mind, here are the giant obstacles that both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will be faced with when they meet".

READ MORE: 5 obstacles Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will have to address in their meeting

In the month and three quarters since the Trump-Putin meeting, this situation has merely intensified. Differences in American and Russian geo-political interests have become ever more pronounced and the Trump administration shows no signs of even attempting to meet Russia half way, let alone approach the situation in a pragmatic manner. The ideological dogmas of the US continue as if Donald Trump is the mere figurehead in foreign affairs that many believe him to literally be.

Donald Trump's personal respect for Russia seems genuine beyond any lingering doubts. He has no reason to say he wants warm relations with Russia any longer but he still says he does.

The policies of his administration however, belie the supreme difficulty of implementing such policies or even attempting to do so.

Dr. Samuel Johnson said that "the road to hell is good intentions". Donald Trump's good intentions in respect of Russia have led not to a new kind of hell but to the status quo becoming more entrenched.

When Donald Trump took office, he bravely embarked on what could rightly be called 'mission difficult'. Now, the American deep state/military industrial complex has revealed that in reality, it was always going to be mission impossible due to geo-strategic realities, uniquely American arrogance which is embedded into the thinking of even many Washington moderates and finally, because we have learnt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the President of the United States is only as powerful as those around him, allow him to be.

[Aug 28, 2017] Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause

Aug 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

SolontoCroesus > , August 20, 2017 at 4:14 pm GMT

@Corvinus "The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely."

Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their backs, and tin roof over their head.

"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see."

Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the Confederacy.

What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down? According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,

What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?

Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie?

Corvinus > , August 20, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus Yo, Corvie the normie,

What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?

Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"

There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march/

We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact thing.

So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.

"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?"

Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them."

Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more."

Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come back"?

[Aug 28, 2017] Countdown To War On Venezuela - Step II Trump Imposes More Sanctions

Aug 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

A month ago we warned of the upcoming war on Venezuela . Such a war could blow up huge in many nations of the region .

The U.S. trained and financed opposition has tried to create violent chaos in the streets but failed to gain traction with the majority of the people. The only support it has inside the country is from the richer bourgeois in the major cities which despises the government's social justice program. Workers and farmers are better off under the social-democratic policies of first Hugo Chavez and now Nicolas Maduro. The coup attempt as step one of a U.S. takeover of Venezuela has failed.

Last month a new constitutional assembly was voted in and it is ready to defend the state. The opposition boycotted the election to the assembly but is now complaining that it has no seats in it. One of the assemblies first moves was to fire the renegade General Prosecutor Luisa Ortega Diaz. She had condemned the government for its resistance to the coup attempts. She now has fled the country together with her husband. The Miami Herald admits that she is on the U.S. payroll:

Ortega, a longtime government insider who became chief prosecutor in 2007, is likely safeguarding some of the administration's most damning legal secrets. And she's thought to be working with U.S. law enforcement at a time when Washington is ratcheting up sanctions on Caracas.

Word is that Ortega's husband was blackmailed by the U.S. after he was involved in large illegal transactions.

U.S. President Trump threatened to use military force should the dully elected President Maduro not give up his position. The CIA head Pompeo recently visited countries neighboring Venezuela "trying to help them understand the things they might do". Did he suggest weapon supplies to some proxy forces or an outright invasion?

Today the Trump administration imposed severe sanctions on Venezuela:

The sanctions Trump signed by executive order prohibit financial institutions from providing new money to the government or state oil company PDVSA. It would also restrict PDVSA's U.S. subsidiary, Citgo, from sending dividends back to Venezuela as well as ban trading in two bonds the government recently issued to circumvent its increasing isolation from western financial markets.

Venezuela was prepared for at least some of these sanctions. A few moth ago the Russian oil giant Rosneft acquired a share of PDVSA and at least some oil sales are routed through that company:

Russian oil firm Rosneft has struck deals with several buyers for almost its entire quota of Venezuelan crude for the remainder of the year, traders told Reuters on Wednesday, the first time it has conducted such a large sale of the OPEC member's oil.
...
Venezuela's oil deliveries to the United States have declined in recent years amid falling production, commercial issues, and sanctions on Venezuelan officials.

The White House statement calls Maduro a "dictator" and his Presidency "illegitimate". Both descriptions are laughable. Maduro was elected in free and fair elections. The former U.S. president Jimmy Carter called the election system in Venezuela the best in the world . The new sanctions will likely increase the support for the current government.

The White House hinted at further economic measures:

In a call to brief reporters on the measures, the [senior Trump] official said the United States has significant influence over Venezuela's economy but does not want to wield it in an irresponsible manner that could further burden the already-struggling Venezuelan people.

Venezuela will now have some troubling times. But unless the U.S. launches an outright military attack on the country -by proxy of its neighbors, through mercenaries or by itself- the country will easily survive the unjust onslaught.

With 300 billion barrels the proven oil-reserves of Venezuela are the largest of the world. They are the reason why the U.S. wants to subjugate the country. But neither Russia nor China nor anyone else wants to see those reserves under U.S. control.

Posted by b on August 25, 2017 at 02:21 PM | Permalink

ben | Aug 25, 2017 2:41:41 PM | 1

A very timely and highly relevant article, thanks b.

Another uni-polar vs. multi-polar confrontation. Maduro should immediately seek alliances with China as well as Russia.

Viva Venezuela, and the Venezuelan workers!

chet380 | Aug 25, 2017 2:41:46 PM | 2
Treacherous, slimy Uncle Sam in its relentless mission for world domination .. the unfortunate price that Chavez and Maduro have had to pay for telling Uncle to F*ck Off.
Pnyx | Aug 25, 2017 3:03:10 PM | 3
Tronald probably thinks, a Venezuela war could be a better possibility for a decisive turning point in his presidency than one in North Corea or Syria or Ukraine. Not as risky. For that reason it is tremendously important that China and Russia react swiftly in favor of Venenzuala making clear the costs would be high and the outcome uncertain.
Piotr Berman | Aug 25, 2017 3:18:36 PM | 4
I know that elections can be boring, but calling someone "dully elected" is a bit too much.

BTW, once I asked in Germany if I could get a savings account with interest, and the young clerk could not understand why I am bored with my account with zero "zinsen".

Ragheb | Aug 25, 2017 3:20:01 PM | 5
Inflation in Venezuala has reached Weimar Germany levels. US policies undoubtedly a key reason. But whatever the cause no government can last long unless hyperinflation bought under control.
Fidelios Automata | Aug 25, 2017 3:25:01 PM | 6
As much as I want the US intervention to fail, it will be tough going for Venezuela given Maduro's heavy-handed and incompetent governance. His finger-pointing at the merchant class is a sure sign of a demagogue. Pure command economies don't work, that's why both Russia and China reformed theirs. The best thing that could happen would be a coup from the center left to reboot the currency, free up the economy and make peace with the upper classes. And yes, ally with Russia.
psychohistorian | Aug 25, 2017 3:30:22 PM | 7
Thank you for keeping this part of the whirling dervish of late empire in focus b.

I agree that Venezuela needs to buddy up to the China/Russia alliance and continue to follow their anti-oligarch direction.

Any here who have not read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein should do so as background to the R2P that the US continues to do to South America....and the rest of the 3rd world.

james | Aug 25, 2017 4:00:12 PM | 8
thanks b... the usa will do anything for exxon... they have the full backing of all the important industries - financial and military.. same story everywhere..
virgile | Aug 25, 2017 4:45:48 PM | 9
Poor Venezuela. US machiavelism is at work to undermine it.
Will the Venezuelians realize that the USA policy in South America is dictated by greed and only greed.
Makutwa Omutiti | Aug 25, 2017 4:57:14 PM | 10
It is only idiots who think that this is about America caring for the freedom, democracy,and well-being of Venezuelans. Such idiots should update themselves on the history of American foreign policy in Latin America. As b correctly points out: pay attention to the Grand Chessboard.
Jen | Aug 25, 2017 4:58:43 PM | 11
It would seem that with the collapse of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, combined with the prospect of ISIS takfirists returning to their countries of origin, that the US and the EU would opt to use these people as mercenaries and fly them to Colombia, Brazil and Guyana to form a base of terrorists to undermine Venezuela. These people could be trained to attack or hold hostage indigenous groups or rural communities in Venezuela. These would be some of the most vulnerable groups in that country and their treatment would certainly attract the attention of the Western MSM news propaganda networks.
Makutwa Omutiti | Aug 25, 2017 5:08:04 PM | 12
It is tragic to see so many idiots fall for the American and western canards about promoting "freedom", "democracy" and "human rights". My fellow barflies, please I recommend you go to medium.com and read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's blockbuster essay "Intellectual-Yet-Idiot" to understand the stupidity of the American neo-imperialists who are blinded by imperial hubris to even understand their long term objective interests.
karlof1 | Aug 25, 2017 7:28:30 PM | 13
The recent election of the Constituent Assembly tends to confuse people--particularly Outlaw US Empire Neoliberalcons plus Trump, who just falsely accused Maduro of being a dictator--and what it's designed to accomplish. This article explains it all very clearly--it's potential power is potent and has the US-backed opposition backed into a deep hole since it boycotted the election and has no delegates, which is why Trump just upped the sanctions and aggressive rhetoric, https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13313

In counterpoise to that explanatory article, we have an analysis of the Outlaw US Empire's Propaganda System's coverage of what is in fact a very small d democratic act that's mandated by the current constitution, https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13329 As you'll see, the rhetoric hasn't changed one iota since Bu$hCo and Obomber. The article's parent site--TelesurEnglish--and republication site--Venezuelanalysis--IMO, are the two best English language sources for following events there. Yes, there are others, but they tend to be slower in reporting current events.

I strongly echo Cooke's recommendations.

Yul | Aug 25, 2017 8:09:43 PM | 14
Citgo buffed up its ties to Trump before and after his election. Now, it gets exempted from a new round of Venezuela sanctions.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-just-gave-a-big-carve-out-to-citgo-an-oil-giant-repped-by-his-ex-aides

How to grease the hands!

Anon | Aug 25, 2017 8:57:03 PM | 15
The point of the war is to do to Spanish South America what was done to the Middle East, that is to plunge the region into perpetual chaos and make it impossible for any government to emerge that is able to resist the will of the Empire.

Very dark days ahead for our Latin friends.

frances | Aug 25, 2017 9:00:35 PM | 16
b-thank you, very timely!
I found an excellent and relatively short video on ZeroHedge(in the comments) just done onsite in Venezula re truth/hype on food shortages, political activism, food shortages, black market. It is really good, recommend to all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHc7yegaCmc
frances | Aug 25, 2017 9:02:46 PM | 17
comment 16 edit
Sorry all, that second "food shortages" in my post should have been "paper shortages"
likklemore | Aug 25, 2017 9:03:52 PM | 18
And another hands in his resignation to Trump – over foreign policy -
Sebastian Gorka is resigning his post as Deputy Assistant to President Trump, multiple sources familiar with the situation have told The Federalist.

In a blunt resignation letter, the national security and counterterrorism expert expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of the Trump administration. "[G]iven recent events, it is clear to me that forces that do not support the MAGA promise are – for now – ascendant within the White House," Gorka wrote. "As a result, the best and most effective way I can support you, Mr. President, is from outside the People's House."

Gorka's letter expressed unhappiness with the direction the Trump administration's foreign policy has taken, as signaled by the president's recent speech on Afghanistan: [.]

"Just as worrying, when discussing our future actions in the region, the speech listed operational objectives without ever defining the strategic victory conditions we are fighting for. This omission should seriously disturb any national security professional, and any American who is unsatisfied with the last 16 years of disastrous policy decisions which have led to thousands of Americans killed and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent in ways that have not brought security or victory."[.]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/25/breaking-sebastian-gorka-resigns-from-trump-administration/


virgile | Aug 25, 2017 9:45:40 PM | 19
The loss of Sebastian Gorka and Steve Bannon are making Trump's position very weak. If Trump continues to be the puppet of the neo-cons and the zionists then they will keep him on, otherwise they will kick him out.
Gorka and Bannon will fight against these forces outside the WH, it is yet to see if they will succeed.
Tannenhouser | Aug 25, 2017 9:51:45 PM | 20
It's beginning to look like Chinese for sure and hopefully Russian assets on the ground in a real big way ASAP might be the only way to put a stop to this nonsense.
Robert Beal | Aug 25, 2017 10:51:28 PM | 21
what is MAGA in rightspeak?
Robert Beal | Aug 25, 2017 10:53:13 PM | 22
oh, yeah, nevermind--they still say that? don't they know it was a campaign (is it a) meme?
Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 25, 2017 11:25:59 PM | 23
If this Yankee plot were to be boiled down to its basics it could be articulated as...

AmeriKKKa's Greedy Idle Rich bought and own the US Govt. Venezuela's Greedy Idle Rich, being too cheap and unimaginative to buy Venezuela's Govt, have now accepted a US Govt offer to help them to steal it; at gun point if necessary.

Miguel | Aug 25, 2017 11:39:10 PM | 24
Sorry Moon of Alabama but this article is full of lies and propaganda.

Maduro is a murderer, tyrant, corrupt and totally inept. The National Constituent Assembly is fraudulent and illegitimate, as only one million people (out of 16 million) voted for it. 90% of Venezuela people hate Maduro, the only reason he is still in power is that the regime corrupted the Army and most of the patriotic officers are in prison or in exile. The role of cuban agents/spies is also well known as they are the ones controlling the upper level of the Army. I welcome anything that helps defeat the thugs that control Venezuela government, they only brought misery to my people.

psychohistorian | Aug 25, 2017 11:40:17 PM | 25
@ Hoarsewhisperer

During the (s)election process Trump said multiple times that to the victor go the spoils. How will the rest of the world react if the US takes over Venezuela like Hawaii and says the oil now belongs to the US?

Venezuela's Greedy Idle Rich will be the caretakers.

V. Arnold | Aug 26, 2017 1:00:05 AM | 26
"When the idle poor become the idle rich; how you going to tell, who is which?"
Finian's Rainbow
V. Arnold | Aug 26, 2017 1:10:32 AM | 27
Well, well; as the worm turns, we here in LOS live under a military junta, just like you, there in the U.S..
And both soft coups; little blood shed, mostly in the U.S..
Peter AU 1 | Aug 26, 2017 1:14:27 AM | 28
Back to business as usual for the US. Regime change in Venezuela, running drugs and setting up ISIS in Afghanistan, and going after the oil wells in Deir Ezzor to set up their Kurdish state.
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-backed-forces-push-hasakah-deir-ezzor/
V. Arnold | Aug 26, 2017 2:02:50 AM | 29
Peter AU 1 | Aug 26, 2017 1:14:27 AM | 28

Interesting, this article (link) says SAA is on the verge of winning Deir Ezzor.
Jon Hellevig is the writer at Russia Insider;
http://tinyurl.com/ydxx7w8j

Peter AU 1 | Aug 26, 2017 2:23:26 AM | 30
V. Arnold 29

SAA will take Deir Ezzor city, but the US are going for the Omar oilfiels east of the Euphrates in Deir Ezzor province. The US need this to finance their Kurdish state, and Syria needs it for their own needs plus some export income. The Omar fields are the main developed oilfields in Syria.
This link to wikimap should show it.
http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.005253&lon=40.806656&z=11&m=b

V. Arnold | Aug 26, 2017 2:57:29 AM | 31
Peter AU 1 | Aug 26, 2017 2:23:26 AM | 30

Got it, thanks. Good map also.
Syria is like Thailand; I live in Ratchaburi Province, not Ratchaburi the province's main city.

tantin | Aug 26, 2017 3:03:07 AM | 32
@24 Miguel
Sorry my friend you are delusional, maybe you should migrate to South Carolina and get a job as a cleaner and live the American dream, isn't that what most uninformed Venezuelans do when they are against their own country.
Laguerre | Aug 26, 2017 7:15:34 AM | 33
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Aug 26, 2017 2:23:26 AM | 28

Yeah, well if you think the US and the Kurds are going for the Omari oil-fields (as indeed b himself recently said on Sic Semper Tyrannis), there's a small wrinkle which you and he may not have noticed (and almost certainly not the US commanders). The report says that it is 7 Arab tribal units of the SDF who are doing the job. Of course, because the area is inhabited by their relatives. But they are a numerically weak element of the SDF. Rather more significantly, I remember a videoed interview with one of their leaders a year or two back, in which he said quite clearly that the reason they were joining the SDF was to end up reuniting Syria under Bashshar al-Asad! They may have conveniently forgotten to mention this to the Yanks; I know I would have done, had it been me. So the real issue may be, if they do succeed in taking the oil-fields before the Syrians get there (not certain), will they hand them over to the Kurds or the Syrians?

BRF | Aug 26, 2017 10:32:31 AM | 34
Sanctions and their increases are economic warfare, and war is war. The government of Venezuela needs to declare a national emergency of overt economic warfare against the nation and its people. Once on a war footing the state can move to clamp down on sedition while ensuring that at the least the minimum needs of the people are met. Medicines, food, clothing shelter and that normal life carries on as much as possible, schooling, law and order and that any hoarding, the warehousing of goods, by the oligarchs and black marketing of essential and vital goods is stamped out as much as possible. Venezuela must also reach out to any allies it has in seeking assistance under some mutual defense treaty such as NATO's clause 5 as together they are stronger and not as liable to be picked off separately. Russia has her hands full so China needs to step up to the plate, but will she?
daffyDuct | Aug 26, 2017 10:53:38 AM | 35
Venezuela is a repeat of the same US playbook, especially in the CIA era. Too many examples to list.

1) Fund an opposition or exploit an existing fault line
2) Find some civilian shock-troops (contras, neoNazis in Ukraine, street gangs in Venezuela)
3) Count on the US media to promote your faked events.
4) Make neighboring countries knuckle under or bribe them.
5) Provoke government over-reaction
6) Intervene forcefully or trigger a prepared military coup
7) Walk away
8) Rinse and repeat

Victor J | Aug 26, 2017 11:09:08 AM | 36
Suddenly the guarimbas (violent protest) stopped. because the money payments stopped? So much for ¨popular protests¨. Also Trump΄s threats had the opposite effect; the opposition now cannot hide their real intentions.
fudmier | Aug 26, 2017 2:48:39 PM | 37
Responding to 8, 10, and 35..

http://www.blacklistednews.com/CIA's_Secret_Spy_Tool_Steals_Biometric_Data_From_Other_Intelligence_Agencies/60531/0/38/38/Y/M.html Wars. <= traceable according to gas and oil location.. Tillerson Sec of State?


Foreign policy <=Government Subsidies for private for profit business?
locate the oil and gas, identify the war?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LNG_terminals#United_States_2


Can you find Qatar in the above list, they are the world's largest producer of LNG.
https://www.qp.com.qa/en/AboutQP/Pages/CEOsMessage.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Gas_in_Qatar


These numbers explain so much.. about wars, sanctions and regime changes.
Leadership exploitation [LE] model Where a nation forces[taxes] its hard working citizens (taxpayers) to finance corporate access, control, and possession of resources-natural[AC_PORN] [oil, gas, precious metals, etc. ], the leadership directs needed TAX PAYER funds from personal and homeland needs to subsidize corporation activities . These subsidies lower cost of obtaining, producing and marketing resources-natural (COPM] and such subsidies make the task of establishing competition-free, corporate-owed monopolies EASY. Hence, corporations have come to expect national leaders to use the wealth of the people of the nations they lead, to guarantee corporate owners "monopoly powers" and subsidized flows of capital. LE subsidies are usually well hidden in war, regime change, and sanction activities, but subsidy form does not change the corruption. It allows the leadership of a nation to fund and license corporations to be stronger than the host nation itself/>.

I believe it is time to stop being surprised by what it was said actually happened, and instead, to devise a model that allows to detect and predict wrongful government subsidy and government leadership self-serving support of corporate monopoly power.

A method needs to be developed to allow the public to uncouple its leadership from corporate subsidy activity and corporate monopoly support. It will take a lot of people from all over the world to evolve that model but in this era of false flag propaganda, fake news, denial of speech, and information hiding, nothing else seems to have a chance to restore citizen level democracy.

PavewayIV | Aug 26, 2017 2:48:50 PM | 38
Miguel@24 -

"...Maduro is a murderer, tyrant, corrupt and totally inept..."

I agree 100! But he's an amateur compared to our Bushes and Obama. Trump? Give him time... Ridding your country of Maduro will change NOTHING. Explain to me how you're going to prevent the next power-seeking psychopaths (and their relatives) from exploiting Venezuela?

"...The National Constituent Assembly is fraudulent and illegitimate, as only one million people (out of 16 million) voted for it..."

So you're arguing illigitimacy and fraud based on what? Broken voting process? Check. No state will to enforce the law when breaking it benefits them? Check. Violating the terms or spirit of your consitution? Check. So the next psychopaths running Venezuela are going to magically obey the constitution, hold the powerful to the same laws as the little people and not exploit 'voting' to legitimize the people they select anyway? You sound just like an American now!

"...90% of Venezuela people hate Maduro..."

Just think of what a paradise your country will be when that bastard Maduro is gone! Ask any Ukrainian about the euphoria they are experiencing after booting that rat, Yanukovyych. What Libyan would still want to live under the cruel dictatorship of that nutjob Ghadaffi rather than the blissful utopia Lybia has become after 'freedomization'? Iraq was an oil-rich country like yours run by the corrupt, murdering despot Saddam Hussein - it is now the shining jewel of stability in Middle Eastern liberty and democracy. Iraqis are thrilled! The US is still working on Assad, but don't all Syrians deserve the nirvana that the US will create by getting rid of him? Or are you suggesting an indigenous Venezuelan do-it-yourselfer project without foreign backers? You know it never works like that!

If nothing else, any opposition that appears to be "US-backed" should be a red flag that you're not ever getting anything close to what they're selling and there will always be strings attached.

"...the only reason he is still in power is that the regime corrupted the Army and most of the patriotic officers are in prison or in exile..."

a) See above
b) This will be the exact same situation under any new Venezuelan leader that replaces him, and the next on that replaces the replacement, and on and on and on.
c) Armies are meant to protect the interests of the leadership and ruling elite. It's just a happy coincidence that - at times - those interests occasionally seem to involve protecting the little people.

"...The role of cuban agents/spies is also well known as they are the ones controlling the upper level of the Army..."

Just the Army? Let me tell you about how the real pros do it: Israeli/Saudi influence on the US Congress, the Department of Defense, US Intelligence Community, Department of Homeland Security,...

"...I welcome anything that helps defeat the thugs that control Venezuela government, they only brought misery to my people..."

Same here! We call the fronts for the biggest ones 'Democrats' and 'Republicans'. Tell me how you're going to prevent a new flavor of psychopaths from replacing the current ones besides worshipping the magical (but non-existent) powers of your intentionally broken tools of democracy - 'voting' and 'the law'? We repeatedly try this in the US and it doesn't seem to fix anything. Us little people seem delighted with the little red steering wheel , but it only seems to take us in the direction we turn it some of the time - and that seems pretty random at best. The old one we had with the blue steering wheel worked the same way - what the hell is up with these things?

[Aug 28, 2017] The Knives Are Out for Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster by Kate Brannen

May 09, 2017 | foreignpolicy.com

Donald Trump's second national security advisor, want him out. This week, they've made their campaign against him public, leaking to reporters details about the rocky relationship he has with his boss and trying to paint him as someone hellbent on overseas nation-building projects that are doomed to fail. The timing isn't accidental. The effort to damage McMaster comes as the Trump administration decides what its policy should be in Afghanistan, a debate that's pitting McMaster against Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist.

"McMaster is pushing this Afghanistan policy through. I think some people are giving him the rope to get it through, hoping he hangs himself with it," one senior intelligence official said. The Afghanistan strategy McMaster is pushing, with the support of Defense Secretary James Mattis, would send roughly 3,000-5,000 U.S. and NATO troops to Afghanistan, according to a separate source familiar with the internal deliberations. These troops would be sent to help bulk up the Afghan National Security Forces, which, after years of U.S. assistance, are still struggling against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a small Islamic State presence in the country.

According to the Washington Post , the new strategy "would authorize the Pentagon, not the White House, to set troop numbers in Afghanistan and give the military far broader authority to use airstrikes to target Taliban militants." The hope is that by increasing pressure on the Taliban, it will force them to the negotiating table with more favorable terms for Kabul and Washington. Sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan follows a decision made last year by then-President Barack Obama, who announced in July that 8,400 U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan through January 2017 because of the "precarious" security situation there, undoing his previous plan to draw down to 5,500 by the time he left office.

[Aug 28, 2017] The ouster of Mattis: Some follow-up details and a White House response by homas E. Ricks

ttis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. <
Here are a few things I have heard since I posted my comments on Friday about the Obama administration pushing General Mattis out at Central Command. Thanks to all who wrote in to make this follow-up possible:

[Aug 28, 2017] Andrew Bacevich on Trump's eventual Afghanistan decision

Notable quotes:
"... Bacevich says the one possible benefit of Trump's erraticism is that he has, so far, rejected U.S. foreign policy of the past 25 years. But while Trump may have noninterventionist tendencies, his lack of a coherent, principled plan means that he often veers off course into violent conflicts all the same. ..."
Aug 16, 2017 | www.libertarianinstitute.org

Andrew Bacevich, author of " America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History " joins Scott to discuss his article for The American Conservative " Yes Congress, Afghanistan is Your Vietnam ."

Bacevich explains that the division between Trump's advisors on how to proceed in Afghanistan has created a stalemate in the Oval Office. It's noteworthy, Bacevich says, that there hasn't been a comprehensive report from the Trump administration outlining the United States's foreign policy mission.

On the one hand it seems like Trump has handed the reigns over to the military in certain conflicts and has been controlling in others, which has created disarray Bacevich says. Bacevich contrasts Donald Trump with his predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama who, by comparison, are intellectual stalwarts.

Bacevich says the one possible benefit of Trump's erraticism is that he has, so far, rejected U.S. foreign policy of the past 25 years. But while Trump may have noninterventionist tendencies, his lack of a coherent, principled plan means that he often veers off course into violent conflicts all the same.

Andrew Bacevich is a Professor Emeritus of International Relations and History at Boston University. He is the author of a number of books including " America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History " and is a regular contributor at The American Conservative and TomDispatch.com .

[Aug 28, 2017] Let's Call "Trump's Generals" What They Are A Military Junta

Aug 27, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Trump is fond of boasting about "his" generals. But over the short course of his presidency's first months, the possession and control have reversed themselves. Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly have banished all opposition and now pour the neo-con agenda straight into Trump's ear.

By Whitney Webb

August 27, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - WASHINGTON – The U.S., long known for its meddling in the affairs of other nations, also has a long and sordid history of supporting military juntas abroad, many of which it forced into power through bloody coups or behind-the-scenes power grabs. From Greece in the 1960s to Argentina in the 1980s to the current al-Sisi-led junta in Egypt , Washington has actively and repeatedly supported such undemocratic regimes despite casting itself as the world's greatest promoter of "democracy."

Finally in 2017, karma appears to have come back to roost, as the current presidential administration has now effectively morphed into what is, by definition , a military junta. Though the military-industrial complex has long directed U.S. foreign policy, in the administration of President Donald Trump a group of military officers has gathered unprecedented power and, for all intents and purposes, rules the country.

Three generals at the center of power

In a recent article in The Washington Post , titled "Military Leaders Consolidate Power In Trump Administration," Post reporters Robert Costa and Philip Rucker noted that "At the core of Trump's circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. The three men have carefully cultivated personal relationships with the president and gained his trust."

"This is the only time in modern presidential history when we've had a small number of people from the uniformed world hold this much influence over the chief executive," John E. McLaughlin, a former acting director of the CIA who served in seven administrations, told the Post . "They are right now playing an extraordinary role."

This role, however, appears to reach beyond "extraordinary". Although Trump is fond of calling them "my generals," they now, Costa and Rucker report, "manage Trump's hour-by-hour interactions and whisper in his ear – and those whispers, as with the decision this week to expand U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, often become policy." Another Washington Post article, published last Tuesday, led with the headline "The Generals Have Trump Surrounded."

Also notable is the fact that this trio of generals has overseen the firing of more independent, "outsider" voices, notably Derek Harvey and Steve Bannon. Bannon, in particular, was a thorn in the side of the generals, in light primarily of his staunch opposition to the American "empire project" and new wars abroad. Bannon had opposed Trump's strike against Syria, troop surges in Iraq, and the dropped hint of a "military option" to deal with the crisis in Venezuela. The New York Times referred to McMaster as Bannon's "nemesis in the West Wing," precisely due to McMaster's commitment to American empire building.

With Bannon's relatively recent departure, the tone of the Trump administration – now unequivocally ruled by "the generals" – has changed significantly -- as illustrated by Trump's decision to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, a measure both Bannon and Trump himself once opposed.

In addition, last Thursday, Politico published a report detailing the control exercised by Kelly over the president, as he personally vets "everything" that comes across Trump's desk. Politico referenced two memos that laid out a system "designed to ensure that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency reports and even news articles that haven't been vetted."

The Hill further noted that Kelly is also "keeping a tight leash" on who gets to meet directly with the President in the Oval Office, which is now strictly appointment-only and also dependent upon Kelly's approval.

[Aug 28, 2017] The ouster of Mattis: Some follow-up details and a White House response

get=
Here are a few things I have heard since I posted my comments on Friday about the Obama administration pushing General Mattis out at Central Command. Thanks to all who wrote in to make this follow-up possible:

[Aug 28, 2017] Bryan MacDonald

Notable quotes:
"... The portal purports to use "600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence efforts online" to prove how Moscow is trying to sow seeds of doubt in the Western political system, via the social network. However, the creators won't reveal the users concerned, and results seem to suggest they are mostly members of the US alt-right and alt-left. Meaning this is yet another attempt to pass off American dissent as some Kremlin "Psy-op." Which is beyond ridiculous. ..."
"... Furthermore, the names behind AFSD betray the project's real purpose: to shift blame from internal American and European factors to the convenient Russian bogeyman. Which, of course, suits its financial backers , including the State Department, NATO, and the ubiquitous weapons maker Raytheon. All of whom benefit commercially and politically from strained ties between Moscow and Washington. ..."
"... To achieve these goals they've hired the usual roll call of reliably anti-Russia blowhards. Including Estonian-American politician Ilves Toomas and rent-a-quote talking head Michael McFaul, the 'Mother Theresa of the Russia beat.' Those two are joined by neoconservative windbag William Kristol and ex-CIA chief Michael Morell. ..."
"... The dashboard itself is helmed by a chap named J.M. Berger , who was apparently an expert on ISIS and the Middle East, before discovering the Russia-bashing gravy train this summer. This week, he's taken to the pages of Politico to explain his plaything. What follows is best described as an inept and ignorant form of thrift-store McCarthyism. ..."
"... The examples become ever stranger. Berger bemoans "conspiracy theories seeking to discredit Bana al-Abed, a young girl in Syria who tweeted about the civil war." But it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest the then seven-year-old was manipulated to serve a propaganda effort. Especially after a press interview revealed how the child couldn't understand even rudimentary English, despite issuing hundreds of perfectly crafted tweets in the language. ..."
"... America's state broadcaster's RFE/RL and VOA do in Russia where they laboriously detail the travails of nationalist politicians like Alexei Navalny and their leftist counterparts, such as Sergei Udaltsov. This is what alternative media does in every market, but it seems to be only unusual when "the Russians" are involved. ..."
"... But, not content with mulching around the bottom of the barrel, he reaches into the depths when he states "while the alt-right has a very real base of support in the United States, it also enjoys deep and undisputed ties to Russia, many of which can be found offline in the real world." Amazingly, the link he uses to justify his contention is a Daily Beast article on how American white supremacist Richard Spencer was married to an ethnic Russian. The lady involved has no profile in Russia, doesn't live in the country and is a follower of a fringe philosopher called Alexander Dugin. Who is so far outside the Russian mainstream that he can't even hold down a job in Moscow. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from RT . ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
Since the German Marshall Fund of the United States unveiled its "Alliance For Securing Democracy (AFSD)," I've resisted commenting, simply because the lobby group's "Hamilton 68 dashboard" is too preposterous to merit serious analysis.

It has rightly been ridiculed by journalists and activists who never tire of knocking the Kremlin.

The portal purports to use "600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence efforts online" to prove how Moscow is trying to sow seeds of doubt in the Western political system, via the social network. However, the creators won't reveal the users concerned, and results seem to suggest they are mostly members of the US alt-right and alt-left. Meaning this is yet another attempt to pass off American dissent as some Kremlin "Psy-op." Which is beyond ridiculous.

Furthermore, the names behind AFSD betray the project's real purpose: to shift blame from internal American and European factors to the convenient Russian bogeyman. Which, of course, suits its financial backers , including the State Department, NATO, and the ubiquitous weapons maker Raytheon. All of whom benefit commercially and politically from strained ties between Moscow and Washington.

To achieve these goals they've hired the usual roll call of reliably anti-Russia blowhards. Including Estonian-American politician Ilves Toomas and rent-a-quote talking head Michael McFaul, the 'Mother Theresa of the Russia beat.' Those two are joined by neoconservative windbag William Kristol and ex-CIA chief Michael Morell.

Convert zeal

The dashboard itself is helmed by a chap named J.M. Berger , who was apparently an expert on ISIS and the Middle East, before discovering the Russia-bashing gravy train this summer. This week, he's taken to the pages of Politico to explain his plaything. What follows is best described as an inept and ignorant form of thrift-store McCarthyism.

Berger tells us how his dashboard displays "the near-real-time output of Russian Influence Operations on Twitter." Something he calls RIOT, for short. And he cites things like RT's coverage of Vladimir Putin's recent pike fishing trip, a jaunt also prominently featured in The New York Times, The Daily Mail and The Sun, which incidentally described Putin as a "beefcake." Meaning, either Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch are Russian agents, or this contention is just farcical.

The lobbyist also frets over this network's widely-shared report on Oliver Stone's Facebook post "condemning US sanctions against Russia and claiming US intelligence agencies are engaged in a 'false flag' war against Russia." Which exposes a total lack of comprehension of how news works. Because Stone is one of Hollywood's most famous figures and his name attached to a perspective like this was bound to attract plenty of attention, regardless of the messenger. It's also worth pointing out (for the really obtuse) that RT obviously doesn't control Stone's Facebook and was merely bringing to a wider audience the American writer and director's personal beliefs.

The examples become ever stranger. Berger bemoans "conspiracy theories seeking to discredit Bana al-Abed, a young girl in Syria who tweeted about the civil war." But it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest the then seven-year-old was manipulated to serve a propaganda effort. Especially after a press interview revealed how the child couldn't understand even rudimentary English, despite issuing hundreds of perfectly crafted tweets in the language.

Rock Bottom

Our hero descends further into hogwash when observing how "the most retweeted Russia Today stories recorded by the dashboard involved scaremongering videos appearing to show refugees swarming into Spain." But, two weeks ago, a boatful of migrants did land on a Spanish tourist beach, near Cadiz, and quickly scattered to evade police detection. And numerous outlets, including The New York Times , The Guardian and the BBC prominently reported the story. But apparently, it's only an issue when RT gives it coverage.

But the garrulous quack isn't finished, asserting how RT "treads relatively carefully in their flirtation with the far right, and they devote a significant amount of space to the far left as well." Hardly news, given how the channel openly admits offering a platform for alternative voices, regardless of their political compass. Incidentally, a mirror image of what America's state broadcaster's RFE/RL and VOA do in Russia where they laboriously detail the travails of nationalist politicians like Alexei Navalny and their leftist counterparts, such as Sergei Udaltsov. This is what alternative media does in every market, but it seems to be only unusual when "the Russians" are involved.

Berger does concede one salient point: "it is important to note here again that we are not asserting Russia is responsible for creating or shaping this content," he writes. Which suggests he fully understands how his project is geared to smear anybody who opposes US policy as working for Moscow's interests.

Yellow press

But, not content with mulching around the bottom of the barrel, he reaches into the depths when he states "while the alt-right has a very real base of support in the United States, it also enjoys deep and undisputed ties to Russia, many of which can be found offline in the real world." Amazingly, the link he uses to justify his contention is a Daily Beast article on how American white supremacist Richard Spencer was married to an ethnic Russian. The lady involved has no profile in Russia, doesn't live in the country and is a follower of a fringe philosopher called Alexander Dugin. Who is so far outside the Russian mainstream that he can't even hold down a job in Moscow.

The fact Berger has to descend to such irrelevant tittle-tattle to score a few points tells us all we need to know about the moral bankruptcy of the Alliance For Securing Democracy. This is pathetic, miserable and feeble stuff and the German Marshall Fund of the United States should be ashamed of themselves for financing this sort of muck.

Reprinted with permission from RT .

[Aug 27, 2017] The War That Time Forgot by Jeffrey St. Clair

Notable quotes:
"... From the press room at NATO command, McCain announced that "none of us could say we are on a course to success here in Afghanistan." The senator should have paused for a reflective moment and then called for an end to the war. Instead, McCain demanded that Trump send more US troops, more bombers and more drones to terrorize a population that has been riven by near constant war since the late 1970s. ..."
"... Most Americans have no idea why we are in Afghanistan; it's the longest running Fake War in American history. Some, as many as 20 percent according to a Gallup Poll, have no idea that we are ..."
"... Nothing better illustrates the eclipse of US global power than the fact that Afghanistan refuses to be subjugated or even managed, despite 16 years of hard-core carnage. ..."
"... Even after Obama's shameful troop surge in 2010, an escalation that went almost unopposed by the US antiwar movement, the Taliban now retains almost as much control of the country as it did in 2001. And for that Afghanistan must be punished. Eternally, it seems. ..."
"... Give Trump some credit. His war plan is refreshingly vacant of moral posturing. Instead he views the war through a greedily focused economic lens: Afghanistan as commodity. Over the course of 16 years, the cratering American operation in Afghanistan has consumed more than $1 trillion, a huge and nearly unchallenged benefaction to military contractors. In 2016, the Pentagon spent $3.6 million for each US soldier stationed in Afghanistan. A surge of 4,000 to 10,000 additional troops, either as "private military units" or GIs, will come as a welcome new infusion of cash to the dozens of defense corporations that invested so heavily in his administration. ..."
"... If that living monument to the Confederacy Jefferson B. Sessions was serious about confronting the rising scourge of opiate addiction in the US, he would start by calling for an immediate end to US military operations in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Forget marijuana, the real gateway to heroin abuse is war. Since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, opium production has swelled, now accounting for more than one-third of the wrecked Afghan economy. In the last two years alone, opium poppy yields have doubled, a narcotic blowback now hitting the streets of American cities from Amarillo to Pensacola. With every drone strike in the Helmond Province, a thousand more poppies bloom. ..."
"... What I'm reading this week ..."
Aug 25, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

If it's Independence Day, then you can count on John McCain to be bunkered down in a remote outpost of the Empire growling for the Pentagon to unleash airstrikes on some unruly nation, tribe or gang. This July the Fourth found McCain making a return engagement to Kabul, an arrival that must have prompted many Afghans to scramble for the nearest air raid shelter.

From the press room at NATO command, McCain announced that "none of us could say we are on a course to success here in Afghanistan." The senator should have paused for a reflective moment and then called for an end to the war. Instead, McCain demanded that Trump send more US troops, more bombers and more drones to terrorize a population that has been riven by near constant war since the late 1970s.

McCain's martial drool is now as familiar as the opening notes to the "Law & Order" theme song. What may surprise some, however, is the composition of the delegation that signed up to travel on his frequent flier program, notably the presence of two Democratic Senators with soaring profiles: Sheldon Whitehouse and Elizabeth Warren. Whitehouse, the former prosecutor (aren't they all?) from Rhode Island, has lately taken a star turn in the role of chief inquisitor of suspected Russian witches in the Senate intelligence committee hearings. Perhaps he finally located one selling AK-47s to the Taliban to replace the guns they'd gotten from the CIA (We now know that it's the Saudis –not the Russians–who have been covertly funneling money to the Taliban, though don't expect the Trump to impose any sanctions on the Kingdom of the Head-choppers.)

For her part, Warren largely echoed McCain's bellicose banter that Trump needs to double down militarily to finish off the Taliban, the impossible dream. No real surprise here. To the extent that she's advanced any foreign policy positions during her stint in the senate, Warren has been a dutiful supplicant to the demands of AIPAC and the Council on Foreign Relations, rarely diverging from the neocon playbook for the global war on Islam. Warren's Afghan junket is a sure sign of her swelling presidential ambitions. These days "national security" experience is measured almost exclusively by how much blood you are willing to spill in countries you know almost nothing about. It didn't take long for Warren to matriculate to the company position.

Most Americans have no idea why we are in Afghanistan; it's the longest running Fake War in American history. Some, as many as 20 percent according to a Gallup Poll, have no idea that we are still in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are both long dead. The shattered remnants of Al Qaeda have fled to Pakistan and parts unknown. Hamid Karzai has come and gone. For the last six months, the US hasn't even troubled itself to send an ambassador to Kabul.

A kind of convenient cultural amnesia has set in, abetted by a compliant press corps that has largely decamped from the Hindu Kush and now treats Afghanistan as if it is some kind of interstellar region, where photographers are occasionally dispatched to snap eerie debris clouds from the detonation of MOAB bombs. It's no wonder that the few Americans who continue to support the war cling to the delusion that Afghanistan orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. It is the War that Time Forgot.

Nothing better illustrates the eclipse of US global power than the fact that Afghanistan refuses to be subjugated or even managed, despite 16 years of hard-core carnage. Since the first US airstrikes hit Kandahar in October 2001, more than 150,000 Afghan civilians have been killed. Still Afghanistan resists imperial dictates. Even after Obama's shameful troop surge in 2010, an escalation that went almost unopposed by the US antiwar movement, the Taliban now retains almost as much control of the country as it did in 2001. And for that Afghanistan must be punished. Eternally, it seems.

As for Trump, in his quest to privatize as much of the federal government as possible the president is still apparently entranced with the idea of turning over much of the Afghan operation to military contractors. As McCain and Warren were issuing their war cries from Kabul, Trump and Company huddled with Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater Security, and billionaire financier Stephen Feinberg, owner of DynCorp, on how to replace US troops with mercenaries from their training camps.

Give Trump some credit. His war plan is refreshingly vacant of moral posturing. Instead he views the war through a greedily focused economic lens: Afghanistan as commodity. Over the course of 16 years, the cratering American operation in Afghanistan has consumed more than $1 trillion, a huge and nearly unchallenged benefaction to military contractors. In 2016, the Pentagon spent $3.6 million for each US soldier stationed in Afghanistan. A surge of 4,000 to 10,000 additional troops, either as "private military units" or GIs, will come as a welcome new infusion of cash to the dozens of defense corporations that invested so heavily in his administration.

The New York Time's Maggie Haberman was thrilled by some most blood-curdling lines in Trump's big speech on the war, Tweeting: "We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists," says POTUS, in one of his more forceful/best lines of address." All you need to do to earn the love of the "failing New York Times, " Donald, is to kill-kill-kill and not re-build what you destroy. Trump's new Afghanistan plan replicates worst aspects of Obama's awful Af-Pak strategy, with India thrown into the mix just to increase risk of nuclear war. If Trump continues with this neocon drift, HRC may get a 3 AM call from "the creep" asking her to replace Rexxon as Secretary of State .

If that living monument to the Confederacy Jefferson B. Sessions was serious about confronting the rising scourge of opiate addiction in the US, he would start by calling for an immediate end to US military operations in Afghanistan.

Forget marijuana, the real gateway to heroin abuse is war. Since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, opium production has swelled, now accounting for more than one-third of the wrecked Afghan economy. In the last two years alone, opium poppy yields have doubled, a narcotic blowback now hitting the streets of American cities from Amarillo to Pensacola. With every drone strike in the Helmond Province, a thousand more poppies bloom.

Booked Up

What I'm reading this week

  1. Storming the Wall: Climate Change, Migration and Homeland Security by Todd Miller
  2. Rebel Yell: the Violence, Passion and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson by SC Gwynne
  3. Buried in the Bitter Waters: the Hidden History of Racial Cleansing in America by Eliot Jaspin

Sound Grammar

RIP John Abercrombie

[Aug 27, 2017] Trump and Korea I'm Also Scared

Aug 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

President Trump's ability to trigger a nuclear war is "pretty damn scary" said former US intelligence director James Clapper this week. Remember when Trump vowed to "bomb the shit" out of his enemies?

I don't have much respect for Clapper, who brazenly lied to Congress and is a ringleader of the deep government's efforts to overthrow Trump. But this time, Clapper is 100 percent right. He's scared and I am too.

This week, Trump proclaimed he would continue the pointless, stalemated US colonial war in Afghanistan and might ask India to help there – a sure-fire way to bring nuclear-armed India and Pakistan into a terrifying confrontation.

Meanwhile, Trump has backed himself into a corner over North Korea. His threats and bombast have not made the North's leader Kim Jong-un stop threatening to launch nuclear-armed missiles at the US island of Guam, Hawaii, Japan and South Korea. That is, if the US and South Korea keep up their highly provocative annual military war games on North Korea's borders that each year invoke North Korea's fury.

The Pentagon insists these war games are just a routine military exercise. But that's not the view in Pyongyang, and, as a long-time Korea military analyst, not mine.

North Korea, which faces the 500,000-man South Korean Army (ROK) most of which is just down the main highway, has good reason to be nervous. I've been with the 1st ROK Division up on and under the Demilitarized Zone. The South Koreans are heavily armed with top line equipment and tough as nails. They are backed by massive US/South Korean air and naval power.

North Koreans are well aware that Egypt deceived Israel in the 1973 war by using frequent military exercises to mask its plans to storm the Suez Canal. It worked. Israel was caught flat footed by the surprise Egyptian attack on the canal.

By refusing a peace to end the 1950-53 Korean War, and by continuing economic and political warfare against North Korea, the US has only itself to blame for North Korea developing nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Kim Jong-un saw what happened to Libya's Khadaffi (thanks to Hillary Clinton) and Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

Trump is now in a serious fix over North Korea. Jong-un has called Trump's bluff and sneered at the Donald's fire and brimstone threats. So Trump's choices are to back away from the Korean crisis he created or else attack North Korea. But the North's weapons and leadership are very well dispersed and deeply dug into the mountains. A US conventional attack on the North is estimated to cost 250,000 American casualties.

The US can certainly knock out some of Kim's medium and longer-ranged missiles in a major blitz, but it can't be certain that a few nuclear tipped N. Korean missiles won't survive to strike Japan, South Korea, Hawaii, Okinawa or Guam – and maybe even Los Angeles and San Francisco. It is unlikely that South Korea and the US can decapitate North Korea's leadership by using conventional weapons – starting with Kim Jong-un.

Unless, of course, Trump, who managed to avoid Vietnam era military service because of a bump on his foot, decides to go nuclear. This would mean hitting North Korea with a score or more nuclear weapons, large and small, before the North could riposte. North Korea would be totally destroyed, and its 25 million people left dying, maimed or starving. Japan, the world's third largest economy, would also be shattered.

nsa > , August 26, 2017 at 5:15 am GMT

Zero chance of an attack on Korea for one simple reason .there is nothing in it for the jooies . Why would the clever conniving jooies waste their most useful idiot's assets on a stupid pointless war in far away Asia, when those same assets could be used to destroy more of the ME?

Claus Eric Hamle > , August 26, 2017 at 10:02 am GMT

Actually, the US is worse than the Nazis. Torture that not even the Nazis could do. They were nice people compared to the US. Our dear ally, The Great Satan. Birth defects are worse in Fallujah than they were in Hiroshima because of Uranium weapons. In Panama City they killed about 6000 unarmed civilians when they kidnapped the president. In Ukraine they spent 5 billion dollars to organize the coup. It would be a better world without the US. Doesn´t a nuclear attack on N.K. produce Nuclear Winter so you can´t grow anything in United Bluff ?

Full Screen Fool > , August 26, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT

Take some penicillin for your case of the clap. The generals will again persuade Trump to accept the status quo plus a 15% increase in troops, equipment, and/or live drills, prompting all but anti-war voices to proclaim progress.

[Aug 26, 2017] Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause

Aug 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

August 20, 2017

SolontoCroesus > , August 20, 2017 at 4:14 pm GMT

@Corvinus "The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely."

Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their backs, and tin roof over their head.

"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see."

Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the Confederacy.

What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down? According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,

What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?

Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie?

Corvinus > , August 20, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus Yo, Corvie the normie,

What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?

Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"

There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march/

We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact thing.

So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.

"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?"

Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them."

Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more."

Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come back"?

[Aug 26, 2017] Why Google The long war

Notable quotes:
"... The Pentagon's New Map. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms : The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread. ..."
"... In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America. ..."
"... Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and had them distributed to all Forum delegates, ..."
"... "I'm not convinced that Barnett's cure would be any better than the disease," wrote Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth." ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | medium.com

No better illustration of the truly chauvinistic, narcissistic, and self-congratulatory ideology of power at the heart of the military-industrial complex is a book by long-time Highlands Forum delegate, Dr. Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map. Barnett was assistant for strategic futures in the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation from 2001 to 2003, and had been recommended to Richard O'Neill by his boss Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. Apart from becoming a New York Times bestseller, Barnett's book had been read far and wide in the US military, by senior defense officials in Washington and combatant commanders operating on the ground in the Middle East.

Barnett first attended the Pentagon Highlands Forum in 1998, then was invited to deliver a briefing about his work at the Forum on December 7th 2004, which was attended by senior Pentagon officials, energy experts, internet entrepreneurs, and journalists. Barnett received a glowing review in the Washington Post from his Highlands Forum buddy David Ignatius a week later, and an endorsement from another Forum friend, Thomas Friedman, both of which helped massively boost his credibility and readership.

Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms : The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread.

These two functions of US power are captured by Barnett's concepts of "Leviathan" and "System Administrator." The former is about rule-setting to facilitate the spread of capitalist markets, regulated via military and civilian law. The latter is about projecting military force into The Gap in an open-ended global mission to enforce security and engage in nation-building. Not "rebuilding," he is keen to emphasize, but building "new nations."

For Barnett, the Bush administration's 2002 introduction of the Patriot Act at home, with its crushing of habeas corpus, and the National Security Strategy abroad, with its opening up of unilateral, pre-emptive war, represented the beginning of the necessary re-writing of rule-sets in The Core to embark on this noble mission. This is the only way for the US to achieve security, writes Barnett, because as long as The Gap exists, it will always be a source of lawless violence and disorder. One paragraph in particular sums up his vision:

"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure. Infrastructure creates access to natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability creates markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of the Core. Mission accomplished."

Much of what Barnett predicted would need to happen to fulfill this vision, despite its neoconservative bent, is still being pursued under Obama. In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America.

Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and had them distributed to all Forum delegates, and in May 2005, Barnett was invited back to participate in an entire Forum themed around his "SysAdmin" concept.

The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire conceptualization of the 'war on terror.' Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from 1997 to 2001, described his experience of one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:

"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term that I first heard at the Forum. It seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts we are now in have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our very way of life and impose their own."

The problem is that outside this powerful Pentagon-hosted clique, not everyone else agrees. "I'm not convinced that Barnett's cure would be any better than the disease," wrote Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth."

Yet the equation of "shrinking The Gap" with sustaining the national security of The Core leads to a slippery slope. It means that if the US is prevented from playing this leadership role as "global cop," The Gap will widen, The Core will shrink, and the entire global order could unravel. By this logic, the US simply cannot afford government or public opinion to reject the legitimacy of its mission. If it did so, it would allow The Gap to grow out of control, undermining The Core, and potentially destroying it, along with The Core's protector, America. Therefore, "shrinking The Gap" is not just a security imperative: it is such an existential priority, that it must be backed up with information war to demonstrate to the world the legitimacy of the entire project.

Based on O'Neill's principles of information warfare as articulated in his 1989 US Navy brief, the targets of information war are not just populations in The Gap, but domestic populations in The Core, and their governments: including the US government. That secret brief, which according to former senior US intelligence official John Alexander was read by the Pentagon's top leadership, argued that information war must be targeted at: adversaries to convince them of their vulnerability; potential partners around the world so they accept "the cause as just"; and finally, civilian populations and the political leadership so they believe that "the cost" in blood and treasure is worth it.

Barnett's work was plugged by the Pentagon's Highlands Forum because it fit the bill, in providing a compelling 'feel good' ideology for the US military-industrial complex.

But neoconservative ideology, of course, hardly originated with Barnett, himself a relatively small player, even though his work was extremely influential throughout the Pentagon. The regressive thinking of senior officials involved in the Highlands Forum is visible from long before 9/11, which was ceased upon by actors linked to the Forum as a powerful enabling force that legitimized the increasingly aggressive direction of US foreign and intelligence policies.

[Aug 26, 2017] Poroshenko has asked the UN to send peacekeepers to the Donbass

Aug 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

August 22, 2017

Moscow Exile , August 22, 2017 at 12:55 pm

Порошенко попросит ООН ввести миротворцев в Донбасс

Poroshenko has asked the UN to send peacekeepers to the Donbass

During the session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Ukraine is to present to the UN an initiative that it enter the Donbass. This was stated by the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko during a visit to the Lugansk region, reports the Ukraine leader's website.

He noted that the issue of launching a UN peacekeeping mission and an OSCE armed mission into the zone of armed conflict in the southeast of the Ukraine "is making rather difficult progress". Poroshenko observed that this was due to the fact that Russia "categorically" does not want to "establish peace in the Donbass" and does not want to "leave the Ukraine alone".

"But I'm sure that water wears away a stone", said Poroshenko. He announced that he will present the idea of the introduction of peacekeepers in the Donbass at the session of the UN General Assembly that is to be held in New York in September.

UN "boots on the ground" in the Donbass?

No way, Porky!

marknesop , August 22, 2017 at 1:09 pm
You never know – one source at least believes the USA wants to substitute Ukraine for Syria in its determination to fight proxy wars with Russia until one ignites outright international conflict between the two powers.
Cortes , August 22, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Back door for Syria/NK programmes on regime change still ajar:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/22/two-north-korean-shipments-to-syria-intercepted-in-six-months-un-told

Chemical weapons alert!!!

kirill , August 22, 2017 at 8:56 pm
They are running out of locations to stage these false flags. But it sure is incredible what a load of credulous saps constitute most of NATO's population and even the rest of the world. This transparent chemical weapons "Assad attack" BS does not stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny. For example, if you take any of the alleged events and add them up, then they have contributed exactly zero to the Syrian government's military operations. But these events sure have been useful of Syria's enemies. So why would Assad keep doing them? Because he is like Putin who shoots down civilian airliners for sport?
marknesop , August 23, 2017 at 12:48 pm
One more time – chemical weapons are what you have recourse to as a last resort when you are losing and about to be overrun. Or, I suppose, if you want to clean out an area which might prove very costly to you in terms of manpower, and you don't want to pay too dearly to take it. But neither is the scenario for the government in Syria at present, and it would be abysmally stupid, not to mention completely unnecessary, for them to use chemical weapons. It was the last two times the west tried to pull the same stunt, as well.
marknesop , August 22, 2017 at 1:05 pm
Coal from the USA will cost more than twice as much – inconsequential, as we have discussed, when western taxpayers are giving Ukraine the money to buy it – and take several weeks to arrive . Don't wait – hire Ukraine now to plan your country's foreign policy, and avoid the rush to its door.
kirill , August 22, 2017 at 5:12 pm
America can wish, but that does not mean it will get. Ukraine is in the process of collapsing and unlike Syria, the jihadis are not the horde taking over. In fact, it will be the quiet majority that will be pushing the US stooges out. So I doubt Uncle Scumbag is all too keen on undermining its puppet regime in Kiev.
marknesop , August 23, 2017 at 12:43 pm
But that's something that really pisses me off. Washington gets its meddling fingers into the pie, and in short order everything is wrecked and it takes a decade or so for the country to recover its balance, accompanied by some serious sacrifices by its leadership and its people. And the first envoy to call when things recover their balance is Uncle Sam, and before you know it, trade ties are re-established and the process starts all over again.

Besides that, Ukraine is of no concern to the USA whatsoever, except as a Trojan horse against Russia. Russia is the target, and if Ukraine is ruined in the process Washington will shed no tears.

[Aug 26, 2017] Neo-imperialism seeks to divide the world in two. One part will be a stable area which profits from the system while in the other part a terrifying chaos will reign. This other will be a zone, where all thought of resisting has been wiped it; where every thought is fixated on surviving; an area where the multinationals can extract raw materials which they need without any duty to account to anyone

Notable quotes:
"... Much more sinister than that, American Imperial Strategy has chaos at its core, and it's deadly serious about it. ..."
"... This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-September 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the war against Iraq -- in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon's New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be implemented. ..."
"... He goes on to maintain that Assad was the first leader to understand this strategy, and his development of a counter strategy is the principle reason for his continued, indeed enhanced reign. If they didn't then, I have a feeling that Putin & Xi now also understand, and that some of their counter-strategies are becoming visible. ..."
Aug 25, 2017 | www.unz.com
Erebus > > > , August 25, 2017 at 4:32 pm GMT

Thierry Meyssan thinks the world doesn't yet understand the US' Imperial Strategy following 9/11. It is jauntily summarized by Pepe as "Empire of Chaos", as if it was trying to be an Empire, but somehow prevented from properly becoming one because of the bumbling fools that are running it.

Much more sinister than that, American Imperial Strategy has chaos at its core, and it's deadly serious about it.

This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-September 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the war against Iraq -- in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon's New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be implemented.

Imperialism seeks to divide the world in two. One part will be a stable area which profits from the system while in the other part a terrifying chaos will reign. This other will be a zone, where all thought of resisting has been wiped it; where every thought is fixated on surviving; an area where the multinationals can extract raw materials which they need without any duty to account to anyone.

Translated from the French, Parts 1 & 2 are here:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article197477.html http://www.voltairenet.org/article197541.html

He goes on to maintain that Assad was the first leader to understand this strategy, and his development of a counter strategy is the principle reason for his continued, indeed enhanced reign. If they didn't then, I have a feeling that Putin & Xi now also understand, and that some of their counter-strategies are becoming visible.

Delinquent Snail > > , August 25, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT

@The Alarmist

"As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?"
That's the beauty: There is no end game. it's a never-ending gravy-train of policy studies, think-tank research, strategy-consulting, and weapons R&D and procurement,with a smattering of foreign aid and economic development money thrown in. Everybody wins ... well, everybody who matters.
Its all about "closing the gap".

"Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms: The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread."

"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure. Infrastructure creates access to natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability creates markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of the Core. Mission accomplished"

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

The Pentagon's "highlands forum" is the "deepstate", or the closest thing to it that I've found. Its members are ranking military officers, high level government officials, "captains of industry". They have been directing America since the 90s. Several members are now part of Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, the list goes on and on.

Delinquent Snail > > , August 25, 2017 at 9:34 pm GMT

@DESERT FOX The Zionist neocon agenda is to keep us in a state of perpetual fear and in perpetual wars for as George Orwell said , wars are not meant to be won they are meant to keep the state in control and keep the proles in a state of continual poverty and fear.

There will be wars forever until and unless the Zionist neocon control over America is ended and as of now it appears there is no end in sight. England invaded Afghanistan in 1838 and did not leave until 1919 so as a template the Zionist neocons have another 64 years to go defending their CIA and MOSSAD drug running and spilling American blood in Afghanistan.

We are Oceania.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

You would find this article worthy of your time.

[Aug 26, 2017] Economic Nationalism Theory, History and Prospects

Aug 26, 2017 | www.globalpolicyjournal.com

In its aftermath, commentators warned of a resurgence of economic nationalism, that is, protectionism. Some states did increase tariff levels but this has not led to a generalised increase in barriers to trade in the pursuit of national economies for interrelated reasons: (1) the integration and therefore interdependency of economies; (2) the complexity of the global economy, making it all but impossible to separate by nationality; (3) the greater extensity of world markets compared to the mid-20th century; (4) the redundancy of the various models of economic nationalism.

Policy Implications

[Aug 26, 2017] What the Alternative Right is

Anti-globalism of alt-right is very important...
See discussion at "16 Points Of The Alt Right" That Invert The Alt Right Into Leftism
Notable quotes:
"... neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right. ..."
"... The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives. ..."
"... The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means. ..."
"... The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. ..."
"... The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | voxday.blogspot.com

  1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.
  2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles , but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
  3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
  4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.
  5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
  6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
  7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
  8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
  9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
  10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
  11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
  12. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
  13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
  14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
  15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
  16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.

The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: "The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."

This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.

[Aug 26, 2017] The Alt-Right Is Not Who You Think They Are by George Hawley

Rejection of globalization by alt-right is very important. that's why make them economic nationalists. And that's why they are hated neocon and those forces of neoliberalism which are behind Neocon/Neolib Cultural Revolution -- promotion of LGBT, uni-gender bathrooms, transsexuals, etc, identity wedge in politics demonstrated by Hillary, etc. (modeled on Mao's cultural revolution, which also what launched when Mao started to lose his grip on political power).
Aug 26, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
In my experience with the alt-right, I encountered a surprisingly common narrative: Alt-right supporters did not, for the most part, come from overtly racist families. Alt-right media platforms have actually been pushing this meme aggressively in recent months. Far from defending the ideas and institutions they inherited, the alt-right!which is overwhelmingly a movement of white millennials!forcefully condemns their parents' generation. They do so because they do not believe their parents are racist enough

In an inverse of the left-wing protest movements of the 1960s, the youthful alt-right bitterly lambast the "boomers" for their lack of explicit ethnocentrism, their rejection of patriarchy, and their failure to maintain America's old demographic characteristics and racial hierarchy. In the alt-right's vision, even older conservatives are useless "cucks" who focus on tax policies and forcefully deny that they are driven by racial animus.

... ... ...

To complicate matters further, many people in the alt-right were radicalized while in college. Not only that, but the efforts to inoculate the next generation of America's social and economic leaders against racism were, in some cases, a catalyst for racist radicalization. Although academic seminars that explain the reality of white privilege may reduce feelings of prejudice among most young whites exposed to them, they have the opposite effect on other young whites. At this point we do not know what percentage of white college students react in such a way, but the number is high enough to warrant additional study.

A final problem with contemporary discussions about racism is that they often remain rooted in outdated stereotypes. Our popular culture tends to define the racist as a toothless illiterate Klansman in rural Appalachia, or a bitter, angry urban skinhead reacting to limited social prospects. Thus, when a white nationalist movement arises that exhibits neither of these characteristics, people are taken by surprise.

George Hawley (@georgehawleyUA) is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama. His books include Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism , White Voters in 21st Century America , and Making Sense of the Alt-Right (forthcoming).

Nate J , says: August 24, 2017 at 10:35 pm

It boggles my mind that the left, who were so effective at dominating the culture wars basically from the late 60s, cannot see the type of counter-culture they are creating. Your point about alt-righters opposing their parents drives this home.

People have been left to drift in a sea of postmodernism without an anchor for far too long now, and they are grasping onto whatever seems sturdy. The alt-right, for its many faults, provides something compelling and firm to grab.

The left's big failure when all the dust settles will be seen as its inability to provide a coherent view of human nature and a positive, constructive, unifying message. They are now the side against everything – against reason, against tradition, against truth, against shared institutions and heritage and nationalism It's no wonder people are looking to be for something these days. People are sick of being atomized into smaller and smaller units, fostered by the left's new and now permanent quest to find new victim groups.

DonChi , says: August 25, 2017 at 5:17 am
I'm disappointed to read an article at The American Conservative that fails to address the reality behind these numbers. Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein white people are depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward identity politics themselves in not surprising, and it's a bit offensive to attribute this trend to the eternal mysteries of inexplicable "racist" hate.

The young can see through the fake dynamic being depicted in the mainstream media, and unless The American Conservative wants to completely lose relevance, a light should be shone on the elephant in the room. For young white kids, The Culture Wars often present an existential threat, as Colin Flaherty shows in Don't Make the Black Kids Angry–endorsed and heralded as a troubling and important work by Thomas Sowell.

Nicholas , says: August 25, 2017 at 7:44 am
From the 16 Points of the Alt-Right:
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

It is important to remember that nations are people, not geography. The current American Union, enforced by imperial conquest, is a Multi-National empire. It has been held together by force and more recently by common, though not equal, material prosperity.

With the imposition of Globalism's exotic perversions and eroding economic prospects the American Union is heading for the same fate as all Multi-National empires before it.

Nation(Identity) > Culture > Politics.

KD , says: August 25, 2017 at 9:15 am
Mysteriously absent from the scholarly discussion seems to be the pioneer of sociology, Ludwig Gumplowicz. Incredibly so, as the same factors that led to the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire abound in contemporary America.
Steve , says: August 25, 2017 at 9:25 am
I have two teenage sons – we live in Canada – and they tell that, no matter what they say, who they hang out with, what music they listen to, no matter how many times they demonstrate they are not racist, they are repeatedly called racist. They are automatically guilty because they are white. They are beaten over the head with this message in school and in the press and are sick and tired of it.
Todd Pierce , says: August 25, 2017 at 10:48 am
What might also be considered is the cultural effect upon a generation which has now matured through what the government calls "perpetual war," with the concomitant constant celebration of "warriors," hyper-patriotism as demanded of all public events such as shown in the fanaticism of baseball players engaged in "National Anthem standouts," such as were popular a couple years ago in MLB, the constant references in political campaigns to the "enemy," to include Russia as well now, and the "stab in the back" legend created to accuse anyone opposed to more war and occupation of "treason." We've "radicalized" our own youth, with Trump coming along with his links to Israel's ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli "Right," and created a cultural condition much like this: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/conservative-revolutionaries-fascism/
Doc Broom , says: August 25, 2017 at 10:49 am
Odd, you write "How did the youngest white Americans respond to the most racially polarizing election in recent memory?" In reality it was less racially polarized than 2012, when 93 % of African Americans and 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama while in 2016 88% of Blacks and 65% of Hispanics voted from Hillary. So Trump won a higher percentage of African American votes and Hispanic votes than Mitt Romney. In 2008 Obama won 95% of Blacks and 67% of Hispanics, in 2004 the numbers were 88 and 53 for Kerry so the three elections between 2004 and and 2016 were all more polarizing than the 2016 race.
Eric Mader , says: August 25, 2017 at 10:55 am
Yes, you make many important points, Mr. Hawley, but that you feel the need to join the chorus of those who see our president's reaction to Charlottesville as somehow inappropriate or even itself racist–that is sad. I don't see what else you may be implying in your opening paragraphs, since you move directly from the number of "likes" Obama's bromide received to this: "[Obama's reaction] also offered a stark contrast to that of President Trump."

In spite of many liberals' frantic desire to read whatever they want into President Trump's words, he very clearly condemned the neo-Nazis and the evil of Heather Heyer's murderer. That he also condemned the violence coming from Antifa ranks does not lessen his condemnation of that coming from the alt right side. Rather, condemning the rising illiberalism on both sides of this growing conflict was both commendable and necessary.

Many Americans see these recent events in a context stretching back years. Myself, at fifty, having watched especially the steady empowerment of a demagogic left on our campuses, I'm not much surprised that a racist "white nationalist" movement should burst into flame at just this point. The kindling is right there in the anti-white, misandrous virulence of our SJW left.

Sane conservatives have strongly condemned the new alt-right racism. The problem is that we are not seeing anything similar from the left. Our left seems incapable of condemning, let alone even seeing , its own racist excesses. Which are everywhere in its discourse, especially in our humanities departments.

I would say that in the recent decades the American left has grown much more deeply invested in identity politics than the right has ever been during my lifetime. In my view, our left has grown more enamored of identity issues precisely because it has abandoned the bread and butter issues that really matter to most Americans.

I have many left-liberal friends and regularly read the left press. Surveying the reactions to Charlottesville and the rising conflict between alt-right extremists and a radicalized Antifa left, I see nowhere a step toward acknowledging the obvious: our rabid identity politics is by no means just a problem of the right.

Racial identity politics is a curse. Sadly, it seems we've been cursed by it well and and good. The poison's reaching down to the bone. Unless both smart moderates and people on the left start to recognize just how badly poisoned our left has been by this curse, no progress will be made. Identity politics needs to be condemned on both sides of this growing national street brawl, and it should start NOW.

But I'm afraid it's not going to happen. I see my friends on the left, and they're nowhere near acknowledging the problem. And I'm sad to see our president's attempt to call out both sides has gotten such negative reactions. I'm afraid this isn't going to end well.

Todd Pierce , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:21 am
Should read: "National Anthem standoffs," not "standouts."
Siarlys Jenkins , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:29 am
Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein white people are depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward identity politics themselves in not surprising

One of many good reasons for rejecting "identity" politics generally.

CampNouidiote , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:34 am
A white friend attended a Cal State graduate program for counseling a couple of years ago; he left very bitter after all his classes told him that white men were the proximate cause of the world's misery. Then a mutual Latina friend from church invited him to coffee and told him that he was the white devil, the cause of her oppression. You can conclude how he felt.

The liberal universities' curricula has caused a storm of madness; they have unleashed their own form of oppressive thought on a significant portion on American society:white men. There is now an adverse reaction. Of course, even more opprobrium will be heaped upon on men who might question the illogicality of feminism and the left. How can all of this end well if the humanity of white men is denied in universities, public schools and universities?

G. K. , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:39 am
The Alt Right simply believes that Western nations have a right to preserve their culture and heritage. Every normal man in these United States agreed with that premise prior to the Marxist takeover of our institutions in the 1960's. And you know it's true.
Cornel Lencar , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:41 am
Maybe at the bottom of it is not racism as in they are the wrong colour, but about cultural traits and patterns of behaviour that are stirring resentment. Plus maybe the inclusion towards more social benefits not available before (Obamacare?).

The current rap music, as opposed to the initial one, that emphasized social injustice is such that one feels emptying his own stomach like sharks do.

The macho culture that black gangs, latin american gangs manifest is a bit antagonistic to white supremacists gangs and attitudes towards women. After all, vikings going raiding used to have shield maidens joining, and Celtic culture is full of women warriors. Northern European culture, harking back to pre-Christian times was more kinder to women than what women from southern Europe (Greece, Rome) experienced (total ownership by husbands, the veil, etc., all imported from the Middle East: but one must not judge too harshly, the book "Debt, the first 5000 years" could be an eye opener of the root causes of such attitudes).

Also, the lack of respect for human life expressed in these cultures is not that palatable, even for white supremacists (while one can point to Nazi Germany as an outlier – but there it was the state that promoted such attitudes, while in Japan the foreigner that is persecuted and ostracized could be the refugee from another village around Fukushima – see the Economist on that).

So I think there are many avenues to explore in identifying the rise in Alt right and white supremacists in the U.S. But colour is definitely not it.

Joe Beavers , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:50 am
Come now. There were the same types around me years ago at school, work, society. They just did not march around like Nazis in public, probably because the Greatest Generation would have kicked their butts.

Now, with the miracle of modern technology, a few hundred of them can get together and raise hell in one place. Plus they now get lots of encouraging internet press (and some discouraging).

A better article on this is:

http://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/keillor-my-advice-be-genial-dont-take-lunacy-too-seriously/

Jack V , says: August 25, 2017 at 12:17 pm
This article says virtually nothing.
The author fails to define his terms, beginning with Alt-Right.
And he seems to operate from a dislike of Trump underneath it all. This dislike is common among pundits, left and right, who consider themselves to be refined and cultured. So it was that the NYT's early condemnation of Trump led with complaints about his bearing and manners – "vulgar" was the word often used if memory serves.
This gets us nowhere. Many in the US are disturbed by the decline in their prospects with a decrease in share of wages in the national income ongoing since the 1970's – before Reagan who is blamed for it all. Add to that the 16 years of wars which have taken the lives of Trump supporters disproportionately and you have a real basis for grievances.
Racism seems to be a side show as does AntiFa.
KD , says: August 25, 2017 at 12:24 pm
Richard McEvoy writes:

"The accusation of being racist because you are white is a misunderstanding of structural racism."

I agree, but I notice that Jews have the same misunderstanding when you mention structural "Zionist Occupied Government" or "Jewish Privilege".

Perhaps because they are both conspiracy theories rooted in hatred and ignorance, which is where we descend when the concept of a statistical distribution or empirical data become "controversial", or "feelings" overtake "facts".

Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: August 25, 2017 at 12:36 pm
And progressives still refer to KKK when they seek an example of a white supremacist group. Amazing. They are too lazy even to learn that the Klan lost its relevance long ago, and the most powerful white supremacist organization of today consists of entirely different people, who are very far from being illiterate.

***

Todd Pierce,

Israel's ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu

I won't deny that Bibi is a controversial figure, but calling him an ultra militarist is quite a bit of a stretch.

haderondah , says: August 25, 2017 at 1:35 pm
Elite sports. After reading this article and it's underlying thesis, it occurs to me that the way sports have evolved in this country is very likely to be the experience that millennial whites have had that fosters their "out group" belief systems. It is very common, using soccer as my frame of reference, for wealthy suburban families to spend a fortune getting their children all the best training and access to all the best clubs. Their children are usually the best players in their community of origin and usually the top players all the way through the preadolescent years only to find all of that money and prestige gone to waste once their kids get to around sixteen at which point their children are invariably replaced on the roster by a recent immigrant -- mainly from Africa or south of our border and usually at a cut rate compared to the one they are bleeding the suburban families with. I'm assuming this is becoming more common across all sports as they move toward a pay to play corporate model. In soccer, the white kids are, seriously, the paying customers who fill out the roster that supports the truly talented kids (from countries who know how to develop soccer talent.)
sedric , says: August 25, 2017 at 8:20 pm
The thing is when blacks begin to feel power and a secure place in America then their true colors show-at least among many. Left unchecked they would become the biggest racists of all. You can see that now. So what it comes down to are white people going to give away their country? Until blacks become cooperative and productive things need to stay as they are. Sad maybe but that's just the way it has to be.
vato_loco_frisco , says: August 25, 2017 at 8:18 pm
There have always been fringe, rightwing groups in the US. Nothing new there. But the so-called alt-right, comprised of Nazi wannabes and assorted peckerwoods, is truly the spawn of the looney left, whose obsession with race has created the toxic environment we find ourselves in.

[Aug 26, 2017] American military operations are clearly increasing the risk to merchant traffic in the vicinity

Aug 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

August 21, 2017

Warren , August 21, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Published on 21 Aug 2017
A Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS John S. McCain, collided with a commercial vessel east of Singapore early Monday, 10 sailors are missing and five were injured, the Navy said.

This is the second incident in which a USS Arleigh Burke destroyer collides with a tanker or container. In June the USS Fitzgerald collided with a Philippine flagged container ship off the coast of Japan near Tokyo. How can such a sophisticated and state of the art vessel (Arleigh Burke class destroyer) collide with tankers and container ships? One is small and fast, the other is big and slow. Standards in the US navy have fallen it would seem. Perhaps the US navy is a giant with feet of clay?

Cortes , August 22, 2017 at 1:27 pm
When it's not your day

https://sputniknews.com/asia/201708221056698897-chinese-media-us-navy-obstacle/

marknesop , August 23, 2017 at 10:48 am
And there's that navy-wide review I mentioned a day or two ago. Although it was an easy guess, as it is common American military practice.

Once again I am surprised, because I made the error of not considering the area where these crashes took place. This was an easy public-relations victory for the Chinese, because American military operations are clearly increasing the risk to merchant traffic in the vicinity. And once again, as was the case in Syria, you have to ask yourself, what business is it of Uncle Sam? Does he have to intervene for a compelling reason – can anyone show that Chinese claims in the South China Sea are oppressing someone or taking away their rights? Or is it just that nothing can be done around the world without first clearing it with Washington, to see if there might be American objections from half a world away to whatever one might be doing in one's own region?

America likes to say that it conducts these operations to reassure its allies in the region that it will not abandon them, and will stand up for their rights. But who is that, in this instance? The Philippines? I would have to say the national tone there from the democratically-elected leadership was decidedly negative toward the United States and decidedly positive toward China and reaching a mutually-beneficial agreement with the latter; so much so that the USA must stir up a rebellion there, invoke the ever-lurking spectre of ISIS as it now routinely does to justify its military presence.

It seems more the case that America sees its regional influence diminishing to a pinpoint, just before the screen goes black, and is – dare I say it? desperately – trying to reassert it while everyone still fears Uncle Sam's big stick.

marknesop , August 23, 2017 at 12:38 pm
When I made that suggestion I was half-joking; it would indeed be a clever false-flag, but on reflection it would only work if the merchant ship rolled the destroyer under her bow and there were no survivors. Somebody would inevitably survive who was on the bridge or in the operations room (except the Americans call it by a different name, 'CIC', if I recall correctly, for 'Combat Information Center') who would say "He said on the common channel that he would do a straight green-to-green (his starboard side to your starboard side) passage, and at the last second he turned right into us!!" Both captains survived, and were – or will be – relieved of their commands, and they would never humbly accept that in the case of a deliberate act of aggression for which they were unprepared. The damage is also too slight (although it was fatal for some in both cases) to have been a deliberate attempt to sink the other ship, although it demonstrably is more than enough for a major incident.

At its narrowest point – Phillips Channel, south of Singapore – the Strait of Malacca is only 1.5 nautical miles from one side to the other. 2,500 yards, for two ships to pass, one of which is 100 feet wide and the other 60 feet wide. Most of it is not that narrow, but it must be hair-raising given the amount of traffic that passes through it all day and all night long. Those who run it regularly and know it, even in the dark, like the back of their own hand are sometimes a little casual about navigation lights. Radars perform poorly in areas where the land is close on both sides because of bounce and echo, and even those designed for anti-collision are susceptible to land shadow and clutter. It's likely just too many ships in too little water.

Something that has always seemed to me like a tremendous vulnerability for terrorism, though, is US airports that were either built right in the middle of a city, or the city grew up around them so that you have a parade of airliners passing all day long right over the rooftops of residential buildings. San Diego International is a classic example, only 3 miles from downtown San Diego.

In a landing pattern an airliner cannot easily maneuver, and its glide path to the runway is as predictable as sunset.

And it's flying right over your head, as you are crouched on the rooftop with your shoulder-launched Stinger or whatever. You could almost throw a potato and hit it. If I were in charge of airport security, that'd make me nervous.

Patient Observer , August 23, 2017 at 4:17 am
https://www.rt.com/usa/400593-navy-remove-aucoin-mccain/

The US Navy has relieved the commander of US 7th fleet after a destroyer collided with a merchant vessel east of the Malacca Strait. It was the fourth time a US warship has been involved in a collision in the Pacific theater this year.

Seems to be more of a PR move to me as there appears to be a huge bureaucratic distance from those more directly responsible for inadequate training, improper staff assignments, etc. that may have led to the accidents.

Moscow Exile , August 23, 2017 at 5:02 am
I am pretty sure that the USN dismisses from command officers whose vessels are damaged through negligence.
Patient Observer , August 23, 2017 at 8:28 am
Very true and the command crew has been relieved of duties but this guy is the admiral of the 7th fleet. I understand that it is a 2-year "billet" so he could have hardly been on the job long enough to have a positive or negative impact on the skill level and readiness of the crew in question.

One possible explanation is that his earlier assignments were in the areas that appear to be deficient. Or, they just needed to make a high level example to satisfy the public that something is being done. Not an expert here at all, just trying to understand the motivations of the action.

Cortes , August 23, 2017 at 12:00 pm
From my reading of the article linked, he was due to retire in three weeks so maybe he was seen as demob happy and he was shown the door.
Jen , August 24, 2017 at 5:19 am
There are also ten families who lost loved ones in the collision with the oil tanker Alnic plus another five sailors who will probably sue for compensation for injuries they suffered during the crash. Ten deaths are likely to concentrate the mind on finding ways to head off possible criminal or civil lawsuits brought by the families.
marknesop , August 23, 2017 at 1:51 pm
Well, it's hard to see what CO 7th Fleet could have done differently – sail with every ship and stand the bridge watch for the whole trip? Nobody knows yet what caused these crashes, and it has much of the smell of action taken to reassure the public that something is being done, although that something might be neither useful or productive.

I suppose he might have simply imposed a unilateral moratorium on US naval operations in the Pacific. Nobody would have gotten hurt or killed, and those ships would be undamaged. But I suspect he might have incurred the wrath of the upper echelon in that case, too.

et Al , August 24, 2017 at 6:04 am
Nobody knows yet what caused these crashes,..

Neither do I, but may I posit a theory? In short, the USN is not up to the task. In long, the Pivot to China aka the Containment of China and protecting the USA's global hegemony requires extensive logistical, human etc.changes that the USN is struggling to manage, and that is even before you take note of the geography and risks associated with gigantic choke points such as the Malacca Straits through which a huge number of ships pass, depth of water etc.

It's one thing to say your are going to do something, it is an entirely different thing to actually do it. Not to mention that China has been pushing back (EP-3 Ares II shoot down for starters).

It also seems to me rather a sign of arrogance and hubris. After all, when you are the world's greatest power it clearly shouldn't be difficult to move your military around easily.

No one is fooled by cheap words and open chest beating.

marknesop , August 24, 2017 at 10:06 am
I hope it does not occur to them that what they need, at least according to the visionary Mahan, is local bases to support their logistics and operations. Because that is going to be a non-starter from the Chinese point of view. A sign that this weakness is understood would be a significant buildup of naval forces at Yokosuka, Sasebo and Okinawa.

[Aug 25, 2017] New opium wars

Aug 25, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

karl1haushofer , August 24, 2017 at 5:08 am

The West also needs to keep the cheap heroin and opium from flowing Afghanistan to Russia. This is why more war is needed.
Patient Observer , August 24, 2017 at 5:40 pm
I tend to agree with your comment. Per wikipedia:

Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001.[3] Based on UNODC data, opium poppy cultivation was more in each of the growing seasons in the periods between 2004 and 2007 than in any one year during Taliban rule. More land is now used for opium in Afghanistan than is used for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 93% of the non-pharmaceutical-grade opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.[4] This amounts to an export value of about $4 billion, with a quarter being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials, insurgents, warlords, and drug traffickers.[5] In the seven years (1994–2000) prior to a Taliban opium ban, the Afghan farmers' share of gross income from opium was divided among 200,000 families.[6]

It was alleged by the Soviets on multiple occasions that American CIA agents were helping smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, either into the West, in order to raise money for the Afghan resistance, or into the Soviet Union, in order to weaken it through drug addiction. According to Alfred McCoy, the CIA supported various Afghan drug lords, for instance Gulbuddin Hekmatyar[12] and others such as Haji Ayub Afridi.

n July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time.[16] The ban was effective only briefly due to the deposition of the Taliban in 2002.

Apparently, growing poppies for opium is unIslamic but not unAmerican. Which group is backwards and criminal? Its all so confusing .

[Aug 25, 2017] Influential GOP Donor Sheldon Adelson Supports Campaign to Oust McMaster report

Notable quotes:
"... Powerful Republican "megadonor" Sheldon Adelson has privately told an ally that he supports a campaign against National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster that depicts him as anti-Israel and seeks to remove him from the White House, according to a new report. ..."
Aug 25, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
Powerful Republican "megadonor" Sheldon Adelson has privately told an ally that he supports a campaign against National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster that depicts him as anti-Israel and seeks to remove him from the White House, according to a new report.

Adelson wrote in an email to Mort Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of America who is running the campaign: "Now that I have talked to somebody with personal experience with McMaster, I support your efforts," according to Axios.

The support from Adelson -- arguably the most influential donor in Republican politics -- comes after his spokesman said he had nothing to do with ZOA's campaign against McMaster and was "perfectly comfortable" with the job he was doing.

... ... ...

A White House source tried to downplay the email, telling Axios that the Israel team -- which included "noted right winger Ambassador Friedman" – feels that McMaster is "remarkably pro-Israel and he just had a meeting with senior Israeli officials where he won plaudits from them for understanding their unique security needs."

Adelson's email is a blow to McMaster, who is under heavy criticism for ousting political opponents inside the National Security Council who wanted to implement the president's "America First" foreign policy agenda.

[Aug 24, 2017] Adding kerisine to fire: US approves $175 million arms supply deal to Ukraine

Aug 24, 2017 | www.fort-russ.com

The Head of the Pentagon, James Mattis is on currently a visit to Kiev.
"If we talk about defensive lethal weapons, we are considering this issue," he said.
According to the US Secretary of Defense, recommendations on this issue will be presented following the visit.
"I will now return to my place of work, and based on what I saw and what I learned, I will, of course, inform the country's leadership about very specific things that I will recommend to implement," he said.
He also said that the US has already approved the supply of military equipment to the Ukraine for $ 175 million.
Earlier, US Senator John McCain said that Mattis's visit to Ukraine opens up the possibility for Washington to begin deliveries of lethal weapons to Kiev. According to McCain, the Ukrainian authorities need such assistance to "protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country."
The senator also said that US President Donald Trump took the first "significant step" to contain Russia by imposing new sanctions against it.

[Aug 24, 2017] McCain renews calls for Trump to send weapons to Ukraine

Notable quotes:
"... During his visit to Kiev, Mattis is expected to reassure the country's leaders that the U.S. remains opposed to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, according to The Associated Press . ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | thehill.com
John McCain (R-Ariz.) is again urging President Trump to provide lethal aid to Ukraine as Defense Secretary James Mattis arrives in the country for a meeting with its president and top defense official.

"It is long past time for the United States to provide Ukraine the defensive lethal assistance it needs to deter and defend against further Russian aggression," McCain, the chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The senator's renewed calls for the U.S. to provide lethal weaponry to Ukraine as it battles pro-Russia separatists in the eastern Donbas region comes two days after Trump announced a new broad strategy for Afghanistan.

With the change of course in Afghanistan, McCain said, Trump "now has the same opportunity with regard to Ukraine."

The senior Arizona Republican argued that providing weapons to Ukraine "is not opposed to a peaceful resolution of this conflict -- it is essential to achieving it."

"As long as the status quo remains, Russia has no reason to change its behavior, and we should only expect more violence and more death," he said.

Russia has denied providing support to the separatists, but U.S. officials have claimed otherwise.

The president already has the authority to send lethal assistance to Ukraine under the annual defense policy bill. But former President Barack Obama chose instead to send only nonlethal assistance to the country.

During his visit to Kiev, Mattis is expected to reassure the country's leaders that the U.S. remains opposed to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, according to The Associated Press .

Trump entered office in January with hopes of improving the relationship between the U.S. and Russia. But ties have grown tense amid ongoing investigations into Russia's role in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

Also fueling tensions between the two countries is a sanctions package signed into law earlier this month that penalizes Russia for its efforts to meddle in the election. Trump reluctantly signed the measures after they were overwhelmingly passed by Congress.

[Aug 24, 2017] The Economist Exclusive -- The Future of Bannonism 'The Judeo-Christian Liberal West Won'

Notable quotes:
"... Bannon openly acknowledged his animus for the "Party of Davos" editorial positions of The Economist ..."
"... For Mr Bannon, who went from a working-class Virginian family to careers in Wall Street and Hollywood, those agreements epitomised the folly of globalisation, which he considers disastrous for American workers and avoidable. He hardened this critique after returning to America from a spell in Hong Kong; China, whose gaming of WTO rules Mr Bannon considers tantamount to an "economic war" against America, remains at the heart of it. ..."
"... When some of Mr Bannon's early schemes failed -- including the shabbily planned travel ban, now snarled up in the courts -- Mr Trump turned increasingly to his more conventional advisers, including Mr Kushner and Mr McMaster. ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
President Trump's former chief strategist and current Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon invited the editors of The Economist to his home for a candid discussion about the future of the populist economic nationalist movement and the civilizational challenges that will pit "the Judeo-Christian liberal West" against globalist "mercantilist" forces from China to Silicon Valley.

Bannon openly acknowledged his animus for the "Party of Davos" editorial positions of The Economist , referring to them as "the enemy" of economic nationalism for their "radical" obsession with free trade at all costs.

He also affirmed his loyalty to Trump and his desire to help him. Breitbart "will never turn on [Trump]," Bannon said, "But we are never going to let him take a decision that hurts him."

Bannon acknowledged that in the White House he had "influence," but outside at Breitbart he has "power." He said he intends to use that power to "rally the base" and "have [Trump's] back. The harder he pushes, the more we will be there for him."

The discussion soon turned to what Bannon sees as the inevitable civilizational struggle between the Judeo-Christian classical liberalism of the West -- which affirms human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and self-governance -- versus the "mercantilist, Confucian system" of an ascendant China.

From The Economist :

Among the particular opponents he has in his sights, said Mr Bannon, seated in a dining-room decorated with Christian iconography and political mementos, are congressional Republicans ("Mitch McConnell, I'm going to light him up"), China ("Let's go screw up One Belt One Road") and "the elites in Silicon Valley and Wall Street -- they're a bunch of globalists who have forgotten their fellow Americans." Despite his departure -- voluntarily, he insists, though his resignation is reported to have been demanded of him -- Mr Bannon says he will never attack his former boss. Yet Breitbart will caution Mr Trump to stick to the populist nationalist course Mr Bannon charted. "We will never turn on him. But we are never going to let him take a decision that hurts him." The website offered an early taste of this in its disparaging coverage of Mr Trump's "flip-flop" decision to send more American troops to Afghanistan, which was announced on August 21st and Mr Bannon strongly opposes (see article ).

As Mr Trump's campaign chief (his third in two months, the campaign having been roiled by scandals) Mr Bannon urged him to redouble that effort [to campaign on as a populist economic nationalist taking on the politically correct establishment]. "The American people understood his foibles and understood his character flaws and they didn't care," he says. "The country was thirsting for change and [Barack] Obama didn't give them enough. I said, we are going for a nationalist message, we are going to go barbarian, and we will win."

For Mr Bannon, who went from a working-class Virginian family to careers in Wall Street and Hollywood, those agreements epitomised the folly of globalisation, which he considers disastrous for American workers and avoidable. He hardened this critique after returning to America from a spell in Hong Kong; China, whose gaming of WTO rules Mr Bannon considers tantamount to an "economic war" against America, remains at the heart of it.

A zealous Catholic who believes in the inevitability of civilizational conflict, he considers China's growth to be an additional, overarching threat to America, which it must therefore dial back. "I want the world to look back in 100 years and say, their mercantilist, Confucian system lost. The Judeo-Christian liberal West won."

The president has, if not fixed intellectual differences with Mr Bannon, different predilections, including his slavish regard for the military and business elites now stocking his cabinet, whom his former adviser derides. ("What did the elites do?" asks Mr Bannon. "These are the guys who gave us happy talk on Iraq, who let China into the WTO and said it would sign up to the rules-based order.")

When some of Mr Bannon's early schemes failed -- including the shabbily planned travel ban, now snarled up in the courts -- Mr Trump turned increasingly to his more conventional advisers, including Mr Kushner and Mr McMaster.

On trade and security in particular, they have edged him towards the mainstream. Whereas Mr Bannon urged the president to withdraw from NAFTA and Afghanistan, for example, he has launched a modest-looking review of the former and will send more troops to the latter. Increasingly isolated, Mr Bannon's departure from the White House was predicted.

Read the rest here .

[Aug 24, 2017] Civil War inside the US Far Right by Tamar Pileggi

www.defenddemocracy.press
'I'm not going to breathe the same air as that terrorist'
Bannon boycotted Trump meet with 'terrorist' Abbas -- report

Days after his ouster from the White House, the extent of the animosity between divisive strategist Steve Bannon and the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner is steadily emerging in US media reports, with an article in Vanity Fair detailing their disputes and asserting that Bannon is now planning his "revenge."

Bannon, a hero of the so-called "alt right" whose presence in the West Wing was controversial from the start, had become the nucleus of one of several competing power centers in a chaotic White House. During his six-month tenure as Trump's chief strategist, Bannon and Kushner reportedly clashed on numerous policy issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

... ... ...

Hours after he was fired, Bannon returned to his previous job as editor of the ultra-conservative Breitbart News, where he declared war on Ivanka, Kushner and fellow "globalist" Gary Cohn.

The Vanity Fair article was headlined: "Steve Bannon readies his revenge: The war on Jared Kushner is about to go nuclear."

... ... ...

"Jared and Ivanka helped push him out. They were concerned about how they were being viewed by the Jewish community," The Mail reported on Sunday.

Read more http://www.timesofisrael.com/bannon-boycotted-trumps-meeting-with-terrorist-abbas-report

SOURCE www.timesofisrael.com

Commnets from Bannon boycotted Trump meet with 'terrorist' Abbas -- report The Times of Israel

Jossef Perl · Nahariyah, Hazafon, Israel Yes, this time it is Tamar Pileggi who gives us Time of Israel's typical Trump's blasting story quoting "Vanity Fair detailing their (i.e. Kushner vs. Bannon) disputes and asserting that Bannon is now planning his 'revenge."" If it comes from Vanity Fair that Bannon is planning a revenge (albeit without a single named source) it must be true right? But this is what the US fake news media has decended to, while the Israeli fake news media goes one step lower, just quoting the US fake media. Any 7 years old can see the that intent here continues to be to creat an impression that the Trump white is out of control and everything around Trum is falling apart. How can this kind of media continue to think the public believes a word from them? Tamar Pileggi, if all you do is quoting Vanity Fair, which is typical to the rest of the staff at TOI, why don't you all just include a link to the original articles in your TOI webpage? Who need all of you filling your paper by quoting other publications without any due diligence? How can you call yourselves journalists when all you do is cut and paste? Audrey Travis · Works at Music Teacher - Retired Perhaps, but 90% of the world knows nothing about the extreme violence of the ultra left Antifa and the fact the y brought and used weapons in Charlottesville. What Trump should have done was be explicit in the detailsof why he was condemning both side. His broadsided condemnation of both sides was the problem. Albert Reingewirtz · Works at Happily Retired He did not do any equivalence between two despicable gangs of mobsters. He talked about BOTH of their VIOLENCE. You listen too much to propaganda. The more they repeat the more people believe their lies. Steve Klein · Works at Self-Employed Albert Reingewirtz, do you believe there were "some very fine" people marching with the Nazis in Charlottesville? Like · Reply · 2 · Aug 21, 2017 5:17am Steve Klein · Works at Self-Employed 'Bannon: Mahmoud Abbas is a terrorist, I'd never meet with him'

Ousted WH strategist Steve Bannon reportedly lobbied hard for Jerusalem embassy move, tougher line against PA - but was opposed by Kushner.

David Rosenberg, 21/08/17 11:23 (Israel National News)

[Aug 24, 2017] A China-North Korea mutual defense treaty has been in effect since 1961. Under this framework, Beijing's response to Trump's "fire and fury" was a thing of beauty. If Pyongyang attacks, China is neutral. But if the US launches a McMaster-style pre-emptive attack, China intervenes militarily on behalf of Pyongyang.

Aug 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Canthama | Aug 23, 2017 5:31:30 PM | 58

There is no naive China, Russia or whatever, all Nations understand that the US regime is not reliable nor trustworthy, the game most of the Nations continue to play is the game to buy time, any war with the US regime can be hard at the moment, but not in few years time. China knows is and will play the patience game til the end, Russia does the same, expect for few "no go" like Syria and the south China sea islands.
Alexander Grimsmo | Aug 23, 2017 7:01:10 PM | 59
After Irans experience with US "lifting of sanctions", should anyone ever trust USA at all?
karlof1 | Aug 23, 2017 7:27:31 PM | 60
Canthama @56--

Nice to see you commenting here! Agreed that China and Russia understand but still seek dialog since that's the essence of "the patience game." But I wonder about those running Brazil; we don't discuss that much at SyrPers. Then there's India's Modi and the cadre of Hindu Neoliberals who seem to want to have their own game instead of teaming with China and Russia for a Win/Win partnership rather than the dying Zero-Sumism of the Neoliberalcons. And thanks again for all the effort you devote to SyrPers; it's quite remarkable!

les7 | Aug 23, 2017 8:58:38 PM | 61
does anyone remember this?

https://www.rt.com/news/386326-russian-navy-ship-crashes/

ASD | Aug 23, 2017 10:56:57 PM | 62
Canthama,
I will second Karlof1's sentiment. I think a lot of people go to SyrPer for your comments/updates on the Syrian Conflict. You seem to have the best info around on that topic.
michaelj72 | Aug 23, 2017 11:12:26 PM | 63
@50 karlof1

good article, as nearly always, from Escobar. thanks for that link
here are bits of it. and I noticed it too, as soon as China come out in a big way and said that it would defend/intervene in favor of North Korea if the US attacked first, the rhetorical level in the US when way down. This is a serious situation, and China is serious too...

Escobar is good, & so often reports and thinks outside the box meaning outside the Beltway myopic thinking...


http://www.atimes.com/article/korea-afghanistan-never-ending-war-trap/

....But this is extremely serious. A China-North Korea mutual defense treaty has been in effect since 1961. Under this framework, Beijing's response to Trump's "fire and fury" was a thing of beauty. If Pyongyang attacks, China is neutral. But if the US launches a McMaster-style pre-emptive attack, China intervenes – militarily – on behalf of Pyongyang.

As a clincher, Beijing even made it clear that its preference is for the current status quo to remain. Checkmate.

Hunger Games apart, the rhetorical war in the Korean Peninsula did decrease a substantial notch after China made its position clear....


.....The bulk of Washington's "aid" to Kabul throughout these past 16 years has been on the bombing, not the economy, front. Government corruption is cataclysmic. Warlords rule. The Taliban thrive because they offer local protection. Much to Pashtun ire, most of the army is Tajik. Tajik politicians are mostly close to India while most Pashtun favor Pakistan.....

[Aug 24, 2017] Kelly, Mattic and McMaster complete the militarization of the executive branch

"I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my opinion and probably not in Trump's mind."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
48

"...At the core of Trump's circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster...."

These three basically complete the militarization of the executive branch and the Political Elites. They've all pushed for or have been intimately involved in wars in which the US has lost or never been able to 'win'. This is Trump's best and the brightest


Kelly: In 2002, Kelly again served with the 1st Marine Division, this time as the assistant division commander. Much of Kelly's two-year assignment was spent deployed in Iraq. In March 2003, while in Iraq, Kelly was promoted to brigadier general..... later, he served as the commanding general of the Multi-National Force West in Iraq from February 2008 to February 2009....

Mattis: During the initial planning for the War in Afghanistan, Mattis led Task Force 58 in operations in the southern part of the country; In May 2004, Mattis ordered the 3:00 a.m. bombing of a suspected enemy safe house near the Syrian border, which later came to be known as the Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre, and which resulted in the deaths of 42 civilians; Mattis played key roles in combat operations in Fallujah, including negotiation with the insurgent command inside the city during Operation Vigilant Resolve in April 2004, as well as participation in planning of the subsequent Operation Phantom Fury in November; responsible for American military operations in the Middle East, Northeast Africa, and Central Asia, from August 11, 2010, to March 22, 2013; etc etc

In other words, Mattis is responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity during the destruction of Fallujah.....

H.R. McMaster: Director of the Combined Joint Interagency Task Force-Shafafiyat at the International Security Assistance Force Headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan... He is known for his roles in the Gulf War, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. From August 2007 to August 2008 McMaster was part of an "elite team of officers advising US commander" General David Petraeus on counterinsurgency operations (perhaps known as how to kill Iraqis who resisted the US invasion and occupation)

Carol Davidek-Waller | Aug 24, 2017 3:13:23 PM | 30

What you are saying is that General Jack D Ripper is now president and Dr. Strangelove is Trump's top security advisor?

[Aug 24, 2017] The US army is the military branch of the US corporate neocolonialism

Notable quotes:
"... Now, there is no doubt that the US army is the military branch of the US corporate neocolonialism. ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
Now, there is no doubt that the US army is the military branch of the US corporate neocolonialism.

globinfo freexchange

While in some cases, like Colombia, the US imperialists still search vainly for something to justify endless intervention through paramilitaries, civil wars, orchestrated coups, etc., they have completely retired from this business concerning, for example, Afghanistan.
The following cynical, warmongering hawk, completely demolished every pretext and ethics, concerning Afghanistan, through mainstream media. Speaking on MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, retired Colonel Jack Jacobs said:
I'm gonna be facetious(!), but the first conclusion that came to my mind, is that we're going now harvest poppies and we're going to sell them(!), and that's how we're going to fund it(!), which is exactly what the Taliban is doing.
But no, it sounds like we are going to be involved in extricating, releasing(!!!) mineral wealth, and there is substantial mineral wealth, and we are going to take that out of Afghanistan .
And the routine (lately) cheap justification follows:
The Chinese are already there, doing that, and I think the United States is concerned that we are not getting our share(!!!)
Then Maddow asks:
Under US military ethics(!?), can the US government go in with the protection of US soldiers and extract the wealth of another country?
The response:
Well, we can, we've done it before, there is no reason why we can't do it again (!!!!!!)
Watch the video and very spot-on commending by the hosts of the Jimmy Dore show:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/aCi-P2j0G5E


And, of course, the warmongering corporate media can't wait, as described by Jimmy Dore:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/to8YBEFp7NE


Earlier , Donald Trump not only admitted cynically the real reason behind the US invasion in Afghanistan, but proved that he is willing to expand the establishment agenda, through the mainstream media.
Now, there is no doubt that the US army is the military branch of the US corporate neocolonialism. By the way, China didn't invade or bombed any country ... dear bloody US hawks

[Aug 24, 2017] The use of intrusive technical collection and surveillance on diplomats, which sometimes causes harm in its own right

Aug 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Yul | Aug 24, 2017 1:36:51 PM | 23

No one is talking much about this except to point the finger at Cuba:

https://www.justsecurity.org/44289/sonic-attacks-diplomats-cuba-dont-rush-conclusions/

While I have not served in Cuba, my experience in a number of similar hostile, high counterintelligence threat countries suggests that this is more likely a surveillance effort gone wrong, than the use of an offensive sonic weapon.

We have very little experience anywhere in the world with directed attacks designed to physically harm to our diplomats. However, the use of intrusive technical collection and surveillance which sometimes causes harm in its own right, is consistent with past practice in Cuba and elsewhere.

Why don't I believe this was an attack intended to harm diplomats?

[Aug 24, 2017] Reports Globalists in White House Oppose Trumps Border Wall, Reforms

Notable quotes:
"... The "West Wing Democrats" in the White House are eager to sacrifice President Donald Trump's top campaign promise in exchange for Democratic approval of the tax cuts sought by wealthy donors and business interests, according to an article in Politico. In an August 23 article about Trump's push to get funding for an extended border wall, Politico described the lack of support for the wall among his business-affiliated aides: Few staff members in the West Wing are as concerned about it [as the President], senior administration officials said. Some in the White House have urged Trump not to focus as much on the wall, try to pass a clean debt-ceiling bill and move to tax reform. "You have barely anyone here saying, 'Wall, wall, we have to get the wall at all costs,'" one White House official said. Two people who have spoken to Trump said he sees not building the wall as a personal embarrassment -- and that he has shown more interest in building the wall than in other issues, like the upcoming budget negotiations. "You don't want a government shutdown," the White House official said. "He is told that. He says, 'I want money for the wall.'" The same emphasis on tax cuts for the elite before immigration reform for voters was also cited by Axios on August 20, in an article which claimed to explain why top staff chose to stay in the White House amid elite hatred of his populist, wage-boosting, pro-American priorities. Axios reported : We talked to a half dozen senior administration officials, who range from dismayed but certain to stay, to disgusted and likely soon to leave. They all work closely with Trump and his senior team so, of course, wouldn't talk on the record. Instead, they agreed to let us distill their thinking/rationale: "You have no idea how much crazy stuff we kill": The most common response centers on the urgent importance of having smart, sane people around Trump to fight his worst impulses. If they weren't there, they say, we would have a trade war with China, massive deportations, and a government shutdown to force construction of a Southern wall. "General Mattis needs us": Many talk about their reluctance to bolt on their friends and colleagues who are fighting the good fight to force better Trump behavior/decisions. They rightly point out that together, they have learned how to ignore Trump's rhetoric and, at times, collectively steer him to more conventional policy responses. This situation leaves Trump dependent on a few aides -- such as immigration reformer Steve Miller -- and his supporters at his rallies to help fend off the insistent demands by his globalist aides for a back-room surrender of his presidential goals. ..."
"... the pro-American immigration reformers who backed Trump in the election fear his globalist aides will push Trump to accept and establish former President Barack Obama's DACA amnesty in exchange for minor concessions, such as a modest amount of funds to build a short distance of border wall. ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
The "West Wing Democrats" in the White House are eager to sacrifice President Donald Trump's top campaign promise in exchange for Democratic approval of the tax cuts sought by wealthy donors and business interests, according to an article in Politico.

In an August 23 article about Trump's push to get funding for an extended border wall, Politico described the lack of support for the wall among his business-affiliated aides:

Few staff members in the West Wing are as concerned about it [as the President], senior administration officials said.

Some in the White House have urged Trump not to focus as much on the wall, try to pass a clean debt-ceiling bill and move to tax reform. "You have barely anyone here saying, 'Wall, wall, we have to get the wall at all costs,'" one White House official said.

Two people who have spoken to Trump said he sees not building the wall as a personal embarrassment -- and that he has shown more interest in building the wall than in other issues, like the upcoming budget negotiations. "You don't want a government shutdown," the White House official said. "He is told that. He says, 'I want money for the wall.'"

The same emphasis on tax cuts for the elite before immigration reform for voters was also cited by Axios on August 20, in an article which claimed to explain why top staff chose to stay in the White House amid elite hatred of his populist, wage-boosting, pro-American priorities. Axios reported :

We talked to a half dozen senior administration officials, who range from dismayed but certain to stay, to disgusted and likely soon to leave. They all work closely with Trump and his senior team so, of course, wouldn't talk on the record. Instead, they agreed to let us distill their thinking/rationale:

"You have no idea how much crazy stuff we kill": The most common response centers on the urgent importance of having smart, sane people around Trump to fight his worst impulses. If they weren't there, they say, we would have a trade war with China, massive deportations, and a government shutdown to force construction of a Southern wall.

"General Mattis needs us": Many talk about their reluctance to bolt on their friends and colleagues who are fighting the good fight to force better Trump behavior/decisions. They rightly point out that together, they have learned how to ignore Trump's rhetoric and, at times, collectively steer him to more conventional policy responses.

This situation leaves Trump dependent on a few aides -- such as immigration reformer Steve Miller -- and his supporters at his rallies to help fend off the insistent demands by his globalist aides for a back-room surrender of his presidential goals.

That surrender would help his aides win Democratic support for their goals -- but it would leave Trump with few friends heading into the 2018 midterm elections and the crucial 2020 reelection, says D.C. insiders. For example, the pro-American immigration reformers who backed Trump in the election fear his globalist aides will push Trump to accept and establish former President Barack Obama's DACA amnesty in exchange for minor concessions, such as a modest amount of funds to build a short distance of border wall.

"If [Trump's aides] are left to their own devices, they would exchange this for a few trinkets," so violating Trump's campaign promise before the 2018 and 2020 elections, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The suggested deal was outlined in a Tuesday article by Anita Kumar, a reporter for the McClatchy news service. She uses the Democrats' term -- 'dreamers' – to describe the 800,000 DACA illegals as she wrote:

White House officials want Trump to strike an ambitious deal with Congress that offers Dreamers protection in exchange for legislation that pays for a border wall and more detention facilities, curbs legal immigration and implements E-verify, an online system that allows businesses to check immigration status, according to a half-dozen people familiar with situation, most involved with the negotiations.

The group includes former and current White House chiefs of staff, Reince Priebus and John Kelly , the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump , and her husband, Jared Kushner , who both serve as presidential advisers, they said. Others who have not been as vocal publicly about their stance but are thought to agree include Vice President Mike Pence , who as a congressman worked on a failed immigration deal that called for citizenship, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn, a Democrat who serves as director of the National Economic Council.

There is no evidence that Democrats will accept that ambitious deal before the 2018 election, and much evidence that Trump's aides will quickly give up wall funding and the popular RAISE Act to win Democratic support for tax cuts. So far, top Democrats have responded that they would not offer anything as they demand a permanent DACA amnesty.

However, Trump's determination to resist his aides is likely boosted by the cheering he gets at rallies when he promises to build the wall.

"We are building a wall on the southern border, which is absolutely necessary," he told roughly 30,000 cheering supporters at an August 22 rally in Phoenix, Ariz. "The obstructionist Democrats would like us not to do it, believe me, [but] if we have to close down our government, we are building that wall We're going to have our wall. We're going to get our wall."

There you have it, @realDonaldTrump -- Your own 30k focus-group. LIKE: deportations, a wall, jobs; DON'T LIKE: Media, Afghan War & tax cuts.

-- Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) August 23, 2017

Trump later thanked the crowd.

Phoenix crowd last night was amazing – a packed house. I love the Great State of Arizona. Not a fan of Jeff Flake, weak on crime & border --

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 23, 2017

Read the Axios article here , and the Politico article here .

Under current immigration policy, the federal government accepts 1 million legal immigrants each year, even though 4 million young Americans enter the workforce to look for decent jobs. Each year, the government also hands out almost 3 million short-term work permits to foreign workers. These permits include roughly 330,000 one-year OPT permits for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, roughly 200,000 three-year H-1B visas for foreign white-collar professionals, and 400,000 two-year permits to DACA illegals.

The current annual flood of foreign labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up r eal estate prices , widens wealth-gaps , reduces high-tech investment , increases state and local tax burdens , hurts kids' schools and college education , pushes Americans away from high-tech careers , and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families.

Many polls show that Americans are very generous, they do welcome individual immigrants, and they do want to like the idea of immigration. But the polls also show that most Americans are increasingly worried that large-scale legal immigration will change their country and disadvantage themselves and their children. Trump's "Buy American, Hire American" policies are also extremely popular , including among Democratic-leaning voters.

<

[Aug 24, 2017] The Military and the Monetary, use the media as intermediaries, they are determined to keep the citizens secondary, they make so many decisions that are arbitrary

Aug 24, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

johnrf, 8/22/2017 11:41 AM EDT

Americans no longer fight to keep their shores safe,
Just to keep the jobs going in the arms making workplace.

Then they pretend to be gripped by some sort of political reflex,
But all they're doing is paying dues to the Military Industrial Complex.

The Military and the Monetary, The Military and the Monetary, The Military and the Monetary. The Military and the Monetary,

get together whenever they think its necessary,

They turn our brothers and sisters into mercenaries,
they are turning the planet into a cemetery.

The Military and the Monetary, use the media as intermediaries,
they are determined to keep the citizens secondary, they make so many decisions that are arbitrary.

We're marching behind a commander in chief,
who is standing under a spotlight shaking like a leaf.

Gil Scott Heron

[Aug 23, 2017] Trump the Hawk: If there is one useful thing to come from Trump's bad decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, it is that it has once and for all killed off the idea that Trump was ever inclined to end America's open-ended wars

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... Given his bellicose type and bullying behaviors, I never held any hope that Trump would be less than hawkish. He made clear his desire to inflate the defense budget, his desire to negate the Iran treaty, and his desire to take over Iraq's oil fields ..."
"... With Trump, it always safest to assume that there is no there there–no abiding principles, no intellectual curiosity, and no character. His supporters have projected their own desires onto an empty canvas. ..."
"... Umm – How about the U.S. conflict with Russia? Or am I only imagining that he promoted normalizing that relationship. He has been prevented from doing anything of the kind by both Democrats and Republicans in congress. ..."
"... I think the decisive FP issue that led me and many others to vote for him was his very clear pledge to work with Russia. Other issues like the Middle East are insignificant when compared to Killary's stated intention to heighten the level of conflict with Russia generally speaking and in particular over Ukraine, which she wanted to admit into NATO. The consequences of that would be very serious indeed. At this point it is not at all clear whether Trump will be able to fix things with Moscow, but the relationship is undeniably at a low point, though that is largely due to the media and congress. ..."
"... A gaggle of Mises Institute associates, such as Lew Rockwell and Walter Block pushed for Trump election in no small part because they imagined him to be less militaristic. As Larison shows, that required a strong capacity for self-delusion. What else might one expect from anarchists for Trump? ..."
"... Was Trump really serious about working with Russia? Or was it another of his lies because it pleased the base? From January until the meeting in July he did nothing to further better relations. He employed a cabal of anti Russian hawks. ..."
Aug 23, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
If there is one useful thing to come from Trump's bad decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, it is that it has once and for all killed off the idea that Trump was ever inclined to end America's open-ended wars. I hope it also has put to rest the false assumption that Trump's use of the phrase "America first" meant anything beyond a statement of generic aggressive nationalism. As a candidate, Trump was quick to denounce previous wars as disasters, but his complaint about these wars was that the U.S. wasn't "getting" anything tangible from them. He didn't see anything wrong in attacking other countries, but lamented that the U.S. didn't "take" their resources. That is not what I would call an antiwar argument.

During the campaign he never called for an end to the wars that were still ongoing, but talked only about "winning" them. He explicitly campaigned on escalating the war on ISIS (and he has done that), and he never committed to ending U.S. involvement in any other conflict (and there is no danger he will ever do that). He picked up the phrase "America first" after he heard the phrase in an interview with two New York Times reporters. He clearly didn't know where it came from or what it meant, but it sounded good and he ran with it. Trump was never the candidate of restraint or peace or non-intervention, but if we judge him on substance rather than slogans he never pretended he was. He had the good fortune to run against a Democratic candidate with a consistently hawkish and poor foreign policy record, and if he was mistaken for something other than a hawk it was because his opponent would have made almost anyone seem dovish by comparison.

If his first instinct on Afghanistan was to withdraw, as he claimed in his speech, it must not have been a very strong instinct. It is one of the few times that Trump has managed to refrain from following his instincts as president, and it was the one time that he shouldn't have. So much for the argument that Trump's instincts can make up for his lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge.

Just before the election, I gave some of the reasons why I couldn't possibly vote for Trump, and they seem worth revisiting this week:

He can't be trusted and changes his positions to whatever suits him at the time, but his stated foreign policy views are mostly awful or incoherent anyway. Trump takes a number of positions that make him just as unacceptable as any previous Republican nominee from this century. He isn't really antiwar, and he's definitely not antiwar when it matters (i.e., before the war starts). He routinely denounces the results of diplomatic engagement, wants to bring back torture, rejects the nuclear deal, takes a shamelessly pro-settler view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and seeks to have an even more bloated military budget than we already do.

Trump's hawkish positions weren't a secret before the election, and he made no effort to conceal them. His hawkish policies as president shouldn't come as a shock, especially when he had none of the relevant experience or knowledge he would have needed to push back effectively against the hawks that he surrounded himself with. As I noted earlier this year, a president as ignorant and inexperienced as Trump is much more susceptible to being pressured and influenced by his advisers. He is the least likely to be able to challenge Washington's prevailing assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Even if Trump were interested in challenging those assumptions (and for the most part he really isn't), he doesn't have the knowledge or preparation to do it.

EliteCommInc. , says: August 23, 2017 at 10:24 am

"He is the least likely to be able to challenge Washington's prevailing assumptions about the U.S. role in the world."

Here I agree. And i is not that he is being situational. He doesn't appear to have the courage to say no to bad ideas or adhere to his campaign rhetoric and stated principles concerning the use of force.

However, I am not close to abandoning the Pres just yet. There is still plenty of rope to be had.
'

Donald ( the left leaning one) , says: August 23, 2017 at 10:58 am
Correct on all counts. I would modify slightly the criticism of Clinton. She was terrible and favored every Mideast war that came along and was all set to increase tensions with Russia. Michael Morell, her ex CIA booster and possible member of her Administration if she had won said on the Charlie Rose show that we should " covertly" kill Russians in Syria.

But all that said, I can't see Clinton being as wildly irresponsible as Trump has been in his statements on North Korea. For me that's when the 25th Amendment should have been invoked.

rayray , says: August 23, 2017 at 11:33 am
"He doesn't appear to have the courage to say no to bad ideas or adhere to his campaign rhetoric and stated principles concerning the use of force."

I don't remember Trump having any particularly consistent campaign rhetoric, much less principles (other than a racist bent). It's always curious what people project onto this man.

the maybe factor , says: August 23, 2017 at 11:51 am
I've been reading you for a while now. You haven't been wrong about too much. And you weren't wrong about this. And you were equally clear-eyed about Clinton.

That said, I'd leave open the possibility of a major change before his presidency is over, if for no other reason than the very unreliability or mercurial quality you note.

Michelle , says: August 23, 2017 at 11:56 am
Given his bellicose type and bullying behaviors, I never held any hope that Trump would be less than hawkish. He made clear his desire to inflate the defense budget, his desire to negate the Iran treaty, and his desire to take over Iraq's oil fields .

He wondered why we couldn't use nuclear weapons. Granted, he was often inconsistent about his foreign policy positions, in part because of his vast ignorant, but anyone who'd mistake this blustering I'd of a man for a peacemaker was always mistaken.

With Trump, it always safest to assume that there is no there there–no abiding principles, no intellectual curiosity, and no character. His supporters have projected their own desires onto an empty canvas.

WorkingClass , says: August 23, 2017 at 12:21 pm
Umm – How about the U.S. conflict with Russia? Or am I only imagining that he promoted normalizing that relationship. He has been prevented from doing anything of the kind by both Democrats and Republicans in congress.
Baldy , says: August 23, 2017 at 12:25 pm
@ elitecomminc

If you aren't close to abandoning him yet you never will be. Trump supporters are a loyal bunch.

Phil Giraldi , says: August 23, 2017 at 12:27 pm
I think the decisive FP issue that led me and many others to vote for him was his very clear pledge to work with Russia. Other issues like the Middle East are insignificant when compared to Killary's stated intention to heighten the level of conflict with Russia generally speaking and in particular over Ukraine, which she wanted to admit into NATO. The consequences of that would be very serious indeed. At this point it is not at all clear whether Trump will be able to fix things with Moscow, but the relationship is undeniably at a low point, though that is largely due to the media and congress.
Nicolas , says: August 23, 2017 at 12:42 pm
A gaggle of Mises Institute associates, such as Lew Rockwell and Walter Block pushed for Trump election in no small part because they imagined him to be less militaristic. As Larison shows, that required a strong capacity for self-delusion. What else might one expect from anarchists for Trump?
Alan , says: August 23, 2017 at 1:39 pm
Was Trump really serious about working with Russia? Or was it another of his lies because it pleased the base? From January until the meeting in July he did nothing to further better relations. He employed a cabal of anti Russian hawks.

The fact congress voted on escalating sanctions was the result of his inactions and weakness on carrying forward this issue

Dakarian , says: August 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm
rayray

"I don't remember Trump having any particularly consistent campaign rhetoric, much less principles (other than a racist bent). It's always curious what people project onto this man."

He actually did. However, many people then read deeper into the words to then read what they 'wanted' out of him instead. The matter of Trump being anti-war is a big example since I also noticed early on that he didn't actually make any such statements.

The trick is to not sync what he doesn't like into what you think he does like. His negative statements are less about trying to bring an opposing agenda and more about being aggressive against an opponent. He bashed the Middle eastern wars not because he hated war but because he wanted to bash Obama. He bashed Healthcare to attack Democrats, not to advocate for a conservative alternative.

When you ignore his negative statements and focus more on what he positively says, his "here's what I want." rhetoric, you get a more stable political platform, for example:

He is for aggressive actions when it comes to war to defeat your enemies. He is for a strong, heavily funded army. He is pro-Israel. He sees government managed healthcare as a positive, including focusing on making sure everyone is covered though he has no real focus on what exactly that'll look like. He sees regulations as a burden and is very much pro-business.

These are statements he has made clear during the campaign days and, honestly, has been pretty stable on them when he took office. When you get past the contradictory negative bashing he does and ignore what everyone 'thinks' he's for, he's been about as stable as other presidents as far as his platform goes.

Now his voice is being muddled by the competing voices in the white house (especially when either someone else says it or when Trump is reading from a script) and Trump is about as strong willed about fighting for his causes as a wet noodle (IIRC, he handled opposition to his business matters less with fighting and more with just yelling at folks and letting his rep do the heavy lifting or making use of the fact that as CEO his rule is law so he doesn't have to FIGHT and instead just say what we'll be doing.).

But at the core, he's not as unstable as it seems. Now whether you like what that core is is another matter.

One Man , says: August 23, 2017 at 4:57 pm
Dakarian-you seem to think that what he says matters. It doesn't. Look at his big campaign issues: Build the Wall; what has he done to fight for building the wall? Nothing Investigate Hillary; Nope Ban All Muslims; He hasn't even tried to ban all Muslims Bring Jobs Back from China; Anything? Bueller? Repeal Obamacare; He couldn't even be bothered to strongly pitch his own Party.

He may not be "unstable". But he certainly has shown no inclination to follow up on his promises.

Kevin , says: August 23, 2017 at 5:08 pm
Dakarian: everything else you would say ( and I'd add a strong preference for "deals" over institutions and rules as instruments of foreign policy as another core value) but where did you get the idea that he was fighting for government managed healthcare?
rayray , says: August 23, 2017 at 5:49 pm
@Dakarian
Pretty reasonable argument and well said.

But I'm still skeptical that he thinks of much other than how Trump can look good today

[Aug 23, 2017] Good Riddance to Steve Bannon by Karl Rove

The fact that Karl rove is allowed to write for WSJ makes WSJ a yellow publication...
Aug 23, 2017 | www.wsj.com

The country is better off with him out of the West Wing, but now Trump has to step up.

After departing his post as White House chief strategist last week, Steve Bannon told the Weekly Standard that "the Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." The clear suggestion is that Mr. Trump's chance at success had followed Mr. Bannon out the door.

Trying to recast his ouster as a personal choice, Mr. Bannon bragged "I can fight better on the outside." He promised "to crush the opposition," saying "I built a f! machine at Breitbart."

The former adviser also told a Bloomberg reporter he would be "going to war for Trump against his opponents!on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America."...

[Aug 23, 2017] The Lies on Afghanistan

Aug 23, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
The Lies on Afghanistan

by Matthew Hoh

by

Photo by DVIDSHUB | CC BY 2.0

There has never been progress by the U.S. military in Afghanistan, unless you are asking the U.S. military contractors or the Afghan drug barons, of whom an extremely large share are our allies in the Afghan government, militias and security forces, there has only been suffering and destruction. American politicians, pundits and generals will speak about "progress" made by the 70,000 American troops put into Afghanistan by President Obama beginning in 2009, along with an additional 30,000 European troops and 100,000 private contractors, however the hard and awful true reality is that the war in Afghanistan has only escalated since 2009, never stabilizing or deescalating; the Taliban has increased in strength by tens of thousands, despite tens of thousands of casualties and prisoners; and American and Afghan casualties have continued to grow every year of the conflict, with U.S. casualties declining only when U.S. forces began to withdraw in mass numbers from parts of Afghanistan in 2011, while Afghan security forces and civilians have experienced record casualties every year since those numbers began to be kept by the UN.

Similarly, any progress in reconstructing or developing Afghanistan has been found to be non existent despite the more than $100 billion spent by the United States on such efforts by the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR). $100 billion, by the way, is more money than was spent on the Marshall Plan when that post-WWII reconstruction plan is put into inflation adjusted dollars. Oft repeated claims, such as millions of Afghan school girls going to school, millions of Afghans having access to improved health care and Afghan life expectancy dramatically increasing, and the construction of an Afghan job building economy have been exposed as nothing more than public relations lies. Often displayed as modern Potemkin Villages to visiting journalists and congressional delegations and utilized to justify continued budgets for the Pentagon and USAID, and, so, to allow for more killing, like America's reconstruction program in Iraq, the reconstruction program in Afghanistan has proven to be a failure and its supposed achievements shown to be virtually non-existent, as documented by multiple investigations by SIGAR, as well as by investigators and researchers from organizations such as the UN, EU, IMF, World Bank, etc.

Tonight, the American people will hear again the great lie about the progress the American military once made in Afghanistan after "the Afghan Surge", just as we often hear the lie about how the American military had "won" in Iraq. In Iraq it was a political compromise that brought about a cessation of hostilities for a few short years and it was the collapse of the political balance that had been struck that led to the return to the violence of the last several years. In Afghanistan there has never even been an attempt at such a political solution and all the Afghan people have seen in the last eight years, every year, has been a worsening of the violence.

Americans will also hear tonight how the U.S. military has done great things for the Afghan people. You would be hard pressed to find many Afghans outside of the incredibly corrupt and illegitimate government, a better definition of a kleptocracy you will not find, that the U.S. keeps in power with its soldiers and $35 billion a year, who would agree with the statements of the American politicians, the American generals and the pundits, the latter of which are mostly funded, directly or indirectly, by the military companies. It is important to remember that for three straight elections in Afghanistan the United States government has supported shockingly fraudulent elections, allowing American soldiers to kill and die while presidential and parliamentary elections were brazenly stolen. It is also important to remember that many members of the Afghan government are themselves warlords and drug barons, many of them guilty of some of the worst human rights abuses and war crimes, the same abuses of which the Taliban are guilty, while the current Ghani government, and the previous Karzai government, have allowed egregious crimes to continue against women, including laws that allow men to legally rape their wives.

Whatever President Trump announces tonight about Afghanistan, a decision he teased on Twitter, as if the announcement were a new retail product launch or television show episode, as opposed to the somber and painful reality of war, we can be assured the lies about American progress in Afghanistan will continue, the lies about America's commitment to human rights and democratic values will continue, the profits of the military companies and drug barons will also continue, and of course the suffering of the Afghan people will surely continue.

Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For Peace and World Beyond War. In 2009 he resigned his position with the State Department in Afghanistan in protest of the escalation of the Afghan War by the Obama Administration. He previously had been in Iraq with a State Department team and with the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the Center for International Policy.

[Aug 23, 2017] Trumps Afghan war strategy is related to the attempt to exploit mineral respources of Afghanistan to offset the costs of the war

Notable quotes:
"... What is clear is that the US lacks any confidence in the Afghanistan military to defend whatever quasi-democracy we have established and we are not going to set about chasing terrorists, around the country. I would note that the Taliban are not terrorists. Though I suspect that is about to change. ..."
"... More likely is that this crazy contractor idea takes over and we turn Afghanistan into a lackluster version of the East India Company. Where is our Edmund Burke? ..."
"... I teach community college freshman who do not even know who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, nor do they know why we are in Afghanistan. Their top three guesses for who was behind 9/11 were 1. Russia, 2. China, 3. North Korea. ..."
"... Former mining guy checking in here. This mineral resources argument is a fantasy, pure and simple. Mineral resources, with the possible exception of gold, require modern transportation. Get this through your heads, guys, rocks are heavy. Afghanistan is landlocked, extremely mountainous, with horrible roads, no railroads, and limited water resources. ..."
"... This is an unquestionable defeat for Trump's voters ..."
"... The problem with having an empire is that eventually the empire owns you. It must be preserved and defended at any cost. A few thousand troops will not make a difference. Thus the classic dilemma: we can't win and we can't leave. ..."
"... Two things 1st) Trump needs the military's support if he wants to stay in power. He will obey the military. 2nd) You give these deadlines they can't keep so you get rid of the deadline. Typical mismanagement. ..."
"... My guess is that despite what Trump says career US military and diplomatic leaders were more interested in sending a signal to not just Pakistan but also China, Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and other Middle East countries that the US was not going to allow itself to be pushed out of South Asia. ..."
"... One can blame Trump for caving. But the real engine behind this is the sheer inertia of money and career. It turns out to be an unstoppable force: unthinking, blind, and stupid. Welcome to Idiocracy. ..."
Aug 23, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

MEOW , says: August 21, 2017 at 11:18 pm

Conflict Deaths and the song goes on
Span
Casualties
American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 25,000
Northwest Indian War 1785-1795 ~1,056
Quasi-War 1798-1800 514
War of 1812 1812-1815 ~20,000
1st Seminole War 1817-1818 36
Black Hawk War 1832 305
2nd Seminole War 1835-1842 1,535
Mexican-American War 1846-1848 13,283
3rd Seminole War 1855-1858 26
American Civil War 1861-1865 ~625,000
Indian Wars 1865-1898 919
Great Sioux War 1875-1877 314
Spanish-American War 1898 2,446
Philippine-American War 1898-1913 4,196
Boxer Rebellion 1900-1901 131
Mexican Revolution 1914-1919 ~35
Haiti Occupation 1915-1934 148
World War 1 1917-1918 116,516
North Russia Campaign 1918-1920 424
American Expeditionary Force Siberia 1918-1920 328
Nicaragua Occupation 1927-1933 48
World War 2 1941-1945 405,399
Korean War 1950-1953 36,516
Vietnam War 1955-1975 58,209
El Salvador Civil War 1980-1992 37
Beirut 1982-1984 266
Grenada 1983 19
Panama 1989 40
Persian Gulf War 1990-1991 258
Operation Provide Comfort 1991-1996 19
Somalia Intervention 1992-1995 43
Bosnia 1995-2004 12
NATO Air Campaign Yugoslavia 1999 20
Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) 2001-2014 2,356
Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) 2003-2012 4,489
Andrew Zook , says: August 22, 2017 at 6:02 am
What if Trump's character and his supporters' character (lack thereof) made it easy for this to come about? I know here at TAC there was an effort to make Trump_vs_deep_state appear to be non-confrontational but Trump's a good con-man and those of us who were/are #neverTrump saw that years ago and now that he's in numerous bad spots, he'll do what humans like him (of such low character) have always done distract and posture and pick fights that kill other people in a quest to feel like a winner again God help us through this and maybe this time we'll learn our lesson.
EliteCommInc. , says: August 22, 2017 at 7:22 am
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,

No.

" . . . accepted a stalemate and armistice with the Chinese-backed North Koreans, and it was true again in 1975, when the U.S. suffered an ignominious defeat and 58,000 dead at the hands of pajama-clad guerrillas and the North Vietnamese army."

Since the US military was not in Vietnam in 1975, I it's going to be very tough to read through the rest of this. One of these days the self flagellation about Vietnam will eventually cease. Our departure was premature, but a defeat it was not.

Good grief. Aside from the US Embassy, the military presence in Vietnam was minimal. We all but departed in 1973. Had we remained, it most likely would have modeled the situation between North and South Korea.

What is clear is that the US lacks any confidence in the Afghanistan military to defend whatever quasi-democracy we have established and we are not going to set about chasing terrorists, around the country. I would note that the Taliban are not terrorists. Though I suspect that is about to change.

Conservative American , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:11 am
@George_Patton : "he [Trump] will let those Arabs in Afghanistan know whose boss. I thought this was the american CONSERVATIVE, not the American Pansy."

You borrowed the honorable name of Patton. But the real George Patton wouldn't fight a stupid, unnecessary war. The real George Patton was a military scholar who closely studied his enemy; you can bet your a** he would know that Afghans aren't Arabs.

Ignorance like this gives American conservatism a bad name. TAC's writers are trying to fix that. Get out of their way.

Clifford Story , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:16 am
Donnie was not ENTIRELY silent on Afghanistan's natural resources. Kevin Drum heard this tidbit, and confirmed it from the transcript:

"In this struggle, the heaviest burden will continue to be borne by the good people of Afghanistan and their courageous armed forces. As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/how-will-afghanistan-defray-the-cost-of-the-war/

I'm sure this will work almost as well as using Iraqi oil to pay for that war

Sam , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:21 am
My God this is demoralizing!
Conewago , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:33 am
"'Three yards and a cloud of dusty'" is a reference to a classic of American football, Woody Hayes. But any true college football enthusiast knows the sordid way in which Coach Hayes saw his great career end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEVJyf0ft3I

He was too stubborn for his own good. Americans of the post-Vietnam breed, like football fans, no longer take to three yards and a cloud of dust. Even if it was worth trying in Afghanistan, this country couldn't do it for long. More likely is that this crazy contractor idea takes over and we turn Afghanistan into a lackluster version of the East India Company. Where is our Edmund Burke?

Hexexis , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:37 am
"how the US can get supplies to Afghanistan without Pakistan?"

This has always been a Pakistan demand: in the main, not so much for Afghanistan but to retain so-called defenses against India. Pakistan has steadfastly subsidized interlopers in Afghanistan w/ the dear hope that they'll aid in any skirmish in the Hindu Kush.

Mac61 , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:43 am
Three yards and a cloud of dust worked well for Ohio State in the 1970s. They don't play football like that anymore.

We have strategies for containment or for mitigating greater damage not for winning. Like Donald Rumsfeld, we as a country mostly go about our business not caring and not even thinking about it because the toll is "an acceptable death rate."

I teach community college freshman who do not even know who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, nor do they know why we are in Afghanistan. Their top three guesses for who was behind 9/11 were 1. Russia, 2. China, 3. North Korea.

Rebuild the USA.

George_Patton , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:48 am
Conservative American,

I think you are in the minority both here and in the country. We who want to make America Great Again, can only do so if we show how strong we are. And I admire Patton, he studied the enemy to kill them, thats what military people do. Not Pansies. At least, EliteCommInc understands this. We think we lost Vietnam because it was pounded into us by the liberal media. We won that war, and left because it was time for us to leave.

March Hare , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:53 am
Former mining guy checking in here. This mineral resources argument is a fantasy, pure and simple. Mineral resources, with the possible exception of gold, require modern transportation. Get this through your heads, guys, rocks are heavy. Afghanistan is landlocked, extremely mountainous, with horrible roads, no railroads, and limited water resources.

In the case of gold, artisanal mining (Joe and Bubba with a couple bulldozers and a heap leach pad) might be able to make a few bucks. Everything else requires either cheap bulk transportation (trains or ships) or requires the construction of concentrators and smelters nearby. Those facilities need water, and a local workforce.

None of that infrastructure exists now, and none will be constructed realistically within the next 16 years. And if it were, where would all the goodies go? West through Iran, northeast through to China, so who would be benefitting from all that expense?

peterc , says: August 22, 2017 at 11:01 am
A few more stars for the brass, many more $ for the defense industry. At the cost of more dead and maimed – ours and theirs. Their dead and maimed will increase the number of those who "love" us. And we will foot the bill. I was hoping for something else.
Dan Green , says: August 22, 2017 at 11:19 am
No surprises here. Trump is surrounded by military. When one thinks about it, we are typically a waring nation always involved in a war or some conflict we choose to stick our nose in. Obama had zero use for the military brass and therefore the brass had zero influence for 8 long years.
Jon S , says: August 22, 2017 at 11:41 am
This is an unquestionable defeat for Trump's voters
One Man , says: August 22, 2017 at 12:28 pm
Trump should declare victory and leave. It will fool his supporters, who have proven they are easily fooled.
David Smith , says: August 22, 2017 at 12:53 pm
The problem with having an empire is that eventually the empire owns you. It must be preserved and defended at any cost. A few thousand troops will not make a difference. Thus the classic dilemma: we can't win and we can't leave.

This is the definition of a defeat. We can send as many troops as we want, we can keep them there as long as we want, we can drop as many bombs as we want, we can kill as many people as we want, but we can't control the country.

FreeOregon , says: August 22, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Robert E. Lee and Douglas McArthur are sorely missed. Maybe the generals have a limited mindset, one not geared to achieving resolution, and peace?
Fabian , says: August 22, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Two things 1st) Trump needs the military's support if he wants to stay in power. He will obey the military. 2nd) You give these deadlines they can't keep so you get rid of the deadline. Typical mismanagement.
Who Da Boss , says: August 22, 2017 at 2:25 pm
@George_Patton – "We who want to make America Great Again, can only do so if we show how strong we are. "

But Trump's not strong. He's weak! He can't even show his generals who's boss, like Truman did, or Lincoln. He can't even show Bibi Netanyahu who's boss! He lets Israel rip us off while we do all the fighting. Hell, Trump can't even show MITCH MCCONNELL who's boss! We need a strong, conservative American president, not a weak punk like Trump.

PR Doucette , says: August 22, 2017 at 3:52 pm
Interesting that this article or any others on the same topic make any mention of the concerns the US government and/or military have regarding the warming relationship between Pakistan and China and the recent agreement between these countries to develop a road/rail link between China and the development of a new deep sea port on the coast of the Arabian Sea in Pakistan. My guess is that despite what Trump says career US military and diplomatic leaders were more interested in sending a signal to not just Pakistan but also China, Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and other Middle East countries that the US was not going to allow itself to be pushed out of South Asia.
Someone in the crowd , says: August 22, 2017 at 4:33 pm
This is a huge victory for everyone who wants to see the U.S. continue bleeding itself to death while feeding a bloated 'defense' and imperial bureaucracy.

One can blame Trump for caving. But the real engine behind this is the sheer inertia of money and career. It turns out to be an unstoppable force: unthinking, blind, and stupid. Welcome to Idiocracy.

Dieter Heymann , says: August 22, 2017 at 5:31 pm
March Hare. When I consider the emergence of China since the death of Mao I would not rule out the possibility that its engineers and Afghan work force could create the infrastructure needed to make Afghanistan's mining profitable in less than 16 years.
philadelphialawyer , says: August 22, 2017 at 8:54 pm
"My guess is that despite what Trump says career US military and diplomatic leaders were more interested in sending a signal to not just Pakistan but also China, Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and other Middle East countries that the US was not going to allow itself to be pushed out of South Asia."

Trump is the President. Its his job and duty and responsibility to push back against those "leaders." Same as it was Obama's. Both failed.

Also, you have hit on the very reason why the US, even if one concedes that it must play the Great Game, can certainly afford to be "pushed out of South Asia." Russia and China and Pakistan and India and Iran and Turkey and the Arabs, and others, all have interests there. There is a natural balance of power in Mainland Asia. The US simply does not need to be a player there. Central Asia is far from any vital US interest, any US treaty ally, any important shipping lane, any important anything. If there is one place on Earth that the US can reasonably concede to others the task of policing and controlling it has got to be Central Asia.

Just let it go.

john , says: August 22, 2017 at 8:55 pm
I do object to the title of the article, this isn't a losing strategy, this is a not-winning strategy. You might ask yourself what you are doing playing a game where winning is impossible?
Janwaar Bibi , says: August 22, 2017 at 9:41 pm
This has always been a Pakistan demand: in the main, not so much for Afghanistan but to retain so-called defenses against India. Pakistan has steadfastly subsidized interlopers in Afghanistan w/ the dear hope that they'll aid in any skirmish in the Hindu Kush.

To understand Pakistan's role in Afghanistan, you need to look at their border, which is called the Durand Line, after some Brit who drew it on the map.

The Durand Line cuts right through the Pashtun homelands, so you have Pashtuns on both sides. Afghanistan is dominated by Pashtuns, and they have never recognized the Durand Line – in fact, Afghanistan was the only country in the world that voted against admitting Pakistan to the UN in 1948 for this reason, and even the Taliban refused to recognize the Durand Line.

Pakistan is dominated by Punjabis, and their nightmare is that if a strong Afghan government were to emerge, their Pashtun province of Khyber-Pakhtunkwa might want to secede and join their fellow Pashtuns in Afghanistan. To prevent this, they have undermined every government in Afghanistan and kept it weak by funding rival tribes.

Since it is politically incorrect to say that they are undermining a fellow Muslim state, the Pakistani government puts out some BS about the need for "strategic depth" against India. India has fought numerous wars against Pakistan but they were border skirmishes – neither side advanced more than 20-30 km inside the other's territory (1971 is another story). We are already blessed with 200 million Muslims in India – no one in his right mind wants to occupy Pakistan and take in another 200 million, a lot of whom are fanatics and jihadis. If there was some way to saw Pakistan off and float it out into the Indian Ocean, we would do it in a heartbeat.

By the way, the Hindu Kush is part of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, not with India. No Hindus left alive there by the Religion of Peace for anyone to worry about.

[Aug 23, 2017] The Mini-Skirt Deception How McMaster Got His Afghan 'Surge' - Antiwar.com Original

Aug 23, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

The Mini-Skirt Deception: How McMaster Got His Afghan 'Surge'

A photo of Soviet era Afghanistan won Trump over

by Justin Raimondo Posted on August 23, 2017 August 22, 2017 According to reports , Gen. H. R. McMaster convinced President Trump to give up his longstanding opposition to the Afghan war by showing him this photograph, below, of Afghan women in what the media are describing as "miniskirts." As the Washington Post put it:

"One of the ways McMaster tried to persuade Trump to recommit to the effort was by convincing him that Afghanistan was not a hopeless place. He presented Trump with a black-and-white snapshot from 1972 of Afghan women in miniskirts walking through Kabul, to show him that Western norms had existed there before and could return."

The irony is that, in 1972, when this photo was taken on the grounds of Kabul University, Afghanistan was firmly in the orbit of the Soviet Union, as it had been since 1953, when Prime Minister Mohammed Daoud Khan rose to power and instituted a series of progressive reforms, including equal rights for women. The next year, Khan deposed King Mohammed Zahir Shah, and Soviet aid poured in, alongside the Red Army.

More irony: it was the United States, alongside Washington's then-ally Osama bin Laden, that overthrew the communist regime, and conducted a guerrilla war against the Afghan government and their Soviet sponsors. The last Soviet troops left in 1989 -- and there were no more miniskirts to be seen anywhere in Afghanistan.

Gen. McMaster knows all this: our President does not. Does McMaster think he can bring communism back to Afghanistan? I jest, but with serious intent. Because the commies attempted what our President has vowed not to do in Afghanistan: they sought to create a nation out of a collection of mountain-guarded valleys, isolated bastions untouched by time or the vaunted ambitions of their many would-be conquerors.

Here is Trump , trying to justify the prolongation of the longest war in our history:

"I am here to talk about tonight, that nearly 16 years after September 11 attacks, after the extraordinary sacrifice of blood and treasure, the American people are weary of war without victory.

"Nowhere is this more evident than with the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history – 17 years. I share the American people's frustration. I also share their frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money, and most importantly, lives trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations."

How to reconcile this abjuration of hubris with that photo of mini-skirted Afghan women? It can't be done, but then again Trump is all about contradictions:

"Shortly after my inauguration, I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis and my national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of all strategic options in Afghanistan and South Asia.

"My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts. But all my life, I have heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the oval office. In other words, when you are president of the United States."

Has such a confession of betrayal ever been uttered by a public figure? For years he told us Afghanistan was a waste of lives and treasure, and that we had to get out. And now he's flip-flopped because McMaster showed him a photo of Afghan women in mini-skirts! Oh, how easy it was – too easy!

"So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle," he claims. Really? Did he study it enough to realize that no one has ever conquered Afghanistan? Did he contemplate the storied history of that unforgiving land, which caused even Alexander the Great to turn back? Did he study the provenance and context of that photograph, in which Afghan women dared to show their knees?

Of course not!

"After many meetings over many months," Trump continued,

"[W]e held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David with my cabinet and generals to complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusions about America's core interests in Afghanistan.

"First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need and the trust they have earned to fight and to win."

What is the moral meaning of this? That lives wasted in a futile crusade must be matched by yet more sacrifices on the altar of the war god? We are told that Trump met with five enlisted soldiers before making his decision to go along with the generals' war plan: I'd like to know what they said. The White House won't tell us.

From this moral inversion Trump descends into an inversion of the facts:

"Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11."

The 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned and directed from Hamburg, Germany , and right here in the United States – indeed, not too far from Mar-a-Lago -- not Afghanistan. This "safe haven" argument is so tattered and overused that it comes apart under the most cursory inspection. And what are we to make of someone who describes ending a 16-year war as "a hasty withdrawal"?

We are then treated to the myth of "victory denied in Iraq," which attributes the rise of ISIS to US withdrawal from Iraq – when it reality ISIS was created by our "ally" Saudi Arabia and the Arab sheikhs of the Gulf states who have funded and encouraged their co-co-religionists in the Sunni-versus-Shi'ite civil war that has sundered the Muslim world. And of course there would be no ISIS if not for the invasion of Iraq – but even Trump knows this quite well.

Drifting off into vague threats against Pakistan, Trump reiterates his determination to solve "big and intricate problems." But how? How will it be different, this time?

"As a result of our comprehensive review, American strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia will change dramatically in the following ways: A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I've said it many times, how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin or end military operations.

"We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities. Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America's enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out."

A child could see through this rodomontade. Because unless we intend to stay in Afghanistan forever, what is to prevent the Taliban from simply waiting us out? We have to leave sometime. So what is the purpose of this vow of silence? It is simply to keep the truth from the American people. We won't know how many troops are in Afghanistan, nor will we know when more are sent in: it's all to be conducted under the radar, so that Trump's voters – who took seriously his tirades against foreign wars – won't know the extent to which he has betrayed his mandate, and them.

The absurdities accumulate like refuse during a garbage strike:

"We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists." Yet Gen. McMaster, a disciple of Gen. David Petraeus and his " COINdistas ," are the original nation-builders – aside from the Soviets, that is, from whom they cadged their "strategy."

"We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time they are housing the same terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately." No it won't. Remember when Sen. Rand Paul tried to end US aid to Pakistan? It didn't happen then and it won't happen now.

"As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us." So Afghanistan is going to pay for this war, just like Mexico is going to pay for the Great Wall of Texas! In your dreams, Mr. President.

"Our commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check." The history of the past 16 years refutes this, as does the content of the President's peroration. Of course we're giving them a blank check: that's because the Afghan government only has such resources as we give to it. And since Trump is refusing to say when or even if we're leaving, then our commitment is indeed potentially unlimited. Does he imagine our Afghan puppets, who are happily stealing us blind, don't know this?

I can't bear to go on cataloging the lies, the contradictions, the flip-flops – it pains me to even think about it, much less write about it. The "America First" foreign policy Trump promised during the campaign is just a memory, and his baffled supporters are left to contemplate the most brazen betrayal in modern American political history.

Yet there are some benefits, here, for anti-interventionists to reap, which may not be readily apparent. Because Trump's supporters, who took seriously his anti-interventionist rhetoric, are now wondering what hit them. They had to go through this experience: betrayal can be enlightening. And we here at Antiwar.com are ready, willing, and able to enlighten them. That is, after all, what we're about.

On step forward, two steps back – this is how progress, however agonizingly slow, is made.

AN IMPORTANT NOTE TO MY READERS

Take heart: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Trump's brazen reversal on Afghanistan and the triumph of the generals is provoking a movement in the opposite direction – the anti-interventionist movement is growing and getting more visible. Many of Trump's supporters are in open rebellion , and we here at Antiwar.com are getting more visibility: check out this Washington Post piece which reads like it was taken from our front page.

We're making progress – but we can't do it without your help. We need your tax-deductible donations to keep Antiwar.com going. Donate today!

Read more by Justin Raimondo The Revolution Betrayed – August 20th, 2017 'Russia-gate' Hoax About To Be Exposed? – August 17th, 2017 Which Way for the Trump Administration? – August 15th, 2017 Don't Say We Didn't Warn You – August 13th, 2017 What Are We To Believe? – August 10th, 2017

[Aug 23, 2017] Military leaders consolidate power in Trump administration

Aug 23, 2017 | www.msn.com

Connected by their faith in order and global norms, these military leaders are rapidly consolidating power throughout the executive branch as they counsel a volatile president. Some establishment figures in both political parties view them as safeguards for the nation in a time of turbulence.

Trump's elevation of a cadre of current and retired generals marks a striking departure for a country that for generations has positioned civilian leaders above and apart from the military.

"This is the only time in modern presidential history when we've had a small number of people from the uniformed world hold this much influence over the chief executive," said John E. McLaughlin, a former acting director of the CIA who served in seven administrations. "They are right now playing an extraordinary role."

In the wake of the deadly racial violence in Charlottesville this month, five of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were hailed as moral authorities for condemning hate in less equivocal terms than the commander in chief did.

On social policy, military leaders have been voices for moderation. The Pentagon declined to immediately ac t upon Trump's Twitter announcement that he would ban transgender people from the armed forces, instead awaiting a more formal directive that has yet to arrive.

Inside the White House, meanwhile, generals manage Trump's hour-by-hour interactions and whisper in his ear -- and those whispers, as with the decision this week to expand U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, often become policy.

At the core of Trump's circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. The three men have carefully cultivated personal relationships with the president and gained his trust.

[Aug 22, 2017] Hawks Soaring After Bannons Departure by Michael Crowley

Notable quotes:
"... Stephen Bannon may have been a political adviser to President Donald Trump, but his firing Friday could have an impact on U.S. foreign policy from Europe to the Middle East and Asia. Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster. ..."
"... More generally, it will remove an internal brake on U.S. military action abroad. Bannon has argued greater U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria and was among the few White House officials to oppose President Donald Trump's early-April missile strike in Syria. ..."
"... Tonight if Trump order more troops to Afghanistan, he'd put the last and hardest nail on his own coffin. I do not understand, how long Americans will let the Deep State win, making them sacrificial animals at the mercy of a perpetual power. ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

His exit is a win for backers of a more traditional -- and interventionist -- U.S. foreign policy.

Stephen Bannon may have been a political adviser to President Donald Trump, but his firing Friday could have an impact on U.S. foreign policy from Europe to the Middle East and Asia. Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

Bannon was a regular participant in national security debates, often as an opponent of military action and a harsh critic of international bodies like the United Nations and the European Union.

He has also been a withering critic of diplomatic, military and intelligence professionals -- "globalists" he says have repeatedly shown bad judgment, particularly when it comes to U.S. military interventions abroad. That put him at loggerheads with Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as well as McMaster.

"If you look at the balance of power of isolationists versus internationalists in the White House now, it seems safe to say that the pendulum has swung towards the internationalists," said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Though Bannon has not described himself as an "isolationist," he has proudly adopted Trump's "America First" motto, which he says argues for spending less blood and treasure overseas for anything less than America's most vital interests.

He has also alarmed European leaders with his criticism of the E.U. and his expressed support for some European nationalist movements. Bannon actively backed Great Britain's 2016 "Brexit" from the E.U. and introduced Trump to its chief political advocate, the populist British politician Nigel Farage.

"Our European allies are happy about Bannon's departure," said Jorge Benitez, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council.

In the immediate term, foreign policy insiders agreed, Bannon's departure also could increase the chances of a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan -- a plan championed by McMaster but strongly opposed by Bannon, who managed to draw out debate on the issue with direct appeals to Trump.

More generally, it will remove an internal brake on U.S. military action abroad. Bannon has argued greater U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria and was among the few White House officials to oppose President Donald Trump's early-April missile strike in Syria.

Bannon is not totally conflict averse: He calls for a far stronger U.S. posture against China and has warned that war with Beijing could be inevitable. But he pressed Trump to take economic, not military action against Beijing.

And on Wednesday, Bannon told the American Prospect magazine that there is "no military solution" to Trump's standoff with North Korea -- undermining the president's recent military threats against that country, and echoing China's view of the situation.

Beyond the policy realm, Bannon's exit is a clear victory for national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who at times seemed to be in zero-sum struggle with the Trump adviser for power and influence in the White House.

Foreign policy veterans were startled when, in early February, Trump designated Bannon as a member of the National Security Council's elite principals committee -- calling it unprecedented for a White House political adviser to have a reserved seat at the table for life-and-death debates.

McMaster stripped Bannon of his official NSC position in April, after succeeding the ousted Michael Flynn -- a Bannon ally -- as national security adviser. Bannon continued to attend NSC meetings and debates about foreign policy in the Oval Office. But Bannon resented McMaster for demoting him, and for purging several Flynn allies from the NSC.

Bannon and McMaster also sharply differed on how Trump should discuss terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda. Bannon favors using the phrase "radical Islamic extremism," but McMaster has largely prevented Trump from saying it in public on the grounds that it could alienate moderate Muslims who hear it as an attack on their religion.

McMaster's defenders have accused Bannon of spearheading a campaign of leaks meant to undermine the top national security aide.

"The campaign to get him out was clearly coming from Bannon or his allies," said Brian McKeon, a former NSC chief of staff and senior Pentagon policy official in the Obama administration. "The national security adviser's job is hard enough without having to always look over your shoulder to see who's trying to knife you.

"This will make McMaster's days a little easier," he added.

No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

Get Your Free Daily Newsletter You can't buy your way onto these pages

Likely to share McMaster's satisfaction at Bannon's ouster is Tillerson, who chafed at Bannon's role in State Department personnel decisions. Speaking to the American Prospect this week, Bannon boasted that he was working to remove Tillerson's top official for China and East Asia.

"I'm getting Susan Thornton out at State," Bannon said in the interview.

In a pointed show of support the next morning, Tillerson shook Thornton's hand in front of television cameras.

And when Tillerson recommended in February that Trump nominate former Reagan and George W. Bush administration official Elliott Abrams to be his deputy, Bannon intervened to block the choice, according to Abrams.

"Bannon's departure probably means a return to normalcy, where the State and Defense Departments will have greater influence on foreign policy," Abrams said.

Bannon also told the Prospect that he was "changing out people" on the Pentagon's China desk. Mattis, too, has had personnel disputes with the White House.

"Anything that Tillerson and Mattis really push for will now have a better chance of winning out -- for better and for worse," Abrams added.

Abrams and others said that Bannon's exit makes it more likely that McMaster and Mattis will convince Trump to send more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the subject of a meeting among Trump and his national security team at Camp David today.

Some sources downplayed the significance of Bannon's departure, however -- noting that, on military and diplomatic issues, Bannon was more dissenter than policy maker.

Ben Rhodes, a former top national security aide to former President Barack Obama, said Bannon's main contributions was his backing for Trump's early executive orders restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries. Bannon was also a defender of his friend and ally Sebastian Gorka, a controversial White House adviser who often appears on television.

"On national security, it was hard to see Bannon's influence anywhere other than the Muslim ban and Gorka doing cable hits, so I don't think it changes that much," Rhodes said, adding: "It does suggest a greater likelihood of a troop increase in Afghanistan."

And several sources cautioned that while Bannon may not longer occupy the White House, his worldview is still frequently reflected in the words of the most powerful policymaker of all: President Trump.

European allies "will not be popping champagne corks because their main source of worry remains in the White House, Donald Trump," Benitez said. "Most Europeans blame Trump personally rather than Bannon or other subordinates for damaging transatlantic relations."

"The president gets the last vote," McKeon added. "And he has a different approach to foreign policy than all his predecessors."

Eliana Johnson contributed reporting

===

Click Here To Support Information Clearing House

Felix · 7 hours ago

As long as there is disagreement there is hope for compromise and moderation. If everyone in the Executive branch were in agreement, there would be no hope for moderation..
DrS · 6 hours ago
Our 'dear' leaders are NOT in control. North Korea ia a distraction as is Trump. Examine the military buildup by Nsto against Russia. Time for Germany, Russia and China to work together militarily for harmony/peace in our world.
andrewboston · 4 hours ago
God help us when Bannon is the voice of reason ......
Bill Malcolm · 4 hours ago
330 million people and a bunch of nutbars in charge of the place, very few of whom have ever had a vote cast for them in any election, Trump being the exception. Some guy like Bannon sits around formulating a wanker worldview and somehow gains power for seven months. I don't suppose the EU gives a tinker's damn that he dislikes it, it's none of his business. Fulminating on it just exposes his acceptance of Imperial America, muttering threats because in his blinkered mind that's not the way the US would have organized Europe - I am unaware that anyone with a brain regards Bannon as an intellectual, merely a weirdo. Then you have all these generals running around thinking they're political geniuses or something, all unelected bozos with little exposure to real life. Giving and taking orders and salutes all around, living a regimented life - just the thing for running the civilian part of the USA.

Why is it that in the US you vote for dogcatchers, sheriffs and judges which no other country bothers with, yet all these high cabinet posts are filled from unelected dorks out there who somehow got noticed, picked by the president, nominated and agreed to by the Senate? The argument has been, well because they're specialists. So what - they're not responsible to the electorate in any direct manner. There's a fat chance that they are managerial competents if they are from the military, a big chance they have developed some warped theory about the world, and few of them are in the slightest bit interested in domestic politics as it relates to the average citizen. 50% of the budget goes to running the armed forces, by nature always measuring foreign "threats" as if diplomacy was a competition or something. The business types picked as cabinet secretaries are invariably from the big business side of the ledger and find foreigners annoying when they don't hand over their natural resources for next to nothing royalties, leading to the government bashing these foreigners over the head until they put someone in charge who sees the "light" and becomes a US ally.

It's a formula for bad government for the domestic population from beginning to end. So up ramps the patriotism to make the people keep the faith which many are happy to do, and then they crap all over the way other countries are organized, their food, customs and "only in America can a hobo be elected President" and there's no opportunity anywhere but in the USA memes. Mesmerized by their own propaganda into thinking the US is the best there is. Cough.

GivingUpOnTrump · 4 hours ago
Tonight if Trump order more troops to Afghanistan, he'd put the last and hardest nail on his own coffin. I do not understand, how long Americans will let the Deep State win, making them sacrificial animals at the mercy of a perpetual power.

[Aug 22, 2017] Pat Buchanan

Buchanan demonstrates very superficial understanding of the result of the USSR collapse. Afghan war was just one contributing factor. It was never the primary reason. Soviet people understood pretty well that they actually faced the USA in Afghan war. Or more correctly the combination of the USA has technological superiority, Saudi money and political Islam. The fact that the USA supplied Stingers portable anti-aircraft rocket launchers. Which later will shoot down some US helicopters. The fact the the USA fe-factor put political Islam on front burner later will bite the USA several times.
Also Buchanan does not understand the role of neoliberal revolution (or coup d'ιtat if you wish, called quite coup) of 80th in the current US troubles. Trump was the first ever presidential candidate, who companied and managed to win the elections on promises to tame neoliberal globalization. The fact that he was crushed in six month of so is not surprising, as he faced very well organize Trotskyite militants (aka deep state) - neoliberalism is actually Trotskyism for rish. Russiagate witch hunt with its Special Prosecutor is a replica of Stalin processes. As Marx used to say history repeats, first as tragedy, second as farce.
"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire," said Winston Churchill. and this is the essence of Trump betrual of his election promises.
Notable quotes:
"... Is it now the turn of the Americans? Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council, Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to augment the 8,500 already there. Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent? The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country. ..."
"... Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest: "War between Russia and the West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely. Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action." ..."
"... Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze. ..."
"... Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war. ..."
"... America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay out of future wars. ..."
"... This agenda did exist and Trump used it to get elected. Once he pulled off that trick he tried to get together again (unsuccessfully) with his New York Plutocrat friends. It's that New York social background. It's always been difficult to see Trump fit together economically or socially with the America that elected him, and after he got elected he quickly weakened his ties with Middle America. So why should he complain about Fake News since he got elected on a Fake Agenda? ..."
"... Trump does not even remember what he was elected to do. A man who was determined to drain the swamp is deep, up to his neck, in that swamp. The neocons and the never-Trumpers are the main decision makers in the Trump administration. All the loyal supporters have been chased out of the Trump's inner circle. A man who built his empire with his brain and shrewdness can't seem to handle the Presidency. He is trying to appease the very same people who opposed him in the election. ..."
"... For a smart businessman, Donald Trump can't seem to make any friends. There is a very simple solution to these wars of choice. Mr. Trump swallow your pride and bring the boys home. You will save American lives and will also earn the gratitude of the families of these soldiers. You may even bring peace to many countries around the world and people who have been displaced by these wars can return home. You may even solve the refugee problem in the process. You might even save your presidency. Give peace a chance. ..."
"... I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it won't be any consolation to some members of his base. ..."
"... Trump isn't going to keep his campaign promises. ..."
"... Continuing to maintain forces in South Korea continues to contribute to our bankruptcy. ..."
"... Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any campaign promises. ..."
Aug 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

12 Comments

"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire," said Winston Churchill to cheers at the Lord Mayor's luncheon in London in November 1942. True to his word, the great man did not begin the liquidation. When his countrymen threw him out in July 1945, that role fell to Clement Attlee, who began the liquidation. Churchill, during his second premiership from 1951-1955, would continue the process, as would his successor, Harold Macmillan, until the greatest empire the world had ever seen had vanished.

While its demise was inevitable, the death of the empire was hastened and made mo re humiliating by the wars into which Churchill had helped to plunge Britain, wars that bled and bankrupted his nation. At Yalta in 1945, Stalin and FDR treated the old imperialist with something approaching bemused contempt. War is the health of the state, but the death of empires. The German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires all fell in World War I. World War II ended the Japanese and Italian empires -- with the British and French following soon after. The Soviet Empire collapsed in 1989. Afghanistan delivered the coup de grace.

Is it now the turn of the Americans? Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council, Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to augment the 8,500 already there. Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent? The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country.

Yet what did the great general, whom Trump so admires, Douglas MacArthur, say of such a strategy? "War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision." Is not "prolonged indecision" what the Trump strategy promises? Is not "prolonged indecision" what the war policies of Obama and Bush produced in the last 17 years? Understandably, Americans feel they cannot walk away from this war. For there is the certainty as to what will follow when we leave.

When the British left Delhi in 1947, millions of former subjects died during the partition of the territory into Pakistan and India and the mutual slaughter of Muslims and Hindus. When the French departed Algeria in 1962, the "Harkis" they left behind paid the price of being loyal to the Mother Country. When we abandoned our allies in South Vietnam, the result was mass murder in the streets, concentration camps and hundreds of thousands of boat people in the South China Sea, a final resting place for many. In Cambodia, it was a holocaust.

Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he has been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the failures of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.

Consider the wars, active and potential, Trump faces.

Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest: "War between Russia and the West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely. Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action."

If Pyongyang tests another atom bomb or ICBM, some national security aides to Trump are not ruling out preventive war.

Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.

Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war.

America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay out of future wars.

America voted for economic nationalism and an end to the mammoth trade deficits with the NAFTA nations, EU, Japan and China. America voted to halt the invasion across our Southern border and to reduce legal immigration to

Grandpa Charlie > , August 22, 2017 at 6:33 am GMT

I think that the case of Korea is very different from all the others, but generally I agree with Mr. Buchanan to the extent that I say: Pat Buchanan for President

Miro23 > , August 22, 2017 at 6:44 am GMT

Trump's populist-nationalist and America First agenda,

This agenda did exist and Trump used it to get elected. Once he pulled off that trick he tried to get together again (unsuccessfully) with his New York Plutocrat friends. It's that New York social background. It's always been difficult to see Trump fit together economically or socially with the America that elected him, and after he got elected he quickly weakened his ties with Middle America. So why should he complain about Fake News since he got elected on a Fake Agenda?

MEexpert > , August 22, 2017 at 7:12 am GMT

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This quote is so well-known that almost everyone knows it, except perhaps the politicians and the generals. Afghanistan has been called the deathbed of empires. The two recent empires to go down are the British and the Soviet. For almost 200 years the British tried to tame the Afghan tribes but couldn't. The devastation they caused did not deter the natives. It is all there in the history books for everyone to read. The Soviet empire didn't even last ten years. It cut its losses and ran.

The lack of teaching of history and geography in American schools is quite evident when one looks at the performance of American forces in Afghanistan after 17 years. Add the arrogance of the Presidents and the generals to this lack of knowledge and one can understand the disasterous results of the Afghan war. One other subject that is missing from the modern presidency is diplomacy. War over diplomacy seems to be the order of the day.

Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he has been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the failures of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.

Trump does not even remember what he was elected to do. A man who was determined to drain the swamp is deep, up to his neck, in that swamp. The neocons and the never-Trumpers are the main decision makers in the Trump administration. All the loyal supporters have been chased out of the Trump's inner circle. A man who built his empire with his brain and shrewdness can't seem to handle the Presidency. He is trying to appease the very same people who opposed him in the election.

Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.

It is never going to happen. Not only the Middle East would be set ablaze, but America will lose its European allies as well. The relations with Russia are already confrontational and heading fast towards an ultimate war. European allies are also confused about the US foreign policy or lack thereof. Trade war is brewing with China. The only country which is happy with this chaos is Israel.

For a smart businessman, Donald Trump can't seem to make any friends. There is a very simple solution to these wars of choice. Mr. Trump swallow your pride and bring the boys home. You will save American lives and will also earn the gratitude of the families of these soldiers. You may even bring peace to many countries around the world and people who have been displaced by these wars can return home. You may even solve the refugee problem in the process. You might even save your presidency. Give peace a chance.

Renoman > , August 22, 2017 at 8:51 am GMT

No one has ever been able to conquer Afghanistan why would America think it can? Likely just throwing a bone to the neocons. As for Iran, Trump has been beating his chest all over the World and doing nothing, again with the Neocon feeding, I don't think he has any intention of getting into anything larger than a skirmish with anyone, he's a lot smarter than he looks --

syd.bgd > , August 22, 2017 at 9:10 am GMT

Well while Mr. Buchanan is not an expert in Balkans history, or politics, as I've argued here, he is excellent in American history and politics. An article somewhat short, because he is not connecting his sharp analysis to ongoing First Amendment disaster. It comes along, obviously, but still an excellent piece.

To be copied and saved in my personal archives, anyway. I do not believe that even this site will last long. Greetings from Serbia, suicidal country controlled from that feudal fortress (US Embassy) where our Scott-Pasha resides.

Chris Dakota > , August 22, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT

It was the eclipse that swept across America to change it forever. We now know we are on our own, there is no political solution for this war. The eclipse marks the end of a war, our war, we lost. Trump extends Afghan swamp war on the very day. Eclipse was conjunct Trumps Mars, he was castrated. Doesn't mean we won't win, but it won't be via the rigged ballot box and the DC swamp.

KenH > , August 22, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it won't be any consolation to some members of his base.

Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any campaign promises.

But if it prevents tens of thousands of knuckle dragging Afghans steeped in a culture of violence, pedophilia and pederasty from entering America as refugees then I guess there's a silver lining.

MEH 0910 > , August 22, 2017 at 1:42 pm GMT

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/full-transcript-donald-trump-announces-his-afghanistan-policy/537552/

My original instinct was to pull out, and historically, I like following my instincts. But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Trump isn't going to keep his campaign promises. That means he's not going to build a beautiful wall on our southern border.

Liberty Mike > , August 22, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie What is different about "the case of Korea"?

Continuing to maintain forces in South Korea continues to contribute to our bankruptcy.

Liberty Mike > , August 22, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

@KenH I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it won't be any consolation to some members of his base.

Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any campaign promises.

... ... ..

[Aug 21, 2017] Steve Bannon Plots Fox News Competitor As He Goes To War With Globalists, Report

Notable quotes:
"... Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power. ..."
"... "That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying." ..."
"... The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free. I've got my hands back on my weapons ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Axios: that part of that war effort might include a brand new cable news network to the right of Fox News.

Axios' Jonathan Swan hears Bannon has told friends he sees a massive opening to the right of Fox News , raising the possibility that he's going to start a network. Bannon's friends are speculating about whether it will be a standalone TV network, or online streaming only.

Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power.

Now he has the means, motive and opportunity: His chief financial backer, Long Island hedge fund billionaire Bob Mercer, is ready to invest big in what's coming next, including a huge overseas expansion of Breitbart News. Of course, this new speculation comes after Bannon declared last Friday that he was " going to war" for Trump ...

" If there's any confusion out there, let me clear it up. I'm leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents... on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,

Meanwhile, with regard his internal adversaries , at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing's aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system, Bannon was ever harsher...

"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has big plans to marginalize their influence.

"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."

Finally, perhaps no one can summarize what Bannon has planned for the future than Bannon himself:

"The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free. I've got my hands back on my weapons.

I am definitely going to crush the opposition. There's no doubt. I built a f***ing machine at Breitbart. And now we're about to rev that machine up."

[Aug 21, 2017] As President Trump considers sending more troops to Afghanistan, it's worth recalling the modern U.S. dynamic of politicians and generals making misguided judgments about war, writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

Aug 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: mauisurfer | Aug 20, 2017 7:58:16 PM | 10

By Ray McGovern

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/20/truth-and-lives-vs-career-and-fame/

[Aug 21, 2017] Truth and Lives vs. Career and Fame by Ray McGovern

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Fifty years ago, I could have tried to stop the Vietnam War, but lacked the courage. On Aug. 20, 1967, we at CIA received a cable from Saigon containing documentary proof that the U.S. commander, Gen. William Westmoreland, and his deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams, were lying about their "success" in fighting the Vietnamese Communists. I live with regret that I did not blow the whistle on that when I could have.

(I wrote about this two years ago: " The Lasting Pain from Vietnam Silence ," republished below.)

Why raise this now? Because President Donald Trump has surrounded himself with starry-eyed generals (or generals with their eyes focused on their careers). And he seems to have little inkling that they got their multiple stars under a system where the Army motto "Duty, Honor, Country" can now be considered as "quaint" and "obsolete" as the Bush-Cheney administration deemed the Geneva Conventions.

All too often, the number of ribbons and merit badges festooned on the breasts of U.S. generals these days (think of the be-medaled Gen. David Petraeus, for example) is in direct proportion to the lies they have told in saluting smartly and abetting the unrealistic expectations of their political masters (and thus winning yet another star).

In my apologia that follows, the concentration is on the crimes of Westmoreland and the generations of careerist generals who aped him. There is not enough space to describe (or even list) those sycophantic officers here.

There are, sadly, far fewer senior officers who were exceptions, who put the true interests of the country ahead of their own careers. The list of general officers with integrity – the extreme exceptions to the rule – is even shorter. Only three spring immediately to mind: two generals and one admiral, all three of them cashiered for doing their job with honesty. What they experienced was instructive and remains so to this day.

1-On February 25, 2003, three weeks before the attack on Iraq, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that post-war Iraq would require "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers." He was immediately ridiculed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, for having exaggerated the requirement. Shinseki retired a few months later.

2-Army General David McKiernan was cut from the same cloth. When President Barack Obama took office, McKiernan was running the war in Afghanistan. Even before Obama's election, he had expressed himself openly and strongly against applying the benighted Iraq-style "surge" of forces to Afghanistan, emphasizing that Afghanistan is "a far more complex environment than I ever found in Iraq," where he had led U.S. ground forces.

"The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,'" McKiernan told a news conference on Oct. 1, 2008. He warned that a large, sustained military buildup would be necessary to achieve any meaningful success. Worse still for the Washington Establishment, McKiernan added a stunning "no-no" – he said to achieve anything approaching a satisfactory outcome would take a decade, perhaps 14 years. Imagine!

Former CIA Director (and later Defense Secretary) Robert Gates.

For his political bosses, that cautionary realism was too much. On May 11, 2009, the Defense Secretary whom Obama's predecessor bequeathed to him, Robert Gates, sacked McKiernan, who had been in command less than a year. Gates replaced him with the swashbuckling Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a protégé of Gen. (and later CIA Director) David Petraeus.

Now, more than eight years later – with the American death toll almost quadrupled since the start of the Obama administration ( now exceeding 2,400 ), with a vastly greater death toll among Afghan civilians and with the U.S. military position even more precarious – President Trump is receiving advice to dispatch more U.S. troops.

3-Admiral William J. ("Fox") Fallon , one of the last Vietnam War veterans on active duty late into George W. Bush's administration, took over as chief of the Central Command on March 16, 2007. Fallon had already come under heavy criticism from the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute for not being hawkish enough.

Fallon had also been confronting Vice President Dick Cheney's desire to commit U.S. forces to another Mideast war, with Iran. As Fallon was preparing to take responsibility for U.S. forces in the region, he declared that a war with Iran "isn't going to happen on my watch," according to retired Army Col. Patrick Lang who told the Washington Post.

Gen. David Petraeus posing before the U.S. Capitol with Kimberly Kagan, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War. (Photo credit: ISW's 2011 Annual Report)

Fallon's lack of patience with yes-men turned out to be yet another bureaucratic black mark against him. Several sources have reported that Fallon was sickened by David Petraeus's earlier, unctuous pandering to ingratiate himself with Fallon, his superior (for all-too-short a time). Fallon is said to have been so turned off by all the accolades in a flowery introduction given him by Petraeus that he called him to his face "an ass-kissing little chicken-shit," adding, "I hate people like that."

Fallon lasted not quite a full year. On March 11, 2008, Gates announced the resignation of Fallon as CENTCOM Commander, but Fallon's resistance to a war on Iran bought enough time for the U.S. intelligence community to reach a consensus that Iran had stopped work on a nuclear bomb years earlier, thus removing President Bush's intended excuse for going to war.

A Troubling Message

Sadly, however, the message to aspiring military commanders from this history is that there is little personal gain in doing what's best for the American people and the world. The promotions and the prestige normally go to the careerists who bend to the self-aggrandizing realities of Official Washington. They are the ones who typically become esteemed "wise men," the likes of Gen. Colin Powell, who went with the political winds (from his days as a young officer in Vietnam through his tenure as Secretary of State).

Someone needs to tell President Trump what Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity told President George W. Bush in a memorandum for the President on February 5, 2003, immediately following Powell's deceptive testimony urging the United Nations' Security Council to support an invasion of Iraq. What we said then seems just as urgent now:

Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations on Feb. 5. 2003, citing satellite photos which supposedly proved that Iraq had WMD, but the evidence proved bogus.

"[A]fter watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

And on the chance that President Trump remains tone-deaf to such advice, let me appeal to the consciences of those within the system who are privy to the kind of consequential deceit that has become endemic to the U.S. government. It is time to blow the whistle – now.

Take it from one who lives with regret from choosing not to step forward when it might have made a difference. Take it from Pentagon Papers truth-teller Daniel Ellsberg who often expresses regret that he did not speak out sooner.

Take it from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in a passage ironically cited often by President Obama: "We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now there is such a thing as being too late."

[Below is McGovern's article from May 1, 2015]

The Lasting Pain from Vietnam Silence

Exclusive: Many reflections on America's final days in Vietnam miss the point, pondering whether the war could have been won or lamenting the fate of U.S. collaborators left behind. The bigger questions are why did the U.S. go to war and why wasn't the bloodletting stopped sooner, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern reflects .

By Ray McGovern

Ecclesiastes says there is a time to be silent and a time to speak. The fortieth anniversary of the ugly end of the U.S. adventure in Vietnam is a time to speak and especially of the squandered opportunities that existed earlier in the war to blow the whistle and stop the killing.

While my friend Daniel Ellsberg's leak of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 eventually helped to end the war, Ellsberg is the first to admit that he waited too long to reveal the unconscionable deceit that brought death and injury to millions.

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.

I regret that, at first out of naiveté and then cowardice, I waited even longer until my own truth-telling no longer really mattered for the bloodshed in Vietnam. My hope is that there may be a chance this reminiscence might matter now if only as a painful example of what I could and should have done, had I the courage back then. Opportunities to blow the whistle in time now confront a new generation of intelligence analysts whether they work on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, ISIS or Iran.

Incidentally, on Iran, there was a very positive example last decade: courageous analysts led by intrepid (and bureaucratically skilled) former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence Thomas Fingar showed that honesty can still prevail within the system, even when truth is highly unwelcome.

The unanimous intelligence community conclusion of a National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon four years earlier played a huge role in thwarting plans by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to attack Iran in 2008, their last year in office. Bush says so in his memoir; and, on that one point, we can believe him.

After a half-century of watching such things closely, this is the only time in my experience that the key judgment of an NIE helped prevent a catastrophic, unwinnable war. Sadly, judging from the amateurism now prevailing in Washington's opaque policymaking circles, it seems clear that the White House pays little heed to those intelligence officers still trying to speak truth to power.

For them I have a suggestion: Don't just wring your hands, with an "I did everything I could to get the truth out." Chances are you have not done all you can. Ponder the stakes the lives ended too early; the bodies and minds damaged forever; the hatred engendered against the United States; and the long-term harm to U.S. national interests and think about blowing the whistle publicly to prevent unnecessary carnage and alienation.

I certainly wish I had done so about what I learned of the unconscionable betrayal by senior military and intelligence officers regarding Vietnam. More recently, I know that several of you intelligence analysts with a conscience wish you had blown the whistle on the fraud "justifying" war on Iraq. Spreading some truth around is precisely what you need to do now on Syria, Iraq, Ukraine and the "war on terror," for example.

I thought that by describing my own experience negative as it is and the remorse I continue to live with, I might assist those of you now pondering whether to step up to the plate and blow the whistle now, before it is again too late. So below is an article that I might call "Vietnam and Me."

Photos of victims of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam galvanized public awareness about the barbarity of the war. (Photo taken by U. S. Army photographer Ronald L. Haeberle)

My hope is to spare you the remorse of having to write, a decade or two from now, your own "Ukraine and Me" or "Syria and Me" or "Iraq and Me" or "Libya and Me" or "The War on Terror and Me." My article, from 2010, was entitled "How Truth Can Save Lives" and it began:

If independent-minded Web sites, like WikiLeaks or, say, Consortiumnews.com, existed 43 years ago, I might have risen to the occasion and helped save the lives of some 25,000 U.S. soldiers, and a million Vietnamese, by exposing the lies contained in just one SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Saigon.

I need to speak out now because I have been sickened watching the herculean effort by Official Washington and our Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) to divert attention from the violence and deceit in Afghanistan, reflected in thousands of U.S. Army documents, by shooting the messenger(s), WikiLeaks and Pvt. Bradley Manning.

After all the indiscriminate death and destruction from nearly nine years of war, the hypocrisy is all too transparent when WikiLeaks and suspected leaker Manning are accused of risking lives by exposing too much truth. Besides, I still have a guilty conscience for what I chose NOT to do in exposing facts about the Vietnam War that might have saved lives.

The sad-but-true story recounted below is offered in the hope that those in similar circumstances today might show more courage than I was able to muster in 1967, and take full advantage of the incredible advancements in technology since then.

Many of my Junior Officer Trainee Program colleagues at CIA came to Washington in the early Sixties inspired by President John Kennedy's Inaugural speech in which he asked us to ask ourselves what we might do for our country. (Sounds corny nowadays, I suppose; I guess I'll just have to ask you to take it on faith. It may not have been Camelot exactly, but the spirit and ambience were fresh, and good.)

Among those who found Kennedy's summons compelling was Sam Adams, a young former naval officer out of Harvard College. After the Navy, Sam tried Harvard Law School, but found it boring. Instead, he decided to go to Washington, join the CIA as an officer trainee, and do something more adventurous. He got more than his share of adventure.

Sam was one of the brightest and most dedicated among us. Quite early in his career, he acquired a very lively and important account, that of assessing Vietnamese Communist strength early in the war. He took to the task with uncommon resourcefulness and quickly proved himself the consummate analyst.

Relying largely on captured documents, buttressed by reporting from all manner of other sources, Adams concluded in 1967 that there were twice as many Communists (about 600,000) under arms in South Vietnam as the U.S. military there would admit.

Dissembling in Saigon

Visiting Saigon during 1967, Adams learned from Army analysts that their commanding general, William Westmoreland, had placed an artificial cap on the official Army count rather than risk questions regarding "progress" in the war (sound familiar?).

Official photo of Army Chief of Staff GEN William C. Westmoreland. (Wikipedia)

It was a clash of cultures; with Army intelligence analysts saluting generals following politically dictated orders, and Sam Adams aghast at the dishonesty, consequential dishonesty. From time to time I would have lunch with Sam and learn of the formidable opposition he encountered in trying to get out the truth.

Commiserating with Sam over lunch one day in late August 1967, I asked what could possibly be Gen. Westmoreland's incentive to make the enemy strength appear to be half what it actually was. Sam gave me the answer he had from the horse's mouth in Saigon.

Adams told me that in a cable dated Aug. 20, 1967, Westmoreland's deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams, set forth the rationale for the deception. Abrams wrote that the new, higher numbers (reflecting Sam's count, which was supported by all intelligence agencies except Army intelligence, which reflected the "command position") "were in sharp contrast to the current overall strength figure of about 299,000 given to the press."

Abrams emphasized, "We have been projecting an image of success over recent months" and cautioned that if the higher figures became public, "all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion."

No further proof was needed that the most senior U.S. Army commanders were lying, so that they could continue to feign "progress" in the war. Equally unfortunate, the crassness and callousness of Abrams's cable notwithstanding, it had become increasingly clear that rather than stand up for Sam, his superiors would probably acquiesce in the Army's bogus figures. Sadly, that's what they did.

CIA Director Richard Helms, who saw his primary duty quite narrowly as "protecting" the agency, set the tone. He told subordinates that he could not discharge that duty if he let the agency get involved in a heated argument with the U.S. Army on such a key issue in wartime.

CIA Director Richard Helms.

This cut across the grain of what we had been led to believe was the prime duty of CIA analysts, to speak truth to power without fear or favor. And our experience thus far had shown both of us that this ethos amounted to much more than just slogans. We had, so far, been able to "tell it like it is."

After lunch with Sam, for the first time ever, I had no appetite for dessert. Sam and I had not come to Washington to "protect the agency." And, having served in Vietnam, Sam knew first hand that thousands upon thousands were being killed in a feckless war.

What to Do?

I have an all-too-distinct memory of a long silence over coffee, as each of us ruminated on what might be done. I recall thinking to myself; someone should take the Abrams cable down to the New York Times (at the time an independent-minded newspaper).

Clearly, the only reason for the cable's SECRET/EYES ONLY classification was to hide deliberate deception of our most senior generals regarding "progress" in the war and deprive the American people of the chance to know the truth.

Going to the press was, of course, antithetical to the culture of secrecy in which we had been trained. Besides, you would likely be caught at your next polygraph examination. Better not to stick your neck out.

I pondered all this in the days after that lunch with Adams. And I succeeded in coming up with a slew of reasons why I ought to keep silent: a mortgage; a plum overseas assignment for which I was in the final stages of language training; and, not least, the analytic work, important, exciting work on which Sam and I thrived.

Better to keep quiet for now, grow in gravitas, and live on to slay other dragons. Right?

One can, I suppose, always find excuses for not sticking one's neck out. The neck, after all, is a convenient connection between head and torso, albeit the "neck" that was the focus of my concern was a figurative one, suggesting possible loss of career, money and status not the literal "necks" of both Americans and Vietnamese that were on the line daily in the war.

But if there is nothing for which you would risk your career "neck" like, say, saving the lives of soldiers and civilians in a war zone your "neck" has become your idol, and your career is not worthy of that. I now regret giving such worship to my own neck. Not only did I fail the neck test. I had not thought things through very rigorously from a moral point of view.

Promises to Keep?

As a condition of employment, I had signed a promise not to divulge classified information so as not to endanger sources, methods or national security. Promises are important, and one should not lightly violate them. Plus, there are legitimate reasons for protecting some secrets. But were any of those legitimate concerns the real reasons why Abrams's cable was stamped SECRET/EYES ONLY? I think not.

Air Force F-105s bomb a target in the southern panhandle of North Vietnam on June 14, 1966. (Photo credit: U.S. Air Force)"

It is not good to operate in a moral vacuum, oblivious to the reality that there exists a hierarchy of values and that circumstances often determine the morality of a course of action. How does a written promise to keep secret everything with a classified stamp on it square with one's moral responsibility to stop a war based on lies? Does stopping a misbegotten war not supersede a secrecy promise?

Ethicists use the words "supervening value" for this; the concept makes sense to me. And is there yet another value? As an Army officer, I had taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

How did the lying by the Army command in Saigon fit in with that? Were/are generals exempt? Should we not call them out when we learn of deliberate deception that subverts the democratic process? Can the American people make good decisions if they are lied to?

Would I have helped stop unnecessary killing by giving the New York Times the not-really-secret, SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Gen. Abrams? We'll never know, will we? And I live with that. I could not take the easy way out, saying Let Sam Do It. Because I knew he wouldn't.

Sam chose to go through the established grievance channels and got the royal run-around, even after the Communist countrywide offensive at Tet in January-February 1968 proved beyond any doubt that his count of Communist forces was correct.

When the Tet offensive began, as a way of keeping his sanity, Adams drafted a caustic cable to Saigon saying, "It is something of an anomaly to be taking so much punishment from Communist soldiers whose existence is not officially acknowledged." But he did not think the situation at all funny.

Dan Ellsberg Steps In

Sam kept playing by the rules, but it happened that unbeknown to Sam Dan Ellsberg gave Sam's figures on enemy strength to the New York Times , which published them on March 19, 1968. Dan had learned that President Lyndon Johnson was about to bow to Pentagon pressure to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos and up to the Chinese border perhaps even beyond.

President Lyndon Johnson meeting with South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu on July 19,1968.

Later, it became clear that his timely leak together with another unauthorized disclosure to the Times that the Pentagon had requested 206,000 more troops prevented a wider war. On March 25, Johnson complained to a small gathering, "The leaks to the New York Times hurt us. We have no support for the war. I would have given Westy the 206,000 men."

Ellsberg also copied the Pentagon Papers the 7,000-page top-secret history of U.S. decision-making on Vietnam from 1945 to 1967 and, in 1971, he gave copies to the New York Times , Washington Post and other news organizations.

In the years since, Ellsberg has had difficulty shaking off the thought that, had he released the Pentagon Papers sooner, the war might have ended years earlier with untold lives saved. Ellsberg has put it this way: "Like so many others, I put personal loyalty to the president above all else above loyalty to the Constitution and above obligation to the law, to truth, to Americans, and to humankind. I was wrong."

And so was I wrong in not asking Sam for a copy of that cable from Gen. Abrams. Sam, too, eventually had strong regrets. Sam had continued to pursue the matter within CIA, until he learned that Dan Ellsberg was on trial in 1973 for releasing the Pentagon Papers and was being accused of endangering national security by revealing figures on enemy strength.

Which figures? The same old faked numbers from 1967! "Imagine," said Adams, "hanging a man for leaking faked numbers," as he hustled off to testify on Dan's behalf. (The case against Ellsberg was ultimately thrown out of court because of prosecutorial abuses committed by the Nixon administration.)

After the war drew down, Adams was tormented by the thought that, had he not let himself be diddled by the system, the entire left half of the Vietnam Memorial wall would not be there. There would have been no new names to chisel into such a wall.

Sam Adams died prematurely at age 55 with nagging remorse that he had not done enough.

In a letter appearing in the (then independent-minded) New York Times on Oct. 18, 1975, John T. Moore, a CIA analyst who worked in Saigon and the Pentagon from 1965 to 1970, confirmed Adams's story after Sam told it in detail in the May 1975 issue of Harper's magazine.

Moore wrote: "My only regret is that I did not have Sam's courage. The record is clear. It speaks of misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance, of outright dishonesty and professional cowardice.

"It reflects an intelligence community captured by an aging bureaucracy, which too often placed institutional self-interest or personal advancement before the national interest. It is a page of shame in the history of American intelligence."

Tanks But No Thanks, Abrams

What about Gen. Creighton Abrams? Not every general gets the Army's main battle tank named after him. The honor, though, came not from his service in Vietnam, but rather from his courage in the early day of his military career, leading his tanks through German lines to relieve Bastogne during World War II's Battle of the Bulge. Gen. George Patton praised Abrams as the only tank commander he considered his equal.

Vice President Hubert Humphrey, President Lyndon Johnson and General Creighton Abrams in a Cabinet Room meeting on March 27, 1968. (Photo credit: National Archive)

As things turned out, sadly, 23 years later Abrams became a poster child for old soldiers who, as Gen. Douglas McArthur suggested, should "just fade away," rather than hang on too long after their great military accomplishments.

In May 1967, Abrams was picked to be Westmoreland's deputy in Vietnam and succeeded him a year later. But Abrams could not succeed in the war, no matter how effectively "an image of success" his subordinates projected for the media. The "erroneous and gloomy conclusions of the press" that Abrams had tried so hard to head off proved all too accurate.

Ironically, when reality hit home, it fell to Abrams to cut back U.S. forces in Vietnam from a peak of 543,000 in early 1969 to 49,000 in June 1972, almost five years after Abrams's progress-defending cable from Saigon. By 1972, some 58,000 U.S. troops, not to mention two to three million Vietnamese, had been killed.

Both Westmoreland and Abrams had reasonably good reputations when they started out, but not so much when they finished.

And Petraeus?

Comparisons can be invidious, but Gen. David Petraeus is another Army commander who has wowed Congress with his ribbons, medals and merit badges. A pity he was not born early enough to have served in Vietnam where he might have learned some real-life hard lessons about the limitations of counterinsurgency theories.

Moreover, it appears that no one took the trouble to tell him that in the early Sixties we young infantry officers already had plenty of counterinsurgency manuals to study at Fort Bragg and Fort Benning. There are many things one cannot learn from reading or writing manuals, as many of my Army colleagues learned too late in the jungles and mountains of South Vietnam.

Unless one is to believe, contrary to all indications, that Petraeus is not all that bright, one has to assume he knows that the Afghanistan expedition is a folly beyond repair. So far, though, he has chosen the approach taken by Gen. Abrams in his August 1967 cable from Saigon. That is precisely why the ground-truth of the documents released by WikiLeaks is so important.

Whistleblowers Galore

And it's not just the WikiLeaks documents that have caused consternation inside the U.S. government. Investigators reportedly are rigorously pursuing the source that provided the New York Times with the texts of two cables (of 6 and 9 November 2009) from Ambassador Eikenberry in Kabul. [See Consortiumnews.com's " Obama Ignores Key Afghan Warning ."]

Barack Obama and George W. Bush at the White House.

To its credit, even today's far-less independent New York Times published a major story based on the information in those cables, while President Barack Obama was still trying to figure out what to do about Afghanistan. Later the Times posted the entire texts of the cables, which were classified Top Secret and NODIS (meaning "no dissemination" to anyone but the most senior officials to whom the documents were addressed).

The cables conveyed Eikenberry's experienced, cogent views on the foolishness of the policy in place and, implicitly, of any eventual decision to double down on the Afghan War. (That, of course, is pretty much what the President ended up doing.) Eikenberry provided chapter and verse to explain why, as he put it, "I cannot support [the Defense Department's] recommendation for an immediate Presidential decision to deploy another 40,000 here."

Such frank disclosures are anathema to self-serving bureaucrats and ideologues who would much prefer depriving the American people of information that might lead them to question the government's benighted policy toward Afghanistan, for example.

As the New York Times /Eikenberry cables show, even today's FCM (fawning corporate media) may sometimes display the old spunk of American journalism and refuse to hide or fudge the truth, even if the facts might cause the people to draw "an erroneous and gloomy conclusion," to borrow Gen. Abrams's words of 43 years ago.

Polished Pentagon Spokesman

Remember "Baghdad Bob," the irrepressible and unreliable Iraqi Information Minister at the time of the U.S.-led invasion? He came to mind as I watched Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell's chaotic, quixotic press briefing on Aug. 5 regarding the WikiLeaks exposures. The briefing was revealing in several respects. Clear from his prepared statement was what is bothering the Pentagon the most. Here's Morrell:

"WikiLeaks's webpage constitutes a brazen solicitation to U.S. government officials, including our military, to break the law. WikiLeaks's public assertion that submitting confidential material to WikiLeaks is safe, easy and protected by law is materially false and misleading. The Department of Defense therefore also demands that WikiLeaks discontinue any solicitation of this type."

Rest assured that the Defense Department will do all it can to make it unsafe for any government official to provide WikiLeaks with sensitive material. But it is contending with a clever group of hi-tech experts who have built in precautions to allow information to be submitted anonymously. That the Pentagon will prevail anytime soon is far from certain.

Also, in a ludicrous attempt to close the barn door after tens of thousands of classified documents had already escaped, Morrell insisted that WikiLeaks give back all the documents and electronic media in its possession. Even the normally docile Pentagon press corps could not suppress a collective laugh, irritating the Pentagon spokesman no end. The impression gained was one of a Pentagon Gulliver tied down by terabytes of Lilliputians.

Morrell's self-righteous appeal to the leaders of WikiLeaks to "do the right thing" was accompanied by an explicit threat that, otherwise, "We shall have to compel them to do the right thing." His attempt to assert Pentagon power in this regard fell flat, given the realities.

Morrell also chose the occasion to remind the Pentagon press corps to behave themselves or face rejection when applying to be embedded in units of U.S. armed forces. The correspondents were shown nodding docilely as Morrell reminded them that permission for embedding "is by no means a right. It is a privilege." The generals giveth and the generals taketh away.

It was a moment of arrogance, and press subservience, that would have sickened Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, not to mention the courageous war correspondents who did their duty in Vietnam. Morrell and the generals can control the "embeds"; they cannot control the ether. Not yet, anyway.

And that was all too apparent beneath the strutting, preening, and finger waving by the Pentagon's fancy silk necktie to the world. Actually, the opportunities afforded by WikiLeaks and other Internet Web sites can serve to diminish what few advantages there are to being in bed with the Army.

What Would I Have Done?

Would I have had the courage to whisk Gen. Abrams's cable into the ether in 1967, if WikiLeaks or other Web sites had been available to provide a major opportunity to expose the deceit of the top Army command in Saigon? The Pentagon can argue that using the Internet this way is not "safe, easy, and protected by law." We shall see.

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

Meanwhile, this way of exposing information that people in a democracy should know will continue to be sorely tempting, and a lot easier than taking the risk of being photographed lunching with someone from the New York Times .

From what I have learned over these past 43 years, supervening moral values can, and should, trump lesser promises. Today, I would be determined to "do the right thing," if I had access to an Abrams-like cable from Petraeus in Kabul. And I believe that Sam Adams, if he were alive today, would enthusiastically agree that this would be the morally correct decision.

My article from 2010 ended with a footnote about the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII), an organization created by Sam Adams's former CIA colleagues and other former intelligence analysts to hold up his example as a model for those in intelligence who would aspire to the courage to speak truth to power.

At the time there were seven recipients of an annual award bestowed on those who exemplified Sam Adam's courage, persistence and devotion to truth. Now, there have been 14 recipients: Coleen Rowley (2002), Katharine Gun (2003), Sibel Edmonds (2004), Craig Murray (2005), Sam Provance (2006), Frank Grevil (2007), Larry Wilkerson (2009), Julian Assange (2010), Thomas Drake (2011), Jesselyn Radack (2011), Thomas Fingar (2012), Edward Snowden (2013), Chelsea Manning (2014), William Binney (2015).

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a close colleague of Sam Adams; the two began their CIA analyst careers together during the last months of John Kennedy's administration. During the Vietnam War, McGovern was responsible for analyzing Soviet policy toward China and Vietnam.

[Aug 21, 2017] The Lasting Pain from Vietnam Silence

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
May 01, 2015 | original.antiwar.com

Ecclesiastes says there is a time to be silent and a time to speak. The fortieth anniversary of the ugly end of the US adventure in Vietnam is a time to speak and especially of the squandered opportunities that existed earlier in the war to blow the whistle and stop the killing.

While my friend Daniel Ellsberg's leak of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 eventually helped to end the war, Ellsberg is the first to admit that he waited too long to reveal the unconscionable deceit that brought death and injury to millions.

I regret that, at first out of naiveté and then cowardice, I waited even longer until my own truth-telling no longer really mattered for the bloodshed in Vietnam. My hope is that there may be a chance this reminiscence might matter now if only as a painful example of what I could and should have done, had I the courage back then. Opportunities to blow the whistle in time now confront a new generation of intelligence analysts whether they work on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, ISIS or Iran.

Incidentally, on Iran, there was a very positive example last decade: courageous analysts led by intrepid (and bureaucratically skilled) former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence Thomas Fingar showed that honesty can still prevail within the system, even when truth is highly unwelcome.

The unanimous intelligence community conclusion of a National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon four years earlier played a huge role in thwarting plans by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to attack Iran in 2008, their last year in office. Bush says so in his memoir; and, on that one point, we can believe him.

After a half-century of watching such things closely, this is the only time in my experience that the key judgment of an NIE helped prevent a catastrophic, unwinnable war. Sadly, judging from the amateurism now prevailing in Washington's opaque policymaking circles, it seems clear that the White House pays little heed to those intelligence officers still trying to speak truth to power.

For them I have a suggestion: Don't just wring your hands, with an "I did everything I could to get the truth out." Chances are you have not done all you can. Ponder the stakes the lives ended too early; the bodies and minds damaged forever; the hatred engendered against the United States; and the long-term harm to US national interests and think about blowing the whistle publicly to prevent unnecessary carnage and alienation.

I certainly wish I had done so about what I learned of the unconscionable betrayal by senior military and intelligence officers regarding Vietnam. More recently, I know that several of you intelligence analysts with a conscience wish you had blown the whistle on the fraud "justifying" war on Iraq. Spreading some truth around is precisely what you need to do now on Syria, Iraq, Ukraine and the "war on terror," for example.

I thought that by describing my own experience negative as it is and the remorse I continue to live with, I might assist those of you now pondering whether to step up to the plate and blow the whistle now, before it is again too late. So below is an article that I might call "Vietnam and Me."

My hope is to spare you the remorse of having to write, a decade or two from now, your own "Ukraine and Me" or "Syria and Me" or "Iraq and Me" or "Libya and Me" or "The War on Terror and Me." My article, from 2010, was entitled "How Truth Can Save Lives" and it began:

If independent-minded Web sites, like WikiLeaks or, say, Consortiumnews.com, existed 43 years ago, I might have risen to the occasion and helped save the lives of some 25,000 US soldiers, and a million Vietnamese, by exposing the lies contained in just one SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Saigon.

I need to speak out now because I have been sickened watching the herculean effort by Official Washington and our Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) to divert attention from the violence and deceit in Afghanistan, reflected in thousands of US Army documents, by shooting the messenger(s), WikiLeaks and Pvt. Bradley Manning.

After all the indiscriminate death and destruction from nearly nine years of war, the hypocrisy is all too transparent when WikiLeaks and suspected leaker Manning are accused of risking lives by exposing too much truth. Besides, I still have a guilty conscience for what I chose NOT to do in exposing facts about the Vietnam War that might have saved lives.

The sad-but-true story recounted below is offered in the hope that those in similar circumstances today might show more courage than I was able to muster in 1967, and take full advantage of the incredible advancements in technology since then.

Many of my Junior Officer Trainee Program colleagues at CIA came to Washington in the early Sixties inspired by President John Kennedy's Inaugural speech in which he asked us to ask ourselves what we might do for our country. (Sounds corny nowadays, I suppose; I guess I'll just have to ask you to take it on faith. It may not have been Camelot exactly, but the spirit and ambiance were fresh, and good.)

Among those who found Kennedy's summons compelling was Sam Adams, a young former naval officer out of Harvard College. After the Navy, Sam tried Harvard Law School, but found it boring. Instead, he decided to go to Washington, join the CIA as an officer trainee, and do something more adventurous. He got more than his share of adventure.

Sam was one of the brightest and most dedicated among us. Quite early in his career, he acquired a very lively and important account, that of assessing Vietnamese Communist strength early in the war. He took to the task with uncommon resourcefulness and quickly proved himself the consummate analyst.

Relying largely on captured documents, buttressed by reporting from all manner of other sources, Adams concluded in 1967 that there were twice as many Communists (about 600,000) under arms in South Vietnam as the US military there would admit.

Dissembling in Saigon

Visiting Saigon during 1967, Adams learned from Army analysts that their commanding general, William Westmoreland, had placed an artificial cap on the official Army count rather than risk questions regarding "progress" in the war (sound familiar?).

It was a clash of cultures; with Army intelligence analysts saluting generals following politically dictated orders, and Sam Adams aghast at the dishonesty, consequential dishonesty. From time to time I would have lunch with Sam and learn of the formidable opposition he encountered in trying to get out the truth.

Commiserating with Sam over lunch one day in late August 1967, I asked what could possibly be Gen. Westmoreland's incentive to make the enemy strength appear to be half what it actually was. Sam gave me the answer he had from the horse's mouth in Saigon.

Adams told me that in a cable dated Aug. 20, 1967, Westmoreland's deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams, set forth the rationale for the deception. Abrams wrote that the new, higher numbers (reflecting Sam's count, which was supported by all intelligence agencies except Army intelligence, which reflected the "command position") "were in sharp contrast to the current overall strength figure of about 299,000 given to the press."

Abrams emphasized, "We have been projecting an image of success over recent months" and cautioned that if the higher figures became public, "all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion."

No further proof was needed that the most senior US Army commanders were lying, so that they could continue to feign "progress" in the war. Equally unfortunate, the crassness and callousness of Abrams's cable notwithstanding, it had become increasingly clear that rather than stand up for Sam, his superiors would probably acquiesce in the Army's bogus figures. Sadly, that's what they did.

CIA Director Richard Helms, who saw his primary duty quite narrowly as "protecting" the agency, set the tone. He told subordinates that he could not discharge that duty if he let the agency get involved in a heated argument with the US Army on such a key issue in wartime.

This cut across the grain of what we had been led to believe was the prime duty of CIA analysts, to speak truth to power without fear or favor. And our experience thus far had shown both of us that this ethos amounted to much more than just slogans. We had, so far, been able to "tell it like it is."

After lunch with Sam, for the first time ever, I had no appetite for dessert. Sam and I had not come to Washington to "protect the agency." And, having served in Vietnam, Sam knew first hand that thousands upon thousands were being killed in a feckless war.

What to Do?

I have an all-too-distinct memory of a long silence over coffee, as each of us ruminated on what might be done. I recall thinking to myself; someone should take the Abrams cable down to the New York Times (at the time an independent-minded newspaper).

Clearly, the only reason for the cable's SECRET/EYES ONLY classification was to hide deliberate deception of our most senior generals regarding "progress" in the war and deprive the American people of the chance to know the truth.

Going to the press was, of course, antithetical to the culture of secrecy in which we had been trained. Besides, you would likely be caught at your next polygraph examination. Better not to stick your neck out.

I pondered all this in the days after that lunch with Adams. And I succeeded in coming up with a slew of reasons why I ought to keep silent: a mortgage; a plum overseas assignment for which I was in the final stages of language training; and, not least, the analytic work, important, exciting work on which Sam and I thrived.

Better to keep quiet for now, grow in gravitas, and live on to slay other dragons. Right?

One can, I suppose, always find excuses for not sticking one's neck out. The neck, after all, is a convenient connection between head and torso, albeit the "neck" that was the focus of my concern was a figurative one, suggesting possible loss of career, money and status not the literal "necks" of both Americans and Vietnamese that were on the line daily in the war.

But if there is nothing for which you would risk your career "neck" like, say, saving the lives of soldiers and civilians in a war zone your "neck" has become your idol, and your career is not worthy of that. I now regret giving such worship to my own neck. Not only did I fail the neck test. I had not thought things through very rigorously from a moral point of view.

Promises to Keep?

As a condition of employment, I had signed a promise not to divulge classified information so as not to endanger sources, methods or national security. Promises are important, and one should not lightly violate them. Plus, there are legitimate reasons for protecting some secrets. But were any of those legitimate concerns the real reasons why Abrams's cable was stamped SECRET/EYES ONLY? I think not.

It is not good to operate in a moral vacuum, oblivious to the reality that there exists a hierarchy of values and that circumstances often determine the morality of a course of action. How does a written promise to keep secret everything with a classified stamp on it square with one's moral responsibility to stop a war based on lies? Does stopping a misbegotten war not supersede a secrecy promise?

Ethicists use the words "supervening value" for this; the concept makes sense to me. And is there yet another value? As an Army officer, I had taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

How did the lying by the Army command in Saigon fit in with that? Were/are generals exempt? Should we not call them out when we learn of deliberate deception that subverts the democratic process? Can the American people make good decisions if they are lied to?

Would I have helped stop unnecessary killing by giving the New York Times the not-really-secret, SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Gen. Abrams? We'll never know, will we? And I live with that. I could not take the easy way out, saying Let Sam Do It. Because I knew he wouldn't.

Sam chose to go through the established grievance channels and got the royal run-around, even after the Communist countrywide offensive at Tet in January-February 1968 proved beyond any doubt that his count of Communist forces was correct.

When the Tet offensive began, as a way of keeping his sanity, Adams drafted a caustic cable to Saigon saying, "It is something of an anomaly to be taking so much punishment from Communist soldiers whose existence is not officially acknowledged." But he did not think the situation at all funny.

Dan Ellsberg Steps In

Sam kept playing by the rules, but it happened that unbeknown to Sam Dan Ellsberg gave Sam's figures on enemy strength to the New York Times , which published them on March 19, 1968. Dan had learned that President Lyndon Johnson was about to bow to Pentagon pressure to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos and up to the Chinese border perhaps even beyond.

Later, it became clear that his timely leak together with another unauthorized disclosure to the Times that the Pentagon had requested 206,000 more troops prevented a wider war. On March 25, Johnson complained to a small gathering, "The leaks to the New York Times hurt us. We have no support for the war. I would have given Westy the 206,000 men."

Ellsberg also copied the Pentagon Papers the 7,000-page top-secret history of US decision-making on Vietnam from 1945 to 1967 and, in 1971, he gave copies to the New York Times , Washington Post and other news organizations.

In the years since, Ellsberg has had difficulty shaking off the thought that, had he released the Pentagon Papers sooner, the war might have ended years earlier with untold lives saved. Ellsberg has put it this way: "Like so many others, I put personal loyalty to the president above all else above loyalty to the Constitution and above obligation to the law, to truth, to Americans, and to humankind. I was wrong."

And so was I wrong in not asking Sam for a copy of that cable from Gen. Abrams. Sam, too, eventually had strong regrets. Sam had continued to pursue the matter within CIA, until he learned that Dan Ellsberg was on trial in 1973 for releasing the Pentagon Papers and was being accused of endangering national security by revealing figures on enemy strength.

Which figures? The same old faked numbers from 1967! "Imagine," said Adams, "hanging a man for leaking faked numbers," as he hustled off to testify on Dan's behalf. (The case against Ellsberg was ultimately thrown out of court because of prosecutorial abuses committed by the Nixon administration.)

After the war drew down, Adams was tormented by the thought that, had he not let himself be diddled by the system, the entire left half of the Vietnam Memorial wall would not be there. There would have been no new names to chisel into such a wall.

Sam Adams died prematurely at age 55 with nagging remorse that he had not done enough.

In a letter appearing in the (then independent-minded) New York Times on Oct. 18, 1975, John T. Moore, a CIA analyst who worked in Saigon and the Pentagon from 1965 to 1970, confirmed Adams's story after Sam told it in detail in the May 1975 issue of Harper's magazine.

Moore wrote: "My only regret is that I did not have Sam's courage. The record is clear. It speaks of misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance, of outright dishonesty and professional cowardice.

"It reflects an intelligence community captured by an aging bureaucracy, which too often placed institutional self-interest or personal advancement before the national interest. It is a page of shame in the history of American intelligence."

Tanks But No Thanks, Abrams

What about Gen. Creighton Abrams? Not every general gets the Army's main battle tank named after him. The honor, though, came not from his service in Vietnam, but rather from his courage in the early day of his military career, leading his tanks through German lines to relieve Bastogne during World War II's Battle of the Bulge. Gen. George Patton praised Abrams as the only tank commander he considered his equal.

As things turned out, sadly, 23 years later Abrams became a poster child for old soldiers who, as Gen. Douglas McArthur suggested, should "just fade away," rather than hang on too long after their great military accomplishments.

In May 1967, Abrams was picked to be Westmoreland's deputy in Vietnam and succeeded him a year later. But Abrams could not succeed in the war, no matter how effectively "an image of success" his subordinates projected for the media. The "erroneous and gloomy conclusions of the press" that Abrams had tried so hard to head off proved all too accurate.

Ironically, when reality hit home, it fell to Abrams to cut back US forces in Vietnam from a peak of 543,000 in early 1969 to 49,000 in June 1972, almost five years after Abrams's progress-defending cable from Saigon. By 1972, some 58,000 US troops, not to mention two to three million Vietnamese, had been killed.

Both Westmoreland and Abrams had reasonably good reputations when they started out, but not so much when they finished.

And Petraeus?

Comparisons can be invidious, but Gen. David Petraeus is another Army commander who has wowed Congress with his ribbons, medals and merit badges. A pity he was not born early enough to have served in Vietnam where he might have learned some real-life hard lessons about the limitations of counterinsurgency theories.

Moreover, it appears that no one took the trouble to tell him that in the early Sixties we young infantry officers already had plenty of counterinsurgency manuals to study at Fort Bragg and Fort Benning. There are many things one cannot learn from reading or writing manuals, as many of my Army colleagues learned too late in the jungles and mountains of South Vietnam.

Unless one is to believe, contrary to all indications, that Petraeus is not all that bright, one has to assume he knows that the Afghanistan expedition is a folly beyond repair. So far, though, he has chosen the approach taken by Gen. Abrams in his August 1967 cable from Saigon. That is precisely why the ground-truth of the documents released by WikiLeaks is so important.

Whistleblowers Galore

And it's not just the WikiLeaks documents that have caused consternation inside the US government. Investigators reportedly are rigorously pursuing the source that provided the New York Times with the texts of two cables (of 6 and 9 November 2009) from Ambassador Eikenberry in Kabul. [See Consortiumnews.com's " Obama Ignores Key Afghan Warning ."]

To its credit, even today's far-less independent New York Times published a major story based on the information in those cables, while President Barack Obama was still trying to figure out what to do about Afghanistan. Later the Times posted the entire texts of the cables, which were classified Top Secret and NODIS (meaning "no dissemination" to anyone but the most senior officials to whom the documents were addressed).

The cables conveyed Eikenberry's experienced, cogent views on the foolishness of the policy in place and, implicitly, of any eventual decision to double down on the Afghan War. (That, of course, is pretty much what the President ended up doing.) Eikenberry provided chapter and verse to explain why, as he put it, "I cannot support [the Defense Department's] recommendation for an immediate Presidential decision to deploy another 40,000 here."

Such frank disclosures are anathema to self-serving bureaucrats and ideologues who would much prefer depriving the American people of information that might lead them to question the government's benighted policy toward Afghanistan, for example.

As the New York Times /Eikenberry cables show, even today's FCM (fawning corporate media) may sometimes display the old spunk of American journalism and refuse to hide or fudge the truth, even if the facts might cause the people to draw "an erroneous and gloomy conclusion," to borrow Gen. Abrams's words of 43 years ago.

Polished Pentagon Spokesman

Remember "Baghdad Bob," the irrepressible and unreliable Iraqi Information Minister at the time of the U.S.-led invasion? He came to mind as I watched Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell's chaotic, quixotic press briefing on Aug. 5 regarding the WikiLeaks exposures. The briefing was revealing in several respects. Clear from his prepared statement was what is bothering the Pentagon the most. Here's Morrell:

"WikiLeaks's webpage constitutes a brazen solicitation to US government officials, including our military, to break the law. WikiLeaks's public assertion that submitting confidential material to WikiLeaks is safe, easy and protected by law is materially false and misleading. The Department of Defense therefore also demands that WikiLeaks discontinue any solicitation of this type."

Rest assured that the Defense Department will do all it can to make it unsafe for any government official to provide WikiLeaks with sensitive material. But it is contending with a clever group of hi-tech experts who have built in precautions to allow information to be submitted anonymously. That the Pentagon will prevail anytime soon is far from certain.

Also, in a ludicrous attempt to close the barn door after tens of thousands of classified documents had already escaped, Morrell insisted that WikiLeaks give back all the documents and electronic media in its possession. Even the normally docile Pentagon press corps could not suppress a collective laugh, irritating the Pentagon spokesman no end. The impression gained was one of a Pentagon Gulliver tied down by terabytes of Lilliputians.

Morrell's self-righteous appeal to the leaders of WikiLeaks to "do the right thing" was accompanied by an explicit threat that, otherwise, "We shall have to compel them to do the right thing." His attempt to assert Pentagon power in this regard fell flat, given the realities.

Morrell also chose the occasion to remind the Pentagon press corps to behave themselves or face rejection when applying to be embedded in units of US armed forces. The correspondents were shown nodding docilely as Morrell reminded them that permission for embedding "is by no means a right. It is a privilege." The generals giveth and the generals taketh away.

It was a moment of arrogance, and press subservience, that would have sickened Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, not to mention the courageous war correspondents who did their duty in Vietnam. Morrell and the generals can control the "embeds"; they cannot control the ether. Not yet, anyway.

And that was all too apparent beneath the strutting, preening, and finger waving by the Pentagon's fancy silk necktie to the world. Actually, the opportunities afforded by WikiLeaks and other Internet Web sites can serve to diminish what few advantages there are to being in bed with the Army.

What Would I Have Done?

Would I have had the courage to whisk Gen. Abrams's cable into the ether in 1967, if WikiLeaks or other Web sites had been available to provide a major opportunity to expose the deceit of the top Army command in Saigon? The Pentagon can argue that using the Internet this way is not "safe, easy, and protected by law." We shall see.

Meanwhile, this way of exposing information that people in a democracy should know will continue to be sorely tempting, and a lot easier than taking the risk of being photographed lunching with someone from the New York Times .

From what I have learned over these past 43 years, supervening moral values can, and should, trump lesser promises. Today, I would be determined to "do the right thing," if I had access to an Abrams-like cable from Petraeus in Kabul. And I believe that Sam Adams, if he were alive today, would enthusiastically agree that this would be the morally correct decision.

My article from 2010 ended with a footnote about the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII), an organization created by Sam Adams's former CIA colleagues and other former intelligence analysts to hold up his example as a model for those in intelligence who would aspire to the courage to speak truth to power.

At the time there were seven recipients of an annual award bestowed on those who exemplified Sam Adam's courage, persistence and devotion to truth. Now, there have been 14 recipients: Coleen Rowley (2002), Katharine Gun (2003), Sibel Edmonds (2004), Craig Murray (2005), Sam Provance (2006), Frank Grevil (2007), Larry Wilkerson (2009), Julian Assange (2010), Thomas Drake (2011), Jesselyn Radack (2011), Thomas Fingar (2012), Edward Snowden (2013), Chelsea Manning (2014), William Binney (2015).

Read more by Ray McGovern Moral Corrosion of Drone Warfare – July 16th, 2017 Russia-China Tandem Shifts Global Power – July 3rd, 2017 What Trump Can Expect From Putin – July 2nd, 2017 NBC's Kelly Hits Putin With a Beloved Canard – June 12th, 2017 Hiding the Ugly Business of Torture – June 2nd, 2017

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. In the Sixties he served as an infantry/intelligence officer and then became a CIA analyst for the next 27 years. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). View all posts by Ray McGovern

[Aug 21, 2017] Trump Declares Open-Ended War in Afghanistan News From Antiwar.com

Aug 21, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

Trump Declares Open-Ended War in Afghanistan Trump Abandons 'Instinct to Withdraw'

Jason Ditz Posted on August 21, 2017 Categories News Tags Afghanistan , Trump In his Monday night speech on the Afghan War, President Trump committed the US to an essentially open-ended escalation of the conflict without any specific limitations, while granting commanders broader authority to unilaterally target "the enemy."

What that outcome looks like, or how specifically he plans to get there are anyone's guess. Fox News reported that White House sources told them before the speech that Trump was going to announce 4,000 more troops for Afghanistan.

But President Trump said that the US strategy would be secret, saying the US is removing any timetables for ending the war in Afghanistan. He said that he will not talk publicly about troop numbers in Afghanistan or plans for ongoing military activity there. While arguing that "America's enemies must never know our plans."

Trump's secrecy also means the American public will have no idea how the Afghan War is being prosecuted.

This mirrors the decision to make troop levels in Iraq and Syria officially secret, but is also a much broader commitment. He set the stage for general escalation of an Afghan war that, over the past 16 years, has shown itself to endure through more or less any escalation conceivable. In committing to continue that war until victory, Trump effectively made the war permanent.

Trump presented continuation as both about 9/11, and about how opposed he is to the 2011 US withdrawal from Iraq, each presented as a reason not to withdraw, but seemingly each an excuse that's never going to not stand in the way of ending the war.

The broad message of Trump's speech seemed to be that the US wasn't aggressive enough in Afghanistan so far, criticizing President Obama for "micromanaging" the conflict. Trump said he believes that US military victories come from "judgement and expertise of wartime commanders."

Trump gave some lip-service to economic aid for Afghanistan, particularly pushing India to "do more." But he insisted that the US had abandoned nation-building, declaring "we are not nation-building again, we're killing terrorists."

This declaration also gives the impression of a permanent war, claiming 20 distinct terrorist organizations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and vowing to lift restrictions on "our warfighters." He vowed that "no place is out of the reach of American might."

Ultimately, an escalation of 4,000 troops and a re-commitment to the status quo likely would've been much milder than what Trump appears to be proposing. Trump's determination to keep troop levels secret leaves the door open to a series of endless escalations down the road, which the American public are liable to never hear about.

[Aug 21, 2017] Trump To Announce Four More One-Year Wars

Aug 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Afghanistan - Trump To Announce Four More One-Year Wars

This evening Trump will announce a new " path forward " in the occupation of Afghanistan. According to the usual leaks it will be very same path the U.S. has taken for 16 years.

Several thousands soldiers from the U.S. and various NATO countries will (in vane) train the Afghan army. Special Forces and CIA goons will raid this or that family compound on someone's say-so. Bombs will be dropped on whatever is considered a target.

Trump will announce that 1,000 or so troops will be added to the current contingent. About 15,000 foreign troops will be in Afghanistan. About three contractors per each soldier will be additionally deployed.

Trump knows that this "path forward" is nonsense that leads nowhere, that the best option for all foreign troops in Afghanistan is to simply leave:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 21 Nov 2013

We have wasted an enormous amount of blood and treasure in Afghanistan. Their government has zero appreciation. Let's get out!

But neither the military nor the CIA nor the local Afghan government will let the U.S. leave. Fear mongering is abound: "What happens if Afghanistan becomes a hotbed for international terrorists?" But few if any international terrorist incident in the "west" were ever organized in Afghanistan. In all recent incidents the culprits were locals.

For the military it is all about optics. The generals do not want to concede that they lost another war. The CIA wants to keep is militarized forces and drones which it justifies through its engagement in Afghanistan. The drug production in Afghanistan, which the U.S. never really tried to suppress, is rumored to finance "black" CIA operations just like it did during the Vietnam war and throughout various South American conflicts. The members of the Afghan government all live off U.S. largess. The war in Afghanistan is a racket paid for with the lives of countless Afghans and U.S. taxpayer money.

Now tightly under control of neo-conservative leaning generals Trump had little chance to make a different decision. He had asked his team for alternatives but none were given to him:

The president told McMaster "to go back to the drawing board," the official said. "But he just kept coming back with the same thing."

Trump's former strategic advisor Steve Bannon promoted an idea of Eric Prince, a shady provider of international mercenaries. Afghanistan would be given to a private for-profit entity comparable to the Brutish East-India Company. That company, with its own large army, robbed India of all possible valuables and nearly became a state of its own. But Prince and Bannon forgot to tell the end of that company's story. It came down after a large mutiny in India defeated its armed forces and had to be bailed out by the government. The end state of an East India Company like entity in Afghanistan would the same as it is now.

Then there is the fairy tale of the mineral rich Afghanistan. $1 trillion of iron, copper, rare-metals and other nice stuff could be picked out of the ground. But in reality the costs of picking minerals in Afghanistan is, for various reasons, prohibitive.

The Bannon/Prince plan was lunatic but it was at least somewhat different than the never changing ideas of the military:

The Defense Secretary [Mattis] has been using this line in meetings: "Mr. President, we haven't fought a 16-year war so much as we have fought a one-year war, 16 times."

That line has already been used five years ago to describe the war on Afghanistan. (It originally describes the 10 year war in Vietnam.) Mattis did not explain why or how that repetitive one year rhythm would now change.

A "new" part of the plan is to put pressure on Pakistan to stop the financing and supplying of Taliban groups. That is not in Pakistan's interest and is not going to happen. The Trump administration wants to hold back the yearly cash payment to the Pakistani military. This has been tried before and the Pakistani response was to close down the U.S. supply route to Afghanistan. An alternative supply route through Russia had been developed but has now been shut down over U.S. hostilities towards that country. The U.S. can not sustain a deployment in Afghanistan without a sea-land route into the country.

The Afghan army is, like the government, utterly corrupt and filled with people who do not want to engage in fighting. More "training" will not change that. The U.S. proxy government is limited to a few larger cities. It claims to control many districts but its forces are often constricted to central compounds while the Taliban rule the countryside. In total the Taliban and associated local war lords hold more than half of the country and continue to gain support. The alleged ISIS derivative in Afghanistan was originally formed out of Pakistani Taliban by the Afghan National Directorate of Security which is under the control of the CIA:

In Nangarhar, over a year ago, the vanguard of the movement was a group of Pakistani militants who had lived there for years as 'guests' of the Afghan government and local people. While initially avoiding attacks on Afghan forces, they made their new allegiances known by attacking the Taleban and taking their territory.

ISIS in Afghanistan, founded as an anti-Taliban force, is just another form of the usual Afghan warlordism.

During 16 years the U.S. failed to set a realistic strategic aim for the occupation of Afghanistan. It still has none. Without political aim the military is deployed in tactical engagements that make no long lasting differences. Any attempts to negotiate some peace in Afghanistan requires extensive engagement with the Taliban, Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran. No one in Washington is willing to commit to that.

Trump's likely decision means that the story of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan will continue throughout the next years exactly as it happened during the last 16 years. The decision, once made, is unlikely to change until the next presidential election. The 16 one-year-wars in Afghanistan will become 20 one-year-wars for no perceivable gain.

The only conceivable event that could change the situation is an incident with a large number of U.S. military casualties. That could lead to a groundswell of anti-war sentiment which could press Congress into legislating an end of the war. But are the Taliban interested in achieving that?

Posted by b on August 21, 2017 at 01:54 PM | Permalink

Permafrost | Aug 21, 2017 2:30:10 PM | 1

Another possible ending could be the petro-dollar going south, and the US running low on diesel.
Kalen | Aug 21, 2017 2:57:29 PM | 2
All wars stop at the very moment when no more money could be made out of pain and suffering of the people.
karlof1 | Aug 21, 2017 3:03:35 PM | 3
Left unvoiced is the actual strategic reason for the Outlaw US Empire's occupation of Afghanistan: It puts Imperial Stormtroopers smack-dab in the middle of China and Russia's plans for Eurasian economic and eventual political integration while allowing the CIA to reap the benefits of its opium/heroin export program which is used to destabilize nations globally--including the homeland--which fits in quite well with the sole Neolibralcon policy goal of Full Spectrum Domination. As b mentioned, only dialog between regional actors--all of which now have some form of SCO membership--will finally solve the Afghan Problem. Of course, it would be of immense benefit if the pretext for the Outlaw US Empire presence there was proven to be the massive Big Lie that it is, but I don't expect the Truth to become known about until ??? G

Given the strategic reason above, I don't expect the Outlaw US Empire to retreat from Afghanistan until the Neoliberalcons are defeated domestically, which will require a massive Movement within the nation to regain control of the federal government and monetary policy--gaining just the Executive isn't nearly enough as Trump's proven.

Oh, and isn't it just delicious Karma that the USS John McCain was rammed by a tanker? Here's Finnian Cunningham on the current state of McKale's Navy, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201708211056656667-us-navy-collision-korea/

psychohistorian | Aug 21, 2017 3:13:34 PM | 4
It is all about 4 more years of ongoing destabilization of the ME

The only solution that those in power want is for all to pledge fealty to the God of Mammon/global private finance.


The only solution for the rest of us if for nations to stop buying US Treasuries that continue to fund this sickness.

karlof1 | Aug 21, 2017 3:14:24 PM | 5
OT: For those wondering what happened with Syrian Perspectives, it changed platforms and has a new URL, https://www.syrianperspective.com/

On Topic: It appears Mercouris at the Duran decided to write something similar to b, but that site's new format is still plagued by very long running ad scripts making the content very difficult to read. Can't even copy/paste the URL. What a shame!

@Madderhatter67 | Aug 21, 2017 3:24:06 PM | 6
Sending additional troops to the "graveyard of empires" is a dumb idea. Especially if the Pak supply route is closed.
james | Aug 21, 2017 3:26:24 PM | 7
thanks b.....

make work project........... it never ends.................

"But neither the military nor the CIA nor the local Afghan government will let the U.S. leave. Fear mongering is abound: "What happens if Afghanistan becomes a hotbed for international terrorists?"

of course this is the rationale for it all - terrorism....

war on communism, war on drugs, war on terrorism....

not sure what they replace terrorism with, so for the time being it will have to be the rationale de jour........

@2 kalen.. propping up the us$, ensuring the continuation of the us$ is indeed paramount..

@5 karlof1... thanks.

JSonofa | Aug 21, 2017 3:34:37 PM | 8
Defund the war machine and piss off the war party. Stop the printing press of paper "money."

Repeal the 16th amendment.

The US Fed thinks that it can manage the healthcare of 320 million Americans while simultaneously, it cannot manage the healthcare of 9 million Veterans.

Repeal the 16th. F*ck em.

ben | Aug 21, 2017 3:38:11 PM | 9
The "Corporate Empire" never leaves, until it extracts what it wants, from whom it wants.
Laguerre | Aug 21, 2017 3:42:18 PM | 10
Waste of time and effort. Nothing will change.
Grieved | Aug 21, 2017 3:55:54 PM | 11
@5 karlof1

I'm not a great fan of the Duran new design, but I can read its stories okay. I think you may need to use Firefox browser and install the AdBlock Plus add-on. It's free and easy. The wonderful thing about Firefox is its built-in Reader View button, which strips all the excess media out of a page and formats just the story itself in a perfectly readable column width, with a nice size font. You can actually lean back and read. It's amazing how this helps comprehension. I often read b's articles and even a lot of the comments this way.

Here's the link for the Mercouris article, which I haven't read yet: 7 reasons why by comparison with the USSR the US is losing in Afghanistan

Christian Chuba | Aug 21, 2017 4:00:34 PM | 12
The alternative would be to find people in the U.S. govt who actually understand the Taliban. You would think that after 16yrs, that we would have developed some expertise on the true structure of Afghanistan.

The only beef we had with the Taliban was that they harbored Al Qaeda. Couldn't we bribe them and let them keep their own country as long as they don't host international terrorists? I don't know the answer to this question but that is the 'new' approach that I'd explore. I recall that the Taliban seemed a bit put off when Al Qaeda destroyed the WTC and asked to review the evidence. They made some reference to not wanting to violate some guest code. Perhaps we were too heavy handed with them.

Curtis | Aug 21, 2017 4:07:36 PM | 13
Doubling down on failure (or insanity by doing the same thing but expecting a different result).
For some reason, our troop training skills are not working. The ones we trained in Iraq gave up Mosul. The ones we trained in Jordan joined al Nusra and ISIS in Syria. And the ones we've trained in Afghanistan still cannot secure the country.
james | Aug 21, 2017 4:17:13 PM | 14
funny hit list.....

The following members of the United Nations have made statements about their recognition of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol as federal subjects of Russia[35][36][37][38]:

Afghanistan[36]
Bolivia
Cuba[39]
Kyrgyzstan[40]
Nicaragua[41]
North Korea[42]
Sudan
Syria[36]
Venezuela[36]
Zimbabwe

Christian Chuba | Aug 21, 2017 4:20:20 PM | 15
'We haven't fought a 16 yr. war we have fought the same 1yr war 16 times'.

It is distressing that our core competence is selling each other BS. It reminds me of all of the slick arguments I hear about how woefully underfunded the U.S. military is.

We must have hired Consultants because I've read over a dozen articles with the same format ...
1. As a percent of GDP our military budget is at historic lows (creative accounting, it's closer to 5% of GDP, not the advertised 3%).

2. 50% of our aircraft are not operational, along with other readiness scare stories (so we should reward incompetence?)

3. The military is only 15% of the budget (flat out lie, it's 40% of discretionary spending and owns about that much of the annual debt service that they also don't count. If you eliminated Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, our payroll taxes would disappear, not our deficit)

But the argument sounds good and never gets challenged on FOX/CNN.

Perimetr | Aug 21, 2017 4:23:36 PM | 16
Agree with Karlofi, the US will not abandon the $1 trillion per annum heroin industry it has developed in Afghanistan.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoils-of-war-afghanistan-s-multibillion-dollar-heroin-trade/91

The banksters take a 20% cut for laundering the money, the rest goes to Langley to fund its many projects.

karlof1 | Aug 21, 2017 4:26:04 PM | 17
Grieved @11--

Thanks for your help hints. I was finally able to read the entire article with almost no interruptions. As the title suggests, it's a compare/contrast essay detailing the two different experiences, goals and costs incurred. Mercouris points out that the USSR didn't lose in Afghanistan--it fulfilled its policy goal and left--which is contrary to the West's propaganda on the subject. It's a decent read, but Mercouris, like b, neglects to mention the actual strategic goal of the Outlaw US Empire's invasion and occupation.

Also Grieved, thanks for your thoughtful comments in your reply to me on a previous thread. Liked your comment at The Saker's latest Neocon thread.

Lozion | Aug 21, 2017 5:31:40 PM | 18
@16 Perimetr is spot on.. Projects like manufactured riots and race strife anyone?
nmb | Aug 21, 2017 5:34:42 PM | 19
Trump-establishment common agenda confirmed again through cynically admitting the real reason behind the US invasion in Afghanistan!
Stumpy | Aug 21, 2017 5:42:53 PM | 20
Condoleeza:

" former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said that it "made no sense" to expand the military's presence without a new strategy, while Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin put it this way:

"We've tried this before, we've tried to fortify our effort in Afghanistan under Republican and Democratic presidents, and the fact is we're still in a situation where the Taliban controls a massive part of the territory," Durbin told MSNBC in May. "We need to have an honest answer to the question: Will the Afghans ever be in a position where there is less corruption and there is less incompetence and they're able to stand up and defend their own nation? It's time for some honest answers." "

And Donald Trump has the answer tonight? When Durbin says "their own nation", I believe he is referring to the geographic boundaries assigned by Western commerce. That is the failure of understanding, that a central government imposed on the warlord/tribal mosaic that is the Afghan territories is doomed. Rather than troops, as Christian C. suggests @12, sending tons of cash might be more persuasive than arming one band against another. A complete waste of spec ops troops absent a true civil war against a hated tyrant.

Thirdeye | Aug 21, 2017 6:08:27 PM | 21
3 karlof1

The US project in Afghanistan started before the Eurasian project got going. Afghanistan is is peripheral to the Eurasian project for the time being; it is currently economically unimportant and will remain so until considerable development of infrastructure in the region takes place. Having the resources is one thing. Having the infrastructure to develop those resources is quite another.

Krollchem | Aug 21, 2017 6:22:16 PM | 22
Plan "B" for Afghanistan will be to let a corporation lead the war:
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/03/erik-princes-dark-plan-for-afghanistan-military-occupation-for-profit-not-security/

The US proceeded with its war in Afghanistan despite warnings by knowledgeable Western soldiers familiar with the region:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1357880/Last-Briton-at-frontier-will-not-be-moved.html

This leads US to "THE FATE OF EMPIRES and SEARCH FOR SURVIVAL"
Sir John Glubb
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Krollchem | Aug 21, 2017 6:39:54 PM | 23
This sums up the US troop surge in Afghanistan:

"In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service."*
~ Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 1935
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

karlof1 | Aug 21, 2017 6:42:44 PM | 24
Thirdeye @21--

Total Vision 2010--the policy paper that announced the #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US Empire, nee New World Order--was published in 1996, and the plan to invade Afghanistan was put into motion about 5 months prior to the "justification event" on 911. Total Vision 2020 is the latest update to the initial policy goal and was published during Bu$hCo.

The Eurasian vision was begun during Deng's years as China's leader and has accelerated ever since.

dh | Aug 21, 2017 6:44:20 PM | 25
@21 Think of the vast amounts of equipment, weapons, fuel, food, bottled water etc. consumed daily. It all has to be flown in or moved across Russia by rail (do they still do that?) and the troops and contractors have to be rotated in and out. Afghanistan has considerable economic importance.
PavewayIV | Aug 21, 2017 6:44:33 PM | 26
I'll attempt to read between the lines for those outside the US trying to understand all this:

DynCorp's annual military contractor revenue from the US Government is reportedly more than Germany's entire defense budget of around $42 billion (€36 billion). Only a few billion from Afghanistan, but business there could use a shot in the arm.

Billionaire psychopath Stephen Feinberg controls DynCorp, bathed in the river of blood/profits from Afghanistan (among others). He doesn't like the US military's performance there - it's hurting business. Feinberg wants to fire US Afghanistan commander Gen. John Nicholson (via his lapdog Trump, of course) but that alone will not help DynCorp much.

DynCorp is missing out on the lucrative combat merc market in Afghanistan. Most of the military contractors it supplies are support, and only a few 'security' types are armed. Feinberg knows supplying actual combat mercs is where DynCorpo will reap the real profits.

Problem for Feinberg is the US military hates mercs and won't use them much (mostly because mercs are homicidal psychopaths). Solution? Why stop at firing Nicholson? Fire ALL the US military commanders in Afghanistan and replace them with obedient, profitable dual-citizen DynCorp commanders. The Mini-Me US President Jared Kushner just loves this plan. Maybe he gets a few DynCorp stock options out of the deal.

Some other issues:

Outsourcing the US Military might wake up a few of the intellectual lepar military commanders to their duty to defend the US Constitution. US Military coup?
Solution: Mad Dog Mattis, of course: "Obey your Commander in Chief's unconstitutional orders, you insolent bastards! Constitutional law and critical thinking is way above a general's pay grade - leave that to CNN. Train your merc replacements in Afghanistan and shut the hell UP!

Title 10 of the US Legal Code on the military prohibits using mercs in combat
Solution: Screw the law - that's why DynCorp bribes Congress. Rather than using illegal Title 10 military contractors in Afghanistan, Congress and Trump will classify their activities from now on under Title 50: intelligence activities. See? Nothing at all to do with military operations.

The US military doesn't control the current CIA spooks and won't be able to control the new DynCorp mercs
Solution: If all Afghanistan mercs are reclassified as Title 50 spooks, then they report to the CIA and its chain of command. The US military in Afghanistan will not and doesn't need to control them - that's the point.

Who will command US troops if the military commanders are sent packing?
Solution: The Afghani slaughter will become a CIA operation, not a US military one. It will complement the CIA's booming opium 'fund-raising' business there. US combat troops will just be assigned to the CIA operation (combat, not poppy farming). Give all the US soldiers sent there some kind of special berets (anything but green) and call them Special Forces. Shhh! They're now involved in secret spook operations. Don't ask any questions.

How can the CIA possibly command so many mercs and US soldiers in Afghanistan?
Solution: That's where ex-Blackwater war criminal Eric Prince and his private UAE-based army and air force come in. The CIA will simply hire contractor commanders for 'their' command structure that will replace the current US military one. Whether Prince rebrands his current commanders as DynCorp or uses some other ruse, he can flesh out the line staff from his current merc army. The CIA will chose all the senior contractor commanders who will then be hired by whatever DynCorp names that business.

Who will be the overall commander of military ops in Afghanistan going forward if Gen. Nicholson is canned?
Soluton: Trump will choose an overall commander, reportedly with the title of viceroy . My jaw hit the floor at that one. Here's Wikipedia:

"...A viceroy is a regal official who runs a country, colony, city, province, or sub-national state, in the name of and as the representative of the monarch of the territory. The term derives from the Latin prefix vice-, meaning "in the place of" and the French word roi, meaning "king"..."

Chief DynCorp psychopath and dual-US/Israeli citizen Stephen Feinberg himself is interested in the job according to Prince. An investment banker commanding psychopath mercs slaughtering Afghanis in the name of the US - imagine that. Plus, Afghanistan is right next door to Iran - convenient for US invasions and such. Oh, that's right. DynCorp is a business. They'll gladly invade Iran for anyone with a big enough bag of shekels.

"On your knees and bow your heads, Afghani peons! All hail the supreme commander of all Afghanistan, Viceroy Stephen Feinberg."

Surely Trump can't sell this plan to the US public. They're pretty dim, but this scheme is just over the top!
Solution: Think again. This will be spun as a mere 1000 US combat troop surge... oh, and a few contractors. Intelligence contractors, not mercs. The details of who they are and what they will be doing is classified. Just never mind them. And as soon as US military commanders and troops have their replacements trained up, they'll get to come home. Yay! Imagine the CNN video at the airport of a weary US soldier returning from Afghanistan to his loving family. JOY!

But what about the utter debasement of the US Constitution and myriad of war crimes the US government will commit by doing something so insane?
Solution: Buy DynCorp stock and shut the hell up about the American's dumb-assed Constitution. Besides, who are you to question the Viceroy?

Piotr Berman | Aug 21, 2017 6:47:21 PM | 27
For some reason, our troop training skills are not working. The ones we trained in Iraq gave up Mosul. The ones we trained in Jordan joined al Nusra and ISIS in Syria. And the ones we've trained in Afghanistan still cannot secure the country.

Posted by: Curtis | Aug 21, 2017 4:07:36 PM | 13

There are also success stories. The training program in Mali had good students and bad students. Good students joined the rebellion of the Tuareg and clobbered the bad ones. Bad ones were pissed to be sent by civilian government to the scorching sands of Sahara and made a coup. The Tuareg had enough weapons from the fallen Libya to engage in infighting, temporarily won by the group that claimed ISIS affiliation. Each group had some degree of success.

Common theme is that USA offers no idea that would fire up troops under training. Did they try "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" (the catch-phrase of the comic-book character Superman). Or Here I come to save the day! I think that the crux is economic development and decrease in abject poverty, but does anyone in Administration have an idea how that could be done?

dh | Aug 21, 2017 6:52:57 PM | 28
@26 "Imagine the CNN video at the airport of a weary US soldier returning from Afghanistan to his loving family. JOY!"

I can see it already. He will have his faithful dog with him that he rescued from a ruined Afghan village. His faithful translator unfortunately wasn't so lucky.

Perimetr | Aug 21, 2017 7:00:22 PM | 29
RE: PavewayIV | Aug 21, 2017 6:44:33 PM | 26

Thanks for the update, will pass this on to friends in D.C. A plan that Hillary would certainly approve of . . .

fast freddy | Aug 21, 2017 7:51:58 PM | 30
Just as Obama was a fraud, Trump is likewise a fraud.
Forest | Aug 21, 2017 8:12:17 PM | 31
I think it just boils down to Trump just wanted to look behind the curtain.

Get to see the program...

Willy2 | Aug 21, 2017 8:16:42 PM | 32
- The warlords are NOT "on the same page" as the Taliban !!!! The afghan people are/were abused by the warlords, were suffering under the warlords. The warlords performed henous crimse against the afghan population.
- The afghan people were treated better by the Taliban than by the warlords. That allowed the Taliban to make a comeback in the 1990s. But it also meant that the afghans suffered under the religious islamic fanaticism of that same Taliban.
- With the US invasion the Taliban was defeated and allowed the warlords to make a comeback and now the afghan people were suffereing from/under the warlords again. The warlords were needed by the US military to protect the transports that bring in all the goods that the US military, other foreign troops and all mercenaries need to continue their "occupation" of Afghanistan. Without those supplies those military forces will be "left hanging out to dry".
- Generals like David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal were both in command in Afghanistan and recognized this hopeless situation and left their afghan post early. McChrystal retired and Petraeus became director of the CIA

[Aug 21, 2017] The Future Of The Third World

Aug 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

The Future Of The Third World Zero Hedge Tyler Durden Aug 20, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES Authored by Jayant Bhandari via Acting-Man.com, Decolonization

The British Empire was the largest in history. At the end of World War II Britain had to start pulling out from its colonies. A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech, and other liberties offered by the empire.

The colors represent the colonies of various nations in 1945, and the colonial borders of that time – click to enlarge.

After the departure of the British -- as well as the French, German, Belgians, and other European colonizers -- most of the newly "independent" countries suffered rapid decay in their institutions, stagnant economies, massive social strife, and a fall in standards of living. An age of anti-liberalism and tyranny descended on these former colonies. They rightly became known as third-world countries.

An armchair economist would have assumed that the economies of these former colonies, still very backward and at a very low base compared to Europe, would grow at a faster rate. Quite to the contrary, as time went on, their growth rates stayed lower than those of the West.

Socialism and the rise of dictators were typically blamed for this -- at least among those on the political Right. This is not incorrect, but it is a merely proximate cause. Clarity might have been reached if people had contemplated the reason why Marxism and socialism grew like weeds in the newly independent countries.

Was There a Paradigm Shift in the 1980s?

According to conventional wisdom, the situation changed after the fall of the socialist ringleader, the USSR, in the late 1980s. Ex-colonized countries started to liberalize their economies and widely accepted democracy, leading to peace, the spread of education and equality, the establishment of liberal, independent institutions. Massive economic growth ensued and was sustained over the past three decades. The "third world" was soon renamed "emerging markets."

Alas, this is a faulty narrative. Economic growth did pick up in these poor countries, and the rate of growth did markedly exceed that of the West, but the conventional narrative confuses correlation with causality. It tries to fit events to ideological preferences, which assume that we are all the same, that if Europeans could progress, so should everyone else, and that all that matters are correct incentives and appropriate institutions.

The beginning and end of the Soviet communist era in newspaper headlines. The overthrow of Kerensky's interim government was the start of Bolshevik rule. To be precise, the Bolsheviks took over shortly thereafter, when they disbanded the constituent assembly in in early 1918 and subsequently gradually did the same to all non-Bolshevik Soviets that had been elected. A little more than seven decades later, the last Soviet Bolshevik leader resigned. It is worth noting that by splitting the Russian Federation from the Ukraine and Belorussia, Yeltsin effectively removed Gorbachev from power – the latter was suddenly president of a country that no longer existed and chairman of a party that was declared illegal in Russia. [PT] – click to enlarge.

The claimed liberalization in the "emerging markets" after the collapse of the USSR did not really happen. Progress was always one step forward and two steps back. In some ways, government regulations and repression of businesses in the "emerging markets" have actually gotten much worse. Financed by increased taxes, governments have grown by leaps and bounds -- not for the benefit of society but for that of the ruling class -- and are now addicted to their own growth.

The ultimate underpinnings of the so-called emerging markets haven't changed. Their rapid economic progress during the past three decades -- a one-off event -- happened for reasons completely different from those assumed by most economists. The question is: once the effect of the one-off event has worn off, will emerging markets revert to the stagnation, institutional degradation, and tyranny that they had leaped into soon after the European colonizers left?

The One-Off Event: What Actually Changed in the 1980s

In the "emerging markets" (except for China) synchronized favorable economic changes were an anomaly. They resulted in large part from the new, extremely cheap telephony that came into existence (a result of massive cabling of the planet implemented in the 1980s) and the subsequent advent of the new technology of the internet. The internet enabled instantaneous transfer of technology from the West and as a consequence, unprecedented economic growth in "emerging markets."

Meanwhile, a real cultural, political, and economic renaissance started in China. It was an event so momentous that it changed the economic structure not just of China, but of the whole world. Because China is seen as a communist dictatorship, it fails to be fully appreciated and respected by intellectuals who are obsessed with the institution of democracy.

But now that the low-hanging fruit from the emergence of the internet and of China (which continues to progress) have been plucked, the "emerging markets" (except, again, for China) are regressing to their normal state: decay in their institutions, stagnant economies, and social strife. They should still be called the "third world."

There are those who hold China in contempt for copying Western technology, but they don't understand that if copying were so easy, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia would have done the same. They were, after all, prepared for progress by their colonial history.

European colonizers brought in the rule of law and significantly reduced the tribal warfare that was a matter of daily routine in many of the colonies -- in the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Britain and other European nations set up institutional structures that allowed for the accumulation of intellectual and financial capital. Western-style education and democracy were initiated. But this was helpful in a very marginal way.

What is Wrong with the Third World

For those who have not traveled and immersed themselves in formerly colonized countries, it is hard to understand that although there was piping for water and sewage in Roman days, it still isn't available for a very large segment of the world's population. The wheel has existed for more than 5,000 years, but a very large number of people continue to carry water in pots on their heads.

Lead piping supplying water to homes already existed in Roman days, 2000 years ago.

The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel, which is more than 5,000 years old

There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel, even if they went to school. It is not the absence of technology or money that is stopping these people from starting to use some basic forms of technology. It is something else.

Sir Winston Churchill, the war-time Prime Minister of Britain, talking about the future of Palestine said:

"I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race has come in and taken their place."

Cigar-puffing British war-time PM Winston Churchill was as politically incorrect as they come. If he were alive today, he would probably be labeled the newest Hitler by the press and spend 90% of his time apologizing. Perhaps we shouldn't mention this, but there are many Churchill monuments dotted across Europe and one can be found in Washington DC as well (alert readers will notice that a decidedly non-triggered Washington Post fondly remembered Churchill as an "elder statesman" a mere 10 months ago; rest assured that won't stop the social justice warrior brigade if they decide to airbrush him out of history). Just to make this clear, your editor is not exactly the biggest fan of the man who traded away half of Europe to Stalin because he felt he could "trust the Soviet communist government" and who was clearly a tad too enamored of war, a characteristic Robert Kaplan described in his strident, amoral pro-war screed Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos as follows: "Churchill's unapologetic warmongering arose not from a preference for war, but from a breast-beating Victorian sense of imperial destiny " Neither the breast-beating nor the sense of imperial destiny are really our thing, but we tip our hat to the man's utter lack of political correctness and his associated willingness to offend all and sundry with a nigh Trumpian alacrity and determination. [PT]

On Islam, he said:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist "

Talking about India he famously said:

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

A remark often attributed to Churchill, although this remains unverified, has certainly stood the test of time so far:

"If independence is granted to India, power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day will come when even air and water will be taxed in India."

Europeans of that time clearly knew that there was something fundamentally different between the West and the rest, and that the colonies would not survive without the pillars and the cement European management provided.

With the rise of political correctness this wisdom was erased from our common understanding – but it is something that may well return to haunt us in the near future, as the third world fails to fulfill expectations, while people who immigrate to Europe, Canada, Australia and the US from there fail to assimilate.

The Missing Underpinnings: Reason And All That Depends On It

Until now, the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth. They couldn't have been more wrong.

The cart has been put in front of the horse. It is institutions that emerge from the underlying culture, not the other way around. And cultural change is a process taking millennia, perhaps even longer. As soon as Europeans quit their colonies, the institutional structures they left started to crumble.

Alas, it takes a Ph.D. from an Ivy League college and a quarter of a million dollar salary at the World Bank or the IMF to not understand what the key issue with development economics and institutional failures is: the missing ingredient in the third world was and is the concept of objective, impartial reason – the basis of laws and institutions that protect individual rights.

This concept of reason took 2,500 years to develop and get infused into the culture, memes, and genes of Europeans -- a difficult process that, even in Europe, was never fully completed. European institutions were at their root products of this concept.

A justly famous quote by Thomas Paine (a prolific writer with a side job as a founding father and revolutionary). Paine was deeply suspicious of self-anointed authorities, both of the secular and clerical variety, who in turn regarded him as dangerous. His writings inter alia provoked a so-called "pamphlet war" in Britain (it would be best if all wars were conducted via pamphlets). [PT]

Despite massive efforts by missionaries, religious and secular, and of institutions imposed on poor countries, reason failed to get transmitted. Whatever marginal improvement was achieved over 200 to 300 years of colonization is therefore slowly but surely undone.

Without reason, subsidiary concepts such as equality before the law, compassion and empathy won't operate. Irrational societies simply cannot maintain institutions representing the rule of law and fairness. The consequence is that they cannot evolve or even maintain institutions the European colonizers left behind.

Any institutions imposed on them -- schools, armies, elections, national executives, banking and taxation systems -- must mutate to cater to the underlying irrationality and tribalism of the third world.

Western Institutions Have Mutated

Education has become a dogma in "emerging markets", not a tool; it floats non-assimilated in the minds of people lacking objective reason. Instead of leading to creativity and critical thinking, it is used for propaganda by demagogues.

Without impartial reason, democracy is a mere tribal, geographical concept, steeped in arrogance. All popular and "educated" rhetoric to the contrary, I can think of no country in the non-western world that did well after it adopted "democracy."

The spread of nationalism (which to a rational mind is about the commonality of values) has created crises by unifying people along tribal lines. The most visible example is provided by events in the Middle East, but the basic problem is the same in every South Asian and African country and in most of South America.

India, the geographical entity I grew up in, was rapidly collectivized under the flag and the national anthem. It has the potential to become the Middle East on steroids, once Hindutava (Hindu nationalism) has become deeply rooted in society.

Assessing the Current Predicament

In Burma, a whiff of democracy does not seem to have inhibited a genocide perpetrated by Buddhists against the Muslim Rohingya. Thailand (which was not colonized in a strictly political sense) has gone silent, but its crisis continues.

Turkey and Malaysia, among the better of these backward societies, have embarked on a path of rapid regression to their medieval pasts. South Africa, which not too long ago was considered a first-world country, got rid of apartheid only to end up with something even worse.

The same happened with Venezuela, which was among the richer countries of the world in the not-too-distant past. It is ready to implode, a fate that may befall Brazil as well one day. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and East Timor are widely acknowledged to be in a mess, and are getting worse by the day.

Indonesia took a breather for a few years and is now once again in the thrall of fanaticism. India is the biggest democracy, so its problems are actively ignored by the Western press, but they won't be for long, as India continues to evolve toward a police state.

Botswana was seen as one of the countries with the fastest and longest-lasting economic growth. What was ignored was the fact that this rather large country has a very small population, which benefited hugely from diamonds and other natural resources. The top political layer of Botswana is still a leftover from the British. The local culture continues to corrode what was left by them, and there are clear signs that Botswana is past its peak.

Part of the central business district in Gaborone, Botswana. Long time readers may recall an article we posted about 2.5 years ago: " Botswana – Getting it Right in Africa ". We are not sure if much has changed since then, but it is worth recalling that Botswana started out as the third-poorest country in Africa when it became independent in 1966 and is today one the richest. The very small population (by African standards) combined with the large income the country obtains from diamond mining no doubt played a role in this, but being rich in natural resources means very little per se . Botswana never fell for Marxism. When the country gained independence, its political leadership adopted democracy and free markets and never looked back. Botswana is a very homogenous society in terms of religious and tribal affiliations, which differentiates the country from most other former colonial territories in Africa. From our personal – admittedly by now a bit dated – experience, we can state that Botswana is the only African country in which one is unlikely to encounter any corruption – not even the lowliest government minion will ask for bribes as far as we could tell (in many African countries, officials begin demanding bribes the moment one wants to cross the border). Considering all that, we are slightly more hopeful about Botswana, but it is not an island. Deteriorating conditions in neighboring countries may well prove contagious at some point. [PT]

Papua New Guinea was another country that was doing reasonably well before the Australians left. It is now rapidly regressing to its tribal, irrational, and extremely violent norms, where for all practical purposes rape is not even considered a crime.

Conclusion: A Vain Hope

The world may recognize most of the above, but it sees these countries' problems as isolated events that can be corrected by further impositions of Western institutions, under the guidance of the UN or some such international (and therefore "non-colonialist") organization.

Amusingly, our intellectual climate -- a product of political correctness -- is such that the third world is nowadays seen as the backbone of humanity's future economic growth. Unfortunately, so-called emerging markets are probably headed for a chaotic future. The likeliest prospect is that these countries will continue to cater to irrational forces, particularly tribalism, and that they will consequently cease to exist, disintegrating into much smaller entities.

As the tide of economic growth goes out with the final phase of plucking the free gift of internet technology nearing its end, their problems will resurface rapidly – precisely when the last of those who were trained under the colonial system are sent to the "dustbin of history".

your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

doctor10 , Aug 20, 2017 9:06 PM

Its all about ideas-and which ones are adopted by society.

The USA has a very poor prognosis-has yet to shed its 20th century Bolshevick Baggage.

Occident Mortal -> doctor10 , Aug 20, 2017 9:17 PM

It's mostly down to culture.

Some people are more culturally predisposed to exploring and trying new things.

If you believe the future will be better than the past then you will be prepared to work to improve things, if you believe the world is in terminal decline and that the glory days were some time ago, either when gods or prophets did all the important stuff or when your locale was more prosperous then you will not be as encouraged to work on improvements and you will thend to hoarde meagre resources and live by thrift with minimal expenditure.

Oracle of Kypseli -> Occident Mortal , Aug 20, 2017 10:00 PM

I think that colonialism is in play again as the advance societies are starving for resources and will invest in these countries in exchange. This will change the trend into better education, better jobs and everything that comes with it for the middle classes but perpetuate slave wages for the uneducated masses.

The world is not changing but morphing. It's the nomenclature that changes for the sake of political correcteness and feel good predisposition.

DjangoCat -> Oracle of Kypseli , Aug 20, 2017 10:15 PM

The history of western investment in third world resources does not make for a pretty read. Look now at what has happened just in the last months of a major silver mine being closed in a small Central American country, where the local manager has been accused of murdering protestors and objectors to the mines presence in their midst, destroying the countryside.

The CIA seems to have had, as it's primary objective, the job of clearing the way for US and British, and Canadian industrial, infrastructure and mining interests to come in and take the resources. A good payoff to the man in power greases the wheels, and the people get nothing but a degraded environment and mammoth debt.

The next step is to restructure the debt, in the process privatizing state infrastructure at cut rate prices. This is nothing but mass rape and pillage.

Wake up.

Unknown User -> DjangoCat , Aug 20, 2017 10:54 PM

England never freed its colonies. It simply changed the means of enslavement from physical to financial.

Eeyores Enigma -> DjangoCat , Aug 21, 2017 12:38 AM

Too true DC but that truth doesn't work well with "American Exceptionalism" so we get articles like this one.

Ayreos -> Eeyores Enigma , Aug 21, 2017 3:57 AM

"American exceptionalism" is just a small-time ugly consequence of the actual phenomenon: good old imperialism, taught by the British. And there's nothing wrong with it. All European countries have accepted NATO and american influence on them willingly. They have all recognized and validated American exceptionalism themselves. As subjects of an empire they now complain that the Emperor is quickly losing its clothes,

Son of Thor -> Ayreos , Aug 21, 2017 6:43 AM

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jobproplan.com%3A68UoF1LgzM-Yo3S...

Diatom -> DjangoCat , Aug 21, 2017 8:53 AM

John Perkins books people...

Crazy Or Not -> Occident Mortal , Aug 21, 2017 5:38 AM

True you have to have "Ambition & Will" for change to stomach the difficult period of creating that change. (eg Gandhi, US independence etc).

...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech...

This however while a factor is also bias. Post WWII no weapons (other than US) were permitted in Pacific war region and a decisive factor in limiting the influence of the Brits in their pre war colonies. Post colonials also saw war as a way out of colonial rule, using US leverage to oust Brit influence.

edit - probably BritBob will go apoplectic with this? Cue "Rule Britania"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRwj1SmPF5w

...and other jingoistic bollocks ;)

Omen IV -> Occident Mortal , Aug 21, 2017 9:10 AM

"institutions emerge from the underlying culture, not the other way around"

There is no solution to an average IQ of 70 and the culture that results from that fact.

The only solution is $1,000 in return for a tubal ligation or vasectomy - 1,000,000 per day until completed

Oh regional Indian -> doctor10 , Aug 20, 2017 9:19 PM

That zionist bastard churchill was not prognosticating about india, he was merely telling the world what they were going to do, ie., leave the country in the hands of rouges and rascals.... who have ruled and looted and destroyed India for their city of london masters ever since.

It's the joos who hate indians and of course churchill wasa closet joo...

https://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/whither-india/

SethPoor -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 20, 2017 9:50 PM

Are closet Jews circumcised?

Koba the Dread -> SethPoor , Aug 21, 2017 1:41 AM

If they remain in the closet, they are certainly circumspect.

buttmint -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 21, 2017 12:41 AM

...all ZHers owe themselves trek to Mother India, quite a head turning experience. One comes to appreciate the West's "can-do philosophy."

This approach to problem solving is in small measure in India. India's fine burgeoning medical capital in Chennai (old Madraas) is a testament to talented Indians being schooled in Occidental universities and then returned to Mother India to set up shop. In many ways, India will lead the West OUT of their self-imposed medical nemesis. There is much progress in India. All Indians love to ORATE. You betcha, they stand on the corner and begin lecturing. A much better approach than USA's 535 idiots and grifters that make up the US Congress.

My own hunch is that India will eclipse the remarkable progress of China. Stay tuned as the world squirms.....

Koba the Dread -> buttmint , Aug 21, 2017 1:45 AM

Hunches are like hunchbacks: I don't want either one of them to ring my bells. After over fifty years of visiting and doing business in India, I go no more. While I love the people there, the country has become an abyss I no longer wish to stare into.

Oh regional Indian -> Koba the Dread , Aug 21, 2017 2:54 AM

Unfortunately, it has become quite the living hell....

Western model of development + rampant corruption + poor engineering standards have made this a hotch-potch of a rending screech of a marriage between east and west....

Ayreos -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 21, 2017 3:51 AM

Perhaps it's time to admit Indians got a chance to take their country back and move their society forward, seen through nationalist Gandhi, but Indians neither want nor understand the concept of moving forward.

Without the "western model of development" there would be no development in India for millennia.

Kobe Beef -> Ayreos , Aug 21, 2017 5:20 AM

Without the Aryan colonization/admixture of many millennia ago, there would never have been any civilization on the Indian Subcontinent.

The Second Aryan invasion (ie British colonialism) left barely enough behind to last more than the coming century.

The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal . But there is huge amount of paper profits to be derived from pretending otherwise. There is a lot of ruin to be extracted from the Commons. At home, The African Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. Abroad, The Afghan Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. No signs of progress with either hominid population. And yet, we still have people arguing that culture is somehow separate from biology.

But back to the topic at hand..

Prediction: India returns to barbarism and warring superstitions.

misnomer00 -> Kobe Beef , Aug 21, 2017 7:09 AM

Aryan is a word found only in sanskrit and no other indo euro language so you can go and suck some aryan dick

Kobe Beef -> misnomer00 , Aug 21, 2017 10:17 AM

Yes, Sanskrit is an Aryan language. There are a whole host of others, owing to The White Man's far-ranging conquest of primitive hominids. Or homos, in your case, cocksucker. Maybe your great great 15 grandmother appeared human enough to serve as a concubine.

And the Buddha had blue eyes.

Yet here you are trying to insult a White Man,

on the White Man's tech,

in the White Man's language.

Bixnood, faggot. You don't matter, and never did.

Another regiona... -> Kobe Beef , Aug 21, 2017 1:05 PM

Sanskrit is an aryan language? Then explain to me one thing. The rig veda (the oldest agreed upon text written in sanskrit) is centered around worshipping the river saraswati. And the river saraswati dried upon before/around 1900 B.C and aryans 'came' to india in 1700 B.C. Second....if sanskrit was foreign in origin, why havent we found anything equivalent to sanskrit in the 'aryan' nazi homelands? Indus valley civilisation had indoor plumbing, flush toilets, planned streets, sewage systems that took sewage away from individual homes out of the city. No civilisation that i am aware of had that at that time. Dont believe me? Read up about indus valley civilisation. They had it right until 'aryans' came. And then india went back to mud huts and shitting on streets.

As for buddha having blue eyes. turquoise was used to represent ancient famous people as it could be used to represent 'eyes' as it looked like 'eyes'. Thats why torqouise was used. And torqoise only comes in blue and white not in black and white even if it does its very rare. Blue and white is more easily available. That is why it was used. So it doesnt necessairly mean buddha or other famouse people's pictures or statues who had blue torqoise representing their eyers.....had blue eyes in real life.

asstrix -> Ayreos , Aug 21, 2017 5:21 AM

The western way of moving forward is about consuming, using up resources. Once the resources are gone, they have to find a new place to plunder, in order to again move forward.

The eastern culture is in general about living in a sustainable manner, in harmony with nature. Their way is more about trade and not war. This is why they got conquered so easily.

Now I can't say which is better. Plundering and moving forward or staying put and living in peace with nature. My only hope is that the easterners have enough of the western values already in them to not repeat the old mistakes again.

Another regiona... -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 21, 2017 4:16 AM

Have you read the email i sent you?

Another regiona... -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 21, 2017 2:50 AM

I sent a very important email to your email address 66zoltan, read it. Trust me its worth your time.

Tallest Skil -> doctor10 , Aug 20, 2017 9:40 PM

Reminder that Europe (((gave up))) the entire colored portion of the map above because Germany wanted a land corridor to East Prussia.

Radical Marijuana -> doctor10 , Aug 21, 2017 12:08 AM

The main obstacle to adopting superior memes is that those require Superior murder systems to back them up ...

Son of Captain Nemo , Aug 20, 2017 9:32 PM

"...the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth. They couldn't have been more wrong..."

Anyone who tracked the likes of Hans Adler a German/Brazilian Jew who worked for the World Bank in the 60s and 70s and who I studied under at George Mason University in the 80s knows that the "Latifundio/Minifundio" land tenure structure was the mechanism and means to exploit the gold fillings "literally" out of the mouths of the natives that owned and tended their lands throughout Latin America from the 40s through the 80s doing what the World Bank and IMF always has done it's best to get the multinationals in to take over the most important arable land for exploitation through "incentivized" loan deals that ended up robbing them of all their ownership for worthless "shit paper"!... Rinse and repeat for the "model" used everywhere else especially Middle Eastern oil.

John Perkins solidified it in his work "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" 25 years later...

Too little too late I'm afraid. Only wish there were many more like him!

DemandSider -> Son of Captain Nemo , Aug 21, 2017 1:05 AM

I only wish Perkins had explained the role of the dollar. This book,

'The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony' 'Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets' explains that better. He does explain how The IMF and World Bank keep them in line with debt, though.

The Cooler King , Aug 20, 2017 9:23 PM

"There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel"

But they can balance a mean jug of water on their head, which makes make them perfect candidates to GET RICH buying cryptos!

Moe Hamhead -> The Cooler King , Aug 20, 2017 9:30 PM

Obummer removed Churchill's bust from the Oval office! He was offended by his graven image. I recall that it has since been brought back.

DjangoCat -> The Cooler King , Aug 20, 2017 10:06 PM

Read em and weep.

Advoc8tr -> The Cooler King , Aug 21, 2017 12:40 AM

Make that a billion + 1 ... cryptos are the new wheel, pipe, internet.

Rebelrebel7 , Aug 20, 2017 9:31 PM

It looks like someone put the teachers in charge of Wikipedia! It used to be a very accurate source of information! I have recently been finding extreme errors on it and never have until about a month ago! I believe that universities feel threatened by It! This info please chart is correct and the Wikipedia chart is incorrect!

https://www.infoplease.com/history-and-government/us-government/composit...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

Haitian Snackout -> Rebelrebel7 , Aug 20, 2017 10:34 PM

It is and always has been a front. But like many other things, it contains the lie and the truth together. The lie at the top of the page and the truth at the bottom. See if you can take it from there. That's the only clue I will offer today. Best of luck!

Rebelrebel7 -> Haitian Snackout , Aug 20, 2017 11:25 PM

Well, it wasn't that way previously, however, the lie on top and truth on the bottom would be congruent with the way that the establishment and media operate, without question!

Koba the Dread -> Rebelrebel7 , Aug 21, 2017 1:50 AM

Pal, if you never found errors in Wikipedia until a month ago, I must presume that you started to learn to read about a month ago.

Question: If one is dead dumb stupid and ignorant, how would one know whether a Wikipedia article is true or false?

Farmerz , Aug 20, 2017 9:30 PM

I'm making over 7k a month selling new lead free head jugs to turd worlders.

Jason T , Aug 20, 2017 9:49 PM

WOW... excellent post!

TuPhat -> Jason T , Aug 20, 2017 11:20 PM

I agree, except for the part about the internet being responsible for wealth. That part is garbage. Internet wealth is non productive and eventually a drain on any economy.

Koba the Dread -> TuPhat , Aug 21, 2017 1:53 AM

How can you say that. Some toad earlier in the comments said he is making 7k a month from the internet. Doubting him is like doubting a Wikipedia article.

Entitled_TD , Aug 20, 2017 9:56 PM

Patronizing views on these "3rd world" areas or whatever you may call them...Whatever you say and no matter if you are 100% right about the differences in culture, there is no escaping the fact that these people were "fine" before europeans came along and fucked them up. Cultural relativism is 100% true in this case. Doesn't matter if they were raping babies or whatever, that is their culture and has nothing to do with ours. It was our bullshit christianity and culture that gave us the bullshit rationale to destroy whatever existing cultures we found. So what if they wouldn't have come up with the wheel, plumbing, or the internet - that gave europeans no right to do whatever they wanted wherever they wanted. Hard truth for you pos ZHers to swallow, but no way around it. And the funny thing is now you have the gall to say that these other cultures are destroying ours! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Payback is a Bitch!

armageddon addahere -> Entitled_TD , Aug 20, 2017 11:27 PM

So you must be happy we corrected the error by leaving, more than 50 years ago. And now they have gone back to being "fine".

Advoc8tr -> Entitled_TD , Aug 21, 2017 12:49 AM

How do you figure that conclusion ? In THEIR cultures 'might makes right' so by invading and subjugating "we" were playing by their rules. It is hypocritical on our part but only because we deny our history and the reality of superiority (in terms of industrialisation and military strength etc) in preference for politically correct feel-good lies.

Yen Cross , Aug 20, 2017 9:59 PM

Hopefully Bill Gates fossilizes in his doomsday bunker.

DjangoCat , Aug 20, 2017 10:02 PM

Read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". IMF, USAID and BIS have worked in unison to rape and pillage the "Third World"

This is not a problem of the colonies falling apart, it is a problem of deliberate overselling of debt with a side of mandated privatisation, followed by ruin and sale of government assets, followed by grinding povery and tax to pay the interest on the ever climbing debt.

This is a system of overt debt slavery disguised as aid.

I think this piece is white wash propaganda. Tylers??

Koba the Dread -> DjangoCat , Aug 21, 2017 2:00 AM

Well said, Cat! The occupying nations left a cadre of native criminals behind to enslave their countrymen. The cadre of native criminals take their cut and pass the rest uphill to London, Paris or New York. They call it "Independence"! Sort of like what happened in the new United States of America where farmers and artisans fought for freedom from Great Britain and New York, Massachusetts and Virginia aristocrats took over the country.

Scanderbeg , Aug 20, 2017 10:28 PM

Of course he omits the most important reason. It doesn't need to be this complicated.

They are simply dumber than whites and E. Asians. Inbreeding is common in ME countries and Pakistan for example has an average IQ of around 70. In Sub Saharan Africa it is only 65 which means they are effectively retarded.

I read a story recently that a tanker overturned on the road in Pakistan and several hundred people were blown up while trying to siphon the gas.

Now that's fucking stupid. Something like that would never happen in a Western country.

Every presumption of SJW's is based on insane lie that all groups and races are intrinsicly equal intellectually. This is clearly not the case though of course there are some exceptions.

The left wanted to crucify the geneticist James Watson merely for suggesting this was the case.

Oh regional Indian -> Scanderbeg , Aug 20, 2017 10:40 PM

You need to read up on a litle history my friend..... your post is ignorant at so many levels, it's laughable. The number of highly advanced concepts that were stolen from the east over the centuries is legion. India and the ME were the root of all great kowledge, astrology, astronomy, metallurgy (Damascus steel came from India), mathematics (ZEro came from India)......

Whites were shitting on the streets and eating their dead not 300 years ago.

Jhonny come lately with a gun, get it? And all your scientific wonders are toxic to the world and humans. All of them, including your "medicine"....

Scanderbeg -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 20, 2017 11:08 PM

We don't need any tips from people who are still figuring out how to poo in the loo dindu. Come back and complain about western medicine when you have a real problem and you'll be begging for it. The third world is lucky we humor them. The insane population growth is because of bleeding hearts supplying food and medicine to places like Africa. The west has been dominating the world and international trade since the late 1400's. Most technology is spread through diffusion and the west proved to be the best and most open society to synthesize new ideas. That being said western culture is based in the Greco Roman intellectual tradition and Christianity. It has nothing to do with the your barbaric country which the British defeated and colonized easily.

IQ differences by race and region are a scientific fact and that data is easily available. Even India which is considered "smart" by most laymen is around 80 where as the average on Western countries is around 100.

[Aug 21, 2017] Debt based consum ption and speculation led to the roaring 20s and the debt deflation of the Great Depression. That created preconditions to fascism

Aug 21, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

ConBrio , 17 Aug 2017 07:45

The obligatory sanctimony about America's Nazi past might have included these for context.

Duke of Windsor's chatting up Hitler
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464198/Photographs-Duke-Windsor-s-trip-Nazi-Germany-1937-met-Adolf-Hitler-sold-auction-1-000.html

The "SALUTE."
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/25/16/318E186100000578-0-It_was_on_this_trip_that_he_made_a_Nazi_salute_surrounded_by_uni-a-49_1456419156158.jpg

HARRY at a costume party a few years ago.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rzkTyRo_8Fg/TUnolacSCeI/AAAAAAAAAPw/WXkU-jqCZsc/s1600/Nazi+Prince+Harry.jpg

THE the FUTURE QUEEN practicing the Nazi Salute:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/world/europe/royal-familys-nazi-salute-in-1930s-stirs-debate-in-britain.html

http://gnosticwarrior.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/queen-elizabeth-nazi-salute.jpg

davidc929 -> NotIdefix , 17 Aug 2017 07:45
Race based supremacy was an element of German fascism. Italian fascism was based more on national supremacy. If fascism were to arise in America it would most likely have a strong religious element.
soundofthesuburbs -> GruntyMalunty , 17 Aug 2017 07:43
A lot more effort has probably gone into the cunning and manipulative parts than the system itself. They picked a pretty dire 1920s economics, neoclassical economics, that still has all its old problems.

1) The effect of debt on the economy. Leading to Japan 1989, US 2008, Irish and Spanish real estate collapses, Greece's collapse with austerity and the new normal of secular stagnation.

Today's neo-classical economics was around in the 1920s and it had exactly the same problem. Debt based consumption and speculation led to the roaring 20s and the debt deflation of the Great Depression.

The build up to 1929 and 2008.

https://cdn.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/04/Screen-Shot-2017-04-21-at-13.52.41.png

2) The difference between "earned" and "unearned" income. Leading to parasitical rentier economies, now spotted by one of today's Nobel Prize winning economists "Income inequality is not killing capitalism in the United States, but rent-seekers like the banking and the health-care sectors just might" Angus Deaton.

A flawed model of global, free trade that doesn't consider the minimum wage is set by the cost of living. Western labour is priced out of global labour markets by the high cost of living in the West exacerbated by rentier activity.

3) Bank credit should be directed into productive investment in business and industry, not blowing asset bubbles (e.g. real estate) and other financial speculation.

Klytie -> RedSperanza , 17 Aug 2017 07:42
In Fascism the party is the state. It is collectivist hence the socialist in the title with added national exceptionalism. While racism was always there Nazism was more focused on race than most. I'm not sure that I could identify anything like a Fascist party in the UK or US outside a very few, small fringe groups.
MikeInfinitum -> jochebed1 , 17 Aug 2017 07:40
Totalitarianism is a method of government that controls (or tries to) every aspect of its citizens lives. Fascism is an ultra-nationalist ideology that uses totalitarianism to achieve its aims.

The Soviet Union (under Stalin at least) was also totalitarian but obviously was communist rather than fascist.

Urlicht -> MikeInfinitum , 17 Aug 2017 07:38
"Fascism is a fundamentally patriarchal ideology. It envisions the creation of a new man conquering all before him, whilst the women stay home producing good fascist babies."

And yet, if the same ideology drapes itself in cloth and dogma, the left celebrate it.

NotIdefix -> marv , 17 Aug 2017 07:37
the religious right in the US are not fascists or inclined in that direction

anti-abortion, certainly
anti-same-sex-marriage, mostly,
anti-science, somewhat..

but they are certainly not united behind an ideology of race-based supremacy

snapster -> careenage , 17 Aug 2017 07:36
Not really. He adapted the constitution and manipulated the "Reichstag" from 1933. Not to mention the physical (and murder) of opponents and one time allies.
The Constitution was blatantly ignored and set aside by the NSDAP and the conservative politicians. The Social Democrats and Communists were "done away with.
PotholeKid -> Pete green , 17 Aug 2017 07:36
Meanwhile Henry Ford built vehicles in Germany for the German Army the Duponts supplied chemicals, the bankers funded the Nazi enterprise and IBM supplied the devices to track Hitlers deplorables so they could be rounded up for the work and death camps. These same captains of industry were quite happy to see American boys die for their self serving interests.
Chucky Cheese -> Ubermensch1 , 17 Aug 2017 07:35
The march went ahead though, didn't it? No one was prevented from saying anything. We heard it loud and clear. That Pie quote comes from Feb and relates to Berkeley cancelling Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking, which is a different situation.

He has a pop at Antifa violence handing Trump etc the moral high ground, which I get. The problem is that by equating Antifa with fascists, you are undermining the argument against actual fascists. The internet is awash with "Antifa just as bad" - which pulls the right wing into the centre ground and makes the Alt-right seem more reasonable. I know where he's coming from, but the emphasis is off. It's a nice soundbite - but I don't know how helpful it is.

Djek Durgen Deign , 17 Aug 2017 07:35
Now I in no way condone violence and least of all from people who are into any kind of racial supremacy, however, I cannot help feeling that the MSM are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. The Charlottesville "unite the right" rally was only attended by some 500 participants, I am not aware of the figures for the counter protest but they were probably more numerous. The violence was shocking but probably could have been avoided had the police not disbanded the "unite the right" rally and then stood down leaving both groups to duke it out in the streets of Charlottesville.

The point I'm making is that 500 far right nutters don't mark a new rise of Nazism, but the current climate of calling anybody with slightly right leanings Nazis could push things that way.

Urlicht -> Iansguardian007 , 17 Aug 2017 07:34
Was it thousands who drove the car into that lady too? No. It was one.

Sod the far right - they'd see me strung up for my skin colour.

But equally sod the left - they are the ones who would encourage and 'empathise' with my differences - thus driving me into the clubs and bats of the far right. EG at the last election, I only received racist literature from one party - Labour - celebrating the issues that my race celebrates - because to my local Labour MP, I am a group identity, not an individual.

Travis -> jdanforth , 17 Aug 2017 07:33
The Republican Party embraced racism via Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968, getting their inspiration from George Wallace's independent run for President. This brought great benefit to the GOP, allowing them to take over the South from 1968 through 1980. They doubled down on this strategy during the Obama presidency, with dog-whistle racist politics that brought them back to power after being decimated in the 2008 elections.

Citing racist Democrats of the past is about as meaningful as saying that Lincoln was a Republican and emancipated the slaves, so the Republican Party isn't racist. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

Treflesg , 17 Aug 2017 07:33
America is similar to the UK in many ways when I visit but there are also big differences.
The class system is less subtle, people are literally divided by walls, and even transport e.g. all the middle classes drive in big cars, whereas the bus is full of working class people. And people openly exclude lower classes in their language (rednecks, white trash and so on).
And in addition to the palpable class difference, they then have a whole race based division as well, the bus is almost all not white, the maids are almost all not white, the posh establishments are white majority etc. And people of all races talk about it all the time. You meet them and in the first few sentences they inform you of their ethnic or cultural background and ask yours. This is something in the UK that I am not used to.
My point is that it is all very well blaming a minority of nutters, or extremists, but actually, the whole of society in the USA is race and class obsessed and it will take all of you to sort this out.
MusicalCheeseBurger -> ID4368353 , 17 Aug 2017 07:30
This is the most idiotic comment I've ever read. There have been a range of white supremacist states in the 20th century that absolutely demonstrate that is it perfectly possible for this ideology to control a country. South Africa was a white supremacist state for over 40 years until 1991 - were they all sad sacks? What about the Germans and Italians in the early 20th century? Whole countries of sad sack losers?

It is amazing to see history repeating itself, including the anti-communist rhetoric of the right. The Nazis effectively created a strawman out of the communist party in Berlin through effective use of propaganda and targeted violence erroneously blamed on the communists (such as the Reichstag Fire). Communists don't make people hate others because of their race.

The fact that you assume that anyone who disagrees with fascism and is concerned about the parallels with the current resurgence in nationalist rhetoric now and in the interwar period is a on the 'far left' says a lot more about your politics than mine.

vonZeppelin , 17 Aug 2017 07:29
Fascism happened in Italy in the 20s. Nazism occurred in German in the 30s. Modern groups may imitate those movements but they should be labelled as far-right extremist and racists .
Urlicht -> ID4368353 , 17 Aug 2017 07:29
"It's like the left want there to be powerful and dangerous fascists. Why?"

This is true in the UK too. The left would rather paint people as racists and fascists, because then they feel that they can attack them.

The problem is, that often the left work towards the goals of the fascists. Take identity politics for example - great for those that want to be defined by their 'identity grouping', foul racism for the rest of us who want to be judged by the same standards as everyone else - for our choices as adults, not our genes at birth.

DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> MusicalCheeseBurger , 17 Aug 2017 07:28
Out of 325 million people they managed to scare up 250 oddballs to a heavily publicized event in Virginia? Check the coverage, and they are outnumbered by the reporters and camera crews, which greatly magnified the impact of the rally. They are not the face or forefront of any mass movement, though they are being portrayed as such by opponents desperate for the support (and donations) that political conflicts bring.
People are not dismissing the possibility of extremists finding success in American politics. They are, however, dismissing efforts to dismiss any and all political opposition to people like you as extremists, and the efforts to tie every lunatic fringe anywhere to our elected government that you oppose.
This is a really big country. Your textbook has damned few students. Have you noticed?
SteveRP -> haribol , 17 Aug 2017 07:27
There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that many Americans do subscribe to contempt for "the Other". "God Bless America" at the end of every political speech gives a clear indication they consider themselves special under God. The obsession with their flag, treating it with almost religious reverence, is odd.
wardadkiwi -> PJKatz , 17 Aug 2017 07:26
In nazi Germany it grew from the ground up and their certainly wasnt a coherent plan from the ruling Junkers class to introduce fascism .Like with Drumpf the racist dregs were the core around which the nazis built and the wealthy backed them once they were in power.
PotholeKid , 17 Aug 2017 07:26
Missing from this is the fact that the most powerful elites like Henry Ford, J.P Morgan the Dupont Family and many other bankers and industrialists openly supported fascism. No question these folks were behind the plot to overthrow the Roosevelt government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RD-ISImWgw

Urlicht , 17 Aug 2017 07:26
Are politicians to be judged by the worst that support them as the least worst option?

Trump has the support of some nasty individuals. Likewise here in the UK, Labour seems to have the support of some extremely socially regressive groups. Do we judge Labour by the worst of their voters then?

Daniel Kells -> DrChed4r , 17 Aug 2017 07:26

But none of them enjoy any popular support, and they never will


I suppose this is one of the few good things about Republican/Democrat dominance in the US, either fall flat on your face by striking out on your own or be forced to comprimise by signing up with one of the big 2
SavannahLaMar , 17 Aug 2017 07:25
I can't help thinking all this talk of fascism is disingenuous, because America has always been an apartheid state, and up until quite recently there were even tensions and prejudices between different white groups. Nevertheless the idea that America is fundamentally a white supremacist nation is generally unspoken until it is challenged. It was last challenged in the sixties by the civil rights movement, and the response was violent. Most recently it was challenged by the election of Barack Obama, and predictably the reaction was violent. That isn't to say that there aren't millions of decent Americans who are not racist, or that people of colour cannot overcome these barriers, or that the nation doesn't have a fine tradition of social justice movements, or that racism is the only injustice a human beng can suffer. But, for all the mythmaking about liberty and justice for all, there is no getting away from the fact that the nation's origins lie in genocide, people trafficking, forced labour, caste-based inequality, environmental despoliation and exclusivist religious cultism. These demons have never gone away.
ParcelOfRogue , 17 Aug 2017 07:25
The best counter to Fascism is PR voting.

Hitler was not let in by PR as is sometimes claimed, but after getting 30 odd percent repeatedly, he used political maneuvering and street intimidation to force his opponents out of the way and sieze power, immediately ending democracy. Instead, if Germany had elections under First Past the Post at the time, Hitler's 30 odd percent might have produced a Parliamentary majority.

CharlesBradlaugh -> Charmant_mais_fou , 17 Aug 2017 07:23
Keep saying it, you may believe it yourself. Fascism is a far boraoder movement than you claim. As the businessmen who supported Hitler knew.
wardadkiwi , 17 Aug 2017 07:23
Post WW2 one of the first if not the first show to confront American fascism was "The Twilight Zone ".Great man that he was Rod Serling confrontrd racism and fascism head on having an abiding hatred of both ,he was a WW2 veteran so he knew what nazis looked like in the flesh.
CharlesBradlaugh -> Midlyinterested1 , 17 Aug 2017 07:22
Violence is a reasonable, in fact the only answer to fascism, what do you want people to do, wait placidly for death camps?
palindrome , 17 Aug 2017 07:21

Observers have routinely considered fascism an ideology alien to American society

Why? A population armed to the teeth, a massive military ready to attack defenceless countries and a belief in "exceptionalism" scream fascist to me.

Summersalmostgone , 17 Aug 2017 07:20
Extremism is growing in every little ugly dark corner of our world. It's the real enemy. Left, right, religious or agnostic, even sports fans. We must be ever vigilant and not mistake extremist anger for passion. We must shine a light on those within us who are losing control and we must not excuse those who are lost just because they are on the same side.

Someone agreeing with you is great, but if the manner on which they agree is distasteful or vile, they aren't with you at all if you are a decent person, because the real fight is between the good moderates and the vile extremists. And this notion that there are no bad tactics only bad targets? Bull. Let's make the twenties the decade we get back on track.

antistink -> TimMiddleton , 17 Aug 2017 07:19
UKIP 'openly fascist ideology'? Dearie me.
Fascism: 'Totalitarian ideology associated with Benito Mussolini that elevates the nation over all other loyalties. It calls for the creation of a 'new man' purged of individualism and materialism. It celebrates masculinity, youth and the regenerative power of violence. It seeks to unify the nation under the leadership of a supreme leader in struggle against internal and external enemies.'
PJKatz , 17 Aug 2017 07:18
This column is perfect for The Graun: making a careful list of gaudy outbreaks of fascism while shorting the scaffolding on which it hangs. Instead of exposition on the heavy-handed corporate takeovers that lead to fascism there's a one-liner, "the crisis years of the 1920's and 1930's."

Fascism is not the outgrowth of some nebulous 'crisis' but a coherent economic and political program that must begin at the highest levels of society. So it is in the US today, a result of decades of growing inequality and resulting desperation. Chris Hedges' comment on sick societies: "And if we do not overthrow the neoliberal, corporate forces that have destroyed our democracy we will continue to vomit up more monstrosities as dangerous as Donald Trump." Ladies and gents, I give you Charlottesville.

Ernst Shackleton , 17 Aug 2017 07:16
Alot of people become more radicalized through youtube. If you watch a few 'alt-right' videos on you tube soon your feed will become full of them. People then get drawn in by the unbalanced media and a hate filled echo chamber. Videos heavily edited and narrated to suite a certain agenda.

The hate in some of the comments is atrocious.

I took a look at a video on youtube which suggested that someone should run over fractions of the left wing protestors with a tank. 100 likes. So soon after the terror attack. Youtube needs to do more to censor threats of violence.

Lastly I am sure infowars never used to be so 'far / alt-right... it seems like it has become far more extreme in the last few years.

ID6030211 , 17 Aug 2017 07:15
"Today, neo-fascism has many faces, with movements ranging from neo-Nazis to neo-Confederates to segments of the alt-right."

This is the point at which an interesting piece about the history of fascism in the United States seemed to let itself down.

Neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates tend to self-identify. They're the idiots with the dumb costumes and badges who can't seem to tell whether they're playing at being boy scouts or wizards. But where the piece lost an opportunity to provide additional insight was in the matter of the alt-right. 'Alt-right' has become something of a catch-all term that all kinds of people use for all kinds of reasons.

"[S]egments of the alt-right" is overly vague, and may seem to be something of an evasion. If there are segments of the alt-right that are fascists without falling into the two categories already mentioned (neo-nazis and neo-Confederates) then identify them - just as you identified the individuals and groups earlier in the piece.

Scholarship is great when it is specific and detailed. The alt-right part of the piece was too vague and therefore missed an opportunity to provide much-needed insight about a label that is in danger of becoming overused to the point of meaninglessness

[Aug 20, 2017] Trump Loses Anti-War Aide In Bannon The Daily Caller

Aug 20, 2017 | dailycaller.com

Bannon supported Blackwater founder Erik Prince's plan to use military contractors in the war in Afghanistan and was against National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster's plan to deploy tens of thousands of more troops to the Afghan conflict, according to a source with knowledge of the deliberations.

While saying he would "bomb the s**t" out of ISIS, Trump ran on a largely non-interventionist campaign. He attacked President Bush for invading Iraq and cautioned against toppling the Assad regime in Syria.

His White House, however, is not populated with like-minded thinkers. Even the most Trump-like senior adviser left, Stephen Miller, was a strong supporter of the Iraq War and primarily focuses on domestic policy issues.

Trump does have the habit of speaking to outside advisers on the phone and calls with Bannon and Roger Stone might be the only times Trump hears war-weary voices.

John C Durham 2 days ago
Trump's power grows. And, his people don't speak first. (Trump speaks what The People are thinking. Offend Trump and you have offended almost everybody.)

Bye, by)e Democrats. You can't win WITHOUT a Revolution...and not very many of the real People are really interested in efforts to get one going.

Remember the CENTER of it all (ISIS, RIOTS) is London/Wall Street.
Everything since last Summer, has been coming out of MI5/6 to our FBI, CIA, NSA Business Intelligence Empire.

The People are not going to go against Lincoln and they aren't
going to stand for anyone to take down the "States Rights" statues.

People are for a Strong Central Government and for a Strong State Government. It isn't "either/or". It's BOTH. For Mob Rule...uh, not so much... Trump's power is growing steadily.

The People are sometimes for Left, sometimes for Right. It isn't "either/or". It's BOTH.

If you don't know this, you don't know anything about Americans.
These killings and riots are highly organized by both assets and AGENTS of the Anti forces of Deep State, Deep Business. None of this is "from" WE, The People.

Guy Smith1 a day ago
"Bannon is back at Breitbart--awesome!," Lee Stranahan, 8/18/17
https://www.periscope.tv/w/...

Hillary Clintub • 2 days ago

Bannon is now in a better position to expose the deep state. McMaster is probably soiling his diapers.

Jesse4 > Hillary Clintub • 2 days ago

The deep state just kicked Bannon's incredibly huge butt.

lorsarah > Jesse4 • 2 days ago

The Deep State oligarchs and hacks may have won a small battle but their days are numbered. The movement that Bannon is part of is growing.

oknow • 2 days ago

This whole intervention crap is for the birds and a waste of money as the years have shown.

If the Germans and Japanese were Islamic or international religious armies it would have never ended. Maybe it is time that the great oil powers man up and fight.

Trump not backing down from the NK is what strength is. Not this crap of 15 years in foreign nations.

T100C1970 > oknow • 2 days ago

This bravo sierra warfare did not start with Muzzies. It started with Commies. The Korean war was the first war the US did not win. We got a tie with the pathetic Norks. Then in the era in which I served as an Army Officer we managed to LOSE to the Cong + NVA.. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are so far more like "ties" ... assuming you can call it a tie to spend billions and lose thousands of troops to preserve a sort of status quo.

lorsarah > oknow • 2 days ago

"Not backing down from North Korea" IS foreign intervention, as everyone with a brain knows that NK, which can't even keep its lights on, is not a threat.

11B30L • 2 days ago

President Trump is allowing his "little tiny ego" to get in the way of White House staffing decisions, according to conservative commentator Ann Coulter.

Burrito Jackson • 2 days ago

Trump just sent his generals proposal back to the drawing board to keep us in Afghanistan. Trump hasn't changed. Tired of hearing everyone controls Trump like he is a puppet.

lorsarah > Burrito Jackson • 2 days ago

Why are we there AT ALL? To protect our freedom? Of course not. Self-defense? Of course not. It's lunacy, just as Vietnam was. But the military-industrial complex makes big money on lunacy such as Afghanistan.

wars r u.s. • a day ago

Trump is a dove? He bombed Syria with no evidence that Assad did the chemical attack. He dropped the MOAB on Afghanistan and his only real problem with that war is that we're not winning. We continue to back the Saudi's in their onslaught of Yemen. Trump wants to decertify Iran's compliance to the nuke deal even though Iran is in compliance which could lead to the war the neocons and liberal hawks(Israeli firsters) have been salivating over for decades. He threatens NK with "fire ad fury" and even recently threatened Venezuela...

[Aug 20, 2017] Bannon's interview with the American Prospect last week was his shot across the proverbial bow aimed directly at the globalists fomenting more wars

With Bannon Gone, Trump Loses Key Anti-War Aide Trump Loses Anti-War Aide In Bannon The Daily Caller
Notable quotes:
"... For the record, Mr. Bannon gave notice on 8/7 to POTUS. As well, Mr. Bannon, when appointed to Trump's cabinet, stated for any who bothered to read/listen that he would accept under one condition, which was he'd be leaving the WH in eight months. Eight months brings us to 8/7. No one fired him. He is back at Breitbart as its Chairman. ..."
"... Bannon's interview with the American Prospect last week was his shot across the proverbial bow aimed directly at the globalists who are determined to keep their march toward raping the world from all her resources aka the NWO/neocon/neolib mafia while fomenting more war(s). ..."
"... If you are unaware of the current round of NAFTA negotiations, now in its fourth day, w/Canada and Mexico OR if you are unaware that on Friday the Trump administration formally launched a Section 301 Trade investigation into China's trading practices, then you are not paying attention to what the right hand is doing. ..."
"... Oh, and btw, it was Kushner and his data operation who carried Trump over the finish line not Bannon and his policy positions. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | t-room.us

h | Aug 20, 2017 12:52:39 PM | 122

Francis @68 - Refreshing to read a comment by someone who obviously has made it her/his business to understand Trump and Team from the conservative perspective. Great comment and spot on IMHO.

For the record, Mr. Bannon gave notice on 8/7 to POTUS. As well, Mr. Bannon, when appointed to Trump's cabinet, stated for any who bothered to read/listen that he would accept under one condition, which was he'd be leaving the WH in eight months. Eight months brings us to 8/7. No one fired him. He is back at Breitbart as its Chairman.

Bannon's interview with the American Prospect last week was his shot across the proverbial bow aimed directly at the globalists who are determined to keep their march toward raping the world from all her resources aka the NWO/neocon/neolib mafia while fomenting more war(s).

Bannon with Mercer and et al backing (and I can make a pretty solid educated guess that there are others) have been developing a new media platform of some kind which will be launched in weeks not months (another educated guess). Sinclair broadcasting has been mentioned on other conservative platforms as getting ready to make a move of some kind as well.

As Breitbart's editor wrote on Friday following the Bannon announcement - "WAR" - is unequivocally that sites way of saying the Swamp in DC is going to be drained. Indeed, Trump and Team have already begun to roll out their 2018 election strategy.

Any who hold the belief that Trump is stupid, naive, or whatever derogatory statement conjured up is just plain wrong and shouldn't be taken seriously by any here who know better.

Trump is a businessman. Trump is not a politician. And he certainly wasn't elected to serve as America's grandpa-he ain't gonna hold your hand...ever.

If you are unaware of the current round of NAFTA negotiations, now in its fourth day, w/Canada and Mexico OR if you are unaware that on Friday the Trump administration formally launched a Section 301 Trade investigation into China's trading practices, then you are not paying attention to what the right hand is doing.

There is always much going on behind all of the noise the insufferable Left makes on a daily basis. Apparently, they don't want you to know about any of the plethora of Executive Orders signed, the roll back of regulations zero and czars put in place, the trade negotiations and so, so much more.

On the other hand, conservative sites are all over the blogosphere report daily what this administration is doing and how it is succeeding. Bannon remains a phone call away.

Oh, and btw, it was Kushner and his data operation who carried Trump over the finish line not Bannon and his policy positions.

[Aug 20, 2017] Conservatives react with fury to Bannons departure. Bannos lost the war with the globalist wing of the White House, represented by Trumps son-in-law Jared Kushner, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and national security adviser H.R. McMaster by Jonathan Easley

Globalists here means neoliberals and often neocons.
That means that Trump administration has strong neocon/neolib "fifth column" -- the "enemy within" that tries to mold him into Republican version of Obama -=- professional "bait and switch" artists with his fake slogan "Change we can believe in".
Obama simply used anti-racism as a tool to further his own image. His actions while in office proved beyond a doubt that he certainly never gave a damn about racism. All he ever did was pay lip service to anti-racism ideals. He was about as trustworthy as a snake.
Notable quotes:
"... The chief strategist had been involved in a nasty tug-of-war with what his allies view as the "globalist" wing of the White House, represented by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. ..."
"... On Friday, conservatives lashed out at what they viewed as Trump selling out his base and surrendering to those "liberal" forces. ..."
"... "Steve's allies in the populist nationalist movement are ready to ride to the gates of hell with him against the West Wing Democrats and globalists like [national security aide] Dina Powell, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster," said one Bannon ally. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.msn.com

Originally from The Hill

A number of conservatives expressed fury and dismay on Friday after news broke that President Trump has parted ways with his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon.

Bannon is a hero on the right and credited with harnessing Trump's message of economic populism during the campaign.

The chief strategist had been involved in a nasty tug-of-war with what his allies view as the "globalist" wing of the White House, represented by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

On Friday, conservatives lashed out at what they viewed as Trump selling out his base and surrendering to those "liberal" forces.

"I'm very upset," said Tea Part activist Debbie Dooley. "The deep state globalists won. They forced out Steve Bannon. I had a 'CNN is fake news protest' scheduled for tomorrow at their headquarters in Atlanta that I'm canceling because I'm so disheartened. It's a betrayal of his base. I'll continue to support Trump and his policies but I'll no longer be on the front lines defending him."

There are rumors that Bannon could be headed back to Breitbart News, where as chairman he is credited with turning the outlet into a right-wing juggernaut.

Breitbart has been explicitly pro-Trump since the GOP presidential primaries and has vigorously defended the president through his tumultuous first months in office. Regional editors at the internet publication made clear that their loyalties lie with Bannon over Trump. There are some fears among Trump allies that Bannon could wreak havoc on the administration from outside of the White House.

For months, Breitbart has been running attacks against Kushner, Cohn and McMaster in an effort to boost Bannon's standing in the West Wing. The sense of urgency to protect Bannon grew after McMaster ousted several of Bannon's allies from the national security council.

Now, with Bannon gone, his allies are cutting loose.

"Steve's allies in the populist nationalist movement are ready to ride to the gates of hell with him against the West Wing Democrats and globalists like [national security aide] Dina Powell, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster," said one Bannon ally.

"They should all be very worried that their efforts to undermine the president will be exposed. If they think what's happened with Steve is rough, wait until they see what he does outside the White House," the ally said.

Last week, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, spoke to Trump, urging him not to fire Bannon, GOP sources said.

A senior White House official told The Hill that the president had been inundated in recent days from "high-level Republican donors and activists" pleading with the president to keep Bannon on.

With both Bannon and former chief of staff Reince Priebus out, "a lot of GOP lawmakers are confused and nervous about who they are supposed to talk to in the administration," said one GOP source. "They both did the bulk of Hill outreach."

[Aug 20, 2017] Whats the purpose of the recent escalation of Afghan War ?

Notable quotes:
"... The US doesn't like Russia. So it doesn't like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). India and Pakistan joined SCO as full members on 9 June 2017 in Astana, Kazakhstan. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 20, 2017 3:55:12 AM | 96

What's the purpose of the "escalation"? Why escalate in Afghanistan? What has happened recently to require such an escaltion?

The US doesn't like Russia. So it doesn't like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). India and Pakistan joined SCO as full members on 9 June 2017 in Astana, Kazakhstan.

Afghanistan is at the border of this giant Eurasian political, economic, and security organisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation#/media/File:SCO_(orthographic_projection).svg

[Aug 20, 2017] The United States was never immune to fascism. Not then, not now by David Motadel

Pretty much sterilized article that avoid really important issues.
The period of McCarthyism probably can be viewed as the the most close to openly neo-fascism regime in the USA... You was prosecuted for your political views, not actions. It is not mentioned in this article at all.
another important omission is that neo-fascism always rely on support of iether part of high command of the army, or state or both. Recent Ukrainian events when Yanukovich essentially promoted the the force (and the party) that deposed him is a nice illustration here.
Also omitted is connection of neoliberalism and the rise of far right movements. Neoliberalism is a breading ground for far right movement as globalization really destroys communities (and jobs) and people try to organize for a fight against this new menace.
Notable quotes:
"... The McCarthy era proved to everyone that things got a lot easier if communists (or believed communists or people where the dude down in Giuliani's bar said he might be a communist) were accused. ..."
"... The USA are a particularly violent society that has also always exported its violence and killed scores of people around the world, mainly under the labels freedom and democracy. ..."
"... The federal government also used bombers against the miners defending their families against the mine owners henchmen. Local sheriff's trying to uphold the law were murdered by the mine owners. Have a look at the "coal wars" ..."
"... The muddle - for all sensible people - does not arise because of a confusion about whether it is good to be against or for Nazis. The issue in Charlottesville was that morally right was actually legally wrong. Making Nazi salutes is vile; it is not, however, illegal (in the United States). Right up until threats were made and punches were thrown, the law was on the side of the demonstrators. The presence of Antifa (which has a history of committing acts of violence), therefore, presented a legal problem regardless of ANTIFA's standing as 'moral agents': if the police had been ordered to move in earlier in the day, which direction did the law require them to move? ..."
"... Financial liberalisation without the knowledge of productive and unproductive lending. Productive lending goes into business and industry; it generates the money to make the repayments and gives a good return in GDP. Unproductive lending goes into real estate and financial speculation; it doesn't generate the money to make the repayments and gives a poor return in GDP. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Consider the interwar period. The crisis years of the 1920s and 1930s not only gave rise to fascist movements across Europe – a moment captured in Ernst Nolte's classic The Three Faces of Fascism – but around the globe. The United States was no exception.

Charlottesville reveals an emboldened far right that can no longer be ignored Read more

Across the country, fascist and proto-fascist groups sprang up. The most prominent among them was the paramilitary Silver Shirts movement, founded by William Dudley Pelley, a radical journalist from Massachusetts, in 1933.

Obsessed with fantasies about a Jewish-Communist world conspiracy and fears about an African American corruption of American culture, its followers promoted racism, extreme nationalism, violence and the ideal of an aggressive masculinity. They competed against various other militant fringe groups, from the Khaki Shirt movement, which aimed to build a paramilitary force of army veterans to stage a coup, to the paramilitary Black Legion, feared for its assassinations, bombings and acts of arson.

An important role in this history was played by radicalized parts of the Italian and German American community. Inspired by the ascent of Mussolini, some Italian Americans founded numerous fascist groups, which were eventually united under the Fascist League of North America.

Many commentators still feel uneasy speaking about fascism in America. They consider fascism to be foreign to US society

Even bigger was Fritz Julius Kuhn's German-American Bund, founded in 1936. Its members considered themselves patriotic Americans. At their meetings the American flag stood beside the Swastika banner. At a rally at Madison Square Garden in New York on 20 February 1939, a crowd of 20,000 listened to Kuhn attacking President Franklin D Roosevelt, referring to him as "Frank D Rosenfeld" and calling his New Deal a "Jew Deal".

The gathering ended in violent clashes between protesters and participants. Similar riots took place on the west coast. The New York Times reported: "Disorders attendant upon Nazi rallies in New York and Los Angeles this week again focused attention upon the Nazi movement in the United States and inspired conjectures as to its strength and influence."

To be sure, most of these groups were peripheral. And yet historians have shown that the appeal of fascism among many Americans in the interwar years should not be underestimated. The ideology found prominent supporters, from the writer Ezra Pound, who from Italy called Americans for an alliance with Mussolini, to the aviator Charles Lindbergh, who in the 1940s campaigned against Washington's entry into the war.

When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labelled 'made in Germany'

Fascist agitators published widely circulated newspapers and aired radio shows, which reached millions, preaching virulent antisemitism, nativism and anti-Communism. Many of them had no obvious links to their fascist counterparts in Europe and cushioned their message with American nativism and Christian piety.

"When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labelled 'made in Germany'; it will not be marked with a swastika," a US reporter warned urgently in 1938. "It will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, 'Americanism'." Sinclair Lewis's novel It Can't Happen Here, published a few years earlier, had made a similar point.

During the second world war, American fascists suffered a serious blow. At the great sedition trial of 1944, some of the movement's key proponents were charged with treason. In the postwar years, however, scores of new groups emerged. Some saw themselves in the tradition of the interwar period, such as the American Nazi party, founded in 1959 by the flamboyant war veteran George Lincoln Rockwell, which copied its ideology and iconography from Germany's Nazi party.

White nationalist and neo-fascist movements in the US have grown by 600% on social media, outperforming Isis

Yet many of these groups transformed and began to look very different from their predecessors of the 1930s. Not all wore jackboots, armbands and uniforms any more. Not all assembled at torch rallies. They embraced new discourses of globalization, migration and multiculturalism. Today, neo-fascism has many faces, with movements ranging from neo-Nazis to neo-Confederates to segments of the alt-right.

The United States has never been immune to fascism. But many commentators still feel uneasy speaking about fascism in America. They still consider fascism to be foreign to American society. They often assume that American exceptionalism makes the country immune to any fascist threat. Fascism has no place in our master narrative of American history. Conversely, in most global histories of fascism, America is no more than a footnote.

And yet it has never been more important to acknowledge the history of fascism and neo-fascism in America than it is today. Over the last five years, according to a recent study by George Washington University, white nationalist and neo-fascist movements in the US have grown by 600% on Twitter , outperforming Isis in nearly every category, from follower numbers to numbers of tweets.

Although they remain fringe groups, Trump's victory has given them new confidence. Never in history have they felt more empowered. Many of them saw his election as their victory. The chorus of support ranges from the American Nazi party supremo, Rocky Suhayda, who sees Trump as a "real opportunity", to the white supremacist leader David Duke, who said he was "100% behind" Trump.

How a 1947 US government anti-Nazi film went viral after Charlottesville Read more

... ... ...

David Motadel is an assistant professor of international history at the London School of Economics and Political Science

3melvinudall , 17 Aug 2017 08:06

This movement of fascism and nationalism has been in the works for 40 years. We have a radical insurgency party that wanted absolute control to carry out the policies of the old John Birch Society: end graduated income tax, repeal Social Security, repeal Medicare and Medicaid, discredit opposing political party, end school integration and busing and eliminate healthcare. These are the goals of the radical insurgency called for by the Republican Party.

This agenda has been pushed by big money. The Koch Brothers and the Mercer family, big money. Now it is with us and they have their "horse": a man called Trump. It is shameful to watch. The racism and the bigotry has been seething in the ranks of this radical insurgency for 8 yrs under Obama (the very ides of electing a black man as POTUS!). Then the possibility of a woman as POTUS was more than the radical insurgency could stand...they needed a white man for president.

The crazier the better. It is in the open now....no hiding anymore.

SdKfz171 -> juster , 17 Aug 2017 08:05
Funny, Most other states who modeled their iconography after ancient Rome where openly fascist right from the start. Mussolini's Italy, the Third Reich.
LearningFan -> Topher , 17 Aug 2017 08:03
The world is facing extreme challenges - a faltering economic system; climate change and ecological collapse; rogue states with nuclear weapons

In fairness, the world has been that way for as long as I remember. You get immune to it after a while. Probably since biblical times, if not before then, people have been telling us we are on the brink of apocalypse.

fatdaddyyork -> PJKatz , 17 Aug 2017 08:02
Exactly. Macron defeating le Pen only makes Fascism more likely in the future, because he'll be a bloody disaster. Thankfully the FN seems to be pulling itself apart, which is a bullet dodged by our beret wearing chums.
SdKfz171 -> SpenderCGB , 17 Aug 2017 08:02

he proceedings had merely served to demonstrate that a Soviet political trial could not be brought to a successful conclusion if conducted in accordance with existing American law as long as it was agianst rightwing nutters

The McCarthy era proved to everyone that things got a lot easier if communists (or believed communists or people where the dude down in Giuliani's bar said he might be a communist) were accused.
gruenebaum , 17 Aug 2017 07:58
A good analysis but largely well known facts.

The USA are a particularly violent society that has also always exported its violence and killed scores of people around the world, mainly under the labels freedom and democracy.

We should not forget the bigger picture here.

getoutofmydreams -> UnclePhaester , 17 Aug 2017 07:58

An article which fails to provide any evidence that fascism was ever widespread in the United States.

Maybe you misread the headline: it said that "the US was never immune to fascism", not that fascism was widespread. So you're complaining that it didn't prove a point that it never sought to make.

pinkeywafu -> Tintenfische , 17 Aug 2017 07:58
The federal government also used bombers against the miners defending their families against the mine owners henchmen. Local sheriff's trying to uphold the law were murdered by the mine owners. Have a look at the "coal wars"
UnclePhaester , 17 Aug 2017 07:56
An article which fails to provide any evidence that fascism was ever widespread in the United States. Even where it's forced to admit that it was mostly peripheral, it tries to gloss over that with the somewhat flaccid assertion that historians say that the appeal of fascism shouldn't be underestimated and by pointing out that people as prominent as Ezra Pound and Charles Lindbergh were involved.

A far more interesting article might have been an examination as to why homegrown fascism never took off in the UK or the USA as opposed to elsewhere in Europe.

ID6030211 -> MusicalCheeseBurger , 17 Aug 2017 07:54
Yes it was violent. But violence is not allowed in the ordinary course of life in a democratic society. There are even laws against it (the fact that the laws are not always fairly enforced is another matter, but one no less worthy of discussion). The point here is that a person is not entitled to hit his neighbor on the head and destroy his possessions. In war, that kind of behavior is not only allowed, it is generally encouraged.

The muddle - for all sensible people - does not arise because of a confusion about whether it is good to be against or for Nazis. The issue in Charlottesville was that morally right was actually legally wrong. Making Nazi salutes is vile; it is not, however, illegal (in the United States). Right up until threats were made and punches were thrown, the law was on the side of the demonstrators. The presence of Antifa (which has a history of committing acts of violence), therefore, presented a legal problem regardless of ANTIFA's standing as 'moral agents': if the police had been ordered to move in earlier in the day, which direction did the law require them to move?

Once we can get that clear, we can begin to understand the problem. And when we understand it, we can do our best to see to it that it never happens again. So let's not make this just about Trump. Serious questions should also be asked about the actions and inaction of local officials on the day. But 'We fought a war to defeat fascism' really doesn't get us very far toward achieving our goals

soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs 17 Aug 2017 07:46

Financial liberalisation without the knowledge of productive and unproductive lending. Productive lending goes into business and industry; it generates the money to make the repayments and gives a good return in GDP. Unproductive lending goes into real estate and financial speculation; it doesn't generate the money to make the repayments and gives a poor return in GDP.

They didn't know:

The UK used to know in the past:

https://cdn.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/04/Screen-Shot-2017-04-21-at-13.53.09.png

The Asian Tigers knew and used "window guidance" to ensure bank credit went into productive lending, they were very successful.

[Aug 20, 2017] Laugh all you want, but you really are ignoring some harsh facts about the current US economy, what it's based on, and what conflict with North Korea will entail should the US be foolish enough to continue along that track

Notable quotes:
"... If the US attacks North Korea, that's the end of the US-centric Pacific Commonwealth. Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines will all strongly realign following the inevitable destruction of South Korea--most towards a more China-friendly relationship--and the rest of South East Asia will follow suit. Taiwan will become increasingly isolated, and that will put huge pressure on it to cut off its client status with the US and move towards normalization of relations with China. ..."
"... Besides - the media slowly, slowly starts to wake up. CNN: North Korea gives US a clear choice: Restraint or missile launches ..."
"... Bottom line: It is premature to suggest that the US is winning this game. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Pacifica Advocate -> BillWade... Reply , 17 August 2017 at 10:04 AM

Very, very, very far, in fact.

If the US attacks North Korea, that's the end of the US-centric Pacific Commonwealth. Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines will all strongly realign following the inevitable destruction of South Korea--most towards a more China-friendly relationship--and the rest of South East Asia will follow suit. Taiwan will become increasingly isolated, and that will put huge pressure on it to cut off its client status with the US and move towards normalization of relations with China.

In the US, Wal Mart, Target, and all the other big superstores of that ilk (Hobby Lobby...) will just waft away into vapor as their suppliers gradually disappear (and certainly, they'll take a huge economic hit during the quarter or half-year that the conflict ensues).

Laugh all you want, but you really are ignoring some harsh facts about the current US economy, what it's based on, and what conflict with North Korea will entail should the US be foolish enough to continue along that track.

b said in reply to jonst... , 17 August 2017 at 04:28 AM
Since when is "the world's" notice relevant in political issues?

Besides - the media slowly, slowly starts to wake up. CNN: North Korea gives US a clear choice: Restraint or missile launches
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/16/opinions/north-korea-us-guam-choice-adam-mount/index.html

Richardstevenhack said in reply to turcopolier ... , 16 August 2017 at 10:11 PM
Yes, I'm aware. But that doesn't change the likelihood that
  1. Kim never intended to launch those missiles, but merely make the threat in another attempt to pressure the US to negotiate (in which case, of course, he failed - big surprise that) and
  2. Even if he did actually intend to launch such a missile test, his generals likely suggested it would be TOO provocative.

In any event, my main point is that nothing has changed.

Alexander Mercouris did a piece today at The Duran suggesting that both sides have backed off. I submitted a comment disagreeing.

NK will likely continue to launch missiles until the US agrees to negotiate. And Trump is unlikely to agree to negotiate until he's painted himself into a corner where he will have to launch SOME sort of military action against NK - which is likely to trigger full-scale war.

Bottom line: It is premature to suggest that the US is winning this game.

[Aug 20, 2017] McMaster solidifies power at NSC -- and supports Iran deal, sees Israel as occupier by Philip Weiss

Aug 05, 2017 | mondoweiss.net

Last night President Trump issued a statement affirming his support for National Security adviser H.R. McMaster in the face of a storm of criticism from rightwing outlets. The statement is a sign that Trump and his new chief of staff are taking the realist side of the debate inside his administration over foreign policy.

So while Trump claims to be doing everything he can to trash the Iran deal, the good news is that his foreign policy team is for it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson clearly advocated for the deal at a press briefing earlier this week, while suggesting that he could differ with the president on how effective it's been.

I think there are a lot of alternative means with which we use the agreement to advance our policies and the relationship with Iran.

Tillerson is one of the "adults" who are thought to be able to rein in Trump's worst tendencies on Iran, as Paul Pillar wrote :

Reportedly the adults, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, last month urged a resistant Trump to recognize reality and certify that Iran was complying with the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action].

Further comfort comes from the fact that three days ago, General McMaster fired Ezra Cohen-Watnick , an enigmatic thirtyish intelligence aide who was vehemently opposed to the Iran deal, leading to calls to get rid of McMaster. Like Tillerson, McMaster is plainly a realist. And he is thought to have job security because his predecessor, General Mike Flynn, lasted barely three weeks and went out with a splash. The Atlantic says McMaster is cleaning house at the NSC; two weeks ago he got rid of an ideologue who spread anti-Muslim conspiracies.

Supporters of Israel are upset by the personnel changes. The Israeli-American hothead Caroline Glick writes at her Facebook page that McMaster is "deeply hostile" to Israel as an occupying power.

The Israel angle on McMaster's purge of Trump loyalists from the National Security Council is that all of these people are pro-Israel and oppose the Iran nuclear deal, positions that Trump holds.

McMaster in contrast is deeply hostile to Israel and to Trump. According to senior officials aware of his behavior, he constantly refers to Israel as the occupying power and insists falsely and constantly that a country named Palestine existed where Israel is located until 1948 when it was destroyed by the Jews.

McMaster "has chosen to eliminate the pro-Israel voices at the National Security Council," according to Jordan Schachtel at the Conservative Review, who cited interviews with White House officials who are trying to undermine the general:

McMaster not only shuns Israel, he is also historically challenged on Arab-Israeli affairs, according to the sources.

"McMaster constantly refers to the existence of a Palestinian state before 1947," a senior West Wing official tells CR (there was never an independent Palestinian state), adding that McMaster describes Israel as an "illegitimate," "occupying power."

The NSC chief expressed great reluctance to work with Israel on counterterror efforts, as he shut down a joint U.S.-Israel project to counter the terrorist group Hezbollah's efforts to expand Iran's worldwide influence.

One of the main indictments of McMaster by neoconservatives (right-wing Israel supporters who favor regime change) is that he restrained the president on his tour of occupied territories in May ( as Allison Deger reported at the time ). In this White House briefing, McMaster refused to say that the western wall in occupied East Jerusalem is part of Israel.

[Aug 20, 2017] Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise

Notable quotes:
"... The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.msn.com

Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise. The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon.

The strategist denied involvement, but he also did not speak out against them.

By the time Charlottesville erupted, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump had a powerful ally in Mr. Kelly, who shared their belief that Mr. Trump's first statement blaming "many sides" for the deadly violence needed to be amended.

Mr. Bannon vigorously objected. He told Mr. Kelly that if Mr. Trump delivered a second, more contrite statement it would do him no good, with either the public or the Washington press corps, which he denigrated as a "Pretorian guard" protecting the Democrats' consensus that Mr. Trump is a race-baiting demagogue. Mr. Trump could grovel, beg for forgiveness, even get down on his knees; it would never work, Mr. Bannon maintained.

"They're going to say two things: It's too late and it's not enough," Mr. Bannon told Mr. Kelly.

[Aug 20, 2017] Breitbart Goes After Ivanka And McMaster

Aug 20, 2017 | dailycaller.com

The first earlier in the day was " Report: Powerful GOP Donor Sheldon Adelson Supports Campaign to Oust McMaster ." This article detailed how major Republican donor Sheldon Adelson reportedly is supporting a campaign against McMaster that claims the national security adviser is anti-Israel.

Later in the day, the lead story on the site was " McMaster Of Disguise: Nat'l Security Adviser Endorsed Book That Advocates Quran-Kissing Apology Ceremonies ." This piece from frequent McMaster critic Aaron Klein said that McMaster endorsed a book that "calls on the U.S. military to respond to any 'desecrations' of the Quran by service members with an apology ceremony, and advocates kissing a new copy of the Quran before presenting the Islamic text to the local Muslim public."

The article went on to say that McMaster has "troubling views" on Islamic terrorism.

The site also published two articles Sunday critical of Ivanka. One of them is an aggregate of a Daily Mail report that claimed Ivanka helped push Bannon out of the White House. Shortly after the story was published, the article received an update that said a White House senior aide stated the Daily Mail report is "totally false."

Breitbart also wrote a piece that highlighted six times Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner's displeasure with President Trump had been leaked to the media.

Bannon said in interviews after his departure from the White House that he will use Breitbart to fight for the president's agenda.

"In many ways, I think I can be more effective fighting from the outside for the agenda President Trump ran on," Bannon told The New York Times . "And anyone who stands in our way, we will go to war with."

[Aug 20, 2017] Breitbart goes after McMaster

Aug 20, 2017 | thehill.com

Breitbart News, the media outlet helmed by President Trump's former chief strategist Stephen Bannon, published an article on Sunday casting national security adviser H.R. McMaster as soft on Islamist extremism and terrorism.

The former chief strategist's exit from the White House on Friday immediately raised questions about the future of Bannon's relationship with Trump, as well as how Breitbart would cover the administration with Bannon at the helm again.

In an interview last week on NBC's "Meet the Press," McMaster repeatedly dodged questions about whether he could work with Bannon, saying simply that he is "ready to work with anybody who will help advance the president's agenda and advance the security, prosperity of the American people."

"I get to work together with a broad range of talented people, and it is a privilege every day to enable the national security team," McMaster told the show's host Chuck Todd.

[Aug 20, 2017] The Bannon - McMaster war can be very easily explained

Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

somebody | Aug 20, 2017 5:49:52 AM | 98

The Bannon - McMaster war can be very easily explained

McMaster made sure the US remains in the Iran deal

This is not what Sheldon Adelson or the Mercers paid for. This is not what right wing Israelis want.

Stability is not what the Mercers thrive on .

Hedge fund insiders say that quant funds, whose trading profits typically depend on volatility, have been hurt by what has been a surprisingly steady market environment in the second quarter, most notably in June, when the CBOE Volatility Index, or VIX � which reflects investors� views of expected stock market volatility � gained between 10 percent and 12 percent, half of its 52-week highs. The Republicans� failure to pass a health care bill, a steady drumbeat of news about the Russia-Trump investigation, and nuclear missile tests of North Korea did little to jar investor confidence in the stock market. The S&P 500 gained 0.6 percent during the month, putting it up 9.3 percent this year

Grieved | Aug 19, 2017 10:06:59 PM | 86

@58 karlof1

Thanks for the Escobar link. The story makes great sense. It's good to know about Mercer and to see that Trump and Bannon are tight. Oddly, it did seem that with all the jackals circling around Trump's neck, in this one case, Bannon is more use outside the tent pissing in than inside pissing out. And Breitbart has now received a massive profile lift, it'll become a national player in the narrative, one would expect.

By the way, I was pondering lately this whole aspect of a grass roots movement. Funny you should bring it up. The only question here about the US is, will the people actually get a voice in this society? If the electoral system keeps bringing liars and betraying promises, then it's time to Occupy the Ballot and have new movements. This is happening I think, with Trump actually being one of the precursor litmus tests.

~~

As for the generals, what does a ruler need except the people and the army? Trump has them both. It makes him harder to take down with all those generals around. Of course, Caesar will have to accord with his praetorian guard or the guard will get a new Caesar. But the US is a banana republic now, this is how it's done - and I'm serious about this, these are real dynamics I think.

Surely the generals will end up being more conservative in action than in rhetoric? And if they get a little giddy and actually send their soldiers out into the real world, they'll quickly receive more of those globally public humiliations that are lowering the empire to the ground so effectively. What can go wrong, that couldn't always go wrong anyway, regardless of who's in charge, or thinks they're in charge?

V. Arnold | Aug 19, 2017 8:50:03 PM | 80
somebody | Aug 19, 2017 10:01:52 AM | 24

Trump would not have been elected without Robert Mercer. Robert Mercer is the billionaire behind Cambridge Analytica, Breitbart and Steve Bannon.

Who financed Adolf Hitler?

Bingo! Finally, some one got the Mercers; both the father and the daughter.
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19811:The-Real-Story-of-How-Bannon-and-Trump-Got-to-The-White-House

smuks | Aug 20, 2017 8:45:55 AM | 101
@psychohistorian 85

We express things differently, but think very much alike.

The water and sewage system is a good example, but you could take any basic utility/ basic human need: Everyone needs it, but there's no need for 'growth' and little if any room for efficiency gains. So the only ways to profit as a private investor are to overcharge users or to pay miserable wages and let the infrastructure rot.

Private enterprise and competition can work miracles when an economic sector is rapidly developing, expanding and advancing technologically. Governments should encourage this, so I don't think they're (purely) socialistic. But once the sector is 'grown-up' and enters a more or less 'steady state', there's neither room nor justification for profits. It becomes more important to provide high-quality services to everyone(!) while using as little natural resources as possible - and for this, a democratic form of organization is much more fitting than a private profit-driven one (which strives to maximize throughput).

I'm cautiously optimistic. My impression is that more and more people realize that in our time, 'democracy', 'equal rights' and 'sustainability' more important than 'profits' and 'growth'...don't you think?

nb...'posit' - I just learned a new word, thanks!

@somebody 98

Thanks for pointing out the uncertainty and 'volatility'/ VIX bit. I agree it's what speculative investors like hedge funds need and thrive on - so it's what they try to promote by all means (cf. certain websites).
Especially now that we are saying goodbye to the 'growth' phase of the economy and entering a 'steady state' (s.ab.), financial market volatility is increasingly the only thing to reap (relevant) profits from. It's a fight between the pro-stability and the 'profit at all cost' factions - luckily, the former is winning.

[Aug 20, 2017] I believe you are onto something when you suggest that the US is becoming a state ruled by corporations.

Notable quotes:
"... The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system: http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Krollchem | Aug 20, 2017 1:12:08 PM | 123

james @121

I believe you are onto something when you suggest that the US is becoming a state ruled by corporations. In contrast, both Fascism and national socialism directed corporations to meet state end: "Difference Between Fascism and Nazism"
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism/

  1. Fascism is a term that was originally referred to the fascists of Italy under Mussolini. Nazism on the other hand, referred as National Socialism, is in an ideological concept of the Nazi Party.
  2. For Fascists, the state was the most important element. But Nazism emphasized on racism.
  3. While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered 'Aryanism' as more important."

The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system:
http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html

Cannot wait for football season to arrive so we can go back to the regularly scheduled sports "programming"(go seahawks. sic).

[Aug 20, 2017] Documents reveal Italian dictator got start in politics in 1917 with help of 100 weekly wage from MI5

Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Just Sayin' | Aug 20, 2017 5:05:05 PM | 142

104
Don't spread fake news.

This is Mussolini in his own words.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 20, 2017 9:53:57 AM | 106

The pot calling the Kettle . . . . , once again

Recruited by MI5: Benito Mussolini
Documents reveal Italian dictator got start in politics in 1917 with help of £100 weekly wage from MI5

[Aug 20, 2017] Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress...

Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: somebody | Aug 19, 2017 9:53:06 AM | 22

Whatever you are smoking certainly looks like great stuff.

Posted by: Temporarily Sane | Aug 20, 2017 3:20:34 AM | 94

Bravo.

Let's add the US is certainly a fascist country, but that is nothing new. Fascism, as defined by its inventor Benito Mussolini, is characterized by the protection of private assets/corporations by the power apparatus of the state, in particular the military and police.

If there is a better definition of the United States, I'd love to hear it. And it's been like that from day one.

Posted by: Lea | Aug 20, 2017 9:37:16 AM | 104

Anon | Aug 20, 2017 9:53:40 AM | 105

CNN Smears Again! Don Lemon Implies Breitbart Platform for Nazis
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/19/cnn-smears-again-don-lemon-implies-breitbart-platform-for-nazis/

See the pattern - everyone is a "nazi" these days according to the liberal MSM that of course have the "correct" news, worldview.

somebody | Aug 20, 2017 9:53:57 AM | 106
104
Don't spread fake news.

This is Mussolini in his own words .

War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death ... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society... ... After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress...

fast freddy | Aug 20, 2017 10:01:39 AM | 107
Fascism is collusion between government and big business. Pay to play.

Get elected, get paid. Accept the payola and serve big business at the expense of your constituents. IF you don't play, you won't get re-elected.

If you intend, with pure motives like Mr. Smith, to go in and clean it up, you will be out on your ass after one miserable term. And nobody will sit with you in the lunch room.

Fascism is the American Way.

fast freddy | Aug 20, 2017 10:01:39 AM | 107 somebody | Aug 20, 2017 10:35:48 AM | 108
107

Of course you can make up your own definition of fascism but don't expect fascists to agree.

Fascists don't worry about reelection. They only have to come to power once.

fast freddy | Aug 20, 2017 11:05:13 AM | 112
While the state must carry huge incidental expenses, the big capitalists themselves have to stand a certain number: "voluntary contributions" extorted by the party and its "welfare" undertakings; various subscriptions; "graft" and seats on the boards of directors of big companies for the "upper crust" of the fascist leaders, etc. But these incidental expenses, the importance of which must not be exaggerated, are less annoying to big business than the demagogic agitation indulged in by the fascist plebeians – agitation which, despite purges and repressions, periodically reappears, though within constantly narrower limits.

Again, while big business approves of an aggressive policy that brings it new armament orders, it is afraid lest the fascist leaders, in seeking a diversion from the wretchedness of the people, provoke a premature war which will result in the isolation of the country and its defeat. It is especially significant that in the autumn of 1935 it was the fascist leaders, Farinacci, Rossoni, and others, who urged Mussolini into conflict with England.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/guerin/1938/10/fascism.htm

somebody | Aug 20, 2017 11:06:56 AM | 113
110 - the definition is pretty simple

Definition of fascism

1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Piotr Berman | Aug 20, 2017 11:07:10 AM | 114
"Fascism is collusion between government and big business. Pay to play."

Given that power allows to control resources, it allows to get money or whatever resource control exists (e.g. land estates in feudalism), so political systems have components of "power gives money" and "money gives power" in varying proportions. Fascism has some equilibrium of the two, but to define it as a special variety of government you need to list more features.

I guess that in the context like USA you can point to vilification used as a tool of public manipulation as a "fascist feature". True, IMHO, but that feature is invented by "fascism proper", it is fascistic in terms of being a malicious power technique. However, it lacks a catchy name. Should it be called "fascism"? That would be ironic, because that would be using vilification to eliminate vilification. It also leads to the type of discourse in which mere volume wins, and this is one of mechanisms of converting money to power.

smuks | Aug 20, 2017 11:23:12 AM | 115
@From The Hague 102

Realizing changes everything - in the longer run at least.
Democracy gave us World Wars? lol, you serious?

@somebody 103

Which comes down to the same imo, since regulation reduces volatility and other ways of making illicit profits.

@Lea, fast freddy

That's not 'fascism', it's rather capitalism controlling the state, or trying to.

There are several valid ways to define 'fascism' afaict.
One calls it 'the rule of the most reactionary, most chauvinist parts of financial capital', another says it's 'an ideology which defines certain groups of people as 'inferior' and denies them the most basic rights, even the right to exist' (from memory, not exact wording).
I would argue that both are complementary rather than contradictory.

@Piotr Berman 109

How about we replace it with a (mostly decentralized) democratic organization of the economy, with 'money'/ investment capital as a public good that does not require any yield?
:-)

From The Hague | Aug 20, 2017 11:36:16 AM | 116
113 somebody

Too simple for somebody with the name George Orwell

https://faculty.washington.edu/rsoder/EDLPS579/HonorsOrwellPoliticsEnglishLanguage.pdf

115 smuks

How about we replace it with a (mostly decentralized) democratic organization of the economy, with 'money'/ investment capital as a public good that does not require any yield?

Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

psychohistorian | Aug 20, 2017 11:54:02 AM | 118
@ From The Hague who wrote: "But China is a working model for a more complex economy."

Exactly! China has planned and executed 12-13 5-year plans, reduced poverty immensely and yet all we hear in the West besides crickets about the situation is TINA!!!!!!!!!

I read all this commenting about fascism but no link to a compelling definition

Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt

james | Aug 20, 2017 12:49:30 PM | 121
116

This here is Orwell in 1944

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one -- not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

Orwell's problem is that thinking one race superior to the other would have applied to the colonialist British conservatives of his time (and the United States) and authoritarian rule and anti-individualism to Stalin.

In 2017 Merriam Websters definition is valid

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader.

British and US political systems were about the individual and never autocratic, whilst the Soviet Union emphasized class, not nation or race.

117
You are spreading fake news.

President Obama speaks at Dallas shooting memorial service

Posted by: somebody | Aug 20, 2017 12:41:43 PM | 120

how about coming up with some new terms???

i thought corporatism was good... it seems to capture a lot of what is going on in the west today where corporations control politicians, especially the big ones i have mentioned previously - exxon, goldman sachs, and the military builders/contractors... aren't those the ones inside of every friggin' ''''new'''' usa gov't that comes along?

Krollchem | Aug 20, 2017 1:12:08 PM | 123
james @121

I believe you are onto something when you suggest that the US is becoming a state ruled by corporations. In contrast, both Fascism and national socialism directed corporations to meet state end: "Difference Between Fascism and Nazism"
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism/

"1.Fascism is a term that was originally referred to the fascists of Italy under Mussolini. Nazism on the other hand, referred as National Socialism, is in an ideological concept of the Nazi Party.
2.For Fascists, the state was the most important element. But Nazism emphasized on racism.
3.While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered 'Aryanism' as more important."

The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system:
http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html

Cannot wait for football season to arrive so we can go back to the regularly scheduled sports "programming"(go seahawks. sic).

[Aug 20, 2017] Stick a fork in Trump. He's done.

Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Vannok | Aug 19, 2017 2:50:47 PM | 50

The US Regime has just attacked the SAA fighting on the frontline against IS:

US Regime Attack

Stick a fork in Trump. He's done.

[Aug 20, 2017] A De-Putin-Nazification of America Update

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

Given the current level of hysteria, few people are going to check your facts. This is one you can really have fun with. See how far you can push the paranoia. Make up elaborate conspiracy theories. If you're not quite sure how to go about that, check The New York Times or The Washington Post they're masters of that kind of thing.

Your anti-Nazi loyalty oath should definitely not include any of the following:

(1) Any mention of the Ukrainian Nazis that Obama, Clinton, and the rest of the Resistance (before it was the Resistance, of course) helped regime-change the Ukrainian government when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Mentioning the Resistance's support of these Nazis would only confuse those reading your oath, who might not understand that there are good Nazis and bad Nazis, and who have probably forgotten how the US government smuggled a number of actual Nazis (i.e., members of the NSDAP) into America after WWII or how, since the end of that war, the United States has mass murdered countless millions of people all over the planet (but, technically, not in a genocidal fashion, so that doesn't make us the same as Nazis).

(2) Actual membership figures on neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, because those figures are pathetically small. Doing this would make your loyalty oath (not to mention the whole Nazi hysteria thing, generally) seem, if not paranoid, then at least absurd, or like part of some manufactured effort to whip up support for a ruling class coup by waving Nazis in front of everyone's faces. This would be extremely counterproductive. Remember, one of the primary goals of the De-Putin-Nazification program is to convince the public that Richard Spencer (and the handful of other insignificant idiots that the corporate media is showering with publicity) is about to lead an overwhelming force of tiki torch-bearing neo-Nazis into the streets of American cities to battle the hyper-militarized police, the national guard, and the US military, or some other preposterous scenario like that.

(3) Any reference whatsoever to the corporatocracy that runs the country, and that normally decides who can run for president, and which is currently making an example of Trump in order to dissuade any future billionaires from having the audacity to fuck with them. You'll be better off avoiding this subject entirely, as it only reminds folks how screwed they are, and how, odds are, they're probably all worked up about something the corporate-owned media wanted to get them all worked up about, neo-Nazis, Russian hackers, nuclear war with North Korea, Syrian gas attacks, lone wolf terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, or whatever. Take it from someone who's worked in show business. No one likes being made aware of how they are being manipulated or provided with a binary set of officially acceptable contextual parameters within which they can think and speak.

But don't worry too much about that binary stuff. There'll be plenty of time to get into all that after we rid the world of these Nazis, and these racists, and all these Confederate statues. And Trump, of course. That's the main thing getting rid of Donald Trump, and getting a Democrat back in office. Oh, yeah and the books. We need to look at the books. God knows how many Confederate books are still out there in the public libraries, and in people's homes, where children can read them. We'll need to get to the books eventually.

In the meantime, focus on Priority One. Go hard on the Nazi hysteria, at least throughout the rest of the weekend, after which they'll probably need to switch us back to the Russia hysteria, or possibly the North Korea hysteria, or damn, see? Here I go with that contextual parameter stuff again. I've really got to stop doing that. The last thing I need is to get myself accused of being some kind of Nazi sympathizer, or Confederate apologist, or Russian propagandist, or extremist, or terrorist, or, you know whatever.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org

Brabantian > , Website August 19, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT

Indeed it is hysteria & the madness of crowds in the USA, to a degree never seen before in our lifetimes

Perhaps the cleverness of Trump & others with him, is instinctively understanding that, this hysteria cannot be directly defused given its elite & corp media support, but now the fire must simply be left to run its course, until it burns itself out, in the end forcing a widespread recognition of the absurdity, & enduring shame for those who fostered it

This may explain including such nominal feints such as the jettisoning of 'goy' top advisor Steve Bannon to give the antifa etc hysterics more fuel for their fires

Interesting article by, of all people, David P Goldman aka 'Spengler' of Asia Times, arguing that Donald Trump may at the moment be making an extremely clever riverboat gamble -

Siding with the more common-sense ordinary people of both USA Democrat & Republican political parties, as those parties implode and split into pieces, & possibly building a new, core, more sensible political centre once the current hysteria has run its course

Trump will reach out to Democratic voters who are alienated from a leadership that has devoted most of its energy to a radical social agenda instead of bread-and-butter solutions, and he will appear to a majority of his own party. I do not know whether he will succeed; if he does, the self-inflicted wounds to the erstwhile arbiters of American opinion will be fatal.

'The Bloody Shirt of Charlottesville and its unintended consequences'

http://www.atimes.com/unintended-consequences-charlottesville/

Renoman > , August 19, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT

Good article, thank you.

War for Blair Mountain > , August 19, 2017 at 11:39 am GMT

When all the Confederate Statutes are taken down, what replaces them?

The Anti-fascist replacement:go google photos of Hillary Clinton pick the Hillary Clinton photo with Hillary wearing the most hideous of her pantsuits that's the one that will replace General Lee .A statue of a psychopathic War Criminal bulldyke who was organized and gave the order to mass murder Conservative Russian Christians in the Eastern Ukraine on behalf of Neo-Nazis.

Hillary Clinton created Al QUEDA and ISIS .enabler of Ukraino Nazis ..

Hillary Clinton..the poster girl for the Antifa Tranny Freaks .and the cucked White Protestant Male Ministers standing up to hate in Charlottesville

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 19, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT

Nicely provocative, an essay that seems more likely than a lot published here to get through to Americans not yet divided-and-conquered.

Another way to help people you know and care about to get beyond the TV-level dumbshittery afflicting the country: posit whether ANY statue, plaque, etc., of ANY politician, military "hero," or other person being thus celebrated for exercising governmental authority is worth funding with taxation, much less squabbling over.

Every sheep gets sheared.

Michael Kenny > , August 19, 2017 at 2:14 pm GMT

Yet another panic reaction to Charlottesville, I suppose. Small correction of fact: the Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Quite the contrary, indeed. It was when Yanukovych decided that he would sign the EU association agreement that he was overthrown or, more correctly, that he simply fled. NATO was never an issue. As with Mr Zuesse, the polemical style and the pro-Putin line suggest growing fear in the pro-Putin camp.

Seamus Padraig > , August 19, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny Yet another panic reaction to Charlottesville, I suppose. Small correction of fact: the Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Quite the contrary, indeed. It was when Yanukovych decided that he would sign the EU association agreement that he was overthrown or, more correctly, that he simply fled. NATO was never an issue. As with Mr Zuesse, the polemical style and the pro-Putin line suggest growing fear in the pro-Putin camp. As usual, you're dead wrong. Yanuvovich ultimately did not sign the EU agreement:

The political provisions of the treaty were signed on 21 March 2014 after a series of events that had stalled its ratification culminated in a revolution in Ukraine and overthrow of the then incumbent President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. This ousting was sparked by Yanukovych's refusal to sign the agreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_Association_Agreement

As far as NATO is concerned, it is unlikely that Ukraine will be joining in the near future, because of Transnistria and because it has two border disputes with Russia. But the country can still be used as a cat's paw to get at Russia (just like Georgia under Sakashvili), which is even better from Washington's point of view, since they don't even have to give the Ukies any security guarantees if they get into trouble with Russia (again, just like Georgia under Sakashvili).

Anon > , Disclaimer August 19, 2017 at 7:05 pm GMT

You are right, hypocrisy rules. What else is new? Civil war has nothing to do with what happened in Charlottesville. These monuments stood for ~100 years or longer and caused no violence. It is important to face this fact, as well as the fact that the violence in Charlottesville was started by self-proclaimed "liberals". Considering how shamelessly they push lies in the media and how they violently suppress any opinion that differs from theirs, these "liberals" are anything but. What we are witnessing is yet another string of provocations by those who are sore that their beloved mad witch spent twice as much money as Trump and lost. Mind you, I am no fan of Trump, but I don't trust that lying corrupt to the core "alternative" an inch. As far as Hillary is concerned, from my viewpoint her gender does not matter. What matters is massive fraud in the Democratic primaries (that's why Debbie Wasserman-Schulz resigned as a head of DNC in 2016 right before the convention she presumably prepared), as well as the fact that Hillary never gave a speech w/o at least $100,000 "speaking fee", took vast amounts of money from the most unsavory sources, including Saudi Arabia (the same one that murders people by public beheading with a curved sword, exactly like ISIS, and keeps murdering hundreds of civilians in Yemen), and was openly supported by the most notorious neocons from both parties. I would not trust a male with this kind of record, either.
Trump's words that removal of monuments is "sad" and "so foolish" arguably are his first intelligent utterance in months. History does not change no matter what people do, and it has a way of punishing those who forget or try to erase it. Only cowardly scum fights monuments. I am deeply ashamed that some scenes from my country resemble those earlier seen in hopeless basket cases, like present-day Ukraine.

SolontoCroesus > , August 19, 2017 at 9:32 pm GMT

@Priss Factor https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/898978484709666821

Look, events in Boston vindicating the Alt Right narrative in Charlottesville.

All the violence is instigated by 'counter-protesters', as the globalist CBS calls them.

They are Antifanissary thugs and lunatics who oppose free speech and side with Wall Street and the War State.

I'm glad this event happened. At this event, there were no Confed flags, no one with Nazi flag, and no extremists.

There were only patriots defending free speech, but the Antifanissary scum attack just the same.

Trump should talk about this.

Globalist War on Free Speech and Free Assembly.

Barking dogs on leash who can't tolerate the howl of free wolves.

Thank the Police on this. The State, in this case, defended those defending freedom of speech and assembly.

But the Corporations will all side with PC Proglodytes.
But there will be blowback. Just like the Jihadis supported by the US turned on the West, these Antifa scum will turn around and bite the corpies.

In a way, the bogeyman of 'nazi' is very useful to corporations. Capitalists know that the Far Left hates them and wanna smash windows, burn down Starbucks, create havoc in upscale cities like Seattle, and etc. And capitalists fear BLM and black thugs too.

If 'nazis' didn't exist, these restless Antifa and BLM would likely be doing Occupy Wall Street, rioting in gentrified parts of town, attacking yuppies and hipsters, and attacking GREED.

But if there are 'nazis' as bogeyman, the corporations can direct all Antifa and BLM rage at the 'white supremacists' who actually have no power and wealth.
Also, as having sponsored the Antifa and BLM, the corpies hope that the far-left and black thugs will be grateful and not attack them.

But there is blowback sometime down the line. you've made an important point, Priss: "Nazi," "Hitler," "Swastika" and "Holocaust ™ " are brands created by and for corporate interests; the narrative behind these brands does NOT represent history, it is the product of Bernays/hasbara. That is, its basic appeal is to emotion, deliberately bypassing reason and critical analysis.

Corporatists, zionists and Jews *** are striking back as hard as they are, and attempting to associate "hate" with "Nazi" as often as they can, in an exercise in Brand Spanking: as Sam Shama let slip the other day, spanking the Nazi etc. brand is essential because more and more people are waking up .

Charlottesville was, indeed, a set-up: some PR shop managed the affair and cucksertive media are following the script to a Tee.

On C Span on Aug 15, John McArdle hosted an exercise in propaganda so obvious you have to wonder if UVa might consider rescinding his diploma. McArdle invited callers to opine on Trump's statement on the C'ville events; in the 61 minute program, he spoke the word "hate" 41 times: once every 90 seconds.

"Hate" was associated with "white" at every opportunity.
If a caller failed to link "hate" with "white/supremacists/nationalist," McArdle prompted them to do so.

https://www.c-span.org/schedule/?date=2017-08-15

The history of the era of the European-Jewish wars is a radically different entity from the branding.

Before the history can be made more fully consistent with reality -- an absolute essential for a the "well informed citizens" in a representative form of government -- the "Nazi" etc. brands have got to be torn apart: shattered, fragmented.

One of Eddie Bermays's first triumphs was to persuade elite women that smoking cigarettes was chic.

Years and many deaths later, cigarettes now carry a warning from the Surgeon General that cigarettes can kill you.

The same thing has to happen to the deadly way the Jewish PR/media has bastardized "Nazi" Hitler" "Swastika" .

It must be made clear in every instance that the people who inserted the toxic ingredients in those brands had only their own revenue stream in view, and not full and truthful information for the American public.

!!!

*** Jews -- and they can be named & should be shamed -- were at the vanguard of branding "Nazi" "Hitler" and "Swastika" with the epithet Hate nearly a decade before a single hair on a Jewish head was so much as mussed: James Waterman Wise, son of Rabbi Stephen Wise, published a book titled "Swastika" in about May, 1933.
The book opened with the declaration that "the swastika represents hatred of the Jew."

https://www.amazon.com/Swastika-Nazi-terror-James-Waterman/dp/B00086B93S/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1472385235&sr=8-3&keywords=swastika+the+nazi+terror

In fact, and contrary to the sappy tale related in some video docs, the design of the Swastika/banner is based on a Harvard banner https://www.shutterstock.com/editor/image/197551868?exit=%2Fimage-photo%2F197551868&ref=image-photo (in the 1800s, Harvard football banners borethe letter H in a white shield, on a red field) , just as "Seig Heil" is based on Harvard football cheers.

SolontoCroesus > , August 20, 2017 at 1:58 am GMT

@Anon I've listened to nearly a 24-hour day's worth of C Span programming about Charlottesville; I've heard "hate" and "Nazi" and "KKK" and "white supremacy" said so many time my ears are numb and my cerebral cortex overdosed.

I have NOT heard, in all that C Span programming, one, single, solitary guest or journo-phoner discuss what Robert E. Lee stood for; or his correspondence with Lord Acton, about the necessity of state sovereignty to guard against an oppressive centralized power that could take a country to war with no bulwark against its force.

Incredibly -- and I have to post this for all to see: a Jewish woman called C Span to complain that Jewish interests were not represented in C Span programming on Charlottesville.
Here's what she said:

Moderator: Let's go to Virginia Beach, Virginia; Betty is on the line for Democrats:

BETTY: Good morning. Thank you for C Span. I want to say one thing. The two gentlemen you just had on were fine, *** but I'm extremely disappointed because I happen to be Jewish and I was in Connecticut, which I'm originally from Newtown, Connecticut [and spent ] the last weekend there visiting my family there.
I heard more news when I got home. But what I'm disappointed about -- I don't know if C Span ever invited -- I know you've had Jewish people on talking before, but with the Charlottesville thing, I don't know if you've invited anybody from the Anti Defamation League or a rabbi or some other Jewish person to come on, representing a group, because it's awful with the KKK but it's also awful with these Nazis marching -- Nazis marching down in Charlottesville! Both groups are – are- are terrible. It was a horrible thing to see such a thing in 2017 in the United States of America.
And one other thing, and I mean, these other networks, I mean, I don't just sit home and watch TV but I watch C Span, I watch CNN, I watch MSNBC quite a bit --
I haven't seen too many uh Jewish commentators come out and talk. And I really I appreciate and respect the Black commentators that have come on, but I don't know why there hasn't just! Let me make one more comment please:
All the Jews and people of color that are in -- I don't think there's too many, but the ones that are in the Trump administration really should resign after what he said.
I'm glad Steve Bannon is gone. But he uh he uh Trump himself in my opinion is a sympathizer to these groups, that's how I feel, I mean that's how I feel.
And just, I mean, y'know uh uh they're wimps, and especially his son-in-law. He's supposed to be an Orthodox Jew? No, I'm not even a religious Jew, but I mean in my heart, that's what I am. But I mean, he's a wimp! He shouldn't be in there with his father-in-law! He should get up and walk out! That's how I feel.
And real quick !I was so proud to get a letter from President Obama -- I was always going to write him -- I always been a big supporter of his from the very very beginning. And uh I wrote him a letter before he left office, and now I have a framed letter from President Obama on my wall and I'm very very grateful for that.
Thank you very much for allowing me to make my comments.I00:10:04

Mod. Geoff Bennett: Thank you for your suggestion about our programming. We will take it under consideration.

In fact, several persons who are "Jewish in their hearts" (or at least their names) appeared on C Span to explain the many sins of the "white supremacists."

Several highly informative Black people also were guests at the C Span table. Two of them, Robert Woodson and Prof. Bernard Anderson of Princeton University, were highly critical of the cult of victimization that is besetting the Black community. https://www.c-span.org/video/?432749-4/washington-journal-robert-woodson-bernard-anderson-discuss-race-relations-us

Over the course of 6 days, I heard only ONE (white male) guest who had been on the scene, who had a journalist's eye, and who provided a larger perspective than "Nazis . . . hate . . . white supremacist." That was Joe Thomas, a Charlottesville-based conservative radio talk show host with 30 years experience in the city. His commentary is here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?432556-3/charlottesville-radio-host-discusses-aftermath-white-nationalist-protests-violence

The one group (in addition to sound historians on Robert E Lee) that was not represented in C Span program over the course of this hysteria was a single representative of the Unite the Right project.

There are plenty of articulate voices that C Span could have hosted to better inform its audience.

Paul Craig Roberts's article, here ,

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/15/america-propaganda-vanquished-truth/

would make a very useful contribution to the knowledge-base of the C Span audience.

Surely C Span producers are aware of the work of persons like Roberts, and of Giraldi and Ray McGovern.

They don't want those voices to be heard.

Go get 'em, Betty; the world is your (kosher) oyster.

[Aug 19, 2017] Vassal Aristocracies Increasingly Resist Control by US Aristocracy by Eric Zuesse

Notable quotes:
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (αristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together, into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts about those international events.

The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.

First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented (via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the current news: America's aristocracy controls both the U.S. federal government and press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC. The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world.

The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich.

Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means) as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events.

For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often referred to the U.S. government, "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come." To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable." All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise. Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money, to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit their given nation's public.

The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called "Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into. Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief locus of the old order's fractures .

This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the backlash-phase of it.

A turning-point in escalating the weaponization of finance was reached in February 2014 when a Ukrainian coup that the Obama Administration had started planning by no later than 2011, culminated successfully in installing a rabidly anti-Russian government on Russia's border, and precipitated the breakaway from Ukraine of two regions (Crimea and Donbass) that had voted overwhelmingly for the man the U.S. regime had just overthrown . This coup in Ukraine was the most direct aggressive act against Russia since the Cold War had 'ended' (it had actually ended on the Russian side, but not on the American side, where it continues ) in 1991. During this coup in Kiev, on February 20th of 2014, hundreds of Crimeans, who had been peacefully demonstrating there with placards against this coup (which coup itself was very violent -- against the police, not by them -- the exact opposite of the way that "the Maidan demonstrations" had been portrayed in the Western press at the time), were attacked by the U.S.-paid thugs and scrambled back into their buses to return home to Crimea but were stopped en-route in central Ukraine and an uncounted number of them were massacred in the Ukrainian town of Korsun by the same group of thugs who had chased them out of Kiev .

This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens.

On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued "Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty" over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right Ukrainian thugs, who were racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's vassal aristocracies then imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a secret their public would not be allowed to know.)

The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President .

It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined on August 1st, "Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage -- the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this hot war against Russia is via the "Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also backed up by major increases in physical weaponry , and by the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments have become lying aggressors.

Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online, by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to on this):

All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another, so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military) aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here from rt dot com):

"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned. So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break their existing corrupt mold) don't publish this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type, such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia. The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is 'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.

The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined "Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian but all editions, was "Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's Xinhua News Agency bannered "Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" , and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29 showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.

Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin , because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings, they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the ugly reality about him.

However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue a study, "Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor; and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."

The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende, Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted. Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those 80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and, after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60% .

President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to be, he is fascist ; just not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their 'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad -- e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media, which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President, Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret, of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Recently from Author

America's Top Scientists Confirm: U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia Why Readers Shouldn't Trust Staff Reporters Why Sanders Supporters Should Vote for Trump

Fidelios Automata > , August 19, 2017 at 2:22 am GMT

Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been fascist to some degree.

exiled off mainstreet > , August 19, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT

One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.

WorkingClass > , August 19, 2017 at 4:43 am GMT

Good news – The beast is dying. Bad news – We Americans are in its belly.

Wally > , August 19, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT

"America's aristocracy" = lying Israel First Zionists. Why doesn't Eric Zuesse just say the truth? What is he afraid of?

Must read:

jilles dykstra > , August 19, 2017 at 6:31 am GMT

" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "

These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.

Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump does not hold her hand.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 19, 2017 at 6:38 am GMT

Fidelios,

Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing as a normal business practice.

On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever since Wilson).

Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th Century.

jilles dykstra > , August 19, 2017 at 6:40 am GMT

@Fidelios Automata

Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity, the Roman empire, were celebrated.

One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians, it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their hatred of communism.

Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.

Priss Factor > , August 19, 2017 at 7:52 am GMT

Come on

'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)

US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.

It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.

Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.

Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia, deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews, BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran, Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.

They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be different from Jewish obsessions.

Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.

So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat' around.

We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But Hitler had Rohm wiped out.

Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.

One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants. But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists' wanted.

It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.

Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT

Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (αristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.

I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.

Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi." I'm open to suggestions.

"Goonocrats"?

Anon > , Disclaimer August 19, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT

and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the master-aristocracy's will.

They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 1:42 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

These foreign vassals had a cozy existence

No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.

Jake > , August 19, 2017 at 1:46 pm GMT

@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him: one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.

Joe Hide > , August 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm GMT

While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology, and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy, narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.

SolontoCroesus > , August 19, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT

@jacques sheete

"ruling mafiosi."

No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy." Lots of Jews.

Jake > , August 19, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most. Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good deal right.

First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.

It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.

Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3% of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.

The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics – is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.

Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem 'immigrant' as Pope.

Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

@Brabantian Good comments.They apply to a few others around here as well, particularly this.

who mixes some truth with big lies

Priss Factor > , Website August 19, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all. This story must be told.

https://altright.com/2017/08/19/charlottesville-occupy-wall-st-and-the-neoliberal-police-state/

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus

"ruling mafiosi."
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy." Lots of Jews.

Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."

Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.

Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer Lansky and many many others.

Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-gangsters-in-america

New York, Chicago, Las Vegas, LA, Miami, and many others all dominated by non-Italian mobsters, not to mention the US government.

[Aug 19, 2017] Vassal Aristocracies Increasingly Resist Control by US Aristocracy by Eric Zuesse

Notable quotes:
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (αristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together, into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts about those international events.

The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.

First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented (via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the current news: America's aristocracy controls both the U.S. federal government and press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC. The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world.

The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich.

Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means) as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events.

For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often referred to the U.S. government, "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come." To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable." All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise. Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money, to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit their given nation's public.

The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called "Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into. Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief locus of the old order's fractures .

This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the backlash-phase of it.

A turning-point in escalating the weaponization of finance was reached in February 2014 when a Ukrainian coup that the Obama Administration had started planning by no later than 2011, culminated successfully in installing a rabidly anti-Russian government on Russia's border, and precipitated the breakaway from Ukraine of two regions (Crimea and Donbass) that had voted overwhelmingly for the man the U.S. regime had just overthrown . This coup in Ukraine was the most direct aggressive act against Russia since the Cold War had 'ended' (it had actually ended on the Russian side, but not on the American side, where it continues ) in 1991. During this coup in Kiev, on February 20th of 2014, hundreds of Crimeans, who had been peacefully demonstrating there with placards against this coup (which coup itself was very violent -- against the police, not by them -- the exact opposite of the way that "the Maidan demonstrations" had been portrayed in the Western press at the time), were attacked by the U.S.-paid thugs and scrambled back into their buses to return home to Crimea but were stopped en-route in central Ukraine and an uncounted number of them were massacred in the Ukrainian town of Korsun by the same group of thugs who had chased them out of Kiev .

This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens.

On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued "Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty" over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right Ukrainian thugs, who were racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's vassal aristocracies then imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a secret their public would not be allowed to know.)

The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President .

It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined on August 1st, "Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage -- the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this hot war against Russia is via the "Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also backed up by major increases in physical weaponry , and by the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments have become lying aggressors.

Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online, by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to on this):

All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another, so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military) aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here from rt dot com):

"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned. So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break their existing corrupt mold) don't publish this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type, such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia. The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is 'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.

The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined "Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian but all editions, was "Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's Xinhua News Agency bannered "Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" , and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29 showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.

Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin , because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings, they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the ugly reality about him.

However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue a study, "Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor; and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."

The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende, Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted. Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those 80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and, after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60% .

President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to be, he is fascist ; just not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their 'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad -- e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media, which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President, Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret, of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Recently from Author

America's Top Scientists Confirm: U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia Why Readers Shouldn't Trust Staff Reporters Why Sanders Supporters Should Vote for Trump

Fidelios Automata > , August 19, 2017 at 2:22 am GMT

Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been fascist to some degree.

exiled off mainstreet > , August 19, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT

One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.

WorkingClass > , August 19, 2017 at 4:43 am GMT

Good news – The beast is dying. Bad news – We Americans are in its belly.

Wally > , August 19, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT

"America's aristocracy" = lying Israel First Zionists. Why doesn't Eric Zuesse just say the truth? What is he afraid of?

Must read:

jilles dykstra > , August 19, 2017 at 6:31 am GMT

" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "

These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.

Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump does not hold her hand.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 19, 2017 at 6:38 am GMT

Fidelios,

Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing as a normal business practice.

On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever since Wilson).

Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th Century.

jilles dykstra > , August 19, 2017 at 6:40 am GMT

@Fidelios Automata

Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity, the Roman empire, were celebrated.

One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians, it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their hatred of communism.

Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.

Priss Factor > , August 19, 2017 at 7:52 am GMT

Come on

'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)

US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.

It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.

Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.

Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia, deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews, BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran, Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.

They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be different from Jewish obsessions.

Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.

So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat' around.

We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But Hitler had Rohm wiped out.

Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.

One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants. But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists' wanted.

It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.

Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT

Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (αristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.

I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.

Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi." I'm open to suggestions.

"Goonocrats"?

Anon > , Disclaimer August 19, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT

and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the master-aristocracy's will.

They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 1:42 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

These foreign vassals had a cozy existence

No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.

Jake > , August 19, 2017 at 1:46 pm GMT

@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him: one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.

Joe Hide > , August 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm GMT

While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology, and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy, narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.

SolontoCroesus > , August 19, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT

@jacques sheete

"ruling mafiosi."

No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy." Lots of Jews.

Jake > , August 19, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most. Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good deal right.

First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.

It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.

Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3% of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.

The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics – is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.

Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem 'immigrant' as Pope.

Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

@Brabantian Good comments.They apply to a few others around here as well, particularly this.

who mixes some truth with big lies

Priss Factor > , Website August 19, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all. This story must be told.

https://altright.com/2017/08/19/charlottesville-occupy-wall-st-and-the-neoliberal-police-state/

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus

"ruling mafiosi."
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy." Lots of Jews.

Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."

Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.

Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer Lansky and many many others.

Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-gangsters-in-america

New York, Chicago, Las Vegas, LA, Miami, and many others all dominated by non-Italian mobsters, not to mention the US government.

[Aug 18, 2017] Steve Bannon s work is done. Donald Trump doesn t need him now

Notable quotes:
"... Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class. ..."
"... There's more to it than that. Its true that the white working class in America are the only group that the media feels it is acceptable to insult/denigrate. What was it Obama said - People in small towns clinging on to their religion & guns. ..."
"... The white middle class has to walk the walk with respect of social justice. Due to the economics of it, multiculturalism has affected the working classes far more than the middle classes. As I say, I'm prepared for the consequences personally, but I wonder how many others would be. ..."
"... People may underestimate the populist element in Bannon's make up. As Scaramucci tells it, both he and Bannon had white middle class fathers who had played with a straight bat and had their retirement savings wiped out in 2008 and all that, while the fat cats were saved by Uncle Sam. Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there. ..."
"... "In Bannon's view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now. ..."
"... I got the strong sense that Trump was hunkered down defensively and baring his teeth like a feral dog trapped in a corner. ..."
"... Trump is not Mussolini or Franco in that he is not a true believer ..."
"... With the exception of the military which at this point is a state unto itself the government is a paradox of being both omnipresent and nowhere and thus truly Kafkaesque...utterly opaque and completely visible at all times... ..."
"... The left's focus on identity politics is the reason this Bannon chump is relevant at all. The switch in focus from class to race and gender has segmented the working class from the common struggle. A people divided. This is about the only strategic fact Bannon understands. But it is an important one. ..."
"... Identity politics at its core is mostly untenable and while it might treat the symptoms of disease in the short run it will always collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. The blind squirrel Bannon has found his nut. Continuing to assert that poor white men have it made is demonstrably false and offensive. And gives the alt-right plenty of tools to recruit. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:16

Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class.

So a billionaire like Trump, with Bannon's aid, does whatever he can to focus the disatisfaction of the population on people who have a different skin colour, rather than the vastly rich elites who have grabbed such a massive share of US wealth and power - and demand yet more

joey2000 -> jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:29

There's more to it than that. Its true that the white working class in America are the only group that the media feels it is acceptable to insult/denigrate. What was it Obama said - People in small towns clinging on to their religion & guns.

Must have gone down really well in those rustbelt towns where everyone is on oxycontin out of sheer despair. But hey, they're only rednecks so who cares right ?

JerHig -> jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:36

Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class.

Exactly, it's all about creating a group you can point to and say "at least you're not as bad off as them!"

When your entire existence is predicated on 'at least I'm not the worst off' it becomes frightening when those who were previously 'worse off' start improving. But instead of improving themselves they try and bring the others down again.

MattSpanner -> Isomewhatagree , 18 Aug 2017 09:34

That's what I don't get about the Nazis who turned up in Charlottsville: they chanted "Jews will not replace us" and also "we're going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump". How can Nazis believe Trump is on their side when his daughter is married to a Jew? There are so many contradictions in this situation that I can't get my head around it.

asparagusnextleft -> MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 09:40

It's simple. They're fucking idiots.

Fwaffy -> BrokenLogic , 18 Aug 2017 09:34

It's remarkable isn't it, the man appears to be visibly decomposing. It's been suggested that the statue of Robert E Lee was his penultimate Horcrux.

MattSpanner -> Fwaffy , 18 Aug 2017 09:49

He looks like an alchy.

therebythegrace -> MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 10:13

Or Dorian Gray's picture. Maybe the more evil Trump gets, the worse Bannon looks?

Ravenblade -> Bjerkley , 18 Aug 2017 10:35

Someone has to lose out in a redistribution of anything, be it political power or wealth. I mention the white middle classes because they tend to the the keyboard warriors refusing to tackle the insecurities and concerns of the white working class, and simply resorting to calling them racist.

The white middle class has to walk the walk with respect of social justice. Due to the economics of it, multiculturalism has affected the working classes far more than the middle classes. As I say, I'm prepared for the consequences personally, but I wonder how many others would be.

Agree with your latter point and I'm sensitive to the fact that within class groups, minorities and women remain disadvantaged; I'm not saying we don't continue to look at that. But realistically, on an economic level, you're not going to get white working class men accepting that middle class minorities or women are disadvantaged compared to them, are you? The only reason this distinction doesn't seem to happen (class lines) is because most of the SJW contingent suddenly have to check an aspect of privilege they're unkeen to pay attention to.

tamborineman , 18 Aug 2017 09:27

People may underestimate the populist element in Bannon's make up. As Scaramucci tells it, both he and Bannon had white middle class fathers who had played with a straight bat and had their retirement savings wiped out in 2008 and all that, while the fat cats were saved by Uncle Sam. Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there.

As to Bannon still in the job, I think LBJ's story about tents and which way the piss goes applies.

Bjerkley -> tamborineman , 18 Aug 2017 09:31

Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there.

As others have noted, given that both of them worked in finance/had some background in finance, it's odd that their fathers lost savings which could have been avoided (Bannon's father, for instance, only lost out because he sold his stock but it regained its value shortly afterwards, i.e. it was a bad financial decision). But as you say, its out there.

KeithNJ -> Bjerkley , 18 Aug 2017 09:54

Indeed. If you held on through the crash you now have double the money you had in 2007.

There are some pretty basic retirement rules (60/40 equity to bonds or less, keep 2 years in cash) which if anyone followed would have resulted in no pain from the crash, just some anxiety.

If he got greedy, had 100% in equities and sold at the bottom of the market because he had not kept a cash cushion - well he cannot blame the Chinese for that.

Of course he was bitter before his son became a billionaire, but to still be bitter is more about character than the economy.

MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 09:28

"In Bannon's view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now.

"What we are witnessing," Bannon told The Washington Post last month, "is the birth of a new political order.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-apocalypse_us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951

...and along comes N.Korea and makes all Bannon's dreams come true.


richmanchester
-> MattSpanner
, 18 Aug 2017 09:34

Though in Bannon's last interview he explicitly stated there was no military option available wrt North Korea.

Dwaina Tembreull -> userforaday , 18 Aug 2017 09:54

An interesting interpretation of his behavior. I got the strong sense that Trump was hunkered down defensively and baring his teeth like a feral dog trapped in a corner.

ID4524057 , 18 Aug 2017 17:49

" and it has forged an indefatigable core of support that will stay with Trump through the next general election and beyond."

Except that atavistic and uneducated people can and will change their sense of allegiance on a dime or a whim and given the fact that Trump is not an ideologue but rather an unstable pathological narcissist and a bigot (versus espousing a coherent racist plan of action because he has a particular ideological agenda) there is no way to effectively predict what his actions will echo in that part of his base and therefore no way to predict what his base will do if Trump is untethered from Bannon. Trump is as likely to make a boneheaded deal with China that pleases Wall Street as he is to accidentally start a war. He is as likely to break his support as he is to cement it.

As Christopher Hitchens said:

"A feature, not just of the age of the end of ideology, but of the age immediately preceding the age of the end of ideology, is that of the dictator who has no ideology at all."

Trump is not Mussolini or Franco in that he is not a true believer though he is a bigot and clearly dictatorial. Trump is all expediency first and faith second even if he has consistently been a racist.

The second problematic issue is that if you assert that Axelrod and Rove "achieved" anything of lasting consequence then Axelrod could not have followed Rove and Bannon could not have followed Axelrod.

Unlike in France where the president serves far longer the reelection cycle here with its utterly corrupt need to raise massive amounts of cash which then forces candidates to constantly be in race mode (and effectively reduces the period of actual governance to around 18 months) has created a perpetually unstable and ineffective bureaucracy that has more in common with late Ottoman inefficiency than it does with a contemporary "modern" state.

With the exception of the military which at this point is a state unto itself the government is a paradox of being both omnipresent and nowhere and thus truly Kafkaesque...utterly opaque and completely visible at all times...

Further, there is this: "There's another reason why firing Bannon wouldn't be a huge loss: his work is largely done."

In fact, Trump has achieved nothing and done nothing of lasting change to the bureaucracy. In a sense it is analogous to the situation with North Korea where, despite Trump's pale Strangelove imitation it was noted in the media that the military had made no changes to its posture.

... ... ...

jmad357 , 18 Aug 2017 17:53

The only time I have ever agreed with Bannon is that his analysis of the potential for N Korea to destroy S Korea with an artillery barrage. With about 12,000 artillery prices the North could launch somewhere around 50,000 shells per minute into Soul. Do the arithmetic for a 10 minute shelling. Any grandstanding by the US military is simply folly.

MasMaz , 18 Aug 2017 17:59

The left's focus on identity politics is the reason this Bannon chump is relevant at all. The switch in focus from class to race and gender has segmented the working class from the common struggle. A people divided. This is about the only strategic fact Bannon understands. But it is an important one.

Identity politics at its core is mostly untenable and while it might treat the symptoms of disease in the short run it will always collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. The blind squirrel Bannon has found his nut. Continuing to assert that poor white men have it made is demonstrably false and offensive. And gives the alt-right plenty of tools to recruit.

[Aug 18, 2017] Allies of National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster hold Bannon responsible for a campaign by Breitbart News, which Bannon once led, to vilify the security chief by Robert Kuttner

Notable quotes:
"... Contrary to Trump's threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
"... "To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover." ..."
"... Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us." ..."
"... "The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." ..."
"... For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville, click here . ..."
Aug 16, 2017 | prospect.org
You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of events in Charlottesville, he is widely blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists. Allies of National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster hold Bannon responsible for a campaign by Breitbart News, which Bannon once led, to vilify the security chief. Trump's defense of Bannon, at his Tuesday press conference, was tepid.

But Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of taking a harder line with China, and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury. "They're wetting themselves," he said, proceeding to detail how he would oust some of his opponents at State and Defense.

Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon's assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking loose once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me.

Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon's assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking loose once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me. I'd just published a column on how China was profiting from the U.S.-North Korea nuclear brinkmanship, and it included some choice words about Bannon's boss.

"In Kim, Trump has met his match," I wrote. "The risk of two arrogant fools blundering into a nuclear exchange is more serious than at any time since October 1962." Maybe Bannon wanted to scream at me?

I told the assistant that I was on vacation, but I would be happy to speak by phone. Bannon promptly called.

Far from dressing me down for comparing Trump to Kim, he began, "It's a great honor to finally track you down. I've followed your writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it."

"We're at economic war with China," he added. "It's in all their literature. They're not shy about saying what they're doing. One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and it's gonna be them if we go down this path. On Korea, they're just tapping us along. It's just a sideshow."

Bannon said he might consider a deal in which China got North Korea to freeze its nuclear buildup with verifiable inspections and the United States removed its troops from the peninsula, but such a deal seemed remote. Given that China is not likely to do much more on North Korea, and that the logic of mutually assured destruction was its own source of restraint, Bannon saw no reason not to proceed with tough trade sanctions against China.

Contrary to Trump's threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." Bannon went on to describe his battle inside the administration to take a harder line on China trade, and not to fall into a trap of wishful thinking in which complaints against China's trade practices now had to take a backseat to the hope that China, as honest broker, would help restrain Kim.

"To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover."

Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us."

But what about his internal adversaries, at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing's aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system?

"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has big plans to marginalize their influence.

"I'm changing out people at East Asian Defense; I'm getting hawks in. I'm getting Susan Thornton [acting head of East Asian and Pacific Affairs] out at State."

But can Bannon really win that fight internally?

"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."

"We gotta do this. The president's default position is to do it, but the apparatus is going crazy. Don't get me wrong. It's like, every day."

Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration while building an outside coalition of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me.

There are a couple of things that are startling about this premise. First, to the extent that most of the opponents of Bannon's China trade strategy are other Trump administration officials, it's not clear how reaching out to the left helps him. If anything, it gives his adversaries ammunition to characterize Bannon as unreliable or disloyal.

More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive publication (the cover lines on whose first two issues after Trump's election were "Resisting Trump" and "Containing Trump") and assume that a possible convergence of views on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.

The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the press. He's probably the most media-savvy person in America.

I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump's reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump's base.

He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."

"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.

From his lips to Trump's ear.

"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

I had never before spoken with Bannon. I came away from the conversation with a sense both of his savvy and his recklessness. The waters around him are rising, but he is going about his business of infighting, and attempting to cultivate improbable outside allies, to promote his China strategy. His enemies will do what they do.

Either the reports of the threats to Bannon's job are grossly exaggerated and leaked by his rivals, or he has decided not to change his routine and to go down fighting. Given Trump's impulsivity, neither Bannon nor Trump really has any idea from day to day whether Bannon is staying or going. He has survived earlier threats. So what the hell, damn the torpedoes.

The conversation ended with Bannon inviting me to the White House after Labor Day to continue the discussion of China and trade. We'll see if he's still there.

For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville, click here .

[Aug 18, 2017] Steve Bannon goes as the military takes over the Trump administration by Alexander Mercouris

Notable quotes:
"... Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one. ..."
"... Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense. ..."
"... Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual. ..."
"... n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills. ..."
"... The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland. ..."
"... I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it. ..."
"... As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration. ..."
"... In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway. ..."
"... The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise. ..."
"... The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | theduran.com

The announcement of the 'resignation' of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon represents the culmination of a process which began with the equally forced 'resignation' of President Trump's first National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.

Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one.

Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense.

In the case of Bannon, it is his clear that his ousting was insisted on by General Kelly, who is continuing to tighten his control of the White House.

Bannon's removal – not coincidentally – has come at the same time that General H.R. McMaster is completing his purge of the remaining Flynn holdovers on the staff of the National Security Council.

Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual.

I n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills.

Bannon is sometimes credited as being the author of the President's two travel ban Executive Orders. I am sure this wrong. The Executive Orders clearly originate with the wishes of the President himself. If Bannon did have any role in them – which is possible – it would have been secondary to the President's own. I would add that in that case Bannon must take some of the blame for the disastrously incompetent execution of the first of these two Executive Orders, which set the scene for the legal challenges that followed.

The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland.

I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it.

However it is the closest thing to an ideological statement the President has made since he took office, and Bannon is widely believed – probably rightly – to have written it.

As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration.

In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway.

It is in a completely different respect – one wholly independent of President Trump's success or failure as President – that the events of the last few weeks give cause for serious concern.

The events of the last year highlight the extent to which the US is in deep political crisis.

The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise.

All this is happening at the same time that there is growing criticism of the economic institutions of the US government, which since the 2008 financial crisis have seemed to side with a wealthy and unprincipled minority against the interests of the majority.

The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots.

It is striking that the only officials President Trump can nominate to senior positions who do not immediately run into bitter opposition have been – apart from General Flynn, who was a special case – senior soldiers.

Now the military in the persons of Kelly, McMaster and Mattis find themselves at the heart of the US government to an extent that has never been true before in US history, even during the Presidencies of former military men like Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant or Dwight Eisenhower.

The last time that happened in a major Western nation – that the civilian institutions of the state had become so dysfunctional that the military as the only functioning institution left ended up dominating the nation's government and deciding the nation's policies – was in Germany in the lead up to the First World War.

Time will show what the results will be this time, but the German example is hardly a reassuring one.

[Aug 18, 2017] Pentagon took over White house: The firing of Bannon leaves the Generals without an opposing view. They will no longer be contradicted

Bannon does not have a well defined economic policy. And he was a suspected leaker. For a former military officer he also have pretty lose lips (which tend to sink ships) and penchant for self-promotion as we later discovered from Wolff's book
Notable quotes:
"... Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/ ..."
"... US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity." ..."
"... We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow. ..."
"... Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera. ..."
"... Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality. ..."
"... The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes. ..."
"... Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Are we a step closer to War?

jawbone | Aug 18, 2017 2:19:23 PM | 97

Well, with Bannon gone who will have most influence over Trump now? Will the rest of the Alt-Righters stay at the White House? Hhhmmm...

Meanwhile, while the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is unable to focus on more that one or two things, Trump has signed an executive order which will have real work consequences as sea levels rise. Under Obama, a rule was developed to require infrastructure projects to consider the effects of global warming on flooding, effects of storms, etc. Now, developers are free to build what and where they want, with no consideration for the possible damage which might destroy those projects in the future.

Throw-away society on a grand --and expensive-- scale.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-scrap-rule-protect-094700052.html

Oh, my. Things ought to be interesting in DC in the near future. Dangerous all over in the long run.

jawbone | Aug 18, 2017 2:20:53 PM | 98
Oops. Real work consequences should have been real world consequences. Preview is a good tool to use....
karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 2:29:00 PM | 99
Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/

Now it appears that Trump's completely surrounded by the former generals he appointed--a different version of Seven Days in May? Or is it the fantastical number of contradictions finally coming home to roost as The Saker seems to think, http://thesaker.is/the-neocons-are-pushing-the-usa-and-the-rest-of-the-world-towards-a-dangerous-crisis/

When Trump got elected, I thought the best outcome would be total gridlock in DC; and in some ways, that's what's occurred. Yet, as The Saker points out, something's afoot if the propaganda published by Newsweek--which is owned by Bezos--is any indication.

It's Friday. The Syrian Army is making huge gains. Congress is in recess. And the weather forecast for Monday's eclipse here on the Oregon coast is looking positive--no fog!

karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 2:37:52 PM | 100 previous page
Yeah jawbone, it's a good tool. I should've used it prior to my comment being grabbed by the spambot. Al Gore's opined Trump should resign, indicating he favors Pence, which send s what sort of message given the context Gore opined? https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/al-gore-has-just-one-small-bit-advice-trump-resign As most barflys know, Pence is far worse on most things than Trump. Did Gore just out himself as a previously closeted Neocon?
Anonymous | Aug 18, 2017 2:40:58 PM | 101
Another "grown up"?:

Mattis to back Kiev's claim to Crimea during Ukraine visit

US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

fastfreddy | Aug 18, 2017 2:42:16 PM | 102
Manifest Destiny and Religious Zealotry (extremism) were manifested in recent history by America's Great Leaders. Here's General Boykin:

You know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his [about Muslims in Somalia]. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.

Many other quotes here:

http://www.azquotes.com/author/39645-William_G_Boykin

Greg M | Aug 18, 2017 2:55:25 PM | 103
@96, I view this as part of an effort to push back against anti Iran pro Israel hard liners. First with Flynn, then McMaster forcing out Flynn allies, and now Bannon. Not that McMaster and his people are not pro Israel or possess any redeeming qualities, but it is important to understand that Bannon and those in his circle are NOT anti interventionists.
@Madderhatter67 | Aug 18, 2017 3:21:06 PM | 104
Thirdeye & Fastfreddy

Thirdeye "The third eye is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye which provides perception beyond ordinary sight." Wikipedia ;)

This is a good read. Especially for Thirdeye blind.

Pardon Me! High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump By Tom Engelhardt

Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were the planet's indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of ours.

We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow.

Who could doubt that this was now our world in a coming American century beyond compare?

And then, of course, came the attacks of 9/11................ The rest below.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/

Anonymous | Aug 18, 2017 3:34:25 PM | 105
Greg D

You couldnt be more wrong: Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera.

karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 3:37:18 PM | 106
@Madderhatter67 @104--

Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality.

smuks | Aug 18, 2017 6:50:43 PM | 107
Nah...don't quite agree on this one. The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes.

Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times.

[Aug 18, 2017] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html

Notable quotes:
"... Lots of dunces, but chief strategist Steve Bannon, sadly, isn't one of them. The intellectual leader of the alt-right movement is no genius – nobody with his political views could be – but neither is he an idiot. He's one of the few people in that White House with even a primitive grasp of long-term strategy, which makes his impulsive-seeming decision to call The American Prospect this week curious. ..."
"... In the interview, Bannon said there was "no military solution" to North Korea's posturing. He stressed his efforts to fight economic war with China, adding, in a Scaramuccian touch, that his intramural foes on that front were "wetting themselves." ..."
"... "The longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em," he said. "I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:19 AM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-fire-steve-bannon-w498354

Fire Steve Bannon

The Trump administration's stubbly race warrior reminds us why he's so dangerous

By Matt Taibbi
21 hours ago

The list of nitwits in the Trump administration is long. Betsy DeVos, in charge of education issues, seems capable of losing at tic-tac-toe. Ben Carson thought the great pyramids of Egypt were grain warehouses. Rick Perry, merely in charge of the nation's nuclear arsenal, probably has post-it notes all over his office to remind him what things are: telephone, family photo, souvenir atomic-reactor paperweight, etc.

Lots of dunces, but chief strategist Steve Bannon, sadly, isn't one of them. The intellectual leader of the alt-right movement is no genius – nobody with his political views could be – but neither is he an idiot. He's one of the few people in that White House with even a primitive grasp of long-term strategy, which makes his impulsive-seeming decision to call The American Prospect this week curious.

In the interview, Bannon said there was "no military solution" to North Korea's posturing. He stressed his efforts to fight economic war with China, adding, in a Scaramuccian touch, that his intramural foes on that front were "wetting themselves."

When asked about the Charlottesville tragedy, Bannon called the neo-Nazi marchers "a collection of clowns." He also called them "losers" and a "fringe element."

This theoretically should be a dark time for Bannon, since Charlottesville reminded the whole world of his inexplicable and indefensible presence in the White House. The story has even the National Review howling for his dismissal.

But Prospect writer Robert Kuttner noted with surprise in his piece that Bannon seemed upbeat. He essentially told Kuttner he believed the Charlottesville mess and stories like it were a long-term political windfall for people like himself.

"The longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em," he said. "I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

...
Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:20 AM

The president and senior White House officials were debating when and how to dismiss Stephen K. Bannon as chief strategist.

Mr. Bannon had clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers and members of the president's family.

Trump Tells Aides He Has Decided to Remove Stephen Bannon https://nyti.ms/2vKGSNG

NYT - MAGGIE HABERMAN - August 18

President Trump has told senior aides that he has decided to remove Stephen K. Bannon, the embattled White House chief strategist who helped Mr. Trump win the 2016 election, according to two administration officials briefed on the discussion.

The president and senior White House officials were debating when and how to dismiss Mr. Bannon. The two administration officials cautioned that Mr. Trump is known to be averse to confrontation within his inner circle, and could decide to keep on Mr. Bannon for some time.

As of Friday morning, the two men were still discussing Mr. Bannon's future, the officials said. A person close to Mr. Bannon insisted the parting of ways was his idea, and that he had submitted his resignation to the president on Aug. 7, to be announced at the start of this week, but the move was delayed after the racial unrest in Charlottesville, Va.

Mr. Bannon had clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers and members of the president's family.

But the loss of Mr. Bannon, the right-wing nationalist who helped propel some of Mr. Trump's campaign promises into policy reality, raises the potential for the president to face criticism from the conservative news media base that supported him over the past year.

Mr. Bannon's many critics bore down after the violence in Charlottesville. Outraged over Mr. Trump's insistence that "both sides" were to blame for the violence that erupted at a white nationalist rally, leaving one woman dead, human rights activists demanded that the president fire so-called nationalists working in the West Wing. That group of hard-right populists in the White House is led by Mr. Bannon.

On Tuesday at Trump Tower in New York, Mr. Trump refused to guarantee Mr. Bannon's job security but defended him as "not a racist" and "a friend."

"We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Bannon's dismissal followed an Aug. 16 interview he initiated with a writer with whom he had never spoken, with the progressive publication The American Prospect. In it, Mr. Bannon mockingly played down the American military threat to North Korea as nonsensical: "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ...
Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:37 AM
Trump on North Korea https://nyti.ms/2vI6smj
NYT - MARK LANDLER - August 17

WASHINGTON -- For all his fire-breathing nationalism -- the demands to ban Muslims, build a wall on the Mexican border and honor statues of Confederate heroes -- Stephen K. Bannon has played another improbable role in the Trump White House: resident dove.

From Afghanistan and North Korea to Syria and Venezuela, Mr. Bannon, the president's chief strategist, has argued against making military threats or deploying American troops into foreign conflicts.

His views, delivered in a characteristically bomb-throwing style, have antagonized people across the administration, leaving Mr. Bannon isolated and in danger of losing his job. But they are thoroughly in keeping with his nationalist credo, and they have occasionally resonated with the person who matters most: President Trump.

Mr. Bannon's dovish tendencies spilled into view this week in unguarded comments he made about North Korea to a liberal publication, The American Prospect. Days after Mr. Trump threatened to rain "fire and fury" on the North Korean government if it did not curb its belligerent behavior, Mr. Bannon said, "There's no military solution here; they got us." ...
Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:43 AM

The casualties are not worth the little chance of blunting Kim.

Beside look: with all that money and training and so forth....DDG 62, an Aegis destroyer could not stay safe in peaceful water!

US can't poke ISIS out of Raqqa in 3 years, what would happen with 2 million soldier tough as VC?

+outside of Lemay/MacArthur nukes. Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 02:12 PM

"When asked about the Charlottesville tragedy, Bannon called the neo-Nazi marchers "a collection of clowns." He also called them "losers" and a "fringe element.""

Maybe that was it? Why would he call the Prospect? Did he think he was calling the American Conservative and it was off the record? Did he know he was out?
Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:45 AM

Stephen K. Bannon's exit was described in a White House statement as a mutual decision between Mr. Bannon and Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Critics of Mr. Bannon, a right-wing nationalist, bore down after the violence in Charlottesville.

Stephen Bannon Out at the White House After
Turbulent Run https://nyti.ms/2vKGSNG

Stephen K. Bannon, the embattled chief strategist who helped President Trump win the 2016 election but clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers, is leaving his post, a White House spokeswoman announced Friday.

"White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said in a statement. "We are grateful for his service and wish him the best." ... Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 11:31 AM

What kind of talk doesn't threaten the money and power of the 0.1%?

What kind of talk do we get and from whom? Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:55 AM

"The Democratic Party isn't going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer
....................
"The Democratic Party isn't going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill," Warren said. "We're not going back to the days of being lukewarm on choice. We're not going back to the days when universal healthcare was something Democrats talked about on the campaign trail but were too chicken to fight for after they got elected."

"And," Warren concluded, "we're not going back to the days when a Democrat who wanted to run for a seat in Washington first had to grovel on Wall Street."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/centrist-democrats-riled-warren-says-days-lukewarm-policies-are-over

[Aug 18, 2017] What Bannon s exit might mean the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism

To a certain extent Bannon symbolized backlash against neoliberal globalization, that is mounting in the USA. With him gone Trump is a really emasculated and become a puppet of generals, who are the only allies left capable to run the show. Some of them are real neocons. What a betrayal of voters who are sick and tired of wars for expansion and protection of global neoliberal empire.
Notable quotes:
"... What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit. ..."
"... The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies). ..."
"... Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters hate the idea of taking it away. ..."
"... So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump is now bankrupt. ..."
"... with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

Christopher H. , August 18, 2017 at 01:24 PM

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/whither-Trump_vs_deep_state/

Whither Trump_vs_deep_state?

by Paul Krugman

AUGUST 18, 2017 1:48 PM

Everyone seems to be reporting that Steve Bannon is out. I have no insights about the palace intrigue; and anyone who thinks Trump will become "presidential" now is an idiot. In particular, I very much doubt that the influence of white supremacists and neo-Nazis will wane.

What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit.

The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies).

Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters hate the idea of taking it away.

So what's a tax-cutter to do? His agenda is fundamentally unpopular; how can it be sold?

One long-standing answer is to muddy the waters, and make elections about white resentment. That's been the strategy since Nixon, and Trump turned the dial up to 11. And they've won a lot of elections -- but never had the political capital to reverse the welfare state.

Another strategy is to invoke voodoo: to claim that taxes can be cut without spending cuts, because miracles will happen. That has sometimes worked as a political strategy, but overall it seems to have lost its punch. Kansas is a cautionary tale; and under Obama federal taxes on the top 1 percent basically went back up to pre-Reagan levels.

So what did Trump seem to offer that was new? First, during the campaign he combined racist appeals with claims that he wouldn't cut the safety net. This sounded as if he was offering a kind of herrenvolk welfare state: all the benefits you expect, but only for your kind of people.

Second, he offered economic nationalism: we were going to beat up on the Chinese, the Mexicans, somebody, make the Europeans pay tribute for defense, and that would provide the money for so much winning, you'd get tired of winning. Economic nonsense, but some voters believed it.

Where are we now? The herrenvolk welfare state never materialized, in part because Trump is too lazy to understand policy at all, and outsourced health care to the usual suspects. So Trumpcare turned out to be the same old Republican thing: slash benefits for the vulnerable to cut taxes for the rich. And it was desperately unpopular.

Meanwhile, things have moved very slowly on the economic nationalism front -- partly because a bit of reality struck, as export industries realized what was at stake and retailers and others balked at the notion of new import taxes. But also, there were very few actual voices for that policy with Trump's ear -- mainly Bannon, as far as I can tell.

So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump is now bankrupt.

But he does have the racism thing. And my prediction is that with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars.

[Aug 18, 2017] "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us

At least Bannon does not look like a sociopath as Hillary "We came, we saw he died" and her inner cicle. He has some concerns about South koreian population, dying for US empire geopolitical goals.
Notable quotes:
"... "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.msn.com

... [in] an Aug. 16 interview he initiated with a writer with whom he had never spoken, with the progressive publication The American Prospect. In it, Mr. Bannon mockingly played down the American military threat to North Korea as nonsensical: "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us."

He also bad-mouthed his colleagues in the Trump administration, vowed to oust a female diplomat at the State Department and mocked officials as "wetting themselves" over the consequences of radically changing trade policy.

[Aug 18, 2017] Banish Bannon Trump weighs his options as top aides feud Defend Democracy Press

Aug 18, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

For months, U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser and his chief strategist have battled for influence behind the scenes, and their feud may force another shake-up at the White House.

The dispute between Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster and political strategist Stephen Bannon has reached a level of animosity that is destabilizing Trump's team of top advisers just as the administration tries to regain lost momentum, three senior officials said.

Under pressure from moderate Republicans to fire Bannon, Trump declined to publicly back him on Tuesday, although he left his options open. "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," he told reporters at Trump Tower in New York.

Read more at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bannon-analysis-idUSKCN1AV2MZ

[Aug 18, 2017] Alt-Right and Ultra-Zionist Alliance against National Security Advisor McMaster

Notable quotes:
"... He was then moved quickly to contain the influence of chief strategist Steve Bannon, who McMaster removed from the National Security Council. If you recall, he was appointed to contain other Trump loyalists such as Michael Flynn, as well. ..."
"... Recently, a campaign accusing him of being anti-Israel has been waged with the support of billionaire Sheldon Adelson by a coalition of alt-right nationalists that includes Steve Bannon ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | therealnews.com

Remember Lieutenant-General Herbert Raymond McMaster? He was appointed as President Trump's national security adviser back in February. He was then moved quickly to contain the influence of chief strategist Steve Bannon, who McMaster removed from the National Security Council. If you recall, he was appointed to contain other Trump loyalists such as Michael Flynn, as well.

Recently, a campaign accusing him of being anti-Israel has been waged with the support of billionaire Sheldon Adelson by a coalition of alt-right nationalists that includes Steve Bannon and extreme right-wing Zionists such as the president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, as well as by Israeli journalist Caroline Glick from the Jerusalem Post. President Trump, in response to all of this, called McMaster "a good man, very pro-Israel," and Israeli officials have also come forward calling McMaster a friend of Israel.

On to talk about these connections and tensions is Shir Hever. Shir is a Real News correspondent in Heidelberg, Germany. Of course, he covers Israel and Palestine for us extensively. I thank you so much for joining us, Shir.

SHIR HEVER: Thanks for having me, Sharmini.

SHARMINI PERIES: Shir, President Trump is now six months into his office as president. He initially has appointed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to take up the Israel file, but there are these allegations flying against General McMaster. Explain to us what's going on. Why are these individuals like Sheldon Adelson even concerned about how Trump is responding in terms of Israel and Israel policy?

SHIR HEVER: I think there's very little that General McMaster can actually do about Israel or against Israel. It really doesn't matter much. The only issue that has come up was the Iran nuclear deal, and I think this is going to be a decision taken directly by President Trump and not by McMaster. Also, what exactly is the Israel interest regarding the Iran nuclear deal? It is not so clear. Obviously, Prime Minister Netanyahu has a certain opinion, but other Israeli politicians have other opinions.

I think this is really a symbolic issue. There are people in the alt-right and also the extreme Zionism who are using this old worn-out accusation that somebody is anti-Israel in order to get their own people into the National Security Council, in order to exert influence on the Trump administration. This coalition between extreme right nationalists, white nationalists in the United States, and Jewish Zionists, which traditionally were on opposing sides, are now working together because of this very strange rise of this alt-right.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Now, give us a greater sense of the connection or the tensions between these alt-right organizations and McMaster and Bannon. Map this for us.

SHIR HEVER: Yeah. I've been looking through these accusations that Caroline Glick, deputy editor of the Jerusalem Post, and Steve Bannon himself, and also Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America. What problem do they have with McMaster? They make very vague things about some statements that he made, but they couldn't put them in context. He said that Israel is an occupying power. Of course, Israel is an occupying power, but they couldn't place that statement. The only thing that their criticism boils down to is they say McMaster is a remnant of the Obama administration. He continues the Obama policies, and therefore he's not loyal to Trump.

I think this is the crux of the matter, because actually, for people like Caroline Glick and I think also for Sheldon Adelson, their relation to Trump borders on religious. They consider Trump to be some kind of messiah or savior that will allow Israel once and for all to annex the occupied territory, expand its borders, and then the land will be redeemed. They talk about this in religious terminology.

Here's the problem. Trump has been president for six months now, and Israel did not annex the territory. It did not expand its borders. In fact, it has gone from one crisis to the next, and the Israeli government is not able to cement its power over the Palestinians. Palestinian resistance is not tied down. They're looking for an explanation. The explanation is that something is not pure in the Trump administration, and they're pointing the finger at McMaster saying, "Because of people like him who are sabotaging Trump's own policies from the inside, then this is preventing the Trump administration from reaching its full potential."

SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Obviously, Netanyahu and the Israeli government doesn't agree with this assessment. In fact, they have come out supporting McMaster as being a good supporter of Israel. How does this play out here?

SHIR HEVER: Absolutely. Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing real politics. He knows that there's nothing that President Trump can do that will actually make Israel suddenly conquer more territory. That's not the point. Netanyahu is trying to balance a very complicated system with pressure from different points, and he is a populist, and he's only in power because of his populism. Now, his administration is under threat because of corruption allegations, so this is a problem for him. When people expect that the Trump administration will free his hands to do whatever he wants, Netanyahu suddenly has a problem because he needs to come up with a new excuse. Why doesn't he annex all the occupied territory?

Of course, for him, it's not a good time to get into a fight with the Trump administration. He wants to create the impression that things are happening under the surface, that he is in the know, that his friends are involved in this, but I think the fact that Sheldon Adelson, the big financial supporter of Netanyahu, is now switching to support extreme right groups that have nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli current administration, but are actually trying to push the Israeli administration to move further to the extreme right and to annex territory, that puts Netanyahu in trouble. I think it also spells some clouds over the warm relationship between Netanyahu and Adelson.

SHARMINI PERIES: Coming back to this side of things here in the United States, in light of the events of Charlottesville, Shir, showing a direct link between the alt-right and hardcore racists and neo-Nazis, why would extreme right-wing Zionist Jewish organizations and individuals like Glick and Klein agree to cooperate with the alt-right in this way?

SHIR HEVER: I think people on the left tend to forget that, just like the left considers itself to be a kind of universalist movement, and that leftists around the world should have solidarity with each other, the right also has a kind of solidarity, especially the extreme right. Extreme right movements in different countries consider the extreme right in other countries to be their allies. One of the things we saw in Charlottesville is that some of these neo-Nazi groups and white nationalist groups are big supporters of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, because they see him as the kind of strong leader they would like to see in the United States as well.

For people who see Donald Trump talking about America first, then they're saying, "Okay, that's exactly the kind of administration we want to see in Israel, somebody taking about Israel first." For Caroline Gluck or for a Morton Klein, they are willing to accept a very heavy load of racism and even anti-semitism against Jews from the Trump administration and from its supporters in exchange for being allowed to copy that same kind of racism and that same kind of right-wing policy towards their minorities. Just like the American administration has its minorities, Muslims, Mexicans which are being targeted, Israel also has its minorities, Palestinians and asylum-seekers, and they want those people to be targeted in the same harsh language and the same harsh policies, so that we can [inaudible] a great compromise.

I have to say, the events in Charlottesville had a profound impact on Israeli public opinion. In fact, there are a lot of Israelis who are very concerned about this kind of coalition. They are saying, "No, there's not that much that we're willing to take in order to keep the relations with the Trump administration on good footing." Because of that, the president of Israel, President Rivlin, and also the education minister Naftali Bennett issued statements condemning white nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. I think Naftali Bennett, who is the head of the Jewish Nationalist Party in Israel, and he's actually of the same political camp as Caroline Glick, as Morton Klein, when he makes that statement, that shows that even he thinks that they have gone too far.

SHARMINI PERIES: Interesting analysis, Shir. I thank you so much for joining us today. I guess the situation in Charlottesville is evolving, and it would be interesting to continue to keep an eye on what's developing here against what's happening in Israel as well. Thank you so much.

SHIR HEVER: Thank you, Sharmini.

SHARMINI PERIES: Thank you for joining us here on the Real News Network.

Jibaro 4 hours ago

Confusing, at least to me, in any case I believe that the Zionists learned a lot from the Nazis and there is very little difference between the two groups. I would say that the main difference lies in the fact that the Zionists are sneakier and know how to play with popular opinion. That's why it doesn't surprise me that they are making a common cause with the white supremacists groups.

The only surprise here is that they are doing it openly now. They have become brave and have decided to take the backlash. Perhaps they are doing so because they know they have the support of Trump.

Divide and conquer. Soon we will be fighting on our own streets against each other. It will be the death of the US...

Donatella 10 hours ago

"For Caroline Gluck or for a Morton Klein, they are willing to accept a very heavy load of racism and even anti-semitism against Jews from the Trump administration and from its supporters in exchange for being allowed to copy that same kind of racism and that same kind of right-wing policy towards their minorities."

I have great respect for Shir Hever, he has great insight into Israel society and politics. However, his statement that Klein and Glick (and maybe Adelson) want to be "allowed" to copy Trump's supporter's racism and right-wing policies towards minorities in Israel is beyond hilarious. Minorities in Israel have been and continue to be subjected to racist and supremacist policies (much worse than anything Trump supporters can even imagine) by the Zionists since the theft of Palestinian's land in 1948. The Israelis are not just pursuing racist policies but as Israeli historian Ilan Pappe said, they are committing slow motion genocide against the Palestinians.

[Aug 18, 2017] Russia-gate Hoax About To Be Exposed by Justin Raimondo

Aug 18, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Julian Assange has the evidence – but will he reveal it?

There's an exciting new development in the "Russia-gate" investigation, one that has the potential to blast apart what is arguably the biggest hoax in the history of American politics.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) has met with Julian Assange – the first US congressman to do so – and returned with some spectacular news:. The Hill reports :

"Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year's election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future."

Assange has maintained all along that the Russians had nothing to do with procuring the DNC/Podesta emails, despite the intelligence community's assertions – offered without evidence – that Vladimir Putin personally approved the alleged "hack." Yet credible challenges to this view have emerged in recent days, including from a group of former intelligence officials, that throw considerable doubt on the idea that there was even a "hack" to begin with. "Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents," says The Hill ,

"Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. 'Julian also indicated that he is open to further discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,' he said."

What this looks like is an attempt by Assange to negotiate with the US government over his current status as a political prisoner: he has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for many years. Hanging over him is the threat of arrest should he leave and his rendition to the United States to face charges. Could he be making a bid for freedom, offering to provide evidence of how he got his hands on the DNC/Podesta emails in exchange for a pardon?

Rohrabacher, who has a history as a libertarian fellow traveler, has been the target of a smear campaign due to his unwillingness to go along with the Russophobic hysteria that's all the rage in Washington, D.C. these days. Politico attacked him in a piece calling him "Putin's favorite congressman," and "news" accounts of this meeting with Assange invariably mention his "pro-Russian" views – as if a desire to get along with Russia is in itself somehow "subversive."

It's a brave stance to take when even the ostensibly libertarian and anti-interventionist Cato Institute has jumped on the hate-on-Russia bandwagon. Cato cut their ties to former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus because he refused to accept the War Party's line on the US-sponsored Ukrainian coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected chief of state. But it gets worse. Here 's Cato senior fellow Andrei Illarionov saying we are already at war with Russia:

"First of all, it is necessary to understand that this is a war. This is not a joke, this is not an accident, this is not a mistake, this is not a bad dream. It will not go away by itself. This is a war. As in any war, you either win or lose. And it is up to you what choice you will make."

And it's not just a cold war: the conflict must, says Illarionov, contain a military element:

"First, in purely military area, it is quite clear that victory in this war cannot be achieved without serious adjustments made to the existing military doctrine. Certainly, soft power is wonderful, but by itself it does not deter the use of force."

While the rest of the country is going about its business with nary a thought about Russia, in Washington the craziness is pandemic. Which is why Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Adrienne Watson felt safe vomiting up the usual bile in response to Rohrabacher's initiative: "We'll take the word of the US intelligence community over Julian Assange and Putin's favorite Congressman."

The power of groupthink inside the Washington Beltway has energized both the neo-cold warrior hysterics – epitomized by the imposition of yet more sanctions -- and the "Russia-gate" hoax to the point where it is unthinkable for anyone to challenge either. Yet Rohrabacher, whom I don't always agree with, has the balls to stand up to both, and for that he should be supported.

Assange has stubbornly resisted revealing anything about the provenance of the DNC/Podesta emails, allowing the CIA/NSA to claim that it was the Russians who "hacked the election," and also giving them a free hand to smear WikiLeaks as an instrument of the Kremlin. This meeting with Rohrabacher, and the promise of revelations to come, indicate that he is reconsidering his stance – and that we are on the verge of seeing "Russia-gate" definitively debunked.

We here at Antiwar.com have challenged the "mainstream" media's wholesale swallowing of the government's line from the very beginning. That's because there hasn't been one iota of solid proof for blaming the Russians, or even for the assertion that the DNC was "hacked." We don't accept government pronouncements at face value: indeed, we don't accept the "conventional wisdom" at face value, either. We always ask the question: " Where's the evidence? "

[Aug 18, 2017] The Corporate fascist - with grains of salt - USA. The democracy part is fiction, camouflaged via a fools theatre two-party system and ginormous social re-distribution, amongst others.. the Core (PTB) found itself through miscalculation and loss of power subject to a challenger who broke thru the organised/fake elections, to attempt some kind of readjustement - renewal - reset...

Ethnic nationalism rises when the state and the nation experience economic difficulties. Weimar republic is a classic example here.
Notable quotes:
"... That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling upwards thing is actually theft. ..."
"... The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream, which was the essence of upward mobility. ..."
"... Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out. ..."
"... "In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes." ..."
"... Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson, etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran ), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm. ..."
"... The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk ..."
"... The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined and thus navigating ΰ vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tay | Aug 18, 2017 6:56:05 AM | 82

The US has no problem generating wealth, and has no need to force conflict with China. The US's problem is that that wealth is funneled upwards. Wealth inequality is not a meme. "Shrinking middle class" is a euphemism for downward-mobility of the middle class, an historical incubator for Reaction. And that's what we have here, reactionaries from a middle class background who now are earning less than their parents at menial jobs, or who are unemployed, becoming goons; aping the klan, appropriating nazi icons, blaming the foreigner, the negro, the Jew, the Muslim, for their circumstances. A "trade war" will not help them one iota, it will make their lives worse, and Bannon will go out and say it's the fault of the foreigner and the immigrant, their numbers wool swell. More terror, depper culture wars. I suppose that's nationalism to some people.

Grieved | Aug 18, 2017 9:51:21 AM | 83

@82 Tay

That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling upwards thing is actually theft.

The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream, which was the essence of upward mobility.

Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out.

Since we're looking for the grown-ups, let's turn to Vladimir Putin, always reliable for sanity when direction is lost.

Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism drastically differs from nationalism. "Nationalism is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism is love for your motherland," Putin cited his words.

-- Putin reminds that "patriotism drastically differs from nationalism"

somebody | Aug 18, 2017 11:00:25 AM | 86
83
Upward mobility has fallen sharply
"In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes."

Interventions worth considering include universal preschool and greater access to public universities, increasing the minimum wage, and offering vouchers to help families with kids move from poor neighborhoods into areas with better schools and more resources, they said.

Is there any political party or group in the US that suggests this?

Noirette | Aug 18, 2017 11:56:04 AM | 90
The Corporate "fascist" - with grains of salt - USA. The 'democracy' part is fiction, camouflaged via a fools theatre two-party system and ginormous social re-distribution, amongst others.. the Core (PTB) found itself through miscalculation and loss of power subject to a challenger who broke thru the \organised/ fake elections, to attempt some kind of re-adjustement - renewal - re-set - review...

Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson, etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran ), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm.

Heh, the profits of domination are to be organised, extracted and distributed, differently. One Mafia-type tribe taking over from another! Ivanka will be The Sweet First Woman Prezzie! Style, Heart, Love, Looks! Go!

The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk, so they are activating all - anything to attack. The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined and thus navigating ΰ vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc.

[Aug 17, 2017] Guam rejoices!

Notable quotes:
"... The war of words increased, and then decreased, NOBODY BLINKED, all players decided that hey do not want to get China upset by being the first idiot to act in a war like manner. ..."
"... Red cloud i agree with you and below is a quote by Pat Buchanan showing that the U.S does not seem too interested in dealing with the very real consequences of attacking N.K. ..."
"... There are clearly discussions going on in the background. The US would never admit to negotiating with North Korea, but most of the reason for their petulance is constant muscle flexing by the Americans and South Koreans. They probably ought to just relax. I doubt the US and South Korea would ever launch an attack. There's nothing to be gained from it on any level. ..."
"... Additionally the (very short) planting and harvesting seasons demand a peak of labor force - the military units are ordered to help their local communities in these. Readiness requirements during South Korean/U.S. maneuvers collide with these needs. ..."
"... That is the argument North Korea officially makes to justify its nuclear program. It is intended to replace the too costly conventional deterrence and free up labor force. ..."
"... Didn't China force them both to blink? My reading of the China statement was that China would defend NK if NK was attacked - with the implication that it would NOT help NK if NK were the aggressor. ..."
"... China's position makes each side wary of being deemed to be the aggressor. ..."
"... Looks like the real behind the seen negotiations that cooled both sides, was rightfully between China and US. Doing Stuff in South China Sea, ends of having proxies thirteen our stuff. I think what Henry Kissinger said about Iran is better fit and applied on US, He said "US (Iran) needs to decide if it wants to be a nation or a cause" sounds like a lot of people in the world are not accepting the post 9/11 formatted US. Like Henry said they see us as a cause and not a nation, ..."
Aug 15, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Guam rejoices! Guamjoy

"North Korean leader Kim Jong Un reviewed his military's plans to rain "an enveloping fire" around the U.S. territory of Guam -- but opted not to fire missiles at this time, according to state media. Despite the stand-down, some Guamanians were alarmed after two radio stations aired an erroneous emergency alert Tuesday.

Kim visited the Korean People's Army as the self-imposed mid-August deadline for a missile demonstration approached, the Korean Central News Agency reports. But after hearing the plan and considering it, Kim opted not to give the order to launch missiles, but instead "would watch a little more the foolish and stupid conduct of the Yankees," the report says." NPR

---------------

It was not an IO. It was real and Trump/Mattis won. The fat kid blinked. pl

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/15/543603140/north-korea-says-it-wont-fire-missiles-at-guam-after-all

Posted at 10:02 AM in Korea Permalink

Reblog (0) Comments

BillWade , 15 August 2017 at 10:26 AM

I never thought Kim's Ace in the Hole was his nukes but more his DMZ forces/artillery.
Perhaps one of his generals told him it would be wise to keep it around for more than 72 hours.
b , 15 August 2017 at 10:27 AM
I vehemently disagree with you.

The announcement of the possible plan to launch towards Guam was conditional. It demanded that the U.S. stop B1-B flights out of Guam over South Korea near the North Korean border.

Since the announcement was made no B1-B flights near NoKo took place. Thus the temporary suspension of the plan. This suspension includes the explicit warning that it can or will be changed into action should the U.S. return to such action.

/quote/
He said that the U.S. imperialists caught the noose around their necks due to their reckless military confrontation racket, adding that he would watch a little more the foolish and stupid conduct of the Yankees spending a hard time of every minute of their miserable lot.
...
In order to defuse the tensions and prevent the dangerous military conflict on the Korean peninsula, it is necessary for the U.S. to make a proper option first and show it through action, as it committed provocations after introducing huge nuclear strategic equipment into the vicinity of the peninsula , he said, adding that the U.S. should stop at once arrogant provocations against the DPRK and unilateral demands and not provoke it any longer./endquote/
https://kcnawatch.co/newstream/1502749950-753062439/kim-jong-un-inspects-kpa-strategic-force-command/

turcopolier , 15 August 2017 at 11:14 AM
b

(irony alert) I know, I know, evil America against the world. pl

Red Cloud , 15 August 2017 at 11:21 AM
Trump threatened "fire and fury" if North Korea continued with threats. NK promptly threatened to incinerate Guam.

What was Trump's response? "Uh..... what I meant was......"

Trump blinked first. Fact

turcopolier , 15 August 2017 at 11:26 AM
Red Cloud

Oh BS. North Korea threatened the US and has decided to think about it. pl

Norbert M Salamon , 15 August 2017 at 11:45 AM
With great respect Colonel:

The USA has threatened North Korea for years, and caused untold economic damage via sanctions.

The war of words increased, and then decreased, NOBODY BLINKED, all players decided that hey do not want to get China upset by being the first idiot to act in a war like manner.

BillWade -> b ... , 15 August 2017 at 11:45 AM
Laughing here. how many minutes away do you think our tactical air forces at Kunsan and Osan are away from doing enough damage to NoKor to make them think twice and think hard?
Bsox327 , 15 August 2017 at 11:55 AM
Red cloud i agree with you and below is a quote by Pat Buchanan showing that the U.S does not seem too interested in dealing with the very real consequences of attacking N.K.

'assuming this crisis is resolved, what does the future of U.S.-North Korean relations look like?

consider the past.

In 1968, North Korea hijacked the USS Pueblo on the high seas and interned its crew. LBJ did nothing. In April 1969, North Korea shot down an EC-121, 100 miles of its coast, killing the crew. Nixon did nothing.

Under Jimmy Carter, North Koreans axe-murdered U.S. soldiers at Panmunjom. We defiantly cut down a nearby tree.

Among the atrocities the North has perpetrated are plots to assassinate President Park Chung-hee in the 1960s and '70s, the Rangoon bombing that wiped out much of the cabinet of Chun Doo-hwan in 1983, and the bombing of Korean Air Flight 858, killing all on board in 1987.

And Kim Jong Un has murdered his uncle and brother.

If the past is prologue, and it has proven to be, the future holds this. A renewal of ICBM tests until a missile is perfected. Occasional atrocities creating crises between the U.S. and North Korea. America being repeatedly dragged to the brink of a war we do not want'

The North Koreans are at the very least as intransigent and possibly way more as Fidel Castro was in his confrontations with the U.S

FourthAndLong , 15 August 2017 at 12:10 PM
Colonel,

The article at the link below, titled "The Secret of North Korea's ICBM success", is a worthy read IMO. OUtlines many pitfalls and unknowns, including unforeseen perils of sanction regimes. Suitable for a lay audience:

http://www.iiss.org/en/iiss%20voices/blogsections/iiss-voices-2017-adeb/august-2b48/north-korea-icbm-success-3abb

More readily accessible, however mildly inflammatory, is this piece from The NY Times which links to the iss piece:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/world/asia/north-korea-missiles-ukraine-factory.html?

FWIW, the Yuzhmash company has posted on its website emphatic disagreement with some of the latter articles' inferences.

My own takeaway is that it all underlines the monumental stupidity of our post 1991 Russia policy. George Keenan and more recently Jack Matlock have gone on record very strenuously in this regard.

The author of the iss piece, Michael Elleman, concludes that room for diplomacy remains but is diminishing rapidly.

DJK , 15 August 2017 at 01:02 PM
Maybe the fat boy blinked and Trump/Mattis won or maybe there was hidden deal, or the hint of a deal. I'm reminded of the events of 1962 when it was said that Kruschev blinked and Kennedy/Rusk won. The fact that there was a deal to remove US missiles from Turkey didn't emerge for several years.
Richardstevenhack , 15 August 2017 at 03:01 PM
I suspect both interpretations are probably true: 1) Kim may have interpreted the recent suspension of B-1 flights in light of the ongoing back-channel diplomacy as a win for his side, and 2) his generals probably convinced him it was not a smart idea to launch missiles very close to a US base, if for no other reason than his unguided missiles might actually HIT the base, starting the war he really doesn't want.

In any event, nothing has otherwise changed. The expectation is that NK will continue to test their missiles until the US is prepared to open bilateral negotiations or at least negotiations including Russia and China, who have proposed them.

Since the US is steadfast against talking to NK, I continue to expect war by the end of the year, since NK missile launches will likely not stop.

The only diplomatic solution to the crisis is known to everyone, except apparently Trump. Whether Kim can be persuaded to accept it will be remain unknown until the US actually agrees to talk about it.

b , 15 August 2017 at 03:09 PM
@Pat - this does not have to do with good or bad America. It has to do with negotiations and with under standing the signaling of the opponents side.

Take the bluster away from the North Korean statements and read what is left as conditions and consequences.

Here Cheryl Rofer took the original announcement of the Guam test apart. https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2017/08/11/north-korea-reaches-out/
/quote/

I contend that the North Korean statement issued in response to Donald Trump's "fire and fury" threat contains an invitation to negotiations. As is often the case, that invitation is not stated as such. Diplomacy guards such invitations so that nobody loses face when they don't work.
...(textual analysis)...

In simpler words, stop threatening us with bombers from Guam and we won't attack Guam.

Quid pro quo.

It reeks of blackmail, but that is how North Korea negotiates. If we want negotiations, rather than war, it would be smart to respond to the offer to negotiate. That doesn't necessarily mean ending the B1B overflights, although my adventurous side says, hey, why not?
/endquote/

Since August 9 six B1-B are at Guam but have not flown towards North Korea.

https://www.postguam.com/news/local/six-b--bombers-arrive-from-south-dakota/article_c12e3f5e-7cda-11e7-ad48-737a61ecfb7d.html

Thus the suspension of the North Korean "test".

To see this as a NoKo capitulation to Trump's bluster is the wrong take. It will likely prevent you to correctly judge the next steps in the negotiation process.

turcopolier , 15 August 2017 at 04:09 PM
b

Our air flights over S Korea did not threaten anyone unless North Korea wished to force us to give up our alliance with South Korea. We have not given up anything. The fat boy has given up his threat to try to hit Guam. Where is a statement that the US and South Korea will not hold Combined exercises this month? pl

turcopolier , 15 August 2017 at 04:12 PM
richardstevenhack

Guam is not just a US "Base." The inhabitants of the island are US citizens and the island is sovereign US territory as much as a state is. pl

turcopolier , 15 August 2017 at 04:27 PM
b and all who think NOKO won the confrontation,
I will believe that is true when the US and South Korea call off their big exercise without conditions. On the other hand if negotiations begin for re-unifications of Korea without pre-conditions then everyone won. pl
Fredw , 15 August 2017 at 04:43 PM
Or maybe not. The message North Korea sent to the world seems pretty clear, but there seems to be some notion that they may be too delusional to realize that. Sure enough. Personalities matter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/15/north-korea-guam-strike-pause-donald-trump-negotiations

Many longstanding observers of the North Korean regime expressed concern that the US could misinterpret the message that it sent on Monday when Kim said he would "watch a little more" how the US acted in the region before deciding whether to go ahead with a plan to launch missiles over Japan aimed at the seas around the US territory of Guam.

In some of the US media, that statement was portrayed as a withdrawal of the Guam plan in the face of threats of overwhelming retaliatory force from Donald Trump and US defence secretary James Mattis.

That would be the wrong way to read the signs, said Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology specialising in nuclear strategy.

"I think people are not reading the statement," Narang said. "This is literally restating the threat and leaving space for some quid pro quo and space for negotiation.

"But the threat remains. It's not like he took the threat off the table. If the US does anything that he sees as provocative, he has reviewed the plan and now stands poised to execute it," Narang added.

turcopolier , 15 August 2017 at 04:46 PM
fredw

IMO if NoKo fires into the sea around Guam NoKo will cease to exist. The Russians and Chinese would not lift a finger to save NoKo. pl

kao_hsien_chih -> Fredw... , 15 August 2017 at 05:11 PM
Fredw,

I don't think anything ever actually "ends" for good until and unless one of the parties to the "negotiations" disappears completely, and even then, it may not actually end.

The immediate crisis does seem to have ended, though. There is a limit to which even NoKo's can ratchet up the pressure. Once you get to the Pearl Harbor stage, which dropping missiles around Guam would have been, there is no more "negotiations." NoKo's still have much by means of threatening assets and they will try to use them, no doubt, but now everyone knows where the limit is, and that is a good thing. I don't oppose giving them some concessions, for the right price, but not carte blanche to demand more whenever they feel like it and threaten to throw a crazy tantrum if they don't get their way.

eakens -> turcopolier ... , 15 August 2017 at 05:17 PM
I also believe this is exactly right. Many on here have indicated that they have been a rational actor in the face of US belligerence. If one believes that, then it should be accepted that suicide is not an option for them, particularly against an enemy which will undoubtedly suicide even if North Korea were able to get a couple hits in.

Hopefully this is in fact the crescendo from which the parties can begin to deescalate the situation, and try finding an alternate path to resolving this conflict. NoKo has a lot to offer by giving up the nuclear threat they have been able to put together, and if they are a rational actor like many claim, they will take advantage of the situation and use it to negotiate a good deal.

AriusArmenian , 15 August 2017 at 05:19 PM
If you think that Kim blinked then the US should blink more often instead of rushing into wars and creating chaos as was done in Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, and Syria.

I also expect more from you than calling Kim a fat kid.

Seamus Padraig , 15 August 2017 at 05:37 PM
Pyong Yang and Washington have been playing these games for decades. Only the liberal MSM seriously entertained the idea that this was going to erupt into a full-blown war, because ... Trump. Neither side has any interest in a war, and legend to contrary, both Trump and the Norks are rational actors, as are the Chinese.
BillWade , 15 August 2017 at 06:05 PM
I imagine it goes something like this: We hold our exercises with our allies on a schedule that is convenient for us. In all the years we've been holding these exercises we have never attacked NK, the reason we haven't attacked is not because they are ready for us, it's because we choose not to, their rice planting season is or is not a concern to us. Their decision to how best use their military is or is not a concern to us. However, when they threaten us we do listen. We may make a show of force in response or we may not. We may not know all their nuclear capabilities or we may know every last detail, their decisions are theirs but they might consider erring on the side of caution. They have decided now on caution.

BSox mentions all the times NoKor has provoked us. That we haven't responded with overwhelming force during those times is a sign of our strength. Perhaps one of those events is when we decided it was now more convenient for us to hold exercises at a less convenient time for NoKor, who knows - I don't.

Kim might launch another missile, that's his decision. We might make him toast before he does that, or while he does it, or after he does it, or not at all. I don't know, B doesn't know, but most importantly, Kim doesn't know.

BillWade , 15 August 2017 at 06:22 PM
B, don't you recognize that rice farming is for rice farmers and not GIs, you make us look bad with that propaganda.
Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg , 15 August 2017 at 06:26 PM
There are clearly discussions going on in the background. The US would never admit to negotiating with North Korea, but most of the reason for their petulance is constant muscle flexing by the Americans and South Koreans. They probably ought to just relax. I doubt the US and South Korea would ever launch an attack. There's nothing to be gained from it on any level.
TonyL , 15 August 2017 at 08:26 PM
IMHO, both Trump and Kim blinked. Perhaps Kim has been waiting for any gesture that allow him to stop the planned missile launch. Perhaps Trump has realized it is foolish and unnecessary to proceed with the B1-B missions (the US-South Korean military exercise is still a more important show of force).

They both came out of this potential crisis as loosers. And Trump certainly had gotten us close to the brink of WW3/nuclear war with his exchanges of childish rhetorics with Kim.

SAC Brat , 15 August 2017 at 08:47 PM
Anyone have Sergey Lavrov's travel or phone logs? He was in SE Asia last week.
A. Pols , 15 August 2017 at 08:51 PM
Maybe the whole Guam thing was just a head fake and the NOKOs were just engaging in a bit of trolling. After all, if you threaten to do something you have no actual intention of doing, then pretend to back down, what is that other than a prank? More and more we live in a world of hoaxes.

But what do you all think the latest information about the transfer by Ukrainian interests of RD250 engines to NOKO? The story has the appearance of plausibility and, if true, sure is cause for some awkwardness...

Yeah, Right -> BillWade... , 15 August 2017 at 11:16 PM
BillWade,
The old James Bond dictum springs to mind: once is an accident, twice is happenstance, and three times is.... war.

To decide if those exercises is deliberately timed to be harmful to North Korean rice production we would need to know:
a) How long is the NK rice harvest season?
b) What reasons make it uniquely advantageous for the USA/SK to conduct exercises during that same period, year in and year out.

I don't doubt that nobody wants to get out of bed in the harsh Korean winter to much up the hill and down again. Sure. But I doubt that the North Koreans have given a guarantee that they'll only attack during the summer months, and it'll all be over by Xmas.

That strikes me as the main difficulty with claiming happenstance i.e. of necessity the North Koreans can't change when the rice needs to be harvested, but the USA/SK should be varying the timing of their military exercises.

After all, what if the GIs only find out after the shooting starts that their guns don't work in the cold?

Yeah, Right -> turcopolier ... , 16 August 2017 at 05:02 AM
No, never heard of it. Though it sounds like something that should be advertised on porn sites.

But the point I made still holds true: military exercises on the Korean peninsular shouldn't just be held in the same month year in, year out. Doing so presupposes a gentleman's agreement about when any war is going to be fought.

And I assume everyone here accepts that such a gentleman's agreement has not been struck with the North Koreans?

b -> FourthAndLong... , 16 August 2017 at 05:25 AM
Elleman speculated wrongly. And the NYT (Sanger) used that to engage in the usual anti-Russian propaganda.

The North Korean missile motor has one combustion chamber the regular R-250 has two. The outer appearance has similarities with R-250 but is not identical.
North Korea has the capability to develop and manufacture these themselves. Like everyone else they copied parts of existing designs.
Three new piece today seem to confirm what several experts (countering Elleman) said yesterday:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1AV2CK
North Korea likely can make missile engines without imports: U.S.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-believes-north-korea-produces-its-own-rocket-engines-1502849211?mod=e2twa
U.S. Believes North Korea Produces Its Own Rocket Engines

http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/north-koreas-new-high-performance-missile-engines-likely-werent-made-in-russia-or-ukraine/
North Korea's New High-Performance Missile Engines Likely Weren't Made in Russia or Ukraine

b -> turcopolier ... , 16 August 2017 at 05:45 AM
The U.S. uses B1-B flights to "threaten" North Korea and "in response" to North Korean testing. These flights are marketed as special "show of force". They are not routine.

It did so last September:
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2016/09/22/b1-b-flew-close-to-north-korean-border-u-s-says/
/quote/
The United States often sends powerful warplanes to South Korea in times of heightened animosity between the Koreas, but it is still unusual for such aircraft to fly near the rivals' border, the world's most heavily fortified.
...
U.S. Pacific Command said on its website Wednesday that the flight was the closest a B-1 has ever flown to the border.
/endquote/

It did so recently:
https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/us-sends-b-1b-bombers-in-show-of-force-after-north-korean-icbm-test-1.477208#.WZQTZrjVpnQ
US sends B-1B bombers in show of force after North Korean ICBM test

b -> BillWade... , 16 August 2017 at 06:04 AM
The North Korean army mostly feeds itself. Many military facilities have fields nearby and the soldiers are engaged in agriculture as well as other types of production (Songun policy).

Additionally the (very short) planting and harvesting seasons demand a peak of labor force - the military units are ordered to help their local communities in these. Readiness requirements during South Korean/U.S. maneuvers collide with these needs.

That is the argument North Korea officially makes to justify its nuclear program. It is intended to replace the too costly conventional deterrence and free up labor force.

You may disagree with that argument but you will have to admit that it is coherent and somewhat reasonable.

Old Microbiologist , 16 August 2017 at 08:24 AM
Some good points here: http://theweek.com/articles/570764/time-military-leave-south-korea
Greco -> Norbert M Salamon... , 16 August 2017 at 09:06 AM
The US-led sanctions aside, this is a country that employs millions into slave labor and practices total political control over its society. Is this a place where anyone would want to trade goods? Sanctions or no sanctions, I wouldn't want anything out of this God forsaken hellhole.

And if nobody blinked, then why is Kim now suggesting he won't strike near or at a US territory like he said he had planned? Clearly he has thought things over and has balked. And I don't see where the US has blinked. Trump responded threat for threat, backing down from none, while at the same time he has shown a ready eagerness for a peaceful solution to ending North Korea's nuclear ambitious.

This is a positive development. And Kim will be more careful to avoid making similar threats he can't back up going forward.

Fred -> Yeah, Right... , 16 August 2017 at 09:24 AM
Yeah, Right,

How many decades has North Korea had to diversify its industrial base so that it can build its own tractors and thus free up all that manpower from harvesting rice every year when they know, just know, that the evil South and those American allies are going to rush across the DMZ?

Greco -> b ... , 16 August 2017 at 09:44 AM
I respectfully disagree with their position and on the matter of whether they're indeed reasonable.

We don't know if Kim is a nihilist. He's under enormous pressure to maintain control. He may see things as all or nothing for him and that he won't care if he takes millions of others down with him.

And even if assuming he's acting on totally reasonable mertis now, who's to say how reasonable he will be in the future if we allow him to become more emboldened. Ten years from now he may very well fall out of power and someone more dangerous may assume his place.

This is a problem that has been allowed to fester to a point that may soon be no longer acceptable. If North Korea gets a pass now, they and others will become emboldened and act in a manner that is even more egregious and reckless.

I find their position unacceptable. I find their system of governance reprehensible. And we ultimately endanger ourselves if we fail to meet the challenge of confronting them on the strongest of terms.

Could more have been done to discourage where we stand now? Perhaps, but we're here now and we need to force North Korea's weaker hand and get them to back down. This administration has a shown willingness to do that and I think they will succeed in getting North Korea to abandon their plans for a nuclear deterrent while ensuring a tentative, if not lasting peace. That is assuming Kim Jung-Un is a rational and reasonable actor as some may have done well to argue.

Jackrabbit , 16 August 2017 at 09:49 AM
Didn't China force them both to blink? My reading of the China statement was that China would defend NK if NK was attacked - with the implication that it would NOT help NK if NK were the aggressor.
Jackrabbit -> Jackrabbit ... , 16 August 2017 at 10:51 AM
China's position makes each side wary of being deemed to be the aggressor.
ISL , 16 August 2017 at 11:33 AM
Dear Colonel,

A third possibility (of which I have no evidence) is that NoKo looked at their test data and realized there is a technical flaw that requires fixing to avoid a high probability of an embarrassing prang. I would not assess this as low probability, but definitely not zero.

dilbert dogbert , 16 August 2017 at 11:49 AM
Too bad he blinked. Those missiles would have made good and cheap target practice. I assume we have the national technical means to recover the stages of the missiles and find out where the technology came from.
dilbert dogbert -> Greco... , 16 August 2017 at 12:05 PM
"I find their position unacceptable. I find their system of governance reprehensible. And we ultimately endanger ourselves if we fail to meet the challenge of confronting them on the strongest of terms."

This was advocated during the Cold War. Fortunately we chose "Containment" and a nuclear exchange with the USSR was avoided. I remember JFK, Khrushchev and Cuba and it was a close thing. I don't want to relive that experience in my declining years.

Bandolero -> turcopolier ... , 16 August 2017 at 12:11 PM
turcopolier

I think it's win-win: both Trump and Kim won.

Trump can credibly claim that his "tough talk" was effective in deterring Kim from launching missiles close to Guam. And Kim can credibly claim that he established the DPRK as a new nuclear weapon power.

SmoothieX12 , 16 August 2017 at 02:39 PM
Fat Thing blinked--that much is clear. He may have been "helped" in blinking by China and Russia, who is second to China in NoKo policies--that is how China goes, Russia follows on this issue. Nobody involved needs any trouble in the neighborhood. With or without American rhetoric it has to be remembered that it was Kim Il Sung who unleashed the war in 1950. Three times he pressed Stalin for support, two times he was refused, on the third Stalin surrendered. We all know the rest. Has to be stated, though, that there were no nice people on both (South and North) sides then--mostly SOBs in political top.
Freudenschade , 16 August 2017 at 02:45 PM
Col.,

The US and the two Koreas have long been in a Mutual Assured Destruction love triangle. The US just got pulled a little more into the center of the bed, that's all.

Kooshy , 16 August 2017 at 03:03 PM
Looks like the real behind the seen negotiations that cooled both sides, was rightfully between China and US. Doing Stuff in South China Sea, ends of having proxies thirteen our stuff. I think what Henry Kissinger said about Iran is better fit and applied on US, He said "US (Iran) needs to decide if it wants to be a nation or a cause" sounds like a lot of people in the world are not accepting the post 9/11 formatted US. Like Henry said they see us as a cause and not a nation,

U.S., China Sign Military Agreement To Improve On Communication

http://217.218.67.231/Detail/2017/08/15/531909/China US Fang Dunford agreement direct communication

b -> Greco... , 16 August 2017 at 03:29 PM
The same arguments were made over China and the Soviet Union.
Deterrence policy won with regard to the Soviet Union and to China. It will also be the policy towards North Korea.

Besides - it is too late now to preempt North Korea. It is a full fledged nuclear weapon state. Get over it.

b , 16 August 2017 at 03:38 PM
Those who think that B-1B were not the issue at hand over which the recent (secret) negotiations were made should read the NBC piece below which was published on August 9.

The B1-B flights were clearly test runs for a preemptive strike and/or decapitation strike. No wonder North Korea disliked and countered them.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea/b-1-bombers-key-u-s-plan-strike-north-korean-n791221
B-1 Bombers Key to a U.S. Plan to Strike North Korean Missile Sites
/quote/
The Pentagon has prepared a specific plan for a preemptive strike on North Korea's missile sites should President Trump order such an attack.

Two senior military officials -- and two senior retired officers -- told NBC News that key to the plan would be a B-1B heavy bomber attack originating from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.

Pairs of B-1s have conducted 11 practice runs of a similar mission since the end of May, the last taking place on Monday. The training has accelerated since May, according to officials.
...
/endquote/

North Korea knew this and wanted to end it. Thus the Guam "test" threat and the negotiation offer discussed above. The U.S. agreed to stop the B-1B flights and North Korea put the "test" on hold.

No side lost face. No side won or lost. After building confidence over this issue both are now ready to discuss the less urgent stuff.

BillWade , 16 August 2017 at 04:26 PM
"Kim Jong Un of North Korea made a very wise and well reasoned decision," Trump wrote on Twitter.

"The alternative would have been both catastrophic and unacceptable!"

Joint US-SK exercises in 5 days.

jonst -> b ... , 16 August 2017 at 04:31 PM
and you figure the audience, 'the world', is going to notice these nuances you allege?

[Aug 17, 2017] Grown-ups Versus Ideologues The Media Narrative of the White House May Be All Wrong

Notable quotes:
"... McMaster's was spewing nonsense. The same was said about the Soviet Union and China when they became nuclear weapons states. North Korea just became one . Conventional deterrence of both sides has worked with North Korea for decades. Nuclear deterrence with North Korea will work just as well as it did with the Soviet and Chinese communists. If North Korea were really not deterrable the U.S. should have nuked it yesterday to minimize the overall risk and damage. It is the McMaster position that is ideological and not rational or "grown up" at all. ..."
"... Compare that to Steve Bannon's take on the issue: ..."
"... "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
"... But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US. Third generation at war with the US and his seen his father was fucked over when trying to make a deal with the US. NK's nuke and missile tech have come a long way in the few short years Kim Jong Un has been in power. ..."
"... "Deterrence is a strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet started, or to prevent them from doing something that another state desires." ..."
"... Classic deterrence strategy IS working for NK perfectly. ..."
"... All one has to do to know what Bannon's position on Iran is to read Breitbart on any given day. Unless we are supposed to believe that Bannon's opinions are not reflected by the website he ran for four years. Bannon is for war against Islam in general, there is nothing "realist" about his foreign policy. ..."
"... @12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers... but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they [the corporate sector] are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist. ..."
"... Bannon makes sense. That must be why many want him gone especially the neocons. As to North Korea, the US should have admitted "facts on the ground" long ago and worked to sign the official end of the war and work to get the two Koreas talking and working together. ..."
Aug 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The Democrats and the media love the Pentagon generals in the White House. They are the "grown ups":

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., had words of praise for Donald Trump's new pick for national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster -- calling the respected military officer a "certified, card-carrying grown-up,"

According to the main-stream narrative the "grown ups" are opposed by " ideologues " around Trump's senior advisor Steve Bannon. Bannon is even infectious, according to Jeet Heer, as he is Turning Trump Into an Ethno-Nationalist Ideologue . A recent short interview with Bannon dispels that narrative.

Who is really the sane person on, say, North Korea?

The "grown-up" General McMaster, Trump's National Security Advisor, is not one of them. He claims North Korea is not deterrable from doing something insane.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But your predecessor Susan Rice wrote this week that the U.S. could tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea the same way we tolerated nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union far more during the Cold War. Is she right?

MCMASTER: No, she's not right. And I think the reason she's not right is that the classical deterrence theory, how does that apply to a regime like the regime in North Korea? A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people? A regime that poses a continuous threat to the its neighbors in the region and now may pose a threat, direct threat, to the United States with weapons of mass destruction?

McMaster's was spewing nonsense. The same was said about the Soviet Union and China when they became nuclear weapons states. North Korea just became one . Conventional deterrence of both sides has worked with North Korea for decades. Nuclear deterrence with North Korea will work just as well as it did with the Soviet and Chinese communists. If North Korea were really not deterrable the U.S. should have nuked it yesterday to minimize the overall risk and damage. It is the McMaster position that is ideological and not rational or "grown up" at all.

Compare that to Steve Bannon's take on the issue:

"There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us."

It was indeed the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which "got" the United States and stopped the U.S. escalation game. It is wrong to think that North Korea "backed off" in the recent upheaval about a missile test targeted next to Guam. It was the U.S. that pulled back from threatening behavior.

Since the end of May the U.S. military trained extensively for decapitation and "preemptive" strikes on North Korea:

Two senior military officials -- and two senior retired officers -- told NBC News that key to the plan would be a B-1B heavy bomber attack originating from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.
...
Of the 11 B-1 practice runs since the end of May, four have also involved practice bombing at military ranges in South Korea and Australia.

In response to the B-1B flights North Korea published plans to launch a missile salvo next to the U.S. island of Guam from where those planes started. The announcement included a hidden offer to stop the test if the U.S. would refrain from further B-1B flights. A deal was made during secret negotiations . Since then no more B-1B flights took place and North Korea suspended its Guam test plans. McMaster lost and the sane people, including Steve Bannon, won.

But what about Bannon's "ethno-nationalist" ideology? Isn't he responsible for the right-wing nutters of Charlottesville conflict? Isn't he one of them?

He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."

"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.

Bannon sees China as an economic enemy and wants to escalate an economic conflict with it. He is said to be against the nuclear deal with Iran. The generals in Trump's cabinet are all anti-Iran hawks. As Bannon now turns out to be a realist on North Korea, I am not sure what real position on Iran is.

Domestically Bannon is pulling the Democrats into the very trap I had several times warned against:

"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

This worked well during the presidential election and might continue to work for Trump. As long as the Democrats do not come up with, and fight for, sane economic polices they will continue to lose elections. The people are not interested in LGBT access to this or that bathroom. They are interested in universal healthcare, in personal and economic security. They are unlikely to get such under Bannon and Trump. But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at least claim to have plans to achieve it.

Posted by b on August 16, 2017 at 11:51 PM | Permalink

Peter AU 1 | Aug 17, 2017 1:05:52 AM | 1

A couple of very interesting links from the last thread were the one to the Bannon article, and also the link to the Carter/NK article.

Kim Jong Un, 3rd generation like his father and grandfather leader of NK. From what I have read this is a cultural thing t hat predates communism and the Japanese occupation prior. Many pictures of Kim show an overweight youngster amongst gaunt hungry looking generals. Gave the impression of a spoilt kid simply handed power. Not going to the May 9 parade in Russia when invited also gave the impression he was paranoid.

But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US. Third generation at war with the US and his seen his father was fucked over when trying to make a deal with the US. NK's nuke and missile tech have come a long way in the few short years Kim Jong Un has been in power.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Kim Jong Un and Trump have a meet one day.

The link to the Carter article http://www.fox5atlanta.com/national-news/273096065-story

ben | Aug 17, 2017 1:22:28 AM | 2
b said: "The people are not interested in LGBT access to this or that bathroom. They are interested in universal healthcare, in personal and economic security. They are unlikely to get such under Bannon and Trump. But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at least claim to have plans to achieve it."

With that statement b, you nailed it..

V. Arnold | Aug 17, 2017 1:32:51 AM | 3
"There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us."

Doesn't that at least show Bannon as the adult in the room?
I would say so.

psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 1:53:13 AM | 4
So lets start parsing this economic nationalism that Bannon is making happen with Trump.

Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies.

Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production.

Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario.

At least now, IMO, the battle for a multi-polar (finance) world is out in the open.....let the side taking by nations begin. I hope Bannon is wrong about the timing of potential global power shifting and the US loses its empire status.

psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 2:19:03 AM | 5
I thought that maybe Bannon was being a bit too forthright in his recent comments and perhaps he has just painted a big bullseye on his back for the racist clowns he has used to aim at. Check this out: Bannons colleagues disturbed by interview with left wing publication
Copeland | Aug 17, 2017 2:30:36 AM | 6
Bannon thinks the bombast on display between the Kim and Trump has been "a sideshow". The real show, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the dramatic sparring between the two leaders. The Mother Of All Policies, according to Bannon, is an all-bets-on trade war with China, whose endgame admits to only one outcome,--that is to say-- that only one hegemon will remain standing at the end of this struggle.

There can be only one King-of-the-Hill. But where is the Greek Chorus?--the prophetic warning that goes by the name of necessity?-- that tries to ward off hubris? "One must never subscribe to absurdities" (it was Camus who aptly said that).

V. Arnold | Aug 17, 2017 2:39:11 AM | 7
psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 2:19:03 AM | 5

I had read this before; interesting to say the least.
Truth be told, I'd never heard of Bannon prior to Trumps election and still know little about him.
Politics aside Bannon seems a straight shooter; I certainly can't argue his statement re: what would happen if we attacked NK. His statement is echo'd by many long before today.
I do plan to start paying attention from this point forward.
Oh, and I did read that Trump is afraid of Bannon, but don't remember the reason stated.

Realist | Aug 17, 2017 3:18:01 AM | 8
Here is Bannon's latest:

Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant:

"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."

"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.

Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists.

somebody | Aug 17, 2017 4:49:34 AM | 12
No, whoever planned that "United Right" rally walked Trump into the trap.

As Trump was incapable to disassociate himself clearly from people who protest against the take down of a statue of General Lee. Trump now owns the race issue.

Steve Bannon is a fascist . That does not mean he is stupid.

The generals are clearly dangerous. They have the power to walk everybody to world war III. Trump has pledged to spend even more on the US military, the military already has the highest spending world wide. The generals don't want to admit that they cannot solve anythings by military power.

Trump going off script in that press conference into a stream of consciousness was bad. He reminded everybody of their rambling demented great-grandfather. He tried to get the discussion to economic issues, he did not succeed.

Veterans Today is a dubious source, but this here sounds genuine Washington behind the mirrors

In stepped more lies and garbage, this time more fake than the other, with chaos theory and psychological warfare organizations drowning in capabilities from the overfunded phony war on terror and too much time on their hands now lending their useless talents toward disinforming the general public.

The result has been a divided US where "alternative facts" fabricated for a vulnerable demographic now competes with the "mainstream" now termed, and I believe rightly so, "fake news" to support different versions of a fictional narrative that resembles reality only in the most rarified and oblique manner.
...

America has left itself open to dictatorship. It long since gave up its ability to govern itself, perhaps it was the central bank, the Federal Reserve in 1913 or more recent erosions of individual power such as the Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2005. Whatever milestone one chooses, the remains of democratic institutions in the US are now difficult to find.

What we are left with is what increasingly seems to be factions, mistakenly defined as "right" or "far right" jockeying for control over America's military, and with that, control over the planet itself.

You see, whoever controls the American military controls the world, unless a power bloc appears that can challenge, well, challenge what? If the Pentagon controls America's military and the Pentagon is controlled by a cabal of religious extremists as many claim or corporate lackeys as most believe, then where does the world stand?

Then again, if Trump and his own Republican congress are at war over impeachment, and I assure you, little else is discussed in Washington, two sides of the same coin, servants of different masters, has all oversite of the newfound military power over American policy disappeared?

To this, we reluctantly say "yes."

Clueless Joe | Aug 17, 2017 5:24:06 AM | 13
Bannon can be perfectly mature, adult and realist on some points and be totally blinded by biases on others - him wanting total economic war against China is proof enough. So I don't rule out that he has a blind spot over Iran and wants to get rid of the regime. I mean, even Trump is realist and adult in a few issues, yet is an oblivious fool on others.

Kind of hard to find someone who's always adult and realist, actually. You can only hope to pick someone who's more realist than most people. Or build a positronic robot and vote for him.

somebody | Aug 17, 2017 6:16:13 AM | 14
There is something to that interview by Steve Bannon with a left wing website .
More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive publication (the cover lines on whose first two issues after Trump's election were "Resisting Trump" and "Containing Trump") and assume that a possible convergence of views on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.

The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the press. He's probably the most media-savvy person in America.

I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump's reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump's base.

He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."

Explanation a) He wants to explain the climbdown of his boss on North Korea.
Not really helpful to Trump.

b) He wants to save his reputation as the association with the KKK and White Suprematists has become toxic.

Checking on what Breitbart is doing - splitting the Republican Party

A trade war with China would mean prices in the US would become very expensive. It is a fool's strategy.

In other news Iran is threatening to leave the nuclear agreement, and Latin America unites against the US threatening Venezuela with war.

The generals are completely useless.

fairleft | Aug 17, 2017 6:35:17 AM | 15
I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s.
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:51:35 AM | 16
psychohistorian a
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:59:32 AM | 17
psychohistorian at 4: 'as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting...'

as a sovereign currency issuer of that size the usa can not run out of dollars
to default on their obligations would be a voluntary mistake the federal reserve will avoid
meanwhile the chinese are investing in africa and other countries securing their position in the world

V. Arnold | Aug 17, 2017 7:43:30 AM | 18
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:59:32 AM | 17
as a sovereign currency issuer of that size the usa can not run out of dollars
to default on their obligations would be a voluntary mistake the federal reserve will avoid
meanwhile the chinese are investing in africa and other countries securing their position in the world

Very good; and I agree with your POV; the usa can not run out of dollars.
And therein lies its power; a very dangerous situation that I do not think the world is equipped to deal with in toto...

steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19
Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of the Electoral College, including Steve Bannon. It is the Republican Party, not Trump and his Trumpery who holds majorities in the House, the Senate and the nation's statehouses. Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.

It appears that as a purely nominal Republican, an owner in a hostile takeover, Trump has no qualms about trashing the system. Practically speaking, this is the very opposite of draining the swamp, which requires effective leadership.

Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 8:51:55 AM | 20
Kim Jong Un, 3rd generation like his father and grandfather leader of NK. From what I have read this is a cultural thing that predates communism and the Japanese occupation prior.

But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Aug 17, 2017 1:05:52 AM | 1

OR, looked at another way:

Perhaps the gurning wunderkind Kim's ascent to the North Korean Throne was completely predictable and was predicted a long time ago, and plans were set in motion to ensure that he was co-opted as a kid, and now works with the US to help counter the rising Chinese power.

Perhaps the alleged face-off Trump, Kim and the western MSM treated the world to over the past while, was merely nothing but a pre-scripted choreographic display, a piece of theater agreed upon beforehand by all participants except China

I wouldn't be surprised to see Kim Jong Un and Trump have a meet one day.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong Un and Trump actually play for the same side.

Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 8:59:31 AM | 21
Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of the Electoral College, i

Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19

Actually as far as I can tell the real political swindlers are the ones who refuse to acknowledge that a US Presidential election is, (and has been for nearly whole time the US has been in existence, which is more than 200 years for those who have problems keeping track of such simple matters) decided NOT by the popular vote but by the results of the Electoral College voting.

Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.

Again, just to repeat the actual reality regarding US Presidential elections: They are decided on the basis of Electoral Collage voting and NOT on the basis of the popular vote, as political swindlers would now like everyone to believe.

Thegenius | Aug 17, 2017 9:08:56 AM | 22
Economics PhDs are resisting the only thing that can actully cause higher inflation rate: trade war
somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:45:00 AM | 23
19

He is doubling down now defending General Lee statues as beautiful. He is doing the same strategy as he did in his duel with Hillary Clinton when everybody thought he was insane, playing to his core Republican base to make sure Republicans have to stay in line or face a primary challenge.

Breitbart is doing the same threatening "Republican traitors".

The problem with this strategy is that Trump won because Hillary Clinton was so unpopular, because their pollsters outsmarted Nate Silver and Co. and possibly because she was a woman.

But Republicans who have to pretend they are religious right wing nuts in the primaries, then have to appeal to independents to win the actual election.

So they cannot go against Trump but cannot defend him. They are paralysed.

That what it comes down to. That the main aim of the president of the United States is to paralyze the party he hijacked.


somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:58:52 AM | 24
add to 23

Breitbart has gone full culture wars. It is comical, have a look.

john | Aug 17, 2017 10:26:02 AM | 25
Just Sayin' says:

They are decided on the basis of Electoral Collage voting and NOT on the basis of the popular vote, as political swindlers would now like everyone to believe

indeed, though, speaking of political swindlers, there's mucho evidence that Trump may have won the popular vote as well.

likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 10:32:06 AM | 26
Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19

Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of the Electoral College, including Steve Bannon. It is the Republican Party, not Trump and his Trumpery who holds majorities in the House, the Senate and the nation's statehouses. Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.

Have you read the Constitution of the USA? The Electoral College elects the President by the rank and file voters electing the Electors to the College on November election day. That's how the system works.

Ask Al Gore; he won the popular vote.

Oh and btw, the Hillary won the popular 2016 vote meme. Take a look at Detroit, MI heavy Democrats' precints - more votes than voters - and the millions of illegal aliens' vote in California who voted after the invite of Obama.

WJ | Aug 17, 2017 10:50:13 AM | 27
Trump won the election. Period. End of story. Done. Finished. Get over it and get on with your life. He didn't compete to win the popular vote. He competed and campaigned to win the election. Advice to Democrats - nominate a candidate beside a senile old neocon woman who is corrupt to her ugly core, and then maybe you can beat a former reality show star.
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 10:56:25 AM | 29
The problem with this strategy is that Trump won because Hillary Clinton was so unpopular, because their pollsters outsmarted Nate Silver and Co. and possibly because she was a woman.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:45:00 AM | 23

Nope - first part of the sentence is correct but the rest of is just you, as usual, repeating crap you found on the Internet and then repeating it here pretending it is profound and that you actually understand what you are talking about, which you clearly don't as evidenced by the fact that you then go on to reference Nate Silver whose fame was never anything but media created hype with little or nothing to back it up.

Silver's feet of clay were evident long before the latest Prez election. It became obvious that his alleged electoral statistical prowess rested as much on luck as anything else. Lucky in prediction when it came to the 2008 election but by 2010 things started to go wrong but the media ignored his feet of clay and kept hyping him as a stats genius.

By the time 2016 rolled round Silver was exposed for the lucky fraud he is.

The real truth of Hillarys inability to win lies not in her being female as you and many others disingenuously (at best) try to claim, but simply lies in the fact that she is a thoroughly unpleasant person with a complete lack of charisma and a massive sense of entitlement.

Blacks and others, minorities generally and independents, who came out in droves for the Obama elections simply refused to go and vote for her.

The Republican vote however changed very little - pretty much the exact same demographic voted republican as voted for Romney.

Trump won partly because of Clintons massive hubris in refusing to campaign in several key states. Cambridge analytical were not required to give him the win, no matter what you read, without analysing it, elsewhere on the web and are now repeating here in an effort to pretend you know what you are talking about.

CA probably helped somewhat but it unlikely that they were central to the win. Clintons hubris and her complete lack of charisma, ensured low black/minority/independent for her in key states, especially those where she had refused to even bother to campaign, which was enough to seal the win for Trump

You simply repeating crap you heard on the net and pretending that if you say it in an authoritative fashion it will magically become true, just ends up making you look completely clueless, as usual. (or dishonest)

Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 11:01:18 AM | 30
@ Everybody who bought into the MSM Steve Bannon promoted white supremacy and through Breitbart. Suggested you read his world view expressed in remarks at Human Dignity Institute, Vatican Conference 2014

Posted by: likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 10:51:54 AM | 28

Anyone with any intelligence would be wise to treat with great caution anything Bannon claims in public interviews about himself or his alleged political beliefs,

RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 11:21:24 AM | 32
US politics is a great big clusterfeck - worse than ever, which is hard to believe. Bannon's big liar. He did heaps to create this very situation with the White Supremacists. Of course the Democrats are worse than useless. All they're doing is presenting themselves as "We're not Trump" and whining about Putin. All of them are clowns. Every last one. Including the so-called "Generals." Worthless.
Pnyx | Aug 17, 2017 11:27:14 AM | 33
"Since then no more B-1B flights took place and North Korea suspended its Guam test plans."
but: "Yesterday (...) two US B-1 strategic bombers, operating with Japanese fighter jets, conducted exercises to the southwest of the Korean Peninsula." says WSWS. ?
james | Aug 17, 2017 12:32:00 PM | 37
@2 ben.. i agree!

everything about the usa today is divisive... i can't imagine the usa being happy if this didn't continue until it's demise..the 2 party system hasn't worked out very well as i see it.. failed experiment basically.. oh well..

anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 12:51:38 PM | 39
@19

If I remember correctly, wasn't it both the President Elect and the Republican Congressmen who won clear majorities in nearly 80 percent of congressional districts? Presuming an issue like the gerrymandering of districts wasn't significant, that's a far more legitimate victory than an extra million Democrats voting in California (determining the future of national policy). I'm not a fan of the Republicans, but denying the short term efficiency of 'populist rhetoric' isn't helping the left win any substantial electoral victories in the future.

Morongobill | Aug 17, 2017 1:03:36 PM | 40
Good Lord. Can't people read anymore? The election is all about the EC. Keep talking and running for the popular vote, and Trump will keep winning the Electoral College. You either want to win or you don't. I hope you keep preaching the popular vote personally.
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 1:06:52 PM | 41
@ Just Sayin' 30

I won't give you a pass. Your bias and lack of intelligence is on great display.


No pass for little ol me? Aw shucks, I'm heart broken.

The fact that you think Bannon&Trump are going to do anything about Wall Street and the Banking System in general is quite amusing.

Perhaps you could list a few of Bannon&Trumps anti Wall Street achievements or initiatives since Trump took office?

It should by now be clear to anyone paying attention that while both Bannon & Trump certainly TALK a lot, they seem to actually do very little.

So, do please tell us: what have they actually done?

Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 1:15:57 PM | 42
@2 ben.. i agree!

everything about the usa today is divisive...

Posted by: james | Aug 17, 2017 12:32:00 PM | 37

As the CIA might say: "Mission Accomplished!!"

Keep the proles spilt in their little "identity groups", their micro-tribes, and continue building the Kleoptocracy/Prison/Military State while the dumbed down demos are busy hunting micro-aggressions/fighting gender & race wars etc etc

During the last 5 Prez Election cycles the population spilt on utterly retarded lines such as Gay-marriage, Gender-free toilets etc. All this while the US fought or financed numerous very expensive wars in the Middle East ukraine etc, resulting hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 1:16:15 PM | 43
@26

The 2008 elections had one of the highest ever voter turnout rates for the Democrats and the 2016 elections had one of the lowest ever. The turnout rates (abysmal if ever compared to voter turnout rates in Germany and Japan) easily explain the initial victory and the eventual defeat, not 'Detroit fraud' or 'the millions of illegals' voting in your head. Racial gerrymandering against black voters in the Southern States is a far more real issue.

ben | Aug 17, 2017 1:33:55 PM | 44
somwbody @ 12: Good link thanks..Interesting read about "The Forth Turning"

psycho @ 5: good link also..

WJ @ 27 said:" Advice to Democrats - nominate a candidate beside a senile old neocon woman who is corrupt to her ugly core, and then maybe you can beat a former reality show star."

Yep, so-called "Russian hacking" wasn't the problem, HRC was the problem...

ben | Aug 17, 2017 1:40:34 PM | 45
Just Sayin' @ 41 said:"It should by now be clear to anyone paying attention that while both Bannon & Trump certainly TALK a lot, they seem to actually do very little."

Kinda' waitin' myself to see all those "accomplishments"....

anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 2:01:34 PM | 46
@40

I'll assume this was directed to me.

I understand and respect your point, but I was responding to the initial comment's implicit argument on public opinion: "a common argument is the lower-middle-to-upper-middle-class social base of the Republicans is less receptive to the short term effects of Protectionist policy and this would reduce political morale, as well as grassroots and voting organization. However, the Democrats 'won the popular vote.' So, it's 'obvious' in saying the classless definition of 'the American people' oppose this Republican policy, and naturally, the social base of the Republican Party isn't especially relevant to consider when organizing voters and grassroots movements for a renewed Democratic Party."

To be fair, I think like the early Unionist and Communist circles, and presume public opinion translates to expressions of grassroots politics between conflicting classes (more so than it actually happens in American class society).

Mina | Aug 17, 2017 2:32:30 PM | 47
From Syria with love

https://arabic.rt.com/liveevent/894352-%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AD-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%B6-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%82-%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A-5-%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%A8/

Sad Canuck | Aug 17, 2017 2:52:38 PM | 48
If one proceeds on the assumption that politics in the United States closely follows themes, scripts and production values pioneered by WWF, then all becomes clear. It's simply pro-wrestling on a global scale with nuclear weapons and trillions of dollars in prize money.
james | Aug 17, 2017 2:58:51 PM | 49
@42 just sayin'.. yes to all you say - it is quite sad actually.. not sure of the way out at this point, short of complete rebellion in the streets which looks like a longs ways off at this point..
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 3:12:27 PM | 50
not sure of the way out at this point, short of complete rebellion in the streets which looks like a longs ways off at this point..

Posted by: james | Aug 17, 2017 2:58:51 PM | 49

Most of the younger generation seem to be much to busy, obsessing over non-existent things like "Micro-agressions" or "hetero-normative cis-gender oppression", to pay attention to, let alone acknowledge, the enormous global macro-aggressions their own country is engaged in on a world-wide scale.

Thirdeye | Aug 17, 2017 3:24:12 PM | 52
But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at least claim to have plans to achieve it.
Is there a "don't" missing from that sentence?

I must disagree that DPRK nuclear missiles are a qualitatively similar threat to those possessed by the Soviet Union and China. DPRK's guiding Suche ideology is a literal cult that goes far beyond the cult-of-personality that held sway over the Soviet Union and China when Stalin and Mao ruled. And by the time the Soviets developed delivery capabilities Stalin was dead and his cult was done. By the time the Chinese developed delivery capabilities Mao was declining into figurehead status and Zhou Enlai, who as commander of the PLA realized how weak China really was militarily, had no illusions about what would happen in a military confrontation with the US. But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained with supernatural powers that allowed them to drive the Japanese off the peninsula then fight off an American "invasion." They truly don't mention the role of the Soviets and the Chinese in saving their bacon. In terms of face-saving, the Kims have set the bar pretty high for themselves by fostering their cult. Their legitimacy would be threatened if their statecraft as rational actors undermined their Suche cult.

DPRK have been rogue actors against ROK and Japan out of sheer spitefulness, fully exploiting the umbrella provided by the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Assistance with China. They have done extraterritorial kidnappings and murders not for perceived strategic reasons but merely to intimidate. DPRK has pointedly refused to enter talks for a formal peace between them and the ROK. Those kinds of motives do not bespeak of someone who can be trusted with nukes.

Charles R | Aug 17, 2017 3:39:13 PM | 53
Posted by: RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 12:23:40 PM
Bannon is someone whom I hold quite responsible for contributing to the rise of White Supremacy in the USA, which I consider a clear and present danger. Bannon's dismissive hand waving yesterday is meant to dissemble. Guess some are willing to buy what he was selling yesterday. Not me.

What are your reasons for believing this about Bannon? What counts as contributing, and how did you come to your decision?

It's not that I don't believe you. It's rather important to establish in what way his words (whether the ones you found or the recent ones in American Prospect ) are lies or misdirection, so that I, and anyone interested, can evaluate this for ourselves and come to similar or different conclusions.

stonebird | Aug 17, 2017 3:40:47 PM | 54
I don't think Bannon wants a "trade" war with China but he is right that there is an economic war going on. The "silk roads" and the various new organisations that the Chinese-Russians have set up, (Major Banks, "Swift" equivalent, Glossnass satellites, card payment systems, industrial independence, and food self-sufficiency etc), plus the use of currencies other than the dollar - are all examples of a break-away from a US-EU domination.

However, they have not suddenly introduced everything at once to "bring the US house down". Why? One possible reason could be that they are expecting the US to collapse anyway. Another is that viable alternatives also take time to set up.

b has mentioned the "grown ups" v the Idealogues". The impact of the military on the economic war seems to be underestimated. How much longer can the US afford the more than trillion dollars per year of the "visible" arms? This does not include hidden costs ("Intelligence agencies and pork). Nor does it include costs borne by other countries. ie. Italy has about 80 US bases (the most in the EU) and about 77 nuclear warheads on its soil. Italy PAYS for those bases, and even that does not include infrastucture (roads, increased airport capacity, sewage, water mains, etc) which are paid for by the Italians themselves. Other countries will have similar systems. Some like Kuwait are "paying" back the amounts spent on arms for example.
The total cost is astronomical.

A brief reminder the USSR collapsed because of massive overspending on arms and military projects - leaving the rest of the economy in the lurch. Presumably the Chinese and Russians are expecting the same thing to happen again.

(Aside - yes, you can print dollars as a sovereign state, but printing roubles didn't help the soviets either)
So McMasters and the others are in fact just spoilt brats who think that the good times are forever.
----
One example of the new "bluff-calling" cheaper method of economic warfare (*NK is the another) were the recent NATO/US manoeuvres in Georgia (country) on the anniversary of the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. The number of troops and means involved would have been enough to carry out a "surprise" attack this time too. The Russians - sent in Putin, who declared that the Russians supported S.Ossetia and were ready to deal with any threat - exactly as they did "last" time. Cost? One plane trip.

(*The NK threat by the US would have seen about 40'000 men from S. Korea and Japan sent against about 700'000 motivated local troops and massive artillery arrays. It was a non-starter, even with nukes)

Tom in AZ | Aug 17, 2017 4:03:19 PM | 55
thirdeye @52

You are forgetting to mention the main sticking point to talks is our refusal to halt our annual̶d̶e̶f̶e̶n̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶d̶r̶i̶l̶l̶s̶ invasion practice before they will come to the table. At least from what I read.

Thirdeye | Aug 17, 2017 4:04:22 PM | 56
54

Even with China's international financial position growing more robust with SWIFT independence, AIDB, the New Silk Road and such, they still have an interest in the Dollar-based western financial system as long as they can make money off of it. They are not going to shoot themselves in the foot by deliberately causing it to collapse. They might even prop it up in a crisis, but I suspect they would drive a hard bargain.

@Madderhatter67 | Aug 17, 2017 4:09:49 PM | 57
Thirdeye says, "But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained with supernatural powers." What is American Exceptionalism?


MCMASTER: Says classic deterrence strategy won't work with NK.

"Deterrence is a strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet started, or to prevent them from doing something that another state desires."

Classic deterrence strategy IS working for NK perfectly.

RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 4:31:17 PM | 60
@53 Charles R: fair enough question.

What I base my analysis of Bannon is his leadership at Bretibart which may or may not be continuing right now. Just read Breitbart if you think Bannon isn't fully behind the White Supremacists rising up right now.

somebody | Aug 17, 2017 5:26:37 PM | 64
35
Steve Bannon is a fascist.

exhibit A
Steve Bannon Allies with Catholic Theo-Fascism Against Pope Francis

exhibit B
Steve Bannon shares a fascist's obsession with cleansing, apocalyptic war. And now he's in the White House

exhibit C
Generation Zero - Bannons Film using the theory of the fourth turning

The idea that people (a people) have to suffer a big war in order to cleanse themselves from moral depravity is fascism pure and simple as who should force people to do this but a dictator.

Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:15:08 PM | 67
All one has to do to know what Bannon's position on Iran is to read Breitbart on any given day. Unless we are supposed to believe that Bannon's opinions are not reflected by the website he ran for four years. Bannon is for war against Islam in general, there is nothing "realist" about his foreign policy.
Thirdeye | Aug 17, 2017 6:15:20 PM | 68
55 Tom in AZ

That's a different issue from entering talks for a formal peace with with ROK. DPRK has been refusing that for years. Did you ever consider that DPRK's constant saber rattling against ROK was what lent impetus to US exercises in the region in the first place? The US knows that China would not tolerate a US invasion of DPRK. Why take the risk of invading across great defensive terrain when you can simply destroy?

57 Madhatter67

Thirdeye says, "But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained with supernatural powers." What is American Exceptionalism?

That's a dumb analogy and a pathetic attempt at deflection. Criticize American Exceptionalism all you want, but don't compare it to a supernaturalist cult. That's just stupid.

DPRK has a history of doing whatever they think they can get away with, exploiting their treaty with China. If their delusional Suche ideology leads them to miscalculate or paints them into a corner trying to prop it up, it could lead to war.

If there's any bright spot in the whole picture it's China's chilly stance towards DPRK after recent events. The excesses of DPRK's ruling cult have occurred largely because they figured China had their back. But China's regional interests have changed dramatically over the past 30 years. ROK is no longer a competitive threat to China and is economically more important to China than DPRK ever was. DPRK's military power is of much less benefit to China than it was in the past. It might even be considered a liability.

61 Stonebird

It wouldn't be cash, it would be be assets and/or the means of controlling them. Big Chinese money is already coming into the west coast of the US and Canada. Oh well, we fucked things up here; maybe the Chinese will do a better job.

Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:20:48 PM | 69
@10, this article was written while Bannon was heading Breitbart, bragging about being "conceived in Israel." http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/11/17/breitbart-news-network-born-in-the-usa-conceived-in-israel/

Bannon is against the nuclear deal, and is one of the top people in the administration arguing for Trump to move the Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Bannon has been cited as promoting Sheldon Adelson's Israel policy in meetings with Trump. http://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-abbas-lauder-hawkish-adelson-battling-to-influence-trump-on-mideast/ If anything Bannon/Breitbart push an even harder line on Israel than most politicians and media do.

blues | Aug 17, 2017 6:27:33 PM | 70
First of all, I will now declare that I am 99% confused! So please let me review the 1% that comes through my little keyhole. What has been said?

/~~~~~~~~~~
<< = Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 11:01:18 AM | 30

Anyone with any intelligence would be wise to treat with great caution anything Bannon claims in public interviews about himself or his alleged political beliefs,
\~~~~~~~~~~

Well sure! The guy's a political operative -- One does not get to be a political operative by being some kind of a Dudly Do-Right. Damn.

/~~~~~~~~~~
<< = les7 | Aug 17, 2017 12:27:02 PM | 35

@12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers... but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they [the corporate sector] are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist.
\~~~~~~~~~~

Well since we can't believe anything from Bannon... And aside from that I am sick of hearing Mussolini's definition of fascism -- After all, he was a psycho-villain -- so why believe it?!

UNTIL WE HAVE STRATEGIC HEDGE SIMPLE SCORE VOTING WE WILL BE SADDLED WITH THE TWO-PARTY "SYSTEM" (really only one party). Who cares if we really have no choice whatsoever. We are held hostage to the false alternatives of the vast legion of the election methods cognoscenti.

See my simple solution soon at Global Mutiny!

Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:30:54 PM | 71
@31, "except for the Zion-flavored warmongering." I don't know about you but completely disqualifies him in my view.
Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:34:43 PM | 72
@35, please refer to post 69. If Bannon was not a Zionist, he would not have ran a site which brags of being conceived in Israel and which pushes a harder line on Israel than almost any other, and he would not be promoting Adelson's Israel policy within the administration.
Curtis | Aug 17, 2017 7:03:10 PM | 73
Bannon makes sense. That must be why many want him gone especially the neocons. As to North Korea, the US should have admitted "facts on the ground" long ago and worked to sign the official end of the war and work to get the two Koreas talking and working together.
anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 7:41:46 PM | 74
"That's a different issue from entering talks for a formal peace with with ROK. DPRK has been refusing that for years."

I doubt any substantial transcripts from early talks will ever be released, so whoever had diplomats offering the 'fairest' compromises for terms of an early framework (resulting in a later settlement) cannot be known (regarding specifics).

If I remember correctly, there has been at least three Chinese-sponsored peace conferences (on Korea) since 2007, where the general position of the U.S. was: North Korea had to freeze total nuclear production, accept existing and additional (U.N.) verification missions, and dismantle all warheads PRIOR to the signing of any peace treaty. How is demanding unconditional surrender not intransigence? Are we going to just pretend the United States hadn't sponsored military coups in Venezuela and Honduras and hadn't invaded Iraq and Libya (in a similar time frame)?

During peace talks, any terms are argued, refused, and eventually compromised (usually over years and sometimes over decades). Why presume the United States and South Korea had the fairest offers and general settlements in a handful of conferences (especially when we have no transcripts)?

"Did you ever consider that DPRK's constant saber rattling against ROK was what lent impetus to US exercises in the region in the first place?"

You're presuming your case and not giving specific information on what you might know.

Personally, I don't know who 'started it' (I would guess Japan 'started it' by forcing through the Protectorate Treaty of 1905, or the United States 'started it' by forcing through the Amity and Commerce Treaty of 1858), but if North Korea isn't testing missiles near Guam and the United States isn't flying specific planes over South Korea, a compromise WAS made this last week, and more can be made to ensure peace.

Why do any Americans oppose this?

[Aug 16, 2017] Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars Defend Democracy Press by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran. ..."
"... Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false. ..."
"... But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours. ..."
"... Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible. ..."
"... "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
"... The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a dιtente between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored. ..."
5 August 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

The original source of this article is Consortiumnews Copyright © Robert Parry , Consortiumnews , 2017

A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance. Part of the reason for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.

Since the neocons' emergence as big-time foreign policy players in the Reagan administration , they also have demonstrated extraordinary resilience, receiving a steady flow of money often through U.S. government-funded grants from organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and through donations from military contractors to hawkish neocon think tanks .

But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting the Left's disgust with President Trump

People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more difficult.

The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties, passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.

The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.

In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a dιtente with Russia and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on the table just where the neocons want it.

The Putin Obstacle

As for Russia, the neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since 2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military strike over dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.

Subsequent evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.

While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to shatter the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.

Many neocons are, in effect, America's Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran's regional allies, i.e., Syria's secular government of Bashar al-Assad

Read also: JFK at 100

For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.

Punishing Russia

It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia.

Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain , delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.

When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move as a "Russian invasion." Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin's assistance to these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became "Russian aggression."

Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.

But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.

Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.

Successful Propaganda

As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded.

Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.

Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has said ,

"Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press."

Read also: The future of Sanders' political movement

But all these successes in the neocons' "perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.

Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame Russia.

The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace.

So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , to come up with an assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.

'Hand-Picked' Analysts

According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.

Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney

The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point about Washington groupthink.

"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.

Lost Logic

But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government.

Read also: Now, only CIA and the military do not lie in USA! But, alone, can they stop the Coup and the War?

Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:

"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election has been outrageous."

However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents. Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.

Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush 's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.

But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers at CNN and other cable outlets.

Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars.

There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear war, more likely.

In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani , "We told you so" that the U.S. government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with the nuclear agreement.

And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from his own hardliners who view him as naοve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.

Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a dιtente between Washington and Moscow.

In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Aug 15, 2017] Israel's Chorus Sings Again

Aug 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

Tillerson has long been a target of the American-Jewish media because of the perception that oil company executives are traditionally not friendly to Israel. There have also been claims that he is "less hard" on Iran than the Israel Lobby would like. But what Tillerson is really experiencing is the hard truth regarding Israel: that its Lobby and friends in congress are both unrelenting and unforgiving. Even when they get 90% of the pie they are furious over someone else getting 10%.

Donald Trump's National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has also been under siege for the past several weeks and his "loyalty" to Israel is now under the microscope. McMaster made the mistake of firing three National Security Council officials that were brought in by his predecessor Michael Flynn. The three – Ezra Cohen-Watnick, Rich Higgins, and Derek Harvey – are all regarded by the Israel Lobby as passionately pro-Israel and virulently anti-Iran. It was therefore inevitable that McMaster would take some heat, but the "speed and intensity" of the attacks has surprised even The Atlantic , which failed to note in its thorough examination of the development that while much of the anger flows from extreme right-wing sources there is also considerable pressure coming directly from friends of Israel.

It is interesting to note just how and by whom the argument against McMaster is being framed. Caroline Glick, an American-born Israeli journalist who might reasonably be described as extreme right wing, has led the charge in a posting that described McMaster as "deeply hostile to Israel." She cites anonymous sources to claim that he refers to Israel as an occupying power and also has the audacity to claim that there once existed a place called Palestine. Oh, and he apparently also supports the nuclear agreement with Iran, as does Tillerson.

McMaster's other crimes consist of allegedly altering the agenda of Donald Trump's recent trip to Israel in ways that are somewhat arcane but which no doubt contributed to Glick's sense of grievance. What is most interesting, however, is the unstated premise supporting Glick's point of view, which is that the United States national security team should be subject to approval by Israel. Her view is not dissimilar to what lies behind the attacks on Tillerson and the real irony is that neither Tillerson nor McMaster has actually demonstrated any genuine animosity towards Israel, so the whole process is part of a perverse mindset that inevitably sees nearly everything as a threat.

We Americans are way beyond the point where we might simply demand that Israel and its partisans butt out of our politics. Israel-firsters are literally deeply embedded everywhere in the media, in politics at all levels, in academia, and in the professions. They are well funded and highly disciplined to respond to any threats to their hegemony. Their policy is to never give an inch on anything relating to Israel and their relentless grinding is characteristic of how they behave. The Israel Lobby controls Congress and can literally get any bill it wants through the legislature. And it also has its hooks in the White House, though the unpredictable Trump obviously makes many American Zionists nervous because it is rightly believed that once the president takes a position on anything he cannot be trusted either to understand what he has committed to or to stick with it subsequently.

So what is to be done? To match the passion of the Israel Lobby we Americans have to become passionate ourselves. Do what they do but in reverse. Write letters to congressmen and newspapers opposing the junkets to Israel. When a congress critter has a town hall, show up and complain about our involvement in the Middle East. Keep mentioning the pocket book issues, i.e. how Israel costs the taxpayer $9 million a day. Explain how its behavior puts our diplomats and soldiers overseas in danger. The reality is that Israel is built on a lot of lies promoted by people who frequently cite the holocaust every time they turn around but who have no actual regard for humanity outside their own tribe. The hypocrisy must stop if the United States is to survive as a nation. Pandering to Israel and engaging in constant wars to directly or indirectly defend it, be they against Iran or in Syria, will wear our country down and erode our freedoms. We are already on a slippery slope and it is past time to put our own interests first.So what is to be done? To match the passion of the Israel Lobby we Americans have to become passionate ourselves. Do what they do but in reverse. Write letters to congressmen and newspapers opposing the junkets to Israel. When a congress critter has a town hall, show up and complain about our involvement in the Middle East. Keep mentioning the pocket book issues, i.e. how Israel costs the taxpayer $9 million a day. Explain how its behavior puts our diplomats and soldiers overseas in danger. The reality is that Israel is built on a lot of lies promoted by people who frequently cite the holocaust every time they turn around but who have no actual regard for humanity outside their own tribe.

The hypocrisy must stop if the United States is to survive as a nation. Pandering to Israel and engaging in constant wars to directly or indirectly defend it, be they against Iran or in Syria, will wear our country down and erode our freedoms. We are already on a slippery slope and it is past time to put our own interests first.So what is to be done? To match the passion of the Israel Lobby we Americans have to become passionate ourselves. Do what they do but in reverse. Write letters to congressmen and newspapers opposing the junkets to Israel. When a congress critter has a town hall, show up and complain about our involvement in the Middle East. Keep mentioning the pocket book issues, i.e. how Israel costs the taxpayer $9 million a day. Explain how its behavior puts our diplomats and soldiers overseas in danger. The reality is that Israel is built on a lot of lies promoted by people who frequently cite the holocaust every time they turn around but who have no actual regard for humanity outside their own tribe. The hypocrisy must stop if the United States is to survive as a nation. Pandering to Israel and engaging in constant wars to directly or indirectly defend it, be they against Iran or in Syria, will wear our country down and erode our freedoms. We are already on a slippery slope and it is past time to put our own interests first.

[Aug 14, 2017] Slouching Toward Mar-a-Lago

Notable quotes:
"... Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to bemoan the injustice of it all). ..."
"... Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his promise of salvation -- an America made "great again" -- is not going to materialize. ..."
"... Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves. To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump is not cause, but consequence. ..."
"... the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid. ..."
"... "Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century Everyman , pondered that question. ..."
"... Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness: these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the 1990s -- plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution," gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability. ..."
"... The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our 42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing so, however, it greatly exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working class and underclass. ..."
"... I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran, Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another. As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion. ..."
"... Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the same people that Obama had to hate. ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

If we have, as innumerable commentators assert, embarked upon the Age of Trump, the defining feature of that age might well be the single-minded determination of those horrified and intent on ensuring its prompt termination. In 2016, TIME magazine chose Trump as its person of the year . In 2017, when it comes to dominating the news, that "person" might turn out to be a group -- all those fixated on cleansing the White House of Trump's defiling presence.

Egged on and abetted in every way by Trump himself, the anti-Trump resistance has made itself the Big Story. Lies, hate, collusion, conspiracy, fascism: rarely has the everyday vocabulary of American politics been as ominous and forbidding as over the past six months. Take resistance rhetoric at face value and you might conclude that Donald Trump is indeed the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse , his presence in the presidential saddle eclipsing all other concerns. Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death will just have to wait.

The unspoken assumption of those most determined to banish him from public life appears to be this: once he's gone, history will be returned to its intended path, humankind will breathe a collective sigh of relief, and all will be well again. Yet such an assumption strikes me as remarkably wrongheaded -- and not merely because, should Trump prematurely depart from office, Mike Pence will succeed him. Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to bemoan the injustice of it all).

Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his promise of salvation -- an America made "great again" -- is not going to materialize.

Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves. To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump is not cause, but consequence.

For too long, the cult of the presidency has provided an excuse for treating politics as a melodrama staged at four-year intervals and centering on hopes of another Roosevelt or Kennedy or Reagan appearing as the agent of American deliverance. Donald Trump's ascent to the office once inhabited by those worthies should demolish such fantasies once and for all.

How is it that someone like Trump could become president in the first place? Blame sexism, Fox News, James Comey, Russian meddling, and Hillary's failure to visit Wisconsin all you want, but a more fundamental explanation is this: the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid.

Rabbit Poses a Question

"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century Everyman , pondered that question. In short order, Rabbit got his answer. So, too, after only perfunctory consultation, did his fellow citizens.

The passing of the Cold War offered cause for celebration. On that point all agreed. Yet, as it turned out, it did not require reflection from the public at large. Policy elites professed to have matters well in hand. The dawning era, they believed, summoned Americans not to think anew, but to keep doing precisely what they were accustomed to doing, albeit without fretting further about Communist takeovers or the risks of nuclear Armageddon. In a world where a " single superpower " was calling the shots, utopia was right around the corner. All that was needed was for the United States to demonstrate the requisite confidence and resolve.

Three specific propositions made up the elite consensus that coalesced during the initial decade of the post-Cold-War era. According to the first, the globalization of corporate capitalism held the key to wealth creation on a hitherto unimaginable scale. According to the second, jettisoning norms derived from Judeo-Christian religious traditions held the key to the further expansion of personal freedom. According to the third, muscular global leadership exercised by the United States held the key to promoting a stable and humane international order.

Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness: these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the 1990s -- plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution," gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability.

The Cold War itself had fostered notable improvements in computational speed and capacity, new modes of communication, and techniques for storing, accessing, and manipulating information. Yet, however impressive, such developments remained subsidiary to the larger East-West competition. Only as the Cold War receded did they move from background to forefront. For true believers, information technology came to serve a quasi-theological function, promising answers to life's ultimate questions. Although God might be dead, Americans found in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs nerdy but compelling idols.

More immediately, in the eyes of the policy elite, the information revolution meshed with and reinforced the policy consensus. For those focused on the political economy, it greased the wheels of globalized capitalism, creating vast new opportunities for trade and investment. For those looking to shed constraints on personal freedom, information promised empowerment, making identity itself something to choose, discard, or modify. For members of the national security apparatus, the information revolution seemed certain to endow the United States with seemingly unassailable military capabilities. That these various enhancements would combine to improve the human condition was taken for granted; that they would, in due course, align everybody -- from Afghans to Zimbabweans -- with American values and the American way of life seemed more or less inevitable.

The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our 42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing so, however, it greatly exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working class and underclass.

The emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism improved the status of groups long subjected to discrimination. Yet these advances have done remarkably little to reduce the alienation and despair pervading a society suffering from epidemics of chronic substance abuse , morbid obesity , teen suicide , and similar afflictions. Throw in the world's highest incarceration rate , a seemingly endless appetite for porn , urban school systems mired in permanent crisis, and mass shootings that occur with metronomic regularity, and what you have is something other than the profile of a healthy society.

As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors meeting richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama. Yet it has also embroiled the United States in a series of costly, senseless, unsuccessful, and ultimately counterproductive wars. As for the vaunted information revolution, its impact has been ambiguous at best, even if those with eyeballs glued to their personal electronic devices can't tolerate being offline long enough to assess the actual costs of being perpetually connected.

In November 2016, Americans who consider themselves ill served by the post-Cold-War consensus signaled that they had had enough. Voters not persuaded that neoliberal economic policies, a culture taking its motto from the Outback steakhouse chain, and a national security strategy that employs the U.S. military as a global police force were working to their benefit provided a crucial margin in the election of Donald Trump.

The response of the political establishment to this extraordinary repudiation testifies to the extent of its bankruptcy. The Republican Party still clings to the notion that reducing taxes, cutting government red tape, restricting abortion, curbing immigration, prohibiting flag-burning, and increasing military spending will alleviate all that ails the country. Meanwhile, to judge by the promises contained in their recently unveiled (and instantly forgotten ) program for a "Better Deal," Democrats believe that raising the minimum wage, capping the cost of prescription drugs, and creating apprenticeship programs for the unemployed will return their party to the good graces of the American electorate.

In both parties embarrassingly small-bore thinking prevails, with Republicans and Democrats equally bereft of fresh ideas. Each party is led by aging hacks. Neither has devised an antidote to the crisis in American politics signified by the nomination and election of Donald Trump.

While our emperor tweets, Rome itself fiddles.

... ... ...

Robert Magill > , August 8, 2017 at 5:06 pm GMT

First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of the circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American politics.

The November numbers indicate that for the time being without the Electoral College, California and New York will elect our President well into the future.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

Priss Factor > , Website August 8, 2017 at 5:17 pm GMT

If Bacevich had really balls, he would cut to the chase and say it like it is.

I think Trump the person doesn't want trouble with Iran, Syria, and Russia. He's a businessman who wants to do business with the world while protecting US borders and sovereignty. Trump is anti-Iran because of Jewish Lobby. His peace with Russia was destroyed by the Lobby and its purse-strings and puppet-strings.

The undeniable fact of the US is it's not a democracy in terms of real power. It is a Jewish Supremacist Oligarchy. To be sure, there are Jewish critics of Jewish power. Think of Philip Weiss and others. Technically, US still has rule of law and due process. But in the end, the Power decides. Look at the anti-BDS bill supported even by Republicans who make a big stink about liberty and free speech.

California is said to be uber-'progressive', and many grassroots people there are supportive of BDS. But California elites and whore politicians are anti-BDS and even passed laws against it. What does that tell you?

Rule of Law is for little people. The Power has Rule of Rule. And if American People, along with their politicians, seem to schizo, well, what does one expect? They get their info from J-Media that feed that lies 24/7.

What is often called 'American' is processed mindset, like yellow American singles is bogus processed 'cheese food'. Because handful of industries control all the media that beam same signals to over 300 million TV sets in the US, 'Americanism' is processed mind-food. We need more organic minds. Too many minds have been processed and re-processed by Great Mind Grinder of J-Media.

The Scalpel > , Website August 9, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT

AB's 10 recommendations remind me of the beauty pageant contestant answering the question about what she intended to do ."promote world peace".

Actually the beauty queen is being more sincere and realistic. AB's points are very nice sounding, but he gives us no idea how realistically, he or anyone could achieve them and we are left with the feeling that he is just grandstanding. Like the beauty queen, he knows that he will never do much of anything concrete to further these goals, not even if his life or his son' life, depended on it.

DYiFC > , August 10, 2017 at 10:04 am GMT

Well said. I agree – Trump is a symptom of the underlying problems in this country.

Stogumber > , August 12, 2017 at 5:49 am GMT

"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?"

Well, Updike speaks from the position of a "universalist"? Did he ever consider that being an American may not mean standing up for universal ideas, but simply caring for one's own children and grandchildren? But even from a universalist position the answer seems simple now – not for Bacevich, but for me. The United States are singled out and unique w.r.t. their First Amendment. Whereas all other Western countries have succumbed to Bolshevist propaganda and have undermined freedom of speech, the "Americans" are the only ones to stand up for it. Why, even Damore may win a lawsuit against Google.

Carlton Meyer > , Website August 14, 2017 at 4:50 am GMT

Whoops Colonel, you forgot to add slashing military spending to your list. The USA could cut its military budget in half and still spend more than Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China combined. Trump's insane push for more military spending undermines his effort at cutting domestic programs to balance the budget. Yet Jimmy Dore explains that most Democrats voted boost the military budget even more than Trump!

It is unfair to depict Trump as a bumpkin. He graduated from an excellent university and used a few million dollars from Dad's seed money to become a billionaire. Moreover, he defied all odds to become President of the USA. I challenge all his brilliant critics to run for President in 2020 to prove that is simple.

LarryS > , August 14, 2017 at 4:59 am GMT

@Robert Magill The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College by 3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate their role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 14, 2017 at 7:05 am GMT

As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors meeting richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama.

Goodbye Saddam?? The implication being that all the death and destruction was somehow worth it?? You scum, of the most evil *beep* nation on earth! A pox on all of you.

The Alarmist > , August 14, 2017 at 8:07 am GMT

"First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of the circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American politics."

Yeah, let's trade the consensus of a nation of local communities for the tyranny of the (bi-coastal) majority. I might give up the EC, however, if the system was replaced by gladiatorial combat to the death for all who want the job, or, if we're sticking to a two-party system, the decision can come by pistols at dawn (Good Morning America can't get the nod I hate that Roker chap, and I don't think Megan Kelly should be anywhere near selection of a President). Real skin in the game, so to say.

Yeah, bring back the draft. Military service only. We won't end senseless wars unless many more of our young people actually experience them, and that's not going to happen if they are picking up litter or emptying bed pans.

More money for public education? We've been doing that for years dude, and we get worse results as we spend more. There's already too much money in public education. College for all is a mistake, and in gen snowflake, tell me who isn't deserving. How about serious testing for results and beating for those who do not achieve them?

Income equality sounds nice, but it's never been had anywhere by taxation. It takes a certain societal moderation and modesty requiring our ruling elites to not want to be so conspicuous in their consumption (this in the age of the Rich Kids of Instagram) and to share the wealth through employment and good wages to their fellow citizens. Good luck with that ever gracing our shores.

Stop yakking about the pseudoscience nay the religion of climate change. Plant some more trees and take a couple aspirin. Add the costs of global wars for resources to the cost of gas, which will spike it to $6 per gallon and dissuade a lot of unnecessary driving.

Require all candidates for Federal elective office to be physically neutered, and forbid any of their progeny for at least three generations as well as any immediate relations closer than fourth cousin from holding any position of honor, elective office, or Federal employment whatsoever.

Priss Factor > , Website August 14, 2017 at 9:20 am GMT

Trump or no Trump, things would be much saner without Jewish globalist pressure.

I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran, Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another. As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion.

Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the same people that Obama had to hate.

In the US, politicians must hate according to Jewish neurosis. And that's the problem. We don't have autonomy of likes and dislikes. Like dogs, we have to like or hate what our master likes or hates. And Jewish Globalists are elites. The great evil of America is we are forced to HATE whatever Jewish globalists Hate. It is a culture of Hate. Ironically, the biggest haters accuse others of hate.

Priss Factor > , Website August 14, 2017 at 9:49 am GMT

Jeff & Gerald Celente – The Trump Presidential Freak Show

Priss Factor > , Website August 14, 2017 at 10:25 am GMT

Stephen Cohen on why we need close cooperation with Russia.

A new kind of terrorism in aftermath of state collapse in Middle East.

But it seems new sanctions will totally derail any sane policy.

Reactionary Utopian > , August 14, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT

Most of Mr. Bacevich's piece was quite good. Then we got to the Ten-Point Program. A bold, revolutionary program calling for more of how we got here. What the hell?

Wizard of Oz > , August 14, 2017 at 12:10 pm GMT

@LarryS The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College by 3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate their role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning. Yes, it is interesting how smaller states in federations show that they understand and will hold on to their leverage even when , as in Australia, the people themselves vote on constitutional change.

But why would eliminating the Electoral College allow presidentlal elections to be decided by the popular vote in California and NY as someone suggested? Aren't the number of electoral college votes adjusted quite promptly in proportion to population changes?

Wizard of Oz > , August 14, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT

Here's an anti Imperial Presidency policy for the author to consider and perhaps endorse .

1. Move towards the constitutiobal monarchy or limited presidency parliamentary model by strengthening the H of R and relying on ordinary human ambition to forward the project;

2. Specifically extend Congressional terms from 2 years to 4 (and perhaps provide lots of public financing and free publicity to diminish thevcorruption by donors)

3. Enhance the role of Majority leader – indeed facilitate his forming his own Cabinet – and restrict the amending of budget bills submitted (as the main ones would have to be) by the leader of the majority – or his nominated Finance spokesperson..

Wizard of Oz > , August 14, 2017 at 12:44 pm GMT

@The Alarmist Aren't the votes in the Electoral College quite promptly adjusted for population changes?

The Alarmist > , August 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz To some extent, but since each state has at least one Representative and two Senators, there is a bias toward political geography that is difficult to overcome by population. This is a good thing.

The Alarmist > , August 14, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Sorry, should have connected the dots each state's Electors total the same as their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435.

bliss_porsena > , August 14, 2017 at 1:57 pm GMT

Eleven: write more articles with never-can-be-done lists until the whole aberrant construct cracks wide open.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 14, 2017 at 2:14 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Only with respect to the EC votes corresponding to the number of House Representatives. From Wikipedia:

"Each state chooses electors, totaling in number to that state's combined total of senators and representatives."

Each state – irrespective of population – has two senators, so this protects citizens of less populous states from those in, e.g., California. Part of the Constitutional bargain that makes for a republic as opposed to a national democracy.

Were you sincerely unaware of this?

Wizard of Oz > , August 14, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

@The Alarmist Sorry, should have connected the dots ... each state's Electors total the same as their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435. Yes, the effect of adding in the senators is substantial. The two biggest (Democrat) states add just 4 out of 543 to their basic Congressional weighting while the 48 other states add 96/543. Thus 17.6 per cent against just an extra 0.7 per cent.
Not even Texas would think of supporting the abolition of the Electoral College. A pity yhe excellent author should be so sloppy as not at least to acknowledge which items on his wish list are pure fantasy.

Logan > , August 14, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT

"Nominally, the Constitution assigns responsibilities and allocates prerogatives to three co-equal branches of government."

Oh, dear, I do get tired of this meme.

No, the Constitution does not create "three co-equal branches of government," no matter how often the phrase is repeated.

The Constitution establishes a legislative branch that, whenever it is sufficiently united and desirous, has absolute power over the other two branches.

The Congress can remove any member of the other two branches from office, among other powers, but the countervailing power of the other two branches over Congress, at least per the Constitution, is very limited indeed.

In most republics and constitutional monarchies, the executive branch has a number of ways to influence the legisilature, including calling new elections when desired. Our Constitution has none of that.

Under the Constitution, the Congress is not co-equal. Its supreme.

Logan > , August 14, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT

@gustafus " as we import more and more of the LOW IQ 3rd world – education will be more about the reasons we don't boink our children siblings and cousins"

Nahh, that would be imposing our Eurocentric values on their vibrant cultures.

Wizard of Oz > , August 14, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT

@Joe Franklin That sounds like another valid reason to stick with the EC.

Wizard of Oz > , August 14, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT

@Logan And that's why it's ownership by the donors is so destructive.

Jus' Sayin'... > , August 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm GMT

@Robert Magill Any citizen of the USA and/or student of its history who writes in the same essay both that he is a conservative and that he favors abolishing the Electoral College is either a fool, an unprincipled knave, or most likely both.

Olorin > , August 14, 2017 at 4:36 pm GMT

@Robert Magill I came in to make the same point and will add that it would be effectively only two metropolitan areas–LA and NYC.

Whoever would control those cities politically would control the nation politically, economically, and socially the way Chicago's elites control much of Wisconsin (to use an example recently discussed at iSteve).

The republic would be ripe for division into two coastal demesnes vying with each other for power, resources, and serfs (both in the coastal hives and the "flyover states").

What is undermining the legitimacy of American politics isn't the United States Constitution. It is the countless billions of dollars spend on election campaigning each year. That includes all corollary expenditures, as on media buys and polling.

Not the kind of polling that involves voting. The kind of polling that Nate Silver does.

Election campaigns engineer infiltration of the public culture at every level–federal, state, county, municipal, and local–by divisive discourse and methods. These originally were developed so that merchants could differentiate and sell to the masses soap and junk food brands. Not even the commodities themselves–but brands of them.

Political campaigning rolls up the worst elements of advertising, PR, propaganda, and opinion research into one unending tsunami of hostility, division, manufactured conflict, false equivalencies, forced choices, and sneering tearing-down of what others believe, want, or have built.

The people who create political campaigns for a living–with all the corollary products that go with that, including the candidate himself/herself–are, like the people who communicate those, among the biggest parasites in the republic. They literally create positions, opinions, and ideas, then go out and create the demand for them by whatever means it takes. They produce nothing of value. They siphon off value and resources and set the conditions where by organic excellence is drowned in a sea of mass communications.

If the Electoral College were demolished tomorrow, they would have even more unfettered access to more billions of dollars as Candidate Cool Ranch Dorito vied for an influential and lucrative sinecure with Candidate Salty Crunchy Triangular Fried Corn Thing.

And thanks to Citizens United, money is free speech, and free speech means carefully selected, constructed, massaged, spun, and polled speech.

Keeping the campaign-media-finance industrial complex operating is all that matters to these people. Sounds like Bacevich is one of them. Members of the Pontificating Caste usually are. The Constitution is a barrier to their aspirations.

As it was designed to be.

Linda Green > , August 14, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT

The author did a decent job of describing the zeitgeist. But his list of 10 big government solutions is a riot! The solution is a return to human liberty and acceptance of the reality that all politics that matter to people is local. But our owners don't like local, they like global, they like universal, they claim to be supporters of diversity but their diversity if they have their way looks exactly the same everywhere you go – wow, how diverse. You can be in any major metropolitan area in the US these days and you find it has the same chain store signage dominating the landscape, the same stories in the newspapers, the same ideological megaphones spouting (((their))) doctrines to the masses, the same conformity of expressed opinions (don't say what you really think if you want to keep your job at xyz corp), the same. And unbeknownst to most Americans who are quick to thank servicemen for "their service", their actual service is that when are elites have finally won the entire world will be indistinguishable like US metropolitan areas are today. There is not a big government solution to these issues, big xxx is the problem. The real question at least in my mind is if our owners would allow pockets of American style, liberty based pockets to emerge?

If we could find responsible enough men to do it, we could take back monetary sovereignty from the federal reserve and start a Bank of America. We have our politicians beginning to sell off the commons (highways for example) to investors. We can fund that by letting some money creation occur by being earned into existence rather than loaned into existence. This is explicitly disallowed in the FEDs charter, and it is not for certain we can find men responsible enough to handle this task without problems nor is it certain that global finance would not retaliate. But we have a lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading and maintenance. This would allow some level of exodus from the metros back to Mayberry if there were jobs. We need a small effective government that has a long term plan of how we are going to maintain our infrastructure. Presently the elected children in Washington, short sighted immature bunch they are, put construction money for bridges in the back of bills recognizing a particular day as "insert bullshit day here day" to make their fellow child go along with the pork they put is some other garbage bill. This is an awful way to run a country and the chickens have come home and are roosting. Let the metros continue their present course of forced conformity via peer shaming and propaganda.

Flavius > , August 14, 2017 at 5:44 pm GMT

Alarm bells going off in the night? How about Bill Clinton? Robert Dole? Al Gore? George W Bush? How about the stupendously unqualified mirage of Presidential gravitas, Barrack Obama? his opponents, the snarling ignoramus from Arizona, John McCain? the leaden corporatist Mitt Romney. Perhaps we are to understand these names that the Colonel leaves unmentioned as constituting the "slouching:" But the reason we have arrived at Mar-a-Lago is that the terminally corrupt Democratic Party chose as their candidate the terminally corrupt, stupendously unqualified former President's wife. The foresight of our founding Father's saved us from that miserable fate, thank you US Constitution.
But lest we become too nostalgic for a time when our co-equal legislative branch had members who could assert themselves against the stooge of the moment who the people had installed in the White House, let us take a moment to ponder the stupendous stupidity of our current body that just recently, with near unanimity, chose to lump Russia in with Iran and North Korea on its sanctions bill while producing no evidence of any kind to justify its measure.

Alden > , August 14, 2017 at 5:46 pm GMT

@Joe Franklin Vote fraud is not necessary in California. I'm the only person I know who votes Republican.

Logan > , August 14, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Quite right. Though the whole thing started when the "real" job of the congressman became re-election. Once that was internalized, the rest was pretty much inevitable. As long as the government is heavily involved with businesses, determining not only their profit rate but perhaps whether they even survive, they will continue efforts to influence government decisions. Limiting contribution's primary effect, I suspect, would be to drive the influence-buying underground.

The solution, of course, is to get the government out of business and indeed everything else to the extent possible.

[Aug 14, 2017] MoA - Hyping North Korea To Relaunch Reagan's Star Wars

Notable quotes:
"... The Trump administration, the Pentagon and weapon salesmen will of course use the occasion to further their aims. ..."
"... implicating Russia, however farfetched, is always good if one wants to sell more weapons. ..."
"... One Pentagon hobby horse is the THAAD medium range missile defense systems that will now be stationed in South Korea. This even as it is incapable to defend South Korea from short range North Korean missiles. It is obviously targeted at China. ..."
"... The Reagan wannabe currently ruling in the White House may soon revive Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative , aka "Star Wars", which was first launched in 1984. SDI was the expensive but unrealistic dream of lasers in space and other such gimmicks. Within the SDI the U.S. military threw out hundreds of billions for a Global Ballistic Missile Defense which supposedly would defend the continental U.S. from any incoming intercontinental missile. The program was buried in the early 1990s. One son of Star Wars survived. It is the National Missile Defense with 40 interceptors in Alaska and California. It has never worked well and likely never will. If NMD would function as promised there would be no reason to fear any North Korean ICBMs. Missile defense is largely a fraud to transfers billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to various weapon producing conglomerates. ..."
"... Something is wrong with the North Korea story. According to the NY Times (Zerohedge Aug 14) the rocket engines the DPRK is using on their ICBMs come from a factory in the Ukraine. The Ukraine is a U.S. client state. It seems inconceivable that the CIA would not know to whom this factory sells its engines. ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

... .. ...

The claim that the U.S. intelligence agencies are exaggeration North Korean capabilities is likely false. But it is also reasonable. The Trump administration, the Pentagon and weapon salesmen will of course use the occasion to further their aims.

One missile defense marketing pundit claimed today that the North Korean missile engines used in the recent tests were bought from factories in Ukraine or Russia. The usual propagandist at the New York Times picked up on that to further their anti-Russian theme:

Mr. Elleman was unable to rule out the possibility that a large Russian missile enterprise, Energomash, which has strong ties to the Ukrainian complex, had a role in the transfer of the RD-250 engine technology to North Korea. He said leftover RD-250 engines might also be stored in Russian warehouses.

But the engines in question are of different size and thrust than the alleged R-250 engines and the claimed time-frame does not fit at all. The Ukrainian government denied any transfer of missiles or designs. The story was debunked with in hours by two prominent experts . But implicating Russia, however farfetched, is always good if one wants to sell more weapons.

One Pentagon hobby horse is the THAAD medium range missile defense systems that will now be stationed in South Korea. This even as it is incapable to defend South Korea from short range North Korean missiles. It is obviously targeted at China.

The Reagan wannabe currently ruling in the White House may soon revive Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative , aka "Star Wars", which was first launched in 1984. SDI was the expensive but unrealistic dream of lasers in space and other such gimmicks. Within the SDI the U.S. military threw out hundreds of billions for a Global Ballistic Missile Defense which supposedly would defend the continental U.S. from any incoming intercontinental missile. The program was buried in the early 1990s. One son of Star Wars survived. It is the National Missile Defense with 40 interceptors in Alaska and California. It has never worked well and likely never will. If NMD would function as promised there would be no reason to fear any North Korean ICBMs. Missile defense is largely a fraud to transfers billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to various weapon producing conglomerates.

I expect that the North Korean "threat" will soon be used to launch "SDI - The Sequel", another attempt to militarize space with billions thrown into futuristic but useless "defense" projects. It will soothe the Pentagon's grief over the success North Korea had despite decades of U.S. attempts to subjugate that state.

Posted by b on August 14, 2017 at 01:51 PM | Permalink

james | Aug 14, 2017 2:19:56 PM | 1

thanks b... regarding mcmasters words - "A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people?" how does this get supported? what is the evidence for it? it is the same mantra dished up regularly where ever the usa is - which is just about everywhere militarily..
Eugene | Aug 14, 2017 2:26:51 PM | 2
Now if this were to go viral. . . . . . which of course, it wont be allowed, because of the implications that the worlds only superpower is what some say, or shades of the "U.S. is a paper tiger"?

The Pentagon hasn't been able to get it right since W W 2, but it has spent $$$$ like a drunken sailor.

The truly sad fact, is that arms merchants have only one loyalty, that's to its own bottom line. Watching the actions since Trump got elected, reminds one of watching the scrum alongside a fishing boat when they throw buckets of chopped fish in the water, to attract sharks to the surface. It seems his administration may end up being named Murphy instead, as in Murphy's law fame.

dh | Aug 14, 2017 2:55:04 PM | 3
"I am confident that the strategic bomber overflights from Guam will soon end."

Me too. There really is no other option for Trump. But he will need to come up with a good explanation to save face.

DH | Aug 14, 2017 3:22:13 PM | 4
Something is wrong with the North Korea story. According to the NY Times (Zerohedge Aug 14) the rocket engines the DPRK is using on their ICBMs come from a factory in the Ukraine. The Ukraine is a U.S. client state. It seems inconceivable that the CIA would not know to whom this factory sells its engines.

Is the U.S. trying to use the DPRK like it has tried to use ISIS in Syria - to create an existential threat to justify a military intervention, and in the end to create another client state to use as a base to project power, only this time in East Asia?

Maybe this is why China warned the U.S. against regime change with respect to the DPRK (Zerohedge August 11).

dh | Aug 14, 2017 3:34:19 PM | 5
@4 Upper case DH asks....."Is the U.S. trying to use the DPRK like it has tried to use ISIS in Syria..."

I think you give the US too much credit. They have been outsmarted in Syria and they are being outsmarted in East Asia. It's that lateral thinking thing again.

lower case dh

dh | Aug 14, 2017 3:46:25 PM | 6
@5 That should be linear thinking darn it.
likklemore | Aug 14, 2017 3:50:27 PM | 7
McMaster is pure bluster. Soon he will receive some high priority emails from Wal-Mart, Dollar Tree, Apple, Samsung, Canon and other masters et al.

You know those daily essentials and critical components that are made in China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia. Empty shelves and assembly lines.

Global supply chain disrupted as the entire region is declared a War Zone with maritime insurance suspended. Who will insure the cargo vessels transporting daily essentials to the ROTW?

Sick of the USA war mongering.
Kim is having a good laugh watching Act 1 of The civil war in America, 2017.

PavewayIV | Aug 14, 2017 4:25:31 PM | 8
Kim is most directly threatened by the annual spring and fall joint US-South Korean military exercises held annually (and have been for decades). The largest by far is the fall exercise, this year's is starting next Monday: Ulchi-Freedom Guardian 2017. Several other NATO countries and pals are involved as well. It usually runs for just under two weeks.

The exercise is a simulation of a US-ROK war with the DPRK. It's more of a command and control exercise rather than mass troop/armor movements. Various details have been pieced together over the years or described by various military sources. In recent years, the goal is not to simply repel a North Korean attack, but respond by invading North Korea, overthrowing Kim and the DPRK government and securing the country as part of South Korea.

THAT's the part that set Kim off a few years ago, and he's been pissed about it more and more every year. The US is delighted with that fact and is unlikely to just stop holding the exercise because it's provocative. McMaster's recent comments about a 'preventative war' didn't do much to calm Kim down.

Both North and South go on heightened military alert - I image about now - just in case the other one flinches. But the US military has gone overboard the last few days to assure the world that it is not gearing up for a war in North Korea. The White House a one point suggested the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier was heading to Korea, but that wasn't the case. The USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier is sitting in its home port in Yokosuka, Japan. Strategic bombers, currently B-1Bs, have been stationed on Guam for years as a show of support for regional allies.

In any kind of US war with North Korea, they have to have started it (Pearl Harbor) or appear to have started it (Gulf of Tonkin). OPLAN 5027 takes care of it after that.

james | Aug 14, 2017 4:39:56 PM | 9
the usa time the military drills at north korea's harvest time - right when they need to be working in the fields... coincidence? lol.. i think not..
john | Aug 14, 2017 4:44:30 PM | 10
recap
brian | Aug 14, 2017 7:01:04 PM | 11
'brutal against internal dissidents'

you mean seditionists

Procopius | Aug 14, 2017 8:06:35 PM | 12
Any unprovoked war against North Korea would thereby escalate into a war with China and no one is seriously interested in that adventure.
Well, John Bolton certainly would advocate for it. I don't know about McMaster. He is a known Zionist (as is Mattis), so his judgement may not be too good. He is quite alarming on the subject of Iran. I'm old enough to remember both Douglas MacArthur and Curtis LeMay. People like them but dumber seem to be in decision-making positions in this administration (and earlier).
Peter AU 1 | Aug 14, 2017 8:31:18 PM | 13
US politicians seem to like phrases like "unspeakable brutality" when talking about a targeted leader or country, yet the US has committed much brutality against the citizens of target countries that it does not speak about.

[Aug 14, 2017] Pentagon Looses Track of $6.5 Trillion Embezzled Unaccounted Funds at Expense of US Tax Payers

Notable quotes:
"... Catherine Austin Fitts just published documentation of Department of Defense (DOD) official audit reports from 1998 that acknowledge "losing track" of $6.5 trillion, along with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) admission of "losing" over $100 billion. This is euphemistically termed "unaccounted," and literally means that DOD agrees they received these funds, agrees the funds are gone, and then claims to not have records of where the money went. ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.globalresearch.ca
Catherine Austin Fitts just published documentation of Department of Defense (DOD) official audit reports from 1998 that acknowledge "losing track" of $6.5 trillion, along with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) admission of "losing" over $100 billion. This is euphemistically termed "unaccounted," and literally means that DOD agrees they received these funds, agrees the funds are gone, and then claims to not have records of where the money went.

This is the work of Dr. Mark Skidmore and graduate students; Dr. Skidmore is the Director of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development at Michigan State University and Professor and Morris Chair in State and Local Gov't Finance and Policy. Catherine was managing director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. Inc., Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner for HUD in the first Bush Administration, and president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. She has designed and closed over $25 billion of transactions and investments to-date, and has led investment strategy for $300 billion of financial assets and liabilities.

I wrote last year upon publication of DOD's report. Of course, such "official" looting never happens with lawful accounting because records always show where the money goes. This would be like your bank agreeing they received a $65,000 deposit from you, agreeing the money was gone, and not refunding your account while claiming no further information of this "unaccountable," "lost," and "missing" money.

The most common historical explanation of governments "losing" money is, of course, embezzlement to enrich an oligarchy.

$6.5 trillion means how much now?

... ... ...

[Aug 13, 2017] Neoconservative Intellectuals and Me

Notable quotes:
"... Pick up a Neoconservative book on your shelf or at your local library and you will quickly find that it is almost impossible to get through the first chapter or two without coming face to face with blatant contradictions, blatant lies, blatant fabrications, blatant hypocrisy, blatant double standards, and obvious inconsistencies. ..."
"... Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future ..."
Aug 13, 2017 | www.veteranstoday.com

These people always take great risks to defend their ideologically incoherent and essentially diabolical plan and always leave the world in a mess. And it is always a blast to watch them fall into their own political traps and blatant contradictions.

Pick up a Neoconservative book on your shelf or at your local library and you will quickly find that it is almost impossible to get through the first chapter or two without coming face to face with blatant contradictions, blatant lies, blatant fabrications, blatant hypocrisy, blatant double standards, and obvious inconsistencies.

For example, Jewish columnist Ben Shapiro writes books such as Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future , in which he complains about "oral sex, masturbation, and homosexual activity" being taught in the classroom.Shapiro also goes after the culture, which he says preaches that "our sexuality should not and cannot be contained by any system of morality No form of sexual expression may be condemned, and all must be taught." supported the Trotskyite group the Pussy Riot , which had a pornographic performance at a public museum in Russia. The same Shapiro condemned the Russian government for punishing the violent group for desecrating Christ the Savior Cathedral in Russia.

Neocon magazine World Affairs condemns Vladimir Putin for his alleged crime against dissents, [5] but the same magazine condemns dissents such as Edward Snowden for revealing what the NSA has been doing to Americans.

Neocon shills and puppets like Ann Coulter pretentiously say that they fight for life, but they have no remorse for slaughtering and mercilessly torturing innocent people in the Middle East. Coulter loves to talk about "Democrat sex scandal," but she rails against those who spend some time talking about sex abuse at Abu Ghraib, [8] a prison complex near Baghdad where prisoners were literally sodomized by American forces.

If you were trained in logic and have little patience with complete nonsense, if your allegiance is to the moral order and practical reason and ultimate truth, then you are going to be stunned by what's passing for clear thinking these days. If truth matters to you, then you will be very angry!for good reason.

[Aug 12, 2017] Memo by Former Aide Warns of Leftist Conspiracy Against Trump

It is not hard left. This is neocons and neoliberals.
Notable quotes:
"... The episode came to light during what appears to be General McMaster's slow-rolling purge against hard-line aides on his staff who were close to Michael T. Flynn, ..."
"... Last week, Mr. McMaster dismissed Ezra Cohen-Watnick, who ran the council's intelligence division and whose ouster had been opposed by Mr. Bannon and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser. ..."
"... efore arriving at the White House, Mr. Higgins had been outspoken. He appeared on Sean Hannity's talk radio show and on other conservative news outlets last year to share his views, including that the Muslim Brotherhood had taken over the decision-making in the White House during the Obama administration, ..."
"... Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook , Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter . ..."
Aug 12, 2017 | www.msn.com

The seven-page memo by Rich Higgins, who had been a director for strategic planning at the council, is a manifesto against multiculturalism and political correctness, and a call, using apocalyptic language, for the president to return to the message that animated his campaign.

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

While it is not clear the document ever reached Mr. Trump's desk, its emergence highlights the deep divide within the White House between Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser, and harder line officials aligned with Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump's chief strategist, over the administration's direction.

With its highly charged language and overtly political tone, the memo, which Mr. Higgins drafted on his White House computer and circulated to colleagues, set off alarm bells inside the West Wing. Most documents emanating from the National Security Council amount to dryly worded policy dissertations and intricate planning documents.

"This is not politics as usual but rather political warfare at an unprecedented level that is openly engaged in the direct targeting of a seated president through manipulation of the news cycle," Mr. Higgins wrote in the memo, a copy of which was obtained by Foreign Policy and published on Thursday. "Recognizing in candidate Trump an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative, those that benefit recognize the threat he poses and seek his destruction."

Among those threatened by Mr. Trump is the "hard left," Mr. Higgins wrote. He said it was "aligned with lslamist organizations," including the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations; the American Civil Liberties Union and Black Lives Matter; and the United Nations.

"Complicating the current situation, many close to the president have pushed him off his message when he was candidate Trump thus alienating him from his base thereby isolating him in the process," Mr. Higgins wrote. He was echoing the concerns of some of Mr. Trump's earliest supporters, who have recently stepped up a public campaign to press for General McMaster's ouster. "When President Trump is not candidate Trump, he becomes dangerously exposed."

Mr. Higgins did not respond to messages requesting comment on Friday. A White House spokesman also declined to comment.

But two administration officials with knowledge of the situation said that after Mr. Higgins had circulated the document, which was widely viewed as inappropriate, he was ordered to resign. His resignation was demanded by Maj. Gen. Ricky Waddell, the deputy national security adviser, after consulting with General McMaster, according to the two officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it.

The episode came to light during what appears to be General McMaster's slow-rolling purge against hard-line aides on his staff who were close to Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump's first national security adviser, and shared Mr. Bannon's antiglobalist views. General McMaster succeeded Mr. Flynn after he resigned in February after the revelation that he misled Vice President Mike Pence and others about a telephone call with Russia's ambassador.

Last week, Mr. McMaster dismissed Ezra Cohen-Watnick, who ran the council's intelligence division and whose ouster had been opposed by Mr. Bannon and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser. Derek Harvey, the top Middle East adviser, and Tera Dahl, the deputy chief of staff and a former writer for Breitbart News, which Mr. Bannon once ran, also resigned last month. The departure of Mr. Higgins as a result of his memo was first reported by The Atlantic .

The housecleaning has inflamed conservatives who have long been wary of General McMaster. Frank Gaffney Jr., the president of the Center for Security Policy and the architect of a public campaign to lobby for the general's firing, has singled out Mr. Higgins, a former Department of Defense employee, as a cause célèbre and on Friday called his memo "required reading."

"The document's alarming depiction of a multidimensional campaign to take down the president of the United States, backed by rigorous analysis, makes clear that the man deserving termination is not Rich Higgins, but the general who punished him -- and, thereby, tried to suppress his warning," Mr. Gaffney said in a statement on Friday.

Paul Nehlen, who is mounting his second Republican primary challenge against Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, posted a message on Twitter last week urging activists to call the White House and tell Mr. Trump "we want #McMaster fired for exiting Rich Higgins and other warriors fighting the Islamists."

Yet Mr. Trump has appeared to be unmoved by the campaign to remove his national security adviser. On Thursday, the president said he "absolutely" had full confidence in General McMaster, adding: "He's our friend. He's my friend. And he's a very talented man. I like him and I respect him."

B efore arriving at the White House, Mr. Higgins had been outspoken. He appeared on Sean Hannity's talk radio show and on other conservative news outlets last year to share his views, including that the Muslim Brotherhood had taken over the decision-making in the White House during the Obama administration, and that the concept of Islamophobia had been invented by terrorists to squelch critical thinking in the West.

In a video posted on Friday by the liberal-leaning group Right Wing Watch, Mr. Higgins is seen giving a talk in which he said administrations of both parties were to blame for the failure of the United States to curb terrorism.

"You'd sit in these meetings in the Bush administration, and the Muslim Brotherhood guys -- they'd be in the meetings, at the table with you; in the Obama administration, they're running the meetings," Mr. Higgins said in the video, which appeared to have been recorded last year. "You don't have to hate all Muslims -- all right, I have Muslim friends -- but you have to hate Islam."

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook , Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter .

[Aug 11, 2017] Ukrainian population is shrinking. alread shrunk from 48 to 42 millions

Aug 11, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

UKRAINE. The disaster continues.

In 2001 its population was 48.5 million. Latest official estimate is 42.5. Examination of various consumption statistics suggest that this estimate is too high.

About 2.5 million are in Russia and another 1.5 million in Poland .

At some point, for a country constructed out of bits and pieces of other states, depopulation will become geopolitically significant.

[Aug 11, 2017] Why Some US Ex-Spies Dont Buy the Russia Story by Leonid Bershidsky

Notable quotes:
"... Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention. ..."
"... The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer 2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of Russian metadata in his files and his use of a Russia-based virtual private network. ..."
"... The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic ..."
"... However, as Forensicator has pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something only an insider could have done -- at about that speed. ..."
"... And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike, the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment, had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the Atlantic Council , a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as a hostile power. ..."
"... Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to increased hostility toward Russia... ..."
"... The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home. In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed. ..."
Aug 10, 2017 | www.bloomberg.com
Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention.

What if it wasn't Russia's fault?

In 2003, when a number of former intelligence professionals formed a group to protest the way intelligence was bent to accuse Iraq of producing weapons of mass destruction, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote a sympathetic column quoting the group's members. In 2017, you won't read about this same group's latest campaign in the big U.S. newspapers.

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence to the contrary.

Unlike the "current and former intelligence officials" anonymously quoted in stories about the Trump-Russia scandal, VIPS members actually have names. But their findings and doubts are only being aired by non-mainstream publications that are easy to accuse of being channels for Russian disinformation. The Nation, Consortium News, ZeroHedge and other outlets have pointed to their findings that at least some of the DNC files were taken by an insider rather than by hackers, Russian or otherwise.

The January assessment of the U.S. intelligence community, which serves as the basis for accusations that Russia hacked the election said, among other things: "We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."

VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer 2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of Russian metadata in his files and his use of a Russia-based virtual private network.

The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic.

However, as Forensicator has pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something only an insider could have done -- at about that speed.

Adam Carter, the pseudonym for the other analyst, showed that the content of the Guccifer files was at some point cut and pasted into Microsoft Word templates that used the Russian language. Carter laid out all the available evidence and his answers to numerous critics in a long post earlier this month.

VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency's former technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence officers with impressive credentials. That doesn't, of course, mean the group is right when it finds the expert analysis by Forensicator and Carter persuasive. Another former intelligence professional who has examined it, Scott Ritter, has pointed out that these findings don't necessarily refutes that Guccifer's material constitute the spoils of a hack.

VIPS's record of unruly activism might have devalued its theories and conclusions in the eyes of mainstream journalists. Ray McGovern, a VIPS founder who used to prepare and deliver White House briefings at the Central Intelligence Agency, has been removed from Hillary Clinton's events for protesting her policies. While the group was right about Iraq in 2003, that doesn't mean it's right about Russia in 2017, with some of its members' intelligence work now long in the past.

And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike, the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment, had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the Atlantic Council , a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as a hostile power.

One hopes that the numerous investigations into Trump-Russia are based on hard evidence, not easy assumptions. But since these investigations are not transparent at this point, the only way to make sure their attention is still focused on the technical aspects of the suspected Russian hacks and leaks is to present the available evidence, along with any arguments undermining it, to the public.

Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to increased hostility toward Russia...

Having been burned so badly on the Iraq intelligence claims in 2003, you would think major U.S. media would apply more journalistic skepticism and rigor here, even if, to the broader public, Russia is a faraway power to which it's easy to ascribe pretty much any nefarious activity. Instead, these outlets seem more intent on noting Putin's bare-chested physique and accusing him of further meddling on social networks. The alt-right may not need Russia's help in using Twitter bots to run its social media campaigns , but it gets less scrutiny for them than Russia.

The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home. In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed.

( Corrects volume of data transferred in sixth paragraph.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at [email protected]

[Aug 11, 2017] Zbigniew Brzezinski died in May, as late as April this year he was calling for closer relations between Russian and the US

Old bitter enemy of Russia probably became afraid of growing China and decided that splitting Russia and China is essential for the USA hegemony survival. Other thatn that it is way too big change in anti-soviet dinosaur Zbig thinking -- leopard can't change his spots.
Notable quotes:
"... Everything continues as 'normal' with Trump as Prez, except, he's a bit of a loose canon, not one of the 'boys'. Worse still, he actually believes that the prez runs the show! I don't know prezs actually last ran the show, maybe Kennedy, maybe never. Big capital runs the show and uses structures like the CFR, Bilderberg, Chatham House, plus of course, the universities and 'think tanks'. ..."
"... They're not united however, as Trump so forcefully reveals. So how to deal with him without giving the game away? Pre-election, they tried ridicule. Post, they're trying to incriminate him and it shouldn't be difficult to do, without Russia. ..."
"... In a strange way, Trump is actually helping them by being such a big doofus. I think the lights are on but nobody's home. If only he'd behave the way Obummer did, and do as he's told! ..."
Aug 11, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

nurse.comic | Aug 7, 2017 1:02:13 PM | 96

I was happily surprised to just read the BRZEZINSKI article which wasn't ruthless chessboard as portrayed here. The quote doesn't give a good idea of what the article says about the US working constructively

>> with both Russia and China not for domination but less conflict.

As he says, "The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for a one-sided militarily and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and self-destructive futility".

Zbigniew Brzezinski died in May, as late as April this year he was calling for closer relations between Russian and the US.

I am sad to see this site misuse him in this article. Or rather I am glad because now I hold ZB a bit higher and will be even more cautious here.

William Bowles | Aug 7, 2017 3:12:30 PM | 100

At #96:

or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than POUTS. Then - the second option.

Everything continues as 'normal' with Trump as Prez, except, he's a bit of a loose canon, not one of the 'boys'. Worse still, he actually believes that the prez runs the show! I don't know prezs actually last ran the show, maybe Kennedy, maybe never. Big capital runs the show and uses structures like the CFR, Bilderberg, Chatham House, plus of course, the universities and 'think tanks'.

They're not united however, as Trump so forcefully reveals. So how to deal with him without giving the game away? Pre-election, they tried ridicule. Post, they're trying to incriminate him and it shouldn't be difficult to do, without Russia.

He is after all, a billionaire capitalist, who must have done all kinds shady, nee illegal deals and probably some in Russia as well. Show me a big capitalist who hasn't?

In a strange way, Trump is actually helping them by being such a big doofus. I think the lights are on but nobody's home. If only he'd behave the way Obummer did, and do as he's told!

[Aug 11, 2017] August 4, 2017 at 9:02 pm

Notable quotes:
"... The United States also pledged to the Soviet Union (Gorbachov) that they would not expand NATO up to Russia's borders, if only Russia would allow Germany to reunite. Just trust us! See how that went. ..."
"... Naive Russians learned a lesson: That pindosi speak with forked tongue and always lie. American government are not to be trusted, any more than you can trust the word of a scorpion. ..."
Aug 11, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_reunification#United_States

"The United States officially supports Korean reunification under a democratic government. Mike Mansfield proposed that Korea be neutralized under a great-power agreement, accompanied by the withdrawal of all foreign troops and the discontinuation of security treaties with the great power guarantors of the North and South."

Sounds good, right? Reply

Patient Observer , August 4, 2017 at 9:37 pm

Matt, really? I don't think that you are so naive as to take such proclamations at face value. The US also officially supports freedom and democracy as it installs and supports dictators of every sort.

The NK topic seems to have been discussed enough. I learned a lot and thank all those who added facts and logic to the discussion including you.

yalensis , August 5, 2017 at 5:57 am
The United States government also pledged (many times) to Native Americans that they are not out to grab more aboriginal territory. Just trust us! See how that went.

The United States also pledged to the Soviet Union (Gorbachov) that they would not expand NATO up to Russia's borders, if only Russia would allow Germany to reunite. Just trust us! See how that went.

Naive Russians learned a lesson: That pindosi speak with forked tongue and always lie. American government are not to be trusted, any more than you can trust the word of a scorpion.

[Aug 11, 2017] China pledges neutrality - unless US strikes North Korea first

Aug 11, 2017 | www.msn.com

"If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime, and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so," reported the Global Times , a daily Chinese newspaper controlled by the Communist Party.

... ... ...

One North Korean government official, meanwhile, accused Trump of "going senile," Fox News reported .

[Aug 11, 2017] The US goal in xUSSR region and developing countries is really to make a transition to neoliberal corporate governance and enable exploitation of countries resources for wealthy American conglomerates and other multinationals

Aug 11, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

August 5, 2017

marknesop , August 5, 2017 at 2:42 pm

There's nothing wrong with a policy which says sovereign decisions are a matter for the country's people to decide but to offer a helping hand to encourage 'good behaviours' which are likely to result in a minimum of disruption and possibly danger to a nation's neighbours. And here is where the slippery slope comes in. Devotees of American exceptionalism argue – often with good conscience – that this is all Washington is doing; trying to help ease the transition to a market economy, or whatever, pick your meme. It is difficult to prove that the aim is really to make a transition to corporate governance and enable exploitation for wealthy American conglomerates, and a lot of people on both sides get to throw the 'conspiracy theorist' term around.

[Aug 11, 2017] Iraq mission accomlished 27 Years and several trillion dollars later by William Rivers Pitt

Notable quotes:
"... Twenty-seven years. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, at least. Trillions of dollars squandered? Hardly. This was not an accident. ..."
"... Every bullet fired, every bomb dropped, every missile launched, every gallon of fuel burned, every HumVee destroyed by an IED, every helicopter shot down, every boot on the ground, every private military contractor's paycheck, every MRE, every Kevlar vest, every pill, every helmet, every uniform, every body bag, every coffin and every American flag draped over it throughout all those many long years of war represents money taken from you and given to a small group of people you'll never meet. They hide much of that money offshore so it won't be taxed, and use the rest to buy politicians who tell you the country is broke, we're about austerity now, so no more school lunches for your kids and no more Medicaid for your mother. ..."
Aug 11, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

We have been at war in Iraq, in one form or another, for 27 years. The best estimates of the cost for all this systematic butchery, combined with the expense of simultaneous war in Afghanistan, reach into the trillions of dollars.

... ... ...

For the historical record: There was the initial build-up of Desert Shield, followed by Desert Storm and its lethal cloud of depleted uranium. There were the sanctions/bombing Clinton years when we blew up sewage treatment plants and denied children vaccines in an ongoing act of biological warfare. Then, there was the second Bush invasion based on unprosecuted criminal lies, the long massacre of occupation and torture, the Obama occupation and drone war, the drawdown, the draw-back-up because of ISIS. Now, there is the current trembling mayhem of air strikes, car bombs, militias, factions, confusion and an overwhelming ocean of refugees.

No one in politics or the media seems capable of recognizing this series of events for what it truly is: One large event with a tangible beginning, a middle and no end in sight. There is no dicing it up. It is all of a piece, one long war, the longest by miles in our nation's history. The most recent invasion and occupation saw nearly 5,000 US service members killed and close to 40,000 wounded. That casualty count does not include the many thousands of veterans who have returned home after multiple deployments suffering from a variety of maladies caused by prolonged exposure to chemicals, combat and carnage.

... ... ...

Twenty-seven years. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, at least. Trillions of dollars squandered? Hardly. This was not an accident. It was, and continues to be, a spectacular payday.

Every bullet fired, every bomb dropped, every missile launched, every gallon of fuel burned, every HumVee destroyed by an IED, every helicopter shot down, every boot on the ground, every private military contractor's paycheck, every MRE, every Kevlar vest, every pill, every helmet, every uniform, every body bag, every coffin and every American flag draped over it throughout all those many long years of war represents money taken from you and given to a small group of people you'll never meet. They hide much of that money offshore so it won't be taxed, and use the rest to buy politicians who tell you the country is broke, we're about austerity now, so no more school lunches for your kids and no more Medicaid for your mother.

William Rivers Pitt is a senior editor and lead columnist at Truthout. He is also a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of three books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know, The Greatest Sedition Is Silence and House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation. His fourth book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible, co-written with Dahr Jamail, is available now on Amazon. He lives and works in New Hampshire.

[Aug 11, 2017] America's Ukraine Hypocrisy by Ted Galen Carpenter

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Aug 06, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
There is an abundance of outrage in the United States about Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Multiple investigations are taking place, and Moscow's conduct was a major justification for the sanctions legislation that Congress just passed. Some furious political figures and members of the media insist that the Putin government's interference constitutes an act of war. One especially agitated House member even compared it explicitly to the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks .

Such umbrage might be more credible if the United States refrained from engaging in similar conduct. But the historical record shows that Washington has meddled in the political affairs of dozens of countries !including many democracies. An egregious example occurred in Ukraine during the Euromaidan Revolution of 2014.

Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was not an admirable character. After his election in 2010, he used patronage and other instruments of state power in a flagrant fashion to the advantage of his political party. That high-handed behavior and legendary corruption alienated large portions of Ukraine's population. As the Ukrainian economy languished and fell farther and farther behind those of Poland and other East European neighbors that had implemented significant market-oriented reforms, public anger at Yanukovych mounted. When he rejected the European Union's terms for an association agreement in late 2013, in favor of a Russian offer, angry demonstrators filled Kiev's Independence Square, known as the Maidan, as well as sites in other cities.

Despite his leadership defects and character flaws, Yanukovych had been duly elected in balloting that international observers considered reasonably free and fair !about the best standard one can hope for outside the mature Western democracies. A decent respect for democratic institutions and procedures meant that he ought to be able to serve out his lawful term as president, which would end in 2016.

Neither the domestic opposition nor Washington and its European Union allies behaved in that fashion. Instead, Western leaders made it clear that they supported the efforts of demonstrators to force Yanukovych to reverse course and approve the EU agreement or, if he would not do so, to remove the president before his term expired. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to show solidarity with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra right-wing Svoboda Party , and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.

But McCain's actions were a model of diplomatic restraint compared to the conduct of Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. As Ukraine's political crisis deepened, Nuland and her subordinates became more brazen in favoring the anti-Yanukovych demonstrators. Nuland noted in a speech to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation on December 13, 2013, that she had traveled to Ukraine three times in the weeks following the start of the demonstrations. Visiting the Maidan on December 5, she handed out cookies to demonstrators and expressed support for their cause.

The extent of the Obama administration's meddling in Ukraine's politics was breathtaking. Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a Nuland telephone call in which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in a post-Yanukovych government. The U.S-favored candidates included Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the man who became prime minister once Yanukovych was ousted from power. During the telephone call, Nuland stated enthusiastically that "Yats is the guy" who would do the best job.

Nuland and Pyatt were engaged in such planning at a time when Yanukovych was still Ukraine's lawful president. It was startling to have diplomatic representatives of a foreign country!and a country that routinely touts the need to respect democratic processes and the sovereignty of other nations!to be scheming about removing an elected government and replacing it with officials meriting U.S. approval.

Washington's conduct not only constituted meddling, it bordered on micromanagement. At one point, Pyatt mentioned the complex dynamic among the three principal opposition leaders, Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok, and Vitali Klitschko. Both Pyatt and Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case, they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make a bid for office on a longer-term basis. Nuland stated that "I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary." She added that what Yatseniuk needed "is Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside."

The two diplomats also were prepared to escalate the already extensive U.S. involvement in Ukraine's political turbulence . Pyatt stated bluntly that "we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing [the political transition]." Nuland clearly had Vice President Joe Biden in mind for that role. Noting that the vice president's national security adviser was in direct contact with her, Nuland related that she told him "probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the details to stick. So Biden's willing." Both the Obama administration and most of the American news media portrayed the Euromaidan Revolution as a spontaneous, popular uprising against a corrupt and brutal government.

A February 24, 2014, Washington Post editorial celebrated the Maidan demonstrators and their successful campaign to overthrow Yanukovych. The "moves were democratic," the Washington Post concluded, and "Kiev is now controlled by pro-Western parties."

It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising. The Nuland-Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country!especially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro-Russian government!an ouster that occurred not only with Washington's blessing, but apparently with its assistance.

That episode, as well as earlier ones involving Italy, France and other democratic countries, should be kept in mind the next time U.S. political leaders or the media publicly fume about Russia's apparent interference in America's 2016 elections. One can legitimately condemn some aspects of Moscow's behavior, but the force of America's moral outrage is vitiated by the stench of U.S. hypocrisy.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of ten books, the contributing editor of ten books, and the author of more than 650 articles on international affairs.

konkretnovnature , August 6, 2017 7:36 PM

yeah, when americans do it (not JUST it but organizing an outright coup) - it's for democracy...

but when the losing party in american elections had to explain why it had failed
used a ghost of russian hackers (instead of recognizing that their identity politics completely alienated the majority of real good americans - white people) - it's an attack on democracy

hey, democratic party! how 'bout letting your servers to be finally examined by fbi?

Roy Tyrell , August 6, 2017 11:21 PM

But... Ted...

American's are GOD's chosen people...!!! it's all right there in the Bible...!!! When America does it - it is all with HIS blessing... when others do it (particularly Russia) they are acting in concert with Satan...!

In all seriousness... every empire acts in it's own interests. What makes America so God awful insufferable is it's self righteousness... Surely Washington doesn't believe it's own bulls---... or does it...??? That truly is a scary thought.

The British never tried convince anyone they were doing the Lord's work. They spared their subjects self righteous lectures (for the most part)

A Saudi prince said it best: America is arrogance unbounded

chris chuba , August 7, 2017 12:24 PM

The author fails to mention that Yanukovich even agreed to early elections in exchange for calling off security forces in order to defuse tensions. In return, armed gangs occupied Parliament buildings, forced him to flee the country, and organized a hasty vote to remove him from office. Is it any wonder that the ethnic Russians got the message that their vote didn't count anymore? We immediately recognized the new govt by denying that this was a coup.

Ukraine would have been much more stable had their been elections instead of a coup d'etat.

[Aug 09, 2017] Economic Principals a weekly column about economics and politics, formerly of The Boston Globe, independent since 2002 Page

Notable quotes:
"... The New New Deal:The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era ..."
Aug 09, 2017 | www.economicprincipals.com
The New New Deal:The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era , author Michael Grunwald describes the evolution of the Republican leadership's thinking the wake of Democratic victories – not just the White House, but control of both houses of Congress. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) was the minority whip then, transparently coveting minority leader John Boehner's job. Cantor's deputy, Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) were said to be the GOP's "young guns." Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) chaired an initial conference of the party's leadership in Annapolis. Grunwald wrote:

The new leaders who gathered in Annapolis had a new mantra. Our mistake was abandoning our principles, not following our principles. They saw John McCain as a typical Republican In Name Only. Who had sought electoral salvation in ideological equivocation – and look what happened to him. They even revised their opinions of George W. Bush, who in retrospect seemed less a conservative hero, more a big-spending apostate.

"Most important, Republicans need to stick together as a team," exhorted minority leader Senator Mitch McConnell. And so they did. The Tea Party election came next, in 2010. Republicans took back the House. Obama was re-elected in 2012. In 2014, Republicans took back the Senate. And by 2016, the strategy of full-throated opposition seemed to have worked. Republicans won the White House.

At least in the matter of health care legislation, the Republicans clearly fired the first shot, opposing a program of their own invention just because the opposition party had embraced it. Let McCain's exaggeration on this count pass. In the offer of olive branches, no more than in lapidary inscriptions , is a man upon his oath. The path back to the state of mind Senate rules describe as "normal order" is much as McCain described it:

Incremental progress, compromises that each side criticize but also accept, just plain muddling through to chip away at problems and keep our enemies from doing their worst isn't glamorous or exciting. It doesn't feel like a political triumph. But it's usually the most we can expect from our system of government, operating in a country as diverse and quarrelsome and free as ours.

In "The Sanctimony and Sin of G.O.P, 'Moderates' ," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, writing last week before McCain's Thursday vote against his party, invited readers "to consider the awfulness of Senator John McCain." Indeed, Krugman condemned all politicians "who pretend to be open-minded, decry partisanship, tut-tut about incivility and act as enablers for the extremists again and again."

I started with McCain because so many journalists still fall for his pose as an independent-minded maverick, ignoring the reality that he's a reliable yes-man whenever it matters

Krugman has got it exactly backwards. On the two occasions of the last ten years when it has mattered most, McCain stood in the center, with the majority consensus, against his party's leaders (and, often enough, in matters of lesser issues as well, especially immigration and campaign finance). Krugman, himself an unbridled partisan, should stop insisting there are no Republican moderates. The road back to "regular order" begins with giving credit where credit is due.

[Aug 09, 2017] When Sadr arrived in Jeddah, an anonymous Twitter user known as Mujtahid -- noted for his regular leaking of alleged developments within the secretive House of Saud -- tweeted that the warm welcoming of Sadr and prior to him al-Araji, offering thousands of [hajj] visas to PMU [Popular Mobilization Units], celebrating the [liberation] of Mosul, are all attempts to get closer to Iran so that they can convince the Houthis to have mercy on bin Salman.

Aug 09, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: Yul | Aug 4, 2017 7:58:45 PM | 41

Dr Brenner,

Don't know whether you've have seen this article and the navettes of various Iraqi Shi'a authorities to Riyadh, in particular Muqtada's visit this week:

When Sadr arrived in Jeddah, an anonymous Twitter user known as Mujtahid -- noted for his regular leaking of alleged developments within the secretive House of Saud -- tweeted that the warm welcoming of Sadr "and prior to him al-Araji, offering thousands of [hajj] visas to PMU [Popular Mobilization Units], celebrating the [liberation] of Mosul, are all attempts to get closer to Iran so that they can convince the Houthis to have mercy on bin Salman." Thamer al-Sabhan in a July 31 tweet attacked "[Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini's version of Shiism" and praised what Sabhan called "genuine Shiism." Less than 24 hours later, however, that tweet was removed. It is still unclear whether Sadr is really attempting to mediate between Tehran and Riyadh. However, a senior Iranian official who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity expressed doubt that such an endeavor would succeed in ending the rivalry between the two regional powers.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/08/iraq-sadr-bin-salman-meeting-saudi-iran-rapprochement.html

Dr Brenner,

Don't know whether you've have seen this article and the navettes of various Iraqi Shi'a authorities to Riyadh, in particular Muqtada's visit this week:

When Sadr arrived in Jeddah, an anonymous Twitter user known as Mujtahid -- noted for his regular leaking of alleged developments within the secretive House of Saud -- tweeted that the warm welcoming of Sadr "and prior to him al-Araji, offering thousands of [hajj] visas to PMU [Popular Mobilization Units], celebrating the [liberation] of Mosul, are all attempts to get closer to Iran so that they can convince the Houthis to have mercy on bin Salman." Thamer al-Sabhan in a July 31 tweet attacked "[Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini's version of Shiism" and praised what Sabhan called "genuine Shiism." Less than 24 hours later, however, that tweet was removed. It is still unclear whether Sadr is really attempting to mediate between Tehran and Riyadh. However, a senior Iranian official who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity expressed doubt that such an endeavor would succeed in ending the rivalry between the two regional powers.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/08/iraq-sadr-bin-salman-meeting-saudi-iran-rapprochement.html

[Aug 09, 2017] Trump adviser fired over memo warning of globalist-Islamist 'deep state'

Aug 08, 2017 | www.wnd.com
Rich Higgins

Rich Higgins

But the fired adviser, Rich Higgans, is only the latest chip to fall in an ongoing "purge" of "America-first" stalwarts from the National Security Council.

The idea that an alliance of Obama holdovers consisting of globalists and Islamists are working inside the government as part of a "deep state" effort to destroy the Trump presidency has been a common theme put forth by outside analysts trying to explain the intrigue behind Trump's first six months in the White House.

But the idea apparently was not confined to outsiders. Higgins, a high-level official inside the president's National Security Council, sent a memo up the chain of command in May, warning of just such a plot. Higgins' memo caught the eye of McMaster and cost him his job.

According to a report Wednesday by the Atlantic , McMaster removed Higgins from his post as director of strategic planning on July 21 after reading the memo, which was considered too "conspiratorial."

The memo alleged that leftists, globalists, Islamists and "deep state" actors are engaged in "political warfare" against Trump. It states:

"Through the campaign, candidate Trump tapped into a deep vein of concern among many citizens that America is at risk and slipping away. Globalists and Islamists recognize that for their visions to succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political identity, must be destroyed."

The memo described the insurrection against Trump as "Maoist" in nature.

"In Maoist insurgencies, the formation of a counter-state is essential to seizing state power," the memo reads. "Functioning as a hostile complete state acting within an existing state, it has an alternate infrastructure. Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the 'counter-state.'

"Because the left is aligned with Islamist organizations at local, national, and international levels, recognition should be given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive narratives. These attack narratives are pervasive, full spectrum, and institutionalized at all levels. They operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies."

Several sources told the Atlantic they believed the memo made its way to Trump's desk, but that has not been confirmed.

Higgins spent a little more than two months on the job before he was ousted. Prior to joining the government, Higgins hit on similar issues in his writings, asserting Islam is in an alliance with secular, Marxist-oriented global elites in an effort to destroy America.

"National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors," he wrote in a September 2016 op-ed for the Washington Times .

The exit of Higgins and another official within the NSC apparatus, Senior Director for the Middle East Derek Harvey, could be an indication that the "deep state," if it exists, is gunning for its ultimate enemy within the White House – former Breitbart executive chairman Steve Bannon.

Bannon, the president's chief strategist, has already been removed, at McMaster's behest, from the daily briefings of the NSC.

McMaster recoils at 'list' of Obama holdovers

Like Higgins, Harvey is a Bannon ally. Harvey reportedly kept a list of Obama holdovers who were seeking to undermine the Trump agenda.

McMaster declined to fire any of the persons on the list and, in fact, made statements at a NSC town-hall meeting that "there is no such thing as a holdover." He said career federal staffers were among the most loyal public servants.

Yet, that would seem to conflict with comments made by Obama's own top domestic-policy adviser, Cecilia Muñoz, in April 2015. As reported by WND , Muñoz, speaking at a symposium of the White House Task Force on New Americans live-streamed over the Internet, said it was her top priority to "institutionalize" Obama's policies throughout all federal agencies so they would live on long after she and her boss left the White House.

In addition to the terminations of Harvey and Higgins, McMaster also purged from the NSC staff Tera Dahl, a former Breitbart writer and congressional aide to Michele Bachmann.

A fourth Trump conservative, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, has been fired from his position as senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council, according to a report by Conservative Review on Wednesday .

As for the future, continued volatility could be in the cards, depending on McMaster's ability to retain the president's confidence, said Philip Haney, a former DHS immigration officer who co-authored the whistleblower book " See Something, Say Nothing ."

"If you are Trump, you need to realize your people are being purged out of the agencies, one by one, and if there are no holdovers why is McMaster firing people?" Haney told WND.

"The people he's letting go are not Obama holdovers. He's keeping those designated as holdovers and purging the people who helped President Trump get elected. So if he's seeking unity, he seems to be replacing people who are loyal to Trump or prominently supportive of Trump.

"If you are (presidential deputy assistant) Sebastian Gorka and Steve Bannon, you've got to be pretty nervous right now."

More important than the faces of the people leaving or entering the administration is the future of American foreign policy as it relates to Islamic terrorism and its more subtle counterpart – civilizational jihad.

Higgins may have tipped his hand to what he believes a responsible national security policy would look like in his op-ed last fall in the Washington Times.

He wrote :

A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us – which is supposed to be the first order of business in any strategic threat assessment.

He tried to provide a vivid picture to his higher ups of what he believed they were up against, and he was rewarded with a pink slip.

[Aug 09, 2017] Fake News A US Media Specialty by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington's lies and the criminal misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Libya's military so that the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch Hillary gloating, "we came, we saw, he died!" ..."
"... Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington's crime against Ukrainian democracy was quickly hidden behind false charges of "Russian invasion"? ..."
Aug 07, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

August 07, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - The American media specializes in fake news. Indeed, since the Clinton regime the American media has produced nothing but fake news. Do you remember the illegal US bombing and destruction of Yugoslavia? Do you remember "war criminal" Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian president branded "the butcher of the Balkans," who was compared to Hitler until Hillary passed the title on to the President of Russia? Milosevic, not Bill Clinton, was arrested and placed on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal. He died in prison, some say murdered, before he was cleared of charges by the International Criminal Tribunal. http://www.globalresearch.ca/milosevic-and-the-destruction-of-yugoslavia-unpleasant-truths-no-one-wants-to-know/5540873

Do you remember the destruction of Iraq justified by the orchestrated propaganda, known by the criminal George W. Bush regime to be an outright lie, about Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," weapons that the UN arms inspectors verified did not exist? Iraq was destroyed. Millions of Iraqis were killed, orphaned, widowed, and displaced. Saddam Hussein was subjected to a show trial more transparent than Stalin's trial of Bukharin and then murdered under the pretext of judicial execution.

Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington's lies and the criminal misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Libya's military so that the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch Hillary gloating, "we came, we saw, he died!"

Do you remember the lies that the criminal Obama regime told about Assad of Syria and the planned US invasion of Syria that was blocked by the UK Parliament and the Russian government? Do you remember that Obama and the killer bitch sent ISIS to do the job that US troops were prevented from doing? Do you remember General Flynn revealing on TV that it was a "willful decision" of the criminal Obama regime to send ISIS to Syria over his objection as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency? This bit of told truth is why Gen. Flynn is hated by the Washington criminals who forced him out as Trump's National Security Adviser.

Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington's crime against Ukrainian democracy was quickly hidden behind false charges of "Russian invasion"?

Can you think of any truthful report in the American news in the past two decades?

All of the lies leading to the death of millions told by the criminal Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes were transparent. The US media could easily have exposed them and saved the lives of millions of peoples and saved seven countries from destruction in whole or part. But the presstitutes cheered on the gratuitous and criminal destruction of countries and peoples. Every one of the presstitutes is a war criminal under the standards set by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials.

We cannot even get a truthful jobs report. Yesterday (Aug. 4) the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported 205,000 new private sector jobs in July and a drop in the unemployment rate to 4.3%. This is fake news.

The Associated Press's Christopher Rugaber rah-rahs the fake news, adding that many economists think "robust hiring could continue for many more months, or even years." Let's think about that for a moment. Generally speaking economists regard full employment to be a 5% rate of unemployment. There can never be a zero rate of unemployment because of frictions in the job market. For example, there are people between jobs who have lost or quit a job and are looking for a new one, and there are people who have dropped out of the work force, perhaps to spend more time parenting or to care for an aged and ill parent, and have reentered the work force. Economists also believe that employment cannot go too low without pushing up inflation.

Assuming economists have not suddenly changed their minds about what rate of unemployment is full employment, if the unemployment rate is currently 4.3%, it is already below the full employment rate. How can the rate continue to fall for years when the economy is already at full employment? Apparently, this question did not occur to the AP reporter or to the "many economists."

[Aug 08, 2017] According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called deep state is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration

Notable quotes:
"... "According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out." ..."
Aug 08, 2017 | foreignpolicy.com

Anyone else seen this little beauty from Foreign Policy?

"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out."

Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made to play this game; of course the audience is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn is pretty good.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Aug 6, 2017 10:27:47 PM | 68

[Aug 07, 2017] Us dollar is the focal point of the US military adventures

Notable quotes:
"... Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it. ..."
Aug 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov, Website

@Sergey Krieger
Us$ is being main focal point. While wrong perception maintained about usa military conventional superiority over anyone was critical to mantain us$ status, us$ status as major reserve currency is the only thing that allowing united States to mantain her military at current levels and basically USA status as major global power. Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home. Everything that undermines us$ status is well come including showing USA military impotence vs major nations that are challenging the status quo.

Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home.

Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it.

Only complete crazies remain. Plus, inability to realize itself as a real continental power is akin to acute sexual frustration.

[Aug 07, 2017] Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars

Notable quotes:
"... These arch-neocons, Krauthammer (left), and Kristol are still omni-present as talking heads. After all the war, death and suffering in the Middle East that they have cheered on, and all the aggression against Russia they have peddled, why are their views still pushed by the networks onto Americans? Why does Tucker Carlson have widely despised Krauthammer on all the time? (caption is from RI, not the author) ..."
"... It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia. The Neo-Con's greatest fear - the Return of the Czar ..."
"... As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded. ..."
"... , "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." But all these successes in the neocons' "perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November. Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame Russia. The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers at CNN and other cable outlets. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from his own hardliners who view him as naοve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West. ..."
Aug 07, 2017 | russia-insider.com
Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars

The enactment of new sanctions against Russia and Iran – with the support of nearly all Democrats and Republicans in Congress – shows how the warmongering neocons again have come out on top Robert Parry 31

These arch-neocons, Krauthammer (left), and Kristol are still omni-present as talking heads. After all the war, death and suffering in the Middle East that they have cheered on, and all the aggression against Russia they have peddled, why are their views still pushed by the networks onto Americans? Why does Tucker Carlson have widely despised Krauthammer on all the time? (caption is from RI, not the author)


The enactment of new sanctions against Russia and Iran – with the support of nearly all Democrats and Republicans in Congress – shows how the warmongering neocons again have come out on top. A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance.

Part of the reason for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.

big-time foreign policy players in the Reagan administration , they also have demonstrated extraordinary resilience, receiving a steady flow of money often through U.S. government-funded grants from organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and through donations from military contractors to hawkish neocon think tanks .

But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting the Left's disgust with President Trump.

People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more difficult.

The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties, passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.

The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.

In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a dιtente with Russia and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on the table just where the neocons want it.

The Putin Obstacle

As for Russia, the neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since 2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military strike over dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.

Subsequent evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.

While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to shatter the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.

For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.

Punishing Russia

It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia.

The Neo-Con's greatest fear - the Return of the Czar

Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain, delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.

Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.

Successful Propaganda

As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded.

Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.

Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has said , "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press."

But all these successes in the neocons' "perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.

Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame Russia.

The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace.

So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to come up with an assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.

'Hand-Picked' Analysts

According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.

Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney.

The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point about Washington groupthink.

"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.

Lost Logic

But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government.

Neocon logic at its finest

Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:

"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election has been outrageous."

However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents. Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.

Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.

But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers at CNN and other cable outlets.

Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars.

There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear war, more likely.

In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani, "We told you so" that the U.S. government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with the nuclear agreement.

And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from his own hardliners who view him as naοve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.

Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a dιtente between Washington and Moscow.

In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored.


Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Aug 07, 2017] The US propaganda machines has accused Russia of arming the Taliban

Notable quotes:
"... The fact that now the US propaganda machines has accused Russia of "arming the Taliban" ..."
"... I've been expecting this for some time. ..."
"... No sooner had WW II ended than the West started on the Cold War, designed to create fear, panic and hysteria in the US–and Europe–so the Deep State types could regal Americans with tales of a nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers and the like 'gaps' that those devious Rooskies had on the US and we just had to spend all sorts of money to build machines of death to keep 'Old Glory' flying high. And use that excuse to go after people and head-hunt those who didn't goose step to this new artificial reality. ..."
"... When the Iron Curtain fell, within 18 months, the West had a new boogeyman, Saddam and on 9/11, that was enlarged to include the Islamic world, who we just have to fight over there so we don't fight them in Baltimore, not that any sane nation would want to invade most of our big cities, it's too dangerous. ..."
Aug 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Si1ver1ock, August 5, 2017 at 10:21 am GMT

The fact that now the US propaganda machines has accused Russia of "arming the Taliban"

I've been expecting this for some time. Funny how the blame falls on the Russians–without proof as usual. Little if any mention of the 16 years of U.S. occupation.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/asia/taliban-weapons-afghanistan/index.html

Greg Bacon, Website August 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT

@restless94110

Churchill started making speeches; the recent book on the brothers Dulles documents extensively Allen Dulles' extreme beliefs about Communism, so radical that he favored fascism and Nazis over the Commies. He became the father of the CIA, and made sure that many in the Nazi spy apparatus found homes in the United States, then went on a decade long crusade to crush communism in Italy and several other countries.

It is you who is silly. Writing some nonsense about something in the archives somewhere when there is evidence in the West that's been right in front of your face? You couldn't be that stupid, could you?

And by the way, do you know the difference between Trotsky and Stalin? Trotsky wanted world-wide revolution; Stalin wanted communism in the USSR, no world-wide revolution. Do you know who won that argument?

You probably don't. Stalin did.

Furthermore, are you familiar with the Game theory basis for the Cold War? It was the lunatic schizoprhenic John Nash, who was certifiably insane when he cooked it up, and years later, when he his schizophrenia was on the wane, repudiated his own theory!

The Cold War was cooked up in the West by state actors. Don't talk your nonsense. I agree. No sooner had WW II ended than the West started on the Cold War, designed to create fear, panic and hysteria in the US–and Europe–so the Deep State types could regal Americans with tales of a nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers and the like 'gaps' that those devious Rooskies had on the US and we just had to spend all sorts of money to build machines of death to keep 'Old Glory' flying high. And use that excuse to go after people and head-hunt those who didn't goose step to this new artificial reality.

When the Iron Curtain fell, within 18 months, the West had a new boogeyman, Saddam and on 9/11, that was enlarged to include the Islamic world, who we just have to fight over there so we don't fight them in Baltimore, not that any sane nation would want to invade most of our big cities, it's too dangerous.

[Aug 04, 2017] Is Trump's Russia Policy Being Hijacked

While the US is clearly not omnipotent, Ukraine was sliding into Baltic model for a long time, probably since independence. So while the Maydan coup was organized and implemented by the USA, the coming to power of right wing Western Ukrainian nationalists was probably given. The USA actually only speeded the events by a year or two. During the next Presidential election far right Ukrainian nationalist my impression is that they would depose Yanukovich anyway. so the coup was probably more the result of incompetence and hubris of staunch neocon (and former Cheney associate) Nuland then a real necessity. If we consider neocons to be a flavor of political psychopaths such a result is not surprising.
Putin has a chance to prevent Maydan by using the same dirty methods as the USA, but iether had chosen not to do this, or was slightly distracted by Olympics (please not that Georgian invasion of South Ossetia also happened during Olympic events). After the coup he has one or two days -- a small window of opportunity for deposing right wing nationalist by recognizing Yanukovich government and sending groups to restore "the legitimate government", which was actually corrupt (although probably to lesser level the subsequent government of Poroshenko, where each minister became a millionaire) and hated by a lot of Ukrainians. So the population reaction to restoration of Yanukovich regime by force might be quite hostile. Putin and his government had chosen not to do it and gave the victory to the USA: Russia completely lost the geopolitical game for Ukraine to the USA and now need to suffer the new cold war2 (which also was given, the the global hegemon which accepts only vassals, the USA needed only the pretext to squash attempts of Russia to conduct independent foreign policy). But in a decade from now the USA probably will pay the price for this as the alliance of Russia and China is now more of a reality then even before. Also the end of "cheap oil" automatically will drive the US economy into perma stagnation. The current artificial low price can't last forever.
Destruction on Ukraine and its economic potential started at this point in full force and in addition to the necessity of handing huge refugees flow to Russia, Russian economic suffered huge losses from braking cooperation with Ukraine (which was part of the USSR economics and were closely connected to Russian).
So Barack Obama got a huge geopolitical victory, the main victory of his presidency (along with his Libyan adventure). But Ukrainians now need to suffer and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. they are now just pawns in Washington geopolitical game against Russia and have no choice but fight.
Notable quotes:
"... In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev. ..."
"... As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000 dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win. ..."
"... If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of the Donbass. ..."
"... Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations. ..."
"... If the following is true it is worth reading: https://www.rt.com/news/398490-us-main-global-threat-survey/ ..."
"... Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years. ..."
"... Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement ..."
"... On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field, where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting event. ..."
"... And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR. This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it ..."
"... The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that plan succeeded ..."
"... It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously misunderestimated the situation there. ..."
"... I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of firing those guns but hey, shit happens! ..."
"... a previous puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED). http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html ..."
"... Monsanto is already in charge of the Ukraine' agricultural lands. Splendid. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2526593/ukraine_opens_up_for_monsanto_land_grabs_and_gmos.html ..."
Aug 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev.

Improved relations with Russia were what candidate Trump had promised, and what Americans would vote for in November.

Yet, this week, The Wall Street Journal reports:

"The U.S. Pentagon and State Department have devised plans to supply Ukraine with antitank missiles and other weaponry and are seeking White House approval as Kiev battles Russia-backed separatists Defense Secretary Mattis has endorsed the plan."

As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000 dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win.

If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of the Donbass.

Indeed, if Trump approves this State-Defense escalation plan, we could be looking at a rerun of the Russia-Georgia war of August 2008.

Then, to recapture its lost province of South Ossetia, which had seceded in 1992, after Georgia seceded from Russia, Georgia invaded.

Putin sent his army in, threw the Georgians out, and recognized South Ossetia, as John McCain impotently declaimed, "We are all Georgians now!"

Wisely, George W. Bush ignored McCain and did nothing.

But about this new arms deal questions arise.

As the rebels have no aircraft, whose planes are the U.S. antiaircraft missiles to shoot down? And if the Russian army just over the border can enter and crush the Ukrainian army, why would we want to restart a civil war, the only certain result of which is more dead Ukrainians on both sides?

The Journal's answer: Our goal is to bleed Russia.

"The point of lethal aid is to raise the price Mr. Putin pays for his imperialism until he withdraws or agrees to peace. The Russians don't want dead soldiers arriving home before next year's presidential election."

Also going neocon is Mike Pence. In Georgia this week, noting that Russian tanks are still in South Ossetia, the vice president not only declared, "We stand with you," he told Georgians the U.S. stands by its 2008 commitment to bring them into NATO.

This would mean, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, that in a future Russia-Georgia clash the U.S. could find itself in a shooting war with Russia in the South Caucasus.

Russia's security interests there seem clear. What are ours?

Along with Trump's signing of the new sanctions bill imposed by Congress, which strips him of his authority to lift those sanctions without Hill approval, these developments raise larger questions.

Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations.

A former CIA agent, member of the National Security Counsel, and envoy to NATO, Volker believes Russian troops in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are all there illegally -- and U.S. policy should be to push them out.

A former staffer of Sen. McCain, Volker was, until July, executive director of the neocon McCain Institute. He has called for the imposition of personal sanctions on Putin and his family and European travel restrictions on the Russian president. In the Journal this week, "officials" described his strategy:

"Volker believes that a change in Ukraine can be brought only by raising the costs for Moscow for continued intervention in Ukraine. In public comments, he has played down the notion that supplying weapons to Ukraine would escalate the conflict with Russia."

In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will bring Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers coming home in caskets before his 2018 election. As for concerns that Putin might send his army into Ukraine, such worries are unwarranted. Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement.

Does Trump believe this? Does Trump believe that confronting Putin with rising casualties among his army and allies in Ukraine is the way to force the Russian president to back down and withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, as Nikita Khrushchev did from Cuba in 1962?

What if Putin refuses to back down, and chooses to confront?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

Ace , August 4, 2017 at 5:28 am GMT

E. Ukraine and Crimea would be part controlled by Ukraine and there would be no fighting in E. Ukraine today if Obama and Nuland had not interfered in Ukraine. Period.

The upheaval and deaths there are entirely our responsibility.

jilles dykstra , August 4, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT

If the following is true it is worth reading: https://www.rt.com/news/398490-us-main-global-threat-survey/

Wally , August 4, 2017 at 6:45 am GMT

@reiner Tor "Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election or he's not really a dictator." Well said.

Wally , August 4, 2017 at 6:47 am GMT

@Taras77 Forget "neo con", call them what they are, Israel First

alexander , August 4, 2017 at 7:07 am GMT

Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years.

What an utter disaster and total disgrace to our nation.

for-the-record , August 4, 2017 at 7:14 am GMT

Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement .

On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field, where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting event.

Captain Nemo , August 4, 2017 at 7:30 am GMT

And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR. This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it .

The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that plan succeeded

Anyone with an ounce of common sense realises that it would end terribly bad for all the parties involved.

The Alarmist , August 4, 2017 at 7:50 am GMT

@reiner Tor It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously misunderestimated the situation there.

Priss Factor , Website August 4, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT

Ozzie done it. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/03/jfk-assassination-lone-gunman-cia-new-files-215449

Renoman , August 4, 2017 at 9:10 am GMT

I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of firing those guns but hey, shit happens!

Sergey Krieger , August 4, 2017 at 9:22 am GMT

Expecting Russia to back down fearing causalities? It would be wise to check who has been backing down due to causalities first before making such conclusions. Here Russia security is concerned and causalities are acceptable. USA should be very worried not to take too much responsibilities along Russian borders because things can get hot and this is not the war USA can win. Lose it even small way and USA days as great power are over.

jacques sheete , August 4, 2017 at 9:36 am GMT

@Taras77

and never be held accountable

That's a huge flaw in "our" system. We really need to find good answers to that problem.

JL , August 4, 2017 at 9:51 am GMT

Both this article, and the problems it proposes to address, are based on deep and fundamental misunderstandings of Russia and its domestic politics. Russia has escalation dominance in the Ukrainian theater and will not only match, but exceed, any American provocation there, including the delivery of arms to the UAF. I believe Russia would have no problem with this development, as it would give them cover to increase, and perhaps make official, its support for the NDF.

As an aside, before their civil war, the Ukraine was perennially among the top five of the world's largest arms exporters. So lack of arms is not clearly not the problem. No, the problem is that those who are trained to use them are not particularly enthusiastic about fighting, and those that are enthusiastic about fighting are not particularly well trained. Not to mention that a lot of them are dead already.

As for Putin and the elections, the real risk for him is not soldiers coming home in bodybags. Russian mentality, and their general attitudes towards war, allow them to take losses perhaps like no one else in the world. No, the real political risk to Putin is not appearing to react strongly enough.

As it is, Russian public opinion would like him to take a tougher stance in facing down the Empire. The world should really be glad that Russia has such a patient and tolerant leader. Russia's next leader will lack the political capital that Putin has developed over the years, and will likely be much more aggressive in the defense of Russia's national interests. Those dreaming of Putin's exit should really be careful of what they wish for.

Randal , August 4, 2017 at 11:13 am GMT

@reiner Tor Silence, boy. The Emperor's suit is of surpassing magnificence, as all respectable folk agree.

isthatright , August 4, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT

@reiner Tor good point

War for Blair Mountain , August 4, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT

The Democratic Party

Mass murder of Conservative Christian Russians in the name of Homosexual-Pedophile-Tranny Rights

Democratic Party Family Values ..

War for Blair Mountain , August 4, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

If Putin backs down to the neocons .he will very likely be overthrown by the Russian Military .I would like to know Comrade Saker's and Comrade SmothieX1′s view on this matter since they are both by many orders of magnitude more qualified to comment on this point that I have raised

Andoheb , August 4, 2017 at 12:03 pm GMT

Wonder if Russians could respond by arming Taliban

neutral , August 4, 2017 at 12:11 pm GMT

@for-the-record

look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia

That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care, but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.

Astuteobservor II , August 4, 2017 at 12:11 pm GMT

putin will 100% not back down. this is not 1962. same reason why china would never allow NK to be taken over.

anonymous , Disclaimer August 4, 2017 at 12:34 pm GMT

Well, at least we're spared in his latest Mr. Buchanan's witlessly carrying around a bucket of "Russian hacking" BS.

But he still serves the Establishment. Note his habitual use of "we" in reference to the USG. People who self-identify with their rulers are essential for the warmongers. Isn't that why Americans are subjected to camouflage uniforms and "thank you for your service" spectacles at athletic events?

I can appreciate the author's desire to see himself and to be lauded as a "true conservative." But the fact is that he was part of the regime that was more successful only because it picked on Grenada and other relative weaklings. 99% of the people who live in this country shouldn't care less about who governs Ukraine, Korea, or any other place outside the lawful territory of the United States

More of us every day realize that the beat has been rolling on, no matter who is in nominal power in Washington, for a long, long time. Mr. Buchanan should take a couple more steps back. Maybe he will see that, too.

Andrei Martyanov , Website August 4, 2017 at 12:55 pm GMT

In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will bring Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers coming home in caskets before his 2018 election.

1.There are NO cohesive Russian Armed Forces units (formations) in Donbass. Volunteers (aka "vacationers") from regular Russian Army? Sure, they are being paid well, plus Northern Wind. But it seems even Ukrainian Army's top brass admission that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine falls on a deaf ear. Evidently those in the "West" who continue to repeat this baloney have very little understanding of how real wars are fought and how real formations from company up to battalion and regiment level, not to speak of brigades or divisions, are deployed. Per personnel–neither DNR nor LNR have issues with mobilizing numbers.

2. Volker continues, if that are his real intentions, to demonstrate a complete lack of any strategic vision and following dead beat cliches–which are defining characteristics of D.C. "elites" who are completely removed from everyday realities, which actually matter, of the world. Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table". Even giving some Javelins (not to speak of TOWs) and Stinger-type weapons will only accelerate a demise of the Ukrainian Army and with it, of the current Kiev regime. But then again, considering level of US "diplomacy" in general, and Volker's in particular one can reasonably expect another FUBAR with dire consequences for both US and its clients.

Andrei Martyanov , Website August 4, 2017 at 1:02 pm GMT

@Astuteobservor II

putin will 100% not back down. this is not 1962. same reason why china would never allow NK to be taken over.

It has nothing, zilch, to do with Putin. It has everything to do with overwhelming majority of Russian people, whose blood was spilled on US and EU (NATO) money. The combined West and especially its pathetic Russian "academe" have no clue about cultural suicide West (US especially) has committed in Russia. It is my academic contention that US Russia's "scholarship" (with some few exceptions) knows next to zero about Russia and especially her 20th and 21st century history. It is an established scientific fact now. Overwhelming empirical evidence to support my claim is in place and easily accessible. It is also a major reason why US "power elites" are so dangerous–they miscalculate constantly, because they are incompetent.

Michael Kenny , August 4, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT

If I have understood Mr Buchanan's writings correctly, his primary goal is the destruction of the EU, which he sees as a threat to US global hegemony. Putin is merely an American stooge to be used to promote that end in return for which he is to get such reward as the hegemonic US vouchsafes to grant him. The conundrum for the US hegemonists is that if Putin wins in Ukraine, then US global hegemony is irreversibly destroyed but if he loses, the hated EU is enormously strengthened, which in its turn destroys US global hegemony! Heads, the EU wins, tails, the US loses! The argument Mr Buchanan is challenging seems to be that taking Putin out will do less damage to US hegemony than allowing him to win. As for Putin, he has two choices. He can capitulate in return for some face-saving fudge that will fool nobody. That will probably destroy him politically with his elderly Soviet-generation supporters at home. Or he can start WWIII and lose or start WWIII, go nuclear and then lose. That too will destroy him at home. Thus, for US hegemonists who haven't yet accepted that Putin has "blown it" and can no longer serve as a battering ram to destroy the EU (and has, indeed, become a liability to the very US groups that initially backed him), the logical thing is to try to get the US to capitulate to Putin in the mistaken belief the the European members of NATO are incapable of fending off Putin's rickety military machine by themselves. That wholly misunderstands the strength of nationalism in Europe, the very same nationalism that the US hegemonists have been trying to whip up as (yet another!) battering ram to destroy the EU!

Harold Smith , August 4, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT

"Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? [OR ARE WE NOW FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WAS A CALCULATED FRAUD FROM THE BEGINNING]?"

There; I fixed it for you.

Ludwig Watzal , Website August 4, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his agencies or departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress. which blocks any of his initiatives. What Vice President Mike Pence is talking about his trip in the Baltics or the other US satellite states, is irresponsible. It shows that Trump has lost control that is what the war party and the Republicans want. They will push Trump out of office and if it doesn't work some hired crazy will kill him like JFK. The real political gangsters are the members of the Deep State such as the CIA, NSA, the wider intelligence community, and the Clinton and Obama political mafia.

The suggestions made by Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, are just beyond the pale for the Russians. For what Volker suggested, Trump should replace him. President Putin should not accept being fooled by the US any longer and just take the Donbas, period as he did with South Ossetia. If the US war-mongers in Washington want to go to war over Ukraine, they should try it. Putin should not allow the US to blackmail him further on.
Putin is not an imperialist or an aggressor, but the US Empire and its NATO satellites are.

Having conquered 75 per cent of the world's territories through over 700 US military bases, the real perpetrator is obvious. Putin should not back down against US aggression and provocation. Why should the US risk its destruction for a corrupt and criminal political leadership in Ukraine? Perhaps there are still some sane people within the Belt Way, although they are thin on the ground.

Seward , August 4, 2017 at 2:04 pm GMT

@JL As I've proposed in other fora, a simple, effective Russian response would be to proclaim a temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such time as the Minsk II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the concerned parties. (I.E., temporarily permanent.) A precedent would be the French protectorates Tunisia and Morocco, and the various analogous protectorates still exercised around the world (see Wikipedia). The proclamation should proclaim that Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air, or naval attacks on the Donbas using forces located in Russian; and also against any ground attack across the cease-fire line using ground forces presently deployed in Russia, at the request of either Donbas republic. The U.S. and Nato would scream bloody murder of course, Congress would vote more meaningless sanctions, but the situation would stabilize permanently IMHO, perhaps after a few retaliatory barrages. It would be like the Crimea, a frozen conflict the Ukraine and the West know they cannot win short of WW3.

Sergey Krieger , August 4, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov And because they have not been hurt yet and have no clue as to what real hubris after failure coming home looks like.

anon , Disclaimer August 4, 2017 at 2:14 pm GMT

@Wally You are deluded. It's almost hopeless – but one last try- the policy of US global hegemony has nothing to do with Israel. It's been the goal of almost the entire foreign policy elite- including the WASP elite- since 1945. If you mistakenly insist on blaming Israel or its supporters for everything that is happening, you can't identify the real ideas and forces that are propelling us to disaster. That's why anti- Semitisn is such a disabling disease- it mentally cripples those who go down that path. But you won't listen or try to get out, so I'm wasting my breath.

anon , Disclaimer August 4, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT

@Captain Nemo Your analysis is correct. Add in the liberal interventionists to the foreign policy groups seeking US global hegemony.

anon , Disclaimer August 4, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT

@Captain Nemo Your analysis is correct. Add in the liberal interventionists to the foreign policy groups seeking US global hegemony.

Quartermaster , August 4, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT

This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000 dead already suffered on both sides.

last I looked there is already a war. Nothing would be "renewed," as it is ongoing.

Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement.

It is not a civil war. That is a Putinist lie. Russian units are already on the ground in the Donbas and their casualties have been quite heavy. Russian troops have been captured, and they were in possession of their military ID and internal passports. "Cargo 200″ shipments have been rather heavy over the last 3 years, and parents of the troops killed have been asking about their kids.

The Ukrainians are willing to fight for themselves. They simply need the tools. Putin may not like the fact that the Ukrainians don't want any part of his renewed Russian Empire, but it need not involve our troops when the people are their are willing to fight.

annamaria , August 4, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

@Taras77 "The stupidity of Volker is astonishing but he is in keeping with his neo con associates "

This is not stupidity. This is the zioncon-inspired treason against US citizenry at large. McCain father, an admiral, got his fame for whitewashing the USSLiberty "accident," thus insulting the memory of American sailors who were wounded and died during the despicable Israeli attack. John McCain moniker, "Tokyo Rose," is not for nothing. Similarly, his open fraternization with Ukrainian neo-Nazis (on a cue from ziocons) is just a family tradition of profitable betrayal. McCain has been loyal to ziocons because the Lobby has become all-powerful in the US.
https://www.dailystormer.com/senile-traitor-john-mccain-claims-america-was-stronger-under-obama/ "McCain's entire political career has been based off of doing what's best for Israel and not America."

http://america-hijacked.com/2011/09/02/john-mccain-praises-fathers-whitewashing-of-israels-attack-on-the-uss-liberty/

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/john-mccain-most-hypocritical-opportunistic-and-untrustworthy-senator

As for Volker, he is a regular opportunist who would sell the US for a right amount of money and power. Like boss, like servant.

Wally , Website August 4, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT

@anon Another desperate hasbarist has spoken.

'Antisemitism' is simply a logical reaction to the lies, thievery, violence, destruction, and hate that is perpetrated and advocated by Jewish supremacists.

The '6M Jews' crap is falling part, BDS is breathing down their neck, & "that shitty little country" is doomed. Excellent.

"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions!while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable 'holocaust' occur!gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

- Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

Must reads:
Holocaust Handbooks & Documentaries

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:

http://codoh.com

No name calling, level playing field debate here:

http://forum.codoh.com

The True Cost of Parasite Israel
Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

Israel's Dirty Little Secret
How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

Rurik , August 4, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT

@Seward

proclaim a temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such time as the Minsk II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the concerned parties

but that all presumes the existence of some adherence to some principle of International Law or respect for such notions. When from the West, there are none anymore. The zio-West now destroys entire nations based on what everyone knows and accepts are blatant lies. The charade is over. Even the trappings of the illusion have been tossed aside, and the snarling zio-face of 'might = right' is now menacing the world.

A precedent would be the French protectorates

you're using the language of codified law, when there isn't any anymore

Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air, or naval attacks on the Donbas using forces located in Russian;

the zio-fiend is salivating for any pretext it can use to act outraged and shocked, shocked! that today it has been proven true! Putin is Adolf Hitler and threatens the world with military tyranny! He must be stopped at all costs! John McCain and Lindsey Graham were right all along!! This man is a menace! and France and Germany and England are joining the ZUSA with immediate calls for Russia to desist and respect International Law and sovereign borders!!

'THIS WILL NOT STAND!'

blah, blah, blah

What Putin should do is tell the West/NATO to stop fomenting war on his borders, and if they really are going to keep pushing until Russia accepts its status as vassal state to Tel Aviv, (like the ZUSA and England and France and Germany obviously are), that before that happens, everyone should know that there's a certain 'shitty little state' in the middle east that can expect to be visited by a couple of Satan II ambassadors before Russia bows down like a mangy dog to the Jewish supremacist$ in Israel.

anonymous , Disclaimer August 4, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT

@neutral ZioUSA did everything in its power to derail Sochi.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/boycott-the-winter-olympi_b_4439037.html

U.S. skeleton athletes seek boycott of Sochi championships
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sport-doping-skeleton-usa-idUSKBN13U01H

U.S. Athletes Weigh a Boycott Over Russian Doping – The New York

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/sports/russian-doping-boycott-us-athletes.html

Should the US have boycotted the Sochi Olympics
http://www.debate.org › Opinions › Politics

Latvia skeleton team to boycott world championships in Russia | Sport
https://www.theguardian.com › Sports › Russia doping scandal

U.S. men's hockey players may boycott world championships in
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ /ct-us-men-may-boycott-hockey-world-championships-2 ;

U.S. women's hockey players to boycott world championships
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ /ct-womens-hockey-world-championships-boycott-20170 ;

Boycott the Winter Olympics | HuffPost
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/boycott-the-winter-olympi_b_4439037.html

Canada and U.S. should consider boycott of men's hockey in Sochi
archives.cerium.ca/Canada-should-boycott-men-s-hockey

for-the-record , August 4, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT

@neutral That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care, but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.

My point was that there will be a call to boycott the World Cup, hopefully you are right as to the outcome. After decades of being subservient vassals, it would be truly ironic if the ultimate wedge between the US and the "coalition of the willing" were to be sports, showing what is truly important in life

for-the-record , August 4, 2017 at 3:08 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table".

Following up on an earlier post, I think you are misinterpreting Volker's objective (and those of his "fellow travelers"). They know very well that Putin won't "come to the table", in fact they don't want him to. What they want is to force him to intervene directly and openly, as in Syria, and then use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for Russia. They don't care at all what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in a manner that will allow them to demonize it.

Rurik , August 4, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT

They don't care at all what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in a manner that will allow them to demonize it.

bingo!

Mulegino1 , August 4, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

As Volker so trenchantly illustrates, corruption, stupidity, recklessness and ignorance are indispensable prerequisites for the wielding of influence in the Washington D.C. "national security" establishment. It is not so much a swamp as an open sewer.

Trump should have let the Russian sanctions bill become law without his signature. One of his major weaknesses is his being bedazzled by flag officers and brass. His chief national security adviser is a dead ringer for Aleister Crowley.

Andrei Martyanov , Website August 4, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

What they want is to force him to intervene directly and openly, as in Syria, and then use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for Russia. They don't care at all what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in a manner that will allow them to demonize it.

It would have been a valid point should what you propose as a rationale hasn't been tried before–to no avail. Russia DOES have a proxy force in LDNR and, if and when necessary, may drastically "improve" its fighting capabilities. Considering the (what's known) present state of the Ukrainian Army (obviously a "strongest one in Europe(c)", wink, wink) I think the forces LDNR field currently are enough to prevent Kiev from attempting any large scale offensive. Having said all that, Poroshenko is desperate and he may try anything but political fallout for Russia, if to consider Russia's direct involvement, which will be very short and very bad for Ukraine, is being increasingly mitigated by Russia's Asian dynamics. Once Power of Siberia is operational (among other serious infrastructure projects at the Far East)–Europe can go to hell. But I am sure there are more aces and trump cards (no pun intended) up Russia's "sleeve". As per demonization: is it possible to demonize even more? I think Clapper has already established the fact that Russians are genetically inferior. So, concentration camps for Russians are in order at some point of time.

Harold Smith , August 4, 2017 at 4:03 pm GMT

@Ludwig Watzal "Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his agencies or departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress."

Would you agree with me that this pathetic situation obviously didn't happen by "accident"? It must be concluded that the Trump "presidency" is a Trojan horse. Trump's whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. That is, presidential poseur Trump ran with the intention of turning most general policy decisions, especially foreign policy, over to his Jewish-supremacist handlers, and letting them pick most if not all of his subordinates (or at least letting them have veto power over his choices).

Hood Canal Gardner , August 4, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT

What has The Donald got for a 'good deal swap' for Afghanistan, ie Putin to pick up where they left-off in the 70s?

virgile , August 4, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT

What is the USA's Achilleus heel where Russia, Iran or North Korea can inflict it the maximum pain?
Iraq? Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia? the Gulf countries? Japan? Israel?
It seems that North Korea already won as Tillerson now strongly denies that the USA is seeking a regime change there. It seems that the threat of nuclear is very effective in making the USA back down. Iran has proven on the ground in Syria that its missiles can easily reach Israel, that is why the USA rushed to inflict new sanctions. The USA seems to be building up a pretext ( or a false flag) to destroy Iran's missile development capabilities to protect Israel. Is Iran staying idle, or covertly threaten USA's local allies, the Gulf countries of possible retaliation? The Gulf countries are probably trying to prevent any attack on Iran. Japan did the same about North Korea, resulting in offers of negotiations. Will the Gulf countries have the same weight or the USA will take the chance of an all out war where it would have to intervene militarily again?
Now Russia will be watching Trump weakening and the neocons taking over. Is it a done game? who will rescue Trump? The American people who voted for him? will the USA fall into a civil war if Trump is threatened of impeachment?
I trust Trump will reach to the American people and win back his power.

Alden , August 4, 2017 at 5:36 pm GMT

@Harold Smith Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?

jacques sheete , August 4, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT

@Harold Smith

[OR ARE WE NOW FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WAS A CALCULATED FRAUD FROM THE BEGINNING]?"

There; I fixed it for you.

You certainly did!

aaaa returns , August 4, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny The EU are doing a good job of destroying themselves. If the Central and Eastern countries continue to be bullied over migrants and bad economic deals, then maybe they'll rightly cut and run.

USA's soft-war against Europe was evident right after the 2008 economic bust, with Greece CDS's being targeted until capitulation. Then Hillary or whomever conned Europe into wrecking Libya, then Ukraine, then Syria, then the wave of migrants began..

It might sound ridiculous, but I am starting to think Erdogan has been a far better leader than Merkel or the clown car carousel of France. He's totally ruthless, and has been a supporter of terrorists, but his moves have been somewhat logical in the face of extreme crisis. Now he seems to have oriented Turkey to a relatively solid footing as far as I can see.

annamaria , August 4, 2017 at 6:07 pm GMT

@Rurik The destruction and rape of Ukraine had been planned already by the ZUSA when a previous puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED). http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html

"Back in 2010, Russia proposed creating a joint venture with Ukraine and unifying Gazprom's fields and Ukraine's gas pipelines. However, the pro-American leadership of Ukraine at the time (when Viktor Yushchenko, who led the country as a result of a color revolution, was president) rejected the project, seeing such as a "threat" to "national dignity", i.e., Ukraine's GTS [gas transport system]. The plan for "increasing Ukraine's energy security" contained in HR 3364 [concocted in the US] means turning Ukraine into a transit monopolist under the control of American companies. Accepting the Americans' conditions is economically disadvantageous to Russia and renders it politically dependent on the unpredictable transit that is Ukraine. If this act is implemented, American energy companies will be able to participate in the privatization of Ukraine's GTS (as provided by the Third Energy Package) and profit off of the transport of gas across Ukrainian territory. Thus, the main revenue from transiting Russian gas would not go to the Ukrainians, but to their overseas overlord."

Very clear. The natives can go die out peacefully without making any unnecessary noise re "sovereignty," "national interests" and other trifles that are of no interests for the US corporations.

Monsanto is already in charge of the Ukraine' agricultural lands. Splendid. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2526593/ukraine_opens_up_for_monsanto_land_grabs_and_gmos.html

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has been chaired by Carl Gershman, the ziocon who has been president since NED was founded in 1983.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192992.html

https://journal-neo.org/2015/08/03/national-endowment-for-democracy-is-now-officially-undesirable-in-

SolontoCroesus , August 4, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

@Alden

Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?

technicalities.

Woodrow Wilson was under control of zionists, most notably, in the person of Louis Brandeis & his claque.

Franklin D Roosevelt was most certainly under the control of zionists/Jews -- Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, and the Morgenthaus, pater et fil plus their acolytes and syanim, exerted enormous power over FDR. Eisenhower owed most of his power/authority to doing things that pleased zionist/Jewish string-pullers who maneuvered FDR

as you say, LBJ for sure was more committed to keeping the gawd's chozen happy than to protecting the interests of the American people.

Based on a review on "The American Empire Project" of a book by Nathan Thrall, titled "The Only Language they Understand," http://americanempireproject.com/blog/the-only-language-they-understand-by-nathan-thrall/ , Jimmy Carter probably did more to turn USA over to the zionists than even LBJ: this is surprising because, as the review notes, Carter initially took a hard line on Israel, demanding early on that Israel halt settlement-building, and arguing forcefully that Palestinians deserved protection of their territorial and all other rights.

When Carter's other activities vis a vis Jews are correlated with the actions Thrall describes, I think -- should say speculate -- that Carter was out-maneuvered by the zionists: it was Carter who gave Jews the opening to create the holocaust museum in Washington, DC -- in other words, it may be that Carter allowed the Trojan Horse to be rolled through the gates of the USA and to stand at USA's front door.
The Jews got what they wanted, but Carter's demands were not only ignored, they -- and he -- were cast aside.

Harold Smith , August 4, 2017 at 6:57 pm GMT

@Alden "Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?"

Obviously. But the tenor of Ludwig Watzal's post seems to be that Trump, other than perhaps being "weak" or "incompetent" is not at fault.

I agree with him that technically, Trump probably isn't "in control", but that's apparently what Trump agreed to when he and his handlers set out to defraud all of us.

annamaria , August 4, 2017 at 7:02 pm GMT

What made Mueller such a great asset for the deep state?

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/08/comey-and-mueller-russiagates-mythical-heroes/

"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang . Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."

Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11.
He is just "their man."

EugeneGur , August 4, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT

@Quartermaster You sound like you copied this statement from a Ukrainian propaganda site.

Sure thing, thousands of Donbass people fighting in the militia do not exists but Russia troops nobody has been able to see or photograph do. I have the utmost respect for the Russian military capabilities but I do not think they've developed a clocking device as yet.

And, of course, going to a secret military mission, you should never forget to bring along you internal passport and military ID. Heavy losses, really? We know people who died in Donbass by name – and they aren't Russia soldiers. Oh, you forgot about buryats – no picture of the Russia invasion could be complete without byuryat motorized divisions invading Donbass.

You may not like it but this is a civil war brought about by the idiotic policies of the scumbags the West put in charge of Ukraine. As to the tools, bring them over – they'll end up in the hands of the Donbass militia in no time. You see, "Ukrainians are willing to fight for themselves" mostly on the pages of Facebook. Those that do go to the Army, mostly do it for money. The situation in today's Ukraine is so desperate, killing one's former compatriots is about the only way for a man to make a living.

Rurik , August 4, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT

@annamaria all true anna

they've had their devil's tentacles in Ukraine for quite some time. When you mentioned the word 'trifles', I was reminded of what the Israeli/"Ukrainian" oligarch said about the people on MH17. He called their deaths a 'trifle', as he mentions that the wrong plane was shot down. Presumably his merc was sent up to shoot Putin's plane down and he shot the wrong one down (which would explain the machine gun holes).

this video has been scrubbed from most of the internet, and most of the ones you click on will say 'this video has been removed'

https://youtu.be/-TmarLwobzs

yeah , August 4, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT

@reiner Tor Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election or he's not really a dictator. Good catch! The pity is that people who have made up their minds (or have had theirs made up for them) about Putin being a dictator will not see the wit and logical beauty of your argument. They are quite likely to write you off as another Russian-stooge and dig in their heels even further. Here is a short farcical satire about our times.

Good, obedient citizen: Please Guvm'nt, help me. I can't sleep at night 'cause I fear there may be a red under my bed waiting to choke me to death.

Guvm'nt: Don't worry lad. We watch your house, we monitor your mail. We watch you and yours. We know when you pee and we watch who comes in and out of your house. No one can even breathe without our being in the know.

Good citizen: Ah thank God! Thanks for preventing a red under my bed. I can now sleep in peace.

[Aug 02, 2017] Sanctions, smoke and mirrors from a kindergarten on LSD by Saker

Notable quotes:
"... "Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to be called the "Neocon Lobby". ..."
"... For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons. ..."
"... Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven, they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating to the people around them. ..."
"... urbi et orbi ..."
"... Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops. ..."
"... someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please. ..."
"... The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death. ..."
"... This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo! ..."
"... anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse? ..."
"... After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon." ..."
"... I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity. ..."
"... The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives on Capitol Hill. ..."
"... This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats' rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia, so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks. ..."
"... We have an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington is doing now: committing suicide. ..."
"... I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else. ..."
"... Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it fed. ..."
"... Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. ..."
"... And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard. Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. ..."
Jul 31, 2017 | www.unz.com

The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response have resulted in a torrent of speculations in the official media and the blogosphere – everybody is trying to make sense of a situation which appears to make no sense at all. Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against Russia when Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, every single US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?! This is even more baffling when you consider that the single biggest effect of these sanctions will be to trigger a rift, and possibly even counter-sanctions , between the US and the EU. What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies. And yet, every Senator except Paul and Sanders voted for this. Does that make any sense to you?

Let's try to figure out what is going on here.

First, a simple reminder: like all US politicians, from the county level to the US Congress, Senators have only one consideration when then vote – "what's in it for me?". The very last thing which any US Senator really cares about are the real life consequences of his/her vote. This means that to achieve the kind of quasi unanimity (98%) for a totally stupid vote there was some kind of very influential lobby which used some very forceful "arguments" to achieve such a vote. Keep in mind that the Republicans in the Senate knew that they were voting against the wishes of their President. And yet every single one except for Rand Paul voted for these sanctions, that should tell you something about the power of the lobby which pushed for them. So who would have such power?

The website " Business Pundit: Expert Driven " has helpfully posted an article which lists the 10 top most powerful lobbies in Washington, DC . They are (in the same order as in the original article)

Okay, why not? We could probably rearrange them, give them different labels, add a couple (like the "Prison Industrial Complex" or the "Intelligence Community") but all in all this is an okay list. Any name on it jump at you yet?

One could make the case that most of these lobbies need an enemy to prosper, this is certainly true of the Military-Industrial Complex and the associated high tech industry, and one could also reasonably claim that Big Oil, Mining and Agribusiness see Russia has a potential competitor. But a closer look at the interests these lobbies represent will tell you that they are mostly involved in domestic politics and that faraway Russia, with her relatively small economy, is just not that important to them. This is also clearly true for Big Pharma, the AARP and the NRA. Which leaves the Israel Lobby as the only potential candidate.

"Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to be called the "Neocon Lobby". Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.

These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him. These are the folks who simply use "Russia" as a propagandistic fulcrum to peddle the notion that Trump and his entourage are basically Russian agents and Trump himself as a kind of "Presidential Manchurian Candidate".

Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven, they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating to the people around them. They always overplay their hand and then end up stunned and horrified when all their conspiracies and plans come tumbling down on them.

I submit that this is exactly what is happening right now.

First, the Neocons lost the elections. For them, it was a shock and a nightmare. The "deplorables" voted against the unambiguously clear "propaganda instructions" given to them by the media. Next, the Neocons turned their rabid hatred against Trump and they succeeded at basically neutering him, but only at the cost of terribly weakening the USA themselves! Think of it: 6 months plus into the Trump administration the USA has already managed to directly threaten Iran, Syria, the DPRK and in all cases with exactly zero results. Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo --

So while Kim Jong-un fires missiles on the 4th of July, the Syrian Army is closing in on Deir ez-Zor, the Ukraine is turning into Somalia, the Russian economy is back to growth and Putin's popularity is as high as ever, the Neocons are totally freaking out and, as is typical of a person losing control, they don't do things which would make sense but do what they are used to doing: slapping sanctions (even if they are totally ineffective) and sending messages (even if they are totally ignored). In other words, the Neocons are now engaging in magical thinking, the deliberately chose to delude themselves about their power and influence and they are coping with their full-spectrum failure at everything by pretending that their votes in Congress matter. They truth is – they don't.

Here is where we need to turn to the other misconception in this matter, that the Russian reaction to these latest sanctions is really about these sanctions. It is not.

First, let's tackle the myth that these sanctions are hurting Russia. They really don't. Even the 100% russophobic Bloomberg is beginning to realize that, if anything, all these sanctions have made both Putin and Russia stronger . Second, there is the issue of timing: instead of slapping on some counter-sanctions the Russians suddenly decided to dramatically reduce the US diplomatic personnel in Russia and confiscate a two US diplomatic facilities in a clear retaliation for the expulsion of Russian diplomats and seizure of Russian diplomatic facilities by Obama last year. Why now?

Many observers say that the Russians are "naive" about the West and the USA, that Putin was "hoping" for better relations and that this hope was paralyzing him. Others say that Putin is "weak" or even "in cahoots" with the West. This is all total nonsense.

People tend to forget that Putin was an officer in the foreign intelligence branch of the KGB, the so-called "First Main Directorate" (PGU). Furthermore, Putin has recently revealed that he worked in the highly secretive "Directorate S" of the PGU and he was in charge of contacts with a network of illegal Soviet spies in East-Germany (were Putin was under the official cover of Director of the USSR-GDR Friendship House). If the PGU was the "elite of the elite" of the KGB, and its most secretive part, then the "Directorate S" was the "elite of the elite" of the PGU and its most secretive part. This is most definitely not a career for "naive" or "weak" people, to put it mildly! First and foremost, PGU officers were "specialists of the West" in general, and of the United States especially because the USA was always officially considered as the "main enemy" (even if most PGU officers personally considered the British as their most capable, dangerous and devious adversary). Considering the superb level of education and training given to these officers, I would argue that the PGU officers were amongst the best experts of the West anywhere in the world. Their survival and the survival of their colleagues depended on their correct understanding of the western world. As for Putin personally, he has always taken action in a very deliberate and measured way and there is no reason to assume that this time around the latest US sanctions have suddenly resulted in some kind of emotional outburst in the Kremlin. You can be darn sure that this latest Russian reaction is the result of very carefully arrived to conclusion and the formulation of a very precise and long-term objective.

I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions. In practical terms, if Trump wanted to lift any of these sanctions, he would have to send an official letter to Congress which would then have 30 days to approve or reject the proposed action. In other words, the Congress has now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign policy and taken upon itself to micromanage the US foreign policy.

That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'ιtat and a gross violation of the principles of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system.

It also is a telling testimony to the utter depravity of the US Congress which took no such measures when Presidents bypass Congress and started wars without the needed congressional authority, but which is now overtly taking over the US foreign policy to prevent the risk of "peace breaking out" between Russia and the USA.

And Trump's reaction?

He declared that he would sign the bill.

Yes, the main is willing to put his signature on the text which represents an illegal coup d'ιtat against this own authority and against the Constitution which he swore to uphold.

With this in mind, the Russian reaction is quite simple and understandable: they have given up on Trump.

Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama and maybe return the international relations to a semblance of sanity. Alas, this did not happen, Trump turned out to be an overcooked noodle whose only real achievement was to express his thoughts in 140 characters or less. But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve. Worse, his only reaction to their multi-dimensional attempts at overthrowing him were each time met with clumsy attempts at appeasing them.

For Russia is means that President Trump has now been replaced by "President Congress".

Since it is absolutely impossible to get anything done with this Congress anyway, the Russians will now engage in unilaterally beneficial measures such as dramatically reducing the number of US diplomats in Russia. For the Kremlin, these sanctions are no so much an unacceptable provocation has an ideal pretext to move on a number of Russian internal policies. Getting rid of US employees in Russia is just a first step.

Next, Russia will use the frankly erratic behavior of the Americans to proclaim urbi et orbi that the Americans are irresponsible, incapable of adult decision-making and basically "gone fishing". The Russians already did that much when they declared that the Obama-Kerry team was недоговороспособны (nedogovorosposobny: "non agreement capable", more about this concept here ). Now with Trump signing his own constitutional demise, Tillerson unable to get UN Nikki to shut the hell up and Mattis and McMaster fighting over delusional plans to stop "not winning" in Afghanistan, the Obama-Kerry teams starts to look almost adult.

Frankly, for the Russians now is the time to move on.

I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump. I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions (if only because the USA has run out of countries it can safely and easily attack). Some "pretend interventions" (like the ill-fated missile strike on Syria) remain, of course, quite possible and even likely. This internal slow-mo coup against Trump will absorb the vast majority of the energy to get anything done, and leave foreign policy as simply another byproduct of internal US politics.

The East-Europeans are now totally stuck. They will continue to haplessly observe the unfolding Ukrainian disaster while playing at silly games pretending to be tough on Russia (the latest example of that kind of "barking from behind a fence" can be seen in the rather pathetic closure of the Romanian air space to a civilian aircraft with Russian Vice-Premier Dmitri Rogozin amongst the passengers). The real (West) Europeans will gradually come back to their senses and begin making deals with Russia. Even France's Emmanuel Macron de Rothschild will probably prove a more adult partner than The Donald.

But the real action will be elsewhere – in the South, the East and the Far-East. The simple truth is that the world cannot simply wait for the Americans to come back to their senses. There are a lot of crucial issues which need to be urgently tackled, a lot of immense projects which need to be worked on, and a fundamentally new and profoundly different multi-polar world which needs to be strengthened. If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring down the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem.

Washington DC is starting to look like a kindergarten on LSD – something both funny and disgusting. Predictably, the kids don't look too bright: a mix of bullies and spineless idiots. Some of them have their fingers on a nuclear button, and that is outright scary. What the adults need to do now is to figure out a way of keeping the kids busy and distracted so they don't press the damn button by mistake. And wait. Wait for the inevitable reaction of a country which is so much more and better than its rulers and which now desperately needs a real patriot to stop Witches' Sabbath in Washington DC.

I will end this column on a personal note. I just crossed the USA, literally, from the Rogue River in Oregon to East Central Florida. During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal government. I have now lived a total of 20 years in the USA and I have learned to love and deeply appreciate the many kind, decent, honorable and simply beautiful people who live here. Far from seeing the American people as enemies of Russia, I see them has natural allies, if only because we have the same enemy (the Neocons in DC) and absolutely no objective reasons for conflict, none whatsoever. Moreover, in many ways Americans and Russians are very much alike, sometimes in comical ways. Just as during the Cold War I never lost hope in the Russian people, I now refuse to lose hope in the American people. Yes, the US federal government is disgusting, evil, ugly, stupid, degenerate and outright satanic, but the people of the USA are not. Far from it. I don't know if this country can survive the current regime as one unitary USA or whether it will break up in several quite different entities (something I see as very possible), but I do believe that the people of the USA will survive and overcome just as the Russian people survived the horrors of the 1980s and 1990s.

[Sidebar: after being accused of being a "paid Putin agent" (Vladimir, please send me money!!), a "Jew-lover" or even a "crypto-Jew" myself, a Nazi and Anti-Semite (which decent and good person has not been called an Anti-Semite" at least once in his/her life), a Communist and a Muslim (or, at least, a "Muslim propagandist"), I will now be called an "USA lover". Fine. Guilty as charged! I do love this country very much, as I do love its people. In fact, my heart often breaks for them and for the immense sufferings the Anglo-Zionist Empire also inflicts upon them. In the fight between the people of the USA and the Empire I unapologetically side with the people whom I see as friends, allies and even brothers.]

Right now the USA appears to be plunging into a precipice very similar to the one the Ukraine has plunged into (which is unsurprising, really, the same people inflicting the same disasters on whatever country they infect with their presence). The big difference is that immense and untapped potential of the USA to bounce back. There might not even be a Ukraine in 10 years, but there will most definitely be a USA, albeit maybe a very different one or even maybe several successor states.

But for the time being, I can only repeat what Floridians say when a hurricane comes barreling down on them: "hunker down" and brace for some very difficult and dangerous times to come. (Republished from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)

Bragadocious > , August 1, 2017 at 12:58 am GMT

Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU–they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?

Sharrukin > , August 1, 2017 at 1:50 am GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? Americans and the US government are two different things.

That is no small part of why Trump got elected.

Antagonize Russia to what purpose?

Now we have Haley at the UN, Tillerton, and McMaster making statements at odds with Trumps and they still have a job. Can Trump even remove them?

Who is actually in charge of the American government? Is it Trump or the Neocons?

The entire Russia hacking story is a joke and probably a setup by the Democrats if their links to Fusion GPS is true.

Regardless, foreign nations have to deal with the world outside of Washington DC and its looks like the lunatics have taken control of the DC asylum which may well be the case.

The problem is the lack of coherence from Washington.

We may be looking at a slow motion coup, or simple incompetence, but Trump never struck me as incompetent in his other business dealings.

A power struggle seems to make the most sense.

Ned > , August 1, 2017 at 2:07 am GMT

God bless you Saker

Ned > , August 1, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? Your trolling comment is offensive

Excal > , August 1, 2017 at 2:26 am GMT

"During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal government."

I am anything but beautiful, but everything else about that sentence describes me.

I have never been to Russia, but I have known many Russians, and I am a bit of a Russophile. I voted for Trump partly because I was certain that Clinton would immediately plunge us into war with Russia. It sickens me that the senate are now rattling sabres against them. I am praying for them, and that this country is stopped from doing any real damage to them.

I can't help but wonder whether the all-but-signed alliance with the Saudis has something to do with this. There must be something diabolical there too.

Bragadocious > , August 1, 2017 at 3:45 am GMT

@Ned Your trolling comment is offensive You returned from a 3-year posting absence to write that?

exiled off mainstreet > , August 1, 2017 at 5:07 am GMT

Great picture and great description. Hopefully, things will degenerate to the point where they can't gin up a nuclear war.

NoseytheDuke > , August 1, 2017 at 6:21 am GMT

@Bragadocious You returned from a 3-year posting absence to write that? So Ned took a break for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment was offensive, I would have called it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of the sort that the US has already had more than enough of.

Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.

Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is increasingly looking like it's not going to happen.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 1, 2017 at 6:22 am GMT

I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall" 1850-1950 (very last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there all the same. Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was willing to sell off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years. (If you want an example, take the Panama Canal.)

In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the "known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle) is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive proposition – destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY – why do the neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc., you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort, CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly, has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now – ever since Kissinger (godfather of the neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment – in particular to political parties and to the media – since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know, and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold, Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930′s, but that might mean identifying with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)

That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee) are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it to keep Congress dumb and afraid but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely, the Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires, including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.

If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review, check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If your mind has been closed, let it open.

"Yet none dare call it treason."

Parbes > , August 1, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT

The neocons and their media in the U.S. and the rest of the West simply HAVE to be taken out, one way or another. This is the only acceptable route – a knot tying the whole world up in insanity, which must be broken.

utu > , August 1, 2017 at 7:56 am GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as spying in Wales for James Bond.

Randal > , August 1, 2017 at 8:15 am GMT

But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.

Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far as US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates Nikki Haley's open warmongering).

The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated by lobbyists via the media.

See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:

How Romney Loyalists Hijacked Trump's Foreign Policy

Randal > , August 1, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?

I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.

Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly) singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.

Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq?

He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also points out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape from the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy seems to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality, especially with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.

And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?

Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be a good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary importance for US foreign and military policy.

JL > , August 1, 2017 at 8:34 am GMT

This article is something of a mixed bag. The idea that there is going to be some rift between the EU and US is, at best, wishful thinking, but probably closer to downright delusion. No, European countries ceased to be subjects of history, and became objects, when they ceded their sovereignty to the implicitly Atlanticist and supranational structure that is the EU. So they may growl and gnash their teeth a bit, but will eventually roll over and hope that their bellies are scratched and not slashed.

As for Trump signing the sanctions legislation as it is written, Saker's point is valid. No president should abrogate power without a fight. He should, at the very least, insist that the restrictions on his ability to unilaterally cancel sanctions be removed from the legislation or he will veto the bill and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. And, he should make clear that this isn't about sanctioning or not sanctioning Russia, but the fact that the law is unconstitutional.

Saker is also correct that the US is simply too dysfunctional now to pursue any kind of coherent foreign policy. If I were Putin, I would ask Trump who in Congress he should be negotiating with, since neither Trump himself, nor anyone in his cabinet, possesses the authority to follow through with any possible agreements. The smarter commentators are actually all coming around to the same view. Dmitry Trenin:

"I think the Kremlin views the U.S. as a dysfunctional polity, with its political class at war with itself and its society deeply divided along cultural fault lines. Under these circumstances one hardly expects a consistent policy Bad as they are now, U.S.-Russian relations continue to get worse, edging ever closer to a kinetic collision between their armed forces somewhere: in Syria, over the Baltic and Black Seas, or Ukraine."

It does indeed seem like something dramatic needs to happen, at which point the US will either come to its senses or it's mushroom cloud time for all of us.

animalogic > , August 1, 2017 at 8:58 am GMT

Although I think there is some hypobole involved, I would like to thank the Saker for raising this very interesting and very pregnant issue:

"In other words, the Congress has now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign policy and taken upon itself to micromanage the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'ιtat and a gross violation of the principles of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system."

This is a very disturbing development, to say the least.

However, I do disagree with the Saker on this point:
"If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring down the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem."

The "Americans" -- that is US citizens -- do NOT want to bring down the constitution, nor have a government operate in a delusional realm. Nor does the US "government have the "right" to operate in the way they do: that amounts to saying they have the right to commit treason ( a meaningless concept for the Elites). Finally, it is NOT just an American "problem": unfortunately, it's a world problem. We are all liable to suffer for the insane shenanigans of the US Ruling class.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 1, 2017 at 10:19 am GMT

I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.

And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey – a certified swamp creature – to be loyal is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump. With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only thing standing in the way of One World Government.

I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions

Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot of Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base.

Bragadocious > , August 1, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke So Ned took a break for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment was offensive, I would have called it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of the sort that the US has already had more than enough of.

Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.

Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is increasingly looking like it's not going to happen. Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock

Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:

Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama

See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound like a kindergartner on LSD.

"I would have called it stupid"

Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.

Bragadocious > , August 1, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT

@Randal


I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly) singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.

Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also points out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape from the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy seems to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality, especially with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.

And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be a good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary importance for US foreign and military policy. Saker didn't refer to any of those things

I agree, he didn't, but then again, it seems Saker doesn't do nuance very well. He specializes in grandiose insults (stupid, LSD, kindergartners, overcooked noodle, gone fishing) without mentioning some pretty important stuff, like Trump cutting off funding to the Syrian rebels. That move infuriated the neocons. Why doesn't Saker mention that? I guess it doesn't jibe with his overall "incompetence" theme and anti-Trump snark.

As for the sanctions, they seem to upset Saker. But then he says it's water off a duck's back for Putin. Hey, they probably even strengthen his hand -- So really, who gives a shit? He contradicts himself.

Finally, he says Trump has turned over foreign policy responsibility to Congress. I'm no constitutional expert, but Congress is in charge of declaring war. Sanctions can be interpreted as an act of war. In any case, forcing the congresscritters to go on record for something like this can be seen as very useful, just as the Iraq war vote was in blocking Hillary from higher office.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 1, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT

Thanks for the compliments regarding the American people. They all want peace just like all others and have always voted for what they thought was the peace candidate only to be betrayed later. I've lived here longer than just twenty years, however, but my whole life and am not so sanguine about the nature of most Americans. I'd say the vast majority, perhaps 70%, are ignorant dolts and easily bamboozled. Elections are just festivals of lies and deceit with few being able to learn from the previous experience. The population is composed mostly of dodo birds. The ruling class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen. This is a bad formula and can only go so far. The fault is not in our stars but in us.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 1, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT

" The ruling class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen."

And who exactly is this "ruling class" if not the neocons? Are they not exactly like Milovan Djilas' "new class" – a class of apparatchiks in positions to profit enormously (while living very comfortably) from the decline and fall of an empire. How could this be, if their treasonous profiteering could only leave them as having no place to turn but the China-dominated new world order? Well, perhaps they actually know that the very millionaires who controlled key industries in China prior to 1950, were also millionaires who lived, have lived even during the Cultural Revolution, and for their families, continue to live, very comfortably and securely in Shanghai from 1950 onward – assuming that they were astute enough to have been doing business with the Communists all along. Perhaps they realize that the Communists are about as communistic as the National Socialists were socialistic so that course which is most profitable in the short-run is also most profitable in the long run.

"Yet none dare call it treason."

Robert Magill > , August 1, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT

I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.

This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part and move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day) of 50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently. Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much bigly. All will be well --

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

Sean > , August 1, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT

Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/world/europe/pentagon-and-state-department-are-said-to-propose-arming-ukraine.html

Sean > , August 1, 2017 at 7:58 pm GMT

@Robert Magill


I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part and move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day) of 50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently. Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much bigly. All will be well --

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com The production facilities of the future will be automated and the elimination of workers will mean there is no particular reason to continue offshoring production. The factories will come back to the West, but the jobs won't exist .

Alan Donelson > , August 1, 2017 at 8:03 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet Great picture and great description. Hopefully, things will degenerate to the point where they can't gin up a nuclear war. Great picture -- just not congruent with the title of the post. With a moniker like that, EoM, one might think you'd notice the size of that girl's pupils. Not on LSD. Ill bet she had already graduated from kindergarten, too. But then, why be critical of what one sees and reads. I take SAKER's input with a salt shaker on hand.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 1, 2017 at 8:34 pm GMT

And yet, every Senator except Paul and Sanders voted for this.

2 men out of "100″ men looks like the regular average.

Chuck > , August 1, 2017 at 9:38 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall" 1850-1950 (very last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there all the same. Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was willing to sell off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years. (If you want an example, take the Panama Canal.)

In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the "known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle) is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive proposition - destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY - why do the neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc., you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort, CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly, has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now - ever since Kissinger (godfather of the neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment - in particular to political parties and to the media - since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know, and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold, Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930's, but that might mean identifying with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)

That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee) are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it to keep Congress dumb and afraid ... but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely, the Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires, including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.

If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review, check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If your mind has been closed, let it open.

"Yet none dare call it treason." Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/259853-training-tactical-officers-critical-for-national

Priss Factor > , Website August 2, 2017 at 4:08 am GMT

Let the US reveal itself to be totally owned by Zionist globalists.

And if EU goes along, it will only show itself as cuck vassals of the US.

Russia needs to fix its problems and build a super-economy of its own.

With China and Iran as partners, Russia can do much if they put their mind to it.

But do Russians have the National Character?

Stephen R. Diamond > , Website August 2, 2017 at 4:15 am GMT

@utu Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as spying in Wales for James Bond.

And obviously Putin is a superman

Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything is a stroke of genius.

These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize these mediocrities for what they are.

NoseytheDuke > , August 2, 2017 at 4:35 am GMT

@Bragadocious Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock

Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:

Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama

See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound like a kindergartner on LSD.

"I would have called it stupid"

Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart. I see that you've outed yourself as a Coincidence Theorist there so you may console yourself as at least being "useful", even if it is only as being a useful idiot.

Start with ae911truth.org, grap a book on high-school physics and go on from there. There's plenty of reading and learning ahead for you, but you'll be much better for it. Oh, and stop the chest-thumping, it only results in bruises.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 2, 2017 at 4:41 am GMT

@Chuck Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/259853-training-tactical-officers-critical-for-national "Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection." – Chuck, citing to The Hill

Thanks, Chuck. That's a great catch.

aaaa returns > , August 2, 2017 at 4:45 am GMT

As always, a good read from the Saker.
I think his assessment is spot on; Trump and his movement have been disabled. Now Congress members seem to be jockeying for future power-gains, while Trump might be starting to check out. He'll keep tweeting or whatever, but Nikki Haley, Pence and the generals might end up grabbing more decision-making power or perhaps not.. who knows.

There's always the 25th amendment scenario, the Russian collusion angle, or maybe some other damning revelation to pop up in the future to sink Trump, but I think many in Washington may be under warning that his removal could have a devastating impact.

I am not as optimistic about a lack of militarism in response to the crisis. That has been the go-to option for all modern American presidents in times of crisis.

nsa > , August 2, 2017 at 5:08 am GMT

The worms in the House and Senate have been totally terrorized by the vile jooies. Give the loathsome jooies whatever they want, no matter how foul, and keep their jobs or cross the abominable jooies and lose their jobs when a well funded opponent supported by the repulsive KM (kosher media) just happens to appear in the next primary. The Jooie Lobby runs the Knesset on the Potomac, not the US citizenry who are held in the utmost contempt by the bloodthirsty jooie elites. Government of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies .

KA > , August 2, 2017 at 5:25 am GMT

Many events are sprouting up all over the map
India China, Taliban in Afghanistan ,Venezuela , Iran Syria Lebanon , Israel Palestine -- all are moving rapidly into unknown territory . America is no longer is in a position to influence these events. . despite not wanting American policy makers will be forced to look inwards . Those counytriesmay nt bother to inform America .

Health Care, Student loans, next inevitable housing bubble, millennial not saving and being forced to spend the income on health care and rents along , nation as a whole see increasing social fragmentation on ethnic lines -- these forces will make America much weaker economically and socially . Foreign countries like China and Gulf monarchies will influence American foreign and domestic policies .

America democracy itself may not survive the changes . Neocons with eager media may settle down on dictatorship.

F > , August 2, 2017 at 6:32 am GMT

@Ned God bless you Saker Creepy comment.

Sergey Krieger > , August 2, 2017 at 7:52 am GMT

"The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response"

There has not been any response so far. Response was to US expelling 35 Russian diplomats 6+ months ago. This is why I am not a fan of delayed responses. As saying goes, spoon is for dinner, not afterwards. Russia so far failed to respond to USA aggression which is what sanctions are.
Putin has been doing this whole patience expectations of US coming to her senses for some 10 years with poor results as US belligerence seems to grow in lack of appropriate responses from Russia.
Putin being liberal he is, seems cannot abandon hope to be part of the club so far hence this treatment in white gloves when it is stick across US face and kick into US groin what's necessary.
USA is like a dog that understands only stick. And stick has been missing despite Russia having enough options to start really hurting USA where it hurts and stop cooperation everywhere even in Syria.
I am not holding my breath with Putin though. He still insists on not letting up and talking to madman despite that doing everything to hurt him.
Slow learner he is both in regards to USA and Russian economy.

Sergey Krieger > , August 2, 2017 at 7:56 am GMT

"What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."

Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 2, 2017 at 8:07 am GMT

@Randal


But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far as US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates Nikki Haley's open warmongering).

The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more than the lobbyists - which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated by lobbyists via the media.

See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:

How Romney Loyalists Hijacked Trump's Foreign Policy

The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated by lobbyists via the media.

Yet, that has never happened, and will never happen. People elect leaders quite like themselves.

It is the people, stupid (I don't necessarily mean you).

The Alarmist > , August 2, 2017 at 9:06 am GMT

The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the risk whilst in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough, so they go on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the wars and dying will be done over there in their estimation.

TheJester > , August 2, 2017 at 10:20 am GMT

Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.

These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.

Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham but this need be no more complex than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.

The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true.

jacques sheete > , August 2, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT

Does that make any sense to you?

No.

And one of the things I've learned is to NOT seek a reasonable answer to situations provoked by utter crackpots.

It's simple; many of those in positions of power and responsibility are not only nuts in the head, but no human is built to shoulder much power at all.

mp > , August 2, 2017 at 10:56 am GMT

Of the lobby groups listed, probably only Big Oil and Big Jew (and not in that order) have much of an interest in going to war with Russia. The Military-Industrials are happy just to get contracts to build stuff. They don't really care, or particularly want, their stuff to be used. Most of it is too expensive to use, and probably doesn't work as advertised, anyhow.

Wizard of Oz > , August 2, 2017 at 10:58 am GMT

I'm afraid you're right.

But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity.

Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means of influence to explain the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!

And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference to that Senate vote?

Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your explanation .. Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its dug in positions.

The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as that?

white noise > , August 2, 2017 at 11:44 am GMT

@Anonymous


I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey - a certified swamp creature - to be loyal is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump. With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only thing standing in the way of One World Government.

I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot of Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base. "Russian nukes are the only thing standing in the way of One World Government."

Indeed. Vladimir Putin has big balls, and the elites hate him. But he's not afraid of a murder attempt. The elites know that if something happens to him, Europe, Israel and North America would be reduced to radioactive debris in about one hour

KA > , August 2, 2017 at 12:11 pm GMT

A new alignment is likely to emerge .t will be much less adversarial and much less enthused with polemic. America China Israel Saudi Arab – pitted against – India Russia Iran Japan, . China will embrace US because of Neocon and myriad financial connections with US .India will be forced to return to Russia . China joining America or America deciding to join China is the game changer and disrupt very other relationship. China will try to occupy American position after WW2 while US will find itself occupying post WW2 British position. Neoconservatives and financial system of the world will force this merger .

Pakistan Germany Turkey will try to juggle and hedge theirs bets . Central Asian Stan will be politically connected to Russia but economically to China .China and Russia will quarrel here and these countries will face a period of turmoil. Balkans will move back to Russia . NATO will be largely irrelevant with no ability to have consensus and a mission .
The world will become more rambunctious and hyper verbal but it won't fight .
Polyglot countries like India and America will try to talk along ethnic lines more but the fundamental underlying realities will not change . Despite the divisiveness promoted by parties, the citizen will move to closer relationship and understanding and common ground partly because the divisiveness will fail to accrue any benefit to the groups most interested in harvesting it .But the divisiveness will not disappear from daily discourse .

ffff > , August 2, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT

Anyone else find their comments censored on thesaker? Seems like a "pro"-russian version of CNN

utu > , August 2, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

@Stephen R. Diamond


And obviously Putin is a superman
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything is a stroke of genius.

These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize these mediocrities for what they are. ;) Everything is a stroke of genius.

Like playing 3D or nD (n–>inf) chess, right?

I think it come from desperation and hope, I think. And as they say, hope does not want to die in spite of the evidence that it should long time ago.

n230099 > , August 2, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT

" 10 top most powerful lobbies in Washington, DC. They are (in the same order as in the original article)

Tech Lobby
Mining Industry
Defense Industry
Agribusiness Industry
Big Oil
Financial Lobby
Big Pharma
AARP
Pro-Israel Lobby
NRA"

Well, some are 'lobbies' but some are just bogeymen.

white noise > , August 2, 2017 at 12:34 pm GMT

@The Alarmist The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the risk whilst in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough, so they go on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the wars and dying will be done over there ... in their estimation. " Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be a manageable high"

That's what they think. Given that Russia currently has more nuclear power than USA and Israel combined, to think that they can handle Russia is sheer stupidity.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 2, 2017 at 1:00 pm GMT

Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898, sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For the US one can imagine what those might be.

John Q. Public > , August 2, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT

We need a better term than "neo-con." People like Brennan, Clapper and McMaster were never Trotskyites and they never wrote for Commentary. Their view is really a liberal internationalism update for the post-Cold War, post-9/11 situation. And this view is ubiquitous inside the Beltway.

Joe Hide > , August 2, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

Saker,
I especially liked your use of the term "demonic" which is an appropriate term both figuratively and possibly literally to describe many neocon adherents.
The internet is providing "Light coming into the world", that is, Truth or information coming into mass consciousness. Mass consciousness must shape which possible futures become reality, or the controlled media wouldn't be spending billions to try to influence it. Some would say that this is solely because of the physical changes that people then force to happen, but evidence also supports consciousness simply altering possible outcomes "The prayers of a righteous man availeth much".
Saker, thanks much for Your articles!

jacques sheete > , August 2, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT

Lesson unlearned.

Abstinence from all injustice to other first-rate powers is a greater tower of strength than anything that can be gained by the sacrifice of permanent tranquillity for an apparent temporary advantage.

Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.42-[3]

Aedib > , August 2, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT

Great article. Quite accurate description of the hubris infected American establishment.

jacques sheete > , August 2, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."

Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops.

Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse

Not always, and not necessarily now. Sometimes no response is the most powerful. Aggressive and ruthless responses are often best reserved for the times they're likely to succeed decisively. Responding to petulant pissants is more often than not a waste of time, energy and concentration. Putin appears to know all that, and good for him. I 'd love to see him knock the bastards on their collective asses permanently. Sometime.

Aedib > , August 2, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

@utu

Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as spying in Wales for James Bond. Russia had quite satisfactorily surfed sanctions.

https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/russian-economy-2014-2016-the-years-of-sanctions-warfare/

Pandos > , August 2, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please.

yeah > , August 2, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/world/europe/pentagon-and-state-department-are-said-to-propose-arming-ukraine.html

Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus America or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death.

Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome "Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting – with trade wars, sanctions-wars, hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars – but you will have to spare us such merry excitement.

John Q. Public > , August 2, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

You are making too big a deal about the 30 day repeal. I bet you Trump will include a signing statement that he reserves the right to ignore the parts of the law that are unconstitutional.

schmenz > , August 2, 2017 at 4:12 pm GMT

I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask the destroyed nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.

jacques sheete > , August 2, 2017 at 4:36 pm GMT

@schmenz I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask the destroyed nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.

I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.

This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo!

Mulegino1 > , August 2, 2017 at 5:49 pm GMT

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Thus, the "American" (please note the quotation marks) oligarchy is imploding. Hopefully, they will not exercise a Samson Option of their own, but anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse?

After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon."

Trump should have just let the veto proof sanctions become law without his signature.

Moi > , August 2, 2017 at 5:56 pm GMT

"The big difference is that immense and untapped potential of the USA to bounce back."

This tells me the writer is delusional. The "American Century" is over, and it did not last one hundred years. Too bad.

Moi > , August 2, 2017 at 6:01 pm GMT

@TheJester

Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.

These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.

Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham ... but this need be no more complex than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.

The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true. Agree!

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 2, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/world/europe/pentagon-and-state-department-are-said-to-propose-arming-ukraine.html

Russia humiliated America in Syria

They humiliated Tel Aviv. American people never wanted to spill their blood and treasure on the other side of the Globe for the Grater Israel project.

Suman > , August 2, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against the sanctions. Bernie Sanders is getting undue credit.

Moi > , August 2, 2017 at 6:04 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz

I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity. Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means of influence to explain the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!

And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference to that Senate vote?

Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your explanation..... Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its dug in positions.

The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as that? That kind of overwhelming support in the Senate is usually reserved for Israel.

Joe Levantine > , August 2, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT

The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives on Capitol Hill.

Germany, absent Merkel, can resurrect the reinsurance treaty with Russia which Kaiser Wilhelm II abrogated much to the frustration and disapproval of Bismarck, the pilot of German unification. What followed was a precarious geopolitical divide in Europe which led to the WWI with its disastrous consequences for Germany, followed by the ordeal of the Versailles Treaty and ultimately the breakout of WWII.

By putting the energy gun to the head of the Europeans, the American legislature will force the Europeans to rethink and revamp their self defeating policies towards Russia that are done at the behest of the USA. Any rapprochement with Russia will seal the fate of Eurasia as an integrated economic bloc with the New Silk Road at its backbone.

As for the United States internal politics, it is obvious that the neocons are pushing matters to a head with Trump whose only resort is to knit a special relationship with those leaders of the military establishment who do not fancy the dominance of the deep state under the leadership of the CIA The neocons move to impeach the president should create the kind of unrest that should spur the military to take action against the corruption of the legislative branch and its extension in the neocons media complex.

Yet this very much desired scenario that could a boon for world peace hinges on the emergence of a new leadership in the western world that is willing to defy the powers that be. Currently Europe is woefully lacking in the quality of leadership that can seize the moment to break free from the dominance of the neocons.

Zogby > , August 2, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT

This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats' rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia, so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks.

Trump did not veto the the bill because of the veto proof majority, but will effectively veto the bill by ignoring it. I don't see any Federal Court issuing orders to enforce this bill, and can ignore that too. It's like Congress declaring a war the President doesn't want to fight. Who is gonna make him?

Harold Smith > , August 2, 2017 at 6:33 pm GMT

"Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against Russia when Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, every single US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?!"

There is no satisfactory "worldly" explanation for what's happening here, but there is an explanation. The Jew-controlled "U.S. government" apparently hates Russia for the same reason that Cain hated (and eventually murdered) Abel. To put it another way, "bad" (evil) hates "good" because if there were no such thing as "good", then there would be no such thing as "bad" by comparison. The Russian government demonstrates respect for international law, mutual cooperation, diplomacy, stability, restraint, etc., while the U.S. government simply trashes everything, including America.

The Jews HATE a good example, and Russian re-emergence onto the world scene as an example of relative goodness, in stark contrast to U.S. evil, is simply too much for them to bear.

"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked" (Proverbs 29:27).

Seamus Padraig > , August 2, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."

Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops.

Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops.

I second what 'jaques sheete' said. I just want to add that we could be on the verge of a major break between Washington and the EU -- something Putin has been working towards for years. We have an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington is doing now: committing suicide.

Miro23 > , August 2, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT

During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal government.

I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else.

Seamus Padraig > , August 2, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT

Even more depressing than the bill is Trump's craven capitulation:

In a signing statement released by the White House, Trump said the legislation "included a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions" in lawmakers' "haste" to pass it.

"While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior by Iran, North Korea and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed," he said

Trump, however, said in another statement accompanying the bill that he would not allow the U.S. to "tolerate interference in our democratic process and that we will side with our allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-signs-russia-sanctions-bill/story?id=48985465

So Trump now officially regards his own election as illegitimate? As the result of Russian "subversion and destabilization"? Incredible! I realize he can't stop the bill; but that doesn't mean he has to officially sign it.

Sean > , August 2, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT

@yeah Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus America or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or .... the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death.

Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome "Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting - with trade wars, sanctions-wars, hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars - but you will have to spare us such merry excitement.

https://defenceindepth.co/2017/02/17/the-russian-militarys-view-on-the-utility-of-force-the-adoption-of-a-strategy-of-non-violent-asymmetric-warfare/

Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of using force intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost completely ruled out. This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition within this military that better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of non-violent 'asymmetric warfare' activities rather than those which will or can involve the use of force – such as conventional war or hybrid warfare. [...] The principal aim of Russian asymmetric warfare is to create degrees of destabilisation (destabilizatsiya) within targeted states and within collectives of targeted states (e.g. NATO, EU). [...] And all this plays to the Russian military's own strengths – its 'own relative advantages'. While it might lack 'quantitative indicators' – the tanks, aircraft and ships – it does have a massive capacity to gather information, to disseminate (mis)information and to employ considerable cyber abilities

The most painful sanctions for Putin are old news, it was the cancellation of the Exxon deal by the Obama administration. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-exxon-treasury-fight-and-the-roots-of-russiagate_us_597de928e4b0c69ef70528ff ).

Too backward to frack, Russia tried to bribe the tech from Exxon with massive access to Russia untapped resources to show them how. I would really like someone to tell me why Russia should be rewarded by transfer of crucial US technology for what it did in Ukraine. Were they expecting a pat on the back? Russia will it not start a conventional or nuclear war unless it thinks there is a chance of it winning, and there isn't.

Sean > , August 2, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT

@Anonymous

Russia humiliated America in Syria
They humiliated Tel Aviv. American people never wanted to spill their blood and treasure on the other side of the Globe for the Grater Israel project. No because Jordan not Syria is just across the river from the occupied territories' Palestinian population. Syria has little or no bearing on the West Bank Arab problem, which is the main one for Israel
Johnny Rico > , Website August 2, 2017 at 7:47 pm GMT

It is all about the oil.

Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it fed.

The remaining relatively-cheap oil is all in Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and The UAE. Everybody understands this. The Russians, the Chinese, the Neocons, Donald Trump. They all get this.

The United States is for all intents-and-purposes energy independent when you include supplies from Canada and rapidly-dwindling supplies from Mexico. But the United States relies on "control" of the oil coming from the Persian Gulf to maintain control of its Empire and as tenuous control over its real one and only rival – China.

South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are completely dependent for survival economically on energy that comes from the Middle-East and is protected by the U.S. Navy.

The constant tension between Israel and Saudi Arabia (The two worst regimes in the world) on the one side and Iran on the other is necessary to give the American Deep State and Empire purpose.

While it 'appears' that all the American military equipment and bases and meddling in the Middle East are aimed at surrounding and blunting Iran's power – it should be obvious from 75-plus years of history that the real purpose is to surround Saudi Arabia.

Whether it is Roosevelt meeting with the King in 1945 on the way back from Yalta or Trump meeting with the King a month ago – the message is clear – The heads belonging to the House of Sand are only attached to their necks at the discretion of the United States.

peterAUS > , August 2, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT

@anonymous

Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898, sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For the US one can imagine what those might be. Agree.

The only difference, at this stage of expansion, is that the lower classes do not get the spoils of the expansion. If they did .well .it would be interesting to see how much they'd be against The Empire.

And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard. Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. What a conundrum ..

[Aug 02, 2017] Show Me The Man And Ill Find You The Crime by Bob Barr

The US Deep State witch hunt against President-elect Trump has taken all the distinct characteristics of "show trials".
Notable quotes:
"... Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition. ..."
"... And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person. ..."
"... What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." ..."
"... So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices. ..."
Jun 28, 2017 | townhall.com

The "Sorkinization" of American politics; a cultural phenomenon engendered by the works of Hollywood director Aaron Sorkin -- in which Washingtonian politics is romanticized as some grandiose theatrical production, in which the protagonist (normally a liberal archetype) wins against his unscrupulous foe (usually a conservative stereotype) by simply giving a rousing speech or clever rhetorical foil. You see it everywhere in Washington, D.C. -- beltway pundits breathlessly waiting to share together in that idyllic " Sorkin moment "; whether it was Hillary's hoped-for victory speech last November or, now, waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller astride his white horse to out the "evil Trump clan" for sins and improprieties.

This, of course, is all a Hollywood fairytale. What currently is taking place under Mueller's direction resembles not so much a magnanimous crusade for truth and justice; but rather another example of what happens when bureaucrats are taken off the leash. It becomes the classic tale of a government lawyer in search of a crime.

Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition.

Rather than setting specific parameters for his investigation, or having them set for him, the order appointing Mueller, by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein grants Mueller almost limitless leeway in his probe, be it relative to "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with President Trump's presidential campaign (which likely would not constitute a crime), to federal regulations that relate to crimes that are among the most subjective, such as obstruction of justice and witness intimidation.

As one might expect, Mueller has taken the ball handed to him, and is off and running; like Diogenes with his lamp in search of an honest man, but here a prosecutor with a subpoena in search of a guilty man.

Not bound by any real budget constraints, Mueller already has begun building an investigatory army with which to haunt the Trump Administration for as long as he wants; or, at least, for as much time as it takes to find something to prosecute. That Mueller will find something is a virtual certainty given the vast scope of his appointment, and the lack of oversight by the Department of Justice now that Attorney General Jeff Sessions hastily (and, in my opinion, needlessly) recused himself. And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person.

What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."

So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices.

The troubling, and lasting ramification of this melodrama, however, is the precedent it sets for future federal investigations. The degree of legal leeway given to Mueller is deeply bothersome. As law professor John C. Eastman notes in a recent article, the absence of virtually any limits on Mueller's power harks back to the days of the British empire's use of "writ[s] of assistance" and "general warrant[s]" to target and harass American colonists through invasive searches of homes, papers and possessions – with no judicial oversight, probable cause, or expiration date. "That is the very kind of thing our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent," writes Eastman , "[i]ndeed, the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance is quite arguably the spark that ignited America's war for independence."

At the end of all this (if there is an end), America will be left a little more divided (if that is possible), and the Bill of Rights even weaker than today. If we were living in the "West Wing," it wouldn't really matter; but we are not living in Sorkin World. We are living in the real world; where government power run amok has very real and damaging effect on the way of life envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as enshrined in the United States Constitution.

[Aug 02, 2017] Washington will try to drag everyone else in the nes McCarthyism campaign. I don't think it has any credibility now, with its constant hysterical blaming of Russia for every single thing that is not to its liking

Aug 02, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , August 2, 2017 at 12:46 pm

Keep on poking the bear
Russia-backed agents tried to kill Montenegro PM: Mike Pence
AFP| Last Updated: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 – 18:48

Podgorica: US Vice President Mike Pence on Wednesday accused Russian-backed agents of attempting to assassinate the prime minister of Montenegro during an alleged coup attempt last year
Russia`s intentions were laid bare over the past year when Moscow-backed agents sought to disrupt Montenegro`s elections, attack your parliament and even attempt to assassinate your prime minister", Pence said at the Adriatic Charter Summit.
He said the attack aimed "to dissuade the Montenegrin people from entering our NATO alliance"

marknesop , August 2, 2017 at 1:16 pm
On its way down the side of the toilet bowl, Washington will try to drag everyone else with it. I don't think it has any credibility now, with its constant hysterical blaming of Russia for every single thing that is not to its liking. And the ridiculous pretense that Montenegro will contribute in any meaningful way to the defensive strength of the NATO alliance is just comical – it has become all about snatching territory away, allegedly out of Russia's grasp. I hope NATO does pour money into the Baltics like there's no tomorrow – the Balts will gladly take it, but NATO will see no return on its money, and unless it comes up with a way you can burn bullshit for fuel they will still depend on Russia for their energy.

[Aug 01, 2017] The New York Times Pushes Propaganda War Against Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Exercise Saber Guardian 17 is a U.S. European Command, U.S. Army Europe-led annual exercise taking place in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria in the summer of 2017. This exercise involves more than 25,000 service members from over 20 ally and partner nations. The largest of the Black Sea Region exercises, Saber Guardian 17 is a premier training event for U.S. Army Europe and participating nations that will build readiness and improve interoperability under a unified command, executing a full range of military missions to support the security and stability of the Black Sea Region. It is deterrence in action. ..."
"... Some of the more notable aspects of SG17 include: the massing of 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division (3/4ID) from several locations across the Operation Atlantic Resolve area of operation to the exercise joint operations area (JOA) in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria; and the movement of 2nd Cavalry Regiment (2CR) from Vilseck, Germany, to numerous locations throughout the JOA. ..."
"... it all makes sense once you understand from the perspective of the Washington borg, the world is comprised of semi-autonomous zones subject to broad oversight from the 'benign' hegemon. ..."
"... From time to time, some of these zones assert their sovereignty, which is a clear aggression against the Global Administrative Political Economy. The small ones are District Thirteen-ed, the large ones are treated as malevolent beasts who have seceded from humanity. ..."
"... If I may. Having looked at this a while, I noticed a synchronicity that manifests itself often in the intellectually barren Corridors of NYT, WaPo and CNN. All 3 seem to operate almost like a mutually supporting Machine with each sharing similar Naratives, getting convenient 'Leaks' that help these Naratives and each often quoting the others reporting. ..."
Aug 01, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

There is no longer any doubt that the New York Times is nothing more than a willing cog in the establishment war machine and is happy to serve as a propaganda platform. While there are times that newspapers and electronic media outlets are unwitting dupes for propaganda, the article penned by MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT (published on 31 July 2017) is the work of willing puppets masquerading as journalists:

Russia's Military Drills Near NATO Border Raise Fears of Aggression

This screed starts with this piece of artful dishonesty:

Russia is preparing to send as many as 100,000 troops to the eastern edge of NATO territory at the end of the summer, one of the biggest steps yet in the military buildup undertaken by President Vladimir V. Putin and an exercise in intimidation that recalls the most ominous days of the Cold War.

Since when is it an act of "aggression" for a country -- Russia in this case--to conduct military exercises in its own territory? Gordon and Schmitt also conveniently omit the facts that the United States has been engaged in a variety of military exercises on the border of Russia for the last year. Yet, rather than acknowledge that truth, Gordon and Schmitt push the lie that this is an unprovoked action by a militaristic Russia hell bent on conquering the world.

How else is one to interpret the following quotes:

The military exercise . . . .is part of a larger effort by Mr. Putin to shore up Russia's military prowess, and comes against the backdrop of an increasingly assertive Russia. Beyond Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election in support of the Trump campaign, which has seized attention in the United States, its military has in recent years deployed forces to Syria, seized Crimea and intervened in eastern Ukraine, rattled the Baltic States with snap exercises and buzzed NATO planes and ships . . . .

"There is only one reason you would create a Guards Tank Army, and that is as an offensive striking force," General Hodges said. "This is not something for homeland security. That does not mean that they are automatically going to do it, but in terms of intimidation it is a means of putting pressure on allies."

If you read only this article you would be excused for assuming that Russia is on the prowl for no good reason. Fortunately, our media is not totally subservient to the war machine. NPR reported last week that the United States is actually carrying out the largest military operations on Russia's border in 27 years :

The U.S. and NATO are staging their largest military exercises since the end of the Cold War, and they're doing it in countries of 3 former members of the Warsaw Pact: Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary

DAVID WELNA, BYLINE: Yes, I did. This is all part of what's been called the European Deterrence Initiative, and it's a reinforcement of U.S. forces that had been depleted in Eastern Europe before Russia annexed Crimea three years ago. And as part of this sort of hardening of the U.S. presence here, there was an armored combat brigade team of about 4,000 Army troops from Fort Carson, Colo., that arrived here in Eastern Europe early this year. And they're here in Romania, and they're taking part in military exercises along with about 20,000 other troops.

On Saturday, I was in the Carpathian Mountains, and I watched a pretty impressive live fire, land and air assault there on an imagined enemy. And then yesterday, along the banks of the Danube River here, there was another assault staged to retake the other side of the river from another imagined enemy.

GREENE: You keep saying imagined enemy. Who is the imagined enemy?

WELNA: Well, no doubt it's Russia. And, you know, while this wasn't really a D-Day invasion along the Danube - there was no fire return from the other side - there was a lot of sound and fury. And here's a bit of what it sounded like.

The US military exercise is dubbed Saber Guardian :

Exercise Saber Guardian 17 is a U.S. European Command, U.S. Army Europe-led annual exercise taking place in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria in the summer of 2017. This exercise involves more than 25,000 service members from over 20 ally and partner nations. The largest of the Black Sea Region exercises, Saber Guardian 17 is a premier training event for U.S. Army Europe and participating nations that will build readiness and improve interoperability under a unified command, executing a full range of military missions to support the security and stability of the Black Sea Region. It is deterrence in action.

Some of the more notable aspects of SG17 include: the massing of 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division (3/4ID) from several locations across the Operation Atlantic Resolve area of operation to the exercise joint operations area (JOA) in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria; and the movement of 2nd Cavalry Regiment (2CR) from Vilseck, Germany, to numerous locations throughout the JOA.

But that's not all. The United States also has been busy in the Baltics in early June 2017 :

The U.S.'s European Command, which is based in Germany, said Thursday it had deployed an unspecified number of F-16 Fighting Falcons from Aviano Air Base in Italy to the Krzesiny Air Base in Poland in support of Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) and Saber Strike , two massive annual drills intended to boost the U.S.'s military presence in Europe and to support regional allies. European Command's statement came a day after it said a number of B-1B Lancers had been sent from Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota to join three B-52H Stratofortresses at the Royal Air Force base in Fairford, U.K. Meanwhile, 800 U.S. airmen in Europe were poised to train with NATO allies this month as the Western military alliance escalates its rivalry with Russia.

And there was US activity in Poland in January :

U.S. troops arrived in the small town of Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland, as part of the largest armed military brigade deployed in Europe since the end of the Cold War

The U.S. troops, along with 53 track vehicles, including the M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzer, reached Poland after a three-day journey through Germany. The show of force falls under Operation Atlantic Resolve, designed to show the United States' commitment to its European allies in the face of what NATO sees as Russian aggression.

This is not a comprehensive list. If you take time to do further research you will discover that the United States military in tandem with other countries has carried out several military exercises from the Black Sea in the south, all along the western border of Russia and in the Baltic Sea in the north.

If you are Russia and you are witnessing repeated deployments of U.S. infantry, armor, air and naval units on the frontier that produced that last military invasion of Russia (which left at least 20 million dead) would you sit back and do nothing?

What would the United States do if Russia managed to convince Mexico to sign a mutual defense treaty and then proceeded to conduct tank and military air exercises along our southern border? Would we do nothing?

Gordon and Schmitt are an embarrassment to the profession of journalism. Rather than actually report facts and place them in their proper context, they chose instead to push lies as truth and try to help shape public opinion into believing that Russia poses an imminent threat to the west.

One other point worth remembering--Russia spends $60 billion annually on defense spending while the United States is slated for $650 billion. How much is the US spending on just EUCOM exercises targeted at Russia? Sadly, there is bipartisan stupidity and ignorance when it comes to the issue of properly assessing Russia and the threat it does (or does not) pose to the United States. My cynical conclusion is that as long as Russia is portrayed as the great Red menace bent on world domination we can justify spending $650 billion dollars to thwart an invasion that is not coming.

Posted at 01:20 PM in Borg Wars , Russia Permalink

Anna , 01 August 2017 at 02:11 PM
The two presstitutes, and the NYT at large, do their job for the propagators of Wolfowitz the Trotskyist' doctrine, according to which "Washington must conserve its advance over the rest of the world by hindering the development of all potential competitors." http://www.voltairenet.org/article197288.html
Meyssan writes, "We therefore find ourselves faced with the equation with which we started – one one side, the outsider President of " the People's America ", and on the other, all of the Washington ruling class supported by the deep state (meaning that part of the administration charged with the continuity of the state over and above political alternances). It is apparent that this coalition is supported by the United Kingdom and Israël."
Kooshy , 01 August 2017 at 02:17 PM
PT- incase you missed it, Michael Gordon and Judith Miller are the two NYT propaganda sonography couple to go to, in case you need to start and sell a war choice that the American public will have to pay with blood and savings.
Peter AU , 01 August 2017 at 02:24 PM
All western media singing in tune. All US senate minus two singing in tune. All US house of representatives minus three singing in tune. With the latest Russia/Iran/NK sanctions, the US president has just been rendered obsolete. Whoever owns US 'democracy' now must be congratulating themselves.
Dr. K. , 01 August 2017 at 02:27 PM
Please include VP Pence stirring the pot in the Baltic States.
Anna -> Dr. K.... , 01 August 2017 at 08:44 PM
and in Ukraine: "Adding fuel to the fire': Russia blasts US plans to supply lethal arms to Ukraine" https://www.rt.com/news/398253-us-weapon-supplies-ukraine-russia/
Lemur , 01 August 2017 at 03:04 PM
it all makes sense once you understand from the perspective of the Washington borg, the world is comprised of semi-autonomous zones subject to broad oversight from the 'benign' hegemon.

From time to time, some of these zones assert their sovereignty, which is a clear aggression against the Global Administrative Political Economy. The small ones are District Thirteen-ed, the large ones are treated as malevolent beasts who have seceded from humanity.

Grazhdanochka , 01 August 2017 at 03:48 PM
If I may. Having looked at this a while, I noticed a synchronicity that manifests itself often in the intellectually barren Corridors of NYT, WaPo and CNN. All 3 seem to operate almost like a mutually supporting Machine with each sharing similar Naratives, getting convenient 'Leaks' that help these Naratives and each often quoting the others reporting.

There is Quote some here will be familiar with - "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action" , whenever they each start to sing the same Tune I take more particular note.

For this Reason, I while ago suggested they represent a Media Form of the 3 Horsemen

iffen , 01 August 2017 at 04:01 PM
Beginning of NPR story:
After Russia annexed Crimea three years ago, the U.S. started reversing a military pullout from Eastern Europe.
From the body of the story:
PRESIDENT KLAUS IOHANNIS: This is living proof of the fact that our soldiers not only talk together. They are able, when it is necessary, to fight together.
WELNA: Could they deter Russia?
IOHANNIS: Of course they could. And I think they do it.
WELNA: But Romania's top military official, General Nicolae Ciuca, is less sanguine.
You are on the shore of the Black Sea. So is Russia. How worried are you about Russia?
NICOLAE CIUCA: I am as worried as the alliance is. We are not apart from the alliance.
WELNA: But is there reason to worry?
CIUCA: Always there's a reason to worry. We are not living in a full peace environment.

If our allies, who are quite familiar with an invasion from Russia, are worried, isn't the least we can do is act like we are prepared to act?
Lyttenburgh -> iffen... , 01 August 2017 at 07:17 PM
"If our allies, who are quite familiar with an invasion from Russia, are worried, isn't the least we can do is act like we are prepared to act?"

Are you aware when and under which circumstances did Romania experienced "an invasion from Russia", whose ally it have been at the moment etc.?

Btw, what do you understand by "our ally" pertaining to Romania? A sattelite state?

rkka -> Lyttenburgh... , 01 August 2017 at 09:03 PM
It was so funny when then Ukrainian PM Yatsenyuk announced to the world that the USSR invaded Europe through Ukraine in 1944 and that Ukraine would prevent such an awful event in the future.

So now it appears that the Banderastani mental disease has spread the Romanian general staff...

rkka -> iffen... , 01 August 2017 at 08:54 PM
"CIUCA: Always there's a reason to worry. We are not living in a full peace environment."

One wonders whether poor trembling Nicolae was similarly and fearful when the US was bombing Bosnia and Serbia back in the 1990s. The question answers itself.

What really has the Anglosphere Foreign Policy Elite & Punditocracy's (AFPE&P) knickers in a twist is that Russia and China now have the military capacity to deter them conventionally.

The AFPE&P are consumed, indeed, fixated, on having 'leverage' and 'freedom of action' and it drives them utterly out of their minds to be deprived of both.

VietnamVet , 01 August 2017 at 04:46 PM
PT

Russiagate shows that American citizens don't matter. Not a shred of evidence has been made public to document a Russian involvement. A war that could annihilate mankind could break out any second with no justification. Even, Germany staged the Gleiwitz Incident with Nazi S.S. troops wearing Polish uniforms to feed their propaganda machine to start WWII. With the rise of Major General (ret.) John F. Kelly to Chief of Staff, the military now controls the White House. To end the global media/intelligence community coup attempt; perhaps, a diversionary war with Iran is in the cards. North Korea has nuclear weapons. It is not clear if the relative sanity of General Martin Dempsey and Admiral Mike Mullen has returned to DC. Still, absolutely no one advocates for Peace and Prosperity.

blowback , 01 August 2017 at 05:49 PM
Aaah, Michael R Gordon, the s**t who didn't resign over the aluminium tubes story used as fake evidence to support the invasion of Iraq. And he and the NY Times have been spouting fake news ever since.

https://thinkprogress.org/after-propagating-false-iraq-intel-nyts-michael-gordon-now-echoing-bush-claims-on-iran-40881c2ed9fe

Cortes -> blowback... , 01 August 2017 at 08:01 PM
Delightful to see the use of maskirovka in the names of the two authors of the NYT article. Anyone might think that they're not Zionist.
Anna -> Cortes... , 01 August 2017 at 09:19 PM
Meanwhile, the MSM silence re Awan affair (the greatest national cyber-security breach) is deafening. It seems that the "deciders" made some orders for the presstitutes to not mention the well-documented (unlike "Russian hacking") breach. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/01/did-hillary-scapegoat-russia-to-save-her-campaign/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgKCNaDFl_U
Anna -> blowback... , 01 August 2017 at 08:49 PM
" Michael R Gordon, the s**t who didn't resign over the aluminium tubes story "
The families of the wounded and fallen soldiers -- the victims of the war-profiteers including Michael R Gordon -- should start a nice lawsuit against the scoundrel. There, for sure, is a line in the Nuremberg protocols that addresses the agitators of a war of aggression.
English Outsider , 01 August 2017 at 06:36 PM

A valuable over-view of where we are now in what has become a dangerous and unnecessary confrontation. Many thanks.

I'd like to ask about the Russian populations in the Baltic states.

Their position could be similar to that of the Russians in the Donbass in 2014. The Russian or pro-Russian population of the Donbass was at risk from the post-coup Ukrainian Government. That put the Russian Government in a cleft stick. It couldn't abandon the Donbass Russians even had it wanted to because Russian public opinion wouldn't let it. Nor could it simply order the Russian armed forces to move in to the Donbass and protect them. The compromise solution of assisting the rebels to the extent of not allowing them to be over-run was eventually adopted.

That task was simplified in that some of the Donbass Russians were trained soldiers and had been able to form effective fighting units on their own. It's also said that they were initially more or less self-sufficient in weapons and ammunition.

Although the Donbass resistance was initially piecemeal and uncoordinated it had the advantage of being unexpected and the further advantage that the forces sent against it were also poorly coordinated. The regular Ukrainian army was ill-prepared and the only Ukrainian forces eager to fight were untrained street fighters. NATO participation was initially restricted to advisers and covert assistance.

The position would be entirely different now in all respects. What happens if the Russians living in the Baltic states were similarly at risk from their governments? It would be difficult now for the Russian Government to assist them. Are the Baltic Russians in a position to protect themselves as the Donbass Russians did? Do they have access to arms? Or would we see what was avoided in the Donbass, forced expulsion of Russians living in the near-abroad?

Grazhdanochka -> English Outsider ... , 01 August 2017 at 07:23 PM
Situations for Russians in Donbass and Baltics differs of course...

Without going so deeply to this Matter, simply in Ukraine Russians and well all People sympathetic to Russian Identity were not only significant in Demographic and Political Weight but also have considerably involvement in Security Establishment....

When Events of Maidan through Crimea Events and into early Days of Donbas happened you saw the defections of Berkut, Interior Ministry (Regionally) and in case of Khodakovskiy and his Men - Regional SBU Unit...

This Groups made the Nucleus of Indigenous Resistance that expanded as Times went by (Ukrainian Military also defected with some Armor), this also helped to gain access to Arms and provided direct Inspiration regardless Moscow.

Russian Government support simply ensured that they would never lose...

Baltics by comparison has a Military which is far more Homogenous, Manned and Structured and Culturally distinct from most Post Soviet Militaries, it also carries NATO Membership making even just basic Perception of Support from Moscow a more risky consideration...

I think in general Russians in Baltics simply will do as always.... Sit and Deal with it demoralised, Emigrate, in some cases Assimilate or simply be flattened by local Power Structures should they express to much Anger.

For Russia, the Priority I think should be to how best bring them Home

Anna -> Grazhdanochka... , 01 August 2017 at 09:07 PM
The Baltic states had started a Russophobic complain under a slogan of the "native language" immediately after their "liberation." Even those Russian families that have been living in the Baltic states for generations must hold an exam in the "native" language in order to maintain their citizenship there. The statistics for the citizens of Baltic States tells that a large percent of the educated, intelligent, and ambitious have already left the new NATO launching pads against Russia. https://worldview.stratfor.com/analysis/baltics-emigration-and-demographic-decline
rkka -> English Outsider ... , 01 August 2017 at 08:45 PM
"What happens if the Russians living in the Baltic states were similarly at risk from their governments?"

It is surpassingly unlikely that ethnic Russians in the Baltics are similarly at risk from their governments. While they discriminate heavily against their ethnic Russians, they have never shown any propensity to actively harm them, unlike the Banderastanis.

AriusArmenian , 01 August 2017 at 06:39 PM
This is it. It's another Cold War or probably worse. The US Congress has spiked our future.
mike , 01 August 2017 at 07:05 PM
Trump's sidekick, Mike Pence, visited blisis where he stated: "US strongly condemns the occupation" that "sees Russian tanks parked on Georgian soil". Then visited Podgorica as a show of support after Montenegro's entrance into the NATO sparked bitter opposition from Moscow.
Lyttenburgh , 01 August 2017 at 07:07 PM
"One other point worth remembering--Russia spends $60 billion annually on defense spending while the United States is slated for $650 billion. "

Actually, I'm against such blanked exercises in the monetary phallometry . The amount of money spent doesn't mean anything without the context. It was here, on SSC, when I read about a multi million $ waste on overpriced DoD office equipment and such. How much $ does the US spend on TP compared to Russia? Whatever the answer, I can safely predict that US will be winner here as well. But... but... [you see what I'm doing here? ;)] does the overpriced US military TP is somehow better than the one we used in Russian military? Does it have some hitherto unknown properties, which might explain its higher cost? Some, pardon me, "magickal power"?

Once again, unadjusted flat budget numbers mean nothing . They might make someone feel good, that's for sure. But let me remind you of a something. Throughout the 2016 a certain wing of the political spectrum in the US flaunted their budget. They had more time on the TV. More so - the Intelligence community sympathetic to them had more money than the "potential enemy"... Now they are claiming that FSB (or whatever the crazy scheme of the week says) hacked them. Now they say that RT and Sputnik managed to (SOMEHOW!) dupe the populace of the Republic using a tiny fraction of CNN's budget alone.

Makes you feel... useless, doesn't it?

P.S.

Relax! Remember that Saudi Arabia military still spends humongous amount of money, more than the supposedly "traditional" powers of yore. It doesn't translate into the battlefield prowess. Money =/= assured victory.

[Jul 31, 2017] How Romney Loyalists Hijacked Trumps Foreign Policy

Notable quotes:
"... This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: ..."
"... Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency. ..."
"... The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. ..."
"... Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed. ..."
"... Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal. ..."
"... In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite? ..."
"... Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers. ..."
"... I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change. ..."
"... The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. ..."
Jul 31, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: "Donald Trump should not be president .He doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president." The Washington Post greeted her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom , as "a repudiation of Trump's America First worldview."

Thus it wasn't surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate for State's No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very top of the State Department's hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush's failed policies of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus.

Not only was Abrams' entire career a refutation of Trump's America First foreign policy, but he had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however, he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: "This is a question of character. He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln .his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy .Hillary would be better on foreign policy. I'm not going to vote for Trump ."

But Abrams' rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains) to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy.

But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared to move.

Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president's policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don't know any other world view or any other people.

Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized the Beltway's hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China's military buildup and economic threat to America.

Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America's military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and promote a carefully calibrated America First policy.

But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of war and peace.

Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good standing of the neocon elite. He's also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign, and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine. A passage: "My wife said, 'never,'" said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long, pale hand. .Even if you say you support him as the nominee," Hook says, "you go down the list of his positions and you see you disagree on every one."

One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network.

Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.

According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists, from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker, executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations, Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States.

Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative, has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.

Then there's Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a "Never Trumper" and has questioned the president's mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it.

Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration's National Security Strategy. Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump's national security strategy.

How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration? And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney's entire foreign policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance.

Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state, tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb. He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal arms strictly to "moderate rebels." Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor an open ended, unresolved war.

Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she endorsed his presidential bid in 2011 .

As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump's America First policies. Some samples:

"I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They've always been full of themselves. But that's – its more of a faηade that they try and show as opposed to anything else."

"What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and its what we do."

"The United States calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine."

One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since 1776?

Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism? Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with the President?

On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that "Haley's remarks set the tone for Trump's reversal from the less interventionist, 'America First' foreign policy he campaigned on." Little wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump's foreign policy team. "The current national security team is terrific," she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the schoolmarm's pat on the head: " He was engaging," she said. "I found him on top of his brief .asking really good questions." That's a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he "doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president."

American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very raison d'etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige, power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in. Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.

This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage.

Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and Generals, Copperhead.

Andrew , says: July 30, 2017 at 11:04 pm

This is all very convincing, but the point remains: Trump won and is the one responsible for allowing all these neocons through the door. Had Pat Buchanan won the nomination and the Presidency back in the nineties, does anyone believe he would make the same blunders, and not be equipped to find the right traditional conservatives instead of the establishment DC neocons that try and swamp every GOP Administration now since Reagan? Trump is simply too naive and doesn't have any feel for the political ideologies of all of these people, being not much of a political animal himself. And replacing Priebus with General Kelly isn't likely to change all that. He should be talking to Ann Coulter and Buchanan as unofficial advisers or something.
Fran Macadam , says: July 31, 2017 at 12:36 am
Globalism is the twenty-first century euphemism for old fashioned imperialism, now on Wall Street propelled nuclear steroids.
KaneV , says: July 31, 2017 at 1:15 am
Good God how shallow is the Trump foreign policy bench that the American Con has a director writing in its defense?
reelectclaydavis , says: July 31, 2017 at 4:43 am
Interesting argument, though you ignore other factors besides the conspiratorial-sounding "Romney network" that account for American interventionist neo-conservatives finding their way back into power: 1) that they are by far the largest group of people available to staff the government because of a) the dominance of aggressive liberal internationalism over more restrained realism in graduate schools which educate these foreign policy specialists; b) an inherent bias of these specialists not to admit that America cannot influence world events (that would be like a social worker who didn't believe s/he could usually mediate conflicts). Also, 2) Trump's alleged non-interventionist beliefs are less well-formed than you imply, you just project on him what you wish to see; a) you ignore his comments about taking the oil of other countries, an idea the neo-conservatives had as a way to pay for operations in Iraq; and b) Beliefs closer to Trump's core: that others not paying their fair share and that America is being taken advantage of, are not incompatible with the American interventions you oppose.
polistra , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:13 am
You can't hijack an executive's policy unless the executive is either hopelessly weak or a faker. Doesn't matter which.

The only good part is that the fake image of a somewhat less warlike "Trump", stirred up by the media to destroy Trump, is actually DOING what a real non-interventionist Trump would have done. EU is breaking away from US control, just as a real antiwar Trump would have ordered it to do.

Dan Stewart , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:23 am
Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency.
For Virginia , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:23 am
It's good to see Ron Maxwell published in these pages. I watch Gettysburg at least once a year. And don't think Virginians aren't grateful for Maxwell's role in helping put paid to Eric Cantor's political career.

The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. And we don't want it.

Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed.

Johann , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:27 am
Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal.
SDS , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:46 am
"Trump is a smart guy" ..
??
If so; why does he not see this happening all around him? Except for his pompous, ignorant, hands-off method of governing, that is . The Emperor has no clothes but doesn't seem to know, nor care that he doesn't
Kurt Gayle , says: July 31, 2017 at 9:03 am
Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, Texas A&M at the American Conservative Conference "Foreign Policy in America's Interest" (Nov 15 2016) said:

"In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment.

You see, debate is – basically goes from here to there [Dr. Layne puts his two index fingers close together in front of his face], like from the 45-yard-line to the 45-yard-line. And why does it stop there? Because people who try to go down towards the goal line have their union cards taken away. They're kicked out of the establishment. They're not listened to. They're disrespected.

And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite?

Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers.

I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change.

Over time maybe a counter-elite will emerge. But in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see, and so for me the challenge that we face is really to find ways to develop this counter-elite than can staff an administration in the future, that has at least what we think are the views that Donald Trump holds."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/watch-foreign-policy-in-americas-interest/

We're in a new period – a period of learning for President Trump and for those in the administration who back his anti-establishment foreign policy view. And while it is true that (as Chris Layne said) "in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see," as we move into the medium and long term, many of us are hopeful that these big Trumpian foreign policy changes can begin to be made.

Kevin , says: July 31, 2017 at 10:13 am
Shorter Ron Maxwell: good tsar, evil advisors --
Bill Smith , says: July 31, 2017 at 10:24 am
This article is sharply contradicted by an earlier and more informed article in Conservative Review, an outlet with a considerably larger audience than American Conservative. You might want to read that as a corrective to this one. You can find it here: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/trump-nat-sec-strategy-to-translate-maga-into-foreign-policy

Money quote:

A senior administration official familiar with the work of Nadia Schadlow, a national security expert brought on to help draft the National Security Strategy, tells CR that she will attempt to produce an NSS as "iconoclastic as our new commander in chief," adding, "the era of milquetoast boilerplate is over."

Henri James , says: July 31, 2017 at 10:44 am
I do love that in all of these scenarios, Trump is just some innocent moon-eyed man child who can't possibly be expected to think on his own.
Charlie , says: July 31, 2017 at 11:27 am
The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. Neocons developed their minds in the Cold war dealing with a western power, the USSR. The problem is that once one enters the Middle East and Asia one is dealing with languages and cultures of which they [knew] next to nothing. How many speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu such that they understand every nuance of what is said and unsaid?

When dealing with the arabs and many in Afghanistan everything is personnel and this can go back 5 generations and includes hundreds if not thousands of people.

Trump has the common sense not to become involved in that he does not understand.

David Skerry , says: July 31, 2017 at 11:51 am
They come back in boxes while those who sent them to their deaths remain in the bags of the "America Second" group which highjacked our Congress. It's no longer "God Bless America"; it's "God Help America."

[Jul 31, 2017] After pushing disastrous policies and wars, prominent neoconservatives are reinventing themselves as members of the anti-Trump resistance

Jul 31, 2017 | gravatar.com
Warren says: July 30, 2017 at 7:16 am

https://www.youtube.com/embed/qp9Vn_I9QdM?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Published on 29 Jul 2017

After pushing disastrous policies and wars, prominent neoconservatives are reinventing themselves as members of the anti-Trump "resistance" with the help of top Democrats and MSNBC, says The Nation's James Carden

[Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... For a young Mussolini, working-class power seemed to be the way forward. But after beginning his political career in the Italian Socialist Party, the failure of the socialist movement to prevent World War I, as well as the outpouring of patriotic feeling released by the war, catalyzed Mussolini's conversion from class politics to a new brand of nationalism. ..."
"... The conditions of crisis that had led to Italian fascism soon gave rise to parallel movements in other countries. Perhaps because of the visibility of Nazism, in particular in US popular culture, the fascism of the 1930 serves as the primary reference point for analysis of the right-wing authoritarianism we face today. The fascists of Italy, Falangists of Spain, Nazis of Germany and their less well-known counterparts across the Western world believed their elite were destined to rule as autocrats because they had won out in the war of all against all -- or must do so. The new elite would lead the nation in an imperialist project of gaining more spazio vitale (living space, or as the Nazis would call it, Lebensraum), seeking to displace British or American hegemony over the capitalist world-system and gain their people's place under the sun. ..."
"... Fascists paid lip service to "socialism" for the Volksgemeinschaft (the Nazi concept of a racially pure "people's community"), but they found their most willing partners in the project of rationalizing social, political and economic life in the bourgeoisie. ..."
"... Fascists in league with big capital subjected the working class to a redoubled divide-and-conquer strategy. Some sections of workers were included in the Volkgemeinschaft, bound up in corporatist schemes of labor-management compromise in exchange for loyalty necessary for war-making. ..."
"... For the working class, fascism is the bloody assertion of heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism without democracy. The mythologization of hierarchy and the nation, intensified oppression based on ethnic and gender identities, glorification of war, and violent repression of worker and social movement organizations were hallmarks of all the historical regimes we call fascism -- Hitler's National Socialists, Franco's Falangists and others. Today, most of these characteristics are also present in the new wave of right-wing regimes taking power in the West, as well as in India, Russia, Turkey and other authoritarian capitalist states of the periphery. ..."
"... The capital-F Fascism of authoritarian government is possible because of the lower case-f fascism that thrives in everyday life under capitalism. ..."
"... The fascist discourse of national greatness is nothing more than a continuation of the nationalism of the imagined community constructed by the bourgeoisie. ..."
"... Fascism is not only a grotesque exaggeration of the worst elements of bourgeois society. As a popular tendency, it is a response to the same contradictions that generate left radicalism: poverty, powerlessness and alienation. It is the manufactured scarcity of capitalism that opens the door to a fascist solution. ..."
"... In the United States, some -- mostly white, mostly male -- workers were granted some rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Domestic workers and farm laborers were excluded, a concession to white supremacist political factions. This was a far more soft-serve version of the inclusion/exclusion from representation that also characterized the fascist system of labor control of the same era. It was also premised on loyalty to the capitalist state. The leaders of the major union federations were granted seats at the table, in exchange for expelling Communists from their ranks and adopting a depoliticized approach to labor relations ..."
"... The triumph of liberalism in the 1990s belied its own decay. Since the 1970s, global capital has sought to dismantle the liberal welfare state and put more and more social goods (such as education, healthcare and what remains of public housing) on the market through "structural adjustment" and austerity. ..."
"... Today, the body politic is afflicted with a dysphoria -- a disconnect between the lived experiences of the working class, and the political and cultural representations with which hegemonic liberalism seeks to interpellate them. The Clintonite slogan "America Is Already Great" does not resonate with workers who see themselves making less money than their parents' generation. The cultural disjuncture leads to a political rejection of corporate liberals. A new political subject is waiting to be called into existence. The depoliticization of life that accompanied the postwar liberal settlement is over. The center cannot hold. Everyone is picking a side. ..."
"... Neoliberalism promises more of the same, fascism promises "economic nationalism" and a return to a mythologized past, a democratic socialist revival bids for a return to some form of social democracy. But once again, the discontinuities of these ideologies with liberalism are not as strong as their continuities. Both the fascist ideology of Trump and Brexit, and the social-democratic revivalism of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are post-liberal, in that they are symptomatic of the breakdown of the liberal order. But they are also post-liberal, in that they fail to break with the fundamentals of liberal capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor and markets as a means of distribution. It is these fundamentals of capitalism which brought us to the crisis of neoliberalism, and any movement that is unwilling to challenge these fundamentals will ultimately bring us more of the same. ..."
"... Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will continue Obamas policies. ..."
"... Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy. ..."
"... We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed overseas over the last 70 years. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | www.truth-out.org
Originally from: People's World

The question of the labor movement under fascism is the question of what to do when it is already too late. Racist vigilante attacks are intensifying, comrades are being indicted, workers are being deported, bosses are breaking labor law with even greater impunity, the press is under threat, civil liberties are disappearing, politicians are attempting to rule by diktat, police are even more out of control, war is on the horizon. Everywhere, the threadbare niceties of the state under liberalism have vanished.

We are not ready for this. The general strike seems like the only reasonable response, but the existing left and labor organizations are hard-pressed to mobilize for one. The working class is self-organizing, but success remains far from certain. What is this hell we are entering? How did we get here, and what role can the working class play in helping us find a way out?

Origins of Fascism

Fascism did not start out as a pejorative term. The word originates from the Latin fasces, a term for a bundle of sticks bound together around an axe so that they could not be broken, a symbol of unity and power. In ancient Rome, the fasces were carried by lictors, the bodyguards of magistrates and other state officials. The sticks could be unbundled to mete out beatings as prescribed by magistrates. The axe was used for the death penalty.

Fascism first appeared in social movement usage not on the right, but on the Italian left in the late-nineteenth century as a symbol or term for "league" or "group" for various socialist and syndicalist organizations. It was in fact a former socialist who indelibly stamped fascist as an adjective for the far right: Benito Mussolini. His politics were shaped by the conflicts of modernity: violent class struggle, a bourgeoisie attempting to build a nation and a national market, and war. For a young Mussolini, working-class power seemed to be the way forward. But after beginning his political career in the Italian Socialist Party, the failure of the socialist movement to prevent World War I, as well as the outpouring of patriotic feeling released by the war, catalyzed Mussolini's conversion from class politics to a new brand of nationalism.

Mussolini promised to make Italy great again, to return to the golden age of the Roman Empire. In his view, this could only happen through a new cross-class national unity, a powerful state under the tutelage of a new elite of άbermenschen, and a march toward war. The first task of Mussolini's fascism was the violent repression of workers' and peasants' movements in the wave of strikes and occupations after World War I, followed by the destruction of independent labor organizations once state power was attained.

The conditions of crisis that had led to Italian fascism soon gave rise to parallel movements in other countries. Perhaps because of the visibility of Nazism, in particular in US popular culture, the fascism of the 1930 serves as the primary reference point for analysis of the right-wing authoritarianism we face today. The fascists of Italy, Falangists of Spain, Nazis of Germany and their less well-known counterparts across the Western world believed their elite were destined to rule as autocrats because they had won out in the war of all against all -- or must do so. The new elite would lead the nation in an imperialist project of gaining more spazio vitale (living space, or as the Nazis would call it, Lebensraum), seeking to displace British or American hegemony over the capitalist world-system and gain their people's place under the sun.

Fascism cast culture as nature. It enforced and strengthened hierarchies based on ethnic or gender identities, claiming that some are meant to be masters and others to be slaves. Fascist governments replaced liberal guarantees of civil liberties and independent civil society organizations with a reimagining of the nation as a patriarchal family based on a racist conception of self and other, and corporatist organizations subordinated to the state. Corporatism here does not refer to corporations in the sense of a private company -- it actually referred to the incorporation of bosses, workers and state bureaucrats in a single overarching organization that would supposedly reflect their common nationalist interests.

Fascists paid lip service to "socialism" for the Volksgemeinschaft (the Nazi concept of a racially pure "people's community"), but they found their most willing partners in the project of rationalizing social, political and economic life in the bourgeoisie.

Fascists in league with big capital subjected the working class to a redoubled divide-and-conquer strategy. Some sections of workers were included in the Volkgemeinschaft, bound up in corporatist schemes of labor-management compromise in exchange for loyalty necessary for war-making. But those who were not thought to belong to the "master race" were excluded from any form of representation or organization, and subjected to hyper-exploitation. Millions of Jews, Roma, eastern Europeans and others deemed Untermenschen were subjected to persecution, forced labor and genocide.

For the working class, fascism is the bloody assertion of heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism without democracy. The mythologization of hierarchy and the nation, intensified oppression based on ethnic and gender identities, glorification of war, and violent repression of worker and social movement organizations were hallmarks of all the historical regimes we call fascism -- Hitler's National Socialists, Franco's Falangists and others. Today, most of these characteristics are also present in the new wave of right-wing regimes taking power in the West, as well as in India, Russia, Turkey and other authoritarian capitalist states of the periphery.

Continuities With Liberalism

As participants in this unfolding catastrophe, we tend to emphasize its discontinuities with the postwar liberal order that preceded the current unraveling. But the continuities are in fact more alarming, and more important to understand if we want to eradicate fascism root and branch, once and for all. Fascism is possible not in spite of liberal capitalism, but because of it. Both historically and philosophically, fascism is rooted in the same Western tradition as liberalism. Fascism continually reemerges because its seeds are incubated in the contradictions of capitalism.

The capital-F Fascism of authoritarian government is possible because of the lower case-f fascism that thrives in everyday life under capitalism. The centralized state was an invention of the bourgeoisie, a business innovation necessary to manage its affairs. Its bureaucracy stands ready-made for takeover by fascist thugs. Eichmann-like obedience necessary for the Fascist political project is inculcated by the state and corporate bureaucracy built by the bourgeoisie. Fascists march to war down roads that were paved by centuries of European colonialism and imperialism. The fascist discourse of national greatness is nothing more than a continuation of the nationalism of the imagined community constructed by the bourgeoisie.

The fascist enforcement of gender norms is a grotesque exaggeration of the patriarchal division of labor engendered by one form of capitalism. Fascism's celebration of hierarchy and legitimation of class society is an extreme form of the twin lies of liberalism: "meritocracy" (barely distinguishable as a concept from Social Darwinism) and racist essentialism. Racism itself was born of the Western project of colonialism, and given a stamp of legitimacy by Enlightenment science that sought to taxonomize all things, plants, animals and people.

Liberalism promises to keep its Id in check with guarantees of the rights of man, but this was always a promise more often broken than kept. The majority of our planet's inhabitants have already been living under a permanent state of exception. The test runs for the Nazi Holocaust were the late-Victorian holocausts of mass murder in Africa, and the genocidal colonization of the Americas and uncounted colonial massacres.

In the capitalist core, millions have long lived their lives as what Giorgio Agamben termed homo sacer -- a term from ancient Rome signifying those who are deprived of rights by the state, and subject to extra-judicial violence by the George Zimmermans of the world. Across the capitalist core, immigrants and refugees live without the promise of any kind of liberal human rights, facing possible deportation in any interaction with the authorities.

Clintonite cosmopolitan liberalism claims that these oppressions are atavisms of the past, even though they are renewed every day. It promises to unite the world Benetton-like in a multicultural global market, where everyone is equally free to exploit and be exploited. Liberalism will occasionally apologize for its racism, sexism and colonial massacres, and may make affirmative action reforms to stabilize its rule and rationalize production, or in the case of the US government's eventual concessions to the civil rights movement, to compete ideologically with the Soviet Union. But there is one place where it can never acknowledge illegitimate hierarchy: the workplace. And it is precisely here that the contradictions that propel the world toward fascism are rooted.

The Liberal Compromise

Fascism is not only a grotesque exaggeration of the worst elements of bourgeois society. As a popular tendency, it is a response to the same contradictions that generate left radicalism: poverty, powerlessness and alienation. It is the manufactured scarcity of capitalism that opens the door to a fascist solution.

As a form of government, fascism is not the bourgeoisie's first choice, of course. It is an unstable system prone to cronyism that places certain limits on the market. So, like the boss who wants you to try for a promotion rather than organizing a union, liberalism first tries to resolve its contradictions through expansion. This could mean economic growth through technological upgrading, or stimulation of new needs and desires to create new consumer markets, or it could mean capturing new markets through war and trade agreements. As long as the pie is getting bigger, tensions over who gets the biggest piece are diffused.

The contradiction of liberal capitalism played out in real historical time. To stabilize its own rule in the wake of the Great Depression and World War II, liberal capitalism accepted a degree of regulation, establishing norms necessary for more-or-less long-term operation of a market, and setting up a system that could compete economically and ideologically with international socialism. This took the form of the New Deal and the Keynesian welfare state, a compromise that institutionalized class struggle to boost consumption.

In the United States, some -- mostly white, mostly male -- workers were granted some rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Domestic workers and farm laborers were excluded, a concession to white supremacist political factions. This was a far more soft-serve version of the inclusion/exclusion from representation that also characterized the fascist system of labor control of the same era. It was also premised on loyalty to the capitalist state. The leaders of the major union federations were granted seats at the table, in exchange for expelling Communists from their ranks and adopting a depoliticized approach to labor relations.

After World War II, the US exported this New Deal model of labor relations through its reconstruction efforts in Western Europe and East Asia. For around thirty years, workers were rewarded for their loyalty with wage increases that matched growth in productivity. For the most part, this resulted in an apolitical acquiescence to life under capitalism. By the end of the twentieth century, liberalism seemed to reign triumphant. Some claimed that liberal capitalism was the End of History, that the age of extremes had definitively passed. Both socialism and fascism were consigned to the dustbin. Under the leadership of the WTO and the largest of the Western corporations, humanity was to march onward into a glorious consumerist future with McDonald's, Starbucks and Apple products for all.

How wrong they were.

Post-Liberalism

Everywhere, authoritarian regimes are winning out over centrist liberalism. The Chinese model of development -- an authoritarian state with just enough market relations to fill the pockets of a kleptocratic elite -- has become the dominant development paradigm for much of Asia and Africa. Western corporate elites have watched jealously as mega-projects and mega-profits that would take years of political wrangling in the capitalist core get the green light in China. Nevertheless, most sectors of capital still seem to prefer Clintonite liberalism to Trumpian fascism, or certainly to Bernie Sanders' social democracy. But increasingly, the centrist option is off the table, for reasons of the bourgeoisie's own doing.

The triumph of liberalism in the 1990s belied its own decay. Since the 1970s, global capital has sought to dismantle the liberal welfare state and put more and more social goods (such as education, healthcare and what remains of public housing) on the market through "structural adjustment" and austerity.

The decay of the liberal system is nowhere more evident than in labor relations. The stable system of collective bargaining put in place by the National Labor Relations Act was under attack from the far right since its inception -- but has been most effectively undermined by the liberal center since 1981. In that year, Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in the PATCO union, signaling open season on the labor movement. Workplace-level union-busting, the use of scabs to break strikes, automation and outsourcing all drove unionization rates in the United States down from around 30 percent in the 1950s, to barely 10 percent in 2017. Behind this evisceration is a shift in ruling-class strategy from grudging acceptance of unions in the system of labor control, to direct domination of each individual worker through "Human Resources Management."

As a result, the standard of living in the capitalist core has undergone almost half a century of decline. This has paralleled the decline of the United States as the hegemonic power in the global political economy. As this decline continues, workers in the capitalist core of all income levels have begun looking for alternatives to neoliberal politics. The mythology of the American Dream no longer works its magic of erasing class antagonisms.

Today, the body politic is afflicted with a dysphoria -- a disconnect between the lived experiences of the working class, and the political and cultural representations with which hegemonic liberalism seeks to interpellate them. The Clintonite slogan "America Is Already Great" does not resonate with workers who see themselves making less money than their parents' generation. The cultural disjuncture leads to a political rejection of corporate liberals. A new political subject is waiting to be called into existence. The depoliticization of life that accompanied the postwar liberal settlement is over. The center cannot hold. Everyone is picking a side.

Neoliberalism promises more of the same, fascism promises "economic nationalism" and a return to a mythologized past, a democratic socialist revival bids for a return to some form of social democracy. But once again, the discontinuities of these ideologies with liberalism are not as strong as their continuities. Both the fascist ideology of Trump and Brexit, and the social-democratic revivalism of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are post-liberal, in that they are symptomatic of the breakdown of the liberal order. But they are also post-liberal, in that they fail to break with the fundamentals of liberal capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor and markets as a means of distribution. It is these fundamentals of capitalism which brought us to the crisis of neoliberalism, and any movement that is unwilling to challenge these fundamentals will ultimately bring us more of the same.

In some cases, the post-liberal left wins or makes important gains in elections -- Syriza and Podemos serving as the most prominent examples. But their victories tend to be short-lived. Without willingness to fundamentally break with neoliberal capitalism, it is not long before voters realize that they have elected a non-solution, and turn once again to the right. The failure of the left to offer an anti-systemic alternative is what brought the fascist right to power in the United States and threatens to do the same in other places across the world. Now we need to figure out what exactly to expect, and how to fight to win.

The Other Workers' Movement

True to form as fascists, the Trump regime has set to work recasting the boundaries between self and other in the United States. It is a project of scapegoating, and of legitimizing the repression of labor and social movements. Unlike its 1930s antecedents in Germany, Italy or Spain, Trump's cartoonish fascism has not had to ban the unions and set up new ones under direct control of the state. There is no need for a new fascist system of labor control, because under neoliberalism the United States already has one.

Since the 1980s, most workers' organizations have already been liquidated. Most workers are subjects of a capitalist dictatorship in the workplace, and millions have long been excluded from even the most basic guarantees of liberalism: to be paid for your labor, to not be summarily executed by police, to be accorded due process rights. There is a new intensity and scale to these attacks, but the line of attack itself is not actually new.

The "official" workers' movement has largely failed to resist attacks old and new. Under Trump, the labor movement has gladly divided and conquered itself, with the heads of building trade unions meeting with Trump and sycophantically glowing over the "respect" he showed them, while he prepares orders to deport millions of immigrant workers and deprive millions more citizens of their rights. Many unions simply seem to be hoping for the best, while failing to prepare for the worst. Others refuse to publicly attack Trump in the hopes of cutting some sort of deal. But no matter how close some unions get to the boss, they cannot escape the fact that their organizations are in the crosshairs more than ever. Trump's fascism seeks to finish off the legal framework of labor relations under postwar liberalism, dealing the coup de grβce to an institutional labor movement that has long been hemorrhaging members.

The resistance is therefore in the "other" workers' movement -- among those who never were included in the legal mechanisms of the compact of postwar liberalism in the first place, such as immigrant workers, the unwaged labor of women, and students. They are joined by a new "other" workers' movement: the rebel rank-and-file of the institutional unions, such as teachers and public sector workers, and increasingly, self-organized groups of workers who have never belonged to a union. As the state falls under the sway of fascist control, the weapons of this resistance are increasingly extralegal: from protests to strikes, highway blockades and physical confrontations.

While increasingly bold in tactics, resistance to fascism is so far largely conservative, in the true sense of the word: it seeks to conserve the liberal order. Until now, its battles have been mostly defensive, and if they are won, will merely put liberals back in power. The real destruction of fascism can only be accomplished by a new workers' movement, unencumbered by the sacred cows of the bureaucracies that grew up under corporate liberalism. It is in the "other" workers' movement that a radicalism beyond liberal capitalism can be imagined, and it is with the forces that we build with our own hands that it can be won.

How do we win this fight? The tasks are largely the same as before, but with a new sense of urgency, and in conditions of heavier repression. As before, we must engage millions in the fight for a different future. No true revolution is possible without mass participation. We must build a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees that make a general strike possible. We must also be prepared to go beyond a general strike, to build dual power through worker and community assemblies that will replace or transform the state with a true democracy. This is a struggle not just to restore the old world-system, but to build a new one. This is the time to be revolutionaries, to fight to win the world we actually want.

Calamity of epic proportions awaits millions in the working class. Deportations, intensified exploitation at work, the destruction of our life-giving planet, vigilante attacks, refugee crisis, resurgent misogyny, transphobia and racism, and the threat of inter-state war. It is already too late to prevent much of this. But it has always already been too late. Untold tragedy is the legacy of liberalism, and of every return of fascism. That is why we fight for the future. That is why we fight to win. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. Erik Forman Erik Forman has been active in the Industrial Workers of the World since 2005, working and organizing at Starbucks and Jimmy John's. He is currently compiling a report on union strategies for organizing the food service and retail sectors as a Practitioner Fellow at the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University. Related Stories Fascist America: Have We Finally Turned The Corner? By Sara Robinson, AlterNet | Op-Ed Fascism 101: The Police and Media Control By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed Hitler at Home: How the Nazi PR Machine Duped the World By Despina Stratigakos, The Conversation | Op-Ed Recommend Recommended Discussion Recommended!

Recommending means this is a discussion worth sharing. It gets shared to your followers' Disqus feeds, and gives the creator kudos! Find More Discussions Share Share this discussion on Twitter Facebook Sort by Newest Best Newest Oldest +

Liberty5 , April 27, 2017 12:55 AM

Mussolini was for a time an avowed Marxist, socialist and atheist. He was never an original liberal. He did support modern Keynesian liberalism, saying that "Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes." But Mussolini hated the liberalism that spelled individualism. In his 1935 version of the "Doctrine of Fascism," he proclaimed: "Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State . . . . It is opposed to classical Liberalism . . . . Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms
the State as the true reality of the individual." Fascism, actually came out of Marxism. Zeev Sternhell says that Fascist ideology... was a revision of Marxism." Fascism also came out of revolutionary syndicalism (unions).

Enrique Woll Battistini , April 20, 2017 2:10 PM

Ultimately, this global state of affairs could only be defended and preserved by the most rancid sort of unfettered fascism:

https://www.academia.edu/13...

Pat Luppens , April 17, 2017 6:51 PM

Your analysis is spot on, BUT "we must engage millions in the fight for a different future" Are you serious? We can't even get half the people off their butts to vote. If we could, this discussion would be moot.

NoDifference , April 16, 2017 8:17 PM

With the advent of nearly complete automation of every production process, and increasing automation of services (think Uber, with the coming Google cars), the employed pool of workers is steadily decreasing as a proportion of the able workforce. We can choose to believe the lies that there will be at least 1 for 1 replacement of these jobs with new, higher-paying technological jobs if we want to I guess. But I don't buy it.

Why would companies like to invest in machinery if it does not help to eliminate manual, human labor? After all, human work is error prone and slow, and in many cases, certain advanced manufacturing processes can not even be performed manually. Corporations invest in automation, recession or otherwise, so the old trope coming from the Right that workers demand too much pay, etc., appears to be convenient but nonsense "reasoning."

So, with labor steadily disappearing from the workplaces of the world, exactly who does Mr. Forman (and others) expect to sign up with their unions? The remaining workers, who earn more than their former counterparts consigned to laborious and dangerous work for poor pay, are probably far more tantalized by technological challenges that make their work pleasant and enjoyable.

It is difficult -- no, actually impossible -- for me to imagine legions of computer programmers and other high-tech workers organizing and hankering for a labor union that would have only marginal advantage for them. And they know better than most that they, too, can be displaced from their jobs by the next iteration of technological advances or better wage prospects for their corporate overlords. So we can probably put this thesis to bed also, no?

There are still millions of workers at fast food restaurants who certainly need solid and reliable labor representation, and the IWW is probably the single best union to do this (I'm a bit of a wob myself, ok?). That said, we are still only looking at a sliver of the population, albeit an increasingly larger portion of the remaining employed workforce.

It occurs to me that what we really need is to organize the consumers to effect the sorts of changes we want. Its first demand should probably be a guaranteed Basic Income (BI), which would put those last workers still languishing in fast food and other poor-paying retail jobs in demand , rather than jobs being in demand. And we could stop wasting resources and destroying the environment so that one more poor person can afford to eat today. (Think commuters driving 30 miles to a minimum wage job and you will understand what I am driving at.)

This would be a complete paradigm shift, one like no other in human history. For the first time, workers and consumers would be united in accomplishing their common purposes, namely a peaceful world that respects human nature and the environment.

Please consider BI as a basis for a more fair and equitable society. See basicincome.org and bein.org for more information.

Michael Tee , April 16, 2017 8:10 AM

Great article. One of the best ever published at Truthout. Must be studied by political activists everywhere.

gmatch , April 16, 2017 3:30 AM

America's regime can be described as a plutocratic military junta controlled by Zionists.

SkepticalPartisan , April 15, 2017 3:44 PM

Thanks for the historical perspective. But there is another metric which is rarely, if ever, used to define the spectrum of socioeconomic systems, one of power concentration.

democracy = power is determined by voters
capitalism = power concentrates in owners; owners game the system to determine who has the opportunity to own
slave capitalism = power of owner extends to owning workers/laborers
feudal capitalism = power concentrates in owners to extent they control many work/labor conditions including wages and residency
communism = power concentrates in members of single state party committee
oligarchic capitalism = power concentrates in small number of owners
monopoly = power concentrates in one corporation and their owners
fascism = power concentrates in one political party

The point is that the concentration of economic power has parallels in the concentration of political power. The terms/names used to describe each system often overlap in meaning and thus, can be confusing. It would be better to use a sliding scale to represent power concentration; something along the lines of the Kinsey sexuality scale. On a scale of 0-10 (low to high) how is political power distributed? How is economic power distributed? Based on Gillens and Page, political power score is roughly 7.6 in favor of the economic elites <http: www.vox.com ="" 2014="" 4="" 18="" 5624310="" martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained="">. Based on stock ownership, the economic power scale is about 6.6 - top 5% owns about 2/3 of stocks <https: www.salon.com ="" 2013="" 09="" 19="" stock_ownership_who_benefits_partner=""/>. The latter is not the best metric of economic power; actual score is likely significantly higher. This type of granular information is more useful in accurately describing power relationships than misleading names/titles/terms.

NoDifference SkepticalPartisan , April 16, 2017 8:24 PM

Thank you for clearly defining YOUR definition of communism. As I replied to another poster here, the term "communism" is often conflated with its original meaning, and only helps the arguments of the RW.

SkepticalPartisan NoDifference , April 18, 2017 11:40 AM

That's my point, the semantics of political/economic systems are easily distorted. A metric of power concentration in this instance would be useful.

Orestes60 , April 15, 2017 3:11 PM

From the article: "There is no need for a new fascist system of labor control, because under neoliberalism the United States already has one." This is another reason why liberalism whether bourgeois liberal idealism or liberal pragmatism or neoliberalism is not sufficiently anti-fascist. Additionally, liberalism in all its forms will never be anti-capitalist and pro-community socialist.

I wonder what percentage of the earth's inhabitants, who have the power to promote socialism in lieu of various "Third Ways" or imperial anarcho-capitalism, have recognized the truth of the article's graphic "Capitalism Has Outlived Its Usefulness"?

Bill_Perdue , April 15, 2017 2:59 PM

"You're not paranoid if you think the world feels more unstable -- it is. There's a dangerous confluence of political, economic, and military phenomena that is producing a very hazardous international situation. At the center of each maelstrom is the U.S. Government, and instead of acting as a promoter of peace and stability the Obama administration has been a catalyst of confrontation and war. An especially combustible zone is the Ukraine, where the U.S. is engaged in what is becoming a full-fledged proxy war with Russia. " The Obama administration's decisive role in the Ukrainian conflict has received only a sliver of space from the U.S. media, even after an audio of Obama's Under Secretary of State was leaked, exposing the U.S.' direct leadership role in a coup that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected government." http://www.counterpunch.org...

Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will continue Obamas policies.

Fascist movements are growing in the NATO region of Western and Central Europe. Large ultraright and neo-Nazi Islamophobic parties are a real threat in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Greece. Nowhere are they effectively challenged by fake leftists in social democrat parties like the Sozialistische Partei Φsterreichs, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, the Partido Socialista Obrero Espaρol, the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) or the Parti Socialiste because they're pro-capitalist parties. Neither they or the old line capitalist parties like the Democrats or Republicans in the US have anything real to offer in the fight against fascism.

There is no imminent danger of fascism coming to power in the US or the EU because although it's advanced, the death agony of capitalism is not such that it would lead the bankster class to create an extremely violent and well armed mass fascist street army to defeat unions and other mass movements of workers. The preconditions for fascism are the collapse and failure of capitalist 'democratic' government, the collapse or total defeat of unions and the left and growth of a mass fascist movement based on the middle, not the working class.

Libby , April 15, 2017 1:33 PM

Excellent article. Although I have more questions than answers, Foreman goes a long way in supplying some of the history and analysis necessary for a new dialogue and the urgency of the same. As part of the same endeavor, educational articles about post-growth and de-growth economics would also be welcome, not only for what they may offer in the way of sustainability, but also in the sense of replacing consumerism, materialism and 'meritocracy' with other -higher - values.

Jethro_T , April 15, 2017 11:51 AM

The penultimate paragraph begins by asking, "How do we win this fight?" It then offers some advice of a general nature, which only hints at what's necessary. Let's first assume that the will for a prolonged general strike exists; how then to subsist without wages until victory is won?

The author suggests "...a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees..." and lets it go at that; I would add that those committees must take responsibility for ensuring that all are fed and sheltered, and that those in the community who can't care for themselves are looked after. So: communal gardens providing the food for communal meals, communal daycare for elders and communal schooling and recreation for kids, communal housing, and communal healthcare and transportation as needed---in short, an explicitly and comprehensively anticapitalist modus vivendi.

We can do this---in fact, we must do this, as the only alternative is extinction.

dmorista , April 15, 2017 11:05 AM

Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy.

We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed overseas over the last 70 years. However, the police state and terror operations, first used against the Huk rebellion in the post WW 2 Philippines and later honed and further developed in Vietnam, Indonesia, Angola, Congo, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, among other places, will increasingly be inward directed as the crisis of American Empire and the decay of Capitalism continues.

[Jul 30, 2017] If Western Ukrainian nationalists armed squads would have entered Crimea, and it would have been just as bad as Donetsk, etc., with thousands killed. If you research the US/UK techniques used during the 1953 Iranian coup, you'll see that the 2013-14 Ukrainian coup was very close to being an exact duplicate.

Notable quotes:
"... I don't care about Russians or Ukrainians, but this is a strange law without any value however "no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole country". So if I command an independence movement and we gain freedom by armed fighting, under Ukranien law we will still not be free even if there is no chance for state to recover what he lost. So I need to wait until Ukrainian Parliament vote. Is like saying US is not free from UK despite beating the British, because UK Parliament never voted to give independence to US. ..."
"... According to Soviet laws any republic that is leaving USSR must hold referendum in its autonomous regions if they quit USSR or quit this republic. Not only Ukraine failed to hold it, when Crimeans started preparation Ukraine violently squashed them. That started illegal Ukrainian occupation of Crimea 1992-2014. ..."
"... If you research the US/UK techniques used during the 1953 Iranian coup, you'll see that the 2013-14 Ukrainian coup was very close to being an exact duplicate. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
АТО -> Willem Post , July 29, 2017 7:06 PM

Willem Post:: "Crimea already was an independent state within Ukraine"

haha! One more moron arrived! What a crap! Crimea wasn't independent, it was an autonomy within Ukraine. Crimea's annexation was prepared by Putin since 2004, i.e. 10 years earlier before it happened in real! And this is told to the world not by Ukrainians, but the Putin's former adviser Andrey Illarionov.

Steve James -> АТО , July 29, 2017 11:23 PM

The day the coup took over Kiev and abolished the Ukrainian Constitution, Crimea became independent. And voted for independence. Crimea wanting to be part of Russia since 1991. Crimea was giving to Ukraine under the USSR illegally, there is no VOTE under the DUMA that voted Crimea to be part of Ukraine. The fall of the USSR, Crimea people wanted to be Russian. And they voted this in 1991 and again in 1994. V. Putin wasnt in office until 1999. Crimea today is far better under Russia, because nearly 25 years under Ukraine it was neglected. Crimea is Russia...move. Ukraine ought to stop bombing Donbass or they'll be independent from Ukraine as well.

Michael DeStefano -> АТО , July 30, 2017 12:40 AM

Splitting hairs, are we now? au·ton·o·mous: (of a country or region) having self-government, at least to a significant degree.

Octavian Matei -> АТО , July 29, 2017 8:14 PM

I don't care about Russians or Ukrainians, but this is a strange law without any value however "no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole country". So if I command an independence movement and we gain freedom by armed fighting, under Ukranien law we will still not be free even if there is no chance for state to recover what he lost. So I need to wait until Ukrainian Parliament vote. Is like saying US is not free from UK despite beating the British, because UK Parliament never voted to give independence to US.

Michael DeStefano -> Octavian Matei , July 30, 2017 12:35 AM

"no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole country"

When Yugoslavia was dismantled under US encouragement and with little consequence, if any, to the civil wars that would follow, such laws as the above ceased to exist.

It did the same in Ukraine. A coup d'etat using banderite thugs for the final coup de grace. Did Nuland or McCain or anyone else in Washington care if it led to a bloody aftermath that frankly, any schoolboy could have predicted? They cared about their agenda, period and d@mn the consequences.

Willem Post Michael DeStefano , July 30, 2017 12:02 PM

Their agenda, since 1945, has been to get Russia out of East Europe and the Caucasus, and have the Black Sea become a NATO lake.

The Arioch -> АТО , July 29, 2017 11:25 AM

According to Soviet laws any republic that is leaving USSR must hold referendum in its autonomous regions if they quit USSR or quit this republic. Not only Ukraine failed to hold it, when Crimeans started preparation Ukraine violently squashed them. That started illegal Ukrainian occupation of Crimea 1992-2014.

And that is not mentioning Sevastopole city.

Swiss_Talk -> The Arioch , July 29, 2017 2:44 PM

Tell me what happened to Chechen referendum

VadimKharichkov -> Swiss_Talk , July 29, 2017 6:39 PM

The Khasavyurt Accord granted vast amount of independence to Chechen Republic back in 1996. But infact Chenchnya broke apart into regions held by local clan warlords, who were making money on contraband, crudely refining petroleum into gasoline, kidnapping people for ransom from neighboring Russian regions. The republic has also become a hotbed of religious extremism that culmitated in Shamil Basaev's invasion into Dagestan region.

Do some research before mentioning things, because these two cases are hardly compatible.

Michael DeStefano -> VadimKharichkov , July 30, 2017 12:51 AM

Yep, the Saudis enthusiastically sought to turn Chechnya into what they've managed to turn Syria into today, with more than a little help from its 'friends'.

shmaktastic -> Swiss_Talk , July 29, 2017 4:13 PM

there were none.

Michael DeStefano -> Swiss_Talk , July 30, 2017 1:04 AM

Tell me what happened to the Ukrainian referendum that decided to oust the old president by force instead of waiting a few months to vote him out or at the least, impeach him constitutionally. Hmmm? Cat got your tongue now? Thought so.

Steve James -> Swiss_Talk , July 29, 2017 11:27 PM

Chechen had a referendum, and it was successful. Not only Chechnya has more autonomy power, but they have a elected office to represent Chechnya in Moscow. Today, Chechnya has been peaceful with Gronzy growing. Not to mention, many Chechen soldiers are fighting side by side with the Russian government in Syria.

Michael DeStefano -> The Arioch , July 30, 2017 12:47 AM

I've always wondered why the US seems always to rush to uphold the edicts of previous Soviet rulers as sacrosanct. Stalin with S. Ossetia and Krushchev with Crimea.

I've also always wondered why all of the nations of Eastern Europe, sans Poland, that the US seems to favor are those who were enthusiastic collaborators and co-combatants with Hitler's troops in WWII. Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, the Baltic States and now Ukraine.

Seems rather odd to me, maybe even a bit telling.

АТО The Arioch , July 29, 2017 11:44 AM

The Arioch: "According to Soviet laws..." What a crap! Ukraine as well as Russia and Belarus founded the USSR! And all the three listed above discontinued it.

As for soviet laws...Just well known thing: Hitler came to power absolutely legally and what he ended up with?

Once more: USSR was founded under machine guns (the same with Crimea so-called referendum)

grumpy_carpenter -> АТО , July 29, 2017 1:02 PM

"USSR was founded under machine guns (the same with Crimea so-called referendum)"

This is refreshing. The USSR was indeed founded by un-godly terrorists ..... I mean what country can claim legitimacy unless founded peacefully on rule of law.

Now that this is clear I expect the USA to return the thirteen colonies to Britain as at the earliest possible convenience and we can begin discussion reparations.

Willem Post -> АТО , July 29, 2017 5:04 PM

The US was founded with guns as well. It is called the Revolutionary War.

shmaktastic -> АТО , July 29, 2017 4:14 PM

You don't even understand what kind of crap you wrote do you?

The Arioch -> АТО , July 29, 2017 11:54 AM

They could be among ones who founded it. But they were not only members of it. There was legal and illegal way to exit USSR. Ukraine, Russia and Belarus chosen illegal way. For Kiev it was a tool to press illegal occupation over Sevastopole and Crimea. Which lasted more long that it was needed, but ended in 2014.

And you are correct about Hitler. When finally breaking out of that Lenin built jail of nations called Ukraine, Crimeans were to give Poroshenko's laws about as much respect as Hitler's laws were worth.

АТО -> The Arioch , July 29, 2017 3:23 PM

The Arioch: "Lenin built jail of nations called Ukraine" What a crap again! Lenin built jail of nations called USSR, that's right! "Crimeans were to give Poroshenko's laws about as much respect as Hitler's laws were worth."

You're just a moron!

Poroshenko became an Ukrainian president after Russia annexed Crimea

DAVE -> АТО , July 30, 2017 9:46 AM

AMERICAN.MEXICAN .WAR.1846 THE LAND GRAB BY THE AMERICANS ALMOST HALF OF THE U.S.A. TODAY.

shmaktastic -> АТО , July 29, 2017 10:35 PM

Lenin actually is the guy who created Ukraine, No Lenin, no Ukraine.

VadimKharichkov -> АТО , July 30, 2017 12:41 PM

By stating this you're implying Soviets usurped the power. This is not true. To begin with, Soviets, or Councils were trade unions and they formed themselves as an alternative to czarist ruling institutions during WW1 and February and October Revolutions. They were grassroots all right. Both Soviets and Bolsheviks enjoyed high appeal among regular people because they offered solutions to very tough questions regarding land ownership (taking it from aristocrats) and large business (taking it from oligarchs into collective ownership).

Eventually the Red Army managed to defeat 17 armies during the Civil War. That wouldn't have been possible without wide support among the people. Sure there was the Red Terror unleashed after several assasination attempts on Soviet leadership. But frankly, as tragic as it is, tough times demand tough measures.

Michael DeStefano -> АТО , July 30, 2017 12:56 AM

So, if you don't recognize Soviet laws, then you don't recognize Soviet edicts and you cannot legitimately recognize Krushchev's edict handing Crimea to Ukraine's jurisdiction, which btw..his son has explained that it was just a simple transfer to Ukraine of full management of construction of the water canal to Crimea. A water canal which, along with electricity, has now been dammed by Ukraine, so apparently, the job is finished.

АТО -> Michael DeStefano , July 30, 2017 5:17 AM

Michael DeStefano: "A water canal which, along with electricity, has now been dammed by Ukraine"

The next moron arrived!

Crimea is occupied by Russian troops, (proved by Putin himself).

Tell yourself, Russian troll: did Stalin supplied the territories occupied by Hitler during WWII? Maybe Stalin sent there foods, electricity etc?

So, why does Ukraine should supply the territories occupied by Russia with any resources?

Willem Post АТО , July 30, 2017 12:09 PM

ATO,
Russia and Ukraine have an agreement that allows Russia to have 22,000 armed services members in Crimea. The Russia presence before the annexing was LEGAL by treaty.

Errick458 -> АТО , July 29, 2017 7:25 PM

Under Ukrainian law Viktor Yanukovych was never legally removed from office. His removal and replacement was a violation of the Ukrainian Constitution.

Willem Post -> Errick458 , July 30, 2017 12:02 PM

Russia picked up phone call traffic that was planning his assassination. He fled to save his life.

Strategem -> АТО , July 30, 2017 1:00 PM

Remember Texas ? A century in history of diplomatic relations means nothing. Right of self determination can not be selective.

Michael DeStefano -> Willem Post , July 29, 2017 10:14 AM

If you research the US/UK techniques used during the 1953 Iranian coup, you'll see that the 2013-14 Ukrainian coup was very close to being an exact duplicate.

[Jul 30, 2017] Derek Harvey - one less neocon

Looks like there are a lot of neocons in Trump administration. Sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Individual incompetence is rarely a path to senior position. But when the Command is rotten from the top down, it happens more frequently. ..."
"... In a similar vein how can the entire US Senate minus 2 vote for a sanctions proposal which is patently and demonstrably based on false premises? ..."
"... American policy in regards to everything is easily understood by one basic concept. Follow the money. ..."
"... Legend in his own mind. How many more like him are influencing/making foreign policy decisions? Scary. Nice take down pl. ..."
"... Update: the blue ticks on twitter are reporting Trump 'sources' associated with Preibus are saying Trump is moving toward an independent whitehouse detached from the GOP. ..."
"... In fact, if true, this looks like a "neocon coup". It was bad enough they had control of State and influence at the Pentagon during Bush, now it looks they have total control of the White House AND State and still influence in the Pentagon... ..."
"... In hindsight it was a big mistake for Trump to think he could work with the GOP establishment. Better to rely on business, the military and other outsiders for his staff. ..."
"... It was straight Leo Strauss/neocon stuff. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm ..."
"... The Protestant Christians in US and in UK - as a big part of Electorate - are largely responsible for enabling the neocons. The West has bought and paid for A RELIGIOUS indulgence, called Israel and is unwilling to either admit or accept that it has led to a religious war. I guess the West expects to prevail. ..."
"... "Are you calling CNN fake news?" The more apt description would be Fraudulent news. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

" Derek J. Harvey was the first Director of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Center of Excellence at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and a retired United States Army Colonel . He was selected by General David Petraeus in 2009 to lead the new organization. [1] Harvey is a Senior Executive Service -member of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and was the previous senior analytical specialist for Iraq to Petraeus, then Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq."

Wiki on Harvey

-------------

A very odd biographical wiki. It doesn't say much of anything about him. It is as though he was born anew when he came to Petraeus' attention as a briefer/analyst working in the big FOB at the Baghdad airport. Usually these things describe your life, parentage, education, marriage, etc. There is none of that. It is also rather out of date, being from the time when Mike Flynn brought him into DIA as a member of the Senior Executive Service.

I have known DH for a very long time.

  1. He evidently does not like to talk about his service in DIA as a captain in the late '80s. He was then a very green junior analyst in the Current Intelligence branch of DIA down in the basement of the Pentagon. Bob Woodward in "The War Within..." writes that in the late 80s Harvey wandered the back roads in Iraq traveling about 500 miles, chatting with villagers, headmen and tribal leaders to learn what the true state of affairs might be. This is untrue. If Harvey told Woodward that, he lied IMO. Saddam was then fully in power and an American who wandered in Iraq would shortly have been in prison or worse. No, Harvey was scribbling away in his basement cubicle in the Pentagon and hanging around my upstairs offices whenever my staff were silly enough to let him in through the alarmed door. I finally banned him from the office suite because he had no legitimate business there other than to try to obtain tutoring from me.
  2. I should be clear about his supposed adventures in Saddam's Iraq. Nobody in DIA would have sent or allowed this junior desk jockey to go do anything of the kind. He would have required orders in writing to make this trip. A number of people would have been needed as signatures on the permission, among them, me, and that never happened. If there had been official orders they would have required the allocation of funds in the orders. The idea that DIA would have funded this is laughable. If he had gone to Iraq on leave without permission the Iraqi police would have picked him up at the point of entry. In any event he would have needed the permission of the US ambassador and the US DATT to be in the country. That never happened either. In other words he seems to have built a "Harvey of Iraq" legend about himself out of whole cloth.
  3. He speaks no Arabic. None. That would have made his Laurentian or Munchausian adventures somewhat more difficult. In some web bios he is said to have an elementary knowledge of French and Farsi. Farsi? How would that have happened?
  4. He does not seem to have ever had any training as a field intelligence collector.
  5. He does not seem to have been board selected for senior Army schools like C&GSC and the War College. Perhaps he did these schools by correspondence or was given constructive credit for "experience?"
  6. So far as I know he never served in a Middle East or North African country before 9/11.
  7. His teaching job at South Florida University does not seem to have involved teaching about the Middle East. It was something about management that he taught.

Well, pilgrims, perhaps I have all this wrong, if so, then I will welcome your corrections. I am sure there will be some.

In the present instance of his dismissal from the NSC staff it is now clear to me that he thought he could wrestle control of the ME policy function away from McMaster and Mattis. He seems to have believed that he could do that with the slick persuasiveness that had worked so well for so long on so many and with the support of his neocon patrons.

Here is the statement he released yesterday on the occasion of his departure for greener pastures:

"Subject: Derek Harvey - Statement

I will be leaving the National Security Council today to take advantage of a new opportunity to continue serving our President and the United States of America in an important capacity.

Since January, I have had the special honor to serve as the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Middle East Affairs in the National Security Council. This has been work of vital importance to our country, and my departure comes with mixed emotions. In addition to the criticality of the mission, the people I have worked with in the NSC and the White House make this a tough decision.

I have known LTG H.R. McMaster for many years, and H.R. and I have worked closely together to tackle some of our nation's most difficult challenges. I value our friendship and deeply respect his visionary leadership. I look forward to working with H.R. in my future capacity. I have also appreciated the chance to work with the superb, selfless professionals on our team at the NSC, an amazing group of American patriots who have been instrumental in supporting the President, integrating U.S. policies toward the Middle East, and developing a series of strategies to protect and advance American interests in the region.

I treasure having had the opportunity to support committed and visionary leaders such as Mrs. K.T. McFarland, Mr. Jared Kushner, and Mr. Steve Bannon, and consummate professionals like Mr. Jason Greenblatt and Ms. Dina Powell. I am especially grateful for the Middle East Directorate and those on the NSC with whom we have worked so closely and with such great effect. I remain humbled by their dedication, commitment, and patriotism and wish them all the very best as they face the challenges ahead.

Most importantly, I am excited about the opportunities to advance American interests in the Middle East under President Trump's leadership, and I look forward to shouldering greater responsibilities in support of the President.

Sincerely,

Derek J. Harvey

Special Assistant to the President

Near East Region"

Vic -> Larry Kart ... , 29 July 2017 at 09:31 AM

As a single individual alone accomplishing it, it is rare (just as the opposite is true, extremely talented officers are also rare). However, in a case where the leadership of a Command is rotten, it is not rare at all.

Flynn at DIA IMO was a disaster. His "vision" behind reorganizing was to make DIA mostly an annex of J2 CENTOM. It was so disruptive and counter productive that he was replaced before the normal tour end. Harvey thrived on the CENTOM focused mission. Harvey was not the only questionable person that Flynn bumped up to the senior ranks.

So where did Flynn come from? He made his spurs working with General Petraeus. He bought into Petraeus's perpetual war, and hearts and minds COIN doctrine (with associated intelligence concept of the "human terrain"). In the end Petraeus also self destructed as a fraud and a very flawed officer.

In turn, Petraeus was a result of President Bush (2). A leader with incredibly poor judgement who brought together an incompetent circus of NeoCons (Chicken Hawks) to wage an unnecessary war in an incoherent manner.

Individual incompetence is rarely a path to senior position. But when the Command is rotten from the top down, it happens more frequently.

Vic

Mark Chapman -> Larry Kart ... , 29 July 2017 at 09:54 AM
Does everyone remember Michael "Heck of a Job, Brownie" D. Brown, the first-ever Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response? His Baptism by Mud in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? Michael D. Brown's background experience for running a large casualty-management organization was as Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association.

To be fair, he was not so much a weasel as he had others do the promotion for him, which appears to have been based on doglike loyalty and nothing else. You'd be surprised how far that will take you - depending on the character of your leader - in quite a few organizations.

Haralambos , 28 July 2017 at 12:20 PM
This is up from yesterday on Harvey's dismissal: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/derek-harvey-trump-middle-east-adviser-dismissed-241037

Here is a revealing quote from the article:

"Harvey was viewed as one of Trump's more hawkish foreign policy advisers, particularly on Iran, whose leadership he has studied closely and which he recommends confronting more aggressively. He has also been a staunch critic of the Iran nuclear deal.... Many military officials consider him the government's most knowledgeable source on the Sunni insurgency in Iraq and Syria."

turcopolier , 28 July 2017 at 12:37 PM
Larry Kart

This level of self-promotion is unusual in one so specialized. pl

Old Microbiologist -> turcopolier ... , 28 July 2017 at 01:07 PM
I have seen the equivalent in the science arena. I know of at least 2 biodefense scientists who were so bad at getting funding for projects they were moved over to management positions. This is what happens with permanent GS civilians.

You can't fire them so you move them to relatively harmless positions such as program managers or outreach program people. After 9/11 Congress in their wisdom decided we needed yet another mother of all government agencies and created the Department of Homeland Security.

However, they failed to create any permanent GS slots to put into this agency. So, every government agency was required to move authorized/obligated positions over to DHS and this would include any personnel currently holding those slots. No one would ever give up good and productive people so all the dregs were moved over to DHS. This might help explain why DHS has been so screwed up from the get go. As you might expect these 2 scientists were moved over to senior positions and eventually slimed their way to the top and became SES scientific managers and ultimately heads of programs. Kissing ass works well for a lot of people especially when the ass you are kissing is more incompetent that you are.

This might explain why the DHS biodefense programs are so screwed up. One of them is now over at FDA working hard to screw that agency up and the other went over to DHHS (NIH) where they are working hard to screw that up as well. A few very rare people went over to DHS who were good and did it voluntarily but they eventually regretted it having to work for these former loser scientists.There are no smiling faces at DHS.

EEngineer -> Old Microbiologist... , 28 July 2017 at 05:41 PM
And the bulk was staffed up with any college republican that could fog a mirror. Got to deal with a few of those while developing a bio-particle detector. Basic science seemed to be missing on their resumes. But Moore's law seemed to apply to everything!
Old Microbiologist -> EEngineer... , 29 July 2017 at 06:44 AM
But, they probably did have PHD's but ended up doing nothing later. I agree with you about that. The same things happened over at DTRA, where I have never seen such incompetence. I also ran into similar ignorance with DoS people involved in the BWPPP (counter proliferation program funded under the Nunn-Luger Act). They thought all the former Soviet field labs doing agricultural disease surveillance were bioweapons labs.

The labs were set up to monitor endemic zoonotic disease like anthrax and plague which are relatively common. For years they wanted to get their hands on the "weapon" strains and the local guys figured out pretty quickly how to game it for never ending funding on the promise the strains would be sent "real soon".

I can't blame them for that. But I can blame these "geniuses" managing these projects for being incompetent.

Ishmael Zechariah -> turcopolier ... , 28 July 2017 at 02:01 PM
Colonel,

I might be becoming a conspiracy nut in my old age. Could it be that this fellow was promoted and placed as part of an infiltration operation? There are so many claims on his vita which could have been verified with minimal effort. Were these not checked? Could it be that they were checked and the discrepancies were being used for control?

In a similar vein how can the entire US Senate minus 2 vote for a sanctions proposal which is patently and demonstrably based on false premises?

Ishmael Zechariah

Old Microbiologist -> Ishmael Zechariah... , 29 July 2017 at 06:45 AM
American policy in regards to everything is easily understood by one basic concept. Follow the money.
Babak Makkinejad -> Old Microbiologist... , 29 July 2017 at 08:07 PM
I do not credit that. On the whole US has gained nothing from Japan - except unemployment. And then there is the little matter of Afghanistan, for which, the money trail goes through her anf back in DC.
WG McCreedy , 28 July 2017 at 02:00 PM
https://www.linkedin.com/in/colonelderekharvey/
Tel -> WG McCreedy... , 29 July 2017 at 05:47 PM
http://www.cas.usf.edu/news/s/546

"He also has shown great courage personally, for example entering Fallujah at the height of the uprising there and spending the day and night talking with leaders in the insurgency."

That would have been early 2004, while Col Harvey was "Red Team" Chief.

Randy , 28 July 2017 at 02:05 PM
Legend in his own mind. How many more like him are influencing/making foreign policy decisions? Scary. Nice take down pl.
SmoothieX12 , 28 July 2017 at 02:06 PM
Farsi? How would that have happened?

When playing back-gammon as it is played in the region? I joke, of course. But I remember playing the game (known in the area as Nard(y)) All numbers (combinations) of dice were called out loud in Farsi. Everybody in Caucasus pretty much knew counting to six in Farsi plus some additional (proprietary) names of numbers' combinations. Sadly, I forgot that--I don't play backgammon in its "westernized" configuration--the board has to be done in a specific way. But, probably, would recall numbers and titles given couple of games with native speakers pretty fast.

Kooshy -> SmoothieX12 ... , 28 July 2017 at 05:15 PM
The Board must be of hard wood ( specific species) and the dice must be small ( like 1/4 in) made of tusk, so one can hear an specific sound of rolling dice. The board is called Takhteh ( board made of wood) Nard
SmoothieX12 -> Kooshy... , 28 July 2017 at 08:27 PM
It is also known as Shesh-Besh (the game--six-five) and every move of the essentially checker has to be loud and fixated in the own nest. Drinking tea from armuda glass is desirable;) You got it right about dice known as zary. It is a ritual of an incredible delight and power.

http://obruch.com.ua/sites/obruch.com.ua/files/khyqx_baku_hjmobt_rhunuq._kepmohu.gif

Eric Newhill -> Kooshy... , 29 July 2017 at 06:40 AM
Kooshy,

Brings back memories. The hard wood board inlaid with ivory and mother of pearl and the little ivory dice vigorously thrown and ricocheting wildly. The smacking of the chips on the table; even harder when you "hit" the opponent's piece or make a "dur" in a strategic slot.

We called the game "tobli", but we always counted in a mix of Persian, Arabic and a salting of Turkish. There were also proclamations that would be shouted; usually when misfortune befell one's opponent. "Gehleh"! (sometimes pronounced "Gallah") when his piece had been hit and then couldn't get back on the board.

6 and five was "shesh/besh". 4 and 2 was "juward/du", But 1 and 2 was "eekie beer", 1 and 1 was "hap yeck"......

It was said that the game of tobli would reveal a man's character and that it was a microcosm of life.

Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 28 July 2017 at 09:34 PM
I think the word for six is the same in both Russian and in Persian. The expression "losing at Love's Nard" is well-known in Persian. (In Love, one wins by losing; as I am sure you know.)
SmoothieX12 -> Babak Makkinejad... , 28 July 2017 at 09:54 PM
I think the word for six is the same in both Russian and in Persian.

It is Shest' in Russian and Shesh both in Farsi, Azeri and Turkic.

Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 29 July 2017 at 09:30 AM
Funny - "Shest" mean thumb in Persian. Or Sixty - depending on the accent of the local dialect.
The Beaver , 28 July 2017 at 02:20 PM
committed and visionary leaders such as Mrs. K.T. McFarland

Yep, Troia who went MIA since 1985 after marrying a rich banker and became more or less a socialite only to resurface in 2006.

Envoy Jason Greenblatt who couldn't do much last WE about the hot spot of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and Bibi had to remove his electronic gear to "control the Arab Muslims". Jared would have loved to accompany him on that school trip but he was busy on the Hill.

The Beaver , 28 July 2017 at 03:05 PM
This may be a good read:

https://www.cfr.org/blog/our-man-middle-east-confusing-worldview-trump-aide-derek-harvey

When it comes to Iran, Harvey has articulated a tough line, but there is a fair amount of bipartisan support for this in Washington. When he turns his attention to other issues, however, Harvey offers a curious set of dubious assertions and contradictory claims, wrapped up in a troubling lack of knowledge about the region for which he is now primarily responsible. Needless to say, this combination is bad for U.S.-Middle East policy.

MRW , 28 July 2017 at 03:20 PM
Hope someone at the White House reads this. It is delicious.
Lars -> MRW... , 28 July 2017 at 05:41 PM
Nobody in the White House will read this, or anything else. They are too busy watching TV. Of course, the old Greeks had a story about somebody who flew too close to the sun.
Emad , 28 July 2017 at 05:17 PM
Reminds of that other paragon of ME knowledge Larry Franklin.
Lemur , 28 July 2017 at 05:33 PM
Breaking: Trump's fired Priebus, hired John Kelly as Chief of Staff.

"My hunch is that Reince Priebus will be gone by the end of August along with Sean Spicer and most of their RNC team of White House leakers." ~ Conservative Treehouse, July 23rd

Sounds like Trump's trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored. If you don't get with the Trump program, you're put out to pasture.

Babak Makkinejad -> Lemur... , 28 July 2017 at 09:35 PM
Col. Lang had predicted this months ago.
turcopolier -> Babak Makkinejad... , 28 July 2017 at 09:50 PM
babak

Yes, it is typical of how the nouveau riche NY City people behave. The older the money, the more hidden the gutter snipe behavior. there will be more like this. pl

Lemur -> Lemur... , 29 July 2017 at 03:17 AM
Update: the blue ticks on twitter are reporting Trump 'sources' associated with Preibus are saying Trump is moving toward an independent whitehouse detached from the GOP.
Richardstevenhack -> Lemur... , 29 July 2017 at 07:56 PM
But not independent of the neocons...

In fact, if true, this looks like a "neocon coup". It was bad enough they had control of State and influence at the Pentagon during Bush, now it looks they have total control of the White House AND State and still influence in the Pentagon...

So we have Trump trying to use "snap inspections" to unravel the Iran Deal - which will lead inevitably to war - and at the same time threatening to attack North Korea again as well as fueling Cold War 2.0 with Russia with more sanctions.

This can only end well...not...

Fellow Traveler , 28 July 2017 at 05:37 PM
Reince Priebus out, another General in.

"WASHINGTON -- Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff who failed to impose order on a chaos-wracked West Wing, was pushed out on Friday after a stormy six-month tenure, and President Trump replaced him with John F. Kelly, the secretary of homeland security and retired four-star Marine genera"

LondonBob -> Fellow Traveler... , 29 July 2017 at 06:39 AM
In hindsight it was a big mistake for Trump to think he could work with the GOP establishment. Better to rely on business, the military and other outsiders for his staff.

Sessions to DHS and a new AG in? Given the suggestion of a new AG generates such hysteria it would be a wise move.

JMH , 28 July 2017 at 05:47 PM
Got to admire the defensive/defiant tone of the resignation letter, here's a thought: it was an honor and a privilege to serve, God bless America... IMO 'nuff said
Peter in Toronto , 28 July 2017 at 07:02 PM
How does does one receive neo-con patronage in the first place? Do you have to marry into the tribe? Seems like a profitable thing to do and it gets you into places well beyond any formal education or qualifications or merit, it seems. I have to look into this.
turcopolier , 28 July 2017 at 08:07 PM
Peter in Toronto. They have had an active recruitment program for at least fifty years. The Wohlstetters pitched me in my Pentagon offices. pl
Peter in Toronto -> turcopolier ... , 28 July 2017 at 10:28 PM
No kidding... Can I press you for an anecdote?
turcopolier -> Peter in Toronto... , 29 July 2017 at 07:36 AM
Peter in Toronto

As I said the Wohlstetters (Albert and Roberta) came to my office at the direction of "Paul" to explain to me the esoteric meaning of Plato's Republic and other texts. Roberta laid out a series of books on my coffee table, all written by their friends (Wizards of Armageddon). I argued with them about the meaning of several of Plato's dialogues and after a while she picked up her books and they left. I had failed the test. Ten years ago I gave a talk at the Miller Center at U Va and at the after event lunch a former colleage of theirs at the U. of Chicago said that they had been doing that there for a very long time. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 10:39 AM
Do you recall the esoteric meaning of the Republic that they mentioned?
LeaNder -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 11:19 AM
You are kidding? Aren't you? Plato's Republic? The assumed source of later Utopia thinkers? Random pick, without taking a closer look:
http://exploringutopia.weebly.com/utopian-origins.html
English Outsider -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 12:03 PM
Colonel - this particular neo-con strand seems to go back a long way. Googling Wohlstetter brought up this, a site unknown to me but which amplifies the Wiki entry:-

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Albert_Wohlstetter

"Wohlstetter is also said to have sent Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, to work on the staff of Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a conservative hawk committed to working on behalf of the US defense industry, and for Wolfowitz and Perle to intern for the Committee to Maintain a Prudent Defense Policy, a Cold War think tank co-founded by former Secretary of State Dean Acheson and former Secretary of the Navy Paul Nitze.[28] This is also thought to be precursory moves to the formation of the "Team B" intelligence analysis team as Nitze used Wohlstetter's assertions in testimony to accuse Henry Kissinger and the CIA of dangerously underestimating the Soviet Union's military strength and its intentions. As Craig Unger put it:

"This was the beginning of a thirty-year fight against the national security apparatus in which the [neoconservatives] mastered the art of manipulating intelligence in order to implement hard-line, militaristic policies."[29]"

What your anecdote above illustrates is the evangelical zeal with which the neo-cons pushed their views and sought to convert. I had assumed that the neo-cons got out of the basement and into the front office because, figuratively speaking, the front office was empty. That is, that they came to dominate Foreign Policy thinking almost by default, simply because Foreign Policy was not a prime interest of the American voter and therefore could be captured by any strong interest group that happened to be around.

It seems there was more to it than that and that the neo-cons or their precursors actively laid siege to the front office over a long period.

Is this related to the influence exerted on the American intellectual and political scene by continental and in particular Eastern European emigre groups that brought with them the attitudes, and particularly the Russophobia, of their roots?

Such groups remain, as it were, frozen in time, not adapting to changing circumstances and attitudes in their home countries but retaining the old attitudes and approach unaltered.

We see this effect when looking at the Irish diaspora in Australia and the US in the nineteenth century. The historians give great weight to the effect of this diaspora. Without the support of these outside groups, and their rigid adherence to the hard line attitudes they had brought to their new country with them, the Irish revolution would have taken a different and possibly more fruitful course. That applies also to the influence emigre groups exert within the US itself. I believe Syrian emigres from the old Syrian regime were influential in Washington, and their adherence to the grievances and outlook they brought over exerted that influence in Washington out of proportion to their value as true indicators of the up to date circumstances in the ME.

The Ukrainian emigre groups exert a similar influence in Canada and Australia. Again, preserving unaltered the attitudes their forbears brought over with them, they push their host governments strongly to support the ultra-nationalist groups in their country of origin although (my opinion only, but there does seem to be some warrant for it) the average Ukrainian patriot had, before 2014, moved well away from the ultra-nationalism of the 1940's.

Such groups of emigres, emigre groups whose attitudes are frozen in time and not that well connected to current reality, could perhaps be termed "fossil groups". In Western countries, unacquainted with and usually uninterested in the contemporary political scene in the foreign countries those fossil groups originate from, they can exert a strong electoral and intellectual influence on the host country. The extremist always wins against the moderate when the moderate's not that bothered and the extremist is.

Is it going too far to say that the American Foreign Policy scene, never particularly of detailed interest to the voter because there was plenty to get on with just building up that huge American economy and dealing with domestic issues, has now been taken captive by those "fossil groups"?

And that the West as a whole, because of the predominance of the US in the West, is now similarly captive? If so the "lunatic juggernaut", as one can fairly term the West as a whole when one observes the catastrophic mistakes we in the West make in our Foreign Policy, is in truth being steered by groups who have little contact with current reality and dangerously little in common with the peoples of their host countries.

Ishmael Zechariah -> English Outsider ... , 29 July 2017 at 05:37 PM
English Outsider,
A nice link. Thank you.
AFAIK both Perle and Wolfowitz are zionist israel-firsters. Do you think the Wohlstetters and Strauss also belonged to this group?

Ishmael Zechariah

English Outsider -> Ishmael Zechariah... , 29 July 2017 at 08:52 PM

Ishmael Zechariah - I'm too far away to have any worthwhile feel for how ultra-Zionism got into its current position as a determining factor in American Foreign Policy, and by extension ours. I have, with some diffidence, maintained that the Scofield Bible has more clout than AIPAC in the United States but that belief was arrived at by reading accounts and examinations of the American fundamentalist scene and not from direct experience. In fact when I read the English correspondents on this site I'm chastened to realise how unaware I have been of various political cross currents in my own country, so I don't pretend to be able to accurately pin down the cross currents in yours.

The Colonel's Venn diagrams - intersecting interest groups - are, I am convinced, the best way of visualising the interplay of the various interest groups and ideological pressures that resulted in current American Foreign Policy. Ultra-Zionism got into the mix, that's for sure, but perhaps even those who observed the process at first hand would be hard put to identify exactly how. All most can do is see the results. And live them.

What is clear to any outside observer is how open the American political and intellectual scene is. An American today might feel hemmed in by PC and current dogma to an extent that would be incomprehensible to any American of the past, but to an outsider it seems a remarkable free and open-minded society in contrast to the more restricted and self-censoring political environment in Europe. That openness gives grounds for hope that it will be the Americans who will find the way out the the cul-de-sac the West is currently trapped in, but it is also a vulnerability. If good things might find a lodging in this relaxed and open culture so might bad and in my comment above I had hoped to look at how it was that America, that byword for confident progress, found itself harbouring some of the more regressive political tendencies that found their way from Old Europe. Harbouring them, and scarcely without noticing, allowing them to direct their fortunes and the fortunes of the West.

Eric Newhill -> English Outsider ... , 30 July 2017 at 10:15 AM
EO,
The adherents of the Scofield Bible are aligned with AIPAC. These Christians belief that in order for Christ to return, Israel must exist and the temple must be rebuilt. They want Christ to return and they want to facilitate the occurrence of the event. Thus they are 100% pro-Israel in a most Zionist fashion.
johnf -> English Outsider ... , 30 July 2017 at 02:59 AM
To your list of outsiders influencing American foreign policy I'd add the Rwandan Tutsis who, while their elite were in exile in New York and Canada in the 1970's and 80's, formed very close links with zionists and neo-conservatives. Their intelligence and brightness appealed, as well as, possibly, the murkier strains of Social Darwinism (a culture very much still alive in the Tutsi elite) since eugenicist theories have always defined them as "philo-semites", unlike the untermenschen Central African Hutu who make up the vast majority of the Rwanda's population).

The Tutsi elite's invasion of Rwanda under Paul Kagame was heavily financed by elements in The West (who also, unsurprisingly, had their eyes on the vast deposits of rare metals (especially for computers) in the neighbouring and highly unstable Congo).

The "Rwandan Genocide" which followed was used again and again as an excuse ("It Must Never Be Allowed To Happen Again!") for the Iraq and Libyan and Syrian interventions. But more sceptical voices are increasingly pointing out that Paul Kagame's troops were as much initially involved in massacring Hutus as Hutus were in massacring the rural Tutsis (who had little connection with the cosmopolitan Tutsi Elite), and that Kagame then used "The Genocide" as a repeated cover and excuse for barbaric invasions (fully supported by the West for both ideological and commercial reasons) of the Congo and the terrible slaughters and exploitations which took place (and continue to take place) there.

Only recently has the once lionized Kagame been condemned by the United Nations, despite fervent opposition to this by his powerful supporters in The West.

Gerard Prunier's magisterial "Africa's World War" covers this tragedy in great detail, and is in itself partly a "mea culpa" for his earlier "The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide" which he admits he wrote while bedazzled by Kagame.

Jose , 28 July 2017 at 11:05 PM
Col, he speaks elementary Farsi, so he is an Iranian menace expert.
Babak Makkinejad -> Jose... , 29 July 2017 at 09:31 AM
And I speak rudimentary Spanish and I am now the foremost expert on the politics of Spain as well as Hispano-american world.
sid_finster , 28 July 2017 at 11:32 PM
Col. Harvey's autobiography and it's improbable wanderings in exotic lands seeking hidden wisdom reminds me a lot of another charlatan who went far, namely, L.Ron Hubbard.
ambrit -> sid_finster... , 29 July 2017 at 09:59 AM
Oh good heavens. Is DH also an amoral libertine as well?
sid_finster -> ambrit... , 29 July 2017 at 06:57 PM
That I don't know, but the improbable, hell, impossible, tales of travel in the service of self-promotion remind me of The Commodore.
DH , 29 July 2017 at 12:02 AM
"President Donald Trump said his decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military, announced via Twitter on Wednesday morning, came "after consultation with my generals and military experts." It's becoming clearer and clearer that he was lying.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis was on vacation when the decision was announced, and privately opposed the move. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. James Dunford, said Thursday that the military wouldn't implement the ban absent a formal, non-tweeted order from the commander in chief.

And then there were the remarkable remarks that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley made during a luncheon at the National Press Club.

During the lunch, Milley told reporters that he found out about the ban "the same way everybody else did -- on the news." At the time, he was holding a glass of wine:"

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/27/16051892/trump-transgender-ban-army-chief-staff

Lemur -> DH... , 29 July 2017 at 10:24 AM
its amusing how Trump makes a mockery of all the Washington rituals. I think that's what drives the media nuts - he bypasses the established conventions of 'how things are done.'
dilbert dogbert -> Lemur... , 30 July 2017 at 11:00 AM
Yes he bypasses established conventions, but, will that tactic get things done? Example: Obamacare Repeal.
confusedponderer -> DH... , 29 July 2017 at 10:50 AM
DH,
that Milney didn't spill the wine deserves praise. Wine is there to be drunken, or to be used in cooking. I understand the decision on transgender to some point.

Still, what wonders me is that that the pentagon learns from such non-trivialities from the press and not from heir CiC. It suggests to me serious dysfunction in communication from the Whitehouse to the rest of the world. And it's not just that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/sean-spicer-hides-bushes-donald-trump-fires-james-comey-white-house-fbi-avoid-press-questions-a7727611.html

Sean 'The Notable' Spicer was a joke of a gvt speaker who, at least once, preferred to hide behind bushes to avoid talking to press. For one, Spicer should have known that speaking to the press was his darn job. Alas. As the saying goes, shit happens. Good for the US that that clown is out.

But who did Trump hire as a replacement? Scaramucchi. That man is, from what I read him say, hardly an improvement over Spicer. IMO the crazy nut man was simply replaced by a nutty crazy boy.

IMO Stephen Colbert had it quite right when he said it: Now that the mute man Sean Spicer is out as the non-speaking press speaker, who is now not-answering anybody's, my, yours and the presses load of questions? Scaramucci perhaps? Answer: Well, nobody, it seems.

So, in lack of communication from their CiC the pentagon is expected to ... hallucinate? sleep? dream? Perhaps look at Trump's tweets?

Well, maybe they should. Maybe Trump will one days tweet really secret and very important things to them that they may miss, like:

;( Nook NoKo ;O

Amusingly, as you posted in your VOX link DH, Trump said he had consulted the military on his transgender ban, but according to the military he didn't. Oh well. In Trumps own terms: Soooo sad ...

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 11:13 AM
Babak

It was straight Leo Strauss/neocon stuff. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm

basically, according to this view the text has hidden meanings that are the opposite of the obvious. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 12:58 PM
Thanks.
Truly deplorable didplay of parochial ignorance. They could have travelled to India or to Iran and seen and experienced for themselves what millenia of tyranny and lie creates.
LeaNder -> Babak Makkinejad... , 30 July 2017 at 08:08 AM
Babak,

Really fast look, I am aware of the larger Straussiophobia. With all due respect to Shadia Drury. Haven't read her books, admittedly.

By contrast, Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flow directly from the doctrines of the political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973). His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration

Stopped here. Felt from the first time I stumbled across it, was even slightly curious, far too easy. Should I go back and study it more closely?

Babak: Truly deplorable display of parochial ignorance. They could have traveled to India or to Iran and seen and experienced for themselves what millennia of tyranny and lie creates.

Yes, I agree that's part of the puzzle. I may have struggled with something comparable over here not too long ago. At least in essence it feels. But, it feels there are many comparable "theys" around.

But while I admittedly read almost every book on the Neocons I could lay may hands post 9/11. The Straussian angle felt a bit hyped to me. No doubt, I may be wrong. I surely didn't look into the assumed occult aspect of matters. To the extend I looked at Strauss' study of Machiavelli it didn't feel that striking. Yes, no doubt tried to offer 'Il principe' deceptive means in trying to get his attention.

Machiavelli's intention in curing the attention of his master clearly to teach him the best ways of deception. But: Is there a way to understand, or better still to prove, how Strauss' interpretation of Machiavelli may have gotten into the mind of e.g. Wolfowitz? Which in return explains why matters unfolded the way they did?

Why do we need to select Leo Strauss as the ultimate representative of Machiavelli in our times? Never mind, the long reception history of Il Principe/The Prince? The neocons as his only true descendants? Well, how would their biographies compare to Machiavelli's attempt to please the Prince? Or their attempts at getting the attention of the respective "cherry blossom king" (Tyler's coinage for Trump, here used for whatever president of the US more generally)?

Meaning: Before I stumbled across the debate I assumed that Machiavelli was more generally a standard text in politics and for politicians in the West. (no political scientist, no political philosopher, admittedly).

*******

Well yes, there was this biographical detail linking Strauss to Carl Schmitt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Encounters_with_Schmitt_and_Koj.C3.A8ve

And yes, without any doubt one might be able to draw a direct line from Carl Schmitt's Political Theocracy to Israel, as at least one Israeli scholar has done.

But does that help us to solve the larger riddle of US politics? Apart from telling us that you may be born into time and space beyond your own choices, as Leo Strauss was, and then have to deal with it? Maybe even trying to understand with whatever means?

*******

Personal note: Saw your and Kooshy's response. Thanks to both of you.

Babak Makkinejad -> LeaNder... , 30 July 2017 at 11:07 AM
Thank you for your comments. The Protestant Christians in US and in UK - as a big part of Electorate - are largely responsible for enabling the neocons. The West has bought and paid for A RELIGIOUS indulgence, called Israel and is unwilling to either admit or accept that it has led to a religious war. I guess the West expects to prevail.
confusedponderer , 29 July 2017 at 11:16 AM
I just read that Trump has fired his weirdly named staff chief Rience Priebus, by Twitter.

Usually, a firing of a staff chief is a personal thing, and the relationship is personal. So, unlike what could be seen in Trump's tv shows, a firing usually - it is after all about ending a contract - goes with a letter, in a bad case perhaps with a deliberate humiliation as in the case of Comey, or a personal talk - but firing by TWITTER, so to speak, en passant ? Good grief.

That mess probably not just coincides with the appearance of the new man in the Whitehouse - Scaramucchi.

After insulting Priebus, who got fired, Sacramucchi isn't done yet. After insulting Priebus, he has started to also insult Bannon recently - will he be twittered away, too? The show hasn't ended et.

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 05:45 PM
IZ

They are or were all neocon Israel firsters. pl

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 05:49 PM
tel

I am told that this account is self-generated. Now think about the Falluja story. The people he would have visited were dedicated jihadis. They routinely cut peoples' heads off or crucify them for not sharing their opinion of the nature of Islam. They hung the burned and mutilated corpses of a number of American off a bridge in town.

Do you really think Derek Harvey who speaks no Arabic went to have a listening opportunity with them? If you think that you are very gullible. was he decorated for this feat of daring do? If so, I want to see the citation. It took a brigade sized force to break into the town. Was that because the command would not listen to Derek Harvey? pl

Tel -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 07:08 PM
Are you calling CNN fake news?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/05/opinions/steve-bannon-white-house-national-security-bergen/

"Serving under McMaster is a triumvirate of well-seasoned Middle East hands. The senior director at the NSC for the Middle East is retired Col. Derek Harvey, an Arabic-speaking intelligence officer with a Ph.D. who served as the head of the US military cell examining the insurgency in Iraq in 2003."

In terms of empiricism... I would think that discovering whether someone can speak a given language should be very easy to test.

Babak Makkinejad -> Tel... , 29 July 2017 at 07:50 PM
I have a real Ph.D. and have been waiting for the President, any President, to offer me a lucrative government job as a Hispano-American expert which my smattering of Spanish and my ownership of bilingual poetry books surely entitle.
Thomas -> Tel... , 30 July 2017 at 02:01 PM
"Are you calling CNN fake news?" The more apt description would be Fraudulent news.
turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 07:27 PM
tel

Derek Harvey does not speak Arabic except for "hello," "goodbye," "thank you" and the like. Send him around and I will give him a language test. Nor does Harvey have a Ph. D. I have consulted peers of his who were in Iraq when he was supposedly playing Lawrence of Arabia in Falluja. They universally believe this to have been BS. He is a wonderfully skilled self-promoter. pl

Larry Kart , 30 July 2017 at 12:08 PM
And what of the man that McMaster seemingly can't get rid of -- the still firmly in place, and high in the NSA hierarchy, Ezra Cohen-Watnick?
Hubert Horan , 30 July 2017 at 02:47 PM
A couple book recommendations for anyone who wants historical background on the links between Strauss and the neocons. First point is that conservatives spent decades of efforts trying to build a "political theory/philosophy" that would support/justify their political/ideological objectives. Nash's "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America 1945-1970" is widely recognized by folks of various political persuasions as a solid work of history. Nash describes how this pursuit of a theoretical grounding for "conservatism" developed, and mentions how Strauss developed a wide following among these movement conservatives, although because the story ends in the 70s it doesn't describe how Strauss later became a subject of adoration among neocons.

Although the points seem self-evident, Nash (and similar writers) never explicitly explain why conservatives ever thought their political movement could have a rigorous philosophical basis, given the yawning gap between "philosophy" and short-term partisan politics, given the variety of incompatible and changing political objectives of conservatives, and given that no one in the center of left side of the political spectrum (hard-core 1930's Marxists excepted) wasted time worrying about whether their political agenda was strongly linked to an underlying, immutable "theory".

Gottfried's "Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America" (2012) describes some of the post-1980 "cult of Strauss" among neocons, with competing schools based at Claremont (led by Harry Jaffa) and Chicago (led by Alan Bloom). Godfried (I think reasonably) defends Strauss against certain academic attempts (including Drury) to tie Strauss to views of Carl Schmidt that he didn't share, and explains Strauss' Israel-first Zionism as simply typical of Jewish intellectuals who had fled the Nazis.

Gottfried fails to make the points as explicitly as his evidence allows, but many of the nasty stuff attributed to Strauss are the fault of his disciples, who simplified/misrepresented abstruse philosophical points to fit the neocon agenda of the 1990s and beyond.

[Jul 30, 2017] Kelly vs the Mooch

Notable quotes:
"... I favor much of DJT's domestic program. He probably has adopted that program for selfish, egotistical reasons but it is still a program that I favor. In addition, his preference for an improvement in relations with Russia seems common sense. ..."
"... With all due respect I think you're mistaking Trump's demeanor with his nature. While he has his flaws, in private he seems to be very generous to all and sundry. ..."
"... Reince was indeed likely the leaker, or providing cover for the leaks ..."
"... I think McMaster's neocon ass is on its way out. ..."
"... Actually Mike Cernovich had the scoop two hours before the MSM and she tried to claim credit from him. Until it went down she was saying GEN Kelly was a floater and not a serious choice. ..."
"... I feel working for a malignant narcissist is one of the most challenging things one can be faced with in normal life. Kelly has all but certainly had to deal with this before somewhere along the line. ..."
"... I would actually prefer that to what I think we're going to get: an eventual sell-out. How can long can Trump hold out against the onslaught against him? He will be sorely tempted to make them a deal if this goes on too much longer. Even if Russiagate remains a nothing-burger, they can use it to sandbag him, force him to make concessions. And the more concessions he makes, the weaker he becomes. Don't get me wrong: I'm still glad Hellary lost. But Trump needs to go the offensive at some point; he needs to be more of a fighter. He can't just sit back and let them gnaw away at him like a school of famished piranhas. But I know that asking a lot from him ... and that's what makes me worry. ..."
"... While I have worked for several craven and egotistical CEOs, they all recognized at some level that they could only throw so many of their subordinates under the bus for lack of performance before the board would have a frank conversation with them ..."
"... I believe The Donald is in an unusual situation for a POTUS. He won the election defeating two political dynasties while being virulently attacked by the corporate media and the establishment of both parties. He has no political support in DC. Throughout the election campaign the biggest issue for his opponents were his style and demeanor. And since the election he has been under constant attack, with many on both sides of the aisle as well as former high officials in the key intel agencies actively campaigning for his ouster. ..."
"... Now that it must be apparent to him that he is essentially on his own with no real political allies in the DC power structure, what will he do to secure his own position and push forward with his agenda. His acquiescence on the Russia sanctions bill shows how limited his room for maneuver really are. ..."
"... At some point he's gonna have to give his opponents a taste of their own medicine by getting a special counsel investigation on the leaks by Brennan and Clapper, the financial transactions of the Clintons and senior members of Congress who have disproportionate wealth relative to their decades of Congressional pay. Tweeting outrage won't cut it when Mueller starts digging into his finances and past financial transactions. He will have to go after the DC power structure for pure survival. If he does, that will be the best thing as both sides engage in mortal combat. Maybe the "House of Cards" can then come down. ..."
"... He did blow through the competition to get where he's at. He may not be firing on every cylinder for your liking, but too many people still after all that has happened, still can't bring themselves to give him any credit whatsoever. That flaw has nothing to do with him. ..."
"... You are like the woman in a New York City street who told a TV man with a camera, "He is destroying our world." Yes. He is destroying the world of the "end of history crowd? and you obviously are of that crowd, I guess you have not noticed how much of the Obama super state he has destroyed by cancelling executive orders. ..."
"... To think that we are not witnessing DJT's nature and character is rather naive. I doubt that Gen. Kelly, no matter how skilled, will bring this White House under control since most of the dysfunction comes from the top and DJT is unable to be who he is not. ..."
"... Yesterday on CNN a retired General, who is friends with General John Kelly(ret), said he told John he'd be safer parachuting into Raqqa alone then working in this White House. ..."
"... Kelly is no stranger to political infighting. In 94/95 he was the USMC Liaison to the House of Representatives. Ten years later he returned to HQMC in Washington as the Legislative Assistant to the Commandant. ..."
"... I think many if you are projecting forms of faith that Trump is somehow going to get things turned around, if only as a by-product of his lousy attitude. Others think he's really going to re-make the USA into some ass-kicking utopia (knly the ass-kicking happens on the domestic front... just wonderful. ..."
"... Everything Trump is doing right now has the single goal of keeping himself in office. That's it. Full stop. Every tweet. Every campaign-style unhinged speech. Every move he makes that appears to be attached to any kind of policy at all, whether it's health care or immigration or law and order or who gets the right to serve in our military and who doesn't. ..."
"... Col Lang used to critique a narcissistic personality style of among "perfumed prices of the pentagon". In these generals who are surrounding Trump out of duty & love-of-country, I see people who are blind to the fact they are propping up a sociopathic criminal who is a present danger to the Constitution. Thanks guys! ..."
"... "A corollary of his mentality is that he has no loyalty to anyone who works for him and he sees them all as potential rivals for the future." ..."
"... IMO DJT is posing as a counter-revolutionary. ..."
"... No matter how much I dislike him, Trump has expressed support for a number of admirable policies, better relations with Russia, better health care for all, secure borders, infrastructure investment and I'm sure there's others. The problem is that he doesn't have any real policies, just desired outcomes. A policy should include a proposed roadmap to reach those outcomes. Trump doesn't have a clue how to reach most of those outcomes and his primary reason for supporting those outcomes is to increase his popularity. He just wants to be loved. It's all part of the con. ..."
"... My present position on McMaster is that while he shares the outmoded views on Russia and Iran of many of his peers he is not a neocon. The poseur Harvey was at least an agent of the neocons. pl ..."
Jul 29, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Kelly vs "the Mooch"

Having worked for a few extremely "scattered" bosses who loved to play their subordinates off against each other, I recognize the type in DJT.

Reza Shah Pahlavi, the founder of the ancien regime Iranian imperial dynasty once said that "in Iran all the telegraph lines must run to my feet." By that he evidently meant that he, personally, would run all aspects of life in Iran. Clearly, he felt that this was the optimal management style.

President Trump's style IMO resembles that of the first Pahlavi. He does not have a team. He has people whom he sees as adjuncts of his glory as an entrepreneurial "grand master." He is a certain kind of "big businessman." He believes that capitalism is entirely about personal self aggrandizement and ego reinforcement. I once worked for a similar character, an entrepreneur with political ambitions. That man could not formulate a manifesto that expressed his hopes for the people of his country. He could not do it because he could not conceive of a program that was not about him personally. In the end he hired a collection of professors to cobble together a collection of trite academic platitudes. He lost the election. IMO Trump is much like that man. He is ego driven and will say or do anything he thinks needed to increase his position. A corollary of his mentality is that he has no loyalty to anyone who works for him and he sees them all as potential rivals for the future. We have now seen several examples of the depth of his disregard for those who have been willing to work for him.

To deal with the throng of incompetents and disloyals (irony alert) around him, DJT has now brought in a soul-mate, Anthony Scaramucchi (honest to god that is his name). "The Mooch" as he is known to his associates is a junk-yard dog armed with a Harvard JD and a record of success at Goldman Sachs among all the other selfish, self-centered junk-yard dogs.

In the other corner of the ring we will see John Kelly, USMC (ret.) who evidently has chosen to live by a code of self-sacrifice and service. This man of honor is now going to lie down with the junk-yard dogs in order to serve his country.

I can hear the echo from the future of one of his encounters with "the Mooch." "Well, solja-boy, who the f--k do you think you are to tell me what to do.?"

I predict that given the choice between Kelly and "the Mooch," DJT will keep his soul mate and discard Kelly.

I favor much of DJT's domestic program. He probably has adopted that program for selfish, egotistical reasons but it is still a program that I favor. In addition, his preference for an improvement in relations with Russia seems common sense.

Nevertheless, I have no illusions about him. pl

Morongobill , 29 July 2017 at 11:56 AM

For his own sake, I hope the mooch has the good sense to not talk to or about General Kelly as he did about Bannon or Preibus. He might just find out how tough a Marine really is.
Tyler , 29 July 2017 at 11:58 AM
Sir,

With all due respect I think you're mistaking Trump's demeanor with his nature. While he has his flaws, in private he seems to be very generous to all and sundry.

Mooch is a junkyard dog, and Reince was indeed likely the leaker, or providing cover for the leaks. Kelly being appointed only underlines what Scott Adams said: that Trump is going to war. Mooch was brought on because he groks the NYC/DC axis mentality and knows how to leverage it.

I think McMaster's neocon ass is on its way out.

Haralambos -> Tyler... , 29 July 2017 at 04:01 PM
Tyler, I thought the Reince leak was dropped as an operative meme yesterday, since the journalist who published the information announced that she had made a FOI request, which was unnecessary, and she got her information from public documents.
Tyler -> Haralambos... , 29 July 2017 at 08:31 PM
Harlambos,

Maggie H something from the NYT? Actually Mike Cernovich had the scoop two hours before the MSM and she tried to claim credit from him. Until it went down she was saying GEN Kelly was a floater and not a serious choice.

Tom Cafferty , 29 July 2017 at 12:32 PM
Domestic program? What program? I think it is just stream of consciousness from an unhinged mind.
Lemur , 29 July 2017 at 12:39 PM
Trump is an icebreaker opening up a channel toward a new political horizon. Ego fueled 'creative destruction' plays a big part in that.
Mark Logan -> Phil Cattar ... , 29 July 2017 at 06:02 PM
Phil Cattar,

Just for giggles I'm going to put my nickel (maximum...the other ninety five cents stays in my pocket) on that roulette square too. Based on a theory the chaos is beginning to take a toll on the Big Man, and Kelly will soon be viewed as indispensable. The Mooch? All hat no cattle.

I feel working for a malignant narcissist is one of the most challenging things one can be faced with in normal life. Kelly has all but certainly had to deal with this before somewhere along the line.

Tyler -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 02:14 PM
Sir,

Okay that caught me off guard and made me laugh. I'm only a junior probationary author here, but that's my .02: Trump tried to reach out to the GOPe, and he's tired of treacherous McCains, virtue signallers like Sasse, and incompetents. Now watch for him to pull an Ataturk attack from all points of the compass/Night of the Long Knives/end of The Godfather style reckoning.

Seamus Padraig -> Tyler... , 29 July 2017 at 06:47 PM
I would actually prefer that to what I think we're going to get: an eventual sell-out. How can long can Trump hold out against the onslaught against him? He will be sorely tempted to make them a deal if this goes on too much longer. Even if Russiagate remains a nothing-burger, they can use it to sandbag him, force him to make concessions. And the more concessions he makes, the weaker he becomes. Don't get me wrong: I'm still glad Hellary lost. But Trump needs to go the offensive at some point; he needs to be more of a fighter. He can't just sit back and let them gnaw away at him like a school of famished piranhas. But I know that asking a lot from him ... and that's what makes me worry.
David E. Solomon , 29 July 2017 at 02:17 PM
Colonel Lang, I think one might reasonably ask if Trump even remembers what was in his domestic program?
Jack , 29 July 2017 at 02:36 PM
Sir

Thanks for this incredibly insightful post.

While I have worked for several craven and egotistical CEOs, they all recognized at some level that they could only throw so many of their subordinates under the bus for lack of performance before the board would have a frank conversation with them.

I believe The Donald is in an unusual situation for a POTUS. He won the election defeating two political dynasties while being virulently attacked by the corporate media and the establishment of both parties. He has no political support in DC. Throughout the election campaign the biggest issue for his opponents were his style and demeanor. And since the election he has been under constant attack, with many on both sides of the aisle as well as former high officials in the key intel agencies actively campaigning for his ouster.

Pat Buchanan is, IMO, spot on that he is fearful that Mueller's investigation will veer away from the Russian "collusion" angle as he comes up empty handed there, to The Donald's personal financial transactions well before he even became a candidate. This must make DJT very nervous.

http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-entering-kill-box-127396

Now that it must be apparent to him that he is essentially on his own with no real political allies in the DC power structure, what will he do to secure his own position and push forward with his agenda. His acquiescence on the Russia sanctions bill shows how limited his room for maneuver really are.

At some point he's gonna have to give his opponents a taste of their own medicine by getting a special counsel investigation on the leaks by Brennan and Clapper, the financial transactions of the Clintons and senior members of Congress who have disproportionate wealth relative to their decades of Congressional pay. Tweeting outrage won't cut it when Mueller starts digging into his finances and past financial transactions. He will have to go after the DC power structure for pure survival. If he does, that will be the best thing as both sides engage in mortal combat. Maybe the "House of Cards" can then come down.

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 02:37 PM
David E. Solomon

IMO that is not true. he knows what is good for him and a general increase in prosperity is good for him. pl

David E. Solomon -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 02:53 PM
Colonel Lang,

Assuming he really does know what he wants to accomplish on the domestic front, do you see anyway he might possibly implement any of his plans? I just do not think he has either the intelligence or the skill to get much done. I guess we will see over the next 3 1/2 years.

eakens -> David E. Solomon... , 29 July 2017 at 04:05 PM
He did blow through the competition to get where he's at. He may not be firing on every cylinder for your liking, but too many people still after all that has happened, still can't bring themselves to give him any credit whatsoever. That flaw has nothing to do with him.
turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 02:43 PM
jack

Trump was not head of a corporate structure of the "c" corp. type. he was sole proprietor of a family business. there really was no "board" in the sense you mean. pl

Jack -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 03:07 PM
Point well taken, Sir, in that he has no experience with a supervisory structure.
MRW -> Jack... , 29 July 2017 at 05:54 PM
So, he built his buildings in manhattan by sitting at the Four Seasons having lunch?
turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 02:52 PM
tyler

Derek Harvey needed firing. A total incompetent. pl

Tyler -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 08:32 PM
Sir,

Concur. Still not a fan of GEN McMaster.

VietnamVet , 29 July 2017 at 03:15 PM
Colonel,

Thanks for your excellent examination of Donald J Trump. I never crept high enough to deal with the Masters of the Universe. To this old plebian he seems more of a German Mob Boss than an Iranian Shah. He is an autocrat. I disagree with his domestic, energy and environmental policies plus the media disinformation is getting to me. I keep reminding myself that he stopped supplying the Daesh and hasn't started a new war, yet. His Administration, so far, has accelerated the great unraveling of America.

Babak Makkinejad -> VietnamVet... , 29 July 2017 at 04:12 PM
The median house price in California is now $ 450,000. How could a young person ever build equity there? Likewise in Brooklyn.
There are many such places in either coast.
Something has to give.
Fred -> Babak Makkinejad... , 29 July 2017 at 05:35 PM
Babak,

"How could a young person ever build equity there? Likewise in Brooklyn."

As the bad joke goes in South Florida. "live like a Mexican". The "something" that is giving way is working class allegience to the Democratic party. That is why the elites of the DNC have been doubling down on importing a replacement demographic.

dilbert dogbert -> Babak Makkinejad... , 29 July 2017 at 07:50 PM
Those house prices show the disaster caused by the election of a one party, Democratic, state government. The only thing that will bring those prices down is a good solid Republican government.
turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 03:16 PM
David E. Solomon

You are like the woman in a New York City street who told a TV man with a camera, "He is destroying our world." Yes. He is destroying the world of the "end of history crowd? and you obviously are of that crowd, I guess you have not noticed how much of the Obama super state he has destroyed by cancelling executive orders. I guess you missed the VA law, but then you are probably not a veteran. pl

David E. Solomon -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 03:39 PM
Colonel, you misunderstand me.

Obama made a totally waste of his presidency. He had the opportunity to govern with the intelligence to do so, but like the Clintons before him, he was really only concerned with his own importance (not to mention his personal corporate welfare stream).

While I doubt that Trump is worried about his future income stream, I really doubt the man's stability as well as his abilities. I know that "hope springs eternal", but in the end I think you will be disappointed. You seem to be, in many ways, an optimist. I am, on the other hand. a confirmed pessimist. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that your reading is correct and mine is absolutely wrong. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Regards,

David

David E. Solomon -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 03:44 PM
For the record Colonel, I am not a veteran. That is why I do not, for the most part, respond to matters of which I cannot possibly have a lucid opinion.

Nevertheless, I read your site multiple times a day and have for years. I believe you do a service to your readers. In fact, I assume that you probably have many more regular readers than you know about from those who comment.

Please keep up the good work.

Regards,

David

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 03:21 PM
VV

The agitprop disinformation is mainly against him with the corporate media harping on every little damned thing. we never supplied IS. It is the AQ affiliates that he has stopped supply to. He is NOT an autocrat. did you not notice that he could not even cause the ACA to be repealed. IMO you have been taken in by the lefty propaganda. pl

Kooshy , 29 July 2017 at 04:09 PM
Colonel I know this Wall Street type big shots likes of Muchie IMO, you are right on characterizing this type. IMO this guy, already made 80 million, can he more self centered then DT, I can guarantee he has zero respect for the deplorables or even a class higher.
turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 04:45 PM
David E. Solomon, I am generally thought to be a pessimist, pl
David E. Solomon -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 05:18 PM
Colonel if you are a pessimist than there is probably no term to accurately describe me. David
Eric Newhill , 29 July 2017 at 05:00 PM
Sir,
I agree with your analysis. I too like Trump for his policies. His style is not good, but I will take content over style if he can get it done.

However, this Scaramucchi guy is a real loose cannon and a nut job. He's better suited for a reality show (who will be voted off the Island? The Mooch versus Kelly. See it all go down tonight at 10:00!) than an important post on POTUS' team. Sure, Trump needs a war time consigliere as I think Tyler is correct about what Trump is going to try to execute, but not a hot head junk yard dog. Things didn't work out well for Sonny Corleone, who suffered the same affliction.

He and Kelly will definitely get into it. IMO, the one that survives will be the one that has done the most to further Trump. IMO, Trump is smart enough to look at that it way. Kelly, as you say, will have to be unwavering in his commitment to sacrifice for the good of the country in order to hang in there on this one.

Lars , 29 July 2017 at 05:32 PM
To think that we are not witnessing DJT's nature and character is rather naive. I doubt that Gen. Kelly, no matter how skilled, will bring this White House under control since most of the dysfunction comes from the top and DJT is unable to be who he is not.

Some here seem to think this is a kind of Western movie with a showdown. It may make a good movie, but there are guard rails established over the last two centuries and you keep hitting them at your peril. It is more likely that DJT gets thwarted by a thousand cuts. John McCain just outsmarted the GOP, and probably did them a favor, by allowing the healthcare bill to come to the Senate floor and then kill it. Now there will not be any more attempts this fiscal year.

There will be others using rules that DJT does not even know that they exist.

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 05:48 PM
David E. Solomon

IMO the US is heading toward change into something unrecognizable. IMO Trump is not taking us there. Optimists of the utopian SJW stripe are doing that. That doesn't mean I like him. pl

David E. Solomon -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 06:03 PM
Okay... We will see what happens. I don't like him either, but I rarely like any politician. Maybe we should both become pessimists on hold (or temporary optimists)?

David

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 05:56 PM
MRW

He is a deal closer and developer hustler. pl

MRW -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 10:29 PM
True. And made his money by licensing his name to Arabs, Japanese (80s), Sheiks, and various Russians who couldn't get their building projects approved otherwise without an extreme federal legal hassle. That's why he kept his name in the public all the time. It wasn't grandiosity. It was a business decision that paid big bucks. Trump gave a lecture at Wharton in the early 80s to students to explain what he was doing. One of my best friends was a graduate student there and explained it to me.

HOWEVER. He also built buildings and a major hotel renovation (major and under budget, the Grand Hyatt on 42 St) in Manhattan that were his alone, and when I lived in Manhattan, it was not unusual to see photos of Trump over the weekend in The Post and Daily News on site with his workers and schmoozing his union boys checking up on things. He worked 7 days a week. He was completely hands-on. His workers loved him, and he loved them back.

You ask anyone who worked for him long-time. ANYONE. [There's a retired couple at my local bar who worked for him for 18 years--both of them--and they have nothing but gratitude for Trump and especially his generous retirement program. She was an accountant. I don't know what he did.] Especially women; he paid them the same as men for the same work, and women in his organization actually had more executive positions than men which was highly unusual at the time. They loved the guy. He was fair, incredibly demanding, and generous. There were only two things that he demanded in return: (#1) loyalty (2) hard work. This wasn't unknown to NYC-ers who knew his business.

MRW -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 11:00 PM
Where he got into trouble was giving his first wife responsibility for his NJ casinos and businesses. She completely fucked them up. He never trashed her in public. Not once. She was the mother of his children. It's a long story.
turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 06:07 PM
David E. Solomon

You can adopt whatever attitude you please but my function is to tell the truth as I understand it. pl

David E. Solomon -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 06:33 PM
Which is why your readers are loyal.

David

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 06:09 PM
Mark Logan

IMO Scaramucchi is Trump's Trump. Kelly had had to deal with people like that but none of them were president. pl

elaine , 29 July 2017 at 06:27 PM
Yesterday on CNN a retired General, who is friends with General John Kelly(ret), said he told John he'd be safer parachuting into Raqqa alone then working in this White House. It got a laugh out of me.
mike -> elaine... , 29 July 2017 at 08:59 PM
Elaine -

Kelly is no stranger to political infighting. In 94/95 he was the USMC Liaison to the House of Representatives. Ten years later he returned to HQMC in Washington as the Legislative Assistant to the Commandant.

ked , 29 July 2017 at 07:08 PM
I think many if you are projecting forms of faith that Trump is somehow going to get things turned around, if only as a by-product of his lousy attitude. Others think he's really going to re-make the USA into some ass-kicking utopia (knly the ass-kicking happens on the domestic front... just wonderful.

Here's a quote I read that takes Col Lang's observation a bit further.

"Everything Trump is doing right now has the single goal of keeping himself in office. That's it. Full stop. Every tweet. Every campaign-style unhinged speech. Every move he makes that appears to be attached to any kind of policy at all, whether it's health care or immigration or law and order or who gets the right to serve in our military and who doesn't. He doesn't draw a breath without thinking of what he can do every single minute to keep himself from being run out of office for whatever illegality you can think of, whether it's colluding with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton or laundering their money or profiting from the presidency or anything else. Doesn't matter. He's going to push the envelope. He's going to say whatever he needs to say, do whatever he needs to do, fire whoever he needs to fire, sacrifice whoever he needs to sacrifice in order to save himself."

Col Lang used to critique a narcissistic personality style of among "perfumed prices of the pentagon". In these generals who are surrounding Trump out of duty & love-of-country, I see people who are blind to the fact they are propping up a sociopathic criminal who is a present danger to the Constitution. Thanks guys!

dilbert dogbert , 29 July 2017 at 07:42 PM
I got interested in your last paragraph about liking Trumps policies. So I went to The Google to see what policies he proposed during the campaign. I don't pay attention to campaign policy statements as I think the old saying: "The President Proposes and the Congress Disposes" is correct.
Here I found 146 statements.
https://www.politiplatform.com/trump
I expect you agree with the Foreign Policy statements. I scanned the 146 for one on LGBTQ but did not find one. I did however, notice in my wanderings on the internet that Trump on the stump seemed to be interested in their problems. I think your analysis of Mr Trump is spot on.
Richardstevenhack , 29 July 2017 at 08:11 PM
"A corollary of his mentality is that he has no loyalty to anyone who works for him and he sees them all as potential rivals for the future."

This might well apply to his daughter. Ivanka tells a story about how she was riding in a car while listening to the radio where Daddy was being interviewed by someone. Daddy was asked if he would ever fire Ivanka. He said, "I'd fire her like a dog." Ivanka calls him up and says, "Fine, but did you have to say 'like a dog'?"

LOL

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 08:24 PM
dilbert

IMO DJT is posing as a counter-revolutionary. I am the real thing with the exception of laws concerning race. Other than that I rather liked the 50s as a teen. pl

The Twisted Genius -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 10:40 PM
pl,

I think the best of the 50s in America was due to an education system in the schools, the communities, the churches and the families that drilled self-discipline, responsibility, courtesy and a magic mixture of pride and humility into our malleable young heads. The presence of strong labor unions and out undisputed status as a world hegemon didn't hurt, either.

The Twisted Genius , 29 July 2017 at 10:21 PM
Yes, Trump and the Mooch are two of a kind... a couple of NYC conmen and bullshit artists. It has all the makings of a classic buddy film. I wonder where Kelly will focus his efforts. Will he focus on getting some control and meaningful cooperation in Congress? He does have some experience in that field. Will he be tasked with instilling some discipline into that clown show that the White House staff has become? Good luck working with the Mooch and the mad tweeter.

No matter how much I dislike him, Trump has expressed support for a number of admirable policies, better relations with Russia, better health care for all, secure borders, infrastructure investment and I'm sure there's others. The problem is that he doesn't have any real policies, just desired outcomes. A policy should include a proposed roadmap to reach those outcomes. Trump doesn't have a clue how to reach most of those outcomes and his primary reason for supporting those outcomes is to increase his popularity. He just wants to be loved. It's all part of the con.

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 10:21 PM
tyler

My present position on McMaster is that while he shares the outmoded views on Russia and Iran of many of his peers he is not a neocon. The poseur Harvey was at least an agent of the neocons. pl

[Jul 30, 2017] The Kosovo area had been part of Serbia for over 1000 years. Serbia did not agree to its dismemberment, but was bombed into submission with B-52s by NATO under Bill Clinton. If Oligarch mercenaries would have entered Crimea it would have been just as bad as Donetsk, etc., with thousands killed

Jul 30, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
The U.S. Sanctions Bill Is a Win for Russia The National Interest

АТО Willem Post , July 29, 2017 10:36 AM

Willem Post: "Russia peacefully annexed Crimea"

Haha! You should listen to Poo teen (aka Putin) speach when he rcognized that "green humans" in Crimea were Russian armed forces soldiers. And that so-called voting was a farce under the Russians machine guns.

And don't forget: according to Ukrainian laws

no part of the country can decide its parting without a vouting of the whole country

Willem Post АТО , July 29, 2017 5:01 PM

ATO,
Is that happened regarding Kosovo?

The Parliament, egged on by the US and EU, declared the Kosovo area independent. And much later that was ratified by popular vote to "make it look legal".

Kosovo's population were ethnic Albanians, who are Muslim. The EU foolishly applauded creating a Muslim State in the Middle of East Europe.

The Kosovo area had been part of Serbia for over 1000 years. Serbia did not agree to its dismemberment, but was bombed into submission with B-52s by NATO under Bill Clinton.

Crimea already was an independent state within Ukraine with its own parliament. The popular vote to be annexed by Russia took place in peace because Russia had adequate Green men to keep the peace and keep Ukraine armed forces on their bases, so they could not interfere.

Russia can have 22,000 armed services troops in Crimea, per Russia-Ukraine agreement. Russia never exceeded that number, as it was not necessary, i.e., there was no military invasion and voters were not herded to the polls to vote by guns.

Oligarch mercenaries would have entered Crimea, and it would have been just as bad as Donetsk, etc., with thousands killed.

[Jul 30, 2017] Mainstream News Manipulation of US Public

McGovern thinks that it was Brennan boys who hacked into DNC as a part of conspiracy to implicate Russia and to secure Hillary win. One of the resons was probably that DNC servers were not well protected and there were other hacks, about whihc NSA know. So the sad state of DNC internet security needed to be swiped under the carpet and that's why CrowdStike was hired.
NSA created 7 million lines of code for penetration and that includes those that were pablished by Wikileaks and designed to imitate that attackers are coming (and using the language) from: China, North Korea, Iran and Russia.
Also NSA probably intercepts and keeps all Internet communications for a month or two so if it was a hack NSA knows who did it and what was stolen
But the most unexplainable part was that fact that FBI was denied accessing the evidence. I always think that thye can dictate that they need to see in such cases, but obviously this was not the case.
Notable quotes:
"... She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Anna C 1 month ago

LEGAL, WIKIMEDIA V. NSA Discussing fake news and the NSA lawsuit at Yale | https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/

Tracy Spose 1 month ago

Love the rest of the talk, but no way did Hillary win. No way did she get the popular vote.

The woman was calling for war and reinstating the draft on men and women. She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands.

[Jul 30, 2017] Rumors have started about a 2nd Special Prosecutor to investigate the DNC hack

At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
If Trump wants to survive he should FIGHT! He call out the Deep State explicitly, using the words "Deep State." and explaining machinations to the public. This creates a risk for his life, but still this is the only way he can avoid slow strangulation by Muller.
Notable quotes:
"... In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State." ..."
"... Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election - Trump should pardon whoever - case closed. ..."
"... Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.] ..."
"... Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....] ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

RobinG , July 30, 2017 at 4:19 pm GMT

AT LAST .

HOUSE (20 MOC's signed) CALL TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON & DNC

US House Judiciary Committee requests DoJ appoint second Special Prosecutor (PDF)

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/072717_HJC-Letter-to-AG-DAG.pdf

RobinG , July 30, 2017 at 7:41 am GMT

@Art Trump should FIGHT!

In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State."

Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election - Trump should pardon whoever - case closed.

Trump should say that right now - put the onus on Mueller to do the right thing and not take down the election over small nothings.

Peace --- Art

... ... ...

Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]

Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4q-sHJCGCk

LEE STRANAHAN: ALEX JONES INFOWARS

[Jul 30, 2017] Fascism and the Denial of Truth: What Henry Wallace Can Teach Us About Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Wallace also claimed that fascists "always and everywhere can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power." ..."
"... Fascists are "easily recognized by their deliberate perversion ..."
"... Wallace identified that fascists' primary objective was to "capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they keep the common man in eternal subjection." ..."
"... British historian Karl Polanyi has written in his seminal book, The Great Transformation, that fascism can emerge in a society in reaction to "unsolved national issues." Party polarization and gridlock in the US have created unsolved issues concerning health care, immigration reform and the "war on terror." These volatile issues, in turn, have created the perfect political context for a demagogue to emerge in the United States. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

By Thomas J. Scott, Truthout | Op-Ed Henry A. Wallace's 1944 essay, "The Danger of American Fascism," offers relevant insights into the rise of autocracy in the US and how Trump perpetuates one of fascism's greatest mechanisms for acquiring absolute power: the force of emotion over the force of reason based on truth. Citizens need to become aware that democracy can disappear and mobilize to stop such a disastrous turn of events.

In response, Wallace wrote "The Danger of American Fascism," an essay in which he suggested that the number of American fascists and the threat they posed were directly connected to how fascism was defined. Wallace pointed out that several personality traits characterized fascist belief, arguing that a fascist is "one whose lust for money and power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends."

Wallace also claimed that fascists "always and everywhere can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power."

Fascists are "easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact" (my italics), he contended.

Moreover, Wallace noted that fascists "pay lip service to democracy and the common welfare" and they "surreptitiously evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion." Finally, Wallace identified that fascists' primary objective was to "capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they keep the common man in eternal subjection."

... ... ...

British historian Karl Polanyi has written in his seminal book, The Great Transformation, that fascism can emerge in a society in reaction to "unsolved national issues." Party polarization and gridlock in the US have created unsolved issues concerning health care, immigration reform and the "war on terror." These volatile issues, in turn, have created the perfect political context for a demagogue to emerge in the United States.

Thomas J. Scott is a writer from Minneapolis who writes on international affairs, globalization and education issues. Related Stories Fascist America: Have We Finally Turned The Corner? By Sara Robinson, AlterNet | Op-Ed Fascism, SB 1070 and the Arizonafication of the US By Alexander Reid Ross, Truthout | News Analysis Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It By Erik Forman, ROAR Magazine | News Analysis

[Jul 30, 2017] Snowden dreams about better America

"Aaron Barlow: The Russian hacking nonsense is a tin foil hat conspiracy right up there with Reptilians and Aliens."
Notable quotes:
"... Snowden is a patriot. Only an individual that has integrity can do what Snowden did. He saw something that was wrong and blew the whistle on it, it was as simple as that, he knew the consequences very well. ..."
Feb 15, 2017 | www.youtube.com

walter white 3 weeks ago

poor bloke he speaks the truth and ends up in Russia and yet bush et al are free after killing all them people in 9/11 .

Binali Shareef 1 week ago

this guy is smart. well informed, super intellectual capacity. He chooses his words very wisely and well calculated. His interview is brain enlightening.

DMPKillaz 1 week ago

This right here.. is a fucking man... he gave up allllll the high life gave up allllll the money. all the BS to give the people what the fuck they needed to hear

Pyro Falcon 1 week ago

Mr Snowden is the MAN, a true American, and a HERO of the highest order. Thank you Ed.

patia55 2 weeks ago

Never trust Katie Curic

jeffv2074 1 week ago

Snowden is a patriot. Only an individual that has integrity can do what Snowden did. He saw something that was wrong and blew the whistle on it, it was as simple as that, he knew the consequences very well.

Pgs Penang 2 weeks ago

She is anti-trump. She is sent from the elite. She don't give a damn about him. 100% she is untrustworthy. Snowden is a threat to the deep state. Her questions clearly are from the democrats.

itsgoodbeingme 3 weeks ago

From a Brit: - Edward Snowden should be considered a national treasure and guard his liberty.

EarthWatch2014 3 days ago

The "journalist" who is interviewing Edward is a freedom hating, elitist worshipping mainstream media harlot.

Those who are ignorant of history are bound to repeat it. The people who founded this country left Britain due to a corrupt, tyrannical government. The US government is far more corrupt today then England was in the 1700s.

The 4th amendment has been butchered by the tyrannical, elitist dictators who are running this broken country. Today, the mainstream media is firmly controlled by a few, highly deranged elitists who are in league with the rancid, stinking pieces of fecal matter who run the US. The republic that was created by English "traitors" was supposed to be a sanctuary for freedom and human rights. The republic they created is dead and gone. It may look the same on the surface, but this country is much too far gone to ever recover. It never ceases to amaze me just how ignorant of history and the Constitution the average American is. The citizens are ignorant, bordering on stupid.

The evidence is everywhere, yet millions of weak-minded sheeple cannot see what lies directly in front of their eyes. The level of cognitive dissonance displayed by the average American is pitiful, and I will feel no pity when they realize that they were living in a country whose leaders were following the same game plan as Adolph Hitler... to the letter.

People believe that their political party, the party to which they give their allegiance, is the "good" party. Republicans and Democrats are one and the same. The two party system is simply a two headed snake that will lead the US into tyranny. The US is hated around the world because it has assumed the role of the world's arrogant, renegade cop. A country that was not to be "entangled in foreign affairs", now has military bases in nearly every corner of the earth. Those who open their mouths to defend the snakes in power will be taught a great lesson once the elitists' plans come to fruition. It's difficult to feel sorry for the people who believe the endless lies that are spoken by those in power.

These fools won't see the truth until their heads lie under the blade of the guillotine. Anyone who puts security before freedom and privacy deserves to be placed behind concrete walls and barbed wire, where they will remain "safe" from the fictitious enemies who cause them to pathetically cower in fear. The destiny of this country is that of Rome. Unfortunately, the masses do not know or understand the true history of this world. The putrid stench of ignorance covers the majority of the American populous. Snowden exposed the government's evil secrets, helping preserve freedom and liberty in the United States. Those who chastise Snowden deserve what is coming: The death of freedom under the hands of evil tyrants.

berretta9mm1 1 week ago (edited)

Watching Gen. Clapper state, UNDER OATH, that the NSA was not and is not indiscriminately reading, storing, and intercepting the private communications of every American citizen, made me feel physically ill.

The fact that he chose to tell a straight-out lie (in light of the information supplied to us by Edward Snowden, who exposed this illegal and unconstitutional internal spying program) - watching him choose to speak a brazen lie, spoken in complete disregard for his office, the NSA's mandate (and its limits), his military career leading to his appointment as head of the NSA, the Constitutional trust placed in him, and the laws which make a direct lie - under oath - to a Senate Intelligence Committee (composed of the people WE elected to represent us) a FELONY - mean that Gen. CLAPPER should be in prison for Perjury.

This is the applicable Constitutional U.S. Code, section 1621: "§ 1621. Perjury generally: Whoever! (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; - is guilty of perjury and shall, except as other-wise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States."

Five years in prison, for lying to Congress about your indiscriminate spying on innocent U.S. citizens, Gen. Clapper, and then your filthy, despicable use of the U.S. Constitution (and our rights to privacy within it), as toilet paper when you lied directly to Senator Ron Wyden @ 61:00 under oath, when he asked "Does the NSA collect ANY type of data - at all - on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?" and you answered, with no hesitation or remorse, "No sir," you committed Perjury, by any definition of the above U.S. code.

Attempting to clarify, senator Wyden asked, "It does not?," and you answered, "Not wittingly. There are cases where they might inadvertently collect, but NOT WITTINGLY."

Could the lie have been any more damning, or abhorrent in a supposed Democracy? Is it any wonder why people like Gen. Clapper want Snowden - who PROVED that this was a lie, and exposed a completely illegal and unconstitutional program which Clapper was then in charge of - thrown in prison, and silenced permanently? Trump speaks of "draining the swamp." He could start with the NSA, and all of it's illegal activities, and work his way through every Intelligence Agency and the Military/Industrial Organizations and Corporations which together, represent the greatest threat ever to our liberties and to the Constitution - which is just hanging by a thread because of people and programs like this, and work his way down.

But he won't. Why? Because he, like the rest of us, has seen the Zapruder film. It's much easier - and safer - to kill the messenger. This is what makes Snowden, in today's world, a hero who, unlike the rest of these cowards and traitors, will be remembered well by history - for whatever that is worth to the man now. Thank God there are still people willing to sacrifice "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" for the purpose of protecting what remains of the tattered remnants of our Constitutionally-protected freedoms from government, and tyranny.

bluedance lilly 2 weeks ago

The US probably still surveys innocent everyday Americans by the millions. Not to prevent terrorism, but to have political and economic control, as Snowden has said. Watch the movie Snowden. Very enlightening.

Dylan Stone 1 week ago

I really liked this interview, and have much love for my fellow American Edward Snowden. He did the right thing. Whoever posted this video under the title "EDWARD SNOWDEN EXPOSES DONALD TRUMP" is kind of a dumbass. One tiny opinion is not equivalent to an expose', and this had nothing to do with Trump. Quit making click bait asshole

Jamie Brady 1 week ago

have to say .... balls of steal. left his own life behind to let "us" know what its really like. we were not there he was.. i love my country but dont think U.S.A. is not doing these things. First time in my 45 years i question things like this...he makes an amazing point....if someone questions they go to jail. Thats BS. questions make us a better Democracy. A better country...god bless you Edward i hope it works out for you brother.

Jay Bee 1 week ago

SHOCKING - TRUELY SHOCKING HOW UNBELIEVABLE DUMB THIS WOMAN IS. Is she really the best American journalism could send? I have to critisize Snowden too - for once (excuse me Eddy!): Why did he agree to meet such a ridiculous dummy? The interview - at least this dumb gooses part . was bodering on being comical. If Snowden`s intellegence were given the factor 100 - nobody would be able to give this truely uneducated, superficial and naive woman a number higher than room-temperature. In Celsius, that is! Hard to watch and difficult to understand why Snowden agreed to meet a completely shallow elderly Mom!

Jay Bee 1 week ago

SHOCKING - TRUELY SHOCKING HOW UNBELIEVABLE DUMB THIS WOMAN IS. Is she really the best American journalism could send? I have to critisize Snowden too - for once (excuse me Eddy!): Why did he agree to meet such a ridiculous dummy? The interview - at least this dumb gooses part . was bodering on being comical. If Snowden`s intellegence were given the factor 100 - nobody would be able to give this truely uneducated, superficial and naive woman a number higher than room-temperature. In Celsius, that is! Hard to watch and difficult to understand why Snowden agreed to meet a completely shallow elderly Mom!

whitemannativemind 1 week ago

This is a very interesting interview to be sure, and I personally, have great admiration for this man, as I'm sure much of the world does, and all the more so after watching the movie concerning his life in which we see how the CIA made his life a living hell for many years if not a decade or so, and may have even, brought this condition with his seizures and everything, assuming this movie was an accurate portrayal of his life, but there is precious little here about trump.

I was hoping he had some juicy info he was going to share but that does not seem so. Regardless, the man should be pardoned and allowed to get on with his life.

Government must know that it can never be all powerful and do whatever it damn will pleases, at home or abroad either. So for that reason the man is a hero for sure. He says; "we will not torture you." Wow. Not sure if he's joking there or serious but if he's serious then that is extremely disturbing indeed. Respectfully. All My Best. Out.

Gil Rasmussen 2 weeks ago

I used to like Snowden until I heard from his own mouth that he gets money from George Soros

[Jul 30, 2017] Night of the Little Knives - Reince Priebus Out, Former General John Kelly In

Jul 28, 2017 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

Trump Chief Of Staff Priebus Is Out -- In Biggest White House Staff Shake-Up Yet

He rose from relative state-party obscurity and reached an unlikely pinnacle as the man responsible for the agenda of the president of the United States.

Now, Reince Priebus is out of that job as White House chief of staff in the most significant shakeup of the rocky Trump presidency.

Trump announced on Twitter that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has been named as Priebus' replacement.

[Jul 29, 2017] Ray McGovern The Deep State Assault on Elected Government Must Be Stopped

Highly recommended!
Ray McGovern raise important fact: DNC hide evidence from FBI outsourcing everything to CrowdStrike. This is the most unexplainable fact in the whole story. One hypotheses that Ray advanced here that there was so many hacks into DNC that they wanted to hide.
Another important point is CIA role in elections, and specifically John O. Brennan behaviour. Brennan's 25 years with the CIA included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst and as station chief in Saudi Arabia.
McGovern thing that Brennon actually controlled Obama. And in his opinion Brennan was the main leaker of Trump surveillance information.
Notable quotes:
"... Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment. Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong. ..."
Apr 2, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Greg Rhodes 3 months ago

I really like Ray... I watch and listen , he seems to use logic, reason and facts in his assessments.. I'm surprised CIA and the deep state allow him to operate ... stay safe Ray...
Robert Eargle 2 months ago

McGovern, you idiot. To try to put Trump on Hillary's level is complete stupidity. The war with Russia or nothing was avoided with a Trump victory. Remember the NATO build up on the Russian border preparing for a Hillary win? Plus, if Hillary won, justice and law in the USA would be over with forever. The Germans dont know sht about the USA to say their little cute phrase. Trump is a very calm mannered man and his hands on the nuke button is an issue only to those who watch the fake MSM. And no the NSA has not released anything either. Wrong on that point too.

Manley Nelson 2 months ago

The German expression of USA having a choice between cholera and plague is ignorant. McGovern is wrong ....everyone knew HRC was a criminal. McGovern is wrong... Jill Stein in not trustworthy. A vote for Jill Stein was a vote away from Trump. If Jill Stein or HRC were elected their would be no environment left to save. Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment. Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong.

Rodger Asai 3 months ago

Another month or so and the DHS may offer a color-coding system to help the sheeple understand various levels of confidence. Green - Moderate Confidence Blue - High Confidence Yellow - Very High Confidence Orange - Extremely High Confidence Red - Based on Actual Fact

The last category may be one of the signs of the apocalypse.

KELLI2L2 3 months ago

As it turned out Jill Stein was a bad choice too... Recount debacle.

midnighfairy 1 month ago

I want Hilary to pay for her lies

[Jul 29, 2017] Did Russiagate begin as a Clinton campaign conspiracy? New forensic research suggests it by Alexander Mercouris

Now the most strange event: why investigation was outsourced go dubious security firm CrowdStrike, and FBI was completely excluded, falls in place.
Notable quotes:
"... That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack. ..."
"... copied (not hacked) ..."
"... what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. ..."
"... The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll. ..."
"... "The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI. ..."
"... We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... someone within the DNC who was presumably anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would be not on the content of the emails themselves but on Russian meddling in the election. ..."
"... This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence. ..."
"... As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that the Russians were responsible. ..."
"... Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer, and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack."" ..."
"... This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal in effect a fraud. ..."
"... Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade the FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would presumably have quickly exposed the fraud. ..."
"... in the absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever was a hack. ..."
"... "Guccifer 2.0" might be the creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of the original leaker seeking to cover his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the concoction of some opportunistic narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with him. Unfortunately there are such people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion. ..."
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded. ..."
Jul 26, 2017 | theduran.com

Forensic report by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity implies that DNC/Podesta hacks and "Guccifer 2.0' personas were concocted to discredit Wikileaks in advance of publication of the DNC/Podesta emails and to cast suspicion on Russia.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ("VIPS"), one of the most formidable commentary groups in the world, which includes such heavyweights as William Binney, the former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center, the former top CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and many others, has published another in its highly enlightening series of public memoranda addressed to the President of the United States.

... ... ...

The Key Event

July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

It thus appears that the purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack." This was all performed in the East Coast time zone .

.the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named "Guccifer 2.0." The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who "hacked" those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll.

"The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling."

. The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.

In what I am now going to say I am going to join up the dots in a way that takes me beyond me what the VIPS actually say. If by doing so I am misunderstanding and misrepresenting the new evidence and I apologise in advance and I would ask them to correct me.

Briefly, the scenario suggested by the new evidence is explained by the VIPS by reference to a brief chronology in this way

The Time Sequence

We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.

I have always expressed doubts that "Guccifer 2.0" has any connection either to Russian intelligence or to Wikileaks or was actually the source of the emails published by Wikileaks..

What this scenario seems to be suggesting is that following the revelation by Julian Assange on 12th June 2016 in a British television interview that Wikileaks was about to publish damaging emails about Hillary Clinton someone within the DNC who was presumably anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would be not on the content of the emails themselves but on Russian meddling in the election.

This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence.

Here I should say that I have always thought "Guccifer 2.0" to be a far too crude and obvious persona to be a front for Russian intelligence. Also I have never understood why – assuming it really was Russian intelligence which stole the emails – they would want to create such a persona at all. Surely by doing so they would be merely providing more clues leading back to themselves?

As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that the Russians were responsible.

Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer, and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack.""

This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal in effect a fraud.

Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade the FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would presumably have quickly exposed the fraud.

The last point of course goes directly to the one which people like Daniel Lazare and "richardstevenhack"have made: in the absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever was a hack. If the scenario that appears to be set out in the VIPS memorandum is true then it would seem that there never was a hack and that the evidence that there was is concocted.

Before proceeding further I should say that there might be contrary arguments to this scenario. "Guccifer 2.0" might be the creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of the original leaker seeking to cover his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the concoction of some opportunistic narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with him. Unfortunately there are such people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion.

What however argues against these alternative theories is the involvement of Crowdstrike, as well as the FBI's willingness to be persuaded to accept Crowdstrike's report rather than carry out its forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers. Perhaps whoever it was who concocted "Guccifer 2.0" was simply lucky that neither the DNC nor John Podesta nor the FBI seem to have been keen on a proper investigation. However on the face of it that does seem rather unlikely.

Of course it is also open to anyone who does not agree with the scenario outlined by VIPS to contest the conclusions of their forensic investigation. However if that is to be done successfully then whoever will do it will have to match the expertise in this field of people like William Binney and Skip Folden. That does look like a rather tall order.

At a relatively early stage of the Russiagate scandal I said that the true scandal – which the concocted Russiagate scandal seemed intended to conceal – was the illegal surveillance of US citizens during the election.

If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded.

That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis.

Far more evidence is needed if what is still only a possibility is to be accepted as true, but the fact remains that unless I have misunderstood them completely the highly experienced and professional people who make up VIPS have just published a memorandum which points in that direction.

[Jul 28, 2017] New victims of Ukrainian civil war. Nuland should be proud of her accomplishments and Obama for sure deserves his Novel Peace price now

Jul 28, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Pavlo Svolochenko , July 25, 2017 at 8:09 pm

http://www.russiadefence.net/t5484p900-the-situation-in-the-ukraine-26#200208

In short, some sort of battle in the Krasnogorovka sector, which the Ukrainian forces lost:

"Here is a chronicle of events:

On the night from Thursday to Friday, from 13 to 14 July, the APU opened a mortar shell at Staromikhaylovka. I emphasize, not our positions, namely residential buildings. Two houses were damaged. One civilian was wounded. In the morning there was a report of the correspondent of VGTRK Alexander Sladkov.
– On the night from Friday to Saturday from 14 to 15 July, the shelling was repeated, but already more powerful, artillery worked.
– On Saturday evening, July 15, again, there was artillery shelling.
– On Sunday evening, July 16, again shelling and again destroyed houses in Staromikhaylovki.
– In the morning there was a report about the press service of the NM DNR.
– In the night from Monday to Tuesday 17 on 18 July, a civilian died in Staromikhaylovka, one more civilian was killed and another two were injured, another civilian was injured in Kuibyshev district.
– On Tuesday, July 18th, that part of the front was quiet.
– But on Wednesday July 19, Thursday July 20 and until Friday July 21, every evening and night Petrovsky district, Staromikhailovka Kirov district and the Kuibyshev district was subjected to strong mortar and artillery strikes. Every day there were wounded civilians, as well as destroyed houses and infrastructure.

Most likely, from 19 to 20 July, an order was given to suppress the mortar and artillery batteries of the APU with available means, which have been killing civilians and military republics for a week already. The next day, Ukrainian media filled the news with the fact that Novorussians attacked their positions and even beaten something there. Reported about the many dead servicemen of the Armed Forces and so on. Although according to the information provided by the Ukrainian media, 9 soldiers were quoted, and only 4 were killed in the Krasnogorovka district.

Notice in the Svetlodarsk arc area in December 2016, they had killed 80 soldiers and injured more than 200, but there was a silence in the Ukrainian media. The same situation occurred with the exacerbation of the YaBP in January 2017, there were also many deaths of about 60 servicemen and about 120 were wounded and were also quiet.

And here 9 was lost on all 450 km to the front and such attention."

As always, not the least indication that the Ukrainian forces have upped their game since February 2015...

[Jul 28, 2017] US Military-Industrial complex seems rather stable, and it can be maintained with some modest number of conflicts around the world. This industry is mature, and the methods of creating and managing the conflicts, and vilification of adversaries were honed over decades, and the other industries are almost unaffected.

Jul 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

PavewayIV | Jul 27, 2017 11:20:35 AM | 108

OJS@81 - Re: India/China - Interesting in its own right. But ever since the U.S. MSM started weighing in with their spin, I had to tune out. I'm under constant assault by full-spectrum MSM insanity in the Middle East at the moment, and nobody cares about what the U.S. thinks about a Indian-Chinese border dispute.

Peter AU 1@92 Re: Iran short-range point defense - They have a couple of dozen old TOR-M1s and BUK clones, but nothing like Pantsirs. Since their overall network is not terribly integrated (as far as anyone knows), the older short-range equipment is of limited value. Iran relies on a kind of long-range point defense strategy along with a long-range border ring.

somebody@93 - Re Mattis "...His optimism that the American Way is the solution is quite funny." His heart is in the right place. I would simply prefer him in his old job as Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, rather than U.S. Secretary of Defense.

Quadriad@96 - "...I can't believe that someone as astute as you are is now spilling this defeatist garbage..." The war with Iran will not be decided by simple weapon superiority (or lack thereof). Iran will lose its entire air defenses in the first two weeks of an all-our war, and the U.S. will bail out before either side 'wins'.

Nuff Sed@98 - The U.S. spends $600 billion a year on the military and imports less than 12% of our oil from the Persian Gulf. Since when has the U.S. ever cared about the sacrifices of the 'little people' when pursuing its imperialistic goals? Do you think big oil interests in Washington would cry much about $200/bbl oil?

"...During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack Iran, but cooler minds among the military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play at their war games..."

Well, we'll have to disagree on that on. The U.S. war on Iran started a couple of decades ago - we just haven't made it to Iran itself yet. I think the 'loose ends' are just about all tied up by now.

V. Arnold@100 - Our vast technical superiority in weapons has proved worthless in the longest war in U.S. history: Afghanistan. We're very good at blowing things up, that's it. If the war is about anything else, then we're usually in trouble.

[Jul 28, 2017] Did Allen Dulles CIA Murder JFK? The documents seem to say so. Will Trump release the JFK files against the wishes of the CIA?

Trump did not released documents against wishes of CIA.. The end of story.
Jul 28, 2017 | whowhatwhy.org

Did Allen Dulles' CIA Murder JFK? The documents seem to say so.

Will Trump release the JFK files against the wishes of the CIA?

Posted by: JSonofa | Jul 27, 2017 5:51:13 PM | 122

[Jul 28, 2017] To survive Trump will have to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people.

Notable quotes:
"... This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride. ..."
"... "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of." ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

VietnamVet 25 July 2017 at 06:34 PM

PT

This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride.

It is shocking how inept the Trump family and the Russians are. To survive they will have to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people. It is said that cassette tapes brought down the Soviet Union. Today we have the internet.

Yesterday I read Tim Hayward's "It's Time to Raise the Level of Public Debate about Syria". Appendix 1 states the obvious:

"The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of."

[Jul 28, 2017] The Serbs were murdering Toms like flies back in 1999 using the Vietnam-War era vintage SA-7s. Or a good old Shilka and the radar turned on.

Notable quotes:
"... The Germans and French will not die for US hegemony schemes if it comes to that. The Brits might because they're kind of nuts about Russia - toss up, I guess. ..."
"... The interesting thing about this interview (to me) was that Mattis actually sounds like a pretty rational person in the first half of the interview, especially in regards to Russia. Then Iran and Syria comes up and he just goes off the rails. ..."
"... Thanks for that interview, Mattis is quite clear: they will keep trying regime change, nothing else. Russia is a competitor not an enemy and they are 'deconflicting'. ..."
"... because the US and world economy is so vulnerable to a sustained spike in the price of oil, the US cannot afford to mess with a country that has the power to wreck havoc on the price of this strategic commodity. ..."
"... A single Sunburn or Nour missile direct hit at Saudi Arabia's only deep water port at Ra's Tanura is enough to put all Saudi oil exports out of commission for several months. ..."
"... Given the derivatives volume, the margin calls on these might well push the Dow and S&P over the precipice and precipitate a major crash. ..."
"... During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack Iran, but cooler minds among the military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play at their war games. But that was then. It seems with the Neocon purges at the Pentagon and State since then, the Kool-aid has made it all the way to the top, so that reason is no longer the decisive factor in the decision making process. ..."
"... And finally, methinks the implications of the mass production of the indiginized S-200 is that it will not be too long (5 to 10 years?) before Ben Gurion Airport is de facto declared a no fly zone, precipitating a significant wave of reverse migration back to New York and Florida and Europe from occupid Palestine. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | mihsislander.org

Peter AU 1 | Jul 27, 2017 1:48:23 AM | 92

ProPeace@84 - "Well, not if the ships carrying those tomahawks are hit by Yakhonts first"

I agree, but you're assuming a US Navy ship in the Persian Gulf would be launching the Tomahawks. Block IV TLAMs have a range of between 1300 and 1800 km depending on the model. They could be launched at Iran from the Mediterranean, Red Sea or Arabian Sea - well outside the 300 km range of an anti-ship Yakhont, Onyx or BrahMos. I'm guessing the US Navy would take that into consideration when they attack Iran.

"...And the Russians have also electronic countermeasures that caused that two US missiles fired from the Western Med area towards Damascus to fall into the sea back in 2013, I believe. No problem to protect Iran in the same way..."

Russia will be angry, but it will not start WW III with the US over Iran. They won't have to. An attack on Iran will push China over the edge and THEY will be perfectly willing to start WW III with the US in retaliation. Nobody talks much about that, but Iran is China's red line. They will jump in as soon as we attack Iran, guaranteed. They know they're very close to the top of the US Imaginary Enemies list and they'll be next.

Russia will voice its objections to the US/Israeli/GCC/NATO actions and indicate support for Iran and China, but won't jump in at the start. They will just say that they are perfectly willing to do so. The US will back down because we can't win either a conventional or nuclear war with China and Russia at the same time. NATO will fold because their capitals are maybe six minutes from Russia's RS-26 ICBMs. The Germans and French will not die for US hegemony schemes if it comes to that. The Brits might because they're kind of nuts about Russia - toss up, I guess.

Sadly, despite the consequences, the US will invent an excuse to attack Iran and do so. This short interview in June with James Mattis, our Defense Secretary, illustrates why. The interview was conducted in response to a request from a student (Teddy) at some random high school newspaper in Washington state. Mattis responded on a whim and talked with them for a while, taking questions. The interesting thing about this interview (to me) was that Mattis actually sounds like a pretty rational person in the first half of the interview, especially in regards to Russia. Then Iran and Syria comes up and he just goes off the rails. Poor Teddy...

Full transcript: Defense Secretary James Mattis' interview with The Islander

PavewayIV | Jul 27, 2017 1:26:55 AM | 91

Close in defences at target sites seem the best defence against cruise missile attack - Pantsir type of thing. Short range missiles and cannon. Any idea what Iran has in the way of short range defence systems? Iran seems good on the electronics side of things which is what modern war is all about.

somebody | Jul 27, 2017 2:12:47 AM | 93 #91 PW4

Thanks for that interview, Mattis is quite clear: they will keep trying regime change, nothing else. Russia is a competitor not an enemy and they are 'deconflicting'.

His optimism that the American Way is the solution is quite funny.

Quadriad | Jul 27, 2017 5:38:48 AM | 96

I can't believe that someone as astute as you are is now spilling this defeatist garbage. Tomahawks are retard-missiles, flown in straight lines at low altitudes and at low speeds too. S-200 of any vintage is an utter overkill for the Tomahawks.

Pantsirs, Buks and Tors are borderline overkill.

All that's really needed is a good Igla or Two and well alert crew. The Serbs were murdering Toms like flies back in 1999 using the Vietnam-War era vintage SA-7s. Or a good old Shilka and the radar turned on.

Quadriad | Jul 27, 2017 5:40:56 AM | 97

straight lines - near straight lines, they do turn when they need to dodge a mountain or similar. Otherwise, not as much.

Or kill the GPS satellite and all the Tomahawks become as useless as c*** flavor lollipops. These worthless Raytheon pieces of shite probably don't even have an inertial mode.

Thank you Paveway and others for your responses on the Iran military capabilities issue.

Nuff Sed | Jul 27, 2017 6:55:19 AM | 98

I disagree that Iran is either China's or Russia's red line. Logically she should be, but she isn't. What I think has kept Uncle Scam from attacking Iran is Iran's own military strength. That is not to say that Iran is in the same league; but because the US and world economy is so vulnerable to a sustained spike in the price of oil, the US cannot afford to mess with a country that has the power to wreck havoc on the price of this strategic commodity.

A single Sunburn or Nour missile direct hit at Saudi Arabia's only deep water port at Ra's Tanura is enough to put all Saudi oil exports out of commission for several months.

Given the derivatives volume, the margin calls on these might well push the Dow and S&P over the precipice and precipitate a major crash.

And then there is this:

http://www.rense.com/general59/thesunburniransawesome.htm

During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack Iran, but cooler minds among the military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play at their war games. But that was then. It seems with the Neocon purges at the Pentagon and State since then, the Kool-aid has made it all the way to the top, so that reason is no longer the decisive factor in the decision making process.

And finally, methinks the implications of the mass production of the indiginized S-200 is that it will not be too long (5 to 10 years?) before Ben Gurion Airport is de facto declared a no fly zone, precipitating a significant wave of reverse migration back to New York and Florida and Europe from occupid Palestine.

Nuff Said.

OJS | Jul 27, 2017 7:02:54 AM | 99

@denk 95

Nope! I'm not an Indian nor China apologist but primarily to show a new war brewing between India and China and both with Russian S-400. Russia just recently signed agreement to sell S-400 to India. You should watch this vid first (three parts)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udADHfiDR80

Here another viewpoints from Pepe Escobar

China and India torn between silk roads and cocked guns (OpEdNews Op Eds 7/26/2017 at 19:32:31 )

https://www.opednews.com/articles/China-and-India-torn-betwe-by-Pepe-Escobar-Brics_China-Investment-Corp_China-Politics_Indian-Prime-Minister-Modi-170726-632.html

V. Arnold | Jul 27, 2017 7:04:23 AM | 100

Well, I certainly look forward to PW-IV's reply. I agree with you to the extent that the U.S. is highly overrated on most weapon systems.

Syria is the first time since Vietnam the U.S. has faced an equal or possibly superior (technologically) opponent. We'll most certainly see...

PavewayIV | Jul 27, 2017 11:20:35 AM | 108

OJS@81 - Re: India/China - Interesting in its own right. But ever since the U.S. MSM started weighing in with their spin, I had to tune out. I'm under constant assault by full-spectrum MSM insanity in the Middle East at the moment, and nobody cares about what the U.S. thinks about a Indian-Chinese border dispute.

Peter AU 1@92 Re: Iran short-range point defense - They have a couple of dozen old TOR-M1s and BUK clones, but nothing like Pantsirs. Since their overall network is not terribly integrated (as far as anyone knows), the older short-range equipment is of limited value. Iran relies on a kind of long-range point defense strategy along with a long-range border ring.

somebody@93 - Re Mattis "...His optimism that the American Way is the solution is quite funny." His heart is in the right place. I would simply prefer him in his old job as Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, rather than U.S. Secretary of Defense.

Quadriad@96 - "...I can't believe that someone as astute as you are is now spilling this defeatist garbage..." The war with Iran will not be decided by simple weapon superiority (or lack thereof). Iran will lose its entire air defenses in the first two weeks of an all-our war, and the U.S. will bail out before either side 'wins'.

Nuff Sed@98 - The U.S. spends $600 billion a year on the military and imports less than 12% of our oil from the Persian Gulf. Since when has the U.S. ever cared about the sacrifices of the 'little people' when pursuing its imperialistic goals? Do you think big oil interests in Washington would cry much about $200/bbl oil?

"...During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack Iran, but cooler minds among the military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play at their war games..."

Well, we'll have to disagree on that on. The U.S. war on Iran started a couple of decades ago - we just haven't made it to Iran itself yet. I think the 'loose ends' are just about all tied up by now.

V. Arnold@100 - Our vast technical superiority in weapons has proved worthless in the longest war in U.S. history: Afghanistan. We're very good at blowing things up, that's it. If the war is about anything else, then we're usually in trouble.

[Jul 28, 2017] While Hezbollah yesterday was literary burying its fallen fighters and simultaneously moving fast towards victory over Al-Nusra terrorists in Arsal/Lebanon, Trump in DC, during a press conference with visiting Lebanese PM, Hariri, said: "Hezbollah is a menace to the Lebanese state, the Lebanese people and the entire region. The group continues to increase its military arsenal which threatens to start yet another conflict with Israel. With the support of Iran, the organization is also fueling humanitarian catastrophe in Syria."

Notable quotes:
"... What you don't see in the above video is the Saudi-backed Hariri reacting/smirking when Trump was uttering the quote above (unfortunately, with my time restrictions, I only managed to find a static-camera vid of the event). ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Taxi | Jul 27, 2017 8:14:17 AM | 102

While Hezbollah yesterday was literary burying its fallen fighters and simultaneously moving fast towards victory over Al-Nusra terrorists in Arsal/Lebanon, Trump in DC, during a press conference with visiting Lebanese PM, Hariri, said: "Hezbollah is a menace to the Lebanese state, the Lebanese people and the entire region. The group continues to increase its military arsenal which threatens to start yet another conflict with Israel. With the support of Iran, the organization is also fueling humanitarian catastrophe in Syria."

https://youtu.be/FWeN8nOEuyM

What you don't see in the above video is the Saudi-backed Hariri reacting/smirking when Trump was uttering the quote above (unfortunately, with my time restrictions, I only managed to find a static-camera vid of the event). Point is, the visual and context of the Trump-Hariri statements did not quiet match the reality on the ground in Lebanon. Street celebrations for the liberation of Arsal by Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army erupted yesterday with plenty of fireworks and cheers throughout the Lebanonland.

Much praise was heaped on Hezbollah by the eclectic Lebanese masses and media/social media for Hezbollah liberating yet another chunk of Lebanon and killing/destroying copious numbers of wahabi terrorists.

Shia Hezbollah was liberating Lebanese land and saving Lebanese Sunnis and Christians from wahabi terrorists, while Trump, to Hariri's tickled delight, was calling Hezbollah a "menace to Lebanon" before the media cameras of the world.

We're still living in the thick of political upsideownism.

And one more observation: it used to be that corruption in government was always rife and the norm, with the rarest of rare occasion where 'treason' was involved. Nowadays, well, look around and you will notice every other political now has become a shameless traitor too. Corrupt traitors left and right and East and West - they're everywhere now - running the show to the ground.

[Jul 27, 2017] Kaboom! Exposion at Ukranian Ammo Depot at Balsklea, neat Kharkiv

Jul 27, 2017 | youtu.be

The ammo dump is just 60 miles from the Russian/Ukrainian border, where fighting recently took place.

https://youtu.be/MpwEZ_9VLD8

a series of titanic explosions at Balakliya, a military base in Eastern Ukraine.

Amateur video of the incident posted on YouTube shows a raging fire spewing out of control artillery rockets, and an explosion and shockwave that sent civilians nearby reeling.

[Jul 26, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIAs Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'. ..."
"... The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad. ..."
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents. ..."
"... Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'ιtat. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
"... Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order. ..."
Jan 20, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition.

These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.

We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.

Regime Change in America

In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.

The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.

Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.

The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries.

Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.

Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016 election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect even before he takes office – by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.

The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.

Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason.

The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!

Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'ιtat.

CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound "

Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.

From a Scratch to Gangrene

The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.

Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence' hierarchy.

Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. http://petras.lahaine.org/

[Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded. ..."
"... The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO. ..."
"... The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program. ..."
"... The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'. ..."
"... The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. ..."
"... South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down. ..."
"... The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies ..."
"... On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity. ..."
"... You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. What an idiotic statement. ..."
Apr 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction: US Empire building on a world-scale began during and shortly after WWII. Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war (providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese), backed France's re-colonization war against the Viet Minh in Indo-China and installed Japanese imperial collaborator-puppet regimes in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

While empire building took place with starts and stops, advances and defeats, the strategic goal remained the same: to prevent the establishment of independent communist or secular-nationalist governments and to impose vassal regimes compliant to US interests.

Bloody wars and coups ('regime changes') were the weapons of choice. Defeated European colonial regimes were replaced and incorporated as subordinate US allies.

Where possible, Washington relied on armies of mercenaries trained, equipped and directed by US 'advisors' to advance imperial conquests. Where necessary, usually if the client regime and vassal troops were unable to defeat an armed people's army, the US armed forces intervened directly.

Imperial strategists sought to intervene and brutally conquer the target nation. When they failed to achieve their 'maximum' goal, they dug in with a policy of encirclement to cut the links between revolutionary centers with adjoining movements. Where countries successfully resisted armed conquests, empire builders imposed economic sanctions and blockades to erode the economic basis of popular governments.

Empires, as the Roman sages long recognized, are not built in a day, or weeks and months. Temporary agreements and accords are signed and conveniently broken because imperial designs remain paramount.

Empires would foment internal cleavages among adversaries and coups in neighboring countries. Above all, they construct a worldwide network of military outposts, clandestine operatives and regional alliances on the borders of independent governments to curtail emerging military powers.

Following successful wars, imperial centers dominate production and markets, resources and labor. However, over time challenges would inevitably emerge from dependent and independent regimes. Rivals and competitors gained markets and increased military competence. While some vassal states sacrificed political-military sovereignty for independent economic development, others moved toward political independence.

Early and Late Contradictions of Expanding Imperialism

The dynamics of imperial states and systems contain contradictions that constantly challenge and change the contours of empire.

The US devoted immense resources to retain its military supremacy among vassals, but experienced a sharp decline in its share of world markets, especially with the rapid rise of new economic producers.

Economic competition forced the imperial centers to realign the focus of their economies – 'rent' (finance and speculation) displaced profits from trade and production. Imperial industries relocated abroad in search of cheap labor. Finance, insurance, real estate, communications, military and security industries came to dominate the domestic economy. A vicious cycle was created: with the erosion of its productive base, the Empire further increased its reliance on the military, finance capital and the import of cheap consumer goods.

Just after World War II, Washington tested its military prowess through intervention . Because of the immense popular resistance and the proximity of the USSR, and later PRC, empire building in post-colonial Asia was contained or militarily defeated. US forces temporarily recognized a stalemate in Korea after killing millions. Its defeat in China led to the flight of the 'Nationalists' to the provincial island of Taiwan. The sustained popular resistance and material support from socialist superpowers led to its retreat from Indo-China. In response, it resorted to economic sanctions to strangle the revolutionary governments.

The Growth of the Unipolar Ideology

With the growing power of overseas economic competitors and its increasing reliance on direct military intervention, the US Empire took advantage of the internal disintegration of the USSR and China's embrace of 'state capitalism' in the early 1990's and 1980s..The US expanded throughout the Baltic region, Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans – with the forced breakup of Yugoslavia. Imperial strategists envisioned 'a unipolar empire' – an imperial state without rivals. The Empire builders were free to invade, occupy and pillage independent states on any continent – even bombing a European capital, Belgrade, with total impunity. Multiple wars were launched against designated 'adversaries', who lacked strong global allies.

Countries in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa were targeted for destruction. South America was under the control of neo-liberal regimes. The former USSR was pillaged and disarmed by imperial vassals. Russia was ruled by gangster-kleptocrats allied to US stooges. China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.

Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded.

The Demise of Unipolarity: The 21st Century

Ten years into the 21st century, the imperial vision of an unchallenged unipolar empire was crumbling. China's 'primitive' accumulation led to advanced domestic accumulation for the Chinese people and state. China's power expanded overseas through investments, trade and acquisitions. China displaced the US as the leading trading partner in Asia and the largest importer of primary commodities from Latin America and Africa. China became the world's leading manufacturer and exporter of consumer goods to North America and the EU.

The first decade of the 21st century witnessed the overthrow or defeat of US vassal states throughout Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil) and the emergence of independent agro-mineral regimes poised to form regional trade pacts. This was a period of growing global demand for their natural resources and commodities- precisely when the US was de-industrializing and in the throes of costly disastrous wars in the Middle East.

In contrast to the growing independence of Latin America, the EU deepened its military participation in the brutal US-led overseas wars by expanding the 'mandate' of NATO. Brussels followed the unipolarist policy of systematically encircling Russia and weakening its independence via harsh sanctions. The EU's outward expansion (financed with increasing domestic austerity) heightened internal cleavages, leading to popular discontent .The UK voted in favor of a referendum to secede from the EU.

The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO.

Unipolarists continued to launch multiple wars of conquest in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, costing trillions of dollars and leading to the loss of global markets and competitiveness. As the armies of the Empire expanded globally, the domestic economy (the 'Republic') contracted .The US became mired in recession and growing poverty. Unipolar politics created a growing multi-polar global economy, while rigidly imposing military priorities.

The Empire Strikes Back: The Nuclear Option

The second decade of the 21st century ushered in the demise of unipolarity to the dismay of many 'experts' and the blind denial by its political architects. The rise of a multi-polar world economy intensified the desperate imperial drive to restore unipolarity by military means, led by militarists incapable of adjusting or assessing their own policies.

Under the regime of the 'first black' US President Obama, elected on promises to 'rein in' the military, imperial policymakers intensified their pursuit of seven, new and continuing wars. To the policymakers and the propagandists in the US-EU corporate media, these were successful imperial wars, accompanied by premature declarations of victories in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. This triumphal delusion of success led the new Administration to launch new wars in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

As the new wave of wars and coups ('regime change') to re-impose unipolarity failed, even greater militarist policies displaced economic strategies for global dominance. The unipolarists-militarists, who direct the permanent state apparatus, continued to sacrifice markets and investments with total immunity from the disastrous consequences of their failures on the domestic economy.

A Brief Revival of Unipolarity in Latin America

Coups and power grabs have overturned independent governments in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and threatened progressive governments in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. However, the pro-imperial 'roll-back' in Latin America was neither politically nor economically sustainable and threatens to undermine any restoration of US unipolar dominance of the region.

The US has provided no economic aid or expanded access to markets to reward and support their newly acquired client regimes. Argentina's new vassal, Mauricio Macri, transferred billions of dollars to predatory Wall Street bankers and handed over access to military bases and lucrative resources without receiving any reciprocal inflows of investment capital. Indeed the servile policies of President Macri created greater unemployment and depressed living standards, leading to mass popular discontent. The unipolar empire's 'new boy' in its Buenos Aires fiefdom faces an early demise.

Likewise, widespread corruption, a deep economic depression and unprecedented double digit levels of unemployment in Brazil threaten the illicit vassal regime of Michel Temer with permanent crisis and rising class conflict.

Short-Lived Success in the Middle East

The revanchist unipolarist launch of a new wave of wars in the Middle East and North Africa seemed to succeed briefly with the devastating power of US-NATO aerial and naval bombardment .Then collapsed amidst grotesque destruction and chaos, flooding Europe with millions of refugees.

Powerful surges of resistance to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan hastened the retreat toward a multi-polar world. Islamist insurgents drove the US into fortress garrisons and took control of the countryside and encircled cities in Afghanistan; Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Libya drove US backed regimes and mercenaries into flight.

Unipolarists and the Permanent State: Re-Group and Attack

Faced with its failures, unipolarists regrouped and implemented the most dangerous military strategy yet: the build-up of nuclear 'First-Strike' capability targeting China and Russia.

Orchestrated by US State Department political appointees, Ukraine's government was taken over by US vassals leading to the ongoing break-up of that country. Fearful of neo-fascists and Russophobes, the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. Ethnic Russian majorities in Ukraine's Donbass region have been at war with Kiev with thousands killed and millions fleeing their homes to take refuge in Russia. The unipolarists in Washington financed and directed the Kiev coup led by kleptocrats, fascists and street mobs, immune as always from the consequences.

Meanwhile the US is increasing its number of combat troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to buttress its unreliable allies and mercenaries.

What is crucial to understanding the rise and demise of imperial power and the euphoric unipolar declarations of the 1990's (especially during the heyday of President Clinton's bloody reign), is that at no point have military and political advances been sustained by foundational economic building blocks.

The US defeated and subsequently occupied Iraq, but it also systematically destroyed Iraq's civil society and its economy, creating fertile ground for massive ethnic cleansing, waves of refugees and the subsequent Islamist uprising that over ran vast territories. Indeed, deliberate US policies in Iraq and elsewhere created the refugee crisis that is overwhelming Europe.

A similar situation is occurring during the first two decades of this century: Military victories have installed ineffective imperial-backed unpopular leaders. Unipolarists increasingly rely on the most retrograde tribal rabble, Islamist extremists, overseas clients and paid mercenaries. The deliberate US-led assault on the very people capable of leading modern multicultural nations like Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, is a caricature of the notorious Pol Pot assaults on Cambodia's educated classes. Of course, the US honed its special skills in 'killing the school teachers' when it trained and financed the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

The second weakness, which led to the collapse of the unipolar illusion, has been their inability to rethink their assumptions and re-orient and rebalance their strategic militarist paradigm from the incredible global mess they created

They steadfastly refused to work with and promote the educated economic elites in the conquered countries. To do so would have required maintaining an intact social-economic-security system in the countries they had systematically shredded. It would mean rejecting their paradigm of total war, unconditional surrender and naked, brutal military occupation in order to allow the development of viable economic allies, instead of imposing pliable but grotesquely corrupt vassal regimes.

The deeply entrenched, heavily financed and vast military-intelligence-police apparatus, numbering many millions, has formed a parallel imperial state ruling over the elected and civilian regime within the US.

The so-called 'deep state', in reality, is a ruling state run by unipolarists. It is not some 'faceless entity': It has a class, ideological and economic identity.

Despite the severe cost of losing a series of catastrophic wars and the multi-billion-dollar thefts by kleptocratic vassal regimes, the unipolarists have remained intact, even increasing their efforts to score a conquest or temporary military victory.

Let us say it, openly and clearly: The unipolarists are now engaged in blaming their terrible military and political failures on Russia and China. This is why they seek, directly and indirectly, to weaken Russia and China's 'allies abroad' and at home. Indeed their savage campaign to 'blame the Russians' for President Trump's election reflects their deep hostility to Russia and contempt for the working and lower middle class voters (the 'basket of deplorables') who voted for Trump. This elite's inability to examine its own failures and the political system's inability to remove these disastrous policymakers is a serious threat to the future of the world.

Unipolarists: Fabricating Pretexts for World War

While the unipolarist state suffered predictable military defeats and prolonged wars and reliance on unstable civilian regimes, the ideologues continue to deflect blame onto 'Russia and China as the source of all their military defeats'. The unipolarists' monomania has been transformed into a provocative large-scale offensive nuclear missile build-up in Europe and Asia, increasing the risk of a nuclear war by engaging in a deadly 'game of chicken'.

The veteran nuclear physicists in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published an important description of the unipolarists' war plans. They revealed that the 'current and ongoing US nuclear program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. These new technologies increase the overall US killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces threefold'. This is exactly what an objective observer would expect of a nuclear-armed US unipolar state planning to launch a war by disarming China and Russia with a 'surprise' first strike.

The unipolar state has targeted several countries as pretexts for launching a war. The US government installed provocative missile bases in the Baltic countries and Poland. These are regimes chosen for their eagerness to violate Russia's borders or airspace and insanely willing to invite the inevitable military response and chain reaction onto their own populations. Other sites for huge US military bases and NATO expansion include the Balkans, especially the former Yugoslav provinces of Kosovo and Montenegro. These are bankrupt ethno-fascist mafia states and potential tinderboxes for NATO-provoked conflicts leading to a US first strike. This explains why the most rabid US Senate militarists have been pushing for Kosovo and Montenegro's integration into NATO.

Syria is where the unipolarists are creating a pretext for nuclear war. The US state has been sending more 'Special Forces' into highly conflictive areas to support their mercenery allies. This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally). The US plans to seize ISIS-controlled Raqqa in Northern Syria as its own base of operation with the intention of denying the Syrian government its victory over the jihadi-terrorists. The likelihood of armed 'incidents' between the US and Russia in Syria is growing to the rapturous applause of US unipolarists.

The US has financed and promoted Kurdish fighters as they seize Syrian territory from the jihadi-terrorists, especially in territories along the Turkish border. This is leading to an inevitable conflict between Turkey and the US-backed Kurds.

Another likely site for expanded war is Ukraine. After seizing power in Kiev, the klepto-fascists launched a shooting war and economic blockade against the bilingual ethnic Russian-Ukrainians of the Donbass region. Attacks by the Kiev junta, countless massacres of civilians (including the burning of scores of unarmed Russian-speaking protesters in Odessa) and the sabotage of Russian humanitarian aid shipments could provoke retaliation from Russia and invite a US military intervention via the Black Sea against Crimea.

The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.

The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'.

The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. The US has 'suffered' peaceful, but humiliating, economic defeat at the hands of an emerging Asian power. China's economy has grown more than three times faster than the US for the last two decades. And China's infrastructure development bank has attracted scores of regional and European participants after a much promoted US trade agreement in Asia, developed by the Obama Administration, collapsed. Over the past decade, while salaries and wages have stagnated or regressed in the US and EU, they have tripled in China.

China's economic growth is set to surpass the US into the near and distant future if trends continue. This will inevitably lead to China replacing the US s as the world's most dynamic economic power . barring a nuclear attack by the US. It is no wonder China is embarked on a program to modernize its defensive missile systems and border and maritime security.

As the unipolarists prepare for the 'final decision' to attack China, they are systematically installing their most advanced nuclear missile strike capacity in South Korea under the preposterous pretext of countering the regime in Pyongyang. To exacerbate tensions, the US High Command has embarked on cyber-attacks against North Korea's missile program. It has been staging massive military exercises with Seoul, which provoked the North Korean military to 'test' four of its medium range ballistic missiles in the Sea of Japan. Washington has ignored the Chinese government's efforts to calm the situation and persuade the North Koreans to resist US provocations on its borders and even scale down their nuclear weapons program.

The US war propaganda machine claims that Pyongyang's nervous response to Washington's provocative military exercises (dubbed "Foal Eagle') on North Korea's border are both a 'threat' to South Korea and 'evidence of its leaders' insanity.' Ultimately, Washington intends to target China. It installed its (misnamed) Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) in South Korea .An offensive surveillance and attack system designed to target China's major cities and complement the US maritime encirclement of China and Russia. Using North Korea as a pretext, THAAD was installed in South Korea, with the capacity to reach the Chinese heartland in minutes. Its range covers over 3,000 kilometers of China's land mass. THAAD directed missiles are specifically designed to identify and destroy China's defensive missile capacity.

With the THADD installation in South Korea, Russia's Far East is now encircled by the US offensive missiles to complement the build-up in the West.

The unipolar strategists are joined by the increasingly militaristic Japanese government – a most alarming development for the Koreans and Chinese given the history of Japanese brutality in the region. The Japanese Defense Minister has proposed acquiring the capacity for a 'pre-emptive strike', an imperial replay of its invasion and enslavement of Korea and Manchuria. Japan 'points to' North Korea but really aims at China.

South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down.

In the midst of a major political scandal involving the Korean President (who faces impeachment and imprisonment), the US-Japanese military alliance has brutally sucked the hapless South Korean people into an offensive military build-up against China. In the process Seoul threatens its peaceful economic relations with China. The South Koreans are overwhelmingly 'pro-peace', but find themselves on the frontlines of a potential nuclear war.

China's response to Washington's threat is a massive buildup of its own defensive missile capacity. The Chinese now claim to have the capacity to rapidly demolish THAAD bases in South Korea if pushed by the US. China is retooling its factories to compensate for the loss of South Korean industrial imports.

Conclusion

The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies.

On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity.

Gone are the days when the unipolarists could break up the USSR, finance violent breakaway former Soviet regimes in Asia and the Caucuses and run fraudulent elections for its drunken clients in Russia.

The disasters of US policies and its domestic economic decline has given way to rapid and profound changes in power relations over the last two decades, shattering any illusion of a unipolar 'American Century'.

Unipolarity remains the ideology of the permanent state security apparatus and its elites in Washington. They believe that the marriage of militarism abroad and financial control at home will allow them to regain their lost unipolar 'Garden of Eden'. China and Russia are the essential new protagonists of a multipolar world. The dynamics of necessity and their own economic growth has pushed them to successfully nurture alternative, independent states and markets.

This obvious, irreversible reality has driven the unipolarists to the mania of preparing for a global nuclear war! The pretexts are infinite and absurd; the targets are clear and global; the destructive offensive military means are available; but so are the formidable defensive and retaliatory capacities of China and Russia.

The unipolarist state's delusion of 'winning a global nuclear war' presents Americans with the critical challenge to resist or give in to an insanely dangerous empire in decline, which is willing to launch a globally destructive war.

The Alarmist , April 25, 2017 at 11:57 pm GMT \n

"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."

You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. Read More

nsa , April 26, 2017 at 2:52 am GMT \n
What's this "unipolarist" stuff ..some kind of trendy academic euphemism? A land war in Asia? Even the American public isn't that stupid.

There is zero chance of an attack on Korea .for a couple of reasons:

1) nothing in it for the jooies who need to conserve their satrap's military for an attack on Iran,

2) if feasible, would have already happened, and lastly

3) the paper tiger would lose another one.

Think about it .goodbye Seoul, goodbye 30,000 US troops, goodbye all those lucrative samsung-kia-hyundai franchises, kiss off a couple carriers from torpedos, goodbye lots of attack aircraft ..and that's all before the Chinese enter the fray. Right now the biggest problem is how to let jooie butt boy Trumpstein and his ridiculous VFW geezer generals back down without losing face. Face is everything to westerners, you know . Read More

Realist , April 26, 2017 at 8:27 am GMT \n
@nsa

Oh yes they are. Their stupidity is boundless.

Anonymous , April 26, 2017 at 8:43 am GMT \n
I kind of agree with you, I kind of don't.

No doubt the Zionists want to focus on Syria and Iran because there is a direct benefit to them there, but don't forget their goal. Their goal is total control of the world, and China and Russia stand in their way.

Using N Korea to threaten China and Russia is probably high on their to do list too.

But I do agree with you. There is no way a N Korea war would be easy or fast for America. We would probably lose 30k soldiers and many ships at least. Wr would burn through a ton of money when we are flat broke. And I doubt we can be in a 2 front war right now anyway. So probably Middle East will take the priority.

So the most plausible explanation to me is that Trump re-read one of the chapters he wrote on negotiation and tried to convince China to go to war for us. But the Chinese aren't stupid and they didn't take the bait.

China talked tough to N Korea and suspended their coal exports to make it look like they would play game, and America sent ships to threaten N Korea. But that was all Trump negotiation tactics. And Trump would be stupid to go to war and have this define his presidency.

dearieme , April 26, 2017 at 9:34 am GMT \n
"providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese"

Come off it! The Red Army assiduously avoided fighting the Japanese. Read More

Tulip , April 26, 2017 at 5:15 pm GMT \n
China is not happy with North Korea either. Speculation is that China is planning an invasion with a secret green light from Washington. Even if the US went in, it may be that if China were granted basing rights in the North, or if there was an agreement for a multinational peacekeeping force, with equal US/Chinese troops, there may be a way of providing assurance to China on the national security front while getting rid of a gangster regime that threatens the security of everyone.
Robert Magill , April 26, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT \n

China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.

Walmart announced this week the planned opening of 40 new stores in China by 2020. This adds to the nearly 500 Walmart stores already operating. Very cleaver of them to sell cheap mass consumer goods made in China to Chinese customers and still generate profit. Where is the disconnect here?

The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.

What happened in New York on 9/11 totally unhinged America for a generation. One small nuke landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in. Russia and China could probably survive a dozen each and soldier on.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com Read More

neutral , April 26, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT \n

One small nuke landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in.

What do you mean by this ? Are you talking about most Americans leaving their cities and thus collapsing the entire economic system. Or are you saying that people will get so unhinged that it will launch all its missiles (without knowing who is responsible) and thus have more nuclear strikes hitting it ? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

El Dato , April 26, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT \n

Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese

This is COMPLETELY ass-backwards and there is not enough facepalm for such a statement. The Red Army kept itself well ensconced and recruited desperate peasants while Chiang Kai Check fought against the Japanese with not a lot of support from the US, then got the cold shoulder from Churchill. After that, the Nationalist Chinese were such an utter wreck that Mao could easily clean the floor.

Any student of the Sino-Japanese war should have the basics right.

Start reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10182755/Chinas-war-With-Japan-1937-1945-the-struggle-for-survival-by-Rana-Mitter-review.html Read More

Realist , April 26, 2017 at 11:25 pm GMT \n
@Robert Magill

The per cent of Americans killed on 9/11 was less than 0.000097. The per cent of Japanese killed in the 2011 Tsunami was 0.0144 with nary a whimper. The Japanese total was 148 times the US total!

The US would never survive a small nuclear attack

Astuteobservor II , April 28, 2017 at 12:19 am GMT \n
@El Dato

Start reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10182755/Chinas-war-With-Japan-1937-1945-the-struggle-for-survival-by-Rana-Mitter-review.html

from what I have read. the first half of that statement is true, while the 2nd half is wrong. 45-49, ccp got the left overs of manchuria, while the kmt got hardware and training directly from the usa.

Monty Ahwazi , April 29, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT \n
Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that war work for us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years. Our distant memory is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago on the US memory calendar! Read More
The White Muslim Traditionalist , April 29, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT \n
@The Alarmist
"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."
You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. What an idiotic statement.

The United States doesn't decide what is right and what is wrong.

mp , April 29, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT \n
200 Words @Monty Ahwazi Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that war work for us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years. Our distant memory is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago on the US memory calendar! Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?

It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.

Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell (they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable. Read More

mp , April 29, 2017 at 11:54 am GMT \n
@Robert Magill

Walmarts in China are not like the one's in America. I'm convinced the US stores are supported by welfare checks and food stamps. Without those, my guess is that the stores would have closed a long time ago. Also, in China you don't see half the store filled up with overweight diabetics on disability, riding around on motorized scooters, looking like land-locked Barron Harkonnens, etc.

Corvinus , April 29, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT \n
@Wizard of Oz

Exactly. The doomsday prognosticators keep up with the Fake News about the impending end of the world scenarios and they fail to materialize repeatedly.

Ludwig Von , April 29, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT \n
Just my little thought : in fact China is not going to intervene in a conflict between US-SK-Japan versus NK. It will sit back and just wait until they all are exhausted and then collect .
Agent76 , April 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT \n
Mar 25, 2016 Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar?

Introduction to the report: Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar? Internationalization of the Renminbi and Its Implications for the United States.

Agent76 , April 29, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT \n
Apr 12, 2017 China Russia Move For Gold Against Dollar Makes Them A Target By Trump

In this video we talk about all the latest breaking news regarding the financial quite feud between Russia, China and U.S. Its important to note that this move against Donald Trump and the U.S petro dollar being the world reserve currency was made before Trumps aggressive actions against a mutual ally to Russia and China.

denk , April 29, 2017 at 7:29 pm GMT \n
Uncle sham, 'Pay up or else !'

http://bit.ly/2pJezx6

hhhhhh

Wizard of Oz , April 29, 2017 at 10:20 pm GMT \n
@mp Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?

It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.

Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell (they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable. OK until you come to "the Chinese are every bit as tribal as Jews," Whatever you might say about some 12 million Jews who; if in Israel, learn to speak a version of their old tribal language makes little sense when applied to 1.3 billion people speaking many mutually incomprehensible languages (or dialects as some prefer if you think Russian and Polish are two dialects) and with a long history of warlordism and the barbarism of the Cultural Revolution less than two generations behind them. Still I guess that it is wise to protect your IP from a Mandarin speaking Chinese employee who only became an Amrrican citizen yesterday .

[Jul 26, 2017] America or Israel by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... I find it troublesome that the US military or associated agencies are so interwoven with Israeli state forces and institutions. In my assessment, such intense interrelationships violate George Washington's counsels in his Farewell Address, just as surely as Mast's attitudes invert the counsels of Christianity. ..."
"... Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 28 Dec 2016 "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching! " ..."
"... I'm neither Disaspora-Jewish nor Evangelical Christian, and I'm behind Israel 100 percent. The problem in the Holy Land is this: two objects occupying--or claiming to occupy--the same space. That's impossible, so you have to pick one. I pick Israel. ..."
"... Our youth are often sacrificed to foreign wars fought for immoral causes - witness Vietnam and Iraq. ..."
"... George Washington and his fellow European settler-colonists did to the indigenous people of North America what Jewish European settler-colonists did to the indigenous people of the Levant. (To be fair, though, the Zionists, if only for lack of opportunity, did not capture, import, and permanently enslave millions of people from another land.) ..."
"... It's noteworthy that both Zionists and Nazis invoked the "American" treatment of the indigenous population to justify their own crimes. As Israeli historian Benny Morris said back in 2004, "Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians." ..."
"... So invoking the settler-colonial nationalism of the slave owner and murdering land-stealer, George Washington, is something Zionists, not their opponents, can do honestly. ..."
"... This is a ridiculous, and all too common argument from Jews – the land of the U.S. was stolen from the natives so Americans can't say anything about Israel stealing Palestine from Palestinians. ..."
"... First of all, the native people of North America were literally living in the stone age when Whites showed up and their lives have been made immeasurably better thanks to the inventions and largesse of the White man. In contrast, Palestinians have done nothing but suffer under Israeli rule. ..."
"... Second, native North Americans are subsidized to the point of billions of dollars every year and receive every possible benefit from the government (and taxpaying Whites). Free health care, education and every form of affirmative action that's ever been dreamt up are all theirs for the taking. Tell us friend, does the Jewish state extend this to Palestinians as it does to Jews? ..."
Jan 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

I am reluctant to write about the "Israel problem" at the heart of U.S. foreign policy two weeks in a row but it seems that the story just will not go away as the usual suspects pile on the Barack Obama Administration over its alleged betrayal of America's "best and greatest friend and ally in the whole world."

Even as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his gaggle of war criminals continue to foam at the mouth over the United Nations vote it is, in truth, difficult to blame Israel for what is happening. The Israelis are acting on what they see as their self interest in dominating their neighbors militarily and having a free hand to deal with the Palestinians in any way they see fit. And as for their relationship with Washington, what could be better than getting billions of dollars every year, advanced weapons and unlimited political cover in exchange for absolutely nothing?

Surely even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows that the settlements are illegal under international law and are an impediment to any peaceful resolution with the Palestinians, which is what Resolution 2334 says. It has been U.S. policy to oppose them since they first starting popping up like mushrooms, but Netanyahu has encouraging their expansion in full knowledge that he is creating facts on the ground that will be irreversible. He has also pledged to his voters that he will not permit the creation of a Palestinian state, so why should anyone be confused about his intentions?

Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative summed up the situation perfectly, observing that "Calling out Israel for its ongoing illegal behavior becomes unavoidable when there is no progress in resolving the conflict, and the current Israeli government has made it very clear that there won't be any progress Israel isn't actually an ally, much less a 'vital' one, and it certainly isn't 'critical' to our security. The U.S. isn't obliged to cater to some of the worst policies of a client government that has increasingly become a liability. The real problem with the U.S. abstention on the resolution is that it came many years after it might have done some significant good, and it comes so late because Obama wasted his entire presidency trying to 'reassure' a government that undermined and opposed him time and again."

So stop blaming Israel for acting selfishly, since that is the nature of the beast, as in the fable of the frog and the scorpion. More to the point, it is the American Quislings who should be the focus of any examination of what is taking place as they are deliberately misrepresenting nearly every aspect of the discussion and flat out lying about what might actually be at stake due to Washington's being shackled to Netanyahu's policies. I will leave it to the reader to decide why so many U.S. politicians and media talking heads have betrayed their own country's interests in deference to the shabby arguments being put forward on behalf of an openly apartheid theocracy, but I might suggest that access to money and power have a lot to do with it as the Israel Lobby has both in spades.

The Quislings are making two basic arguments in their defense of surrendering national sovereignty to a troublesome little client state located half a world away. First, they are claiming that any acknowledgement that the Israelis have behaved badly is counterproductive because it will encourage intransigence on the part of the Arabs and thereby diminish prospects for a viable peace agreement, which has to be negotiated between the two parties. Second, the claim is being made that the abstention on the U.N. vote violates established U.S. policy on the nature of the conflict and, in so doing, damages both Israeli and American interests. Bloomberg's editorial board has conjoined the two arguments, adroitly claiming in an over-the-top piece entitled "Obama's Betrayal of Israel at the U.N. Must Not Stand" that the abstention "breaks with past U.S. policy, undermines a vital ally and sets back the cause of Middle East peace."

Citing the damaged peace talks argument, which is what the Israeli government itself has been mostly promoting, Donald Trump denounced the U.N. resolution from a purely Israeli perspective, stating that "As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis." He subsequently added "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect," a comment that just might be regarded as either tongue in cheek or ironic because that is precisely how Israel treats Washington. It is reported, however, that Trump does not do irony.

The pundits who most often scream the loudest in defense of Israel are often themselves Jewish, many having close ties to the Netanyahu government. They would undoubtedly argue that their ethno-religious propinquity to the problem they are discussing does not in any way influence their views, but that would be nonsense. One of those persistently shouting the loudest regarding the "peace" canard is the ubiquitous Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who has never seen anything in Israel that he dislikes. He commented that Obama had stabbed Israel in the back and had made "peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians will now say 'we can get a state through the U.N.'"

Syndicated columnist and fellow Israeli zealot Charles Krauthammer added his two cents , noting that the resolution abstention had meant that Washington had "joined the jackals at the U.N." Observing that the U.N. building occupies "good real estate in downtown New York City Trump ought to find a way to put his name on it and turn it into condos." Iran-Contra's own Elliot Abrams, who opposes Jews marrying non-Jews, meanwhile repeats the Krauthammer "jackals" meme and also brays about the "abandonment of Israel at the United Nations."

But the prize for pandering to Jewish power and money has to go to the eminent John Bolton, writing on December 26 th about "Obama's Parting Betrayal of Israel" in The Wall Street Journal (there is a subscription wall but if you go to Google and search you can get around it). Bolton, an ex-Ambassador to the U.N under the esteemed George W. Bush, is a funny looking guy who reportedly did not get a position with the Trump administration because of his Groucho Marx moustache. He currently pontificates from the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where he is something called a senior fellow. He has written a book "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad," which is available for 6 cents used on Amazon, plus shipping. There is another John Bolton who wrote "Marada the She-Wolf," but they are apparently not related.

In his piece, Bolton hit on both the peace talks and the "I'm backing Israel arguments." He uniquely starts out by claiming that Barack Obama "stabbed Israel in the front" by failing to stop Resolution 2334, which he then describes as "clearly intended to tip the peace process towards the Palestinians abandon[ing] any pretense that the actual parties to the conflict must resolve their differences." That's the peace argument plus the negotiations fiction rolled together. He then goes on to argue that Obama has betrayed Israel by "essentially endors[ing] the Palestinian politico-legal narrative about territory formerly under League of Nations' mandate."

Bolton concedes that the damage has already been done by Obama's complicity "in assaulting Israel" and the opening can be exploited by what he describes as the "anti-Israeli imagineers" at the United Nations. He calls on Donald Trump to work to "mitigate or reverse" such consequences and specifically "move to repeal the resolution, giving the 14 countries that supported it a chance to correct their error." That they cheered loudly when the resolution passed apparently will have to also be somehow expunged, though Bolton does not mention that. Nations that refuse to go along with the repeal "would have their relations with Washington adjusted accordingly" while "the main perpetrators in particular should face more tangible consequences."

Bolton is unhesitatingly placing Israeli priorities ahead of American interests by his willingness to punish actual U.S. allies like Britain, Germany and France, as well as major powers Russia and China, out of pique over their vote against the settlements. He also recommends withholding the U.S. contributions to the U.N., which amount to over 20% of the budget. Bolton then goes on to reject any Palestinian state of any kind, recommending instead that a rump version of territory where the bulk of the Palestinians will be allowed to live be transferred to Jordanian control.

As always, there is scant attention paid by any of the Israel boosters for actual American interests in continuing to perform proskynesis in front of Netanyahu and whatever reptile might succeed him. American values and needs are invisible, quite rightly, because they are of no interest to John Bolton and his fellow knee jerkers at AEI, the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Brookings, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the rest of the alphabet soup that depends on the generosity of pro-Israel donors to keep the lights on.

Bolton provides precisely one short sentence relating to Washington's stake in the game being played, noting that the U.N. abstention poses "major challenges for American interests." He never says what those interests are because there are none, or at least none that matter, apart from godfathering a viable two state solution which Israel has basically made impossible. And that is only an interest because it would lessen much of the world's disdain for U.S. hypocrisy while mitigating the radicalization of young Muslims turned terrorists who are in part enraged by the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, blaming it correctly on American connivance. In reality having the U.S. finally vote on the side of sanity and fairness is really a good thing for Americans and hopefully will lead to severing a bizarre "special relationship" that supports a kleptocracy in Asia that has been nothing but trouble.

Randal , January 3, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

The pundits who most often scream the loudest in defense of Israel are often themselves Jewish, many having close ties to the Netanyahu government. They would undoubtedly argue that their ethno-religious propinquity to the problem they are discussing does not in any way influence their views

And their disingenuous declarations are now arguably backed by force of law in the UK, where referring to the potential for mixed loyalties on the part of jewish people in relation to the jewish nation falls within the "official definition of anti-Semitism" recently adopted as a result of despicable pandering by politicians at the very highest levels.

n230099 . January 3, 2017 at 12:57 pm GMT

" and it comes so late because Obama wasted his entire presidency "

LOL!! And yet still a God to some. He was supposed to get the U.S. out of the region. Now the trail he and the war criminals Bush, Rumsfeld, Clinton, Kerry, Rice and Power leave is lined with more dead civilians than have died on either side in Palestine and Israel since 48. Israeli/Palestinian issues are not without some significance but pale in the scope of the war crimes of the U.S in the past 16 years. Millions dead and all we hear is 'f'n Jews' .

• Replies: @uslabor US General Wesley Clark said in 2002 he was given a memo "that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." Every one of those countries a potential enemy of Israel.

I think, in addition to the obvious oil resources, the US attacked those countries for the benefit of Israel.

It ain't so much, as you say "f'n Jews". For me it is F*cking Zionist Israelis and their Neoconservative enablers in Washington.

Patriot says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT

Philip,

You are a brave man. It is very dangerous to critize Israel or Jews. Please be safe. Thanks for having the courage to speak truth to power.

• Replies: @Junior Amen to that! Courage indeed!

Even when an assault is caught on camera like what occured to Alison Weir at the National Press Club, of all places, there are no consequences for attacks on those that have the courage to criticize Israel.

I filed a pollice report and then waited and waited. Finally, the detective in charge of determining whether or not to prosecute Murray decided not to do so. The detective's name is in another notebook somewhere. As I recall, it was Rosenbaum or something similar.
http://alisonweir.org/journal/2011/5/23/israel-is-not-alone-member-knocks-phone-out-of-my-hand-press.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BZ-Ye0nTGo

Hrw-500 says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 1:13 pm GMT

That reminds me of a very politically incorrect cartoon made by a guy nicknamed A. Wyatt Mann.

http://afloweroutofstone.tumblr.com/post/110285737337/on-nuance

• Replies: @SolontoCroesus re the first cartoon, "Join the US Army, Fight for Israel"

This morning C Span Washington Journal interviewed new members of US Congress.

Among them was Brian Mast, a Republican who defeated Patrick Murphy in Florida's 18th district, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's former district. https://www.c-span.org/video/?419267-3/interview-representativeelect-brian-mast-rfl

Mast was a bomb detonations expert in US military who lost both legs and an arm in Afghanistan. Mast said he'd never thought about running for congress until he wound up at Walter Reed hospital; he said he had thought he'd spend his career doing what he loved -- "jumping out of airplanes and kicking in doors and roping out of helicopters." He said it was "very difficult for him to lose that purpose" he'd had in life.
In the process of "finding another battlefield to fight on," many congressmen & staffers visited him.
He eventually went to work for various US counterterrorism agencies in addition to
"spending some time in the Israeli army . . . of which I'm very very proud. . . . I'm probably the only congressman who has been in the Israeli military . . .

According to wikipedia, Mast attended Christian schools and identifies as a Christian; no denomination is mentioned. Whatever denomination it is, apparently their Jesus counsels: "Blessed are they who kick in doors, for they shall be called peacemakers;" and "Seek and ye shall find, kick and the door shall open . . ."

Mast said he applied his military, mission-oriented training to preparing himself to function in congress. He moved seamlessly from military to counterterrorism,

With the Israeli military he worked in a role that Mast identified as SAREL (?), "which allows individuals from around the world to work with the Israeli military . . . a program they rely on quite heavily to accomplish a lot of what they need to go on with their military, as they don't have nearly as large a military as the United States."

(The closest I could find to "SAREL" was an Israeli medical and pharmaceutical research, development and production corporation,
Israel's largest private supplier under one roof of goods and services to healthcare and medical institutions.
)

I find it troublesome that the US military or associated agencies are so interwoven with Israeli state forces and institutions. In my assessment, such intense interrelationships violate George Washington's counsels in his Farewell Address, just as surely as Mast's attitudes invert the counsels of Christianity.

The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.

, @Alden What's the official song of the Israeli army?

Onward Christian Soldiers

Lot says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 3:15 am GMT • 100 Words

as the usual suspects pile on the Barack Obama Administration over its alleged betrayal of America's "best and greatest friend and ally in the whole world."

"Usual suspects" = Vast majority of American voters. Once again the tiresome fringely Israel bashers have lost an election.

http://imgur.com/a/3neon

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 28 Dec 2016 "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching! "

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 22 Dec 2016

The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed

Astuteobservor II says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 3:37 am GMT @Charlotte Allen

Love all you Joo-obsessors coming out of the woodwork.

I'm neither Disaspora-Jewish nor Evangelical Christian, and I'm behind Israel 100 percent. The problem in the Holy Land is this: two objects occupying--or claiming to occupy--the same space. That's impossible, so you have to pick one. I pick Israel.

Israel is the West--and it's the way the West ought to be but isn't, at least so far in Europe: a bulwark against Islam, which is the real menace to Western civilization, not some crazy haredim in yarmulkes living out in the middle of nowhere. Israel stands up to Islam. We don't. At least till now (Trump). I don't care if everything you say about the Jews, the Jewish lobby, or whatever, is true. I stand for Israel, because I don't stand for the Dar al-Islam. Have any of you ever been to Israel? I have. Where would you rather live: Israel (a beautiful and prosperous country) or an Islamic hellhole (pick any Muslim country--hey, pick Turkey! See you at the next Istanbul nightclub!)?

The settlements are Israel's way of saying: We won. It's what the victors in wars do. Want to have no settlements in your country? Try actually winning one of the three stupid wars plus God knows how many intifadas you've started with the aim of driving the Israelis to the sea. "International law"? You actually believe the U.N. ought to be running the world? What are you--a bunch of lefties?

How sorry do I feel for the poor, poor Palestinians? Hey--not sorry at all! They've spent, what, six decades sitting on their behinds and whining when not 1) lobbing rockets at Israelis; 2) bombing school buses and restaurants; and 3) dancing in the streets over stuff like 9/11. Plus making life miserable for the few Christians left in the Holy Land. That alone puts me on the side of the Israelis.

Yeah, yeah, most American Jews are irritating liberals, and I wish they'd cut it out. Especially the victimology stuff with the country clubs, since they're America's most successful ethnic group. And I don't buy neocon foreign policy, since there's no reason for Americans to be fighting wars and dying in them in the Mideast, period. Israel does an excellent job of furthering its own interests, such as staying in existence, and Bibi strikes me as an excellent behind-the-scenes power player--you know he's got lines into both Syria and Russia.

If Israel gets attacked, I'm all for aiding Israel, but that hasn't happened yet, and probably won't--unless the Muslims would like to see even more settlements.

And finally, I can't stand John Bolton's mustache. Neither can Trump, I'm told. Meanwhile, yay for Trump! When I think "quisling," I think Obama, not Trump--sorry.

you called it "holy land" :P that tells me more than enough.

Charlotte Allen says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 3:39 am GMT @paratrop

Our youth are often sacrificed to foreign wars fought for immoral causes - witness Vietnam and Iraq. I am sure that Rachel Corrie's parents will continue to grieve all their lives for their beautiful daughter but at least they have the comfort and pride that she died for a truly moral reason and has become a worldwide beacon of the cause. Vale Rachel.

Oh yeah, she died for being an idiot who thought it was kind of like the Sixties: stuffing daisies into gun muzzles. Her parents should have had the sense to tell her that war is serious business.

Johnny Smoggins says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 4:17 am GMT • 100 Words @Aaron Aarons

George Washington and his fellow European settler-colonists did to the indigenous people of North America what Jewish European settler-colonists did to the indigenous people of the Levant. (To be fair, though, the Zionists, if only for lack of opportunity, did not capture, import, and permanently enslave millions of people from another land.)

It's noteworthy that both Zionists and Nazis invoked the "American" treatment of the indigenous population to justify their own crimes. As Israeli historian Benny Morris said back in 2004, "Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians."

So invoking the settler-colonial nationalism of the slave owner and murdering land-stealer, George Washington, is something Zionists, not their opponents, can do honestly.

This is a ridiculous, and all too common argument from Jews – the land of the U.S. was stolen from the natives so Americans can't say anything about Israel stealing Palestine from Palestinians.

First of all, the native people of North America were literally living in the stone age when Whites showed up and their lives have been made immeasurably better thanks to the inventions and largesse of the White man. In contrast, Palestinians have done nothing but suffer under Israeli rule.

Second, native North Americans are subsidized to the point of billions of dollars every year and receive every possible benefit from the government (and taxpaying Whites). Free health care, education and every form of affirmative action that's ever been dreamt up are all theirs for the taking. Tell us friend, does the Jewish state extend this to Palestinians as it does to Jews?

[Jul 26, 2017] The Economist How the Jews control Congress Eylon A. Levy The Blogs The Times of Israel

Notable quotes:
"... The Seal of the United States Congress tells an observer a number of salient facts about American politics: the olive branch stands for America's commitment to peace; the arrows represent its readiness for war; and the Star of David, which The Economist has helpfully added to the original design, symbolises the control of Jews and/or Israel over America's policies of war and peace. ..."
"... Peter Schrank's cartoon, which accompanies an article on negotiations with Iran in this week's Economist, depicts President Obama with his ankle shackled to the Judaised seal of the US Congress, thereby prevented from shaking hands with Iran's President Rouhani, who is being restrained by his nefarious-looking, US-flag-burning compatriots. ..."
Jul 26, 2017 | blogs.timesofisrael.com

The Seal of the United States Congress tells an observer a number of salient facts about American politics: the olive branch stands for America's commitment to peace; the arrows represent its readiness for war; and the Star of David, which The Economist has helpfully added to the original design, symbolises the control of Jews and/or Israel over America's policies of war and peace.

Peter Schrank's cartoon, which accompanies an article on negotiations with Iran in this week's Economist, depicts President Obama with his ankle shackled to the Judaised seal of the US Congress, thereby prevented from shaking hands with Iran's President Rouhani, who is being restrained by his nefarious-looking, US-flag-burning compatriots.

The message is that either American Jews or Israel (and it is unclear which, because the Star of David is both a Jewish and Israeli symbol) are holding the United States back from making peace with Iran – and moreover, that they are doing so through their control of the machinery of the American government, since the Star of David is incorporated into the official insignia of the US, alongside the stars and stripes. The Israel Lobby, as the cartoon rather nefariously hints, is not a separate influence on the US government – it is a constituent part of it.

Schrank's previous cartoons have hardly been kind towards Israel, but one can only wonder what was going through the mind of his editors: there are questions about the impartiality of the magazine's coverage of Israel , but as last week's very fair and reasonable "Who is a Jew?" feature suggests, The Economist is hardly an anti-Semitic publication.

Intentionally or not, however, Schrank's cartoon is now an addition to the disturbing trend of cartoons hinting at the sinister control of Western governments by Israel or Jews, following Steve Bell's Guardian cartoon showing Netanyahu as a puppeteer with Tony Blair and William Hague as finger-puppets, and a cartoon in the Qatari Al-Watan newspaper depicting an Orthodox Jew driving with Obama's head as a gearstick and the UN logo as his steering wheel.

I shan't accuse The Economist directly of anti-Semitism, but it bears repeating that the EUMC Working Definition , adopted by the British government, covers "stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective -- such as the myth of Jews controlling the government" and also covers "using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterise Israel or Israelis". Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.

The notion that Jews control the world's major institutions of power, including governments, media and banks, is one of the most established and pernicious myths peddled against Jews, and it is difficult not to see continuity between contemporary hints about "Zionist" control of world governments and nineteenth-century cartoons depicting a Jewish octopus with its tentacles over the globe.

In France, 29% believe Jews have too much control of international financial markets; in Italy, 39% believe Jews have too much power in the business world; and in Hungary, Poland and Spain, well over half of the population believes at least one of these propositions. In the United States , 14% believe that "Jews have too much power in the U.S. today", and that's from the most philo-Semitic of countries out there.

Anti-Semitic tropes enjoy even greater vibrancy in the Muslim world, where the Elders of Zion is taken as gospel, Jewish conspiracies are more common than Jews, and The Economist is available too – subtly, and quite probably unintentionally, reinforcing such prejudices.

The Economist's readership might be more intelligent than the general public, but it should not flatter itself. Even if its readers believe the myth of Jewish power in proportions far lower than is average, their perceptions are hardly likely to be dispelled by such cartoons, which contribute towards a toxic drip-drip in public discourse, confirming the unarticulated suspicions about Jewish power of those who find that such beliefs are neither rare nor taboo.

It may well be that the cartoon was intended only as a nod to the influence of Israel or AIPAC in Washington's policy-making on Iran; and perhaps the cartoonist had good reasons not to include a Tricolore and shahada , despite similar pressure from the French and Saudis. Nevertheless, it does not take a Professor in Anti-Semitism Studies to understand how such an image can reinforce the myth of the Jewish conspiracy in the minds of those already convinced of its veracity, and for whom the words "Jewish lobby" trip too easily off the tongue.

Cartoons work by using images and symbols familiar to readers in order to induce them to read between the lines and infer a particular unspoken message from the image. The best that can be said about Schrank's cartoon is that it is ambiguous, but this ambiguity is precisely what makes it so noxious: the Economist can dissociate itself from the most toxic of interpretations, but still the process of "wink wink, nudge nudge" will continue to encourage readers, quite reasonably, to jump to conclusions about Jewish control over Capitol Hill from the incorporation of the Star of David into official US symbols.

Belief in a Jewish conspiracy is sufficiently prevalent worldwide that for the Economist to buttress them, even unintentionally, is negligent at best and utterly reckless at worst. If there is nuance, the Economist cannot protest innocence when it is lost in translation.

Update The Economist has pulled the cartoon from its website, explaining: "The print edition of this story had a cartoon which inadvertently caused offence to some readers, so we have replaced it with a photograph." Given that the article makes no mention of AIPAC, the Israel Lobby, or indeed Israel (bar a passing reference in brackets to Benjamin Netanyahu), this was probably a wise move.

[Jul 26, 2017] Muller as A bomb dropped on Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Republicans join Democrats in warning Trump not to fire Mueller. Mueller remains and keeps digging. Mueller subpoenas damaging documents; Trump refuses to comply. A court orders him to comply. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family (or whatever). Then he resigns, claiming he has already made America great. He tells the country that Vice President Pence will carry on in his place. ..."
"... It leaves out what comes after, though, and that's never wise with Trump. He lives to hit back. He's already attacking the GOP for its insufficient "defense" of him in this case, demanding openly that they put him above the law. If Rubin's scenario comes true, and Trump does leave, he'll look for vengeance unfettered by whatever remains of his political restraint. ..."
"... If Trump is forced out he's a hot torpedo looking for a target. He'll make revenge his life's mission. Donald Jr. and his siblings will take up the mantle because there's money to be made from political warfare. ..."
"... "President Trump and his advisers are floating possible replacements for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the list includes Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Washington Post reports. ..."
Jul 24, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

im1dc , July 25, 2017 at 08:57 AM

Well, well the Right's mouthpieces in the media are turning against Trump

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/23/1683310/-Trump-Loses-Jennifer-Rubin-Torpedo-in-the-Water

"Trump Loses Jennifer Rubin. Torpedo in the Water"

By Next Conservatism...Sunday Jul 23, 2017...8:55 PM EST

"Jennifer Rubin's "Right Turn" column in The Washington Post was reliably partisan beyond reason during the Obama years, so it's been a shock to see her turn sane and lawyer-like in her #nevertrump position. In fact she's given up on Trump and turned naysayer against the GOP. Her prognostications for what comes next as the Mueller investigation unfolds offer a range of possibilities, all bad. Bet on this one:

..... 4. Republicans join Democrats in warning Trump not to fire Mueller. Mueller remains and keeps digging. Mueller subpoenas damaging documents; Trump refuses to comply. A court orders him to comply. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family (or whatever). Then he resigns, claiming he has already made America great. He tells the country that Vice President Pence will carry on in his place. LESSON: Congress must protect Mueller and preserve the possibility that Trump may be forced to resign.

That's the most likely scenario because it's to Trump's advantage in the same way that this entire presidency has been, as a branding effort to promote his business. If he rejects subpoenas and defies the law he's doing what he promised, fighting the evil Washington machine. If he leaves before a market correction he can allege that the spike in the Dow was his work; that he delivered on his promise to drive the Supreme Court rightward; that he gave the downtrodden Conservatives voters from both parties a real alternative; and that he is their martyr, their symbol of Making America Great Again despite all the efforts of the liars and partisans who forced him out. It's a perfect narrative, assuming that his resignation actually offers him some defense against indictment, which is not guaranteed.

It leaves out what comes after, though, and that's never wise with Trump. He lives to hit back. He's already attacking the GOP for its insufficient "defense" of him in this case, demanding openly that they put him above the law. If Rubin's scenario comes true, and Trump does leave, he'll look for vengeance unfettered by whatever remains of his political restraint. A third party of Trumpist candidates hand-picked by Trump is a realistic possibility. They'll run against the enemies Trump made in the deep red districts and force the GOP to accede to a Trumpist agenda or be defeated by it completely.

If Trump is forced out he's a hot torpedo looking for a target. He'll make revenge his life's mission. Donald Jr. and his siblings will take up the mantle because there's money to be made from political warfare.

If they're kingmakers instead of kings they can shelter themselves behind Far Right candidates, take huge money from political consultancies and influence peddling, and turn Conservatism into their business. Their properties and investments won't suffer, and they'll rebuild their fortresses of hidden deals and dark money. The GOP will be a sitting duck for them. The Trumps will do with the Republican Party what they do with any distressed property: take it over or tear it down it."

im1dc , July 24, 2017 at 05:47 PM
Trump wants to fire his Appointees Price if Obamacare Repeal and Replace fail, and Sessions for not protecting Trump from the Russian collusion investigation

The Big One is coming, I sense it and then every American must decide if Trump stays or goes, no more wiggle room after that happens

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343556-cruz-being-considered-to-replace-sessions-report

"Cruz being considered to replace Sessions: report"

By Jacqueline Thomsen...07/24/17...07:57 PM EDT

"President Trump and his advisers are floating possible replacements for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the list includes Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Washington Post reports.

...Trump also slammed Sessions in a tweet Monday morning, asking why our "beleaguered A.G." wasn't investigating ties between Hillary Clinton and Russia...

...Trump associates are viewing a possible Sessions ousting as a step toward firing special counsel Robert Mueller, according to the Post."...

[Jul 26, 2017] What You Actually Spend on the National Security State by William D. Hartung

Notable quotes:
"... This article was originally published in Tom Dispatch.com ..."
"... Pentagon Budget: $575 billion ..."
"... War Budget: $64.6 Billion ..."
"... Running Total: $639.6 Billion ..."
"... Department of Energy (nuclear): $20 Billion ..."
"... Running total: $659.6 billion ..."
"... "Other Defense": $8 Billion ..."
"... Running Total: $677.6 billion ..."
"... Homeland Security: $50 Billion ..."
"... Running Total: $717.6 Billion ..."
"... Military Aid at the State Department: $7 Billion ..."
"... Running Total: $724.6 Billion ..."
"... Intelligence: $70 Billion (mostly contained inside the Pentagon budget) ..."
"... Running Total: $724.6 Billion ..."
"... Veterans: $186 billion ..."
"... Running Total: $910.6 Billion ..."
"... Military Retirement: $80 Billion ..."
"... Running Total: $990.6 Billion ..."
"... Defense Share of the Interest on the Debt: $100 billion ..."
"... Grand Total: $1.09 Trillion ..."
Jul 26, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Hundreds of billions of dollars outside of the official Pentagon budget. • July 26, 2017

The Pentagon ( Frontpage / Shutterstock ) This article was originally published in Tom Dispatch.com

You wouldn't know it, based on the endless cries for more money coming from the military politicians , and the president , but these are the best of times for the Pentagon. Spending on the Department of Defense alone is already well in excess of half a trillion dollars a year and counting. Adjusted for inflation, that means it's higher than at the height of President Ronald Reagan's massive buildup of the 1980s and is now nearing the post-World War II funding peak. And yet that's barely half the story. There are hundreds of billions of dollars in "defense" spending that aren't even counted in the Pentagon budget.

Under the circumstances, laying all this out in grisly detail!and believe me, when you dive into the figures, they couldn't be grislier!is the only way to offer a better sense of the true costs of our wars past, present, and future, and of the funding that is the lifeblood of the national security state. When you do that, you end up with no less than 10 categories of national security spending (only one of which is the Pentagon budget). So steel yourself for a tour of our nation's trillion-dollar-plus "national security" budget. Given the Pentagon's penchant for wasting money and our government's record of engaging in dangerously misguided wars without end, it's clear that a large portion of this massive investment of taxpayer dollars isn't making anyone any safer.

1) The Pentagon Budget

The Pentagon's "base" or regular budget contains the costs of the peacetime training, arming, and operation of the U.S. military and of the massive civilian workforce that supports it!and if waste is your Eden, then you're in paradise.

The department's budget is awash in waste, as you might expect from the only major federal agency that has never passed an audit . For example, last year a report by the Defense Business Board, a Pentagon advisory panel, found that the Department of Defense could save $125 billion over five years just by trimming excess bureaucracy. And a new study by the Pentagon's Inspector General indicates that the department has ignored hundreds of recommendations that could have saved it more than $33.6 billion.

The Pentagon can't even get an accurate count of the number of private contractors it employs, but the figure is certainly in the range of 600,000 or higher, and many of them carry out tasks that might far better be handled by government employees. Cutting that enormous contractor work force by just 15 percent, only a start when it comes to eliminating the unnecessary duplication involved in hiring government employees and private contractors to do the same work, would save an easy $20 billion annually.

And the items mentioned so far are only the most obvious examples of misguided expenditures at the Department of Defense. Even larger savings could be realized by scaling back the Pentagon's global ambitions, which have caused nothing but trouble in the last decade and a half as the U.S. military has waged devastating and counterproductive wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere across the Greater Middle East and Africa. An analysis by Ben Friedman of the conservative Cato Institute estimates that the Pentagon could reduce its projected spending by one trillion dollars over the next decade if Washington reined in its interventionist instincts and focused only on America's core interests.

Donald Trump, of course, ran for president as a businessman who would clean house and institute unprecedented efficiencies in government. Instead, on entering the Oval Office, he's done a superb job of ignoring chronic problems at the Pentagon, proposing instead to give that department a hefty raise: $575 billion next year. And yet his expansive military funding plans look relatively mild compared to the desires of the gung-ho members of the armed services committees in the House and Senate . Democrats and Republicans alike want to hike the Pentagon budget to at least $600 billion or more. The legislative fight over a final number will play out over the rest of this year. For now, let's just use Trump's number as a placeholder.

Pentagon Budget: $575 billion

2) The War Budget

The wars of this century, from Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond, have largely been paid for through a special account that lies outside the regular Pentagon budget. This war budget!known in the antiseptic language of the Pentagon as the "Overseas Contingency Operations" account, or OCO! peaked at more than $180 billion at the height of the Bush administration's intervention in Iraq.

As troop numbers in that country and Afghanistan have plummeted from hundreds of thousands to about 15,000 , the war budget, miraculously enough, hasn't fallen at anywhere near the same pace. That's because it's not even subject to the modest caps on the Pentagon's regular budget imposed by Congress back in 2011, as part of a deal to keep the government open.

In reality, over the past five years, the war budget has become a slush fund that pays for tens of billions of dollars in Pentagon expenses that have nothing to do with fighting wars. The Trump administration wants $64.6 billion for that boondoggle budget in fiscal year 2018. Some in Congress would like to hike it another $10 billion . For consistency, we'll again use the Trump number as a baseline.

War Budget: $64.6 Billion

Running Total: $639.6 Billion

3) Nuclear Warheads (and more)

You might think that the most powerful weapons in the U.S. arsenal -- nuclear warheads -- would be paid for out of the Pentagon budget. And you would, of course, be wrong. The cost of researching, developing, maintaining, and "modernizing" the American arsenal of 6,800 nuclear warheads falls to an obscure agency located inside the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA. It also works on naval nuclear reactors, pays for the environmental cleanup of nuclear weapons facilities, and funds the nation's three nuclear weapons laboratories, at a total annual cost of more than $20 billion per year.

Department of Energy (nuclear): $20 Billion

Running total: $659.6 billion

4) "Other Defense"

This catchall category encompasses a number of flows of defense-related funding that go to agencies other than the Pentagon. It totals about $8 billion per year . In recent years, about two-thirds of this money has gone to pay for the homeland security activities of the FBI, accounting for more than half of that agency's annual budget.

"Other Defense": $8 Billion

Running Total: $677.6 billion

The four categories above make up what the White House budget office considers total spending on "national defense." But I'm sure you won't be shocked to learn that their cumulative $677.6 billion represents far from the full story. So let's keep right on going.

5) Homeland Security

After the 9/11 attacks, Congress created a mega-agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It absorbed 22 then-existing entities , all involved in internal security and border protection, creating the sprawling cabinet department that now has 240,000 employees . For those of you keeping score at home, the agencies and other entities currently under the umbrella of DHS include the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, the Transportation Security Agency, the U.S. Secret Service, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), and the Office of Intelligence Analysis (the only one of America's 17 intelligence agencies to fit under the department's rubric).

How many of these agencies actually make us safer? That would be a debatable topic, if anyone were actually interested in such a debate. ICE!America's deportation force!has, for instance, done far more to cause suffering than to protect us from criminals or terrorists. On the other hand, it's reassuring to know that there is an office charged with determining whether there is a nuclear weapon or radioactive "dirty bomb" in our midst.

While it's hard to outdo the Pentagon, DHS has its own record of dubious expenditures on items large and small. They range from $1,000 fees for employees to attend conferences at spas to the purchase of bagpipes for border protection personnel to the payment of scores of remarkably fat salaries to agency bureaucrats. On the occasion of its tenth anniversary in 2013, Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-SC) excoriated the department as "rife with waste," among other things, pointing to a report by the DHS inspector general that it had misspent over $1 billion.

DHS was supposed to provide a better focus for efforts to protect the United States from internal threats. Its biggest problem, though, may be that it has become a magnet for increased funding for haphazard, misplaced, and often simply dangerous initiatives. These would, for instance, include its program to supply grants to local law enforcement agencies to help them buy military-grade equipment to be deployed not against terrorists, but against citizens protesting the injustices perpetrated by the very same agencies being armed by DHS.

The Trump administration has proposed spending $50 billion on DHS in FY 2018.

Homeland Security: $50 Billion

Running Total: $717.6 Billion

6) Military Aid

U.S. government-run military aid programs have proliferated rapidly in this century. The United States now has scores of arms and training programs serving more than 140 countries . They cost more than $18 billion per year , with about 40 percent of that total located in the State Department's budget. While the Pentagon's share has already been accounted for, the $7 billion at State!which can ill afford to pay for such programs with the Trump administration seeking to gut the rest of its budget!has not.

Military Aid at the State Department: $7 Billion

Running Total: $724.6 Billion

7) Intelligence

The United States government has 16 separate intelligence agencies : the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the National Security Agency (NSA); the Defense Intelligence Agency; the FBI; the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research; the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence Analysis; the Drug Enforcement Administration Office of National Security Intelligence; the Treasury Department Office of Intelligence and Analysis; the Department of Energy Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the National Reconnaissance Office; the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency; Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance; Army Military Intelligence; the Office of Naval Intelligence; Marine Corps Intelligence; and Coast Guard Intelligence. Add to these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which is supposed to coordinate this far-flung intelligence network, and you have a grand total of 17 agencies.

The U.S. will spend more than $70 billion on intelligence this year, spread across all these agencies. The bulk of this funding is contained in the Pentagon budget!including the budgets of the CIA and the NSA (believed to be hidden under obscure line items there). At most, a few billion dollars in additional expenditures on intelligence fall outside the Pentagon budget and since, given the secrecy involved, that figure can't be determined, let's not add anything further to our running tally.

Intelligence: $70 Billion (mostly contained inside the Pentagon budget)

Running Total: $724.6 Billion

8) Supporting Veterans

A steady uptick of veterans generated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has dramatically increased the costs of supporting such vets once they come home, including the war wounded, some of whom will need medical care for life. For 2018, the Veterans Administration has requested over $186 billion for its budget, more than three times what it was before the 2001 intervention in Afghanistan.

Veterans: $186 billion

Running Total: $910.6 Billion

9) Military Retirement

The trust fund set up to cover pensions for military retirees and their survivors doesn't have enough money to pay out all the benefits promised to these individuals. As a result, it is supplemented annually by an appropriation from the general revenues of the government. That supplement has by now reached roughly $80 billion per year

Military Retirement: $80 Billion

Running Total: $990.6 Billion

10) Defense Share of Interest on the Debt

It's no secret that the U.S. government regularly runs at a deficit and that the total national debt is growing. It may be more surprising to learn that the interest on that debt runs at roughly $500 billion per year . The Project on Government Oversight calculates the share of the interest on that debt generated by defense-related programs at more than $100 billion annually.

Defense Share of the Interest on the Debt: $100 billion

Grand Total: $1.09 Trillion

That final annual tally of nearly $1.1 trillion to pay for past wars, fund current wars, and prepare for possible future conflicts is roughly double the already staggering $575 billion the Trump administration has proposed as the Pentagon's regular budget for 2018. Most taxpayers have no idea that more than a trillion dollars a year is going to what's still called "defense," but these days might equally be called national in security.

So the next time you hear the president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or a hawkish lawmaker claim that the U.S. military is practically collapsing from a lack of funding, don't believe it for a second. Donald Trump may finally have put plutocracy in the Oval Office, but a militarized version of it has long been ensconced in the Pentagon and the rest of the national security state. In government terms, make no mistake about it, the Pentagon & Co. are the one percent.

William D. Hartung, a TomDispatch regular , is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex

[Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] ..."
"... Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it. ..."
"... Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair. ..."
"... Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well. ..."
"... Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. ..."
"... I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity -- ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time. ..."
"... Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor. ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
"... It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ? ..."
"... It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow. What for ? ..."
"... It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ? ..."
"... Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ? ..."
"... Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him. ..."
"... Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb ..."
"... I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Introduction

A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup' is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.

The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.

The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives, mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.

The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and legitimacy.

The Coup as 'Process'

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'.

Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies in Congress and the Judiciary.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking office in January.

While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.

Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump of

  1. being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
  2. blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.

The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass media.

In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.

Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia, the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like Jill Stein.

The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention: The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties, and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival 'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry' Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.

ORDER IT NOW

The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.

President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and place of our choosing".

Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo – and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.

Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance

Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress. He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.

Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his cabinet who had their own allied business associations.

One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL, George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security and intelligence positions.

The Coup: Can it succeed?

In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation' on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.

If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').

He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.

(Reprinted from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

Kirt December 28, 2016 at 3:19 pm GMT

A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power. But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the whole system?

John Gruskos , December 28, 2016 at 4:16 pm GMT

If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Robert Magill , December 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm GMT

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations

The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids?

Replies: @Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). , @animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.

What a god-awful president.

An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --

If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Brαs Cubas , December 28, 2016 at 6:17 pm GMT

Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?

Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)

Happy new year!

schmenz , December 28, 2016 at 9:05 pm GMT
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Exactly...

Svigor , December 28, 2016 at 9:28 pm GMT

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.

And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

Replies: @Seamus Padraig

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Lieutenant Morrisseau , December 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm GMT

MAN PAD LETTER – DM 24 DEC 2016

I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing laws. –Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

• Replies: @Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Bruce Marshall , December 29, 2016 at 6:05 am GMT • 100 Words @Lieutenant Morrisseau MAN PAD LETTER - DM 24 DEC 2016


I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws. --Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

• Replies: @El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Mark Green says: • December 29, 2016 at 6:39 am GMT • 600 Words

This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?–Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

• Replies:

@Authenticjazzman

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist. ,

@Seamus Padraig

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead forever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,

@Rurik

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naοve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game. , @map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.

How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors. ,

@RobinG "

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile...
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

@Tomster

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Pirouette , December 29, 2016 at 7:08 am GMT

The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now be tied by all the traitors that run the US.

You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.

(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.

You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality: are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?

This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?

Max Havelaar , December 29, 2016 at 10:45 am GMT

My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

• Replies: @annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Karl , December 29, 2016 at 11:20 am GMT

the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches – it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

@Seamus Padraig
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]

There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]

In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally--you know, a kosher nostra!

mp , December 29, 2016 at 11:23 am GMT

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups

The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic. In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for a coup.

If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.

El Dato , December 29, 2016 at 11:39 am GMT
@Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my.

Authenticjazzman , December 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm GMT
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

Agent76 , December 29, 2016 at 1:59 pm GMT

D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.

Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)

It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.

Skeptikal , December 29, 2016 at 3:00 pm GMT
@Robert Magill
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.

So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).

animalogic , December 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm GMT • 100 Words

@Robert Magill

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL. What a god-awful president. An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --

If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website

@Svigor

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 1

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.

Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.

They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Karl the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

It seems you may be on to something:

RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra!

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm GMT

@Max Havelaar My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite. Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0

The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

• Agree: Kiza • Replies: @Anonymous
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do? , @Max Havelaar A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.

Maybe the Russian FSB an get to him.

Durruti , December 29, 2016 at 4:57 pm GMT

Nice well written article by James Petras.

I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .

The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2 million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.

Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.

Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.

I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below, for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.

Respect All! Bow to None!

Merry Christmas!

God Bless!

[MORE]
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.

We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

The United States is No longer Sovereign

The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

For Love of Country

The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty
[email protected]

Anonymous , December 29, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT

@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.

It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do?

• Replies: @Bill Jones The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.

My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?

The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?

As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.

Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:

My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.

At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.

Miro23 , December 29, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably split the same way.

The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects, and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.

Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.

Rurik , December 29, 2016 at 5:42 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naοve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game.

Art , December 29, 2016 at 7:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace - Art

• Agree: Seamus Padraig • Replies: @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.

Francis Boyle writes:

"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.

Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Svigor , December 29, 2016 at 9:52 pm GMT

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.

True.

alexander , December 29, 2016 at 10:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

• Replies: @annamaria

"They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration."

The subtitles are quite direct in presenting the US deciders as criminal bullies: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/12/russia-obama-was-most-evil-president.html

@Tomster What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

RobinG , December 29, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT

@Art I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace --- Art

"If we get past the inauguration ."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

• Replies: @Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

map , December 29, 2016 at 10:41 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

• Replies: @joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb , @RobinG "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Realist , December 29, 2016 at 11:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

joe webb , December 29, 2016 at 11:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but

Joe Webb

• Replies: @map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

Stebbing Heuer says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 11:36 pm GMT

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else.

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm GMT

@Realist "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

• Replies: @Realist Great observations. Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art , December 30, 2016 at 1:06 am GMT • 100 Words @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really – how pissed off can they be?

Peace - Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

• Replies: @RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

Svigor , December 30, 2016 at 2:20 am GMT • 100 Words

Looks like I spoke too soon:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek inside the Democrat machine.

Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand!

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

@Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

• Replies: @Art
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
anon , December 30, 2016 at 6:33 am GMT

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .

• Replies: @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC


Realist , December 30, 2016 at 8:17 am GMT

@annamaria The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html

"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ... the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."

Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

Great observations. Thanks.

map , December 30, 2016 at 9:16 am GMT

@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb

The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

• Replies: @Tomster "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them. , @joe webb good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.

Joe Webb

Seamus Padraig says: • December 30, 2016 at 2:05 pm GMT

@anon https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

• Replies: @geokat62
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ , @alexander Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years...

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back.....four times...

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?

Skeptikal , December 30, 2016 at 2:38 pm GMT • 100 Words

"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. "

The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."

A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist. A black mark on both countries' report cards.

geokat62 , December 30, 2016 at 2:52 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm GMT

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by?

The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:32 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

Art , December 30, 2016 at 4:49 pm GMT

@RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:14 pm GMT @alexander

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow. What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:16 pm GMT

@map

The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.

alexander , December 30, 2016 at 5:28 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back ..four times

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy" .

But hey, that's life in the USA .Right, Seamus ?

joe webb , December 30, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
Joe Webb

Realist , December 30, 2016 at 6:57 pm GMT • 100 Words

Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.

January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.

lavoisier says: • December 31, 2016 at 1:38 am GMT • 100 Words

@joe webb

Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.

I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.

[Jul 25, 2017] Dont underestimate how personally piqued McCain is over President Obama, taking McCains turn, when it comes time for a vote. McCain is a nasty man

Notable quotes:
"... One of my neighbors has this to say about McCain: "I worked for American Continental. So I know what kind of a crook he is!" Said neighbor is also of the "McCain was a traitor while in North Vietnamese custody!" school. ..."
"... As to your neighbor's opinion of McCain as a collaborator, this post from Ron Unz of the Unz Review is rather eye-opening . ..."
"... McCain comes back from getting health care to help make sure others don't get health care. That's nice. ..."
"... One would have though McCain's incessant pounding on the war drums would have been enough to turn people off. I can't understand how he is so eager to send people off to repeat what happened to him. ..."
"... It probably doesn't matter whether Arizonans notice or not. McCain isn't up for reelection until 2022, so even if he survives longer than the average person with his type of cancer, in 2022 he'll still probably be dead or too weak to campaign for another term. ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

NotTimothyGeithner , July 25, 2017 at 2:31 pm

Don't underestimate how personally piqued McCain is over President Obama, taking McCain's turn, when it comes time for a vote. McCain is a nasty man. Now that Herr Trump beat Hillary, even McCain might have done it.

Pat , July 25, 2017 at 5:11 pm

Which only proves that McCain truly is an idiot, or doesn't expect to live for another two or so years. Having a signature 'achievement' fail outright to be far more embarrassing than repealing it and having your version of healthcare, whatever it is, fail as badly or worse than ACA would, Especially since delusional folk will still think we would be in the best shape ever if only the big bad Republicans hadn't repealed Barack Obama's health reform plan. There is no such glittery unicorn if ACA continues and dies of its own weight.

(I should note that for those us not under the media induced delusion of McCain as mavericky upstanding moral leader McCain being a vindicative idiot is very old news.)

Arizona Slim , July 25, 2017 at 6:19 pm

One of my neighbors has this to say about McCain: "I worked for American Continental. So I know what kind of a crook he is!" Said neighbor is also of the "McCain was a traitor while in North Vietnamese custody!" school.

JerseyJeffersonian , July 25, 2017 at 6:51 pm

As to your neighbor's opinion of McCain as a collaborator, this post from Ron Unz of the Unz Review is rather eye-opening .

Worthy of a read, particularly for the links to researchers' posts on the matter.

JohnnyGL , July 25, 2017 at 3:09 pm

McCain comes back from getting health care to help make sure others don't get health care. That's nice.

Tim , July 25, 2017 at 3:21 pm

I noticed that irony too, I don't see how anybody in the public would NOT notice that irony, since it is a well known fact that congress gets their own health care guaranteed.

Roger Smith , July 25, 2017 at 3:40 pm

Maybe if they have brain cancer they wouldn't notice . oh.

One would have though McCain's incessant pounding on the war drums would have been enough to turn people off. I can't understand how he is so eager to send people off to repeat what happened to him.

Vatch , July 25, 2017 at 5:33 pm

It probably doesn't matter whether Arizonans notice or not. McCain isn't up for reelection until 2022, so even if he survives longer than the average person with his type of cancer, in 2022 he'll still probably be dead or too weak to campaign for another term.

Arizona Slim , July 25, 2017 at 6:22 pm

And he keeps getting weak opponents on the D side of the ballot. In 2016, it was Ann Kirkpatrick. To this day, I can't figure out why she was so compelling to the Arizona Democratic Party establishment. Oh, in 2010, you're gonna love this: Rodney Glassman. Guy didn't even complete a single term on the Tucson City Council, but he thinks he can go up against one of the best-known names in American politics. Epic fail.

[Jul 25, 2017] McCain very clearly demonstrated who he is and who he actually works for when he chose Tundra Trash as his running mate.

Jul 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

RUKidding , July 25, 2017 at 3:27 pm

But but but it makes Trump supporters so very happy, whether they are losing their health care or not.
McCain very clearly demonstrated who he is and who he actually works for when he chose Tundra Trash as his running mate.
The end.

WobblyTelomeres , July 25, 2017 at 3:40 pm

McCain very clearly demonstrated who he is and who he actually works for when he chose Tundra Trash as his running mate.

You give him too much credit (for thinking, conspiring, planning). I'm convinced he was taking orders from his johnson when he picked her.

NDP , July 25, 2017 at 5:29 pm

Actually I think he was taking orders from Rich Lowry's johnson.

https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/10/palins-little-starbursts/210760/

WobblyTelomeres , July 25, 2017 at 6:38 pm

LOL. Had forgotten that.

polecat , July 25, 2017 at 5:11 pm

What would one expect from the 'Br-ainus' ?? . or ANYONE in the Senate OR the House I mean, THEY GOT THEIRS' right ?!!

I hate them all. A virus has more compassion than any of these creeps --

Edward E , July 25, 2017 at 7:03 pm

Unfortunately they have plenty enough tin foil to wrap any food they bring home from this luncheon so it shouldn't spoil.

[Jul 25, 2017] July 25, 2017 at 2:31 pm

Jul 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Don't underestimate how personally piqued McCain is over President Obama, taking McCain's turn, when it comes time for a vote. McCain is a nasty man. Now that Herr Trump beat Hillary, even McCain might have done it.

Reply

Pat , July 25, 2017 at 5:11 pm

Which only proves that McCain truly is an idiot, or doesn't expect to live for another two or so years. Having a signature 'achievement' fail outright to be far more embarrassing than repealing it and having your version of healthcare, whatever it is, fail as badly or worse than ACA would, Especially since delusional folk will still think we would be in the best shape ever if only the big bad Republicans hadn't repealed Barack Obama's health reform plan. There is no such glittery unicorn if ACA continues and dies of its own weight.

(I should note that for those us not under the media induced delusion of McCain as mavericky upstanding moral leader McCain being a vindicative idiot is very old news.)

Arizona Slim , July 25, 2017 at 6:19 pm

One of my neighbors has this to say about McCain:

"I worked for American Continental. So I know what kind of a crook he is!"

Said neighbor is also of the "McCain was a traitor while in North Vietnamese custody!" school.

JerseyJeffersonian , July 25, 2017 at 6:51 pm

As to your neighbor's opinion of McCain as a collaborator, this post from Ron Unz of the Unz Review is rather eye-opening .

Worthy of a read, particularly for the links to researchers' posts on the matter.

JohnnyGL , July 25, 2017 at 3:09 pm

McCain comes back from getting health care to help make sure others don't get health care. That's nice.

Tim , July 25, 2017 at 3:21 pm

I noticed that irony too, I don't see how anybody in the public would NOT notice that irony, since it is a well known fact that congress gets their own health care guaranteed.

Roger Smith , July 25, 2017 at 3:40 pm

Maybe if they have brain cancer they wouldn't notice . oh.

One would have though McCain's incessant pounding on the war drums would have been enough to turn people off. I can't understand how he is so eager to send people off to repeat what happened to him.

Vatch , July 25, 2017 at 5:33 pm

It probably doesn't matter whether Arizonans notice or not. McCain isn't up for reelection until 2022, so even if he survives longer than the average person with his type of cancer, in 2022 he'll still probably be dead or too weak to campaign for another term.

Arizona Slim , July 25, 2017 at 6:22 pm

And he keeps getting weak opponents on the D side of the ballot.

In 2016, it was Ann Kirkpatrick. To this day, I can't figure out why she was so compelling to the Arizona Democratic Party establishment.

Oh, in 2010, you're gonna love this: Rodney Glassman. Guy didn't even complete a single term on the Tucson City Council, but he thinks he can go up against one of the best-known names in American politics. Epic fail.

[Jul 25, 2017] CNN Tillerson May Resign

Jul 25, 2017 | armedia.am

The US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is expressing growing frustration with the Trump administration and may be considering resigning from his role, the Hill reports citing to CNN reports.

Though the former CEO of ExxonMobil Corp. has said that he would stay on as the top U.S. diplomat until the end of the year at least, several anonymous sources told CNN over the weekend that he might leave earlier than that.

Sources "familiar with Tillerson conversations with friends outside Washington" admit the secretary of State may just be venting, but they sense his doubts about President Trump are growing.

[Jul 25, 2017] That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain, lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand.

Notable quotes:
"... McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades. ..."
"... I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election' becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection. ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

Che Guava , June 2, 2017 at 8:19 pm GMT

That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain, lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand. McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades.

I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election' becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection.

All of that also showed that he can't be serious about his more interesting campaign lines.

[Jul 25, 2017] John McCain: Homo Americanus

John McCain waked on Trump ouster more then any other Republican senator. Despite the fact that Trump campaigned for his reelection. He might be the the one who ordered British dossier on Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain has never labored his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay, whose increase he opposes. ..."
"... McCain became a a warmongering neocon, always anxious to bomb everyone and start WW III. ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer > , • Website July 25, 2017 at 4:31 am GMT

We cannot allow this great website to be stained with a tribute to one of the worst Americans in our history. Allow me to disparage Mr. McCain (again), with facts. By several accounts ("The Nightingale's Song", for example) he only got into the Naval Academy for a free college degree because Dad and GrandDad were Admirals, and should have been kicked out several times if not for that too. He was a lousy pilot who got into trouble often and crashed two aircraft because of neglect. He was shot down on his 23rd mission over Vietnam, and getting captured is not heroic.

What happened over there is difficult to pin down, but upon returning from POW status, he passed a physical and regained flight status as a pilot. Yet after he finished 20 years of service that allowed generous retirement pay, he obtained a 100% VA disability rating allowing him to collect some $36,000 a year, tax free too! The LA Times mentioned this when McCain was insisting he was fit to serve as commander in Chief. He now hauls in over $240,000 a year from the Feds for military retirement, 100% VA disability, social security retirement, while all the while working full-time in the US Senate. So is he retired, or disabled, or gainfully employed? He is all three! This is textbook case of abuse and why or system needs reform to protect workers against rich welfare kings like McCain.

McCain's loyal wife was disabled in a serious auto accident while he was a POW. Soon after he returned, McCain dumped her for a wealthy woman 20 years younger. The Reagans were so angry they never spoke to him again. He then married his new babe before he officially got divorced, so there's that bigamy thing.

I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain has never labored his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay, whose increase he opposes.

McCain grew up wealthy and enjoyed free government health care his entire life, yet thinks it's nothing commoners deserve. While running for president and attacking the poor, a rare good reporter asked how many houses he owned. He was unsure, but thought maybe seven.

His Senate career began as he profited off the savings and loan scandal (providing cover for fraudster Keating). McCain became a a warmongering neocon, always anxious to bomb everyone and start WW III. Despite his recent illness , he was quick to denounce Trump when he ended American support for mass terrorism in Syria.

John McCain supported the slaughter of millions of people on Earth, with the loss of thousands of American lives, and a trillion dollars wasted on pointless military adventures. How can any decent person mourn his demise?

[Jul 24, 2017] Bill making it a federal crime to support BDS sends shockwaves through progressive community

Notable quotes:
"... But now, a group of 43 senators -- 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats -- wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison . ..."
"... The bill's co-sponsors include the senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand, and several of the Senate's more liberal members, such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Maria Cantwell of Washington. ..."
"... The likes of Schiff have "high reputations" because they do the bidding of elites in promoting the interventionist and militarist foreign policies that serve the interests of foreign powers and of minority and other lobby groups. So much for the "liberals" as a supposed anti-establishment force. ..."
Jul 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

There is only one story in the news, for followers of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and that is Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Grim's report at the Intercept yesterday on new legislation in the Congress that would criminalize support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).

The bill is such a crude example of overreach by the Israel lobby that it is sure to backfire on its supporters as Greenwald and Grim's report ricochets around the Democratic Party:

But now, a group of 43 senators -- 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats -- wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison .

The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill "was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda , identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year:

The bill's co-sponsors include the senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand, and several of the Senate's more liberal members, such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Maria Cantwell of Washington.

Randal, July 21, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT

Adam Schiff is worthy of special mention, as David Bromwich points out to me. "He is among the scores of obedient Democrats co-sponsoring the bill. Schiff has a high reputation in liberal circles, but he voted for the Iraq war, supported the Saudi intervention in Yemen, said the assassination of Qaddafi was 'an end to the first chapter of another popular revolution,' and approved of Trump's bombing of Syria.

On foreign policy he is a believer in the conventional wisdom of the Cold War and the War on Terror, that's all; but his opinions have taken on an outsize importance since he is now routinely accepted as the party's outstanding authority on Russia. He knows Russia about as well as he knew Iraq and Libya."

The likes of Schiff have "high reputations" because they do the bidding of elites in promoting the interventionist and militarist foreign policies that serve the interests of foreign powers and of minority and other lobby groups. So much for the "liberals" as a supposed anti-establishment force.

hyperbola, July 21, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT

So Gillibrand was bludgeoned into sponsoring anti-American, police-state legislation by the lobby. The rest seem to be the usual suspects – primary loyalty to a foreign country/sect.

Controversy Over Prominent BDS Activist Linda Sarsour Reaches New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/04/26/controversy-over-prominent-bds-activist-linda-sarsour-reaches-new-york-senator-kirsten-gillibrand/

Jewish leaders and pro-Israel activists have expressed concern over a contribution to Time Magazine by New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand that praised Linda Sarsour – a Palestinian-American political activist and vocal advocate for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel.

In a short piece accompanying the magazine's "100 most influential people" list for 2017, Gillibrand paid tribute to "four extraordinary women -- Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour" for organizing the Women's March on Washington, DC on January 21 ..

rec1man, July 22, 2017 at 1:19 am GMT

Here is why BDS wont work, will never work

Israel is rapidly diversifying its trade with India and China, both of which are growing segments of world economy

Narendra Modi of the BJP supports Israel screwing the Palestinians due to shared enemy of islam.
When he visited Israel last month, he didnt even visit Palestinian Authority and instead visited Holocaust museum

41% of Israeli defense exports go to India

The only people interested in BDS are muslims and leftist liberals ; as Muslim immigrants do more terrorism and no-go areas and mass rapes in Eurabia, there is less and less public support for BDS bcos the public supports anyone who hits back at islam

lavoisier, Website July 22, 2017 at 11:27 am GMT

The most disturbing aspect of this story is the fact that so many of our elected representatives are willing to pass a law that is clearly a violation of all that this nation supposedly treasures -- free speech and freedom of conscience. I know, I know that the Zionists are behind this mischief. But my God our leaders are traitorous scum!

What has happened to our nation?

I hope that all the blue pilled Americans realize the depth of depravity necessary for our so called leaders to craft such legislation and to support it.

Perhaps they might wake up and realize that America–the land of the free and home of the brave–is long gone. Then they might do something to try and get it back.

Seamus Padraig, July 24, 2017 at 12:30 am GMT

@rec1man

Shalom, Bibi.

exiled off mainstreet > , July 24, 2017 at 5:19 am GMT

I recall a comedy film from the 1980s with Robin Williams on a Caribbean island describing the constitution there as being "written in pencil". That now seems to apply to the USA. How could such an obvious breach of the First Amendment even be considered? It seems that a sort of primary loyalty to a foreign country has metastasized to the point that free speech itself is under threat. Once a law like this is enacted, the final shreds of legitimacy of the yankee state which, after all, claims its legitimacy by following constitutional legal forms, will have vanished.

I should add that the same people demanding this law, which is at the behest of provable foreign interests, are many of the same ones propagating the phony propaganda anti-Russian conspiracy theory. Real treason and sedition seem to be the order of the day to these people.

[Jul 23, 2017] MoA - Murder, Spies And Weapons - Three Fascinating 'Deep State' Stories

Notable quotes:
"... Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo ..."
"... A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel... ..."
"... there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier. ..."
"... Document hack could imperil subs in Oz, India, other countries ..."
"... The Trump-Russia Dossier (by political treason stabbing the nominee of his own Party; ignoring the words of Reagan) ..."
"... the first part of your post reaffirms my comment in the previous thread about the usa, saudi arabia/gccs and israel being the terrorists that the world would be a lot better place without... " ..."
"... in an exceptional country, there is no accountability... according to obama, you have to move on and not dwell on the past, lol... ..."
"... the mountain of evidence you provide daily, as proof of the corporate empire's malignancy, is therapeutic and empowering, but, until this information reaches the bulk of the U$A's masses we're all just treading water here. ..."
"... The last thing McCain has to worry about is prosecution or even criticism for fomenting war crimes. ..."
"... "The team has carried out painstaking research cataloging serial numbers and tracing the routes. They found crates of ammunition and rockets manufactured in factories in eastern Europe. These were bought by the governments of the US and Saudi Arabia." ..."
"... A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel... ..."
"... I suspected during the Prez Campaign that Trump had McCain well and truly scoped when he said (of Satan's Mini-Me) "I like my war "heroes" not to get captured." ..."
"... This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more, but they go to all the summits, prattle about Our AmeriKKKan Friends, and then presumably laugh their asses off when the summit is over. Xi & Putin seem to truly believe that the blowback from all this Yankee Duplicity will eventually do as much harm to the American Dream as an Ru/Cn Military Solution. ..."
"... Criminal activity under diplomatic cover should be prosecuted. They can pretend they didn't find out until it was too late. Or they can claim that they were letting it happen in order to track the players. Those excuses have been used for all kinds of cover for nefarious activites like Pakistan's AQ Khan NukeMart to distribute nuclear technology and materials. (See Deception and United States and the Islamc Bomb books) And there's Fast & Furious. In the end the cover comes from the political top of the trash heap. ..."
"... Sounds familiar? Iranian industrialization and westernization happened during the Shah. That is part of above story. Same story in Saudi Arabia . ..."
"... My suspicion is that this "reversal" was also made in the USA as a consequence of the strategy to use Islam as a "green belt" against the Soviet Union. ..."
Jul 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Murder, Spies And Weapons - Three Fascinating 'Deep State' Stories

350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for terrorists - Trud

Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo

With lots of details from obtained emails.

Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also came first from Libya by ship, then on at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years by various ships under U.S. contracts from mostly east-European countries.

---

With all the Trump-Russia nonsense flowing around one person's involvement in the creation of the issue deserves more scrutiny:

McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier: What Did He Know, and When? - Reason

A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel...

---

Another Scorpene Submarine Scandal - Asia Sentinel (a bit older but it was new to me)

Document hack could imperil subs in Oz, India, other countries

Musburger | Jul 21, 2017 12:41:30 PM | 1

The first story is a muti-billion dollar illegal business network that potentially encompasses not only the CIA, but also several governments, the Clinton Foundation, David Patreus, investors (many of whom hold government positions) and God knows what else. It's possibly the greatest scam the world has ever seen.
ProPeace | Jul 21, 2017 12:48:44 PM | 3
It would be nice to have a comprehensive list of sponsors of those fake lucrative speeches such front persons and puppets as Clintons, Saakashvili, Kwaśniewski, ... have been giving. The Business Round Tables that Quigley and Sutton wrote about that live off wars and misery.
Petri Krohn | Jul 21, 2017 12:55:55 PM | 4
There is an amazing amount of detailed information from reliable sources on the U.S. sponsored, Saudi paid arms deliveries to terrorist in Syria, originating from the eastern parts of the European Union. I have collected some of the best sources here:

US covert war on Syria -> Weapon deliveries

likklemore | Jul 21, 2017 12:56:46 PM | 5
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier The third time is the Charm.I am reminded McCain can do no wrong: His service to his country (it's alleged, by aiding the enemy); The Keating Five; (I dindu nuttin wrong)

The Trump-Russia Dossier (by political treason stabbing the nominee of his own Party; ignoring the words of Reagan). McCain, once again, will be excused and forgiven. His actions were due to illness – the most aggressive cancer of the brain. How is that so?

james | Jul 21, 2017 12:58:42 PM | 6
thanks b.. the first part of your post reaffirms my comment in the previous thread about the usa, saudi arabia/gccs and israel being the terrorists that the world would be a lot better place without... "the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well as with Saudi and Israeli companies.."
terry | Jul 21, 2017 1:00:09 PM | 7
Here is a link to The Dilyana Files – 1403 Email Attachments Posted https://www.truthleaks.org/news/343-the-dilyana-files-1403-email-attachments-posted
james | Jul 21, 2017 1:00:13 PM | 8
@5 likklemore ... in an exceptional country, there is no accountability... according to obama, you have to move on and not dwell on the past, lol...
ben | Jul 21, 2017 1:07:44 PM | 9
Thanks b, the mountain of evidence you provide daily, as proof of the corporate empire's malignancy, is therapeutic and empowering, but, until this information reaches the bulk of the U$A's masses we're all just treading water here.
WorldBLee | Jul 21, 2017 1:11:43 PM | 10
@2: The last thing McCain has to worry about is prosecution or even criticism for fomenting war crimes. The cancer is real and he will be lauded for his courage and lionized if he dies. But should he survive he will carry on as usual with no apologies and no criticism.
nonsense factory | Jul 21, 2017 1:54:32 PM | 11
BBC News has a great little expose on tracking ISIS weapons captured in Mosul to their sources in Eastern Europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8bwCj3lfsg
"The team has carried out painstaking research cataloging serial numbers and tracing the routes. They found crates of ammunition and rockets manufactured in factories in eastern Europe. These were bought by the governments of the US and Saudi Arabia."
Whether or not the arming and financing of ISIS groups was "accidental" or "deliberate" remains something of an open question; most likely the actual US policy from c.2011-2012 onwards was to give support to anyone trying to overthrow Assad's government regardless of affiliation. The architects of this plan? Clinton & McCain seem to be right at the center of it, with plenty of neocon/neolib supporters in Congress & the State Department/CIA/Pentagon (Nuland/Morrell/Carter etc.)
Oui | Jul 21, 2017 2:29:43 PM | 12
Sorry b .... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6 and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort to dump Trump.
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier: What Did He Know, and When? - Reason

A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel...

  • there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier.
  • there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media.
  • the issue is now in front of a British court.

Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin years of the 90s.

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 21, 2017 3:02:30 PM | 13
Thanks, b. Love the lede...
350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for ter'rists - Trud

What a slimy little cur John McCain (Satan's Mini-Me) turns out to be. Guess how surprised I'm not that the little skunk is up to his eyeballs in weapons proliferation & profiteering, not to mention that old Yankee favourite Gun-barrel "Diplomacy".

I suspected during the Prez Campaign that Trump had McCain well and truly scoped when he said (of Satan's Mini-Me) "I like my war "heroes" not to get captured."

This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more, but they go to all the summits, prattle about Our AmeriKKKan Friends, and then presumably laugh their asses off when the summit is over. Xi & Putin seem to truly believe that the blowback from all this Yankee Duplicity will eventually do as much harm to the American Dream as an Ru/Cn Military Solution.

psychohistorian | Jul 21, 2017 3:12:19 PM | 14
Thanks again for the excellent journalism b even though it reads like the trash on the rags in the grocery stores they make you look at while you check out.

I just hold out hope that the great unraveling continues and quickens its pace.

Curtis | Jul 21, 2017 3:32:48 PM | 15
Criminal activity under diplomatic cover should be prosecuted. They can pretend they didn't find out until it was too late. Or they can claim that they were letting it happen in order to track the players. Those excuses have been used for all kinds of cover for nefarious activites like Pakistan's AQ Khan NukeMart to distribute nuclear technology and materials. (See Deception and United States and the Islamc Bomb books) And there's Fast & Furious. In the end the cover comes from the political top of the trash heap.

The Dem/anti-Trump attempts to get dirt on Trump via Russians doesn't get play in the MSM. Nor does the content of the emails. They call the tune and the media plays on.

Curtis | Jul 21, 2017 3:38:37 PM | 16
nonsense factory 11

Thnx for the vid link. That evidence won't get to US MSM either. It makes the case for Tulsi Gabbard's efforts.

likklemore | Jul 21, 2017 4:52:05 PM | 18
@james 8
[Reported by Independent.co.uk, New York Post and the Guardian.co.uk] McCain admitted he handed the dossier to Comey."

NYPost: McCain "I gave Russia blackmail dossier on Trump to the FBI"

Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself

New York Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/11/john-mccain-i-gave-russia-blackmail-dossier-on-trump-to-fbi/

Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

Yes, there will be no accountability in the U.S. for the exceptional ones. However, the British courts setting aside "special relationships" may take a different view that McCain has a case to answer.

@kpax 17

Did I mis-read? McCain's cerebral?

Piotr Berman | Jul 21, 2017 5:46:21 PM | 19
The link suggests that the subs involved in the scandal are perhaps OK, and no hack compromised their worthiness in a possible military conflict. Neither there were any fatal accidents. The only losses in manpower (but quite a few) are among people engaged in the financial transactions that delivered them to various fleets.

Although there are possible danger to security, because bribery is used to blackmail involved in recruitment of spies.

Fidelios Automata | Jul 21, 2017 6:03:00 PM | 20
I hope the conspiracy theories are wrong, and that McInsane will soon suffer a well-deserved painful death.
BTW, I'm a long-time Arizonan, and I'm proud to say I've never voted for this traitor and have also signed the recall petitions against him.
radiator | Jul 21, 2017 6:16:53 PM | 21
I apologize for never contributing anything substantial but just emanating verbal support.
I hope this site has some mirrored archives. This is in its entirety a work of contemporary history (sorry my english's not good enough... mirror this site and give it some dumb ancestor of ours to read in 20, 50, 100 years, y'know).
I'm a broke lowlife but next time around I'll send some money.
radiator | Jul 21, 2017 6:19:21 PM | 22
damn I regret every cent I've spent on mainstream newspapers, although the last time I've done so has been years ago and maybe back then, they weren't so bad, but then again, they probably were and I just didn't notice.
Anonymous | Jul 21, 2017 7:01:32 PM | 23
The dog that didn't bark in the arms shipment story is the absense of Qatar in the list of recipient countries. It also seems that, whilst most (80%) were shipped through SA/UAE, more arms were shipped through Jordan (11%) than through Turkey (7%).

Bulgaria may also have been the location of military level training sites for foreigners. An intriguing report from June 2015 noted that an American was killed along with 2 foreigners (German and Canadian) in a grenade launcher accident of a PMC training center at Anevo, Bulgaria. The site was run by an company Algans (or Alguns).

http://sofiaglobe.com/2015/06/06/american-dies-four-injured-in-blast-at-bulgarias-vmz-sopot-ordnance-plant/

There are links to the infamous US military $500 million training program in which an unknown number of 'carefully vetted moderate rebels' were trained and all but 5 of them 'defected' to al Qaeda.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/aramroston/mobbed-up-arms-dealer-in-american-anti-isis-effort-linked-to

Anonymous | Jul 21, 2017 7:14:05 PM | 24
"This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more" Hoarsewhisperer @13

The docs indicate the Balkans arm supply route took off in 2012. It will have brought in many billions of USD to the relatively poor east European countries. Before the Gulenist(?) shoot down of the Russian Su-24, Russia had been trying to get Turkey and Bulgaria interested in South Stream. I suspect Russia did indeed know the details of the arms shipment, and certainly knew about Turkey's cut of the ISIS oil sales. I suspect this deal may have been an attempt to wean the two off the terrorism funding spigot. This failed as the Bulgarian government is totally owned by the US. Erdogan's ego was manipulated by his Zionist handlers and eventually his stalling killed interest at theat time. The Russians would know this background too, but the deal had to be tried. If it had worked, then the Bulgarian arms train would possibly have been stopped and the Turkish border closed several years ago. This would have greatly cramped the capabilities of ISIS, simplifying the task of eliminating them. I suspect the Russians also knew it wouldn't pan out but it was certainly worth a shot whilst they was busily obtaining intelligence on the terrorists, and secretly negotiating the logistics, overflight access etc for what was to become its base at Hymeim.

somebody | Jul 21, 2017 7:15:18 PM | 25
23 also

Russia Hopes to Sign Agreement on Arms Re-Export From Bulgaria

The statement was followed by a publication of the Bulgarian Trud newspaper that mentioned the Arcus arms company as the producer of some arms produced in Bulgaria under Russian licenses, which were found by journalists in eastern Aleppo.
nobody | Jul 21, 2017 7:49:29 PM | 27
BBC News has a great little expose

Posted by: nonsense factory | Jul 21, 2017 1:54:32 PM | 11

Tillerson. Exxon. Petrodollar. Rockefellers.

BBC. MI6. BIS. Rothschilds.

https://youtu.be/Hgq4w4dqKsU

That's a good question.

nobody | Jul 21, 2017 8:07:41 PM | 28
Master: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/david-rockefeller.jpg

Blaster: https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/walkingdead/images/0/0c/Armedforces.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131116201742

Barter-Town: http://images.legalweek.com/images/IMG/277/144277/city-of-london-gherkin-finance.jpg

Mad-Max:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Vladimir_Putin_in_KGB_uniform.jpg/170px-Vladimir_Putin_in_KGB_uniform.jpg

http://madmaxmovies.com/mad-max/mad-max-cars/max-yellow-xb-interceptor-sedan/max-leaps-out-of-yellow-xb.jpg

fast freddy | Jul 21, 2017 8:20:34 PM | 29
Craven McCain has been teflon for his entire political career and he was teflon when he wrecked airplanes in the navy. McCain is just a teflon guy. Untouchable. Probably has "dossiers" on anybody that can damage him.
nobody | Jul 21, 2017 8:34:56 PM | 30

Sure, it's tempting to think this:

But we do know that Islamic Republic is a creature of the British. (Longstanding history between the worldly priests of Iran and the defunct British Empire. Read up.)

nobody | Jul 21, 2017 10:26:39 PM | 33
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-01-13/AP/Trump_Defense_Secretary_75769.jpg-2f26d.jpg&w=480 ">https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-01-13/AP/Trump_Defense_Secretary_75769.jpg-2f26d.jpg&w=480">https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-01-13/AP/Trump_Defense_Secretary_75769.jpg-2f26d.jpg&w=480

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FEHE4E_I5FM/hqdefault.jpg

Trully, who but the ignorant make war against ALLAH?

ProPeace | Jul 22, 2017 1:06:13 AM | 35
They throw a hissy fit Neocon madness: We can't have peace in Syria, that would be giving in to Russia!

This is huge. An absolute outrage. The first real Trump concession to Putin that undermines U.S. security directly. https://t.co/h9WR4brHHK -- Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) July 19, 2017
Yeah, Right | Jul 22, 2017 6:40:44 AM | 45
@2 I have no doubt that McCain's medical condition is real. I well remember the news stories in early June when McCain put up a bizarre performance during testimony by James Comey - asking questions that simply didn't make any sense whatsoever and leaving everyone utterly gob-smacked regarding McCain's mental state.

So, yeah, brain tumour.

ghostship | Jul 23, 2017 6:03:50 AM | 62

OMG. the Washington Borg's house newspaper has woken up to Trump's surrender to Putin on Syria.
Trump's breathtaking surrender to Russia

But once again, President Trump, after extended personal contact with Vladimir Putin and the complete surrender to Russian interests in Syria, acts precisely as though he has been bought and sold by a strategic rival. The ignoble cutoff of aid to American proxies means that "Putin won in Syria," as an administration official was quoted by The Post.

Concessions without reciprocation, made against the better judgment of foreign policy advisers, smack more of payoff than outreach. If this is what Trump's version of "winning" looks like, what might further victory entail? The re- creation of the Warsaw Pact? The reversion of Alaska to Russian control?

Although this opinion article was posted a couple of days ago, there been no shitstorm near Trump about it since suggesting that Trump's one-man distraction/disinformation smokescreen is firing successfully on all cylinders.

Meanwhile, some in the US Army at least understand that once the battle to liquidate the ISIS Caliphate is other, they'll have problems remaining in Syria .

'We're bad day away from Russians asking, 'Why are you still in Syria?' – top US commander

A US special operations commander has admitted that an extended US stay in Syria runs contrary to international law and that Russia would be entirely justified in questioning its presence there.

At the Aspen Security Forum on Friday, Special Operations Command chief Army General, Raymond Thomas was asked whether American forces will remain in Syria, after Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) is defeated, possibly, to support the Kurdish forces in the north of the country.

Thomas acknowledged that American forces are fighting in a sovereign Syria, where they will likely "have no ability to stay" if that presence is questioned "in terms of international law," Thomas said, replying to the Washington Post journalist's question.


Although I'm sure that the State Department/Pentagon lawyers are looking for a reason to stay.
somebody | Jul 23, 2017 6:40:48 AM | 63
Posted by: nobody | Jul 22, 2017 11:08:41 PM | 61

Yep. Made in the USA .

By the time of Richard Nixon's arrival in office in January 1969, Iran was already America's single-largest arms purchaser. Whilst this is notable in and of itself, it is vastly overshadowed by what followed. By late 1972 Nixon leveraged U.S. Middle Eastern regional policy primarily around the focal point of a militarily strong, pro-American Iran.

Sounds familiar? Iranian industrialization and westernization happened during the Shah. That is part of above story. Same story in Saudi Arabia .

In Saudi Arabia, the 1960s, and especially the 1970s, had been years of explosive development, liberal experimentation, and openness to the West. A reversal of this trend came about abruptly in 1979, the year in which the Grand Mosque in Mecca came under attack by religiously motivated critics of the monarchy, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was established.

My suspicion is that this "reversal" was also made in the USA as a consequence of the strategy to use Islam as a "green belt" against the Soviet Union.

Same "reversal" from Atatόrk happened in Turkey.

[Jul 23, 2017] Dismantling McCains Disastrous Legacy Should Now Be Trumps Top Priority

Notable quotes:
"... Notice how quiet Lindsay Graham has been the last couple of weeks. ..."
"... Don't forget that Diane Feinstein, McCain's Democrat doppleganger is retiring in 2018. Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer are gone. The generation of U.S. legislators that brought us this madness are being put out to pasture. Nancy Pelosi is in trouble as House Minority Leader. ..."
"... The fact is, that Senate rules as they stand with McCain, Graham, Corker and Rubio, require a two-thirds majority (including filibuster-proofing) to get anything fundamentally changed. There's still a lot of work to do, but the worst of the opposition to Trump and the people's desire to roll back our insane foreign policy is behind us, not in front of us. ..."
"... Make no mistake, the neocons will attempt to regroup. Arizona Governor Don Ducey is now the most important person in the U.S. as he will be the one to appoint McCain's replacement when that time comes. They will drag this out for as long as possible, holding McCain's seat open to continue stalling Trump's reform agenda. But both of these moves are rearguard actions rather than part of a counter-attack. ..."
"... like Old Shoe in the movie Wag the Dog, for one last kick at the anti-Russia can to enact legislation there is no coming back from. The hagiography of McCain began the moment the information was released. Everyone virtue-signaling their tails off to look sympathetic. But, the reality is most are scared of what happens next. ..."
"... Once McCain is officially done, appointing people just as bad as McCain to his influential seats on the Armed Forces and Foreign Relations Committee will become the U.S. Deep State's top priority. The problem is, however, that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is now terminally wounded over his mishandling of Obamacare. So, McConnell will have little control over the process. He's looking back at what happened to John Boehner and seeing his future. McConnell tried to salvage his leadership with an Obamacare full repeal vote that failed. The Blame in Ukraine Falls Mainly on McCain. But, for right now, Trump has an opportunity to ignore the full-court Russia-gate press being put on by his opposition to make substantive foreign policy moves that don't involve antagonizing Russia. He can start in Ukraine. It's time for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to open up talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov over Ukraine. Now that Zakharchenko in Donetsk has given everyone a way to implement a real solution to McCain's mess without having to look like they backed down over Minsk II and easing Russian sanctions. ..."
"... Merkel can save face by throwing Poroshenko under the bus and admitting Malorussia is a viable alternative to Minsk. Because with McCain gone, the EU now owns the mess in Ukraine because Trump is not interested in funding it any further. ..."
Jul 23, 2017 | russia-insider.com

McCain's Hate Talk Express to Hell

With him gone the driving force is gone as well. Many who stood with McCain on these issues did so because Washington is the ultimate 'go along to get along' kind of place. And few, if any, in the Senate have his drive to continue the work. Notice how quiet Lindsay Graham has been the last couple of weeks.

Many will see the writing on the wall and kiss the ring of President Trump to avoid a primary challenge in the spring.

And some will see this as a great opportunity to retire now that the status quo has shifted. Don't forget that Diane Feinstein, McCain's Democrat doppleganger is retiring in 2018. Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer are gone. The generation of U.S. legislators that brought us this madness are being put out to pasture. Nancy Pelosi is in trouble as House Minority Leader.

Do you really think many Democrats and RINOs have the will to fight now that their GOP Trojan Horse is on chemo?

The fact is, that Senate rules as they stand with McCain, Graham, Corker and Rubio, require a two-thirds majority (including filibuster-proofing) to get anything fundamentally changed. There's still a lot of work to do, but the worst of the opposition to Trump and the people's desire to roll back our insane foreign policy is behind us, not in front of us.

He's a McCainiac!

Make no mistake, the neocons will attempt to regroup. Arizona Governor Don Ducey is now the most important person in the U.S. as he will be the one to appoint McCain's replacement when that time comes. They will drag this out for as long as possible, holding McCain's seat open to continue stalling Trump's reform agenda. But both of these moves are rearguard actions rather than part of a counter-attack.

My biggest fear is that they drag him out, wheelchair-bound, like Old Shoe in the movie Wag the Dog, for one last kick at the anti-Russia can to enact legislation there is no coming back from. The hagiography of McCain began the moment the information was released. Everyone virtue-signaling their tails off to look sympathetic. But, the reality is most are scared of what happens next.

Once McCain is officially done, appointing people just as bad as McCain to his influential seats on the Armed Forces and Foreign Relations Committee will become the U.S. Deep State's top priority.

The problem is, however, that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is now terminally wounded over his mishandling of Obamacare. So, McConnell will have little control over the process. He's looking back at what happened to John Boehner and seeing his future. McConnell tried to salvage his leadership with an Obamacare full repeal vote that failed.

The Blame in Ukraine Falls Mainly on McCain. But, for right now, Trump has an opportunity to ignore the full-court Russia-gate press being put on by his opposition to make substantive foreign policy moves that don't involve antagonizing Russia.

He can start in Ukraine. It's time for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to open up talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov over Ukraine. Now that Zakharchenko in Donetsk has given everyone a way to implement a real solution to McCain's mess without having to look like they backed down over Minsk II and easing Russian sanctions.

Merkel can save face by throwing Poroshenko under the bus and admitting Malorussia is a viable alternative to Minsk. Because with McCain gone, the EU now owns the mess in Ukraine because Trump is not interested in funding it any further.

That paves the way for what her foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel talked about earlier in the week, ending sanctions gradually and abandoning Minsk II as a pre-requisite for talks.

And that is John McCain's biggest legacy, one where ideology was more important than discussion. He stifled U.S. diplomacy to such a degree in recent years that it pushed us to the brink of war with nuclear-armed superpowers.

[Jul 21, 2017] July 21, 2017 at 7:08 am

Jul 21, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , July 21, 2017 at 7:08 am

Try not to laugh.

Let the manpower deployment figures sink in:

People do see soldiers from enhanced Forward Presence, our British and French allies. They also see the Baltic Air Police Mission airplanes flying over their heads on exercise or scrambling to look at the planes which are violating our airspace -- Kersti Kaljulaid, President of Estonia.

Liar.

et Al , July 21, 2017 at 7:21 am
EFP – Erectile Failure Projection more like. NATO limpness is on open show by their media department.
Moscow Exile , July 21, 2017 at 7:36 am
Facing the NATO death or glory in the name of freedom and democracy boys (and girls, don't forget), the largest contingent of which being 1,000 US personnel, including ice-cream and soda fountain artificers first class, is this:

Western Military District

Western Military District (WEST) was established in September 2010 in accordance with the presidential decree of 20 September 2010 on the basis of two military regions – Moscow and Leningrad. The structure also includes WEST Northern and Baltic Fleets and the 1st Air Force and Air Defence Command

As part of the troops WEST are units and formations totaling over 400 thousand soldiers, representing about 40% of the total population of the Armed Forces. WEST subordinate to the commander of all deployed in the district military formations of species and genera of the RF Armed Forces, with the exception of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Forces Aerospace Defence. In addition, the operational control of its military forces are the Interior Ministry, the FSB Border Troops, as well as part of the MOE and other ministries and departments, performing tasks within the county.

[My stress -- ME]

See: Western Military District

Who does NATO really think it is kidding?

[Jul 20, 2017] Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to MH-17

Jul 20, 2017 | moonofalabama.org

Liam | Jul 19, 2017 9:22:07 PM | 34

Just released and there is nothing else like it - Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to MH-17

https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/07/19/truth-of-ukraine-war-revealed-watchdog-media-institute-releases-definitive-chronological-timeline-video-of-ukrainian-war-from-euromaidan-to-mh-17/

[Jul 20, 2017] It was Nuland-Kagan who brought the treats to Kiev. It was the (former) Director of CIA Brennan who came to Kiev (supposedly in secret) on the eve of the Kiev' military actions against the civilian population of the pro-federalist east Ukraine.

Jul 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

annamaria > , July 19, 2017 at 8:46 pm GMT

@Mr. Hack Why are you going on a childish offensive by defending the US-installed junta in Kiev and demanding others to provide you with evidence that the neo-nazis and Banderites have nothing to do with Yatz and Poroshenko and Nuland-Kagan?
Google "neo-Nazi parades in Ukraine" and enjoy the show. If you still have doubts about the direct responsibility of Poroschenko for the neo-Nazi presence in the government of Ukraine, read about Pravyj sector and its role in the Maidan revolution. Also, Proschenko had been in contact with the State Dept for years before the Maidan revolution. Your take on this?
The main point is the US-orchestrated regime change in Kiev. Or you want to convince the UNZ reader that Nuland was a virtual reality and nothing has changed in Ukraine since Mrs. Nuland-Kagan' and Mr. Brennan's visit to Kiev? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-14/white-house-admits-cia-director-brennan-was-secretly-kiev?page=7
Do you realize that the US has brought a range of US officials to Kiev – including the Director of the CIA – to "improve" a democratic process there by removing a lawfully elected and acting president?
Yes, the US intervention has brought neo-Nazis and Banderites to the positions of influence in Ukraine. What could be more natural than a combination of the name "Kagan" and the word "neo-Nazis?" https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/15/the-kagans-are-back-wars-to-follow/

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31887-the-ukraine-mess-that-nuland-made

annamaria > , July 20, 2017 at 2:46 am GMT

" they served up a lot more than just milk and cookies"
It was Nuland-Kagan who brought the treats to Kiev. It was the (former) Director of CIA Brennan who came to Kiev (supposedly in secret) on the eve of the Kiev' military actions against the civilian population of the pro-federalist east Ukraine. And you want to convince the UNZ readers that the Maidan was organized by Russians? What is the name of your new Prime Minister? – Mr. Groysman? "Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family " How come that the predominantly anti-semitic Ukraine has elected this nonety with the proper ethnic background? – Sure you know how to explain that this is also the Russians' fault. How about the US-enforced appointment of Misha Saakashvilli to the governorship of Ukraine's Odessa? – Kremlin's affair? Ukraine has lost its independence with the regime change in 2014.

"From what I've read " – You mean the presstituting MSM? None of the respectable sources, from consortium.com to Sic Semper Tyrannus ( http://turcopolier.typepad.com ) have ever suggested that the coup d'etat involved – in any capacity – Russian government. Keep in mind that the above-mentioned sources present the analyses of the principled and patriotic Americans who dedicated their lives to the US nationals security. For obvious reasons, they are hated by ziocons.

[Jul 20, 2017] Empire of Destruction: Precision Warfare? Don't Make Me Laugh by Tom Engelhard

Notable quotes:
"... This should be the definition of victory as defeat, success as disaster. It's also a pattern. It's been the essential story of the American war on terror since, in the month after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush loosed American air power on Afghanistan. That first air campaign began what has increasingly come to look like the full-scale rubblization of significant parts of the Greater Middle East. ..."
"... In some ways, much of the rubblization of the Greater Middle East in recent years could be thought of as, however unconsciously, a campaign of vengeance for the horror and insult of the air assaults on that September morning in 2001, which pulverized the tallest towers of my hometown. Ever since, American war has, in a sense, involved paying Osama bin Laden back in kind, but on a staggering scale. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, a shocking but passing moment for Americans has become everyday life for whole populations and innocents have died in numbers that would add up to so many World Trade Centers piled atop each other. ..."
"... In early October 2011, the Bush administration unleashed its air power on Afghanistan, a campaign that, in a sense, would never end but simply spread across the Greater Middle East. (By now, the U.S. has launched repeated air strikes in at least seven countries in the region.) At that moment, someone emailed me an article by Tamim Ansary, an Afghan who had been in the U.S. for years but had continued to follow events in his country of birth. ..."
"... His piece, which appeared at the website Counterpunch ..."
"... In this country, there is essentially no sense of responsibility for the spread of terrorism, the crumbling of states, the destruction of lives and livelihoods, the tidal flow of refugees , and the rubblization of some of the planet's great cities. There's no reasonable assessment of the true nature and effects of American warfare abroad: its imprecision, its idiocy, its destructiveness. In this peaceful land, it's hard to imagine the true impact of the imprecision of war, American-style. Given the way things are going, it's easy enough, however, to imagine the scenario of Tamim Ansari writ large in the Trump years and those to follow: Americans continuing to bomb the rubble they had such a hand in creating across the Greater Middle East. ..."
"... Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the ..."
"... American Empire Project ..."
"... and the author of ..."
"... as well as a history of the Cold War, ..."
"... . He is a fellow of the ..."
"... Nation Institute ..."
"... . His latest book is ..."
Jul 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

You remember. It was supposed to be twenty-first-century war, American-style: precise beyond imagining; smart bombs; drones capable of taking out a carefully identified and tracked human being just about anywhere on Earth; special operations raids so pinpoint-accurate that they would represent a triumph of modern military science. Everything "networked." It was to be a glorious dream of limited destruction combined with unlimited power and success. In reality, it would prove to be a nightmare of the first order.

If you want a single word to summarize American war-making in this last decade and a half, I would suggest rubble. It's been a painfully apt term since September 11, 2001. In addition, to catch the essence of such war in this century, two new words might be useful: rubblize and rubblization. Let me explain what I mean.

In recent weeks, another major city in Iraq has officially been " liberated " ( almost ) from the militants of the Islamic State. However, the results of the U.S.-backed Iraqi military campaign to retake Mosul, that country's second largest city, don't fit any ordinary definition of triumph or victory. It began in October 2016 and, at nine months and counting, has been longer than the World War II battle of Stalingrad. Week after week, in street to street fighting, with U.S. airstrikes repeatedly called in on neighborhoods still filled with terrified Mosulites, unknown but potentially staggering numbers of civilians have died. More than a million people , yes, you read that figure correctly , were uprooted from their homes and major portions of the Western half of the city they fled, including its ancient historic sections, have been turned into rubble .

This should be the definition of victory as defeat, success as disaster. It's also a pattern. It's been the essential story of the American war on terror since, in the month after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush loosed American air power on Afghanistan. That first air campaign began what has increasingly come to look like the full-scale rubblization of significant parts of the Greater Middle East.

By not simply going after the crew who committed those attacks but deciding to take down the Taliban, occupy Afghanistan, and in 2003, invade Iraq, Bush's administration opened the proverbial can of worms in that vast region. An imperial urge to overthrow Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein, who had once been Washington's guy in the Middle East only to become its mortal enemy (and who had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11), proved one of the fatal miscalculations of the imperial era.

So, too, did the deeply engrained fantasy of Bush administration officials that they controlled a high-tech, precision military that could project power in ways no other nation on the planet or in history ever had; a military that would be, in the president's words , "the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known." With Iraq occupied and garrisoned ( Korea-style ) for generations to come, his top officials assumed that they would take down fundamentalist Iran (sound familiar?) and other hostile regimes in the region, creating a Pax Americana there. (Hence, the particular irony of the present Iranian ascendancy in Iraq.) In the pursuit of such fantasies of global power, the Bush administration, in effect, punched a devastating hole in the oil heartlands of the Middle East. In the pungent imagery of Abu Mussa, head of the Arab League at the time, the U.S. chose to drive straight through "the gates of hell."

Rubblizing the Greater Middle East

In the 15-plus years since 9/11, parts of an expanding swathe of the planet , from Pakistan's borderlands in South Asia to Libya in North Africa , were catastrophically unsettled. Tiny groups of Islamic terrorists multiplied exponentially into both local and transnational organizations, spreading across the region with the help of American "precision" warfare and the anger it stirred among helpless civilian populations. States began to totter or fail . Countries essentially collapsed, loosing a tide of refugees on the world, as year after year, the U.S. military, its Special Operations forces , and the CIA were increasingly deployed in one fashion or another in one country after another.

Though in case after case the results were visibly disastrous, like so many addicts, the three post-9/11 administrations in Washington seemed incapable of drawing the obvious conclusions and instead continued to do more of the same (with modest adjustments of one sort of another). The results, unsurprisingly enough, were similarly disappointing or disastrous.

Despite the doubts about such a form of global warfare that candidate Trump raised during the 2016 election campaign, the process has only escalated in the first months of his presidency. Washington, it seems, just can't help itself in its drive to pursue this version of war in all its grim imprecision to its increasingly imprecise but predictably destructive conclusions. Worse yet, if the leading military and political figures in Washington have their way, none of this may end in our lifetime. (In recent years, for example, the Pentagon and those who channel its thoughts have begun speaking of a " generational approach " or a " generational struggle " in Afghanistan.)

If anything, so many years after it was launched, the war on terror shows every sign of continuing to expand and rubble is increasingly the name of the game. Here's a very partial tally sheet on the subject:

In addition to Mosul, a number of Iraq's other major cities and towns , including Ramadi and Fallujah , have also been reduced to rubble. Across the border in Syria, where a brutal civil war has been raging for six years, numerous cities and towns from Homs to parts of Aleppo have essentially been destroyed. Raqqa, the "capital" of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, is now under siege. (American Special Operations forces are already reportedly active inside its breached walls, working with allied Kurdish and Syrian rebel forces.) It, too, will be "liberated" sooner or later , that is to say, destroyed.

As in Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi, American planes have been striking ISIS positions in the urban heart of Raqqa and killing civilians , evidently in sizeable numbers, while rubblizing parts of the city. And such activities have in recent years only been spreading. In distant Libya, for instance, the city of Sirte is in ruins after a similar struggle involving local forces, American air power, and ISIS militants. In Yemen, for the last two years the Saudis have been conducting a never-ending air campaign (with American support ), significantly aimed at the civilian population; they have, that is, been rubblizing that country, while paving the way for a devastating famine and a horrific cholera epidemic that can't be checked, given the condition of that impoverished, embattled land.

Only recently, this sort of destruction has spread for the first time beyond the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa. In late May, on the island of Mindanao in the southern Philippines, local Muslim rebels identified with ISIS took Marawi City. Since they moved in, much of its population of 200,000 has been displaced and almost two months later they still hold parts of the city, while engaged in Mosul-style urban warfare with the Filipino military ( backed by U.S. Special Operations advisers). In the process, the area has reportedly suffered Mosul-style rubblization.

In most of these rubblized cities and the regions around them, even when "victory" is declared, worse yet is in sight. In Iraq, for instance, with the "caliphate" of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi now being dismantled, ISIS remains a genuinely threatening guerilla force, the Sunni and Shiite communities (including armed Shiite militias) show little sign of coming together, and in the north of the country the Kurds are threatening to declare an independent state. So fighting of various sorts is essentially guaranteed and the possibility of Iraq turning into a full-scale failed state or several devastated mini-states remains all too real, even as the Trump administration is reportedly pushing Congress for permission to construct and occupy new "temporary" military bases and other facilities in the country (and in neighboring Syria).

Worse yet, across the Greater Middle East, "reconstruction" is basically not even a concept . There's simply no money for it. Oil prices remain deeply depressed and, from Libya and Yemen to Iraq and Syria, countries are either too poor or too divided to begin the reconstruction of much of anything. Nor , and this is a given , will Donald Trump's America be launching the war-on-terror equivalent of a Marshall Plan for the region. And even if it did, the record of the post-9/11 years already shows that the highly militarized American version of "reconstruction" or "nation building" via crony warrior corporations in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been one of the great scams of our time. (More American taxpayer dollars have been poured into reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan alone than went into the whole of the Marshall Plan and it's painfully obvious how effective that proved to be.)

Of course, as in Syria's civil war, Washington is hardly responsible for all the destruction in the region. ISIS itself has been a remarkably destructive and brutal killing machine with its own impressive record of urban rubblization. And yet most of the destruction in the region was triggered, at least, by the militarized dreams and plans of the Bush administration, by its response to 9/11 (which ended up being something like Osama bin Laden's dream scenario ). Don't forget that ISIS's predecessor, al-Qaeda in Iraq, was a creature of the American invasion and occupation of that country and that ISIS itself was essentially formed in an American military prison camp in that country where its future caliph was confined.

mini-surge of troops and air power in Afghanistan; deployed for the first time the largest non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal there; promised the Saudis more support in their war in Yemen; has increased its air strikes and special operations activities in Somalia; is preparing for a new U.S. military presence in Libya; increased U.S. forces and eased the rules for air strikes in civilian areas of Iraq and elsewhere; and sent U.S. special operators and other personnel in rising numbers into both Iraq and Syria.

No matter the president, the ante only seems to go up when it comes to the "war on terror," a war of imprecision that has helped uproot record numbers of people on this planet, with the usual predictable results: the further spread of terror groups, the further destabilization of state structures, rising numbers of displaced and dead civilians, and the rubblization of expanding parts of the planet.

While no one would deny the destructive potential of great imperial powers historically, the American empire of destruction may be unique. At the height of its military strength in these years, it has been utterly incapable of translating that power advantage into anything but rubblization.

Living in the Rubble, a Short History of the Twenty-First Century

Let me speak personally here, since I live in the remarkably protected and peaceful heart of that empire of destruction and in the very city where it all began. What eternally puzzles me is the inability of those who run that imperial machinery to absorb what's actually happened since 9/11 and draw any reasonable conclusions from it. After all, so much of what I've been describing seems, at this point, dismally predictable.

If anything, the "generational" nature of the war on terror and the way it became a permanent war of terror should by now seem too obvious for discussion. And yet, whatever he said on the campaign trail, President Trump promptly appointed to key positions the very generals who have long been immersed in fighting America's wars across the Greater Middle East and are clearly ready to do more of the same. Why in the world anyone, even those generals, should imagine that such an approach could result in anything more "successful" is beyond me.

In many ways, rubblization has been at the heart of this whole process, starting with the 9/11 moment. After all, the very point of those attacks was to turn the symbols of American power , the Pentagon (military power); the World Trade Center (financial power); and the Capitol or some other Washington edifice (political power, as the hijacked plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania was undoubtedly heading there) , into so much rubble. In the process, thousands of innocent civilians were slaughtered.

In some ways, much of the rubblization of the Greater Middle East in recent years could be thought of as, however unconsciously, a campaign of vengeance for the horror and insult of the air assaults on that September morning in 2001, which pulverized the tallest towers of my hometown. Ever since, American war has, in a sense, involved paying Osama bin Laden back in kind, but on a staggering scale. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, a shocking but passing moment for Americans has become everyday life for whole populations and innocents have died in numbers that would add up to so many World Trade Centers piled atop each other.

The origins of TomDispatch , the website I run, also lie in the rubble. I was in New York City on that day. I experienced the shock of the attacks and the smell of those burning buildings. A friend of mine saw a hijacked plane hitting one of the towers and another biked into the smoke-filled area looking for his daughter. I went down to the site of the attacks with my own daughter within days and wandered the nearby streets, catching glimpses of those giant shards of destroyed buildings.

In the phrase of that moment, in the wake of 9/11, everything "changed" and, in a sense, indeed it did. I felt it. Who didn't? I noted the sense of fear rising nationally and the repetitious ceremonies across the country in which Americans hailed themselves as the planet's most exceptional victims, survivors, and (in the future) victors. In those post-9/11 weeks, I became increasingly aware of how a growing sense of shock and a desire for vengeance among the populace was freeing Bush administration officials (who had for years been dreaming about making the "lone superpower" omnipotent in a historically unprecedented way) to act more or less as they wished.

As for myself, I was overcome by a sense that the period to follow would be the worst of my life, far worse than the Vietnam era (the last time I had been truly mobilized politically). And of one thing I was certain: things would not go well. I had an urge to do something, though no idea what.

In early October 2011, the Bush administration unleashed its air power on Afghanistan, a campaign that, in a sense, would never end but simply spread across the Greater Middle East. (By now, the U.S. has launched repeated air strikes in at least seven countries in the region.) At that moment, someone emailed me an article by Tamim Ansary, an Afghan who had been in the U.S. for years but had continued to follow events in his country of birth.

His piece, which appeared at the website Counterpunch , would prove prescient indeed, especially since it had been written in mid-September, just days after 9/11. At that moment, as Ansary noted, Americans were already threatening , in a phrase adopted from the Vietnam War era , to bomb Afghanistan "back to the Stone Age." What purpose, he wondered, could possibly be served by such a bombing campaign since, as he put it, "new bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs"? As he pointed out, Afghanistan, then largely ruled by the grim Taliban, had essentially been turned into rubble years before in the proxy war the Soviets and Americans fought there until the Red Army limped home in defeat in 1989. The rubble that was already Afghanistan would only increase in the brutal civil war that followed. And in the years before 2001, little had been rebuilt. So, as Ansary made clear, the U.S. was about to launch its air power for the first time in the twenty-first century against a country with nothing, a country of ruins and in ruins.

From such an act he predicted disaster. And so it would be. At the time, something about that image of air strikes on rubble stunned me, in part because it felt both horrifying and true, in part because it seemed such an ominous signal of what might lie in our future, and in part because nothing like it could then be found in the mainstream news or in any kind of debate about how to respond to 9/11 (of which there was essentially none). Impulsively, I emailed his piece out with a note of my own to friends and relatives, something I had never done before. That, as it turned out, would be the start of what became an ever-expanding no-name listserv and, a little more than a year later, TomDispatch .

A Plutocracy of the Rubble?

So the first word to fully catch my attention and set me in motion in the post-9/11 era was "rubble." It's sad that, almost 16 years later, Americans are still obsessively afraid for themselves, a fear that has helped fund and build a national security state of staggering dimensions. On the other hand, remarkably few of us have any sense of the endless 9/11-style experiences our military has so imprecisely delivered to the world. The bombs may be smart, but the acts couldn't be dumber.

In this country, there is essentially no sense of responsibility for the spread of terrorism, the crumbling of states, the destruction of lives and livelihoods, the tidal flow of refugees , and the rubblization of some of the planet's great cities. There's no reasonable assessment of the true nature and effects of American warfare abroad: its imprecision, its idiocy, its destructiveness. In this peaceful land, it's hard to imagine the true impact of the imprecision of war, American-style. Given the way things are going, it's easy enough, however, to imagine the scenario of Tamim Ansari writ large in the Trump years and those to follow: Americans continuing to bomb the rubble they had such a hand in creating across the Greater Middle East.

And yet distant imperial wars do have a way of coming home, and not just in the form of new surveillance techniques , or drones flying over "the homeland," or the full-scale militarization of police forces. Without those disastrous, never-ending wars, I suspect that the election of Donald Trump would have been unlikely . And while he will not loose such "precision" warfare on the homeland itself, his project (and that of the congressional Republicans) , from health care to the environment , is visibly aimed at rubblizing American society. If he were capable, he would certainly create a plutocracy of the rubble in a world where ruins are increasingly the norm.

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .

[Jul 19, 2017] Never in the field of American conflict with Russia has so much wool pulled over the eyes been owed to so few sheep. That was during the losing presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Now, in the investigations of President Donald Trump and his family, it's a case of so many sheep producing so little wool.

Jul 19, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , July 19, 2017 at 12:54 pm

JohnHelmer.net: THE IMPROPER ASSOCIATION (MAYBE CRIME) OF VICTOR PINCHUK WITH HILLARY, BILL AND CHELSEA CLINTON, COVERED UP BY THE US MEDIA, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

http://johnhelmer.net/the-improper-association-maybe-crime-of-victor-pinchuk-with-hillary-bill-and-chelsea-clinton-covered-up-by-the-us-media-us-department-of-justice-and-the-international-monetary-fund/

Never in the field of American conflict with Russia has so much wool pulled over the eyes been owed to so few sheep. That was during the losing presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Now, in the investigations of President Donald Trump and his family, it's a case of so many sheep producing so little wool.

The case of the $13 million paid to the Clinton family by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, in exchange for personal favours and escalation of the war against Russia, was reported in detail throughout 2014. Click to read the opener, and more.

Early this month there has been fresh investigation of Pinchuk's money links with the Clintons, owing to the start of Ukrainian government inquiries into the theft of billions of dollars of International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans to Ukraine – money then transferred to Ukrainian commercial banks including Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr bank, and then loaned to offshore entities controlled by Pinchuk but apparently not repaid. Theft of the IMF money was first reported here in connection with Igor Kolomoisky's operation of Privat Bank

####

More at the link. Goose & gander anyone?

[Jul 19, 2017] On Crapified News And Foreign Policy

Notable quotes:
"... The diminishing capacity to get a proper look at global affairs is related to the rise in Imperial Hubris of the Outlaw US Empire, which I turn degrades your ability to properly respond to events--particularly those created by Empire policy. I think this is a part of what b's writing about here. ..."
"... It is more than just rise, however correctly pointed out by you, of Imperial Hubris--the whole panoply of the "tools" of military-political analysis is plain and simple wrong. This failure is based on a metaphysical mistake -- wrong reading of history, especially of the 20th Century, which led to an ultimate failure in understanding the issues of scales and proportions. What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA, not a gift to be cherished. Sand castles on the beach, however, do not live long, the high tide has arrived some time ago. ..."
"... As in the US DOJ, FBI, CIA etc., are organizations aimed directly to protect oligarchic rule, IRG protects ruling class of clerics in Iran, in both countries under guise of protecting constitution and law and order, earthly or heavenly. ..."
"... Unfortunately, "What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA," this "metaphysical mistake" had already ingrained itself into the Outlaw US Empire's Mythos as Manifest Destiny and quickly found its way into all realms of discourse by the mid-1840s. The creation and perpetuation of such a grandiose mythos can only be done though lies and the deliberate falsification of history. ..."
"... While I don't disagree with you, it has to be well understood that any big "player" by 19th Century had its own version of Manifest Destiny e.g. Russia as a Third Rome. But it was namely through WW II where US could claim a "victory" over Nazism (hence a vast field of Anglo-American WW II history falsifiers) and thus realize itself as a continental power that the issue of exceptionalism really have got into over-drive and resulted in US literally running itself into the ground. When one has a political class (and population) not conditioned by continental warfare--it is almost inevitable. ..."
"... I get the impression the situation is typically less a matter of, "the editors demand a fast one on some less familiar issue", than certain intelligence operatives tasked with gaming the media echo chamber, feed well placed assets prioritized talking points to create the illusion of a 'thing'. ..."
"... Just look at the media shitstorm regarding Russia, different crap, same difference! ..."
Jul 19, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Significant parts of the Trump administration , Congress and the general Zionist borg would love to start a war between the U.S. and Iran.

A war is unlikely. Iran's geography and strategic position is unassailable. Its global political standing has increased during the last decades. Any war with Iran would be extremely costly yet unwinnable.

But with U.S. pressure again increasing on Iran it is important to learn and understand what happens inside of country. Unfortunately most reporting about politics within Iran is bit of a mess. Considers the piece below from the Washington Post. Written from Turkey by a journalist who (to my best knowledge) does not speaks Farsi nor has any special knowledge of the country: With U.S. scholar's conviction, power struggle escalates between Iran's president and hard-liners

ISTANBUL -- A high-stakes power struggle between Iran's moderate president and his hard-line opponents in the judiciary appeared to escalate with the arrest of the president's brother and the conviction of an American student for espionage this weekend -- rulings that seemed timed to embarrass the Iranian leader at home and abroad

The piece should be classic foreign reporting. But who is speaking here?

There is certainly no reason to lambast the journalist, Erin Cunningham, for being lazy. Getting five telephone or email interviews and authorized quotes for the piece was surely a day's work. But how come there is no voice from Iran? The only quote from an Iranian person, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is in translation of a lobby shop in New York which does not reveal its sponsors. Is the quote correct? The other "expert" are all from outlets that are more or less adverse to Iran's system of governance.

The piece makes the recent dispute and judicial action look extraordinary and sensational. It connects it to actions in Washington DC:

The tensions come as Iran and the United States spar over the terms of a nuclear deal struck with world powers to limit Iran's nuclear weapons program.
...
The Trump administration has taken a much harsher stance on Iran, threatening to abandon the deal, and the Treasury Department on Tuesday announced new sanctions primarily targeting Iran's ballistic missile program.
...
The arrest and conviction of Wang, a 37-year-old scholar at Princeton, appeared to target Rouhani's wider foreign policy and engagement with the West. Although Wang was detained in August 2016, the timing of the verdict is suspect, analysts say.

"Why did they keep it a secret as long as they did? Timing is important," said Alex Vatanka, an Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

Conflicts between the executive and the judiciary in Iran are legend and reoccur at least every other year. They are independent of the president being "moderate" or "hard-line" himself. Consider the obvious similarities between the above lede and this one from 2012 :

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- The head of Iran's judiciary lashed out at the country's president Wednesday, the latest salvo in an escalating political conflict that has undermined much of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's political clout

The Iranian constitution and political system is build on the principal of Vilayat-e Faqih, the guardianship of the (Islamic) jurists. The undecided question is how absolute the primacy of the jurists is supposed to be. The interpretations vary widely and often depend on the issue at hand. The executive will naturally assert primacy wherever it can, while absolute principalists in the judiciary will always assert that their jurisprudence is prime. The conflict is daily bread in Tehran and it makes no sense to sensationalize it.

The arrest of the president's brother for corruption may well be justified. It should astonish no one. It could be timed to assert pressure but we have no way to know that. It would be mere speculation to say so. Experience has show that effective coordination within the Iranian state machinery is way less than western authors tend to assume.

The U.S. student/spy had already been imprisoned for eleven months. That he was convicted now is likely not related to any Trump tantrum or epiphany. Washington's capers are less important in Tehran as the U.S. would like them to be.

All together the piece shows the typical pitfalls of U.S. reporting on Iran (and many other countries).

One original voice from within Tehran's ruling circuit would have been more valuable to the above piece than the five think tank quotes. A few more words about the historic role of the judiciary would have helped to set some perspective. Connecting the political theater in Tehran to Trump's zigzags makes it easier to write the lede. But there is no justification for it without evidentiary backing.

Despite the nitpicking I don't regard the Cunningham piece as bad at all. Each day there are way worse reports in the papers and on cable TV. It is probably the best one can do when the editors demand a fast one on some less familiar issue. Over the last years many experienced foreign correspondents were fired or paid to leave. Main-stream media replaced serious foreign reporting with childish "listicals", high school level "explainers" and cat pictures.

When a few dailies and news shows drive foreign policy making the lack of in-depth reporting becomes a serious issue. Members of Congress and the administration get much of their foreign policy knowledge from U.S. media reports. It is no wonder that they are clueless when those reports lack insight and details. The crapification of high decision making is probably directly related to the crapification of the news media. Trump taking his clues from Fox News (and others) is bad. Fox News (and others) having no well reported clues at all is even worse.

Posted by b on July 19, 2017 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

Freespirit | Jul 19, 2017 12:14:14 PM | 1

Yeh, sure I am going to believe an, in effect, "ALL-AMERICAN" stooges reporting about anything stated as FACT from or about Iran

Keep in mind what ,who and Chacteristics of WHOM we are dealing with:

Perpetual WAR, ISRAEL , CHRISTIANS, JEWS, Muslims and the CONNECTION: https://boblivingstonletter.com/alerts/america-perpetual-war/

AND

Psychopathy by James Corbett: https://youtu.be/DPf5i84BqcA

AND

Trump's NEW WORLD ORDER, run by Jews, with him as Temporary Chief Stooge : http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1222

karlof1 | Jul 19, 2017 12:18:08 PM | 2
Southfront has a report about a just released stink tank study: "A new study conducted by members of the U.S. military establishment has concluded that the U.S.-led international global order established after World War II is "fraying" and may even be "collapsing" as the U.S. continues to lose its position of "primacy" in world affairs." https://southfront.org/us-military-establishment-study-american-empire-collapsing/ https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1358

The diminishing capacity to get a proper look at global affairs is related to the rise in Imperial Hubris of the Outlaw US Empire, which I turn degrades your ability to properly respond to events -- particularly those created by Empire policy. I think this is a part of what b's writing about here.

Willy2 | Jul 19, 2017 12:28:28 PM | 3
- One doesn't have to occupy Iran in its entirety. One can simply occupy the Khuzestan oil province in the west of Iran to cripple the Iranian government.
Yul | Jul 19, 2017 12:42:28 PM | 4
@b

http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/en/page/1970219/All+Rumors+about+Hassan+Rouhani%E2%80%99s+Recently+Arrested+Brother+Hossein+Fereidoun.html

somebody | Jul 19, 2017 12:49:32 PM | 5
3
that is why Iran has specialized in all types of missiles for the last decades or so.
Pnyx | Jul 19, 2017 12:59:03 PM | 6
Important background. Thank you B.
Yul | Jul 19, 2017 1:16:32 PM | 7
@2 karlof1

Nafeez Ahmed did a good job dissecting the 145 pages report:
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/pentagon-study-declares-american-empire-is-collapsing-746754cdaebf

Mike Maloney | Jul 19, 2017 1:36:03 PM | 8
Believe it or not, NYT's Tehran correspondent, Thomas Erdbrink, is pretty good. I remember seeing a video a couple years ago where Erdbrink profiles Najiyeh Allahdad, a daughter of a martyr in the Iran-Iraq War I believe. It was very sympathetic to the revolution. In the bio of Allahad NYT published they included this:
How do you describe yourself? I'm an Iranian Muslim who uses any opportunity to improve her country and who protects her country's reputation in the world. I love life, and I love peace. I feel that what people have lost in this world is spirituality. I've devoted my life to trying to find this spirituality for myself first and then to help others enjoy it.

Have you traveled outside of Iran? Where? What did you think? I have traveled to India, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, Italy, the United States and Syria. I found some Eastern countries like India and China to be very civilized, but they have not used their civilization to improve their daily lives. On the other hand, I found the Western countries to be detached from their histories and stepping into a new world that has an unclear future. Some Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. seemed too dependent on Western countries and would be nothing without help from the U.S. And a country like Iraq has always been hampered by circumstances throughout its history.

There is a strong body of opinion within the U.S. national security state that believes along with b that Iran cannot be defeated militarily. Trump is doing the bidding of his buddies in Jeddah and Tel Aviv.
Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 19, 2017 1:50:12 PM | 9
A beautiful piece of analytical, sequential surgery, b.
I was watching a doco at the weekend and #Occupy was mentioned, reminding me that we can thank #Occupy for the introduction of 1%/99% into the lexicon, and the #Occupiers for the meme...

The America dream
You have to be asleep
To believe it.

Similarly, I'm grateful to Trump for linking the terms "Fake News" and "Mainstream Media" and making each an autonomic reminder of the other.

james | Jul 19, 2017 2:23:52 PM | 10
thanks b... msm is superficial at best... unfortunately they are beholden to israel's agenda which is the same as the military, financial and neo-con industries... until that changes, it will be playing fast with facts in order to perpetuate more war... good to know what the msm is really about... it isn't about anything in depth, that's for sure!
karlof1 | Jul 19, 2017 2:54:20 PM | 11
Yul @7--

Thanks! I noted Southfront cited him and linked to his article.

To continue my thought on this: Garbage in leads to garbage out. In the process of propagandizing and indoctrinating the populous, you dumb them down to the point that to be effective analysts and policy makers people must be reeducated. My #1 example is Trump. He's been fed so much Crappola his entire life that it negatively affects his thought processes and judgment. At least he's willing to call such crappola for what it is, although he in turn produces his own version of it often.

A very good example of the change in the elite's philosophy from 1776 to today is found in this clause from the Outlaw US Empire's Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

And then compared to this exemplary expression of hubris from Karl Rove:

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

In other words, we don't give a damn about what anybody else thinks or what the law says--pretty much the same sentiments uttered by every megalomaniac that ever existed.

How to return to the prudent, moral, and law-based philosophy penned by Jefferson that seems to guide the Multipolar Alliance? Where was it reported in the Western media that Iran sanctioned the Outlaw US Empire for its overwhelmingly obvious support for terrorism that I noted yesterday:

"In view of the overt support provided to terrorist groups by the US government and the country's military and intelligence forces and repeated confessions by American officials to having created terrorist groups and offered them all-out support, from the standpoint of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the entirety of the United States' military and intelligence forces are considered as supporters of terrorist groups in the region." http://theduran.com/us-iran-sanctions-are-a-tit-for-tat-measure-that-is-part-of-a-wider-geo-strategic-reality/

Just how many Outlaw US Empire citizens are aware of the fact that it was deemed necessary by a member of congress to introduce a bill entitled the Stop Arming Terrorists Act that affirms the Iranian Parliament's decision to sanction such behavior. And how many citizens are aware that their government's behavior flaunts numerous UNSCRs and is thus in violation of International Law--the very same International Law it championed in 1940--Atlantic Charter--which resulted in the UN Charter and UN organization? As someone who was trained to teach US History, I can tell you I was never taught a huge amount of very important facts about the Outlaw US Empire--indeed, many of my presentations and essays resulted in educating my professors! And some talk of colonizing Mars! That's a huge howler! And I haven't even touched upon Junk Economics and its related Randian Crappola.

SmoothieX12 | Jul 19, 2017 3:15:59 PM | 12
@2, karlof1
The diminishing capacity to get a proper look at global affairs is related to the rise in Imperial Hubris of the Outlaw US Empire, which I turn degrades your ability to properly respond to events--particularly those created by Empire policy. I think this is a part of what b's writing about here.

It is more than just rise, however correctly pointed out by you, of Imperial Hubris--the whole panoply of the "tools" of military-political analysis is plain and simple wrong. This failure is based on a metaphysical mistake -- wrong reading of history, especially of the 20th Century, which led to an ultimate failure in understanding the issues of scales and proportions. What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA, not a gift to be cherished. Sand castles on the beach, however, do not live long, the high tide has arrived some time ago.

TimmyB | Jul 19, 2017 3:55:08 PM | 13
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a country's executive branch has clashed with its judiciary branch. Errr, isnt that the entire point of separating these two government functions, so they will clash instead of having the judicary act as a rubber stamp for the executive? In the US, we call it the "Separation of Powers Doctrine." What is so wrong when other countries, such as Iran, have the same policy our Founding Fathers wanted us to have?
Kalen | Jul 19, 2017 4:04:21 PM | 14
Of course there is nothing sensational to write about, everyday occurrence elbowing for influence peddling and positioning within grid of political power.
But more interesting is what such a common, for US Iran and most of other countries, occurrences really mean, namely political game within strictly limited range of moves mostly for benefit of electoral audience entertainment while constitutional and judicial framework makes sure that Deep state and Rulling elite interests, political and economic are satisfied no matter what.

As in the US DOJ, FBI, CIA etc., are organizations aimed directly to protect oligarchic rule, IRG protects ruling class of clerics in Iran, in both countries under guise of protecting constitution and law and order, earthly or heavenly.

Unfortunately, the overall collapse of civilization corrupted by money and power in a unprecedented global dimension of mass mental enslavement, extereme radical consumerism, religion,nationalism or delusional psychotic cult of globalism and suicidal growth of social cancers is ubiquitous within societies crazed by fetish of material or immaterial social products or commodities, monetizing everything including most of all human flesh, relations, culture, religion, and humanist egalitarian societies. Such a decomposing ocean of human flesh spawned an mercenary army of human looking zombies conditioned and ready to violently defend their own enslavement for whatever reason was fed into their rotten brains.


karlof1 | Jul 19, 2017 4:17:43 PM | 15
SmoothieX12 @12--

Thanks for your reply! Unfortunately, "What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA," this "metaphysical mistake" had already ingrained itself into the Outlaw US Empire's Mythos as Manifest Destiny and quickly found its way into all realms of discourse by the mid-1840s. The creation and perpetuation of such a grandiose mythos can only be done though lies and the deliberate falsification of history. As Hoarsewhisperer @9 intoned:

"The America dream
You have to be asleep
To believe it."

SmoothieX12 | Jul 19, 2017 5:17:29 PM | 16
@15, Karlof1
Outlaw US Empire's Mythos as Manifest Destiny and quickly found its way into all realms of discourse by the mid-1840s. The creation and perpetuation of such a grandiose mythos can only be done though lies and the deliberate falsification of history

While I don't disagree with you, it has to be well understood that any big "player" by 19th Century had its own version of Manifest Destiny e.g. Russia as a Third Rome. But it was namely through WW II where US could claim a "victory" over Nazism (hence a vast field of Anglo-American WW II history falsifiers) and thus realize itself as a continental power that the issue of exceptionalism really have got into over-drive and resulted in US literally running itself into the ground. When one has a political class (and population) not conditioned by continental warfare--it is almost inevitable.

spinworthy | Jul 19, 2017 5:43:58 PM | 18
Regarding, "crapification".

I get the impression the situation is typically less a matter of, "the editors demand a fast one on some less familiar issue", than certain intelligence operatives tasked with gaming the media echo chamber, feed well placed assets prioritized talking points to create the illusion of a 'thing'.

Any western reporting on America's/Israel's numero uno enemy du jour cannot be anything other than psyops. The strategy of 'full spectrum' BS necessitates that the media become the biggest (and most cost effective) venue for conducting psyops.

Just look at the media shitstorm regarding Russia, different crap, same difference!

karlof1 | Jul 19, 2017 6:12:07 PM | 19
SmoothieX12 @16--

"The issue of exceptionalism"

Yes, on the international stage I must agree with you, although it would've occurred earlier if the US government hadn't censored George Seldes's interview with Hindenburg shortly after the Armistice. Hindenburg: "The American infantry won the World War in battle in the Argonne." (p 24; You Can't Print That ; George Seldes; Payson & Clarke, Ltd; New York; 1929)

Arguably, however, if the interview hadn't been censored and been published as the world-wide scoop that it was, then the "Stab in the Back" propaganda charge wouldn't have had anything to uphold it and Hitler's movement wouldn't have happened, although it's very likely the Pacific War would've occurred regardless. Censorship and Propaganda always have unforeseen consequences.

nobody | Jul 19, 2017 7:00:42 PM | 20
a century old discussion

Posted by b on July 19, 2017 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

Not sure where you are getting that number from. The doctrine was introduced by Khomeini, at some point after his exile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokumat-e_Islami_:_Velayat-e_Faqih_%28book_by_Khomeini%29

It is also not a "discussion", b. It is a thought-crime to criticize this doctrine in the Islamic Republic.

Laguerre | Jul 19, 2017 7:20:15 PM | 23
re 3 willy2
- One doesn't have to occupy Iran in its entirety. One can simply occupy the Khuzestan oil province in the west of Iran to cripple the iranian government.
That was what Saddam thought in 1980. I suppose that's a bit too much like ancient history for you to know anything about that war.
nobody | Jul 19, 2017 7:56:58 PM | 24
messianic USA

Posted by: SmoothieX12 | Jul 19, 2017 5:17:29 PM | 16

Is it not true that (some) Russians believe that ("Holy") Russia has a messianic role to play in the history of mankind?

To what extent would you say this self perception is prevalent among the Russian people and the Russian ruling elite?

George Smiley | Jul 19, 2017 7:57:45 PM | 25
https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-trump-orders-cia-halt-financial-military-aid-rebels-syria/

WOW

nobody | Jul 19, 2017 8:05:15 PM | 26
[The New York Times] was very sympathetic to the revolution.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jul 19, 2017 1:36:03 PM | 8

No shit. Afterall, the West provided assistance at every turn to the "revolutionaries" -- many of whom are now residents of USA -- to topple the Shah of Iran. Most of you know zip about Iran, "1953", and the role of Soviet Union, UK, France, Germany, and United State of America in the concerted effort to topple the uber nationalist Shah of Iran. You will not write our history for us, I assure you.

Curtis | Jul 19, 2017 8:06:02 PM | 27
For any planned future for Iran, look at the pictures from Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Gaza. As to the usual suspects, it's funny that they're Mideast experts but mostly connected to Israel.

George Smiley 25

The break in US support for the rebel factions is interesting in that it hasn't been public in US MSM. This includes the new coalition that doesn't want to attack Syrian government forces.

nobody | Jul 19, 2017 8:13:58 PM | 28
WOW

Posted by: George Smiley | Jul 19, 2017 7:57:45 PM | 25

Is "WOW" a neologism for Déjà vu?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment

Liam | Jul 19, 2017 9:22:07 PM | 34
Just released and there is nothing else like it - Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to MH-17 https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/07/19/truth-of-ukraine-war-revealed-watchdog-media-institute-releases-definitive-chronological-timeline-video-of-ukrainian-war-from-euromaidan-to-mh-17/
Temporarily Sane | Jul 19, 2017 10:29:27 PM | 37
@29 ben

Concise and spot-on summary that sums up the state of "journalism" in 2017.

@18 spinworthy

Remember 911 hero Ashleigh Banfield ? Her "fall from grace" is a typical example of what happens to American journalists who try to tell tell the truth about the empire's wars.

[Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

Highly recommended!
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly. The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
"... : Flickr/Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0. ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the battle for the soul of the American Right.

To be sure, Carlson rejects the term "neoconservatism," and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest Friday.

"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means. I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.

But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions to curry favor with the White House, keep up his ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow, I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But is this assessment fair?

Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies."

Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called "Neocons May Get the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do it."

But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April 7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened. I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."

But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.

Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries. "You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person. Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country? It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast, sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.

On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision. "You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.

The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard , perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet. On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband, Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.

"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist stalwarts such as Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter than Pat Buchanan," he said last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.

Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency. He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy establishment").

Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government "may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued, "If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and began to transform the region for the better."

Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, "

Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're talking about. None."

Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills .

Image : Flickr/Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0.

[Jul 17, 2017] A Russian Developer Helps Out the Kremlin on Occasion. Was He a Conduit to Trump by NEIL MacFARQUHAR

They did not find anything yet, but they have money and will continue digging till the next Presidential elections. This is just a witch hunt. If, for example members of Us congress are subjected to the same level of scrutiny probably over 50% would be already charged for criminal activities ;-) Trump is still standing... BTW it would be interesting where NEIL MacFARQUHAR got all this information. Were intelligences agencies involved?
Jul 16, 2017 | www.msn.com

Originally from: The New York Times

MOSCOW , Russian Island, near the port city of Vladivostok in the far east, was a decaying former military base and home to a scattering of cattle when President Vladimir V. Putin suddenly envisioned it as a $1.2 billion campus where he could welcome heads of state for an Asia-Pacific conference.

That sent Kremlin officials scrambling to find a developer to transform a site lacking fresh water, a pier or roads. They rejected numerous bids before one of them took a flier on a man known mostly for his glamorous shopping malls: Aras Agalarov of the Crocus Group.

A little more than three years later, in 2012, Mr. Putin opened the spectacular Far Eastern Federal University , some 70 modern buildings built in a crescent overlooking the sparkling Pacific Ocean.

Not long after, Mr. Putin pinned a blue-ribboned state medal, the Order of Honor, on Mr. Agalarov's chest at a dazzling Kremlin ceremony. Soon, a string of demanding, more prominent projects followed: a stretch of superhighway ringing Moscow; two troubled stadiums for the 2018 World Cup, including one in a Baltic swamp.

Mr. Agalarov, 61, also worked on a project with a future president, Donald J. Trump. Last week, the Russian developer and his crooner son and heir, Emin, were thrust into the swirl of speculation about whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election.

Their names popped up in emails about arranging a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer who claimed to have incriminating information about Hillary Clinton, but the president and his son have both insisted that nothing of value was provided.

"This is obviously very high-level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump , helped along by Aras and Emin," wrote Rob Goldstone, a music producer and publicist working for Emin.

While there is no indication beyond what was said in the emails that the Agalarovs were serving as a conduit between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, wealthy and well-connected businessmen are often called on to do the bidding of the Russian government.

Kremlin analysts stress that its red, crenelated walls conceal not a well-oiled machine but a hornet's nest of interests and influences competing to dominate an Erector Set of ad hoc policies and sudden opportunities, many of them highly lucrative.

When it comes to exploiting those opportunities, the Kremlin often ignores its own bureaucrats, diplomats and other agents in favor of someone it thinks will get the job done , a charmed group whose members rise and fall in status along with their usefulness to Mr. Putin and his top aides.

In that context, analysts find it entirely plausible that the Kremlin would tap Mr. Agalarov, a construction tycoon with a web of contacts to Mr. Trump, as a way to pass information to the Trump presidential campaign.

"In a sense, almost no one is a direct agent of the Kremlin, but almost anyone can become one if the need arises," said Ekaterina Schulmann, a political scientist at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.

Aleksei A. Navalny, the leading opposition figure in Russia and an anticorruption campaigner, says he has no doubt that the Agalarovs would do the bidding of the Kremlin if asked.

In a blog post, Mr. Navalny refers to Yuri Chaika, the Russian state prosecutor , a position equivalent to the United States attorney general , whom Mr. Goldstone identified in his emails as the source of the information on offer at the Trump Tower meeting. Mr. Chaika, a staunch Putin loyalist, has been in that position since 2006.

In the view of Mr. Navalny, a bitter opponent of Mr. Putin, it makes perfect sense that information passed from the Kremlin through Mr. Chaika and Mr. Agalarov to Mr. Trump, as the security services could easily have used such a trusted channel to reach out to the Trump campaign.

That is no more than informed speculation, yet there are deep connections among the men. After Mr. Navalny released a documentary in 2015 accusing Mr. Chaika of corruption, for example, Mr. Agalarov rose to his defense. Writing in the newspaper Kommersant, he said the film mixed fact and fiction and echoed the work of Joseph Goebbels, the chief Nazi propagandist.

Natalia Veselnitskaya , the lawyer who met with the younger Mr. Trump, and her former husband both worked in the prosecutor's office of the Moscow region, the district surrounding the capital, and would have been under Mr. Chaika's overall umbrella.

Ms. Veselnitskaya has done some legal work connected to real estate for Mr. Agalarov's company in Russia, according to media interviews given by the family lawyer in the United States, Scott Balber.

Mr. Trump entered this circle with the 2013 Miss Universe contest, carried out with the help of lower-level bureaucrats and Mr. Agalarov, who paid $20 million to bring the pageant to his family's Moscow concert pavilion, Crocus City Hall.

It would be natural for the Kremlin, aware of that relationship, to reach down to that level to try to get something done with the Trump campaign, analysts said.

"If you are a business person, you are supposed to do something that the Kremlin asks you; you are otherwise free to pursue your own interests. That is how Russia works," said Mrs. Schulmann, noting that most would be eager to respond to any such call as an expression of loyalty.

In this particular case, the Kremlin has denied any involvement, saying it was not in touch with Mr. Agalarov and did not even know the lawyer, Ms. Veselnitskaya. It is unclear precisely what was discussed at the meeting with members of the Trump team. Participants have said that it dealt largely with an American law called the Magnitsky Act, which blacklists those suspected of human rights abuses in Russia, and a ban on the adoption of Russian children, and that nothing of significance was given to the campaign.

Mr. Agalarov, in a Russian radio interview, called the story around the meeting , that it was about information damaging to Hillary Clinton , a "fabrication."

The Crocus Group did not respond to a request to interview Mr. Agalarov.

For Mr. Agalarov, the involvement in the Trump administration's Russia scandal is at best an unwelcome diversion in a career of steady if not always spectacular success.

He was born in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, then part of the Soviet Union, where he studied computer engineering and was a member of the Baku City Committee of the Communist Party.

He went to Moscow to study, and even before the collapse of the Soviet Union began trying to fill pent-up Russian demand for Western goods, especially computers.

What started as a modest trading company grew into a business organizing trade fairs that eventually mushroomed into the Crocus Group, a real estate empire that encompasses mammoth shopping malls, a chain of hypermarkets, an exposition center, restaurants, luxury housing developments and other enterprises.

Forbes magazine puts Mr. Agalarov 51st on its list of the richest Russians, with a fortune estimated at $1.7 billion.

"He is not the biggest retail guy, but Crocus City Mall was the first luxury mall to appear in Moscow," said Darrell Stanaford, a 20-year veteran of the Russian real estate world as the former managing director in Moscow for the CBRE Group, a Los Angeles-based commercial real estate firm. "He likes the glitz. It is high-end luxury, so that is why he becomes such a good matchup for Trump."

Mr. Agalarov keeps a modest footprint on social media, mostly by standing next to his photogenic son: on their luxury Moscow golf course development, for example, or posing with Robert De Niro at the opening of one of the two Nobu restaurants in Moscow where they are partners.

Mr. Trump pops up from time to time. On his Inauguration Day, both Agalarovs posted old pictures of themselves with him, along with effusive praise for their old friend.

Aside from the 2013 Miss Universe contest, it is not known what business ties, if any, the Agalarovs have with Mr. Trump, or with any other American companies. They clearly have an affinity for the United States, however, naming one chain of shopping malls "Vegas" and another luxury residential complex "Manhattan."

In November 2013, after the buzz of the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow had subsided, Mr. Trump met privately with a group of elite Russian businessmen, including the head of Russia's state-owned Sberbank at one of the Nobu restaurants in Moscow.

The elder Mr. Agalarov had been talking with Mr. Trump about building a Trump Tower in Moscow as part of a $3 billion real estate project involving hotels, a shopping center and office space.

Sberbank was ready to make it happen. About a week after the meeting, the bank announced a "strategic cooperation agreement" with the Crocus Group to finance about 70 percent of the ambitious project, including, potentially, a building bearing the Trump name.

"It was one of the 14 buildings that we planned to build here," Mr. Agalarov's son Emin said in a March interview with Forbes, adding that if Mr. Trump "hadn't run for president, we would probably be in the construction phase today."

The Sberbank financing , reported at the time as the biggest real estate development loan the bank had made , was another measure of the Agalarovs' increasingly close connections to the centers of power in Russia.

In another indication, the Crocus Group was written into a 2014 bilateral treaty with the government of Kyrgyzstan to help that country integrate into Russia's regional alliance, the Eurasian Economic Union.

In that deal, worth $127 million, the Crocus Group was designated the "single supplier" of services to integrate the two countries' bureaucracies and reinforce the new customs common border, by, for example, building new border posts.

By naming the company in an international treaty, the Russian government avoided opening the work to competitive bidding, ensuring that the Crocus Group won the contract, Edil Baisalov, a former Kyrgyz presidential chief of staff, said in a telephone interview.

In Kyrgyzstan, he said, the apparent giveaway to Kremlin-connected insiders became known as "Crocusgate."

Mr. Agalarov mentions occasionally how difficult it is to earn money on public works, telling the newspaper Vedomosti in 2015 that he had to buy a larger Gulfstream jet to make the cross-continental trek to Vladivostok to check on progress at the Far Eastern Federal University. On that project, he said, he spent more than $100 million of his own money because the official plans skipped significant costs like roads and landscaping. He won some of it back in court.

Statements about losing money are all part of the game, analysts said, noting that construction costs on Russian infrastructure routinely run 30 percent higher than for comparable projects in Europe.

"It is showing the wounds that he got in the service of the motherland," said Ms. Schulmann, the political scientist. "You see how indifferent I am to profit when I do a service for the Kremlin. I have to make sacrifices."

Mr. Agalarov, however, was more candid than most when asked whether it is altruism that leads him to respond when the Kremlin calls. In the interview with Vedomosti, he said, "There are things that you cannot turn down."

[Jul 17, 2017] CIA sought to hack Apple iPhones from earliest days

Notable quotes:
"... Efforts to break into Apple products by government security researchers started as early as 2006, a year before Apple introduced its first iPhone and continued through the launch of the iPad in 2010 and beyond, The Intercept said. ..."
Mar 10, 2015 | The Intercept/Reuters

CIA researchers have worked for nearly a decade to break the security protecting Apple (AAPL.O) phones and tablets, investigative news site The Intercept reported on Tuesday, citing documents obtained from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The report cites top-secret U.S. documents that suggest U.S. government researchers had created a version of XCode, Apple's software application development tool, to create surveillance backdoors into programs distributed on Apple's App Store.

The Intercept has in the past published a number of reports from documents released by whistleblower Snowden. The site's editors include Glenn Greenwald, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his work in reporting on Snowden's revelations, and by Oscar-winning documentary maker Laura Poitras.

It said the latest documents, which covered a period from 2006 to 2013, stop short of proving whether U.S. intelligence researchers had succeeded in breaking Apple's encryption coding, which secures user data and communications.

Efforts to break into Apple products by government security researchers started as early as 2006, a year before Apple introduced its first iPhone and continued through the launch of the iPad in 2010 and beyond, The Intercept said.

Breeching Apple security was part of a top-secret program by the U.S. government, aided by British intelligence researchers, to hack "secure communications products, both foreign and domestic" including Google Android phones, it said.

Silicon Valley technology companies have in recent months sought to restore trust among consumers around the world that their products have not become tools for widespread government surveillance of citizens.

Last September, Apple strengthened encryption methods for data stored on iPhones, saying the changes meant the company no longer had any way to extract customer data on the devices, even if a government ordered it to with a search warrant. Silicon Valley rival Google Inc (GOOGL.O) said shortly afterward that it also planned to increase the use of stronger encryption tools.

Both companies said the moves were aimed at protecting the privacy of users of their products and that this was partly a response to wide scale U.S. government spying on Internet users revealed by Snowden in 2013.

An Apple spokesman pointed to public statements by Chief Executive Tim Cook on privacy, but declined to comment further.

"I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services," Cook wrote in a statement on privacy and security published last year. "We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will."

Leaders including U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron have expressed concern that turning such privacy-enhancing tools into mass market features could prevent governments from tracking militants planning attacks. The CIA did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

[Jul 16, 2017] It's called cutting one's losses,

Jul 16, 2017 | gravatar.com
  1. Moscow Exile says: March 4, 2017 at 3:14 am
  1. The Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives of the US Congress has drafted a bill to cut US military aid to Ukraine to just $150 million, which is less than half of the $350 million Kiev received from Washington in 2016.

    Under the proposed bill, the Pentagon can spend funds "for training, equipment, weapons of a defensive nature, logistics, and intelligence."

    Washington has ignored Kiev's persistent calls for the supply of offensive weapons for its "counterterrorism operation" in Donbass.

    See: Why is US Slashing Military Aid to Ukraine?

    It's called cutting one's losses, I think.

[Jul 16, 2017] Ukraine periodically tries sweet talk to lure the east back, but the time to do that was immediately after the Maidan – instead, nationalist fervor gripped the capital and giddy nationalists went hard the other way with proclamations that they would delegitimize the Russian language.

Jul 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

marknesop , July 16, 2017 at 8:35 am

Ukraine periodically tries sweet talk to lure the east back, but the time to do that was immediately after the Maidan – instead, nationalist fervor gripped the capital and giddy nationalists went hard the other way with proclamations that they would delegitimize the Russian language. If anything about those lunatic days can be said to have been the catalyst which set subsequent events in motion, the fatal mistake, that was it. The mayor of Lvov, no less, made a speech the very next day – in perfect colloquial Russian – in which he tried to walk back the disaster and reassure the easterners that there would not be legal action to discriminate against them because of their habitual language, but the die was cast and it was too late.

Had the nationalists not had their way or had they not given in to the temptation to indulge their hatred of Russia and everything about it, there is every chance regime change would have succeeded in gathering Ukraine to the EU's bosom. Russia might still have made a grab for Crimea, and for me it would still have been legitimate since it was once part of Russia and was never ceded legally to Ukraine as its other territories were. But the stab in the back over the use of Russian, which once again was only a treat the nationalists foolishly allowed themselves as a reward for victory, provided a perfect catalyst for rebellion and the rapid decision-making it entails. I would be willing to bet Washington and the State Department are still cursing over that tactical blunder, since they are now lumbered with the great corrupt mass of Ukraine, with an active rebellion simmering on its eastern edge, but without the sparkling prize of Crimea. I don't know if Putin actually said he did not want to be welcomed by NATO sailors in Sevastopol, as he is reputed to have done, but that most certainly was part of the plan.

likbez , July 16, 2017 at 8:09 pm
This is a very good comment. I think you caught the essence of what happened. Nationalists first destroyed the country territorial integrity, and after that, they destroyed its economics. Essentially acting as US stooges, helping the USA to achieve its geopolitical goals (and Ukraine remains the major geopolitical victory of Obama administration).

Now the majority of Ukrainians exist on around $2 a day. So the social explosion is possible. And they continue digging the hole deeper and deeper. This is a real Ukrainian tragedy: they managed to replicate all the horrors of 90th again.

I still remember Bush the older speech about "suicidal Ukrainian nationalism" (Chicken Kiev speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech ). It proved to be pretty prophetic.

Also, idealization of the West promoted by nationalists serves as a trap, consequences of which are yet to come. Being Germany resource base is not a walk in the park. Ask Bulgarians about this experience. Or Greece.

At the same time Donbas tragedy was partially the result of Putin's policy (or lack thereof) because there was a vague promise that if on the referendum they vote for joining Russia they will be accepted like Crimea. But he decided not do that. Or, most probably, somebody helped Putin to decide that way. Of course, after Yeltsin drunk orgy Russia remains weak and can't challenge the USA directly. And that would do just that. But truth be told after Odessa civilians burning in the building all Eastern Ukraine up to Kiev was probably ready to accept Russians as liberators. At least nationalists in Kharkov felt that the city has been already lost.

I talked with a couple of Ukrainian refugees from Donbas area and they were not actually too exited about Putin's policy and think that he shares the blame with nationalists.

This was a trap that helped to provoke the civil war: the USA pushed for the military solution. May be in order to destabilize the region, and by extension, Russia, which they incorrectly consider the main geopolitical enemy after China. But as a result, they destroyed remnants of Ukrainian economics, and now somebody needs to pick the bill. This process of deindustrialization is continuing as Ukraine lost the major market for its production. 300% devaluation of grivna reflects just that. Just think about it: 300% in three years: from 8 to a dollar to 26

In essence, the USA position on Donbas conflict was to the right of Ukrainian nationalists. Especially US neocons like Nuland and McCain. I remember Yatsenyuk speech (in Russian) at this time in which he backtracked from "Ukrainian language uber alles" position; might be a tactical maneuver, but still

In any case, Ukraine remains the worst defeat of Putin in foreign policy area for his whole term in office (Libya was under Medvedev). And the major geopolitical victory for the USA. Nobody cares if Ukrainians will starve. And if Russia stops transiting of gas as they plan to do, the economic situation in Ukraine will become much worse. At this point they might arrive as close to the failed state as one can get.

marknesop , July 16, 2017 at 9:10 pm
Thank you, likbez. Yes, Putin several times referred carelessly to 'Novorossiya', which created the impression that Russia was considering accepting it. Also, he obtained the advance approval of the Duma to conduct military operations as he saw fit in order to protect eastern-Ukrainian ethnic Russians. That was perhaps the biggest mistake he ever made, and he withdrew it, but it was too late and it very much played into western hands. Washington was able to portray Russia as ready to invade Ukraine, and it was convincing.

I think Putin has known all along that eastern Ukraine would be an asset as a frozen conflict, like Abkhazia and South Ossetia are in Georgia, whereas if Russia were to take them in they would be a liability, as Russia would be forced to defend them. But those former Donbas residents who grumble because Putin did not absorb eastern Ukraine should ask themselves if they would be better off if Kiev won and subjugated them, and they joined the people who are living on a couple of bucks a day. Russian commerce still goes on with the east, but not with the rest of Ukraine.

And it's true Ukraine represents a major defeat for Russia, but there was little Russia could have done to stop it. Russia was not going to go to war against NATO to prevent it from seizing Ukraine, but NATO is not likely to go to war to hold on to it, either. Russia played by the rules and stayed out of what it labeled Ukraine's business, but the west had no such scruples, and it meddled, meddled, meddled and instigated a coup. Only a coup will take it back.

[Jul 16, 2017] The MSM has never found a dictator/thug/mass murder that it didnt like if said dictator/thug/mass murderer was doing its bidding. IIRC, a US favorite was Pol Pot and the Khemer Rouge – those folks made NK look positively benign.

Jul 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , July 16, 2017 at 5:54 pm

I think Mark and/or others have said that Matt has latched on to NK as it is the undisputed evil in the world per the MSM. By extension, he hopes to prove that everything that the MSM states that Russian medial disputes must also be the truth.

The MSM is a prolific generator of falseshoods fashioned to create the necessary public opinion to generate a call for action in the Congress and at least apathy in the electorate. And one thing for certain, whenever the MSM starts to cry about HR abuse or evil dictators, the real reason for the negative stories is something entirely unrelated.

In the case of NK, I can only speculate. Certainly a united Korea would no longer need or welcome the ongoing US occupation. A united Korea would be far more than its historical enemy, Japan, could handle. A united Korea could be a major part of the Chinese Eurasian economic development project. In short, a united Korea is a very bad thing UNLESS a pro-US/Japanese regime can be installed. That prospect looks very unlikely as as the memory of what the US did to them is burned into their neurons and Russia nor China would allow the necessary meddling for that to occur.

The MSM has never found a dictator/thug/mass murder that it didn't like if said dictator/thug/mass murderer was doing its bidding. IIRC, a US favorite was Pol Pot and the Khemer Rouge – those folks made NK look positively benign.

Who, again, are the sociopaths? Who, Matt? Or, will you wimp out when your line of attack fails (yet again).

[Jul 16, 2017] North Korean Leadership May Be Ruthless and Reckless, But They Are Not Crazy - Antiwar.com Original

Notable quotes:
"... Mainichi Shimbun ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

North Korean Leadership May Be Ruthless and Reckless, But They Are Not Crazy

'Time is Not on Our Side': Former senior US government officials say there must be dialogue with North Korea

by Col. Ann Wright (ret.) Posted on July 15, 2017 July 14, 2017 Despite the rhetoric from the Trump administration about military confrontation with North Korea, the common theme of many U.S. experts on North Korea is that the US presidential administration MUST conduct a dialogue with North Korea – and quickly! Military confrontation is NOT an option according to the experts.

And most importantly, the new President of South Korea Moon Jae-in was elected in May 2017 on a pledge to engage in talks with North Korea and pursue diplomacy to finally officially end the Korean conflict. Nearly 80 percent of South Koreans support a resumption of long-suspended inter-Korean dialogue, according to a survey by a presidential advisory panel showed in late June.

On June 28, 2017, six former high level experienced US government officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations over the past thirty years sent a letter to President Trump stating that "Kim Jong Un is not irrational and highly values preserving his regime Talking is not a reward or a concession to Pyongyang and should not be construed as signaling acceptance of a nuclear-armed North Korea. It is a necessary step to establishing communication to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. The key danger today is not that North Korea would launch a surprise nuclear attack. Instead the primary danger is a miscalculation or mistake that could lead to war."

The signatories to the letter were

William J. Perry, 19th US Secretary of Defense under the Clinton administration; George P. Shultz, 60th Secretary of State under the Reagan administration and now Distinguished Fellow, Hoover institution, Stanford University; Governor Bill Richardson, US Secretary of Energy and US Ambassador to the United Nations under the Clinton administration; Robert L. Gallucci, former negotiator in the Clinton administration and now with Georgetown University; Sigfrid S. Hecker, nuclear weapons expert and the last US official to visit the North Korea nuclear facilities and now with the Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University; and Retired US Senator (Republican) Richard G. Lugar, and now president the Lugar Center

Together, they wrote: "there are no good military options, and a North Korean response to a US attack would devastate North Korea and Japan. Tightening sanctions can be useful in increasing pressure on North Korea, but sanctions alone will not solve the problem. Pyongyang has shown that it can make progress on missile and nuclear technology despite its isolation. Without a diplomatic effort to stop its progress, there is little doubt that it will develop a long-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to the United States."

The experts ended their letter to President Trump by calling for quick action: "Today there is a window of opportunity to stop these programs, and it may be the last chance before North Korea acquires long-range capability. Time is not on our side. We urge you to put diplomacy at the top of the list of options on the table."

Two weeks earlier, on June 13, 2017, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and University of Chicago Korean War historian Bruce Cummings both strongly advocated for dialogue with North Korea at the Korean Peace Network's conference " Off Ramps to War " hosted by the Partnerships for International Strategies in Asia program at George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs in Washington, DC.

William Perry said, "North Korean leadership may be ruthless and reckless, but they are not crazy." He added, "Why do we have a double standard for North Korea? We accept Saudi Arabia as it is with its human rights violations, but we do not accept North Korea as it is-a nuclear power. Refusing to listen to the North Koreans about their goals and needs has meant that in the seventeen years since the last relevant dialogue, the North Koreans have developed and tested nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles."

The Bush administration's naming North Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil" in 2002 and the Obama administration's subsequent "Strategic Patience" policy were not forms of diplomacy, argued Perry, but instead were "miserable policy failures." According to Perry, the US has not had a negotiating strategy with North Korea in seventeen years, and during that time, North Korea has continued to do what the US and other major powers do not want it to do – test nuclear weapons and missiles.

Perry said that the North Korean government has three goals:

Staying in power; Gaining international respect; Improving their economy.

Perry emphasized that the North Korean government will sacrifice the last two goals – gaining international respect and improving the economy – to achieve the first goal, which is staying in power.

Because of the lack of listening to and acknowledging North Korean objectives on what its goals are – which includes signing a peace treaty to take the place of the 50+ year armistice, signing a nonaggression pact and reducing U.S.-South Korean military war games, Perry believes that the best outcome available to negotiators is to freeze the nuclear weapons and the ICBM programs, not their elimination.

Perry said he believes North Koreans would never use nuclear weapons as those weapons "are valuable only if they DON'T use them. They know the response from the US would be devastating, should North Korea explode a nuclear weapon."

University of Chicago history professor Bruce Cumings, author of The Korean War: A History , said at the symposium that the Clinton administration achieved very important goals with North Korea, including "North Korea freezing its plutonium production for eight years (1994–2002) and, in October 2000, indirectly working out a deal to buy all of North Korea's medium and long-range missiles – and signing an agreement with North Korean General Jo Myong-rok in a meeting in the White House stating that neither country would bear 'hostile intent' toward the other."

But the Bush administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Undersecretary of State John Bolton "actively sought to torpedo the Agreed Framework" and succeeded in pushing aside the agreements negotiated by the Clinton administration thereby destroying the 1994 freeze and refusing to acknowledge the Clinton-Jo pledge of "no hostile intent," particularly since the pledge was made by allowing a North Korean general inside the White House.

With President Bush's January 2002 State of the Union speech, in which he called North Korea part of an "axis of evil," the Bush administration turned its back on North Korea, abrogating the "Agreed Framework" and halting shipments of American fuel-oil permanently. In response, the North Koreans withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and restarted their plutonium-producing reactor.

As Cumings wrote for The Nation , "The simple fact is that Pyongyang would have no nuclear weapons if Clinton's agreements had been sustained."

Sheldon Richman, executive editor of The Libertarian Institute and the former senior editor at the Cato Institute agrees with Perry that North Korean leader Kim Jung UN is not crazy. "Let us dispense, once and for all, with the idea that Kim is a madman," Richman wrote at Antiwar.com . " Brutality is not madness, and a madman wouldn't be expected to capitulate to economic pressure. He shows every sign of wanting his regime to endure, which means he would not want the US military or nuclear arsenal to pulverize it. Assuming rationality in this context asserts only that Kim's means are reasonably related to his ends."

Richman underscores the rationale for the North Korean government to develop nuclear weapons against the will of the US"Kim shows every sign of having learned the lesson of recent US regime-change policies toward Iraq and Libya, neither of which were nuclear states. Same with Syria, whose regime has been targeted by the US government. The lesson is: if you want to deter a US attack, get yourself some nukes."

Robert E. Kelly, Associate Professor of International Relations in the Department of Political Science at Pusan National University, makes a similar argument. "This is not a suicidal, ideological, ISIS-like state bent on apocalyptic war but rather a post-ideological gangter-ish dictatorship looking to survive. The best way to guarantee the North's survival is nuclear deterrence It is a rational decision, given Pyongyang's goals to, 1) not change internally, and 2) not be attacked externally. This is not ideal of course. Best would be a de-nuclearized North Korea. But this is highly unlikely at this point."

Track 2 Diplomacy with North Korea continues

Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported recently that Robert Gallucci and Leon Sigal, director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council, held nuclear and missile discussions in October 2016, with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Han Song-ryol in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia. The North Korean envoy said North Korea had communicated its desire to negotiate directly with the US without involving China, to whom 90% of its exports go.

Another Japanese newspaper, Mainichi Shimbun , reported that North Korea originally demanded Washington send to North Korea a former US President as a special envoy to resolve the case of Otto Warmbier, an American student who recently died after detention in North Korea.

According to the newspaper, Choe Son-hui, head of the North Korean Foreign Ministry's US affairs bureau, notified the US through its UN mission in May 2017. However, North Korea released Warmbier in a coma after Trump refused to send a former President and sent Joseph Yun, State Department Special Representative for North Korea Policy to North Korea instead.

Another Track 2 group met with a North Korean delegation in early June 2017. Sue Mi Terry, a Korea expert who has worked at both the CIA and the National Security Council and now is with the Bower Group Asia spoke on June 28, 2017 to NPR about meeting with North Korea officials to try to get nuclear talks back on track.

Terry said that to North Koreans, their nuclear arsenal "is a matter of survival. North Koreans have told us even in the recent meeting – and they've specifically brought up Libya – Gaddafi's case in Libya and Iraq – and said: 'Nuclear weapons is the only way for us to absolutely guarantee our survival, and this is why we're not going to give it up. We're so close to perfecting this nuclear arsenal. This is our final deterrent against the United States.' Ultimately it's about regime survival for them, and nuclear weapons guarantees it."

Terry said the North Koreans demand that the United States accept them as a nuclear power and there is "absolutely no flexibility or willingness to meet to talk about ending their nuclear program." In contrast to other experts, Terry believes it is "unrealistic for us (the US) to go from where we are to talk about peace treaty and discuss formally ending the Korean War."

She believes the solution is "continuing with maximum pressure with sanctions and trying to get China to do more. And if China does not come through, then we'll have to pursue secondary sanctions against Chinese banks and entities and see if that can get China to rein in North Korea a little bit more."

Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and retired as a Colonel. She was a US diplomat for 16 years and served in US Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned from the U.S. diplomatic corps in March 2003 in opposition to President Bush's war on Iraq. She is the co-author of Dissent: Voices of Conscience .

Read more by Col. Ann Wright (ret.) America's Ready Supply of Enemies – May 11th, 2017

[Jul 16, 2017] Will the DNC lose in 2018, because theyre beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. Say what you will about Trump, but he certainly made politics a lot more entertaining to watch. Not sure if thats good or bad, but Im getting popcorn.

Notable quotes:
"... "We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter. ..."
"... "Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment. That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than 22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper, Ohio Democratic Party chairman. ..."
"... The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump. ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | ucgsblog.wordpress.com
ucgsblog says: July 16, 2017 at 7:21 pm Sorry about being MIA, I'm probably going to be MIA until mid-August, but in the meantime, here's an interesting article:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/message-democrats-must-more-talk-russia-122203301.html

"We know that we can be an America that works for everyone, because we believe that our diversity is our greatest strength. And we believe that when we put hope on the ballot we do well, and when we allow others to put fear in the eyes of people we don't do so hot," Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

___

"We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter.

___

"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize," Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible.

___

"I focus a lot on good-paying jobs, student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those are the issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think (the Russia investigation) has to interfere with our conversation about every day matters in people's lives," Jason Crow, Democratic candidate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District.

___

"Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment. That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than 22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to Hillary Clinton.

___

"We will both defend the integrity of our democracy (on the Russian investigation) and we will defend access to health care for tens of millions of people. The resistance is big enough and sophisticated enough to track both of those urgent and important issues," Anna Galland, executive director of Moveon.org Civic Action.

___

"All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper, Ohio Democratic Party chairman.

___

"We need to be able to explain what we're for just as emphatically as who we are against. Voters need to hear you talking about them more than they hear you talking about yourself, your opponent or the president." Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.

!!!!!!-

The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump.

Looks like the DNC is slowly starting to realize what voters want, despite inner party special interest groups. Levin and Crow summarize mainstream Democrats, so I'll just requote them:

"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize I focus a lot on good-paying jobs, student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those are the issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think (the Russia investigation) has to interfere with our conversation about every day matters in people's lives"

Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. Say what you will about Trump, but he certainly made politics a lot more entertaining to watch. Not sure if that's good or bad, but I'm getting popcorn.

[Jul 16, 2017] WikiLeaks - Vault 7 Projects

wikileaks.org
Today, July 6th 2017, WikiLeaks publishes documents from the BothanSpy and Gyrfalcon projects of the CIA The implants described in both projects are designed to intercept and exfiltrate SSH credentials but work on different operating systems with different attack vectors.

BothanSpy is an implant that targets the SSH client program Xshell on the Microsoft Windows platform and steals user credentials for all active SSH sessions. These credentials are either username and password in case of password-authenticated SSH sessions or username, filename of private SSH key and key password if public key authentication is used. BothanSpy can exfiltrate the stolen credentials to a CIA-controlled server (so the implant never touches the disk on the target system) or save it in an enrypted file for later exfiltration by other means. BothanSpy is installed as a Shellterm 3.x extension on the target machine.

Gyrfalcon is an implant that targets the OpenSSH client on Linux platforms (centos,debian,rhel,suse,ubuntu). The implant can not only steal user credentials of active SSH sessions, but is also capable of collecting full or partial OpenSSH session traffic. All collected information is stored in an encrypted file for later exfiltration. It is installed and configured by using a CIA-developed root kit (JQC/KitV) on the target machine. OutlawCountry 30 June, 2017 Today, June 30th 2017, WikiLeaks publishes documents from the OutlawCountry project of the CIA that targets computers running the Linux operating system. OutlawCountry allows for the redirection of all outbound network traffic on the target computer to CIA controlled machines for ex- and infiltration purposes. The malware consists of a kernel module that creates a hidden netfilter table on a Linux target; with knowledge of the table name, an operator can create rules that take precedence over existing netfilter/iptables rules and are concealed from an user or even system administrator.

The installation and persistence method of the malware is not described in detail in the document; an operator will have to rely on the available CIA exploits and backdoors to inject the kernel module into a target operating system. OutlawCountry v1.0 contains one kernel module for 64-bit CentOS/RHEL 6.x; this module will only work with default kernels. Also, OutlawCountry v1.0 only supports adding covert DNAT rules to the PREROUTING chain. Elsa 28 June, 2017 Today, June 28th 2017, WikiLeaks publishes documents from the ELSA project of the CIA ELSA is a geo-location malware for WiFi-enabled devices like laptops running the Micorosoft Windows operating system. Once persistently installed on a target machine using separate CIA exploits, the malware scans visible WiFi access points and records the ESS identifier, MAC address and signal strength at regular intervals. To perform the data collection the target machine does not have to be online or connected to an access point; it only needs to be running with an enabled WiFi device. If it is connected to the internet, the malware automatically tries to use public geo-location databases from Google or Microsoft to resolve the position of the device and stores the longitude and latitude data along with the timestamp. The collected access point/geo-location information is stored in encrypted form on the device for later exfiltration. The malware itself does not beacon this data to a CIA back-end; instead the operator must actively retrieve the log file from the device - again using separate CIA exploits and backdoors.

The ELSA project allows the customization of the implant to match the target environment and operational objectives like sampling interval, maximum size of the logfile and invocation/persistence method. Additional back-end software (again using public geo-location databases from Google and Microsoft) converts unprocessed access point information from exfiltrated logfiles to geo-location data to create a tracking profile of the target device. Leaked Documents ELSA User Manual
Brutal Kangaroo 22 June, 2017 Today, June 22nd 2017, WikiLeaks publishes documents from the Brutal Kangaroo project of the CIA Brutal Kangaroo is a tool suite for Microsoft Windows that targets closed networks by air gap jumping using thumbdrives. Brutal Kangaroo components create a custom covert network within the target closed network and providing functionality for executing surveys, directory listings, and arbitrary executables.

The documents describe how a CIA operation can infiltrate a closed network (or a single air-gapped computer) within an organization or enterprise without direct access. It first infects a Internet-connected computer within the organization (referred to as "primary host") and installs the BrutalKangeroo malware on it. When a user is using the primary host and inserts a USB stick into it, the thumbdrive itself is infected with a separate malware. If this thumbdrive is used to copy data between the closed network and the LAN/WAN, the user will sooner or later plug the USB disk into a computer on the closed network. By browsing the USB drive with Windows Explorer on such a protected computer, it also gets infected with exfiltration/survey malware. If multiple computers on the closed network are under CIA control, they form a covert network to coordinate tasks and data exchange. Although not explicitly stated in the documents, this method of compromising closed networks is very similar to how Stuxnet worked.

The Brutal Kangaroo project consists of the following components: Drifting Deadline is the thumbdrive infection tool, Shattered Assurance is a server tool that handles automated infection of thumbdrives (as the primary mode of propagation for the Brutal Kangaroo suite), Broken Promise is the Brutal Kangaroo postprocessor (to evaluate collected information) and Shadow is the primary persistence mechanism (a stage 2 tool that is distributed across a closed network and acts as a covert command-and-control network; once multiple Shadow instances are installed and share drives, tasking and payloads can be sent back-and-forth).

The primary execution vector used by infected thumbdrives is a vulnerability in the Microsoft Windows operating system that can be exploited by hand-crafted link files that load and execute programs (DLLs) without user interaction. Older versions of the tool suite used a mechanism called EZCheese that was a 0-day exploit until March 2015 ; newer versions seem use a similar, but yet unknown link file vulnerability ( Lachesis / RiverJack ) related to the library-ms functionality of the operating system. Leaked Documents Brutal Kangaroo -- Drifting Deadline v1.2 - User Guide
EzCheese v6.3 - User Guide
EzCheese v6.2 - User Guide (Rev. B)
EzCheese v6.2 - User Guide (Rev. A)
EZCheese v6.2 - IVV TDR Slides
See more Cherry Blossom 15 June, 2017 Today, June 15th 2017, WikiLeaks publishes documents from the CherryBlossom project of the CIA that was developed and implemented with the help of the US nonprofit Stanford Research Institute (SRI International) .

CherryBlossom provides a means of monitoring the Internet activity of and performing software exploits on Targets of interest. In particular, CherryBlossom is focused on compromising wireless networking devices, such as wireless routers and access points (APs), to achieve these goals. Such Wi-Fi devices are commonly used as part of the Internet infrastructure in private homes, public spaces (bars, hotels or airports), small and medium sized companies as well as enterprise offices. Therefore these devices are the ideal spot for "Man-In-The-Middle" attacks, as they can easily monitor, control and manipulate the Internet traffic of connected users. By altering the data stream between the user and Internet services, the infected device can inject malicious content into the stream to exploit vulnerabilities in applications or the operating system on the computer of the targeted user.

The wireless device itself is compromized by implanting a customized CherryBlossom firmware on it; some devices allow upgrading their firmware over a wireless link, so no physical access to the device is necessary for a successful infection. Once the new firmware on the device is flashed, the router or access point will become a so-called FlyTrap . A FlyTrap will beacon over the Internet to a Command & Control server referred to as the CherryTree . The beaconed information contains device status and security information that the CherryTree logs to a database. In response to this information, the CherryTree sends a Mission with operator-defined tasking. An operator can use CherryWeb , a browser-based user interface to view Flytrap status and security info, plan Mission tasking, view Mission -related data, and perform system administration tasks.

Missions may include tasking on Targets to monitor, actions/exploits to perform on a Target , and instructions on when and how to send the next beacon. Tasks for a Flytrap include (among others) the scan for email addresses , chat usernames , MAC addresses and VoIP numbers in passing network traffic to trigger additional actions, the copying of the full network traffic of a Target , the redirection of a Target 's browser (e.g., to Windex for browser exploitation) or the proxying of a Target 's network connections. FlyTrap can also setup VPN tunnels to a CherryBlossom -owned VPN server to give an operator access to clients on the Flytrap 's WLAN/LAN for further exploitation. When the Flytrap detects a Target , it will send an Alert to the CherryTree and commence any actions/exploits against the Target . The CherryTree logs Alerts to a database, and, potentially distributes Alert information to interested parties (via Catapult ). Leaked Documents CherryBlossom -- System Req Spec (CDRL-10)
CherryBlossom -- Quick Start Guide
WiFi Devices
CherryBlossom -- Installation Guide
CherryBlossom -- Operating Environment (S//NF)
See more Pandemic 1 June, 2017 Today, June 1st 2017, WikiLeaks publishes documents from the "Pandemic" project of the CIA, a persistent implant for Microsoft Windows machines that share files (programs) with remote users in a local network. "Pandemic" targets remote users by replacing application code on-the-fly with a trojaned version if the program is retrieved from the infected machine. To obfuscate its activity, the original file on the file server remains unchanged; it is only modified/replaced while in transit from the pandemic file server before being executed on the computer of the remote user. The implant allows the replacement of up to 20 programs with a maximum size of 800 MB for a selected list of remote users (targets).

As the name suggests, a single computer on a local network with shared drives that is infected with the "Pandemic" implant will act like a "Patient Zero" in the spread of a disease. It will infect remote computers if the user executes programs stored on the pandemic file server. Although not explicitly stated in the documents, it seems technically feasible that remote computers that provide file shares themselves become new pandemic file servers on the local network to reach new targets. Leaked Documents Pandemic 1.1 (S/NF)
Pandemic 1.1-RC1 (S/NF)
Pandemic 1.1-RC1 -- IVVRR Checklist
Pandemic 1.0 (S/NF)
Pandemic 1.0 -- IVVRR Checklist
See more Athena 19 May, 2017 Today, May 19th 2017, WikiLeaks publishes documents from the "Athena" project of the CIA "Athena" - like the related "Hera" system - provides remote beacon and loader capabilities on target computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system (from Windows XP to Windows 10). Once installed, the malware provides a beaconing capability (including configuration and task handling), the memory loading/unloading of malicious payloads for specific tasks and the delivery and retrieval of files to/from a specified directory on the target system. It allows the operator to configure settings during runtime (while the implant is on target) to customize it to an operation.

According to the documentation (see Athena Technology Overview ), the malware was developed by the CIA in cooperation with Siege Technologies , a self-proclaimed cyber security company based in New Hampshire, US. On their website, Siege Technologies states that the company " ... focuses on leveraging offensive cyberwar technologies and methodologies to develop predictive cyber security solutions for insurance, government and other targeted markets. ". On November 15th, 2016 Nehemiah Security announced the acquisition of Siege Technologies.

In an email from HackingTeam (published by WikiLeaks here ), Jason Syversen, founder of Siege Technologies with a background in cryptography and hacking, " ... said he set out to create the equivalent of the military's so-called probability of kill metric, a statistical analysis of whether an attack is likely to succeed. 'I feel more comfortable working on electronic warfare,' he said. 'It's a little different than bombs and nuclear weapons -- that's a morally complex field to be in. Now instead of bombing things and having collateral damage, you can really reduce civilian casualties, which is a win for everybody.' " Leaked Documents Athena v1.0 User Guide
Athena Technology Overview
Athena (Design)
Athena (Demo)
Athena (Design/Engine)
See more AfterMidnight 12 May, 2017 Today, May 12th 2017, WikiLeaks publishes "AfterMidnight" and "Assassin", two CIA malware frameworks for the Microsoft Windows platform.

"AfterMidnight" allows operators to dynamically load and execute malware payloads on a target machine. The main controller disguises as a self-persisting Windows Service DLL and provides secure execution of "Gremlins" via a HTTPS based Listening Post (LP) system called "Octopus". Once installed on a target machine AM will call back to a configured LP on a configurable schedule, checking to see if there is a new plan for it to execute. If there is, it downloads and stores all needed components before loading all new gremlins in memory. "Gremlins" are small AM payloads that are meant to run hidden on the target and either subvert the functionality of targeted software, survey the target (including data exfiltration) or provide internal services for other gremlins. The special payload "AlphaGremlin" even has a custom script language which allows operators to schedule custom tasks to be executed on the target machine.

"Assassin" is a similar kind of malware; it is an automated implant that provides a simple collection platform on remote computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system. Once the tool is installed on the target, the implant is run within a Windows service process. "Assassin" (just like "AfterMidnight") will then periodically beacon to its configured listening post(s) to request tasking and deliver results. Communication occurs over one or more transport protocols as configured before or during deployment. The "Assassin" C2 (Command and Control) and LP (Listening Post) subsystems are referred to collectively as" The Gibson" and allow operators to perform specific tasks on an infected target.. Leaked Documents AfterMidnight v1.0 Users Guide
AlphaGremlin v0.1.0 Users Guide
AfterMidnight Diagrams
Assassin v1.4 Users Guide
Assassin v1.3 Users Guide
See more Archimedes 5 May, 2017 Today, May 5th 2017, WikiLeaks publishes "Archimedes", a tool used by the CIA to attack a computer inside a Local Area Network (LAN), usually used in offices. It allows the re-directing of traffic from the target computer inside the LAN through a computer infected with this malware and controlled by the CIA This technique is used by the CIA to redirect the target's computers web browser to an exploitation server while appearing as a normal browsing session.

The document illustrates a type of attack within a "protected environment" as the the tool is deployed into an existing local network abusing existing machines to bring targeted computers under control and allowing further exploitation and abuse. Leaked Documents Archimedes 1.0 User Guide
Archimedes 1.3 Addendum
Archimedes 1.2 Addendum
Archimedes 1.1 Addendum
Fulcrum User Manual v0.62
See more Scribbles 28 April, 2017 Today, April 28th 2017, WikiLeaks publishes the documentation and source code for CIA's "Scribbles" project, a document-watermarking preprocessing system to embed "Web beacon"-style tags into documents that are likely to be copied by Insiders, Whistleblowers, Journalists or others. The released version (v1.0 RC1) is dated March, 1st 2016 and classified SECRET//ORCON/NOFORN until 2066.

Scribbles is intended for off-line preprocessing of Microsoft Office documents. For reasons of operational security the user guide demands that "[t]he Scribbles executable, parameter files, receipts and log files should not be installed on a target machine, nor left in a location where it might be collected by an adversary."

According to the documentation, "the Scribbles document watermarking tool has been successfully tested on [...] Microsoft Office 2013 (on Windows 8.1 x64), documents from Office versions 97-2016 (Office 95 documents will not work!) [and d]ocuments that are not be locked forms, encrypted, or password-protected". But this limitation to Microsoft Office documents seems to create problems: "If the targeted end-user opens them up in a different application, such as OpenOffice or LibreOffice, the watermark images and URLs may be visible to the end-user. For this reason, always make sure that the host names and URL components are logically consistent with the original content. If you are concerned that the targeted end-user may open these documents in a non-Microsoft Office application, please take some test documents and evaluate them in the likely application before deploying them."

Security researches and forensic experts will find more detailed information on how watermarks are applied to documents in the source code, which is included in this publication as a zipped archive. Leaked Documents Scribbles v1.0 RC1 - User Guide
Scribbles (Source Code)
Scribbles v1.0 RC1 - IVVRR Checklist
Scribbles v1.0 RC1 - Readiness Review Worksheet
Weeping Angel 21 April, 2017 Today, April 21st 2017, WikiLeaks publishes the User Guide for CIA's "Weeping Angel" tool - an implant designed for Samsung F Series Smart Televisions. Based on the "Extending" tool from the MI5/BTSS, the implant is designed to record audio from the built-in microphone and egress or store the data.

The classification marks of the User Guide document hint that is was originally written by the british MI5/BTSS and later shared with the CIA Both agencies collaborated on the further development of the malware and coordinated their work in Joint Development Workshops. Leaked Documents Extending - User Guide
Hive 14 April, 2017 Today, April 14th 2017, WikiLeaks publishes six documents from the CIA's HIVE project created by its "Embedded Development Branch" (EDB).

HIVE is a back-end infrastructure malware with a public-facing HTTPS interface which is used by CIA implants to transfer exfiltrated information from target machines to the CIA and to receive commands from its operators to execute specific tasks on the targets. HIVE is used across multiple malware implants and CIA operations. The public HTTPS interface utilizes unsuspicious-looking cover domains to hide its presence.

Anti-Virus companies and forensic experts have noticed that some possible state-actor malware used such kind of back-end infrastructure by analyzing the communication behaviour of these specific implants, but were unable to attribute the back-end (and therefore the implant itself) to operations run by the CIA In a recent blog post by Symantec , that was able to attribute the "Longhorn" activities to the CIA based on the Vault 7 , such back-end infrastructure is described:

For C&C servers, Longhorn typically configures a specific domain and IP address combination per target. The domains appear to be registered by the attackers; however they use privacy services to hide their real identity. The IP addresses are typically owned by legitimate companies offering virtual private server (VPS) or webhosting services. The malware communicates with C&C servers over HTTPS using a custom underlying cryptographic protocol to protect communications from identification.

The documents from this publication might further enable anti-malware researchers and forensic experts to analyse this kind of communication between malware implants and back-end servers used in previous illegal activities. Leaked Documents Users Guide
Developers Guide
Developers Guide (Figures)
Hive Beacon Infrastructure
Hive Infrastructure Installation and Configuration Guide
See more Grasshopper 7 April, 2017 Today, April 7th 2017, WikiLeaks releases Vault 7 "Grasshopper" -- 27 documents from the CIA's Grasshopper framework , a platform used to build customized malware payloads for Microsoft Windows operating systems.

Grasshopper is provided with a variety of modules that can be used by a CIA operator as blocks to construct a customized implant that will behave differently, for example maintaining persistence on the computer differently, depending on what particular features or capabilities are selected in the process of building the bundle. Additionally, Grasshopper provides a very flexible language to define rules that are used to "perform a pre-installation survey of the target device, assuring that the payload will only [be] installed if the target has the right configuration". Through this grammar CIA operators are able to build from very simple to very complex logic used to determine, for example, if the target device is running a specific version of Microsoft Windows, or if a particular Antivirus product is running or not.

Grasshopper allows tools to be installed using a variety of persistence mechanisms and modified using a variety of extensions (like encryption). The requirement list of the Automated Implant Branch (AIB) for Grasshopper puts special attention on PSP avoidance , so that any Personal Security Products like 'MS Security Essentials', 'Rising', 'Symantec Endpoint' or 'Kaspersky IS' on target machines do not detect Grasshopper elements.

One of the persistence mechanisms used by the CIA here is 'Stolen Goods' - whose "components were taken from malware known as Carberp, a suspected Russian organized crime rootkit." confirming the recycling of malware found on the Internet by the CIA "The source of Carberp was published online, and has allowed AED/RDB to easily steal components as needed from the malware.". While the CIA claims that "[most] of Carberp was not used in Stolen Goods" they do acknowledge that "[the] persistence method, and parts of the installer, were taken and modified to fit our needs", providing a further example of reuse of portions of publicly available malware by the CIA, as observed in their analysis of leaked material from the italian company "HackingTeam" .

The documents WikiLeaks publishes today provide an insights into the process of building modern espionage tools and insights into how the CIA maintains persistence over infected Microsoft Windows computers, providing directions for those seeking to defend their systems to identify any existing compromise Leaked Documents Grasshopper-v1_1-AdminGuide
Grasshopper-v2_0_2-UserGuide
StolenGoods-2_1-UserGuide
GH-Module-Null-v2_0-UserGuide
GH-Module-Buffalo-Bamboo-v1_0-UserGuide
See more Marble Framework 31 March, 2017 Today, March 31st 2017, WikiLeaks releases Vault 7 "Marble" -- 676 source code files for the CIA's secret anti-forensic Marble Framework . Marble is used to hamper forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks to the CIA

Marble does this by hiding ("obfuscating") text fragments used in CIA malware from visual inspection. This is the digital equivallent of a specalized CIA tool to place covers over the english language text on U.S. produced weapons systems before giving them to insurgents secretly backed by the CIA

Marble forms part of the CIA's anti-forensics approach and the CIA's Core Library of malware code. It is " [D]esigned to allow for flexible and easy-to-use obfuscation " as " string obfuscation algorithms (especially those that are unique) are often used to link malware to a specific developer or development shop. "

The Marble source code also includes a deobfuscator to reverse CIA text obfuscation. Combined with the revealed obfuscation techniques, a pattern or signature emerges which can assist forensic investigators attribute previous hacking attacks and viruses to the CIA Marble was in use at the CIA during 2016. It reached 1.0 in 2015.

The source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi. This would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion, --- but there are other possibilities, such as hiding fake error messages.

The Marble Framework is used for obfuscation only and does not contain any vulnerabilties or exploits by itself. Leaked Documents Marble Framework (Source Code)
Dark Matter 23 March, 2017 Today, March 23rd 2017, WikiLeaks releases Vault 7 "Dark Matter", which contains documentation for several CIA projects that infect Apple Mac firmware (meaning the infection persists even if the operating system is re-installed) developed by the CIA's Embedded Development Branch (EDB). These documents explain the techniques used by CIA to gain 'persistence' on Apple Mac devices, including Macs and iPhones and demonstrate their use of EFI/UEFI and firmware malware.

Among others, these documents reveal the "Sonic Screwdriver" project which, as explained by the CIA, is a "mechanism for executing code on peripheral devices while a Mac laptop or desktop is booting" allowing an attacker to boot its attack software for example from a USB stick "even when a firmware password is enabled". The CIA's "Sonic Screwdriver" infector is stored on the modified firmware of an Apple Thunderbolt-to-Ethernet adapter.

"DarkSeaSkies" is "an implant that persists in the EFI firmware of an Apple MacBook Air computer" and consists of "DarkMatter", "SeaPea" and "NightSkies", respectively EFI, kernel-space and user-space implants.

Documents on the "Triton" MacOSX malware, its infector "Dark Mallet" and its EFI-persistent version "DerStarke" are also included in this release. While the DerStarke1.4 manual released today dates to 2013, other Vault 7 documents show that as of 2016 the CIA continues to rely on and update these systems and is working on the production of DerStarke2.0 .

Also included in this release is the manual for the CIA's "NightSkies 1.2" a "beacon/loader/implant tool" for the Apple iPhone. Noteworthy is that NightSkies had reached 1.2 by 2008, and is expressly designed to be physically installed onto factory fresh iPhones. i.e the CIA has been infecting the iPhone supply chain of its targets since at least 2008.

While CIA assets are sometimes used to physically infect systems in the custody of a target it is likely that many CIA physical access attacks have infected the targeted organization's supply chain including by interdicting mail orders and other shipments (opening, infecting, and resending) leaving the United States or otherwise.

[Jul 16, 2017] https://fdik.org/wikileaks/year0/vault7/cms/page_2621796.html

Jul 16, 2017 | fdik.org

So, secure your systems people. Attackers potentially trying to use these tools still need to somehow get a shell on your system in order to install this stuff.

Detecting on your system
As far as detecting on your system, that's going to be tough since:

But - we do know a couple things..

More Information
WikiLeaks announcement:
https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#BothanSpy

Gyrfalcon 2.0 User Manual:
https://wikileaks.org/vault7/document/Gyrfalcon-2_0-User_Guide/Gyrfalcon-2_0-User_Guide.pdf

Gyrfalcon 1.0 User Manual:
https://wikileaks.org/vault7/document/Gyrfalcon-1_0-User_Manual/Gyrfalcon-1_0-User_Manual.pdf

[Jul 16, 2017] As Anti-Trump - Anti-Russia Campaign Fails - Yascha Mounk Feeds New Lies

Yet another classic "Yascha about Russia... " propaganda theme variation ( Gessen style Russophobia). This time he is from Germany, though. Some people would do everything to earn a living.
Notable quotes:
"... Judging by the comments in "Professor" Mounk's Twitter feed, the vast majority are pretty much wise to the deception. Whether this holds for the retweets I don't know. But I'm pretty sure we are witnessing the decay of the establishment. ..."
"... Lemoine ( http://www.twitter.com/phl43) destroys the liberal media bullshit narrative piece by piece. I haven't found a more thorough discussion anywhere else online. It's well worth reading just for its clarity and strength of argumentation. ..."
"... Illuminating how widely quoted and passed on is the rubbish of Yascha Mounk, and 'et al'. What does this say about the publications and outlets that give such dishonesty a megaphone? They must lose credibility. ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts has written at various times words to the effect that just about all public and private institutions in the US are now corrupt. It's hard to find examples that refute that thesis. ..."
"... so this is what Harvard has to offer. and to think having a Harvard education used to mean something. ..."
"... Nice to see at least one US Journalist take on and destroy two prominent Neocons. Here Tucker Carlson takes on Lt Col Ralph Peters and Max Boot. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/07/13/tucker-carlson-neocon-slayer/ ..."
"... The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies. ..."
"... One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same. ..."
"... Charles C. Johnson said he also suggested that Smith get in touch with Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev' and has collaborated with Johnson in the past. Auernheimer--who was released from federal prison in 2014 after having a conviction for fraud and hacking offenses vacated [on appeal - May 2014] and subsequently moved to Ukraine . ..."
"... American lies should be put in context. The USA is a dying country, that is all but unmanageable, in the midst of its second Civil War (fought mostly in the media now, but the erosion of country's national fabric is immense and keeps worsening). In such circumstances, finding external enemy in order to redirect the destructive energy outward is simply a matter of national survival. That's why we have the anti-Russia frenzy. ..."
"... That's how great countries fracture and disappear. It' ugly, and will only get uglier. ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The U.S. borg is vehemently trying to set up Russia as an enemy of the "west". Their anti-Russian propaganda has become part of the campaign against U.S. President Trump who seeks dιtente with Russia. It requires intense efforts to denigrate the country, its citizens and its leaders. Here is an example of how such propaganda is fabricated.

Yascha Mounk is:

a Lecturer on Political Theory at Harvard University's Government Department, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Transatlantic Academy of the German Marshall Fund, and a Nonresident Fellow at New America's Political Reform Program.

He is a self declared liberal internationalist who has been published and quoted by lots of international media.

Yesterday Mounk tweeted this :


bigger

The Mounk tweet is a series of lies:

Need a reminder of the human cost of dictatorship? All these are journalists who criticized Putin--and died under mysterious circumstances

The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin is dully elected and not a dictator. The Russian Federation may not be a "liberal democracy", but it is a democracy. The picture is old. It shows all Russian journalists who died during their work since 1991. Most of them died as war- or crime-correspondents and were not involved in politics at all. The death of most of those journalists is not mysterious. Getting blown up by artillery during the wars in Chechnya, Yugoslavia or Ukraine is no mystery at all. Most of these journalists never criticize Putin. They were already dead before Putin had any significant political role.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) lists 82 killed Russian journalists since 1992, most of them died due to war or related to civil crimes or corruption. There are about 80 portraits of journalists in the picture Mounk tweeted.

Two recognizable portraits and names therein are of Vlad Listyev, a TV entertainment producer killed in 1995 over some controversy about lucrative advertisement on public TV. Another portrait is of Dmitry Kholodov, killed in 1994 while investigating mafia connections within the Russian military. At the time of their death Putin was a minor bureaucrat in Saint Petersburg. He did not gain power until he became acting president at the end of 1999.

According to the CPJ numbers more Russian journalists were killed during the eight years of Yeltsin's presidency (1992-2000) than in the 17 years of Putin's presidencies since. Mounk claims "All these are journalists who criticized Putin ..." when more than half of them were already dead before Putin became known and to power. It was during the time of the " Harvard boys " who robbed Russia blind that most of these journalist were killed. The Russian system, thanks to the Harvard driven "reforms" and criminal privatization under Yeltsin, is a rough terrain for investigating oligarchs and mafia businesses. But there is no evidence , none at all, that Putin was ever involved in the decease of any journalist.

The first original publishing of the Mounk picture may have been as early as 2009 . A piece on journalists remembrance in Russia from 2014 already includes the pic. The reverse image search shows that the picture has been has been used by several news-outlets since.

Every aspect of the Mounk tweet is a lie.

But Mounk's lies have by now been re-tweeted over 22,000 times. Many of those who see it will believe the claims he makes. They will trust a widely publish Harvard academic. But the tweet, as well as nearly all other claims about Russia one sees in "western" media, is pure propaganda. It is like the editorial in today's New York Times that claims "Russia's oil-dependent economy [is] in trouble" while all Russian economic numbers turned positive and all indicators point to accelerating growth . It is fake news.

The anti-Russian propaganda campaign is now part of the "liberal" campaign against U.S. president Trump. It is failing . Trump's support is steady if not increasing despite daily new revelation about his (non existent) "collusion with Russia" and the (non existing) "Russian interference" in the U.S. election.

The purveyors of the propaganda stories are in despair. Each and every new fire they try to stoke dies off within a day or two. The temptation then is to invent and push ever bigger lies about Trump, Russia and their non-existing connections.

The fake news Mounk spits out, and which disqualify him as an academic, is a sign of their accelerating panic.

Posted by b on July 16, 2017 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

lysander | Jul 16, 2017 12:00:05 PM | 3
Judging by the comments in "Professor" Mounk's Twitter feed, the vast majority are pretty much wise to the deception. Whether this holds for the retweets I don't know. But I'm pretty sure we are witnessing the decay of the establishment.
Lemur | Jul 16, 2017 12:12:55 PM | 4
Reminder these journalists and academics are so evil they actually want to repeal and replace the historic American nation with a variety of mystery meat immigration (invasion).
Anon | Jul 16, 2017 12:13:05 PM | 5
Here is the best discussion of the Trump Jr. nonsense available: https://necpluribusimpar.net/trumps-collusion-russia-add-nothing-nothing-get-still-nothing/

Lemoine ( http://www.twitter.com/phl43) destroys the liberal media bullshit narrative piece by piece. I haven't found a more thorough discussion anywhere else online. It's well worth reading just for its clarity and strength of argumentation.

Anonymous | Jul 16, 2017 12:20:43 PM | 6
There are journalists killed during the 1980's in that room, too. Here is a higher resolution version:
http://newsprom.ru/i/n/845/205845/tn_205845_12517dfa330f.jpg

Apart from the two you mentioned, you can make out several other names right off the bat, like Soviet journalist Alexander Kaverznev who died in 1983 and Gennadiy Kurennoy who died together with colleague and fellow Gosteleradio SSSR journalist Viktor Nogin in an armed ambush in Yugoslavia, during the war in 1991. Also visible is Andrey Pralnikov, who died in 1997 after finally succumbing to radiation injuries he sustained in 1986 during his on-site coverage of the Chernobyl accident (he wrote a book about, too).

In short, the portraits in that room are just Soviet and Russian journalists that have died on the job, regardless of how these deaths occured, and it goes back to the 1980s at least. Quite obviously, of the actual violence-related deaths the vast majority are from the 1990's, since there's been a rather dramatic downwards trend since Putin assumed office.

On his blog (I don't know if it's still up) Fedia Kriukov did an in-depth assessment of the cases post-2000 (i.e. the ones actually "under Putin") and found that several had nothing to do with the journalists' professional activities, but were just the results of them dealing with the criminal underworld themselves, some were the results of violence not targeting them but targeting people they happened to be covering at the time (e.g. Scott in 2002 and Khasanov in 2004), some were just pure bad luck, and out of the very few that actually were clear targeted killings it always had to do with organized crime (Domnikov, Politovskaya, Klebnikov).

And this is where the aforementioned downwards trend comes in, because the only correlation between journalists being murdered and the Putin period is strongly negative, and the reason is that the chief cause of investigative journalists being murdered - rampant organized crime and corrupted local law enforcement and officials - has been tackled rather successfully since 2000.

Robert Snefjella | Jul 16, 2017 12:29:31 PM | 7
Illuminating how widely quoted and passed on is the rubbish of Yascha Mounk, and 'et al'. What does this say about the publications and outlets that give such dishonesty a megaphone? They must lose credibility.

Paul Craig Roberts has written at various times words to the effect that just about all public and private institutions in the US are now corrupt. It's hard to find examples that refute that thesis.

I interpret PCR's words to at core mean that dishonesty, including evil omission, is now in the United States pervasive, normalized, institutionalized, 'mandatory' for those who want to remain 'gainfully employed' or accepted by those institutions.

That famous quote often identified with Orwell "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act" is the opposite side of that same coin.

This culture of bs is of course much broader than the US. We have the now famous confession by Udo Ulfkotte that much German media is corrupt, CIA controlled, bought and paid for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1lWKyRI10w

Another obscure but telling example: we have in Canada a book by Dr. Chopra titled 'Corrupt to the Core', detailing the situation at Health Canada during Chopra's long employment there.

And the WHO has been a snake in the grass for example when it comes to radioactivity and human health, for two generations allowing the nuclear powers that in effect act as censoring and misleading gatekeepers for material on that subject emanating from the WHO.
http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who

Perhaps I am engaging in wishfukl thinking but it seems to me we are seeing more and more signs of the breakdown of that systematic and comprehensive dishonesty machine that has infiltrated so many institutions and required and rewarded dishonesty in so many people? And along with that breakdown, the declining power of even so-called 'distinguished' institutions to wield power on behalf of lies. The 'appeal to whatever authority' seems to be losing much of its previous punch.

The recent increase in disclosures and public awareness of institutionalized pedo-predation is an example. Trump's election in the face of an unprecedented media and elite hostility, and extreme by same support for Clinton, to me suggests there is more than just a leak in the disgusting dike sustaining dishonesty as default position.

And when it comes to Putin, his popularity not just in Russia has been sustained or even grown in the face of an extreme mass media demonization effort.

The process puts me in mind of that scene from the Wizard of Oz where the wicked Witch is melting away, truth/water as deadly nemesis.

dan of steele | Jul 16, 2017 12:40:25 PM | 8
so this is what Harvard has to offer. and to think having a Harvard education used to mean something.

two are the choices here, either malice or incompetence. I want to believe it is merely because he is incurious and is getting enough positive feedback from his echo chamber but fear he knows full well what he is doing.

What is the endgame? How will rotten relations with Russia improve the lives of US citizens? If not the general population, then who stands to gain?

Robert McMaster | Jul 16, 2017 12:53:28 PM | 9
Hit these academic thugs where it hurts. Cut off their funding. The main reason they do this lying is because it pays. If the only reward was doing the right thing or speaking truth, then this Harvard Hack wouldn't be bothered. So, no tenure for you buddy. No nothing. Now go write your head off.
somebody | Jul 16, 2017 12:58:15 PM | 10
List of assassinated American politicians

Nothing like good old cold war propaganda. Ah the memories ....

Has Putin stopped talking about "our American partners" yet?

Philippe Lemoine | Jul 16, 2017 1:07:26 PM | 11
Thanks to the commenter above for sharing my post and for the nice words he had about it. People here may also be interested in the 3-part series of posts I wrote about the attack in Khan Sheikhoun. The first part is here and there are links to the other parts at the bottom of the post. I think it's the most thorough discussion of this attack, but I also discuss other similar incidents. I carefully document a shocking amount of bias and incompetence on the part of journalists. I also wrote a 4-part series of posts on this whole Russia/Trump nonsense back in February, which I think is still very relevant today. The first part is here .
james | Jul 16, 2017 1:25:53 PM | 12
thanks b... fascinating how a guy from harvard is oblivious to harvards historical role here in the phase of ripping off russia during and after the transition in 1991... great quote from you here - "It was during the time of the "Harvard boys" who robbed Russia blind that most of these journalist were killed. The Russian system, thanks to the Harvard driven "reforms" and criminal privatization under Yeltsin, is a rough terrain for investigating oligarchs and mafia businesses." why would this dipshit Yascha Mounk say all this? who pays him to lie? he is completely discredited here.. someone ought to send him a link to your article so he can see what an ignoramus or con man (it is one of the other) he really is..
Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 16, 2017 1:29:51 PM | 13
The Mythbusters motto was:
"If a thing's worth doing, it's worth overdoing."

Considering that Mythbusters were in the business of exposing and/or confirming popular myths & memes, the "overdoing" aspect was typically confined to exploring the limits to which the counter argument might prove to be valid.
The derision which the program attracted from edu-phobic 'purists' was regularly discredited by fulsome praise from scientists who pointed out that Mythbusters' exploration of the counter-argument demonstrated text-book faithfulness to The Scientific Method.

I'd love to hear what Mounk tells himself in order to anesthetise his conscience when embracing The Un-scientific Method to spread infantile, un-researched crap in the name of Harvard, Science and Mounk?

Tim | Jul 16, 2017 1:30:22 PM | 14
Yascha Mounk's book is titled, Stranger in my own country - a Jewish family in modern Germany.
harrylaw | Jul 16, 2017 1:45:05 PM | 15
Nice to see at least one US Journalist take on and destroy two prominent Neocons. Here Tucker Carlson takes on Lt Col Ralph Peters and Max Boot. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/07/13/tucker-carlson-neocon-slayer/
fast freddy | Jul 16, 2017 1:56:36 PM | 16
The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies.

One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same.

Liberal? ideals regularly featured are "Austerity For the Commons" and Tax Cuts for the rich with "Trickle Down" as the prevailing economic model for the past 40 years. And warmongering.

The MSM has never openly opposed any US war and it has, in fact, provided justification for all US invasions.

Liberal - Conservative labeling is a tool to divide the commons.

fast freddy | Jul 16, 2017 1:56:36 PM | 17
The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies.

One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same.

Liberal? ideals regularly featured are "Austerity For the Commons" and Tax Cuts for the rich with "Trickle Down" as the prevailing economic model for the past 40 years. And warmongering.

The MSM has never openly opposed any US war and it has, in fact, provided justification for all US invasions.

Liberal - Conservative labeling is a tool to divide the commons.

stevelaudig | Jul 16, 2017 2:02:25 PM | 18
Meanwhile the list of those killed directly by the USG in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Syria. Or indirectly by arming the murderers of the Yemeni, Ukraine and on and on and on, whose names we don't and may never know. "Their name is Legion". He's a bullshit academic who should participate in the wars he wants others to fight to prove 'his theory'.. He can put his own skin in the game.
Sven Lystbak | Jul 16, 2017 2:23:35 PM | 19
It is worth noting that 10 journalists and media persons have been killed in the Ukraine since the glorious revolution in 2014 against only 2 in Russia over the same period. This of cause is of zero interest to the western MSM.
Oui | Jul 16, 2017 2:26:41 PM | 20
The WSJ held an interview with Peter W. Smith and published an article by Shane Harris on June 29 titled "GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn".

Peter Smith Tapped Alt-Right to Access Dark Net

Charles C. Johnson said he also suggested that Smith get in touch with Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev' and has collaborated with Johnson in the past. Auernheimer--who was released from federal prison in 2014 after having a conviction for fraud and hacking offenses vacated [on appeal - May 2014] and subsequently moved to Ukraine .

Oui | Jul 16, 2017 2:27:13 PM | 21
See Part 1 - GOP Operative Peter Smith's Death Ruled A Suicide
Petri Krohn | Jul 16, 2017 2:38:07 PM | 22
The conflict is not between Russia and the West. It is not even between the West and the East. It is between Modernity and Post-Modernity.
mh505 | Jul 16, 2017 2:42:19 PM | 23
@ 12

Interesting article on the subject :

How Harvard Lost Russia .
The best and brightest of America's premier university came to Moscow in the 1990s to teach Russians how to be capitalists. This is the inside story of how their efforts led to scandal and disgrace.

http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/1020662/How-Harvard-lost-Russia.html?ArticleId=1020662&single=true

telescope | Jul 16, 2017 2:45:54 PM | 24
American lies should be put in context. The USA is a dying country, that is all but unmanageable, in the midst of its second Civil War (fought mostly in the media now, but the erosion of country's national fabric is immense and keeps worsening). In such circumstances, finding external enemy in order to redirect the destructive energy outward is simply a matter of national survival. That's why we have the anti-Russia frenzy.

It'll fail because Russia is militarily unassailable, and because continuing with the campaign is not only not helping with the domestic politics, but is scrambling America's geopolitical calculations. It's a geopolitical dead-end.

All in all, what we are seeing in the US is a full-scale panic of the establishment, with the MSM arm simply putting it all out there, no matter how preposterous or inaccurate, in a desperate bid to salvage something that is fundamentally unsalvageable.

That's how great countries fracture and disappear. It' ugly, and will only get uglier.

ruralito | Jul 16, 2017 2:56:08 PM | 25
@6 good catch!
james | Jul 16, 2017 3:17:58 PM | 26
@16 fastfreddy.. yeah, that is worth repeating...

@ 23 mh505... thanks.. that is a good link for getting a better understanding.. i wonder how Yascha Mounk perceives all this? surely he can't be ignorant of it.. is someone paying him for his propaganda? what a waste of money it is!!!

james | Jul 16, 2017 3:24:31 PM | 27
Yascha Mounk can be contacted [email protected]
Anonymous | Jul 16, 2017 3:49:31 PM | 28
Also another thing (I'm #6) again...

So, going back to the photo. There are 8 chairs/portraits in each row, and about 10 rows, so that's roughly 80 people affiliated with journalism that have died one way or another that might or might not be connected to their work, in 37 years (if we just assume it starts at 1980, seeing as there is a 1983 case in direct view...)

Considering that we clearly have journalists that have died while reporting from combat zones (see my earlier comment) as well as journalists that have died due to injuries received while reporting from dangerous "civilian" situations, it all comes across as pretty unremarkable.

Mind you, between 1980 and 1991, the USSR was a country of nearly 300 million people, and the Russian Federation has been hovering in the 140-150 ballpark since 1991.

Mind you, that the USSR was getting increasingly lawless towards the end, and pretty much all successor states were in a state of anarchy for at least a couple of years past the Soviet demise (some longer than others, Russia longer than most thanks to Yeltsin and the total carnage that the West supported)

Mind you that multiple armed conflicts occured during this time, both domestically (Chechnya 1 and 2 for instance, in which a number of journalists were injured or killed) and in the near-abroad (the Georgian/Abkhazian/Ossetian/Ajaran conflicts, the Azeri-Armenian conflicts, the numerous Central Asian conflicts, the the brief Moldovan warm, the Yugoslav wars etc)

...All things considered, 80 journalists dead over all this time is nothing compared to say Mexico. And Russia's also known to have way more journalists per capita than most countries, which further adds to how underwhelming these statistics really are. The final nail in the coffin is, of course, that all these scary statistics sank like a rock after Putin took office and Russia has never been as peaceful, free and civilized as it is right now. But we've been through that.

Somebody should compile all the relevant information on this and make a glossy report, to be honest. I mean, it's all out there, it's just that they get away with outright lying about it because people don't bother doing any research on their own and they know it.

mh505 | Jul 16, 2017 4:03:42 PM | 29
@ 26 james

You can be entirely certain that the guy does not believe his own drivel. But: he may lose his job otherwise, which some would consider attenuating circumstances.

To me, he is not the worst among those Harvard boys. A hypocrite of a much higher magnitude has to be Jeffrey Sachs, who was among the most diligent drivers behind the destruction of post-communist Russia; yet today acts as if he never was even there. A Saulus turned Paulus, except no atonement in any way

nonsense factory | Jul 16, 2017 4:16:30 PM | 30
Did a Google News search on Yascha Mounk.
First, his publicity is based on some fairly bogus research on "millenials abandoning democracy". The WaPo ran a decent article discrediting it, worth noting since the guy seems to have a taste for spinning data for political reasons:
. . .scary-chart-about-the-future-of-democracy-is-pretty-misleading/
Second, he calls for a "Cold War mentality", putting him in with the likes of Clinton & McCain & Bush-Cheney, Gary Kasparov, etc. It's pretty boilerplate neocon/neolib thinking, here's a taste:
It's time to return to a Cold War mentality
By Yascha Mounk, Slate Mar 2017
Two years ago, when Garry Kasparov, the chess champion turned political dissident, began to warn that Vladimir Putin sought to undermine liberal democracy!not only in neighboring countries, but all over the West!he was widely written off as a crank. After Russia managed to hack the servers of the Democratic National Committee and spread fake news on an industrial scale, his warnings were finally recognized as all too prescient. But it is only over the past weeks, as journalists around the world have broken dozens of stories about Russian meddling in the democratic process, that the sheer scale of this effort has become apparent.

The last time there was such a massive PR push inside the USA on a foreign policy issue was during the 2002-2003 runup to the Iraq invasion, based on an equally bogus story as the Russia bogeyman one, i.e. Iraqi WMDs.

The fact is, a multipolar world without "American exceptionalism" will be a better deal for the average American citizen, if not for the Washington circle of trough-feeders. This is a basic truth that the neoliberal empire-builders just can't handle. Of course, the big academic institutions are on board with endless military-industrial budgets, NATO expansion, regime change. Just as academic institutions in the old Soviet Union always went along with Central Committee PR lines.

On the other hand, on domestic policy? If you look into details, Clinton and Trump are not so different here - basically it's corporate rule, Trump and Clinton have similar numbers of Goldman Sachs people on their teams. Equally disastrous policies on the fundamentals like infrastructure, energy, manufacturing, etc. We'd be better off just giving our tax dollars to China to have them rebuild our infrastructure, it's that pitiful.

Maybe Trump should just spend the next four years abroad, running around with world leaders having a good time, ignoring all the neoliberal establishment pleas for regime changes and NATO wars, completely ignoring the domestic situation? The corrupt federal government in Washington can fight itself to death, and the states can run domestic policy instead?

[Jul 16, 2017] Why the USA hollowing themselves out by promoting to key diplomatic posts semi-talented gobshites like Nikki Haley instead of career diplomats and experts? Is connection to the security agencies a key factor?

Notable quotes:
"... Samantha ' Genocide ' Powers, former US Ambassador to the UN and Spoxhole started out as a journalist too. They just can't seem to get professional diplomats to take the job, or maybe they are simply not offered it. We've been around this particular bush many times before. ..."
"... Are western institutions hollowing themselves out by promoting semi-talented gobshites instead of career diplomats and experts and does that stop people going in to the diplomatic service thus leave less and less available for top jobs as the real experts have either already retired or will soon? ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Samantha ' Genocide ' Powers, former US Ambassador to the UN and Spoxhole started out as a journalist too. They just can't seem to get professional diplomats to take the job, or maybe they are simply not offered it. We've been around this particular bush many times before.

Are western institutions hollowing themselves out by promoting semi-talented gobshites instead of career diplomats and experts and does that stop people going in to the diplomatic service thus leave less and less available for top jobs as the real experts have either already retired or will soon?

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on UK-Russia relations that I posted about above highlights this lack of expertise, but is it also the case that mass surveillance though technology has become the magpie politicians shiny jewels to the detriment of promoting human resource capital?

Meanwhile, the head of British Intelligence outfit MI6 gave an interview to the British press about being 'inclusive' and now trying to personally recruit new members from all backgrounds with the traditional 'tap on the shoulder'. Yup, when you lock down the internet – for your own safety of course – you keep full records of every citizens electronic movements, and you allow over 30 government departments almost full access to that information at the tap of a couple of buttons with minimum oversight, what's left? Ah yes, spies in every community to report back so no minority is left behind, including the LBQ-GTI brigade (who have always been in British Intelligence, but officialdom previously looked the other way). But don't call it a Police State, 'coz that is bad . Managed British democracy and freedoms are good .

Here are a few of the headlines:

And two pieces by 'The Friends of Snowden', the Guardian!

What this smacks of is damage repair and promotion PR exercise. I bet this boilerplate interview was slated for earlier release but when it was discovered that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele prepared the Trump 'Dodgy Dossier', not to mention his past in the famous Moscow 'Spy Rock' episode, so they waited a little while to let the news how MI6 treats its former/agents to cool off.

Moscow Exile , March 3, 2017 at 2:45 am
I never got a tap on the shoulder -- not even an inkling of one.

Hardly surprising, really being a fully signed and paid up member of the "Enemies Within".

And the Russians have never approached me ither.

Bloody no use to anyone, me!

Jen , March 3, 2017 at 3:24 am
Do MI6 really tap people on the shoulder if they want to recruit them? I'd have thought their methods involved press-ganging people and threatening blackmail by posting fake videos of their victims engaged in terrorist or paedophilic acts if they refused to cooperate.
http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/broadside7.html
Moscow Exile , March 3, 2017 at 3:33 am
Don't be daft! That's what the FSB does. The British Secret Intelligence Service invites you round for a cup of tea and a little chat.
Jen , March 3, 2017 at 4:32 am
Was that how James Bond was recruited to work for Her Maj Betty Windsor's Secret Service: being invited to a cup of tea, a Vesper Martini and a chat with Misses Moneypenny and Goodnight somewhere in Mayfair in London?
Moscow Exile , March 3, 2017 at 5:48 am
Nah, they used Miss Moneypenny as a honeytrap. He was always after shagging her, but I don't think he ever did; she was far too classy for Bond.
Moscow Exile , March 3, 2017 at 3:41 am
GCHQ to recruit social media savvy teenage girls as next-gen female spies

[Jul 16, 2017] War on Russia Is Murdering Russians - LewRockwell

Notable quotes:
"... War with Russia is a call to murder Russian people. They don't deserve our hatred. ..."
"... Those of you who are preoccupied with the narrative that Russia hacked the election, please stop discounting the millions of us who had not voted for decades that came out to prevent Mrs. Clinton from rising to such a position of power. Then stop to consider that what you want the American Government to do, create an enemy of Russia, is to create an enemy of the Russian people. You want to kill the people who I have seen in these videos for really no better reason than you don't like how an election turned out. ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | www.lewrockwell.com
War on Russia Is Murdering Russians

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

July 14, 2017 Email Print Share

Writes Bob Strodtbeck:

Dear Lew,

Several months ago you had a video of a group of young Russian women singing a Russian folk song acapella (Youtube, Russian Girls Sing Lube) which left a lasting impression on me. For the last several days I have been exploring Russian folk music for the sake of getting an idea of what these people are like. My observations are below with a link to a video by a Russian folk music group.

The point is people who have their noses twisted out of joint over the defeat of a horribly corrupt presidential candidate would choose to see people such as those I have seen in the Russian folk music videos vaporized. We have become a hideous country.

War with Russia is a call to murder Russian people. They don't deserve our hatred.

This text is from my facebook posting which also has a link to the folk music video.

I have been taking time recently to find some information on the Russian people since the American political system seems so dedicated to make war against Russia.

I have been captivated by their folk music and the love they put into it. Much of it has been acapella and beautiful. In all of those presentations I got the sense that each singer considered the song more important than their individual talent, and the sound of the group the tribute to the song.

In watching tho se videos I came to the impression that the Russian people are happy, proud and strong. This impression speaks highly of their character, as it was within the lifetime of most Americans that the Russian system collapsed and those people had the duty to rebuild their economy, culture, and faith from the rubble left by Soviet Communism. It seems to me they have done it.

The main point here is a war with Russia is a war on these courageous, warm, and resilient people. I challenge anybody who is upset with what happened in the election last November to watch any of these videos and ask yourself if you have ever been as happy as the people that are in them. I don't believe any of them care who is President of the United States or probably that Vladimir Putin is the leader of their country. After all, Putin said that Russia spans 11 time zones an most Russians live life without worrying about the government.

Those of you who are preoccupied with the narrative that Russia hacked the election, please stop discounting the millions of us who had not voted for decades that came out to prevent Mrs. Clinton from rising to such a position of power. Then stop to consider that what you want the American Government to do, create an enemy of Russia, is to create an enemy of the Russian people. You want to kill the people who I have seen in these videos for really no better reason than you don't like how an election turned out.

You think about that.

[Jul 14, 2017] Americas War for Global Domination by Michel Chossudovsky

While published almost 15 years ago, this artile still looks as if written yesterday. Presidents change but foreign policy does not.
Notable quotes:
"... US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment of millions of people. ..."
"... The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices. ..."
"... The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea. ..."
"... The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement. ..."
"... Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era. ..."
"... The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil. ..."
"... In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses. ..."
"... The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003) ..."
"... The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994: ..."
"... We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." ..."
"... " it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." ..."
"... The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ). ..."
"... In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy. ..."
"... In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics ..."
"... Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign. ..."
"... The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists" ..."
"... In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001) ..."
"... The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. ..."
"... both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up. ..."
"... The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.) ..."
"... Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can be brought to office. ..."
"... The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals. ..."
"... In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress. ..."
"... Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State." ..."
"... More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus and commitment to the New World Order. ..."
Dec 15, 2003 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Originally published by Global Research (12/15/03)

We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda, which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO led wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).

The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert intelligence operations within the former Soviet Union, which were instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former republics including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia and Azerbaijan. In the latter, these covert operations were launched with a view to securing strategic control over oil and gas pipeline corridors.

US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment of millions of people.

The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices.

In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the recolonization of a vast region extending from the Balkans into Central Asia.

The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea.

War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the conquest of new economic frontiers and the worldwide imposition of "free market" system.

The Next Phase of the War

The Bush administration has already identified Syria as the next stage of "the road map to war". The bombing of presumed 'terrorist bases' in Syria by the Israeli Air Force in October was intended to provide a justification for subsequent pre-emptive military interventions. Ariel Sharon launched the attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld. (See Gordon Thomas, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter 2004)

This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious implications. It means that Israel becomes a major military actor in the US-led war, as well as an 'official' member of the Anglo-American coalition.

The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement.

This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent with Ariel Sharon's plan to build a 'Greater Israel' "on the ruins of Palestinian nationalism". While Israel seeks to extend its territorial domain towards the Euphrates River, with designated areas of Jewish settlement in the Syrian heartland, Palestinians are imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank behind an 'Apartheid Wall'.

In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic sanctions on Libya and Iran. As well, Washington is hinting at the need for a 'regime change' in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are building up in Turkey.

So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian sub-continent and China's Western frontier.

The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons

Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era.

The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy. Israeli nuclear warheads are pointed at major cities in the Middle East. The governments of all three countries have stated quite openly, prior to the war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons "if they are attacked" with so-called "weapons of mass destruction." Israel is the fifth nuclear power in the World. Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced than that of Britain.

Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into Baghdad, the US Senate Armed Services Committee gave the green light to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used in conventional war theaters, "with a yield [of up to] six times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb".

Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of its nuclear agenda in a secret meeting with senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held at Central Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The meeting was held on August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 58 years ago.

The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defense contractors in decision-making. It is tantamount to the "privatization" of nuclear war. Corporations not only reap multibillion dollar profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda and public relations campaign with a view to upholding the use nuclear weapons for the "defense of the American Homeland."

Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini-nukes are considered to be "safe for civilians".

This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be used in the next phase of this war, in "conventional war theatres" (e.g. in the Middle East and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons. In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion solely for 2004, to develop this new generation of "defensive" nuclear weapons.

The overall annual defense budget is of the order of 400 billion dollars, roughly of the same order of magnitude as the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation.

While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi and Afghan war theatres, tests conducted by Canada's Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded toxic radiation was not attributable to 'heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to another unidentified form of uranium contamination:

"some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net

The Planning of War

The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil.

In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy.

The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to:

"Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars".

This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved simultaneously in several war theaters in different regions of the World.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the presidential elections.

The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)

The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"

The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework of war propaganda. One year before 9/11, the PNAC called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda. (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )

The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use of the September 11 attacks as "a war pretext incident."

The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:

"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.

" it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989).

The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ).

Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:

"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (Ibid)

This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and "Homeland Defense." Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.

The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.

General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to how events ought to unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to "preserving civil liberties."

Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a military coup d'ιtat in America. The PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military government.

In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.

War Propaganda

In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics:

"The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across the world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.)

And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political pressures and "troublesome" media stories that "its purpose was to deliberately lie to advance American interests." (Air Force Magazine, January 2003, italics added) "Rumsfeld backed off and said this is embarrassing." (Adubato, op. cit. italics added) Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation campaign remains functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly candid here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war."(Ibid)

Rumsfeld later confirmed in a press interview that while the OSI no longer exists in name, the "Office's intended functions are being carried out". (Quoted in Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Secrecy News, http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html , Rumsfeld's press interview can be consulted at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html ).

A number of government agencies and intelligence units --with links to the Pentagon-remain actively involved in various components of the propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime change" and "the restoration of democracy". Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping". The derogation of civil liberties --in the context of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"-- is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.

The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine

Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign.

The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":

"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.

Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction ( )

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, ( ). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."12 (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )

To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to "State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."

But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are part of the National Security agenda.

In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert 'dirty tricks' operations were launched to produce misleading intelligence pertaining to both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda, which was then fed into the news chain.

In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al Qaeda threats to 'the Homeland' continue to be repeated ad nauseam in official statements, commented on network TV and pasted on a daily basis across the news tabloids.

And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" terrorist occurrences are being upheld as a justification for the next phase of this war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:

1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign, which is fed into the news chain.

2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing events" as outlined in the PNAC

What this means is that actual ("massive casualty producing") terrorist events are part and parcel of military planning.

Actual Terrorist Attacks

In other words, to be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated "warnings" of future attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which provide credibility to the Washington's war plans. These terrorist events are used to justify the implementation of "emergency measures" as well as "retaliatory military actions". They are required, in the present context, to create the illusion of "an outside enemy" that is threatening the American Homeland.

The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military history.(See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16 (See Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).

There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia (2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).

According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or cells of these organizations), which operate quite independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The "intelligence asset" is not in direct contact with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors.

The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?

For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia's military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and Australian intelligence.

The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba ("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"), both of which according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html , Washington 2002).

What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html )

A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for the creation of a so-called 'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group' (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S. forces." (William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)

The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This "prodding of terrorist cells" under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.

In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist organizations through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence proxies. In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US government have collaborated with Al Qaeda in a number of covert operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the Republican Party Committee of the US Congress. (See US Congress, 16 January 1997, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html ). In fact during the war in Bosnia US weapons inspectors were working with Al Qaeda operatives, bringing in large amounts of weapons for the Bosnian Muslim Army.

In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001).(See See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2003, Chapter 3, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )

The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia. And this happened barely a few weeks before September 11, 2001, Senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the terrorist attacks on the Macedonian Security forces. This is documented by the Macedonian press and statements made by the Macedonian authorities. (See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit). The U.S. government and the Islamic Militant Network were working hand in glove in supporting and financing the National Liberation Army (NLA), which was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.

In other words, the US military was collaborating directly with Al Qaeda barely a few weeks before 9/11.

Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)

It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media and in official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda". This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an understanding of these terrorist occurrences.

The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this information is crucial in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA

September 11

While Colin Powell --without supporting evidence-pointed in his February 2003 UN address to "the sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network", official documents, press and intelligence reports confirm that successive US administrations have supported and abetted the Islamic militant network. This relationship is an established fact, corroborated by numerous studies, acknowledged by Washington's mainstream think tanks.

Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who in the months leading up to the war casually accused Baghdad and other foreign governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at different points in their careers, in supporting terrorist organizations.

Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes-- in the Irangate Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, which involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan Contra paramilitary army and the Afghan Mujahideen. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html )

Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up. The investigations and research conducted in the last two years, including official documents, testimonies and intelligence reports, indicate that September 11 was an carefully planned intelligence operation, rather than a act conducted by a terrorist organization. (For further details, see Centre for Research on Globalization, 24 Key articles, September 2003)

The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.)

Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm that the head of the ISI, was an official visit to the US from the 4th to 13th of September 2001. In other words, the head of Pakistan's ISI, who allegedly transferred money to the terrorists also had a close personal relationship with a number of senior Bush Administration officials, including Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, whom he met in the course of his visit to Washington. (Ibid)

The Antiwar Movement

A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on the mobilization of antiwar sentiment. It must ultimately unseat the war criminals and question their right to rule.

A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and eventually dismantle their propaganda campaign.

The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the European Union and around the world, should lay the foundations of a permanent network composed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war committees in neighborhoods, work places, parishes, schools, universities, etc. It is ultimately through this network that the legitimacy of those who "rule in our name" will be challenged.

To shunt the Bush Administration's war plans and disable its propaganda machine, we must reach out to our fellow citizens across the land, in the US, Europe and around the world, to the millions of ordinary people who have been misled on the causes and consequences of this war.

This also implies fully uncovering the lies behind the "war on terrorism" and revealing the political complicity of the Bush administration in the events of 9/11.

September 11 is a hoax. It's the biggest lie in US history.

Needless to say, the use of "massive casualty producing events" as pretext to wage war is a criminal act. In the words of Andreas van Buelow, former German Minister of Technology and author of The CIA and September 11:

"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars."

Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who are mere puppets. We must also address the role of the global banks, corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly stand behind the military and political actors.

Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can be brought to office.

Criminalization of the State

The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals.

In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress.

Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State."

More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus and commitment to the New World Order.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems like WMDs) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled. More generally we must reverse the "free market" reforms, dismantle the institutions of global capitalism and disarm financial markets.

The struggle must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels, in all countries, uniting in a major thrust: workers, farmers, independent producers, small businesses, professionals, artists, civil servants, members of the clergy, students and intellectuals.

The antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into a single worldwide movement. People must be united across sectors, "single issue" groups must join hands in a common and collective understanding on how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.

The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree of solidarity and internationalism unprecedented in world history. This global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between and within countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse groups and social movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which brings together social movements in all major regions of the world in a common pursuit and commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting world peace.

Copyright Michel Chossudovsky 2003

[Jul 14, 2017] Secretary Tillerson, It's Time to Phone Iran The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Despite these hotspots, the Trump administration and Secretary Rex Tillerson have allowed the hotline with Tehran to go cold. Despite the significant risk of war, not a single phone call has taken place between Tillerson and Zarif. Not a single attempt at resolving the tensions diplomatically has been made. ..."
"... When asked about diplomacy with Iran during his visit to the Saudi kingdom, Tillerson said that he had no plans to reach out to Iran , although he didn't rule it out in the future. ..."
"... The George W. Bush administration at least had the decency to lie to the American public when it sold the electorate the Iraq War. And however skewed and faulty, the Iraq War was preceded by a debate and a vote in Congress. Though President Bush eschewed diplomacy, he nevertheless presented a deeply flawed case as to why diplomacy no longer was an option. Trump and Tillerson simply don't even bother. ..."
"... The Trump administration's recklessness is endangering America and putting American servicemen and women at risk. If Tillerson was supposed to be the adult in the room steering Trump in the right direction, he needs to start to act the part. ..."
"... Before the escalation with Iran reaches a point of no return, diplomacy must be given a chance. That responsibility falls on Mr. Tillerson. The former Exxonmobil CEO has Zarif's number. It's time he places a call. ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
For instance, at one point U.S. Navy ships and helicopters were approaching the Iranian island where the sailors were kept. "Please tell your navy not to get close," Zarif told Kerry, his tone revealing the urgency of the matter. "We don't want a military confrontation. But if your planes get close, we will have serious trouble." Kerry immediately hung up and called General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to urge him to pull back. "We're risking potential escalation here," Kerry told the general. "They were giving us positive indications that they are gonna release these guys, so we should back off the helicopters for now and test if this is real." Dunford complied, and a dangerous confrontation was avoided. To prove that the sailors were safe, Zarif emailed a picture of them from his Gmail account to Kerry's State Department email.

It had taken two years of intense discussions and negotiations for Kerry and Zarif to build the rapport that enabled them to so quickly resolve unforeseen crises such as that of the U.S. sailors. But once the channel of communications and the rapport had been established, its utility and efficiency was unquestionable. Indeed, the sailors' incident could have ended up as another prolonged hostage crisis. Instead, most Americans have not even heard of their mishap.

Today, there are many unforeseen crises that risk bringing the U.S. and Iran!indeed, the entire Middle East!into direct confrontation. The U.S. and Iran have a shared interest in defeating ISIS in Iraq, but after the fall of Mosul, the balance of their interest may lead them in a more confrontational direction. A similar dynamic is playing out in Syria, where the U.S. already has shot down Iranian drones and bombed Iranian-sponsored groups. Moreover, tensions in the Persian Gulf are rising as Saudi Arabia appears to have received a green light from the Trump administration to double down on confrontation and bullying.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had no illusions about the end goal of the Saudis. The Saudis always want to " fight the Iranians to the last American ," he told his French counterpart in 2010. Since then, the Saudi appetite for a U.S.-Iran war has only grown.

Despite these hotspots, the Trump administration and Secretary Rex Tillerson have allowed the hotline with Tehran to go cold. Despite the significant risk of war, not a single phone call has taken place between Tillerson and Zarif. Not a single attempt at resolving the tensions diplomatically has been made.

When asked about diplomacy with Iran during his visit to the Saudi kingdom, Tillerson said that he had no plans to reach out to Iran , although he didn't rule it out in the future.

That is simply not good enough. It is the foremost responsibility of the President and his administration to keep America safe and to only put American servicemen and women in harm's way once all other options have been exhausted.

On both of these counts, the Trump administration doesn't just fail, they fail abysmally because they haven't even tried. The United States is about to sleepwalk into yet another devastating war in the Middle East without a debate as to whether such an escalation lies in the U.S.'s national interest, and without the Trump administration even giving lip service to diplomacy. Other potential foes in the world observe this behavior as they consider the payoff of peaceful engagement with the U.S. versus conflict. Do we want to send those actors the message that the U.S. shoots first and asks questions later?

The George W. Bush administration at least had the decency to lie to the American public when it sold the electorate the Iraq War. And however skewed and faulty, the Iraq War was preceded by a debate and a vote in Congress. Though President Bush eschewed diplomacy, he nevertheless presented a deeply flawed case as to why diplomacy no longer was an option. Trump and Tillerson simply don't even bother.

The Trump administration's recklessness is endangering America and putting American servicemen and women at risk. If Tillerson was supposed to be the adult in the room steering Trump in the right direction, he needs to start to act the part.

Before the escalation with Iran reaches a point of no return, diplomacy must be given a chance. That responsibility falls on Mr. Tillerson. The former Exxonmobil CEO has Zarif's number. It's time he places a call.

Trita Parsi is the author of Losing an Enemy – Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy . He is the president of the National Iranian American Council.

[Jul 14, 2017] Video Shows Iraqi Troops Killing Mosul Detainees – News From Antiwar.com

Jul 14, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

Defense Ministry Vows Investigation Into Killings

Jason Ditz Posted on July 13, 2017 Categories News Tags Iraq The Iraqi Defense Ministry has promised an investigation today after videos emerged of Facebook showing Iraqi soldiers in Mosul killing detainees, saying they were aware of the reports and such incidents wouldn't be tolerated.

The videos show Iraqi soldiers, in uniform, savagely beating detainees, and accusing them of being ISIS. At one point, the soldiers cast detainees off the wall overlooking the Tigris River, wten shoot at their bodies when they land by the river bed.

A second video from the same Facebook page, touting the "heroes" of Iraq's Army 16th division,shows Iraqi soldiers, again in uniform, killing an unarmed man kneeling in front of a car. Two other videos are on the page, but those only show savage beatings and no apparent deaths.

Revenge killing has been a consistent fact of Iraqi military offensives "liberating" Sunni cities from ISIS, though the videos show an increase in brazenness, if nothing else, as the troops clearly know they're being recorded committing war crimes, and are confident that at the end of the day the Iraqi government will look the other way, as they have so often in the past.

[Jul 14, 2017] Ignore the Haters. Russia Is Not Our Enemy

Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | reason.com
The intelligence and military leakers and Trump's political enemies believe friendly relations with Vladimir Putin's government are dangerous. But since Russia can annihilate our country, the greater danger is not engaging with Putin.

The anti-Russia hyperventilation covers the political spectrum. Republican Sen. John McCain told an interviewer that Putin is a greater threat than ISIS, accusing Russia of trying to change election results in America, France and elsewhere. But Putin's regime is not decapitating or urging lone wolves to massacre Americans on US soil. And as for Russian manipulation, the pro-Russian candidate Marine LePen was crushed in the May presidential election in France.

Democrat Hillary Clinton accused the Trump campaign of conspiring with Russia to "weaponize" leaked information against her with the WikiLeaks' dump of John Podesta email messages. Clinton's collusion assertion is based on her questionable assumption that WikiLeaks is an agent of Russia. Since WikiLeaks operates out of an embassy in London, one might expect our British allies to have leaked Putin's instructions to Julian Assange by now.

McCain, Clinton and others are amplifying the US intelligence community's public indictment of Russia for election meddling during the closing days of the Obama administration. That report also claims that Russian agents hacked Podesta's email and released them through WikiLeaks, but does not provide hard evidence.

Intelligence community assertions should be treated with skepticism. After all, this community concluded in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Further, a senior member of the intelligence community, James Clapper, lied to Congress in 2013 when he denied that the NSA collects data on Americans.

Even assuming the allegations are true, they do not lead to the immediate conclusion that Russia is an enemy. Friendly countries spy on one another and try to influence each other's elections all the time. President Obama called on British voters to reject Brexit, and the NSA appears to have bugged German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's mobile phone.

Israel spies on the US and tries to influence our elections. Jonathan Pollard's espionage "has few parallels" according to the CIA , which concluded he had "put at risk important U.S. intelligence and foreign policy interests." In 2012, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to scuttle President Obama's re-election effort.

Most of the intelligence community memo focuses on the activities of RT, a Russian media group that operates a cable news channel, a web site and social media properties in the US. RT is accused of spreading propaganda and fake news that impacted our election. But such media are neither new nor unique to Russia.

Our Voice of America, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and other state media have been around for decades. Among the personalities on RT America are Larry King, Jesse Ventura, and former Air America hosts Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz – none of whom appear to be stooges for Vladimir Putin. Further, as Simon van Zuylen-Wood noted in his excellent overview of RT , the network "is watched by so few people that Nielsen doesn't bother to publish its ratings."

To be sure, Putin has some very undemocratic inclinations. But the US has maintained and continues to maintain friendly relations with despotic nations. President Richard Nixon visited China in 1971, not long after Mao Zedong killed tens of millions of people with his Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Today, there is widespread support for friendly relations with Saudi Arabia – an undemocratic nation that stones women to death for adultery.

It is also true that Russia is a rival for influence on the world stage. This perhaps is why our generals, intelligence operatives, representatives, think tanks and the media so dislike Putin. While the foreign affairs intelligentsia views the world as a power-playing chessboard, this approach to geopolitics is contrary to the interests of ordinary Americans who don't benefit from international conflicts.

When President Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the oval office a few weeks ago, he shared intelligence about a plot by Syrian-based ISIS operatives to place laptop bombs on civilian airplanes. Russia's presence in Syria may have helped thwart this plot. And it had an incentive to do so: ISIS previously downed a Russian civilian airliner in the Sinai Desert.

As president, Donald Trump has the legal right to declassify the intelligence. But some unelected bureaucrat in the US national security establishment decided that Trump's actions were inappropriate and leaked the story to The Washington Post . It is possible the leak alerted ISIS that its plot had been compromised, encouraging the terrorists to protect their bomb-building efforts from further scrutiny. The potential victims of this leak are civilian passengers of US airlines – the presumed target of the ISIS plot.

Russia also provided intelligence that, had it been handled properly by the FBI, could have prevented the Tsarnaev brothers from bombing the Boston marathon.

Rather than cooperating, however, the national security establishment not only seeks conflict with Russia, it looks for enemies around the world. Hostilities provide lucrative contracts and a sense of mission to those advancing them – but imposes huge costs on the rest of us. US troops are now engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

Worldwide warfare has driven national security spending toward $1 trillion a year. With a national debt approaching $20 trillion, this is a financial cost our country can ill afford. And since 2001, the US has suffered almost 7,000 deaths and over 52,000 wounded in foreign hostilities.

Democrats 50 years ago were peace organizers, fired by Martin Luther King's condemnation of the Vietnam War. And Barack Obama won the presidency promising to withdraw from Iraq.

But in their desire to rid the White House of Donald Trump, Democrats have forsaken their anti-war heritage. Instead, they are teaming up with Republican hawks and the Deep State to drive a wedge between the US and Russia.

Libertarians are the logical champions of peace and prosperity, but some have expressed sympathy for coercive US government actions to counter Russian influence. These include targeted sanctions and funding for groups in Eastern Europe that supposedly promote liberal democracy.

Although portrayed as a penalty on foreign powers, sanctions prevent US individuals and companies and individuals from doing business with those countries. A new Senate bill, S.722 , prevents US companies from working on gas pipelines between Russia and Western Europe. The bill also appropriates $500 million of US taxpayer money to a "Countering Russian Influence Fund," to be spent in Eastern Europe. The legislative language lists six possible uses for this money which sound good, but are vague and open to broad interpretation.

Libertarians recognize the state usually abuses the powers we give it. We should never advocate for restrictions on trade or appropriation of tax money for so-called democracy promotion. Peace and non-interventionism are core tenets of libertarianism that too many self-identified libertarians seem to forget. We must avoid repeating the mistakes we made in the runup to the Iraq War.

Regardless of one's position on Trump, Congress has not declared war on Russia. Russia has not invaded us. Russia is not our enemy.

[Jul 13, 2017] Progressive Democrats Resist and Submit, Retreat and Surrender by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" ..."
"... Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: " Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'. ..."
"... Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints. ..."
"... Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more! ..."
"... Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen! ..."
"... Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party. ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary. ..."
"... Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.) ..."
"... Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches. ..."
"... They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. ..."
"... Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning in the 1990's progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation of the US's corporate for-profit medical system into a national 'Medicare For All' public program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued the exact opposite agenda.

Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the far right.

To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent decades.

Progressives by Name and Posture

Progressives purport to embrace 'progress', the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption and good governance, based on democratic procedures.

Progressives prided themselves as appealing to 'reason, diplomacy and conciliation', not brute force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.

Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward the 'good society', free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust wars.

Progressives in Historical Perspective

In the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.

They denounced militarism 'in general' but supported a series of 'wars to end all wars' . Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.

Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and defended the Bill of Rights.

Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory until their government went to war.

Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the 'left wing' of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil liberties.

Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and electoral means to advance African American rights.

Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.

Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.

They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.

In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.

The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970's when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.

The Retreat of the Progressives

By the late 1970's the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war, civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).

The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their 'numbers' were up, their caliber had declined, as they sought to 'fit in' with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President's party.

Without the pressure of the 'populist street' the 'Progressives-turned-Democrats' adapted to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took office. Yet the ability to influence the 'electoral rhetoric' was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.

Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party, (their self-proclaimed 'boring from within' strategy), they would capture the party membership, neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform the party into a 'vehicle for progressive changes'.

Upon their successful 'deep penetration' the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable 'centrist' Democrats. These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.

The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton Decade

Progressives adapted the 'crab strategy': Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.

Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of President 'Bill' Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured Israel's victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction of Lebanon!

Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector. When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.

Progressives followed Clinton's deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve's free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.

Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats' 'hard right' policies.

The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive's to temporarily trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested Bush's savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations' infrastructure.

Progressives embraced Israel's bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously in favor of increasing the annual $3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State. They supported Israel's bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.

Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state decrees by the Republican Administration.

Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to Surrender

While Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly 'leveraged' hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic Party campaign for Barack Obama, 'Wall Street's First Black President'.

Progressives had given up their quest to 'realign' the Democratic Party 'from within': they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers for the election and re-election of the warmongering 'Peace Candidate' Obama. After the election, Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives' historical legacy.

Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American's 'First Black' President's bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet and empty.

When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers, while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama's Presidential decision to protect and reward the mega-swindlers.

Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate. The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when Obama's 'kill orders' extended to the 'mistaken' murder of his target's children and other family member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the 'first black American President' when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi.

Obama surpassed the record of all previous Republican office holders in terms of the massive numbers of immigrant workers arrested and expelled – 2 million. Progressives applauded the Latino protestors while supporting the policies of their 'first black President'.

Progressive accepted that multiple wars, Wall Street bailouts and the extended police state were now the price they would pay to remain part of the "Democratic coalition' (sic).

The deeper the Progressives swilled at the Democratic Party trough, the more they embraced the Obama's free market agenda and the more they ignored the increasing impoverishment, exploitation and medical industry-led opioid addiction of American workers that was shortening their lives. Under Obama, the Progressives totally abandoned the historic American working class, accepting their degradation into what Madam Hillary Clinton curtly dismissed as the 'deplorables'.

With the Obama Presidency, the Progressive retreat turned into a rout, surrendering with one flaccid caveat: the Democratic Party 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, who had voted 90% of the time with the Corporate Party, had revived a bastardized military-welfare state agenda.

Sander's Progressive demagogy shouted and rasped on the campaign trail, beguiling the young electorate. The 'Bernie' eventually 'sheep-dogged' his supporters into the pro-war Democratic Party corral. Sanders revived an illusion of the pre-1990 progressive agenda, promising resistance while demanding voter submission to Wall Street warlord Hillary Clinton. After Sanders' round up of the motley progressive herd, he staked them tightly to the far-right Wall Street war mongering Hillary Clinton. The Progressives not only embraced Madame Secretary Clinton's nuclear option and virulent anti-working class agenda, they embellished it by focusing on Republican billionaire Trump's demagogic, nationalist, working class rhetoric which was designed to agitate 'the deplorables'. They even turned on the working class voters, dismissing them as 'irredeemable' racists and illiterates or 'white trash' when they turned to support Trump in massive numbers in the 'fly-over' states of the central US.

Progressives, allied with the police state, the mass media and the war machine worked to defeat and impeach Trump. Progressives surrendered completely to the Democratic Party and started to advocate its far right agenda. Hysterical McCarthyism against anyone who questioned the Democrats' promotion of war with Russia, mass media lies and manipulation of street protest against Republican elected officials became the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda. The working class and farmers had disappeared from their bastardized 'identity-centered' ideology.

Guilt by association spread throughout Progressive politics. Progressives embraced J. Edgar Hoover's FBI tactics: "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" For progressives, 'Russia-gate' defined the real focus of contemporary political struggle in this huge, complex, nuclear-armed superpower.

Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: "Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'.

Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints.

The Progressives' far right - turn earned them hours and space on the mass media as long as they breathlessly savaged and insulted President Trump and his family members. When they managed to provoke him into a blind rage . . . they added the newly invented charge of 'psychologically unfit to lead' – presenting cheap psychobabble as grounds for impeachment. Finally! American Progressives were on their way to achieving their first and only political transformation: a Presidential coup d'ιtat on behalf of the Far Right!

Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement and betrayal!

In return, President Trump began to 'out-militarize' the Progressives by escalating US involvement in the Middle East and South China Sea. They swooned with joy when Trump ordered a missile strike against the Syrian government as Damascus engaged in a life and death struggle against mercenary terrorists. They dubbed the petulant release of Patriot missiles 'Presidential'.

Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!

Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen!

Conclusion

Progressives turned full circle from supporting welfare to embracing Wall Street; from preaching peaceful co-existence to demanding a dozen wars; from recognizing the humanity and rights of undocumented immigrants to their expulsion under their 'First Black' President; from thoughtful mass media critics to servile media megaphones; from defenders of civil liberties to boosters for the police state; from staunch opponents of J. Edgar Hoover and his 'dirty tricks' to camp followers for the 'intelligence community' in its deep state campaign to overturn a national election.

Progressives moved from fighting and resisting the Right to submitting and retreating; from retreating to surrendering and finally embracing the far right.

Doing all that and more within the Democratic Party, Progressives retain and deepen their ties with the mass media, the security apparatus and the military machine, while occasionally digging up some Bernie Sanders-type demagogue to arouse an army of voters away from effective resistance to mindless collaboration.

(Republished from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

Recently from Author
Of Related Interest Democrats in the Dead Zone Jeffrey St. Clair June 23, 2017 1,500 Words

WorkingClass > , July 12, 2017 at 9:21 pm GMT

But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued the exact opposite agenda.

Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party.

This piece accurately traces the path from Progressive to Maoist. It's a pity the Republican Party is also a piece of shit. I think it was Sara Palin who said "We have two parties. Pick one." This should be our collective epitaph.

exiled off mainstreet > , July 12, 2017 at 11:20 pm GMT

This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary.

alan2102 > , July 13, 2017 at 2:04 am GMT

EXCELLENT.

Astuteobservor II > , July 13, 2017 at 5:17 am GMT

at this point, are they still progressives though? they are the new far right

CCZ > , July 13, 2017 at 5:30 am GMT

"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement and betrayal!"

Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats) take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.

Carlton Meyer > , Website July 13, 2017 at 5:56 am GMT

The great Jimmy Dore is a big thorn for the Democrats. From my blog:

Apr 29, 2017 – Obama is Scum!

Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.)

Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches.

Obama gets over $200,000 a year in retirement, just got a $65 million deal, so doesn't need more money. Why would a multi-millionaire ex-president fly around the globe collecting huge speaking fees from world corporations just after his political party was devastated in elections because Americans think the Democratic party represents Wall Street? The great Jimmy Dore expressed his outrage at Obama and the corrupt Democratic party in this great video.

jilles dykstra > , July 13, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT

Left in the good old days meant socialist, socialist meant that governments had the duty of redistributing income from rich to poor. Alas in Europe, after 'socialists' became pro EU and pro globalisation, they in fact became neoliberal. Both in France and the Netherlands 'socialist' parties virtually disappeared.
So what nowadays is left, does anyone know ?

Then the word 'progressive'. The word suggests improvement, but what is improvement, improvement for whom ? There are those who see the possibility for euthanasia as an improvement, there are thos who see euthanasia as a great sin.

Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.

Call me Deplorable > , July 13, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. But, hey, the brother now has five mansions, collects half a mill per speech to the Chosen People on Wall Street, and parties for months at a time at exclusive resorts for billionaires only.

Obviously, he's got the world by the tail and you don't. Hope he comes to the same end as Gaddaffi and Ceaușescu. Maybe the survivors of nuclear Armageddon can hold a double necktie party with Killary as the second honored guest that day.

Seamus Padraig > , July 13, 2017 at 12:10 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.

Properly defining the concepts would impede the system's ability to keep you confused.

Seamus Padraig > , July 13, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home and bloody imperial wars overseas.

You left out the other Roosevelt.

Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act

Hilarious!

Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!

This is a huge myth. All that really happened is that the INS changed some of its internal terminology to make it sound as though they were deporting more people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.7f964acd9b0d

Stephen Paul Foster > , Website July 13, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT

The Progressives now, failing electorally, are moving on to physical violence.

See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2017/07/trumps-would-be-assassins.html

annamaria > , July 13, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer Obama, a paragon of American scoundrel

Anonymous IV > , July 13, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig Agree on the bit about Obama as "deporter in chief." Even the LA Times had to admit this was misleading

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html

so it's not just conservative conspiracy theory stuff as some might argue.

Still, the overall point of this essay isn't affected all that much. Open borders is still a "right wing" (in the sense this author uses the term) policy–pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business. So Obama was still doing the bidding of the donor class in their quest for cheap labor.

I've seen pro-immigration types try to use the Obama-deportation thing to argue that we don't need more hardcore policies. After all, even the progressive Democrat Obama was on the ball when it came to policing our borders, right?! Who needed Trump?

Agent76 > , July 13, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

"Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!" Nathan Meyer Rothschild

June 13, 2016 Which Corporations Control The World?

A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44864.htm

"Control the oil, and you control nations. Control the food, and you control the people." Henry Kissenger

Alfa158 > , July 13, 2017 at 5:33 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer If Jimmy keeps up these attacks on Wall Street, the Banksters, and rent-seekers he is going to get run out of the Progressive movement for dog-whistling virulent Anti-Semitism. Look at how the media screams at Trump every time he mentions Wall Street and the banks.

yeah > , July 13, 2017 at 5:46 pm GMT

Mr. Petra has penned an excellent and very astute piece. Allow me a little satire on our progressive friends, entitled "The path to hell is paved with good intentions".

The early socialist/progressive travellers were well-intentioned but naοve in their understanding of human nature and fanatical about their agenda. To move the human herd forward, they had no compulsions about resorting to harsher and harsher prodding and whipping. They felt entitled to employ these means because, so they were convinced, man has to be pushed to move forward and they, the "progressives", were the best qualified to lead the herd. Scoundrels, psychopaths, moral defectives, and sundry other rascals then joined in the whipping game, some out of the sheer joy of wielding the whip, others to better line their pockets.

So the "progressive" journey degenerates into a forced march. The march becomes the progress, becoming both the means and the end at the same time. Look at the so-called "progressive" today and you will see the fanatic and the whip-wielder, steadfast about the correctness of his beliefs. Tell him/her/it that you are a man or a woman and he retorts "No, you are free to choose, you are genderless". What if you decline such freedom? "Well, then you are a bigot, we will thrash you out of your bigotry", replies the progressive. "May I, dear Sir/Madam/Whatever, keep my hard-earned money in my pocket for my and my family's use" you ask. "No, you first have to pay for our peace-making wars, then pay for the upkeep of refugees, besides which you owe a lot of back taxes that are necessary to run this wonderful Big Government of ours that is leading you towards greener and greener pastures", shouts back the progressive.

Fed up, disgusted, and a little scared, you desperately seek a way out of this progress. "No way", scream the march leaders. "We will be forever in your ears, sometimes whispering, sometimes screaming; we will take over your brain to improve your mind; we will saturate you with images on the box 24/7 and employ all sorts of imagery to make you progress. And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election time."

TheJester > , July 13, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT

Knowing who is "progressive" and know who is "far-right" is like knowing who is "fascist" and who is not. For obvious historical reasons, the Russian like to throw the "fascist" slogan against anyone who is a non-Russian nationalist. However, I accept the eminent historian Carroll Quigley's definition of fascism as the incorporation of society and the state onto single entity on a permanent war footing. The state controls everything in a radically authoritarian social structure. As Quigley states, the Soviet Union was the most complete embodiment of fascism in WWII. In WWII Germany, on the other hand, industry retained its independence and in WWII Italy fascism was no more than an empty slogan.

Same for "progressives". Everyone wants to be "progressive", right? Who wants to be "anti-progressive"? However, at the end of the day, "progressive" through verbal slights of hand has been nothing more than a euphemism for "socialist" or, in the extreme, "communist" the verbal slight-of-hand because we don't tend to use the latter terms in American political discourse.

"Progressives" morphing into a new "far-right" in America is no more mysterious than the Soviet Union morphing from Leninism to Stalinism or, the Jewish (Trotskyite) globalists fleeing Stalinist nationalism and then morphing into, first, "Scoop" Jackson Democrats and then into Bushite Republicans.

As you might notice, the real issue is the authoritarian vs. the non-authoritarian state. In this context, an authoritarian government and social order (as in communism and neoconservatism) are practical pre-requisites necessity to force humanity to transition to their New World Order.

Again, the defining characteristic of fascism is the unitary state enforced via an authoritarian political and social structure. Ideological rigor is enforced via the police powers of the state along with judicial activism and political correctness. Ring a bell?

In the ongoing contest between Trump and the remnants of the American "progressive" movement, who are the populists and who the authoritarians? Who are the democrats and who are the fascists?

I would say that who lands where in this dichotomy is obvious.

RobinG > , July 13, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT

@Alfa158 Is Jimmy Dore really a "Progressive?" (and what does that mean, anyway?) Isn't Jimmy's show hosted by the Young Turks Network, which is unabashedly Libertarian?

Anyway, what's so great about "the Progressive movement?" Seems to me, they're just pathetic sheepdogs for the war-crazed Dems. Jimmy should be supporting the #UNRIG movement ("Beyond Trump & Sanders") for ALL Americans:

On 1 May 2017 Cynthia McKinney, Ellen Brown, and Robert Steele launched

We the People – Unity for Integrity.

The User's Guide to the 2nd American Revolution.

Death to the Deep State.

https://www.unrig.net/manifesto/

Ben Banned > , July 13, 2017 at 9:13 pm GMT

Petras, for some reason, low balls the number of people ejected from assets when the mafia came to seize real estate in the name of the ruling class and their expensive wars, morality, the Constitution or whatever shit they could make up to fuck huge numbers of people over. Undoubtedly just like 9/11, the whole thing was planned in advance. Political whores are clearly useless when the system is at such extremes.

Banks like Capital One specialize in getting a signature and "giving" a car loan to someone they know won't be able to pay, but is simply being used, shaken down and repossessed for corporate gain. " No one held a gun to their head! " Get ready, the police state will in fact put a gun to your head.

Depending on the time period in question, which might be the case here, more than 20 million people were put out of homes and/or bankrupted with more to come. Clearly a bipartisan effort featuring widespread criminal conduct across the country – an attack on the population to sustain militarism.

peterAUS > , July 13, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT

@yeah Nice.

If I may add:
"and you also have to dearly pay for you being white male heterosexual for oppressing all colored, all the women and all the sexually different through the history".

"And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election time. If we see that you still don't get with the program we will reeducate you. Should you resist that in any way we'll incarcerate you. And, no, normal legal procedure does not work with racists/bigots/haters/whatever we don't like".

Reg Cζsar > , July 14, 2017 at 1:19 am GMT

@CCZ

"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats) take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.

take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee

which itself was a progressive invention. There was no "right wing" anywhere in sight when it was estsblished in 1938.

[Jul 13, 2017] The Trump administration is run by Zionists, for Zionists, say an analyst.

Jul 13, 2017 | www.presstv.ir
The administration of US President Donald Trump is run by Zionists and Qatar was singled out by the White House in retaliation for refusing to engage in pro-Israeli policies, an investigative journalist in Washington says.

"I certainly hope Secretary of State Rex Tillerson acts as an honest broker in trying to get the Saudis and their Wahhabist friends in Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and their military dictator friend in Egypt, general el-Sisi, to cease and desist with this economic blockade that they have created for Qatar," said Wayne Madsen, an author and columnist specializing in intelligence and international affairs.

The top US diplomat traveled to Qatar on Tuesday as part of his Persian Gulf tour to break the five-week rift between Doha and several Arab states.

Tillerson will visit Saudi Arabia before leaving the Persian Gulf region on Thursday. He will hold a meeting with the foreign ministers of the four countries involved in the dispute on Wednesday in Riyadh.

Ahead of his Doha visit, Tillerson made a stop in Kuwait, which is still trying to mediate the dispute.

The split among the Arab states erupted in May after Trump visited Saudi Arabia and then pointing out that numerous Arab leaders had complained to him that Qatar is supporting terrorism.

"The issue is that President Trump, when he was visiting [Saudi Arabia] Trump went on to back the Saudis in this unusual tirade that the Saudis are pushing that Qatar is financing terrorists, when in fact there were no Qataris among the 9/11 hijackers, but there were Saudis among these hijackers," Madsen said during a phone interview with Press TV on Tuesday.

"So, I think what this boils down to is the fact that we now know that Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, tried to basically extort $500 million from Qatar to invest in his failed building in Manhattan," he added. "The Qataris turned him down and Jared Kushner, who is some sort of svengali over Trump, this sort of vampire that shadows Trump at every move, was likely responsible for Trump siding with the Saudis against Qatar because Qatar didn't fork over a half a billion dollars on Kushner's failed real estate venture in Manhattan."

"This goes to show that with the Trump administration, with his ambassador to Israel [David] Friedman and special envoy [Jason] Greenblatt and his other special envoy Jared Kushner, that this administration is run by Zionists, for Zionists, for the interest of Israel and against the interest of any country that refuses to engage in the criminal gangstarism of the Trump administration, and Qatar is actually no different than many countries that have now been singled out for this type of retribution and retaliation by the criminal gang that runs the White House. "

Read More:

Wayne Pacific 1 hour ago

Trump means America first, after Israel , his money, his family, his lenders, and the evil eye in London.
Howard Lewis 5 hours ago
I have found Wayne Madsen to be 1,000 times as cognizant of reality as Donald Trump and 10,000 times as cognizant as Killary Clinton or any other Bush criminal cabalist.
goldmorgs 22 hours ago
More exactly; talmudic pharisee, who obey the ruling bunch of talmudic finance pharisee goldmorgs in New Yorkrael.
In the usa, uk, nl, since recent ukraine and france absolutely and to high extent also in germany etc. the majority of the cabinet members, parliament members and CEO of the central banks, the press, the tv-channels, the big computer and internet companies and the other large institutions and companies are pharisee. Those pharisee obey and serve the goldmorgs instead of the people.

Two millenia ago Jesus has warned us with the temple cleansing and his death that the finance pharisee must be removed and kept out of (finance) power and finance business. Therefore the finance pharisee have instigated his execution.

J.J.'s_Zionist_Free_World > jsinton 20 hours ago
No, Alex Jones is a Joke, part of what they called the "Controlled Opposition" in the Book "1984" by George Orwell. Where do you live in Israel? Just Curious.
Ray at 17:49 the day before yesterday
Interesting article it's a shame that people continue in their brainwashed state and dispute when it comes to support for Israel.
Chamberlain > john at 18:03 the day before yesterday
Of course, because lobbies being legal corruption flows through them with no judicial problem.. And Zionist lobbies are the most economically powerful in US. This is how the so called "capitalist democracy" works in its fullness. That is why many capitalist countries that have not legalized lobbies, such as Brazil, for example, are at a dead-lock in their political and electoral system.

[Jul 13, 2017] Porky as Kwame Nkrumah and other similarities between Banderastan and post colonial African history

Jul 13, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Cortes , July 12, 2017 at 1:59 pm

Porky as Kwame Nkrumah and other similarities between Banderastan and post colonial African history:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/12/postcolonial-ukraine-why-federalization-is-not-an-option-for-kiev/

Northern Star , July 12, 2017 at 2:44 pm
"Only in the case of Crimea Moscow acted in a more open way. The hostile rejection to this step by close allies like Belarus and Kazakhstan shows that Putin indeed acted against the established consensus of the post-Soviet world."

WTF!!!!!! Any rejection-hostile or not-of the formal incorporation of Crimea into the Russian'state would be a rejection of the overwhelmingly expressed will of the people of Crimea to join with Russia as was show in the referendum.

[Jul 13, 2017] I suppose Lavrov called her a lady because hes a gentleman, but for me shes just a woman who shoots the shit that shes told and paid to shoot

Jul 13, 2017 | gravatar.com
moscowexile says: July 12, 2017 at 12:53 pm

Barbie Doll Nauert commented upon by Lavrov:

'Don't lag behind real events': Lavrov hits back after State Dept says he 'gets out ahead'

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has advised the US State Department to keep up with events after spokesperson Heather Nauert said that Lavrov "likes to talk a lot and get out ahead".

The Russian Foreign Minister was quick to retort, however.

"Nobody should get out ahead of things, but I suppose lagging behind real events does not help in a diplomat's job either."

"I don't understand how this lady can know what I like and don't like. We haven't been introduced", Lavrov said", speaking with the press following his meeting with the Belgian counterpart, Didier Reynders, in Brussels on Wednesday.

I suppose Lavrov called her "a lady" because he's a gentleman, but for me she's just a woman who shoots the shit that she's told and paid to shoot -- with a big, fixed smile on her Barbie-Doll face.

Big false smile, American know-nothing spokesperson.

[Jul 12, 2017] Hilarious Trump Advisors Want Arch Russia Hawk in Putin Meeting

Notable quotes:
"... Trump may have talked about getting along with Russia during the campaign, but he has since surrounded himself with people who a.) think he is a muppet and b.) rather like the new cold war. ..."
"... The hawk they want at the meeting is none other than Fiona Hill. The Putin biographer that Trump appointed to his National Security Council. Considering the content of her book on Putin (taglined: "a multidimensional portrait of the man at war with the West") the intent may even be to slight the Russian leader. ..."
"... According to two White House aides, senior Trump administration officials have pressed for Hill the National Security Council's senior director for Europe and Russia and the author of critical psychological biography of Putin to be in the room during the president's highly anticipated meeting with Putin. ..."
"... Hill, who came to the White House from the Brookings Institution, previously served as the National Intelligence Council's top intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Her 2013 biography, Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, portrayed a corrupt and Machiavellian leader attempting to balance his various public personas in an effort to hang on to power. ..."
"... More recently, Hill has downplayed expectations that Trump's public praise for Putin and his criticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization might engender closer relations between the two countries. ..."
"... "I think it will come down to what it's always been," she told The Atlantic in November, "where the Russians will get all giddy with expectations, and then they'll be dashed, like, five minutes into the relationship because the U.S. and Russia just have a very hard time being on the same page." ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | russia-insider.com

What better way to nip any chances of a Russia reset in the bud

Trump may have talked about getting along with Russia during the campaign, but he has since surrounded himself with people who a.) think he is a muppet and b.) rather like the new cold war.

So when he meets the Russian president this weekend in Germany The Daily Beast reports his own aides want the biggest anti-Russia hawk among them to be in the room, ostensibly to help with "optics", but in reality to "help nudge Trump in the right direction". I.e. to make sure any prospect of Russia reset is nipped in the bud.

The hawk they want at the meeting is none other than Fiona Hill. The Putin biographer that Trump appointed to his National Security Council. Considering the content of her book on Putin (taglined: "a multidimensional portrait of the man at war with the West") the intent may even be to slight the Russian leader.

The Daily Beast:

According to two White House aides, senior Trump administration officials have pressed for Hill the National Security Council's senior director for Europe and Russia and the author of critical psychological biography of Putin to be in the room during the president's highly anticipated meeting with Putin.

If Hill is there, these officials believe, it will help the White House avoid the perception that the president is too eager to cozy up to the Kremlin. The hope is to avoid a repeat of Trump's last meeting with top Russian officials, during which he disclosed classified intelligence to two of the country's top diplomats!and was pictured by Russian state media looking particularly friendly with them.

"If she [Hill] wasn't there it would be pretty bad, this is the most momentous thing in her portfolio," said former Pentagon Russia policy chief Evelyn Farkas, who added that the only valid reason not to include Hill would be to make room for McMaster in a room with limited space.

A National Security Council official confirmed to The Daily Beast that Hill is already in Hamburg, awaiting the president's Thursday arrival. Her early presence, and ongoing efforts to include Hill in the president's meeting with Putin, signal that the administration is attempting to head off any sense that the Trump is treating the Kremlin with kid gloves during his first meeting with America's chief geopolitical antagonist.

"We've clearly had an optics problem [on this issue]," one White House official said. "This would be one small corrective."

Officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on these matters. The White House press office did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

Hill, who came to the White House from the Brookings Institution, previously served as the National Intelligence Council's top intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Her 2013 biography, Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, portrayed a corrupt and Machiavellian leader attempting to balance his various public personas in an effort to hang on to power.

Putin, has turned his skills as a former KGB officer into a unique brand of kleptocratic statecraft , wrote Hill and her co-author , Brookings' Clifford Gaddy. The Kremlin leader installed friendly officials in high-level posts with influence over key levers of the Russian economy!and ensured they remain friendly through financial inducements and more sinister, if mostly unspoken, threats.

More recently, Hill has downplayed expectations that Trump's public praise for Putin and his criticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization might engender closer relations between the two countries.

But while Trump has repeatedly hailed the "strong" and "brilliant" Russian leader, Hill said she expected little change in longstanding U.S.-Russia tensions.

"I think it will come down to what it's always been," she told The Atlantic in November, "where the Russians will get all giddy with expectations, and then they'll be dashed, like, five minutes into the relationship because the U.S. and Russia just have a very hard time being on the same page."

[Jul 12, 2017] Trump Poland speech

Notable quotes:
"... One wonders what were the U.S. President's diplomatic goals for that little venue, if indeed he had any. ..."
"... I usually agree with Buchanan, but not on this one. The US President is not a pundit, to be " right" about his foreign policy is hardly enough. He has to be able to push it through. This requires clarity in his vision and the ability to find common ground, to influence his international partners (as Putin expresses it). He should not just go be provoking in Central Europe. If Trump is standing alone among world leaders, it is not because of righteousness, but because of incompetence. ..."
"... Trump lacks both intellectual integrity and intellectual honesty. Or any philosophically-sound ethos, for that matter. ..."
"... They've been as global as their means allowed. In the interwar and post-Cold War eras their global role has been to align with world hegemons to gain advantages over neighboring states, with results that have turned quite bad. Somehow, the lesson that it's better to have a good policy towards neighboring states rather than alignment with your neighboring states' sworn enemies seems to escape them. They don't like EU's immigration policy but with all of the Atlanticists' other imperial bullshit is just fine and dandy with them. ..."
"... Regardless of Poland's contributions to civilisation of the past, it remains a fact that today's Poland is one of the chief instigators of the "Russia is all evil, all the time" chorus. Its a great cheerleader for pushing NATO up to Russia's borders etc etc. These actions, to say the least, are fraught with danger: for Poland & what for passes for our civilisation. ..."
"... Economics & culture are of one large KNOT. It should be clear that Neo-liberalism cares nothing for families: the destruction of small business, of living wages & the general gross bias of Elites against people/families to corporations demonstrate just how elites care about families. Neoliberalism's willingness to dispense with morality in such things as advertising, movies etc if it will secure good profits has been clear for years (Of course, we as consumers, of such degenerate products are not innocent either) ..."
"... Nor does christianity fare too well in hyper-capitalist society: Jesus was pretty clear on this element: there's the problem of rich persons & the eye of needles, & that you can't follow two leaders: its Christ OR Mammon, I believe. ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

Veritatis , July 11, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT

Well, I read the speech, in a version which included the chants of the crowd. It seems to me it was two speeches badly welded into one. The first, the foreign policy one, could easily be construed as anti-Rusia (pro expansive NATO). The second was a cheerleading effort, along the lines referenced by Buchanan. It spoke glowingly about Poland's nationalism (and thus was correctly read by some German friends as "anti Merkel") and more diffusely about "The West's" achievements and will to survive. The Poles present received it enthusiastically, which must have been very flattering.

Overall, a badly crafted speech, that can irritate both Russians and Germans by reminding them of past crimes and present policies where there is confrontation with the U.S. (role of NATO and refugees). One wonders what were the U.S. President's diplomatic goals for that little venue, if indeed he had any.

I usually agree with Buchanan, but not on this one. The US President is not a pundit, to be " right" about his foreign policy is hardly enough. He has to be able to push it through. This requires clarity in his vision and the ability to find common ground, to influence his international partners (as Putin expresses it). He should not just go be provoking in Central Europe. If Trump is standing alone among world leaders, it is not because of righteousness, but because of incompetence.

Anonymous, July 12, 2017 at 3:18 am GMT

Trump lacks both intellectual integrity and intellectual honesty. Or any philosophically-sound ethos, for that matter.

If Russia has a lick of good sense, they'll keep their nuclear deterrent operational, and ignore the collapsing decadent monster, the USA. They might also benefit from making it known that, say, 10% of their kick-ass nukes have "Destination Jerusalem" inscribed on the MIRV capsule.

Russia has adequate resources to be a strong economy and a businesslike, but somewhat insular, nation of dedicated Russians. You know, kinda like the USA used to be for Americans. They might greatly benefit from pursuing that route.

Sic transit, dammit, sic transit gloria mundi.

Thirdeye, July 12, 2017 at 1:33 am GMT

The Enlightenment is what made the west great. The backwards Roman Catholicism so loved by Buchanan and so many Poles undermines it. Poland never fired a shot in defense of western civilization. They waged war for hegemony of backwardness. Copernicus was a swell guy, but Poland's contribution to the ascent of the west since then has been pretty much zip. Funny how Buchanan's cogent criticism of Poland's role in starting the Second World War is forgotten in his fauning over Trump's sophomoric speech.

Families in the west are declining because of economic, more than cultural, assault. Don't worry when dysfunctional weenies voluntarily take themselves out of the gene pool.

Thirdeye, July 12, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT • 100 Words

@Anonymous

Poland never fired a shot in defense of western civilization. They waged war for hegemony of backwardness.

Essplainame, Lucy, how that's a "bad thing"?

I see you don't mind wars for hegemony of backwardness.

.Poland and their global role which they choose NOT to be a global role?

They've been as global as their means allowed. In the interwar and post-Cold War eras their global role has been to align with world hegemons to gain advantages over neighboring states, with results that have turned quite bad. Somehow, the lesson that it's better to have a good policy towards neighboring states rather than alignment with your neighboring states' sworn enemies seems to escape them. They don't like EU's immigration policy but with all of the Atlanticists' other imperial bullshit is just fine and dandy with them.

animalogic, July 12, 2017 at 7:10 am GMT

@Thirdeye

All this talk of "western civilisation"reminds me of a quote attributed to Gandhi:

"What do you think of western civilisation, Mr Gandhi ?"

"I think it would be a good idea" he replied.

Regardless of Poland's contributions to civilisation of the past, it remains a fact that today's Poland is one of the chief instigators of the "Russia is all evil, all the time" chorus. Its a great cheerleader for pushing NATO up to Russia's borders etc etc. These actions, to say the least, are fraught with danger: for Poland & what for passes for our civilisation.

As for: "Families in the west are declining because of economic, more than cultural, assault."

Economics & culture are of one large KNOT. It should be clear that Neo-liberalism cares nothing for families: the destruction of small business, of living wages & the general gross bias of Elites against people/families to corporations demonstrate just how elites care about families. Neoliberalism's willingness to dispense with morality in such things as advertising, movies etc if it will secure good profits has been clear for years (Of course, we as consumers, of such degenerate products are not innocent either)

Nor does christianity fare too well in hyper-capitalist society: Jesus was pretty clear on this element: there's the problem of rich persons & the eye of needles, & that you can't follow two leaders: its Christ OR Mammon, I believe.

Renoman, July 12, 2017 at 8:24 am GMT

Looking to Germany for leadership? Remember the Wars folks. Putin is the leader of the free World, Trump is just the tantrum throwing child of the deep state [Israel].

[Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | russia-insider.com
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.

Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.

Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.

It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5L2F4ocEIZw

Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.

Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:

"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin.

As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:

"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ... and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.

The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done. I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."

Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and down in emphatic agreement.

Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.

Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[Jul 12, 2017] The Syrian Test of the Trump-Putin Accord by Ray McGovern

Schizophrenic and very well armed America is a real danger to the world...
The USA is no longer can be considered as a country that can obey agreements and treaties signed. That means that it is pariah on international stage and only the power of Us military-industrial complex keeps other countries from spitting in the US representatives face.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, the key to Putin's assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will have to take on the same "deep-state" forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past. In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement will take something just short of a miracle. ..."
"... Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and CIA Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James "Mad-Dog" Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed "moderate rebels." ..."
"... But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another "accidental" U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized "chemical attack" or some other senseless "war crime" that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Last fall's limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by "coalition" air strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops and wounded about 100 others. ..."
"... In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved by both Obama and Putin). ..."
"... The Pentagon's resistance and the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26: ..."
"... "My good friend John Kerry is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief." ..."
"... Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, "the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence." Noting this resistance inside the U.S. military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, "It is difficult to work with such partners." ..."
"... Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented: ..."
"... "My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results. people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice." ..."
"... It took, actually, not even Syria but Ukraine to expose a complete incohesiveness of US power structure–it is literally not treaty-worthy. It can not be since itself is divided into parties with, sometimes, diametrically opposite views (and objectives). It is really sad and embarrassing. ..."
"... Today was yet another corporate America Trump defamation day. Trump's son admitted that last year the Russians gave him evidence that H. Clinton did corrupt deals in Russia. What were these deals? No one cares! It does not matter, we all know she is corrupt. Clinton is not open for attack! The Trumpers committed treason by simply accepting such evidence! Impeach! ..."
"... America wanted regime change from the get-go. Rebels in Syria got huge amounts of weapons courtesy of America and its allies. John McCain pleaded for rebels to get weapons and support. The result was Al Qaida using American TOW missiles. ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

The immediate prospect for significant improvement in U.S.-Russia relations now depends on something tangible: Will the forces that sabotaged previous ceasefire agreements in Syria succeed in doing so again, all the better to keep alive the "regime change" dreams of the neoconservatives and liberal interventionists?

Or will President Trump succeed where President Obama failed by bringing the U.S. military and intelligence bureaucracies into line behind a cease-fire rather than allowing insubordination to win out?

These are truly life-or-death questions for the Syrian people and could have profound repercussions across Europe, which has been destabilized by the flood of refugees fleeing the horrific violence in the six-year proxy war that has ripped Syria apart.

But you would have little inkling of this important priority from the large page-one headlines Saturday morning in the U.S. mainstream media, which continued its long obsession with the more ephemeral question of whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would confess to the sin of "interference" in the 2016 U.S. election and promise to repent.

Thus, the headlines: "Trump, Putin talk election interference" ( Washington Post ) and "Trump asks Putin About Meddling During Election" ( New York Times ). There was also the expected harrumphing from commentators on CNN and MSNBC when Putin dared to deny that Russia had interfered.

In both the big newspapers and on cable news shows, the potential for a ceasefire in southern Syria – set to go into effect on Sunday – got decidedly second billing.

Yet, the key to Putin's assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will have to take on the same "deep-state" forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past. In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement will take something just short of a miracle.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and CIA Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James "Mad-Dog" Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed "moderate rebels."

But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another "accidental" U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized "chemical attack" or some other senseless "war crime" that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad.

Bitter Experience

Last fall's limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by "coalition" air strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops and wounded about 100 others.

In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved by both Obama and Putin).

The Pentagon's resistance and the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26:

"My good friend John Kerry is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief."

Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, "the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence." Noting this resistance inside the U.S. military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, "It is difficult to work with such partners."

Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented:

"My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results. people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice."

On Syria, Putin decried the lack of a "common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations, enormous effort, and difficult compromises."

Lavrov's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, meanwhile, even expressed sympathy for Kerry's quixotic effort, giving him an "A" for effort.after then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter dispatched U.S. warplanes to provide an early death to the cease-fire so painstakingly worked out by Kerry and Lavrov for almost a year.

For his part, Kerry expressed regret – in words reflecting the hapless hubris befitting the chief envoy of the world's "only indispensible" country – conceding that he had been unable to "align" all the forces in play.

With the ceasefire in tatters, Kerry publicly complained on Sept. 29, 2016: "Syria is as complicated as anything I've ever seen in public life, in the sense that there are probably about six wars or so going on at the same time – Kurd against Kurd, Kurd against Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sunni, Shia, everybody against ISIL, people against Assad, Nusra [Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate]. This is as mixed-up sectarian and civil war and strategic and proxies, so it's very, very difficult to be able to align forces."

Admitting Deep-State Pre-eminence

Only in December 2016, in an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe , did Kerry admit that his efforts to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – as well as all those forces he found so difficult to align.

"Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation [of the ceasefire agreement] extremely hard to accomplish," Kerry said. "But it could have worked. The fact is we had an agreement with Russia a joint cooperative effort.

"Now we had people in our government who were bitterly opposed to doing that," he said. "I regret that. I think that was a mistake. I think you'd have a different situation there conceivably now if we'd been able to do that."

The Globe's Viser described Kerry as frustrated. Indeed, it was a tough way for Kerry to end nearly 34 years in public office.

After Friday's discussions with President Trump, Kremlin eyes will be focused on Secretary of State Tillerson, watching to see if he has better luck than Kerry did in getting Ashton Carter's successor, James "Mad Dog" Mattis and CIA's latest captive-director Pompeo into line behind what President Trump wants to do.

As the new U.S.-Russia agreed-upon ceasefire goes into effect on Sunday, Putin will be eager to see if this time Trump, unlike Obama, can make a ceasefire in Syria stick; or whether, like Obama, Trump will be unable to prevent it from being sabotaged by Washington's deep-state actors.

The proof will be in the pudding and, clearly, much depends on what happens in the next few weeks. At this point, it will take a leap of faith on Putin's part to have much confidence that the ceasefire will hold.

Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 years. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). He can be reached at: [email protected] . A version of this article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com.

Andrei Martyanov , Website July 11, 2017 at 4:44 pm GMT

Only in December 2016, in an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe, did Kerry admit that his efforts to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – as well as all those forces he found so difficult to align.

It took, actually, not even Syria but Ukraine to expose a complete incohesiveness of US power structure–it is literally not treaty-worthy. It can not be since itself is divided into parties with, sometimes, diametrically opposite views (and objectives). It is really sad and embarrassing.

Carlton Meyer , Website July 12, 2017 at 4:31 am GMT

Today was yet another corporate America Trump defamation day. Trump's son admitted that last year the Russians gave him evidence that H. Clinton did corrupt deals in Russia. What were these deals? No one cares! It does not matter, we all know she is corrupt. Clinton is not open for attack! The Trumpers committed treason by simply accepting such evidence! Impeach!

I watched part of Oliver Stone's interview. The reason Snowden remains in Russia is because the USA refuses to sign an extradition treaty with Russia. There are several Russians living in the USA wanted for looting large sums in Russia, and Putin wants justice, but they are exempt, like Hillary. Read about her Russian Uranium kickback deal, its on-line, but of no interest to our corporate media.

Not news in the USA!

Ram , July 12, 2017 at 10:06 am GMT

@Sean " Assad could not win a free election and everyone knows it. "

Just as everyone knows that Russia won the election for Trump as enunciated by the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley.

Jon Halpenny , July 12, 2017 at 10:33 am GMT

Sean, that is pure nonsense. America wanted regime change from the get-go. Rebels in Syria got huge amounts of weapons courtesy of America and its allies. John McCain pleaded for rebels to get weapons and support. The result was Al Qaida using American TOW missiles.

[Jul 11, 2017] Trump Proposes Joint 'Cyber Security Unit' With Russia, Then Quickly Backs Away From It

Notable quotes:
"... Less than 24 hours later, Trump decided against it, tweeting : "The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't -- but a ceasefire can, & did!" ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | politics.slashdot.org
(arstechnica.com)

In a series of tweets yesterday, President Trump proposed "an impenetrable Cyber Security unit " with Putin "so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded and safe." The news came as a shock to just about everyone who got word of it, including congressional members of his own GOP party.

Less than 24 hours later, Trump decided against it, tweeting : "The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't -- but a ceasefire can, & did!"

Ars Technica reports:

"It's not the dumbest idea I have ever heard, but it's pretty close," Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, said of the plan.

Senate Republican Marco Rubio of Florida tweeted that "partnering with Putin on a 'Cyber Security Unit' is akin to partnering with [Syrian President Bashar] Assad on a 'Chemical Weapons Unit."'

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that Trump and the Russian president decided at a meeting during a Group of 20 nations summit in Hamburg, Germany, to embark on a joint "cyber unit to make sure that there was absolutely no interference whatsoever, that they would work on cyber security together." But on Sunday, after it was clear that the plan was going nowhere, Trump took to Twitter and said no deal.

That didn't stop Rep. Don Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia, from introducing on Monday an amendment to the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act that would bar a US-Russian cyber accord.

He said: "Donald Trump's proposal to form a 'cyber security unit' with Putin is a terrible idea that would immediately jeopardize American cybersecurity... Trump must acknowledge that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and take strong, meaningful action to prevent it from happening again in future elections."

[Jul 11, 2017] A Bipartisan Vote to Put the Brakes on War by Peter Certo

Notable quotes:
"... In early 2016, Trump (correctly) summed up George W. Bush's legacy this way: "We've been in the Middle East for 15 years, and we haven't won anything." ..."
"... He ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being " trigger happy " -- no standard-issue gibe from a guy who also promised to bring torture back -- even while echoing progressive complaints that the $5 trillion pricetag from Bush's wars would've been better spent at home. ..."
"... And though Trump's relationship with the Russians has since acquired an unseemly cast, he once offered quite sensibly that " it's better to get along " with the world's other nuclear-armed superpower than not to. ..."
"... Since taking office, Trump's turned virtually all use of force decisions over to his generals. With the president's backing, they've ordered 4,000 new American troops back into Afghanistan, sent thousands more to Iraq and Syria, and nearly quadrupled the rate of drone strikes from the Obama administration, which was already quite prolific. ..."
"... Everywhere they go, they're escalating the brutality -- and we still ..."
"... They cratered Afghanistan with the largest non-nuclear bomb ever dropped. They've stepped up support for the brutal Saudi-led bombing of Yemen, where 11,000 have died and thousands more are at risk of dying of hunger and cholera . Meanwhile they've brought civilian casualties from our bombings in Iraq and Syria to record levels , inflicting what the UN calls a " staggering loss of civilian life ." ..."
"... Under Trump, U.S. troops have repeatedly attacked pro-Syrian forces , a line Obama never crossed, in a misguided effort to bolster Washington's favorite rebels, many of whom are fighting each other . That's ratcheting up tensions with Syria's allies, Iran and Russia, endangering Obama's hard-won diplomatic gains with Iran and even leading Russia to threaten to shoot down American planes. ..."
"... For Trump, a president lampooned as a puppet of Putin, blundering into conflict with Russia over an empty corner of eastern Syria should be an embarrassing prospect. But Trump seems blithely unaware of the whole thing. ..."
"... While Trump may be uniquely prone to careless belligerence, the problem is plainly bipartisan: He's mostly just adding ghastly additions to a war scaffolding the Obama and Bush administrations built before him. ..."
"... Trump has failed to bring any sense or strategy to America's wanton post-9/11 war-making. But precisely by putting such a sinister face on it, he might've finally inspired bipartisan action to rein in the war machine. ..."
Jul 05, 2017 | fpif.org

Originally published in OtherWords .

One of the few things I recall fondly about the Trump campaign -- a short list, I'll admit -- was the candidate's apparent glee in ridiculing the war-mongering of his rivals and predecessors.

In early 2016, Trump (correctly) summed up George W. Bush's legacy this way: "We've been in the Middle East for 15 years, and we haven't won anything."

He ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being " trigger happy " -- no standard-issue gibe from a guy who also promised to bring torture back -- even while echoing progressive complaints that the $5 trillion pricetag from Bush's wars would've been better spent at home.

And though Trump's relationship with the Russians has since acquired an unseemly cast, he once offered quite sensibly that " it's better to get along " with the world's other nuclear-armed superpower than not to.

Compared to his rivals, Politico magazine once mused, Trump was " going Code Pink " on foreign policy. But what a rose-colored lie that turned out to be.

Since taking office, Trump's turned virtually all use of force decisions over to his generals. With the president's backing, they've ordered 4,000 new American troops back into Afghanistan, sent thousands more to Iraq and Syria, and nearly quadrupled the rate of drone strikes from the Obama administration, which was already quite prolific.

Everywhere they go, they're escalating the brutality -- and we still haven't won anything.

They cratered Afghanistan with the largest non-nuclear bomb ever dropped. They've stepped up support for the brutal Saudi-led bombing of Yemen, where 11,000 have died and thousands more are at risk of dying of hunger and cholera . Meanwhile they've brought civilian casualties from our bombings in Iraq and Syria to record levels , inflicting what the UN calls a " staggering loss of civilian life ."

Things are about to get even more dangerous in Syria, as the Islamic State falters and armed factions turn on each other to claim the remains of its caliphate.

Under Trump, U.S. troops have repeatedly attacked pro-Syrian forces , a line Obama never crossed, in a misguided effort to bolster Washington's favorite rebels, many of whom are fighting each other . That's ratcheting up tensions with Syria's allies, Iran and Russia, endangering Obama's hard-won diplomatic gains with Iran and even leading Russia to threaten to shoot down American planes.

For Trump, a president lampooned as a puppet of Putin, blundering into conflict with Russia over an empty corner of eastern Syria should be an embarrassing prospect. But Trump seems blithely unaware of the whole thing.

While Trump may be uniquely prone to careless belligerence, the problem is plainly bipartisan: He's mostly just adding ghastly additions to a war scaffolding the Obama and Bush administrations built before him.

One possible solution? Revoke the congressional war authorization passed after 9/11, which gave the president authority to track down the perpetrators of those attacks. There were 19 hijackers that day, but that law's been abused to justify military action 37 times in 14 countries , the Congressional Research Service calculates.

Stunningly, on June 29, the House Appropriations Committee overwhelmingly approved an amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee to revoke that authority -- and then broke into applause . It's not law yet, but Democrat Tim Kaine and Republicans Jeff Flake and Rand Paul have voiced support for doing something similar on the Senate side.

Trump has failed to bring any sense or strategy to America's wanton post-9/11 war-making. But precisely by putting such a sinister face on it, he might've finally inspired bipartisan action to rein in the war machine.

Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus.

[Jul 11, 2017] Trump Putin Talk, But US-Russia Confrontation Lingers

Notable quotes:
"... Tillerson is basically echoing the Obama Administration's talking points and I think for a lot of foreign policy types who were hopeful that President Trump would take a more realist approach to foreign policy, they're hopes have been disappointed and I think that Tillerson's rhetoric and Tillerson's appointment of former NATO Ambassador, Kurt Volker, the administration's point man on Ukraine, are all very troubling signs. ..."
"... Well, Ukraine is historically. It's one country, but it really is two nations. There's the Russian speaking East, which has traditionally looked towards Moscow and then there are the former Habsburg Provinces in the West, which are traditionally Ukrainian speaking. The country has a history of dual nationalities. The recent history of U.S. involvement in Ukraine, it does not inspire a lot of confidence. ..."
"... When protests broke out in the winter of 2013, 2014, sitting U.S. Senators Chris Murphy and John McCain traveled to the Maidan to egg on the protests. The U.S. Ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, and the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, also traveled and to support the protests. Nuland rudely famously handed out cookies to the protestors, the U.S. has been deeply involved in the effort to wrench Ukrainian out of Moscow's orbit. We see what has resolved it. The democratically-elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown on the night of February 21 ..."
"... The U.S. wasn't a party to the deal. It was a deal between the European Union; the representatives of the European Union and the Ukrainian Government. That deal didn't last 24 hours before the protests really turned violent and Yanukovych had to flee. Soon after that, Russia annexed Crimea and then a full blown civil war started in and around April 6th, in the east. ..."
"... To quote the esteemed University of Chicago Political Scientist John Mearsheimer, "NATO expansion is the Taproot of the Ukrainian crisis." What Mearsheimer means by that is that NATO's expansion beginning in the 1990's under Bill Clinton who saw the borders of the alliance move ever eastward right up to Russia's western border. The Russians find that, I think for fairly understandable reasons, rather alarming. ..."
"... What we need to keep in mind is the Ukraine crisis really was over the EU Association Agreement. The problem from the Russian perspective is that the EU Association Agreement had specific foreign policy and security protocols embedded in it. Basically setting the stage for Ukraine's entry into NATO. I find it deeply troubling that Poroshenko and Tillerson are now broaching the subject of Ukrainian membership into NATO. That really, I think, spark a very serious reaction on the part of the Russians as possibly the worst possible thing that Ukraine could do at the moment. ..."
"... Well, it's a good question. I mean I think there's very little evidence that the alliance would be strengthened by Ukrainian membership. I think that there's really little evidence that the alliance has been strengthened by the addition of Romania and Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. I find the entire concept of expanding the alliance up to the borders of Russia. It seems to me to be quite a dangerous and destabilizing move, but our foreign policy establishment is very slow to learn lessons from past mistakes. We see that now with discussion regarding Syria, for instance. These people, I don't know, were they asleep in 2003 when we went to war with Iraq? ..."
"... I mean there were people in the think tank world here who continually write [inaudible 00:10:20] saying, for instance, that the Libya intervention in 2011 was a success. It seems to me that ... I think they tend to believe their own myths and propaganda. They're so ideologically tied to this narrative of American Democracy Promotion that it really crowds out any room for rational thinking. ..."
"... The question is why is there this unique obsession with him and demonization to the point where, as Richard Engle does, he's talking about Putin playing chess and checkers and he's talking about Putin's body language and how Putin looks into people's eyes and makes you see what he wants you to see as if he's some super villain. ..."
"... It's basically Russia coverage without facts, evidence or logic. This isn't anything new, of course, but the intense demonization of this Russian leader is something that we didn't even see when Joseph Stalin ruled the USSR. This is something sort of new and really, really pretty dangerous. I think that it has its sources in a certain pent-up frustration on the part of a lot of Democrats that their candidate lost fairly and squarely to this rather bizarre fellow who sits in the Oval Office today. They can't get over it. This was, of course, something that the Clinton campaign actually. It was part of their post-election strategy. There's a new book out called, "Shattered" by Amie Parnes and, I think, Jonathan Martin ..."
"... Of course, I have this very troubling feeling that this is all in order to set the stage for Hillary Clinton to return as the nominee in four years time because then she can say well, I didn't really lose even though I outspent Donald Trump 2 to 1. I didn't really lose because it was stolen from me. The Russians stole it from me. I think there are a lot of Democrats who are willing to believe that and they're willing to absolve her for running a horrible, horrible campaign. ..."
"... Democratic partisans in the media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again for that, too. ..."
"... Democratic partisans in the media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again for that, too. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | therealnews.com

JAMES CARDEN: Thank you very much.

AARON MATE: Thanks for joining us. Let's start with Ukraine. Immediately following this historic meeting between Trump and Putin, Tillerson lays down the line that Russian behavior in Ukraine has to change. Can you talk about what's at stake here for both sides of this?

JAMES CARDEN: There's quite a bit at stake considering the fact that the war in the [inaudible 00:01:53] Donbass region continues to this day. It's a war that is taken nearly 10,000 lives. It's displaced over a million people and both parties to the Minsk Accord have a long way to go in implementing the agreement. Though I fear, that Minsk is probably a non-starter as far as Kiev goes and here's why. According to the United Nations, the Ukrainian government has to hold a vote on decentralization for the East. It's yet to do that yet. That vote was meant to be a pre-cursor to the agreement and I don't think they're going to hold that vote. Here's why. If they hold that vote, I believe the far right militias will try to come to power and try to overthrow Petro Poroshenko. Petro Poroshenko doesn't have a death wish. The country is currently ruled by Ukrainian oligarchs in a tacit alliance with far right figures like the speaker of Rada, Andriy Parubiy who founded the neo-Nazi party right sector.

Tillerson is basically echoing the Obama Administration's talking points and I think for a lot of foreign policy types who were hopeful that President Trump would take a more realist approach to foreign policy, they're hopes have been disappointed and I think that Tillerson's rhetoric and Tillerson's appointment of former NATO Ambassador, Kurt Volker, the administration's point man on Ukraine, are all very troubling signs.

AARON MATE: James, for those who aren't familiar with the recent history of Ukraine, can you talk a bit more about that internal split that you're talking about between the Donbass part of the country and the western part of Ukraine, where Kiev is and also what the U.S. role has been going back to the Obama administration as you mentioned.

JAMES CARDEN: Well, Ukraine is historically. It's one country, but it really is two nations. There's the Russian speaking East, which has traditionally looked towards Moscow and then there are the former Habsburg Provinces in the West, which are traditionally Ukrainian speaking. The country has a history of dual nationalities. The recent history of U.S. involvement in Ukraine, it does not inspire a lot of confidence.

When protests broke out in the winter of 2013, 2014, sitting U.S. Senators Chris Murphy and John McCain traveled to the Maidan to egg on the protests. The U.S. Ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, and the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, also traveled and to support the protests. Nuland rudely famously handed out cookies to the protestors, the U.S. has been deeply involved in the effort to wrench Ukrainian out of Moscow's orbit. We see what has resolved it. The democratically-elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown on the night of February 21 and soon after, Russia-

AARON MATE: Hey, James, just to cut in. Before he was overthrown, he actually, along with Russia, had negotiated a deal with the U.S., right? To-

JAMES CARDEN: Deal?

AARON MATE: Yeah.

JAMES CARDEN: The U.S. wasn't a party to the deal. It was a deal between the European Union; the representatives of the European Union and the Ukrainian Government. That deal didn't last 24 hours before the protests really turned violent and Yanukovych had to flee. Soon after that, Russia annexed Crimea and then a full blown civil war started in and around April 6th, in the east.

AARON MATE: Just to set some context, some further context here, just right now we're talking about Ukraine in the context of Russia gate here in the U.S., where the alleged Russian meddling through fake news and email hacks is deemed by many people a threat to U.S. National Security so it's interesting to compare that with what happened in Ukraine whereas you talked about there was a heavy U.S. role in this protest movement against Yanukovych, leading to his ouster and now you have a country on Russia's borders, which is talking about joining NATO. Can you talk about how that factors into Putin's thinking here and what he's doing inside Ukraine?

JAMES CARDEN: Yeah, sure. To quote the esteemed University of Chicago Political Scientist John Mearsheimer, "NATO expansion is the Taproot of the Ukrainian crisis." What Mearsheimer means by that is that NATO's expansion beginning in the 1990's under Bill Clinton who saw the borders of the alliance move ever eastward right up to Russia's western border. The Russians find that, I think for fairly understandable reasons, rather alarming.

AARON MATE: In part because they were promised by the first President Bush that would never happen.

JAMES CARDEN: That's correct. What we need to keep in mind is the Ukraine crisis really was over the EU Association Agreement. The problem from the Russian perspective is that the EU Association Agreement had specific foreign policy and security protocols embedded in it. Basically setting the stage for Ukraine's entry into NATO. I find it deeply troubling that Poroshenko and Tillerson are now broaching the subject of Ukrainian membership into NATO. That really, I think, spark a very serious reaction on the part of the Russians as possibly the worst possible thing that Ukraine could do at the moment.

AARON MATE: Why do you think it's taken for granted across so much of a foreign policy establishment here that Ukraine falling into the Western orbit as opposed to being neutral would be a positive thing?

JAMES CARDEN: Well, it's a good question. I mean I think there's very little evidence that the alliance would be strengthened by Ukrainian membership. I think that there's really little evidence that the alliance has been strengthened by the addition of Romania and Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. I find the entire concept of expanding the alliance up to the borders of Russia. It seems to me to be quite a dangerous and destabilizing move, but our foreign policy establishment is very slow to learn lessons from past mistakes. We see that now with discussion regarding Syria, for instance. These people, I don't know, were they asleep in 2003 when we went to war with Iraq?

I mean there were people in the think tank world here who continually write [inaudible 00:10:20] saying, for instance, that the Libya intervention in 2011 was a success. It seems to me that ... I think they tend to believe their own myths and propaganda. They're so ideologically tied to this narrative of American Democracy Promotion that it really crowds out any room for rational thinking.

... ... ...

AARON MATE: Okay. Going back to Russia and its borders. On its Western border, you have right now thousands of NATO troops. Can you talk about that context as it hangs over the prospects for improved US-Russia relations?

JAMES CARDEN: Well, again, I mean lets ... take a step further back and look at the context of this new cold war that were in with Russia. It's essentially, I believe, a forefront war. You have the Baltic Theater, where, as you say, U.S. and NATO have thousands of troops on Russia's border. There have been many close calls between Russian and NATO aircraft in the skies above the Baltic Sea.

The second front is as we spoke about Ukraine, where the Russians are supporting the Russian-speaking rebels in the east and the U.S. and NATO have a military base in western Ukraine from which they train Ukrainian soldiers to fight the Russian backed soldiers in the east. The third front is, as we were just talking about, Syria, and the fourth front, I believe it's safe to say, is unfolding in cyberspace. We have, at any moment, an accident can happen and this cold war could turn hot. I think that we're being distracted by the sideshow of Russia hacking and the left's rather odd obsession with Vladimir Putin.

AARON MATE: On that front, that segways perfectly to a clip I want to play for you. Just talking about how Putin is discussed in the U.S. media. I want to play for you a clip. This is Richard Engel, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News.

Voice of Rich E: American presidents come and go, but Putin has outlasted them all. He's perfected the art of controlling every detail to achieve his own goals. All you really see when you look Putin in the eye is exactly what he wants you to see. So far, he's been winning every round in the long game he's playing against the U.S., but what is that game? Foreign policy analyst like to say that Trump is playing checkers while Putin is playing chess.

AARON MATE: That's Richard Engle, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News. This was in a special he did on Friday night about Putin and Russia. I find that clip so striking because Engle is talking about Putin winning every round of a long game against the U.S., but then in the next sentence he asks what is the long game? James, your thoughts.

JAMES CARDEN: I can't put it any better than my Editor-in-Chief put it on Twitter when she was watching the Engle documentary the other night. I think she said something like it reminded her of Soviet propaganda. Any of this stuff coming out of. I assume this was on MSNBC?

AARON MATE: Yeah. It took the place of Rachel Maddow Show on Friday night and Maddow whose been a source of similar kind of stuff.

JAMES CARDEN: Right, as you've covered very well. Yeah, so MSNBC is. I mean, it's not even worth watching anymore. I mean it's just become an American version of. I would say R.T., but I think R.T. actually has higher editorial standards than MSNBC. I don't know quite what it is anymore except ... it gives space for these anti-Russian, anti-Putin hysterics.

This isn't to say by the way that Vladimir Putin is my kind of politician and if he was an American politician here, I certainly wouldn't vote for him. He's far too nationalistic and he would probably cozy up to the American image's right. I certainly wouldn't be happy about an American politician raiding the treasury like he and his associates have done. The problem is that that's an issue for the Russian people. They seem perfectly happy with Mr. Putin as president. I think he has something along the lines of 80% approval rating so if they're okay with it, I'm okay with it. But the idea that he is a puppet master pulling the strings, it is just beyond ridiculous.

AARON MATE: Yeah, James, I mean the question is not why criticize Putin because as you point out there's plenty to criticize him for. The question is why is there this unique obsession with him and demonization to the point where, as Richard Engle does, he's talking about Putin playing chess and checkers and he's talking about Putin's body language and how Putin looks into people's eyes and makes you see what he wants you to see as if he's some super villain.

JAMES CARDEN: Yes.

AARON MATE: Out of the cartoon.

JAMES CARDEN: He's a Svengali. It's basically Russia coverage without facts, evidence or logic. This isn't anything new, of course, but the intense demonization of this Russian leader is something that we didn't even see when Joseph Stalin ruled the USSR. This is something sort of new and really, really pretty dangerous. I think that it has its sources in a certain pent-up frustration on the part of a lot of Democrats that their candidate lost fairly and squarely to this rather bizarre fellow who sits in the Oval Office today. They can't get over it. This was, of course, something that the Clinton campaign actually. It was part of their post-election strategy. There's a new book out called, "Shattered" by Amie Parnes and, I think, Jonathan Martin [crosstalk 00:22:08].

AARON MATE: Jonathan Allen. Yeah.

JAMES CARDEN: Jonathan Allen. They report that the morning after the election, the team met at the headquarters in Brooklyn and they said okay, let's make Russia the cornerstone of our post-election strategy. That plays a big part of it. Of course, I have this very troubling feeling that this is all in order to set the stage for Hillary Clinton to return as the nominee in four years time because then she can say well, I didn't really lose even though I outspent Donald Trump 2 to 1. I didn't really lose because it was stolen from me. The Russians stole it from me. I think there are a lot of Democrats who are willing to believe that and they're willing to absolve her for running a horrible, horrible campaign.

AARON MATE: Yeah, James, and on that point, Democratic partisans in the media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again for that, too.

We have to leave it there though 'cause we're way over time. James Carden, contributing writer at The Nation, Executive Editor for The American Committee for East-West Accord. He has also served as an advisor on Russia policy at the U.S. State Department. James, thank you.

JAMES CARDEN: Thank you.

AARON MATE: And thanks for joining us on The Real News. Democratic partisans in the media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again for that, too.

[Jul 11, 2017] The Consequences of Donald Trump Jr.s Stupidity

This female lawyer probably can be characterized as anti-Russian lawyer. She is more probably MI6 asset then FSB asset ;-) (connection with William F. Browder ).
But attempts to stir the pot of Purple Color Revolution ( aka Russiagate) will continue. Neocons are pretty tenacious.
Notable quotes:
"... That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.'' ..."
"... But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy. ..."
"... But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy his ability to bring about a dιtente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the timing in all this. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

During a post-dinner cigar session at his elegant Cleveland mansion, Hanna reported back to McKinley on the results of his mission. Another participant recalled that the excited Hanna seemed "as keen as a razor blade.''

"Now, Major," said the political operative, addressing the governor by his Civil War title, "it's all over but the shouting. You can get both New York and Pennsylvania, but there are certain conditions." He didn't show any discomfort with the conditions, but McKinley was wary.

"What are they?" he asked. Hanna explained that Quay wanted control of all federal patronage in Pennsylvania, while others wanted to dominate government jobs in New England and Maine. But Platt wanted a bigger prize!the job of secretary of the Treasury!and he wanted a promise in writing.

McKinley stared ahead, puffing on his cigar. Then he rose from his chair, paced the room a few moments, and turned to Hanna.

"Mark," he said, "there are some things in this world that come too high. If I were to accept the nomination on those terms, the place would be worth nothing to me, and less to the people. If those are the terms, I am out of it.''

Hanna was taken aback. "Not so fast," he protested, explaining that, while it would be "damned hard" to prevail over the powerful bosses, who would surely not take kindly to a rebuff, Hanna thought it could be done and he welcomed the challenge. The men in the room pondered the situation and came up with a slogan: "The People Against the Bosses.''

McKinley ultimately beat the bosses, stirring a Washington Post reporter to write that "the big three of the Republican Party hoped to find McKinley as putty in their hands. When they failed, they vowed war on him." But now, said the reporter, their war was sputtering. "And over in the Ohio city by the lake, one Mark Hanna is laughing in his sleeve.''

This little vignette from the mists of the political past comes to mind with the latest development in the ongoing saga involving suspected Russian interference in last year's presidential campaign and the search for evidence that President Trump or his top campaign officials "colluded" with Russians to influence the electoral outcome. Now it turns out that the president's son, Donald Jr., met with a Russian lawyer, at the behest of a Russian friend, with an understanding beforehand that the lawyer could provide "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and be very useful to your father." For good measure, Donald Jr. took along his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, a top Trump adviser, and his father's campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort.

This is no small matter, and it is certain to roil the waters of the ongoing investigations. More significantly, it will roil the political scene, contributing mightily to the deadlock crisis that has America in its grip. White House officials and Trump supporters are defending young Trump with pronouncements that nothing was amiss here; every campaign collects dirt on opponents; nothing done was against the law; we must get beyond these "gotcha" political witch hunts, etc., etc.

Meanwhile. Trump opponents see skulky tendencies, nefarious intent, moral turpitude, and likely illegality. Both sides are trotting out criminal lawyers declaring, based on their prior political proclivities, that no laws were broken!or that laws were clearly broken. The cable channels are crackling with competition over who can be more definitive and sanctimonious on the air!Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity at Fox in defending the president; or Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews in attacking him on MSNBC.

Meanwhile, the country will continue to struggle with the question of what all this Sturm und Drang actually means. What to think? Whom to believe?

Let's stipulate, for purposes of analysis, that what we see is what there is, that what we know is not a harbinger of worse to come. How should we assess what we know thus far? What should we make of that meeting with the Russian lawyer?

That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.''

Consider that, after months of investigation, with leaks all over the place from those conducting the probe, no serious evidence emerged of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The collusion story was receding in the national consciousness, and even in the Washington consciousness, with questions of "obstruction of justice" supplanting collusion as the more significant avenue of inquiry. Now the question of collusion is once again in the air.

The fate of Donald Trump Jr. is a puny matter in the scheme of things, but the state of the union is a huge matter. And the young man's stupidity of a year ago will have!indeed, is already having!a significant impact on the president's leadership. He campaigned on a pledge to improve relations with Russia, with an implicit acknowledgment that the West was probably equally responsible, along with Moscow, for the growing tensions between the two nations. He was right about that. Then came the evidence of Russian meddling in the U.S. election and the allegations of collusion, and Trump's effort at improving relations was killed in the crib.

But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy.

Now let's set aside, for just a moment, the previous stipulation that what we see is all there is. It's possible, of course, that this unfortunate meeting actually was part of a much bigger conspiracy that, if disclosed in full, could engulf the administration in revelations of such magnitude as to bring down the president. It's possible, but not likely.

But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy his ability to bring about a dιtente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the timing in all this.

Actions, even more than ideas, have consequences. That's what Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort ignored when they accepted an invitation to meet with a Russian representative with "official documents" that could harm the candidacy of the Democratic contender.

And that's precisely what William McKinley had in mind when he said he wouldn't enter into unsavory bargains with the Eastern bosses even if it meant giving up his presidential dream. Of course, McKinley was thinking in part about his own personal code of conduct!his inability to live with a decision that was beneath his concept of rectitude. But note that he also invoked the American people when he recoiled at the thought. He wouldn't take an action that he considered inconsistent with his duty to the electorate.

That was a long time ago!and a world away. Today we have the likes of the Trumps!and, for that matter, the Clintons, who leave nearly everyone in their wake when it comes to moral and ethical laxity in matters of public policy. And so it must have seemed perfectly normal for those three men, part of Donald Trump's inner circle of campaign confidantes, to accept the idea of sitting down with someone from a foreign power and talk about how official documents from that power could help upend their opponent. Did Trump himself know about all this as it was unfolding? We don't know, but probably. In any event, it probably wasn't a crime, but it was a hell of a blunder.

... ... ...

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative. His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due out from Simon & Schuster in November.

[Jul 11, 2017] Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt.

Notable quotes:
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

LondonBob > > says: Show Comment Next New Comment July 11, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT

http://mihsislander.org/2017/06/full-transcript-james-mattis-interview/

Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.

[Jul 11, 2017] Ambassador Nikki Haley vs. President Trump by Daniel McAdams

Notable quotes:
"... As The Hill correctly pointed out, "Haley's description runs counter to the versions offered by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Trump himself ." ..."
"... But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump's agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN, "[w]e can't trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check." ..."
"... It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing, foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to sabotage President Trump's first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get along better with Russia, President Trump's own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his foreign policy. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Donald Trump came to the White House with a reputation as a top notch businessman. He built an international real estate empire and is worth billions. He then went into reality television, where his signature line as he dismissed incompetent potential employees was, "you're fired!"

On Friday, President Trump held a long-awaited face-to-face meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The meeting was scheduled to be a brief, 30 minute meet and greet, but turned into a two-plus hour substantive session producing a ceasefire agreement for parts of Syria and a plan to continue working together in the future. After the extended session, which was cordial by all accounts, President Trump said the meeting was "tremendous."

President Trump indicated that the issue of Russian interference in the US elections came up in conversation and that Putin vehemently denied it. It obviously was not a make or break issue in the conversation. President Trump's latest statement on the issue is that "we don't know for sure" who was behind any meddling.

Later on Friday, President Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, said of the Syria agreement that, "I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria."

On Sunday, President Trump Tweeted in praise of the Syria ceasefire agreement, adding that, "now it is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia!"

It suddenly appeared that the current reprise of a vintage 1950s US/Soviet face-off in relations had turned the corner back to sanity. Perhaps we will be pulling back from the edge of WWIII with thermonuclear weapons!

Then President Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations, the notorious neocon Nikki Haley, showed up on the weekend talk shows.

To CNN's Dana Bash, she directly contradicted her boss, Donald Trump, and undermined his official position regarding Russian involvement in the US election.

Said Ambassador Haley of Trump's meeting with Putin:

One, he wanted to basically look him in the eye, let him know that, yes, we know you meddled in our elections. Yes, we know you did it, cut it out. And I think President Putin did exactly what we thought he would do, which is deny it. This is Russia trying to save face. And they can't. They can't. Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our elections.

As The Hill correctly pointed out, "Haley's description runs counter to the versions offered by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Trump himself ."

But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump's agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN, "[w]e can't trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check."

It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing, foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to sabotage President Trump's first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get along better with Russia, President Trump's own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his foreign policy.

Surely the President – who as an enormously successful businessman has hired and fired thousands – can see the damage she is doing to his Administration by actively undermining his foreign policy.

President Trump needs to reprise his signature television line. He needs to pick up the phone, ask for Nikki, and shout "you're FIRED!" into the telephone.

Daniel McAdams is director of the The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity . Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

Read more by Daniel McAdams Manchester Bomber Was Product of West's Libya/Syria Intervention – May 24th, 2017 Is That All There Is? Intel Community Releases Its Russia 'Hacking' Report – January 8th, 2017 McCain to Trump: Don't You Dare Make Peace With Russia! – November 16th, 2016 The End of Interventionism? – October 26th, 2016 Jennifer Rubin: Hillary Must Stop Peace With Iran at All Costs! – August 18th, 2016

[Jul 11, 2017] While Trump Talks, The Pentagon Balks by Finian Cunningham

Notable quotes:
"... I predicted in the ICH comments a few days ago that the cease fire agreement would be sabotaged, what I didn't know was that the sabotage was already happening at the moment of the Trump-Putin hand shake. These crazies in the USA will not stop, ever, they are like the black knight in monty python's holy grail bridge crossing scene. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
July 11, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - On the same day US President Donald Trump gave a historic handshake to Russian leader Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit in Germany, the Pentagon was hosting a meeting planning for war with Moscow.

While the event at the US military headquarters near Washington DC was made public , it was hardly reported in the Western media. The two main figures attending were Defense Secretary James Mattis and his British counterpart Michael Fallon.

The American military publication Defense One headlined the Pentagon summit: "As Trump and Putin met, US and UK defense chiefs discussed ways to deter Russia."

The phrase "ways to deter Russia," is a euphemism for war planning. It expresses a more benign, more publicly acceptable purpose to Mattis and Fallon's discussions. Especially given that the titular head of the US government, President Trump, was at the very same time extending a hand of friendship to Putin.

The publication added, with more breathlessness, that Mattis and Fallon "talked about ways NATO could improve its combat power and deter Russian aggression in Eastern Europe that even as the White House seeks to improve relations with Moscow, US and UK leaders still view Russia as a severe military threat."

... ... ...

No wonder Trump has quickly backtracked on his earlier seeming rapport with Putin. He has, for example, disavowed reports of being willing to work with Russia on cyber security after coming under fire from hawkish Congress figures and pundits.

This week, too, the US is leading the biggest-ever war maneuvers conducted by the 29-member NATO military alliance in the Black Sea. Two separate war games are being carried out on Russia's southern flank: Saber Guardian, centered around Bulgaria, and Sea Breeze, off Crimea, involving a total of 30,000 NATO troops, as well as missile destroyers, fighter jets, and amphibious Marines forces. The US Army said it showcases "the ability to mass forces at any given time anywhere in Europe."

... ... ...

This bigger picture of relentless Russophobia, gratuitous anti-Russian propaganda in the US media, and the ongoing reckless goading by NATO forces on Russia's borders is an appropriate perspective with which to assess the significance of Trump's meeting with Putin last weekend.

Yes, indeed, it was good to see Trump having enough independence of mind and personal decorum to greet Putin with respect.

But the fact remains: while Trump talked, the Pentagon balked. And not just the Pentagon. Virtually, the whole US political and media establishment.
Ominously, the American political system and its military machine seem to operate on only one gear: onward with Russophobia and aggression.

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Ray Joseph Cormier 81p · 2 hours ago

Former Pentagon chief Ashton Carter said Trump's discussions in Hamburg were tantamount to chatting with "a burglar who had robbed your house."

In December 1998, Former Defence Secretary Ash Carter, Undersecretary of Defence John Deutch and Philip Zelikow, Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, wrote this in Foreign Affairs Journal,

A successful attack with weapons of mass destruction could certainly take thousands, or tens of thousands, of lives. If the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it.

Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks.

I find it curious it happened just like that 3 years later, and one of the co-Authors was able to control what information the 9/11 Commission was able to see?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-st...

mikel · 1 hour ago
This all goes to show how UK and US "leaders" are all living in a fantasy land. You have these two delusional Morton's discussing and planning for war with Russia. What it all boils down to is the fact that both the UK and the US are on their last legs economically and more war is the only way to keep kicking the can down the road.

They will need a scapegoat to blame the coming greater depression on, and it will conveniently be the evil Russians and the war we had to fight to "preserve our way of life". Anyone with an independent mind should wee right through that line of BS and understand that US/UK/NATO aggression is what we need to be concerned about. Not the evil "burglar" Putin.

ian · 1 hour ago
where is exactly this russian aggression all i see is US aggression
Brett Rasmussen · 1 hour ago
Orwell's Ministry of Truth at work.
Brett Rasmussen · 1 hour ago
I predicted in the ICH comments a few days ago that the cease fire agreement would be sabotaged, what I didn't know was that the sabotage was already happening at the moment of the Trump-Putin hand shake. These crazies in the USA will not stop, ever, they are like the black knight in monty python's holy grail bridge crossing scene.
Dick · 1 hour ago
I wonder if Hitler read the history of Napoleon's march into Russia before his attack on Russia, since he ultimately suffered the same fate. Hitler made the mistake of allowing the ideology of Arian superiority to override sober intelligent analysis of possible outcomes. The US is making the same mistake again by allowing the ideology of US exceptionalism to override a more sober assessment of potential outcomes with, no doubt, a similar result.

NATO promotes the idea of Russian aggression as an excuse to justify their militarising the Russian border. Who is the aggressor? Placing 5000 troops and equipment in the Baltic states as a show of force is like sending a dozen Chihuahuas to attack a bear; all they will be is an easy target if war erupts. Off course, there will not be a war, at least, not of the WW2 variety.

In a war between the US and Russia, it is Russia that has the logistical advantage via location and its primarily defensive military doctrine. The US and NATO need to stop sending in the Chihuahuas and seek a more sober policy, since it is NATO aggression that is the problem; not Russia.

DrS · 10 minutes ago
Guess who the REAL war mongers are!!! Injustice and Oppression are NEVER right. Bring on harmony, justice, peace.

Bring back care, concern, compassion, love and empathy for others regardless of culture, ethnicity and/or religion. Protect democracy, freedom, liberty, independence and sovereignty. Protect education and don't allow the MSM to continue deceit, deception, lies and propaganada.

[Jul 11, 2017] There's No Strategy Behind Trump's Wars -- Only Brute Force

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Los Angeles Times ..."
"... He's threatened a preemptive strike against North Korea, considered a major escalation in Yemen, and turned loose his military commanders to bomb wherever, however, and with whatever they choose, weakening even further the already insufficient restrictions Obama had put in place to try to minimize civilian casualties. Deaths of civilians under both U.S. drones and conventional airstrikes have escalated. ..."
"... For those who thought that military restraint was part of Trumpian isolationism, think again. ..."
"... Not one of these actions was necessary. Not one will make people in this country -- let alone the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, or others -- any safer. Neither was any of these actions sanctioned by Congress: All violated the War Powers Act, and indeed the Constitution itself, which puts the power to declare war in the hands of the people's representatives. ..."
"... Furthermore, not one of them fulfilled the minimal United Nations Charter requirements for the legal use of military force -- either Security Council authorization or immediate self-defense. Thus they all violated international law. ..."
"... What we see in these attacks is not a strategy, but a new way of communicating raw power. ..."
"... Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism project at the Institute for Policy Studies. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | fpif.org
These are awesome days for headline writers. So many global settings, such an abundance of weapons, such a wealth of choices!

On the morning of April 14, the New York Times led with "A Giant U.S. Bomb Strikes ISIS Caves in Afghanistan," matched by CNN's "US Drops 'Mother of All Bombs.'" The Washington Post chose Syria, where "Errant U.S. Strike Kills 18: Victims in Syria Were Allied Forces." By mid-afternoon that same day, the Associated Press had shifted to the horn of Africa, where the "U.S. Sends Dozens of Troops to Somalia, 1st Time in Decades."

And as the Friday rush hour began in Washington, Fox News opted to head to the north Pacific, leading with an aircraft carrier: "The 'Powerful' USS Carl Vinson Steams Towards North Korea."

A few days earlier the most popular choices were various versions of CNN's "U.S. Launches Military Strike Against Syria." (That headline described something new only because the strike officially targeted a Syrian government military site, while ignoring the not-so-new reality that the U.S. has been attacking alleged ISIS targets in Syria with drones, bombing raids, and special forces for almost three years.)

A couple of weeks before that, coverage of the Trump wars focused on a devastating U.S. airstrike on Mosul, which a Los Angeles Times headline described as "One of the Deadliest Attacks on Civilians in Recent Memory." And just before that , the Bureau of Investigative Journalism highlighted "Nine Young Children Killed: The Full Details of Botched U.S. Raid in Yemen." (No headlines, however, told the full story of the U.S. role in Yemen. That one might've read "U.S.-Backed Saudi Bombing Has Killed Thousands, Worsened Famine Facing Millions in Yemen.")

Around the globe, as these headlines testify, Donald Trump has been cavalierly deploying troops and weapons, claiming such military actions are designed to send political messages.

He's threatened a preemptive strike against North Korea, considered a major escalation in Yemen, and turned loose his military commanders to bomb wherever, however, and with whatever they choose, weakening even further the already insufficient restrictions Obama had put in place to try to minimize civilian casualties. Deaths of civilians under both U.S. drones and conventional airstrikes have escalated.

For those who thought that military restraint was part of Trumpian isolationism, think again.

Raw Power

Not one of these actions was necessary. Not one will make people in this country -- let alone the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, or others -- any safer. Neither was any of these actions sanctioned by Congress: All violated the War Powers Act, and indeed the Constitution itself, which puts the power to declare war in the hands of the people's representatives.

Furthermore, not one of them fulfilled the minimal United Nations Charter requirements for the legal use of military force -- either Security Council authorization or immediate self-defense. Thus they all violated international law.

And even beyond the illegality, not one could claim a strategic, legitimate, or moral justification.

Of course, the U.S. has been at war in various combinations of Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya and Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and beyond since George W. Bush declared the global war on terror just after the 9/11 attacks of 2001. In some of these countries, the U.S. was at war even before that. But Trump's actions represent major escalations in every one of those devastated nations. According to the British human rights monitor AirWars, well over 1,000 civilians may have been killed by U.S.-led forces just in Iraq and Syria in March alone, the highest monthly total they've ever tracked.

What we see in these attacks is not a strategy, but a new way of communicating raw power.

How does it work? Instead of sending diplomats to help get all warring parties involved in negotiations, you drop the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in combat on one of the world's poorest countries. Instead of supporting UN efforts to create incremental ceasefires, you send special forces. Instead of investing money, time, and high-level attention to help shift regional conflicts from the battlefield to the negotiating table, you send armed drones to drop more bombs.

And, of course, instead of increasing funding for diplomacy, you strip 29 percent of the State Department budget, and nearly zero out humanitarian aid, and hand it all over to the Pentagon as part of a $54 billion increase in military spending.

None of this is in service of any actual policy, just a unifying theme: War trumps diplomacy. Bullies rule. It's a shock-and-awe attack -- many shock-and-awe attacks, actually -- to drive home a message aimed not only at troops on the ground or militants holed up in a cave, but also at the populations as a whole, across Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, and beyond. The goal seems to be ensuring that no question remains as to where and with whom the ultimate power resides.

It's also a message to a domestic audience here in the United States, designed to shock if not surprise: The bully in the White House is calling the shots.

Invigorating the Peace Movement

The question now isn't what Trump -- or the generals and billionaires filling his cabinet -- will do next. It's what will we do next, as opponents of these wars?

In short, we need to integrate opposition to these wars into the very core of the movements already rising so powerfully against racism, for women's and LGBTQ rights, for climate and economic justice, for Native rights, for immigrant rights and refugee protections, for Palestinian rights, and much more.

We know that some approaches from earlier efforts are needed once again. Building ties with and privileging the voices of people facing the consequences of U.S. actions, dying under the bombs or reeling under brutal sanctions, remain crucial. Lifting up anti-war veterans provides entre to important new audiences. Reminding people of how U.S. wars are too often fought for resources -- as well as for the expansion of power, for military bases, for regional and global domination, and how racism informs all of Washington's wars -- are all key to popular education.

What we do know is that everyone -- from Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis, and Yemenis to those of us in this country -- needs diplomacy to win out over war. We've faced wars for decades now, but we've also had some victories where negotiations triumphed over force -- in Cuba, in Paris at the climate talks, and most especially in the Iran nuclear deal.

We know what diplomacy looks like, and we know how to fight for it.

We'll need new strategies, new tactics -- but we continue to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. Our country is waging war against peoples across the globe, indeed waging war against the earth itself. But we are still here, challenging those wars alongside those who guard the earth, who protect the water, who defend the rights of those most at risk.

The great historian Howard Zinn reminds us of it all: Our country's history began in the genocide of indigenous nations and the enslavement of Africans brought here in chains. But from that beginning it also became a country of people's movements against genocide and slavery, against racism and misogyny and Islamophobia, of movements for justice, for internationalism, and yes, for peace. Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

[Jul 10, 2017] Trump core opinions and attitudes can reverse 180 degrees in mere hours. Thus worrying about his getting violently demised is probably unfounded. He will consistently perform for his Zionist handlers and dance for his Deep State controllers.

Notable quotes:
"... It could also be that he is just being "smart" -- saying what needs to be said ad hoc to appease -- with the intention of eventually, when the time is right, carrying out his strategic vision. We'll see. ..."
"... what about the 59 missiles its all kiss and make up? What a load of bollocks. ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | sputniknews.com
Dimitri Ledkovsky · Works at It's not what you do. It's who you are. 23 hrs

It's likely that Trump is mind controlled since his seemingly core opinions and attitudes can reverse 180 degrees in mere hours. Thus worrying about his getting violently demised is probably unfounded. He will consistently perform for his Zionist handlers and dance for his Deep State controllers.

Steven Hudson · Creative Director at Neoideograms.wordpress.com

I don't know about that. His expressing contrary opinions could be interpreted as his having some independence--a hopeful thing. It could also be that he is just being "smart" -- saying what needs to be said ad hoc to appease -- with the intention of eventually, when the time is right, carrying out his strategic vision. We'll see.

Robert Smiley · West Vancouver, British Columbia 23 hrs

A case can be made that the so called deep state is committing treason on a daily basis. Unfortunately its constituent parts are stronger than the President and his allies.

Robert Sinclair

what about the 59 missiles its all kiss and make up? What a load of bollocks. They both love israel. if you look carefully you can see the strings

ARG Asia
I did know "Deep State" was powerful, but I had no idea they could do whatever they wanted and interfere in nearly every of President Trump staff members with the exemption of the former Goldman Sachs appointees. Is the US really a democracy?

Here in Asia we see the US bullying and revolver diplomacy has insulted many countries, not only the Philippines. If the US want to have a future in Asia they have to be more respectful, stop interfering in domestic issues, and stop all these regimes change attempts.

[Jul 10, 2017] Reminder: Hiding US Lies About Libyan Invasion

Jul 10, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
et Al , July 10, 2017 at 12:59 pm
A reminder.

Consortium News: Hiding US Lies About Libyan Invasion
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/07/hiding-us-lies-about-libyan-invasion/

Exclusive: In 2016, when a British parliamentary report demolished the excuse for the U.S. and its allies invading Libya in 2011, it should have been big news, but the U.S. mainstream media looked the other way, reports Joe Lauria.

By Joe Lauria (Corrects to show that a Times story was published.)

In George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel 1984, the protagonist Winston Smith's job was to delve into The Times of London archive and rewrite stories that could cause trouble for the totalitarian government ruling Britain. For instance, if the government made a prediction of wheat or automobile production in their five-year plan and that prediction did not come true, Winston would go into the archives and "correct" the numbers in the article on record.

In writing a response the other day to a critic of my recently published book on Hillary Clinton's electoral defeat, I was researching how the U.S. corporate media covered a 2016 British parliamentary report on Libya that showed how then Secretary of State Clinton and other Western leaders lied about an impending genocide in Libya to justify their 2011 attack on that country .

Hillary Clinton, who according to leaked emails was the architect of the attack on Libya, said four days earlier: "When the Libyan people sought to realize their democratic aspirations, they were met by extreme violence from their own government."

Sen. John Kerry, at the time chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chimed in: "Time is running out for the Libyan people. The world needs to respond immediately."
####

Plenty more at the link and all the more reason that the Pork Pie News Networks need to be flushed away to make way for those who actually want to do their jobs and will not be fobbed, bought or intimidated off. Or co-opted.

et Al , July 10, 2017 at 1:09 pm
Via Antiwar.com

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

marknesop , July 10, 2017 at 7:41 pm
So say we; so say we all. And that's the tried-and-true formula which has allowed Washington so many tilts at the regime-change windmill – mention extreme violence exercised by a brutal dictator who has no regard for human rights (which have passed into the realm of sanctity that none dares challenge), and stress the urgency which does not allow time for discussion. Act now, talk later. If a disaster ensues, it was worth the risk – it might have worked out. Time for the phase I have mentioned so many times before: say it with me, will you? "This is no time for finger-pointing. Nobody could have foreseen that this would happen. We all have to work together to solve the problem."

I'm sure it's not a coincidence that John Kerry, known liar, claims to have personally seen ironclad evidence that Russia shot down MH17 – he saw the missile shot, and saw MH17's trace drop off the scope. He knows .

Show of hands – who believes him? Following on from that, why can he not be held to account for such a monstrous lie? Reply

[Jul 10, 2017] The Media Perpetuated A Clinton Lie For 9 Months. What It Means For The Russia Narrative

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... the Associated Press ..."
"... The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling. ..."
"... The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess. ..."
"... Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement the grid definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an infected site on a work computer. ..."
"... The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. ..."
"... for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole. ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | dailycaller.com
When Hillary Clinton claimed "17 intelligence agencies" agree on Russian meddling in the third presidential debate, a host of media outlets including The New York Times rated the claim as 100 percent true. Nine months later, those same outlets say the stat is obviously false, and there's been a "simple" explanation as to why all along.

A closer look at how the claim survived and thrived over those nine months reveals a startling lack of skepticism in the press when it comes to the Russia narrative. The truth is the great majority of the 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community had nothing to do with the investigation and made no judgments about the matter.

"The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign," The New York Times now reports . "The rest were doing other work."

Strange admission for the paper, since its star political reporter recently reiterated the false claim as she was in the middle of writing an article characterizing President Trump as stubbornly foolish.

"The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump's party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help him get elected," Maggie Haberman wrote. Her story was later corrected to reflect the -- basic fact -- that only three agencies working under the Director of National Intelligence contributed to the intelligence community's conclusion.

A few days later, the Associated Press echoed that correction in a "clarification" bulletin acknowledging there's no truth to the claim the wire service had repeatedly blasted out for publication to news outlets all over the world.

The bizarrely timed corrections put the media in a bit of a truth pickle, especially after Trump drew attention to the corrections at a high-profile press conference in Poland. "They had to apologize, and they had to correct," he noted.

The New York Times, CNN and others quickly spun up articles and tweets aimed at steering the conversation away from this uncomfortable truth about their proliferation of an outright false claim, and back to the more comfortable "isn't Trump an idiot?" narrative.

"17 intel agencies or four? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid," Politifact wrote in a Thursday headline . "Trump still doesn't seem to believe his intelligence agencies," CNN blared .

The New York Times took it a step further , dismissing the truth of the claim as a "technicality" and then accusing Trump of spreading a "misleading" narrative by correcting the record. Their headline on a story about Trump calling them out for pushing a bogus claim: "Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don't Need to Agree."

Journalists eagerly tweeted out these headlines .

But that uncomfortable truth remains. The "17 intelligence agencies" embellishment is frighteningly easy to catch. A cursory glance of the DNI website would show the truth. More importantly, the sheer length of time the falsehood stood in public record at the highest echelons of media betrays an astounding lack of scrutiny on other points in the Russia narrative, which are often sourced to political operatives and anonymous "officials."

Let's look at how this happened, and what it says about the media's overall credibility in the Russia collusion narrative, from the top.

The claim can be traced straight back to candidate Clinton in the third presidential debate, remarking on Russian meddling a few weeks after the DNI released a statement on the investigation. The press didn't demonstrate any interest in the number of agencies that signed off on the Oct. 7 statement, until Clinton unleashed the "17" number in the debate (other than a CNN report incorrectly claiming there are 19 intelligence agencies).

She was clearly trying to add some umpf to the DNI assessment and pour cold water on Trump's skepticism about Russia's attempt to influence the election. She even repeated the number twice, firmly planting it in the record.

"I think that this is such an unprecedented situation," Clinton said. "We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing."

Trump took the bait.

"She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else," he replied, setting off a back and forth that would be reiterated over and over in the press as evidence he was in denial about Russian meddling. "I am quoting 17, 17 -- do you doubt?" Clinton said, and Trump responded definitively: "Our country has no idea. Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it."

With that, Hillary's claim was up and off.

Journalists highlighted the talking point on Twitter as they covered the debate. And the fact checks came rolling in. The New York Times , Politico , ABC News , Politifact and PBS all rated the claim as totally true the night of the debate. Before the night ended The New York Times was using Clinton's number with authority in its reporting, saying in a debate wrap up that Trump had "refused" to acknowledge "the unanimous conclusion of America's 17 intelligence agencies."

The following day the number popped up in reports from Politico and Defense One, quickly divorced from its context as a debate talking point and transformed into an indisputable fact attached to Trump-Russia stories.

"The Office of the Director of National Intelligence collects and coordinates for the President the information and analysis from the 17 agencies that make up U.S. national intelligence collection," a line in the Defense One report on "Trump's Denial" stated.

Politico hadn't previously used the 17 figure in reporting on Russian meddling, but now framed it as common knowledge that Clinton had to "explain" to Trump: "As Clinton tried to explain that the Russian role is the finding of 17 military and civilian intelligence agencies, Trump cut her off: 'I doubt it.'"

The fact checks continued to roll in. USA Today wrote a particularly aggressive check on the claim headlined "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking." The article confidently asserted, "Clinton is correct."

All of these "fact checks" and reports were wrong, of course, as has since been made ultra clear. As The New York Times now concedes, the truth about her claim was obviously false from the start. Any reporter capable of operating Google could have looked up a list of the intelligence agencies in question, and ruled out almost half in just minutes.

The Department of Energy, Treasury and Drug Enforcement agencies can be dismissed out of hand. The military service intelligence organizations can't legally operate on U.S. soil. Add the Coast Guard and we're tentatively at eight remaining intel agencies under DNI. The Defense Intelligence Agency is also unlikely. Geospatial intelligence? Definitely not. National recon office? Not unless a political influence campaign has something to do with a missile launch or natural disaster.

That leaves us with State Department intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA and NSA. Five tops, narrowed down at the speed of common sense and Google.

Sure, the October DNI report was presented as the conclusion of the intelligence community, which does consist of 16 separate agencies headed up by the DNI. At first glance, her claim might seem perfectly reasonable to someone unfamiliar with the makeup of the intelligence community. But it's journalistic malpractice to do a fact-check level review of her claim that each agency separately reviewed and judged the campaign, without so much as hinting at the obvious likelihood that most of them weren't involved.

Nevertheless, the claim persisted.

"All 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies believe the Russians are behind that leak," ABC host George Stephanopoulos told Trump in an October interview . "Why don't you believe it?"

"[Trump] has consistently denied any link between the hackers and the Kremlin, despite 17 intelligence agencies' claims to the contrary," the Daily Beast reported that same day .

NBC News dropped Hillary's number nugget in a December report on the Obama White House asking the intelligence community for a dossier on the hacking assessment. The resulting report would be shared with the public, White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco said at the time.

"Monaco used careful language, calling it a 'full review of what happened during the 2016 election process,'" NBC reported. "But since the U.S. government has already said that all 17 intelligence agencies agree Russia was behind the hacks, Monaco's meaning was clear."

Reuters, too, touted the number in a December report that characterizes the DNI as a "17-agency strong" operation.

The declassified DNI report that followed in January provided new details on the assessment that dumped ice-cold water on the "17 intelligence agencies agree" claim. The conclusion was drawn only from the NSA, CIA and FBI, the report said. (The New York Times conceded this in a break down of the report, although the claim would later make its way back into the paper's pages.)

A few months later former national intelligence director James Clapper reiterated the truth in a high-profile congressional hearing about Russian interference, opting to correct the record without any partisan prompting.

"As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI -- not all 17 components of the intelligence community," he said in his opening remarks. "Those three under the aegis of my former office."

And when Democrat Sen. Al Franken reiterated the false claim later in the hearing, Clapper once again made a point of correcting the record.

"The intelligence communities have concluded -- all 17 of them -- that Russia interfered with this election," Franken said. "And we all know how that's right."

Clapper interjected: "Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was, there were only three agencies directly involved in this assessment, plus my office."

"But all 17 signed on to that?" Franken pressed.

"Well, we didn't go through that, that process," Clapper replied, again shooting down the claim as utterly false. "This was a special situation because of the time limits we decided to restrict it to those three."

So not only was the assessment only made by three of the 16 agencies working under the DNI, but also Clapper indicated here that none of the other agencies even signed off on the report before it was released. Yes, none of them dissented. But why would they, since they didn't have independent evidence to suggest otherwise?

At this point in the life of Hillary's debate talking point, there's just no credible way to rate the claim as true. The DNI report made the truth explicit, and Clapper had now reiterated that truth in a very public setting.

Yet just a few weeks later Clinton unabashedly reiterated the "17 agencies agree" claim in an interview with the tech outlet recode, and as if on cue the media once more began spreading it around.

"Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January," Clinton said. "17 agencies, all in agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with 'high confidence' that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election."

A little while later the bogus claim showed up in an AP report , after The Daily Caller News Foundation fact checked Clinton's claim in the interview and found it false. And then twice more in June before the "clarification" memo was published. Stephanopolous was back at it as well in a June 11 interview with Republican Sen. Mike Lee. And then that Haberman report in The New York Times on the 25th echoing the claim, which was rather strangely corrected four days later.

After all this, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta actually accused Trump on Thursday of pushing "fake news" by saying the conclusion only came from "three or four" agencies. "Where does that number come from?" Acosta asked.

And all the time , the tweets from journos eager to harp on the Trump-Russia narrative kept coming .

The timing of the AP and NYT corrections are a bit of a mystery, but for whatever reason the press is now collectively saying Trump is correct in his push back on the "17 agencies" claim. And that's got the narrative a bit tangled. After initially doubling down on the "true" rating of Clinton's debate claim, Politifact is now bizarrely also rating the claim mostly false in a separate fact check.

So we're left with that uncomfortable truth. The establishment press uncritically "vetted" and embraced a Clinton campaign talking point designed to make Trump look foolish, divorced it of its political context and reiterated it word-of-God style for more than six months -- all the time either ignoring or missing entirely easily obtainable information proving it false -- and then suddenly reversed course on the claim weeks after it was unambiguously and authoritatively debunked.

We live in a world where r/the_donald -- a Reddit thread teeming with Trump supporters -- proved more shrewd than The New York Times and the Associated Press when vetting an important claim about the Russia investigation.

The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling.

Haberman and her ilk seem intent on casting Trump as a loner bordering on a nervous breakdown, maniacally watching the news at all hours, hollering at staff and generally acting like a buffoon. And there's the almost daily implication that Trump personally coordinated a hacking campaign with Russia, an implication grounded in no hard evidence despite a lengthy investigation.

The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess.

Sources often appear to be politically motivated, like Clinton. They show up in bizarre numbers, like "dozens" or "more than 30." Anecdotes seem almost questionable at face value. An astonishing number of hastily reported or vaguely sourced "scoops" turn out to be totally wrong when the subject of the story corrects the record.

In a report casting the White House as fraught and bordering on collapse, Haberman wrote that Trump likes to stew over cable news in a bathrobe. The White House refuted the anecdote in no uncertain terms the following day.

Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement the grid definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an infected site on a work computer.

CNN reported that Former FBI Director James Comey would refute Trump's claim the director told him three separate times he was not personally under investigation. Comey did no such thing. In fact he corroborated Trump's account .

Just weeks after retracting a story on a wealthy Trump associate and Russia, CNN insisted for days Trump would not ask Putin about Russian meddling during their first meeting. Of course, the report depended on an anonymous source. Of course, it was wrong . One of the first things Trump did when he sat down with Putin was "press" him on the subject multiple times, according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was in the room.

We could go on, but the point remains. The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. Sure, it's a "basic fact" Russia meddled in the election. But for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole.

The facts they use to support these conclusions might as well be irrelevant.

Follow Rachel on Twitter Send tips to rachel@ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

[Jul 10, 2017] Trump Putin Up Against US Deep State by Finian Cunningham

Wishful thinking. What was so rational in launching Tomahawk missiles against Syrian airbase on fake charges? Even on DNC hacking charges Trump moves closer to neocon views. And Polish speach has nothing to do with detente with Russia. The fact that Haley is UN ambassador in Trump administration demonstrates that quite well.
Notable quotes:
"... Too bad Trump is a total self–seeking asshole who will do nothing to better the lives of his citizens and is merely pursuing policies of corporate cronyism for his buddies. Deep State and Trump are just as bad as each other. We seem to be doomed. ..."
"... I pretty much doubt that Trump has the stature of really Standing up against the US Deep State. Kaennedy paid with his life! „Deep State USA: Dulles, Dallas and Devilish Games": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/deep-st... ..."
"... If President Trump is committed to pursue a more healthy relationship with Russia, a great first step would be to fire that ignorant, hysterical anti-Russia know-nothing Nikki Haley as UN Ambassador. If he does not do so, then his words of co-operation with Putin cannot be taken seriously. ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

It was pleasing to see Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin greet each other cordially at the G20 summit. After their breakthrough first meeting, one hopes the two leaders have a personal foundation for future cooperation.

At a later press conference in Hamburg, where the G20 summit was held, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he believed there was a chance for restoring the badly frayed US-Russia relations. He praised Trump for being thoughtful and rational. "The TV Trump is quite different from the real life one," quipped Putin.

Meanwhile, the White House issued a statement hailing the two-hour discussion ( four times longer than originally scheduled ) between the two leaders as a good start to working together on major world problems.

"No problems were solved. Nobody expected any problems to be solved in that meeting. But it was a beginning of a dialogue on some tough problem sets that we'll begin now to work on together," said HR McMaster, Trump's top national security adviser.

Trump deserves credit for the way he conducted himself. He met Putin on equal terms and with respect. "It's an honor to meet you," said the American president as he extended a handshake.

The much-anticipated encounter comes nearly seven months after Trump was inaugurated in the White House. Over that period, large sections of the US media have run an unrelenting campaign accusing Trump of being a Russian stooge and alleging that Putin ordered an interference operation in last year's US election to benefit Trump.

Apart from innuendo and anonymous US intelligence claims, recycled endlessly by dutiful news organizations, there is no evidence of either Trump-Russia collusion or Putin-sanctioned cyber hacking . Trump has dismissed the claims as "fake news", while Moscow has consistently rejected the allegations as baseless Russophobia.

... ... ...

Under immense pressure, Trump has at times appeared to buckle to the US political establishment with regard to projecting hostility towards Russia, as seen in the prosecution of the covert war in Syria and renewed sanctions on Moscow.

The day before he met Putin in Germany, Trump was in Poland where he delivered a barnstorming speech in Warsaw in which he accused Russia of "destabilizing countries", among other topics. The American president also inferred that Russia was undermining "Western civilization". It was provocative speech bordering on hackneyed Russophobia. It did not bode well for his imminent meeting with Putin. A clash seemed to be coming, just as the US media had been cajoling.

... ... ...

Immediately following the constructive meeting between the leaders, the US media started cranking up the Russophobia again. The US media are vents for Deep State hostility towards Trump and his agenda for normalizing relations with Moscow.

The New York Times reported another breathless story about Trump's election campaign having contact with "Kremlin-connected" people. CNN ran opinion pieces on how the president had fallen into a trap laid by Putin.

It is hard to stomach this outlandish confabulation that passes for journalism. And it is astounding that a friendly meeting between leaders of nuclear powers should not be received as a good development.

But it shows that Trump his up against very powerful deep forces within the US establishment who do not want a normalization with Russia. The US Deep State depends on confrontation, war and endless militarism for its existence. It also wants a world populated by vassals over which US corporations have suzerainty. An independent Russia or China or any other foreign power cannot be tolerated because that upends American ambitions for unipolar hegemony.

... ... ...

President John F Kennedy was assassinated in broad daylight by the US Deep State because he dared to seek a normalization and peaceful coexistence with Moscow. The Deep State does not want normalization or peace with Russia or anyone else for that matter because there are too many lucrative vested interests in maintaining the war machine that is American capitalism.

... ... ...

What needs to change is the US power structure through a democratic revolt. Until that happens, any president in the White House is simply a hostage to the dark forces of the Deep State.

lisacarso · 9 hours ago

Yes they are indeed. Too bad Trump is a total self–seeking asshole who will do nothing to better the lives of his citizens and is merely pursuing policies of corporate cronyism for his buddies. Deep State and Trump are just as bad as each other. We seem to be doomed.

Schlόter · 6 hours ago

I pretty much doubt that Trump has the stature of really Standing up against the US Deep State. Kaennedy paid with his life!
„Deep State USA: Dulles, Dallas and Devilish Games": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/deep-st...

follyofwar · 5 hours ago

If President Trump is committed to pursue a more healthy relationship with Russia, a great first step would be to fire that ignorant, hysterical anti-Russia know-nothing Nikki Haley as UN Ambassador. If he does not do so, then his words of co-operation with Putin cannot be taken seriously.

chris · 5 hours ago

Trump as victim? You have to be kidding.

He IS the president,he actually could get out on the White House lawn and blow the whistle,or at least 'tweet' sneakily. World leader? At least post 'Don't do stupid shit.' Obama had the temerity to refer to the Kennedy option'.This guy doesn't seem to lose any sleep over the many thousands of deaths worldwide,including Americans, giving their lives because Trump saw the job as a business opportunity.

And his dumb subjects run around blaming 'the Jews' [sounds like 1930's Germany doesn't it?]

[Jul 10, 2017] Political Knockout Western Media Blasts Trump After Meeting With Putin

Notable quotes:
"... The first meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg evoked a wave of criticism from Western media, as a number of notable news outlets blasted the US President for his conduct during negotiations. ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | sputniknews.com

The first meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg evoked a wave of criticism from Western media, as a number of notable news outlets blasted the US President for his conduct during negotiations.

Advisers Avoid Saying If Trump Agreed With Putin Russia Did Not Meddle in US Election

At least several prominent newspapers took a dim view of President Trump's handling of this meeting, claiming that the Russian leader apparently managed to outplay and outsmart his US counterpart.

For example, Die Welt stated that it was clear to all professional observers that the meeting resulted in Trump's capitulation.

In an apparent effort to underscore Trump's relative inexperience in foreign affairs, the newspaper claims that the "political pro" Putin knocked out the newbie US President "by the book."

The article's author also emphasized the fact that Putin paused for a moment before shaking Trump's already extended hand.

The Guardian adds that while US politicians apparently felt relieved that Trump managed to avoid "a major gaffe" during the meeting, it was "hardly cause for celebration."

"It's an indication of how rapidly our standards are falling when we're reasonably pleased that President Trump has not made an obvious error," Thomas Countryman, former US acting undersecretary for arms control and international security, remarked.

[Jul 09, 2017] Patching It Up With Putin by Patrick J. Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta. ..."
"... Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all? ..."
"... Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war and averting a new war in Korea. ..."
"... Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning. ..."
"... Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years. ..."
"... Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship. ..."
"... We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth province of Kosovo. ..."
"... Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others see us." ..."
"... Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so, and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing up for his country? ..."
"... Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can, this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go? ..."
"... I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one. ..."
"... Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes. ..."
"... These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate. Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for Israel and their efforts showed as much. ..."
"... Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or they're just playing into the narrative. ..."
"... Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently absurd. ..."
"... Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there. ..."
"... There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then. ..."
"... Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country. ..."
"... If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher EU. ..."
"... "Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016." What hacking? Proof? None. ..."
"... Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked (read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group of like-minded people " ..."
"... I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016 presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is. ..."
"... So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game? ..."
"... . . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike. It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike that told the FBI that it was the Russians. ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | www.unz.com

President Donald Trump flew off for his first meeting with Vladimir Putin -- with instructions from our foreign policy elite that he get into the Russian president's face over his hacking in the election of 2016.

Hopefully, Trump will ignore these people. For their record of failure is among the reasons Americans elected him to office.

What president, seeking to repair damaged relations with a rival superpower, would begin by reading from an indictment?

President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta.

President Kennedy did not let Russia's emplacement of missiles in Cuba in 1962 prevent him from offering an olive branch to Moscow in his widely praised American University address of June 1963.

Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all?

Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war and averting a new war in Korea.

Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning.

Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.

Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship.

We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth province of Kosovo.

Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others see us."

Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so, and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing up for his country?

Looking about the world today, do we really need any more crises or quarrels? Do we not have enough on our plate? As the Buddhist saying goes, "Do not dwell in the past concentrate the mind on the present moment."

Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016. But what was done cannot be undone. And Putin is not going to return Crimea to Kiev, the annexation of which was the most popular action of his long tenure as Russian president.

As D.C.'s immortal Mayor Marion Barry once said to constituents appalled by his latest episode of social misconduct: "Get over it!"

We have other fish to fry.

In Syria and Iraq, where the ISIS caliphate is in its death rattle, Russia and the U.S. both have a vital interest in avoiding any military collision, and in ending the war. This probably means the U.S. demand that Syrian President Assad be removed will have to be shelved.

Consider China. Asked by Trump to squeeze Pyongyang on its nuclear missile program, China increased trade with North Korea 37 percent in the first quarter. The Chinese are now telling us to stop sailing warships within 13 miles of its militarized islets and reefs in a South China Sea that they claim belongs to them, and demanding that we cancel our $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan.

Hong Kong's 7 million people have been told their democratic rights, secured in Great Britain's transfer of the island to China, are no longer guaranteed.

Now China is telling us to capitulate to North Korea's demand for an end to U.S. military maneuvers with South Korea and to remove the THAAD missile system the U.S. has emplaced. And Beijing is imposing sanctions on South Korea for accepting the U.S. missile system.

Meanwhile, the dispute with North Korea is going critical.

If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear warhead that can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this or exercising a military option that could bring nuclear war.

Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can, this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

exiled off mainstreet > , Show Comment Next New Comment July 7, 2017 at 5:47 am GMT

While, as is usual, I agree with Mr. Buchanan's foreign policy views which he again effectively and convincingly expresses, I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one.

Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes.

JL, July 7, 2017 at 8:28 am GMT

Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.

These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate. Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for Israel and their efforts showed as much.

Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or they're just playing into the narrative.

Besides, if a foreign country really did manage to subvert the US' democracy to such an extent, that speaks volumes about the weakness of the US system, not its adversaries' malicious intents. Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently absurd.

The Alarmist , July 7, 2017 at 10:36 am GMT

"If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear warhead that can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this or exercising a military option that could bring nuclear war."

Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there.

"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016. But what was done cannot be undone."

There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then.

Ludwig Watzal , Website July 7, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

How come that Pat Buchanan repeats the media lies that the Russians hacked US election? So far, this allegation is fact-free. Has he finally succumbed to the constant lies the corporate media are spreading? He is undoubtedly aware of Nazi-Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels saying: "One must only repeat a lie so long until the people believe it as true."

As the first pictures from this G-20-meeting show, Donald Trump was sidelined by Merkel. Autocrats like the Chinese President, Erdogan, and Russias Putin were standing next to her, Donald Trump has sidelined just before French's Macron.

It's funny that even the US political class regards Merkel as powerful. She is just a Stalinist and a political opportunist who would even sacrifice her loved ones when it would suit her career. The US should not be carried away and blinded by this made-up spin.

nickels, July 7, 2017 at 1:38 pm GMT

Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'

Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country.

WorkingClass , July 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm GMT

I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?

Rurik, Website July 7, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT

Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all?

exactly!

... ... ...

If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?

the irony is that Russia today is far more expressive of the ancient values of the West than the zio-West of Merkel's Germany and Islamic France. Let along the home of Hollywood spiritual sewage spilling out of the ZUSA.

If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher EU.

Anon, July 7, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT

@WorkingClass

I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?

Yes, that's an odd phrase, particularly as Mr. Buchanan has expressed incredulity at this sort of accusation in the past. Perhaps he simply means that Americans' anger at Russia (which I think he exaggerates; he seems to still believe the media have some actual contact with America) is justified based on their beliefs?

Wally, July 7, 2017 at 10:51 pm GMT

"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016." What hacking? Proof? None.

MarkinLA, July 8, 2017 at 4:02 am GMT

Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.

Et Tu Pat? Pat, you are never going to get a network gig again no matter how much sphincter you lick. You know this is bogus.

El Dato, July 8, 2017 at 11:46 am GMT

@MarkinLA NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.

However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman's ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."

Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked (read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group of like-minded people "

KenH, July 8, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT

I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016 presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is.

Let's make no mistake that neo-conservatism, liberal interventionism, Israelphilia and Russophobia rule Washington, D.C. with an iron fist. Any elected leaders who don't play ball quickly find themselves marginalized and under attack. Either Trump was playing us during the campaign with his calls for warmer relations with Russia and a more humble foreign policy or he saw the writing on the wall after taking office and surrendered without a fight.

I think Trump's loyalty to Israel trumps his loyalty to American first principles and that's not good.

Priss Factor , Website July 8, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT

@JL Buchanan has a kneejerk mentality on Russia as the enemy even as he argues for peace and reconciliation.

The formative and crucial period of his life was defined by the cold war.

Bill Jones, July 8, 2017 at 5:05 pm GMT

Paddy seems to take it as given that Russia hacked Podesta, despite the utter lack of evidence.

the raven, July 8, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT

@KenH "Hacked the election" is a weasel phrase. You can go to shitlib sites and plenty of them think that Putin changed votes by hacking voting machines. Of course, this hasn't been alleged, let alone proved. The dishonest pundits using that phrase can claim they meant that Putin hacked the DNC emails. There's also no evidence for this, but it's hard to prove or disprove (but given that Podesta fell for a phishing scam, it could have been done by a 15 year old anywhere in the world). The only thing they can credibly claim is that Russia "interfered" in the US elections by their state media posting articles that the CIA disagrees with.

So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game?

Don Bacon, July 8, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT

from the web– No, The Russians Did Not Meddle in Our Election by Publius Tacitus

. . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike.
It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike that told the FBI that it was the Russians.

Here's the problem with this: CrowdStrike's reputation is currently unraveling. Why? It seems that CrowdStrike is as politically motivated as everyone else in Washington, D.C. The company is itself an opponent of Vladimir Putin and Russia and was recently caught fabricating a report that attempted to blame Russian hacking for problems with Urkainian military technology. . .

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/no-the-russians-did-not-meddle-in-our-election-by-publius-tacitus.html

fuzzy, July 8, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

Hacked the election? How exactly? Go talk to Mr. Binney about it.

Avery, July 8, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT

@MarkinLA { . no matter how much sphincter you lick.}

Brutal dude, brutal.

( ..well, I guess Pat asked for it: regurgitating unadulterated B____S____, to presumably appear 'balanced'.).

Bill Jones, July 8, 2017 at 9:31 pm GMT

This is worth a read

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/09/remarks-president-trump-regulatory-relief

The True and Original David, July 9, 2017 at 8:35 am GMT

@Ludwig Watzal Pat is an old USA conservative. The style of old USA conservatives is agree with the opponent on all essentials of fact and value then remonstrate defensively. Perfect example: "Yes, Putin hacked, but we have bigger fish to fry."

USA liberals were called "knee-jerkers," that is people whose liberal reaction is so automatic it is brain-free. But old USA conservatives also have their "knee-jerk": this is accepting the opponent's premises then quibbling.

"You're a racist!" "No, I'm certainly not, I swear."

"America is sexist!" "We are doing better lately. Salaries for women are showing progress."

"Putin hacked!" "Yes he did, but there are bigger fish to fry."

An old USA conservative would consider such replies as "fighting back"; but they are only whiny protests in response to blows.

The old USA conservative style is dated and being replaced by styles more adversarial. Pat the man is a decent guy and I wish him well.

Mr. Hack, July 9, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.

Buchanan here exhibits his supericial knowledge of Ukrainian/Russian history. Large swaths of Ukrainian territory never were under Russian hegemony until the middle part of the 20th century, but were part and and parcel of other European states including the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Hapsburg Empire. Also, insinuating that Trump need to cower in front of Putin during a hypothetical question and answer series regarding some sort of U.S. directed plot against Russia in Ukraine is also based on fluff and inuendo, and he should know better. Any 'cookies and milk' support offered to Ukrainian patriots who paid for their new found freedom by sacrificing their lives came long after altercations had already started on the Maidan. American ingenuity could not have created a protest movement of this scope and magnitude, and Buchanan should know better:

Realist, July 9, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT

"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016."

Pat,

You are just echoing and lending credence to the news media, including Fox News as well as the power elite. This is not the first time you have done this.
I fail to understand why anyone would believe anything the security(spy) agencies promote. They are incessant liars, as is most of our government. People should never take anything our government says at face value .always demand proof.

Realist, July 9, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet " . I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story ."

Exactly

Realist, July 9, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

@nickels Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'
Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings.
I am truly disgusted with this country. "I am truly disgusted with this country."

Rightly so.

[Jul 09, 2017] Reality about Obama regime change in Libya is horrifying. Knowledge is the antidote to propaganda and brainwashing which is exactly why it is being increasingly controlled and restricted

Notable quotes:
"... "Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life for all Libyans. ..."
"... We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced, life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?" ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | www.unz.com
annamaria says: July 9, 2017 at 11:45 am GMT
The sensation: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/07/hiding-us-lies-about-libyan-invasion/

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/06/hillary-clinton-and-libya-sending.html

"Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life for all Libyans.

We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced, life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?"

Knowledge is the antidote to propaganda and brainwashing which is exactly why it is being increasingly controlled and restricted."

[Jul 09, 2017] The stakes in U.S.-Russia relations could not be higher possible nuclear conflagration and the end of civilization but the U.S. mainstream media is still slouching around in mccarthyism-ville by Robert Parry

this is pure McCarthyism, not "propaganda ville". Clapper and Brennan are the leaders of Russiagate color revolution against Trump. And there is no countervailing force.
Notable quotes:
"... It wasn't until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly set the record straight in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three "contributing agencies" from which analysts were "hand-picked." ..."
"... The reference to "hand-picked" analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S. intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of "politicized" intelligence when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to hear. ..."
"... On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment. ..."
"... Finally, on June 25, the Times' hand was forced when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation, mocking Trump for "still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected." ..."
"... When this falsehood was called to the Times' attention, it had little choice but to append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... The Associated Press ran a similar "clarification" applied to some of its fallacious reporting repeating the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme. ..."
"... Though the Post did not identify the country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on the work of external organizations. ..."
"... Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike, which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council. ..."
"... But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny). Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia. ..."
"... The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely anti-Russian regime. ..."
"... The U.S. operation was spearheaded by neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John McCain. ..."
"... "On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met." Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a July 5 column , "Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge bstacle right now. It would legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in addition to its intervention in Syria." Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post editors. There is no doubt that Russia "invaded" Ukraine; "seized" Crimea; "meddled" in U.S. and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply treated as undeniable truths. ..."
"... As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration. ..."
"... With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in "propaganda-ville." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: The stakes in U.S.-Russia relations could not be higher – possible nuclear conflagration and the end of civilization – but the U.S. mainstream media is still slouching around in "propaganda-ville," says Robert Parry.

MSM, Still Living in Propaganda-ville By Robert Parry

As much as the U.S. mainstream media wants people to believe that it is the Guardian of Truth, it is actually lost in a wilderness of propaganda and falsehoods, a dangerous land of delusion that is putting the future of humankind at risk as tension escalate with nuclear-armed Russia.

This media problem has grown over recent decades as lucrative careerism has replaced responsible professionalism. Pack journalism has always been a threat to quality reporting but now it has evolved into a self-sustaining media lifestyle in which the old motto, "there's safety in numbers," is borne out by the fact that being horrendously wrong, such as on Iraq's WMD, leads to almost no accountability because so many important colleagues were wrong as well.

Similarly, there has been no accountability after many mainstream journalists and commentators falsely stated as flat-fact that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" concurred that Russia did "meddle" in last November's U.S. election.

For months, this claim has been the go-to put-down whenever anyone questions the groupthink of Russian venality perverting American democracy. Even the esteemed "Politifact" deemed the assertion "true." But it was never true.

It was at best a needled distortion of a claim by President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper when he issued a statement last Oct. 7 alleging Russian meddling. Because Clapper was the chief of the U.S. Intelligence Community, his opinion morphed into a claim that it represented the consensus of all 17 intelligence agencies, a dishonest twist that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton began touting.

However, for people who understand how the U.S. Intelligence Community works, the claim of a 17-agencies consensus has a specific meaning, some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE) that seeks out judgments and dissents from the various agencies.

But there was no NIE regarding alleged Russian meddling and there apparently wasn't even a formal assessment from a subset of the agencies at the time of Clapper's statement. President Obama did not order a publishable assessment until December – after the election – and it was not completed until Jan. 6, when a report from Clapper's office presented the opinions of analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency – three agencies (or four if you count the DNI's office), not 17.

Lacking Hard Evidence

The report also contained no hard evidence of a Russian "hack" and amounted to a one-sided circumstantial case at best. However, by then, the U.S. mainstream media had embraced the "all-17-intelligence-agencies" refrain and anyone who disagreed, including President Trump, was treated as delusional. The argument went: "How can anyone question what all 17 intelligence agencies have confirmed as true?"

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

It wasn't until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly set the record straight in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three "contributing agencies" from which analysts were "hand-picked."

The reference to "hand-picked" analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S. intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of "politicized" intelligence when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to hear.

On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment.

Brennan said the Jan. 6 report "followed the general model of how you want to do something like this with some notable exceptions. It only involved the FBI, NSA and CIA as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It wasn't a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies."

After this testimony, some of the major news organizations, which had been waving around the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme, subtly changed their phrasing to either depict Russian "meddling" as an established fact no longer requiring attribution or referred to the "unanimous judgment" of the Intelligence Community without citing a specific number.

This "unanimous judgment" formulation was deceptive, too, because it suggested that all 17 agencies were in accord albeit without exactly saying that. For a regular reader of The New York Times or a frequent viewer of CNN, the distinction would almost assuredly not be detected.

For more than a month after the Clapper-Brennan testimonies, there was no formal correction.

A Belated Correction

Finally, on June 25, the Times' hand was forced when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation, mocking Trump for "still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected."

When this falsehood was called to the Times' attention, it had little choice but to append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."

The Associated Press ran a similar "clarification" applied to some of its fallacious reporting repeating the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme.

So, you might have thought that the mainstream media was finally adjusting its reporting to conform to reality. But that would mean that one of the pillars of the Russia-gate "scandal" had crumbled, the certainty that Russia and Vladimir Putin did "meddle" in the election.

The story would have to go back to square one and the major news organizations would have to begin reporting on whether or not there ever was solid evidence to support what had become a "certainty" – and there appeared to be no stomach for such soul-searching. Since pretty much all the important media figures had made the same error, it would be much easier to simply move on as if nothing had changed.

That would mean that skepticism would still be unwelcome and curious leads would not be followed. For instance, there was a head-turning reference in an otherwise typical Washington Post take-out on June 25 accusing Russia of committing "the crime of the century." A reference, stuck deep inside the five-page opus, said, "Some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia came from another country, officials said. Because of the source of the material, the NSA was reluctant to view it with high confidence." Though the Post did not identify the country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on the work of external organizations.

Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike, which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council.

Relying on Outsiders

You might be wondering why something as important as this "crime of the century," which has pushed the world closer to nuclear annihilation, is dependent on dubious entities outside the U.S. government with possible conflicts of interest.

If the U.S. government really took this issue seriously, which it should, why didn't the FBI seize the DNC's computers and insist that impartial government experts lead the investigation? And why – given the extraordinary expertise of the NSA in computer hacking – is "some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia [coming] from another country," one that doesn't inspire the NSA's confidence?

But such pesky questions are not likely to be asked or answered by a mainstream U.S. media that displays deep-seated bias toward both Putin and Trump.

Mostly, major news outlets continue to brush aside the clarifications and return to various formulations that continue to embrace the "17-intelligence-agencies" canard, albeit in slightly different forms, such as references to the collective Intelligence Community without the specific number. Anyone who questions this established conventional wisdom is still crazy and out of step.

For instance, James Holmes of Esquire was stunned on Thursday when Trump at a news conference in Poland reminded the traveling press corps about the inaccurate reporting regarding the 17 intelligence agencies and said he still wasn't entirely sure about Russia's guilt. "In public, he's still casting doubt on the intelligence community's finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election nearly nine months after the fact," Holmes sputtered before describing Trump's comment as a "rant." So, if you thought that a chastened mainstream media might stop in the wake of the "17-intelligence-agencies" falsehood and rethink the whole Russia-gate business, you would have been sadly mistaken.

But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny). Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia.

Hating Putin

This pattern traces back to the earliest days of Vladimir Putin's presidency in 2000 when he began to rein in the U.S.-prescribed "shock therapy," which had sold off Russia's assets to well-connected insiders, making billions of dollars for the West-favored "oligarchs," even as the process threw millions of average Russian into poverty.

But the U.S. mainstream media's contempt for Putin reached new heights after he helped President Obama head off neoconservative (and liberal interventionist) demands for a full-scale U.S. military assault on Syria in August 2013 and helped bring Iran into a restrictive nuclear agreement when the neocons wanted to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.

The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The U.S. operation was spearheaded by neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John McCain.

Nuland was heard in an intercepted pre-coup phone call with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should become the new leaders and pondering how to "glue" or "midwife this thing."

Despite the clear evidence of U.S. interference in Ukrainian politics, the U.S. government and the mainstream media embraced the coup and accused Putin of "aggression" when ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, called the Donbas, resisted the coup regime.

When ethnic Russians and other citizens in Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to reject the coup regime and rejoin Russia – a move protected by some of the 20,000 Russian troops inside Crimea as part of a basing agreement – that became a Russian "invasion." But it was the most peculiar "invasion," since there were no images of tanks crashing across borders or amphibious landing craft on Crimean beaches, because no such "invasion" had occurred.

However, in virtually every instance, the U.S. mainstream media insisted on the most extreme anti-Russian propaganda line and accused people who questioned this Official Narrative of disseminating Russian "propaganda" – or being a "Moscow stooge" or acting as a "useful fool." There was no tolerance for skepticism about whatever the State Department or the Washington think tanks were saying.

Trump Meets Putin

So, as Trump prepares for his first meeting with Putin at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, the U.S. mainstream media has been in a frenzy, linking up its groupthinks about the Ukraine "invasion" with its groupthinks about Russia "hacking" the election.

In a July 3 editorial , The Washington Post declared, "Mr. Trump simply cannot fail to admonish Mr. Putin for Russia's attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. He must make clear the United States will not tolerate it, period. Naturally, this is a difficult issue for Mr. Trump, who reaped the benefit of Russia's intervention and now faces a special counsel's investigation, but nonetheless, in his first session with Mr. Putin, the president must not hesitate to be blunt.

"On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met." Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a July 5 column , "Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge bstacle right now. It would legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in addition to its intervention in Syria." Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post editors. There is no doubt that Russia "invaded" Ukraine; "seized" Crimea; "meddled" in U.S. and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply treated as undeniable truths.

But seeing only one side to a story is where the U.S. mainstream media is at this point in history. Yes, it is possible that Russia was responsible for the Democratic hacks and did funnel the material to WikiLeaks, but evidence has so far been lacking. And, instead of presenting both sides fairly, the major media acts as if only one side deserves any respect and dissenting views must be ridiculed and condemned.

In this perverted process, collectively approved versions of complex situations congeal into conventional wisdom, which simply cannot be significantly reconsidered regardless of future revelations.

As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration.

With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in "propaganda-ville."

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Jul 08, 2017] Russiagate The Stink Without a Secret by Craig Murray

Neoliberal presstitutes are now completely discredited. This is just another Iraq WDM case. But people soon forgot about Iraq WDM thing. None of pressitutute went to jail for misinforming the public.
Notable quotes:
"... After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election hacking has emerged. ..."
"... As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again. ..."
"... The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike – the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download. ..."
"... So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place? ..."
"... Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically deploys technology that leaves behind fake fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation. ..."
"... Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery in the Ukraine. This has been utterly discredited. ..."
"... Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah. ..."
"... The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up. But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary. At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm. There is nothing there. ..."
"... Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. ..."
Jul 08, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election hacking has emerged.

I do not support Donald Trump. I do support truth. There is much about Trump that I dislike intensely. Neither do I support the neo-liberal political establishment in the USA. The latter's control of the mainstream media, and cunning manipulation of identity politics, seeks to portray the neo-liberal establishment as the heroes of decent values against Trump. Sadly, the idea that the neo-liberal establishment embodies decent values is completely untrue.

Truth disappeared so long ago in this witch-hunt that it is no longer even possible to define what the accusation is. Belief in "Russian hacking" of the US election has been elevated to a generic accusation of undefined wrongdoing, a vague malaise we are told is floating poisonously in the ether, but we are not allowed to analyze. What did the Russians actually do?

The original, base accusation is that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Podesta emails and passed them to WikiLeaks. (I can assure you that is untrue).

The authenticity of those emails is not in question. What they revealed of cheating by the Democratic establishment in biasing the primaries against Bernie Sanders, led to the forced resignation of Debbie Wasserman Shultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee. They also led to the resignation from CNN of Donna Brazile, who had passed debate questions in advance to Clinton. Those are facts. They actually happened. Let us hold on to those facts, as we surf through lies. There was other nasty Clinton Foundation and cash for access stuff in the emails, but we do not even need to go there for the purpose of this argument.

The original "Russian hacking" allegation was that it was the Russians who nefariously obtained these damning emails and passed them to WikiLeaks. The "evidence" for this was twofold. A report from private cyber security firm Crowdstrike claimed that metadata showed that the hackers had left behind clues, including the name of the founder of the Soviet security services. The second piece of evidence was that a blogger named Guccifer2 and a website called DNCLeaks appeared to have access to some of the material around the same time that WikiLeaks did, and that Guccifer2 could be Russian.

That is it. To this day, that is the sum total of actual "evidence" of Russian hacking. I won't say hang on to it as a fact, because it contains no relevant fact. But at least it is some form of definable allegation of something happening, rather than "Russian hacking" being a simple article of faith like the Holy Trinity.

But there are a number of problems that prevent this being fact at all. Nobody has ever been able to refute the evidence of Bill Binney , former Technical Director of the NSA who designed its current surveillance systems. Bill has stated that the capability of the NSA is such, that if the DNC computers had been hacked, the NSA would be able to trace the actual packets of that information as those emails traveled over the Internet, and give a precise time, to the second, for the hack. The NSA simply do not have the event – because there wasn't one. I know Bill personally and am quite certain of his integrity.

As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again.

The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SqIY8KvuoJo

The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike – the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download.

Not actually examining the obvious evidence has been a key tool in keeping the "Russian hacking" meme going. On 24 May the Guardian reported triumphantly , following the Washington Post, that

"Fox News falsely alleged federal authorities had found thousands of emails between Rich and WikiLeaks, when in fact law enforcement officials disputed that Rich's laptop had even been in possession of, or examined by, the FBI."

It evidently did not occur to the Guardian as troubling, that those pretending to be investigating the murder of Seth Rich have not looked at his laptop.

There is a very plain pattern here of agencies promoting the notion of a fake "Russian crime", while failing to take the most basic and obvious initial steps if they were really investigating its existence. I might add to that, there has been no contact with me at all by those supposedly investigating. I could tell them these were leaks not hacks. WikiLeaks The clue is in the name.

So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place?

Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically deploys technology that leaves behind fake fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation.

Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery in the Ukraine. This has been utterly discredited.

Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah.

Given there is no hacking in the Russian hacking story, the charges have moved wider into a vague miasma of McCarthyite anti-Russian hysteria. Does anyone connected to Trump know any Russians? Do they have business links with Russian finance?

Of course they do. Trump is part of the worldwide oligarch class whose financial interests are woven into a vast worldwide network that enslaves pretty well the rest of us. As are the Clintons and the owners of the mainstream media who are stoking up the anti-Russian hysteria. It is all good for their armaments industry interests, in both Washington and Moscow.

Trump's judgment is appalling. His sackings or inappropriate directions to people over this subject may damage him.

The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up. But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary. At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm. There is nothing there.

Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. I remain positive that the movement Bernie Sanders started will bring a new dawn to America in the next few years. That depends on political campaigning by people on the ground and on social media. Leveraging falsehoods and cold war hysteria through mainstream media in an effort to somehow get Clinton back to power is not a viable alternative. It is a fantasy and even were it practical, I would not want it to succeed.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster, human rights activist, and former diplomat. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. The article is reprinted with permission from his website .

Read more by Craig Murray

[Jul 08, 2017] Trump says he had a tremendous meeting with Putin

AP clearly pursue a neocon line of DNC hacks and Russian meddling in the US elections.
talkingpointsmemo.com
by Associated Press

The European trip to Poland and Germany has centered around the exchange with Putin, Trump's first in-person meeting as president. But both sides offered differing explanations of what took place.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump and Putin had a "robust and lengthy" discussion about the election interference but Putin denied any involvement. His Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, said Trump had accepted Putin's assurances that Russia didn't meddle in the U.S. election - a characterization that the U.S. disputed.

"I think the president is rightly focused on how do we move forward from something that may be an intractable disagreement at this point," said Tillerson, who took part in the meeting along with Lavrov.

Democrats seized upon Tillerson's remarks, saying that it was wrong to suggest the issue of Russia's role in the election meddling was unresolved. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said it was "disgraceful" and said it was a "grave dereliction of duty" to give "equal credence to the findings of the American Intelligence Community and the assertion by Mr. Putin."

U.S. officials have said Russia tried to hack election systems in 21 states and sway the election for Trump, representing a level of interference in the U.S. political system that security experts said represents a top-level threat.

Trump's meeting with Putin, which was originally scheduled for 35 minutes, wrapped up after more than 2 hours, and focused heavily on a just-announced ceasefire deal for southwestern Syria that was reached by Russia and the United States.

While the U.S. and Russia have held conflicting views on Syria in the past, Tillerson said Russia had an interest in seeing the Mideast nation become a stable place.

Tillerson said details about the ceasefire still need to be worked out, but Lavrov told reporters that Russian military police will monitor the ceasefire, with a monitoring center set up in Jordan - another party to the deal.

Both the Russians and the Americans took pains to describe the meeting as "constructive," cordial and wide-ranging, covering key topics including cyber security and North Korea.

"The two leaders connected very quickly," Tillerson said. "There was a very clear positive chemistry."

[Jul 08, 2017] Trump says he had a tremendous meeting with Putin

AP clearly pursue a neocon line of DNC hacks and Russian meddling in the US elections.
get=
The European trip to Poland and Germany has centered around the exchange with Putin, Trump's first in-person meeting as president. But both sides offered differing explanations of what took place.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump and Putin had a "robust and lengthy" discussion about the election interference but Putin denied any involvement. His Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, said Trump had accepted Putin's assurances that Russia didn't meddle in the U.S. election - a characterization that the U.S. disputed.

"I think the president is rightly focused on how do we move forward from something that may be an intractable disagreement at this point," said Tillerson, who took part in the meeting along with Lavrov.

Democrats seized upon Tillerson's remarks, saying that it was wrong to suggest the issue of Russia's role in the election meddling was unresolved. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said it was "disgraceful" and said it was a "grave dereliction of duty" to give "equal credence to the findings of the American Intelligence Community and the assertion by Mr. Putin."

U.S. officials have said Russia tried to hack election systems in 21 states and sway the election for Trump, representing a level of interference in the U.S. political system that security experts said represents a top-level threat.

Trump's meeting with Putin, which was originally scheduled for 35 minutes, wrapped up after more than 2 hours, and focused heavily on a just-announced ceasefire deal for southwestern Syria that was reached by Russia and the United States.

While the U.S. and Russia have held conflicting views on Syria in the past, Tillerson said Russia had an interest in seeing the Mideast nation become a stable place.

Tillerson said details about the ceasefire still need to be worked out, but Lavrov told reporters that Russian military police will monitor the ceasefire, with a monitoring center set up in Jordan - another party to the deal.

Both the Russians and the Americans took pains to describe the meeting as "constructive," cordial and wide-ranging, covering key topics including cyber security and North Korea.

"The two leaders connected very quickly," Tillerson said. "There was a very clear positive chemistry."

[Jul 08, 2017] Haley boldly undermines Trump foreign policy toward Russia

This is pretty schizoid administration with officials contradicting each other and the President. This is a clear multiple personalities disorder. Of course it is clear who butter Haley bread. It's not trump.
Jul 08, 2017 | www.msn.com

Original title Haley on consequences for Russian meddling 'Ask the president'

The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, was asked Saturday what consequences Russia will face as a result of its interference in the 2016 election , and she declined to specify, telling Face the Nation moderator John Dickerson, "I think you're going to have to ask the president."

Haley spoke to Face the Nation as President Trump concluded a three day trip to Europe for the G-20 summit. While he was there, Mr. Trump came face to face with Russian President Vladimir Putin -- the two men have spoken on the phone, but this was their first in-person encounter. During their meeting, which was scheduled to last only 30 minutes but stretched to over two hours, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Mr. Trump pressed Putin on Russia's meddling. But the Russians offered a different account - both Putin and the Russian foreign minister said they believed Mr. Trump accepted Putin's denial of Russian involvement .

Haley discussed the apparent disparity between the Russian and American accounts, saying, "I think we need to be realistic about what happened."

"You had two men walk into the room. You had two men who knew the exact same thing, which is Russia did meddle in the elections. I think President Trump wanted to make sure that President Putin was aware that he was acknowledging it, that he knew it. I think President Putin did what we all expected him to do, which was deny it. And I think that is what it is," Haley said. "President Trump still knows that they meddled. President Putin knows that they meddled, but he is never going to admit to it. And that's all that happened."

Dickerson asked Haley what consequences Russia will face as a result of its meddling.

"Not just Russia," she replied. "Any country needs to know that there are consequences when they get involved in our elections. And I think that's why it's good that the investigations are going on and we're analyzing and we're looking into all of that, and I think we need to manage it accordingly. The one thing we don't want is for our political process to ever be influenced or tainted in any way. And I think that we have to make sure that we're always strong on that point and let everyone know that we're not going to put up with it."

"But given that the president, as you said, knows that the Russians meddled," Dickerson pressed, "what consequences will they face as a result of that action?"

"I think you're going to have to ask the president," the ambassador responded. "I think that's one of the things is -- first is confronting them, letting them know that we know this happened, letting them know it can't happen again. I know that they had quite a bit of cyber conversation in terms of cyber meddling or cyber abuse during not just political situations, but also from a security situation, and they talked quite a bit on the cyber-attack risk. And so I think we'll see what happens there. You know, keep in mind -- yesterday's meeting was all about talk, but at the end of the day, this is all going to be about actions. We now have to see where we go from there."

For more of Dickerson's interview with Haley, plus all of the latest news and analysis, tune into Face the Nation this Sunday . Check your local listings for airtimes.

[Jul 08, 2017] Putin Tries to Avoid a Wider War With the US by Mike Whitney

Notable quotes:
"... The downing of a Syrian warplane by a US F-18 Super Hornet on Sunday proves that Washington's real objective in Syria is not to defeat ISIS but to topple the government, carve up the country and install a puppet who will follow Washington's directives. ..."
"... The US ignored the normal protocols, failed to communicate their activities on the "de-confliction" hotline (as per their agreement with Moscow) and –BAM– the Syrian warplane was taken out with two missiles over Ja'Din in the western part of Raqqah province. The attack was a clear provocation. ..."
"... So far, the operation has made great strides as two main Syrian armies have pressed ahead on parallel tracks killing or routing jihadist fighters on the way. Sunday's attack (on the Syrian warplane) may have been a desperate attempt to slow the forward-progress of loyalist troops rapidly advancing on the cities of Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and Abu Kamal, all located on the banks of the Euphrates. ..."
"... The Russian MoD statement added that, "any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition, located to the west of the Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian ground and air defense forces as air targets." ..."
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
"... It is not in anyone's interest for Russia to shoot down American aircraft. It is not in American interest too, despite US, indeed, spoiling for fight "within Syria only"–an idea floated by some US "strategists". ..."
"... There is no real strategy behind it–it is mostly irrational and a result of accumulating frustrations of US and its military losing so long cultivated appearance of the "finest fighting force in history", granted that this force was defeated already in Afghanistan, Iraq and its proxies have their asses handed to them in Syria. That is why it is dangerous, because it is all product of frustrated people throwing tantrums while still thinking that they can think rationally. ..."
"... like any spoiled child not getting their way they are acting out in a weak and embarrassing manner destroying things with no strategic value beyond the immediate tantrum ..."
"... Every time the pentagon does something stupid like this and Russia takes a deep breathe and goes about its business calmly its Washington and the neocons who look like fools and everyone everywhere can see it. ..."
"... Putin whatever else he is or may be speaks his mind quite publicly in interviews, at the UN and countless other venues. His message is consistent and he walks the talk. His public goal to maintaining Syrian sovereignty and territorial borders is well known among his friends and enemies. ..."
"... The Syrian war is over. Washington has lost and all Washington's allies in the overthrow Assad assemblage know it. Just pay attention who travels where the past 2 years. ..."
"... Seeing this in emotional terms is naive. There's always a plan. The reason why it looks senseless to you is because the US and Europe are obviously not working in their own interest. Their "elite" is mostly compromised. ..."
"... That makes it sound really close. For what it's worth I think that the Neocon/Deep State alliance needs a real National Emergency to take power. They surely need a dictatorship. ..."
"... Their 9/11 attempted Coup failed on the domestic side, and information about their treason is leaking out faster than ever with fewer American every day believing the WTC "collapse by fire" story. ..."
"... True. There's also a high probability of sabotage in the minefield. Trump is still disliked by the Deep State IMO. What's stopping them from deliberately walking a bunch of American goyim soldiers onto mines? ..."
"... Putin should continue patience with childish Washington. Daily revelations of CNN and other liars will undermine their politician positions and force more accountability. Some heads should roll, some networks should reboot. The rest of the world expects more from the USA that it does of itself. ..."
Jun 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

"The shooting down of the Syrian SU-22 is another demonstration that the US is prepared to resort to the most reckless means to defend its footholds in Syria and lay the basis for the broader war that is being prepared."

- Peter Symonds, World Socialist Web Site

The downing of a Syrian warplane by a US F-18 Super Hornet on Sunday proves that Washington's real objective in Syria is not to defeat ISIS but to topple the government, carve up the country and install a puppet who will follow Washington's directives. ISIS doesn't have an airforce nor is there any chance that the lumbering Soviet-era SU-22 was mistaken by the American pilot before it was shot down. No, the Syrian plane was positively identified on a clear day flying over Syrian territory. The US ignored the normal protocols, failed to communicate their activities on the "de-confliction" hotline (as per their agreement with Moscow) and –BAM– the Syrian warplane was taken out with two missiles over Ja'Din in the western part of Raqqah province. The attack was a clear provocation.

The downing comes on the heels of three other similar incidents in which Syrian troops were attacked by US-coalition forces in the area around al Tanf near the Jordanian border. All four of these provocations have taken place within the last month suggesting that Washington intends to prevent the Syrian army from liberating its cities and territory in the east where US-proxy militias are operating.

In late May, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) launched Operation "Grand Dawn" which combined the 800th Battalion of the Republican Guards, Hezbollah, Iranian combat troops, and Russian Special Forces (to assist in an advisory capacity.) Grand Dawn, which is the biggest operation of the war, is aimed at clearing the eastern border, liberating ISIS-held cities and territory east of the Euphrates, and reopening the corridor between Damascus to Baghdad. The campaign is an attempt to reestablish the central government's control over its land, its resources and its population centers in the East.

So far, the operation has made great strides as two main Syrian armies have pressed ahead on parallel tracks killing or routing jihadist fighters on the way. Sunday's attack (on the Syrian warplane) may have been a desperate attempt to slow the forward-progress of loyalist troops rapidly advancing on the cities of Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and Abu Kamal, all located on the banks of the Euphrates.

The surge of Syrian troops poses a clear threat to Washington's operational strategy called Plan B which is aimed at (a) splintering the state into smaller, US-controlled enclaves, (b) blocking the critical landbridge between Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran, and (c) establishing a secure base for training Sunni militants to reenter Syria-proper and engage in future regime destabilizing operations. Seen in this light, the downing of a Syrian SU-22 might have been an attempt by coalition leaders to wave off the Syrian assault which is undermining Washington's fallback strategy.

The Russian response to the attack was fast and ferocious. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov condemned the action as "a massive violation of international law and military aggression."

He said: "This strike has to be seen as a continuation of America's line to disregard the norms of international law .(It is) an act of aggression designed to help to the very terrorists the US says it is fighting."

Not surprisingly, the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) announced it would end its cooperation with the US military under the terms of the Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air Safety in Syria. In practical terms, that means that Moscow will terminate the use of a military hotline for preventing accidents in Syrian airspace. So while media giants like the Wall Street Journal applaud the reckless attack as "signaling an increased willingness by the Trump administration to directly challenge President Bashar al Assad and his allies", more sober analysts anticipate that the move will only ratchet up the tensions increasing the probability of a clash between the two nuclear-armed superpowers.

The Russian MoD statement added that, "any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition, located to the west of the Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian ground and air defense forces as air targets."

If the attack was intended to provoke a response, then it appears to have succeeded. If another Syrian warplane is shot down, Moscow will have to retaliate. Was that the intention?

Russia does not want to deepen its involvement in Syria. It's primary goal is to defeat ISIS, preserve the elected government, and prevent the country from disintegrating into failed state anarchy. Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed this topic recently in an interview where he was asked: "Can you explain why you sent troops to Syria and what your objective was?"

Putin answered: "It's very easy to explain. We saw what was happening to other countries in the region, particularly Iraq and Libya . due to the forceful ousting of their governments. The governments were destroyed, not simply ousted from power, and their leaders were killed. We don't want to see the same thing happen in Syria or the whole region will be plunged into chaos."

There it is in black and white. Russia has no territorial ambitions in Syria nor does it have any designs on Syria's resources , industry or pipelines. This isn't about money, oil or land. It's about Russia's national security which has been greatly impacted by the scourge of terrorism. It's also about defending "sovereignty", which is the bedrock principle upon which global security rests. This is why Russia is in Syria.

That said, it's not in Russia's interest to shoot down American aircraft, intensify the war on coalition-proxies or take any action that would lead to a military escalation. Putin does not want to prolong or expand the war, he wants to end it.

ORDER IT NOW

Unfortunately, there are so many players sharing the same, crowded battlespace that even the slightest miscalculation could lead to a serious conflagration. It's going to take enormous restraint to tip-toe through the Syrian minefield without triggering a Third World War. We'll have to see if Putin is up to the task or not.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

Andrei Martyanov Website , June 23, 2017 at 7:19 pm GMT

That said, it's not in Russia's interest to shoot down American aircraft, intensify the war on coalition-proxies or take any action that would lead to a military escalation.

It is not in anyone's interest for Russia to shoot down American aircraft. It is not in American interest too, despite US, indeed, spoiling for fight "within Syria only"–an idea floated by some US "strategists".

There is no real strategy behind it–it is mostly irrational and a result of accumulating frustrations of US and its military losing so long cultivated appearance of the "finest fighting force in history", granted that this force was defeated already in Afghanistan, Iraq and its proxies have their asses handed to them in Syria. That is why it is dangerous, because it is all product of frustrated people throwing tantrums while still thinking that they can think rationally. Small Russian contingent in Syria is the last US chance to fight "peer", whose military history dwarfs that of US, and the last chance to correct a rather abysmal US war record since WW II. Do not discount a deeply hidden but still manifesting itself complex of inferiority. As Sun Tzu stated: "Once you get mad–you lose". Pentagon is mad as hell while US journos (most of them anyway) are warmongering lowlifes.

paraglider , June 23, 2017 at 9:30 pm GMT

Washington does NOT want a conflagration with russia because it can not win, they know it and will not suffer the staggering losses Russia will inflict upon them thereby destroying forever the myth of American military invincibility.

Washington power and moral suasion is rapidly degrading. everyone can see it.

what we are seeing are 2 things:

Every time the pentagon does something stupid like this and Russia takes a deep breathe and goes about its business calmly its Washington and the neocons who look like fools and everyone everywhere can see it.

it was written centuries ago that a mans reputation arrives on foot and departs on horseback. a concept the neocons apparently never learned.

paraglider , June 23, 2017 at 10:41 pm GMT

@Sean you could not be more in error than if you are being paid to say this . are you? lol

Putin whatever else he is or may be speaks his mind quite publicly in interviews, at the UN and countless other venues. His message is consistent and he walks the talk. His public goal to maintaining Syrian sovereignty and territorial borders is well known among his friends and enemies.

The Syrian war is over. Washington has lost and all Washington's allies in the overthrow Assad assemblage know it. Just pay attention who travels where the past 2 years.

Both Americas allies in this effort and foes all travel to Moscow. It is Putin who will decide not Washington.

As for Washington not being able to stand by let Russia take them out. the blunt truth is Washington has been outplayed at every turn since October 1 2015. The feckless overrated Obama first and now his remnants in state/cia/pentagon not yet removed by trump.

Unless Washington wants to go nuclear and end up destroying life on earth they will have to comes to terms with being norma desmond the past her prime silent screen star in sunset boulevard dreaming things were not as they are and go quietly into the night becoming just another important nation not the ONLY important nation.

paraglider , June 23, 2017 at 11:10 pm GMT

one more thing Sean.

All the bluster out of Washington hides a profound systemic economic crisis brewing that may take down the entire USA economy. Trumps voters sensed it which is why he won against the psychopathic harridan hillary.

1. the underfunded pension system is about to implode. Illinois is the canary on this but is by no means alone heading over the cliff.

2 for several decades the usa economy has become habituated to the easy profits that come from pillaging other nations and their economies or bluntly intimidating them into paying protection.

3. our economy may not be able to survive without imploding into crisis and eventual deeply unpleasant restructuring without keeping pillage going.

4. on the home front our health care system is a rico style racket for the benefit of the insurance companies and healthcare providers like hospitals companies. without congress being paid off to allow this fraud based industry to get a pass on robinson-pattman act enforcement on pricing healthcare costs would never be in the sky as it is now.

4. the true line in the sand was october 1 2015 when putin spoke at the UN and told the world he and russia would no longer accept america pillaging the planet at will leaving mass misery and death in their wake. china although politely diplomatic to the Nth degree is right behind putin and has his back.

the days of American exceptionalism pillaging are all but over.

over the for the pentagon the military industrial complex, the wall street banks and rakeoffs the bought conressman and senator obtain by doling it all out.

Anonymous , June 24, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

mostly irrational and a result of accumulating frustrations

Seeing this in emotional terms is naive. There's always a plan. The reason why it looks senseless to you is because the US and Europe are obviously not working in their own interest. Their "elite" is mostly compromised.

Miro23 , June 24, 2017 at 8:06 pm GMT

It's going to take enormous restraint to tip-toe through the Syrian minefield without triggering a Third World War.

That makes it sound really close. For what it's worth I think that the Neocon/Deep State alliance needs a real National Emergency to take power. They surely need a dictatorship.

Their 9/11 attempted Coup failed on the domestic side, and information about their treason is leaking out faster than ever with fewer American every day believing the WTC "collapse by fire" story.

So, in my view, they have no option than to shut down US Democracy – and soon – even if it risks WW3. All they care about is their own necks.

Anonymous , June 24, 2017 at 10:42 pm GMT

@Miro23

True. There's also a high probability of sabotage in the minefield. Trump is still disliked by the Deep State IMO. What's stopping them from deliberately walking a bunch of American goyim soldiers onto mines?

Both Trump and Russia could be held responsible in the MSM. Two birds with one stone.

Priss Factor , June 24, 2017 at 11:21 pm GMT

Putin is very Russian in that he has a Big Nation mentality. He takes time and works glacially. But he needs to be sharper.

Stalin was a bad guy, but he got some things right. In a dog-eat-dog world, his Caucasus cutthroat bandit-mentality crept to the top. This Caucasus mentality was a combination of savvy, cunning, patience, brutality, ruthlessness. A kind of hot-blooded fury with icy determination as coolant.

This mentality, plus intelligence and determination, enabled him to outmaneuver all other nationalities in the game of power. He beat Latvians, Ukrainians, Poles, Russians, and even Jews in the game of power.

Dr. Doom , June 25, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMT

The Amerikan Empire is dying. These are its death throes. That "accident" where a US Navy destroyer was almost sunk by a Filipino Cargo Ship shows how weak this supposed "superpower" has become. It wasn't a sneak attack.

It was the Commitment to Diverskitty. That Diverskitty has pussified the US Military. Putin should go ahead and down a US Plane. These idiots are spread so thin its not even funny. The DMZ in Korea doesn't seem to have anywhere near the force Bush, sr and Bush, jr put into Kuwait and Iraq. Bush jr and his snipe hunt has winnowed the forces down. Anti-White Akhenaten II has downsized the Military to a small and ineffective force. The combat readies have probably left. The downsizing which sent career officers onto the streets and the Horrible VA scandal has probably sent the Legions home.

What is left is trash and theft. These clowns cannot whip eggs. That disaster at sea near Japan is a portent of Doom. If they push Putin, he should just shoot those old outdated F-18s down.

That F-35 chickenhawk is a giant turkey. They have started grounding the F-22 because they don't have enough certified pilots and the budget is bloated by welfare detritus best known for loafing, looting and sucking.

They said it was the American Century. Its over now. Did you enjoy the Empire building? The Nintendo War? The Snipe Hunt? This forever war just hit the reality of the crash of diversity and debt.

Munchen , June 27, 2017 at 11:48 pm GMT

Putin should continue patience with childish Washington. Daily revelations of CNN and other liars will undermine their politician positions and force more accountability. Some heads should roll, some networks should reboot. The rest of the world expects more from the USA that it does of itself.

[Jul 08, 2017] Absolutization of human rights is a part of american exceptionalism

Actually hima rights serve as pretext and justification for neocolonial actions on weaker countries.
Notable quotes:
"... "American exceptionalism," Sen. Sasse thus continued, "was an understanding about the historical moment in which the American founding flipped on its head the relationship between rights and government." ..."
"... "The American founding is a claim that God gives us rights, not government, and government is our secular-shared project to secure those rights. That's all American exceptionalism means. That's what Washington used to mean." ..."
Jul 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

"American exceptionalism," Sen. Sasse thus continued, "was an understanding about the historical moment in which the American founding flipped on its head the relationship between rights and government."

Sen. Sasse reached our conclusion. "The American founding is a claim that God gives us rights, not government, and government is our secular-shared project to secure those rights. That's all American exceptionalism means. That's what Washington used to mean."

[Jul 07, 2017] Two Impulsive Leaders Fan the Global Flames by Dilip Hiro & Tom Engelhardt

Notable quotes:
"... The Age of Aspiration: Power, Wealth, and Conflict in Globalizing India ..."
"... Trump has never exactly been an admirer of Iran. His growing hostility toward Tehran (and that of the Iranophobic generals he's appointed to key posts) has already led the U.S. military to shoot down two Iranian-made armed drones as well as a Syrian jet in 12 days. This led Moscow to switch off the hotline between its operational center at the Khmeimim Air Base in Syria and al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the major American military facility in the region. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, at the time the Syrian warplane was hit by the U.S. fighter, Russia's Aerospace Forces were carrying out missions in Syria's airspace. "However," it added, "the coalition command did not use the existing communication line to prevent incidents in Syria's airspace." ..."
"... the State Department and the Pentagon would explore ways to break Moscow's military and diplomatic alliance with Tehran in a bid to end the Syrian conflict and bolster the fight against ISIS. ..."
"... Though Flynn was soon pushed out of the White House, President Trump mirrored his views in a speech at an anti-terrorism summit of 50 leaders from Arab and other Muslim countries during his May visit to Riyadh. In it he went on to lump Iran and the Sunni jihadis together as part of the same "evil" of terrorism. ..."
"... On this issue, Iran's record speaks for itself. With cash and weapons, it has aided the Palestinian group Hamas, which is purely Sunni since there are no Shiites in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. It has maintained cordial relations with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic movement that originated in 1928 in overwhelmingly Sunni Egypt. The Saudis, once its prime financial and ideological backer, fell out with the Brotherhood's leadership in 1991 when they opposed the stationing of U.S. troops on Saudi soil on the eve of the First Gulf War. ..."
"... Since then, the Brotherhood has renounced violence. In June 2012, its candidate, Mohamed Morsi, won the first free and fair presidential election in Egyptian history. His overthrow by Egypt's generals a year later was applauded by Riyadh, which promptly announced a $12 billion rescue package for the military regime. By contrast, Tehran condemned the military coup against the popularly elected president. ..."
"... Tellingly, Riyadh failed to persuade even the neighboring smaller monarchies of Kuwait and Oman, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, to follow its lead in boycotting Qatar. In addition, no matter what Trump tweets, Riyadh has a problem increasing its pressure on Doha because of the massive American military presence in that country, a crucial element in the Pentagon's campaign against ISIS, among other things. ..."
"... In retrospect, it's clear that the four members of the anti-Qatar axis rushed into their drastic action without assessing that tiny country's strengths, including the soft power exercised by its pan-Arab al-Jazeera satellite TV network. Unsurprisingly, their governments banned al-Jazeera broadcasts and websites and closed down its bureaus. Elsewhere in the Arab world, however, that popular outlet remains easily accessible. ..."
"... So far nothing has turned out as the Saudis (or Trump) anticipated. Qatar is resisting and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has flatly refused to withdraw his troops from the emirate, increasing the Turkish military presence there instead. ..."
"... From all this, an overarching picture emerges: that the impulsive Donald Trump has met his younger counterpart, Prince Muhammad bin Salman, equally impulsive and blind to even the medium-term consequences of his aggressive initiatives. ..."
"... The shared obsession of the prince and the president with Iran, which neither of them is able to comprehend in its complexity, has the potential for creating a true global crisis. If anything, the pressure on Trump in his imagined new world order is only increasing to do the Saudis one better and push a regime-change agenda in a big way when it comes to Iran. It's a formula for disaster on a breathtaking scale. ..."
"... , is the author of ..."
"... . His latest and 36th book is ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Originally posted at TomDispatch .

Every now and then something lodges in your memory and seems to haunt you forever. In my case, it was a comment Newsweek attributed to an unnamed senior British official "close to the Bush team" before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad," he said. "Real men want to go to Tehran." At the time, it seemed to distill a mood of geopolitical elation sweeping Washington and its crew of neocons. They had, of course, been beating the drums for war with Iraq, but also dreaming of a Middle Eastern and then a global Pax Americana that would last generations. Less pithy versions of such sentiments were the coin of the realm of that moment. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, for instance, reported in March of that year that, "in February 2003, according to Ha'aretz , an Israeli newspaper, Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq the United States would 'deal with' Iran, Syria, and North Korea."

Fourteen years later, the U.S. has yet to make its way out of its multiple Iraqi wars, is embroiled in a Syrian conflict, and as for North Korea, well, I could tweet you a thing or two about how Washington has " dealt " with that still-nuclearizing land. And yet, it seems that, on one issue at least, those old neocon dreams may finally be coming to fruition. We may at last have a "real man" in the White House, someone truly readying himself to "go to Tehran." At least the pressures from his political backers , his Iranophobic generals , and his CIA director are on the rise, and President Trump recently aligned himself very publicly with the Saudi royals in their anti-Iranian campaign, which seems about to kick into high gear.

If we had time machines and someone could head back to March 2003 to tell those neocons and the top officials of George W. Bush's administration who that future "real man" might turn out to be, they would, of course, have laughed such a messenger out of the room in disbelief. And yet here we are in comb-over heaven, in a land whose foreign policy is increasingly done by tweet, in a country whose leaders evidently can't imagine a place in the Greater Middle East that the U.S. military shouldn't be sent into (but never out of). Meanwhile, the pressure, as TomDispatch regular Dilip Hiro, author most recently of The Age of Aspiration: Power, Wealth, and Conflict in Globalizing India , suggests in vivid detail, is only growing for a full-scale campaign for regime change in Iran, not to speak of a possible proxy war against that country in Syria. And honestly, tell me – to steal a line from another TomDispatch author – what could possibly go wrong? ~ Tom

The Enemy of My Enemy Is My ? The Saudi-American-Iranian-Russian-Qatari-Syrian Conundrum By Dilip Hiro

The Middle East. Could there be a more perilous place on Earth, including North Korea? Not likely. The planet's two leading nuclear armed powers backing battling proxies amply supplied with conventional weapons; terror groups splitting and spreading; religious-sectarian wars threatening amid a plethora of ongoing armed hostilities stretching from Syria to Iraq to Yemen. And that was before Donald Trump and his team arrived on this chaotic scene. If there is one region where a single spark might start the fire that could engulf the globe, then welcome to the Middle East.

As for sparks, they are now in ample supply. At this moment, President Trump's foreign policy agenda is a package of contradictions threatening to reach a boiling point in the region. He has allied himself firmly with Saudi Arabia even when his secretaries of state and defense seem equivocal on the subject. In the process, he's come to view a region he clearly knows little about through the Saudi royal family's paranoid eyes, believing staunchly that Shia Iran is hell-bent on controlling an Islamic world that is 85% Sunni.

Trump has never exactly been an admirer of Iran. His growing hostility toward Tehran (and that of the Iranophobic generals he's appointed to key posts) has already led the U.S. military to shoot down two Iranian-made armed drones as well as a Syrian jet in 12 days. This led Moscow to switch off the hotline between its operational center at the Khmeimim Air Base in Syria and al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the major American military facility in the region. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, at the time the Syrian warplane was hit by the U.S. fighter, Russia's Aerospace Forces were carrying out missions in Syria's airspace. "However," it added, "the coalition command did not use the existing communication line to prevent incidents in Syria's airspace."

At the same time, the incorrigibly contradictory Trump has not abandoned his wish to cultivate friendly relations with Russia whose close economic and military ties with Iran date back to 1992. The danger inherent in the rich crop of contradictions in this muddle, and Trump's fervent backing of the Saudis in their recent threats against neighboring Qatar, should be obvious to all except the narcissistic American president.

No one should be surprised by any of this once Trump inserted himself, tweets first, in the violent and crisis-ridden Middle East. After all, he possesses an extraordinary capacity to create his own reality. He seems to instinctively block out his failures, and rushes headlong to embrace anything that puts him in a positive light. Always a winner, never a loser. Such an approach seems to come easily to him, since he's a man of tactics with a notoriously short attention span, which means he's incapable of conceiving of an overarching strategy of a sort that would require concentration and the ability to hold diverse factors in mind simultaneously.

Given this, he has no problem contradicting himself or undermining aides working to find a more rational basis for his ever changing stances and desires on matters of import. These problems are compounded by his inability to connect the dots in the very complex, volatile Middle East where wars are raging in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, or to assess how a move on one diplomatic or military front will impact a host of inter-connected issues.

The Iran Factor

Let's examine how complicated and potentially treacherous all of this is. In the early days of the Trump administration, an outline of its Middle Eastern strategy might have appeared something like this: the White House will pressure the Sunni Arab states to commit their cash and troops in a coordinated way to fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) under the leadership of the Pentagon. Along with this, the State Department and the Pentagon would explore ways to break Moscow's military and diplomatic alliance with Tehran in a bid to end the Syrian conflict and bolster the fight against ISIS.

This reflected a lamentable ignorance of the growing strength of the ties between Russia and Iran, which share borders on the Caspian Sea. This relationship dates back to August 1992 when Russian President Boris Yeltsin's government signed a contract to construct and operate two nuclear reactors near the Iranian city of Bushehr. The two countries then inked an agreement to build two new reactors at the Bushehr site , with an option for constructing six more at other locations later. These were part of a partnership agreement signed in November 2014 and overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Military cooperation between the Kremlin and Tehran can be traced back to 2007 when Iran inked a $900 million contract for five Russian S-300 long-range missile batteries. Because of United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program in 2010, those missile deliveries were suspended. However, three months before Tehran signed its landmark nuclear deal with six world powers, including Russia and the U.S., in July 2015, Moscow started shipping an upgraded version of the S-300 missiles to Iran.

In September 2015, the Kremlin intervened militarily in Syria on the side of President Bashar al-Assad. By then, Iran had long been aiding the Syrian government with weapons and armed volunteers in its five-year-old civil war. This led Moscow and Tehran to begin sharing military planning over Syria.

Two months later, Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Tehran for a summit of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum and met with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who praised him for "neutralizing Washington's plots." Khamenei also suggested that economic relations between the two countries could "expand beyond the current level." To the delight of Iranian leaders, Putin relaxed an export ban on nuclear equipment and technology to their country.

In August 2016, Tehran let the Kremlin use Hamadan Air Base in western Iran to launch air strikes on a wide range of targets in Syria, thereby enabling the Russian air force to cut flying time and increase payloads for its bombers and fighter jets. Just as Donald Trump entered the Oval Office, Moscow-based Sputnik News reported that Tehran was considering buying Russian fighter jets, while the two countries were discussing a joint venture that would allow Iran to manufacture Russian helicopters under license.

Next, let's turn to Donald Trump. In his 2016 campaign run, Trump's animus toward Iran sharpened only after he imbibed the apocalyptic and Islamophobic views of retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn who would become his first national security adviser. In Flynn's fixation on the threat of "radical Islam," with Iran as his linchpin nation in plots against the West, he conflated Iranian-backed Shia radicalism with Sunni jihadism. In the process, to fit his rabid thinking he ignored the theological and other differences between them.

Though Flynn was soon pushed out of the White House, President Trump mirrored his views in a speech at an anti-terrorism summit of 50 leaders from Arab and other Muslim countries during his May visit to Riyadh. In it he went on to lump Iran and the Sunni jihadis together as part of the same "evil" of terrorism.

On June 7th, Trump's claim visibly shattered. On that day, six ISIS gunmen and suicide bombers, dressed as veiled women, attacked the Iranian Parliament complex and the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, killing at least 17 people and injuring more than 50. These attacks were in line with a video ISIS operatives in eastern Iraq had posted in Persian on their social media networks three months earlier, containing the threat: "We will invade Iran and return it to Sunni control."

Less than two weeks later, Iran fired six Zolfaghar ballistic missiles from its western provinces over Iraqi airspace at an ISIS command center and suicide car-bomb making facility near Syria's eastern city of Deir el-Zour, 370 miles away. It coordinated the attack with Iraq, Syria, and Russia.

ISIS Targets Shias, Whether Iranian or Saudi

Within months of declaring its caliphate in Mosul, Iraq, in June 2014, ISIS sent operatives into Iran after gaining recruits among the predominantly Sunni ethnic Kurds of that country. And well before the Obama administration geared up to help the government in Baghdad fight ISIS, Iran had trained, funded, and armed Iraqi Shia militias to push back that group.

When it came to selecting targets in the Saudi kingdom, the ISIS branch there chose mosques of the Shia minority. The first of these suicide bombings occurred in May 2015 in al-Qadeeh village in Eastern Province during Friday prayers, and left at least 21 people dead and more than 80 injured. In an online statement, ISIS took credit, claiming that "the soldiers of the Caliphate" were responsible and forecasting "dark days ahead" for the Shias.

Recently, Shias in Saudi Arabia have been alarmed by the incendiary speeches of the preachers of the Wahhabi version of Islam, the official faith of the kingdom. This sub-sect is named after Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab (1703-1792), who vehemently opposed the Shia practice of praying at the shrines of their saints and calling on such holy spirits to intercede on their behalf with Allah. He was convinced that there should be no intermediaries between the believer and Allah, and praying to a human being, dead or alive, however holy, was tantamount to polytheism, and therefore un-Islamic. He and his followers began demolishing Shia shrines. Today's ISIS ideologues agree with Wahhab's views on this and denounce Shias as apostates or heretics who deserve to be killed.

Within Shia Islam, there are four sub-sects, depending on how many of the 12 Imams – or religious leaders of the highest rank – a Shiite recognizes as such. Those who recognize only the first Imam Ali are called Alawis or Alevis (and live mainly in Syria and Turkey); those who do so for the first five Imams are known as Zaidis (and live mostly in Yemen). The ones who recognize seven Imams are called Seveners or Ismailis and are scattered across the Muslim world; and those who recognize all 12 Imams, labeled Twelvers, inhabit Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Lebanon. Twelver Shias also believe that the last Imam, the infant Muhammad al-Qassim, who disappeared around 868 AD, will return someday as al-Mahdi, or the Messiah, to bring justice to the world.

It was this aspect of Iranian Shiism that the 29-year-old Saudi Defense Minister Prince Mohammad bin Salman, recently anointed Crown Prince and successor to his 81-year-old father King Salman, focused on in an interview with Dubai-based, Saudi-owned al-Arabiya TV. When asked if he saw a possibility for direct talks with Iran, which he regards as the puppet-master of the Zaidi Houthi rebels in Yemen against whom he launched an American-backed war two years ago, he replied , "How can I come to an understanding with someone, or a regime, that has an anchoring belief built on an extremist ideology?"

Only a clueless person would bet on President Trump parsing Shia Islam or grasping the basic doctrine of Wahhabism. By contrast, nobody would lose a bet on him instantly tweeting the latest thought that crosses his restless mind on any Middle Eastern subject.

The Saudis Target Qatar

To complicate regional matters further, the first crisis of the post-Trump visit involved not Iran or Shias but Qatar, a tiny Sunni emirate adjoining Saudi Arabia. Its transgression in Saudi eyes? It has had the temerity to maintain normal relations with Iran across the Persian Gulf. It is worth recalling that during his trip to Riyadh, President Trump had met with Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, the emir of Qatar. And before that meeting, he had even proudly bragged : "One of the things that we will discuss is the purchase of lots of beautiful military equipment because nobody makes it like the US," adding, "for us, that means jobs and it also means, frankly, great security back here, which we want."

A couple of weeks later, the Saudis suddenly severed Qatari diplomatic and economic ties, with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt following suit. Saudi royals were clearly hoping to engineer a regime change in that country as a step toward the destabilization of Iran. In response, Trump promptly rushed to tweet: "During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – Look!"

Soon after he accused Qatar of being a "funder of terror at a very high level" and, backing the Saudis to the hilt, demanded that the emirate should cut off that supposed cash flow. A rejoinder came from none other than the American ambassador to Qatar, Dana Shell Smith, when she retweeted a U.S. Treasury Department statement praising Qatar for cracking down on extremist financing.

In the ensuing welter of statements and rebuttals, as the Trump administration fell into disarray over policy on Qatar, one thing remained solid: the sale of "beautiful military equipment" – up to 72 Boeing F-15 fighter jets to that emirate for $21.1 billion, a deal approved by the Obama administration in November 2016. On June 15th, Defense Secretary James Mattis signed off on a $12 billion deal for the sale of up to 36 of those fighter jets. "Our militaries are like brothers," declared a senior Qatari official in response. "America's support for Qatar is deep-rooted and not easily influenced by political changes."

In fact, military cooperation between Doha and Washington began in early 1992 in the wake of the First Gulf War. A decade later the Qatari-American military relationship received a dramatic upgrade when the Bush administration started preparing for its invasion of Iraq. Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler at the time, Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, refused to let the Pentagon use the state-of-the-art operations facility at al-Kharj Air Base it had built up for air strikes against Iraq.

That was when Qatar's emir came to Washington's rescue. He allowed the Pentagon to transfer all its equipment from al-Kharj to al-Udeid Air Base , 25 miles southwest of Doha, the Qatari capital. It would become the U.S. military's key facility in the region. At the time of the latest crisis, al-Udeid held no less than 10,000 American troops and 100 Royal Air Force service personnel from Great Britain, equipped with 100 warplanes and drones . Air strikes on ISIS targets in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq are launched from this base.

In his rashness, Trump has imperiled all this, despite mediation efforts by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. His enthusiastic backing of the Saudis in their perilous quest to take on Iran, which may end up destabilizing Saudi Arabia itself, also holds the possibility of armed conflict between the planet's two leading nuclear powers.

The Saudis' Big Problem With a Tiny Neighbor

Worse yet, policymakers in Washington failed to notice a fundamental flaw in the sectarian terms in which Saudi Arabia has framed its rivalry with Iran: a stark Sunni versus Shia clash. Tehran refuses to accept such a playbook. Unlike the Saudis, its leaders constantly emphasize the common faith of all Muslims. Every year, for instance, Iran observes Islamic Unity week, a holiday meant to bridge the gap between the two birthdays of Prophet Muhammad, one accepted by Sunni scholars and the other by Shia ones.

On this issue, Iran's record speaks for itself. With cash and weapons, it has aided the Palestinian group Hamas, which is purely Sunni since there are no Shiites in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. It has maintained cordial relations with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic movement that originated in 1928 in overwhelmingly Sunni Egypt. The Saudis, once its prime financial and ideological backer, fell out with the Brotherhood's leadership in 1991 when they opposed the stationing of U.S. troops on Saudi soil on the eve of the First Gulf War.

Since then, the Brotherhood has renounced violence. In June 2012, its candidate, Mohamed Morsi, won the first free and fair presidential election in Egyptian history. His overthrow by Egypt's generals a year later was applauded by Riyadh, which promptly announced a $12 billion rescue package for the military regime. By contrast, Tehran condemned the military coup against the popularly elected president.

In March 2014, Saudi Arabia declared the Brotherhood a terrorist organization, something the U.S. has not yet done (though the Trump administration is engaged in a debate on the subject). Riyadh's hostility toward the Brotherhood stems largely from the fact that its followers are anti-monarchical, believing that ultimate power lies with the people, not a dynasty. As a result, the Sunni Brotherhood has cordial relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which held parliamentary and presidential elections even during its eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s. In the latest presidential election, conducted on the eve of Trump's arrival in Riyadh, the incumbent moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani won, decisively beating his conservative rival.

Riyadh has recently issued an aggressive list of demands on Qatar, including the closing of the influential Doha-based al-Jazeera media network, the limiting of its ties to Iran to trade alone, and the withdrawal of Turkish troops from a base on its territory. This ultimatum is set to fail on economic grounds alone. Qatar shares the North Dome-South Pars natural gas field with Iran. It is the largest field of its kind in the world. Its South Pars section, about a third of the total, lies in Iran's territorial waters. The aggregate recoverable gas reserves of this field are the equivalent of 230 billion barrels of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia's reserves of conventional oil. Income from gas and oil provides Qatar with more than three-fifths of its gross domestic product (GDP) and most of its export income. With a population of 2.4 million, Qatar has a per capita GDP of $74,667, the highest in the world. Given all this, Doha cannot afford to be adversarial towards Tehran.

Qatar's 12-year-old sovereign wealth fund, operating as the Qatar Investment Authority, has assets worth $335 billion. A third of these are invested in the emirate, but the bulk is scattered around the globe . It owns the Santa Monica-based film production company Miramax. It's the fourth largest investor in U.S. office space, mainly in New York and Los Angeles. It also owns London's tallest building, the famed Harrods stores, and a quarter of the properties in the upscale Mayfair neighborhood of London. Its Paris Saint-Germain Football Club has won four French soccer league titles and it's the largest shareholder in Germany's Volkswagen AG. Little wonder that, in response to the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar, no Western leader, aside from Trump, has sided with Riyadh, which has been stunned by this diplomatic setback.

Tellingly, Riyadh failed to persuade even the neighboring smaller monarchies of Kuwait and Oman, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, to follow its lead in boycotting Qatar. In addition, no matter what Trump tweets, Riyadh has a problem increasing its pressure on Doha because of the massive American military presence in that country, a crucial element in the Pentagon's campaign against ISIS, among other things.

A Formula for Disaster

In retrospect, it's clear that the four members of the anti-Qatar axis rushed into their drastic action without assessing that tiny country's strengths, including the soft power exercised by its pan-Arab al-Jazeera satellite TV network. Unsurprisingly, their governments banned al-Jazeera broadcasts and websites and closed down its bureaus. Elsewhere in the Arab world, however, that popular outlet remains easily accessible.

As a littoral state, Qatar has a large port on the Persian Gulf. Within a week of the Riyadh-led boycott of Qatar, three ships, carrying 350 tons of fruit and vegetables, were set to leave the Iranian port of Dayyer for Doha, while five cargo planes from Iran, loaded with 450 tons of vegetables, had already landed in the Qatari capital.

So far nothing has turned out as the Saudis (or Trump) anticipated. Qatar is resisting and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has flatly refused to withdraw his troops from the emirate, increasing the Turkish military presence there instead.

From all this, an overarching picture emerges: that the impulsive Donald Trump has met his younger counterpart, Prince Muhammad bin Salman, equally impulsive and blind to even the medium-term consequences of his aggressive initiatives. In addition, in an autocratic monarchy without free speech, elections, or representative government (and with an abominable record on human rights violations), he lacks all checks and balances. The shared obsession of the prince and the president with Iran, which neither of them is able to comprehend in its complexity, has the potential for creating a true global crisis. If anything, the pressure on Trump in his imagined new world order is only increasing to do the Saudis one better and push a regime-change agenda in a big way when it comes to Iran. It's a formula for disaster on a breathtaking scale.

Dilip Hiro, a TomDispatch regular , is the author of A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Middle East . His latest and 36th book is The Age of Aspiration: Power, Wealth, and Conflict in Globalizing India .

[Jul 07, 2017] Why Is Nikki Haley Still Trumps UN Ambassador by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... My own little list of "society's offenders" consists largely of the self-described gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts." Unfortunately, the neocons have proven to be particularly resilient in spite of repeated claims that their end was nigh, most recently after the election of Donald Trump last November. ..."
"... Yet as most of the policies the neocons have historically espoused are indistinguishable from what the White House is currently trying to sell, one might well wake up one morning and imagine that it is 2003 and George W. Bush is still president. ..."
"... Number one on my little list is Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who is particularly dangerous as she is holding a position where she can do bad things. Haley has been shooting from the lip since she assumed office and, it has become clear, much of what she says goes without any vetting by the Trump administration. It is never clear whether she is speaking for herself or for the White House. That issue has reportedly been dealt with by having the State Department clear in advance her comments on hot button issues, but, if that is indeed the case, the change has been difficult to discern in practice. ..."
"... Haley is firmly in the neocon camp, receiving praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard. Her speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. Haley sees the United Nations as corrupt and bloated, in itself not an unreasonable conclusion, but she has tied herself closely to a number of other, more debatable issues. ..."
"... But Haley sometimes goes far beyond trying to "tell the truth." In February, she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations because he is a Palestinian. ..."
"... Haley responded yes, that the administration is "supporting Israel" by blocking any Palestinian from any senior UN position because Palestine is not recognized by Washington as an independent state. ..."
"... She has never challenged the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at least nominally opposed by the State Department and White House. ..."
"... Haley is inevitably a hardliner on Syria, reflecting the Israeli bias, and consistently hostile to Russia. ..."
"... Haley's analysis of who is doing what to whom in Syria is certainly questionable at a minimum. And her language is hardly supportive of possible administration diplomatic attempts to mend fences with the Russians and can also be seen as quite dangerous as they increase the likelihood of an "accidental encounter" over the skies of Syria as both sides harden their positions and seek to expand the areas they control. ..."
"... Regarding Ukraine, Haley has taken an extreme position that guarantees Russian hostility. In February, she addressed the UN Security Council regarding the Crimean conflict, which she appears not to understand very well. She warned that sanctions against Russia would not be lifted until Moscow returned control over the peninsula to Kiev. On June 4, she doubled down, insisting that the United States would retain "sanctions strong and tough when it comes to the issue in Ukraine." ..."
"... Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations -- full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. ..."
"... If Donald Trump really wants to drain the Washington swamp and reduce interference in other nations, he might well continue that program by firing Nikki Haley. He could then appoint someone as UN ambassador who actually believes that the United States has to deal with other countries respectfully, not by constant bullying and threats. In the lyrics of Gilbert and Sullivan, she's on my list and "she will never be missed ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

I went to a meeting the other night with some Donald Trump supporters who, like me, had voted for him based on expectations of a more rational foreign policy. They were suggesting that the president's attempts to move in that direction had been sabotaged by officials inside the administration who want to maintain the current warfare state. Remove those officials and Trump might just keep his pledge to leave Bashar al-Assad alone while improving relations with Russia. I was somewhat skeptical, noting that the White House had unilaterally initiated the April 7 cruise missile attack on a Syrian airbase as well as the more recent warning against an alleged "planned" chemical attack, hardly moves that might lead to better relations with Damascus and Moscow. But there are indeed some administration figures who clearly are fomenting endless conflict in the Middle East and elsewhere.

One might reasonably start with Generals James Mattis and H.R. McMaster, both of whom are hardliners on Afghanistan and Iran, but with a significant caveat. Generals are trained and indoctrinated to fight and win wars, not to figure out what comes next. General officers like George Marshall or even Dwight Eisenhower who had a broader vision are extremely rare, so much so that expecting a Mattis or McMaster to do what falls outside their purview is perhaps a bit too much. They might be bad choices for the jobs they hold, but at least they employ some kind of rational process, based on how they perceive national interests, to make judgements. If properly reined in by a thoughtful civilian leadership, which does not exist at the moment, they have the potential to be effective contributors to the national-security discussion.

But several other notable figures in the administration deserve to be fired if there is to be any hope of turning Trump's foreign policy around. In Arthur Sullivan's and W. S. Gilbert's The Mikado , the Lord High Executioner sings about the "little list" he is preparing of people who "never will be missed" when he finally gets around to fulfilling the requirements of his office. He includes "apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind," indicating that the American frustration with the incompetence of its government is not unique, nor is it a recent phenomenon.

My own little list of "society's offenders" consists largely of the self-described gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts." Unfortunately, the neocons have proven to be particularly resilient in spite of repeated claims that their end was nigh, most recently after the election of Donald Trump last November.

Yet as most of the policies the neocons have historically espoused are indistinguishable from what the White House is currently trying to sell, one might well wake up one morning and imagine that it is 2003 and George W. Bush is still president. Still, hope springs eternal, and now that the United States has celebrated its 241st birthday, it would be nice to think that in the new year our nation might be purged of some of the malignancies that have prevailed since 9/11.

Number one on my little list is Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who is particularly dangerous as she is holding a position where she can do bad things. Haley has been shooting from the lip since she assumed office and, it has become clear, much of what she says goes without any vetting by the Trump administration. It is never clear whether she is speaking for herself or for the White House. That issue has reportedly been dealt with by having the State Department clear in advance her comments on hot button issues, but, if that is indeed the case, the change has been difficult to discern in practice.

Haley is firmly in the neocon camp, receiving praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard. Her speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. Haley sees the United Nations as corrupt and bloated, in itself not an unreasonable conclusion, but she has tied herself closely to a number of other, more debatable issues.

As governor of South Carolina, Haley became identified as an unquestioning supporter of Israel . She signed into law a bill to restrict the activities of the nonviolent pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the first legislation of its kind on a state level. Haley has also stated that "nowhere has the UN's failure been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel." On a recent visit to Israel, she was applauded by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stating "You know, all I've done is to tell the truth, and it's kind of overwhelming at the reaction if there's anything I have no patience for, it's bullies, and the UN was being such a bully to Israel, because they could."

But Haley sometimes goes far beyond trying to "tell the truth." In February, she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a congressional hearing this past week, she was asked about the decision: "Is it this administration's position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the UN are mutually exclusive?" Haley responded yes, that the administration is "supporting Israel" by blocking any Palestinian from any senior UN position because Palestine is not recognized by Washington as an independent state.

At various UN meetings Haley has repeatedly and uncritically complained of institutional bias towards Israel, asserting that the "days of Israel bashing are over," without ever addressing the issue that Israeli treatment of the Palestinians might in part be responsible for the criticism leveled against it. Her description of Israel as an "ally" is hyperbolic and she tends to be oblivious to actual American interests in the region when Israel is involved. She has never challenged the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at least nominally opposed by the State Department and White House.

Haley is inevitably a hardliner on Syria, reflecting the Israeli bias, and consistently hostile to Russia. She has said that regime change in Damascus is a Trump administration priority. Her most recent foray involves the White House warning that it had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime." Haley elaborated in a tweet, " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people." Earlier, on April 12, after Russia blocked a draft UN resolution intended to condemn the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, Haley said , "We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that brutally terrorizes its own people."

Haley's analysis of who is doing what to whom in Syria is certainly questionable at a minimum. And her language is hardly supportive of possible administration diplomatic attempts to mend fences with the Russians and can also be seen as quite dangerous as they increase the likelihood of an "accidental encounter" over the skies of Syria as both sides harden their positions and seek to expand the areas they control. She has also said that , "We're calling [Russia] out [and] I don't think anything is off the table at this point. I think what you're going to see is strong leadership. You're going to continue to see the United States act when we need to act." Regarding Moscow's role on the UN Security Council, she complained that, "All they've done is seven times veto against Syria every time they do something to hurt their own people. And so Russia absolutely has not done what they're supposed to do."

Regarding Ukraine, Haley has taken an extreme position that guarantees Russian hostility. In February, she addressed the UN Security Council regarding the Crimean conflict, which she appears not to understand very well. She warned that sanctions against Russia would not be lifted until Moscow returned control over the peninsula to Kiev. On June 4, she doubled down, insisting that the United States would retain "sanctions strong and tough when it comes to the issue in Ukraine."

Haley is also increasingly highly critical of Iran, which she sees as the instigator of much of the unrest in the Middle East, again reflecting the Israeli viewpoint. She claimed on April 20, during her first session as president of the UN Security Council, that Iran and Hezbollah had "conducted terrorist acts" for decades within the Middle East, ignoring the more serious terrorism support engaged in by U.S. regional allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She stated last week that the Security Council's praise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement honored a state that has engaged in "illicit missile launches," "support for terrorist groups," and "arms smuggling," while "stok[ing] regional conflicts and mak[ing] them harder to solve." All are perspectives that might easily be challenged.

Haley is also much given to rhetoric reminiscent of George W. Bush during his first term. Regarding North Korea, on May 16 she told reporters that, "We have to turn around and tell the entire international community: You either support North Korea or you support us," echoing George W. Bush's sentiment that, "There's a new sheriff in town and you're either with us or against us."

So Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations -- full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. That does not necessarily make her very good for the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens of imperial hubris. Nor is her tendency to overstate her case a plus for the Trump administration itself, which is clearly seeking to work its way through Russiagate–and just might be considering how to establish some kind of modus vivendi with Vladimir Putin.

If Donald Trump really wants to drain the Washington swamp and reduce interference in other nations, he might well continue that program by firing Nikki Haley. He could then appoint someone as UN ambassador who actually believes that the United States has to deal with other countries respectfully, not by constant bullying and threats. In the lyrics of Gilbert and Sullivan, she's on my list and "she will never be missed ."

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

[Jul 07, 2017] Tillerson Sanctions on Russia Will Remain Until Crimea Is Returned

"Until Crimea is returned" is a sign of neocon foreign policy
Jul 07, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

Assured Ukraine Sanctions Against Russia Won't Change

Jason Ditz Posted on April 24, 2017 Categories News Tags Crimea , Russia , Tillerson , Ukraine Hopes that the US sanctions against Russia would be quickly rolled back when President Trump was elected in November didn't pan out, and the latest comments from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggest that the administration has no intention of removing the sanctions at all.

Speaking with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko over the weekend, Tillerson reported told him that the US sanctions on Russia will remain wholly in place " until Russia returns control of the Crimean peninsula to Ukraine. " Needless to say, Russia isn't going to do that.

Crimea was an autonomous oblast within Ukraine until 2014, when they held a referendum and seceded. After that secession, they sought and gained accession into the Russian Federation, which the US doesn't recognize. US officials have repeatedly presented this as Russia "invading Crimea" or "taking Crimea by force," though the peninsula's ethnic Russian majority was able to effectively secede outright without anything nearly so dramatic happening.

Nobody seriously expects Russia to "give back" Crimea, even if there was a mechanism by which they could conceivably do so, which there isn't. Conditioning sanctions relief on that is tantamount to announcing the sanctions as a permanent feature of US policy, a stance which will likely suit the many Russia hawks in Congress and across Western Europe quite well.

[Jul 07, 2017] Is Rex Tillerson a realist in Washington by Alexander Mercouris

How can a realist bear Nikki Haley and demand return of Crimea ? Only neocon can...
Notable quotes:
"... Specifically Tillerson turned neocon foreign policy orthodoxy on its head by arguing that a foreign policy based on promoting US 'values' carried the risk of obstructing US national security and economic interests: ..."
"... In some circumstances, if you condition our national security efforts on someone adopting our values, we probably can't achieve our national security goals. It really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests. ..."
"... At this point an essential qualification is needed. When US politicians and diplomats talk of a foreign policy based on 'values' they do not mean a foreign policy constructed exclusively around the 'values' Tillerson referred to: "freedom, human dignity, and the treatment of people the world over." People in Saudi Arabia or in the occupied Palestinian territories are not the object of US sympathy despite being denied all these things. ..."
"... Rather when US politicians and diplomats talk of a foreign policy based on 'values' they mean one where the US seeks to use these 'values' as leverage to increase its geopolitical influence as part of an ideological mission to entrench its global position. This is the foreign policy that Tillerson appears to be repudiating ..."
"... On Russia, Tillerson said ''there's almost no trust'' between the world's greatest nuclear powers, but that the administration was trying to rebuild trust by looking at one issue at a time. First up is Syria, as Washington and Moscow see if they can get a cease-fire that can hold. ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | www.sott.net

In first address to State Department and before meeting Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov US Secretary of State Tillerson repudiates neocon ideas and supports a 'realist' foreign policy.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, delivering his first address to the staff of the State Department, has set out a vision of US foreign policy which if different would be radically different from anything seen over the last few decades.

Specifically Tillerson turned neocon foreign policy orthodoxy on its head by arguing that a foreign policy based on promoting US 'values' carried the risk of obstructing US national security and economic interests:

In some circumstances, if you condition our national security efforts on someone adopting our values, we probably can't achieve our national security goals. It really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests.
At this point an essential qualification is needed. When US politicians and diplomats talk of a foreign policy based on 'values' they do not mean a foreign policy constructed exclusively around the 'values' Tillerson referred to: "freedom, human dignity, and the treatment of people the world over." People in Saudi Arabia or in the occupied Palestinian territories are not the object of US sympathy despite being denied all these things.

Rather when US politicians and diplomats talk of a foreign policy based on 'values' they mean one where the US seeks to use these 'values' as leverage to increase its geopolitical influence as part of an ideological mission to entrench its global position. This is the foreign policy that Tillerson appears to be repudiating . Interestingly, in the same speech he is reported to have spoken about the need to work for better relations with Russia, the country that the neocons have cast as the US's primary ideological and geopolitical adversary:

On Russia, Tillerson said ''there's almost no trust'' between the world's greatest nuclear powers, but that the administration was trying to rebuild trust by looking at one issue at a time. First up is Syria, as Washington and Moscow see if they can get a cease-fire that can hold.
It need hardly be said that within Official Washington these ideas are heresy and it is far from certain whether most of the other officials in the Trump administration share them.

The President has however spoken similarly in the past and it seems that for the moment Tillerson has his support.

TIllerson is due to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov shortly , when he presumably continue to try to put his foreign policy line into action. It will be interesting to see how far he can succeed.

[Jul 07, 2017] Was Tillerson to the right of Trump in Germany meeting

The problem if multiple personalities syndrome that Trump administration demonstrates that is mentioned below is a real one. It looks like Tilerson has its own version of foreign policy distinct from Trump. Haley also has her own definitely distinct and more neocons than Tillerson, and Tillerson did not fired her for insubordination. Yet.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump wasn't afraid to do this meeting. In this sense, even if he's a fool (which I'm not completely convinced of yet), he has some semblance here of being his own man. Also, for domestic consumption, he can say he made a deal if he wants. He walked away with some narrative. ..."
"... It seems to me that there's no reason why Putin and Trump can't keep talking as need arises if they choose to. No one is going to be friends here. But a narrative of two countries aggressively pursuing their own national interests is what Russia is now promoting. This is ground for dialog and actually some stability over time. ..."
"... Ray McGovern with RT thinks the agreement in southwest Syria is a little test from Putin to see what the strength of Trump's power is - i.e. will USAF act independently again or will it obey the commander-in-chief? Putin, Trump meeting gives way to developments in Syria . A lot of the Russian takeaway will be what kind of practical trust can be forged at this level, how in control is Trump? One wonders how much of this meta message got through to Trump himself. ..."
"... I think its clear that the 'Assad must go!' Coalition will not stop wanting Assad gone. But Russia and Iran will not allow it, arguing that Assad is needed to counter the Jihadis. This is a fundamental disagreement. ..."
"... So what can they agree on? The next logical demand of the 'Assad must go!' Coalition is some sort of division, isn't it? And whatever a division of Syria is called: "federated", "autonomous region", "safe zone" etc., it effectively means the creation of a "salafist principality"/Sunnistan - a goal which was revealed in a DIA report back in 2012. ..."
"... I think there is a full-court press to get Putin to deal. Everything has been set to make the establishment of 'Sunnistan' the least worst option (as Kissinger might say). I wrote of this here: Putin-Trump at the G-20: Birth of Sunnistan? ..."
"... How could RUSSIA - with her history - consider any backdown over Syria affecting all her allies anything but a short term Munich agreement (1938) for the space age. War between the Atlantacists and Eurasia would still be inevitable . ..."
"... more on the alleged chemical weapon attack of early april from al masdar.. OPCW ignores possibility Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack was staged: diplomat and.... US refuses Russia's offer to inspect Shayrat Airbase for chemical weapons ..."
"... here's the transcript to go with your video of the Tillerson presser held today following the Putin/Trump gab - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/07/press-briefing-presidents-meetings-g20-july-7-2017 ..."
"... The Trump Administration continues to take a middle-ground approach that allows the "red scare" to continue. Some will say this is smart politics or smart negotiating or both. I think it shows a lack of will - an ambiguity that is harmful to a peaceful resolution. I think it stems from the Wahabbi-Zionist grip on US ME policy. W-Z want it ALL, so they (or their representatives) will always be ambiguous about any discussion that would leave them with something less than ALL. ..."
"... The Agreement on SW Syria was probably mostly done before the meeting. Meeting participants reviewed details of what the prepared agreement but mostly probed each other to determine how strongly held each sides views were about Syrian outcomes. ..."
"... Tillerson's blabbering about common objectives was meaningless. The Russians have long said that they believe that the Syrian people should decide the fate of Assad at some point in the future. The longstanding US position has been that Assad's removal should be sooner rather than later because free and fair elections can't be held with Assad as leader. ..."
"... Sounds quite reasonable to me. Putin/ Lavrov did the same with Obama/ Kerry, but they failed the test. They did negotiate in earnest imo, but... ..."
"... Moscow has committed far too much in Syria to 'relent'. The military, diplomatic and economic pressure on the US will increase if necessary to reach an solution. It has no choice but to agree. ..."
"... The peace deal or de-escalation with the US in southern Syria most likely has to do with US moving their operation from Tanf to Shaddadi. I had read sometime ago that Jordan wasn't happy about US using Jordan and Tanf base to attack SAA - not that Jordan would have much say in the matter. ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Grieved | Jul 7, 2017 5:07:38 PM | 24

It's 2 cents day, so here's mine.

Two national leaders brought their heads of foreign ministry to an international meeting. Score 1 for diplomacy. They didn't bring their generals. And we've all seen how powerfully Russian diplomacy works. The message to the world and all stakeholders is that it keeps on working - work with it if you want to get somewhere.

Trump wasn't afraid to do this meeting. In this sense, even if he's a fool (which I'm not completely convinced of yet), he has some semblance here of being his own man. Also, for domestic consumption, he can say he made a deal if he wants. He walked away with some narrative.

It seems to me that there's no reason why Putin and Trump can't keep talking as need arises if they choose to. No one is going to be friends here. But a narrative of two countries aggressively pursuing their own national interests is what Russia is now promoting. This is ground for dialog and actually some stability over time.

I don't think anyone was looking for much out of this, and it was the wrong venue for such. But the meta-messages and to see how the leaders would interact were the key things, and personally I'm satisfied.

Grieved | Jul 7, 2017 5:50:53 PM | 25
More info coming...Tillerson says it was a good meeting that went on so long because they had so much to talk about. Very engaged: Listen: Tillerson describes meeting between Trump and Putin . The Duran's Adam Garrie picked up on the last soundbite in this clip where Tillerson says maybe Russia has the right approach to Syria and maybe we have the wrong approach. Very egalitarian view, not quite as bombshell as it sounds I think, more a way of signifying agreement on the (purported) end goals.

Ray McGovern with RT thinks the agreement in southwest Syria is a little test from Putin to see what the strength of Trump's power is - i.e. will USAF act independently again or will it obey the commander-in-chief? Putin, Trump meeting gives way to developments in Syria . A lot of the Russian takeaway will be what kind of practical trust can be forged at this level, how in control is Trump? One wonders how much of this meta message got through to Trump himself.

Jackrabbit | Jul 7, 2017 5:54:02 PM | 26
Everyone seems happy that Trump and Putin shook hands and agreed on something. But wasn't agreeing on SW Syria easy? Seems that both would want to avoid the messiness of stepped-up Israeli action.

I think its clear that the 'Assad must go!' Coalition will not stop wanting Assad gone. But Russia and Iran will not allow it, arguing that Assad is needed to counter the Jihadis. This is a fundamental disagreement.

So what can they agree on? The next logical demand of the 'Assad must go!' Coalition is some sort of division, isn't it? And whatever a division of Syria is called: "federated", "autonomous region", "safe zone" etc., it effectively means the creation of a "salafist principality"/Sunnistan - a goal which was revealed in a DIA report back in 2012.

IMO there is a high chance of cw ff leading to threat of US attack in the coming weeks. As a last-ditch effort to avoid a larger war, Putin might then relent and a allow a division that makes "Sunnistan" a reality.

I think there is a full-court press to get Putin to deal. Everything has been set to make the establishment of 'Sunnistan' the least worst option (as Kissinger might say). I wrote of this here: Putin-Trump at the G-20: Birth of Sunnistan?

Any thoughts?

ashley albanese | Jul 7, 2017 6:27:09 PM | 31

Jackrabbit 26

How could RUSSIA - with her history - consider any backdown over Syria affecting all her allies anything but a short term Munich agreement (1938) for the space age. War between the Atlantacists and Eurasia would still be inevitable .

james | Jul 7, 2017 6:46:47 PM | 32
more on the alleged chemical weapon attack of early april from al masdar.. OPCW ignores possibility Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack was staged: diplomat and.... US refuses Russia's offer to inspect Shayrat Airbase for chemical weapons
karlof1 | Jul 7, 2017 6:47:33 PM | 33
Well, it appears that the Putin/Abe meet was productive despite being delayed by the meet with Trump going long, http://tass.com/politics/955268. TASS has the most detailed report thanks to Lavrov's presser, http://tass.com/world/955288 "The situation in Syria, in Ukraine, on the Korean Peninsula, problems of cyber security, and a range of other issues were discussed in detail," he said, adding that the two leaders "agreed on a number of concrete things." Just what those "concrete things" are we'll need to wait and see.
h | Jul 7, 2017 7:28:39 PM | 37
Greived @25 here's the transcript to go with your video of the Tillerson presser held today following the Putin/Trump gab - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/07/press-briefing-presidents-meetings-g20-july-7-2017
Jackrabbit | Jul 7, 2017 7:37:40 PM | 39
Tillerson's New Conference

Tillerson's answers to question about how much Trump pressed Putin on 'Russian interference' vaguely implied that the Russians accepted responsibility as he suggested that the Russians were willing to discuss guarantees against such interference happening in the future.

The Trump Administration continues to take a middle-ground approach that allows the "red scare" to continue. Some will say this is smart politics or smart negotiating or both. I think it shows a lack of will - an ambiguity that is harmful to a peaceful resolution. I think it stems from the Wahabbi-Zionist grip on US ME policy. W-Z want it ALL, so they (or their representatives) will always be ambiguous about any discussion that would leave them with something less than ALL.

The Agreement on SW Syria was probably mostly done before the meeting. Meeting participants reviewed details of what the prepared agreement but mostly probed each other to determine how strongly held each sides views were about Syrian outcomes.

The length of time that this took shows how close to the razor's edge US-Russia relations are. Care must be taken to avoid a miscalculation.

Tillerson's blabbering about common objectives was meaningless. The Russians have long said that they believe that the Syrian people should decide the fate of Assad at some point in the future. The longstanding US position has been that Assad's removal should be sooner rather than later because free and fair elections can't be held with Assad as leader.

It seems to me that the failure to agree "next steps" coupled with a failure to agree on a future meeting is significant. And the lack of detail from the Russian side (as per karlof1 @33) also suggests that the meeting didn't go well.

smuks | Jul 7, 2017 7:48:10 PM | 41
@Grieved 25

"Ray McGovern with RT thinks the agreement in southwest Syria is a little test from Putin to see what the strength of Trump's power is ... how in control is Trump? One wonders how much of this meta message got through to Trump himself."

Sounds quite reasonable to me. Putin/ Lavrov did the same with Obama/ Kerry, but they failed the test. They did negotiate in earnest imo, but...

@Jackrabbit

Moscow has committed far too much in Syria to 'relent'. The military, diplomatic and economic pressure on the US will increase if necessary to reach an solution. It has no choice but to agree.

james | Jul 7, 2017 8:53:20 PM | 44
i think the little test concept is exactly right... usa is notorious for failing those kinds of tests..
Peter AU | Jul 7, 2017 8:57:27 PM | 46
The peace deal or de-escalation with the US in southern Syria most likely has to do with US moving their operation from Tanf to Shaddadi. I had read sometime ago that Jordan wasn't happy about US using Jordan and Tanf base to attack SAA - not that Jordan would have much say in the matter.
Anoncommentator | Jul 7, 2017 9:00:27 PM | 47
James Corbett on the CNN gif debacle: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ7KIgV2s5w
Anoncommentator | Jul 7, 2017 9:13:31 PM | 49
A reminder, and if you've never seen it, how MSM (in this case C-span) broadcasts fake news as war propaganda- footage from 1991 Gulf War. This was eye opener for me as I recall being totally sucked in at time by both the CNN and C-Span stories.

But by the time of the Syrian "boy in ambulance" Omran story last year I could correctly smell a rat:

[Jul 07, 2017] Western powers fuel the Ukrainian conflict - and wider tensions with Russia - by treating Ukraine as a strategic prize, says Nicolai Petro, Silvia-Chandley professor of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island

Jul 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

Warren , July 7, 2017 at 8:45 am

https://www.youtube.com/embed/vyrEujl75tk

Published on 6 Jul 2017

Western powers fuel the Ukrainian conflict - and wider tensions with Russia - by treating Ukraine as a strategic prize, says Nicolai Petro, Silvia-Chandley professor of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island

et Al , July 7, 2017 at 6:03 am

Words are much cheaper than actions

Warren , July 7, 2017 at 8:45 am

Dr Nicolai Petro is very brave to express such opinions considering where he is – Odessa. Anyone who deviates from the Banderite-Maidan propaganda line in Ukraine is censored and ostracised at best, at worst – murdered.

Bob , July 7, 2017 at 11:32 am

Odessa has a noticeable pro-Russian element as is true in some other parts of Kiev regime controlled Ukraine. Granted, folks with such views need to be careful.

[Jul 07, 2017] Putin, Trump to meet in Germany amid a sea of disputes

Notable quotes:
"... ... The only issue where observers think a deal could be made is President Barack Obama's decision in December to shut down Russian Embassy compounds in Maryland and on Long Island, New York. The Kremlin emphasized this week that it has shown remarkable restraint by failing to respond tit-for-tat and warned that its patience is running out. ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
"If Putin comes to the conclusion that even if Russia and the U.S. reach agreement, Trump would be unable to implement it for domestic policy reasons, he would lose interest in seeking an agreement," said Dmitri Trenin, the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center.

... ... ...

Russia and the U.S. have struggled to even set a specific time for Friday's meeting and the White House says there's "no specific agenda" for it. When the two presidents finally sit down for a talk, sharp differences remain on a wide range of issues, from Syria and the Ukrainian crisis to nuclear arms control.

While Trump has said the U.S. and Russia could pool efforts to fight the Islamic State group in Syria, Moscow's firm support for Syrian President Bashar Assad makes any agreement unlikely.

Moscow responded angrily when Trump ordered a missile strike on a Syrian base in April after a chemical attack blamed on Assad's forces, and was also vexed by the U.S. downing of a Syrian warplane in June. After last month's incident, the Russian military suspended a hotline with the U.S. to prevent mid-air incidents and warned that it would track U.S.-led coalition aircraft as potential targets over Syria.

And when the White House warned last week that Assad was preparing for another chemical attack and would "pay a heavy price" if he launches it, Russia responded by offering the Syrian ruler a tour of its air base.

Even though the Russian and U.S. militaries in Syria have worked out a way to avoid collisions, the situation could grow more unstable if Putin and Trump fail to get along, Trenin warned.

Bitter differences over Ukraine haven't been resolved. Some U.S. lawmakers have been pushing the White House to approve the delivery of weapons to the Ukrainian military in response to Moscow's support for separatists in eastern Ukraine - a move that would cross a red line for the Kremlin.

... The only issue where observers think a deal could be made is President Barack Obama's decision in December to shut down Russian Embassy compounds in Maryland and on Long Island, New York. The Kremlin emphasized this week that it has shown remarkable restraint by failing to respond tit-for-tat and warned that its patience is running out.

[Jul 07, 2017] Tillerson Putin Asked Trump For Proof Of Russias Interference In The 2016 Election

Trump discredited himself with the Tomahawk launches after deliberately false interpretation of Khan_sheikhoun_attack as chemical attack using zarin.
Notable quotes:
"... Putin wants to know who killed DNC email leaker Seth Rich? ..."
"... God, I hope they discussed taking down and prosecuting the Pedo elites. ..."
"... "CNN is reporting that Trump gave Alaska back to Russia during this meeting" ..."
"... when the US deep state has been neutered ??? ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Update: As part of the 2+ hour discussion between presidents Trump and Putin, AP reports that the Russian president asked for "proof and evidence" of Moscow's alleged interference in the 2016 election which Russia denies . The request was made after Trump confronted Putin about Moscow's election meddling during their first face-to-face meeting in Germany on Friday, according to Rex Tillerson who was present in the meeting. The secretary of state told reporters afterward that Trump opened the conversation by "raising the concerns of the American people regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election."

Putin once again denied Russian involvement, Tillerson said, but Trump "pressed" him on the matter "on more than one occasion."

'President Putin denied such involvement as I think he has in the past,' he continued.

The Russians, speaking after the meeting, claimed that Trump accepted the denial - but Tillerson did not. Instead he said the issue may simply be an 'intractable disagreement.' Tillerson also said the Russians pushed Trump for proof and evidence of meddling, something which the president himself had doubted in public as recently as Thursday.

"The president at this point pressed him and felt like at this point, let's talk about how do we go forward,' Tillerson said.

Trump and Putin agreed to explore a "framework" around which they can work to better understand these types of cyberthreats, the U.S. diplomat said.

"The two leaders agreed that this is a substantial hindrance on the ability of us to move Russian-U.S. relationships forward and agreed to exchange further work ?regarding commitments of noninterference in the affairs of the United States and our democratic process as well as those of other countries," Tillerson said. "So more work to be done in that regard."

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, who was in the meeting, said afterward that Trump accepted Putin's assurances that Russia didn't interfere in the election. But Tillerson, who has publicly called out Russia for election interference in the past, said he was 'not dismissing the issue in any way' and did not echo that language.

The secretary of state acknowledged that Putin's insistence that Russia did not interfere would leave the two countries at an impasse, at least for now. "It's not clear to me that we will ever come to some agreed-upon resolution of that question between the two nations," he said.

"So the question is, what do we do now?"

We are confident that the US press, which will not let this topic drop, will come up with some suggestions.

* * *

Earlier

Following their first ever, 2+ hour meeting which was originally supposed to last only 30-40 minutes, the question on everyone's mind was what did the two discuss.

So, in addition to the previously discussed ceasefire agreement in Southwest Syria unexpectedly announced by the two nations, speaking at the beginning of his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Vladimir Putin said that during his first meeting with US President Donald Trump, the two discussed Syria, Ukraine, counterterrorism, and drumroll, the "fight against cyber crime. "

"I had a very lengthy conversation with the President of the United States, there were a lot of issues such as Ukraine, Syria, other problems, some bilateral issues", according to Interfax news agency . "We again returned to the issues of fighting terrorism and cybersecurity," Putin added.

Elaborating after the meeting, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump repeatedly pressed Putin on the matter over the course of their meeting (see below for details).

Putin denied Russia's involvement, and according to a parallel comment from Russia's Sergey Lavrov, " Trump accepted Putin's assurance of no election hacking ."

Or as Interfax put it:

However, it appears Lavrov may have taken some artistic liberty, because according to NBC's chief White House correspondent, one administration official has said Lavrov's comment is " not accurate "

Pushback already from Trump administration: one official tells @NBCNews Lavrov's "not accurate" w/this comment --> https://t.co/URIsFPQYWT

- Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) July 7, 2017

Additionally, Tillerson also discussed the ceasefire deal in Syria :

"A cease-fire has been entered into," U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters. This is the "first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria," he said.

Until now, Putin and Trump had only spoken on the phone. They were not alone: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson were also present at the talks.

* * *

Earlier, during the press photo session, Trump told the media that "President Putin and I have been discussing various things, and I think it's going very well."

"We've had some very, very good talks, we are going to have a talk now and obviously that will continue," Trump added, saying there are hopes of "a lot of very positive things happening."

"It's an honor to be with you, thank you," Trump concluded, offering his hand to Putin.

"I'm delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr. President," Putin countered. "And I hope, as you have said, our meeting will yield positive result."

"Spasibo [thank you]," the US leader added in Russian. lester1 Jul 7, 2017 1:16 PM

Putin wants to know who killed DNC email leaker Seth Rich? Putin wants to know who killed DNC email leaker Seth Rich?
y3maxx lester1 Jul 7, 2017 1:22 PM
"Until now, Putin and Trump had only spoken on the phone."

CNN will jump all over this one, and Hitlary will call for another investigation.

yogibear y3maxx Jul 7, 2017 1:29 PM
Putin and Trump did what Obama could never do.

Putin and Trump did it in 2 hours!

Bathouse Barry deserved little respect. Bowing to every leader.

sixsigma cygnus... yogibear Jul 7, 2017 1:38 PM
I think a 30 minute meeting that turned into a 2 hour meeting with Putin is much better than the war with Russia that Hitlery had planned for us. Getting along with Russia is a good thing.
El Vaquero nope-1004 Jul 7, 2017 2:13 PM
That was just Kabuki theater, really. If Russia had hacked the election, the NSA and the CIA would have gone back through all of their stored data and found the evidence of it and crucified Trump and probably taken us to war.

PrayingMantis Blue Balls Jul 7, 2017 2:37 PM

... the planned 30-40-min meeting stretched to 2+ hours perhaps so they could talk about how to "carve" Syria into various "states" (since the US already has a modern airport in the Northern reaches of the beleaguered and oppressed sovereign country without the consent and permission of Syria's Al Assad >>> http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960415000266 ) ...

... and how not to hit any of their "flying objects" (jets and drones) trying to keep their respective MIC and banksters happy funding all these war toys ...

... and the oppressors, at the behest of their (((Red Shield))) masters and its BIS central banks' ownership of all worldwide central banks (with the exception of Iran, Syria, North Korea and Cuba), might just be pulling the necessary strings on how to divide the residual loot they'd get when Syria falls ...

... the ((( Red Shield snake ))) is poised to strike again ...

... meanwhile, attention Linux users ... "WikiLeaks Exposes CIA Targeting Linux Users With OutlawCountry Network Traffic Re-Routing Tool" ... >>> https://hothardware.com/news/wikileaks-exposes-cia-targeting-linux-users-with-outlawcountry-network-traffic-re-routing-tool ...

Ghost of PartysOver The_Juggernaut Jul 7, 2017 2:13 PM

I have said it before and will say it again, if the NeoCons and NeoLibs fail to find any Russian State Sanctioned evidence of election tampering or collusion then I would expect a trade deal with Russia within a year of two. Always better to have Boardroom Wars instead of Hot Wars. For the down voters may I remind you that Japan attacked the US, US was at war with Germany, do I need to mention Vietnam. All foes at one time and now trading partners.
CheapBastard Ghost of PartysOver Jul 7, 2017 2:25 PM
Clinton chairman John "Pizza Man" Podesta tells Trump: 'Get a grip'

Mr Podesta hit back in seven tweets, branding Mr Trump a "whack job".

"Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and the CIA Disgraceful!" Mr Trump tweeted on Friday morning from Hamburg.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40533959

Screw PedoMan. He should be in jail already.

laser Ghost of PartysOver Jul 7, 2017 2:30 PM

And Japan's attack was a surprise and unprovoked. Right?
Gardentoolnumber5 laser Jul 7, 2017 4:28 PM
US canceling the 1902 trade agreement. Metal and other material embargo. Oil and gas embargo. Then the open sea policy after non-declared economic war started in '38. Kind of like bombing other countries and having the welcome mat out for them. Sanctions/embargoes are acts of war.

chiswickcat sixsigma cygnusatratus Jul 7, 2017 2:26 PM

God, I hope they discussed taking down and prosecuting the Pedo elites.
Give Me Some Truth sixsigma cygnusatratus Jul 7, 2017 2:49 PM
The sanctions against Russia (that Trump must have supported, certainly 97 senators support this) are really a form of warfare.

If Trump DID "accept Putin's Assurances" that Putin's government did NOT meddle in a U.S. election, why then the necessity of these sanctions?

HRClinton sixsigma cygnusatratus Jul 7, 2017 2:50 PM
No lasting peace or deep cooperation between the US and Russia will be permitted, until the Khazariabs approve it, bless it and put their logo (with a micro tax) on it.

El Vaquero y3maxx Jul 7, 2017 1:57 PM

I think that CNN is getting its pee-pee slapped pretty hard right now. It has incurred the wrath of the internet hate machine and its ratings are sliding into the shitter on the eve of a corporate buyout of its parent company. I'd say that there are pretty good odds that CNN will either not exist in the near future, or it will exist in name only in the same way that Communist China is no longer actually Communist.

CheapBastard Lumberjack Jul 7, 2017 2:29 PM

Putin just handed him the photos of when Bill Clinton "gave a lecture" there for $2 million innturn for Hillary's handing the Russians 20% of American uranium.

Photos probably show a dozen mixed midgets peeing on Bill as he has sex with some Russian farm animals.

Sounds like Bill.

chiswickcat lester1 Jul 7, 2017 1:44 PM
"It's an honour to be with you, thank you" - Trump to Putin. Now watch Pedo-desta and Mad Maxine claim this is 'all the proof they need' that Trump is colluding with Putin.
Barney Fife lester1 Jul 7, 2017 6:24 PM
His name was Seth Rich.
Ralph Spoilsport Jul 7, 2017 1:18 PM
CNN is reporting that Trump gave Alaska back to Russia during this meeting.
Herd Redirectio... Ralph Spoilsport Jul 7, 2017 1:25 PM
Should give them California from Fort Ross south, as well...
Ralph Spoilsport Herd Redirection Committee Jul 7, 2017 1:31 PM
Interesting. Spetznaz troops could clear out La Raza in no time lol.
Herd Redirectio... Ralph Spoilsport Jul 7, 2017 1:38 PM
I am sure they would have a field day dealing with Hollywood's Gay Mafia as well.
CheapBastard Herd Redirection Committee Jul 7, 2017 2:31 PM
Barney Franks and Cooper Anderson would squeal for joy!
chiswickcat Ralph Spoilsport Jul 7, 2017 1:57 PM
CNN also reported that Trump gave Putin the launch codes.
JustPrintMoreDuh Ralph Spoilsport Jul 7, 2017 2:17 PM
Well he will likely have much more flexibility after his re-election
MaxThrust Ralph Spoilsport Jul 7, 2017 5:49 PM
"CNN is reporting that Trump gave Alaska back to Russia during this meeting"

I think this is fake news. /s/s

If Alaska becomes Russian territory again then Kim's missles will only be able to threaten Russia. How the hell will CNN beat the war drums for the MIC ?

souljaboy Jul 7, 2017 1:18 PM
I'm sure this is the kind of stuff that just kills Hillary Clinton.
chiswickcat souljaboy Jul 7, 2017 2:24 PM
...and the military industrial complex. Who do you think whispered in First Lady's ear to get meeting ended?
TILLERSON SAYS NEITHER LEADER WANTED TO STOP MEETING, U.S. FIRST LADY CAME IN AT ONE POINT TO TRY TO GET THEM TO CONCLUDE: RTRS
Anasteus TheJewsDidIT666 Jul 7, 2017 1:44 PM
Yes, indeed they have. After organizing and taking over Russia in 1917 during the Bolshevik revolution, when poor Russians had to undergo tremendous suffering caused by the most horrid scum imaginable, they now know the truth will soon come out. Everything one needs to know.
kochevnik walkόre Jul 7, 2017 2:51 PM
Main activity of Ukraine is offshore banking for Nigerians
walkόre kochevnik Jul 7, 2017 5:32 PM
Nigerian princes scam Americans and Brits into sending money which then gets deposited into Ukrainian banks?

Good luck with that. How safe is any of them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_in_Ukraine

Without the transit tolls for gas into EU, the Ukraine is a bankrupt farming nation.

EddieLomax TheJewsDidIT666 Jul 7, 2017 2:12 PM
I'd say it was more likely the people profitting from vast sums of money channelled into the US military-industrial complex. So many jobs also rely on it that it has become an impossible to kill program.

For that money the US gets a navy ready at any time to defeat imperial Japan again, and an army poised to push the Soviet hordes back in western Europe. It's absurd, like a Coyote cartoon where he is still standing but the ground beneath him has disappeared. Trump is smart, he can take on the mainstream media, the democrats and the republicans, but he cannot take on the military industrial complex at the same time and he knows it, whether he can ever or wants to is the real question.

If Trump left office with the next president no longer beholden to the military industrial complex, then he would be the greatest US president since George Washington.

ludwigvmises Jul 7, 2017 1:20 PM
So the 30 minute meeting turned into 2 hours? That's good, it means they got on well. Putin is known to cut meetings short if he finds it's a waste of time.
CheapBastard Kayman Jul 7, 2017 2:34 PM
<<So the 30 minute meeting turned into 2 hours? That's good, it means they got on well. >>

Putin and Trump enjoy talking to strong leaders, not limp wristed pussies. Even Condy Rice said Soweeto is considered a 'weak man' by foreign leaders. I guess she's being polite and at least called him a "man" instead of a tranny.

TabakLover Jul 7, 2017 1:21 PM
When will the "McCain" mindset toward Russia end? That being, if we win they lose and vice versa. Why the US and Russia could not/should not team up to stand against China and both win? We have so much more with the Russians as a people than we do with the Chinese, as do they.

Herd Redirectio... order66 Jul 7, 2017 1:32 PM

One of those forgotten episodes of history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_the_American_Revolution BTW, order66, Russia has been ruled by 'dictators' for about 700 years. I'd say Putin has another 10 to 12 years left in his rule of Russia.
seataka order66 Jul 7, 2017 1:32 PM
when the US deep state has been neutered ???
CheapBastard jm Jul 7, 2017 2:35 PM
When will Putin return my TV remote they stole during the election?

[Jul 06, 2017] These hacking claims, or any other claims for that matter is spread by deep state in relations with western media that in turn spread this disinformation to western readers equal money and support for the military-industrial thugs.

Notable quotes:
"... These hacking claims, or any other claims for that matter is spread by deep state in relations with western media that in turn spread this disinformation to western readers = money and support for the military-industrial thugs. ..."
"... Racism against Russia ..."
Jul 06, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 | Jul 6, 2017 5:03:37 PM | 31

Since the promotion of Big Lies is at the foundation of Fake News, I was just reminded of an oldie-but-goodie:

"In this spring of 1953 the free world weighs one question above all others: the chance for a just peace for all peoples.

"The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.

"First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

"Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.

"Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.

"Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

"And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.

"In the light of these principles the citizens of the United States defined the way they proposed to follow, through the aftermath of war, toward true peace".
Dwight David Eisenhower - Chance for Peace speech, http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/speeches/19530416%20Chance%20for%20Peace.htm

Ike's actions at the moment he uttered those words made them a mockery as did his later behavior. But the Big Lie was aimed at the domestic audience, to cover-up the depravity already committed and that which would be soon to follow.

tommy | Jul 6, 2017 12:14:22 PM | 9
2 reason

1. These hacking claims, or any other claims for that matter is spread by deep state in relations with western media that in turn spread this disinformation to western readers = money and support for the military-industrial thugs.
2. Racism against Russia

What we see is psyops carried out daily.

[Jul 05, 2017] War As Foreign Policy by Lois Danks

War is the health of neoliberal state...
Notable quotes:
"... Capitalism's best solution is the self-perpetuating armaments industry. The weapon makers, think tanks and contractors that service the Pentagon and spy agencies, together with the Wall Street banks who make high-interest loans to fund wars, thrive under a foreign policy of deadly conflict. ..."
"... Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly called this "the madness of militarization." Instead of spending on infrastructure and human services for the populace, our rulers promote war - to sound patriotic as they pocket the profits. ..."
"... The new president's war strikes are no different from those of other presidents since 9/11. But his practice of allowing the Pentagon to decide troop deployments, while keeping the White House, Congress and the public in the dark about military actions and civilian casualty numbers, is an escalation of the unchecked, undemocratic use of executive power. ..."
"... The threat of peace. The presumption of endless war by many is not surprising, because it's what this country has settled into. Trump's so-called foreign policy has no intention of ending conflicts and gaining peace. An end to hostilities would drastically damage U.S. capitalism. ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - Trump started his presidency off with an explosion! Several of them in fact - bombing Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles costing $93 million taxpayer dollars; using the Mother of all Bombs in Afghanistan; striking homes with drones in Yemen; bombing civilians and aid workers in Iraq; sending more troops to Somalia; and threatening to nuke North Korea! Some have actually said it makes him more "presidential."

Actually, this is not abnormal behavior for the USA. Trump inherited at least seven ongoing conflicts from Presidents Obama and G.W. Bush. The United States has been fighting in Afghanistan for 15 years, ever since 9/11, under both Democratic and Republican rule. Over 660,000 Afghans have been displaced. Nearly 12,000 civilians died in 2016. The U.S. pours close to $611 billion a year into its budget for weapons, equipment, soldiers and contractors, far more than any other country. It amounts to 36 percent of all global spending on "defense."

Economic distress. The worn-out, 500-year-old system of capitalism is everywhere scrambling to revive disappearing markets and hang on to threatened wealth of the very few. This creates fierce competition between major and minor imperialist powers and their pet regimes - competition that means nothing less than war. For war is the ultimate profit machine, creator of very few winners and masses of losers.

Capitalism's best solution is the self-perpetuating armaments industry. The weapon makers, think tanks and contractors that service the Pentagon and spy agencies, together with the Wall Street banks who make high-interest loans to fund wars, thrive under a foreign policy of deadly conflict. They produce things that are immediately destroyed when used, and that creates demand for more of the same.

Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly called this "the madness of militarization." Instead of spending on infrastructure and human services for the populace, our rulers promote war - to sound patriotic as they pocket the profits.

The underlying reason for economic and political instability, especially in the Middle East but also in the U.S. and everywhere else, is that capitalism no longer works and cannot survive on egalitarian principles. Revolutionary impulses against massive poverty, austerity, and repression are not going to go away. So it makes sense that militarism is top of the agenda for today's rulers.

Pentagon handed power. Trump has appointed many war generals to top positions in government and the National Security Council. Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, Marine Gen. John Kelly, and Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster have been heavily involved in nonstop, unsuccessful military conflicts for decades.

Yet Trump has authorized them to bomb whomever, wherever, and however they please, no matter the civilian casualties and chilling nuclear aspects. He has removed executive and legislative branch constraints on his favorite generals, in violation of a fundamental tenet of the Constitution - civilian control of the military.

As more and more troops are sent to Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and other "unnamed" countries, and Trump threatens North Korea, he is expanding the war machine. North Korea has been asking for a peace treaty with Washington and Seoul for 64 years but has been flatly refused. Now U.S. bases, ships and missile sites surround the area and provocative war games take place off the Korean coast every year. And the North Koreans continue to build weapons to defend themselves.

The new president's war strikes are no different from those of other presidents since 9/11. But his practice of allowing the Pentagon to decide troop deployments, while keeping the White House, Congress and the public in the dark about military actions and civilian casualty numbers, is an escalation of the unchecked, undemocratic use of executive power.

The threat of peace. The presumption of endless war by many is not surprising, because it's what this country has settled into. Trump's so-called foreign policy has no intention of ending conflicts and gaining peace. An end to hostilities would drastically damage U.S. capitalism.

Permanent conflict between those who exploit and those who rise up against repression and poverty will only be solved when the profit system is widely condemned and overturned.

Send feedback to the author at: [email protected] .

This article was first published by FSP

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

vincenr · 4 days ago

This is the punch line. This is where all the neo-conniving AIPAC slime monkeys have gotten us, a bankrupt nation! No viability! How would you like to be Netanyahu and start to realize your big bully boy Goliath just lost his other eye? You would be in a pickle as soon as everyone realizes your predicament. No subsidies to buy the expensive parts for your air force. AIPAC unable to sway anyone to do anything on your behalf . Now an experienced seriously battle hardened Hezbollah, backed by a similarly hardened SAA, on your southern border; all with new armaments. Oh boy the sleepless nights are just starting.
Guest99 · 4 days ago
Without wars, without all these big fake 'existential threats', the U.S. would have collapsed long ago.

The purpose of these wars are twofold. First and foremost, maintain the paramount prosperity of the military and the armament industry. Second, create victims for blame of America's troubles. The more the troubles, the more the enemies.

Today, the U.S. has the most enemy of any country in the world. This is why Trump gave war powers to his generals. Need more. Is there such a thing as a bubble for enemy?

maninhavana · 4 days ago
The problem is too many people are making a good living out of the system to jeopardise their fat pay cheques. Look at the millions working in academia , the surveillance,cops, prison and armament industries, the UN and EU apparatchiks and the thousands of secretaries and Armani suit sellers...all making big bucks. Even the CEO of Exxon ( no dummy obviously) must know what we know, that he is ruining the world for his grandchildren, says nothing.
Don't rock the boat just spew over the side and keep rowing is the ... I hate this word but it fits... meme.
DrS · 4 days ago
The Khazars will take down America.

Make no mistake, it has been their intention from the beginning.

tom anocu · 4 days ago
A brain rot destroying the social fabric of ameri3Ka. Has to be a pathology that comes with mother's milk to accept the bombing and death of millions and war, war, war after war. The worst part is people are helpless to do anything about it. It takes SACRIFICING time and body if necessary. Shutting the whole place down por days, weeks or months. Whatever it takes. People CAN stop wars, especially if they are the aggressors.
anon · 4 days ago
i'm authorizing all nations to bomb the united states for their war mongering crimes, if the people of the US wont stop their govt then the rest of the world must do it..
Schlόter 91p · 3 days ago
At the core of all this is the Fascism of the US Neocon Power Elite!
"A Reminder: Neocon Think Tanks and Fascism": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/a-remin...
Felix · 3 days ago
Thanks for the clip on Illinois budget issues. Since Reagan the US has been closely following the guide book for becoming a failed country. A handful of privileged folks take all the money and everyone else lives in poverty.
stan van houcke · 3 days ago
'War As Foreign Policy' This has been the case for 93 percent of the u.s. history. only 17 years since 1776 the u.s. had no war. why would this be?
barbara mullin · 3 days ago
Where would American be today, if Harry Truman hadn't reigned in General MacArthur who wanted to attack China?
dead vulcan zombie · 3 days ago
Hmm... actually, from what i recall, Trump didn't want to just keep the wars going, until after he was blackmailed by the lies which became "Russia-gate".

Upon retrospection, now that the NY times has retracted what they said about Russia-gate, it would appear that the liars behind it got what they wanted: another president committed to subordinating himself to the war-profiteering, psychopathic vampires and vultures behind the secret government.

The Trump presidency has made it all very clear who are behind the Federal government: "secret government" executives (who love to play dictators) and war-profiteers (vampires and vultures).

Jean-Louis · 2 days ago
War making is a big business. Billions upon billions are spent filling weapon manufacturing and world peace does nothing to promote war apparatus. I*n the hard news section of ICH, notice that 678 people were killed by war machinery yesterday, and that's only the tip of the iceberg as most war deaths from all the world's military are mostly kept out of the news. But most importantly, those deaths cannot forever be kept at bay in a world that is always shrinking. One day, it is my contention, as well as that of other more well-known prognosticators, that those who fight by their sword will die by their sword. Even though I am personally as agnostic as it gets, some of hose bible passages sure seem to hi the nails on the head.
joeanybody · 2 days ago
Smedley Butler called this one over eighty years ago with War Is A Racket. The biggest difference is that today the weapons are much deadlier.
maricia · 1 day ago
The rich wage wars
The poor go to die
doug · 1 day ago
The world needs hospitals, schools and clinics not more military destruction.
Rusti · 22 hours ago
See:- '''JFK to 911, Everything Is a Rich Man's Trick''', a Stunning article exposing the anti-communist motive behind the Banksters' & Billionaires' support for & creation of Hitler, Nazis , & Al CIA da terrorists & fascists around the world.
Rusti · 22 hours ago
See:-'''Blackshirts & Reds, Michael Parenti''' , ,'''The Real Causes of WW-2, Parenti''' , ,''' "Left" Anti-communism, the Unkindest Cut''', ,''' "Left" Conspiracy Phobia, Parenti'''
Rusti · 21 hours ago
See:-'''Script-Top 10 Staged Media Events''', ,'''Operation Mockingbird:- the Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA'''
Rusti · 2 hours ago
See:-'''Fascist Birch Society & Its Billionaire H.L.Hunt's Complicity in Assassination of JFK'''.(Alex Jones & the infiltrated new host of The Power Hour are mouthpieces of the Birch Society which plants damage control articles on searches of itself.) See:-'''Fascist Birch Society Ties to Western Goals-Nazis, CIA, CNP, World Anti-Communist League Death Squads, Hunt, Koch & Pew Billionaires''' , ,'''Claire Conner, Birch Society Insider Whistleblower'''

[Jul 04, 2017] I Sure Hope That I am Wrong, But by saker

Notable quotes:
"... Missile Crisis. Not only are Russian and US servicemen now deployed in the same war zone (the Americans totally illegally), but unlike what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis we have a US President who terminally lacks the willpower to deal with the crazies on the US side, I am talking about the Neocons, of course. ..."
"... In fact, under Kennedy there were no real Neocons to tackle to begin with. Now they are running the White House ..."
"... Second, it is absolutely clear that the US Ziomedia and Congress will declare any, any, positive outcome from the meeting as "Trump caved in to Putin" and try to get a pound of political flesh out of Trump for it. So for Trump any external success will mean an internal disaster. And we already know that the man does not have what it takes to deal with such attacks. Frankly, his only "tactic", so to speak, to deal with the Neocons has been to try to appease them. So short of Trump asking for political asylum in Russia and joining Snowden somewhere in Russia, I don't see him ever taking any independent action. ..."
"... Third, if we look at the people around Trump it is pretty clear that the only intelligent and rational person in the White House is Rex Tillerson. The rest of them are lunatics, maniacs and imbeciles – the current US what shall I call it-"actions" (can't call it a "policy") towards Syria clearly prove that the Executive Branch is completely out of control. ..."
"... We now can clearly see that Mattis and McMaster are not these military geniuses presented to us by the Ziomedia but that, in fact, they are both phenomenally incompetent and that their views of the conflicts in Syria and even Afghanistan can only be characterized as totally lacking anything remotely resembling any kind of vision. ..."
"... For all his intelligence, Tillerson can't even rein in this Nikki idiot at the United Nations. ..."
"... Please don't buy this sanctions canard. The damage these sanctions could do they have already done. The simple truth is that Russia has already survived the sanctions and come out even stronger, this is confirmed by international organizations and by the private sector . In fact, removing the sanctions right now would hurt the Russian economy far more, especially the agricultural sector, which has greatly benefited from the de-facto protectionist protection provided to the Russian economy by these sanctions. ..."
"... Besides, since Congress and UN Nikki have made it pretty darn clear that sanctions will remain in place until Russia agrees to return Crimea to the Ukraine, nothing will change until the current Ukraine finally breaks into three or four parts. ..."
"... As for the Ukraine, the situation there is so bad that an increasing number of specialists are saying that even the US has lost control of Banderastan and that now it's going to be all about intra-Ukie power plays: the social, political, military, cultural and economic disaster has reached what I would call an "escape velocity" when the various processes taking place are basically chaotic, unpredictable and unmanageable. I am personally very dubious that the Americans would have anything to offer the Russians. ..."
Jul 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

First, we should all stop kidding ourselves, Russia and the USA do not have "disagreements". The sad and frightening reality is that we are now closer to war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not only are Russian and US servicemen now deployed in the same war zone (the Americans totally illegally), but unlike what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis we have a US President who terminally lacks the willpower to deal with the crazies on the US side, I am talking about the Neocons, of course.

In fact, under Kennedy there were no real Neocons to tackle to begin with. Now they are running the White House while Trump serves them coffee or watches TV in another room (I am joking of course, but just barely). In this context, to meet on the "sidelines" of a G20 conference is bordering on the criminally irresponsible. What the world would need is for Trump and Putin to meet in a "Camp David" like format for at least 3-5 days with all their key advisors and officials. Even if we assume 100% good will on both sides, meeting on the "sidelines" of an already big conference just won't make it possible to get anything done. In the very best of cases Lavrov and Tillerson could have done most of the hard work away from the public eye, but the truth is that the Russians say that so far the two sides have not even agreed upon an agenda.

Second, it is absolutely clear that the US Ziomedia and Congress will declare any, any, positive outcome from the meeting as "Trump caved in to Putin" and try to get a pound of political flesh out of Trump for it. So for Trump any external success will mean an internal disaster. And we already know that the man does not have what it takes to deal with such attacks. Frankly, his only "tactic", so to speak, to deal with the Neocons has been to try to appease them. So short of Trump asking for political asylum in Russia and joining Snowden somewhere in Russia, I don't see him ever taking any independent action.

Third, if we look at the people around Trump it is pretty clear that the only intelligent and rational person in the White House is Rex Tillerson. The rest of them are lunatics, maniacs and imbeciles – the current US what shall I call it-"actions" (can't call it a "policy") towards Syria clearly prove that the Executive Branch is completely out of control.

We now can clearly see that Mattis and McMaster are not these military geniuses presented to us by the Ziomedia but that, in fact, they are both phenomenally incompetent and that their views of the conflicts in Syria and even Afghanistan can only be characterized as totally lacking anything remotely resembling any kind of vision. Yet these two "geniuses" seem to be in charge.

For all his intelligence, Tillerson can't even rein in this Nikki idiot at the United Nations. We should stop kidding ourselves and stop pretending like there is anybody to talk to for the Russians. At best, they are dealing with a Kindergarten. At worst, they are dealing with an evil Kindergarten. But either way, there is nobody to talk to on the US side, much less so somebody to begin solving the many issues that need solving.

I will admit that I did have high hopes for Trump and his apparent willingness to sit down and have an adult conversation with the Russians. I was especially inspired by Trump's repeated rejection of the Ziomedia's narrative about Russia and by what appeared to me as his "no nonsense" approach towards getting things done. I wrote many articles for this blog saying that having hopes (not expectations!) for Trump was the right thing to do. And, frankly, I think that at the time it was. Last Fall I even wrote an entire chapter on this topic in the book " Russian Military Power 2017 " report. Since it is pretty well written, I actually recommend that you download and read it: it is a mix of pretty good information about the Russian Armed Forces and the garden variety nonsense about Russian hackers and their cyber-threat to US and its allies. Just set aside the clearly politically-induced nonsense and you are left with a rather well made summary of what the Russian Armed Forces are up to these days.

I have to thank the DIA for this report: it made me feel young again, like I was in the 1980s when all the students of warfare and of the Soviet military were reading these annual "Soviet Military Power" reports with great interest. But other than making some of us feel young, the real purpose of this document is clear and it is the very same one behind the Cold War era "Soviet Military Power" series: to justify an increase in "defense" (i.e. "aggression") spending by showing how scary these evil Commies/Russkies were/are.

This would all be rather funny, and nostalgic in a way, if it did not show the total lack of imagination of the folks at the Pentagon. Far from coming up with anything novel or interesting, they are bringing back into service stuff which for years had been collecting dust in the memories of now mostly retired Cold Warriors. It is rather pathetic, really.

Over the past 30 years or so, Russia went from being the Soviet Union, to being a Somalia-like "democratic hell" during the 1990s, to becoming a completely new entity – a "New Russia" which is dramatically different from the Soviet Union of the 1980s. In contrast, the US got completely stuck in its old patterns, except for this time they are "the same, but even worse". If the US did not have nukes that would almost be okay (after all, the world can let "Uncle Sam" slowly lose his sclerotic brain, who cares?) but when a nuclear superpower is acting like an out-of-control rogue state, this is very, very, scary.

So back to our G20 meeting again. The first thing which needs to be said is that Trump is weak, extremely weak: he goes in with the Ziomedia and Congress hating him and with a basically treacherous White House team clearly controlled by Pence, Kushner and the rest of the Neocon crazies. To make things worse, Trump can offer the Russians absolutely nothing they would want or need.

Please don't buy this sanctions canard. The damage these sanctions could do they have already done. The simple truth is that Russia has already survived the sanctions and come out even stronger, this is confirmed by international organizations and by the private sector . In fact, removing the sanctions right now would hurt the Russian economy far more, especially the agricultural sector, which has greatly benefited from the de-facto protectionist protection provided to the Russian economy by these sanctions. Likewise, the Russian defense industry has successfully adapted to the total severance by the Ukronazi regime of all the defense contracts with Russia and now 100% Russian military systems and parts are being produced in Russia at a cheaper price and of a higher quality. Besides, since Congress and UN Nikki have made it pretty darn clear that sanctions will remain in place until Russia agrees to return Crimea to the Ukraine, nothing will change until the current Ukraine finally breaks into three or four parts.

Trump could, in theory, offer the Russians to stop sabotaging the peace process in Syria and the Russians would surely welcome that. But since the US policy of illegal air and missile strikes combined with a deployment of US forces on the ground in Syria is failing anyway, see here and here , the Russians are going to get what they want whether the US wants it or not.

As for the Ukraine, the situation there is so bad that an increasing number of specialists are saying that even the US has lost control of Banderastan and that now it's going to be all about intra-Ukie power plays: the social, political, military, cultural and economic disaster has reached what I would call an "escape velocity" when the various processes taking place are basically chaotic, unpredictable and unmanageable. I am personally very dubious that the Americans would have anything to offer the Russians.

Mao Cheng Ji, July 3, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT

In Syria, the only problem the Pentagon has is no air superiority. Without air superiority the Pentagon is helpless. Russia could give them that, maybe partially at least, in some areas. And Ukraine - without regular cash infusions Kiev is dead. And that's what Trump could offer (maybe. He would have to grow some balls). And that's a possible deal.

Anatoly Karlin, Website July 3, 2017 at 8:30 pm GMT

Yes, this sounds about right.

Russia should use this window of opportunity to aggressively push its geopolitical interests, including in Ukraine (it is most assuredly not going to break "into three or four parts" by itself).

If Trump 2016 wins out, great. If the neocons fully reassert control, Russia is gonna get squeezed further regardless.

Dod, July 4, 2017 at 3:23 am GMT

I find it unsettling that someone whom I trusted can see "Nikki" as a person, with personal ideas. She doesn't recall her real name and her religion; how could she give a damn about whatever she spouts on orders from whoever is the object of her sycophancy?

fnn, July 4, 2017 at 5:23 am GMT

The real enemy of the US is domestic. Ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer thinks he is waging war against them with his tweets:

http://non-intervention.com/2789/pour-it-on-mr-trump-tweet-the-lying-bastards-and-bitches-straight-to-hell/

He may be giving Trump too much credit, but I'm in no position to judge. Nevertheless, we know who the consistent warmongers have been.

[Jul 04, 2017] Pour it on, Mr. Trump, tweet the lying bastards and bitches straight to hell by mike

Notable quotes:
"... President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters, and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists - the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them. ..."
"... Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security ..."
"... I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion. ..."
"... Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. ..."
"... Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman. ..."
"... Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman." ..."
"... When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika? ..."
"... Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch. ..."
Jul 01, 2017 | non-intervention.com
Pour it on, Mr. Trump, tweet the lying bastards and bitches straight to hell Posted on July 1, 2017 by mike

I have to admit that on most occasions President Trump's tweets make my day. Aside from the fact that the tweets are absolutely necessary for him to keep in touch with the voters who elected him, the tweets demonstrate that there are very few holies for him in a contemporary American society that is being overwhelmed and intellectually paralyzed with newly invented and utterly demented holies.

President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters, and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists - the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them.

Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security, as well as that of their womanish political protectors like Senator Shumer, Speaker Ryan, the Marxist moron Senator Sanders, Senator Graham., and the rest of the girly men who are so prominent in Congress. Nowadays, clowns like Mika and Joe throw rocks, and Trump, praise God, responds by throwing boulders that reduces these creatures, whose only skill is reading the news-scripts smarter people write, to a quivering state in which they whine and whimper about how unfairly the president is using the bully pulpit to attack them.

I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion.

Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. Mika and the noble steed she rides - I think his name is Joe––have been damning the president, his family members, anyone associated with him, and those who voted for him since long before last November's election. Trump now chooses to respond in kind, and ol' unhinged and stitched-up Mika is reduced to multiple on-air breakdowns, while the rest of those demanding "equality" in the public square rally to her defense because Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman.

Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman."

When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika?

But instead of these heroic, self-confident women serving as role models, we now have the great, brave, equality-seeking Mika, who is bent on being womanhood's role model, even while she acts as a clearly aging and cowering crybaby, and is now drowning in crocodile tears because Trump thoroughly thrashed her at own game.

Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch.

These three women are the Ms. Flotsam, Ms. Jetsam, and Grandma Detritus of a vast herd of child-like women, journalists, blacks, and minorities of all kinds who do not want equality in the public square - which requires courage, hard work, and a certain manliness - but rather want all the benefits that would accrue there to brave and well-balanced adults, while not recognizing the right of anyone they publicly hate, castigate, lie about, and dehumanize to respond in kind.

As Nathan Detroit, Sam Spade, or some other savant once said, "Dames is trouble", and, as I say, a whining bitch remains a whining bitch until she grows up and acts like a man.

[Jul 04, 2017] Mourn on the Fourth of July, 2017

Notable quotes:
"... When did the East Germans take over? ..."
"... You can't drive past the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue today. It was "temporarily" closed to motorized traffic after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and that closure was officially made permanent after 9/11. Seldom a week passes without breathless reports of a "security incident." Someone touched the White House fence (everyone panic!) or was shot to death by police after making a wrong turn or panicking at a random roadblock. Air Force One? You can still see it. On TV, anyway. ..."
Jul 04, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

I visited Washington, DC for the first time in 1980. I was 13. Jimmy Carter was the president.

My family only had one day to see the sights. As I remember it, we went through what seemed a somewhat sketchy neighborhood (I was a country boy, so it may have just been nerves about The Big City), turned onto Pennsylvania Avenue, and drove past the White House and Capitol before taking in selected bits of the Smithsonian and visiting Arlington National Cemetery. Then we proceeded to Andrews Air Force Base, where my brother was stationed, and just for fun drove past Air Force One.

I saw a lot of really neat stuff that day, but right now I'm thinking about the stuff I didn't see, or at least didn't notice.

I don't recall seeing a single police officer anywhere, although I'm sure I must have. The only man with a gun I noticed at Andrews was the gate guard, who checked my brother's ID and waved us through. Nobody seemed to give us a second glance as we passed within a few hundred feet of the president's plane. I don't recall any security checkpoints, barricades or traffic barriers along Pennsylvania Avenue, and I think I would have remembered those.

This was in the middle of the Iran hostage crisis and only a few months after the Unabomber's attack on American Airlines Flight 444 as it flew into DC from Chicago. Central America was in the throes of successful and unsuccessful revolutions and the US wasn't terribly popular there. Carter was preparing to re-institute draft registration in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And yet (aside from a surplus of marble monuments), Washington seemed on the whole to be a normal, American city.

When did the East Germans take over?

You can't drive past the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue today. It was "temporarily" closed to motorized traffic after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and that closure was officially made permanent after 9/11. Seldom a week passes without breathless reports of a "security incident." Someone touched the White House fence (everyone panic!) or was shot to death by police after making a wrong turn or panicking at a random roadblock. Air Force One? You can still see it. On TV, anyway.

You can still visit Washington, but if you plan to fly in, count on multiple instances of being required to show your papers and get felt up at the airports. My own kids can't remember a time without metal detectors, bag searches and dire warnings even at the entrances to such attractions as the Gateway Arch in St. Louis.

I guess every generation of adults feels like things have gone downhill since they were kids. But as someone a little too young to have understood Vietnam or Watergate and just exactly old enough to have exuberantly celebrated the nation's bicentennial, these days I find each 4th of July to surpass the last as an occasion for mourning an America that no longer exists.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

[Jul 04, 2017] Foisting Blame for Cyber-Hacking on Russia by Gareth Porter

Notable quotes:
"... Recent hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees reflected the rising tide of Russian-election-hacking hysteria and contributed further to it. Both Democrats and Republicans on the two committees appeared to share the alarmist assumptions about Russian hacking, and the officials who testified did nothing to discourage the politicians. ..."
"... The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a record of spreading false stories about alleged Russian hacking into US infrastructure , such as the tale of a Russian intrusion into the Burlington, Vermont electrical utility in December 2016 that DHS later admitted was untrue. There was another bogus DHS story about Russia hacking into a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
"... So, there's a pattern here. Plus, investigators, assessing the notion that Russia hacked into state electoral databases, rejected that suspicion as false months ago. Last September, Assistant Secretary of DHS for Cybersecurity Andy Ozment and state officials explained that the intrusions were not carried out by Russian intelligence but by criminal hackers seeking personal information to sell on the Internet. ..."
"... Illinois is the one state where hackers succeeded in breaking into a voter registration database last summer. The crucial fact about the Illinois hacking, however, was that the hackers extracted personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and that none of the information was expunged or altered. ..."
"... "Any time you more carefully monitor a system you're going to see more bad guys poking and prodding at it," he observed, " because they're always poking and prodding." [Emphasis added] ..."
"... Reagan further revealed that she had learned from the FBI that hackers had gotten a user name and password for their electoral database, and that it was being sold on the "dark web" – an encrypted network used by cyber criminals to buy and sell their wares. In fact, she said, the FBI told her that the probe of Arizona's database was the work of a "known hacker" who had been closely monitored "frequently." ..."
"... The sequence of events indicates that the main person behind the narrative of Russian hacking state election databases from the beginning was former FBI Director James Comey. In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, Comey suggested that the Russian government was behind efforts to penetrate voter databases, but never said so directly. ..."
"... The media then suddenly found unnamed sources ready to accuse Russia of hacking election data even while admitting that they lacked evidence. The day after Comey's testimony ABC headlined , "Russia Hacking Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrating 4." The story itself revealed, however, that it was merely a suspicion held by "knowledgeable" sources. ..."
"... But that claim of a "likely" link between the hackers and Russia was not only speculative but highly suspect. The authors of the DHS-ODNI report claimed the link was "supported by technical indicators from the US intelligence community, DHS, FBI, the private sector and other entities." They cited a list of hundreds of I.P. addresses and other such "indicators" used by hackers they called "Grizzly Steppe" who were supposedly linked to Russian intelligence. ..."
"... But the highly classified NSA report made no reference to any evidence supporting such an attribution. The absence of any hint of signals intelligence supporting its conclusion makes it clear that the NSA report was based on nothing more than the same kind of inconclusive "indicators" that had been used to establish the original narrative of Russians hacking electoral databases. ..."
"... Russian intelligence certainly has an interest in acquiring intelligence related to the likely outcome of American elections, but it would make no sense for Russia's spies to acquire personal voting information about 90,000 registered voters in Illinois. ..."
Jul 04, 2017 | original.antiwar.com
Cyber-criminal efforts to hack into U.S. government databases are epidemic, but this ugly reality is now being exploited to foist blame on Russia and fuel the New Cold War hysteria

Recent hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees reflected the rising tide of Russian-election-hacking hysteria and contributed further to it. Both Democrats and Republicans on the two committees appeared to share the alarmist assumptions about Russian hacking, and the officials who testified did nothing to discourage the politicians.

On June 21, Samuel Liles, acting director of the Intelligence and Analysis Office's Cyber Division at the Department of Homeland Security, and Jeanette Manfra, acting deputy under secretary for cyber-security and communications, provided the main story line for the day in testimony before the Senate committee - that efforts to hack into election databases had been found in 21 states.

Former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap also endorsed the narrative of Russian government responsibility for the intrusions on voter registration databases.

But none of those who testified offered any evidence to support this suspicion nor were they pushed to do so. And beneath the seemingly unanimous embrace of that narrative lies a very different story.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a record of spreading false stories about alleged Russian hacking into US infrastructure , such as the tale of a Russian intrusion into the Burlington, Vermont electrical utility in December 2016 that DHS later admitted was untrue. There was another bogus DHS story about Russia hacking into a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.

So, there's a pattern here. Plus, investigators, assessing the notion that Russia hacked into state electoral databases, rejected that suspicion as false months ago. Last September, Assistant Secretary of DHS for Cybersecurity Andy Ozment and state officials explained that the intrusions were not carried out by Russian intelligence but by criminal hackers seeking personal information to sell on the Internet.

Both Ozment and state officials responsible for the state databases revealed that those databases have been the object of attempted intrusions for years. The FBI provided information to at least one state official indicating that the culprits in the hacking of the state's voter registration database were cyber-criminals.

Illinois is the one state where hackers succeeded in breaking into a voter registration database last summer. The crucial fact about the Illinois hacking, however, was that the hackers extracted personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and that none of the information was expunged or altered.

The Actions of Cybercriminals

That was an obvious clue to the motive behind the hack. Assistant DHS Secretary Ozment testified before the House Subcommittee on Information Technology on Sept. 28 ( at 01:02.30 of the video ) that the apparent interest of the hackers in copying the data suggested that the hacking was "possibly for the purpose of selling personal information."

Ozment 's testimony provides the only credible motive for the large number of states found to have experienced what the intelligence community has called "scanning and probing" of computers to gain access to their electoral databases: the personal information involved – even e-mail addresses – is commercially valuable to the cybercriminal underworld.

That same testimony also explains why so many more states reported evidence of attempts to hack their electoral databases last summer and fall. After hackers had gone after the Illinois and Arizona databases, Ozment said, DHS had provided assistance to many states in detecting attempts to hack their voter registration and other databases.

"Any time you more carefully monitor a system you're going to see more bad guys poking and prodding at it," he observed, " because they're always poking and prodding." [Emphasis added]

State election officials have confirmed Ozment's observation. Ken Menzel, the general counsel for the Illinois Secretary of State, told this writer, "What's new about what happened last year is not that someone tried to get into our system but that they finally succeeded in getting in." Menzel said hackers "have been trying constantly to get into it since 2006."

And it's not just state voter registration databases that cybercriminals are after, according to Menzel. "Every governmental data base – driver's licenses, health care, you name it – has people trying to get into it," he said.

Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan told Mother Jones that her I.T. specialists had detected 193,000 distinct attempts to get into the state's website in September 2016 alone and 11,000 appeared to be trying to "do harm."

Reagan further revealed that she had learned from the FBI that hackers had gotten a user name and password for their electoral database, and that it was being sold on the "dark web" – an encrypted network used by cyber criminals to buy and sell their wares. In fact, she said, the FBI told her that the probe of Arizona's database was the work of a "known hacker" who had been closely monitored "frequently."

James Comey's Role

The sequence of events indicates that the main person behind the narrative of Russian hacking state election databases from the beginning was former FBI Director James Comey. In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, Comey suggested that the Russian government was behind efforts to penetrate voter databases, but never said so directly.

Comey told the committee that FBI Counterintelligence was working to "understand just what mischief Russia is up to with regard to our elections." Then he referred to "a variety of scanning activities" and "attempted intrusions" into election-related computers "beyond what we knew about in July and August," encouraging the inference that it had been done by Russian agents.

The media then suddenly found unnamed sources ready to accuse Russia of hacking election data even while admitting that they lacked evidence. The day after Comey's testimony ABC headlined , "Russia Hacking Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrating 4." The story itself revealed, however, that it was merely a suspicion held by "knowledgeable" sources.

Similarly, NBC News headline announced, "Russians Hacked Two US Voter Databases, Officials Say." But those who actually read the story closely learned that in fact none of the unnamed sources it cited were actually attributing the hacking to the Russians.

It didn't take long for Democrats to turn the Comey teaser - and these anonymously sourced stories with misleading headlines about Russian database hacking - into an established fact. A few days later, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff declared that there was "no doubt" Russia was behind the hacks on state electoral databases.

On Oct. 7, DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement that they were "not in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian government." But only a few weeks later, DHS participated with FBI in issuing a "Joint Analysis Report" on "Russian malicious cyber activity" that did not refer directly to scanning and spearphishing aimed of state electoral databases but attributed all hacks related to the election to "actors likely associated with RIS [Russian Intelligence Services]."

Suspect Claims

But that claim of a "likely" link between the hackers and Russia was not only speculative but highly suspect. The authors of the DHS-ODNI report claimed the link was "supported by technical indicators from the US intelligence community, DHS, FBI, the private sector and other entities." They cited a list of hundreds of I.P. addresses and other such "indicators" used by hackers they called "Grizzly Steppe" who were supposedly linked to Russian intelligence.

But as I reported last January, the staff of Dragos Security, whose CEO Rob Lee, had been the architect of a US government system for defense against cyber attack, pointed out that the vast majority of those indicators would certainly have produced "false positives."

Then, on Jan. 6 came the "intelligence community assessment" – produced by selected analysts from CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and devoted almost entirely to the hacking of e-mail of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. But it included a statement that "Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple state or local election boards." Still, no evidence was evinced on this alleged link between the hackers and Russian intelligence.

Over the following months, the narrative of hacked voter registration databases receded into the background as the drumbeat of media accounts about contacts between figures associated with the Trump campaign and Russians built to a crescendo, albeit without any actual evidence of collusion regarding the e-mail disclosures.

But a June 5 story brought the voter-data story back into the headlines. The story, published by The Intercept, accepted at face value an NSA report dated May 5, 2017 , that asserted Russia's military intelligence agency, the GRU, had carried out a spear-phishing attack on a US company providing election-related software and had sent e-mails with a malware-carrying word document to 122 addresses believed to be local government organizations.

But the highly classified NSA report made no reference to any evidence supporting such an attribution. The absence of any hint of signals intelligence supporting its conclusion makes it clear that the NSA report was based on nothing more than the same kind of inconclusive "indicators" that had been used to establish the original narrative of Russians hacking electoral databases.

A Checkered History

So, the history of the US government's claim that Russian intelligence hacked into election databases reveals it to be a clear case of politically motivated analysis by the DHS and the Intelligence Community. Not only was the claim based on nothing more than inherently inconclusive technical indicators but no credible motive for Russian intelligence wanting personal information on registered voters was ever suggested.

Russian intelligence certainly has an interest in acquiring intelligence related to the likely outcome of American elections, but it would make no sense for Russia's spies to acquire personal voting information about 90,000 registered voters in Illinois.

When FBI Counterintelligence chief Priestap was asked at the June 21 hearing how Moscow might use such personal data, his tortured effort at an explanation clearly indicated that he was totally unprepared to answer the question.

"They took the data to understand what it consisted of," said Priestap, "so they can affect better understanding and plan accordingly in regards to possibly impacting future election by knowing what is there and studying it."

In contrast to that befuddled non-explanation, there is highly credible evidence that the FBI was well aware that the actual hackers in the cases of both Illinois and Arizona were motivated by the hope of personal gain.

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at [email protected] . Reprinted from Consortium News with the author's permission.

Read more by Gareth Porter Why Afghanistan? Fighting a War for the War System Itself – June 13th, 2017 The Kissinger Backchannel to Moscow – June 4th, 2017 Will Trump Agree to the Pentagon's Permanent War in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria? – May 14th, 2017 US 'Deep State' Sold Out Counter-Terrorism To Keep Itself in Business – April 23rd, 2017 New Revelations Belie Trump Claims on Syria Chemical Attack – April 14th, 2017

View all posts by Gareth Porter

[Jul 03, 2017] Trump May Already Be Blundering into the Next Middle East War by Jim Lobe

Tweet first, think later President...
Notable quotes:
"... After all, MbS has risen in influence in Saudi Arabia largely because of his pet foreign policy project, the war in Yemen, which, according to the latest reports, hasn't been going particularly well (unless his original idea was to completely destroy the Arab world's poorest country). He now finds himself in a very difficult spot. ..."
"... Moreover, the Saudi king just elevated the hyper-ambitious MbS to crown prince overnight, placing him next in line in the royal succession. Like Trump, the 31-year-old is falling upward more through sheer audacity than palpable successes. Unless in his new exalted position he can somehow still impose his will on Qatar - an increasingly doubtful prospect in the absence of U.S. and Western diplomatic support - MbS looks ever more like a two-time loser (in Trumpspeak), and an extremely reckless one at that. And that perception makes him even more dangerous under the circumstances. ..."
"... Tehran was also deeply offended by Trump's shocking reaction to the June 7 terrorist attack and further taken aback by Tillerson's statement of support for a "peaceful transition" of government in Iran one week later. These statements no doubt served to strengthen hardliners in Tehran who already believe the worst about U.S. intentions as well as those of its regional allies. ..."
"... At a moment of crisis a half a world away, Trump may actually welcome some serious fireworks as a useful diversion from his deepening political and legal problems at home. After all, those missiles strikes in Syria back in April gave him something of a reprieve, at least for a few days. ..."
"... Given the latest head-spinning twist in Washington's reaction to the KSA/UAE-led Qatar quarantine, it seems quite reasonable to ask how key Iranian policymakers will know who's running policy in the White House when it's faced with an incident that escalates quickly, and the Saudis, Emiratis, and Sheldon Adelson are on the phone insisting that Trump's manhood is on the line? The likelihood of miscalculation by one or more of the major players is virtually certain. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | fpif.org
Almost as shocked as Secretaries Mattis and Tillerson and National Security Adviser McMaster must have been when they first heard about Trump's tweets. Here's what the State Department spokesperson - to the extent you believe she speaks for the "administration" - said about Riyadh's and Abu Dhabi's action:
Now that it has been more than two weeks since the embargo started, we are mystified that the Gulf States have not released to the public, nor to the Qataris, the details about the claims that they are making toward Qatar. The more that time goes by the more doubt is raised about the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

At this point we are left with one simple question: were the actions really about their concerns regarding Qatar's alleged support for terrorism or were they about the long, simmering grievances between and among the GCC countries?

(Oh, snap.)

Assuming the State Department really speaks for the US government, this rather stunning statement begs a host of rather critical questions. How exactly did the Saudis and their allies come to think that Washington would support them? Who exactly gave them that impression and under what circumstances? Or are Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) and UAE Crown Prince (and apparent MbS mentor) Mohammed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (MbZ) so deluded or hubristic that they just assumed that Washington, including the Pentagon, was on board with this?

And, if so, how prone to miscalculation are they in this moment of sky-high regional tensions?

After all, MbS has risen in influence in Saudi Arabia largely because of his pet foreign policy project, the war in Yemen, which, according to the latest reports, hasn't been going particularly well (unless his original idea was to completely destroy the Arab world's poorest country). He now finds himself in a very difficult spot.

Moreover, the Saudi king just elevated the hyper-ambitious MbS to crown prince overnight, placing him next in line in the royal succession. Like Trump, the 31-year-old is falling upward more through sheer audacity than palpable successes. Unless in his new exalted position he can somehow still impose his will on Qatar - an increasingly doubtful prospect in the absence of U.S. and Western diplomatic support - MbS looks ever more like a two-time loser (in Trumpspeak), and an extremely reckless one at that. And that perception makes him even more dangerous under the circumstances.

Meanwhile in Iran

How is all this perceived in Tehran, where various competing factions may also be prone to miscalculation? What do they think U.S. policy is?

They know the Trump "administration" is united in its conviction that the Islamic Republic is irredeemably hostile to the U.S., but they also know there are degrees of difference among senior officials. Some White House officials reportedly favor "regime change" via covert action, and it was just a few days before the ISIS attack in Iran that it was disclosed that the CIA had picked Michael D'Andrea (aka The Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike), a particularly aggressive covert operator, to run the agency's Iran program.

Tehran was also deeply offended by Trump's shocking reaction to the June 7 terrorist attack and further taken aback by Tillerson's statement of support for a "peaceful transition" of government in Iran one week later. These statements no doubt served to strengthen hardliners in Tehran who already believe the worst about U.S. intentions as well as those of its regional allies.

At the same time, Tehran knows that top officials - notably Mattis (who appears to have been granted virtually unprecedented discretion in military decision-making) and McMaster - are keenly aware of the risks of getting dragged into a war with Iran (or becoming bogged down in Syria) even as they believe Washington should "push back" against Tehran's "malign" behavior in the region.

And then there's the commander-in-chief's own impulsiveness, ignorance, and macho pose. At a moment of crisis a half a world away, Trump may actually welcome some serious fireworks as a useful diversion from his deepening political and legal problems at home. After all, those missiles strikes in Syria back in April gave him something of a reprieve, at least for a few days.

Given the latest head-spinning twist in Washington's reaction to the KSA/UAE-led Qatar quarantine, it seems quite reasonable to ask how key Iranian policymakers will know who's running policy in the White House when it's faced with an incident that escalates quickly, and the Saudis, Emiratis, and Sheldon Adelson are on the phone insisting that Trump's manhood is on the line? The likelihood of miscalculation by one or more of the major players is virtually certain.

It's a very scary - but increasingly imaginable - prospect.

Jim Lobe served for some 30 years as the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for Inter Press Service and is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy and the influence of the neoconservative movement.

[Jul 03, 2017] What Would Putin Tell Trump by Israel Shamir

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected] ..."
"... The Unz Review ..."
"... If only it were that simple – there is giant invisible elephant sitting in on that meeting – ISRAEL. Of course Putin is telling the truth. ISIS can easily be defeated by both the US and Russia working together – it is almost done now. It is 100% up to Trump - more war or a return to a measure of peace? ..."
"... You gave the American illiterate clown too much credit, credit he certainly do not deserve. If you expect him to become a fully fledge statesman like the one-in-a-century Vladimir Putin, you'll be disappointed. ..."
"... Mistakes and stupid decisions, there are many but one of his "mistakes" stands out above all: Giving the Pentagram & CIA free hand to run the US's wars as they see fit. He have now reduced himself to being a mere porch chimp, like Obongo, for his white ziocon owners. I hope Russia have back-channels to these two rough institutions because they are going to need it ..."
"... I don't know what he would tell the boob , but he should say, "Enough of the adolescent attention seeking behavior, OK?" Note to author: There is entirely too much hagiography for the USA's leading buffoon. ..."
"... Israel, you darn well know that the US (US interests, American people) have zero to gain in the Eternal Wars in the Middle East, and that all the serial aggressions over there are all to benefit Israel. Duh! Including the demand that 'Assad must go', and for Syria to come apart so Israel can pick at the carcass. ..."
"... So for Putin to tell Trump what Trump already knows is silly. We all know that the wars are all to benefit Israel, and we all know that what menaces the planet and Russia and the people of the US is the harsh reality of the Z USA. - That Zionist Jews completely dominate our media and deepstate (Pentagon, NSA, CIA, etc..). ..."
"... Let's hope Trump has enough wisdom to recognise how deep this swamp really is before it swallows him. ..."
Jul 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

Russia has had no leader equal in stature and public support to Putin since Stalin – in a recent poll for the greatest personality in history, a plurality of Russians placed Putin and Stalin at the top, preceding Pushkin, the Russian poet who occupies a place safeguarded for Shakespeare in English hearts...

They are very, very different. Their biggest difference lies in experience. Putin has led his country for (more or less) 17 years; he learned the tricks and skills of the power game the hard way, from being a frontman for the seven Jewish bankers who privatized Russia in Nineties, to a fully independent autocrat comparable to the penultimate Russian Tsar Alexander III, or to Napoleon III. He is a wise ruler, in the Confucian way, forever hiding his steel will under a velvet glove; always modest, moderate, temperate, not given to a momentary abandon of passion. He is in full control of himself, and the Sages tell us this is the most difficult and sublime subject of control. He is also a responsible and reliable statesman; his word is as good as his bond: he kept the ridiculous promises he gave to Yeltsin's family. He is also very popular with his subjects.

... ... ..

However, both leaders are severely handicapped. Trump is handicapped by the poisonous campaign insinuating that he had been elected due to Russian interference and that he is in thrall to Russia; at any conclusion short of a military strike the New York Times and CNN will smirk that he surrendered the crown jewels. Putin is handicapped by the fact that Russia is weaker than the US in every way excepting Doomsday weaponry. Russia is surrounded by US military bases; the US military budget is ten times bigger than the Russian one. Putin has very little leeway to retreat and he is likely to respond in force to a provocation.

... ... ...

Russia is a good friend of Iran and Syria, and it does not interfere with our friendship with Israel. Israelis understand that for us they are a Taiwan, while the rest of the Middle East is a China. You can do the same: make peace and friendship with Syria and Iran, while retaining friendship of Israel. They will understand; perhaps they will whine for a while, but they will eventually find a new modus vivendi.

Before getting into a war, define your objectives. If you will do this regarding Syria, you'll see that you are getting into a war for the interests of the army command, for the interests of global banking and for Israeli interests. I'd respect these interests, they are perfectly legitimate, but they aren't your interests, they aren't interests of the American people.

Generals like wars, that is their occupation; they want more wars, a bigger part of budget, more promotions. But a good ruler commands his generals, he does not follow their command. I have sent home three quarters of my generals, and my popularity did not suffer. How come? I appointed a silly-looking non-professional guy for Secretary of Defence with the brief to slim down the Army. He did it and he got all the flak. At the end, I fired him and the Army loved me even more.

You will really prosper and you will be called the best president of all time, if you will slim down your military. Russia has had many bases abroad, from Cuba to Vietnam, from Aden to the Arctic North; we disbanded them all, and we did not regret it for a day. Bases are an expensive thing, and it is better to do without them.

You know, my generals beseeched me to send troops into the Ukraine, but I didn't. We'd better spend money on the improvement of our citizens' life. Now a few million of Ukrainians have voted with their feet: they moved to live and work in Russia, because our way of life is better than theirs. And bear in mind: the Ukraine had been the richest part of the USSR in the time of the Union's breakup in 1991. Now they are quite poor. It is better to improve the economy than to fight wars.

The global bankers also like wars. I respect their wishes, but I do not intend to oblige them. The Jews like wars, but it is not necessary to grant them every wish. The US has not a single real interest to fight for Syria or Ukraine. Or for Estonia. I can promise you: our tanks will not roll into the Baltic states, though they were a part and parcel of Russia for three hundred years. Just take away the NATO bases from our vicinity. If you won't we'll have to defend ourselves.

Nixon also made a U-turn on his policy towards Russia. Instead of confrontation, he chose dιtente.

.... ... ..

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

This article was first published at The Unz Review .

Art Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 5:18 am GMT

Putin to Trump: You can do a U-turn on the Middle East wars your country has carried on for too long. These wars are futile. Everything you want to obtain in Syria, you can have without shooting a single bullet, without sending a single soldier.

If only it were that simple – there is giant invisible elephant sitting in on that meeting – ISRAEL. Of course Putin is telling the truth. ISIS can easily be defeated by both the US and Russia working together – it is almost done now. It is 100% up to Trump - more war or a return to a measure of peace?

Was campaign Trump telling the truth when he said America First – no more wars? We shall find out soon!

Peace - Art

p.s. I think that Trump's future depends on it – his base will desert him if he chooses Israel over America.

mikh as Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 6:56 am GMT

You gave the American illiterate clown too much credit, credit he certainly do not deserve. If you expect him to become a fully fledge statesman like the one-in-a-century Vladimir Putin, you'll be disappointed.

Mistakes and stupid decisions, there are many but one of his "mistakes" stands out above all: Giving the Pentagram & CIA free hand to run the US's wars as they see fit. He have now reduced himself to being a mere porch chimp, like Obongo, for his white ziocon owners. I hope Russia have back-channels to these two rough institutions because they are going to need it

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 7:04 am GMT

Russia is not a great country, it even is not large.
As to being great, economically it is comparable to Spain.
Its 1600 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 70ties technology, is the only greatness, these missiles guarantee the independence of Russia.
Russia has ONE aircraft carrier, the USA has dozens, as far as I know.
The capacity to retaliate is in this world the only guarantee to stay independent, as N Korea makes abundantly clear these days.
Russia is not even geographically large, it seems large on most maps, the Mercator projection, that stretches the North Pole point infinitely.
On top of that, most of N Russia, Siberia, is uninhabitable.
Global warming may change this.

Diversity Heretic Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 7:37 am GMT

I guess my first reaction is that Richard Nixon had to resign under threat of impeachment. Not sure I want to end my presidency under similar circumstances. I'm also skeptical of the claim that Nixon set the basis for prosperity. Wage stagnation began in the early 1970s, during his administration.

Robert Magill Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 9:34 am GMT

Trump and Putin may agree on the biggest possible deal that will provide both countries, China and Japan as well, a radically different future. Details follow https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/the-art-of-the-deal/

G. Mayre Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 10:49 am GMT

Putin is the only leader in the world left stupid enough to take Trump seriously and have hopes for "cooperation", when everyone else – even the likes of Duterte – are dissing on him, just waiting it out patiently until his inevitable impeachment. Speaks volumes about the desperate situation Putin is in.

jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 11:57 am GMT

What Would Putin Tell Trump?

I don't know what he would tell the boob , but he should say, "Enough of the adolescent attention seeking behavior, OK?" Note to author: There is entirely too much hagiography for the USA's leading buffoon. He's a baby faced narcissistic punk who should be nowhere near the levers of power because he'll stoop to anything for a little attention. And another thing. This is entirely too melodramatic.:

The consequences can be joyous – or fatal.

Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT

Jun 3, 2017 Putin defends Trump – 'Don't worry, be happy'

President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement caused anger and anxiety across the world. But is there more than meet the eye? How many critics have actually read the agreement themselves – as President Putin rightfully points out? The agreement is a framework agreement with no particular obligations. There are no guidelines as to how resources should be spent, and the resources which the US ratified are quite substantial.

The Scalpel Website Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 1:20 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra "Russia is not even geographically large "

Well it is the largest country on earth. Or maybe you are saying with respect to Russia, "You bad!" as in "You are very, very good"

Z-man Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT

Trump is surrounded by open and hidden enemies, by people who pray for his failure. He is opposed by his own secret services, by the media, by his own party. His popularity isn't certain.

So true.

If Putin were to speak his mind freely to Trump, and it is not likely, as their conversation will certainly be bugged, recorded and leaked by the NSA to the hostile media, he'd tell him:

The points you make about the current state of the world and affairs between the two countries is mostly spot on if a bit utopian but Putin should tell him these things anyway and to hell with the power of the evil Cabal --

nickels Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 2:17 pm GMT

"Uh, well Volodya, let me go ask Ivanka and Jared, then I'll get back to you you know, Jared, he's a real smart guy. He's very smart, you know "

John Brown Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:03 pm GMT

"Lenin was very, very friendly to Jews; he had many Jewish colleagues, but he never allowed them to ride upon him." No, he just let them kill millions of Russian Christians. Small detail in history, of course.

Rurik Website Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

What does the US want to have in Syria? You name it, you can have it, and without war, without expenditure, without trouble. And I do not mean in a part of a broken and fragmented Syria under occupation, I mean one Syria, united and complete, with its capital Damascus, and its president Bashar al Assad. There is nothing within reason that President Assad would refuse you and I'll second his promise.

Israel, you darn well know that the US (US interests, American people) have zero to gain in the Eternal Wars in the Middle East, and that all the serial aggressions over there are all to benefit Israel. Duh! Including the demand that 'Assad must go', and for Syria to come apart so Israel can pick at the carcass.

So for Putin to tell Trump what Trump already knows is silly. We all know that the wars are all to benefit Israel, and we all know that what menaces the planet and Russia and the people of the US is the harsh reality of the Z USA. - That Zionist Jews completely dominate our media and deepstate (Pentagon, NSA, CIA, etc..).

So this is the dilemma that confronts Putin, Trump, and all people of good will on the planet.

What Putin should tell Trump is to look at what Putin managed to pull off with a nation also absolutely under the thrall of antagonistic Rothschild minions, and how Putin managed (heroically) to wrest power from them. Putin is trained in Judo, which involves using your op0nents own momentum against them. That's what he did with the Jewish Oligarchs, he mollified some with kindness, and he attacked the most dangerous ones directly, throwing them all off balance and making them wonder what the next move might be, since the one certainty you're dealing with- is their own, honed to absolute lasers' perfection; self-interest.

So far Trump hasn't sent troops into Syria or bombed Iran. Hasn't downed a Russian jet or done anything so stupid that there's no turning back. We all have a shred of hope that Trump might manage to pull off a Putin, but any advise Putin could give would be great.

However, you should not allow these wonderful people to ride upon you as upon a horse.

exactly, but you have to make it look like they are right up until the point that Khodorkovsky / John Podesta is arrested on child abuse charges (or some other high ranking chump) This will send shock waves though their power structure, and have them all scrambling to protect their own arses, even as they turn on each other.

Their power is top down, yours is grass-roots up. Use that president Trump, play them as if they're Judo opponents always coming at you, and also keep in mind their galactic egos and preternatural self-interest, and somehow we might meet in the middle and toast the redemption and deliverance of mankind from the devil itself.

Rurik Website Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT

please check out the lies being told as a pretext for a false flag chemical weapons attack on Syria. Putin, as usual speaks the plain truth, whereas the ZUS- as usual- speaks treacherous lies

Anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT

@nickels Haha. There's a lot of truth in it.

I like Trump and he was definitely not the Deep State candidate but his knowledge is limited which puts him in a precarious position. I can only imagine how much irradiated garbage – masked as the "Truth" – he's getting fed daily. A "friendly" establishment veteran, with an intricate, detailed story, can sound very authoritative to the inexperienced.

Let's hope Trump has enough wisdom to recognise how deep this swamp really is before it swallows him. If I were him, I'd plug everyone to a Voight-Kampff test and keep a herd of hungry pigs in the WH's basement.

1Rw Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 4:11 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra You are wrong on every point. The US has 11 aircraft carriers, not dozens. While it's still more than Russia, it shows your ignorance. Russia is the largest country in the world, regardless of the projection, and has people living throughout its territory, even above the Arctic Circle. It's missiles are. It '70s tech, it has in fact continued upgrading its missile forces, with Bulava, Yars, and Sarmat systems being their latest SLBM, road mobile ICBM, and heavy, silk launched ICBM.

As to its economy being comparable to Spain, when was the last time Spain
- built a spaceship
- launched a nuclear submarine?
- launched a nuclear icebreaker?
- commissioned a fast beeeder reactor?
- developed a modern fighter plane?
- built a passenger jet?

Russia has done all of this in the last decade or so.

Wally Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 4:24 pm GMT

@mikh as And the alternative was .. Hillary.

Hillary's bus being pushed

http://cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/content_60p/s3/woods4.jpg?itok=Z-tY9Coz

2010 Dems lost the House
2012 the Dems lost the Senate
2016 Dems lost the White House
The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state level during Obama's presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.

Wally Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra You're highly uninformed.

Russia's National Debt to Remain Lowest in Europe

http://www.russia-briefing.com/news/russias-national-debt-remain-lowest-europe.html/

Spain's national debt reaches highest level in over century

https://www.rt.com/business/356353-spain-debt-record-high/

NASA Data Proves Trump Right to Exit Paris Climate Accord

https://www.prisonplanet.com/nasa-data-proves-trump-right-to-exit-paris-climate-accord.html

'Global Warming' Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/delingpole-global-warming-is-myth-58-scientific-papers-2017/

To Put America First Is to Put Our Planet's Climate First

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/16/america-first-climate/

Legates et al. (2015), for example, found that only 0.3 percent of 11,944 peer-reviewed articles on climate and related topics, published during the 21 years of 1991 to 2011, had explicitly stated that recent warming was mostly man-made.

"In the last 20 years, we have released more than a third of all the CO2 produced since the beginning of the industrial period. Yet global mean surface temperature has remained essentially constant for 20 years, a fact that has been acknowledged by the IPCC, whose models failed to predict it. NOAA's State of the Climate report for 2008 said that periods of 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between prediction and observation – i.e., that the models were wrong. Just before the recent naturally occurring el Niρo event raised global temperature, there had been 18 years and 9 months without any global warming at all."

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT

@1Rw Thanks for informing me on the number of aircraft carriers.

Any globe can inform you that Russia is not large, especially not in land that can be used. On Spanish technical and military efforts, as it is already occupied by the USA it cannot defend itself against USA occupation, as Russia does.

Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 4:44 pm GMT

April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of Chemical Weapons. The Western media refutes their own lies

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2017/04/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons-prof-michel-chossudovsky/

Apr 9, 2017 No More

[Jul 03, 2017] Corporations fall for the lure of power no less than a political class, and are many times better at it! The idea that "the free market" will check their activities, promoted by Libertarians, is surely as naοve as anything any Marxist ever said.

Jul 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

For corporations, too, fall into this downward spiral. It has become easy to forget that the only truly effective checks on greed are moral in nature, and will be effective only if the greedy are convinced they answer to a Being infinitely more powerful than they are (and even then, incompletely). Mere political checks on corporate power can never work when corporations have the money to buy political classes. When civic morality collapses into I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you'll-scratch-mine utilitarianism, those at the helm of corporations see accumulation as natural and even expected.

Is this not neoliberalism in a nutshell? I've heard neoliberalism described as "capitalism with the gloves off" as it is blamed for the worsening wealth gap. An important difference between neoliberalism and its classical liberal ancestor, though, is that its ancestor did not arise within and had no necessary connection to secular materialism. The version of classical liberalism developed most famously by Frederic Bastiat (1801 – 1850) in his slim classic The Law (1849), offered a Christian economics. Classical liberalism is not inherently materialist. The implicit joining of the two has been a catastrophe for the developed world. Power centered in global corporations answering only to each other has become the final economic reality, money their primary instrument. The long-term result, having come to fullest fruition since the financial crisis of 2008, is the wealth gap: the accumulation, in the hands of a group small enough to fit into a university auditorium with room to spare, of more wealth than is possessed by the entire bottom half of the world's population!

Corporations fall for the lure of power no less than a political class, and are many times better at it! The idea that "the free market" will check their activities, promoted by Libertarians, is surely as naοve as anything any Marxist ever said. They become not merely "too big to fail" but beyond the control of abstract "economic logic" which is just the increasingly puny decisions, in aggregate, of the increasingly moneyless and powerless. Money, after all, is power in materialist global civilization, and if you don't have it, you're impotent. Moneylenders discovered this at the regional level in the late 1700s. Their descendants have been expanding on the basic idea ever since. Leftists are right to believe this is an important factor behind the present surge of "populism" and other manifestations of unrest all over the world - rebellions against an insular elite, loyal only to money, whose idea of "work" is moving investments around all day and tallying the profits, while undermining and destroying the autonomy of indigenous populations.

Beefcake the Mighty Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT

@Agent76 May 5, 2017 Hans-Hermann Hoppe: A World Without Theft

Dr. Hoppe's book 'The Economics and Ethics of Private Property' (mises.org/EEPP) is among the most important modern contributions to libertarian thought. Hoppe, like Rothbard, connects laissez-faire economics to normative libertarian theory with laserlike precision and inexorable logic.

https://youtu.be/D0DoeyI8YCI Outstanding, yes. If more libertarians were like Rothbard and Hoppe, they might provide a meaningful opposition movement. Instead they just offer a different brand of open borders lunacy and national suicide.

[Jul 03, 2017] War for Blair Mountain

Jul 03, 2017 | www.unz.com
Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:09 pm GMT

And where did Hitler worship get us?

Blonde hair blue eyed Waffen SS soldiers .I assume baptized Christian .being wasted by beautiful blonde haired Conservative Orthodox Christian Women Russian Snipers. This is what you will always get when you fall for the lies of the worshippers of Franco.

Hitler and Franco .enablers of the Mohammadan Gang Rape Army .Hitler's Waffen SS-Werhrmacht gang rape Army

Short tiny Andrew Anglin doesn't realize how much he has in common with the Jewish Antifas on a fundamental Level ..

War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT

History offers up important lessons for the Alt Right

There is a historic precedent for the Alt Right in US History:look no further than the late 19th-early 2oth Century US Labor Movement it was racially xenophobic .isolationist and economically progressive .The late 19th-early 2oth century Labor Movement gave us such wonderfull things such as The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act and the Sihk Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act .not bad!!!

And let's honest The Alt Right kiddie brigade that worships Hitler Franco Pinochet .also swims in the sewage of JFK and Ronnie Reagan worship two scoundrels who unleashed race-replacement immigration policy on The Historic Native Born White American Working Class..

[Jul 03, 2017] boots-on-the-ground report

Notable quotes:
"... To put it perhaps bluntly, neoconservatism serves the Washington war machine, where the prevailing idea of "American exceptionalism" is "liberal democracy" forced on a reluctant world at gunpoint. Mainstream Republicans have also promoted the dominance of neoconservatism's flipside which we mentioned earlier, neoliberalism. Neoliberal economics underwrites the global capitalist consensus, as its public intellectuals, the first of whom were Hayek and Milton Friedman (1912 – 2006), championed the unregulated market, rejected all forms of state-directed central planning (though they seemed okay with planning if corporations were doing it), lauded the privatization of public services (even prisons!), and recommended austerity to deal with public debt. Neoliberalism could be described by anyone who sought to do so as the triumph of the real Masters even if they'd never heard of Hegel: global-corporate CEOs able to buy political classes, tech billionaires often in bed with the deep state, hedge fund billionaires, corporate media pundits assuring us that all is well in the ship of state (or was until Trump got elected), Hollywood celebrities to keep us titillated and distracted, well-paid court economists and other court intellectuals to scold us against "populist" inclinations because, after all, There Is No Alternative! ..."
Jul 03, 2017 | www.stirjournal.com
and understand why working class whites voted so overwhelmingly for Trump. ( Note : that author was not supporting Trump and probably finds the alt-right horrifying.)

The alt-right, we should note, rejects the "movement" conservatism of the mainstream GOP as dead - compromised, intimidated, out of ideas, having no idea what it wants to conserve. For decades now mainstream Republicans have been walking gingerly around issues like affirmative action, because they are scared of their shadows of being called racists - a fact hardly lost on the Left. The result is a movement that has spent itself, and has little left to say. Think again of last year's GOP debates and how Trump owned them. Mainstream Republicans floundered helplessly in the face of his command of both mass media and social media. At the same time, one heard no new ideas at all from Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush or even Mitt Romney at one point. Mostly they just embarrassed themselves (and in the case of Bush, the original favorite of corporate insiders, wasted over $100 million in donor money).

Moreover, the bulk of GOP "satellite" institutions, the many "think tanks" (e.g., Heritage) and its major publications (e.g., National Review , Human Events , "conservative" syndicated columnists such as George Will, etc.), attacked Trump, but communicated no forward-looking path for the country. This was not lost on the alt-right.

The mainstream GOP has furthered not conservatism but neo conservatism. The differences are, uh, huge -- To put it perhaps bluntly, neoconservatism serves the Washington war machine, where the prevailing idea of "American exceptionalism" is "liberal democracy" forced on a reluctant world at gunpoint. Mainstream Republicans have also promoted the dominance of neoconservatism's flipside which we mentioned earlier, neoliberalism. Neoliberal economics underwrites the global capitalist consensus, as its public intellectuals, the first of whom were Hayek and Milton Friedman (1912 – 2006), championed the unregulated market, rejected all forms of state-directed central planning (though they seemed okay with planning if corporations were doing it), lauded the privatization of public services (even prisons!), and recommended austerity to deal with public debt. Neoliberalism could be described by anyone who sought to do so as the triumph of the real Masters even if they'd never heard of Hegel: global-corporate CEOs able to buy political classes, tech billionaires often in bed with the deep state, hedge fund billionaires, corporate media pundits assuring us that all is well in the ship of state (or was until Trump got elected), Hollywood celebrities to keep us titillated and distracted, well-paid court economists and other court intellectuals to scold us against "populist" inclinations because, after all, There Is No Alternative!

Against all this, the alt-right raises its fist and says, Hell No, We Won't Go! We demand our identity as white Americans, the right to preserve our own culture, and the right to live and associate with those of our choice!

So after all of this explication, why do I see the alt-right as an understandable and perhaps even justifiable response to our current situation, but otherwise at least partly wrongheaded, philosophically and culturally?

Recent history should help clarify matters. Generalized open borders policies born of a multiculturalist mindset do not result in stable mass societies. If they fail for a society of around 67 million people (roughly the population of France), then assuredly they won't work for one of over 325 million people (that of the U.S.). Such policies cannot work for those who do not consciously choose them, which is most people. The term the masses sounds derogatory. It need not be. It simply means the majority, those who are average , who go off experience and habit, whose lives are circumscribed by what affects them directly (family, work, church, filing a tax return once a year, etc.), who rarely think outside the boxes these supply, and who bring to the table the talents and skills they have, along with their individual hopes, dreams, fears, sweet spots, and pain points. They are often very good at what they've learned to do. Most can generally take care of themselves, so long as their lives are not disrupted by forces they neither understand nor can control. Most prefer the company of people like them, who think like them, who can relate to them, will trust them because they've known each other all their lives in some cases, and with whom they would be comfortable sharing a beer.

Interfere with these people, force them down paths not of their choosing, and barring the appearance of a Donald Trump you might not have a rebellion on your hands, but you will almost surely get slow but increasing dysfunction, as is the clearly the case with many working class white people who voted for Trump: the one population whose fortunes are shrinking along with their numbers, and whose tendencies toward chronic health problems, substance abuse, suicide, etc., are rising.

Other things being equal, I'd allow them (including those white people who find that the alt-right is making sense) to live as they see fit and be left alone. If they wish to separate, then let them separate. This is what the alt-right gets "right."

But before they depart I'd ask them: instead of rejecting just left-wing Hegelianism, why not reject the entire Hegelian paradigm? The embrace of right-wing Hegelianism is what the alt-right gets "wrong." The Master-Slave dichotomy may have seemed necessary, but never truly was. It was always an academic construct laid on top of a far more complex reality. Slave-consciousness may be overcome, in time, by self-reliance consciousness: a large frontage road alongside the Enlightenment superhighway of modernity, less traveled but fruitful for those who did. What is good and right about self-reliance consciousness is its absence of ethnic or gender specificity. White Europeans of various nationalities other than British chose it for decades when they came to the U.S. as immigrants with nothing but the shirts on their backs. They devoted themselves to the ways of their new home, learning English, and in many cases became successful business owners. Asians followed suit. They had a rougher ride, but also succeeded. Their children went on to earn doctorates in physics and engineering. "White privilege" did not stop them.

In American mass political culture, however, self-reliance was replaced by a sense of entitlement: government should take care of us . The Fabian-inspired New Deal has proven to have its dark side, this being chronic dependency on government (i.e., on taxpayers) and, in practice, has rendered ever more people vulnerable to being taken advantage of by predatory corporations (Big Insurance, Big Pharma). Obvious example: health care. One could write extensively on the dangers of too much comfort and convenience, especially for those who grow up immersed in it, absent any sense of the work that went into producing it. But that, too, is an essay for another day.

But just note in passing - and this is of crucial importance : before separating, one must consider that the price of separation and community self-determination in a world dominated by globalized power elites is self-reliance at a community level .

For example, speaking hypothetically, were a state or group of states to secede from the U.S. today, they would relinquish any right their people might have thought they had to Social Security, Medicare, and so on. Relinquishing these systems of dependency would be part of what they'd signed off on. What to put in place of those until they could transition back to self-reliance would become a major issue, and quickly!

Moreover, "populist" economics requires self-reliance because if "populists" are elected in a country, the economically powerful pull their investments and/or remove their operations, understandably fearful of the nationalization which happened in Chile when Salvador Allende was elected president in 1970. When a Hugo Chαvez becomes president in a Venezuela, the corporate movers and shakers pull out. What happens: the economy tanks. Jobs vanish. Distribution systems collapse. Goods become scarce; price inflation soars. The "populists" are blamed for the debacle.

Without self-reliance at both an individual and community level, especially after decades of living in a relatively advancing civilization, it is a given that one's standard of living will drop. Venezuela has learned this the hard way! In the real world, there are only two ways of maintaining a given standard of living. One is to depend on others to supply it. The other is to work to sustain it. One of these might be sustainable in the long run. The other is not. Readers who have followed me this far will be intelligent enough to discern which is which.

[Jul 02, 2017] Nikki Haley Wants Everyone to Know That She Finally Learned How to Read

Notable quotes:
"... didn't even know how to read? ..."
"... The Scorpion and the Frog ..."
Jul 02, 2017 | russia-insider.com

Nikki Haley is hooked on phonics - and bombing Iran

RI Staff 63 Haley presents book report to UN Security Council

Nikki Haley is widely considered to be the greatest diplomat to have ever lived. But did you know that up until just a few days ago, Nikki Haley didn't even know how to read?

Washington's rookie UN ambassador to the United Nations has been checkmating Russia for months, but last week she finally found the time to finish her first children's story, The Scorpion and the Frog , which tells the tale of two animal companions who are drone-bombed by the US military while attending a wedding in Afghanistan.

As you can probably imagine, Nikki is very proud of her accomplishment and wants to let everyone know that she read a story about animals and really, really enjoyed it.

But recently she's been yapping about frogs and scorpions at totally inappropriate times.

Nikki Haley literally can't stop talking about this dumb pop-up book that she read.

Even when she recites her daily prayers to Moloch at the Security Council, frog tales inevitable get added into the mix:

me title=

But as RT pointed out : "While the allusion might seem novel, it was actually used before in an op-ed by Chaim Shacham for the Miami Herald in 2015, titled 'Iran nuclear pact: Tale of the scorpion and the frog.'"

advertisement

https://lockerdome.com/lad/9533801169000550?pubid=ld-1806-5338&pubo=http%3A%2F%2Frussia-insider.com&width=731

That'll do, Nikki. That'll do.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Wvh5fFeRX5Q?wmode=transparent&jqoemcache=yraHB

advertisement

[Jul 01, 2017] Gaius Publius An Investigation in Search of a Crime by Gaius Publius

Notable quotes:
"... Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers, as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.) ..."
"... The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office and those they represent are sidelined. ..."
"... And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost? Because she could no longer deliver. ..."
"... Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our version of Gen. Pinochet. ..."
"... It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. ..."
"... No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to dump Democrats. ..."
"... as I keep reminding people, you can turn on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't. In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature death from alcoholism. ..."
"... One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that ..."
"... This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too. And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more. ..."
"... In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short summary: ..."
"... None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed. ..."
"... If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's actually a crime. ..."
"... Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years. Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug). ..."
"... Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests! ..."
"... This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff. It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip entirely. ..."
"... How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for their opponent. Or Was she ..."
"... OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see. ..."
"... For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source. ..."
"... As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said. ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
...Gaius quotes Matt Taibbi's line of thought that the relentless Trump investigations will eventually turn up something, most likely money laundering. However, it's not clear that that can be pinned on Trump. For real estate transactions, it is the bank, not the property owner, that is responsible for anti-money-laundering checks. So unless Trump was accepting cash or other payment outside the banking system, it's going to be hard to make that stick. The one area where he could be vulnerable is his casinos. However, if I read this history of his casinos correctly, Trump could have been pretty much out of that business since 1995 via putting the casinos in a public entity (although he could have continued to collect fees as a manager). Wikipedia hedges its bets and says Trump has been out of the picture since at least 2011 . He only gets licensing fees and has nada to do with management and operations. So even if Trump got dirty money, and in particular dirty Russian money, it's hard to see how that begins to translate into influence over his Presidency, particularly since any such shady activity took place before Trump was even semi-seriously considering a Presidential bid.

By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny

http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_hayes_drussiafakenews_170627

Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers, as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.)

"And most pitiful of all that I heard was the voice of the daughter of Priam, of Cassandra" - Homer, The Odyssey , Book 11 PRIAM: What noise, what shriek is this?
TROILUS: 'Tis our mad sister; I do know her voice.
It is Cassandra.
-Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida , Act II, scene 2 "I'll be your Cassandra this week." -Yours truly

So much of this story is hidden from view, and so much of the past has to be erased to conform to what's presently painted as true.

Example of the latter: Did you remember that Robert Mueller and Bush's FBI were behind the highly suspicious (and likely covered-up) 2001 anthrax investigation - Robert Mueller, today's man of absolute integrity? Did you remember that James Comey was the man behind the destruction of the mind of Jose Padilla , just so that Bush could have a terrorist he could point to having caught - James Comey, today's man of doing always what's right? If you forgot all that in the rush to canonize them, don't count on the media to remind you - they have another purpose .

Yes, I'll be your Cassandra this week, the one destined not to be believed . To what do I refer? Read on.

How Many Foreign Agents Register as Foreign Agents? A Number Far Smaller Than "All"

Today let's look at one of the original sins pointed to by those trying to take down Trump, leaving entirely aside whether Trump needs taking down (which he does). That sin - Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort's failing to register as "foreign agents" (of Turkey and Ukraine, respectively, not Russia) until very after the fact.

See the Chris Hayes video at the top for Hayes' question to Rep. Eric Swalwell about that. Hayes to Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" What Swalwell should have answered: "Almost forever by modern American practice."

Jonathan Marshall, writing at investigative journalist Robert Parry's Consortium News, has this to say about the current crop of unregistered foreign agents (my emphasis throughout):

The Open Secret of Foreign Lobbying

The alleged hacking of the Hillary Clinton campaign's emails and the numerous contacts of Donald Trump's circle with Russian officials, oligarchs and mobsters have triggered any number of investigations into Moscow's alleged efforts to influence the 2016 election and the new administration .

In contrast, as journalist Robert Parry recently noted , American politicians and the media have been notably silent about other examples of foreign interference in U.S. national politics. In part that's because supporters of more successful foreign pressure groups have enough clout to downplay or deny their very existence . In part it's also because America's political system is so riddled with big money that jaded insiders rarely question the status quo of influence peddling by other nations .

The subject of his discussion is the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Under the Act, failure to properly register carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines. Marshall notes that while the influence of foreign agents was of great national concern during World War I and World War II, very little is done today to require or enforce FARA registration:

Since the end of World War II, however, enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act has been notably lax. Its effectiveness has been stymied by political resistance from lobby supporters as well as by the law's many loopholes - including Justice Department's admission that FARA "does not authorize the government to inspect records of those not registered under the Act."

A 2016 audit by the inspector general of the Department of Justice determined that half of FARA registrations and 62 percent of initial registrations were filed late , and 15 percent of registrants simply stopped filing for periods of six months or more. It also determined that the Department of Justice brought only seven criminal cases under FARA from 1966 to 2015, and filed no civil injunctions since 1991 .

The result - almost no one registers who doesn't want to.

Here's Russia-savvy Matt Taibbi , who is looking at the whole Russia-Trump investigation and wonders what's being investigated. Note his comments about FARA at the end of this quote:

When James Comey was fired I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story is still hidden from view .

Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable, unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions in a crisis.

But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of the Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.

[So] What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence chiefs, if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.

Is it a FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) case involving former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn or a lower-level knucklehead like Carter Page?

Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities unless it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people in Washington who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged in "litigation support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis.

Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving someone higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely be improper – possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes – for Trump to get in the way of such a case playing itself out.

But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason . Gutting a money-laundering case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption than the cloak-and-dagger nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination.

Sticking narrowly with FARA for the moment, if this were just a FARA case, it would be more than "somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis." It would be, not to put to fine a point on it, highly indicative that something else is going on, that other hands are involved, just as the highly suspicious circumstances around the takedown of Eliot Spitzer indicate the presence of other hands and other actors.

My best guess, for what it's worth, is that Trump-Russia will devolve into a money-laundering case, and if it does, Trump will likely survive it, since so many others in the big money world do the same thing. But let's stick with unregistered foreign agents a bit longer.

John McCain, Randy Scheuneman and the Nation of Georgia

Do you remember the 2008 story about McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann, who claimed he no longer represented the nation of Georgia while advising the McCain campaign, even though his small (two-person) firm still retained their business?

And all this while McCain himself was trying to gin up a war between Georgia and Russia that he would benefit from politically :

In the current [2008] crisis, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia fell into a Soviet trap by moving troops into the disputed territory of South Ossetia and raining artillery and rocket fire on the South Ossetian capital city of Tskhinvali, with a still undetermined loss of civilian life. As in 1956, the Soviets responded with overwhelming force and additional loss of life. Once again the United States could offer only words, not concrete aid to the Georgians.

It is difficult to believe that, like the Hungarians in 1956, the Georgians in 2008 could have taken such action without believing that they could expect support from the United States . Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denies that the Bush administration was the agent provocateur in Georgia. To the contrary, a State Department source said that she explicitly warned President Saakashvili in July to avoid provoking Russia.

If this information is correct, then, by inference, John McCain emerges as the most likely suspect as agent provocateur . First, McCain had a unique and privileged pipeline to President Saakashvili (shown to the right in the photo to the right). McCain's top foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, was a partner in a two-man firm that served as a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government . Scheunemann continued receiving compensation from the firm until the McCain campaign imposed new restrictions on lobbyists in mid-May. Scheunemann reportedly helped arrange a telephone conversation between McCain and Saakashvili on April 17 of this year, while he was still being paid by Georgia...

McCain has benefited politically from the crisis in Georgia. McCain's swift and belligerent response to the Soviet actions in Georgia has bolstered his shaky standing with the right-wing of the Republican Party. McCain has also used the Georgian situation to assert his credentials as the hardened warrior ready to do battle against a resurgent Russia. He has pointedly contrasted his foreign policy experience with that of his Democratic opponent Barack Obama. Since the crisis erupted, McCain has focused like a laser on Georgia, to great effect . According to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released on August 19 he has gained four points on Obama since their last poll in mid-July and leads his rival by a two to one margin as the candidate best qualified to deal with Russia.

Was Scheunemann a paid lobbyist for Georgia at the time of these events? He says no. Others aren't so sure :

Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal-leaning watchdog group, said Scheunemann still has a conflict of interest because his small firm continues to represent foreign clients. The records that show Scheunemann ceased representing foreign countries as of March 1 also show his partner, Michael Mitchell, remains registered to represent the three nations. Mitchell said Tuesday that Scheunemann no longer has any role with Orion Strategies but declined to say whether Scheunemann still is receiving income or profits from the firm .

If almost no one registers under FARA who doesn't want to, what's the crime if Flynn didn't register? The answer seems to be, because he's Trump appointee Michael Flynn, and FARA is a stick his enemies can beat him with, while they're looking for something better.

The fact that FARA is a stick almost no one is beaten with, matters not at all, it seems. Not to Democratic politicians and appointees; and not to many journalists either.

An Investigation in Search of a Crime

Questioning the Michael Flynn investigation leads us (and Matt Taibbi) down a further rabbit hole, which includes two questions: what's being investigated, and how did this investigation start?

Short answer to the first question - no one knows, since unlike the Watergate break-in, this whole effort didn't start with a crime that needed investigating. It seems to have started with an investigation (how to get rid of Trump) in search of a crime. And one that still hasn't found evidence of one.

Journalist Robert Parry, who himself was a key Iran-Contra investigator, makes the same point :

In Watergate , five burglars were caught inside the DNC offices on June 17, 1972, as they sought to plant more bugs on Democratic phones. (An earlier break-in in May had installed two bugs, but one didn't work.) Nixon then proceeded to mount a cover-up of his 1972 campaign's role in funding the break-in and other abuses of power.

In Iran-Contra , Reagan secretly authorized weapons sales to Iran, which was then designated a terrorist state, without informing Congress, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. He also kept Congress in the dark about his belated signing of a related intelligence "finding." And the creation of slush funds to finance the Nicaraguan Contras represented an evasion of the U.S. Constitution.

There was also the attendant Iran-Contra cover-up mounted both by the Reagan White House and later the George H.W. Bush White House, which culminated in Bush's Christmas Eve 1992 pardons of six Iran-Contra defendants as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh was zeroing in on possible indictment of Bush for withholding evidence.

By contrast , Russia-gate has been a "scandal" in search of a specific crime. President Barack Obama's intelligence chieftains have alleged – without presenting any clear evidence – that the Russian government hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and released those emails via WikiLeaks and other Internet sites. (The Russians and WikiLeaks have both denied the accusations.)

The DNC emails revealed that senior Democrats did not maintain their required independence regarding the primaries by seeking to hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders and help Clinton. The Podesta emails pulled back the curtain on Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street banks and on pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

Hacking into personal computers is a crime, but the U.S. government has yet to bring any formal charges against specific individuals supposedly responsible for the hacking of the Democratic emails. There also has been no evidence that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russians in the hacking.

Lacking any precise evidence of this cyber-crime or of a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, Obama's Justice Department holdovers and now special prosecutor Robert Mueller have sought to build "process crimes," around false statements to investigators and possible obstruction of justice.

I've yet to see actual evidence of an underlying crime - lots of smoke, which is fine as a starting point, but no fire, even after months of looking (and months of official leaking about every damning thing in sight). This makes the current investigation strongly reminiscent of the Whitewater investigation, another case of Alice (sorry, Ken Starr) jumping into every hole she could find looking for a route to Wonderland. Ken Starr finally found one, perjury about a blow job. Will Mueller find something more incriminating? He's still looking too.

Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of . It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair to do to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)

What Was the Sally Yates Accusation Against Flynn Really About?

Short answer to the second question of my two "further rabbit hole" questions - How did this investigation start? - may be the Sally Yates accusation that Flynn was someone who could be blackmailed.

Here's Parry on that (same link):

In the case of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser, acting Attorney General Sally Yates used the archaic Logan Act of 1799 to create a predicate for the FBI to interrogate Flynn about a Dec. 29, 2016 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, i.e., after Trump's election but before the Inauguration .

Green Party leader Jill Stein and retired Lt. General Michael Flynn attending a dinner marking the RT network's 10-year anniversary in Moscow, December 2015, sitting at the same table as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Logan Act, which has never resulted in a prosecution in 218 years , was enacted during the period of the Alien and Sedition Acts to bar private citizens from negotiating on their own with foreign governments. It was never intended to apply to a national security adviser of an elected President, albeit before he was sworn in.

But it became the predicate for the FBI interrogation - and the FBI agents were armed with a transcript of the intercepted Kislyak-Flynn phone call so they could catch Flynn on any gaps in his recollection, which might have been made even hazier because he was on vacation in the Dominican Republic when Kislyak called.

Yates also concocted a bizarre argument that the discrepancies between Flynn's account of the call and the transcript left him open to Russian blackmail although how that would work – since the Russians surely assumed that Kislyak's calls would be monitored by U.S. intelligence and thus offered them no leverage with Flynn – was never explained.

Still, Flynn's failure to recount the phone call precisely and the controversy stirred up around it became the basis for an obstruction of justice investigation of Flynn and led to President Trump's firing Flynn on Feb. 13.

Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of . It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters.

"So Much of the Story Is Still Hidden From View"

I'm not taking Robert Parry as the final word on this, but he's one word on this, and his word isn't nothing. If we were looking down rabbit holes for the source of this investigation, for where all this anti-Trump action started, I don't think Yates' concerns are where it begins.

I think this story starts well before Trump took office , a rabbit hole I don't want to jump into yet, but one with John Brennan 's and James Clapper 's fingerprints - Obama's CIA director, Obama's DNI - all over it. Models of honesty all.

What's down that hole? Who knows.

What I do know is that Manafort and Flynn not registering as foreign agents puts them squarely in the mainstream of Washington political practice. The fact that these are suddenly crimes of the century makes me just a tad suspicious that, in Matt Taibbi's words, "so much of this story is still hidden from view."

I warned you - I'll be your Cassandra this week. crime

TomDority , June 30, 2017 at 6:50 am

I would think that a crime in search of an investigation would be Clinton's private server while at state and, the tie in thru the Clinton foundation .just saying.

The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office and those they represent are sidelined.

Ed , June 30, 2017 at 9:04 am

While some might think there is some tie in with donations to the Clinton Foundation and favors granted by the political wing of the Clinton Conglomerate and the sudden dissolution of said donations after the toppling of Dame Clinton by Der Trumpf it appears all such talk originates in the fever swamp of the right wing echo chamber and it's shot caller the GRU.

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 12:27 pm

Oh, what a load of bullcrap!

Present us evidence that the GRU has any influence, much less is the "shot-caller" with respect to the "right-wing echo chamber".

And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost? Because she could no longer deliver.

different clue , June 30, 2017 at 9:12 pm

I cannot tell if Ed's comment is straight or satire or snarcasm or what. The internet is a poor place to try such things.

I am going to take it as a straight comment. The Clintons have been grooming Chelsea for public office and will try desperately to get her elected to something somewhere. That way, they will still have influence to peddle and their Family of Foundations will still be worth something.

I hope Chelsea's wanna-have political career is strangled in the cradle. And hosed down with napalm and incinerated down to some windblown ashes.

Thor's Hammer , June 30, 2017 at 9:35 am

That investigation has been firmly crammed down the rabbit hole and cemented over.

If it had taken place in a nation where laws meant anything it would have likely disclosed:

Disturbed Voter , June 30, 2017 at 7:09 am

Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our version of Gen. Pinochet.

RenoDino , June 30, 2017 at 8:16 am

"None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of."

I guess this means, he needs to go, but not this way. This way is anti-democratic. But isn't that the point?

Carolinian , June 30, 2017 at 10:09 am

Did Obama "deserve getting rid of"? Oh heck yes. You pays your money and you makes your choice. Next chance: 2020.

Crazy Horse , June 30, 2017 at 12:57 pm

Since he won't be impeached, I assume Gaius meant Trump should be assassinated? In the USA every four years we have the opportunity to battle over the control of voting machine software, voter disqualification and hanging chads. But if we want to change Presidents in mid-stream the traditional method is to have them shot.

different clue , June 30, 2017 at 9:15 pm

It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. Let Trump be smeared all over their face and shoved way deep up their noses till 2020. And if the Clintonite scum give us another Clintonite nominee in 2020, then let Trump be elected all over again. I'll vote for that.

Alice X , June 30, 2017 at 8:17 am

As regards the 2008 Georgian situation discussed here, Russia seems to have been referred to as Soviet . Twice. This happened for some years in the '90s but it is rather late to do so these days. Maybe I misunderstood something?

Vatch , June 30, 2017 at 9:50 am

You did not misunderstand; yes, the author of that article was sloppy. He was switching back and forth between events of 1956 and 2008, and he failed to adequately proofread what he wrote about 2008.

Skip in DC , June 30, 2017 at 8:39 am

Gaius offers a realistic and well-put caution for Democrats and journalists taking their eye off the ball of the Mnuchin crowd.

I've a good friend who's exasperated when I utter such blasphemies, asking how I could have missed the constant swell of opinion by Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Meadow, etc

When I reply that prospects outside the courts of comedians and MSNBC infotainment pundits goosing their base are different – and I'm not so sure I'd prefer a less crass and crazed President Pence armed with Trumpster strategies – I'm asked "But what about justice?!!!"

Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to dump Democrats.

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 12:30 pm

The right-on set ask "What about justice?"

Hell, let's see some evidence before we proceed to the sentence and verdict.

TheCatSaid , June 30, 2017 at 2:51 pm

And let's apply the justice to everyone , not just the "enemy camp" of whoever happens to be speaking.

And let's apply justice to those at the top first. Only after cleaning out all the top, most privileged layers, then the layers beneath them, should justice be applied to those at the bottom socio-economic layers. IOW, the opposite of the strategy we've seen applied over most of our history in many or most places.

DJG , June 30, 2017 at 9:18 am

Yves Smith: Thanks for this. Astute observations. And as I keep reminding people, you can turn on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't. In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature death from alcoholism.

Hence the observation above in the posting that the rightwingers will pull out the same techniques if a Democrat wins the next election.

One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that

Crazy Horse , June 30, 2017 at 9:49 am

Perhaps we should look at the fairest electoral system in the world as a model. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=8935

I'm sure readers will be shocked to learn that the electoral system referred to is that used in Venezuela in 2012. And it will be the rare person who can distinguish between a superior system for conducting an election and a result that they don't like.

Stephen Douglas , June 30, 2017 at 10:09 am

Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of.

No. You didn't need to say it even once. Another interesting analysis utterly ruined by the writer's incessant feverish need to virtue signal himself as a Trump hater. Ugh!

You write an article chock-full of information clearly pointing to corruption, venality, un-democratic machinations, and still you feel the need to repeat over and over and over again that does not mean that you don't want to remove Trump. Remove him? Like how, Gaius? And why? Why not remove the people you write about in your article? Why not say 40 times you want to remove them. Undemocratically, of course. As you say in your article, be careful of how the talk about removing people one does not like.

You're a Cassandra alright. And methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Vatch , June 30, 2017 at 11:13 am

Here's another paragraph from the article:

Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of. It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair to do to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)

This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too. And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more.

In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short summary:

Scott Pruitt
Betsy DeVos
Jeff Sessions
Steven Mnuchin
Tom Price
Neil Gorsuch

There are other reasons, but that list should suffice for now.

Jay , June 30, 2017 at 11:10 am

None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed.

Furthermore, many of these writers appear to be unfamiliar with the case law governing the major features of the case. Yes, money laundering may be a part of the case and a financial blog may emphasize that aspect of the case because that's what they're familiar with, but what we're fundamentally looking at is possible violations of the Espionage Act, as well as the obstruction of justice by certain players to hide their involvement. Not a single one of these articles (or any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence that's right there out in the open, if you'd been following this as closely as I have. As much as I admire Gaius Publius and Matt Taibbi, and trust their reporting within their demonstrated and reliable competencies, neither have really written about intelligence activities in a thoroughgoing manner in order to be identified as journalists specializing in matters pertaining to intelligence, espionage, spies. Publius writes about political economy and Taibbi is as "Russia savvy" as your average Russian citizen; maybe less so. And being Russia savvy does not make you FSB savvy. Now if Sy Hersh wrote something about L'Affaire Russe, that would be worth seriously considering.

*I won't even address the seriousness or motives of the people on the right who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation. But it is curious for otherwise "GOP-savvy" lefties to align with people who spout Fox News talking points all the live long day, and who are wrong about everything, all the time, and not in a "broken clock tells correct time twice a day" sort of way.

lyman alpha blob , June 30, 2017 at 11:44 am

If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's actually a crime.

Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years. Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug).

shinola , June 30, 2017 at 2:12 pm

Just what makes Putin "the enemy"? Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests! and in other news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:45 am

> Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests!

This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff. It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip entirely.

NotTimothyGeithner , June 30, 2017 at 2:15 pm

"but we've been hearing new evidence on a daily and weekly basis. Mueller isn't going to show his hand until the investigation has concluded,"

Ah we've been hearing new evidence, but Mueller is simultaneously keeping it secret wait did you mean we've heard new innuendos?

Jay , June 30, 2017 at 6:33 pm

Mostly it's been gumshoe reporters getting interviews. No need for inside sources for this story: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/republican-claimed-flynn-tie-clinton-emails-article-1.3289348

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:51 am

This is the story where the main source is dead?

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:49 am

> Putin must be delighted to have a vainglorious ignoramus presiding over a US government paralyzed by division

How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for their opponent. Or Was she Putin's stooge? Perhaps the server she left open to the world for three months with no password provided the Russkis with some kompromat ? Really, there's as much evidence for that theory as anything else

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:55 am

> so must also likewise concede that there may be more there than you suppose

So either there's something there or there isn't. That does seem to exhaust the possibilities. If only Maddow, the Clintonites, whichever factions in the intelligence community that are driving the "drip, drip, drip" of stories, the Jeff Bezos Shopper, cable, and all the access journalists writing it all up would take such a balanced perspective .

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 12:34 pm

OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see.

Because secret squirrel counterintelligence. Ah, now I get it.

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 2:26 pm

We don't know who the leakers are. They're anonymous, but they willingly associate themselves with an intelligence community, the very organizations that commit perjury, that engage in torture, that do entrapment, all on a regular basis. Not to mention other crimes for which men have hung, such as gin up up evidence to drive this country towards aggressive war. So nothing to be suspicious of here.

These organizations have been leaking on a regular basis but they have not leaked evidence. That by itself is suspicious, since in a white collar crime case, a serial killer case, etc. we don't usually have a flood of anonymous leaks coming from supposed investigators.

Nor in a garden-variety criminal investigation do we have the suspect laid out in advance, and any leaks are intended to make the suspect guilty in the mind of the public, before charges or brought or a crime is determined.

ian , June 30, 2017 at 4:39 pm

For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:34 am

> name the leakers who have committed perjury, torture, and entrapment.

We can't. They're anonymous.

> Is everyone in the intelligence community a perjurer, a torturer, or engaged in entrapment?

No, just the leadership. Clapper (perjury), Mueller (entrapment), Brennan (torture). Those come to mind immediately; there are doubtless others.

WeakenedSquire , June 30, 2017 at 2:10 pm

Nope. Telling us prawns to wait until the evidence is in, or, worse, that only the specialists can be trusted, is one of the tactics of repression that the elite use while they are busy manufacturing and/or hiding said evidence. And surely by now we all know that "specialists" have no clothes.

different clue , June 30, 2017 at 9:21 pm

If you want serious analysis by seriously non-left people who have broken rocks in the quarry of intelligence, you can read Sic Semper Tyrannis. They have offered some hi-valu input on this whole "Putin diddit" deal.

They also offered some hi-valu input on the Hillary server matter. And Colonel Lang had a thing or three to say about the Clinton Family of Foundations . . . including a little-remarked-upon stealth-laundry-pipeline registered in Canada.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:35 am

Philip Giraldi at The American Conservative also does good work.

different clue , July 1, 2017 at 3:10 am

Philip Giraldi has also written guest-posts at Sic Semper Tyrannis from time to time. The name "Philip Giraldi' is one of the pickable subject-category names on the right side of the SST homepage.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:59 am

> Not a single one of these articles (or any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence that's right there out in the open, if you'd been following this as closely as I have.

OK, what is it?

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 12:19 pm

An investigation seeking to find evidence that a pre-selected target has commited a crime is I believe called a "witch hunt".

Byron the Light Bulb , June 30, 2017 at 1:48 pm

Or, you know, probable cause to investigate based on very public admissions. Production before a grand jury is secret under penalty of criminal prosecution. Once probable cause is affirmed, then the indictments will be under seal for what could be some time. I think it's probable that there may already be indictments against some of the players. DJT may already be a John Doe. The Fed GJ's in DC are three months long, the current one wrapping up third week of August [a guess based on past experience as a 3rd party]. Expect movement early this fall.

Yves Smith Post author , June 30, 2017 at 4:27 pm

As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said.

Nixon was a completely different case. There had been an actual crime, a break in. Archibald Cox was an special prosecutor appointed by Congress. Firing him raised Constitutional issues.

Jay , June 30, 2017 at 6:43 pm

You mean this Alan Dershowitz? http://abovethelaw.com/2016/11/alan-dershowitz-thinks-black-lives-matter-is-anti-semitic-sticks-up-for-steve-bannon/

witters , June 30, 2017 at 8:47 pm

Yes. And?

Katje Borgesius , July 1, 2017 at 12:38 am

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, read the complaint in "Kriss et al v. BayRock Group LLC et al" [ 1:10-cv-03959-LGS-DCF ] in NY Southern District. It's a RICO. It goes from the 46-story Trump SoHo condo-hotel on Spring Street to Iceland [?] and beyond. Then check out DJT's deposition in Trilogy Properties "LLC et al v. SB Hotel Associates LLC et al" [ 1:09cv21406 ] and his D&O doc production.

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.

Yves Smith Post author , July 1, 2017 at 12:49 am

Help me. This is the best you can do?

I've said repeatedly that people should stop hyperventilating about Trump and Russia and if anything should be bothered that he was in business with a crook, as in Felix Sater. I was on this long ago. Sater is Brighton Beach mafia. That means Jewish mafia, BTW; he worked Jewish connections overseas. He's not connected to anyone of any importance in Russia. No one with any sophistication would do business with a felon who turned state's evidence. Means he can't be trusted (by upstanding people, because he's a crook, and by crooks, because he sang like a canary).

Oh, and the former employees lost that suit.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:36 am

Or a fishing expedition.

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 2:28 pm

For "super secret" investigations, the investigators sure leak like sieves. I wonder why.

Lambert Strether , June 30, 2017 at 5:02 pm

On the latest one, " GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn ," unlocked at the WSJ, the main source, long-time Republican oppo researcher Peter W. Smith, left the land of the living on May 14 of this year, at the age of 81. So, on the up side, we've finally got a source with a name. On the down side, he's dead. Do better!

[Jul 01, 2017] Deception Inside Deception The Alleged Sarin Gas Attack by Paul Craig Roberts

Jun 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Seymour Hersh, America's most famous investigative reporter, has become persona non grata in the American Propaganda Ministry that poses as a news media but only serves to protect the US government's war lies. Among his many triumphs Hersh exposed the American My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib torture prison run by the Americans in Iraq. Today his investigative reports have to be published in the London Review of Books or in the German Media.

From Hersh's latest investigative report, we learn that President Trump makes war decisions by watching staged propaganda on TV. The White Helmets, a propaganda organization for jihadists and the "Syrian opposition," found a gullible reception from the Western media for photographs and videos of alleged victims of a Syrian Army sarin gas attack on civilians in Khan Sheikhoun. Trump saw the photos on TV and despite being assured by US intelligence that there was no Syrian sarin gas attack, ordered the US military to strike a Syrian base with Tomahawk missiles. Under international law this strike was a war crime, and it was the first direct aggression against Syria by the US which previously committed aggression via proxies called "the Syrian opposition."

Reporting on his sources, Hersh writes: "In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria's attack on Khan Sheikhoun. I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4."

The belief that sarin gas was involved in the attack comes from what appears to be a gas cloud. Hersh was informed by US military experts that sarin is oderless and invisible and makes no cloud. What appears to have happened is that the explosion from the air attack on ISIS caused a series of secondary explosions that produced a toxic cloud formed by fertilizers and chlorine disinfectants that were stored in the building that was hit.

US officials spoke with Hersh, because they are distrubed that President Trump based a war decision on TV propaganda and refused to listen to the detailed counter-assessments of his intelligence and military services. A national security source told Hersh: "Everyone close to him knows his proclivity for acting precipitously when he does not know the facts. He doesn't read anything and has no real historical knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He's a risk-taker. He can accept the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world, lives will be lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong. He was told we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says: 'Do it."'

Concerns about Trump's purely emotional reaction to TV propaganda persist. Hersh reports that a senior national security adviser told him: "The Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy" (the flare up of tensions between Syria, Russia and America). The issue is, what if there's another false flag sarin attack credited to hated Syria? Trump has upped the ante and painted himself into a corner with his decision to bomb. And do not think these guys are not planning the next faked attack. Trump will have no choice but to bomb again, and harder. He's incapable of saying he made a mistake."

As we know, the White House has already released a statement predicting that Assad is preparing another chemical attack, for which, the White House promises, he will "pay a heavy price." Clearly, a false flag attack is on the way. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/06/30/washington-new-threat-against-syria-russia-iran-invitation-false-flag-operation.html

By all means, read Hersh's report: https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html It reveals a president who makes precipitious decisions likely to cause a war with Russia.

I do not doubt Sy Hersh's integrity. I accept that he has accurately reported what he was told by US officials. My suspicions about this story do not have to do with Hersh. They have to do with what Hersh was told.

Hersh's report puts Trump in a very bad light, and it puts the military/security complex, which we know has been trying to destroy Trump, in a very good light. Moreover, the story strikes me as inconsistent with the subsequent attack on the Syrian fighter-bomber by the US military. If the Tomahawk attack on the Syrian base was unjustified, what justified downing a Syrian war plane? Did Trump order this attack as well? If not, who did? Why?

If national security advisers gave Trump such excellent information about the alleged sarin gas attack, completely disproving any such attack, why was he given such bad advice about shooting down a Syrian war plane, or was it done outside of channels? The effect of the shootdown is to raise the chance of a confrontation with Russia, because Russia's response apparently has been to declare a no-fly zone over the area of Russian and Syrian operations.

How do we know that what Hersh was told was true? What if Trump was encouraged to order the Tomahawk strike as a way of interjecting the US directly into the conflict? Both the US and Israel have powerful reasons for wanting to overthrow Assad. However, ISIS, sent to do the job, has been defeated by Russia and Syria. Unless Washington can somehow get directly involved, the war is over.

The story Hersh was given also serves to damn Trump while absolving the intelligence services. Trump takes the hit for injecting the US directly into the conflict.

Hersh's story reads well, but it easily could be a false story planted on him. I am not saying that the story is false, but unless we learn more, it could be.

What we do know is that the story given to Hersh by national security officials is inconsistent with the June 26 White House announcement that the US has "identified potential preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime." The White House does not have the capability to conduct its own foreign intelligence gathering. The White House is informed by the national security and intelligence agencies.

In the story given to Hersh, these officials are emphatic that not only were chemical weapons removed from Syria, but also that Assad would not use them or be permitted by the Russians to use them even if he had them. Moreover, Hersh reports that he was told that Russia fully informed the US of the Syrian attack on ISIS in advance. The weapon was a guided bomb that Russia had suppied to Syria. Therefore, it could not have been a chemical weapon.

As US national security officials made it clear to Hersh that they do not believe Syria did or would use any chemical weapons, what is the source for the White House's announcement that preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime have been identified?

Who lined up UN ambassador Nikki Haley and the UK Defence Minister Michael Fallon to be ready with statements in support of the White House announcement? Haley says: "Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people." Fallon says: "we will support" future US action in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

How clear does an orchestration have to be before people are capable of recognizing the orchestration?

The intelligence agencies put out the story via Hersh that there were no chemical attacks, so what attacks is Niki Haley speaking about?

A reasonable conclusion is that Washington's plan to use ISIS to overthrow Syria and then start on Iran was derailed by Russian and Syrian military success against ISIS. The US then tried to partition Syria by occupying part of it, but were out-manuevered by the Russians and Syrians. This left direct US involvement as the only alternative to defeat. This direct US military involvement began with the US attack on the Syrian military base and was followed by shooting down a Syrian war plane. The next stage will be a US-staged false flag chemical attack or alleged chemical attack, and this false flag, as has already been announced, will be the excuse for larger scale US military action against Syria, which, unless the Russians abandon Syria, means conflict with Russia, Iran, and perhaps China.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us-military-put-alert-washington-waiting-excuse-attack

[Jun 30, 2017] What we see at present in Syria is war between USA and collaborators, as Israel, Germany, France and the Netherlands, against Russia, Assad and Iran,

Jun 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT

" about how a military confrontation between Russia and the United States would play out. "

Funny sentence, Syria IS a military confrontation between USA and Russia, as the Spanish Civil War was a military confrontation between Germany and Italy, with tacit USA and GB support, on the one hand, and the USSR on the other. The USA rebellion against GB long ago also was a world war, in the end the list of countries supporting the Yankees became very long.

What we see at present in Syria is war between USA and collaborators, as Israel, Germany, France and the Netherlands, against Russia, Assad and Iran, with Turkey sitting on the fence. Both sides know that all out war will be the end of the world, both sides do not want to give up.

So this may be going on indefinitely, the only solution I see is that Trump creates a normal relationship with Russia, thereafter they can divide the ME between them, as Sykes and Picott already did in 1916. In order to create a normal relationship with Russia Trump first has to win his war with Deep State.

Three CNN journalists were fired, or resigned. If this is the beginning of the end of CNN, I hope so, but am not at all sure.

peterAUS Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 8:20 am GMT

@Avery {The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude.}

By many orders of magnitude?

Russian warriors are at the minimum 10X better than American warriors?

You don't actually believe that, do you?

Their leaders - both military and civilian - may be incompetent, corrupt, treasonous (e.g. USS Liberty betrayal by their Commander in Chief),etc, etc.....but American professional warriors lack neither willpower, nor courage, nor determination.

One example: the "Black Hawk Down"/Battle of Mogadishu firefight.

Their leaders sent them into a harebrained Globalist mission without proper support, but once all Hell broke loose, Americans fought with great courage and determination. Fought like lions, in fact.

The notion that Russian pros are, quote, 'many orders of magnitude' stronger in warrior quality (...and skills) is truly delusional on Saker's part. Agree, up to a point.
These debates are like those "which is better, AK or M-16 platform' .good for amateurs.

Now, it is a fact that the West, since Iraq, hasn't fought conventional war and even that was against much weaker opponent. COIN only.
Russians have fought decent conventional wars Georgia and Ukraine, against similar opponent.
I'd hazard a guess that, on operational level, Russian Command and Control is better than US.

The problem, for Russians, is quality of support/logistics and on tactical level (from division to including a battalion or, better, battlegroup).

Anyway that's all actually besides the point.

I believe we'll be looking at 'border clashes' from '1984′, done by special forces and contractors. Teams killing each other under the radar.
For a starter.

But, I believe, WHEN push comes to shove Russians will step back and mark another line in sand.
And another.
The Empire will be pushing, carefully, and Russians will be retreating, slowly ..

annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 1:01 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger

Imho if US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria it would constitute the act of war and war is not limited to no theater of operations. Considering USA huge superiority in this area I do not think Russia would invest heavily over there, but instead would use this to strike where it is more important for Russia security. USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good important targets. Around Syria as Sacker mentioned US has a lot of bases which would make fair game for Russian missile capabilities amptly shown in Syrian campaign and which imho are just a tip of the iceberg. Hopefully it won't come to this because no one knows where it may end. "USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good important targets."
Particularly because of that: "Putin: Foreign intel services support terrorist groups on Russia's borders" https://www.rt.com/news/394518-putin-foreign-spies-support-terrorism/

If "US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria" the first response should be towards Israel. The more clarity in this regard the better. There should be the time of "harvest" for the ziocons.

Rurik Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT

not good

https://www.rt.com/usa/394474-haley-no-place-for-assad/

the zio-deepstate must be showing Trump how easily they JFK'd JFK

I suspect that Trump doesn't want to play along with their 'seven countries' narrative, and would prefer peace and prosperity as his legacy

but he's forced to play a razor's edge game as he slowly and methodically inserts personnel loyal to the US vs. the deepstate, without triggering a "heart attack" or however they'd do it.

If he can survive a year or two, and get his own people in, without causing a full-on hot war with Russia, perhaps he can prevail. But this new development is a very bad sign.

Kilo 4/11 Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger Imho if US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria it would constitute the act of war and war is not limited to no theater of operations. Considering USA huge superiority in this area I do not think Russia would invest heavily over there, but instead would use this to strike where it is more important for Russia security. USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good important targets. Around Syria as Sacker mentioned US has a lot of bases which would make fair game for Russian missile capabilities amptly shown in Syrian campaign and which imho are just a tip of the iceberg. Hopefully it won't come to this because no one knows where it may end. Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

Tom Welsh Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT

@Kilo 4/11 Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road. Your comment brilliantly illustrates the problems that the rest of the world has with Americans. Beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, Russia has every right to be in Syria where the legitimate government has invited its help. The USA has no right at all to set a single foot inside Syria without the Syrian government's permission, which it emphatically does not have.

By attacking Syria – as it has done persistently for the past six years and more, through US forces, NATO forces, Israeli forces, Daesh and dozens of other alphabet terrorist soup organizations – the USA has flagrantly disobeyed the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, the whole body of international law, and – more often than not – the very US Constitution.

That any American doesn't know these things – or, knowing them, sees fit to pretend he doesn't – is an appalling testimonty to American arrogance, ignorance and stupidity.

Tom Welsh Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

@Priss Factor How is that US and EU get to do this to a nation and still give sermons about peace and human rights to the world?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cbBXk4iW5Q

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with total destruction.

US and EU totally wrecks a nation that did NOTHING to either, but they go around promoting themselves as defenders of freedom and 'liberal global order'. "When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with total destruction".

When Japan launched a sneak surprise attack on the Russian fleet in Port Arthur in 1904, it succeeded brilliantly. The Russian East fleet was crippled and Russia had to resort to sending its Baltic fleet halfway round the world – where it too was promptly sunk.

Theodore Roosevelt, who was US president at the time, was jubilant. He saw the Japanese – whom he had recently dignified with the title of "honorary Aryans" – as the essential US proxy for the conquest of Asia. And he hated the Russians.

But what of FDR – who was 22 at the time, and such a fanatic about all matters naval that he boasted of having collected thousands of books on the subject? Are we to believe he was oblivious to the highly successful tactic of launching a surprise naval attack before declaring war? Hardly.

Yet 37 years later, we are supposed to believe that, having deliberately driven Japan into a corner with the specific intention of forcing it to declare war, it never occurred to him that the Japanese – facing a far more powerful enemy than Russia in 1904, whose main fleet was hanging out halfway across the Pacific simply asking to be sunk – would use the same trick.

If so, I have a fleet of very old battleships to sell you.

annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

@headrick So what if the US does launch this massive air campaign, -- then what? Is the US
army ready to occupy Syria - on the ground.- forever? IN 2006 Hezbollah kicked the
Israeli's out of Lebanon border areas. Imagine the pain inflicted on a US occupation
force who can't handle Afghanistan. And if the Russian air base is hit, they can I believe
sink a US capital ship or two, and announce, any further direct action against Russian forces in Syria will call for a full nuclear strategic response against the US. Then what does the US do? Suck up the loss of carrier or Ageis warship, of face world war III. This whole act would produce a domestic firestorm in the US, and it would not be controllable. Shiite Allies in Bahrain would attack
US assets and Bases there and in Bahrain, and they would not need Russian coaching to do it.
Hezbollah would probably begin to attacks on Israel and Israel knows how that turned out. Just more pain for Team USA. There is no follow up strategy for such a US air action against Syria/Russia/Iran. Just huge pain and an ignominious back down -or upon unchecked escalation, world war III.
Air power, without a plan for follow up ground action, is worse than pointless. It is suicidal. If the US just wants Chaos in the region, and thinks they can find Muslim proxies to do the ground work, well that was the ISIS plan, and soon there will be no ISIS, so how does the US find proxies on the ground to occupy the country? https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/29/the-next-world-war-wont-just-be-over-there/

"The Next World War Won't Just Be "Over There," by BILL WILLERS
" with every hostile American denigration of Russia, every aggressive push against Russia's borders, every move that imperils Russia's place on the world stage, the prospect of massive world war becomes increasingly plausible. And in this world made so small by terrifying, sophisticated weaponry, any powerful adversary of the US would make certain that "over there" was shared, so as to become "over here" from the US point of view, with major east coast cities certain to be prime targets. The Russians understand very well from agonizing experience what modern, catastrophic war on one's homeland is like, while we in the US do not, although we are on a path to find out. It is a path of our own creation."
Sigh.

Rurik Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 3:13 pm GMT

@Kilo 4/11 Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam.

do you realize that the Soviet Union is dead and gone?

and that Russia today is acting like the only adult on the world's stage with any respect for international law, (or what's left of it, since the Z US has been waging illegal wars of aggression all over the planet, destroying nation after nation, all based on lies).

Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet as a bulwark against the rabid dog that is the ZUSA, slaughtering and displacing millions upon millions of people even as its causing the permanent destruction of Europe and N. America for all time.

what kind of future do your American grandchildren have in the ZUSA, as the immigrants pour in and the future is bankrupted to slaughter people and destroy nations that Israel doesn't like?

At least Putin's Russia is trying to protect some kind of future for the Russian people and their progeny, as the ZUSA is like a drooling beast on the world's stage, and doing all it can do destroy Western civilization in the process, and your nation's (and grandchildren's) future with it.

how anyone here at the Unz Review could still look at Russia today and see the Soviet Union!, is beyond me.

annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 3:51 pm GMT

The dying empire:
"The elephants did not climb up the trees. Warning them off was successful," they say." http://www.moonofalabama.org
And then they exhibit a very special Nikki Haley who was generously"cued" by Israel: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/06/21/israel-vs-united-nations-nikki-haley-doctrine .
Syrian update: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/syrian-update-ttg.html
My sympathies for the competent American patriots shoved away from all positions of influence in the US government by ziocons (abetted by war profiteers of all stripes). http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/harper-mattis-walks-back-from-syria-cw-claims.html#comments
See the story of a honorable and superbly competent Col. Lang and the dumb Douglas Feith (the Idiot of a ziocon stock): http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/05/12/selective-intelligence

anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 4:58 pm GMT

I'd hate to see the Trump presidency go down in the smoke of a Syrian/Russian military conflict. Voters did not want the confrontation promised by Clinton and voted for domestic issues such as re-industrialization, population stability and so on. There are just way too many unknowns involved with this potential clash for the US to risk intruding itself any more than it already has. We really don't know how all these weapon systems would work out in an actual war, short and intense or drawn out. Then there's the prospect of Americans getting killed and taken prisoner in a very public way which would drive them to ratchet things up yet higher. Same for the Russians. It's hard to see what the American endgame really is. Perhaps it's just to deny Russia and Iran any allies so perhaps chaos and the destruction of Syria as a state is a goal rather than a result.
Putin is a legalistic moderate. Were Russia to suffer a humiliating defeat directly from the Americans then it's probable he'll be succeeded by a hardliner seeking to even the score. Wars always have unintended consequences so we could end up having Cold War II for the next fifty years. Of course this might be desired since it would tie Europe to the US due to this 'threat'.

annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT

@Kilo 4/11 No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.

"Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies. And you talk of respecting international law! Hold your horses, Kilo 4/12. Nobody needs Ukraine but ZUSA, for the supposedly "defensive" purposes. Look at the amazing transformation of the "liberated" Ukraine after the 2014 coup d'etat: The neo-Nazis are openly in the Ukrainian government, Banderites parade Nazi collaborator Bandera in Kiev and L'viv; a proposal for federalization of Ukraine (you know, federalism, similar to the US) has been criminalized by Kiev government; a new prime-minister is certain Mr. Groysman, and the index of Ukrainian corruption is staying stubbornly high.
Considering that the USSR had amassed the neighboring lands (Polish, Rumanian, and Hungarian) to make the modern state of Ukraine, you need to decide whether you want to continue with the Soviet tradition and keep the Soviet territories or you should finally return the annexed territories to the proper owners.
It seems that you still didn't get it – in 2014, Ukraine had become a protectorate of ZUSA. There is no independent Ukraine anymore.
This is what your thuggish government in Kiev has rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

Che Guava Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT

@David Great article. I would be interested to read some knowledgeable reflections on the US Navy ship running into a Japanese cargo ship a week or so ago. It seems that a lot of things would have to go wrong to make that possible, indicating considerable rot in the US Navy. We haven't even heard of the ship's commander losing his commission. The container ship was going to Japan, not Japanese, Philippines flag, mainly (or all) Philippino crew.

That ship ran imto the US ship, not vice versa.

However, according to Japanese news and the captain of the cargo ship, they sounded the foghorn, tried signals, radio contact. Those giant ships are not at all agile, not designed to be. Turning radii are huge.

From the sounds of the captain's injuries, he was asleep.

The interesting question is, what the fuck were the bridge duty officer(s) and crew doing at the time, that they noticed nothing? Playing video games? Engrossed in Twit or Faescesbook? Little party? Having or seeking sex?

Even if the reports of warnings from the cargo giant are false (which I strongly doubt), if the bridge people were not behaving stupidly at the time, they would have spotted it on radar and with eyes.

I did a quick search, as said earlier, must sleeping soon, I was finding the captain's name, but not the name of whoever was in charge on the bridge. Interesting.

It is such a shame for the seven dead, I am not a fan of US imperialism, but I like many US people. Their deaths were very sad and pointless.

The clear and tragic incompetence on the bridge has some connection with the Saker's article.

Randal Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 5:14 pm GMT

No sale and kiss my ass with the "stupidity" remark. Russia is playing its old imperial grand chessboard game and it matters not that Assad "invited" him. Think Putin was going to stay out of Syria w/o this "invitation"?

If you really believe that Russia would have any significant military involvement in Syria today in the absence of its longstanding alliance with that country and its consequent interest in protecting it from regime change then you are either profoundly stupid or profoundly ignorant. Or both, of course.

the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin

Again, you merely highlight your own lack of knowledge and pig-headed refusal to recognise any change in the world from that (presumably) of your youth.

And you talk of respecting international law!

The simple fact is that (as has been pointed out to you by several people) Russia's military presence in Syria is perfectly legal, being at the invitation of Syria's government, while the US has a long track record of contempt for international law, from the attack on Yugoslavia to the invasion of Iraq and on down to its recent murders of Syrian servicemen without even an attempt to pretend to any legal justification.

No sale and kiss my ass with the "stupidity" remark

No "stupidity" remark that I can see in the comment by Rurik to which you claim to be replying, but your subsequent determination to insist that black is in fact white on several points suggest he would have been justified in such a personal criticism.

Sean Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT

Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 7:02 pm GMT

@Kilo 4/11 No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.

"Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies. And you talk of respecting international law!

As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" blah blah blah

Looks like you could use a dose of Marine MG Butler's wisdom.

Knock yerself out toughie

" I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism."

Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Elder Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 7:52 pm GMT

@Kilo 4/11 Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.

The Russians are in Syria at the request of the sovereign nation of Syria.
The USA is in Syria as an illegal invading force providing support to Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
I never would have guessed that the rot in the USA would have progressed to the point where the Russians would be 100% in the right, both legally and morally, and the USA would be 100% in the wrong, both legally and morally, but here we are.

Randal Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT

@Erebus It seems to me that if the US delivers either an ultimatum, or a direct attack on Russian assets in Syria, Russia's response will depend primarily on what it believes its allies can and will deliver. The SAA, Hezbollah, and Iraqi PMUs are already doing yeoman's service and probably can't do much more. In any case, the boots-on-the-ground part would come some time after a stand-off weapon exchange.
Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they're next if the American gambit succeeds? Hard to tell. They could do a lot of damage to US assets around the Gulf in very short order. Doha and Manama are but a few minutes away as the missile flies, and those missiles could fly from anywhere along a mountainous 2500km coastline. If Iran can be counted on, the Russians can play much harder ball than on their own.

The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution, obviously, but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which American military power rests, and they can do it almost instantly. There's some pain in it for China, though not nearly as much as is sometimes assumed, but it would make any military "victory" the USM might be dreaming of Pyrrhic. In addition to losing a bunch of hardware and expensive personnel, they'd be staring at an economic catastrophe. With that, they'd also be staring at the "Decline and Fall" moment in the Zempire's timeline.

In its present domestic socio-political state, the US could simply fly apart from the combined shock. From where I sit, that looks all but inevitable.

Be that all as it may, the Kremlin had surely gamed all the possible variations to exhaustion before making their move into Syria. They committed, and since Sept 31, 2015 they've been driving, not reacting to, events. They went in fully committed to success, and they knew what ramifications their success could trigger. They must have had viable contingency Plans A thru Z in place before the ever cautious, meticulous Putin would have been confident enough that he had all bases covered to sign off on it. I'm pretty sure that none of Plans A thru Z included turning tail and running away when the American started barking.

Putin would have been confident enough that he had all bases covered to sign off on it. I'm pretty sure that none of Plans A thru Z included turning tail and running away when the American started barking.

Yes, seems to me this was a calculated gamble for the highest stakes by Putin, and I think he must have known that once he went all in there would be no further option to fold under US presure that wouldn't be disastrous for Russia and for him, personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would take it all the way if necessary.

But that doesn't mean, of course, that he and the Russians thought they couldn't lose. Just that they thought the situation was serious enough to justify such a move, which inevitably involves a degree of risk and the highest of stakes.

What they did know, and still know, is that the costs to the US of even a "victory" in Syria could be made high enough that the US leadership would almost certainly blink first (rightly, given that the whole regime change attempt in Syria involves no vital US interests and serves the purposes of foreigners, wealthy business cliques and issue obsessives).

And so it has come to pass, so far, fortunately for humanity and for both the US and Russia. Who knows if that would still be the case if Clinton had won the election? Who really knows if it will remain the case under the highly suspect Trump?

Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they're next if the American gambit succeeds?

Difficult to predict in such a dramatic situation, but Iran obviously knows that it is next in the firing line after Syria goes down and Hezbollah is targeted (as the plans of the regime changers hope for). However Iran really adds little to Russia's strength overall, though as you point out they can contribute substantially in the region. On the other hand, Iran's involvement would ensure far more enthusiastic cooperation with the US by Israel and Saudi Arabia, who might otherwise balk at a direct attack on Russian forces.

The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution, obviously, but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which American military power rests, and they can do it almost instantly.

I think the record suggests China would be far too cautious to intervene directly in that way in such a situation, though I'm sure they would give Russia plenty of indirect support.

Randal Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 9:56 pm GMT

@Sean Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

Yes that's right because history demonstrates clearly that appeasement and passive acceptance is the best way to protect yourself against ongoing lawless aggression by a major power. If nothing else, there's always that faint, fading hope that if you are meek enough you might at least be left for last, eh?

If only the Russians had had the patience and strength of mind to continue with the wisdom of the Yeltsin years, in kowtowing to the US declaration of a global US sphere of influence and a universal US right, nay duty, of regime changing interventionism

sad and scared Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 11:49 pm GMT

This sucker (the Syrian conflict) could take all sorts of twists and turns, acquire a life of its own, and do who knows what. Since there seems to be no rational motive at play, at least on the US side, this mess defies rational analysis. What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer that. What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going? It simply seems to be a psychopathic game of power, more power, and yet more power ("full spectrum dominance" – not a Hitler statement that, but officially stated US policy) Full dominance to what aim? (try raising that on mass media, good luck) To stand tall in a graveyard of humanity as the last human survivor? To add to the already long list of countries and peoples destroyed? To be acknowledged as the toughest and meanest kid on the block? I think all bets are off, this sucker could go any way, any time.

SimplePseudonymicHandle Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 11:55 pm GMT

The Saker

makes a basic mistake, he assumes that the [Americans] will act like idiots and fight the kind of war the [Russia] would want to impose upon them.

And he does so in nearly every article he writes. It would be amusing except for quotes like this.

There are good points to be made. The US will have certain habits that must be deliberately deviated from. The US deploys too much and exposes its fighting style too much.

But the Saker is silly, Capital S, silly, to think that the US would fight Russia the way he imagines it.

Just the same: we must not fight. Russia and the US, must, not fight. It must not happen.

The silliest thing is all the imagining of it. We should steel all our efforts to assure this never, ever happens.

Mongrel Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 12:37 am GMT

IMO, a massive US attack to gain air superiority in Syria is completely unrealistic for the following reasons among others:

1. If an aircraft carrier takes part in the attack, if could be sunk by the Russians with moral justification. Sinking an aircraft carrier would cause the dollar to plummet by revealing the phony nature of American military might.

2. The Russians could lose their entire Syrian forces and the larger military balance would not be affected in the short run, nor would the Russian regime be threatened by internal revolution. If the US lost significant numbers of aircraft, especially F-35's and/or F-22's, it would be a US disaster. There would be no hiding from the US public that we are at war for no discernable purpose. The sleepwalking goyim could very well take their eyes off Kim Kardashian's ass and the Trump circus and wake up. The political effects are utterly unpredictable.

3. Russia and China could announce an international gold standard, effectively removing a major source of US income via dollar creation. With US inflation raging, military cutbacks would ensue, kicking off a downward spiral for the ZUSA empire.

4. War in Syria would precipitate a US financial crisis, because US markets are held aloft with smoke and mirrors. We have runaway federal debt, states about to default, a pension crisis, and a consumer debt crisis. When this thing blows, the 2000 crash will look like a picnic. Unemployment will skyrocket from an already high level, and the deep state will be fighting off multiple Occupy Wall Street-like movements. Sure hope those new surveillance tools work well, 'cause the deep state is gonna need 'em.

Of course, empires often show the brains of a dinosaur. Did the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and German empires plan to disappear when they entered WWI?

peterAUS Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 12:47 am GMT

@sad and scared This sucker (the Syrian conflict) could take all sorts of twists and turns, acquire a life of its own, and do who knows what. Since there seems to be no rational motive at play, at least on the US side, this mess defies rational analysis. What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer that. What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going? It simply seems to be a psychopathic game of power, more power, and yet more power ("full spectrum dominance" - not a Hitler statement that, but officially stated US policy) Full dominance to what aim? (try raising that on mass media, good luck) To stand tall in a graveyard of humanity as the last human survivor? To add to the already long list of countries and peoples destroyed? To be acknowledged as the toughest and meanest kid on the block? I think all bets are off, this sucker could go any way, any time.

What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer that.

Maybe .just .CONSTANT low level chaos as it is now.
Just to keep that region unstable and unusable for anyone.
Serves a couple of purposes, one of them is weakening Russia.

What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going?

The same.
But even with Assad not going, just keeping things as they are now is good for The Empire.
Or, it is better for The Empire than it is for Russia.
Or it is less worse for The Empire than it is for Russia.

utu Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 12:56 am GMT

@Rurik


allows one a glimmer of hope
I'm clinging to it for now

he didn't do much damage to that Syrian airfield he bombed and he warned everyone over there that he was going to do it, and by doing so, he completely shut up the snake-pit, from John McBloodstain to Chucky Schumer to the length and breath of the zio-msm.

I sense he's trying to play them, and it seems at times like he's playing them like a fine fiddle.

Saying 'Assad has to go' will cause tingles and chills up their legs, and cut him some slack with the Republicucks, so perhaps he can get more of his people appointed.

So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin, they can pretend like they're enemies, while mollifying the Fiend and its minions as ISIS is routed and Syria's sovereignty and border integrity becomes more and more a reality on the ground.

At least that's my hope. Of course I could be wrong. So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin

Putin receives former U.S. diplomat Kissinger in Kremlin

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-kissinger-idUSKBN19K2QN

U.S. Retreats From Al-Tanf – Gives Up On Occupying South East Syria

http://www.moonofalabama.org

Mikel Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 1:05 am GMT

Could anyone kindly explain how the Israeli planes manage to avoid the Syrian Pantsirs and S-300s every time they enter Syrian air space and take out some target? (and one presumes that the Syrians must be waiting for the next Israeli incursion 24Χ7).

Thanks.

KenH Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 2:44 am GMT

Girly man Sean Spicer's pronouncement that the U.S. possesses "intelligence" to the effect that Assad is planning a chemical attack on innocents is just a bogus pretext for war. It's Iraqi weapons of mass destruction all over again.

It's designed to soften Americans up for greater illegal and unilateral military action in Syria. And if my fellow countrymen fall for it yet again just because they're enamored with Trump's hollow promises and circus like rallies then I will have absolutely no sympathy for them when the economy implodes and if somehow the war comes to U.S. soil.

Gee, who gets all the refugees when we bring hell to Syria? Not Saudi Arabia or Israel. Oh no, princess Ivanka will see to it that we get our share just as long as they're nowhere near her, Jared or any other Manhattan millionaire liberal.

Putin should announce the sale of long range nuclear missiles to the People's Republic of N. Korea. Hopefully this would give Nimrata Haley and Trump aneurysms along with the rest of the American likudniks. Then he should follow up and begin supplying the Taliban with surface to air missile batteries, anti-drone technology and advanced weaponry for combat operations.

in the middle Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 1:37 am GMT

@Sean Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria. NO! The Zios-Anglos made the mistake of siding with the terrorists in Syria.

[Jun 30, 2017] Trump, MBS, and the Noxious Saudi Relationship

Notable quotes:
"... My point here is that Trump has pressed ahead with uncritical support for the Saudis because that has been the conventional hawkish position in Washington for years before he got there. He is catering to the existing warped desire to provide even more support to Riyadh than Obama did. It was conventional wisdom among many foreign policy pundits and analysts that Obama had not been "pro-Saudi" enough, and Trump apparently bought into that view. Trump's enthusiastic embrace of the Saudis is the result of endlessly berating Obama for not giving the Saudis absolutely everything they wanted. ..."
"... Until that changes and until Trump's excessive fondness for the Saudi leadership starts to become a major political problem for him, pleading with the arsonist's enabler to put out fires will have little effect. ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky also judge Mohammed bin Salman's record to be very poor:

But one thing is already stunningly clear when it comes to his handling of foreign policy: In two short years, as the deputy crown prince and defense minister, MBS has driven the Kingdom into a series of royal blunders in Yemen, Qatar and Iran, and he has likely over promised what Saudi Arabia is able and willing to do on the Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking front. Far from demonstrating judgment and experience, he's proven to be reckless and impulsive, with little sense of how to link tactics and strategy. And sadly, he's managed to implicate and drag the new Trump administration into some of these misadventures, too.

Miller and Sokolsky are right about MBS' shoddy record, but their warning to the Trump administration is very likely too late. They urge the administration to rethink its position before "its Middle East policy becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of Saudi Arabia," but I fear that that already happened at the Riyadh summit. Unfortunately, some top U.S. officials are only just now realizing it and don't know how to stop it. There could be some belated efforts to undo this, but Trump isn't interested. He doesn't seem to see anything wrong with identifying the U.S. so closely with the Saudis, and he doesn't see their recklessness and destructive behavior for what they are. Since he is impulsive, careless, and has poor judgment, it isn't surprising that he has such an affinity for the aging Saudi despot and his favorite incompetent son. On top of all that, MBS is a short-sighted, foolish hard-liner on Iran, and as far as we can tell Trump is much the same, so we should expect them to be on the same page.

There's no question that every foreign policy initiative associated with MBS has "turned into a hot mess," but this has been obvious in Yemen for the last two years. If no one in the Trump administration noticed that before, what is going to make them realize it now? The authors are also right that Trump's decision "to side with Saudi Arabia in its conflict with Qatar and in Yemen is akin to pouring gasoline on a fire," but until very recently uncritical backing of the Saudis in their regional adventurism enjoyed broad bipartisan support that helped make it possible for things to get this bad. There were very few in Washington who thought that pouring gasoline on the fire was the wrong thing to do, and for more than two years the U.S. poured a lot of gas on the fire in Yemen that has been consuming thousands of lives and putting millions at risk of starvation.

My point here is that Trump has pressed ahead with uncritical support for the Saudis because that has been the conventional hawkish position in Washington for years before he got there. He is catering to the existing warped desire to provide even more support to Riyadh than Obama did. It was conventional wisdom among many foreign policy pundits and analysts that Obama had not been "pro-Saudi" enough, and Trump apparently bought into that view. Trump's enthusiastic embrace of the Saudis is the result of endlessly berating Obama for not giving the Saudis absolutely everything they wanted.

There is now more open opposition to at least some aspects of U.S. policy in Yemen, as we saw with the recent close vote on a Saudi arms sale. The Qatar crisis has prompted more criticism of the Saudis from our government than two years of destroying and starving an entire country. Yet there is still remarkably little scrutiny of the underlying U.S.-Saudi relationship despite growing evidence that the kingdom has become a regional menace and a major liability to the U.S. Until that changes and until Trump's excessive fondness for the Saudi leadership starts to become a major political problem for him, pleading with the arsonist's enabler to put out fires will have little effect.

[Jun 30, 2017] With Provocative Moves, U.S. Risks Unraveling Gains With China by STEVEN LEE MYERS and SUI-LEE WEE

Notable quotes:
"... ...While administration officials said Mr. Trump had grown increasingly frustrated with China for putting more pressure on North Korea over its nuclear and missile programs, the response showed that officials here, too, were frustrated by Mr. Trump's lurching strategy and cavalier style of tweeting new policy. ..."
"... Although an outright breach in relations remains unthinkable, given the depth of economic ties, the outward warmth Mr. Trump once showed Mr. Xi seems to have worn out its welcome in China. And it happened much sooner than officials here expected. ..."
"... Mr. Trump's actions returned the relationship to normal: strained, with deep issues dividing the two countries. ..."
"... "The latest situation has also illustrated that Trump is a leader without patience," Mr. Shi said. ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.msn.com
...While administration officials said Mr. Trump had grown increasingly frustrated with China for putting more pressure on North Korea over its nuclear and missile programs, the response showed that officials here, too, were frustrated by Mr. Trump's lurching strategy and cavalier style of tweeting new policy.

The latest steps, analysts said, felt retaliatory, and thus could prove counterproductive.

"The United States has stabbed us in the back," said Wang Dong, an assistant professor at the School of International Studies at Peking University. He said the sanctions - the first against a Chinese company for trading with North Korea since 2006 - would undermine China's willingness to help resolve the nuclear issue.

China has repeatedly said it shares the goal of halting North Korea's nuclear program, or more broadly ensuring the entire Korean Peninsula is without nuclear weapons. It has also repeatedly maintained that it complies with trade sanctions that the United Nations Security Council imposed in an effort to isolate the North from resources to finance its nuclear and missile programs.

The extent of its cooperation, however, is disputed in Washington, even within the new administration. "The Chinese tried to gauge what were the minimal steps they could take to comply with the resolutions and show they were serious about North Korea's program," said Bonnie S. Glaser, a senior adviser for Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "And they miscalculated."

Officials in Beijing, however, have puzzled over what they view as conflicting signals from Mr. Trump, like his harsh words on the campaign trail and the personal bonhomie toward Mr. Xi to persuade him to apply a new round of pressure. Analysts have pointed to a widespread confusion over the United States' approach to North Korea, among other issues.

Those include Mr. Trump's disavowal of the Paris agreement on climate change, now a priority of Mr. Xi's and one that is expected to be contentious when Mr. Trump attends the Group of 20 meetings in Germany next week.

The sanctions against the two Chinese companies were announced in Washington by Mr. Trump's treasury secretary, Steven T. Mnuchin, only hours before the agriculture secretary, Sonny Perdue, arrived in Beijing to promote "tasty, wholesome, healthy, safe U.S. beef." The ban, ostensibly imposed because of concern over mad cow disease, was officially lifted in May and the first shipments have begun to arrive in Chinese supermarkets and restaurants.

... ... ...

The new sanctions targeted two companies, the Bank of Dandong and Dalian Global Unity Shipping - as well as two Chinese businessmen - accused of supporting North Korea through money laundering or illicit trade.

The bank, which could find itself cut off from the international banking system, is not among China's biggest, raising the prospect that the administration could single out larger ones. A woman who answered the phone at the bank's headquarters refused to respond to a request for comment.

Although an outright breach in relations remains unthinkable, given the depth of economic ties, the outward warmth Mr. Trump once showed Mr. Xi seems to have worn out its welcome in China. And it happened much sooner than officials here expected.

Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University of China, said that Mr. Trump's actions returned the relationship to normal: strained, with deep issues dividing the two countries.

Under Mr. Trump, he said, there was even less room for cooperation than under his predecessor, Barack Obama, who sought to work with China on climate change, for example.

"The latest situation has also illustrated that Trump is a leader without patience," Mr. Shi said.

[Jun 30, 2017] Why Libertarians Should Read Marx

Notable quotes:
"... How can we defend property rights at the same time as defending a system which came into being by denying those rights? ..."
"... Do current market structures (which are of course determined by the state) really maximize development? ..."
"... Are markets really a realm of freedom, or a means through which some exploit and oppress others? And so on. ..."
"... "The system of protection," says Marx, "was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, of expropriating independent laborers, of capitalizing the national means of production and subsistence, and of forcibly abbreviating the transition from the medieval to the modern mode of production." ..."
"... Most Libertarians I have come across just seem to dislike taxes and are looking for a reason why this might be a morally acceptable position. It is like that famous J K Galbraith quote: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." ..."
"... Anybody who thinks that Libertarians really care about "freedom" (whatever that is - the more I think about it the less I see a difference to "power" - which is largely - though not entirely - zero sum) is kidding themselves. ..."
"... I reckon there are three reasons libertarians should read Marx. One is that Marx saw economics as a historical process. For him, one of the big questions was: "where did that come from?" ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Chris Dillow: Why libertarians should read Marx : Kristian Niemietz says he can't be bothered to read Marx. Can I try and convince him otherwise?

For one thing, I suspect libertarians like him would be surprised by a lot of Marx. There's astonishingly little in Marx about a centrally planned economy: if you want an argument for central planning, you should read that hero of the right, Ronald Coase instead (pdf ). Marx was admiring of capitalism in some respects. It has, he wrote , given "an immense development to commerce" and has "accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals." And I think you'd be surprised by just how much attention Marx paid to the facts: once you get past the first few chapters, there's massive empirical work in Capital volume I*. And there are many differences between Marx and social democrats – not least of them being that Marx was no statist.

What's more, many of the ideas associated with Marx were largely elaborations of his predecessors: Paul Samuelson called him a "minor post-Ricardian". The labour theory of value, the interest in the division of income between classes and the idea of a falling rate of profit are all as Ricardian as Marxian. (The falling rate of profit (pdf) might be a good explanation for our recent slow growth and lack of capital spending, but let that pass).

I reckon there are three reasons libertarians should read Marx.

  1. One is that Marx saw economics as a historical process. For him, one of the big questions was: "where did that come from?" ...
  2. A second reason for libertarians to read Marx lies in his view of the relationship between property rights and technical progress ...
  3. A third reason to read Marx lies in his attitudes to freedom. ...

In short, then, libertarians should read Marx because he poses them some questions which should sharpen their thinking.

  1. How can we defend property rights at the same time as defending a system which came into being by denying those rights?
  2. What material conditions are necessary for people to support freedom? How will new technologies shape our beliefs?
  3. Do current market structures (which are of course determined by the state) really maximize development?
  4. If not, how can they change? Do actually-existing markets merely enhance formal freedom, or are they conducive to the substantive freedom that Marx wanted? Can they be made more conducive?
  5. Are markets really a realm of freedom, or a means through which some exploit and oppress others? And so on.

If you look past tribal caricatures, perhaps libertarian thinking will be enriched by a consideration of Marx's work.

Miguel Madeira -> Christopher H.... , June 29, 2017 at 04:20 AM

Pgl wrote "Smith did not like trade protection as in his day it was a tool of the elites."; but, yes, Marx was against trade protection

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/free-trade/

anne -> Miguel Madeira ... , June 29, 2017 at 05:32 AM
I appreciate this:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/free-trade/

1888

On the Question of Free Trade
Preface by Frederick Engels for the 1888 English edition pamphlet

TOWARDS the end of 1847, a Free Trade Congress was held at Brussels. It as a strategic move in the Free Trade campaign then carried on by the English manufacturers. Victorious at home, by the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, they now invaded the continent in order to demand, in return for the free admission of continental corn into England, the free admission of English manufactured goods to the continental markets.

At this Congress, Marx inscribed himself on the list of speakers; but, as might have been expected, things were not so managed that before his turn came on, the Congress was closed. Thus, what Marx had to say on the Free Trade question he was compelled to say before the Democratic Association of Brussels, an international body of which he was one of the vice-presidents.

The question of Free Trade or Protection being at present on the order of the day in America, it has been thought useful to publish an English translation of Marx's speech, to which I have been asked to write an introductory preface.

"The system of protection," says Marx, "was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, of expropriating independent laborers, of capitalizing the national means of production and subsistence, and of forcibly abbreviating the transition from the medieval to the modern mode of production."

Such was protection at its origin in the 17th century, such it remained well into the 19th century. It was then held to be the normal policy of every civilized state in western Europe. The only exceptions were the smaller states of Germany and Switzerland -- not from dislike of the system, but from the impossibility of applying it to such small territories....

reason -> pgl... , June 29, 2017 at 01:26 AM
I sort of wonder though, who Chris Dillow is addressing here. Most Libertarians I have come across just seem to dislike taxes and are looking for a reason why this might be a morally acceptable position. It is like that famous J K Galbraith quote: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Anybody who thinks that Libertarians really care about "freedom" (whatever that is - the more I think about it the less I see a difference to "power" - which is largely - though not entirely - zero sum) is kidding themselves.

anne , June 28, 2017 at 10:25 AM
Nice essay, and though I have a loose understanding of Marx which would obviously bother those who read Marx strictly no matter the motives, I think a loose understanding warranted and directly applicable. The reason I find a loose understanding of Marx important, is that just as there are successful capitalist economies, and just as many people think that is all there are in the way of successful economies, there is a communist economy that is successful and important enough to be studied as such.

I would think that understanding China would take having a loose understanding of Marx, because though American economists may argue with the idea China has developed successfully as a communist system.

[ I do not care, by the way, to argue the matter, the perspective is just mine. ]

anne -> anne... , June 28, 2017 at 11:49 AM
I reckon there are three reasons libertarians should read Marx. One is that Marx saw economics as a historical process. For him, one of the big questions was: "where did that come from?"

-- Chris Dillow

[ Really nice and important passage. ]

anne -> anne... , June 28, 2017 at 02:39 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/finland-station-communism-socialism.html

June 26, 2017

Socialism's Future May Be Its Past
By Bhaskar Sunkara

One hundred years after Lenin's sealed train arrived at Finland Station and set into motion the events that led to Stalin's gulags, the idea that we should return to this history for inspiration might sound absurd. But there was good reason that the Bolsheviks once called themselves "social democrats." They were part of a broad movement of growing parties that aimed to fight for greater political democracy and, using the wealth and the new working class created by capitalism, extend democratic rights into the social and economic spheres, which no capitalist would permit.

The early Communist movement never rejected this broad premise. It was born out of a sense of betrayal by the more moderate left-wing parties of the Second International, the alliance of socialist and labor parties from 20 countries that formed in Paris in 1889. Across Europe, party after party did the unthinkable, abandoned their pledges to working-class solidarity for all nations, and backed their respective governments in World War I. Those that remained loyal to the old ideas called themselves Communists to distance themselves from the socialists who had abetted a slaughter that claimed 16 million lives. (Amid the carnage, the Second International itself fell apart in 1916.)

Of course, the Communists' noble gambit to stop the war and blaze a humane path to modernity in backward Russia ended up seemingly affirming the Burkean notion that any attempt to upturn an unjust order would end up only creating another.

Most socialists have been chastened by the lessons of 20th-century Communism. Today, many who would have cheered on the October Revolution have less confidence about the prospects for radically transforming the world in a single generation. They put an emphasis instead on political pluralism, dissent and diversity.

Still, the specter of socialism evokes fear of a new totalitarianism. A recent Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation report worries that young people are likely to view socialism favorably and that a "Bernie Sanders bounce" may be contributing to a millennial turn against capitalism. Last year, the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Thomas J. Donohue, even found it necessary to remind readers that "Socialism Is a Dangerous Path for America."

The right still denounces socialism as an economic system that will lead to misery and privation, but with less emphasis on the political authoritarianism that often went hand in hand with socialism in power. This may be because elites today do not have democratic rights at the forefront of their minds - perhaps because they know that the societies they run are hard to justify on those terms.

Capitalism is an economic system: a way of organizing production for the market through private ownership and the profit motive. To the extent that it has permitted democracy, it has been with extreme reluctance. That's why early workers' movements like Britain's Chartists in the early 19th century organized, first and foremost, for democratic rights. Capitalist and socialist leaders alike believed that the struggle for universal suffrage would encourage workers to use their votes in the political sphere to demand an economic order that put them in control.

It didn't quite work out that way. Across the West, workers came to accept a sort of class compromise....

reason -> anne... , June 29, 2017 at 01:37 AM
The way to think about this is to distinguish between the margin and the whole. Capitalism provides a valuable dynamism at the margin, that neither monopoly capitalism nor centralized socialism can provide when they dominate the whole of society. That is why a mixture is essential.

Countervailing power is essential. Somehow this topic seems to emphasize the value of JK Galbraith, he may not have moved economics much forward, but his political vision was valuable.

kurt -> reason ... , June 29, 2017 at 11:22 AM
Agree 100%.
anne , June 28, 2017 at 11:08 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

The term Classical Marxism denotes the collection of socio-eco-political theories expounded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. "Marxism," as Ernest Mandel remarked, "is always open, always critical, always self-critical." As such, Classical Marxism distinguishes between "Marxism" as broadly perceived, and "what Marx believed;" thus, in 1883, Marx wrote to the French labour leader Jules Guesde and to Paul Lafargue (Marx's son-in-law) – both of whom claimed to represent Marxist principles – accusing them of "revolutionary phrase-mongering" and of denying the value of reformist struggle; from Marx's letter derives the paraphrase: "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist."

jonny bakho , June 28, 2017 at 11:33 AM
Without government, there is no property- the contradiction at the heart of libertarianism

Libertarianism would not be possible without the efforts of the very government they despise

Humans evolved as social animals.
Humans thrive in social groups.
True individuals do not survive for long

DrDick -> jonny bakho... , June 28, 2017 at 11:40 AM
Humans also evolved to become more cooperative and sharing and it is that sharing and cooperation that has been the key to our evolutionary success.
Jerry Brown -> jonny bakho... , June 28, 2017 at 11:56 AM
But, but... Clint Eastwood in practically all his movies...

No seriously, "Without government, there is no property- the contradiction at the heart of libertarianism". Excellent point. Great comment.

anne , June 28, 2017 at 02:50 PM
There's astonishingly little in Marx about a centrally planned economy: if you want an argument for central planning, you should read that hero of the right, Ronald Coase instead (pdf)....

-- Chris Dillow

[ This reference link will not open. Possibly a reader might know what was intended as the reference. ]

anne -> anne... , June 28, 2017 at 04:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

In law and economics, the Coase theorem * describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are sufficiently low transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining.

* This "theorem" is commonly attributed to University of Chicago Nobel Prize laureate Ronald Coase. However, Coase himself stated that the theorem was based on perhaps four pages of his 1960 paper "The Problem of Social Cost", and that the "Coase theorem" is not about his work at all.

reason -> anne... , June 29, 2017 at 01:30 AM
Note: the word "efficient" is doing lots of work here. "Efficient" (particularly in the sense economists use it), should not be confused with "good".
anne -> anne... , June 28, 2017 at 04:08 PM
Would the so-called Coase theorem then, explain why Coase might be considered a hero of libertarians? I must be missing something, but what would that be?
reason -> anne... , June 29, 2017 at 01:31 AM
(G)Libertarians think that Coase "proved that regulation is unnecessary" (of course he did no such thing).
DrDick -> anne... , June 28, 2017 at 04:50 PM
While Marx was never very explicit about what he envisioned as the future, he appears to have favored the syndicalist model, basically a system of co-ops owned and run by the workers but retaining the "company" model of capitalism.
anne -> DrDick... , June 28, 2017 at 04:54 PM
While Marx was never very explicit about what he envisioned as the future, he appears to have favored the syndicalist model, basically a system of co-ops owned and run by the workers but retaining the "company" model of capitalism.

[ Like Germany, at least somewhat. With worker representation on corporate boards and industry-wide worker bargaining. Fascinating and important, and to the extent that this is like Germany, successful. ]

anne , June 28, 2017 at 04:11 PM
Mark Thoma:

I experimented and here is the missing link:

http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~jsfeng/CPEC11.pdf

1937

The Nature of the Firm
R. H. COASE

anne -> anne... , June 28, 2017 at 04:13 PM
http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~jsfeng/CPEC11.pdf

1937

The Nature of the Firm
By R. H. COASE

Economic theory has suffered in the past from a failure to state clearly its assumption. Economists in building up a theory have often omitted to examine the foundations on which it was erected. This examination is, however, essential not only to prevent the misunderstanding and needles controversy which arise from a lack of knowledge of the assumptions on which a theory is based, but also because of the extreme importance for economics of good judgment in choosing between rival sets of assumptions. For instance, it is suggested that the use of the word "firm" in economics may be different from the use of the term by the "plain man."' Since there is apparently a trend in economic theory towards starting analysis with the individual firm and not with the industry,2 it is ail the more necessary not only that a clear definition of the word "firm" should be given but that its difference from a firm in the "real world," if it aists, should be made clear. Mrs. Robinson has said that "the two questions to be asked of a set of assumptions in economics are: Are they tractable? and: Do they correspond with the real world?"3

Though, as Mrs. Robinson points out, "More often one set will be manageable and the other realistic," yet there may well be branches of theory where assumptions may be both manageable and realistic. It is hoped to show in the following paper that a definition of a firm may be obtained which is not only realistic in that it corresponds to what is meant by a firm in the real world, but is tractable by two of the most powerful instruments of economic analysis developed by Marshall, the idea of the margin and that of substitution, together giving the idea of substitution at the margin.4 Our definition must, of course, "relate to formal relations which are capable of being conceived exactly."

Jerry Brown -> anne... , June 28, 2017 at 07:10 PM
Simon & Garfunkel, Paul Simon

And here's to you
Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know
Woah woah woah
God bless you please
Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey

Hopefully I haven't confused my Robinsons again. :)

[Jun 30, 2017] White House Encouraged After Elephants Abstain From Climbing Trees

Notable quotes:
"... There are plenty of reasons why the U.S. would want to accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons but zero sane reasons for the Syrian government to use such. Russia and Syria have long insisted on sending chemical weapon inspectors to the airbase the Trump administration claims is at the center of its "chemical" fairy tale. The U.S. has held the inspectors back. The claims make thereby zero sense to any objective observer. ..."
"... UN peacekeepers are often an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. By cutting them down the U.S. and Haley are limiting their own political options. The White House "warning", which had to be defused within a day, has a similar effect. People will become less inclined to believe any U.S. claims or to follow up on U.S. demands. Both statements have limited future policy options. ..."
"... So Sayeth Nimrata Randhawa Haley, she who was paid US$110,000 a year as a fundraiser for Lexington Medical Center back in 2008, at a time when the average salary of her peers doing similar work for non-profit organisations of similar size and with similar budgets as her employer was just over US$44,000. Moreover Haley expected to be paid US$125,000 for the work. http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/latest-news/article16614233.html ..."
"... Something about the way Nikki Haley handled her parents' company Exotica International's finances while she was accountant there is also very fishy, not least the fact that she consistently filed her own tax returns and those of the parents' business late. ..."
"... "I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." Statement as Vice-president, during a presidential campaign function (2 Aug 1988), commenting on the Navy warship USS Vincennes having shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in a commercial air corridor on July 3, killing 290 civilians, as quoted in "Perspectives", the quote of the week section of Newsweek (15 August 1988[1]) p. 15; also quoted in "Rally Round the Flag, Boys" by Michael Kingsley in TIME magazine (12 September 1988). Newsweek cites this phrase as said about the downing of the Iranian airliner to the group of the Republican ethnic leaders ... ..."
"... psychopaths - or the criminally, terminally inattentive - have no regrets. they leave regrets to the rest of the world for their psychopathic / acts of depraved indifference. ..."
"... Adolf Hitler is my conscience - last words of Nazi governer general - Poland ww2 ..."
"... The utter contempt for the public and its level of intelligence is astounding. ..."
"... There are two views that make limited military force seem like a good idea: one is the perceived invincibility of the U.S. military within Versailles and the other is the perception of Russia as the land of Yakov Smirnov. Trump doesn't want a major war. I'll agree, and outside of McCains of the world, no one does. This doesn't mean Trump and his circle aren't under the impression they can skip the back nine and paunch a few cruise missiles to win a limited war. ..."
"... Nikki Hailey wants a few scalps for her future Presidential run just like Hillary with Gaddafi or how Rummy lame Ted the absence of targets in Afghanistan he could run on CNN. ..."
"... Noted lunatic, Fareed Zakaria pronounced Trump as officially the President when he launched cruise missiles against Syria. Thugs look for victims when they need to establish their power. ..."
"... Nikki Haley is one of many "leaders" that were created using Newt Gingrich's "Republican in an Can" kits. These kits were tweaked and perfected by Karl Rove. It is required of the candidate to be completely malleable and to contain no original thoughts. The only skill requirement is that the candidate must be capable of memorizing canned sound bites and patriotic slogans which are to be repeated and used as answers to any and all questions. The candidate must never, ever waver from these sound bites. When they do, they get in trouble. Nikki Haley is a standout, Marco Rubio is another prime example. ..."
"... Yes, I realize that Haley is nominally a "diplomat", so you already covered that territory. But it struck me that the requirements you list apply more generally. As I recently commented elsewhere: beginning a few years ago, watching news videos of Putin helped me see through the Western propaganda profile characterizing Vladimir Putin as a ruthless, utterly self-serving reptilian dictator and ex-KGB thug. I was also impressed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Both men comport themselves like authentic, sober professionals, albeit that they still labor under the misapprehension that the West has retained an appreciation of, and (potential) competence in, the indispensable art of diplomacy. ..."
"... The collective Western political mind, possibly due to capitalism-induced dementia, has lost its capacity for understanding and practicing diplomacy. When one abandons an art, it's like abandoning an industry: over time, the basic knowledge and understanding of the craft is lost. ..."
Jun 29, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trump administration officials are walking back the White House announcement of its plans to fake another "chemical weapon attack" in Syria.

There are plenty of reasons why the U.S. would want to accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons but zero sane reasons for the Syrian government to use such. Russia and Syria have long insisted on sending chemical weapon inspectors to the airbase the Trump administration claims is at the center of its "chemical" fairy tale. The U.S. has held the inspectors back. The claims make thereby zero sense to any objective observer.

The walk back, as well as the statement itself, may not be serious at all. This White House seems unpredictable and the U.S. military, the intelligence services and the White House itself have no common view or policy. One day they claim the U.S. will leave Syria after ISIS is defeated, the next day they announce new bases and eternal support for the Syrian Kurds.

The way the White House statement came out, without knowledge of the relevant agencies and little involvement of the agency principals, was not cynical but just dumb . It sounds like the idea was dropped by Natanyahoo to his schoolboy Jared Kushner who then convinced his father in law to issue the crazy statement. Now officials are send out with the worst argument ever to claim that the White House "warning" made sense.

"The elephants did not climb up the trees. Warning them off was successful," they say. "The trees were saved!"

" It appears that they took the warning seriously," Mattis said. "They didn't do it," he told reporters flying with him to Brussels for a meeting of NATO defense ministers.

He offered no evidence other than the fact that an attack had not taken place.

---
" I can tell you that due to the president's actions, we did not see an incident," [U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki] Haley told the House Foreign Affairs Committee during a hearing Tuesday.[..]
[...]
"I would like to think that the president saved many innocent men, women and children," Haley continued.

Haley "would like to think" a lot of stuff - unfortunately she is not capable of such. A bit later she issued an egocentric tweet about UN peacekeeping that will surely increase U.S. political standing in the world (not):

I can even agree with Haley that UN peacekeeping has gotten way out of hand. To have UN mandated troops spreading Cholera in Haiti and raping their way through various countries does not help anyone. But the way to end this is to stop handing out mandates for such missions. To (re-)mandate undertrained/underpaid peacekeeping forces in the UN Security Council while cutting the budget for them is irresponsible. It will corrupt the troops and their behavior even more.

UN peacekeepers are often an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. By cutting them down the U.S. and Haley are limiting their own political options. The White House "warning", which had to be defused within a day, has a similar effect. People will become less inclined to believe any U.S. claims or to follow up on U.S. demands. Both statements have limited future policy options.

Will the Trump administration come to regret such moves?

Ghostship | Jun 29, 2017 7:08:52 AM | 12
Jen | Jun 29, 2017 7:46:08 AM | 13 "Just 5 months into our time here, we've cut over half a billion $$$ from the UN peacekeeping budget & we're only getting started."

So Sayeth Nimrata Randhawa Haley, she who was paid US$110,000 a year as a fundraiser for Lexington Medical Center back in 2008, at a time when the average salary of her peers doing similar work for non-profit organisations of similar size and with similar budgets as her employer was just over US$44,000. Moreover Haley expected to be paid US$125,000 for the work. http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/latest-news/article16614233.html

Something about the way Nikki Haley handled her parents' company Exotica International's finances while she was accountant there is also very fishy, not least the fact that she consistently filed her own tax returns and those of the parents' business late.

https://fredericacade.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/nikki-haley-was-accountant-and-according-to-south-carolina-data-would-suggest-the-family-business-closed-in-2010-reinstatement-in-2011-and-closure-in-2013-involved-paying-back-money-still-owed/

jfl | Jun 29, 2017 4:21:52 AM | 3
b, 'Will the Trump administration come to regret such moves?'

i think this runs along the lines of george xli ...

"I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." Statement as Vice-president, during a presidential campaign function (2 Aug 1988), commenting on the Navy warship USS Vincennes having shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in a commercial air corridor on July 3, killing 290 civilians, as quoted in "Perspectives", the quote of the week section of Newsweek (15 August 1988[1]) p. 15; also quoted in "Rally Round the Flag, Boys" by Michael Kingsley in TIME magazine (12 September 1988). Newsweek cites this phrase as said about the downing of the Iranian airliner to the group of the Republican ethnic leaders ...
... psychopaths - or the criminally, terminally inattentive - have no regrets. they leave regrets to the rest of the world for their psychopathic / acts of depraved indifference.
ashley albanese | Jun 29, 2017 5:15:07 AM | 7
jfl 4

Adolf Hitler is my conscience - last words of Nazi governer general - Poland ww2 .

AtaBrit | Jun 29, 2017 8:27:05 AM | 18
@harrylaw 14

The utter contempt for the public and its level of intelligence is astounding.

Laguerre | Jun 29, 2017 9:04:47 AM | 20
What I said at the end of the last thread seems to me still the probable explanation of what happened, and why there's walking back:
The White House warning to Asad was a sort of official version of a Trump 3 am tweet, wasn't it? He heard about (I won't say read, as it's unlikely) Hersh's article, and got in a rage. He'll show 'em, he's serious. And had Spicer put out the warning, rather than tweeting it - to show he's really, really, serious, and not someone who just tweets at 3 in the morning in a rage.
There never was a serious plan (difficult as though that would be for many commenters here to accept). It was just a blast of rage from Trump. I doubt if Trump wants serious war, even if there are forces trying to push him into it.
Willy2 | Jun 29, 2017 9:06:54 AM | 21
I regard Mrs. Nikki Haley to be a sock puppet of the Trump administration and was chosen because she has no spine/backbone.
- Judging by her previous statements she isn't "the brighest bulb in the chandalier". But that's what the current administration was looking for, right ?
NotTimothyGeithner | Jun 29, 2017 9:42:30 AM | 23
@20 "Home by Christmas" is the problem.

There are two views that make limited military force seem like a good idea: one is the perceived invincibility of the U.S. military within Versailles and the other is the perception of Russia as the land of Yakov Smirnov. Trump doesn't want a major war. I'll agree, and outside of McCains of the world, no one does. This doesn't mean Trump and his circle aren't under the impression they can skip the back nine and paunch a few cruise missiles to win a limited war.

Nikki Hailey wants a few scalps for her future Presidential run just like Hillary with Gaddafi or how Rummy lame Ted the absence of targets in Afghanistan he could run on CNN.

Noted lunatic, Fareed Zakaria pronounced Trump as officially the President when he launched cruise missiles against Syria. Thugs look for victims when they need to establish their power.

Peter AU | Jun 29, 2017 9:42:42 AM | 24
Not a word from either Trump or Tillerson on this bullshit. Looks like Trump has just thrown it out there for whatever reason and left the lackeys to deal with the fallout.
fastfreddy | Jun 29, 2017 10:18:10 AM | 27
Nikki Haley is one of many "leaders" that were created using Newt Gingrich's "Republican in an Can" kits. These kits were tweaked and perfected by Karl Rove. It is required of the candidate to be completely malleable and to contain no original thoughts. The only skill requirement is that the candidate must be capable of memorizing canned sound bites and patriotic slogans which are to be repeated and used as answers to any and all questions. The candidate must never, ever waver from these sound bites. When they do, they get in trouble. Nikki Haley is a standout, Marco Rubio is another prime example.
jfl | Jun 29, 2017 2:02:39 PM | 51

Ort | Jun 29, 2017 2:04:53 PM | 52
@ fastfreddy | 27

Well-stated and worth repeating:

Nikki Haley is one of many "leaders" that were created using Newt Gingrich's "Republican in an Can" kits. These kits were tweaked and perfected by Karl Rove.

It is required of the candidate to be completely malleable and to contain no original thoughts. The only skill requirement is that the candidate must be capable of memorizing canned sound bites and patriotic slogans which are to be repeated and used as answers to any and all questions. The candidate must never, ever waver from these sound bites. When they do, they get in trouble.
______________________________________

I also think it's worth adding that in this century-- especially after 9/11/2001-- the US, and even Western Europe has "created" leaders and official spokespersons using "Statesman in a Can" and "Diplomat in a Can" kits.

Yes, I realize that Haley is nominally a "diplomat", so you already covered that territory. But it struck me that the requirements you list apply more generally. As I recently commented elsewhere: beginning a few years ago, watching news videos of Putin helped me see through the Western propaganda profile characterizing Vladimir Putin as a ruthless, utterly self-serving reptilian dictator and ex-KGB thug. I was also impressed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Both men comport themselves like authentic, sober professionals, albeit that they still labor under the misapprehension that the West has retained an appreciation of, and (potential) competence in, the indispensable art of diplomacy.

The collective Western political mind, possibly due to capitalism-induced dementia, has lost its capacity for understanding and practicing diplomacy. When one abandons an art, it's like abandoning an industry: over time, the basic knowledge and understanding of the craft is lost.

It's a bipartisan, or transnational, degeneracy. Whether it's the supposedly "eloquent", "intellectual" Obama and John Kerry, or Trump and Tillerson, (or Macron et al) the Western team looks, sounds, and acts like a troupe of life-sized animatronic puppets programmed to spew tendentious talking points du jour.
______________________________________

The "Statesman/Diplomat in a Can" kit fits right in with my "animatronic puppets" idea; instead of reasonably honest professional diplomats and statesmen, the West prefers talking-point spewing, hollow narcissists.

MadMax2 | Jun 30, 2017 6:28:18 AM | 65
For sure Nikki Haley is mildly retarded, placing her in the 'above average yank' percentile band.

[Jun 30, 2017] The Russians are coming narrative is an attempt to reassert the control by neoliberal elite after Trump election

Notable quotes:
"... i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'. the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine yards? ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

jfl | Jun 29, 2017 9:35:53 PM | 62

@59 ts

i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'. the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine yards?

so 'the Russians are coming!' anything to reassert a narrative it can control.

[Jun 30, 2017] Russia is uniquely hated by the US neoliberal elite and neocons. The key issue for them is "Putinism" which means 'sovereignty, local nationalism (for everyone), a multi-polar world, respect for the UN' vs the Full Specturm Dominance, 'exporting democracy' (via regime change for countries that put resitiance) and the preeminence of US world hegemony

Notable quotes:
"... As I mentioned earlier, Iran is dismissed as a terrorist state, N. Korea a rogue regime, and China a growing rival. With Russia the Foreign Policy Establishment (FPE) will invest the time to write, scholarly looking articles that make it look like they have thoroughly studied Russia and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Russia is a basket case of evil. ..."
"... Because I watched Stone's interviews and read Russia insider, I can see why they view Putin as a threat. Contrary to their assertion that 'Russia has no culture or ideology to challenge the west (the U.S. FPE)'. This is an issue for them. Putinism, 'sovereignty, local nationalism (for everyone), a multi-polar world, respect for the UN' vs the FPE, 'exporting U.S. democracy (including regime change) and the preeminence of U.S. world leadership'. ..."
"... You can debate Putinism but not merely dismiss it as thuggery which they invariably do with their tediously long articles. It doesn't look like they actually listen to Russians, it looks like they read each other's papers. ..."
"... Now I can see why Russia has abandoned the information war, they view it as a hopeless waste of resources that they can never match. ..."
"... For example, here is a very clever apology for how we justified not having the OPCW investigate Khan Shaykhun and the Syrian airbase https://tcf.org/content/commentary/havent-chemical-weapons-inspectors-gone-syrias-shayrat-air-base/ ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Christian Chuba | Jun 30, 2017 2:28:05 PM | 3

Russia is uniquely hated, they get boutique articles to show that they are rotten to the core.

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/seeing-russia-clearly/

As I mentioned earlier, Iran is dismissed as a terrorist state, N. Korea a rogue regime, and China a growing rival. With Russia the Foreign Policy Establishment (FPE) will invest the time to write, scholarly looking articles that make it look like they have thoroughly studied Russia and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Russia is a basket case of evil.

These boutique articles will say a lot of condescending things but will tie into, 'Russia never had a liberal democratic tradition so of course they are governed by monsters like Putin'. I don't see the same level of care given to the rest of our enemies list. I read realclearworld.com which gives a sampling of neocon articles so I think I get a broad representation of their production.

Because I watched Stone's interviews and read Russia insider, I can see why they view Putin as a threat. Contrary to their assertion that 'Russia has no culture or ideology to challenge the West (the U.S. FPE)'. This is an issue for them. Putinism, 'sovereignty, local nationalism (for everyone), a multi-polar world, respect for the UN' vs the FPE, 'exporting U.S. democracy (including regime change) and the preeminence of U.S. world leadership'.

You can debate Putinism but not merely dismiss it as thuggery which they invariably do with their tediously long articles. It doesn't look like they actually listen to Russians, it looks like they read each other's papers.

If you take the time to read it, the author is diabolically clever in how he twists Putin's words. He refers to Russians who lost everything and were forced to leave (note, he leaves out the dreaded word 'oligarch', that is reserved for those who staid).

Now I can see why Russia has abandoned the information war, they view it as a hopeless waste of resources that they can never match.

For example, here is a very clever apology for how we justified not having the OPCW investigate Khan Shaykhun and the Syrian airbase https://tcf.org/content/commentary/havent-chemical-weapons-inspectors-gone-syrias-shayrat-air-base/

[Jun 30, 2017] After Hersh Investigation, Media Connive in Propaganda War on Syria

Notable quotes:
"... But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered the journalist's journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail. In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am Sonntag. ..."
"... His story has spawned two clear "spoiler" responses from those desperate to uphold the official narrative. Hersh's revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh's investigation directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh's alternative narrative and shore up the official one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed. ..."
"... The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh's story, were statements from the Pentagon and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so. ..."
"... And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats " confirmed " that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like substances. ..."
"... There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no "chain of custody" – neutral oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, has noted . Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media. ..."
"... In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading, the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact opposite of what they were supposed to achieve. ..."
"... Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net . ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

If you wish to understand the degree to which a supposedly free western media are constructing a world of half-truths and deceptions to manipulate their audiences, keeping us uninformed and pliant, then there could hardly be a better case study than their treatment of Pulitzer prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

All of these highly competitive, for-profit, scoop-seeking media outlets separately took identical decisions: first to reject Hersh's latest investigative report, and then to studiously ignore it once it was published in Germany last Sunday. They have continued to maintain an absolute radio silence on his revelations, even as over the past few days they have given a great deal of attention to two stories on the very issue Hersh's investigation addresses.

These two stories, given such prominence in the western media, are clearly intended to serve as "spoilers" to his revelations, even though none of these publications have actually informed their readers of his original investigation. We are firmly in looking-glass territory.

So what did Hersh's investigation reveal? His sources in the US intelligence establishment – people who have helped him break some of the most important stories of the past few decades, from the Mai Lai massacre by American soldiers during the Vietnam war to US abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in 2004 – told him the official narrative that Syria's Bashar Assad had dropped deadly sarin gas on the town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4 was incorrect. Instead, they said, a Syrian plane dropped a bomb on a meeting of jihadi fighters that triggered secondary explosions in a storage depot, releasing a toxic cloud of chemicals that killed civilians nearby.

It is an alternative narrative of these events that one might have assumed would be of intense interest to the media, given that Donald Trump approved a military strike on Syria based on the official narrative. Hersh's version suggests that Trump acted against the intelligence advice he received from his own officials, in a highly dangerous move that not only grossly violated international law but might have dragged Assad's main ally, Russia, into the fray. The Syrian arena has the potential to trigger a serious confrontation between the world's two major nuclear powers.

But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered the journalist's journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail. In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am Sonntag.

There are a couple of possible, even if highly improbable, reasons all English-language publications ignored Hersh's story. Maybe they had evidence that his inside intelligence was wrong. If so, they have yet to provide it. A rebuttal would require acknowledging Hersh's story, and none seem willing to do that.

Or maybe the media thought it was old news and would no longer interest their readers. It would be difficult to sustain such an interpretation, but at least it has an air of plausibility – except for everything that has happened since Hersh published last Sunday.

His story has spawned two clear "spoiler" responses from those desperate to uphold the official narrative. Hersh's revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh's investigation directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh's alternative narrative and shore up the official one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed.

The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh's story, were statements from the Pentagon and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so.

Here is how the Guardian reported the US threats:

The US said on Tuesday that it had observed preparations for a possible chemical weapons attack at a Syrian air base allegedly involved in a sarin attack in April following a warning from the White House that the Syrian regime would 'pay a heavy price' for further use of the weapons.

And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats " confirmed " that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like substances.

There are obvious reasons to be mightily suspicious of these stories. The findings of the OPCW were already known and had been discussed for some time – there was absolutely nothing newsworthy about them.

There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no "chain of custody" – neutral oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, has noted . Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media.

Similarly, by going public with their threats against Assad, the Pentagon and White House did not increase the deterrence on Assad, making it less likely he would use gas in the future. That could have been achieved much more effectively with private warnings to the Russians, who have massive leverage over Assad. These new warnings were meant not for Assad but for western publics, to bolster the official narrative that Hersh's investigation had thrown into doubt.

In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading, the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact opposite of what they were supposed to achieve.

But beyond this, there was something even more troubling about these two stories. That these official claims were published so unthinkingly in major outlets is bad enough. But what is unconscionable is the media's continuing blackout of Hersh's investigation when it speaks directly to the two latest news reports.

No serious journalist could write up either story, according to any accepted norms of journalistic practice, and not make reference to Hersh's claims. They are absolutely relevant to these stories. In fact, more than that, the intelligence sources he cites are are not only relevant but are the reason these two stories have been suddenly propelled to the top of the news agenda.

Any publication that has covered either the White House-Pentagon threats or the rehashing of the OPCW report and has not mentioned Hersh's revelations is writing nothing less than propaganda in service of a western foreign policy agenda trying to bring about the illegal overthrow the Syrian government. And so far that appears to include every single US and UK mainstream newspaper and TV station. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net .

[Jun 30, 2017] The Late Show team shot four or five pieces in Russia -- an explanationwhy the ageing clown Colbert went to Russia

Notable quotes:
"... An explanation – of sorts – of why the ageing arse-clown Colbert went to Russia: ..."
"... "In total, the Late Show team shot four or five pieces in Russia, but the host didn't specify when these remote segments might air. The trip took months of planning, Colbert said, and yielded a week's worth of content. Perhaps not coincidentally, Emmy nomination-round voting closed Monday night - just days after Colbert made his trip public, first through a snarky tweet addressed to Donald Trump. ..."
"... By planning a week's worth of content, it seems Late Show wants to make certain that its trip to Russia lands with the greatest impact - and ends with a shiny new Emmy. After all, what would bother the president more than his archenemy in late-night taking home an award that Trump never managed to win himself?" ..."
"... Poison and antidote. Hooking them up on a drug and then extorting junkies for all their money for a new dose. ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Lyttenburgh ,

June 28, 2017 at 3:43 pm
An explanation – of sorts – of why the ageing arse-clown Colbert went to Russia:

Vanity Fear: Why Stephen Colbert really went to Russia

The Late Show host is back in the U.S., with a week's worth of episodes from his trip-but there's another, bigger reason for his jaunt abroad

"In total, the Late Show team shot four or five pieces in Russia, but the host didn't specify when these remote segments might air. The trip took months of planning, Colbert said, and yielded a week's worth of content. Perhaps not coincidentally, Emmy nomination-round voting closed Monday night - just days after Colbert made his trip public, first through a snarky tweet addressed to Donald Trump.

Though we don't know when his Russia segments will air, it seems safe to assume they'll broadcast some time before final-round Emmy voting begins in August, or during the voting period itself. Colbert will host this year's Emmy ceremony in September, and after a year of hard work to overtake Jimmy Fallon in the ratings, the comedian and his team would love to walk home with some statuary as well. It's almost certain that Late Show itself will be nominated - and ambitious pieces filmed off-site could boost the host's chances of actually winning. After all, it was during his week of episodes from last year's Republican National Convention that Colbert found his groove as a network late-night host in the first place.

Colbert isn't the first late-night host to travel to Russia. Two years ago, John Oliver made waves when he interviewed Edward Snowden there. And last fall, Samantha Bee's team tracked down some Russian trolls for fascinating interviews. Outside the late-night sphere, Megyn Kelly also made the journey earlier this month for her dull interview with Vladimir Putin. Colbert's trip could carry even more weight than those of his late-night contemporaries simply because of timing - Oliver went before the presidential campaign had ramped up, and Bee went before Trump's victory.

By planning a week's worth of content, it seems Late Show wants to make certain that its trip to Russia lands with the greatest impact - and ends with a shiny new Emmy. After all, what would bother the president more than his archenemy in late-night taking home an award that Trump never managed to win himself?"

Here you go! Russia is a "commodity" on the Media market. You know – this "internationally isolated" (c) "gas station masquerading as a country" (c) that "produces nothing" (c). Here how it works. Talking heads create the illusion of "oppressive" and "forbidden" Russia, that is oh so dangerous to visit. And then they "brave" to visit it – woo-hoo! Surely, if they are so brave, that they MIRACLOUSLY survived numerous assassination attempts (remember, kids – billions of journos are killed in Russia daily!) then everything they say must be true .

Poison and antidote. Hooking them up on a drug and then extorting junkies for all their money for a new dose.

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

Lyttenburgh , June 28, 2017 at 3:46 pm
Addendum.

On the previous page yalensis made a very important observation – Colbert, Oliver, Stewart etc. are court jesters of the so-called Western liberal democracy. In ages past, court jesters were (wait for it!) present at this or that feudal lord's court but they were not of the court themselves. They were anti-court, and they looked the part: instead of a crown they wore a cap with bells, instead of regal scepter and orb – a stick with pig's bladder, instead of rich vestment and mantle – an eyegouging ridiculous attire. No one could possibly mistake them for "normal" people.

That was the point. They were tolerated because they were not perceived as normal.

Modern day court jesters don't stand out. They wear suits, and ties and expensive shoes – just like the members of elite they diss/serve under. They look normal and thus are perceived as normal. Which is wrong and deceitful. People consider them "journalists" and "reporters" – which they are not. The fool's role is to embellish, to tell parables and to exaggerate – and, yes, to lie.

They are fools, all right. But how would you call the people, their enormous audience, who listen to fools and believe their every single word?

Cortes , June 28, 2017 at 4:42 pm
I beg to disagree with your penultimate paragraph.

Proper court jesters are still around and wear not the attire of the perspiring middle class.

As the best courtroom potboiler puts it: I'd like to present Prosecution Exhibit #1:

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2002/08/19/charlesandcamilla/

Reply

[Jun 28, 2017] WaPo does not like Ukrainian far right

Notable quotes:
"... "The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward. ..."
"... The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II. According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do. ..."
"... To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians." ..."
"... "Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution. ..."
"... [ ] [T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself. Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity." [ ] ..."
"... In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy." ..."
Jun 21, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Lyttenburgh , June 16, 2017 at 12:10 pm

Into the breach – once more! Or – once again about honest, balanced and tolerant Western Media ™, SUDDENLY finding out that there are roving bands of neo-nazis in the Ukraine. Why this particular article is important? First of all – because it's WaPo – a fearless crusader and enabler of leakers in anything Trump+Russia related. To doubt WaPo for a certain category of the people is sacrilege. Second – because of WHO wrote this article, namely Joshua Cohen, former (?) USAID chief honcho in realization of the "economic reforms" on the territory of the former USSR – a thoroughly handshakable person, judging by his last name.

Thirdly – the amount of evidence provided in one article combined with proof links to serve as the future reference material. Links are to very-very kosher and Ukrainian sources – so you can't accuse them in good faith of being Kremlenite propaganda.

Ukraine's ultra-right militias are challenging the government to a showdown

Blah-blah-blah – evil Russia, blah-blah, and then:

"The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward.

The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II.

According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do.

To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians."

Full stop here. First of all – "Russian propaganda" (and the Western propaganda understands by that all Russian press, except a few "brave ones" that suck foreign grants tit of theirs) claims no such a thing. Second – it is Poroshenko and his government who renames streets after Bandera and Shukhevitch. Third – in the second half of the article Mr. Cohen basically proves, that said roving bands all BUT overrun the Ukraine, while the alleged lack of support does not translate in the active resistance to them – which is what's enough for them to reign supreme:

"Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution.

[ ]

[T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself.

Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity."

[ ]

In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy."

P.S. Comment section is as always colorful there.

yalensis , June 16, 2017 at 3:12 pm

"To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians ."

True (about the level of support), but irrelevant, Mr. Cohen!
It doesn't matter if these fascists enjoy an approval rating of 5% or .005%
You yourself said that these perps enjoy "widespread impunity" --
They can do whatever they want, kill anybody they please, and never get punished --
That's the literal meaning of the word "impunity".

Eric , June 17, 2017 at 2:33 am
Yarosh is an MP, Parubiy would, if the same set of events occured as in February 2014, become President, as Turchynov did. Nazi's/far right are in the SBU, Police, parts of their academia, military

Its an intentionally idiotic statement by Cohen because Ukrainian political parties can come and go at the drop of the hat. All this just means that the 2 million Nazi voters in 2012 election have chosen these newly created parties because a new line of what is " mainstream" has been drawn in Ukraine.

That's why I found it more than a little odd what is happening in France now .a new party under Macron has been created and occupies that vast majority of seats .this is the type of thing you would see in a banana republic.

yalensis , June 17, 2017 at 4:36 am
Cohen is no idiot, I think he is just covering his ass and preparing his exit strategy.
In the hopes of keeping his press card after Ukraine goes totally South.
Cohen always knew these guys were Nazis, now he has to pretend to his reading public that he wasn't quite aware. He was duped!
Or maybe the turning point, which got his Jewish blood boiling was Biletsky calling his ethnic group a "Semite-led sub-humanity."

Cohen: "Oh, I never realized these people could be so hateful!" – LOL!

marknesop , June 17, 2017 at 8:15 am
They always use that to pooh-pooh the suggestion that Nazism is influential in Ukraine – but look! They only get tiny levels of support in elections! That matters little when people are appointed to political positions rather than voted into them. There are so many things – the dissolving of opposition political parties, the uberpatriotic signage everywhere exhorting citizens to report their neighbours if they suspect separatist sympathies, the hit list (Mirotvorets) of those who failed to shout the government line when prompted until told to stop – that simply scream "FASCISM!!!" But it is inconvenient for the west to see those things, because it could not acknowledge seeing them and continue to support the country and government which did them. The USA is an old hand at unseeing things which don't fit the narrative. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a nation which is good at unseeing obstacles as well; obstacles which are present and prevent it from achieving its goals. These are expected to disappear before the eraser called 'exceptionalism'.

The canard about levels of public support for Nazism in Ukraine is used to suggest that if Russia is spouting propaganda about this, then everything it says is propaganda. Reply

[Jun 28, 2017] Considering that Russia was gang-raped by Bill Clinton's Oligarch friends .a gang rape that caused a demographic collapse of the Russian population .Russia's subsequent recovery has been miraculous

Jun 28, 2017 | www.unz.com

War for Blair Mountain

June 22, 2017 at 10:44 pm GMT

@Mr. Hack


The only thing that Russia wanted from Ukraine is not to allow themselves to become threat to Russia by joining NATO. Ukraine, having wasted all other options for normal development, couldn't resist taking the offer of cashing in on becoming a threat to Russia. Ukraine tries to justify this based on some past historical grievances from the 1930's.
What total lunacy and hippocracy. Do I really need to remind you that before 2014 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO membership was not a popular option for most Ukrainians. But now, after the deceitful land grab by Russia of Crimea and three years of proxy directed war in Donbas orchestrated in Moscow, most Ukrainians now look favorably towards NATO membership. Latest polls show that 55.9% o Ukrainians now favor NATO integration (I think that pre 2014 it was less than 15%) and 66.4% now favor EU integration. You reap what you sew, Putinista fanboys. Bye, bye 'NovoRossiya'! http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2017/06/17/7147228/ The engine that drove the US into an economic power house was decades of violating free market principles

The engine that drove German economic success was being bailed out by the US right after WW2..

Considering that Russia was gang-raped by Bill Clinton's Oligarch friends .a gang rape that caused a demographic collapse of the Russian population .Russia's subsequent recovery has been miraculous

OOPS These comments were meant for Priss Factor not Mr. Hack

[Jun 28, 2017] WaPo does not like Ukrainian far right

Notable quotes:
"... "The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward. ..."
"... The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II. According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do. ..."
"... To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians." ..."
"... "Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution. ..."
"... [T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself. ..."
"... Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity ..."
"... In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy." ..."
"... Yarosh is an MP, Parubiy would, if the same set of events occurred as in February 2014, become President, as Turchynov did. Nazi's/far right are in the SBU, Police, parts of their academia, military ..."
"... Its an intentionally idiotic statement by Cohen because Ukrainian political parties can come and go at the drop of the hat. All this just means that the 2 million Nazi voters in 2012 election have chosen these newly created parties because a new line of what is " mainstream" has been drawn in Ukraine. ..."
"... Cohen is no idiot, I think he is just covering his ass and preparing his exit strategy. In the hopes of keeping his press card after Ukraine goes totally South. Cohen always knew these guys were Nazis, now he has to pretend to his reading public that he wasn't quite aware. ..."
"... They always use that to pooh-pooh the suggestion that Nazism is influential in Ukraine – but look! They only get tiny levels of support in elections! That matters little when people are appointed to political positions rather than voted into them. There are so many things – the dissolving of opposition political parties, the uberpatriotic signage everywhere exhorting citizens to report their neighbours if they suspect separatist sympathies, the hit list (Mirotvorets) of those who failed to shout the government line when prompted until told to stop – that simply scream "FASCISM!!!" ..."
"... But it is inconvenient for the west to see those things, because it could not acknowledge seeing them and continue to support the country and government which did them. The USA is an old hand at unseeing things which don't fit the narrative. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a nation which is good at unseeing obstacles as well; obstacles which are present and prevent it from achieving its goals. These are expected to disappear before the eraser called 'exceptionalism'. ..."
Jun 21, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Lyttenburgh , June 16, 2017 at 12:10 pm

Into the breach – once more! Or – once again about honest, balanced and tolerant Western Media ™, SUDDENLY finding out that there are roving bands of neo-nazis in the Ukraine. Why this particular article is important? First of all – because it's WaPo – a fearless crusader and enabler of leakers in anything Trump+Russia related. To doubt WaPo for a certain category of the people is sacrilege. Second – because of WHO wrote this article, namely Joshua Cohen, former (?) USAID chief honcho in realization of the "economic reforms" on the territory of the former USSR – a thoroughly handshakable person, judging by his last name.

Thirdly – the amount of evidence provided in one article combined with proof links to serve as the future reference material. Links are to very-very kosher and Ukrainian sources – so you can't accuse them in good faith of being Kremlenite propaganda.

Ukraine's ultra-right militias are challenging the government to a showdown

Blah-blah-blah – evul Russia, blah-blah, and then:

"The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward.

The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II.

According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do.

To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians."

Full stop here. First of all – "Russian propaganda" (and the Western propaganda understands by that all Russian press, except a few "brave ones" that suck foreign grants tit of theirs) claims no such a thing. Second – it is Poroshenko and his government who renames streets after Bandera and Shukhevitch. Third – in the second half of the article Mr. Cohen basically proves, that said roving bands all BUT overrun the Ukraine, while the alleged lack of support does not translate in the active resistance to them – which is what's enough for them to reign supreme:

"Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution.

[ ]

[T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself.

Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity."

[ ]

In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy."

P.S. Comment section is as always colorful there.

yalensis , June 16, 2017 at 3:12 pm

"To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians ."

True (about the level of support), but irrelevant, Mr. Cohen! It doesn't matter if these fascists enjoy an approval rating of 5% or .005% You yourself said that these perps enjoy "widespread impunity" --

They can do whatever they want, kill anybody they please, and never get punished -- That's the literal meaning of the word "impunity".

Eric , June 17, 2017 at 2:33 am
Yarosh is an MP, Parubiy would, if the same set of events occurred as in February 2014, become President, as Turchynov did. Nazi's/far right are in the SBU, Police, parts of their academia, military

Its an intentionally idiotic statement by Cohen because Ukrainian political parties can come and go at the drop of the hat. All this just means that the 2 million Nazi voters in 2012 election have chosen these newly created parties because a new line of what is " mainstream" has been drawn in Ukraine.

That's why I found it more than a little odd what is happening in France now .a new party under Macron has been created and occupies that vast majority of seats .this is the type of thing you would see in a banana republic.

yalensis , June 17, 2017 at 4:36 am
Cohen is no idiot, I think he is just covering his ass and preparing his exit strategy. In the hopes of keeping his press card after Ukraine goes totally South. Cohen always knew these guys were Nazis, now he has to pretend to his reading public that he wasn't quite aware.

He was duped! Or maybe the turning point, which got his Jewish blood boiling was Biletsky calling his ethnic group a "Semite-led sub-humanity."

Cohen: "Oh, I never realized these people could be so hateful!" – LOL!

marknesop , June 17, 2017 at 8:15 am
They always use that to pooh-pooh the suggestion that Nazism is influential in Ukraine – but look! They only get tiny levels of support in elections! That matters little when people are appointed to political positions rather than voted into them. There are so many things – the dissolving of opposition political parties, the uberpatriotic signage everywhere exhorting citizens to report their neighbours if they suspect separatist sympathies, the hit list (Mirotvorets) of those who failed to shout the government line when prompted until told to stop – that simply scream "FASCISM!!!"

But it is inconvenient for the west to see those things, because it could not acknowledge seeing them and continue to support the country and government which did them. The USA is an old hand at unseeing things which don't fit the narrative. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a nation which is good at unseeing obstacles as well; obstacles which are present and prevent it from achieving its goals. These are expected to disappear before the eraser called 'exceptionalism'.

The canard about levels of public support for Nazism in Ukraine is used to suggest that if Russia is spouting propaganda about this, then everything it says is propaganda.

[Jun 28, 2017] Trump Has Been Continuing Obamas Syria-Policy by Eric Zuesse

Jun 27, 2017 | off-guardian.org

U.S. President Donald Trump, who during the election-campaign ferociously condemned Barack Obama's foreign policies, while asserting nothing concrete of his own, has, as the U.S. President, committed himself quite clearly to continuing Obama's publicly stated policy on Syria, which policy was to place, as the first priority, the elimination of ISIS, and as the policy to follow that, the elimination and replacement of Syria's government. I have previously indicated that on June 19th "Russia Announces No-Fly Zone in Syria - War Against U.S. There" , and that the early indications are that Trump has changed his Syria-policy to accommodate Russia's demands there; but, prior to June 19th, Trump was actually following Obama's publicly stated Syria-policy.

As also will be shown here, Obama's publicly stated policy - to destroy ISIS and then to overthrow Syria's President Bashar al-Assad - was actually less extreme than his real policy, which was to overthrow Assad and to use the jihadist forces in Syria (especially Al Qaeda in Syria) to achieve that objective. Trump, at least until 19 June 2017, has been adhering to Obama's publicly stated policy. Russia's warning was for him not to adopt and continue Obama's actual policy (to overthrow Assad).

Here is the part, of the by-now-famous 12 August 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysis of the intelligence regarding Iraq and in Syria, that the press (despite its extensive reporting about the document) has not yet reported from the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures (which had included that document and many others), but which part of it shows even more than the part that has been reported from the document, Obama's having made an informed choice actually to protect Al Qaeda in Syria, so as to bring down and replace the Syrian government - Obama's actual prioritization (contrary to his publicly stated one) of overthrowing Assad, even above defeating the jihadists in Syria; and this was clearly also a warning by the DIA to the Commander-in-Chief, that he can have either an overthrow of Assad, or else a non-jihadist-controlled Syria, but not both, and that any attempt to bring down Assad by means of using the jihadists as a proxy army against him, would ultimately fail:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version.pdf

page 69 of 100:

D. AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq], through spokesman of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) Abu Muhammed Al Adnani, declared the Syrian regime as the spearhead of what he is naming Jibha Al Ruwafdh (forefront of the Shiites) because of its (the Syrian regime) declaration of war on the Sunnis. Additionally, he is calling on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions (between Iraq and Syria), to wage war against the Syrian regime, regarding Syria as an infidel regime for its support to the infidel party Hezbollah, and other regimes he considers dissenters like Iran and Iraq.

E. AQI considers the Sunni issue in Iraq to be fatefully connected to the Sunni Arabs and Muslims.

page 70:

A. The [Syrian] regime will survive and have control over Syrian territory.

page 71:

B. Development of the current events into a proxy war: with support from Russia, China, and Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories (Tartus and Latakia), and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On the other hand, opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these [jihadist] efforts

And here is from the part that the press did report:

https://www.facebook.com/ayssar.midani/posts/10152479627582395

Ayssar Midani, May 23, 2015 · Paris, France:

"C: If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."

The "supporting powers" are: western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey The DIA warns that the creation of such an Salafist principality would have "dire consequences" for Iraq and would possibly lead to the creation of an Islamic State and: create the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.
These DIA folks really earned their salary.

The Obama administration, together with other supporter of the Syrian "opposition", knew that AQ was a large part of that "opposition" from the very beginning. The U.S. and others wanted a Salafist [i.e., fundamentalist Sunni] principality in east Syria to cut Syria and Lebanon off from a land route to Iran. It was warned that such a principality would create havoc in Iraq and to the return of AQ in Iraq (today the Islamic State) to Mosul and Ramadi.

I quoted from that part in December 2016 , which was the time when the two Presidents, Obama and Turkey's Erdogan, began their joint effort to relocate ISIS from Mosul Iraq, into Der Zor Syria, in order to culminate their (and the Sauds') joint plan to use ISIS so as to bring down Assad. Then, I headlined, on 30 April 2017, that they had actually completed this task of moving Iraq's ISIS into Syria, "How Obama & Erdogan Moved ISIS from Iraq to Syria, to Weaken Assad" . That's why the Syrian government is now fighting to take Der Zor back from ISIS control.

Other portions of the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures which received little or no press-coverage (and that little being only on far-right blogs - not mainstream 'news' sites) add still further to the evidence that Obama was using Al Qaeda and its friends, as a proxy army of jihadists to overthrow Syria's President Bashar al-Assad and replace him by a jihadist regime that would be loyal to America's fundamentalist-Sunni 'allies', the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia, and the Thanis who own Qatar. (Of course, now, the Sauds are trying to destroy the Thanis, too.)

These unpublished or little-published portions from the Judical Watch disclosures, also add to the ample published evidence that the Obama regime was transporting (as these documents acknowledged on page 4) "weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya" which "were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria," for use by Obama's 'moderate rebels' (a.k.a.: jihadists) in Syria. Specifically:

page 4:
18 Sep 2012

2. During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amounts of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.

3. The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August 2012 [i.e., the period immediately prior to this memo] were sniper rifles, RPGs, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles.

It's now clear that Trump (at least until June 19th) has been continuing Obama's stated policy of killing ISIS and then overthrowing Assad. But of course no one can yet know whether or not he would be continuing it in precisely the way that Hillary Clinton made clear that she would do, which is to announce a no-fly zone in Syria and thus grab control over some portion of the sovereign nation of Syria. That way would result, now after 19 June 2017 ( Russia's warning to shoot down U.S. aircraft that attack Syrian government-allied forces ), either in U.S. retreat or else shooting down Russian planes in Syria, and war between U.S. and Russia, ending in nuclear war.

When I presented, in my December 2016 report, what I referred to above as "the part of the 12 August 2012 DIA analysis of the intelligence regarding Iraq and in Syria that the press has not yet reported from the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures," I didn't mention then that one news-medium did report a part of that section, and it was a rabidly pro-Republican site, Glenn Beck and his "The Blaze," which headlined about this matter, very appropriately, "'It Is Damn Near Criminal': Glenn Beck Says the U.S. Is Using Islamic State as a 'Pawn'," which point, Beck presented rather well in the video accompanying it. Unfortunately, however, closed-minded 'liberals' and 'progressives' paid no attention to this and to the other evils perpetrated by Obama ( such as these ). Regardless of how untrustworthy Beck is, his statements about that particular matter were actually spot-on.

Obama was using ISIS in this way, but after Russia started bombing ISIS in Syria on 30 September 2015, Obama joined in so as not to make obvious to the world that he had been protecting and even arming ISIS until that date, and that prior to Russia's bombing ISIS, the U.S. had actually ignored ISIS.

Now that ISIS in Syria seems to be on its last legs there, only Kurds and Al Qaeda in Syria ( and their backers especially the U.S. and Sauds ) remain as big threats to Syria's sovereignty, and the evidence at least till June 19th, has been that Trump definitely backs the Kurds there, and might also be backing Al Qaeda there as well. If he continues backing the Kurds and Al Qaeda there, after Russia's warning on June 19th (which the neoconservative Washington Post called only "bluffing" and the neoconservative CNBC called "bluster" ), then the U.S. will be at war not only against Russia, but also against Turkey, and also against Iran, and it would be World War III because it would be U.S.-v.-Russia. Turkey is already at war against the Kurds; and, if America is fighting for the Kurds, to break up Syria, then Turkey - a member of the NATO anti-Russia alliance - will paralyze NATO; and the U.S. will then be waging its war without NATO's support.

Trump would need to be very stupid to do such a thing. It would be an intelligence test which, if Trump fails, the world will end, in nuclear winter - with or without support from the rest of NATO. But, nonetheless, some in the American 'elite' and its employees, say that it would merely be a recognition of Russia's "bluffing" and "bluster." One wonders what objective this 'elite' believes to be worthy of taking the risk that they're wrong. What do they actually hope to 'win', fighting on the side of the Sauds (and their Israeli agents), in order to conquer Syria? Why are they so desperate, to do that?

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Eric Blair says June 27, 2017

Moon of Alabama commented yesterday on the US and its allies defeat (so far) in S.E. Syria. At an MSM ignored DoD press conference the US military admitted as much. From MoA's article:

Q: [ ] [W]hat potential threat do you believe these Iranian backed militias and regime forces continue to pose to your forces and your partner forces in the At Tanf - Abu Kamal area?

COL. DILLON: Well if the Syrian regime - and it looks like they are making a concerted effort to move into ISIS held areas. And if they show that they can do that, that is not a bad sign. We are here to fight ISIS as a coalition, but if others want to fight ISIS and defeat them, then we absolutely have no problem with that. And as they move eastward toward Abu Kamal and to Deir Ezzour, if we - as long as we can de-conflict and make sure that we can focus on what it is we're there to do, without having any kind of strategic mishaps with the regime or with pro-regime forces or with Russians, then that is - we're perfectly happy with that.

In a later part the spokesperson also concedes that the forces in al-Tanf are now very constricted in their movement:

if the regime is - has moved into an area that is towards Abu Kamal, then we are going to be limited to how far out we do patrols [from al-Tanf] with our partner forces.

Somewhat later the point is made again and even clearer – al-Tanf is now useless and the Syrian army is free to do what it does:

COL. DILLON: So what I was saying about that is that, out of the At Tanf area, we have used that to train our partner forces and to continue to - to fight ISIS, you know, if they are in and around that area.

You know, now that the regime has moved in, and they have made some significant, you know, progress, as it looks, towards moving to Abu Kamal and perhaps Deir Ezzour, if they want to fight ISIS in Abu Kamal and they have the capacity to do so, then, you know, that - that would be welcome.

We as a coalition are not in the land-grab business. We're in the killing ISIS business, and that is what we want to do. And if - if the Syrian regime wants to do that, and they are going to, again, put forth a concerted effort and show that they are - are doing just that in Abu Kamal or Deir Ezzour or elsewhere, that means that we don't have to do that in those locations.

So I guess that - what I'm saying is, in the At Tanf area, we will continue to train our partner forces. We will continue to do patrols in and around At Tanf in the Hamad desert. But if our access to Abu Kamal is shut off because the regime is there, that's okay.

Hmm the US military standing down? I haven't looked at the entire transcript yet but this seems almost too good to be true. Of course these press conference proclamations need to be washed down with a generous helping of delicious salt. Even if the statements are sincere, the interventionists, their media "partners" and think tank propagandists will keep on pushing for "regime change" (a coup by any other name ) and the destruction of Syria.

On the bright side US/NATO uncontested domination of the globe was stopped in its tracks by the Russian military in Syria on 30.09.2015 and there is simply no way Washington can bribe, threaten or beat every nation in the world into submission.

bevin says June 26, 2017
This is a culture at the end of its tether: it simply cannot put up with dissent or contradiction, so brittle is it. It is all part of a refusal to face ugly reality, symptomatic of which is the relegation-to Die Welt's Sunday edition- of Seymour Hersh's latest investigation of US state mendacity its irresponsibility in the matter if the recent "Sarin" attack blamed on Assad.
Ray McGovern has a piece at Counterpunch today in which he reveals that "Even the London Review of Books, which published Hersh's earlier debunking of the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin-gas incident, wouldn't go out onto the limb this time despite having paid for his investigation.

"According to Hersh, the LRB did not want to be "vulnerable to criticism for seeming to take the view of the Syrian and Russia governments when it came to the April 4 bombing in Khan Sheikhoun." So much for diversity of thought in today's West."
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/26/hershs-big-scoop-bad-intel-behind-trumps-syria-attack/

captain Swing says June 27, 2017
Very interesting article from Counterpunch. Thanks.
Jerry Alatalo says June 27, 2017
bevin,
The facts Seymour Hersh's article lays out pushes one in the direction that Trump – totally ignoring his intelligence and military experts telling him their was no certainty Assad was responsible – had knowledge the event was a false flag. Trump couldn't be so stupid as to not understand what his experts were telling him. After launching the 50 Tomahawk missiles, he lied through his teeth to the world, saying "we know we have the evidence..", then UN Ambassador Nikki Haley (like Colin Powell, before the illegal Iraq War) blasted Assad falsely, held up pictures at the Security Council of dead children which were quickly plastered on the front pages of newspapers globally,, and literally warned Syria's Bashar al-Jaafari of impending war.

Hersh's article shows Trump, Haley and the U.S. administration, UK/France and other United Nations representatives were lying about "we have the evidence", and owe their citizens and the world an explanation, plus an apology. These psychopath liars are extremely dangerous and must become held to account for their deceptions.

archie1954 says June 26, 2017
If the US were to persist in this dangerous dance with the devil, I could imaging NATO being split by Turkey, refusing to get involved any further and even separately protecting Europe from Russian retaliation by entering into a defense treaty with Russia. The US then would be shouldering the whole foolish confrontation by itself and perhaps having to deal with China and North Korea at the same time. Now that would be an interesting scenario.
Michael Leigh says June 26, 2017
I think the worthy Historian, Eric Zuesse has not considered the possibility that a new midlle East regional grouping, offers the best chance of allowing the USA to gracefully avoid the ultimate failure of its Middle East policy by conceding to the combined alliance, of the major traditional Nations and their forces of the Middle East; being Egypt, Iran and Turkey.

Currently divided by a false religious and secular division, posed by primarily Great Britain and the USA, it was the British who over 100 years ago financed and invented the Sunni Wahhabi division which sunni division represents the most murderous of the current Islamic terrorist outrages financed also by the USA and Saudi Arabia throughout the region and globe.

Similarly, the Anglo-Franco financed and hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood to further frustrate and end Turkey's leadership of the declining Otterman Empire, formally lead by Turkey.

The most important factor against a new alignment of those three aforementioned regional leaders; is the current illegimate counter-alliance of " the lawless Hebrew State of Israel " and the Teflon-guarded deep state, which appears to own and really run the also infamous North America State?

[Jun 28, 2017] Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia.

Notable quotes:
"... Russia and Putin weren't effective issues for Hillary, and they're not effective issues now, yet the Democratic leadership insists on flogging them. The corrupt, sclerotic, and incompetent Democratic leadership is aloof and out of touch...and needs to go. ..."
Jun 28, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

JohnH , June 27, 2017 at 06:27 AM

Earth to the Democratic leadership: Stop talking so much about Russia.

"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia.

Democratic leaders have been beating the drum this year over the ongoing probes into the Trump administration's potential ties to Moscow, taking every opportunity to highlight the saga and forcing floor votes designed to uncover any business dealings the president might have with Russian figures.

But rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare.
In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift.
"We can't just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio aren't really talking that much about Russia, about Putin, about Michael Flynn," Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told MSNBC Thursday. "They're trying to figure out how they're going to make the mortgage payment, how they're going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like.

"And if we don't talk more about their interest than we do about how we're so angry with Donald Trump and everything that's going on," he added, "then we're never going to be able to win elections."

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/339248-dems-push-leaders-to-talk-less-about-russia

Russia and Putin weren't effective issues for Hillary, and they're not effective issues now, yet the Democratic leadership insists on flogging them. The corrupt, sclerotic, and incompetent Democratic leadership is aloof and out of touch...and needs to go.

[Jun 28, 2017] Norman Solomon: Is 'Russiagate' Collapsing as a Political Strategy? by Norman Solomon

Notable quotes:
"... By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." ..."
"... The Hill ..."
"... "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country." ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach in a Washington Post ..."
"... Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are. ..."
"... Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't give it a second thought if they read my article published by The Hill ..."
"... I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything fundamentally different. ..."
"... Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for. ..."
"... The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to neolib resulted in Trump.. ..."
"... There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too. ..."
"... The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message, consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon. ..."
"... for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign either. ..."
"... The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. ..."
"... Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties ( not just Republicans – sorry, integer )? ..."
"... Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is primarily GOP owned or aligned". Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are "owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance. You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork. ..."
"... This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a billion and a half, with nothing to show for it? But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't really Team D's fault you see, and then ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US military. ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. ..."
"... To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo. ..."
"... Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of America's anti-communist right was that they were actually jealous of the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly – and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing here. ..."
"... What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted? ..."
"... Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's 'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col. Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it. ..."
"... This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control over world energy supplies as a lever for domination. ..."
"... Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded. ..."
"... This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume they want the country to move right. ..."
Jun 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

The plan for Democrats to run against Russia may be falling apart.

Now, Democrats in Congress and other party leaders are starting to face an emerging reality: The "winning issue" of Russia is a losing issue.

The results of a reliable new nationwide poll - and what members of Congress keep hearing when they actually listen to constituents back home - cry out for a drastic reorientation of Democratic Party passions. And a growing number of Democrats in Congress are getting the message.

"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia," The Hill reported over the weekend. In sharp contrast to their party's top spokespeople, "rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare."

The Hill coverage added: "In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift."

Such assessments aren't just impressionistic or anecdotal. A major poll has just reached conclusions that indicate party leaders have been operating under political illusions.

Conducted last week, the Harvard-Harris national poll found a big disconnect between the Russia obsession of Democratic Party elites in Washington and voters around the country.

Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, a progressive Democrat, put it this way: "We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement [and] we should stay away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, whether it's about Russia, whether it's about Comey. Because that has its own independent dynamic, it's going to happen on its own without us piling on."

Welch said, "We're much better off if we just do the hard work of coming up with an agenda. Talking about Trump and Russia doesn't create an agenda."

Creating a compelling agenda would mean rejecting what has become the rote reflex of Democratic Party leadership - keep hammering Trump as a Kremlin tool. In a typical recent comment, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pounded away at a talking point already so worn out that it has the appearance of a bent nail: "What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?"

In contrast, another House Democrat, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, said: "If you see me treating Russia and criticisms of the president and things like that as a secondary matter, it's because that's how my constituents feel about it."

But ever since the election last November, Democratic congressional leaders have been placing the party's bets heavily on the Russia horse. And it's now pulling up lame.

Yes, a truly independent investigation is needed to probe charges that the Russian government interfered with the U.S. election. And investigators should also dig to find out if there's actual evidence that Trump or his campaign operatives engaged in nefarious activities before or after the election. At the same time, let's get a grip. The partisan grandstanding on Capitol Hill, by leading Republicans and Democrats, hardly qualifies as "independent."

In the top strata of the national Democratic Party, and especially for the Clinton wing of the party, blaming Russia has been of visceral importance. A recent book about Hillary Clinton's latest presidential campaign - "Shattered," by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes - includes a revealing passage. "Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up."

At that meeting, "they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."

In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach in a Washington Post opinion piece : "If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they'll be with us."

Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are.

Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't give it a second thought if they read my article published by The Hill nearly six months ago under the headline "Democrats Are Playing With Fire on Russia." At the outset, I warned that "the most cohesive message from congressional Democrats is: blame Russia. The party leaders have doubled down on an approach that got nowhere during the presidential campaign - trying to tie the Kremlin around Donald Trump's neck."

And I added: "Still more interested in playing to the press gallery than speaking directly to the economic distress of voters in the Rust Belt and elsewhere who handed the presidency to Trump, top Democrats would much rather scapegoat Vladimir Putin than scrutinize how they've lost touch with working-class voters."

But my main emphasis in that January 9 article was that "the emerging incendiary rhetoric against Russia is extremely dangerous. It could lead to a military confrontation between two countries that each has thousands of nuclear weapons."

I noted that "enthusiasm for banging the drum against Putin is fast becoming a big part of the Democratic Party's public identity in 2017. And - insidiously - that's apt to give the party a long-term political stake in further demonizing the Russian government."

My article pointed out: "The reality is grim, and potentially catastrophic beyond comprehension. By pushing to further polarize with the Kremlin, congressional Democrats are increasing the chances of a military confrontation with Russia."

Here's a question worth pondering: How much time do members of Congress spend thinking about ways to reduce the risks of nuclear holocaust, compared to how much time they spend thinking about getting re-elected?

In political terms, The Hill 's June 24 news article headlined "Dems Push Leaders to Talk Less About Russia" should be a wakeup call. Held in the thrall of Russia-bashing incantations since early winter, some Democrats in Congress have started to realize that they must break the spell. But they will need help from constituents willing to bluntly tell them to snap out of it .

If there is to be a human future on this planet, it will require real diplomacy between the U.S. and Russia , the world's two nuclear-weapons superpowers. Meanwhile - even if the nuclear threat from continuing to escalate hostility toward Russia doesn't rank high on the list of Democrats' concerns on Capitol Hill - maybe the prospects of failure in the elections next year will compel a major change. It's time for the dangerous anti-Russia fever to break.

EndOfTheWorld , June 27, 2017 at 3:55 am

The "Russiagate" farce had its waterloo moment when three CNN faux journalists were asked kindly to resign for being too faux even for the Clinton News Network.

Yes, the Democrat politicians who have enough functioning brain cells to actually go back to their districts and meet with their random constituents can plainly see that the people want this BS to come to and end immediately if not three months ago.

Louis Fyne , June 27, 2017 at 9:29 am

CNN producer on video admitting that it's all bunk courtesy of James Okeefe. Expect Fox News to run this clip 24/7. http://www.veritaslive.com/06-26-2017/americanpravdacnn.html

shinola , June 27, 2017 at 2:23 pm

Thanks for the link – confirms what I've suspected for months. If any of y'all have about 9 minutes to spare, this vid. is really interesting (& damning).

Thor's Hammer , June 27, 2017 at 11:31 am

Debates about whether the Democrat wing of the Property Party should change its PR focus from trying to manufacture Russiaphobia to pretending to care about the welfare of the working class are worse than debating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's embarrassing to watch a highly intelligent group of people like the NC readership engage in discussions like this while ignoring the facts before them.

NC has diligently documented the bankster fraud that characterized the 2007-2008 financial meltdown. Exactly how many of the perpetrators of this massive theft went to prison?

The US has been at permanent war in the middle east for 20 years under Democrat and Republican administrations, employing fabrication of events, torture of prisoners, shock and awe bombing attacks, assassination by remote control drones, false flag attacks, and proxy funding of Islamic terrorist organizations. How many CIA torturers, generals, and politicians have been held accountable for their lies and war crimes?

Thor's Hammer , June 27, 2017 at 4:18 pm

By "people who have been living in terror" I assume your mean people who find themselves on the Trump banned country list? Unjust and anti-humanitarian perhaps, but hardly equivalent to terrorism.

Terrorism is when your wedding party is bombed by a drone being piloted by a computer operator half a world away because the cyber spy satellites have detected too many cell phone conversations directed at one of the guests. Terrorism is when a delusional religious fundamentalist straps explosives to her body and blows herself up in a crowded nightclub. And terrorism is when a government funds the anti-human belief systems that lead to such mad acts.

Allegorio , June 27, 2017 at 5:10 pm

The first and foremost action should be government funded elections. Take the money out of politics. Open up ballot access. Election day should be a national holiday. Paper ballots publicly counted. Free electioneering on our public airwaves. Run off elections so that the elected truly have a mandate. The malefactors of wealth completely control the electoral process. Tall order but nothing else can be accomplished unless we take back the electoral system, foundation of democracy.

Lord Koos , June 27, 2017 at 1:06 pm

I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything fundamentally different.

Allegorio , June 27, 2017 at 5:12 pm

That was absolutely Nancy Pelosi's line on CBS the other morning. We're not doing anything wrong we're just not getting our message out there. Delusional bought and paid for party hack. She has got to go.

oh , June 27, 2017 at 4:48 pm

Agree. Here's slight modification of one of you points:

  1. Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses.
  2. They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues that determine the future of the country.
  3. Rather, they are pissing contests between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to temporarily manipulate public opinion while maximizing their revenue.
ChrisPacific , June 27, 2017 at 5:03 pm

All largely true; however, there remains a large contingent of non-NC readers (and traditional Democrat supporters) who remain unaware of most of this and who need to be convinced. Many of these people are our friends and relatives, and penetrating their illusions is essential if we are ever to reform the Democrat party by starving its more problematic members of voter support. The four points you mentioned, while largely accepted by NC readers, remain very much to be demonstrated when talking to these kind of people. We can't just lead with something like "Hillary is a warmongering crony capitalist who sold out the working class a long time ago." They will switch off if we do. We need to offer concrete, real-world examples that demonstrate it, along with the necessary context for them to understand the problem. If they follow along with the arguments then they will eventually reach the conclusion on their own. While this article may not be telling NC readers anything they don't already know, it's a good example of a narrative that we can use in those situations.

EoinW , June 27, 2017 at 8:23 am

Trojan Horse. It's the Guardian(and CNN) saying: "we deal with faux news the moment it happens. Look at how clean we are!" The entire MSM will jump all over this and pretend they've cleaned house, fixed the one isolated incident, therefore we can once again trust them to be the truth tellers they are. A wonderful script for the Lefties and the pseudo-Left media, like the Guardian. It's BS because they lie all the time about everything!

Allegorio , June 27, 2017 at 5:19 pm

Please don't conflate the left with the "Liberal Media". There is no left mass media in this country.

integer , June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/878773715147902977

Why the Democratic party is doomed:

1. The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party's narrative energy into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party's base and its relationship with the public. Without the "We didn't lose–Russia won" narrative the party's elite and those who exist under its patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and ideologically passι. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential. It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives, daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census). Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53% of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW Research).

2. The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is no evidence of collusion
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BS5amEq7Fc ]. Without collusion, we are left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. Is it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against Bernie Sanders? A party elite that maintains that it is the "crime of the century" for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and what they believe invites scorn.

3. The Democrat establishment needs the support of the security sector and media barons to push this diversionary conspiracy agenda, so they ingratiate themselves with these two classes leading to further perceptions that the Democrats act on behalf of an entrenched power elite. Eventually, Trump or Pence will 'merge' with the security state leaving Democrats in a vulnerable position having talked up two deeply unaccountable traditionally Republican-aligned organizations, in particular, the CIA and the FBI, who will be turned against them. Other than domestic diversion and geopolitical destabilization the primary result of the Russian narrative is increased influence and funding for the security sector which is primarily GOP owned or aligned.

4. The twin result is to place the primary self-interest concerns of most Americans, class competition, freedom from crime and ill health and the empowerment of their children, into the shadows and project the Democrats as close to DC and media elites. This has further cemented Trump's anti-establishment positioning and fettered attacks on Trump's run away embrace of robber barons, dictators and gravitas-free buffoons like the CIA's Mike Pompeo.

5. GOP/Trump has open goals everywhere: broken promises, inequality, economy, healthcare, militarization, Goldman Sachs, Saudi Arabia & cronyism, but the Democrat establishment can't kick these goals since the Russian collusion narrative has consumed all its energy and it is entangled with many of the same groups behind Trump's policies.

6. The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party elite shows no signs that they will give up power. This can be done quickly and cheaply as a result of the internet and databases of peoples' political preferences. This reality is proven in practice with the rapid construction of the Macron, Sanders and Trump campaigns from nothing. The existing Democratic party may well have negative reputational capital, stimulating a Macron-style clean slate approach. Regardless, in the face of such a threat, the Democratic establishment will either concede control or, as in the case of Macron, be eliminated by the new structure.

Carolinian , June 27, 2017 at 8:34 am

I agree with 6. The fact that the Dems reacted to their presidential loss by immediately accusing their opponent of treason shows how low they have sunk. Perhaps they thought they were justified in imitating Trump's own shoot from the lip style but someone has to be the adult in the room. Meanwhile the country's two leading newspapers turn themselves into social media sites. The ruling class seems to be cracking up.

Suggested name for new third party: the Not Crazy party.

fresno dan , June 27, 2017 at 9:56 am

integer June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am
Thanks for that! Again and Again and Again:
"It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives, daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census). Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53% of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW Research)."

Allegorio , June 27, 2017 at 5:26 pm

Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for.

Tim , June 27, 2017 at 2:10 pm

The only way to create a new party of actual importance is for it to not be originated from disenfranchised republicans or disenfranchised democrats, lest it be branded as extreme by existing power structures, and be resigned to a fate similar to the libertarian and green parties, which are spoilers at best.

It would need to be a party that grows out of the moderate center. This is doable, because will all the gerrymandering they are becoming the least represented block of voters, that is compounded by the fact that in general 98% of the population are not represented by their representatives anyways. The center is open to facts and reasonable arguments as to policy solutions, such as single payer and a restructured health care industry. That is the executable path to republican and or democrat obsolescence.

John k , June 27, 2017 at 2:36 pm

The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to neolib resulted in Trump..

Course, the something new macron is just neolib with a pretty face, French will be disappointed, either the left will join forces next time or French desperation will bring LE Pen to power.

Fully agree dems have hollowed themselves out enough to create a vacuum, country desperate for third party. New media is displacing corp mouthpieces, never been easier to start new. Still think take over greens, make functional, because ballot access hard to get, particularly with dems fighting tooth and nail. Come to think of it, maybe they're not completely dysfunctional, they did manage to get on the ballot in most states, not easy, and certainly dems didn't help, they hate the greens.

Dems 30, reps 30, indies 40.
Bernie heading progressive greens gets 1/3 dems, 1/6 reps, 3/4 indies? 45 in three way race is landslide.

oh , June 27, 2017 at 5:13 pm

I don't think I'd count on Bernie. He loves his committee appointments too much and will never leave the DImRats.

integer , June 27, 2017 at 3:11 pm

Just to be clear, the text in my comment above was written by Julian Assange, not me. See the link at the top of said comment.

Andrew Watts , June 27, 2017 at 5:06 pm

In response to point number six: There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.

Secondly, Macron can't be compared to Trump/Sanders. He's just neoliberalism's Potemkin village in France. Both Trump/Sanders aren't really comparable as they both contained genuine political outsiders such as Bannon in Trump's case. I wouldn't compare Melenchon to Sanders either. Melenchon kinda seems like the Le Pen of the French left. By which I mean he would govern as a authoritarian.

integer , June 27, 2017 at 9:08 pm

There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.

Granted, however it shouldn't be forgotten that there are significant barriers to reforming the D-party too.

Lambert Strether , June 27, 2017 at 11:33 pm

Invert "legal barrier" to "asset to be seized"

fajensen , June 27, 2017 at 5:19 am

The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message, consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon.

Just imagine the staff meetings: 'We gotta be right eventually, because Vince Lombardi said: "Winners never quit and quitters never win"' and politics is exactly like football. "Ohhh How Deep. Surely advice like that is worth paying 50 kUSD for".

Darn , June 27, 2017 at 5:37 am

+ for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign either.

polecat , June 27, 2017 at 11:08 am

'If you are constantly pounding the pudding, shrieking endlessly, and hysterically so, about the evils of the PUTIN and his supposed orange-coiffed minion, while refusing to look into a mirror !!! . You just might be a DIMOCRAT !"

sid_finster , June 27, 2017 at 11:14 am

Team D will continue to double down because it is in the interests of those running Team D to do so.

Ignacio , June 27, 2017 at 5:50 am

The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. Nobody, and I say nobody, has even thougth twice about the political risks associated with the demonization of Russia that coincides with Ukraine isues and natural gas supplies in Europe. Interestingly Germans have recently agreed with Russia a new pipeline through the Baltic sea and there is clamor against these agreement amongst other European countries that do not benefit from the pipeline, and apparently the clamor is leaded by the US (the supposedly pro Russian Trump government).

Germany's gas pact with Putin's Russia endangers Atlantic alliance

mundanomaniac , June 27, 2017 at 1:53 pm

and the German journalists, print or TV were ready 2014 like their colleges were1933, when Goebbels called . And no physical threat this time, only probe of character.
And as the Germans since long have learnt to be eager to please their masters they did the trick again, alas now, when they are the paragons of success in the west.

But the president Donald, thank God, is disclosing all veils and Putin is showing a decent kind of leader on the planet. Cheers from Bavaria's

mundo http://astromundanediary.blogspot.de/2017/06/6_18.html

Benedict@Large , June 27, 2017 at 6:02 am

So the bottom line is that Hillary, who wouldn't work for anything better than ObamaCare, is ending up sacrificing ObamaCare itself, all because she got in a powder about people not buying her messageless campaign? We are literally a handful of days away from losing not only ObamaCare, but Medicaid as well, and the Democratic establishment has no strategy except to worry that Bernie Sanders might score a few points for merely repeating back to the party's base what that base was already saying? Forty years of trying to create a "centrist" third party is in shambles, and these people still believe they are entitled to lead what little remains of the party of the working people.

No wonder we were supposed to worry about the Russians. It was the furthest place they could find from where the problem really was.

Mike , June 27, 2017 at 8:38 am

As a side note, no one is mentioning the "progressive" bloggers and news sites (Young Turks, Majority Report, I'm lookin' at ya) who jumped on this bandwagon after showing support for Sanders, then switched to standard form to oppose the "fascist" Trump. It says to me that, just like the more well-known Democratic Party fronts who could have made an effort to show independence, they are ultimately fronts, just more distantly positioned for maximum believability. It all smells, and progressives need to examine their principles before looking to these "saviors".

Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (not just Republicans – sorry, integer)? If anything shows the necessity of party realignment (creating new ones to replace existing), this idiocy is not just a brick in the wall, but an entire edifice.

integer , June 27, 2017 at 11:23 am

Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties ( not just Republicans – sorry, integer )?

Disappointed to read this, as I have never made that claim.

Mike , June 27, 2017 at 1:47 pm

Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is primarily GOP owned or aligned". Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are "owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance. You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork.

RenoDino , June 27, 2017 at 8:42 am

http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/

It looks like the Fusion GPS Trump dossier, that is the basis for all of the Russian collusion accusations, is getting ready to become even more of a major embarrassment, hence all the talk about backing away from the current strategy.

Even Planned Parenthood hired this opposition research firm to get dirt on right to lifers. Your tax dollars and donations at work.

Arizona Slim , June 27, 2017 at 8:44 am

In the last six months, I have gone from being curious about Russia to learning how to speak Russian. Thanks for the inspiration, Democrats.

Andrew Watts , June 27, 2017 at 5:00 pm

Ahah! Most Americans don't learn foreign languages. This is irrefutable proof of a fifth columnist element in America plotting against Moose and Squirrel. Somebody tell the Hillary campaign!

Tertium Squid , June 27, 2017 at 8:54 am

Now I remember where I first heard of Norman Solomon. http://dilbert.com/search_results?terms=Norman+Solomon

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/162106845381/why-the-new-healthcare-bill-will-be-a-loser

Tom Stone , June 27, 2017 at 8:54 am

But, but, it was HER TURN! And her investors are really pissed off. $1.5B up in smoke and not even a blue dress to show for it.

NotTimothyGeithner , June 27, 2017 at 9:31 am

If Hillary with her celebrity and money can't win, what does it say about the potential future political dreams of the Dems who enthusiastically supported her? Or even corporate gigs? What good is a Democrat who can't deliver?

NBCNews has hired Greta, Megan Kelly, and now Hugh Hewitt. The NYT hired a host of climate change deniers.

For the Clintonistas especially, why would anyone hire them again? It's really no different on their part than the "OMG Nader" narrative. In an election with voter suppression, misleading ballots, bizarre recounts, Joe Lieberman, high youth non-Cuban Hispanic turnout for Shrub, Katherine Harris, and the fantasy of simply winning Tennessee, who did Democrats blame? A powerless figure in Nader.

sid_finster , June 27, 2017 at 11:19 am

This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a billion and a half, with nothing to show for it? But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't really Team D's fault you see, and then

Darius , June 27, 2017 at 1:08 pm

It also is attacking the Republicans from the right, always a Team D wet dream.

Karl Kolchak , June 27, 2017 at 2:58 pm

Problem is, anyone smart enough to earn that much dough is likely too smart to fall for the Russia stole the election BS, which is why Dumbocrats' fundraising has cratered.

John Wright , June 27, 2017 at 8:58 am

The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"

The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US military.

The USA is also widely viewed as attempting to influence elections overseas, with none other than Senator Hillary Clinton recorded stating that 'We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win' in a Palestine election.

http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

Disclaimer, this link is from Trump's son-in-law's publication, but the audio has not been questioned AFAIK..

I suspect the American voter does not believe they were "played" by the Russians.

But they may believe that is what the Democrats are attempting to do with the entire Russia-gate campaign

As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign.

The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance.

Left in Wisconsin , June 27, 2017 at 1:48 pm

The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence.

To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"

I think this is not right. The Dems have no interest in the votes of the deplorables. What only matters is the meme that HRC should have won. The charitable interpretation is that DNC is still convinced that demographics are in their favor (in the long run). So they do not have to diss their corporate patrons and offer real help to real people; they just need to hold out long enough for the demographics to kick in. The meme that HRC should have won is a rationale for staying the course.

Of course, the uncharitable explanation is that they would rather lose than change.

flora , June 27, 2017 at 9:18 am

"As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign. The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance."

Yes, it is. Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo.

Kevin Horlock , June 27, 2017 at 9:29 am

Please just go away, Hillary and Hillary clones. When you think about it, increasing ever so slightly the risk of actual nuclear war, damaging the Democratic party, and doing untold damage to legitimate (hate to use the word anymore) "progressive" causes is more or less the end-game of all this. And all in service of, what? Vindicating the failures of the inane pundit class? (God forbid) setting up Hillary 2020? Shameful shit right there

John D. , June 27, 2017 at 10:13 am

Even on a purely political level, the whole Russiagate bullshit was doomed to failure, methinks.

Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of America's anti-communist right was that they were actually jealous of the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly – and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing here. It wasn't that long ago that the right wing blog-o-sphere and certain wingnut writers were all swooning over Putin's manliness (as opposed to Obama's alleged 'weakness') like a pack of horny schoolgirls. The dumb bastards were composing mash notes to the butch Mr. Putin. It was embarrassing.

So if the Dem "leadership" was hoping to turn our own home-grown reactionaries against Trump over being in bed with Putin, they should have known better. We all know the right are hypocrites. Even if there was anything to Russiagate, they wouldn't care. And the rest of us wouldn't give a shit, not if it meant ignoring every other problem that needs dealing with. Since it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway

Jonathan Holland Becnel , June 27, 2017 at 12:11 pm

Good to see this Neoliberal farce go away.

Indrid Cold , June 27, 2017 at 1:06 pm

What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted?

Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's 'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col. Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it.

This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control over world energy supplies as a lever for domination.

Assad is really secondary to the main goals of:

  1. Getting the Russian naval presence out of the Mediterranean (note that Nuland -another PNAC operative- leverages unhappiness with the corruption in Ukraine to install a fascistic government that would certainly have seized the Russian naval assets at Sevastopol had Russia not seized the Crimea.
  2. Turning Isreal's neighbors into a collection Mad Max style bantu-stans that can be manipulated easily by Saudi -which is ironically Israel's ally.
  3. Controlling energy transit and access points.

Again, I'm not saying anything that isn't in the record.

John Wright , June 27, 2017 at 4:34 pm

Re the country list. It was Wesley Clark who saw the list of middle east/African countries the USA would attack and destroy.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/

Per Clark, "He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.""

It was all supposed to occur within 5 years, so by 2008 the dream would have been accomplished. But maybe the neocons haven't given up, not installing HRC was a downer, but maybe Trump can be pulled into line..

Thor's Hammer , June 27, 2017 at 5:28 pm

Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded.

The real power centers in the US are the bankster cabal, robber baron capitalists, medical extortionists, and the Homeland Insecurity war hawks. The first three have nothing to fear from a Trump presidency– indeed they probably will fare better than if the Clinton Crime Syndicate had triumphed. However (to the extent that he actually stands for anything) Trump's goal of defusing tensions with Russia and doing oil deals with them is a direct threat to the War Hawks, and more than sufficient reason to cut him off at the knees

You do fall into the trap of repeating Deep State propaganda though. Russia did not seize Crimea. Crimea has been part of the Russian sphere of influence for generations. It probably is as much Russian as Texas is American. It's temporary incorporation into Ukraine when the Soviet Union fractured probably had as much to do with Khrushchev being Ukrainian as it had to do with creating the best fit. And when the choice was put before a popular referendum in 2014, 83% of the population turned out to vote and 96.77% voted to join the Russian Federation. Try getting that kind of turn out and consensus in an American election! And even if there was plenty of arm twisting behind the scenes, its hard to believe that the result didn't represent the actual choice of the citizens.

Indrid Cold , June 27, 2017 at 10:55 pm

Re Crimea – you're correct of course. The Texas analogy is pretty good. There was no distinction between Russians and Ukrainians during the time of the Czars anyway. The territory used to be controlled by the Hellenes and then the Byzantines. The Germans wanted to annex it as part of their war goals in ww2

kurtismayfield , June 27, 2017 at 1:32 pm

This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume they want the country to move right.

  1. Kick the left. Always.
  2. Pretend to #resist, while really you are in it to keep the political money spigot flowing.
  3. While distracting their supporters with Russia gate/GA-06/Trump's latest twit, Medicare and ACA get gutted.
  4. Run on returning to the status quo on 2018, taking single payer will be off the table.

It's brilliant... If you know their goal is to move the country right and be a bulwark against the left.

[Jun 27, 2017] Buffoonery and incompetence of the Trump administration

Notable quotes:
"... That said, I'm wondering if it couldn't be the other way around. A few people in intelligence agencies and US administration got wind that some rebels/group was considering a false-flag chemical attack in the near future. Having US going so public just before would make it kind of hard to convince the world, even US people, that it was really Assad who was suicidal enough to do such an attack right after getting warned. Basically, a way to tell that group to rethink its plan because it would be a far harder sell and many people would begin to doubt SAA's guilt. ..."
Jun 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Temporarily Sane | Jun 27, 2017 8:34:59 PM | 89

I'm with b on this one.

So just "coincidentally" all these "coincidences" are playing out a week after the US military was forced to admit humiliating defeat in Syria AND Seymour Hersh's piece detailing the appalling thuggish buffoonery and incompetence of the Trump administration was published for all to read? No way. The USG is in damage control mode and as usual many innocent people are going to die violent deaths in the name of upholding western delusions.

Peter AU | Jun 27, 2017 8:42:19 PM | 90
I missed this one earlier.

#NOTAM & navigation warnings in force around #Cyprus tomorrow - Russian Navy exercise area off the #Syria coast.
https://twitter.com/CivMilAir/status/879798755070967809

As you say Paveway, looks like something not good brewing. Makes me wonder why the white house took it upon themselves to announce it, catching the other players with their pants down.

Clueless Joe | Jun 27, 2017 8:58:02 PM | 91
Well, more or less asking the rebels to do some false-flag soon enough is the most obvious and probable explanation.

That said, I'm wondering if it couldn't be the other way around. A few people in intelligence agencies and US administration got wind that some rebels/group was considering a false-flag chemical attack in the near future. Having US going so public just before would make it kind of hard to convince the world, even US people, that it was really Assad who was suicidal enough to do such an attack right after getting warned. Basically, a way to tell that group to rethink its plan because it would be a far harder sell and many people would begin to doubt SAA's guilt.

That's a bit far-fetched and based on the possible presence of sane agents in US administration. So I give this hypothesis still a low probability.

About the US recon flights, could they be mostly monitoring that incoming Russian navy exercise? Or could they be related to the growing Turkish pressure on Afrin?

Sektion 2B | Jun 27, 2017 9:09:57 PM | 92
One desperate move the US and allies could try to make vis a vis the alleged chemical attack is to kill Assad, as they couldn't stop the SAA's advance on DAYR EL-ZOR.

[Jun 27, 2017] Tillerson and Mattis Cleaning Up Kushner's Middle East Mess

Notable quotes:
"... "Rex put two-and-two together," his close associate says, "and concluded that this absolutely vacuous kid was running a second foreign policy out of the White House family quarters. Otaiba weighed in with Jared and Jared weighed in with Trump. What a mess." The Trump statement was nearly the last straw for Tillerson, this close associate explains: "Rex is just exhausted. He can't get any of his appointments approved and is running around the world cleaning up after a president whose primary foreign policy adviser is a 31-year-old amateur." ..."
"... So the adults in the room are those who want to continue the stupid and disastrous ME policies of the past? They may be adults, but they are stupid adults, or criminals, or both. ..."
"... The Trump White House is at war with reality. This morning one reads about threats of harsh action directed against Syria if there is another chemical weapons attack, setting up a perfect scenario for the "rebels" to stage one. ..."
"... I guess the word " adult" here means mature intelligent people obsessed with building a coalition and possibly starting a war with Iran for no good reason at all. Kushner and Trump are morons, but sometimes ( often) in politics you have a situation with two factions that are both wrong. ..."
"... Perhaps shattering the Anti-Iran coalition is a good thing . Having all these Sunni ISIS supporter/U.S. "allies" in a cat fight may be just what we need . to get our heads out of our backsides and realize who the real enemies are . " would be a launching point for U.S. aircraft against Iran were Israel to be attacked by the Islamic Republic." ..Yeah; like THAT'S gonna' happen . ..."
"... Good point, couldn't we make the same argument regarding Hezbollah, our obsession with Hezbollah risks destabilizing Lebanon for that exact same reason or is that part of operation chaos? The Shiites make up 30% of the population of Lebanon and have been able to form a coalition with the Christians, are we gunning for total disenfranchisement to make the Sunnis / Saudis happy. ..."
"... The "adults in the room" are the people that want to go to war with Iran? That's hilarious. ..."
"... A sign of good faith all around who believe the neocons have encircled and now captured the White House would be to fire Mr and Mrs Kushner, NOW!!!! ..."
"... Dan - It is both. The adults in the room and the children playing with matches all want a war with Iran. ..."
"... It was my understanding that invading sovereignty territory of another state of no threat was bad manners, not to mention, a violation of international law. I am convinced that the problem here is the Pres not having though through his agenda juxtaposed against those he brought on board, because he respected them for whatever reason. ..."
"... I suspect that having demonstrated our vulnerabilities with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, the Ukraine, etc. Those days when our foot print mattered has shrunk significantly. And the more we allow ourselves to get played via multiple payers at odds with one another, the more that will remain the case. ..."
"... The problem with Saudi Arabia is that whatever the Government says or does, there are thousands ( at least 5000) members of the family and other wealthy Saudis of which a minority probably support Muslim terrorism. Pakistan since 1973 has steadily become more fundamentalist and has taken money from the USA while supporting the Taliban killing American troops. ..."
"... A good piece, Mr. Perry, especially in pointing out (sadly, have to add "yet again") the incredible amateurism/incompetence of the Trump Administration's foreign policy "efforts" in the Middle East, but (as has been pointed out here) conflating "forming a common front against Iran" with the position of "the adults in the room" is a dubious proposition. ..."
"... No way Tillerson stays around. This is a guy who lead one of the world's most powerful and complex companies. He is way too smart to let these folks tarnish his reputation. ..."
www.zerohedge.com
On March 25, 2011, a Qatar Air Force Mirage 2000-5, took off from Souda Air Base, in Crete, to help enforce a no-fly zone protecting rebels being attacked by Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi. Qatar was the first Persian Gulf nation to help the U.S. in the conflict.

Qatari operations were more than symbolic. The Qatari military trained rebel units, shipped them weapons, accompanied their fighting units into battle, served as a link between rebel commanders and NATO, tutored their military commanders, integrated disparate rebel units into a unified force and led them i n the final assault on Qaddafi's compound in Tripoli ."We never had to hold their hand," a retired senior U.S. military officer says. "They knew what they were doing." Put simply, while the U.S. was leading from behind in Libya, the Qataris were walking point.

The Qatar intervention has not been forgotten at the Pentagon and is one of the reasons why Defense Secretary James Mattis has worked so diligently to patch up the falling out between them and the coalition of Saudi-led countries (including the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt), that have isolated and blockaded the nation. In fact, Mattis was stunned by the Saudi move. "His first reaction was shock, but his second was disbelief," a senior military officer says. "He thought the Saudis had picked an unnecessary fight, and just when the administration thought they'd gotten everyone in the Gulf on the same page in forming a common front against Iran."

At the time of the Saudi announcement, Mattis was in Sydney with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to dampen concerns about the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate accords. The two glad-handed Australian officials and issued a reassuring pronouncement on U.S. intentions during a June 5 press briefing with that nation's foreign and defense ministers. When the burgeoning split between the Saudis and Qataris was mentioned, Tillerson described it as no more than one of "a growing list or irritants in the region" that would not impair "the unified fight against terrorism "

But while Tillerson's answer was meant to soothe concerns over the crisis, behind the scenes he and Mattis were scrambling to undo the damage caused by Saudi action. The two huddled in Sydney and decided that Tillerson would take the lead in trying to resolve the falling out. Which is why, three days after the Sydney press conference, Tillerson called on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt to ease their anti-Qatar blockade and announced that the U.S. supported a Kuwaiti-led mediation effort . The problem for Tillerson was that his statement was contradicted by Donald Trump who, during a Rose Garden appearance on the same day, castigated Qatar, saying the emirate "has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level."

A close associate of the secretary of state says that Tillerson was not only "blind-sided by the Trump statement," but "absolutely enraged that the White House and State Department weren't on the same page." Tillerson's aides, I was told, were convinced that the true author of Trump's statement was U.A.E. ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba, a close friend of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. "Rex put two-and-two together," his close associate says, "and concluded that this absolutely vacuous kid was running a second foreign policy out of the White House family quarters. Otaiba weighed in with Jared and Jared weighed in with Trump. What a mess." The Trump statement was nearly the last straw for Tillerson, this close associate explains: "Rex is just exhausted. He can't get any of his appointments approved and is running around the world cleaning up after a president whose primary foreign policy adviser is a 31-year-old amateur."

Worse yet, at least from Tillerson's point of view, a White House official explained the difference between the two statements by telling the press to ignore the secretary of state. "Tillerson may initially have had a view," a White House official told the Washington Post , "then the president has his view, and obviously the president's view prevails."

Or maybe not. While Trump's June 9 statement signaled that the U.S. was tilting towards the Saudis and the UAE, Tillerson and Mattis have been tilting towards Qatar. And for good reason. "Every time we've asked the Qataris for something they've said 'yes,' which isn't true for the Saudis," the retired senior U.S. military officer with whom I spoke says. "It really started with the help the Qataris gave us in Libya, but it goes well beyond that. They've been absolutely first rate on ISIS. The Saudis, on the other hand, have been nothing but trouble – in Yemen, especially. Yemen has been a disaster, a stain. And now there's this."

That view has been reflected by both Mattis and Tillerson. Six days after Trump's statement, Mattis met with Qatari Defense Minister Khalid al-Attiyah to sign an agreement shipping 36 F-15 fighters to the Gulf nation. The $12 billion sale had been in the works for years, so Pentagon officials were able to claim that it had not been fast-tracked by Tillerson, whose department oversees arms transactions. But the Mattis announcement seemed suspiciously well-timed to signal Mattis' and Tillerson's views.

On the same day that Mattis was announcing the Qatar arms agreement, Tillerson told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that it would be a mistake to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, one of the primary reasons that the anti-Qatar coalition gave for isolating their Gulf neighbor. "There are elements of the Muslim Brotherhood that have become parts of government," Tillerson said, naming Turkey and Bahrain as having brotherhood members in their parliaments. Those "elements," Tillerson added, have renounced violence and terrorism. "So, in designating the Brotherhood in its totality as a terrorist organization . . . I think you can appreciate the complexities this enters into our relations with [governments in the region]."

But the single most important reason for the Qatar tilt is obvious to anyone who knows how to read a map. The U.S. leases the al-Udeid Air Base, southwest of Doha, which is home to the Air Force's 379th Air Expeditionary Wing. The U.S. (and the Qataris), not only mount fighter-bombers from al-Udeid against ISIS units in Iraq and Syria, the base serves as the first line of defense against Iranian encroachments in the region. Even more crucially, al-Udeid not only protects America's Persian Gulf allies, it protects Israel – and would be a launching point for U.S. aircraft against Iran were Israel to be attacked by the Islamic Republic.

More crucially, particularly from Mattis's point-of-view, the Saudi-Qatar feud not only shattered the anti-Iran coalition the administration cobbled together during the president's trip to Riyadh, it redrew the geopolitical map of the Middle East. In the wake of the Saudi-Qatar falling out, Turkey pledged its support for Qatar (and deployed troops to a Qatari military base to guard Qatar's sovereignty), while Iran took steps to help ease the Saudi-imposed blockade.

"The Saudis and Emiratis have told us repeatedly that they want to weaken Iran, but they've actually empowered them," a senior Pentagon consultant who works on the Middle East told me. The Saudi actions, this official went on to explain, have backfired. Instead of intimidating the Qataris, the Saudis have "thrown them into the arms of the Iranians." The result is an uneasy, but emerging Turkish-Qatari-Iranian alliance backed by Russia. "This isn't just some kind of Gulfie dust-up, where we can go out and hold everyone's hands," this Pentagon consultant says. "The Saudis have handed the Iranians a gift and we're on the outside looking in."

The official then shook his head. "Listen, I can certainly understand where Mattis and Tillerson are coming from. I mean, with friends like these, who needs enemies."

Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst and the author of The Most Dangerous Man in America: The Making of Douglas MacArthur. His next book, The Pentagon's Wars, will be released in October. He tweets @markperrydc

EliteCommInc., says: June 26, 2017 at 11:29 pm

laughing.

Sure that explains the what they did. but it begs the larger question, as to why they did something so incredibly worthless to US interests as support the removal of Pres Col Qaddafi in the first place.

So in short the previous admin., apparently with aide of Gen Mattis orchestrated a regime change , further destabilizing a region we need to be stable.

The fact that they are shocked should tell us something about just what they understand to the regional issues and players. Excuse me, but if they represent the adults, I am unsure what your comprehension of adult is.

Ohhh because we are launching attacks against ISIS/ISIL. Excuse me but I am unsure what ISIS?ISIL contingent you are talking about. The one's we support in Syria, and Yemen or the ones we aided in overthrowing the Libyan government.

And let's see, Israel supports the coalition that includes Saudis and we support Israel.

Let's get something straight. The election of Mr. trump has not made issues worse. Nor has his policy. What it has done is revealed just how completely askewed things are. You may want to portray the gentleman photo'd as fence menders. but what it reveals is complicity in having shattered the fence in the first place.

Shifting fault onto Mr Kushner is almost unforgivable. Whatever disagreements, I had with his positions regarding Israel, Syria and Iran - he is not responsible for the dynamic in play before he arrived. Even if that dynamic betraying fault lines since his arrival.

Why the current Pres chose people, regardless of how fine they are who opposed his stated agenda is beyond me.

Ohhh wait - they are adults.

Joe Beavers , says: June 27, 2017 at 12:51 am
Really, there is nothing left to say. The primary source of extremism is Saudi Arabia, from which came Al Qaeda and ISIS. It is not Islam and Mohammad that is the root of the problem, it is Wahhabism and al-Wahhab that is the root of the problem.

So, Clintons, Bushes, and now Trump kiss Saudi .

Guess who is missing from that list.

mohammad , says: June 27, 2017 at 5:47 am
So the adults in the room are those who want to continue the stupid and disastrous ME policies of the past? They may be adults, but they are stupid adults, or criminals, or both.
Phil Giraldi , says: June 27, 2017 at 6:31 am
Great article! The Trump White House is at war with reality. This morning one reads about threats of harsh action directed against Syria if there is another chemical weapons attack, setting up a perfect scenario for the "rebels" to stage one.

And what is the evidence that such a thing is being planned? It is not clear and might be coming from any one of the usual partisan sources. Apparently the State and Defense Departments were not in the loop on the White House warning but our UN Ambassador was. She elaborated, warning that Russia and Iran would also be held to blame if Syria does anything. Incredible!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40413563?ocid=global_bbccom_email_2606207_top+news+strories

Adriana I Pena , says: June 27, 2017 at 6:36 am
I think it is time to apply the Three Stooges test.

"How different would things be if Curly, Larry, and Moe were running the show?"

If the answer if "Not very" don't waste time making moral judgments. Just get out of there before the next explosion.

Donald , says: June 27, 2017 at 7:01 am
I guess the word " adult" here means mature intelligent people obsessed with building a coalition and possibly starting a war with Iran for no good reason at all. Kushner and Trump are morons, but sometimes ( often) in politics you have a situation with two factions that are both wrong.
SDS , says: June 27, 2017 at 8:00 am
Perhaps shattering the Anti-Iran coalition is a good thing . Having all these Sunni ISIS supporter/U.S. "allies" in a cat fight may be just what we need . to get our heads out of our backsides and realize who the real enemies are . " would be a launching point for U.S. aircraft against Iran were Israel to be attacked by the Islamic Republic." ..Yeah; like THAT'S gonna' happen .
Chris Chuba , says: June 27, 2017 at 8:12 am
Not a fan of toppling Gaddafi but yeah, Qatar is a pragmatic country.

Tillerson told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that it would be a mistake to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, "There are elements of the Muslim Brotherhood that have become parts of government," Tillerson said, naming Turkey and Bahrain as having brotherhood members in their parliaments.

Good point, couldn't we make the same argument regarding Hezbollah, our obsession with Hezbollah risks destabilizing Lebanon for that exact same reason or is that part of operation chaos? The Shiites make up 30% of the population of Lebanon and have been able to form a coalition with the Christians, are we gunning for total disenfranchisement to make the Sunnis / Saudis happy.

So yes, the Iranians are the villains, yet again, just for acting like adults. Maybe they are more adult like then we give them credit for.

Liam , says: June 27, 2017 at 8:38 am
Because inviting Russia to get closer to the Persian Gulf and Arabia Sea has been the Holy Grail of all other world powers for two centuries. Oh, wait. Not. Trump's Qatar thing was no mere gaffe, but a thunderbolt that would leave non-Russian leaders from Eurasian powers of the past two centuries gob-smacked.

Just imagine Truman and Eisenhower having bourbon together over this one .

Dan , says: June 27, 2017 at 8:57 am
The "adults in the room" are the people that want to go to war with Iran? That's hilarious.
MEOW , says: June 27, 2017 at 9:56 am
A sign of good faith all around who believe the neocons have encircled and now captured the White House would be to fire Mr and Mrs Kushner, NOW!!!!
Mark Thomason , says: June 27, 2017 at 11:46 am
Dan - It is both. The adults in the room and the children playing with matches all want a war with Iran.
Adult (singular) In The Room , says: June 27, 2017 at 11:51 am
@Dan : "The "adults in the room" are the people that want to go to war with Iran?"

You have a point, but it applies to Mattis far more than Tillerson. Tillerson never advised Trump to do anything so stupid as to send US troops back into to Afghanistan.

EliteCommInc. , says: June 27, 2017 at 12:42 pm
"Trump's Qatar thing was no mere gaffe, but a thunderbolt that would leave non-Russian leaders from Eurasian powers of the past two centuries gob-smacked."

Ohh boy,

It was my understanding that invading sovereignty territory of another state of no threat was bad manners, not to mention, a violation of international law. I am convinced that the problem here is the Pres not having though through his agenda juxtaposed against those he brought on board, because he respected them for whatever reason.

And having respect for them is no doubt deserved, but whether that means they could mesh agendas - given the differences, doubtful. And as for the Saudi coalition, it might do well to remember that other states and other alliances have their own agendas. We have been stomping around this region for quite some time as though what we wanted was all that mattered.

I suspect that having demonstrated our vulnerabilities with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, the Ukraine, etc. Those days when our foot print mattered has shrunk significantly. And the more we allow ourselves to get played via multiple payers at odds with one another, the more that will remain the case.

Seraphim , says: June 27, 2017 at 12:46 pm
Israel.
Charlie , says: June 27, 2017 at 3:06 pm
The present ruler of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim has become far more supportive of muslim terrorist groups which include Muslim Brotherhood than the previous ruler. Qatar has taken in Qaradari who supports the Muslim Brotherhood In Egypt. The MB are growing in strength in Arab countries. I would not trust any MB member
I think western governments are naοve over the MB. It is quite possible for some members to preach peace and other undertake violence in order to create confusion. For the USA Government to say Qatar is fine because it supported us over Libya is naοve

The problem with Saudi Arabia is that whatever the Government says or does, there are thousands ( at least 5000) members of the family and other wealthy Saudis of which a minority probably support Muslim terrorism. Pakistan since 1973 has steadily become more fundamentalist and has taken money from the USA while supporting the Taliban killing American troops.

The reality is that the Foreign Service does not know what is happening in these countries and doubt the governments actually do either. Americans are far too trusting and take things at face value . In The Middle East people are quite capable of receiving money from you and stabbing you at the same time, all the while smiling.

Saudi is concerned by the Houthis( Shia ) in Yemen because the southern border is almost impossible to guard due to the Empty Quarter Yemeni raiding parties could easily raid into Saudi and then disappear- read Wilfred Thessiger's Arabian Sands account of crossing the empty quarter in the 1940s.

Saudi did try to conquer Qatar in the 1930s. The questions which are not asked

  1. Why has Qatar/Sheik Tamim started to support Muslim terrorism when Saudi is reigning back support?
  2. Are historical conflicts between Qatar and Saud Arabia part of the problem ?
  3. Is Iran a threat to Qatar which has to be appeased at all cost?
Jay C , says: June 27, 2017 at 3:28 pm
A good piece, Mr. Perry, especially in pointing out (sadly, have to add "yet again") the incredible amateurism/incompetence of the Trump Administration's foreign policy "efforts" in the Middle East, but (as has been pointed out here) conflating "forming a common front against Iran" with the position of "the adults in the room" is a dubious proposition.

It's curious but I have yet to see any FP analysis pieces (from either Left or Right) laying out any good reasons why seeking better , rather than seriously-more-antagonistic, relations with Iran would be a bad thing for the world in general (not just Saudi ambitions).

Jon S , says: June 27, 2017 at 3:38 pm
No way Tillerson stays around. This is a guy who lead one of the world's most powerful and complex companies. He is way too smart to let these folks tarnish his reputation.

[Jun 27, 2017] Fake News on Russia...CNN journalists resign

Jun 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

JohnH , June 27, 2017 at 06:45 AM

Fake News on Russia...CNN journalists resign:

"But CNN is hardly alone when it comes to embarrassing retractions regarding Russia. Over and over, U.S. major media outlets have published claims about The Russia Threat that turned out to be completely false – always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating links between Moscow and the Trump circle. In virtually all cases, those stories involved evidence-free assertions from anonymous sources which these media outlets uncritically treated as fact, only for it to be revealed that they were entirely false.

Several of the most humiliating of these episodes have come from the Washington Post. On December 30, the paper published a blockbuster, frightening scoop that immediately and predictably went viral and generated massive traffic. Russian hackers, the paper claimed based on anonymous sources, had hacked into the "U.S. electricity grid" through a Vermont utility.

That, in turn, led MSNBC journalists, and various Democratic officials, to instantly sound the alarm that Putin was trying to deny Americans heat during the winter:

Literally every facet of that story turned out to be false."
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/27/cnn-journalists-resign-latest-example-of-media-recklessness-on-the-russia-threat/

Public perceptions of corporate media's integrity...RIP.

[Jun 27, 2017] In case you did not have time to look for the widely available information on how the US has been supplying certain forces in Syria with various weaponry, including anti aircraft weapons

Jun 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

MarkinLA June 25, 2017 at 10:01 pm GMT

@annamaria In case you did not have time to look for the widely available information on how the US has been supplying certain "forces" in Syria with various weaponry, including anti aircraft weapons, here is a summary: "How America Armed Terrorists in Syria: Another Middle East debacle" By GARETH PORTER • June 22, 2017
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

"The Obama administration's Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed to be the touchstone of the "Global War on Terrorism"-the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates... In October 2012, U.S. officials acknowledged off the record for the first time to the New York Times that "most" of the arms that had been shipped to armed opposition groups in Syria with U.S. logistical assistance during the previous year had gone to "hardline Islamic jihadists"- obviously meaning al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, al Nusra. ...

In early March 2015, the Harakat Hazm Aleppo branch dissolved itself, and al Nusra Front promptly showed off photos of the TOW missiles and other equipment they had captured from it. ... But that wasn't the only way for al Nusra Front to benefit from the CIA's largesse.

The non-jihadist armed groups getting advanced weapons from the CIA assistance were not part of the initial assault on Idlib City. After the capture of Idlib the U.S.-led operations room for Syria in southern Turkey signaled to the CIA-supported groups in Idlib that they could now participate in the campaign to consolidate control over the rest of the province. According to Lister, the British researcher on jihadists in Syria who maintains contacts with both jihadist and other armed groups, recipients of CIA weapons, such as the Fursan al haq brigade and Division 13, did join the Idlib campaign alongside al Nusra Front without any move by the CIA to cut them off. As the Idlib offensive began, the CIA-supported groups were getting TOW missiles in larger numbers, and they now used them with great effectiveness against the Syrian army tanks. That was the beginning of a new phase of the war, in which U.S. policy was to support an alliance between "relatively moderate" groups and the al Nusra Front."

And more of the same CIA judged to be "relatively moderate" anti-Assad groups

These CIA assessments are always loaded with weasel words and half truths like some child admitting he stuck his hand in the cookie jar but didn't actually take one. It is all designed as a silly whitewash of their actions. Admit just enough but stop short of something illegal.

When the CIA finally had to admit they were aware of the drug dealing during the Reagan administration by the Contras, they came out with some lame report where they admitted they were aware that some elements were trafficking drugs but the CIA wasn't directly involved. Of course, the pilots flying the arms in and drugs out all had CIA connections. The DEA also never made any significant arrests.

The CIA knows there are no "relatively moderates".

Priss Factor Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 10:25 pm GMT

What is happening in Syria is an Extreme Steroidal version of what is happening in the West.

Westerners are told 'diversity' and 'inclusion' are highest values.

Well, Syria wouldn't have been such a powder keg if it weren't so diverse filled with so many resentments. And it was the weakening of borders and 'inclusion' of Jihadis and foreign military that made things much worse. So, much for blessings of diversity and inclusion(euphemism for intrusion and invasion).

Two sicknesses of the globalized world: Diversease and Incluenza.

[Jun 27, 2017] How Israel Manages Its Message

economistsview.typepad.com

Those of us who are highly critical of Israel's ability to manipulate U.S. foreign policy frequently note how sites that permit comments on our articles are almost immediately inundated with hostile postings that are remarkably similar in both tone and substance. Given that it is unlikely that large numbers of visitors to the sites read the offending piece more-or-less simultaneously, react similarly to its content, and then go on to express their disgust in very similar language, many of us have come to the conclusion that the Israeli government or some of the groups dedicated to advancing Israeli interests turn loose supporters who are dedicated to combating and refuting anything and everything that casts Israel in a negative light.

The fact is that Israel is extremely active in an enterprise that falls in the gray area between covert operations and overt governmental activity. Many governments seek to respond to negative commentary in the media, but they normally do it openly with an ambassador or press officer countering criticism by sending in a letter, writing an op-ed, or appearing on a talk show. Such activity is generally described as public diplomacy when it is done openly by a recognized government official and the information itself is both plausible and verifiable, at least within reasonable limits. Israel does indeed do that, but it also engages in other activities that are not so transparent and which are aimed at spreading false information.

When an intelligence organization seeks to influence opinion by creating and deliberately circulating "false news," it is referred to as a "disinformation operation."

But Israel has refined the art of something that expands upon that, what might be referred to more accurately as "perception management" or "influence operations" in which it only very rarely shows its hand overtly, in many cases paying students as part-time bloggers or exploiting diaspora Jews as volunteers to get its message out. The practice is so systemic, involving recruitment, training, Foreign Ministry-prepared information sheets, and internet alerts to potential targets, that it is frequently described by its Hebrew name, hasbara, which means literally "public explanation." It is essentially an internet-focused "information war" that parallels and supports the military action whenever Israel enters into conflict with any of its neighbors or seeks to influence public opinion in the United States and Europe.

... ... ...

The Israeli Foreign Ministry has sent a letter out to a number of pro-Israel organizations emphasizing the "importance of the internet as the new battleground for Israel's image." Haaretz reported in 2013 how Prime Minister Netanyahu's office collaborated with the National Union of Israeli Students to establish "covert units" at the seven national universities to be structured in a "semi-military" fashion and organized in situation rooms. Students are paid as much as $2,000 monthly to work the online targets.

The serious collaboration between government and volunteers actually began with Operation Cast Lead in early 2009, an incursion into Gaza that killed more than 1,800 Palestinians, when the Foreign Ministry pulled together a group of mostly young computer savvy soldiers supplemented by students both overseas and within Israel to post a number of government-crafted responses to international criticism.

Many of the initial volunteers worked through a website giyus.org (an acronym for Give Israel Your United Support). The website included a desktop tool called Megaphone that provided daily updates on articles appearing on the internet that had to be challenged or attacked. There were once believed to be 50,000 activists receiving the now-inactive Megaphone's alerts.

There have also been reports about a pro-Israel American group called Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) preparing to enter its own version of developments in the Middle East on the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia. E-mails from CAMERA reveal that the group sought volunteers in 2008 to edit material on Wikipedia "to help us keep Israel-related entries from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors," while also recommending that articles on the Middle East be avoided initially by supporters so as not to arouse suspicions about their motives. Volunteers were also advised to use false names that did not hint at any Israeli or Jewish connection and to avoid any references to being organized by CAMERA. Fifty volunteers reportedly were actively engaged in the program when it was exposed in the media and the program was put on hold.

CAMERA is an Internal Revenue Service-approved 501(c)(3) organization, which means that contributions to it are tax exempt. Such exemptions are granted to organizations that are either charitable or educational in nature and they normally preclude any involvement in partisan political activity. As CAMERA would not appear to qualify as a charity, it is to be presumed that its application for special tax status stressed that it is educational. Whether its involvement in "un-tainting" Wikipedia truly falls within that definition might well be debated, particularly as it appears to have been carried out in semi-clandestine fashion. CAMERA might well also be considered to be a good candidate for registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), as its activity is uniquely focused on promoting the perceived interests of a foreign government.

The use of Israel's universities as propaganda mills by the government also raises other significant issues. The growing BDS movement has included some Israeli universities as targets because of their alleged involvement with the government in the occupation of the West Bank. That the universities are also involved in possible government-sponsored information operations might be an additional convincing argument that BDS supporters might use to justify blacklisting at least some Israeli academic institutions.

Every government is engaged in selling a product, which is its own self-justifying view of what it does and how it does it. But the largely clandestine Israeli effort to influence American opinion is unique in that it comes from a country which receives more than $3 billion annually from the U.S. taxpayer. We Americans are therefore paying to be propagandized by people working for a foreign government who often pretend to be our fellow citizens but are not. What is occurring is essentially an intelligence operation directed against the United States, something that the CIA would have run back in the 1970s and 1980s.

That Israel can continue to reap huge amounts of aid and political cover from Washington while it is actively working to make sure that Americans are poorly informed about the Middle East reveals more than anything the corruption of our political class and media, both of which appear to be ready to sell out for thirty shekels to anyone with the cash in hand. Time to drain the swamp, indeed.

exiled off mainstreet Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 4:47 am GMT

This is documented long-term foreign influence which has reached treason levels in the past, for instance at the time the USS Liberty was sunk in June, 1967. This can be contrasted with the phony Russia accusations levelled by many of the same people whose first loyalty is to the Israeli state rather than to the yankee imperium employing them. I don't see this ending well.

Wally Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 4:52 am GMT

Tip of the iceberg:

The True Cost of Parasite Israel
Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

"Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security"

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

The Zionist attempt to control language.
The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY

https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf

The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014

Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media

Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.

"Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication points throughout the country."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo

"Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA"
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg

"IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology"
Read more: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/

How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

Mark Green Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 6:03 am GMT

Israel's global news penetration (via hasbara) and other disinformation strategies are routine. Diabolical, but routine.

The Zionist state's various tricks and manipulations are legendary and ruthless. They function as a backdoor attack on intellectual liberty as well as open political discourse. They are anti-democratic.

Thus, even 'freedom of expression' in America is under constant Israeli pressure and surveillance. No stone goes unturned.

This is why Holocaust 'education' is ubiquitous and, when possible, mandatory. If the stories fail, inject guilt. It's an unscrupulous strategy that is working.

Meanwhile, Zionist myths rain down endlessly via American TV and throughout American mass media. Deep Zionist victimology has penetrated even US public schools. Hasbara is strategic. It is unrelenting. Ironically, it represents the tribal interest of a foreign power. Do Americans live under soft occupation? It increasingly looks that way.

This explains why Jewish suffering, Jewish innocence, and Jewish victimology are now compulsory subjects in American life–from schools to children's TV, to higher education and adult cinema. 'Dominare the message'.

On the other hand, Israel's commitment to segregation between Jews and gentiles is quietly steadfast. "Unshakable'. This head-scratching phenomena has been obscured by the Fake News meme involving America's 'Judeo-Christian' heritage. Yet it is an absolute ruse. No such heritage exists. These are Zionist-lead political movements and Zionist headlines. They tread on the thin, manufactured ice. Theydo not exist organically.

Christ's teachings were in fact a break from Judaism. Christ said as much. Christianity is an Open Admissions theology that stresses universal ethics that are non-racial. On the other hand, Israel is tribal, racial and exclusionary. This wouldn't be so repulsive if not for Israel's vociferous (and insincere) support for 'equality' and its pious contempt for 'white nationalism'.

Jewish racism is commanded by God. And Israel's ethical basis is polluted by nepotism, 'chosenness' and racial favoritism under God. It is a collection of myths and yarns that drip with tribal supremacism.

It's worth remembering also that Jews in Israel have a distinct word for their version of 'Apartheid'. It is 'Hafrada', which means 'separation' in Hebrew. Ever heard of it? Of course not! Hasbara operatives and their cousins in US news media make sure of that.

Sadly, we Americans live under soft occupation.

Significantly, few non-Jews have ever heard of 'hafrada'. But everyone has heard of 'Apartheid'.
Gee. How come?

We can thank the legions of young Israeli activists (and their elders) for this deliberate omission and assorted side shows. Control speech. Control thought.

Make no mistake about it: Israel is a racial supremacist state. Segregation is a core Zionist value. Jewish exceptionalism is their paramount goal. America is a useful, but temporary, ally. This is the nature of the 'special relationship.'

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 6:56 am GMT

Zionists never foresaw that having an own state would demonstrate what jews are capable of. In 1948, thanks to the persecutions of the jews during WWII, Israel had a lot of sympathy in the world. Nowadays, with no solution anywhere in sight for the Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed in 1948, in Germany a Secretary for, against, Antisemitism seems necessary.

Germany debates if criticism of Israel, antizionism, is he same as antisemitism. Norman Finkelstein and Ilian Pappe recently were not allowed to speak in Germany. Indeed Israel is great in propaganda, but the effects are less and less.

Israel has but one 'friend', the USA, and how sincere this friendship is is more and more debatable. Mobilising jews to write on fora, in many languages, any time there have been Israeli atrocities, may have the opposite effect. Anyone familiar with these fora notices how these propagandists pop up, and disappear after some time. What they are paid even is known, four or five dollars per message. It looks like 'you can fool all people some time, some people all the time, but not all the people all the time', still is true.

Ronald Thomas West Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 7:27 am GMT

"What is occurring is essentially an intelligence operation directed against the United States, something that the CIA would have run back in the 1970s and 1980s"

Hi Phil

Jesse Ventura would have us believe the CIA is as busy as it ever had been, when it comes to running operations against the American people. I agree with Jesse.

Meanwhile, here's a collection of links I'd assembled some time back, includes American military psyops (esp Air Force) along the lines of hasbara (who're also included)

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/04/18/military-sock-puppets-nsa-trolls-cia-shills/

^

Tha Philosopher Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 9:17 am GMT

Wally,

The CIA and NSA are essentially the jewish elite secret police. They align exactly with Mossad. Hence 9-11. Read the Devil's Chessboard by Stephen Talbot. We've previoulsy lived under a gentile plutocracy since the assasination of JFK.

But something happened since as Zion rose to prominence. The coup against Nixon by the Deep State is a part of the puzzle. Allen Welsh Dulles groomed Nixon. So his loyalists would never have removed him. My hunch is that Nixon's fall to the Washington Post, consummate deep state pillar, is the key to understanding the later 20th century and our current 'occupation'. Its a pity nobody could ask David Rockefeller in candour how his group had lost control or merged with the new Zionists.

... ... ...

mcohen Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 11:13 am GMT

here it is folks in all its glory.enjoy.just the plain truth

https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2017/06/the-forgotten-truth-about-the-balfour-declaration/

jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 11:19 am GMT

sites that permit comments on our articles are almost immediately inundated with hostile postings that are remarkably similar in both tone and substance.

Speaking of substance, they typically lack any of it. They usually resort to smarmy personal attacks as well as scatological foolishness and crass bragging. Some resort to juvenile pseudo-intellectual banter that's obviously intended to intimidate or humiliate, while another favorite tactic seems to be off topic trash that's also supposed to impress the rest of us somehow.

Nevertheless, I encourage the trolls to keep it up and leave them to figure out why.

But the largely clandestine Israeli effort to influence American opinion is unique in that it comes from a country which receives more than $3 billion annually from the U.S. taxpayer. We Americans are therefore paying to be propagandized by people working for a foreign government who often pretend to be our fellow citizens but are not.

Yeah, that really burns.

lavoisier Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 11:56 am GMT

Ideas have power. Hence the desire to control ideas. To control minds.

I have always thought that the Bolsheviks were Masters at thought control. The ultimate control freaks.

But why such comfort with lies and deception? Why not be open to the free exchange of ideas?

Without openness to ideas civilization stagnates as talent is buried.

This IS scary.

Jason Liu Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMT

Also interesting is how they manage to do this without widespread condemnation and/or suspicion. It's like people know about it, but the Israelis create an environment where people don't quite care. Contrast that to the wumao, China's paid commenters, who arouse widespread suspicion and constant accusations of shilling.

So Israel must have gone one step further. They manage their image with propagandists, but they also manage the image of the propagandist as well.

annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra "Zionists never foresaw that having an own state would demonstrate what jews are capable of."

But the truth is coming out: " Selected Articles: Criminal Israel Under the Spotlight" http://www.globalresearch.ca/selected-articles-criminal-israel-under-the-spotlight/5596278

The articles show American taxpayers' money in action.

Again, what was the aftermath of 9/11 about – fighting against Al Qaeda? If yes, then why should not Israel be designated as a terrorist state supporting Al Qaeda, the US sworn enemy? It seems that Al Qaeda is "good guys" nowadays because they help to farther the Eretz Israel project

The Israel-occupied US government is proverbially dancing on the graves of 9/11 victims: "How America Armed Terrorists in Syria"

Bragadocious Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT

CAMERA is as old as the hills. I remember when I subscribed to the Atlantic back in the 80s this mangy outfit would run little 2Χ3 inch print ads. I always wondered what the fuss was about; I mean, who could be against accurate reporting in the ME? Then it became clear. And they most certainly should be subjected to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, as should many others, including NY-based Irish Central (a propaganda sheet for the Paddy open borders crowd).

ISmellBagels Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT

They not only use American-sounding names, but hilariously patriotic posting handles, like Patriot, KeepAmericaSafe, TrueAmerican, etc.

HAL 9000 Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:11 pm GMT

By this time, pretty much everyone does this. Israel might be the biggest or most extensive, but anyone engaged in politics or related activities does pretty much the same thing.

Any major political party now does this. For example, I was relatively sure the Democrats did this only a couple of weeks back. AG Sessions was due to testify in a major hearing. It seemed to me that the Democrats both recruited a Senator to hammer a particular theme, which was to put Sessions in a spot where he had to refuse to answer questions for perfectly legal reasons, and a small army of internet activists, paid trolls, or bots was mobilized to push memes on the internet on this topic.

By this time, I regard a political party that does not do this as being incompetent.

Corporations also do this. They call it 'brand protection' or 'guerrilla marketing'. Anyone with a little bit of money can find firms that offer this as a service. What it costs to buy this service would seem expensive to ordinary citizens, but given the amount of money in play, the cost of a few hundred thousand to a 'consultant' firm is chicken feed. You don't even need to recruit humans to do it. After all, a fake name and a fake email address can easily be connected to a computer generated fake message.

A website I go to for news often has headlines like "Twitter explodes to .". I pretty much ignore these as its predictable and obvious that this can be pre-arranged and manipulated.

The interesting issue I saw raised not too long ago let to the possibility that AI's might manipulate this in the future. At some point, we'd have to question if there is even a human entity behind this, or is it just an AI that managing our perception towards itself or other AIs.

There's an old saying that all politics is local. We might actually have to go back to talking to each other face to face.

moi Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT

Good article, but fails to mention that the hasbara would not work without Jewish control of "our" media/entertainment (NYT, WaPo, Google, Facebook, Hollywood, TV, etc.) industry, not to mention the financial sector and disproportionate representation of Jews in Congress. Sorry, but those are facts.

annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra More on Syria and the upcoming false flag:
"White House Says It Will Fake "Chemical Weapon Attack" In Syria" http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/white-house-says-it-will-fake-chemical-weapon-attacks-in-syria.html#comments

ISmellBagels Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT

@HAL 9000 Israel is the only country that has control of our congress, our media and the control of the dumb masses to keep driving the US to ruin. The "everyone does this" line is not much of a response.

DaveE Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

@DanCT You bring up an important point.

Hasbara trolls and websites which publish them are an important measure of true public opinion for the zionists. The Lobby has its own internal opinion polls which are never shared, certainly not in the crap served up to us by Zogby, Reuters and Pew, etc. etc. etc.

I suspect that this database is far more comprehensive than commonly known, probably going as far as linking an "anti_Semite" rating to individual commenters.

I'm probably in the top 10%, I'm proud to say.

Chu Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

@Wally The mooch fest never ends, unless there's a growing under-current to cut the tentacles. And with cooperative efforts like Technion/Cornell partnering, they are anchoring themselves to the US indefinitely – so if they fail, they'll pull the US down with them.

They brought Zionist terror to the Middle East, but the victim shtick, via hollywood, has caused the complacent TV-watchers to be lulled into a false narrative, and who never challenge what a corrupt collective of occupiers, and land swindlers they are.

A review of 'Being in Time: A Post-Political Manifesto' – by Gilad Atzmon

https://platosguns.com/2017/06/24/athens-versus-jerusalem/

annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT

How Israel manages its messages? – Via the presstituting MSM like Washington Post: http://www.moonofalabama.org

"WaPo has a 8,300 word weekend opus on how Obama failed to react to CIA director Brennan's claims that Putin himself ordered to hack the U.S. election.

Note:

Reading that piece it becomes clear (but is never said) that the sole source for that August 2016 Brennan claim of "Russian hacking" is the absurd Steele dossier some ex-MI6 dude created for too much money as opposition research against Trump . The only other "evidence" for "Russian hacking" is the Crowdstrike report on the DNC "hack". Crowdstrike has a Ukrainian nationalist agenda, was hired by the DNC , had to retract other "Russian hacking" claims and no one else was allowed to take a look at the DNC servers. Said differently: The whole "Russian hacking" claims are solely based on "evidence" of two fake reports."

The Crowdstrike' report was concocted under command of Dmitri Alperovitch, a rabid Russophobe of Jewish ethnicity, who is also an "expert" at Atlantic Council, where he joins other "experts" like Eliot Higgins. Higgins was nicely dressed recently by the honorable C0l. Pat Lang who wrote about Higgins: " an uneducated, inexperienced guy with an opinion The fact that this gentlemen is treated as a credible source is further proof of the insanity that has taken over the public debate. He knows nothing other than what he has read. He has not been through live agent training at Fort McClellan (I have). He has no scientific background in the subject matter and no experience (other than playing video games) with actual chemical weapons (Ted Postol, who has written extensively on the subject, does have actual scientific and military expertise on the topic). Higgins knows nothing of the military doctrine for employing such weapons. He knows nothing of the process and procedures required for a military unit to safely handle, load, activate and deploy such weapons."

To illustrate the power of the Lobby, it is educational to know that Higgins is also a "Visiting Research Associate at the Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS), Department of War Studies, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS," - kidding you not. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/visiting/higgins.aspx

[Jun 27, 2017] Retracted CNN story a boon for president at war with media

"if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck" This was a witch hunt...
Jun 27, 2017 | www.msn.com

Originally from AP.

Trump quickly took advantage with a series of tweets on Tuesday, and conservative provocateur James O'Keefe piled on by releasing a video with a CNN producer caught on camera talking about the network's Russian coverage being ratings-driven.

...Trump tweeted that "they caught Fake News CNN cold." He lumped ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post together in the same "fake news" category.

...Aides also believe that highlighting media mistakes could be a useful way of questioning the credibility of much of the reporting on the scandals surrounding the White House to convince supporters that Trump was the victim of a witch hunt.

...

Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., suggested in an interview with Breitbart News that "maybe Jeff Zucker should do an on-camera briefing about CNN's fake news scandal before the White House does any more of them." CNN's White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, has been particularly vocal in protesting the administration's dwindling number of on-camera news briefings.

He also tweeted a link to the video posted by O'Keefe's Project Veritas. The hidden-camera video showed John Bonifield, an Atlanta-based producer in CNN's medical unit, talking about how the "ratings are incredible" for the network's Russian coverage. He said the network has no "smoking gun" showing wrongdoing by Trump and that "the president is probably right to say, look, you are witch-hunting me."

[Jun 27, 2017] MoA - White House Says It Will Fake Chemical Weapon Attack In Syria

Looks like after Hersh story was published trump decided to double down.
Notable quotes:
"... The lunatic US ambassador to the UN jumped in to make it clear that it does not matter who commits whatever crime in Syria, Takfiris, the U.S. or Israel, it will be the Syrian, Russian and Iranian governments who will held guilty of it: ..."
"... Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will be the pressure point against Putin. The neoconservatives in his administration want to break up Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.) ..."
"... Don't you think that if the Americans really intended to make a false flag, they would never issue this warning? For me, looks like the White House, knowing of the possibility of a Pentagon faction to provoke a false flag, issued this warning as an alert to Russians and Syrians and as a vaccin, to avoid this operation. ..."
"... Right after Khan Sheikhoun preparations were being made in the media for another false flag. Several embarrassingly weak "think" pieces were published in the NYT attempting to rationalize why Syria would use chemical weapons when it weakened the country's defenses. ..."
"... i'd look to the CIA for false flags, not the pentagon. the pentagon sees itself on the receiving end of the cia's 'fun and games'. ..."
"... It is Trump, and his direct handlers, who have the bit in their teeth now. no one else - state, nor defense, nor the 'analysis' false-front at the CIA - wants to go near this. Trump wants to watch himself evolve as something bigger-than-life on TV, and whatever happens in what we quaintly call 'the real world' has no place in his 'thinking'. ..."
"... What is in maddog's peace pipe? i guess he didn't get the memo on the upcoming retaliation for the - so far, virtual - new 'sarin attack' - which is known to be aimed at babies? not entirely clear which comes first, the attack or the 'retaliation' for it. The russians are not interested in 'deconflicting' with a lying/out-of-the-loop bunch such as the american general command. And those same generals are pushing the turks into russia's lap ... i guess when you have a crack outfit - outfit on crack? - like the saudis for allies you don't need anyone else. The kurds have sold ALL their bona fides down the euphrates with their us/saudi no-matter-what alliance. ..."
"... Ah, that old chestnut again...typical Zionist Hollywood formula...the good cop, bad cop routine. Trump is actually perfect for this shit, his background in shithouse primetime T.V. makes for the perfect dummy agent. ..."
"... I guess this is why Sy Hersh's most recent effort didn't get published in the US or UK...it just didn't suit the upcoming singular MSM narrative. ..."
"... Trump is even more of a idiot than I previously thought. Now he plays patsy for the neo con's hegemonic Empire agenda in taking the blame for the Syrian air base strike on information the intelligence community now claims they had that was inconclusive that Assad did it. ..."
"... If the neo cons narrative on their story of the Assad forces having used gas AGAIN hadn't fallen apart so quickly, even after their MSM backed the story to the hilt, they wouldn't be back tracking with this new line of bovine by product that Trump ordered the strike against the spy agencies best advice. ..."
"... The neo cons are getting desperate, like a scene from Hitler's last days in the bunker when the illusion is dissolved that any further military ability is all but crushed. ..."
"... After Seymour Hersh ridiculed the White House for having 'punished' Bashar al Assad, for a crime he has not committed, it was necessary for the White House to show how 'intelligent' they are in preventing 'another' attacks. Fake face saving! ..."
"... This wreaks of propaganda that is designed to counter the Sy Hersh story and leaks that just came out regarding trump ignoring Intel and attacking Syria anyway. The White House changed the narrative from did trump Le to watch out for a cutout chemo attack and its statement about future chemical strikes claims there was a first strike - it seeks to make a fallacy assumed as true. ..."
"... I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda. I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited. ..."
"... The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign. ..."
"... It's got to be a bitch for all the former Trumpsters around here who have seen their main man morph from a swamp-draining non-interventionist into a world class warmonger with a cabinet full of world class swamp creatures. ..."
"... Things certainly didn't work out as planned. Assad is in the cross hairs as is Iran and Hezbollah. It's maybe time to hope that Mueller gets enough dirt, and fast, to dethrone this dangerous president even if it leaves some egg on the face of certain Russian officials and businessmen. ..."
"... thanks b.. no proof needed with the west... lies and insinuation of responsibility is all that is needed... ..."
Jun 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly be to its disadvantage. The White House announcement must thereby be understood as preparation for another U.S. attack on Syria in "retaliation" for an upcoming staged "chemical weapon attack" which will be blamed on the Syrian government.

In August 2013 Syria invited inspectors of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to investigate chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian army. As soon as the inspectors arrived in Damascus a "chemical attack" was staged in Ghouta near Damascus. Lots of Jihadist video coverage of killed children was published and the "western" media blamed the incident on the Syrian government. It never explained why targeting a militarily irrelevant area with chemical weapons at the same time as inspectors arrived would have been a rational decision for a Syrian government that was just regaining control and international standing.

The "attack" was clearly staged by the opposition of the Syrian government and its foreign supporters. The Obama administration had planned to use it to launch U.S. attacks on the Syrian government but refrained from this when Russia arranged to remove Syria's strategic chemical weapons, aimed at Israel, instead.

In early 2017 the new U.S. president Trump made positive comments about the Syrian government. Assad can stay, he said. The Syrian military and its allies had gained the upper hand and were victorious on all fronts. Two days later another "chemical attack" was staged in the al-Qaeda held town of Khan Sheikhun. Lots of Jihadi video coverage of killed children, likely prepared in advance, was spilled onto the "western" public. U.S. intelligence knew that no chemical attack by the Syrian government had taken place. But the Trump administration used the incident to launch a volley of cruise missiles against a Syrian military airport. The neoconservatives were delighted. They finally had Trump where they wanted him. The media coverage changed from damming Trump for his alleged "Russian connections" to lauding his decisiveness in response to the faked attack.

Late May the new French president Macron ostensibly changed his position towards the Syrian government. The hostile position of France (and other EU countries) against the Syrian president Assad that had been eminent throughout the last six years changed on a dime :

Macron said that on Syria: "My profound conviction is that we need a political and diplomatic roadmap. We won't solve the question only with military force. That is a collective error we have made. The real change I've made on this question, is that I haven't said the deposing of Bashar al-Assad is a prerequisite for everything. Because no one has introduced me to his legitimate successor!

But Macron also added:

"I have red lines on chemical weapons and humanitarian corridors. I said it very clearly to Vladimir Putin. I will be uncompromising on that. So the use of chemical weapons will be met with a response, and even if France acts alone."

This immediately set off my warning lights:

Moon of Alabama @MoonofA - 4:28 PM - 29 May 2017
You like fakes? Tune in to Macron announcing the next False Flag chemical weapon attack in Syria.

Like all "red lines" this one Macron set was an invitation to the Takfiris to launch more fake incidents. Others had a similar reaction to Macron's (fake) turnaround.

The end of the war on Syria is in sight . One can start to tabulate the winners and losers . The U.S. military conceded that it had lost the race to occupy south-east Syria. All these turns in favor of Syria show that the war is practically won unless some of the outside sponsors of the Takfiri "rebels" again escalate.

Such an escalation is now happening. The White House claims to have information that the Syrian government is preparing a chemical weapon attack to kill "innocent children":

In an ominous statement issued with no supporting evidence or further explanation , Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the U.S. had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children."

He said the activities were similar to preparations taken before an April 2017 attack that killed dozens of men, women and children, and warned that if "Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price."

Several State Department officials typically involved in coordinating such announcements said they were caught completely off guard by the warning, which didn't appear to be discussed in advance with other national security agencies. Typically, the State Department, the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies would all be consulted before the White House issued a declaration sure to ricochet across foreign capitals.

The White House claim is of course nonsense and not supported by any evidence or logic at all. No one but the White House, not the State Department nor the Defense Department, seems to be informed about this (though that could be a ruse):

Five US defense officials said they did not know where the potential chemical attack would come from and were unaware the White House was planning a statement.

The lunatic US ambassador to the UN jumped in to make it clear that it does not matter who commits whatever crime in Syria, Takfiris, the U.S. or Israel, it will be the Syrian, Russian and Iranian governments who will held guilty of it:

Nikki Haley‏ @nikkihaley - 2:36 AM - 27 Jun 2017
Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people.

A U.S. bomb attack on an Islamic State used building in Mayadin, Syria, just killed 57 prisoners of the Islamic State. Will Nikki Halley hold the Syrian government responsible for this?

Take note of Trump's schedule today:

Laura Rozen‏ @lrozen 8:56 AM - 27 Jun 2017

Trump has call with France's Macron first thing this morning, before intel brief. Then meeting w Nat. Sec. adviser McMaster

Intense U.S. military reconnaissance takes place along the Syrian coast. The UK Defense Minister just announced that his government is "in full agreement" with any U.S. "retaliation" for a chemical attack in Syria. U.S. Secretary of Defense Mattis announced that the U.S. will continue to arm its Kurdish proxies in Syria even after ISIS is defeated.

During the last three days Al-Qaeda attacks on Syrian army position near the Israeli occupied Golan heights were supported by Israeli air attacks .

This all is clearly a coordinated operation by the "western" supporters of the Takfiris in Syria. Their aim is to prevent the victory of Syria and its allies. The U.S. wants to split up the country.

The announced fake "chemical attack" and the "retaliation" it is supposed to justify will likely happen in the south-west of Syria around Deraa where all recent attempts by Israel and the U.S. supported Takfiris to dislodge the Syrian government forces have failed. The provocation, now prepared and announced by Macron and the White House and supported by the UK, is probably planned to happen shortly before or during the upcoming G-20 meeting in Hamburg:

President Trump and members of his administration are requesting a full bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Germany next month.

...

While some administration officials have pressed for a quick "pull-aside" meeting at the Group of 20 summit or lower officials talking privately instead of the heads of state, Trump wants an event that includes the media and time for work sessions, according to one government official.

Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will be the pressure point against Putin. The neoconservatives in his administration want to break up Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.)

Syria insists that its has no chemical weapons nor any intention to use any indiscriminate weapon. Russia warns of any further military aggression and calls such U.S. threats unacceptable .

Posted by b on June 27, 2017 at 07:49 AM | Permalink

Dario | Jun 27, 2017 7:56:49 AM | 1
Don't you think that if the Americans really intended to make a false flag, they would never issue this warning? For me, looks like the White House, knowing of the possibility of a Pentagon faction to provoke a false flag, issued this warning as an alert to Russians and Syrians and as a vaccin, to avoid this operation.

just impressions, ideas, ideas...

Anon | Jun 27, 2017 8:01:03 AM | 2
Intresting b,- on the France connection, perhaps France are the ones feeding the false info to bomb Syria, the sleazy Macron needs a war to get some support? Anyway, check EU, Western nations, Media these days and see the ugly propaganda being played out, once again the west plan, threat with illegal wars and their media is right there to help them.

Russia is quite uninterested in defending Syria it seems, I think at least they could have shipped Syria S300 and put them right in Damascus by know.

Because, after Syria, Russia like Iran and North Korea will also sooner or later be bombed. Be sure about that. These are sick lunatics ruling the American military.
Remember who rule America these days, its not Trump:

Bannon: Trump's strategy is 'let the warfighters fight the war'

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/339301-bannon-trumps-strategy-is-let-the-warfighters-fight-the-war

Laguerre | Jun 27, 2017 8:15:03 AM | 3
the sleazy Macron needs a war to get some support
Really? He's just won the elections massively. What sort of support does he need?
R Winner | Jun 27, 2017 8:17:46 AM | 4
The US Regime is obviously in panic mode. The SAA is rapidly advancing on three fronts:

1. Raqqa - The SAA is quickly moving around the hapless Kurds and moving to the area south of Raqqa. Ensuring IS is unable to execute their agreement with the US Regime to evacuate towards Deir ez-Zur.

2. Deir ez-Zur - Huge numbers of SAA are quickly approaching the defenders in Deir ez-Zur. Once Deir ez-Zur is secure, the SAA will move north to link up with the SAA forces in al Hasakah.

3. al Bukamal - The SAA and Iraq PMU are working as a unified force on both sides of the border and are preparing to surround the border city.

What this means is:

  1. The US Regime partion dreams are dead. There is no viable Kurdish 'state' other than a bunch of clowns pretending to be a new 'government' in Raqqa.
  2. The Iraq PMU are increasingly working side by side with the SAA. Any attack by the US Regime puts their bases in Iraq open to attack.
  3. The absurd threats from Saudi Arabia towards Qatar now have the various terror groups still alive in Syria attacking each other.
  4. Syria is close to a decisive military victory against the foreign terrorists. Once the SAA secures the bulk of the Eurphrates only Idlib and Daraa remain as security problems.
  5. Every day the SAA advances and IS or terrorist pockets are cleared, more and more troops are freed up and being moved to the major fronts in either Daraa or the Eurphrates.
  6. Turkey and Russia are in complete agreement on preventing any sort of Kurdish state in the north of Syria. Any attempts by the US Regime to establish some sort of giant military base backed by Kurds is going to have to fight Turkey, the SAA, Russia, and quite possibly Iraq.
  7. The success of the de-escalation zone means that the US Regime is greatly hamstrung in coming up with further faked chemical attacks. The only real options now are Idlib and Daraa.

IS is being wiped out in the eastern Syrian desert by the SAA and in the western desert of Iraq by the PMU. Those giant grey IS areas on battle maps are evaporating and at the same time the entire pretext for the US Regime to be attacking Syria.

Mike Maloney | Jun 27, 2017 8:23:41 AM | 5
Right after Khan Sheikhoun preparations were being made in the media for another false flag. Several embarrassingly weak "think" pieces were published in the NYT attempting to rationalize why Syria would use chemical weapons when it weakened the country's defenses.

Now almost three months later the White House is actually staging a roll out of the false flag. Incredible. Legacy media can't raise a ruckus because their complicit in previous false flags.

Russia on the other hand can't back down this time. To do so would be to invite perpetual rape and plunder by the U.S. and its various clients. Russia needs to make a very clear statement right now -- paratroopers dropped around Deraa -- to prevent the false flag from going forward.

blues | Jun 27, 2017 8:24:04 AM | 6
The US military generals got caught with their pants down. They are losing the war -- everything but the wastelands. For the military/intel, losing is FAILURE. They basically get fired. So they will pull any stunt to not "fail". Of course, the Russians are going to make them fail despite all their "valiant" efforts. Trump better wake up and smell the coffee, or he will wake up to a brilliant flash.
jfl | Jun 27, 2017 8:26:42 AM | 7
@1 d

i'd look to the CIA for false flags, not the pentagon. the pentagon sees itself on the receiving end of the cia's 'fun and games'.

@2 a, 'Russia is quite uninterested in defending Syria it seems, I think at least they could have shipped Syria S300 and put them right in Damascus by know'

i think so too, every time. but I've been wrong everytime so far. it's finally occurred to me that there's more going on than what i know about, and that the Russians are dealing with a fuller deck than i am. And that they've spent their lifetimes at this kind of high pressure stuff and have a far better understanding of it all than i do. but don't take my word for it ... look at the results they've gotten.

It is Trump, and his direct handlers, who have the bit in their teeth now. no one else - state, nor defense, nor the 'analysis' false-front at the CIA - wants to go near this. Trump wants to watch himself evolve as something bigger-than-life on TV, and whatever happens in what we quaintly call 'the real world' has no place in his 'thinking'.

Anon | Jun 27, 2017 8:33:44 AM | 8
Laguerre

Massivly won? Sleazy Macron won an election where huge part of France didnt even vote not only in the prez. election but in the parliamentary election.
Or please tell us why this sleazy Macron threat Syria with war all of a sudden? For what reason? This guy is globalist 101% this is what people like himself do to get support.

This guy for crying out loud just warned some weeks ago that France will respond to a chemical attack! What more proof do you need?

jfl | Jun 27, 2017 8:48:06 AM | 9
Mattis: US arms for Syrian Kurds will continue after Raqqa
U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Tuesday that America will continue to provide weapons to Syrian Kurdish fighters after the battle to oust Islamic State militants from Raqqa, Syria, is over.

Mattis said the de-confliction talks continue and are happening at several military levels, to insure that aircraft and ground forces are safe.

What is in maddog's peace pipe? i guess he didn't get the memo on the upcoming retaliation for the - so far, virtual - new 'sarin attack' - which is known to be aimed at babies? not entirely clear which comes first, the attack or the 'retaliation' for it. The russians are not interested in 'deconflicting' with a lying/out-of-the-loop bunch such as the american general command. And those same generals are pushing the turks into russia's lap ... i guess when you have a crack outfit - outfit on crack? - like the saudis for allies you don't need anyone else. The kurds have sold ALL their bona fides down the euphrates with their us/saudi no-matter-what alliance.

it's hard to believe the us wehrmacht is in such obvious disarray. if the Russians wait it out, the Americans will defeat themselves in Syria. Looks like in short order, too.

MadMax2 | Jun 27, 2017 8:59:47 AM | 10
Ah, that old chestnut again...typical Zionist Hollywood formula...the good cop, bad cop routine. Trump is actually perfect for this shit, his background in shithouse primetime T.V. makes for the perfect dummy agent.
mls | Jun 27, 2017 9:07:09 AM | 11
Trump does not need a chemical weapons attack to actually take place in Syria. He may be planning to preempt such an incident. This way there will be no phony White Helmets video footage to dissect. Listen to what the British Defense Minister has to say:
British Defense Minister Michael Fallon said London would support U.S. action to prevent a chemical weapons attack but that it had not seen the intelligence on which Washington based Monday's statement.
according to Reuters here
I guess this is why Sy Hersh's most recent effort didn't get published in the US or UK...it just didn't suit the upcoming singular MSM narrative.

MadMax2 | Jun 27, 2017 9:11:09 AM | 12

Moon is precisely right. The implied assumption of WH/intel Junta is that Ivan is coward and will not stand. The implied action is that WH/intel intends attack RuF/Sy?Ir/+ forces. Assumes Iran etc will not stand. Is this an incorrect assumption set? Failure of WH strategy is thus proximate.
BRF | Jun 27, 2017 9:19:38 AM | 14
Trump is even more of a idiot than I previously thought. Now he plays patsy for the neo con's hegemonic Empire agenda in taking the blame for the Syrian air base strike on information the intelligence community now claims they had that was inconclusive that Assad did it.

Hersh is again the go to mouth piece on this one for the neo cons. If the neo cons narrative on their story of the Assad forces having used gas AGAIN hadn't fallen apart so quickly, even after their MSM backed the story to the hilt, they wouldn't be back tracking with this new line of bovine by product that Trump ordered the strike against the spy agencies best advice.

This whole show is a cock and bull offering. The neo cons are getting desperate, like a scene from Hitler's last days in the bunker when the illusion is dissolved that any further military ability is all but crushed.

So desperate they US neo con brain trust is willing to go to the poison gas well again and again with their 'tell the big lie often' meme....after all it is only the Syrian civilian population and innocent beautiful babies that will have to die this time around again. I'll give the Israelis some credit for at least having the better excuse for their aggression against the Syrian nation and people.

virgile | Jun 27, 2017 9:24:49 AM | 15
After Seymour Hersh ridiculed the White House for having 'punished' Bashar al Assad, for a crime he has not committed, it was necessary for the White House to show how 'intelligent' they are in preventing 'another' attacks. Fake face saving!
plantman | Jun 27, 2017 9:26:31 AM | 16
Mattis is clearly working secretly with the White House on a plan to counter the steady progress of the SAA. He seems strangely unprepared for recent developments on the ground. There is still a good possibility he will try something foolhardy like sending his militia at al Tanf north thru SAA lines to join the fight at Deir Ezzor.
The SAA probably won't take Raqqa, but will focus on Deir Ezzor which is only 75 miles away.

Expect the chemical attack to be in the vicinity of deir ezzor.

Amanita Amanita | Jun 27, 2017 9:33:14 AM | 17
Surely this Assad prepares killer tomatoes fairytale is a feint...more likely the spark comes from the Balts or the Balks...so much kindling.

http://app.debka.com/n/article/26116/US-may-preempt-an-Assad-chemical-strike-in-Syria

virgile | Jun 27, 2017 9:33:52 AM | 18
The recent series of failures of the US in Syria, together with a shift of Turkey on the side of Bashar al Assad's army and France's u-turn on Bashar Assad necessitated a big noise: The threat of a 'new' chemical attack that would united the "friends of Syria" again.

Another infantile drama from desperate Pentagon to show the US relevance in the region! France will not buy it and Russia will make sure that false flag wont happen again.

jfl | Jun 27, 2017 9:34:02 AM | 20
@15 virgile

yeah, but they have to pose in their photo-ops themselves. no one else wants to be seen in pictures with them in the imagined future. the rump loves it ... 'larger than life'.

well, if they shut up now and wait a bit, they can announce that they were successful in preventing the dastardly attack on the babies by 'assad' ...

on the other hand, they may well have to figure out what to do after al-cia-duh 'surprises' them with some dead babies ... they'll be shocked! never imagined that might happen! wasn't in their copy of the script ... it's all a sit-com to them ...

Out of Istanbul | Jun 27, 2017 9:54:40 AM | 21
Looks like Assad is taking a "tour" of Russia's airbase... https://twitter.com/AliHa_97/status/879685253878734849 Looks like the time frame has been moved up dramatically since b's report... AP also running stories about the US military seeing indications of a chemical weapon being prepared.
Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 27, 2017 10:12:05 AM | 22
I've got a quibble with the intro to this post. It should say...

The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing " another chemical weapon attack".

"another" is the presumptuous, Hollywood-ish weasel word intended to pre-emptively legitimise the false and unproven Yankee allegations that the Syrian Govt has conducted ANY chemical attacks. In fact, one could go farther and point out the measures taken by the Christian Colonial Clowns to AVOID producing evidence to support their past claims.

Julian | Jun 27, 2017 10:21:28 AM | 23
G20 G20 G20. If Putin wants to avoid WW3 he must get the leaders of countries like China, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Indonesia, Korea, who else? to stand up behind him and condemn this rush to war. The time has come for Merkel to make a decision - and it happens to be at her home G20 Summit. Does Mutti have the cojones???
Alaric | Jun 27, 2017 10:32:35 AM | 24
I agree with the posters of 15 and 22.

This wreaks of propaganda that is designed to counter the Sy Hersh story and leaks that just came out regarding trump ignoring Intel and attacking Syria anyway. The White House changed the narrative from did trump Le to watch out for a cutout chemo attack and its statement about future chemical strikes claims there was a first strike - it seeks to make a fallacy assumed as true.

It's the same tactc he is using regarding Russian interference. He is redirected there as well to Obama. "Why didn't Obama do anything about the leaks."

That said you can't put anything beyond the empire. SAA, Russia and friends need to be ready.

exiled off mainstreet | Jun 27, 2017 10:33:18 AM | 25
I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda. I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited.

The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel.

It is seriously disconcerting that the neocons still seem to be able to rule the roost. If any "chemical" attack occurs within a few days or longer away, it will be extremely suspect.

Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign.

In light of these facts, I think the whole thing more likely shows weakness and disarray, not a serious conspiratorial threat of armageddon, though it could end up blowing up in that direction.

JaimeInTexas | Jun 27, 2017 10:38:50 AM | 27
@21

Hmmm. If the preemptive strike against an alleged chemical attack preparation takes out Assad? Just serendipity, icing on the cake? Any chance that the message is that these uSA has intelligence on Assad's movements?

x | Jun 27, 2017 10:45:17 AM | 28
And when this same old gas story loses traction it will be back to 'Barrel Bombs'...

peter | Jun 27, 2017 11:04:14 AM | 30
I suppose now that CNN has fired three journalists that Special Council Mueller will give notice to his investigators to pack it in and go home. Yep, nothing to see here folks. Sorry for wasting your time. Fat fucking chance. This cat's on a mission and won't be deterred.

It's got to be a bitch for all the former Trumpsters around here who have seen their main man morph from a swamp-draining non-interventionist into a world class warmonger with a cabinet full of world class swamp creatures.

Things certainly didn't work out as planned. Assad is in the cross hairs as is Iran and Hezbollah. It's maybe time to hope that Mueller gets enough dirt, and fast, to dethrone this dangerous president even if it leaves some egg on the face of certain Russian officials and businessmen.

jfl | Jun 27, 2017 11:27:12 AM | 31
US has seen chemical weapons activity at Syrian airbase: Pentagon
The U.S. regime has recently seen chemical weapons activity at the Shay'rat Airbase in the Homs Governorate, the Pentagon claimed, as reported by Matt Lee of the Associated Press.
this seems pretty whack. the syrians will say hey, come have a look? the us will go and say ... oops, our mistake? what's going on here? i guess it's the pentagon giving the rump a way to climb down? he can say he 'forced' an inspection? or something?
XLemming | Jun 27, 2017 11:27:39 AM | 32
@29 HW

A good start would be hanging all those responsible for war crimes... But until that happens, evil will proceed unabated

Christian Chuba | Jun 27, 2017 11:44:25 AM | 34
Since we know that Trump gets his info from his favorite cable TV programs and a select few websites and doesn't use the vast resources of the U.S. Intel community, has anyone found the original source for the new Assad allegation? It would be interesting to see what The Donald is reading nowadays.
james | Jun 27, 2017 11:49:58 AM | 35
thanks b.. no proof needed with the west... lies and insinuation of responsibility is all that is needed...

ditto many comments here..

@ 22 Hoarsewhisperer.. yeah - 'another' when they haven't verified any previously... more lies and insinuation of responsibility absent any facts... who needs facts when you want to destroy another country?

@29 quote "If people in the West don't want WW3 they're going to have to do something about the people who bribe, and own, their politicians." but hoarsewhisperer - that is what all these lies and deception are meant to do - keep the people in the west completely ignorant of the facts and reality.. dontcha know that lying to your people in the msm regularly keeps the sheeple quiet and passive? us freaks here at moa are in a real minority..

@34 chuba - they just make this shit up man... the first source i saw was from yesterday spicer idiot..

[Jun 26, 2017] Trump, Qatar and the Danger of Total Confusion by Gary Leupp

Notable quotes:
"... (By the way, Trump reportedly told Israeli leaders during his trip Israel that he was "just back from the Middle East." What did Netanyahu think about that, but: Oh god this guy's ignorant how do we use this ignorance? ) ..."
"... And on June 21 State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert declared that the more time passes, "the more doubt is raised about the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE At this point, we are left with one simple question: Were the actions really about their concerns regarding Qatar's alleged support for terrorism or were they about the long-simmering grievances between and among the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries?" ??? ..."
"... Some people speculate that Trump in his sly wisdom is sending out contrasting messages to obtain his mysterious ends to make America great again. This gives the man too much credit. His problem is that he blabbers whatever-he thinks for the moment-makes him look tough. He projects confidence, without knowing what the hell he's talking about. He's a dangerous buffoon. ..."
"... George W. Bush by his invasion of Iraq (to better his dad) produced a mess that his successor in some respects exacerbated. While Obama withdrew from Iraq in accordance with Bush's agreement, and limited the "mission" in Afghanistan, he (or Hillary) led in the destruction of Libya, and began the grotesque involvement in the Syrian conflict. Trump does not understand the causes and effects. He's just proud that his generals dropped a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb an ISIL camp in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Or Trump glories (echoed by Brian Williams) in that April 7 missile strike on the Syrian airfield, when supposedly 56 Tomahawk missiles destroyed a material storage depot, a training facility, a canteen, six MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station. "Congratulations," he tweeted, "to our great military men and women for representing the United States, and the world, so well in the Syria attack." Interviewed on TV he intimately associated the order to attack with the quality of this chocolate cake he was sharing with a very appreciative President Xi from China at the time. ..."
"... There have been more Syria attacks since, including one that shot down a Syrian warplane over Syria, and the one that shot down an Iranian-made drone. Trump was likely not informed in advance. Not that it would have made any difference, maybe. ..."
"... Of course the main issue remains U.S. imperialism, rooted in capitalism. The global dynamics of that can be rationally analyzed, and the president's role within the system assessed. Obama was fairly predicable. Hillary Clinton was predictable because she always articulated her hawkishness, like John McCain. Their relationships to capital and their intellectual positions (neoconservatism, "realism") were known. Trump is a new phenomenon, as someone combining Lyndon Johnson's crudity, Nixon's vindictiveness, Reagan's vapid populism, and Dubya's ignorance (but he was surrounded by Cheney's hand-picked neocons, virtually announcing plans for region-wide regime change). I'm not sure what he has in common with Bill Clinton other than promiscuity (but Clinton had no John Miller.) He's new in that he's at odds half the time with his own aides and puzzling world leaders ..."
"... British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher after meeting Ronald Reagan told her foreign secretary, Lord Carrington, as she tapped the side of her skull, "Peter, there's nothing there." ..."
Jun 23, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

The isolation of Qatar appears to be a major step in the Saudi plan, directed by the newly pronounced crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (the 31-year-old in charge of the Saudi war in Yemen), to provoke a general confrontation between the Sunni world (led by itself) and Shiite world (led by Iran). What has has Qatar done to offend the Saudis, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and Yemen? Its state-owned al-Jazeera network has been critical of their governments, especially during the "Arab Spring." But its real sin is its diplomatic and considerable trade relationship with Iran, with which it shares an oil field.

After the announcement by the five Arab nations on June 5 that they would break ties with Qatar, Donald Trump praised the move.

"During my recent trip to the Middle East," he tweeted on June 6. "I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!"

And later that day: "So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!"

In other words, his visit to Riyadh (with that sword dance and all) immediately paid off in everyone taking a harder line on terrorist funding from Qatar.

(By the way, Trump reportedly told Israeli leaders during his trip Israel that he was "just back from the Middle East." What did Netanyahu think about that, but: Oh god this guy's ignorant how do we use this ignorance? )

"The nation of Qatar unfortunately has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level," Trump told reporters at the White House June 9. "So we had a decision to make, do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action. We have to stop the funding of terrorism. I decided the time had come to call on Qatar to end its funding. They have to end that funding. And their terrorist ideology." He appears to allude to conversations during his May 20-21 trip to Riyadh and taking responsibility for the decision.

But then on June 14 Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Roger Cabiness told CNN: "Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis met today with Qatari Minister of State for Defense Affairs Dr. Khalid al-Attiyah to discuss concluding steps in finalizing the Foreign Military Sales purchase of US-manufactured F-15 fighter aircraft by the State of Qatar. The $12 billion sale will give Qatar a state of the art capability and increase security cooperation and interoperability between the United States and Qatar."

And on June 21 State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert declared that the more time passes, "the more doubt is raised about the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE At this point, we are left with one simple question: Were the actions really about their concerns regarding Qatar's alleged support for terrorism or were they about the long-simmering grievances between and among the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries?" ???

* * * *

Some people speculate that Trump in his sly wisdom is sending out contrasting messages to obtain his mysterious ends to make America great again. This gives the man too much credit. His problem is that he blabbers whatever-he thinks for the moment-makes him look tough. He projects confidence, without knowing what the hell he's talking about. He's a dangerous buffoon.

But he's not responsible for the fact that George W. Bush's war on Iraq in 2003 provoked a wave of massive catastrophes in the Middle East, and ignited a period of fierce contention among Iran, Sunni Arab countries in particular Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, while encouraging Kurdish nationalism from Iraq to Syria and Turkey. And that this conflict has acquired somewhat the character of a religious struggle of the Sunni world versus Iran-backed Shiites (the Alawite-led regime in Syria, Lebanon's Hizbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite human rights activists in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia). Surely the most ardent foes of Iran want to depict all these forces as pawns of the mullahs in Tehran, and (therefore) "terrorists" as such. And the Saudi king is doing a good job convincing the president of his view that Iran is the source of all evil in the region.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington (1983-2005), once told M16 head Sir Richard Dearlove: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will literally be 'God help the Shia.' More than a billion Sunni have simply had enough of them." This is the kind of specifically religious sectarianism Trump is embracing, no doubt having no idea what the difference is between Sunnis and Shiites. He just knows that "Radical Ideology" he oddly refers to is funded by Qatar at a very high level and Qatar also buys billions in arms from the U.S.

Or maybe he didn't know about the arms deal. Maybe he left that to his fine generals, the detail guys.

George W. Bush by his invasion of Iraq (to better his dad) produced a mess that his successor in some respects exacerbated. While Obama withdrew from Iraq in accordance with Bush's agreement, and limited the "mission" in Afghanistan, he (or Hillary) led in the destruction of Libya, and began the grotesque involvement in the Syrian conflict. Trump does not understand the causes and effects. He's just proud that his generals dropped a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb an ISIL camp in Afghanistan.

(Think of that. The U.S. drops the biggest non-nuclear bomb ever used in the history of the world, on militants who've just recently established a presence in the country who belong to a movement that started with al-Zarqawi in Afghanistan, relocated to Iraq, spread to Syria and elsewhere, and is now again in Afghanistan. Maybe 3000 jihadis. The war against the Taliban is not going well; they gain territory year to year. The Afghan army after 16 years of training remains riddled with high desertion rates, unable to make headway against the resurgent Taliban. U.S. trains and their charges view one another with mutual contempt. Green on blue explosions occur so often all U.S. troops are on their guard against their allies. In this hopeless situation-as if to merely express the outrage of frustration-that bomb was dropped on a remote area with undetermined results, condemned strongly by former president Hamid Karzai: "I vehemently and in strongest words condemn the dropping of the latest weapon " But Trump is proud of it.)

Or Trump glories (echoed by Brian Williams) in that April 7 missile strike on the Syrian airfield, when supposedly 56 Tomahawk missiles destroyed a material storage depot, a training facility, a canteen, six MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station. "Congratulations," he tweeted, "to our great military men and women for representing the United States, and the world, so well in the Syria attack." Interviewed on TV he intimately associated the order to attack with the quality of this chocolate cake he was sharing with a very appreciative President Xi from China at the time.

There have been more Syria attacks since, including one that shot down a Syrian warplane over Syria, and the one that shot down an Iranian-made drone. Trump was likely not informed in advance. Not that it would have made any difference, maybe.

But once upon a time, Trump talked about cooperation with Russia against ISIL, and seemed to strongly oppose regime change as policy. He is, in the sense of destructive power, the most powerful person on earth. That he is unreadable and unpredictable, predicting "we'll solve" this or that massively complex problem (North Korea), manifestly ignorant and not interested in history, inheriting the Bush/Cheney neocon-spawned mess and now taking advice from King Salman on matters like Qatar is frightening.

* * * *

Of course the main issue remains U.S. imperialism, rooted in capitalism. The global dynamics of that can be rationally analyzed, and the president's role within the system assessed. Obama was fairly predicable. Hillary Clinton was predictable because she always articulated her hawkishness, like John McCain. Their relationships to capital and their intellectual positions (neoconservatism, "realism") were known. Trump is a new phenomenon, as someone combining Lyndon Johnson's crudity, Nixon's vindictiveness, Reagan's vapid populism, and Dubya's ignorance (but he was surrounded by Cheney's hand-picked neocons, virtually announcing plans for region-wide regime change). I'm not sure what he has in common with Bill Clinton other than promiscuity (but Clinton had no John Miller.) He's new in that he's at odds half the time with his own aides and puzzling world leaders .

I can just imagine Xi and Putin exchanging their analyses of his mind, perhaps chuckling occasionally as we do in this country when we analyze his mind. It's necessary, after all.

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher after meeting Ronald Reagan told her foreign secretary, Lord Carrington, as she tapped the side of her skull, "Peter, there's nothing there." (She has also been quoted as saying, "Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears.") Lady Thatcher of course gave a well-received eulogy at Reagan's funeral pretending to believe otherwise. The point being that world leaders can like other world leaders, as the Saudi king likes Trump, even if they have nothing between their ears, especially if they think they can exploit the mental vacuum to get them to do something stupid.

Such as, join with people who "have had enough of the Shia" and are showing (in that vicious war in Yemen especially) how they want to get rid of them. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Gary Leupp

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan ; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan ; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900 . He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion , (AK Press). He can be reached at: [email protected]

[Jun 26, 2017] Unilateral secondary sanctions imposed by the US would, above all, fall on Chinese companies

Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star , June 22, 2017 at 9:32 am
"Tillerson called on China to make greater efforts to halt "illicit" revenue streams to North Korea that allegedly help fund Pyongyang's military programs. Just last week, he told a congressional committee the Trump administration was "at a stage" where "we are going to have to start taking secondary sanctions"-that is, penalise countries and corporations that engage in economic activities with North Korea.

Unilateral "secondary sanctions" imposed by the US would, above all, fall on Chinese companies. China is, by far, North Korea's largest trading partner. US officials and the media have repeatedly accused Beijing of failing to do enough to choke off trade and finance with the Pyongyang regime. Any penalties against Chinese individuals or entities would quickly sour relations between the US and China."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/22/usch-j22.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/06/20/532915180/why-is-china-snatching-up-australian-farmland

Next to Japan, Australia is 'Murica's biggest lapdog in the Western Pacific Aussie **elites** are obviously hungry for mucho Renminbi

Obvious question: Do any of the moron USA foreign policy makers have a grasp of freshman logic???

Northern Star , June 22, 2017 at 9:35 am
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/here-are-australias-top-10-two-way-trading-partners-2014-8#china
marknesop , June 22, 2017 at 6:55 pm
I will be extremely surprised if Washington takes any steps which result in sanctions against China. For one thing, a staggering number of American brands and corporations have factories and manufacturing assets in China , and pissing off the Chinese risks hurting the bottom line. For another, China is one of the few countries with money to lend which can match the American appetite for borrowing.

It seems patently obvious to me that countries which find themselves the target of American sanctions should immediately react by kicking out American businesses in their country and embargoing American goods for import. The United States does not make very much which is so unique and rare that you could not find it anywhere else. American businesses and corporations will react with fury to trade actions taken against them because of posturing by the government. Do I have to think of everything?

[Jun 26, 2017] The New York Times steps up its anti-Russia campaign by Patrick Martin

Jun 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up support for war with Russia.

The editorial was well-timed, coming on the morning of the same day that the US military shot down a Syrian warplane, setting off a dramatic escalation in the US conflict with Russia. The editors of the Times have the closest ties with US military and intelligence officials and no doubt were aware that something was being planned, if they were not briefed about the details.

Under the headline "Mr. Trump's Dangerous Indifference to Russia," the Times uses the language of war to assert: "A rival foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election The unprecedented nature of Russia's attack is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent weeks, but it shouldn't be."

The Times presents zero evidence to back up a wild reference to "the sheer scope and audacity of the Russian efforts." The editorial simply declares, "American intelligence agencies have concluded," followed by a long list of allegations:

"Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email accounts of senior officials at the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. They passed tens of thousands of emails to the website WikiLeaks, which posted them throughout the last months of the campaign in an attempt to damage the Clinton campaign.

"Even more disturbing, hackers sought access to voter databases in at least 39 states, and in some cases tried to alter or delete voter data. They also appear to have tried to take over the computers of more than 100 local election officials in the days before the November 8 vote."

Editorial page editor James Bennet presents not a single fact that supports the Times ' assertions. What is the evidence that there were "direct orders" from Putin, or that hackers linked to Russian intelligence raided Democratic email accounts and supplied material to WikiLeaks, or that (other?) hackers tried to access voter databases and the computers of local election officials? The entire mountain of accusations is suspended in air.

If one traces back the charges to their original sources, they all turn out to be factually unsupported claims by US intelligence agencies, made either in public "findings" issued in October 2016 and January 2017, or in a series of leaks from within the military-intelligence apparatus, mainly to the Times and the Washington Post .

The most recent allegations, about alleged hacking into voter databases and local election computers, are based on a National Security Agency (NSA) report leaked to The Intercept web publication, which even The Intercept admitted contained no underlying evidence to substantiate the NSA's claims.

Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine investigation by journalists. Instead, the main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists of taking dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not a single case did these officials offer evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases like "we assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than previous assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war that has killed more than one million people.

In its brazen contempt for basic standards of evidence, the Times ignores more plausible sources of the leaked Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party information, such as an individual or individuals within the Democratic Party. The newspaper makes no mention of the content of the leaked emails, which document the efforts of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to sabotage the primary challenge of Bernie Sanders.

Read also: Germany falls in love with warmongering Trump

For all the rhetorical heat about a supposed Russia assault on "the integrity of American democracy," as the Times puts it, there is no such outrage over the dozens of interventions by Washington to manipulate elections all over the world.

One recent study found 81 instances-not counting outright CIA-backed military coups-in which the US government financed political parties, organized disinformation campaigns, carried out assassinations, blackmailed candidates, or otherwise sought to install its own nominees by rigging elections in countries on every continent.

One of the most flagrant such examples was the 1996 presidential election in Russia, won by the US-backed Boris Yeltsin (See: " Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin: When the White House fixed a Russian election ").

Apart from its continuous interference in elections, the US government is engaged in non-stop snooping operations against foreign governments, even those with which it is supposedly allied. Just a few years ago, it was revealed that the Obama administration had hacked-yes, HACKED-the cell phone of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. Then-US President Obama acknowledged that the US does all sorts of "stuff" and offered a phony apology.

As for the Times, it has no reservations about serving as a conduit for fact-free propaganda from the US intelligence agencies. This points to the newspaper's putrefaction in recent decades, seen above all in the fact that its leading personnel, particularly on its editorial pages and foreign affairs staff, consist of ex-officio spokesmen for US imperialism, including a stable of CIA flacks such as Nicholas Kristof, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman.

The editorial page editor, James Bennet, is the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and son of Douglas Bennet, a top State Department official in the Carter and Clinton administrations, whose career includes a stint heading the Agency for International Development (AID), a frequent instrument for CIA provocations.

The Times , channeling the intelligence agencies, has a definite political agenda. Powerful factions of the ruling class want to continue and intensify the anti-Russian foreign policy adopted by the Obama administration, particularly in the wake of the 2014 campaign to bring down the elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine and install an ultra-right, pro-US stooge regime.

A recent Times article, focused on Senate passage of new sanctions against Russia, spells out the issues relatively clearly. In "Leaders Wary of Trump May Have an Ally: Congress," the Times asserts that congressional leaders, both Democratic and Republican, "are working to ensure that American foreign policy remains rooted in the trans-Atlantic alliance against traditional rivals like Russia." It praises Republican efforts to advance "an anti-Trump foreign policy" and impose sanctions against Russia for its actions in backing the Syrian government.

In the eyes of the factions of the ruling class for which the Times speaks, the problem is not that Russia is interfering with "American democracy," but that it is interfering with critical geo-strategic interests of American imperialism in Syria and the broader Middle East. The newspaper is attempting to condition American public opinion and overcome popular opposition to an escalating military confrontation with the world's second-largest nuclear power.

For the working class, the fight against the Trump administration and the fight against its opponents in the political establishment is the same fight. It is a fight against the capitalist ruling class, which is preparing to inflict on the people of the entire world a new and catastrophic world war.

[Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!" ..."
"... If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal prosecution against Obama's hit squad­-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified information. ..."
"... Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening. ..."
"... That became more than evident­-and more than pathetic, too­-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG): ..."
"... Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going­-a transition that Mueller fully subscribed to. ..."
"... To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919. ..."
"... Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing America. ..."
"... But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base. ..."
"... Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda­-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran. ..."
"... So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi, the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington ­– the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs ­- was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President and Russian ally. ..."
"... Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere­ – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII -- there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising. ..."
"... There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case? ..."
"... In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street. ..."
Jun 22, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

This article was first published by Contra Corner

Bull's eye!

"They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!"

The Donald has never spoken truer words but also has never sunken lower into abject victimhood. Indeed, what is he waiting for -- handcuffs and a perp walk?

Just to be clear, "he" doesn't need to be the passive object of a "WITCH HUNT" by "they".

If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal prosecution against Obama's hit squad­-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified information.

Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening.

Namely, the election by the unwashed masses of an outsider and insurrectionist who could not be counted upon to serve as a "trusty" for the status quo; and whose naοve but correct instinct to seek a rapprochement with Russia was a mortal threat to the very modus operandi of the Imperial City.

Moreover, from the very beginning, the Russian interference narrative was rooted in nothing more than standard cyber noise from Moscow that pales compared to what comes out of Langley (CIA) and Ft. Meade (NSA). And we do mean irrelevant noise.

After all, it didn't take a Kremlinologist from the old Soviet days to figure out that Putin did not favor Clinton, who had likened him to Hitler. And that he welcomed Trump, who had correctly said NATO was obsolete, that he didn't want to give lethal aid to the Ukrainians, and had expressed a desire to make a deal with Putin on Syria and numerous other areas of unnecessary confrontation.

So let's start with two obvious points. Namely, that there is no "there, there" and that the president not only has the power to declassify secret documents at will but in this instance could do so without compromising intelligence community (IC) "sources and methods" in the slightest.

The latter is the case because after Snowden's revelations in June 2013, the whole world was put on notice and most especially Washington's adversaries­–that it collects in raw form every single electronic digit that passes through the worldwide web and related communications grids. It boils down to universal and omniscient SIGINT (signals intelligence), and acknowledgment of that fact by publishing the Russia-Trump intercepts would provide new knowledge to exactly no one.

Nor would it jeopardize the lives of any American spy or agent (HUMINT); it would just document the unconstitutional interference in the election process that had been committed by the US intelligence agencies and political operatives in the Obama White House.

Yes, we can hear the boxes on the CNN screen harrumphing and spinning noisily that declassifying the "evidence" would amount to obstruction of justice! That is to say, since Trump's "crime" is axiomatic (i.e. his occupancy of the Oval Office), anything that gets in the way of his conviction and removal therefrom amounts to "obstruction".

Given that he is up against a Deep State/Dem/Neocon/ mainstream media prosecution, the Donald has no chance of survival short of an aggressive offensive of the type described above.

But that's not happening because the man is clueless about what he is doing in the White House and is being advised by a cacophonous coterie of amateurs and nincompoops. So he has no action plan except to impulsively reach for his Twitter account.

That became more than evident­-and more than pathetic, too­-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG):

"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"

So alone with his Twitter account, clueless advisors and pulsating rage, the Donald is instead laying the groundwork for his own demise. Were this not the White House, it would normally be the point at which they send in the men in white coats with a straight jacket.

Indeed, that's essentially what Donald's ostensible GOP allies on the Hill are actually doing. RussiaGate is self-evidently a witch-hunt like few others in American political history. Yet as the mainstream cameras and microphones were thrust at one Congressional Republican after another yesterday afternoon following Donald's outburst quoted above, there was nary an echo of the agreement.

Even Senator John Thune, an ostensible Swamp-hating conservative, had nothing but praise for Special Counsel Robert Mueller while affecting an earnest confidence that he would fairly and thoroughly get to the bottom of the matter.

No he won't!

Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going­-a transition that Mueller fully subscribed to.

So he will "find" extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election and bring the hammer down on the Donald for seeking to prevent it from coming to light. The clock is now ticking and his investigatory team is being loaded up with prosecutorial killers who have proven records of thuggery when it comes to finding crimes that make for the fame and fortune of the prosecutors­-even if the crime itself never happened.

To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919.

Meanwhile, as we said the other day, the GOP elders especially could also not be clearer about what is coming down the pike.

They are not defending Trump with even a modicum of the vigor and resolve that we recall from the early days of Tricky Dick's ordeal, and, of course, he didn't survive anyway. Instead, it's as if Ryan, McConnell, et al. have offered to hold his coat, while the Donald pummels himself with a 140-character Twitter Knife that is visible to the entire world.

So there should be no doubt. A Great Big Coup is on the way. But here's the irony of the matter.

Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing America.

But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base.

In any event, President Obama choose to ignore his own red line and called off the bombers. That, in turn, paved the way for Vladimir Putin to step into the breach and persuade Assad to give up all of his chemical weapons commitment he fully complied with over the course of the next year.

Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda­-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran.

So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi, the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington ­– the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs ­- was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President and Russian ally.

From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia and its leader.

Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere­ – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII -- there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising.

So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a more fortuitous outcome -- especially after Russia moved to protect its legitimate interests in its own backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine, including protecting its 200-year old Naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. The War Party simply characterized these actions falsely as acts of aggression by a potential sacker of the peace and territorial integrity of its European neighbors.

There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case?

In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street.

Pathetically, they still think its game on.

David Alan Stockman is an author, former businessman and U.S. politician who served as a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

[Jun 26, 2017] Beijing values Pyongyang as a strategic buffer between itself and US-allied South Korea. If North Korea were to fall, it could lead to a US-allied unified Korea, with US troops right on Chinas border

Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star , June 24, 2017 at 1:31 pm
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/korean-war-begins

"The result of a North Korean regime collapse would be catastrophic and may trigger a dangerous race between China and the US-ROK (Republic of Korea) forces attempting to secure strategic and symbolic locations such as the Yongbyon nuclear facility and Pyongyang," Andrew Injoo Park and Kongdan Oh wrote for the National Bureau of Asian Research.

China worries about both of those, especially the latter.

Beijing values Pyongyang as a strategic buffer between itself and US-allied South Korea. If North Korea were to fall, it could lead to a US-allied unified Korea, with US troops right on China's border."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/asia/north-korea-war-devastation/

[Jun 26, 2017] Nick Turse The Commandos of Everywhere - The Unz Review

Jun 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 26, 2017 at 12:52 pm GMT

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton

December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. The underlying land surface is of the order of *30* million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of *737* bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the *Pentagon* one of the largest landowners worldwide!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564

September 17, 2014 US Pursues *134** Wars Around the World

The US is now involved in *134* wars or none, depending on your definition of war The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word "war" was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35654/US-Pursues-134-Wars-Around-the-World/

jim jones Show Comment Next New Comment June 26, 2017 at 2:40 pm GMT

As a Brit I am proud to say that we have been at war with 171 of the World`s Countries.

[Jun 26, 2017] US Govt Proves Loyalty To ISIS As Bill To Stop Arming Terrorists Gets Only 13 Supporters

marknesop.wordpress.com
June 21, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - One of the most rational bills ever proposed, barring the Feds from giving money and weapons to child murdering terrorists, has almost ZERO support.

For the last several decades, the US government has openly funded, supported, and armed various terrorist networks throughout the world to forward an agenda of destabilization and proxy war . It is not a secret, nor a conspiracy theory, America arms bad guys .

Given the insidious history of the American empire and its creation and fostering of terrorist regimes across the globe, it should come as no surprise that the overwhelming majority of politicians would refuse to sign on to a law that requires them to ' Stop Arming Terrorists .' And, that is exactly what's happened.

H.R.608 – Stop Arming Terrorists Act was introduced by Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi [D-HI] on January 23 of this year. The bill doesn't have any crazy strings attached and its original cosponsors are a mix of Republicans and Democrats - highlighting that it transcends party lines.

"For years, our government has been providing both direct and indirect support to these armed militant groups, who are working directly with or under the command of terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS , all in their effort and fight to overthrow the Syrian government," Gabbard said in an interview earlier this year.

The text of the bill is simple. It merely states that it prohibits the use of federal agency funds to provide covered assistance to: (1) Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating with, or adherents to such groups; or (2) the government of any country that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) determines has, within the most recent 12 months, provided covered assistance to such a group or individual.

The only thing this bill does is prohibit the US government from giving money and weapons to people who want to murder Americans and who do murder innocent men, women, and children across the globe. It is quite possibly the simplest and most rational bill ever proposed by Congress. Given its rational and humanitarian nature, one would think that representatives would be lining up to show their support. However, one would be wrong.

After nearly 5 months since its introduction, only 13 of the 535 members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors. What this lack of support for the bill shows is that the federal government is addicted to funding terror and has no intention of ever stopping it .

To add insult to treason and murder, Senator Rand Paul [R-KY] introduced this same legislation in the Senate . He currently has zero cosponsors.

Given the overwhelming lack of support for a bill that simply asks the government to stop giving money to people who behead children and video it , it should come as no surprise that Donald Trump signed hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons deals with other countries who also fund these people .

As Americans bicker over Trump's bogus and non-existent Russian scandal , he's signing a deal worth hundreds of billions of dollars with the largest state sponsor of terror in the world - ensuring decades of future wars and the continuation of the cycle of terrorism.

What's more is the fact that less than one week after publicly reprimanding Qatar for terrorism, President Trump signed off on the sale of $12 billion in weapons to the country he referred to as a "funder of terrorism." This move, in Trump's own stance, makes him a de facto funder of terrorism now.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/N4qxKYQS6ws

What this lack of support for the bills and the recent moves to arm the terrorist regimes illustrates is the fact that the US has no intention of ever stopping terrorism. Trump, just like Obama and Bush before him, will continue to foster the growth of terrorism to enrich those who profit from war.

Terrorism is necessary for the state. War, is the health of the state.

Without the constant fear mongering about an enemy who 'hates our freedom,' Americans begin questioning things. They challenge the status quo and inevitably desire more freedom. However, when they are told that boogeymen want to kill them, they become immediately complacent and blinded by their fear.

While these boogeymen were once mostly mythical, since 9/11, they have been funded and supported by the US to the point that they now pose a very real threat to innocent people everywhere. As the recent attacks in the UK illustrate, ISIS is organizing and spreading . Even the terrorists in the UK had ties to the British government who allowed them to freely travel and train with ISIS-linked groups because those groups were in opposition to Muammar Gaddafi , who the West wanted to snub out.

It's a vicious cycle of creating terrorists, killing innocence, and stoking war. And, unless something radical happens, it shows no signs of ever reversing.

The radical change that is necessary to shift this paradigm back to peace is for people to wake up to the reality that no matter which puppet is in the White House, the status quo remains unchanged.

Trump is proving that he can lie to get into power and his supporters ignore it. If you doubt this fact, look at what Trump did by calling out Saudi Arabia for their role in 9/11 and their support for terror worldwide prior to getting elected. He now supports these terrorists and his constituency couldn't care less.

This madness has to stop. Humanity has to stop being fooled by rhetoric read from teleprompters by puppets doing the bidding of their masters.

Please share this article with your friends and family to show them how their supposed 'leaders' - except for a few good ones - are content with funding the enemy, laying waste to rights, and condone the murder of innocence.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OPBcjsE7ADc

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Matt is the founder of The Free Thought Project.

This article was first published by The Last American Vagabond -

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

[Jun 26, 2017] The 2014 coup d'etat in Kiev had been plotted by US in advance

Notable quotes:
"... the U.S. government tenders to build NATO bases in Crimea , Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia:" http://redpilltimes.com/u-s-navy-tender-construction-work-sevastopol-crimea-hints-u-s-military-coveted-controlling-historic-russian-peninsula/ http://thesaker.is/russia-sitrep-june-25-2017/ ..."
"... In light of the evidence, the US cooperation with neo-Nazis in Ukraine looks natural. "Support the troops," neocon style. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

annamaria June 26, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT

The 2014 coup d'etat in Kiev had been plotted by US in advance:

" the U.S. government tenders to build NATO bases in Crimea , Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia:" http://redpilltimes.com/u-s-navy-tender-construction-work-sevastopol-crimea-hints-u-s-military-coveted-controlling-historic-russian-peninsula/ http://thesaker.is/russia-sitrep-june-25-2017/

the document was issued in Sep 05, 2013

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2bb691b61c59be3a68180bd8c614a0cb&tab=core&_cview=1

In light of the evidence, the US cooperation with neo-Nazis in Ukraine looks natural. "Support the troops," neocon style.

[Jun 26, 2017] Intelligence agency officials play big politics

Another Mayberry Machiavelli from intelligence community
Notable quotes:
"... "In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson said." ..."
"... Modern-day political figures seem more and more like some of the characters on "WKRP In Cincinnati"; people who, as the receptionist explained "would otherwise not be able to get jobs" ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star , June 21, 2017 at 1:16 pm
Appears to be a moron:
"Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson from the Obama administration told the House Intelligence committee that Moscow's high-tech intrusion did not change ballots, the final count or the reporting of election results.

Johnson described the steps he took once he learned of the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, his fears about an attack on the election itself and his rationale for designating U.S. election systems, including polling places and voter registration databases, as critical infrastructure in early January, two weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration.

"In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson said."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-obama-homeland-security-chief-face-intelligence-panel-074831923–politics.html

Nope !! .IS a moron:

"In January 2011, Johnson provoked controversy when, according to a Department of Defense news story, he asserted in a speech at the Pentagon that deceased civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr., would have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite King's outspoken opposition to American interventionism during his lifetime.[28] Johnson argued that American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq were playing the role of the Good Samaritan, consistent with King's beliefs, and that they were fighting to establish the peace for which King hoped.[29][30] Jeremy Scahill of Salon.com called Johnson's remarks "one of the most despicable attempts at revisionist use of Martin Luther King Jr. I've ever seen," while Justin Elliott (also of Salon.com) argued that based on Dr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War, he would likely have opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the covert wars in Pakistan and Yemen."

yalensis , June 21, 2017 at 3:17 pm
"Johnson provoked controversy when, according to a Department of Defense news story, he asserted in a speech at the Pentagon that deceased civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr., would have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "

He lies! My what-if machine (what I have in my basement) tells me that Dr. King would have opposed, in the most militant manner possible, the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars!

Jen , June 21, 2017 at 9:25 pm
You didn't have to consult the alternative-worlds TARDIS machine database to find out that Dr King would have opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: here's the speech he made opposing the war in Vietnam which may have made him a target for assassination.

http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_beyond_vietnam/

yalensis , June 22, 2017 at 5:33 pm
I rest my case!

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

marknesop , June 21, 2017 at 7:40 pm
"In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson said."

He's half-right – the idea certainly is simple. Just like him.

Modern-day political figures seem more and more like some of the characters on "WKRP In Cincinnati"; people who, as the receptionist explained "would otherwise not be able to get jobs".

[Jun 26, 2017] Trump-Russia collusion fades from the media headlines

Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al ,

June 25, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Washington Examiner: Trump-Russia collusion fades from the media headlines
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-russia-collusion-fades-from-the-media-headlines/article/2626994

David Brooks, another columnist for the Times who spends his days Googling mental disorders to diagnose Trump with, admitted this week that it's "striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred - that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians."

Axios journalist Mike Allen writes a daily newsletter widely read in Washington and on Friday he wrote that "No evidence of collusion has emerged," which several leading Democrats have also publicly stated .

That comment came after Comey said that an entire New York Times report alleging "repeated contacts" between Trump and his associates with "senior Russian intelligence officials" was false.

"In the main, it was not true," Comey said of the Times report .

Liberal MSNBC host Chris Matthews said the theory held by Trump's opponents that his campaign colluded with Russia "came apart" with Comey's testimony
####

This is just the latest evolution of the Russia wot did it meme . Evidence that Trump is Putin's puppet/blackmail etc. has run out of steam (and is now admitted) but the Russia angle is just too good to let go.

marknesop , June 25, 2017 at 1:38 pm
And so they just amp it up a couple of more notches, which is what you do when you have no evidence. Oh, everywhere except in court, of course. Maybe that's the next step for Russia – take the west to court for defamation. At least Washington would have to admit it doesn't have any proof, and that its supposed tracings of Russian links to hackings could very possibly have originated elsewhere. Not least of all, Russia would be able to introduce the angle that Hillary's server was wide-open; a child could have hacked it, and the email disclosures all reported true information. How it looked on Clinton is not Russia's problem, and if Americans and westerners in general prefer being lied to as long as they like what they hear, maybe it's time to get that on the table.

[Jun 25, 2017] The 6-year-long US intervention in Syria failed to achieve its goals, while causing death of thousand of civilians

Notable quotes:
"... Once they create a supply line Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, and if they can hold it, that's the game-over, the 6-year-long US intervention in Syria will have lost. ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

Mao Cheng Ji June 16, 2017 at 1:40 pm

Jun 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

as for Syria, I think I saw in the news a few days ago that SAA has reached the Iranian border.

It probably doesn't constitute a supply line yet, but that's a huge advance.

Once they create a supply line Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, and if they can hold it, that's the game-over, the 6-year-long US intervention in Syria will have lost.

[Jun 25, 2017] Putin is probably lied that Donbass is internal Ukranian problem

Notable quotes:
"... Everybody knows and particularly Putin must have known that that war is not a civil internal war. It is an irredentist war. ..."
"... The people in Donbas (or broader in South-East Ukraine) do not seem to want to overthrow Kiev and install some more "honest" regime. All they have ever wanted is to join to Russia or at least to be independent from Kiev and left alone. ..."
"... This is not a classical civil war like in Spain, Libya, Syria, etc., where the anti-government forces want to control the entire country. I'm 100% sure the Donbas people do not care what may happen to West Ukraine or in Lviv. ..."
"... Frankly speaking he [ Yanukovych] was (is) actually a soft-line Ukrainian nationalist who was friendly with Russia as long as it helped Ukraine. ..."
"... Irrational fanaticism is a hallmark of decaying regimes. Consider the 'Satanic panic' in the eighties as the evangelicals enjoyed their last hurrah at the cultural helm. Demons conspired against the righteous from every dark corner in those days. ..."
"... Putin clings to the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected 'partner.' Well, our elites are incapable of that sort of realism. The only partners they accept are ideologically colonized ones. The Russian elite should view the case of Iran as germane. No matter what Iran does, including signing the nuke deal, America (and the Zionist homunculus pulling the levers in Washington) will seek to raise their independence to the ground. Hell, America will stab its friends in the back (e.g., Mubarak). ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

Boris N June 16, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT

Jun 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

@Felix Keverich Anatoly,

Concerning Putin's comments on Ukraine, the impression I got is that this entire moment was staged. The man from Kiev who asked question had a Russian accent, and in his reply Putin simply repeated the official Kremlin narrative: war in Donbass is an internal conflict of the Ukraine.

Needless to say I don't think Putin was sincere in all of his answers. These "phone-ins" serve to convey a certain message to the Russian public, and the message Putin wanted to convey was that of compassion, competence, stability and peace.

in his reply Putin simply repeated the official Kremlin narrative: war in Donbass is an internal conflict of the Ukraine.

Everybody knows and particularly Putin must have known that that war is not a civil internal war. It is an irredentist war.

The people in Donbas (or broader in South-East Ukraine) do not seem to want to overthrow Kiev and install some more "honest" regime. All they have ever wanted is to join to Russia or at least to be independent from Kiev and left alone.

This is not a classical civil war like in Spain, Libya, Syria, etc., where the anti-government forces want to control the entire country. I'm 100% sure the Donbas people do not care what may happen to West Ukraine or in Lviv.

Boris N Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 12:18 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

... intervening in Ukraine before Yanukovych was overthrown ...
What are you talking about? Crimea? The Russians did not intervene until after Yanukovich was overthrown.

The Russians did not intervene until after Yanukovich was overthrown.

Frankly speaking he [ Yanukovych] was (is) actually a soft-line Ukrainian nationalist who was friendly with Russia as long as it helped Ukraine.

So it is a good thing he has been kicked off and Russia shouldn't have intervened, otherwise Russia hasn't got the Crimea, for example. But Russia should not have stopped there and should have intervened thereafter. But after having allowed to overthrow a soft-line nationalist, Putin and Co., instead of creating a really pro-Russian Ukraine, have allowed the hard-line nationalists to come to power. This obviously will remain one of the biggest fails in Russian history.

Lemurmaniac Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 12:41 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig I agree with you.

I think Karlin is being way too negative on the SAA and on Russia's involvement in Syria.

I think he resents the fact that Putin is doing more to help Syria than Ukraine, and unfortunately, he's allowed his resentment to color his analysis.

To be sure, I think I can understand how Russian nationalists like Anatoly must feel about the situation. If I were a Russian nationalist, I would probably hold this against Putin too ('Putinsliv!').

But I'm not a Russian, so I have the luxury of being more objective about the situation. For the record, I think Russia should take a much stronger line with Kiev. Putin clings to the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected 'partner.' Well, our elites are incapable of that sort of realism. The only partners they accept are ideologically colonized ones. The Russian elite should view the case of Iran as germane. No matter what Iran does, including signing the nuke deal, America (and the Zionist homunculus pulling the levers in Washington) will seek to raise their independence to the ground. Hell, America will stab its friends in the back (e.g., Mubarak).

Irrational fanaticism is a hallmark of decaying regimes. Consider the 'Satanic panic' in the eighties as the evangelicals enjoyed their last hurrah at the cultural helm. Demons conspired against the righteous from every dark corner in those days.

IMO, the reason Assad is receiving more decisive support is because the Kremlin believes its a lot harder for America to 'push back' in Syria. Conversely,a full spectrum Russian move against Ukraine would elicit consequences Russia is not willing to risk under the Putin Mindframe . (for instance, increased sanctions would mean Russia would be forced to adopt heterodox economics systematically).

Karlin has made a case why Russia should do more, but on the other hand Putin may know things he doesn't.

Andrei Martyanov Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT

@Lemurmaniac For the record, I think Russia should take a much stronger line with Kiev.

Putin clings to the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected 'partner.' Well, our elites are incapable of that sort of realism. The only partners they accept are ideologically colonized ones. The Russian elite should view the case of Iran as germane. No matter what Iran does, including signing the nuke deal, America (and the Zionist homunculus pulling the levers in Washington) will seek to raise their independence to the ground. Hell, America will stab its friends in the back (e.g., Mubarak).

Irrational fanaticism is a hallmark of decaying regimes. Consider the 'Satanic panic' in the eighties as the evangelicals enjoyed their last hurrah at the cultural helm. Demons conspired against the righteous from every dark corner in those days.

IMO, the reason Assad is receiving more decisive support is because the Kremlin believes its a lot harder for America to 'push back' in Syria. Conversely,a full spectrum Russian move against Ukraine would elicit consequences Russia is not willing to risk under the Putin Mindframe . (for instance, increased sanctions would mean Russia would be forced to adopt heterodox economics systematically). Karlin has made a case why Russia should do more, but on the other hand Putin may know things he doesn't.

For the record, I think Russia should take a much stronger line with Kiev. Putin clings to the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected 'partner.'

Putin "clings" to hope, a justifiable one, that EU, especially Germany, will put Ukraine on its books. As per "stronger line", I guess the fact that Ukrainian Armed Forces still, after two years of famous cauldrons, didn't try to mount any serious operation in Donbass should be viewed as an indication of the "much stronger line". But ignoring the whole dynamics of events in Ukraine from early 2014 has become a MO for many. People still don't get it or simply ignore (very often deliberately) the fact that Russia, from the onset, needed Crimea only–she got it. The rest was a situationally-driven, mostly reactive, approach, which, as it became very clear after 3.5 years, was largely correct. Even such evident fact of a massive (and very expensive) construction of Crimean Bridge testifies to the fact that nobody had any serious hopes for the rest of Eastern Ukraine rising up and doing anything–a correct strategic assumption.

Lemurmaniac Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 1:34 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

For the record, I think Russia should take a much stronger line with Kiev. Putin clings to the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected 'partner.'
Putin "clings" to hope, a justifiable one, that EU, especially Germany, will put Ukraine on its books. As per "stronger line", I guess the fact that Ukrainian Armed Forces still, after two years of famous cauldrons, didn't try to mount any serious operation in Donbass should be viewed as an indication of the "much stronger line". But ignoring the whole dynamics of events in Ukraine from early 2014 has become a MO for many. People still don't get it or simply ignore (very often deliberately) the fact that Russia, from the onset, needed Crimea only--she got it. The rest was a situationally-driven, mostly reactive, approach, which, as it became very clear after 3.5 years, was largely correct. Even such evident fact of a massive (and very expensive) construction of Crimean Bridge testifies to the fact that nobody had any serious hopes for the rest of Eastern Ukraine rising up and doing anything--a correct strategic assumption. There's no denying a 'northern wind' blew through the Donbass at the critical juncture, but it sought to 'stabilize' the situation rather than resolve it. From a nationalist perspective, hanging those people out to dry (refusing to recognize their sovereignty) is kind of a dick move. But Putin's super duper plan involves leaving those regions in the Ukraine to veto pro-Western moves by Kiev. Setting aside the moral issue of leaving the Eastern Ukrainians in a position of constant insecurity, it sounds good in theory. There is simply no way the West will let that stand, however. John McCain and co are not about to let Moscow back into Kiev. So, either the conflict will remain permanently frozen (with Russian leaning Ukrainians permanently alienated from Moscow and Kiev), or Kiev will kick out the Donbass and become a NATO state. Since it seems Putin's whole strategy in Ukraine is predicated on that happening, a much stronger line on whose orbit Ukraine, or at least the whole Eastern half of the country belongs to, was required from the beginning.

I don't see why it helps Russia if Germany is writing checks for Kiev. They'll certainly never write 'em for the east.

[Jun 25, 2017] The Latest Escalation in Syria – What Is Really Going On - The Unz Review

Jun 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

By now most of you have heard the latest bad news of out Syria: on June 18 th a US F/A-18E Super Hornet (1999) used a AIM-120 AMRAAM (1991) to shoot down a Syrian Air Force Su-22 (1970). Two days later, June 20 th , a US F-15E Strike Eagle shot down an Iranian IRGC Shahed 129 drone. The excuse used each time was that there was a threat to US and US supported forces. The reality is, of course, that the US are simply trying to stop the advance of the Syrian army. This was thus a typical American "show of force". Except that, of course, shooting a 47 year old Soviet era Su-22 fighter-bomber is hardly an impressive feat. Neither is shooting a unmanned drone. There is a pattern here, however, and that pattern is that all US actions so far have been solely for show: the basically failed bombing of the Syria military airbase, the bombing of the Syrian army column, the shooting down of the Syrian fighter-bomber and of the Iranian drone – all these actions have no real military value. They do, however, have a provocative value as each time all the eyes turn to Russia to see if the Russians will respond or not.

Russia did respond this time again, but in a very ambiguous and misunderstood manner. The Russians announced, amongst other measure that from now on " any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition, located to the west of the Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian ground and air defense forces as air targets " which I reported as " Russian MoD declares it will shoot down any aircraft flying west of the Euphrates river ". While I gave the exact Russian quote, I did not explain why I paraphrased the Russian words the way I did. Now is a good time to explain this.

First, here is the exact original Russian text :

"В районах выполнения боевых задач российской авиацией в небе Сирии любые воздушные объекты, включая самолёты и беспилотные аппараты международной коалиции, обнаруженные западнее реки Евфрат, будут приниматься на сопровождение российскими наземными и воздушными средствами противовоздушной обороны в качестве воздушных целей"

A literal translation would be:

"In areas of the combat missions of Russian aviation in the skies of Syria any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicle of the international coalition discovered to the West of the Euphrates river, will be tracked by Russian ground based an airborne assets as air targets"

So what does this exactly mean in technical-military terms?

A quick look inside a US fighter's cockpit

When an F/A-18 flies over Syria the on-board emission detectors (called radar warning receivers or RWR) inform the pilot of the kind of radar signals the aircraft is detecting. Over Syria that means that the pilot would see a lot of search radars looking in all directions trying to get a complete picture of what is happening in the Syrian skies. The US pilot will be informed that a certain number of Syrian S-300 and Russian S-400 batteries are scanning the skies and most probably see him. So far so good. If there are deconfliction zones or any type of bilateral agreements to warn each other about planned sorties then that kind of radar emissions are no big deal. Likewise US radars (ground, sea or air based) are also scanning the skies and "seeing" the Russian Aerospace Forces' aircraft on their radars and the Russians know that. In this situation neither side is treating anybody as "air targets". When a decision is made to treat an object as an "air target" a completely different type of radar signal is used and a much narrower energy beam is directed at the target which can now be tracked and engaged. The pilot is, of course, immediately informed of this. At this point the pilot is in a very uncomfortable position: he knows that he is being tracked, but he has no way of knowing if a missile has already been launched against him or not. Depending on a number of factors, an AWACS might be able to detect a missile launch, but this might not be enough and it might also be too late.

The kind of missiles fired by S-300/S-400 batteries are extremely fast, over 4,000mph (four thousand miles per hour) which means that a missile launched as far away as 120 miles will reach you in 2 minutes or that a missile launched 30 miles away will reach you in 30 seconds. And just to make things worse, the S-300 can use a special radar mode called "track via missile" where the radar emits a pulse towards the target whose reflection is then received not by the ground based radar, but by the rapidly approaching missile itself, which then sends its reading back to the ground radar which then sends guidance corrections back to the missile. Why is that bad for the aircraft? Because there is no way to tell from the emissions whether a missile has been launched and is already approaching at over 4,000mph or not. The S-300 and S-400 also have other modes, including the Seeker Aided Ground Guidance (SAGG) where the missile also computes a guidance solution (not just the ground radar) and then the two are compared and a Home On Jam (HOJ) mode when the jammed missile then homes directly on the source of the jamming (such as an onboard jamming pod). Furthermore, there are other radar modes available such as the Ground Aided Inertial (GAI) which guides the missile in the immediate proximity of the target where the missile switches on its own radar just before hitting the target. Finally, there is some pretty good evidence that the Russians have perfected a complex datalink system which allows them to fuse into one all the signals they acquire from their missiles, airborne aircraft (fighter, interceptor or AWACS) and ground radars and that means that, in theory, if a US aircraft is outside the flight envelope (reach) of the ground based missiles the signals acquired by the ground base radars could be used to fire an air-to-air missile at the US aircraft (we know that their MiG-31s are capable of such engagements, so I don't see why their much more recent Su-30/Su-35 could not). This would serve to further complicate the situational awareness of the pilot as a missile could be coming from literally any direction. At this point the only logical reaction would be for the US pilot to inform his commanders and get out, fast. Sure, in theory, he could simply continue his mission, but that would be very hard, especially if he suspects that the Syrians might have other, mobile, air defense on the way to, or near, his intended target.

Just try to imagine this: you are flying, in total illegality, over hostile territory and preparing to strike a target when suddenly your radar warning receiver goes off and tells you "you got 30 seconds or (much?) less to decide whether there is a 300lbs (150kg) warhead coming at you at 4000mph (6400kmh) or not". How would you feel if it was you sitting in that cockpit? Would you still be thinking about executing your planned attack?

The normal US strategy is to achieve what is called "air superiority/supremacy" by completely suppressing enemy air defenses and taking control of the skies. If I am not mistaken, the last time the US fighters operated in a meaningfully contested air space was in Vietnam

By the way, these technologies are not uniquely Russian, they are well known in the West, for example the US Patriot SAM also uses TVM, but the Russians have very nicely integrated them into one formidable air defense system.

The bottom line is this: once the US aircraft is "treated like a target" he has no way of knowing if the Syrians, or the Russians, are just being cheeky or whether has has seconds left to live. Put differently, "treating like a target" is tantamount to somebody putting a gun to your head and letting you guess if/when he will pull the trigger.

So yes, the Russian statement most definitely was a "threat to shoot down"!

Next, a look into the Russian side of the equation

To understand why the Russians used the words "treat like an air target" rather than "will shoot down" you need to remember that Russia is still the weaker party here. There is nothing worse than not delivering on a threat. If the Russians had said "we will shoot down" and then had not done so, they would have made an empty threat. Instead, they said "will treat as an air target" because that leaves them an "out" should they decided not to pull the trigger. However, for the US Navy or Air Force pilot, these considerations are all irrelevant once his detectors report to him that he is being "painted" with the beam of an engagement radar!

So what the Russians did is to greatly unnerve the US crews without actually having to shoot down anybody. It is not a coincidence that the Americans almost immediately stopped flying West of the Euphrates river while the Australians officially decided to bow out from any further air sorties .

It cannot be overemphasized that the very last thing Russia needs is to shoot down a US aircraft over Syria which is exactly what some elements of the Pentagon seem to want. Not only is Russia the weaker side in this conflict, but the Russians also understand the wider political consequences of what would happen if they took the dramatic step to shoot down a US aircraft: a dream come true for the Neocons and a disaster for everybody else.

A quick look from the US Neoconistan and the quest for a "tepid war"

The dynamic in Syria is not fundamentally different from the dynamic in the Ukraine: the Neocons know that they have failed to achieve their primary objective: to control the entire country. They also know that their various related financial schemes have collapsed. Finally, they are fully aware that they owe this defeat to Russia and, especially, to Vladimir Putin. So they fell back on plan B. Plan B is almost as good as Plan A (full control) because Plan B has much wider consequences. Plan B is also very simple: trigger a major crisis with Russia but stay short from a full-scale war. Ideally, Plan B should revolve around a "firm" "reaction" to the Russian "aggression" and a "defense" of the US "allies" in the region. In practical terms this simply means: get the Russians to openly send forces into Novorussia or get the Russians to take military actions against the US or its allies in Syria. Once you get this you can easily see that the latest us attacks in Syria have a minor local purpose – to scare or slow down the Syrians- and a major global purpose – to bait the Russians into using forces against the US or an ally. It bears repeating here that what the Neocons really want is what I call a "tepid" war with Russia: an escalation of tensions to levels not even seen during the Cold War, but not a full-scale "hot" WWIII either. A tepid war would finally re-grant NATO at least some kind of purpose (to protect "our European friends and allies" from the "Russian threat"): the already terminally spineless EU politicians would all be brought into an even more advanced state of subservience, the military budgets would go even higher and Trump would be able to say that he made "America" "great" again. And, who knows, maybe the Russian people would *finally* rise against Putin, you never know! (They wouldn't – but the Neocons have never been deterred from their goofy theories by such minor and altogether irrelevant things as facts or logic).

[Sidebar: I noticed this time again that each time the US tries to bait Russia into some kind of harsh reaction and Russia declines to take the bait, this triggers in immediate surge into the number of comments which vehemently complain that Russia is acting like a pussy, that Putin is a fake, that he is "in cahoots" with the US and/or Israel and that the Russians are weak or that they have "sold out". I am getting a sense that we are dealing with paid US PSYOP operatives whose mission is to use the social media to try to put the Kremlin under pressure with these endless accusations of weakness and selling-out. Since I have no interest in rewarding these folks in any way, I mostly send their recriminations where they belong: to the trash]

Does the Russian strategy work?

To reply to this, don't look at what the Russians do or do not do in the immediate aftermath of a US provocation. Take a higher level look and just see what happens in the mid to long term. Just like in a game of chess, taking the Gambit is not always the correct strategy.

I submit that to evaluate whether Putin's policies are effective or not, to see whether he has "sold out" or "caved in" you need to, for example, look at the situation in Syria (or the Ukraine, for that matter) as it was 2 years ago and then compare with what it is today. Or, alternatively, look at the situation as it is today and come back to re-visit it in 6 months.

One huge difference between the western culture and the way the Russians (or the Chinese for that matter) look at geostrategy is that westerners always look at everything in the short term and tactical level. This is basically the single main reason why both Napoleon and Hitler lost their wars against Russia: an almost exclusive focus on the short term and tactical. In contrast, the Russians are the undisputed masters of operational art (in a purely military sense) and, just like the Chinese, they tend to always keep their eyes on the long-term horizon. Just look at the Turkish downing of a Russian Su-24: everybody bemoaned the lack of "forceful" reaction from Moscow. And then, six months later – what do we have? Exactly.

The modern western culture is centered on various forms of instant gratification, and that is also true for geopolitics. If the other guy does something, western leaders always deliver a "firm" response. They like to "send messages" and they firmly believe that doing something, no matter how symbolic, is better than even the appearance of doing nothing. As for the appearance of doing nothing, it is universally interpreted as a sign of weakness. Russians don't think that way. They don't care about instant gratification, they care only about one thing: victory. And if that means to look weak, that is fine. From a Russian perspective, sending "messages" or taking symbolic actions (like all 4 of the recent US attacks in Syria) are not signs of strength, but signs of weakness. Generally, the Russians don't like to use force which they consider inherently dangerous. But when they do, they never threaten or warn, they take immediate and pragmatic (non-symbolic) action which gets them closer to a specific goal.

Conclusion

The Russian reaction to the latest US attack on Syria was not designed to maximize the approval of the many Internet armchair strategists. It was designed to maximize the discomfort of the US lead "coalition" in Syria while minimizing the risks for Russia. It is precisely by using an ambiguous language which civilians would interpret in one way, and military personnel in another, that the Russians introduced a very disruptive element of unpredictability into the planning of US air operations in Syria.

The Russians are not without their own faults and bad habits and they make mistakes (recognizing the Ukronazi junta in Kiev after the coup was probably such a mistake), but it is important to differentiate between their real weaknesses and mistakes and their very carefully designed strategies. Just because they don't act in the way their putative "supporters" in the West would does not mean that they have "caved in", "blinked first" or any other such nonsense. The first step towards understanding how the Russians function is to stop expecting that they would act just like Americans would.

P.S: By the way, the Syrian pilot shot down made it out alive. Here is a photo of him following his rescue by Syrian special forces:

Andrei Martyanov Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

The modern western culture is centered on various forms of instant gratification , and that is also true for geopolitics. If the other guy does something, western leaders always deliver a "firm" response. They like to "send messages"

Excellent point. That is why "West" (US mostly) can not win a single war in 70 years.

anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

A good, interesting article. Much of what's gone on is rather opaque and it's difficult to understand what the meaning of some of these actions are such as in this shoot-down of the Syrian plane. People scratch their heads and try to come up with plausible explanations. Plain stupidity or rashness on the part of some military people? Are there American special forces disguised and embedded with some of these 'rebel' groups that they wanted to protect? Or, more sinisterly and as suggested, there's a plan afoot to ratchet up US-Russian tensions by engineering incidents that could be used to fan war hysteria and panic. A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people's bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards. It's a racket that kills the expendables. At any rate we'll need a few more pieces of the puzzle to see what the American game plan happens to be.

Exiled off mainstreet Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

An excellent article, but a depressing situation. What happens if the Turks start bombing the Kurdish forces supported by the yankee imperium?

TipTipTopKek Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 4:26 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov It's been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.

Andrei Martyanov Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 4:59 pm GMT

@TipTipTopKek But at least it was, without denigrating a decisive role of the Soviet Union, a formal coalition victory. Plus, let's not deny US Navy its well deserved victory in the Pacific. Pacific was largely an American victory, even considering Red Army's crushing defeat of Kwantung Army in 1945. Yet, uncritical and triumphalist lessons of WW II on European Theater in WW II played as tricky of a role in US post-WW II history as did a turkey shoot against third rate Saddam's force in the Gulf in 1990-91. One can not learn properly when the lessons are wrong.

Quartermaster Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 5:23 pm GMT

Because there is no way to tell from the emissions whether a missile has been launched and is already approaching at over 4,000mph or not.

How little you know.

Just try to imagine this: you are flying, in total illegality, over hostile territory and preparing to strike a target when suddenly your radar warning receiver goes off and tells you "you got 30 seconds or (much?) less to decide whether there is a 300lbs (150kg) warhead coming at you at 4000mph (6400kmh) or not".

Hilarious. You need to give some thought to what you post.

More Saker. To paraphrase Mencken, If you don't read him, your uninformed. If do, you're misinformed.

Quartermaster Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT

@TipTipTopKek Right. Only Ivan was fighting the Germans. The Rooskis got a lot of war material from the US. The Red Army would have starved to death if not for the us. And that is far from the only thing that went from the US to Stalin.

anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 6:09 pm GMT

"Pakistan's Foreign Office has issued a statement today warning that they will not tolerate drone strikes inside their territory"

Russia should lure Pak away from US orbit , get Taliban on its side and remove Iran from Indian influence- thus getting them rid of US. Russia can engineer a new reality against Saudi Israel US . Russia can prove Afghanistan as the tomb where empire comes to rest

Philip Owen Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 7:32 pm GMT

So just how cunning is Trump?

Andrei Martyanov Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm GMT

@anon

Russia should lure Pak away from US orbit

Pakistan (together with India) became full member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization last week or two. This is very significant, to put it mildly, and it is certainly some long way from "US orbit".

Begemot Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT

@Quartermaster It is true that the Soviets got a lot of Lend-Lease from the US. Britain got much more (about 2/3′s of the total). The Red Army would not have starved to death without the US. American lend-lease made the Soviet victory over Germany easier. It didn't make it possible. Since about 2/3′s of the German army was engaged on the Russian front the Americans should be forever grateful that those German divisions weren't waiting for the Americans in Normandy. The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.

Thirdeye Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 8:14 pm GMT

@Quartermaster So please enlighten us, O Wise One.

Sean Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT

The oh so subtle Russian triumph in Syria that Saker keeps telling us about is apparently not understood by the US forces in Syria. The Assad regieme advances is 100% due to the US not supplying the popular forces with anti aircraft weapons. Assad's pilots are brave when they know there is nothing to fear, but now know they are going to be shot out of the sky over US backed forces, so the Assad advance will halt.

Mikel Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 8:55 pm GMT

once the US aircraft is "treated like a target" he has no way of knowing if the Syrians, or the Russians, are just being cheeky or whether has has seconds left to live.

It doesn't look like the Israeli pilots feel that way when they bomb their targets inside Syria, which they successfully do on a regular basis.

Thirdeye Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 9:06 pm GMT

@Quartermaster Through 1944, 80% of German losses were on the eastern front. That's from German records.

anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT

@Sean Yes you rae correct US has not used the Nuclear bomb on Syria . That would ahve sealed Assad's fate and advanced IS if US wanted !!!!!1

Your assertion only stirs a big LOL !!

US has supplied more than enough way more than you can imagine

https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/articles/western-plot-overthrow-assad/

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

Enlighten yourself.

Romil Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 10:19 pm GMT

@TipTipTopKek Not true, the USA won a war with Grenada, Panama (Noriega), etc.

Admittedly these wars were a little lopsided.

What is clear since Vietnam is that the USA military/ Political System is not very good at occupying a country after initial battlefield success.

Unless the chaos in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq etc is the intended result.

dearieme Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 11:42 pm GMT

@Philip Owen Cunning as a TV celebrity.

Macon Richardson Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:32 am GMT

@Mikel You don't say where Israel is bombing in Syria and the conceits of Israel are so boring to me I don't wish to research the topic. Based on history, I assume that Israeli bombing is in the Golan area, extreme south-west Syria.

Israeli "he-man" tactics in the Golan will have no effect on the defense of Syria against ISIS and the USA. Therefore, why should the Russians or the Syrians pay any attention at all to the little circus side show the Israelis present?

As to the Ũbermenschen Israeli pilots flying kamakazi missions into Syria, ho-hum? Write up an outline of a script and we'll send it to Hollywood.

mh505 Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT

@Thirdeye Who gives a damn what the "Quartermaster" thinks?

Rurik Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT

the Syrian pilot shot down made it out alive.

good!

Mikel Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT

@Macon Richardson As should be evident, all I did was provide a fact that seems to be in direct contradiction with Saker's technical explanations in this column.

That you don't have any clue of where the Israelis have been bombing, even though it has been widely reported in the media and recognized by both sides, is your problem. And, talking about soporific subjects, discussions over the Israelis/Jews being evil, good, heroic or cowards could hardly be further away from my interest.

I really have no idea about radar systems but the fact that nobody offered an explanation for this contradiction suggests that Saker may be, once again, exaggerating the Russian capabilities.

Carlton Meyer Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:15 pm GMT

While Russia may want caution, Syrian and Iranian militias don't care. ISIS is almost gone from SE Syria, so there is no need for an American base there to train anti-ISIS units. Americans have illegally invaded Syria, and the international community agrees. These militias have mortars and artillery, so can fire away and wait to see if the Americans dare counterattack by air. If they do, Russian missiles are ready for self-defense. Imagine a downed American pilot captured by ISIS.

Meanwhile, Russia shows restraint to enjoy the Qatar situation, with new Saudi demands that compensation is due and the Turkish troops must leave. These dictators have long tolerated American military bases under the assumption it meant American protection. If the USA back stabs Qatar, what will the other Gulf State tyrants think? What if Iranian troops are invited to defend Qatar?

And what about the Turks? They are itching for chance to reclaim NE Syria and its oil fields, which they say the Brits and French stole a hundred years ago. They can wipe out the Kurd forces there at the same time. They are building up forces in Syria for this move. They are just waiting for an excuse to attack.

El Dato Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Let's call it a American / National-Chinese victory then.

Binding a few hundred thousands imperial troops on the mainland sure counts for something, doesn't it?

El Dato Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT

@Mikel Why should the Russians anatagonize the Israelis? It costs a lot and is politically inconvenient. Israel is nearby, Russia is not. The minute-long rush of adrenaline would certainly not be worth it.

The clusterfuck is currently such that waiting & waltzing & carrying a stick, any stick, is likely to be the best policyless policy. ( Asterixian Wars come to mind, sorry for the juvenile reference)

A writeup in Haaretz (is this a premium page that is accessible via the print menu? well, I don't care)

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.797481

"We're working productively with Jordan, as we are working with Israel, and I'm not hiding anything from you," Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu told his country's parliament late last month. Shoygu even noted his "productive talks" with Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, with whom he speaks on the phone regularly. Arab media outlets report on continuous communication between Russian and Israeli fighter pilots, who coordinate planned flights, just as Israel coordinates its aerial and other actions in Syria with Russian command headquarters.

The "other actions" include Israel's shipments of humanitarian and military aid to the militias operating in the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, and in the Daraa area nearby. An intense battle has been underway in recent weeks in Daraa as the Syrian army tries to advance with Shi'ite militias and Iranian-backed Hezbollah to suppress the rebels. These efforts are at the heart of coordination talks between Jordan, Russia, the United States and Saudi Arabia. In some of the talks that took place in Jordan, Israelis were on hand, and in other cases coordination was by phone or through emissaries who visited Israel.

Russian1 Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 10:51 pm GMT

@Quartermaster Americans are criminals killing all over the planet. Raped many girls during the war in many countries did American soldiers and nothing has changed they did the same on Vietnam and Iraq. Just savage animals with a penchant for war and buggery.
Also Eisenhower starved to death 1.2million German soldiers and proof of that is he rerouted supplies and let them die in the open air prisons without food. A cruel nation of barbarians.
The world is at the mercy of American mafia thugs and Russia is the savior behaving with principles.

SYRIA: Faced With Massive US Escalation, How Would Russia Respond? – #WW3 – Infinite Unknown Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 11:35 pm GMT

[ ] The Saker The Unz Review [ ]

nickels Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:18 am GMT

The old western Shane is an example where Americans used to be able to take one on the chin for the bigger picture.
But neocons are just animals. I remember in Josephus description of the sacking of Jerusalem, the Israelis were so out of their minds that they not only burnt their own grain during the siege, but their own temple as well.

The Scalpel Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT

Certain sources state that a Russian S-300 shot down a US Global Hawk drone over the Mediterranean.

Avery Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT

@Begemot {Since about 2/3′s of the German army was engaged on the Russian front}

It was not 2/3rds or ~67%: it was about 80%.
Also, about 80% of Wehrmacht's best, toughest divisions were ground up on the Eastern front. At a terribly high cost to the Red Army men and materiel.

{ . that those German divisions weren't waiting for the Americans in Normandy. }

Even the completely bled out Wehrmacht put American troops through the ringer at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. With notable exceptions, e.g. the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs mostly ran as Germans advanced. The disaster was averted when skies cleared and USAF came in and saved the day.

{The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.}

Indeed.

Russia's Response to Downed Jet and Drone – Site Title Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 5:17 am GMT

[ ] http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-latest-escalation-in-syria-what-is-really-going-on/ [ ]

Intelligent Dasein Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 6:32 am GMT

@anonymous

A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people's bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards.

A lot of people around the internet express similar opinions, and the more obtuse of them even festoon their delivery with the same Smedley Butler quote we've all read a million times already, as if there were no limit to the number of occasions upon we needed to be re-informed that "war is a racket."

The problem is, it just isn't true. Nobody-not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor-could possibly look at America's fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody. Something else has to be motivating this, and that something is Boomer vanity.

These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians against the Russians. I find the whole thing quite embarrassing but also rather alarming, considering how serious the consequences could be.

However, I think it's time to retire the "war is a racket" meme. It has no explanatory power in today's world. The age of imperial expansion, of making Latin America safe for fruit companies or whatever Smedley Butler was on about, is well behind us. There is no longer any tincture of geopolitical or economic rationale in Washington's war-making. Every war we fight makes us weaker and poorer, whereas Butler's wars, however ignoble he thought the motives behind them, at least made us stronger and richer. The imperialists of yore knew what they were doing; they could point to some measure of worldly success as justification for their exploits. But nowadays we have only failures; and our imperialists, lacking the dignity even to be robber barons, have instead become dreamers and peddlers of ideology.

The Age of the Neocon Wars, c. 1990-present, is all about vanity. These are "existential" wars in the Sartrian sense, i.e. they are deliberate fabrications and extensions of identity. The Boomers are going on their penultimate journey of self-discovery, predictably wrecking everything in their path as they make burnt offerings to their insatiable egos.

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 7:07 am GMT

If 'peaceful' countries want war the trick is to provoke the country you want to attack to make the first move.
Hitler ran into the trap when he attacked Poland in Sept 1939, after Polish provocations since the British guarantee of March 1939.
Japan ran into the trap of Roosevelt's oil boycott.
Saddam did nothing stupid enough to excuse war, therefore Sept 11 was created.
Putin is not stupid, he knows quite well that the western war mongers are waiting for the excuse to attack Russia.
Heightened tensions in Syria in my opinion have but one goal: getting an excuse to attack Russia.
Some kind of Liberty 'accident' would be great.

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 7:12 am GMT

@Quartermaster An explanation on why it is hilarious would be great.

Miro23 Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 7:23 am GMT

@Philip Owen

So just how cunning is Trump?

Maybe he's too cunning/clever by half – as in a neo-con collaborator. He was given a mandate to get out of ME conflicts and if he had done what he was elected to do, the US could be getting on with domestic affairs rather than evaluating the possibility of WW3.

Greg Bacon Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 9:55 am GMT

From an April 2003 Haaretz article.

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.

This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

Then it was onto Libya, now Syria, then it will be onto Iran, all the glory of Apartheid Israel.

El Dato Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 10:23 am GMT

@Avery

Even the completely bled out Wehrmacht put American troops through the ringer at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. With notable exceptions, e.g. the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs mostly ran as Germans advanced. The disaster was averted when skies cleared and USAF came in and saved the day.

That's in the movies.

"GIs" did not "run", indeed Patton mounted a skillfull counterattack on the move. This last show of the Wehrmacht and Party Armed Forces (who didn't let the occasion to "clean up" in the re-occupied territories pass them by) had little chance of success in any case. Germans ran out of fuel, manpower and maintained equipment while trying to get this Hitler-fairyland-push towards Anvers rolling. The Meuse was never even crossed. Yes, control of the air helped, and the extraordinarily harsh winter did the rest. It was too late in any case.

(Also, in WWII, the US air wing was the "Army Air Forces", the USAF was created 1947, but that's just nitpicking)

Now, if you want to consider a senseless WWI-style grind-war that can be considered Allied failure: Battle of Hόrtgen Forest : "The over-all cost of the Siegfried Line Campaign in American personnel was close to 140,000."

El Dato Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 10:25 am GMT

@The Scalpel US hasn't confirmed. They would if true.

El Dato Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 10:42 am GMT

@El Dato Asterixian Wars from the Comic

The Alarmist Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 10:47 am GMT

@TipTipTopKek I once had a pretty young Russian lady ask me (in a bar in Germany, of all places) why we celebrate VE day on 8 May, to which I replied, "That's the day we (she knew I meant Americans, and by that Americans alone) won the war with a bit of help from you guys, of course." If I hadn't said it with a light-hearted smile, I probably would have been run through with a broken vodka bottle on the spot, not to send a message, but, as Saker notes, as a pragmatic response to an arrogant Westerner.

jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 10:48 am GMT

@TipTipTopKek

It's been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.

Actually, the Soviet leadership and the Western bankers did any "winning." The rest of us lost, big time, and are still paying.

jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 11:03 am GMT

Very interesting article with too many great points to comment on all.

Some of the best points are:

Plan B is also very simple: trigger a major crisis with Russia

It helps keep dollars flowing to the Pentagon and its Israeli masters.

a dream come true for the Neocons and a disaster for everybody else.

As always.

It bears repeating here that what the Neocons really want is what I call a "tepid" war with Russia:

This also keeps the dollars flowing, keeps the usual nut cases in power and provides a huge source of distraction from the continued hosing of the American goyim,

One huge difference between the western culture and the way the Russians (or the Chinese for that matter) look at geostrategy is that westerners always look at everything in the short term and tactical level.

I've noticed that as a teen and it's still true today. Seems to have worked for the thugs in power, but not so much for the rest of us cattle. Apparently the American doofi (aka doofusses) will remain content to prance around waving their corny flags and proclaiming their "heroism" or whatever BS is fashionable at the time.

The Alarmist Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 11:07 am GMT

@Romil

"Not true, the USA won a war with Grenada ."

Urgent Fury was hardly a war. Been there, done that, and hit the break at Cherry Hill for a little surfing on day 4, 'cos the Rafters and Ivan don't surf.

The Alarmist Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 11:23 am GMT

@Intelligent Dasein

"Nobody-not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor-could possibly look at America's fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody."

Oh you dear, sweet, but misguided soul. The war-profiteers and neo-cons know that when things get fiscally tight they can simply print more of the World's Indispensible Currency TM, and if it gets really bad they will simply do a cram down of the debt, because the ROW doesn't really have a say in the matter. When you owe the world $20T, it's the world that has the problem.

Max Havelaar Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 11:29 am GMT

The Russians are far better victory-strategists (long-term) than the US maddogs Trump/Mattis/McMaster. They are for show and fireworks (white-phosphorous bombs) and show theiir Satanic nature.

The final Victory strategy = turn your ennemies into friends/partners in trade.

Putin has turned Erdogan into a partner with the south-stream pipeline.
And even Qatar may join the East front (Putin gave them majort shares in Russian energy companies).

The Al Sauds and Likudi's, the Jewish extremists on Golan, are the only problems left. But even with Netanyahu, Putin is trying to get a solution, using the Russian Leviathan basin suppport.

Putin may get there in the end.

chris Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:04 pm GMT

@Rurik It's amazing how rude the reporting of the incident in the MSM has been in not reporting the fate of the pilot. The point is to underscore his insignificance; they would have much preferred he was killed.

Imperial Circular. 25/06/17. – IMPERIAL ENERGY Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

[ ] Saker is mistaken: [ ]

headrick Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:07 pm GMT

There is no site than can come close to Saker for this ego-political military analysis.
Thanks Vin.

The Scalpel Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

@El Dato US hasn't confirmed. They would if true. They did acknowledge it in a sideways manner

Blogschδtzchen des Tages 25.6.2017 | narrenspeise Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT

[ ] dritten Mal innerhalb weniger Wochen mφchte ich auf einen Beitrag von The Saker zu Syrien / Russland / USA hinweisen. Er macht [ ]

anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT

@Intelligent Dasein


A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people's bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards.
A lot of people around the internet express similar opinions, and the more obtuse of them even festoon their delivery with the same Smedley Butler quote we've all read a million times already, as if there were no limit to the number of occasions upon we needed to be re-informed that "war is a racket."

The problem is, it just isn't true. Nobody---not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor---could possibly look at America's fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody. Something else has to be motivating this, and that something is Boomer vanity.

These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians against the Russians. I find the whole thing quite embarrassing but also rather alarming, considering how serious the consequences could be.

However, I think it's time to retire the "war is a racket" meme. It has no explanatory power in today's world. The age of imperial expansion, of making Latin America safe for fruit companies or whatever Smedley Butler was on about, is well behind us. There is no longer any tincture of geopolitical or economic rationale in Washington's war-making. Every war we fight makes us weaker and poorer, whereas Butler's wars, however ignoble he thought the motives behind them, at least made us stronger and richer. The imperialists of yore knew what they were doing; they could point to some measure of worldly success as justification for their exploits. But nowadays we have only failures; and our imperialists, lacking the dignity even to be robber barons, have instead become dreamers and peddlers of ideology.

The Age of the Neocon Wars, c. 1990-present, is all about vanity. These are "existential" wars in the Sartrian sense, i.e. they are deliberate fabrications and extensions of identity. The Boomers are going on their penultimate journey of self-discovery, predictably wrecking everything in their path as they make burnt offerings to their insatiable egos.

that something is Boomer vanity.

These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians

is all about vanity

insatiable egos.

What a dumb comment. It's all reducible to the personal psychology of a particular generation, it's "all about vanity", all about "insatiable egos". We're trying to have a serious discussion about important issues and random comic book reading commenters insist on projecting their weird Freudian fantasies onto everything.
Yeah, if everyone weren't so darn vain.

El Dato Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 2:09 pm GMT

@The Scalpel But this is in California.

If it was shot down in Syria, ysure that neocons would take to the Sunday morning TV programme and basically spoil eveyone's breakfast.

Plus, Russia would certainly recount the why & wherefore of this shootdown. It would be a "message".

After all, it's not as if you could sic an S-300 missile onto a Global Hawk under a sudden panicky impulse. The Good Drone would be readily identifiable as such (high-altitude, slow, possibly with a transponder on)

KenH Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT

@The Alarmist More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. Stalin had been pestering Roosevelt and Churchill to do so for a long time and they both eventually complied with good ole "uncle Joe's" demand. Germany's army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT

@Max Havelaar http://luftpost-kl.de/luftpost-archiv/LP_16/LP10517_250617.pdf

The document begins in german, the english original is after the german version.

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT

@KenH Churchill never agreed, he wanted an invasion in the Adriatic.
For FDR Stalin was Uncle Joe, never for Churchill.
FDR died before Uncle Joe showed his real nature through the Berlin blockade.
The obliteration of Dresden had not impressed him enough.

for-the-record Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 3:11 pm GMT

@KenH More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. Stalin had been pestering Roosevelt and Churchill to do so for a long time and they both eventually complied with good ole "uncle Joe's" demand. Germany's army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.

More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. . . Germany's army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

On D-Day the Red Army was already beyond the frontiers of Russia, having entered northern Romania and (pre-War) Poland.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1944-06-01GerWW2BattlefrontAtlas.jpg

[Jun 25, 2017] If Russia Wants the Syria Mess, Let Them Have It by Ted Galen Carpente

Jun 25, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

U.S. leaders are-to put it mildly-indifferent to Moscow's concerns. But while Russia's Syria policy is straightforward and coherent, U.S. policy is a contradictory, incoherent mess. The Obama administration made it clear that Bashar al-Assad could not be part of any future Syrian government. At first, the Trump administration seemed inclined to reconsider that approach. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson initially indicated that Washington would no longer demand Assad's removal. But just days later, a chemical attack occurred in rebel-held town. Trump immediately blamed Assad's forces (despite conflicting evidence ) and ordered cruise-missile strikes against the Syrian air base that Washington alleged was the source of the attack. Tillerson subsequently stated that Assad must leave office before any political settlement could occur (essentially a return to the Obama policy), only to say days later that the Trump administration's policy had not changed and that regime change was not part of the agenda. By this time, intelligent observers could be excused if they were totally confused.

That is hardly the only manifestation of U.S. policy incoherence regarding Syria. Washington's attempt to calibrate support so that it strengthens so-called Syrian moderates has led to multiple embarrassing episodes. The Obama administration's program to identify and train moderate military units was a $500 million fiasco that produced only a handful of fighters-most of whom were promptly captured by or surrendered to their adversaries. Other ventures fared little better. At one point a CIA-backed Syrian faction apparently engaged in combat against another faction that the Pentagon supported . More recently, Washington has been caught in a dilemma as fellow NATO member Turkey attacked Syrian Kurdish units that were battling ISIS with American assistance.

Russia is especially mystified at the U.S. flirtation with factions that are anything but secular moderates. One of those groups is the Nusra Front, at one time Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. Former CIA Director David Petraeus openly advocated U.S. military cooperation with that organization. Other de facto U.S. rebel allies display more than few signs of being Islamists rather than moderates-even given a broad definition of the latter term. Moscow's fury reached a new level in the past few weeks as the United States has launched air strikes against militias allied with the Assad regime in southeastern Syria. Russia asserts that those forces were battling ISIS and other militant factions, and that Washington's actions play into the hands of Islamic terrorists.

Both the Kremlin and the White House need to make serious moves to defuse growing tensions before a potentially cataclysmic clash takes place between Russian and American forces in Syria. The bulk of the changes must come from the American side.

The United States should defer to Russia regarding Syria policy. Moscow has far more significant security interests at stake in Syria and the broader Middle East. Northern Syria lies barely 600 miles from the Russian frontier. Syria is some 6,000 miles from America's homeland. In the process of deferring to Russia, Washington would also off-load the responsibility and risks onto the Kremlin.

It is doubtful that any outside power can truly bring an end to the fighting in Syria, much less restore a stable, united country. Such intervention thus far has bred only resentment and terrorist retaliation. It is better if Russia incurs the risks and suffers the negative consequences of geopolitical meddling than if the United States does so. Syria could well become another Afghanistan for Russia. That would be tragic, but it is preferable to Syria becoming another Vietnam or Iraq for America. And continued U.S. meddling in Syria certainly is not worth triggering a new cold war -and perhaps a hot war-with Russia. Yet that is the perilous path our nation is following.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of ten books, the contributing editor of ten books, and the author of more than 650 articles on international affairs.

[Jun 25, 2017] How America Armed Terrorists in Syria

Jun 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Three-term Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a member of both the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, has proposed legislation that would prohibit any U.S. assistance to terrorist organizations in Syria as well as to any organization working directly with them. Equally important, it would prohibit U.S. military sales and other forms of military cooperation with other countries that provide arms or financing to those terrorists and their collaborators.

Gabbard's "Stop Arming Terrorists Act" challenges for the first time in Congress a U.S. policy toward the conflict in the Syrian civil war that should have set off alarm bells long ago: in 2012-13 the Obama administration helped its Sunni allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar provide arms to Syrian and non-Syrian armed groups to force President Bashar al-Assad out of power. And in 2013 the administration began to provide arms to what the CIA judged to be "relatively moderate" anti-Assad groups-meaning they incorporated various degrees of Islamic extremism.

That policy, ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative, has actually helped build up al Qaeda's Syrian franchise al Nusra Front into the dominant threat to Assad.

The supporters of this arms-supply policy believe it is necessary as pushback against Iranian influence in Syria. But that argument skirts the real issue raised by the policy's history. The Obama administration's Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed to be the touchstone of the "Global War on Terrorism"-the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates. The United States has instead subordinated that U.S. interest in counter-terrorism to the interests of its Sunni allies. In doing so it has helped create a new terrorist threat in the heart of the Middle East.

The policy of arming military groups committed to overthrowing the government of President Bashar al-Assad began in September 2011, when President Barack Obama was pressed by his Sunni allies-Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar-to supply heavy weapons to a military opposition to Assad they were determined to establish. Turkey and the Gulf regimes wanted the United States to provide anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons to the rebels, according to a former Obama Administration official involved in Middle East issues.

Obama refused to provide arms to the opposition, but he agreed to provide covert U.S. logistical help i n carrying out a campaign of military assistance to arm opposition groups. CIA involvement in the arming of anti-Assad forces began with arranging for the shipment of weapons from the stocks of the Gaddafi regime that had been stored in Benghazi. CIA-controlled firms shipped the weapons from the military port of Benghazi to two small ports in Syria using former U.S. military personnel to manage the logistics, as investigative reporter Sy Hersh detailed in 2014 . The funding for the program came mainly from the Saudis.

A declassified October 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report revealed that the shipment in late August 2012 had included 500 sniper rifles, 100 RPG (rocket propelled grenade launchers) along with 300 RPG rounds and 400 howitzers. Each arms shipment encompassed as many as ten shipping containers, it reported, each of which held about 48,000 pounds of cargo. That suggests a total payload of up to 250 tons of weapons per shipment. Even if the CIA had organized only one shipment per month, the arms shipments would have totaled 2,750 tons of arms bound ultimately for Syria from October 2011 through August 2012. More likely it was a multiple of that figure.

The CIA's covert arms shipments from Libya came to an abrupt halt in September 2012 when Libyan militants attacked and burned the embassy annex in Benghazi that had been used to support the operation. By then, however, a much larger channel for arming anti-government forces was opening up. The CIA put the Saudis in touch with a senior Croatian official who had offered to sell large quantities of arms left over from the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. And the CIA helped them shop for weapons from arms dealers and governments in several other former Soviet bloc countries.

Flush with weapons acquired from both the CIA Libya program and from the Croatians, the Saudis and Qataris dramatically increased the number of flights by military cargo planes to Turkey in December 2012 and continued that intensive pace for the next two and a half months. The New York Times reported a total 160 such flights through mid-March 2013. The most common cargo plane in use in the Gulf, the Ilyushin IL-76 , can carry roughly 50 tons of cargo on a flight, which would indicate that as much as 8,000 tons of weapons poured across the Turkish border into Syria just in late 2012 and in 2013.

One U.S. official called the new level of arms deliveries to Syrian rebels a "cataract of weaponry." And a year-long investigation by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project revealed that the Saudis were intent on building up a powerful conventional army in Syria. The "end-use certificate" for weapons purchased from an arms company in Belgrade, Serbia, in May 2013 includes 500 Soviet-designed PG-7VR rocket launchers that can penetrate even heavily-armored tanks, along with two million rounds; 50 Konkurs anti-tank missile launchers and 500 missiles, 50 anti-aircraft guns mounted on armored vehicles, 10,000 fragmentation rounds for OG-7 rocket launchers capable of piercing heavy body armor; four truck-mounted BM-21 GRAD multiple rocket launchers, each of which fires 40 rockets at a time with a range of 12 to 19 miles, along with 20,000 GRAD rockets.

The end user document for another Saudi order from the same Serbian company listed 300 tanks, 2,000 RPG launchers, and 16,500 other rocket launchers, one million rounds for ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns, and 315 million cartridges for various other guns.

Those two purchases were only a fraction of the totality of the arms obtained by the Saudis over the next few years from eight Balkan nations. Investigators found that the Saudis made their biggest arms deals with former Soviet bloc states in 2015, and that the weapons included many that had just come off factory production lines. Nearly 40 percent of the arms the Saudis purchased from those countries, moreover, still had not been delivered by early 2017. So the Saudis had already contracted for enough weaponry to keep a large-scale conventional war in Syria going for several more years.

By far the most consequential single Saudi arms purchase was not from the Balkans, however, but from the United States. It was the December 2013 U.S. sale of 15,000 TOW anti-tank missiles to the Saudis at a cost of about $1 billion-the result of Obama's decision earlier that year to reverse his ban on lethal assistance to anti-Assad armed groups. The Saudis had agreed, moreover, that those anti-tank missiles would be doled out to Syrian groups only at U.S. discretion. The TOW missiles began to arrive in Syria in 2014 and soon had a major impact on the military balance.

This flood of weapons into Syria, along with the entry of 20,000 foreign fighters into the country-primarily through Turkey-largely defined the nature of the conflict. These armaments helped make al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, al Nusra Front (now renamed Tahrir al-Sham or Levant Liberation Organization) and its close allies by far the most powerful anti-Assad forces in Syria- and gave rise to the Islamic State .

By late 2012, it became clear to U.S. officials that the largest share of the arms that began flowing into Syria early in the year were going to the rapidly growing al Qaeda presence in the country. In October 2012, U.S. officials acknowledged off the record for the first time to the New York Times that "most" of the arms that had been shipped to armed opposition groups in Syria with U.S. logistical assistance during the previous year had gone to "hardline Islamic jihadists"- obviously meaning al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, al Nusra.

Al Nusra Front and its allies became the main recipients of the weapons because the Saudis, Turks, and Qataris wanted the arms to go to the military units that were most successful in attacking government targets. And by the summer of 2012, al Nusra Front, buttressed by the thousands of foreign jihadists pouring into the country across the Turkish border, was already taking the lead in attacks on the Syrian government in coordination with "Free Syrian Army" brigades.

In November and December 2012, al Nusra Front began establishing formal "joint operations rooms" with those calling themselves "Free Syrian Army" on several battlefronts, as Charles Lister chronicles in his book The Syrian Jihad . One such commander favored by Washington was Col. Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi, a former Syrian army officer who headed something called the Aleppo Revolutionary Military Council. Ambassador Robert Ford, who continued to hold that position even after he had been withdrawn from Syria, publicly visited Oqaidi in May 2013 to express U.S. support for him and the FSA.

But Oqaidi and his troops were junior partners in a coalition in Aleppo in which al Nusra was by far the strongest element. That reality is clearly reflected in a video in which Oqaidi describes his good relations with officials of the "Islamic State" and is shown joining the main jihadist commander in the Aleppo region celebrating the capture of the Syrian government's Menagh Air Base in September 2013.

By early 2013, in fact, the "Free Syrian Army," which had never actually been a military organization with any troops, had ceased to have any real significance in the Syria conflict. New anti-Assad armed groups had stopped using the name even as a "brand" to identify themselves, as a leading specialist on the conflict observed.

So, when weapons from Turkey arrived at the various battlefronts, it was understood by all the non-jihadist groups that they would be shared with al Nusra Front and its close allies. A report by McClatchy in early 2013, on a town in north central Syria, showed how the military arrangements between al Nusra and those brigades calling themselves "Free Syrian Army" governed the distribution of weapons. One of those units, the Victory Brigade, had participated in a "joint operations room" with al Qaeda's most important military ally, Ahrar al Sham, in a successful attack on a strategic town a few weeks earlier. A visiting reporter watched that brigade and Ahrar al Sham show off new sophisticated weapons that included Russian-made RPG27 shoulder-fired rocket-propelled anti-tank grenades and RG6 grenade launchers.

When asked if the Victory Brigade had shared its new weapons with Ahrar al Sham, the latter's spokesman responded, "Of course they share their weapons with us. We fight together."

Turkey and Qatar consciously chose al Qaeda and its closest ally, Ahrar al Sham, as the recipients of weapons systems. In late 2013 and early 2014, several truckloads of arms bound for the province of Hatay, just south of the Turkish border, were intercepted by Turkish police. They had Turkish intelligence personnel on board, according to later Turkish police court testimony . The province was controlled by Ahrar al Sham. In fact Turkey soon began to treat Ahrar al Sham as its primary client in Syria, according to Faysal Itani , a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.

A Qatari intelligence operative who had been involved in shipping arms to extremist groups in Libya was a key figure in directing the flow of arms from Turkey into Syria. An Arab intelligence source familiar with the discussions among the external suppliers near the Syrian border in Turkey during those years told the Washington Post's David Ignatius that when one of the participants warned that the outside powers were building up the jihadists while the non-Islamist groups were withering away, the Qatari operative responded, "I will send weapons to al Qaeda if it will help."

The Qataris did funnel arms to both al Nusra Front and Ahrar al Sham, according to a Middle Eastern diplomatic source. The Obama administration's National Security Council staff proposed in 2013 that the United States signal U.S. displeasure with Qatar over its arming of extremists in both Syria and Libya by withdrawing a squadron of fighter planes from the U.S. airbase at al-Udeid, Qatar. The Pentagon vetoed that mild form of pressure, however, to protect its access to its base in Qatar.

President Obama himself confronted Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan over his government's support for the jihadists at a private White House dinner in May 2013, as recounted by Hersh. "We know what you're doing with the radicals in Syria," he quotes Obama as saying to Erdogan.

The administration addressed Turkey's cooperation with the al Nusra publicly, however, only fleetingly in late 2014. Shortly after leaving Ankara, Francis Ricciardone, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 2011 through mid-2014, told The Daily Telegraph of London that Turkey had "worked with groups, frankly, for a period, including al Nusra."

The closest Washington came to a public reprimand of its allies over the arming of terrorists in Syria was when Vice President Joe Biden criticized their role in October 2014. In impromptu remarks at Harvard University's Kennedy School, Biden complained that "our biggest problem is our allies." The forces they had supplied with arms, he said, were "al Nusra and al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world."

Biden quickly apologized for the remarks, explaining that he didn't mean that U.S. allies had deliberately helped the jihadists. But Ambassador Ford confirmed his complaint, telling BBC , "What Biden said about the allies aggravating the problem of extremism is true."

In June 2013 Obama approved the first direct U.S. lethal military aid to rebel brigades that had been vetted by the CIA By spring 2014, the U.S.-made BGM-71E anti-tank missiles from the 15,000 transferred to the Saudis began to appear in the hands of selected anti-Assad groups. But the CIA imposed the condition that the group receiving them would not cooperate with the al Nusra Front or its allies.

That condition implied that Washington was supplying military groups that were strong enough to maintain their independence from al Nusra Front. But the groups on the CIA's list of vetted "relatively moderate" armed groups were all highly vulnerable to takeover by the al Qaeda affiliate. In November 2014, al Nusra Front troops struck the two strongest CIA-supported armed groups, Harakat Hazm and the Syrian Revolutionary Front on successive days and seized their heavy weapons, including both TOW anti-tank missiles and GRAD rockets.

In early March 2015, the Harakat Hazm Aleppo branch dissolved itself, and al Nusra Front promptly showed off photos of the TOW missiles and other equipment they had captured from it. And in March 2016, al Nusra Front troops attacked the headquarters of the 13th Division in northwestern Idlib province and seized all of its TOW missiles. Later that month, al Nusra Front released a video of its troops using the TOW missiles it had captured.

But that wasn't the only way for al Nusra Front to benefit from the CIA's largesse. Along with its close ally Ahrar al Sham, the terrorist organization began planning for a campaign to take complete control of Idlib province in the winter of 2014-15. Abandoning any pretense of distance from al Qaeda, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar worked with al Nusra on the creation of a new military formation for Idlib called the "Army of Conquest," consisting of the al Qaeda affiliate and its closest allies. Saudi Arabia and Qatar provided more weapons for the campaign, while Turkey facilitated their passage . On March 28, just four days after launching the campaign, the Army of Conquest successfully gained control of Idlib City.

The non-jihadist armed groups getting advanced weapons from the CIA assistance were not part of the initial assault on Idlib City. After the capture of Idlib the U.S.-led operations room for Syria in southern Turkey signaled to the CIA-supported groups in Idlib that they could now participate in the campaign to consolidate control over the rest of the province. According to Lister , the British researcher on jihadists in Syria who maintains contacts with both jihadist and other armed groups, recipients of CIA weapons, such as the Fursan al haq brigade and Division 13, did join the Idlib campaign alongside al Nusra Front without any move by the CIA to cut them off.

As the Idlib offensive began, the CIA-supported groups were getting TOW missiles in larger numbers, and they now used them with great effectiveness against the Syrian army tanks. That was the beginning of a new phase of the war, in which U.S. policy was to support an alliance between "relatively moderate" groups and the al Nusra Front.

The new alliance was carried over to Aleppo, where jihadist groups close to Nusra Front formed a new command called Fateh Halab ("Aleppo Conquest") with nine armed groups in Aleppo province which were getting CIA assistance. The CIA-supported groups could claim that they weren't cooperating with al Nusra Front because the al Qaeda franchise was not officially on the list of participants in the command. But as the report on the new command clearly implied , this was merely a way of allowing the CIA to continue providing weapons to its clients, despite their de facto alliance with al Qaeda.

The significance of all this is clear: by helping its Sunni allies provide weapons to al Nusra Front and its allies and by funneling into the war zone sophisticated weapons that were bound to fall into al Nusra hands or strengthen their overall military position, U.S. policy has been largely responsible for having extended al Qaeda's power across a significant part of Syrian territory. The CIA and the Pentagon appear to be ready to tolerate such a betrayal of America's stated counter-terrorism mission. Unless either Congress or the White House confronts that betrayal explicitly, as Tulsi Gabbard's legislation would force them to do, U.S. policy will continue to be complicit in the consolidation of power by al Qaeda in Syria, even if the Islamic State is defeated there.

Gareth Porter is an independent journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of numerous books, including Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (Just World Books, 2014).

  • Stewart , says: June 22, 2017 at 3:26 pm
    America has been doing the same thing in Syria that it did in Afghanistan in the 80s when they armed and trained Bin Laden and the Mujahideen to create Al Qaeda and look what that led to 9/11 only this time their criminal actions of arming Jihadists have led to terrorist attacks in Europe.
    Centralist , says: June 22, 2017 at 4:17 pm
    I think the largest problem with US Foreign Policy is we are rather ignorant of any aspect of the Middle East or its politics even after all that time in Iraq. It is almost embarrassing the fact we are a society that seem to reward and encourage ignorance at all levels of it. At one point in time many politicians lacked formal education yet they were all highly self educated. Lincoln was a self trained lawyer from a humble background. I

    Ignorance is not a virtue unless you are Orwellian in thought.

    Johann , says: June 23, 2017 at 10:03 am
    Cutting through all the propaganda, Assad is the least bad realistic option for syria. If Assad falls, there will be true genocide.
    Steve Diamond , says: June 23, 2017 at 10:21 am
    "ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative" – That is the smartest insight of this story. US policy in the region strongly favors relatively secular dictators. Democracy is seen as a total threat to "stability," brutal US-allied regimes. The US should either stop meddling, or genuinely support democratic reform, but not lie to the American people by meddling in the name of democracy.
    Stephen J,Gray , says: June 23, 2017 at 11:26 am
    Here is an excerpt from Tulsi Gabbard's Press release.
    Why don't you publish it?

    "Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.[i] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.

    https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists

    Peter , says: June 23, 2017 at 12:49 pm
    Could it get much worse? American wars in the Middle East have been a total disaster. For a while it looked as if Trump might be the game changer, someone who would finally pull us out. Instead, the situation is getting worse. ISIS is spreading like a cancer in Europe, with a flood of refugees changing the character of Europe permanently perhaps. Meanwhile, the non-Islamist groups were withering away" according to this article, because the US of all people are arming the terrorists. Geez, I wonder if that makes the US a terrorist nation? (Sadly we recently had a choice of partnering with Russia to wipe out ISIS, but we decided to play the sinister game of power politics instead. Clearly the Turks, Saudis other Sunis have been aiding and abetting ISIS in various ways. We should switch allegiance to Russia and Iran, IMO.)
    EK , says: June 23, 2017 at 12:53 pm
    So, the State Department's objective in the Middle East is to create a Sunnistan between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers controlled by radical Sunni Islamists of whatever name they chose to call themselves.

    It seems Israel has signed off on this.

    It also seems the Russians are saying "fine." But still the war goes on. Why?

    Is it absolutely necessary that Syria be destroyed as well?

    Why; is it because of Iran and it's puppets the rump of Iraq east of the Euphrates and Syria?

    If this is the final outcome envisioned of what possible relevance is Afghanistan?

    Skeptic , says: June 23, 2017 at 1:17 pm
    Peter: It already is worse.

    It would be wonderful to see some follow-on reporting by Gareth Porter. For example, on whether there was any relation between Gen. Flynn's apparent opposition to this 'strategy' and the campaign to get him out of the White House. Yeah, I know. He spoke with the Russian ambassador. Besides that.

    mark , says: June 23, 2017 at 3:23 pm
    Every terrorist attack, every child that is killed in the UK and Europe, is just a case of terrorism coming home, pigeons coming home to roost. What goes around comes around. It would be no more than justice if London/ Paris/ Brussels, let alone Riyadh and Doha, one day looked like Damascus does today. We have armed/ bankrolled/ trained this filth. They always bite the hand that feeds them.
    Sothguard , says: June 23, 2017 at 3:42 pm
    Yes. We know. The whole reason I voted for Trump, is because he looked as though he would end this conflict. But it didn't happen. And what did I really expect? No morality, no promise is solid.

    We should have banned travel and withdrawn every US and NATO force from the area, down to the last rifle. We are weakened from years of fighting and our enemies know it.

    It's time we elected a non-rich, non-politician, common man to the office of President. Somebody with outstanding morality and nothing to lose.

    Trump doesn't seem to be delivering what I want. And he's not the leader I want.

    I know what the leader I'm looking for is like. Wherever this man is, it's time he step forward. If he doesn't, then I will, but chances are it will be too late by the time I am ready. So how about one of millions of experienced adults show up for once. I'm tired of living my life, ruled by lesser men. Give me somebody to support, for God's sake.

  • [Jun 25, 2017] Election Interference Hypocrisy by Yves Engler

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ottawa has interfered in at least one recent Ukrainian election. Canada funded a leading civil society opposition group and promised Ukraine's lead electoral commissioner Canadian citizenship if he did "the right thing" in the 2004-05 poll. ..."
    "... Globe and Mail ..."
    "... [Canadian ambassador to the Ukraine, Andrew Robinson] began to organize secret monthly meetings of western ambassadors, presiding over what he called 'donor coordination' sessions among 20 countries interested in seeing Mr. [presidential candidate Viktor] Yushchenko succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group's spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed media control. Canada also invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine's Razumkov Centre and other groups that contradicted the official results showing Mr. Yanukovich [winning]. ..."
    "... In the 2010 election Ottawa intervened to bring far-right president Michel Martelly to power (with about 16% of the voter, since the election was largely boycotted). Canada put up $6 million for elections that excluded Fanmi Lavalas from participating. After the first round, our representatives on an Organization of American States Mission helped force the candidate the electoral council had in second place, Jude Celestin, out of the runoff. The Center for Economic and Policy Research explained , "the international community, led by the U.S., France, and Canada, has been intensifying the pressure on the Haitian government to allow presidential candidate Michel Martelly to proceed to the second round of elections instead of [ruling party candidate] Jude Celestin." Some Haitian officials had their U.S. visas revoked and there were threats that aid would be cut off if Martelly's vote total wasn't increased as per the OAS recommendation. ..."
    "... The absurdity of the whole affair did not stop the Canadian government from supporting the elections and official election monitors from this country gave a thumbs-up to this farcical exercise in "democracy". Describing the fraudulent nature of the elections, Haiti Progrθs ..."
    "... Washington has, of course, interfered in hundreds of elections in dozens of countries, including Italy, France, Greece, Chile, Ecuador, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Australia and, yes, Canada. ..."
    "... Northern Shadows: Canadians and Central America ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... During the 1963 election campaign Kennedy's top pollster, Lou Harris, helped Pearson get elected prime minister. Kennedy backed Harris' move, though he opposed an earlier request for the pollster to help British Labour leader Harold Wilson, which Harris then declined. Since Harris was closely associated with the US president the Liberals called Kennedy's pollster by a pseudonym. ..."
    "... The lesson? Perhaps Washington and Ottawa should treat other countries in the same way they wish to be treated. Perhaps it is time for a broader discussion about election meddling. ..."
    Jun 23, 2017 | dissidentvoice.org

    If a guy does something bad to someone else, but then complains later when another person does that same thing to him, what do we say? Stop being a hypocrite. Either you change tact or you got what you deserved.

    Does the same moral logic apply to countries?

    Purported Russian meddling in US, French and other elections has received significant attention recently. "Russian meddling abroad underscores need for electoral reform in Canada" declared a Rabble.ca headline this week while CBC noted "Russian attempts to infiltrate U.S. election systems found in 21 states: officials". An earlier Globe and Mail headline stated "Russia was warned against U.S. election meddling: ex-CIA head" while a Global News story noted "Canada should worry about Russian interference in elections: former CSIS head."

    Interference in another country's election is an act of aggression and should not happen in a just world so these accusations deserve to be aired and investigated. But, how can one take the outrage seriously when the media commentators who complain about Russia ignore clear-cut Canadian meddling elsewhere and the decades-long history of US interference in other countries' elections around the world, including in Canada.

    Ottawa has interfered in at least one recent Ukrainian election. Canada funded a leading civil society opposition group and promised Ukraine's lead electoral commissioner Canadian citizenship if he did "the right thing" in the 2004-05 poll. Ottawa also paid for 500 Canadians of Ukrainian descent to observe the elections. Three years after Globe and Mail reporter Mark MacKinnon explained :

    [Canadian ambassador to the Ukraine, Andrew Robinson] began to organize secret monthly meetings of western ambassadors, presiding over what he called 'donor coordination' sessions among 20 countries interested in seeing Mr. [presidential candidate Viktor] Yushchenko succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group's spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed media control. Canada also invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine's Razumkov Centre and other groups that contradicted the official results showing Mr. Yanukovich [winning].

    Canada has also interfered aggressively in Haitian elections. After plotting , executing and consolidating the 2004 coup against Jean Bertrand Aristide's government, Canadian officials interceded in the first election after the coup. In 2006 Canada's then-chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, led a team of Canadian observers to Haiti for elections that excluded the candidate – Father Gιrard Jean Juste – of Haiti's most popular political party Fanmi Lavalas. With the country gripped by social upheaval after widespread fraud in the counting, including thousands of ballots found burned in a dump, Kingsley released a statement claiming, "the election was carried out with no violence or intimidation, and no accusations of fraud." Chair of the International Mission for Monitoring Haitian Elections, Kingsley's statement went on to laud Jacques Bernard, the head of the electoral council despite the fact that Bernard had already been widely derided as corrupt and biased even by other members of the coup government's electoral council.

    In the 2010 election Ottawa intervened to bring far-right president Michel Martelly to power (with about 16% of the voter, since the election was largely boycotted). Canada put up $6 million for elections that excluded Fanmi Lavalas from participating. After the first round, our representatives on an Organization of American States Mission helped force the candidate the electoral council had in second place, Jude Celestin, out of the runoff. The Center for Economic and Policy Research explained , "the international community, led by the U.S., France, and Canada, has been intensifying the pressure on the Haitian government to allow presidential candidate Michel Martelly to proceed to the second round of elections instead of [ruling party candidate] Jude Celestin." Some Haitian officials had their U.S. visas revoked and there were threats that aid would be cut off if Martelly's vote total wasn't increased as per the OAS recommendation.

    Half of the electoral council agreed to the OAS changes, but half didn't. The second round was unconstitutional, noted Haοti Libertι's Kim Ives, as "only four of the eight-member Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) have voted to proceed with the second round, one short of the five necessary. Furthermore, the first round results have not been published in the journal of record, Le Moniteur, and President Prιval has not officially convoked Haitians to vote, both constitutional requirements."

    The absurdity of the whole affair did not stop the Canadian government from supporting the elections and official election monitors from this country gave a thumbs-up to this farcical exercise in "democracy". Describing the fraudulent nature of the elections, Haiti Progrθs explained "the form of democracy that Washington, Paris and Ottawa want to impose on us is becoming a reality."

    Washington has, of course, interfered in hundreds of elections in dozens of countries, including Italy, France, Greece, Chile, Ecuador, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Australia and, yes, Canada.

    You haven't heard about that one?

    During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis the Kennedy administration wanted Ottawa's immediate and unconditional support in putting the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) on high alert. Diefenbaker hesitated, unsure if Washington was telling him the full story about Soviet/Cuban plans or once again bullying the small island nation.

    Not happy with Diefenbaker's attitude during the Cuban Missile Crisis or his ambivalence towards nuclear weapons in Canada, President John F. Kennedy worked to precipitate the downfall of his minority Conservative government. Kennedy preferred Lester Pearson's Liberals who criticized Diefenbaker on Cuba and were willing to accept nuclear-armed Bomarc missiles.

    "In the fall of 1962," notes Peter McFarlane in Northern Shadows: Canadians and Central America , "the State Department began to leak insulting references about Diefenbaker to the U.S. and Canadian press." Articles highly critical of the Canadian prime minister appeared in the New York Times , Newsweek and other major US media outlets. On January 3 the outgoing commander of NATO, US General Lauris Norstad, made a surprise visit to Ottawa where he claimed Canada would not be fulfilling her commitments to the north Atlantic alliance if she did not acquire nuclear warheads. Diefenbaker believed the US general came to Canada "at the behest of President Kennedy" to set the table "for Pearson's conversion to the United States nuclear policy."

    A future prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, concurred. He asked:

    Do you think that General Norstad, the former supreme commander of allied forces in Europe, came to Ottawa as a tourist on January 3 to call publicly on the Canadian government to respect its [nuclear] commitments? Do you think it was by chance that Mr. Pearson, in his speech of January 12, was able to quote the authority of General Norstad? Do you think it was inadvertent that, on January 30, the State Department gave a statement to journalists reinforcing Mr. Pearson's claims and crudely accusing Mr. Diefenbaker of lying? you believe that it was by coincidence that this series of events ended with the fall of the [Diefenbaker] government on February 5?

    A State Department official, Willis Armstrong, described Kennedy's attitude towards the March 1963 Canadian election: "He wanted to intervene and make sure Pearson got elected. It was very evident the president was uptight about the possibility that Pearson might not win." Later Kennedy's Secretary of State Dean Rusk admitted "in a way, Diefenbaker was right, for it was true that we preferred Mike Pearson."

    During the 1963 election campaign Kennedy's top pollster, Lou Harris, helped Pearson get elected prime minister. Kennedy backed Harris' move, though he opposed an earlier request for the pollster to help British Labour leader Harold Wilson, which Harris then declined. Since Harris was closely associated with the US president the Liberals called Kennedy's pollster by a pseudonym.

    Washington may have aided Pearson's campaign in other ways. Diefenbaker wondered if the CIA was active during the 1963 election while External Affairs Minister Howard Green said a US agent attended a couple of his campaign meetings in BC.

    To Washington's delight, Pearson won the election and immediately accepted nuclear-armed Bomarc missiles.

    The lesson? Perhaps Washington and Ottawa should treat other countries in the same way they wish to be treated. Perhaps it is time for a broader discussion about election meddling.

    Yves Engler is the author of A Propaganda System: How Canada's Government, Corporations, Media and Academia Sell War and Canada in Africa: 300 years of aid and exploitation . Read other articles by Yves .

    This article was posted on Friday, June 23rd, 2017 at 7:28am and is filed under Canada , Elections , Haiti , Ukraine , US Hypocrisy .

    [Jun 25, 2017] McCarthys Downfall

    Notable quotes:
    "... Welch: You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? ..."
    Jun 25, 2017 | www.mtholyoke.edu

    Exchange between McCarthy and Welsh, June 1954

    Taken from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html

    Despite initial popularity among his fellow party members and the American public, McCarthy's career began to decline. Even some moderate Republicans withdrew their support from him because they felt the senator was hurting the presidential administration. Despite his waning support, President Eisenhower refrained from publicly reprimanding McCarthy. Apparently, the president refused to "go into the gutter" with McCarthy by initializing a public confrontation. Doing so would only create more chaos and generate more publicity for the senator .However, it became apparent that McCarthy's end was near.
    McCarthy's First Strike
    In june 1953, J.B. Matthews was appointed as McCarthy's research director. In July, Matthews published an article called "Reds in our churches" in the conservative American Mercury. In it, Matthews referred to the Protestant clergy as " the largest single group supporting the Communist apparatus in the United States." The result was a public outrage at Matthews as well as his boss McCarthy.
    Army Investigation
    McCarthy began his investigation of the Army Signal Corps Laboratory at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey in 1953. The laboratory had employed many Jewish engineers from New York. Many of the civilian employees there were members of the left-leaning Populist Front. In fact, Julius Rosenberg once worked there. Many of the workers have been inspected and cleared by the government. The army was already reexamining the entire workforce in 1953.Nevertheless, McCarthy insisted on opening up an investigation into the matter. McCarthy eventually gave up the investigation after months of quarreling with the army.
    The Irving Peress Case

    After giving up his investigation on the Army Signal Corps, McCarthy's committee began to concentrate on Irving Peress, an Army dentist. Peress had invoked the Fifth Amendment when filling out the army's questionnaire. Even though he was put under military surveillance, Peress was still promoted to Major. The army eventually found the paperwork that called for his dismissal and Peress was quickly discharged.

    McCarthy then launched a campaign to criticize the army for allowing Peress to be promoted. When interrogating General Ralph Zwicker, the senator demanded that the general should reveal some names. Zwicker refused because he could not violate executive order. In response, McCarthy rudely insulted the general by comparing his intelligence to that of a "five year old child." McCarthy's treatment of the general generated a lot of hostility from the press and the American public.

    In retaliation for McCarthy's investigation, the Army accused McCarthy's aide Roy Cohn of trying to force the Army into giving special treatment to his friend G. David Schine.

    The Televised Hearings
    The Senate then started hearings into the Peress matter. The investigations and hearings between the Army and McCarthy was televised live to the public. For two months, Americans watched on as McCarthy bully witnesses and called "point of order" to make crude remarks.

    The climax came on June 9. Representing the Army was Joseph Welch. As the Welch was questioning Cohn, McCarthy intervened and said,

    I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher, whom he recommended, incidentally, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh year and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist party.

    Here, McCarthy was referring to Fred Fisher, a young associate in Welch's law firm. Fisher had refused to come to the hearings because he was once affiliated with the National Lawyers Guild. In response, Welch said he did not let Fisher come to the hearing because he did not want to hurt "the lad" on national television. Welch then urged McCarthy to drop the issue. Nevertheless, McCarthy persisted in questioning Fisher's background. At this point Welch exclaimed,

    Welch: You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

    At this point, the entire American public viewed McCarthy with disdain. On television, the senator from Wisconsin came off as cruel, manipulative and reckless.

    The Final Days

    The hearings were not the only components that eroded McCarthy's credibility. Earlier in the year, the journalist Edward R. Murrow had aired a documentary that showed how McCarthy's charges were groundless and how he had used bullying techniques to harass individuals. By June, the senator's Gallup Poll ratings fell from 50% to 34%.

    On December 2, the Senate voted to censure Joe McCarthy by a margin of sixty-seven to twenty-two.

    Driven by depression from being censured, Joe McCarthy resorted to alcohol, which greatly worsen his health. On May 2, 1957, Joe McCarthy died from acute hepatitis and was buried in Appleton, Michigan.

    [Jun 25, 2017] Sen. Joe McCarthys Startling Morphine Source The Fix by Matt Harvey

    Notable quotes:
    "... During the 1950s Red Scare, America's first drug czar fed the opiate addiction of America's most feared senator. Loved or hated, McCarthy remains a legend. Why is his drug habit so little known? ..."
    "... Joe McCarthy, the late senator from Wisconsin who built his reputation by whipping up the anti-Communist hysteria sweeping America at the beginning of the Cold War, has long been widely viewed as an object lesson in the abuse of power. His style of politics-demagoguery, paranoia and, worst of all, witch-hunts-has been named McCarthyism, and in recent years some politicians have emerged who would wear the label proudly. For people who have struggled with addiction, however, McCarthy-an alcoholic and opiate addict-offers a provocative question about the limits of our own anti-stigma views. ..."
    "... In fact, McCarthy seems to be almost a role model for Cruz, who in 2010 upbraided his alma mater, Harvard Law School, for harboring a dozen communists on its faculty. ..."
    "... The fact that he suffered from severe alcoholism is well known. But the fact that by many accounts, he was also addicted to opiates remains almost as hidden as it was during his lifetime. ..."
    "... Consumer Reports, ..."
    "... Ladies Home Journal ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Flowers in the Blood: the Story of Opium ..."
    "... Philadelphia Inquirer ..."
    May 13, 2013 | www.thefix.com

    During the 1950s Red Scare, America's first drug czar fed the opiate addiction of America's most feared senator. Loved or hated, McCarthy remains a legend. Why is his drug habit so little known?

    Joe McCarthy, the late senator from Wisconsin who built his reputation by whipping up the anti-Communist hysteria sweeping America at the beginning of the Cold War, has long been widely viewed as an object lesson in the abuse of power. His style of politics-demagoguery, paranoia and, worst of all, witch-hunts-has been named McCarthyism, and in recent years some politicians have emerged who would wear the label proudly. For people who have struggled with addiction, however, McCarthy-an alcoholic and opiate addict-offers a provocative question about the limits of our own anti-stigma views.

    By the peak of his power in 1953, McCarthy's allegations of "Communist subversion" had wrecked havoc on virtually every level of government-from scores of federal employees whose careers were ruined by unfounded charges of "treason" to decorated war heroes to highly respected statesmen. McCarthy even characterized the entire Democratic Party as the "party of treason."

    Not surprisingly, there is a long tradition of right-wing pols and pundits who see McCarthy as a misunderstood hero. Sen. Ted Cruz, the newly elected Tea Party Republican from Texas, has already won widespread comparisons to McCarthy for his innuendo-laced pronouncements about Democratic members of Congress and presidential appointees such as Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary. Cruz has welcomed the criticism as "a sign that perhaps we're doing something right." In fact, McCarthy seems to be almost a role model for Cruz, who in 2010 upbraided his alma mater, Harvard Law School, for harboring a dozen communists on its faculty.

    A larger-than-life figure of enduring influence, the story of Joe McCarthy would seem to offer little in the way of surprises. The fact that he suffered from severe alcoholism is well known. But the fact that by many accounts, he was also addicted to opiates remains almost as hidden as it was during his lifetime.

    That Capitol Hill was rife with drinking and even drugging was an open secret in the 1950s, but the "private" lives of political figures remained largely unpublicized. This protected McCarthy's favorable reputation with the American public from the stinging stigma attached to alcoholism and drug addiction. (There is some speculation that his opiate addiction was the result of either treatment for "chronic pain" or treatment by sympathetic doctors to help fortify the hangover-hobbled senator to get him through the day. But he may have had a personality disorder; a friend remarked once that he "operates in his own moral universe.")

    Yet even in the current age of celebrity snort-and-tell publicity, when nothing seems capable of shocking, the method in which McCarthy's drugs were supplied is, well, shocking.

    According to the country's first de-facto drug czar, Harry Anslinger, McCarthy's addiction was enabled by the federal government. Anslinger, who served as chief of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, is credited with successfully demonizing "marijuana" as causing addiction and insanity, murder and mayhem. More than any other political figure, Anslinger was responsible for criminalizing opiates and its users. And his word was gospel when it came to the country's nascent war on drugs.

    In his 1961 memoir, The Murderers, Anslinger wrote about finding out, in the 1950s, that a prominent senator (whom he left unnamed) was addicted to morphine. When confronted by Anslinger, the politician refused to stop, even daring Anslinger to reveal his addiction, saying it would cause irreparable harm to the "Free World." Anslinger responded to this gambit by securing the lawmaker a steady supply of dope from a Washington, DC, pharmacy. (Morphine taken by prescription was, then as now, legal.)

    Anslinger's acquiescence was a testament to just how feared McCarthy was in his heyday. Few dared to speak above a whisper about his evident alcoholism. "[He] went on for some time, guaranteed his morphine because it was underwritten by the Bureau," Anslinger wrote. "On the day he died I thanked God for relieving me of my burden."

    Beltway insiders guessed that the smack-addicted senator's bullying threats and bombastic appeals to patriotism-not to mention the fact that he had died in office-pointed to the late Joseph McCarthy. Anslinger, however, refused to reveal the name to reporters. The story dropped out of circulation until 1972, when a landmark study on the effects of narcotics, issued by Consumer Reports, repeated it (still with no name attached) in a chapter on "eminent narcotic addicts."

    Even in the current age of celebrity snort-and-tell publicity, when nothing seems capable of shocking, the method in which McCarthy's drugs were supplied is, well, shocking.

    During the Army-McCarthy hearings, which riveted Americans to their small black-and-white television sets in 1954, McCarthy's combustible mix of grandiosity and paranoia was on full self-destructive display. Every so often a senator on the subcommittee would remind viewers-among whom McCarthy's favorability ratings were falling by the week-of the real reason for the proceedings: an investigation of charges that McCarthy had tried to blackmail the Army into giving special favors to a McCarthy aide who had been drafted. All spring, McCarthy played to the cameras in his deep-throated baritone, using the hearings to preach "communist infiltration" at all levels of government (including the Army), and appealing to what he called the "real jury-the 16 million television viewers out there."

    But then Army chief counsel Joseph Welch confronted McCarthy over his attempt to blacken the reputation of a young Welch associate, for purportedly joining a "Communist-front" lawyers organization. When McCarthy persisted, a visibly shaken Welch famously upbraided him with these words: "Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" The packed hall burst into applause.

    By the time the gavel fell on the hearings, McCarthy could be seen desperately haranguing an empty chamber. Having finally gone too far, he was censured by a slim majority of his peers. Neither the career nor the man himself ever recovered; he died three years later. McCarthy's last years were not pretty. He was in and out of the hospital with exhaustion, broken bones, failing organs. Apt to suddenly appear on crutches, or with his arm in a sling, he fluctuated noticeably in weight. His official cause of death, "noninfectious, seldom fatal, hepatitis, cause unknown," is not consistent with the acute alcoholic's liver disease that is generally thought to have killed him.

    McCarthy's opiate addiction became public fodder only after Anslinger's death. A 1978 article in, of all places, Ladies Home Journal named McCarthy as the senator in Anslinger's autobiography. "Agents who worked under [Anslinger] claim that the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy was addicted to morphine and regularly obtained his narcotics through a druggist near the White House, authorized by Anslinger to fill the prescription," Maxine Cheshire wrote.

    Given Cheshire's credentials as a respected Washington Post reporter, the report was treated not as gossip but as news, and widely disseminated. United Press International (UPI) put it starkly, "[McCarthy] was a morphine addict who had his drugs supplied by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics for the sake of national security."

    In Flowers in the Blood: the Story of Opium , a 1981 investigation into the history of opium use, addiction and interdiction, Dean Latimer reported that the relationship between Anslinger and McCarthy was more complicated and hypocritical than Anslinger had ever let on. Just when the top drug-enforcer was supplying McCarthy with his government-approved pharmaceutical smack, the two worked hand in hand to pin the country's burgeoning heroin trade on a Communist Chinese plot, even though the trafficking was clearly a mafia-controlled operation. Such a fiction would have conveniently served the federal government's relaxed policy toward organized crime. (During his 40-year reign, FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover never even acknowledged Cosa Nostra's very existence.)

    The last mainstream mention of McCarthy's morphine addiction that this writer has uncovered dates back to 1989, when the Philadelphia Inquirer attacked scholarship supporting Cheshire's findings. By now, of course, anyone who could have authoritatively confirmed the story is long dead.

    McCarthy was undoubtedly a man who wrestled with more than his share of private demons that he was only too eager to unleash on the nation. His exploitation of his country's greatest fears have made him a polarizing figure. To most, he is a cautionary tale about the abuse of power. But to some, he is an exemplar of the principle that, as the late Arizona senator Barry Goldwater famously said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Given the current climate of polarization in our national politics, it is not surprising that McCarthy-as-myth has made a comeback.

    For the recovery community, there is a special question in the story of Joe McCarthy. Whether omitted by those who would rehabilitate him or advertised by those who would vilify him, his addiction is viewed as a shameful "scarlet letter." For those of us who view addiction as a disease to be treated with sympathy-and who reserve none of that emotion for McCarthy the demagogue-coming to terms with McCarthy the addict is, to say the least, challenging.

    Matt Harvey is an award-winning freelance journalist whose writing has appeared on AnimalNY.com , Black Book, the New York Post and the New York Press, among other publications. He lives in Manhattan.

    [Jun 25, 2017] You know there is a saying falsely attributed to Churchill: "Those who choose shame between war and shame they end up by getting both". Russia chose shame in 2014, but will inevitable get war. Or hasn't it already? The "hybrid war", you know.

    Jun 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Boris N June 16, 2017 at 11:44 am GMT

    @German_reader

    any form of military escalation would be fraught with grave risks

    You know there is a saying falsely attributed to Churchill: "Those who choose shame between war and shame they end up by getting both". Russia chose shame in 2014, but will inevitable get war. Or hasn't it already? The "hybrid war", you know.

    Or another saying: "Better a terrible end than an endless terror".

    Your views on the Syrian intervention are convincing to me, Russia should definitely avoid deeper involvement.

    You pose a false ridiculous dilemma. How can a normal honest Russian equate some ragheads with Russians and hesitate whom to help and where to intervene?

    Imagine East Germany has not united with the West Germany, but instead become a fascist country with a hostile anti-WG identity. Some people there want to WG anyway and they raise a rebellion, so the Berlin regime starts to oppress and even bomb and kill them. At the same time WG has got an opportunity to fight ISIS on the ground. So how do you think what an honest German from WG should choose having the limited military resources? To help your German brothers nearby and intervene (or occupy EG outright altogether) or to fight some damned ragheads somewhere far away in the damned desert?

    Exactly if Putin has chosen an intervention in Syria over an intervention in Ukraine he is just saying to everybody that Russians do not matter but that Muslims do. When Putin was saying he's a nationalist "of some sort" we now know of what sort of nationalists he is. Muslim and Ukrainian ones! Or more generally any nationalists who are against Russians.

    [Jun 25, 2017] The US doesnt really want to settle the Syrian war. Without permanent Jihad, how could Washington ever justify a permanent War on Terror? Ditto Ukraine: they need a constant crisis there to isolate the Europe from Russia. They did not appreciate Putins attempts at improving relations with Europe–Germany,

    Jun 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Seamus Padraig Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 11:44 am GMT

    @Western Solidarity I will be brief here. Right now we are entering uncharted waters in Russo-American relations. What the investigations of Trump's ties to the Kremlin or at least to the Russian Mafia will reveal remains to be seen. Meanwhile the U.S. Senate is rushing to put more sanctions on Russia for alleged meddling in America's elections last year. This is simply insane. Russia and America have the two largest nuclear arsenals on earth. Russia sits at the crossroads of Asia, Europe and the Middle East and is Europe's first line of defense from invasion from the Orient or Moslem Middle East.

    Russia's help is need to settle the Syrian civil war, end the Ukrainian crisis, keep Iran nuclear free, de=fang North Korea and curb China's growing appetite and ambition for worldwide resources, markets and "adventures". The U.S. should be working with Russia to manage these issues and make Western solidarity not just a slogan but a reality. Instead the Congress is going all out to alienate and aggravate the Russian Bear. I fear that one day President Putin will tire of the persecution of Russia and her proud people and the demonization of his regime and give orders to send long range nuclear missiles and atomic warheads to both North Korea and Iran.

    Russia shares borders with both and could easily ship these weapons in piecemeal by train, truck, ship and plane to the tyrants in power in those countries and send technicians to assemble them and train the North Koreans and Iranians on how to use them.

    This is I know a nightmare scenario, but it could easily occur. At that point two of America's closest dependents, Israel and Japan, would be directly threatened by virulent dictators. How would America react?

    What could or would the U.S. President do to "retaliate"? This is very, very serious and Congress needs to stop playing games and realize it is vital to America's peace and security to be friends or at least neutral with Russia and work with them on areas of common agreement and need such as stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, settling ongoing wars, stopping the migrant invasion of Europe, etc., etc. Otherwise it could literally come to World War II and the end of the planet. No joking matter my friends.

    Russia's help is need to settle the Syrian civil war, end the Ukrainian crisis, keep Iran nuclear free, de=fang North Korea and curb China's growing appetite and ambition for worldwide resources, markets and "adventures".

    Except that the US doesn't really want to settle the Syrian war. Without permanent Jihad, how could Washington ever justify a permanent 'War on Terror'? Ditto Ukraine: they need a constant crisis there to isolate the Europe from Russia. They did not appreciate Putin's attempts at improving relations with Europe–Germany, especially–since coming to power in 1999. The Norks' nukes don't threaten Russia in the slightest–Russia has more than enough of a deterrent to handle such a small, isolated country. And Iran and Russia now have quite goods relations, and Iran still doesn't have a bomb. As far as China's resource appetites are concerned, well, that actually benefits Russia, as China is now one of their largest customers, both for natural resources as well as defense/aerospace technology.

    [Jun 25, 2017] UKRAINE meddled in US 2016 election. In conspiracy to blackmail Trump, Ukraine provided DNC with false accusations against Manafort, hoping to derail Trump and install Deep State figurehead Hillary Clinton

    Jun 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

    RobinG June 24, 2017 at 4:32 am GMT

    DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS: ONE BIRD, 2 WINGS . SAME SHIT

    UKRAINE meddled in US 2016 election. In conspiracy to blackmail Trump, Ukraine provided DNC with false accusations against Manafort, hoping to derail Trump and install Deep State figurehead Hillary Clinton.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEjZ5gI9GaM UNREAL: The real election interference scandal HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT

    See the timeline, and smoking-gun email from Alexandra Chalupa. To steal election, DNC fabricated Trump-Russian collusion stories which have poisoned US-Russia relations in this administration and stoked impeachment fever. Anti-Russian hysteria serves Israel by killing Syria & Iran diplomacy. Great journalism by Lee Stranahan.

    Exiled off mainstreet Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 5:59 am GMT

    The fabricated collusion stories strike me as efforts to force Trump to put the US on an aggressive war footing against Russia in Syria and elsewhere. As such the constitute war crimes efforts and are not only criminal, but stupid in light of the unnecessary risk they put us to.

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
    "... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
    "... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
    "... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
    "... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
    "... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
    "... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigι; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
    Jun 24, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program , which should be read with the current book.)

    The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.

    Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at his unreviewable discretion.

    Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert constitutional order.

    As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."

    Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally." Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.

    Hating the US

    There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the US.

    Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.

    Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.

    Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters into the equation in determining foreign policy.

    In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American population.

    Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."

    Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.

    Nazi Influences

    Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.

    That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic, which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.

    This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam. Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency, simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.

    That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented. This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."

    'Anti-Partisan' Lessons

    It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps and forests of Russia.'"

    Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.

    Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same). 'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the Nazi period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear political will.'"

    This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo Military Commissions.

    Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine "existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure (VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure" meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.

    "The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing" enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."

    Lauding Petraeus

    Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled, The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as they preferred to call it.

    But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix program."

    He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program, supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation would develop in practice."

    It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that expand the number of fighters.

    Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles.

    The Bloody Reality

    One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears" as proof of six people killed.

    The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.

    "How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."

    This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine writes.

    A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971, describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the South Vietnamese government.

    But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.

    Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels of CIA involvement.

    Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    CIA Crimes

    Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."

    "Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.

    Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.

    This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.

    Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigι; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely.

    Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at ConsortiumNews.com .

    Read more by Todd E. Pierce Inciting Wars the American Way – August 14th, 2016 Chicago Police Adopt Israeli Tactics – December 13th, 2015 US War Theories Target Dissenters – September 13th, 2015 Ron Paul and Lost Lessons of War – September 1st, 2015 Has the US Constitution Been Lost to Military Rule?– January 4th, 2015

    [Jun 24, 2017] The United States and Iran Two Tracks to Establish Hegemony by James Petras

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in Teheran ..."
    "... And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder whether US foreign policy has any guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of stupid, reckless flailing. ..."
    Jun 10, 2017 | unz.com

    Introduction

    US policy in the Middle East and South Asia is shaped by several basic considerations:

    1. US Imperialism is the force of global domination
    2. US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in Teheran.
    3. The return of Iran to the status of puppet regime will advance Washington's ultimate goal of encircling and isolating Russia and China.
    4. The US overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran will facilitate Israel's final seizure of Palestine, including Jerusalem, and establish Tel Aviv as the dominant regional power in the Middle East.

    Washington's 'Two Track' Policy for Domination

    US strategic planners rely on a two-track policy , combining and blending military and ideological weapons.

    Its military strategy relies on slicing up the Middle East - 'salami tactics' – invading and conquering of each and every country and government, which shares the Islamic Republic of Iran's policy of national sovereignty and independence. US military success or failure depends on its alliances in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. The US, Saudi Arabia and Israel all sponsor terrorist groups which have attacked Iran's scientists, its elected representatives and military leaders, as well as its sacred sites – inside Iran as well as abroad.

    The political and ideological strategy involves the penetration and organization of domestic forces to destabilize and weaken Iran's internal security, defense capability and overseas alliances.

    Ideological warfare involves: (1) exploiting regional, ethnic, class and religious differences to undermine stability and fragment the country; and (2) converting legitimate social critics and political opposition parties into imperial collaborators.

    Ideological attacks are designed to attract Iranian writers, academics, intellectuals and artists who choose to ignore the history of US imperialism in fomenting bloody coups (Mossadegh 1954), launching proxy wars via Saddam Hussain's invasion (1980- 88) and the terrorist attacks by Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as the terrorists backed by Iraq's former dictator.

    US propaganda intervention in Iran's electoral process has been designed to promote a so-called "color revolution" regime change favored by neo-liberal, pro-West parties and candidates who seek US sponsorship in their ascent to power. The imperial collaborators and various Western 'human rights' NGOs hide the sordid history of Washington's overt and proxy wars/coups and occupations in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Palestine.

    In order to intimidate and weaken overseas and domestic allies; and the (4) financing and arming of terrorists from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa to attack the Islamic Republic.

    Linguistic and Conceptual Perversions

    Imperial warfare depends on perverting political language and concepts. The US refers to invasion, which have killed and maimed millions of Muslims and Christians in Iraq (2003-2017) and Syria (2011-2017) as 'humanitarian interventions'. In reality its policy described an ongoing 'holocaust' – the massive genocidal violation of the human rights of scores of millions of people to sovereignty, peace and security of home, life, limb, culture and faith.

    The millions of victims of the West's current holocaust in the Middle East reject and scorn Washington's imperialist claim of defending 'democratic values' and its so called 'responsibility to protect (R2P) ' as pronounced by a series of US Administrations through their mouthpieces in the United Nations.

    In contrast, US support for the Saudi monarch's brutal bombing and blockade of Yemen has led to an entire population facing starvation and a massive, cholera epidemic, which now threatens over 26 million Yeminis. The campaign against Yemen by the brutal Saudis and their US-EU allies is the very definition of crimes against humanity and international law.

    Sanctions: A Tool of Conquest

    US sanctions against Iraq, Syria, Iran and Yemen have been designed to starve working people into submission while capturing the support of some middle class consumers. US policy of invading Libya and brutally murdering President Gadhafi and his family members was designed to systematically destroy a prosperous, independent republic and turn it into a backward, impoverished fiefdom of tribal warlords, exploited by Western oil companies. Saudi Arabia joined the European Union in financing terrorists, many trained in the destroyed remnants of Libya, who later killed innocent civilians in Paris, Nice, London, Manchester and other parts of Europe.

    The strategic goal of the US invasion of Iraq, Syria and Yemen has been to violently divide these independent republics and turn them into ethnically cleansed, impoverished, mini-states – in the imperial tradition of 'divide and conquer'. Such tribal fiefdoms are easily dominated by imperial powers.

    Regional and Global Strategy

    Washington's imperial strategists have arrived at the conclusion that they cannot conquer independent states, like Iran, in a single attack, given its size, defense capability, internal cohesion and regional alliances.

    Their strategy is to surround Iran by destroying its allies, one nation at a time.

    The first phase of the US invasion, occupation and systematic destruction of Iraq and its entire governmental infrastructure was designed to overthrow the Baathist state, then neutralize the Shi'a militia and impose a servile client regime in Baghdad. The second step was to encourage Sunni tribal warlords to seize control of central Iraq. The third step was to arm the Kurds to form a mini-state in northern Iraq (so-called "Kurdistan"). This would entail large-scale ethnic cleansing, the total destruction of Iraq's ancient Christian community, the extermination of its multiethnic modern educated, scientific, cultural and technocratic work force. In other words, the US strategy was to obliterate any remnant of the Iraqi Republic in its war to 'remake the Middle East'.

    After Iraq and Libya, the next target for US-EU aggression has been the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran's ally. The EU, USA, Saudi Arabia and Turkey sponsored an invasion by mercenary Salafi forces under a network of Daesh-ISIS-al Queda terrorists. Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have provided military, logistical and financial support to the terrorists.

    After Syria, the fourth target of Anglo-American-Saudi-Israeli military strategy would be to undermine the national sovereignty of Lebanon and destroy the armed political Hezbollah Party, the powerful Lebanese resistance organization (allied with Iran). It was consistent with this strategy for the West to support Israel's brutal air and ground attacks against the civilian population and infrastructure of Beirut, Lebanese port cities and villages. Tens of thousands of Lebanese Christians were not spared the Israeli terror bombing campaign.

    If a Lebanese campaign were successful and Hezbollah was destroyed, the 'final' Israeli conquest of Palestine, the fifth objective, could commence: US and world Zionism would unconditionally celebrate Israel's massive ethnic purge of Palestine's native peoples and finish off the total confiscation of the homes, mosques, churches, land and resources of millions of Muslim and Christian Palestinians and other peoples. This would create history's first 'pure Jewish' state.

    The sixth imperial objective would be to disarm Iran's military and security structure and weaken its economy in order to isolate the Islamic Republic and undermine its Middle Eastern alliances. This strategic objective explains why Washington promotes its one-sided nuclear arms agreement with Iran, while the nuclear-armed Israel is excluded! Despite Iran's abiding by the terms of the agreement, there have been no reciprocal lifting of economic sanctions or the normalization of trade and diplomatic relations.

    Iran Counters the US Global Military Threat

    Iran responded by developing economic, technical and military agreements with Russia and China in order to counter the US-Israeli-Saudi threats and sanctions. Russia provides advanced defensive weapons systems. China signs large-scale, long-term trade agreements while including Iran in its huge Central Asian infrastructure projects. Most importantly, Iran has succeeded in defending the legitimate government of Syria, while aiding Iraq and Yemen.

    Iran undermined official US sanctions by signing multi-billion dollar agreements with the giant Boeing Corporation for the purchase of passenger airplanes as well as developing further agreements with US banks and agro-business exporters and oil companies. These profitable agreements with the US agro-business export sector can weaken the Pentagon-Zionist sanctions.

    Iran has the diplomatic support of the Non-Aligned Movement opposing Israeli-US Zionist military threats.

    Iran's principled opposition to Saudi Arabia's massive arms purchases, as well as the Kingdom's vicious alliance with Israel and its genocidal assault against the Yemeni people, has gained the support of world public opinion – especially the masses of independent Muslims throughout the world.

    Iran's educational, scientific, military and political-electoral advances provide the basis for national security, economic growth, cultural enrichment, international alliances and the deepening of social democracy for its people. It provides an alternative independent vision for many millions of Muslims living under harsh monarchies, military dictators and imperial oppression.

    Conclusion

    Since the US and its allies launched their 'hot war' by surrounding, threatening and destabilizing Iran, Washington's strategy has suffered serious military defeats and political retreats.

    Iraq is no longer encircled by the US. Shia-based militias have regional control, especially south of Baghdad and beyond. Syria, Iran's ally, has fought hard to finally liberate many towns, cities and territory taken by the terrorist mercenaries despite the EU-US-Saudi-Israel's initial advances.

    Rival rebel forces and mercenary gangsters besiege the US puppet governments in Libya, Somalia and South Sudan. The classic CIA term, 'blowback', means these terrorists are now turning their guns on the West.

    Washington has lost control of Afghanistan. Over a third of the Afghan military and police recruits defect to the resistance fighters. The central 'government' in Kabul influences less than a quarter of the country

    Despite spending trillions of dollars on wars and propaganda over the past two decades, US military strategy to encircle and conquer Iran has been a military, diplomatic and economic failure. The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic economy is in permanent crisis with massive unemployment, poverty, recession and stagnation.

    Despite US congressional, Presidential and Pentagon support for Israel's Jewish colonization of Palestine, more countries, trade unions and social movements, around the world, support the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel than ever before. Manu are speaking up despite government threats to outlaw 'criticism of Israel' as a 'hate crime'.

    The turmoil and deep political divisions in the United States between the oligarchs allied to President Trump and the opposition oligarchs have created a profound institutional crisis, which has undermined domestic governance and disrupted US global alliances, US-EU relations and US-Asian trade links.

    Despite the bizarre and often theatrical presentation by the US mass media, the American Congress and President Trump are fighting over fundamental issues, including control of the national security agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc.), foreign and military policy, the economy and environmental agenda, the federal budget, judiciary and the Presidency.

    The political crisis has paralyzed the capacity of the US to start new wars and negotiate international agreements. President Trump is facing a serious coup d'ιtat involving the political-intelligence elite, with the military looking warily on the chaos. The masses are increasingly polarized or disgusted.

    In an attempt to deflect from his domestic problems, President Trump deepened the US alliance with Saudi Arabia and reiterated threats against Iran. Nevertheless he declined pressure to move the US embassy to Israel. The inconsistent and ad hoc nature of current US policy alienates friends and foes – with no redeeming features.

    The domestic opposition demands an end of President Trump's diplomatic overtures to Russia. It uses the fake pretext of Russian interference in the US presidential election to move toward the president's impeachment.

    The US faces a CLANDESTINE CIVIL WAR among its elite!

    A financial bubble accompanies the American domestic political crisis. The economic elite, the banks and stock market have benefited through speculation, despite or because of, the paralysis among rival political oligarchs!

    The emergence of Trump's so-called 'national-capitalist ideology' means a decline in US multi-lateral agreements, such as NATO, the EU, NAFTA and the Trans-

    Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP). This explains Trump's effort to renegotiate bilateral agreements, which have failed

    Trump's stated policy objectives have fallen between two chairs: the multi-lateral agreements have not been replaced by lucrative bilateral deals. Trump relies on big business offerings and 'nationalist' ideology to minimize his diplomatic failures and ideological isolation. Trump wants to win contracts for greater US exports and investment. This has been weakened by the previous administration's pursuit of economic sanctions and expanding wars, as well as his feckless propaganda.

    The Trump regime is full of contradictions: It threatens to end the nuclear agreement with Iran but allows Boeing to sell billions of dollars of civilian aircraft to Teheran. It signs a $300 billion dollar arms sales agreement with Saudi Arabia (business for the for military industries) while losing political influence in the US, where the Saudis are widely despised.

    At least, Trump does not blather on about humanitarian wars; he would prefer signing business deals. He mentions the need for 'regime change' in Syria and sending more troops to Afghanistan but does little to implement these goals.

    President Trump is fighting for his own political (and personal) survival and to prevent his impeachment (via a Congressional coup). His strongest defense would be to strengthen the domestic economy and show some overseas economic successes.

    Essentially, Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily costly wars. That was one of his campaign promises that resonated with the nation's core electorate.

    Trump would like to balkanize Syria, while avoiding new troop commitments to Afghanistan. He would prefer profitable trade relations with Russia and China and perhaps, Iran, over war.

    The impediments to any Trump policy success are massive: Trump's Administration includes zealous neo-conservative Russophobes and Zionist-Iranophobes. These are militarists who would provoke eventual armed conflict with Moscow and Teheran. Their current focus is on expanding the war in Syria, sending more US troops to Afghanistan and forging deeper ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    The current internal political contradictions between the Trump regime and the 'Deep' State apparatus, and between the Trump-allied business elite and the Zionist-neoconservative warmongers, preclude the development of a consequential Trump foreign policy.

    In the meantime, domestic political warfare and the deepening divisions between the US and EU will create opportunities for Russia, China and Iran to join together in historic economic political and alliances, which might help re-balance a world on the brink of 'world war', economic collapse and environmental disaster.

    The divisions among NATO countries undermine the establishment of a united front for greater imperial wars. The fragmentation of the European Union (Brexit, the collapse of Greece, the EU-sponsored putsch in Ukraine) lessens its global economic influence. The division between the US Presidential regime and the Opposition Security State apparatus paralyzes the US push for new imperial wars.

    Divisions and conflicts within the imperial camp presents favorable opportunities for anti-imperialist countries in the Middle East, like Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

    The strategic Russo-Chinese economic alliance may create a new global economy based on peaceful co-existence and greater economic co-operation.

    This essay is dedicated to the memory of the innocent martyrs of the recent brutal terrorist attacks against the Iranian Parliament and the holy shrine and to honor the brave survivors and family members of the victims.

    Republished from James Petras website

    James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 63 books published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, Temps Moderne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. His publishers have included Random House, John Wiley, Westview, Routledge, Macmillan, Verso, Zed Books and Pluto Books. He is winner of the Life Time Career Award, Marxist Section, of the American Sociology Association, the Robert Kenny Award for Best Book, 2002, and the Best Dissertation, Western Political Science Association in 1968. Some recent titles include Unmasking Globalization: Imperialism of the Twenty-First Century (2001); co-author The Dynamics of Social Change in Latin America (2000), Unmasking Globalisation (2001), System in Crisis (2003), co-author Social Movements and State Power (2003), co-author Empire With Imperialism (2005), co-author) Multinationals on Trial (2006). His most recent title, The Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity Press, Inc. 2006), has been acquired for Japanese, German, Italian, Indonesian and Arabic editions.He received his MA and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley. Among his books:

    Joe Levantine Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 8:51 am GMT

    Jun 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

    A perfect article beyond any possible comments. Mr. Petras hits a perfect score as he often does. A dispassionate, lucid and thorough analysis of the greater geopolitical world that could teach the half brained and crooked congressional representatives a great many lessons.

    jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:12 am GMT

    A very good description of the present world.
    Alas western media present a quite different picture.

    disturbed_robot Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT

    Mr. Petras, my hats off to you. This is the most to-the-point, honest assessment of what's going on I've read in a long time.

    My only complaint is the use of the term "Middle East". We should all drop this British colonial era term and just call it what it is: Southwest Asia. Please don't take that as being nit-picky and looking for fault (not my intention at all) your article is brilliant. But we have to start somewhere.

    jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:15 am GMT

    @Joe Levantine Is it possible that many representatives know quite well what's going on, but have reasons, their own political survival, to pretend they do not know ?
    Senator Hollings just dared to speak the truth shortly before he resigned, in 2004.

    Hans Vogel Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 7:14 am GMT

    With respect to Israel's supposedly assigned role, I beg to differ. The US, like Russia and Iran, is an assimilative empire, established on the basis of welcoming and incorporating any group or individual willing to adopt the imperial culture and language. In other words, these are non-exclusive states. Israel, on the other hand, is built on rigid and comprehensive racial and religious exclusiveness. Only jews can join. Israel is the quintessential nation state, built on an antiquated, romantic 19th-century idea. The self-defeating and ultimately untenable model of the nation state was demonstrated unequivocally in 1945, but ignoring historical proof, Israel resuscitated it in 1948. Therefore, it would seem to me Israel can never become the dominant force in the Middle East. Even if it somehow succeeds in attaining this position, it will definitely be of a very short duration. It is a bit like what Guizot once remarked: you can do anything with a bayonet, except sit on it.

    Durruti Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 10:27 am GMT

    A Nicely Written Article by Petras:

    1. Could have used a bit of information on the Rothschilds and other dominant Jewish Banking Family Oligarchs, including their role in the assassination of John F. Kennedy (the last Constitutional President of the United States ), on November 22, 1963, in the Coup D'etat in Dallas, (the first successful Modern Arab Spring ).

    2. Could have benefitted by references to the horrors of Vietnam and Indonesia (1965), 9/11, and the attack on the Liberty, among other dark pages of recent history, which would have taken a sentence.

    3. Could have used a bit of a VISION advocacy of how to Cure this Zionist imperialist plague so nicely described by Petras. The Restoration of the Republic, destroyed on November 22, 1963, is the Revolutionary Cure so ignored by the earnest and not so earnest critics of the Zionist New World Order.

    Oh for our own Decembrists!

    God Bless America! Restore the Republic!

    Durruti for The Anarchist Collective

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 11:07 am GMT

    The strategic Russo-Chinese economic alliance may create a new global economy based on peaceful co-existence and greater economic co-operation.

    Let's hope so.

    I, for one, am more than fed up with the one trick parasite, gangster politics.

    Sergey Krieger Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT

    As USA internal rot accelerates she is becoming increasingly erratic and desperate in her international policy. It increasingly looks like biten by white shark seal trashing desperately in the water while life along with blood leaving it's body. Others should keep their cool and patiently wait.

    dearieme Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT

    "2) US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in Teheran."

    And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder whether US foreign policy has any guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of stupid, reckless flailing.

    fnn Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT

    How many Americans and Europeans realize that all Islamic terrorism in the West is Sunni and none of it is Shia, and that all the demonization of Iran and Hezbollah is solely for the benefit of Israel?

    Rurik Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT

    Excellent article and analysis

    kudos and gratitude

    If I were to offer any suggestion, I'd just prefer that the author amend the abbreviation of the US to the Z US (Zionist occupied US), as all of the things he mentions that the US is doing, are all in direct contravention of the principles and interests and people of the actual US, and are, rather, all being done to benefit the most sinister and intractable enemy of the of the US (and so many others including Iran); the Z US.

    The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic economy is in permanent crisis with massive unemployment, poverty, recession and stagnation.

    Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily costly wars. That was one of his campaign promises that resonated with the nation's core electorate.

    I spell out my case for calling it the ZUS here:

    (which I invite the moderators to including under a blue 'more' link so as not to clutter up the comment section)

    saying US, by which I do not mean ordinary US people then the rotten elite running the show.

    I sort of know that, but I hope you (and others) can understand why that distinction is so important to us genuine Americans who're horrified at the conduct of the US government on the world's stage.

    The interests of the US government vs. the people of the US, could not be more diametrically opposed. They're looting our Treasury and our future to fund eternal wars for Israel- that do nothing but destroy any kind of long-term hope for this country. They're creating hatred for the American people that will reverberate over generations. They're systematically dismantling our sacred codified rights (earned in blood) going all the way back to the Magna Carta. They assassinate our citizens if they prove inconvenient to the regime, when they aren't burning them alive at places like Waco or the World Trade Center. There seems to be nothing too demonic that this government will do to us American citizens if they suspect that by doing so it will somehow augment their power to dominate us even more.

    Today in America is much like the Russians during the Bolshevik / Soviet regime. Our government is our most intractable and dangerous enemy on the planet. We Americans have nothing to fear from Russia or Iran. That's laughable. But we have everything to fear from Washington DC. The drooling fiend that inhabits those think tanks and J-Street and K-Street and CFR and PNAC and CIA and all the other acronyms of Satan are our worst enemy on this planet, just as they threaten and menace the rest of the people of the planet, intending to use our children as cannon fodder even as they commit endless atrocities and war crimes in our name.

    So I guess my point is just that the interests of the US [zio-government], vs. the interests of the US people are so wildly at odds, that it would be nice if others could see this as glaringly as those of us American citizens, watching with horror- as our government perpetrates monstrous crimes all over the globe, and here at home.

    The banking cartels are not run by patriotic American citizens, they're run by our enemies.

    The Pentagon is not run by patriotic American citizens, it's run by our enemies.

    the FBI and CIA and DEA and NSA are all operated by the enemies of the American people.

    the media are the most sinister and committed enemy we have. No one hates our guts more.

    the universities are nothing but kosher Marxist indoctrination centers, telling our young people (among other things) that the "US" liberated the people of Kosovo. (is that what happened?). They tell our students that our participation in the world wars was honorable and noble. They tell them that what we are doing in the Middle East today is honorable and noble. They even are attempting to make any criticism of Israel a crime on the universities and campuses. Outlawing any expression of support for the BDS movement. Does that sound like our universities are run by and for Americans?!

    there are two entities here in the good ol' US of A. There is the ZUSA, that is an enemy to all of mankind, including the people of the US. And then there are the people of the US; represented by those who still cling to quaint notions like the Rule of Law, and our traditions like freedom of speech and fair play. People like Michael Hastings. People like Seth Rich. People like Pat Tillman or Ron Paul or all of his supporters. People like the ones that voted for Obama to end the wars, and who voted for Trump to end the wars. People like Ken O'keefe, who are Americans to the core, and still represent the spirit of what being an American was all about, until our nation was hijacked in 1913 for the greater glory of $atan.

    the US goal in former Yugoslavia was primarily a rejuvenation of NATO which has lost its meaning with the demise of SU. Also, the Demoncrats have a natural propensity to package their imperialism into "humanitarian" interventions, the Republicans are much less sleazy – the Republicans just say you are with us or against us, no matter whether what we do is legal or illegal. Therefore, it was a perfect little war for the Clintons:
    1) breath a new life into NATO,
    2) clean up the Southern Europe of any residual Russia and/or socialist influence and
    3) do a dress rehearsal for attacking Russia (using NATO).

    sounds like a perfectly excellent analysis to me.

    I remember how we scrambled at the time to make sense of it. WTF were they up to?!

    why were they bombing a nation that had been 'our' ally during WWII, and seemingly so that some KLA terrorists could lay claim to their ancient and sacred lands? Hard won from the same Muslim hoards that had drenched Kosovo in Christian, Serbian blood for centuries.

    Some of us figured it was kind of a payback for Palestine. 'Yes, we zio-scum are ravaging your people in Palestine, but as payback, we'll give you Kosovo!

    We even wondered if there wasn't some secret, high-level negotiations going on between the representatives of Islam and the Zionists. 'OK, what do you want for Palestine?' / 'We'll take Kosovo'.

    Then there was general Clarks quote regarding the necessity of bombing Serbia:

    "Let's not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states."

    - General Wesley Clark

    so it's been a conundrum, but your analysis sounds like the best so far.

    travelling NGO EcoSystem

    :-)

    Yes we see it all over the place. But also please keep in mind that the original NGO that $ubverted and corrupted is the one that took control of the US.

    The actions of the 'US' (ZUSA) today are no more a representation of the people of the US, than those in Kyiv or Kabul represent the typical Ukrainian or Afghan.

    Washington DC no more represents the 300+ million people here than did the actions of Mubarak represented the Egyptian people, or Yeltsin represented the Russian people, or Tony Blair represented the people of England.

    We have all of us been NGO'd by the Fiend, and none more so than us here in the US, where they declare from their pulpits that there is 'zero daylight between Israel and the ZUSA!'

    So it stings to read about how this or that benefits the US, when all the benefits are going to the very same Beast that is drooling its putrid saliva all over US too.

    [Jun 24, 2017] Ukraine had ceased to exist as an independent country in 2014, with arrival of Nuland (ziocon) and Brennan (the CIA)

    Ukraine is now debt slave. Debt slave is not an independent country. No way. It is a neo-colony.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The scale of de-industrialization and of de-modernization Ukraine achieved in short 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing short of mind-boggling and unprecedented. ..."
    Jun 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

    annamaria June 23, 2017 at 1:48 am GMT

    @Mr. Hack

    who give a damn about what Ukrainians feel.
    Why Ukrainians of course, it's their country after all. " it's their country after all."

    Their country?

    Ukraine had ceased to exist as an independent country in 2014, with arrival of Nuland (ziocon) and Brennan (the CIA). Hence the spectacular appointments of Misha Saakishvilli (wanted in his native Georgia), Natali Yaresko (an American felon), Pravyj sector (local neo-nazi), and finally, Groysman, a Jewish entrepreneur and current prime minister of Ukraine. Jews make 0.4% of Ukrainian population: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-population-of-the-world

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-22/stockman-warns-great-big-coup-way

    "While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi, the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington - the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs - was on the ground in Kiev assisting the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President and Russian ally.

    From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia and its leader.

    So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a better outcome - especially after Russia moved to protect its legitimate interests in its own backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine. That included protecting its 200-year old naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea."

    Moreover, the Ukrainian territory is the result of Soviet annexations of Rumanian, Polish, and Hungarian territories; without the generous provisions by the USSR, Ukraine would be a puny patch of land: http://ukrmap.su/en-uh10/273.html

    Rmthoughs Show Comment Next New Comment June 22, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT

    @Boris N
    Get it, boys and girls? Everyone owes it to Ukraine to "put her on her feet". Russia owes her gas transit, buying everything Ukraine (less and less) produces. And, of course, Ukraine's main idea about Europe, as even her former President still thinks so, is to get to EU, get a truck load of free money (aka investments) and start living as European upper middle class. I am not exaggerating. Of course, the fact that Ukraine became what it became by 1990 was largely thanks to the Soviet economic system somehow got lost on such people as Kuchma, not to speak of very many average Ukrainians.

    The scale of de-industrialization and of de-modernization Ukraine achieved in short 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing short of mind-boggling and unprecedented.

    [Jun 24, 2017] US invaded Syria conducting military operations in sovereign land and airspace of Syria without the permission of the Syrian government. Unlike Russia, from which Syria officially requested military assistance.

    Jun 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Avery

    { .. the Russian invasion of Ukraine,}

    There was no so-called 'invasion' of Ukraine by Russia.
    There was however an illegal invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq – 7,000 away from US – by US and UK ( .admitted as being illegal by Lord Prescott), resulting in its total destruction as a functioning State, and causing the deaths of something like 500,000 Iraqis, most of them civilians. The bloody aftermath of that criminal, illegal act by US&UK continues to this day. Death, destruction, dislocation.

    US has also invaded another sovereign State, Syria: US troops and air force are present and conducting military operations in sovereign land and airspace of Syria. All without the permission of the Syrian government. Unlike Russia, from which Syria officially requested military assistance.

    So stop lecturing anybody about the so-called 'invasion' of Ukraine by RF.

    { after the deceitful land grab by Russia of Crimea }

    You can't, quote, 'grab' something that belongs to you.
    Crimea has been part of Russia for 200+ years.
    In 1954 Soviet dictator Khrushchev "gave" Crimea to Ukraine SSR, without asking the residents of Crimea.

    After the dissolution of USSR, residents of Crimea held declarations and referendums:

    1992: Crimea declared Independence. Kiev ignored it.
    1994: Autonomy referendum. Passed by ~80%. Kiev ignored it.

    After the 2014 neo-Nazi putsch in Kiev, the neo-Nazi Azov battalion and other neo-Nazi gangs started murdering ethnic Russians, e.g. the Odessa Massacre. Not wanting a replay of Operation Barbarossa in Crimea, its residents held a referendum in 2014 to re-join Russia: passed by 96%+.
    Done. Thank you very much.

    By comparison, BREXIT passed 52% to 48%.
    So that somehow has more "legality" ?

    btw: most of so-called 'Ukraine' are Russian lands attached* to Ukraine by various Russian Tsars and dictators. In time, they will all be promptly returned to Mother Russia.

    Say, do you remember when US deceitfully grabbed the territory of Hawaii?

    _______

    *

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/05/20140504

    Cyrano June 22, 2017 at 10:17 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Mr. Hack
    The only thing that Russia wanted from Ukraine is not to allow themselves to become threat to Russia by joining NATO. Ukraine, having wasted all other options for normal development, couldn't resist taking the offer of cashing in on becoming a threat to Russia. Ukraine tries to justify this based on some past historical grievances from the 1930's.
    What total lunacy and hippocracy. Do I really need to remind you that before 2014 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO membership was not a popular option for most Ukrainians. But now, after the deceitful land grab by Russia of Crimea and three years of proxy directed war in Donbas orchestrated in Moscow, most Ukrainians now look favorably towards NATO membership. Latest polls show that 55.9% o Ukrainians now favor NATO integration (I think that pre 2014 it was less than 15%) and 66.4% now favor EU integration. You reap what you sew, Putinista fanboys. Bye, bye 'NovoRossiya'!

    http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2017/06/17/7147228/

    How can you steal something that's yours? Think of Crimea as the wedding ring. Once the marriage was dissolved – the ring goes back to its rightful owner. At the time Khruschev gifted Crimea to Ukraine, no one in their wildest dreams imagined that Russia and Ukraine would one day go their separate ways. Crimea was to be part of Ukraine only as long as Ukraine was part of the same country as Russia. Otherwise, Russia would have never agreed to cede Crimea. I guess following the marriage analogy, NovoRossiya would be the dowry. Ukraine can lose that too if they don't smarten up.

    [Jun 24, 2017] For neocons peace is a four-letter word by Uri Avnery

    Jun 24, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    When a Briton or American speaks about a "four-letter word", he means a vulgar sexual term, a word not to be mentioned in polite society. In Israel we also have such a word, a word of four letters. A word not to mention. This word is "Shalom", peace. (In Hebrew, "sh" is one letter, and the "a" is not written.)

    For years now this word has disappeared from intercourse (except as a greeting). Every politician knows that it is deadly. Every citizen knows that it is unmentionable. There are many words to replace it. "Political agreement". "Separation". "We are here and they are there". "Regional arrangement". To name a few.

    And here comes Donald Trump and brings the word up again. Trump, a complete ignoramus, does not know that in this country it is taboo.

    He wants to make peace here. SH-A-L-O-M. So he says. True, there is not the slightest chance that he really will make peace. But he has brought the word back into the language. Now people speak again about peace. Shalom.

    Peace? What is peace?

    There are all kind of peaces. Starting from a little peace, a baby-peace, to a large, even mighty peace.

    Therefore, before opening a serious debate about peace, we must define what we mean. An intermission between two wars? Non-belligerence? Existence on different sides of walls and fences? A prolonged armistice? A Hudna (in Arabic culture, an armistice with a fixed expiry date)?

    Something like the peace between India and Pakistan? The peace between Germany and France – and if so, the peace before World War I or the peace prevailing now? The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, or the Hot Peace between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump?

    There are all kinds of peace situations. What kind of Israeli-Palestinian peace are we talking about? The peace between a horse and its rider? The peace between a people of masters and a people of slaves? Something like the peace between the South African Apartheid regime and the Bantustans it had created for the Blacks? Or a quite different kind of peace, a peace between equals?

    It's about this peace I would like to speak. Not "real" peace. Not "perfect" peace. Not "complete" peace.

    About peace. Peace pure and simple. Without qualifications, please.

    When did it all start? The conflict that now dominates the lives of the two peoples, when did it begin?

    Hard to say.

    It is easy to say: it started when the first Jewish immigrant reached these shores.

    Sounds simple. But it is not altogether true.

    It seems that the pre-Zionist Bilu immigrants, who came here in the early 1800s, did not arouse hostility.

    I have a theory about that: some time before the Bilu (short for "House of Jacob, Go!") came here, a religious German sect, the Templers, settled in this country. They had no political aims, just a religious vision. They set up model villages and townships, and the locals were grateful. When the first Jews arrived, the locals assumed that this was more of the same.

    Then came the Zionist movement, which definitely had political aims. They spoke only about a "national home", but the founder, Theodor Herzl, had previously written a book called "The Jewish State" (or, more accurately, "The Jewstate"). The aim was hidden for a time, because the country belonged to the Ottoman Empire.

    Only very few of the local population realized right from the beginning that this was a mortal danger for them. A large majority of the Muslims saw the Jews only as an inferior religious community, which the Prophet had commanded them to protect.

    So when did the conflict start? There are various theories about that. I adhere to the theory of the almost-forgotten historian Aharon Cohen, who pointed to a particular event. In 1908, the revolution of the "Young Turks" broke out. The Islamic Ottoman Empire turned into a nationalist state. As a reaction, there arose in Palestine and the neighboring countries an Arab national movement, which called for the "decentralization" of the empire, giving autonomy to its many peoples.

    A local Arab leader approached the Zionist representative in Jerusalem with a tempting offer: if the Jews support the Arab movement, the Arabs will support Zionist immigration.

    In great excitement, the Zionist representative rushed to the then leader of the Zionist world movement, Max Nordau, a German Jew, and urged him to accept the offer. But Nordau treated the offer with contempt. After all, it was the Turks who were in possession of the country. What did the Arabs have to offer?

    It is difficult to know how history would have evolved if such a Zionist-Arab cooperation had come into being. But a European Jew could not even imagine such a turn of events. Therefore the Zionists cooperated with the Turkish – and later with the British – colonial regime against the local Arab population.

    Since then, the conflict between the two peoples has intensified from generation to generation. Now peace is further away than ever.

    But what is peace?

    The past cannot be obliterated. Anyone who suggests that the past should be ignored and that we "start again from the beginning" is dreaming.

    Each of the two peoples lives in a past of its own. The past shapes their character and their behavior every day and every hour. But the past of one side is totally different from the past of the other.

    This is not just a war between two peoples. It is also a war between two histories. Two histories which contradict each other in almost every particular, though they concern the very same events.

    For example: Every Zionist knows that until the 1948 war, the Jews acquired land with good money, money contributed by Jews around the world. Every Arab knows that the Zionists bought the land from absentee landlords who lived in Haifa, Beirut or Monte Carlo, and then demanded that the Turkish (and later the British) police evict the fellahin who had tilled the land for many generations. (All the land had originally belonged to the Sultan, but when the empire was bankrupt the Sultan sold it to Arab speculators.)

    Another example: Every Jew is proud of the Kibbutzim, a unique achievement of human progress and social justice, which were frequently attacked by their Arab neighbors. For the Arabs, the Kibbutzim were just sectarian instruments of displacement and deportation.

    Another example: Every Jew knows that the Arabs started the 1948 war in order to exterminate the Jewish community. Every Arab knows that in that war, the Jews evicted half the Palestinian people from their homeland.

    And so forth: nowadays the Israelis believe that the Palestinian Authority, which pays a monthly salary to the families of "murderers", supports terrorism. The Palestinians believe that the Authority is duty-bound to support the families whose sons and daughters have sacrificed their lives for their people.

    And so forth, without end.

    (By the way, I am very proud of having invented the only scientifically sound definition of "terrorist", which both sides can accept: "Freedom fighters are on my side, terrorists are on the other side.")

    There will never be peace if the two peoples do not know the historical narrative of the other side. There is no need to accept the narrative of the opponent. One can deny it totally. But one has to know it, in order to understand the other people and respect it.

    Peace does not have to be based on mutual love. But it must be based on mutual respect. Mutual respect can arise only when each people knows the historical narrative of the other side. When it understands that, it will also understand why the other people acts the way it does, and what is needed for peaceful co-existence.

    That would be much easier if every Israeli Jew learned Arabic, and every Palestinian Arab learned Hebrew. That would not solve the problem, of course, but it would bring the solution much closer.

    When each of the two peoples understands that the other side is not a bloodthirsty monster, but acts from natural motives, it will discover many positive points in the culture of the other side. Personal contacts will be established, perhaps even friendships.

    This is already happening in Israel, though on a small scale. In the academic world, for example. And in the hospitals. Jewish patients are often surprised to discover that their nice and competent doctor is an Arab and that Arab male nurses are frequently more gentle than the Jewish ones.

    That cannot replace dealing with the real problems. Our two peoples are divided by real, weighty controversies. There is a problem about land, about borders, about refugees. There are problems of security and innumerable other issues. A war of more than a hundred years will not end without painful compromises.

    When there is a basis for negotiations between equals, a basis of mutual respect, insoluble problems will suddenly become soluble problems.

    But the precondition for this process is the return of the four-letter-word to the language.

    It is impossible to do something big, something historic, if there is no belief that it is possible.

    A person will not plug an electric cord into a wall if they do not believe that they will be connected to electricity. They must believe that the lights will go on.

    Nobody will start peace negotiations if they believe that peace is impossible.

    The belief in peace will not make peace certain. But at least it will make peace possible.

    Uri Avnery is a peace activist, journalist, writer, and former member of the Israeli Knesset. Read other articles by Uri , or visit Uri's website .

    [Jun 24, 2017] Kissing the Specious Present Goodbye - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... Put another way, historical perspectives conceived in what Becker termed "the specious present" have a sell-by date. Beyond their time, they become stale and outmoded, and so should be revised or discarded. This process of rejecting truths previously treated as authoritative is inexorable and essential. ..."
    "... Memories, whether directly or vicariously acquired, are "necessary to orient us in our little world of endeavor." Yet the specious present that we inhabit is inherently unstable and constantly in flux, which means that history itself must be pliable. Crafting history necessarily becomes an exercise in "imaginative creation" in which all participate. However unconsciously, Everyman adapts the past to serve his most pressing needs, thereby functioning as "his own historian." ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... This idιe fixe ..."
    "... my sense is that many Americans have an inkling that history of late has played them for suckers. This is notably true with respect to the post-Cold War era, in which the glories of openness, diversity, and neoliberal economics, of advanced technology and unparalleled U.S. military power all promised in combination to produce something like a new utopia in which Americans would indisputably enjoy a privileged status globally. ..."
    "... "Of course money-lovers will want the United States Government, because it's the one government that exists simply and solely to protect money. " ..."
    "... Nah, they'll put a few more bricks in the wall, reinforce the gates, and hire more guards so they can rest well at night while bathed in the glow that they continue to advance the best interests of human-kind over the objections of the unwashed masses on the other side of the wall. ..."
    Jun 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Paging Professor Becker

    "For all practical purposes history is, for us and for the time being, what we know it to be." So remarked Carl Becker in 1931 at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association. Professor Becker, a towering figure among historians of his day, was president of the AHA that year. His message to his colleagues amounted to a warning of sorts: Don't think you're so smart. The study of the past may reveal truths, he allowed, but those truths are contingent, incomplete, and valid only "for the time being."

    Put another way, historical perspectives conceived in what Becker termed "the specious present" have a sell-by date. Beyond their time, they become stale and outmoded, and so should be revised or discarded. This process of rejecting truths previously treated as authoritative is inexorable and essential. Yet it also tends to be fiercely contentious. The present may be specious, but it confers real privileges, which a particular reading of the past can sustain or undermine. Becker believed it inevitable that "our now valid versions" of history "will in due course be relegated to the category of discarded myths." It was no less inevitable that beneficiaries of the prevailing version of truth should fight to preserve it.

    Who exercises the authority to relegate? Who gets to decide when a historical truth no longer qualifies as true? Here, Becker insisted that "Mr. Everyman" plays a crucial role. For Becker, Mr. Everyman was Joe Doakes, John Q. Public, or the man in the street. He was "every normal person," a phrase broad enough to include all manner of people. Yet nothing in Becker's presentation suggested that he had the slightest interest in race, sexuality, or gender. His Mr. Everyman belonged to the tribe of WHAM.

    Memories, whether directly or vicariously acquired, are "necessary to orient us in our little world of endeavor." Yet the specious present that we inhabit is inherently unstable and constantly in flux, which means that history itself must be pliable. Crafting history necessarily becomes an exercise in "imaginative creation" in which all participate. However unconsciously, Everyman adapts the past to serve his most pressing needs, thereby functioning as "his own historian."

    Yet he does so in collaboration with others. Since time immemorial, purveyors of the past - the "ancient and honorable company of wise men of the tribe, of bards and story-tellers and minstrels, of soothsayers and priests, to whom in successive ages has been entrusted the keeping of the useful myths" - have enabled him to "hold in memory those things only which can be related with some reasonable degree of relevance" to his own experience and aspirations. In Becker's lifetime it had become incumbent upon members of the professoriate, successors to the bards and minstrels of yesteryear, "to enlarge and enrich the specious present common to us all to the end that 'society' (the tribe, the nation, or all mankind) may judge of what it is doing in the light of what it has done and what it hopes to do."

    Yet Becker took pains to emphasize that professional historians disdained Mr. Everyman at their peril:

    "Berate him as we will for not reading our books, Mr. Everyman is stronger than we are, and sooner or later we must adapt our knowledge to his necessities. Otherwise he will leave us to our own devices The history that does work in the world, the history that influences the course of history, is living history It is for this reason that the history of history is a record of the 'new history' that in every age rises to confound and supplant the old."

    Becker stressed that the process of formulating new history to supplant the old is organic rather than contrived; it comes from the bottom up, not the top down. "We, historians by profession, share in this necessary effort," he concluded. "But we do not impose our version of the human story on Mr. Everyman; in the end it is rather Mr. Everyman who imposes his version on us."

    Donald Trump as Everyman's Champion?

    Becker offered his reflections on "Everyman His Own Historian" in the midst of the Great Depression. Perhaps because that economic crisis found so many Americans burdened with deprivation and uncertainty, he implicitly attributed to his everyman a unitary perspective, as if shared distress imbued members of the public with a common outlook. That was not, in fact, the case in 1931 and is, if anything, even less so in our own day.

    Still, Becker's construct retains considerable utility. Today finds more than a few White Heterosexual American males (WHAM), our own equivalent of Mr. Everyman, in a state of high dudgeon. From their perspective, the specious present has not panned out as it was supposed to. As a consequence, they are pissed. In November 2016, to make clear just how pissed they were, they elected Donald Trump as president of the United States.

    This was, to put it mildly, not supposed to happen. For months prior to the election, the custodians of the past in its "now valid version" had judged the prospect all but inconceivable. Yet WHAMs (with shocking support from other tribes) intervened to decide otherwise. Rarely has a single event so thoroughly confounded history's self-assigned proctors. One can imagine the shade of Professor Becker whispering, "I warned you, didn't I?"

    Those deeply invested in drawing a straight line from the specious present into the indefinite future blame Trump himself for having knocked history off its prescribed course. Remove Trump from the scene, they appear to believe, and all will once again be well. The urgent imperative of doing just that - immediately, now, no later than this afternoon - has produced what New York Times columnist Charles Blow aptly calls a "throbbing anxiety" among those who (like Blow himself) find "the relentless onslaught of awfulness erupting from this White House" intolerable. They will not rest until Trump is gone.

    This idιe fixe , reinforced on a daily basis by ever more preposterous presidential antics, finds the nation trapped in a sort of bizarre do-loop. The media's obsession with Trump reinforces his obsession with the media and between them they simply crowd out all possibility of thoughtful reflection. Their fetish is his and his theirs. The result is a cycle of mutual contempt that only deepens the longer it persists.

    Both sides agree on one point only: that history began anew last November 8th, when (take your pick) America either took leave of its senses or chose greatness. How the United States got to November 8th qualifies, at best, as an afterthought or curiosity. It's almost as if the years and decades that had preceded Trump's election had all disappeared into some vast sinkhole.

    ... ... ...

    ...my sense is that many Americans have an inkling that history of late has played them for suckers. This is notably true with respect to the post-Cold War era, in which the glories of openness, diversity, and neoliberal economics, of advanced technology and unparalleled U.S. military power all promised in combination to produce something like a new utopia in which Americans would indisputably enjoy a privileged status globally.

    In almost every respect, those expectations remain painfully unfulfilled. The history that "served for the time being" and was endlessly reiterated during the presidencies of Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama no longer serves. It has yielded a mess of pottage: grotesque inequality, worrisome insecurity, moral confusion, an epidemic of self-destructive behavior, endless wars, and basic institutions that work poorly if at all. Nor is it just WHAMs who have suffered the consequences. The history with which Americans are familiar cannot explain this outcome.

    ... ... ...

    The author of several books, including most recently America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History , Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is currently trying to decipher the history of the post-Cold War era. (Reprinted from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative) ← Forbidden Questions? RSS Category: Ideology Tags: Donald Trump , TomDispatch Archives , White Americans

    Robert Magill Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 12:57 am GMT

    The Mandate of Heaven, which members of my tribe once took as theirs by right, has been cruelly withdrawn. History itself has betrayed us.

    How did we manage to sleepwalk for two plus centuries with dreams of "the city on a hill", our "exceptional nation" etc etc and quite freely disparage others for their war making proclivities without getting wise to it all?

    This line from D.H.Lawrence in his graphic novel "Quetzalcoatl" charges Mexico and other governments with encouraging our nefarious actions.

    "Of course money-lovers will want the United States Government, because it's the one government that exists simply and solely to protect money. "

    robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Carlton Meyer Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 5:14 am GMT

    Trump only exists because the two political parties have become so corrupt and arrogant they don't give a damn about working people. In theory, the Democratic party represents workers, but as profane lefty Jimmy Dore recently explained, the Dems are worse than Trump:

    Miro23 Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 6:44 am GMT

    When that happens, when promises of American greatness restored prove empty, there will be hell to pay. Joe Doakes, John Q. Public, and the man in the street will be even more pissed. Should that moment arrive, historians would do well to listen seriously to what Everyman has to say.

    Some thoughts on this would be that American greatness needed 1) a high level of national unity 2) a lot of discipline and hard work. There's a tendency to look back to the 1950′s when talking about "American Greatness", but in reality this was a very unusual time. America lacked industrial competitors. After WW2, Germany and Japan were in ruins. China was still an economic basket case and Europe was recovering with the help of US multi-nationals and US investment.

    Rather than start partying, the US needed an awareness of the coming challenges and needed from the 1950′s to develop a modern industrial base in new technologies with top class technological skills among its workforce as a national project. The aim should have been to build a world class education system at least to match the STEM results of the best Europeans and N/E Asians.

    In the event, the US disappeared into counter cultural Hippiedom and sent all its industries to Asian for cheaper and more efficient production. A government stuffed with commercial special interests is obviously going to do what is best for their bottom lines i.e. produce in Asia and sell in the US – they're not in business to look after the US public. The public are Consumers and they are Vendors.

    The Alarmist Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 8:09 am GMT

    Nah, they'll put a few more bricks in the wall, reinforce the gates, and hire more guards so they can rest well at night while bathed in the glow that they continue to advance the best interests of human-kind over the objections of the unwashed masses on the other side of the wall.

    Greg Bacon Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 8:32 am GMT

    "Are we any better off than we were 50 years ago? Absolutely . . . White dominance is on the decline as the demographic white majority heads for oblivion over the course of the next 30 years."

    Mark Potok in an August 2013 column for the white-hating SPLC. http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Mark_Potok#Quotes Us WHAMs are in the bulls eye of many a group who would like to see us join the dinosaurs.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT

    Colonel Bacevich

    There is very strong trans-species-trans phylum evidence for what is going to happen in response to betrayal-deception .and it ain't pretty as they say. Harvard biologist Robert Trivers I believe Comrade Unz mentioned that he was a research assistant for Robert Trivers at Harvard wrote a book about the biology of betrayal and revenge using a massive amount of trans-species and trans-phylum evidence-data

    So I recommend that you read Robert Triver's book I also recommend that you read the conversation betwern Noam Chomsky and Robert Trivers ..where Trivers discusses the overwhelming ethnological evidence for this which you can very easily google for

    Larger point being made by Noam Chomsky these days: White Males are dying at an historically unprecedented rate .worse than if there was a plague-epidemic at higher rate than WW2

    Donald Trump's MAGA!!! Jobs Program for Working Class Native Born White Teenage Males from economically distressed Native Born White Working Class Families from the American Heartland=a Tour of Duty on patrol with a US Army issued M-16 in Afghanistan .Iraq Syria .coming back to their Mother's as limbless freaks .human sausages .canon fodder for Donald Trump's precious Jew only Israel .

    "War is a Racket" ..as USMC General and two time Congressional Medal winner .Smedley Butler wrote over 75 years ago

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

    I'm a big fan of the late Dick Winters and 101 Airborne Easy Company Band of Brothers WW2. But I just found out recently that Easy Company members Ronald Spiers and Robert "Burr" Smith were at a high level actively involved in the destruction of Laos which was bombed back to the Stone Age by the USAF

    Interestingly Robert "Burr" Smith trained the US Army Delta Force Team that died in the Iranianian desert in 1980 .Smith avoided dying in that desert crash when the CIA yanked him out of this doomed mission at the last minute out of fear that if Smith a CIA Operative .was captured .risk of spilling the beans to the Iranians about what the CIA was up to Robert "Burr" Smith was the embodiment of "Invade the World-Invite the World with his role in the destruction of Laotian Society and his adopted Laotian teenage "son" .

    Corvinus Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 4:05 pm GMT

    @Stogumber

    "We only want to be life as easy as it was under Eisenhower (to be fair, from Truman to LBJ)."

    Nostalgia has a funny way of warping our sense of reality. Life for some people was "easy" in the 1950′s, but for a number of people, it was cold, hard, and dark.

    Wally Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT

    @Greg Bacon But then who will pay the bills?

    Another of the usual enemies of free speech & Israeli citizen, Potok, supports strict Israeli immigration laws which specify JEWS ONLY, while he demands massive 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.

    anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 5:35 pm GMT

    @Corvinus Life--has NEVER been easy!

    For anyone!

    edNels Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 5:44 pm GMT

    Interesting post, I've read it through twice, but it has complicated issues.

    WHAMs

    Wherever corporate CEOs,] . etc.etc.etc.--, [politicians, and generals congregate to pat each other on the back, you can count on WHAMs -reciting bromides about the importance of diversity!

    Important detail:

    some of my brethren - let's call them one percenters -

    YEah, SOME "brethren"! THat tiny fraction of a %point, that lives large!

    Some Brethren to the name WHAMs! they are.

    Sociopaths who some kind of way masquerade as W H A M. And what they do is done in the name of the W H A M , which is my sticking point.

    That small fraction of a %point does all the bad , and shifts the blame ( from the World!!) on to the real WHAMs, what's left of 'em, ( what's left of the White Hetero part
    of 'em, ) who aren't polluted from the social scientist/ ongoing war to turn WHAMs into WIAMPs! (White Inverted American Male/Tranny Punks.)!! That the world will hate, and eventually probably be encouraged to completely get rid of, while the fraction of the %point rides off into the sunset! Then you can see the real perverts in action!

    Anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

    @Wally Potok is an Israeli citizen? Prove it.

    Anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT

    I've been saying this for two years now:

    What happens if you get rid of Trump? The people who voted for him will most likely replace him with someone very similar in almost every way, but more competent. Probably a professional politician version of him. Is that what you want?

    Priss Factor Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 7:10 pm GMT

    On the surface, it may seem like changes took place.

    But power is firmly in hands of Deep State. Look at the continuing mess in Syria.

    Look at never-ending 'new cold war' with Russia and globalist hysteria.

    And ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs continues all over the West.

    While morons worry about Russian jets and North Korean missiles, it is Negro dongs that are destroying the white race by conquering white wombs.

    https://www.facebook.com/capitalxtra/videos/10155312936841585/

    And just when black males are emasculating white males and conquering white wombs(the source of life), what do white males have as their new faith?

    The Police Department, bastion of male power and security, is celebrating the New 'Pride' of Homo Poo-Ride.

    https://www.facebook.com/FOX5NY/videos/10155617226221320/

    In the past, babies and things used to be Christened.
    Now, they are Fruitsened.

    Sean Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 7:27 pm GMT

    Yes, in ancient Greek history Trump is analogous to the Tyrants of Athens, who were a transition from aristocratic to truly democratic rule. Of course once democracy was installed the common people of Athens demanded and got wars against a variety of enemies. Trump rise is an alarming portent. A few decades from now George W. Bush will be regarded as the last of the cautious Skull and Bones aristocrats. It is a bit silly to talk of WHAMS, as if the displacement of white gentiles is less important that open acceptance of homosexuality. It is WASPs, gay or straight, who have lost.

    restless94110 Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT

    As was said above, so many words, so little content.

    Bacevich has gone off the deep end. Truly.

    The idea that white males were sitting around lording it up with their privilege is absolutely preposterous. No white male ever has done that, and Bacevich certainly know that. Andrew? Exactly how many times in your long lifetime have you been slapping backs with other white men laughing about how great you have it because of your gender and your race?

    I'll help you out. It's zero, Andrew. You know it. I know it. We know it.

    So this writing is horseshit. Col. Bacevich, you do really great military anlysis and opinion.

    Stop with the virtual signalling fairy tales.

    As a white male nothing was ever easy. Yeah, perhaps I did not get my head beat a few times and avoided some jail. Maybe.

    And that makes how much difference in anyone's life?

    You really need to get back to the military analysis, bud. You are sounding like a lunatic with this stuff. But more than that. Dishonest.

    davidd Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 11:09 pm GMT

    I tuned out when he started saying WHAMS misguidedly didn't consider non-WHAMS in their history, which was completely rational considering before very recent times there was no reason to.

    Wally Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 11:27 pm GMT

    @Anon Seriously?
    You have got to be the thickest person at this forum.

    But then leave it to a racist Zionist to attempt to cover for another racist Zionist.

    'quotes from Gerard Menuhin: Revisionist Jew, Son of Famous Violinist'

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10013

    Anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 12:33 am GMT

    @Wally So you have no proof. Thought so.

    Funny that you use the word "racist" but claim you don't know what it means.

    Che Guava Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 12:48 am GMT

    Interesting but nowhere near your better pieces, too meandering. Although I only hit the H in the WHAM formulation you have. WHAM doesn't work on two counts.

    i. The pop band, Wham, still well-known due to pop music being in stasis, and they had one great single and a few others that tasteless people like.

    ii. H also stands for homosexual. It is funny how that word is not goodspeak in English of now, and heterosexual almost has a pejorative quality but is widely used. The sickness of western culture. The equivalent in Japanese of homosexual is used to refer to people who are, well, homosexual. The equivalent of heterosexual is just about never heard. That is not discrimination, simply that it is naturally, as it should be, seen as the norm.

    Anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT

    @restless94110 The traditional role of the white male is to support a family by bringing home the bacon; be courageous when things get rough and defend your family and friends with your blood; fix everything that's broken; build everything you need with your hands, or build the machines necessary to build everything; run everything with competence and man up and take the blame if you screw up; teach your children how to deal with life; teach people right from wrong and set the example for them to follow; create high-level science, medicine, art, physics, math, engineering, etc.

    It's a very tall order, and anyone who thinks it's easy, is a fool.

    ANON Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 2:16 am GMT

    @anonymous Do you really mean NEVER?

    What about the likes of my aunt who was the second wife of a childless mega millionaire who died when she was 38 leaving her to enjoy 50 healthy years as a rich woman until she suddenly died in her sleep?

    Backwoods Bob Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 2:43 am GMT

    The first paragraph was enough social justice warrior crap to make it unnecessary reading the rest. Yet, I did try for another five paragraphs and it's just more of the same tripe.

    Yeah, all of us stand in line and get free hand-outs. White people at the front of the line. Nobody works for what they have. Everyone has the same IQ, the same work ethic, the same adherence to law. I'm upset because the color of my skin is supposed to dictate my place in the line for free hand-outs and I am no longer at the front of the line. God what arrogant, malicious crap.

    We just went through IQ scores by country in homeschool today. My kids are muti-racial, SE Asians, who occupy the top five spots worldwide. They have the highest average income in this country, the highest academic performance, and the lowest crime rates.

    Of course, we sat around talking about their "privilege" as SE Asians and how everything is handed to them for free. How they just go up to any line and cut in front. Right? No.

    What I just did was show them your article as a perfect example of why we don't go to government school.

    We are not your "peeps" for the white blood in us and you are not some hero of ours for having the arrogance to speak for our non-white blood either.

    You are disgusting and worthy of nothing but contempt. I'm majority white, not pure blood (Seneca Indian) but don't buy into the cult of victimology where I am supposed to get job preferences, school preferences, etc. because I am quantum blood Indian. That doesn't make me an "Indian". I am an American. Our kids are Americans.

    The idea that we should knock off "whitey" because we're mixed blood, like it's "our" turn now – how nonsensical and revolting.

    Wizard of Oz Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 3:02 am GMT

    @Backwoods Bob You are obviously a slow reader but apparently handicapped in dealing with numbers too. If you had actually read "another five paragraphs" you would have read the author's "All of which is nonsense of course" at the beginning of his sixth par.

    Fortunately I didn't waste time on many of your paragraphs.

    restless94110 Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 4:36 am GMT

    @Anon The traditional role of ANY male is to support a family by bringing home the bacon, etc.

    It's just what males do, anon.

    Bacevich's idiotic virtue signaling nonsense that posits that all white males knew this and knew that. and that we all had secret meetings in the basement of the church is ridiculous.

    I've known whites who had racist views on black people. I've also known blacks who have racist views on white people.

    But even racists never had any thought that they were suddenly privileged because of their skin color and/or they were smirking about it in secret or whatever it is that this guy is claiming in his long, long, long, overly long piece.

    In other words, men did those things, anon, white ones, black one, etc.

    This white privilege stuff is just bullshit. It has to go. Andrew B., let it die it's own irrelevant death.

    Bruce Marshall Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:07 am GMT

    @Stogumber Yes if you want life as it was in the 1950′s, then you need to recognize that we got out of the Great Depression because we started to pay farmers their fair share. Today they only get 35% of the Parity Dollar, the dollar that provided for the prosperity across the nation, because it was not stolen from the producer of that which keeps us alive, literally, and literally kept the economy afloat, because it was based upon real wealth properly monetized, meaning not stolen as is the system today .but we lost that when we stopped Parity, which created earned income at sufficient levels to not have to borrow as we are now addicted .. as the "interests whose interest is interest" intend.

    Here is a letter to Trump with an important chart.

    http://normeconomics.org/parity_table_45-16eb.pdf

    [Jun 22, 2017] Americans have a blind spot on the actions of the USA. That's natural. But that blindness produces pretty idiotic comments even from commenters that are able to discuss intelligently other topics

    Jun 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    DrDick -> Paine ... , June 21, 2017 at 08:33 AM

    Also historically moronic, since China had become increasingly isolationist from the 16th century on. This is not to say that China has not been deliberately annoying their neighbors lately, especially in the South China Sea, however. Clearly China has been extending its influence, mostly economically, around the world, especially in Africa, for a couple of decades now, but I do not see this as any different from what we do in the same regions. It is certainly not nearly as troubling as what Russia has been doing under Putin.
    libezkova said in reply to DrDick... , June 21, 2017 at 09:09 PM
    Compare your viewpoint with Forbes:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/06/16/in-final-oliver-stone-interview-putin-predicts-when-russia-us-crisis-ends/


    In Final Oliver Stone Interview, Putin Predicts When Russia-US Crisis Ends

    Jun 20, 2017 | www.forbes.com

    But with Trump in the White House, the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory is one reality TV show the news media can't shake. Stone's love for foreign policy intrigue at least makes him a Putin kindred spirit here. America's age old fear of the Russians, has made Putin public enemy number one and Stone his sounding board. For some unhappy campers, like John McCain, Putin has " no moral equivalent " in the United States. He's a dictator , a war criminal and tyrant .

    "You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him.

    "Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly, "There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us."

    In the last installment of the Putin interviews, the Russian leader admitted to liking Trump. "We still like him because he wants to restore relations. Relations between the two countries are going to develop," he said. It's a sentence very few in congress would say, and almost no big name politicians outside of Trump would imagine saying on television. On Russia, you scold. There is no fig leaf.

    In a recent sanctions bill in the senate, only Republicans Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against it, making for a 97-2 landslide in favor of extra-territorial sanctions against Russian companies, namely oil and gas.

    Stone asked him why did he bother hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails if he believed nothing would change on the foreign policy front.

    STONE: Our political leadership and NATO all believe you hacked the election.

    PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie.

    They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes.

    Just then, editors cut to a video of Trump talking about Putin.

    TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't.

    PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites are always blaming the Jews.

    The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin.

    libezkova -> libezkova... , June 21, 2017 at 09:13 PM
    The point is the Americans have a blind spot on the actions of the USA.

    That's natural. But that produced pretty idiotic comments in this blog even from commenters that are able to discuss intelligently other topics.

    [Jun 22, 2017] Neocons influence on US foreign policy

    Equating critique of Israel with anti-Semitism is like equating critique of Nazi Germany with with denigrating everything German.
    Jun 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    lavoisier Website June 21, 2017 at 10:27 am GMT

    @Sam J. "...In the end, it is the American people who decide whether Israel is to be or not to be a vital American ally and friend..."

    To make informed decisions you have to have information. The American people don't have that. So they really haven't made a decision at all. They've been tricked into doing things that are covered up in lies. The American people are responsible even if they are being manipulated by the MSM.

    Too many Americans are woefully ignorant about the world, particularly about the extent that Jewish interests have manipulated so many aspects of our government and our culture. If you even bring this issue up you are immediately branded a hater and your arguments dismissed.

    In short, many Americans are happy to drink the kool aid.

    It is a much deeper problem than simply our American Pravda.

    Many of us have chosen to be blind, refusing to even consider the possibility that we are being manipulated, and in the process fail as responsible citizens.

    One can choose to be red pilled today. This is ultimately the choice to go through life with an open mind and to have a high regard for reality, however uncomfortable that reality may be.

    annamaria June 21, 2017 at 12:34 pm GMT

    @Sam J. "...The source of Jewish power in the US is their brokerage of voter bias and federal entitlements between the federal government and the public..."

    There may be a little bit of that but it's not the main reason. The main reasons are:
    1. They own practically all media in the US.
    2. They own the FED providing almost limitless cash to their preferred people.
    3. They're blackmailing huge numbers of our Representatives with little Boys and little Girls.
    4. They'll kill you if they don't get their way.

    So if you run against them in the primary you will have extremely well funded opponents and the press will savage you. If that doesn't work they will try to redistrict you out of a job. If that doesn't work they will frame or kill you like they did to Ohio Congressman James Traficant. "1. They own practically all media in the US.
    2. They own the FED providing almost limitless cash to their preferred people.
    3. They're blackmailing huge numbers of our Representatives with little Boys and little Girls.
    4. They'll kill you if they don't get their way."

    And this has been leading the States – and Israel along with the States – to the demise. The US governing institutions have lost their ability to respond to reality and instead they respond to personal desires only. Hence the approaching danger of a hot war.

    annamaria June 21, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT

    @Sam Shama

    Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television.
    Is this the one?

    http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert/video/tRfgCC966_LEXj4URvqwisoUugDosea4/oliver-stone-spent-two-years-interviewing-vladimir-putin/

    If so, you'll need to issue a retraction of your statement and all the other insinuations you derived from it. If it is not the video, I issue my apologies in advance.

    ......he was assassinated, which was a lucky break for Israel, particularly as Kennedy was replaced by the passionate Zionist Lyndon Baines Johnson.
    With this slander which others commented on earlier, it does deserve repeating emphatically, you've submerged yourself in conspiracies for reasons which appear to be occult Jew hatred impossible to contain just under the surface. It beggars belief that statement was written tongue in cheek; excessive cheek, tongue impossible to pry unstuck. An attempt at humour? Poor taste, really.
    The Israelis know what is going on all the time.
    Pure nonsense at some level. At another level, it is well-known we know more about our allies than their respective governments do and vice versa.
    ......but it also included an astonishingly large number of Democrats who describe themselves as progressive, including Corey Booker and Kamila Harris,
    So they are progressives, what of it? You fail to understand most Americans view Iranians as a nation of people which took hostage American diplomats. These congressmen are doing no more than what their constituents want.

    The readership of UR, a collection of a few excellent thinkers, overwhelmed by a larger group of lunatics, do not reflect the sentiment of the vast majority. They could not care what you or I think of Iranians. They remember Nov 1979.

    And there's still more. Bill HR 672 Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 14th.
    Antisemitism is a serious matter and it is well for it to bear scrutiny in some cases where through their actions overzealous elements[some in the judiciary] trivialise its intent. But you seem to favour an environment where mere vigilance through a bill deserves defeat. Unanimously.
    President Donald Trump traveled to the Middle East claiming to be desirous of starting serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but it was all a sham. Benjamin Netanyahu took him aside and came out with the usual Israeli bullshit about the Palestinians "inciting" violence and hatred of Jews and Trump bought into it
    It's comical to behold the "select" group which voted for Trump now complain on these pages of the UR about what the man said he was going to do from the very beginning on the Israel-Palestine issue. It is not a sham. Trump never believed the "bullshit" coming from the U.N. [a body which has over 40 Muslim and Arab members] on the contrary, attacking the solitary Jewish nation state. He required no "taking aside" by Bibi. One needn't travel to the West Bank to find Jew hatred; a few months' worth of reading your columns being quite sufficient.

    I might note in passing that there has been no Senate resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of the bravery exhibited by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty as they were being slaughtered by the Israelis at the same time as Jerusalem was being "liberated"
    Such a Senate resolution requires convincing senators of its necessity. No one is stopping anyone.

    I understand you feel Jerusalem is better in the hands of Palestinians and Arabs. We disagree.

    A gem of an article all things considered.

    "You fail to understand most Americans view Iranians as a nation of people which took hostage American diplomats."

    You feign ignorance of the USSLiberty. The American servicemen were not just hostages for Israel – American servicemen were murdered by Israelis: https://theintercept.com/2017/06/06/fifty-years-later-nsa-keeps-details-of-israels-uss-liberty-attack-secret/
    Most Americans are also aware that the US Congress has become Israel-occupied Congress, with the horrific consequences for the global insecurity.
    "Israel Has Been Secretly Funding Syrian Rebels For Years:" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/israel-has-been-secretly-funding-syrian-rebels-years
    "The Kagans Are Back; Wars to Follow:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/15/the-kagans-are-back-wars-to-follow/
    There was an enormous sympathy for Jewish victims of the WWII; the sympathy and goodwill for Israel have been completed squandered by the bloody ziocons. Only opportunists stay loyal to Israeli agenda, whereas honest people look with horror on the transformation of a victim into an amoral villain.

    [Jun 21, 2017] Good Agent, Bad Agent Robert Mueller and 9-11

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future perpetrators to the United States. ..."
    "... The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to 9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be. ..."
    "... While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention." ..."
    "... Intelligence Matters ..."
    "... Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure, will likely never be known. ..."
    "... So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility. The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency, made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil rights leaders. ..."
    www.forbes.com
    Robert Mueller, the former FBI director named special counsel for the investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election, is depicted as an iconic G-man: serious, patrician, and totally incorruptible. But in reality, it's a little different. As with FBI Agent Dale Cooper in the latest iteration of "Twin Peaks," there is a Good Mueller and a Bad Mueller. We've heard a lot about the good-guy Mueller, but nothing much about his bad side. And there is a bad side–though it's not the one that Trump supporters would have us think.

    The President's loyal minions, following a familiar pattern, have been busy building an advance smear campaign against Mueller, claiming that he has it out for the poor, innocent Donald and is determined to bring him down due to pre-existing biases. In fact, if Mueller is indeed biased, it is toward preserving the institutions of government, including the White House, as well as his beloved FBI, even at the expense of making public the full truth. At least, that's how he behaved the last time he was involved in a major national crisis–namely, the attacks of September 11, 2001.

    Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future perpetrators to the United States.

    The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to 9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be.

    Among other things, the Joint Inquiry learned of the involvement of a paid FBI informant with two of the future hijackers: Khalid Al Mindhar, who had fought for Al Qaeda in Bosnia and Chechnya and trained in Bin Laden's Afghan training camps, and Nawaf Al Hazmi, who had battle experience in Bosnia, Chechyna, and Afghanistan. According to the Joint Inquiry report, the NSA and CIA at the time had available enough information to connect the two men with Osama Bin Laden.

    The CIA, however, failed to share its information with the FBI, and did not place the two men on any watch lists. So Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi flew to Los Angeles in early 2000 (shortly after attending an Al Qaeda summit in Malaysia), and were routinely admitted into the United States on tourist visas. They traveled to San Diego, where they got Social Security cards, credits cards, and driver licenses, and bought a car, as well as a season pass to Sea World. They soon began taking flight lessons. They also had contact with a radical imam and a local Saudi national who were both being watched by the FBI. And they actually rented a room in the home of Abdusattar Shaikh, who was a retired English professor, a leader of the local mosque–and a paid informant for the FBI's San Diego office, charged with monitoring the city's Saudi community.

    As the Joint Inquiry report would reveal, by mid-2001 U.S. intelligence agencies had ample evidence of possible terrorist plans to use hijacked airplanes as bombs, but had done little to act on this threat. In July 2001, the CIA had passed on the names of Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi to the FBI office in New York–though not the office in San Diego. Shaikh had apparently done nothing to warn the Bureau about any possible danger from his tenants. And no one had warned the airlines or the FAA not to let these men get on planes. So on the morning of September 11, Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi boarded American Airlines Flight 77 at Dulles Airport and helped crash it into the Pentagon.

    While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention."

    Yet in testimony before the Joint Inquiry on June 18, 2002, FBI director Mueller said, that "while here [in America] the hijackers effectively operated without suspicion, triggering nothing that would have alerted law enforcement and doing nothing that exposed them to domestic coverage." There is no way of knowing whether Mueller was lying or just ignorant.

    Subsequently, Senator Graham set out to subpoena the informant to testify before the Joint Inquiry. The FBI refused to cooperate, blocked the Inquiry's efforts to interview the informant, and it appears to have arranged for a private attorney to represent him. Despite insisting that the informant had done nothing wrong, the Bureau at one point suggested the Inquiry give him immunity, which Graham refused to do.

    As Graham would later describe in is book Intelligence Matters, the FBI also "insisted that we could not, even in the most sanitized manner, tell the American people that an FBI informant had a relationship with two of the hijackers." The Bureau opposed public hearings on the subject and deleted any references to the situation from drafts of the Joint Inquiry's unclassified report. It took more than a year for the Bureau allow a version of the story to appear in the public report, and even then it was heavily redacted.

    Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure, will likely never be known.

    So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility. The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency, made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil rights leaders.

    What does all this bode for the current moment? Normally, it would seem that Mueller's instinct would be to try to preserve some semblance of the current order, up to and including the presidency. But with Trump now locked in a knock down drag out struggle with the intelligence agencies–what some people like to call "the Deep State"–Mueller and his intelligence cronies may find it in the best interests of the status quo–and, of course, themselves–to throw the President under the bus and one way Mueller could do so is by cutting some sort of deal with Congress, specifically with the legislature's true power broker, Mitch McConnell, to turn on Trump and run him out of office.

    As Agent Cooper said of his own famous investigation into the death of Laura Palmer, "I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange."

    Note: More detail, and complete sources, on the FBI informant scandal and the Joint Inquiry's investigation can be found in my book The 5 Unanswered Questions About 9/11.

    [Jun 21, 2017] The CIAs principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up support for war with Russia.

    Jun 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RGC

    , June 21, 2017 at 06:44 AM
    The New York Times steps up its anti-Russia campaign
    21/06/2017

    The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up support for war with Russia.
    ....................

    Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine investigation by journalists. Instead, the main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists of taking dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not a single case did these officials offer evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases like "we assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than previous assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war that has killed more than one million people.

    http://www.defenddemocracy.press/the-new-york-times-steps-up-its-anti-russia-campaign/

    RGC -> RGC... , June 21, 2017 at 06:47 AM
    Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul Buck Party Consensus on Russia and Iran Sanctions


    Investigative journalist Max Blumenthal explains that these sanctions punish Russia and Iran and unnecessarily intensifies the conflict between the US and these countries

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19337

    sanjait -> RGC... , June 21, 2017 at 10:55 AM
    Dead wrong about Bernie:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-russia-blackmail-links-vladimir-putin-nice-things-democratic-senator-a7647546.html

    Nice try though!

    RGC -> sanjait... , June 21, 2017 at 11:26 AM
    Thursday, June 15, 2017

    WASHINGTON, June 15 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday after he voted against a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran and Russia:

    "I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."

    https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-iran-and-russia-sanctions

    anne -> RGC... , June 21, 2017 at 07:25 AM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/mr-trumps-dangerous-indifference-to-russia.html

    June 17, 2017

    Mr. Trump's Dangerous Indifference to Russia

    anne -> anne... , June 21, 2017 at 01:21 PM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/mr-trumps-dangerous-indifference-to-russia.html

    June 17, 2017

    Mr. Trump's Dangerous Indifference to Russia

    A rival foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election and leaving every indication that it's coming back for more - but President Trump doesn't seem to care.

    The unprecedented nature of Russia's attack is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent weeks, but it shouldn't be. American intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia took direct aim at the integrity of American democracy, and yet after almost five months in office, the commander in chief appears unconcerned with that threat to our national security. The only aspect of the Russia story that attracts his attention is the threat it poses to the perceived legitimacy of his electoral win.

    If not for the continuing investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians - and whether Mr. Trump himself has obstructed that investigation - the president's indifference would be front-page news.

    So let's take a moment to recall the sheer scope and audacity of the Russian efforts.

    Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email accounts of...

    ilsm -> anne... , June 21, 2017 at 04:22 PM
    Not to worry Trump is doing all Obama did and more to sell Syria to al Qaeda.

    Too busy keeping the Wahhabis happy to want to mess with Russia over a few millions Balts' desires.

    The US is not offering the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts it is already committed to the Wahhabis.

    anne -> anne... , June 21, 2017 at 01:24 PM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/mr-trumps-dangerous-indifference-to-russia.html

    Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email accounts of...

    [ Interesting passage. ]

    Paine -> RGC... , June 21, 2017 at 08:45 AM
    Why critique this campaign against Russia
    As if the kremlin may to have interfered and even collaborated with trump operatives to do it

    Anything less would be dereliction of duty by a great powers leadership

    Point out the motivation

    Which is indeed a new forward policy on Russian containment by the deep state
    As we now call the corporate planted cultivated and coddled security apparatus
    With its various media cut thrus cut outs and compadres

    Yes the NYT and the WP

    Both are working with the deep state
    Once called the invisible government
    Much as they have in he past

    Why I like he color revolution analogy

    These media titans are working with the DS
    Because they want to topple trump like they wanted to topple Nixon
    And to a lesser extent wobble Reagan

    Paine -> Paine ... , June 21, 2017 at 08:47 AM
    Typo hazard

    Russia is obviously tampering as much as optimal

    Nothing new

    Hence my suggesting putin is jut acting like all great powers must act to be great powers

    ilsm -> Paine ... , June 21, 2017 at 04:23 PM
    It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts.

    Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague!

    Paine -> ilsm... , June 21, 2017 at 04:37 PM

    Indeed
    anne -> Paine ... , June 21, 2017 at 09:08 AM
    Important, incisive perspective or argument, but a direction seldom taken. A Cold War sort of atmosphere makes us wary of using any such argument, and we have been forming a Cold War environment for several years now. This atmosphere by the way involves the way in which China is generally regarded, and I believe colors economic analysis even among academics.

    [Jun 21, 2017] Yugoslavia was just another color revolution, planed and supported by usual suspects

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the EU had insisted they would take Yugoslavia as a whole and not in parts Yugoslavia very likely would still exist. Ustascha fascists were exiled in Germany and there were a lot of cold war connections with German/US secret services. ..."
    "... Yugoslavia was a working country until the CIA started sowing divisions between ethnies and religions. it took a few years of firebombing churches and then mosques, and sending mortar shells into markets and setting snipers to shoot to involve every facet of yugoslavian life. ..."
    "... So it is not as some pretend that Yugos were looking for divorce. The CIA as usual looked for the misfits in Yugoslavia and led them towards the destruction of the country. ..."
    "... BND is not stupid and weapons were supplied. Genscher claimed in later interviews that they had to protect Croatia and Slovenia from Milosevic "Greater Serbia" aspirations. ..."
    "... Mr. Separovic said the West would have a moral and legal obligation to aid Croatia. 'It's Not a Gamble' ..."
    "... Same countries now supporting Ukraine to retake Donezk. ..."
    Jun 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    somebody | Jun 19, 2017 4:46:00 PM | 61
    Being a witness of the developments in ex-YU, I have to add my opinion regarding OT discussion.

    Yugoslavia was just another color revolution, planed and supported by usual suspects (MI6, CIA, ...). They had found (created) couple of useful idiots, Milošević in Serbia, Tuđman in Croatia, and Izetbegović in Bosnia, and encouraged them to create nationalist movements in their republics which eventually teared apart the country. Haven't we seen this tactic ever before, or since?! Powers to be did not like powerful, independent, socialist, not to much indebted country in the Europe since it was not good example for the wage slaves around the world, since they could start thinking that free education, health care, apartments, jobs for life, passport without visa accepted almost anywhere, ... is the human right! Does Libya ring a bell?

    All this happened between 1989 - 1995 when Yugoslavia was dismembered. What was created after that was rump YU, and should have been actually called Greater Serbia, since it was made up of only 2 (Serbia & Montenegro), out of 6 ex-YU republics. NATO bombed it in 1999 for the same reason they bombed Sadam's Iraq - they did not have any more use for their useful idiot Milošević. Both of them played their roles very good, and at the end they were awarded with a noose around their necks. And we, citizens of ex-YU, were just collateral damage, neither first nor last time in our history.

    hopehely | Jun 19, 2017 4:20:28 PM | 57

    My impression was that the industrial prosperous parts Slovenia, Croatia did not wish to pay for Albanians and the EU - Germany - Genscher - tried to cherrypick the desirable parts .

    If the EU had insisted they would take Yugoslavia as a whole and not in parts Yugoslavia very likely would still exist. Ustascha fascists were exiled in Germany and there were a lot of cold war connections with German/US secret services.

    CarlD | Jun 19, 2017 4:58:27 PM | 62
    @57

    Yugoslavia was a working country until the CIA started sowing divisions between ethnies and religions. it took a few years of firebombing churches and then mosques, and sending mortar shells into markets and setting snipers to shoot to involve every facet of yugoslavian life.

    The US itself is composed of many faces each with its own aspiration and interpretation of the pursuit of happiness. Yet it is not breaking up. Belgium is split along linguistic fractures but is still a country. Very few countries have the uniformity of Japan and yet, they stick together.

    So it is not as some pretend that Yugos were looking for divorce. The CIA as usual looked for the misfits in Yugoslavia and led them towards the destruction of the country.

    No country is unsusceptible to fracture. Once it is deeply researched ( as per Mormon missionaries) the Empire knows exactly whom to call and to what deeds.

    One of the greatest illustrations of this is the Libya of Muammar Ghaddafi, a country whose citizens had everything they could hope for. No state gave so much to its citizens. Yet there were enough susceptible souls to start demos and marches and enough snipers to sow hatred. The rest is History. We came, we saw, he died, ha! ha! ha!

    Madeline was happy to destroy Yugoslavia and took particular relish in severing Kosovo from it.

    Whereas Crimea used to be attached to Russia since Catherine the Great, and was bestowed to Ukraine (then a member of the USSR) by Nikita (hisself an Ukrainian). It was just a symbolic gesture as the Ukraine and Russia were united at the time and most citizens were of russian Stock.

    So, the Empire ( the US and its lapdogs) did split Yugoslavia into smaller entities along ethnic and religious fractures.

    It was not a spontaneous divorce as some would like to paint it.

    anonymous | Jun 19, 2017 7:00:36 PM | 79
    @57

    "And you are all wrong. NATO did not break Yugoslav Federation."

    West Germany did (secretly) provide large scale military assistance to the Interior Ministry (secret police) of Croatia as a part of a wider policy of championing and preparing Croatian succession in early 1990. Germany's mass media made it an essential post-Cold War issue in Europe. The United States sent officials to Slovenia (I think it was the Vice President or Secretary of State) to guarantee 'American non-involvement' to Slovenia's parliament if Slovenia (illegally) seceded.

    "The member states (republics) did it because no one wanted it any more"

    Polls (whatever is the European equivalent to Gallup) in the spring of 1990 found the majority of every Republic (including Croatia) supported federal elections, which separate polls showed would have resulted in the electoral victory of a nationally popular, ethnically mixed, and centrist Yugoslav candidate (I'm forgetting his name)

    "(except perhaps Bosnia)."

    Serbia and Montenegro as well.

    "No one was happy the way the federation worked, and each of the member states had completely incompatible ideas how to make it work.
    Serbia wanted a strong centralized federation with 'one person one vote' principle applied throughout the country."

    Polls in early 1990 showed this was supported by a clear majority of every Republic. When federal elections were put up for a federal consensus vote between all of the Republics (twice in a month), Croatia and Slovenia jointly vetoed the resolution twice.

    "Croatia wanted a loose confederation, in which Serbia cannot impose its will based of being the largest and the most populous one."

    Croatia was okay, however, with illegally seceding from Yugoslavia (without a federally mandated consensus vote on the succession) and using its clear majority to 'dominate' the Serbian majority in Krajina.

    "Montenegro was a Serbia lapdog."

    Ally is a more objective word.

    "Slovenia just wanted to get out, they were fed up with the primitive and backward 'Bosnians', how they called all the rest of us."

    Slovenian and Croatian successionism were rooted in the same historical position (1968-1974, mass economic protests in their respective capitals and subsequent constitutional reform): the federal subsidy program assisting the general development of Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro were cutting into their own Republic's tax revenue (GDP) and hampering their long-term capital investments (and regional alliances with Western Europe). This was the material basis for Slovene-Croat 'nationalism.'

    "Macedonia, well nobody gave a hoot what they wanted."

    Unfortunate.

    "Serbian nationalists just wanted to annex her, together with Bosnia and 70% of Croatia to make Greater Serbia."

    This is mixing together drastically differing Serbian opinions to muddy the waters. There were nationalists in Serbia's parliament who wanted to 'annex' areas outside of Serbian majority areas in Bosnia and Croatia, but it wasn't a majority opinion, and there isn't any evidence of a plan. Serbian parliamentary opinion and popular opinion was the same in Serbia and Bosnia: hold popular referendums and mutually secede. Bosnia would lose Croatian and Serbian majority areas and mixed areas would be settled with either local agreements or inter-state border concessions. Bosnian Serbs themselves held a popular referendum in November of 1991 (after Bosnian Muslim-Croat Parties voted for a secessionist resolution of a Unitarian Bosnia in the Bosnian parliament in October). There was even a self-recognized border including only Serbian majority areas. If the Bosnian Muslim President hadn't withdrawn from the Lisbon Accords (which he did because the U.S. Ambassador to Yugoslavia guaranteed European-American recognition of a Unitarian Bosnia and American 'internationalization' of the conflict if Lisbon was scuttled, Bosnia unilaterally seceded, and war broke out) or seceded in April of 1992 without including these areas (and if Europe and the United States recognized Bosnian Serb succession from Bosnia), there could have been a settlement to discuss.

    "Croat Nazis wanted to annex Bosnia too, to make Greater Croatia."

    Croatia wanted to 'annex' Croatian majority areas. The majority of Bosnian Croats wanted to live in Croatia without being forced from their homes. Bosnia wanted a Unitarian State in which Islamic Government and Virtues would be 'educated to' (imposed on) Croatian and Serbian minorities (who were majorities in most of their own areas).

    "No wonder Bosnia wanted to keep Yugoslavia as it was. With such a fine neighbors, who can blame them."

    People need to stop romanticizing reactionary Islamic Governments like Bosnia.

    Quadriad | Jun 19, 2017 9:52:37 PM | 90
    "The Kosovo War part of the Wars of the Yugoslavian Succession can be more correctly characterised as a NATO production. The conflation of the Yugoslav wars and the Kosovo war leads to the misunderstanding."

    Very well said.

    But don't forget that Milosevic wiggled up to the top of the Serbian power pyramid preisely due to the Kosovo problem in the first place, in 1980s.

    Also, lest we forget that all other Republics including the "poor Bosnia" signed off on Milosevic' usage of Yugoslav troops on the streets of Belgrade to quash the anti-Milosevic riots on the 9th of March 1991.

    So, in effect, all other republics nationalists, including Alija Izetbegovic, directly enabled Milosevic' reign in Serbia to continue just months prior to the outbreak of open hostility in Slovenia and then Croatia.

    The simple truth is that they were all ex-Communist, neo-Fascist Chetniks, Ustashas and Balijas.

    Once a commie, always an autocrat.

    sejomoje | Jun 20, 2017 12:46:46 AM | 96
    OT but the Bosnian issue seems to suffer the fate of happening in pre-internet-forum times. There is a substantial, now multi-generational refugee population, because of the US's need to be seen as a White Knight, and of course the tax breaks and other incentives involved with White-Knighting. No educated expat Bosnians I know were happy with Madeline Albright's "help". They all know that NATO is evil. They all know NATO escalated the situation, on purpose. They all know that Milosevic was indeed a thug, in spite of his "useful idiotness" to whichever opposition story one chooses to believe. They all know the reality of hiding from death squads, losing their quaint hometowns, centuries of geneology, infrastructure, for "the greater good".

    There has been a rebranding of Bosnians as "militant" useful Muslims, in recent history. It's all bullshit. The Bosnians can be best described as proud country folk, far from fundamentalist in the Islamic sense. Useful idiots? Only to the thinktank-minded.

    ToivoS | Jun 20, 2017 1:05:32 AM | 101
    anonymous | Jun 19, 2017 7:00:36 PM | 79

    Good point. The breakup of Yugoslavia was orchestrated from West Germany. Genscher was the man who led that policy. Bush I and SoS Baker were taken off guard when Germany suddenly recognized the independence of Slovenia. The CIA had little to do with any of that though once the civil war broke out they became thoroughly involved. It was Bill Clinton who led US policy towards blaming Serbia for the mess and breaking that state.

    Kψn | Jun 20, 2017 1:39:16 AM | 104
    Almost universally amongst post-Yugo war diaspora acquaintances of all the ethnic groups is the narrative that they feel cheated and used by their own 'elites'. That the war was hyped up by local potentates that saw an opportunity to enrich and empower themselves in a divided Yugoslavia. Some of these acquaintances are honest enough to admit that they themselves were at times swept along by this orchestrated hate.

    Amongst the pre-Yugo war diaspora (emigres to N.America) I have encountered no such introspection. They are and were always filled with nationalist and xenophobic hatred of their fellow Yugoslavians.

    somebody | Jun 20, 2017 3:01:59 AM | 115
    Posted by: hopehely | Jun 20, 2017 2:41:19 AM | 113

    Yugoslavia was not part of the Soviet Block. So 1989 was not the issue. I agree with Kψn | 110 - the narrative is greedy local politicians turning people against each other. But these politicians react the way they think the wind blows. The wind blowing was EU membership for some without the others.

    The most likely scenario is the US pressuring Europe/Germany to extend the EU to South Eastern Europe and yes, 1989 was the trigger there.
    This for Germany is a huge issue - see Greece - as there is a paying and a receiving EU membership plus free movement means you import cultural and religious diversity. So Germany could see a profit from Slovenia and Croatia but not from Kosovo.

    somebody | Jun 20, 2017 3:27:26 AM | 116
    You get a pretty good overview of external forces tearing Yugoslavia apart here .
    "We discovered later that [German foreign minister] Genscher had been in daily contact with the Croatian Foreign Minister. He was encouraging the Croats to leave the federation and declare independence, while we and our allies, including the Germans [sic], were trying to fashion a joint approach."
    Kψn | Jun 20, 2017 3:44:34 AM | 117
    @114 @115 etc
    I think we can neatly round this Yugo OT back into the main subject here.

    The Wars of the Yugoslavian Succession are in many ways recent history. But it is not trivial history because their significance goes far beyond simply the former Yugoslavia. The modern geopolitical monster that is NATO was largely born out of the Yugoslavian wars. Pre 1991 NATO was still largely a military alliance with a main objective of fighting a large land war with the Soviet Union. It was through the Yugo wars that NATO developed and found itself a new raison d'etre and up through the Kosovo war honed techniques that it still uses to this day in Syria and many other places.

    If we posit the counterfactual that local Yugoslavian politicians and elites combined with emigre anti-Communist nationalist Yugoslavians and reckless German foreign diplos had not started a Yugo war. Then NATO would be very different to what it is today. If NATO was very different then the geopolitical world would be very very very different.

    To give a little example. Denmark, though a longstanding member of NATO, was until the mid90's militarily committed philosophically to peacekeeping usually under the UN. But through an incident called bψllebank in Yugoslavia came to the conclusion that the Danish military should be and could be acting aggressively all around the world in the name of the 'good guys'. This was extended to eager and unquestioning participation in Kosovo and subsequently Afghanistan and Iraq. All that was needed was that Washington pointed out who the 'bad guys' were and NATO would happily start the bloodletting. And little old Denmark could now be one of the tough guys and could right the wrongs of the world by shooting and bombing lots of people.
    The Yugoslav war provided a process through which Denmark in the context of NATO could be transformed from an almost pacifist power to an overtly belligerent one. This same process worked on the USA, the UK, and all of the NATO members. The modern NATO principle of salvation by bombing was born in Yugoslavia, the same principle the Americans and their NATO allies are trying to apply today in Syria. Without a Yugoslav war, I don't think there would be Norwegian troops in AlTanf today.

    It has recently been revealed that in fact the whole 'bψllebank' incident was largely made up by some overzealous Danish soldiers who wanted some 'action' and some promotions.

    somebody | Jun 20, 2017 5:09:55 AM | 127
    BND is not stupid and weapons were supplied. Genscher claimed in later interviews that they had to protect Croatia and Slovenia from Milosevic "Greater Serbia" aspirations.

    The New York Times in 1991

    ZAGREB, Yugoslavia, Dec. 11- As expectations grow here that Germany will soon recognize Croatia, leaders of the republic say they assume the step will be followed by arms shipments or even Western military intervention to help in their uphill battle against the Yugoslav National Army.

    But officers serving with the European Community mission in Croatia said on Tuesday that German recognition could well prompt the Serb-dominated army to take more territory before Croatia imports better weapons.

    The military observers said German recognition, which is expected to be followed by that of Austria and perhaps some other European countries, would also ignite open warfare in Bosnia-Hercegovina, the ethnically divided republic that has until now maintained a fragile peace between its populations of Serbs, Croats and Muslims.

    From the beginning of the Yugoslav conflict, the outgunned Croatians have sought to portray themselves to the world as victims, a strategy born largely of necessity. Their national guard has fought a defensive struggle against the combined forces of the Yugoslav National Army and Serb irregulars, losing about one-third of Croatia's territory.

    In recent months, Croatia's pleas for help have found increasing resonance in Europe, particularly in Germany, where Government leaders have promised to recognize Croatia by Christmas. The European Community has criticized the Serbs, imposing economic sanctions only against Serbia and its allied republic of Montenegro.

    In an interview, Zvonimir Separovic, Croatia's Foreign Minister, spelled out his government's hopes for help that he assumes will come after European powers accept the breakaway republics of the Yugoslav federation as independent countries. "After recognition, Slovenia and Croatia will be exactly the same as Kuwait in the Persian Gulf crisis," Mr. Separovic insisted. "Aggression is not supposed to pay."

    Mr. Separovic said the West would have a moral and legal obligation to aid Croatia. 'It's Not a Gamble'

    Same countries now supporting Ukraine to retake Donezk.

    somebody | Jun 20, 2017 5:23:33 AM | 129
    This here is a main stream German source that probably comes close to the truth
    Der Balkankrieg war noch nicht ausgebrochen, da stellte im Mai 1991 ein Mitarbeiter von Auίenminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in einer Analyse fest: "Slowenen und Kroaten sind es leid, Zahlmeister fόr einen stagnierenden und perspektivlosen Wirtschaftsverbund zu sein. Es geht vor allem um einen Kampf der Marktwirtschaft gegen zentralistische Kommandowirtschaft, von demokratischem Pluralismus gegen Einparteienherrschaft, von Rechtsstaatlichkeit gegen militδrische Repression." Der Gegner hieί Belgrad, hieί Prδsident Slobodan Milosevic. Das Papier empfahl eine Abkehr von der Brόsseler Status-quo-Politik: "Wir sollten uns deshalb Verδnderungen der heute bestehenden Grenzen im φstlichen Europa nicht kategorisch entgegenstellen."

    Brief English summary: The war had not yet begun when a paper of the German exterior ministry stated that Slovenia and Croatia did not want to be held back from realizing free market reforms by the rest of the Yugoslav states. The paper recommended to change from EU status quo policies - "we should not refuse changes in today's Eastern Europe borders."

    LXV | Jun 20, 2017 5:52:12 AM | 131
    @somebody - 123 & 127

    "Breaking Yugoslavia - Western agencies and the destabilisation of Yugoslavia"

    "Another Side of the Pope: John Paul II's Balkan Legacy"

    It's all too well documented, now all that humanity needs is a renewal of the Nurnberg trials (only this time INCLUDING the real fascist masterminds). Though, in order for that to happen The Fourth Reich must first be militarily defeated...

    somebody | Jun 20, 2017 8:28:48 AM | 136
    131 Actually you can trace back Yugoslav breakup to 1990 and US economic sanctions

    New York Times from November 1990: Evolution in Europe Yugoslavia Seen Breaking Up Soon

    Late last month, the House and Senate passed an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriation law that bars any United States loans or credits for Yugoslavia unless the assistance is directed to a republic "which has held free and fair elections and which is not engaged in systematic abuse of human rights."

    The legislation was fueled mainly by members of Congress who desire to penalize Serbia for its repression of the Kosovo Albanians.

    I do wonder what the consequences of US Russia and Iran sanctions will be. Europea business will have to jump the fence?

    Noirette | Jun 20, 2017 12:18:36 PM | 149
    It the EU had insisted they would take Yugoslavia as a whole and not in parts Yugoslavia very likely would still exist .somebody at 61 . Yes, have thought that, but who knows.

    Toivos @ 101: The breakup of Yugoslavia was orchestrated from West Germany. Genscher was the man who led that policy. Bush I and SoS Baker were taken off guard when Germany suddenly recognized the independence of Slovenia.

    Yes..... Croatia maybe in 1st place, more important imho? or at least the two (link is just msm) Here in Switz it was ALL about Croatia, huge deal.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/24/world/slovenia-and-croatia-get-bonn-s-nod.html

    Will not fight. Will not fight. (about the US <-> Syria.) Grieved at 97.

    Sounds like Beckett ;) Correct. Because these games of chicken are empty. Provocations that aren't because the illusory assumption is that the US in any case rules the roost, provocations are not pointed to a particular effect, riposte, reaction, it is all no matter (or pretty much so), in any case if locally, mildly vanquised, one retreats while declaring victory or perhaps even a 'stalemate' or 'negotiations' etc. The US is not fighting any wars to win anything like bigly territory or ressources or new slaves, women, commercial secrets, control of nodes (air hubs, water-ways, passage points, etc.) or for that matter territory, it is just keeping the MIC and home repression, scaremongering, going for now that is interesting, whom / what exactly? And why, to what purpose? Who benefits? (one pov amongst many.)

    [Jun 21, 2017] If I see an article from Wapo or NYT or any of the other "msm", I don't read it. I stopped watching ANY tv, and exclusively read those who didn't lie about Iraq 2003

    Jun 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    lavoisier June 21, 2017 at 10:14 am GMT

    @Pissedoffalese

    Disgusted "liberal". Am I even a "liberal" anymore? I loathe the I-word and the J-word now with a purple passion. If I see an article from Wapo or NYT or any of the other "msm", I don't read it. I stopped watching ANY tv, and exclusively read those who didn't lie about Iraq 2003. What the hell AM I? I despise Republicans, but the Dems didn't oppose their wars. Now I despise the Dems, and the right-wingnuts are starting to make sense. Is this cognitive dissonance? Bizzaro-world? I am one CONFUSED puppy.

    Thank you PG Thoughtful comment.

    The Democrats are every bit as much on board with the wars and the destruction of the working class as are the Republicans.

    Where are the respectable liberals in this country?

    I despise Democrats as you despise Republicans.

    Now I despise them both. I have little loyalty for my government and do not trust anything that they do.

    Our Republic is on life support.

    [Jun 21, 2017] Russiagate is a new policy of Russian containment by the deep state

    Notable quotes:
    "... It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! ..."
    "... Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere. ..."
    "... Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live? ..."
    Jun 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova -> Paine ... June 21, 2017 at 08:45 AM

    "[Russiagate] is indeed a new forward policy on Russian containment by the deep state"

    I agree. Very precisely formulated. thank you --

    Paine June 21, 2017 at 08:06 PM

    Russia is obviously tampering as much as optimal

    Nothing new

    Hence my suggesting putin is jut acting like all great powers must act to be great powers

    ilsm Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 08:47 AM

    It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! Reply Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 04:23 PM

    Paine -> ilsm... June 21, 2017 at 04:37 PM

    Indeed

    libezkova -> Paine ...

    "Hence my suggesting Putin is just acting like all great powers must act to be great powers "

    Wrong. Putin actually has some respect for UN. Unlike Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Trump. American exceptionalism is pretty toxic thing that poison the US foreign policy. Something like far right movements poison discourse in their respective countries.

    Putin slept over Obama/Nuland gambit in Ukraine. And Russia paid a huge price for that. Less then Ukrainians (who are now experiencing Central African level of poverty) but still huge.

    I think he should resist US imperial advances (sugarcoated as "export of democracy") more strongly. But that's just me.

    https://toinformistoinfluence.com/2017/06/05/transcript-putin-interview-with-megyn-kelly-of-nbc-news/

    President of Russia Vladimir Putin: They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. I have not once seen any direct proof of Russia's interference in the presidential election in the USA.

    We have talked about it with former president Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence.

    When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it.

    I have already told you, and I can say it again, that today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.

    Modern technology is very sophisticated and subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid of all the illusions. That's one thing. The other thing is that I am deeply convinced that no interference from the outside, in any country, even a small one, let alone in such a vast and great power as the United States, can influence the final outcome of the elections. It is not possible. Ever.

    Megyn Kelly: But the other side says is it was only 70,000 votes that won Trump the election, and therefore influencing 70,000 people might not have been that hard.

    Vladimir Putin: The Constitution of the United States and the electoral legislation are structured in such a way that more electors can vote for a candidate who is backed by fewer voters. And such situations do occur in the history of the United States. True, isn't it?

    Therefore, if we were to discuss some kind of political and social justice, then probably that electoral legislation needs to be changed and bring a situation where the head of state would be elected by direct secret ballot and so there will be direct tabulation of votes that can be easily monitored. That's all there is to it. And there will be no need for those who have lost the elections to point fingers and blame their troubles on anybody.

    Now, if we turn this page over, I will tell you something that you most likely know about. I don't want to offend anyone, but the United States, everywhere, all over the world, is actively interfering in electoral campaigns in other countries. Is this really news to you?

    Just talk to people but in such a way (to the extent it is possible for you) so as to convince them that you're not going to make it public. Point your finger to any spot on the world's map, everywhere you'll hear complaints that American officials interfere in their political domestic processes.

    Therefore, if someone, and I am not saying that it's us (we did not interfere), if anybody does influence in some way or attempts to influence or somehow participates in these processes, then the United States has nothing to be offended by. Who is talking? Who is taking offense that we are interfering? You yourselves interfere all the time.

    Megyn Kelly: That sounds like a justification.

    Vladimir Putin: It does not sound like justification. It sounds like a statement of fact. Each action invites appropriate counteraction, but, again, we don't need to do that because I did not tell you this without a reason, both you personally and other members of the media, recently I was in France and I said the same things.

    Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere.

    Megyn Kelly: You had said for months that Russia had nothing to do with the interference of the American election, and then this week you floated the idea of patriotic hackers doing it. Why the change and why now?

    Vladimir Putin: It's just that the French journalists asked me about those hackers, and just like I told them, I can tell you, that hackers may be anywhere. They may be in Russia, in Asia, in America, in Latin America. There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy.

    There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. Now, the candidate for the Democratic Party, is this candidate universally beloved in the United States? Was it such a popular person? That candidate, too, had political opponents and rivals.

    Megyn Kelly: Let's move on. A special counsel has been appointed to investigate contacts between your government and the Trump campaign. You have said that your ambassador Kislyak was just doing his job. Right? So, what exactly was discussed in those meetings?

    Vladimir Putin: There were no sessions. You see, there were no sessions. When I saw that my jaw dropped.

    Megyn Kelly: No meetings between Ambassador Kislyak and anybody from the Trump campaign?

    Vladimir Putin: No clue. I am telling you honestly. I don't know. That's an ambassador's every day, routine work. Do you think, an ambassador from any place in the world or from the US reports to me daily as to whom he meets with and what they discuss? It's just absurd. Do you even understand what you are asking me?

    Megyn Kelly: Well, you're his boss.

    Vladimir Putin: Listen, his boss is the foreign minister. Do you think I have the time to talk to our ambassadors all over the world every day? This is nonsense. Don't you understand that this is just some kind of nonsense. I don't even know with whom he met there. Had there been something out of the ordinary, something remarkable he of course would have advised the minister and the minister would have informed me. Nothing of that happened.

    ... ... ...

    Megyn Kelly: Many Americans hear the name, Vladimir Putin. And they think, "He runs a country full of corruption, a country in which journalists, who are too critical, could wind up murdered, a country in which dissidents could wind up in jail or worse." To people who believe that, what is your message?

    Vladimir Putin: I want to say that Russia is developing along a democratic path, this is without question so. No one should have any doubts about that. The fact that, amidst political rivalry and some other domestic developments, we see things happen here that are typical of other countries, I do not see anything unusual in it.

    We have rallies, opposition rallies. And people here have the right to express their point of view. However, if people, while expressing their views, break the current legislation, the effective law in place, then of course, the law enforcement agencies try to restore order.

    I am calling your attention to something that I discussed recently when on a trip to France and in my discussions with other European colleagues. Our police force, fortunately, so far, do not use batons, tear gas or any other extreme measures of instilling order, something that we often see in other countries, including in the United States.

    Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live?

    We are ready to listen to our partners, ready to listen to appraisals and assessments when it is done in a friendly manner, in order to establish contacts and create a common atmosphere and dedicate ourselves to shared values. But we absolutely will not accept when such things are used as a tool of political struggle. I want everybody to know that. This is our message.

    [Jun 21, 2017] An Assault on Language Extremism by Gregory Barrett

    Notable quotes:
    "... The wealthy and powerful forces which control both of those influential centers in the formation of public opinion were desperate to regain control of the narrative, which has been slipping away from them at an increasing velocity since the advent of social media, and since the parallel growth of a broad spectrum of information networks with absolutely no interest in currying favor with the mighty, or in defending the status quo. ..."
    "... As soon as the term "Fake News" appeared, Barack Obama pounced on it, and in a joint appearance in 2016 with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, used his worldwide microphone and bully pulpit – if only he had done so occasionally to sound the alarm about the approaching environmental crisis, or to express outrage about racism or police brutality, or to challenge war profiteers! – to announce his deep concern that "Fake News" was making it "difficult to govern" (for more on this and the struggle against corporate/government presstitute propaganda, see my article "Hope Is Our Enemy: Fighting Boiling Frog Syndrome"). ..."
    "... This clumsy and panicky maneuver has deservedly met with far less success than Obama's incredibly successful propaganda sally against Russia and Vladimir Putin, which has captivated the paranoid fantasies of many millions of Americans and Europeans who desperately want to believe that NATO countries are virtuous and innocent, and are threatened by ruthless and aggressive foreigners who are responsible for the spreading chaos in the West. ..."
    "... As one of his final acts in office, President Chameleon slapped new sanctions on Russia and deported Russian diplomats: after eight years, his transformation from Nobel Laureate and supposed apostle of peace to McCarthyite New Cold Warrior was complete, and vast numbers of angry Hillaroids were quickly on board the Blame Russia Express, full of self-righteous anger and the conviction that someone had stolen the election and that the usual suspects were obviously the guilty party. ..."
    "... Things haven't gone so well for the "Fake News" campaign, however. Too many people could and can see disturbing patterns that ring true, if they spend enough time looking at truthful, objective analysis of the world around us, and there is quite a lot of it available via the internet. ..."
    "... More people are spending more and more time on the internet and social media, where presstitute media lose the natural advantages they once had in a world dominated by government-regulated, corporate-financed TV, radio, and print news. ..."
    "... It turns out that many of the best-informed writers see the world utterly differently than do the corporate and government shills who determine the "news" content in mainstream media. ..."
    "... Social Democrats ..."
    "... Christian Democrats ..."
    "... The US military is by far the greatest polluter on Earth. ..."
    "... I consider that an Orwellian assault on language. "Extremism" is what I oppose. Extreme wealth. Extreme greed. Extreme militarism. Extreme suicidal and ecocidal environmental destruction. Extreme governmental authority. Extreme stupidity. ..."
    Jun 19, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

    We have had a certain amount of success in exposing the amorphous and mendacious term "Fake News" for what it is: a tool in a major campaign of propaganda against dissenting independent journalism and political writing, a campaign perpetrated by governments and corporate media. The wealthy and powerful forces which control both of those influential centers in the formation of public opinion were desperate to regain control of the narrative, which has been slipping away from them at an increasing velocity since the advent of social media, and since the parallel growth of a broad spectrum of information networks with absolutely no interest in currying favor with the mighty, or in defending the status quo.

    As soon as the term "Fake News" appeared, Barack Obama pounced on it, and in a joint appearance in 2016 with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, used his worldwide microphone and bully pulpit – if only he had done so occasionally to sound the alarm about the approaching environmental crisis, or to express outrage about racism or police brutality, or to challenge war profiteers! – to announce his deep concern that "Fake News" was making it "difficult to govern" (for more on this and the struggle against corporate/government presstitute propaganda, see my article "Hope Is Our Enemy: Fighting Boiling Frog Syndrome").

    This clumsy and panicky maneuver has deservedly met with far less success than Obama's incredibly successful propaganda sally against Russia and Vladimir Putin, which has captivated the paranoid fantasies of many millions of Americans and Europeans who desperately want to believe that NATO countries are virtuous and innocent, and are threatened by ruthless and aggressive foreigners who are responsible for the spreading chaos in the West.

    As one of his final acts in office, President Chameleon slapped new sanctions on Russia and deported Russian diplomats: after eight years, his transformation from Nobel Laureate and supposed apostle of peace to McCarthyite New Cold Warrior was complete, and vast numbers of angry Hillaroids were quickly on board the Blame Russia Express, full of self-righteous anger and the conviction that someone had stolen the election and that the usual suspects were obviously the guilty party.

    Things haven't gone so well for the "Fake News" campaign, however. Too many people could and can see disturbing patterns that ring true, if they spend enough time looking at truthful, objective analysis of the world around us, and there is quite a lot of it available via the internet.

    More people are spending more and more time on the internet and social media, where presstitute media lose the natural advantages they once had in a world dominated by government-regulated, corporate-financed TV, radio, and print news.

    It turns out that many of the best-informed writers see the world utterly differently than do the corporate and government shills who determine the "news" content in mainstream media.

    Which brings us to one of the latest victims in the assault on language by the 1% and their pawns in the presstitute media: the word "extremism".

    Here in the European Union where I live, this word is currently heard so often in the traditional media – along with another victimized word being brutalized almost non-stop, "populist" – that even poorly-educated persons who aren't sure exactly what is meant can understand that they must mean something very, very bad.

    If any such confused persons should take the time to pay closer attention and attempt to ascertain what it is that makes these "extremists" and "populists" so deplorable and dangerous, they may soon notice that at least one of these words, "extremist", has a pretty nebulous field of application. According to major sources of conventional wisdom in the EU, terrorists are "extremists". But "extremism", more generally, is also applied casually to nearly any political parties and interest groups to the Left and the Right of the large (if shrinking in some countries like France) parties called "people's parties" (Volksparteien) here in Germany: the no-longer-socialist Social Democrats who are allegedly center-left, the pseudo-Christian Christian Democrats who portray themselves as center-right, and even the thoroughly compromised and faded-to-brown Green Party , which has gone to great lengths and engaged in stupendous contortions of deliberate conformism to achieve its modern status as a pillar of the established order, a long journey from its radical roots in the 1980s.

    As you may have deduced from my snarky tone, I find myself firmly ensconced among the so-called "extremists" of the Left.

    What, one may legitimately ask, are the views which have led to this branding as a dangerous individual? Do I advocate keeping a stock of Molotov Cocktails handy for quick use when the shit starts to fly? I do not.

    Okay I guess I'll have to come clean. Here are the radical, dangerous, "extremist" positions I support when I advocate more influence for this political party:

    In addition, there is my allegedly "extreme" position on the environment, which is not so much a priority for "Die Linke" but is the most important issue of all for me personally. I am convinced that only a radical transformation of the world economy can save this planet, including most life on Earth. I believe this can only come about through an end to industrial capitalism: a ban on most fossil fuels, an end to the production of most plastics, an end to most beef production and strict organic regulation of all meat production, and worldwide mandatory measures to clean up the poisonous residue of the current system which is killing the planet. This will necessarily involve huge cuts in most military structures and war-making as well. The US military is by far the greatest polluter on Earth.

    For these views, and my concomitant rejection of the large political parties in the EU and the USA which have done almost nothing to save the planet that was not outweighed by massive destruction – parties which thus, in the name of "realism", have sold our future to the rich and may have doomed all life on this planet, as scientific opinion is near unanimous that time is short – for these views I am labeled an "extremist".

    I consider that an Orwellian assault on language. "Extremism" is what I oppose. Extreme wealth. Extreme greed. Extreme militarism. Extreme suicidal and ecocidal environmental destruction. Extreme governmental authority. Extreme stupidity.

    [Jun 21, 2017] Alex Jones, Megyn Kelly, and the Normalization of Conspiracy Culture by Adrienne LaFrance

    Jun 17, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com

    People who share dangerous ideas don't necessarily believe them.

    The catastrophe wasn't what it seemed. It was an inside job, people whispered. Rome didn't have to burn to the ground.

    Nearly 2,000 years ago, after the Great Fire of Rome leveled most of the city, Romans questioned whether the emperor Nero had ordered his guards to start the inferno so he could rebuild Rome the way he wanted. They said the emperor had watched the blaze from the the summit of Palatine Hill, the centermost of the seven hills of Rome, plucking his lyre in celebration as countless people died. There's no evidence of this maniacal lyre-playing, but historians today still debate whether Nero orchestrated the disaster.

    What we do know is this: Conspiracy theories flourish when people feel vulnerable. They thrive on paranoia. It has always been this way.

    So it's understandable that, at this chaotic moment in global politics, conspiracy theories seem to have seeped out from the edges of society and flooded into mainstream political discourse. They're everywhere.

    That's partly because of the richness of today's informational environment. In Nero's day, conspiracy theories were local. Today, they're global. The web has made it easier than ever for people to watch events unfold in real time. Any person with a web connection can participate in news coverage, follow contradicting reports, sift through blurry photos, and pick out ( or publish ) bad information. The democratization of internet publishing and the ceaseless news cycle work together to provide a never-ending deluge of raw material that feeds conspiracy theories of all stripes.

    From all over the world, likeminded people congregate around the same comforting lies, explanations that validate their ideas. "Things seem a whole lot simpler in the world according to conspiracy theories," writes Rob Brotherton, in his book, Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories. "The prototypical conspiracy theory is an unanswered question; it assumes nothing is as it seems; it portrays the conspirators as preternaturally competent; and as unusually evil."

    But there's a difference between people talking about outlandish theories and actually believing them to be true. "Those are two very different things," says Joseph Uscinski, a political science professor at the University of Miami and the co-author of the book American Conspiracy Theories . "There's a lot of elite discussion of conspiracy theories, but that doesn't mean that anyone's believing them any more than they did in the past. People understand what conspiracy theories are. They can understand these theories as political signals when they don't in fact believe them."

    And most people don't, Uscinski says. His data shows that belief in partisan conspiracy theories maxes out at 25 percent-and rarely reach that point. Imagine a quadrant, he says, with Republicans on the right and Democrats on the left. The top half of the quadrant is the people of either party who are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. The bottom half is the people least likely to believe them. Any partisan conspiracy theory will only resonate with people in one of the two top-half squares-because to be believable, it must affirm the political worldview of a person who is already predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories.

    "You aren't going to believe in theories that denigrate your own side, and you have to have a previous position of buying into conspiracy logic," Uscinski says.

    Since conspiracy theories are often concerned with the most visible concentration of power, the president of the United States is a frequent target. "So when a Republican is president, the accusations are about Republicans, the wealthy, and big business; and when a Democrat is president, the accusations focus on Democrats, communists, and socialists."

    "Right now," he added, "Things are little different. Because of Donald Trump."

    As it turns out, the most famous conspiracy theorist in the world is the president of the United States. Donald Trump spent years spreading birtherism, a movement founded on the idea that his predecessor was born outside the country and therefore ineligible for the nation's highest office. (Even when Trump finally admitted in September that he knew Barack Obama was born in the United States, he attempted to spark a new conspiracy .)

    Now, Trump's presidency is the focus of a range of conspiracies and cover-ups-from the very real investigation he's under to the crackpot ideas about him constantly being floated by some of his detractors on the left. Like the implication that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are involved in a money laundering scheme with the Russians, plus countless more theories about who's funneling Russian money where and to whom.

    "The left has lost its fucking mind, and you can quote me on that," Uscinski said. "They spent the last eight years chastising Republicans about being a bunch of conspiracy kooks, and they have become exactly what they swore they were not. The hypocrisy is thick and it's disgusting."

    Trump's strategy in the face of all this drama has been to treat real and fake information interchangeably and discredit any report that's unflattering to him. It's why he refers to reputable news organizations as "fake news," and why he brags about "going around" journalists by tweeting directly to the people. He wants to shorten the distance between the loony theories on the left and legitimate allegations of wrongdoing against him, making them indistinguishable.

    Pushing conspiracy theories helped win Trump the presidency, and he's now banking on the idea that they'll help him as president. He's casting himself as the victim of a new conspiracy-a "witch hunt" perpetrated by the forces that want to see him fail.

    "Donald Trump communicates through conspiracy theories," Uscinski says. "You can win the presidency on conspiracy theories, but it's very difficult to govern on them. Because conspiracy theories are for losers, and now he's a winner."

    What he means is, conspiracy theories are often a way of expressing an imbalance of power by those who perceive themselves to be the underdog. "But if you control the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House, and the White House, you can't pull that," Uscinski says. "Just like how Hillary Clinton can't, in 1998, say her husband's troubles are due to a vast right-wing conspiracy."

    Donald Trump may be the most famous conspiracy theorist in America, but a close second is the Infowars talk-radio personality Alex Jones, who has made a name for himself spewing reprehensible theories. He claimed the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was a hoax. He says 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings were carried out by the U.S. government. Jones has an online store where he peddles products like iodine to people prepping for the apocalypse.

    Jones has long been a controversial figure, but not enormously well known. That's changing. Jones was a vocal supporter of Trump, who has in turn praised Jones. "Your reputation is amazing," Trump told him in an Infowars appearance in 2015. "I will not let you down." Jones has claimed he is opening a Washington Bureau and considering applying for White House press credentials.

    The latest Jones drama is a three-parter (so far): First, the NBC News anchor Megyn Kelly announced she had interviewed Jones, and that NBC would air the segment on Sunday, June 18. Next came the backlash: People disgusted by Jones blasted Kelly and NBC, saying a man whose lies had tortured the families of murdered children should never be given such a prominent platform. Even Jones joined the fracas, saying he'd been treated unfairly in the interview. Finally, on Thursday night, Jones claimed he had secretly recorded the interview, and would release it in full. (So far, he has released what seems to be audio from a phone conversation with Kelly that took place before the interview.)

    Kelly has defended her decision to do the interview in the first place by describing Jones's popularity: "How does Jones, who traffics in these outrageous conspiracy theories, have the respect of the president of the United States and an audience of millions?" The public interest in questioning a person like Jones, she argues, eclipses any worries about normalizing his outlandish views. The questions are arguably more valuable than the answers.

    Many journalists agree with Kelly's reasoning. But it's also true, scholars say, that giving a platform to conspiracy theorists has measurable harmful effects on society. In 1995, a group of Stanford University psychologists interviewed people either right before or right after they'd viewed Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK , which was full of conspiracy theories. Brotherton, who describes the findings in Suspicious Minds, says people leaving the movie described themselves as less likely to vote in an upcoming election and less likely to volunteer or donate to a political campaign, compared with those walking in. "Merely watching the movie eroded, at least temporarily, a little of the viewer's sense of civic engagement," Brotherton writes.

    There are other examples of real-world consequences of giving platforms to conspiracy theorists, too. The conspiracy theory known as Pizzagate , which rose to prominence across websites like 4chan and niche conservative blogs, resulted in a man firing a weapon in a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor.

    The debate over Kelly's interview comes on the heels of another high-profile conspiracy theory that sent shockwaves through conservative media circles. At the center of that scandal was the TV host Sean Hannity pushing a conspiracy theory about the unsolved murder of a Democratic National Committee staff member and an explosive Fox News report about the murder that was eventually retracted.

    * * *

    There's a popular science-fiction podcast, Welcome to Night Vale , developed around the idea of life in a desert town where all conspiracy theories are true. It was first released in June 2012, the summer before a U.S. presidential election, at a moment when Trump was test-driving a new anti-Obama conspiracy. "I wonder when we will be able to see @BarackObama's college and law school applications and transcripts," he tweeted the day Night Vale launched. "Why the long wait?"

    Joseph Fink, who co-created the podcast, says conspiracy theories today are continuing to function the way they always have. Conspiracy theories are easy ways to tell difficult stories. They provide a storyline that makes a harsh or random world seem ordered. "Especially if it's ordered against you," he says. "Since, then, none of it is your fault, which is even more comforting."

    "That said, more extreme conspiracy theories are becoming more mainstream, which is obviously dangerous," Fink adds. "Conspiracy theories act in a similar way as religious stories: they give you an explanation and structure for why things are the way they are. We are in a Great Awakening of conspiracy theories, and like any massive religious movement, the same power it has to move people also is easily turned into a power to move people against other people."

    Look for the last awakening of this sort in the United States, and you'll find a sea of similarities-of course, as conspiracy theories tell us, it's easy to find connections when you go looking for them. Several scholars-people who focus on real conspiracies and people who study conspiracy theories-say the paranoia surrounding the Trump presidency evokes the tumult surrounding the Vietnam War. It's not that conspiracy theories weren't, at times, rampant before that. In the 1940s and 1950s, McCarthyism and the trial of Alger Hiss brought with them a surreal spate of hoaxes and misinformation. But it was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that set off a "general sense of suspicion" that would permeate the culture for some time, says Josiah Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination.

    "Part of that was, what occurred almost immediately after the assassination, in the years afterward, was Vietnam," Thompson said, "And over time, a complete loss of confidence in what ever the government was saying about Vietnam. That was not just from the presidency, that was from the government itself."

    This was also a period in which some of the most dramatic ideas that had been disparaged as conspiracy theories turned out to be true. "I am not a crook," Nixon had insisted. Less than a year later, he resigned. Nixon and Trump are compared not infrequently. Not all presidents are so thin-skinned and antagonistic to the press. Jennifer Senior, reviewing a recent Nixon biography, wrote that "the similarities between Nixon and Trump leap off the page like crickets." Nixon may have been increasingly paranoid in the final months of his presidency, but he didn't have access to the technology that Trump uses to showcase his conspiracy mindedness.

    "With real conspiracy theorists, there's a kind of-how to put it-almost a dialectic operative," Thompson says. "Like Trump. You have to keep making wilder and wilder pronouncements over time to hold your audience."

    I tell Thompson the idea Uscinski had shared, about how a person can win the presidency on conspiracy theories, but how they don't work so well once you're president. He seems to agree. "In a campaign, what you're trying to do is affect people's opinions that will be harvested on one day," he said. "But governing doesn't have to do with people's opinions. It has to do with facts. That's the real difference."

    When the facts are disputed, of course, you do the best you can with the evidence you can find. Josiah Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination , has spent years thinking about all this. When I bring up the enormity of unknown unknowns in people's understanding of history, Thompson quotes the writer Geoffrey O'Brien: Black Deutschland by Darryl Pinckney. *

    "And that's the trouble," Thompson says. "What may appear as conspiracy theory at one point turns out to be truth at another."

    I ask Thompson how sure he is about the official explanation of the JFK assassination, that there was one gunman who fired on the president's motorcade from the Texas School Book Depository.

    Thompson believes, based on controversial acoustic evidence, that on November 22, 1963, a shot was fired from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza-not just from the depository. "The acoustics give us a kind of template for how the event occurred-these two flurries of shots, separated by about six seconds." (Thompson later clarified that he believes the flurries of shots were 4.6 seconds apart.) He says it was two shots in the second flurry that killed Kennedy. * *

    Thompson pauses.

    "Does that make me a conspiracy theorist?"

    He laughs.

    "After all these years? What do you think?"


    * New York Review of Books writer Geoffrey O'Brien, who first wrote the line in his review of the Darryl Pinckney novel Black Deutschland.

    ** Thompson clarified after publication that he believes the flurries of shots in the Kennedy assassination were 4.6 seconds apart, not six seconds apart. He believes Kennedy was killed by two shots in the second flurry, not by the two flurries of shots.

    [Jun 20, 2017] James Mattiss Role in Fallujah Haditha Massacre

    Jun 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Anonymous | Jun 19, 2017 7:48:37 AM | 3

    Another aggression by the US but what could you expect by an old sick f'ck warmonger like this as secretary of defence?

    "James Mattis's Role in Fallujah & Haditha Massacre,"
    https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/12/part_2_did_defense_secretary_nominee

    Its time Syria get to buy russian air-defense, US will keep bombing - they're not sane, like what happens next week? They'll bomb Assad's palace?

    And please look at the western media these days, and see the naked propaganda being typed when US once again bomb another country, illegally and then the western media backs it like the lackeys in the EU, Nato.
    Shameful being from the west days like these.

    Absolutely shameful!

    [Jun 20, 2017] General James Mattiss Role in Fallujah Haditha Massacre

    Notable quotes:
    "... The very important legal doctrine in the United States of America and around the world is the doctrine of command responsibility. If you have a large-scale atrocity that takes place, the commanding general of the operation is held responsible. ..."
    "... my hope that in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and perhaps in follow-on hearings in the House, if they occur, regarding the waiver that he's going to need to get to become secretary of defense, that James Mattis be asked to explain himself regarding the actions that we've been discussing. ..."
    news.antiwar.com

    Transcript

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : President-elect Donald Trump's pick for defense secretary, James "Mad Dog" Mattis, faces his Senate confirmation hearing today. This comes as House Democrats are threatening to revolt over the waiver needed for Mattis to serve as defense secretary, after the Trump transition team blocked him from testifying before the House Armed Services Committee. Mattis only retired from the military in 2013, meaning he needs Congress to waive rules requiring defense secretaries to be civilians for seven or more years after leaving the military. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has said she'll vote against the waiver for General Mattis, saying, quote, "Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule."

    AMY GOODMAN : James Mattis reportedly received his nickname "Mad Dog" Mattis after leading U.S. troops during the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq. He enlisted in the Marines at 19, fought in the Persian Gulf War, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, where he served as major general. In May 2004, Mattis ordered an airstrike in a small Iraqi village that hit a wedding, killing about 42 people who were attending the wedding ceremony. Mattis went on to lead the U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2013, but the Obama administration cut short his tour over concerns General Mattis was too hawkish on Iran, reportedly calling for a series of covert actions there. Mattis has drawn criticism over his apparent celebration of killing, including saying in 2005 about the Taliban, quote, "It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them," unquote.

    For more, we go to Washington, D.C., where we're joined by Aaron Glantz, senior reporter for Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. His latest investigation , "Did defense secretary nominee James Mattis commit war crimes in Iraq?"

    If you could summarize, Aaron, again, your major findings in this piece, that we will link to, where you are asking if the defense secretary nominee is responsible for, is guilty of, should be tried for, war crimes?

    AARON GLANTZ : The very important legal doctrine in the United States of America and around the world is the doctrine of command responsibility. If you have a large-scale atrocity that takes place, the commanding general of the operation is held responsible. We held General Yamashita, who was the commanding general in the Japanese Army of a number of operations in the Philippines, under this standard back in World War II, and we executed him. And his execution was upheld by the Supreme Court. Legal scholars that I've talked to said the same standard applies to General Mattis. And so we have to look very closely at his command of the U.S. Marine Corps in Fallujah, which is an event that I covered in 2004 as an unembedded journalist. And in that battle, U.S. marines, under his command, killed so many people-one U.N. estimate says 90 percent of them were civilians-that the municipal football stadium of the city had to be turned into a graveyard. Marines shot at ambulances. Marines shot at aid workers. Marines posed with trophy photos with the dead that they had killed. All of these are things that Mattis could be tried for, potentially, for war crimes. And he is Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of defense.

    In addition, we also spoke about his role as the convening authority of trials for marines in other cases-the Haditha massacre, the Hamdania massacre-where he wiped away or granted clemency to people who were already convicted, freeing them from prison, for atrocities. And if a person in his kind of command responsibility allows others to get off the hook for war crimes, that's also something that he could be held culpable for, held accountable for. And, you know, it would be my hope that in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and perhaps in follow-on hearings in the House, if they occur, regarding the waiver that he's going to need to get to become secretary of defense, that James Mattis be asked to explain himself regarding the actions that we've been discussing.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well, is it the case that Mattis is still seen as a strong proponent of the Geneva Conventions and as an anti-torture advocate?

    AARON GLANTZ : Absolutely, absolutely. He has been very vocal in saying that he supports the Geneva Convention. He has been an advocate against torture. Donald Trump emerged from a meeting with him and began to back off his support for the practice of waterboarding, after listening to General Mattis. But you also have to look at what happens when General Mattis is in the field. And what we saw in Fallujah and in other instances in Iraq is that when General Mattis is in the field, often he allows his marines to go well beyond what is normally permitted in the law of war.

    AMY GOODMAN : Explain what you mean.

    AARON GLANTZ : Well, we've been talking about Fallujah. You mentioned a wedding party that was bombed on his call in western Iraq not long after that, where he later told a Marine historian, Bing West, that he deliberated less than 30 seconds over whether to carry it out, simply because it was in the middle of the desert. And then, you know, the Associated Press later obtained footage that showed that there was indeed a wedding party, where dozens of civilians were killed. Later, as James Mattis moved up the chain of command, was no longer a field commander in Iraq, he became a convening authority in a number of tribunals involving war crimes committed by marines in the country, including the most famous massacre that occurred during the Iraq War, the Haditha massacre, where a number of marines went on a killing spree in the town of Haditha after one of their comrades was killed. They killed dozens of people in a number of houses, and charges were brought. And as the general overseeing the entire court-martial process, General Mattis dismissed charges against three of the perpetrators, and ultimately no one charged with that massacre of dozens of Iraqis was-spent a single day in prison.

    AMY GOODMAN : Let's go to-go back a few years to 2008. Democracy Now! spoke with McClatchy journalist Leila Fadel , who traveled to Haditha to interview survivors of the massacre. I want to turn to a short video posted on the McClatchy website based on her reporting.

    LEILA FADEL : Yousef Aid Ahmed has memorized the places where his four brothers' bodies laid after they were killed by U.S. marines, he said. The family recounts that November day in 2005 and says it was a massacre of the brothers, along with 20 other people, following a roadside bomb in Haditha. Marines raided the house and shot the unarmed men in their heads in this back bedroom, the family said. Now they are angry that no one is being held accountable. Charges against six of the eight marines accused in the case were dismissed, and one marine was found not guilty on all charges.

    WIDOW : [translated] I'm angry at those who sent them innocent. They were not supposed to sent innocent.

    LEILA FADEL : The reminders of their deaths are everywhere: the white plaster that filled in the bullet holes in the wall, the dried blood that are now just faded gray spots under a new paint job on the ceiling, and the closet where one brother was shot inside and the other's corpse leaned up against the wardrobe.

    AMY GOODMAN : That's McClatchy journalist Leila Fadel. If you could take it from there, Aaron Glantz?

    AARON GLANTZ : Well, I mean, maybe the first important thing to point out is that when that massacre happened in 2005, nobody on the ground reported it. And it wasn't until the story was broken sometime later by Time magazine that the Marine Corps even investigated what happened. Then, following the investigation, charges were brought against the Marine squad that committed the crimes that were described in the video. She mentioned that charges were dismissed against six of the accused. Mattis himself was responsible for three of those dismissals. Ultimately, only one person was convicted, who was the supposed ringleader of the operation, and he did not serve one day behind bars, although he did tell the court that he regretted telling the other marines to shoot first and ask questions later.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well, Aaron, what kinds of questions do you think Mattis should be asked today at his confirmation hearing?

    AARON GLANTZ : I think he should be asked about what his marines did in Fallujah. I think that he should be asked if he was aware of the scale of civilian casualties-over 600 people killed, and, you know, official Marine Corps estimate is 220 civilians in just the first two weeks of the fighting, there was a U.N. official at the time who estimated that 90 percent of the people killed were civilians-if he's aware of those deaths, if he thinks they're proportional, if he thinks the destruction of the city was proportional to the killing of the four Blackwater security contractors. I think he should be asked about the other activities that I described-the shooting at ambulances, the shooting at aid workers, if he was aware of it. If he was aware of it, you know, how does he justify it? If he wasn't aware of it as the military commander in the field with command responsibility, does he think he should have been?

    And in these other cases-we talked about the wedding party, we talked about the Haditha massacre-there's another massacre where he was also the convening authority, the Hamdania massacre, which was broken by The Washington Post , where a group of marines pulled a disabled Iraqi out of his house, shot him four times in the face and then framed him by planting a shovel and a machine gun next to him to make him look like an insurgent. In that case, General Mattis intervened to free some of the marines from prison, granting them clemency. I think he should be asked to explain himself for his actions and how all of the actions that we've been discussing comport with his well-known advocacy for the Geneva Conventions and international law.

    AMY GOODMAN : Can you explain what's going on in the House, this kind of revolt that's taking place? Not that the Democrats are in charge, but it was announced that he was going to be visiting the House committee today before he went to his Senate confirmation hearing, and then that was canceled. There's been apparently some reports of some animosity between Mattis and the Trump transition team. Have you been following all of this?

    AARON GLANTZ : James Mattis needs to be confirmed by the Senate, right? In our system of government, presidential appointees need to be confirmed by the Senate. But because he has not been out of the military for seven years, he needs Congress to change a law-and, you know, which is something that hasn't been done since the Korean War-and allow a recently retired general to become head of the Defense Department, make an exception to our long-held belief in civilian control of the military, for him. The Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee were expecting that he would testify before the House Armed Services Committee on a hearing over whether Congress should grant that waiver. The Trump administration pulled him back, and now the members of the House on the Democratic side are very upset and saying that they may try to hold up his waiver, which would also hold up his confirmation.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well, can you explain, Aaron, the context in which this law was formulated? Why is it important that the military fall under civilian control?

    AARON GLANTZ : If you look at somebody like General Mattis, he's incredibly well respected within the military community. He's a marine's marine. They call him a warrior monk. I've received a lot of backlash for my article from members of the military who revere him. There is an idea, though, that we have in our government, that somebody like General Mattis, who, you know, as we've been talking about, in Fallujah, is a good soldier and will do anything possible to get the job done, no matter how many people end up dead, that there should be a civilian check on that in a democracy. We have made exceptions to this before. General Marshall was appointed by Harry Truman during the Korean War, and Congress granted that waiver. But it has not happened since then. And it is a big deal for Congress to consider. And the Democrats in the House said, "Look, before we approve this waiver for General Mattis, we would at least like to hear from him and be able to ask him questions."

    And there are some other questions that Democrats want to ask General Mattis, and may be asked in the Senate confirmation hearing today, that have nothing to do with the issues that we've been discussing around war crimes. He has expressed an opposition to allowing women in combat roles. He expressed opposition to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military at one point.

    AMY GOODMAN : Well, let's go to that. General Mattis co-edited the book of essays, Warriors and Citizens: American Views of Our Military . In it, he claims the 2011 repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" has had a harmful impact on the military. Mattis and his co-author, Kori Schake, write, quote, "We fear that an uninformed public is permitting political leaders to impose an accretion of social conventions that are diminishing the combat power of our military." Mattis and his co-author also claim the majority of soldiers were in favor of keeping LGBT military members in the closet. However, a Gallup poll shows that the repeal of the '94 "don't ask, don't tell" law was widely popular, with two-thirds supporting the right of gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Mattis has also questioned, as you pointed out, if women should be allowed to participate in active combat, saying he believes they're unsuited for, quote, "intimate killing," and, quote, "The idea of putting women in there is not setting them up for success." So, can you respond to all of that?

    AARON GLANTZ : Well, these are the sorts of things that Democrats and, you know, perhaps some Republicans will want to know more about, you know, whether he still believes these statements. But as you pointed out, the book that he co-edited came out very recently. The comments about women in combat also happened very recently, were given in a speech in the Marines' Memorial in San Francisco. So, these are not statements that he made in the 1980s. You know, these are statements that he made during the Obama administration. And also, you know, we have to remember that President Obama removed him early, as you mentioned at the outset, as the commanding general of Central Command because of his very hawkish position on Iran. And it's rare, you know, for a president to remove a general from a command before his term is up in that way. So, I would imagine that we might hear members of the Senate today, and perhaps, if he does appear before the House, members of the House also, asking him about, you know, some of his hawkish beliefs.

    Of course, all of this is mollified by the fact that some of the same Democrats who are very concerned about him are even more concerned about General Michael Flynn, who is Donald Trump's national security adviser designee, who doesn't have to be confirmed at all and has said that, you know, ISIS wants to drink our blood and that we're already involved in a Third World War. So, Mattis looks pretty conservative by comparison to Flynn. And that's just the world that we live in.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : And what is-Aaron, just to go back to what you said on Iran, what is Mattis's position on the Iran nuclear deal?

    AARON GLANTZ : It's been a little bit unclear. You know, he was-he's critical of it in general. The more important question, I think, for us now is, going forward-and it's the same question that we have for the Trump administration in general-you know, Donald Trump, as with many agreements signed by President Obama, has criticized it mightily. But now, you know, we're hearing that General Mattis might be of the opinion that we might want to just hold them to it very, very aggressively, rather than throwing it out. And perhaps we'll get some clarity on that during his confirmation hearing.

    AMY GOODMAN : Finally, we only have a minute, but Donald Trump has tapped physician David Shulkin to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, currently serving in the Obama adminstration as VA undersecretary. If confirmed, he'll be the first head of the Department of Veterans Affairs to have never served in the military. Your specialty over the last years has been covering veterans, Aaron. Can you talk about Dr. Shulkin?

    AARON GLANTZ : I think the veterans' community breathed a huge sigh of relief with the appointment of Mr. Shulkin as VA secretary. This is a man who was appointed to the position of undersecretary of VA for healthcare by President Obama. He is a well-respected doctor. He's well respected in the veterans' community. As you mentioned, he's not a veteran. But veterans' groups were extremely concerned about the possibility, given Trump's campaign rhetoric, of a wholesale privatization of the VA. And they were concerned, many of them, about the floating of the name of Pete Hegseth, who founded a group funded by the Koch brothers called Concerned Veterans of America, which was advocating towards privatization. And, you know, by and large, the opinion of veterans' groups is, while some private care is welcome, especially when you can't get into the VA, that a privatization of the VA system would be a disaster for veterans. And so, with the appointment of Shulkin, it seems like Trump-you know, it's likely private care will be expanded, but possibly not at the expense of the core mission of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    AMY GOODMAN : Aaron Glantz, we want to thank you so much for being with us, senior reporter at Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. We'll link to your latest piece , "Did defense secretary nominee James Mattis commit war crimes in Iraq?" This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License . Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

    [Jun 20, 2017] Investigation Did Trumps Defense Secretary Nominee James Mattis Commit War Crimes in Iraq Democracy Now!

    Transcript
    Notable quotes:
    "... Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has said she'll vote against the waiver for General Mattis, saying, quote, "Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule." ..."
    "... James Mattis reportedly received his nickname "Mad Dog" Mattis after leading U.S. troops during the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq. He enlisted in the Marines at 19, fought in the Persian Gulf War, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, where he served as major general. In May 2004, Mattis ordered an airstrike in a small Iraqi village that hit a wedding, killing about 42 people who were attending the wedding ceremony. Mattis went on to lead the U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2013, but the Obama administration cut short his tour over concerns General Mattis was too hawkish on Iran, reportedly calling for a series of covert actions there. Mattis has drawn criticism over his apparent celebration of killing, including saying in 2005 about the Taliban, quote, "It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them," unquote. ..."
    "... Well, as you mentioned, James Mattis got the nickname "Mad Dog" for his command responsibility as a general during the April 2004 siege of Fallujah. This was a battle that I covered as an unembedded journalist, where the U.S. Marine Corps killed so many people, so many civilians, that the municipal soccer stadium of that city had to be turned into a graveyard. U.S. Marines there shot at ambulances. They shot at aid workers. They cordoned off the city and prevented civilians from fleeing. Some marines posed for trophy photos with the people that they killed. ..."
    "... And what we say in the story is that all of these events that occurred in Fallujah when James Mattis was the commanding general are the same sort of events that other commanders in other countries have been convicted of war crimes for, including General Yamashita, who was a general in World War II for the Japanese, who was tried and executed by a U.S. military tribunal, and his execution was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. We found that James Mattis likely committed similar war crimes. ..."
    "... He, when that assault happened-and, importantly, he argued against the attack beforehand. And he said, very presciently, that so many civilians would be killed, that it would be ultimately damaging to the U.S. military's overall occupation effort. But once that attack was launched, that's exactly what happened. There was massive outcry across the Arab world, including in Iraq, a rise of insurgency across the country and a complete devastation of the city. I remember walking through the city shortly after the Marines pulled out, and there were rotting bodies all over the streets, because during the actual siege, U.S. Marine snipers would shoot at anyone who was outside, so people were afraid to go and bury the dead. Shopping centers were destroyed. And this gets to an important issue of disproportionality. ..."
    thesaker.is
    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. AMY GOODMAN : We move now to a hearing that's expected to happen today. Nermeen?

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : President-elect Donald Trump's pick for defense secretary, James "Mad Dog" Mattis, faces his Senate confirmation hearing today. This comes as House Democrats are threatening to revolt over the waiver needed for Mattis to serve as defense secretary, after the Trump transition team blocked him from testifying before the House Armed Services Committee. Mattis only retired from the military in 2013, meaning he needs Congress to waive rules requiring defense secretaries to be civilians for seven or more years after leaving the military. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has said she'll vote against the waiver for General Mattis, saying, quote, "Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule."

    AMY GOODMAN : James Mattis reportedly received his nickname "Mad Dog" Mattis after leading U.S. troops during the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq. He enlisted in the Marines at 19, fought in the Persian Gulf War, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, where he served as major general. In May 2004, Mattis ordered an airstrike in a small Iraqi village that hit a wedding, killing about 42 people who were attending the wedding ceremony. Mattis went on to lead the U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2013, but the Obama administration cut short his tour over concerns General Mattis was too hawkish on Iran, reportedly calling for a series of covert actions there. Mattis has drawn criticism over his apparent celebration of killing, including saying in 2005 about the Taliban, quote, "It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them," unquote.

    For more, we go to Washington, D.C., where we're joined by Aaron Glantz, senior reporter for Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. His latest investigation , "Did defense secretary nominee James Mattis commit war crimes in Iraq?"

    Aaron Glantz, what did you learn?

    AARON GLANTZ : Well, as you mentioned, James Mattis got the nickname "Mad Dog" for his command responsibility as a general during the April 2004 siege of Fallujah. This was a battle that I covered as an unembedded journalist, where the U.S. Marine Corps killed so many people, so many civilians, that the municipal soccer stadium of that city had to be turned into a graveyard. U.S. Marines there shot at ambulances. They shot at aid workers. They cordoned off the city and prevented civilians from fleeing. Some marines posed for trophy photos with the people that they killed.

    And what we say in the story is that all of these events that occurred in Fallujah when James Mattis was the commanding general are the same sort of events that other commanders in other countries have been convicted of war crimes for, including General Yamashita, who was a general in World War II for the Japanese, who was tried and executed by a U.S. military tribunal, and his execution was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. We found that James Mattis likely committed similar war crimes.

    AMY GOODMAN : You covered the siege of Fallujah yourself as an unembedded reporter, Aaron. We're going to do Part 2 of this conversation after the broadcast and post it at democracynow.org. But what came of what he did there?

    AARON GLANTZ : He, when that assault happened-and, importantly, he argued against the attack beforehand. And he said, very presciently, that so many civilians would be killed, that it would be ultimately damaging to the U.S. military's overall occupation effort. But once that attack was launched, that's exactly what happened. There was massive outcry across the Arab world, including in Iraq, a rise of insurgency across the country and a complete devastation of the city. I remember walking through the city shortly after the Marines pulled out, and there were rotting bodies all over the streets, because during the actual siege, U.S. Marine snipers would shoot at anyone who was outside, so people were afraid to go and bury the dead. Shopping centers were destroyed. And this gets to an important issue of disproportionality.

    AMY GOODMAN : Ten seconds.

    AARON GLANTZ : This whole assault was launched because of the killing of four Blackwater security contractors. And, you know, in response, James Mattis leveled the city.

    AMY GOODMAN : We have to leave it there now, but we're going to continue to cover this with our web exclusive.

    [Jun 20, 2017] Deregulation in action

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Aluminium cladding on the Grenfell Tower had oxygen all the way round it was mounted with an air gap and a flammable polystyrene inner. The cladding is under the windows that can be opened. Once the polystyrene is exposed, say from rupture of the aluminium coating. ..."
    "... 'Like other organic compounds, polystyrene is flammable. Polystyrene is classified according to DIN4102 as a "B3" product, meaning highly flammable or "Easily Ignited." ..."
    "... This is off-topic and should be in the MF Cafe. Pls take the conversation there. Thx. Mod ..."
    www.informationclearinghouse.info

    ph on June 15, 2017 , · at 9:35 am UTC

    Jun 20, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Regarding the media presentation of the fire in London:

    The Aluminium cladding on the Grenfell Tower had oxygen all the way round it was mounted with an air gap and a flammable polystyrene inner. The cladding is under the windows that can be opened. Once the polystyrene is exposed, say from rupture of the aluminium coating.

    The expanded polystyrene core melts at 240 C so at this point the cladding loses its structural integrity.

    'Like other organic compounds, polystyrene is flammable. Polystyrene is classified according to DIN4102 as a "B3" product, meaning highly flammable or "Easily Ignited."

    As a consequence, although it is an efficient insulator at low temperatures, its use is prohibited in any exposed installations in building construction if the material is not flame-retardant. It must be concealed behind drywall, sheet metal, or concrete.[citation needed]

    Foamed polystyrene plastic materials have been accidentally ignited and caused huge fires and losses, for example at the Dόsseldorf International Airport and the Channel tunnel (where polystyrene was inside a railcar that caught fire).'

    'Like all organic compounds, polystyrene burns to give carbon dioxide and water vapor.'

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystyrene

    US Department of Energy report

    'In the vicinity of room temperature, the reaction between aluminum metal and water to form aluminum hydroxide and hydrogen is the following: 2Al + 6H2O = 2Al(OH)3 + 3H2. The gravimetric hydrogen capacity from this reaction is 3.7 wt.% and the volumetric hydrogen capacity is 46 g H2/L.

    Although this reaction is thermodynamically favorable, it does not proceed due to the presence of a coherent and adherent layer of aluminum oxide which forms on the surface of aluminum particles which prevents water from cominginto direct contact with the aluminum metal.

    The key to inducing and maintaining the reaction of aluminum with water near room temperature is the continual removal and/or disruption of this coherent/adherent aluminum oxide layer. '

    'In this case, the molten nature of the [aluminium] alloy prevents the development of a coherent and adherent aluminum oxide layer. '
    .

    'Thus, an engineering approach might be a continuous water stream to maintain a roughly steady state hydrogen generation rate'

    'The Al/water reaction is highly exothermic with an enthalpy of reaction of about 280 kJ/mol H2 at ~50-100 C '

    https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/aluminium_water_hydrogen.pdf

    Aluminium has a melting point of 660 C. When the aluminium melts its protective oxide outer layer is removed causing any steam or water such as from the burning of the polystyrene to cause a highly exothermic reaction that releases hydrogen. This saw the rapid spread of the flames over the skin of the building.

    The firefighters adding water to areas they could not quench acted as an accelerant to the fire once it had rose as steam and reacted with the molten aluminium.

    Any iron or copper used as building material with rust or oxidation or impurities could even cause small thermite reactions with the aluminium oxide. This exothermic reaction can be seen on the Hindenberg disaster.

    There could be a creation of higly volatile triorganoaluminium compounds:

    "trimethylaluminium" has the formula Al2(CH3)6 (see figure). With large organic groups, triorganoaluminium compounds exist as three-coordinate monomers, such as triisobutylaluminium. Such compounds are widely used in industrial chemistry, despite the fact that they are often highly pyrophoric.'

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Organoaluminium_compounds_and_related_hydrides

    Simple large life nets could have been used with springs to save the people.

    The fact the outer layer of the building is in an exothermic reaction can be clearly seen:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ThermiteReaction.jpg

    Compare video of the Grenfell Tower and Hindenburg – that was using aluminium paint according to A NASA scientist.

    Chemical analysis of the cladding might help further at this stage.

    This is off-topic and should be in the MF Cafe. Pls take the conversation there. Thx. Mod

    [Jun 20, 2017] The presstitutes are obviously not that good. They went nuclear on Trumps candidacy, and he got elected anyway.

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Cyril on June 14, 2017 , · at 3:07 am UTC
    Jun 20, 2017 | thesaker.is
    The presstitutes are obviously not that good. They went nuclear on Trump's candidacy, and he got elected anyway. So it's quite clear that a large fraction of the US electorate - at least 50 percent - no longer trust the media. The more the press lie, the more their credibility evaporates.
    Mr Reynard on June 14, 2017 , at 6:00 am UTC
    Softly, softly the people will believe the media, like the people in ex-communist countries believed their government ??
    Veritas on June 14, 2017 , · at 2:51 pm UTC
    Hi Cyril,

    The Western MSM are masters at "fake news" and it does have an effect – it might be diminishing but it still has traction. This wasn't about the US electorate – it was about how Russia is perceived to outsiders who only read and listen to their MSM and aren't as well read as people here.

    Tomsen on June 16, 2017 , · at 3:49 pm UTC
    The idea is that as long the majority believes in the fake news and lies, the minority who dont believe will have to waste their time in endless discussions with the majority.
    Divide and conquer again again.

    [Jun 20, 2017] In Final Oliver Stone Interview, Putin Predicts When Russia-US Crisis Ends

    Notable quotes:
    "... "You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him. ..."
    "... "Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly, "There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us." ..."
    "... PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie. ..."
    "... They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes. ..."
    "... TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't. ..."
    "... PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites are always blaming the Jews. ..."
    "... The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin. ..."
    Jun 20, 2017 | www.forbes.com
    But with Trump in the White House, the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory is one reality TV show the news media can't shake. Stone's love for foreign policy intrigue at least makes him a Putin kindred spirit here. America's age old fear of the Russians, has made Putin public enemy number one and Stone his sounding board. For some unhappy campers, like John McCain, Putin has " no moral equivalent " in the United States. He's a dictator , a war criminal and tyrant .

    "You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him.

    "Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly, "There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us."

    In the last installment of the Putin interviews, the Russian leader admitted to liking Trump. "We still like him because he wants to restore relations. Relations between the two countries are going to develop," he said. It's a sentence very few in congress would say, and almost no big name politicians outside of Trump would imagine saying on television. On Russia, you scold. There is no fig leaf.

    In a recent sanctions bill in the senate, only Republicans Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against it, making for a 97-2 landslide in favor of extra-territorial sanctions against Russian companies, namely oil and gas.

    Stone asked him why did he bother hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails if he believed nothing would change on the foreign policy front.

    STONE: Our political leadership and NATO all believe you hacked the election.

    PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie.

    They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes.

    Just then, editors cut to a video of Trump talking about Putin.

    TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't.

    PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites are always blaming the Jews.

    The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin.

    See:

    [Jun 20, 2017] Israels Dirty Little Secret

    Notable quotes:
    "... At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more than Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned to the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by challenging Colbert with "Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?" ..."
    "... Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. ..."
    Jun 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

    At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more than Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned to the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by challenging Colbert with "Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?"

    Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. Stone was, of course, referring to the fact that the Israel Lobby, most notably acting through its American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is undeniably a foreign lobby, no less so than anyone representing the presumed interests of Russia or China. It operates with complete impunity on Capitol Hill and also at state and local levels and no one dares to require it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would permit scrutiny of its finances and also end its tax-exempt "educational" status. Nor does Congress or the media see fit to inquire into AIPAC's empowerment of candidates based on their fidelity to Israel, not to mention the direct interference in the American electoral process which surfaced most visibly in its support of candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

    The last president that sought to compel the predecessor organization of AIPAC to register was John F. Kennedy, who also was about to take steps to rein in Israel's secret nuclear weapons program when he was assassinated, which was a lucky break for Israel, particularly as Kennedy was replaced by the passionate Zionist Lyndon Baines Johnson. Funny how things sometimes work out. The Warren Commission looked deeply into a possible Cuban connection in the shooting and came up with nothing but one has to wonder if they also investigated the possible roles of other countries. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission Report failed to examine the possible involvement of Israel in the terrorist attack in spite of a considerable body of evidence suggesting that there were a number of Israeli-sourced covert operations running in the U.S. at that time.

    Looking back from the perspective of his more than 40 years of military service, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer described the consequences of Jewish power vis-ΰ-vis U.S. policy towards Israel, stating that "I've never seen a president – I don't care who he is – stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don't have any idea what goes on."

    He also addressed the 1967 Israeli assault on the USS Liberty, saying "Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels. [And that] Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most-seriously wounded." He concluded with "our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own? If so, Why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests?"

    It is a question that might well be asked today, as the subservience to Israeli interests is, if anything, more pervasive in 2017 Washington than it was in 2002 when Moorer spoke up. And, as in Moorer's day, much of the partiality towards Israel makes its way through congress with little or no media coverage lest anyone begin to wonder whose tail is wagging which dog. To put it succinctly, there is an Israeli hand in much of what the United States does internationally, and the involvement is not intended to do anything good for the American people.

    During the past several weeks alone there has been a flurry of legislation backed by Israel and its Lobby. One bill might actually have been written by AIPAC. It is called Senate 722, Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017. The bill has 63 co-sponsors, most of whom are the usual suspects, but it also included an astonishingly large number of Democrats who describe themselves as progressive, including Corey Booker and Kamila Harris, both of whom are apparently terrified lest they say "no" to Israel. With 63 co-sponsors out of 100 senators the bill was certain to pass overwhelmingly, and it was indeed approved 98 to 2, with only Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders voting "no."

    And there's more to S.722 than Iran – it's subtitle is "An act to provide congressional review and to counter Iranian and Russian governments' aggression." Much of it is designed to increase sanctions on both Iran and Russia while also limiting the White House's ability to relieve any sanctions without approval by congress. Regarding Iran, the bill mandates that "Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of National Intelligence shall jointly develop and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a strategy for deterring conventional and asymmetric Iranian activities and threats that directly threaten the United States and key allies in the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond."

    ORDER IT NOW

    The premise is of course nonsensical as Iran's ability to threaten anyone, least of all the United States, is limited. It is far outgunned by its neighbors and even more so by the U.S., but it has become the enemy of choice for congress as well as for the former generals who serve as White House advisers. The animus against Iran comes directly from Israel and from the Saudi Arabians, who have managed to sell their version of developments in their part of the world through a completely acquiescent and heavily Jewish influenced western media.

    And there's more. A bill has surfaced in the House of Representatives that will require the United States to "consult" with Israel regarding any prospective arms sales to Arab countries in the Middle East. In other words, Israel will have a say, backed up undoubtedly by Congress and the media, over what the United States does in terms of its weapons sales abroad. The sponsors of the bill, one Brad Schneider of Illinois, and Claudia Tenney of New York, want "closer scrutiny of future military arms sales" to maintain the "qualitative military edge" that Israel currently enjoys.

    Schneider is, of course, Jewish and a life member of AIPAC, so it is hardly as if he is a disinterested party. Tenny runs for office in New York State, so it is hardly as if she is disinterested either, but the net result of all this is that American jobs and U.S. international security arrangements through weapons sales will be at least in part subject to Israeli veto. And you know that is precisely what will happen as Israel could give a damn what happens to the struggling American entity that it so successfully feeds off of.

    And there's still more. Bill HR 672 Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 14 th . Yes, I said "unanimously." The bill requires the State Department of monitor what European nations and their police forces are doing about anti-Semitism and encourages them to adopt "a uniform definition of anti-Semitism." That means that criticism of Israel must be considered anti-Semitism and will therefore be a hate crime and prosecutable, a status that is already de facto true in Britain and France. If the Europeans don't play ball, there is the possibility of repercussions in trade negotiations. The bill was co-sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida and Nita Lowey of New York, both of whom are Jewish.

    There is also a Senate companion bill on offer in the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act of 2017. The bill will make the Anti-Semitism Envoy a full American Ambassador and will empower him or her with a full staff and a budget permitting meddling worldwide. The bill is sponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Marco Rubio of Florida. Gillibrand is unlikely to miss co-sponsoring anything relating to Israel due to her own self-interest and Rubio wants to be president real bad so he is following the money.

    And finally, the U.S. Senate has also approved a resolution celebrating the 50 th anniversary of Israel's conquest of East Jerusalem. Again, the vote was unanimous. The resolution was co-sponsored by Senators Charles Schumer and Mitch McConnell, two reptiles who give snakes a bad name and about whom the less said the better. Schumer is Jewish and has described himself as the "shomer" or guardian of Israel in the Senate. That the resolution opposes long established U.S. government policy that the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank by Israel is in contravention of international law and is an impediment to any peace process with the Palestinians apparently bothered not even one Senator.

    I might note in passing that there has been no Senate resolution commemorating the 50 th anniversary of the bravery exhibited by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty as they were being slaughtered by the Israelis at the same time as Jerusalem was being "liberated." There is probably even more to say, to include secret agreements with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, but I will stop at this point with one final observation. President Donald Trump traveled to the Middle East claiming to be desirous of starting serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but it was all a sham. Benjamin Netanyahu took him aside and came out with the usual Israeli bullshit about the Palestinians "inciting" violence and hatred of Jews and Trump bought into it. He then went to see Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and shouted at him for being a liar and opposed to peace based on what Netanyahu had told him. That is what passes for even-handed in the U.S. government, no matter who is president. A few days later the Israelis announced the building of the largest bloc of illegal new settlements on the West Bank since 1992, an action that they claim is being coordinated with Washington.

    Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once boasted about owning the United States. I guess he was right.

    [Jun 20, 2017] Much of the left has gone completely bonkers on this issue. There is now an unholy alliance between the Cold War neocons in Congress and the Trump haters on the left in regard to Russia.

    Jun 20, 2017 | www.thenation.com

     Much of the left has gone completely bonkers on this issue. There is now an unholy alliance between the Cold War neocons in Congress and the Trump haters on the left in regard to Russia. Katha Pollitt's legitimate animosity toward Trump because of his attitude toward women has unfortunately clouded her judgment vis-ΰ-vis Russia. However, there is a substantial segment of the left that wants to see better relations with Russia and is dismayed and disheartened by the relentless hyping of the alleged Russian hacking, Trump's ties with Russia, etc. The neocons are laughing all the way to a military confrontation with Russia. Bravo to Victor Navasky and Stephen F. Cohen for continuing to speak truth to hysteria. And bravo to The Nation for doing the same in its editorials.

    Peggy Karp
    sebastopol, calif.

    [Jun 20, 2017] Those barbaric Russkies don't have Free Speech Pens for protestors like we have here in the Civilized West

    Notable quotes:
    "... At this point, I simply ignore the American media. I can't think of a single American news source that is unbiased or fair. So, I don't buy their papers, I don't listen to radio, I don't watch TV news. And I'm better informed that way. And, as an extra bonus, I get to laugh everytime I see them admit that their ratings and circulation continues to drop. ..."
    "... A shooter in DC opened fire on a group of Congressional Republlicans. What you won't hear. You won't hear any discussion about how Hillary and the Democrats have divided this country for their own gain. Historically, a defeated Presidential candidate always tried to at least appear to unify the country. One key case in recent memory, Al Gore didn't try to lead a revolution against Dubya after losing the 2000 election 5-4. ..."
    "... Hillary hasn't done this. She's been as mean, nasty and viscious as she was during the campaign, which basically consisted of calling Trump a fascist and a racist and telling anyone who dared to vote against her that they were deploreable. And of course, the Russia nonsense started during the campaign, when she had to distract attention from the fact that the Democrat primary process was a corrupt, rigged affair where the people never had a chance. So, we knew then that Hillary was willing to push the world closer to nuclear war for her own personal gain. ..."
    "... Slightly off-topic, but it does relate to the constant "fake-news" claim that the USA is a democracy and its constant wars, killings, torture and detentions are in the name of "democracy". ..."
    "... Paul Street (a good source for commentary) wrote. "I asked my "social media" correspondents if this lobbyist was actually playing on the Republican Congressional baseball team. Someone wrote back with a clever line: "Probably was the manager." ..."
    Jun 20, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Anonymous on June 13, 2017 · at 10:17 pm UTC

    This incident is priceless in capturing how pathetically debased the American and European Free Press(TM) are when it comes to scrounging up any contrived bit of propaganda fodder so as to promote their colored coup er revolution attempts in Russia (and elsewhere)–even if it means "mistaking" a World War 2 reenactment for anti-protest barricades. Oops!

    Those barbaric Russkies don't have Free Speech Pens for protestors like we have here in the Civilized West!

    Seriously though, it's important to expose this media disinformation each and every time that they occur so as to call out these purveyors of fake news.

    Granted, documenting and exposing these Free Press frauds is a full-time job.

    But political blood libels should never go unchallenged.

    In fact, the United States and Europeans not only are peddlers of Fake News. They promote even greater deceptions in the form of their Fake Democracy, Fake Freedom, and Fake "Western Civilization" itself.

    Media Disinformation on Monday Russian Street Protests
    https://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2017/06/media-disinformation-on-monday-russian.html

    FAKE NEWS WEEK: A Guide to Mainstream Media 'Fake News' War Propaganda
    http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/02/14/fake-news-week-a-guide-to-mainstream-media-fake-news-war-propaganda/

    Syria 'Hero Boy' Video Revealed to be Government Propaganda
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/syria-hero-boy-video-revealed-to-be-government-propaganda/

    Who is Behind "Fake News"? Mainstream Media Use Fake Videos and Images
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-is-behind-fake-news-mainstream-media-use-fake-videos-and-images/5557580

    Verami on June 13, 2017 , · at 10:34 pm UTC

    Wow, what a coincidence.
    Both Aleksei Venediktov and Vladimir Kozlovskii are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
    The Saker on June 14, 2017 , · at 3:41 am UTC
    LOL!!!
    yeah, you are right.
    that is undeniable
    Mad as Hell on June 13, 2017 , · at 10:47 pm UTC
    I know its off track but I just had to share this :

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/haley-slams-un-human-rights-report-for-singling-out-israel/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nikki-haley-un-human-rights-council-anti-israel-bias-ambassador-arab-countries-saudi-arabia-a7775381.html

    https://www.google.com.jm/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4806801/nikki-haley-human-rights-council-israel/%3Fsource%3Ddam

    http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/world/israel-middle-east/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/the-un-bullies-israel-u-s-ambassador-tells-benjamin-netanyahu-in-jerusalem

    http://www.npr.org/2017/06/06/531787128/ambassador-nikki-haley-accuses-u-n-human-rights-council-of-bashing-israel

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230763

    One thing for certain, as Israel's representative at the UN, no one can honestly say that Ms. Haley is not doing her job.

    If only other countries could have such dedicated representatives looking out for the interests of their respective countries.

    Talk about dedication, is there anything comparable out there?

    RB on June 14, 2017 , · at 12:04 am UTC
    With all due respect. Recreating WWII barricades with hedgehogs to celebrate a national holiday other than the V-Day is a pretty dumb idea if you ask me.
    James Lake on June 14, 2017 , · at 1:22 am UTC
    To RB,
    The festival was called the Times and Epochs festival and it wasn't just world war 2

    There were reenactments from vast periods of Russian history – Crimean war, Viking times, etc

    It was Russia Day and this was showing different events in history over time.

    It is a family day and many bring their children to the events

    Tomsen on June 16, 2017 , · at 3:57 pm UTC
    The Russians are just trying to make their people well prepared in these very sensitive years. Are you against that? Most Americans and Western liberals would strongly oppose it. "Stay defenseless Russia"!
    Taras77 on June 14, 2017 , · at 12:37 am UTC
    Thanks, Saker-excellent commentary! Link here to a similar article with extimates of numbers of "protesters" and the extent of support to navalny (~none):

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/392011-navalny-unsanctioned-protest-western-media/

    S-400 on June 14, 2017 , · at 12:38 am UTC
    Isnt that weasel Alexei Venediktov the same guy Putin had to put in his place somevyears back, for using his taxpayer -funded radio show to talk shit about Russia. Its some where on Youtube, where Putin told him to his face to stop talking bullshit and taking the Russian people for fools.
    Ingrid on June 14, 2017 , · at 5:41 am UTC
    You mean this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl90fme0XEc
    BRF on June 14, 2017 , · at 1:03 am UTC
    Am I to believe that Russians are happy with the status quo where the Russian oligarchy owns more of Russian wealth and assets than their western counterparts do in their own bailiwick? Perhaps the threats from the west have unified the Russian people behind their government but they are getting screwed over just as bad or worse as western peoples. Here is our common ground.
    Scott on June 14, 2017 , · at 2:35 am UTC
    BRF,

    When was the last time you heard about the "Russian mafia"? It seems to disappear without a trace. The "Russian oligarchs" have followed, being replaced by joined ownership by the state and domestic and foreign investors.

    One of the most powerful appeal of the Putin's government, if you know what I mean.

    The following are just two quotations:

    from a pro-Russia journalist

    Vladimir Yevtushenkov's asset-holding company Sistema has not inspired investor confidence since September of 2014. That was when Yevtushenkov was arrested in Moscow and charged with fraud and money-laundering in connexion with Sistema's takeover of Bashneft, a Volga region oil producer. That year, Sistema's market capitalization on the London Stock Exchange dropped from $15.5 billion to $1.2 billion, setting a new record for haircuts among Russia's oligarchs. Yevtushenkov's incarceration lasted eight weeks in home confinement, during which he gave up Bashneft and accepted a number of other terms from Russian prosecutors and their superiors.

    Sistema's takeover of the Bashneft oil company was the trigger for Yevtushenkov's encounter with Russia's Prosecutor-General. Once he had surrendered Bashneft to Rosneft, litigation began in civil courts.

    http://johnhelmer.net/vladimir-yevtushenkov-plays-monopoly-makes-friends-with-president-jacob-zuma-of-south-africa-for-a-50-billion-chance-and-gets-out-of-jail/#more-17712

    and from a "critic of Russia"

    The US and European sanctions against Russia have been a colossal miscalculation because they give Russians a rationale for the misery that has come, not only with rouble devaluation and the loss of oil and gas export income, but also from the inequality inflicted by the oligarch system which replaced the communist one. In cutting the Russian oligarchs and state banks off from the international capital they regularly stole and converted into offshore assets, the sanctions have forced self-sufficiency on a reluctant Kremlin, and neutralized, for the time being, the most powerful Russian lobby in favour of Americanization and - what amounted to the same thing, globalization. What's left of the fraud and conversion lobby in Moscow – Anatoly Chubais, Alexei Kudrin, Alexei Ulyukaev – is now under one form of house arrest or another.

    Whereas the first assault on Russia by western journalists, a quarter of a century ago, was the sign of the collapse of Russian resistance, this time it's the reverse – the signs of US and Anglo-European collapse, and Russian revival. We're going to have to live a long time to figure out which side turns out to be civilized, which barbarian. Uncertainty like this used to be called the Dark Ages.
    http://russia-insider.com/en/empires-last-gasp-anglo-american-journalism-chokes-its-own-digital-model/ri17928

    Anonymous on June 15, 2017 , · at 3:21 am UTC
    Scott:

    being replaced by joined ownership by the state and domestic and foreign investors. [emphasis added by myself]

    Russians would be wise to re-think foreign investment. They should limit the percentage foreigners can hold of a certain company. Additionally they should make sure that those laws can't be skirted as is the case with the radio station of Mr. Venediktov. Finally, they should make sure that for example a foreign investor can't hold the maximum share of each corporation that's open to foreign money (otherwise foreigners might have some kind of "monopoly" in certain industries). Be aware: foreign investment always comes with an outflow of money. Decision making (planning expansion or reducing of the work force) also should be in the hands of locals – foreign influence should be limited.

    Anonymous on June 14, 2017 , · at 3:08 am UTC
    At this point, I simply ignore the American media. I can't think of a single American news source that is unbiased or fair. So, I don't buy their papers, I don't listen to radio, I don't watch TV news. And I'm better informed that way. And, as an extra bonus, I get to laugh everytime I see them admit that their ratings and circulation continues to drop.

    And I still find it fascinating that the last election split on this issue. Polls said Trump voters almost uniformly mistrusted the media. The last election was between the people who don't trust the media and the people who read the NYT and lap up CNN. Guess what . the people who don't trust the media won. They are now the majority in the US. And since the BBC tells everyone to hate Corbyn and vote to Remain in the EU, it seems that this is also true in the UK.

    There's an easy answer to this nonsense .. TURN THEM OFF!

    juliania on June 14, 2017 , · at 12:06 pm UTC
    You have hit upon a most important insight, which of course the saturation media will not report on itself – that folk in the US have demonstrated very clearly how many simply were not listening or viewing any longer during and after the campaigns and elections. Indeed they were reading the present evolvement of samizdat, which has happened on the internet, such as Saker here.

    I'm sure with the original samizdat there were attempts by the USSR powers that be to infiltrate the process – but such attempts would have been clearly visible to the Russians looking for legitimate streams of information, simply in the wooden way in which they were presented. For when such powers take over the stream of creativity as propaganda for the regime, it becomes wooden – there's something our Creator has given us that can't be suppressed – the ability to think for our selves.

    Fewer and fewer now can stomach the genetic modifications that pass for news in mainstream press in the US. And there are now new trolls in the internet chat rooms – they stand out like the misfits they are, dutifully quoting this or that tv newsperson most of us don't even waste time on any longer. So, we know them, and we discount their attempts to rewrite history.

    What a delightful festival for the Russians! See, for them it is as if they restore to themselves the suppressed ability to critique openly the ills and delights of the past – something their ancestors might have been thrown in a monastic prison for daring to comment upon. It's a glorious expression of freedom to show – this is what we were: these were our shining moments, we the people, and this was what we had to endure, which only the brave bore witness to, and we honor them by bringing our children to learn of past sacrifices and past triumphs.

    And of course, the western press cannot explain this. For there, in the grace of God, go we. Some time in the future, our young people will be out on the streets re-enacting our own struggles to the turn of the century and beyond, when we preferred to elect an aging pompous clown who has no political experience rather than an aging warweary female – the worst and best/worst that could be manipulated into the spotlight. It will be a different festival, for sure, not as colorful perhaps, though the redcoats will be there, Jefferson, Lincoln and Martin Luther King I wish I could be around to see it. Maybe God will give us a special dispensation on that day, wake us up so we can have a look as generations to come rejoice. Yes, Russians – you are our future; be very proud!

    Friend on June 14, 2017 , · at 12:41 pm UTC
    Beautifully said.
    Western Media on June 14, 2017 , · at 3:35 am UTC
    That's right, you can't beat us! We are the end of history! We are the alpha and omega! We are the thousand-year new world order! We are his master's voice! We are the consensus of the international community! We are the march of progress! And we are not amused!
    Anonymous on June 14, 2017 , · at 7:28 pm UTC
    In other words, basically the same thing the big wooly mammoth shouted while sinking into the tar pit.
    Ann on June 14, 2017 , · at 5:02 am UTC
    that smartass guy Aleksei was in a video where Putin talked to him – I remember his face – what a royal pain in the ass that guy is – I wonder if there is a parallel in the States to someone like him –

    I guess though that the States is really 'like him' and Putin is the lone warrior doing the true journalism –

    Oscar on June 14, 2017 , · at 6:06 am UTC
    I picked up this from Wikipedia about the origins of this guy (Venediktkov) "His mother Eleonora Abramovna Dykhovichnaya was a doctor of Jewish origin" Not much to talk about.
    Lokus on June 14, 2017 , · at 7:35 am UTC
    I think, the fall of Putin is close.
    Young, liberal Russia demands western way of life, freedoms, good erotic style.

    Young, liberal Russia is eager to deliver Russian natural resources to western companies in exchange for visa free travel. Or for one Trump's smile.

    _smr on June 14, 2017 , · at 8:18 am UTC
    No surprises here.

    By the way of deception is Zion's only way. Deception in the sense of fiction. All the stories they have told us from Moses to Charlie Hebdo, from Solomon's Temple to the Moon Landing, from Manna to the US $ – it is all invented, fabricated, scripted, coded, repeated, made into a Shakespeare play, then into a Hollywood movie, then finally ends up as exhibit 666 in a Holocaust museum near your local Starbucks and the freak show never ends.

    Maybe it will end one day.

    The recent streak of unforced errors by Zion is unprecedented. Since about the time when Crimea was liberated from Zion's Ukr-Nazis, everything Zion touched has gone haywire. It's quite the sight. What idiots!

    _smr on June 14, 2017 , · at 9:15 am UTC
    Hint: Laughable stunts of this sort can only work when an all-out Zionstream media psyop is reinforced by Zion agents embedded in key positions of the local power structure. Names that come to mind: Lenin, Merkel, Robespierre

    Under the watch of Putin, such a situation is not given in Russia. Therefore, without knowing any details of the above farce, we confidently can declare it a failure at onset.

    I add it to the recently fast-growing list of unforced errors of Zion.

    Greg Bacon on June 14, 2017 , · at 11:03 am UTC
    Americans are watching their nation's infrastructure fall apart, because we spend a lot of money on fighting endless MENA wars for Wall Street and Israel, the only ones really benefiting from this carnage–plus the defense contractors.

    Our medical costs are going sky-high, thanks to Obama Care, but no one in the press asks questions about our nation's roads, bridges and outdated nuclear plants, since they're too busy screaming about Russia or Putin or Assad.

    One GOOD thing about Trump's election is that the MSM was forced to go full Banzai mode to offset the horror they felt from not having the psycho Hillary in the WH, and in doing so, fully exposed themselves as LIARS and Propaganda spinners.

    Edward on June 14, 2017 , · at 2:10 pm UTC
    Another ridiculous episode in American propaganda was the press meltdown when Chavez came to power in Venezuela. After decades of silence about the crimes of the CIA-backed regimes in South America all of a sudden the press discover human rights problems in Venezuela because the government of that oil rich country opposes neo-liberal economic policies. Chazev wanted to redistribute wealth. This tells you what the press does and does not consider a crime.
    Anonymous on June 14, 2017 , · at 7:26 pm UTC
    Today's Fake News to watch ..

    A shooter in DC opened fire on a group of Congressional Republlicans. What you won't hear. You won't hear any discussion about how Hillary and the Democrats have divided this country for their own gain. Historically, a defeated Presidential candidate always tried to at least appear to unify the country. One key case in recent memory, Al Gore didn't try to lead a revolution against Dubya after losing the 2000 election 5-4.

    Hillary hasn't done this. She's been as mean, nasty and viscious as she was during the campaign, which basically consisted of calling Trump a fascist and a racist and telling anyone who dared to vote against her that they were deploreable. And of course, the Russia nonsense started during the campaign, when she had to distract attention from the fact that the Democrat primary process was a corrupt, rigged affair where the people never had a chance. So, we knew then that Hillary was willing to push the world closer to nuclear war for her own personal gain.

    Since the election, its gotten even worse. At this point, Hillary has nothing to gain, at least not politically. I'm sure there's a lucrative book deal in her future. But, a two-time loser like Hillary will never become President. Even the Democrats aren't that stupid to even try.

    But still, she's done everything she can to divide the country. Apparently just out of spite. And the shooting today seems to flow directly from that. When you stir up hatred and violence like Hillary and the Democrats have done, it becomes highly likely that some less than stable person will take it way, way, way too far.

    Thanks Hillary!

    Anonymous on June 15, 2017 , · at 3:36 am UTC
    Anonymous:

    Since the election, its gotten even worse. At this point, Hillary has nothing to gain, at least not politically. I'm sure there's a lucrative book deal in her future.

    A book deal?!? How greedy can one "power couple" be? They cashed in big time with their speeches (more than a hundred million). If you add the money (over a billion) of the Clinton foundation, then you've got billionaires. They would need centuries to spend all that money if they were living a modest lifestyle.

    Anonymous on June 16, 2017 , · at 6:06 pm UTC
    Amazing what a "lifetime of public service" has gotten them. The poor kid from hope Arkansas is now a billionaire. Yep, that's "public service."

    Just what is Hillary fighting for at this point? If she thinks she can still be President, she'd delusional. For on thing her health doesn't seem likely to hold out long enough to make another run in her mid-70's. And in America, previous losers are almost never later elected. Richard Nixon in '68 after losing to Kennedy in '60 is the only exceptin I can think of. And how'd that turn out?

    So, none of this is about Hillary's political future. And Bill couldn't be elected National Dog Catcher at this point. So, why is Hillary working so very hard to divide and destroy America? Given that millions of Russian money flowed to the Clinton Foundation, perhaps its Hillary who's the secret Russian agent?

    Anonymous on June 14, 2017 , · at 10:28 pm UTC
    "I feel sincerely sorry for the western reporters in Russia: their bosses are demanding signs of protests, of violence,"

    Shades of the creator of 'Yellow Journalism', WIlliam Randolph Hearst who, after receiving a cable from his photographer in Cuba saying "there will be no war," cabled back: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

    Anonymous on June 15, 2017 , · at 9:30 am UTC
    Interesting news from Donbass.

    It seems that earlier this year, all 12 members of a group of Canadian military trainers were killed by Novorossian forces on the frontline in east Ukraine. They were mistaken for a Ukraine intelligence group. Officially the Canadians were supposed to be based in west Ukraine, training the neo-Nazis (ahem regular good ole' Ukrainian military), so a batch of them getting terminated in east Ukraine proved

    Anonymous on June 15, 2017 , · at 9:30 am UTC
    Interesting news from Donbass.

    It seems that earlier this year, all 12 members of a group of Canadian military trainers were killed by Novorossian forces on the frontline in east Ukraine. They were mistaken for a Ukraine intelligence group. Officially the Canadians were supposed to be based in west Ukraine, training the neo-Nazis (ahem regular good ole' Ukrainian military), so a batch of them getting terminated in east Ukraine proved to be embarassing. In response, the Canadian regime removed restrictions on where Canadian troops could be based, as Trudeau "did not like having to tell the families of the dead their sons died in a classified NATO operation. These measures are designed to give the military the room to do their job, as they wish."

    So there you have it. The most important thing is not to cause upset to Trudeau.

    http://novorossia.today/dozen-canadian-soldiers-killed-donbass-trudeau-wants-come-home-flag-draped-caskets-mission-now-extends-ukraine/

    S113 on June 15, 2017 , · at 2:24 pm UTC
    Some questionable facts in this report – but Fort Russ reported a few months back that Canadian mercenaries were seen near the line of contact. Trudeau and Canadian Armed Forces are not using mercenaries in Ukraine. Quite possibly, someone hired their own personal 'gang of thugs' from Garda Security:

    "Canada's Blackwater: the world's largest privately held security firm"

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/garda-canadas-blackwater-the-worlds-largest-privately-held-security-firm/5519365

    Yk on June 15, 2017 , · at 9:24 pm UTC
    Lol I really enjoy reading this as usual. The humour in the last paragraph made my day. Thanks Saker as always
    DannyO on June 16, 2017 , · at 4:51 am UTC
    So all the protestors were going to be driving miniature tanks up against the miniature anti tank barricades? I guess most of those protestors would be shriners driving clown tanks and wearing fez hats.
    Welcome to the world of hipster presstitutes who have absolutely no clue.
    Anonymous on June 16, 2017 , · at 5:58 pm UTC
    Slightly off-topic, but it does relate to the constant "fake-news" claim that the USA is a democracy and its constant wars, killings, torture and detentions are in the name of "democracy".

    A group of Congressional members and staffers gather for a baseball practice to prepare for an annual charity game. A madman opens fire. Among those seriously injured is a lobbyist for Tyson Foods.

    That says so much about the USA and the US Congress. That members and staffers don't even hold a baseball practice without a lobbyist being present. That lobbyists are so integrated and embedded in the US Congress that a shooting at a group of members and staffers hits a lobbyist who's a part of the group.

    Paul Street (a good source for commentary) wrote. "I asked my "social media" correspondents if this lobbyist was actually playing on the Republican Congressional baseball team. Someone wrote back with a clever line: "Probably was the manager."

    Mike K. on June 19, 2017 , · at 6:56 pm UTC
    The author of the Politico piece http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/12/how-russia-targets-the-us-military-215247

    is a Zionist Jew who has written, gleefully, about the 'Death of the W.A.S.P.' Venediktov is as well. Nasha Gessen, Cathy Young The NYT and CNN chief propagandists: the very highly disproportionate number of Jews who are the authors of anti-Putin pieces in the US, UK, and France, and likely elsewhere is remarkae in two ways:

    1) Given the predominant Jewish role in Bolshevik massacres and torture of ethnic Russians (and Jewish role in stealing much of Russia's wealth under/after Yeltsin;

    2) But mostly: given the fact it is absolutely a forbidden topic, even as it is Jewish neocons in the US who are a major, if not necessarily predominant force in Washington think tanks, lobbies and media.

    The number of times I find that the author of dishonest anti-Russian warmongering is Jewish is absolutely stunning.

    I do not believe for one moment it has to do with human rights or anything but what they deem is good for Jews as a Global Shadow Empire.

    I may be wrong, however.

    [Jun 18, 2017] Red Alert: Russian Focus Might Save Trumps

    Notable quotes:
    "... I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you are going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and claim vindication. ..."
    "... Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol," because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place ..."
    "... Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was a key player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them inherent, unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero. ..."
    "... Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and demonstrable mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs" that they have been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or, more and more often, an outright, active traitor. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    Jun 18, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
    The "historic" appearances of James Comey Chameleon and Jefferson Davis Andersonville Sessions before a Senate committee have come and gone, leaving us pretty much where we were before. Trump was made to look stupid and thuggish (not exactly front-page news); his GOP apologists and enablers employed even more ludicrous justifications for said stupidity and thuggery ("Hey, the kid is still green, he didn't know he was doing anything wrong - not that he did do anything wrong, mind you."); media outlets reaped tons of ad revenue; twittery was rampant on every side. We all had a jolly good time. But as for the ostensible object of the exercise - learning more about possible Russian interference in the electoral process, and any part Trump's gang might have had in colluding with this and/or covering it up - there was not a whole lotta shaking going on.

    That's to be expected. For I don't believe we are ever going to see confirmable proof of direct collusion between the Trump gang and the Kremlin to skew the 2016 election. I don't doubt there is a myriad of ties between Trump and nefarious Russian characters, all of whom will of necessity have some connection to Putin's authoritarian regime. And there may well be underhanded Trump gang ties of corruption to the state itself. But I don't think a "smoking gun" of direct collusion with Trump's inner circle in vote tampering exists. If it did, it would be out by now. It's obvious the intelligence services and FBI were all over the Trump campaign, looking into Russian ties from many angles.

    I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you are going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and claim vindication.

    Meanwhile, away from the "dramatic hearings" and the all-day permanent Red scare of the "Resistance," the Trump White House and the Congressional extremists are quietly, methodically, relentlessly transforming the United States into a hideous oligarch-owned, burned-out, broken-down, looted-out, chaos-ridden, far-right dystopia. Right now, the Senate Republicans are trying to push through, in secret, a "health-care" bill that is scarcely less draconian than the universally hated House version, and like that bill, consists of two main parts: a gargantuan tax cut for the very rich and taking away healthcare coverage for millions upon millions of ordinary citizens, including the most vulnerable people in the nation.

    And what did we hear Monday from Democratic staffers? That the Senate Democrats are NOT going to wage a fight to the death to prevent this monstrosity from being inflicted on the people; they're not "going nuclear," using every possible tactic and procedural rule to derail the Trumpcare bill, or at least stall it long enough to raise a public outcry against it. And why not? Why, because the Republicans have promised that no sanctions will be removed on Russia without the Democrats getting a chance to vote on it in the Senate. This is the kind of misplaced priority I'm talking about.

    I won't even get into the fact that progressives and liberals now venerate the intelligence services they used to rightly condemn for decades of lies and deceit and misinformation and covert murder and, yes, manipulation of our electoral process (not to mention those of other nations.) And let's put aside how every "anonymous leak" from an "intelligence source" is now treated as gospel - even though it comes from the same "intelligence sources" that anonymously leaked all that "credible" evidence of Saddam's WMD way back in caveman times. And told us that Gadafy was about to unleash genocide on his people and was sending in rape squads jacked up on Viagra, etc., only to sheepishly admit later these claims had been all false after Gadafy had been sodomized and murdered in the street by NATO-backed Islamic extremists, even as Hillary Clinton laughed out loud and declared, "We came, we saw, he DIED!"

    Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol," because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place.

    Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was a key player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them inherent, unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero.

    Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and demonstrable mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs" that they have been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or, more and more often, an outright, active traitor.

    Let's put aside all this for now, disheartening as it is, and focus on this: if the intent is to bring down Trump, then there is ample material just lying there for the taking - evidence of blatant criminality and corruption that could be taken up right now, keeping Trump and his whole sick crew tied up in prosecutions, investigations, special committees and independent prosecutors out the wazoo. The man had known Mafia figures with him at his New Year's celebration in Mar-a-Lago just months ago, for God's sake. You don't have to pry piss-tapes from the Kremlin to bring down a mook like Trump.

    Of course, part of the problem is that a genuinely wide-ranging and thorough investigation of Trump's criminal corruption would doubtless expose the deep rot at the heart of our system, the incredibly complex entwining of the underworld and the "upper world": the dirty deals, the tax dodges, the sweetheart contracts, the cut-outs to maintain "deniability," the bribes, the "gifts," the special arrangements, the corporate espionage, the interpenetration of state and corporate power at every level, even in warfare and diplomacy - in short, all of the "corrupted currents" that lay behind the gilded facade maintained by our bipartisan elites and their servitors in the political-media class. If you start to pull too hard on the stinking threads of Trump's criminal entanglements, who knows what else might come undone, who else might be exposed?

    We saw during the last campaign this reluctance to really go after Trump for the string of dodgy deals and frauds he's left across a decades-long career. Every now and then there would be a quick jab, but even these would usually be obscured by Trump's artful use of blathering idiocy on Twitter. Was he defrauding veterans and cancer patients with his patently fraudulent charities? "Look there! Trump just said McCain was a loser for being captured in Vietnam!" Didn't Trump commit criminal fraud in scamming people out of millions with his fake Trump University? "Look there! Trump's tweeting racist attacks on the judge!" And so off we'd go, fixing on the galling spectacle of Trump's character, while the focus on actual crime and corruption would recede. This reluctance was evident in both the GOP primary and in the general election. I kept waiting for the gloves to come off on Trump's dirty deals, but they never really did. The focus remained on his sleazy character, not his legal dangers; and Trump had long known that the spectacular sleaziness of his character was the mainspring of his popularity, both as a celebrity and candidate. (And yes, this sleaziness and corruption was well-known even when Bill and Hillary were wrapping their arms around Donald at his wedding years before.)

    Be that as it may, there is still probably more than enough material on the surface for our elites to bring Trump down without going too deep into the corrupted currents where their own murk might be stirred up. Heck, there might even be enough honest players in the political circus to lead a multi-front attack on Trump's corruption without worrying about themselves being exposed. If you really want to bring Trump down - and in that way, cripple or at least hamper the ravages of the extremists who are using him as their tool - then it seems to me this more straightforward approach would be far more likely to succeed than waiting for some spy to come in from the cold and put incontrovertible proof of direct collusion in our hands.

    But I don't see any sign of this happening anytime soon, if ever. The focus will remain on the Russians, who despite being genetically inferior lowbrow swindlers are nevertheless capable of orchestrating practically every event in the world, including, I guess, the rise of Rupert Murdoch and the rightwing media machine, the politicised fundamentalist churches and the thousands of sinister ideological outfits bankrolled by weird billionaires, all of which have spawned an entire alternative universe in which millions of people now live, feeding on lies and smears and hatemongering that fuels their prejudices, their fears, their resentments and their anger, and corrodes their sense of commonality and community with their fellow citizens. I would venture to say that the deliberate cultivation of this vicious and violent alternative reality - along with the creation of the Electoral College in the 18th century, and the vote suppression laws passed by billionaire-funded extremists in state legislatures that disenfranchised millions of anti-Trump voters - had more to do with Trump's victory than any phishing expeditions or email leaking by the Russians.

    Again, I'm not saying that the latter didn't happen; it may well be that the people who lied to our faces about yellow cake and aluminium tubes and vials of sarin and CIA torture, the people who wage drone wars on farmers and wedding parties, the people who persecute the mentally ill for their own aggrandizement while stirring up needless fear and hatred are now being honourable and truthful in every single thing they tell us. I genuinely hope so. If they produced that smoking gun from the Kremlin tomorrow and brought Trump down, I'd be over the moon. But I don't think that is going to happen. And I fear we will find that a great deal of ruin has been done - and many more promising avenues of attack have been ignored, perhaps for good - while we chase ghosts in the shadowlands of espionage.

    But hey, don't listen to me. I not only write for a publication which was put on a McCarthyite list of "subversives" trumpeted in the Washington Post (before it had to backpedal), I actually even lived in Russia once, which as we know - in an age where Louise Mensch is regarded as a credible source by the "Resistance" and all things Russian are tainted - means I am obviously a Kremlin agent or a Putin fanboy trying to save Comrade Trump from the forces of righteousness. What's more, I know people who still live in Russia, some of whom are even - gasp! - genetically Russian. (Please don't tell liberal hero James Clapper!) So of course, all of these people must be Kremlin tools as well - even though they are putting their lives and livelihoods on the line every day fighting Putin's tyranny, with a courage I doubt we'll see from many of our "Resisters" when Trump finishes with Muslims, immigrants, African-Americans, the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the insulted and injured of every stripe and finally come for the "real" people who read the New York Times and watch Rachel Maddow. For these days it's simply impossible to be associated with Russia in any way, or to question the credibility of our security organs in the slightest, or to suggest possibly better alternatives for removing Trump's copious rump from the Oval Office, without being shunned by polite progressive society.

    So take what I say with a pinch of bread and salt. (The traditional Russian offering of welcome - oh damn, I gave myself away again!) But if the focus stays largely on Russia, don't be surprised to see Trump sitting on the White House toilet playing with his tweeter four years from now while Steven Bannon and Richard Spencer plan his re-election campaign.

    [Jun 18, 2017] MSM Fake News vs. the Truth by Joachim Hagopian

    Notable quotes:
    "... #Pizzagate ..."
    "... "Don't Let The Bastards Getcha Down." ..."
    "... http://empireexposed.blogspot.com ..."
    Dec 20, 2016 | www.lewrockwell.com
    The Information War: Western Crime Cabal and MSM "Fake News" vs. Truth from Alternative News

    Virtually every current headline unequivocally shows how US Empire and its Ministry of Propaganda are lying to the American people. Those in power have been so exposed by alt-media in 2016 that they are growing more desperate by the day. Right now their biggest lie is blaming Putin and Russia for being behind everything gone wrong in the world according to the Obama-Clinton-Bush-CIA-Rothschild crime cabal. The latest claims assert that Putin's hackers overturned the presidential election results in favor of Donald Trump and this whopper is currently being pushed as the flimsiest, last gasp excuse to spearhead its hollow "fake news" crusade in order to both outlaw the truth and derail Trump's January 20 th inauguration.

    Longtime State Department veteran psychiatrist Steve Pieczenik , CIA/NSA whistleblower William Binney, CIA whistleblower Ray McGovern, and former UK ambassador Craig Murray have all stated that there is zero evidence showing that the Russians "hacked" emails or interfered with the election outcome in any way. Credible former CIA officers emphatically state that the emails were leaked, not hacked and that Putin had nothing to do with it. The 17 US intelligence agencies remain conflicted with the verdict still out, unable to even arrive at a consensus, despite the FBI's latest cave-in to pressures to feebly present a belated united front against Russia. Flip flopper Comey's at it again. Up until a day or so ago, the FBI maintained that there was not enough evidence to conclude the Russians hacked into DNC records or emails. The Clintons, Obama and their "intelligence" minions are fast growing irrelevant and impotent as the yearend days count down. What's perfectly clear is the CIA/MSM liars are acting on orders from the Clinton et al cartel deceitfully politicizing this meme because they cannot accept the fact that Hillary lost her "anointed" election. The feds' unending war agenda may soon be collapsing.

    Before rushing to lynch mob judgment demonizing Putin once again, an important reminder worth noting is the historic track record of the Clintons, Obama, the Bushes and the CIA is that they lie all the time, both pathologically and professionally as full blown certifiable psychopaths . They all played a major part in creating and continuing to back the terrorists al Qaeda, al Nusra and ISIS in the Middle East and beyond. With perhaps the exception of the Saul Alinsky -Bill Ayers, " terrorist-inspired " community organizer and then Illinois state senator Obama, it's worth mentioning that they all bear guilt in murdering 3000 American citizens on 9/11 and then shamelessly promoting the boldface lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and direct links to terrorists. But let's not leave out Pinocchio-nosed Barrack who promised to be the most open and transparent president in US history and then proceeded to be the most secretive , least transparent, and perhaps most incompetent president in US history. But then given the mission to destroy America from within by the ruling elite that groomed and launched his meteoric rise, his puppet masters no doubt are very pleased with his record. And as far as the Central Intelligence Agency goes, as the elite's private mercenary army , from its very get-go the CIA's very purpose and everyday business have always been made of lies and propaganda .

    Instead of blindly blaming the Russians, far more credible sources have posited that at least one DNC insider – Seth Rich – leaked documents and then likely paid for it with his murdered life. Additionally, if you believe Steve Piecnezik, intelligence operatives launched a soft anti-Clinton counter-coup handing over the thousands of Clinton-Podesta emails to WikiLeaks. And now we're even learning that US Homeland Security has been trying to hack into the Georgia state election apparatus at least ten times. So all these alleged hacks and leaks seem to surfacing internally from sources within the United States, mostly from operatives working either directly inside the government or political apparatchik.

    Another relevant point worth raising is the indisputable fact that the US government is the most notoriously guilty entity in the world for constantly meddling and interfering in other sovereign nations' internal elections and affairs, engaging in crime after crime assassinating foreign leaders , and executing dozens of coups overthrowing sovereign governments. And let's face it, all the major players on the global stage are guilty of spying on one another, particularly in cyber-espionage , again with the US the main culprit. So this whole notion of using the blame game to falsely accuse other countries of the very same hideous aggressions that Washington is most guilty perpetrating for well over a century is extremely hypocritical in the least and downright diabolical to the max. Yet for centuries now this kind of duplicity and hubris is exactly how American exceptionalism has criminally operated around the globe with total impunity.

    The "blame the Russian" game is an old cold war propaganda tactic from way back. History just keeps repeating itself because the powers-that-shouldn't-be exploit and count on Americans having a short attention span. Those who witnessed or pay attention to history can recall the cold war era of the early 1950's and the Red Scare of McCarthyism when many people's lives were ruined by dishonestly branding them as so-called communists and communist sympathizers. Deep state USA is at it once again, unjustly singling out and punishing those who speak the truth online by again falsely accusing them of being agents of Russian propaganda. Blacklisting alt-media sites that legitimately report accurate accounts of news events and world developments by again falsely accusing them as "fake news" sources when the corporate media liars themselves are infamously guilty of fake news propaganda is just more of the same bogus modus operandi that the government and mainstream media have been redeploying indefinitely for decades.

    Project Mockingbird flourished throughout the cold war from the 1950's right into the 1970's and beyond when the CIA influenced if not controlled all the biggest news outlets (25 newspapers and wire agencies) using them to spread Washington's own cold war propaganda. This sinister collusion between the feds and the press resulted in the imperialistic division of two Asian ethnicities – the Koreans and Vietnamese people each split into two enemy nations fighting two costly wars killing up to over 7 million Asians (not to mention 95,000 American soldiers). And when the Senate Church Committee finally exposed Mockingbird, in 1976 then CIA director George Bush senior was forced to proclaim on paper at least its "official" end. But subsequent planting of disinformation in the foreign press that by design would then spread to the US was yet another covert means by which the deceitful CIA continued its propaganda control over both US and foreign news markets.

    This unholy nexus has also persisted right up till today through such common ties as the all-powerful Council on Foreign Relations. For many decades the CFR strategically courts and recruits prominent members from mainstream media as well as the entertainment industry for the exact same PR purpose of using them to promote deep state propaganda and collude in corrupt cover-ups to willfully deceive the American public. Then in recent years the corporatized merging of government and mass media utilizing US military, CIA and FBI liaisons in Hollywood has only consolidated power and media control into fewer and fewer hands, with 6 oligarchs in control of the 6 largest mega media giants controlling the outflow of over 90% of today's news. Virtually every TV show and film out of Hollywood now is pure deep state propaganda serving for a full century as the best recruitment venue for brainwashing the next generation of GI's dying on foreign soil battlefields. Hence, what's emerged today is a fascist government cabal maintaining illegitimate control and authority through false propaganda delivered 24/7 by deep state surrogate the mainstream media.

    But during this US presidential election year, largely due to WikiLeaks, social media and alternative and independent news, citizens of the world have discovered how corrosively evil in its criminality this existing crime cabal is, personified by the Clintons, Obama, and their minions in Washington, Wall Street and the corporate media. Over the last couple months the Clinton-Podesta connection has been directly tied to a global child sex trafficking ring operating from the " life insurance " laptop of Hillary's closest, 20-year aide- Saudi operative Huma Abedin's husband, disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner. But the pedophilia network has more recently expanded to include an infamous block of sinister pizza parlors and front offices in upscale Northwest Washington operating eerily close to the White House (perhaps even closer through DC's network of underground tunnels). Enter #Pizzagate .

    And through thousands of internet sleuths working together online 24/7, the crumbling, gaping cracks of this crime cabal wall have been exposed like never before, threatening to bring down the most powerful Luciferian worshipping pedophiles at the top of this planet's demonic food chain. And this raw naked exposure of the diabolical matrix has the guilty party – the Obamas, Bushes, and Clintons panicking and resorting to extreme desperate measures to hide and conceal the filthy truth of who and what they are. Hence, in this age of deception and culture of evil, we are now living in a new era of McCarthyism frantically unleashed to justify their latest attack campaign on steroids to censor and ban all blacklisted alternative media news sites that provide much needed counterbalancing truth to the official false narrative lies. The aim here is to eliminate and silence all truth tellers so that the evildoers – as naked and exposed as they already are, can attempt to hold onto their waning power, slipping fast now from their control.

    By deep state egregiously accusing alt-news of being "agents of Russian propaganda ," it intends to shut down America's First Amendment right to a free press – the alternative news, which regularly exposes NSM and gov.corps' propaganda lies. The totalitarian agenda now being rushed through prior to Trump becoming president has already passed " anti-Russian propaganda " bills in both chambers of Congress aimed at banning over 200 targeted alt-news sites on their bogus blacklists. Additionally, the EU has threatened further tyrannical censorship if co-opted internet ponds Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft, and Reddit don't eliminate the so-called "fake news" from its social media and search engines. In effect, a final power grab is being played out right now attempting to usurp, control and silence the last voice of honest and accurate news accounting of what goes on in this world. But the crime cabal will fail as the world knows too much already.

    Since 9/11 those who question authority refusing to believe the deep state lies have been customarily discarded as " conspiracy nuts ." Though for decades this strategy was quite effective, it's now wearing thin as more people every day are beginning to realize the truth about the previously concealed criminality endlessly committed by DC puppets and their masters. As a result, deep state's agenda has been to increasingly criminalize dissidents as potential homegrown terrorists and radicalized enemies of the state. What we're currently witnessing is the systematic targeting of both dissenting individuals and alternative news organizations as "dangerously" unwanted truth tellers posing the single largest threat to the crime cabal's continued power and control.

    And with only a few remaining weeks, for that reason alone Obama and the Clintons are moving at breakneck speed to neutralize opposing forces bent on seeking justice by sending them to rot in prison. Since Soros' post-election riots have fizzled, Stein's recount failed and stealing the presidency through pro-Hillary death threats against Trump electoral voters have one by one fallen short of overturning the election, silencing alt-news and igniting a war against Russia are their last, "best shot" ploys that would manufacture the needed national crisis to prevent Trump from assuming office next month. Who knows? In the few days prior to January 20 th , a false flag perpetrated by Washington neo-crazies as a last gasp effort to blame Russia "justifying" war against the nuclear power may still be up their pathetic evil sleeve. That's how desperate these despots are, terrified their pedo-crimes will soon be their ruin.

    In the meantime, yet another draconian law HR 4919 was just passed in the House. Using the benignly logical rationale of tracking lost victims suffering from autism or dementia, deep state is now pushing for RFID chips to be implanted in all people diagnosed with autism and dementia. Similar past measures have authorized the government to round up the homeless or those afflicted with respiratory ailments during the Ebola scare. Operating under the auspices of the Center for Disease Control (CDC), in mid-August, the CDC proposed to grant itself the unlimited unconstitutional power to round up and detain citizens en masse without reason or due process, kind of like the medical bookend to the 2013 FDAA that also obliterates citizens' legal rights and civil liberties. The feds are becoming increasingly over-the- top in their totalitarian oppression, knowing that for good reason more people are opposing mandatory vaccinations for both children and adults as well as proposed mandatory microchips. Recall that a couple years ago NBC was predicting that next year every American would be micro chipped .

    Like the regretful German pastor Martin Niemoller's famous quote decrying each group targeted and taken away by the Nazis without his speaking out, after the communists, socialists, trade unionists and the Jews, by the time they came for him it was too late. How far will the government go with its growing hit list of expendable throwaways? What's to stop the deep state from making microchips mandatory for anyone diagnosed with a mental disorder? Or the entire world population for that matter?

    The insane DSM-5 has recently expanded the number of mental illnesses into absurdity, making sure to include practically anyone and everyone. The Diagnostic Statistical Manual has become the official tool and vehicle by which the government is moving to criminalize abnormality. This slippery slope may soon include every human on the planet.

    As a former diagnostic clinician, I can tell you that the criteria by which people can be diagnosed with a dangerous label from a vast array is extremely arbitrary and subjective. There's nothing scientific or foolproof about it. Mislabeling citizens who may pose "trouble or a threat" to the authoritarian state is wide open for overreaching, widespread abuse as the convenient false pretense for microchipping and controlling a growing segment of "undesirables" within the population. Branding any individual who does not trust authority figures with "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" or anyone who appears "overly" health conscious and selective about what they eat as "suffering" from orthorexia nervosa could simply be deep state's way of branding us all with certifiable labels. Deep state has co-opted the psychiatric profession which is largely owned and controlled by Big Pharma, using its Diagnostic Statistical Manual's unlimited mental disorders as yet another weapon of mass destruction playbook for diabolical population control purposes.

    In recent years MSM has clearly become Washington's ministry of propaganda . And adding insult to injury, Congress is busily passing bills designed to outlaw the real truth, so as to empower its propaganda ministry to become its "truth" ministry . We are living the Orwellian nightmare come true, as " useless eating " victims of a fascist totalitarian oligarchic police state bent on perpetrating democide as well as human genocide as part of its demonic eugenics plan to drastically reduce the world pop. from 7.4 billion to anywhere from a half to one billion depending on which invasively surveilled and controlled population in human history by a centralized tyrannical government controlling a centralized financial debtor-slave system . Deep state and corporate media together engage in covert concealment of secret, heinously deplorable brutality protecting the elite's systemic criminality perpetrated we now know on a massive colossal scale.

    A century ago the ruling elite known as the internationalists envisioned a one world government. Now that same ruling elite controlled by the same tainted bloodlines are called globalists and they're rushing to suppress the truth on their way to bringing on the perfect storm that will usher in the violent tyranny of their global governance. Outside of technology that enables increasing power and control, little has otherwise changed over the course of the last century. That said, never before have more citizens of the world become aware of the treasonous and demonic crimes committed by those psychopaths in power. Before closing a final reminder warrants stating. Regardless of the figurehead occupying the White House, the same demonic power elite is still holding power over this earth. And the battle for truth, justice, and our very lives will continue after January 20 th . The doomsday clock that's been ticking under the Bush-Clinton-Obama cabal is only ticking shorter now and our struggle is hardly over.

    The Best of Joachim Hagopian

    Joachim Hagopian [ send him mail ] is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled "Don't Let The Bastards Getcha Down." It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master's degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.com .

    [Jun 18, 2017] As a Chosen People with what Niebuhr refers to as a Messianic consciousness, Americans came to see them selves as set apart, their motives irreproachable, their actions not to be judged by standards applied to others.

    Jun 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    JohnH -

    , June 17, 2017 at 04:18 PM
    Bacevich is a treasure...he's been inside the belly of the beast, and understands from first hand knowledge how it produces immense quantities of BS for public consumption and for preserving its own perks, privileges, and budgets.
    libezkova - , June 17, 2017 at 11:39 PM
    Yes, Bacevich is an interesting conservative critic of neocon foreign policy.

    See for example his recent book:

    https://www.amazon.com/Americas-War-Greater-Middle-East/dp/0553393952

    He wrote a foreword to reprint of The Irony of American History (Paperback) by Reinhold Niebuhr which you can read on Amazon for free.

    Niebuhr thought deeply about the dilemmas confronting the United States as a consequence of its emergence after World War I and, even more, after World War II, as a global superpower. The truths he spoke are uncomfortable ones for us to hear-uncomfortable not only because they demand a great deal of us as citizens, but also because they outline so starkly some of our recent failures. Four such truths are especially underlined in The Irony of American History: the persistent sin of American Exceptionalism; the indecipherability of history; the false allure of simple solutions; and, finally, the imperative of appreciating the limits of power.

    The Anglo-American colonists who settled these shores, writes Niebuhr, saw their purpose as "to make a new beginning in a corrupt world." They believed "that we had been called out by God to create a new humanity." They believed further that this covenant with God marked America as a new Israel.

    As a Chosen People with what Niebuhr refers to as a "Messianic consciousness," Americans came to see them selves as set apart, their motives irreproachable, their actions not to be judged by standards applied to others.

    ... ... ...

    Niebuhr has little patience for those who portray the United States as acting on God's behalf. "All men are naturally inclined to obscure the morally ambiguous element in their political cause by investing it with religious sanctity," he once observed. "This is why religion is more frequently a source of confusion than of light in the political realm."

    In the United States, he continued, "The tendency to equate our political with our Christian convictions causes politics to generate idolatry."9

    Evangelical conservatism and its growing influence on American politics, which Niebuhr did not live to see, have only reinforced this tendency.

    Niebuhr anticipated that the American veneration of liberty could itself degenerate into a form of idolatry. In the midst of World War II, he went so far as to describe the worship of democracy as "a less vicious version of the Nazi creed." He cautioned that "no society, not even a democratic one, is great enough or good enough to make itself the final end of human existence."

    Although he rarely uses the term "American [neoliberal] empire", and I think never terms "Washington consensus", "debt slavery", or neoliberalism.

    [Jun 17, 2017] The poverty for the most population for the ideological purity of Ukranian nationalism

    Ukrainian nationalist help to impoverish he country...
    www.unz.com

    Northern Star , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm

    Worth reviewing if you haven't seen it . It's dumbfounding how some Ukrainians today lionize the Nazi vermin who murdered their ancestors The woman. in the cover photo I wonder who she mourns .

    https://sputniknews.com/society/201705061053337885-nazi-occupied-kherson-report-declassified/

    yalensis , June 16, 2017 at 3:29 pm
    Good article, and good to keep the numbers in perspective:

    Everything will come out in the wash. Once Ukraine is reunited with Russia, it will be the 6 million who are honored; and the much smaller number (100K) will be cast aside with scorn as the vicious traitors that they were.

    [Jun 17, 2017] Clappers Unhinged Russia-Bashing by David Marks

    Notable quotes:
    "... That Clapper would offer such a one-sided account of the reasons behind the worsening antagonisms and the emerging arms race – leaving out the fact that the United States, despite its own budgetary and economic problems, spends about ten times more on its military than Russia does – suggests that he is not an objective witness on anything regarding Russia. ..."
    "... Clapper's shrill voice confirms his cold-warrior perspective, caught in the past but applying his thinking to the present, still believing that he has a special understanding of America's interests and is protecting them. Clearly, the Russians have been at the center of Clapper's frustrations for many years and Russia-gate just gives him the opportunity to rekindle anti-Moscow hysteria. ..."
    "... Clapper has since been a star congressional witness pushing Russia-gate and his confidence in Putin's guilt. But Clapper did acknowledge that the Jan. 6 report – besides containing no actual evidence – was prepared by "handpicked" analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, not from a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies as had been widely reported. ..."
    "... So, as we listen to the debate on Russia-gate, Clapper and his fellow national-security-state representatives are revealing not just their political perspectives but deeply disturbed minds. Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process. They perceive themselves as the cure when they are a primary cause of the illness they denounce. ..."
    "... Undiscovered Self ..."
    "... then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction ..."
    "... In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions – ..."
    "... no way to bold that statement ..."
    Jun 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
    Exclusive: Russia-gate's credibility rests heavily on ex-Director of National Intelligence Clapper who oversaw a "trust us" report, but a recent speech shows Clapper to be unhinged about Russia, as David Marks describes.

    Whatever the ultimate truth about the murky Russia-gate affair, it appears that it is Donald Trump's willingness to consider friendship and cooperation with the Russians that is driving this emotional debate.

    For some of the older U.S. intelligence and military officers, there appears to be a residual distrust and fear of Moscow, a hangover from the Cold War now transferred, perhaps almost subliminally, into the New Cold War and a sense that Russia is America's eternal enemy.

    James Clapper, President Obama's last Director of National Intelligence, is a fascinating example of how this antagonism toward Russia never seems to change, as he revealed in a June 7 speech to the Australian National Press Club.

    "The Russians are not our friends; they (Putin specifically), are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared.

    In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions – expanding NATO to Russia's borders, renouncing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and locating new missile bases in Eastern Europe. Instead, Clapper blamed the renewed arms race and resulting tensions on the Russians:

    "The Russians are embarked on a very aggressive and disturbing program to modernize their strategic forces - notably their submarine and land-based nuclear forces. They have also made big investments in their counter-space capabilities. They do all this - despite their economic challenges - with only one adversary in mind: the United States. And, just for good measure, they are also in active violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty."

    That Clapper would offer such a one-sided account of the reasons behind the worsening antagonisms and the emerging arms race – leaving out the fact that the United States, despite its own budgetary and economic problems, spends about ten times more on its military than Russia does – suggests that he is not an objective witness on anything regarding Russia.

    A Shrill Voice

    Clapper's shrill voice confirms his cold-warrior perspective, caught in the past but applying his thinking to the present, still believing that he has a special understanding of America's interests and is protecting them. Clearly, the Russians have been at the center of Clapper's frustrations for many years and Russia-gate just gives him the opportunity to rekindle anti-Moscow hysteria.

    Clapper is repeating with new gusto what he has sold to recent presidents, Republicans and Democrats, for decades. His entire attack on Trump beats the drum of Russian deviousness. Yet, Clapper ignores the context of the Russians actions.

    Time magazine cover recounting how the U.S. enabled Boris Yeltsin's reelection as Russian president in 1996.

    Way ahead of the Russians, the U.S. intelligence community mastered computer hacking and mounted the first known software attack on a country's strategic infrastructure by – along with Israel – unleashing the Stuxnet cyber-attack against Iranian centrifuges. U.S. intelligence also has a long record of subverting elections and toppling elected leaders, both before and since the computer age.

    But Clapper only sees evil in Russia, even during the 1990s when the U.S. government advisers and American political operatives were propping up President Boris Yeltsin amid the rapacious privatizing of Russia's industries and resources, which made Russian oligarchs and their U.S. advisers very rich.

    Clapper said, "Interestingly, every one of the non-acting Prime Ministers of Russia since 1992 has come from one of two domains: the oil and gas sector, or the security services. To put this in perspective, and as I have pointed out to U.S. audiences, suppose the last ten presidents of the U.S. were either CIA officers, or the Chairman of Exxon-Mobil. I think this gives you some insight into the dominant mind-set of the Russian government."

    With such remarks, Clapper acts as if he doesn't know much about recent U.S. government staffing, which has been dominated by people with backgrounds in the oil industry, leading Wall Street banks, and the intelligence community. Indeed, the man who brought Clapper from Air Force intelligence into the White House was President George H.W. Bush, former director of the CIA and an oil company executive.

    Bush's son, George W., also came from the oil industry, as did his Vice President Dick Cheney. Meanwhile, both Republican and Democratic administrations have filled senior economic policy positions from the ranks of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment banks. And the U.S. intelligence community has wielded broad power over the few recent U.S. presidents, such as Barack Obama, who came into the White House with more limited government and private-sector experience.

    Clapper, having been a senior executive for Booz Allen Hamilton, knows full well that giant intelligence contractors have a powerful influence in how they serve U.S. interests with an eye to profiteering from conflict. And along with Clapper, other White House advisers drift between intelligence contractors and government.

    It's also true that a U.S. president doesn't need to have previous employment within the oil sector to do its bidding. Considering the influence of the millions spent on campaign donations and lobbying by the industry, the U.S. government is easily wed to oil and gas – as well as to the military and intelligence complex – at least as much as the Russian government. Indeed, the current Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was the Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil.

    Classic Projection

    Clapper's perception of the Russians as evil for allegedly practicing the same sins as the U.S. government exemplifies classic projection of the highest order.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    In case after case, Clapper justifies painting darkness onto the Russians with half the data, while ignoring the information that cancels out his perspective. Perhaps he is representative of many in Washington who have lost their rationality and morality in defense of the greatness of the United States. His ethics become situational.

    As Director of National Intelligence, Clapper lied to Congress in 2013 about the National Security Agency's massive gathering of private data from Americans. Clapper's deception gave the final push to Edward Snowden who revealed the truth about NSA surveillance.

    Subsequently, Clapper led the charge against Snowden, while excusing his own false congressional testimony by saying, "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner."

    Despite this history, the U.S. mainstream media has treated Clapper as a great truth-teller as he adds ever more fuel to the Russia-gate fires. From his Australian speech, most news outlets highlighted his best news-bite, when he declared: "Watergate pales, really, in my view compared to what we're confronting now."

    Like other powerful government officials, Clapper may think it is his duty to a higher cause that allows him to defy the truth and transcend the law, a classic symptom of the super-patriot who thinks he knows best what's good for America, a dangerous creature that the U.S. government seems to produce in quantity.

    In that sense, Clapper has played a central role in Russia-gate. He was the official who oversaw the key Jan. 6 report on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. After promising much public evidence, he released a report that amounted to "trust us."

    Clapper has since been a star congressional witness pushing Russia-gate and his confidence in Putin's guilt. But Clapper did acknowledge that the Jan. 6 report – besides containing no actual evidence – was prepared by "handpicked" analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, not from a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies as had been widely reported.

    So, as we listen to the debate on Russia-gate, Clapper and his fellow national-security-state representatives are revealing not just their political perspectives but deeply disturbed minds. Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process. They perceive themselves as the cure when they are a primary cause of the illness they denounce.

    In 1956, in the Undiscovered Self , the eminent psychiatrist Carl Jung wrote about the state of the human mind and how it affected the political world: "And just as the typical neurotic is unconscious of his shadow side, so the normal individual, like the neurotic, sees his shadow in his neighbor or in the man beyond the great divide. It has even become a political and social duty to apostrophize the capitalism of one and the communism of the other as the very devil, so to fascinate the outward eye and prevent it from looking at the individual life within.

    "We are again living in an age filled with apocalyptic images of universal destruction. What is the significance of that split, symbolized by the Iron Curtain, which divides humanity into two halves? What will become of our civilization and man himself, if the hydrogen bombs begin to go off, or if the spiritual and moral darkness of State absolutism should spread?"

    Jung's words still ring with foreboding truth.

    David Marks is a veteran documentary filmmaker and investigative reporter. His work includes films for the BBC and PBS, including Nazi Gold, on the role of Switzerland in WWII and biographies of Jimi Hendrix and Frank Sinatra.

    mike k , June 15, 2017 at 9:38 pm

    Once you clear away the cobwebs of cultural conditioning, the truth of many things becomes obvious. One does not need the authority of a Carl Jung or anyone to see what is right in front of your eyes. The amazing thing is that people can be so easily deluded to ignore the reality all around them. One of the purposes of meditation in the spiritual traditions of mankind is to clear a space in one's mind that is fresh and unconditioned. Without this cleansing of the consciousness, only those things one's conditioning permits can be seen.

    Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 1:16 am

    If ((("TPTB"))), even if they are only very temporary in the scheme of the time of the Universe, come here and read this, they are either too common-cored to understand the truth of it and change for the better or they are still smart enough to understand it and are laughing all the way to the temporary bank.
    If you understand reincarnation you understand that your future personalities will be in-line with the immutable Universal laws of Consciousness-Evolution and Cause & Effect and the next one, at the least, won't be so easy and pretty for you, in view of the lesson that one just isn't learning at a normal Universal standard; the laws of the Universe simply don't allow for degradation to continue unabated so that evolution can take place in the allotted time, it will provide the necessary wake-up call in all it's required force.
    Even though all of us who have made it here to read the great articles on this website know, deep down inside, that we are all equal in the grand scheme of all good thoughts, feelings and actions, we know that we are just that little bit ahead of the curve and it would behoove us to accept our and their respective positions in the curve and help them out, come what may.
    Hoota Thunk I'd see you around these parts. ;->

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:38 am

    These deviants in "intelligence" should have been brought under control long before they killed Kennedy, but they weren't. They've been allowed to self select themselves, with each generation of sociopaths cultivating an even more deranged next generation. I guess that Hoover had so much dirt on every pol ever elected to high office that few had the guts to challenge these most dangerous menaces to our freedoms and democracy. Even if a courageous president could chop off the "heads" of these traitorous agencies their conditioned subordinates would be hard to root out. You read of rumors, though I've seen no evidence but ambiguous grainy photos, that these maniacs actually practice satanic blood rituals and the like. I prefer not to believe such things, but what kind of perverted thinking motivates the very damaging policies driven by these agencies, which bring us to the brink of nuclear war for no discernible reason. How is it allowed for them to blackmail public figures like MLK, threatening to ruin his marriage and destroy his reputation unless he commits suicide? These are not "good" virtuous men. They are not protecting or upholding "American" values. They are sick control freaks.

    Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 9:48 pm

    If people like James Clapper and their statements become sources for American history in the early 21st Century, then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction.

    The decadence of Washington is obvious when a senate intelligence (?) committee invites Clapper to give evidence after his blatant lie about torture to a former convocation of the committee. The United States senate is the world's greatest deliberative body? What a crock of shit!! Who was the idiot who gave the first utterance to that meretricious nonsense?

    Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 9:50 pm

    then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction

    Ooops: That should be "under fiction."

    Gregory Herr , June 15, 2017 at 11:13 pm

    And only a blatant liar could characterize his lying as speaking in "the most truthful, or least untruthful" manner.

    Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:40 am

    I was absolutely amazed when I heard that. What kind of BS does he expect the world to fall for? It really shows his utter arrogance and distain for us "proles". His not being arrested for lying to Congress and the American people shows the ridiculousness of believing there is "equal justice for all" in the USA.

    Pete , June 16, 2017 at 6:52 am

    Bill, reading your comment, I am reminded of a similar assessment given Washington and it's august Senate by British MP George Galloway, during a Senate sub-committee hearing in May 2005, on his 'alleged' receipt of bribe monies from Iraq's Saddam Hussein. His absolutely devastating verbal attack upon the committee, chaired by Sen. N. Coleman, is a must view for those who haven't seen it online.

    Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 10:04 pm

    In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions –

    Gregory Barrett has an interesting recap of U.S. and Russian histories: "The Russians Didn't Do It" – https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/15/the-russians-didnt-do-it/

    Helen Marshall , June 17, 2017 at 12:19 pm

    When I posted this on Facebook, a "liberal" friend made several angy comments about EVIL Russia and then accused me of being a traitor for "defending a sworn enemy of our country."

    In today's climate that kind of charge is not trivial. Watch out when you share it!

    Jessica K , June 15, 2017 at 11:02 pm

    Great article by Gregory Barrett from Counterpunch, thanks, Bill. Worth sending around. Send a pile of copies to Clapper. That guy is either sick or evil, maybe both. Couldn't he disappear or something? "Clap-on, clap-off, it's the Clapper!" (Preferably "clap-off".) Maybe too much Booz he's been imbibing.

    Gary Hare , June 15, 2017 at 11:19 pm

    I wouldn't single Clapper out. The entire Washington establishment, and Mainstream Media, appear unhinged, deranged, absolutely stupid. That is unless you consider why they are this way. Are they not promoting the need for more military spending, about the only thing in which the US leads the World these days. Does this not make them feel alpha, tough, patriotic and falsely proud. Classic self-delusion. Or is it cunning propaganda?
    What bothers me just as much, is that Clapper's speech was widely reported here in Australia, without a single word of criticism from Australian politicians or the media. However low the US stoops, we seem to get right down there with them.
    I watched on YouTube a segment on Colbert interviewing (there must be a better word to describe this fiasco) Oliver Stone. Colbert was infantile. The audience reminiscent of a cheer squad for a college football game. No-one was interested in what Stone had to say. Too few people realise how dangerous this empty-headed jingoism is.

    Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 am

    G'Day Gary,
    I think it is SBS that is airing The Putin Interviews starting either Sunday or Monday night, depending on your region.
    Happy viewing and ammo for counter-attacks on stupidity!
    airdates.tv at last resort in the future
    Hoota Thunk.

    Craig Watson , June 16, 2017 at 7:58 am

    All of Stone's Putin interviews were published for everyone to watch on Information Clearinghouse yesterday:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47246.htm .

    You don't need cable TV to see them now.

    Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:43 am

    Wow. Thanks for that. I really need to send ICH some money.

    john wilson , June 16, 2017 at 5:13 am

    Obviously, Garry, they are not unhinged they are simply looking after their own interests. The removal of Trump is essential to their plans for some kind of fight with Russia, so the rubbish about Russia gate and anything else is of course, pure lies and make believe. They all wanted Hillary who was a proven war monger and who they could manipulate to do their bidding. Had she won there would probably be some kind of open conflict in Syria with the USA, Russia and Iran bu now. War makes money so any one who has the temerity to suggest peace, is a threat and has to be got rid of.

    Jessica K , June 15, 2017 at 11:38 pm

    Good observations, Gary. Unfortunately, Clapper has played a large role in the development of this Russiagate fiasco, as former head of the CIA and overseeing of the phony documents that allegedly pointed to "Russian hacking" in the election. You are right that the whole bunch of the MIC bureaucrats depend on ginning up for war. And we had a conversation on CN a couple of days ago about Colbert, who is hugely overpaid for being nothing more than snide and smarmy. That's what passes for entertainment nowadays. Google today shows all the vicious and nasty published articles about the Putin interviews, such as the tabloids Daily Mail, Daily Star, also The Guardian, and no doubt there are other polemics. Hard to contemplate that this is the 21st century when human development was supposed to be advancing due to all the amazing technology, when actually it is regressing.

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:22 am

    Clapper has been one of the guys charged with creating Karl Rove's "new realities." He thinks he's a god.

    Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:45 am

    So far he seems to be getting away with it.

    Gregory Herr , June 15, 2017 at 11:48 pm

    "Thursday's appearance by fired FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee has raised the anti-Russian hysteria in the US media to a new level. The former head of the US political police denounced supposed Russian interference in the US elections as a dire threat to American democracy. "They're going to come for whatever party they choose to try and work on behalf of," he warned. "And they will be back they are coming for America."
    None of the capitalist politicians who questioned him challenged the premise that Russia was the principal enemy of the United States, or that Russian hacking was a significant threat to the US electoral system. None of them suggested that the billions funneled into the US elections by Wall Street interests were a far greater threat to the democratic rights of the American people .

    the political issues in the anti-Russian campaign, which represents an effort by the most powerful sections of the military-intelligence apparatus, backed by the Democratic Party and the bulk of the corporate media, to force the Trump White House to adhere to the foreign policy offensive against Moscow embarked on during the second term of the Obama administration, particularly since the 2014 US-backed ultra-right coup in Ukraine.
    Those factions of the ruling class and intelligence agencies leading the anti-Russia campaign are particularly incensed that Russian intervention in Syria stymied plans to escalate the proxy civil war in that country into a full-fledged regime-change operation. They want to see Assad in Syria meet the same fate as Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Their fanatical hatred of Putin indicates that they have similar ambitions in mind for the Russian president.
    The entire framework of the anti-Russian campaign is fraudulent. The military-intelligence agencies, the Democratic Party and the media are following a well-established pattern of manufacturing phony scandals, previously a specialty of the Republican right:

    Of what does the "undermining" of US democracy by alleged Russian hacking consist? No vote totals were altered. No ballots were discarded, as in Florida in 2000 when the antidemocratic campaign was spearheaded by the US Supreme Court. Instead, truthful information was supplied anonymously to WikiLeaks, which published the material, showing that the Democratic National Committee had worked to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders, and that Hillary Clinton had cozied up to Wall Street audiences and reassured them that a new Clinton administration would be in the pocket of the big financial interests

    Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she ran as the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus and made no appeal to working-class discontent. This was after eight years during which Obama had intensified the economic stagnation, wage cutting and austerity that had been going on for decades, while overseeing a further growth in social inequality

    [The Democrats] have chosen to attack Trump, the most right-wing president in US history, from the right, denouncing him as insufficiently committed to a military confrontation with Russia."

    https://counterinformation.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/the-russians-are-coming-the-russians-are-coming/

    george Archers , June 17, 2017 at 7:51 am

    Excuses. "Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she ran as the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus and made no appeal to working-class discontent." pure garbage
    Listen folks,Both parties take turns every 8 years like clock work–except one term Jimmy Carter who p!ssed off Israel firsters. Hillary was in it for the election donations collected.

    , June 15, 2017 at 11:50 pm

    Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, speaking truth to power Mr Marks, alarming how democracies are so chaotic?

    The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

    Super patriots defying truth and transcending laws, his ethics becoming situational, which checks and balances are implemented to reign in the retired general?

    Cal , June 16, 2017 at 12:41 am

    Remember the neos and zios "Project for the New American Century that preceded the Iraq war?

    Well Clapper is with the same group-except they have a new name now still lying and lobbying for the US to control the universe

    Center for a New American Security

    https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/extending-american-power-strategies-to-expand-u-s-engagement-in-a-competitive-world-order

    irina , June 16, 2017 at 12:58 am

    Clapper said something so astounding on 'Meet the Press' on May 28th that I found the transcript and printed it out.

    In the context of Jared Kushner meeting with Sergei Kislyak, Clapper said "I will tell you that my dashboard warning
    light was clearly on and I think that was the case with all of us in the intelligence community, very concerned about
    the nature of these approaches to the Russians. If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians
    were doing to interfere with the election. And just the historical practices of the Russians, who (are) typically, ALMOST
    GENETICALLY DRIVEN TO CO-OPT, PENETRATE, GAIN FAVOR, WHATEVER, which is a typical Russian technique.
    So we were concerned."

    (Apologies for caps, no way to bold that statement and it is an extremely scary and revealing phrase.)

    Chuck Todd ignored Clapper's "genetically driven" diatribe and soldiered on, reinforcing 'the Russians did it' meme.

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 10:36 am

    That was quite a racist statement, was it not? If he had applied the remarks to any other distinct group of people Chuck Todd would have gone ballistic, playing the race card for all it's worth in the grand American tradition.

    Bill Bodden , June 16, 2017 at 11:38 am

    no way to bold that statement

    There is. At the beginning of the text to be set in bold, type the word "strong" inside . At the end type "/strong" inside but not the quotation marks shown in this example.

    Bill Bodden , June 16, 2017 at 11:46 am

    Oops: After "inside" above there should have been a less-than sign ""

    Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 12:59 am

    The profits of War drive people like Clapper to do some hideous and unquestionable things. The beast they feed is the same beast Rumsfeld gave a speech about on 9/10/01 where he sighted the Pentagon not being able to account for 2.5 trillion dollars. If you recall last summer the DOD year ending June 2016 sighted another missing 6.5 trillion dollars this time tripling the 2001 unaccountability. This is a known unaccountability of 9 trillion dollars by the Defense Department so far this 21st Century that no one is even talking about. When a nation can spill this much coffee and not worry about it, then you know that the people spending this nations well earned capital aren't spending their own money, but they no doubt are profiting from all this saber rattling and war. Imagine the defense budgets with Russia in it's crosshairs.

    http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2016-113.pdf

    Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 5:36 am

    Joe, have you seen this? https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Office_of_Naval_Intelligence

    "Also killed in the Pentagon on 9/11 were a large number of budget analysts and accountants who may have been looking into the $2.3 trillion of unaccounted military spending that Donald Rumsfeld announced on Sept 10th, 2001."[

    Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 7:20 am

    This is something to new to me, but when it comes to 911 I have seen other similar things like it, like building #7. Nice of you Gregory to share this with me, thanks.

    When it comes to 911, there are so many questions that I just wish there were somebody who could answer them. Yet, questioning any of the oddities regarding the 911 Attack will get you a 'tinfoil hat' since this is what we Americans do to each other these days over things such as assassinations or other unexplained tragedies. Like having doubts over Russia-Gate will deem you being a Trump Supporter or Putin Apologize.

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 10:50 am

    Since you bring up 9-11 and the inconsistencies in its narrative, I just want to ask the question: Why didn't that high rise tower in London collapse under its own weight like the twin towers in NYC, especially since the fire appeared to be so much more intense? It wasn't just a localised burn, the entire structure was engulfed in flames. And, no, rebar-strengthened concrete is not more resistant than steel girders to damage from high temperatures. Concrete will more likely crack than steel girders will melt in a fire. I look for the structural engineers to chime in on this one.

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    My dad always told me: "Never be above the third floor in an apartment building or a hotel. The smoke will get you before the fire does." Good advice. A fire fighter's worst nightmare, a hi-rise fire. As the London fire points out, they can be death traps.

    Yeah, buildings don't just fall down. 9/11 was most definitely a controlled demolition, and if a proper investigation were conducted, "controlled demolition" would scream out at everyone with half a brain.

    If you haven't seen this half-hour video, give it a watch. It's one of my favorites because the guy is a physicist/mathematician who used to work for N.I.S.T. He had never before questioned the findings, at least until August of 2016 when he started looking at it. He couldn't believe what he found.

    Especially watch at 18:03 when he starts talking about the collapse. "Asymmetric damage does not lead to symmetric collapse. It's very difficult to get something to collapse symmetrically because it is the law of physics that things tend towards chaos. Collapsing symmetrically represents order, very strict order. It is not the nature of physics to gravitate towards order for no reason."

    And:

    "Huge chunks of steel perimeter beams flying hundreds of feet off to the side. Steel does not fly off to the side, hundreds of feet, due to gravity. Gravity works vertically, not laterally. There has to be a FORCE there pushing it to the side, otherwise it would just fall down to the ground. It would be like dropping a ball out of a window. It would just fall straight down."

    The video is called "Former NIST Employee Speaks Out On World Trade Centre Towers Collapse Investigation".

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm

    Here's the link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ_jQgIEnI8

    Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    Other examples: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

    Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 9:50 pm

    Honestly Realist I thought the same thing when I saw that high rise ablaze. I even made mention of it to my wife, commenting to how that is the way a high rise burns, not like 911. Now, Realist how many others had the same thought, as you and I.

    Realist , June 17, 2017 at 2:27 am

    Quite a powerful video by that analyst from Wisconsin, backwardsevolution.
    I have read analyses by physicists and engineers of the collapses, mostly through PCR's website, but I had not seen that video with all the slo-mo shots parallel to computer models. Why is that production never shown on American television? Why was NIST so remiss in its analysis, as the narrator points out? Of course, we know the answers to both questions. The truth will never be admitted by any authorities in our life times, or even in our children's life times. Maybe in 50 years when all the blame can be placed on corpses that can't protest it will be. Even that will be done to usher in some new world order as the game never changes.

    Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:14 am

    Not a structural engineer but with knowledge and experience there. I have no prejudice as to motives and means of the WTC collapse. The WTC towers were uniformly supported by steel columns and one floor was subject to broadly distributed intense aviation fuel fire exceeding their melting point, so that floor was uniformly weakened.

    Large steel columns are severely weakened by several minutes of intense petroleum fire, as I have observed myself. When a single failure occurs, adjacent components are subjected to the additional loads which is normally within their capacities by design. When those are also much weakened they too will fail, subjecting adjacent components to even greater overloads, etc. This is called "progressive failure." So filling an entire steel-supported floor with burning aircraft fuel would soon cause the entire floor to collapse in a rapid side-to-side progressive failure.

    Because the floors are thin flat sections, not tall compared with their width, a quick lateral failure across the whole floor would cause the entire structure above to fall quite vertically until it hit the floor below. This in turn would severely overload all columns below that, causing the entire structure below to collapse. Because the entire support structure was uniform and was uniformly greatly overloaded, a near-vertical collapse is not surprising.

    Smaller structures are usually not built that way; they have strong outer walls and a few inner "bearing walls." When part of the structure collapses, often some of the bearing walls collapse but others remain standing, so that forces on the collapsing structure are asymmetrical and it falls partly to the sides.

    As to reinforced concrete columns (assuming as you suggest that these were used in the London fire), it is the concrete that provides most of the vertical support, and it does insulate the steel reinforcement rods, which mainly provide tension strength against bending loads (wind and earthquakes). The horizontal bars hold the concrete together against cracking loads during its curing and later, when it often has many small cracks. So it is not surprising that such a structure survives a fire sufficient to burn the combustibles normally inside, without a broad progressive failure.

    Also it was probably not subjected to such a large. intense, and broadly-distributed fuel fire.

    But of course it was defective in safety systems for a high-rise structure, and this is not permitted in the US or under the International Building Code so far as I know. It should have had smoke detectors, fireproof unit doors and hallways, sprinklers to suppress non-petroleum fires, non-combustible materials on all interior surfaces, and at least two "separate and independent" fireproof exit stairways. Presumably investigation will reveal the deficiencies in its construction, maintenance, and enforcement practices, if not in the building code itself.

    Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:40 am

    It is not necessary to remind me that there are other explanations and perhaps additional causes of the WTC fire, and that Bldg 7 apparently had intelligence offices with provision for a deliberate large fire that occurred while WTC was burning. I do not know what happened there.

    I remain skeptical that persons so long and carefully prepared to attack WTC by aircraft would have prepared a distinct method of attack requiring ability to plant explosives, etc. It is not impossible but why do both? They would probably have attacked other structures with the aircraft. Also, if another attack on the same structures was planned, there is no obvious reason to wait until after the aircraft attacks to use the other method. Also, the plane that did not hit any buildings did not correspond to any structure simultaneously destroyed by other means.

    So if there was another demolition means used simultaneously, we need evidence of that, and I have seen no convincing photos or reports of explosive residues. I have already looked at videos that do not in fact show this, but merely events not inconsistent with the aircraft-only model.

    Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:52 am

    I accept that there were motives for an attack like 911, and those parties may have been involved in the aircraft attack. But without direct evidence, our efforts are better spent investigating the sources of the aircraft attack.

    We know that AlQaeda did the attack, that KSA was fairly directly involved, that AlQaeda was grown by US warmongers attacking the USSR in Afghanistan, and that US interests wanted another Pearl Harbor. That says a lot, and suggests that there is much more to be learned about US/KSA/Israel involvement that we may hope will be exposed.

    backwardsevolution , June 17, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    Sam F – had Building No. 7 not come down in exactly the same manner as the other two, I might have bought (maybe) what you just said. A really big "maybe". I think the reason the scientists at N.I.S.T. did not extend their models out past the collapse initiation stage is because they KNEW they wouldn't be able to replicate the building coming down in its own footprint. As the fellow in the video said, there would have been chaos and the building would have deviated to one side. No way it would have come straight down.

    Could be the reason they hit the buildings with the planes was precisely to provide the excuse of the "jet fuel". "Oh, yes, it was the heat from the jet fuel. Wrap it up, boys, no more questions." I wonder whether that other plane was supposed to have hit Building No. 7, but didn't make it there. "Whoops, how do we explain this? Oh, who cares, just say the fire did it. Who is going to know the difference?"

    I'm not buying any of it. Three huge buildings ALL come down on their own footprint? Yeah, right.

    Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    I agree, b-e, the Bldg 7 collapse is very strange and suspect; and I apologize to others for the long posts above, and do not object to anyone else's views on this.

    1. The lowest floors of Bldg 7 are not shown in any of the videos, only floors above maybe floor 3 or 6, none of which show any damage at the time that it collapsed. So the damage must have been to lower floors.
    2. It also fell quite vertically, which is odd because that implies near-simultaneous damage across an entire floor, while the only causes related to WTC N&S would be asymmetrical debris impacts from their prior collapses.
    3. There were reports of a US intelligence agency office there, equipped with devices to burn that structure if security required. I do not know about this.

    But I today reviewed many videos of the WTC collapses, and found nothing in the WTC N & S tower collapses that suggests controlled explosions; they appear to have only aircraft damage:

    4. Both collapsed first at the lowest level of the burning sections, where the aircraft and fuel hit.
    5. The structure above fell almost vertically (up to 20 degree tilt in the first collapse) with chunks and dust thrown outward from the collapsing sections only.
    6. No damage is seen to lower sections until the upper structure hits them on the way down. That is conclusive.
    7. It would be very difficult to install and detonate explosives progressively just below the falling structure as it comes down just to create that appearance, and would use many times the explosives necessary to do that to a single lower floor.
    8. So the only way planted explosives could have been significant would be if the lowest burning floor had collapsed due to explosions instead of weakened columns. But the aircraft impact floor could not have been predicted so as to put explosives there, nor could such a system have been controlled with a high temperature fire burning so long on the same floor.
    9. The temperature of a petroleum fire will collapse large steel columns in a few minutes. I saw the results when a fuel truck overturned and burned next to a very tall billboard (maybe ten floors high) supported by large steel columns near MIT in Cambridge in the 1970s (no casualties).
    10. The planes probably had at least 10,000 gal of aircraft fuel in them: the wings are mostly fuel tanks; no doubt that has been estimated.
    11. While interior materials also burn at temps higher than the melting point of steel, they wouldn't supply heat as fast as an intensive petroleum fire, likely not enough to prevent the rest of the steel cooling the heated portion.

    Anyway, backwardsevolution is an interesting tag; I've wondered whether it warns of the peril of the fittest or survival of the least fit, both very apt in our era.

    Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm

    Obviously a key to grasping 9/11 involves motive. The obvious things like expanding "security" budgets and "justifications" for war are easy. E.P. Heidner's "Collateral Damage" shows how more than two birds were killed with one stone .

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm

    Gregory – yep. So many lies, so many cover-ups. Divided States of Lies would be a better name. Thanks, Gregory.

    Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 9:51 pm

    I think we have seen the motive play out over these last 16 years .what do you think Gregory?

    Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 10:22 pm

    To the hilt, Joe and tragically so for so many.

    Gregory Herr , June 17, 2017 at 10:50 am

    A good deal of aviation fuel was likely used up in the initial explosion. Once the remaining fuel burned up there would be no source other than office furnishings for fires. There was never any large, intense, or broadly distributed fuel fire associated with the WTC. If any temperature melting points for steel were achieved (dubious), it would have been of very short duration and isolated with respect to the entire structure. My God, even the core columns disappeared .which is certainly not consistent with the already fanciful progressive destruction at rates that suggest no resistance. "Cut" beams (promptly removed and shipped out) and nanothermite residue were in evidence.

    Why do both?
    The hijacker narrative is part of the setup to assign blame and is also connected to the Pentagon, not just the WTC. The "plane crashes", in and of themselves were not sufficient to bring down the towers. Motives to bring down the towers can be discerned.
    The "parties involved", the "sources" of the attacks, certainly constitutes the crux of the matter. Let's not make assumptions about this. Evidence supporting the "official" narrative is thin to contrived to nonexistent.

    Unless and until Mr. Parry publishes an article concerned with 9/11, this is my last comment on the subject here. Discussion about 9/11 gets to be endless and prompts all sorts of abuse. I trust the many capable people who read CN can research the matter to their own satisfaction (or dissatisfaction).

    george Archers , June 17, 2017 at 7:57 am

    Joe–that hush money 2.5 trillion dollars disappeared into Israel. Payment for Sept 11 2001 bombings

    UIA , June 16, 2017 at 2:13 am

    It might as well be $200 trillion, it's a fiction and a gov fiction at that. People are missing body parts for the big oil adventure in Iraq. All the busted out US towns need new filling stations and used car lots to boom. With bad sandwiches, gas and lottery computers we can have an economy again. Supermarket is a bust. People are dying for nothing who knows where. War on terror and new scams to expand rackets. Smedley Butler called it. System is unhinged. Don't sleep much. You can't afford it.

    Make the coins with lead, so we can melt them down and make bullets to kill with to fight over what's left. Nothing is left now. News isn't fake, the money is.

    mej , June 16, 2017 at 2:51 am

    I think we will hear Clapper say, 10 years after today's kerfuffle is buried by the next scandal, "yes, I lied, but it was for a good reason!"

    Reminds me of Pres.Saakashvili after his failed war in 2008 and all the hysterical noise about Russia starting the war in Georgia. That statement helped seal his fate as the soon-to-be ex-president of Georgia.

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 3:56 am

    mej – you're right.

    Wendi , June 16, 2017 at 3:20 am

    Bring back Iron Curtain discussion. Ultimately, we see it is a Mirror. Whatever dirt we say of Russians shows in fact we're looking at ourselves.

    Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 3:42 am

    Let me put it another way;

    We're not going to return kind for kind,
    we're going to let you think about what it means to be a human being
    in your own good time on your own good island, with good isolation from us.
    Good luck .

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:19 am

    Clapper is either thoroughly devious, or paranoid. In either case, any sensible president would discharge him from his office immediately.

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    Clapper resigned in November of 2016, his resignation took effect in January of 2017. Instead of being thoroughly discredited for lying to Congress, he's instead put on a pedestal and continually brought forward by the media as some sort of wise man.

    He sits there, all calm, all knowing, a Wilford Brimley clone, and the public eat his words up. "This man is at the end of his career, so there's no way he would be lying to us." They don't realize grandpa-types can deceive too.

    Yeah, I haven't figured him out yet, but I like your choices: either devious or paranoid. It's one or the other. Now he's off to pollute Australia.

    "In June 2017 Clapper commenced an initial four-week term at the Australian National University (ANU) National Security College in Canberra that includes public lectures on key global and national security issues. Clapper was also expected to take part in the ANU Crawford Australian Leadership Forum, the nation's pre-eminent dialogue of academics, parliamentarians and business leaders.

    In a speech at Australia's National Press Club in June, Clapper accused Trump of 'ignorance or disrespect', called the firing of FBI director James Comey 'inexcusable', and warned of an 'internal assault on our intuitions'."

    The asylum has taken over.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 7:01 am

    The secret police always gain a lot of power over time; now they are exercising their power in a big way. These are glory days for the spooks. From their secret lairs they are showing what they can do. Trump challenged them directly, as he did the media, both major political parties, and the MIC. These power centers cannot tolerate this, and are acting decisively to crush Trump. The Donald's electoral supporters are the only friends he has left, and these are a disorganized rabble, no match for the forces arrayed against them.

    It looks like Donald's days in the spotlight are turning into a deer in the headlights moment. He just doesn't have the resources to withstand the shit storm he has provoked against his presidency.

    Jessica K , June 16, 2017 at 8:16 am

    Clapper's evil mendacity being permitted to be aired as fact is testimony to the nearly complete unhingement of a segment of the American population who have no rational understanding of what happened in this election. If the insanity unleashed by the loss of Madame Warmonger Clinton is not stopped, something very evil seems on the horizon. Russia has become the scapegoat for the madness unleashed in the US.

    In an article this morning on Zero Hedge by Daniel Henninger titled "Political Disorder Syndrome: Refusal to Reason is the New Normal", the author reports that James Hodgkinson, the shooter of Steve Scalise and four others had tweeted before the incident: "Trump is a traitor. Trump has destroyed our democracy. It's time to destroy Trump." And a production to be staged in Central Park by New York Public Theater is planned for a production of "Julius Caesar" where Caesar is presented looking like Trump and will be pulled down from a podium by men in suits and assassinated by plunging knives.

    This is beginning to look like a long, hot summer. The author of the article on Zero Hedge mentions that social media has become a marinade for psychological unhingement of much of the population, leading to "jacked-up emotional intensity". Is it possible this could happen simply because the Democrat presidential candidate lost? Or is there something else driving this insanity behind the scene? I was startled to see the number of vicious published articles about Oliver Stone's interviews with Vladimir Putin. Where's the curiosity, only knee-jerk reaction that Putin is a source of evil? The insanity, the sickness in America is becoming unnerving and I have a strange sense of foreboding.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:11 am

    Neoliberal_rationality/ will be in short supply in the days ahead. To resist being sucked in by the waves of emotional madness will be important.

    Pixy , June 16, 2017 at 9:00 am

    As a Russian I should say I agree with this Clapper person actually. Consider what he says:

    "Russia is America's enemy." – True. Russia has always stood on the way of any nation bent of world domination. Since the USA have embarked on that very mission, Russia IS their enemy.

    "The Russians are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values." – Absolutely true! Russia does oppose to what passes for democracy in USA nowadays. And it opposes to your values, but not the officially declared ones, but those that you follow unofficially: blatant racism, dividing the world on όbermensch and untermensch and treating nations and countries accordingly, hypocrisy and open lies, when children in Aleppo are very-very important and every tear they cry is the reason for the Hague tribunal, while children in Mosul are apparently non-existent, and no one gives two f..ks about carpet bombings, absence of safety corridors, suffering and deaths of civilians and general state of humanitarian crisis there. This is just one, most recent example.

    USA is insulting the intelligence of the people all over the world (and I mean THE WORLD really, all 7 billion people, not just US satellites), if they think anybody but the american Joe buys into their transparent lies and double standards.

    For as long as USA will continue on this trek, Russia will oppose you and remain your enemy. And we'll see how it turns out. So far the human history teaches us that every time the όbermensch eventually break their necks and diminish.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:06 am

    Yes. Good comment.

    Linda Wood , June 16, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Pixy,
    Thank you for saying all of this.

    MaDarby , June 16, 2017 at 9:09 am

    ""The Russians are not our friends; they, (Putin specifically) are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared."

    I have a high regard for this site and this author but I want not so much to disagree with but to deepen the discussion.

    Underlying Clapper's views are far far deeper forces than just being "stuck in Cold War mentality." Powerful forces in the US are gripped by extremist Calvinist ideology and have been sense the beginning of the US. These powerful forces supported the Nazi movement against the "godless" Soviet Union (to show just how extreme they are). Their view is that the US (them and their power) is the chosen instrument of god to rid the world of the evil devil (exceptionalism). This means taking over the world and dominating all non-Calvinest countries. It means the justification of the biblical slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful god and rid the world of evil. We see the results of this extremist religious ideology in the continuous slaughter the US has perpetrated against the rest of the world sense WWII.

    Further, neutrality in the fight against the devil himself is unacceptable as immoral and those countries trying to be neutral are just as evil as the others.

    All Clapper is doing is carrying on the fundamental views the US has held of itself as morally superior to the rest of the world the same view Roosevelt and Carter and Kennedy had much less Reagan or Lyndon Johnson.

    Nothing will change until the iron grip of extremist Calvinism, which justifies the slaughter of millions, is no longer the fundamental guiding ideology.

    You ask the fish abut the water and he responds – What water?

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:07 am

    Interesting. There is much truth in what you say.

    Linda Wood , June 16, 2017 at 10:10 am

    You describe the mindset that is used so well. But the military industrialists who use it are doing it for the trillions of dollars in defense spending. People have killed for a lot less. Clapper represents an industry. He uses the mindset you describe to explain to us why we have to accept the pouring of more trillions into the black hole of war.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:17 am

    Absolutely true Linda.

    hyperbola , June 16, 2017 at 10:27 am

    Calvinism is only half the story.

    The Revolutionary Jew and His Impact on World History
    http://www.culturewars.com/2003/RevolutionaryJew.html

    . By 1649, when Charles I went on trial, the tradition of Judaizing which had been extirpated from Spain had struck deep roots in England. The English judaizers were known as Puritans, and Cromwell as their leader was as versed in using Biblical figures as a rationalization for his crimes as he was in using Jewish spies from Spain and Portugal as agents in his ongoing war with the Catholic powers of Europe. The Puritans in England could implement the idea of revolution so readily precisely because they were Judaizers, and that is so because revolution was at its root a Jewish idea. Based on Moses' deliverance of Israel as described in the book of Exodus, the revolutionary saw a small group of chosen "saints" leading a fallen world to liberation from political oppression. Revolution was nothing if not a secularization of ideas taken from the Bible, and as history progressed the secularization of the concept would progress as well. But the total secularization of the idea in the 17th century would have made the idea totally useless to the Puritan revolutionaries. Secularization in the 17th century was synonymous with Judaizing. It meant substituting the Old Testament for the New. The concept of revolution gained legitimacy in the eyes of the Puritans precisely because of its Jewish roots. Graetz sees the attraction which Jewish ideas held for English Puritans quite clearly. The Roundheads were not inspired by the example of the suffering Christ, nor were they inspired by the medieval saints who imitated him. They needed the example of the warriors of Israel to inspire them in their equally bellicose campaigns against the Irish and the Scotch, who became liable to extermination because the Puritans saw them as Canaanites. Similarly, the King, who was an unworthy leader, like Phineas, deserved to die at the hands of the righteous, who now acted without any external authority, but, as the Jews had, on direct orders from God. "The Christian Bible," Graetz tells us,

    "with its monkish figures, its exorcists, its praying brethren, and pietistic saints, supplied no models for warriors contending with a faithless king, a false aristocracy and unholy priests. Only the great heroes of the Old Testament, with fear of God in their hearts and the sword in their hands, at once religious and national champions, could serve as models for the Puritans: the Judges, freeing the oppressed people from the yoke of foreign domination; Saul, David, and Joab routing the foes of their country; and Jehu, making an end of an idolatrous and blasphemous house-these were favorite characters with Puritan warriors. In every verse of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, they saw their own condition reflected; every psalm seemed composed for them, to teach them that, though surrounded on every side by ungodly foes, they need not fear while they trusted in God. Oliver Cromwell compared himself to the judge Gideon, who first obeyed the voice of God hesitatingly, but afterwards courageously scattered the attacking heathens; or to Judas Maccabaeus, who out of a handful of martyrs formed a host of victorious warriors."

    Chet Roman , June 16, 2017 at 9:58 am

    "Clapper may think it is his duty to a higher cause that allows him to defy the truth and transcend the law"

    "Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process"

    Interesting article but the author is giving Clapper and the rest of the "intelligence" community too much credit. There is no "higher cause" and the "Washington consensus" is not blind to their own actions. Clapper and the deep state are well aware of their self serving actions and it is motivated by money and power. What is happening is the deliberate and aggressive promotion of propaganda to the U.S. public by the intelligence agencies, patriotism has nothing to do with it.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:09 am

    Yes. The secret police are the slimiest of the slimy. To call them intelligent is absurd.

    Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 6:55 pm

    I think this is accurate to a great extent. But even "wicked" people who deep down know their own black hearts allow themselves the relief of their rationalizations that is to say that in a psychotic sort of way, they sometimes allow themselves to "believe" their own shit even while knowing it's not true. It's how they are able to function.

    Jessica K , June 16, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Thank you for your viewpoints from outside the United States, and I hope you know that people who follow and post on CN are opposed to the United States' militarism and destruction in the world, which, as you say, MaDarby, is based upon the arrogance of the US, and you say comes from Calvinism, a belief that success means you are blessed by God. That may have been a starting point when the US was formed, but now there are such forces in power play that it goes farther. We, the dissenters in the US, have a powerful armed structure that makes opposition to it very difficult. And your good points from Russia are written in a clearer way than many Americans could even write, since the educational system has been deliberately controlled to "dumb down" the citizens.

    But what to do even when we challenge this militaristic power in control? Our elections as you must know are certainly not fair and democratic. There are weapons now used against protesters so that has become increasingly difficult, as we just saw with the native peoples who opposed the Dakota oil pipeline. It looks as if the problems in the US will come to a head economically because of the enormous debt the US has allowed to get out of control, which may be the only way to stop the failing empire. We have read that Russia has paid off its debt wisely, and that's even after the bankers of the world mainly through the US in the 1990s tried to destroy Russia. But the US just keeps printing fictitious money to pay for its warmongering. And President Putin accurately stated that it is a multipolar world, no longer can one power such as the US call the shots.

    I do not think that Russia is an enemy, but that Russia has the intelligence to lead a challenge to the USA, knowing that US cannot continue its behavior. I see it more as a challenge, and in fact, China is important to that challenge. Yes, it is ignorant and arrogant that Americans are not disturbed by the merciless destruction and killing their government has done. Good points you have made, thank you.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:32 am

    Anyone who presents the vaguest challenge or limit to US hegemony is seen as an enemy to be dominated or destroyed. Capitalism is the cover for worship of unlimited power. This is the essence of fascism which is simply a religion of power worship. As Thrasymachus said in Plato's Republic, "Justice is the interest of the stronger." Meaning that force trumps all other considerations, and is the ultimate goal and meaning of human life. Human history has been the story of men's struggle to dominate others. The ultimate goal of this sick philosophy is for one man to dominate everyone and everything: the apotheosis of Power! One Man becomes God over everything! When Ayn Rand said that altruism is the enemy of mankind, she was voicing this deranged philosophy.

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    Yes, there are so many riches on this planet in which all of its creatures were meant (more accurately "required") by nature to share, yet 5 men claim ownership of as much "wealth" (land, resources, means of production, etc) as another 4 billion and they do everything in their power to keep it all for themselves causing untold misery for those billions. They accomplish this by conflating the onerous realities of naked unregulated "capitalism" with the platitudes of "freedom and democracy," evidenced in the "invisible hand" of the free market clearly implied to represent "god's will" in action. So this inequitable status quo is buttressed in conventional wisdom not only by phony altruism but by the power of organised religion.

    Really, these self-anointed de-facto gods know they're just hucksters who have hoodwinked the public into subordinating their own interests to tyrants. It is arguably a dysfunctional principle hardwired into the human genome, as strong-man rule traces back to our earliest recorded history. But knowledge is power and recognising this flaw in the system that makes life a misery for so many should give us a reason and the leverage to change things.

    Aside from widespread ignorance and fear, what is it that has kept so many down for so long? Ah, yes, the principle of "divide and rule," wherein a deliberate socioeconomic gradient is maintained amongst the 99% to make us compete and fight with one another rather than challenge them. So much easier to hate your neighbor for the little more that he many have, so much more feasible to assault and steal from him than from the lords at the top.

    I could go on, but the trolls still wouldn't see it since they are too invested in their delusions and meager rewards. They are sure to have some talking points on why degrading the planet so a few pashas can shit in solid gold commodes is a simply capital idea! And how we are fools for not seeing the obvious nature of things.

    Jessica K , June 16, 2017 at 11:04 am

    Hyperbola's point about the Old Testament domination of New Testament is interesting, carrying it through history by the Roundheads and Puritans. We certainly see plenty of that vicious Old Testament "YHWH" in the actions of Israel and its armed-to-the-teeth lackey, USA. The OT god is a god of power and hate, and we're seeing plenty of it now. Some of these Bible bangers really do believe in end times.

    Abe , June 16, 2017 at 11:41 am

    "complex conspiracy theories buttressed by the most tenuous documentation have been spun and promoted in the midst of public hearings, political rearrangements in the White House and other theatrics designed to keep the public engaged and convinced of the notion that Russia's government actually attempted to manipulate the results of America's presidential election.

    "However, the entire spectacle and the narrative driving it, is based entirely on the assumption that Russia's government believes the office of US President is of significant importance enough so as to risk meddling in it in the first place. It also means that Russia believed the office of US President was so important to influence, that the substantial political fallout and consequences if caught were worth the risk.

    "In reality, as US President Donald Trump has thoroughly demonstrated, the White House holds little to no sway regarding US foreign policy.

    "While President Trump promised during his campaign leading up to the 2016 election cooperation with Russia, a withdrawal from undermining and overthrowing the government in Damascus, Syria and a reversal of decades of US support for the government of Saudi Arabia, he now finds himself presiding over an administration continuing to build up military forces on Russia's borders in Eastern Europe, is currently and repeatedly killing Syrian soldiers in Syria and has sealed a record arms deal with Saudi Arabia amounting to over 110 billion US dollars.

    "It is clear that the foreign policy executed by US President George Bush, continued by President Barack Obama and set to continue under US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, is instead being faithfully executed by President Trump."

    US Election Meddling: Smoke and Mirrors
    By Ulson Gunnar
    landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2017/06/us-election-meddling-smoke-and-mirrors.html

    Jessica K , June 16, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    I just listened to YouTube of the phenomenal Russian pianist, Denis Matsuev, playing Rachmaninoff's incredibly difficult Piano Concerto no. 3 with the Moscow Symphony, such talented people in the orchestra. And this mediocre bureaucrat, James Clapper, should call Russia "our enemy". I'll bet he has no appreciation for art. There has got to be a stop to this madness. The pianist was one of many Russian artists who signed a letter in support of President Putin when Crimea returned to Russia. The government of the USA is very, very sick and evil.

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    David Marks – just a great article! Very well done. Thank you.

    DMarks , June 16, 2017 at 4:20 pm

    Thanks, I'm always interested in the comments provoked by my writing. A family member wrote to me: "There's no reason to give the Russian government some kind of trust, Russian policies towards gay people, the oligarchical power structure than ensures only the favored voices are heard, murdered journalists who raise criticisms against Putin, state controlled media, and the fact that Putin has turned himself into his own brand of reality TV star by staging ridiculous feats that are widely publicized in order to give him a superhero reputation these things are not the signs of a misunderstood government." I don't disagree. If I were in Russia, I could/would write an article that mirrors the one I just wrote. That's the central concept. From each side, the other side appears as the aggressors/destroyers.

    Among Europeans, there are many who feel the Russian government is at the core of the problem, rather than the people in general. The farther you get from Europe, the easier it is to smear the whole country, along with their "failed" communism. We are the sum of history and it's hard to separate cause and effect of the events that lead us here. If there wasn't the immense fear of communism at the beginning of the 20th century coming from Royals, European industrialists and US oligarchs, we might have seen what the Russian experiment would have yielded. Instead the militarists and profiteers prevailed, with mirror images on both sides from the Stalin era through the Reagan era. No matter how much they were demonized before, the defeated Nazis became partners in fighting back the Soviet world. Just that single fact shows how desperately communism needed to fail in the eyes of the capitalists.

    If we could have a re-run of the "cold-war" where no one is allowed to spend money on arms, defense, etc. (and of course no social repression) - purely an economic competition - what would happen? Well that's what the West feared and prevented - and we will never know what the outcome might have been.

    My "neurosis" is formed as an American and still I struggle not to take "our" side. To keep some balance, I avoid the pressure to become a "fan" of anyone. Unfortunately, the majority of the general public (from all political persuasions) are pressured to see conflict as a sports event. Those in power support the notion that it's the whole other "team" that is evil and by extension the demonization of their leader is acceptable. The fanatical war mongering oligarchs of both sides bring conflict to a head by lying to us about everything, helping us believe we can win the "super-war" because we are the "good guys." Clapper is simply a great example of these beasts and the extremis we have reached. Unfortunately, there is someone just like him on the other "team."

    Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 9:04 am

    Indeed the warmongers and oligarchs of the US seek to provoke and grow similar forces in other powers, because they need a foreign monster to pose as protectors and accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty. While such elements can be found in every large group, the US failure to protect democratic institutions from economic concentrations has allowed them to predominate. Russia has a much smaller military, and even China has no modern record of foreign domination, provocation, and scheming.

    This makes one consider whether the ideological vetting of the communist parties, which originally selected some rulers of present day Russia, and those of China, served their people better by excluding the worst of the warmongers. If the US cannot find better ways to protect democracy from warmongers, it will be discarded by history as less democratic than communism.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 5:28 pm

    Mr. Marks, I agree with most of what you said in your article, but I must respectfully disagree with what I felt was your leaning over backwards to be "objective" and "even handed." Although it is true that nobody is all good or bad in this world situation, there are sides to be taken, and values to be affirmed. The United States is far and away the major cause of the very serious and potentially life ending problems on this planet at this time. The American Empire is the number one disaster for everyone alive today. I am not even going to try to prove what I have said here. To me it is by this time too obvious to ignore. I am tired of trying to point out the obvious to those who refuse to see what is right in front of them. By the way, I am not including you in that category. You have a good grasp of what is going down, but maybe you are a little too concerned with being "even handed" for my taste.

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 6:37 pm

    David Marks – well, it's just a very fair article. You point out Clapper's projections. I'm always floored when I hear these guys speaking about how aggressive other countries are when, if the truth were told, they're actually the aggressor and the other country is just trying to defend themselves. Yeah, the other country is on their back, being pummeled, and they're the aggressor?

    I know there are bad people in Russia too (they're everywhere), and I also know that if the U.S. wasn't the biggest bully on the block, someone else would step in and fill the vacancy. But for right now, in our current situation, the U.S. are acting like warlords, and it's just nice to have someone spell that out, point out the idiocy of people like James Clapper.

    Jessica K , June 16, 2017 at 7:56 pm

    Mr. Marks, one could say very parallel things about the US government that your family member said about Russia. The US bureaucratic leaders apparently have no desire to get their own house in order but would rather create scapegoats for their mistakes. There's no way to make exact comparisons between cultural values from one country to another, people's origins have similarities but also many differences. The US has no business deciding the gay issue for Russians, and that is especially hypocritical since the US still cannot treat its descendants of slaves equally, throwing a disproportionate number of them in prison after not even giving them opportunities as the whites. The US has a lot of housecleaning to do, but they don't really want to do it, they prefer to attack others and they never stop. And we the people can't get through to them, they don't care what we think.

    Linda Wood , June 17, 2017 at 12:42 am

    Jessica K, just to support what you are saying about our outrage over Russian backwardness with respect to gay rights, there is a writer at caucus99percent who contributes an essay nearly every day about another murder of a transgender person in the United States.

    https://caucus99percent.com/diaries

    turk151 , June 16, 2017 at 8:04 pm

    Mr. Marks,

    I sincerely appreciate the article, but my thoughts upon reading it, is that, while I agree with all of your points about Clapper, he is merely the top bureaucrat, not the agenda setter. As you can see by the comments above, while there is unanimous condemnation of the nefarious covert operations run by our government, there is a broad divergence of who sets that agenda, ranging from satanists, Calvinists, Jews, the MIC or Wall Street . However, in your follow up comment, you address a very under reported issue, which I feel is at the heart of this matter. That this stems from a fear from the Royals, who allied themselves with the Nazis to fight the communists. I believe this is the central story of the past century, yet perhaps it is still a topic that is too sensitive to discuss and does not receive nearly the coverage it deserves. I would love to more of your ideas on this subject.

    Linda Wood , June 17, 2017 at 12:55 am

    Not just the royal families of Europe, but Standard Oil, Chase Bank, and other U.S. corporations. This is the truth that is, just as you say, too sensitive to discuss, and is as you say so very clearly, the central story of the past century.

    Thank you for saying it so well.

    Bob , June 16, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    Clapper and people like him in those positions are expected to lie when asked such things. Telling the truth might see you ending up like William Colby. Once you take that oath and realize the type of people you are dealing with, lying comes much easier.

    Jamie , June 17, 2017 at 12:40 am

    "If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. They were connected to, as we now know, the thousand Russian agents."

    – Hillary

    Andrew Nichols , June 17, 2017 at 3:20 am

    "The Russians are not our friends; they, (Putin specifically) are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared.

    And the Aussie pollies and media just lapped up the crap from the Clap and also from Mad Jihadi lover McCain. We in Aus really are pathetic grovellers.

    Cal , June 17, 2017 at 6:25 am

    This nails the anti Russia movement

    Zero Hedge

    Why the Elites Hate Russia

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

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

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

    3. Russian culture, and language, is too complex for the average "Elite" who pretends to be internationally well versed because they had a few semesters of French.

    . Plain and simple, the Elite do not control Russia.

    While there are backchannels of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild interests, for example, they simply don't have the same level of control as they do European countries, like Germany for instance.

    Jessica K , June 17, 2017 at 7:52 am

    Thanks, Linda, for your point about murders of gays and transgenders in the US. This country for all its vaunted proclamations about being so advanced and exceptional, has a huge amount of prejudice and ignorance among the people, who have been kept down economically so many harbor resentments.

    Your points about Russia are interesting, Cal, especially about the military. US has exploited its citizens for military service when jobs have been taken away in other fields, so that a huge number of the enlisted are just waiting to get out. I have a friend whose son-in-law has to finish his third or maybe fourth deployment to Afghanistan and he can't wait to get out. And as noted in various posts, sloppy work has been done on military equipment in US, much of which becomes wasted money. I suspect Russians have to pay more attention to the job they do because money can't be thrown around as in US, Russian defense budget is far leaner.

    Michael Kenny , June 17, 2017 at 9:37 am

    Every time I see an American article about Russiagate, I run a search for the word "Macron". I never get a hit. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate but no American author even mentions it. None even bother to refute the proposition that it does prove Russiagate. The parallels are astonishing: a populist "ranter" (Trump, Le Pen), a moderate candidate who is being discredited (Clinton, Fillon) and a dark horse (Sanders, Macron). The scam was to get Le Pen and Fillon into the second round and then discredit Fillon, in the hope that Macron's "new generation" voters would be so disgusted with the "old style" politician that they would abstain in the second round, thereby allowing Le Pen to win. The scam failed principally because the media blew the lid off the Fillon story before the first round of voting, meaning that Fillon's voters had already been driven into Macron's arms before the vote. In a ham-fisted, last-minute, panic move, the scammers tried to discredit Macron but, in their haste, made lots of mistakes and fell into a trap he had set for them. The matter is now before the French criminal courts, but three names have already become public, one Russian and two figures of the US alt-right, one of whom worked for the Trump campaign. It is therefore established that Russians, whether working for the Russian government, the Russian Mafia or someone else in Russia, and American rightwing extremists sought to rig the French presidential election. The same pattern in the US election, so logically, the same perpetrators. Thus, James Clapper's reasoning is perfectly sustainable and calling him rude names doesn't change that.

    Bill , June 17, 2017 at 11:34 am

    Is Clapper in a conspiracy with Brennan and Comey? Who else are they working with?

    Jessica K , June 17, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    Macron leaks were not any more provable than Russiagate, they were allegations. Macron is a Rothschild banker, he appeared as a politician very suddenly and is undoubtedly part of the New World Order plan for the neoliberal free market agenda manipulated by the wealthy. Obama endorsed Macron in the days preceding the French election showing that it is clear that Obama supports the neoliberal agenda of "free market" control which has stripped people of their assets and enriched the wealthy wherever it is employed. Just watch France in the next few years, there will be problems as great or greater than under Hollande. Immigrants will be brought in, hired as wage slaves, the economy will be manipulated by bankers, and the people will pay the price as usual. You are making inferences from hearsay, there is no proof of what you say. James Clapper is known to have lied in the past about domestic surveillance; he has claimed in the Russiagate investigations first one thing, then another: we have no proof but it is possible, later we know they did it (although we have no proof), once even saying that Russians are genetically prone to be dishonest, the most bizarre thing he has said. If you want to defend someone who says things like that, you put yourself in the same category of absurdity.

    TellTheTruth-2 , June 17, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    Let's face it .. they tried to shift from Russia to the WAR ON TERROR; but, after 15 years with no end in sight the American public got sick and tired of it and now they need to shift back to Russia so they have a bogyman they can use to scare us into supporting more guns. Econ 101 .. Guns or Butter? How about us getting some butter for a change?

    J. D. , June 17, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    Clapper's rant revealed the actual reason for the coup attempt against President Trump, which he, along with Brennan, Comey, and the Obama Dems have coordinated,. Contrast his lying depiction of Putin to the actual words of Russia's president in his interviews with Megyn Kelley and better yet, with Oliver Stone. Hopefully. Americans will get an actual chance to see and hear President Putin and not the demonized caricature they have been barraged with by the MSM.

    [Jun 17, 2017] Trump now understands that Rosenstein was Obama/Hillary mole and that he backstabbed him, but this is too late

    Notable quotes:
    "... Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called a "witch hunt." Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last month to conduct the investigation after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey. ..."
    "... "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" Mr. Trump wrote, apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that was critical of Mr. Comey's leadership at the F.B.I. ..."
    "... In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalism" means is American hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism." ..."
    Jun 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs June 17, 2017 at 01:49 AM

    Trump Attacks Rosenstein in Latest Rebuke of Justice Department

    https://nyti.ms/2tuS5hb

    NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR, CHARLIE SAVAGE and MAGGIE HABERMAN - JUNE 16

    WASHINGTON - President Trump escalated his attacks on his own Justice Department on Friday, using an early-morning Twitter rant to condemn the department's actions as "phony" and "sad!" and to challenge the integrity of the official overseeing the expanding inquiry into Russian influence of the 2016 election.

    Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called a "witch hunt." Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last month to conduct the investigation after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.

    "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" Mr. Trump wrote, apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that was critical of Mr. Comey's leadership at the F.B.I.

    "Witch hunt," Mr. Trump added.

    The remarkable public rebuke is the latest example of a concerted effort by Mr. Trump, the White House and its allies to undermine officials at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. even as the Russia investigation proceeds.

    The nation's law enforcement agency is under siege, short-staffed because of delays in filling senior positions and increasingly at odds with a president who had already engaged in a monthslong feud with the government's intelligence agencies.

    Several current and former assistant United States attorneys described a sense of listlessness and uncertainty, with some expressing hesitation about pursuing new investigations, not knowing whether there would be an appetite for them once leadership was installed in each district after Mr. Trump fired dozens of United States attorneys who were Obama-era holdovers.

    In the five weeks since Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey, he has let it be known that he has considered firing Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel leading the Russia investigation. His personal lawyer bragged about firing Preet Bharara, the former United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was let go as part of the mass dismissal of top prosecutors. Newt Gingrich, an ally of the president's, accused Mr. Mueller of being the tip of the "deep-state spear aimed at destroying" the Trump presidency. ...

    graphic: How 7 Trump Associates Have Been
    Linked to Russia https://nyti.ms/2sVvf23
    NYT - updated June 13

    ilsm , June 17, 2017 at 02:37 AM
    "witch hunt" wrongly associates this travesty with Salem hangings!

    This is more like Stalinist shows trials while the traitors ruin the branches. Or, "Beria hunts", if you wish

    libezkova , June 17, 2017 at 06:57 AM
    Neocon are determined not to allow anybody to change the US foreign policy as their well-being, as lobbyists of MIC and Israel, depends on this

    President Trump is in trouble, Bacevich says, because "he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-global-order-myth/

    American hegemony is the neoconservatives doctrine and "the Russian threat" is an insurance of MIC $1.1 trillion annual budget.

    And DemoRats now are just another War party, a bunch of lobbyists with the only difference that they get less money from Israel, and more from MIC and Wall Street (all wars are bankers wars)

    Those "very serious guys" are determined to install President Pence and already succeeded in applointed a Special Prosecutor as the milestone of this color revolution.

    Poor Trump did not realized that he is trapped until it was too late.

    http://www.unz.com/proberts/global-order-is-an-euphemism-for-washingtons-hegemony/

    Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption that President Trump has launched an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic order that Washington has established. This liberal world order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.

    Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit myth.

    For example, the orchestrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy, and human rights conveniently overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow of the first elected Iranian government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary rendition,' torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the US Constitution]."

    In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalism" means is American hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."

    [Jun 17, 2017] Putin Claims Russia Proposed a Cyber War Treaty In 2015 But the Obama Admin Ignored Them

    Notable quotes:
    "... American three letter agencies spend more money 'cyber spying' than the total Russian military budget. Which isn't to say the Russians don't have talent or that any amount of money will turn a paper pusher into a hacker. ..."
    "... The Americans didn't respond because they thought they were miles ahead. Recent releases show they _could_ just own anyone with any connected consumer device (e.g. router, PC, Mac, Android, iOS, Linux based etc etc). ..."
    Jun 16, 2017 | politics.slashdot.org
    (qz.com) 182

    Posted by msmash on Friday June 16, 2017

    Russian president Vladimir Putin ( who denies any Russian part in the hacking ) claims the Obama administration ignored a proposal in 2015 that might have avoided all of this. His administration suggested working out a cyber treaty with the US but was ignored by Obama officials, Putin told film director Oliver Stone in Showtime's four-part series broadcast this week. "A year and a half ago, in fall 2015, we made proposal to our American partners that we work through these issues and conclude a treaty on the rules of behavior in this sphere," he said in Stone's documentary The Putin Interviews. "

    The American side was silent, they didn't reply to us. "

    HornWumpus ( 783565 ) , Friday June 16, 2017 @12:55PM ( #54634053 )

    Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

    Do you realize how big the NSA is?

    American three letter agencies spend more money 'cyber spying' than the total Russian military budget. Which isn't to say the Russians don't have talent or that any amount of money will turn a paper pusher into a hacker.

    The Americans didn't respond because they thought they were miles ahead. Recent releases show they _could_ just own anyone with any connected consumer device (e.g. router, PC, Mac, Android, iOS, Linux based etc etc).

    I'm thinking the OpenBSD guys are acting kind of smug, but where they owned too? I can't keep up.

    [Jun 17, 2017] We will probably never find out what truly was discussed between Trump, the Saudis and the Israelis, but there is little doubt that the recent Saudi move against Qatar is the direct results of these negotiations by The Saker

    Notable quotes:
    "... Besides, was there ever a time with the Trump Administration's policies in the Middle-East made any logical sense at all? During the election campaign they were, shall we say, 50/50 (excellent on ISIS, plain stupid about Iran). But ever since the January coup against Flynn and Trump's surrender to the Neocons all we have seen in one form of delusional stupidity after another. ..."
    "... I see this latest crisis as yet another desperate attempt by the Three Rogue States to prove that they are still the biggest and baddest guys on the block and, just like the previous ones, I think that it will fail. For example, I just don't see the Qataris shutting down al-Jazeera, one of their most powerful "weapons". ..."
    "... The Three Rogue States have the same problem: their military capability to threaten, bully or punish is rapidly eroding and fewer and fewer countries out there fear them. ..."
    "... I will end this column by comparing what Presidents Putin and Trump are doing these days as I find this comparison highly symbolic of the new era we are living in: Trump, after bombing a few "technicals" (4Χ4 trucks with a machine gun) and trucks in Syria, the proceeded to tweet that Comey was a liar and a leaker. As for Putin, he participated the latest meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which welcomed both Pakistan and India as full members. The SCO now represents over half of all the people living on our planet and one quarter of the world's GDP . You can think of it as the "other G8", or the "G8 that matters". ..."
    "... the semi-official strategy of the Russian Foreign Ministry which is to "turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into friends, friends into allies" ..."
    "... The West simply has no diplomacy any more, only the airforce and the bombs. Diplomacy has always been a highly rational means of achieving your own goals, where military should only be its extension tool, not a complete substitute. The Western MIC has made the Western countries forget this. ..."
    "... I don't think "because Trump said so" can be regarded as credible evidence of anything. Even his own most die-hard supporters rarely bother pretending his word is worth anything (they just claim when he lies that it's a cunning subterfuge based upon some complex strategerising). ..."
    "... the jury is still out on whether Trump actively and consciously "greenlit" the Saudi move to its full extent, or whether he just didn't understand what the implications would be of his toadying to Riyadh. ..."
    "... This is still just a political crisis, and given the stakes for both sides it must be most likely that it will remain such, and a resolution will ultimately be found that involves the Qataris conceding enough for the Saudis to claim victory. ..."
    "... But given that neither side can afford to be seen to lose completely, it only needs one side to be a bit too obdurate or a bit too greedy, and the crisis could move beyond the merely political. In that case we would see perhaps an attempted coup or uprising in Qatar, an occupation by the Saudis with US complicity, or perhaps Turkish or even Iranian troops guaranteeing Qatar against those events, which would mean genuinely significant shifts in Qatar's strategic position. ..."
    "... if Turkey formally "guarantees Qatar's independence" I'm going to start getting WW1 flashbacks, and seeing the ME as the new Balkans ..."
    "... The analogy is perhaps tenuous, but this affair reminds me slightly of Austria-Hungary's demands on Serbia in 1914. Didn't that end well? ..."
    "... How significant is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? Just joining an organisation doesn't reveal its impact. Pakistan and India will never get along. I acknowledge Russia has good leadership. Though, what happens when Putin retires? China is strong, but much rests on the future leadership of China. ..."
    "... You are ever so wrong to call these God-fearing states "Rogue States"! Please, call them The Axis of Kindness. They specialize in dropping beautiful, democratic, humanitarian bombs. ..."
    "... In perhaps 2015, when Lavrov was constantly in the Middle East, I remember a report, perhaps in Russian on a meeting in Qatar with Khalid bin Mohammad al-Attiyah. Lavrov had promised Qatar a pipeline to be built through Syria in exchange for a $10 Bn investment in the RDIF, which has indeed happened. (Although, so has a similar KSA deal). At this time, presumably, success in Syria and investment mattered more than Gazprom's commercial interest. It could be that Qatar has cut off support for Syrian ISIS and Hamas. ISIS seems to be fading fast. The pipeline was to be Qatar's not the Iran-Russia-Turkey scheme to which Qatar has also been invited. ..."
    "... There have been other discussions about a Qatar, Iranian pipeline operated by Russia which makes more sense for Russia but is less of a bribe. Qatar Investment Authority funded Glencore to buy 19.5% of Rosneft this year. Sechin is pushing Putin to allow Rosneft to build and operate gas pipelines so Russia takes a stake in the Qatari pipeline through Rosneft rather than Gazprom? ..."
    "... In a nutshell, the situation of Qatar appears to be a symptom of the struggle between the political Islam and the hereditary/religious Islam, in which Qatar plays a part of the more progressive, and potentially more dangerous in the long run, political Islam . ..."
    "... Therefore, the Muslim lands of ME have added yet another schism to an already rich list, to the delight of Israel. Finally, it is simply sad how uninformed and bumbling the American version of Lawrence of Arabia, the saber dancer Donald Trump, is in all this, completely out of his depth. ..."
    "... Trump's attack on Syria was either a blunder, or just political show. The last possibility to me seems the most probable. Making Iran the threat to the ME might be meant to give Saudi Arabia the leading position in the ME, just as abandoning NATO by the USA may be meant to deliver the USA from the burden, imagined, to defend Europe against Russia. I still wonder if Trump is far more cunning than his enemies think he is. ..."
    "... As Russia had no intention of giving up Sebastopol, the USA will not give up Qatar. There is no business like show business. ..."
    "... The Israelis and Saudis have been in a defacto anti-Shiite alliance for years against Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. I keep waiting for evidence of discontent among the Muslim masses over this the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques allied with Israel against other Muslim countries that now includes Qatar. ..."
    "... But no evidence of discontent. Perhaps this is due to the Wahhabi fundamentalists concluding that Muslim apostates like the Shiites are worse than Jews and Crusaders. Dιjΰ vu the deadly European Thirty Years' War (1618 to 1648) between Catholics and Protestants all over again. ..."
    "... The article is correct when stating Iran is the target. ..."
    "... Anyway, the Saud family will last as long as the petrodollar enables them to bribe their own people (and having young, male, single, radicalized potential troublemakers-of whom the numbers are increasing-make trouble outside the borders rather than within the Kingdom) and CENTCOM allows them to keep the Shi'a in the Eastern Provinces in check. Once one or both of those factors go away, hell breaks loose in Riyadh. Unfortunately, contrary to what many Western liberals say, what will likely to replace the Saud family in the event of a revolution is probably going to be far worse than what exists today, if public opinion polls in the Kingdom and zakat donations from private donors in Saudi Arabia to jihadist groups are a barometer. ..."
    "... On the Thirty Year's War: very astute analogy, one that I agree with to an extent. However, a big difference is that the Sunni drastically outnumber the Shi'a in a way that the Protestants didn't the Catholics, around 7 to 1. That is what makes Beltway overestimation of Iranian capabilities so ludicrous. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia and Israel spend a *lot* of money to keep the Beltway view of the world akin to what they want. Gulf money permeates our think tanks, both on the Left and the Right: and if Trump had an iota of intelligence last year, he would have hammered home the Clinton Foundation's connection to shady Gulfie donors when she paraded her feminism. ..."
    "... I think both the Left and Right give Trump way too much credit. He's neither a Russian controlled, closet white supremacist dictator in the making, nor a new Marius, heroically despised by the Establishment, who actually wants to keep his promises to those who voted him into power. Trump is exactly what he appears to be: the American Berlusconi, a corrupt billionaire mogul who just makes it up as he goes along. No more, no less. ..."
    "... The common people of the United States, like the same class of people in every other country, mean well, but they are ill-informed. Floundering about in their ignorance, they are tricked and robbed by those who have the inside information and who therefore know how to take advantage of every turn wheel of fortune. ..."
    Jun 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    First, a quick who's who

    We will probably never find out what truly was discussed between Trump, the Saudis and the Israelis, but there is little doubt that the recent Saudi move against Qatar is the direct results of these negotiations. How do I know that? Because Trump himself said so -- As I mentioned in a recent column, Trump's catastrophic submission to the Neocons and their policies have left him stuck with the KSA and Israel , another two rogue states whose power and, frankly, mental sanity, are dwindling away by the minute.

    While the KSA and Qatar have had their differences and problems in the past, this time around the magnitude of the crisis is much bigger than anything the past. This is a tentative and necessarily rough outline of who is supporting whom:

    Supporting the Saudis ( according to Wikipedia ) Supporting Qatar (according to me)
    United Arab Emirates , Bahrain , Egypt , Maldives , Yemen (they mean the pro-Saudi regime in exile), Mauritania , Comoros , Libya (Tobruk government), Jordan , Chad , Djibouti , Senegal , United States , Gabon. Turkey , Germany , Iran.

    Questions, many questions

    The situation is very fluid and all this might change soon, but do you notice something weird in the list above? Turkey and Germany are supporting Qatar even though the US is supporting the KSA. That's two major NATO member states taking a position against the USA.

    Next, look at the list supporting the Saudis: except for the USA and Egypt they are all militarily irrelevant (and the Egyptians won't get militarily involved anyway). Not so for those opposing the Saudis, especially not Iran and Turkey. So if money is on the side of the Saudis, firepower is on the side of Qatar here.

    Then, Gabon? Senegal? Since when are those two involved in Persian Gulf politics? Why are they taking sides in this faraway conflict? A quick look at the 10 conditions the Saudis demand that the Qataris fullfil does not help us understand their involvement either

    ... ... ...

    More interestingly, why is ISRAEL not listed as a country supporting the KSA?

    As always, the Israelis themselves are much more honest about their role in all this. Well, maybe they don't quite say "we done it" but they write articles like " Five reasons why Israel should care about the Qatar crisis " which lists all the reasons why the Israelis are delighted:

    That kind of honesty is quite refreshing, even if it is primarily for internal, Israeli, consumption. Quick check with a Palestinian source – yup, the Israelis are backing the KSA. This is hardly surprising, no matter how hard the western corporate media tries to not notice this.

    What about the USA? Do they really benefit from this crisis?

    The USA has what might possibly the largest USAF base worldwide in Qatar, the Al Udeid Air Base . Furthermore, the forward headquarters of United StatesCENTCOM are also located in Qatar. To say that these are crucial US infrastructures is an understatement – one could argue that these are the most important US military facilities anywhere in the world outside the United States. Thus one would logically conclude that the very last thing the US would want is any type of crisis or even tensions anywhere near such vital facilities yet it quite clear that the Saudis and the Americans are acting in unison against Qatar. This makes no sense, right? Correct. But now that the US has embarked on a futile policy of military escalation in Syria it should come as no surprise that the two main US allies in the region are doing the same thing.

    Besides, was there ever a time with the Trump Administration's policies in the Middle-East made any logical sense at all? During the election campaign they were, shall we say, 50/50 (excellent on ISIS, plain stupid about Iran). But ever since the January coup against Flynn and Trump's surrender to the Neocons all we have seen in one form of delusional stupidity after another.

    Objectively, the crisis around Qatar is not good at all for the USA.

    ... ... ...

    What about Russia in all that?

    The Russians and the Qataris have butted heads many times over, especially over Syria and Libya where Qatar played an extremely toxic role in being the prime financiers of various takfiri terrorist groups. Furthermore, Qatar is Russia's number one competitor in many LNG (liquefied natural gas) markets. There were also other crises between the two countries, including what appears to be a Russian assassination of the Chechen terrorist Leader Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev and the subsequent torture and trial of two Russian Embassy employees accused of being involved in the assassination (they were sentenced to life in prison and eventually sent back to Russia). Still, the Russians and the Qataris are eminently pragmatic peoples and the two countries mostly maintained a cordial, if careful, relationship which even included some joint economic ventures.

    It is highly unlikely that Russia will intervene directly in this crisis unless, of course, Iran is directly attacked. The good news is that such a direct attack on Iran is unlikely as none of the Three Rogue States really have any stomach to take on Iran (and Hezbollah). What Russia will do is use her soft power, political and economic , to slowly try to reel Qatar into the Russian orbit according to the semi-official strategy of the Russian Foreign Ministry which is to " turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into friends, friends into allies ". Just like with Turkey, the Russians will gladly help, especially since they know that this help will buy them some very precious influence in the region.

    Iran, the real target of it all

    The Iranians are now openly saying that the recent terrorist attack in Tehran was ordered by Saudi Arabia . Technically speaking, that means that Iran is now at war . In reality, of course, as the real local superpower, Iran is acting with calm and restraint : the Iranians fully understand that this latest terrorist attack is a sign of weakness, if not desperation, and that the best reaction to it is to act the same way the Russians reacted to the bombings in Saint Petersburg: stay focused, calm and determined. Just like the Russians, the Iranians have now also offered to send food to Qatar, but it is unlikely that they will intervene militarily unless the Saudis really go crazy. Besides, with Turkish forces soon deployed in Qatar , the Iranians have no real need for any displays of military might. I would argue that the simple fact that neither the USA nor Israel have dared to directly attack Iran since 1988 (since shooting down by the US Navy of the Iran Air Flight 655 Airbus ) is the best proof of the real Iranian military power.

    ... ... ..

    ...As for the Qataris, they have already clearly indicated that they are unwilling to surrender and that they will fight . The Saudis have already taken the outrageous decision to impose a blockade of a fellow Muslim country during the holy month of Ramadan. Will they really now further escalate and commit an act of aggression against a fellow Muslim country during that month? They might, but it is hard to believe that even they could be that ignorant of the Muslim public opinion. But if they don't, then their operation will lose a lot of momentum while the Qataris will be given time to prepare politically, economically, socially and militarily. Qatar might be small, and the Qataris themselves not very numerous, but their immense pockets allow them to quickly line up any amount of suppliers and contractors willing to help them out. This is case where the famous "market forces" will act to Qatar's advantage.

    The Qatari Foreign Minister is expected in Moscow on Saturday and it is pretty obvious what the talks will be about: while Russia will not put all her political weight to support the Qataris, the Kremlin might accept becoming a mediator between the KSA and Qatar. If that happens, that would be the ultimate irony: the main outcome of the Saudi-Israeli-US operation will make Russia an even more influential player in the region. As for Qatar itself, the outcome of this crisis will probably articulate itself along Nietzschean lines: " That which does not kill us, makes us stronger ."

    Conclusion

    I see this latest crisis as yet another desperate attempt by the Three Rogue States to prove that they are still the biggest and baddest guys on the block and, just like the previous ones, I think that it will fail. For example, I just don't see the Qataris shutting down al-Jazeera, one of their most powerful "weapons". Nor do I see them breaking all diplomatic relations with Iran as those two states are joined at the hip by the immense South Pars gas condensate field . The immense wealth of the Qataris also means that they have very powerful supporters worldwide who right now, as I write these lines, are probably on the phone making calls to very influential people and indicating to them in no unclear terms that Qatar is not to be messed with.

    If anything this crisis will only serve to push Qatar further into the warm embrace of other countries, including Russia and Iran, and it will further weaken the Saudis.

    The Three Rogue States have the same problem: their military capability to threaten, bully or punish is rapidly eroding and fewer and fewer countries out there fear them. Their biggest mistake is that instead of trying to adapt their policies to this new reality, they always chose to double-down over and over again even though they fail each time, making them look even weaker and their initial predicament even worse. This is a very dangerous downward spiral and yet the Three Rogue States seem unable to devise any other policy.

    I will end this column by comparing what Presidents Putin and Trump are doing these days as I find this comparison highly symbolic of the new era we are living in: Trump, after bombing a few "technicals" (4Χ4 trucks with a machine gun) and trucks in Syria, the proceeded to tweet that Comey was a liar and a leaker. As for Putin, he participated the latest meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which welcomed both Pakistan and India as full members. The SCO now represents over half of all the people living on our planet and one quarter of the world's GDP . You can think of it as the "other G8", or the "G8 that matters".

    I submit that this quick comparison of agenda really says I all.

    UPDATE1 : Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is now telling the Saudis to 'cool it' . The Saudi-Israeli plan is beginning to collapse.

    Kiza June 10, 2017 at 6:42 am GMT

    The real Qatari 'crime' was to refuse, on purely pragmatic reasons, to join into the massive anti-Iranian campaign imposed on the region by Saudi Arabia and Israel.

    This is why it is worth reading this good article. I suspected this to be the reason from the start of the crisis: Qatar has been an active supporter of ME terrorism (including ISIS) just like KSA, US, Israel, UAE and Turkey. But they were never as anti-Iranian as the other members of this Coalition of the Lovers of Terrorism.

    Also, I liked this sentence on the diplomatic skill forgotten in the West:

    the semi-official strategy of the Russian Foreign Ministry which is to "turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into friends, friends into allies"

    The West simply has no diplomacy any more, only the airforce and the bombs. Diplomacy has always been a highly rational means of achieving your own goals, where military should only be its extension tool, not a complete substitute. The Western MIC has made the Western countries forget this.

    Randal June 10, 2017 at 11:46 am GMT

    there is little doubt that the recent Saudi move against Qatar is the direct results of these negotiations. How do I know that? Because Trump himself said so!

    I don't think "because Trump said so" can be regarded as credible evidence of anything. Even his own most die-hard supporters rarely bother pretending his word is worth anything (they just claim when he lies that it's a cunning subterfuge based upon some complex strategerising).

    As far as I can see the jury is still out on whether Trump actively and consciously "greenlit" the Saudi move to its full extent, or whether he just didn't understand what the implications would be of his toadying to Riyadh. Perhaps he really is so profoundly ignorant that he really believes what his words imply: that the Qataris sponsor terrorism (they do) but the Saudis (and his own regime) don't, remarkable as that would be in a national leader.

    As for the Qataris, they have already clearly indicated that they are unwilling to surrender and that they will fight.

    This is still just a political crisis, and given the stakes for both sides it must be most likely that it will remain such, and a resolution will ultimately be found that involves the Qataris conceding enough for the Saudis to claim victory.

    But given that neither side can afford to be seen to lose completely, it only needs one side to be a bit too obdurate or a bit too greedy, and the crisis could move beyond the merely political. In that case we would see perhaps an attempted coup or uprising in Qatar, an occupation by the Saudis with US complicity, or perhaps Turkish or even Iranian troops guaranteeing Qatar against those events, which would mean genuinely significant shifts in Qatar's strategic position. The odds are against that, because all parties have too much at stake to lightly go far down those roads, but such crises can spiral out of control. And on the way we could see all kinds of destructive economic warfare, lawfare, and hardball pressurising, together with lots of hanging out of each side's dirty laundry by the other.

    Popcorn time. But if Turkey formally "guarantees Qatar's independence" I'm going to start getting WW1 flashbacks, and seeing the ME as the new Balkans

    1. UPDATE1: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is now telling the Saudis to 'cool it'. The Saudi-Israeli plan is beginning to collapse.
    2. UPDATE2: Trump promptly undermines Tillerson's position ( Tillerson Scrambles to Undo Trump's Qatar Blunder )
    dearieme June 10, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT

    The analogy is perhaps tenuous, but this affair reminds me slightly of Austria-Hungary's demands on Serbia in 1914. Didn't that end well?

    Weaver June 10, 2017 at 12:41 pm GMT

    How significant is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? Just joining an organisation doesn't reveal its impact. Pakistan and India will never get along. I acknowledge Russia has good leadership. Though, what happens when Putin retires? China is strong, but much rests on the future leadership of China.

    The US isn't exactly in competition with China, because the US doesn't want to grow stronger. The US wants to help Israel expand. And the US wants to help enrich defence contractors and expand pork spending. So, the US and China have two very different goals. Also, the US and Europe are dedicated to undermining their European populations.

    So, while China and Russia pursue power, the US has very different objectives.

    Thales the Milesian June 10, 2017 at 3:08 pm GMT

    Saker:

    You are ever so wrong to call these God-fearing states "Rogue States"! Please, call them The Axis of Kindness. They specialize in dropping beautiful, democratic, humanitarian bombs.

    The Scalpel Website June 10, 2017 at 7:55 pm GMT

    @Weaver "The US isn't exactly in competition with China, because the US doesn't want to grow stronger. The US wants to help Israel expand. And the US wants to help enrich defence contractors and expand pork spending."

    ROFL!!!! Great writing. Funny, but so much truth there

    Philip Owen June 10, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT

    In perhaps 2015, when Lavrov was constantly in the Middle East, I remember a report, perhaps in Russian on a meeting in Qatar with Khalid bin Mohammad al-Attiyah. Lavrov had promised Qatar a pipeline to be built through Syria in exchange for a $10 Bn investment in the RDIF, which has indeed happened. (Although, so has a similar KSA deal). At this time, presumably, success in Syria and investment mattered more than Gazprom's commercial interest. It could be that Qatar has cut off support for Syrian ISIS and Hamas. ISIS seems to be fading fast. The pipeline was to be Qatar's not the Iran-Russia-Turkey scheme to which Qatar has also been invited.

    I was monitoring so much Russian media at the time (hundreds of stories a day and this was not relevant to my task) I can't place it exactly but it was very memorable because of the reversals involved and the mass of implications. How did they reconcile interests. There have been other discussions about a Qatar, Iranian pipeline operated by Russia which makes more sense for Russia but is less of a bribe. Qatar Investment Authority funded Glencore to buy 19.5% of Rosneft this year. Sechin is pushing Putin to allow Rosneft to build and operate gas pipelines so Russia takes a stake in the Qatari pipeline through Rosneft rather than Gazprom?

    Kiza June 11, 2017 at 4:17 am GMT

    If you are interested in another objective view of the Qatari situation here is an article by Oliver Miles in the London Review of Books: https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2017/06/08/oliver-miles/whats-behind-the-saudi-blockade-of-qatar/ .

    It is very interesting that even Al ash-Shaikh has denounced Qatar because of its insubordination to Saudi commands and interests.

    In a nutshell, the situation of Qatar appears to be a symptom of the struggle between the political Islam and the hereditary/religious Islam, in which Qatar plays a part of the more progressive, and potentially more dangerous in the long run, political Islam .

    Therefore, the Muslim lands of ME have added yet another schism to an already rich list, to the delight of Israel. Finally, it is simply sad how uninformed and bumbling the American version of Lawrence of Arabia, the saber dancer Donald Trump, is in all this, completely out of his depth.

    jilles dykstra June 11, 2017 at 6:57 am GMT

    Trump's attack on Syria was either a blunder, or just political show. The last possibility to me seems the most probable. Making Iran the threat to the ME might be meant to give Saudi Arabia the leading position in the ME, just as abandoning NATO by the USA may be meant to deliver the USA from the burden, imagined, to defend Europe against Russia. I still wonder if Trump is far more cunning than his enemies think he is.

    jilles dykstra June 11, 2017 at 7:00 am GMT

    @Kiza

    As Russia had no intention of giving up Sebastopol, the USA will not give up Qatar. There is no business like show business.

    Talha June 11, 2017 at 9:56 am GMT

    @anon Let's look at the numbers again from an angle that makes more sense:

    Israeli expansion (relative to its size): 2500/8522 = 29%
    Indonesian expansion (relative to size): 130,000/735,358 = 18%
    Moroccan expansion (relative to size – keeping in mind it only occupies 2/3 of Western Sahara):
    68,660/274,460 = 25%
    Russian expansion (relative to size): 14,000/6,592,800 = <1%

    Nice try. Peace.

    The Alarmist June 11, 2017 at 10:05 am GMT

    "The SCO now represents over half of all the people living on our planet and one quarter of the world's GDP. You can think of it as the "other G8", or the "G8 that matters"."

    Very clever! Unfortunately the other G8 will only matter around 2040 or so, when the last of the West as we know it is finally subsumed into the Great Caliphate, at which point it will then turn on the other half of the planet.

    TheJester June 11, 2017 at 10:57 am GMT

    Nothing new. The Israelis and Saudis have been in a defacto anti-Shiite alliance for years against Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. I keep waiting for evidence of discontent among the Muslim masses over this the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques allied with Israel against other Muslim countries that now includes Qatar.

    But no evidence of discontent. Perhaps this is due to the Wahhabi fundamentalists concluding that Muslim apostates like the Shiites are worse than Jews and Crusaders. Dιjΰ vu the deadly European Thirty Years' War (1618 to 1648) between Catholics and Protestants all over again.

    mcohen June 11, 2017 at 11:43 am GMT

    @Philip Owen Thanks for that .2015.a lot has happened including the opening up of gas reserves on the Mediterranean. both turkey and Qatar have us airbases so that is leverage. regardless it Is one thing building a pipeline and another keeping it secure. Qatar has been trying to build up leverage on Israel via the Palestinians but that has come to and end with trumps push for peace. ideally peace does not suit qatars plans so gaza could explode soon. hence qatars flirtation with iran hoping to stir up trouble in s.lebanon via hezb. Al thani ran from Syria. maybe they can send him to s.lebanon for some character building

    Agent76 June 11, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT

    The article is correct when stating Iran is the target.

    Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years

    "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

    nebulafox June 11, 2017 at 1:36 pm GMT

    @TheJester

    The Saud family has managed to make themselves even more unpopular (if that were even possible) on what we might term "Arab Street" due to their relatively newfound comfort with the Israelis, of course, but nobody can deny that it is smart politics. Saudi Arabia isn't Egypt, they've got plenty of money to ease the unemployment problem. For all its flaws, its nowhere near "pseudo-failed state" status like so many other Arab countries, despite the demographic and social pressures.

    Anyway, the Saud family will last as long as the petrodollar enables them to bribe their own people (and having young, male, single, radicalized potential troublemakers-of whom the numbers are increasing-make trouble outside the borders rather than within the Kingdom) and CENTCOM allows them to keep the Shi'a in the Eastern Provinces in check. Once one or both of those factors go away, hell breaks loose in Riyadh. Unfortunately, contrary to what many Western liberals say, what will likely to replace the Saud family in the event of a revolution is probably going to be far worse than what exists today, if public opinion polls in the Kingdom and zakat donations from private donors in Saudi Arabia to jihadist groups are a barometer.

    On the Thirty Year's War: very astute analogy, one that I agree with to an extent. However, a big difference is that the Sunni drastically outnumber the Shi'a in a way that the Protestants didn't the Catholics, around 7 to 1. That is what makes Beltway overestimation of Iranian capabilities so ludicrous.

    (IMO: the Shi'a have shrines and their own version of saints, both of which are considered heathenish by Wahhabists. They also have an organized structure. To become a mullah in Shi'a Islam, you have to train for decades, rigorous education in philosophy, logic, astronomy, et all, much like a rigorous classical education was required for Catholic orders -- not at all like modern Sunni Islam where any random guy can declare a fatwa. So they are akin to the Catholics in all this, whereas the Sunni are the Protestants. Not a perfect analogy, but makes the most sense for Westerners.)

    Seamus Padraig June 11, 2017 at 1:44 pm GMT

    The Zionist Entity and the Wahhabist Entity. With friends like these

    nebulafox June 11, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra Saudi Arabia and Israel spend a *lot* of money to keep the Beltway view of the world akin to what they want. Gulf money permeates our think tanks, both on the Left and the Right: and if Trump had an iota of intelligence last year, he would have hammered home the Clinton Foundation's connection to shady Gulfie donors when she paraded her feminism.

    >I still wonder if Trump is far more cunning than his enemies think he is.

    I think both the Left and Right give Trump way too much credit. He's neither a Russian controlled, closet white supremacist dictator in the making, nor a new Marius, heroically despised by the Establishment, who actually wants to keep his promises to those who voted him into power. Trump is exactly what he appears to be: the American Berlusconi, a corrupt billionaire mogul who just makes it up as he goes along. No more, no less. The secret to Trump is that there is no secret. And right now, unfortunately for his base, he happens to be surrounded by Republican people who haven't learned a thing from the Bush debacle and the last few decades in general, policy-wise. Get ready for pure McConnell fantasies for the next few years.

    He's not un-clever in his own way when it comes to manipulating the media and public ratings, but he just clearly does not know a lot about actual policy-making. Trump is at his best when the Establishment wisdom is very clearly in the wrong, yet they can't figure it out due to their own social bubble and worldview. In that case, Trump calls them out, as he regularly did last year. But it isn't because Trump has a plausible alternative to offer, it is more a gut reaction in the instant of the moment that he forgets a few minutes later.

    Anonymous June 11, 2017 at 1:57 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra Trump-cunning?

    Give me a break. It is obvious that the Syria attack and also the Moab Afganistan bomb was purely a show of force to pressure Xi into taking out N Korea.

    This is so sloppy and ham handed it is criminal. Trump is not negotiating with another CEO where that kind of leverage works. He is negotiating with world leaders who aren't going to be pushed off because of a few missle strikes.

    This just showed Xi that Trump is an amateur.

    And yeah, letting Saudi Arabia have free reign over the Middle East? Nothing could go wrong there right?

    Anonymous June 11, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT

    Is it known when the President first learned that there were major US bases in Qatar? Not the #30 Anonymous – just for accuracy not as implied criticism.

    Che Guava June 11, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT

    @Carlton Meyer Agree, but would say better before good. and Iran is better than any Arab state, excepting embattled Syria and Lebanon.

    It is strange to me how the Qataris are to be in this situation, maybe just because it is a very small polity, essentially just a takeover bid.

    jacques sheete June 11, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

    @Kiza Then there's something called "secret diplomacy."

    The common people of the United States, like the same class of people in every other country, mean well, but they are ill-informed. Floundering about in their ignorance, they are tricked and robbed by those who have the inside information and who therefore know how to take advantage of every turn wheel of fortune.

    The people voted for Roosevelt be cause he talked of "trust-busting" at the same time that he was sanctioning the purchase of the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company by the Steel Trust. They supported Wilson "because he kept us out of war" at the same time that Wilson was making preparations to enter the war.

    The rulers can negotiate "secret treaties" at home and abroad. The people, knowing nothing of either the theory or the practice of secret diplomacy, commit all sorts of follies for which they themselves must later foot the bill.

    - R. F. PETTIGREW, TRIUMPHANT PLUTOCRACY, The Story ofAmerican Public Life from 1870 to 1920.

    https://archive.org/stream/triumphantpluto00pettrich/triumphantpluto00pettrich_djvu.txt

    The wonder is that the* hoi polloi trust the hoi oligoi at all. Perhaps it's because today we are generally misinformed rather than merely uninformed.

    *Note to any lurking snarkmeisters. I realize that the words "the" and "hoi" are technically redundant, but I am entering the borrowed phrases in accepted English.

    survey-of-disinfo June 11, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT

    @The Alarmist

    [Europe becomes a "Khalifate"] at which point it will then turn on the other half of the planet.

    It is not clear if the quoted contributer is uneducated, misinformed, or merely channeling historic Western insistence on lording over the rest of planet in guise of an insecure alarmist.

    It is not news that Europe and the West (without any ideological basis in a Muslim Khalifate) have for the past few hundred years been treating both halves of the planet as their prey. Keep boo hoo hooing over those gates of Vienna episode but seriously how many HUNDREDS of millions of people have you lot killed in the past few hundred years? Let's get real. Enough of this bullshit.

    Talha June 11, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT

    @anon And the fact remains that Israel is proportionally greedier for land than they are.

    If a linebacker eats a whole five course meal of pot roast – it's not that amazing. If a five year old does it – it's a thing of astonishment.

    You can also explain why Israel sells weapons to nations like Morocco and Indonesia.

    Peace.

    Ulfberth June 11, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT

    The countries who support Qatar are Iran and Russia only. Turkey has been in a swing state of being the US vassal, getting mad at it, flirting with Russia, etc
    Germany is a joke.

    jilles dykstra June 11, 2017 at 3:14 pm GMT

    @Anonymous If you want to demonstrate that Trump is an amateur you must know what his objectives are, now, then afterwards you may be able to show that he failed.
    At present there is doubt about what he really wants.

    The analysis of prof Laslo Maracs, UVA, Amsterdam, of the Trump objectives is that Trump, and his rich friends, understand that going on with the Obama way will lead to their ruin, and the USA's.
    Obama caused close economic cooperation between China en Russia.

    In Khazakstan an enormous installation has been built, they call it a land port, where containers can be transferred from the Chinese railway system to the Russian.
    Containers now can be transported from China to St Peterburgh in a few days.

    The USA cannot subjugate the world militarily, politically and economically impossible.

    Therefore Trump is at war with Deep State, those who still want the USA to militarily subjugate the world.
    I still think that Trump's behavior can be explained by the mentioned analysis.

    If Maracs is right, then it is greatest change in political course of the USA since Roosevelt in 1933 won the elections.
    And of course a decisive change in world history.
    Therefore the whole western world, and all countries dependent on the USA, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, is in deep confusion.

    jacques sheete June 11, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

    @Talha Speaking of imperialist ( aggressive) expansion, "we" were warned against it time and again, but our lovely leadership has routinely ignored it.

    I like this quote from the Republican anti-imperialist of a century ago.:

    The American flag went up on Hawaii in dishonor; it came down in honor, and if it goes up again now it will go up in infamy and shame and this Government will join the robber nations of the world .

    -R. F. Pettigrew, "Pettigrew's Speech". The Herald. Los Angeles. July 3, 1898 . p. 4.

    The US would join the robber nations of the world? Ya think?

    Ludwig Watzal Website June 11, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT

    "The Saker" is absolutely right about the characterization of the "Axis of Evil" that contains finally the right three rogue states: The US Empire, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. For sure, it's all about Iran but the time is over to attack this country, although the Israelis and the Saudis would love, it the US would do it. But even the Trump administration is not that stupid. To attack Iran would be the "stupidest thing I've ever heart", said the late Israeli Mossad chief Meir Dagen, when the two crazies in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu, and Barack, tried to convince or rather push the US into attacking Iran's nuclear installations, knowing that Iran is light years away from a nuclear device.

    It speaks volumes that the US supports Saudi Arabia's open aggression and genocide in Yemen. But the failure shows that the Saudis are incapable of dealing with a bunch or Huthi rebels or just take Syria where they are just capable of financing foreign mercenaries and terrorist to overthrow an elected President. To rely on the Saudis is a lost cause.

    That Russia wants to mediate in the created crisis and the Iranians and the Turks want to deliver goods, the later are even ready to send troops, is a good sign that this criminal endeavor of the three terror states, the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, is going to fail.

    The Trump administration, however, is the first to blame because President Trump gave all the Muslim despots a free hand when he delivered his bizarre speech in Riadah and singled out Iran as the main "sponsor of Terrorism". After this grotesque performance, he visited the main terrorist state in the region, Israel. As long as the US is unconditionally loyal to Israel, they can't pursue their national interests. That such interests are identical or the relations between the two states are "unshakable" is just rhetoric. But that the US can't escape the deadly embrace shows whose interest the US political class is truly serving.

    jacques sheete June 11, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra If you want to demonstrate that Trump is an amateur you must know what his objectives are, now, then afterwards you may be able to show that he failed.
    At present there is doubt about what he really wants.

    The analysis of prof Laslo Maracs, UVA, Amsterdam, of the Trump objectives is that Trump, and his rich friends, understand that going on with the Obama way will lead to their ruin, and the USA's. Obama caused close economic cooperation between China en Russia.

    In Khazakstan an enormous installation has been built, they call it a land port, where containers can be transferred from the Chinese railway system to the Russian.
    Containers now can be transported from China to St Peterburgh in a few days.

    The USA cannot subjugate the world militarily, politically and economically impossible.

    Therefore Trump is at war with Deep State, those who still want the USA to militarily subjugate the world. I still think that Trump's behavior can be explained by the mentioned analysis. If Maracs is right, then it is greatest change in political course of the USA since Roosevelt in 1933 won the elections. And of course a decisive change in world history. Therefore the whole western world, and all countries dependent on the USA, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, is in deep confusion.

    At present there is doubt about what he really wants.

    I doubt that he knows beyond the license to strut around in our faces like the big cock of the dung heap.

    Paradoxically, Trump's vast holdings make him extremely vulnerable. So, effectively, he's trapped unless he's prepared to lose much, and I highly doubt that he's into martyrdom in any form or degree.

    Much about his running for office reminds me of Jesse Ventura's win in Minnesota back in '99.

    I'm quite certain that Jesse put his money where his (also rather big) mouth was and ran for office, never expecting to win, but merely to use the bully pulpit to show the other money bags the middle finger. To his, and everyone else's shock, he won. Unfortunately, he was opposed by unopposable forces and though he did manage to push through some good legislation (!), it's all been undone. Jesse was a one term governor.

    Anyway, it's: Hail, Humpty Trump! Sterquilinus has risen, again! Isn't he byoo-tiful? Cock-a-doodle- doo-doo!!!!!!

    Yes, sumpin sitnks, but Hexen Hillary would've been MUCH worse Yuck!

    Full disclosure.: I'm still a Ventura policy fan, though I could do without the pink boa!

    [Jun 17, 2017] General Lee Speaks Had it Figured Out - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it." Robert E. Lee ..."
    "... Then came the vast empire, the phenomenal increase in the power and reach of the federal government, which really means the Northeast Corridor. The Supreme Court expanded and expanded and expanded the authority of Washington, New York's store-front operation. The federals now decided what could be taught in the schools, what religious practices could be permitted, what standards employers could use in hiring, who they had to hire. The media coalesced into a small number of corporations, controlled from New York but with national reach. More recently we have added surveillance of everything by Washington's intelligence agencies. ..."
    "... Tyranny at home, said said General Lee . Just so. This could happen only with the consolidation of the states into one vast empire. ..."
    "... Aggressive abroad, said General Lee. Is this not exactly what we see? At this moment Washington has the better part of a thousand military bases around the world, unnecessary except for the maintenance of empire. America exists in a state of constant war, bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, recently having destroyed Iraq and Libya. Washington threatens Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. Its military moves deeper into Africa. Washington sanctions Cuba, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, to no effect. It constantly tries to dominate other nations, for example adding to NATO. ..."
    "... In a confederacy, states would have to approve a war. Few would unless the United States itself were threatened. ..."
    "... But with a central government, those benefiting from war can concentrate money and influence only on that government. For example, military industry, Israel, big oil, Wall Street. Wars might carry the votes of states with arms factories. Other states would decline. ..."
    "... In principle, the Constitution should have prevented the hijacking of the military that we now suffer. As we all should know, and some do, America cannot under the Constitution go to war without a declaration by Congress, the last one of which occurred in 1941. ..."
    "... And thus, just as Marse Bob expected, the federals are out of control and make war without the least reference to the nation. If America attacks North Korea, or Russia, or China, we will read of it the day after. The central government, and only the central government, decides. ..."
    "... A few days ago I read that the Pentagon contemplates sending thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan. This combines tyranny at home and aggression abroad. Who wants to send them? A few neocons in New York, the arms industry, a few generals, and several senators. It could not happen in a confederacy. ..."
    Jun 09, 2017 | www.unz.com
    "The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it." Robert E. Lee

    The man was perceptive. Amalgamation of the states under a central government has led to exactly the effects foreseen by General Lee.

    In, say, 1950, to an appreciable though imperfect extent America resembled a confederacy. Different regions of the America had little contact with each other, and almost no influence over one another. The federal government was small and remote. Interstates did not exist, nor of course the internet, nor even direct long-distance telephone dialing. West Virginia, Alabama, Massachusetts, New York City, Texas, and California had little in common, but little conflict arose since for practical purposes they were almost different countries. They chiefly governed themselves. The proportion of federal to state law was small.

    It is important to note that regional differences were great. In 1964 in rural Virginia, the boys brought shotguns to school during deer season. Nobody shot anybody because it wasn't in the culture. The culture was uniform, so no one was upset. It is when cultures are mixed, or one rules another, that antagonism comes. Such shotgun freedom would not have worked in New York City with its variegated and often mutually hostile ethnicities.

    Regions differed importantly in degree of freedom, not just in the freedom of local populations to govern themselves but also in individual freedom. It made a large difference in the tenor of life. If in Texas, rural Virginia, or West Virginia you wanted to build an addition to your house, you did. You didn't need licenses, permits, inspections, union-certified electricians. Speed limits? Largely ignored. Federal requirements for Coast Guard approved flotation devices on your canoe? What the hell kind of crazy idea was that?

    Democracy works better the smaller the group practicing it. In a town, people can actually understand the questions of the day. They know what matters to them. Do we build a new school, or expand the existing one? Do we want our children to recite the pledge of allegiance, or don't we? Reenact the Battle of Antietam? Sing Christmas carols in the town square? We can decide these things. Leave us alone.

    States similarly knew what their people wanted and, within the limits of human frailty, governed accordingly.

    Then came the vast empire, the phenomenal increase in the power and reach of the federal government, which really means the Northeast Corridor. The Supreme Court expanded and expanded and expanded the authority of Washington, New York's store-front operation. The federals now decided what could be taught in the schools, what religious practices could be permitted, what standards employers could use in hiring, who they had to hire. The media coalesced into a small number of corporations, controlled from New York but with national reach. More recently we have added surveillance of everything by Washington's intelligence agencies.

    Tyranny at home, said said General Lee . Just so. This could happen only with the consolidation of the states into one vast empire.

    Tyranny comes easily when those seeking it need only corrupt a single Congress, appoint a single Supreme Court, or control the departments of one executive branch. In a confederation of largely self-governing states, those hungry to domineer would have to suborn fifty congresses. It could not be done. State governments are accessible to the governed. They can be ejected. They are much more likely to be sympathetic to the desires of their constituents since they are of the same culture.

    Aggressive abroad, said General Lee. Is this not exactly what we see? At this moment Washington has the better part of a thousand military bases around the world, unnecessary except for the maintenance of empire. America exists in a state of constant war, bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, recently having destroyed Iraq and Libya. Washington threatens Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. Its military moves deeper into Africa. Washington sanctions Cuba, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, to no effect. It constantly tries to dominate other nations, for example adding to NATO.

    None of these wars and little if any of the imperial aggression interests more than a tiny fraction of the country's people. To whom can the war against Afghanistan matter? Libya? Few people have heard of Montenegro. Does its membership in NATO or lack of it affect Idaho?

    In a confederacy, states would have to approve a war. Few would unless the United States itself were threatened. They might well refuse to pay for wars not in their benefit, or to allow their sons, daughters, and transgenders to be conscripted.

    But with a central government, those benefiting from war can concentrate money and influence only on that government. For example, military industry, Israel, big oil, Wall Street. Wars might carry the votes of states with arms factories. Other states would decline.

    In principle, the Constitution should have prevented the hijacking of the military that we now suffer. As we all should know, and some do, America cannot under the Constitution go to war without a declaration by Congress, the last one of which occurred in 1941. But a single central government can be corrupted more easily than fifty state governments. A few billionaires, well-funded lobbies, and the remoteness of Washington from the common consciousness make controlling the legislature as easy as buying a pair of shoes.

    And thus, just as Marse Bob expected, the federals are out of control and make war without the least reference to the nation. If America attacks North Korea, or Russia, or China, we will read of it the day after. The central government, and only the central government, decides.

    A few days ago I read that the Pentagon contemplates sending thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan. This combines tyranny at home and aggression abroad. Who wants to send them? A few neocons in New York, the arms industry, a few generals, and several senators. It could not happen in a confederacy.

    Will this, as General Lee predicted, prove "the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it. " ? Wait.

    [Jun 17, 2017] What would US foreign policy look like under President Pence by Hady Amr and Steve Feldstein

    May 25, 2017 | thehill.com
    Among the Republican establishment, particularly the neoconservative wing, Pence has an impeccable reputation. Many describe him as a " hawk's hawk ." He was a strong proponent of the Iraq War, has vigorously stood up for a strong military and "American values" and, as vice president, has taken on an informal role as an emissary to NATO and other alliances. All of this contrasts starkly to what candidate Trump said on the campaign trail.

    Likewise, Pence's evangelical Christian faith is central to his identity. He has proudly built up a reputation as one of the most conservative lawmakers in the country and frequently describes himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." There is a high probability that Pence would explicitly embed religious morals in U.S. foreign policy and push an activist social conservative agenda.

    For example, as the governor of Indiana, Pence signed one of the strictest abortion provisions in the country and approved a controversial law intended to allow businesses to deny services to members of the LGBT community for religious reasons (only after intense blowback did he backtrack). Translated into the foreign policy realm, it is not hard to imagine Pence defending Christian minorities around the world, possibly to the exclusion of other religious groups.

    He will undoubtedly continue Trump's expansion of the " global gag rule ," and it is possible he may try to push a " clash of civilizations " strategy, primarily seeking alliances with countries that have a "Judeo-Christian" character.

    But a Pence presidency could also mean re-adopting a "values agenda," with a greater emphasis on human rights, democracy and development that would be closer in line with President George W. Bush's policies. Under Bush, funding for development - particularly global health programs - expanded, bringing together an unlikely coalition of secular development advocates and faith-based stakeholders.

    It is not hard to envision a similar coalition coming together under Pence's watch. A Pence presidency also may lead to a shoring-up of security and economic alliances. Just as Trump has cast the free-trade regime into jeopardy, castigated NATO (at least before an abrupt about-face last month) and signaled massive funding cuts to the Bretton Woods Institutions, Pence may reverse many of these pronouncements.

    In the current configuration of the Trump administration, three separate groups tangle for foreign policy primacy: the economic nationalists/populists led by Stephen Bannon, the military pragmatists represented by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and the economic globalists fronted by National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

    Under Pence, the Bannon wing would likely make a quick and graceless exit. The economic globalists and the military pragmatists would stay entrenched in strong positions, but old groups would likely return, such as the neoconservatives and religious faith leaders.

    A Pence presidency would bring big style changes. Gone would be the late night tweets and blustery rhetoric. More than likely, "America First" would gradually disappear, with a return to a more traditional form of American exceptionalism. The impulsivity, erratic swings of policy and casual disregard for intelligence and briefing material would also likely pass.

    These changes alone would considerably ease fears about an accidental stumble into a major war or nuclear confrontation. On the other hand, the divisive culture wars that have framed Pence's political career would presumably return in a major way and likely spill over into the foreign policy arena.

    [Jun 17, 2017] Political Elite Use Russia-Baiting to Medicate U.S. Crisis of Governance Black Agenda Report

    Jun 17, 2017 | blackagendareport.com
    Political Elite Use Russia-Baiting to "Medicate" U.S. "Crisis of Governance"

    Submitted by Nellie Bailey a... on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 00:10

    facebook twitter email

    https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/327874351&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false

    The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood" by the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst at BAR.

    Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't want to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people in the U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist economy of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once belonged to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course. War is all the system has left."

    [Jun 17, 2017] Dumping the Democrats for good is the only way to resist Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood" by the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst at BAR. Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't want to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people in the U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist economy of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once belonged to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course. War is all the system has left." ..."
    "... "If you are resisting Russian collusion with Trump, then what you are resisting is a fantasy," BAR executive editor Glen Ford told the opening plenary of the Left Forum. "And, if you are simply resisting Trump, the idiot in the White House, then you are simply a tool of a Democratic Party strategy." ..."
    Jun 17, 2017 | blackagendareport.com

    "Dumping the Democrats for good is the only way to resist Trump," said Black Agenda Report editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley , addressing BAR's panel at the Left Forum, in New York City. "What have they done since Election Day?" Kimberley asked. "They have refused to give even the appearance that they are willing to push for even meager reforms. We have to talk about replacing them and having a true workers party, a true peace party."

    Political Elite Use Russia-Baiting to "Medicate" U.S. "Crisis of Governance"

    The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood" by the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst at BAR. Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't want to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people in the U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist economy of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once belonged to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course. War is all the system has left."

    A Real Left Would Demand Peace

    "If you are resisting Russian collusion with Trump, then what you are resisting is a fantasy," BAR executive editor Glen Ford told the opening plenary of the Left Forum. "And, if you are simply resisting Trump, the idiot in the White House, then you are simply a tool of a Democratic Party strategy."

    Ford said the nation needs a rejuvenated anti-war movement, "or else we are defenseless against this kind of strategy on the part of the Democrats, who pretend that they are an alternative to the fascist-sounding and definitely virulently white nationalist forces in the Republican Party, but are themselves intent upon a war policy that can mean the extinction of the human race."

    [Jun 17, 2017] NATO as a threat to European countries sovereinity

    Jun 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    jfl | Jun 16, 2017 9:23:45 PM | 68

    part 3 ~23:00 - 26:55

    Stone :

    But ... economically you say you are self-sufficient ... they're gone, let them have their problems. It's not going to destoy your country.

    Putin :

    Not in the least.

    Stone :

    ... and at one point you told me in our last meeting that ... I asked you, you know, what about the Russian [base at Sevastopol] ... you told me that it [Russia] wasn't threatened by the loss of the base ...

    Putin :

    It was a threat, losing this base, but it was not too sensitive. Right now we are commissioning a new military base not far from here in Novorossiysk.

    Stone :

    Even if nato made an agreement with Ukraine, I still don't see the threat to Russia ... with the new weaponry.

    Putin :

    I see a threat.

    The threat consists in the fact that once nato comes to this or that country, the political leadership of that country as a whole, along with its population, cannot influence the positions nato takes, including the decisions related to stationing the military infrastructure. Even very sensitive weapons can be deployed. I'm also talking about anti-ballistic missile systems.

    Right now a certain strengthening of American influence is being witnessed in Europe, partly due to Eastern European countries, because they are trying to resist the former dominating power of the Soviet Union. Right now it's mirrored in Russia, but sooner or later this is going to stop. Through initiating the crisis in the Ukraine, they've [the Americans] managed to stimulate such an attitude towards Russia, viewing Russia as an enemy, a possible potential aggressor.

    But very soon everyone is going to understand, that there is no threat whatsoever emanating from Russia, either to the Baltic countries, or to Eastern Europe or to Western Europe. And the stronger this misunderstanding is, the greater the desire is going to be to protect their [European] sovereignty and to fend for their national interests.

    So this constant feeling of being under pressure, let me assure you, is something no one is happy about. Sooner or later it's going to have consequences if it's going to stop. And it's better if this happens through dialogue. Certainly you can try to use North Korea or some other countries to paint a darker picture, but i think what's needed right now is the transition to a new paradigm, a new philosophy for building relations among countries.

    And this paradigm should be based on respect for the interest of othe countries, for the sovereignty of other peoples, not just trying to intimidate them using some outer threat which can only be resisted with the help of the United States. This paradigm will have to cease to exist sooner or later.

    from the outside putin can clearly see the threat to european sovereignty from nato - the fact thereof, actually ... and he can see the threat to the united states from the european backlash to the european nations' loss of severeignty to the us under nato, once that's perceived, and the same through the eu - and the rump is being very helpful there. the us is sleepwalking right into its own demise, brought about by its own arrogant stupidity ... its arrogance 'will have to cease to exist sooner or later'. and it's looking to be sooner rather than later.

    from the outside putin can clearly see the threat to european sovereignty from nato - the fact thereof, actually ... and he can see the threat to the united states from the european backlash to the european nations' loss of severeignty to the us under nato, once that's perceived, and the same through the eu - and the rump is being very helpful there. the us is sleepwalking right into its own demise, brought about by its own arrogant stupidity ... its arrogance 'will have to cease to exist sooner or later'. and it's looking to be sooner rather than later.

    [Jun 17, 2017] Pentagon Trained Syrias Al Qaeda Rebels in the Use of Chemical Weapons

    Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Mike K. Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 12:44 pm GMT

    a few links I'd suggest are worth a look

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT

    'No More' the video shows actual confirmation of the false flag and the video footage from the scene of the staged gas attack event in Syria.

    Apr 9, 2017 No More

    April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of Chemical Weapons

    The Western media refutes their own lies

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/5583784

    [Jun 17, 2017] Global Order Is An Euphemism for Washingtons Hegemony

    Notable quotes:
    "... In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism." ..."
    "... American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's $1.1 trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both. ..."
    Jun 17, 2017 | www.unz.com
    by Paul Craig Roberts

    Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption that President Trump has launched an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic order that Washington has established. This liberal world order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.

    Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit myth.

    For example, the orchastrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy, and human rights conviently overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow of the first elected Iranian government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary rendition,' torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the US Constitution]."

    In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."

    President Trump is in trouble, Bacevich says, because "he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony."

    American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's $1.1 trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both.

    Here is Col. Andy Bacevich's column: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-global-order-myth/

    [Jun 17, 2017] The Global Order Myth by Andrew J. Bacevich

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the meantime, in foreign-policy circles at least, a second, less explosive term vies with resistance for Trump-era signature status. This development deserves more attention than it has attracted, especially among those who believe that alongside the question that riles up the resistance-namely, what values define us?-sits another question of comparable importance: "What principles define America's role in the world?" ..."
    "... So Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, describing what he refers to as the "twilight of the liberal world order," worries about the passing of "the open international economic system the United States created and helped sustain." Donald Trump's misguided emphasis on "America First," Kagan writes, suggests that he has no interest in "attempting to uphold liberal norms in the international system" or in "preserving an open economic order." ..."
    "... In Foreign Policy, Colin Kahl and Hal Brands embellish the point: Trump's strategic vision "diverges significantly from-and intentionally subverts-the bipartisan consensus underpinning U.S. foreign policy since World War II." Failing to "subscribe to the long-held belief that 'American exceptionalism' and U.S. leadership are intertwined," Trump is hostile to the "open, rule-based international economy" that his predecessors nurtured and sustained. ..."
    "... After 9/11, when George W. Bush and his associates authorized the "enhanced interrogation" of those held in secret prisons, panic rather than sadism prompted their actions. Even for the most egregious folly, in other words, there is always some explanation, however inadequate. ..."
    "... My point is not to charge ΰ la Noam Chomsky that every action undertaken by the United States government is inherently nefarious. Rather, I am suggesting that to depict postwar U.S. policy in terms employed by the pundits quoted above is to whitewash the past. Whether their motive is to deceive or merely to evade discomfiting facts is beside the point. What they are peddling belongs to the universe of alt facts. To characterize American statecraft as "liberal internationalism" is akin to describing the business of Hollywood as "artistic excellence." ..."
    "... More fundamentally, Trump's conception of a usable past differs radically from that favored in establishment quarters. Put simply, the 45th president does not subscribe to the imperative of sustaining American hegemony because he does not subscribe to the establishment's narrative of 20th-century history. According to that canonical narrative, exertions by the United States in a sequence of conflicts dating from 1914 and ending in 1989 enabled good to triumph over evil. Absent these American efforts, evil would have prevailed. Contained within that parable-like story, members of the establishment believe, are the lessons that should guide U.S. policy in the 21st century. ..."
    "... However ill-suited by intellect, temperament, and character for the office he holds, Trump has seemingly intuited the need for such change. ..."
    Jun 17, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    During the Age of Trump, Year One, a single word has emerged to capture the essence of the prevailing cultural mood: resistance . Words matter, and the prominence of this particular term illuminates the moment in which we find ourselves.

    All presidents, regardless of party or program, face criticism and opposition . Citizens disinclined to support that program protest . Marching, chanting, waving placards, and generally raising a ruckus in front of any available camera, they express dissent . In normal times, such activism testifies to the health of democracy.

    Yet these are not normal times. In the eyes of Trump's opponents, his elevation to the pinnacle of American politics constitutes a frontal assault on values that until quite recently appeared fixed and unassailable. In such distressing circumstances, mere criticism, opposition, protest, and dissent will not suffice. By their own lights, anti-Trump forces are fending off the apocalypse. As in November 1860 so too in November 2016, the outcome of a presidential election has placed at risk a way of life.

    The very word resistance conjures up memories of the brave souls who during World War II opposed the Nazi occupation of their homelands, with the French maquis the best known example. It carries with it an unmistakable whiff of gunpowder. After resistance comes revolution.

    Simply put, Trump's most ardent opponents see him as an existential threat, with the clock ticking. Thus the stakes could hardly be higher. Richard Parker of Harvard has conjured what he calls Resistance School, which in three months has signed up some 30,000 anti-Trump resistors from 49 states and 33 countries. "It is our attempt to begin the long slow process of recovering and rebuilding our democracy," says Parker. Another group styling itself the DJT Resistance declares that Trump represents "Hatred, Bigotry, Xenophobia, Sexism, Racism, and Greed."

    This is not language suggesting the possibility of dialogue or compromise. Indeed, in such quarters references to incipient fascism have become commonplace. Comparisons between Trump and Hitler abound. "It takes willful blindness," writes Paul Krugman in the New York Times, "not to see the parallels between the rise of fascism and our current political nightmare." And time is running short. Journalist Chris Hedges says "a last chance for resistance" is already at hand.

    In the meantime, in foreign-policy circles at least, a second, less explosive term vies with resistance for Trump-era signature status. This development deserves more attention than it has attracted, especially among those who believe that alongside the question that riles up the resistance-namely, what values define us?-sits another question of comparable importance: "What principles define America's role in the world?"

    That second term, now creeping into the vocabulary of foreign-policy specialists, is liberal , often used interchangeably with the phrase rules-based and accompanied by additional modifiers such as open , international , and normative. All of these serve as synonyms for enlightened and good .

    So Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, describing what he refers to as the "twilight of the liberal world order," worries about the passing of "the open international economic system the United States created and helped sustain." Donald Trump's misguided emphasis on "America First," Kagan writes, suggests that he has no interest in "attempting to uphold liberal norms in the international system" or in "preserving an open economic order."

    Commenting on Trump's Inaugural Address, Nicole Gaouette, CNN national-security reporter, expresses her dismay that it contained "no reference to America's traditional role as a global leader and shaper of international norms." Similarly, a report in the Financial Times bemoans what it sees as "a clear signal about Mr. Trump's disregard for many of the international norms that have governed America as the pillar of the liberal economic order." The historian Jeremi Suri, barely a week into Trump's presidency , charges Trump with "launching a direct attack on the liberal international order that really made America great after the depths of the Great Depression." At the Council on Foreign Relations, Stewart Patrick concurs: Trump's election, he writes, "imperils the liberal international order that America has championed since World War II." Thomas Wright, another Brookings scholar, piles on: Trump "wants to undo the liberal international order the United States built and replace it with a 19th-century model of nationalism and mercantilism."

    In Foreign Policy, Colin Kahl and Hal Brands embellish the point: Trump's strategic vision "diverges significantly from-and intentionally subverts-the bipartisan consensus underpinning U.S. foreign policy since World War II." Failing to "subscribe to the long-held belief that 'American exceptionalism' and U.S. leadership are intertwined," Trump is hostile to the "open, rule-based international economy" that his predecessors nurtured and sustained.

    Need more? Let Gen. David Petraeus have the last word: "To keep the peace," the soldier-turned-investment-banker writes in an essay entitled "America Must Stand Tall," the United States has established "a system of global alliances and security commitments," thereby nurturing "an open, free and rules-based international economic order." To discard this legacy, he suggests, would be catastrophic.

    You get the drift. Liberalism, along with norms, rules, openness, and internationalism: these ostensibly define the postwar and post-Cold War tradition of American statecraft. Allow Trump to scrap that tradition and you can say farewell to what Stewart Patrick refers to as "the global community under the rule of law" that the United States has upheld for decades.

    But what does this heartwarming perspective exclude? We can answer that question with a single word: history.

    Or, somewhat more expansively, among the items failing to qualify for mention in the liberal internationalist, rules-based version of past U.S. policy are the following: meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran, Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; "extraordinary rendition," torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process.

    Granted, for each of these, there was a rationale, rooted in a set of identifiable assumptions, ambitions, and fears. The CIA did not conspire with Britain's MI6 in 1953 to overthrow Iran's democratically elected president just for the hell of it. It did so because shelving Mohammad Mosaddegh seemingly offered the prospect of eliminating an annoying problem. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson did not commit U.S. combat troops to South Vietnam because he was keen to fight a major ground war in Asia but because the consequences of simply allowing events to take their course looked to be even worse. After 9/11, when George W. Bush and his associates authorized the "enhanced interrogation" of those held in secret prisons, panic rather than sadism prompted their actions. Even for the most egregious folly, in other words, there is always some explanation, however inadequate.

    Yet collectively, the actions and episodes enumerated above do not suggest a nation committed to liberalism, openness, or the rule of law. What they reveal instead is a pattern of behavior common to all great powers in just about any era: following the rules when it serves their interest to do so; disregarding the rules whenever they become an impediment. Some regimes are nastier than others, but all are law-abiding when the law works to their benefit and not one day longer. Even Hitler's Third Reich and Stalin's USSR punctiliously observed the terms of their non-aggression pact as long as it suited both parties to do so.

    My point is not to charge ΰ la Noam Chomsky that every action undertaken by the United States government is inherently nefarious. Rather, I am suggesting that to depict postwar U.S. policy in terms employed by the pundits quoted above is to whitewash the past. Whether their motive is to deceive or merely to evade discomfiting facts is beside the point. What they are peddling belongs to the universe of alt facts. To characterize American statecraft as "liberal internationalism" is akin to describing the business of Hollywood as "artistic excellence."

    "Invocations of the 'rules-based international order,'" Politico's Susan Glasser rightly observes, "had never before caused such teary-eyed nostalgia." Whence comes this sudden nostalgia for something that never actually existed? The answer is self-evident: it's a response to Donald Trump.

    Prior to Trump's arrival on the scene, few members of the foreign-policy elite, now apparently smitten with norms, fancied that the United States was engaged in creating any such order. America's purpose was not to promulgate rules but to police an informal empire that during the Cold War encompassed the "Free World" and became more expansive still once the Cold War ended. The pre-Trump Kagan, writing in 2012, neatly summarizes that view:

    The existence of the American hegemon has forced all other powers to exercise unusual restraint, curb normal ambitions, and avoid actions that might lead to the formation of a U.S.-led coalition of the kind that defeated Germany twice, Japan once, and the Soviet Union, more peacefully, in the Cold War.

    Leave aside the dubious assertions and half-truths contained within that sentence and focus on its central claim: the United States as a hegemon that forces other nations to bend to its will. Strip away the blather about rules and norms and here you come to the essence of what troubles Kagan and others who purport to worry about the passing of "liberal internationalism." Their concern is not that Trump won't show adequate respect for rules and norms. What has them all in a lather is that he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony.

    More fundamentally, Trump's conception of a usable past differs radically from that favored in establishment quarters. Put simply, the 45th president does not subscribe to the imperative of sustaining American hegemony because he does not subscribe to the establishment's narrative of 20th-century history. According to that canonical narrative, exertions by the United States in a sequence of conflicts dating from 1914 and ending in 1989 enabled good to triumph over evil. Absent these American efforts, evil would have prevailed. Contained within that parable-like story, members of the establishment believe, are the lessons that should guide U.S. policy in the 21st century.

    Trump doesn't see it that way, as his appropriation of the historically loaded phrase "America First" attests. In his view, what might have occurred had the United States not waged war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and had it not subsequently confronted the Soviet Union matters less than what did occur when the assertion of hegemonic prerogatives found the United States invading Iraq in 2003 with disastrous results.

    In effect, Trump dismisses the lessons of the 20th century as irrelevant to the 21st. Crucially, he goes a step further by questioning the moral basis for past U.S. actions. Thus, his extraordinary response to a TV host's charge that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a killer. "There are a lot of killers," Trump retorted. "We've got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?" In offering this one brief remark, Trump thereby committed the ultimate heresy. Of course, no serious person believes that the United States is literally innocent. What members of the foreign-policy establishment-including past commanders-in-chief-have insisted is that the United States act as if it were innocent, with prior sins expunged and America's slate wiped clean. This describes the ultimate U.S. perquisite and explains why, in the eyes of Robert Kagan et al., Russian actions in Crimea, Ukraine, or Syria count for so much while American actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya count for so little.

    The desperate exercise in historical revisionism that now credits the United States with having sought all along to create a global community under the rule of law represents that establishment's response to the heresies Trump has been spouting (and tweeting) since his famous ride down the escalator at Trump Tower.

    Yet in reclassifying yesterday's hegemon as today's promulgator and respecter of norms, members of that establishment perpetrate a fraud. Whether Americans, notably gullible when it comes to history, will fall for this charade remains to be seen. Thus far at least, Trump himself, who probably knows a thing or two about snake-oil salesmen, shows little inclination to take the bait.

    Say this for the anti-Trump resistance: while the fascism-just-around-the-corner rhetoric may be overheated and a touch overwrought, it qualifies as forthright and heartfelt. While not sharing the view that Trump will rob Americans of their freedoms, I neither question the sincerity nor doubt the passion of those who believe otherwise. Indeed, I am grateful to them for acting so forcefully on their convictions. They are inspiring.

    Not so with those who now wring their hands about the passing of the fictive liberal international order credited to enlightened American statecraft. They are engaged in a great scam, working assiduously to sustain the pretense that the world of 2017 remains essentially what it was in 1937 or 1947 or 1957 when it is not.

    Today's Russia is not a reincarnation of the Soviet Union; the People's Republic of China is not Imperial Japan; and the Islamic State in no way compares to Nazi Germany. Most of all, United States in the era of Donald Trump is not the nation that elected Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower, not least of all in the greatly reduced willingness of Americans to serve as instruments of state power, as the failed post-9/11 assertions of hegemony have demonstrated.

    The world has changed in fundamental ways. So too has the United States. Those changes require that the principles guiding U.S. policy also change accordingly.

    However ill-suited by intellect, temperament, and character for the office he holds, Trump has seemingly intuited the need for such change. In this regard, if in none other, I'm with the Donald. But note the irony. Trump may come closer to full-fledged historical illiteracy than any president since Warren G. Harding. Small wonder then that his rejection of the mythic past long employed to preempt serious debate regarding U.S. policy gives fits to the perpetrators of those myths.

    Andrew J. Bacevich is TAC 's writer-at-large.

    [Jun 16, 2017] Putin's not a miracle worker, but the record seems to establish he has been a solid and very competent leader

    The article of Anatoly Karlin is junk, but some responses are really interesting.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The bright idea could be:" Since we won the cold war, and we can't win any other kinds of wars, why not start a new cold war and claim some success again?" I can perfectly understand the rationale here. ..."
    "... The tide would seem to be flowing against most of Russia's worst enemies. The US and its European satellite states become economically less globally dominant with every year that passes, which is the overriding issue, and the prospects of serious economic/political/social disorder in the US and UK, and a separation of Europe from its post-WW2 US domination, seem to be becoming more realistic, and closer. ..."
    "... Anatoly has gotten noticeably more critical of Putin since he moved to Russia. He is starting to sound like jaded American Trump supporters sound about Trump. ..."
    Jun 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

    5371 Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 7:59 pm GMT

    This is a bit tendentious. He stressed that Russia's help to the people of Donbass continues and can change according to what is appropriate for a changed situation. Meanwhile, it's really strained to find something negative to say about Syria at the moment.

    Anatoly Karlin Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 9:10 pm GMT

    @German_reader (1) I supported the Syria intervention on the understanding it was a Spanish Civil War like environment for live air force training. There are some signs that ground involvement is increasing to a scale I am no longer comfortable with supporting, due to the SAA's chronic inability to improve (I was always wary about this from my earliest articles about the Syrian intervention, knowing about the history of Arab military incompetence, and it seems the more pessimistic interpretation was right).

    Not only are more and more Russian soldiers are dying there (they are formally mercenaries, but functionally many are soldiers who joined up because the pay is 3x better) but the whole operation there is vulnerable to US blackmail, because the US is militarily dominant in the region and Trump has proved to be a wildcard there despite his campaign rhetoric. Incidentally, the defeat of Islamic State won't change any of that. If anything the situation will get more dangerous, since neocons will then be able to more convincingly argue that bombing Assad would not result in Islamic State gains.

    (2) The Ukrainians should know that continuing to bombard Donetsk and Lugansk will result in serious retaliation against them. At the moment, they can do so with impunity, while the Kremlin ties the demoralized NAF's hands with its autistic focus on the Minsk Agreements. Even though Kiev has still made no moves towards fulfilling its end of the deal, the West turns a blind eye and continues to sanction Russia (and indeed to increase sanctions), so there's no even an economic case to be made here.

    It is absolutely bizarre that Russia accounted for 40% of foreign investment in Ukraine in 2016, especially considering the way it conveys its thanks .

    It is also bizarre that there are basically weekly deportation cases against Ukrainian citizens who are seeking asylum in Russia who are wanted for separatism/treason/on the Peacekeeper hit list in Ukraine. Even regardless of your stance on the Donbass conflict, I think it's safe that say that most people would agree that Russia has a significant degree of responsibility for such people. More so than for Tajik economic migrants, anyway.

    German_reader Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT

    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Ukrainians should know that continuing to bombard Donetsk and Lugansk will result in serious retaliation against them.

    But what form should that retaliation take? I mean ok, I can see how the situation might be frustrating for a Russian nationalist, but any form of military escalation would be fraught with grave risks imo.

    Your views on the Syrian intervention are convincing to me, Russia should definitely avoid deeper involvement.

    Simpleguest Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 9:56 pm GMT

    "No bold new ideas about social, economic, or foreign policy .etc"

    Russians seem incapable of thinking and acting in ordinary, mundane terms. The current Russian president had been telling the nation to gradually develop through evolution not revolutions ever since he assumed power, and yet here you are looking for "bold ideas" and "grand visions". Well, dissolving the Soviet Union was certainly one "bold idea".

    Cyrano Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 10:10 pm GMT

    it is now clear that Putin does not appear to have any any new ideas, plans, or visions for the long-term future apart from hunkering down and perhaps hoping that the state apparatuses in the US and Western Europe continue degrading even faster than in Russia.

    I actually think that this is not a bad strategy. Because when it comes to having no new ideas, the west is far outperforming Russia. The perfect example of this is the starting of the cold war 2. I believe that the decision to do this might have been partially motivated by the outcome of the 1st cold war.

    The bright idea could be:" Since we won the cold war, and we can't win any other kinds of wars, why not start a new cold war and claim some success again?" I can perfectly understand the rationale here.

    If you can't win any wars of the hot type, then start a cold one and try to keep the winning record in that category. Although, I doubt it that they will be able to keep the perfect score at the end of Cold War 2.

    The quote that some attribute to Lenin that capitalists will sell them the rope with which they'll be hanged. I think that quote implies too much labor. No need to buy or sell anything to the capitalists. Just sit back and relax. They'll make the rope and they'll hang themselves with it, the way the things are going, although, since they outsourced all the manufacturing to China, it could be a Chinese made rope after all.

    Seamus Padraig Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 11:40 pm GMT

    @g2k

    intervening in Ukraine before Yanukovych was overthrown

    What are you talking about? Crimea? The Russians did not intervene until after Yanukovich was overthrown.

    Randal Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 11:41 pm GMT

    @g2k

    It's easy to say with hindsight

    Exactly so.

    I think your criticisms are pretty unfair, given the odds and the threats Russia has been up against over the past two decades. Quite apart from the general truth that hindsight is 20/20 whereas foresight is not, most of the policies you suggest should have been done would not necessarily have succeeded, and/or would have carried serious costs and/or risks of their own, if they had been done in advance of the situations you now regard as justifying them.

    Putin's not a miracle worker, but the record seems to establish he has been a solid and very competent leader.

    The way things are at the minute, I don't think there are any better options, Foreign policy wise, than to sit and wait for better circumstances. Did they ever come up with serious alternatives to swift, visa and mastercard?

    The tide would seem to be flowing against most of Russia's worst enemies. The US and its European satellite states become economically less globally dominant with every year that passes, which is the overriding issue, and the prospects of serious economic/political/social disorder in the US and UK, and a separation of Europe from its post-WW2 US domination, seem to be becoming more realistic, and closer.

    A degree of masterly inactivity, as far as radically changing policies is concerned, seems called for.

    jimmyriddle Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 12:20 am GMT

    @Anatoly Karlin

    The SAA are winning, albeit slowly. They have cleared Aleppo province of IS, reduced rebel enclaves around Damascus and are making reasonable progress toward relieving Deir Ezzor.

    Things are looking far better than a year ago.

    neutral Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 1:09 am GMT

    @Greasy William

    Non whites do not care about Russia

    Not sure how true or not this is, but I am sure that to change their opinions would not be too hard to do. If the narrative being sold was that Putin was a racist and hated BLM, I am certain a large chunk would swallow this without giving it a second thought.

    Greasy William Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 3:16 am GMT

    Anatoly has gotten noticeably more critical of Putin since he moved to Russia. He is starting to sound like jaded American Trump supporters sound about Trump.

    [Jun 15, 2017] Comeys Lies of Omission by Mike Whitney

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation. Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government, treason or any of the other ridiculous things he's been falsely accused of in the fake media. In fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all. ..."
    "... So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with Russia? But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1? His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the 2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not guilty of anything, he's not even a suspect. ..."
    "... Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn't under investigation. According to Comey, Trump "emphasized the problems this was causing him" and (Trump) said "We need to get that fact out." But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why? ..."
    "... It's true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in his car outside Trump Tower. He didn't even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the goddamn parking lot. That's what you call "eager". In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes of his private meetings with Trump "from that point forward." ..."
    "... Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the elected government or does it sound like someone who's on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as possible on the target of a political smear campaign. ..."
    "... Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that? ..."
    "... In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. Then, there's warrantless wiretapping. ."("Let's Check James Comey's Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director", ACLU) ..."
    "... Repeat: "He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including) torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." How does that square with the media's portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and honor? ..."
    "... In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about that for a minute. Here's what he said: ..."
    "... because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel ..."
    "... Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective from the get go. He doesn't even try to hide it. He wasn't trying to protect himself from 'mean old' Trump. That's baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That's what Comey's been up to. Only his plan didn't work, did it, because the 'leaked memo' didn't lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor. Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it took. ..."
    "... In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenberg had to step in and give Comey his pink slip before the media could cry "obstruction", creating the perfect opportunity to appoint "hired gun" Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House. ..."
    "... Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly murky area of the law and difficult to prove. ..."
    "... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
    "... Excellent article. The politicized charge 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous, arcane and insufferably highfalutin, which makes the entire investigation a very appealing opportunity to launch a politically correct witch hunt. Watch the MSM cheer it on. ..."
    "... But the endgame is not exclusively about Russia. Ancillary targets include Russia's teetering allies, Syria and Iran. Cui Bono? ..."
    "... Good takes all, Mike, and they're the truth. But I'd fire Rosenburg for his betrayals, then fire Mueller for his political selections, all Democrats, most with contributor or employment connections to the Clintons, the Foundation, or the Global Initiative. Those would be a firings for cause and I would fire all their allies, too. Immediately, I'd demand a Grand Jury hearing and have appointed another Special Prosecutor. Nixon wasn't impeached over the Saturday Night Massacre, he was impeached because they had the goods on him. ..."
    "... The endless investigations can be terminated by the President on whim. The Congress can then impeach and hold a trial. They would all look like fools because there's nothing there, only their desire to do Trump in. Trump should fire, fire, fire wherever the politics lead in whatever agency. A lot of this is Clinton-driven, too. Jeff Sessions also needs to get on board, carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked. Anyone who leaks, lies or obstructs goes to jail. ..."
    "... It may sound strange, but I do not believe this entire escapade is about Donald Trump or Russia. It is about our Neocon overlords asserting their unconstitutional primacy over the sovereign will of the American People. ..."
    "... If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their lies have created. ..."
    "... Presumably Comey was deeply involved in Obama's illegal spying. ..."
    "... Learned thus far; the deep state has more power than the Senate, the HOUSE and all members of the voting public.. Its not about Trump, its about you voters.. you people out their in vote land did not vote for the person the deep state elected.. therefore your elected persons must go.. somehow, he must go.. and believe me the DEEPSTATE has pledged to make it so.. ..."
    "... Mueller was not appointed via the congressional "special prosecutor" statute (which was allowed to lapse.) He was appointed by the Justice Departement which means that Trump appointed the man whose job is to destroy him. Why would Trump agree to that when he can simply fire Rosenstein and instal someone who'll get rid of Mueller. Sure, the Washington Post will moan and groan, but who cares. ..."
    "... A little discouraged. Don' t think the swamp is drainable. Trump agenda will never be enacted under these circumstances. Maybe Trump should fire Rosenstein and Mueller and then resign, loudly proclaiming truth about swamp. Don't like Pence but maybe few things can get done. Trump underestimated deep state. They ARE in charge. What will the people do ? Become more apathetic? ..."
    "... Alternatively, Trump could go out swinging. Fire Rosenstein and Mueller and rally base and see what happens. Can't go on as is. The death by a thousand cuts. ..."
    "... In light of Mueller's early actions corroborating his status as an establishment thug and lackey, Trump should fire him, and should fire Rosenstein, particularly since he has the power to do so, and Comey's testimony admits that the leak was intended to get somebody, probably his longtime associate Mueller, in as special prosecutor. As the article shows, the whole thing has been an effort by the power structure to continue its nihilistic war policies. Trump's other proven faults are not the issue. Our survival and the restoration of the rule of law are what is at stake. ..."
    "... The problem is that this leads back to the same questions of why Russia is Washington's sworn enemy anyway. Furthermore, what is Trump's motivation in pushing for a detente with Russia, potentially jeopardizing first his candidacy, and now his presidency, with a generally unpopular among the electorate position? ..."
    "... I tend to agree with some of the comments above, that this has to do with the Neocons, their hold on power and their plans for Middle Eastern conquest. Russia stands in the way of a lot of their plans. Still, Trump's stance on Russia, and who or what else is behind that, to me is the great mystery in all this. And, to be clear, I don't believe in any kind of ridiculous collusion or blackmail scenario. ..."
    "... Trump needs to stage a false flag assasination attempt. Blame it on operatives within the FBI and the upper echelons of congress. Invite bikers for Trump and other patriots to washington, putting them on the payroll and arming them while stating "Due to the assasination attempt I can no longer trust the secret service or Washington establishment for protection." He then needs to have this army occupy both Capitol hill, the CIA and the FBI. etc etc. Its time for Trump to flex his inner Yeltsin. ..."
    "... Uh, because he is a tool of the criminal elite who really run the show, which is one reason he was rewarded with a directorship at HSBC in an earlier time. He made beaucoup bucks there they made beaucoup bucks laundering hundreds of billions of drug cartel money. Apple tree. ..."
    "... I don't care much for Trump, finding many of his specific domestic policies noxious; but I do have a dog in the fight when the Deep State tries to overturn the election of the Chief Magistrate of the nation because he might upset their applecart. He already fucked with their so-called "trade" deals by deep sixing the TPP, and then he is talking about speaking respectfully with Russia, implicitly rejecting the unipolarity of American Hegemony. What further proof did the Deep State require to set a soft coup into motion? ..."
    "... Comey's having previously taken a job as general counsel of Bridgewater, including a reported and unmerited $3+ million severance on leaving, was sufficient reason for Trump to fire him on day one. Comey's due diligence had to have made him aware of–and therefore he apparently wanted to be in on–Dalio's deranged, Stalinesque corporate culture of backstabbing absolutely everyone under the guise of openness. ..."
    "... Were Trump to take hysterical pieces like this post seriously it would likely precipitate him into war with Russia. Fortunately that won't be necessary, because Trump can order the FBI to do or stop doing things; the pres has that constitutional authority as Dershowitz has said repeatedly from the begining, so there is no case against Trump for obstruction. Dershowitz has also said anything (jaywalking) is in theory an "impeachable offense" , because impeachment is completely political. ..."
    "... JULY 10 = ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SETH RICH MURDER How about something big on July 10? The date shouldn't be wasted. Over 66,000 people have signed the petition to make this point. There are only 3 days left, but it could still make the 100K mark. ..."
    Jun 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

    "The Democrats are not fighting Trump over his assault on health care, his attacks on immigrants, his militaristic bullying around the world, or even his status as a minority president who can claim no mandate after losing the popular vote. Instead, they have chosen to attack Trump, the most right-wing president in US history, from the right, denouncing him as insufficiently committed to a military confrontation with Russia."

    - Patrick Martin, "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming", World Socialist Web Site

    Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation. Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government, treason or any of the other ridiculous things he's been falsely accused of in the fake media. In fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all.

    Last week, former FBI Director James Comey admitted publicly what he has known all along: that Trump was not a suspect in the Russia hacking probe and never has been. Here's the story from Politico:

    "Comey assured Trump he wasn't under investigation during their first meeting. He said he discussed with FBI leadership before his meeting with the president-elect whether to disclose that he wasn't personally under investigation. "That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him," Comey said." (Politico)

    So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with Russia? But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1? His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the 2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not guilty of anything, he's not even a suspect.

    What's going on here? Why didn't Comey clear the air earlier so the American people would know that their president wasn't in bed with a foreign power? Why did he allow this farce to continue when he knew there was no substance to the claims? Did he enjoy seeing Trump twisting in the wind or was there some more sinister "political" motive behind his omission?

    Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn't under investigation. According to Comey, Trump "emphasized the problems this was causing him" and (Trump) said "We need to get that fact out." But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why?

    Comey never answered that question to Trump, but he did explain his reasoning to the Senate Intelligence Committee last week. He said he didn't want to announce that Trump was not part of the Bureau's Russia probe because "it would create a duty to correct, should that change."

    A "duty to correct"? Are you kidding me? What kind of bullshit answer is that? How many hours of legal brainstorming did it take to come up with that lame-ass excuse?

    Let's state the obvious: Comey wanted to maintain the cloud of suspicion that was hanging over Trump because it helped to feed the perception that Trump was a traitor who collaborated with Russia to win the election. By remaining silent, Comey helped to fuel the public hysteria and reinforce the belief that Trump was guilty of criminal wrongdoing. That is why Comey never spoke out before, it's because his silence was already achieving the result he sought which was to inflict as much damage as possible on Trump and his administration.

    Did you know that Comey was spying on Trump from Day 1?

    It's true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in his car outside Trump Tower. He didn't even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the goddamn parking lot. That's what you call "eager". In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes of his private meetings with Trump "from that point forward."

    Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the elected government or does it sound like someone who's on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as possible on the target of a political smear campaign.

    Isn't that what Comey was really up to?

    Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that?

    "There's one very big problem with describing Comey as some sort of civil libertarian: some facts suggest otherwise. While Comey deserves credit for stopping an illegal spying program in dramatic fashion, he also approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration during his time as deputy attorney general. Those included torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention.

    On 30 December 2004, a memo addressed to James Comey was issued that superseded the infamous memo that defined torture as pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure". The memo to Comey seemed to renounce torture but did nothing of the sort. The key sentence in the opinion is tucked away in footnote 8. It concludes that the new Comey memo did not change the authorizations of interrogation tactics in any earlier memos.

    In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. Then, there's warrantless wiretapping. ."("Let's Check James Comey's Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director", ACLU)

    Repeat: "He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including) torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." How does that square with the media's portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and honor?

    It doesn't square at all, does it? The media is obviously lying. Now ask yourself this: Can a man who rubber-stamped waterboarding be trusted? No, he can't be trusted because he's already proved himself to be inherently immoral.

    Would a man like Comey agree to use his position and authority to try to "undo" the damage he did prior to the election when he announced the FBI was reopening its investigation of Hillary Clinton? In other words, was Comey being blackmailed to gather illicit material on Trump?

    I think it's very likely, although entirely unprovable. Even so, Comey has been way too eager to frame Trump for things for which he is not guilty. Why has he been so eager? Was he really just protecting himself as he says or was he gathering information to build a legal case against Trump?

    In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about that for a minute. Here's what he said:

    "My judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square. So I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel , so I asked a close friend of mine to do it."

    Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective from the get go. He doesn't even try to hide it. He wasn't trying to protect himself from 'mean old' Trump. That's baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That's what Comey's been up to. Only his plan didn't work, did it, because the 'leaked memo' didn't lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor. Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it took.

    In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenberg had to step in and give Comey his pink slip before the media could cry "obstruction", creating the perfect opportunity to appoint "hired gun" Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House.

    Whoever wrote this script deserves an Oscar. This is really first-rate political theater.

    Now it's up to Mueller to prove that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation by asking Comey to go easy on former national security advisor General Michael Flynn. (According to Comey, Trump said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.") It might sound like obstruction, but there are real problems with this type of prosecution particularly the fact that Trump denies the allegations. Also, Comey has acknowledged that Trump expressed his support for the overall goals of the investigation when he said, "that if there were some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out."

    Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly murky area of the law and difficult to prove. Here's a short clip from an article by Professor Jonathan Turley at George Washington University who helps to clarify the point:

    "The desire for some indictable or impeachable offense by President Trump has distorted the legal analysis to an alarming degree. Analysts seem far too thrilled by the possibility of a crime by Trump. The legal fact is that Comey's testimony does not establish a prima facie - or even a strong - case for obstruction.

    It is certainly true that if Trump made these comments, his conduct is wildly inappropriate. However, talking like Tony Soprano does not make you Tony Soprano .

    The crime of obstruction of justice has not been defined as broadly as suggested by commentators The mere fact that Trump asked to speak to Comey alone would not implicate the president in obstruction. .

    It would be a highly dangerous interpretation to allow obstruction charges at this stage. If prosecutors can charge people at the investigation stage of cases, a wide array of comments or conduct could be criminalized. It is quite common to have such issues arise early in criminal cases. Courts have limited the crime precisely to avoid this type of open-ended crime where prosecutors could threaten potential witnesses with charges unless they cooperated.

    We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless or simply being Donald Trump." ("James Comey's testimony doesn't make the case for impeachment or obstruction against Donald Trump", USA Today)

    The fact that the obstruction charge won't stick is not going to stop Mueller from rummaging around and making Trump's life a living Hell. Heck no. He's going to dig through his old phone records, bank accounts, tax returns, shaky land deals, ex girl friends, whatever it takes. His prosecutorial tentacles will extend into every nook and cranny of Trump's private life and affairs until he latches onto some particularly sordid incident or transaction he can use he can use to disgrace, discredit, and demonize Trump to the point that impeachment proceedings seem like a welcome relief. It should be obvious by now, that the deep state elites who launched this coup are not going to be satisfied until Trump is forced from office and the results of the 2016 presidential election are wiped out.

    But, why? Why is Trump so hated by these people?

    Trump is not being attacked because of his reactionary political agenda, but because he's been deemed insufficiently hostile to Washington's sworn enemy, Russia. It's all about Russia. Trump wanted to "normalize" relations with Moscow which pitted him against the powerful US foreign policy establishment. Now Trump has to be taught a lesson. He must be crushed, humiliated and exiled. And that's probably the way this will end.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

    Fran Macadam Website, June 14, 2017 at 5:04 pm GMT

    Somebody else sure is in charge of America other than 300 million ordinary Americans, though it certainly isn't Russians.

    Mike Whitney, June 15, 2017 at 3:30 am GMT

    Let me get this straight: Comey leaks a memo to the NY Times saying that Trump pressured him to go easy on Flynn. He hoped that the leak would result in an "obstruction" charge against Trump. But it doesn't work.

    So, Rod Rosenstein–who has convenently replaced Sessions– talks Trump into firing Comey. Why?

    Because Rosenstein is working for the other team and he needs Trump to do something stupid that REALLY looks like obstruction, so he fires the head of the FBI. (Again, according to Salon, firing Comey was Rosenstein's idea)

    A week later, Rosenstein –without consulting Trump– appoints deep state handyman and political assassin, Bob Mueller. So, in effect, Rosenstein appointed a special prosecutor to address the appearence of obstruction that he created when he told Trump to fire Comey.
    How's that for symetry!

    Then on Tuesday, Rosenstein was asked what he would do if the president ordered him to fire Mueller. Rosenstein said, "I'm not going to follow any orders unless I believe those are lawful and appropriate orders." He added later: "As long as I'm in this position, he's not going to be fired without good cause," which he said he would have to put in writing.

    Oh man, this thing has "set up" written all over it. The whole thing stinks to high heaven

    Countercoup, Part 5: After Comey, Sessions Hearings the #TrumpRussia Con is Failing – Rogue Money, June 15, 2017 at 5:05 am GMT

    [ ] Comey's defenders were left sputtering that the fired FBI director had repeatedly affirmed the 'fact' of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and that Comey had called Trump a liar. The President's response was to hint again that he had recordings of his conversations with Comey, to which the ex-director cockily declared 'Lordy I hope there are tapes'. This of course, is a bluff by Comey and his derp state/Trump hating media backers, since Comey's entire argument for obstruction of justice rests on his feelings/interpretations of a conversation alone with the President, rather than any actual evidence of obstructing actions by Administration officials. The only thing known for sure as of this posting is that the U.S. Secret Service says it does not have recordings of the private Trump-Comey conversation. Meaning the President may have used a personal recording device to protect himself from Comey's subsequent write up and self-serving leaked recollections of their conversation. For more on the crookedness of Comey, read this summary by Mike Whitney at Unz Review. [ ]

    utu, June 15, 2017 at 5:09 am GMT

    @Mike Whitney I can see the reason for Trump being furious with Sessions.

    Mark Green, June 15, 2017 at 6:17 am GMT

    Excellent article. The politicized charge 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous, arcane and insufferably highfalutin, which makes the entire investigation a very appealing opportunity to launch a politically correct witch hunt. Watch the MSM cheer it on.

    Meanwhile, the broad and well-earned suspicions surrounding the Clintons and their money-laundering foundation will be moved aside and slowly forgotten, as planned.

    Trump's enemies will use this open-ended 'investigation' to cloud and sully every action the President makes. It is a legalistic act of war using the courts as cover. Disgraceful.

    But the endgame is not exclusively about Russia. Ancillary targets include Russia's teetering allies, Syria and Iran. Cui Bono?

    jilles dykstra, June 15, 2017 at 6:51 am GMT

    Seen from Europe the hearings by the USA Senate seem a comedy, if it was not serious. In my view the effort is to prevent talks with Russia, in order to get a normal relation with that country. At all costs Russia must remain the dangerous enemy of the USA. Why ?

    I suppose on the on hand the desire for USA world domination, on the other hand the fear, that existed in the USA since the 1917 Lenin coup, that Europe's trade relations with the east would become more important than across the Atlantic.

    Antony C. Sutton, ΄Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.

    Jim Christian, June 15, 2017 at 9:54 am GMT

    @Mike Whitney

    Good takes all, Mike, and they're the truth. But I'd fire Rosenburg for his betrayals, then fire Mueller for his political selections, all Democrats, most with contributor or employment connections to the Clintons, the Foundation, or the Global Initiative. Those would be a firings for cause and I would fire all their allies, too. Immediately, I'd demand a Grand Jury hearing and have appointed another Special Prosecutor. Nixon wasn't impeached over the Saturday Night Massacre, he was impeached because they had the goods on him.

    The endless investigations can be terminated by the President on whim. The Congress can then impeach and hold a trial. They would all look like fools because there's nothing there, only their desire to do Trump in. Trump should fire, fire, fire wherever the politics lead in whatever agency. A lot of this is Clinton-driven, too. Jeff Sessions also needs to get on board, carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked. Anyone who leaks, lies or obstructs goes to jail.

    This IS manageable, Jeff Sessions needs to man up here, or another AG needs to be in his place.

    alexander, June 15, 2017 at 10:01 am GMT

    Dear Mr. Whitney,

    Thank you for a fine article. It may sound strange, but I do not believe this entire escapade is about Donald Trump or Russia. It is about our Neocon overlords asserting their unconstitutional primacy over the sovereign will of the American People.

    If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their lies have created.

    Rather than be held to ACCOUNT for the gigantic mess they have made, the stupid wars they "lied us into", and the trillions they have pilfered from the taxpayer in the process They put on this " Comey (dog) and Mueller (pony) show to deflect from their stupendous failures and horrendous criminality.

    On day ONE of his Presidency, Donald Trump should have called in "the Marines", and started seizing assets (up ,down, left and right) to recoup the losses our nation has endured.

    The American people should be witnessing a Nuremberg like trial, today, where all our treasonous, defrauding "elites" are admonished, shamed, and sentenced before the entire world.

    LondonBob, June 15, 2017 at 10:30 am GMT

    @Mike Whitney Yes the role of Rosenstein and his background needs exploring. Firing Comey was the right thing to do I think, he and they would have worked something anyway.

    Frank Qattrone and Martha Stewart could tell you that you can do nothing wrong but they can still put you in prison. Trump needs to be careful and get some good advice, I think so far he hasn't taken this seriously enough. Seems clear Mueller has a conflict and that a special counsel was appointed on false pretext.

    LondonBob, June 15, 2017 at 10:33 am GMT

    Presumably Comey was deeply involved in Obama's illegal spying.

    Notaboutrump_but_about you voters, June 15, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

    Learned thus far; the deep state has more power than the Senate, the HOUSE and all members of the voting public.. Its not about Trump, its about you voters.. you people out their in vote land did not vote for the person the deep state elected.. therefore your elected persons must go.. somehow, he must go.. and believe me the DEEPSTATE has pledged to make it so..

    Mike Whitney, June 15, 2017 at 12:55 pm GMT

    Why should Trump hire his own executioner? Would you? Would you try to help the people who are trying to frame you for nothing? Comey already admitted that there wasn't even an investigation. Why wasn't there an investigation? Because they have nothing on Trump. Nothing. That's why Comey "the waterboarder" agreed to frame him on the obstruction charge. Because they have Nothing.

    Mueller was not appointed via the congressional "special prosecutor" statute (which was allowed to lapse.) He was appointed by the Justice Departement which means that Trump appointed the man whose job is to destroy him. Why would Trump agree to that when he can simply fire Rosenstein and instal someone who'll get rid of Mueller. Sure, the Washington Post will moan and groan, but who cares.

    If Congress thinks there is enough evidence here to prosecute Trump, LET THEM APPOINT THEIR OWN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.

    Agent76, June 15, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT

    Jun 8, 2017 Comey's Testimony What's EVERYBODY Missing?

    Jason Bermas breaks down the Comey testimony, and reveals what everyone is missing!

    Jul 7, 2016 Justice Vs. "Just Us": Of Course the FBI Let Hillary off the Hook

    The only thing that surprises me is that anyone is surprised by this.

    pepperinmono, June 15, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT

    A little discouraged. Don' t think the swamp is drainable. Trump agenda will never be enacted under these circumstances. Maybe Trump should fire Rosenstein and Mueller and then resign, loudly proclaiming truth about swamp. Don't like Pence but maybe few things can get done. Trump underestimated deep state. They ARE in charge. What will the people do ? Become more apathetic?

    Alternatively, Trump could go out swinging. Fire Rosenstein and Mueller and rally base and see what happens. Can't go on as is. The death by a thousand cuts.

    exiled off mainstreet, June 15, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT

    In light of Mueller's early actions corroborating his status as an establishment thug and lackey, Trump should fire him, and should fire Rosenstein, particularly since he has the power to do so, and Comey's testimony admits that the leak was intended to get somebody, probably his longtime associate Mueller, in as special prosecutor. As the article shows, the whole thing has been an effort by the power structure to continue its nihilistic war policies. Trump's other proven faults are not the issue. Our survival and the restoration of the rule of law are what is at stake.

    I emigrated to Canada 10 years ago, fortunately being a dual citizen. One of the major reasons I did so was the Martha Stewart case mentioned by a commenter above. I didn't think much of Martha Stewart personally, but if she could be prosecuted despite the fifth amendment for a statement made not under oath exclusively on the say-so of a government agent, then there was no longer due process in the yankee imperium.

    The fact the courts had allowed this "law" to go unchallenged was proof that the rule of law no longer obtained. That was a key factor in my deliberations about what to do. I also find it discouraging that counterpunch apparently did not see fit to publish this Whitney article, probably because it is too much on point and they don't want to fully break with the traditional left, which has destroyed itself by being taken over by fascists like the Clintons and Tony Blair. The yankee imperium needs a figure like Corbyn to put things right again, not a sell-out like Sanders.

    pepperinmono, June 15, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT

    Republicans in Congress surely don't like Trump. However, they better start getting on board with him. They are tied together, whether they like it or not.

    art guerrilla Website, June 15, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT

    what i find so weird, is the almost immediate flip-flop of so-called progressives/dem'rats yelling full-throatedly for violence against -not just all things t-rumpian- ALL those who fail ANY trivial PC litmus test they have their about-face on -essentially- renouncing nonviolence, adopting Empire's motto of 'might makes right', and going full berserker against the rest of the 99% is too sudden and severe to be anything but an astroturf wannabe purple revolution with hillary's puppet masters pulling the strings

    IF they were actually calling for jihad against EMPIRE, instead of their fellow pathetic nekkid apes, i could get behind that but their petulant excuses for why they should be given free reign to 'punch a nazi' (ie ANYONE who disagrees with me), the disgusting shilling for hillary/dem'rats/Empire is maddening
    .
    don't give a shit about t-rump; but they hound him out of office, i will consider that a direct assault on my small-dee democracy, that a duly elected official is run off by hijacking the mechanisms of state to pursue the agenda of the 1% is not right, though done numerous times
    .
    i think they might find that 100+ million PISSED-OFF, nothing-to-lose unemployed may consider that the straw that broke the camel's back, and soros and his cabal of deep state slime won't like the pushback when bubba gets out of the recliner
    .
    come the revolution idiot dem'rats appear to be itching for, just WHICH SIDE do stupid libtards think the police, natl guard, military, etc are going to come down on ? ? ?
    (hint: NOT the libtard side )

    SolontoCroesus, June 15, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT

    @Mike Whitney nb. from the essay:

    "Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it took. In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosen berg had to step in"

    We know what you meant. They all look alike.

    JL, June 15, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT

    The problem is that this leads back to the same questions of why Russia is Washington's sworn enemy anyway. Furthermore, what is Trump's motivation in pushing for a detente with Russia, potentially jeopardizing first his candidacy, and now his presidency, with a generally unpopular among the electorate position?

    I tend to agree with some of the comments above, that this has to do with the Neocons, their hold on power and their plans for Middle Eastern conquest. Russia stands in the way of a lot of their plans. Still, Trump's stance on Russia, and who or what else is behind that, to me is the great mystery in all this. And, to be clear, I don't believe in any kind of ridiculous collusion or blackmail scenario.

    nsa, June 15, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

    We here in Ft. Meade are having a good laugh. One of our assets, a shyster named Rosenstein (that's Scottish, isn't it?) gives Trumpenstein a little pinprick in the back (not even a stab) and the silly old jooie tool folds like a cheap lawn chair. No wall, no tax cuts, no ending the jooie wars for the izzies, no mass deportations, no curbing the jooie central bank .just tacky soap opera histrionics for the few interested in the doings in wash dc.

    nickels, June 15, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT

    Trump needs to stage a false flag assasination attempt. Blame it on operatives within the FBI and the upper echelons of congress. Invite bikers for Trump and other patriots to washington, putting them on the payroll and arming them while stating "Due to the assasination attempt I can no longer trust the secret service or Washington establishment for protection." He then needs to have this army occupy both Capitol hill, the CIA and the FBI. etc etc. Its time for Trump to flex his inner Yeltsin.

    The Alarmist, June 15, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT

    "Why has he been so eager?"

    Uh, because he is a tool of the criminal elite who really run the show, which is one reason he was rewarded with a directorship at HSBC in an earlier time. He made beaucoup bucks there they made beaucoup bucks laundering hundreds of billions of drug cartel money. Apple tree.

    Joe Franklin, June 15, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

    @Mike Whitney Put Rosenstein under oath and ask him about any communications and agreements and meetings he may have had with Comey or Mueller before he appointed a special prosecutor. Do the same thing with Comey and Mueller in regard to Rosenstein. Trump's attorney should do these interrogations.

    Agent76, June 15, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

    @JL

    Know this and it is all NATO and their aggression in the world of the empire. Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA

    Sowhat, June 15, 2017 at 5:11 pm GMT

    I feel that, despite the exhaustive process, this one has to be played- all 19 holes. Everyone is going to demand a good stiff one at the nineteenth. Given his resume, Rosenstein was a good choice by Trump. Sessions may regret his recusal but, Rosenstein may feel that his Frosted Flakes breakfast will carry the day. One should not prejudice him. Trump may have snagged a few and ended up in a sand trap but, he's still below par and we're only on the forth fairway. I did some digging and found that Rod's from Philly. Just thought I would throw that in.
    You can't judge a book by it's cover. The guy will be a good caddy.

    anon, June 15, 2017 at 7:00 pm GMT

    @Mike Whitney Trump should directly appeal to the American people( his base and large number of disaffected Clinton supporters)

    JerseyJeffersonian, June 15, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT

    @Mike Whitney Thank you, Mr. Whitney. This comment and comment #12 delineate the mechanics of the set-up with laser-like precision.

    We are in your debt for articulating the hinge points of this assault on the Constitutional order. I don't care much for Trump, finding many of his specific domestic policies noxious; but I do have a dog in the fight when the Deep State tries to overturn the election of the Chief Magistrate of the nation because he might upset their applecart. He already fucked with their so-called "trade" deals by deep sixing the TPP, and then he is talking about speaking respectfully with Russia, implicitly rejecting the unipolarity of American Hegemony. What further proof did the Deep State require to set a soft coup into motion?

    DanCT, June 15, 2017 at 9:02 pm GMT

    Comey's having previously taken a job as general counsel of Bridgewater, including a reported and unmerited $3+ million severance on leaving, was sufficient reason for Trump to fire him on day one. Comey's due diligence had to have made him aware of–and therefore he apparently wanted to be in on–Dalio's deranged, Stalinesque corporate culture of backstabbing absolutely everyone under the guise of openness.

    Dalio may be very rich, but he's an evil man who we may assume saw in Comey a kindred spirit. Having a Ray Dalio protege leading the FBI suggests agents supported him, if that's actually the case, out of fear and not allegiance.

    Sean, June 15, 2017 at 9:05 pm GMT

    Were Trump to take hysterical pieces like this post seriously it would likely precipitate him into war with Russia. Fortunately that won't be necessary, because Trump can order the FBI to do or stop doing things; the pres has that constitutional authority as Dershowitz has said repeatedly from the begining, so there is no case against Trump for obstruction. Dershowitz has also said anything (jaywalking) is in theory an "impeachable offense" , because impeachment is completely political.

    They want Trump to quit and are predicting impeachment in an attempt to get him to just go, but even if Trump got fed up and wanted to quit, he couldn't now, because without the protection of office, his fortune (at least) would be destroyed. As for the Russia innuendo, it is always open to Trump to humiliate Russia with a military initiative (in Syria for example), which would prove he has nothing to hide. As a major conflict with Russian proxies beckoned, the country would look askance at scarce domestic intelligence resources being used for an old tax or sexual harassment line of investigation against the sitting president. Knowing what kind of a man he is, who can doubt that Trump wouldn't hesitate to kill Russians if that is what it took to turn the heat on his opponents..

    Sam J., June 15, 2017 at 9:33 pm GMT

    @Joe Franklin " Put Rosenstein under oath "

    That's a good idea. Should be public. He needs to be fired any way. The person or persons who recommended Rosenstein need to be fired also.

    annamaria, June 15, 2017 at 9:58 pm GMT

    @Fran Macadam " the Russians did not "interfere in our Democracy" either. We have no democracy."

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/15/the-russians-didnt-do-it/

    Sowhat, June 15, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT

    @Mike Whitney

    A week later, Rosenstein –without consulting Trump– appoints deep state handyman and political assassin, Bob Mueller

    I missed this. Is there a reference, please?

    Sowhat, June 15, 2017 at 10:10 pm GMT

    @alexander

    If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their lies have created.

    Agree

    RobinG, June 15, 2017 at 10:26 pm GMT

    @Mark Green "Ancillary targets" are American citizens. (Syria and Iran are much clearer direct targets.)

    Trump has done some great things. Recognition of Fake News and the Deep State threatened a much bigger awakening. So Trump had to be diminished. Sure, he's a mixed bag, but his defeat of Killary was a blessing. His direct communication (Twitter) and exposure of the MSM was brilliant.

    As you say, 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous. Going on the defensive is a loser's game. There must be a counter-attack. What have we got? Please, if you have something better, something simpler to put in meme and slogan, let's have it, but I see Who Killed Seth Rich as a powerful offensive. You don't even have to solve it. Just get the case broadcast. Do you know that only this week, Seth Rich's neighbor has come out as a witness? (NOT a witness of the shooting, but of the immediate aftermath, police, etc. Seth may have been totally beat down before he was shot.)

    JULY 10 = ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SETH RICH MURDER How about something big on July 10? The date shouldn't be wasted. Over 66,000 people have signed the petition to make this point. There are only 3 days left, but it could still make the 100K mark.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-murder-seth-rich-alleged-wikileaks-email-leaker

    PLEASE SIGN. Either way, THE ANNIVERSARY LOOMS.

    RobinG, June 15, 2017 at 10:36 pm GMT

    @Jim Christian

    "..carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked "

    YES, SO TRUE!! Big mistake to let Clinton off the hook. And what was her involvement in the murder of Seth Rich? Investigate the DNC, Lynch, Comey, Clinton – all of them.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-murder-seth-rich-alleged-wikileaks-email-leaker

    Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the murder of Seth Rich, the alleged Wikileaks email leaker.

    Sowhat, June 15, 2017 at 10:54 pm GMT

    @Sam J. "...Put Rosenstein under oath..."

    That's a good idea. Should be public. He needs to be fired any way. The person or persons who recommended Rosenstein need to be fired also. Putting him under is an excellent idea. Trump needs to hear it or read it. IMO, Rosenstein doesn't have a resumθ that him suspect.

    [Jun 15, 2017] Seveteen Sisters -- 17 US Agencies Make Up The Most Sophisticated Spy Network In The World by Paul Szoldra

    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Security Agency was once so secretive it was jokingly called 'No Such Agency.' ..."
    May 11, 2013 | www.businessinsider.com

    The U.S. intelligence community is vast , composed of 17 distinct organizations each operating under its own shroud of secrecy.

    Oversight of these agencies generally falls to the Department of Defense or Congress, leaving the average citizen with precious little knowledge of how they operate.

    Funded by largely classified budgets, it's difficult to assess how much the U.S. annually spends on these clandestine operations, but one 2012 estimate pegs the cost at about $75 billion.

    The following slides highlight the expansive reach of the U.S. intelligence community.

    The Central Intelligence Agency spies on foreign governments and organizes covert ops. screenshot

    The CIA is the most well-known U.S. spying agency, formed by the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The agency has its roots with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) that operated during World War II.

    Headquarters : Langley, Va.

    Mission : CIA collects, analyzes, and disseminates intelligence gathered on foreign nations. This comes through signals and human intelligence sources.

    Budget : Classified. On their website , the CIA states, "neither the number of employees nor the size of the Agency's budget can, at present, be publicly disclosed. A common misconception is that the Agency has an unlimited budget, which is far from true."

    the annual intelligence budget was $44 billion.

    The National Security Agency was once so secretive it was jokingly called 'No Such Agency.' NSA Headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland NSA

    The NSA was No Such Agency ."

    Headquarters : Fort Meade, Md.

    Budget : Classified. Some estimate the NSA is actually the largest intelligence organization in the world - three times the size of the CIA The headquarters alone takes up 6.3 million square feet - around the same size as the Pentagon - with 112 acres of parking spaces, reports the Washington Post.

    The Defense Intelligence Agency works to understand what foreign militaries will do before they do it. DIA its overseas spy network to collect first-hand intelligence.

    Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

    Mission : The DIA serves as the lead intelligence agency for the Dept. of Defense, coordinating analysis and collection of intelligence on foreign militaries, in addition to surveillance and reconnaissance operations. The DIA is the common link between military and national intelligence agencies.

    Budget : Classified. The DIA does not reveal budget information, although they do say they have more than 16,500 men and women working for them and are under DoD and congressional oversight.

    The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research provides diplomats the necessary tools for effective foreign policy.

    The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) has ties to the Office of Strategic Services from World War II, but was transferred to State after the war. INR now reports directly to the Secretary of State, harnessing intelligence from all sources and offering independent analysis of global events and real-time insight.

    Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

    Mission : This agency serves as the Secretary of State's primary advisor on intelligence matters, and gives support to other policymakers, ambassadors, and embassy staff.

    Budget : $49 million in 2007, according to documents obtained by FAS.

    Air Force Intelligence provides reconnaissance for US ground troops.

    Formerly known as the Air Intelligence Agency, the agency is now known as the Air Force ISR - Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance. Air Force intelligence was established in 1948 to get information to troops on the ground, and most recently, the ISR has collected that intelligence from aerial drones.

    Headquarters : Lackland Air Force Base, Texas

    Mission : Air Force ISR collects and analyzes intelligence on foreign nations and hostile forces, both in and out of combat zones. They also conduct electronic and photographic surveillance, and provide weather and mapping data to troops in the field.

    Budget : Unknown . The budget of ISR apparently falls under the Air Force's Operation & Maintenance budget, which includes other areas outside of the agency's scope such as flying operations and logistics. That number for 2012, however, was just over $46 million.

    The FBI's National Security Branch oversees counterterrorism and intelligence gathering.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Security Branch (NSB) was established in 2005 , combining resources that include counterterrorism, counter-intelligence, weapons of mass destruction, and intelligence under a single FBI leader.

    Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

    Mission : Formed after 9/11 and the Iraq WMD commission - when intelligence agencies were not sharing data with each other - the NSB integrates intel on national security and criminal threats from a variety of sources that are often intertwined in order to protect U.S. interests.

    Budget : Total FBI budget was approximately $8.1 billion in 2012, which included an increase of $119 million "to enhance our counterterrorism, computer intrusions, and other programs," according to their website.

    Army Intelligence and Security Command offers essential intel to troops on the battlefield.

    Army intelligence has been around since spies worked for the Continental Army in 1775 , but the U.S. Army's Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) was established in 1977 to become the major unifying command of army intelligence.

    Headquarters : Fort Belvoir, Va.

    Mission : INSCOM provides commanders on the ground with information they may need on the battlefield: intercepted enemy radio communications, maps, ground imagery, and information on force structure and numbers.

    Budget : Unknown. The total military intelligence budget was $21.5 billion in 2012.

    The Department of Energy, Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence gathers information on foreign nuclear weapons.

    Surprisingly, the Energy Department even has an intelligence service. The Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence focuses on technical intelligence on nuclear weapons and nonproliferation, nuclear energy (especially foreign), and energy security.

    Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

    Mission : The Dept. of Energy doesn't have the ability to conduct foreign intelligence, instead relying on information passed to them by other agencies (such as the CIA or NSA). If it involves weapons of mass destruction, the DoE offers up the analytical expertise.

    Budget : Unknown. Like other government budgets, the intelligence activity is not specifically mentioned, although it may fall under "Atomic Energy Defense Activities" which had a total budget of more than $16 billion in 2012.

    Coast Guard Intelligence provides information on maritime security and homeland defense.

    Coast Guard Intelligence (CGI) was formed in 1915 and now falls under the Dept. of Homeland Security, providing information on maritime and port security, search and rescue, and counter-narcotics.

    Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

    Mission : Although CGI is technically an intelligence agency, its primary mission is as an investigative arm of the Coast Guard. CGI special agents "conduct criminal, counterintelligence and personnel security investigations within the Coast Guard's area of responsibility," with the majority being criminal offenses violating military law, according to the Coast Guard's official website . However, the Coast Guard does have specialists conducting analysis and collection of intelligence.

    Budget : Unknown. Like the Army, the budget has some overlap, although the 2014 budget request includes $60 million for C4ISR systems, an acronym for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.

    CGI headquarters is relatively small, only employing about 280 .

    The Treasury's Office of Intelligence and Analysis collects terrorism and financial intelligence.

    The Office of Intelligence and Analysis is fairly new, established in 2004 by the Intelligence Authorization Act. OIA's focus is mainly on providing information to combat terrorism and illicit financial transactions.

    Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

    Mission : OIA safeguards the U.S. financial system "against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats," according to DNI.

    Budget : Around $340 million.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration hunts down illegal drugs.

    The DEA has been gathering intelligence for anti-drug operations since its establishment in 1973 . The agency collects and provides intelligence to other law enforcement agencies and helps with investigations.

    Headquarters : El Paso, Texas

    Mission : DEA assists local and federal law enforcement in conducting major drug investigations, along with developing "information that leads to seizures and arrests, and provid[ing] policy makers with drug trend information upon which programmatic decisions can be based," according to their website.

    Budget : $2 billion (total DEA budget in 2013)

    The Marine Corps Intelligence Activity monitors the Corp's battlefields.

    Like Army intelligence, the Marine Corps provides their own agency to collect and analyze information for troops on the ground. This includes map making, radio intercepts, human intelligence, and counter-intelligence.

    Headquarters : Quantico, Va.

    Mission : The primary function of Marine IA is to give tactical and operational intelligence to battlefield commanders. They also serve as the "go-to" unit for the Commandant of the Marine Corps on understanding intel.

    Budget : Unknown. The total military intelligence budget was $21.5 billion in 2012.

    The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency provides advanced mapping for military forces.

    Having its roots from the 1972 formation of the Defense Mapping Agency and formerly known as NIMA , the agency was renamed the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in 2003 . The agency has the task of collecting and understanding Earth's physical and man-made attributes. Using advanced imagery (mainly from satellites), it was NGA watching Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.

    Headquarters : Ft. Belvoir, Va.

    Mission : NGA employs cartographers and analysts that collect and generate information about the Earth. This data is used in navigation, national security, military operations, and humanitarian aid efforts.

    Budget : Classified . NGA employs approximately 14,500 government civilians.

    The National Reconnaissance Office is responsible for America's spy satellites.

    While the NGA is responsible for gaining information from satellite data, the National Reconnaissance Office - created secretly in 1961 and not acknowledged until 1992 - is in charge with satellite design, building, launch, and maintenance.

    Headquarters : Chantilly, Va.

    Mission : NRO gives its mission as "innovative overhead intelligence systems for national security." Simply put, the NRO provides their "customers" at the CIA, DoD, and elsewhere with technologically advanced spy satellites.

    Budget : Classified .

    The Office of Naval Intelligence provides information on the world's oceans to sailors everywhere.

    The Office of Naval Intelligence was established in 1882 for "the purpose of collecting and recording naval information" that could be useful in war and peace. Like other military intelligence services, ONI gives maritime commanders information they need on foreign forces.

    Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

    Mission : ONI gathers intelligence and moves it rapidly to decision makers. "We produce maritime intelligence on weapons and technology proliferation and smuggling and illicit maritime activities that directly supports the U.S. Navy, joint war fighters and national decision makers and agencies," according to their website.

    Budget : Unknown. The total military intelligence budget was $21.5 billion in 2012.

    The Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis looks for information on any potential threats to the US.

    The DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis works primarily on homeland threats - collecting and analyzing information, and sharing intelligence with local and federal law enforcement through the use of " fusion centers ."

    Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

    Mission : They work on four main areas: understanding threats through analysis, collecting information relevant to homeland security, sharing that information with the agencies that need it, and managing the homeland security enterprise, according to DNI.

    Budget : Classified. In a Congressional Research Service report , it was noted that "DNI does not publicly disclose details about the intelligence budget, but ... reported that the aggregate amount appropriated to the [national intelligence program] for FY2009 was $49.8 billion."

    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is where all the intelligence should come together for delivery to the president.

    Established in 2004 , the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) manages the efforts of the entire U.S. intelligence community. Director James R. Clapper serves as the principal advisor to the president as well as the National Security and Homeland Security Councils.

    Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

    Mission : The DNI has two main missions: to lead intelligence integration, and "forge an intelligence community that delivers the most insightful intelligence possible."

    Budget : The specifics of the office itself are unknown, but the total aggregate amount for the national intelligence program is more than $48 billion.

    BONUS: The 'intelligence state' has been expanding drastically since 9/11. Gary Nichols via U.S. Military

    The U.S. intelligence community is officially made of 17 organizations, but there is even more to the story.

    A groundbreaking investigation from the Washington Post found some rather daunting figures:

    - 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies are working on intelligence, counterterrorism, or homeland security in the U.S.

    - Just the NSA alone is contracting with more than 250 companies on intelligence work, including big names like Northrop Grumman and SAIC.

    - Many intelligence agencies are doing redundant work, such as 51 federal and military organizations that track the flow of money in and out of terror networks.

    - One reason why those intelligence budgets are classified: millions of dollars in so-called "ghost money" given to foreign governments.

    [Jun 15, 2017] The appointment of the special prosecutor was the part of the plan of Russiagate color revolution from the very beginning

    Jun 15, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova, June 14, 2017 at 09:00 PM

    Fred,

    "Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr. Mueller to decide whether the president's actions amounted to obstruction of justice."

    Comey probably lied. This was probably the plan hatched from the very beginning of this color revolution by Comey and other members of anti-trump conspiracy such as Brennan: to raise Russiagate or anything else to the level which allow to appoint special prosecutor and to sink Trump using this mechanism, because digging by itself produces the necessary result.

    Obstruction of justice is the easiest path to remove Trump, a no-brainer so to speak, the charge which can be used to remove any any past and future US president with guaranteed result.

    The other, more Trump-specific, is of financial deals within the Trump empire. Especially his son-in-law deals.

    In this sense Trump is now hostage like Clinton previously was. He can fight for survival, by unleashing some war, like Clinton did with Yugoslavia. Which probably is OK for neocons because war for them is the first, the second and the third solution to any problem. But as a result the US standing in the globe probably will be further damaged.

    BTW, in your zeal to republish this neocon propaganda, do you understand that Hillary was a head of one of those 17 intelligence agencies in the past?

    The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) has ties to the Office of Strategic Services from World War II, but was transferred to State after the war. INR now reports directly to the Secretary of State, harnessing intelligence from all sources and offering independent analysis of global events and real-time insight.

    Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

    Mission : This agency serves as the Secretary of State's primary advisor on intelligence matters, and gives support to other policymakers, ambassadors, and embassy staff.

    Budget : $49 million in 2007, according to documents obtained by FAS.

    This all drama makes no sense for me. Trump folded. He proved to be not a fighter. The attempt to bring members of his family close to White house is a huge liability for him now in view of possible digging of the past of his son in law by the special Prosecutor. Who is recruiting the most rabid Hillary hacks for the job ;-).

    But the key question is what DemoRats will gain with the current vice president elevated to the new level?

    Other then a blowback from the remaining part of Trump supporters. Pat Buchanan was talking about civil war recently, which is probably exaggeration, but the probably direction of reaction is probably guessed right:

    http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/patrick-j-buchanan/are-we-nearing-civil-war

    Not that I trust him with such a prediction, but still this is a danger.

    [Jun 15, 2017] "It Will Come To Blood" - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... 200 Years Together ..."
    "... 200 Years Together ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs ..."
    "... Spain in Our Hearts: Americans in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939, ..."
    "... The Nazis and Franco were enablers of The Muslims. I fully support the complete destruction of the Nazi War Machine by Stalin's Army no f ..g apologies. ..."
    "... Moral of the story: if the alt-right ever takes power, they should ditch neoliberalism and embrace national socialism. ..."
    "... "Even though the authority of this government steadily declined, it would remain the key actor for the next 5 months, with responsibility for guiding the country and avoiding breakdown or civil war. It failed to meet these responsibilities because its priorities were, first, to maintain an exclusively all leftist government that rejected any compromise with the centre of moderate right and, second, to avoid any break with the revolutionaries because their support was necessary to remain in power. The Republic's first historian, the noted Catalan journalist Josep Pla, termed the strategy Azaρa's "ideological Kerenskyism" referring to the Russian prime minister who fell to the Bolsheviks." ..."
    "... The main goal of the Republican Party is to promote the vitality of Corporate America. If appealing to political correctness can get corporations good MSM press, to increased profits, they will promote that agenda even more vigorously than the statist in our government (and academia). Thus, the Republican party will treat the rest of us as expendable to that cause, and use war talk to distract us from our domestic problems of bad economics and racial balkanization with the whitey hating Afro Americans. ..."
    "... The corporatist Republicans have become just as much the enemy to the people, that they are suppose to serve, as the statist Democrats. And that is why they will standby and give tacit approval to the Democrats that try to eliminate Trump. It is not so much Trump the man they fear as much as the interest of the voters he represents. ..."
    "... Pinochet and Franco were just neoliberals given to fits of flag-waving. ..."
    "... As the Trump interlude has amply demonstrated, formally occupying public office, in and of itself, does not really correlate with meaningful political control over policy. ..."
    "... Bingo!!!! .you sir have nailed it .That's just another way of saying that Franco and Pinochet were anti-Nationalist Traitors yet some of the little twerps on the Alt Right are enamoured of these two filthy cockroaches ..."
    "... I wish Allende had been the thug that Gringo makes him out to be for then Allende would have sent in Nationalist Death Squads to exterminate Pinochet and his neo-liberal Chicago Milton Friedman little cockroach economist Pineras in a soccer stadium It was Allende's commitment to the Chilean Constitution that was the very thing that drove him to his Suicide when the Pinochet Fascist Neo-Liberal Death Squads had him surrounded .. ..."
    "... Allende was a Nationalist who pursued a independent path of economic development .and this was his great crime in the mind of War Criminal Henry Kissinger .The Coup proceeded forward .and continues this day in Chile .Chile is back on the neoliberal plantation . ..."
    Jun 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

    What Spain's Civil War Can Teach America's Patriots

    This pattern has repeated across centuries. In 200 Years Together , Alexander Solzhenitsyn described how Communist revolutionaries in Tsarist Russia were supported by intellectual circles. Their young leadership often came from the privileged classes, including a significant number of Jews. (Curiously, 200 Years Together , while it is available in French and German, has never been published in English, although bootleg translations circulate on the internet .)

    Now, however, there seems to be physical resistance from the American Right. Perhaps the most important case: the " Battle of Berkeley " last month, when a loose alliance of conservatives, "Alt-Lite" free speech supporters and Alt-Right activists fought and beat an Antifa attempt to shut down a demonstration. MSM reports suggest Antifa were generally stunned when patriots fought back.

    David Hines urges a " National Divorce " before things get worse. I'd argue a "National Divorce" would simply allow the Left a beachhead from which eventually to secure the entire country. And it is unlikely even to work. It seems more likely there will be a larger-scale conflict and political groups willing to use violence will grow larger and more organized.

    One of the most likely models of how the polity could collapse into civil strife: the Spanish Civil War. The September/October 2016 edition of Foreign Affairs , a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, featured a review by Sebastian Faber of Adam Hochschild's Spain in Our Hearts: Americans in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939, profiling the Abraham Lincoln Brigade (or 15 th International Brigade), a pro-Communist force which fought for the Republic as "shock troops."

    But what of the Right? If the Spanish Civil War were to serve as a template for a second American Civil War, we should examine the two main rightist paramilitary groups in Spain. They were the Carlists , a monarchist group, whose fighters were known as requetιs and considered the most fanatical fighters on the Nationalist side, and the right-wing Falange (= Phalanx). They provided an important source of manpower to the Nationalist Army.

    On the eve of the Spanish Civil War, the Falangists numbered about 40,000 men. The Carlists had at least 6,000 men in Pamplona, Navarre and are estimated to have had a minimum of 10,000 men. All day long on the second day of the war, conservative farmers streamed to Pamplona to volunteer for the Carlist forces.

    In the first days of the fighting, the Nationalists relied heavily on such militias: regular soldiers were often outnumbered. At the outset, the Carlists secured the region of Navarre. One column of 1,400 men, mostly requetιs , marched to Saragossa, to reinforce the army garrison and secure the town.

    Falangists contributed to the defense of the town of Oviedo, in Asturias. The soldiers and Falangists withstood a siege for months, until relieved in mid-October, 1936. In Toledo, Falangists contributed at least 200 men to the 1,300-man force defending the Alcαzar Fortress, which held out, until relieved by Franco in late September, 1936. In August in the Saragossa region, they had at least 2,000 men. In the advance on Madrid , the Falangists contributed a significant portion of the 20,000 men who attacked the city.

    Without these highly-motivated militias, it would have been impossible for the Nationalists to succeed in the war against the Leftist government; the rebellion would have collapsed in its first week.

    Similarly, should civil war visit America again, it may come down to locally-organized groups of both Left and Right, as the regular U.S. military will be spread thin (and probably divided

    Gringo Show Comment Next New Comment June 10, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT

    Stanley Payne's book, Spain: a Unique History , discusses the causes of the Spanish Civil War. Guess what: the meme that has been pushed for decades, that "The evil Fascists wouldn't let the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leftist government carry out its program- a program which was carried out in accordance with the law and the Constitution" doesn't quite cut it.

    One hypothesis is that the Civil War began in 1934, with the Socialist insurrection in Asturias, which cost 1,500 lives. The right was in control of the government at the time. Payne dismisses this, but adds that the Socialist insurrection and its aftermath increased the polarization of Spanish society.

    There is also the Breakdown hypothesis, which focuses on what occurred after the election of a left-wing government in 1936. As Payne considers this important, I will not edit out his points.

    The military rebels who began the conflict at first declared almost unanimously that they were taking violent action not to overthrow the Republic but to save the Republic, since the constitution had become a dead letter, and law and order had broken down. Certainly the breakdown of law and constitutional order that had occurred in Spain was unprecedented in any modern European country in peacetime. Unpunished violation of the law took place in at least fourteen areas.

    1. The electoral victory of the Left was later followed by the greatest strike wave in Spanish history, featuring many labor stoppages, in some cases without practical economic goals but rather seeking direct domination of labor relations and of private property, often accompanied by violence and destruction of property.

    2. Illegal seizures of property, especially in the southern provinces, sometimes legalized ex post facto by the government under the pressure of the revolutionary movements. Manuel Tuρσn de Lara has calculated that, between illegal seizures and the acceleration of the agrarian reform, approximately 5 percent of all agrarian property in the country changed hands within five months - not a revolution, but a precipitous change.3

    3. A wave of arson and property destruction, particularly in the south.

    4. In addition to the destruction, numerous seizures of churches and church properties in the south and east and in some other parts of the country.

    5. Closure of Catholic schools, provoking a crisis in education, and in a number of localities forcible suppression of Catholic religious activities as well, accompanied by the expulsion of priests.

    6. Broad extension of censorship, with severe limitation of freedom of expression and of assembly.

    7. Major economic deterioration, which has never been studied in detail, with a severe stock market decline, the flight of capital, and in some southern provinces abandonment of cultivation, since the costs of the harvest would be greater than its market value. Hence several southern Socialist mayors proposed the "penalty of remaining" for proprietors, rather than the penalty of exile.

    8. Many hundreds - indeed several thousand - arbitrary political arrests of members of rightist parties.

    9. Impunity of criminal action for members of Popular Front organizations, who were rarely arrested. Occasionally anarchosyndicalists were detained, since they were not members of the Popular Front.

    10. The politicization of justice through new legislation and policies, in order to facilitate arbitrary political arrests and prosecution, and to place the rightist parties outside the law. In spite of the four violent insurrections of leftist parties against the Republic - which had scant counterpart among the rightist parties - none of their members were charged with illegal action in this regard, since justice had become completely politicized, in keeping with the Popular Front program.

    11. Forcible dissolution of rightist groups, beginning with the Falange in March and the Catholic trade unions in May, and moving toward the CEDA and Renovaciσn Espaρola in July. Illegalizing the rightist organizations was designed to create a virtual political monopoly for the leftist parties, first achieved in the trade union groups.

    12. Falsification of electoral procedures and results, which, according to Alcalα-Zamora, passed through four phases. The first was produced by the series of disorders in various provinces on February 16-19, which destroyed a certain number of ballots, produced repeat voting of dubious legality in several locales, and distorted final registration of the votes. The second phase occurred during the run-off elections two weeks later, when, in the face of physical intimidation, the conservative parties withdrew. The third phase was the arbitrary and partisan actions of the Electoral Comission of the Cortes in the second half of March, almost universally condemned by historians, which arbitrarily reassigned a sizable number of seats from the Right to the Left. The fourth phase was the extreme coercion exerted in the new Cortes elections in Cuenca and Granada at the beginning of May, with the arbitrary detention of rightist candidates and activists and severe restriction of rightist activity, producing completely unilateral elections, taken by the opposition to the government as a signal of the end of democratic voting in Spain.4

    13. Subversion of the security forces through reappointment of revolutionary officers and personnel earlier prosecuted for violent and subversive actions. One of these commanded the illegal police squad that kidnapped Calvo Sotelo. Equally notable was the addition of special "delegados de policνa," normally activists of the Socialist and Communist parties named ad hoc as deputy police, though not regular members of the security forces. This followed the precedent of the Hitler government in appointing violent and subversive SA and SS activists as Hilfspolizei in Germany in 1933, and one of these fired the bullet that killed Calvo Sotelo. It should be noted, however, that this procedure was not followed on a massive and systematic scale, as in Germany.

    14. The growth of political violence, although its extension was very unequal in different parts of the country. Some provinces experienced relative calm, while in others there was widespread violence, especially in some of the capital cities. Estimates by researchers of those killed by political violence within five and a half months range from a low of 300 to a high of 444.5

    The assassination of Calvo Sotelo merits further comment. Guardia de Asalto personnel killed and kidnapped him in response to Falangists killing Josι Castillo, a Spanish Police Guardia de Asalto (Assault Guard) lieutenant. As Josι Calvo Sotelo was a member of Parliament and a leading spokesman for the right, his killing was considered an escalation. The government's not arresting Calvo Sotelo's killers- even more damning when it all knew that government operatives kidnapped and killed him- is considered the trigger that began the Civil War.

    In any event, all the fourteen points are under the heading of unpunished violations of the law.

    A big problem was that the left in power in 1936 was divided in its agenda- some moderate, some extreme. Which reminds me of the MIR pushing violent land takeovers in Allende's Chile, while the Communists told the MIR to cool it. In both countries, extremists on the left, instead of advancing the revolution they desired, triggered a rightist reaction.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 4:09 am GMT

    Franco was Death Squad for the Land Owning Class same as Pinchet .if they both re-appeared on the American scene they would be murdering the Alt Right to the extent that the Alt Right spoke on behalf of The Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

    At the Battle for Blair Mountain Franco and Pinochet and their reactionary Death Squadrons would have murdered Bill Blizzard and his Army of Coal Miners .

    Seraphim Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 7:15 am GMT

    @Gringo

    "During the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939, and especially in the early months of the conflict, individual clergymen were executed while entire religious communities were persecuted, leading to a death toll of 13 bishops, 4,172 diocesan priests and seminarians, 2,364 monks and friars and 283 nuns, for a total of 6,832 clerical victims, as part of what is referred to as Spain's Red Terror".

    That illustrates the anti-christian animus of the 'Left' then and what's 'left' of it today. It is defining for the 'Left' in general.

    jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 7:19 am GMT

    Civil wars hardly ever are civil. In two ways, wars between citizens are barbaric, ferocious, and always foreign countries interfere. This was also the case in the USA Civil War.

    The Spanish Civil War was the clash between nationalism and communism, the west, including GB and USA, but mainly Hitler and Mussolini, against Stalin. GB sent the plane to the Cape Verdian islands to bring Franco to the Canarian islands, Hitler's Junckers ferried troops from Morocco to Spain.

    The Syrian civil war of course is war between the west, including Israel, and Russia.

    I do not see a USA civil war, a revolution is possible, what then army and police will do, I do not know. Killing one's own citizens never was easy.

    Civil war in Europe seems far more probabable, in France is has already begun, Muslims against non Muslims. In NE Germany a western city has been built, on a military excercise base, to simulate city warfare.

    David Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 12:05 pm GMT

    I've mentioned this before, but I think it's very interesting that Hitler's Brownshirts were recruited to stop communists from breaking up his rallies. I don't know if Hitler would have become what he did otherwise, but having to arm oneself to express oneself seems a dangerous way to begin.

    I recommend this six-part BBC documentary on the Spanish Civil War. It's informative and a beautiful document in its own right.

    Beefcake the Mighty Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 12:10 pm GMT

    In addition to saving Spain from the horrors of communism, he also spared Spain the horrors of World War 2 (although Spanish volunteers served admirably on the Eastern front). For these reasons he was clearly the greatest wartime leader.

    RJG Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

    I can not believe this piece of garbage-grossly inaccurate-"Spain became a democracy". Have you lost your mind! Franco won and Spain became a dictatorship idiot. He built a monument to himself where his corpse rots. Did you ever hear of Guernica??????? Google it–I do not place anymore value on this site.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

    @Chris Bridges

    Please, either learn to write English or stay off the net. The coal miner disputes at Blair Mountain had nothing to do with what is happening in America today and even less with Franco and the Spanish Civil War. Franco quite properly smashed a leftist conspiracy to destroy Spain. Good God! How anyone in 2017 can defend any Marxist crackpots, like the traitors who Franco fought against, is simply incredible. Does the name Stalin ring a bell? The Communist Bloc? Decades of Communist murder and oppression? Go back to your Wobbly meeting, you retrograde leftie. The Spanish Peasants had very good reasons to revolt against the Oligarchs in Spain. The Battle for Blair Mountain is very relevant to the issue of Oligarch rule in the US in 2017.

    You use the terms like "Marxist" and "Communist" that renders these terms analytically useless.

    Franco was a hit man for the Land Owning Oligarchs in Spain. And he used a North African Rape-Pillage and Plunder Mohammadan Rape Army to attack The Spanish Working Class .To quote Franco's recruitment pitch the the North African Muzzies "WE ARE ALL SPANISH!!!" Diversity is a Blessing 1930′s Fascist Spain version

    The Nazis and Franco were enablers of The Muslims. I fully support the complete destruction of the Nazi War Machine by Stalin's Army no f ..g apologies.

    No one should have any doubt that Anne Coulter's late father Mining Company Death Squad Organizer John Coulter would have enthusiastically employed the likes of Franco and Pinochet to use Death Squadron Violence against the striking coal miners

    There is a lot more I can say but I wait for your Alt Right twerp-that-you-are response .

    Uebersetzer Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

    @Chris Bridges

    I am from the UK, so I do make certain assumptions about Americans which may not be well-founded. i.e. that a lot of the gun enthusiasts are potential Charles Whitmans and politically of the right as well.

    However, going from the Internet I don't see Trots in America, not very numerous anyway. walking around with guns, it tends to be people who think the Democratic National Convention is the Comintern – ie. very, very right-wing indeed. Do tell me right-wing people in America think the M-16 is a highway. Allay my prejudices

    Uebersetzer Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT

    @Che Guava

    this website overlaps with Stormfront in its readership
    Well, Mr. Unz also republishes interesting material from Counterpunch, so it is difficult to see how you get that impression. I find the reference to US leftists joining the John Brown Gun Club etc. interesting, since they generally are opposing the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and would certainly be repealing it if they had their way plus the power to do it everywhere in that Union of States.

    So, to me, it is an interesting article, and the stated aim of this site is to present a collection of such. Well, since I've just been called a "Marxist troll" and someone earlier suggested I was a Jew, I think you can see why I might have concerns on this site, and the Stormfront comparisons do not seem an exaggeration.

    Seamus Padraig Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT

    Franco was an able general and a clever political tactician, but that's about it. His big mistake was to adopt Chicago-school neoliberalism, auctioning off his country to (mostly) foreign investors. Sadly, everything else he claimed to fight for–patriotism and Christianity – is now just as dead in Spain as it is everywhere else in western Europe. The only part of his legacy that yet lives is neoliberalism, which is a huge part of the reason why Franco and the Falangistas have such an image problem in contemporary Spain: people associated him with low wages and high rents. Moral of the story: if the alt-right ever takes power, they should ditch neoliberalism and embrace national socialism.

    Joe Franklin Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT

    Antifa is composed of anti-white-Christian victim cult groups who the federal government labels diversity. Victim cult civil rights are really illicit federal entitlements that the federal government labels inclusiveness.

    If the US constitution were enforced as it is written, particularly the 9th and 10th amendments, Antifa would be suppressed by law. Antifa are not anarchist, they are totalitarian Bolsheviks trying to impose victim cult supremacy onto the US. For example, feminist victim cultists who are supposedly oppressed by men currently receive the following illicit federal entitlements:

    Miro23 Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

    [Long comment warning]

    I think that this article is relevant, and like another commenter said, Stanley Payne is a good source. His book "The Spanish Civil War" looked at the whole conflict from start to finish and comes to some interesting conclusions.

    His view is that;

    "Electoral democracy had obviously come to an end well before the beginning of the civil war, which may be seen as a consequence, certainly not the cause, of this breakdown"

    And he expanded on it;

    "Conditions in Spain between February and July 1936, which eventually produced the civil war, were unique in the history of 20th century European States in peacetime, for nowhere else did a parliamentary government preside over an equivalent breakdown of law and order without the stress of external crisis. The elections had been won, however dubiously by an alliance of the moderate left and the revolutionaries. Because the latter refused to participate in any but a revolutionary regime, the new government was formed by a minority coalition of left Republicans, led by Azaρa."

    And he explains its disfunctionality;

    "Even though the authority of this government steadily declined, it would remain the key actor for the next 5 months, with responsibility for guiding the country and avoiding breakdown or civil war. It failed to meet these responsibilities because its priorities were, first, to maintain an exclusively all leftist government that rejected any compromise with the centre of moderate right and, second, to avoid any break with the revolutionaries because their support was necessary to remain in power. The Republic's first historian, the noted Catalan journalist Josep Pla, termed the strategy Azaρa's "ideological Kerenskyism" referring to the Russian prime minister who fell to the Bolsheviks."

    It's clear that the traditional right was on the defensive.

    P38. The mass illegal occupation of land in Badajoz by 60.000 farm workers legalized by the government.

    P39. Government inaction while Catholic schools were closed, taken over or burned down. All cheered on by the Communist press.

    P39. Naming revolutionary militants as auxiliary police.

    P 43. "Azaρa acknowledged an increase in violence and disorder but glossed over it by arguing that violence was 'deeply rooted in the Spanish character' . as though the government had little or no responsibility to enforce the law."

    And the editor of Barcelona's "La Vanguardia" wrote 12th June 1936:

    nebulafox Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 4:05 pm GMT

    @Seamus Padraig Franco was an able general and a clever political tactician, but that's about it. His big mistake was to adopt Chicago-school neoliberalism, auctioning off his country to (mostly) foreign investors. Sadly, everything else he claimed to fight for--patriotism and Christianity--is now just as dead in Spain as it is everywhere else in western Europe. The only part of his legacy that yet lives is neoliberalism, which is a huge part of the reason why Franco and the Falangistas have such an image problem in contemporary Spain: people associated him with low wages and high rents.

    Moral of the story: if the alt-right ever takes power, they should ditch neoliberalism and embrace national socialism. Pinochet did the same thing with the Chicago Boys, the result being that Chilean society became uber-polarized between the have and have-nots. When you look at the forerunner of the Reagan Revolution and neoliberalism, it isn't Thatcher's Britain that was the prototype model-it was Pinochet's Chile. Meanwhile, the protectionist, "selectively capitalist" economies of the Asian Tigers, obeying the call of Friedrich List rather than Adam Smith, boomed.

    There's a reason that it is called *classical liberal economics* . Actual conservatives-De Gaulle, Eisenhower, A. Hamilton, Bismarck, Disraeli, Theodore Roosevelt-would have a hard time recognizing what the modern GOP calls "conservative", in foreign policy especially, but also in economics. Unfettered free markets and social justice warrior types go hand and hand, when you think about it, as do economic nationalism and protectionism. The Republican Party can't figure this out: billionaires obey whatever lets them earn more money, thus they will always be more loyal to their class than their nation, and now more than ever, given this globalized world. Thus, the newer generation of rightists would be very wise to develop a populist economic bent and explicitly split with the free-market fetishizing crony capitalism of the GOP-this could be the key factor that allows for more appeal among younger Americans. But this has to be one of the leading features, not a side point.

    One aside, not really related since I'm still thinking about Indonesia from another thread: though Indonesia's Berkeley Mafia, responsible for that country's economic miracle, is often compared to the Chicago Boys, the two groups were really quite different. The Indonesians were a lot less ideological-Ataturk, FDR, Japanese corporatism, Soviet Five Year Plans, Thatcher, they cheerfully borrowed from them all, never mind consistency-and Suharto kept them under tight control in a way Pinochet didn't. Then again, Chile was (and is) a Western nation in every since of the word, with a long history of democracy and reasonable development before 1973. Whereas 1960s Indonesia was one of the poorest, most strife ridden societies on Earth, ridden with any number of social/communal and economic ills, on the verge of famine-and that was before the '65/'66 killings started.

    rw95 Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 4:11 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Aren't you of Irish descent?

    You know you have to go back, right?

    Achmed E. Newman Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 5:06 pm GMT

    @Che Guava

    I find the reference to US leftists joining the John Brown Gun Club etc. interesting, since they generally are opposing the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and would certainly be repealing it if they had their way plus the power to do it everywhere in that Union of States.

    I think the leftists are pretty sure in their minds that the US Constitution is wrong and only "the right people" should own guns. They are pretty sure that they are "the right people" .

    Like your namesake (hopefully a satire), they (Commies everywhere) all have the same need for violence in their hearts for those who don't agree with their plans to make everything fair.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 5:12 pm GMT

    @rw95 There is no golden rule in immigration policy and you .know that very well. I reckon that you be a Hindu "American" who will flush the golden rule down the toilet as soon as your racial kind have managed to vote The Historic Native Born White American Working Class into a violently persecuted racial minority in post-white toilet "American"

    Why would you even ask me that question since it's obvious that I am not a White Liberal

    Gringo Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 6:30 pm GMT

    @Seraphim "During the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939, and especially in the early months of the conflict, individual clergymen were executed while entire religious communities were persecuted, leading to a death toll of 13 bishops, 4,172 diocesan priests and seminarians, 2,364 monks and friars and 283 nuns, for a total of 6,832 clerical victims, as part of what is referred to as Spain's Red Terror".

    That illustrates the anti-christian animus of the 'Left' then and what's 'left' of it today. It is defining for the 'Left' in general. The Spanish Civil War was a savage killing ground. The killings continued after the Civil War was declared over. Consensus is that the right killed more civilians than the left. However, the left's killing priests and Barcelona anarchists (who were on the left) – recall Orwell's Homage to Catalonia- indicates that both sides had bloody hands. And if the left had won, considering the way that Stalin's people were already directing murders, such as the murders of the anarchists in Barcelona, there is no telling how many the left would have killed had it won. I doubt the number would have been considered trivial.

    I once read that a member of the losing side said there was so much bitterness over the civil war that the country needed the decades-long cooling off period that Franco's dictatorship provided.

    When I was in high school in the '60s, my Spanish class had a debate on what would happen to Spain after Franco. As I did the research for my side- debating that democracy would return- I learned more about the Spanish Civil War and its aftermath than the average high schooler in the US. At the time I had not yet read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.

    ia Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 6:44 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain A pox on both your houses (you and Bridges). Neither of you get what's going on. The current cold but getting hot war isn't about right or left. That's just code.

    ia Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 6:51 pm GMT

    @Chris Bridges You remind me of Democrats screaming Nazi at alt-right. I doubt most Dems and antifas have even heard of Marx.

    ia Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 7:06 pm GMT

    @Joe Franklin

    Antifa are not anarchist, they are totalitarian Bolsheviks trying to impose victim cult supremacy onto the US.

    I like everything you say except this. We already have feminist victim-cult supremacy which you then correctly list all the ways. They've already won. Antifa is supposed to tamp down heresy. They can't be Bosheviks because Bolsheviks weren't feminists. Modernists and libertines horrified communists as bourgeois decadence.

    ia Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 7:09 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Spencer's not much interested in IQ. I think you're getting him mixed up with Steve Sailer.

    ia Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT

    @Achmed E. Newman

    and only "the right people" should own guns

    This is an interesting point. The Democrats and feminists are now talking "toxic masculinity." So, if they start looking like goons and thugs they get very uncomfortable. Can they take that leap? Richard Spencer is beginning to gain some sympathy from Washington Post readers after being driven out of a gym. Feminist selling point from day one is how they are more peaceful than men. Their preferred method is seduction, persuasion, human rights shaming – like slandering white men who want to look out for their own interests as Nazis, and so forth. They rely on a culture of spoiled, pampered babies terrified of driving without seatbelts.

    The 60s radicals actually were more masculine and chance-taking than today's crop. And the Spanish Civil War was on another order of magnitude more masculine.

    Anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 7:53 pm GMT

    @Gringo The bitterness predated the war; Gil Robles, who is the person who would know best, published a book long after titled " No fue posible la paz ". The left killed a lot more than just "priests and anarchists" - the anarchists being (obviously and as you mention) leftists themselves and among the worst killers, especially early in the war; I quite believe they killed fewer people overall, but, of course, as you say, this is due to their acquiring practically no new territory after July '36. And many of the rightist killings were of course "revenge" (judicial or otherwise) for leftist killings and other offences in newly reconquered territory. The "member of the losing side" was probably right.

    It should also be remembered that from the liberation of France to about 1950 there was a leftist guerilla waged in Spain with France as an external base that cost another few thousand lives.

    joef Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT

    Radical Leftist (SJW) have caused much mischief in this nation for the last fifty years. The major negative results are economic decline (mostly caused by unserviceable debt in order to pay for the failed concept of having a free lunch), and racial polarization with African Americans. This racial balkanization has given cover for a violent crime problem where African Americans kill more of their fellow national residents than any other group, including terrorist (we suffer from more homicides every year than from 09/11 itself).

    The SJW delights in this because they believe that African Americans (who were ruined by New Left policies) will be their personal army against "White America". Of course not being very street smart they naively neglect a few facts, mainly that most:

    - – African American criminals like easy targets that do not fight back;

    - – African Americans, who are inclined toward anti white behavior, do not make distinctions between whites, nor any other racial group (where liberals mistakenly believe that they will be recognized as the "good white people");

    - – African Americans have been so firmly inculcated with the concept of a free lunch that they no longer know how to be productive, chronically complaining about not getting enough (no matter how much we give), and as a result are not generally self sufficient.

    SJW themselves only use force when they have an advantage, and then cry foul when it is used against them (they hate it when their opponents hit back). Most are not hunters, were never in the military, and never had to deal with growing up in a rough inner city neighborhood where violence is almost routine (if somebody did not go to hospital, it wasn't real violence, thus school yard fights don't count etc).

    And finally, most SJW are antigun (or do not know how to handle a gun effectively). To counteract the armed populace, the SJW believes that they have the force of government behind them. That is true in regards to politicians, and deep state bureaucrats; however, they are not exactly looked upon fondly by most military personnel, urban city ghetto cops, correction officers, and old school retired police officers. The only thing that prevents their elimination is that the police (that they hate) are made to protect them.

    The only exception to this is that many contemporary federal leo, suburban police, careerist military officers, and troopers, are true believers in our current dysfunctional system (and attempt to ostracize the ones who are not). Their leaders have degraded current policing into glorified government revenue collectors (traffic ticket quotas and civil forfeitures against legit working people) as opposed to deterring violent crime. Unfortunately every time a suburban police dept hands out an excessive amount of frivolous traffic tickets, it also reflects poorly on the city cops who primarily deal with extreme urban ghetto violence (and when city cops finally stand down, it is the city residents, including the ghetto working poor, who suffer the most).

    This economic decline, and social racial balkanization cannot endure indefinitely without spilling over into some type of major disorder. Even though the SJW fantasize about a civil war (race war), that will eliminate their political opposition, it will prove to be their own undoing. The worst thing that can happen to the SJW is a revolution that leads to a failed state condition, without the rule of law, where they lose their protection. Once this happens, the soft SJW will be eliminated by those who had enough of there destructive social/economic meddling. Maybe then we can return to normalcy (we did not ask for this; it is the SJW who pushed for this outcome).

    Anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 9:32 pm GMT

    @Uebersetzer Stormfront's readership also overlaps that of (Jewish paper ) The Forward . What's your point?

    Both William Pierce and Harold Covington had subscriptions FWIW.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 10:00 pm GMT

    @ia The IQ psychometric jibber jabber just sidetracks away from a laser beam focus on the role of Asian "Americans" in the genocidal extermination of Native Born White American Males in Engineering and Medicine .Trying doing this to the Hindus in India there would be race riots

    CanSpeccy Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 10:08 pm GMT

    @ia

    We already have feminist victim-cult supremacy

    You kidding? Do you really think that is what the conflict is over? You really think the US is being destroyed by a bunch, unpleasant female misfits, rather than by the the media, the pornographers, Hollywood, a bought Congress, and the Council on Foreign Relations, all under the direction of the Money Power intent on the destruction of the sovereign, democratic nation state, the genocide of the European peoples, and the institution of global governance by the Money Power?

    ia Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 10:26 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy I think things got out of hand. It snowballed and got out of control in the 60s. But, yeah, we live in a thoroughly feminized society. Probably, the ball got rolling in the 18th century with total dominance of other races, which begat human rights by self-proclaimed "intellectuals" and status marking aristos like Lord Sandwich, Captain Cook's patron, who "adopted" one Omai, a south sea islander brought back as a kind of pet.

    ia Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 10:30 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Foreigners can't even own property in India. I will say this though, the best dentist I've ever had was in New Delhi. He was an artist. Western dentists rely way too much on machinery and technology.

    rw95 Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 10:56 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain You are not an Anglo-Saxon. Therefore you are not an American. Therefore you have to go back.

    I may be leaving, but you won't be long in following me when and if the mass deportations take place.

    prusmc Show Comment Next New Comment June 11, 2017 at 11:57 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra Jilles:
    It is clear from the antics of Reality Winner TS/SCI that we can anticipate the members of the current Armed Forces either to sit on their hands or enthusiastically embrace the left multi-cultural establishment concerns. True the USAF of which Ms Winner is still a member (reserve) is the most ideologically indoctrinated of the Armed Forces but one can not expect any help for patriot causes anywhere. During the 60′s the police forces were disgusted with the left wing outrages. Not true today when the are armed like Marines taking Faluja but led by politically savy chiefs and higher level officials. Plus there is profitable loot in civil forfieture from property owning people who might oppose the anti-fa media favorites. There was some actual militia sentiment during the early 90′s in Montana and other rural areas but the killing of Randy Weavers wife by the FBI at Ruby Ridge and Janet Reno and ATFE incinerating a compound of bizarre religous outcasts at Waco made it clear that it would result in fatal and sure vengence to raise the specter of anything other than left-leaning dissent. The recent trial and amazing acquital of the wild life refugee occupiers in Oregon is just an fluke; there were two undercover FBI agent-provacatours for each person arrested and one leader was killed in what if he had been a minority been a world-class suspicious justified homicide. There is no potential Francisco Franco in this country but plenty of Beria wannabes.9

    Anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 2:55 am GMT

    @prusmc

    Absolutely right. No revolution including the American Revolution against the British has ever happened unless backed by some faction of the elite.

    In America all the elites are against White Americans.

    Father O'Hara Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 3:21 am GMT

    @rw95 Who do you think is gonna be doing the deportin' ,me boyo?

    Beefcake the Mighty Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 3:30 am GMT

    @prusmc The American military has its own commissars to ensure ideological purity, much like the old Red Army did, no doubt.

    Ace Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 5:58 am GMT

    @jim jones Simple-minded graffiti is ubiquitous and some of the coherent stuff is right out of the 30s – yay syndicalism, boo corporate blood suckers.

    Monument in Madrid to commie labor pukes.

    Lots of people not with the program, I think.

    Ace Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain For some reason, Pinochet disapproved of being ambushed by commie scum armed by Castro. He went after the commies in a way that they​ found very unpleasant. They got a taste of their own medicine.

    God bless Pinochet.

    Ace Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 6:23 am GMT

    @Uebersetzer You read too many comic books. Charles Whitmans? Jesus, get a grip.

    Ace Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 6:33 am GMT

    @nebulafox "Free-market fetishizing crony capitalism of the GOP" makes no sense​. Crony capitalists do not want free markets. They want insider deals with their government partners.

    Seamus Padraig Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT

    @nebulafox Could not agree more! Protectionism, nationalism and a certain degree of economic solidarity do indeed go together. Nationalism should be more than just symbology, more than just a lot of flag-waving.

    The Republican Party can't figure this out: billionaires obey whatever lets them earn more money, thus they will always be more loyal to their class than their nation, and now more than ever, given this globalized world.

    Well, they're paid not to figure it out. As Upton Sinclair once said, "It is very difficult to get a man to see your point when his salary depends upon not seeing it."

    DanCT Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

    The intentions of the Left in America today are as homicidal as those of their predecessors in revolutionary France or Russia. As Conrad pointed out a century ago, all the rest is empty talk masking their lust for homicidal vengeance against their betters. If this isn't clear from their apoplectic calls to exterminate white men of European ancestry, nothing is.

    rw95 Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 1:45 pm GMT

    @Father O'Hara The old stock Anglo-Saxon/Scots-Irish (who are not the ethnic Irish)/Dutch Americans who are actually descended from the founding fathers, and who are the "posterity" mentioned in the Constitution.

    On the bright side, Ireland has become quite civilized in the last few decades. It shouldn't be too rough an existence.

    You better hope the multinational corporations don't leave, though.

    RCon Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

    Here's the thing, history shows that currently 99% of 'terrorism' domestically in the USA as well as abroad is by Right Wingers. And I'm being generous with the 1%. That glaring inaccuracy, (not to mention the Wingnut demonification of the 'Other Side') completely invalidates what looks to be an important observation. I believe that America's so called 'conservatives' control all the houses of state as well as most of the Governorships, yet we're on the cusp of a Left Wing Takover? Sheesh – take a tranquilizer.

    nebulafox Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT

    @Ace In the sense of "lucrative insider deals for my donors, Randism for the rest of you".

    Achmed E. Newman Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT

    @RCon

    Here's the thing, history shows that currently 99% of 'terrorism' domestically in the USA as well as abroad is by Right Wingers.

    That is the stupidest thing I've read on unz, yet. I mean, the power couple Tiny Duck/Truth are just doing parody, but I'm STILL counting them to give a new commenter a break. Peak Stupidity is not here yet, I guess.

    I'm learning a lot from the back-and-forth arguments of some of the bright people on here about the Spanish Civil War and will get a book out from the library, as recommended. As far as American goes, I've been keeping up with the political stuff for 40 years. I don't like this serious hard-core stupidity displayed by you, RCon – it ruins the unz experience for me. Stop, before you sprain a brain-muscle.

    nebulafox Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT

    Thanks, Seamus!

    >"Well, they're paid not to figure it out. As Upton Sinclair once said, "It is very difficult to get a man to see your point when his salary depends upon not seeing it."

    There certainly is a level of this-what else can explain someone like Betsy DeVos being confirmed?-but on the other hand, you do see a fair amount of true belief among the Rubio and Cruz types. Granted, if your formative experiences were the hothouse years of GDP growth in the Reagan and Clinton years and you are currently a member of the right-wing of the upper-middle class (which boomed tremendously during the Obama years), it isn't too much of a wonder why you'd favor free market ideology. Especially if you came from a more humble background, if you aren't inquisitive enough (and most people aren't), you'd think it always works that way. It worked out well for you, if not necessarily your children.

    But all that aside, the basic fact is that even Ronald Reagan wasn't "a true conservative" in the sense that McConnell defines it, if you look at his protectionist moves with Japanese auto importers and his refusal to touch Social Security. (Not to mention that the Gipper would be appalled to see the trigger-happy interventionism of the GOP being attributed to him, given his own minimally (pinprick) interventionist policies in the 1980s.) Unfortunately, because of Obama-era Democratic political ineptitude, Republicans now dominate the whole government and are one state legislature away from the 75% majority they need to amend the Constitution, so there is little chance you'll see an objective evaluation of ideology among the GOP Bonzen.

    >In 200 Years Together, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described how Communist revolutionaries in Tsarist Russia were supported by intellectual circles. Their young leadership often came from the privileged classes, including a significant number of Jews.

    I fail to understand the controversy of this statement-Winston Churchill was willing to state this basic reality as early as the early 1920s. It isn't anti-Semitic to say so. Many Jews in the Russian Empire (generally speaking, a highly brainy, intellectual bunch that you don't want to alienate too much) became Bolsheviks because the Tsars were dumb enough to oppress their people. In an era of nationalism which Jews were understandably leery of given their historical experiences, among other reasons, internationalistic left-wing movements generally appealed. (As did, for some, Zionism. Less of a contradiction than you might think, even after it became clear in the early '50s that the USSR had become quite anti-Semitic and it became clear where Israel would have to go for the Cold War. Until the demographic fueled Likud victories of 1977, Israel was dominated by Ashkenazi Labour politics with heavy socialistic overtones.) If I were your average middle class Jewish intellectual in Russia in 1905, I probably would have been quite attracted to Bolshevism too.

    Unfortunately for them, many of the Jewish Old Bolsheviks, however intelligent they were, made the fatal mistake of underestimating a certain Georgian former bandit advancing through the bureaucracy, dismissing him as an uncultured lout who couldn't possibly fit into Lenin's shoes. They got subsequently nailed disproportionately during the purges. The second generation of leaders very seldom come from the revolutionaries, they come from the practical men who followed. (Many Nazis would make a very similar mistake in dismissing Martin Bormann-a similar personality type and even something of an regime analogue ideologically. I suspect the two would have gotten along smashingly over drinks-as just a crude, plodding backroom man over a decade later.)

    Stalin really changed the USSR into a far more traditionally Muscovite place in terms of practical thinking -- "socialism in one country", et all. The USSR under Stalin gave lip service to Leninist ideals and was smart enough to see the use of having a literate populace, unlike the Tsars, but was actually a quite socially conservative place in many regards.

    At the height of WWII, Stalin was smart enough to co-opt the Orthodox Church and Slavophilic nationalistic themes (far more emotionally resonant for average Russians in the fight against the Teutons than Marx and Engels) into the fight for the Motherland. Most significantly, the Cheka, initially dominated by Jewish intellectuals focused on world revolution and liberation of the workers, became the ethnic Russian dominated NKVD, which might have had a different ideology, but had many (albeit they were *far* more vicious) psychological similarities to the Okhrana in practice. It also became heavily anti-Semitic by the late 1940s, especially (again) within the secret police.

    nebulafox Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT

    @Gringo

    >The Spanish Civil War was a savage killing ground.

    Wasn't it? I know very little about Spain, but my brother spent a semester there, and he told me that the Spanish Civil War was incredibly vicious, even on civil war standards. Why was it, beyond the usual nasty civil war reasons? Did Spain's pre-war social structure-I'd imagine the heavy influence of the Catholic Church, etc-exacerbate it.

    >I once read that a member of the losing side said there was so much bitterness over the civil war that the country needed the decades-long cooling off period that Franco's dictatorship provided.

    Nasty, vicious civil wars tend to do that. Just look at what happened after the Russian and Chinese Civil Wars. (Aside: our intervention in Russia after WWI, which few people remember, might have helped preserve the Bolshevik regime, far from replacing it as intended. They never learn.)

    Speaking from a civil war that had the opposite result, you wear Communist memorabilia in Little Saigons in the US at your peril. RVN flags still regularly hang everywhere. In Vietnam itself, for older people, there are still some tensions and visible differences between Northerners and Southerners. Strangely enough, however, there is no animosity toward Americans (or toward South Koreans, Australians, et all), who are viewed as simply the last in a long line of foreign interventionists who strayed into Vietnam.

    Nowadays, the Vietnamese government is far more interested in cultivating friendly relations with the US as a counterweight to China (the age old nemesis) than revisiting the past: they are even discussing opening up Cam Ranh Bay in the South to the US Navy. That's historical irony for you. Granted, Vietnam is also extremely lucky in the sense that it is a much younger country: 2/3s of the populace was born after 1975, and like their Chinese counterparts, they are far more interested in enjoying an increasingly prosperous life under a Western economic model than revisiting the past.

    joef Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 4:02 pm GMT

    @Beefcake the Mighty

    The American military has its own commissars to ensure ideological purity

    That is also true for city police departments, and corporations. The main goal of the Republican Party is to promote the vitality of Corporate America. If appealing to political correctness can get corporations good MSM press, to increased profits, they will promote that agenda even more vigorously than the statist in our government (and academia). Thus, the Republican party will treat the rest of us as expendable to that cause, and use war talk to distract us from our domestic problems of bad economics and racial balkanization with the whitey hating Afro Americans.

    The corporatist Republicans have become just as much the enemy to the people, that they are suppose to serve, as the statist Democrats. And that is why they will standby and give tacit approval to the Democrats that try to eliminate Trump. It is not so much Trump the man they fear as much as the interest of the voters he represents.

    Big govt socialism has joined forces with big business corporatism, and globalism is their agenda. In return they will make us under employed consumers buying globalized junk from Walmart, while they call us racist.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 7:59 pm GMT

    @Ace

    Allende won the election fair-and-square Kissinger went into violent temper tantrum..organized the coup that resulted in the murder of Allende. Pinochet .very good relations Israel afterwards .

    In 2017 Kissinger advises the filthy cockroach Israeli Firster Donald Trump on how best to torture Christian Russia over Crimea .

    Look all the names on the Vietnam Memorial .Henery Kissinger's gift to his adopted Nation.

    America should have been friends with Castro's Cuba's if we had .Miami would be 90-80 percent Native Born White American and English speaking in 2017 for Castro would have slaughtered this gangster fifth column in Cuba which JFK allowed to demographically displace the Native Born White American Majority in South Florida

    The Cold War was the rock bottom ideological foundation for the passage of the 1965 Nonwhite Legal Immigrant Increase Act = The passage of 1965 Native Born White American Extermination Act..

    If you are an Alt Righter and your view on Franco and Pinchet is the received "wisdom" the canonical view of the Alt Right on this issue ..then the Alt Right is a Cabal of little fools and twerps .

    Gringo Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 9:41 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Allende won the election fair-and-square...Kissinger went into violent temper tantrum..organized the coup that resulted in the murder of Allende. Pinochet....very good relations Israel afterwards....

    If you are an Alt Righter and your view on Franco and Pinchet is the received "wisdom"...the canonical view of the Alt Right on this issue.....then the Alt Right is a Cabal of little fools...and twerps.... Allende won the election fair-and-square Kissinger went into violent temper tantrum..organized the coup that resulted in the murder of Allende.

    Allende won the 1970 Presidential election with a plurality of 36.3% of the vote. Allende never had the support of a majority of Chileans, which became problematic for a President who was trying to institute revolutionary change. Lacking a majority in the legislature, Allende resorted to revolution by decree for much of his program. Believe it or not, revolution by decree does not always go over very well in a democracy. It didn't in Chile.

    Your Yanqui-centric view of the world, where nothing occurs but at the behest of the Yanqui Colossus, assumes that people outside the US are puppets to be manipulated. On the contrary, they are independent agents.

    Josι Piρera, the brother of a former President of Chile, has written a good introduction to the Allende years. How Allende Destroyed Democracy in Chile. He also provides links to other relevant documents. For example, consider the Resolution that the Chamber of Deputies passed by a 63% majority vote three weeks before the coup. Following is a summary of the Resolution, but there is also a link to the full text of the Resolution in his article.

    The Resolution, approved by almost two-thirds of the members (63.3 percent), accused President Allende's administration of 20 concrete violations of the Constitution and national laws. These violations included: support of armed groups, illegal arrests, torture, muzzling the press, manipulating education, not allowing people to leave the country, confiscating private property, forming seditious organizations, and usurping powers belonging to the Judiciary, Congress, and the Treasury. The Resolution held that such acts were committed in a systematic manner, with the aim of installing in Chile "a totalitarian system".

    Allende considered the Resolution to be an invitation to a coup. From the following summary of the Resolution, one can see how Allende came to that conclusion.

    d) a Plea to the military ministers (Article 15), who were also the commanders-in-chief of the Army, Navy and Air Force, to put "an immediate end" to these serious constitutional violations.

    Pinochet didn't need a green light from Kissinger, as Pinochet already had a green light from the Chamber of Deputies.

    Most of the politicians who supported the coup, such as former President Frei, and future President Aylwin, assumed that after several months in power, the Armed Forces would call elections. Instead, they had to wait sixteen years for elections. While Frei and Aylwin initially supported the coup, the military regime's failure to call elections in a timely manner caused them and many other politicians to turn against the military regime.

    If one wants to condemn Pinochet, do so. But bear in mind that Pinochet took power with considerable civilian support – as shown by the Resolution passed with a 63% majority.

    And no, Allende wasn't murdered.

    Roberto Ampuero , who fled to East Germany after the coup, married the daughter of Castro's nomenklatura and moved to Cuba. Real Existing Socialism showed Ampuero, a former member of Communist Youth, that there were serious shortcomings in the Cuban model that Allende wanted to follow. Ampuero has written a number of books chronicling his political change, such as his memoir Nuestros aρos verde olivo. (Our olive green years.) He has written a number of best-selling mysteries , only one of which has been translated into English- The Neruda Case.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 10:59 pm GMT

    @Gringo Allende played by the rules His election as Chile's president was as least as democratic as the election of Richard Nixon as POTUS

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT

    Allende won the election fair and square in Chile he got the higher percentage of votes compared the Right Wing Fascist Death Squad Party of Pinochet.

    Pinchet ITT Kissinger the CIA Nixon conspired to murder Democracy in Chile .

    Are you expressing the Alt Right view of what happened in Chile back in 1973?

    Jake Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 12:04 am GMT

    "I'd argue a "National Divorce" would simply allow the Left a beachhead from which eventually to secure the entire country. And it is unlikely even to work. "

    Not trusting the Left is not merely wise; it is necessary for survival. I think a given that if there were a peaceful separation that the Blue American Union would plan to attack the Red American States from the get-go.

    Even so, that is the best option. As long as the Red States elect leaders who know the Left and so are prepared, the peaceful divorce can work.

    Gringo Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 12:19 am GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain His election as Chile's president was as least as democratic as the election of Richard Nixon as POTUS

    Allende's election was kosher- the legislature made the decision that the voters could not. In any event, my reference to his 36.3% vote in the election was to point out that as a minority president, he was going to have problems passing his agenda.

    Allende never had the support of a majority of Chileans, which became problematic for a President who was trying to institute revolutionary change. Lacking a majority in the legislature, Allende resorted to revolution by decree for much of his program.

    Which he did -- though the legislature did vote for nationalizations of copper and the banking system.

    Allende played by the rules
    What part of

    accused President Allende's administration of 20 concrete violations of the Constitution and national laws.

    do you not understand? Anyone who reads that and claims that "Allende played by the rules" has extreme reading comprehension problems. Sixty three percent of the Chamber of Deputies, who had a much better grasp of Chile's law and Constitution than you or I do, stated that Allende did NOT play by the rules.
    If you want more detail, Piρera provides a link to The Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973.

    6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law;

    And you tell me that "Allende played by the rules." Not after he became President, not by a long shot. While "Allende played by the rules" in becoming President, his conduct as President showed that Allende was quite willing to bypass the rules of Chilean law and the Constitution if doing so would advance his revolutionary agenda. So said the Chamber of Deputies.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 5:12 am GMT

    @Gringo Your quoting the very coup plotters who were colluding with the CIA ITT .Henry Kissinger-Nixon to violently to violently overthrow the democratically elected Allende Goverment as an Oracle on Chilean Democracy which ushered in decades .to this day of neoliberal economics and "democracy". Pineras is a well paid member of the Cato Institute where he writes papers calling for handing over the Native Born White American Working Class's SS over to Wall Street.

    There should have been street executions of the likes of Pineras in Chile and the rest of the Chicago School Boys along with Pinochet

    There is most definitely a strong similarity between the coup against Allende in 1973 and the coup against Trump in 2017 .a collusion of a Treasonous Opposition party treasonous Press .and treasonous Intelligence Agency and treasonous National Police

    Pineras is the face of economic violence against the Chilean Working Class and the Native Born White American Working Class .

    Gringo Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT

    Your quoting the very coup plotters who were colluding with the CIA

    (1) If by "coup plotters" you mean the party apparatus that passed the Resolution: While the Resolution indicated that there was wide support for a coup, you have given no proof that those who passed the Resolution were involved in "coup plotting." Support for a prospective coup was not the same thing as actually engaging in "coup plotting." Rather, the Resolution gave the military a green light.

    If by "coup plotters" you are referring to Josι Piρera: in 1973 he was a 25-year-old grad student at Harvard, which is far down the totem pole for "coup plotting." It is absurd to claim that a Harvard grad student, over 5,000 miles away from Chile at the time of the coup, was involved in "coup plotting." You are telling me Pinochet was that much of a nebbish to see the need to have the involvement in the coup of a 25-year-old grad student 5,000 miles away from Chile?

    Moreover, you have given no proof whatsoever about "colluding with the CIA" For anybody. Allende fans have a lot of of difficulty dealing with the fact that a majority was opposed to Allende's agenda, and that there was widespread support in Chile for the coup. Isabel Allende's paternal grandfather supported the coup. Salvador Allende was her father's first cousin- and a relative who interacted a lot with Isabel when she was a child. That indicates how divided Chile was. Allende fans scream "CIA" in an attempt to ignore all that.

    (2) The Resolution points out Allende's systematic violations of Chilean law and Constitution. Allende was an out-of-control executive. Being President does not give one the right to operate carte blanche with regard to the laws and Constitution of the country. Do you, like the Chavistas, believe that being President gives one carte blanche with regard to the laws and Constitution?
    (3) While Allende was, as you point out, democratically elected, the also democratically elected Chamber of Deputies passed the Resolution by a strong 63% majority.

    which ushered in decades .to this day of neoliberal economics and "democracy"
    From 1973 to 2015, GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$) increased 244% in Chile, compared to an increase of 66% for Latin America. From 1973 to 2015, Chile also out-performed Latin America in improving health care. From 1973 to 2015, Chile's Life Expectancy went from 8th to 1st in Latin America. From 1973 to 2015, Chile's Infant Mortality rate went from 9th to 2nd in Latin America.
    That indicates to me Chile has benefited from what you call "neoliberal economics." For the last 27 years, Chile has been a democracy, without your quotes.

    And if you believe that the "democratically elected" Allende had democracy as a long-term goal, then consider why the plan proposed in 1973 for changing education in Chile was based on East Germany's educational system. So much democracy in East Germany, right?

    For those who consider Allende to have been committed to democracy, consider these Allende quotes from journalist Georgie Ann Geyer's autobiography, Buying the Night Flight. [ page 97]

    "Would a one-party state be good for Chile?" I asked him.
    And he answered, thoughtfully but surely, "No no, not right away. It will take a while." ..
    "If you are elected, will there be elections again?" I asked him. He paused. "You must understand," he said, carefully but revealingly, "that by the next elections, everything will have changed."

    The "democratically elected" Allende thought a one -party state would eventually be good for Chile. How many people who are committed to democracy think a one-party state will be good for a country?

    I suggest you read James Whelan's Out of the ashes. Life, death and transfiguration of democracy in Chile, 1833-1988. Free for the downloading.
    Ciao.

    http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators

    Stonehands Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:31 pm GMT

    @ia

    You remind me of Democrats screaming Nazi at alt-right.

    You'd better believe the alt- rt is part Nazi. [ and growing everyday!] The Jew media are like piranhas, they don't know when to quit. White people are finished carrying all the dead wood in this nation. We're not going to pay for our own replacements. The quislings on Capitol Hill will continue to sow the whirlwind with their vomitous allegations until this evil witches brew explodes and the real Heroes emerge on der Tag.

    Stonehands Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:33 pm GMT

    @prusmc I seem to remember two sloppy snipers paralyzing the whole east coast for months .Jus' sayin'

    IA Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:43 pm GMT

    @Stonehands Blacks and Muslims voted about 94% Hillary. They both hate Jews. I think about 64% of college-educated white women voted for Hillary. (I may be wrong here but a lot voted for her and organized the women's looney bin march in Washinton.) There's a lot of votes out there besides Jews.

    Stonehands Show Comment Next New Comment June 14, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT

    @IA C'mon man the blacks, homos, and brainwashed college faggots are the shock troops for the Jew World Order.

    P.S. The muslims are auxilleries as well.

    IA Show Comment Next New Comment June 14, 2017 at 1:02 am GMT

    Jews have been around for centuries and were kept at bay. Women and blacks were under control for thousands of years. Do you seriously believe ridding the West of Jews is going to stop women, queers and blacks from screeching about their "rights?"

    joef Show Comment Next New Comment June 14, 2017 at 2:50 am GMT

    @ia

    The 60s radicals actually were more masculine and chance-taking than today's crop.

    That is only slightly true they planted bombs while in hiding places, ambushed from behind, and cried foul when violence was reciprocated against them, during their demonstrations. This is the typical cowardly behavior from the New Left SJW types. And one thing that they and radical afro americans have in common is that they like an unfair advantage before committing themselves to a fight; otherwise they run and hide behind the skirts of the MSM and lawyers to protect them. What is true about the above statement is that the current generation of SJW is even softer.

    And the Spanish Civil War was on another order of magnitude more masculine.

    That is a more accurate observation. Unfortunately these hippie degenerate flower children should have been eliminated back in the 1960s, before they entered the reigns of management, of this nation, in the 1990s. Since then they have become so entrenched that its almost impossible to correct without a civil war, or a great awakening. Since this ilk is so egocentric, we probably can discount the chance of a great awakening ( which requires some introspection, and admission of ones own mistakes).

    The biggest of this leftist hypocrisy is that if a civil war happens (besides wanting afro americans to randomly kill whitey) they will want the police/military to protect them from the rest of us. They do not even understand that their demand for protection, from organizations that they hate & tormented, may be withdrawn. And without said protection, their leftist government will be nothing but a toothless tiger; and then the poor SJW is going to actually have to fight it out for themselves against those who will fight back unhindered and then its payback time.

    joef Show Comment Next New Comment June 14, 2017 at 3:25 am GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain The revolt against Democratic Party genocidal race-replacement post-1965 Immigration Policy can not commence unless NBA-NFL Negro ball is turned off forever.....and ever.......

    How bad is the situation?...Google a photo of any engineering department in India....then google a photo of engineering departments in the US....you can't yell which country is which by a photo comparison....But some imbeciles on the Alt Right...Richard Spencer and Paul Kersey....want to have endless-mind-numbing-the-eyes-glaze-over-discussions and debates about IQ test score psychometrics....thereby, forever and ever, never getting around to exposing the role that Hindu "Americans" are playing in the Democratic Party's open and deliberate policy of cleansing America of Native Born White American Males in the Engineering fields....and some of these Hindu "Americans" are members of a well known Hindu Fascist Party and they are Trump voters and donors to Trump's 2016 POTUS campaign... There is a difference: It is true that the New Left is using other races to push their own leftist agenda against Whites. However, Asians and Hispanics motivation is generally to try to improve their living conditions. In contrast, many Afro Americans want to live perpetually off welfare, having firmly inculcated the leftist free lunch agenda. Even if some particular Asian or Hispanic hates whitey, most of them do not act it out, as opposed to the fact that the majority of afro americans do hate whitey, and violently act it out (or want to act it out).

    The leftist have corrupted the afro americans mind so much that if there were ever a civil war in this nation, it would also degenerate into a race war with afro americans by default (way to go to the leftist who created this mess the blood is clearly on your hands for this the rest of us are held hostage to the necessity to protect ourselves, from this leftist social experiment run wild but it is the leftist who created the conditions for this to happen).

    Seamus Padraig Show Comment Next New Comment June 14, 2017 at 7:35 am GMT

    @Ace For some reason, Pinochet disapproved of being ambushed by commie scum armed by Castro. He went after the commies in a way that they​ found very unpleasant. They got a taste of their own medicine.

    God bless Pinochet.

    God bless Pinochet.

    Meh Pinochet and Franco were just neoliberals given to fits of flag-waving.

    Seamus Padraig Show Comment Next New Comment June 14, 2017 at 7:40 am GMT

    @RCon Here's the thing, history shows that currently 99% of 'terrorism' domestically in the USA as well as abroad is by Right Wingers. And I'm being generous with the 1%. That glaring inaccuracy, (not to mention the Wingnut demonification of the 'Other Side') completely invalidates what looks to be an important observation. I believe that America's so called 'conservatives' control all the houses of state as well as most of the Governorships, yet we're on the cusp of a Left Wing Takover? Sheesh - take a tranquilizer.

    I believe that America's so called 'conservatives' control all the houses of state as well as most of the Governorships, yet we're on the cusp of a Left Wing Takover?

    As the Trump interlude has amply demonstrated, formally occupying public office, in and of itself, does not really correlate with meaningful political control over policy.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 14, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

    @joef There is a difference: It is true that the New Left is using other races to push their own leftist agenda against Whites. However, Asians and Hispanics motivation is generally to try to improve their living conditions. In contrast, many Afro Americans want to live perpetually off welfare, having firmly inculcated the leftist free lunch agenda. Even if some particular Asian or Hispanic hates whitey, most of them do not act it out, as opposed to the fact that the majority of afro americans do hate whitey, and violently act it out (or want to act it out).

    The leftist have corrupted the afro americans mind so much that if there were ever a civil war in this nation, it would also degenerate into a race war with afro americans by default (way to go to the leftist who created this mess... the blood is clearly on your hands for this ... the rest of us are held hostage to the necessity to protect ourselves, from this leftist social experiment run wild ... but it is the leftist who created the conditions for this to happen). Asians "Americans" are actively imvolved in the destruction of thousands of years of acquired Native Born White American Tech Scientific Medical experience ..this is very much in the realm of genocide

    Your larger point is that you reduce America to an economic proposition Nation a framework that justifies Comrade Gringo's Cuban friends Pinochet enthusiasts .ethnically cleansing the Historic Native Born White American Majority Working Class out of South Florida ..and it justifies importing our first Hindu Brahman Princess POTUS Kamala Harris's highly racialized-Hindu-Sihk Democratic Party Voting Bloc from India .

    You know Kamala Harris right? the Senator from Greater India .California . currently stomping on the balls of Jeff Sessions who is a stand in for millions of Trump's White Male Trump Bro Voters

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 14, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT

    @Seamus Padraig


    God bless Pinochet.
    Meh ... Pinochet and Franco were just neoliberals given to fits of flag-waving.

    Bingo!!!! .you sir have nailed it .That's just another way of saying that Franco and Pinochet were anti-Nationalist Traitors yet some of the little twerps on the Alt Right are enamoured of these two filthy cockroaches

    For Comrade Gringo . such WONDERFULL Socialist Policies as Nationalization of Industries when the appropriate circumstances arise for doing so . and Social Security are a violation of the Fascist Rights "DIVINELY" inspired interpretation of the Chilean and US Constitution therefore collude with ITT Henry Kissinger and the CIA to destabilize Chilean Society

    I wish Allende had been the thug that Gringo makes him out to be for then Allende would have sent in Nationalist Death Squads to exterminate Pinochet and his neo-liberal Chicago Milton Friedman little cockroach economist Pineras in a soccer stadium It was Allende's commitment to the Chilean Constitution that was the very thing that drove him to his Suicide when the Pinochet Fascist Neo-Liberal Death Squads had him surrounded ..

    Allende was a Nationalist who pursued a independent path of economic development .and this was his great crime in the mind of War Criminal Henry Kissinger .The Coup proceeded forward .and continues this day in Chile .Chile is back on the neoliberal plantation .

    joef Show Comment Next New Comment June 14, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Asians "Americans" are actively imvolved in the destruction of thousands of years of acquired Native Born White American Tech...Scientific...Medical...experience.....this is very much in the realm of genocide...

    Your larger point is that you reduce America to an economic proposition Nation ......a framework that justifies Comrade Gringo's Cuban friends...Pinochet enthusiasts....ethnically cleansing the Historic Native Born White American Majority Working Class out of South Florida.....and it justifies importing our first Hindu Brahman Princess POTUS Kamala Harris's highly racialized-Hindu-Sihk Democratic Party Voting Bloc from India....

    You know Kamala Harris...right?...the Senator from Greater India....California.... currently stomping on the balls of Jeff Sessions who is a stand in for millions of Trump's White Male Trump Bro Voters... A few differences:

    Kamala Harris does not represent all of Greater India, and to subscribe a collective guilt to Indians because of her is the same thing that leftist try to do to Whites (eg the leftist collective guilt nonsense such as white privilege) We hate it when the leftist and afros use collective guilt against us Whites, so I suggest we don't use the same techniques against others.

    Now the fact of Asians acquiring knowledge is not equivalent to an act of destruction & genocide. And their actual goal is to gain knowledge, not destruction. As far as giving away the knowledge and work visas, you can blame the White corporatist/globalist for that one in their traitorous pursuit of cheap labor. Asians are not looking to hurt us, but are merely pursuing economic opportunity in an employment rat race that the corporatist/globalist created.

    The same can be said of Hispanics from Central & South America, and Mexico. Their main goal is trying to increase their economic prosperity (not genocide); it is the corporatist/globalist/leftist who are letting them in at our expense. Even the mainland hispanics who are heavily into the drug trade are here to sell their product, not genocide (they are smart enough to not want to commit genocide and decrease their own customer base). Even for the ones who hate whitey, they love money more. The exception is inner city Caribbean Hispanics, who over the generations, have incorporated many bad afro american cultural attributes (and so have many White millennials).

    Now living in urban BosWash area most of my life (Boston, Hartford, Bronx, Brooklyn, Newark, Philly, Baltimore, DC is mostly a variation of the same theme), I never raised up my guard walking through an Asian, or Hispanic neighborhood, fearing a random attack involving deadly force, just for being White. However, afro americans have been thoroughly inculcated with leftist hating whitey ideology, and would randomly attack Whites just for being White. And one of the primary afro american cultural traits is hating whitey (which is why many of them are jonesing for a race war, even if it means they will starve to death without us).

    They are also inculcated with wanting something for nothing (free lunch), and are more inclined to robbery to get "whats mines (sic)". They even hate whitey so much, they will even robb their own white drug user customers, against their own rational self interest (essentially robbing their own customer base). I would never see that from Hispanic drug dealers, and in fact afro american robbers were usually beaten to unconsciousness, if they robbed a Hispanic drug dealers' customer (they wanted their white customers do be returning customers). Hispanic drug dealers are about making money, and would hurt/kill those who interfere with their drug trade, afros attack because of racial animosity.

    You make good points, but you also express theoretical ideology, that somewhat opposes empirical experience (academic arguments vs the real world).

    Gringo Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 7:20 am GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain I wish Allende had been the thug that Gringo makes him out to be

    All I did was document what Allende said and did. You have not refuted any of the documented points I made about Allende. You used the word "thug" to describe Allende, not I. Perhaps Allende wasn't the great guy you believed him to be, after all.

    It was Allende's commitment to the Chilean Constitution that was the very thing that drove him to his Suicide

    One minor point. In comment #69, you stated that Allende was murdered. Now you state that Allende committed suicide. Can't keep your story straight, can you?

    Consider what the Supreme Court of Chile said about Allende's alleged "commitment to the Chilean Constitution."

    In 1973 the Supreme Court reproached him for assuming powers belonging to that body, which resulted in an acrimonious exchange of letters. Thus, on May 26, 1973, in protesting at the administration's refusal to comply with a judicial decision, the Supreme Court addressed the President in a unanimous decision: "This Supreme Court is obliged to express to Your Excellency, once again, the illicit attitude of the administrative authority in its illegal interference in judicial matters, such as putting obstacles in the way of police compliance with court orders in criminal cases; orders which, under the existing law of the country, should be carried out by the police without obstacles of any kind. All of this implies an open and willful disregard for judicial verdicts, with complete ignorance of the confusion produced in the legal order by such attitudes and omissions; as the court expressed to Your Excellency in a previous dispatch, these attitudes also imply not just a crisis in the rule of law, but also the imminent rupture of legality in the Nation."

    Allende's response indicated that he would follow the law and Constitution when he damn well pleased.

    In a time of revolution, political power has the right to decide, at the end of the day, whether or not judicial decisions correspond with the higher goals and historical necessities of social transformation, which should take absolute precedence over any other consideration; consequently, the Executive has the right to decide whether or not to carry out the verdicts of the Judicial Branch."

    Both the legislature and the Supreme Court considered Allende to have violated the laws and Constitution of Chile. In this statement Allende openly admitted that given the choice between advancing his agenda and following the laws and Constitution of Chile, he would choose his agenda. So much for Allende's alleged "commitment to the Chilean Constitution."

    At the same time, the issue of the coup and the law was a bit like trying to square a circle. How do you stop Allende from running roughshod over the Constitution, but do so in a legal manner? Apparently many in Chile believed that was not possible- thus the coup. Had Allende followed the laws and Constitution of Chile- and he admitted would he do so only if doing so would advance his agenda- the coup would not have occurred.

    Part of the problem that Allende faced was that far leftists inside his coalition and outside his coalition pushed Allende's program faster than was politically prudent. The MIR- outside the Popular Unity coalition- pushed illegal, armed takeovers of farm land in southern Chile. The consequence was a collapse of agricultural production and an increasing use of scarce foreign exchange on food imports. Not very prudent. While Allende may not have been behind the land takeovers in the South, he recognized them as fait accompli.

    From Collier & Slater's A History of Chile, 1808-2002.

    As things turned out, however, many of the president's difficulties came as much from his own coalition as from his adversaries. A crucial factor here was that while Allende and many of his followers sincerely believed that socialism (albeit in a very comprehensive form) could be built on the solid foundations of the Chilean democratic tradition, there were many others among his followers who wished to go outside (or as they would have said, "beyond") that tradition altogether. They were the heirs of the heady radicalization of the 1960s. As Hugo Cancino has pointed out, in a very detailed study of this period, "a wide section of the Chilean Left . . . , from the mid-1960s, began to experience a process of estrangement from Chilean reality, assuming the most orthodox, canonized, formalized versions of Marxism-Leninism."2 As Cancino also wisely says, the Chile of 1970 was not the Russia of 1917.
    This contradiction between Allende's own objectives (the essence of the "Chilean road to socialism" in its only meaningful sense) and the radical demands of the militant "ultras" within (and alongside) the coalition, who could mobilize significant rural and urban constituencies, was to provoke many of the dilemmas of the UP government. Their revolutionary aims were utopian and far-reaching. There were even those among the most militant who held the apocalyptic belief – such beliefs tend to become self-fulfilling – that it would be better for the future of the Left and of socialism if Allende "fell by an act of force," as some of them told an American observer in 1971 – "we are trying to create a situation of disorder and chaos to provoke the reactionaries into a coup d'etat. ΄ "3

    We all know how that worked out. Interestingly enough, there were some leftists in Spain in 1936 who had a similar point of view. Similar results, also.

    John_G Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 8:46 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra

    Ultimately, Syria is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia intends to to keep it's port there and the US is simply virtue signalling and trying to save face for jumping feet first into the Arab Spring without thoroughly considering the task.

    [Jun 15, 2017] Many Americans know that MSM are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying by omission so they actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not – but are faced with having to wade through rivers of spam in comments. It is dispiriting to say the least.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Lots of people out there (Hello lurkers!) know that the Pork Pie News Networks are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying by omission so actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not – but are faced with having to wade through rivers of f/ktard commenters. It is dispiriting to say the least. ..."
    "... That may well be the idea, particularly those organizations that want to hose a and discredit alternative media sites (sic the JTRIG program and the likes of Brigade 77 and digilogues that have been running for years). If you can hack it, you probably think a) does this make sense? b) who is bono? c) timing, timing, timing.. d) is anything logically missing from the picture/story? e) if so, what conclusions can we draw from that? etc. It's not easy. ..."
    "... Once upon a time we had newspaper columnists to do our thinking for us who we would religiously read. Now it is each one for themselves. What a pain in the ass. Fortunately we have the Kremlin Stooge and a bunch of other sites to help! :-) ..."
    "... Don't miss the link to TTG's comment on leaks at Sic Semper Tyrannis! ..."
    "... Yet again, you do not get this kind of information from the Pork Pie News Networks, the same ones who cosy up to the security services in return for juicy tidbits and also rubbish 'alternative news/websites/blogs'. ..."
    "... the notion of compartmentalized operational security and broad state electronic surveillance of the population are mutually exclusive. ..."
    Jun 09, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    at Al, June 7, 2017 at 7:17 am

    Vis the Reality Winner leaking 'proof' of Russian hacking of US elections, PavewayIV's comment on Moon of Alabama says it all:

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/do-not-trust-the-intercept-or-how-to-burn-a-source.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b8d28a09f7970c

    ####

    He's one of a handful of good commenters there among the nutbags, antisemites, conspiracy theorists etc. It's one of the things that really bugs me about great (supposedly) alternative news/opinion/blogs. They always get immediately contaminated by all sorts of narcissistic 'tards who just want to s/t the bed for everyone else, particularly the flyby trolls. Lots of people out there (Hello lurkers!) know that the Pork Pie News Networks are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying by omission so actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not – but are faced with having to wade through rivers of f/ktard commenters. It is dispiriting to say the least.

    That may well be the idea, particularly those organizations that want to hose a and discredit alternative media sites (sic the JTRIG program and the likes of Brigade 77 and digilogues that have been running for years). If you can hack it, you probably think a) does this make sense? b) who is bono? c) timing, timing, timing.. d) is anything logically missing from the picture/story? e) if so, what conclusions can we draw from that? etc. It's not easy.

    Once upon a time we had newspaper columnists to do our thinking for us who we would religiously read. Now it is each one for themselves. What a pain in the ass. Fortunately we have the Kremlin Stooge and a bunch of other sites to help! :-)

    et Al , June 7, 2017 at 7:43 am
    'Ghostship' elucidates how Reality Winner would have access to top class info;

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/do-not-trust-the-intercept-or-how-to-burn-a-source.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c9000590970b

    ####

    My only thoughts are, wouldn't such info be compartmentalized (standard operating procedure, innit?), i.e. a 'translator' would not have free and unlimited access, but rather have access to only very specific highly secret info? If there are that many translators out there, then compartmentalization would work very well. It is totally counter intuitive, nay stupid , to allow free range to anyone but the top of the top. More people, more chance of leaks, accidents or incomptence.

    et Al , June 7, 2017 at 7:50 am
    Ah, I should have read on. PavewayIV again:

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/do-not-trust-the-intercept-or-how-to-burn-a-source.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb09a3288d970d

    ####

    Don't miss the link to TTG's comment on leaks at Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    Yet again, you do not get this kind of information from the Pork Pie News Networks, the same ones who cosy up to the security services in return for juicy tidbits and also rubbish 'alternative news/websites/blogs'.

    marknesop , June 7, 2017 at 8:09 pm
    Indeed it is; Secret and Top secret information is made available to those who

    (1) are cleared to the appropriate level, and

    (2) have the need to know.

    It's "and". Not "or". Top Secret information may not be viewed by anyone with a Top Secret security clearance – only by those who need to know that information to carry out their duties related to it.

    Information may actually specify, "Top Secret – Eyes Only" in which the personnel holding a Top Secret clearance who may view the material are either listed, or it is restricted only to the addressee.

    yalensis , June 8, 2017 at 2:34 am
    I dunno, because that whole Snowden thing revealed a lot of holes in the American security apparatus. Snowden himself was surprised just how much stuff he was able to access, and he was just a contractor at the time, not even a permanent employee.
    marknesop , June 8, 2017 at 5:37 am
    Well, yes, because the notion of compartmentalized operational security and broad state electronic surveillance of the population are mutually exclusive.

    But to the very best of my knowledge Snowden did not reveal any secrets of America's defense systems, its operational structure, its past military operations or its future plans in that area, if he knew them. The damaging information he disclosed all related to American spying on foreign leaders and the American electorate

    [Jun 15, 2017] Liars Lying About Nearly Everything by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... The United States has been using lies to go to war since 1846, when Americans who believed in manifest destiny sought to expand to the Pacific Ocean at the expense of Mexico, acquiring by force of arms California and what were to become the southwestern states. In 1898 the U.S. picked up the pieces of a dying Spanish Empire in a war that was driven by American imperialists and the yellow dog reporting of the Hearst Newspaper chain. And then came World War 1, World War 2, and Korea, all avoidable and all enabled by deliberate lying coming out of Washington. ..."
    "... More recently, we have seen Vietnam with its Gulf of Tonkin fabrication, Granada and Panama with palpably ridiculous pretexts for war, Iraq with its nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Afghanistan with its lies about bin Laden, Libya and its false claims about Gaddafi, and most recently Syria and Iran with allegations of an Iranian threat to the United States and lies about Syrian use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons. And if one adds in the warnings to Russia over Ukraine, a conflict generated by Washington when it brought about regime change in Kiev, you have a tissue of lies that span the globe and bring with them never-ending conflict to advance the American imperium. ..."
    "... So lies go with the American Way of War, but the latest twist and turns in the Middle East are bizarre even by Washington's admittedly low standards of rectitude. ..."
    "... The Saudis also have considerable blood on their hands by way of their genocidal assault on neighboring Yemen. In addition, the Saudi Royal House has served as the principal propagator of Wahhabism, the virulently fundamentalist version of Islam that provides a form of religious legitimacy to terror while also motivating many young Muslims to join radical groups. ..."
    "... The falling out of two Gulf Arab regimes might be a matter of relatively little importance but for the unnecessary intervention of President Donald Trump in the quarrel. ..."
    "... Trump's tweets might well be regarded as simply maladroit, driven by ignorance, but they could also provide a glimpse of a broader agenda. While in the Middle East, Trump was bombarded with anti-Iranian propaganda coming from both Israel and the Saudis. An escalation of hostilities with the intention of starting an actual war involving the United States to take down Iran is not unimaginable, particularly as the Israelis, who have already endorsed the Saudi moves, have been arguing that option and lying about the threat posed by Tehran for a number of years. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Terrorism supporters in Washington and Riyadh close ranks against Qatar

    The United States has been using lies to go to war since 1846, when Americans who believed in manifest destiny sought to expand to the Pacific Ocean at the expense of Mexico, acquiring by force of arms California and what were to become the southwestern states. In 1898 the U.S. picked up the pieces of a dying Spanish Empire in a war that was driven by American imperialists and the yellow dog reporting of the Hearst Newspaper chain. And then came World War 1, World War 2, and Korea, all avoidable and all enabled by deliberate lying coming out of Washington.

    More recently, we have seen Vietnam with its Gulf of Tonkin fabrication, Granada and Panama with palpably ridiculous pretexts for war, Iraq with its nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Afghanistan with its lies about bin Laden, Libya and its false claims about Gaddafi, and most recently Syria and Iran with allegations of an Iranian threat to the United States and lies about Syrian use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons. And if one adds in the warnings to Russia over Ukraine, a conflict generated by Washington when it brought about regime change in Kiev, you have a tissue of lies that span the globe and bring with them never-ending conflict to advance the American imperium.

    So lies go with the American Way of War, but the latest twist and turns in the Middle East are bizarre even by Washington's admittedly low standards of rectitude. On the 5th of June, Saudi Arabia led a gaggle of Arab and Muslim nations that included the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain to cut off all diplomatic, commercial and transport links with Qatar, effectively blockading it. Qatar is currently isolated from its neighbors, subject to sanctions, and there have even been Saudi threats of going to war against its tiny neighbor. Salman al-Ansari, the president of the Saudi American Public Relation Affairs Committee, even tweeted: "To the emir of Qatar, regarding your alignment with the extremist government of Iran and your abuse of the Custodian of the two sacred mosques, I would like to remind you that Mohammed Morsi [of Egypt] did exactly the same and was then toppled and imprisoned."

    It is the second time the Saudis have moved against Qatar. Two years ago, there was a break in diplomatic relations, but they were eventually restored. This time, the principal allegation being directed against Qatar by Riyadh is that it supports terrorism. The terrorist groups that it allegedly embraces are Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi's affiliation. Hezbollah and Hamas are close to Iran which is perhaps the real reason for their being singled out as many would call them resistance movements or even legitimate political parties rather than terrorists. And the Iran connection is critical as Qatar has been under fire for allegedly saying nice things about trying to respect and get along with Tehran, undoubtedly somewhat motivated by its joint exploitation with Iran of a vast gas field in the Persian Gulf.

    Qatar's ownership of al-Jazeera also has been a sore point with the Saudis and other Gulf states as its reporting has often been critical of developments in the region, criticisms that have often rankled the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptians. It has been accused of spreading propaganda for "militant groups." One of the Saudi demands to permit Qatar to again become a "normal" Arab Gulf state would be to close down the network.

    The terrorism claims by the Saudis are, of course, hypocritical. Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are well known as sponsors of Salafist terrorism, including the funding and arming of groups like ISIS and the various al-Qaeda franchises, to include al-Nusra. Much of the money admittedly comes from private individuals and is often channeled through Islamic charities, but both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been extremely lax in their enforcement of anti-terror and money laundering regulations. In a 2009 State Department memo signed off on by Hillary Clinton it was stated that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." Qatar, meanwhile, has been described as a "permissive environment for terrorist financing."

    The Saudis also have considerable blood on their hands by way of their genocidal assault on neighboring Yemen. In addition, the Saudi Royal House has served as the principal propagator of Wahhabism, the virulently fundamentalist version of Islam that provides a form of religious legitimacy to terror while also motivating many young Muslims to join radical groups.

    The falling out of two Gulf Arab regimes might be a matter of relatively little importance but for the unnecessary intervention of President Donald Trump in the quarrel. He has taken credit for the burgeoning conflict, implying that his recent visit to the region set the stage for the ostracizing of Qatar. His twitter on the affair, posted on June 6 th , read ""So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!" And he again came down on Qatar on June 9 th during a press conference.

    Trump's tweets might well be regarded as simply maladroit, driven by ignorance, but they could also provide a glimpse of a broader agenda. While in the Middle East, Trump was bombarded with anti-Iranian propaganda coming from both Israel and the Saudis. An escalation of hostilities with the intention of starting an actual war involving the United States to take down Iran is not unimaginable, particularly as the Israelis, who have already endorsed the Saudi moves, have been arguing that option and lying about the threat posed by Tehran for a number of years.

    [Jun 15, 2017] The Consent of the Governed

    www.businessinsider.com

    Last week, when former FBI Director James Comey gave his long-awaited public testimony about his apparently rough-and-tumble relationship with President Donald Trump, he painted a bleak picture. The essence of Comey's testimony was that the president asked him to drop an investigation of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn - Trump's former national security adviser - and then asked him to do so in return for keeping his job as FBI director and then fired him for not obeying his order.

    On the other hand, Comey confirmed that the president personally, as of the time of Comey's firing, was not the target of any FBI criminal investigation. It was not clear from the Comey testimony whether this exoneration was referring to salacious allegations made by a former British intelligence agent of highly inappropriate and fiercely denied personal behavior a few years ago in a Moscow hotel room or whether the exoneration was with respect to widely reported allegations that the 2016 Trump campaign may have helped Russian intelligence agents in their efforts to manipulate the outcome of the presidential election.

    Nevertheless, there is no doubt the president is now a target of a federal investigation with respect to his dealings with the then-FBI director. So, how could the tables have turned so quickly on the president, and who turned them? Here is the back story.

    Prior to the Watergate era of the mid-1970s, the generally accepted theory of management of the executive branch of government was known as the unitary executive. This theory informs that the president is the chief executive officer of the federal government and is the sole head of the executive branch. He is also the only person in the executive branch who is accountable to the voters, as he, and he alone (along with the vice president, who is largely a figurehead), has been elected by the voters.

    As such, this unitary executive theory informs, everyone in the executive branch of the federal government works at the pleasure of the president. Were this not the case, then vast areas of governance could occur and vast governmental resources could be spent by people who are unaccountable to the voters. And when the government is unaccountable to the voters, it lacks their consent. The consent of the governed is the linchpin and bedrock of popular government in America.

    There are, of course, today vast areas of government that are not responsive to the people and that lack the consent of the governed. The administrative agencies that write, interpret and enforce their own regulations and the deep state - the secret parts of the financial, intelligence and law enforcement entities of the government that never change, operate below the radar screen and have budgets that never see the light of day - defy the notion that the consent of the governed is the sole legitimate basis for government in America.

    Yet the FBI is not in the administrative state or the deep state. It is front and center as the premier law enforcement agency of the United States government. It is far from perfect, and its leaders are as fallible as the rest of us, but we have hired the folks who work there to enforce the federal laws that implicate our freedoms and our safety. And we have hired the president to exercise his discretion as to which laws shall be enforced and against whom.

    Thus, under this theory, the president is constitutionally, legally, morally and ethically free to direct any person in the executive branch as to how he wants that person to perform his or her job. And the recipient of such direction is free to resign if the direction appears unlawful. That is at least the theory of the unitary executive.

    After the Watergate era, Congress altered the public policy of the country to reflect the independence of the Department of Justice, including the FBI. It did so in reaction to Nixonian abuses. Thus, the post-Watergate theory of the DOJ's role articulates that federal law enforcement is independent from the president.

    The Comey testimony revealed serious efforts to reject the public policy of independence and return to the unitary executive. Comey revealed a DOJ under former Attorney General Loretta Lynch in lockstep with the Obama White House and determined to exonerate Hillary Clinton in the espionage investigation concerning her emails, no matter the evidence. He also revealed his own view that President Trump's orders and quid pro quo offer with respect to Flynn were unlawful.
    Where does this leave us today?

    Today we have a White House under siege. The new DOJ criminal investigation that the president is no doubt the subject of will attempt to discover whether he corruptly attempted to interfere with the work of an independent FBI and whether he attempted to bribe its then-director. The White House is also the subject of five congressional investigations involving the Russians and the 2016 election, the firing of Director Comey, and the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from much of this. And the investigation of Clinton is back from the grave for a third time to determine whether she was exonerated because of a lack of evidence, a lack of will or an Obama political imperative.

    These are perilous times for men and women of goodwill and intellectual honesty who are charged with enforcing our laws and running the government. The government should not be terrifying. But it must be fair and transparent. And it must always enjoy the consent of the governed. For without that consent, it is illegitimate.

    Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

    Agent76, June 15, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

    Jun 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Feb 1, 2017 Secrets Of The FBI Finally Revealed and Leaked

    In this video, we go over the latest FBI leak of thousands of documents to the intercept that revealed their secret rule book and operations. We go over what was found in those documents and the dangers of these powers that the FBI has.

    log Website, June 15, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT

    Dear Judge:

    The existence of state secrets means the consent of the governed can never be informed.

    themann, June 15, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT

    So when exactly did any of us, or our representatives, vote on the income tax? Because I certainly don't remember consenting to it.

    Or twelve years of public schooling.
    Or the TSA.
    Or the entire history of Civil Wrongs laws.

    Hyperventilating about the actions of one set of corrupt public officials vs. another is a bit far down the list of non consent issues any of us should be concerned about.

    Agent76, June 15, 2017 at 3:08 pm GMT

    I was expecting an article more related to this video and its content and narrative.

    Dec 3, 2012 Murray Rothbard – The Government Is Not Us

    Professor Rothard examines the irrational implications of the premise "we are the government."

    willem1, June 15, 2017 at 5:28 pm GMT

    "After the Watergate era, Congress altered the public policy of the country to reflect the independence of the Department of Justice, including the FBI The Comey testimony revealed serious efforts to reject the public policy of independence and return to the unitary executive."

    The above quotes imply that these two policies are just "theories" of executive authority, and not really enshrined in hard law. However, the article is never clear on whether or not that is the case. If these are just two competing theories, and no law or clear court precedent exists, then what is the legal basis for any investigation/lawsuit? Inquiring minds want to know .

    [Jun 15, 2017] Dr Udo Ulfkotte, the former German newspaper editor whose bestselling book exposed how the CIA controls German media, has been found dead. He was 56.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ulfkotte's book, Bought Journalists, is now available in English as Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News. ..."
    "... Rod Wheeler, the investigator hired by Seth Rich's parents, did not retract any of his assertions. [He's convinced that Seth Rich contacted Wikileaks.] On the contrary, he was forced to "Cease and Desist" by a Democrat operative who now "advises" Rich's parents. Further, there was interference in Wheeler's investigation by another prominent Democrat (reputedly Donna Brazille). ..."
    "... The Seth Rich murder not only throws a wrench in the "Russian hacking" story, it puts the spotlight back onto Clinton's malfeasance. I'd like to see this take center stage, and someone started a petition demanding an investigation. Seems like a good beginning. I urge everyone to sign and share widely. ..."
    Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Carlton Meyer June 12, 2017 at 4:35 am GMT

    From early this year:

    Dr Udo Ulfkotte, the former German newspaper editor whose bestselling book exposed how the CIA controls German media, has been found dead. He was 56. Ulfkotte was an editor at Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the largest newspapers in Germany, when he published Bought Journalists, the bestselling book that cost him his job and perhaps his life.

    German media, who were banned from reporting on his work in recent years, are reporting he died of "heart failure". Acknowledging that his life was under threat, Ulfkotte explained that he was in a better position than most journalists to expose the truth because he didn't have any children who could be threatened.

    Speaking to the Russian newspaper Russian Insider, Ulkfotte said: "When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Ulfkotte's newspaper) that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets – but I don't mind. You see, I don't have children to take care of."

    His fears for a war in Europe, lead him to his decision to tell the truth about corporate media being controlled by intelligence services on behalf of the financial class.

    "I've been a journalist for about 25 years, and I've been educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public," Ulfkotte told Russia Today. "I was supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA Why? Because I am pro-American."

    "The German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia. This is a point of no return, and I am going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia."

    Ulfkotte said most corporate media journalists in the United States and Europe are "so-called non-official cover," meaning that they work for an intelligence agency. "I think it is especially the case with British journalists, because they have a much closer relationship. It is especially the case with Israeli journalists. Of course with French journalists. It is the case for Australians, [with] journalists from New Zealand, from Taiwan, well, there is many countries," he said.

    Ulfkotte's book Bought Journalists became a bestseller in Germany but, in a bizarre twist which Ulfkotte says characterizes the disconnect caused by CIA control of the western media, the book cannot be reported on by the German press.

    Ulfkotte said: "No German mainstream journalist is allowed to report about [my] book. Otherwise he or she will be sacked. So we have a bestseller now that no German journalist is allowed to write or talk about."

    Among the stories Ulfkotte says he was ordered by the CIA to plant in his newspaper was a fake story that Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi was building poison gas factories in 2011.

    "The German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia," he told RT.

    "This is a point of no return, and I am going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do, and have done in the past, because they are bribed to betray the people not only in Germany, all over Europe. I am very fearful of a new war in Europe, and I don't like to have this situation again, because war is never coming from itself, there is always people who push for war, and this is not only politicians, it is journalists too. We have betrayed our readers, just to push for war. I don't want this anymore; I'm fed up with this propaganda. We live in a banana republic, and not in a democratic country where we have press freedom."

    Baxter Dmitry

    http://yournewswire.com/german-newspaper-editor-exposed-cia-dead/

    Ludwig Watzal Website , June 12, 2017 at 7:20 am GMT

    That the CIA is a criminal organization, it's all over town except for the corrupt political class and their groveling media class. That the American people still believe in these institutions is due to the massive propaganda they are exposed day and night. Even the still highly regarded FBI are using a double standard approach when it comes to Hillary Clinton and other corrupt liberal democrats.

    The American people should just turn off CNN and the other media outlets that give them their daily brainwashing. They would have just a more comfortable life. Professor Cohen is right saying that these criminal institutions such as the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies are creating their own "security threat."

    If Donald Trump wants to evade a fabricated impeachment he has to bomb the shit out of the Syrian and the Iran government and get tough with Vladimir Putin, the only rational actor in this whole made up the affair. Finally, the rampant Russia-phobia has one aim: to attack Russia. Putin was the guy who ended the plundering of Russia by the US under the boozer Yeltzin.

    The last public hearing showed that the senators are insane and full of American nationalism and exceptionalism about their democracy that has nothing to do with the concept the Founding Fathers set up a long time ago. That there are still a lot of Beltway political criminals to believe in a winnable nuclear war with Russia can scare one to death.

    RobinG , June 12, 2017 at 8:59 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer TY for posting this Carlton! Ulfkotte's book, Bought Journalists, is now available in English as Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News.

    https://www.amazon.com/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505458

    As for Roth's hope that Americans will wake up before it's too late . when I talk to my friends (the regular kind, not the Unz variety) they don't seem to hear me. They need some kind of shock, and something simple to grasp. [Unpacking Syria is way too frightening for most, let alone Israel's role in destabilizing the ME.] What about the murder of Seth Rich?

    Rod Wheeler, the investigator hired by Seth Rich's parents, did not retract any of his assertions. [He's convinced that Seth Rich contacted Wikileaks.] On the contrary, he was forced to "Cease and Desist" by a Democrat operative who now "advises" Rich's parents. Further, there was interference in Wheeler's investigation by another prominent Democrat (reputedly Donna Brazille).

    The Seth Rich murder not only throws a wrench in the "Russian hacking" story, it puts the spotlight back onto Clinton's malfeasance. I'd like to see this take center stage, and someone started a petition demanding an investigation. Seems like a good beginning. I urge everyone to sign and share widely.
    LINK TO PETITION FOR SETH RICH INVESTIGATION – PLEASE SIGN https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-murder-seth-rich-alleged-wikileaks-email-leaker

    El Dato , June 12, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

    @Carlton Meyer

    Among the stories Ulfkotte says he was ordered by the CIA to plant in his newspaper was a fake story that Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi was building poison gas factories in 2011.

    That was a tall story back then, as is anything involving Ghadaffi, basically.

    An actor well-used as bogeyman whenever the sheeple needed to be distracted a bit.

    This is actually very well explained in this little movie:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation

    [Jun 15, 2017] The War In Afghanistan Is A Racket

    Notable quotes:
    "... One new actor is already there. An Afghan variant of the "Islamic State" just kicked out the Taliban from the Tora Bora cave complex near the Pakistani border. Tora Bora was once though to be the retreat area of Al-Qaeda's Osama Bin-Laden and was attacked during the U.S. invasion in 2001/2. ..."
    "... For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The U.S. pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states and elsewhere. It is a protection racket. Should the U.S. not pay, its convoys will be attacked by "Taliban". As soon as it pays the local warlords, the "Taliban" will be defeated and the area will be clear again for the trucks to pass. The money the Afghan government receives is likewise dependent on a continuation of the U.S. occupation. No one in the ruling class of Afghanistan has an interest in ending that. The government in Kabul will do nearly anything to keep its money source available. ..."
    "... That may well be the reason why ISIS in Afghanistan was created. It was feared in Kabul that sooner or later the U.S. would find a compromise with the Taliban and leave the country. A new reason had to be found to continue the war. ..."
    "... It is therefore not astonishing that the Afghan secret services, the National Directorate for Security (NDS), was the first sponsor of "ISIS" in Afghanistan. The first "ISIS" fighters were refugees of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) who settled in the eastern province of Nangahar and were put on the NDS payroll: ..."
    "... It is not clear if or to what extend the "ISIS" group in Afghanistan is still controlled by the Afghan government services. Their weapon and ammunition supply is now allegedly coming from Pakistan. But what is clear is that these new participants in the war were first sponsored by the Afghan government and are now a welcome reasons for an extension of the U.S. occupation and the money flows originating from it. Meanwhile the media can reuse its old scary graphics of the Tora Bora complex and sell more advertisement. ..."
    "... The ban on "drugs" was not the real issue. It was a cover story. Why did they gift the Tailiban with $43M? This was a few months before 911. 911 was the day after the 2.3 trillion gone missing. ..."
    "... In 2000 the Taliban government had nearly eliminated the production of opium poppies in Afghanistan. Today it is the leading source of opium derivatives in the world. This reminds me of the opium wars against China in the 1820's when the Forbes and Delano family fortunes were first made. Some things do not change. ..."
    "... "...our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them..." ~ Irish-American Statesman and failed POTUS Barry O'Bama, Nov 2015, remarking on the current status of the strategy against ISIS™ ..."
    "... Contain. And it would be wrong to assume strategy has evolved much past the word contain when it comes to US strategy on and employment of the Afghani based mudjihadeen, and it's various brand names since it's migration back westward since the 80's. ..."
    Jun 14, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The United States will again escalate the war in Afghanistan.

    Sixteen years ago the U.S, invaded the country and decided to eliminate the ruling Taliban for something that was planed elsewhere by a different group. Since the invasion the U.S. tried to defeat the Taliban. It has lost that fight. As soon as it leaves Afghanistan the Taliban will be back in power. But no one is willing to pull the plug on the nonsensical military approach.

    The Taliban are part of Afghanistan and a significant segment of the population supports them. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan it put the brutal and utterly corrupt warlords back into power. These were exactly the people the Taliban were created to hold down and the reason why they could take power in the first place. While demanding a strict religious life the Taliban successfully took care of local security and eliminated the lawless and corrupt rule of the warlords.

    It is no wonder then that a large part of the population wishes to have them back in power.

    The U.S. supported government in Kabul is utterly corrupt. The Afghan military and police the U.S. pays is likewise only motivated by money. It is not willing to fight. It takes high casualties during Taliban attacks and therefore avoids contact with them whenever possible. Some 60 % of the country is now more or less back under Taliban control. The government's say is restricted to the bigger cities.

    It is obvious that this trend will continued and sooner or later the Taliban will be back in power. The only sensible strategy is to negotiate with them and to find some solution that allows them to rule while they guaranteeing that no harm will emanate from Afghanistan for the rest of the world.

    But no one in the U.S. is willing to take responsibility for that. Who would want to be blamed for "neglecting" Afghanistan when another 9/11 happens - as unlikely as that might be? Therefore additional troops need to be send whenever the Taliban seem to gain the advantage over the puppet government forces.

    President Trump has punted on the issue and has given full authority to the Defense Department to continue the war in Afghanistan with as many troops as it sees fit. It is now the generals, not Trump, who will be blamed should things in Afghanistan go wrong. But the military has no idea what to do about Afghanistan.

    Yesterday the Secretary of Defense Mattis was asked during a Congress hearing what "winning" in Afghanistan would mean:

    The idea, [Mattis] said, would be to drive down the violence to a level that could be managed by Afghan government forces with the help of American and allied troops in training their Afghan counterparts, providing intelligence and delivering what Mr. Mattis called "high-end capability," an apparent allusion to air power and possibly Special Operations forces.

    The result, he said, would be an "era of frequent skirmishing," but not a situation in which the Afghan government no longer faced a mortal threat.

    Winning in Afghanistan is an "era of frequent skirmishes" in which the proxy government is continuously endangered? That does, of course, not make any sense. It is a holding strategy that will only work as long as the general framework stays the same. Should the Taliban change their strategy or a new actor come in the "holding" strategy will be finished.

    One new actor is already there. An Afghan variant of the "Islamic State" just kicked out the Taliban from the Tora Bora cave complex near the Pakistani border. Tora Bora was once though to be the retreat area of Al-Qaeda's Osama Bin-Laden and was attacked during the U.S. invasion in 2001/2.

    But who is behind the Islamic State Khorasan Province's (ISKP) in Afghanistan? Most of its fighters seem to be former Taliban who either defected in Afghanistan or were kicked out of Pakistan when the Pakistani military put pressure on their home areas. The real question now is who pays them and what do they want?

    Officially no one seems to know.

    For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The U.S. pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states and elsewhere. It is a protection racket. Should the U.S. not pay, its convoys will be attacked by "Taliban". As soon as it pays the local warlords, the "Taliban" will be defeated and the area will be clear again for the trucks to pass. The money the Afghan government receives is likewise dependent on a continuation of the U.S. occupation. No one in the ruling class of Afghanistan has an interest in ending that. The government in Kabul will do nearly anything to keep its money source available.

    That may well be the reason why ISIS in Afghanistan was created. It was feared in Kabul that sooner or later the U.S. would find a compromise with the Taliban and leave the country. A new reason had to be found to continue the war.

    It is therefore not astonishing that the Afghan secret services, the National Directorate for Security (NDS), was the first sponsor of "ISIS" in Afghanistan. The first "ISIS" fighters were refugees of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) who settled in the eastern province of Nangahar and were put on the NDS payroll:

    The most well-known case of these militants finding a welcoming home in Nangarhar is that of the Lashkar-e Islam group led by Mangal Bagh.

    ...

    Hoping to use them against Pakistan, the Afghan government started to woo some of these fighters, according to influential tribal elders involved in helping relation-building from the districts that sheltered the guest militants.

    ...

    [E]fforts by the Afghan intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), to woo Pakistani militants in Nangarhar have not been confined to Lashkar-e Islam or to militants from Khyber. Tribal elders and ordinary residents of Achin, Nazian and Kot testify that fighters from Orakzai and Mohmand agencies belonging to different factions of the TTP have been allowed free movement across the province, as well as treatment in government hospitals.

    ...

    It was from these 'guests' that the bulk of the Nangarhar-based ISKP foot soldiers emerged, following the official announcement of IS's expansion to 'Khorasan Province.'

    It is not clear if or to what extend the "ISIS" group in Afghanistan is still controlled by the Afghan government services. Their weapon and ammunition supply is now allegedly coming from Pakistan. But what is clear is that these new participants in the war were first sponsored by the Afghan government and are now a welcome reasons for an extension of the U.S. occupation and the money flows originating from it. Meanwhile the media can reuse its old scary graphics of the Tora Bora complex and sell more advertisement.

    The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes. This or that radical group will always exist in Afghanistan. The war helps the U.S. military to claim more budget and to hand out promotions. It helps the Afghan government officials and the warlords to fill their pockets. What it does not do is to better the situation of the general population of Afghanistan or of the United States.

    The war has become the proverbial self-licking-ice-cream-cone. It will unfortunately continue to be such under this and probably also the next U.S. presidents.

    Posted by b on June 14, 2017 at 02:07 PM | Permalink

    1
    The USA is now in Afghanistan for the minerals. It started out as a way of letting the CIA haul in mass amounts of money from drugs. Now it has morphed for the minerals. Afghanistan has the largest deposits of found lithium on the planet. Afghanistan is to lithium as Saudi Arabia is to oil. We are not about to abandon Afghanistan to the Chinese.

    Also, where there is lithium there is rare earth elements, which are even more valuable than lithium.

    james | Jun 14, 2017 2:36:51 PM | 2
    thanks b.. war is a racket, and there is no shortage of paper money denominated in us$ to pay to keep it going.. the justifications for it all, are beside the point..
    j | Jun 14, 2017 2:38:02 PM | 3
    some afghanis, I know from personal conversation, think part of the agenda in A. is experimentation with weapons in remote, inaccessible areas. there are multiple issues. have we kicked the Vietnam syndrome yet?
    SlapHappy | Jun 14, 2017 2:49:49 PM | 4
    That the coincidence of the heroin epidemic in the US and our invasion/occupation of Afghanistan isn't mentioned every time the problem is discussed tells you all you need to know about the veracity of the US media. We're only told the cover story for every event of consequence, while those who orchestrate and profit remain safely hidden from public scrutiny.
    folktruther | Jun 14, 2017 2:56:17 PM | 5
    But how does the war in Afghanistan differ from US war since world war 2.

    The US military is a fundamentally a business enterprise. It's function is not to win wars, but to make money. A standing army was created after world war 2 to prevent the depression which the war cured, and it has since created jobs for Americans and money for the plutocracy that has traditionally owned and ruled America.

    The idea is to create endless low intensity wars that validate the need for a enormous military budget. Afghanistan is perfect for this aim; relatively small numbers of US military that can endure,the motto being Enduring Freedom. The narcotics industry grows 90+% of the opium for the world, and fuels the prison industry in the USA, and the prison labor for the Free Market.

    Huge amounts of money are stolen from the military budget, 2.3 TRILLIONS dollars unaccountable on 9/10, 2001, growing to five trillion on Obama's shift. The banks launder hundreds of billions of drug money every year, a needed resource in financial crisis.

    Think of the Afghanistan war as a homicidal business enterprise and it makes perfect sense from a perspective of the plutocracy. And it will endure most likely until the people take the money away from the plutes, the guns away from their gunmen, and the truth away from their truthsters.

    xor | Jun 14, 2017 3:19:03 PM | 7
    For imperialist USA, it also helps to have a major military presence west of China, south of Russia and east of Iran. Those US bases serve all sorts of malicious activities.

    If the Taliban has some kind of consulary presence in Doha, then it shouldn't come to anyones surprise if much of the Afghan Daesh funding comes from Riyadh.

    Last but not least, since the US invasion of Afghanistan, the opium production reached sky-high and hasn't dwindled since so the warlords and the bureaucrats in Kabul get some US funding but a big part is also coming from opium production.

    SmoothieX12 | Jun 14, 2017 3:20:41 PM | 8
    @j, #3

    some afghanis, I know from personal conversation, think part of the agenda in A. is experimentation with weapons in remote, inaccessible areas.

    Any war is always a proving ground for new weapons systems. Look how happy Russia's Oboronexport is after Syria;) Soviet war in Afghanistan saw a test run of many Soviet PGMs (Precision Guided Munitions) both on the ground and from the air--e.g. laser and TV guided bombs. It is just the way it is.

    SmoothieX12 | Jun 14, 2017 3:26:29 PM | 9
    @2, James

    thanks b.. war is a racket, and there is no shortage of paper money denominated in us$ to pay to keep it going..

    Actually there is, and this shortage (or limit on printing) doesn't have to manifest itself through some catastrophic economic event. Simple diminished returns, or, in layman's lingo, minuscule bang for a buck will do--such as the case currently. It will not get any better. United States increasingly can not build affordable and effective weapons systems. Very expensive and, in the best case scenario, marginally "better"? Sure. Effective? Very often, no.

    jawbone | Jun 14, 2017 3:27:06 PM | 10
    Somebody (somebody | Jun 13, 2017 6:36:01 AM | 178) posted this link yesterday about Monbiot's contention that the US will not leave Afghanistan (if then?) until the Western powers have a pipeline to the West thought Afghanistan.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/23/afghanistan.terrorism11

    Note the date -- The war is now 15 years and almost 15 full months old. We are not about to leave without getting something tangible, if then. Any pipeline to the West will have to be "guarded," so...when can the NATO armies leave? Is this still a major US motive?

    Mina | Jun 14, 2017 3:27:58 PM | 11
    They really have no shame http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-40278385 or are they afraid he knows far too much? Hope he ll quickly give some interviews.
    Mina | Jun 14, 2017 3:32:24 PM | 12
    Other people have to cope with the Western toys for generations
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/270937/Egypt/Politics-/Terrorists-use-wartime-landmines-to-make-IEDs,-say.aspx

    Malooga | Jun 14, 2017 3:43:22 PM | 13
    The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes. (sic)

    Before I say anything critical, let me first commend you on your unparallelled body of work. That said, I am always puzzled and quite frankly concerned when the author of a premier Geo-political blog professes to find no strategic purpose behind a nation or a bloc of nation's actions. Nor is this the first time you have made such remarks. I generally chalk it up to a dry form of Northern European humor which I don't quite grasp.

    One could fairly critique such actions as "immoral," "unlikely to succeed," "distasteful my sensibilities," "temporizing," etc. But, in my humble opinion, failure to find "a real purpose" behind actions does not rise to the generally high level of your writing. I will leave it to others to elucidate both the tactics and strategy of the endless presence in an unstable centrally located territory. The answers are quite obvious.

    jawbone | Jun 14, 2017 3:48:33 PM | 14
    Arghan War now 15 years and 8 months old...typo, oops.
    j | Jun 14, 2017 3:52:52 PM | 15
    Not the most carefully phrased article on this site b.

    An Army friend clarifies that he "was never told or read in any of our briefings that we had a stated goal to eliminate the Taliban". He says they fought against the Taliban and warlords insofar as those aided Al Qaeda.

    I think your opening salve "Sixteen years ago the U.S, invaded the country and decided to eliminate the ruling Taliban for something that was planed elsewhere by a different group", is not false, but probably a bit myopic. A counterargument is that yes, but the training occurred in Afghanistan. Maybe it is more important to detail the history of U.S. aid to mujahideen prior to 9/11? Or to question whether the military approach (and civilian casualties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932014)#Afghan_protestation_of_civilian_deaths_caused_by_international_forces) gives more or less rational motive for additional attacks against U.S. targets?

    Personally, I wonder if the billions spent between Carter and Reagan aiding mujahideen would have been better spent on cancer research, but maybe that's just me.

    OJS | Jun 14, 2017 3:56:34 PM | 16
    @j

    You again did something wrong!!

    fast freddy | Jun 14, 2017 4:23:07 PM | 18
    https://www.thenation.com/article/bushs-faustian-deal-taliban/

    May 22, 2001

    ...gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs
    that catches this administration's attention.

    The ban on "drugs" was not the real issue. It was a cover story. Why did they gift the Tailiban with $43M? This was a few months before 911. 911 was the day after the 2.3 trillion gone missing.

    ToivoS | Jun 14, 2017 5:19:30 PM | 19
    In 2001 I was quite naive. I actually supported the US war against Afghanistan then for the simple reason that the US public was lusting for war. Afghanistan seemed to be one enemy where we could let off steam without provoking some serious war elsewhere. Sort of like Reagan had to attack Grenada in order to save some face after the fiasco in Lebanon in 1982.

    It was clear that we could remove the Taliban government in a few months but it was also clear that it would be the height of stupidity to think we could occupy that country for the next 16 years. Alas, dumbo Bush decided to do just that. Afghanistan did have a traditional system with a king in Kabul that was tolerated as long as he didn't try to rule the tribal regions. The US violated that tradition and installed the puppet Karsi to rule the whole country.

    In 2000 the Taliban government had nearly eliminated the production of opium poppies in Afghanistan. Today it is the leading source of opium derivatives in the world. This reminds me of the opium wars against China in the 1820's when the Forbes and Delano family fortunes were first made. Some things do not change.

    nmb | Jun 14, 2017 5:24:34 PM | 20
    Crony Capitalism: the sole heritage of the disastrous Western invasion in Afghanistan
    karlof1 | Jun 14, 2017 5:31:20 PM | 21
    First and foremost, Afghanistan and its people had absolutely zero to do with 911. Plans to invade Afghanistan were well developed many months prior to 911--the reason for those plans is the primary foreign policy directive of the Outlaw US Empire-- Vision 2010 then reissued as Vision 2020 , which declares Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its people to be its #1 goal, with Afghanistan providing the ideal geographical location to pressure both Russia and China\

    That is the fundamental reason for the Outlaw US Empire's Aggressive War Crime of invasion and unending occupation of that poor country. Nor is it going to end until the Outlaw US Empire is forced to remove itself.

    Aren Haich | Jun 14, 2017 5:40:47 PM | 22
    American involvment in Afghanistan has most likely has had 2 objectives to fulfill:
    --- War contractors:
    In old days nations went to war to plunder other countries;
    but America and Pentagon contractors have gone to war in Afghnistan to plunder the US treasury.

    --- Opium production: see
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Afghanistan_opium_poppy_cultivation_1994-2007b.PNG

    virgile | Jun 14, 2017 5:56:55 PM | 23
    Russia and Iran must rejoice for the renewed US interest in Afghanistan. Both have borders with Afghanistan and will take pleasure in arming and supporting any forces that would confront and humiliate the US military.
    Mathis, get ready for a bumpy road scattered with body bags...
    We expect the US to blame Iran and Russia for the mess it is getting into.
    Perimetr | Jun 14, 2017 6:00:33 PM | 24
    "For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The U.S. pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states and elsewhere"

    The goods happen to be $1 trillion worth of annual opium/heroin production (which when from 0 tons per annum in 2000 to 13+tons annual production today). It is shipped out to Serbia, Bulgaria, Turkey, and then sent all around the planet. Anybody see a problem with heroin in the US lately?

    The big banks take a 20% cut to launder the money. Langley uses the rest to pay its mercenary armies, to buy and control governments, to do any damn thing it wants to.

    It's all about freedom and democracy, you know.

    Jen | Jun 14, 2017 6:01:48 PM | 25
    Malooga @ 13:

    "... The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes (sic)... The war helps the U.S. military to claim more budget and to hand out promotions. It helps the Afghan government officials and the warlords to fill their pockets ..."

    I think the answer is staring at both of us in our faces. The war in Afghanistan may no longer have a real geo-strategic purpose if it ever did 15 years ago but it helps to keep ageing military generals in jobs, special military projects current (and providing work for technicians and other specialists) and justify more Congress spending on the military. It also helps circulate money in Afghanistan and enables Afghan government officials and warlords to fill not just their pockets but spread largesse to their families and communities when there are no other jobs to be had because of the chaos and instability. So that's really the purpose of the war: it's an economy in itself.

    brian | Jun 14, 2017 6:01:54 PM | 26
    when americans enter a country, they turn it into an iraq or an afghanistan or a libya

    americans not only love corruption, they actively create it:'The U.S. supported government in Kabul is utterly corrupt. The Afghan military and police the U.S. pays is likewise only motivated by money'

    MadMax2 | Jun 14, 2017 6:24:52 PM | 28
    "...our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them..." ~ Irish-American Statesman and failed POTUS Barry O'Bama, Nov 2015, remarking on the current status of the strategy against ISIS™

    Contain. And it would be wrong to assume strategy has evolved much past the word contain when it comes to US strategy on and employment of the Afghani based mudjihadeen, and it's various brand names since it's migration back westward since the 80's.

    Mike Maloney | Jun 14, 2017 6:30:46 PM | 29
    I'm interested in the electoral fig leaf that justifies the occupation. There should have been parliamentary elections last October, but they were postponed because the electoral commission that was created as part of the Kerry-brokered Ghani-Abdullah power-sharing agreement deadlocked. One of the main issues, and a beef of the Abdullah camp, is that there are millions more voter registration cards than actual Afghan voters; plus, Afghan voters do not have to vote at a particular location (giving new meaning to the old crack about "Vote early vote often"). Abdullah argued that he was robbed of victory in 2014 because of this.

    In any event, the current parliament is still serving because of a presidential decree by Ghani. If electoral reform is ever agreed upon, it's a fair question if a nationwide vote can even be staged because so much of the country is controlled by the Taliban. So what happens in 2019 when it's time for the next presidential vote? Will Ghani extend his own term by decree, or will he leave that to the fraudulent parliament?

    karlof1 | Jun 14, 2017 6:32:45 PM | 30
    An important if somewhat OT item of importance regarding war and its reporting surfaced at Southfront in response to an item published by Politico that deserves attention, https://southfront.org/politico-veterans-today-southfront-turn-american-servicemembers-veterans-fifth-column/

    I'm rather tempted to comment on what at its base is an attempt to expand the scope of what's being called "Russiagate," but the comment platform is run by Discus which I will never use again due to its censorship and deep state connections. That said, reading some of the comments proves the deluded nature of Politico's readership, and provides evidence for turning the rhetorical table on it by accusing it of fomenting a Fifth Column of propagandized robots.

    Pnyx | Jun 14, 2017 6:40:04 PM | 31
    Robert Pinckney 2:15:06 PM | 1
    "We are not about to abandon Afghanistan to the Chinese." So, Mr. Wise Man. Who is "we"? Do you identify with the u.s. sucker class's interests?

    brian | Jun 14, 2017 6:46:36 PM | 32

    voting changes nothing in the USL: just the nations underwear
    Lourenzo | Jun 14, 2017 6:50:10 PM | 33
    I believe the graveyard of empires will be the cause of America's downfall.
    Just like the Macedons, the Brits and the Soviets fell.

    [Jun 15, 2017] Pentagon Agrees To Sell $12 Billion In F-15s To Qatar Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Read Starikov... All these recent weapons deals, and many before is nothing more than what's called Reparations and Contributions. ..."
    "... It's an old deal http://defense-update.com/20141222_qatari_patriots.html ..."
    "... You know I am not a fan of the military industrial complex but you have to be in awe of these people. Trump sells 350 billion to SA which includes the best automatic self destruct fighter every engineered by the U.S. and then sells F15s to their obvious rivals in Quatar lol. ..."
    Jun 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Pentagon Agrees To Sell $12 Billion In F-15s To Qatar Tyler Durden Jun 14, 2017 4:35 PM 0 SHARES Remember when Trump called on Qatar to stop funding terrorism, claiming credit for and endorsing the decision of Gulf nations to isolate their small neighbor (where the most important US airbase in the middle east is located),even as US Cabinet officials said their blockade is hurting the campaign against ISIS. You should: it took place just 5 days ago.

    "We had a decision to make," Trump said, describing conversations with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. "Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have to stop the funding of terrorism." Also last week, Trump triumphantly announced on twitter that "during my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!"

    Well, Qatar funding terrorism apparently is not a problem when it comes to Qatar funding the US military industrial complex , because just two weeks after Trump signed a record, $110 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, moments ago Bloomberg reported that Qatar will also buy up to 36 F-15 jets from the Pentagon for $12 billion .... even as a political crisis in the Gulf leaves the Middle East nation isolated by its neighbors and criticized by President Donald Trump for supporting terrorism, according to three people with knowledge of the accord.

    According to the Pentagon, the sale will give Qatar a "state of the art" capability, not to mention the illusion that it can defend itself in a war with Saudi Arabia.

    If nothing else, Uncle Sam sure is an equal-opportunity arms dealer, and best of all, with the new fighter planes, Qatar will be able to at least put on a token fight when Saudi Arabia invades in hopes of sending the price of oil surging now that every other "strategy" has failed.

    To be sure, the sale comes at an opportune time: just days after Qatar put its military on the highest state of alert, and scrambled its tanks . All 16 of them. Maybe the world's wealthiest nation realized it's time beef up its defensive capabilities?

    Qatar's defense minister will meet with Pentagon chief Jim Mattis on Wednesday to seal the agreement, Bloomberg reported citing people who spoke on condition of anonymity because the sale hasn't been announced. Last year, congress approved the sale of up to 72 F-15s in an agreement valued at as much as $21 billion but that deal took place before the recent political crisis in the region.

    It is unclear what the Saudi reaction will be to the news that Trump is arming its latest nemesis. If our thesis that Riyadh is hoping for Qatar to escalate the nest leg of the conflict is correct , then the Saudis should be delighted.

    nope-1004 - Alt RightGirl , Jun 14, 2017 4:43 PM

    Oh c'mon y'all. This is nothing new. These are the same synchophants that (somehow, oops!) created ISIS and then go in and bomb them. WTF did you expect? That they'd actually do what they say?

    Cognitive Dissonance - nope-1004 , Jun 14, 2017 4:52 PM

    A big shout out to Boeing Military. Hookers and blow tonight in the exec suite. BTW these planes aren't sitting in inventory ready to be delivered. So any conflict in the next few years won't have to worry about these planes.

    That is unless the US or some other buyer agrees to step aside and allow Qatar to take their place at the end of the assembly line.

    Ahmeexnal - Cognitive Dissonance , Jun 14, 2017 4:52 PM

    Classic Sun Tzu move by Trump.

    ParkAveFlasher - Ahmeexnal , Jun 14, 2017 4:56 PM

    Now, are these the planes already parked in that airbase in Qatar that should be evac'd?

    Mr. Universe - ParkAveFlasher , Jun 14, 2017 5:00 PM

    That should about wrap it up on who is in charge of the Deep state. Backing both sides of a potential conflict and making sure everyone has enough arms to blow each to smitherines. Sounds like the old Red Shield tricks are still the best ones. Long live central bankers, after they have been thrown into a burning pit of sulfer.

    PrayingMantis - ParkAveFlasher , Jun 14, 2017 5:06 PM

    ... >>> ... " ... " We had a decision to make ," Trump said ... " ...

    ... lest we forget, Trump's a businessman ... sell to all buyers ... the (((Red Shield))) way ... and voila ... #maga profits!!! ...

    HowdyDoody - Ahmeexnal , Jun 14, 2017 5:04 PM

    They did the same with Iran and Iraq - for some, a very profitable bloodbath.

    fx - HowdyDoody , Jun 14, 2017 5:37 PM

    Absolutely. But, oh, these damned Iranians. They simply resisted the USA's boy Saddam and fought back.

    That failure to comply with OUR orders sealed his faith.

    Weapons of mass destruction. Well, we delivered them to him. chemical weapons to kill all the Iranians. So we KNEW they must have been there. We just didn't expect that he really used them all up against Iran and later on (the remaining few) against the curds. What a bastard. After all that WE did for Saddam, he didn't deliver. Fuck him.

    Speaking of non-delivery, why has our newest boy, Poroshenko, not yet taken Moscow? So, fuck him, too! And fuck the EU.

    And speaking of that, where is Monica, when one needs her? And let's have some Pizza...

    FoggyWorld - Cognitive Dissonance , Jun 14, 2017 6:29 PM

    That could happen and did on many F-18 sales where we in the US in effect packed the parts into glorified Heath kits and sent them to the buying countries who did their own labor. Also sent them the testing equipment and every other thing they needed so all we got were a few spare piece parts at a slightly lower price. The labor went to the purchasing country.

    gmj - nuubee , Jun 14, 2017 4:47 PM

    That right there is some wizard-level salesmanship. And I can assure you that these weapons systems have "ALL" of the capabilities of the ones in our US arsenal, hahaha. And furthermore, they cannot be messed with by remote control by the boys at the Pentagon, just in case things get a little messy or embarassing. Nosiree. What you see is what you get. Yes, Lord.

    omi - nuubee , Jun 14, 2017 5:41 PM

    Read Starikov... All these recent weapons deals, and many before is nothing more than what's called Reparations and Contributions.

    11th_Harmonic - nuubee , Jun 14, 2017 7:29 PM

    I'm at a loss for words anymore, so I'll just greenie your post and move the fuck on...

    Great Deceivah - nuubee , Jun 14, 2017 7:45 PM

    War is our Business and Business is GOOD!!

    Nona Yobiznes , Jun 14, 2017 4:39 PM

    Destabilize, arm both sides, and... profit!

    yrad - Nona Yobiznes , Jun 14, 2017 4:42 PM

    Rothschild playbook

    logicalman - yrad , Jun 14, 2017 5:01 PM

    Can't beat supplying boh sides in a conflict if you want to make a 'killing'!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiN1xHaNDJ0

    Got The Wrong No - logicalman , Jun 14, 2017 5:34 PM

    This deal reminds me of the Chevy Chase movie Deal Of The Century.

    PhiBetaZappa , Jun 14, 2017 4:48 PM

    There's no business like war business, there's no business we know.......

    MIC ho's gotta earn to keep pimp daddy .gov in bling.

    logicalman - PhiBetaZappa , Jun 14, 2017 5:03 PM

    Arms companies can make more money in a day of war than in a year of peace.

    serotonindumptruck , Jun 14, 2017 4:41 PM

    "By way of deception, thou shalt do war"

    --Mossad

    TheDude1224 , Jun 14, 2017 4:43 PM

    This quick money grab from Qatar is just what the government needed to help with our infrastructure problems, Obamacare, and subsidizing Elon Musk.

    Soph , Jun 14, 2017 4:43 PM

    Looks like Trump is just selling to whoever want to buy. What the hell, why not, he's shown himself to be a sell out. Might as well be the best damn arms dealer you can buy.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/

    Nightjar , Jun 14, 2017 4:44 PM

    It's an old deal http://defense-update.com/20141222_qatari_patriots.html

    Zepper , Jun 14, 2017 4:44 PM

    You know I am not a fan of the military industrial complex but you have to be in awe of these people. Trump sells 350 billion to SA which includes the best automatic self destruct fighter every engineered by the U.S. and then sells F15s to their obvious rivals in Quatar lol.

    I personally think the F15s will utterly destroy the f35s because all they have to do to down an f35 is keep it flying, it will eventual blow up on its own.

    Well like I said before, let the body count be super high... and let all the fucking crazy suicide bombers head back home to kill themselves.

    As Bernie, the man behind the man that shot up a bunch of congressmen said... Its going to be HUUUUUGE... the war thats coming that is... I wonder how many oil tankers will be sunk?

    Volaille de Bresse , Jun 14, 2017 4:50 PM

    Saudis not happy, tearing the contracts they signed with Trump in 10 9 8s... I'm sure Putin and China are gonna profit from Trump 12-bil blunder.

    decentralisedsc... , Jun 14, 2017 4:52 PM

    Almost all the world's economic and political problems revolve around the hegemony of a global corporate cartel, which is headquartered in the US because this is where their dominant military force resides. The US Constitution is therefore the "kingpin" of an all-inclusive global financial empire. These fictitious entities now own the USA and command its military infrastructure by virtue of the Federal Reserve Corporation, regulatory capture, MSM propaganda, and congressional lobbying.

    The Founders had to fight a bloody Revolutionary War to win our right to incorporate as a nation – the USA. But then, for whatever reason, our Founders granted the greediest businessmen among them unrestricted corporate charters with enough potential capital & power to compete with the individual states, smaller sovereign nations, and eventually to buy out the USA itself. The only way The People can regain our sovereignty as a constitutional republic now is to severely curtail the privileges of any corporation doing business here. To remain sovereign we have to stop granting corporate charters to just any "suit" that comes along without fulfilling a defined social value in return. The "Divine Right Of Kings" should not apply to fictitious entities just because they are "Too Big To Fail". We can't afford to privatize our Treasury to transnational banks anymore. Government must be held responsible only to the electorate, not fictitious entities; and banks must be held responsible to the government if we are ever to restore sanity, much less prosperity, to the world.

    It was a loophole in our Constitution that allowed corporate charters to be so easily obtained that a swamp of corruption inevitably flooded our entire economic system. It is a swamp that can't be drained at this point because the Constitution doesn't provide a drain. This 28 th amendment is intended to install that drain so Congress can pull the plug ASAP. As a matter of political practicality we must rely on the Article 5 option to do this, for which the electorate will need overwhelming consensus beforehand. Seriously; an Article 5 Constitutional Convention is rapidly becoming our only sensible option.

    This is what I think it will take to save the world; and nobody gets hurt: 28 th Amendment

    28 th Amendment:

    Corporations are not persons in any sense of the word and shall be granted only those rights and privileges that Congress deems necessary for the well-being of the People. Congress shall provide legislation defining the terms and conditions of corporate charters according to their purpose; which shall include, but are not limited to:

    1, prohibitions against any corporation; a, owning another corporation; b, becoming economically indispensable or monopolistic; or c, otherwise distorting the general economy;

    2, prohibitions against any form of interference in the affairs of; a, government, b, education, c, news media; or d, healthcare, and

    3, provisions for; a, the auditing of standardized, current, and transparent account books; b, the establishment of state and municipal banking; and c, civil and criminal penalties to be suffered by corporate executives for violation of the terms of a corporate charter.

    [Jun 14, 2017] America Last instead of Amerca first by Tom Engelhardt

    Notable quotes:
    "... Meanwhile, at home, despite all that wealth, despite billionaires galore , including the one running for president, despite the transnational corporate heaven inhabited by Google and Facebook and Apple and the rest of the crew, parts of this country and its infrastructure were starting to feel distinctly (to use a word from another universe) Third Worldish. He sensed that, too. He regularly said things like this: "We spent six trillion dollars in the Middle East, we got nothing And we have an obsolete plane system. We have obsolete airports. We have obsolete trains. We have bad roads. Airports." And this : "Our airports are like from a third-world country." And on the nation's crumbling infrastructure , he couldn't have been more on the mark. ..."
    "... Admittedly, that other superpower of the Cold War era, the Soviet Union, imploded in 1991, which was about the fastest way imaginable to leave the global stage. Still, despite the " evil empire " talk of that era, the USSR was always the secondary, the weaker of the two superpowers. It was never Rome, or Spain, or Great Britain. ..."
    "... It wasn't he, after all, who gave the U.S. heartland an increasingly Third World feel. It wasn't he who spent those trillions of dollars so disastrously on invasions and occupations, dead-end wars, drone strikes and special ops raids, reconstruction and deconstruction in a never-ending war on terror that today looks more like a war for the spread of terror. It wasn't he who created the growing inequality gap in this country or produced all those billionaires amid a population that increasingly felt left in the lurch. It wasn't he who hiked college tuitions or increased the debt levels of the young or set roads and bridges to crumbling and created the conditions for Third World-style airports. ..."
    "... If both the American global and domestic systems hadn't been rotting out before Donald Trump arrived on the scene, that "again" of his wouldn't have worked. Thought of another way, when the U.S. was truly at the height of its economic clout and power, American leaders felt no need to speak incessantly of how "indispensable" or "exceptional" the country was. It seemed too self-evident to mention. Someday, some historian may use those very words in the mouths of American presidents and other politicians (and their claims , for instance, that the U.S. military was "the finest fighting force that the world has ever known") as a set of increasingly defensive markers for measuring the decline of American power. ..."
    "... Mr. Trump made it clear that he loves the military and loves his generals. Oh well. When it takes up over 60% of the annual budget, what's not to love. The 1% won't be homeless or hungry, the tax code for which they lobbied is in place and secure. Individuals below them continue to take on debt. The nation continues to do the same. I sincerely desire that this country does go to hell in a handbasket even though I love the country. ..."
    "... I don't like Capitalist Imperialists. I don't like usury. Like all "Great World Powers before them, the U.S. is set up to fail. As someone wrote here, before. Most Generals don't have good records. My guess is that same lacking may be pervasive. Every government program has failed. Every war they have created for the U.S. to fight in has failed. Every "reform " has been another fleecing of the worker. In recent decades, the money Exchangers have been given free license to steal from those who gambled for a better life. They would put the great J.P. Morgan to shame with their computer-generated theft schemes. "Now you see it. Now, you dont!" That will become America, land that I love. ..."
    Jun 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

    In its own inside-out, upside-down way, it's almost wondrous to behold. As befits our president's wildest dreams, it may even prove to be a record for the ages, one for the history books. He was, after all, the candidate who sensed it first. When those he was running against, like the rest of Washington's politicians, were still insisting that the United States remained at the top of its game, not an - but the - " indispensable nation ," the only truly " exceptional " one on the face of the Earth, he said nothing of the sort. He campaigned on America's decline, on this country's increasing lack of exceptionality, its potential dispensability. He ran on the single word "again" - as in "make America great again " - because (the implication was) it just isn't anymore. And he swore that he and he alone was the best shot Americans, or at least non-immigrant white Americans, had at ever seeing the best of days again.

    In that sense, he was our first declinist candidate for president and if that didn't tell you something during the election season, it should have. No question about it, he hit a chord, rang a bell, because out in the heartland it was possible to sense a deepening reality that wasn't evident in Washington. The wealthiest country on the planet, the most militarily powerful in the history of well, anybody, anywhere, anytime (or so we were repeatedly told ) couldn't win a war, not even with the investment of trillions of taxpayer dollars, couldn't do anything but spread chaos by force of arms.

    Meanwhile, at home, despite all that wealth, despite billionaires galore , including the one running for president, despite the transnational corporate heaven inhabited by Google and Facebook and Apple and the rest of the crew, parts of this country and its infrastructure were starting to feel distinctly (to use a word from another universe) Third Worldish. He sensed that, too. He regularly said things like this: "We spent six trillion dollars in the Middle East, we got nothing And we have an obsolete plane system. We have obsolete airports. We have obsolete trains. We have bad roads. Airports." And this : "Our airports are like from a third-world country." And on the nation's crumbling infrastructure , he couldn't have been more on the mark.

    In parts of the U.S., white working-class and middle-class Americans could sense that the future was no longer theirs, that their children would not have a shot at what they had had, that they themselves increasingly didn't have a shot at what they had had. The American Dream seemed to be gaining an almost nightmarish sheen, given that the real value of the average wage of a worker hadn't increased since the 1970s; that the cost of a college education had gone through the roof and the educational debt burden for children with dreams of getting ahead was now staggering; that unions were cratering ; that income inequality was at a historic high ; and well, you know the story, really you do. In essence, for them the famed American Dream seemed ever more like someone else's trademarked property.

    Indispensable? Exceptional? This country? Not anymore. Not as they were experiencing it.

    And because of that, Donald Trump won the lottery. He answered the $64,000 question . (If you're not of a certain age, Google it, but believe me it's a reference in our president's memory book.) He entered the Oval Office with almost 50% of the vote and a fervent base of support for his promised program of doing it all over again, 1950s-style .

    It had been one hell of a pitch from the businessman billionaire. He had promised a future of stratospheric terrificness , of greatness on an historic scale. He promised to keep the evil ones - the rapists , job thieves, and terrorists - away, to wall them out or toss them out or ban them from ever traveling here. He also promised to set incredible records, as only a mega-businessman like him could conceivably do, the sort of all-American records this country hadn't seen in a long, long time.

    And early as it is in the Trump era, it seems as if, on one score at least, he could deliver something for the record books going back to the times when those recording the acts of rulers were still scratching them out in clay or wax . At this point, there's at least a chance that Donald Trump might preside over the most precipitous decline of a truly dominant power in history, one only recently considered at the height of its glory. It could prove to be a fall for the ages. Admittedly, that other superpower of the Cold War era, the Soviet Union, imploded in 1991, which was about the fastest way imaginable to leave the global stage. Still, despite the " evil empire " talk of that era, the USSR was always the secondary, the weaker of the two superpowers. It was never Rome, or Spain, or Great Britain.

    When it comes to the United States, we're talking about a country that not so long ago saw itself as the only great power left on planet Earth, "the lone superpower." It was the one still standing, triumphant, at the end of a history of great power rivalry that went back to a time when the wooden warships of various European states first broke out into a larger world and began to conquer it. It stood by itself at, as its proponents liked to claim at the time, the end of history .

    Applying Hard Power to a Failing World

    ....While, in the Trump era, a drive to cut domestic spending of every sort is evident, more money is still slated to go to the military, already funded at levels not reached by combinations of other major powers.

    Given the last 15 years of history , it's not hard to imagine what's likely to result from the further elevation of military power: disaster. This is especially true because Donald Trump has appointed to key positions in his administration a crew of generals who spent the last decade and a half fighting America's catastrophic wars across the Greater Middle East. They are not only notoriously incapable of thinking outside the box about the application of military power, but faced with the crisis of failed wars and failing states , of spreading terror movements and a growing refugee crisis across that crucial region, they can evidently only imagine one solution to just about any problem: more of the same. More troops , more mini-surges , more military trainers and advisers, more air strikes , more drone strikes more .

    After a decade and a half of such thinking we already know perfectly well where this ends - in further failure, more chaos and suffering, but above all in an inability of the U.S. to effectively apply its hard power anywhere in any way that doesn't make matters worse. Since, in addition, the Trump administration is filled with Iranophobes, including a president who has only recently fused himself to the Saudi royal family in an attempt to further isolate and undermine Iran, the possibility that a military-first version of American foreign policy will spread further is only growing .

    ... ... ...

    The First American Laster?

    If a Trump presidency achieves a record for the ages when it comes to the precipitous decline of the American global system, little as The Donald ever cares to share credit for anything, he will undoubtedly have to share it for such an achievement. It's true that kings, emperors, and autocrats, the top dogs of any moment, prefer to take all the credit for the "records" set in their time. When we look back, however, it's likely that President Trump will be seen as having given a tottering system that necessary push. It will undoubtedly be clear enough by then that the U.S., seemingly at the height of any power's power in 1991 when the Soviet Union disappeared, began heading for the exits soon thereafter, still enwreathed in self-congratulation and triumphalism.

    Had this not been so, Donald Trump would never have won the 2016 election. It wasn't he, after all, who gave the U.S. heartland an increasingly Third World feel. It wasn't he who spent those trillions of dollars so disastrously on invasions and occupations, dead-end wars, drone strikes and special ops raids, reconstruction and deconstruction in a never-ending war on terror that today looks more like a war for the spread of terror. It wasn't he who created the growing inequality gap in this country or produced all those billionaires amid a population that increasingly felt left in the lurch. It wasn't he who hiked college tuitions or increased the debt levels of the young or set roads and bridges to crumbling and created the conditions for Third World-style airports.

    If both the American global and domestic systems hadn't been rotting out before Donald Trump arrived on the scene, that "again" of his wouldn't have worked. Thought of another way, when the U.S. was truly at the height of its economic clout and power, American leaders felt no need to speak incessantly of how "indispensable" or "exceptional" the country was. It seemed too self-evident to mention. Someday, some historian may use those very words in the mouths of American presidents and other politicians (and their claims , for instance, that the U.S. military was "the finest fighting force that the world has ever known") as a set of increasingly defensive markers for measuring the decline of American power.

    So here's the question: When the Trump years (months?) come to an end, will the U.S. be not the planet's most exceptional land, but a pariah nation? Will that "again" still be the story of the year, the decade, the century? Will the last American Firster turn out to have been the first American Laster? Will it truly be one for the record books?

    Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .

    restless94110 June 13, 2017 at 9:56 pm GMT

    This lunatic keeps on coming up with new insanities. He appears to be saying that because Trump is withdrawing from the globalist agenda, that makes him a bad guy, and furthermore, it puts America last. Because we will lose our "soft" influence, Trump is making America "last."

    Well, I swan! In all my days, I never thought I would live to see a liberal spout such utter, misguided horseshit.

    Tom, the lunatic, seems to believe that if America has no soft power anymore, then all they will have is hard power. Message to Tom: what has been being used in the World by the United States in the past 15 years, hell, in the past 65 years? Ever hear of world events, Tom? This guy. He's so old he's sounding like John McCain. Are you ok, buddy? Maybe you should get an MRI to check for brain rot.

    I'll save you the funds. You do have brain rot. And this stuff you write is rotten to the core.

    Renoman June 13, 2017 at 11:40 pm GMT

    I can't quite see how getting out of shitty trade deals and cutting back on that giant wad of goo that is NATO is going to wreck America? Increasing military spending seems stupid to me but it may be a stop gap to maintain the economy during the transition to a Public Works phase which the Country badly needs. As to the Wall and immigration in general how can anyone not see the turmoil it is causing pretty well everywhere else and not want to keep that from coming here? In an era of decreasing employment we do not need more of the great unwashed? If we must import help let's choose the ones with the brains and some cash! The last twenty years of globalism have taken a big bite out of everyone but the very rich, enough of this crap, make the changes or there will be a civil war! Naa, I think the author is dead wrong.

    Sowhat June 14, 2017 at 12:21 am GMT

    One third of the population, the "experts" estimate, are mentally ill. I don't have an incling whether the restless expat lives in a glass house or not but maturity or, rather, immaturity OR tequila may be in his soupy criticism. Throwing stones in the form of personal insult toward a writer? I don't know. Thanks to Mr. Unz, many writers get a shot at making their point, as I have read, here. I would disagree with restless and Tom, but not completely.

    Mr. Trump made it clear that he loves the military and loves his generals. Oh well. When it takes up over 60% of the annual budget, what's not to love. The 1% won't be homeless or hungry, the tax code for which they lobbied is in place and secure. Individuals below them continue to take on debt. The nation continues to do the same. I sincerely desire that this country does go to hell in a handbasket even though I love the country.

    I don't like Capitalist Imperialists. I don't like usury. Like all "Great World Powers before them, the U.S. is set up to fail. As someone wrote here, before. Most Generals don't have good records. My guess is that same lacking may be pervasive. Every government program has failed. Every war they have created for the U.S. to fight in has failed. Every "reform " has been another fleecing of the worker. In recent decades, the money Exchangers have been given free license to steal from those who gambled for a better life. They would put the great J.P. Morgan to shame with their computer-generated theft schemes. "Now you see it. Now, you dont!" That will become America, land that I love.

    [Jun 14, 2017] Are We Nearing Civil War by Patrick J. Buchanan

    Notable quotes:
    "... As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt." ..."
    "... Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded. ..."
    "... Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth defending? ..."
    "... since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of the leakers. ..."
    "... Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person. ..."
    "... It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible. ..."
    "... His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs is not warranted. ..."
    "... "Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance. ..."
    "... I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that. ..."
    "... So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him. ..."
    "... His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e. end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal. ..."
    "... Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary. Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty. ..."
    "... The people of the Swamp are hostage to the Devil. ..."
    Jun 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

    President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.

    We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the sovereign and its own restoration.

    Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart. A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.

    That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret. Few deny it.

    Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president. Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president. Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation, that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking of the DNC.

    Comey's deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president. And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey's friend and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.

    As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt."

    Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.

    "It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.

    Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government, and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.

    The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real criminal "collusion" in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.

    Yet another example is the unfolding "unmasking" scandal.

    While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

    On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump associates unmasked. Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president. The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.

    ... ... ...

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

    FusionPoweredMeatstick June 13, 2017 at 5:45 am GMT

    Comey wanted Mueller in there, and Mueller is doing what he will, because Mueller is there primarily to PROTECT Obama and Clinton and their vast left wing cabal, just like Comey did before he was canned.

    Mucking up Trump's life and those of Trump's people in the process is merely a sweet bonus. Not to mention the excellent distraction/diversion value that provides.

    exiled off mainstreet June 13, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT

    Trump needs to go after the deep state and quit attempting to mollify it with actions such as support of Saudi terrorists. It is a fight to the finish and if the power structure wins, our days are numbered.

    Realist June 13, 2017 at 7:29 am GMT

    Most people in this country don't know what is going on and wouldn't care if they did. Trump and this country are experiencing democracy's waning time in action. And it ain't pretty.

    MEexpert June 13, 2017 at 8:09 am GMT

    Trump is surrounded by judases. His own hand-picked people are not loyal to him, including his vice-president. Trump hasn't shown any cojones that every one expected from him. One little crisis and he has surrendered himself to the neocons. Session is a weak man. He couldn't even stand up to his old buddies who showed no respect to a fellow senator.

    We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the sovereign and its own restoration.

    We already have a civil war. It may be bloodless but it is a civil war which it appears Trump is destined to lose unless he shows some courage and brains to turn the scale against the insurgents.

    He should start by firing Rosenstein (sp) and Mueller and dare the congress to impeach him. He should take his case to the voters that had elected him and urge them to call on congress, especially, the Republicans to support him. He should go back to his pre-election agenda and start pulling the US out of the Middle East and make friendly overtures towards Russia. He also needs to rein in the intelligence commmunity and tell them to get off the Iran case and do some real intelligence work. Stop supporting all insurgents in the Middle East no matter what their affiliation.

    From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive order allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request it. I can't believe he hasn't done this.

    Finally, I thought by now he should have learned that he cannot govern through the Tweeter. He needs to get off of that binge and get serious. So far he does not have any coherent domestic or foreign policy. Bowing down to Israel and Saudi Arabia and do their bidding does not make a foreign policy. One is threatening him while the other is bribing him, neither is a true friend to the US. Except for the supreme court justice position, Trump has nothing to show for his domestic achievements. Republicans need to act as the majority party. They cannot let the Democrats run the congressional business.

    This cannot last for ever.

    hammerfist June 13, 2017 at 9:36 am GMT

    Great article succinct overview. It's a coup we are witnessing

    War for Blair Mountain June 13, 2017 at 9:47 am GMT

    Pat

    Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth defending?

    War for Blair Mountain June 13, 2017 at 10:04 am GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain

    Moreover Donald Trump is hellbent on using the Native Born White Working Class Teeanage Male Population as canon fodder Greater Israel in the Middle East. Trump is a vile, evil creature who will rot in hell for an eternity for doing this .

    The Alarmist June 13, 2017 at 11:24 am GMT

    " will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace."

    As if they're going to stop there. Those breaches of WH security a while back were the Deep State's warning shot, and you see how quickly Trump about-faced in the ME.

    KenH June 13, 2017 at 11:41 am GMT

    @MEexpert

    From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive order allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request it. I can't believe he hasn't done this.

    I agree, but I believe he's kept the EO in place since it's easier to find the leakers this way. But since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of the leakers.

    Trump better cancel the EO if and when the find all the leakers and if he doesn't he'll unmask himself as a fraud who's smitten by absolute government power. Defense of civil liberties has never been his strong suit.

    Anonymous June 13, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT

    @exiled off mainstreet

    Kill Deep State by shutting off funding. Unclassify the whole intelligence budget. Then shut it down. Move the civilian intelligence functions to the military. Return FBI to a domestic agency covering federal crimes, not working closely with CIA or accompanying U.S. military in raids in Afghanistan and Middle East.

    OilcanFloyd June 13, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT

    Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person.

    I think the nation could come unglued, but I don't see the military joining in, at least not on the side of nationalists against the government. The average American soldier seems to be a PC brainwashed, globalist stooge, and the officer class appears to be made up of weak-minded careerists and yes men, little different from the soldiers, so I don't see much help coming from them. Add that to the fact that the government is trying to pass laws giving amnesty to illegals who will join a U.S. military that already has many soldiers of foreign birth or roots, and I don't see much help coming from the military, which seems to become more distant from the population as time goes by.

    Realist June 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm GMT

    It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible.

    He should have confronted those in his party that are out to destroy him Why did he waste his time interviewing loser like Romney? Was he serious about their possible usefulness? Trump doesn't seem to know that he is under assault. He needs to start some serious ass kicking.

    His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs is not warranted.

    "Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance.

    Realist June 13, 2017 at 4:26 pm GMT

    @Corvinus "Idiot."

    At least now you are signing your comments.

    gda June 13, 2017 at 5:50 pm GMT

    @MEexpert If you think he has "nothing to show for his domestic achievements" and that he "does not have any coherent domestic or foreign policy" it suggests to me that you're either a Democratic troll, not paying attention, or just plain ignorant.

    One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be recognized as his signature achievement.

    You can easily find the myriad of other domestic and foreign policy achievements if you really want. But its clear you really don't want.

    I find it amusing that you would side with the enemy in recommending he stop tweeting. How many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the Presidency, BECAUSE he couldn't stop tweeting. They ALL were just as wrong as you are now.

    bluedog June 13, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT

    @Corvinus

    And of course your guessing or assuming when you really don't know war is hell so they say, and we are masters at starting them killing little children, what was the count in Iraq 100,000 500,000 thousand and the masters said it was worth it the problem with the American people including you is its alright as long as it happens in some other country but cry a river at the thoughts it could happen here, now who's the idiot?

    MEexpert June 13, 2017 at 11:53 pm GMT

    @gda

    How many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the Presidency,

    I don't know, because I never said it. LOL. I voted for Trump. So much for your insight into my motives.

    One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be recognized as his signature achievement.

    All this is in the future and unknown. $100 trillions sounds great but who came up with this outrageous number. I am talking about now. If he ends the war, the payoff will be immediate with savings in material cost and lives.

    I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that.

    Sandy Berger's Socks June 14, 2017 at 12:50 am GMT

    So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him.

    His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e. end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal.

    Trump created a vacuum by failing to keep his promises, and his enemies are now using it as a snipers nest.

    Mika-Non June 14, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT

    @Travis That's the essence of it. We can't and won't have a civil war because a civil war requires at least two sides to fight it, and both political parties, all of the institutions, government apparatus, mass media, corporations, and the ruling tribe are on the same side.

    Opposing this is (or was) maybe half the population on a very good day, but what we're seeing is that even half of the population is pretty much powerless in the face of the Empire's juggernaut.

    In my view, the Republicans deserve our special ire because they were in a position to help bring about real change, with this singular opportunity, and they wanted no part of it. Fortunately, their party is toast and we'll enjoy a cataclysm before anyone takes their place. The Democrats? We knew what to expect from them, and still do. They are wrecking this nation systematically.

    Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary. Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty.

    anonymous June 14, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

    The evil empire owes the world a cold refreshing glass of schadenfreude. So, on with it then!!

    anonymous June 14, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT
    @exiled off mainstreet Super-Mega-Evil Imperial terrorists supporting terror from all sides. You think the imperial terrorists can be defeated?

    anonymous June 14, 2017 at 12:32 pm GMT
    @MEexpert " neither is a true friend to the US" You imply that the evil empire can actually be a true friend to others which would be laughable, right? If not, how do you expect others to be just that??

    The people of the Swamp are hostage to the Devil.

    [Jun 14, 2017] Mattis Ready to Blame Russia for Qatar Diplomatic Split by Jason Ditz

    Jun 14, 2017 | news.antiwar.com
    Says He Thinks Russia Just Wants to Break All of the World's Alliances

    assume that last week's report in CNN that Russia had used "fake news" to start the controversy was true, and to elaborate on their motives for that.

    appeared only too eager to make that assumption, as requested, insisting that the he believed this reflected Russia's "shortsighted way" of thinking , and that they want to disrupt all alliances across the planet, not just alliances involving the US, or even just alliances related directly to Europe.

    The narrative blaming Russia for the Qatar split does not have any evidence to substantiate it, and Sen. Warren went out of her way to ensure none might be revealed today. It is worth pointing out, however, that President Trump personally took credit for the split himself when it first happened, crediting it to his visit to Saudi Arabia just days prior.

    Rather, it originates from Qatari state media having quoted the Qatari Emir saying something the Saudis didn't like, and subsequently attributing the quote to "hackers." US media outlets saw the word hackers, and naturally assumed Russia, and it appears that as with everything, this has quickly become something everyone is willing to assume is the case.

    Mattis went on in the course of his testimony to insist he's seen "no indication" that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to have a positive relationship with the United States, apparently taking no note of the several times when Putin literally said that around the 2016 election, and was openly courting diplomatic normalization with the US. Rather, Mattis insists Putin has " chosen to be competitive ."

    The Senate is said to be moving forward on a new round of sanctions against Russia, and some legislation to prevent the Trump Administration from easing the sanctions in any way. There appears to be little interest in gathering actual evidence against Russia to justify this move, and rather seem confident that they can just keep everyone assuming allegations in the media are true.

    [Jun 14, 2017] US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting

    Jun 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne - , June 14, 2017 at 06:10 AM

    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.

    But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....

    anne - , June 14, 2017 at 06:12 AM
    http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=2007&903=5&906=a&905=1000&910=x&911=0

    January 15, 2017

    Defense spending was 58.8% of federal government consumption and investment in 2016. *

    $732.2 / $1,244.5 = 58.8%

    Defense spending was 22.3% of all government consumption and investment in 2016.

    $732.2 / $3,276.7 = 22.3%

    Defense spending was 3.9% of GDP in 2016.

    $732.2 / $18,569.1 = 3.9%

    * Billions of dollars

    Paine - , June 14, 2017 at 07:53 AM
    The congress should pass a law limiting defense to one percent of GDP

    [Jun 14, 2017] NBC Butchered Putins Thoughtful Responses to Megyn Kelly. Good for Ratings - and Warmongers by Gilbert Doctorow

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges. He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on. ..."
    "... In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day. ..."
    "... Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told, says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady but has to tow- the-line. tom • 6 days ago ..."
    "... "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be". ..."
    "... CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!... ..."
    "... She's a media whore...nothing more, nothing less.... ..."
    "... Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the west. ..."
    Jun 08, 2017 | russia-insider.com

    An open letter to NBC News about Megyn Kelly's manipulative and shameful interview with Vladimir Putin Thu, Jun 8, 2017 | 7080 90

    Dear NBC News Team,

    Congratulations! You have graduated from fake news to falsified news, arriving at a journalistic level that is identical to that in the Soviet Union in its heyday.

    A couple of days ago, the political talk show moderated by Vladimir Soloviev on state television channel Rossiya 1 broadcast two versions of a segment from Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir Putin last Friday in the St Petersburg on the sidelines of the International Economic Forum. One was the complete, uncut version that was aired on RT. The other was the cut-to-shreds version that you put on air for the American audience. ( Watch here, beginning 4 minutes into the program .)

    The segment was Megyn Kelly's aggressive question to Putin, asking his response to what she said was Americans' understanding of his government, namely one that murders journalists, suppresses political opposition, is rife with corruption, etc., etc. In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges. He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on.

    In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day.

    Who wins from these games? You are only preconditioning the American public for the war that is coming, whether by intention or by accident. And there will be no one left to have the last laugh after the first day of that war. So you can forget about your stock options and retirement schemes, ladies and gentlemen of the News Team.

    have a nice day

    Gilbert Doctorow

    Brussels

    Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. His forthcoming book Does the United States Have a Future? will be published on 1 September 2017.

    rosewood11 • 6 days ago

    The thing that everyone in the American media wants to ignore is this: If any President of any nation knew that one of the candidates in the national election of his biggest rival intended to start a nuclear war with his country as soon as they were elected, do you think he might be tempted to do anything possible to avoid the war? hillary clinton intended to go to nuclear war with Russia and everybody knew it. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin be tempted to try to keep her out of office. He says he didn't do so, and because I trust him (something I'm not so stupid as to do with hillary!!!), I choose to believe him. However, I wouldn't blame him if he had pulled out all the stops to keep her out of office, and can only thank him or any other "patriotic Russian" who saved America from a fate worse than death--namely having a fourth-degree black magic witch as President!!! And that's in addition to saving the lives of millions of people on both sides of the oceans.

    You mentioned in the article that RT ran an uncut version of Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir Putin. I tried going to the link you provided, but the show was in Russian without subtitles. Is there a version of the full interview offered anywhere with subtitles or voice-over for those of us in the US who would like to see it? I'd like to know what else Mr. Putin said. see more

    Peter Paul 1950 rosewood11 • 6 days ago

    Try you tube and enter "putin megyn kelly" and you'll find dozens of clips ... and as to why Putin never intervened may become clear if you take notice of the following .... already in the beginning of 2016 the Russians must have discovered that plans existed to murder Trump ... I read a leaked message that the Russians were ready for war should that occur ... and apparently sent a secret message ... long before the election they had already figured out that Trump was going to win the election because they knew of Hillary's true intentions also ... they had no need to intervene because there are and were forces opposed to her then existing plans to ignite war ... and there must be much more to that, because Putin sent an escort to Antarctica before Kyrill even went there .... and later met the Pope in Mexico ... Kyrill went on to declare a Holy War against Terror a year ago ... a long time before the election took place .... and Kerry slipped off on election day to visit Antarctica himself ... and fell out of bed and bumped his head doing so ... see more

    Peter Paul 1950 • see more

    rosewood11 Peter Paul 1950 • 5 days ago I agree with Astrid (below) in thanking you for the youtube hint. You mentioned the Antarctic. I notice all the globalists seem to be making that a "destination," but I've never seen Putin go himself (good!!!). Anybody know what the fascination is--Is Steve Quayle right? see more

    Peter Paul 1950 rosewood11 • 5 days ago

    One can't really be sure who is right and if any kind of exaggeration plays a large part of all the tales that have become more public thanks to the internet ...
    ... it's shrouded in mystery that almost anything seems to make some kind of sense ... I first heard of the Nazi connection with the discovery and founding of Newschwabenland and Project High Jump with Admiral Byrd in a private conversation decades in my younger years, but only through the internet was it possible to find out more ... everyone seem so make it a great mystery that there is something there nobody dares to make official ... even Vault 7 appears to add to all the whisperings by adding a collection of photos without comment ... much room for speculation ... but it does seem to be of some importance ... see more

    Richard Burton rosewood11 • 4 days ago

    Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told, says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady but has to tow- the-line. tom • 6 days ago

    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be".

    - Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey (1816)

    RussG • 6 days ago

    Putin should sue NBC for falsifying his interview. And, Putin should never agree again to an interview by one of the US MSM. Vasya Pypkin • 6 days ago Faked or falsified news. Could the author provide an example of similar news falsification by Soviet Union media. After many years I find that Soviet media actually was telling truth but smart assses among our population tended to believe lies by Western voices. Many who are still alive regret.

    Otherwise good article. The western media is nothing but lies cloaka. Soviet media also was not entertaining enough mostly talking about industries, crops, health and other substantial and important things while life was stable and predictable.

    Now Russian population is being constantly entertained, but there is little to report on industrial front and there is no confidence in future. Ruble is up and down and crude same. Was it worth to fjkuck up great country to have more entertainment and some artifial sausages varieties while losing what is the most important for human beings. Sorry for a rant. AMHants • 6 days ago Surprise surprise, George Eliason - Op Ed News, was right, all along:

    CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!...

    http://themillenniumreport.... Nofearorfavor • 5 days ago

    But we all expected this .... It is only that by law, Russia should be able to sue any newscast for editing and thus misrepresenting in particular -- the Russian president's words and thoughts, because of occupying the highest office in Russia. As Gilbert said, the gravity of what it could portend for Americans, is mounting daily...

    Rossiya 1 would perhaps be more cautious second time around ... make it a condition that what the president or any official of the Russian Federation said on tape, should be broadcast in full and no editing -- or face have their pants sued off . What a shameless and gutless excuse for a journalist this Kelly is!

    Strange Quark • 5 days ago

    The West has never been a democracy! During the Cold War the so called "democracy" was just a voting facade to hide the fact that the West is OLIGARCHY. What choice do American citizens have in their elections? TWO (that is 2!) parties which both run basically the same imperialist, neocolonialist, hegemonic policy. And economic policy is also the same - neoliberal meaning privatization, outsourcing, policies that favor the rich and harm the poor... Only bloody revolutions can change things. You cannot change the system with voting pencils! Pencils have never changed anything anywhere. Robert Keith • 6 days ago Megyn Kelly is, granted, a step above your run-of-the-mil, blond, airhead, TV talking head. I don't know whether President Putin suffered from the juxtaposition, what with her typical-for-TV mundane questions, but, probably not, because it allowed him to give down-to-earth answers to the questions that most Americans seem to be asking themselves, inane though they be. He is very skilled at this, because he makes himself available to his countryman in the same way on a regular basis it seems.

    If one searched elsewhere for the full video, which was available (on this blog), he came across very well, I must say. We will spare the readership any comment on the relative merits of his performance in comparison to what we night have heard from our Chief Executive.

    disqus_xp4GYx7DZk Robert Keith • 6 days ago

    She's a media whore...nothing more, nothing less.... see more

    Isabella Jones • 6 days ago

    Well, yes it's infuriating, but it was also so very predictable. When I complained about this wretched woman and her boring, predicted and repetitive questions leaving unasked anything to do with the forum leaders speeches and the masses of trade discussion that had happened during the meeting, I was told by many "that this is how Putin can show the West the truth".

    No - he can't, because we know they manipulate, cut, change, and frame it to make it look any way they want. Only those who need no convincing got to see the whole truth - and most of us know it already.

    The only thing to do is ignore America, treat it like the meaningless 3 rd World country it is rapidly sinking into - and get intelligent moderators from elsewhere. see more

    Peter Isabella Jones • 6 days ago

    "... the meaningless 3 rd World country it is rapidly sinking into ..."

    *Exactly* the conclusion at which the known French demographer and historian Emmanuel Todd arrived in his 2001 book "Aprθs L'Empire: essai sur la dιcomposition du systθme amιricain" ("After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order"). His scientific analysis was based primarily on purely demographic data, in addition to other factors: https://www.amazon.com/Afte... . An interesting reading.

    See also his 2003 interview on that topic to Neue Zόrcher Zeitung, titled "Das eingebildete Imperium", https://www.nzz.ch/article8... the English translation "The Conceited Empire" is at http://www.countercurrents.... . see more

    Isabella Jones Peter • 6 days ago

    Interesting. I had not heard of this man - so thank you for the link Peter. He seems to be thinking along the same lines as Dmitry Orlov, but coming from an Academic and Historian view point. Orlov just saw much of the Russian collapse - he has family in Russia, it is his native language, and he lived there during part of the 1990's if I understand him correctly. He drew a parallel between USSR and America - coming to the same conclusion as this Msr. Todd.

    We are all wondering, of course "when". ?

    It's like knowing the very obese man next door who already has heart and BP problems coupled with Diabetes, but takes no exercise and eats fast food like a hungry pig, is going to have a massive physical break down and die.

    It's just that there 's no way of predicting exactly when. Nofearorfavor Isabella Jones • 5 days ago I remember when Putin agreed to be interviewed by Charlie Rose in Sep 2015, condition was that CBS produced the full 60 minutes uncut, which then ran into over 60 minutes. However found this interesting article on State of the Nation about the interview ... El Maestro wiping the floor with Rose and not doing anything to help along his flagging ratings ....now this Kelly tried to do the same and she fell flat on her face... no journalistic integrity at all ...

    http://stateofthenation2012...

    Pretty sorry ass she is ..

    L Garou • 3 days ago NBC/CIA.

    Edward Mercer L Garou • 2 days ago

    Clarification? see more

    L Garou Edward Mercer • 2 days ago

    You can't spell M$M without the CIA.

    chris chuba • 4 days ago

    My recommendation for anyone who is being interviewed for American TV is to find out how long the TV segment is and only allow the total interview time to be 1.5 times that amount to only allow reasonable editing, not the standard butchery. So in this case, a 15 minute interview would be sourced by 25 minutes, not the two hours that Putin must have given Kelly since he spent a day with her.

    In all fairness, they had to butcher the question on Russian democracy, journalist killings, etc because Kelly chose to spend 95% of the air time on moronic questions about 'election meddling' as if that deserved more than one question and the expected denial. What the heck did Kelly expect Putin to day about election meddling, yet she kept going back to it. see more

    Augustine • 4 days ago

    Unlike in America, in the Soviet Union the people knew that there was no truth in the Pravda nor news in the Izvestya. Nowadays there are more Bolsheviks in New York than in St. Petersburg. see more

    Richard Burton • 4 days ago

    nbc are msnbc the same degenerate-infested propaganda US/ BS.

    Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the west.

    Of course the lying bums, the democrats hate it that their 'Miss Piggy' Clinton was beaten, they will keep on their crap for years, nbc and many other so-called news outlets are democrat-lapping rats who spew-out the lies, hate and shit everyday, those slime at cnn are the same pork as is the US poodle Canada's cbc. see more

    angrywhiteman • 4 days ago

    More info on US democracy:

    BREAKING : This Powerful Seth Rich Video is GOING VIRAL http://truthfeed.com/breaki...

    Voter Fraud Federal Investigator Found Murdered http://yournewswire.com/vot...

    "The answer to why Seth Rich was killed, and why he gave to WikiLeaks is now out" https://kauilapele.wordpres...

    http://stateofthenation2012... see more

    Wanda Gumm • 6 days ago

    Where Megyn failed, NBC succeeds in editorializing Putin as the village idiot. How long before these horse-driven dimwits drown in the cesspools they dig for others? I don't see any way out of this but war. It's not the fictitious 'deep state' Russia should be concerned with, but Trump himself. Playing the Elder.

    [Jun 14, 2017] If it looks like the Russians did it, I can guarantee you it was not the Russians

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some news now trickling into the blogosphere that the Democratic National Convention paid Crowdstrike – that's the cyber-security firm headed by Dmitri Alperovich with links to the Chalupa sisters and the Ukrainian diaspora in North America – to hack into its own server. ..."
    insider.foxnews.com
    Jun 09, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jen , June 8, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    Here's my good (?) deed for the day.

    Some news now trickling into the blogosphere that the Democratic National Convention paid Crowdstrike – that's the cyber-security firm headed by Dmitri Alperovich with links to the Chalupa sisters and the Ukrainian diaspora in North America – to hack into its own server.

    "DNC Russian Hackers Found!"
    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=62536

    "CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!"
    http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/06/dnc-hackers-finally-identified/

    Global Commenter , June 8, 2017 at 5:42 pm

    Earlier noted in this brilliant piece:

    http://www.eurasiareview.com/07062017-sanctioning-russia-analysis/

    Excerpt –

    "In the US, talk of a Donald Trump-Russian government collusion against Hillary Clinton gets more attention than some other possibilities. Cyber-security developer John McAfee said: "If it looks like the Russians did it, I can guarantee you it was not the Russians." There's a wave of anti-Russian sentiment, as evidenced by the lack of US mass media and body politic condemnation to former National Security Agency (NSA) Director James Clapper's bigoted anti-Russian comment.

    The subject of anti-Russian propaganda brings to mind the pro-Kiev regime leaning Atlantic Council and its cyber-security member CrowdStrike. Entities like them are silent in instances like when Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko falsely stated that Jews in Crimea are prohibited from observing their faith, since that area's reunification with Russia."

    [Jun 14, 2017] Oliver Stone interview is further evidence of hostile press, but he manages to rise above it.

    Jun 14, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Carolinian , June 13, 2017 at 2:18 pm

    If not already linked

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/12/oliver-stone-reveals-a-vulnerable-putin/

    At one point Stone watches Dr. Strangelove with Putin

    After watching the movie with Stone, Putin reflects on its enduring message. "The thing is that since that time little has changed," Putin says. "The only difference is that the modern weapon systems have become more sophisticated, more complex. But this idea of retaliatory weapons, and the inability to control such weapon systems still hold true to this day. It has become even more difficult, more dangerous."

    Stone then gives Putin the movie's DVD case, which Putin carries into an adjoining office before realizing that it is empty. He reemerges, holding the empty case with the quip, "Typical American gift."

    Montanamaven , June 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    Oliver Stone interview is further evidence of hostile press, but he manages to rise above it. Oliver Stone Interview

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 13, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    Perhaps Nixon was not so paranoid about resisting the media, which has grown ever more powerful in the last 40 plus years, since Watergate.

    To the extent they are thought of as guarding the nation's health, who will guard the guards, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    This battle between Trump and the media is long overdue, I believe.

    Will we see a swing back by the media toward the middle? We will see.

    John , June 13, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    The media is a privatized neoliberal corporate parasite. It has only one function extracting money from the host. It is amoral and pragmatically political. It will say anything to make money.

    Huey Long , June 13, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    To the extent they are thought of as guarding the nation's health, who will guard the guards, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    I nominate George Smiley.

    Annotherone , June 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm

    We accidentally caught Stephen Colbert interviewing Oliver Stone last evening on a Late Show – I was disgusted by Colbert's treatment of Stone – also disgusting was the audience (obviously coached and organised to jeer and boo). No doubt Colbert was under orders from his corporate bosses – though maybe that's being too kind to him. Controlling the minds of the masses!

    lyman alpha blob , June 13, 2017 at 8:18 pm

    Just watched that and it was awful, but also very clarifying. Colbert's selling out just like Maddow did – she was actually pretty good on Air America a decade ago when she had a show with Daily Show creatrix Liz Winstead.

    Colbert and the audience just assume demonization of Putin is justified while being oblivious to the log (or forest might be more apt) in Uncle Sugar's eye. Wonder how they would describe him if Russian domestic security forces routinely gunned down hundreds or thousands of Russian citizens every year. Some might consider that a sign of a very oppressive government .

    Frustrating to watch people fall for this villain du jour schtick every single time.

    Plenue , June 13, 2017 at 10:26 pm

    I haven't paid attention to Colbert since 2013, when he played a role in the attempt to resuscitate Kissinger's public image (he later allowed Kissinger onto his show for a friendly interview). Oddly I can't seem to find the full video itself, but here's an ABC report on it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaqhA5qTf7I

    So he had already sold out before he even left Comedy Central.

    Roger Smith , June 13, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    I saw a preview of this on twitter recently. There is the analogous "President" of a country, driving himself, a body guard, and Oliver Stone down the highway. It was such a typical scene, no black limos, no cargo helicopters, no long walks and slow camera pans, just some dudes in traffic. I was wondering if Seinfeld was in the back.

    [Jun 13, 2017] Looks like the Saudis have pretty much bought us off with their ridiculously large arms purchases and other ways of sending their billions our way

    Notable quotes:
    "... So watch the lies if you want to know when the next war is coming. If the House of Saud, the Israelis and Donald Trump are talking trash and seem to agree about something then it is time to head for the bomb shelter. Will it be Iran or an escalating catastrophe in Syria? Anything is possible. ..."
    "... The Israeli and Saudi lobbies, and associated actors, seem to have had some success. I still don't see it going much further, Trump instinctively doesn't want another Iraq on his watch whatever the likes of Mattis etc. wish to engineer. ..."
    "... what's been mostly forgotten is that Hearst and his newspapers largely opposed Washington's entry into both WWI and WWII. ' Citizen Kane' and the endless array of Hearst-bashing references ignore this neglected yet significant fact. ..."
    "... All in accord with the rest of the Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iran which Netanyahu's Israel AIPAC agent Kushner has duped the Saudis into supporting as well because of their Sunni vs Shia hatred of Iran: ..."
    "... Looks like the Saudis have pretty much bought us off with their ridiculously large arms purchases and other ways of sending their billions our way. Money talks. The other stuff is just window dressing. We're their hired help and security guard. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | www.unz.com
    truthtellerAryan Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:07 am GMT

    Hi PG, could our commander-in-chief have had ulterior reasons to cook up the ostracizing of Qatar?

    https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_593d6691e4b0c5a35ca06118/amp

    Mind you, we have these obese brainless stooges who would dance to any tune as long as they're assured they'll still be in power comes tomorrow. Now the assurance has also been approved by the masters, DJT is in deeply with the Ziocons . When our masters accomplish this mission, than we'll again be led to the next one. The Ayrabs don't seem to get it yet. They'll all end up in the Zionists slaughterhouse
    It seems Gen. Clark was right, just a little diversion here.
    What will become of the average Goy?

    exiled off mainstreet Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:08 am GMT

    Let me commend Mr. Giraldi for another excellent contribution. The Saudi regime is the chief enemy of civilization and those backing it are tarred with the same brush. It is disappointing to see Trump taken in by the deep state love of the Saudi barbarians.

    Miro23 Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:37 am GMT

    So watch the lies if you want to know when the next war is coming. If the House of Saud, the Israelis and Donald Trump are talking trash and seem to agree about something then it is time to head for the bomb shelter. Will it be Iran or an escalating catastrophe in Syria? Anything is possible.

    A fine article, and the answer to all this surely lies with the US. If Trump had pulled out of Middle East conflicts (as he was elected to do), all this talk would be much less dangerous. Israel and Saudi Arabia aren't going to attack Iran on their own.

    Fran Macadam Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT

    It's The Art of the War Deal.

    LondonBob Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:44 am GMT

    The Israeli and Saudi lobbies, and associated actors, seem to have had some success. I still don't see it going much further, Trump instinctively doesn't want another Iraq on his watch whatever the likes of Mattis etc. wish to engineer.

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT

    @Mark Green

    what's been mostly forgotten is that Hearst and his newspapers largely opposed Washington's entry into both WWI and WWII. ' Citizen Kane' and the endless array of Hearst-bashing references ignore this neglected yet significant fact.

    Very, very true, and funny how that works. In the same way Charles Lindbergh, because of his opposition to entering WW2, has been egregiously smeared as an "anti-Semite" and the charge still sticks to this day.

    Thanks for pointing that out, and informing us about Poo-litzer.

    RealAmerican Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT

    @anon An anonymous dim-witted nincompoop attacking the honorable and brave Mr. Giraldi for speaking the truth. The definition of cowardice, I bet.

    AmericaFirstNow Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:11 am GMT

    All in accord with the rest of the Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iran which Netanyahu's Israel AIPAC agent Kushner has duped the Saudis into supporting as well because of their Sunni vs Shia hatred of Iran:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/07/13/the-unfolding-of-yinons-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-the-crisis-in-iraq-and-the-centrality-of-the-national-interest-of-israel/

    Netanyahu's Israel 1st AIPAC agent Kushner has Trump pushing Israel Lobby agenda vs Syria as well:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2012/02/12/israel-lobby-pushes-for-us-action-against-the-syrian-government/

    No surprise when pandering Hillary Clinton pushed Syrian regime change for Israel's sake as well:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2016/03/22/clinton-email-shows-us-sought-syria-regime-change-for-israels-sake/

    So ISIS attacks Europe and US because of Israel:

    So no surprise when Netanyahu said US is easily manipulated at following URL:

    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/07/18/netanyahu-us-easily-manipulated

    George Washington must be rolling in his grave for pandering US politicians who ignore his Farewell Address warning at following URL:

    http://astandforjustice.org/#washington

    Anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT

    @exiled off mainstreet

    Let me commend Mr. Giraldi for another excellent contribution. The Saudi regime is the chief enemy of civilization and those backing it are tarred with the same brush. It is disappointing to see Trump taken in by the deep state love of the Saudi barbarians. "The Saudi regime is the chief enemy of civilization "

    Looks like you have a problem with reading comprehension. Read the first two paragraphs again, and then review who is indeed the Chief enemy of civilisation.

    AmericaFirstNow Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT

    @AmericaFirstNow

    Just noticed that the youtube for Michael Scheuer's CNN interview with Smerconish about ISIS didn't go through in prior post! Following one should:
    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT

    @anon

    Iran poses no threat to the Native Born White American Working Class.

    Your allegiance is to Greater Israel

    Phil and I have 0 allegiance to Israel Donald Trump's allegiance is to Greater Israel and this makes Donald Trump a GOD DAM TRAITOR!!! ...

    dearieme Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:26 am GMT

    "The United States has been using lies to go to war since 1846″: 1812.

    ANON Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT

    @Mark Green Well I have to thank you for prompting me to read up on Joseph Pulitzer"s remarkable career but I can't commend your attention to detail or recommend you as a source of accurate information to others.

    There is a slight problem about your blaming him for being (before WW1) "pro US intervention in Europe" having "demonized Imperial Germany" and then that he "helped sanitize American efforts (pre WW2) to help the British". *He died in 1911* .

    Interesting to compare Pulitzer's great career with that of another Central European Jew who immigrated with no English but built a popular newspaper empire. Both served in the armed forces of their adopted country. The other is that appalling rogue Robert Maxwell.

    AmericaFirstNow Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT

    See following article from Jewish Forward publication on how Netanyahu's Israel 1st AIPAC agent Kushner (who arranged Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia and Israel) has brought other Jewish AIPAC Israel 1sters into the White House:

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/359120/jared-kushners-friend-picked-by-donald-trump-as-assistant/

    NoseytheDuke Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT

    @Wizard of Oz Idiot! The lie that OBL was involved in any way in 9/11 for just one. The lie that he was killed in the Delta 6 raid in Pakistan is another.

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:38 am GMT

    Speaking of lies, war and the media, let us not forget the blatant lying about Stalin's crimes by Walter Duranty published in the New York Times for which the scumbag was awarded a prize by Pulitzer, another Red Millionaire.

    It took the Times around half a century to begin to publicly admit to its callous malfeasance, yet apparently..

    The Pulitzer board has twice declined to withdraw the award, most recently in November 2003, finding "no clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception" in the 1931 reporting that won the prize (see Pulitzer Board statement), and The Times does not have the award in its possession.

    - New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty

    http://www.nytco.com/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/

    Also note that in the statement, they deceitfully attempt to shift the responsibility for dirtball reporting on the effects of Soviet censorship, which though real, is no excuse for their mendacity.

    anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

    Looks like the Saudis have pretty much bought us off with their ridiculously large arms purchases and other ways of sending their billions our way. Money talks. The other stuff is just window dressing. We're their hired help and security guard.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 12:52 pm GMT

    Phil

    Seriously 1846 is not relevant .and anyone who thinks it is in the context of opposing the ongoing war against Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran is not really a serious anti-war critic ..You need to deal with the fact that many of us here on Unz Review do not suffer from even a speck of White Guilt .even Old Noam Chomsky likes his precious Israel Jew only .which is the reason why Noam and Norman Finklestien are opposed to the right of return for Palestinians

    So be a good phenomenologist and remember that context is everything

    Philip Giraldi Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT

    @MSB Done! Thanks for catching it!

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT

    Jun 6, 2017 America's Reign of Terror: A Nation Reaps What It Sows

    The U.S. government is creating the terror. It is, in fact, the source of the terror. Just think about it for a minute: almost every tyranny being perpetrated against the citizenry-purportedly to keep us safe and the nation secure-has come about as a result of some threat manufactured in one way or another by the U.S. government.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 1:23 pm GMT

    Phil

    I can tell you from first hand personal family reasons that the filthy cockroach Donald Trump has very big plans to slaughter the Working Class Native Born White Christian American Male Teenager Population by using them as canon fodder for Greater Israel in a war with Shia Muslim Iran. This is Donald Trump's MAGA JOBS PROGRAM .post-Gruman Corp MAGA rally a year ago

    Trump is as much of a filthy repellent cockroach as Hillary and Bill Clinton.

    It looks like Trump's red hat MAGA HAT WEARING CHICKENHAWK WARHAWK JOCKSNIFFING White Male Voting Bloc Cucks and they are most definitely CUCKS who deserve to have the shit beat out of them .have given Trump a blank check to 1)bomb Hezzbollah in Syria and 2)bomb Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel

    Donald Trump+Hillary Clinton=a "cute" post-nuclear WW3 cockroach breeding pair .a 13 billion year COCKROACH RIECH!!!

    Wizard of Oz Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

    @NoseytheDuke I never doubted that you think that but PG is a comparatively serious person and I wondered what he would say, choosing his words as carefully as he quite often seems to. Come to think of it I think he's been caught out being a bit careless on some of his other details this time.

    And what's your version of sbat happened at Abbotabad and why?

    nsa Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

    The jooies and their kept eunuchs in wash dc are complaining their precious US (((holocaust))) museum is only being funded with 54 million in American taxpayer funds. This underfunding is very serious as they will have to close the lampshade wing and the soap bar exhibition. Contact your congressional whore immediately and complain ..

    anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Hey Happy Guy ,
    Whats the problem. Giraldi is always whining about America and praising Iran. Why should he stay here . If he likes Iran so much he should move there . Do you think Giraldi should disclose if he has received money from any Iranian entity ??

    Wizard of Oz Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

    @NoseytheDuke Presumably you think ObL died much earlier than the Navy Seals raid. But why would Obama go along with the charade? No doubt you would say he was looking for political advantage domestically – to which of course I answer that he wouldn't be so dumb as to believe that no one would blow the whistle.

    Let's move on to whete you say the extremely long and detailed account of ObL's death in Wikipedia is wrong and say why. In particular, how come Al Qaeda and other Muslim organisations announced his death and threatened revenge?

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT

    @anon Well now first of all, .I want to greet you with a great big FUCK OFF!!! .Dearest Ivanka

    The target of Phil's venom are the Jewish Neocons .and non-Jewish Neocons:The homo- cannibal General Mattis .Hannibal Lectre look-a-like General McMaster in-a-flava-bean-salad with the homo General Mattis .and the filthy cockroach breeding pair Donald Trump and his cockroach husband Hillary Clinton .and the SATANIST!!! that own and run the Military Industrial Complex ..the treasonous SATANIC NON-AMERICAN-ANTI-AMERICAN CABAL spawned in Satan's personal toilet bowl in rancid rotting corpse strewn HELL!!

    Z-man Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT

    @Mark Green True, thank you and depressing, but hope springs eternal and I'm hoping Trump still has some independent thought and some patriotism and patriots behind him!

    Chris Mallory Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete

    Mexico had more right to Tejas than the Zionist gangsters have to Palestine.

    Neither group has any claim to the land. Mexico invited the Americans into Texas, primarily because Mexico could not deal with the Comanche who lived in Texas and raided both Texas and Mexico. Mexico then lost the war against the Texans and lost all claim to Texas.

    Much of the SW, though claimed by Mexico was controlled by either the Comanche or the Apache.

    Those tribes might have a claim, but Mexico has none.

    David Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

    @Lot You're displaying poor moral character to call the author America-hating.

    Z-man Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT

    @AmericaFirstNow Unfortunately Mr. Scheuer hasn't been on TV much lately.

    Z-man Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

    @AmericaFirstNow See following article from Jewish Forward publication on how Netanyahu's Israel 1st AIPAC agent Kushner (who arranged Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia and Israel) has brought other Jewish AIPAC Israel 1sters into the White House:

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/359120/jared-kushners-friend-picked-by-donald-trump-as-assistant/ The infestations continue.

    Z-man Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT

    @anonymous

    Looks like the Saudis have pretty much bought us off with their ridiculously large arms purchases and other ways of sending their billions our way. Money talks. The other stuff is just window dressing. We're their hired help and security guard.

    Ah but there's the rub, and a good one, as the die hard Zionists in the US Congress, isn't that redundant, are already complaining about the deal. http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-senate-democrats-rallying-votes-against-saudi-arms-sale
    Hopefully the rats will kill themselves!

    Theres also this from 'Up Chuck' Schumer;

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/schumer-to-oppose-smart-bomb-sale-to-saudi-arabia

    Mark Green Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT

    @ANON Joseph Pulitzer II ran the St. Louis Post Dispatch and NY World after his father's death. He was a staunch supporter of FDR.

    MarkinLA Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete Mexico lost Texas because Santa Anna made himself a dictator and caused revolts all around Mexico. The Texans just happened to win. Mexico was trying to raise an army to retake it when the US annexed Texas.

    Mexico made the stupid mistakes. Mexico knew the US wanted Texas and California. Mexico had rejected offers to buy them. Mexico should have done everything it could to avoid giving the US a chance to grab them.

    Dutch Boy Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

    @Lot Quite correct. Polk wanted to buy the eventual Mexican Cession, not conquer it.

    Santoculto Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

    @anon Jewnonymous

    Realist Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 4:36 pm GMT

    "In a 2009 State Department memo signed off on by Hillary Clinton it was stated that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.""

    Why the hell would use anything Clinton said or did to advocate a position?

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 4:47 pm GMT

    @Chris Mallory You are correct that the Mexicans invited Americans into Texas, (talk about the negative effects of encouraging immigration), and Mexico may never have had much claim to the land, but they still have a more legitimate claim than the Zionist gangsters have on Palestine.

    In fact, if there were no oil in the region, I suspect the Zionists would all move to NYC!

    Rurik Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 4:53 pm GMT

    @Mark Green

    Note that the Saudi Royals 1) have totally accepted Israel, 2) have absolutely nothing negative to say (or do) regarding Israel's subjugation of Palestine, 3) are hostile to Iran (like Israel), and 4) are willing also to accept the Kingdoms's second-tier military status vis-a-vis Israel.

    For these reasons, the authoritarian, undemocratic, and terror-funding Royal Saudi family is totally 'in sync' with Zio-Washington. The Saudis are even safe from any potential US-Israeli destabilization campaign. (At least for now.)

    to understand the Saudi leadership, you need only see how they got along with Iran during the reign of the Shah; a Zio/Anglo quisling installed after the CIA putsch that removed the legitimate, democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27ιtat

    Under the quisling puppet Shah, Iran was terrorized by a CIA/Mossad run organization notorious for its torture methods.

    Time magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution" which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents."[24] The Federation of American Scientists also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963–79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails."[25]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

    it was during this reign of Zionist and Anglo terror that the corrupt House of Saud got along wonderfully with the Shah's Zio-Iran. Here you see the king of Saudi Arabia dancing for the amusement of the treacherous little Shah:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYIft-_FcYQ

    - who exhorted the rulers of Saudi Arabia to embrace the cultural and spiritual sewage of the Zio-West thus:

    "Please, my brother, modernize. Open up your country. Make the schools mixed women and men. Let women wear miniskirts. Have discos. Be modern. Otherwise I cannot guarantee you will stay on your throne."[15]

    as long as Iran was under the thrall of the Fiend, the Saudi were their bestest buddies ever. They were also bestest buddies with Israel and England and the ZUSA.

    so much treachery and evil and oppression and murder and torture.. it makes the head spin.

    anyways, what do you expect from a fiend, I guess

    so today the Saudis are still under the thrall of the same Fiend, but Iran is not. Hence Saudi Arabia assassinates Shia clerics it doesn't like, and Iran gets blamed for human rights violations.

    The lies and mendacity and treachery are nearly beyond comprehension. The Saudis toss their fellow Arabs in Palestine under the Zionist bus, and fund and foment ISIS to crucify Christians and burn men alive. The stark divisions between good and evil (if there are such concepts) could hardly be more glaring.

    and yet the Zio-fiend has Trump making nice with the murderous, terrorist-funding Saudis, while saber rattling at the peaceful and civilized Iran.

    great article yet again Mr. Giraldi --

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 5:11 pm GMT

    @MarkinLA Yeah, I know all about it. At one time I was a great admirer of the Texians, and the constitution of the Texas Republic, and used to love to visit the Alamo before it was done over. Anyway my main point was not about Mexico or Texas.

    BTW, as you probably know, Davey Crockett was one of the original "Love it or Leave It" dudes and left the US in disgust (in 1836) with craven, dishonest, politicians after his stints in government including Congress and headed for Texas telling the story that if not re-elected, his constituents could go to Hell, and [he] would go to Texas.

    Rotten politicians are an original and permanent feature of American political life, it seems.

    Z-man Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 5:41 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain

    The homo- cannibal General Mattis .

    LOL!!!

    Sam McGowan Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 5:43 pm GMT

    I've been to Iran and anyone who thinks a war there would be easy has rocks in their head.

    Jake Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:09 pm GMT

    I believe Qatar has the highest per capita income (for its citizens) in the world. That can never sit well with the House of Saud.

    The British Empire made the House of Saud what it is, and the American successors of the Brits intend to keep the con game going. Wise and decent US leadership would recognize the Saudis as the worst of the Middle East and act accordingly. But the English all but created them, and we follow the English lead. And ow that the Israelis dearly love the Saudis, we can expect to see US-Israeli-Saudi mischief all over the region.

    iveritas Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT

    PG is a true and a great patriot. those who have the chutzpa to tell PG, "move to Iran", my message to you is, move to Saudi Arabia or to Israel. But then again, most likely you're already there.

    On the plus side, the personal attacks on PG are great. It means he must be doing something right.

    Not to mention, when comments take the form of personal attacks instead of arguing the principle tenants of the article, it means the other side doesn't have a defensible point of view. Which only means PG's assertions are correct and indisputable.

    I see some red-blooded Americans arguing about Texas, not being in Mexico. These people are forgetting the best form of patriotism is true understanding of our history as a nation. Ignorance and waiving a flag alone is not patriotism. Patriotism is defending the foundation and principles of our nation. Mainly, our constitution. Texas or the number of stars on our flag, etc. does not make America. America for me is the principles our founding father put forth. Which was formulated in a document far advanced for its time (even for today) in the form of our constitution.

    Anything outside of the framework of our nation, I consider false or anger-patriotism. There is a reason why media has played a role in shaping the wars of choice mentioned in this article. Because faced with true facts against the framework of our constitution, those wars are not in the best interests of the public or the country.

    Thank you, PG!

    edNels Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain

    Now that's something. 13 billion years of COCKROACH REICK PESTILENCE!

    Who or what is underlying the common denominator that makes it compelling to work so hard to bring about the ideal conditions for the Cockroach infestation that will grow after the Nuclear conflagration that is the fruit of Heimy science? (Poison/long half-lives.)

    Or, what is the correlation in DNA of the Cockroach and some humanoids? Ever think of that?

    God (as he may be understood,) or not, has infinity to work it out, and one lead that should be gone into could be where (from a concept called "Morphic Resonance" which posits that within DNA code there is much dormant potentiality, that also can be shown to tie together various diverse life forms.

    INO's, some of the humans are in effect analogous to David Icke's ideas about lizards, or like the Bodysnatchers concept of long ago SF movies, (the one with Kevin McCarthy in BW was good).

    The proclivities of, or the fruits of, the Drift The point aimed at by some people!

    They seem to want to reset Earth to another beginning. A CockRoach Reich!

    Thanks for the idea!

    Mark Green Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:36 pm GMT

    @iveritas Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Here is an outstanding essay that distinguishes between patriotism and nationalism. The author is none other than Joe Sobran.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/joseph-sobran/patriotism-or-nationalism/

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT

    @Sam McGowan I don't think a shooting war on Iran is imminent; it's enough to yap about imagined threats to keep people glued to the media and thinking we need the protection of crazies. No threat, less "need" for politicians and the military.

    The more threats, the more dollars for the nut jobs amongst us.

    Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

    H.L. Mencken, In Defense of Women (1918)

    Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor produced a timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning ~38 years ago.

    A timeline of warnings since 1979. Breathless warnings that the Islamic Republic will soon be at the brink of nuclear capability have been made for decades. Here is a chronicle of predictions.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminent-Iran-nuclear-threat-A-timeline-of-warnings-since-1979/Israel-s-one-year-timeframe-disproved-2010-11

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT

    @iveritas PG is a true and a great patriot. those who have the chutzpa to tell PG, "move to Iran", my message to you is, move to Saudi Arabia or to Israel. But then again, most likely you're already there.

    On the plus side, the personal attacks on PG are great. It means he must be doing something right.

    Not to mention, when comments take the form of personal attacks instead of arguing the principle tenants of the article, it means the other side doesn't have a defensible point of view. Which only means PG's assertions are correct and indisputable.

    I see some red-blooded Americans arguing about Texas, not being in Mexico. These people are forgetting the best form of patriotism is true understanding of our history as a nation. Ignorance and waiving a flag alone is not patriotism. Patriotism is defending the foundation and principles of our nation. Mainly, our constitution. Texas or the number of stars on our flag, etc. does not make America. America for me is the principles our founding father put forth. Which was formulated in a document far advanced for its time (even for today) in the form of our constitution.

    Anything outside of the framework of our nation, I consider false or anger-patriotism. There is a reason why media has played a role in shaping the wars of choice mentioned in this article. Because faced with true facts against the framework of our constitution, those wars are not in the best interests of the public or the country.

    Thank you, PG!

    Patriotism is defending the foundation and principles of our nation. Mainly, our constitution.

    You sound like a highly respectable sort, and I agree with a lot of your comment, but you may want to reconsider your ideas about that document. I consider it a huge link in the chain around our necks. As for the "founding fathers," they were of opposing minds and the anti-federalists had good reasons for arguing against the imposition of the constitution. They were mostly correct.

    In fact, Patrick Henry refused to attend the Constitutional Convention saying, "I smell a rat." He could have been totally anosmic and still would have been able to smell one, or more likely, quite a few.

    The document stinks, and here's why*.:

    The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'ιtat.

    It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production - Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

    Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
    [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson]

    https://mises.org/library/liberty-vs-constitution-early-struggle

    *My apologies to those who've seen this numerous times before, but it's a critical message and obviously must be presented to each individual as (s)he steps forward. Thanks in advance for your patience as well as your indulgence!

    truthtellerAryan Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT

    @anon

    Why doesn't Giraldi move to Iran ? Thats where his concerns and allegiance are. And maybe the source of his finances also ?

    I bet they would love a chubby bear like him. Why don't you crawl back to the ghetto that you belong? Why, after over two millennia of living in peace and prosperity in the land of Iran, the loudest voices for going to destroy Iran is coming from Joooies Iranians who have left Iran after the revolution? If they can't pinch a penny from you, you become their enemy. Has their lived such a treacherous bunch? It's greedy Zionists like you that end up putting the whole tribe in trouble

    anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 7:54 pm GMT

    @Wizard of Oz https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/did-george-w-bush-do-all-he-could-to-prevent-911/411175/-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz obj ected that "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden." Clarke responded that, "We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States." To which Wolfowitz replied, "Well, there are others that do as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism for example."

    and more "cording to Eichenwald's sources, "the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the CIA had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."

    --

    That was the lie about Laden That was the lie

    RobinG Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete Question: How does Mr. Nock define production?

    He wrote, "Not one of them represented the interest of production- " but he had just listed manufacturing as one of the represented interests. Also, in those days, did shipping include ship-building? If not, it was certainly a closely related enterprise. Anyway, you see my point. Nock made an absolute statement, but he himself contradicted it.

    Certainly the scales were weighted, but so much of the argument here is just railing against human nature. Are some people more ambitious or enterprising than others? (Let alone those who are more evil and unscrupulous.)
    Some people are very intelligently curious, but it seems rare that the scientist who makes [often labors over for years] a discovery is the one who profits from it. Not fair perhaps, but the way of business, the way of the world.

    You don't like the Constitution or the Founders? They were the ones who stepped up to take responsibility (and to press their own interests, if you will). It's hard to please everybody. So much harder now that there are so many of us. Just look at how much disagreement there is here in these comments. Can you imagine if there were another revolution, and afterwards a new convention. Do you think they'd crowdsource the new Constitution on the web? Let the computer decide? Who would program the machines?

    truthtellerAryan Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 9:06 pm GMT

    @Mark Green Hi Mark Green, well observed. The Arabs are so blinded by money, so lost in Zionist tricks, are tripping in their own stupidity. One of the largest ethnic-religious groups in the world, wealthy, but as dumb as a door nail, as Edward Said once said "they are a sorry lot ", haven't yet grasped how they're accommodating their own demise. Ironically, they're are paying for all expenses that will finish them, at least send them to dark ages.
    They don't see how they're being played by their half-brothers . I guess treachery is in the blood ..

    anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT

    @Rurik

    Note that the Saudi Royals 1) have totally accepted Israel, 2) have absolutely nothing negative to say (or do) regarding Israel's subjugation of Palestine, 3) are hostile to Iran (like Israel), and 4) are willing also to accept the Kingdoms's second-tier military status vis-a-vis Israel.

    For these reasons, the authoritarian, undemocratic, and terror-funding Royal Saudi family is totally 'in sync' with Zio-Washington. The Saudis are even safe from any potential US-Israeli destabilization campaign. (At least for now.)

    to understand the Saudi leadership, you need only see how they got along with Iran during the reign of the Shah; a Zio/Anglo quisling installed after the CIA putsch that removed the legitimate, democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27ιtat

    Under the quisling puppet Shah, Iran was terrorized by a CIA/Mossad run organization notorious for its torture methods.

    Time magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution" which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents."[24] The Federation of American Scientists also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963–79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails."[25]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

    it was during this reign of Zionist and Anglo terror that the corrupt House of Saud got along wonderfully with the Shah's Zio-Iran. Here you see the king of Saudi Arabia dancing for the amusement of the treacherous little Shah:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYIft-_FcYQ

    - who exhorted the rulers of Saudi Arabia to embrace the cultural and spiritual sewage of the Zio-West thus:

    "Please, my brother, modernize. Open up your country. Make the schools mixed women and men. Let women wear miniskirts. Have discos. Be modern. Otherwise I cannot guarantee you will stay on your throne."[15]

    as long as Iran was under the thrall of the Fiend, the Saudi were their bestest buddies ever. They were also bestest buddies with Israel and England and the ZUSA.

    so much treachery and evil and oppression and murder and torture.. it makes the head spin.

    anyways, what do you expect from a fiend, I guess

    so today the Saudis are still under the thrall of the same Fiend, but Iran is not. Hence Saudi Arabia assassinates Shia clerics it doesn't like, and Iran gets blamed for human rights violations.

    The lies and mendacity and treachery are nearly beyond comprehension. The Saudis toss their fellow Arabs in Palestine under the Zionist bus, and fund and foment ISIS to crucify Christians and burn men alive. The stark divisions between good and evil (if there are such concepts) could hardly be more glaring.

    and yet the Zio-fiend has Trump making nice with the murderous, terrorist-funding Saudis, while saber rattling at the peaceful and civilized Iran.

    great article yet again Mr. Giraldi --

    Under the quisling puppet Shah, Iran was terrorized by a CIA/Mossad run organization notorious for its torture methods.

    Lets compare to the current regime that executes Bahai school teachers. Mona Mahmoudenezhad , Bahai school teacher aged 17 years was executed along with 9 other female Bahai school teachers by the Iranian regime you are so fond of. Execution method: Public hanging from crane.

    Also denial of basic human rights : Homosexuality illegal and punishable by death penalty . 150 homosexuals executed each year in Iran .
    Prosletizing Christianity is illegal and punishable by the death penalty . Converting from Islam to Christianity is punishable by the death penalty. In court a mans testimony is given twice the weight of a womans.

    fund and foment ISIS to crucify Christians and burn men alive

    Muslims funding Muslims to kill Christians ? Nothing new . Has been going on for 1400 years.

    truthtellerAryan Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 9:53 pm GMT

    @anon It is official that loving America more than Zionists and Israel is anti-America. How embarrassing, that you see some of our cuck politicians wear flag lapels on their suits with both the Zionist and American flags as one. Treason or patriotism? We've already seen symbolically, the swearing of allegiance to this treacherous "shitty" nation by these so called " patriots "

    Rurik Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:12 pm GMT

    the only people I'm aware of that were hanged by a crane were some homosexual rapists that raped a young boy

    something the rapists would probably get a medal for doing here in the Zio-West

    so it sounds to me like you're lying or pathetically misinformed

    "Today, there are at least 600 churches and 300,000–370,000 Christians in Iran.[1]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran

    and I understand that there is also a thriving and ancient Jewish community in Iran.

    OK, I checked and the women were hanged back in the early eighties, just following the revolution that freed Iran from decades of Zionist atrocities and rapine, and apparently they were suspected of collaborating with the Zionists somehow. But that was a long time ago, and I don't hold today's Iranian government guilty for what was done decades ago.

    the fact is that Iran has been wronged, (savaged even) by the ZUSA and Israel for a long, long time. Following their revolution that freed them from the Zio-stooge Shah, the ZUSA used their good buddy Saddam to wage a catastrophic war on Iran, and even handed Saddam some nice chemical weapons and gas to use on Iranian troops. Charming huh?

    They've been menaced by Israel for so long that it's part of the fabric of their national narrative, because it seems that the Jewish supremacists can not stand to see others thrive. It drives them whacky- it does. They must have their boot on all throats, Palestinian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and everybody else. Iran tells them to fuck off, and the Jewish supremacists go bonkers.

    If there's another world war, it will be forced upon the planet by Jewish, Zionist supremacists and their bought politician whores in London, Paris and DC.

    I pray God speed to Trump in ferreting these Satanic scum out of the government and halls of power here in the former (and soon to be great again) good ol' US of A.

    lavoisier Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT

    @anon The current Iranian regime is at least as ruthless and oppressive as was the regime led by the Shah. However, that regime poses no threat to the United States of America and should not be our problem. Trump is picking a fight with Iran because they threatened Israel. Again, Israel's fights should be their own fights. Leave us out.

    That being said, it is naive to dismiss how much damage we have done to countries like Iran by meddling in their internal affairs and putting in power ruthless puppets like the shah. His cruelty to his own people is what eventually led to his regime being destroyed. If you cause enough harm to people, they will seek revenge.

    If he had been more benevelont and avoided murder and mayhem, he may have been able to turn his country around. But he would also have had to work for the interests of his own people.

    ANON Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:48 pm GMT

    @Mark Green I would say "nice try" but that would be an exaggeration. The NY World closed in 1931 after being sold by the Pulitzers (plural). You would of course know that they were not Jewish but I suppose you could try making something of the fact that their mother was from a formerly slave owning Southern family..

    Rurik Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:49 pm GMT

    @anon

    this treacherous "shitty" nation
    Must be strange to totallyl obsessed and consumed with something so trivial as " a shitty nation ". But you being an Aryan I would think you would be more concerned with Germany and the fact that you will lose the Aryan homeland within a couple of generations due to almost zero native birth rate ,a soaring Muslim birhrate from your pet " refugees" and turkish laboreres, and millions more military age Muslim men ( refugees ) pouring over your borders . But don't worry , keep obsessing over Jews. By the way who perpetrated the sexual assault festival at Germanys expense on New Years Eve , Jews or Muslims ,?? Who kidnapped/groomed and pimped out 1400 native British girls in Rotherham , Muslims or Jews ??

    Muslim men ( refugees ) pouring over your borders . But don't worry , keep obsessing over Jews.

    your butt-boy George Soros just got his arse handed to him

    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-13/soros-s-native-hungary-approves-crackdown-on-foreign-funded-ngos

    no more kosher Muslims in Hungary

    [Jun 13, 2017] How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is no longer disputed that the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Agent76, June 13, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT

    Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media

    It is no longer disputed that the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.

    [Jun 13, 2017] Democrats hope to parlay the latest furor surrounding the Russia investigations into political victory in the Midwest

    Jun 13, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    New Cold War

    "National Democrats hoping to parlay the latest furor surrounding the Russia investigations into political victory in the Midwest may want to take a different tack" [ NBC ]. "The party has targeted Iowa's 1st Congressional District, currently represented by Republican Rod Blum, as a battleground in the 2018 house race. But in the days leading up to former FBI Director James Comey's blockbuster testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, residents made it clear that while news of the scandal billowing around President Donald Trump's White House was impossible to avoid, it was far from their biggest concern. Most constituents interviewed by NBC News said that they need to see fire before they come to any conclusions about the Russia investigation and added that they are beginning to tune out news connected to it because of fatigue. Voters here are more concerned about issues like health care, veterans' benefits, Planned Parenthood and infrastructure."

    "A Shining Comey on a Hill" [ Foreign Policy ]. Help me.

    UPDATE "Virginia governor says Russia was helped by 'treasonous' Americans who gave 'these people a roadmap'" [ The Week ]. Making it all the more remarkable that some kind soul in the intelligence community hasn't risked their career to expose the traitors by coming forward with evidence (Reality Winner seems to be a kind soul, and she did risk her career, but the evidence part ) We really do need more than the word of a corrupt Clintonite - sorry for the redundancy - blowhard on this.

    Our Famously Free Press

    "And then there's the dirty little secret that every journalist knows - Trump stories drive ratings and clicks. The word 'Trump' in a headline vastly increases its chances of getting attention. (We're all guilty; see above.)" [Margeret Sullivan, WaPo ]. After shredding the notion of "balance," Sullivan considers what the press should do. For example:

    Do news sites give serious, sustained attention to policy issues as well as publishing innumerable hot takes about the ­personality-driven dust-up of the moment?

    Harvard professor Thomas E. Patterson, the study's author, sees trouble on that last point.

    "The press is focusing on personality, not substance," he said recently on public radio's "On the Media" program. And that reflects "not a partisan bias but a journalistic bias," the tendency to seek out conflict. (No mystery there - it's more interesting.)

    Trump stories are cheap to produce, because they generally don't require reporting. Or editing, apparently:

    [Jun 13, 2017] As early as 2011, the U.S. was arming Syrian dissidents from the arsenals in Libya, flying in weapons to Turkey to hand over to the rebels.

    Notable quotes:
    "... And the ultimate irony is that when it comes to terrorism the United States itself does not emerge without fault. As early as 2011, the U.S. was arming Syrian dissidents from the arsenals in Libya, flying in weapons to Turkey to hand over to the rebels. Many of the weapons, as well as those provided to Iraqi forces, have wound up in the hands of ISIS and al-Nusrah. U.S. advisers training rebels have conceded that it is impossible to determine the politics of many of those receiving instruction and weapons, an observation that has also been made by the Obama White House and by his State Department. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

    A war against Iran would be very popular both with the U.S. congress and the mainstream media, so it would be easy to sell to the American public. The terrorist attack in Tehran on June 6 th that killed 17 is being blamed in some Iranian circles on the Saudis, a not unreasonable assumption. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack but it must also be observed that both the Saudis and Israelis have good connections with the terrorist group. But if the possibility of a possible Saudi hand is true or even plausibly so, it guarantees a rise in tension and an incident at sea could easily be contrived by either side to escalate into a shooting war. The United States would almost inevitably be drawn in, particularly in light of Trump's ridiculous comment on the tragedy, tweeting that Iran is"falling victim to the evil they promote."

    There is also other considerable collateral damage to be reckoned with as a consequence of the Trump intervention even if war can be avoided. Qatar hosts the al-Udeid airbase, the largest in the Middle East, which is home to 10,000 U.S. servicemen and serves as the Combined Air and Space Operations Center for Washington and its allies in the region and beyond. Now the United States finds itself squarely in the middle of a fight between two alleged friends that it doesn't have to involve itself in, an intervention that will produce nothing but bad results. Backing Saudi Arabia in this quarrel serves no conceivable American interest, particularly if the ultimate objective is to strike at a non-threatening Iran. So the fallback position is to lie about what the support for the aggressive Saudi posturing really means – it is alleged to be about terrorism, which is always a popular excuse for government overreach.

    And the ultimate irony is that when it comes to terrorism the United States itself does not emerge without fault. As early as 2011, the U.S. was arming Syrian dissidents from the arsenals in Libya, flying in weapons to Turkey to hand over to the rebels. Many of the weapons, as well as those provided to Iraqi forces, have wound up in the hands of ISIS and al-Nusrah. U.S. advisers training rebels have conceded that it is impossible to determine the politics of many of those receiving instruction and weapons, an observation that has also been made by the Obama White House and by his State Department.

    So watch the lies if you want to know when the next war is coming. If the House of Saud, the Israelis and Donald Trump are talking trash and seem to agree about something then it is time to head for the bomb shelter. Will it be Iran or an escalating catastrophe in Syria? Anything is possible.

    [Jun 13, 2017] NBCs Kelly Hits Putin With a Beloved Canard by Ray McGovern

    Notable quotes:
    "... "They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it." ..."
    "... As I noted in a Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds. ..."
    "... "Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. ..."
    "... "Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. " ..."
    "... The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked into Democratic Party emails. ..."
    "... In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper – the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies. ..."
    "... There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike. ..."
    "... The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council senior fellow and the co-founder of Crowdstrike. ..."
    "... Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    To prove their chops, mainstream media stars can't wait to go head-to-head with a demonized foreign leader, like Vladimir Putin, and let him have it, even if their "facts" are wrong, as Megyn Kelly showed

    NBC's Megyn Kelly wielded one of Official Washington's most beloved groupthinks to smack Russian President Vladimir Putin over his denials that he and his government were responsible for hacking Democratic emails and interfering with the U.S. presidential election.

    In her June 2 interview with Putin, Kelly noted that all "17 intelligence agencies" of the US government concurred in their conclusion of Russian guilt and how could Putin suggest that they all are "lying." It's an argument that has been used to silence skeptics for months and apparently is so useful that no one seems to care that it isn't true.

    For instance, on May 8, in testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper conceded publicly that the number of intelligence agencies involved in the assessment was three, not 17, and that the analysts assigned to the project from CIA, FBI and NSA had been "handpicked."

    On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's account about the three agencies involved. "It wasn't a full interagency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies," Brennan acknowledged.

    But those public admissions haven't stopped Democrats and the mainstream media from continuing to repeat the false claim. In comments on May 31, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton repeated the canard, with a flourish, saying: "Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get."

    A couple of days later, Kelly revived the myth of the consensus among the 17 intelligence agencies in her interview with the Russian president. But Putin passed up the opportunity to correct her, replying instead:

    "They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it."

    As I noted in a Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds.

    "At President Obama's Jan. 18 press conference, he admitted as much: 'the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked .'" [Emphasis added]

    Explaining the Technology

    More importantly, Putin in his interview with Kelly points out that "today's technology" enables hacking to be "masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin" of the hack. "And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. Modern technology is very sophisticated and subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid of all the illusions. "

    Later, when Kelly came back to the issue of hacking, Putin expanded on the difficulty in tracing the source of cyber attacks.

    "Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can.

    "Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. "

    Kelly: "Let's move on."

    However carefully Megyn Kelly and her NBC colleagues peruse The New York Times, they might well not know WikiLeaks' disclosure on March 31 of original CIA documents showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs (like Cyrillic markings, for example).

    The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked into Democratic Party emails.

    In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper – the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies.

    There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike.

    The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council senior fellow and the co-founder of Crowdstrike.

    Strange Oversight

    Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?

    Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr:

    BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?"

    COMEY: "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access."

    BURR: "But no content?"

    COMEY: "Correct."

    BURR: "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"

    COMEY: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."

    Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."

    Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .

    [Jun 13, 2017] Objectively pro-genocide Senate

    Jun 13, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    allan , June 13, 2017 at 6:52 pm

    Senate rejects effort to block Saudi arms sale [The Hill]

    The Senate on Tuesday narrowly rejected an effort to block part of President Trump's $110 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia.

    Senators voted 47-53 on advancing the resolution, falling short of the simple majority needed to move forward. GOP Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.) Todd Young (Ind.) and Dean Heller (Nev.) voted with most Democrats to advance it.

    Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Mark Warner (Va.) voted against moving the measure.

    The motion faced an uphill climb in the Senate, despite growing concerns about Saudi Arabia's involvement in Yemen's civil war.

    Objectively pro-genocide.

    David, by the lake , June 13, 2017 at 7:30 pm

    The Democrats are suddenly against the Saudi war on Yemen? I must have missed that policy change memo. D.C. is fundamentally irredeemable.

    [Jun 13, 2017] It's hilarious listening to NPR's wall-to-wall coverage of today's protests in Moscow and then remember that NPR maintained radio silence on Occupy Wall Street for 10 days

    Jun 13, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    allan , June 12, 2017 at 5:35 pm

    It's hilarious listening to NPR's wall-to-wall coverage of today's protests in Moscow
    and then remember that NPR maintained radio silence on Occupy Wall Street for 10 days.

    (The protests began on Sept. 17, 2011. The first mention I can find
    on the All Things Considered archive was Sept. 27 .)

    JerseyJeffersonian , June 12, 2017 at 7:59 pm

    Yet sadly, this is not at all surprising. As is always ominously intoned, "Follow the money".

    This is NPR, No Proletarian Reporting

    [Jun 12, 2017] Trump's Blunders Fuel Mideast Conflicts

    Jun 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne , June 10, 2017 at 03:57 PM
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/09/trumps-blunders-fuel-mideast-conflicts/

    June 9, 2017

    Trump's Blunders Fuel Mideast Conflicts
    President Trump's simplistic siding with Saudi Arabia and Israel – and his callous reaction to a terror attack on Iran – are fueling new tensions in the Middle East, including the Qatar crisis.
    By Alastair Crooke

    Have "MbS" and "MbZ" overreached themselves? It is still early in the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar, but yes, it seems so. And in so doing, the hubris of Mohammad bin Salman (MbS), the Saudi defense minister and the powerful son of Saudi King Salman, and Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ), the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and supreme commander of the UAE Armed Forces, will change the region's geopolitical architecture.

    President's Trump's (flawed) base strategic premises (and narratives) that Iran is the ultimate source of all instability in the region, and that the smacking down of Qatar, a major patron of Palestinian Hamas, per se, was a good thing, and should be applauded, bear direct responsibility for the direction in which regional geopolitics will now flow.

    President Trump returned from his first overseas trip convinced that he had unified the United States' historic Arab allies, and dealt a strong blow against terrorism. He did neither. He has been badly informed.

    The fissure between Qatar and Saudi Arabia is an old, storied affair, which harks back to longstanding al-Saud angst at the original British decision to empower the al-Thani family in their Qatar foothold in an otherwise all-Saudi fiefdom. But if we lay aside, for a moment, the airing of the long list of Saudi and UAE contemporary complaints against Qatar, which for most part, simply serve as justification for recent action, we should return to the two principles that fundamentally shape the al-Saud mindset and strategy – and which lie at the heart of this current spat with Qatar.

    The Reactionary Saudis ....

    [ What appears to be a reasonable explanation of the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar that President Trump has encouraged and applauded. ]

    ilsm - , June 11, 2017 at 09:58 AM
    US policy toward Iran has no strategic perspective outside what is dictated by the House of Saud. That is it has no moral foundation.

    Iran is a source of instability only in areas where Shiite majorities have no self determination and are suppressed by Wahhabi interests.

    Iran is not the source of instability in Yemen, where the Saudi intrigued with the old colonizers since the 50's to blunt Pan Arabism only recently abandoned the 'Imamate'.

    Arabian peninsula instability has to do with self determination and/or a different preference in Imam. The kind of instability Jefferson would have supported.

    The Houston Riyadh axis has no moral claim to protection by the US republic.

    While Qatar is a short flight from Iran, with near sea lanes as well.

    [Jun 12, 2017] Trump Just Dropped Chemical Weapons in a Major City, 100,000 Civilians Trapped

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Anonymous June 12, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

    Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Trump Just Dropped Chemical Weapons in a Major City, 100,000 Civilians Trapped

    The Kurds are complicit in this crimes against humanity:

    Multiple reports are confirming that a US-led Coalition used white phosphorus-loaded ammunitions in heavily populated cities of Iraq and Syria. Thousands of civilians are known to be in the areas where the weapons were used according to The Washington Post.

    According to Airwars:

    "As many as 100,000 civilians trapped inside the Islamic State-held city of Raqqa are being given conflicting evacuation instructions according to Coalition statements and local reports, as US-backed ground forces finally assault the city supported by air and artillery strikes.

    Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) started their slow encirclement of Raqqa last November. Artillery and airstrikes have rained down since then killing hundreds of civilians in the near region according to monitors, though the final operation to take the city commenced officially only on June 6th. In a press release published that day, the Coalition stressed that "The SDF have encouraged civilians to depart Raqqah so that they do not become trapped, used as human shields or become targets for ISIS snipers.",,,

    [Jun 12, 2017] The Qatar Crisis and Trumps Dangerous Embrace of the Saudis by Daniel Larison

    Notable quotes:
    "... The underlying problem with Trump's handling of the crisis is that he has mistaken the Saudi-led bloc opposed to Qatar for reliable partners in combating jihadism, and so he accepts that their punitive measures against Qatar are proof of their willingness to follow through on supposed commitments made in Riyadh last month. ..."
    "... The Saudis and their allies are actively undermining U.S. policies in the region, and the president congratulates them on their good work. They single out Qatar to settle scores with them over other issues, but dress up the score-settling as counter-terrorism and Trump believes it without question. ..."
    "... Backing up Qatar's determination to resist is the fast-tracked approval of Turkish military forces to be deployed to Qatar. Erdogan signed the legislation authorizing the deployment this week: ..."
    "... Turkish support makes it less likely that Qatar will yield to the maximalist demands being made of them. Instead of discouraging the Saudi-led bloc from another ill-considered course of action, vocal U.S. backing is likely to encourage the Saudis and their allies to use more aggressive measures. Considering their disastrous miscalculation regarding intervention in Yemen two years ago, we should not trust that their leaders will have the good judgment to back down: ..."
    "... In his remarks this afternoon, Trump didn't just voice support for the Saudi-led punitive policy, but claimed that these governments had approached him and received his approval beforehand ..."
    "... You're right. Salman is reckless and vain, he seems intent on proving he's a tough guy, and Qatari defiance will bring out the worst in him. I still hope that wise Saudi elders will bring him to heel, but it hasn't happened yet. Maybe there are no "wise Saudi elders" anymore. ..."
    "... Salman vs. Erdogan is one cage match the world can do without, if for no other reason that that the winner will become even more insufferable than he already is. ..."
    "... The MSM is really not promoting or criticizing his directional-less foreign policy, his no end state militarism with dead end "allies" such as Saudi Arabia as a considerable problem more so than the vapid, heavily caveated, Russia scare articles. ..."
    "... But one thing that is not confusing is that Qatar is currently the source of 50% of the world's LNG. Money does talk, as TAC would agree. ..."
    Jun 09, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Emma Ashford notes Trump's obliviousness to the costs of siding with the Saudis and Emiratis in the Qatar crisis:

    Indeed, despite these concerns – and despite the efforts of Tillerson, Mattis and others to mediate the dispute, and to walk back the President's rash tweets – Trump himself appears determined to publicly take the Saudi side in this dispute and force unity within the GCC. In doing so, he risks raising regional tensions, and complicating the anti-ISIS campaign that was the cornerstone of his campaign.

    Foreign policy often requires trade-offs. It is no doubt possible that long-term pressure from regional states may induce Qatar to scale back the scope of its foreign policy. But this will come at the cost of other U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region.

    The underlying problem with Trump's handling of the crisis is that he has mistaken the Saudi-led bloc opposed to Qatar for reliable partners in combating jihadism, and so he accepts that their punitive measures against Qatar are proof of their willingness to follow through on supposed commitments made in Riyadh last month. Because he has embraced these client states so fully, he doesn't appreciate that he is being used to provide their vendetta with a U.S. stamp of approval. He seems to think that the Saudis and their allies are pursuing a U.S.-guided agenda when they are pursuing their own goals without regard to our interests. This is why he keeps thanking King Salman and the Saudi government, but his gratitude–like his support–is seriously misplaced.

    The Saudis and their allies are actively undermining U.S. policies in the region, and the president congratulates them on their good work. They single out Qatar to settle scores with them over other issues, but dress up the score-settling as counter-terrorism and Trump believes it without question. The trouble isn't just that he doesn't grasp the trade-off being made, but that he actually thinks the U.S. is benefiting greatly from the Saudi-led bloc's self-serving adventurism. Like many other hawks who conflate U.S. interests and those of bad regional clients, Trump can't perceive the trade-off being made because he refuses to see the divergence of interests clearly on display.

    The danger for the U.S. and the wider region is that the small emirate is not going to roll over so easily, and that means that the crisis is going to fester and probably grow worse over time. Qatar's foreign minister was adamant about this earlier in the week:

    "No one has the right to intervene in our foreign policy," Sheikh Mohammed said.

    He also rejected "a military solution as an option" to resolving the crisis, and said Qatar could survive "forever" despite the measures taken against it.

    "We are not ready to surrender, and will never be ready to surrender the independence of our foreign policy," he told reporters later, adding: "No one will break us."

    Backing up Qatar's determination to resist is the fast-tracked approval of Turkish military forces to be deployed to Qatar. Erdogan signed the legislation authorizing the deployment this week:

    President Tayyip Erdogan called for the lifting of a blockade on Qatar on Friday after approving legislation on deploying Turkish troops there, as the Gulf state faces isolation imposed by fellow Arab states over its alleged support for terrorism.

    Erdogan vowed to keep supporting Qatar after his rapid approval of the bill, pushed through parliament on Wednesday, and he rejected accusations that it supported terrorism.

    Turkish support makes it less likely that Qatar will yield to the maximalist demands being made of them. Instead of discouraging the Saudi-led bloc from another ill-considered course of action, vocal U.S. backing is likely to encourage the Saudis and their allies to use more aggressive measures. Considering their disastrous miscalculation regarding intervention in Yemen two years ago, we should not trust that their leaders will have the good judgment to back down:

    "Most worrying is that Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. may repeat the mistakes that were made when the Saudi leadership decided to launch a war in Yemen," said Yezid Sayigh, a Beirut-based senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "They had no clear political strategy, based their action on false assumptions, have incurred heavy financial costs and a growing human toll, and are probably now worse off in terms of their security."

    In his remarks this afternoon, Trump didn't just voice support for the Saudi-led punitive policy, but claimed that these governments had approached him and received his approval beforehand :

    Trump said the nations that imposed the blockade - including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates - came to him in the wake of his conference in the region to discuss "confronting Qatar over its behavior."

    "So we had a decision to make: Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action?" Trump said.

    Elsewhere in Trump's statement, he issued what could easily be interpreted as an ultimatum and not-so-veiled threat when he said, "They have to end that funding." This rhetoric of what Qatar "has to" do implies that there may be even more severe consequences for them if they don't comply. That is very likely to be interpreted as an endorsement of escalation against Qatar, which is exactly what the U.S. doesn't need and should be working hard to prevent.

    The central problem in all of this is that Trump believes the Saudi-led bloc is acting to advance our interests when they are really just pursuing their own rivalries at our expense, and by tying his foreign policy so closely to the Saudis he has blinded himself to the reality that he is being used by them for reasons that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Trump is putting the U.S. fully on one side of an internecine quarrel in which none of the governments involved deserves our support, and in the process he is putting our foreign policy in hock to reckless despotic clients.

    Qatarsis , says: June 9, 2017 at 6:09 pm

    "Considering their disastrous miscalculation regarding intervention in Yemen two years ago, we should not trust that their leaders will have the good judgment to back down:"

    You're right. Salman is reckless and vain, he seems intent on proving he's a tough guy, and Qatari defiance will bring out the worst in him. I still hope that wise Saudi elders will bring him to heel, but it hasn't happened yet. Maybe there are no "wise Saudi elders" anymore.

    Salman vs. Erdogan is one cage match the world can do without, if for no other reason that that the winner will become even more insufferable than he already is.

    Brendan Sexton , says: June 9, 2017 at 8:24 pm
    This President has done so badly with NO foreign policy crisis forcing his hand, what in the world will he do if things really heat up somewhere and we have a true crisis (not of his own making, I mean)? Can you even imagine where we might be headed?
    Stephen , says: June 11, 2017 at 6:58 am
    I wonder if Trump knew that the United States has military bases of its own in Qatar, bases whose existence there may be jeopardised if the US sides with Qatar's would-be enemies?
    jk , says: June 11, 2017 at 4:50 pm
    The MSM is really not promoting or criticizing his directional-less foreign policy, his no end state militarism with dead end "allies" such as Saudi Arabia as a considerable problem more so than the vapid, heavily caveated, Russia scare articles.

    It tells you alot on how infiltrated the Democrat-Neocon narrative and priorities is in the MSM.

    kalendjay , says: June 11, 2017 at 5:06 pm
    I don't get it. US has a critical airbase at Qatar, and Turkey sends forces there. Saudi objects to Qatar's footsie with ISIS and al-Qaida, which US and Egypt have periodically expressed. US seems to abet Saudi, but as we saw not too long ago in Saudi's takeover of Bahrain with French made armored vehicles, Saudi can certainly help itself in the matter. Trump has given praise to Qatar's emir, and as we know, this could also prelude a kiss of death if necessary - as with Comey.

    I'd say, at best, the situation is too confused for us to accuse anyone of making 'rash judgments'.

    But one thing that is not confusing is that Qatar is currently the source of 50% of the world's LNG. Money does talk, as TAC would agree.

    [Jun 12, 2017] The Evidence-Free Claims Against Trump and Syria Undermining Peace Efforts and Threatening More Wars by Robert Roth

    Notable quotes:
    "... But the use of disinformation has been expanded in what I now see as an attempt to destabilize the U.S. government itself, to achieve "regime change" at home as it has been practiced in many foreign countries over the last 70 years. ..."
    "... There are many sound and urgent reasons to oppose many of Mr. Trump's policies – and I do. But a constitutionally elected sitting president should not be removed from office by an orchestrated campaign of disinformation and lies. Nor should "ideologically inspired disinformation" dominate our public discourse on critical issues – in any case, but especially when the result is a heightened risk of nuclear war. ..."
    "... I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia. This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective, form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting. ..."
    "... "What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley ..."
    "... Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971 and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007). ..."
    Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com
    3,500 Words • 19 Comments •

    Disinformation and lies have been used to justify the wars on Syria that started in 2011. [1] I explored these in "What's Really Happening in Syria: A Consumer Fraud Lawyer's Mini-Primer" – "the primer" for short – which may be downloaded at http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/2017/01/21/m...regon/ ) But lately I've been amazed at the extent to which our entire public discourse now rests on disinformation and lies. This is a broader problem, but it also affects the prospects for peace in Syria, one of several places where U.S./NATO activities heighten the risk of nuclear war. [2] I first became aware of that heightened risk in following US/NATO activities in Ukraine, also widely misrepresented by the media; my work on that matter is posted at https://www.newcoldwar.org/how-obamas-aggression-in-...r-war/ .

    I've been feeling pretty overwhelmed by it all lately, capped (most recently) by the third U.S. attack on Syria. As I put that together with President Trump's giving the military free rein over "tactics," it sank in that, with this delegation of authority, war-making power has now devolved from the Congress through the President to the military itself, in areas where not only Syrians but Russians, Iranians and others operate.

    In the apparent absence of an organized peace movement, the concentration of so many people on opposing Trump, rather than on opposing U.S. wars, distracts attention from this problem. Otherwise under fire from all directions, Mr. Trump gets approval – across the spectrum – when he does something awful but military, like launching cruise missiles at Syria or dropping that horrific bomb in Afghanistan. Meanwhile his attempt to reset U.S. relations and reduce tension with Russia is being used to lay the groundwork for impeachment and/or charges of treason.

    The lies about Syria have of course continued. First, Amnesty International issued " Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison Syria ," claiming that the Syrian government executed between 5,000 and 00 s13,000 people over a five-year period. Then another chemical weapons incident, blamed without evidence on the government, was used as the excuse for a second U.S. attack on Syria. Both of these charges were widely and uncritically reported in the major media, though neither of them is credible. [3]

    Regarding the first, as Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report pointed out, the AI report "is based on anonymous sources outside of Syria, hearsay, and the dubious use of satellite photos reminiscent of Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations in 2003." http://www.blackagendareport.com/shamnest-internati...rhouse . See further Tony Cartalucci, US Revives Discredited Syria "Slaughterhouse" Story (Global Research, May 16, 2017), Land Destroyer Report, http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-revives-discredited...590306 .)

    The second charge seemed preposterous to me under all the circumstances, including its predictably negative results for the Syrian government, and its reliance on "reports" from outside Syria based on hearsay from such biased sources as anti-government fighters and their media. The analyses of others confirmed and reinforced my own impression, e.g.,

    But the use of disinformation has been expanded in what I now see as an attempt to destabilize the U.S. government itself, to achieve "regime change" at home as it has been practiced in many foreign countries over the last 70 years. [4] See, for example, William Blum, Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List, Published February 2013, at http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-oth...r-list .

    It started right after the election with the attacks on General Mike Flynn. And as it has continued, the campaign to demonize Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin has also intensified.

    Bottom line: It seems clear there is no evidence, let alone proof, that computers at the DNC were hacked at all, let alone by Russia, or that Russia tried in any way to "meddle" in the U.S. election. It has thus far made no difference that, soon after the charge of Russian interference in the last election was first made, an organization of intelligence veterans who have the expertise to know pointed out that U.S. intelligence has the capability of presenting hard evidence of any such hacking and had not done so (and, I would add, still hasn't). Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity stated bluntly: "We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child's play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack." They then explained the difference between leaking and hacking. [5] U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims ( December 12, 2016), https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-...laims/ .

    There was ample justification for President Trump's firing of FBI director Comey. Ray McGovern and William Binney observed:

    The Washington establishment rejoiced last week over what seemed to be a windfall "gotcha" moment, as President Donald Trump said he had fired FBI Director James Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up story" and, by all appearances, he is mostly correct.

    That's because Mr. Trump

    had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" – like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to precipitate the demise of Trump aide Michael Flynn. [6] Trumped-up claims against Trump ( May 17, 2017), http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed...y.html . For a detailed discussion, see Kenneth W. Starr, "Rosenstein's Compelling Case Against Comey," The Wall Street Journal , May 15, 2017, p. A21.

    And there was nothing unlawful, or even wrong, in his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Ambassador Kislyak at the White House. This is, after all, what foreign ministers and ambassadors do – confer with leaders of other nations – but that didn't stop the media and what James Howard Kunstler called "the Lindsey Graham wing of the DeepState" from acting "as if Trump had entertained Focalor and Vepar, the Dukes of Hell, in the Oval Office." [7] A Monster Eating the Nation, http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/monster-eati...ation/ (May 19, 2017). And see Ted Van Dyk, "Anti-Trump Democrats Invite Chaos," The Wall Street Journal , May 22, 2017, p. A21.

    Regarding the continuing investigations by the FBI, several Congressional committees, and others looking for, if not proof, at least evidence of pre-election "collusion" by Trump or his people with Russians supposedly hacking computers to influence the U.S. election, these are thus far based on no – as in zero – evidence, and it's hard to know what might be made of anything they eventually claim to find, in light of this:

    On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, for example. [8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

    Or as Mr. Putin himself points out,

    today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual [so] that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. [9] Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4, 2017), Interview with Vladimr Putin by NBC News propagandist Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of Russia, June 5, 2017 – https://www.newcoldwar.org/valdimir-putins-televised...-2017/ .

    Granted, this can be a costly enterprise, in that "The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7″ trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines." But not to worry, "the DeepState has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for 'proving' the Russians hacked." [10] McGovern and Binney, op cit.

    Put it all together and you now have "an extraordinary proportion of our public discourse [resting] on nothing but ideologically inspired disinformation." [11] Tipping over, By Patrick Lawrence, published by the American Committee for East-West Accord, May 17, 2017 – https://www.newcoldwar.org/tipping-over/ . A glaring example is the most recent baseless charge against the Assad government. Of this Patrick Lawrence writes, in part quoting Nation magazine contributing editor and Princeton University professor emeritus Stephen F. Cohen:

    The May 16 editions of the government-supervised New York Times carried a report that we-we Americans, this is all done in our names-now accuse the Assad government of running a crematory at one of its prisons to dispose of the corpses of murdered political prisoners so as to eliminate evidence of war crimes. This is based on satellite photographs in the possession of American spooks for the past three or four years released a few days prior to the next round of peace talks co-sponsored by Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Trump, a day after meeting Lavrov, sent a fairly senior State Department diplomat to the talks in Astana, the Kazakstan capital.

    I note this latest on Syria only in part because it is a here-and-now adjunct of the Russiagate insanity in Washington. It also marks a new low, and I do not say this for mere rhetorical effect, in what now passes for credible assertion in our nation's capital. Here's my favorite passage in the piece-which, had a student in one of my courses submitted it to fulfill an assignment, would have merited an 'F' and a private discussion in my office:

    "Mr. Jones acknowledged that the satellite photographs, taken over the last four years, were not definitive. But in one from 2015, he said, the buildings were covered in snow- except for one, suggesting a significant internal heat source. 'That would be consistent with a crematorium,' he said. Officials added that a discharge stack and architectural elements thought to be a firewall and air intake were also suggestive of a place to burn bodies. 'That would be consistent of a crematorium,' he said."

    Most certainly it would. And also a bakery, a heated basketball court, a machine shop, and I think you will understand: The assertion means bananas. Even the Times , to my surprise, took a step back from this silliness. The next paragraph:

    "The United Nations is scheduled to begin another round of Syria peace talks in Geneva on May 23. The timing of the accusations seemed intended to pressure Russia, Mr. Assad's principal foreign ally, into backing away from him."

    Well, half a step in the direction of reality-which is half a step more than our Pravda on the Hudson typically takes.

    [As Professor Cohen said on the evening of May 16 to Tucker Carlson on the latter's daily Fox News program:]

    "The preposterous nonsense about the Syria crematorium pushes me into positing a kind of meta-phenomenon. The Russia case is a problem, the Syria case, the Ukraine case: There is a far larger and more consequential problem running through all of these matters. It is the frightening extent to which we are succumbing to fabrication. An extraordinary proportion of our public discourse now rests on nothing but ideologically inspired disinformation."

    As Prof. Cohen has said, we're thus creating our own new national security "threat," in that, as Mr. Lawrence put it, we are watching as our 45th president is deposed. [12] Mike Whitney outlines the facts behind the entire Russiagate insanity and presents a detailed analysis connecting a great many dots with specificity in Seth Rich, Craig Murray and the Sinister Stewards of the National Security State ( May 19, 2017), http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-cr...state/ ; and see Norman Solomon and Paul Jay (Interview), Warfare State at War with Trump as He Plans Warfare Against Iran (May 22, 2017), http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19149:Warfare-State...t-Iran .

    Andrew C. McCarthy, Fighting the Politicized, Evidence-Free 'Collusion with Russia' Narrative, The National Review (May 24, 2017), http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447915/trump-...rative , suggests steps to resolve the matter.

    There are many sound and urgent reasons to oppose many of Mr. Trump's policies – and I do. But a constitutionally elected sitting president should not be removed from office by an orchestrated campaign of disinformation and lies. Nor should "ideologically inspired disinformation" dominate our public discourse on critical issues – in any case, but especially when the result is a heightened risk of nuclear war. [13] James Howard Kunstler adds that "Trump, whatever you think of him – and I've never been a fan, to put it mildly – was elected for a reason: the ongoing economic collapse of the nation, and the suffering of a public without incomes or purposeful employment." And though I've never been a fan, either, a discussion I found helpful to understanding the reasons for Trump's election was posted by John Michael Greer, "When the Shouting Stops," November 16, 2016, at http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when...s.html ).

    Prof. Cohen, frozen out by the mainstream media, summarizes the risks we confront:

    [W]e're at, maybe, the most dangerous moment in U.S.-Russian relations, in my lifetime, and, maybe, ever. The reason is, that we're in the new Cold War, by whatever name. We have three Cold War fronts that are fought with the possibility of hot war – in the Baltic region, where NATO is carrying out an unprecedented military buildup on Russia's border, in Ukraine, where there's a civil and proxy war between Russia and the West, and, of course, in Syria, where Russian aircraft and American warplanes are flying in the same territory. Anything could happen. [14] Prof. Cohen discusses these issues with great clarity in an interview posted as Dems crippling Trump's plans to cooperate with Russia out of own ambitions (May 19, 2017) at https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/388910-trump-scand...ia-us/ .

    Looking for a little light in this deepening darkness, I find some comfort in former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow (University of Western Australia, 2017). Mr. Kevin examines past and present attitudes toward the people of Russia and to its leaders with sympathetic eyes, and a deep understanding of Russian history and culture. Regarding the treatment of Russian president Putin in Western media, for example, Mr. Kevin observes:

    Not since Britain's concentrated personal loathing of their great strategic enemy Napoleon in the Napoleonic wars was so much animosity brought to bear on one leader. Propaganda and demeaning language against Putin became more systemic, sustained and near universal in Western foreign policy and media communities than had ever been directed against any Soviet communist leader at the height of the Cold War. This hostile campaign evoked an effective defensive global media strategy by Russia. [...] A new kind of information Cold War took shape, with – paradoxically – Western media voices more and more speaking with one disciplined Soviet-style voice, and Russian counter voices fresher, more diverse and more agile. [15] Cited from Return to Moscow . An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears at https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY .

    I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia. This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective, form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting.

    In an insightful exploration of the psychological issues we confront in criticizing U.S. foreign policy and countering the media that support it, which I think helps explain the ease with which the current batch of lies is being successfully promulgated, Caitlin Johnstone opens with this powerful combination:

    "What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley

    The only thing keeping westerners from seeing through the lies that they've been told about Syria is the unquestioned assumption that their own government could not possibly be that evil. They have no trouble believing that a foreigner from a Muslim-majority country could be gratuitously using chemical weapons on children at the most strategically disastrous time possible and bombing his own civilians for no discernible reason other than perhaps sheer sadism, but the possibility that their government is making those things up in order to manufacture consent for regime change is ruled out before any critical analysis of the situation even begins. [16] You Only Hate Assad Because Your TV Told You To (May 27, 2017), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47136.htm (first published by 21wire at http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/05/27/syria-you-onl...ou-to/ ). I found it enormously helpful to read this piece in conjunction with Vanessa Beeley's Gaslighting: State Mind Control and Abusive Narcissism (May 26, 2016), http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/05/26/gaslighting-s...ssism/ .

    Unless we can penetrate the resulting fog, we confront the situation described by Tony Kevin:

    Under the false and demonizing imagery of "Putin's Russia" which has now taken hold in the United States and NATO world, the West is truly "sleepwalking", as Kissinger, Gorbachev, Sakwa, Cohen and others have urgently warned, into a potential nuclear war with Russia. It is the Cuban missile crisis all over again, but actually worse now, because there are so many irresponsible minor European actors crowding onto the policy stage, and because American policy under recent U.S. presidents has been so lacking in statesmanship, consistency or historical perspective where Russia is concerned. [17] Return to Moscow , page 255, citing The Slide Toward War with Russia, editorial in the Nation , 19 October 2016, https://www.thenation.com/article/the-slide-toward-w...ussia/ , and Richard Sakwa, West could sleepwalk into a Doomsday war with Russia – it's time to wake up , The Conversation (UK), https://www.theconversation.com/west-could-sleepwalk...-59936 .

    Hopefully, the efforts of activists and analysts to make the real facts known, combined with the escalating preposterousness of what we are told to believe, will produce enough cognitive dissonance to wake us up before we sleepwalk into the end of the world. Meanwhile, if you share these concerns, stay tuned to each of the dedicated and courageous authors I've mentioned, and the sites that have posted their work, express your concerns to your federal legislators – and tell your friends!

    Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971 and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007).

    References

    [1] I explored these in "What's Really Happening in Syria: A Consumer Fraud Lawyer's Mini-Primer" – "the primer" for short – which may be downloaded at http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/2017/01/21/mini-primer-on-syria-by-former-assist-attorney-general-ny-oregon/ )

    [2] I first became aware of that heightened risk in following US/NATO activities in Ukraine, also widely misrepresented by the media; my work on that matter is posted at https://www.newcoldwar.org/how-obamas-aggression-in-ukraine-risks-nuclear-war/ .

    [3] Regarding the first, as Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report pointed out, the AI report "is based on anonymous sources outside of Syria, hearsay, and the dubious use of satellite photos reminiscent of Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations in 2003." http://www.blackagendareport.com/shamnest-international-human-slaughterhouse . See further Tony Cartalucci, US Revives Discredited Syria "Slaughterhouse" Story (Global Research, May 16, 2017), Land Destroyer Report , http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-revives-discredited-syria-slaughterhouse-story/5590306 .)

    The second charge seemed preposterous to me under all the circumstances, including its predictably negative results for the Syrian government, and its reliance on "reports" from outside Syria based on hearsay from such biased sources as anti-government fighters and their media. The analyses of others confirmed and reinforced my own impression, e.g., RayMcGovern, The Syrian-Sarin "False Flag" Lesson, (December 13, 2016), http://www.mintpressnews.com/syrian-sarin-false-flag-lesson/223106/ ; Daniel Lazare, Luring Trump into Mideast War (Consortium News, April 8, 2017), https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/luring-trump-into-mideast-wars/ ; Mike Whitney, The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia (CounterPunch, April 7, 2017), http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/07/why-the-united-states-use-of-force-against-syria-violates-international-law/ (citing interview with former CIA officer Philip Giraldi); Robert Parry, Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria (Consortium News, April 5, 2017), https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ ; Patrick Henningsen, Reviving the 'Chemical Weapons' Lie: New US-UK Calls for Regime Change, Military Attack Against Syria ( 21st Century Wire , April 4, 2017), http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/04/04/reviving-the-chemical-weapons-lie-new-us-uk-calls-for-regime-change-military-attack-against-syria/ ; The Saker, A Multi-level Analysis of the US attack on Syria (April 11, 2017), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46845.htm ; Theodore A. Postol, A Critique of 'False and Misleading' White House Claims About Syria's Use of Lethal Gas (April 14, 2017), http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/critique_white_house_fabrications_syrias_alleged_use_of_lethal_gas_20170414/ (The third of MIT Prof. Postol's reports; the first is at http://images.shoutwiki.com/acloserlookonsyria/f/f3/Postol_assessment_041117.pdf and the second, an addendum to the first, is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwUE9tam16a3F0Wjg/view ); andTim Hayward, Chemical attacks in Syria: Is Assad responsible? (April 15, 2017), https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/chemical-attacks-in-syria-is-assad-responsible/ . (Prof. Hayward recommends Prof. Postol's reports; says, "The premise of my post comes from the [UK] government's position. I aim to show that even if one suspends disbelief and grants it, their claimed conclusion still needs to be properly demonstrated"; and says further that "a fuller and more formal statement of the question that I am introducing here is to be found at: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/04/habakkuk-on-urgent-need-to-release-test-results-from-porton-down-on-samples-from-khan-sheikhoun-ghouta.html .").

    [4] See, for example, William Blum, Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List, Published February 2013, at http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list .

    [5] U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims ( December 12, 2016), https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/ .

    [6] Trumped-up claims against Trump ( May 17, 2017), http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-trump-russia-phony-20170517-story.html . For a detailed discussion, see Kenneth W. Starr, "Rosenstein's Compelling Case Against Comey," The Wall Street Journal , May 15, 2017, p. A21.

    [7] A Monster Eating the Nation , http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/monster-eating-nation/ (May 19, 2017). And see Ted Van Dyk, "Anti-Trump Democrats Invite Chaos," The Wall Street Journal , May 22, 2017, p. A21.

    [8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

    [9] Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4, 2017), Interview with Vladimr Putin by NBC News propagandist Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of Russia, June 5, 2017 – https://www.newcoldwar.org/valdimir-putins-televised-interview-on-nbc-june-5-2017/ .

    [10] McGovern and Binney, op cit.

    [11] Tipping over, By Patrick Lawrence, published by the American Committee for East-West Accord, May 17, 2017 – https://www.newcoldwar.org/tipping-over/ .

    [12] Mike Whitney outlines the facts behind the entire Russiagate insanity and presents a detailed analysis connecting a great many dots with specificity in Seth Rich, Craig Murray and the Sinister Stewards of the National Security State ( May 19, 2017), http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/ ; and see Norman Solomon and Paul Jay (Interview), Warfare State at War with Trump as He Plans Warfare Against Iran (May 22, 2017), http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19149:Warfare-State-at-War-with-Trump-as-he-Plans-Warfare-Against-Iran .

    Andrew C. McCarthy, Fighting the Politicized, Evidence-Free 'Collusion with Russia' Narrative, The National Review (May 24, 2017), http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447915/trump-russia-collusion-john-brennan-testimony-how-fight-politicized-narrative , suggests steps to resolve the matter.

    [13] James Howard Kunstler adds that "Trump, whatever you think of him – and I've never been a fan, to put it mildly – was elected for a reason: the ongoing economic collapse of the nation, and the suffering of a public without incomes or purposeful employment." And though I've never been a fan, either, a discussion I found helpful to understanding the reasons for Trump's election was posted by John Michael Greer, "When the Shouting Stops," November 16, 2016, at http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html ).

    [14] Prof. Cohen discusses these issues with great clarity in an interview posted as Dems crippling Trump's plans to cooperate with Russia out of own ambitions (May 19, 2017) at https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/388910-trump-scandal-russia-us/ .

    [15] Cited from Return to Moscow. An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears at https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY .

    [16] You Only Hate Assad Because Your TV Told You To (May 27, 2017), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47136.htm (first published by 21wire at http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/05/27/syria-you-only-hate-assad-because-your-tv-told-you-to/ ). I found it enormously helpful to read this piece in conjunction with Vanessa Beeley's Gaslighting: State Mind Control and Abusive Narcissism (May 26, 2016), http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/05/26/gaslighting-state-mind-control-and-abusive-narcissism/ .

    [17] Return to Moscow, page 255, citing The Slide Toward War with Russia, editorial in the Nation, 19 October 2016, https://www.thenation.com/article/the-slide-toward-war-with-russia/ , and Richard Sakwa, West could sleepwalk into a Doomsday war with Russia – it's time to wake up, The Conversation (UK), https://www.theconversation.com/west-could-sleepwalk-into-a-doomsday-war-with-russia-its-time-to-wake-up-59936 .

    [Jun 12, 2017] Russiagate is the way to pressure Trump into abandoning his foreign policy goals and continue Obama neocon foreign policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Either way, this constitutes a coup d'etat. ..."
    "... The American people elected a president who promised an America First agenda, and the establishment is using the threat of an unjustifiable impeachment or unconstitutional use of the 25th amendment to nullify the results of that election. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    John Gruskos June 12, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT

    Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Robert Roth is exactly right.

    The ridiculous "Russian influence" narrative is a cynical ploy to pressure Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises, and instead wage a counter productive regime change war in Syria.

    If Trump is not amenable to pressure, they establishment apparently plans to impeach Trump and use Pence as their tool instead.

    Either way, this constitutes a coup d'etat.

    The American people elected a president who promised an America First agenda, and the establishment is using the threat of an unjustifiable impeachment or unconstitutional use of the 25th amendment to nullify the results of that election.

    [Jun 12, 2017] Statement Trump is Putins puppet. is a sign of dementia or of a neoliberal MSM presstitute

    Jun 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    pgl- , June 10, 2017 at 01:47 AM

    Trump is Putin's puppet.
    ilsm, June 10, 2017 at 04:28 AM
    heh!
    Libezkova - , June 10, 2017 at 04:28 AM
    "Trump is Putin's puppet."

    Looks like you do not have enough IQ to understand that Russiagate is a typical "color revolution" scenario. I am lost. How such a post can correlate with your other posts, where you actually show understanding of complex things (your neoliberal bias notwithstanding)? Incredible! Is there two different PGL here ? Early dementia ?

    This is even not funny, because anybody with IQ above 100 understands the POTUS does not matter much in foreign policy. So for Russians the difference is close to zero and risks are high to engage is such a behavior. Actually they probably have much more serious "compromat" on Hillary and, especially, Bill, so Hillary might be preferable to them.

    Is it so difficult to understand that POTUS is just a placeholder of minor player, and other "very serious people" determine the US foreign policy.

    To say nothing about that evidence is not here, and the whole "Purple revolution" scenario with the key idea of delegitimization of Trump via Russiagate is taken directly from Gene Sharp's book.

    https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/gene-sharp-handbook-nonviolent-resistance-dictators-trump

    And Gene Sharp book is not a secret. It is the standard textbook used by the State Department for teaching such things. You can buy it from Amazon:

    [Jun 12, 2017] Agent76

    Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT

    @Agent76 If only more people knew this information, and that all *Wars are Banker's War's* as well!

    Jun. 14, 2012 These *6* Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

    That's consolidated from *50* companies back in 1983. But the fact that a few companies own everything demonstrates "the illusion of choice," Frugal Dad says.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

    Which Corporations Control the World?

    A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use? It's a Small World at the Top!

    http://www.internationalbusinessguide.org/corporations/ Jun 11, 2017 The Weaponization of Information in the War of Terror

    If terrorist incidents are always tied back to shadowy groups linked to Al Qaeda or ISIS, an online, independent media might connect those dots to show how Al Qaeda and ISIS were literally created, fostered, funded, trained and equipped by the UK government, the US government and their allies across the world as a tool in their quest of dominance of the Middle East and control of their domestic population.

    [Jun 12, 2017] You can't fix the media because its very raison d'etre is to subvert, mislead and corrupt, to put the viewer and the nation inside a mental labyrinth.

    Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    LetItRest Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 5:07 am GMT

    You can't fix the media because its very raison d'etre is to subvert, mislead and corrupt, to put the viewer and the nation inside a mental labyrinth.

    You see, in the US and the Western World, the Media is owned by a cartel of Jewish people with a common agenda – they only talk about the same events, with the same perspective. They change gears and news cycles in unison, they command the discourse window.

    Of course, Fox News is the opposite of CNN to the masses of disinformed, but this is just a cordial accord between Owners to not eat each other's audiences. Mainly a market strategy to not create cannibalization.

    If the Media was supposed to be serious, "but currently is not and in need of saving", instead of the truth of it never being anything close to that, just a propaganda machine, then, in all those decades, and specially now in the age of the internet, they should have been speaking about the system of Debt Currency that ruins all nations, or how today in America we have the biggest monopolies in the history of mankind, or how Immigration from countries with non-European populations destroys social trust, neighborhoods, cities, lower wages, overbudens public services, reintroduces extinct diseases and many many more.

    But they don't talk about any of that, and never will.

    Forget about the media altogether, let it die and rot.

    [Jun 12, 2017] In Praise of Hypocrisy by Masha Gessen

    Empire of Lies is a 2008 thriller novel written by Andrew Klavan. The book takes its title from a quote by George Orwell often used by Ron Paul, "Truth is treason in an empire of lies." Masha Gessen is a part of US propaganda empire, and now trying to defend it by all means. Demonstrating the level of sophisticaion I never suspected of her. I like the term "aspirational hypocrisy", because now the USA neocon foreign policy and neocon's wars can be defined as the "Wars of aspirational hypocrisy". But this is all I like in the article. It is useful as as sample of sophisticated propaganda. That's it.
    In any case this article is nice example of "deception as an art form" and this neoliberal Masha proved to be a real artist in this art.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom. ..."
    "... One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. ..."
    "... Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers. ..."
    "... Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior. ..."
    "... In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles. ..."
    "... when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?" ..."
    "... To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy ..."
    "... No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ... ..."
    "... How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party? ..."
    Feb 18, 2017 | nyt.com

    Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom.

    One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. This tradition has set the standard of behavior for government officials and has shaped Americans' understanding of what their government and their country represent. Over the last four weeks, Mr. Trump has lashed out against any criticism of his behavior, because, as he never tires of pointing out, "We won."

    In requesting the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, however, Mr. Trump made his first public concession to political expectations. Hypocrisy has scored a minor victory in America. This is a good thing.

    The word "hypocrisy" was thrown around a lot during the 2016 presidential campaign. Both Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders accused their respective parties and the country's elites of hypocrisy. As the election neared, some journalists tried to turn the accusation around on Mr. Trump, taking him to task, for example, for his stand on immigration. If Mr. Trump favored such a hard line on immigration, the logic went, should he not then favor the deportation of his own wife, Melania, who was alleged to have worked while in the United States on a visitor's visa?

    The charge of hypocrisy didn't stick, not so much because it placed its proponents, unwittingly, in the distasteful position of advocating the deportation of someone for a long-ago and common transgression, but because Mr. Trump wasn't just breaking the rules of political conduct: He was destroying them. He was openly claiming that he abused the system to benefit himself. If he didn't pay his taxes and got away with it, this made him a good businessman. If he could force himself on women, that made him more of a man. He acted as though this primitive logic were obvious and shared by all.

    Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers.

    Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior.

    In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles.

    This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of "whataboutism," the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption, they claim that the entire world is corrupt.

    This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?"

    To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy to understand the country. No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ...

    Hungary's PM Viktor Orban praises Trump for saying countries should put their own interests first
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-nationalist-hungary-pm-viktor-orban-praise-america-first-a7542361.html

    ===

    ilsm, February 18, 2017 at 12:27 PM

    I am less worried now we got Trump and not apparatchik (experienced in deep state and catering to Jihadis) Clinton.
    ilsm, February 18, 2017 at 12:25 PM
    The faux librul side is all Joe McCarthy phony red scaring and surveillance of the opposition activists sort of like what Army Intell did to hippies protesting the liberals' debacle in Southeast Asia.

    Deep state surveillance and trashing the Bill of Rights is a legacy of the past 8 years.

    yuan, February 18, 2017 at 09:36 PM
    it's telling that you believe genuine liberalism is positive...
    ilsm , February 18, 2017 at 04:45 AM
    Vox, what about reporting from a crystal ball requires truth?
    Peter K. - , February 18, 2017 at 07:37 AM
    The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! Hide under your bed.
    ilsm, February 18, 2017 at 12:42 PM
    Flynn could have said something "inappropriate" by a Clintonista definition of "inappropriate", and he "could" be prosecuted under a law designed to muzzle US citizens, that has never been tried bc a Bill of rights argument would win!

    How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?

    If the fascists are coming they would keep Obama's FBI!

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... February 18, 2017 at 05:35 PM

    the dems' deep state have already trodden the Bill of Rights how worse can it get......

    fascism is in the US for 8 years or so.

    [Jun 12, 2017] This two and a half percent of GDP spent on defense is a deceptive metric, because the last part of GRP is FIRE sector. The USA spend around 20 percent of budget on defence

    Jun 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm - , June 10, 2017 at 04:32 AM

    Russia spends less on war than Saudi royals, see what the royals do in Yemen, what they lose in Iraq and Syria, etc.

    What is to worry about with Russia, six other top spender plus Russia add up to the slop in the pentagon trough?

    And Russian drones only operate in Syria where they are allied!

    US is doing in middle east what Nasser tried only for the Wahhabis!

    Fred C. Dobbs - , June 10, 2017 at 05:12 AM
    Russia: #3 by budget $,
    #2 by GDP percentage

    SIPRI Military Expenditure Database
    2017 Fact Sheet (for 2016) [Wikipedia]

    1 US $611.2B annually 3.3% of GDP
    2 China $215.7B 1.9%
    3 Russia $69.2B 5.3%
    4 Saudi Arabia $63.7B 10%
    5 India $55.9B 2.5%
    6 France $55.7B 2.3%
    7 UK $48.3B 1.9%
    8 Japan $46.1B 1%
    9 Germany $41.1B 1.2%
    10 South Korea $36.8B 2.7%

    Fred C. Dobbs - , June 10, 2017 at 05:15 AM
    Fun fact: US budget amount
    is just a bit less than the
    total of the next 9 countries.
    ilsm - , June 10, 2017 at 05:52 AM
    Budget, US figure does not include OCO* which is separate budget.

    *spent on things like training al Qaeda in Syria then defending US grab in Syria, body bags in Syria air refueling and naval support for bombing Yemen, etc.

    Libezkova - , June 11, 2017 at 09:25 PM
    This 2.5% calculated vs GDP which includes oversized FIRE sector. As such it is somewhat deceptive. Along the lines: look how little we spend on defense.

    The reality is different.

    For 2015 total budget was 3.97 trillion. Military budget was 637 billions. That's 16%. And part of military budget is hidden (Department Of Energy, three letter agencies, etc.)

    So we can assume that 2 out of each ten dollars goes to defense. That's a serious hit and that might help to explain crumbling infrastructure in the USA. Might be a symptom of British-style overextension of the empire.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

    [Jun 11, 2017] The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria. ..."
    "... The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states. ..."
    "... The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz." ..."
    Jun 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova, June 10, 2017 at 11:35 PM

    William S. Lind on Hillary:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-trump-can-do-for-defense/

    "In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more wars, wars we will lose.

    Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.

    The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states.

    The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."

    [Jun 11, 2017] What Trump Can Do for Defense The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... Still peddling the 4GW snake oil . . . Would there even be an ISIS without the support of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel . . . or without the Bush administration having destroyed the Iraqi state? ..."
    "... 4GW is a mantra used rather ineffectively to obscure the obvious reality of our own strategic dysfunctions . . . replacing the establishment leadership only takes care of part of the problem, and perhaps not even the worst part, which imo is conceptual . . . connected with having followed Mr. Lind and Martin van Creveld down the rabbit hole notion of the "Transformation of War" . . . ..."
    "... I understand you have to generate content on a regular basis, and a conservative publication should at least try to find the silver linings in a Trump presidency, but you have provided me with very little foundation for why all of these (ostensibly good) things would come to pass because of President Donald J. Trump. ..."
    "... Enjoy the dream while it lasts, Mr. Lind. But be prepared for a rude awakening. Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced. ..."
    "... Most Trump supporters hope for negative accomplishments, catharsis: firings and prosecutions of elite miscreants, ending immigration and deporting illegals, getting out of the Middle East, beating down the GOP establishment and, with it, great swathes of Leviathan. ..."
    "... Both sides aren't seeing their candidate as being great. They just see the other side as an absolute disaster. ..."
    Jun 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    seydlitz89, says: July 11, 2016 at 5:55 am

    Still peddling the 4GW snake oil . . . Would there even be an ISIS without the support of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel . . . or without the Bush administration having destroyed the Iraqi state?

    4GW is a mantra used rather ineffectively to obscure the obvious reality of our own strategic dysfunctions . . . replacing the establishment leadership only takes care of part of the problem, and perhaps not even the worst part, which imo is conceptual . . . connected with having followed Mr. Lind and Martin van Creveld down the rabbit hole notion of the "Transformation of War" . . .

    John , says: July 11, 2016 at 8:35 am
    It's tempting to project your preferences onto Trump because there's so much blank space there in terms of policy, but Trump has in no way committed to firing half of our general officers, or a "housecleaning" that takes away enough money from the Pentagon to fund a major infrastructure program in its own right, or cancelling any weapons system currently under development.

    This is all wishful thinking, even without considering what Congress would do. I understand you have to generate content on a regular basis, and a conservative publication should at least try to find the silver linings in a Trump presidency, but you have provided me with very little foundation for why all of these (ostensibly good) things would come to pass because of President Donald J. Trump.

    An Agrarian , says: July 11, 2016 at 8:45 am
    I wish it were as simple as waltzing about the Pentagon saying "You're Fired!" There's good reasoning in the essay with which I agree; Trump seems to have the better instincts to deal with Pentagon Inc, particularly when Option 2 is Hillary.

    But. How does one reform an inherently unreformable institution? How to overcome a system rigged with flag officers and SES bureaucrats that were groomed for their true-belief in the military-industrial complex? Maybe I'm just the eternal pessimist, but knowing the Pentagon culture firsthand, I see zero chance at a "businessman-led housecleaning of the U.S. military.

    Johann , says: July 11, 2016 at 9:50 am
    "4GW does not justify big-ticket programs such as the F-35 fighter/bomber and its trillion-dollar price tag."

    I would go further and say nothing justifies the F-35. Because of its expense, it is not mass producible, and therefore not suitable for a conventional war either. The cost/aircraft would come down with mass production, but it would still be too expensive and slow to mass produce in an all-out conventional war. It would be kind of like an aerial tiger tank.

    Egypt Steve , says: July 11, 2016 at 10:28 am
    Enjoy the dream while it lasts, Mr. Lind. But be prepared for a rude awakening. Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced.
    Kurt Gayle , says: July 11, 2016 at 11:55 am
    William S. Lind contrasts Trump and Clinton with respect to Pentagon reform:

    Trump: "Because Trump is anti-establishment, military reform would at least be a possibility .Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not like wasting money. They want efficiency. They cut bloated staffs, fire incompetent executives, and get rid of unnecessary contractors."

    Clinton: On the other hand, "So long as the establishment is in power, it [reform ] is not [possible]. In defense as in everything else, establishment leadership means more of the same. In the case of Hillary Clinton that mean[s] more wasted money."

    Lind also contrasts Trump and Clinton with respect to American interventionism:

    Trump: "He has repeatedly questioned American interventionism. He roundly condemned the idiotic and disastrous Iraq War, which suggests he would rather not repeat the experience. Of equal importance, he has called for repairing our relationship with Russia."

    Clinton: A Hillary Clinton presidency "means more wars, wars we will lose. Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria."

    However – on reading further in the Lind article – it becomes apparent that Lind's argument is not so much with endless American military interventionism as it is with the targets of endless American interventionism:

    "The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states The establishment refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war Might a Trump administration see the need for an alliance of all states against non-state forces?"

    In other words, Lind proposes to merely redirect the current endless American military interventions away from existing nation states and towards non-state forces. Lind doesn't simply want to work with other states on a case-by-case basis when it is in the US national interest to do so - rather he wants a new "grand strategy" of an open-ended world-wide alliance with other states against non-state forces. Lind doesn't want to put a stop to endless American military interventionism, but instead to concentrate on a new kind of endless American interventionism.

    An additional point of concern in the Lind article: In asking "Might a Trump administration see the need for an alliance of all states against non-state forces?" Lind writes: "Here we have a clue: Trump has chosen as a defense advisor-the rumor mill says shadow secretary of defense-retired Army general Michael Flynn. It was an excellent choice."

    Two reference articles show why Michael Flynn would not be an "excellent choice"at all: First, in Flynn's own words on July 9th op-ed in The New York Post:

    http://nypost.com/2016/07/09/the-military-fired-me-for-calling-our-enemies-radical-jihadis/

    And secondly, in Daniel Larison's excellent "Flynn's Warped Worldview" (today in TAC):

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/flynns-warped-worldview/

    Fred Bowman , says: July 11, 2016 at 12:01 pm
    Wishful thinking, Mr. Lind even if Trump could with the election and try to make the changes you envision. Truth be told, America is now govern by the "Deep State" of which the MIC is major part of. Also, the MIC is not the least interested in ending any of these interventions wars as that would negatively impact their "gravy train".
    JohnG , says: July 11, 2016 at 2:28 pm
    I agree that we may be projecting our wishful thinking on Trump, but what is the alternative? Faced with a choice between a known bad apple and an apple that gives some vague hope, it is rational to bet on the second. Especially given that it is hard to imagine an apple more rotten than HRC, so our downside risk is limited too.

    PS I was always willing to give pres. Obama a bit of a free pass because of his refusal to implicate us any deeper in the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. I figured the atrocity of Yemen and blunders elsewhere (Iraq, Afghanistan, relationship with SA and Turkey, the lack of resolve to draw an even clearer line in the sand on Syria, Libya, and Ukraine) were the norm given the neocon-infested foreign policy apparatus, and at least he was putting up SOME resistance. Sadly, that resounding endorsement of HRC blew it all up, he has fallen in line and we are in for some more GW-Cheney-style insanity should she prevail. Whatever respect I had for him is now gone. I was hoping he'd try to setup things so that the resistance to the neocon insanity and jingoism would grow further, not fall back, as the choice of HRC clearly indicates.

    eNostrums , says: July 11, 2016 at 3:20 pm
    "Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced."

    "Positive influence" is all well and good, but we're in slow motion collapse, and it's beside the point.

    Most Trump supporters hope for negative accomplishments, catharsis: firings and prosecutions of elite miscreants, ending immigration and deporting illegals, getting out of the Middle East, beating down the GOP establishment and, with it, great swathes of Leviathan.

    I have no idea what the Clinton supporters hope for. More abortions? More government jobs? More immigrants? More gay weddings and transwhatever toilets? More dead Americans and Middle Easterners? More Wall Street bailouts? More foreign dictators and more taxpayer money to put them on the US payroll? They probably aren't thinking "more money and power for the Clintons", "more recklessness and irresponsibility", or "more scandal and embarrassment", even though that's about all they'll get.

    Stephen Johnson , says: July 11, 2016 at 3:28 pm
    While it's true this is wishful thinking, one just needs to remember the alternative. It is as certain as anything can be in this life that with Clinton we will rush full speed ahead into more of the same disasters. Trump is bad, but worse than the status quo? That's hard to imagine. Flynn, though, seems to be another neocon nut, though I'm open to any contrary evidence.
    Carl , says: July 11, 2016 at 4:13 pm
    I wish it were otherwise, but I don't even think that Trump is a serious candidate. He's done nothing to encourage his supporters, taken little to no advantage of Clinton's obvious shortcomings, and everything to provide ammunition to Clinton's legions of delusional 'liberal' fascists. This is not a Donald who wants to win.
    Hankest , says: July 11, 2016 at 5:26 pm
    "Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not like wasting money. They want efficiency. They cut bloated staffs, fire incompetent executives, and get rid of unnecessary contractors."

    Nah.

    Here's how Trump runs his businesses, he incurs enormous debts by grossly overpaying for whatever new toy he wants. Then he incurs more debt to pay himself and his family large salaries or to pay off his personal debts. He also wastes money on the gaudy, unnecessary and tasteless "improvements" to his purchases(small e.g., gold plated fixtures in the Trump Shuttle bathrooms). Then, he doesn't pay contractors for the work they performed. And, when it all goes belly-up he leaves his foolish investors or the banks holding the bag (i.e., the enormous debt).

    More simply, going by his business record Trump actually loves debt, incompetence, overspending and obscene waste.

    sglover , says: July 12, 2016 at 12:23 am
    With this column, the 4GW hucksters have managed to get within their own OODA loop. I'm embarrassed to say that I ever paid attention to them.
    sglover , says: July 12, 2016 at 11:49 am
    I have no idea what the Clinton supporters hope for.

    Maintaining a wobbly status quo. You'll see no grand visions of anything from HRC.

    Elias , says: July 12, 2016 at 3:16 pm
    Trump dug his grave when he delved into xenophobia and ethnic chauvinism.His ranting about Mexicans and Muslims and now his new Nixonian slogan of being a tough law and order president has given enough ammunition to the Democrats to trounce him coming next election.
    Todd Pierce , says: July 12, 2016 at 10:16 pm
    I think Lind is proof of the triumph of hope over reality here; either that or that there is a sucker born every minute. I think some important facts about Flynn are missed here. Here is a statement he made to Hugh Hewitt:

    "Last, I'm going to just touch on Russia and Iran briefly. Both of these countries, I deal with in my book, because these are allies of radical Islamism, and most people don't know how they are interacting with each other. So I just wanted to touch on that."

    Today, July 12th, his book with Michael Ledeen as co-author, Field of Fight, was released. In Flynn's own words:

    "Yet, the alliance exists, and we've already dithered for many years.

    The war is on. We face a working coalition that extends from North Korea and China to Russia, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. We are under attack, not only from nation states, but also from al Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIS, and countless other terrorist groups. Suffice to say, the same sort of cooperation binds together jihadis, Communists, and garden-variety tyrants.

    Flynn isn't an antidote to Hilary Clinton; they're equals in madness.

    A. G. Phillbin , says: July 12, 2016 at 11:50 pm
    I wouldn't even now bet on Trump being the Republican nominee - the Republican establishment may well prefer to be trounced rather than elect Trump. Look for them to give Trump the kind of "support" a rope gives a hanged man, or to change the rules so they can select another nominee, or a combination of both. Paul Ryan has been making noises about allowing delegates to vote their conscience on the 1st ballot, allowing nervous Trump delegates to jump ship. All it would take is a meeting of GOP Rules Committee, which happens just before the convention. And this is a senator who has "endorsed" Trump, even if he has also called him a "racist."
    Dakarian , says: July 13, 2016 at 12:33 am
    from sglover:
    "Maintaining a wobbly status quo. You'll see no grand visions of anything from HRC"

    Sadly I think that IS what's expected. Similar to how Trump voters don't see him so much as doing great things as much as "80% chance of failure is better than 100%", Hillary voters see it as more "keeping the plane slightly tilted down being better than blowing the plane up with dynamite."

    Both sides aren't seeing their candidate as being great. They just see the other side as an absolute disaster.

    I'll be honest, given what the GOP was giving up as alternatives and assuming that Sanders didn't have a chance in hades, Trump/Hillary was, to me, the best outcome out of the primaries. I don't support Trump but I'd take him over Rubio or Bush.

    Though note that at this point 8 years ago, I was saying "oh, Obama vs McCain. Either way, I'm happy." Then the general election campaign kicked in and I stopped being happy over the latter :/

    Sort of worried I'll see the same here, and if the rumors about Trump's shift are true, then I think that's exactly what I'll be seeing.

    Agent76 , says: October 13, 2016 at 10:35 am
    Dec 18, 2015 Donald Trump Is The Establishment Candidate

    While his rise in the polls is attributed to his challenging the establishment and the political status quo, let's look at the many ways Donald Trump, when it comes to his political positions, represents that very same status quo. From the Fed, to war, to civil liberties, the "anti-establishment"? Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.

    https://youtu.be/vt2NPP1z-y8

    [Jun 11, 2017] Kofi Annan is right - the world's multinationals are abusing transfer pricing to shift the economic rents from these African mines to tax havens in places like Switzerland

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In particular, our results show that mining-induced violence was associated mainly with foreign ownership...." ..."
    "... Leaders of African countries indeed can resist multinationals. All they have to do is refuse bribes and survive attempts by the CIA, the State Department, and thugs hired by the multinationals to have them killed. And after succeeding then can then try and manage their countries economy while cut off from the world banking system. ..."
    Jun 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne , June 09, 2017 at 03:38 PM

    http://voxeu.org/article/countering-mining-curse

    June 9, 2017

    Countering the mining curse
    By Nicolas Berman, Mathieu Couttenier, Dominic Rohner, and Mathias Thoenig

    Countries that are rich in natural resources do not always prosper economically. This column uses data on conflict and mineral extraction in Africa to argue that recent rises in mineral prices explain up to a quarter of local conflicts between 1997 and 2010. Mining-induced violence is associated with foreign ownership, although corporate social responsibility policies were associated with less violence. This is relevant to the US debate on whether to scrap the legal requirement to disclose whether products contain conflict minerals....

    In particular, our results show that mining-induced violence was associated mainly with foreign ownership. Nevertheless, among foreign-owned companies, the ones that operated in the least corrupt countries, and the ones that had corporate social responsibility policies were associated with less violence....

    anne - , June 09, 2017 at 03:43 PM
    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20150774

    June, 2017

    This Mine Is Mine! How Minerals Fuel Conflicts in Africa
    By Nicolas Berman, Mathieu Couttenier, Dominic Rohner, and Mathias Thoenig

    Abstract

    We combine georeferenced data on mining extraction of 14 minerals with information on conflict events at spatial resolution of 0.5 degree x 0.5 degree for all of Africa between 1997 and 2010. Exploiting exogenous variations in world prices, we find a positive impact of mining on conflict at the local level. Quantitatively, our estimates suggest that the historical rise in mineral prices (commodity super-cycle) might explain up to one-fourth of the average level of violence across African countries over the period. We then document how a fighting group's control of a mining area contributes to escalation from local to global violence. Finally, we analyze the impact of corporate practices and transparency initiatives in the mining industry.

    anne - , June 09, 2017 at 04:58 PM
    The entire paper is available:

    http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20150774 .

    However, I have only read the abstract and conclusion so far. I will read the entire paper carefully. An assertion that surprised me and for which I have no intuitive explanation is made in the summary:

    "In particular, our results show that mining-induced violence was associated mainly with foreign ownership...."

    anne - , June 09, 2017 at 05:27 PM
    Kofi Annan is right - the world's multinationals are abusing transfer pricing to shift the economic rents from these African mines to tax havens in places like Switzerland....

    [ Perfect, describe the process simply and with no judgmental language so that the process is made clear. No jargon. Understanding before any judgement. ]

    Gibbon1 - , June 09, 2017 at 08:52 PM
    Leaders of African countries indeed can resist multinationals. All they have to do is refuse bribes and survive attempts by the CIA, the State Department, and thugs hired by the multinationals to have them killed. And after succeeding then can then try and manage their countries economy while cut off from the world banking system.
    Christopher H. - , June 09, 2017 at 11:46 PM
    easy peasy

    [Jun 10, 2017] Krugman is a political hack for Clinton wing of Democratic Party and as such can not see was is wrong with Dems and what needs to be done after Hillary Fiasco

    Jun 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova June 10, 2017 at 03:22 PM

    There are several problems with Krugman both as an economist and as a political commentator.

    First he does not understand that neoliberal system is inherency unstable and prone to periodic bubbles and crashes. FED plays destabilizing role by attempting to save large banks. It essentially provided insurance for reckless behaviour. This is very "Minsky" -- "stability is destabilizing". If we believe Jim Rogers, FED policies created a situation in which the next crash is a real possibility and might happen within a year, or two:

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/jim-rogers-the-worst-crash-in-our-lifetime-is-coming/ar-BBCl6BS?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

    Politically Krugman switched to neocon views and sometimes is undistinguishable from Wolfowitz : " And consider his refusal to endorse the central principle of NATO, the obligation to come to our allies' defense... What was that about? Nobody knows..."

    NATO became obsolete with the dissolution of the USSR and now serves only as an instrument of the US foreign policy -- a tool for expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire and keeping our European vassals in check.

    He also got into Russiagate trap, which is a sign of weak intellect (dementia in cases of Hillary and McCain), or of a neocon political hack. As Krugman does not have dementia, I suspect the latter.

    The standards he tries to apply to Trump would put in jail all three previous presidents starting from "change we can believe in" bait and switch artist.

    In other words his column is highly partisan and as such represents interest only for Hillary Bots and DemoRats (which are still plentiful and control MSM).

    For people who try to find a real way out of the current difficult situation (a crisis of confidence and, possibly, the start of revolt against neoliberal elite due to side effects of globalization) the USA now have find itself, this is just a noise. Nothing constructive.

    Trump position "get what you want with the brute force; f*ck diplomacy, UN and decency" is actually an attempt to find a solution for the problems we face. Abhorrent as it is. Kind of highway robbery policy.

    The key problem is whether we should start dismantling neoliberalism before it is too late, and what should be the alternative. Krugman is useless in attempts to answer those two key questions.

    And it is unclear whether it is possible by peaceful means. Those neolib/neocon guys like Bolsheviks in the past want to cling to power at all costs.

    Another question is whether the maintenance of global neoliberal empire led by the USA is now too costly for US taxpayers and need to be reconsidered. This is the same question British empire faced in the past. Do we really need 500 or so foreign bases? Do we really need to spend half a trillion dollars annually on military? Do we need all those never ending wars as in Orwellian "war is the health of the state" quote (actually this quote is not from 1984, this is the subtitle of the essay by Randolph Bourne (1918))

    What is the real risk of WWIII with such policies? Because there is a chance that nor only the modern civilization, but all higher forms of life of Earth in general seize to exists after it.

    Concentrating of Trump "deficiencies" Krugman does not understand that Trump is just a Republican Obama -- another "clean plate" offering to the US electorate, another "bait and switch" artist.

    With just different fake slogan "Make America great again" instead of "Change we can believe in".

    And as such any critique of Trump is an implicit critique of Obama presidency, which enabled Trump election.

    Teleprompter personally was a dangerous and unqualified political hack, not that different from Trump (no foreign policy experience whatsoever; almost zero understanding of economics), who outsourced foreign policy to the despicable neocon warmonger Clinton and got us into Libya, Ukraine and Syria wars in addition to existing war in Afghanistan.

    Continuing occupation of Afghanistan (which incorrectly called war) and illegal actions in Syria (there was no UN resolution justifying the USA presence in Syria) are now becoming too costly.

    Afghan people definitely want the USA out and will fight for their freedom. Taliban has supporters in Pakistan and possibly in other Islamic countries.

    In Syria the USA now clashed with Russian interests which make it a real power keg. Add to this sociopaths in CIA like Mike "Kill-Russians" Morell and the fact that CIA is not under complete control of federal government and actually represent "state within the state" force in this conflict, and the situation looks really dangerous.

    And please note that Russia protects a secular government, and the USA supports Islamic fundamentalists in Syria, to make Israel even greater. Instead of "Making America great again". Such a betrayal of elections promises... The same policy that Hillary would adopt if she sits on the throne.

    So to say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide for them what is good for America.

    The US army is pretty much demoralized and even with advanced weapons and absolute air superiority can't achieve much because solders understand that they are just cannon fodder and it is unclear what they fighting for in Afghanistan.

    Because in Syria the USA support the same Islamic fundamentalists it is fighting in Afghanistan. Or even worse than those -- head choppers like guys from Al Nusra.

    So we fight secular government in Syria supporting Sunni fundamentalists (often of worst kind as KSA supported Wahhabi fighters) and simultaneously are trying to protect secular government in Afghanistan against exactly the same (or even slightly more moderate) Islamic fundamentalist forces. Is not this a definition of split personality?

    Reply Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 03:22 PM

    [Jun 10, 2017] Comey and Mueller Russiagates Mythical Heroes

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
    "... Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man." ..."
    "... Since Mueller was apparently appointed at least in part as a result of Comey's leak, and no evidence has been shown of the phony Russia charges despite months of possibly extra-legal digging, Mueller's appointment should be cancelled and his office liquidated if that can be done in some fashion. If not, may be he should show more integrity than has heretofore been the case and liquidate the office himself. ..."
    "... My old San Fran days memory recalls that "liberal" Democrat Diane Feinstein nominated neo-nazi Republican Mueller to US Attorney for N. California. I recall some thought because her husband was under investigation for a corrupt arms deal. That's just my memory ..."
    "... So Clinton's odd lesbian Attorney General helped boost a Republican to greater powers. ..."
    "... He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of "no warning signs" of any sort of attack. ..."
    "... Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley, that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui." ..."
    "... To summarize, we have a "Republican" from Northern California nominated by a "liberal" Democrat to become part of the Clinton "Justice" department who played a key role as FBI Director to cover 9-11. He now reappears from the grave with great praise from Democrats openly plotting to overthrow President Trump to investigate absurdly silly things like speaking to Russian diplomats. Let us recall Trump openly expressed doubts about the 9-11 twin towers ruse on 9-11! ..."
    "... The 911 cover up team is now about to take President Trump down over yet another false flag, and this team would include the leadership of both parties. How convenient that the Democrats are doing the dirty work so that Fox News and the rest can now engage in covering up the Republicans' behind-the-scenes role in all this. ..."
    "... March 07, 2017 CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley ..."
    "... Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should be very cautions following them. They are likely faked. ..."
    "... Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."
    "... The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult include the following: ..."
    Jun 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Mainstream commentators display amnesia when they describe former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey as stellar and credible law enforcement figures. Perhaps if they included J. Edgar Hoover, such fulsome praise could be put into proper perspective.

    Although these Hoover successors, now occupying center stage in the investigation of President Trump, have been hailed for their impeccable character by much of Official Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush Administration (Mueller as FBI Director and James Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited plain vanilla incompetence.

    TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a " bombshell memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal responsibility for intelligence failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring and Summer of 2001.

    Bush Administration officials had circled the wagons and refused to publicly own up to what the 9/11 Commission eventually concluded, "that the system had been blinking red ." Failures to read, share or act upon important intelligence, which a FBI agent witness termed " criminal negligence " in later trial testimony, were therefore not fixed in a timely manner. (Some failures were never fixed at all.)

    Worse, Bush and Cheney used that post 9/11 period of obfuscation to "roll out" their misbegotten "war on terror," which only served to exponentially increase worldwide terrorism .

    Unfulfilled Promise

    I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting the night before we both testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever witnessed a similar situation to what was behind the FBI's pre 9/11 failures.

    A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney's ginning up intelligence to launch the unjustified, counterproductive and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer, emailing him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded to my email.

    Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the " post 9/11 round-up " of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that none turned out to be terrorists .

    A History of Failure

    Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang.

    Current media applause omits the fact that former FBI Director Mueller was the top official in charge of the Anthrax terror fiasco investigation into those 2001 murders , which targeted an innocent man (Steven Hatfill) whose lawsuit eventually forced the FBI to pay $5 million in compensation. Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."

    For his part, Deputy Attorney General James Comey , too, went along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on a number of highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance of Americans and torture of captives . Comey also defended the Bush Administration's three-year-long detention of an American citizen without charges or right to counsel.

    Up to the March 2004 night in Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room, both Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state of emergency."

    The Comey/Mueller Myth

    What's not well understood is that Comey's and Mueller's joint intervention to stop Bush's men from forcing the sick Attorney General to sign the certification that night was a short-lived moment. A few days later, they all simply went back to the drawing board to draft new legal loopholes to continue the same (unconstitutional) surveillance of Americans.

    The mythology of this episode, repeated endlessly throughout the press, is that Comey and Mueller did something significant and lasting in that hospital room. They didn't. Only the legal rationale for their unconstitutional actions was tweaked.

    Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.

    ORDER IT NOW

    Neither Comey nor Mueller - who are reported to be " joined at the hip " - deserve their current lionization among politicians and mainstream media. Instead of Jimmy Stewart-like "G-men" with reputations for principled integrity, the two close confidants and collaborators merely proved themselves, along with former CIA Director George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, reliably politicized sycophants, enmeshing themselves in a series of wrongful abuses of power along with official incompetence.

    It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called "one of the closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen," Mueller was chosen as Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.

    Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."

    Coleen Rowley , a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. Her 2003 letter to Robert Mueller in opposition to launching the Iraq War is archived in full text on the NYT and her 2013 op-ed entitled " Questions for the FBI Nominee " was published on the day of James Comey's confirmation hearing. This piece will also be cross-posted on Rowley's Huffington Post page.

    Dan Hayes June 9, 2017 at 3:46 am GMT

    As Colleen Rowley has so thoroughly and unequivocally demonstrated here, both Comey and Mueller are living examples of the Peter Principle (that managers rise to the level of their incompetence).

    exiled off mainstreet Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT

    According to Jonathan Turley, one of the best and most respected legal experts, Comey may have violated the law using his professor friend to leak what he thought was an incriminating memorandum documenting Trump's "hope" that he would lay off Flynn because Flynn was a "good guy." Even torture advocate Dershowitz, who, for his obvious faults, is a talented lawyer, indicates that it is preposterous to call this "obstruction of justice" when Trump had the power to pardon anybody. Meanwhile, the fact that Comey didn't find it necessary to document his interrogation of the harpy on the "matter" of her email server reveals that he seemed totally willing for justice to be obstructed in a more obvious fashion if he was on board with those doing the obstructing. It also came out that some of his testimony today appears to contradict statements he made under oath to Senator Grassley in a hearing dated May 3.

    Since Mueller was apparently appointed at least in part as a result of Comey's leak, and no evidence has been shown of the phony Russia charges despite months of possibly extra-legal digging, Mueller's appointment should be cancelled and his office liquidated if that can be done in some fashion. If not, may be he should show more integrity than has heretofore been the case and liquidate the office himself.

    Bill Jones Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 5:18 am GMT

    Excellent piece. Not a dam word I can find fault with.

    Carlton Meyer Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT

    My old San Fran days memory recalls that "liberal" Democrat Diane Feinstein nominated neo-nazi Republican Mueller to US Attorney for N. California. I recall some thought because her husband was under investigation for a corrupt arms deal. That's just my memory

    There are now lots of current news stories of Feinstein and open coup plotter Schumer excited about Muller's appointment to convict Trump for something. This from her own website:

    https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=FEA7C76A-E029-49AF-98F2-5446AABFAD22

    May 17 2017

    Washington-Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the following statement on the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel: "The appointment of Bob Mueller as special counsel for the Russia investigation is a good first step to get to the bottom of the many questions we have about Russian interference in our election and possible ties to the president.

    "Bob was a fine U.S. attorney, a great FBI director and there's no better person who could be asked to perform this function. He is respected, he is talented and he has the knowledge and ability to do the right thing."

    I did find this from 1998:

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/U-S-Attorney-Yamaguchi-Announces-Resignation-3000301.php

    "In announcing his resignation, Yamaguchi said Attorney General Janet Reno will appoint Robert Mueller, a former federal prosecutor in San Francisco, as interim U.S. attorney. He is currently chief of the homicide division at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C. Mueller has spent almost his entire career as a federal prosecutor, doing both civil and criminal work in the San Francisco district and then moving to the U.S. attorney's office in Boston. He eventually joined the Justice Department, where he was an assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division."

    So Clinton's odd lesbian Attorney General helped boost a Republican to greater powers.

    Mueller went on to play key roles in the PanAm Lockerbie coverup and the 9-11 ruse, despite this:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/692291/posts

    "Mr. Mueller's credibility was harshly attacked in a letter made public last weekend in which a Minneapolis agent said the F.B.I. director was engaged in a public relations campaign "to protect the F.B.I. at all costs" after Sept. 11. But they said a review of his public remarks about the Sept. 11 investigation had raised uncomfortable questions about the F.B.I. director's credibility and about his ability to gather accurate information from his deputies."

    In a news conference on Wednesday that amounted to a painful mea culpa for the bureau and for his performance in the nine months since he took over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Mueller said, "I have made mistakes occasionally in my public comments based on information or a lack of information that I subsequently got."

    He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of "no warning signs" of any sort of attack.

    Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley, that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui."

    To summarize, we have a "Republican" from Northern California nominated by a "liberal" Democrat to become part of the Clinton "Justice" department who played a key role as FBI Director to cover 9-11. He now reappears from the grave with great praise from Democrats openly plotting to overthrow President Trump to investigate absurdly silly things like speaking to Russian diplomats. Let us recall Trump openly expressed doubts about the 9-11 twin towers ruse on 9-11!

    Yes, all corruption in DC eventually becomes a 9-11 thread.

    DanCT Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT

    The 911 cover up team is now about to take President Trump down over yet another false flag, and this team would include the leadership of both parties. How convenient that the Democrats are doing the dirty work so that Fox News and the rest can now engage in covering up the Republicans' behind-the-scenes role in all this.

    Also, Colleen Rowley mentions that Meuller ignored his FBI agents' warnings about not going along with CIA torture overseas, yet there is reason to believe that FBI agents were in fact sent overseas to coordinate this activity with the CIA and Mossad.

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

    March 07, 2017 CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley

    Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should be very cautions following them. They are likely faked.

    http://www.4thmedia.org/2017/03/cia-leak-russian-election-hackers-may-work-in-langley/

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 12:55 pm GMT

    Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose

    Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.

    MarkinLA Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 2:02 pm GMT

    I need to leak a memo (actually my own interpretation of what happened after the fact) to counter any possible lies Trump might say just in case Trump produces a tape of the meeting.

    What is wrong with this sentence?

    Che Guava Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT

    This was an interesting article.

    Counterpunch does publish many interesting articles, once upon a time, I was to considering subscription to the print edition, but no credit card, and the 80 to 90% idiocy on the site, The article at the link below is not unrepresentative, though it is at the bottom end of the scale.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/09/lessons-from-portlands-clashes-with-fascists

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT

    March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate

    Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-surveillance-state-behind-russia-gate/5582211

    Jan 2, 2017 CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story

    It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! Nice Try Clinton News Network!

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT

    @Che Guava This is another good read Che Guava. November 07, 2016 FBI Director James Comey: Hillary Should Not Face Criminal Charges

    But Who Conducted the Investigation? FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Whose Wife Received $467,500. FBI Director James Comey (image left) decided to issue a report two days before the November election confirming that there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hillary in relation to the recent release of 650,000 Emails on October 28th.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-director-james-comey-no-evidence-of-hillary-wrong-doing-but-who-conducted-the-investigation-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe-bribed-whose-wife-received-467000/5555398

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT

    @Carlton Meyer This a very good read on the 9/11 event. September 07, 2016 September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century "What Really Happened"?

    New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to be trucked away and shipped to China – an order that constitutes disturbing a crime scene – which is a federal crime.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-15th-anniversary-of-the-crime-and-cover-up-of-the-century/5544414

    Julius Evola Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 6:14 pm GMT

    Get a life!

    Anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 11:15 pm GMT

    @MarkinLA I need to leak a memo (actually my own interpretation of what happened after the fact) to counter any possible lies Trump might say just in case Trump produces a tape of the meeting.

    What is wrong with this sentence? Actually what is right about your post ia that it draws attention to the likelihood that the President would have recordings of all such conversations (not ones when he says "come for a walk with me while I stretch my legs in the garden") and that, anyway, a canny fellow like Comey would assume so and, accordingly, make notes immediately afterwards to ensure that he was right on all the key points. Which all leads to the conclusion that recordings would bear out Comey.

    Priss Factor Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 11:18 pm GMT

    Deep State messes up and sheeple run wild.

    Anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 11:34 pm GMT

    @Agent76 As a big factor in Comey's thinking just before the election when new material possibly pertinent to Clinton's irregullarities came to FBI attention would have been his own self interest it seems reasonable to suppose that both his embarrassment of Clinton by his communication to Congress and his exoneration of her were part of a process which began with "how bad could it be for me if Clinton wins [as I sulppose she will] and something really bad turns up from the investigation of the emails?". Then, given it was true, the exonerating statement is a no brainer (he restores his position as well as he can with Clinton in case she wins and he inly diminishes his credit with Trump slightly if Trumo wins).

    Mulegino1 Show Comment Next New Comment June 10, 2017 at 1:24 am GMT

    The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult include the following:

    Robert Muller's role has nothing to do with being an impartial prosecutor but about being a "fixer" in proper Washingtonian parlance. He was probably brought into the FBI to insure a foreordained "slam dunk" verdict that 19 Arab amateur pilots hijacked 4 airliners led by a deathly ill man living in a cave, performed miraculous feats of aviation which would have made Waldo Pepper envious and violated the laws of physics all in one day. Now he is serving another purpose for his string pullers in the deep state by torpedoing Trump.

    As Conan-Doyle wrote, "Whenever you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

    Office fires, nor jet fuel, nor building collapses or aircraft impacts will not cause hundreds of thousands of tons of structural steel and concrete to undergo molecular dissociation and turn into dust clouds. They generally do not cause the metal components of vehicles in the vicinity to be destroyed while their non-metallic components remain intact. Neither will conventional explosives or even nano-thermite. The destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2 and the core of WTC 6 was not caused by any of these things alone. WTC 7 may have been a case of conventional controlled demolition, but the idea that it experienced universal failure and collapsed into its footprint because of "raging fires" is too stupid for words.

    It is O'Brien holding up the three fingers and torturing Winston into seeing two – except that a good part of our public accepts their masters' voice willingly and enthusiastically, even today in 2017.

    geokat62 Show Comment Next New Comment June 10, 2017 at 2:20 am GMT

    @Mulegino1

    The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult include the following:

    Not sure anyone would accuse Philip Giraldi (former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the CIA) of someone who is "within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult":

    If there had been such a gathering, I would imagine that the Washington Post would have found out about it on the next day as intelligence officers are gregarious and like to talk. This has been my principal problem with the debate in some quarters about the 9/11 Commission. Their report did indeed miss many important angles in order to protect certain governmental interests, but if there had been a genuine conspiracy involving what must have been hundreds of people to demolish the Twin Towers with explosives, it surely would have leaked long ago .

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/do-high-level-leaks-suggest-a-conspiracy/

    [Jun 10, 2017] In Europe, right-wing parties are preaching herrenvolk social democracy, a welfare state but only for selected groups. In America, however, Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats

    Jun 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Christopher H. June 09, 2017 at 11:09 AM https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/populism-and-the-politics-of-health/

    Populism and the Politics of Health
    MARCH 14, 2017 1:43 PM
    by Paul Krugman

    ...

    This ties in with an important recent piece by Zack Beauchamp on the striking degree to which left-wing economics fails, in practice, to counter right-wing populism; basically, Sandersism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Why?

    The answer, presumably, is that what we call populism is really in large degree white identity politics, which can't be addressed by promising universal benefits. Among other things, these "populist" voters now live in a media bubble, getting their news from sources that play to their identity-politics desires, which means that even if you offer them a better deal, they won't hear about it or believe it if told. For sure many if not most of those who gained health coverage thanks to Obamacare have no idea that's what happened.

    That said, taking the benefits away would probably get their attention, and maybe even open their eyes to the extent to which they are suffering to provide tax cuts to the rich.

    In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however, Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That fundamental contradiction is now out in the open." Reply Friday, Christopher H. - , June 09, 2017 at 11:12 AM

    There has been a silence from the center left during the Corbyn campaign and now after it is over. Luckily they have Comey to talk about. I will be curious to hear from Chris Dillow.
    libezkova - , June 09, 2017 at 10:22 PM
    "In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however, Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That fundamental contradiction is now out in the open"

    this is an interesting observation.

    [Jun 09, 2017] Can Qatar Negotiate a Diplomatic Resolution with Its Neighbors

    Notable quotes:
    "... This would have been a perfect opportunity for the United States to step into the breach and offer a helping hand towards conflict resolution, which is exactly what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson offered on Monday during a press conference. Regrettably, President Donald Trump's tweets congratulating the Gulf Arabs for isolating their Qatari neighbor-while taking credit for it-has likely closed the door on any leading mediation role for Washington. ..."
    "... Trump failed to recognize that Washington had an opening to show its Arab partners that the United States-under a Trump administration-values diplomacy just as much military force. ..."
    Jun 09, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

    The measures that the Saudis and company are taking today are much more significant. In addition to calling their diplomats home, the anti-Qatar reprisals include an order for Saudis, Bahraini and Emirati citizens to leave Qatar in fourteen days, and for Qatari citizens to go back to their own country over the same time period. Air, sea and land routes into the Qatari peninsula are blocked, which means that the food imports that Doha relies on to feed its population will need to rely on other seaports to unload their product. Qatar Airways, one of the region's major carriers, is banned from using Gulf Arab airspace, causing multiple delays and forcing the airline to fly more circuitous paths.

    This would have been a perfect opportunity for the United States to step into the breach and offer a helping hand towards conflict resolution, which is exactly what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson offered on Monday during a press conference. Regrettably, President Donald Trump's tweets congratulating the Gulf Arabs for isolating their Qatari neighbor-while taking credit for it-has likely closed the door on any leading mediation role for Washington. It's tough to act as a mediating party between two sides when the mediator is seen as taking sides. With a single tweet, Trump managed to yet again undercut his own Secretary of State.

    We could do the easy thing and bash Trump incessantly over yet one more unwise Twitter outburst. And it would be justified: Trump failed to recognize that Washington had an opening to show its Arab partners that the United States-under a Trump administration-values diplomacy just as much military force. It would also reassure European governments that have been skittish over the last four months.

    [Jun 09, 2017] Dynamics of Ukrainian economics for the last three years

    I am not sure the unemployment data are correct, but this official statistics.
    Jun 09, 2017 | diana-mihailova.livejournal.com

    Originally from: Динамика падения показателей украинской экономики за последние 3 года и налогообложение граждан diana_mihailova

    Real GDP -14%
    Nominal GDP ($) -200%
    Inflation +101%
    Index of industrial production -24.5%
    1ndex of Agroproduction + 161%
    1ndex of production + 124%
    Gross external debt to GDP ratio +44%

    Export of goods and services -180%
    The volume of direct investment -400%
    Capital investment (in $) -250%
    Total private (in $) -56%
    Wholesale volume (in $) -230%
    Retail volumes (in $) -230%
    Currency transferred from foreign countries -36%

    Unemployment + 2%
    Number of payers of taxes -10%
    Goods transportation : -17.6%
    Passenger transportation -27%

    Gold and other noble metals reserves -25%
    Currency reserves -360%
    Devaluation of hryvna 320%

    [Jun 09, 2017] Busy, busy Russian hackers; theyre everywhere.

    Jun 09, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    kirill , June 7, 2017 at 5:02 pm
    Inquiry makes it sound like an actual investigation. WTF could the FBI do in a couple of days. Just look at the IPs recorded in the computer logs. Well, fuckwads and assorted sheeple, those IP numbers prove FUCK ALL.
    marknesop , June 7, 2017 at 10:45 pm
    Busy, busy Russian hackers; they're everywhere. Maybe they will hack my bank and make me a wealthy, wealthy man. I promise it wouldn't change me.

    [Jun 09, 2017] "I like him" Vladimir Putin discusses John McCain with Oliver Stone (Video)

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Carthage must be destroyed." ..."
    Jun 09, 2017 | theduran.com

    In the latest video clip segment for the Showtime documentary of Vladimir Putin by Oscar ward winning director Oliver Stone, the Russian President surprisingly speaks with respect for Senator John McCain, a neocon warmonger, who consistently calls for conflict with Russia and played an integral role in the US coup in Ukraine in 2014.

    Putin told Stone in Moscow

    "Well, honestly, I like Senator McCain to a certain extent. And I'm not joking. I like him because of his patriotism, and I can relate to his consistency in fighting for the interests of his own country."

    RT reports that the Russian President compared US Senator McCain to the Ancient Roman Senator, Cato the Elder, who routinely signed off his speeches, regardless of the subject, with the phrase, "Carthage must be destroyed."

    "People with such convictions, like the Senator you mentioned, they still live in the Old World. And they're reluctant to look into the future, they are unwilling to recognize how fast the world is changing."

    "They do not see the real threat, and they cannot leave behind the past, which is always dragging them back,"

    "Unfortunately there are many senators like this in the United States."

    [Jun 09, 2017] FULL Unedited Interview of Putin TRASHING Megyn Kelly

    Jun 09, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Green Onions 19 hours ago

    OMG she can't even pretend to look smart. Should have pricked yourself with a push pin so you could keep that stupid smirk off your face Kelly.

    John B. 8 hours ago

    I hope Rachel MADdow watched that.

    Gabe B 3 hours ago

    ratchet mad cow isnt any brighter

    [Jun 09, 2017] Putin's best moments while smashing NBC's Airhead Megyn Kelly

    Jun 09, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Vera Aubert 5 days ago

    The thinking people in USA KNOW Russia had nothing to do with our elections! We hated Clinton and would have voted for an alligator if that was the only opponent to Clinton!

    See also

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9DQPXKE2yk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzJSP99a4T4

    [Jun 09, 2017] Whether the Russians did it or not, the USA has the dismal failure by the leading political party to secure their digital communications

    The USA opened this can of works with Flame and Stixnet. Now it needs to face consequences of its reckless actions.
    Both Hillary staff and DNC staff behaves like complete idiots, taking into account the level of mayhem the USA caused in other countries, including Russia. Blowback eventually came and bite their ass. In addition Hillary "private" staff was definitely incompetent.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96: ..."
    Apr 28, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    This is all really becoming exasperating!

    Incessantly reporting 24/7 on whether the Russians did it or not doesn't take into account the critical failure by a leading political party of the "free world" – a nation supposedly at the forefront of technology – to appropriately secure their digital communications along with those of a potential POTUS.

    This is a question of how US government, or a potential one, works, and how it should work in the future.

    The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96:

    http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html )

    [Jun 09, 2017] Saudi Arabias Coalition Could Accidentally Unleash Iran

    Diplomatically the support of KAS was alrea albatros around the Us neck. It poratiens the USA as hyprocritical and brutal opportunist, devoid of any pronciple other then desire to establish and preseve the world hegemony.
    Jun 09, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
    The Iran-Syria alliance has endured the test of war and time. In the early 1980s, Iraq and Iran were engrossed in a brutal conflict that Baghdad portrayed as a war against Iranian expansionism. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and the United States formed a coalition to isolate Tehran from the Hafez al-Assad regime and invite a swift victory for Baghdad. The Syria-Iran alliance never broke, even as Syria became entrenched in its own conflict in Lebanon. In his book chronicling the alliance , Jubin Goodarzi even asserted that Hafez al-Assad turned down $2 billion offered to him by the Saudis if he reopened the trans-Syrian pipeline to Iraq. Despite intense economic and military pressure, this strategy only solidified the nascent alliance between Tehran and Damascus. This alliance has remained durable and transcended significant strategic disagreements between the two countries over the last three decades.

    Iran chooses its alliances and conflicts pragmatically, rather than ideologically. For example, the Islamic Republic historically ignored the plights of Shia minorities in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in favor of maintaining semi-cordial relations with Riyadh and Islamabad. Western analysts often portray Iran's most important alliance with Syria as that of a client and patron state. In reality, it is much closer to a genuine partnership rooted in common strategic goals, despite widely diverging ideologies. Both countries see themselves as unique partners in the "resistance" against Israel. Both also portray themselves as tolerant of religious minorities and sects in a region enveloped by Salafi extremism. Most importantly, Damascus and Tehran have always viewed a strong Arab bloc and Arab detente with Israel as an existential threat. This was true when Egypt and Syria cut diplomatic relations after the Camp David Accord, and when Arab states formed an alliance against the new Islamic Republic in Iran. Thus Tehran and Damascus see themselves as partners in a fight against an Arab bloc that is increasingly dictated by a U.S.-Saudi alliance. No amount of pressure on Iran will make the cost of Tehran's intervention in Syria too high to bear.

    Iran's experience of relative isolation during the war imposed on it by Saddam Hussein's Iraq inspired a frenzied race to develop domestic defensive and ballistic-missile capabilities. In a 2016 interview , Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif asked, "What do you expect, Iran to lie dead? You've covered the Iran–Iraq war, you remember missiles pouring on Iranian cities with chemical weapons. You remember that we didn't have any to defend ourselves." The harsh realities of the Iran-Iraq War quelled revolutionary Iran's ambitions to export its revolution and ideology. Ever since the end of the war, Tehran has instead placed an emphasis on developing strategic alliances outside of the Middle East and developing a domestic military-industrial complex. President Trump's calls to isolate Iran during his recent speech in Riyadh will only provoke a surge in Iranian military development.

    Three contemporary developments also demonstrate why an "Arab NATO" will fail at its mission: Arab Shia communities view Saudi and Wahhabi hegemony as an existential threat, the Saudi-coalition is already fractured, and China and Russia have every reason to tilt towards Tehran.

    The main threat that the Saudi-led coalition seeks to combat is the rise of Arab Shia movements and militias that it believes are loyal to Iran, especially in Iraq and Syria. As I have written before , Shia movements are not nearly as loyal to Iranian interests as often believed, but the existence of an "Arab NATO" will likely result in driving vulnerable Shia communities closer to Tehran. Powerful cleric and warlord Muqtada al-Sadr has called on Assad to resign as president, and expelled fighters found to have fought in Syria in direct opposition to Iranian policy. Several high-ranking Shia clerics in Iraq have issued fatwas forbidding their followers to participate in Syrian operations. The most senior of these clerics, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who himself is of Iranian extraction, has long been the darling of Western analysts due to his rejection of theocracy. In 2005, Thomas Friedman called for Sistani to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his quietist inclinations and role in legitimizing the new Iraqi government in the eyes of Shia. However, the rise of U.S.-backed Sunni coalitions will likely push Iraqi Shia toward institutionalized militancy if they feel their communities are under attack by Saudi-funded Sunni extremists.

    Qatari emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani allegedly stated that "there is no wisdom in harboring hostility toward Iran," but Qatar quickly claimed unconvincingly that the story was fabricated. This led Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Yemen's Western-backed government and Libya to cut off relations with Qatar and put in place an aggressive blockade on its population. Doha's open support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Riyadh's allegation that Qatar provides support for ISIS-and, more importantly, Shia protesters in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province-were used as the official excuse for severing ties. But this is clearly intended by Saudi Arabia to escalate tensions with Iran and send the message that lukewarm partners in the proxy war will not be accepted.

    ... ... ...

    An "Arab NATO" will provide little deterrence, and instead result in an arms race and a deepening of sectarian conflict in the region. It also risks dragging U.S. forces into a sectarian conflict. As former secretary of defense Robert Gates pointed out, the Saudis always want to "fight the Iranians to the last American."

    Adam Weinstein is a policy associate at the National Iranian American Council. He is a veteran of the Marine Corps where he served in Afghanistan. He has contributed to Foreign Policy, The Diplomat, CNN, and other outlets .

    John Doe • 10 hours ago

    SA is trying tp preserve waning hegemony by picking fights with anyone in sight but failing to defeat Yemen , now it's Qatar's turn with the hopes of it developing into an Iran - USA war.It won't help. The Saudis are TERRIFIED of a diplomatic rapprochement between Washington & Tehran and would start any war to prevent it.

    SweatnSteel • 4 hours ago

    As if this whole kerfuffle was strictly Riyadh's idea... Hmm.. Who else has been screaming "Iran, Iran, Iran"??

    Who else is mortified by the expansion and reinforcement of the Shia crescent now stretching from Pakistan to the Mediterranean?

    Who else indeed.. Riiiiight...


    youyeg • 39 minutes ago

    I think the best solution for Arab state is to provide more cooperation and not relying on the US and money. Nothing could come out of tension, but rise of opportunists who seek profit out of chaos.

    [Jun 09, 2017] Comey rips media for dead wrong Russia stories

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was. ..."
    "... The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia. ..."
    "... "In the main it was not true," Comey said. ..."
    Jun 09, 2017 | thehill.com
    Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly warned Thursday that news reports based on leaks of classified information pertaining to the Russia investigation have been consistently wrong.

    In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Community, Comey said stories about Russia that are based on classified leaks have been a persistent problem for the FBI because news organizations have often received bad information.

    "There have been many, many stories based on - well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are dead wrong," Comey said.

    Sen. Tom Cotton Tom Cotton Trump's 'infrastructure week' goes off the rails New York Times responds to Comey's challenge of its story Comey rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories MORE (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

    "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was.

    The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    "But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin," the Times wrote.

    "In the main it was not true," Comey said.

    But in an analysis of Comey's comments on Thursday evening, the Times argued that sources cited in the Feb. 14 article have vouched for the account put forth, though the newspaper's reporters were not able to contact them immediately after Comey's testimony.

    The analysis raises the possibility that Comey could have been disputing the article's characterization of Russian intelligence officials.

    Another possibility, according to the Times, is that Comey may have disputed with the newspaper's description of the evidence as "phone records and intercepted calls."

    Comey said incorrect reports are frustrating because the FBI's policy is not to comment on the media's coverage of its investigations.

    "The challenge - and I'm not picking on reporters - about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it," Comey said. "We don't call the press and say, 'Hey, you got that thing wrong.' "

    Trump has repeatedly railed against "fake news" and the media's reliance on unnamed sources.

    CNN this week had to issue a correction after it reported that Comey would testify that he never told Trump that he wasn't the target of an investigation.

    [Jun 08, 2017] US legal imperialism

    Jun 08, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com
    , johnbig , 17 Nov 2016 09:56
    At the very time when American legal imperialism is gaining in strength and imposing its rules and its dues on our companies, this decline in public justice is an aberration.

    This is a very important point and follows the US imposing fines on many foreign (to the US) banks for infringing boycotts decided purely by the USA. At this moment the full treaty with Iran is not being applied because firms outside the US are frightened to engage with Iran under a threat of retribution by the USA. One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the use of the Dollar as a reserve currency. It is time that the importance of other currencies was recognised in international trade I am thinking of the Euro and the Chinese Yuan.

    [Jun 08, 2017] The Qatar spat exposes Britains game of thrones in the Gulf by Paul Mason

    Notable quotes:
    "... Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia is meanwhile prosecuting a war on Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen, using more than £3bn worth of British kit sold to it since the bombing campaign began. In return, it has lavished gifts on Theresa May's ministers: Philip Hammond got a watch worth £1,950 when he visited in 2015 . In turn, Tory advisers are picking up lucrative consultancy work with the Saudi government. ..."
    "... However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably by executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year. ..."
    Jun 05, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    This clash between Britain's allies in the so-called war on terror matters. If Corbyn is prime minister on Friday, there will be a break with the appeasement of jihadi-funding autocrats

    Great. Just what we need. Our self-styled key ally in the so-called war on terror – Saudi Arabia – just closed the airspace, land and sea borders with our other ally, Qatar , accusing it of supporting Isis. What's that about?

    Well, like almost everything in the region, it is about the strategic duplicity of the West, exacerbated by the childlike idiocy of the US president. Does it matter for Brits – other than those stuck at airports in the Gulf, or policy wonks obsessed with Middle Eastern conflicts?

    It matters on every street in Britain.

    Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there.

    But the Qataris have always punched above their weight in regional affairs, and displayed a more intelligent grasp on the strategic, demographic and cultural changes sweeping the Arab world.

    It was the Qataris who set up Al Jazeera, as a counterweight to the reactionary state media across the middle east, and to challenge the US media's right to set the global narrative about the Islamic world.

    Qatar supported the short-lived Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt and still supports and shelters the leaders of the Hamas government in Gaza . In Syria, Qatar spent up to $3bn (£2.3bn) in the first two years of the civil war bankrolling the rebels – allegedly including the al-Qaida-linked group al-Nusra Front.

    The Saudis, too, bankrolled Islamist rebels , and both sides claim never to have bankrolled Isis. So what is really at stake?

    The issue torturing the Saudi monarchy is Iran. Obama made peace with Iran in 2015, in the face of Saudi and Israeli opposition. Qatar is diplomatically closer to Iran. It has also supported (outside Qatar) the spread of political Islam – that is, of parties prepared to operate within nominally democratic institutions.

    The Saudis' strategic aim, by contrast, is to end the peace deal with Iran and to stifle the emergence of political Islam full stop.

    Last month, Donald Trump took himself to Riyadh to - participate in a sword dance and glad hand the Saudi royals. And that is where the trouble escalated.

    Qatar's ruler had been reported by his own state media as warning against the escalating confrontation with Iran: "Iran represents a regional and Islamic power that cannot be ignored and it is unwise to face up against it," said a TV tickertape quoting the Emir.

    When these comments caused outrage in Riyadh , the Qataris withdrew them, claiming they had been "hacked" .

    But Trump's visit poured ethanol on to the simmering conflict. Few observers see today's move as anything other than the Saudis acting with state department backing. One Iranian official tweeted the spat was "the prelimary result of the sword dance".

    Saudi Arabia is meanwhile prosecuting a war on Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen, using more than £3bn worth of British kit sold to it since the bombing campaign began. In return, it has lavished gifts on Theresa May's ministers: Philip Hammond got a watch worth £1,950 when he visited in 2015 . In turn, Tory advisers are picking up lucrative consultancy work with the Saudi government.

    The problem remains Saudi culpability – past and present – for funding islamist terrorism. After September 11, the Saudi monarchy did begin to crack down on islamist terrorism domestically, criminalising terrorist finance. But, as a US cable released by Wikileaks shows , even as late as 2009, that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide".

    Since the coronation of King Salman in January 2015, there has been a programme of economic modernisation and political reforms the monarchy has tried to sell as liberalisation.

    However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably by executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year.

    In Britain, when the Lib Dems in the Coalition supported airstrikes against Isis, the price they extracted was for Cameron to launch an inquiry into foreign funding of terrorism. Eighteen months on, it remains suppressed . As with the infamous Serious Fraud Office investigation into corruption at BAE , it is being buried because it would expose the past misdemeanours of the the Saudis.

    We do not know why Britain has suddenly become the target for a jihadi terror surge: five foiled attempts and three gruesomely successful ones in 70 days.

    One possible explanation is that, with the increased tempo of fighting in Mosul and towards Raqqa, it is becoming clear to the thousands of jihadi fantasists sitting in bedrooms across Europe, that their "caliphate" will soon be over.

    If so, the question arises: a) what will replace it on the ground and b) how to deal with the survivors as they fan out to do damage here?

    In both cases, it is vital that the Gulf monarchies funding the Syrian resistance are on board with the solution. And, as of today, two of the key players are waging economic war and a bitter rhetorical fight with each other.

    As for the wider world, it is Iran that emerges as the tactical victor in today's spat. Trump flew to Riyadh and the result was air transport chaos across the Gulf. Iran had an election and the moderates won.

    But there is good news. If Jeremy Corbyn is prime minister on Friday, Britain's game of thrones in the Gulf will end. The foreign policy he outlined at Chatham House represents a complete break with the appeasement of terror-funding Saudi autocrats. The strategic defence review he has promised would unlikely keep funding the Royal Navy base in Bahrain.

    Britain cannot solve the diplomatic crisis in the Gulf. But it can stop making it worse. Last December, Boris Johnson inadvertently had a go. He named the Yemen conflict as a proxy war; accusing both the Saudis and Iran of "puppeteering". He was quickly slapped down.

    Only a Labour government will stop appeasing the Saudi monarchy and reset the relationship to match Britain's strategic interest – not the interest of Britain's arms dealers and PR consultants.

    [Jun 08, 2017] Trump Tumbles into Saudi-Israeli Trap by Alastair Crooke

    (Agree, when it comes to foreign policy Trump is an amateur and therefore can easily misled by people like Netanjahu & the Saudi government)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes, the iconic salesman (Trump), was himself sold a proverbial "bridge" (by his son-in-law, fueled by the conceit that having known Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for many years, Kushner was "ideal" for bringing peace to Israel). Trump in Riyadh thus paid full homage to the Sunni narrative that they – the Sunnis – are the innocent victims, and the Shi'a, the dark, nefarious, revolutionary, fifth-columnists, who must be driven back into their "pen." ..."
    "... Trump has thus declared himself an explicit partisan in the geo-strategic power plays between the region's northern-tier states and the Gulf states. Instead of remaining distant and "above" these Middle East conflicts, he has allowed himself to be persuaded to do the opposite: to dive in, on the Sunni side (perhaps partly to counterpoint with President Obama's engagement of Iran). ..."
    "... As then-Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban noted at the time: "[The Americans'] feeling is yes to Jerusalem, but no to the territories. They are stressing that it would be very bad if the world gets the impression that we really intend to hold onto the entire territory." ..."
    "... But Israel has not conceded a Palestinian State - despite many opportunities over the last 25 years - and does not seem any more disposed to "give" a Palestinian state now. Seldom is it asked why, if the logic is indeed so compelling, have two states not emerged? ..."
    "... Perhaps it is because both the original "Israel surely wants a Palestinian state" premise, and the linked premise that building security trust with Israel is the necessary sine qua non ..."
    "... The evidence of Israeli actions on the ground, too, plainly does not support the contention that Israel has been preparing the transition to a two-state solution of fixed borders, and a sovereign Palestinian state. On the contrary, the evidence points in the opposite direction: that Israel has been intent on frustrating the two-state solution within fixed borders ..."
    "... This – the Sunni-Israeli regional Alliance; the renewed peace process – is a trap into which Trump has been persuaded to enter. It is a trap, because once entered into, the peace process becomes formaldehyde to all other political processes.How often have we been told "you can't do this; you can't do that" because it might endanger the (vacuous) "peace process." ..."
    "... A peace process gives Israel huge anesthetic leverage in the region – as always it has so done.It is a trap – because it ties Trump into trying to assuage the Irano-phobia of Saudi Arabia, which will prove to be just as insatiable as are Israel's "security needs." ..."
    "... These liabilities will undercut Trump's possibilities for defeating ISIS and for dιtente with Russia. Russia has been trying to bring the Shi'a and the Turks tothe negotiating table on Syria.Trump's role was to be to help bring the Sunni side to the table – in order to forge a wider regional settlement. That will be less likely now, as Saudi Arabia levers Trump's visit towards weakening Iran. ..."
    "... The Americans did warn the Israeli cabinet that it would become progressively harder and harder for America to defend Israel's hold over the disempowered, disenfranchised and dispossessed (and enlarging), Palestinian people – if Israel insisted on its "winner takes all" end of war policy. ..."
    "... as White House adviser Steve Bannon noted in his film Generation Zero ..."
    jackrabbit.blog

    President Trump has fallen into a Saudi-Israeli trap that won't solve the Mideast regional conflicts and won't lead to a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, explains ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke.

    Jared Kushner did his father-in-law few favors when he enticed President Trump into the endless Israeli-Palestinian "peace process." To this end, as one Israeli journalist put it , Trump's advisers set up the Saudis to "embrace [him], and do the sword dance around [him], add a huge check for the arms deals – and [in return is expected to] create an anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian axis [around them]."

    Yes, the iconic salesman (Trump), was himself sold a proverbial "bridge" (by his son-in-law, fueled by the conceit that having known Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for many years, Kushner was "ideal" for bringing peace to Israel). Trump in Riyadh thus paid full homage to the Sunni narrative that they – the Sunnis – are the innocent victims, and the Shi'a, the dark, nefarious, revolutionary, fifth-columnists, who must be driven back into their "pen."

    Trump has thus declared himself an explicit partisan in the geo-strategic power plays between the region's northern-tier states and the Gulf states. Instead of remaining distant and "above" these Middle East conflicts, he has allowed himself to be persuaded to do the opposite: to dive in, on the Sunni side (perhaps partly to counterpoint with President Obama's engagement of Iran).

    Why? Well, the dollars ( should they materialize), will be useful . But essentially, because Kushner persuaded his-father-in-law that flattering the Saudis and demonizing the Iranians, represented the entry price into the peacemaking process between Israel and the Palestinians, which if achieved, would constitute the Trump foreign policy "legacy" for history.

    A Long-term Failure

    According to the well-regarded Israeli journalist, Ben Caspit, in Maariv , "Someone in Washington studied the map and did their homework. The assessment is that this was a joint effort by Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt [Trump's Special Representative for International Negotiations]. They heard from Obama's people, and also from a few Israelis who spent all their time, energy, and health on the peace process in the last eight years, who explained to them how the smoking and explosive powder keg of the Middle East conflict needed to be approached."

    Yes, they probably spoke precisely with those "peace process" experts who have been in denial – for the last 25 years – to its manifest failure. And therefore, have been unwilling to acknowledge the four basic flaws to the Oslo principles. Instead, we repeat the same flawed approach, over and over, hoping always for a different outcome.

    Europe and America have shared a settled conviction over the last decades : It is that Israel, out of its own necessity, must seek to conserve a Jewish majority within Israel. And that with time, and a growing Palestinian population, Israel will at some point have to acquiesce to a Palestinian "state," in order to maintain that Jewish majority: that is, only by giving Palestinians their own state or somehow dispensing with a part of the Palestinian people that it controls, can Israel's Jewish majority be preserved. This is the first principle.

    This notion seems intuitively so self-evident, that most Americans and Europeans decline to question it.But the recent release of transcripts from the Israeli cabinet discussions in the wake of the Israeli victory in the 1967 Six Day War show clearly that even then, Israel leaders understood this basic dilemma: they heard the contemporary U.S. warnings about having to absorb one million captive Palestinians, but remained defiant, insisting to keep all the land that had occupied in the war.

    As then-Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban noted at the time: "[The Americans'] feeling is yes to Jerusalem, but no to the territories. They are stressing that it would be very bad if the world gets the impression that we really intend to hold onto the entire territory."

    Assuaging the Israelis

    This first proposition bequeathed to us the second principle: that of the "security-first doctrine": that Europe and America, in insisting (to the Palestinians) that they must meet and assuage Israel's own self-assertion of its security needs, would enable Israel to transition, with confidence, to a two-state solution.

    This security-first narrative is persuasive – so persuasive that European and American policy has been skewed almost wholly towards the goal of security trust-building with Israel. This latter goal has been pursued ΰ outrance - beyond even, the point at which any sovereignty residual that might remain after Israel's assertion of its security requirements, would amount to little more than a continued occupation masquerading as a Palestinian "state."

    Yet, to the frustration of Western leaders, and despite whatever additional security was provided by the Palestinian security forces, it was never enough. Western leaders have found no solution, but to press on, insisting on yet more security co-operation and trust-building with Israel.Indeed, President Trump seems to have pursued this same line: apparently shouting and berating Palestinian leader Abu Mazen for inciting against Israel (and for giving financial support to families whose members, now prisoners, had resisted the Occupation).

    But Israel has not conceded a Palestinian State - despite many opportunities over the last 25 years - and does not seem any more disposed to "give" a Palestinian state now. Seldom is it asked why, if the logic is indeed so compelling, have two states not emerged?

    Perhaps it is because both the original "Israel surely wants a Palestinian state" premise, and the linked premise that building security trust with Israel is the necessary sine qua non to Israel's transition into the two-state solution, quite simply, are flawed. Perhaps Israel has always hankered after some alternative way to retain the land, and somehow to contain its population (the recently released records of the post-war cabinet certainly suggest so).

    The Two-State Mirage

    The evidence of Israeli actions on the ground, too, plainly does not support the contention that Israel has been preparing the transition to a two-state solution of fixed borders, and a sovereign Palestinian state. On the contrary, the evidence points in the opposite direction: that Israel has been intent on frustrating the two-state solution within fixed borders .

    But there are two further "givens" to the "process" with Israel that also deserve more critical scrutiny: One, (most favored by the Europeans), is that America can "impose" a solution on Israel.On the basis of my experience as a staff member of Sen. George Mitchell's peacemaking process, this also is a flawed premise.To appropriate the phrase used in a different context, Israel always "has six ways from Sunday" to circumvent American pressures (which in any case are limited by domestic political considerations).

    Finally, does the Arab leadership – as opposed to the street – really want a Palestinian state? I am not so sure. I think they are quite comfortable with things just as they are. The presumption of a strong desire to establish a Palestinian State may be flawed too.

    So what is Trump's (or Kushner's) "new" plan? Daniel Serioti of Israel Hayom reports on May 24: "A senior official in Ramallah told Israel Hayom that during President Trump's one-on-one meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen that [Trump] intends to lead a peace process based primarily on the Saudi-Arab peace initiative

    "President Trump told the PA chairman that the peace plan that he was consolidating would be based on promoting a comprehensive regional plan first, as part of the Arab peace initiative.The Palestinian official said that President Trump emphatically told Abu Mazen that this did not mean renouncing the two-state vision as the basis for a future agreement between Israel and the PA, under which a Palestinian state would be established alongside Israel, although the American president would like to consider additional possibilities 'outside the box.'

    "The main possibility is promoting the Saudi-Arab peace initiative first, and only afterwards an interim agreement, in the framework of which the parties would discuss ways to reach a permanent status arrangement that would enable the creation of an independent Palestinian state and both sides declaring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    "The Palestinian official said that President Trump described the fundamentals of the plan that he is drafting in a very general way and did not go into the particulars, althoughaccording to him, the Americans would like to promote the Arab peace initiative so that the beginning will involve an act of normalizing Israel's relations with the moderate Sunni Arab states.

    "Additionally the Americans will take action to promote direct intensive negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, which will be outlined in a preset timetable, and under which the parties will take action to resolve core issues, primarily delineating the borders of the future Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and the holy places, the fate of the settlements outside the large blocs, the right of return and more."

    Not Much 'New'

    The "new" twist here is a "regional (Sunni-Israeli) alliance" that would initially normalize with Israel, but which then could evolve into a"regional defense alliance," "under American patronage and with full military and diplomatic American support" and which would be targeted explicitly at Iran and its allies.

    But there is nothing truly new here.We have had "inside-out" and "outside-in" initiatives before. But what is different about the Trump/Kushner version is that the late Saudi King Abdullah's initiative was predicated on Israel establishing a Palestinian State first and normalization with Israel occurring secondly.Trump seems to be inverting the order: Arab normalization first and then an interim agreement with the Palestinians second.

    In fact, it all sounds rather like a re-make of the "security-first doctrine": i.e. that Arab States, by assuaging Israel's own self-assertion of its security anxieties, would serve, through normalization, to enable Israel to transition with greater confidence to an "interim" Palestinian solution – and maybe even to a permanent solution.

    We have here the eternal problem that the Arab leaders cannot afford to normalize without an Israeli concession to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians in turn will not make a gesture, until and unless, Israel halts settlement building, which the latter will not do.

    Another reason to think that this plan will come to nothing (after being spun out as long as possible by Prime Minister Netanyahu) is that, while it is true that the Palestinians presently are weak and divided – paradoxically Netanyahu is even weaker. Any concessions to Abu Mazen, however banal, could bring down his government.Netanyahu's right-wing sees no reason to make any – even symbolic – concessions to the Palestinians.Why should they?They are on the cusp of having it all.

    The Trap Closes

    This – the Sunni-Israeli regional Alliance; the renewed peace process – is a trap into which Trump has been persuaded to enter. It is a trap, because once entered into, the peace process becomes formaldehyde to all other political processes.How often have we been told "you can't do this; you can't do that" because it might endanger the (vacuous) "peace process."

    A peace process gives Israel huge anesthetic leverage in the region – as always it has so done.It is a trap – because it ties Trump into trying to assuage the Irano-phobia of Saudi Arabia, which will prove to be just as insatiable as are Israel's "security needs."

    These liabilities will undercut Trump's possibilities for defeating ISIS and for dιtente with Russia. Russia has been trying to bring the Shi'a and the Turks tothe negotiating table on Syria.Trump's role was to be to help bring the Sunni side to the table – in order to forge a wider regional settlement. That will be less likely now, as Saudi Arabia levers Trump's visit towards weakening Iran.

    With Trump's homage to the Sunni cause, it is more likely that the Sunni-Shi'a fissure will deepen, rather than its sore edges be reconciled.And, viewed from a pure realpolitik perspective, does Trump really believe that Saudi Arabia and its allies will succeed in weakening the Russia, Iran, Syria, Iraq and Hizbullah alliance?

    And Israel? The writing was plainly on the wall, as we now know, at those post-Six Day War Israeli cabinet meetings. The Americans did warn the Israeli cabinet that it would become progressively harder and harder for America to defend Israel's hold over the disempowered, disenfranchised and dispossessed (and enlarging), Palestinian people – if Israel insisted on its "winner takes all" end of war policy.

    This is something that still has to play out in its own way.But as White House adviser Steve Bannon noted in his film Generation Zero , "the essence of Greek tragedy is that it is not like a traffic accident, where somebody dies. The Greek sense is that tragedy is where something happens because it has to happen Because the people involved make it happen. And they have no choice, but to make it happen."

    Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum.

    mike k , June 3, 2017 at 11:15 am

    Jun 04, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    All this complicated diplomacy really means nothing. The truth is that the Israeli's stole the Palestinian's land from the very beginning, abetted by the Western powers, and they are continuing to steal it and to destroy the Palestinian people, because they have the power to do that. Why should they make any kind of deal, when they have the power to get what they want without making deals? They just play at making deals to cover their naked power grabs, and pretend to be civilized and concerned about the Palestinians rights, which of course they are not. Trying to talk the Israeli's into making peace is a fool's errand, that only diplomats trying to keep their jobs would involve themselves in.

    T. Mellman , June 3, 2017 at 12:00 pm

    My response to the "the Israeli's stole the Palestinians' land from the very beginning" argument is that nobody's going to be giving America back to the Indians.

    My suspicion is that the Palestinians would have eventually come to terms with the new order, but that the conflict has been used for one proxy war or another, and as fuel for stoking Muslim resurgence, since the birth of Israel.

    If America could get over its "exceptionalism" delusion and the world could jettison the fancy that religion is something that needs to be protected, the conflict would resolve.

    Chet Roman , June 3, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    Of course you would claim equivalence with the U.S. colonization American. There are some similarities; both the English colonists of America and the European colonists of Palestine were foreigners with no ties to the land.

    BUT we are in the 21st century and yet the Zionist colonization continues to expand. They continue to slaughter the indigenous population and steal even more land. It is not U.S. exceptionalism that causes chaos in the Middle East, it's the Zionist control of the U.S. foreign policy that supported the invasion of Iraq to eliminate an enemy of Israel, the effort to break up Syria into warring factions so Israel can steal more land adjacent to the Golan Heights were oil has been discovered and to stop the Iranian military support of Hezbollah so Israel can try again to capture the Litani River.

    Yes, please ask the moderator to delete your vacuous comment.

    evelync , June 3, 2017 at 4:38 pm

    I have a different take, T Mellman, on what you wrote:

    "If America could get over its "exceptionalism" delusion and the world could jettison the fancy that religion is something that needs to be protected, the conflict would resolve."

    I heartily agree. And others here seem to have overlooked this key comment. You were making excuses for no one and even dare to point out that if Israelis would consider embracing Palestinians into Israel, accepting that "horrors!", one day the Israeli State might be multicultural, and multi- religious, so what? Maybe that would be a good thing! Better for all concerned in some unexpected way?

    Thank you!

    Anon , June 3, 2017 at 6:20 pm

    You are trying to deceive with zionist propaganda:

    1. You are rationalizing theft by a past theft. The US case is also long ago and entirely immaterial.
    2. You know that it is the zionists not the Palestinians who are primarily promoting a religion, but you try to blame the Palestinians by claiming that they could simply change their religion;
    3. You know that it vacuous that "the conflict would resolve" if both sides dropped religious preference;
    4. You know that "one proxy war or another" in the Mideast consist entirely of zionist wars for theft.

    So tell your thief friends to "come to terms with the new order" or be expelled on rubber rafts where they belong, a promised land in the middle of the Mediterranean.

    Peter Loeb , June 3, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    I AGREE WITH MIKE K .

    If A Crooke were more knowledgeable and less "diplomatic" he
    would have read Thomas Suarez' landmark book THE TERROR STATE
    . Perhaps he might comprehend that Palestinians NEVER
    wanted a Zionist and exclusive home for "the Jews" (who???).
    The "War of Independence" was a terrorist war in the first place
    against the UK and then against the Palestinians (Muslim and
    non-Muslim) who already lived in that area to which they considered
    they considered themselves divinely entitled.

    This commenter is not sufficiently eloquent to paraphrase Mr.
    Suarez's work.

    This administration may make things worrse but
    many, many others have certainly played their parts.

    "The only good Arab (Israeli term) may be a dead Arab" or
    at least a dying one. The Israeli's have produced both with
    American assistance over many decades and with
    British stupidity as well.

    --Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    Dan Kuhn , June 3, 2017 at 11:37 am

    There is one thing about the Jews that has remained constant over the last thousands of years. They are takers. They take and take until they force the Gentiles into a corner and then the Gentiles turn on them. After hundreds of pograms against these particular people you would think that the Jews would take a serious review of why they are generally so hated by the rest of the world and try and mitigate this hatred by changing some of the ways they generate it. But no. It replayes itself over and over. When they get a leg up they push it to the limit. Where ever they are people soon wind up in usurious debt to them,. They seem to believe the old testament story that God will always defend them and slaughter their adversaries. over and over again the exact opposite happens and they once again push people to the point of striking back at them. Will they ever learn? Not much hope there, as they keep as a central point of their culture that they are the master race and that the rest of mankind is only there to be their slaves. To them the Goyim are just beasts in the field even just excrement. With an attitude like that is there any wonder that another pogram will take place. They will drive the Goyim to it. Sad to say but they are the architechs of their own destruction.

    Bill Bodden , June 3, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    Dan: I essentially agree with the thrust of your argument, but your phrasing is unfortunate in putting all Jews in the same category. They are similar to almost all groupings of people. They include the best and worst of people with most somewhere in between. The tragedy for many people of Jewish heritage is that they pay the price of the sins of the authoritarians among them and their accomplices among the Gentiles.

    Mondoweiss.net, Consortium News, CounterPunch and similar websites feature examples of admirable and courageous authors of Jewish heritage.

    Joe Tedesky , June 3, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/05/28/523435/Palestine-Israel-Tel-Aviv

    Dan possibly there are some good Jewish still left in Israel. I often look at our own American citizen dilemma, whereas we Americans are poorly represented by our leadership. Very complex, when trying to sort this mess all out, indeed. Take care Dan Joe

    Anon , June 3, 2017 at 11:50 am

    An excellent expose of zionist capture of a fooled administration. No one is fooled by the Trump plan. The utterly racist zionists have already "spun out as long as possible" the totally fake "peace process" and will never consent to justice except at the point of a gun.

    That gun should be ISIS and Alqaeda, brought to Jordan, KSA, and Egypt to take over Israel. Then give them seventy years (as in 1947-2017) to "discuss" a two-state solution with enslaved Israelis. Then send the bastards overseas in rubber rafts to whomever is foolish enough to accept them.

    The tragedy is that the zionist Jews are just as fascist as the Nazi Germans. But there is no more reason for mercy. End the fake negotiations and enslave the bastards. History will consider the destruction of Israel as inevitable due to their extreme racist imperialist conduct, and the sooner the better.

    Bill Bodden , June 3, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    em>The evidence of Israeli actions on the ground, too, plainly does not support the contention that Israel has been preparing the transition to a two-state solution of fixed borders, and a sovereign Palestinian state. On the contrary, the evidence points in the opposite direction: that Israel has been intent on frustrating the two-state solution within fixed borders.

    This evidence has been obvious for many years to people who have not sold their souls to lobbyists for Israel – and probably to some that have made their Faustian bargains for political or other gains.

    Given the turmoil throughout the Middle East the inheritors of Zionist ambitions have probably put expansion beyond the Palestine Territories on the back burner for the time being.

    [Jun 08, 2017] Comey apparently admit leaking stuff to New York Times

    Notable quotes:
    "... Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump. ..."
    "... Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today. ..."
    Jun 08, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    UPDATE 12:50 P.M. As the public part of the hearing adjourned, and Comey has completely vindicated Trump ahead of a later closed session hearing where he and senators are likely to discuss classified information he could not bring up during the televised hearing, the whole thing turned out exactly like Breitbart News Network told you it would: A giant nothing-burger.

    Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump.

    Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today.

    UPDATE 12:37 P.M. Their hopes and dreams dashed by Comey completely vindicating Trump in this open hearing, and instead implicating ex-Obama administration officials like Loretta Lynch–and implicating himself as an anti-Trump leaker with a network through which he has leaked damaging information against the president–the left and media are pinning everything on a last ditch line of questioning from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).

    This line of questioning from @SenKamalaHarris regarding the Attorney General is extraordinarily important – not to be overlooked

    - Matt House (@mattwhouse) June 8, 2017

    Here's video of her comparing Trump to an armed robber though, so take whatever she says with a grain of salt:

    Sen. Kamala Harris seems to compare Trump to an armed robber saying "I hope you will give me your wallet" #ComeyTestimony pic.twitter.com/2yjfV3UyIM

    - Mike Ciandella ن (@MikeCiandella) June 8, 2017

    Meanwhile, anti-Trump Never Trumper Max Boot is in an alternate reality, saying Comey was fantastic as a witness.

    Bottom line for #ComeyDay : Comey a highly credible witness. Trump isn't. Comey makes damning accusations. Trump denials unconvincing.

    - Max Boot (@MaxBoot) June 8, 2017

    Flashback, though, to when Comey was fired and Boot with some bold predictions back on May 9:

    Congress needs to ask Comey to testify & he needs to tell all he knows about Kremlingate. If he does Trump may regret firing him.

    - Max Boot (@MaxBoot) May 10, 2017

    Don't tell Max Boot about the black helicopters coming for him. Seriously. "KREMLINGATE"? What is wrong with these people? Anyway, another wonderfully fantastic flashback of this Never Trumper from when Comey was fired in May:

    Prediction: If Democrats take control of Congress in 2018, the firing of Comey will form one of the articles of impeachment.

    - Max Boot (@MaxBoot)

    Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from him.

    - Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 12:21 P.M. Loretta Lynch is in serious trouble right now. Looks like the Democrats' efforts may have backfired.

    Loretta Lynch is having a surprisingly bad day in the Comey testimony

    - Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) June 8, 2017

    If it wasn't for Trump becoming president, the corruption with Obama's Department of Justice would be a major story.

    - Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) June 8, 2017

    Comey also just testified that he did not believe that Lynch could "credibly deny" the Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation, and that she had a serious conflict of interest. He also testified in exchange with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Majority Whip, that it is possible a special prosecutor was needed for the email scandal. He said he considered calling for appointing a special counsel in the scandal, but decided against it.

    UPDATE 12:08 P.M. Oh my. Now confirmed leaker James Comey's leak network has been outed, or at least part of it has:

    Only in Washington: Someone nursing a pint of beer shouts out to a crowded bar: "Daniel Richman of Columbia" https://t.co/hNXVbfBe8r

    - Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) June 8, 2017

    So the collusion involves former FBI director, mainstream media, and the left-wing academy to bring down the elected president #ComeyHearing https://t.co/sVWKpajWw9

    - Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 8, 2017

    And now Comey's anti-Trump leak network is confirming to the media that Comey is a leaker:

    Columbia Law Prof Daniel Richman confirms to @ZCohenCNN that he is the friend that provided excerpts of the Comey memo to reporters.

    - Ryan Nobles (@ryanobles) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 12:05 P.M. There are now serious questions being raised as to whether Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General from the Obama administration, will be subpoenaed to testify after this hearing where Comey has implicated her.

    Legit question: is Loretta Lynch going to be subpoenaed as a result of this testimony?

    - Mike Shields (@mshields007) June 8, 2017

    Meanwhile, Comey's admission he is a leaker serious hurts him. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School makes the case Comey may be in serious trouble:

    Comey admits that he leaked the internal memo through a Columbia law professor in order to force Special Counsel. Yet, that raises questions

    - Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017

    Comey is doing well but leaking info runs against Comey's image, particularly in light of the leak controversy hoiunding the Administration

    - Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017

    The memos could be viewed as gov't material and potential evidence . Leaking to a friend for disclosure can raise serious questions.

    - Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 12:02 P.M. Donald Trump, Jr., highlights an excellent question from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) to Comey. Comey did not have a great answer.

    Sen Blunt: If you told Sessions you didn't want to be alone with Trump again, why did you continue to take his calls?

    - Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 12:01 P.M. From our RNC friends, here's video of Sen. Rubio crushing another leftist media narrative during his questioning of Comey.

    Basically, Comey was so concerned about President Trump's conversations with him that he alerted exactly nobody who could do anything about it. In other words, this whole thing is a giant nothing-burger. Except for Comey implicating himself as a leaker.

    UPDATE 11:58 A.M. Comey is in big trouble after this hearing. He admitted he's a leaker, and has an actual network through which he leaks information to the press. In addition, he withheld from leaking information that would have vindicated President Trump weeks ago. White House social media director Dan Scavino captures it clearly and concisely on Twitter:

    Because if it was leaked that @realDonaldTrump was personally not under investigation- it would have crushed the entire narrative. pic.twitter.com/drFcCxin5M

    - Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) June 8, 2017

    President Trump still has yet to Tweet, so no free drinks yet here at Union Pub. Looks like the owners here made a smart decision since this place is standing room only right now.

    UPDATE 11:54 A.M. Oh, man, this keeps getting better and better. Comey just shredded the Democrats AND now the fake news media.

    Oh Boy. Comey says there have been many many stories based on classified information about Russia that are just "dead wrong"

    - Maeve Reston (@MaeveReston) June 8, 2017

    I wonder if any of the media outlets that have printed repeated stories on these matters will check their reporting again or correct it if they're wrong. Not holding my breath.

    UPDATE 11:50 A.M. Comey has emerged throughout this hearing before the American people looking very much like a drama queen. One of the more memorable lines is when he says when Trump called him to ask him if he was free for dinner, he had to break a date with his wife.

    Comey says Trump called him at his desk. "Free for dinner tonight?"
    "I said yessir I had to call my wife and break a date with her."

    - Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) June 8, 2017

    That's not the only drama-filled Comey testimony:

    COMEY JUST QUOTES HENRY 11 on what he thought Trump meant: 'Will no one rid me of this toublesome priest"

    - Trip Gabriel (@tripgabriel) June 8, 2017

    Meanwhile, even CNN's Jim Acosta–a vehemently anti-Trump media figure in the heart of the opposition party's mothership CNN–is joining in on the anti-Comey fun.

    Giving info to media "like feeding seagulls at the beach?" Fact check: True.

    - Jim Acosta (@Acosta) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 11:48 A.M. The leaky Capitol Hill GOP swamp aides are attacking Trump, despite the fact Comey has vindicated the president and implicated himself in potentially illegal leaks.

    Senate R aide: Holding nose and defending Trump is taking a lot out of these GOP senators - and they will demand some kind of repayment

    - Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) June 8, 2017

    The fact that Swamp Creatures on the "Republican" side on Capitol Hill are throwing shade on their own president, and party, as the GOP and Trump likely emerge from today's masquerade mostly out of the woods is simply incredible but unsurprising. Swamp Things are going to Swamp.

    UPDATE 11:45 A.M. Comey's open admission he orchestrated a potentially illegal leak puts him in serious potential trouble, the New York Times people note. That's the story folks. He vindicated Trump, and implicated himself. Wow, what a day.

    Can't remember the last time someone in DC openly acknowledged orchestrating a leak - and without any senator having even asked.

    - Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 11:39 A.M. CNN's Dan Merica says that President Trump's personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz will make a statement at the end of Comey's public testimony.

    Marc Kasowitz, Trump's lawyer outside the White House, will make a statement at the end of James Comey's Senate testimony

    - Dan Merica (@danmericaCNN) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 11:35 A.M. As Comey continues vindicating Trump and throwing Democrats like Lynch, Obama, and Clinton under the bus–presumably accidentally–the Washington, D.C., daydrinking party scene is in full swing:

    Spotted at Duffy's Irish Pub in North DC:
    "Comey is my homey." pic.twitter.com/kvGuaqEqsd

    - Sharon Nunn (@sharonmnunn) June 8, 2017

    Her "homey" James Comey, meanwhile, has actually admitted he is a leaker.

    Flag: Comey says he had a friend of his leak the content of his memo to a reporter to hopefully prompt the appointment of a special counsel. pic.twitter.com/qICnQhI2te

    - Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 8, 2017

    Comey admits to @SenatorCollins that he asked a friend to leak the contents of his memo to NYT to prompt the appointment of Special Counsel.

    - Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 8, 2017

    Here's video of Comey admitting he has been leaking information to the media:

    Here's how I leaked my Trump memo after Trump's "tapes" tweet

    by: James Comey pic.twitter.com/9Z1QPPdcKD

    - Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 11:32 A.M. While obstruction is now off the table for Trump, as Breitbart's Joel Pollak detailed, Breitbart's John Hayward notes that obstruction is back on the table for several leading officials from now former President Barack Obama's administration. Hayward says Congress needs to investigate Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General, as well as Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton–the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee–for obstruction of justice.

    Big takeaway from the Comey hearing: urgent need to investigate Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton for obstruction

    - John Hayward (@Doc_0) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 11:29 A.M. Our very own Joel Pollak is out with another bombshell piece detailing how this hearing has shattered the media's and the Democrats' efforts to taint President Trump with "obstruction of justice."

    "Democrats have hinged their hopes for impeachment - and reversing the 2016 elections - on the idea that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That case has now been smashed beyond repair," Pollak writes, pointing to a Comey exchange with Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID).

    Read his whole story here .

    [Jun 08, 2017] NSA Denies Everything About Latest Intercept Leak, Including Denying Something That Was Never Claimed

    Notable quotes:
    "... Targeting telco and ISP systems administrators goes well outside the bounds of "national security." These people aren't suspected terrorists. They're just people inconveniently placed between the NSA and its goal of " collecting it all ." ..."
    "... The NSA's own documents say that QUANTUMHAND "exploits the computer of a target that uses Facebook." The man-on-the-side attack impersonates a server , not the site itself. The NSA denies impersonating, but that's not what The Intercept said or what its own documents state. This animated explanation, using the NSA's Powerpoint presentation, shows what the attack does -- it tips the TURBINE servers, which then send the malware payload before the Facebook servers can respond. ..."
    "... To the end user, it looks as though Facebook is just running slowly. ..."
    "... When the NSA says it doesn't impersonate sites, it truly doesn't. It injects malware by beating Facebook server response time. It doesn't serve up faux Facebook pages; it simply grabs the files and data from compromised computers. ..."
    "... The exploit is almost wholly divorced from Facebook itself. The social media site is an opportunity for malware deployment, and the NSA doesn't need to impersonate a site to achieve its aims. This is the NSA maintaining deniability in the face of damning allegations -- claiming something was said that actually wasn't and resorting to (ultimately futile) attempts to portray journalists as somehow less trustworthy than the agency. ..."
    "... At this point, the mere fact that the NSA denies doing something is almost enough to convince me that they are doing it. I'm trying not to be paranoid. They just make it so difficult. ..."
    "... considering how much access they seemed to have I think it is entirely possible for them to do that. And the criminal energy to do it definitely there as well. ..."
    "... And there is still the question if Facebook and similar sites might be at least funded, if not run by intelligence agencies altogether. If that is the case that would put this denial in an entirely different light. It would read "We don't impersonate companies. We ARE the companies."... ..."
    "... Max level sophistry. I wonder if anyone at the NSA even remembers what the truth is, it's been coated in so many layers of bullshit. ..."
    "... As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery of that when it proudly announced in its documents that "we hunt sys admins." ..."
    Jun 08, 2017 | www.techdirt.com
    The recent leaks published at Glenn Greenwald's new home, The Intercept, detailed the NSA's spread of malware around the world, with a stated goal of sabotaging "millions" of computers. As was noted then, the NSA hadn't issued a comment. The GCHQ, named as a co-conspirator, had already commented, delivering the usual spiel about legality, oversight and directives -- a word salad that has pretty much replaced "no comment" in the intelligence world.

    The NSA has now issued a formal statement on the leaks, denying everything -- including something that wasn't even alleged. In what has become the new "no comment" on the NSA side, the words "appropriate," "lawful" and "legitimate" are trotted out, along with the now de rigueur accusations that everything printed (including, apparently, its own internal documents) is false.

    Recent media reports that allege NSA has infected millions of computers around the world with malware, and that NSA is impersonating U.S. social media or other websites, are inaccurate. NSA uses its technical capabilities only to support lawful and appropriate foreign intelligence operations, all of which must be carried out in strict accordance with its authorities. Technical capability must be understood within the legal, policy, and operational context within which the capability must be employed.
    First off, for the NSA to claim that loading up "millions" of computers with malware is somehow targeted (and not "indiscriminate") is laughable. As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery of that when it proudly announced in its documents that "we hunt sys admins."

    Targeting telco and ISP systems administrators goes well outside the bounds of "national security." These people aren't suspected terrorists. They're just people inconveniently placed between the NSA and its goal of " collecting it all ."

    Last, but not least, the NSA plays semantic games to deny an accusation that was never made, calling to mind Clapper's denial of a conveniently horrendous translation of a French article on its spying efforts there.

    NSA does not use its technical capabilities to impersonate U.S. company websites.
    This "denial" refers to this portion of The Intercept's article.
    In some cases the NSA has masqueraded as a fake Facebook server, using the social media site as a launching pad to infect a target's computer and exfiltrate files from a hard drive... In one man-on-the-side technique, codenamed QUANTUMHAND, the agency disguises itself as a fake Facebook server. When a target attempts to log in to the social media site, the NSA transmits malicious data packets that trick the target's computer into thinking they are being sent from the real Facebook. By concealing its malware within what looks like an ordinary Facebook page, the NSA is able to hack into the targeted computer and covertly siphon out data from its hard drive.

    The NSA's own documents say that QUANTUMHAND "exploits the computer of a target that uses Facebook." The man-on-the-side attack impersonates a server , not the site itself.

    The NSA denies impersonating, but that's not what The Intercept said or what its own documents state. This animated explanation, using the NSA's Powerpoint presentation, shows what the attack does -- it tips the TURBINE servers, which then send the malware payload before the Facebook servers can respond.

    To the end user, it looks as though Facebook is just running slowly.

    https://player.vimeo.com/video/88822483

    When the NSA says it doesn't impersonate sites, it truly doesn't. It injects malware by beating Facebook server response time. It doesn't serve up faux Facebook pages; it simply grabs the files and data from compromised computers.

    The exploit is almost wholly divorced from Facebook itself. The social media site is an opportunity for malware deployment, and the NSA doesn't need to impersonate a site to achieve its aims. This is the NSA maintaining deniability in the face of damning allegations -- claiming something was said that actually wasn't and resorting to (ultimately futile) attempts to portray journalists as somehow less trustworthy than the agency.

    sorrykb ( profile ), 14 Mar 2014 @ 9:39am

    Denial = Confirmation?
    NSA does not use its technical capabilities to impersonate U.S. company websites.

    At this point, the mere fact that the NSA denies doing something is almost enough to convince me that they are doing it. I'm trying not to be paranoid. They just make it so difficult.

    Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 9:48am
    Re: Denial = Confirmation?

    considering how much access they seemed to have I think it is entirely possible for them to do that. And the criminal energy to do it definitely there as well.

    By now you have to assume the worst when it comes to them, and once the truth comes out it tends to paint and even worse picture then what you could imagine.

    And there is still the question if Facebook and similar sites might be at least funded, if not run by intelligence agencies altogether. If that is the case that would put this denial in an entirely different light. It would read "We don't impersonate companies. We ARE the companies."...

    Mark Wing , 14 Mar 2014 @ 10:35am

    Max level sophistry. I wonder if anyone at the NSA even remembers what the truth is, it's been coated in so many layers of bullshit.

    art guerrilla ( profile ), 14 Mar 2014 @ 12:06pm
    Re: NSA Word-Smithing

    I can not stress this poster's sentiment, as well as voiced in the article itself, of the CHILDISH semantic games the alphabet spooks will play... they WILL (metaphorically speaking) look you straight in the eye, piss on your leg, and INSIST it is raining; THEN fabricate evidence to 'prove' it was rain...

    In my readings about the evil done in our name, with our money, *supposedly* to 'protect and serve' us, by the boys in black, you can NOT UNDERESTIMATE the most simplistic, and -to repeat myself -- CHILDISH ways they will LIE AND DISSEMBLE...

    They are scum, they are slime, they are NOT the best and the brightest, they are the worst and most immoral...

    YOU CAN NOT OVERSTATE THEIR MORAL VACUITY...

    we do NOT deserve these pieces of shit...

    Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 11:17am

    We know that the NSA, with the cooperation of the companies involved, has equipment co-located at major backbones and POPs to achieve the goals for QUANTUMHAND, QUANTUMINSERT, and etc.

    At what point will we start confronting these companies and pressuring them to discontinue such cooperation? I know it's no easy task, but just as much as the government is reeling from all the public pressure, so too will these companies if we press their hands. Make it affect their bottom line.

    Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:49pm
    is techdirt an hack target?

    this page of your site tries to run scripts from
    google
    amazonaws
    twitter
    facebook
    ajax.googleapis
    techdirt

    and install cookies from
    techdirt
    imigur

    and request resources from
    rp-api
    vimeo

    and install/use tracking beacons from
    facebook connect
    google +1
    gravitar
    nativo
    quantcast
    redit
    repost.us
    scorecard research beacon
    twitter button.

    ...and who knows what else would run if all that was allowed to proceed. (I'm not going to run them to find out the 2nd level stuff)

    for all the great reporting techdirt does on spying/tracking/privacy- you need to get you shit together already with this site; it seams like you're part of the problem. Please explain the technical facts as to why these same types of hacks couldn't be done to your readers through this clusterfuck of off site scripts/beacons/cookies/resources your forcing on people to ignorant to know how to block them.

    Matthew Cline ( profile ), 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:50pm

    As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery of that when it proudly announced in its documents that "we hunt sys admins."

    Well, heck, that's easy. Since the computers of the sys admins are just means to an ends, simply define "target" in a way that excludes anyone whose computers are compromised as a means to an end.

    Anonymous mouse , 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:56pm

    I seem to remember some articles about why people who don't use Facebook are suspect. To wit,

    Are these possible signs that the NSA and GHCQ planted those stories?

    Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 3:49pm
    The fun has yet to really begin

    On April 8th, this year, Microsoft will stop installing new security patches from Windows XP, leaving computers running it totally vulnerable to such hacks. Anybody want to place bets on the fact that the alphabet soup agencies of our wonderful gummint are going to be first in line to exploit them? Just think what NSA could do with 300,000,000+ computers to play with!

    [Jun 08, 2017] Congress Getting Pissed Off Over Failure Of Intel Community To Reveal How Many Americans Are Being Spied On Techdirt

    Notable quotes:
    "... I'm sure the number of American's spied upon is pretty damning and might actually cause some blowback (especially if it's 90-100% of the population as I suspect), which could put its use in jeopardy. ..."
    "... the Postal Service has confirmed that it takes a photograph of the outside of every letter and package mailed in the United States and occasionally provides the photos to law enforcement agencies. ..."
    "... It's obvious that they somehow accessed nearly all communications of Americans at one point or another. Even if technically they didn't look at much of the data. ..."
    Jun 08, 2017 | www.techdirt.com
    Then, yesterday, there was a public Senate Intelligence Committee hearing over the issue of the 702 renewal. While most of the press is focused on the refusal of those testifying to say whether President Trump had spoken to them about various investigations concerning Russia, there was something else concerning that was brought up. Coats, despite his earlier promises and the promises of his office, is now saying that it would be impossible to give a number.

    Not surprisingly, for the folks in Congress who have been insisting on getting this number (and giving it to the public), this... did not sit well. When it was Senator Wyden's turn to question the panel, he went off on Coats for going back on his word.

    This morning you went back on that promise and you said that even putting together a sampling, a statistical estimate, would jeopardize national security. I think that is a very, very damaging position to stake out.

    Later in that exchange, there was this exchange (which, if you watch it, involved both men being fairly testy with each other):

    Wyden: Can the government use FISA 702 to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic?

    Coats: Not to my knowledge. It would be against the law.

    As Marcy Wheeler points out, that exchange may prove to be similar to Wyden's now infamous question to Coats' predecessor, Clapper, about whether or not the NSA collected information on millions of Americans (the "not wittingly" response, which was later shown to be completely bogus). Wheeler points out that for Coats to actually believe that, it would appear that he doesn't know how 702 is actually used , even though he signed a memo about this very thing. Wheeler points to the recent FISC opinion reauthorizing 702 data collection that states that if the Director of the NSA signs a waiver for all of the domestic collections, then the NSA can still collect a wholly domestic communication under 702. That FISC opinion cites a March 30th memo that Coats would have signed as the justification for this argument. So for him to now say that it's illegal for the very thing his own memo from March says is okay... seems like a serious problem.

    And Wyden's not the only one upset about this. Since this was a Senate hearing, Rep. Conyers wasn't there, but he put out a blistering statement calling Coats' statements "unacceptable."

    The intelligence community has-for many months-expressly promised members of both parties that they would deliver this estimate to us in time to inform our debate on the reauthorization of Section 702. As late as last August, we had discussed and approved the specific methodologies that the NSA might use to make good on their promise.

    Today, Director Coats announced that the estimate is 'infeasible' and will not be forthcoming. I find that outcome unacceptable.

    Over the course of the last year, we believed we had worked past the excuses we are offered today. The nation's leading civil liberties organizations see no threat to privacy in this project, and have said so publicly. The agencies demonstrated to us how they might perform this analysis without significant diversion of resources. I am deeply disappointed in a return to these old talking points.

    Section 702 is built on trust. It will be more difficult to find that trust as we move forward with the debate.

    As we discussed earlier this week, a bunch of Senators have already been pushing a permanent renewal of 702 with no changes at all. As the debate heats up on the renewal of Section 702 ahead of its expiration later this year, we're going to need Congress to hold the intelligence community to its promise to reveal at least some data on how these programs impact Americans' communications.

    aerinai ( profile ), 8 Jun 2017 @ 8:19am
    No Stakes, No Game

    Until these Senators start actually holding these guys accountable and not renew their authority of Section 702, these hearings are just bluster. I like Wyden and what he's doing (it seems single handedly), but unfortunately it doesn't mean much to the NSA. Withholding the information won't change any politicians views of it and its 'necessity', so they might as well err on the side of caution.

    I'm sure the number of American's spied upon is pretty damning and might actually cause some blowback (especially if it's 90-100% of the population as I suspect), which could put its use in jeopardy.

    Bergman ( profile ), 8 Jun 2017 @ 9:42am
    Re: No Stakes, No Game

    Contempt of Congress still exists, I think the Senate should start stomping on people who show contempt.

    Roger Strong ( profile ), 8 Jun 2017 @ 10:07am
    Re: We can truthfully guarantee...

    Plus those who don't use electronic-based forms of communication, but who have friends and relatives who do, and who mention them in emails and on Facebook.

    Also those who pay their grocery bills with a credit or debit card. Purchase history is occasionally requested by police.

    Also people not into ebooks, but who check out books from the library.

    Don't forget travel details, for those who cross a border. Or fly. Or pay for gas and meals with a credit / debit card.

    Or who use local transit. My city switched to electronic fare cards a few months ago. Naturally, it was just revealed that the private travel history of bus riders is being handed to police without requiring a warrant.

    But hey, there's still non-electronic communication like snail mail. That hardly ever gets opened. Although the Postal Service has confirmed that it takes a photograph of the outside of every letter and package mailed in the United States and occasionally provides the photos to law enforcement agencies.

    James T , 8 Jun 2017 @ 10:44am
    They can't

    It's obvious that they somehow accessed nearly all communications of Americans at one point or another. Even if technically they didn't look at much of the data.

    If true then they certainly wouldn't want to say we spied on everyone. That would damage their position which is that they are being responsible Intelligence agencies.

    Anonymous Coward , 8 Jun 2017 @ 12:06pm
    Infeasible to justify funding for an office that can't even justify itself

    If the office cannot even compute a rough estimate, then it is either uncooperative or supremely incompetent. In either case, it is infeasible to continue funding such an entity. Funding for continued operation of the surveillance programs should be stripped until such time as it can comply with simple oversight requirements.

    [Jun 08, 2017] Books about russiphobia

    Notable quotes:
    "... For something more serious, see Russophobia: Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by Andrei Tsygankov. ..."
    Jun 08, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Evgeny , June 7, 2017 at 7:33 pm
    Hello Stooges!

    Have you heard of " The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin " by Kovalik Dan?

    So far I have had a cursory look on it - a few minutes of turning the pages. It doesn't look like a serious professional study, more like a light writing (albeit with numerous booknotes), and the author's focus seems to be on exposing the cases where the U.S. misbehaved in the world - so it shouldn't be critical of countries like Russia. The author cites journalists like Max Blumenthal, Robert Perry, even Paul Craig Roberts, so I guess it might be an interesting read. Perhaps I will read the book; not sure.

    Warren , June 7, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/N3t8ut5r_0U

    Published on 4 Jun 2017
    As Hillary Clinton blames the Kremlin for her election loss, author and attorney Dan Kovalik argues that anti-Russia sentiment is deeply embedded in the U.S. political establishment. Kovalik's new book is "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia: How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Russia."

    J.T. , June 8, 2017 at 6:28 am
    Heard of it, but I'll pass.
    For something more serious, see Russophobia: Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by Andrei Tsygankov.
    Andreas Umland on June 11, 2010
    Stretching "Russophobia"
    An analysis like Andrei P. Tsygankov's book was sorely needed. However, I am not sure that Tsygankov will fully reach with this text what he seemingly wanted to attain - namely, an effective, noted and, above all, consequential critique of US attitudes towards Russia during the last decade. Tsygankov has, to be sure, done a great deal of investigative work. He details many episodes that illustrate well where US policy or opinion makers have gone wrong. The book's chapters deal with, among other topics, the Chechen wars, democracy promotion, and energy policies. It is also important that this interpretation comes from a Russia-born political scientist who lives in the US and knows American discourse and politics well.

    Tsygankov's deep knowledge of both, Russian affairs as well as camps and trends in US politics, adds considerable value to this analysis.

    Yet, already the title of the book indicates where Tsygankov may be defeating his purpose. By way of classifying most of US-American critique of Russia as "Russophobia", Tsygankov goes, at least in terms of the concepts and words that he uses to interpret these phenomena, a bit too far. Tsygankov asserts that Russophobia is a major intellectual and political trend in US international thought and behaviour. He also tries to make the reader believe that there exists a broad coalition of political commentators and actors that form an anti-Russian lobby in Washington.

    It is true that there is a lot to be criticised and improved in Western approaches towards post-Soviet Russia - and towards the non-Western world, in general. US behaviour vis-ΰ-vis, and American comments on, Russia, for the last 20 years, have all too often been characterized by incompetence and insensitivity regarding the daunting challenges and far-reaching consequences of the peculiarly post-Soviet political, cultural and economic transformation. Often, Russian-American relations have been hampered by plain inattention among US decision and opinion makers - a stunning phenomenon in view of the fact that Russia has kept being and will remain a nuclear superpower, for decades to come.

    The hundreds of stupidities that have been uttered on, and dozens of mistakes in US policies towards, Russia needed to be chronicled and deconstructed. Partly, Tsygankov has done that here with due effort, interesting results and some interpretative success.

    Yet, Tsygankov does not only talk about failures and omissions regarding Russia. He also speaks of enemies of the Russian state in the US, and their supposed alliances as well various dealings.

    Certainly, there is the occasional Russophobe in Washington and elsewhere, in the Western world. Among such personage, there are even some who are indeed engaged in an anti-Russian political lobbying of sorts.

    However, the circle of activists who truly deserve to be called "Russophobes" largely contains immigrants from the inner or outer Soviet/Russian empire. These are people who have their own reasons to be distrustful of, or even hostile towards, Russia. After the rise of Vladimir Putin and the Russian-Georgian War, many of them, I suspect, feel that they have always been right, in their anti-Russian prejudices. In any way, this is a relatively small group of people who are more interested in the past and worried about the future of their newly independent nation-states than they are concerned about the actual fate of Russia herself.

    Among those who are interested in Russia there are many, as Tsygankov aptly documents, who have recently been criticizing the Russian leadership harshly.

    Some of them have, in doing so, exerted influence on Western governments and public opinion. And partly such critique was, indeed, unjustified, unbalanced or/and counterproductive.

    But is that enough to assert that there is an "anti-Russian lobby"? What would such a lobby gain from spoiling US-Russian relationships? Who pays these lobbyists, and for what? Who, apart from a few backward-looking East European ιmigrιs, is sufficiently interested in a new fundamental Russian-Western confrontation so as to conduct the allegedly concerted anti-Russian campaigns that Tsygankov appears to be discovering, in his book?

    [Jun 08, 2017] Washington's Empire Is Not Unraveling - The Unz Review

    Jun 08, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Paul Craig Roberts June 5, 2017 700 Words RSS Jump To... Content Top Bottom Section Current Next Bookmark Toggle All ToC Remove from Library Add to Library Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments List of Bookmarks

    The military/security complex spent seven decades building its empire. The complex assassinated one American president (JFK) who threatened the empire and drove another (Richard Nixon) out of office. The complex does not tolerate the election of politicians in Europe who might not follow Washington's line on foreign and economic policy.

    Suddenly, according to the Western and even Russian media, the complex is going to let one man, Trump, who does not rule America, and one woman, Merkel, who does not rule Germany, destroy its empire.

    According to the presstitutes, by pulling out of the Paris Accord (the global climate pact) and stating that NATO members should contribute more to the alliance's budget for which the US taxpayer has an overweighted share, Trump has caused Merkel to conclude that Europe can no longer rely on Washington. The discord between Trump and Merkel and Washington's resignation of its leadership position has destroyed the Western alliance and left the EU itself on the verge of being torn apart.

    All of this is nonsensical sillyness. What has happened is this:

    Just as men in dark suits and dark ties carrying briefcases explained to Trump that it was not Washington's policy to normalize relations with Russia, they explained to him that it was not Washington's policy to exit the Paris Accord. Trump said something like this: Look, you guys, you have already required me to abandon my peace initiative with Russia and my intent to pull out of Syria. Now you are forcing me off my "America First" pledge. If people realize that I am not really the president, who are you going to rule through? What about a compromise?

    Here is the deal, as Trump made perfectly clear in his speech. He is temporarily pulling the US out of the Paris Accord while he immediately opens negotiations to rejoin the Paris Accord on terms less burdensome to Americans. In other words, the "pull out" is a face-saving gesture that will result in a small reduction in America's share of the cost. We will have a "Trump victory" and no damage to the Paris Accord.

    Merkel facing reelection needs a boost that will refocus German attention from the one million Muslim refugees, bringing crime, rape, and terrorism in their train, that Merkel brought into Germany. Her dramatic statement that Europe can no longer rely on America was a perfect way to refocus attention. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump and Merkel got together and agreed on how they would play this.

    Yet neither reporters nor commentators could report the obvious truth. Why? The Western media could not let pass the opportunity to denounce Trump for destroying American leadership and the climate, and environmental organizations seized the fundraising opportunity to oppose Trump's climate destruction. Russian commentators saw hope for Russia in NATO and the EU breaking up as consequences of America going its own way.

    There are two serious implications of this media deception. One is that Americans and the world are blinded to the fact that there are power centers that constrain a president and are capable of substituting their agendas for the agendas on which the president campaigned. We saw this with Obama, but were given the explanation that Obama never meant it in the first place. Now we will get the same explanation of Trump. The fact that the president is constrained by the military/security complex and the financial sector will not come through. Thus, The Matrix's myth of democracy bringing change via elections will continue to blind people to reality.

    A second consequence is that the Russians, ever hopeful to be part of the West while retaining national sovereignty, which no member of the EU or NATO is permitted to do, will see in the reported withdrawal of American leadership renewed hopes of joining Europe. If the Russians take seriously the New York Times anointment of Germany's Merkel as "the liberal West's last defender" ( https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/world/europe/germany-merkel-trump-election.html?mcubz=0&_r=1 ), Russia might leave herself militarily and economically exposed by slowing military preparations and the development of economic relations with Asia.

    People can have little idea of actual events as long as news reporting and commentary reflect political agendas and hopeful aspirations.

    [Jun 07, 2017] James Comey sued by intelligence contractor Dennis Montgomery over spying on Americans Circa News - Learn. Think. Do.

    Jun 07, 2017 | circa.com

    A former U.S. intelligence contractor tells Circa he walked away with more than 600 million classified documents on 47 hard drives from the National Security Agency and the CIA, a haul potentially larger than Edward Snowden's now infamous breach.

    And now he is suing former FBI Director James Comey and other government figures, alleging the bureau has covered up evidence he provided them showing widespread spying on Americans that violated civil liberties.

    The suit, filed late Monday night by Dennis Montgomery, was assigned to the same federal judge who has already ruled that some of the NSA's collection of data on Americans violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, setting up an intriguing legal proceeding in the nation's capital this summer.

    Montgomery says the evidence he gave to the FBI chronicle the warrantless collection of phone, financial and personal data and the unmasking of identities in spy data about millions of Americans.

    ... ... ...

    Montgomery alleges that more than 20 million American identities were illegally unmasked - credit reports, emails, phone conversations and Internet traffic, were some of the items the NSA and CIA collected.

    He said he returned the hard drives to the FBI, a fact confirmed in government documents reviewed by Circa.

    "They're doing this domestic surveillance on Americans, running a project on U.S. soil," Montgomery alleged. He did not disclose the classified name of the project but said he revealed all aspects of the project during his interview with the FBI.

    "Can you imagine what someone can do with the information they were collecting on Americans, can you imagine that kind of power."

    Officials with the FBI and CIA declined to comment due to current and pending litigation.

    ... ... ...

    The FBI contacts with Montgomery were encouraged by a senior status federal judge, who encouraged the two sides to meet rather than allow for any of the classified materials to leak, according to interviews Circa conducted.

    Montgomery's lawsuit, which included his lawyer, the well-known conservative activist Larry Klayman, alleges Montgomery provided extensive evidence to the FBI of illegal spying on Americans ranging from judges to businessman like the future President Donald Trump.

    The suit did not offer specifics of any illegal spying, but it accused the bureau of failing to take proper actions to rectify Montgomery's concerns.

    Montgomery divulged to the FBI a "pattern and practice of conducting illegal, unconstitutional surveillance against millions of Americans, including prominent Americans such as the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen, and others such as Donald J. Trump, as well as Plaintiffs themselves," Montgomery and Klayman alleged in their suit.

    "Plaintiffs were assured that the FBI, under Defendant Comey, would conduct a full investigation into the grave instances of illegal and unconstitutional activity set forth by Montgomery. However, the FBI, on Defendant Comey's orders, buried the FBI's investigation because the FBI itself is involved in an ongoing conspiracy to not only conduct the aforementioned illegal, unconstitutional surveillance, but to cover it up as well," the suit added.

    Klayman and Montgomery also alleged that they have evidence that they themselves have been improperly spied upon by U.S. intelligence. The suit named numerous other defendants as well, including current NSA Director Mike Rogers, former CIA Director John Brennan and even former President Barack Obama.

    [Jun 07, 2017] Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a never-ending stram of bad news about her. In no way they were fake news

    Notable quotes:
    "... I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT. ..."
    "... The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis. ..."
    "... Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her. ..."
    "... When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents. ..."
    Jun 07, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Anonymous , June 5, 2017 at 9:30 pm

    Lots of people, including myself, created FB accounts solely to post material related to the 2016 Democratic Primary and the election. I have just under 5,000 friends on FB, all of whom are "friends in Bernie."

    I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT.

    The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis.

    kimsarah , June 5, 2017 at 11:18 pm

    So please tell us your Russian connections.

    Elizabeth Burton , June 6, 2017 at 3:24 pm

    It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime).

    Funny you should mention. I responded to yet another episode of Russian hysteria yesterday and was immediately attacked by a Clinton cultist. Understand, this woman had no idea who I am and clearly didn't bother to find out. I said something against St. Hillary, and was therefore the enemy. Of course, the basis of her attack was that my sources of information were all "fake news."

    Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her.

    When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents.

    [Jun 06, 2017] Do Not Trust The Intercept or How To Burn A Source

    Looks more and more like psyop operation -- a part of a Neo-McCarthyism propaganda campaign.
    Notable quotes:
    "... So why even go out of your way to leak these supposedly worthless documents to the press in the first place? Who benefits? ..."
    "... Deep state benefits - analysis(?) is leaked which show as you say no proof, but it keeps the anti-russia propaganda going for another month or so - just as the anti-trump deep state and media wants. Sigh. ..."
    "... P.S if any of you get a chance try to catch the interview on RT where German journo, who is unfortunately dead, states categorically that CIA and his bosses would instruct him on what to write and how to write it. ..."
    "... If Reality Leigh Winner goes to trial and receives serious prison time, then The Intercept was wrong, but until then I'll think she's a Clintonist useful idiot. ..."
    "... That would be Udo Ulfkotte. He used to work for FAZ. You have to take into account that he tried to live from writing books after FAZ and conspiracy theories do sell. ..."
    "... Greenwald and Poitras are now the only two people with full access to the complete cache of NSA files ... just Glenn and Laura at the for-profit journalism company created by the founder of eBay. ..."
    "... CIA Agents Caught Red Handed Trolling Alternative Media Sites http://humansarefree.com/2017/06/cia-agents-caught-red-handed-trolling.html I think we talked about this years ago, in regards to Israeli paid trolls, but we've gone so far into the Panopticon control grid, what difference does it make. ..."
    "... I also think, it is possible that Hillary Clinton and Putin had a very personal not so private war after Hillary announced that she would do everything to prevent a realignment of Post Soviet States. And employing Victoria Nuland to achieve just that. ..."
    "... ...which of course how psyops works. Because this leak will fuel more of the Trump/Russian conspiracies and hatred in the MSM. ..."
    "... Are you from one of those USG "perception management" projects? Well, if you are, American taxpayers should be pissed off if this is all the "best and brightest" can come up with. The USG IC has an annual budget of $65 billion so if this is a black op., they have more than enough money to be able to afford the arrest of the "leaker" and even pay for her to get decently lawyered up. ..."
    "... This whole episode smacks of a psy-op to me. If - and this is a big if - the Russians did hack into any voting systems, I'd be more willing to believe it was to collect evidence of malfeasance on the part of our own government than it would have been to manipulate the results themselves. ..."
    "... Important to note is that Putin just mentioned in his interview with Megyn Kelly that it doesn't matter who's president of the United States because no matter what, the policy remains the same. That's a pretty direct indictment of the integrity of US elections, so what better time to up the ante with respect to the obvious lies about Russian interference in our elections than right after Putin calls our elections Kabuki theater? ..."
    "... Well for one she is not a whistleblower, she is another anti-Trump neocon working for the deep state. She I believe leaked material just to attack Trump and Russia even more with info, as we have seen so many times now past months. She nor we as readers have any idea if there is any truth to the claim to start with. So why leak it? Well obviously, like past months, some groups in our society benefit from this greatly. ..."
    "... I haven't trusted The Intercept since they ran their hit piece on Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
    "... Ghostship. True enough. But knowing it is still different from effectively dealing with it. The elite/CIA controlled mass media still has a lot of power to persuade people as do the corporations that finance political elections. As well as the people who make money from arms sales. These people who may be loosely referred to as 'deep state' don't want to give up any of that power/money. ..."
    "... She follows a neocon agenda (war against afghanistan, war against Syria, hatered against Russia, hatred against foreign policy that Trump have i.e), she works for the deep state, she leak deep state material to smear her "enemies". ..."
    "... Who are those who spread this bs to the MSM about Trump and Russia constantly for past months? Where does it come from if not from the deep state groups? ..."
    "... Omidyar being behind the Intercept has always been an iffy proposition at best, and it has never sat well that Greenwald is apparently satisfied with such an arrangement. ..."
    "... And you just know Mark Ames will have a piece up bashing Omidyar, Greenwald and Scahill. Speaking of Scahill, other than a weekly podcast, what exactly does he do for the Intercept? ..."
    "... Greenwald is a self-serving hack and the Intercept functions alongside outlets like DemocracyNow! to provide a Democrat-friendly perspective on the world to people who think they are very "progressive". They will never challenge the fundamental precepts of US imperialism and the oligarchic powers behind it, or truly rock the boat. ..."
    "... There's a chance they got played. As noted, the documents don't actual show evidence of actual interference with voting system beyond data gathering. ..."
    "... Alternatively, the document was prepared in such a way that it was actually politically harmless but it could snare the leaker who would be triumphantly and publicly "executed". That can improve the discipline in the shop. ..."
    "... This is silly nonsense. There is no difference at all between the neocons and the neolibs (the neolords). They come from exactly the same place and believe in exactly the same thing. Specifically, they are atychiphobs; they cannot endure any form of failure. So they always must attach themselves to whatever they perceive as the winning side. And ultimately rule the rest of the losing world. For them that's all there is; Hillary is an example, and most rich individuals also. They would absolutely prefer death to loserdom. So of course they have no concerns at all about the fate of the losers. They are all the same. ..."
    "... Sounds like a con job from start to finish. Along the lines of bellingcat, SOHR ect. Just another method of disseminating propaganda. ..."
    "... this whole thing is such a circus! and yes, the NSA has access to far more info than these stupid documents allude to, not to mention that the US has got to have some massive access to Russian data. ..."
    "... I should add: If Putin were directly responsible for hacking anything, Clinton should kiss Putin's who-cares-what for waiting until AFTER the primaries. She got to be part of the final coin-toss. ..."
    "... really, why is this NSA document even considered whistle-blowing? ..."
    "... Setting aside the antics of the Intercept, let's consider how preposterous this story is at face value. She's basically a translator for a few Middle Eastern languages. So she's reading email or web sites or listening to phone calls and doing her translating thing. It's not like she's a high-level analyst preparing briefings for the National Intelligence director - she's a damn low-level translator (no offense to NSA translators out there). ..."
    "... If Winner DID manage to stumble upon a Top Secret memo on her work network unrelated to her job, then her supervisor would have known it within minutes. Everything anybody does is constantly monitored and logged, right down to the keystroke. SHE would know that. In fact, she would be fired for not reporting this impossible access to top secret information immediately. She would be further punished for even having the document linger on her screen for more than a second or two. There's a reason they put TOP SECRET at the very top of every page. Classified documents also have their own security/surveillance/monitoring mechanisms. The document itself (or the document management system) knows or is told who is allowed to read it or even see that it exists. It would record her access, even if all the other security and monitoring software the agency had failed completely. So you get the idea. Even if she saw this document (unlikely) and did NOT report the inappropriate access, she would eventually be frog-walked out of the building before the end of the day. ..."
    "... Top Secret documents (and their networks) do not allow you to print them at all, and certainly not on some random office printer. ..."
    "... All modern printers and copy machines have an invisible watermark that identifies the time/date you printed a page and the serial number of the machine. If she copied it somewhere, then they copy can be traced to a certain machine and date/time. She's busted either way if the feds got their hands on it, and SHE KNOWS THAT. ..."
    "... Sorry - but unless someone can prove she has an extra chromosome or two, I have to believe this is a charade. She won't go to jail because she's in on it with the NSA and it's not a real Top Secret document anyway. NO intelligence agency will ever verify or deny something you show them is either legitimate or Top Secret, so even that part is wrong. If you call them to ask about a document you have, they will politely put you on hold so they can dispatch some DHS thugs to kick in your door and retrieve said document - without telling you anything either way. ..."
    "... I tend to agree with the hint, hint - #RealityWinner is an obvious PsyOp. Her employer probably had a deal for her - agree to be "used", play the part in a little prosecution game we'll have going, make sure you leak to Cook - and don't worry, you'll be well rewarded in the end. ..."
    "... The timing of this leak and the choice of media outlet is very convenient for the Establishment Dems/Deep State Russia investigation. Leaking to the Intercept, which has credibility in the alternative media, would be a convenient way to get the story covered in the MSM and leftist media. It certainly helps to distract Berners from the Seth Rich story. Some interns at the Intercept did a sloppy job checking up on their source. ..."
    "... thank you for this. i left a comment on that article yesterday about how dumb the technical aspects were and apparently you noticed as well (i also mentioned stuxnet as an example of what an effective and professional attack would actually look like). ..."
    "... as i also mentioned: hillary won durham by a WIDE margin (almost 100k votes). seems like any "hacking" worked to her advantage, not trump's. ..."
    "... i've been reading douglas valentine's book on the phoenix program and other CIA criminality https://www.amazon.com/CIA-Organized-Crime-Illegal-Operations/dp/0997287012 ..."
    "... It looks like a real half-arsed psyops -- here is the "Russia did it" smoking gun we've all been waiting for and it gets sorta rolled out but not trumpeted hysterically. Why the Intercept? Why not the NYtimes or wapo? ..."
    "... It's becoming more difficult daily to find something that doesn't stink. I see it as an attempt to further bury the censored NBC interview with Putin where he explained several hard truths, one of which I alluded to yesterday. Compare vid here, http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/06/nbc-edited-out-putins-hard-truths-heres.html with uncensored one here, which includes transcript, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54688 ..."
    Jun 06, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Yesterday The Intercept published a leaked five page NSA analysis about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. Its reporting outed the leaker of the NSA documents. That person, R.L. Winner, has now been arrested and is likely to be jailed for years if not for the rest of her life.

    FBI search (pdf) and arrest warrant (pdf) applications unveil irresponsible behavior by the Intercept 's reporters and editors which neglected all operational security trade-craft that might have prevented the revealing of the source. It leaves one scratching the head if this was intentional or just sheer incompetence. Either way - the incident confirms what skeptics had long determined : The Intercept is not a trustworthy outlet for leaking state secrets of public interests.

    The Intercept was created to privatize the National Security Agency documents leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The documents proved that the NSA is hacking and copying nearly all electronic communication on this planet, that it was breaking laws that prohibited spying on U.S. citizen and that it sabotages on a large scale various kinds of commercial electronic equipment. Snowden gave copies of the NSA documents to a small number of journalists. One of them was Glenn Greenwald who now works at The Intercept . Only some 5% of the pages Snowden allegedly acquired and gave to reporters have been published. We have no idea what the unpublished pages would provide.

    The Intercept , a subdivision of First Look Media, was founded by Pierre Omidyar, a major owner of the auctioning site eBay and its PayPal banking division. Omidyar is a billionaire and "philanthropist" who's (tax avoiding) Omidyar Network foundation is "investing" for "returns". Its microcredit project for farmers in India, in cooperation with people from the fascists RSS party, ended in an epidemic of suicides when the farmers were unable to pay back. The Omidyar Network also funded (fascist) regime change groups in Ukraine in cooperation with USAID. Omidyar had cozy relations with the Obama White House. Some of the held back NSA documents likely implicate Omidyar's PayPal.

    The Intercept was funded with some $50 million from Omidyar. It first hires were Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras - all involved in publishing the Snowden papers and other leaks. Its first piece was based on documents from the leaked the NSA stack. It has since published on this or that but not in a regular media way. The Intercept pieces are usually heavily editorialized and tend to have a mainstream "liberal" to libertarian slant. Some were highly partisan anti-Syrian/pro-regime change propaganda . The website seems to have no regular publishing schedule at all. Between one and five piece per day get pushed out, only few of them make public waves. Some of its later prominent hires (Ken Silverstein, Matt Taibbi) soon left and alleged that the place was run in a chaotic atmosphere and with improper and highly politicized editing. Despite its rich backing and allegedly high pay for its main journalists (Greenwald is said to receive between 250k and 1 million per year) the Intercept is begging for reader donations .

    Yesterday's published story (with bylines of four(!) reporters) begins :

    Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November's presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.

    The NSA "intelligence report" the Intercept publishes along the piece does NOT show that "Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack ". The document speaks of "cyber espionage operations " - i.e someone looked and maybe copied data but did not manipulate anything. Espionage via computer networks is something every nation in this world (and various private entities) do all the time. It is simply the collection of information. It is different from a "cyberattack" like Stuxnet which was intended to create large damage,

    Anon | Jun 6, 2017 6:32:53 AM | 1

    First Deep State Arrest? http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/05/first-deep-state-arrest-government-contractor-busted-leaking-nsa-docs-to-the-intercept/

    That girl's social media accounts is filled with neocon propaganda and anti-Trump posts. Intercept is really really stupid for spreading this deepstate pro-war desinformation.

    somebody | Jun 6, 2017 6:40:53 AM | 2
    Wikileaks twitter account has good comment on it. It is clear that The Intercept is a way to coopt hackers and leakers. She possibly would not have been arrested with Democrats in power. The New York Times and the Intercept have a campaign to leak to US sources so that whistleblowing is not treason.
    never mind | Jun 6, 2017 6:53:25 AM | 3
    I take it that there's not even the slightest or far reaching bit of evidence at all in the leaked documents that implicates Russia (or the US government) of any mischief.

    So why even go out of your way to leak these supposedly worthless documents to the press in the first place? Who benefits?

    Anon | Jun 6, 2017 7:01:37 AM | 4
    never mind

    Deep state benefits - analysis(?) is leaked which show as you say no proof, but it keeps the anti-russia propaganda going for another month or so - just as the anti-trump deep state and media wants. Sigh.

    nobody | Jun 6, 2017 7:04:47 AM | 5
    She looks like a dual citizen of the Rothschild colony in Palestine.
    Mister Roboto | Jun 6, 2017 7:07:17 AM | 6
    Thanks for this. Even before reading this account, I was inclined to think "fake news" because the Deep State is such a prolific and relentless generator of propaganda. And also, I think we're pretty much screwed regardless of who is in power. My only hope is that it all doesn't end up in mushroom-clouds.
    Miller | Jun 6, 2017 7:10:45 AM | 7
    This sort of activity wouldn't have helped Russian intelligence, but it might have been useful to US intelligence. DHS already got caught red handed.
    opereta | Jun 6, 2017 7:16:59 AM | 8
    It was obvious that The Intercept became a US Inteligence Industry pawn the minute it started to denounce Al Assad on 2016. It was too good to be true from the beginning. Snowden should say something about "his friends" Greenwald and Poitras !! As far as it is descrived in the above article, the R J Winner affaire could be just another Psy Op by the Langley People
    Anon | Jun 6, 2017 7:20:36 AM | 9
    Its interesting how Assange and Wikileaks support this deep-state leaker. Why?
    somebody | Jun 6, 2017 7:40:07 AM | 10
    Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 7:20:36 AM | 9

    Because one person's freedom is everybody's freedom or in a quotation "Freedom is always the freedom of the person that thinks differently from you".

    Lea | Jun 6, 2017 7:49:35 AM | 13
    Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 7:20:36 AM | 9
    Its interesting how Assange and Wikileaks support this deep-state leaker. Why?

    Assange supports all leakers, regardless of what they leak or to whom. Any other stance would amount to shooting himself in the foot.

    On another note, what is extraordinary is to see a Deep State leaker busted by the Deep State. How batty is that? I mean, she was only trying to help them against "big bad Russia", wasn't she? So?

    falcemartello | Jun 6, 2017 7:51:05 AM | 14
    Yes the intercept gave them self away when Greenwald wrote a piece denouncing the Syrian government and the SAA back in 2015. He occasionally has sane and progressive expressions like when he speaks against the fascist state of Israel. He gave himself away again on the propaganda outlet Democracy now. He was eluding to the fact of Russian collusion with the recent POTUS elections and the Flyn fiasco. Here again he gave himself away. He is bought and paid for by the elite like most journo's in our deluded western countries.

    P.S if any of you get a chance try to catch the interview on RT where German journo, who is unfortunately dead, states categorically that CIA and his bosses would instruct him on what to write and how to write it.

    although a fan of the intercept at first, i soured when they announced they were spying on their readership. never trust a billionaire. betrayal is the only route to billionaire status.

    greenwald and poitras at the oscars turned my stomach. not a word about chelsea manning or any of the others ... greenwald and poitras were the 'stars'.

    now, no matter this winner is a loser or no, they've betrayed another one of the people who've put them where they are. they're cannibals.

    since i stopped reading the intercept i was unaware of their support for al-cia-duh and the jihadists in syria. that just stinks.

    snowden cast his pearls before swine.

    Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 7:55:51 AM | 16
    Maybe someone at The Intercept thought this was an attempt by the NSA (not the "deep state, there isn't one") to burn them, so they toss the document back at the NSA to see what happens.

    Why The Intercept? If you read most Clintonist blogs, you'll quickly realise that Greenwald is up there with Assange and Putin as satanic (Trumpist) agents, so an Internet-aware Clintonist sending documents to The Intercept or Wikileaks suggests some other purpose than simply leaking information adverse to Trump.

    Most Clintonists have jumped on this NSA "document" as further solid proof of Putin's culpability which just happened to be "leaked" at about the same time a favourable interview with Putin was being broadcast on the MSM.

    If Reality Leigh Winner goes to trial and receives serious prison time, then The Intercept was wrong, but until then I'll think she's a Clintonist useful idiot.

    Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:00:37 AM | 17
    somebody / Lea

    Actually Wikileaks/Assange have no idea if this info is even true. Who leaks this? Well obviously the same propagandists we heard past 6 months that want the world to think Russia and Trump won the election/the pathetic accusation that Russia somehow ruled the election to Trump. As far as we know the leaks could not only lack evidence but it could also be pure fake. So no, I dont see why Wikileaks and Assange would support this. But thats me.

    somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:05:00 AM | 18
    Posted by: falcemartello | Jun 6, 2017 7:51:05 AM | 14

    That would be Udo Ulfkotte. He used to work for FAZ. You have to take into account that he tried to live from writing books after FAZ and conspiracy theories do sell.

    Of course everybody the US, Russia, Qatar, companies have a PR greyzone trying to influence public opinion.

    somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:08:44 AM | 19
    Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 7:55:51 AM | 16

    Read the @intercept they even agreed with the NSA to redact the stuff. The solution is obvious but I don't hear anybody calling for it: Paper ballots. It is simple, works and is fast if you have a good counting system in place. Lots of countries still use it.

    somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:11:10 AM | 20
    Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:00:37 AM | 17

    Accepting that leakers could be fake would destroy the business model. But no, if it was fake they would not go the extra effort to arrest a leaker who will be supplied good lawyers, I suppose.

    jfl | Jun 6, 2017 8:13:28 AM | 21
    Reality Winner charged leaking classified material

    rod rosenstein ... Rosenstein and Mueller: the Regime Change Tag-Team , mike whitney has this guy's number, if you ask me.

    Who "owns" the NSA secrets leaked by Edward Snowden to reporters Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras?

    Greenwald and Poitras are now the only two people with full access to the complete cache of NSA files ... just Glenn and Laura at the for-profit journalism company created by the founder of eBay.

    Whistleblowing has traditionally served the public interest. In this case, it is about to serve the interests of a billionaire starting a for-profit media business venture. This is truly unprecedented. Never before has such a vast trove of public secrets been sold wholesale to a single billionaire as the foundation of a for-profit company.

    and who sold them? not edward snowden ... he gave them away ... to the two 'operators' who sold them to omidyar.

    after death, devastation, and destruction outright ... deceit it the usofa's main growth industry. and hey, 'progressives' can do it too! and still huff and puff themselves up - among their temporary, transactional 'friends' anyway - with righteousness indignation.

    Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:19:24 AM | 22
    somebody

    Thats whats called desinformation or psyops., you already for example seems claim that this is true facts that have been leaked, but we dont know that. Or do you actually believe the whole Russia-Trump-hacking-claims we heard past months?

    somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:41:09 AM | 23
    Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:19:24 AM | 22

    It is a document about what someone in the NSA believes , it is completely meaningless. Greenwald and Scahill are kind of distancing themselves from the article. The document is just enough to cause headlines that convince trusting people that Russia hacked the election. Arresting the leaker makes sure everybody heard about it. Who wrote it by the way

    Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle, Ryan Grim

    They need 4 people to publish a document and burn a source?

    Uncle $cam | Jun 6, 2017 8:49:05 AM | 24
    CIA Agents Caught Red Handed Trolling Alternative Media Sites http://humansarefree.com/2017/06/cia-agents-caught-red-handed-trolling.html I think we talked about this years ago, in regards to Israeli paid trolls, but we've gone so far into the Panopticon control grid, what difference does it make.

    Carry on...

    somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:52:33 AM | 25
    Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:19:24 AM | 22

    I assume Russia has a cyber capacity in its defense portfolio, like everybody else.

    The most likely scenario is Hillary Clinton and Julian Assange having a very personal private war after the state department leaks. I also think, it is possible that Hillary Clinton and Putin had a very personal not so private war after Hillary announced that she would do everything to prevent a realignment of Post Soviet States. And employing Victoria Nuland to achieve just that.

    What do politicians in the US think - that they can attack without anybody trying to hit back?

    Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:55:33 AM | 27
    somebody

    "... document about what someone in the NSA believes,..."

    ...which of course how psyops works. Because this leak will fuel more of the Trump/Russian conspiracies and hatred in the MSM.

    Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 9:11:24 AM | 29

    >>>>> Posted by: somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:08:44 AM | 19
    Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 7:55:51 AM | 16

    Read the @intercept they even agreed with the NSA to redact the stuff.

    Well that's a big fat F in Black Ops 101 for you.

    The Intercept just returns the document to the NSA - end of.

    The Intercept asks the NSA to review and redact the document - it keeps going. Returning the received document rather than a re-typed one might raise questions within the NSA but could be put down to operator error at The Intercept but re-typed documents would get The Intercept no further in working out what's actually happening.

    I'm not sure if this is what is happening but the whole thing is weird.

    Posted by: somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:11:10 AM | 20

    But no, if it was fake they would not go the extra effort to arrest a leaker who will be supplied good lawyers, I suppose.

    Are you from one of those USG "perception management" projects? Well, if you are, American taxpayers should be pissed off if this is all the "best and brightest" can come up with. The USG IC has an annual budget of $65 billion so if this is a black op., they have more than enough money to be able to afford the arrest of the "leaker" and even pay for her to get decently lawyered up.

    somebody | Jun 6, 2017 9:15:07 AM | 30
    27) if so, there are unintended consequences

    From the memory whole - wired

    But that's not what's really important here. WikiLeaks and Assange say they have no responsibility for the content they leak, and that no one has evidence that the sources of the DNC leak are Russian. But these leaks and tweets damage WikiLeaks' credibility. If they're not scrutinizing their own leaks on the base level of their content, it's not hard to imagine that WikiLeaks could unwittingly become part of someone else's agenda (like, say, a Russian one). "If you are a legitimate leaker, why go with WikiLeaks? You go with The Intercept or the New York Times, like they did with the Panama Papers" says Nicholas Weaver, a computer scientist at UC Berkeley who studies the organization. "Wikileaks is a pastebin for spooks, and they're happy to be used that way."

    All this effort to discredit Wikileaks - poof.

    Kronos | Jun 6, 2017 9:22:06 AM | 32
    One would think that all parties would be interested in this news. The Dems, of course, want to make Russian links. But doesn't Trump want to use this to prove his theory that the popular vote was wrong? Let's not turn this into a game where everyone interprets things based on ideology. The whole dang point is that someone was trying to infiltrate our voting system. Maybe they failed, maybe it was just a reconnaissance mission, but it happened. That is news.

    Moon is obviously showing extreme bias. Instead of trying to figure out and analyze the implications he uses this as a way to score points. Points against the Intercept. Points against the Dems, and so on. How tiring.

    SlapHappy | Jun 6, 2017 9:54:22 AM | 35
    This whole episode smacks of a psy-op to me. If - and this is a big if - the Russians did hack into any voting systems, I'd be more willing to believe it was to collect evidence of malfeasance on the part of our own government than it would have been to manipulate the results themselves.

    Important to note is that Putin just mentioned in his interview with Megyn Kelly that it doesn't matter who's president of the United States because no matter what, the policy remains the same. That's a pretty direct indictment of the integrity of US elections, so what better time to up the ante with respect to the obvious lies about Russian interference in our elections than right after Putin calls our elections Kabuki theater?

    ben | Jun 6, 2017 10:15:11 AM | 38
    More diversion folks. The real elephant in the room is the U$A electoral system. It's rotten to it's core. Regardless of ANY information coming from ANY source, the corporate overlords OWN the voting systems at the national level here in the U$A. SO, we here in the U$A, can believe whoever we want to, but, our votes, at least at national level, are meaningless.

    P.S- Read around folks, but, watch what people do, not what the say.

    Anon | Jun 6, 2017 10:34:10 AM | 40
    jawbone

    Well for one she is not a whistleblower, she is another anti-Trump neocon working for the deep state. She I believe leaked material just to attack Trump and Russia even more with info, as we have seen so many times now past months. She nor we as readers have any idea if there is any truth to the claim to start with. So why leak it? Well obviously, like past months, some groups in our society benefit from this greatly.

    Bob Bows | Jun 6, 2017 10:46:15 AM | 41
    The article even says that NO EVIDENCE has been presented: "While the document provides rare window into the NSA's understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying "raw" intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the documentbecause a single analysis is not necessarily definitive."

    The information is a lie, just like the original report from the Director of National Intelligence, as I detail here: http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2017/01/us-intelligence-reports-fail.html

    From The Hague | Jun 6, 2017 10:49:08 AM | 42
    peter #39 that Trump has been utterly silent about Russia or Putin. Not one negative word.

    Everybody not complying with "Russia/Putin is bad" must be paid or blackmailed. Silly.

    Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 11:24:33 AM | 44
    Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 10:34:10 AM | 40
    she is another anti-Trump neocon working for the deep state

    Three points:

    1. She is not a neo-con, she's a neo-lib/liberal interventionist/R2P liberal/Clintonist. There is a big difference between neo-cons and neo-libs/liberal interventionists/R2P liberals/Clintonists. The neo-cons do it because they can, the latter, who are far more dangerous, do it "for the greater good" although they rarely ask the people who it's being done for what they think and they have a far greater degree of "religious"certainty about what they're doing.
    To paraphrase Putin in his recent interview, "why would he interfere in American elections as he gets the same foreign policy crap regardless of which side wins?"

    2. The neo-cons lost big time in Iraq and as a result have little real power in Washington beyond being disruptive.

    3. There is no deep state in the United States now because it's totally visible, and since both the neo-cons and the neo-libs/liberal interventionists/R2P liberals/Clintonists have the same objective there is no need for secrecy or conspiracies. If anyone needs to revive the "deep state" it's the Trumpists.

    All these conspiracy theories are a waste of time and energy because there is so much real dangerous crap going on that needs to be attended to first.

    William Rood | Jun 6, 2017 11:31:31 AM | 45
    I haven't trusted The Intercept since they ran their hit piece on Tulsi Gabbard.
    financial matters | Jun 6, 2017 11:37:29 AM | 46
    Ghostship. True enough. But knowing it is still different from effectively dealing with it. The elite/CIA controlled mass media still has a lot of power to persuade people as do the corporations that finance political elections. As well as the people who make money from arms sales. These people who may be loosely referred to as 'deep state' don't want to give up any of that power/money.
    From The Hague | Jun 6, 2017 11:43:20 AM | 47
    #46
    "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/US_ForeignPolicy.html
    SlapHappy | Jun 6, 2017 11:46:22 AM | 48
    Assuming the neocons and neolibs represent different interests is the same as assuming the democrats and republicans represent different masters. Divide and conquer is the name of the game, and until we can come together and agree on who the real enemy is, they'll continue eating our lunch with impunity.
    Pnyx | Jun 6, 2017 11:57:04 AM | 49
    Thanks for the very valuable information. I wonder what Snowdon is thinking and maybe doing about The Intercept. Being him I would be fourious.
    Anon | Jun 6, 2017 11:57:32 AM | 50
    ghostship

    She follows a neocon agenda (war against afghanistan, war against Syria, hatered against Russia, hatred against foreign policy that Trump have i.e), she works for the deep state, she leak deep state material to smear her "enemies".

    Who are those who spread this bs to the MSM about Trump and Russia constantly for past months? Where does it come from if not from the deep state groups?

    NemesisCalling | Jun 6, 2017 12:38:46 PM | 52
    @24 uncle $cam

    This is easy to tell but difficult to snuff out in the end. Once Hillary and co. started railing against paid Kremlin-trolls on alt-right and various forum sites, you knew that it was something that they had been doing for quite sometime and, indeed, had been losing the battle. At that point, it was best to throw up their hands and concoct the victim-story, even though we TPTB probably pioneered the tactics (color revolutions, ngos, etc.).

    Perhaps there were Kremlin agents on our boards. Perhaps there are some here. But truth, or a slightly biased truth, still stands in their corner, so I refuse to complain about Russia agents. The CIA OTOH. They can GTFO.

    james | Jun 6, 2017 12:39:01 PM | 53
    thanks b..

    i used to like greenwald long before his time at the intercept... the intercept smelt funny right from the beginning.. i haven't followed it, in spite of having enjoyed reading greenwald when he was more independent..

    this whole story stinks to high heaven.. something is weird about the whole thing.. can't put my finger on it.. seems like more bs basically.. the usa is bonkers at this point..

    @8 opereta... i see it similar to you..

    @43 uncle scam... some of those folks are still around, but more of them are not..

    hopehely | Jun 6, 2017 12:48:49 PM | 54
    How on Earth do these kids (Snowden, Winner, etc) manage to get that kind of jobs?
    crone | Jun 6, 2017 12:52:30 PM | 55
    @54 2 yrs of college, a couple of years in 'the field' (Air Force in this case)

    Pointman | Jun 6, 2017 1:13:54 PM | 57
    As you say, appalling tradecraft by both the leaker and the recipient. I would have thought even a cursory security check before giving her any security clearance would have unearthed her extreme views on social media.

    Some general thoughts on the subject of leaks from the Trump administration -

    https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/leaks/

    Pointman

    Brooklin Bridge | Jun 6, 2017 1:17:51 PM | 58
    Excellent article. A warning to heed and I hope it gets out far and wide. Omidyar being behind the Intercept has always been an iffy proposition at best, and it has never sat well that Greenwald is apparently satisfied with such an arrangement.
    Copeland | Jun 6, 2017 1:20:02 PM | 59
    What a circus of distraction that grabs for public attention; its chief element is distraction,-- and its goal is distraction. In the end, Trump will probably go farther to accommodate the deep state, since what it aims to destroy is any chance for improvement of relations with Russia. This a PSYOPS extravaganza. The moronic level of political debate is not going to improve with the introduction of Reality Winner ( whose name sounds a bit silly, in this context).

    The confirmed partisans will wolf down such farce without even tasting it. These absurd pratfalls will stop abruptly when the risk to our survival becomes obvious; but something on the order of a miracle would need to happen soon, to avert disaster. Trump's base will loudly congratulate him, whatever concessions he makes to survive politically; and the rationally unmoored Dems will sign on to any confidence game if it gets the results they are after.

    Certainly, a closer observation of the details can help. Thanks to the author of this article, our host, and those who have commented. The alternative is for life to become a work of fiction.

    WGary | Jun 6, 2017 1:44:48 PM | 60
    My guess is "Reality Winner" is actually very bright, experienced and goes by another name.

    NemesisCalling | Jun 6, 2017 2:03:54 PM | 62
    b,

    Outstanding reporting, b. I saw a report on the microlending "phenomenon" in India on PBS a long time ago. It was heralded then. I'll have to dive into your link to survey the damage. Thx again.

    h | Jun 6, 2017 2:06:17 PM | 63
    Hey b, John Kiriakou chimed in saying "@theintercept should be ashamed of itself. Matthew Cole burns yet another source. It makes your entire organization untrustworthy"

    And you just know Mark Ames will have a piece up bashing Omidyar, Greenwald and Scahill. Speaking of Scahill, other than a weekly podcast, what exactly does he do for the Intercept?

    WorldBLee | Jun 6, 2017 2:06:58 PM | 64
    Greenwald is a self-serving hack and the Intercept functions alongside outlets like DemocracyNow! to provide a Democrat-friendly perspective on the world to people who think they are very "progressive". They will never challenge the fundamental precepts of US imperialism and the oligarchic powers behind it, or truly rock the boat.
    4mas | Jun 6, 2017 2:15:02 PM | 65
    There's a chance they got played. As noted, the documents don't actual show evidence of actual interference with voting system beyond data gathering. But now we have a leaker who's social media bills her as part of the resistance. And in this environment, how are the optics going to look like prosecuting someone who is being passed off as having leaked evidence of malfeasance? I think they rushed too quickly to publish.
    BilboBaggeshott | Jun 6, 2017 2:28:40 PM | 66
    Nice to see so many finally coming to the realisation that Greenwald, Poitras and the Intercept are disinfo operatives.... Waiting for the rest of you to begin questioning The Snowjob too.
    jfl | Jun 6, 2017 2:34:09 PM | 67
    pence smells blood in the water ... Russia, Iran and terrorism are top global threats - Pence
    "From the Russian attempts to redraw international borders by force, to Iran destabilizing the Middle East, and to the global threat of terrorism, which affects people everywhere. It seems that the world has become much more dangerous today than ever since the fall of communism, about a quarter of a century ago,"- he said at a meeting of vice-president.

    ... pence is running for president ... in 2017?

    Piotr Berman | Jun 6, 2017 2:37:15 PM | 68
    Actually, it is a good question how Winner got the access to the file. "Top Secret" is actually a low level of secrecy, without specific restriction who "needs to know" it. Practical problem for the wanna be leaker is to find "a needle in the haystack". Probably the chain of folders had self-explanatory names, which is like posting in on the billboard for all and sundry working for NSA. That in itself can be "leaking with a borrowed hand".

    The content does not seem to be secret in the sense of revealing "sources and methods", just a scrubbed analysis with conclusions. A major part of the mission of intelligence agency to to careful draw conclusions from the gathered data so they are useful to the decision makers: access to information allows to engage in disinformation. But what to do with the obsolete analysis, prepared for the PDM, previous decision maker? Post it on a billboard, if you still like PDM.

    Alternatively, the document was prepared in such a way that it was actually politically harmless but it could snare the leaker who would be triumphantly and publicly "executed". That can improve the discipline in the shop.

    Poor girl. But those Intercept people, why they did not at least re-type the document before showing it to anyone?

    blues | Jun 6, 2017 2:41:19 PM | 69
    =>> Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 11:24:33 AM | 44

    This is silly nonsense. There is no difference at all between the neocons and the neolibs (the neolords). They come from exactly the same place and believe in exactly the same thing. Specifically, they are atychiphobs; they cannot endure any form of failure. So they always must attach themselves to whatever they perceive as the winning side. And ultimately rule the rest of the losing world. For them that's all there is; Hillary is an example, and most rich individuals also. They would absolutely prefer death to loserdom. So of course they have no concerns at all about the fate of the losers. They are all the same.

    And speaking of psyops and propaganda, the Deep State (of course there is a deep state (the neolords) whom common selves cannot comprehend) is now in the business of producing psyoperative YouTube videos. See if you can spot the subliminal propaganda in this one (hint -- it is not at all about how Russians perceive Americans):

    RUSSIAN MILLENNIALS SPEAK OPENLY ABOUT AMERICA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFklhWu3d3E

    From The Hague | Jun 6, 2017 2:57:46 PM | 71
    Posted by: BilboBaggeshott | Jun 6, 2017 2:28:40 PM | 66

    How to Identify a CIA Limited Hangout Operation http://tarpley.net/2013/06/19/how-to-identify-a-cia-limited-hangout-operation/

    Peter AU | Jun 6, 2017 3:02:36 PM | 72
    Sounds like a con job from start to finish. Along the lines of bellingcat, SOHR ect. Just another method of disseminating propaganda.
    Anon | Jun 6, 2017 3:04:42 PM | 73
    hophely:

    "How on Earth do these kids ( Winner) manage to get that kind of jobs?"

    Exactly! I thought you had to be very special, bright and so on to get this kind of jobs here we have a 25 year old girl, that is named...Reality Winner and she has social media where she posts alot of selfies of herself and have a twitter feed like high school student. She seems quite dorky to me. That she has already been in and out of the air force is even more bizarre. This is the kind of morons ruling this world.

    anon | Jun 6, 2017 3:10:44 PM | 74
    The Intercept article is as inept as the NSA document! it's mostly a cartoon, and things like guessing corporate emails are hardly espionage - they are normal ways of figuring out how to contact people in the professional world, NOT a security threat. Phishing them ought to be illegal, but clearly the FBI doesn't give a crap until it happens to Clinton's campaign chair. At least it is SO common that normal people KNOW not to fall for it. what a bunch of drivel! If the NSA had any actual intelligence that the origin of the emails was Russia, you would think that might be part of the explanation, but the cartoon only says "probably within"...

    Then the Intercept spends pages (and pages) arguing for more $$ for the NSA (!) and to centralize control of US elections to the federal level where all this 'insecurity' can be properly controlled by responsible people (like the NSA, or the POTUS).

    Topping that off was Amy Goodman showing an interview with a Clinton mouthpiece trumpeting propaganda that this whole "Russian" scheme is a way to get contact info of registered voters to aim "fake news" at them....... anybody here who is a registered voter knows that the minute you sign up you are permanently on the list for daily piles of glossy lies from PACS and nightly phone surveys about what crafted message would work 'if the election were held today'. Where I live, the Dems have so much money that they poll the crap out of us during city-level campaigns. (and after the election they can't be bothered with what their voters care about.)

    this whole thing is such a circus! and yes, the NSA has access to far more info than these stupid documents allude to, not to mention that the US has got to have some massive access to Russian data.

    Anon | Jun 6, 2017 3:16:17 PM | 75
    Glenn Greenwald is a puppet http://smoloko.com/ The Intercept consistently strongly campaigned for globalist Macron by repeatedly disparaging Le Pen as "Holocaust denier", see https://theintercept.com/2017/04/27/le-pen-promotes-holocaust-denier-plans-ban-kosher-butchers-yarmulkes/. Glenn Greenwald is a gay Jew https://twitter.com/FullGoy
    anon | Jun 6, 2017 3:20:27 PM | 76
    I should add: If Putin were directly responsible for hacking anything, Clinton should kiss Putin's who-cares-what for waiting until AFTER the primaries. She got to be part of the final coin-toss.

    really, why is this NSA document even considered whistle-blowing?

    PavewayIV | Jun 6, 2017 3:37:14 PM | 77
    People - please stop the insanity.

    Greenwald/Intercept?

    The firewall set up by (or at least 'persuaded' by) the U.S. intelligence to toss out a few useless Snowden scraps to the peons? Why would the Intercept NOT report report this to their intel masters? Does anyone here really think 1) the Intercept has NOT been compromised since day one, 2) everybody and and everything at the Intercept is NOT closely monitored by the intel community? They probably have a department just for the Intercept. So whether the Intercept actually ratted out Winner is irrelevant - the NSA probably knows what flavor of coffee the mail guy at the Intercept was holding when he picked up the previously examined mail. The only way any Top Secret document is making its way to the Intercept is if the NSA or FBI created and mailed the document themselves. And if the alleged journalist did not report receipt of the document to the FBI, then THEY would face jail time if the FBI found it during a raid.

    How did Winner come about this information?

    Setting aside the antics of the Intercept, let's consider how preposterous this story is at face value. She's basically a translator for a few Middle Eastern languages. So she's reading email or web sites or listening to phone calls and doing her translating thing. It's not like she's a high-level analyst preparing briefings for the National Intelligence director - she's a damn low-level translator (no offense to NSA translators out there).

    Why on earth would someone in that position have ANY Top Secret memos on Russian hackers or the election. Do people really think there is (at her workplace) a network-accessible folder labeled 'Top Secret' that anyone with a Top Secret clearance can browse through? No - that's not how it works. Does anyone think they have a 'Top Secret' mailing list to distribute memos? Nope. In fact, can ANYONE give me the least plausible reason why some nobody Arabic-language translator would ever even be able to SEE a Top Secret memo regarding a subject she has absolutely no involvement with?

    Computers at Intel Agencies

    If Winner DID manage to stumble upon a Top Secret memo on her work network unrelated to her job, then her supervisor would have known it within minutes. Everything anybody does is constantly monitored and logged, right down to the keystroke. SHE would know that. In fact, she would be fired for not reporting this impossible access to top secret information immediately. She would be further punished for even having the document linger on her screen for more than a second or two. There's a reason they put TOP SECRET at the very top of every page. Classified documents also have their own security/surveillance/monitoring mechanisms. The document itself (or the document management system) knows or is told who is allowed to read it or even see that it exists. It would record her access, even if all the other security and monitoring software the agency had failed completely. So you get the idea. Even if she saw this document (unlikely) and did NOT report the inappropriate access, she would eventually be frog-walked out of the building before the end of the day.

    Printing

    I won't belabor the point, but everything from all the security, monitoring and logging items above apply moreso for printing anything. Top Secret documents (and their networks) do not allow you to print them at all, and certainly not on some random office printer. Presuming she did the impossible and get a Top Secret document printed out (which would all be logged), how did she get it out of her controlled-access area and the building itself? Hide it in her purse? Tell the guard, "I'm taking this folder of top secret stuff home to work on, but it's OK - I have a top secret clearance..."

    All modern printers and copy machines have an invisible watermark that identifies the time/date you printed a page and the serial number of the machine. If she copied it somewhere, then they copy can be traced to a certain machine and date/time. She's busted either way if the feds got their hands on it, and SHE KNOWS THAT.

    Impossible Conclusion

    Now given all the above and her knowledge of how all that works, does anyone think she's STILL going to naively print out and mail a hard copy of Top Secret information to a known compromised, well-monitored news site... because she doesn't like Trump??

    Sorry - but unless someone can prove she has an extra chromosome or two, I have to believe this is a charade. She won't go to jail because she's in on it with the NSA and it's not a real Top Secret document anyway. NO intelligence agency will ever verify or deny something you show them is either legitimate or Top Secret, so even that part is wrong. If you call them to ask about a document you have, they will politely put you on hold so they can dispatch some DHS thugs to kick in your door and retrieve said document - without telling you anything either way.

    Why would she do this then? Well, if she knew she wasn't really going to be tried to go to prison and the NSA is 'in' on it, then I'm sure there's a large check waiting for her somewhere. How much do you think it would take to buy out a translator from her crappy .gov job? Plus, she gets to stick it to Trump and those evil Russians. It's a win-win!

    Maybe I'm too cynical nowadays, but this whole thing is preposterous beyond belief. Am I the only one that thinks this whole thing stinks to high heaven? I'm amazed the bar is so low for these fabrications.

    Merlin2 | Jun 6, 2017 3:47:26 PM | 78
    For james #53 and all who want to be amused: it's all so poetic!

    https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/6fkoe1/reality_winner_reality_for_winners/

    I tend to agree with the hint, hint - #RealityWinner is an obvious PsyOp. Her employer probably had a deal for her - agree to be "used", play the part in a little prosecution game we'll have going, make sure you leak to Cook - and don't worry, you'll be well rewarded in the end.

    Why her? the name, of course - sends a nice message. And her youth - get a little sympathy going. from a gullible public (not any of us though).

    Rusty Pipes | Jun 6, 2017 4:09:32 PM | 80
    The timing of this leak and the choice of media outlet is very convenient for the Establishment Dems/Deep State Russia investigation. Leaking to the Intercept, which has credibility in the alternative media, would be a convenient way to get the story covered in the MSM and leftist media. It certainly helps to distract Berners from the Seth Rich story. Some interns at the Intercept did a sloppy job checking up on their source.
    the pair | Jun 6, 2017 4:14:02 PM | 81
    thank you for this. i left a comment on that article yesterday about how dumb the technical aspects were and apparently you noticed as well (i also mentioned stuxnet as an example of what an effective and professional attack would actually look like). the thought that a macro in a word file (who lets those run by default anyway?) could pivot into some elaborate firmware/hardware exploit is just dumb. even the article mentions that machines and procedures vary from state to state and even city to city. seems like a lot of work to put into changing votes for a few thousand people.

    as i also mentioned: hillary won durham by a WIDE margin (almost 100k votes). seems like any "hacking" worked to her advantage, not trump's.

    i've been reading douglas valentine's book on the phoenix program and other CIA criminality https://www.amazon.com/CIA-Organized-Crime-Illegal-Operations/dp/0997287012

    and he makes a lot of the points you do here regarding the intercept. as much as i respect greenwald, he and the other top tier hires don't need that site. they've got enough leverage to start their own site or even just stick to facebook and/or twitter and then "third party" out to big sites. this would give them exposure without tying them down to one billionaire with his own agendas and biases.

    glenn used to have some oddly toxic opinions (anti-chavez whining and supposed initial support for the iraq war) and came around. he's not a dummy. i also doubt he has any malevolent intentions given his charitable work in brazil and what seems like genuine concern for "the law" and privacy and etc.

    the documents were trusted to him and a few others. there was a reason for that. every non-journalist (and i include many intercept writers in that group) since is just a parasite using him and the documents as a host. time to swat them away and be truly indie. (not holding my breath).

    side note: "reality winner"? wow. when i first saw the headlines i thought she was a former contestant on "big brother" or something. we'll see how much vocal support she gets from the democrats. again - not holding breath.

    stumpy | Jun 6, 2017 4:34:04 PM | 83
    It looks like a real half-arsed psyops -- here is the "Russia did it" smoking gun we've all been waiting for and it gets sorta rolled out but not trumpeted hysterically. Why the Intercept? Why not the NYtimes or wapo? Just like the dossier a few months ago, generated some smoke but in the end its a weak petard. Did Sessions tamp it down?
    Anonymous Hippopotamus | Jun 6, 2017 4:38:46 PM | 84
    Coincidence that this just happened? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/michael-moore-launches-trumpileaks-website-calls-whistleblowers-1010640
    Sibel Edmonds | Jun 6, 2017 4:51:45 PM | 85
    Thank you 'Moon of Alabama' for publishing this solid piece and warning future whistleblowers. Kudos to you!

    Regards, Sibel Edmonds (FBI Whistleblower; Founder & Editor of Newsbud)

    somebody | Jun 6, 2017 5:03:06 PM | 86
    Posted by: Anonymous Hippopotamus | Jun 6, 2017 4:38:46 PM | 84

    No, wikileaks kind of recommends it.

    @wikileaks 24

    Michael Moore's #Trumpileaks is not secure enough to protect sources with classified information but it is better than many newspapers.

    karlof1 | Jun 6, 2017 5:12:51 PM | 87
    Paveway IV @77--

    It's becoming more difficult daily to find something that doesn't stink. I see it as an attempt to further bury the censored NBC interview with Putin where he explained several hard truths, one of which I alluded to yesterday. Compare vid here, http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/06/nbc-edited-out-putins-hard-truths-heres.html with uncensored one here, which includes transcript, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54688

    I strongly urge bar patrons to read transcript or watch uncensored vid and cease wasting time on all the related "nonsense."

    blues | Jun 6, 2017 5:25:10 PM | 88
    =>> Sibel Edmonds | Jun 6, 2017 4:51:45 PM | 85

    No comment.

    Corbett & Edmonds Call Out Nauseating Russia Worship in Alt Media
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijdMfUdLfTw

    Anon | Jun 6, 2017 5:32:25 PM | 89
    blues 88

    Like watching desperate housewife talking about foreign policy, but I guess one shouldnt be surprised about her views coming being a fmr. FBI agent.

    james | Jun 6, 2017 5:39:47 PM | 90
    @77 paveway... thanks.. you are preaching to the choir here.. none of the story adds up, but the intercept is one bs outfit plain and simple..

    @78/79 merlin.. thanks.. we see it much the same!

    this ''russia did it memo'' is so friggin' boring... the usa has lost it's creative imagination if it ever had one to begin with... hollywood is over and one with.. give it up hollywash..

    ruralito | Jun 6, 2017 5:40:23 PM | 91
    @88, thanks. My estimation of C & E just took a big hit.

    aaaa | Jun 6, 2017 5:50:10 PM | 92
    @82 I remember reading that some crazy number, like 6 million people have security clearances. That's a lot of people that signed up to keep quiet. I guess a lot of it relates to basic military stuff, or controlled technology like aircraft parts or whatever.

    Marym | Jun 6, 2017 6:00:49 PM | 93
    PavewayIV @ 77

    Farsi, it's Afghan version Dari, and Pashto are Indo-European > Indo-Iranian, languages, not Arabic languages, though they use the Arabic script.

    brian | Jun 6, 2017 6:05:16 PM | 94
    who are these Intercept guys? the billionaire seems to hire anyone

    'Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle, Ryan Grim'

    DC | Jun 6, 2017 6:15:00 PM | 95
    She speaks Farsi and Pashto, I bet she's CIA who's been promised a lot of $$$ after she serves a short prison term. It's my guess that what she provided to The Intercept was given to her after it was manufactured or "doctored". The info published by The Intercept should be considered as suspicious.

    aaaa | Jun 6, 2017 6:20:45 PM | 96
    @94 there was some recent expose on the intercept that was quite damning, but I can't remember the content

    PavewayIV | Jun 6, 2017 6:35:50 PM | 97
    Marym@93 - Thanks. I hesitated to just say 'Iranian' because that didn't seem quite right, but 'Arabic' is obviously wrong. Hey, I'm American. I couldn't even tell you where Farsiland or Pastonia are on a map. I think... somewhere by Italy? No, wait...

    dh | Jun 6, 2017 6:48:22 PM | 98
    @95 Sounds right. She won't get the full Chelsea Manning treatment. Just a naive patriotic young American girl who did the right thing. Obviously she was tricked into using that copier. Couple of months and she''ll get a job at Fox.
    @98 ....which she will turn down for a better offer at CNN.

    Posted by: dh | Jun 6, 2017 6:55:18 PM | 99

    @98 ....which she will turn down for a better offer at CNN.

    Posted by: dh | Jun 6, 2017 6:55:18 PM | 99

    JerseyJeffersonian | Jun 6, 2017 7:12:49 PM | 100
    Remember when Greenwald's Brazilian boyfriend was being held by the authorities and accused of smuggling information from Snowden? Then he got released. Hmm.

    Wonder if there was some sort of agreement to the effect that if Greenwald played ball, possible prosecution against said boyfriend would be held in abeyance. This is a tactic employed by government lawyers in some cases when they want something. Like a slow-walking of releases from Snowden's revelations, for instance. And maybe some other dirty business when wanted by the powers that be, like this "leak" that the NSA thought something could be true , but with the leak not containing any proof or any supporting raw intelligence.

    Holding a sword over the head of the boyfriend might be just the ticket. And couple that with speculation that Snowden's documents contained revelations about Greenwald's boss, Pierre Omidyar. Maybe an offer that Greenwald and company could not refuse.

    Speculation on my part, of course. But not the first time that such tactics have been deployed.

    [Jun 06, 2017] Interview to NBC by Vladimir Putin

    Cue bono is a great principle, which helps to understand a lot in the Presidential elections and aftermath.
    Jun 06, 2017 | en.kremlin.ru
    Megyn Kelly: But the other side says is it was only 70,000 votes that won Trump the election, and therefore influencing 70,000 people might not have been that hard.

    Vladimir Putin: The Constitution of the United States and the electoral legislation are structured in such a way that more electors can vote for a candidate who is backed by fewer voters. And such situations do occur in the history of the United States. True, isn't it?

    Therefore, if we were to discuss some kind of political and social justice, then probably that electoral legislation needs to be changed and bring a situation where the head of state would be elected by direct secret ballot and so there will be direct tabulation of votes that can be easily monitored. That's all there is to it. And there will be no need for those who have lost the elections to point fingers and blame their troubles on anybody.

    Now, if we turn this page over, I will tell you something that you most likely know about. I don't want to offend anyone, but the United States, everywhere, all over the world, is actively interfering in electoral campaigns in other countries. Is this really news to you?

    Just talk to people but in such a way (to the extent it is possible for you) so as to convince them that you're not going to make it public. Point your finger to any spot on the world's map, everywhere you'll hear complaints that American officials interfere in their political domestic processes.

    Therefore, if someone, and I am not saying that it's us (we did not interfere), if anybody does influence in some way or attempts to influence or somehow participates in these processes, then the United States has nothing to be offended by. Who is talking? Who is taking offense that we are interfering? You yourselves interfere all the time.

    Megyn Kelly: That sounds like a justification.

    Vladimir Putin: It does not sound like justification. It sounds like a statement of fact. Each action invites appropriate counteraction, but, again, we don't need to do that because I did not tell you this without a reason, both you personally and other members of the media, recently I was in France and I said the same things.

    Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere. Vladimir Putin: It's just that the French journalists asked me about those hackers, and just like I told them, I can tell you, that hackers may be anywhere. They may be in Russia, in Asia, in America, in Latin America. There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy.

    There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organise some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. Now, the candidate for the Democratic Party, is this candidate universally beloved in the United States? Was it such a popular person? That candidate, too, had political opponents and rivals.

    ... ... ...

    Megyn Kelly: Aren't you interested?

    Vladimir Putin: No. Because if there had been something meaningful he would have made a report to the minister, and the minister would have made a report to me. There weren't even any reports. Just every day, routine work that doesn't mean anything that may not even have any prospects.

    It's just that someone decided to find fault with it and, you know, select it as a line of attack against the current President. This isn't for us to get into, these are your domestic political squabbles. So you deal with them. Nothing to talk about.

    There was not even a specific discussion of sanctions or something else. I just find it amazing how you created a sensation where there wasn't anything at all. And proceeded to turn that sensation into a tool for fighting the sitting president. You know, you're just very resourceful people there, well done, probably your lives there are boring.

    ... ... ....

    I almost did not talk to him. I said hello, we sat next to each other, then I said goodbye and left. This sums up my entire acquaintanceship with Mr Flynn. If Mr Flynn and I had this kind of interaction, while you and I, we have spent an entire day together, and Mr Flynn was fired from his job, you then should be arrested and put in jail.

    ... ... ...

    Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live?

    [Jun 06, 2017] Cyber report of cyber bullshit ?

    Emergence of cyber attack charge of a perfect false flag operation.
    Neocons and Clinton wing of Democratic Party (DemoRats) are trying to add to the momentum of rising negativity about Trump in US public opinion to make impeaching Trump possible.
    Jun 06, 2017 | politics.slashdot.org

    Dunbal ( 464142 ) * , Monday June 05, 2017 @07:48PM ( #54555483 )

    Hmmm ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

    So we go from "they hacked us" to "they tried to hack us"? Not quite the same accusation. Next it will go from "It was the Russian government" to "it was someone using an IP from Russia"...

    bmo ( 77928 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @07:59PM ( #54555565 )
    Re:Hmmm ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

    "it was someone using an IP from Russia"...

    If you look at the actual public evidence, that's all we've got.

    Shit coming from an IP in Russia, which could have been at the end of 7 PROXIES. Or TOR. Or whatever.

    -- BMO

    AHuxley ( 892839 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @08:32PM ( #54555801 ) Homepage Journal
    Re:Hmmm ( Score: 2 )

    Re "If you look at the actual public evidence, that's all we've got." The US has an IP range, time of day. IP ranges always point back to just a nation. Government workers always work 9 to 5 shifts in their own nation's time zones too.

    whoever57 ( 658626 ) writes: on Monday June 05, 2017 @08:47PM ( #54555919 ) Journal
    Re:Hmmm ( Score: 2 )

    Government workers always work 9 to 5 shifts in their own nation's time zones too.

    That may be true, but so what? Those pimply-faced script kiddies don't necessarily work normal day shifts.

    hey! ( 33014 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @09:11PM ( #54556085 ) Homepage Journal
    Re:Hmmm ( Score: 3 )
    If you look at the actual public evidence, that's all we've got.

    Exactly. The document in question takes a quite conclusive tone on the matter, but does not divulge any raw intelligence data or the methods used to assess that data.

    Now, either the NSA personnel who produced this document are a hell of lot less smart than you are, or the document is a fake, or there is private information that the rest of us don't have.

    dog77 ( 1005249 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @09:57PM ( #54556403 )
    Re:Hmmm ( Score: 2 )

    Here is report from CrowdStrike on why they beleive it was the Russians: https://www.crowdstrike.com/bl... [crowdstrike.com]

    Bradbo ( 890238 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @09:03PM ( #54556021 )
    Re:Hmmm ( Score: 2 )

    The report doesn't say "using an IP address from Russia" -- it says it was from the Russian Military. I don't think the NSA would get the two confused. Also, the report says that at least one email account was probably compromised ("probably" being intel-speak for "very high confidence"). With a compromised email account, further phishing attacks are much more likely to be successful. So we don't know the extent of the hacking results (at least from this one report), but it was not a "attempt to hack" but a "successful hack" with unknown-as-yet damage.

    Nehmo ( 757404 ) writes: < [email protected] > on Monday June 05, 2017 @08:16PM ( #54555691 )
    Hillary lost because of RUSSIA! ( Score: 2 , Interesting)

    This is the second time Hillary failed to become "the inevitable president". Did Russia sabotage her plans last time? (Oh, Obama won the primaries. Hillary made sure she won those this time.)

    najajomo ( 4890785 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @08:52PM ( #54555967 )
    I call cyber bullshit on this cyber report ... ( Score: 1 )

    I call cyber bullshit on this cyber report ...

    AHuxley ( 892839 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @09:17PM ( #54556129 ) Homepage Journal
    Why military intelligence? ( Score: 2 )

    Soviet "military intelligence" who normally did military spying tried to run a spy in the UK in the 1970's due to an accident of first contact. It ended in failure as the Soviet staff did not have the decades of skill to work long term with a person in the UK and all the emotional issues that result.

    The write up of Russia/the Soviet Union ever using "military intelligence" in the West for activity seems more of an older US fantasy than reality. Russia knows what its "military intelligence" can do and should not do.

    It learned that by losing one of its more productive spies in the UK in the 1970's. Losing a good spy does not get "military intelligence" a lot of other direct attempts at spying again.

    Why would the US be talking about one of the one groups in Russia that would not be used for spying in the West? Every other spy agency in the world would notice that glaring mistake too and be wondering why the most simple lack of understanding of Russian's intelligence structure would be allowed to be presented as "news"? The report does not "show the underlying "raw" intelligence on which the analysis is based". "cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion" Read down further and find the part about "not involved in vote tallying"

    From not changing votes what ever happened did not even work well "unknown whether" .. "and what potential data from the victim could have been exfiltrated" So some "spear-phishing" did not change the votes and did not seem to even get many other results. Thats using some "military intelligence". The quality of the effort was ""medium sophistication," one that "practically any hacker can pull off."" Note the use of the term "hacker". "The actual voting machines aren't going to be networked" Finally any issues got talked about as been the everyday issues of "between the setup of the computers and the poll workers using them."

    Jack Zombie ( 637548 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @10:03PM ( #54556433 )
    Misleading title; no proof given. ( Score: 2 )

    From the Intercept article linked:

    "While the document provides a rare window into the NSAβ(TM)s understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying βoerawβ intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive."

    If one reads other articles by the Intercept, one finds that Glenn Greenwald, who works as editor at the Intercept and helped publicize the Snowden leaks, is of the informed opinion that Russia did not manipulate the US election, and that the whole claim was manufactured by the US intelligence, and that both political sides saw it easier to treat this well-established lie as if it was true than to publicly confront it.

    Just look for the articles by Glenn Greenwald in Intercept. He has stated this explicitly a good time before Putin said the same thing (but in Putin's mouth, it was subtle pressure against the US intelligence community to stop attacking Russia).

    lessthan0 ( 176618 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @10:41PM ( #54556651 )
    How is this new? ( Score: 2 )

    This seems like a lot of crying and hang wringing over standard operating procedures.

    Did Russia try to penetrate our voting systems? Probably.

    Did the US plant stuxnet in Iranian nuke plants? Probably Did the US hack North Korean missile tests? Probably Did the US capture German and UK government communications? Yes Does the US try to penetrate Russian systems and generally hack every government and military computer on the planet 24x7? YES!

    This is the way the world works, the way it has ALWAYS worked. It is naive and dangerous to think otherwise.

    Our best response is to harden our systems and go on with life. Complete nothing burger.

    arbiter1 ( 1204146 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @07:50PM ( #54555497 )
    Re:Leftist Media 101 ( Score: 2 )

    It was also wrote up but liberal leftist lackeys as well that can draw a conclusion using only 1 dot on page.

    DigiShaman ( 671371 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @07:56PM ( #54555537 ) Homepage
    Re:Hysteria ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

    The Rush Limbaugh theorem states that the media isn't an arm of the Democrat Party, rather, that the Democrat Party is an arm of the media. Think about it, which side is more organized and sends a cohesive voice nightly or hourly?

    Lisandro ( 799651 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @08:41PM ( #54555877 )
    Re:Russians meddled - but Clinton lost the first t ( Score: 2 )
    Look, I don't think any honest person can deny the Russians meddled in the election. The bigger question is, did they throw the American election?

    That is hard (impossible?) to answer conclusively, but they likely did not. Clinton lost the election all by herself, IMHO.

    The problem is that a) it appears that Russia did indeed meddle in US elections and b) there's an active investigation about collusion between the Trump administration and Russian officials. That is the story here.

    hey! ( 33014 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @09:43PM ( #54556343 ) Homepage Journal
    Re:Russians meddled - but Clinton lost the first t ( Score: 2 )

    The problem is that results like 2016 don't have any single cause. There are many things that had they been different could have changed the outcome.

    Blame isn't like a hot potato: there's plenty for everyone. Clinton has her share of the blame. Her weak and passive messaging, and her over-reliance on dubious analytics in the face of clear field intelligence were both mistakes. Absent either of them and she would have won -- it was only a matter of swinging 100,000 strategically placed votes, about 1/100th of 1% of the votes cast.

    This doesn't mean other things didn't cause her loss too, but the bottom line was that she was facing Donald Trump, a boorish reality TV clown and easily the stupidest and most ignorant man ever to win the presidency. She should have blown the doors of the election far beyond the reach of a few unlucky breaks or marginal meddling to matter.

    lucm ( 889690 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @08:26PM ( #54555757 )
    Re:Hysteria ( Score: 2 )

    Remember when the CIA planted logic flaws in some pipeline management software because they knew the Soviets would steal it? This led to the gigantic explosion of a Siberian pipeline:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]

    Those people have suddenly become immensely skilled hackers?

    hey! ( 33014 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @09:05PM ( #54556029 ) Homepage Journal
    Re:Hysteria ( Score: 3 )
    This continued media frenzy became tiresome some time ago. Can we move on to something new to be outraged about?

    You seem to be conflating "important" and "entertaining".

    Important stuff is often quite boring, at least at the outset before you understand what's going on.

    [Jun 04, 2017] Shattering Ukraine by Robert Parry

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yet, while the neocons and their liberal allies had "won" again, what did that winning mean for the people of Ukraine? Their country, already teetering on the status of failed state, slid into deeper economic chaos and civil war. With neo-Nazis and other extremists appointed to key national security positions, the new regime began lashing out at ethnic Russians who were resisting Yanukovych's ouster. ..."
    "... Ukraine's eastern provinces also sought secession, prompting military clashes that inflicted some of the worst bloodshed seen on the European continent in decades. Thousands died and millions fled. ..."
    "... Of course, the standard line in the U.S. media was that it was all Putin's fault, even as the Kiev regime shelled eastern cities and unleashed brutal neo-Nazi militias to engage in street fighting, the first time storm troopers emblazoned with Nazi insignias had been deployed in Europe since World War II. Yet, buoyed by how easily the anti-Putin propaganda had prevailed, some neocons even began fantasizing about "regime change" in Moscow. ..."
    "... Yet, if you were to step back for a minute and look at the history of the past 35 years from the Afghan covert op through the Iraq War and the U.S. interventions in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere what you would see is the neocons and their liberal sidekicks behaving like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, stirring up troubles that soon spun out of control. ..."
    "... We're supposed to continue the neocon "tough-guy-ism" - by repressing Muslims in the West, by ousting Assad in Syria, by crushing the ethnic Russian resistance in Ukraine, by destabilizing Russia, and by forsaking negotiations with Iran over its nuclear facilities in favor of more sanctions and maybe more bombing. All somehow in the name of "democracy" and "human rights" and "security." ..."
    "... no one bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about spreading turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
    "... Yet, this neocon madness this "anti-realism" has been playing out in the real world on a grand scale, destroying real lives and endangering the real future of the planet. ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative ..."
    Jan 17, 2015 | consortiumnews.com

    Originally from: Neocons The 'Anti-Realists' By Robert Parry

    Alarmed about this "realist" Obama-Putin collaboration, the "anti-realists" turned to demonizing the Russian president and driving a wedge between him and Obama. The place to splinter that relationship turned out to be Ukraine, where neocon Assistant Secretary of State Nuland was perfectly positioned to push for the ouster of elected pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.

    As Nuland noted in one speech, the U.S. government had invested $5 billion in the "European aspirations" of the western Ukrainians, including funding for political activists, journalists and various business groups. The time to collect on that investment came in February 2014 when violent demonstrations in Kiev, with well-organized neo-Nazi militias supplying the muscle, drove Yanukovych from power.[See Consortiumnews.com's " Neocons' Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit. "]

    The Ukraine coup played out along another historic fault line, between European-oriented western Ukraine, where Adolf Hitler's SS had gained significant support during World War II, and eastern Ukraine with its ethnic Russian population and close business ties to Russia.

    After the U.S. State Department rushed to embrace the coup regime as "legitimate" and as the U.S. media dished out anti-Yanukvych propaganda, such as citing a sauna in his home, Obama tagged along, falling into the neocon trap, again. U.S.-Russian relations spiraled into a hostility not seen since the Cold War. [See Consortiumnews.com's " Obama's True Foreign Policy Weakness ."]

    Yet, while the neocons and their liberal allies had "won" again, what did that winning mean for the people of Ukraine? Their country, already teetering on the status of failed state, slid into deeper economic chaos and civil war. With neo-Nazis and other extremists appointed to key national security positions, the new regime began lashing out at ethnic Russians who were resisting Yanukovych's ouster.

    Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a move that Western government's denounced as an illegal "annexation" and the major U.S. media termed an "invasion," although the Russian troops involved were already stationed in Crimea under an agreement to maintain the Russian naval base at Sevastopol.

    Ukraine's eastern provinces also sought secession, prompting military clashes that inflicted some of the worst bloodshed seen on the European continent in decades. Thousands died and millions fled.

    Of course, the standard line in the U.S. media was that it was all Putin's fault, even as the Kiev regime shelled eastern cities and unleashed brutal neo-Nazi militias to engage in street fighting, the first time storm troopers emblazoned with Nazi insignias had been deployed in Europe since World War II. Yet, buoyed by how easily the anti-Putin propaganda had prevailed, some neocons even began fantasizing about "regime change" in Moscow.

    Yet, if you were to step back for a minute and look at the history of the past 35 years from the Afghan covert op through the Iraq War and the U.S. interventions in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere what you would see is the neocons and their liberal sidekicks behaving like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, stirring up troubles that soon spun out of control.

    Just look at the chaos that has been unleashed by these reckless neocon and liberal interventionist policies from encouraging the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and facilitating the formation of al-Qaeda via the covert war in Afghanistan, from creating a hotbed for attracting and training jihadists during the Iraq War, from undermining regimes in Libya and Syria that for all their faults were trying to contain this spread of terrorism, and from provoking a new Cold War in Ukraine that risks bringing nuclear weapons into play in a showdown with Russia.

    The latest outgrowth of all this trouble was the terror attack in Paris this month, with some European hotheads now calling for another neocon favorite idea, "a war of civilizations," pitting Christian societies against Islam in some modern version of the actual Crusades.

    Yes, I know we're not supposed to talk about root causes of this chaos "at a time like this," and we are surely not supposed to blame the neocons and their liberal interventionist chums. Instead, we're supposed to escalate the conflicts and the chaos.

    We're supposed to continue the neocon "tough-guy-ism" - by repressing Muslims in the West, by ousting Assad in Syria, by crushing the ethnic Russian resistance in Ukraine, by destabilizing Russia, and by forsaking negotiations with Iran over its nuclear facilities in favor of more sanctions and maybe more bombing. All somehow in the name of "democracy" and "human rights" and "security."

    As we gaze out upon this mad house built by the neocons, we are witnessing on a grand scale the old adage about the inmates running the asylum, except that this asylum possesses the world's most sophisticated weapons including a massive nuclear arsenal.

    What the neocons have constructed through their skilled propaganda isa grim wonderland where no one foresees the dangers of encouraging Islamist fundamentalism as a geopolitical ploy, where no one takes heed of the historic hatreds of Sunni and Shiite, where no one suspects that the U.S. military slaughtering thousands upon thousands of Muslims might provoke a backlash, where no one thinks about the consequences of overthrowing regimes in unstable regions, where no one bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about spreading turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia.

    Yet, this neocon madness this "anti-realism" has been playing out in the real world on a grand scale, destroying real lives and endangering the real future of the planet.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative . For details on this offer, click here .

    [Jun 04, 2017] Europe May Finally Rethink NATO Costs by Ray McGovern

    Notable quotes:
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... U.S. officials (and The New York Times) have made it a practice to white-out the coup d'etat in Kiev and to begin recent European history with Russia's immediate reaction, thus the relentless presentation of these events as simply "Russian aggression," as if Russia instigated the crisis, not the U.S. ..."
    May 27, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: By dunning NATO nations to chip more money into the military alliance, President Trump may inadvertently cause some Europeans to rethink the over-the-top anti-Russian propaganda, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

    President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump traveled to Brussels, Belgium on Wednesday evening for their fourth stop on their trip abroad. President Trump met with leaders from around the world before the NATO Summit in Brussels. (White House photo)

    At that point it will become possible to see through the West's alarmist propaganda. It will also become more difficult to stoke artificial fears that Russia, for reasons known only to NATO war planners and neoconservative pundits, will attack NATO. As long as Russian hardliners do not push President Vladimir Putin aside, Moscow will continue to reject its assigned role as bκte noire.

    First a request:Let me ask those of you who believe Russia is planning to invade Europe to put down the New York Times for a minute or two.Take a deep cleansing breath, and try to be open to the possibility that heightened tensions in Europe are, rather, largely a result of the ineluctable expansion of NATO eastward over the quarter-century since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

    Actually, NATO has doubled in size, despite a U.S. quid-pro-quo to expand NATO "one inch" to the east of Germany.The quid required of Russia was acquiescence to a reunited Germany within NATO and withdrawal of the 300,000-plus Russian troops stationed in East Germany.

    The U.S. reneged on its quo side of the bargain as the NATO alliance added country after country east of Germany with eyes on even more – while Russia was not strong enough to stop NATO expansion until February 2014 when, as it turned out, NATO's eyes finally proved too big for its stomach.A U.S.-led coup d'etat overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installed new, handpicked leaders in Kiev who favored NATO membership.That crossed Russia's red line; it was determined – and at that point able – to react strongly, and it did.

    These are the flat-facts, contrasting with the mainstream U.S. media's propaganda about "Russian aggression." Sadly, readers of the New York Times know little to nothing of this recent history.

    Today's Russian Challenge

    The existential threat to NATO comprises a different kind of Russian "threat," which owes much to the adroitness and sang froid of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who flat-out refuses to play his assigned role of a proper enemy – despite the Western media campaign to paint him the devil incarnate.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    Over time, even the most sophisticated propaganda wears thin, and more and more Europeans will realize that NATO, in its present form, is an unnecessary, vestigial organ already a quarter-century beyond its expiration date – and that it can flare up painfully, like a diseased appendix.At a time when citizens of many NATO countries are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, they will be reluctant to sink still more money into rehab for a vestigial organ.

    That there are better uses for the money is already clear, and President Trump's badgering of NATO countries to contribute ever more for defense may well backfire. Some are already asking, "Defense against what?"Under the painful austerity that has been squeezing the Continent since the Wall Street crash nearly a decade ago, a critical mass of European citizens is likely to be able to distinguish reality from propaganda – and perhaps much sooner than anyone anticipates.This might eventually empower the 99 percent, who don't stand to benefit from increased military spending to fight a phantom threat, to insist that NATO leaders stop funding a Cold War bureaucracy that has long since outlived its usefulness.

    A military alliance normally dissolves when its raison d'etre – the military threat it was created to confront – dissolves.The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 – more than a quarter century ago – and with it the Warsaw Pact that was established as the military counter to NATO.

    Helpful History

    NATO's first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, who had been Winston Churchill's chief military assistant during World War II, stated that NATO's purpose was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."But a lot can change over the course of almost seven decades.

    The NATO flag is raised during the opening ceremony for Exercise Steadfast Jazz in Poland, Nov. 3, 2013. (NATO photo by British army Sgt. Ian Houlding)

    The Russians relinquished their East European empire after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and withdrew their armed forces.There no longer needed to be a concerted priority effort to "keep the Russians out," preoccupied as they were with fixing the economic and social mess they inherited when the USSR fell.

    As for "keeping the Germans down," it is not difficult to understand why the Russians, having lost 25 to 27 million in WWII, were a bit chary at the prospect of a reunited Germany.Moscow's concern was allayed somewhat by putting this new Germany under NATO command, since this sharply lessened the chance the Germans would try to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.

    But NATO became the "defensive" blob that kept growing and growing, partly because that is what bureaucracies do (unless prevented) and partly because it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their "toughness." By early 2008, NATO had already added ten new members – all of them many "inches" to the east of Germany: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

    There were rumors that Ukraine and Georgia were in queue for NATO membership, and Russian complaints were becoming louder and louder.NATO relations with Russia were going to hell in a hand basket and there was no sign the Washington policymakers gave a hoot.

    A leading advocate from the Russo-phobic crowd was the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had been President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser and remained in the forefront of those pressing for NATO expansion – to include Ukraine.In 1998, he wrote, "Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire."

    The relentless expansion of NATO greatly bothered former Sen. Bill Bradley, a longtime expert on Russia and a sober-minded policy analyst. On Jan. 23, 2008, in a talk before the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, he sounded an almost disconsolate note, describing NATO expansion a "terribly sad thing" a "blunder of monumental proportions.

    "We had won the Cold War and we kicked them [the Russians] when they were down; we expanded NATO.In the best of circumstances it was bureaucratic inertia in NATO – people had to have a job.In the worst of circumstances it was certain irredentist East European types, who believe Russia will forever be the enemy and therefore we have to protect against the time when they might once again be aggressive, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophesy."

    As tensions with Russia heightened late last decade, Sen. Bradley added, "Right now we are confronted with something that could have easily been avoided."

    Finally Saying Nyet

    A week after Bradley's lament, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called in U.S. Ambassador William Burns to read him the riot act.The subject line of Burns's CONFIDENTIAL cable #182 of Feb. 1, 2008, in which he reported Lavrov's remarks to Washington shows that Burns played it straight, choosing not to mince his own or Lavrov's words: "Nyet means nyet: Russia's NATO enlargement redlines."

    NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

    Here what Ambassador Burns wrote in his summary, which the public knows because the cable was among the thousands leaked to WikiLeaks by Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, for which she was imprisoned for seven years and only recently released (yet the cable has been essentially ignored by the corporate U.S. news media):

    "Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan at the Bucharest summit, Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains an emotional and neuralgic issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.

    "In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the government of Russia and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally."

    So, it is not as though then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S. policymakers were not warned, in very specific terms, of Russia's redline on Ukrainian membership in NATO. Nevertheless, on April 3, 2008, the final declaration from at a NATO summit in Bucharest asserted: "NATO welcomes Ukraine's and Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO."

    The Ukraine Coup

    Six years later, on Feb. 22, 2014, the U.S.-pushed putsch in Ukraine, which George Friedman, then President of the think-tank STRATFOR, labeled "the most blatant coup in history," put in power a fiercely anti-Russian regime eager to join the Western alliance.

    President Barack Obama talks with President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker following a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, Sept. 18, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

    Russia's reaction was predictable – actually, pretty much predicted by the Russians themselves.But for Western media and "statesmen," the Ukrainian story begins on Feb. 23, 2014, when Putin and his advisers decided to move quickly to thwart NATO's designs on Ukraine and take back Crimea where Russia's only warm-water naval base has been located since the days of Catherine the Great.

    U.S. officials (and The New York Times) have made it a practice to white-out the coup d'etat in Kiev and to begin recent European history with Russia's immediate reaction, thus the relentless presentation of these events as simply "Russian aggression," as if Russia instigated the crisis, not the U.S.

    A particularly blatant example of this came on June 30, 2016, when then U.S. Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lute spoke at a press briefing before the NATO summit in Warsaw:

    "Beginning in 2014 we're moving into a new period in NATO's long history. So the first thing that happened in 2014 that marks this change is a newly aggressive, newly assertive Russia under Vladimir Putin. So in late February, early March of 2014, the seizing, the occupying of Crimea followed quickly by the illegal political annexation of Crimea. Well, any notion of strategic partnership came to an abrupt halt in the first months of 2014."

    And so, for the nonce, Western propaganda captured the narrative.How long this distortion of history will continue is the question.The evolution of Europe as a whole (including Russia) over the past half-century, together with the profound changes that this evolution has brought, suggest that those of the European Establishment eager to inject life into the vestigial organ called NATO – whether for lucrative profits from arms sales or cushy spots in NATO's far-flung bureaucracy – are living on borrowed time.

    President Trump can keep them off balance by creating uncertainty with respect to how Washington regards its nominal NATO obligation to risk war with Russia should some loose cannon in, say, Estonia, start a shooting match with the Russians. On balance, the uncertainty that Trump has injected may be a good thing. Similarly, to the degree that his pressure for increased defense spending belatedly leads to an objective estimate of the "threat" from Russia, that may be a good thing too.

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. A CIA analyst for 27 years, he specialized in Russian foreign policy. He led the CIA's Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and briefed the President's Daily Brief one-on-one during President Ronald Reagan's first term.

    [Jun 04, 2017] France Debunks Russian Hacking Claims - Clinton Again Loses It

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "Macron attack" was very curious. Gigabytes of campaign emails were released by "the hackers" just hours before a media silence period before the election. The campaign immediately found fakes with Cyrillic markings and blamed "Russia". None of the released emails contained anything that was even remotely scandalous. It was likely a planned Public Relations stunt, not a cyber attack. ..."
    "... That NYT report was complete nonsense. The "cybersecurity firm" it quoted was peddling snake oil. Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. Likewise APT's, "Advanced Persistent Threats", are not "groups" but collections of methods that can be copied and re-used by anyone. After their first occurrence "in the wild" they are no longer attributable. ..."
    "... The head of the French government's cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from President Emmanuel Macron's election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious Russian hacking group behind the attack. ..."
    "... In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard said the Macron campaign hack "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone." ..."
    "... Poupard says the attack's simplicity "means that we can imagine that it was a person who did this alone. They could be in any country." ..."
    "... of the current 15 million plus followers of @HillaryClinton only 48%, or 7,605,960, are real and 8,108,833 fake. ..."
    "... For the @realDonaldTrump account Twitter Audit ..."
    "... Funny how western MSM totally block these news. But thats the propaganda we know so well from the same culprits. Clinton is also obviously mentally ill, spreading all these conspiracy theories and fake news against Russia and Trump and the equally mentally ill MSM is giving her all the space. ..."
    "... Reading this is more surprising "None of the released emails contained anything that was even remotely scandalous." That has been the line of the Fr media since AFTER the election. In fact; there are orders for amphetamines paid in bitcoins and a possible allusion to a cocaine order. How can those emails be considered fakes when the rest is not? Some media are now using the mails related to the financial system of the newly set Macron party as genuine, so how do they sort them out? ..."
    "... It is a long held opinion of mine, based on what I observe over a relatively long life, that most politicians who seek high levels of power are driven by needs and desires which quite often include sociopathic needs. Many successful politicians often display other pathological tendencies (lying, misleading, manipulation of others, self-glorification, egotism and deep insecurities as well as pursuit of wealth and public acclaim). It seems politics attracts people of this kind and the atmosphere exaggerates and encourages them. ..."
    "... One other tendency also seems to stand out: attributing all manner of base and ugly intentions on others without real proof. This, I believe is founded on the real understanding of the accuser that he or she would do just that if given the chance. Look into your own heart and project onto others what you find there. It is fair to fear the worst of others but it can be catastrophic when those fears are acted upon as if the other party were guilty. Sort of, "Shoot first and ask questions later." Not the kind of neighbhour any rational person would want. Yet we choose them to lead. ..."
    "... It would be easy to place fakes if I understand the US hacking software that wikileaks published correctly. ..."
    "... Russia has a very real right wing populist movement of his own, and it is this movement that supports world wide populism including Trump . Putin calls them "patriotic hackers" and puts some distance between the Russian state and these activities (same as US think tanks are not the US state), but they get encouraged and used by the Russian state when needed like in Ukraine. ..."
    "... It is an uneasy alliance as they are a very real threat to the Russian state itself . ..."
    "... The "West" does not mind supporting Navalny in Russia who is a right wing populist himself. ..."
    "... Interestingly, Clinton's backers in the legacy media are growing tired of her "not my fault" rant. ..."
    "... A blackout shortly before elections makes sense - otherwise you do politics by rumour. No organisation is capable of deciding what is fake and what not with megabytes of emails. To put a researcher to work on it would still not solve it. So yes, Macron campaign statement "there are fakes in it" was preemptive. To hack stuff and trust someone will read it ...., well you can always hope. ..."
    "... i am so tired of this 'russia bogeyman' thing the msm has going... i am even more tired of hearing about hillary clinton.. what a hopeless person.. ..."
    "... bombing the shit out of other countries and climate control just don't go hand in hand... wonder when the puppets in europe, or the west actually recongize what a lying decietful game they are playing with people of climate control... oh yeah and walmart needs more people on the planet to generate more sales of plastic products from china.. and the beat goes on... ..."
    "... Clinton does not have a choice at this point b but to take shrill to new levels. She herself is a war criminal and she may live to be prosecuted for such. The party she represents is corrupt to the core and it is in defense mode as well over its facade of populism...who is really behind the Seth Rich murder? How fast can the Merry-Go-Round spin before big parts start flying off? I think we are about to see. AtaBrit | Jun 2, 2017 3:24:21 PM | 25 @jfl | 8 Excellent link. Cheers. There has been a palpable shift in global dynamics since Trump's tour. No question about it. I am optimistic. xor | Jun 2, 2017 3:33:58 PM | 26 Hillary Clinton really is a disgusting critter. The presstitute media bias during the election campaign probably never has been so much in favor of one person. Even Google and Facebook participated in the public manipulation and still she keeps claiming it's the other way round. And then we're not even talking about DNC whistleblower Seth Rich who was set as an example. ..."
    "... A part from Trend Micro joining the desinformation circus, it is and always delivered crappy software. ..."
    "... Mediapart has looked at the leaks deducing what everybody guessed before - that "en marche" has been financed by the finance sector. I think the media is correct in not spreading rumour about Macron being gay (or dependent on drugs) - especially as there is no confirmation the leaks are untampered with. ..."
    "... "Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. " ..."
    "... b, your ignorance is pretty much on display, here. Cyber attacks take many different forms, among which are "phishing attacks". Try to get with the program ..."
    Jun 02, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    In April the New York Times, published this bullshit: Russian Hackers Who Targeted Clinton Appear to Attack France's Macron

    The campaign of the French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron has been targeted by what appear to be the same Russian operatives responsible for hacks of Democratic campaign officials before last year's American presidential election, a cybersecurity firm warns in a new report.
    ...
    Security researchers at the cybersecurity firm, Trend Micro, said that on March 15 they spotted a hacking group they believe to be a Russian intelligence unit turn its weapons on Mr. Macron's campaign -- sending emails to campaign officials and others with links to fake websites designed to bait them into turning over passwords.

    The group began registering several decoy internet addresses last month and as recently as April 15, naming one onedrive-en-marche.fr and another mail-en-marche.fr to mimic the name of Mr. Macron's political party, En Marche.

    Those websites were registered to a block of web addresses that Trend Micro's researchers say belong to the Russian intelligence unit they refer to as Pawn Storm, but is alternatively known as Fancy Bear, APT 28 or the Sofacy Group. American and European intelligence agencies and American private security researchers determined that the group was responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee last year.

    The "Macron attack" was very curious. Gigabytes of campaign emails were released by "the hackers" just hours before a media silence period before the election. The campaign immediately found fakes with Cyrillic markings and blamed "Russia". None of the released emails contained anything that was even remotely scandalous. It was likely a planned Public Relations stunt, not a cyber attack.

    That NYT report was complete nonsense. The "cybersecurity firm" it quoted was peddling snake oil. Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. Likewise APT's, "Advanced Persistent Threats", are not "groups" but collections of methods that can be copied and re-used by anyone. After their first occurrence "in the wild" they are no longer attributable.

    That isn't just me saying so. It is the head of France's cyber security agency :

    The head of the French government's cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from President Emmanuel Macron's election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious Russian hacking group behind the attack.

    In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard said the Macron campaign hack "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone."

    He said they found no trace that the Russian hacking group known as APT28, blamed for other attacks including on the U.S. presidential campaign, was responsible.
    ...
    Poupard says the attack's simplicity "means that we can imagine that it was a person who did this alone. They could be in any country."

    If, as the NYT claims, the authors of the attack on the Macron campaign were the same as in the Clinton case then the Clinton campaign was likely not hacked by Russians.

    That will of course not hinder Clinton to claim that "the Russians" were the ones who caused her to lose the election. Clinton has by now listed 24 guilty persons and organizations that caused her loss. She is not one of them.

    In her latest Clinton

    suggested that Russia or Trump were somehow behind a deliberate inflation of his numbers of twitter followers through the use of bots, because [Trump's] European and Middle East tour had been a flop.

    'Who is behind driving up Trump's twitter followers by the millions?' she said.

    'We know they're bots. Is it to make him look more popular than he is? Is it to influence others? What is the message behind this?

    The Clinton claim of "driving up Trump's twitter followers by the millions" is fake news based on a hoax. Twitter Audit , where Clinton got the bot numbers from (h/t @LutWitt ), says that of the current 15 million plus followers of @HillaryClinton only 48%, or 7,605,960, are real and 8,108,833 fake.

    For the @realDonaldTrump account Twitter Audit finds that 51% of its 30 million+ followers are real. Not a great margin but still better than Clinton.

    Clinton once famously said " We came, we saw, he died" and laughed (vid). She was talking about the murder of Muhammad Ghaddafi of Libya. She still does not understand why people might be turned off by her vile character. She should take more time to talk with her daughter . Chelsea for one does not like gags about killing presidents:

    Hillary Clinton lost it (vid - see her off-the-meds rants on the election starting at 12:00 min). She needs a vacation on some lone island and a long period of silences in some remote cloister. Anything she adds now only reflects badly on her.

    Stefan | Jun 2, 2017 4:14:41 AM | 2
    Chelsea's tweet is Telling us that the neocons will try to install her in the White House next. As for Hillary, someone get her an (un)padded room.
    Anonymous | Jun 2, 2017 4:25:31 AM | 3
    Funny how western MSM totally block these news. But thats the propaganda we know so well from the same culprits. Clinton is also obviously mentally ill, spreading all these conspiracy theories and fake news against Russia and Trump and the equally mentally ill MSM is giving her all the space.

    Mina | Jun 2, 2017 5:10:43 AM | 5
    The Macron team has been brilliant in manipulating the French media. When the hack happened, every single gov and non gov media was blaming the Ruskis, so that ppl voted Macron blindly thinking great he is anti "popovs". But for a guy who believes himself the new De Gaulle, they'll be suprised...
    Mina | Jun 2, 2017 5:12:54 AM | 6
    Reading this is more surprising "None of the released emails contained anything that was even remotely scandalous." That has been the line of the Fr media since AFTER the election. In fact; there are orders for amphetamines paid in bitcoins and a possible allusion to a cocaine order. How can those emails be considered fakes when the rest is not? Some media are now using the mails related to the financial system of the newly set Macron party as genuine, so how do they sort them out?
    justacynicalrealist | Jun 2, 2017 7:07:40 AM | 9
    It is a long held opinion of mine, based on what I observe over a relatively long life, that most politicians who seek high levels of power are driven by needs and desires which quite often include sociopathic needs. Many successful politicians often display other pathological tendencies (lying, misleading, manipulation of others, self-glorification, egotism and deep insecurities as well as pursuit of wealth and public acclaim). It seems politics attracts people of this kind and the atmosphere exaggerates and encourages them.

    One other tendency also seems to stand out: attributing all manner of base and ugly intentions on others without real proof. This, I believe is founded on the real understanding of the accuser that he or she would do just that if given the chance. Look into your own heart and project onto others what you find there. It is fair to fear the worst of others but it can be catastrophic when those fears are acted upon as if the other party were guilty. Sort of, "Shoot first and ask questions later." Not the kind of neighbhour any rational person would want. Yet we choose them to lead.

    crone | Jun 2, 2017 9:21:00 AM | 10
    @9

    We don't choose them to lead.

    Perimetr | Jun 2, 2017 9:54:45 AM | 11
    In regard to Japanese and German militarism, both nations have the capacity to become nuclear weapon states, and Japan is certainly poised to become one any time it so chooses. Joe Biden made this clear a year ago, when he noted that Japan could have nuclear weapons "virtually overnight" if it wanted to. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/24/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-get-nuclear-weapons-virtually-overnight-biden-tells-xi/
    somebody | Jun 2, 2017 10:56:51 AM | 13
    Posted by: Mina | Jun 2, 2017 5:12:54 AM | 6

    It would be easy to place fakes if I understand the US hacking software that wikileaks published correctly. Wikileaks kept a distance from the leak except an ambiguous comment by Assange. Since that comment Wikileaks kept quiet.

    The fact that it was published so late with nobody having the chance to look through probably means there was nothing in it, just hoping that people might assume something to be there.

    Russia has a very real right wing populist movement of his own, and it is this movement that supports world wide populism including Trump . Putin calls them "patriotic hackers" and puts some distance between the Russian state and these activities (same as US think tanks are not the US state), but they get encouraged and used by the Russian state when needed like in Ukraine.

    It is an uneasy alliance as they are a very real threat to the Russian state itself .

    "The worst thing that had happened to the leaders of the rebellion was that in the end Mr. Rutskoy and Mr. Khasbulatov, the leaders of this anti-Eltsin section, seeded control over the opposition to radical nationalists, Antisemites and paramilitaries that in the end ruled Russia in the White House and the Parliament building", he said.

    These people captured the Moscow city hall, which is right across the White House, and attempted to cease Russian television in Ostankino. The events made Boris Yeltsin convince the army to go for the operation. On October 4, he ordered the army to storm the parliamentary building. The leaders of the resistance were arrested.

    The "West" does not mind supporting Navalny in Russia who is a right wing populist himself.

    SmoothieX12 | Jun 2, 2017 10:58:26 AM | 14
    @3

    Daily Fail is a major media outlet. They ran it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4560344/Hillary-Trump-colluded-Russia-create-fake-news.html#comments

    xxx | Jun 2, 2017 11:19:01 AM | 16

    Interestingly, Clinton's backers in the legacy media are growing tired of her "not my fault" rant. The red line that she crossed was her criticism of the DNC's data analytics. This spurred a raft of recriminations: Obama starved the DNC; poor Wasserman-Schultz had nothing to work with. Hillary had the data that Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were in trouble and did nothing. The Democrats are a party in real trouble.
    Mina | Jun 2, 2017 11:29:26 AM | 17
    but the Bulgarian paper which gave the name of the so called FSB guy published some mails and pointed to the metadata as possibly leading very easily to the xerox machines used to make some of the pdf in the files there was a retweet by wl on the day after which was about a french guy who had put a link to the place where the files were pubished and immediately received a lawyer's letter anyway the frenchies don't read english, so it is not about the time between the publication and the election, but for the perfect blackout in the msm and good reactions of the culprits (we've planted fakes) and for the fact they are not interested in the internet outside french borders
    somebody | Jun 2, 2017 11:52:09 AM | 18
    Posted by: Mina | Jun 2, 2017 11:29:26 AM | 17

    A blackout shortly before elections makes sense - otherwise you do politics by rumour. No organisation is capable of deciding what is fake and what not with megabytes of emails. To put a researcher to work on it would still not solve it. So yes, Macron campaign statement "there are fakes in it" was preemptive. To hack stuff and trust someone will read it ...., well you can always hope.

    james | Jun 2, 2017 12:51:40 PM | 19
    i am so tired of this 'russia bogeyman' thing the msm has going... i am even more tired of hearing about hillary clinton.. what a hopeless person..
    Cousin Jack | Jun 2, 2017 1:51:18 PM | 20
    This is rather droll: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/02/vladimir-putin-russia-us-election-hacking
    james | Jun 2, 2017 2:35:50 PM | 22
    bombing the shit out of other countries and climate control just don't go hand in hand... wonder when the puppets in europe, or the west actually recongize what a lying decietful game they are playing with people of climate control... oh yeah and walmart needs more people on the planet to generate more sales of plastic products from china.. and the beat goes on...
    Heros | Jun 2, 2017 2:59:27 PM | 23
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC
    "Attorney Elizabeth Lee Beck's office received a call just before 5PM on Thursday from an individual who was apparently using a 'robotic and genderless' voice changing device, sniffing around with questions about the DNC lawsuit filed over cheating in the 2016 election. The suit - based on documents released by hacker Guccifer 2.0, claims that the DNC colluded with Sec. Hillary Clinton's campaign 'to perpetrate a fraud on the public.'

    After a brief chat with the law firm's secretary, the 'mysterious' voice-masking caller concluded the call with an 'Okey dokey.'

    And whose number showed up when the law firm turned around and googled the number from the caller ID? Why, who else but Debbie Wasserman Schultz' Aventura office!"

    Jewish Israeli-US teen arrested for phoning in JCC bomb threats used voice-altering technology to make threatening calls

    Police said the resident of the southern city of Ashkelon was the subject of a months-long undercover investigation by police's Lahav 433 cyber unit and the FBI. It said in a statement that the motive behind the bomb threats was unclear. Police said he is 19 years old, but several Israeli media outlets reported him as 18.

    Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said the suspect allegedly placed dozens of threatening phone calls to public venues, synagogues and community buildings in the US, New Zealand and Australia. He also placed a threat to Delta Airlines, causing a flight in February 2015 to make an emergency landing.

    "He's the guy who was behind the JCC threats," Rosenfeld said, referring to the dozens of anonymous threats phoned in to Jewish community centers in the US over the past two months.

    The hoax calls were widely regarded as acts of anti-Semitism. The threats led to criticism of President Donald Trump's administration for not speaking out fast enough. Last month, the White House denounced the threats and rejected "anti-Semitic and hateful threats in the strongest terms."
    ...
    Rosenfeld said the man used advanced technologies to mask the origin of his calls and communications to synagogues, community buildings and public venues. He said police searched his house Thursday morning and discovered antennas and satellite equipment.

    Same tribe, same dirty tricks. They act as if all their crimes will never catch up to them.

    psychohistorian | Jun 2, 2017 3:03:42 PM | 24
    Clinton does not have a choice at this point b but to take shrill to new levels. She herself is a war criminal and she may live to be prosecuted for such. The party she represents is corrupt to the core and it is in defense mode as well over its facade of populism...who is really behind the Seth Rich murder?

    How fast can the Merry-Go-Round spin before big parts start flying off? I think we are about to see.

    AtaBrit | Jun 2, 2017 3:24:21 PM | 25
    @jfl | 8
    Excellent link. Cheers. There has been a palpable shift in global dynamics since Trump's tour. No question about it. I am optimistic.
    xor | Jun 2, 2017 3:33:58 PM | 26
    Hillary Clinton really is a disgusting critter. The presstitute media bias during the election campaign probably never has been so much in favor of one person. Even Google and Facebook participated in the public manipulation and still she keeps claiming it's the other way round. And then we're not even talking about DNC whistleblower Seth Rich who was set as an example.

    A part from Trend Micro joining the desinformation circus, it is and always delivered crappy software. Even last year their products that are supposed to protect their users against virusses and remote attacks in fact facilitated these: "PCs running Trend Micro's Windows antivirus can be hijacked, infected with malware, or wiped clean by any website, thanks to a vulnerability in the security software."

    and "Because the password manager was so badly written, Ormandy found that a malicious script could not only execute code remotely, it could also steal all passwords stored in the browser using the flaws in Trend's software – even if they are encrypted."

    Trend Micro AV gave any website command-line access to Windows PCs

    So a part from writing fake secutiry software, they also make fake statements and perform fake research.

    stumpy | Jun 2, 2017 3:56:19 PM | 27
    psychohistorian @ 24

    My thoughts, too. After juggling so many schemes and dark deals over the years, the liar's mind just cracks up. Pretty soon we'll be hearing about the skunkworks at area 51 targeting her with death rays.

    Her family should get her into a comfy retirement before she does more damage to herself and others. If her daughter wants to pick up the baton, that's fine. I hope she runs for a democrat seat.

    Anonymous | Jun 2, 2017 4:15:45 PM | 28
    Aslong as MSM gives her conspiracy theories space this maniac will live on.

    I cant believe so many people, majority of western people, believe her on Trump, Russia etcetera. Classic brainwashing.

    likklemore | Jun 2, 2017 4:19:16 PM | 29
    The Russians did it from their secure cubicles in Langley, VA. We all read Wikileaks' expose Vault 7.

    Heads Up Killary.
    Seth Conrad Rich's life may have ended by assassins. Total legacy Media blackout but They will be found.

    http://sethrich.info
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    RE: Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 2, 2017 2:30:00 PM | 21

    This Climate Change program is a money scam. Lloyd Blankfein railed against Trump as his CCE) money bowl is affected. The whole green tax, carbon emissions credit trading makes no sense whatsoever. Just another financial vehicle.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-global-warming-and-the-carbon-finance-business/5365419

    Recall the dinosaurs; they forgot to tax the autos, and the factories' carbon emissions. Oh my, look what happened to them!

    My weather guy/gal's 24-hr forecast taken from NOAA is always inaccurate. Never mind forecasting the next 30 years.

    Garbage in, garbage out. Is earth cooling or warming?

    • When promoters of Climate Change ignore the Milankovitch Cycles we are being deceived. LINK
    • Ice once covered the Equator LINK
    • USA-Canada Equator Belt LINK
    • Natural Variability LINK
    ben | Jun 2, 2017 4:21:35 PM | 30
    HRC and Trump both work for the same team. Clinton is doing her part by creating the illusion there are actually choices between the two parties with her constant whining about the election. Trump is doing his part by distracting the sheep with weird behavior, while his corporate cronies ready the American sheep for a good shearing.
    ben | Jun 2, 2017 4:26:58 PM | 31
    P.S.--Should have put the word "election" in quotes. We, in the U$A, no longer have Presidential elections, we have selections.
    psychohistorian | Jun 2, 2017 4:28:51 PM | 32
    @ Ben who wrote about American sheep.... BAAAAAA! And we/I come here and spew textual white noise while humanity enters Hospice.
    frances | Jun 2, 2017 5:19:48 PM | 33
    re: Clinton does not have a choice at this point b but to take shrill to new levels. She herself is a war criminal and she may live to be prosecuted for such.
    Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 2, 2017 3:03:42 PM | 24.

    I watched her May 31, 2017 live interview on youtube and my first thought was, "You clever rascal, you are lying as fast as you can in order to taint the jury pool." No one ever said she was stupid; evil, corrupt, soulless, yes. But never stupid.

    Anonymous | Jun 2, 2017 6:18:17 PM | 34
    Speaking on the hatred for Trump, this is another woman that is completely mentally ill: Kathy Griffin: I am the victim - not Trump!
    https://twitter.com/ABCWorldNews/status/870679050804633602
    Dr. Bill edin | Jun 2, 2017 8:54:49 PM | 35
    In that bizarre Clinton clip, where she channels Julius Caesar (whom she still hopes to be)--clapping her hands and shouting, "We came! We saw! He DIED!!!" on hearing the news that Gaddafi had been raped and gutted with a bayonet by US-supported Al-Qaeda "rebels" whom she had visited in Libya just a week before--the CBS reporter rhetorically asks her if Clinton thinks her own visit had anything to do with this event. And Clinton amazingly answers: "It did." I had to play the clip 3 X to believe it. But that's what she actually said!
    alaric | Jun 2, 2017 11:42:07 PM | 36
    Hillary appears to be quiet depressed, still, and in denial but she really can't admit the truth without completely pissing off her sponsors and future $500K a shot speaking gigs.

    She can't come out and admit that the people didn't want her because she is a corrupt corporate/wall st whore and war monger and that the Dem playbook of identity politics failed because neo-liberalism has screwed over too many people. She can't admit that she has no personality and that she comes across has cold, fake and contrived either.

    She really has no choice but to keep pointing fingers elsewhere because admitting the truth would be the end of her new career and the end of the political career she is pursuing for Chelsea.

    stumpy | Jun 3, 2017 12:00:29 AM | 37
    likklemore @ 29

    The Green Climate Fund. $100 Billion a year to sit in the World Bank while a cartel decides who to give/lend it to. Whatever the reason, Trump got this one right. I guess it depends on which flavor of green you have in mind.

    nonsense factory | Jun 3, 2017 1:17:50 AM | 38
    Ah, now that Donald Trump has gotten in bed with the Saudis, perhaps it's time to review the long collaborative history between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton?
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/trump-clinton-refuse-explain-share-address-delaware/215907/
    Looks like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are on the same page, doesn't it?
    Saunder | Jun 3, 2017 2:17:58 AM | 39
    Saying it's Russians' fault like blaming everything on Jews' – & other Putin quotes at #SPIEF
    https://mobile.twitter.com/RT_com/status/870807497283559425?p=p#
    Mina | Jun 3, 2017 5:47:12 AM | 40
    Great website http://www.photorientalist.org/
    jfl | Jun 3, 2017 8:49:11 AM | 41
    Study shows massive growth of political abstention in 2016 US election
    Clinton's orientation to more affluent voters produced a dramatic shift in the landscape of American two-party politics in 2016. According to data from the American National Election Survey (ANES), the Democratic Party won a majority of votes from the wealthiest 5 percent of the white population for the first time since ANES began collecting data in 1948. Not only did the Clinton campaign win amongst the wealthiest 5 percent of whites, she won by an overwhelming margin, slightly greater than 10 percent. The Democrats won by wide margins among wealthier sections of all racial groups.

    On the other side, the poorest two-thirds of white voters supported the Republican candidate, also for the first time in the ANES poll's 70-year history. The chart below shows the shift, with the Republican margin of victory appearing higher on the Y-axis and the income percentile groups listed from left to right on the X-axis, with the wealthiest 5 percent listed on the right of each graph. The fact that the chart for 2016 has a downward trajectory highlights the degree to which the Democratic Party has become the primary party of the affluent upper-middle class.

    the 'Democrats' in the usofa are like the 'Democrats' in thailand ... they've got the plutocrat vote, and the wannabe plutocrat vote, sewed up. but that's not enough to get elected.

    the thai 'Democrats' turn to coups to stay in power ... and now, so do the american Democrats. starting off with a judicial coup, they hope.

    will they go whole hog with tanks in the streets when that fails?

    Noirette | Jun 3, 2017 10:13:16 AM | 42
    The Macron 'hack' was indeed curious. Maybe a sort of copy-cat-effort, like it has become fash to hack pol e-mails? Odd - I haven't seen what the content is, is it just a lot of rubbish, is the hack being ignored on purpose? Is all being covered up? Where is the material? Who is analysing it? Sure I could hunt it up, the point is this all sank without much of a trace The media were ordered not to publish: Independent
    Jackrabbit | Jun 3, 2017 10:43:19 AM | 43
    ben@30 nf@38

    https://jackrabbit.blog/

    somebody | Jun 3, 2017 10:48:17 AM | 44
    Posted by: Noirette | Jun 3, 2017 10:13:16 AM | 42

    You find them under #macronleaks on twitter

    Wikileaks - Assange - posted that they were looking at the stuff if they were real but did not post anything after that. Mediapart has looked at the leaks deducing what everybody guessed before - that "en marche" has been financed by the finance sector. I think the media is correct in not spreading rumour about Macron being gay (or dependent on drugs) - especially as there is no confirmation the leaks are untampered with.

    Bardi | Jun 3, 2017 2:04:18 PM | 46
    "Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. "

    b, your ignorance is pretty much on display, here. Cyber attacks take many different forms, among which are "phishing attacks". Try to get with the program

    Former hacker.

    jfl | Jun 3, 2017 8:54:38 PM | 51
    @50 witters

    see Putin defends Trump on Climate change - 'Don't worry, be happy' .

    Putin

    1. cuts to the chase: the paris accord has no teeth
    2. notes that russia has yet to sign the accord itself
    3. points out that serious, heavy lifting is required to deal with climate change
    4. throws the rump a lifesaver ... implies that russia and the us might work together on 3.

    i always like to listen to putin. he actually says things.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 3, 2017 11:50:28 PM | 52
    i always like to listen to putin. he actually says things.
    Posted by: jfl | Jun 3, 2017 8:54:38 PM | 51

    That's true but, unlike Western leaders, Putin's most outstanding personal attribute is his firm commitment to keeping quiet when he's got nothing to say.
    Malcolm Turnbull is the perfect example... the longer his rambling speeches take to deliver, the less solid info they contain.
    It's a Neoliberal thing; long on verbosity - short on sane ideas.

    [Jun 04, 2017] Vladimir Putin Suggests to Megyn Kelly That US Hackers May Have Framed Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... The US Media try to manufacture a reality that pleases them (or, rather, their owners) on the basis of zero evidence. Putin laughs at this. His remarks are comical about the situation . and correct. America needs a doctor. Alternatively it needs to shoot itself in the head (the finance oligarchy) so it can grow a new one. ..."
    Jun 04, 2017 | variety.com

    "Hackers can be anywhere," Putin told Kelly. "They can be in Russia, in Asia even in America, Latin America. They can even be hackers, by the way, in the United States, who very skillfully and professionally, shifted the blame, as we say, on to Russia. Can you imagine something like that? In the midst of a political battle. By some calculations it was convenient for them to release this information, so they released it, citing Russia. Could you imagine something like that? I can."

    Ben says: June 3, 2017 at 10:18 am

    Putin is right. The US intelligence agencies need to present evidence before blaming someone.

    physicsandmathsrevision says: June 3, 2017 at 1:45 am

    The US Media try to manufacture a reality that pleases them (or, rather, their owners) on the basis of zero evidence. Putin laughs at this. His remarks are comical about the situation . and correct. America needs a doctor. Alternatively it needs to shoot itself in the head (the finance oligarchy) so it can grow a new one.

    [Jun 04, 2017] An Expanding Bloodbath in Iraq by Robert Parry

    Jun 04, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    January 17, 2015

    Originally from: Neocons The 'Anti-Realists' By Robert Parry

    In the rush to war in Iraq, the neocons and the liberal interventionists won hands down in 2002-2003 but ended up causing a bloodbath for the people of Iraq, with estimates of those killed ranging from hundreds of thousands to more than a million. But the U.S. invaders did more than that. They destabilized the entire Middle East by disturbing the fragile fault lines between Sunni and Shiite.

    With Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein ousted and hanged, Iraq's vengeful Shiite politicians established their own authoritarian state under the military wing of the U.S. and British armies. Neocon hubris made matters worse when many former Sunni officials and officers were cashiered and marginalized, creating fertile ground for al-Qaeda to put down roots among Iraqi Sunnis, planting a particularly brutal strain nourished by Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

    Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq attracted thousands of foreign Sunni jihadists eager to fight both the Westerners and the Shiites. Others went to Yemen to join Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Trained in the brutal methods of these Iraqi and Yemeni insurgencies, hardened jihadists returned to their homes in Libya, Syria, Europe and elsewhere.

    Though the disaster in Iraq should have been a powerful cautionary tale, the neocons and the liberal interventionists proved to be much more adept at playing the political-propaganda games of Washington than in prevailing in the complex societies of the Middle East.

    Instead of being purge en masse, the Iraq War instigators faced minimal career accountability. They managed to spin the Iraq "surge" as "victory at last" and maintained their influence over Washington even under President Obama, who may have been a "closet realist" but who kept neocons in key posts and surrounded himself with liberal interventionists. [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Surge Myth's Deadly Result ."]

    Thus, Obama grudgingly was enlisted into the next neocon-liberal-interventionist crusades in 2011: the military intervention to overthrow Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and the covert operation to remove Syria's Bashar al-Assad. In both cases, the propaganda was ramped up again, presenting the opposition groups as "pro-democracy moderates" who were peacefully facing down brutal dictators.

    In reality, the oppositions were more a mixed bag of some actual moderates and Islamist extremists. When Gaddafi and Assad emphasizing the presence of terrorists struck back brutally, the "R2P" crowd demanded U.S. military intervention, either directly in Libya or indirectly in Syria. With the U.S. mainstream media onboard, nearly every occurrence was put through the propaganda filter that made the regimes all dark and the oppositions bathed in a rosy glow.

    After the U.S.-led air war destroyed Gaddafi's military and opened the way for an opposition victory, Gaddafi was captured and brutally murdered. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who might be called a "neocon-lite," joked: "We came, we saw, he died."

    But the chaos that followed Gaddafi's death was not so funny, contributing to the killing of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American diplomatic personnel in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, and to the spreading of terrorism and violence across northern Africa. By July 2014, the U.S. and other Western nations had abandoned their embassies in Tripoli as all political order broke down.

    [Jun 04, 2017] America's neocons, who wield great power inside the U.S. government and media, endanger the planet by concocting strategies inside their heads that ignore real-world consequences

    Jun 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm, June 04, 2017 at 08:15 AM

    "seasoned military commanders" are like the Nazis who said US lost Vietnam because they were not patient. These "seasoned military commanders" seek only not to lose!

    While why should anyone "follow US leadership with these type of "seasoned military commanders"?

    Iran and Pakistan without US meddling will stabilize the place enough to link to OBOR.

    The US is trying to prove you can kill enough of them to solve their problems, for them!

    RGC - , June 04, 2017 at 08:15 AM
    Neocons: The 'Anti-Realists'
    January 17, 2015

    America's neocons, who wield great power inside the U.S. government and media, endanger the planet by concocting strategies inside their heads that ignore real-world consequences.

    Thus, their "regime changes" have unleashed ancient hatreds and spread chaos across the globe.

    By Robert Parry

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/17/neocons-the-anti-realists/

    [Jun 04, 2017] Russiagate is rehash of classic Cold War propaganda, a set of a lies that has been the basis for so many wars launched to stop this alleged expansionism in the past

    Jun 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs

    , June 04, 2017 at 04:23 AM
    (Is this anything?)

    Obama's Dilemma on Troop Surge in Afghanistan

    Now Vexes Trump https://nyti.ms/2sCkEsB

    NYT - MARK LANDLER and ERIC SCHMITT - JUNE 3

    WASHINGTON - A new president confronts an old war, one that bedeviled his predecessor. He is caught between seasoned military commanders, who tell him that the road to victory is to pour in more American troops, and skeptical political advisers, who argue that a major deployment is a futile exercise that will leave him politically vulnerable.

    Barack Obama in 2009. But also Donald J. Trump in 2017.

    As Mr. Trump faces his most consequential decision yet as commander in chief - whether to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, where a truck bombing on Wednesday offered a brutal reminder that the 16-year-old war is far from over - his administration is divided along familiar fault lines.

    The dispute pits two generals who had formative experiences in Afghanistan - Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster - against political aides, led by the chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who fear that sending in more troops would be a slippery slope toward nation-building.

    "They are going to be faced with the same questions we were," said David Axelrod, a former senior Obama adviser, who worried, during the 2009 debate, that the generals were boxing his boss in. "How and when does this end? Or is it an open-ended commitment of American lives and resources? What will the investment produce in the long run?"

    The White House shelved the deliberations over Afghanistan three weeks ago, after an initial Pentagon proposal to deploy up to 5,000 additional American troops ran into fierce resistance from Mr. Bannon, an ardent nationalist, and other political advisers. In the West Wing, some aides have taken to calling Afghanistan "McMaster's war."

    Undeterred, General McMaster plans to bring the debate back to the front burner this coming week, a senior administration official said. But as he does so, the Pentagon appears to be moving toward a smaller recommendation, in which America's allies would supply half the new troops. Historically, the United States has supplied about two-thirds of the soldiers in Afghanistan.

    That proposal depends on nailing down commitments from NATO and other allies - a task that former officials said had gotten harder after Mr. Trump's stormy visit to Europe, where he chided allies for not paying their fair share of the alliance's upkeep and declined to reaffirm America's commitment to mutual defense.

    "Trump has made it harder, not easier, to follow the U.S. lead," said Douglas E. Lute, a former ambassador to NATO who advised both Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush on Afghanistan. "Questioning U.S. leadership makes it more difficult for the allies to send troops into harm's way." ...

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , June 04, 2017 at 04:27 AM
    ... Mr. Bannon, who was a powerful force behind Mr. Trump's decision to leave the Paris climate accord, has recovered some of his influence in the wake of that debate. Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump's son-in-law and adviser, remains a crucial voice, despite his troubles over reported links to Russia. Though he has not taken a position on troops, his aides say he views his role as making sure the president gets genuine options.

    Other officials may weigh in, too. John F. Kelly, the secretary of Homeland Security and another retired general, holds weight with Mr. Trump. His son was killed in combat in Afghanistan. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson may be exerting behind-the-scenes influence already. The debate over Afghanistan abruptly slowed down after officials at the State Department expressed concern that General McMaster was "jamming through" a troop decision.

    Still, Mr. Trump's heavy reliance on military commanders risks a repeat of what some critics viewed as a weakness of the Obama administration's troop debate, even with Mrs. Clinton's participation: its overemphasis on a military solution.

    "This whole decision is being seen too narrowly, through a military prism," said Daniel F. Feldman, who served as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan under Mr. Obama. "It has to be seen in a more integrated way. It requires a more aggressive diplomatic component."

    (And what of Ivanka?)

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , June 04, 2017 at 04:51 AM
    (Not bloody likely.)

    A Political Solution to the Afghan War

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/a-political-solution-to-the-afghan-war/241376/

    The Atlantic - July 7, 2011

    ... But what about the political formula? How will Afghanistan be governed after we leave? Will it remain under its current constitution? What role will there be for the Taliban? How will power be shared between Kabul and the provinces? How about the most troublesome neighbor, Pakistan? What will its role be? And what can the United States do to make the answers these questions come out in a direction that does as little harm to our interests as possible? ...

    The End of Afghanistan's War

    https://www.thenation.com/article/end-afghanistans-war/

    The Nation - June 29, 2013

    If it happens, it will be because the United

    States and Pakistan agree on a role for the

    Taliban in a reshaped government in Kabul.

    ... If there is going to be a peaceful end to the war in Afghanistan unlikely as that may be, it will come when the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan all agree on a rebalancing of the government in Kabul, probably with a new constitution and probably either including the Taliban in the new regime or giving the Taliban effective control of parts of southern Afghanistan in some sort of federal system. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , June 04, 2017 at 05:31 AM
    (Hmmm. How the US military

    probably sees Pakistan. Other

    then the place where Bin Laden hid out.)

    Military coups in Pakistan began in 1958 and there have been three successful attempts. There have also been numerous unsuccessful attempts since 1951. Since its creation in 1947, Pakistan has spent several decades under military rule (1958 – 1971, 1977 – 1988, 1999 – 2008). ... (Wikipedia)

    libezkova - , June 04, 2017 at 05:41 AM
    "Questioning U.S. leadership makes it more difficult for the allies to send troops into harm's way."

    The question to be asked is why the

    USA elite fights all this wars of neoliberal empire expansion at the expense of American people. They steal money from people. Huge amount of money. In order to help multinationals. And to create a smoke screen and justification inflate anti-Russian hysteria. Now probably 70% of Americans are adamantly anti-Russian like in good old days of Cold War. Very convenient for stealing even more money for MIC and multinationals: "stealing money as a patriotic duty"

    http://exiledonline.com/russia-blog-7-when-mother-jones-was-investigated-for-spreading-kremlin-disinformation/

    == quote ==

    Mother Jones recently announced it's "redoubling our Russia reporting" - in the words of editor Clara Jeffery. Ain't that rich. What passes for "Russia reporting" at Mother Jones is mostly just glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks - a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos, destroying freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate us, because we're free.

    Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called "Russia reporting" of the last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths - whether it's from Mother Jones or MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.

    But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic about Russian "disinformation". It wasn't too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones for spreading "Kremlin disinformation" and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to the media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin "disinformation" and "active measures" in America, and the American "dupes" who helped Moscow subvert our way of life. That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America, using "terrorism" as the main threat, and "disinformation" as terrorism's fellow traveller. The way the the SST committee put it, "terrorism" and "Kremlin disinformation" were one and the same, a meta-conspiracy run out of Moscow to weaken America.

    And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee's sites.

    Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording of an interview between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, and a committee witness- a "disinformation expert" named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling spy novel called "The Spike" - about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation, and thereby rule the world.

    Here's how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:

    "In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of false or misleading items in news media.

    "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians."

    Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the "Kremlin disinformation" conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas power . . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation dupe whether they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and who isn't a Kremlin agent.

    Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another "Red Scare", warning,

    "[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little sense as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism. When Mr. de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation, the accusation is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel law than if he were to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.

    " Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America's news media, then anything must seem possible."

    It's a damn shame today's editorial staff at Mother Jones aren't aware of their own magazine's history.

    Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn't care if you shoved their faces in their own recent history - they're way too donor-deep invested in pushing this "active measures" conspiracy. Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.

    PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of RealNetworks, to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can't stand Trump or his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on - this?

    One would've thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that running against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem is they didn't fear-monger enough, so they're "redoubling" on the Russophobia. Donor money is driving this - donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones' editorial focus. And it really is this crude.

    Take for example a PutinTrump section titled "Russian Expansion" - the scary Red imagery and language are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when, it so happens, Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored alien soldiers over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones' donor-partner promotes a classic Cold War propaganda line about Russian/Soviet expansionism -- a lie that has been the basis for so many wars launched to "stop" this alleged "expansionism" in the past, wars that Mother Jones is supposed to oppose.

    [Jun 04, 2017] Neocons The Anti-Realists by Robert Parry

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some of those approaches essentially turned John Quincy Adams's admonition on its head by asserting that it is ..."
    "... In recent years, as the ranks of the "realists" the likes of George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft have aged and thinned, the ranks of the neocons and their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, swelled. Indeed, these "anti-realists" have now grown dominant, touting themselves as morally superior because they don't just call for human rights, they take out governments that don't measure up. ..."
    "... The primary distinction between the neocons and the liberal interventionists has been the centrality of Israel in the neocons' thinking while their liberal sidekicks put "humanitarianism" at the core of their world view. But these differences are insignificant, in practice, since the liberal hawks are politically savvy enough not to hold Israel accountable for its human rights crimes and clever enough to join with the neocons in easy-to-sell "regime change" strategies toward targeted countries with weak lobbies in Washington. ..."
    "... Because Reagan's usurpation of human rights language involved support for brutal right-wing forces, such as the Guatemalan military and the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, the process required an Orwellian change in what words meant. "Pro-democracy" had to become synonymous with the rights and profits of business owners, not its traditional meaning of making government work for the common people. ..."
    "... But this perversion of language was not as much meant to fool the average Guatemalan or Nicaraguan, who was more likely to grasp the reality behind the word games since he or she saw the cruel facts up close; it was mostly to control the American people who, in the lexicon of Reagan's propagandists, needed to have their perceptions managed. ..."
    "... At the time, with Great Communicator Ronald Reagan leading the way, virtually the entire U.S. mainstream media and nearly every national politician hailed the mujahedeen as noble "freedom fighters" but the reality was always much different ..."
    "... By the end of the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi "covert operation" had "succeeded" in driving the Soviet army out of Afghanistan with Kabul's communist regime ultimately overthrown and replaced by the fundamentalist Taliban, who stripped women of their rights and covered up their bodies. The Taliban also provided safe haven for bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist band, which by the 1990s had shifted its sights from Moscow to Washington and New York. ..."
    "... Then, America's fear and fury over 9/11 opened the path for the neocons to activate one of their longstanding plans, to invade and occupy Iraq, though it had nothing to do with 9/11. The propaganda machinery was cranked up and again all the "smart" people fell in line. Dissenters were dismissed as "Saddam apologists" or called "traitors." [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War. "] ..."
    "... By fall 2002, the idea of invading Iraq and removing "monster" Saddam Hussein was not just a neocon goal, it was embraced by nearly ever prominent "liberal interventionist" in the United States, including editors and columnists of the New Yorker, the New York Times and virtually every major news outlet. ..."
    "... The illegal U.S.-led invasion of Iraq also brushed aside the "legal internationalists" who believed that global agreements, especially prohibitions on aggressive war, were vital to building a less violent planet. ..."
    "... Chaos happens to be a strategic goal of the country to which the neocons pledge allegiance: Israel. Chaos and conflict in the ME helps Israel maintain its military superiority and offers the opportunity to expand their undefined borders to encompass the Zionist dream of Eretz Yisrael. ..."
    "... What I find odd and interesting is that the neo-Nazis (who are blatantly anti-Semitic) in the Kiev government have found common cause with Jewish oligarchs, Petro Poroshenko (Valtsman) and Igor Kolomoisky. I guess power and money make strange bedfellows. ..."
    "... The US is nailed by two prongs of the same disease; Globalism, and a massively-increased Zionism. ..."
    "... The two most dangerous countries in the world today are the U.S. neoconed under the influence of American Zionists and I would put Israel, second to none other than the US. And, I would distinguish and separate them from Syria and Iran who are a threat to no one. ..."
    "... you have to stop with this Obama vs his Neocon/Liberal Interventionist White House staff. Why are you trying to protect Obama as if he, as President, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into Lybia, Syria, or Ukraine? He seemly clearly in favor of each of these moved just as he was clearly in favor of his drone war in Pakistan and the killing of American citizens. ..."
    Jun 04, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
    January 17, 2015

    Special Report: America's neocons, who wield great power inside the U.S. government and media, endanger the planet by concoctingstrategies inside their heads that ignorereal-world consequences. Thus, their"regime changes" have unleashed ancient hatreds and spread chaos across the globe, as Robert Parry explains.

    Historically, one of the main threads of U.S. foreign policy was called "realism," that is the measured application of American power on behalf of definable national interests, with U.S. principles preached to others but not imposed.

    This approach traced back to the early days of the Republic when the first presidents warned of foreign "entangling alliances" and President John Quincy Adams, who was with his father at the nation's dawning, explained in 1821 that while America speaks on behalf of liberty, "she has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

    "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

    However, in modern times, foreign policy "realism" slid into an association with a cold calculation of power, no longer a defense of the Republic and broader national interests but of narrow, well-connected economic interests. The language of freedom was woven into a banner for greed and plunder. Liberty justified the imposition of dictatorships on troublesome populations. Instead of searching for monsters to destroy, U.S. policy often searched for monsters to install.

    In the wake of such heartless actions like imposing pliable "pro-business" dictatorships on countries such as Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Indonesia, Chile and engaging in the bloodbath of Vietnam "realism" developed a deservedly negative reputation as other supposedly more idealistic foreign policy strategies gained preeminence.

    Some of those approaches essentially turned John Quincy Adams's admonition on its head by asserting that it is America's duty to search out foreign monsters to destroy. Whether called "neoconservatism" or "liberal interventionism," this approach openly advocated U.S. interference in the affairs of other nations and took the sides of people who at least presented themselves as "pro-democracy."

    In recent years, as the ranks of the "realists" the likes of George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft have aged and thinned, the ranks of the neocons and their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, swelled. Indeed, these "anti-realists" have now grown dominant, touting themselves as morally superior because they don't just call for human rights, they take out governments that don't measure up.

    The primary distinction between the neocons and the liberal interventionists has been the centrality of Israel in the neocons' thinking while their liberal sidekicks put "humanitarianism" at the core of their world view. But these differences are insignificant, in practice, since the liberal hawks are politically savvy enough not to hold Israel accountable for its human rights crimes and clever enough to join with the neocons in easy-to-sell "regime change" strategies toward targeted countries with weak lobbies in Washington.

    In those "regime change" cases, there is also a consensus on how to handle the targeted countries: start with "soft power" from anti-regime propaganda to funding internal opposition groups to economic sanctions to political destabilization campaigns and, then if operationally necessary and politically feasible, move to overt military interventions, applying America's extraordinary military clout.

    Moral Crusades

    These interventions are always dressed up as moral crusades the need to free some population from the clutches of a U.S.-defined "monster." There usually is some "crisis" in which the "monster" is threatening "innocent life" and triggering a "responsibility to protect" with the catchy acronym, "R2P."

    But the reality about these "anti-realists" is that their actions, in real life, almost always inflict severe harm on the country being "rescued." The crusade kills many people innocent and guilty and the resulting disorder can spread far and wide, like some contagion that cannot be contained. The neocons and the liberal interventionists have become, in effect, carriers of the deadly disease called chaos.

    And, it has become a very lucrative chaos for the well-connected by advancing the "dark side" of U.S. foreign policy where lots of money can be made while government secrecy prevents public scrutiny.

    As author James Risen describes in his new book, Pay Any Price , a new caste of "oligarchs" has emerged from the 9/11 "war on terror" - and the various regional wars that it has unpacked - to amass vast fortunes. He writes:"There is an entire class of wealthy company owners, corporate executives, and investors who have gotten rich by enabling the American government to turn to the dark side. The new quiet oligarchs just keep making money. They are the beneficiaries of one of the largest transfers of wealth from public to private hands in American history." [p. 56]

    And the consolidation of this wealth has further cemented the political/media influence of the "anti-realists," as the new "oligarchs" kick back portions of their taxpayer largesse into think tanks, political campaigns and media outlets. The neocons and their liberal interventionist pals now fully dominate the U.S. opinion centers, from the right-wing media to the editorial pages (and the foreign desks) of many establishment publications, including the Washington Post and the New York Times.

    By contrast, the voices of the remaining "realists" and their current unlikely allies, the anti-war activists, are rarely heard in the mainstream U.S. media anymore. To the extent that these dissidents do get to criticize U.S. meddling abroad, they are dismissed as "apologists" for whatever "monster" is currently in line for the slaughter. And, to the extent they criticize Israel, they are smeared as "anti-Semitic" and thus banished from respectable society.

    Thus, being a "realist" in today's Official Washington requires hiding one's true feelings, much as was once the case if you were a gay man and you had little choice but to keep your sexual orientation in the closet by behaving publicly like a heterosexual and surrounding yourself with straight friends.

    In many ways, that's what President Barack Obama has done. Though arguably a "closet realist," Obama staffed his original administration with foreign policy officials acceptable to the neocons and the liberal interventionists, such as Robert Gates at Defense, Hillary Clinton at State, Gen. David Petraeus as a top commander in the field.

    Even in his second term, the foreign-policy hawks have remained dominant, with people like neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland enflaming the crisis in Ukraine and UN Ambassador Samantha Power, an R2Per, pushing U.S. military intervention in Syria.

    A Slow-Motion Catastrophe

    I have personally watched today's foreign-policy pattern evolve during my 37 years in Washington - and it began innocently enough. After the Vietnam War and the disclosures about bloody CIA coups around the globe, President Jimmy Carter called for human rights to be put at the center of U.S. foreign policy. His successor, Ronald Reagan, then hijacked the human rights rhetoric while adapting to it to his anticommunist cause.

    Because Reagan's usurpation of human rights language involved support for brutal right-wing forces, such as the Guatemalan military and the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, the process required an Orwellian change in what words meant. "Pro-democracy" had to become synonymous with the rights and profits of business owners, not its traditional meaning of making government work for the common people.

    But this perversion of language was not as much meant to fool the average Guatemalan or Nicaraguan, who was more likely to grasp the reality behind the word games since he or she saw the cruel facts up close; it was mostly to control the American people who, in the lexicon of Reagan's propagandists, needed to have their perceptions managed. [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Victory of Perception Management. "]

    The goal of the young neocons inside the Reagan administration the likes of Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan (now Victoria Nuland's husband) was to line up the American public behind Reagan's aggressive foreign policy, or as the phrase of that time went, to "kick the Vietnam Syndrome," meaning to end the popular post-Vietnam resistance to more foreign wars.

    President George H.W. Bush pronounced this mission accomplished in 1991 after the end of the well-sold Persian Gulf War, declaring "we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."

    By then, the propaganda process had fallen into a predictable pattern. You pick out a target country; you demonize its leadership; you develop some "themes" that are sure to push American hot buttons, maybe fictional stories about "throwing babies out of incubators" or the terrifying prospect of "a mushroom cloud"; and it's always smart to highlight a leader's personal corruption, maybe his "designer glasses" or "a sauna in his palace."

    The point is not that the targeted leader may not be an unsavory character. Frankly, most political leaders are. Many Western leaders and their Third World allies both historically and currently have much more blood on their hands than some of the designated "monsters" that the U.S. government has detected around the world. The key is the image-making.

    What makes the process work is the application and amplification of double standards through the propaganda organs available to the U.S. government. The compliant mainstream American media can be counted on to look harshly at the behavior of some U.S. "enemy" in Venezuela, Iran, Russia or eastern Ukraine, but to take a much more kindly view of a U.S.-favored leader from Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Georgia or western Ukraine.

    While it's easy and safe career-wise for a mainstream journalist to accuse a Chavez, an Ahmadinejad, a Putin or a Yanukovych of pretty much anything, the levels of proof get ratcheted up when it's a Uribe, a Saudi King Abdullah, a Saakashvili or a Yatsenyuk not to mention a Netanyahu.

    The True Dark Side

    But here is the dark truth about this "humanitarian" interventionism: it is spinning the world into an endless cycle of violence. Rather than improving the prospects for human rights and democracy, it is destroying those goals. While the interventionist strategies have made huge fortunes for well-connected government contractors and well-placed speculators who profit off chaos, the neocons and their "human rights" buddies are creating a hell on earth for billions of others, spreading death and destitution.

    Take, for example, the beginnings of the Afghan War in the 1980s after the Soviet Union invaded to protect a communist-led regime that had sought to pull Afghanistan out of the middle ages, including granting equal rights to women. The United States responded by encouraging Islamic fundamentalism and arming the barbaric mujahedeen.

    At the time, that was considered the smart play because Islamic fundamentalism was seen as a force that could counter atheistic communism. So, starting with the Carter administration but getting dramatically ramped up by the Reagan administration, the United States threw in its lot with the extremist Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia to invest billions of dollars in supporting these Islamist militants who included one wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden.

    At the time, with Great Communicator Ronald Reagan leading the way, virtually the entire U.S. mainstream media and nearly every national politician hailed the mujahedeen as noble "freedom fighters" but the reality was always much different . [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's " How US Hubris Baited Afghan Trap ."]

    By the end of the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi "covert operation" had "succeeded" in driving the Soviet army out of Afghanistan with Kabul's communist regime ultimately overthrown and replaced by the fundamentalist Taliban, who stripped women of their rights and covered up their bodies. The Taliban also provided safe haven for bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist band, which by the 1990s had shifted its sights from Moscow to Washington and New York.

    Even though the Saudis officially broke with bin Laden after he declared his intentions to attack the United States, some wealthy Saudis and other Persian Gulf multi-millionaires, who shared bin Laden's violent form of Islamic fundamentalism, continued to fund him and his terrorists right up to and beyond al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11.

    Then, America's fear and fury over 9/11 opened the path for the neocons to activate one of their longstanding plans, to invade and occupy Iraq, though it had nothing to do with 9/11. The propaganda machinery was cranked up and again all the "smart" people fell in line. Dissenters were dismissed as "Saddam apologists" or called "traitors." [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War. "]

    By fall 2002, the idea of invading Iraq and removing "monster" Saddam Hussein was not just a neocon goal, it was embraced by nearly ever prominent "liberal interventionist" in the United States, including editors and columnists of the New Yorker, the New York Times and virtually every major news outlet.

    At this point, the "realists" were in near total eclipse, left to grumble futilely or grasp onto some remaining "relevance" by joining the pack, as Henry Kissinger did. The illegal U.S.-led invasion of Iraq also brushed aside the "legal internationalists" who believed that global agreements, especially prohibitions on aggressive war, were vital to building a less violent planet.

    ... ... ...

    Pablo Diablo , January 17, 2015 at 7:06 pm

    THANK YOU Robert Parry for all you have done. Money! It's always money. Wake up America. They gave us Clinton to accomplish what mean-spirited Reagan/Bush couldn't accomplish. And then they gave us Obama to continue what Bush/Cheney started.

    Debbie Menon , January 18, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    Well put Zachary Smith. Shaking these compromised criminals from their lofty posts and kicking them to the curb may seem like a monumental task, but the sea tide of change is definitely turning in our favor. There is much talk about the neocons, Israel, Zionism, and the Lobby's influence in the US government than ever before. They are everywhere! http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/01/18/514568obama-to-senators-choose-u-s-over-donors/

    Steve D , January 17, 2015 at 8:16 pm

    When will the neocons be brought up on crimes against humanity ? May all blowback be brought down upon them.

    Debbie Menon , January 18, 2015 at 8:42 am

    I've been asking this question since the day Obama came into office: "Can Obama Untangle the Iranian Challenge?"

    Seems like he's finally moving to clinch this foreign policy victory:

    White House, Obama to Congress on foreign policy back off:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obama-to-congress-on-foreign-policy-back-off-20150116

    Joe , January 17, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    This is a good summary, necessarily burdened by the lengthy history of "neocon" madness since WWII. But of course the wrongful and ill-conceived US interventions are far more numerous even than those mentioned here.

    There will be no rational US foreign or domestic policy until democracy is restored, when the mass media and elections are protected from the control of the oligarch of economic concentrations that denies democracy to the people of the United States. This was the great oversight of our Constitution, because no such economic concentrations existed then, and amendments are desperately needed to correct this. Without them democracy, and sanity in public policy, are lost forever.

    The morally corrosive effects of government propaganda are accepted largely because the population is accustomed to lies in advertising and all business communications. The people are no longer outraged that the government does nothing to control business lies and cheating, and it is not surprising that the parties of bold government lies are the advocates of unregulated business.

    But the prospects for reform are grim. Only an era of vast suffering in the US will make the people turn off their TVs and admit the truth. One cannot wish for the suffering, but anything to hasten the deposing of oligarchy is an act of the highest patriotism.

    Debbie Menon , January 18, 2015 at 8:58 am

    I concur. The question is why a large majority of the American people go along with this entire exercise? And when did it all start? I wrote this in 2009 soon after Obama took office, it still resonates: Can Obama escape the dominating influence of AIPAC and the American Jewish/Zionist Israeli lobby?

    http://www.payvand.com/news/09/feb/1141.html

    joe , January 18, 2015 at 8:12 pm

    The exercise of control over elections and mass media began quite early, grew as the US middle class emerged and had to rely on ever-larger newspapers for policy facts, and as political candidates relied ever more on purchased publicity and contributions from ever growing businesses seeking federal favors. By 1898 we had our first media-trumped war ("Remember the Maine") over a falsely attributed coal-gas explosion on a US warship.

    Chet Roman , January 18, 2015 at 2:26 am

    "The neocons and the liberal interventionists have become, in effect, carriers of the deadly disease called chaos."

    Chaos happens to be a strategic goal of the country to which the neocons pledge allegiance: Israel. Chaos and conflict in the ME helps Israel maintain its military superiority and offers the opportunity to expand their undefined borders to encompass the Zionist dream of Eretz Yisrael.

    What I find odd and interesting is that the neo-Nazis (who are blatantly anti-Semitic) in the Kiev government have found common cause with Jewish oligarchs, Petro Poroshenko (Valtsman) and Igor Kolomoisky. I guess power and money make strange bedfellows.

    Tsigantes , January 18, 2015 at 4:05 am

    No doubt one funds the other.

    Debbie Menon , January 20, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    The US is nailed by two prongs of the same disease; Globalism, and a massively-increased Zionism.

    Real intellectuals know this. It isn't exactly a conspiracy.

    The two most dangerous countries in the world today are the U.S. neoconed under the influence of American Zionists and I would put Israel, second to none other than the US. And, I would distinguish and separate them from Syria and Iran who are a threat to no one.

    So much for humanitarian causes. Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Why didn't they just keep on bombing them until every single one was killed in the name of humanity?

    It would make about as much humanitarian sense.

    Now, let;s see¦. Who is next on the list?

    β€œAbe, bring me that book by the old man " who do we go for next?"

    The real question is who will we send to do the job? NATO or the UN? UN troops are better at rape and pillage, but NATO is much more impressive in the straight out killing line! Both are cheap and ready to go, and we will not have to do it ourselves.

    Tsigantes , January 18, 2015 at 4:02 am

    Re your penultimate paragraph, and from a European vantage point, far from 'failing to foresee' the results, it appears that the neocons understand them full well and feel confidant in their ability to control them. ISIS is understood here as a US funded and propogandised mercenary army, with non-muslim participants from all over Europe & Asia. As for the true Wahhabi fundamentalists one assumes that the logic is that they are contained inside ISIS, while carrying out US foreign policy goals.

    As for ultimate carrots, ie rewarding the fundamentalists, the New Middle East plan unveiled in 2006 by Condaleeza Rice and Olmert as NATO/ISR policy (not contradicted since then, and clearly underway) projected the division of Iraq into 3 states, one of which is Islamic State [IS} and the other Kurdistan. It also projected the division of Pakistan with the new state being Baluchistan. Thus ISIS and Al Qaeda become client states.

    Therefore there is reason to this destructive, illegal madness which has served to destroy the United States' reputation globally; the reconfiguration of the middle east serves US and Israeli oil and security interests.

    Unfortunately no such plan can be referenced concerning Russia. However events of recent years, especially 2014 and Charlie Hebdo, have served to reveal the degree to which the EU is US/ISR neocon dominated, and are absolutely NOT free nations.

    re: "What the neocons have constructed through their skilled propaganda is a grim wonderland where no one foresees the dangers of encouraging Islamist fundamentalism as a geopolitical ploy, where no one takes heed of the historic hatreds of Sunni and Shiite, where no one suspects that the U.S. military slaughtering thousands upon thousands of Muslims might provoke a backlash, where no one thinks about the consequences of overthrowing regimes in unstable regions, where no one bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about spreading turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia."

    Tsigante , January 18, 2015 at 4:16 am

    i would add to my comment above that the majority of world muslims, Sunni & Shiite, are NOT at loggerheads with each other, live next to each other and are often intermarried. This is a theological split, like Protestants (no priest=Sunni) vs Catholics (priests=Catholic).

    The exception is the 18th c local & extreme Wahhabi sect, which the British empowered when they created Saudi Arabia. Far from being closer to islamic principles, they are closer to (dare I say it) barbaric desert Arab practise, overlaid into a local form of Islam.

    In the case of Iraq the Sunni-Shiite division was political, put in place by the English again, when they empowered one group over the other as administrators.

    Branko R , January 18, 2015 at 6:24 am

    Robert's excellent summary overlooks the wars in the former Yugoslavia (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo). The same sorts of unsavory characters were backed and whitewashed, and the same sorts of humanitarian propaganda were used.

    Alan Fendrich , January 18, 2015 at 7:23 am

    You write "Israeli war crimes." What Israeli war crimes have there been?

    Is not the real crime the Arab regimes crime against humanity? Poisoning their children in their school curriculum that Jews are dogs? And that killing Jews is good?

    Truth , January 18, 2015 at 11:20 am

    What Israeli War Crimes?

    Wow. You outed yourself right there as a Hasbarite liar.

    Zachary Smith , January 18, 2015 at 11:38 am

    What Israeli war crimes have there been?

    The very best 'spin' I can put on this statement is that you were in a coma during the recent Israeli mass murder spree in Gaza.

    The worst is that you're posting from the basement of a West Bank house on land stolen from Palestinians. If this is the case, may I suggest you read up on efficiently lying for Holy Israel. They have published several manuals for enthusiastic amateurs, and here is a link to the latest one.

    https://jewishphilosophyplace.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/luntz-presentation-9-2014.pdf

    Forgotten 1963 Survey: Majority Of Israeli Jewish Youth Could Support Genocide Against Arabs

    For some odd reason Israeli kids have managed to get radicalized early in their lives. One wonders about THEIR education – both at school and at home.

    xxxx://maxblumenthal.com/2010/08/1963-survey-majority-of-israeli-jewish-youth-could-support-genocide-against-arabs/

    K T , January 19, 2015 at 7:27 am

    It never stops boring our ears this Zionist propaganda. Which "Arabs" are you talking about you Zionist bigot? Which, Arab Jews, Christians or Muslims? Do you mean the Jewish Arabs who have historically lived in peace and protection for centuries with the Muslim Arabs before Mongoloids showed up from Eastern Europe? The ones who live now in the foremost democracy in the world Irahell? Are they the ones that do not have the right to a minimum wage?

    The "Arabs" never referred in their children's school books to Jews. They always without exception refer to them as Zionist knowing full well that the founders of the "Jewish State" were without exception atheists.

    I predict Zionist will succeed in starting a third world war between Islam and Christianity on one hand and between Eurasia and the West on the other. You have corrupted the democratic process in the West and the media belongs to you. Additionally, let us not forget that there is too much money to be made and national debts to be incurred for Zionist to worry about such an unprecedented degree of human sacrifice in the name of Moloch.

    You know what is a Freudian slip? The manifesto of the Zionist state is to extend itself from the Nile to the Euphrates and to rule the world from Jerusalem just like a Caliphate. It will be called, The State of Israel for Iraq and the Levant. I.S.I.L for short. It will never happen for the children of Moloch.

    Debbie Menon , January 18, 2015 at 2:10 pm

    Well put Zachary Smith.

    Israeli veterans have spoken out, describing a degrading culture of abuse and harassment of Palestinian children in the West Bank and Gaza. A report containing 30 veterans' testimonies details numerous cases of violence.

    Powered by NewsLook.com

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xt36xk_israeli-vets-confess-to-no-mercy-abuse-of-palestinian-terrorist-kids_news

    Mark Marx , January 19, 2015 at 11:03 am

    I agree the President should come out of the closet. An excellent summary of what I have witnessed this past half century. To the extent I fail to act to halt the mass murder, I am a silent accomplice and share in the kharma perpetrated in the name of my country. Never, never, never surrender. I never thought I would say that about the government I was raised to adore, but it appears populated by petty tyrants and hucksters. But that is the story, our history, until the Millenials rrach true majority in a generation. Let's see how the pendulum is swinging then.

    Barry , January 19, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    Come on, Robert. Overall, this was a great article. However, you have to stop with this Obama vs his Neocon/Liberal Interventionist White House staff. Why are you trying to protect Obama as if he, as President, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into Lybia, Syria, or Ukraine? He seemly clearly in favor of each of these moved just as he was clearly in favor of his drone war in Pakistan and the killing of American citizens.

    [Jun 04, 2017] Putin Interview Did Russia Interfere in the Election, Collect Info on Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Put your finger anywhere on a map of the world, and everywhere you will hear complaints that American officials are interfering in internal electoral processes," he said. ..."
    "... "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," he said. "But, I repeat, we don't even have to do that. Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change." ..."
    "... Putin claimed that Russia has a preference in an election but only reacts to the "political direction" that the United States seems to be heading in. "It wouldn't make sense for us to interfere," he said. ..."
    Jun 04, 2017 | www.msn.com

    ...Kelly met Putin in St. Petersburg, the Russian president's hometown and his nation's onetime capital, after sharing a contentious discussion about Russia's attempts to hack the 2016 election at the St. Petersburg World International Economic Forum. Putin, a former KGB agent, has been painted as the puppet master behind the challenge on November's voting.

    U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Putin ordered the disruption of the election. During the interview, Putin tried to dismiss the evidence by claiming that the United States has a history of meddling in foreign elections.

    "Put your finger anywhere on a map of the world, and everywhere you will hear complaints that American officials are interfering in internal electoral processes," he said.

    Kelly pushed back at the assertion, saying it sounded like Putin's attempt to justify his government's attempts to influence elections. Putin demurred.

    "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," he said. "But, I repeat, we don't even have to do that. Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change."

    Putin claimed that Russia has a preference in an election but only reacts to the "political direction" that the United States seems to be heading in. "It wouldn't make sense for us to interfere," he said.

    The conversation later turned to a pre-campaign dossier that was purportedly collected on Trump.

    But Putin, who once worked as a KGB recruiter, alleged that he has no knowledge of such a dossier.

    "Where would we get this information from? Why, did we have some special relationship with him?" Putin asked. "We didn't have any relationship at all. There was a time when he used to come to Moscow. But you know, I never met with him. We have a lot of Americans who visit us."

    ... ... ...

    Related: Vladimir Putin Tells Megyn Kelly: U.S. Hacker Could Have Framed Russia

    [Jun 04, 2017] Putin Russia Being Persecuted Like Jews, Megyn Kelly Needs a 'Pill' for Her Hysteria

    Jun 04, 2017 | www.newsweek.com
    Responding to Kelly's unrelenting line of questions about reports of Russian interference in the U.S. and European political systems, Putin reached for a controversial comparison, complaining that blaming Russians for the U.S. election had become a clichι tantamount to the anti-Semitic idea of "blaming the Jews."

    "This reminds me of anti-Semitism," Putin said. "The Jews are to blame for everything. An idiot cannot do anything himself, so the Jews are to blame. But we know what such attitudes lead to. They end with nothing good."

    Instead, he said, Trump's opponents had to accept the election's result.

    The tension mounted after an apparent fault in the translation track that translated Kelly's paraphrasing of Trump's comments that he thinks Russia conducted cyberattacks on his opponents, to Kelly saying "I think" Trump made that claim. "She thinks," Putin exclaimed, noting the issue required certainty.

    Putin was also riled when discussing Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak's undisclosed meetings with two Trump allies-former national security adviser Mike Flynn and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. "Should we not talk about improving tensions?" Putin asked. "What should an ambassador do? That is his job. That is why he gets paid. He should hold meetings, discussing current affairs."

    Putin turned even more combative when Kelly touched on the subject of Russian foreign news coverage spreading "disinformation." Putin accused her "colleagues" of dragging Russia into their coverage unfavorably.

    [Jun 04, 2017] We wont see in USA of British MSM stuff like the UK special forces embedded with the Libyan jihadist militias.

    Jun 04, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Cameron clamped down on the British newspapers after the Edward Snowden global surveillance leaks were published in 2014. He specifically threatened the take over of the UK Guardian where a number of the foreign reporters, such as Glenn Greenwald and Nafeez Ahmed, no longer work.

    We won't see stuff like the UK special forces embedded with the Libyan jihadist militias.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16573516

    I'm convinced the newswires came out with the reporting on the CIA operation in Benghazi before the authorities were distracted by the even to quash the articles.

    Posted by: Les | Jun 4, 2017 1:01:53 AM | 38

    [Jun 04, 2017] 'Give them a pill': Putin accuses US of hysteria over election hacking inquiry by Alec Luhn

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russian officials meeting with members of Trump's team during the campaign and transition, Putin declared they had just shared "general words about building relations" and that allegations of collusion were "some kind of hysteria, and you guys just can't stop". ..."
    Jun 02, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
    Vladimir Putin: allegations of Russian interference in the US is 'hysteria'
    Vladimir Putin

    Russian president calls allegations of interference in US presidential election 'useless and harmful chatter' at St Petersburg economic forum Share on Facebook Close

    Vladimir Putin has said the US needs to stop the "useless and harmful chatter" about Russian interference in the presidential election, arguing that - Donald Trump 's electoral strategy was entirely responsible for his victory.

    Speaking at the St Petersburg economic forum, Putin claimed there was no concrete evidence for US intelligence agencies' allegations of Russian hacking , and said cyber specialists "can make anything up and blame anyone".

    The Russian president added that this "attempt to solve internal political issues using instruments of foreign policy" was damaging international relations.

    "The problem is not here, the problem is within American politics. Trump's team was more effective in the electoral campaign," Putin told the event's moderator, the US television presenter Megyn Kelly.

    "In all honesty, I myself sometimes thought that the guy was going too far, but it turned out he was right: he found an approach to those groups of the population and those groups of voters he counted on, and they came and voted for him," Putin said.

    Hillary Clinton's campaign team was blaming the Russians rather than admitting its own mistakes, he said.

    "It's easier to say we are not guilty, the Russians are guilty It reminds me of antisemitism: the Jews are guilty of everything," Putin said at the end of his comments, which drew titters from the audience.

    "If the information about the Democratic party favouring Clinton was true, is it really important who leaked it?" he asked, echoing his previous statements on Russian hacking.

    ... ... ...

    -- Russian officials meeting with members of Trump's team during the campaign and transition, Putin declared they had just shared "general words about building relations" and that allegations of collusion were "some kind of hysteria, and you guys just can't stop".

    "Do we need to give you a pill? Does anyone have a pill? Give them a pill, really, honestly. It's surprising," he said, raising a laugh even out of the impassive Indian PM, Narendra Modi, who was seated next to him.

    Austria's chancellor, Christian Kern, and Moldova's president, Igor Dodon, also took part in the discussion.

    Besides praising Trump's electoral campaign, Putin refused to condemn the US president's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord , making light of the issue and questioning whether the countries of the world were really "in a position to halt climate change".

    "Somehow we here aren't feeling that the temperature is really rising, but we should be thankful to President Trump. There was snow in Moscow today; [in St Petersburg], it's rainy and cold – now we can blame all this on him and American imperialism," Putin joked.

    Putin told Kelly, in English, "Don't worry, be happy," assuring her that the agreement would take effect in 2021, so there was still "plenty of time to reach an agreement".

    It wasn't clear what he was referring to in this comment, since the accord took effect in November 2016.

    One area where Putin was critical of Trump's policy was regarding the US president's demand that Nato members raise their military spending to 2% of GDP.

    "If they aren't planning to attack anyone, then why increase spending? That of course worries us," Putin said.

    [Jun 03, 2017] WikiLeaks Vault 7 cache shows USA hacked past French elections EUTimes.net

    Jun 03, 2017 | www.eutimes.net
    WikiLeaks Vault 7 cache shows USA hacked past French elections

    Posted by EU Times on Jun 2nd, 2017 // 2 Comments

    0 in Share 0 submit to reddit

    Any establishment-anointed political candidate wants to say they are under attack by the Russians because it gives them credibility, former MI5 intelligence officer Annie Machon told RT. Political analyst Adam Garrie joins the discussion.

    Guillaume Poupard, the head of the National Cybersecurity Agency of France (ANSSI), said on Thursday there's no trace of a Russian hacking group being behind the attack on Emmanuel Macron's presidential election campaign.

    According to him, the hack was "so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone."

    RT: Where does this statement by France's cybersecurity chief leave the claims of Macron's team on Russian hacking?

    Annie Machon: It leaves rather a lot of egg on their faces. It appears that this attack was of such of low technical level it could have been done by a script kiddie from their mom's basement. So rather than this hysteria about: 'The Russians must have done it, the Russians must have done it,' which reminds me to a certain extent of the Monty Python script that 'you must always expect a Spanish Inquisition.' It is beyond parody. We have a situation now where he was trying to make political hay. It seems to me that any establishment-anointed political candidate now wants to immediately say they are under attack by the Russians because it gives them credibility. It is just crazy.

    Now, the one thing we do know from this is that the one country that actually has hacked the French election was the USA, and that was back in the presidential election of 2012 where they were not only intercepting the electronic communications, they were actually running human agents in the political parties. We know this because of disclosures through the Vault 7 cache that WikiLeaks put out a month or two ago. For everyone to go around blaming the Russians, when in fact the Americans have been doing this for years, is rather rich?

    RT: Why were members of Macron's team so sure about Russia's involvement? Do they know something France's cybersecurity chief doesn't?

    AM: Obviously not. I think there were just jumping on the bandwagon because it was the sort of cool thing to do. After the fake buildup of the 'Russians hacked the American elections,' which started by the way with a leak from the DNC [Democratic National Committee] that was given to WikiLeaks, and somehow it moved into 'Russians hacked the American election.'

    Suddenly it has become established fact in the mainstream media in the West that the Russians are going to hack every Western democratic election. That is patently not the case in France, and it is also patently not the case in Germany, where there has also been a similar panic about Russia trying to hack the forthcoming chancellor's elections in the autumn this year. In fact, the BND [Federal Intelligence Service] and BfV [Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution,] the two major intelligence agencies in Germany, put out a report in February saying there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever the Russians were trying to do this. Merkel didn't like that result. She told her intelligence agencies to go away and to find more evidence and to find a case to say that they were indeed trying to interfere in the German elections. It is collective hysteria.

    'Low-level hack'

    Adam Garrie, political analyst

    RT: Why were members of the Macron team so sure about Russia's involvement in hacking the campaign? Do they know something France's cybersecurity chief doesn't?

    AG: I strongly doubt that. They barely seem to know how to beat Marine Le Pen. But with a little help from their friends in the mainstream media, France and elsewhere they managed to just about accomplish that. It is simply the restating of a tired, old narrative; they have very little else to say. Macron as a man, if you can even really call him that in terms of his personality, is more of a viceroy, more of a governor general than he is a president. Putin, at the press conference he had at Versailles with Macron, questioned whether France is able to even independently conduct its foreign policy in Syria, independent of NATO and the US-led coalition. So these people that really don't have much to offer their own country, let alone their political masters, are just churning out the narrative again and again. You've seen it with Hillary Clinton in America, and her supporters, and you see something similar in France. And likewise, the allegations are based – Donald Trump, probably accurately, said it could have been a 400-pound man in his bedroom somewhere. As the French authorities said today, it was probably the work of a lone hacker, and the hack itself wasn't at the level of sophistication that would have even required state operators to be behind it.

    RT: Do you think all these Russian hacking allegations during the presidential race had much impact on the final choice of the new president?

    AG: I agree with President Putin on this. All of these hacks and allegations of hacks have very little impact on the actual electoral results. People are going to look first and foremost in all countries at domestic issues. Unless you're in the war-zone that's what the priorities are going to be for voters. They are going to look at tax; they are going to look at healthcare. They are going to look at living standards, wages, employment, etc. – these sorts of things. This idea that somehow magically Russia is pulling the political strings of various candidates in different Western countries is simply absurd. And I personally give the average voter – whether in France or America – more credit than the mainstream media is willing to give him.

    Source

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

    [Jun 03, 2017] Treason To What Im With The Russians, They Hate Us Less Than The Media Does!

    Notable quotes:
    "... I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." ..."
    "... Apart from opportunistic careerism, the subtext to this realignment is a larger issue of culture, education, and class. A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own countries. ..."
    "... I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent! ..."
    "... The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to be against her. ..."
    "... "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt." ..."
    Jun 03, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Of course, this begs an obvious question. Traitor to what? In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture, language, ethnos , history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?

    The open celebration of what any other generation would have called "treason" reveals how fully self-discrediting is the Russian "interference" narrative. John Harington famously quipped: "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." The "Russian interference" narrative is false because the fact it can be loudly denounced without being shut down for being the equivalent of "racist" or "xenophobic" shows Russia isn't very powerful within our government and society.

    In contrast, our government and media seem to not only tolerate openly subversive or even hostile actions by foreign governments against the United States, but celebrate them.

    Consider:

    To criticize any of these countries, or to suggest dual loyalty on the part of their supporters in this country, is political death. Of course, that is because such dual loyalty is sufficiently strong that it is dangerous to broach the topic.

    Indeed, for some in our Congress, dual loyalty would be a massive improvement.

    The only reason we can't call men like these traitors is because there's no evidence they ever considered themselves Americans in any meaningful way. What could be more ridiculous than considering Chuck Schumer "a fellow American" with some imaginary "common interest" he shares with me?

    Or take certain Main Stream Media figures. Bill Maher wants to Democrats to ask if you are with "us or the Russians". [ Maher: I want Democrats to say "You're Either With Us Or With The Russians ," by Ian Hanchett, Breitbart, May 12, 2017] Maher naturally delights in Open Borders for America and the replacement of our own population, but has spoken in the past about how "Israel faces the problem of becoming a minority Jewish state within their own country". [ Bill Maher on Israel, uncut and uncensored , by Danielle Berrin, Jewish Journal, November 29, 2017]

    It's not double loyalty; that would be giving Maher too much credit. And it's not treason, because Maher just isn't part of my people, by his own standards. When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.

    I'm with the Russians.

    After all, "treason" requires not just providing "aid and comfort" to a foreign nation, but to an enemy. Why exactly is Russia an enemy of the United States ?

    It's not Russia which makes claims on our territory . It's not Russia which funds extremist networks. It's not Russia which is deliberately sending terrorists into the West.

    Of course, there is a Trump associate who has disturbing ties with a country doing just that. The main focus of the investigation into "Russian collusion" is focusing on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn . But Flynn's strongest ties to a foreign power seem to be to be increasingly extreme and anti-European Turkey of the autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Incredibly, Flynn even wrote an editorial demanding more support for Turkey on election day itself. [ Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support , by Michael Flynn, The Hill, November 8, 2016]

    As Turkey is quite openly facilitating the migrant invasion of Europe and helping ISIS, there's a far better case to claim our NATO "ally" is a threat than Russia. And yet Flynn's ties to Turkey go all but unmentioned outside evangelical Christian websites [ Best-selling author predicted Flynn's departure , WND, February 14, 2017]. The MSM is utterly indifferent to Flynn's ties to Erdogan, even when they seem to be utterly dedicated to destroying General Flynn personally.

    Part of it simply could be the defense industry and the "Deep State" need an enemy with a powerful conventional military to justify their wealth and power. As it can't be China (that would be racist), Russia will do.

    The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat. Russia is funding, or at least is tied to, several alternative media sources such as RT, possibly Wikileaks, Sputnik etc. Contrary to MSM claims, RT is hardly friendly to the "Alt-Right," instead promoting progressive hosts such as Thom Hartmann. But there is at least a slightly different point of view than the monolithic Narrative promoted on every late night comedy show, network news broadcast, cable news broadcast, newspaper headline, and Establishment website [ The Hard Road For Putin , by Gregory Hood, Radix, July 22, 2014].

    There is also an undeniable, and openly articulated , sense of racial hatred expressed against Russians by Jewish members of the media. Russians are hated both as a specific ethnos and as a white nation which does not seem to be fully committed to "our values," which, as defined by Weimerica's journalist class, consists of various forms of degeneracy. [ Welcome to Weimerica , by Ryan Landry, Daily Caller, May 5, 2017]. John Winthrop's "City Upon A Hill" we are not.

    It's not just idiotic but obscene that the same journalists gleefully involved in deconstructing the American identity now demand Middle America rally round the flag out of some misplaced Cold War nostalgia. Needless to say, these same journalists loved Russia back when it was Communist and killing millions of Orthodox Christians.

    For immigration patriots, it's especially obnoxious because the eradication of the American identity is a result of mass immigration. And immigration is more important than every other issue for two reasons.

    Ignoring immigration ensures no problem can ever be solved; indeed that every problem consistently gets worse.

    ORDER IT NOW

    To take just one example, Americans are sent all over the world to die because "we have to fight them there so they don't come here"; and then our government goes out of its way to bring terrorists here . And of course, as more problems are imported, the managerial class obtains more power to govern social relations and its own power grows . This is why it is hard to believe those who support Open Borders are actually working to defend the national interest in good faith.

    But the second reason is even more important:

    And even citizenship means nothing, The MSM constantly promotes Jose Antonio Vargas and his illegal friends or the protesters who parade under foreign flags not just as "Americans" but as people somehow more American than us.

    It's a strange definition of patriotism where wanting peaceful relations with Russia is "treason" but banning the American flag in public schools because it might offend Mexicans is government policy .

    Naturally, Leftist intellectuals and the reporters who parrot their ideas do have some vague idea of "American" identity-that of a "proposition" or "universal" nation which exists only to fight a global struggle for equality [ Superpowers , by James Kirkpatrick, NPI, June 24, 2013].

    But can you betray a "proposition nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal nation?"

    Actually, you can. If you are part of the historic American nation, one of those European-Americans who actually think of this country as a real nation with a real culture, you are in a strange way the only people left out of what it means to be a modern "American." To consider America a particular place with a specific culture and history that not everyone in the world can join simply by existing is treason to a "universal nation." Everyone in the world can be an "American," except, you know, actual Americans.

    This is why the MSM is insistent that the governing philosophy of " America First ," which should simply be a truism for any rational American government, is instead something subversive and dangerous .

    The hard truth is that "our" rulers aren't the guardians of our sovereignty, but the greatest threat to our independence.

    And this isn't an unprecedented circumstance in history. During the Napoleonic occupation of Prussia, Carl von Clausewitz violated his king's orders to join the invasion of Russia and instead joined the Tsar's forces in the hope of someday liberating his own country. After all, it wasn't Tsar Alexander that was occupying Prussia; it was Napoleon. And in the end, he won, Prussia was restored, and eventually it was Prussia that would unite all of Germany.

    The same situation applies today. Today, those actively pursuing the destruction of my people, culture and civilization aren't in Moscow. I don't even concede those are enemies at all.

    Our enemies are in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, in "our" own media companies, government bureaucracies and intelligence agencies.

    The real America is under occupation – and resistance to collaborators is patriotism to our country. We elected Donald Trump because we thought he could help disrupt and perhaps even end that occupation so we could have a country once again.

    The attempt to destroy the President has ripped the mask off the forces behind this occupation . And we owe no loyalty to the collaborators who are trying to destroy his administration, dispossess our people, and destroy our country.

    Because in the end, "treason" to the occupation is loyalty to America.

    Mulegino1 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 16, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT

    I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism."

    Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves. Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders.

    Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 16, 2017 at 9:25 am GMT

    This kind of purposeful switching of truth for lies and lies for truth, described excellently here by Mr. Kirkpatrick ( of VDare! ) is straight outta the Bible, and that's not a good sign at all. PeakStupidity here is on the search for the passage in question. Anyone, anyone .. Buehler?

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 16, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT

    "I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University." - Buckley

    We'd also be better off governed by names from the Moscow phone book than by the New York Times and Washington Post.

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 17, 2017 at 3:00 am GMT

    @Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies...

    Just a reminder of who made Teddy. Everybody knows by now (a short overview@ http://www.tomatobubble.com/id695.html ):

    "It's not merely that [Jacob] Schiff wielded enormous power, but rather the fact that his actions, more so than anyone else's, fundamentally altered the course of American history. Schiff was really the first true Jewish Mega-Mogul of the whole United States (Judah Benjamin had previously run the confederacy). As the first, Schiff, more than anyone who followed him, was able to leverage his power into eternity. That is why the MVZ award must go to him .

    Schiff hated Christian Russia with a passion. He worked ceaselessly to overthrow the Romanov Dynasty and replace it with Jewish Reds / Communists. Toward that end, he personally financed, and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese War. As a result, the war ended with a Japanese victory. Russia's loss was also facilitated by Schiff's boy, President (and also a former New York Governor) Teddy Roosevelt*, whose negotiating intervention clearly favored Japan over Russia

    (* Roosevelt became President after the conservative William McKinley was conveniently assassinated by aPolish[?]-American anarchist Leon Czolgosz, Teddy being conveniently Vice-President. Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy when the first false-flag incident of the USS Maine occured, later on followed by the Lusiatania – when FD Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy- and Pearl Harbour).

    "Schiff's Jewish agents in Russia skillfully used the humiliating loss of the Russo-Japanese war as an occasion to launch a Communist revolution. The bloody Revolution of 1905 ultimately failed, but the Tsar's regime was left considerably weakened. Many of the returning Russian POW's came home brainwashed after Schiff had arranged for Communist propaganda to be given to them while in Japanese captivity. The final Bolshevik overthrow of Russia in 1917 will owe its success, in large part, to the damage done to Russia by the team of Jacob Schiff & Ted the Red Roosevelt on 1905.

    President William H. Taft proved to be a Constitutional Conservative, and not a big government "progressive" like his predecessor Teddy Roosevelt. But what really angered Jacob Schiff most of all was Taft's refusal, told to Schiff in person, to dampen trade relations with Tsarist Russia*. According to Henry Ford's sources, Schiff and his entourage left the White House saying. "This means war .

    [*Schiff imposed also the abrogation of the Russian American Trade Treaty of 1832 in 1911, first instance of 'sanctions' motivated by the 'ill-treatement' of Jews in Russia (actually of the Jews emigrated to America returning to Russia holding American passports and engaged in subversive activities)].

    "In order to oust the popular Republican Taft in 1912, Schiff and company recruited Teddy Roosevelt to run for President again, as a third party challenger. This maneuver split the Republican vote in two, allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to steal the Presidency. Wilson's Jewish owned presidency would turn out to be disastrous for America, and the world (The Fed, World War I, Russian Revolution, Jewish foothold in Palestine, Depression of 1919-1920)

    As was the case during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the chaos of World War I enabled the Communists (Bolsheviks) to stage another uprising in 1917. Leading the diabolical efforts was Jacob Schiff's loyal agent, Leon Trotsky, freshly reestablished in Russia after having hidden in Brooklyn for the past decade. The Tsar had been forced to abdicate earlier that same year. The provisional government would then be overthrown by the Jewish-led Bolsheviks.

    The following year, Schiff's agents murdered the Tsar and his entire family. The reign of terror that the Soviets then ushered in would plague humanity for decades to come. Scores of millions would be murdered! And it could never have happened without the tireless leadership of Rothschild, Schiff and their Junior partners.
    Soon after the Revolution, Schiff removed Russia (now the Soviet Union) from his "do-not-lend list".

    Just for a little 'piquant'. The granddaughter of Jacob, Dorothy, had a 'relationship' (which detractors called an 'affair') with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    Priss Factor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 4:45 am GMT

    Deep State should just be called the Sewer. At least a swamp is a natural eco-system. Deep State is a man-made Sewer, the Bowel of Power.

    wayfarer , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

    "Let's Connect the Dots!" https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/05/17/lets-connect-the-dots/#more-150513

    Priss Factor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:14 am GMT

    @Authenticjazzman "

    ... No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism. Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most Jews lost faith in communism.
    Some still had nostalgia for Old Idealism and did credit USSR for having defeated Nazi Germany, but few Jews were communist by the 80s when Soviet Union entered into its death throes. Also, the New Left of the 60s was more about drugs and rock n roll than revolution.

    Also, the Soviet Union became gentile-dominated by the late 30s, and after WWII, especially as Zionists in Israel chose US over USSR, Jews came under increasing suspicion and even discrimination in the communist world. Initially, Stalin installed many Jewish communists in Eastern European nations, but after the fallout over Israel, many were purged as 'Zionists'.

    So, most Jews welcomed the fall of the USSR. If anything, Jews used finance-capitalism to amass control of much of Russian resources.
    And in the 90s, most powerful Jews did everything in their power to make sure the Russian Communist Party would not be come to power. They pulled every dirty trick in the book to ensure Yeltsin winning another term.

    Those were the good ole days for Jews in Russia. And if they had been less greedy, they may have kept the power. But they grabbed too much loot and turned a blind eye to all the suffering, and this gave an opening to the Russian nationalists(mild though they may be). Mild nationalists like Putin didn't purge Jews, but he sent a message that Russia would no longer be a 'vacationland for Jewish lawyers in love'.

    So, Jews tried various means to crack Russian nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and sovereignty. They used Pussy Riot and Homomania. They didn't work.

    So, the main reason for anti-Russianism has nothing to do with communism. The problem for Jews is that Russia rejects globalism or at least globalist domination. Jewish power is centered on globalism. Nationalism is anathema to Jews because it means that the national elites should represent, defend, and serve their national masses. All nations except Israel is majority gentile. So, nationalism makes national gentile elites grow closer to national gentile masses. This accounts for mass support for Putin in Russia.

    In contrast, under globalism, the national elites serve globalist elites than their national people, and that means national leaders serve Soros and his ilk than their own folk.

    Now, you'd think that the masses would rebel against the leaders if for treason, but Public Education and Pop Culture have brainwashed tons of masses too. Look at all the white dummies in the US who support globalism that is actually hurting them. And they would rather side with Diversity(invasion) than with their own hurting kind.

    These whites attack Trump for opposing mass invasion of the US by More Diversity. Why would they want to invaded and be made into a minority people? They've been mentally-colonized by the Glob Virus.

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:23 am GMT

    Many USA jews, and rabbis, were against Zionism because the USA was the new Zion. Henry Ford around 1918 began to see the increase of jewish power in the USA, and began resistance.

    Around 1933 world jewry accomplished a world wide boycott of Ford cars, and Ford gave up. Trump, though he has many close jewish contacts, is not the puppet of the neocons. Hillary is. So Deep State wants to get rid of Trump,in order to continue their plans to subjugate the whole world, the globalised world, where all cultures have disappeared, the whole world one big USA clone.

    FKA Max , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:44 am GMT

    High-quality TV with Victor Davis Hanson and Tucker Carlson:

    Inside Dems' 'big lie' about Trump and Russia

    Published on May 18, 2017

    Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' that Democrats and the media cling to in quest to get Pres. Trump out of office #Tucker

    This is a very welcome new development for the Alt Right:

    Tucker Carlson's Reinvention
    [...]
    We've become fans of the show in this household even though we consume far more more information from the internet than cable television. He's reaching an audience which normally doesn't watch FOX News.

    – http://www.unz.com/article/the-battles-of-berkeley-someone-is-going-to-get-killed-where-is-trump/#comment-1845245

    Hillary's Neoliberals

    http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/hillarys-neoliberals/

    Apart from opportunistic careerism, the subtext to this realignment is a larger issue of culture, education, and class. A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own countries.

    Just as Hillary Clinton may feel more comfortable with the old neoconservatives, Trump supporters have little in common with either Clintonites or neocons.

    Clinton versus Trump is a war of NPR, CBS, and the New York Times against the National Enquirer, conservative talk radio, and the Drudge Report. Clinton supporters such as former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, onetime Bush officials Hank Paulson and Brent Scowcroft, and billionaire Meg Whitman certainly have nothing in common with Republican Trump supporters such as Mike Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh.

    Culture, not just politics, is rapidly destroying - but also rebuilding - traditional political parties.

    Wally , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 7:30 am GMT

    @Anon

    Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews – they are staffed and manned by the imported American Rabbis of Habad. Best and the choicest pieces of Russian municipal land are given to synagogues and Jewish cultural centres for free. http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-russian-scare/

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    Zogby , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 9:44 am GMT

    I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent!

    The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to be against her.

    Take a recent incident The NYT publishes a smear story accusing Trump of revealing classified information to Lavrov. McMaster and other American officials present in the meeting rush to deny that Trump reveal classified information, and only mentioned things about the laptop scare that had already been public for weeks. Putin follows by offering to send Congress the Russian transcript of the meeting to show Trump didn't reveal any classified information. Then Trump goes on Twitter: Of course I revealed classified information! I'm the President and it's my right! Go help somebody like that

    PiltdownMan , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 10:18 am GMT

    What Putin said yesterday.

    "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:24 am GMT

    @Wally Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews ....

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs Shamir is an inveterate liar and the figure of 90+ synagogues in Moscow is fraudulent.

    Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:25 am GMT

    @Sebastian Puettmann Don't kid youselves.
    The Russians hate you more than Keith Olberman.
    He is just confused.

    The Russians hate you more than Keith Olberman.

    We all hate Keith Olberman, but the Russians don't get the same cable channels. Why would they hate Keith Olberman when he doesn't even come on TV there?

    Serg Derbst , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:52 am GMT

    I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom ever.

    There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc.

    I think there might be Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have.

    The reason is first the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.

    There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army – but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism, materialism, hedonism – an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity either.

    There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity. I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or the Germans.

    Che Guava , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:55 am GMT

    @Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater to gays.

    Communist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.

    The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block, and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total madness.

    "Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience to even elaborate thereon.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style Jazz players coming out of Russia. You are making several good points, but I won't hit the 'agree' button, because I agree with the Priss Factor's reply to your main points.

    Again, it is amusing that you post the same potted description of you on every post.

    If you post under a pseudonym and won't identify your 'authentic jazz', you may be wiser to drop the claims.

    Just leave the occasional incidental.

    Nice to see you making a post that makes much sense, though.

    neutral , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:07 pm GMT

    @Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the Russian expeditionary force regularly use.

    Unfortunately Trump will have to kill some Russians now . Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and Iraq. A typical cuckservative response, how about you respond to what this article is about. The facts are absolutely clear the greatest enemies are those that exist in America, they have been mentioned in this article, your obsession with Russia is not going to deflect from this fact.

    Its rather simple, Ukraine is not American, despite all your stupid domino theories yourwill no doubt bring up, on the other hand extremists like Olberman openly support mass non white immigration into the USA, what would any reasonable nationalist think is the bigger issue.

    Anonymous , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT

    @Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves.

    Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Here's a 1200-page read for you. It's from a traditionalist Catholic perspective.

    The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. [20 mb PDF file]d

    neutral , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT

    @Serg Derbst I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom ever. There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc. I think there might be Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have. The reason is first the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.

    There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army - but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism, materialism, hedonism - an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity either.

    There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity. I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or the Germans. I partially agree with you on the identity thing, but on the other hand the American identity (I say this as a non American) was based on being white. There was the notable exception of the blacks, but they did not make up the majority of the population and their acceptance as being American was the exception more than the rule, their distinct culture added some spice to what was America, but nobody can seriously believe that if the USA was 90% black it would still be America.

    You also now have the situation that people arrive off planes from places like India, China or Somalia and are declared American, I find that ridiculous. Sadly this is no longer a problem only in America, its the same in Sweden, France, Germany, UK, etc, they all have made what being a people is completely meaningless.

    Che Guava , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

    @Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall, they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in. General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening Russia.

    There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas .

    Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them.

    That is a very strange assertion, as are many of your others. Strong evidence has been widely reported about the gas attack while Obama was Prex of the USA having had a Turkish connection.

    Erdogan imprisoned many reporters on this and other ties with al Qaeda and the Islamic state.

    It is easy to look up.

    Assad is an idiot.

    He was a respected opthalmolagist in London for years, testimonials from former (British) patients are not hard to find. Opthalmology may not be the most demanding medical speciality, but it is up there, and is not a nest of idiots.

    If you want to see an idiot, you may try the mirror.

    Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT

    @Serg Derbst I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom ever. There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc. I think there might be Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have. The reason is first the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.

    There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army - but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism, materialism, hedonism - an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity either.

    There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity. I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or the Germans.

    There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity. I don't see it.

    and, with a name like Serb, I can see why. Why are you writing about something that you obviously (from your racism drivel in the 1st paragraph) know not a damn thing about?

    You are an prime example of the data points we at PeakStupidity use to prove that America and the West has arrived at a global maximum.

    Agent76 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT

    Apr 6, 2016 Fascism, American Style

    The United States of America, that dream of what a democratic republic ought to be, has become the Fascist States of America. As the 2016 elections have more than revealed, we have moved beyond the era of representative government and have entered into a new age. You can call it the age of authoritarianism. Or fascism. Or oligarchy. Either way, argues John W. Whitehead, we are being played for fools.

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 1:35 pm GMT

    @Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. ....

    Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Stalin was our enemy, a Roosevelt creation.
    He died in 1953, probably murdered.
    Then the threat was over, those that did nog believe it should have realised it when Chrustjow removed his rockets and atomic warheads from Cuba.
    But the USA went on with the madness of possible mutual destruction, I suppose in the hope that the cost of the war effort would cause the collapse of the USSR.

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 1:38 pm GMT

    @Anonymous Here's a 1200-page read for you. It's from a traditionalist Catholic perspective.

    The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. [20 mb PDF file]d Did you read it ?
    If you did, is there the theory that christianity was a Roman invention, brought by Paul, to undermine jewish power ?

    countenance , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

    But can you betray a "proposition nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal nation?"

    By disagreeing with the proposition.

    Che Guava , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

    @Seraphim @the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Just a reminder of who made Teddy. Everybody knows by now (a short overview@http://www.tomatobubble.com/id695.html) ....

    I had never heard of that before.

    It is irony on at least two levels, the treatment of the Japanese P.o.W.s from Manchuria, 40 years later, included much Communist indoctrination, although that was the time of the nadir of Jewish Bolshevism, I am quite sure that demoted Jewish officials would have been in charge of the Siberian prison camps where P.o.Ws from Japan were.

    The other irony is the German High Command's use of Lenin as a kind of human bomb that spectacularly misfired on their intentions.

    So, you are saying that Japan tried the same thing 12 years earlier, on a smaller scale?

    It is an interesting idea, but foundation of the JCP was later but a joke version "was"founded earlier, perhaps that has a connection.

    A comment not connected to this thread, some idiot on another claiming knowledge said that the victory in the Russo-Japanese war is not commemorated here. It is a lie.

    The order is, how we were victimised by cruel bombings and having soldiers imprisoned in Manchuria, how we were great to invade China and other places, the technical genius of the Mitsubisi Zero (and I am to fully agreeing with that one), the sadness of the Special Attack Forces, and how clever was Admiral Togo in the Russo-Japanese war (also to agreeing with that, just from a military perspective).

    Linda Green , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

    @Achmed E. Newman This kind of purposeful switching of truth for lies and lies for truth, described excellently here by Mr. Kirkpatrick ( of VDare! ) is straight outta the Bible, and that's not a good sign at all. PeakStupidity here is on the search for the passage in question. Anyone, anyone ..... Buehler? Isiah 5:20:

    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

    There are similar passages elsewhere but I think this is the most commonly cited.

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT

    @ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all? @What has changed in 2000 years?

    A steady Judaization of Christianity. They are no more Christians.

    Agent76 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT

    Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad! Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell – Aug 8 – Charlie Rose

    John Gruskos , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

    @Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the Russian expeditionary force regularly use.

    Unfortunately Trump will have to kill some Russians now . Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and Iraq. Trump doesn't "have" to do any such thing.

    The Russians in Syria are protecting Christians, and they are fighting against our worst enemies, radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    In addition to defeating Al-Qaeda and protecting Middle Eastern Christians, Russian-American friendship would have many other benefits – boosting American exports, balancing the rise of China, and cooperating to end the migrant invasion of Europe.

    John Gruskos , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT

    @Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall, they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in. General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening Russia.

    There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas . The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

    His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

    We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get.

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT

    @Che Guava

    Toward that end, he personally financed, and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese War.
    Much of what you are saying I had read in passing (interesting post), but that is interesting to me. Do you have a pointer to something I could read on it, preferably on the 'net or a book in Japanese (also the below).
    Schiff had arranged for Communist propaganda to be given to them while in Japanese captivity.
    I had never heard of that before.

    It is irony on at least two levels, the treatment of the Japanese P.o.W.s from Manchuria, 40 years later, included much Communist indoctrination, although that was the time of the nadir of Jewish Bolshevism, I am quite sure that demoted Jewish officials would have been in charge of the Siberian prison camps where P.o.Ws from Japan were.

    The other irony is the German High Command's use of Lenin as a kind of human bomb that spectacularly misfired on their intentions.

    So, you are saying that Japan tried the same thing 12 years earlier, on a smaller scale?

    It is an interesting idea, but foundation of the JCP was later ... but a joke version "was"founded earlier, perhaps that has a connection.

    A comment not connected to this thread, some idiot on another claiming knowledge said that the victory in the Russo-Japanese war is not commemorated here. It is a lie.

    The order is, how we were victimised by cruel bombings and having soldiers imprisoned in Manchuria, how we were great to invade China and other places, the technical genius of the Mitsubisi Zero (and I am to fully agreeing with that one), the sadness of the Special Attack Forces, and how clever was Admiral Togo in the Russo-Japanese war (also to agreeing with that, just from a military perspective). You will find it in:

    Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership

    https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=0874519489

    Naomi Wiener Cohen – 1999 , p.137

    It actually refers to an article in New York Times of March 24, 1917 – "KENNAN RETELLS HISTORY Relates How Jacob H. Schiff Financed Revolution Propaganda in Czar's Army".
    @ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E05E4DB143AE433A25757C2A9659C946696D6CF&legacy=true

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:49 pm GMT

    @Agent76 Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad!

    Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell - Aug 8 - Charlie Rose

    https://youtu.be/UZK2FZGKAd0 It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'.

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:51 pm GMT

    @John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

    His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

    We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. Raegan never made any mistake: 'he slept through it all'.

    Wally , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT

    @Anon Shamir is an inveterate liar and the figure of 90+ synagogues in Moscow is fraudulent. Still in denial we see.

    Mark Green , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT

    Thank you, James Kirkpatrick, for another excellent article. Some of the hyperlinks in his essay however seem not to be functioning properly.

    It's heartening to see Kirkpatrick finally explore (though gingerly) the Jewish angle to the never-ending chain of Trump-loathing 'experts' and Russia-hating politicians. Indeed, it is the Israel factor that remains the most potent as well as the most sacrosanct element in this fake drama about US secrets and 'compromised' national security.

    Indeed, it is the marauding kosher beast–not Russia–that gets to graze unmolested throughout Washington while smaller, non-threatening animals are hunted down and slaughtered.

    This top-down smoke and fog and hysteria suggests that America is no longer a sovereign state. This is true. But Russia has nothing to do with our nation's loss of self-rule. All this malarky about Putin's interference in our presidential election is a media-orchestrated farce. America should actually be aligned with Christian Russia, not engaged in damaging the Russian economy via sanctions or marching NATO up to its doorstep. But the warmongering and the deceptions about Russia, as well as the special treatment accorded Israel, continues.

    Thus the MSM shrieks endlessly about non-existent Russian subversion but deliberately looks away when Israeli interference in US elections is operating and evident and functioning as designed. It's fake news about what is fast becoming a fake, lobotomized, Zionized nation.

    Big media beats its chest over compromised US intelligence, yet it is nuclear Israel–not Russia–that has apparent access to raw US intelligence like no other foreign state.

    And it is Israel–not Russia–that routinely steers America into needless conflicts against the foes of Zionism, even though these small, distant counties (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon) seek no war with Washington and pose no threat to the American people.

    Trump, for all his subservient, pro-Israel posturing (not to mention his needless attack on Assad's Syria) remains too white, too independent, too 'old America' for his Jewish overlords or for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump must go.

    Just as Mel Gibson will always be radioactive in Hollywood for making accurate remarks about Jews being in the center of most European wars, Trump let the cat out of the bag by suggesting that Washington's serial warfare in the Middle East is "not in our national interest". The truthfulness of his simple observation rendered Trump a long-term threat to Israel's special status in America as well as Israel's unannounced goal of upending and reshaping the Middle East via US military power.

    Even though Trump has recently changed course, his patriotic and nationalistic messages linger in the mind. If acted upon, Trump's campaign promises pose a threat to 1) increased (non-white) multiculturalism inside America and 2) more wars against Israel's enemies abroad. The Zions don't like this brand of nativism one bit. That political highway is reserved for Israelis, not Americans.

    Most importantly, Israel and crypto-Israelis inside Washington remain committed to smashing the alliance between Iran, Syria and Russia. This requires a subservient president. Trump's erratic conduct and rhetoric endangers this Israeli objective. This animates the anti-Trump coup now underway.

    US-based Israelis believe that VP Pence is a far more reliable Christian Zionist than the bombastic and unpredictable 'America First' president. This is why Trump is being targeted with such unceasing venom.

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT

    @John Gruskos Trump doesn't "have" to do any such thing.

    The Russians in Syria are protecting Christians, and they are fighting against our worst enemies, radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    In addition to defeating Al-Qaeda and protecting Middle Eastern Christians, Russian-American friendship would have many other benefits - boosting American exports, balancing the rise of China, and cooperating to end the migrant invasion of Europe. Your benefits are to Deep State horrible losses.

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

    The real reason is that the Russians are a convenient cover-up for Democratic incompetence. It is an alternate reality to convince the base and the sponsors that Hillary lost the election because she was co-opted by the Red Tide.

    Dems really think that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the DNC emails and give it to Wikileaks. It really is a mental illness at this point.

    They wanted Comey fired, but when Trump did it, it was obstruction. They wanted a Special Prosecutor, but now are worried that he may not find anything. They believe the incessant hysteria is whipping up their base and will guarantee the House in the 2018 election. Hope they crash and burn in 2018.

    Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT

    @Linda Green Isiah 5:20:

    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

    There are similar passages elsewhere but I think this is the most commonly cited. Thank you very much, Linda! I know there are plenty of search tools and places to search on-line, but I didn't have the wording right.

    Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

    @John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

    His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

    We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. I agree with your point, John, but would like to say that Ronald Reagan's mistake with the amnesty of 1986 was in trusting members of the US Congress , not so much what should have been a 1-time deal – though, I grant you, any amnesty was a bad deal for Americans. Here is more regarding Reagan's regrets on that whole fiasco.

    neutral , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT

    @John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

    His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

    We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. With that amnesty he could never win any vote California if he existed now, this the problem with all these cuck types, they all want to believe in the magic dirt of America that somehow they will have another Reagan one day, this will never happen and Reagan shares part of the blame.

    Anonymous , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:39 pm GMT

    @Agent76 Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad!

    Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell - Aug 8 - Charlie Rose

    https://youtu.be/UZK2FZGKAd0 Do you think think this middling intellect, son of an autoworker from Akron, Ohio with a degree in accounting from U. of Akron, realizes he's only a useful goyim tool and has no real power??

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:06 pm GMT

    @Mark Green Thank you, James Kirkpatrick, for another excellent article. Some of the hyperlinks in his essay however seem not to be functioning properly.

    It's heartening to see Kirkpatrick finally explore (though gingerly) the Jewish angle to the never-ending chain of Trump-loathing 'experts' and Russia-hating politicians. Indeed, it is the Israel factor that remains the most potent as well as the most sacrosanct element in this fake drama about US secrets and 'compromised' national security.

    Indeed, it is the marauding kosher beast--not Russia--that gets to graze unmolested throughout Washington while smaller, non-threatening animals are hunted down and slaughtered.

    This top-down smoke and fog and hysteria suggests that America is no longer a sovereign state. This is true. But Russia has nothing to do with our nation's loss of self-rule. All this malarky about Putin's interference in our presidential election is a media-orchestrated farce. America should actually be aligned with Christian Russia, not engaged in damaging the Russian economy via sanctions or marching NATO up to its doorstep. But the warmongering and the deceptions about Russia, as well as the special treatment accorded Israel, continues.

    Thus the MSM shrieks endlessly about non-existent Russian subversion but deliberately looks away when Israeli interference in US elections is operating and evident and functioning as designed. It's fake news about what is fast becoming a fake, lobotomized, Zionized nation.

    Big media beats its chest over compromised US intelligence, yet it is nuclear Israel--not Russia--that has apparent access to raw US intelligence like no other foreign state.

    And it is Israel--not Russia--that routinely steers America into needless conflicts against the foes of Zionism, even though these small, distant counties (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon) seek no war with Washington and pose no threat to the American people.

    Trump, for all his subservient, pro-Israel posturing (not to mention his needless attack on Assad's Syria) remains too white, too independent, too 'old America' for his Jewish overlords or for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump must go.

    Just as Mel Gibson will always be radioactive in Hollywood for making accurate remarks about Jews being in the center of most European wars, Trump let the cat out of the bag by suggesting that Washington's serial warfare in the Middle East is "not in our national interest". The truthfulness of his simple observation rendered Trump a long-term threat to Israel's special status in America as well as Israel's unannounced goal of upending and reshaping the Middle East via US military power.

    Even though Trump has recently changed course, his patriotic and nationalistic messages linger in the mind. If acted upon, Trump's campaign promises pose a threat to 1) increased (non-white) multiculturalism inside America and 2) more wars against Israel's enemies abroad. The Zions don't like this brand of nativism one bit. That political highway is reserved for Israelis, not Americans.

    Most importantly, Israel and crypto-Israelis inside Washington remain committed to smashing the alliance between Iran, Syria and Russia. This requires a subservient president. Trump's erratic conduct and rhetoric endangers this Israeli objective. This animates the anti-Trump coup now underway.

    US-based Israelis believe that VP Pence is a far more reliable Christian Zionist than the bombastic and unpredictable 'America First' president. This is why Trump is being targeted with such unceasing venom. If any state in the world is sovereign it is the USA.
    USA military power, and political power still enable the USA to do as it pleases.
    All other states in the world are less sovereign, just because of USA power.

    What you write about is USA democracy, is what the USA does what the USA people want ?
    The election of Trump, though he did not get the popular vote, means in my opinion that a large part of the USA population is fed up with the establishment politicians.
    What USA citizens who did not vote want, I do not know, I wonder if anyone knows.

    Just now on Belgian tv was a report on USA citizens who are pro Trump, what they mean by 'making America great again', not very clear to me.
    A USA commentator stated that many Americans do not recognise the present USA as the USA they knew, or want.
    Mentioned was socialism: the welfare state, gays, migrants.
    And hostility to establishment politicians.

    War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT

    I have 0 allegiance to the Maxine Waters Negro Democratic Party the party of Negros Sihks .Chinese Koreans MS-13 Mexican Zetas

    I believe in strong Native Born White American Christian Solidarity with Euro-Christian Russia

    If Donald Trump goes to war against Christian Russia .I will go into battle with Christian Russia ..against the Maxine Waters Negro Democratic Party .

    The Civil War was a terrible mistake .the Negro wasn't worth it .

    Alden , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT

    @wayfarer "Let's Connect the Dots!"

    https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/05/17/lets-connect-the-dots/#more-150513 Leon Czolgosz was not Polish.

    He was a Jew whose family lived in Poland for a few generations and then moved to Anerica. He was a follower of Emma Goldberg and Alexander Berkman who thanks be to God were deported back to Russia just in time to participate in the revolution.

    Buzz Mohawk , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT

    100% Correct! Thanks go to Mr. Kirkpatrick for writing this and to Mr. Unz for putting it here.

    Alden , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT

    Id just like to point out that the reason so many Chinese are giving tech and military secrets to China is my personal bete noire affirmative action. Were it not for affirmative action those military and tech secrets would be in the hands of White Americans, not foreign spies whose only qualification that they are not White.

    Steve Naidamast , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:38 pm GMT

    I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot of holes in its foundations.

    To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is a bit absurd.

    No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).

    Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States. His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency, his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy, and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.

    As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.

    Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the winners are always the highest bidders.

    Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for Southern Independence.

    America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason; he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.

    So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but one to protect the wealthy and their needs.

    There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to protect the White privileged classes .

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT

    @Wally Still in denial we see. That's not an argument. You are parroting Shamir, who said something that he never bothered to prove. Can you prove it?

    Alden , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

    @Achmed E. Newman I agree with your point, John, but would like to say that Ronald Reagan's mistake with the amnesty of 1986 was in trusting members of the US Congress , not so much what should have been a 1-time deal - though, I grant you, any amnesty was a bad deal for Americans. Here is more regarding Reagan's regrets on that whole fiasco. A decade before he even ran for governor Reagan was spotted by DART industries and other cut throat capitalists who wanted to reverse every gain the working class made in the 20th century.

    Reagan's backers knew that the easiest way to do this was to import millions of legal and illegal immigrants to replace Americans in every job from physician to dishwasher.

    So Reagan CLAIMED to regret his amnesty after the damage was done. There is an old French saying.

    "Don't listen to what he says, look at what he does."

    That's what I do. I look beyond the rehetoric and look at what is done. Reagan betrayed his working and middle class White voters with amnesty and making affirmative action worse.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT

    @Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the Russian expeditionary force regularly use.

    Unfortunately Trump will have to kill some Russians now . Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and Iraq. " because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine"

    Since then the UnzReview has become a platform for the Kagans' clan propaganda? The data on three (3) referenda have shown that Crimeans wanted a greater autonomy from Kiev long before the US-sponsored thugs of neo-Nazi leaning followed cookie-carrying Nuland-Kagan towards the "bright future" of today's economic and moral decline in Ukraine. Are not you longing for more auto-da-fe in Odessa, which was conducted by neo-Nazis battalion Azov in 2014? At that time the battalion was financed by an Israeli citizen and pillar of Jewish community of Ukraine Mr. Kolomojsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeguAaPYKU8
    It is understandable why Israel-firsters hate Russian federation; the russkies dared to stop the advance of ISIS in a great game for Eretz Israel and other attractive mythological trinkets of supremacist kind.
    When the US and EU are hollowed out by your insatiable tribe, where would the "eternal victims" have to go? To Rothschild bunkers?

    Alden , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 7:19 pm GMT

    @Zogby I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent!

    The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to be against her.

    Take a recent incident...

    The NYT publishes a smear story accusing Trump of revealing classified information to Lavrov.

    McMaster and other American officials present in the meeting rush to deny that Trump reveal classified information, and only mentioned things about the laptop scare that had already been public for weeks.

    Putin follows by offering to send Congress the Russian transcript of the meeting to show Trump didn't reveal any classified information.

    Then Trump goes on Twitter: Of course I revealed classified information! I'm the President and it's my right!

    Go help somebody like that... Actually it's true. The president, not state or justice and certainly not the liberal press is completely in charge of foreign affairs and the President can classify or not classify any and all information.

    Wally , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT

    @Anon That's not an argument. You are parroting Shamir, who said something that he never bothered to prove. Can you prove it? I have.

    It's noted that you predictably ignored:

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    And you will most certainly ignore:

    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
    and:
    The Zionist attempt to control language.
    The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
    https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
    and:
    The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
    and:
    Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
    and:
    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

    Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.

    Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication points throughout the country."
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
    and:
    Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
    and:
    IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
    Read more: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/

    'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
    http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT

    @Steve Naidamast I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot of holes in its foundations.

    To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is a bit absurd.

    No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).

    Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States. His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency, his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy, and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.

    As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.

    Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the winners are always the highest bidders.

    Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for Southern Independence.

    America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason; he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.

    So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but one to protect the wealthy and their needs.

    There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to protect the White privileged classes....

    So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was.

    As most people understand the term, American identity refers to the racial and cultural characteristics of the people.

    American identity has, since the nation's inception, been chiefly European and Christian. Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education) and mass replacement immigration.

    The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to do the same to their people.

    Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 8:30 pm GMT

    I just got out of the car after listening to the vomitorium NPR's daily short-stroke session with Brooks and Dudiowhocares how the weasel spells his fairy-sounding name. It's interesting, listening to a Jew (I could be wrong, but it's NPR, so probably not) interview a Jew pretending to be an Anglo Conservative, and a goy leftist that I find indistinguishable from a Brooklyn Jew. Anyhoo, between tossing each other off, Brooks (loyalty: Israel, his son serves in the IDF FFS) called Russia our "adversary." You know it's a lie when the media says it. Did NPR's pet "Conservatives" refer to the Soviet Union as our "adversary"?

    Media = scum. Otherwise, they couldn't get work in that business.

    Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 8:42 pm GMT

    P.S., a giant AMEN to every word of this piece, Kirkpatrick. Bravo.

    Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT

    Kneel before Zog.

    Indeed. Many years ago, I used terms like "ZOG" only with emotional trepidation. That is long since gone. Now the trepidation is entirely practical; it puts off the idiots we need to get through to. It is an entirely accurate term for the regime.

    No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism. Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most Jews lost faith in communism.

    After Stalin, the Russians removed Jews (and many other aliens) from their former heights of power in the USSR. That didn't win them any (((friends))). More to the point, Putin brought (((the oligarchs))) to heel, and reversed all their (((important work))). That's when the (((hate))) really started for Russia.

    It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'.

    That's leftism.

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT

    @Wally I have.

    It's noted that you predictably ignored:

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    And you will most certainly ignore:

    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
    and:
    The Zionist attempt to control language.
    The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
    https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
    and:
    The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
    and:
    Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
    and:
    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

    Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.

    Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication points throughout the country."
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
    and:
    Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
    and:
    IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
    Read more:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/

    'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
    http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg You proved nothing about 90+ synagogues in Moscow. You only parroted Shamir. For all I know the rest of your claim might be right. I don't know one way or the other whether your other links are right, nor do I care. That's why I didn't respond to them, nor am I under any compulsion to.

    Also, you dodged:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-hazards-of-military-worship/#comment-1874540

    Because you're wrong and are too much an intellectual cripple to admit it.

    Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT

    When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.

    I'm with the Russians.

    count me as also with the Russians

    Bill Maher is a sewer rat*

    great article

    enjoyed the comments
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    *apologies to real sewer rats for the comparison

    Wally , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:23 pm GMT

    @Anon You proved nothing about 90+ synagogues in Moscow. You only parroted Shamir. For all I know the rest of your claim might be right. I don't know one way or the other whether your other links are right, nor do I care. That's why I didn't respond to them, nor am I under any compulsion to.

    Also, you dodged:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-hazards-of-military-worship/#comment-1874540

    Because you're wrong and are too much an intellectual cripple to admit it. And that's why I have beaten you in every debate. The list is rather large as I'm sure you remember.

    I dodged nothing because I saw nothing.

    How's your "English Literature" class going? LOL!!

    Wally , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:28 pm GMT

    @Anon The real reason is that the Russians are a convenient cover-up for Democratic incompetence. It is an alternate reality to convince the base and the sponsors that Hillary lost the election because she was co-opted by the Red Tide.

    Dems really think that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the DNC emails and give it to Wikileaks. It really is a mental illness at this point.

    They wanted Comey fired, but when Trump did it, it was obstruction. They wanted a Special Prosecutor, but now are worried that he may not find anything. They believe the incessant hysteria is whipping up their base and will guarantee the House in the 2018 election. Hope they crash and burn in 2018. Exactly, good point.

    Like when Zionists claim that scrutiny of the '6M Jews, 5M other & gas chambers' is hateful to Jews.
    Forgetting that making such claims in the first place is hateful to Germans and to Gentiles who Jews claim 'let it happen'.

    KenH , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:31 pm GMT

    Count me with the Russians, too. Non self hating whites in America are stateless and behind enemy lines. We are told the nation belongs to every racial and religious group except those of the founding racial stock (Christian or not). We have laws promoting and protecting most non-white racial groups at the expense of the white majority. Our history is being rewritten to cast aspersions on our founding and villainize great white men who built America while lionizing non-whites who did next to nothing.

    (((Hollywood))) movies and television shows depict whites as either corrupt, vapid, moronic or untrustworthy compared to non-whites and generally dehumanize us and foment racial hatred against us. The golden rule in politics is that white politicians are strictly forbidden from acknowledging whites as a group let alone show any sympathy or compassion for them or working on their behalf. Donald Trump has only done so half heartedly and implicitly and he's derided as a white supremacist 24/7 and as "un-American" while facing calls to resign simply for enforcing immigration laws and failing to take a wrecking ball to the last vestiges of the old, white America.

    This is conquest and occupation, not progress as the (((authors))) of all these trends inform us. With a straight face. Everything most of us loved and held dear has been destroyed by the JOG and remade in their vile image and likeness.

    Therefore, if Putin were to invade the U.S. this would be cause for celebration for the embattled and shrinking white majority. We would have nothing to lose. This nation betrayed us long ago and no longer deserves our loyalty, support or affection.

    The pot bellied, "race doesn't matter" patriotards and antifa scumbags can have it.

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 12:09 am GMT

    @Wally And that's why I have beaten you in every debate. The list is rather large as I'm sure you remember.

    I dodged nothing because I saw nothing.

    How's your "English Literature" class going? LOL!! You clearly have no interest in debate. Challenged on an intellectual debate, you wilt. Enjoy yourself.

    Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:12 am GMT

    @Priss Factor The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater to gays. Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.

    No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism. Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most Jews lost faith in communism.
    Some still had nostalgia for Old Idealism and did credit USSR for having defeated Nazi Germany, but few Jews were communist by the 80s when Soviet Union entered into its death throes. Also, the New Left of the 60s was more about drugs and rock n roll than revolution.

    Also, the Soviet Union became gentile-dominated by the late 30s, and after WWII, especially as Zionists in Israel chose US over USSR, Jews came under increasing suspicion and even discrimination in the communist world. Initially, Stalin installed many Jewish communists in Eastern European nations, but after the fallout over Israel, many were purged as 'Zionists'.

    So, most Jews welcomed the fall of the USSR. If anything, Jews used finance-capitalism to amass control of much of Russian resources.
    And in the 90s, most powerful Jews did everything in their power to make sure the Russian Communist Party would not be come to power. They pulled every dirty trick in the book to ensure Yeltsin winning another term.
    Those were the good ole days for Jews in Russia. And if they had been less greedy, they may have kept the power. But they grabbed too much loot and turned a blind eye to all the suffering, and this gave an opening to the Russian nationalists(mild though they may be). Mild nationalists like Putin didn't purge Jews, but he sent a message that Russia would no longer be a 'vacationland for Jewish lawyers in love'.
    So, Jews tried various means to crack Russian nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and sovereignty. They used Pussy Riot and Homomania. They didn't work.

    So, the main reason for anti-Russianism has nothing to do with communism. The problem for Jews is that Russia rejects globalism or at least globalist domination. Jewish power is centered on globalism. Nationalism is anathema to Jews because it means that the national elites should represent, defend, and serve their national masses. All nations except Israel is majority gentile. So, nationalism makes national gentile elites grow closer to national gentile masses. This accounts for mass support for Putin in Russia.

    In contrast, under globalism, the national elites serve globalist elites than their national people, and that means national leaders serve Soros and his ilk than their own folk.

    Now, you'd think that the masses would rebel against the leaders if for treason, but Public Education and Pop Culture have brainwashed tons of masses too. Look at all the white dummies in the US who support globalism that is actually hurting them. And they would rather side with Diversity(invasion) than with their own hurting kind.

    These whites attack Trump for opposing mass invasion of the US by More Diversity.
    Why would they want to invaded and be made into a minority people? They've been mentally-colonized by the Glob Virus. 60′s Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.

    The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural" Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
    Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of "me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak and pathetic

    Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
    desires
    Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence.

    Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:55 am GMT

    @ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all? "Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? "

    Here we are.

    Don't look for leadership from the Whore of Babylon.
    All of these "hierarchical" churches are pyramids of power in the Beast System.

    Authority among men is on a level field; with the Word of God- Jesus of the scriptures- as King.

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:01 am GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was.
    As most people understand the term, American identity refers to the racial and cultural characteristics of the people.

    American identity has, since the nation's inception, been chiefly European and Christian. Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education) and mass replacement immigration.

    The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to do the same to their people. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated "In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture, language, ethnos, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?"

    His proceeding argument is built on a false premise. We clearly have these things. Then, we have you doubling down. The American identity refers to a host of traits that reflect its citizens. Initially, our nation was predicated on several European ethnic groups who held different faiths. Africans were imported. Tribal groups were removed by force for white settlement. Gradually, the Germans, the Irish, the Assyrians, the Mexicans, the Vietnamese, and the Nigerians immersed themselves into what is an American. We are a nation of mutts.

    "Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education)."

    Did it ever occur to you that tens of millions of whites are other than brainwashed, that they created an educational system that represents their beliefs and values?

    " mass replacement immigration."

    No.

    "The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to do the same to their people."

    There is observably no genocide taking place here in the States. Your Alt Right talking point is tiresome to say the least.

    Wally , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:05 am GMT

    @Anon You clearly have no interest in debate. Challenged on an intellectual debate, you wilt. Enjoy yourself. Problem is that you're not an intellectual. Not in the slightest. Dream on.

    Che Guava , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 7:02 am GMT

    @jilles dykstra If any state in the world is sovereign it is the USA.
    USA military power, and political power still enable the USA to do as it pleases.
    All other states in the world are less sovereign, just because of USA power.

    What you write about is USA democracy, is what the USA does what the USA people want ?
    The election of Trump, though he did not get the popular vote, means in my opinion that a large part of the USA population is fed up with the establishment politicians.
    What USA citizens who did not vote want, I do not know, I wonder if anyone knows.

    Just now on Belgian tv was a report on USA citizens who are pro Trump, what they mean by 'making America great again', not very clear to me.
    A USA commentator stated that many Americans do not recognise the present USA as the USA they knew, or want.
    Mentioned was socialism: the welfare state, gays, migrants.
    And hostility to establishment politicians. By definition, since the polity of the USA is controlled by the Izzies, it can not be a sovereign state.

    It is a bizarre colonial posession of Israel. So, by your argument, Israel is the only truly sovereign state.

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 8:05 am GMT

    @Stonehands 60's Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.

    The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural" Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
    Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of "me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak and pathetic...

    Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
    desires...
    Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence. The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions.

    Not true. The hardline feminists turned on Friedan.

    Sontag went her own way and didn't involve herself much with institutions. She was too independent to be academic hack.

    Jong was a sexual libertarian, not a PC whore.

    Eonic , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 8:15 am GMT

    @Wally I have.

    It's noted that you predictably ignored:

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    And you will most certainly ignore:

    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
    and:
    The Zionist attempt to control language.
    The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
    https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
    and:
    The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
    and:
    Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
    and:
    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

    Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.

    Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication points throughout the country."
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
    and:
    Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
    and:
    IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
    Read more:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/

    'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
    http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg In view of the contents of your last link, you may be interested in this : https://eonic1.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/the-dumb-american-poem/

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 10:22 am GMT

    @Stonehands 60's Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.

    The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural" Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
    Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of "me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak and pathetic...

    Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
    desires...
    Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence. " An all-knowing judge/creator"

    Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
    So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
    Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future victims.
    Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    Wizard of Oz , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

    @Corvinus Mr. Kirkpatrick stated "In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture, language, ethnos, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?"

    His proceeding argument is built on a false premise. We clearly have these things. Then, we have you doubling down. The American identity refers to a host of traits that reflect its citizens. Initially, our nation was predicated on several European ethnic groups who held different faiths. Africans were imported. Tribal groups were removed by force for white settlement. Gradually, the Germans, the Irish, the Assyrians, the Mexicans, the Vietnamese, and the Nigerians immersed themselves into what is an American. We are a nation of mutts.

    "Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education)."

    Did it ever occur to you that tens of millions of whites are other than brainwashed, that they created an educational system that represents their beliefs and values?

    "...mass replacement immigration."

    No.

    "The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to do the same to their people."

    There is observably no genocide taking place here in the States. Your Alt Right talking point is tiresome to say the least. I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial interpretation in Australia.)

    As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So ..

    Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important. Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al

    Agent76 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 12:49 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'. Just keeping it real from inside the D.C. operations and from folk's in power!

    War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 1:40 pm GMT

    @Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial interpretation in Australia.)

    As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....

    Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important. Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ... Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

    Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal .Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it

    If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them they would view it as genocide

    America is not a proposition nation and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day 365 days a year as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of

    The future for the Native Born White America Working Class .Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions .and Rampage 82

    Paul Kersey

    Go by Rampage 82 my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands .my cousin committed suicide three years later .Oh my God what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's

    John Derbyshire

    I was just in Book Review this morning .there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82 " go by it read it ..

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 1:56 pm GMT

    The alleged patriotism of the US Congress (and Olderman, Maddow, and other hysterical "progressives") and the reality of meddling into the US affairs, as documented by the facts:
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/19/the-open-secret-of-foreign-lobbying/
    "When AIPAC director Morris Amitay was caught red-handed mishandling classified missile secrets in 1975, he could have been prosecuted under FARA. When AIPAC and an Israeli diplomat purloined the entire 300-page book of classified trade secrets compiled from 70 U.S. industry groups opposed to unilateral trade concessions for Israel in 1984, they could have been prosecuted for failing to report their clandestine subversion of due process. When in 2005 [AIPAC officials] Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman met with Israeli diplomats during efforts to pass classified information to the press they thought could trigger a U.S attack on Iran, FARA consequences would have awaited them all. However, because the U.S. Department of Justice has unilaterally abrogated its responsibility to enforce FARA, people, ideas, money and propaganda campaigns continue to secretly slosh freely between Tel Aviv and Israeli fronts in America with taxpayer funds thrown into the toxic brew."
    In short, "support the troops" by sending them to fight for Tel Aviv projects.
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/05/neocons-protest-us-spying-on-israel/
    Meanwhile, the US homeland security is in the Israelis' hands.
    http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2013/08/21/homeland-security-made-in-israel/
    http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/US-Deputy-of-Homeland-Security-US-Israel-to-sign-automated-cyber-information-sharing-agreement-457261

    Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT

    @Anon The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions.

    Not true. The hardline feminists turned on Friedan.

    Sontag went her own way and didn't involve herself much with institutions. She was too independent to be academic hack.

    Jong was a sexual libertarian, not a PC whore. All 3 women heavily promoted cultural Marxism and were the products of the Jew commie academic system. They were mentored by the dregs of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse and neocon svengali Leo Strauss, and were responsible for the kindling of second wave feminism.

    War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:17 pm GMT

    If you have any doubts about the open genocidal intent of the Democratic Party

    Do the following thought experiment ..What would happen if Richard Spencer incessantly in his his US College Tour stated emphatically:"WOULDN'T IT BE WONDERFULL IF YOUNG NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN COUPLES STARTED HAVING LARGE WHITE FAMILIES .so Native Born White Americans can go back to being a 90 racial minority in America again!!!!"

    How would Melissa Harris Perry react?

    How would Maxine Waters react?

    How would the TATA Institute grads react?

    How would Ciela Munoz react?

    How would the smelly hairy bulldyke Hillary Clinton react?

    Paul Kersey

    Go buy Rampage 82 .."Oh my God what they did to that waitress" .this is what the Greek owner of the restaurant next to Walt Whitman High School said to me several years ago .the restaurant by the Colonial Era..historic grave yard that the Salvadoran youth trample over disrespectefully every morning on their way to Walt Whitman High School ..West Hills area

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT

    @Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial interpretation in Australia.)

    As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....

    Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important. Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ... "I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture."

    CanSpeccy employed that term with the intent of bastardizing its use for his own demonic ends.

    "As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So .."

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter, even if it is not relevant here.

    "Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is "

    Maybe. Or maybe not.

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.


    Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it...


    If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it as genocide...

    America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...

    The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions....and Rampage 82...

    Paul Kersey


    Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's...


    John Derbyshire


    I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82..."...go by it read it..... "Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class."

    The only thing creepy are your numerous sock puppets–Anonym and Anon, for starters.

    "America is not a proposition nation "

    Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular, "Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization " By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores.

    Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.


    Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it...


    If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it as genocide...

    America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...

    The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions....and Rampage 82...

    Paul Kersey


    Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's...


    John Derbyshire


    I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82..."...go by it read it..... I grew up in Glen Cove, l remember that hideous event- it was life changing
    on LI.

    In addition, there was a mad scramble by restaurants to install windows everywhere; the old style of hospitality featured privacy.
    The thought that rampaging niggers would take advantage of these circumstances was beyond anyone's scope of the imagination at the time.

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT

    @Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial interpretation in Australia.)

    As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....

    Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important. Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ...

    I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.

    That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.

    The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn) as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America.

    Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT

    @Authenticjazzman " An all-knowing judge/creator"

    Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
    So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
    Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future victims.
    Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician. You are correct.

    Free will is paramount.

    And with that free will we are given autonomy and responsibility for our actions.

    Jesus said not to fear the first death.

    Accounts will be settled at the final judgement.

    Your actions will be tossed into a crucible and will burn like wood, hay or stubble (self- aggrandizement) or they will be refined like Gold if done for Jesus' sake.

    Hey man, l am just stonehands. I say crazy, ardent statements that may turn you off to this message.

    But please consider the great men of history- such as Bach- who wrote "Jesu Joy of Mans Desire"; who also added the addendum:
    "ALL MUSIC is for the greater glory of God and the refreshment of the mind"

    Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:53 pm GMT

    I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?

    War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

    @Stonehands I grew up in Glen Cove, l remember that hideous event- it was life changing
    on LI.

    In addition, there was a mad scramble by restaurants to install windows everywhere; the old style of hospitality featured privacy.
    The thought that rampaging niggers would take advantage of these circumstances was beyond anyone's scope of the imagination at the time. As you know Glen Cove has been completely colonized by El Salavodor and Mexico

    Glen Cove used to be a beautifull North Shore Town

    I used to go to that health food store down past the firehouse that used to proudly display the great big Convederate Flag in the firetruck bays .

    Interestingly Tom Suozzi's uncle was the Mayor of Glenn Cove and got trashed by Newday for cracking down on the Mexicans and Salvadoran illegals .his nephew Tom the Cockroach is onboard with importing the nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc .and war with Christian Russia

    Congressman Tom Suozzi a creepy looking short Italian with cornrows of hairplugs and platforms in his shoes .and speaks with a lisp

    War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:01 pm GMT

    @Corvinus "Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class."

    The only thing creepy are your numerous sock puppets--Anonym and Anon, for starters.

    "America is not a proposition nation..."

    Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular, "Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores. Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown ..wrinkly and old .the demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days .

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:07 pm GMT

    Meanwhile, the Zio-propagandists ignore the death of Seth Rich:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/

    "The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.
    A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich's computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time Okay, so where's the computer? Who's got Rich's computer? Let's do the forensic work and get on with it.
    But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren't interested in such matters because it doesn't fit with their political agenda. They'd rather take pot-shots at Fox for running an article that doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking story.
    Murray should be the government's star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were "leaked" by insiders not "hacked" by a foreign government. Here's the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:
    "Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a "disgruntled" Democrat upset with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community .He (Murray) appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University.
    With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you'd think that Murray's eyewitness account would be headline news, but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible. Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far, they've showed no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?"

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

    @PiltdownMan What Putin said yesterday.


    "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

    What Putin said yesterday:

    "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

    Putin was being tactful, obviously.

    Clearly, what he meant was that the US is now dominated by dangerously corrupt people. The same is true of virtually all states in all times. What is unusual about America today is the scale of harm that the US plutocracy is in a position to inflict, and is indeed inflicting, on both Americans and the world.

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.


    Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it...


    If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it as genocide...

    America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...

    The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions....and Rampage 82...

    Paul Kersey


    Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's...


    John Derbyshire


    I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82..."...go by it read it.....

    Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus

    Yes, there is certainly something weird about Corvy. I have sometimes wondered if he might be an early CIA implementation of an artificially intelligent (sort of) propaganda bot, with the "agent provocateur" function enabled. The AP function would explain the repeated demands to know what someone opposed to European genocide proposes to do about it: bomb throwing being, presumably, the desired response, leading to arrest and incarceration under anti-terrorism laws.

    One has to wonder though, whether Corvy's Euro-Holocaust denial should be tolerated. If he were denying the Jewish Holocaust he would be censored here, or if not, probably targeted for some kind of legal sanction, as would only be right. Why then should he be free to spew his anti-European hatred here?

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 5:52 pm GMT

    @Stonehands You are correct.

    Free will is paramount.

    And...with that free will we are given autonomy and responsibility for our actions.

    Jesus said not to fear the first death.

    Accounts will be settled at the final judgement.

    Your actions will be tossed into a crucible and will burn like wood, hay or stubble (self- aggrandizement)...or they will be refined like Gold if done for Jesus' sake.

    Hey man, l am just stonehands. I say crazy, ardent statements that may turn you off to this message.

    But please consider the great men of history- such as Bach- who wrote "Jesu Joy of Mans Desire"; who also added the addendum:
    "ALL MUSIC is for the greater glory of God and the refreshment of the mind" First of all, myself a graduate of classical flute study with Bach as a center focus, I am most certainly more versed within his, Bach's, artistic accomplishments than you could probably imagine, and point is : He was trying to survive in an age of absolute enslavement by the aristocratic PTB, therefore he had no choice but to pen his works in a religious vein if he wanted to continue eating, and this holds true for all of the Baroque/classical composers.
    Now as to whether he believed the dogma, within which his works were set, this is up for speculation, and you, me or nobody else can state that he was or was not a pious advocate of religious ideas.
    And as far as "ALL MUSIC" being for the greater glory of God, and refreshment of the mind : I agree with the "Refreshment of the mind" aspect, however being a confirmed atheist, I am unable to go along with the "Greater glory of God" approach.
    I can say this much, when engaged within the action of performing/inprovising music within the jazz idiom, and attempting to create so-called "swinging" solos, there are no thoughts entering my mind regarding the "Greater glory of God, rather my focus is upon the moment and the effort at hand : Making it, the music, swing.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz artist.

    Wizard of Oz , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 5:53 pm GMT

    @Corvinus "I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture."

    CanSpeccy employed that term with the intent of bastardizing its use for his own demonic ends.

    "As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So .."

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter, even if it is not relevant here.

    "Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is..."

    Maybe. Or maybe not. "not relevant here". Fair enough unless you are willing to allow in these often discursive conversations an attempt to lead people on a path of thought which will spark tecognition – in this case perhaps of the loss of much that used to bind even if it wasn't an essential eternal part of human existence.

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT

    @Steve Naidamast I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot of holes in its foundations.

    To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is a bit absurd.

    No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).

    Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States. His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency, his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy, and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.

    As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.

    Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the winners are always the highest bidders.

    Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for Southern Independence.

    America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason; he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.

    So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but one to protect the wealthy and their needs.

    There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to protect the White privileged classes.... "The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of th electorate

    So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white house.

    Look friend you are labeling myself, my sister and my upstanding, decent, friends and family who in fact did pull the lever for DT as : Degenerate.

    You are the "degenerate" malevolent one here and you have no clue as to what you are blathering about.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa"society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    Wizard of Oz , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 6:14 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
    That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.

    The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn) as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America. At least Leicester has got a lot of successful Indians has it not (many ex East Africa I believe)? By chance I had dinner tonight at a Two Fat Indians restaurant, not nearly as cheap as in the UK but also no fat Indians but a couple of gorgeous smiling smart young women from Punjab. I wouldn't want all our immigration of the relatively smart to be Chinese, though I welcome them, so it tended to confirm my relatively optimistic view about Australia's population. Clearly native white Australians are breeding almost as dysgenically as outback Aborigines and Lebanese immugrants from 40 yeats ago so I see the Chinese and Indians who have often been educated in Australia as making up for that. It is curious however that our school PISA ranking has declined in the last 10 years or so. I suspect parties of the left and teacher unions though another cause for puzzling over it is that a larger proportion of children get their education in non government schools in Australia than almost anywhere in the First World.

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
    That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.

    The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn) as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America. "But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny."

    Clearly your fixation on something that does not observable exist, chiefly the extermination of whites in the "West" by elites and their toadies, is a trait of you as an aspie. I have nothing personal against your affliction. I just find it fascinating that you rinse and repeat this phenomenon.

    "The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement "

    Another one of your obsessions. Modern married white couples rarely look at their situation in this fashion. They have children. They will take care of them as best they are able. Tens of thousands of mothers and fathers assuredly are not going to be badgered by you and your ilk into thinking about ensuring the viability of the "white race" by having more babies. Have you met your obligation here? Do you have at least five white offspring? Have you properly indoctrinated, I mean discussed, of their future duty?

    (consistent with government directed sex "education,")

    Yes, sex education. A product of our society. The decision made by citizens. A fact of life.

    "plus no-fault divorce"

    Yes, no-fault divorce. A product of our society. The decision made by citizens. A fact of life.

    "and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)"

    Finally, we agree. This is a big deal.

    "as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population."

    NOT genocide. Mass immigration has been a historical and global phenomenon. Nations sent colonists to explore. The undesired and unwanted left their home countries and, as immigrants, arrived to other parts of the globe. Immigration policies were informal or formal, and they varied from nation to nation. Furthermore, there always has been some level of augmentation in a nation's population. The British helped to found the American colonies; other Europeans, along with Africans and Asians and Latin Americans, arrived there, either voluntarily or by force. The British were "replaced" in the fact they were no longer the dominant group to control the region, and that they increasingly intermarried with non-British. This ethnic "mixing" had been considered taboo in Europe (except among the elite to secure their power and authority), but in America it became the rule.

    "Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America."

    Tragic. But a fact of life. I suggest you run for political office. Make a difference in England, your home nation. Promote what you believe in.

    "Yes, there is certainly something weird about Corvy. I have sometimes wondered if he might be an early CIA implementation of an artificially intelligent (sort of) propaganda bot, with the "agent provocateur" function enabled."

    From what I've been told by a good friend who does work for this organization, the CIA has been targeting you since you were eight years old. They have a dossier on you and your family. You have been on notice for decades given your "pro-race is code for anti-humanity" mindset.

    "One has to wonder though, whether Corvy's Euro-Holocaust denial should be tolerated."

    Of course it should be "tolerated". In fact, it should be relished and replicated by other posters here to expose your lies and propaganda. There is no "Euro-Holocaust". That is Fake News. I'm sure at some point in time the CIA will engage in psycho-ops and reprogram you.

    "Why then should he be free to spew his anti-European hatred here?"

    False characterization. I am "spewing" my love for the human race. Unfortunately, there are people who are bitter and lost.

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 6:23 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck......as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown .....wrinkly and old....the demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days.... "Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown ..wrinkly and old .the demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days ."

    Are your sock puppets on eight hour or daily shifts?

    Now, regarding my posterity comment, do you have a rebuttal?

    bluedog , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.


    Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it...


    If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it as genocide...

    America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...

    The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions....and Rampage 82...

    Paul Kersey


    Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's...


    John Derbyshire


    I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82..."...go by it read it..... That's why militias were formed to take care of the wild dogs that roam thru society Join one today..

    geokat62 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT

    @Aaron8765 I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?

    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section.

    Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.

    While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.

    It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are. I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is, actually doing.

    One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the following material they've posted on their website:

    This is America.This is ADL. (NB – disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking individuals)

    The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave the fabric of our pluralistic society.

    For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's premier human relations and civil rights organization.

    If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition benefits are available to Corporate Partners.

    https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/about-adl/corporate-partners.pdf

    More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity. They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."

    Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression – promoting a policy of diversity, while damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.

    While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic. Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many goyim – i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism one cannot favour both at the same time.

    So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up their minds and choose one of the following options:

    1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or

    2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.

    If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this this film will not have a happy ending.

    -----

    P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice of life."

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 9:18 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck......as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown .....wrinkly and old....the demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days.... Waste of time, really, responding to the troll for the replacement of Euro-Americans. It only initiates another spew of hate speech. According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism.

    Wiz Oz is not quite so crude about it, but seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.

    There are something like a billion Hindus in India, so why should they occupy the tiny homeland of the English? England, it is true, ruled India for a while, no doubt over the objection of the Indian ruling class, but in doing so they merely replaced another and more exploitive alien ruling elite, and at no time attempted to settle India with millions of Europeans. Indeed they set out, from the time of Macaulay's memorandum on Indian Education, dated Feb 2nd, 1835 , to prepare India for self-government as the modern, independent, democratic nation state that it now is.

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 9:23 pm GMT

    @Stonehands All 3 women heavily promoted cultural Marxism and were the products of the Jew commie academic system. They were mentored by the dregs of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse and neocon svengali Leo Strauss, and were responsible for the kindling of second wave feminism. Sontag's main place wasn't in the academia. She was essentially a person of letters.

    Friedan is credited with second-wave feminism, but it would have happened anyway without her. The media just needed someone as 'leader'.

    Jong was attacked by feminists. I'm not gonna defend her horny crap, but she' s not part of long march through institutions.

    Also, these are more the products of capitalism. They have nothing to with Marxism. This term 'cultural marxism' should really be called 'cultural consumerism'.

    Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 10:02 pm GMT

    @geokat62


    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section.
    Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.

    While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.

    It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are. I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is, actually doing.

    One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the following material they've posted on their website:


    This is America.This is ADL. (NB - disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking individuals)

    The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave the fabric of our pluralistic society.

    For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's premier human relations and civil rights organization.

    If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition benefits are available to Corporate Partners.

    https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/about-adl/corporate-partners.pdf

    More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity. They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."

    Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression - promoting a policy of diversity, while damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.

    While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic. Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many goyim - i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism... one cannot favour both at the same time.

    So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up their minds and choose one of the following options:

    1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or

    2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.

    If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this this film will not have a happy ending.

    -------------

    P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice of life."

    while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME.

    well said Geo,

    we've all seen this genocidal hag shilling for the destruction of the West

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ERmOpZrKtw

    and we all know by now the consequences of this insanity being foisted by these (often Jewish) netherworld demons

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3831991/Wheelchair-bound-woman-gang-raped-six-migrants-Swedish-asylum-centre-asking-use-toilet.html

    no reasonable person blames all Jews for this evil that only a few of them are perpetrating, (with the eager assistance of many goys [homos and fat, ugly white women and other malcontents] who want the migrants to come for their own reasons, just like corporate/business interests who want to pay lower wages in general)

    but the destruction of Europe and N. America by massive and transformational immigration is, at heart- being foisted by Jewish sludge like Sheldon Adelson, who demands open borders for the US, and uses his money to buy cucks in the Republican party to ensure that he gets just that, but then also uses his ill-gotten gains to promote racial purity in Israel, where his newspapers call all non-Jewish immigrants – invaders.

    So you're right. It's the raging hypocrisy and demonic, Old Testament hatred for all non-Jewish tribes and the efforts to see all white nations founder under racial and ethnic hatred and strife, while simultaneously advocating for a racially pure state in Israel- that makes a lot of people exasperated with Jewish influence and nefarious intrigues.

    There are of course other stuff too. Fomenting and foisting wars, false flag attacks, financial swindles, cultural sewage, etc.. But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only) white countries that outs (some of) them as existential enemies.

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 10:02 pm GMT

    @Aaron8765 I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?

    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.

    Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely, would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.

    Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this . Anti-European advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.

    I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews, but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring anti-Semitism.

    Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter, or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups, black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.

    Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 10:14 pm GMT

    @Authenticjazzman First of all, myself a graduate of classical flute study with Bach as a center focus, I am most certainly more versed within his, Bach's, artistic accomplishments than you could probably imagine, and point is : He was trying to survive in an age of absolute enslavement by the aristocratic PTB, therefore he had no choice but to pen his works in a religious vein if he wanted to continue eating, and this holds true for all of the Baroque/classical composers.
    Now as to whether he believed the dogma, within which his works were set, this is up for speculation, and you, me or nobody else can state that he was or was not a pious advocate of religious ideas.
    And as far as "ALL MUSIC" being for the greater glory of God, and refreshment of the mind : I agree with the "Refreshment of the mind" aspect, however being a confirmed atheist, I am unable to go along with the "Greater glory of God" approach.
    I can say this much, when engaged within the action of performing/inprovising music within the jazz idiom, and attempting to create so-called "swinging" solos, there are no thoughts entering my mind regarding the "Greater glory of God, rather my focus is upon the moment and the effort at hand : Making it, the music, swing.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz artist. I own a small restaurant where l occassionally feature solo artists or duets, myself included. I have been playing classical/jazz guitar for 45 years. I recently performed for Jason Vieaux [2016 solo classical Grammy award] and friends, and one of the pieces l played was "Jesu."
    He agreed that my original transcription [key of G] and fingering were unique and pleasing to the ear and probably easier to commit to memory then the Rick Foster or Christopher Parkening renditions; we're talking non- stop double and triple stops here!

    As per Christianity; you may believe there is no God (that's your faith and hope) but you cannot confirm it.

    Bro Methylene , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 2:18 am GMT

    @Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the Russian expeditionary force regularly use.

    Unfortunately Trump will have to kill some Russians now . Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and Iraq. What makes you think Assad is an idiot? He seems more intelligent than most politicians, journalists, and politicians in Washington, D.C. (I cringe at having to name the place. It's like speaking Orc-language in Rivendell.)

    Millions of Americans, having been raised on TV propaganda, still have a screaming need to feel superior to everyone – except perhaps the Israelis.

    The government of the USA has marked Putin for destruction. But I think the rest of the world is rooting for him, and the Russian people, to survive the American onslaught.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 2:30 am GMT

    While the "progressives" badmouth bad-bad russkies for "destroying our democracy," an obscene spectacle of persecution of the most important whistleblower of our times continues.
    "Getting Assange: the Untold Story," by JOHN PILGER
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/getting-assange-the-untold-story/
    "Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed, "Can't we just drone this guy." According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington's bid to get Assange is "unprecedented in scale and nature." In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. Assange's ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the "national security" investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was "active and ongoing" and would harm the "pending prosecution" of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show "appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security." This is a kangaroo court."

    dfordoom , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 3:18 am GMT

    @Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater to gays.

    Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.

    The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block,
    and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total
    madness.

    "Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience to even elaborate thereon.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style Jazz players coming out of Russia.

    Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show

    I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was, if not more so.

    I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Have you?

    It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions about global Marxism.

    dfordoom , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 3:41 am GMT

    @ThereisaGod This comment reflects the mindless nationalism of a person who has spent too much time reading mainstream Zionist propaganda.
    The USA INSTIGATED the Syrian "revolution". It armed and funded the rebels (Al Qaeda) and told them we would support them. The Assad government had NO CHOICE but to act as they did or die, handing Syria over to friends of Israel who would then set about dismantling the defences of the Shias in the region who effectively oppose the racist state of Israel.
    As this article lays out, American patriots should be supporting Russia and Assad. If these countries fall to international finance (as the entire western world has done) the Washington swamp will turn its full attention to destroying the USA in a similar manner to the Soviets destruction of Christian Russia (it's the same people, folks. The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives).

    Sean. Your comment is, umm ...... confused.

    The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives

    I hear this all the time. I know that many Trotskyists morphed into neocons but that's not quite the same as saying that Trotskyists are neocons are identical. Trotsky may have been a heretical communist but he was still a communist. Are neocons actual communists? In what way are they actual communists?

    dfordoom , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 3:50 am GMT

    @ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?

    Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?

    In the West Christian leaders are not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. They're liberals. They're not liberal Christians, they're just liberals.

    In Russia they take Christianity a bit more seriously. In Russia Christian leaders actually believe in God (which is extremely rare among western Christian leaders).

    The problem with Christianity is that once you take away belief in God what you're left with really is just liberalism.

    in the middle , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 4:36 am GMT

    @Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall, they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in. General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening Russia.

    There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas . Your comment is totally senseless!

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 4:37 am GMT

    @Authenticjazzman " An all-knowing judge/creator"

    Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
    So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
    Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future victims.
    Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician. @why did he not rethink

    Did that false 'judge/creator' not know that he would be taken to task by an Authenticjazzman, the 'authentic' judge of what God should or should not do as to not displease his 'Authenticity'? So, he is not all-knowing. QED.

    in the middle , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 6:15 am GMT

    @John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

    His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

    We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. How exactly did Reagan biggest mistake was amnesty? Explain and give some examples, please.

    in the middle , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 6:30 am GMT

    @Alden Id just like to point out that the reason so many Chinese are giving tech and military secrets to China is my personal bete noire affirmative action. Were it not for affirmative action those military and tech secrets would be in the hands of White Americans, not foreign spies whose only qualification that they are not White. Regardless of ethnicity, these spies deserve the death penalty, for treason to the people who gave them the welcome into our land. As for "white christian", Christianity is either underground or dying, thanks to the power of the sons of the devil, as told by Iesous Christos, (greek), (John 8:44-45 King James Version (KJV)

    44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    So now we know that 'churchianity' has become a den of thieves, and a cave of robbers, teaching that whom Christ called sons of the devil, Churchianity teaches that they are the children of god. What a contradiction by those who profess to represent Christ!

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT

    @Anon Sontag's main place wasn't in the academia. She was essentially a person of letters.

    Friedan is credited with second-wave feminism, but it would have happened anyway without her. The media just needed someone as 'leader'.

    Jong was attacked by feminists. I'm not gonna defend her horny crap, but she' s not part of long march through institutions.

    Also, these are more the products of capitalism. They have nothing to with Marxism. This term 'cultural marxism' should really be called 'cultural consumerism'. "They have nothing to do with communism"

    Bullshit they have everything to do with communism, as all, without exception, all of these characters are hoping and waiting for the transformation of capitalism to marxism, and they, as stupid and naive as they are, they think that they will be running the show thereafter, when fact is they will be the first to be purged.

    You simply have no insight, and you are in above your head with these themes.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 12:22 pm GMT

    @dfordoom


    Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show
    I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was, if not more so.

    I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Have you?

    It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions about global Marxism. "I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
    Agree.

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT

    @annamaria "I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
    Agree. " They serve the interests of global capitalism"

    Right and "global capitalism" serves the interests of global marxism, and you are unable to decifer the connections, which is your own shortcoming, and does not change the situation.

    Almost all of the honchos involved in big-money are in essence : marxists, and they are plotting and waiting for the shift to collectivism.

    Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when they could have simply left things are they were.

    I know it is very hard for most people to imagine big-time capitalists as communists, but it is fact.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz musician.

    Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

    I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?

    No, I won't reject you. That would be actual anti-Semitism, and would make no sense. But if you follow the usual pattern, and spend more time fighting critics of Jewry than you do fighting the Jews who deserve critiquing, then yeah, I've no use for you.

    Basically I expect pro-White Jews to join the White Tribe, and put the Jewish Tribe at the back of the bus, or better yet, off the bus altogether (other than some special cases, I don't even see why most of them would even need to announce (or even hold) their Jewish identity; it's not like anyone's going to put you on the rack and force you to confess it – Jewish identity is something you can reject or opt out of).

    As for those special cases: the most valuable thing a pro-White Jew can do is go into his own (former?) tribe and fight Whites' enemies there. You guys have a calling of epic importance waiting for you, if you'll have it.

    Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:21 pm GMT

    We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an interesting question- the policy is clearly in error.

    Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:23 pm GMT

    As per Christianity; you may believe there is no God (that's your faith and hope) but you cannot confirm it.

    Well put, and succinctly. Though I say that as someone who believes there is no God (and does not have any faith or hope that there is not).

    Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT

    @geokat62


    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section.
    Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.

    While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.

    It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are. I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is, actually doing.

    One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the following material they've posted on their website:


    This is America.This is ADL. (NB - disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking individuals)

    The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave the fabric of our pluralistic society.

    For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's premier human relations and civil rights organization.

    If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition benefits are available to Corporate Partners.

    https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/about-adl/corporate-partners.pdf

    More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity. They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."

    Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression - promoting a policy of diversity, while damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.

    While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic. Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many goyim - i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism... one cannot favour both at the same time.

    So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up their minds and choose one of the following options:

    1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or

    2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.

    If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this this film will not have a happy ending.

    -------------

    P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice of life." I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren 'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have married outside our religion of birth.

    Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT

    Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

    Agreed. Corvinus is a piece of shit. CanSpeccy makes a great point about his "hi fellow kids!" "yeah but guys where can we buy some dynamite?" federal informant type trolling.

    So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up their minds and choose one of the following options:

    1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or

    2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.

    Shit or get off the pot, as I like to say. If I may be so bold, I would strike "embrace mono-culturalism for all nations" from the list of demands. It would certainly be the right thing for Jews to do, given their embrace of ethnopatriotism for themselves, but I would be satisfied with the demand (which is non-negotiable, I agree) "immediately cease and desist from promoting the anti-ethnopatriotic agenda for non-Jewish Whites" being met.

    Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
    Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely, would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.

    Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this . Anti-European advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.

    I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews, but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring anti-Semitism.

    Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter, or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups, black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews. I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist. You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy, assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews.

    Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
    Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely, would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.

    Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this . Anti-European advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.

    I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews, but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring anti-Semitism.

    Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter, or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups, black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews. oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the 50′s he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath.

    Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:56 pm GMT

    @Aaron8765 oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the 50's he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath. 'principle' (sic)

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
    Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely, would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.

    Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this . Anti-European advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.

    I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews, but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring anti-Semitism.

    Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter, or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups, black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews. "Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this."

    False characterization.

    "I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not."

    It is evidence of irrational hatred due to a belief that Jews overall engage in the purposeful destruction of cultures. There is the assumption that diversity/multi-culturalism/tolerance is the bane of existence, that the Jewish propaganda machine serves as an ethnic and societal meat grinder. Unwitting people are being brainwashed into promoting these concepts. Except you are conveniently discounting this important fact human beings have free will. Increasing numbers of people have made decisions of their own accord about these issues. They embrace these philosophies for a host of reasons. You are a snake oil salesman of how Cultural Marxism allegedly is murdering our youth. Let us assume that this Jewish menace would be neutralized. Do you not believe there would be some other group filling in for that void through their own strategies of indoctrination and mind control? Perhaps the philosophies you tout would then be force fed down the throats of the masses.

    "According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism."

    That's not what I stated. I'm not a fan shall we say of you denigrating wholesale a particular group and characterizing that same group of being a proponent of genocide. You have every liberty to protect "your own kind", just as those individuals from "your own kind" have the freedom to question the reasons why you want those protections as well as how those protections are put in place. Furthermore, don't you realize there is no such thing as "racism" and "hate speech"? It's a ruse.

    Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

    KenH , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

    @Rurik


    while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME.
    well said Geo,

    we've all seen this genocidal hag shilling for the destruction of the West

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ERmOpZrKtw

    and we all know by now the consequences of this insanity being foisted by these (often Jewish) netherworld demons

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3831991/Wheelchair-bound-woman-gang-raped-six-migrants-Swedish-asylum-centre-asking-use-toilet.html

    no reasonable person blames all Jews for this evil that only a few of them are perpetrating, (with the eager assistance of many goys [homos and fat, ugly white women and other malcontents] who want the migrants to come for their own reasons, just like corporate/business interests who want to pay lower wages in general)

    but the destruction of Europe and N. America by massive and transformational immigration is, at heart- being foisted by Jewish sludge like Sheldon Adelson, who demands open borders for the US, and uses his money to buy cucks in the Republican party to ensure that he gets just that, but then also uses his ill-gotten gains to promote racial purity in Israel, where his newspapers call all non-Jewish immigrants - invaders.

    So you're right. It's the raging hypocrisy and demonic, Old Testament hatred for all non-Jewish tribes and the efforts to see all white nations founder under racial and ethnic hatred and strife, while simultaneously advocating for a racially pure state in Israel- that makes a lot of people exasperated with Jewish influence and nefarious intrigues.

    There are of course other stuff too. Fomenting and foisting wars, false flag attacks, financial swindles, cultural sewage, etc.. But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only) white countries that outs (some of) them as existential enemies.

    But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only) white countries

    Don't be so sure about some . One hundred percent of Jews serving in both chambers of Congress have supported efforts at granting mass amnesty of third world illegal aliens. Seventy to eighty percent consistently vote Democrat no matter how far to the left or anti-white the party becomes. Even so called conservative (or neocon) Jews like Krauthammer, Bernie Goldberg and others have voiced support for amnesty or partial amnesty.

    So it certainly seems that, based on the evidence, most of them are on board with America as proposition nation and the race replacement of whites while hypocritically supporting the militant racial nationalism and exclusivity of the Israeli state.

    Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT

    it certainly seems that, based on the evidence, most of them are on board

    I can't argue with that Ken

    and you could say the same of all non-white peoples, they're mostly on board for an immigration policy that will eventually rip white nations apart and see the white people trampled under like they were in Zimbabwe, or Haiti when the whites received their comeuppance then.

    They all seem to hate us, but none more so than Jews

    but it is worth pointing out that certainly not all Jews (or other minorities) want us genocided

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)

    some can see past their blind racial hatred and envy to the day that whitey is finally ground under the mire of their collective hatred, to what comes next.

    what kind of world will it be without Western civilization and the Rule of Law?

    Zimbabwe, Palestine, Darfur, the Balkans, Drug cartels and corruption running S. America outright, India and Pakistan cutting each other's throats, cannibalism returning to Africa and Indonesian islands, New Guinea, New Zealand, etc.

    And I mention New Zealand, because the only thing protecting the white people (and the meek of all races) in places like Oceana or Latin America or Africa, the Middle East, etc is the fragile, amorphous sense of the law , that permeates the jungles and hinterlands of the planet, where some American expatriate living in Mexico is left unmolested by the cartels and corrupt governments down there. On the day that whitey is unable to protect his own families in the US, that is the day that certain ex-patriots in Mexico will find out just how loved they really are by the Mexicans, who've suffered their arrogance and relative wealth with bitter, quiet, simmering resentment.

    If your society has reached the point where your women and children are brutalized by hostile invading armies and there's nothing you can do to protect them, and the courts and authorities will not punish the orcs, then it's only a short distance until the day of Zimbabwe comes and you're run out of your home in terror for your life.

    There was a time when the whites of Zimbabwe could count on England and the rule of law to protect them. They discovered too late how wrong they were. It will be the same for all white places when the global system of the Rule of Law breaks down and we return to the law of the jungle with a vengeance.

    how well will Israel fare when there's no more white guilt to milk for funding and arms and "moral" sanction?

    already Norway and other nations are talking about BDS, in part because of the burgeoning Muslim populations in these countries.

    when Europe becomes multicultural, as that Zionist hag insists it must, how well are the Jews of the world going to prosper when the governments of Europe are Islamized?

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT

    @Aaron8765 We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an interesting question- the policy is clearly in error. Treason in high places: " Not Remembering the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/

    "The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
    " Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
    " The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded."
    "Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck, who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious, unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their families"

    neutral , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 5:47 pm GMT

    @Aaron8765 I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren 'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have married outside our religion of birth.

    have married outside our religion of birth

    That makes no difference, since being jewish is ultimately a racial category not a religious one. You don't have to take my word for it, you can research how the state of Israel defines what a jew is, and it is not on religious grounds. In fact they use the Nuremberg race acts that defined what a jew was as their own criteria, obviously they will claim they are using it for those fleeing oppression, but anyone who is sincere about this knows it is because the Nuremberg race acts were correct in their definitions.

    Sowhat , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 6:31 pm GMT

    Jimmy, I like reading your but bluing your scripts (doesn't that usually indicate a reference or example) to send me to a VDARE donation page is tacky. JMO

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 7:17 pm GMT

    @Authenticjazzman "The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of th electorate

    So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white house.

    Look friend you are labeling myself, my sister and my upstanding, decent, friends and family who in fact did pull the lever for DT as : Degenerate.

    You are the "degenerate" malevolent one here and you have no clue as to what you are blathering about.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa"society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white house.

    Quite.

    Conservatives despair to find that Trump scores only a 1.5 or 2 relative to the ideal 10 they had hoped for.

    However, Hillary would have been a solid and consistent -8 (MINUS EIGHT) or worse. Every day of Trump – however betrayed Conservatives may feel relative to their ideals – is a day on which the ALL-OUT DESTRUCTION of America does not proceed with the organized, unopposed vigor that it would have done under Hillary. (Also known as Mrs. Vincent Foster #2.)

    Of course, the lackey MSM are doing their level best to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) among those opposed to the oligarchy. Their "Russia hacked the election" complex of lies (aka "narrative") would certainly have drawn admiring applause from Joseph Goebbels himself, both for the boldness of the original conception – tapping into old *conservative* mistrust of the USSR, and for the shameless repetitive execution.

    Right now, the U.S. still has remnants of the Second Amendment, which alone is the true, long-term measure of a free country. (Various states and their complicit federal judges are working hard to get rid of this final obstacle to billionaire rule and death camps.)

    Don't believe that the SECOND Amendment is the true measure of a free country? Spend 6 weeks in Canada or any other advanced country in Europe, Asia, talk to people, see what they say about sensitive subjects. Read and watch their MSM and alternative media. Ask yourself where the subject country was 100 years ago, and where it is likely to be in 100 years.

    Has free speech in the subject country been OFFICIALLY curtailed under rubrics such as "hate speech," "incitement," "libel/slander" etc.? What is the extent of INFORMAL censorship, e.g. through publishers' associations, codes of conduct, post-modern J-schools and official "certification" of "journalists," etc.?

    What do they/don't the MSM in the subject country report? Secret/informal taboos? Is there REAL criticism of the power structure? Of existing laws and institutions? Are politicians REALLY subject to the rule of law? Do they REALLY lock up corrupt politicians as the U.S. used to do? Are politicians' families exempt from public scrutiny?

    Political murder is another indication of the health or otherwise of a free society. Are mysterious deaths of politicians and their staff commonplace in the subject society? Does interest in major incidents die down after 2-3 days? Or persist for years (JFK) despite repeated attempts at whitewashing?

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 7:54 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy Waste of time, really, responding to the troll for the replacement of Euro-Americans. It only initiates another spew of hate speech. According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism.

    Wiz Oz is not quite so crude about it, but seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.

    There are something like a billion Hindus in India, so why should they occupy the tiny homeland of the English? England, it is true, ruled India for a while, no doubt over the objection of the Indian ruling class, but in doing so they merely replaced another and more exploitive alien ruling elite, and at no time attempted to settle India with millions of Europeans. Indeed they set out, from the time of Macaulay's memorandum on Indian Education, dated Feb 2nd, 1835 , to prepare India for self-government as the modern, independent, democratic nation state that it now is.

    Wiz Oz seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.

    What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:

    Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

    To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint – vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are – are particularly maddening as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."

    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 8:08 pm GMT

    @Aaron8765 I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist. You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy, assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews. Re: Kantorowicz

    Bureaucracies, governmental or academic, hate a non-conformist. I know. I worked (briefly) for three governments and also held academic appointments at three universities, the last, a tenure-track appointment, that I abandoned after three days.

    The problem for all groups in a multi-cultural society is that group interests are liable to conflict and thus generate antagonisms that often have a racial or religious aspect. For Jews, it is worse than for most because they are adherents, or associates by descent, of a religion that is fundamentally racist. Yahweh, after all, is the God of the Jews, and urges the Jews to go forth, multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth.

    Thus, when Jews succeed as they have done in large numbers in America in gaining positions of great wealth and power, and especially when they exercise that power for specifically Jewish interests such as the defense of the state of Israel, they naturally raise feelings of suspicion, fear and antagonism, as would say a bunch of Russian nationalists if they ran much of Hollywood , were among the principal peddlers of porn in America , had massive media influence , and held many seats in Congress and used their financial clout to determine who holds many of the other seats in Congress .

    None of this, of course, alters the fact that it may at times seem tough being a Jew and an American-firster.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 9:00 pm GMT

    @annamaria Treason in high places: " Not Remembering the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/

    "The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
    " Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
    " The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded."
    "Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck, who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious, unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their families" WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national importance to Israel?

    Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation.

    Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety and anonymity of retirement since then.

    One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off – it is sometimes claimed that the Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.

    First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea. Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government. An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds of individuals to propose, prepare and implement.

    dfordoom , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 1:08 am GMT

    @Authenticjazzman " They serve the interests of global capitalism"

    Right and "global capitalism" serves the interests of global marxism, and you are unable to decifer the connections, which is your own shortcoming, and does not change the situation.

    Almost all of the honchos involved in big-money are in essence : marxists, and they are plotting and waiting for the shift to collectivism.

    Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when they could have simply left things are they were.

    I know it is very hard for most people to imagine big-time capitalists as communists, but it is fact.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz musician.

    Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when they could have simply left things are they were.

    Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it. A revolution is a great chance to loot a country (as the Russians discovered to their cost in the 1990s).

    The "moneyed" classes do not believe in marxism because they do not believe in any ideology. They believe in money and power. Ideologies are for the rubes.

    The US is currently making a massive arms deal with the Saudis. Does this mean that the US moneyed classes have suddenly converted to Islam? No, it means they see a chance to make money.

    Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 1:42 am GMT

    @Sowhat Jimmy, I like reading your but bluing your scripts (doesn't that usually indicate a reference or example) to send me to a VDARE donation page is tacky. JMO Mr. What, that "bluing" is called a hyperlink *. They've been around for well nigh 25 years now by my recollection. The guy's link is fine, but VDare right now is raising some money, and that "splash" page will appear on anyone's initial visit, so to speak, to the site right now. If you mash that X in the right corner, you will get directly to the article that the guy you're replying to wants you to see.

    I hope that helps I would like to AGREE with myself here too, because, as usual, I know I am right. I don't know how to do that though without joining faceboot or some such crap.

    * Here is one, just as a random example. It'd be interesting to see what happens when you single-click on it. You might as well now – it'll bug you the rest of the evening if you don't.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 2:09 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national importance to Israel?

    Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation.

    Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety and anonymity of retirement since then.

    One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off - it is sometimes claimed that the Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.

    First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea. Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government. An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds of individuals to propose, prepare and implement. "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."

    First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
    The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
    "Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
    Don't you see how the obnoxious kind – that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the Friends of Israel and such – have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 11:17 am GMT

    @dfordoom


    Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when they could have simply left things are they were.
    Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it. A revolution is a great chance to loot a country (as the Russians discovered to their cost in the 1990s).

    The "moneyed" classes do not believe in marxism because they do not believe in any ideology. They believe in money and power. Ideologies are for the rubes.

    The US is currently making a massive arms deal with the Saudis. Does this mean that the US moneyed classes have suddenly converted to Islam? No, it means they see a chance to make money. " Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it"

    Hogwash, this idea is beyond absurd.

    What you are saying is that for the purpose of "Making a fast buck" they will support a political/economic system, namely communism, which has the goal of destroying them , in other words the chickens are voting for Colonel Sanders.

    " The monied classes do not believe in marxism" . Again hogwash, and you would be in a state of shock if you were able to engage certain billionaires in conversation regarding this issue.

    The motivation behind their fixation upon Marxism is their striving to considered as "Intellectuals", and they are plagued by inferiority complexes regarding their status as "Businessmen", whereas marxists are looked upon as : "Intellectual".

    I was never convinced that rich people were exceptionally intelligent, rather to the contrary.
    Wall street being a perfect example of stupidity prevailing amongst millionaires and billionaires.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz artist.

    Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT

    @annamaria "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."

    First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
    The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
    "Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
    Don't you see how the obnoxious kind - that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the Friends of Israel and such - have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?

    First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years.

    yep

    also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.

    As was the Lavon affair.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

    It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was the false flag attack on 9/11 – that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
    What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:

    Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

    To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint - vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."

    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French. "and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did."

    You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons, the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the Enlightenment.

    "English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

    "One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""

    The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher", considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs students in this field.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 5:38 pm GMT

    "Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
    Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    "Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations. Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
    Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes and infrastructural projects. ..
    Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria, women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights).
    Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values.
    Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and Tel Aviv for decades ."

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 5:42 pm GMT

    " considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs students in this field"

    So what you are saying is that holding a "doctoral degree" in philosophy automatically transforms the individual involved into being a "Philsopher"

    This is pure unadulterated nonsense, and I personally have had the aquaintance of two persons who did indeed hold doctoral degrees in philosophy and they were both light years away from the qualification of "Philosopher".

    Homer was a"Philosopher", Marc Aurel, was a philosopher, Goethe was a philosopher, etc, but none of the BS artists in this day and age holding doctoral degrees in philosophy, could ever with a straight face claim to be a "philosopher".

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT

    @annamaria "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."

    First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
    The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
    "Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
    Don't you see how the obnoxious kind - that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the Friends of Israel and such - have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU? The basic question – which remains unaddressed in the response – is very simply:

    What was the Israeli leadership trying to do by launching a combined airborne and naval attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in 1967?

    You mention the Lavon affair in 1954. This scandal arose out of an attempted Israeli false-flag operation in Egypt that went spectacularly wrong.

    The Suez Crisis in 1956 was another major disaster for Israel, the UK and France.

    This experience will have informed Israeli government thinking in 1967.

    Moreover, as noted in the original post, radar technology at the time, as well simple visual identification of the attacking jet fighters and vessels precluded even a remote possibility of dressing up the attack as having been perpetrated by Egypt.

    Further, the U.S. had plenty of intelligence assets in both Egypt and Israel to find out what actually happened to the USS Liberty within hours. An operation of this magnitude involves at a minimum hundreds of people across different countries and cannot be kept completely secret.

    The Lavon affair was intended to involve small anonymous attacks against random civilian targets, but failed to achieve this relatively modest objective.

    Are we now to believe that the Israelis thought they could pull off a massive combined air-sea attack against a United States vessel on the high seas (where radar and visual observation is unobstructed) and blame it on Egypt? The very idea is insane.

    So why did Israel resort to this desperate gamble?

    Barring a collective bout of insanity throughout Israel's civilian and military leadership, the most likely explanation is that the USS Liberty itself was seen as a major and indeed mortal threat to Israel, to such an extent that the Israeli leadership decided to risk a major rift with the U.S. to eliminate the threat.

    How would the USS Liberty itself be a threat? Most likely by compiling high-grade military intelligence and passing it to Egypt and the other Arab nations. This could have occurred either pursuant to official directives from the top of the U.S. hierarchy, or perhaps because the local command went rogue.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 6:49 pm GMT

    @Corvinus "and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did."

    You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons, the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the Enlightenment.

    "English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

    "One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""

    The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher", considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs students in this field.

    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."

    Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher."

    Notice how ridiculous it sounds?

    French does not have the same inbuilt resistance to unreality. "Moi, je suis philosophe" does not sound inherently ridiculous to a French speaker.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT

    @Rurik


    First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years.
    yep

    also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.

    As was the Lavon affair.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

    It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was the false flag attack on 9/11 - that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.

    as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them

    This suggestion at least makes logical sense.

    However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

    In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second about who launched the attack.

    Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 9:39 pm GMT

    @annamaria "Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
    Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
    http://theduran.com/heres-why-saudi-arabia-and-israel-are-allies-in-all-but-name/
    "Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations. Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
    Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes and infrastructural projects. ..
    Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria, women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights). ...
    Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values.
    Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and Tel Aviv for decades ."

    Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world.

    Modern, secular Syria TREBLED its population since 1980 even though water and land were already exhausted then.

    http://globuspallidusxi.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-real-story-on-syria-forced.html

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world.
    Modern, secular Syria TREBLED its population since 1980 even though water and land were already exhausted then.

    http://globuspallidusxi.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-real-story-on-syria-forced.html What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?

    "Trump and Netanyahu to the world: WE ARE ALL WAHHABISTS NOW!"
    http://theduran.com/trump-and-netanyahu-to-the-world-we-are-all-wahhabists-now/

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 12:30 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
    This suggestion at least makes logical sense.

    However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

    In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second about who launched the attack.

    Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt. " it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC."
    This is not true. Try do read the accounts objectively.

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 1:42 am GMT

    @ "I am a philosopher."

    Who is really a philosopher? What is really a philosopher? What is philosophy after all?

    At the end of 'Antiquity' (6th Century) an Armenian Christian 'Neo-Platonic' philosopher, David Anhagt (the Invincible), wrote an 'Introduction to philosophy' in which he epitomized all the current definitions of Philosophy, which by logical necessity are only six (according to the object and purpose):

    1) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things that exist as they [really] are'.
    2) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things divine and human'.
    3) 'Philosophy is preparation for death'.
    4) 'Philosophy is becoming like the God to the best of human abilities.
    5) 'Philosophy is the art of arts and science of sciences'.
    6) 'Philosophy is love of wisdom' (filia sophias).

    For David (and all 'philosophers') philosophia is a 'care of the soul'. It starts with 'Gnoti seauton- Know thyself) and ends with 'becoming like God' (theosis) and here it coincides with the purpose of Christianity ('If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods', 'For the Son of God became man so that we might become God', 'The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life' – the definitions of the Fathers). Christianity is the 'true philosophy'. Jesus answered the Pharisees: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)*
    *"I have said, Ye are gods; and all [of you] children of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6 – Septuagint).

    'Know thyself' because 'The Kingdom of God is within you'.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 2:45 am GMT

    @annamaria "...it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC."
    This is not true. Try do read the accounts objectively. (1) I said that "reading between the lines," one might conclude that Israel IMMEDIATELY set about containing the fall-out in Washington. Of course, such efforts (if they indeed took place) would be hugely embarrassing to Israel and would be kept top secret even years later.

    (2) You have still not given us any real theory of WHY Israel would launch a combined air/sea attack on the USS Liberty.

    The idea that Israel was at this precise moment in the middle of the Six Day War trying to pin the blame on Egypt does not hold water as explained in several posts above.

    CONCLUSION: The best working theory at present is that the USS Liberty was providing high-grade intelligence to the Arab countries fighting Israel in the Six Day War.

    If you have a better explanation consistent with the known facts, including the use of radar by the USS Liberty and airborne units in the area please share it here.

    QUESTION: What is known about LBJ's stated and actual positions vis-a-vis Israel, Egypt, other Arab countries? Post-retirement contacts by LBJ and his family?

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 2:46 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
    What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:

    Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

    To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint - vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."

    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.

    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."

    I don't understand why you say that or why Corvinus thinks it would be silly if anyone did say in English "I am a philosopher."

    Most significant universities in the English-speaking world have a philosophy department whose faculty members would, in most cases, be prepared to assert that "I am a philosopher."

    This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.

    No doubt there are plenty of bad English-speaking philosophers as there are bad English-speaking academics in every other field, but it is simply false to suggest that philosophical works in the English language are characterized by ponderous bad writing. In fact, the great English-speaking philosophers lead the world in the clarity of their analysis: David Hume , for example, or George Berkeley .

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 2:57 am GMT

    @Seraphim @ "I am a philosopher."

    Who is really a philosopher? What is really a philosopher? What is philosophy after all?

    At the end of 'Antiquity' (6th Century) an Armenian Christian 'Neo-Platonic' philosopher, David Anhagt (the Invincible), wrote an 'Introduction to philosophy' in which he epitomized all the current definitions of Philosophy, which by logical necessity are only six (according to the object and purpose):

    1) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things that exist as they [really] are'.
    2) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things divine and human'.
    3) 'Philosophy is preparation for death'.
    4) 'Philosophy is becoming like the God to the best of human abilities.
    5) 'Philosophy is the art of arts and science of sciences'.
    6) 'Philosophy is love of wisdom' (filia sophias).

    For David (and all 'philosophers') philosophia is a 'care of the soul'. It starts with 'Gnoti seauton- Know thyself) and ends with 'becoming like God' (theosis) and here it coincides with the purpose of Christianity ('If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods', 'For the Son of God became man so that we might become God', 'The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. ... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life' - the definitions of the Fathers). Christianity is the 'true philosophy'. Jesus answered the Pharisees: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)*
    *"I have said, Ye are gods; and all [of you] children of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6 - Septuagint).

    'Know thyself' because 'The Kingdom of God is within you'. David Anhagt may have been at the forefront of philosophy at the end of antiquity, but things have moved on a bit since then. Today, surely, the key questions in philosophy are of the following kind:

    (1) How do we know what we know, if we know anything at all?

    (2) What is the nature of external reality, if there is an external reality, and what can we know of it and how?

    (3) If there is an external reality, how come? How did it come to exist?

    (4) What is morality?

    (5) What is free will, and does it make us morally responsible for our actions?

    And much more.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 2:58 am GMT

    @annamaria What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?

    "Trump and Netanyahu to the world: WE ARE ALL WAHHABISTS NOW!"
    http://theduran.com/trump-and-netanyahu-to-the-world-we-are-all-wahhabists-now/

    What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?

    A country at three times carrying capacity talking about "sovereignty" is like a 600 lb person talking about running a marathon.

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 5:14 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
    What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:

    Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

    To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint - vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."

    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism

    That is probably the exact opposite of the fact. The English sense of tolerance, such as it is (think the burning of witches and heretics, the gaoling of or chemical castration of queers), restraint, such as it is (think football hooliganism and the crass obscenity of some BBC entertainment programming), etc. are probably the result of Britain's unique set of traditions, the common law, the breakdown of serfdom as the result of the crash in population caused by the Black Death, property law, the rights of women dating from pre-Norman times, the King's Courts that provided litigants access to a court presided over by a professional judge, English trust law, that gave rise to so many special purpose clubs and organizations from scientific societies to sporting associations and explains why nearly all the world's most popular sports were invented by the English, and Henry VIII's marital problems that largely freed Britain from the influence of the Catholic church.

    As for:

    privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies.

    LOL

    Privacy? The Brits have more surveillance cameras per capita than any country on earth. They even have listening lamp posts.

    Secularism? The present archbishop of Canterbury may be of Jewish extraction and experienced as a oil company money man, but until recent times the British were, for the most part, devout, mainly protestant, Christians.

    Fads? Well maybe the Brits didn't trust them but they had plenty from rock and roll, flick knives, and ducks arse hair cuts, to mini-skirts, beatlemania, balsa wood airplanes, bellbottom pants, and on and on.

    As for philosophies, the British empiricists are clearly among the most important of the modern age as the British who know anything about philosophy are happy to acknowledge.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?
    A country at three times carrying capacity talking about "sovereignty" is like a 600 lb person talking about running a marathon. as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
    You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic, the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by the "most moral" apartheid state.
    And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host in a desired direction.
    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT

    @CanSpeccy David Anhagt may have been at the forefront of philosophy at the end of antiquity, but things have moved on a bit since then. Today, surely, the key questions in philosophy are of the following kind:

    (1) How do we know what we know, if we know anything at all?

    (2) What is the nature of external reality, if there is an external reality, and what can we know of it and how?

    (3) If there is an external reality, how come? How did it come to exist?

    (4) What is morality?

    (5) What is free will, and does it make us morally responsible for our actions?

    And much more. All these 'moves' have been already made long before the end of Antiquity. There were the essential questions of 'philosophy' to which Plato, Aristotle and a score of 'Oriental' philosophers have offered the answers.
    Didn't a noted philosopher of the 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead, famously said that: 'The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato'?

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 11:52 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."
    Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher."

    Notice how ridiculous it sounds?

    French does not have the same inbuilt resistance to unreality. "Moi, je suis philosophe" does not sound inherently ridiculous to a French speaker. "Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher.""

    OK. Doctor of philosophy.

    "Notice how ridiculous it sounds?"

    No.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT

    The Saker publishes some interesting news re the MH17 tragedy:
    "SBU [Security Service of Ukraine] orders to destroy all evidence of the conducted special operation MH17″ http://thesaker.is/sbu-orders-to-destroy-all-evidence-of-the-conducted-special-operation-mh17/
    by Scott Humor: " If you want to know my opinion that hasn't changed since 2014. The Boeing flight MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian air force fighter jets, but not necessarily piloted by Ukrainian pilots. It was a CIA and NATO operation to frame Russia. Most likely the Dutch government was a part of this operation. Now, they are trying to hang all the dogs on Waltzman -Poroshenko, because neither the Dutch monarchs, nor the CIA would fancy to be implicated in this crime."

    The whole edifice of sanctions against Russian federation was built on the MH17 case. A few people come to mind. First is the Secretary of State John Kerry who had proclaimed that Russians were guilty of the shooting before any investigation took place.
    Then there is a Department of War Studies, King's College London, which became famous for inviting Eliot Higgins (an expert in selling ladies underwear) to lecture the College' students on Higgins' specialty – the russophobic stuff, which was debunked on numerous occasions but which is still dear to the hearts at the Department of War Studies, King's College London. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/principal/Indexnew.aspx https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/professors/rainsborough.aspx
    And then there is a circus of Dutch investigation: https://www.rt.com/news/375105-mh17-investigation-dutch-journalist/ and this http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/dutch-prosecutor-does-not-answer-questions-on-russian-supplied-radar-data/
    The Dutch/Ukrainian scoundrels are now facing this (which is just a beginning): https://www.rt.com/news/374893-trump-letter-mh17-investigation/ "The open letter, signed by 25 journalists, former civil aviation pilots and researchers from Germany, the Netherlands and Australia, was posted on the website of Joost Niemoller – a Dutch journalist who publicly challenged the current investigation into the ill-fated Flight MH17, which was downed over Ukraine in July 2014. "

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 4:55 pm GMT

    "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato"

    Newton, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, James Clerk Maxwell, Einstein - Some footnotes.

    Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
    This suggestion at least makes logical sense.

    However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

    In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second about who launched the attack.

    Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.

    Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

    then why did they machine gun the lifeboats, eh?

    that in itself is a war crime you know, and the ONLY reason they would have done it is to sink the ship with ALL hands. Thereby leaving no survivors to expose the treachery.

    and they had the Johnson regime and traitor McNamara on board with their cowardly, murderous treason.

    not to mention the controlled kosher msm

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 7:05 pm GMT

    @annamaria as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
    You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic, the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by the "most moral" apartheid state.
    And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host in a desired direction. You still haven't answered the question:

    What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

    As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.

    Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

    Thank you.

    Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT

    @Eagle Eye You still haven't answered the question:

    What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

    As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.

    Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

    Thank you. if you (and Annamaria) don't mind, I'll address this..

    What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

    there was a war going on between a US ally and a nation of strategic importance to the US- Israel and Egypt. The USS Liberty was a NSA intelligence ship. It was there to monitor what was going on. Duh.

    explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

    unless you an admiral in the US Navy at the time, no one knows for sure. But a lot of people have speculated that the USS Liberty was sent by the Johnson regime to get sunk by Israel and be used as a false flag to take America into war against Egypt.

    We already know for a fact that jets were scrambled to assist the USS Liberty and were called back and ordered not to assist by Johnson through Secretary of State McNamara. And not once, but twice.

    So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that purpose, or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about it, we'll likely never know.

    Hope that helps eagle

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT

    @Eagle Eye You still


    What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

    As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.

    Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

    Thank you. Why don't you look closely into the present to understand the past?
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/23/truth-has-become-un-american/

    "As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate obstacles to Israel's expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government and chaos in Iraq, Washington's war on Syria, and Washington's demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war."

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato"
    Newton, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, James Clerk Maxwell, Einstein - Some footnotes. There are more, but most of them are sloppy footnotes.
    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 12:52 am GMT

    @Seraphim There are more, but most of them are sloppy footnotes.

    but most of them are sloppy footnotes

    True. But that's true of most of what passes for thought or scholarship in every field of intellectual endeavor. Still mankind has come a long way since the time of Plato in understanding many things - so far that, in our morally unregenerate state, we appear on the brink of creating Hell on Earth, either as the result of a final global conflagration or the creation of a global slave state.

    Heir Max , Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 3:30 am GMT

    How does Russia ( read Putin ) embracing Christianity and encouraging it again in Russia factor in the sudden sour attitude of our progressives in the US? The LOVED the USSR.. as it was atheistic, no? But as a non-threat-Russia, and a Christian Russia, eh, not so much; especially since Russia has decided they are not so fond of the Muslim.

    Interesting times. Great article.

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    but most of them are sloppy footnotes
    True. But that's true of most of what passes for thought or scholarship in every field of intellectual endeavor. Still mankind has come a long way since the time of Plato in understanding many things - so far that, in our morally unregenerate state, we appear on the brink of creating Hell on Earth, either as the result of a final global conflagration or the creation of a global slave state. You can see what sloppiness leads to.
    John Gruskos , Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 3:55 pm GMT

    @in the middle How exactly did Reagan biggest mistake was amnesty? Explain and give some examples, please. Giving amnesty to the illegal immigrants who were in America in 1986 encouraged more illegal immigrants to come, in hopes of a future amnesty.

    In 1986 there were only 1 million illegal immigrants. Now there are at least 11 million.

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT

    @Seraphim You can see what sloppiness leads to.

    You can see what sloppiness leads to.

    We need to define "sloppiness" with exactitude.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 31, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism
    That is probably the exact opposite of the fact. The English sense of tolerance, such as it is (think the burning of witches and heretics, the gaoling of or chemical castration of queers), restraint, such as it is (think football hooliganism and the crass obscenity of some BBC entertainment programming), etc. are probably the result of Britain's unique set of traditions, the common law, the breakdown of serfdom as the result of the crash in population caused by the Black Death, property law, the rights of women dating from pre-Norman times, the King's Courts that provided litigants access to a court presided over by a professional judge, English trust law, that gave rise to so many special purpose clubs and organizations from scientific societies to sporting associations and explains why nearly all the world's most popular sports were invented by the English, and Henry VIII's marital problems that largely freed Britain from the influence of the Catholic church.

    As for:

    privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies.
    LOL. Privacy? The Brits have more surveillance cameras per capita than any country on earth. They even have listening lamp posts.

    Secularism? The present archbishop of Canterbury may be of Jewish extraction and experienced as a oil company money man, but until recent times the British were, for the most part, devout, mainly protestant, Christians. Fads? Well maybe the Brits didn't trust them but they had plenty from rock and roll, flick knives, and ducks arse hair cuts, to mini-skirts, beatlemania, balsa wood airplanes, bellbottom pants, and on and on.

    As for philosophies, the British empiricists are clearly among the most important of the modern age as the British who know anything about philosophy are happy to acknowledge.

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism

    It may have escaped you that my earlier post referred to the time of the American Revolution, and in particular to sophisticated British traditions and conventions as they were perceived by the educated class in the colonies.

    The sad decline of Britain in the modern era, and its more colorful history in earlier ages, are neither here nor there for these purposes.

    [Jun 03, 2017] State Department was at the center of neo-McCartyism compaign against Russia by Michael Isikoff

    State department official were backstabbing Trump with impunity... Neocon cohorts recruited by Hillary such as staffers of Victoria Nuland still feel in charge... Essentially State Department was and is a neocon swamp that needs to be drained.
    The level of McCarthyism hysteria in comments is really frightening...
    Notable quotes:
    "... These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia's intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said. ..."
    "... Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling "deeply uncomfortable," said one source, who asked not to be identified. ..."
    "... These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions - effectively locking them in place - before Trump could lift them ..."
    "... The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without first submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. "Russia has done nothing to be rewarded with sanctions relief," Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions without "verifiable progress" by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, "we would lose all credibility in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world," added Cardin in his own statement. (A spokesman for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: "I can also confirm that the senator did hear from senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already been considering it as well.") ..."
    "... But the political battles over the issue are far from over. Cardin, McCain and Graham are separately pushing another sanctions bill - imposing tough new measures in response to Russia's election interference. The measures have so far been blocked for consideration within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who says he wants to first hear the administration's position on the issue. ..."
    "... In the meantime, Malinowksi said he is concerned that there may be other, less public ways the administration can undermine the Russian sanctions. He noted that much of their force results from parallel sanctions imposed by the European Union, whose members must unanimously renew them each year. ..."
    "... "I had this nightmare vision of [White House senior adviser ] Steve Bannon or [National Security Council staffer] Sebastian Gorka calling in the Hungarian ambassador and telling them President Trump would not be displeased" if his country opposed the renewal of sanctions, he said. ..."
    Jun 01, 2017 | www.yahoo.com

    Originally from: Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

    How the Trump administration's secret efforts to ease Russia sanctions fell short

    In the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.

    Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.

    These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia's intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said.

    "There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions," said Dan Fried, a veteran State Department official who served as chief U.S. coordinator for sanctions policy until he retired in late February. He said in the first few weeks of the administration, he received several "panicky" calls from U.S. government officials who told him they had been directed to develop a sanctions-lifting package and imploring him, "Please, my God, can't you stop this?"

    Fried said he grew so concerned that he contacted Capitol Hill allies - including Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the ranking minority member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - to urge them to move quickly to pass legislation that would "codify" the sanctions in place, making it difficult for President Trump to remove them.

    Tom Malinowski, who had just stepped down as President Obama's assistant secretary of state for human rights, told Yahoo News he too joined the effort to lobby Congress after learning from former colleagues that the administration was developing a plan to lift sanctions - and possibly arrange a summit between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin - as part of an effort to achievea "grand bargain" with Moscow. "It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Malinowski, who only days before he left office announced his own round of sanctions against senior Russian officials for human rights abuses under a law known as the Magnitsky Act.

    The previously unreported efforts by Fried and others to check the Trump administration's policy moves cast new light on the unseen tensions over Russia policy during the early days of the new administration.

    It also potentially takes on new significance for congressional and Justice Department investigators in light of reports that before the administration took office Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his chief foreign policy adviser, Michael Flynn, discussed setting up a private channel of communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak - talks that appear to have laid the groundwork for the proposals that began circulating right after the inauguration.

    A senior White House official confirmed that the administration began exploring changes in Russia sanctions as part of a broader policy review that is still ongoing. "We've been reviewing all the sanctions - and this is not exclusive to Russia," the official said. "All the sanctions regimes have mechanisms built in to alleviate them. It's been our hope that the Russians would take advantage of that" by living up to Moscow's agreement to end the Ukraine conflict, but they did not do so.

    To be sure, President Trump's interest in improving relations with Moscow was hardly a secret during last year's presidential campaign." If we can make a great deal for our country and get along with Russia, that would be a tremendous thing," Trump said in a April 28, 2016, Fox News interview ."I would love to try it."

    But there was nothing said in public about specific steps the new administration took toward reaching the kind of deal the president had talked about during the campaign - without requiring the Russians to acknowledge responsibility for the annexation of Crimea or Moscow's "influence campaign" during the 2016 election.

    Just days after President Trump took office, officials who had moved into the secretary of state's seventh-floor office sent a "tasking" order to the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs to develop a menu of options to improve relations with Russia as part of a deal in exchange for Russian cooperation in the war against the Islamic State in Syria, according to two former officials. Those options were to include sanctions relief as well as other steps that were a high priority for Moscow, including the return of two diplomatic compounds - one on Long Island and the other on Maryland's Eastern Shore - that were shut by President Obama on Dec. 29on the grounds that they were being used for espionage purposes. (The return of the compounds is again being actively considered by the administration, according to a Washington Post reportThursday. ) "Obviously, the Russians have been agitating about this," the senior White House official said when asked about the compounds, or "dachas," as the Russians call them. But it would be inaccurate to report there has been an agreement to return them without some reciprocal move on Moscow's part.

    Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling "deeply uncomfortable," said one source, who asked not to be identified.

    These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions - effectively locking them in place - before Trump could lift them

    The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without first submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. "Russia has done nothing to be rewarded with sanctions relief," Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions without "verifiable progress" by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, "we would lose all credibility in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world," added Cardin in his own statement. (A spokesman for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: "I can also confirm that the senator did hear from senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already been considering it as well.")

    The proposed bill lost some of its urgency six days later when Flynn resigned as White House national security adviser following disclosures he had discussed political sanctions relief with Kislyak during the transition and misrepresented those talks to Vice President Mike Pence. After that, "it didn't take too long for it to become clear that if they lifted sanctions, there would be a political firestorm," Malinowski said.

    But the political battles over the issue are far from over. Cardin, McCain and Graham are separately pushing another sanctions bill - imposing tough new measures in response to Russia's election interference. The measures have so far been blocked for consideration within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who says he wants to first hear the administration's position on the issue.

    In the meantime, Malinowksi said he is concerned that there may be other, less public ways the administration can undermine the Russian sanctions. He noted that much of their force results from parallel sanctions imposed by the European Union, whose members must unanimously renew them each year.

    "I had this nightmare vision of [White House senior adviser ] Steve Bannon or [National Security Council staffer] Sebastian Gorka calling in the Hungarian ambassador and telling them President Trump would not be displeased" if his country opposed the renewal of sanctions, he said.

    [Jun 03, 2017] Putin I Can Prove Trump Did Not Pass Secrets to Russia

    Jun 03, 2017 | www.newsmax.com
    Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that U.S. President Donald Trump had not passed on any secrets to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a meeting in Washington last week and that he could prove it.

    Speaking at a news conference alongside Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Putin quipped that Lavrov was remiss for not passing on what he made clear he believed were non-existent secrets.

    "I spoke to him [Lavrov] today," said Putin with a smile. "I'll be forced to issue him with a reprimand because he did not share these secrets with us. Not with me, nor with representatives of Russia's intelligence services. It was very bad of him."

    Putin, who said Moscow rated Lavrov's meeting with Trump "highly," said Russia was ready to hand a transcript of Trump's meeting with Lavrov over to U.S. lawmakers if that would help reassure them.

    A Kremlin aide, Yuri Ushakov, later told reporters that Moscow had in its possession a written record of the conversation, not an audio recording.

    Complaining about what he said were signs of "political schizophrenia" in the United States, Putin said Trump was not being allowed to do his job properly.

    "It's hard to imagine what else can these people who generate such nonsense and rubbish can dream up next," said Putin.

    "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans. Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

    Two U.S. officials said on Monday that Trump had disclosed highly classified information to Lavrov about a planned Islamic State operation, plunging the White House into another controversy just months into Trump's short tenure in office.

    Russia has repeatedly said that anti-Russian politicians in the United States are using groundless fears of closer ties with Moscow to sabotage any rapprochement and damage Trump in the process.

    .

    [Jun 03, 2017] Putin We Should Be Grateful To President Trump In Moscow It's Cold And Snowing

    Jun 03, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday during a panel at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum that the US investigations into whether the Kremlin meddled in the US election are nothing more than "hysteria," and that the anti-Russia sentiment in the US was about as virulent as anti-semitism. "It's like saying everything is the Jews' fault," said Putin, who said the blame for Hillary Clinton's November loss lies squarely at the feet of the Democratic presidential candidate and members of her party, according to a report.

    "This reminds me of anti-Semitism," Putin said. "The Jews are to blame for everything. An idiot cannot do anything himself, so the Jews are to blame. But we know what such attitudes lead to. They end with nothing good."

    Putin, who was being interviewed by NBC's Megyn Kelly, brushed off questions about meetings that members of the Trump campaign - including then-Sen. Jeff Sessions - had with Russian officials such as ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

    " So our ambassador met someone. That's his job. That's why we pay him," Putin said. "So what? What's he supposed to do, hit up the bars ?"

    Putin was amused when Kelly touched on the subject of Russian foreign news coverage spreading "disinformation." Putin accused her "colleagues" of dragging Russia into their coverage unfavourably.

    "Let's end this," Putin told her. "You will feel better and we will feel better."

    Donald Trump won because he had run a more effective presidential campaign than Hillary Clinton, Putin said, adding the US intelligence agencies may have faked evidence of Russian hacking, according to Reuters. Allegations of Russian involvement were nothing more than "harmful gossip," Putin insisted, there were no "Russian fingerprints" on the alleged hacks, Reuters reported.

    Earlier this week, Putin denied the Russian state had directed any hacking operations designed to influence the U.S. election – though he did say Russian "patriots" could have been behind the plot on their own, Fox reported. Following President Donald Trump's decision Thursday to take the US out of the Paris Climate Accord talks, Putin said that there's still time to reach a deal on the 2015 pact even without the US's involvement, before adding, in English, "don't worry, be happy," according to Reuters.

    Despite the critism that has been heapened upon Trump by other world leaders since he announced his decision to leave the accord last night, Putin said that he "wouldn't blame Trump" for leaving the accord , though he hoped the White House would set its own climate rules.

    " By the way, we should be grateful to President Trump. In Moscow it's raining and cold and even, they say, some snow. Now we could blame this all on American imperialism, that it's all their fault. But we won't. "

    And though he said he hopes that US sanctions against Russia would soon be lifted, he noted that they did have some positive effects. "We had to use our brains," Putin said. "Not rely on oil and gas dollars." Allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin have dogged the new administration since before the inauguration. In recent weeks, US media have taken aim at Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, whom NBC and WaPo reported was a "person of interest" in the FBI' campaign.

    As a reminder, Kelly is set to interview Putin in St. Petersburg Friday for a Sunday night special that will air on NBC.

    mdr attitude - froze25 , Jun 2, 2017 3:41 PM

    Putin knows how to troll the MSM.

    And not even using Twitter. If he would use it, the leftards would meltdown in record time.

    MSM Finally Admits RussiaGate is Clinton's "Conspiracy Theory"

    [Jun 03, 2017] Key Takeaways From Intelligence Community Testimony On Alleged Russian Hacking

    Jun 03, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    For those disaffected Hillary snowflakes looking for some level of concrete, tangible evidence from today's Senate testimony from the "intelligence community" that "Russian Hackers" purposefully colluded with President-elect Trump to steal the 2016 election from Clinton, we have some bad news: your desire for evidence required to start World War III over your candidate's loss has still not been fulfilled. Better luck next time.

    As we suspected, today's testimony offered up by James Clapper and others of the "intelligence community" to the Senate's Armed Forces Committee has largely been nothing more than another smear campaign rife with political rhetoric but light on facts and tangible evidence.

    Asked whether Julian Assange was credible, Clapper, who ironically has lost all credibility throughout this process with his rapidly evolving story line, was quick to confirm in the negative. Per The Hill :

    When asked if Assange was credible, Clapper responded with a very noticeably annoyed look, "Not in my view."

    Navy Adm. Michael Rogers, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and director of National Security Agency responded, "I second those comments."

    Meanwhile, other comments aimed at Julian Assange drew some expected criticism from Wikileaks

    ... ... ...

    Clapper, apparently interviewing for a commentator spot at MSNBC, warned that hacking wasn't the extent of the efforts by Russia to meddle in the 2016 election which also included coordinated efforts from RT, and other "fake news" outlets, to exploit any "fissure they could find in our tapestry."

    " RT was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights, etc . Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it,"

    ... ... ...

    ..and warned against retaliatory efforts saying that "we and other nations conduct similar acts of espionage."

    "As I say, people in glass houses need to think about throwing rocks. This was an act of espionage. And we and other nations conduct similar acts of espionage."

    Per a note earlier this morning from The Hill , there are five key things to watch for as the hearing progresses:

    1. How many Republicans will criticize Trump's stance? - Both John McCain, who chairs the committee, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another member of the panel, have been vocal in their criticism of Trump's unwillingness to blindly accept the rapidly evolving "facts" presented by the "intelligence community."

    2. How strong is the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC? - After Julian Assange again appeared on Fox News earlier this week to confirm that his source was not Russia, or any "state actor" for that matter, the "intelligence community" once again changed its narrative this morning to imply that Russia hacked the DNC and John Podesta then provided that information to Wikileaks via a third party. Well, how convenient is that? We look forward to receiving some concrete, tangible evidence from Mr. Clapper on this new assertion.

    3. What evidence does the intelligence community have that Putin wanted to assist Trump? - The CIA, without supplying any evidence, reportedly believes that Russia was explicitly trying to help Trump - raising politically explosive questions about the degree to which it succeeded. Meanwhile, the White House has stopped short if that conclusion telling CNN that "President Obama and this administration is 100 percent certain in the role that Russia played in trying to sow discord and confusion and getting involved, through the cyber domain, in our electoral process." Will any actual evidence of collusion between Trump and Russian officials be presented?

    4. How much will the public get to see - and when? - Will this whole charade just be more political rhetoric , which is the only thing the "intelligence community" has provided to date, or will actual tangible evidence finally be presented to support the "Russian hacking" narrative.

    5. How much will either committee be able to do? - With a new administration taking over in 15 days will any of this actually matter or is it just a last-ditch effort to delegitimize the incoming administration?

    Of course, Trump has maintained a healthy dose of skepticism of the intelligence community's "facts." In a series of tweets earlier this week, Trump accused intelligence officials of delaying his briefing until Friday in order to build a case against Russia. He also noted comments from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange who has repeatedly said that his leaked material was not provided by the Russian government.

    spastic_colon , Jan 5, 2017 1:06 PM

    consider all of the supposed sources on the panel; the fact its even news, fake at that, is evidence enough the MSM is still over-populated with morons and sycophants.

    Tom Servo - spastic_colon , Jan 5, 2017 1:07 PM

    Clapper is already a "documented liar" - so why should we believe anything this shitbag said today?

    froze25 - xythras , Jan 5, 2017 1:11 PM

    All we need is a Closet Homosexual like Graham leading us into WW3, some body please just out this guy with a photo so we don't get into a nuclear exchange.

    Joe Davola - froze25 , Jan 5, 2017 1:16 PM

    The takeaway is that they would rather the 'election were hacked' than divulge how extensive and pervasive their big brother spying on every bit of communication traffic is. (Not that I think the election was hacked in the first place.)

    Life of Illusion - Joe Davola , Jan 5, 2017 1:24 PM

    Very long run since the 60's and now policy model broken as we witness scratch, screaming and blaming others going out the door.

    Kayman - Joe Davola , Jan 5, 2017 2:20 PM

    Who better to leave Russian fingerprints than the CIA Big slice of Yellow cake for anyone? Lie to the American people- no consequences.

    BennyBoy - Kayman , Jan 5, 2017 3:00 PM

    Fake news changed the election?

    But not the fake spews coming outta Hillary's hole?

    J S Bach - froze25 , Jan 5, 2017 1:18 PM

    " They didn't change any vote tallies," Clapper said, but "We have no way of gauging the impact that - certainly the Intelligence Community can't - the choices that the electorate made. There's no way for us to gauge."

    Hmmmm. Do they have a way of "gauging the impact" that our zio-controlled lying media may have had on the choices that the electorate made? Since this is a question of equal or greater importance, I just thought I'd ask.

    Offthebeach - J S Bach , Jan 5, 2017 2:47 PM

    They didn't change any vote tallies," Clapper said, but "We have no way of gauging .....There's no way for us to gauge."

    Well, which is it? They didn't. Definitive statement. Followed by we don't/can't know. WTF?

    Weasel.

    The Saint - froze25 , Jan 5, 2017 1:17 PM

    Clapper to MSNBC!! LOL Is that where all of Obama's moron appointments go to die?

    Freddie - froze25 , Jan 5, 2017 1:38 PM

    McCain, Graham, clapper and the rest totally involved in the genocide of Libya and Syria along with Clintons, Soros, Sid Blumenthal, Petreaus, KKR-Halliburton, Mike Morell-zio, White Helmets fraud, Nato, Epstein and the rest. They all need to be put on trial and arrested. Evil evil scum.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCTzFNrsKns&t=0s

    Tenshin Headache - , Jan 5, 2017 1:12 PM

    Because it deviates from the story line.

    JRobby - Tenshin Headache , Jan 5, 2017 1:16 PM

    In his summary remarks, Henrich spewing raw sewage out of his mouth like a fire hose. His conclusion: MORE SANCTIONS!

    And then, everyone present agreed! MORE SANCTIONS!

    Kabuki of the most perverse order.

    SoDamnMad - Tom Servo , Jan 5, 2017 1:20 PM

    "The Russians created deceptive operations within Iraq that caused the US to believe that Saddam Hussein possessed wepons of mass destruction."

    Colin Powell to the UN (must have been back in 2002-2003)

    azusgm - spastic_colon , Jan 5, 2017 1:27 PM

    "the MSM is still over-populated with morons and sycophants."

    Lindsey Graham: "I resemble that remark!"

    (What an enemy of the peace-loving people of this nation.)

    BTW, how about we spend some time focusing on the contents of the emails instead of making the narrative about the bogeyman Putin?

    Edward Bernays would be proud.

    Freddie - azusgm , Jan 5, 2017 3:08 PM

    I saw a video about JGs aka military attorneys which is what Graham was in the Navy or Naval Reserve. Supposedly they run a terror op and engage in a lot of the really dirty stuff that MIC, The Pentagram and Deep State enagge in.

    doctor10 - spastic_colon , Jan 5, 2017 3:00 PM

    the fake news about "Russian Hacking" originates from the NATO generation. They all are aware that is the first 20th century legacy institution on the chopping block.

    there simply is no need

    CheapBastard - hedgeless_horseman , Jan 5, 2017 1:16 PM

    The >$600 Billion defense industry needs an enemy, even if it needs to create one where none exists.

    11b40 - hedgeless_horseman , Jan 5, 2017 1:32 PM

    All of the MIC sweating over their trillion $ war budget. Got to keep things hot to justify the waste. To many tapped out taxpayers asking too many questions.

    logicalman - 11b40 , Jan 5, 2017 2:06 PM

    THE FUNCTION OF WASTE IN MODERN TOTALITARIANISM

    The production of weapons of mass destruction has always been associated with economic "waste." The term is pejorative, since it implies a failure of function. But no human activity can properly be considered wasteful if it achieves its contextual objective.... In the case of military "waste," there is indeed a larger social utility.... In advanced modern democratic societies, the war system ... has served as the last great safeguard against the elimination of necessary social classes. As economic productivity increases to a level further and further above that of minimum subsistence, it becomes more and more difficult for a society to maintain distribution patterns insuring the existence of "hewers of wood and drawers of water."... The arbitrary nature of war expenditures and of other military activities make them ideally suited to control these essential class relationships.... The continuance of the war system must be assured, if for no other reason, among others, than to preserve whatever quality and degree of poverty a society requires as an incentive, as well as to maintain the stability of its internal organization of power.

    The Creature from Jeckyll Island

    chunga - hedgeless_horseman , Jan 5, 2017 1:32 PM

    Still not a single one of them has the balls to mention Seth Rich or Eric Braverman. It's all fake, every bit of it.

    Tweet the shit out of it tRump, or you look fake too.

    AC_Doctor , Jan 5, 2017 1:08 PM

    Lindsey Graham and Democrat appointed Intelligence Heads is all you need to know.

    The Brown Clown and his reach arounders have only 14 more days to start a war with Russia.

    Mike Masr , Jan 5, 2017 1:17 PM

    This bullshit Russian interference narrative and politicized investigation is more sour grapes meant to discredit Donald Trump's election victory!

    * The anti-Trump protests and street riots didn't work.

    *The Jill Stein recount failed miserably and actually gave Trump more votes!

    *Death threats to intimidate the Electoral College failed.

    *Now it's the fake news that "Russia did it".

    Where is the investigation on all of this?

    It's already out from a close friend of Julian Assange that it was a disgruntled Bernie Sanders DNC insider that "leaked" the emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks and NOT Russian hacking. Maybe Seth Rich? The Obama Administration is ignoring this and continuing with its idiotic "Russia did it" narrative which is "fake news". Donald is right, not one shred of real and credible evidence.

    Assange said that a 14 year old could have hacked John Podesta's emails!

    This is just a vague circumstancial case to justify the fake Obama narrative to discredit Donald Trump's election victory.

    Fuck Obama, fuck crooked Hillary......15 more days libtards!

    aliki •Jan 5, 2017 1:09 PM take-away was simple mccain & lindsey are ass-hurt nobody picked them to play president for the next 4 years as a result, they want war with russia, iran, china, north korea id love nothing more than for trump to fire them by executive order its ironic to hear a pair of clowns say how assange has put our troops in harms-way coming from a pair of guys who never met a country they wanted to bomb & follow-up with an invasion then they talk about countries wanting to ruin our democratic process coming from the guys who had the cia train rebels to overthrow assad, overthrew saddam, tried to overthrow everyone in iran, kim-jon, stacking troops/tanks on the russian border fucking histerical the democrats have no idea why they lost the republicans have no idea why they won

    besnook , Jan 5, 2017 1:23 PM

    the usa has jumped every shark in the ocean. there are about three people who believe the russian meme and these zionazis can't stop over selling a dead meme. what are they up to? there is no election for another 2 years and trump is not going to war with russia. all they are doing to making sure their legacy depicts them as the craven fools they are.

    stant , Jan 5, 2017 1:23 PM

    1.2 billion$ went up in smoke by Hillary , = blame the rooskies . Still wont save the demo crap party, and half the repugnants

    dltff-ya , Jan 5, 2017 1:24 PM

    This is show time. Sources and Methods be damned. Kennedy showed the reconnaissance photos of Russian Missiles in Cuba. This demonstration is the super bowl. There is no tomorrow for them if they can't convince us they are not lying, so there is no point he holding back. Snowden might be an interesting source for this. His knowledge is a bit stale now, but he knows that the NSA can do, and if there is no forthcoming NSA public evidence, nothing redacted, then Clapper, et. al. lied before congress and should be prosecuted.

    Lets have a confrontation the Russian experts in public like Kennedy did over the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is the Super bowl. There is no game tomorrow for these guys if they can't produce convincing evidence now. The moment the intelligence services are invented for. is NOW. I heard nothing today but bloviating. They did not even go into that Cozy bear Fancy bear crap. That story falls apart in your hands. Now there tack is that the Russian wanted us to know it was them so they were sloppy. Clapper, Graham, and McCain can be guilty of presenting false testimony to congress, or can be put under oath and ambushed into making statements they knew were false.

    Bopper09 , Jan 5, 2017 1:29 PM

    The biggest problem today was reality. Fuck it must be hard trying to convince an entire globe that we should be going to war without any facts or truth to anything. I can't believe these clowns actually sat through this like they were somehow relevant. How doesn't someone stand up in the middle of this and just say "Come on guys, really, come on. This is absolutely ridiculous. You can't continue to make shit up. Come on. Seriously."

    Who was that ma... , Jan 5, 2017 1:32 PM

    "Older men start wars, but younger men fight them." ~ Albert Einstein

    "Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die." ~ Herbert Hoover

    "I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in." ~ George S. McGovern

    The other day, I saw one of those bumper stickers that says, "War is Not the Answer". It's a silly bumper sticker because it provides an "answer" but fails to provide the corresponding question. Yes, I know it's a Liberal thing but what they should be saying is that, Government is Not the Answer because, for government, war IS the answer. For government and for those in government, war means power, and wealth, and influence. For the rest of us, war means only death and destruction and poverty.

    Bavarian , Jan 5, 2017 1:45 PM

    OMG, he's got nothing. Clapperclaimed today thathe's "ready" to brief Trump with his evidence. We're all still waiting. I'm so glad someone is taking these intel weenies to task. They've been hiding behind their secrecy for decades saying whatever they want with zero repercussions as they always deter to need-to-know tactics to silence all questions. Well, a new day has arrived, IC. You will learnthe word ACCOUNTABILITY. You might have to look it up.

    How this guy isn't in prison is beyond me.He's a known liar in front of congress. What, did they really have the audacity of swearing him in again? He, Graham, McCain ad Ryan are all squealing like frightened rabbit being pulled out of their holes.This stance of "listen to me because I'm important" rhetoric has lost its luster. People are finally wising up to their crap. Put up or shut up, Clapper.

    AriusArmenian , Jan 5, 2017 1:53 PM

    Amazing that Trump is standing firm against the US anti-'intelligence' agencies.

    He must realize that he is in danger of being JFK'd.

    The CIA has stuck its neck way out this time.

    They must be extremely desperate.

    They want war with Russia and could well JFK Trump to get it.

    DarthVaderMentor , Jan 5, 2017 2:04 PM

    Well, that confirms it. The "Intelligence Community" leadership (and I use the term "intelligence" and "leadership" rather loosely) of Clapper, Brennan and Morel set off the alarm based on no factual evidence for political purposes, trying to trap Trump with the American flag and the red menace just like they did to GW Bush on the Iraq WMD and to the nigga with ISIS the JV team. They did this solely to help Hillary with her donors and hurt Trump.

    Time to clean out the 17 intelligence agencies and ODNI. You can't trust the analysts and there's too few in the front lines doing real HUMINT.

    Let's call the Democrats now McCarthyists!

    Vin , Jan 5, 2017 2:14 PM

    I dont' give a shit if the Russians hacked the DNC or not.

    I do care about the criminality exposed.

    LET'D TALK ABOUT THE CRIMINALITY AND PUT SOME DEMONRATS IN JAIL!

    crazybob369 , Jan 5, 2017 2:27 PM

    Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting this dιjΰ-vu feeling all over again (to paraphrase Yogi). This ridiculous idea that the Russians somehow won the election for Trump, by hacking and other means, sounds eerily familiar to the WMDs that Iraq supposedly had, that Colon (sic)Powell, et-al, used as an excuse to lead us towar(s) thatare now going on two decades. Fine and dandy against a third world country, fighting with decades old weaponry, never mind that it's taken the life of many brave, young, gullible Americans, as well as 10's of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, but it's a whole different ball game against the Russians. Any type of conventional war against Russia is suicide (if in doubt, ask Napoleon, or Hitler) and if there is a conventional war and either side starts losing, the war goes nuclear and we are all fucked. The only saving grace is that most have us have seen this movie before and hopefully we're not stupid enough to fall for this plot the second time around, because if we do, there ain't going to be a third.

    [Jun 03, 2017] Either they dont understand the damage theyre doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt

    Jun 03, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova, June 03, 2017 at 01:05 PM

    Another interesting quote from Putin speech:

    "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans,"

    "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

    Putin I Can Prove Trump Did Not Pass Secrets to Russia

    [Jun 02, 2017] I think that the Soviet Threat, the basis for the Cold War, was a hoax. It was created by the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us to no effect by

    views Zbigniew Brzezinski through the rose glasses. In reality Zbig Russophobia was based on that same desire to dominate the globe that had driven British elite to Russophobia before. Plus desire of MIC to preserve its size and profits and return to the good old days of Cold War. The US militarism is business driven militarism, which makes it even more dangerious.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Soviet Threat removed itself when hardline communists arrested Soviet President Gorbachev. This ill-conceived intervention collapsed the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Threat removed, the US military/security complex no longer had a justification for its massive budget. ..."
    "... Despite 16 years of Washington's wars against countries ranging from North Africa to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, the "Muslim threat" does not suffice to justify the $1.1 trillion US military/security annual budget. Consequently, the Russian Threat has been resurrected. ..."
    "... Russia can bite back. For a quarter century Russia has watched Washington prepare for a paralyzing nuclear strike on Russia. Recently, the Russian High Command announced that the Russian military has concluded that Washington does intend a surprise nuclear strike against Russia. ..."
    "... The insouciant populations of the West, including the members of the governments, do not appreciate that they are living on the edge of nuclear destruction. ..."
    "... The very few of us who alert you are dismissed as "Russian agents," "anti-semites," and "conspiracy theorists." When you hear a source called a "Russian agent," an "anti-semite," or a "conspiracy theorist," you had better listen to them. These are those in the know who accept arrow slings in order to tell you the truth. ..."
    "... The most important truth of our time is that the world lives on the knife-edge of the American military/security complex's need for an enemy in order to keep profits flowing. The brutal fact is this: For the sake of its profits, the American military/security complex has subjected the entire world to the risk of nuclear Armageddon. ..."
    Jun 02, 2017 | www.unz.com
    I think that the "Soviet Threat," the basis for the Cold War, was a hoax. It was created by the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us to no effect. The patriotic war movies, the patriotic Memorial Days and July 4ths with emotional thanks to those who died "saving our freedoms," which were never in danger from the Japanese and Germans, only from our own government, succeeded in brainwashing even National Security Advisors. Little wonder the insouciance of the American population today.

    The Cold War was an orchestration of the military/security complex, and there are many victims. Brzezinski was a victim as the Cold War was his life. JFK was a victim as he lost his life to it. The Vietnamese, who died in the millions, were victims The photo of the naked young Vietnamese girl fleeing down the road in terror from the American napham behind her made us aware that the Cold War had many innocent victims. The Soviet troops sent to Afghanistan were victims as were the Afghans themselves.

    The Soviet Threat removed itself when hardline communists arrested Soviet President Gorbachev. This ill-conceived intervention collapsed the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Threat removed, the US military/security complex no longer had a justification for its massive budget.

    Treading water while looking for a new justification for bleeding the American taxpayer, the military/security complex had President Clinton declare the US to be the World Policeman and to destroy Yugoslavia in the name of "human rights." With Israeli and neoconservative input, the military/security complex used 9/11 to create the "Muslim Terrorist Threat." This hoax has now murdered, maimed, dispossessed, and displaced millions of Muslims in seven countries.

    Despite 16 years of Washington's wars against countries ranging from North Africa to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, the "Muslim threat" does not suffice to justify the $1.1 trillion US military/security annual budget. Consequently, the Russian Threat has been resurrected.

    The Muslim Threat was never a danger to the US. It is only a danger to Washington's European vassal states, who had to accept millions of Muslim refugees from Washington's wars. However, the newly created Russian Threat is a threat to every American as well as to every European.

    Russia can bite back. For a quarter century Russia has watched Washington prepare for a paralyzing nuclear strike on Russia. Recently, the Russian High Command announced that the Russian military has concluded that Washington does intend a surprise nuclear strike against Russia.

    This dire Russian announcement received no western press coverage. No high official of any Western government, Trump included, called Putin to give reassurances that no such attack on Russia was being planned.

    So, what happens next time when a false alarm, such as the one Brzezinski received, is received by his counterpart in Moscow or the National Security Council? Will the animosities resurrected by the evil US military/security complex result in the Russians or the US believing the false signal?

    The insouciant populations of the West, including the members of the governments, do not appreciate that they are living on the edge of nuclear destruction.

    The very few of us who alert you are dismissed as "Russian agents," "anti-semites," and "conspiracy theorists." When you hear a source called a "Russian agent," an "anti-semite," or a "conspiracy theorist," you had better listen to them. These are those in the know who accept arrow slings in order to tell you the truth.

    You will never, ever, get the truth from the Western media or from any Western government. (See: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/06/02/israels-slaughter-us-sailors/ )

    The most important truth of our time is that the world lives on the knife-edge of the American military/security complex's need for an enemy in order to keep profits flowing. The brutal fact is this: For the sake of its profits, the American military/security complex has subjected the entire world to the risk of nuclear Armageddon.

    [Jun 02, 2017] Stephen F. Cohen just wants Trump and Putin to get along by Isaac Chotiner

    what is really interesting that there were only a couple of sane individuals (Jack Paper , Wilfred_Blake, PT come to mind ) and in the whole discussion thread. The level of hysteria is really incredible and remind me of Stalinist Russia. People are so brainwashed into new McCartyism, that Senator McCarthy is he would know, probably is really proud and little bit envious at the results achieved. This collective Senator McCarthy that MSM now represent proved to be more dramatically efficient
    Notable quotes:
    "... Threat. OK. Threat. That's a good word. We're in a moment when we need an American president and a Kremlin leader to act at the highest level of statesmanship. Whether they meet in summit or not is not of great importance, but we need intense negotiations to tamp down this new Cold War, particularly in Syria, but not only. Trump is being crippled by these charges, for which I can find no facts whatsoever. ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... You need Trump because he's in the White House. I didn't put him there. I didn't vote for him. Putin's in the Kremlin. I didn't put him in the Kremlin either, but we have what we have, and these guys must have a serious dialog about tamping down these cold wars, which means cooperating on various fronts. The obvious one-and they already are secretly, but it's getting torpedoed-is Syria. ..."
    "... "This assault on Trump, for which as yet there are zero facts, has become a grave threat to American national security." ..."
    "... So we come now with this so-called Russiagate. You know what that means. It's our shorthand, right? And Trump, even if he was the most wonderfully qualified president, he is utterly crippled in his ability to do diplomacy with the Kremlin. So let me give you the counterfactual example. ..."
    "... Imagine that Kennedy had been accused of somehow being, they used to accuse him of being an agent of the Vatican, but let's say he had been accused widely of being an agent of the Kremlin. The only way he could have ended the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been to prove his loyalty by going to nuclear war with Russia. That's the situation we're in today. I mean Trump is not free to take wise advice and use whatever smarts he has to negotiate down this new and dangerous Cold War, so this assault on Trump, for which as yet there are zero facts, has become a grave threat to American national security. That's what I meant. That's what I believe. ..."
    "... So we don't have any forensic evidence that there was a hack. There might have been. If there was a hack, we have no evidence it was the Russians, and we have an alternative explanation that it was actually a leak, that somebody inside did a Snowden, just stuck a thumb drive in and walked out with this stuff. We don't know. And when you don't know, you don't go to war. ..."
    "... On the face of it, because it so deviated from American mainstream thinking about Putin, which was that he was a demon-that's what was startling about Trump, you're absolutely right. That he alone of all the candidates, even when we had multiple ones in the Democratic and Republican primaries, so far as I recall, he alone made this statement, I think I quote exactly, "Wouldn't it be great if we cooperated with Russia?" My answer is not only great but imperative. He also said, he also said he didn't know that Putin was actually a killer of personal enemies. That is correct. There is no evidence to support those allegations. He also said that Putin is a strong leader. That is also correct. ..."
    "... I'm saying that the people with expertise and independence who examined, for example, the Litvinenko poisoning in London, find no evidence that Putin was involved. [Ed. note: A public inquiry in the United Kingdom found that Putin had "probably" approved his murder.] These are not Russians or Americans. These are just people who know about polonium. I'm saying that the newspaper in Moscow-and you're not quite correct that there's no free press in Moscow. There is a small, embattled free press in Moscow. I and my wife are very, very close, very close to the primary one, that's Novaya Gazeta ..."
    "... Wait a minute. Let me just get to the point. That notion that he had her killed and put his signature on it is beyond ridiculous. Why? The next day he comes out, there's a press conference, and he's asked about her killing and the charges that the Kremlin was behind it, and he said something that might have been, what's the word? Not politic. Not diplomatic, but it was true. Essentially, I don't remember exactly what he said. Why would we want to kill her? Nobody in Russia read her. She had no influence in Russia. ..."
    "... Why did you kill her? ..."
    "... Why would I want to kill her? What was my motive? ..."
    "... You know, Anna was a great journalist, we mourn her death, but let's be serious. She was not an influential force in Russia. ..."
    "... My view is that this Cold War is even more dangerous. As we talk today, and this was not the case in the preceding Cold War, there are three new fronts that are fraught with hot war. You know them as well as I do. The NATO military build-up is going on in the Baltic regions, particularly in the three small Baltic countries, Poland, and if we include missile defense, Romania. That's right on Russia's border, and in Ukraine. You know that story. That's a proxy civil war right on Russia's border, and then of course in Syria, where American and Russian aircraft and Syrian aircraft are flying over the same airspace. ..."
    "... And a nation, but a country that has long been deeply divided by history or by God. I mean, we're talking ethnicity, language, religion, political tilting. One part tilts toward Russia, one part tilts toward the West. Many millions of Ukrainians and Russians have intermarried over the years. This is a country that always had the potential to either break apart or launch into civil war. The events of 2014, for which both sides are highly culpable, initiated a civil war. This entourage around Putin, one segment of it was absolutely 1,000 percent convinced that NATO was headed via Kiev to Crimea. Had Crimea fallen in any way to NATO, any way, even in the shadow of NATO, Putin would have had to either go to war or resign. No Russian leader would have been able to sustain that kind of defeat. ..."
    "... I don't want to go down in a subway and get blown up. It's going to happen. The Russians are excellent at this. They've got great intelligence. We're pretty good-not as good as the Russians. We need to combine it all. I see that this kind of alliance is good; we move on then to finding the solution in Ukraine and in the Baltic region. That's what Reagan did. Do you remember that Reagan going to Geneva, I think it was November 1985? Then two years later-I think this is right-he and Gorbachev for the first time in history, Isaac, abolished an entire category of nuclear weapons. This is what I want. This is probably what's not possible. ..."
    "... I mean for Christ's sake. Have you watched Carter Page on television? ..."
    "... Correction, May 30, 2017: This article originally misstated that the Moscow hotel mentioned in the dossier was the St. Regis. It was the Ritz-Carlton. ( Return .) ..."
    "... I see little independent evidence that Putin wanted Trump specifically to be elected rather than wanting HRC not to be elected. There was no attempt at interfering with the GOP primary in Trump's favor. Any notion that Trump was groomed by Putin in some kind of long game defies reason. Simply put, no one could have had any confidence that Trump would win, ever. ..."
    "... So if both of these assumptions hold, what the Democrats are creating, essentially, is a "stab in the back" myth on which they can focus their anger while muddying issues of accountability. Putin, I think it's clear, did not think that Trump had much chance of winning. To say he got "lucky" also doesn't describe the current reality, because this issue will probably taint US-Russian relations far into the future, and in ways no one could have foreseen. ..."
    "... But then it's also possible that this will taint American politics into the distant future. The thing about stab-in-the-back myths is that they're emotional, it's extremely difficult for people to a discuss them. much less turn a contested narrative into one based upon mutual agreement. This will be true whether Trump gets impeached or serves two terms. ..."
    "... "Europeans have an opinion of Americans as people who hysterically overreact to even the smallest of problems, real, or imagined" ..."
    "... And what did exactly Putin did? Told everyone what they already knew about Hillary Clinton? American politics is all about negative ads and made up stuff about other candidates, how exactly was it news to anyone that Hillary Clinton was plotting to bring down Bernie Sanders? Did you guys never have an election before? ..."
    "... Are you saying Putin finances Antifa? Because so far they have been the biggest force behind making Trump and Alt-Right look good. That would not be impossible, some corporations did that with environmental groups and they highlight targets for them that were either competitors or themselves but to paint those corporations as victims of unreasonable radicals (hence drowning any constructive criticism). ..."
    "... His brilliant placement of several thousand Russian operatives in MI, WI and PA, who were able to bribe a significant number of voters to tip the electoral scale in Trump's favor, was simply brilliant. ..."
    "... While this guy isn't saying Trump is right, in as nice a way possible he is saying the NeoCon/NeoLibs are as much to blame and the anti-Russian hysteria is overblown, out of control and incredibly short-sighted. ..."
    "... I don't think the Russian interference amounted to a hill of beans in this election. If you think it did, you are delusional. Do you really think some person in the Midwest changed their vote because of what was in the Podesta emails? You're an idiot if you think that. ..."
    "... And let's not forget our own interference. ..."
    "... So why should Russia trust a country that reneged on its promises and expanded its way to Russia's border? ..."
    consortiumnews.com

    Stephen F. Cohen has long been one of the leading scholars of Russia and the Soviet Union. He wrote a biography of the Bolshevik revolutionary Nikolai Bukharin and is a contributing editor at the Nation, which his wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, edits and publishes. In recent years, Cohen has emerged as a more ideologically dexterous figure, ripping those he thinks are pursuing a "new Cold War" with Russia and calling for President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to form "an alliance against international terrorism." Cohen has gone so far as to describe the investigations into the Trump campaign and Russia "the No. 1 threat to the United States today."

    ... ... ...

    I heard you recently on Fox News. You said that the "assault" on President Trump "was the No. 1 threat to the United States today." What did you mean by that?

    Threat. OK. Threat. That's a good word. We're in a moment when we need an American president and a Kremlin leader to act at the highest level of statesmanship. Whether they meet in summit or not is not of great importance, but we need intense negotiations to tamp down this new Cold War, particularly in Syria, but not only. Trump is being crippled by these charges, for which I can find no facts whatsoever.

    Wait, which charges are we talking about?

    That he is somehow in the thrall or complicity or control, under the influence of the Kremlin.

    I think it would help if he would admit what his own intelligence agencies are telling him, that Russia played some role in

    No, I don't accept that. I don't accept that at all, not for one minute.

    People in the Trump administration admit this too.

    Well they're not the brightest lights.

    And the president is?

    No. You didn't ask me that. You asked me, you said, some of the president's people. You're referring to that intel report of January, correct? The one that was produced that said Putin directed the attack on the DNC?

    I was referring to that and many news accounts that Russia was behind the hacking, yes.

    The news accounts are of no value to us. I mean you and I both know ...

    No value? None?

    No. No value. Not on face value. Just because the New York Times says that I don't know, Carter Page or [Paul] Manafort or [Michael] Flynn did something wrong, I don't accept that. I need to see the evidence.

    So then how do you know what's going on in, say, Ukraine? You're not reading "news accounts" of it?

    I read on the internet mainly. I can't read Ukrainian very well, but most of the sources coming out of Ukraine are in Russian anyway.

    So that media's OK, but the New York Times isn't?

    No. It absolutely is not OK. No, no, no, no, no, no.

    OK, let's just go back to what you were saying about Trump being hamstrung.

    You need Trump because he's in the White House. I didn't put him there. I didn't vote for him. Putin's in the Kremlin. I didn't put him in the Kremlin either, but we have what we have, and these guys must have a serious dialog about tamping down these cold wars, which means cooperating on various fronts. The obvious one-and they already are secretly, but it's getting torpedoed-is Syria.

    So we come now with this so-called Russiagate. You know what that means. It's our shorthand, right? And Trump, even if he was the most wonderfully qualified president, he is utterly crippled in his ability to do diplomacy with the Kremlin. So let me give you the counterfactual example.

    Imagine that Kennedy had been accused of somehow being, they used to accuse him of being an agent of the Vatican, but let's say he had been accused widely of being an agent of the Kremlin. The only way he could have ended the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been to prove his loyalty by going to nuclear war with Russia. That's the situation we're in today. I mean Trump is not free to take wise advice and use whatever smarts he has to negotiate down this new and dangerous Cold War, so this assault on Trump, for which as yet there are zero facts, has become a grave threat to American national security. That's what I meant. That's what I believe.

    To use your Kennedy example, there was no evidence that Kennedy was an agent of either the Vatican or the Kremlin-

    No, but Isaac you're not old enough to remember, but during the campaign, because he was the first Catholic, they all went on about he's an agent of the Vatican.

    I know that. I'm old enough to have read "news accounts" of it. Anyway, there was a hacking of the DNC and-

    Wait actually no, Isaac stop. Stop. Now, I mean we don't know that for a fact.

    That there was a hacking of the DNC?

    Yeah we do not know that for a fact.

    What do we think happened?

    Well ...

    So you're really going to argue with me that the DNC wasn't hacked?

    I'm saying I don't know that to be the case.

    OK.

    I will refer you to an alternative report and you can decide yourself.

    Can we agree on this much at least: that Trump said there was a hack, refused to say who he thought did it, encouraged the hackers to keep doing it, at the same time that he was getting intelligence reports that it was the Russians, and that he continued to talk very positively about Putin after he was told this?

    You've given me too many facts to process, but if Trump said he knew it was a hack, he was not fully informed. We just don't know it for a fact, Isaac.

    So we don't have any forensic evidence that there was a hack. There might have been. If there was a hack, we have no evidence it was the Russians, and we have an alternative explanation that it was actually a leak, that somebody inside did a Snowden, just stuck a thumb drive in and walked out with this stuff. We don't know. And when you don't know, you don't go to war.

    Let me try another tactic.

    It's not me making this stuff up. It's not my opinion. It's just out there. I read it, and I think it's credible.

    Why do you think Trump, who has essentially, as far as I can tell, no clue about what's going on anywhere and can't keep his mind on some issue for 10 minutes, has had in his head consistently time and again that we must make peace with Putin, we must come together with Putin, Putin's a good guy? What do you make of that?

    Well you have given me a kind of primitive version of what Trump said. First of all, I don't share the view that Trump's an idiot. Trump's a clever, cunning, smart man, or he wouldn't have become Donald Trump. Whether that's applicable to the presidency is a different question, but to treat him as a buffoon and an idiot is just silly.

    On the face of it, because it so deviated from American mainstream thinking about Putin, which was that he was a demon-that's what was startling about Trump, you're absolutely right. That he alone of all the candidates, even when we had multiple ones in the Democratic and Republican primaries, so far as I recall, he alone made this statement, I think I quote exactly, "Wouldn't it be great if we cooperated with Russia?" My answer is not only great but imperative. He also said, he also said he didn't know that Putin was actually a killer of personal enemies. That is correct. There is no evidence to support those allegations. He also said that Putin is a strong leader. That is also correct.

    You say there's no evidence Putin was a killer. Don't you think if Russia had a more robust free press and was more of a liberal democracy, evidence might actually emerge?

    There's no evidence. I know there are allegations, but I have looked into the three or four most famous cases. I can't look at them all because there's about 30 now, some of them withdrawn.

    So you're saying these Putin enemies who keep turning up dead in Moscow, and then those deaths are not properly investigated, there's no evidence that Putin was behind them? That's your argument?

    Not behind, that's correct. He was not behind. He didn't order the killings, yes.

    We know that because there's been a fair investigation and there's a free press to report on that? That's what you are saying?

    I'm saying that the people with expertise and independence who examined, for example, the Litvinenko poisoning in London, find no evidence that Putin was involved. [Ed. note: A public inquiry in the United Kingdom found that Putin had "probably" approved his murder.] These are not Russians or Americans. These are just people who know about polonium. I'm saying that the newspaper in Moscow-and you're not quite correct that there's no free press in Moscow. There is a small, embattled free press in Moscow. I and my wife are very, very close, very close to the primary one, that's Novaya Gazeta. That's the newspaper that employed Anna Politkovskaya and several other journalists that were assassinated.

    Who killed her?

    I mean, I don't know who killed her. They've arrested the gunman, but they never get to the contract-giver. It almost certainly came out of Chechnya, almost certainly.

    And who runs Chechnya?

    You're headed now into a complicated turf.

    You know who runs Chechnya, and you know who his patron is.

    Let me put it to you like this: On the chart of federal authority, Ramzan Kadyrov runs Chechnya, and Putin could remove him.

    OK, well, there you go.

    No, that's the beginning of the discussion. What would happen in Chechnya if Putin removed Kadyrov? He either leaves Kadyrov in power and tries to rein him in, or the Russian army tries again to occupy Chechnya, which was a catastrophe two times under Yeltsin. You can't do it. What choice does Putin have at the moment?

    Didn't Putin speak disparagingly after Anna's death and say she had "minimal influence"?

    Wait a minute. Let me just get to the point. That notion that he had her killed and put his signature on it is beyond ridiculous. Why? The next day he comes out, there's a press conference, and he's asked about her killing and the charges that the Kremlin was behind it, and he said something that might have been, what's the word? Not politic. Not diplomatic, but it was true. Essentially, I don't remember exactly what he said. Why would we want to kill her? Nobody in Russia read her. She had no influence in Russia. What he said was about 95 percent true. Very few people except the inner political class knew who Anna Politkovskaya was, just like the great majority of Americans don't know who Stephen Cohen and Isaac Chotiner are. We are known to the people who care about the things we do.

    What he was saying was, when people said, Why did you kill her? He said, Why would I want to kill her? What was my motive? He shouldn't have said it, I guess. He should have said, You know, Anna was a great journalist, we mourn her death, but let's be serious. She was not an influential force in Russia. That would have been better but he just, he's a blunt sort of guy. He said what he said.

    Let's turn to Putin and America. Why do you think we have entered a new Cold War?

    My view is that this Cold War is even more dangerous. As we talk today, and this was not the case in the preceding Cold War, there are three new fronts that are fraught with hot war. You know them as well as I do. The NATO military build-up is going on in the Baltic regions, particularly in the three small Baltic countries, Poland, and if we include missile defense, Romania. That's right on Russia's border, and in Ukraine. You know that story. That's a proxy civil war right on Russia's border, and then of course in Syria, where American and Russian aircraft and Syrian aircraft are flying over the same airspace.

    And there is the utter demonization of Putin in this country. It is just beyond anything that the American political elite ever said about Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and the rest. If you demonize the other side, it makes negotiating harder.

    You just said that Ukraine is a civil war. What was the Russian annexation of Crimea?

    There's a long history, but it is a civil war in the sense that Ukraine is a country.

    We agree on that.

    And a nation, but a country that has long been deeply divided by history or by God. I mean, we're talking ethnicity, language, religion, political tilting. One part tilts toward Russia, one part tilts toward the West. Many millions of Ukrainians and Russians have intermarried over the years. This is a country that always had the potential to either break apart or launch into civil war. The events of 2014, for which both sides are highly culpable, initiated a civil war. This entourage around Putin, one segment of it was absolutely 1,000 percent convinced that NATO was headed via Kiev to Crimea. Had Crimea fallen in any way to NATO, any way, even in the shadow of NATO, Putin would have had to either go to war or resign. No Russian leader would have been able to sustain that kind of defeat.

    Gallup did a poll afterward that 80-some percent of Crimeans wanted to be reunited with Russia.

    You're explaining the way Putin and his advisers were thinking, which I agree is important context, but that doesn't give you the right to invade a sovereign country regardless of what a Gallup poll may say.

    Isaac, come on. Great powers preach international law, and they do what they think they must.

    If a province in any country votes for independence certainly the Crimeans did. There's just no question that that was a legitimate referendum. People get a little confused about what the choice was.

    But this referendum was after the Russians had gone in.

    No, no, no. Well ... wait, wait, wait, wait. Russia was already there by treaty. There were approximately 23,000 Russian soldiers at the naval base in Crimea, at Sevastopol. It was an invasion only in the sense that they left the base on Crimea.

    [The idea of Crimea being part of Russia] was alive in Russia for years and years. Putin was never interested in it. ... That was a sleeping dog, which should not have been awakened, but the events of 2014 awakened it. Once that happened, it was close to inevitable that Russia would proceed with the annexation of Crimea, which was a part of Russia for 300 years.

    What's now Pakistan was part of India for a long time. That doesn't mean India can go in and take Lahore tomorrow.

    You know if we follow your logic, we're going to end up in Texas. We got to stay in modern history where leaders have a memory.

    You and I are going to end up in Texas?

    Well, you know what I mean. Texas wasn't always ours. The point is how far back in history do we go?

    That's my point. Anyway, what did you mean when you said leakers here had become a fourth branch of government, and one intent on undermining Trump?

    When I was asked what's driving the leaking, because you would agree that virtually every day almost there's a new news story that's based on a leak. You have to go back to when it began, which was the summer of 2016. The Clinton campaign was deeply involved. You know the story of this dossier right?

    Yes.

    The one BuzzFeed published?

    I do.

    It's the one that has urinating in the Ritz-Carlton hotel.*

    I was trying to get you to keep going without saying that, but there you go.

    Well, take it out. But there's a serious point here. CNN, where they broadcast 1,000 hours about this dossier as though it's authentic, says it won't repeat that part because it's too salacious. No, the reason is if you broadcast that part, people would realize the whole thing is bullshit.

    I don't want to go down in a subway and get blown up. It's going to happen. The Russians are excellent at this. They've got great intelligence. We're pretty good-not as good as the Russians. We need to combine it all. I see that this kind of alliance is good; we move on then to finding the solution in Ukraine and in the Baltic region. That's what Reagan did. Do you remember that Reagan going to Geneva, I think it was November 1985? Then two years later-I think this is right-he and Gorbachev for the first time in history, Isaac, abolished an entire category of nuclear weapons. This is what I want. This is probably what's not possible.

    Steve, I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me. I hope when this is printed that you will believe it is real news and not fake news.

    No, no, no. Let me make a distinction. Opinion, what you and I think, is real news. It's our news. It's what we think. But when I read in the newspaper that Carter Page was somehow a Russian agent, I had plenty of reasons to know that that is really a super bogus report.

    [Jun 02, 2017] Forum - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... The comments under that piece are depressing. US liberals are such dumb assholes, disturbing how they're totally buying the anti-Russian narrative without any thought for the possible consequences. ..."
    "... Cohen is an intelligent, accurate commentator and historian on Russian matters. The lamestream media, including Slate as indicated by the interviewer and other articles, seem to have it in for Russia in the manner of fascist propaganda. Of course, the fact Russia has a large store of nukes, makes the prevailing propaganda meme not only criminal but nihilistically stupid. ..."
    Jun 02, 2017 | www.unz.com

    German_reader , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 1:28 am GMT

    The comments under that piece are depressing. US liberals are such dumb assholes, disturbing how they're totally buying the anti-Russian narrative without any thought for the possible consequences.

    WorkingClass , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 2:59 am GMT

    I have to wonder why SLATE published this. Too much truth!

    exiled off mainstreet , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 3:50 am GMT

    Cohen is an intelligent, accurate commentator and historian on Russian matters. The lamestream media, including Slate as indicated by the interviewer and other articles, seem to have it in for Russia in the manner of fascist propaganda. Of course, the fact Russia has a large store of nukes, makes the prevailing propaganda meme not only criminal but nihilistically stupid.

    exiled off mainstreet , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 3:52 am GMT

    @German_reader They robotically follow the party propaganda line like nihilist fascist lemmings almost like those following the prevailing view during the tausendjaehrige.

    Nobody , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 5:17 am GMT

    It wasn't too long ago that the lefties wanted to be bestest friends with the USSR. Now, Putin is our enemy.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 6:08 am GMT

    Breathtaking how WITHIN DAYS after November 8, 2016 all the former Russia-loving Left-Totalitarians did a smooth 180 and now spout anti-Russian rhetoric that would have seemed overwrought to Cold Warriors back in the 1950s.

    Chuck , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT

    Putin's a good goy:

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/197664/holocaust-deniers-in-russia-now-face-five-years-in/

    utu , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT

    @Eagle Eye Left-Totalitarians did a smooth 180

    It is easy for them. Till June 22, 1941 all communist in America were isolationists and supported America First, Charles Lindbergh. They were writing pacifist pamphlets and composed anti-war songs, etc. And within one day they switched 180. Took them some effort to cover up traces of their isolationist and pacifist episode.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-when-communism-inspired-americans/#comment-1855425
    "Professor Zinn, in May of 1941 your friend, Pete Seeger, produced an album called Songs for John Doe which was a collection of blue collar songs that included one called The Ballad of October 16th. [At the time, Pete Seeger had formed his first commercial band called the Almanac Singers.] That song demonstrated yours and Pete's pacifist philosophy by excoriating Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt for urging United States entry into World War II to fight Hitler. Shortly after the album's release, you and Pete were desperately trying to retrieve all the copies to take them out of circulation. Exactly what happened between May and June of 1941 to turn you from devoted anti-war activists into sabre-rattling patriots, resulting in your enlisting in the Army Air Force as a bombardier?"

    RobinG , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT

    @Eagle Eye The Clintonistas and Berniacs have shamelessly united to attack Trump, cynically using the fakest of fake news. This weekend they're marching "for Truth." If that were true, why aren't they marching to investigate Hillary and who killed Seth Rich?

    But no. On June 3 they're out to get Trump.
    "Demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election and ties to Donald Trump, his administration and his associates." https://www.marchfortruth.info/

    Meanwhile, barely a peep about illegal, unconstitutional attacks on Syria, or huge sale of arms to Saudis that will likely end up with terrorists. A better investigation would be Who Killed Seth Rich. Ask for one here:

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-murder-seth-rich-alleged-wikileaks-email-leaker

    On July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice in the early morning as he walked back to his house in Washington D.C. Immediately after the crime, the death was called an armed robbery but none of Seth Rich's belongings were taken from him.

    Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up. MSM is not covering this murder, instead pushing it to the side, so it is now up to us.

    The facts do not add up, law enforcement stopped covering the crime, and now it is time for us to fight for justice. Seth Rich deserves this.

    Ryan , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT

    I got the sense that the reporter was in high school or something. Totally immature.

    Agent76 , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 9:57 pm GMT

    14.05.2017 International Cyber Attack: Roots Traced to US National Security Agency

    Over 45,000 ransomware attacks have been tracked in large-scale attacks across Europe and Asia - particularly Russia and China - as well as attacks in the US and South America.

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/05/14/international-cyber-attack-roots-traced-us-national-security-agency.html

    Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story

    It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game!

    Daniil Adamov , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 11:45 pm GMT

    Is it just me, or is this an exceptionally awful interview?

    Whether you agree with Cohen or not (IMHO he certainly says some silly things there), the interviewer is demagogical and biased in the extreme. I suppose that's sort of the norm for them?

    By the way, is there any evidence of 1) Putin ordering someone killed or 2) The Collusion out there yet? If read uncritically, the interview gives the impression that of course there is, all those smart and good people say so. If read critically one notices that if there's any evidence of anything, it's never mentioned. But if only Russia had a more liberal media environment, then surely

    KenH , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 11:59 pm GMT

    Stephen F. Cohen is one of the few honest and patriotic Jews living in America who's capably of telling the unvarnished truth. I regularly seek out his writings for an objective appraisal of U.S. – Russia relations.

    Unfortunately, there are ten Victoria Nuland's, William Kristol's and Chuck U. Schumer's to every one Stephen F. Cohen.

    [May 31, 2017] Americas Iran Hysteria by Danny Sjursen

    Notable quotes:
    "... The State Department and various other government agencies regularly label Iran the world's leading "state sponsor of terrorism" - and that couldn't sound more menacing or impressively official and authoritative. Yet to tag Iran as #1 on any terror list is misleading indeed. The questions worth asking are: Which terrorists? What constitutes terrorism? Do those "terror" outfits truly threaten the U.S. homeland? ..."
    "... Iran does support Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. However, lumping regionally focused nationalist organizations like Hezbollah with genuine global jihadist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (in its proliferating forms) is deceptive, often purposely so. The Lebanon-based Hezbollah, for example, is largely fixated on Israel, but has sometimes even fought ISIS in Lebanon and Syria. In other words, Hezbollah, though it had previously attacked U.S. troops in the region, isn't sending its operatives to crash planes into American buildings. ..."
    "... Is there any country in the world that holds favorable view of Amerrican government ? Yes, there are plenty but those countries also happen to have an enemy next door which is despised or treated harshly by America . India has, do has Ukraine. Montenegro, and possibly Vietnam . ..."
    "... Libyans and Syrians before the current turmoil had very favorable attitudes to the west and US. Iranian should learn from it . ..."
    "... Question is can any country trust America ? Yes they love Hollywood and Microsoft and Facebook . But one way to look at this dichotomy is that American government doesn't live up to the virtues inherent in those innovations ..."
    "... It's not hysteria it's 'controlled agitation' by the Neocon Zionist Cabal that runs our foreign policy and not so bright generals like 'slurpy dog' Mattis. ..."
    "... Correct : Israel considers Iran to be its #1 enemy. Therefore Iran must be the #1 enemy of the USA as well. ..."
    "... The piece correctly identifies a profound, and profoundly damaging, irrationality in US elite (and manufactured popular) opinion about Iran and its place in the ME and in US foreign policy. A lot can be learned from examining the origins of and the reasons for this irrationality, and the identities of those who act to promote and sustain it and how they achieve their propagandist goals. ..."
    "... By and large, Iran's enemies in the US are also the enemies of liberty, of sovereignty and of honesty in foreign policy: the likes of John McCain, as noted, and most of the bipartisan advocates of aggressive interventionist war-making, whether the R2P "humanitarian" types of the "left" or the America-uber-alles militarists of the "right", along with the Israeli and Saudi dual loyalty or foreign loyalty types. ..."
    "... Iran is just another CIA boogie man, what have they ever done to America – NOTHING! As where America has absolutely fucked the arse off them. It always amazes me that a Country as successful as America can have so many stupid gullible Citizens. ..."
    "... It is not like we hadn't been poking the Iranians for decades before the revolutionaries took our Embassy, and we certainly have been poking them ever since, so it is hard to begrudge them for opening a little Reagan-doctrine on our US asses when we stick our noses into their neighbors' businesses while making loud noises about how we might come after them next. ..."
    "... BTW, Iran and Syria at least before we stuck our noses into it both had large Jewish and Christian communities living relatively unmolested. Who of our allies in the ME can make the same claim? ..."
    "... In sum, U.S. policy in the Middle East is confused, contradictory, counterproductive, and dangerous. ..."
    "... And another thing, too, which I don't ever recall hearing back in the Vietnam era is this robotic "muh brothers, muh mission" stuff, where everyone in a uniform is a "hero" who should be "thanked for his service," especially if he was one of the "boots on the ground." I've been there and through it, I've had this one-sided militarism up to my eyeballs at this point, and see this business of glorifying our soldiers and demonizing the countries this country is Balkanizing for Israel as unAmerican brainwashing. ..."
    "... Let's not forget that back in the Vietnam era, at a time when our military wasn't serving Israel, the father's of today's neocons were not only not serving up this militaristic jingoism, but calling the fathers of today's soldiers "baby killers." ..."
    "... Whether the Iranians have a wonderful democracy or are a horrible dictatorship is beside the point. They're going to defend themselves and will get involved in all parts of the region to prevent becoming vulnerable and thus open to attack. They have the geography, size and human resources to do so and will do so. It's arguable that they're the natural hegemon of the region and that far-away outsiders like the US can only thwart that for a limited period of time. ..."
    "... I disagree with Mr Sjursen's premise that anti-Iran hysteria is irrational. It is perfectly rational from the perspective of the political class, particularly​ our craven Congress long ago called "Israeli-occupied territory" by Pat Buchanan. Moreover, it is perfectly rational for the Israel lobby and the entire Jewish influenced​ mainstream media and neoconservative infrastructure. And let us not forget that General Butler reminded​ us that war is a racket and the military-industrial complex benefits greatly. ..."
    "... The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. ..."
    "... "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!" ..."
    "... However, when discussing the matter in general terms, it is not really credible to deny that many of the shia militias did get very substantial support (including military training and assistance, and most likely manufactured military hardware items such as the EFPs, or the designs and funding to manufacture them locally) from Iran. Iran would have been very foolish not to have done so. It was the clear intention of the US regime, if they had succeeded in imposing a compliant collaboration regime on Iraq, to attack Iran next. ..."
    "... Though of course it was the sunni insurgents funded by the US's Gulf "allies" whom the American occupiers were fighting most of the time, and Iran certainly wasn't behind them. ..."
    "... But seriously, who profited the most from the 11 trillion (your estimate, not mine) spent in those wars? You have to do forensic analysis of who actually owns the stocks in those companies to find out who has gotten the dough ..."
    "... I would argue that "failure" is largely irrelevant to any Establishment policy in the US. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - all arguably failures but who cares ? How many have actually suffered career disadvantage from such failures ? (To Elites, the US is SO profoundly rich, that it just doesn't matter: Chuck another pallet load of hundred dollar bills on the fire: it's not like we, the Elites are paying for it) ..."
    "... No country snubs the US and gets away with it! Cuba tried and has paid the penalty for 40 years. Iran tried and succeeded and the US has never forgotten. You don't insult the Mafia and get away with it. ..."
    "... Iran shows the power of the Jewish control over America Hate of Iran is what the "tribe" has overtly pushed for, but to be sure there is much much more they have slipped into our consciousness we are not so aware of. ..."
    "... The claims made about Iran (seeking nuclear weapons with aggressive intent, being likely to "dominate the region", being a threat to the US itself or even to legitimate US interests, etc) are mostly literally irrational in that they are untrue and illogical, relying upon simple falsehoods and distortions of reality. ..."
    "... But it is certainly arguably rational for those with personal loyalties to Israel or to Saudi Arabia etc, or to other enemies or rivals of Iran, or for those with personal selfish interests in promoting confrontation and war (military industrial types, bought and paid for politicians, etc) to try to persuade Americans in general, and especially American politicians and media/opinion leaders, that these irrationalities are in fact honest descriptions of reality. ..."
    "... "The brilliant George Bernard Shaw once said that one could use three concepts to describe the positions of individuals in Nazi Germany: intelligence, decency, and Nazism. He argued that if a person was intelligent, and a Nazi, he was not decent. If he was decent and a Nazi, he was not intelligent. And if he was decent and intelligent, he was not a Nazi. ..."
    May 31, 2017 | www.unz.com
    ... ... ...

    It certainly is a land in which hardline fundamentalists chant "Death to America!" It's also a country with an increasingly young , educated populace that holds remarkably positive views of Americans. In fact, whatever you might imagine, Americans tend to have significantly more negative views of Iran than vice versa. Don't be shocked, but Iranians hold more positive views of the U.S. government than do the citizens of Washington's allies like Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. In reality, there's long been a worrying paradox in the region: an inverse relationship between the amiability of a government's relationship with Washington and the favorability ratings of this country among its people.

    In other words, when it comes to Iran well, it's complicated. The trouble is that Americans generally don't do nuance. We like our bad guys to be foreign and unmistakably vile, even if such a preference for digestible simplicity makes for poor policy.

    If you want to grasp this point more fully, just think about Secretary of Defense Mattis's recent statement again. He assures us that Iran's shadow hovers over every regional crisis in the Middle East, which is empirically false. Here, for instance, are just a few recent conflicts that Iran is not behind or where its role has been exaggerated:

    Look, Iran is a significant, if often thwarted and embattled, regional power and a player, sometimes even a destabilizing one, in various regional conflagrations. It supports proxies, funds partner states, and sometimes intervenes in the region, even sending in its own military units (think Syria). Then again, so does Saudi Arabia (Yemen and, in funding terms, elsewhere), the United Arab Emirates (Yemen), Russia (Syria), and the United States (more or less everywhere). So who's destabilizing whom and why almost invariably turns out to be a matter of perspective.

    The State Department and various other government agencies regularly label Iran the world's leading "state sponsor of terrorism" - and that couldn't sound more menacing or impressively official and authoritative. Yet to tag Iran as #1 on any terror list is misleading indeed. The questions worth asking are: Which terrorists? What constitutes terrorism? Do those "terror" outfits truly threaten the U.S. homeland?

    As a start, in 2016, the State Department's annual survey of worldwide terrorism labeled ISIS - not Iran, Hezbollah, or the Houthis - as "the greatest [terror] threat globally." How do we square that "greatest sponsor" stamp with an Iran that has proven both thoroughly hostile to and deeply invested in the fight against ISIS and various al-Qaeda-linked groups in Iraq and Syria?

    Iran does support Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. However, lumping regionally focused nationalist organizations like Hezbollah with genuine global jihadist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (in its proliferating forms) is deceptive, often purposely so. The Lebanon-based Hezbollah, for example, is largely fixated on Israel, but has sometimes even fought ISIS in Lebanon and Syria. In other words, Hezbollah, though it had previously attacked U.S. troops in the region, isn't sending its operatives to crash planes into American buildings.

    To think of it another way, more foreign ISIS volunteers hail from Belgium or the Maldives Islands than from Iran. In fact, most of the top sources of ISIS's foreign recruits (Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan) turn out to be "friendly" American "partners." From 1975 to 2015, Iranian-born terrorists inflicted zero deaths in attacks on U.S. soil. In contrast, citizens of key U.S. allies - Saudis, Egyptians, and Lebanese - killed thousands on 9/11. In fact, since then, 85% of domestic terrorists turned out to be American citizens or permanent residents. Most were American-born. Of the 13 U.S. citizens involved in such fatal terror attacks, none were Iranian-American.

    KA , May 31, 2017 at 4:03 am GMT

    The inverse relationship that you mention is the kicker here . Once the citizen of a country comes to see America through the policies of America, hatred doesn't lag far behind to show up on the dinner table discussion.

    Is there any country in the world that holds favorable view of Amerrican government ? Yes, there are plenty but those countries also happen to have an enemy next door which is despised or treated harshly by America . India has, do has Ukraine. Montenegro, and possibly Vietnam .

    Iran is not saint But so was never any country .

    Libyans and Syrians before the current turmoil had very favorable attitudes to the west and US. Iranian should learn from it .

    Question is can any country trust America ? Yes they love Hollywood and Microsoft and Facebook . But one way to look at this dichotomy is that American government doesn't live up to the virtues inherent in those innovations .

    Z-man , May 31, 2017 at 4:44 am GMT

    It's not hysteria it's 'controlled agitation' by the Neocon Zionist Cabal that runs our foreign policy and not so bright generals like 'slurpy dog' Mattis.

    ANON , May 31, 2017 at 5:47 am GMT

    Correct : Israel considers Iran to be its #1 enemy. Therefore Iran must be the #1 enemy of the USA as well.

    jilles dykstra , May 31, 2017 at 7:02 am GMT

    In 1911 GB and Russia destroyed Iran democracy, in 1953 the USA did it again. In 1979, after the USA Vietnam disaster, Islam succeeded in liberating Iran from the USA puppet Shah. Then the USA brought Saddam to power, in order to subjugate Iran.

    Three million deaths, but Saddam failed to do what he should have done. On top of the that, the sorcerer's apprentice had the idea he no longer was an apprentice, in 2000 he had the audacity to ask euro's for Iraq oil. That, some say, was his death warrant.

    The USA engineered the 'new Pearl Harbour' Sept 11, war could begin. It is still going on. So when here a USA soldier complains about Iran, I just can laugh. The Bushmen burned some 2000 tons of uranium over Iraq, that for the next 5000 years will cause cancers and birth defects.

    jilles dykstra , May 31, 2017 at 7:12 am GMT

    @KA I love neither Hollywood, nor Microsoft or Facebook.
    Hollywood is just USA propaganda, Microsoft is the best swindle ever, one can only escape through Linux, Facebook is a waste of time, and exhibitionism.

    I do not think there is anything wrong with USA citizens in general, all is wrong with USA society, no democracy, a moneycracy wasting USA resources in war without end.

    Maybe Trump sees how these wars ruin the USA, how Khazakstan is more and more becoming the economic centre of the world.
    There now operates the enormous train hub, connecting China by rail to Europe.

    The Berlin Baghdad railway is seen as the cause of WWI, let us hope that the China Europe railway will not cause WWIII.

    Randal , May 31, 2017 at 8:37 am GMT

    Excellent stuff! A very unusually grownup and rational assessment of the situation, coming from any American.

    The piece correctly identifies a profound, and profoundly damaging, irrationality in US elite (and manufactured popular) opinion about Iran and its place in the ME and in US foreign policy. A lot can be learned from examining the origins of and the reasons for this irrationality, and the identities of those who act to promote and sustain it and how they achieve their propagandist goals.

    By and large, Iran's enemies in the US are also the enemies of liberty, of sovereignty and of honesty in foreign policy: the likes of John McCain, as noted, and most of the bipartisan advocates of aggressive interventionist war-making, whether the R2P "humanitarian" types of the "left" or the America-uber-alles militarists of the "right", along with the Israeli and Saudi dual loyalty or foreign loyalty types.

    However, lumping regionally focused nationalist organizations like Hezbollah [and Hamas] with genuine global jihadist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (in its proliferating forms) is deceptive, often purposely so.

    Gosh, who could it possibly be that has an interest in lying to promote this particular falsehood, and the media and political "influence" in US society to do so successfully?

    Randal , May 31, 2017 at 8:54 am GMT

    The persistent and profound basic irrationality of much US elite and popular opinion on the topic of Iran has been an aspect of world affairs that I noted and wondered about a couple of decades ago or so, and I ultimately came to the conclusion that the best explanations for its existence and persistence were the toxic combination of:

    1. Undue political and media influence from Iran's regional rivals, Israel and Saudi Arabia, whose interests the paranoid US fear and hatred of Iran clearly serve;

    2. Lingering soreness about the US getting some much-deserved payback from Iranians at the time of the hostage crisis, and on several occasions since, for decades of bloody interference in Iranian affairs;

    3. Simple outrage at the sight of a medium sized developing country daring not to breathlessly ask "how high, sir?", when told to jump by Washington.

    2 & 3 mostly serve to provide ammunition for the liars and propagandists of 1 to work with.

    Renoman , May 31, 2017 at 9:38 am GMT

    Iran is just another CIA boogie man, what have they ever done to America – NOTHING! As where America has absolutely fucked the arse off them. It always amazes me that a Country as successful as America can have so many stupid gullible Citizens.

    The Alarmist , May 31, 2017 at 9:46 am GMT

    As the recipient of Iranian-sponsored hostility in Beirut in 1983, I was not well disposed toward its regime for some time thereafter, but I got over it as time went on. I think I was well over it by the time the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner while, ostensibly, it may have been in Iranian waters, killing 290 civilians.

    It is not like we hadn't been poking the Iranians for decades before the revolutionaries took our Embassy, and we certainly have been poking them ever since, so it is hard to begrudge them for opening a little Reagan-doctrine on our US asses when we stick our noses into their neighbors' businesses while making loud noises about how we might come after them next.

    BTW, Iran and Syria at least before we stuck our noses into it both had large Jewish and Christian communities living relatively unmolested. Who of our allies in the ME can make the same claim?

    mp , May 31, 2017 at 10:50 am GMT

    In sum, U.S. policy in the Middle East is confused, contradictory, counterproductive, and dangerous.

    Confused? Not when you understand just who is "managing" US foreign policy, and to what end. Contradictory? Only when considering some official statements, but those are just throw away words meant for debate by the talking legs on the news channels, or things you read about in CIA conduits such as the Washington Post–things just mean to obfuscate. Counterproductive? Depends on one's long-term goal. Dangerous. Certainly.

    DanCT , May 31, 2017 at 11:02 am GMT

    I was an f.o. with recon the last six months of my tour in Vietnam (1-6/70) and thankful that, while we were occasionally inserted into hot LZ's in that time, once we were on the ground we were on our own and never trapped like sitting ducks for hours in a glorified SUV. My take is that this fellow ought to be blaming the Army and Pentagon and not Iran for setting him and his platoon up for the sort of inevitable ambush he describes.

    And another thing, too, which I don't ever recall hearing back in the Vietnam era is this robotic "muh brothers, muh mission" stuff, where everyone in a uniform is a "hero" who should be "thanked for his service," especially if he was one of the "boots on the ground." I've been there and through it, I've had this one-sided militarism up to my eyeballs at this point, and see this business of glorifying our soldiers and demonizing the countries this country is Balkanizing for Israel as unAmerican brainwashing.

    Let's not forget that back in the Vietnam era, at a time when our military wasn't serving Israel, the father's of today's neocons were not only not serving up this militaristic jingoism, but calling the fathers of today's soldiers "baby killers."

    jacques sheete , May 31, 2017 at 11:24 am GMT

    Those EFPs and the requisite training to use them were provided to Iraqi militias by the Islamic Republic of Iran. ..

    Still, there's one major problem with bold, sweeping pronouncements (laced with one's own prejudices)

    There's also a problem with stating unlikely scenarios (if not patent absurdities) as facts. What is your evidence that Iran provided EFPs and training to Iraqi militias?

    anonymous , May 31, 2017 at 12:45 pm GMT

    Mattis' statement is easily trashed as simple-minded and delusional. So what's the conclusion? That there are many who are in a position to influence policy are incompetent and downright stupid? Apparently that's the case and breathtakingly so. Everyone seems to have this huge blind spot where they automatically accept that the US has the right to travel thousands of miles around the world to engage in warfare with whatever country they please yet a country right next door has no right to get involved. It's strange to hear people whine about the Iranians getting involved in their own region by training militiamen or showing them how to build better explosive weapons, all of which is very basic low-tech stuff that could be shown on a DVD, whereas the Americans are using space-age jet fighters and tanks as well as the much touted SEAL soldiers. Want to trade weapons?

    Whether the Iranians have a wonderful democracy or are a horrible dictatorship is beside the point. They're going to defend themselves and will get involved in all parts of the region to prevent becoming vulnerable and thus open to attack. They have the geography, size and human resources to do so and will do so. It's arguable that they're the natural hegemon of the region and that far-away outsiders like the US can only thwart that for a limited period of time.

    JoaoAlfaiate , May 31, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT

    I find it very interesting that one day the Iraqis are on the verge of making a nuclear weapon and the next day, according to the author, they are unable to make a shaped charge, technology that has been around at least since the Germans blasted their way into Fort Eben-Emael.

    John T , May 31, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT

    I disagree with Mr Sjursen's premise that anti-Iran hysteria is irrational. It is perfectly rational from the perspective of the political class, particularly​ our craven Congress long ago called "Israeli-occupied territory" by Pat Buchanan. Moreover, it is perfectly rational for the Israel lobby and the entire Jewish influenced​ mainstream media and neoconservative infrastructure. And let us not forget that General Butler reminded​ us that war is a racket and the military-industrial complex benefits greatly.

    War for Blair Mountain , May 31, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT

    Working Class Native Born White American Teenage Males who sign a US Army Military contract are signing their lives away to be used as canon fodder for the Jewish State of Israel wars af aggression in the Middle East You will die a very painful pointless meaningless death in some Muslim hell-hole in the Middle East It's just not worth it

    Something like 11 trillion of our tax dollars have been spent destroying the civilian populations of several Muslim Nations in the Middle East Nations that pose 0 threat to America .

    These trillions could have been spent providing free college education and job training for all you White Teenage Males thinking of signing the US Army contract .and these trillions could have spent providing you with free college education and job training many many times over .think about it

    Other young White Men sir in NCAA DIV 1 football stadiums yelling "WHAT A STUD" at the football players down on the field while you lie dying on the ground in Afghanistan your body cut in half by a rocket propelled grenade .screaming for your mother minutes later your life slips away into the coldness of eternal death .for what? Sadly a pointless meaningless death .

    WAR IS A RACKET!!!

    Agent76 , May 31, 2017 at 1:23 pm GMT

    Once the Pentagon has the plan's of the Bankster's they never stop or halt with it in the Empire!

    December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

    The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564

    Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years

    "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

    Agent76 , May 31, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

    Jan 3, 2017 Iranian Food Tour

    If Iranians are known for their special and unique hospitality, then we shouldn't forget that food is always part of that experience!

    Randal , May 31, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete

    stating unlikely scenarios (if not patent absurdities) as facts. What is your evidence that Iran provided EFPs and training to Iraqi militias?

    At the time, when the US occupiers in Iraq were making unproven allegations of Iranian support of militias (including providing the notorious EFPs) with the likely intent of justifying acts of aggression against Iran, or other actions aiding their illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq, it was both legitimate and sensible to require proof of any and all specific allegations. All the items alleged to have come from Iran (according to the US military and regime) could just as easily have come from elsewhere or been manufactured locally.

    However, when discussing the matter in general terms, it is not really credible to deny that many of the shia militias did get very substantial support (including military training and assistance, and most likely manufactured military hardware items such as the EFPs, or the designs and funding to manufacture them locally) from Iran. Iran would have been very foolish not to have done so. It was the clear intention of the US regime, if they had succeeded in imposing a compliant collaboration regime on Iraq, to attack Iran next.

    Though of course it was the sunni insurgents funded by the US's Gulf "allies" whom the American occupiers were fighting most of the time, and Iran certainly wasn't behind them.

    Agent76 , May 31, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain I can do one better than that and *All Wars are Bankers Wars* --

    Mar 25, 2016 WAR IS A LIE – David Swanson in Asheville March 25, 2016

    Pachyderm Pachyderma , May 31, 2017 at 2:40 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain You forgot to mention the 'Sikh (actually, Sikhni) Whore', Nikki Haley at the UN doing the bidding for

    But seriously, who profited the most from the 11 trillion (your estimate, not mine) spent in those wars? You have to do forensic analysis of who actually owns the stocks in those companies to find out who has gotten the dough

    jilles dykstra , May 31, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT

    @Renoman Iran liberated itself from the USA puppet shah in 1979, and since then refused to accept the USA yoke again. This of course for the USA is unforgivable.

    For the same reason for decades the USA pretended that Taiwan, Formosa, was China. Nixon accepted reality.

    The problem now is, I hope, that Trump also sees reality, that Roosevelt's plan to rule the world with Smaller Britain, Stalin and Tsjang Kai Shek, just was megalomania, ruining the USA, causing great misery in large parts of this earth.

    CNN, Washpost and NYT still do not see reality. They did not watch BBCW this morning, Khazakhstan as railway hub between China, Russia and Europe. The USA, a backwater if it continues as Obama did.

    animalogic , May 31, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT

    @Randal This was a really great article: well argued, nuanced, rational. Unfortunately, none of that is a factor in US/Iran policy. Let's take this quote:

    "until Washington's policymakers change their all-Iran-all-the-time mental model, they are doomed to failure."

    I would argue that "failure" is largely irrelevant to any Establishment policy in the US. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - all arguably failures but who cares ? How many have actually suffered career disadvantage from such failures ? (To Elites, the US is SO profoundly rich, that it just doesn't matter: Chuck another pallet load of hundred dollar bills on the fire: it's not like we, the Elites are paying for it)

    So it's crazy, unprofitable to maintain the Iran-universal-bogey-man policy ? Who cares ?

    1. US elites hate Iran: 1979. That's sufficient in itself.
    2. Saudi & Israel hate Iran: "snap !"
    3. Iran is an allied with Russia: case closed --
    4. Oh, & NO ONE in the US Elite thinks about this, but Iran has a bit of oil wealth Too cynical, I know.
    TRex , May 31, 2017 at 3:34 pm GMT

    No country snubs the US and gets away with it! Cuba tried and has paid the penalty for 40 years. Iran tried and succeeded and the US has never forgotten. You don't insult the Mafia and get away with it.

    Z-man , May 31, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT

    @Pachyderm Pachyderma

    You forgot to mention the 'Sikh (actually, Sikhni) Whore', Nikki Haley at the UN doing the bidding for

    Thank you for mentioning that Neo'conned' skank.

    DES , May 31, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

    Excellent points. For a more detailed analysis, I recommend "Manufactured Crisis – The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare," by Gareth Porter.

    Interesting factoid: A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded with "high confidence" that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been halted in the fall of 2003 and with "moderate confidence" that it had not been restarted as of mid-2007. I am not aware that this estimate has been revised or updated.

    tjm , May 31, 2017 at 4:04 pm GMT

    Iran shows the power of the Jewish control over America Hate of Iran is what the "tribe" has overtly pushed for, but to be sure there is much much more they have slipped into our consciousness we are not so aware of.

    Certainly the hate of Muslims in general (while conversely using their media to demonize anyone who questions Muslims migration, and of course always omitting the reality that Zionist wars in the Middle East are causing much of that migration of course all part of their plan), hate for Russia?Putin, American society, Jesus Christ, White Men, White boys

    The control of American society began years ago, mid 20th century, and has gotten progressively worse.

    for-the-record , May 31, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

    @Randal The piece correctly identifies a profound, and profoundly damaging, irrationality in US elite (and manufactured popular) opinion about Iran and its place in the ME and in US foreign policy.

    I would argue, in line with your final sentence, that this irrational "bug" is very much a rational "feature". Indeed, despite what many critics maintain, US foreign policy has been eminently successful in achieving its objectives (or at least the objectives of those who effectively set such policy).

    Ernul , May 31, 2017 at 4:57 pm GMT

    Excuses, excuses, excuses by the author for the poor Iranians. When someone attacks YOUR family, friends or loved ones, what do you do? "Head in the ground" it sound like. WHO cares why they do it. Simply make them STOP and punish them for the attacks. After justice is served, only then do the bleeding hearts get to ask them WHY? "EARTH TO THE AUTHOR", we tried it their way without result so now the bleeding hearts want to give the Iranians the benefit of doubt using our children and money all over again! Send your child to fight and should he/she come back in a body bag, blame yourself. ., because we've hear and tried it your way. (DUH)

    ANON , May 31, 2017 at 5:13 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra What a beautiful prospect: the USA as backwater, still with elements of its natural beauty, still safe from armed invasion and even exporting half of its least employable 100 million to jobs on the new silk road

    mark willis , May 31, 2017 at 5:17 pm GMT

    The truth and facts don't matter any more in todays world. What matters is the Zionist stranglehold over American political life and media.

    What Israel wants, Israel gets. Want hundreds of billions of dollars of hard pressed US taxpayers money? No problem, well close down a few more schools and welfare programmes. Israels whores in Congress will deliver.

    Want a huge illegal nuclear arsenal with hundreds of nuclear warheads targeted at all your neighbours? No problem, we can organise that for you. Want all your military equipment provided completely free of charge? No problem, well even get our German satrap Merkel to send you half a dozen advanced Dolphin nuclear missile submarines completely free of charge.

    Want us to destroy any neighbouring country you dislike? No problem, well be your dumb muscle whenever you want – just let us know which country you want destroyed next – Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran. Want us to change the laws to make any criticism of Israel a criminal offence? No problem. Just let us know when you want us to lick your boots. After all, were just goyim put on this earth to serve you like domestic animals. Cant do enough to please our masters. You can always rely on us to provide you with all the money and cannon fodder you need. were just here to serve you.

    Randal , May 31, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT

    @animalogic

    I would argue that "failure" is largely irrelevant to any Establishment policy in the US. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - all arguably failures but who cares ? How many have actually suffered career disadvantage from such failures ? (To Elites, the US is SO profoundly rich, that it just doesn't matter: Chuck another pallet load of hundred dollar bills on the fire: it's not like we, the Elites are paying for it)

    Indeed. A result that is a bloody, costly, disastrous failure for one group (such as the American nation collectively) might well be a "no big deal" for another group (the self-serving US elites you mention) and even a heart-warming success for another (the Israel/Saudi partisans and suchlike). All at the same time.

    Randal , May 31, 2017 at 5:40 pm GMT

    @for-the-record

    I would argue, in line with your final sentence, that this irrational "bug" is very much a rational "feature".

    Not going to disagree with you on that point, of course.

    The claims made about Iran (seeking nuclear weapons with aggressive intent, being likely to "dominate the region", being a threat to the US itself or even to legitimate US interests, etc) are mostly literally irrational in that they are untrue and illogical, relying upon simple falsehoods and distortions of reality.

    But it is certainly arguably rational for those with personal loyalties to Israel or to Saudi Arabia etc, or to other enemies or rivals of Iran, or for those with personal selfish interests in promoting confrontation and war (military industrial types, bought and paid for politicians, etc) to try to persuade Americans in general, and especially American politicians and media/opinion leaders, that these irrationalities are in fact honest descriptions of reality.

    That's why I noted that it is very informative, for the many who are not aware of the true situation, to examine how and by whom this false view of the world is disseminated and imposed on Americans in particular.

    Indeed, despite what many critics maintain, US foreign policy has been eminently successful in achieving its objectives (or at least the objectives of those who effectively set such policy)

    Again, absolutely agree.

    As a matter of definitional reality, government policy is not of course set in the interests of the nation, but in the interests of those with the power to influence government policy. All the more reason to regard dual and external loyalties as uniquely poisonous in such groups and individuals.

    annamaria , May 31, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT

    @mark willis

    The truth and facts don't matter any more in todays world. What matters is the Zionist stranglehold over American political life and media. What Israel wants, Israel gets.

    Want hundreds of billions of dollars of hard pressed US taxpayers money? No problem, well close down a few more schools and welfare programmes. Israels whores in Congress will deliver. Want a huge illegal nuclear arsenal with hundreds of nuclear warheads targeted at all your neighbours? No problem, we can organise that for you. Want all your military equipment provided completely free of charge? No problem, well even get our German satrap Merkel to send you half a dozen advanced Dolphin nuclear missile submarines completely free of charge. Want us to destroy any neighbouring country you dislike? No problem, well be your dumb muscle whenever you want - just let us know which country you want destroyed next - Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran. Want us to change the laws to make any criticism of Israel a criminal offence? No problem. Just let us know when you want us to lick your boots. After all, were just goyim put on this earth to serve you like domestic animals. Cant do enough to please our masters. You can always rely on us to provide you with all the money and cannon fodder you need. were just here to serve you. Cruel but just words (from Comment section on http://thomas-l-are.blogspot.com/2017/05/what-kind-of-people.html#comment-form ):

    "The brilliant George Bernard Shaw once said that one could use three concepts to describe the positions of individuals in Nazi Germany: intelligence, decency, and Nazism. He argued that if a person was intelligent, and a Nazi, he was not decent. If he was decent and a Nazi, he was not intelligent. And if he was decent and intelligent, he was not a Nazi.

    I propose we update Shaw's rather astute observations with: There are also three concepts to describe the positions of individuals in Zionist Israel: intelligence, decency, and Zionism. We can argue that if a person is intelligent, and a Zionist, he is not decent. If he is decent and a Zionist, he is not intelligent. And if he is decent and intelligent, he is not a Zionist. "

    [May 31, 2017] Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin by Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous and Greg Miller

    Another well-placed, well-timed leak from WaPo. Un-named intelligence official in play again. Is Russian embassy bugged and all diplomatic correspondence intercepted ? Looks like those guys outdid STASI. the standard question arises: "cuo bono".
    If true, that means that the way information was obtained is iether already known by Russian, or this channel will be closed really soon. Form the text of the article it looks like the USA is able to read Russian diplomatic communication. Unless this is yet another disinformation, that means that the USA obtained the keys used by the embassy for incoding dypolicic communication, or have a modle who provided this communication by downloading already decoded archive or something like that. Which actually violates Vienna convention and makes the USA rogue nation not that different from GDR ot the USSR.
    While it is unclear " what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts with Kushner to Moscow" it is clear who benefit from this revelation. But even if true why to reveal such an important information for such a minor case. Trump folded. What else "deep state" wants from him ? Are Hillary friends in State Department and a couple of other intelligence agencies really crazy about the revenge ?
    More questions then answers
    Notable quotes:
    "... But officials said that it's unclear what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts with Kushner to Moscow, particularly at a time when the Kremlin still saw the prospect of dramatically improved relations with Trump. ..."
    "... The FBI closely monitors the communications of Russian officials in the United States, and maintains near-constant surveillance of its diplomatic facilities. The National Security Agency monitors the communications of Russian officials overseas. ..."
    "... 'according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports'. This isn't any sort of verification. Another manufactured news media story. ..."
    "... The Washington Post should not even believed with there track record. They should identify there source that is leaking anything they can get there hands. Never about anything else accept fake news. The jokers on here keep on drinking the koolaid that the WP prints! ..."
    "... Always jump to conclusions as always without the facts. They gave up on Trump now they go after some one else. You fools talk about Watergate and have no proof about any of this except what the Washington Trash prints! ..."
    May 26, 2017 | www.msn.com

    Jared Kushner and Russia's ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.

    Ambassador Sergei Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, then President-elect Trump's son-in-law and confidant, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.

    The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser.

    The White House disclosed the fact of the meeting only in March, playing down its significance. But people familiar with the matter say the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest.

    Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate - a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team.

    Neither the meeting nor the communications of Americans involved were under U.S. surveillance, officials said.

    The White House declined to comment. Robert Kelner, a lawyer for Flynn, declined to comment. The Russian embassy did not respond to requests for comment.

    Russia at times feeds false information into communication streams it suspects are monitored as a way of sowing misinformation and confusion among U.S. analysts. But officials said that it's unclear what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts with Kushner to Moscow, particularly at a time when the Kremlin still saw the prospect of dramatically improved relations with Trump.

    Kushner's apparent interest in establishing a secret channel with Moscow, rather than rely on U.S. government systems, has added to the intrigue surrounding the Trump administration's relationship with Russia.

    To some officials, it also reflects a staggering naivete.

    The FBI closely monitors the communications of Russian officials in the United States, and maintains near-constant surveillance of its diplomatic facilities. The National Security Agency monitors the communications of Russian officials overseas.

    Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that though Russian diplomats have secure means of communicating with Moscow, Kushner's apparent request for access to such channels was extraordinary.

    "How would he trust that the Russians wouldn't leak it on their side?" said one former senior intelligence official. The FBI would know that a Trump transition official was going in and out of the embassy, which would cause "a great deal" of concern, he added. The entire idea, he said, "seems extremely naοve or absolutely crazy."

    The discussion of a secret channel adds to a broader pattern of efforts by Trump's closest advisors to obscure their contacts with Russian counterparts. Trump's first national security adviser, Flynn, was forced to resign after a series of false statements about his conversations with Kislyak. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from matters related to the Russia investigation after it was revealed that he had failed to disclose his own meetings with Kislyak when asked during congressional testimony about any contact with Russians.

    Kushner's interactions with Russians - including Kislyak and an executive for a Russian bank under U.S. sanctions - were not acknowledged by the White House until they were exposed in media reports.

    It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials. But new administrations are generally cautious in their handling of interactions with Moscow, which U.S. intelligence

    ... ... ....

    In addition to their discussion about setting up the communications channel, Kushner, Flynn and Kislyak also talked about arranging a meeting between a representative of Trump and a "Russian contact" in a third country whose name was not identified, according to the anonymous letter.

    The Post reported in April that Erik Prince, the former founder of Blackwater private security firm and an informal adviser to the Trump transition team, met on Jan. 11 - nine days before Trump's inauguration - in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean with a representative of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Tom Lewis · Longs, South Carolina

    "Jared Kushner and Russia's ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring" .... pretty stiff accusation with this as the news media's source ... 'according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports'. This isn't any sort of verification. Another manufactured news media story.

    Paul Schofield · San Diego, California

    Everyone knew about this, and it happens with every transition team, and it was done AFTER Trump won the election, but if it gets the Liberals' panties in a bunch, and CNN more viewers, the angry Clintonites can scream impeachment for a few hours tonight..... suckers!

    Jerry Reich · Arnold, Missouri

    The Washington Post should not even believed with there track record. They should identify there source that is leaking anything they can get there hands. Never about anything else accept fake news. The jokers on here keep on drinking the koolaid that the WP prints!

    Always jump to conclusions as always without the facts. They gave up on Trump now they go after some one else. You fools talk about Watergate and have no proof about any of this except what the Washington Trash prints!

    [May 31, 2017] So why do the American people accept US criminal hegemony, domestic and foreign brutal tyranny neo-colonialist blood-letting with scant protest? by Vanessa Beeley

    May 31, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
    Originally from: Gaslighting State Mind Control and Abusive Narcissism This article was first published by 21st Century Wire

    Exceptionalism: the condition of being different from the norm; also : a theory expounding the exceptionalism especially of a nation or region.

    May 29, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - There are many theories surrounding the origin of American exceptionalism. The most popular in US folklore, being that it describes America's unique character as a "free" nation founded on democratic ideals and civil liberties. The Declaration of Independence from British colonial rule is the foundation of this theory and has persevered throughout the often violent history of the US since its birth as a free nation.

    Over time, exceptionalism has come to represent superiority in the minds and hearts of Americans. Belief in their economic, military and ideological supremacy is what has motivated successive US governments to invest in shaping the world in their superior image with little or no regard for the destruction left in the wake of their exceptional hegemony.

    In considering itself, exceptional, the US has extricated itself from any legal obligation to adhere to either International law or even the common moral laws that should govern Humanity. The US has become exceptionally lawless and authoritarian particularly in its intolerant neo-colonialist foreign policy. The colonized have become the colonialists, concealing their brutal savagery behind a veneer of missionary zeal that they are converting the world to their form of exceptionalist Utopia.

    Such is the media & marketing apparatus that supports this superiority complex, the majority of US congress exist within its echo chamber and are willing victims of its indoctrination. The power of the propaganda vortex pulls them in and then radiates outwards, infecting all in its path. Self-extraction from this oligarchical perspective is perceived as a revolutionary act that challenges the core of US security so exceptionalism becomes the modus vivendi.

    Just as Israel considers itself 'the chosen people' from a religious perspective, the US considers itself the chosen nation to impose its version of Democratic reform and capitalist hegemony the world over. One can see why Israel and the US make such symbiotic bedfellows.

    "The fatal war for humanity is the war with Russia and China toward which Washington is driving the US and Washington's NATO and Asian puppet states. The bigotry of the US power elite is rooted in its self-righteous doctrine that stipulates America as the "indispensable country" ~ Paul Craig Roberts: Washington Drives the World Towards War.

    So why do the American people accept US criminal hegemony, domestic and foreign brutal tyranny & neo-colonialist blood-letting with scant protest? Why do the European vassal states not rise up against this authoritarian regime that flaunts international law and drags its NATO allies down the path to complete lawlessness and diplomatic ignominy?

    What is Gaslighting?

    Gaslight

    The psychological term "Gaslighting" comes from a 1944 Hollywood classic movie called Gaslight. Gaslighting describes the abuse employed by a narcissist to instil in their victim's mind, an extreme anxiety and confusion to the extent where they no longer have faith in their own powers of logic, reason and judgement. These gaslighting techniques were adopted by central intelligence agencies in the US and Europe as part of their psychological warfare methods, used primarily during torture or interrogation.

    Gaslighting as an abuser's modus operandi, involves, specifically, the withholding of factual information and its replacement with false or fictional information designed to confuse and disorientate. This subtle and Machiavellian process eventually undermines the mental stability of its victims reducing them to such a depth of insecurity and identity crisis that they become entirely dependent upon their abuser for their sense of reality and even identity.

    Gaslighting involves a step by step psychological process to manipulate and destabilize its victim. It is built up over time and consists of repetitive information feeds that enter the victim's subconscious over a period of time, until it is fully registered on the subconscious "hard disk" and cannot be overridden by the conscious floppy disk. Put more simply, it is brainwashing.

    " Overall, the main reason for gaslighting is to create a dynamic where the abuser has complete control over their victim so that they are so weak that they are very easy to manipulate." ~ Alex Myles

    Three Stages of Gaslighting: Stage One

    The first stage depends upon trust in the integrity and unimpeachable intentions of the abuser, a state of reliance that has been engendered by the abuser's artful self-promotion and ingratiating propaganda. Once this trust is gained, the abuser will begin to subtly undermine it, creating situations and environments where the victim will begin to doubt their own judgement. Eventually the victim will rely entirely upon the abuser to alleviate their uncertainty and to restore their sense of reality which is in fact that of the abuser.

    Stage Two

    The second stage, defence, is a process by which the abuser isolates the victim, not only from their own sense of identity but from the validation of their peers. They are made to feel that their opinion is worthless, discredited, down-right weird. In political circles they would be labelled a conspiracy theorist, a dissident, a terror apologist. As a consequence, the victim will withdraw from society and cease to express themselves for fear of ridicule, judgement or punishment.

    This stage can also be compared to Stockholm Syndrome where a hostage or captive is reduced,by psychological mind games, back to infantile dependency upon their captor. Narcissistic abuse bonds the victim to the aggressor via trauma. Stockholm Syndrome bonds the victim to the aggressor via regression to an infantile state where the abuser/aggressor becomes the "parent" who will rescue the victim from imminent annihilation. Both methods tap into the victim's survival mechanisms to gain and maintain control.

    Stage Three

    The final stage is depression. A life under the tyrannical rule of a narcissist drives the victim into a state of extreme confusion. They are stripped of dignity & self-reliance. They, ultimately exist in an information vacuum which is only filled by that which the abuser deems suitable or relevant. This can eventually invoke symptoms of PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]. Flashbacks, constant apprehension, hyper vigilance, mind paralysis, rage and even violence. The process is complete and the victim has been reduced to a willing accomplice in the abusers creation of a very distorted reality.

    Exceptionalism or Narcissism?

    Gaslight

    We are currently seeing the transformation of US exceptionalism into an abusive Narcissism .

    The gargantuan apparatus of mind bending and controlling is being put into hyper drive by the ruling elite. We are inundated with propaganda that challenges our sense of reality but only after being "tenderized" by the fear factor. Fear of "terror", fear of war, fear of financial insecurity, fear of gun violence, fear of our own shadow. Once we are suitably quaking in our boots, in comes the rendition of reality that relieves our anxiety. If we challenge this version of events we are labelled a conspiracy theorist, a threat to security. We are hounded, discredited, slandered and ridiculed. We are isolated and threatened.

    Wars are started in the same way. Despite the hindsight that should enable us to see it coming, the process swings into motion with resounding success. The ubiquitous dictator, the oligarch who threatens to destroy all that the US and her allies represent which of course is, freedom, equality & civil liberty all wrapped up in the Democracy shiny paper and tied with the exceptionalist ribbon.

    Next the false flag to engender fear, terror and to foment sectarian strife. The support of a "legitimate" organic, indigenous "revolution" conveniently emerging in tandem with US ambitions for imposing their model of governance upon a target nation. The arming of "freedom fighters", the securing of mercenary additions to these manufactured proxy forces. All this is sold in the name of freedom and democracy to a public that is already in a state of anxiety and insecurity, lacking in judgement or insight into any other reality but that of their "abuser".

    The NGO Complex Deployment

    Finally, the Humanitarians are deployed. The forces for "good", the vanguard of integrity and ethical intervention. The power that offers all lost souls a stake-holding in the salvation of sovereign nations that have lost their way and need rescuing. A balm for a damaged soul, to know they can leave their doubts and fears in such trustworthy hands as HRW, Amnesty International, they can assuage their deep sense of guilt at the suffering being endured by the people of far flung nations because they can depend upon the NGOs to provide absolution with minimal effort on their part. They don't realise that NGOs are an integral part of their abuser's apparatus, operating on the leash of neo-colonialist financing and influence. NGOs provide the optic through which the abuser will allow the victim to perceive their world and once absorbed into this flawed prism the victim's own cognitive dissonance will ensure they do not attempt a jail break.

    In this state of oppressed consciousness the victim accepts what they are told. They accept that the US can sell cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia that obliterate human beings and lay waste to essential civilian infrastructure in Yemen. They accept that the US financially, ideologically & militarily supports the illegal state of Israel and provides the arsenal of experimental weapons that maim and mutilate children and civilians on a scale that is unimaginable. They accept that a crippling blockade of the already impoverished and starving nation of Yemen is "necessary" to resolve the issues of sectarian divisions that only exist in the minds of their Congressional abusers.

    The majority of Americans accept mass murder under the pretext of the right to protect , because their ability to form rational and reasoned opinions has been engineered out of them. This is now the definition of US exceptionalism. It is their ability to manipulate the world into accepting their lawlessness and global hegemony agenda. In seeking to impose its own image upon our world the US has drifted so far from its founding principles, one wonders how they will ever return to them. They have employed a recognised form of torture to ensure capitulation to their mission of world domination which entails the mental, physical and spiritual torture of target civilian populations.

    In conclusion, the US has indeed achieved exceptionalism. The US has become an exceptional global executioner and persecutor of Humanity. Imperialism is a euphemism for the depths of abuse the US is inflicting upon the people of this world.

    Our only hope is to break the cycle of abuse with empathy for the victim and with appreciation for the years of brainwashing that precedes their agonizing passive-aggressive apathy towards crimes being committed in "their name".

    This was an email I received recently from one courageous young American girl whose epiphany is testament to the resilience and survival instinct of the human spirit.

    " My name is Caroline and I am a 22 year old US citizen. I only fairly recently discovered the truth about Empire/NATO's activities in Syria and Libya and so many other countries (thanks to writers like Andre Vltchek, Cory Morningstar, Forrest Palmer). I am sickened when I remember that I signed some of those Avaaz petitions and I feel horrified at knowing that I have Syrian and Libyan blood on my hands. I want to believe that I'm not "really" guilty because I really thought (as I had been told) that I was not doing something bad at the time, but still, what I did contributed to the suffering of those people and I want to do something to atone in at least some small way, even though I probably can't "make up" for what I did or erase my crime.

    If it's not too much trouble, could you please tell me what you think I should do, if there is anything?"

    She deserves an answer

    ***

    Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and s ince 2011, she has spent most of her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement, and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her blog The Wall Will Fall .

    [May 30, 2017] Democrats are falling for fake news about Russia

    A pretty accurate (for Vox ;-) description of Neo-McCarthyism hysteria that the USA currently experience...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her 283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler ( 226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers ). ..."
    "... Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years. ..."
    "... Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she refused and called me a "dickhead." But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas on Twitter. ..."
    "... One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared" (the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter since 2013 ). ..."
    "... "Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me. "That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out." ..."
    "... dezinformatsiya ..."
    "... These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. ..."
    "... The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, is kind of a popularizer of the Russiasphere. It reports the same kind of extreme, thinly sourced stuff - for instance, a story titled "CIA now says there's more than one tape of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes" - often, though not always, sourced to Mensch and company. This seems to personally irk Mensch, who has occasionally suggested the Palmer Report is ripping her off . ..."
    "... Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to Quantcast , a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook, according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000. ..."
    "... "Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs, especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics, that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite." ..."
    "... actual conspiracy. ..."
    "... For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism": ..."
    "... What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest in factual accuracy. ..."
    "... Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives. ..."
    May 30, 2017 | www.vox.com

    President Donald Trump is about to resign as a result of the Russia scandal. Bernie Sanders and Sean Hannity are Russian agents. The Russians have paid off House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz to the tune of $10 million, using Trump as a go-between. Paul Ryan is a traitor for refusing to investigate Trump's Russia ties. Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand was a secret Russian agent charged with discrediting the American conservative movement.

    These are all claims you can find made on a new and growing sector of the internet that functions as a fake news bubble for liberals, something I've dubbed the Russiasphere. The mirror image of Breitbart and InfoWars on the right, it focuses nearly exclusively on real and imagined connections between Trump and Russia. The tone is breathless: full of unnamed intelligence sources, certainty that Trump will soon be imprisoned, and fever dream factual assertions that no reputable media outlet has managed to confirm.

    Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her 283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler ( 226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers ).

    There's also a handful of websites, like Palmer Report , that seem devoted nearly exclusively to spreading bizarre assertions like the theory that Ryan and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell funneled Russian money to Trump - a story that spread widely among the site's 70,000 Facebook fans.

    Beyond the numbers, the unfounded left-wing claims, like those on the right, are already seeping into the mainstream discourse. In March, the New York Times published an op-ed by Mensch instructing members of Congress as to how they should proceed with the Russia investigation ("I have some relevant experience," she wrote). Two months prior to that, Mensch had penned a lengthy letter to Vladimir Putin titled "Dear Mr. Putin, Let's Play Chess" - in which she claims to have discovered that Edward Snowden was part of a years-in-the-making Russian plot to discredit Hillary Clinton.

    Last Thursday, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) was forced to apologize for spreading a false claim that a New York grand jury was investigating Trump and Russia. His sources, according to the Guardian's Jon Swaine, were Mensch and Palmer:

    Members of the Russiasphere see themselves as an essential counter to a media that's been too cautious to get to the bottom of Trump's Russian ties.

    "There's good evidence that the Kremlin was planning a secret operation to put Trump in the White House back in 2014," Schindler told me. "With a few exceptions, the MSM [mainstream media] hasn't exactly covered itself in glory with Kremlingate. They were slow to ask obvious questions about Trump in 2016, and they're playing catch-up now, not always accurately."

    Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years.

    The fear is that this pollutes the party itself, derailing and discrediting the legitimate investigation into Russia investigation. It also risks degrading the Democratic Party - helping elevate shameless hucksters who know nothing about policy but are willing to spread misinformation in the service of gaining power. We've already seen this story play out on the right, a story that ended in Trump's election.

    "One of the failures of the Republican Party is the way they let the birther movement metastasize - and that ultimately helped Donald Trump make it to the White House," says Brendan Nyhan, a professor at Dartmouth who studies the spread of false political beliefs. "We should worry about kind of pattern being repeated."

    Anatomy of a conspiracy theory

    The Russiasphere doesn't have one unifying, worked-out theory - like "9/11 was an inside job" or "Nazi gas chambers are a hoax." Instead, it's more like an attitude - a general sense that Russian influence in the United States is pervasive and undercovered by the mainstream media. Everything that happens in US politics is understood through this lens - especially actions taken by the Trump administration, which is seen as Kremlin-occupied territory.

    There are, of course, legitimate issues relating to Trump's ties to Russia - I've written about them personally over and over again . There are even legitimate reasons to believe that Trump's campaign worked with Russian hackers to undermine Hillary Clinton. That may or may not turn out to be true, but it is least plausible and somewhat supported by the available evidence .

    The Russiasphere's assertions go way beyond that.

    Take Mensch, who is probably the Russiasphere's most prominent voice. She actually did have one legitimate scoop, reporting in November that the FBI had been granted a warrant to watch email traffic between the Trump Organization and two Russian banks ( before anyone else had ). Since then, though, her ideas have taken a bit of a turn. In January, she launched a blog - Patribotics - that's exclusively dedicated to the Trump/Russia scandal. It's ... a lot.

    Liberals fall for lies for the same reasons conservatives do: partisanship

    "Sources with links to the intelligence community say it is believed that Carter Page went to Moscow in early July carrying with him a pre-recorded tape of Donald Trump offering to change American policy if he were to be elected, to make it more favorable to Putin," Mensch claimed in an April post . "In exchange, Page was authorized directly by Trump to request the help of the Russian government in hacking the election."

    Another post , allegedly based on "sources with links to the intelligence community," claimed that Trump, Mike Pence, and Paul Ryan were all going to be arrested on racketeering charges against "the Republican party" owing to collaboration with Russia.

    "Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who was the 'Designated Survivor' at the inauguration of Donald Trump (yes, really) is likely to become President," Mensch writes.

    She's also suggested that Anthony Weiner was brought down as part of a Russian plot to put the Clinton emails back in the news:

    I can exclusively report that there is ample evidence that suggests that Weiner was sexting not with a 15 year old girl but with a hacker , working for Russia, part of the North Carolina hacking group 'Crackas With Attitude', who hacked the head of the CIA, and a great many FBI agents, police officers, and other law enforcement officials.

    And that the protests against police brutality in Ferguson were secretly a Russian plot:

    Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she refused and called me a "dickhead." But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas on Twitter.

    One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared" (the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter since 2013 ).

    "Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me. "That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out."

    Schindler's role in the Russiasphere is essentially as a validator, using his time working on Russia at the NSA to make the theories bandied about by Mensch seem credible. Schindler peppers his speech with terms pulled from Russian spycraft - like deza , short for dezinformatsiya (disinformation), or Chekist , a term used to describe the former spies who hold significant political positions in Putin's Russia.

    This lingo has become common among the Russiasphere, a sort of status symbol to show that its members understand the real nature of the threat. Schindler and Mensch will often refer to their enemies in the media and the Trump administration using the hashtag #TeamDeza, or accuse enemies of being Chekists.

    Claude Taylor is the third core member of the Russia sphere. He's a DC-area photographer who claims to have worked for three presidential administrations; his role is to provide inside information into the alleged legal cases against the president. He also routinely claims to have advance knowledge what's happening, even down to the precise number of grand juries impaneled and indictments that are on the way.

    These anonymous intelligence community tip-offs lead him to tweet, with certainty, that Trump is finished. His tweets routinely get thousands of retweets.

    These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. A quick Twitter search reveals hundreds of interactions between the three on the platform in recent months, many of which reach huge audiences on Twitter (judging by the retweet and favorite counts). They're also reliably boosted by a few allies with large followings - conservative NeverTrumper Rick Wilson , the anonymous Twitter account Counterchekist , and financial analyst Eric Garland (best known as the "time for some game theory" tweetstormer.)

    The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, is kind of a popularizer of the Russiasphere. It reports the same kind of extreme, thinly sourced stuff - for instance, a story titled "CIA now says there's more than one tape of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes" - often, though not always, sourced to Mensch and company. This seems to personally irk Mensch, who has occasionally suggested the Palmer Report is ripping her off .

    Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to Quantcast , a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook, according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000.

    This stuff is real, and there's a huge appetite for it.

    These theories are spreading because the Russia situation is murky - and Democrats are out of power

    To understand how Democrats started falling for this stuff so quickly, I turned to three scholars: Dartmouth's Nyhan, the University of Exeter's Jason Reifler, and Temple's Kevin Arceneaux. The three of them all work in a burgeoning subfield of political science, one that focuses on how people form political beliefs - false ones, in particular. All of them were disturbed by what they're seeing from the Russiasphere.

    "I'm worried? Alarmed? Disheartened is the right word - disheartened by the degree to which the left is willing to accept conspiracy theory claims or very weakly sourced claims about Russia's influence in the White House," Reifler says.

    The basic thing you need to understand, these scholars say, is that political misinformation in America comes principally from partisanship. People's political identities are formed around membership in one of two tribes, Democratic or Republican. This filters the way they see the world.

    "Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs, especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics, that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite."

    In one study , Yale's Dan Kahan gave subjects a particularly tricky math problem - phrased in terms of whether a skin cream worked. Then he gave a random subset the same problem, only phrased in terms of whether a particular piece of gun control legislation worked.

    The results were fascinating. For the people who got the skin cream problem, there was no correlation between partisanship and likelihood of getting the right answer. But when people got the same question, just about gun control, everything changed: Republicans were more likely to conclude that gun control didn't work, and Democrats the other way around. People's political biases overrode their basic mathematical reasoning skills.

    "[Some] people are willing to second-guess their gut reactions," Arceneaux says. "There just aren't that many people who are willing to do that."

    In real-life situations, where the truth is invariably much murkier than in a laboratory math problem, these biases are even more powerful. People want to believe that their side is good and the other evil - and are frighteningly willing to believe even the basest allegations against their political enemies. When your tribe is out of power, this effect makes you open to conspiracy theories. You tend to assume your political enemies have malign motives, which means you assume they're doing something evil behind the scenes.

    The specific nature of the conspiracy theories tends to be shaped by the actors in question. So because Obama was a black man with a non-Anglo name, and the Republican Party is made up mostly of white people, the popular conspiracy theories in the last administration became things like birtherism and Obama being a secret Muslim. This was helped on by a conservative mediasphere, your Rush Limbaughs and Fox Newses and Breitbarts, that had little interest in factual accuracy - alongside one Donald J. Trump.

    There have been random smatterings of this kind of thing catering to Democrats throughout the Trump administration, like the now-infamous Medium piece alleging that Trump's Muslim ban was a "trial balloon for a coup." But most conspiracy thinking has come to center on Russia, and for good reason: There's suggestive evidence of an actual conspiracy.

    We know that Trump's team has a series of shady connections to the Kremlin. Some of Trump's allies may have coordinated with Russian hackers to undermine the Clinton campaign. But we still don't know the details of what actually happened, so there's a huge audience of Democratic partisans who want someone to fill in the blanks for them.

    "Conspiracy entrepreneurs are filling the void for this kind of content," Nyhan says. "If you're among the hardcore, you can follow Louise Mensch, and the Palmer Report, and John Schindler and folks like that - and get an ongoing stream of conspiracy discourse that is making some quite outlandish claims."

    This kind of thing is poisonous. For Republicans, it made their party more vulnerable to actual penetration by hacks - the "Michele Bachmanns" and "Sean Hannitys," as Nyhan puts it. It allows unprincipled liars and the outright deluded to shape policy, which both makes your ideas much worse and discredits the good ones that remain. In the specific case of the Russia investigation, the spread of these ideas would make the president's accusations of "fake news" far more credible.

    Luckily for the Democratic Party, there isn't really a pre-built media ecosystem for amplifying this like there was for Republicans. In the absence of left-wing Limbaughs and Breitbarts, media outlets totally unconcerned with factual rigor, it's much harder for this stuff to become mainstream.

    But hard doesn't mean impossible. The most worrying sign, according to the scholars I spoke to, is that some mainstream figures and publications are starting to validate Russiasphere claims.

    For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism":

    A current DNC communications staffer - Adrienne Watson - favorably retweeted a Mensch claim that the Russians had "kompromat," or blackmail, on Rep. Chaffetz:

    Two former Obama staffers, Ned Price and Eric Schultz, favorably discussed a Palmer Report story aggregating Mensch's allegations about Chaffetz ("interesting, if single-source," Price tweeted). Larry Tribe, an eminent and famous constitutional law professor at Harvard, shared the same Palmer Report story on Twitter - and even defended his decision to do so in an email to BuzzFeed 's Joseph Bernstein.

    "Some people regard a number of its stories as unreliable," Tribe wrote of Palmer. Yet he defended disseminating its work: "When I share any story on Twitter ... I do so because a particular story seems to be potentially interesting, not with the implication that I've independently checked its accuracy or that I vouch for everything it asserts."

    And Keith Olbermann made a popular video for GQ based on Taylor's allegations about imminent arrests, adding that "Claude and his sources know their stuff."

    What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest in factual accuracy.

    This is the key danger: that this sort of thing becomes routine, repeated over and over again in left-leaning media outlets, to the point where accepting the Russiasphere's fact-free claims becomes a core and important part of what Democrats believe.

    "Normal people aren't reading extensively about what Louise Mensch claims someone told her about Russia," Nyhan says. "The question now is whether Democrats and their allies in the media - and other affiliated elites - will promote these conspiracy theories more aggressively."

    That's how the GOP fell for conspiracy thinking during the Obama years. There's nothing about Democratic psychology that prevents them from doing the same - which means the burden is on Democratic elites to correct it.

    Democratic partisans and liberal media outlets are the ones best positioned to push back against this kind of stuff. Rank-and-file Democrats trust them; if they're saying this stuff is ridiculous, then ordinary liberals will start to think the same thing. Even if they just ignore it, then the Russiasphere will be denied the oxygen necessary for it to move off of Twitter and into the center of the political conversation.

    "Scrutiny from trusted media sources and criticism from allied elites can help discourage this kind of behavior," Nyhan says. "It won't suppress it - there are always places it can go - but on the margin, allies can help limit the spread of conspiracy theorizing inside their party."

    So that's the key question going forward: Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives.

    [May 30, 2017] Putin Russian Meddling Is A Fiction Democrats Invented To Divert Blame For Their Defeat

    The Russia-screwed-the-Dems meme is obviously fantastical bullshit and it's absolutely disgraceful that the neoliberal MSM are running this garbage 24/7 like it's the gospel truth.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid warfare etc.," the Russian leader told his French hosts. "What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia." ..."
    "... Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon, John McCain said that Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS . "You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues." ..."
    "... It is glaringly obvious that the (worthless) Rats painted themselves into a small corner. Blaming the Russians is both desperate and hilarious. ..."
    May 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    With McCarthyism 2.0 continues to run amok in the US, spread like a virulent plague by unnamed, unknown, even fabricated sources , over in France one day after his first meeting with French president Emanuel Macron, the man who supposedly colluded with and was Trump's pre-election puppet master (but had to wait until after the election to set up back-channels with Jared Kushner) Vladimir Putin sat down for an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro in which the Russian president expressed the belief that Moscow and Western capitals "all want security, peace, safety and cooperation."

    "Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid warfare etc.," the Russian leader told his French hosts. "What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia."

    Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon, John McCain said that Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS . "You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues."

    "Hacking" Clinton And the DNC

    Even with the FBI special investigation on "Russian collusion" with the Trump campaign and administration taking place in the background, Putin once again dismissed allegations of Russian meddling in last year's U.S. presidential election as "fiction" invented by Democrats to divert the blame for their defeat. Putin repeated his strong denial of Russia's involvement in the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails that yielded disclosures that proved embarrassing for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Instead, he countered that claims of Russian interference were driven by the " desire of those who lost the U.S. elections to improve their standing ."

    "They want to explain to themselves and prove to others that they had nothing to do with it, their policy was right, they have done everything well, but someone from the outside cheated them," he continued. "It's not so. They simply lost, and they must acknowledge it. " That has proven easier said than done, because half a year after the election, Hillary Clinton still blames Wikileaks and James Comey for her loss . Ironically, what Putin said next, namely that the "people who lost the vote hate to acknowledge that they indeed lost because the person who won was closer to the people and had a better understanding of what people wanted," is precisely what even Joe Biden has admitted several weeks ago , and once again yesterday . Maybe Uncle Joe is a Russian secret agent too...

    In reflecting on the ongoing scandal, which has seen constant, daily accusations of collusion and interference if no evidence (yet), Putin conceded that the damage has already been done and Russia's hopes for a new detente under Trump have been shattered by congressional and FBI investigations of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. In the interview, Putin also said the accusations of meddling leveled at Russia have destabilized international affairs

    Going back to the hotly debated topic of "influencing" the election, Putin once again made a dangerous dose of sense when he argued that trying to influence the U.S. vote would make no sense for Moscow as a U.S. president can't unilaterally shape policies. " Russia has never engaged in that, we don't need it and it makes no sense to do it ," he said. " Presidents come and go, but policies don't change. You know why? Because the power of bureaucracy is very strong ." Especially when the bureaucracy in question is the so-called "deep state."

    Asked who could have been behind the hacking of the Democrats' emails, The Russian leader added that he agreed with Trump that it could have been anyone. "Maybe someone lying in his bed invented something or maybe someone deliberately inserted a USB with a Russian citizen's signature or anything else," Putin said. "Anything can be done in this virtual world." This echoed a remark by Trump during a September presidential debate in which he said of the DNC hacks: "It could be Russia, but it could be China, could also be lots of other people. It could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds."

    Assad, Red-Lines and Chemical Weapons

    Putin was asked about French President Emmanuel Macron's warning that any use of chemical weapons in Syria was a "red line" that would be met by reprisals, to which the Russian president said he agreed with that position. But he also reiterated Russia's view that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces weren't responsible for a fatal chemical attack in Syria in April. Putin said Russia had offered the U.S. and its allies the chance to inspect the Syrian base for traces of the chemical agent. He added that their refusal reflected a desire to justify military action against Assad. "There is no proof of Assad using chemical weapons," Putin insisted in the interview. "We firmly believe that that this is a provocation. President Assad did not use chemical weapons."

    "Moreover, I believe that this issue should be addressed on a broader scale. President Macron shares this view. No matter who uses chemical weapons against people and organizations, the international community must formulate a common policy and find a solution that would make the use of such weapons impossible for anyone," the Russian leader said.

    On NATO's Military Buildup across Russian borders

    Weighing on the outcome of the recent NATO summit, at which Russia was branded a threat to security, Putin pointed to the ambiguous signals Moscow is receiving from the alliance. "What attracted my attention is that the NATO leaders spoke at their summit about a desire to improve relations with Russia. Then why are they increasing their military spending? Whom are they planning to fight against?" Putin said, adding that Russia nevertheless "feels confident" in its own defenses. Washington's appeal to other NATO members to ramp up their military spending and alleviate the financial burden the US is forced to shoulder is "understandable" and "pragmatic," Putin said.

    But the strategy employed by the alliance against Russia is "shortsighted," the Russian president added, referring to the NATO's expanding missile defense infrastructure on Russia's doorstep and calling it "an extremely dangerous development for international security." Putin lamented that an idea of a comprehensive security system envisioned in the 1990s that would span Europe, Russia and US has never become a reality, arguing that it would have spared Russia many challenges to its security stemming from NATO. "Perhaps all this would not have happened. But it did, and we cannot rewind history, it is not a movie."

    junction -> Boris Badenov •May 30, 2017 10:03 PM

    Paging Seth Rich. Oh, he can't say anything about the reason why the Democrats lost. Maybe Hillary could try to contact him using witchcraft and the Satanist arts she follows. Then again, her old reliable is her hit team of FBI agents, not her sacrifices to Moloch.

    GooseShtepping Moron •May 30, 2017 10:01 PM

    Putin packs more truth into one newspaper interview than the entire Western media publishes in a year.

    Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:01 PM

    Who would they blame if Russia was suddenly gone?

    rejected -> Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:05 PM

    Iran.

    GooseShtepping Moron -> Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:06 PM

    Me and you, the basket of deplorables.

    Billy the Poet -> rwmctrofholz •May 30, 2017 10:25 PM

    I find this little cut and paste job to be effective when addressing this issue:

    Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution

    "DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying."

    "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."

    https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

    Yars Revenge •May 30, 2017 10:23 PM

    The Russia-screwed-the-Dems thing is obviously fantastical bullshit and it's absolutely disgraceful that the mainstream media are running this garbage 24/7 like it's the gospel truth.

    ogretown •May 30, 2017 10:43 PM

    It is glaringly obvious that the (worthless) Rats painted themselves into a small corner. Blaming the Russians is both desperate and hilarious. But who else could they blame? If instead they had started a campaign that focused on the Muslims trying to ruin America and (correctly) identified Saudi Arabia as America's greatest enemy, imagine the votes they would have received from the soft-right, independents, (relatively) sane liberals. If the (worthless) liberals opted for a moratorium on squandering any more money on the pseudo-science of global warming and insisted on a balanced panel to investigate the issue once and for all - even more votes.

    Ditto with exotic pro-globalist trade deals...instead if the (worthless) Rats would have opted for town hall discussions on how a vast international trade deal would have may be helped America, they would have been viewed as the party of balance, consideration and the thoughtful.

    But all of that means having smart and dedicated people as either part of the party or willing to trust the party - none of which exist. Instead the party of bankrupt ideals and impoverished morality finger point the Russians and try to blame it all on them.

    [May 30, 2017] Someone needs to remind Brennan that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennans arrival toKiev in 2014

    Notable quotes:
    "... getting to the crux of the matter when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan / Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine (some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking". The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated']) ..."
    "... All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery. Which brings us to this curious comment.. ..."
    "... And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than anything else. ..."
    www.unz.com

    annamaria , May 30, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT

    @exiled off mainstreet

    The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist.

    Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known: https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/

    "CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on Sunday.

    Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence," Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.

    "Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."

    This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist.

    Rurik , Website May 30, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT

    @annamaria

    the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014

    I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a Zio-bankster-quisling.

    PG:

    the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.

    getting to the crux of the matter when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan / Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine (some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking". The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2015/03/John_Brennan.jpg

    has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria and elsewhere too.

    All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery. Which brings us to this curious comment..

    The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,

    what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!

    So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the zio-media/AIPAC/etc..

    His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.

    In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.

    And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than anything else.

    [May 30, 2017] When Intelligence Is Not by Patrick Armstrong

    Notable quotes:
    "... I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be very interested in hearing what you think of my theory. ..."
    "... intelligence sources ..."
    "... So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social media "evidence"? ..."
    "... four years earlier ..."
    "... many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish. ..."
    May 29, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be very interested in hearing what you think of my theory.

    In my career in the Canadian government I was never formally in "intelligence" but I did participate in writing many "intelligence assessments". Facebook, Twitter and other kinds of social media didn't much exist at that time but, even if they had, I can't imagine that we would have ever used them as sources of evidence: social media is, to put it mildly, too easy to fake. In writing intelligence assessments, while we did use information gathered from intelligence sources (ie secret), probably more came from what was rather pompously called OSInt (Open Source Intelligence; in other words, stuff you don't need a security clearance to learn). What was, however, the most important part of creating an assessment was the long process of discussion in the group. Much talk and many rewrites produced a consensus opinion.

    A typical intelligence assessment would start with a question – what's going on with the economy, or political leadership or whatever of Country X – and would argue a conclusion based on facts. So: question, argument, conclusion. And usually a prediction – after all the real point of intelligence is to attempt to reduce surprises. The intelligence assessment then made its way up the chain to the higher ups; they may have ignored or disagreed with the conclusions but, as far as I know, the assessment, signed off by the group that had produced it, was not tampered with: I never heard of words being put into our mouths. The intelligence community regards tampering with an intelligence assessment to make it look as if the authors had said something different as a very serious sin. All of this is preparation to say that I know what an intelligence assessment is supposed to look like and that I have seen a lot of so-called intelligence assessments coming out of Washington that don't look like the real thing.

    Intelligence is quite difficult. I like the analogy of trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when you don't know what the picture is supposed to be, you don't know how many pieces the puzzle has and you're not sure that the pieces that you have are actually from the same puzzle. Let us say, for example, that you intercept a phonecall in which the Leader of Country X is telling one of his flunkeys to do something. Surely that's a gold standard? Well, not if the Leader knew you were listening (and how would you know if he did?); nor if he's someone who changes his mind often. There are very few certainties in the business and many many opportunities for getting it wrong.

    So real raw intelligence data is difficult enough to evaluate; social media, on the other hand, has so many credibility problems that it is worthless; worthless, that is, except as evidence of itself (ie a bot campaign is evidence that somebody has taken the effort to do one). It is extremely easy to fake: a Photoshopped picture can be posted and spread everywhere in hours; bots can create the illusion of a conversation; phonecall recordings are easily stitched together: here are films of Buks, here are phonecalls. (But, oddly enough, all the radars were down for maintenance that day). It's so easy, in fact, that it's probably easier to create the fake than to prove that it is a fake. There is no place in an intelligence assessment for "evidence" from something as unreliable as social media.

    An "intelligence assessment" that uses social media is suspect.

    So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social media "evidence"?

    I first noticed social media used as evidence during the MH17 catastrophe when Marie Harf, the then US State Department spokesman, appealed to social media and "common sense" . She did so right after the Russians had posted radar evidence (she hadn't "seen any of that" said she). At the time I assumed that she was just incompetent. It was only later, when I read the "intelligence assessments" backing up the so-called Russian influence on the US election, that I began to notice the pattern.

    There are indications during the Obama Administration that the intelligence professionals were becoming restive. Here are some examples that suggest that "intelligence assessments" were either not being produced by the intelligence professionals or – see the last example – those that were were then modified to please the Boss.

    If one adds the reliance on social media to these indications, it seems a reasonable suspicion that these so-called intelligence assessments are not real intelligence assessments produced by intelligence professionals but are post facto justifications written up by people who know what the Boss wants to hear.

    We have already seen what appears to have been the first example of this with the "social media and common sense" of MH17. And, from that day to this, not a shred of Kerry's "evidence" have we seen. The long-awaited Dutch report was, as I said at the time, only a modified hangout and very far from convincing .

    Russia "invaded" Ukraine so many times it became a joke. The "evidence" was the usual social media accompanied by blurry satellite photos . So bad are the photos, in fact, that someone suggested that "Russian artillery" were actually combine harvesters . In one of the rare departures from the prescribed consensus, a former (of course) German Chief of Staff was utterly unconvinced by thse pictures and explained why . By contrast, here is a satellite photo of Russian aircraft in Syria ; others here . Sharply focussed and in colour. The "Russian invasion" photos were lower quality than the Cuban Missile Crisis photos taken six decades earlier! A hidden message? See below.

    The so-called Syrian government CW attack on Ghouta in August 2013 was similarly based on social media; heavily dependent, in fact, on "Bellingcat". Quite apart from the improbability of Assad ordering a CW attack on a suburb a short drive away from arriving international inspectors, the whole story was adequately destroyed by Seymour Hersh . (Bellingcat's "proofs", by the way, can be safely ignored – see his faked-up "evidence" that Russians attacked an aid convoy in Syria .)

    A dominant story for months has been that Russia somehow influenced the US presidential election. As ever, the Washington Post led the charge and the day after the election told us " Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House ". But when we finally saw the "secret assessments" they proved to be laughably damp squibs. The DHS/FBI report of 29 December 2016 carried this stunning disclaimer:

    This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.

    Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the DNI report of 6 January 2017 was the space – nearly half – devoted to a rant that had been published four years earlier about the Russian TV channel RT. What that had to do with the Russian state influencing the 2016 election was obscure. But, revealingly, the report included:

    We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

    In other words, DHS told us to ignore its report and the one agency in the US intelligence structure that would actually know about hacking and would have copies of everything – the NSA – wasn't very confident. Both reports were soon torn apart: John McAfee: "I can promise you if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians". ( See 10:30 ). Jeffrey Carr: " Fatally flawed ". Julian Assange: not a state actor. Even those who loath Putin trashed them . In any case, as we now know, the NSA can mimic Russians or anyone else .

    In April there was another suspiciously timed "CW attack" in Syria and, blithely ignoring that the responders didn't wear any protective gear in what was supposed to be a Sarin attack , the Western media machine wound up its sirens. The intelligence assessment that was released again referred to "credible open source reporting" and even "pro-opposition social media reports" (! – are the authors so disgusted with what they have to write that they leave gigantic hints like that in plain sight?). Then a page of so of how Moscow trying to "confuse" the world community. And so on. This "intelligence assessment" was taken apart by Theodore Postol .

    So, we have strong suggestions that the intelligence professionals are being sidelined or having their conclusions altered; we have far too much reliance of social media; is there anything else that we can see? Yes, there is: many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish.

    There are too many of these, in fact, not to notice – not that the Western media has noticed, of course – they rather jump out at you once you look don't they? I don't recall inserting any little such hints into any of the intelligence assessments that I was involved in.

    In conclusion, it seems that a well-founded case can be presented that:

    Where done? By whom? That remains to be discovered. More Swamp to be drained.

    [May 29, 2017] Jared Kushner Reportedly Discussed Setting Up Secret Communication Channel With Moscow by Mary Papenfuss

    Is really Russian ambassador so negligent that he posted such an information over open channel? I doubt it. that means that Hayden may be lying and this is just a part of Purple revolution campaign of discreditation of Trump administration. Otherwise he reveals that the NSA broke Russian diplomatic communication cipher, which is biog NO-NO.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Without specifically mentioning the report about Kushner, Trump tweeted Sunday in an apparent response to a number of recent stories about his administration that "leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies." ..."
    "... Kushner's reported plan is evidence of an extreme cynicism about "organs of the state," said Hayden, and a belief that government institutions only serve the self-interests of the president currently in power. The apparent implication of such a Kremlin link was that the Trump team trusted Russian agents more than the outgoing Obama administration or the U.S. intelligence community. ..."
    May 29, 2017 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    Kushner's reported actions suggest "we are in a really dark place as a society," Michael Hayden said.

    Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden said that the reported plan by chief White House adviser Jared Kushner's to arrange secret communications with the Russians during President Donald Trump's transition was "off the map" and like nothing he has seen in his lifetime.

    Hayden wants to chalk up the stunning plan to "naivete" rather than evil intentions - but that's not reassuring, he said in an interview on CNN.

    "Right now, I'm going with naivete, and that's not particularly comforting for me," he said. "What manner of ignorance, chaos, hubris, suspicion, contempt would you have to have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or an appropriate idea?"

    Hayden was commenting on reports, which first appeared in The Washington Post Friday, that Kushner discussed last December establishing a secret communication channel with the Kremlin - using Russian facilities - without any monitoring by the U.S.

    Kushner discussed the idea in Trump Tower with Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., who was surprised by the request, the Post reported, because of security risks such an arrangement would pose to both countries.

    Kushner emerged last Thursday as a person of interest in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.

    Without specifically mentioning the report about Kushner, Trump tweeted Sunday in an apparent response to a number of recent stories about his administration that "leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies."

    Kushner's reported plan is evidence of an extreme cynicism about "organs of the state," said Hayden, and a belief that government institutions only serve the self-interests of the president currently in power. The apparent implication of such a Kremlin link was that the Trump team trusted Russian agents more than the outgoing Obama administration or the U.S. intelligence community.

    "What degree of suspicion of the existing government, what degree of contempt for the administration they were replacing would be required again to think this was an acceptable course of action?" he asked.

    Hayden added: "It says an awful lot about us as a society that we could actually harbor those kinds of feelings that the organs of the state would be used by my predecessor to come after me or ... to disrupt my administration in a way that made it seem legitimate to me to use the secure communications facilities of a foreign power - a foreign power that some in government alleged you were cooperating with to affect the American election."

    It's evidence, he added, that "we are in a really dark place as a society."

    [May 29, 2017] Professor Russia Dossier Is Attempt to Destroy Trump s Presidency Before Inauguration by Stephen Cohen

    They are throwing all kind of stuff at Trump to see if anything stick...
    Notable quotes:
    "... "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" ..."
    "... Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow." ..."
    "... People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have become a grave American national security threat." ..."
    Jan 11, 2017 | insider.foxnews.com

    Russian Studies Professor Stephen Cohen said the publication of an unverified dossier of information regarding President-elect Donald Trump and Russia is the "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" before he takes office.

    Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow."

    Cohen said mainstream media figures have been calling Trump a 'puppet of the Kremlin' for some time, which he remarked started when they decided to consider him as running with "Putin" rather than "Pence".

    People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have become a grave American national security threat."

    [May 29, 2017] On origin of fascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Facism predates WWI in Italy; Benito Mussolini brought it to the fore around 1919 and on into WWII ..."
    "... The historian Zeev Sternhell has traced the ideological roots of fascism back to the 1880s, and in particular to the fin de siθcle theme of that time. ..."
    "... The fin-de-siθcle mindset saw civilization as being in a crisis that required a massive and total solution.[70] The fin-de-siθcle intellectual school considered the individual only one part of the larger collectivity, which should not be viewed as an atomized numerical sum of individuals.[70] They condemned the rationalistic individualism of liberal society and the dissolution of social links in bourgeois society.[70] ..."
    May 29, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    V. Arnold | May 28, 2017 9:08:57 AM | 73
    Lea | May 28, 2017 7:24:38 AM | 72

    Lea, spot on comment; a small quibble though. Facism predates WWI in Italy; Benito Mussolini brought it to the fore around 1919 and on into WWII. I haven't been able to source its origins yet. In any event; keep on keeping on...

    V. Arnold | May 28, 2017 9:13:04 AM | 74
    Ah, this from Wiki;

    The historian Zeev Sternhell has traced the ideological roots of fascism back to the 1880s, and in particular to the fin de siθcle theme of that time.[68][69] The theme was based on a revolt against materialism, rationalism, positivism, bourgeois society and democracy.[70] The fin-de-siθcle generation supported emotionalism, irrationalism, subjectivism and vitalism.[71]

    The fin-de-siθcle mindset saw civilization as being in a crisis that required a massive and total solution.[70] The fin-de-siθcle intellectual school considered the individual only one part of the larger collectivity, which should not be viewed as an atomized numerical sum of individuals.[70] They condemned the rationalistic individualism of liberal society and the dissolution of social links in bourgeois society.[70]

    I've learned not to trust Wiki 100%; but I'll cross reference this later.

    [May 29, 2017] Believing The Russian Hacking Claim Zero Hedge

    May 29, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    May 27, 2017 10:25 PM 0 SHARES Authored by David Swanson via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian "hacking" claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed,

    When the U.S. public was told that Spain had blown up theMaine,or Vietnam had returned fire, or Iraq had stockpiled weapons, or Libya was planning a massacre, the claims were straightforward and disprovable.

    Before people began referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, somebody had to lie that it had happened, and there had to be an understanding of what had supposedly happened. No investigation into whether anything had happened could have taken as its starting point the certainty that a Vietnamese attack or attacks had happened. And no investigation into whether a Vietnamese attack had happened could have focused its efforts on unrelated matters, such as whether anyone in Vietnam had ever done business with any relatives or colleagues of Robert McNamara.

    All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. U.S. corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the case.

    There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact to the...

    "Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election" ( Yahoo ).

    "Russian attempts to disrupt the election" ( New York Times ).

    "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election" ( ABC ).

    "Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election" ( The Intercept ).

    "a multi-pronged investigation to uncover the full extent of Russia's election-meddling" ( Time ).

    "Russian interference in the US election" ( CNN ).

    "Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election" ( American Constitution Society ).

    "Russian hacking in US Election" ( Business Standard )."

    "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking" we're told by the New York Times , but what is "election hacking"? Its definition seems to vary widely. And what evidence is there of Russia having done it?

    The "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" even exists as a factual event in Wikipedia , not as an allegation or a theory. But the factual nature of it is not so much asserted as brushed aside.

    Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the principled stand "I don't do evidence," testified that "the fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to act to prevent further instances of that." He provided no evidence.

    Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election." ( March for Truth .)

    Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is steadily rising in the U.S. public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact.

    Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the "Russian influence on the election" is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi.

    A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed . There is no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered last year) leaked Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both claims have passionate believers.

    Still, the claims about Russia are unique in their wide proliferation, broad acceptance, and status as something to be constantly referred to as though already established, constantly augmented by other Russia-related stories that add nothing to the central claim . This phenomenon, in my view, is as dangerous as any lies and fabrications coming out of the racist right.

    macki mack - john316jr , May 27, 2017 10:48 PM

    "U.S. officials supply no evidence"

    They don't need to. Their arm is long enough to do what they want.

    http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/the-long-arm-of-gover...

    IntercoursetheEU - Number 9 , May 28, 2017 12:56 AM

    Anyone with common sense would have tried to influence that election. Clinton's are crooks and we knew that anyway. Big deal

    Bumpo - IntercoursetheEU , May 28, 2017 2:07 AM

    This dude lost all credibility when he ended the article with "... racist right". Talk about no evidence. We live in an upside down world where protecting one's borders is considered racist, but blaming whitey for all the ills of the world is perfectly fine. Obama, and the Left, with their knee-jerk association of anyone who disagrees with them, are the true racists. Finding collective racism, sexism, etc so easily only proves your own mind-numbing intollerance and rabid sickness of hate and discrimination. Hillary Clinton proved it in spades at her Wellesly College Comencecunt speach. The vitriol outdoes Trump on his worst night.

    Perimetr - IntercoursetheEU , May 28, 2017 1:33 AM

    " the Russian "hacking" claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed,"

    Sorry, nothing unusual about hearing lies in the MSM

    Aussiekiwi , May 27, 2017 10:39 PM

    A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed . There is no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered last year) leaked Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both claims have passionate believers.

    Well actually there is evidence that Seth Richs was the DEM leak and not the Russians.

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/murdered-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-...

    Bubba Rum Das , May 27, 2017 10:35 PM

    Once upon a time, there was a Man named Boris, & a Woman named Natasha...

    galant , May 27, 2017 10:48 PM

    "A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed ."

    Who needs facts?

    If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. - Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany 1933-45.

    Give Me Some Truth , May 27, 2017 10:48 PM

    Notice how no one is apparently really investigating if Assad "gassed his own people." This allegation is a big deal. Did the NYT assign five of its best international reporters to investigating the facts? Is the UN investigating? Are "intelligence" officers who dissent from the official meme being contacted?

    That is, at some point, the truth doesn't matter. Nor does any "search for the truth" seem to take place or get any publicity.

    chubbar - Give Me Some Truth , May 27, 2017 10:58 PM

    In fact the US blocked a Russian demand that an investigation be conducted by a neutral 3rd party. Anyone that really follows this story knows it wasn't Assad. The lies aren't even disguised any longer. The only people they are trying to convinceare the people who only watch CNN or MSNBC but those dolts are convinced that Hillary won the election but Russia changed the ballots so there is really no trying to reason with idiots like that.

    Bumpo - chubbar , May 28, 2017 1:44 AM

    The big question is, does Trump know the Assad gassing meme is bullshit, or is he really not that well-informed. I hope and pray he is playing 5-D chess and is just pretending in order to buy himself enough time to drain the swamp in the long run.

    GestaltNine , May 27, 2017 10:50 PM

    yeah the media in the USA is exposing itself to everyone even the most brain dead lib has got to be questioning what the heck is going on with this Russian garbage, the sheer vapid intensity is such it borders on supernatural

    indio007 , May 27, 2017 10:52 PM

    Russia interferes in elections a and people in caves on dialysis organize complicated attacks.

    Grandad Grumps , May 27, 2017 11:00 PM

    Russian Hacking = Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction = Syrian Chemical Weapons = Muslins with Box Cutters = Gulf of Tonkin = a Miracle Bullet ... the list is endless.

    lester1 , May 27, 2017 11:21 PM

    "Russia" = DNC email leaker Seth Rich --

    The deep state is terrified that investigating Seth's Murder will open up a huge can of worms! The dishonest liberal media will have lost credibility forever --

    HRH Feant2 , May 27, 2017 11:22 PM

    When I watch CNN and other people in the MSM talking about Russia I ask myself, "what the fuck are these people smoking?" You couldn't make me think the Russians were in control of Donald Trump even if you jacked me up with LSD and the strongest blunts from Colorado!

    Seriously, to watch news readers on CNN go into fits of hysteria over Russia is mind numbing.

    Can someone Fed Ex a blunt from Colorado? I don't even smoke anymore! FUCK.

    Giant Meteor - HRH Feant2 , May 27, 2017 11:28 PM

    The fuckers get fed lines, like movie actors. They are so fucking dumb, they don't even know it, (that they are dumb.) A fine example of special ops, brainwashing, probably educated in the finest elite training mills, with no emphasis on critical thnking skills nor original thoughts whatsoever ..

    Near as I can figure ..

    HRH Feant2 - Giant Meteor , May 27, 2017 11:42 PM

    I guess they are willing to be, as Gerald Celente says, presstitutes! Pay them enough and they will say anything!

    pippi68 , May 27, 2017 11:43 PM

    The dems are breaking rule #7 of their manefesto, Saul Alansky's Rule Book for radicals. 7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. We most definitely find the muh Russia charade tiresome. The dems are just too unimaginative to make up anything new for us. Hollywood too has proved itself to be out of ideas. Trump is the best amusement possible. You can't possibly guess what he's going to do or say next. Dems and neo-cons, the globalist elites, are totally predictable. They have never had such an adversary. It is a glorious show to behold!

    Small Governmen... , May 28, 2017 12:37 AM

    The stench of BS is so strong around Washington DC that I will not go there. Not even with my HAZMAT respirators that can filter out the aroma of a skunk. Skunks are no match for the stinking BS that pervades Washington DC.

    I believe this is why you never read stories about "skunk problems" in DC. The skunks have left DC.

    What remains in DC is the real stinkers. The people who would have you believe their utterly made up BS.

    [May 29, 2017] Professor Russia Dossier Is Attempt to Destroy Trump s Presidency Before Inauguration by Stephen Cohen

    They are throwing all kind of stuff at Trump to see if anything stick...
    Notable quotes:
    "... "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" ..."
    "... Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow." ..."
    "... People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have become a grave American national security threat." ..."
    Jan 11, 2017 | insider.foxnews.com

    Russian Studies Professor Stephen Cohen said the publication of an unverified dossier of information regarding President-elect Donald Trump and Russia is the "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" before he takes office.

    Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow."

    Cohen said mainstream media figures have been calling Trump a 'puppet of the Kremlin' for some time, which he remarked started when they decided to consider him as running with "Putin" rather than "Pence".

    People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have become a grave American national security threat."

    [May 27, 2017] Neoliberals tears about Hillary loss might create dragons teeth effect

    Notable quotes:
    "... One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when they lose a close election. That will help the right wing more than anything they themselves can do. She is clearly not mature enough to take any leadership role anywhere. ..."
    "... "neoliberal tears" about Hillary loss might create "dragon's teeth" effect... For example look at the Twit: "Fmr Kasich Supporter: Hostile Media Makes Me Support Trump " Chinese torture of Trump using well timed leaks also can have the same effect. ..."
    "... sections of Trump voters and population in general now harbored "a uniform distrust of the national news media." ..."
    "... There are still a lot of morons who voted for Trump and are sure he will do the part of his promises they listened to and believed. He is brilliant at the short con. That is how he made his money (or is it failed to loss his inheritance). He promises whatever he sense that the costumer want to hear and get a signature on the deal. Then as soon as the costumer have handed over their money (votes) he runs away from what he promised. ..."
    "... That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick. ..."
    May 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    DeDude - , May 26, 2017 at 02:41 PM

    One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when they lose a close election. That will help the right wing more than anything they themselves can do. She is clearly not mature enough to take any leadership role anywhere.
    libezkova - , May 26, 2017 at 07:47 PM
    "One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when they lose a close election"

    That's a very good point. I would say more: "neoliberal tears" about Hillary loss might create "dragon's teeth" effect... For example look at the Twit: "Fmr Kasich Supporter: Hostile Media Makes Me Support Trump " Chinese torture of Trump using well timed leaks also can have the same effect.

    that all means that it's not only just former #NeverHillary types who still stand by the president. Other sections of Trump voters and population in general now harbored "a uniform distrust of the national news media."

    see also http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/24/trump-nixon-watergate-culture-war

    from which this quote was taken.

    Christopher H. - , May 26, 2017 at 01:24 PM
    https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/868131695215738880

    Stephanie Kelton‏ @StephanieKelton

    Stephanie Kelton Retweeted Pedro da Costa

    There should be less pushback on Trump's growth forecast, per se, and more focus on the question Growth For Whom?

    8:48 AM - 26 May 2017

    DeDude - , May 26, 2017 at 02:32 PM
    There are still a lot of morons who voted for Trump and are sure he will do the part of his promises they listened to and believed. He is brilliant at the short con. That is how he made his money (or is it failed to loss his inheritance). He promises whatever he sense that the costumer want to hear and get a signature on the deal. Then as soon as the costumer have handed over their money (votes) he runs away from what he promised.

    That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick.

    But it will almost certainly take at least a year before a large number of the Trump voters realize that they have been conned. It is very difficult for people to admit that they made a stupid mistake - especially difficult for stupid people.

    libezkova - , May 26, 2017 at 08:00 PM
    "But it will almost certainly take at least a year before a large number of the Trump voters realize that they have been conned."

    Not true. I know many who already "get it " ;-)

    "That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick."

    But both Bush II an Barack Obama were reelected. So "bait and switch" game might not be that fatal for politicians in the USA as it is in some other countries.

    I agree that shortermism is the name of the game.

    "It is very difficult for people to admit that they made a stupid mistake"

    Large part of "alt-right" (anti war right) already abandoned Trump. Those did it first. Paleoconservatives followed and now are one just step from open hostility mostly because of media attacks on Trump.

    Libertarians, especially former Ron Paul supporters, now are openly hostile and their critique is really biting.

    Do not know about evangelicals and other fringe groups, but I doubt that any of them still have illusions about Trump.

    IMHO, the only factor that still allows Trump to maintain his base is unending attacks of neoliberal media and this set of well coordinated leaks.

    [May 27, 2017] Dems' Trump-Russia Witch Hunt Deranged and Unjustified

    May 27, 2017 | www.newsmax.com

    ...we wouldn't be talking about this if Democrats and the media weren't lying every hour of every day about a nonexistent scandal. This bogus investigation should end forthwith, no matter who is heading it, because it is based on nothing but innuendo and partisanship. You conduct an investigation not because you want something to be true but because you have some evidence suggesting it may be. There is no such evidence here, and they've admitted it. ...

    Mimi • 7 days ago

    This Russian drum beat is getting tiresome. It is a terrible distraction to what more good and beneficial things the President is trying to implement. The devil is definitely at work in all the Democrat's hate-spewing words and deeds. Just look at their faces when they get interviewed on TV. They don't care about all the infractions Hillary was involved in - all her life, even dead bodies left in her wake. So they say.

    KrrMudgeon • 13 days ago

    "Dems' Trump-Russia Witch Hunt Deranged and Unjustified"...in other words, perfectly normal for dems.

    concernedcitizen • 13 days ago

    I would like someone on the Left to explain exactly how Russia interfered with the election. The DNC was hacked as was Podesta's emails and the information was given to wikileaks. Julian Assange himself stated that the information was not provided by Russia nor was it provided by a state agency. So, where is the EVIDENCE that Russia interfered with the election???

    cam • 14 days ago

    To believe that the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 Election and possible involvement of the Trump campaign with Russia is a witch hunt or "fake news" means that the 17 Intelligence Agencies, the Investigative Committees in the House and the Senate and other investigations are spending their valuable time investigating nothing is absurd. How can Trump and a few other people be right by claiming this investigation is a hoax and the hundreds of investigators be wrong!

    It has been already proven by 17 Intelligence Agencies that Russia interfered in the Election and now the investigation is into the next part - the investigation of the Trump campaign and their possible involvement with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 Election.

    It is insulting to me and other Americans that Trump considers this "fake news."

    There are facts that support these investigations and to pretend that these facts do not exist is lying!

    [May 25, 2017] Yes, Virginia (Dare) There is a Cultural Marxism–and Its Taking Over Conservatism Inc by Paul Gottfried

    Notable quotes:
    "... Spencer's ..."
    "... Georgetown professor confronts white nationalist Richard Spencer at the gym - which terminates his membership , ..."
    "... National Review ..."
    "... French election: American Conservatives Should Support Macron ..."
    "... The Closing of the American Mind ..."
    "... Gay Marriage vs. goodwill ..."
    "... National Review ..."
    "... Why John Podhoretz is Wrong on Gay Marriage ..."
    "... First Things, ..."
    "... The Power of Marriage ..."
    "... New York Times, ..."
    "... Why Putin's Defense of "Traditional Values" Is Really A War on Freedom ..."
    "... Foreign Policy, ..."
    "... National Review ..."
    "... Ukrainians are still alone in their heroic fight for freedom ..."
    "... , New York Post, ..."
    May 25, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Cultural Marxist commissars refusing to admit that dissidents are to be treated as fellow citizens is the crazed female professor who accosted the NPI's Richard Spencer while he was exercising at a Alexandria gym. She, recognizing him from coverage of the election campaign, started haranguing him and calling him a "Nazi."

    Instead of having her ejected for this behavior, the gym's management terminated Spencer's membership. [ Georgetown professor confronts white nationalist Richard Spencer at the gym - which terminates his membership , By Faiz Siddiqui May 21, 2017]

    Back in 2011 VDARE posted a commentary of mine on the legitimacy of the "Cultural Marxist" concept. (I reluctantly accepted the term only because I couldn't think of a better one.)

    As I pointed out, this ideology was very far from orthodox Marxism and was viewed by serious Marxists as a kind of bastard child. Yet many of those designated as "Cultural Marxists" still viewed themselves as classical Marxists and some still do.

    Exponents of what the Frankfurt School called "critical theory"- like Herbert Marcuse , Theodor Adorno , and Erich Fromm -- were considered by orthodox Marxists to be fake or ersatz Marxists. But they did adopt orthodox Marxist-Leninist theory in key aspects:

    These disciples of the Frankfurt School, like Marx, were eager to replace what they defined as bourgeois society by a new social order. In this envisaged new order, humankind would experience true equality for the first time. This would be possible because, in a politically and socially reconstructed society, we would no longer be alienated from our real selves, which had been warped by the inequalities that existed until now.

    But unlike authentic Marxists, Cultural Marxists have been principally opposed to the culture of bourgeois societies -- and only secondarily to their material arrangements. Homophobia , nationalism , Christianity, masculinity , and anti-Semitism have been the prime villains in the Cultural Marxist script.

    This is especially true as one moves from the philosophy of the interwar German founders of the Frankfurt school, like Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse, to the second generation. This second generation is represented by Jόrgen Habermas and most of the multicultural theorists ensconced in Western universities.

    For these more advanced Cultural Marxists, the crusade against capitalism has been increasingly subordinated to the war against "prejudice" and "discrimination." They justify the need for a centralized bureaucratic state commanding material resources not because it will bring the working class to power, but to fight "racism," "fascism," and the other residues of the Western past.

    If they can't accomplish such radical change, Cultural Marxists are happy to work toward revolutionizing our consciousness with the help of Leftist moneybags– hedge fund managers, Mark Zuckerberg etc. Ironically, nationalizing productive forces and the creation of a workers' state, i.e. the leftovers from classical Marxism, turn out to be the most expendable part of their revolutionary program, perhaps because of the collapse of the embarrassing collapse of command economies in the Soviet bloc . Instead, what is essential to Cultural Marxism is the rooting-out of bourgeois national structures, the obliteration of gender roles and the utter devastation of "the patriarchal family."

    Not only does Cultural Marxism exist, but it now appears to be taking over Conservatism Inc. Thus even with Paris burning , National Review was still attacking the Right . In the second round of the French election, Tom Rogan urged a vote for Emmanuel Macron on the grounds Marine Le Pen is insufficiently hostile to Vladimir Putin and is a "socialist" because she "supports protectionism." Macron's actual onetime membership in the Socialist Party, and his view that there was no such thing as French culture, apparently was not a problem [ French election: American Conservatives Should Support Macron , April 24, 2017].

    Conservatism Inc. goes along because these goals are partially achieved through corporate capitalists, who actively push Leftist social agendas and punish entire communities if they're insufficiently enthusiastic about gay marriage, gay scout leaders, transgendered rest rooms, sanctuary cities etc.. Wedded as it is to a clichιd defense of the "free market," the Beltway Right not only won't oppose this plutocratic agenda, but instead offers tax cuts to the wealthiest and most malevolent actors.

    It is because Cultural Marxism can co-exist with our current economic and political structure that our so-called "conservatives" are far more likely to align with the New Left than the Old Right. The behavior of our own captains of industry shows the rot is deep and that multiculturalism is very much part of American "liberal democratic" thinking, even informing our bogus conservatism. "Conservatism" is now defined as waging endless wars in the name of universalist values that any other generation would have called radically leftist. And Cultural Marxists themselves now define what we call "Western values"-for example, accepting homosexuality

    The takeover is so complete, we might even say "Cultural Marxism" has outlived its usefulness as a label or as a description of a hostile foreign ideology. Instead, we're dealing with "conservatives," who are, in many ways, more extreme and more destructive than the Frankfurt School itself.

    Many conservatives seem to believe Cultural Marxism is just a foreign eccentricity somehow smuggled into our country. Allan Bloom's " conservative " bestseller The Closing of the American Mind [ PDF ] contended that multiculturalism was just another example of "The German Connection." This is ludicrous.

    Case in point: unlike Horkheimer, or my onetime teacher Herbert Marcuse, leading writers within Conservatism Inc. are sympathetic to something like gay marriage . These include:

    Indeed, homosexual liberation is so central to modern conservatism that the Beltway Right's pundits urge American soldiers to impose it at bayonet point around the world. Kirchick complains we haven't pressed the Russian "thug" Vladimir Putin hard enough to accept such "conservative" features of public life as gay pride parades. [ Why Putin's Defense of "Traditional Values" Is Really A War on Freedom , by James Kirchick, Foreign Policy, January 3, 2014]

    Another frequent contributor to National Review , Jillian Kay Melchior, expressed concern that American withdrawal from Ukraine might expose that region to greater Russian control and thereby diminish rights for the transgendered. [ Ukrainians are still alone in their heroic fight for freedom , New York Post, October 8, 2015]

    If that's how our Respectable Right reacts to social issues, then it may be ridiculous to continue denouncing the original Cultural Marxists. Our revolutionary thinking has whizzed past those iconoclastic German Jews who created the Frankfurt Institute in the 1920s and then moved their enterprise to the US in the 1930s. Blaming these long-dead intellectuals for our present aberrations may be like blaming Nazi atrocities on Latin fascists in 1920. We're better served by examining those who selectively adopted the original model to find out what really happened.

    At this point we should ask not whether the Frankfurt School continues to cast a shadow over us but instead ask why are "conservatives" acquiescing to or even championing reforms more radical than anything one encounters in Adorno and Horkheimer?

    Admittedly, Conservatism Inc. has drifted so far to the Left that one no longer blinks in surprise when a respected conservative journalist extolls Leon Trotsky and the Communist Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. Yet it's still startling to see just how far left the Beltway "Right" has moved on social issues. Even more noteworthy is how unwilling the movement is to see any contradiction between this process and the claim they are "conservatives."

    And let's not pretend that Conservatism Inc. is simply running a "Big Tent." Those who direct the top-down Beltway Right are eager to reach out to the Left, providing those they recruit share their belligerent interventionist foreign policy views and do nothing to offend neoconservative benefactors, while purging everything on their right .

    This post-Christian, post-bourgeois consensus is now centered in the US and in affiliate Western countries and transmitted through our culture industry, educational system, Deep-State bureaucracy, and Establishment political parties.

    The Beltway Right operates like front parties under the old Soviet system. Like those parties, our Establishment Right tries to "fit in" by dutifully undermining those to its the Right and slowly absorbing the social positions and heroes of the Left .

    Occasionally it catches hell for not moving fast enough to the Left. But this only bolsters the image of Conservatism, Inc. as defenders of traditional America against the Left-an image that it won't lose even as it veers farther in the direction of its supposed adversary.

    In short, Conservatism Inc. is not just a scam-but it's become a Cultural Marxist puppet. And the Dissident Right consists of those who can see through it.

    Paul Gottfried [ email him ] is a retired Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America .

    [May 24, 2017] JFK Murder Plot Deathbed Confession Aired On National Radio

    Apr 30, 2007 | www.prisonplanet.com
    JFK Murder Plot "Deathbed Confession" Aired On National Radio
    Former CIA agent, Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt names the men who killed Kennedy

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet
    Monday, April 30, 2007

    The "deathbed confession" audio tape in which former CIA agent and Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt admits he was approached to be part of a CIA assassination team to kill JFK was aired this weekend - an astounding development that has gone completely ignored by the establishment media.

    Saint John Hunt, son of E. Howard Hunt, appeared on the nationally syndicated Coast to Coast Live radio show on Saturday night to discuss the revelations contained in the tape.

    Hunt said that his father had mailed cassette the tape to him alone in January 2004 and asked that it be released after his death. The tape was originally 20 minutes long but was edited down to four and a half minutes for the Coast to Coast broadcast. Hunt promises that the whole tape will be uploaded soon at his website .

    Click here to listen to a clip of the tape.

    E. Howard Hunt names numerous individuals with both direct and indirect CIA connections as having played a role in the assassination of Kennedy, while describing himself as a "bench warmer" in the plot. Saint John Hunt agreed that the use of this term indicates that Hunt was willing to play a larger role in the murder conspiracy had he been required.

    Hunt alleges on the tape that then Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was involved in the planning of the assassination and in the cover-up, stating that LBJ, "Had an almost maniacal urge to become president, he regarded JFK as an obstacle to achieving that."

    Asked if his father followed the conspiracy theories into the Kennedy assassination, Saint John said the elder Hunt did follow the work of AJ Weberman, a New York freelance writer, who in the early 70's first accused Hunt of being one of three bums who were arrested in Dealy Plaza. The so-called bums (pictured above) were interrogated and later released by authorities shortly after the assassination. Weberman, one of the founders of the Youth International Party, the Vippies, published photographs of the tramps and found that two of them bore striking similarities to Hunt and Frank Sturgis , also named by Hunt in the tape as having been played a role in the assassination conspiracy.

    Asked for his opinion as to whether his father was indeed one of the Dealy Plaza tramps, Saint John, in a stunning revelation, said one of the tramps indeed looked much like his father did in 1963 (see comparison above).

    CIA operative Frank Stugis' striking resemblance to one of the "tramps".

    Other researchers believe the "Hunt tramp" to really be Chauncey Holt, who apparently later confessed to the fact. Charles Harrelson was allegedly identified as the third tramp.

    Saint John Hunt said that shortly before his death, his father had felt "deeply conflicted and deeply remorseful" that he didn't blow the whistle on the plot at the time and prevent the assassination, but that everyone in the government hated Kennedy and wanted him gone in one way or another. Kennedy's promise to "shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter the remnants to the wind" was being carried out and this infuriated almost everyone at the agency.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv . Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hunt also said that his mother's death in a December 8, 1972 plane crash in Chicago was suspicious and that there was evidence of a White House cover-up surrounding the circumstances of the alleged accident.

    Investigators discovered $10,000 dollars in her luggage and Hunt alleged that his mother traveled around the country using Nixon campaign money to payoff the families of the Watergate burglars to keep them quiet about the involvement of the Nixon White House in the Watergate break-in and cover-up.

    Hunt cited numerous coincidences surrounding the aftermath of the crash, including Nixon's appointment of his henchman, Egil Krough, to the National Transportation Safety Board which investigates plane crashes, the very day after the incident.

    Eyewitnesses reported that the plane exploded above treetop level before it had even hit the runway.

    Hunt said that "at least 20-25 FBI members," as well as numerous DIA agents were at the scene of the crash within minutes before rescue personnel had even arrived, and that this fact was attested to in a letter sent by the head of the Chicago FBI to investigator Sherman Skolnick.

    Hunt said that his safety was guaranteed by the dissemination of the tape and that he had several copies and had mailed others to addresses both abroad and in the U.S.

    "Once this information is out there's really no point in anyone trying to do me in or do me wrong - someone may try to discredit me but I have no skeletons in my closet," said Hunt.

    As we have previously reported, the night before the Kennedy assassination, Lyndon Baines Johnson met with Dallas tycoons, FBI moguls and organized crime kingpins - emerging from the conference to tell his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown that "those SOB's" would never embarrass him again.

    Though Brown first went public on her 21-year relationship with Johnson in the early 80's, to this day her shocking revelations about how he had told her the Kennedy's "would never embarrass me again" the night before the assassination are often ignored by the media who prefer to keep the debate focused on issues which can't definitively be proven either way (or at least can be spun and whitewashed).


    George Herbert Walker Bush was also pictured at the scene of the crime in Dealy Plaza.

    In addition, Barr McClellan, father of former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and a partner in the Austin law firm that represented Johnson, wrote in his 2003 book that LBJ was a key player in the organization of the assassination and its cover-up. McClellan's revelations were the subject of a subsequent History Channel documentary called The Guilty Men .

    (With thanks to additional reporting by David Collins)>

    [May 24, 2017] Rank Incompetence by William S. Lind

    Notable quotes:
    "... The schools teach a combination of staff process and sophomore-level college courses in government and international relations. No one is taught how to be a commander in combat. One Army lieutenant colonel recently wrote me that he got angry when he figured out that nothing he needs to know to command would be taught to him in any Army school. ..."
    "... The promotion system reinforces professional ignorance. ..."
    Feb 01, 2013 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    It was tragic that the career of General David Petraeus was brought down by a mere affair. It should have ended several years earlier as a consequence of his failure as our commander in Afghanistan. Petraeus, like every other theater commander in that war except Stanley McChrystal, could have been replaced by a concrete block and nothing would have changed. They all kept doing the same things while expecting a different result.

    Thomas Ricks's recent book The Generals has reintroduced into the defense debate a vital factor the press and politicians collude in ignoring: military incompetence. It was a major theme of the Military Reform Movement of the 1970s and '80s. During those years, a friend of mine who was an aide to a Marine Corps commandant asked his boss how many Marine generals, of whom there were then 60-some, could competently fight a battle. The commandant came up with six. And the Marine Corps is the best of our services.

    Military incompetence does not begin at the rank of brigadier general. An old French proverb says that the problem with the generals is that we select them from among the colonels. Nonetheless, military competence-the ability to see quickly what to do in a military situation and make it happen-is more rare at the general officer level. A curious aspect of our promotion system is that the higher the rank, the smaller the percentage of our competent officers.

    Why is military incompetence so widespread at the higher levels of America's armed forces? Speaking from my own observations over almost 40 years, I can identify two factors. First, nowhere does our vast, multi-billion dollar military-education system teach military judgment. Second, above the rank of Army, Marine Corps, or Air Force captain, military ability plays essentially no role in determining who gets promoted. (It has been so long since our Navy fought another navy that, apart from the aviators, military competence does not seem to be a consideration at any level.)

    Almost never do our military schools, academies, and colleges put students in situations where they have to think through how to fight a battle or a campaign, then get critiqued not on their answer but the way they think. Nor does American military training offer much free play, where the enemy can do whatever he wants and critique draws out why one side won and the other lost. Instead, training exercises are scripted as if we are training an opera company. The schools teach a combination of staff process and sophomore-level college courses in government and international relations. No one is taught how to be a commander in combat. One Army lieutenant colonel recently wrote me that he got angry when he figured out that nothing he needs to know to command would be taught to him in any Army school.

    The promotion system reinforces professional ignorance. Above the company grades, military ability does not count in determining who gets promoted. At the rank of major, officers are supposed to accept that the "real world" is the internal world of budget and promotion politics, not war. Those who "don't get it" have ever smaller chances of making general. This represents corruption of the worst kind, corruption of institutional purpose. Its result is generals and admirals who are in effect Soviet industrial managers in ever worse-looking suits. They know little and care less about their intended product, military victory. Their expertise is in acquiring resources and playing the military courtier.

    [May 24, 2017] Fire Burn and Cauldron Bubble for Trump by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup. ..."
    "... Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, ..."
    "... So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters. ..."
    May 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

    "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble."
    The witches in Macbeth.

    President Trump's administration is now at a high boil as he faces intense heat from all sides. The Republican Party has backed away from their embattled president. US intelligence agencies are baying for his blood. The US media plays the role of the witches in 'Macbeth' as it plots against Trump.

    One increasingly hears whispers about impeachment or the wonderful 1964 film about a military coup in Washington, 'Seven Days in May.'

    As in Shakespeare's King Lear, Trump stands almost alone on a blasted heath, howling that he has been betrayed. The world watches on in dismay and shock.

    One thing is clear: the US presidency has become too powerful when far-fetched talk of possibly Russian involvement in Trump's campaign could send world financial markets into a crash dive. And when Trump's ill informed, off the cuff remarks can endanger the fragile global balance of power.

    Trump has made this huge mess and must now live with it. Yes, he is being treated unfairly by appointment of a special prosecutor when the titanic sleaze of the Clintons was never investigated. But that's what happens when you are widely detested. No mercy for Trump, a man without any mercy for others.

    Trump is not a Manchurian candidate put into office by Moscow though his bungling aides and iffy financial deals often made it appear so. His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn was an awful blunder. Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy. Who else paid off Flynn? Disgraceful.

    But what about all the politicians and officials who took and take money from the Saudis and Gulf emirates, or Sheldon Adelson, the ardent advocate of Greater Israel? What about political payoffs to the flat-earth Republicans who now act as Israel's amen chorus in Washington?

    The growing scandals that are engulfing Trump's presidency seem likely to delay if not defeat the president's laudatory proposals to lower taxes, prune the bureaucracy, clean up intelligence, end America's foreign wars, and impose some sort of peace in the Mideast.

    By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media, federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals for a living.

    No wonder Trump stands almost alone, like Rome's Horatio at the Bridge. One increasingly hears in Washington 'what Trump needs is a little war.'

    That would quickly wrong-foot his critics and force the neocon media – Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and CNN – to back him. We already saw this happen when Trump fired salvos of cruise missiles at Syria. It would also provide welcome distraction from the investigations of Trump that are beginning.

    Trump has appeared to be pawing the ground in a desire to attack naughty North Korea or Syria, and maybe even Yemen, Somalia or Sudan. A war against any of these small nations would allow the president to don military gear and beat his chest – as did the dunce George W. Bush. Bomb the usual Arabs!

    Timur The Lame , May 21, 2017 at 12:02 am GMT

    ' As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents. more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

    Shee-it! I thought Dubya accomplished this . Apparently the M'urkan public is being defiant and really wants to flaunt it's ignorance. Well, howdee! we got us a real contest goin' on now. Trump is obviously the proverbial monkey with a machine-gun. My inner survival instincts are starting to kick in. Does anyone see this this presidency as leveling out and trying to conduct business like you know as it has been in the last 200 years?

    This is too insane. I honestly think that some kind of the fix is in. How? Don't know.

    Every (real) man for himself now.

    Cheers-

    WorkingClass , May 21, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT

    By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media, federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals for a living.

    No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.

    Hunsdon , May 21, 2017 at 9:22 pm GMT

    Eric wrote: His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn was an awful blunder. Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy.

    Hunsdon said: The notorious Islamophobe, in pay of the Next Sultan? Too delicious.

    Promintory Rider , May 21, 2017 at 11:18 pm GMT

    Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, and the Electoral College was put into place precisely to keep a big state or a couple of big states from dominating the election of a President. Even in the 1780′s, many Americans didn't want NY to have the power to pick a President on their own.

    So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters.

    Thus, its not that Trust is simply the most detested. He's not. At worst, the last election said he's the second most detested person in the country. But, the "right" people all detest him. So, a small minority of government insiders and the members of the media want to run him out of town.

    There's things he's done since he's been elected that I don't like. I don't like the way that saying he was against regime change and more wars in the middle east has turned out to be a massive lie. But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.

    If not, then CA and NY and the Deep State and the Media millionaires will run this country and everyone will know that elections don't matter.

    Miro23 , May 22, 2017 at 2:16 am GMT

    But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.

    This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue by issue basis.

    If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation, or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political trouble.

    "Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on their electability.

    If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.

    balderdash , May 23, 2017 at 3:33 pm GMT

    @WorkingClass


    By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media, federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals for a living.
    No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.
    bob balkas , May 23, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

    Few ruling classes had an opportunity to build an idyllical structure of society and governance over the last four centuries as the two ruling US classes had.

    Instead, they created numerous cliquish cliques and with political powers of each clique diminishing from the two top classes down to the last class: prisoners, indigenes, white and black trash.

    Eileen Kuch , May 23, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT

    @Miro23


    But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
    This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue by issue basis.

    If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation, or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political trouble.

    "Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on their electability.

    If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.

    [May 24, 2017] All Power to the Banks!

    This is not a new trick, but still it was impressive. Macron played his hand well and brought extreme neoliberals to power using threat of fascism, while his neoliberal views might be even closer to neo-fascism then LePen's.
    "Divide and conquer" and "bait and switch" proved again very effective tools. In other words Macron victory is another neoliberal coup after Argentina and Brazil. Neoliberal zombies do not want to die. The power of neoliberal propaganda is still substantial -- the population can be brainwashed despite the fact that must now understand that neoliberal promised are fake and the redistribution of wealth up destroys middle class and impoverishes lower 60-80% of population
    Notable quotes:
    "... Les Rιpublicains (LR), ..."
    "... In reality, both have adopted neoliberal economic policies, or more precisely, they have followed European Union directives requiring member states to adopt neoliberal economic policies. Especially since the adoption of the common currency, the euro, a little over fifteen years ago, those economic policies have become tangibly harmful to France, hastening its deindustrialization, the ruin of its farmers and the growing indebtedness of the State to private banks. ..."
    "... The most thoughtful reaction has been to start realizing that it is the European Union itself that imposes this unpopular economic conformism. ..."
    "... To quell growing criticism of the European Union, the well-oiled Macron machine, labeled "En Marche!" ..."
    "... The destruction of the Socialist Party was easy. Since the "Socialist" government was so unpopular that it could not hope to win, it was easy to lure prominent members of that party to jump the sinking ship and rally to Macron, who had been economics minister in that unpopular government, but who was advertised by all the media as "new" and "anti-system". ..."
    "... Fillon still cared about preserving France, and favored an independent foreign policy including good Canard Enchainι ..."
    "... These "civil society" newcomers tend to be successful individuals, winners in the game of globalized competition, who will have no trouble voting for anti-labor measures. Macron is thus confirming Marine Le Pen's longstanding assertion that the two main parties were really one big single party, whose rhetorical differences masked their political convergence. ..."
    "... Macron won in part because older voters in particular were frightened by his opponents' hints at leaving the European Union, which they have been indoctrinated to consider necessary to prevent renewal of Europe's old wars. But only the hysterical anti-fascist scare can explain why self-styled leftist "revolutionaries" such as Franηois Ruffin, known for his successful anti-capitalist movie "Merci Patron", could join the stampede to vote for Macron – promising to "oppose him later". But how? ..."
    "... Later, after five years of Macron, opposition may be harder than ever. In recent decades, as manufacturing moves to low wage countries, including EU members such as Poland and Rumania, France has lost 40% of its industry. Loss of industry means loss of jobs and fewer workers. When industry is no longer essential, workers have lost their key power: striking to shut down industry. Currently the desperate workers in a failing auto-works factory in central France are threatening to blow it up unless the government takes measures to save their jobs. But violence is powerless when it has no price tag. ..."
    "... The Macron program amounts to a profound ideological transformation of the French ideal of ιgalitι ..."
    "... Macron is sufficiently Americanized, or, to be more precise, globalized, to have declared that "there is no such thing as French culture". From this viewpoint, France is just a place open to diverse cultures, as well as to immigrants and of course foreign capital. He has clearly signaled his rejection of French independence in the foreign policy field. ..."
    "... Macron echoes the Russophobic line of the neocons. He broke tradition on his inauguration by riding down the Champs-Elysιes in a military vehicle. A change of tone is indicated by his cabinet nominations. The title of the new foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, who served as defense minister in the Hollande government, is "Minister of Europe and of Foreign Affairs", clearly giving Europe preference in the matter. Sylvie Goulard, an ardent Europeist who has remarked that "she does not feel French", has been named Minister of Armies and Minister of Defense. Clearly national defense is an afterthought, when the main idea is to deploy the armed forces in various joint Western interventions. ..."
    "... Mιlenchon ran a spectacularly popular campaign, leaving the Socialist Party far behind (the party he personally left behind years ago). Initially, as he seemed to be taking votes away from Le Pen as well as from the Socialists, he got friendly media coverage, but as he came closer to making it to the decisive second round, the tone started to change. Just as Le Pen was finally knocked out as a "fascist", there is little doubt that had Mιlenchon been Macron's challenger, he would have been increasingly denounced as "communist". ..."
    "... La France Insoumise ..."
    "... categories populaires ..."
    "... Marine Le Pen would have tried to enact measures to save French industry and the jobs it provides, provide various benefits for low-income people, withdraw from NATO, and even promote a peaceful world, starting with friendly relations with Russia. She would even have begun to prepare her compatriots for escape from the euro. ..."
    "... A "color revolution" was ready to be stirred up. The deep state is vigilant in NATOland. ..."
    May 24, 2017 | www.unz.com
    A ghost of the past was the real winner of the French presidential election. Emmanuel Macron won only because a majority felt they had to vote against the ghost of "fascism" allegedly embodied by his opponent, Marine Le Pen. Whether out of panic or out of the need to feel respectable, the French voted two to one in favor of a man whose program most of them either ignored or disliked. Now they are stuck with him for five years.

    If people had voted on the issues, the majority would never have elected a man representing the trans-Atlantic elite totally committed to "globalization", using whatever is left of the power of national governments to weaken them still further, turning over decision-making to "the markets" – that is, to international capital, managed by the major banks and financial institutions, notably those located in the United States, such as Goldman-Sachs.

    The significance of this election is so widely misrepresented that clarification requires a fairly thorough explanation, not only of the Macron project, but also of what the (impossible) election of Marine Le Pen would have meant.

    From a Two Party to a Single Party System

    Despite the multiparty nature of French elections, for the past generation France has been essentially ruled by a two-party system, with government power alternating between the Socialist Party, roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Democratic Party, and a party inherited from the Gaullist tradition which has gone through various name changes before recently settling on calling itself Les Rιpublicains (LR), in obvious imitation of the United States . For decades, there has been nothing "socialist" about the Socialist Party and nothing Gaullist about The Republicans.

    In reality, both have adopted neoliberal economic policies, or more precisely, they have followed European Union directives requiring member states to adopt neoliberal economic policies. Especially since the adoption of the common currency, the euro, a little over fifteen years ago, those economic policies have become tangibly harmful to France, hastening its deindustrialization, the ruin of its farmers and the growing indebtedness of the State to private banks.

    This has had inevitable political repercussions. The simplest reaction has been widespread reaction against both parties for continuing to pursue the same unpopular policies. The most thoughtful reaction has been to start realizing that it is the European Union itself that imposes this unpopular economic conformism.

    To quell growing criticism of the European Union, the well-oiled Macron machine, labeled "En Marche!" has exploited the popular reaction against both governing parties. It has broken and absorbed large parts of both, in an obvious move to turn En Marche! into a single catch-all party loyal to Macron.

    The destruction of the Socialist Party was easy. Since the "Socialist" government was so unpopular that it could not hope to win, it was easy to lure prominent members of that party to jump the sinking ship and rally to Macron, who had been economics minister in that unpopular government, but who was advertised by all the media as "new" and "anti-system".

    Weakening the Republicans was trickier. Thanks to the deep unpopularity of the outgoing Socialist government, the Republican candidate, Franηois Fillon, looked like a shoo-in. But despite his pro-business economic policies, Fillon still cared about preserving France, and favored an independent foreign policy including good Canard Enchainι to be revealed at a critical moment in the campaign. The uproar drowned out the issues. To an electorate already wary of "establishment politicians", these revelations were fatal. The impression that "politicians are all corrupt" played into the hands of Emmanuel Macron, too young to have done anything worse than make a few quick millions during his passage through the Rothschild Bank, and there's nothing illegal about that.

    In France, the presidential election is followed by parliamentary elections, which normally give a majority to the party of the newly elected president. But Macron had no party, so he is creating one for the occasion, made up of defectors from the major defeated parties as well as his own innovation, candidates from "civil society", with no political experience, but loyal to him personally. These "civil society" newcomers tend to be successful individuals, winners in the game of globalized competition, who will have no trouble voting for anti-labor measures. Macron is thus confirming Marine Le Pen's longstanding assertion that the two main parties were really one big single party, whose rhetorical differences masked their political convergence.

    The Macron victory demoralized Republicans. Weakening them further, Macron named a Republican, Edouard Philippe, as his Prime Minister, in a government with four Socialist and two Republican, alongside his own selections from "civil society".

    Transforming France

    Macron won in part because older voters in particular were frightened by his opponents' hints at leaving the European Union, which they have been indoctrinated to consider necessary to prevent renewal of Europe's old wars. But only the hysterical anti-fascist scare can explain why self-styled leftist "revolutionaries" such as Franηois Ruffin, known for his successful anti-capitalist movie "Merci Patron", could join the stampede to vote for Macron – promising to "oppose him later". But how?

    Later, after five years of Macron, opposition may be harder than ever. In recent decades, as manufacturing moves to low wage countries, including EU members such as Poland and Rumania, France has lost 40% of its industry. Loss of industry means loss of jobs and fewer workers. When industry is no longer essential, workers have lost their key power: striking to shut down industry. Currently the desperate workers in a failing auto-works factory in central France are threatening to blow it up unless the government takes measures to save their jobs. But violence is powerless when it has no price tag.

    Emmanuel Macron has said that he wants to spend only a short time in political life, before getting back to business. He has a mission, and he is in a hurry. If he gains an absolute majority in the June parliamentary elections, he has a free hand to govern for five years. He means to use this period not to "reform" the country, as his predecessors put it, but to "transform" France into a different sort of country. If he has his way, in five years France will no longer be a sovereign nation, but a reliable region in a federalized European Union, following a rigorous economic policy made in Germany by bankers and a bellicose foreign policy made in Washington by neocons.

    As usual, the newly elected French president's first move was to rush to Berlin to assert loyalty to the increasingly lopsided "Franco-German partnership". He was most warmly welcomed by Chancellor Angela Merkel, thanks to his clear determination to force through the austerity measures demanded by the Frankfurt budget masters. Macron hopes that his fiscal obedience will be rewarded by German consent to a European investment fund for stimulating economic growth, but this implies a degree of federalism that the pfennig-pinching Germans show little sign of accepting.

    First of all, he has promised to complete the dismantling of the French labor code, which offers various protections to workers. This should save money for employers and the government. For Macron, the ruin of French industry and French farming seem to be welcome steps toward an economy of individual initiative, symbolized by startups.

    The Macron program amounts to a profound ideological transformation of the French ideal of ιgalitι , equality, from a horizontal concept, meaning equal benefits for all, to the vertical ideal of "equality of opportunity", meaning the theoretical chance of every individual to rise above the others. This is an ideal easily accepted in the United States with its longstanding myth of the self-made man. The French have traditionally been logical enough to understand that everyone can't rise above the others.

    Horizontal equality in France has primarily meant institutional redistribution of wealth via universal access to benefits such as health care, pensions, communications and transportation facilities, allocations for families raising children, unemployment insurance, free education at all levels. These are the benefits that are under threat from the European Union in various ways. One way is the imposition of "competition" rules that impose privatization and favor foreign takeovers that transform public services into profit-seekers. Another is the imposition of public budget restrictions, along with the obligation of the State to seek private loans, increasing its debt, and the loss of tax revenue that all end up up making the State too poor to continue providing such services.

    Very few French people would want to give up such horizontal equality for the privilege of hoping to become a billionaire.

    Macron is sufficiently Americanized, or, to be more precise, globalized, to have declared that "there is no such thing as French culture". From this viewpoint, France is just a place open to diverse cultures, as well as to immigrants and of course foreign capital. He has clearly signaled his rejection of French independence in the foreign policy field. Unlike his leading rivals, who all called for improved relations with Russia, Macron echoes the Russophobic line of the neocons. He broke tradition on his inauguration by riding down the Champs-Elysιes in a military vehicle. A change of tone is indicated by his cabinet nominations. The title of the new foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, who served as defense minister in the Hollande government, is "Minister of Europe and of Foreign Affairs", clearly giving Europe preference in the matter. Sylvie Goulard, an ardent Europeist who has remarked that "she does not feel French", has been named Minister of Armies and Minister of Defense. Clearly national defense is an afterthought, when the main idea is to deploy the armed forces in various joint Western interventions.

    The Divided Opposition

    Unless the June parliamentary elections produce stunning surprises, the opposition to Macron's catch-all governance party appears weak and fatally divided. The Socialist Party is almost wiped out. The Republicans are profoundly destabilized. Genuine opposition to the Macron regime can only be based on defense of French interests against EU economic dictates, starting with the euro, which prevents the country from pursuing an independent economic and foreign policy. In short, the genuine opposition must be " souverainiste ", concerned with preserving French sovereignty.

    Two strong personalities emerged from the presidential election as potential leaders of that opposition: Jean-Luc Mιlenchon and Marine Le Pen. But they are drastically divided.

    Mιlenchon ran a spectacularly popular campaign, leaving the Socialist Party far behind (the party he personally left behind years ago). Initially, as he seemed to be taking votes away from Le Pen as well as from the Socialists, he got friendly media coverage, but as he came closer to making it to the decisive second round, the tone started to change. Just as Le Pen was finally knocked out as a "fascist", there is little doubt that had Mιlenchon been Macron's challenger, he would have been increasingly denounced as "communist".

    Mιlenchon is intelligent enough to have realized that the social policies he advocates cannot be achieved unless France recovers control of its currency. He therefore took a stand against both NATO and the euro. So did Marine Le Pen. Mιlenchon was embarrassed by the resemblance between their two programs, and contrary to other eliminated candidates, refrained from endorsing Macron, instead calling on his movement, La France Insoumise , to choose between Macron and abstention. Finally, 25% of Mιlenchon voters abstained in the second round, but 62% voted for Macron – almost exclusively motivated by the alleged need to "stop fascism". That compares with the final total results of 66% for Macron and 34 % for Le Pen.

    That vote confirmed the impossibility of forming a unified souverainiste opposition and allows Marine Le Pen to strengthen her claim to be the leader of a genuine opposition to Macron. She has admitted her own mistakes in the campaign, particularly in her debate with Macron, who beat her hands down with his arrogant performance as the economic expert. But despite her mere 34%, she retains the most loyal base of supporters in a changing scene. The problem for Mιlenchon is that his electorate is more versatile.

    Despite his loud appeal to "youth", Macron was elected by France's huge population of old people. Among voters over 65, he won 80% against 20% for Le Pen. Marine Le Pen did best with the youngest age group, 18 to 24, winning 44% against Macron's 56%. [1] According to poll of 7,752 representative voters by Le Figaro/LCI,

    The differences were also significant between socio-professional categories. Macron won a whopping 83% of the votes coming from the "superior socio-professional categories" – categories where the "winners" in competitive society are largely ensconced. But in what are described as " categories populaires ", a French term for ordinary folk, with less education, the vote was 53% in favor of Le Pen. And she confirmed her position as favorite candidate of the working class, winning 63% of workers' votes.

    Note that the "superior socio-professional categories" are where the significance of these results will be defined. Individuals from that category – journalists, commentators and show business personalities – are all in a position to spread the word that this vote indicates that the workers must be "racist", and therefore that we have narrowly escaped being taken over by "fascism".

    One of the many odd things about the latest French presidential election is the rejoicing among foreign "leftists" over the fact that the candidate of the rich roundly defeated the candidate of the poor. It used to be the other way around, but that was long ago. These days, the winners in the competitive game comfort themselves that they morally deserve their success, because they are in favor of diversity and against racism, whereas the less fortunate, the rural people and the working class, don't deserve much of anything, because they must be "racist" to be wary of globalization.

    The fact that Paris voted 90% for Macron is natural, considering that real estate prices have pushed the working class out of the capital, whose population is now overwhelmingly what is called "bobo" – the bohemian bourgeoisie, many of whom are employed in various branches of the dominant human rights ideology fabrication business: journalists, professors, teachers, consultants, the entertainment industry. In these milieux, hardly anyone would even dare speak a positive word about Marine Le Pen.

    What if Marine Le Pen had won?

    Since politics is largely fantasy, we may as well try to imagine the unimaginable: what if Marine Le Pen had won the election? This was never a realistic possibility, but it is worth imagining.

    It could have had one, perhaps only one, extremely positive result: it could have freed France from its paralyzing obsession with the nonexistent "fascist threat". The ghost would be exorcised. If the word has any meaning, "fascism" implies single party rule, whereas Marine Le Pen made clear her desire to govern by coalition, and selected the leader of a small Gaullist party, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, as her prospective prime minister. Poof! No fascism. That would have been an immeasurable benefit for political debate in France. At last genuine issues might matter. Real threats could be confronted.

    Another advantage would have been the demise of the National Front. Since Marine Le Pen took over the notorious party founded by her reactionary father, it has kept a precarious balance between two opposing wings. There is the right wing in the southeast, along the Riviera, the bastion of the party's founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, a region represented in the outgoing parliament by his conservative granddaughter Marion Marιchal Le Pen. In the old industrial northeast region, between Arras and Lille, Marine Le Pen has built her own bastion, as champion of ordinary working people, where she won a majority of votes in the presidential election.

    This is not the only time in history when an heiress has gone away with the heritage to join someone of whom her father disapproves. All those who want to cling to their comforting hatred of the left's official Satan have trouble believing that Marine Le Pen broke with her reactionary father to go her own way (just as U.S. hawks couldn't believe in Gorbachev). This change owes everything to her encounter with Florian Philippot, an intellectual who gave up on the ability of the Socialists to face the real issues. Marine has the personal qualities of a leader, and Philippot provided the intellectual substance she needed. Marine has decisively chosen Philippot as her advisor and co-leader, despite grumblings by Jean-Marie that she has been led astray by a gay Marxist. Had Marine won, her left wing would have been strengthened enough to enable her and Philippot to scrap the National Front and found a new "Patriot Party". However, by scoring below 40%, she has weakened her authority and must try to hold the troublesome party together in order to win seats in the new parliament – which will not be easy.

    Marine Le Pen would have tried to enact measures to save French industry and the jobs it provides, provide various benefits for low-income people, withdraw from NATO, and even promote a peaceful world, starting with friendly relations with Russia. She would even have begun to prepare her compatriots for escape from the euro.

    But not to worry, none of this "fascist" program would ever have come to pass. If she had won, bands of protesting "antifascists" would have invaded the streets, smashing windows and attacking police. The outgoing Socialist government was preparing to use the resulting chaos as a pretext to stay in power long enough to manage the parliamentary elections, [2] "Si Le Pen avait ιtι ιlue le plan secret pour 'protιger la Rιpublique'", Le Nouvel Observateur, May 17, 2017 , ensuring that President Marine Le Pen would be held in check. A "color revolution" was ready to be stirred up. The deep state is vigilant in NATOland.

    Diana Johnstone is co-author of " From MAD to Madness: Inside Pentagon Nuclear War Planning ", by Paul H. Johnstone, her father. She can be reached at [email protected]

    [May 23, 2017] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Trump's Military Strikes in Syria Are Reckless and Short-Sighted Defend Democracy Press

    May 23, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press
    07/04/2017 Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) released the following statement today (4/6/17) after the U.S. launched military strikes on Syrian government targets:

    "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

    "This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder."

    [May 23, 2017] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Trumps Military Strikes in Syria Are Reckless and Short-Sighted Defend Democracy Press

    May 23, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press
    07/04/2017 Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) released the following statement today (4/6/17) after the U.S. launched military strikes on Syrian government targets:

    "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

    "This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder."

    [May 23, 2017] Trump Is the Symptom, Not the Disease by Chris Hedges

    Pretty naive, but poignant rant
    Notable quotes:
    "... It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive the public, turning political debate into burlesque. On all these fronts we have lost. We are trapped like rats in a cage. A narcissist and imbecile may be turning the electric shocks on and off, but the problem is the corporate state, and unless we dismantle that, we are doomed. ..."
    "... "What's necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity," America's best-known political prisoner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville, Pa. " In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is 'Housewives of Atlanta.' We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that . there is no critical thinking in America during this period... ..."
    "... Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of the deep state and intensify internal measures of repression. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    Forget the firing of James Comey. Forget the paralysis in Congress. Forget the idiocy of a press that covers our descent into tyranny as if it were a sports contest between corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats or a reality show starring our maniacal president and the idiots that surround him. Forget the noise.

    The crisis we face is not embodied in the public images of the politicians that run our dysfunctional government. The crisis we face is the result of a four-decade-long, slow-motion corporate coup that has rendered the citizen impotent, left us without any authentic democratic institutions and allowed corporate and military power to become omnipotent. This crisis has spawned a corrupt electoral system of legalized bribery and empowered those public figures that master the arts of entertainment and artifice. And if we do not overthrow the neoliberal , corporate forces that have destroyed our democracy we will continue to vomit up more monstrosities as dangerous as Donald Trump.

    Trump is the symptom, not the disease.

    Our descent into despotism began with the pardoning of Richard Nixon , all of whose impeachable crimes are now legal, and the extrajudicial assault, including targeted assassinations and imprisonment, carried out on dissidents and radicals, especially black radicals.

    It began with the creation of corporate-funded foundations and organizations that took control of the press, the courts, the universities, scientific research and the two major political parties. It began with empowering militarized police to kill unarmed citizens and the spread of our horrendous system of mass incarceration and the death penalty. It began with the stripping away of our most basic constitutional rights-privacy, due process, habeas corpus, fair elections and dissent.

    It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive the public, turning political debate into burlesque. On all these fronts we have lost. We are trapped like rats in a cage. A narcissist and imbecile may be turning the electric shocks on and off, but the problem is the corporate state, and unless we dismantle that, we are doomed.

    "What's necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity," America's best-known political prisoner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville, Pa. " In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is 'Housewives of Atlanta.' We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that . there is no critical thinking in America during this period...

    ... ... ...

    Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of the deep state and intensify internal measures of repression.

    [May 23, 2017] Why Trumps First Trip Is Focusing on Faith

    Attempt to reverse the fact that the USA invasion of Iraq strengthens Iran regional influence by forging "Sunni NATO"
    May 23, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

    The administration has made it increasingly clear that, in addition to the goal of annihilating the Islamic State as an organized state, it will also seek to contain Iranian regional ambitions in the Middle East. This has been graphically underscored with two unprecedented air strikes against the Assad regime in Syria. The first one, in April 2017, seemingly took Syrian use of chemical weapons off the table. The second one, on May 18, 2017, targeted Syrian (and possibly Hezbollah) ground forces that threatened Syrian rebels tied to the United States and Jordan. These Syrian rebels are trying to race to the Euphrates as ISIS weakens, in a possible precursor to setting up some sort of safe, liberated zone in eastern Syria, controlled by pro-Western rebels.

    A key part of this anti-ISIS, anti-Iran equation that the administration has attempted to highlight, albeit in inchoate ways to date, is that this fight has an ideological dimension that the previous administration ignored or minimized. This concern, reportedly controversial even within the White House, and which has been often crudely depicted in the media as mere "Islamophobia," actually is an avowal that men are motivated by more than economics and comfort, and that ideas and identity still have power, and need to be understood.

    The second "deliverable" concerns Israel. Despite some questions on focusing on the Arab-Israeli peace process, the new administration has already sought to differentiate itself from the Obama administration in openly and aggressively standing with Israel and the Netanyahu administration, whether at the United Nations or on other issues, such as the Iranian threat. The general expectation is that, whatever the spin, this administration will be much more outspokenly pro-Israel than the previous one.

    [May 23, 2017] The recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership

    Notable quotes:
    "... the recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership. If half of what was recently reported is true, Clapper-Brennan "Intelligence assessment" looks more and more like Warren Commission report. ..."
    "... ... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?" ..."
    May 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC -> Fred C. Dobbs, May 23, 2017 at 08:27 AM
    If Trump goes, Pence becomes president.

    Pence is worse than Trump. And he is more likely to get two terms.

    In the meantime, nothing gets fixed.

    Anyone who wants single-payer, better jobs, etc. should focus on the 2018 elections and work for people who can oust people like Nancy Pelosi in the primaries and Republicans in the general.

    libezkova, May 23, 2017 at 08:52 AM

    "Pence is worse than Trump. And he is more likely to get two terms.In the meantime, nothing gets fixed."

    True. Also the recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership. If half of what was recently reported is true, Clapper-Brennan "Intelligence assessment" looks more and more like Warren Commission report.

    http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3559/A-Seth-Rich-Chronology-Part-1.aspx

    Also at

    http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/#comment-1880788

    ... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"

    Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.

    Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up destroy Trump media. Sheep that u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z

    - Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017

    Most recently, he tweeted:

    Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on my head?? https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
    - Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017

    [May 23, 2017] Clapper intelligence assessment sounds a little bit like the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission

    May 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Carroll Price , May 22, 2017 at 11:42 pm GMT

    .Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his testimony that two dozen or so "seasoned experts" were "handpicked" from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" While Clapper claimed these analysts were given "complete independence" to reach their findings, he added that their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me."

    Sounds a bit like the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission, with both being presented with the results of what their investigation would uncover prior to any investigation taking place.

    [May 23, 2017] The China-US Arms Race

    May 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

    US Nuclear Weapon Upgrade Program: "CBO estimates that nuclear forces will cost $348 billion between FY 2015 and FY 2024. Three independent estimates put the expected total cost over the next 30 years at as much as $1 trillion."

    [aircarft carrier] The Gerald R. Ford, $12.8 billion + $4.7 billion R&D (estimated). The Navy wants ten.

    Columbia , the Navy's upcoming new nukey-boomer, formerly ORP, Ohio Replacement Program. "The total lifecycle cost of the entire class is estimated at $347 billion.": Wikipedia

    ..." Trump's proposed increase in US military spending is almost as big as Russia's entire defense budget."

    aceofspades , May 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm GMT

    Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980′s, the Soviets spent a massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will be 40 trillion ..whats the end game?

    anon , May 19, 2017 at 3:12 am GMT

    @aceofspades Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980's, the Soviets spent a massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will be 40 trillion.....whats the end game?

    athEIst , May 19, 2017 at 5:32 am GMT

    @aceofspades Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980's, the Soviets spent a massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will be 40 trillion.....whats the end game?

    dfordoom , Website May 20, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

    The aircraft relies on the assumption that, in thirteen years when it enters service, anti-stealth technology will not have reached the point of making it even more obviously useless.

    The purpose of this sort of technology is to make lots and lots of money for the right people. Whether it works or not is entirely irrelevant.

    dfordoom , Website May 20, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

    @Sunbeam One thing I'm waiting to see is when non-American culture producers start to beat Americans.

    Bollywood is gigantic. And has a huge presence in parts of Asia.

    There used to be Hong Kong Cinema. Not sure what happened to it. Successful, but not on the scale of Star Wars or The Fast And The Furious or something.

    Brazilian T&A soap operas are spreading around the world.

    K-Pop is doing the same.

    Japanese Anime and Manga, maybe the odd pop star, is worldwide now as well.

    But one day we are going to see that the past year's biggest movie worldwide was made in Bollywood or China.

    I'm a nationalist, but I will absolutely cheer as the first nail goes in Hollywood's coffin.

    Running rabbit , May 23, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT

    As someone who has travelled to the US and China (Beijing), I was astounded by how advanced China's infrastructure was to that of the US. Subways, freight trains, highways, airports, bridges you name it. The investment is still on going and only really been going on for 25 or so years. I had the feeling in the US things were being neglected. Also China is almost unbelievably safe walking the streets. Everybody behaved like mature adults. No forty year olds who dressed like teenagers, in fact most of the teenagers dressed like forty year olds should. Infrastructure is critical to a modern society, the military merely protects it. Economy is the source of viable military spending, not the other way around.

    Z-man , May 23, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT

    This marvelous revelation from Wikipedia: "In July 2016, the U.S. Air Force stated they would not release the estimated cost for the B-21 contract with Northrop Grumman. The Air Force argued releasing the cost would reveal too much information about the classified project to potential adversaries." As, for example, taxpayers.

    Hilarious and unfortunately true.

    Erebus , May 23, 2017 at 12:41 pm GMT

    @The Alarmist


    "The aircraft relies on the assumption that, in thirteen years when it enters service, anti-stealth technology will not have reached the point of making it even more obviously useless."
    It will still be good for terrorizing ... sorry ... for policing rogue states like N. Korea, Serbia, Yemen, and Syria.

    [May 23, 2017] The War on Yemen and the Great Saudi 'Modernizer'

    May 23, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    As Paul Pillar observed yesterday, Trump's Riyadh speech amounted to "bowing to the Saudi regime." The Wall Street Journal is predictably delighted , and encourages the administration to keep bowing:

    In 31-year-old Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, Saudi Arabia also finally has a serious modernizer who wants to diversify the economy from oil, expand the public space of women and ease other cultural strictures. The U.S. has a stake in his success and in particular should help him prevail as soon as possible against the Houthis in Yemen.

    Westerners frequently exaggerate the "modernizing" impulses of the next generation of leaders in a despotic government, and the individual leaders they celebrate almost always disappoint their enthusiasts. If the noxious relationship with the Saudis must continue, the U.S. would still be mistaken to link itself closely to the fortunes of Salman's son. For one thing, he isn't yet the next in line of succession, and the U.S. shouldn't be taking sides in an internecine rivalry in Riyadh. For another, the prince's main accomplishment to date has been to help mire his country in an unwinnable war that is draining Saudi resources every month.

    The U.S. can't help the coalition "prevail" in Yemen. It can only make itself more complicit in the unfolding catastrophe that the coalition has created with our government's support.

    [May 23, 2017] Why America Can't Do What It Wants to Stop Assad The National Interest Blog

    May 23, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
    0x7be • 6 days ago US has already did what it wanted - destroyed Iraq and Lybia and prompted the spawning of ISIS. Do we really need one more try? see more 11 • Reply • Share › + R. Arandas • 6 days ago Assad is not a saint by any means, but the West has been consistently supporting the Syrian rebels against his regime, and the civil war has only worsened and intensified in the years since. We need to stay out of the Middle East. see more 8 • Reply • Share › + wootendw R. Arandas "Assad is not a saint..."

    No, he is not a saint but he is a far more decent person than most members of Congress or any of the previous four presidents. Assad is not a dictator. He has been elected at least twice, most recently in 2014. Last April (2015) elections were held to Syria's parliament and Assad's party won a comfortable majority.

    Assad is an Alawite and an ophthalmologist but his highly educated British wife is a Sunni in a country where Sunnis are in the majority. Most Sunnis in Syria support their leaders as do Christians and Assad's fellow Alawite. Both husband and wife speak multiple foreign languages and could live comfortably in many countries. They committed themselves to reforming Syria and, if they were to go into exile as the US government wants, abandoning their people, tens of thousands more Syrians would be slaughtered but the US government would blame Assad.

    The West opposes Assad not because he is bad but because he is good. It truly hurts 'our' foreign policy establishment for a backward country like Syria to have a president more intelligent and more decent than our own leaders. That's why they want to destroy him. chris chuba • 4 days ago I'm glad the posters here aren't buying it. The State Dept. state had the usual weasel words 'probably' and couldn't deny that it might just be a heating system. Snow melt proves it's a crematorium? Since we have fancy infrared satellites, how about showing pictures of it operating during summertime, that would be suspicious, not snowmelt.

    Ah .. but crematorium conjures up images of the Holocaust which is etched into our psyche for the information war against the Assad govt. see more

    5 • Reply • Share › Comments continue after advertisement + Dennis Boylon • 5 days ago Anti Assad proganda from US war mongers. We heard all this BS before. Nobody is buying it. I hope Assad stays in power and protects his country from the destruction seen in Iraq and Libya. see more 4 • Reply • Share › + Paul Zx • 6 days ago Syrian war is like any other war, from atrocities against civilians to third parties involvement. Nothing new here. see more 3

    [May 22, 2017] The Russian Obsession Goes Back Decades by Jacob G. Hornberger

    Notable quotes:
    "... Just consider the accusations that have been leveled at the president: ..."
    "... He has committed treason by befriending Russia and other enemies of America. ..."
    "... He has subjugated America's interests to Moscow. ..."
    "... President Donald Trump? No, President John F. Kennedy. What lots of Americans don't realize, because it was kept secret from them for so long, is that what Trump has been enduring from the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, and the American right-wing for his outreach to, or "collusion with," Russia pales compared to what Kennedy had to endure for committing the heinous "crime" of reaching out to Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union in a spirit of peace and friendship. ..."
    "... They hated him for it. They abused him. They insulted him. They belittled him. They called him naοve. They said he was a traitor. All of the nasties listed above, plus more, were contained in an advertisement and a flier that appeared in Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated. They can be read here and here . ..."
    "... In June 1963, Kennedy threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at American University, now entitled the " Peace Speech ." It was one of the most remarkable speeches ever delivered by an American president. It was broadcast all across the communist Soviet Union, the first time that had ever been done. ..."
    "... Kennedy wasn't dumb. He knew what he was up against. He had heard Eisenhower warn the American people in his Farewell Address about the dangers to their freedom and democratic way of life posed by the military establishment. After Kennedy had read the novel Seven Days in May, ..."
    "... Kennedy didn't stop with his Peace Speech. He also began negotiating a treaty with the Soviets to end above-ground nuclear testing, an action that incurred even more anger and ire within the Pentagon and the CIA ..."
    "... By this time, Kennedy's war with the national-security establishment was in full swing. He had already vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds after its perfidious conduct in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By this time, he had also lost all confidence in the military after it proposed an all-out surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, much as Japan had done at Pearl Harbor, after the infamous plan known as Operation Northwoods, which proposed terrorist attacks and plane hijackings carried out by U.S. agents posing as Cuban communists, so as to provide a pretext for invading Cuba, and after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the military establishment accused him of appeasement and treason for agreeing not to ever invade Cuba again. ..."
    "... What Kennedy didn't know was that his "secret" negotiations with the Soviet and Cuban communists weren't so secret after all. As it turns out, it was a virtual certainty that the CIA (or NSA) was listening in on telephone conversations of Cuban officials at the UN in New York City, much as the CIA and NSA still do today, during which they would have learned what the president was secretly doing behind their backs. ..."
    "... In response to the things that were said in that advertisement and flier about him being a traitor for befriending Russia, he told his wife Jackie on the morning he was assassinated: "We are heading into nut country today." Of course, as he well knew, the nuts weren't located only in Dallas. They were also situated throughout the U.S. national-security establishment ..."
    "... For more information, attend The Future of Freedom Foundation's one-day conference on June 3, 2017, entitled " The National Security State and JFK " at the Washington Dulles Marriott Hotel. ..."
    May 20, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Just consider the accusations that have been leveled at the president:

    1. He has betrayed the Constitution, which he swore to uphold.
    2. He has committed treason by befriending Russia and other enemies of America.
    3. He has subjugated America's interests to Moscow.
    4. He has been caught in fantastic lies to the American people, including personal ones, like his previous marriage and divorce.
    President Donald Trump? No, President John F. Kennedy. What lots of Americans don't realize, because it was kept secret from them for so long, is that what Trump has been enduring from the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, and the American right-wing for his outreach to, or "collusion with," Russia pales compared to what Kennedy had to endure for committing the heinous "crime" of reaching out to Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union in a spirit of peace and friendship.

    They hated him for it. They abused him. They insulted him. They belittled him. They called him naοve. They said he was a traitor. All of the nasties listed above, plus more, were contained in an advertisement and a flier that appeared in Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated. They can be read here and here .

    Ever since then, some people have tried to make it seem like the advertisement and flier expressed only the feelings of extreme right-wingers in Dallas. That's nonsense. They expressed the deeply held convictions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the conservative movement, and many people within the mainstream media and Washington establishment.

    In June 1963, Kennedy threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at American University, now entitled the " Peace Speech ." It was one of the most remarkable speeches ever delivered by an American president. It was broadcast all across the communist Soviet Union, the first time that had ever been done.

    In the speech, Kennedy announced that he was bringing an end to the Cold War and the mindset of hostility toward Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union that the U.S. national-security establishment had inculcated in the minds of the American people ever since the end of World War II.

    It was a radical notion and, as Kennedy well understood, a very dangerous one insofar as he was concerned. The Cold War against America's World War II partner and ally had been used to convert the United States from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, one consisting of a vast, permanent military establishment, the CIA, and the NSA, along with their broad array of totalitarian-like powers, such as assassination, regime change, coups, invasions, torture, surveillance, and the like. Everyone was convinced that the Cold War - and the so-called threat from the international communist conspiracy that was supposedly based in Russia - would last forever, which would naturally mean permanent and ever-increasing largess for what Kennedy's predecessor, President Dwight Eisenhower, had called the "military-industrial complex."

    Suddenly, Kennedy was upending the Cold War apple cart by threatening to establish a relationship of friendship and peaceful coexistence with Russia, the rest of the Soviet Union, and Cuba.

    Kennedy knew full well that his actions were considered by some to be a grave threat to "national security." After all, don't forget that it was Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him ousted from power by the CIA and presumably targeted for assassination as part of that regime-change operation. It was Cuban leader Fidel Castro's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that made him the target of Pentagon and CIA regime-change operations, including through invasion, assassination, and sanctions. It was Congo leader's Patrice Lamumba's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him targeted for assassination by the CIA It would be Chilean President Salvador Allende's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him targeted in a CIA-instigated coup in Chile that resulted in Allende's death.

    Kennedy wasn't dumb. He knew what he was up against. He had heard Eisenhower warn the American people in his Farewell Address about the dangers to their freedom and democratic way of life posed by the military establishment. After Kennedy had read the novel Seven Days in May, which posited the danger of a military coup in America, he asked friends in Hollywood to make it into a movie to serve as a warning to the American people. In the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Pentagon and the CIA were exerting extreme pressure on Kennedy to bomb and invade Cuba, his brother Bobby told a Soviet official with whom he was negotiating that the president was under a severe threat of being ousted in a coup. And, of course, Kennedy was fully mindful of what had happened to Arbenz, Lamumba, and Castro for doing what Kennedy was now doing - reaching out to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship.

    In the eyes of the national-security establishment, one simply did not reach out to Russia, Cuba, or any other "enemy" of America. Doing so, in their eyes, made Kennedy an appeaser, betrayer, traitor, and a threat to "national security."

    Kennedy didn't stop with his Peace Speech. He also began negotiating a treaty with the Soviets to end above-ground nuclear testing, an action that incurred even more anger and ire within the Pentagon and the CIA Yes, that's right - they said that "national security" depended on the U.S. government's continuing to do what they object to North Korea doing today - conducting nuclear tests, both above ground and below ground.

    Kennedy mobilized public opinion to overcome fierce opposition in the military, CIA, Congress, and the Washington establishment to secure passage of his Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

    He then ordered a partial withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, and told close aides that he would order a complete pull-out after winning the 1964 election. In the eyes of the U.S. national-security establishment, leaving Vietnam subject to a communist takeover would pose a grave threat to national security here in the United States.

    Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, Kennedy began secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro to bring an end to America's Cold War against them. That was considered to be a grave threat to "national security" as well as a grave threat to all the military and intelligence largess that depended on the Cold War.

    By this time, Kennedy's war with the national-security establishment was in full swing. He had already vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds after its perfidious conduct in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By this time, he had also lost all confidence in the military after it proposed an all-out surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, much as Japan had done at Pearl Harbor, after the infamous plan known as Operation Northwoods, which proposed terrorist attacks and plane hijackings carried out by U.S. agents posing as Cuban communists, so as to provide a pretext for invading Cuba, and after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the military establishment accused him of appeasement and treason for agreeing not to ever invade Cuba again.

    What Kennedy didn't know was that his "secret" negotiations with the Soviet and Cuban communists weren't so secret after all. As it turns out, it was a virtual certainty that the CIA (or NSA) was listening in on telephone conversations of Cuban officials at the UN in New York City, much as the CIA and NSA still do today, during which they would have learned what the president was secretly doing behind their backs.

    Kennedy's feelings toward the people who were calling him a traitor for befriending Moscow and other "enemies" of America? In response to the things that were said in that advertisement and flier about him being a traitor for befriending Russia, he told his wife Jackie on the morning he was assassinated: "We are heading into nut country today." Of course, as he well knew, the nuts weren't located only in Dallas. They were also situated throughout the U.S. national-security establishment.

    For more information, attend The Future of Freedom Foundation's one-day conference on June 3, 2017, entitled " The National Security State and JFK " at the Washington Dulles Marriott Hotel.

    Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation .

    [May 22, 2017] Donald of Arabia A Disgusting Spectacle by Justin Raimondo

    Notable quotes:
    "... The old Trump told us that the Saudis were " mouth pieces, bullies, cowards ," who were " paying ISIS ," but now they're our partners in the "war on terrorism." Why it seems like only yesterday that he was calling out Saudi princes like Alwaleed bin Talal for thinking they can " control our US politicians " – today he's kowtowing to them. ..."
    "... Most tellingly, it was Trump who made a campaign issue out of the missing 28 pages redacted from the Joint congressional report on the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In calling for their release, he painted a scenario in which the Saudi royals assisted the hijackers and said: ..."
    "... While the US government, under both Trump and Obama, has routinely maintained that Iran is the biggest exporter of terrorism, that is utter nonsense: the Saudis easily outdo the mullahs of Tehran. Riyadh funds radical madrassas throughout the world that preach pure hatred of the West: they are incubators of terrorism, and have been wreaking havoc from one end of the globe to the other for decades. The terrorist groups that have destroyed Syria are the progeny of the Saudis, and their allies among the Gulf states. ..."
    "... Most shameful of all, the Saudis have invaded nearby Yemen, slaughtering children and women with impunity, bombing funeral processions, and causing a famine that will kill hundreds of thousands of noncombatants: the very young, the sick, and the old. And they're doing it with US assistance, a pact signed in blood under the Obama administration, now continued and beefed up under Trump. ..."
    "... Yes, the US-Saudi relationship is one of the central pillars of our globalist foreign policy – but wasn't Trump supposed to be different? Wasn't he supposed to be putting America first? Of all the betrayals we've had to endure since he took the White House, his pilgrimage to the epicenter of world terrorism has got to be the absolute worst. As he kneels before the Saudi king, he humiliates all of us. ..."
    "... Trump's next stop is Israel, and that's no accident: the Jewish state is Saudi Arabia's main ally in the region, although the relationship is supposed to be covert. They don't even bother to keep it under wraps anymore. While the Saudis fund the head-chopping barbarians who have destroyed Syria, the Israelis succor them in their hospitals and then set them free to kill and maim again. Israeli officials openly state their preference for ISIS over Bashar al-Assad. If and when Trump's loopy "Arab NATO" ever comes to pass, Israel will be a silent partner. ..."
    "... Speaking of which, the less said about Trump's speech in Riyadh the better: it was a farrago of falsehood, kowtowing, and brazen hypocrisy. To top it off, he announced that a new "Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology" is to be opened in the Kingdom – which is, itself, the world capital of extremist ideology, having done more to spread religious hatred than any country on earth. ..."
    "... Of all Trump's many betrayals – and they're piling up at such a rate that he's creating a veritable Mountain of Mendacity – this Saudi trip has got to be the one that will demoralize and alienate even his hardcore supporters. After rising to power on the strength of portraying Islam as inherently violent and dangerous , he's now joining hands with the leaders of what he once described as "the hateful ideology of radical Islam." It's as if Mother Theresa had embraced the Church of Satan. ..."
    "... We aren't in with the big foundations, or the whims of eccentric billionaires: we depend you, our readers, for the funding we need to continue. At a time when war clouds are darkening every horizon, from Korea's demilitarized zone to the eastern frontiers of the NATO alliance, Antiwar.com is needed now more than ever. But we can't do our job – preventing the next war – without your financial help. ..."
    May 22, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    This is the worst yet Has there been a more disgusting spectacle during the four months of this presidency than the sight of Donald Trump slobbering all over the barbarous Saudi monarch and his murderous family of petty princelings? It's enough to make any normal American retch, especially when one remembers what Trump said about them during the election:

    "Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays. Hillary must return all money from such countries!"

    And then there was this tweet :

    "Tell Saudi Arabia and others that we want (demand!) free oil for the next ten years or we will not protect their private Boeing 747s. Pay up!"

    Now Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, is calling up Lockheed-Martin to get a discount for the Saudis, personally brokering the biggest arms deal in US history. What a difference a presidency makes!

    The old Trump told us that the Saudis were " mouth pieces, bullies, cowards ," who were " paying ISIS ," but now they're our partners in the "war on terrorism." Why it seems like only yesterday that he was calling out Saudi princes like Alwaleed bin Talal for thinking they can " control our US politicians " – today he's kowtowing to them.

    Most tellingly, it was Trump who made a campaign issue out of the missing 28 pages redacted from the Joint congressional report on the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In calling for their release, he painted a scenario in which the Saudi royals assisted the hijackers and said:

    "You know, it's sort of nice to know who your friends are, and perhaps who your enemies are."

    Does Trump know who are our friends and who are our enemies?

    While the US government, under both Trump and Obama, has routinely maintained that Iran is the biggest exporter of terrorism, that is utter nonsense: the Saudis easily outdo the mullahs of Tehran. Riyadh funds radical madrassas throughout the world that preach pure hatred of the West: they are incubators of terrorism, and have been wreaking havoc from one end of the globe to the other for decades. The terrorist groups that have destroyed Syria are the progeny of the Saudis, and their allies among the Gulf states.

    Most shameful of all, the Saudis have invaded nearby Yemen, slaughtering children and women with impunity, bombing funeral processions, and causing a famine that will kill hundreds of thousands of noncombatants: the very young, the sick, and the old. And they're doing it with US assistance, a pact signed in blood under the Obama administration, now continued and beefed up under Trump.

    In all fairness, this is nothing new as far as the US is concerned: our relationship with the Saudi monarchy goes all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt, who cemented the alliance in 1943 by declaring that the defense of their medieval dictatorship was "vital" to our national security: US taxpayer dollars flowed into the Saudi treasury via the Lend-Lease giveaway. The flow hasn't stopped since that time: indeed, it has only increased.

    And the flow will turn into a torrent if Trump's wacky idea of an Arab NATO ever comes to fruition. We'll be paying their "defense" bills unto eternity, while they send their army of head-chopping assassins out to murder infidels on a global scale – and US arms dealers rake in cash hand over fist.

    Yes, the US-Saudi relationship is one of the central pillars of our globalist foreign policy – but wasn't Trump supposed to be different? Wasn't he supposed to be putting America first? Of all the betrayals we've had to endure since he took the White House, his pilgrimage to the epicenter of world terrorism has got to be the absolute worst. As he kneels before the Saudi king, he humiliates all of us.

    Trump's next stop is Israel, and that's no accident: the Jewish state is Saudi Arabia's main ally in the region, although the relationship is supposed to be covert. They don't even bother to keep it under wraps anymore. While the Saudis fund the head-chopping barbarians who have destroyed Syria, the Israelis succor them in their hospitals and then set them free to kill and maim again. Israeli officials openly state their preference for ISIS over Bashar al-Assad. If and when Trump's loopy "Arab NATO" ever comes to pass, Israel will be a silent partner.

    The third leg of Trump's trip will be the Vatican, and there an ambush awaits him. This Pope is no friend of the White House, and he is likely to issue a public rebuke on the immigration issue, at the very least. The whole thing is a public relations disaster waiting to happen, and a testament to the very bad advice Trump is getting from his clueless advisors.

    The mawkish idea of visiting the sites of the world's three major religions is more appropriate for a television special than for a President on his first major trip abroad. Quite aside from the fact that it leaves out the Hindus, the Greek Orthodox, and the Buddhists, the whole concept is typical of the way this administration thinks in terms of mindless clichιs, catchphrases without context or real meaning.

    Speaking of which, the less said about Trump's speech in Riyadh the better: it was a farrago of falsehood, kowtowing, and brazen hypocrisy. To top it off, he announced that a new "Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology" is to be opened in the Kingdom – which is, itself, the world capital of extremist ideology, having done more to spread religious hatred than any country on earth.

    Of all Trump's many betrayals – and they're piling up at such a rate that he's creating a veritable Mountain of Mendacity – this Saudi trip has got to be the one that will demoralize and alienate even his hardcore supporters. After rising to power on the strength of portraying Islam as inherently violent and dangerous , he's now joining hands with the leaders of what he once described as "the hateful ideology of radical Islam." It's as if Mother Theresa had embraced the Church of Satan.

    It's been a very long four months – that seems more like four years. In voting for Trump, many of his supporters – some of whom are now among Antiwar.com's regular readers and supporters – were hoping for a return to normalcy . What they got instead was a descent into Bizarro World.

    A special note : As you may know from looking at our front page, group of our more well-heeled and generous friends have gotten together and raised $30,000 in matching funds to support Antiwar.com's Spring fundraising drive – but there's a catch.

    We have to match that amount in individual donations, or else – no dice.

    It's time to put an end to this fundraiser: we have better things to do. The sheer amount of news is, frankly, overwhelming – and can barely deal with it and simultaneously do the hard work of raising money. We need to get on with our real job – which is giving you the best coverage of international affairs available online.

    We aren't in with the big foundations, or the whims of eccentric billionaires: we depend you, our readers, for the funding we need to continue. At a time when war clouds are darkening every horizon, from Korea's demilitarized zone to the eastern frontiers of the NATO alliance, Antiwar.com is needed now more than ever. But we can't do our job – preventing the next war – without your financial help.

    Your tax-deductible donation today has double the impact, thanks to the contributions of our matching funds donors. So seize this moment before it passes, and make your donation today.

    NOTES IN THE MARGIN

    You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

    I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement , with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey , a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon ( ISI Books , 2008).

    You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here .

    Read more

    [May 22, 2017] The Saudi Visit and Trumps Unprincipled Foreign Policy by Daniel Larison

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump supports the Saudi-led coalition's atrocious war on Yemen even more eagerly than his predecessor did (and Obama practically gave them carte blanche), and any government that does that clearly isn't concerned about defending human rights or alleviating humanitarian disasters. If we judge the U.S. by its actions under both Obama and Trump, we have to conclude that our government is much more interested in keeping despotic clients happy and "on side" than it is in opposing their indiscriminate killing of civilians and their creation of a man-made famine. ..."
    "... These are the wrong policies for the U.S. for all the reasons I have stated for over two years, but it is telling that they cannot be openly defended by members of the administration. So we are treated to the fantasy that the "entire trip is about human rights" when so far it has been a show of indifference to the suffering of innocent people, especially those in Yemen that are being killed and starved to death by the president's recent hosts and their allies. ..."
    May 22, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Administration officials always try to spin the president's words and deeds to put them in a favorable light, but this is ridiculous:

    H.R. McMaster on @POTUS trip: "The entire trip is about human rights, about all civilized people coming together to fight the hatred." pic.twitter.com/YMIdkFiK2h

    No one believes this about this trip or the Trump administration's foreign policy in general. Trump and his advisers have made closer relations with bad regional clients and combating terrorism their top priorities, and Trump made sure to say nothing at all about how the Saudis or other despotic clients treat their people or the people of neighboring countries.

    Trump supports the Saudi-led coalition's atrocious war on Yemen even more eagerly than his predecessor did (and Obama practically gave them carte blanche), and any government that does that clearly isn't concerned about defending human rights or alleviating humanitarian disasters. If we judge the U.S. by its actions under both Obama and Trump, we have to conclude that our government is much more interested in keeping despotic clients happy and "on side" than it is in opposing their indiscriminate killing of civilians and their creation of a man-made famine.

    These are the wrong policies for the U.S. for all the reasons I have stated for over two years, but it is telling that they cannot be openly defended by members of the administration. So we are treated to the fantasy that the "entire trip is about human rights" when so far it has been a show of indifference to the suffering of innocent people, especially those in Yemen that are being killed and starved to death by the president's recent hosts and their allies.

    There are always practical limits to what the U.S. can do and how much influence our government has, and there are always trade-offs to be made in foreign policy, but what we see with the Trump administration's dealings with the Saudis and other regional clients is something much less defensible. They make no attempt to rein in or challenge the clients' abusive behavior at any point, and instead just pretend that the abuses aren't even happening and then celebrate war criminals for their leadership and vision.

    To top it off, administration officials claim that the same war criminals they helping to arm to teeth are part of a coalition dedicated to protecting human rights. That's certainly not a principled policy by any definition I recognize, and it doesn't actually advance any U.S. interests, either.

    [May 22, 2017] Trump is responsible for what the US continues to try to do in Syria and Iraq

    May 22, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    johnnycanuck, May 22, 2017 4:23 PM

    While you are looking over there, El Donaldo Trump is responsible for what the US continues to try to do in Syria and Iraq. You have heard of the Yinon Plan? Will America Partition Syria?

    About Turn: What's Really Behind the US' New Approach to Syria https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201705211053835649-us-syria-tactics/

    Russia Is Counting on Hezbollah to Help Spearhead Eastern Syria Offensive http://russia-insider.com/en/military/russia-counting-hezbollah-help-spe...

    El Donaldo as much as declared 'Holy' war on Iran, on behalf of the folks who funded his campaign. What a guy. Such an All American Hero.

    [May 22, 2017] Key points of TIME magazine cover story on the Russian takeover of America

    Notable quotes:
    "... TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with quotes from the article: ..."
    May 22, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Petri Krohn | May 18, 2017 8:57:21 PM | 71

    TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with quotes from the article:

    1) Social media has become a danger to democracy.

    The vast openness and anonymity of social media has cleared a dangerous new route for antidemocratic forces. "Using these technologies, it is possible to undermine democratic government."

    2) Democratic society must isolate itself from public opinion.

    Russia may finally have gained the ability it long sought but never fully achieved in the Cold War: to alter the course of events in the U.S. by manipulating public opinion.

    3) Russia spies on you.

    The Russians "target you and see what you like, what you click on, and see if you're sympathetic or not sympathetic."

    4) America is losing the cyberwar.

    As Russia expands its cyberpropaganda efforts, the U.S. and its allies are only just beginning to figure out how to fight back.

    5) Russia has clever algorithms that America lacks.

    American researchers have found they can use mathematical formulas to segment huge populations into thousands of subgroups... Propagandists can then manually craft messages to influence them, deploying covert provocateurs, either humans or automated computer programs known as bots, in hopes of altering their behavior.

    6) Russia has huge troll farms.

    Putin dispatched his newly installed head of military intelligence, Igor Sergun, to begin repurposing cyberweapons previously used for psychological operations in war zones for use in electioneering. Russian intelligence agencies funded "troll farms," botnet spamming operations and fake news outlets as part of an expanding focus on psychological operations in cyberspace.

    7) You must trust mainstream media.

    Eager to appear more powerful than they are, the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources, knowing that Moscow might be lurking in your Facebook or Twitter feed.

    8) Russia invaded Ukraine in April 2014 .

    Putin was aiming his new weapons at the U.S. Following Moscow's April 2014 invasion of Ukraine.

    9) Hillary Clinton did not murder Seth Rich.

    That story went viral in late August, then took on a life of its own after Clinton fainted from pneumonia and dehydration at a Sept. 11 event in New York City. Elsewhere people invented stories saying Pope Francis had endorsed Trump and Clinton had murdered a DNC staffer.

    10) The evidence:

    Russia plays in every social media space. The intelligence officials have found that Moscow's agents bought ads on Facebook to target specific populations with propaganda. "They buy the ads, where it says sponsored by–they do that just as much as anybody else does," says the senior intelligence official. (A Facebook official says the company has no evidence of that occurring.) The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, has said he is looking into why, for example, four of the top five Google search results the day the U.S. released a report on the 2016 operation were links to Russia's TV propaganda arm, RT. (Google says it saw no meddling in this case.) Researchers at the University of Southern California, meanwhile, found that nearly 20% of political tweets in 2016 between Sept. 16 and Oct. 21 were generated by bots of unknown origin; investigators are trying to figure out how many were Russian.

    [May 22, 2017] Trump In Saudi Arabia - 'Peace In Our Time?'

    May 22, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
    May 22 - President Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia was perhaps one of the most bizarre spectacles of our time. Just months ago he accused the Saudi government of being behind the 9/11 attack on the US, yet over the weekend he stood on Saudi soil and discussed the virtues of religious diversity (something illegal in Saudi Arabia). Was it all about " the art of the deal" -- inking a hugely lucrative (for some) mega weapons deal? Or was it about calling for war on Iran and Syria (and maybe Russia)? We pick apart the trip and the speech in today's Liberty Report:

    ... ... ...

    [May 22, 2017] Making Russia a scapegoat for political tension connected with the crumbling of the neoliberal society due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment of the lower 80% of population

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment. If a world war breaks out, that is it." ..."
    "... Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root [causes of] despair of the western working class. ..."
    May 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova, May 22, 2017 at 03:58 PM

    A comment from MoA contains an insightful observation

    "Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment. If a world war breaks out, that is it."

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/05/the-special-council-investigation-will-be-bad-for-trump.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8f9d50c970b

    VietnamVet | May 18, 2017 9:19:08 PM | 75

    This is tragic. Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment.

    If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root [causes of] despair of the western working class.

    They will blunder about in lost befuddlement until they vanish.

    [May 22, 2017] Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment

    Notable quotes:
    "... If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class ..."
    May 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    VietnamVet | May 18, 2017 9:19:08 PM | 75

    This is tragic. Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment.

    If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class .

    They will blunder about in lost befuddlement until they vanish.

    [May 22, 2017] Economists View Links for 05-20-17

    Notable quotes:
    "... In any case Trump proved to be a very bad follower of Trump_vs_deep_state :-(. I have no further hopes for him. But still for me neocons remain the worst and the most dangerous enemies of humanity as they are open instigators of WWIII. So they still are even worse. ..."
    "... Looks like Trump is not a leader and never has been one. He is a second rate showman and salesman. That's it. Looks like he already have burned every bridge and squandered every opportunity for non-interventionist policy of the USA. Saudi visit is just icing on the cake (he got a gold medal from the king who by his position is a Supreme leader of Wahhabies -- KSA official religion -- can you imagine that ? ) ..."
    "... I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann, she's getting nervous. And frankly chances at this point for a turn are slim to non-existent. Now Trump has all chances to became Republican Obama -- betrayer of his voters, another master of "bait and switch" maneuver. ..."
    May 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs, May 21, 2017 at 08:20 PM
    Trump Reaches Out to Sunni Nations, at Iran's Expense https://nyti.ms/2rHXZLi
    NYT - BEN HUBBARD and THOMAS ERDBRINK - MAY 21

    RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - As voters in Iran danced in the streets, celebrating the landslide re-election of a moderate as president, President Trump stood in front of a gathering of leaders from across the Muslim world and called on them to isolate a nation he said had "fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror."

    That nation was Iran.

    In using the headline address of his first foreign trip as president to declare his commitment to Sunni Arab nations, Mr. Trump signaled a return to an American policy built on alliances with Arab autocrats, regardless of their human rights records or policies that sometimes undermine American interests.

    At the same time, he rejected the path taken by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Mr. Obama engaged with Iran to reach a breakthrough nuclear accord, which Mr. Trump's administration has acknowledged Iran is following.

    Mr. Trump has presented the shift as a reinvestment in historical alliances with friendly nations in order to fight extremism and terrorism. But the juxtaposition of the election in Iran and the gathering in Saudi Arabia seemed to highlight a reality of the Middle East that presidents have long wrestled with: how to choose partners and seek American interests in a region torn by sectarian splits and competing agendas.

    Iran and its proxies have effectively found themselves on the side of the United States in fighting the Islamic State in Iraq, while in Syria, they have been adversaries in their support for the rule of President Bashar al-Assad. Saudi Arabia has at times undermined the United States' efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

    "We are picking one side in this geopolitical struggle, and there is very little room for gray," said Frederic Wehrey, a senior fellow in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Sectarianism is a byproduct of this geopolitical rivalry, and we are inadvertently picking one side in this sectarian struggle."

    The two scenes - dancing in the streets in Tehran and Sunni leaders gathered in an opulent hall in Riyadh - also pointed to a complicating reality in the Middle East: There is often a disconnect between the leaders and their people.

    In his remarks, Mr. Trump signaled his intention to end engagement with Iran, suggesting that it does not encourage change from inside the country.

    But in Iran, many were pushing for change. Emboldened by the election results, crowds of Iranians in the capital, Tehran, demanded what they hope President Hassan Rouhani's second term will bring: the release of opposition figures, more freedom of thought and fewer restrictions on daily life.

    Mr. Rouhani's supporters also expect his victory, with 57 percent of the vote, to bolster his outreach efforts to the West and the pursuit of more foreign investment to lift Iran's ailing economy.

    For those who voted for Mr. Rouhani, there was a feeling of tremendous relief that his challenger, the hard-line cleric Ebrahim Raisi, who criticized the nuclear deal with the United States and other Western powers, had lost.

    "Bye-bye, Raisi," the crowds chanted during the street gatherings.

    "He faces a difficult task," Fazel Meybodi, a Shiite Muslim cleric from the city of Qum, said of Mr. Rouhani. "Now he must provide more freedoms, break the hard-line monopoly on the state-run radio and television, and increase freedom of press."

    To achieve all that, Mr. Rouhani must persuade the hard-line-dominated judiciary and security forces to change their outlook, Mr. Meybodi said. "If he fails to deliver on at least 70 percent of those promises, his future is dark," he added.

    For decades, Saudi Arabia and Iran have competed for religious leadership and political influence across the Muslim world and beyond.

    Saudi Arabia, the Sunni monarchy that controls Islam's holiest sites, sees itself as the natural leader of the Muslim world and has used its lavish oil wealth to spread its austere version of the faith.

    Iran, meanwhile, is the world's largest Shiite nation and is led by clerics who seek to export the ideology of political Islam that brought them to power in 1979.

    Each country accuses the other of sowing instability.

    Iran accuses Saudi Arabia of spreading an intolerant creed that fuels terrorism and threatens minorities. Saudi Arabia says Iran works through nonstate actors to weaken Arab nations.

    In his speech on Sunday, Mr. Trump, a guest of the Saudi monarch, spoke of a stronger alliance with mostly Sunni Muslim nations to fight terrorism and extremist ideology and to push back against Iran.

    "From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds arms and trains terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region," Mr. Trump told dozens of Muslim heads of state. "It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this very room."

    That pointed to a departure from the policies of Mr. Obama, who pushed Persian Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia to move toward greater self-sufficiency in defense while pressing for the agreement to limit Iran's nuclear program.

    Proponents of that approach hoped that engagement with Iran would lead to greater moderation among its leaders, paving the way for its eventual reintegration into the world system.

    But the nuclear deal angered gulf nations, who felt that it rewarded Iran for bad behavior while doing nothing to constrain its destabilizing activities in Arab countries.

    For them, Mr. Trump's return to America's traditional allies was a great relief.

    "The most important thing is that the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States is built on vision and numbers, not on slogans. They are building on shared interests," said Ghassan Charbel, the editor in chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper. "It shows that the majority in the Arab and Islamic worlds will be close to the United States if it chooses to engage."

    The Arab nations hate Iran for using nonstate actors in Arab countries. Iran was fundamental in the creation of Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group and political party that now has Lebanon's strongest military force. More recently, Iran has sent military aid to help Mr. Assad fight rebels seeking his ouster, while also supporting militias in Iraq, Bahrain and Yemen.

    But there is a gap between Iran's older, ruling clerics and the ambitions of its people, as was made clear when Iranians came out in force to dance and protest in the streets this weekend, breaking Islamic rules and political taboos, in celebration of Mr. Rouhani's re-election.

    The election outcome was widely seen as evidence that Iran's society has changed radically. Influenced by satellite television, cheaper international travel, the internet, waves of migration to big cities and access to higher education, most of Iranian society now adheres to middle-class values.

    This collided with the anti-Western ideology and strict interpretation of Islam represented by Mr. Raisi and promoted by state organizations.

    Some used the election's success to criticize Mr. Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia.

    "Iran - fresh from real elections - attacked by @POTUS in that bastion of democracy & moderation," Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, wrote on Twitter, speaking of Saudi Arabia.

    Hamidreza Taraghi, a hard-line analyst, said of Mr. Trump, "This man just wants to sell American weapons and use Iran as an excuse."

    In deepening the United States' alliance with gulf countries, Mr. Trump is bringing it closer to nations that share few cultural values with the United States and have sometimes acted against its interests. ...

    libezkova - , May 21, 2017 at 09:52 PM
    "In deepening the United States' alliance with gulf countries, Mr. Trump is bringing it closer to nations that share few cultural values with the United States and have sometimes acted against its interests. ..."

    Being anti-war puts me in "oppressed minority" position here, but may I humbly suggest one thing: may be he is not a Russian agent like many pro-Hillary commenters here for some strange reason assume, but a closet Wahhabi stooge and a special prosecutor should be assigned for a different investigation ;-)

    In any case Trump proved to be a very bad follower of Trump_vs_deep_state :-(. I have no further hopes for him. But still for me neocons remain the worst and the most dangerous enemies of humanity as they are open instigators of WWIII. So they still are even worse.

    It would be nice to prosecute them all for treason (instead of this useless witch hunt for Russian agents that neocons instigated for their nefarious purposes), but as they are in power this possibility is pretty remote :-)

    Looks like Trump is not a leader and never has been one. He is a second rate showman and salesman. That's it. Looks like he already have burned every bridge and squandered every opportunity for non-interventionist policy of the USA. Saudi visit is just icing on the cake (he got a gold medal from the king who by his position is a Supreme leader of Wahhabies -- KSA official religion -- can you imagine that ? )

    I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann, she's getting nervous. And frankly chances at this point for a turn are slim to non-existent. Now Trump has all chances to became Republican Obama -- betrayer of his voters, another master of "bait and switch" maneuver.

    That does not make neocon warmonger Hillary any better, but still to understand that we have had no choice between two equally despicable swamp creatures is depressing. Looks like 100% authentic "Back in the USSR" story.

    [May 22, 2017] Manafort, Stone Give Russia Docs To Senate Intel Committee

    They can dig this dirt to years. Trump is now a hostage.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, confirmed that Manafort turned over documents, adding that Manafort remains interested in cooperating with the Senate investigation. ..."
    "... NBC adds that it was too early to tell whether the documents from Manafort and Stone "suggested they had fully complied with the request." In a parallel process, as part of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation, federal grand juries have issued subpoenas for records relating to both Flynn and Manafort. ..."
    May 22, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    While Michael Flynn may refusing to comply with the Senate Intel Committee's probe of Russian interference, two other former associates of Donald Trump complied on Monday afternoon, and according to NBC , Paul Manafort and Roger Stone have turned over documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee in its Russia investigation, providing "all documents consistent with their specific request." As reported previously, the committee sent document requests to Manafort and Stone, as well as Carter Page and Mike Flynn, seeking information related to dealings with Russia. So far Page has not yet complied, while Flynn it was confirmed today, planned to plead the Fifth as a reason not to comply with a committee subpoena, citing "escalating public frenzy" as part of the ongoing probe.

    According to NBC, the committee's letter to Page asked him "to list any Russian official or business executive he met with between June 16, 2015 and Jan. 20, 2017. It also asked him to provide information about Russia-related real estate transactions during that period. And it seeks all his email or other communications during that period with Russians, or with the Trump campaign about Russia or Russians."

    While the precise contents is unknown, similar letters were sent to Manafort and Stone, who then sent the requested information to investigators by last Friday's deadline.

    "I gave them all documents that were consistent with their specific request," Stone said in an email to NBC News.

    A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, confirmed that Manafort turned over documents, adding that Manafort remains interested in cooperating with the Senate investigation.

    NBC adds that it was too early to tell whether the documents from Manafort and Stone "suggested they had fully complied with the request." In a parallel process, as part of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation, federal grand juries have issued subpoenas for records relating to both Flynn and Manafort.

    Meanwhile, Flynn's assertion of the Fifth Amendment would make it difficult for the Senate to enforce its subpoena, NBC News reported citing Senate sources: "The Senate could go to court, or go ask the Justice Department to go to court to enforce it, but either actin would require the Republicans who control the chamber to agree." Trump fired Flynn as his national security advisor in February after misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about U.S. sanctions on Russia.

    WillyGroper , May 22, 2017 4:18 PM

    if the ruskie investigation fails to unravel the deals/pay to play treason of hrc, it's a screenplay.

    Honest John , May 22, 2017 4:19 PM

    CNN led off their newscast saying that pleading the 5th is an admission of guilt. Only guilty people do it.

    How do they get away with this stuff? And people buy into it.

    dexter_morgan - Honest John , May 22, 2017 4:24 PM

    Then all of Hillary's staff is guilty on the email probe stuff, they all claimed the 5th. Didn't Loretty Lynch or Holder also plead the 5th recently?

    Grandad Grumps , May 22, 2017 4:31 PM

    This is hilarious. Is there supposed to be some connection between meeting with Russians and rigging an election?

    I am thinking that if there is to be an investigation then Congress needs to cast a wider net to include all of the past three administrations, All international banks and their legal representatives, all of Congress and everyone who has ever contributed to the DNC or RNC.

    If they are going to hunt for witches, why not make it open season on ALL witches.

    My personal preference is to be on friendly terms with both Russia and China ... not to mentioned Iran, people of all religions and the other countries that do not have BIS tied central banks. Why do we tolerate people telling us that we have to hate someone?

    [May 22, 2017] NSA is here to help you or Spying as a service (SAAS)

    May 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Willem Hendrik, May 21, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT

    Look at the bright side; If you lost the grocery list your wife gave you, call the NSA and ask them to send you a copy.

    If your boss denies promising you a raise call NSA for supporting materials.

    SAAS ( Spying as a service)

    [May 22, 2017] Newt Gingrich repeats Seth Rich conspiracy theory in Fox appearance by Lois Beckett

    Guardian defends Hillary. Again. They also are afraid to open the comment section on this article.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - - special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between the president's aides and - - Russia should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has become the focus of conspiracy theorists . ..."
    "... This week, the Russian embassy in the UK shared the conspiracy on Twitter, CNN reported , calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice". ..."
    "... "He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics." ..."
    "... The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case, the Washington Post reported . ..."
    May 22, 2017 | - www.theguardian.com
    Trump confidante and husband of ambassadorial nominee repeats WikiLeaks theory denounced as 'fake news' by family of murdered DNC staffer Sunday 21 May 2017, 16.48 EDT Last modified on Monday 22 May 2017

    A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - - special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between the president's aides and - - Russia should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has become the focus of conspiracy theorists .

    In an appearance on Fox and Friends less than two days after his wife was - - proposed as ambassador to the Holy See , Newt Gingrich – former speaker of the House, 2012 presidential candidate and a Trump confidante – publicly endorsed the conspiracy theory that Rich was "assassinated" after giving Democratic National Committee emails to WikiLeaks.

    Rich, 27, was shot dead in the early hours of 10 July 2016, as he walked home in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington. In August, the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, - - insinuated that Rich had been a source. Police initially explored whether Rich's murder might be connected to robberies in the area, according to a local news report , and officials in the capital have publicly debunked other claims.

    "This is a robbery that ended tragically," Kevin Donahue, Washington's deputy mayor for public safety, told NBC News this week. "That's bad enough for our city, and I think it is irresponsible to conflate this into something that doesn't connect to anything that the detectives have found. No WikiLeaks connection."

    On Sunday, the Washington DC police public affairs office did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.

    In January, American intelligence agencies concluded with " high confidence " in a public report that Russian military intelligence was responsible for hacking the DNC and obtaining and relaying private messages to WikiLeaks, which made a series of embarrassing public disclosures. The goal, the agencies concluded, was to undermine the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and boost Trump, as well as hurt Americans' trust in their own democracy.

    This week, the Russian embassy in the UK shared the conspiracy on Twitter, CNN reported , calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice".

    The Rich family has repeatedly denied that there is any evidence behind the conspiracy theories and called on Fox News to retract its coverage of their son's murder. Earlier this week, a spokesman for the family said in a statement that "anyone who continues to push this fake news story after it was so thoroughly debunked is proving to the world they have a transparent political agenda or are a sociopath".

    On Fox and Friends, Gingrich said: "We have this very strange story here of this young man who worked for the DNC who was apparently assassinated at four in the morning having given WikiLeaks something like 23,000 – I'm sorry, 53,000 – emails and 17,000 attachments.

    "Nobody's investigating that, and what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out it wasn't the Russians, it was this young guy who, I suspect, who was disgusted by the corruption of the Democratic National Committee.

    "He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics."

    Last week, the private investigator and Fox News commentator Rod Wheeler claimed that evidence existed that Rich had been in contact with WikiLeaks. Questioned by CNN, however, he said: "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News" and added that he did not have any evidence himself.

    "Using the legacy of a murder victim in such an overtly political way is morally reprehensible," a Rich family spokesman told CNN.

    The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case, the Washington Post reported .

    [May 21, 2017] What Obsessing About Trump Causes Us To Miss by Andrew Bacevich

    Highly recommended!
    Interesting questions ! But one can sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge that not even the pretense of a reply to Bacevich's questions will be forthcoming for the US MSM.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry? ..."
    "... How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions. ..."
    "... Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs. ..."
    "... The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? ..."
    "... Well, looks like I missed the war ending .but with the war ended, one would think we wouldn't have to be dropping the world's biggest bomb ..."
    "... I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven. ..."
    "... Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. ..."
    "... Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy. The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption. When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies. ..."
    "... Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting. In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict. ..."
    "... Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up our perpetually campaigning political-climber class? ..."
    "... Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East. ..."
    "... Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down. ..."
    "... Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. ..."
    "... Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. ..."
    "... Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today. ..."
    May 08, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    May 8, 2017 by Yves Smith By Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is the author of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History , now out in paperback . His next book will be an interpretive history of the United States from the end of the Cold War to the election of Donald Trump. Originally published at TomDispatch

    If only it were so. How wonderful it would be if President Trump's ascendancy had coincided with a revival of hard-hitting, deep-dive, no-holds-barred American journalism. Alas, that's hardly the case. True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position to which he had previously sworn fealty requires something less than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes. As for beating up on poor Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes - well, that's more akin to sadism than reporting.

    Apart from a commendable determination to discomfit Trump and members of his inner circle (select military figures excepted, at least for now), journalism remains pretty much what it was prior to November 8th of last year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads and novelties discovered, celebrated, then mocked; "extraordinary" stories of ordinary people granted 15 seconds of fame only to once again be consigned to oblivion - all served with a side dish of that day's quota of suffering, devastation, and carnage. These remain journalism's stock-in-trade. As practiced in the United States, with certain honorable (and hence unprofitable) exceptions, journalism remains superficial, voyeuristic, and governed by the attention span of a two year old.

    As a result, all those editors, reporters, columnists, and talking heads who characterize their labors as "now more important than ever" ill-serve the public they profess to inform and enlighten. Rather than clearing the air, they befog it further. If anything, the media's current obsession with Donald Trump - his every utterance or tweet treated as "breaking news!" - just provides one additional excuse for highlighting trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention than they currently receive.

    To illustrate the point, let me cite some examples of national security issues that presently receive short shrift or are ignored altogether by those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set the nation's political agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are two dozen matters to which you're not giving faintly adequate thought and attention.

    1. Accomplishing the "mission" : Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S. security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well. Under what circumstances can Americans expect nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs? To put it another way, when (if ever) might U.S. forces actually come home? And if it is incumbent upon the United States to police vast swaths of the planet in perpetuity, how should momentous changes in the international order - the rise of China, for example, or accelerating climate change - affect the U.S. approach to doing so?

    2 . American military supremacy : The United States military is undoubtedly the world's finest. It's also far and away the most generously funded , with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities to practice their craft. So why doesn't this great military ever win anything? Or put another way, why in recent decades have those forces been unable to accomplish Washington's stated wartime objectives? Why has the now 15-year-old war on terror failed to result in even a single real success anywhere in the Greater Middle East? Could it be that we've taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing differently?

    3. America's empire of bases : The U.S. military today garrisons the planet in a fashion without historical precedent. Successive administrations, regardless of party, justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning U.S. forces in distant lands fosters peace, stability, and security. In the present century, however, perpetuating this practice has visibly had the opposite effect. In the eyes of many of those called upon to "host" American bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of occupation. They resist. Why should U.S. policymakers expect otherwise?

    4. Supporting the troops : In present-day America, expressing reverence for those who serve in uniform is something akin to a religious obligation. Everyone professes to cherish America's "warriors." Yet such bountiful, if superficial, expressions of regard camouflage a growing gap between those who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military system, based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor effective. Why has discussion and debate about its deficiencies not found a place among the nation's political priorities?

    5. Prerogatives of the commander-in-chief : Are there any military actions that the president of the United States may not order on his own authority? If so, what are they? Bit by bit, decade by decade, Congress has abdicated its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to do (or simply stays mum ). Who does this deference to an imperial presidency benefit? Have U.S. policies thereby become more prudent, enlightened, and successful?

    6. Assassin-in-chief : A policy of assassination, secretly implemented under the aegis of the CIA during the early Cold War, yielded few substantive successes. When the secrets were revealed, however, the U.S. government suffered considerable embarrassment , so much so that presidents foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones. Today, the only secret is the sequence of names on the current presidential hit list , euphemistically known as the White House "disposition matrix." But does assassination actually advance U.S. interests (or does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)? How can we measure its costs, whether direct or indirect? What dangers and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?

    7. The war formerly known as the "Global War on Terrorism" : What precisely is Washington's present strategy for defeating violent jihadism? What sequence of planned actions or steps is expected to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the case? How is it that the absence of strategy - not to mention an agreed upon definition of "success" - doesn't even qualify for discussion here?

    8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom : The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?

    9. The Gulf : Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter . Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are far greater than was once believed . Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?

    10. Hyping terrorism : Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do auto accidents , drug overdoses , or even lightning strikes . Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?

    11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don't : Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens of France or Belgium elicits from the United States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and solidarity. A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference? To what extent does race provide the answer to that question?

    12. Israeli nukes : What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?

    13. Peace in the Holy Land : What purpose is served by indulging illusions that a "two-state solution" offers a plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? As remorselessly as white settlers once encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American tribes, Israeli settlers expand their presence in the occupied territories year by year. As they do, the likelihood of creating a viable Palestinian state becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent of thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David to the glitz of Mar-a-Lago.

    14. Merchandizing death : When it comes to arms sales, there is no need to Make America Great Again. The U.S. ranks number one by a comfortable margin, with long-time allies Saudi Arabia and Israel leading recipients of those arms. Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product $20,000) purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. weapons. Israel (per capita gross domestic product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such weaponry annually courtesy of the American taxpayer. If the Saudis pay for U.S. arms, why shouldn't the Israelis? They can certainly afford to do so.

    15. Our friends the Saudis (I) : Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?

    16. Our friends the Saudis (II) : If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American values than do Iranian ones?

    17. Our friends the Pakistanis : Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons proliferator . It supports the Taliban. For years, it provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. Yet U.S. policymakers treat Pakistan as if it were an ally. Why? In what ways do U.S. and Pakistani interests or values coincide? If there are none, why not say so?

    18. Free-loading Europeans : Why can't Europe, " whole and free ," its population and economy considerably larger than Russia's, defend itself? It's altogether commendable that U.S. policymakers should express support for Polish independence and root for the Baltic republics. But how does it make sense for the United States to care more about the wellbeing of people living in Eastern Europe than do people living in Western Europe?

    19. The mother of all "special relationships" : The United States and the United Kingdom have a "special relationship" dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today? Why should U.S. relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more "special" than its relations with a rising power like India? Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence still need a "mother country"?

    20. The old nuclear disarmament razzmatazz : American presidents routinely cite their hope for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?

    21. Double standards (I) : American policymakers take it for granted that their country's sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of U.S. military forces to scores of countries. Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes the position that spheres of influence are obsolete and a concept that should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese, Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong - in China, Russia, and Iran. To stray beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and order. Why should these other nations play by American rules? Why shouldn't similar rules apply to the United States?

    22. Double standards (II) : Washington claims that it supports and upholds international law. Yet when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard it. They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do these things with impunity, only forced to reverse their actions on the rare occasions when U.S. courts find them illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since the United States does so only when convenient?

    23. Double standards (III) : The United States condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians in wartime. Yet over the last three-quarters of a century, it killed civilians regularly and often on a massive scale. By what logic, since the 1940s, has the killing of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible than the Syrian government's use of "barrel bombs" to kill Syrians today? On what basis should Americans accept Pentagon claims that, when civilians are killed these days by U.S. forces, the acts are invariably accidental, whereas Syrian forces kill civilians intentionally and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence or the fog of war as explanations? And why, for instance, does the United States regularly gloss over or ignore altogether the noncombatants that Saudi forces (with U.S. assistance ) are routinely killing in Yemen?

    24. Moral obligations : When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights, members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to "do something." Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions. Newspaper columnists recycle copy first used when Cambodians were slaughtering other Cambodians en masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it. Proponents of action - typically advocating military intervention - argue that the United States has a moral obligation to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on Earth. But what determines the pecking order of such moral obligations? Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of others or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans? Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the U.S. invasion of 2003? Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the Filipinos, brutally denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the nineteenth century ended? Or African-Americans, whose ancestors were imported as slaves? Or, for that matter, dispossessed and disinherited Native Americans? Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral obligations? And if not, shouldn't those who have waited longest for justice or reparations receive priority attention?

    Let me suggest that any one of these two dozen issues - none seriously covered, discussed, or debated in the American media or in the political mainstream - bears more directly on the wellbeing of the United States and our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything Donald Trump may have said or done during his first 100 days as president. Collectively, they define the core of the national security challenges that presently confront this country, even as they languish on the periphery of American politics.

    How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions.

    DH , May 8, 2017 at 11:36 am

    Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" has many of the answers to the questions about why the MSM is the way it is. People are hard-wired to react to sound bites, especially potential pleasure or terror. The MSM is very good at that. Populist politicians feed off of the same.

    B.J.M. , May 8, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    "What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it."

    Sorry MoiAussie, but the analysis has already been done, unfortunately nobody really cares.

    Propaganda and the Public Mind
    Necessary Illusions

    witters , May 8, 2017 at 6:01 pm

    "What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it. In a nutshell, how to foster thriving independent media with broad reach that expose MSM stenography and resist censorship?"

    Well, yes. Except the behaviour you are analysing is, presumably, among other things, the behaviour involved in inadequately addressing these topics.

    cat's paw , May 8, 2017 at 1:57 am

    One can sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge that not even the pretense of a reply to Bacevich's questions will be forthcoming.

    oho , May 8, 2017 at 8:45 am

    stop fighting about identity politics (i'm not holding my breath for either side)

    elements of both sides want to return to a non-interventionist US foreign policy, except there is always a fight about something else that serves as a distraction.. like cats and shiny toys.

    Norb , May 8, 2017 at 9:18 am

    The only thing one can do is persistently bring important issues forward to friends and colleagues. In other words, become in many respects a social pariah. Challenging the status quo by definition makes you an outsider.

    The strategic effectiveness of this dissent becomes manifest when you actually change how you live your life. You become an example for others to follow.

    Any successful movement building must follow this path. The strategic plan is to live and think like a socialist in a crumbling capitalist world. The rising levels of inequality must surely bring this about, one way or another.

    Socialism or Barbarism. How many working people could disagree with that? It needs to be repeated over and over. That spirit needs to be reflected in individual life in order to survive.

    B.J.M. , May 8, 2017 at 2:47 pm

    " But it raises the question, what can individuals do to change the behavior of the media?"

    We can continue to ignore them and opt for the following: Naked Capitalism, CounterPunch, ZeroHedge, Liberty Blitzkreig, ContraCorner, Truthout, Consortium News, The Unz Review, Tom Dispatch, Democracy Now, Pando Daily, The Intercept, etc, etc. That is the mainstream media's worst nightmare.

    The only reason to check the NYT or Washington Post is to see what meme is being promoted by the deep state; then you know what not to believe.

    I find this whole debate about fake news to be somewhat laughable. Americans have been subject to fake news for decades, they just didn't know it. Noam Chomsky has been writing about this for 40 years. His books: Propaganda and the Public Mind, Deterring Democracy, Manufacturing Consent and Necessary Illusions are all excellent and contain extensive research and details to support his claims. Of course part to the fake news strategy has been to ignore people like Chomsky. Instead we get intellectual clowns like Tom Friedman telling us how the world works.

    Now that we have some real news, the fake news mainstream media has gone into panic mode and its strategy is to label the real new as fake news. Orwell and Huxley must be rolling in their graves with laughter.

    Enjoy the show!

    optimader , May 8, 2017 at 11:18 am

    True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position to which he had previously sworn . "uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position.." a new development in POTUS behavior ushered in by DTrump??

    craazyboy , May 8, 2017 at 2:05 am

    Ok, so the USG has 24 issues. Let's not be nit-picky.

    On this one, we've had a bit of progress.

    "8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom: The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?"

    We dropped a $30 million BMF'ing bomb on an undefensible, open plain. Killed 67 trees and terrified Afgan flora from border to border. Egyptian cotton kids refuse to migrate there on their little parachute thingies because they are terrified --

    Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs.

    This is appreciated by other terrorists in camp and they sleep better , too.

    However, the Fava Beans and Olive Oil have been spilled. Unemployed tree hugger reporters report that the BMF'ing bomb caused the tree sap to instantly turn to maple sugar candies and the candies are now enclosed in a depleted uranium candy tins. Fake research scientists believe the bomb casing was made of the depleted uranium. Could happen, opines Krugman, now minority owner of the NYT, and seconded by Chelsea, whom did the secret HS science project back in the 90s in Yugoslavia. She drew a cute picture of Daddy on the bomb's belly, but a lot of Very Serious Men In Black Suits did everything else.

    As to when the entire Afgan issue ends, we know the war becomes fiscally irresponsible when the USG runs out of new trees to bomb and the maple sugar candies no longer can fund the onslaught.

    Krugman is working on the macro analysis and will send the Noble Prize people an advanced copy for editing, puffing up, and general focus grouping. One area of neglect is developing a universal political correctness language – the semantics are daunting and definitions have to be dynamic, yet synchronized with meanings according to domestic needs. That's a tough one.

    Then people have to learn it, instead of lazily doing what they do now. Which I think may involve much use of sign language.

    An advance against the reward money is expected, and a pic of the statues with Kruggies name on it would signal good faith and seal the deal. Bully to Trump!

    fresno dan , May 8, 2017 at 11:12 am

    craazyboy
    May 8, 2017 at 2:05 am

    "The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end?"

    Apparently, the Afghanistan war has ended. It makes me feel a little less stupid, although I have a lot of excess stupid in reserve, to know others missed it as well ..

    fresno dan

    After dropping its largest conventional bomb ever used in combat in Afghanistan on 13 April, the US military said the massive ordnance air blast, or Moab, was a "very clear message to Isis" that they would be "annihilated".

    Defence secretary Jim Mattis said the bomb was "necessary to break Isis". The Afghan government claimed the bomb killed 94 Isis militants, while harming no civilians.

    ======================================================================= http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/29/afghanistan-war-officially-ends/21004589/

    Well, looks like I missed the war ending .but with the war ended, one would think we wouldn't have to be dropping the world's biggest bomb

    optimader , May 8, 2017 at 11:22 am

    its now a police action!

    fresno dan , May 8, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    optimader
    May 8, 2017 at 11:22 am

    the military takes more and more "police actions" while the police use more and more military equipment and tactics ..
    Considering all the "surplus" stuff that goes to the police, how soon before the police drop the biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the mother of all bombs???

    optimader , May 8, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    how soon before the police drop the biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the mother of all bombs???

    low yield Neutron bomb.. don't damage what left of the domestic infrastructure, the REIT managers would go crazy!

    The backhanded criticism that the MFing bomb didn't do enough damage is related to where it was used.
    Try a barometric pressure bomb in a place like Manhattan and it would be a much different outcome than say on the other end of the spectrum, at a latitude/longitude in Nevada where the before and after pics would be identical.

    A dark side of the media criticism of the MFing Bomb is that it may well goad the MIC/Pentagon Product Managers into a do-over. Afterall, who likes their handiwork criticized?

    DTrump told them I want something big and flashy while Xi is in town and that's what they came up with..

    Back to the Product Development Group. Just need to tweak the neutron emission!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

    DH , May 8, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    They are just suppressing protests. In the US they are limited to tear gas but in Afghanistan they can use MOAB since the ACLU is weak there.

    DH , May 8, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Mao Zedong

    The cool thing about guerilla warfare is it largely eliminates the concept of civilians since anybody could be a soldier, even children. That is why civilian casualties are frequently so low, because pretty much anybody over the age of 6 is a combatant. it also increases the enemy combatant body count which makes it clear that the government forces are winning, as was so ably shown in the Vietnam War.

    optimader , May 8, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven.

    It was so DTrump could be at the breakfast table before the President of China and to greet him with.. Wow, sorry I had to cut out before Dessert last night, had some things to take care of, how was the Chocolate cake.. the Cake?" ( he like to repeat things)

    DH , May 8, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    I view the use of MOAB on ISIS as the equivalent of giving an antibiotic shot so that the in-country Taliban immune system can wipe out the remaining ISIS bacteria. I don't think the Taliban wants ISIS there since it focuses too much US attention on the area, so they may be willing to mop up the remaining ISIS fighters.

    Dick Burkhart , May 8, 2017 at 2:21 am

    Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. A few weeks later I actually got a phone call from his office on this very question, yet the answer was still basically No. He did say that Kerry had sought a UN brokered regime change in Syria (opposed by Russia), after I suggested something like this.

    However Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy. The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption. When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies.

    DanB , May 8, 2017 at 7:49 am

    "Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies." Thanks for pointing this out.

    Toolate , May 8, 2017 at 2:24 am

    This truly is an appalling list. One wonders how many Americans have ever considered even one of these ?

    Temporarily Sane , May 8, 2017 at 2:42 am

    It's great to see people from across the ideological spectrum who served in the military, intelligence services and in various administrations, speaking out. Hindsight is 20/20as the cliche goes. Now if only people who are currently serving in those institutions would step up to the plate and speak truth to power. At what point does it become unconscionable for good people to do nothing? Or, rather, when does critical mass kick in and make resisting the insanity that reigns in our institutions more than just a flash in the pan and career suicide?

    John Wright , May 8, 2017 at 10:55 am

    The past is not encouraging, war hero Eisenhower could only warn of the MIC as he was exiting.

    The economic footprint of the MIC + think tanks + academia + security agencies is huge (maybe a trillion/year)

    A lot of people depend on the defense budget staying large as the MIC is a jobs program throughout much of the USA,.

    I remember CA Senator Boxer, one of the few senators who voted against the AUMF in Iraq, fighting to keep the local (to me) Mare Island Naval Shipyard from closing in 1996.

    The adjacent city, Vallejo, subsequently went through bankruptcy.

    One illustrative MIC family is the Kagan-Nuland family,

    Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and seemed to be in charge of stirring up trouble in the Ukraine.

    Her husband is noted neocon (he prefers "liberal interventionist") Robert Kagan of the Bookings Institution, and his brother, Frederick, is at the American Enterprise institute.

    Frederick's wife, Kimberly, heads up the "Institute for the Study of War" funded by Raytheon, General Dynamics, DynCorp and others.

    One might suggest this family gets meaning, purpose and income through USA military action.

    One could posit there many other similar families.

    It is difficult to be optimistic that much can be done.

    Mel , May 8, 2017 at 8:46 am

    These aren't independent issues (and, ultimately, there's no reason they have to be.)
    Like, what's preventing the solution of #1 (expecting nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs?) #17. When the Pakistanis have to deal with huge problems on the other side of the invisible line, they aren't so reliable about sticking to the script. Especially a script that has written out all the huge problems.

    I guess that is the point. 45 seconds with this list pastes two items together and makes the framework for a story. But the run of stories that appear are like Captain America saw a bad guy and punched him in the face. Makes a good comic panel, and, when the press has been taught the true meaning of "profitable", it makes a good newspaper page too. Right.

    A working State Department could do interesting things with this list too, but - Captain America.

    oho , May 8, 2017 at 8:50 am

    the US hasn't fought a peer nation since 1945-even then the USSR did a lot of the heavy lifting. the US still hasnt beaten the Taliban.

    US full spectrum dominance could be propaganda for all we know--with our vaunted carriers and fighters sitting ducks to swarms of cheap first-world missiles.

    in any fight with China or Russia, theyd only have to play defense. The US would be the ones without home field advantage, likely in a war with limited domestic support as the fight probablyt would not be about an existential issue to the US homeland

    DH , May 8, 2017 at 11:46 am

    If a group like the Taliban has indigenous support, then you pretty much are left with destroying the village in order to save it as the only military option. Putting a corrupt mafia in charge of the country is not the appropriate alternate civilian political approach to win hearts and minds.

    In the 1990s nobody cared about the Taliban except when they were blowing up big Buddhas. Their fatal error was allowing bin-Laden to launch major attacks against the US home soil. My guess at this time is that the Taliban have been inoculated against spreading terror overseas. If the US left Afghanistan, the Taliban would probably take many of the valleys back and kick ISIS out so that they don't have to worry about the US coming back in to deal with 9/11 terrorists again. Afghanistan would probably be fairly "peaceful" at that point in a fundamental Muslim way, kind of like the fundamental Christian utopia that Mike Pence tried to create in Indiana.

    hemeantwell , May 8, 2017 at 8:55 am

    Bacevich's indictment suffers from an inability to explain how this genuflecting celebration of American intentions degenerated into what he goes on to elaborate.

    Accomplishing the "mission": Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S. security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well.

    The beginning of the Cold War continues to be shrouded in assumptions about Soviet aggressiveness and American and British benevolence. Otherwise critical thinkers become kool aid dispensers when they are obliged to reference it. Bacevich skates over questions such as the division of Germany - was it because the US wanted to allow Germany to quickly reindustrialize and the Soviets were afraid of yet another invasion? - and whether city-destroying nuclear weapons would be internationally controlled or remain a US monopoly.

    Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting. In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict.

    Whine Country , May 8, 2017 at 10:16 am

    You must have missed this yesterday:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/05/war-and-empire-the-american-way-of-life/

    Some are trying to deal with the issue you raise. Oliver Stone had a lot to say on the subject in his "Untold History of the United States".

    JEHR , May 8, 2017 at 9:10 am

    I would like to see CNN or any other channel begin a series of TV presentations where each one of these items is discussed by the relevant people. (When no officials show up for the program, then the producers will know they are on the right track.) A great idea for a series of investigative reports by journalists also.

    However, would such a program make any difference in how things are done?

    DH , May 8, 2017 at 11:48 am

    It might if the Kardashians were invited to participate in the debate.

    Lil'D , May 8, 2017 at 9:24 am

    It's systemic. Journalism is a business of delivering eyeballs to advertisers. These important issues don't sell. Get more flashy drama in the framing of the story and you might have a chance

    B.J.M. , May 8, 2017 at 3:03 pm

    exactly, it is "systemic"! Until one understands that the mainstream media's core business is not news; it is selling audiences to advertisers, one will never properly understand the problem.

    Felix_47 , May 8, 2017 at 11:29 am

    Could it be that our leadership in Washington has no idea why we are still in Afghanistan either? Could it be that our allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, like the idea of the US military sitting at the back door to Iran? Could it be that we are getting the best foreign policy Saudi and Israeli money can buy? And the MIC is glad to oblige.

    Art Eclectic , May 8, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    My assumption is that everything inexplicable is ultimately explained by money if you dug deep enough.

    JTMcPhee , May 8, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    String theory? Dark matter? Why my dog still pees right inside the patio door?

    witters , May 8, 2017 at 6:42 pm

    Why not? See Richard Rorty's "Consequences of Pragmatism".

    Susan the other , May 8, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    Well we can certainly speculate on 1 – 24. In almost every case there is an implied answer: We aren't quite finished yet establishing and maintaining our control. Over finance and power.

    And even though war is too expensive and we have resorted to a kind of high-tech guerrilla warfare, we still need boots on the ground. That is because we live in a material world and goods are manufactured, transported and trafficked.

    An even more stubborn war is going on in international finance (Hudson) – that's the one I'd like to see reporters understand. Colonel Wilkerson said it is all about finance and power and we will be in Afghanistan for 50 years. What's going on right now really seems like never ending pointlessness. So maybe we should discuss exactly what we want to achieve control for – what's the plan? In detail. Starting with the health of the planet and sustainable civilization.

    Tom Stone , May 8, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    Y U H8 'Murika?

    templar555510 , May 8, 2017 at 2:35 pm

    Andrew could have headed his piece " Analysis of an Empire ' and then added the sub-heading ' A Tale of Vested Interests ' because that is surely why these atrocities ( yes that's right ) continue ad infintum, ad nauseum . And these same interests are those that sell us soap, automobiles, liquor etc, etc, maybe not directly, but the interconnections are now so complete as to make distinctions irrelevant.

    Sluggeaux , May 8, 2017 at 4:23 pm

    Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up our perpetually campaigning political-climber class?

    Gen Dau , May 8, 2017 at 7:55 pm

    Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East.

    Bashar Assad had planned to be a doctor, and he studied medicine for two years in the UK before being ordered to return to Syria by his father after his elder brother died in an accident. Although there were some excesses by the police in 2011, Bashar Assad quickly relaxed some old security laws and pushed for a new democratic constitution, which was promulgated in 2012. Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down.

    Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. Although Assad is often called a butcher who gasses his own people, experts such as Theodore Postol of MIT and others have shown that not a single allegation of gassing by the Syrian government under Assad has ever been proven. In addition, many of the excesses by the Syrian police against demonstrators in 2011 seem to have been initiated by armed members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Syria, who quickly infiltrated the demonstrations.

    There have even been allegations that jihadi sharpshooters on rooftops shot demonstrators in false-flag attacks.

    Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. In the case of Syria:

    "Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs . His involvement in reconciliation and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis, he penned some remarkable observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:

    "'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.'

    "In September 2011 he wrote: 'From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups, which are also part of the opposition The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government.'"

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/157412-syria-hidden-massacre-2011/

    For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international war against the elected Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn't."

    https://gowans.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/the-revolutionary-distemper-in-syria-that-wasnt/

    Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today.

    Westley Wood , May 8, 2017 at 8:12 pm

    Thugs committing heinous acts "and some had opportunity to squeal " S. Crane

    [May 21, 2017] WhateverGate -- The Crazed Quest To Find Some Reason (Any Reason!) To Dump Trump by John Derbyshire

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... One of Steve Sailer's many clever commenters has brilliantly named it WhateverGate-the frantic legalistic churning about who said what to whom in President Trump's circle, and whether the thing that was or was not said warrants impeachment. Or whatever. But impeachment. ..."
    "... Instead of registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Flynn reported his income through the Lobbying Disclosure Act! ..."
    "... There's a grain of truth in that. The Watergate affair was a media witch-hunt against a president the Establishment elites disliked. Nixon's offenses were of a kind the Main Stream Media had never bothered about, nor even reported, when done by Democrat presidents-like Lyndon Johnson's bugging of Barry Goldwater in 1964. ..."
    "... It's pretty plain by now that the Republican Party Establishment is not going to forgive Donald Trump for humiliating them last year. They'll be just as happy as Democrats to see him go, if they can somehow help the Democrats force him out without showing too much outward enthusiasm. ..."
    "... Sixty-three million Americans rejected establishment politics last November. They took a chance on an outsider. From a field of seventeen seasoned Republican politicians, GOP primary voters selected the one un-seasoned guy. Then sixty-three million of us voted for him in the general. ..."
    "... The GOP leadership would like to go back anyway. They think if they can get rid of Trump, that will get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state. They yearn to get back to the futile wars, the free trade sucker economy, the open borders and multiculturalism. ..."
    "... They really think that, the McCains and Grahams and McConnells and Ryans . Get rid of Trump, you get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state, they believe. Then we can all go back to what Orwell called "the dear old game of scratch-my-neighbor." Yep, this is the Stupid Party. ..."
    "... But whether Donald Trump is actually the right person to give us Trump_vs_deep_state is more and more in doubt. ..."
    "... Those are small mercies, though. Where's the really big, bold swamp -draining exercise, like the one I just described? Why are we still issuing work permits to illegal aliens? Why no federal legislation to slam a mandatory ten-year sentence on any illegal who, after being deported, comes back in ? Why no request to Congress on funding for the border Wall? For an end to the visa lottery and restrictions on chain migration? When do we start testing the constitutionality of birthright citizenship? Why are we still in NATO ? Why are we still at war with North Korea ( which technically we are , since there hasn't been a peace treaty, only an armistice)? ..."
    "... I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann , she's getting nervous. ..."
    May 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    One of Steve Sailer's many clever commenters has brilliantly named it WhateverGate-the frantic legalistic churning about who said what to whom in President Trump's circle, and whether the thing that was or was not said warrants impeachment. Or whatever. But impeachment.

    Every week, I think things can't get any crazier-the hysteria has to burn itself out, the temperature can't get any higher, the fever has to break-and every week it's worse. Boy, they really want to get this guy. That just gives us more reasons to defend him.

    I don't even bother much any more to focus on the actual thing that President Trump or one of his colleagues is supposed to have said or done. Every time, when you look closely, it's basically nothing.

    I've been reading news and memoirs about American presidents since the Kennedy administration. I swear that every single damn thing Trump is accused of, warranting special counsels, congressional enquiries, impeachment-every single thing has been done by other recent presidents, often to a much greater degree, with little or no comment.

    Remember Barack Obama's hot-mike blooper in the 2012 campaign, telling the Russian President that, quote, "After my election I have more flexibility"? [ Obama tells Russia's Medvedev more flexibility after election , Reuters, March 26, 2012] Can you imagine how today's media would react if footage showed up of Trump doing that in last year's campaign? Can you imagine ? I can't.

    We are a big, important country with big, important things that need doing-most important of all, halting the demographic transformation that's tugging us out of the Anglosphere into the Latino-sphere and filling our country with low-skill workers just as robots are arriving to take their jobs.

    Those big, important things aren't getting done. Instead, our news outlets are shrieking about high crimes and misdemeanors in the new administration–things that, when you read about the actual details, look awful picayune.

    Sample, from today's press, concerning Michael Flynn , the national security advisor President Trump fired for supposedly lying to the Vice President about a phone conversation he'd had with the Russian Ambassador last December. To the best of my understanding, the root issue was just a difference of opinion over the parsing of what Flynn remembered having said, and the precise definition of the word "substantive," but Trump fired him anyway.

    Well, here's Eli Lake at Bloomberg News on the latest tranche of investigations into Flynn's activities:

    Flynn's legal troubles come from his failure to properly report foreign income. One source close to Flynn told me that the Justice Department had opened an investigation into Flynn after the election in November for failing to register his work on behalf of a Turkish businessman, pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Flynn had instead reported this income through the more lax Lobbying Disclosure Act. After his resignation, Flynn registered as a foreign agent for Turkey.

    The Special Counsel Who Just Might Save Trump's Presidency, by Eli Lake, May 18, 2017

    Did you get that? Instead of registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Flynn reported his income through the Lobbying Disclosure Act!

    High crimes! Treason! Special Prosecutor! Congressional inquiry! The Republic is in danger! Suspend habeas corpus -- This must not stand!

    And then, the whole silly Russia business. The Bloomberg guy has words about that, too:

    Flynn also failed to report with the Pentagon his payment in 2015 from Russia's propaganda network, RT, for a speech in Moscow at the network's annual gala. As I reported last month, Flynn did brief the Defense Intelligence Agency about that trip before and after he attended the RT gala. The Pentagon also renewed his top-secret security clearance after that trip.

    So obviously the rot goes deep into the Pentagon. They're covering for him! Let's have a purge of the military! Special prosecutor!

    Oh, we have a special prosecutor? Let's have another one!

    Russia, Russia, Russia. For crying out loud , Russia's just a country . We have no great differences of interest with them . What, are they trying to reclaim Alaska? First I've heard of it.

    You could make an argument, I suppose-I don't myself think it's much of an argument, but you could make it-that Russia's a military threat to Europe.

    Once again , with feeling: Europe has a population three and a half times greater than Russia's and a GDP ten times greater. Europe's two nuclear powers, Britain and France, have more than five hundred nuclear weapons between them. If the Euros can't defend themselves against Russia, there's something very badly wrong over there, beyond any ability of ours to fix–even if you could show me it's in our national interest to fix it, which you can't.

    At this point, in fact, reading the news from Europe, I think a Russian invasion and occupation of the continent would be an improvement. A Russian hegemony might at least put up some resistance to the ongoing invasion of Europe from Africa and the Middle East . It doesn't look as though the Euros themselves are up to the job.

    That aside, American citizens are free to visit Russia and talk to Russians, including Russian government employees, just as free as we are to talk to Australians, Brazilians, or Cambodians. As the Lion said on his blog :

    Do liberals who are making a big deal about the Trump-Russia thing really believe that no one involved in a presidential campaign should have ever talked to anyone from another country? How would an administration ever conduct any foreign policy if no one in the administration has ever left the United States or ever talked to a foreigner?

    And again, these standards have never been applied to other Presidents. Bill Clinton took campaign donations from the Chinese army . [ Chinagate and the Clintons, By Robert Zapesochny, American Spectator, October 6, 2016] Barack Obama groveled to the Saudis . Where were the calls for special prosecutors?

    Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, with whom Flynn had that December phone conversation, is, says the New York Post , "a suspected Kremlin spy." [ Michael Flynn won't honor subpoena to provide documents, By Bob Fredericks, May 18, 2017] Is he? Why should I care?

    I bet ol' Sergey does all the spying he can. So, I'm sure, do the ambassadors of China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Botswana. That's what ambassadors do. That's what we do in their countries. Does anyone not know this?

    "A Kremlin spy"? What is this, 1957 ? Russia's just a country . And as our own James Kirkpatrick has pointed out here at VDARE.com , it's a country run by people who hate us-the American people- less than our own elites do.

    As James also points out, if it's interference in our elections that bothers you, consider what Mexico's been doing for the last forty years: encouraging mass immigration of its own underclass into the U.S.A., lobbying through its consulates and Spanish-language TV channels for voter registration, using Mexican-owned outlets like the New York Times to demonize and discredit national conservatives.

    The founder of Christianity scoffed at those who strain at a gnat but swallow a camel. In the matter of foreign interference in our elections, the gnat here is Russia; the camel is Mexico. Our media and opinion elites have swallowed the camel.

    Unless, of course, just down the road a few months, there's going to be a hysteria-storm about Mexican interference in our elections. My advice would be: Don't hold your breath.

    All the shouting and swooning is just the rage of a dispossessed class-our political class.

    Our political and government class, I think I should say. There are tens of thousands of federal functionaries who have never stood for election to anything, but whose loyalty is to the political Establishment. Great numbers of these people settled in to their comfortable seats during the eight years of Barack Obama's administration; so to the degree that they care about party affiliation, they prefer the Democratic Party. Washington, D.C. voted 91 percent for Mrs. Clinton last November.

    Obama Holdovers, Vacant Posts Still Plague Trump - Administration housecleaning is long overdue to get agenda in motion, end damaging leaks, by Thomas Richard, LifeZette.com, May 18, 2017] Draining the swamp means getting rid of those people. They should be fired -en masse, in their hundreds and thousands, and marched out the office door by security guards before they can trash files.

    Still, a big majority of federal politicians are helping to drive the hysteria; and their rage against Trump is, as they say in D.C., bipartisan. Senator John McCain told CNN on Tuesday that President Trump's troubles are, quote , "of Watergate size and scale."

    There's a grain of truth in that. The Watergate affair was a media witch-hunt against a president the Establishment elites disliked. Nixon's offenses were of a kind the Main Stream Media had never bothered about, nor even reported, when done by Democrat presidents-like Lyndon Johnson's bugging of Barry Goldwater in 1964.

    So yes: When the political and media establishment try to drive from office a president they dislike, it is kinda like Watergate.

    It's pretty plain by now that the Republican Party Establishment is not going to forgive Donald Trump for humiliating them last year. They'll be just as happy as Democrats to see him go, if they can somehow help the Democrats force him out without showing too much outward enthusiasm.

    Last August, after Trump had clinched the Republican nomination, I reproduced a remark Peggy Noonan made in one of her columns. Here's the remark again, quote :

    From what I've seen there has been zero reflection on the part of Republican leaders on how much the base's views differ from theirs and what to do about it. The GOP is not at all refiguring its stands.

    Has there been any reflection among GOP leaders in the nine months since, about the meaning of Trump's victory? Not much that I can see.

    Sixty-three million Americans rejected establishment politics last November. They took a chance on an outsider. From a field of seventeen seasoned Republican politicians, GOP primary voters selected the one un-seasoned guy. Then sixty-three million of us voted for him in the general.

    Does the GOP get this? Have they learned anything from it? Not that I can see.

    With some exceptions, of course. GOP elder statesman Pat Buchanan spelled it out in an interview with the Daily Caller this week:

    The GOP leadership would like to go back anyway. They think if they can get rid of Trump, that will get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state. They yearn to get back to the futile wars, the free trade sucker economy, the open borders and multiculturalism.

    If they can just pull off an impeachment, the Republican party bosses believe, and install some donor-compliant drone in the White House, then we sixty-three million Trump voters will smack our foreheads with our palms and say: "Jeez, we are so dumb! Why did we let ourselves get led astray like that? Why didn't we vote for Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush in the primaries, as you wise elders wanted us to? We're sorry! We promise to follow your advice in future!"

    They really think that, the McCains and Grahams and McConnells and Ryans . Get rid of Trump, you get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state, they believe. Then we can all go back to what Orwell called "the dear old game of scratch-my-neighbor." Yep, this is the Stupid Party.

    But whether Donald Trump is actually the right person to give us Trump_vs_deep_state is more and more in doubt.

    I am of course grateful for the small mercies. Thank you for Jeff Sessions; thank you for the work you're doing on trade; thank you somewhat for Neil Gorsuch, who may yet turn and cuck on us.

    Those are small mercies, though. Where's the really big, bold swamp -draining exercise, like the one I just described? Why are we still issuing work permits to illegal aliens? Why no federal legislation to slam a mandatory ten-year sentence on any illegal who, after being deported, comes back in ? Why no request to Congress on funding for the border Wall? For an end to the visa lottery and restrictions on chain migration? When do we start testing the constitutionality of birthright citizenship? Why are we still in NATO ? Why are we still at war with North Korea ( which technically we are , since there hasn't been a peace treaty, only an armistice)?

    I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann , she's getting nervous.

    Me too.

    John Derbyshire [ email him ] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books . He's had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT ( also available in Kindle ) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013 . His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com .

    [May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Unilateral economic sanctions are definitely a declaration of war, no doubt about it. An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition for the media. This is an objective fact. These days we talk a lot about Syria. Allegedly, there is a non-governmental organisation called the White Helmets funded by several Western countries and countries in the Persian Gulf. ..."
    "... A film about this organisation won the Oscar for best documentary this year. They present themselves as a humanitarian agency helping people attacked by bombs – particularly, in Syria. On several occasions, they were caught lying and showing staged video clips. For one such clip, they painted a girl with red paint and on camera she was sitting down and allegedly suffering from Russian and Syrian bombs. Several days ago in Geneva, an American journalist presented research in which he proved that the White Helmets are fake and that they only deal with developing falsified and provocative news, while dragging Russia, Iran, the Syrian government and armed forces through the mud. ..."
    "... He also proved that they are providing direct assistance to terrorists and extremists, including medical supplies and equipment, and treating injured members of extremist groups. ..."
    "... Those dealing with information and sharing experience are trying to convince each other that the media must be used not for provocation but to reconcile people. When it comes to the economy, it should be understood – and many have come to realise this – that unilateral sanctions will come back like a boomerang and hit the countries that joined them, especially small countries ..."
    Apr 02, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff The Vineyard of the Saker

    Question: The traditional definition of war is "war is nothing more than an extension of state policy by alternate means." We usually understand "alternate means" as military violence and therefore claim that war always involves military action. Do you think it would be correct to say that the nature of war has changed in contemporary circumstances, that is, now the term includes measures for information, economic, political and psychological impact?

    Sergey Lavrov: You know, in the West they coined the term 'hybrid war.' As a matter of fact, this is the concept they seem to be forming based on their experience. Unilateral economic sanctions are definitely a declaration of war, no doubt about it. An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition for the media. This is an objective fact. These days we talk a lot about Syria. Allegedly, there is a non-governmental organisation called the White Helmets funded by several Western countries and countries in the Persian Gulf.

    A film about this organisation won the Oscar for best documentary this year. They present themselves as a humanitarian agency helping people attacked by bombs – particularly, in Syria. On several occasions, they were caught lying and showing staged video clips. For one such clip, they painted a girl with red paint and on camera she was sitting down and allegedly suffering from Russian and Syrian bombs. Several days ago in Geneva, an American journalist presented research in which he proved that the White Helmets are fake and that they only deal with developing falsified and provocative news, while dragging Russia, Iran, the Syrian government and armed forces through the mud.

    He also proved that they are providing direct assistance to terrorists and extremists, including medical supplies and equipment, and treating injured members of extremist groups. This is just one example. But anywhere you go, when I just try talking to my Western colleagues, the White Helmets are exempt from any criticism and seem to have a monopoly on the truth. There are many other tricks like that. Certainly, in a wider perspective, cyberspace is an area where there is a material possibility to inflict potentially very serious harm. Cyber forces were created and, apparently, they have some significance. This is exactly why we need forums where these things can be discussed as a single package. The military discusses purely military issues, which now extends to cyberwars.

    Those dealing with information and sharing experience are trying to convince each other that the media must be used not for provocation but to reconcile people. When it comes to the economy, it should be understood – and many have come to realise this – that unilateral sanctions will come back like a boomerang and hit the countries that joined them, especially small countries. It is very short-sighted to impose unilateral sanctions on a country like Russia, with its huge potential, human and natural resources. By encouraging dialogue in each of these areas to build a general understanding, mutually beneficial and generally acceptable approaches, we need a forum where all these issues can be considered in their relation to each other because they all affect the general status of international relations. Except for the UN, there is no other framework like this. This is a very topical issue and we have no doubt that it will be in the centre of very heated and engaging debates for the foreseeable future.

    [May 21, 2017] Now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks and Walmart

    Notable quotes:
    "... Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks and Walmart. ..."
    "... According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946 to "draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency," he recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street investment bankers and lawyers. ..."
    "... Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell. Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young agency's performance. ..."
    "... So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles himself became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953. ..."
    "... The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama blew the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election. ..."
    "... Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left that the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when progressives criticize the party. ..."
    May 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Gibbon1 , May 19, 2017 at 04:24 PM

    Among the rich I think there were three groups based on where their wealth and interests laid.

    Banking/Insurance industry.
    Distribution/logistics.
    Manufacturing and Infrastructure.

    Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks and Walmart.

    libezkova - , May 20, 2017 at 09:03 PM
    "Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks and Walmart."

    This trend does not apply to Military-industrial complex (MIC). MIC probably should be listed separately. Formally it is a part of manufacturing and infrastructure, but in reality it is closely aligned with Banking and insurance.

    CIA which is the cornerstone of the military industrial complex to a certain extent is an enforcement arm for financial corporations.

    Allen Dulles came the law firm that secured interests of Wall Street in foreign countries, see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30605.htm )

    According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946 to "draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency," he recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street investment bankers and lawyers.

    Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell. Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young agency's performance.

    The other two members of the committee were also New York lawyers. For nearly a year, the committee met in the offices of J.H. Whitney, a Wall Street investment firm.

    According to Peter Dale Scott, over the next twenty years, all seven deputy directors of the agency were drawn from the Wall Street financial aristocracy; and six were listed in the New York social register.

    So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles himself became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953.

    The prevalent myth that the CIA exists to provide intelligence information to the president was the promotional vehicle used to persuade President Harry Truman to sign the 1947 National Security Act, the legislation which created the CIA.iv

    But the rationale about serving the president was never more than a partial and very imperfect truth...

    Gibbon1 - , May 19, 2017 at 04:59 PM
    The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama blew the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election.

    If you have a tool and the tool it broken you try to fix it. One doesn't pretend there is nothing wrong.

    The difference between neoliberal democrats and progressives is they differ on what's wrong.

    Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left that the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when progressives criticize the party.

    Progressives seek to create an aggressive party that represents the interests of working class and petite bourgeoisie. That is why you see progressives get spastic when the corporate democrats push appeasement policies.

    [May 21, 2017] CIA is the cornerstone of the military industrial complex and, to a certain extent, an enforcement arm for financial corporations

    May 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    DrDick, May 19, 2017 at 04:23 PM

    The same as every other Republican since Eisenhower, lie to them.
    Gibbon1, May 19, 2017 at 04:24 PM
    Among the rich I think there were three groups based on where their wealth and interests laid.

    Banking/Insurance industry.
    Distribution/logistics.
    Manufacturing and Infrastructure.

    Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks and Walmart.

    libezkova, May 20, 2017 at 09:03 PM
    "Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks and Walmart."

    This trend does not apply to Military-industrial complex (MIC). MIC probably should be listed separately. Formally it is a part of manufacturing and infrastructure, but in reality it is closely aligned with Banking and insurance.

    CIA which is the cornerstone of the military industrial complex to a certain extent is an enforcement arm for financial corporations.

    Allen Dulles came the law firm that secured interests of Wall Street in foreign countries, see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30605.htm )

    According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946 to "draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency," he recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street investment bankers and lawyers.

    Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell. Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young agency's performance.

    The other two members of the committee were also New York lawyers.i For nearly a year, the committee met in the offices of J.H. Whitney, a Wall Street investment firm.ii

    According to Peter Dale Scott, over the next twenty years, all seven deputy directors of the agency were drawn from the Wall Street financial aristocracy; and six were listed in the New York social register.iii

    So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles himself became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953.

    The prevalent myth that the CIA exists to provide intelligence information to the president was the promotional vehicle used to persuade President Harry Truman to sign the 1947 National Security Act, the legislation which created the CIA.iv

    But the rationale about serving the president was never more than a partial and very imperfect truth...

    [May 21, 2017] This week US bombed militia in Syria linked to Iran, Trump got a medal for providing air support for al Qaeda from their contributors.

    Notable quotes:
    "... In Riyadh, Mr. Trump is viewed as a refreshing change from President Barack Obama, who was viewed with disdain in the wake of the Iranian nuclear deal that Mr. Obama brokered in 2015. ... ..."
    May 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs, May 20, 2017 at 09:46 AM

    Trump Gets a Gold Medal as Welcome From Saudi King https://nyti.ms/2rCfpc5
    NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR and PETER BAKER - MAY 20, 2017

    ... .. ...

    Flanked by Saudi military personnel standing at attention and alternating Saudi and American flags, Mr. Trump and the king exchanged a brief handshake and a few pleasantries as trumpets blared, cannons boomed and seven Saudi jets streaked through the sky, streaming red, white and blue smoke.

    "Very happy to see you," the king said. "It's a great honor," Mr. Trump replied, before he was offered a bouquet of flowers from Saudi girls.

    The two leaders posed for photos while seated in the Royal Hall at the airport's terminal before getting into a motorcade to head to a series of meetings. Aides said Mr. Trump had spent most of the flight from Washington, which took 12 hours and 20 minutes, meeting with staff, reading newspapers and working on his speech. He got very little sleep, they said.

    In Riyadh, Mr. Trump is viewed as a refreshing change from President Barack Obama, who was viewed with disdain in the wake of the Iranian nuclear deal that Mr. Obama brokered in 2015. ...

    Related:

    With Harleys and Hamburgers, Saudis Salute US on Trump's Visit https://nyti.ms/2qF569M
    NYT - BEN HUBBARD - MAY 20, 2017

    (cycle parade video at link)

    RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - There was neither beer, nor tattoos nor women at the biker rally in Saudi Arabia's capital on Friday night. But among the hundreds of men riding on roaring Harley Davidsons and sporting leather vests, there was overwhelming excitement about the incoming visitor: President Trump. ...

    Saudi Arabia prepared an enormous reception for Mr. Trump, who landed in the capital, Riyadh, on Saturday morning on the first foreign trip of his presidency. Billboards with his face next to that of King Salman, the Saudi monarch, adorned highways around the capital, miles of which were lined with Saudi and American flags.

    The Saudis planned such an opulent greeting for Mr. Trump to emphasize the depth of their commitment to the United States and to persuade him to deepen the partnership to fight terrorism, confront Iran and enhance economic ties. ...

    ilsm, May 20, 2017 at 12:46 PM
    This week US bombed militia in Syria linked to Iran, Trump got a "medal" for providing air support for al Qaeda from their contributors.

    [May 21, 2017] The New Anti-Russian Hysteria by Edward S. Herman

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is sad to see the liberals carried away on the wave of hysteria about the supposed Russian information warfare menace and possible influence over or even capture of the Trump presidency. It is also very dangerous to human welfare as it helps consolidate the power of the military-industrial complex, its war party associates, and the regressive deep state political forces that liberals claim to oppose. These political forces can fix a party line that quickly becomes an incontestible truth in the mainstream media (MSM). ..."
    "... Thus, with the Soviet Union declared an "evil empire" it could be effectively tagged for crimes it did not commit (e.g., organizing the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981), and Saddam Hussein could be found allied with Al Qaeda and in possession of a large stock of weapons of mass destruction in 2003, lies that the MSM had no trouble swallowing. ..."
    "... The steady process of Putin demonization escalated with the Ukraine crisis of 2014 and its sequel of Kiev warfare against East Ukraine, Russian support of the Eastern Ukraine resistance, and the Crimean referendum and absorption of Crimea by Russia. ..."
    "... The Putin connection was given great impetus by the January 6, 2017 release of a report of the Office of Director of National Intelligence, on Background of Assessing Russian Activities and Intention in Recent U.S. Elections This short document spends about half of its space describing the Russian-sponsored RT-TV network which it seems to consider an illegitimate propaganda source as it often reports on and even criticizes U.S. policy and institutions. ..."
    "... RT is allegedly part of Russia's "influence campaign," which consists of reporting on subjects that Russian leaders deem in Russia's interest. "We assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump's chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect. ..."
    "... So the purpose and importance of the Assessment is clear. Thin and even ludicrous though its evidence of a Putin ordered propaganda campaign and Russian e-mail hacks transmitted through WikiLeaks may be, the release and pushing into prominence of this material behind the backs of the incoming administration was a major political action by agencies in principle subordinate to the political leadership. Of course it follows similar tactics by the departing Obama administration, one of whose last acts was expelling 35 Russian Embassy personnel in retaliation for the supposed Russian hacking (which Obama didn't even believe-in his final press conference he referred to "leaks" rather than "hacking"). But the political point of the Assessment seems to have been, at minimum, to tie the Trump administration's hands in its dealings with Russia. ..."
    "... The NYT has run neck-and-neck with the WP in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and improper involvement with Trump. ..."
    Mar 27, 2017 | zcomm.org
    It is sad to see the liberals carried away on the wave of hysteria about the supposed Russian information warfare menace and possible influence over or even capture of the Trump presidency. It is also very dangerous to human welfare as it helps consolidate the power of the military-industrial complex, its war party associates, and the regressive deep state political forces that liberals claim to oppose. These political forces can fix a party line that quickly becomes an incontestible truth in the mainstream media (MSM).

    Thus, with the Soviet Union declared an "evil empire" it could be effectively tagged for crimes it did not commit (e.g., organizing the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981), and Saddam Hussein could be found allied with Al Qaeda and in possession of a large stock of weapons of mass destruction in 2003, lies that the MSM had no trouble swallowing.

    Boris Yeltsin, accommodating to U.S. advice and pressure from 1991-2000, seriously damaged his own people's well-being (Russian GDP fell 50 percent, between 1991-1998), but, while he was also creating an oligarchic and authoritarian economic and political structure he was lauded as a great democrat in the MSM. Yeltsin's election victory in 1996, greatly assisted by U.S. consultants, advice and money, and otherwise seriously corrupt, was "A Victory for Russian Democracy" (NYT, ed,, July 4, 1996). His successor, Vladimir Putin, gradually discarding the Yeltsin-era subservience, became a steadily increasing menace. His reelection in 2012, although surely less corrupt than Yeltsin's in 1996, was treated harshly in the media. No "victory for Russian democracy" here, and the lead NYT article on May 5, 2012 featured "a slap in the face" from OSCE observers, claims of no real competition, and "thousands of antigovernment protesters gathered in Moscow square to chant 'Russia without Putin'" (Ellen Barry and Michael Schwartz, "After Election, Putin Faces Challenges to Legitimacy"). There were no "challenges to legitimacy" reported in the MSM in Yeltsin's corrupt victory in 1996, although it was so corrupt that Yeltsin may actually have lost the election but for a fraudulent count (on February 20, 2012, outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev shocked a small group of visitors by acknowledging that Yeltsin might really have lost the 1996 election to Communist Gennadi Zyuganov).

    The steady process of Putin demonization escalated with the Ukraine crisis of 2014 and its sequel of Kiev warfare against East Ukraine, Russian support of the Eastern Ukraine resistance, and the Crimean referendum and absorption of Crimea by Russia. This was all declared to be "aggression" by the U.S. and its allies and clients, sanctions were imposed on Russia and the U.S.-NATO buildup on the Russian borders increased. Tensions mounted further with the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines MH-17, effectively but almost surely falsely, blamed on the "pro-Russian" rebels and Russia itself (see Robert Parry, "Troubling Gaps in the New MH-17 Report," Consortiumnews.com, September 28, 2016). A further cause of demonization and anti-Russian hostility resulted from escalated Russian intervention in Syria in support of Bashar al-Saddad and against ISIS. The U.S. and its NATO and local Middle East allies had been committing aggression against Syria and in de facto alliance with ISIS and Al-Nusrah, an offshoot of Al Qaeda. Russian intervention turned the tide, the U.S. (etc) goal of removing Saddad was upset and the tacit U.S. ally, ISIS, was also severely weakened. Certainly demonic behavior. The next and ongoing phase of anti-Russian hysteria was based on Russia's purported entry into the 2016 presidential campaign and on the growing role of the CIA and other U.S. security services in hysteria-implementation, in close alliance with the MSM. In the third presidential debate, on October 19, 2016, Clinton declared that Trump would be a Putin "puppet" as president, and her campaign placed great emphasis on this. This emphasis increased after the election, with the help of the media and intelligence services as the Clinton camp sought to explain the election loss and possibly get the election result overturned in the courts or electoral college by blaming it on Russia.

    The Putin connection was given great impetus by the January 6, 2017 release of a report of the Office of Director of National Intelligence, on Background of Assessing Russian Activities and Intention in Recent U.S. Elections This short document spends about half of its space describing the Russian-sponsored RT-TV network which it seems to consider an illegitimate propaganda source as it often reports on and even criticizes U.S. policy and institutions.

    RT is allegedly part of Russia's "influence campaign," which consists of reporting on subjects that Russian leaders deem in Russia's interest. "We assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump's chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect. "

    There is no semblance of proof that there was a planned "campaign" rather than the expression of opinion and associated news judgments. All the logic and proofs of a Russian "influence campaign" could be applied with at least equal force to U.S. media treatment of any Russian election.

    As regards their effort to prove that the Russians intervened more directly in the U.S. electoral process, the authors hedge by saying the report doesn't provide the "full supporting evidence," but it provides no supporting evidence-only assertions, assessments, assumptions and guesses. It states blandly that "We assess that Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2015" designed to defeat Clinton, and "to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process," but it provides no evidence whatsoever for any such order. It also provides no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, Clinton and Podesta e-mails, or that it gave hacked information to WikiLeaks. Julian Assange and Craig Murray have repeatedly claimed that these sources were leaked by local insiders, not hacked by anybody. And veteran intelligence agency experts William Binney and Ray McGovern also contend that the WikiLeaks evidence was surely leaked, not hacked ("The Dubious Case on Russian 'Hacking'," Consortiumnews.com, January 6, 2017). It is of interest that among the intelligence agencies who signed on to the DNI document, the one with the greatest reservations-only "moderate confidence"--was the NSA, which is the agency that would most clearly be in possession of proof of Russian hacking and transmission to Wiki-Leaks as well as any "orders" from Putin.

    In the immediate aftermath of the election, Clinton blamed FBI head James Comey's reopening and then quickly closing the case on her earlier unauthorized use of a private email server, as the key factor in her election loss ("Clinton Blames FBI Director for Her Defeat," NYT, November 13, 2016). This suggests that even she and her campaigners didn't consider the alleged Russian hacking and WikiLeaks revelations as that important. But the Russian-Putin connection lived on and even escalated further.

    The MSM have given no attention to the politicization of the intelligence agencies in these cases. The more durable and important case involving Russia has been damaging to Trump and any peace prospects that his presidency might have brought. But the FBI-Clinton episode was damaging to Clinton and benefited Trump's electoral chances. One theory is that the FBI leadership favored Trump while the CIA favored Clinton. Another theory is that the intelligence agencies trusted neither candidate, so fatally injured Clinton and then turned their guns on Trump, with the FBI signing on to the joint agencies "Assessment" after having finished with Clinton. (Robert Parry, "A Spy Coup in America?" Consortiumnews.com, December 18, 2016.)

    But the CIA's hostility to Trump has been conspicuous, and their brazen intervention in the election process broke new ground in secret service politicization. Former CIA head Michael Morell had an August 5, 2016 op-ed in the New York Times entitled "I Ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton"; and former CIA boss Michael Hayden had an op-ed in the Washington Post, just days before the election, entitled "Former CIA Chief: Trump is Russia's Useful Fool" (November 3, 2016). These attacks were unrelievedly insulting to Trump and laudatory to Clinton, though interestingly there is no mention of the merits or demerits of the candidates domestic policy programs. It is explicit that Clinton's more pugnacious approach to Syria and Russia is much preferred to Trump's leanings toward negotiation and cooperation with Russia.

    So the purpose and importance of the Assessment is clear. Thin and even ludicrous though its evidence of a Putin ordered propaganda campaign and Russian e-mail hacks transmitted through WikiLeaks may be, the release and pushing into prominence of this material behind the backs of the incoming administration was a major political action by agencies in principle subordinate to the political leadership. Of course it follows similar tactics by the departing Obama administration, one of whose last acts was expelling 35 Russian Embassy personnel in retaliation for the supposed Russian hacking (which Obama didn't even believe-in his final press conference he referred to "leaks" rather than "hacking"). But the political point of the Assessment seems to have been, at minimum, to tie the Trump administration's hands in its dealings with Russia.

    This was also true of the further scandal with Michael Flynn's call from the Russian Ambassador, possibly including exchanges about future policy actions. This was quickly grasped by the outgoing Obama officials and security personnel, with the FBI interrogating Flynn and with widespread expressions of horror at Flynn's action, allegedly possibly setting him up for blackmail. But such pre-inauguration meetings with Russian diplomats have been a "common practice" according to Jack Matlock, the U.S. ambassador to Russia under Reagan and Bush, and Matlock had personally arranged such a meeting for Carter. Obama's own Russia adviser, Michael McFaul, admitted to visiting Moscow for talks with officials in 2008 even before the election. Daniel Lazare makes a good case that the illegality and blackmail threat are implausible, that the FBI's interrogation of Flynn reeks of entrapment, and he asks what is wrong with trying to reduce tensions with Russia? "Yet anti-Trump liberals are trying to convince the public that it's all 'worse than Watergate'." ("Democrats, Liberals, Catch McCarthyistic Fever," Consortiumnews.com, February 17, 2017.)

    One of the few positive features of the Trump campaign had been a refusal to demonize Putin and an indication of a desire to normalize relations with Russia. Given the growth and power of the military-industrial complex, and the security agencies, there were powerful vested interests in continued hostile relations with Russia, manifested in the Assessment and other security agency overt and covert leaks, and the cooperation of the media (as in their publication of the CIA election letters).

    Paralleling the Assessment's stress on the Russian "influence campaign," the MSM became very preoccupied with "fake news," often implicitly or explicitly tied to Russia. An awkward fact in this context is that the disclosures of Clinton, DNC, and Podesta emails allegedly hacked by Russia described facts about electoral manipulations on behalf of the Clinton campaign that might well have affected election results. The focus on the non-existent Russian hacking intrusion helped divert attention from this real electoral abuse. Official and MSM fake news helped bury real news.

    The most remarkable media episode in this anti-influence campaign, that was and still is a real anti-Russian disinformation campaign, was the Washington Post's classic by Craig Timberg, "Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say" (November 24, 2016). The article features a report by an anonymous author or authors, PropOrNot, a "group that insists on public anonymity" according to the WP editors. The group claims to have found 200 websites that wittingly or unwittingly, were "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda." While smearing these websites, the "experts" refused to identify themselves allegedly out of fear of being "targeted by legions of skilled hackers."

    As Matt Taibbi says,"You want to blacklist hundreds of people, but you won't put your name to your claims? Take a hike." ("The 'Washington Post's 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful and Disgusting," RollingStone.com, November 28, 2016.) But the WP welcomed and featured this smear job, which might well be a product of Pentagon or CIA information warfare (and they are well funded and heavily into the propaganda business).

    The NYT has run neck-and-neck with the WP in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and improper involvement with Trump. They easily confuse fake news with any criticism of established institutions, as in Mark Scott and Melissa Eddy, "Europe Combats a New Foe of Political Stability: Fake News," February 20, 2017; analyzed, in Robert Parry, "NYT's Fake News about Fake News," Consortium news.com, February 22, 2017. But what is more extraordinary is the uniformity with which the paper's regular columnists accept the CIA's Assessment of the Russian hacking-transmission to WikiLeaks, the dreadfulness of the Flynn case, the possibility or likelihood that Trump is a Putin puppet, and the urgent need of a congressional and "non-partisan" investigation of these claims. This swallowing of a new party line has extended widely in the liberal media (e.g., Robert Reich, Ryan Lizza, Joan Walsh, Rachel Maddow, the AlterNet website, etc.).

    On December 23, 2016 President Obama signed the Portman-Murphy "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act," which will supposedly allow this country to more effectively combat foreign (Russian, Chinese) propaganda and disinformation. It will encourage more government counter-propaganda efforts and provide funding to non-government entities that will help counter propaganda.

    It is clearly a follow-on to the claims of Russian hacking and propaganda, and may even be said to be a follow-on to the listing of 200 knowing or "useful tools" of Moscow featured in the Washington Post. Perhaps PropOrNot will qualify for a subsidy and be able to enlarge its list of 200. Liberals have been quiet on this new threat to freedom of speech, which was signed into law on a Friday, perhaps paralyzed by their fears of Russian-based fake news and propaganda. But they may wake up, even if belatedly, when Trump or one of his successors puts it to work on their own notions of fake news and propaganda.

    Z

    Edward S. Herman is an author, economist, and media analyst with a specialty in corporate and regulatory issues as well as political economy.

    [May 21, 2017] During the Cold War the story was Democracy versus the Commies, traditional "good versus evil" type of stuff. Once the USSR collapsed a new evil adversary had to be found.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Global neo-liberal establishment. Say it three times and click your heels. ..."
    "... You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. ..."
    May 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Punchie , Website May 18, 2017 at 4:13 am GMT

    Global neo-liberal establishment. Say it three times and click your heels.

    jilles dykstra , May 18, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT

    Neoliberalism, another word for 'money rules the world'. Draghi visited the Dutch parliament, Baudet, FVD, asked him if, since Draghi had warned Italy that leaving the euro would cost them about 100 billion euro, Ittalians debts, the Netherland would get about 100 billion if we left the euro. 100 billion is what we lent, say, Draghi. His 'answer' was that the euro is irreversible. He apparently does not know that within tn years after the dissolution of the Habsburg empire all the new states ahd created their own money.

    Since all euo zone members still have their central banks, it is quite easy to leave the euro.

    Kiza , May 18, 2017 at 6:33 am GMT

    No one ever went bankrupt because he overestimated the stupidity of the US people, especially the liberal/neoliberal half. Yet, it escapes both the author and me why this dumber liberal half of Americans has the propensity to call itself "intellectual". Maybe intellectual is a synonym for stupid in the New US Speak, you know like War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

    Idiocracy it truly is.

    As to the intellectuals' media it is the usual assortment of The Jew Pork Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Independent from the Truth, The Guardian of the Lies and so on.

    ThereisaGod , May 18, 2017 at 9:50 am GMT

    It is time to start saying it out loud. The west is occupied territory and our occupiers are, unfortunately, largely Jews whose first loyaly is tribal and NOT to the country in which they reside. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/05/16/fake-jews-deceit-and-double-think-in-britains-hostile-elite/

    jilles dykstra , May 18, 2017 at 10:08 am GMT

    @joe webb

    Agent76 , May 18, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

    Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism

    Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.

    Rurik , Website May 18, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT

    a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow

    yes please! great article

    Anon , May 18, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

    Ramzpaul's bare-bones description of deep state.

    joe webb , May 18, 2017 at 3:32 pm GMT

    @Agent76 Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism

    Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.

    https://youtu.be/73ipVz-6YYs

    Jake , May 18, 2017 at 4:11 pm GMT

    If Hopkins continues to write in this vein, he may eventually produce a truly first rate play. Which will mark him forever as a tool of Russia and the mastermind of all EVIL , Putin.

    Rurik , Website May 18, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT

    @joe webb one of the characteristic forms of comments here is this: one or two sentences and nothing else. No sustained thought process which can relate X to Y and Z, as in multi-factor analysis, historical parallels, psychology, etc.

    Failure of intelligence. There is nothing like intelligence. (or lack thereof)

    jilles dykstra , May 18, 2017 at 5:14 pm GMT

    @Agent76 Mar 18, 2014 US support of violent neo-Nazis in Ukraine: Video Compilation

    Shocking and insightful videos detailing the neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, ultra-nationalist movement in Ukraine. The videos examine the ongoing US support of these groups, including the Svoboda party and Right Sector.

    https://youtu.be/8-RyOaFwcEw

    RadicalCenter , May 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT

    @Kiza No one ever went bankrupt because he overestimated the stupidity of the US people, especially the liberal/neoliberal half. Yet, it escapes both the author and me why this dumber liberal half of Americans has the propensity to call itself "intellectual". Maybe intellectual is a synonym for stupid in the New US Speak, you know like War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

    Idiocracy it truly is.

    As to the intellectuals' media it is the usual assortment of The Jew Pork Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Independent from the Truth, The Guardian of the Lies and so on.

    Anon , May 18, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT

    This 'impeachment' thing should really be called JEW COUP. Jews run the media and shape the Narrative. So, the Liberation of Aleppo was called the 'Fall of Aleppo'. So, Alqaeda elements in Syria were called 'moderate rebels'. So, we were fed lies about Libya to have it destroyed. And so much fuss is made about Evil Putin but we hear nothing of what Jewish oligarchs did to Russian economy in the 90s.

    Jews are so powerful they can even convince American Morons that marriage = two men buggering one another. This is not about impeachment. Jews hate Trump because he wants better ties with Russia, a nation that freed itself from total Jewish Control.

    RobinG , May 18, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT

    @El Dato So what!

    "Intelligence is just a tool to be used toward a goal, and goals are not always chosen intelligently" - Larry Niven from "Protector"

    Also,

    You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear.
    Not at all. After the awkward "russian reset" attempt by the Clinton-Obama axis of diplomacy, which somehow failed, the intolerance to all things Russian started during Snowden's "Summer of Surveillance" redpilling (i.e. 2013). Systemic shock mode was entered when the Ukraine liberation encountered unsuspected and sudden (and definitely "reactive") pushback in 2014 and Russia started supporting Syria against the ISIS "our temporary friends" clownshow in 2015.

    (The other "primary target for people's hatred and fear", the always good to amuse the hoi polloi cardboard cutout Ghaddafi had sadly shuffled of this mortal coil a bit earlier. So sad! And the bullshit of "Iran's gonna have da bomb next week, this time for sure" stuff going on since the 90s didn't get much traction anymore.)

    annamaria , May 19, 2017 at 4:26 am GMT

    @ThereisaGod It is time to start saying it out loud. The west is occupied territory and our occupiers are, unfortunately, largely Jews whose first loyally is tribal and NOT to the country in which they reside.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/05/16/fake-jews-deceit-and-double-think-in-britains-hostile-elite/

    joe webb , May 19, 2017 at 4:42 am GMT

    @Anon single factor analysis. It is not just the jews. The Dems are a coalition of blacks, jews, asians, indians, mexers, and some working class whites who have not left yet for the GOP and Trump, AND White Liberals, mostly professionals, who have sold out to globalism and its One World of Consumers.

    Yes, there is a so-called 'Liberal Coalition' of various groups. But are they equal in power and influence?

    In truth, Jews dominate. For example, Asians have no agency of their own. They just follow the narratives of other. Mexers are happy to be Guillermos and have no interest apart from tacos. Their only politics is calling whites 'gringos', blacks 'negritos', and Asians 'chinos'. Blacks are loud and vocal, but it's all about blacks. Blacks have no knowledge and interest in the larger world. They are very tribal and provincial.

    If not for Jewish Power, NO ONE would be interested in Russia. That is a Jewish thing.
    If blacks ran the Democratic Party, they would fixate on some OTHER ISSUE to get at Trump.
    Blacks jumped on the Russia bandwagon ONLY BECAUSE Jews set the template and the meme. Since that is the Anti-Trump Meme as chosen by Jews, all anti-Trumpers are parroting the same crap. But Russia became the Key Issue because Jews are obsessed with Russia and what it implies. Jews set the Narrative and others play do the Parrotive.
    The Powerful get to decide the Narrative. The less powerful just tag along like dogs and repeat the mantra set by the Powerful. They are parrots with the Parrotive.

    Also, only Jews have the direct power in media, deep state, and finance(owning all politicians through AIPAC) to pull off what is happening.

    Just think. Suppose Asians don't want to go after Trump but Jews want to. What would happen? Jews would decide, and Asians would have choice but to go along.
    Now, suppose Asians want to go after Trump, but Jews don't want to. Could Asians push for impeachment without Jewish support? NO way.

    Or suppose blacks want to go after Trump, but Jews say NO and won't give anti-Trump support in media and Deep State. Would it happen? No.
    Or suppose blacks want to work with Trump but Jews want to go after him. Would it happen? Yes, because Jews get to pull all the strings.

    So, while it is true that there is a Democratic Coalition, Jews have 1000x the power of other groups. I mean consider how most Jews and most Arabs are in the Democratic Camp, but Zionists have far more power than Palestinians/Muslims do.

    This is a Jew Coup because Jews are the single-most powerful element in Democratic Party, GOP, Congress(by buying up politicians), FED, Wall Street, and etc.

    annamaria , May 19, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

    @Wally Yeah, sure.

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Agent76 , May 19, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

    Sep 9, 2016 US-funded Ukrainian army is terrorizing civilians. Russell Bentley is a former US marine, that now fights for the Donbass, Eastern Ukraine, against the US-funded Ukrainian army.

    https://youtu.be/92KfmGY12yQ

    El Dato , May 19, 2017 at 3:51 pm GMT

    @Ace We are awash in lies: race, racism, white privilege, constitutional America, living Constitution, propositional nation, nation of immigrants, American exceptionalism, responsibility to protect (humanitarian war), Assad the Dictator, Islamism/moderate Muslims, our ally Israel, our ally Saudi Arabia, evilevil Putin, the one and only holocaust, right-wing National Socialism, N"A"TO, evil Serbia, Islam's contribution, the Crusades, patriarchy, gender, homosexual marriage, women's suffrage, diversity, multiculturalism, open borders, welfare state, socialized medicine, objective MSM, Saint Abraham, Saint Ze-dong, Obama the natural born citizen, the administrative state, frustrated ghetto rocket scientists, indispensable nation, Gaddafi the Tyrant, Axis of Evil, Judeo-Christianity, the Three Abrahamic religions, globalism, free trade, immigrant monetary contribution doing jobs Americans​won't do, climate change, agw, alternative energy, reasonable gun control, nation building, the glass ceiling, pay inequality, vote suppression, the evil of segregation, black nationalism, private prison oppression, disparity in sentencing, Roe v. Wade, the innocence of Mumia Jaba Jabu, reparations, BLM, debt ceiling, government shutdowns, unemployment, inflation, the "Federal" Reserve, dual citizenship, the EU, refugees, metissage commercials, homosexuality in commercials, white burglars in commercials, POC in commercials. Mexico our friend, GOP principles, bipartisanship, McCarthy the Indecent, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Israel's mistake re the Liberty, the _________ Commission, St. Martin the Patriot, Robert Mueller the FBI Muslim realist, the neocon patriot, Saint Franklin, the New Deal, the "US" Chamber of Commerce Keynesianism, quantitative easing, and St. Hillary the Incorrupt.

    Oh yes. And our desperate need for Nigerians, Syrians, and Somalis​. And Hindu software engineers.

    I'm out of ideas now at which point​ one must say, "And I could go on and on."

    Ace , May 19, 2017 at 8:57 pm GMT

    @El Dato This must be the next basic text for an updated Billy Joel's "We didn't Start the Fire" (clip needs to be updated to have Snowden on 24/7 TV and no-one cares)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g

    joe webb , May 20, 2017 at 4:27 am GMT

    @Agent76 Sorry joe webb I do not partake in any flavor of Kool-aid! DECEMBER 25, 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949

    In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W. Bush through his secretary of state James Baker promised Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation on German reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand "one inch" eastwards towards Russia.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/25/nato-seeking-russias-destruction-since-1949/

    joe webb , May 20, 2017 at 5:06 am GMT

    @huswa That's a really interesting view about operating on principle vs. on in-group relations. Can you please reply with some relevant articles if you have them?

    I've traveled quite a lot and have seen principled people in all parts of the world. Sometimes they are really drowned out by the masses. I do not think that altruism is specific to whites. The "White Man's Burden" wasn't altruism. Colonizers weren't in it to lift up the world. They wanted money and other resources. As an example they crippled local economies t Of course, they did a lot of good

    [May 21, 2017] Orwellian nature of the USA society

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. ..."
    "... The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal. ..."
    "... the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adιlie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. ..."
    "... Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything ..."
    May 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova , May 20, 2017 at 03:35 PM

    Here is an interesting quote from

    http://www.unz.com/article/invasion-of-the-putin-nazis/

    Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins

    So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner.

    The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule.

    The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal.

    Or OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adιlie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion.

    Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything.

    [May 20, 2017] Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner. The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal. ..."
    "... OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) ..."
    "... They are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything. ..."
    "... whomever is responsible for ferreting out the Putin-Nazi infiltrators that "respected" pundits like Blow and Krugman (and stark raving loonies like Louise Mensch) have convinced them are now controlling the government. Weirdly, these same "respected" journalists, the ones who have been assuring the world that The President of the United States is a covert agent working for Russia, have failed to even mention this March for Truth, and are acting like they had nothing to do with whipping these folks up into a frenzy of apoplectic paranoia. ..."
    "... Oh, yeah, and if Russiagate isn't paranoid enough, apparently, the corporate media is now prepared to deploy the "Putin-Nazi Election Hackers" propaganda in any and every election going forward ( as they did in the recent French election , and as they tried to do in the Dutch elections , and presumably will in the German elections, and as The Guardian appears to be retroactively doing in regard to the Brexit referendum ). Any day now, we should be hearing of the "Putin-Nazi-Corbyn Axis," and the "Putin-Nazi-Podemos Pact," and video footage of Martin Schultz and a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow. Soon, it won't just be elections no, we'll be hearing reports of Russian shipments of rocks, bottles, and pointy sticks to the "Putin-Nazi Palestinian Terrorists," and well, who knows how far they're willing to take this? ..."
    "... You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. OK, sure, at first, there were no Putin-Nazis. It was just that the Brexit folks were fascists, and Trump was Hitler, and Bernie Sanders was some sort of racist hacky sack Communist. But then the Putinists poisoned Clinton , and unleashed their legions of Russian propagandists on the gullible, Oxycodone-addicted denizens of "flyover country," and, as they say, the rest is history. ..."
    "... In any event, here we are now stuck inside this simulation of "reality" where Putin-Nazi hackers are coming out of the woodwork, a partyless neoliberal banker has been elected the President of France, Donald Trump is an evil mastermind or a Russian operative, depending on what day it is (as opposed to just a completely incompetent, narcissistic billionaire idiot), and neoliberal propaganda outfits like The New York Times , The Washington Post , MSNBC, CNN, The Guardian , NPR, et al., are perceived as "respectable" sources of journalism, as if their role in generating and occasionally revising the official narrative weren't so insultingly obvious. ..."
    May 17, 2017 | www.unz.com
    So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner. The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal.

    Or OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adιlie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough.

    They are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything.

    If you think I'm being hyperbolic, check out #MarchforTruth on Twitter, or its anonymous Crowdpac fundraising page , which at first glance I took for an elaborate prank, but which seems to be in deadly earnest about "restoring faith in American government," uncovering Trump's "collusion" with Russia, and reversing his "subversion of the will of the people." The plan is, on June 3, 2017, thousands of otherwise rational Americans are going to pour into the streets "demanding answers" from well, I'm not sure whom, some independent prosecutor, or congressional committee, or intelligence agency, or whomever is responsible for ferreting out the Putin-Nazi infiltrators that "respected" pundits like Blow and Krugman (and stark raving loonies like Louise Mensch) have convinced them are now controlling the government. Weirdly, these same "respected" journalists, the ones who have been assuring the world that The President of the United States is a covert agent working for Russia, have failed to even mention this March for Truth, and are acting like they had nothing to do with whipping these folks up into a frenzy of apoplectic paranoia.

    Incidentally, one of my colleagues contacted Mr. Blow directly and inquired as to whether he'd be vociferously supporting or possibly leading the March for Truth, and was chastised by Blow and his Twitter followers. I found this reaction extremely troubling, and asked my colleague to contact Mensch and suggest she check with her handlers at The Times to make sure the Russians haven't gotten to him. However, just as he was sitting down to do that, the "Comey-firing" brouhaha broke, which seems to have brought Blow back to the fold , albeit in a less hysterical manner than his Rooskie-hunting readers have grown accustomed to. We can only hope that both he and Krugman return to form in the weeks to come as Russiagate builds to its dramatic climax.

    Oh, yeah, and if Russiagate isn't paranoid enough, apparently, the corporate media is now prepared to deploy the "Putin-Nazi Election Hackers" propaganda in any and every election going forward ( as they did in the recent French election , and as they tried to do in the Dutch elections , and presumably will in the German elections, and as The Guardian appears to be retroactively doing in regard to the Brexit referendum ). Any day now, we should be hearing of the "Putin-Nazi-Corbyn Axis," and the "Putin-Nazi-Podemos Pact," and video footage of Martin Schultz and a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow. Soon, it won't just be elections no, we'll be hearing reports of Russian shipments of rocks, bottles, and pointy sticks to the "Putin-Nazi Palestinian Terrorists," and well, who knows how far they're willing to take this?

    All joking aside, as I've written about previously , what we're dealing with here is more than just a lame attempt by the Democratic Party to blame its humiliating loss on Putin (although of course it certainly is that in part). The global neoliberal establishment is rolling out a new official narrative. It's actually just a slight variation on the one it's been selling us since 2001. I could come up with a sixteen-syllable, academic-sounding name for this narrative, but I'm trying to keep things simple these days so let's call it The Normals versus The Extremists , (the Normals being the neoliberals and the Extremists being everyone else). The goal of this narrative is to stigmatize and otherwise marginalize opposition to Neoliberalism, regardless of the nature of that opposition (i.e., whether it comes from the left, right, or from religious, environmentalist, or any other quarters). Now, as any professional storyteller will tell you, one of the most important aspects of the narrative you're trying to suck people into is to make your protagonist a likeable underdog, and then pit him or her against a much more powerful and ideally incorrigibly evil enemy. During the Cold War, this was easy to do - the story was Democracy versus the Commies , traditional "good versus evil"-type stuff.

    Once the U.S.S.R. collapsed, the concept needed major rewrites, as a new evil adversary had to be found. This (i.e., the 1990s) was a rather awkward and frustrating period. The global capitalist ruling classes, giddy with joy after having become the first ever global ideological hegemon in the history of aspiring global hegemons, got all avant-garde for a while, and thought they could do without an "enemy." This approach, as you'll recall, did not sell well.

    No one quite got why we were bombing Yugoslavia, and Bush and Baker had to break out the Hitler schtick to gin up support for rescuing the Kuwaitis from their old friend Saddam. Fortunately, in September 2001, the show runners got the break they were looking for, and the official narrative was instantly switched to Democracy versus The Islamic Terrorists . This re-brand got extremely good ratings, and would have been extended indefinitely if not for what began to unfold in the latter half of 2016. (One could go back and locate the week when the mainstream media officially switched from the " Summer of Terror " narrative they were flogging to the new "Invasion of the Putin-Nazis" narrative my guess is, it was early to mid-September.) It started with the Brexit referendum, continued with the rise of Trump, and well, I don't have to recount it, do I? You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. OK, sure, at first, there were no Putin-Nazis. It was just that the Brexit folks were fascists, and Trump was Hitler, and Bernie Sanders was some sort of racist hacky sack Communist. But then the Putinists poisoned Clinton , and unleashed their legions of Russian propagandists on the gullible, Oxycodone-addicted denizens of "flyover country," and, as they say, the rest is history.

    In any event, here we are now stuck inside this simulation of "reality" where Putin-Nazi hackers are coming out of the woodwork, a partyless neoliberal banker has been elected the President of France, Donald Trump is an evil mastermind or a Russian operative, depending on what day it is (as opposed to just a completely incompetent, narcissistic billionaire idiot), and neoliberal propaganda outfits like The New York Times , The Washington Post , MSNBC, CNN, The Guardian , NPR, et al., are perceived as "respectable" sources of journalism, as if their role in generating and occasionally revising the official narrative weren't so insultingly obvious. Personally, I am looking forward to the upcoming German elections this Autumn, wherein Neoliberal Party "A" is challenging Neoliberal Party "B" for the right to continue privatizing Greece (and any other formerly sovereign nations the banks can get their hands on) in a demonstration of European unity, and fiscal austerity and, you know, whatever.

    If this is the Death of Neoliberalism, just imagine what awaits us at the Resurrection.

    C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

    [May 20, 2017] Rosenstein Joins the Posse by Patrick J. Buchanan

    After just 100 days in the office Trump already has a special prosecutor.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency. ..."
    "... Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation. ..."
    "... Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses. What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up. ..."
    "... Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him? Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation. ..."
    "... Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump's orders, put the hit on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat. ..."
    "... Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done. As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller's investigation seems certain to drag on for years. ..."
    "... Recall the famous adage that a competent district attorney could successfully indict a ham sandwich. ..."
    "... Political trials are infamously witch hunts, and there isn't a witch hunt that couldn't miraculously find any number of witches to burn. ..."
    "... One has to hand it to the Democrats. This strategy to get the ruling elite class back in both houses of congress and bring forth a shining night in armour for their next candidate is well crafted. The Clintons messed up the Obama Hope and Change Rhetoric. ..."
    "... From the very outset of his presidency, U.S. President D.J. Trump either hired people who were against his presidential campaign all the time of last year or cozied up to perpetual political opponents while distancing himself from the very patriotic people who gave him the electoral college victory last November. ..."
    "... Like Pres. Dick Nixon did, U.S. President D.J. Trump will also politically kill himself with one political misstep after another by giving his political opponents whatever they demand until it will be too late to reverse the course. ..."
    "... "The real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. Their goal is to not only make dιtente with Russia impossible but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war The reign of terror is about to begin: anyone who opposes our interventionist foreign policy is liable to be labeled a "Kremlin tool" – and could face legal sanctions. ..."
    "... If Trump wasn't a narcissistic idiot, he could be well on the way to leading a takedown of establishment politics. Should have left Comey in to go nowhere, but Trump is a narcissistic idiot who does not read and his presidency is and will continue to be a miserable failure. Donald J. Trump is a Loser and a Laughingstock, plain and simple. There's nothing to see here. Does he have the ability to do better? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Firing Comey is not impeachable or even wrong, it's just a blunder of monumental proportions. Trump's continued incompetent "explanations" of the decision raised red flags. This is not Trump Steaks Inc. This is the Presidency of the United States of America. ..."
    May 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    "With the stroke of a pen, Rod Rosenstein redeemed his reputation," writes Dana Milbank of The Washington Post .

    What had Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein done to be welcomed home by the Post like the prodigal son?

    Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency.

    Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation.

    Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses. What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up.

    Also to be investigated is whether the president tried to curtail the FBI investigation with his phone calls and Oval Office meetings with FBI Director James Comey, before abruptly firing Comey last week.

    Regarded as able and honest, Mueller will be under media pressure to come up with charges. Great and famous prosecutors are measured by whom they convict and how many scalps they take. Moreover, a burgeoning special counsel's office dredging up dirt on Trump and associates will find itself the beneficiary of an indulgent press.

    Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him? Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation.

    After being approved 94-6 by a Senate that hailed him as a principled and independent U.S. attorney for both George Bush and Barack Obama, Rosenstein found himself being pilloried for preparing the document White House aides called crucial to Trump's decision to fire Comey.

    Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump's orders, put the hit on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat.

    Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done. As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller's investigation seems certain to drag on for years.

    ... ... ...

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

    Wilfred , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:58 pm
    Any way we can get a Special Counsel to investigate Hillary?
    Fran Macadam , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:56 pm
    Recall the famous adage that a competent district attorney could successfully indict a ham sandwich.

    Political trials are infamously witch hunts, and there isn't a witch hunt that couldn't miraculously find any number of witches to burn.

    Cal , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:58 pm
    Trump set up his own demise -- all the Jews like Rosenstein that he has appointed would really rather have the rabid evangelical Israel supporter Pence as president.
    William Dalton , says: May 19, 2017 at 12:23 am
    The appointment of former director Mueller to take charge of an investigation too hot for Rosenstein or anyone in his department to file a report on, particularly if no prosecution will be recommended, does not presage this affair will continue interminably. Months of work have already been put into the matter by the FBI. Mueller may arrive, ask those agents for a summary of what they have unearthed, say, "I don't see anything here. Do you think further work by you will uncover more?", and if they respond, "No", Mueller might very well take what he is given, file a report saying no prosecution is warranted, just as Jim Comey did in the Clinton matter, and go home.

    The man is retired with honor. He doesn't need to make a name for himself with this or any other case. The last thing he wants to find out is that there is evidence that might result in the impeachment and criminal prosecution of the President of the United States.

    StrategyK , says: May 19, 2017 at 2:59 am
    Wasnt pat a happy supporter of the special counsel investigating Clinton? Now suddenly he is against such counsels? How about some priciples Mr buchanan?
    StrategyK , says: May 19, 2017 at 3:13 am
    And here is a hat tip for you aggrieved folks here. Trump brought this on himself. He could have avoided it all by simply letting Comey do his job. If there really is nothing in the Russia story, then Comey would have come up with nothing.

    Trump has been used to running a family business all his life and a fake TV show as well where his and only his word runs. That is not how the government functions and nor should it be. What happened to the famous negotiator? The one who could make great deals? Who would learn quickly how to navigate the waters and make things happen. This person seems non existent. Lets see some of that please.

    John Gruskos , says: May 19, 2017 at 8:57 am
    Justin Raimondo correctly explains the significance of this development:

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/05/18/the-special-counsel-comes-to-town-its-the-moscow-trials-revisited/

    Liam , says: May 19, 2017 at 9:16 am
    Wall Street swooned *not* because Trump's "populist" agenda is endangered but rather because Alt-Trump's bait-and-switch pro-Wall Street agenda is endangered. That Pat Buchanan cannot distinguish these is stunning to behold.
    elizabeth , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:22 am
    And if Hillary Clinton had been inaugurated in January, there wouldn't be a dozen Congressional committees pursuing specious investigations, egged on by right wing media? (Even this comment thread carries one such demand, and she is not in office.)

    This is one outcome of a poisoned body politic. Roger Ailes was there at the beginning, and we are all sickened by his legacy.

    Jack , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:40 am
    Unfortunately, Buchanan seems to have ignored the fact that Rosenstein's decision to appoint a special prosecutor was sparked by Trump's precipitous and unnecessary decision to dismiss Comey. It was a foolish decision and now he's paying a price for it.
    Dan Green , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
    One has to hand it to the Democrats. This strategy to get the ruling elite class back in both houses of congress and bring forth a shining night in armour for their next candidate is well crafted. The Clintons messed up the Obama Hope and Change Rhetoric.
    ukm1 , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:55 am
    U.S. President D.J. Trump is himself 100% responsible for the political and legal debacles where he is in now and will be in for any foreseeable future!

    From the very outset of his presidency, U.S. President D.J. Trump either hired people who were against his presidential campaign all the time of last year or cozied up to perpetual political opponents while distancing himself from the very patriotic people who gave him the electoral college victory last November.

    Like Pres. Dick Nixon did, U.S. President D.J. Trump will also politically kill himself with one political misstep after another by giving his political opponents whatever they demand until it will be too late to reverse the course.

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:57 am
    John Gruskos (8:57 a.m.) is right. Justin Raimondo's column today is a "must read":

    "The real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. Their goal is to not only make dιtente with Russia impossible but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war The reign of terror is about to begin: anyone who opposes our interventionist foreign policy is liable to be labeled a "Kremlin tool" – and could face legal sanctions.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/05/18/the-special-counsel-comes-to-town-its-the-moscow-trials-revisited/

    Bob K. , says: May 19, 2017 at 11:05 am
    You tell it like it is, Pat! Once someone has sold his soul to the "dark side" his own reputation with it comes before the welfare of the Nation!
    David Smith , says: May 19, 2017 at 11:37 am
    What goes around, comes around. The Republicans did the same thing to Bill Clinton. Remember, if you can do it to them, they can do it to you. Be careful about the precedents you set.
    Adriana I Pena , says: May 19, 2017 at 11:57 am
    Has anyone considered that the opposition from career bureaucrats is due to their past experience as to what works and what doesn't? They can recognize a half-baked plan, concocted by someone who has only a hazy idea of what goes on (the guy who managed to admit that health care was "complicated" after touting on the campaign trail that it was easy). Add to it stubborness and unwillingness to learn, and those bureaucrats may think that they are staring at an accident waiting to happen.

    What would you do in their place?

    Mac61 , says: May 19, 2017 at 12:18 pm
    If Trump wasn't a narcissistic idiot, he could be well on the way to leading a takedown of establishment politics. Should have left Comey in to go nowhere, but Trump is a narcissistic idiot who does not read and his presidency is and will continue to be a miserable failure. Donald J. Trump is a Loser and a Laughingstock, plain and simple. There's nothing to see here.

    Does he have the ability to do better? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Firing Comey is not impeachable or even wrong, it's just a blunder of monumental proportions. Trump's continued incompetent "explanations" of the decision raised red flags.

    This is not Trump Steaks Inc. This is the Presidency of the United States of America. He will be held to a higher standard until such time as he realizes he cannot run this world's most powerful country like some sham casino operation he let fall into bankruptcy. And @Cal, this is not a Jewish conspiracy. If you can't see that Trump is an incompetent idiot narcissist, you can't see anything.

    [May 20, 2017] Still Chasing the Wrong Rainbows by Andrew Bacevich

    Notable quotes:
    "... Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs, income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White House. ..."
    "... Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows. ..."
    "... Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like." ..."
    "... To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country." ..."
    May 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    So the remarks that Williams made some fifty-two years ago included the following reflection, worth pondering by present-day conservatives. "If we justify our intervention in Vietnam on the grounds that it is crucial to our national security," he said, "we will soon be able to justify using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like." Furthermore, "That kind of moral arrogance-that kind of playing at being God-will destroy any chance we have to construct a good society." Then Williams added:

    Notice that I said good society. We already have a great society, and I think that may be the source of much of the trouble with our leaders. For greatness has primarily to do with size, strength, and power. But we citizens who are gathered here are primarily concerned with quality, equity, and with honoring our potential for becoming more fully and truly human.

    In 1965, confusion about the distinction between great and good found American leaders "following the wrong rainbow." President Johnson was promising Americans a "Great Society." What he was actually delivering was an unnecessary war destined to cost the country dearly and leave it bitterly divided.

    Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs, income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White House.

    Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows.

    Meanwhile, to judge by Trump's one-and-done missile attack on Syria and the fatuous deployment of the "Mother of All Bombs" in Afghanistan, our president's approach to statecraft makes Lyndon Johnson look circumspect by comparison. Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like." U.S. national-security policy has become monumentally incoherent, with the man in charge apparently doing whatever his gut or his latest visitor at Mar-a-Lago tells him to do.

    This defines the nation's current predicament: Whatever agreement once existed on what it means to be either great or good has pretty much disappeared from American political culture. Our fragmented society pursues any number of illusory rainbows. Restoring some semblance of a common culture thereby poses a daunting challenge, even larger today than back in the Sixties when everything seemed to be coming apart at the seams. I will refrain from offering any glib advice for how to promote that restoration.

    If hardly less challenging, imparting a modicum of coherence to U.S. policy abroad may actually qualify as more urgent. After all, the impetuous Trump appears more likely than Lyndon Johnson to blow up the world.

    In that regard, the views expressed by Professor Williams back in 1965 in explaining the rationale for the "teach-ins" offer at least a place to begin. "We are trying to bring our Government back into a dialogue with its own citizens," he explained.

    We are trying to encourage Congress to meet its responsibilities and to function as a full partner in governing the country. We are trying to change our foreign policy so that it will be closer to the realities of the world and far more in keeping with our best traditions and highest ideals-and thereby make it pragmatically more effective.

    To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country."

    As a place to begin, it was good advice then. It remains good advice today.

    Andrew J. Bacevich is TAC's writer-at-large.

    [May 19, 2017] What the author inadvertently points out is that capitalism, particularly the so called consumer capitalism that we have is like a board game; only at the beginning anything is possible

    Notable quotes:
    "... What the author inadvertently points out is that capitalism, particularly the so called consumer capitalism that we have is like a board game; It has a beginning when anything is possible. A middle when a broad spectrum of players prosper and there is extra money for infrastructure and public amenities. Then an end where wealth is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and the waste stream has taken its toll. ..."
    "... Tell me, when where these good old days, of "true" capitalism? Back when we were enslaving Africans? ..."
    "... workers fail to ..."
    "... Yeah, it's really a pity that author of such a well-written piece confuses GDP with living standards. If that was the case people wouldn't vote for nationalist and populists. ..."
    "... serving their own interests; ..."
    "... In our imperial system, it does not matter to the people whether they vote, or how; it matters, occasionally, to the contestants' position in the power structure, but nothing more than that. ..."
    "... there are rumors that the Federal Liberal Party in Canada is exploring this. ..."
    "... 8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon: (a) A provider of an electronic store, gateway, marketplace or other means of purchasing or downloading software or applications to review or enforce compliance with this section by those applications or software; or (b) A provider of an interactive computer service to review or enforce compliance with this section by third-party content providers. As used in this paragraph, "interactive computer service" means any information service, system or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such services or systems operated or offered by libraries or educational institutions. (9) This section does not apply to general audience Internet websites, general audience online services, general audience online applications or general audience mobile applications, even if login credentials created for an operator's site, service or application may be used to access those general audience sites, services or applications. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    DJG , May 19, 2017 at 10:20 am

    Definitely worth reading and reading again. What popped on first reading is the description of the rise of income in Poland and the stagnation of income in the U S of A. What pops for me on seccond reading is these paragraphs about tax evasion and income inequality: >>

    One reason nothing happens is a culture of tax evasion. There's a folk belief in American business that if you pay full taxes, you're not doing your fiduciary duty, and your board will fire you.

    Apple now has a quarter trillion dollars offshore that it refuses to put into direct productive use in the United States. Apple boasts that its products are designed in California-they will sell you a $300 book called Designed By Apple In California. But they do their damndest to make sure that California never sees a penny of their overseas profits.

    You in the EU are all too familiar with this brand of tax evasion. Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft have all been under investigation or in court on charges of evading European taxes.

    Another reason good intentions don't translate is that capitalism, especially venture capital, doesn't work very well when there is vast wealth inequality.

    [Tax evasion isn't just a folk belief: It is taught in U.S. law schools and in business schools, along with union busting.]

    Jef , May 19, 2017 at 10:52 am

    What the author inadvertently points out is that capitalism, particularly the so called consumer capitalism that we have is like a board game; It has a beginning when anything is possible. A middle when a broad spectrum of players prosper and there is extra money for infrastructure and public amenities. Then an end where wealth is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and the waste stream has taken its toll.

    diptherio , May 19, 2017 at 11:49 am

    Another reason good intentions don't translate is that capitalism, especially venture capital, doesn't work very well when there is vast wealth inequality.

    The author does not understand that capitalism creates vast wealth inequality: that's the whole point. Inequality is a feature, not a bug, and so trying to save capitalism while eliminating vast wealth inequalities is working at cross-purposes, and only one of those aims can be successful and guess which one it always is?

    justanotherprogressive , May 19, 2017 at 11:56 am

    +100

    Wisdom Seeker , May 19, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    "capitalism creates vast wealth inequality: that's the whole point."

    Not in Adam Smith's world, nor Henry Ford's. True capitalists prosper by creating wealth which improves the lives of everyone around them. Crony capitalists, the ones we have now, strip wealth from others. Witness today's bubble-and-bust cycles rather than the prior widespread economic growth.

    The capitalism you see today is an abomination of the original concept, just as Mnuchin's claim to support "Glass Steagall" is an abomination. And don't get me started on the "Affordable" Care Act, or the "Patriot" act which gutted the Constitution

    P.S. The original author's article is riddled with glaring factual errors, but he has the big picture right: it's time to restore Antitrust Law and apply it to the internet monopolists. And restore privacy rights and and it's a long list. Start fighting now, if you want anything to happen in your lifetime!

    Carla , May 19, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    The author's central thesis strikes me as correct: that Europe provides the only hope for applying any brakes whatsoever to the American tech sector. I hope someone over there is listening, as prospects here seem utterly hopeless.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 19, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    Freedom means people should have reasonable alternatives, choices on any product, service or ideology. Today's internet experience lacks that freedom aspect quite a bit.

    diptherio , May 19, 2017 at 2:42 pm

    Hokum. The "theory" is that it benefits everyone, but the reality is quite different. Tell me, when where these good old days, of "true" capitalism? Back when we were enslaving Africans? Back when we were hanging Wobblies? Back when we had to put nets around our factories to keep the workers from committing suicide? Please the dictatorship of the proletariat worked out just fine in Marx's theory, too.

    clinical wasteman , May 19, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    Another one for the gallery of glaring factual errors: "capitalists prosper by creating wealth". Unless that was an epic typo for something like: " workers fail to prosper while creating wealth".

    As for "the original concept" of "capitalism", in which district of the astral plane did you find that? Apart from his anthropological sci-fi about the origins of money in "barter", Adam Smith generally tried to write about the real world. Just like Marx, except that Smith was speaking for a different class interest, whose "moral philosopher" imagined himself to be. For that reason, "capital" and "capitalist"(n.) were important concepts for Smith and Marx alike, but "capitalism" - a sort of hybrid implying the social reality and the ideology cheerleading for it at once without ever really distinguishing between the two - is an abstraction that neither had much time for, and one that only really caught on once both were dead.

    Wisdom Seeker , May 19, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    Wasteman – for a start, unlike todays Cronyists, Adam Smith understood that capitalism would not function for the benefit of all unless monopolies were restrained by government:

    "The interest of the dealers [referring to stock owners, manufacturers, and merchants], however, in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, and absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1991), pages 219-220)"

    See here for more details:
    https://machineryofpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/adam-smith-on-the-crisis-of-capitalism-2/

    Another interesting perspective is from J. K. Galbraith (sorry I lost the source) who pointed out that in an economy with healthy competition, profit margins are lower, but employment and wage income are necessarily higher.

    diptherio , May 19, 2017 at 5:14 pm

    And pray tell, who is it who will restrain the monopolists? Our elected officials, who just so happen to be under the control of those same capitalists? Which is possible due to the vast wealth inequalities that capitalism generates .

    Capitalists, almost without exception, do everything in their power to avoid competition. The idea is to make a profit and competition is antithetical to that.

    Lots of things are good in theory, like three-way relationships. Reality, on the other hand, feels no obligation to correspond with theory.

    Vatch , May 19, 2017 at 3:27 pm

    capitalism creates vast wealth inequality

    Not exactly. Capitalism extends or expands existing inequality. It was the development of agriculture several thousand years ago that broke the approximate egalitarianism of the hunter gatherer lifestyle. Even that had some inequality, but not much. For more information, see the early chapters of The Great Leveler , by Walter Scheidel.

    diptherio , May 19, 2017 at 5:23 pm

    Hence the "vast" part. I'm not so silly as to think that before capitalism there was not wealth inequality. But not the type where a few hundred people control more wealth than a few billion. It would seem to me, on just a gut level based on a little reading, that whereas systems like feudalism were unequal but relatively stable*, i.e. the level of inequality stayed the same generation to generation, capitalism's dynamics have caused inequality to skyrocket, both nationally and globally.

    *Or at least cyclically stable, as with regular debt jubilees in Sumer.

    HBE , May 19, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    "Living standards in Poland in 2010 had more than doubled from 1990." This sentence annoyed me to no end. Yes, the reason that is true is because every capitalist country in the world worked to smash and destroy communism without pause for its entire life and then internal and external oligarchs snatched up everything.

    Living standards increased over that period in Poland but so did inequality and poverty. So the country got some shiny new consumer goods (which the author seems enamored by) while the populations poverty rate continues to climb. Thank god for privatization ("Suddenly people had cars, phones, appliances" and suddenly poverty surged as well), and the end of those no good dirty commies, right?

    vlado , May 19, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    Yeah, it's really a pity that author of such a well-written piece confuses GDP with living standards. If that was the case people wouldn't vote for nationalist and populists.

    In any case, despite very good performance of Polish economy, its convergence to West Europe at least in terms of GDP (PPP) is questionable as the cases of Czech Republic and Slovenia show. See the article The convergence dream 25 years on in Bruegel

    visitor , May 19, 2017 at 6:04 pm

    There is a reason why people voted for the populist PiS and ousted the liberals who had made such a great job at bringing Poland into the EU and its "market society".

    justanotherprogressive , May 19, 2017 at 10:23 am

    A long but brilliant article that everyone should take the time to read! I want all the techies in my family to read it because it points out some of the uneasiness even techies feel about the their industry.

    My favorite paragraph (although there were many close seconds):

    "But real problems are messy. Tech culture prefers to solve harder, more abstract problems that haven't been sullied by contact with reality. So they worry about how to give Mars an earth-like climate, rather than how to give Earth an earth-like climate. They debate how to make a morally benevolent God-like AI, rather than figuring out how to put ethical guard rails around the more pedestrian AI they are introducing into every area of people's lives."
    Yep .

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 19, 2017 at 2:28 pm

    That popular vote comment is misleading as well.

    A previous example was given about a hypothetical House vote, where, in yes-districts, voters are split 51-49 yes (assuming that is so lots of times, congress persons vote 'their conscience') and voters in no-districts are 90-10 for no. Yes votes win by one.

    In that case, the popular vote actually is for No.

    And that has nothing to do with slavery.

    It's how the math works in a representative voting system.

    PhilM , May 19, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    Before responding to MLTPB, I'd like to voice my opinion that the OP article is thoughtful and reflects a decent level of awareness of the reality of the world, along with positive solutions that would be achievable in a polity that had the public good as its aim.

    As for MLTPB's opinion on the vote, I beg to differ: it has everything to do with slavery. That's how the numbers work in our system, which is imperial, not representative. It's a bitch when instead of Augustus you get Caligula, but it doesn't change the basic reality of how the system works, and has worked since Ike. In our imperial system, it does not matter to the people whether they vote, or how; it matters, occasionally, to the contestants' position in the power structure, but nothing more than that.

    Here is the reality: the people in any office in our federal government-basically everyone who lives in or around Washington DC-have the same relationship to American people as they have to Russian, Chinese, or Indian people: that of serving their own interests; predation, if you will; animal husbandry, if you prefer. They will act so as to extract the maximum value consistent with not-killing-the-goose-that-lays-the-golden-eggs from every person, wherever they are located, whatever their religion, whatever their nationality, as long as they are powerless, which means everyone who is a private citizen, however rich, or a small business; everyone who is not a Forbes 500 corporation.

    The notion that the federal government is somehow tied to "Americans," or even to the geographical entity now known as the USA, much less to the values expressed in the so-called "founding documents," is a child's bedtime story.

    It's amusing that it took the election of Trump to bring this realization about; but really, that is why some of us actually voted for Trump: to rub the idiots' noses in the reality of their political environment. (Not me, mind you; because I do not bother to vote: when I want something done, I write a check, like any experienced consumer of government services.)

    There is a cure, but it is not changing the election mechanism so the choice of president results from the popular vote totals in a population of 300 million. No, it means changing it so there are 1000 presidents and 100,000 representatives and 1000 supreme courts, and 1000 republics. Those are the numbers that would achieve representative government the way it was designed to function by people who knew. Alternatively, you could reduce federal taxation to 1/10th of its current level, and assign all other taxation to the township, with a population limit of 20,000. Now you would have something that is no longer imperial.

    But since most people since the dawn of history have lived under organizations that are imperial with perfect happiness, the appropriate course of action is not to struggle in futility for change, which would almost certainly do more harm than good, and result in an outcome that would just use up the world's resources more swiftly in the chaos of consumption and war. The optimum course is to watch reruns of amusing sitcoms and eat good food; to gratify the animal pleasures and such pleasures of the mind as remain to aging bodies mistreated by pharmaceuticals; and to die as quickly and painlessly as the authorities permit.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 19, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    In our imperial system, it does not matter to the people whether they vote, or how; it matters, occasionally, to the contestants' position in the power structure, but nothing more than that.

    In that case, the popular vote question is not a question anymore (with the current 1 president, instead of 1,000 setup), as you point out here:

    There is a cure, but it is not changing the election mechanism so the choice of president results from the popular vote totals in a population of 300 million.

    I have mentioned before that Rome had, at one time, 2 or 4 co-emperors. You suggest 1,000 presidents, as a solution. That's nothing to do with slavery, except in the sense that we're all serfs or slaves. It about making one's voice heard within a smaller group, having someone representing you along with fewer constituents.

    The inherent problem of having representatives vote, versus direct voting, is still here, as in the example given above. The math scales up and down.

    Thomas Williams , May 19, 2017 at 11:04 am

    Nice piece: Two things to note
    – The Clintons, Bush & Obama presided over this mess and aided in it's creation but the albatross of abuse is being hung on Trump.
    – He shares an enormous egotistical blind spot common to tech workers. He wants unionization and strength for tech workers but seems to advocate for a globalized work force. More than anything else, foreign workers are responsible for wage suppression in the US. Is he saying 'Tech workers are special and should be pampered but others should work for $1.85 per day"?
    – The above points are not germaine to his central theme, which is important and well written. But it does raise questions about his values.

    Knot Galt , May 19, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    Agreed. Trump = Chucklehead and the shadow in T.S. Eliot's poem

    Jacobite_In_Training , May 19, 2017 at 11:11 am

    " Boycotts won't work, since opting out of a site like Google means opting out of much of modern life ."

    Good .Opt out of modern life. Now. Get as far away from it as you possibly can. You'll be the better person for it. There was a time I felt 'modern life' was the place to be .Now the older me realizes 'modern life' is a sham, an illusion, and a trap.

    A very cleverly designed trap, and one in which the cattle to be slaughtered all believe they are choosing their own destiny even as they are herded inexorably closer to the slaughterhouse.

    Amusingly, although my younger naive and idealistic self had a significant part to play in the great tech revolutions and evolutions through the 90's and early 2000's (for which I will be eternally regretful and ashamed, given how the creations we labored on have been whored out by the pimps in the oligarchy and government) I was also incredibly lucky to have grown up on a farm and learned how to use a hoe, a hand powered washing machine, how to gather eggs and grow things.

    Real things, things that can feed people. But more importantly .how to grow things like spirit and independence that do not rely on any flow of electrons to come to glorious fruition.

    I also so much better understand what that prophet Edward Abbey was trying to warn us about all those decades ago .

    " Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell "

    Tom , May 19, 2017 at 11:27 am

    Indeed. The promise of technology has devolved into Clickbait Nation - where millions mindlessly click on endless deceptive headlines like rats pushing levers in a giant Skinner box.

    justanotherprogressive , May 19, 2017 at 11:55 am

    Is "opting out" really an option? Are we willing to opt out out of modern medicine too?
    Whether we like it or not, we aren't opting out of using the internet, so we aren't opting out of anything this author talked about .

    Sooooo ..wouldn't a better idea be to learn as much as we can about this technology and get involved in its decision making, so that we can control it and make it work for rather than against us?

    Jacobite_In_Training , May 19, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    I've had that debate before, people typically starting with the 'well, you are posting using the Internet so you aren't really opting out of anything', but thats a simplistic approach, and the process of opting out is a matter of degrees – it is never a binary on/off.

    One can continue 'opting out' of aspects of society, and technology, to as extreme a position as you wish .even back to the stone age, should you choose. (sort of the ultimate boycott)

    Tradeoffs are inherent to the process, no argument there .just be aware that the experience of opting out is itself liberating. You realize all these shiny objects, and expensive things, and
    complicated processes that you have been raised to think of as critical necessities that cannot ever EVER be parted with .may not be so critical as you think.

    Sometimes the tradeoffs will be negative, more often – in my experience – (once you have solved the problems presented by improvising/adapting/overcoming) you will find the 'tradeoffs' are a net positive.

    You are, of course, a creature with free will and free to do what you choose . opt in, opt out .as you will. :)

    Thuto , May 19, 2017 at 12:59 pm

    Agreed, there are several gradations to this whole opting out thing. I for one am completely absent from any social media platform and feel no loss whatsoever because of this. It takes a committed group of independent thinkers to deconstruct and debunk this whole narrative that you're either "all-in" with these internet platforms or you opt out and life passes you by as you're consigned to an existence of irrelevance and ignorance about the world around you.

    MoiAussie , May 19, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you are very selective about the social media in which you participate.

    Thuto , May 19, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    If by social media we are talking facebook, instagram et al, then I have never participated in any of those. To be sure, this is not meant to sound like I take a dim view on those who do, the point is the narrative is typically framed, at least in my part of the world, as an all-in/opt-out binary in which participation in social media platforms is a prime determinant in who "remains relevant" and who doesn't

    Vatch , May 19, 2017 at 3:29 pm

    I don't have a MyFace account.

    I love saying that!

    justanotherprogressive , May 19, 2017 at 1:21 pm

    I'm not sure what you think you are opting out of. If you are on the internet, then you have to have a carrier – Verizon, Comcast, etc. Do you think their data collection systems are different than what Google, Facebook, or any other social media does?

    jrs , May 19, 2017 at 1:54 pm

    and least they aren't funding trips to mars? :)

    jrs , May 19, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    Yea I think the truly open minded probably try many of the internet platforms just to see what they are like and then delete their accounts (this does not need to entail posting one's entire private life there needless to say). Not a lot of open mindedness out there really though, it's all extremes: rigid abstinence from it all, or hopeless addiction to it.

    I mean I understand a priori rejection of the majority of what capitalism produces (except if it's necessary to life then well), but it is a pretty uninformed position from which to criticize (as is being addicted to it really).

    PKMKII , May 19, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    Even if you opt out personally, you're still going to be interacting with a lot of people, businesses, governments, etc., that are dependent on the Five Horsemen. Pay cash at the local business, but travel down the supply chain that brought the goods there and you'll run into someone using cloud storage, social media, consumer surveillance data, etc.

    Wisdom Seeker , May 19, 2017 at 1:01 pm

    Regarding "get involved in its decision making" –

    Ordinary folks have really only two ways to do this. One is in their consumer choices. Avoid or boycott companies that abuse their customers – hit them in their wallets. The other is in their voting and political participation push privacy rights, antitrust enforcement, etc. higher on the political agenda.

    It's entirely possible to be comfortably social without "social media". Personally, I boycott Facebook, Twitter, and (as much as possible) Google and Ebay. Google is tough because they have infiltrated the schools with Google Classroom (which has value, but do we really want an internet advertising company to be gathering data on our children?). Microsoft is tough because of the Office monopoly, but just because I have to use it at work doesn't mean I need to pay them any money anywhere else in my life There are also ways to buy online without using Amazon.

    lyman alpha blob , May 19, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    There are other search engines, browsers, email services, etc. besides those operated by the giants. DuckDuckGo, protonmail, and the Opera browser (with free built-in VPN!) work well for me.

    The problem is, if these other services ever do get popular enough, the tech giants will either block them by getting their stooges appointed to Federal agencies and regulating them out of existence, or buy them.

    I've been running from ISP acquisitions for years, as the little guys get bought out I have to find an even littler one. Luckily I've found a local ISP, GWI, that I've used for years now. They actually came out against the new regulations that would allow them to gather and sell their customers' data. Such anathema will probably wind up with their CEO publicly flayed for going against all that is good and holy according to the Five Horsemen.

    Mel , May 19, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    There are two sides to opting out.
    When net neutrality is gone, then capital and market concentration will transform the internet into what cable TV is now, and nobody will need it much.
    Contrariwise the big tech companies are taking over the implementation of major social functions:
    – if you can't vote without the internet
    – if you can't spend your money without the internet
    – if you can't contact your friends without the internet
    – if you can't get news without the internet - this has already happened - just look at us all here.
    – if you can't join a political party without liking it on your Facebook page and following it on Twitter - there are rumors that the Federal Liberal Party in Canada is exploring this.
    As I said somewhere else, all this would amount to an uncontracted and unspecified public/private partnership (various ones, actually) and all entered into unexamined. Time to examine them while they're still easy to change.

    HotFlash , May 19, 2017 at 5:58 pm

    there are rumors that the Federal Liberal Party in Canada is exploring this.

    Interesting. Are they going to get us all free internet? If not, I think they will find a big surprise.

    jrs , May 19, 2017 at 1:45 pm

    To assume that workers in ANY Industry (including tech where we know the big players have rigged the labor market against tech workers) have more power than consumers seems pretty unrealistic to me. Of course consumer power is one dollar one vote and hardly democratic but at least consumers do have options and some power. The employee role is a powerless one in the U.S..

    Kris Alman , May 19, 2017 at 11:40 am

    We can either continue on the knowledge economy road, where our personal data is commodified. Or we could fight for a knowledge society, where we collectively access knowledge while protecting our identity and privacy. I vote for the latter.

    Google would plant a chip in every child if they could. Short of that, they have insinuated themselves in public schools, hoping that every kid in America will consummate their relationship with this giant after they graduate from k-12. See this NY Times article from last weekend: How Google Took Over the Classroom

    It's hard to mitigate their reach. In a landmark student privacy law passed in California (with an even weaker version passed in my state of Oregon), they built in what I call a Google exemption clause.

    ( 8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon:
    (a) A provider of an electronic store, gateway, marketplace or other means of purchasing or downloading software or applications to review or enforce compliance with this section by those applications or software; or
    (b) A provider of an interactive computer service to review or enforce compliance with this section by third-party content providers. As used in this paragraph, "interactive computer service" means any information service, system or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such services or systems operated or offered by libraries or educational institutions.
    (9) This section does not apply to general audience Internet websites, general audience online services, general audience online applications or general audience mobile applications, even if login credentials created for an operator's site, service or application may be used to access those general audience sites, services or applications.

    The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Child and the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy (a group with which I have worked) just put out a Parent Toolkit for Student Privacy .

    Patient Privacy Rights has an upcoming international summit that is free. Stream it! See: https://patientprivacyrights.org/health-privacy-summit/

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 19, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    We can either continue on the knowledge economy road, where our personal data is commodified. Or we could fight for a knowledge society, where we collectively access knowledge while protecting our identity and privacy. I vote for the latter.

    When I am not accessing knowledge, I would still prefer to remain private.

    For example, what videos I access for entertainment should private. It's not knowledge I access, just something to pass time.

    That those activities should b protected as well.

    Privacy-protected-society is probably a broader term than knowledge society.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 19, 2017 at 2:09 pm

    And the Google exemption clause reads like a Facebook exemption clause as well (or Amazon or Warner Cable exemption clause).

    [May 19, 2017] I encourage at least skim some of these documents to get a better understanding of the kinds of sickening things perpetrated by the intel community in the past and then ask yourself if the veil of secrecy that surrounds them is to keep secrets from the enemy or to keep the American public from vomiting.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I found it an odd mix of straight-talk and naivete. The NSA can't spy on Americans without a warrant? Go ahead, pull the other one. ..."
    "... This caught my eye earlier. Had to come back to it. Especially after reading Mike Whitney's latest http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/ . In it, he details how seriously Clapper, Brennan et al. take those "laws and procedures." ..."
    "... Taking a recent and relevant example, remember the ICA, the "Intelligence Community Assessment"? Whitney quotes a Fox news article detailing the many ways in which it's production varied sharply from normal procedures. And of course there was all that "stove-piping" of "intel" that helped make the bogus case for the 2003 war of aggression against Iraq ..."
    "... Glad you liked it. Lily Tomlin applies: "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up." ..."
    "... Excellent post, except for the bit, as some other readers have commented, about American intelligence agencies being law abiding. Europe, and much of the world, crumbled without resistance in the face of the tech juggernauts because of the PR fetishization of anything that came out of silicon valley. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Huey Long , May 19, 2017 at 12:00 pm

    This piece is absolutely fantastic! Not to nit pick, but I do disagree with the author about the following passage:

    Even if you think our intelligence agencies are evil, they're a lawful evil. They have to follow laws and procedures, and the people in those agencies take them seriously.

    But there are no such protections for non-Americans outside the United States. The NSA would have to go to court to spy on me; they can spy on you anytime they feel like it.

    We know from the Church and Pike committees that this is patently false, and I highly doubt that this has changed much since then, especially in light of Iran-Contra and the made-up intel used to justify the Iraq invasion.

    I know I probably sound like a broken record as I often cite the Church and Pike reports in my NC comments, but they're just so little known and so important that I feel compelled to do so.

    I encourage the entire commenteriat to at least skim some of these documents to get a better understanding of the kinds of sickening things perpetrated by the intel community in the past and then ask yourself if the veil of secrecy that surrounds them is to keep secrets from the enemy or to keep the American public from vomiting.

    diptherio , May 19, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    I found it an odd mix of straight-talk and naivete. The NSA can't spy on Americans without a warrant? Go ahead, pull the other one. Talking about the "collapse of representative government" as if we've ever had one. All very cute, and very silly.

    His suggestions for putting the brakes on are good, but insufficient. My ideas as to how to go about, "connecting the tech industry to reality. Bringing its benefits to more people, and bringing the power to make decisions to more people," is here:

    http://threadingthepearls.blogspot.com/2014/11/youre-doing-it-wrong-politics-as-if.html

    Imagine a political party with no national platform-a party where local rank-and-file members select candidates from among themselves, and dictate the policies those candidates will support. [2] Imagine a political party whose candidates are transparent; one that guarantees every member an equal voice in shaping the actual policy proposals-and the votes-of their representatives. Imagine a political party whose focus is on empowering the rank-and-file members, instead of the charismatic con-artists we call politicians. Imagine a political party that runs on direct democracy, from bottom to top: open, transparent and accountable . we'll need an app maybe two

    The app already exists, actually, and it's called Loomio. Podemos uses it, along with a lot of other people:

    https://www.loomio.org/

    JustAnObserver , May 19, 2017 at 12:44 pm

    I had the same reaction to that passage, at least initially. However what I think the author might mean by this is that to have the means to combat this evil 2 things are necessary:

    o Laws and/or procedures that place limitations on the actions of these agencies – NSA, CIA, DHS etc.

    o and, much much more important, the means to ensure those laws/procedures are *enforced* as to both statute and intent.

    USians have at least the first part even if the second, enforcement, has rotted to the extent of being no more than a cruel joke. non-USian have neither.

    Note that the lack of enforcement thing extends far beyond the IC agencies into anti-trust, environmental regulation, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. etc.. Even the ludicrous botch called Dodd-Frank could work marginally better if there was some attempt to actually enforce it.

    Wisdom Seeker , May 19, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    "Dodd-Frank could work marginally better if there was some attempt to actually enforce it."

    Unenforceable and unenforced laws are a feature, not a bug, and demonstrate the corruption of the system.

    Bugs Bunny , May 19, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    The USSR had laws guaranteeing freedom of expression.

    Michael Fiorillo , May 19, 2017 at 5:35 pm

    It's a fine and entertaining piece, but flawed.

    That bit about tech workers defying management to protest Trump's travel ban seems demonstrably untrue, as the companies want that human capital pipeline kept open, and they can simultaneously wrap themselves in muliti-cultural virtue as they defend their employment practices.

    Also, and I know people here will disagree or think it irrelevant, but the "They're not bad people," thing is wrong; I think people such as Thiel, Kalanick, Zuckerberg, Ellison, add-your-own-candidates, seem like pretty awful people doing a lot of awful things, whatever their brilliance, business acumen, and relentlessness.

    Finally, while as a union guy I was pleased to see the importance he gave it, the idea of tech workers unionizing in this country seems like social science fiction, whatever their European counterparts might hopefully do.

    TheCatSaid , May 19, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    I, too, stumbled / choked when I read those paragraphs. They are provably false in so many dimensions I hardly know where to begin. It made it hard to read past.

    I will try again because so many commenters are so positive. But the author's credibility sinks when a piece starts with such blindness or misinformation or pandering.

    PhilM , May 19, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    On the one hand, it's probably some pandering, because he knows he is being watched. We all throw that same bone once in a while. From Vergil, it is called "a sop to Cerberus." On the other hand, he is correct, too: it is a "lawful evil" because it functions using tax money, which is money extorted by force with the sanction of law, rather than "chaotic evil," which is money extorted by force or fraud without that sanction. So in that positive-law-philosophy way of thinking, he has a point, even if it's a pandering point.

    knowbuddhau , May 19, 2017 at 12:16 pm

    >>>"They have to follow laws and procedures, and the people in those agencies take them seriously."

    This caught my eye earlier. Had to come back to it. Especially after reading Mike Whitney's latest http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/ . In it, he details how seriously Clapper, Brennan et al. take those "laws and procedures."

    Taking a recent and relevant example, remember the ICA, the "Intelligence Community Assessment"? Whitney quotes a Fox news article detailing the many ways in which it's production varied sharply from normal procedures. And of course there was all that "stove-piping" of "intel" that helped make the bogus case for the 2003 war of aggression against Iraq .

    I appreciate the author's point: it would be harder to surveil a particular American than a European. I'm sure rank & file people by & large respect law and procedure. But don't worry, if there's a political will to get you, there's a way. Ask Chelsea Manning.

    Whitney concludes by quoting an especially apt question posed by Michael Glennon in the May issue of Harper's: "Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard against future repression?"

    People who think they're immune to said repression, for one. Or who don't know or believe it happened/is happening at all. IOW political elites and most Americans, that's who. I think there's a good chance the soft coup will work, and most Americans would even accept a President-General.

    So while I see the author's point, I see it this way. They take laws and procedures seriously like I take traffic laws seriously. Only their solution is to corrupt law enforcement, not follow the law.

    "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - President George W. Bush

    Silicon Valley elites apparently think the same.

    TheCatSaid , May 19, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    Mike Whitney's article you linked to was interesting. George Webb's ongoing YouTube series is going further still, as he is uncovering numerous anomalies with Seth Rich's death and the circumstances and "investigation". It turns out that nothing in this story is what it seems (the "school play" scenario).

    Disturbingly, there are similarities and patterns that connect up with numerous other patterns discussed earlier in this 208-day (so far) odyssey, which started with looking at irregularities around oil pipelines and drugs shipments, and ended up including numerous additional criminal enterprises, all with direct links to high-up government staff and political staff from both major parties, with links among key participants going back over decades in some cases.

    To return to your observation–knowing what I know now–personal as well as second-hand, I don't think it's harder to surveil an american than a european. The compromises of law enforcement, justice and intelligence and rogue contractors have no international boundaries. The way the compromises are done vary depending on local methods, and the degree of public awareness may vary, but the actuality and ease–no different overall.

    knowbuddhau , May 19, 2017 at 3:36 pm

    Glad you liked it. Lily Tomlin applies: "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up."

    TheCatSaid , May 19, 2017 at 4:31 pm

    That says it all. The rabbit holes are many and deep. As a society we are in for many rude awakenings. I don't expect soft landings.

    mwbworld , May 19, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    Lots of great stuff in here, but I'll raise a slight objection to:

    three or four people who use Linux on the desktop, all of whom are probably at this conference.

    We're now up to easily 5 or 6 thank you very much, and I wasn't at the conference. ;-)

    MoiAussie , May 19, 2017 at 12:30 pm

    Make that 7.

    HotFlash , May 19, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    Eight, nine and ten in this household. I don't use any Google-stuff and have hard-deleted my Facebook account. At least they told me had, I should ask a friend to check to see if I am still there ;)

    voislav , May 19, 2017 at 1:23 pm

    But we all know that a Linux user is worth only 3/5 of a regular user, so we are back to 6. Writing this from a 2003 vintage Pentium 4 machine running Linux Mint 17.

    knowbuddhau , May 19, 2017 at 3:40 pm

    8. Built this thing myself 5 years ago. It's a quad core on an MSI mobo. Or maybe I only count as a half, since it's a dual boot with Linux Mint 17.3/Win7 Pro.

    Disturbed Voter , May 19, 2017 at 12:54 pm

    A history lesson. The PC brought freedom from the IT department, until networking enslaved us again. The freedom was temporary, we were originally supposed to be serfs of a timeshare system connected to a mainframe. France was ahead of the US in that, they had MiniTel. But like everything French is was efficient but static. In Europe, like in the US, the PC initially liberated, and then with networking, enslaved. Arpanet was the predecessor of the Internet it was a Cold War system of survivable networking, for some people. The invention of HTTP and the browser at CERN democratized the Arpanet. But it also greatly enabled State-sponsored snooping.

    We are now moving to cloud storage and Chrome-books which will restore the original vision of a timeshare system connected to a mainframe, but at a higher technical standard. What was envisioned in 1968 will be achieved, but later than planned, and in a round about way. We are not the polity we used to be. In 1968 this would have been viewed by the public with suspicion. But after 50 years later the public will view this as progress.

    Huey Long , May 19, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    In 1968 this would have been viewed by the public with suspicion. But after 50 years later the public will view this as progress.

    50 years of being force fed Bernays Sauce will tend to do that to a people :-(.

    LT , May 19, 2017 at 2:50 pm

    One thing just as dangerous and limiting as the idealized past of the conservative mindset is the idealized sense of progress of the the liberal mindset.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 19, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    You have 'a little learning is a dangerous thing.'

    Then you have the Andromeda Strain that is toxic within a small PH range.

    That is to say, nothing is inherently good or bad. It depends on when, where, what and how much.

    And so the PC brought freedom and now it doesn't.

    I suspect likewise with left-wing ideas and right-wing ideas. "How much of it? When?"

    duck1 , May 19, 2017 at 1:09 pm

    SV tech owners (think about) . . . the cool toys they'll spend profits on . . . run by chuckle heads . . . identify with progressive values . . . they want to help . . . run by a feckless leadership accountable to no one . . .
    Can't send them to Mars quick enough, I say.

    Oregoncharles , May 19, 2017 at 1:13 pm

    ." Even if you think our intelligence agencies are evil, they're a lawful evil. They have to follow laws and procedures, and the people in those agencies take them seriously."

    This is standup comedy?

    Huey Long , May 19, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    This is standup comedy?

    To the NCer, yes.

    To the general public who have swallowed what I like to call the "Jack Ryan Narrative" of how things are at the CIA, no.

    duck1 , May 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm

    The real kneeslapper was. . . American government (also) run by chuckle heads . . . what happens when these two groups . . . join forces?
    Knock me over with a feather, let us know when that happens. How many Friedman units will we have to wait?

    Oregoncharles , May 19, 2017 at 1:19 pm

    "And outside of Russia and China, Google is the world's search engine."

    How can this be? I don't use it except very rarely; my wife does, but complains about it bitterly, and so do people here at NC, presumably tech-savvy. My wife is using it out of pure habit; what about the rest of them?

    Phemfrog , May 19, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    I literally don't know anyone who doesn't use it.

    Oregoncharles , May 19, 2017 at 1:28 pm

    "Given this scary state of the world, with ecological collapse just over the horizon, and a population sharpening its pitchforks, "
    And unfortunately, that's the likeliest solution. (The family blogging "L" on this keyboard doesn't work right, so make some allowances.)

    Despite my nitpicks above, this is a very important speech and a frightening issue. In particular, I've long been concerned that so much organizing depends on giant corporations like Faceborg and Twitter. They have no reason to be our friends, and some important reasons, like this speech, to be our enemies. Do we have a backup if FB and Google decide to censor the Internet for serious?

    Thuto , May 19, 2017 at 1:33 pm

    Excellent post, except for the bit, as some other readers have commented, about American intelligence agencies being law abiding. Europe, and much of the world, crumbled without resistance in the face of the tech juggernauts because of the PR fetishization of anything that came out of silicon valley.

    The laxity of lawmakers and regulators was partly because of their unwillingness to be seen as standing in the way of "progress". A public drunk on the need to be in with the new, "disruptive" kids on the block who were "changing the world" would have teamed up with the disruptors to run rough shod over any oversight mechanisms proposed by regulators. Hence the silicon valley PR machine always prioritises the general public as the first targets of intellectual capture, because an intellectually captured public loath to give up the benefits and convenience of "progress and disruption" is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of tech giants in their global war against regulation. And the insidious nature of the damage of overreach by these tech giants isn't just limited to online interactions anymore, but the real world is also now experiencing disruption in the true sense of the word with gig economy companies reshaping the dynamics of entire markets and squeezing the most vulnerable members of society to the periphery of said markets, if not pushing them out entirely. In my own city of cape town south africa, a housing crisis is brewing as locals are being squeezed out of the housing market because landlords profit more from airbnb listings than making their properties available for long term rentals. Asset prices are being pushed up as "investors" compete to snap up available inventory to list on airbnb. And city officials seem more interested in celebrating cape town's status as "one of the top airbnb destinations" than actually protecting the interests of their own citizens. Intellectual capture, and the need to be "in with the cool disruptive kids" is infecting even public sector organizations with severe consequences for the public at large, but the public is blind to this as they've binged on the "disruption, changing the world" cool-aid

    Bill Smith , May 19, 2017 at 4:15 pm

    "PR fetishization of anything that came out of silicon valley"

    It had nothing to do with individuals thinking this stuff had value? Cell phones -> iPhone (smartphone) for example.

    Thuto , May 19, 2017 at 6:03 pm

    While individuals might derive value from "this stuff", the tech companies providing the stuff use said value, allied with massive amounts of PR spin to render regulators impotent in providing safe guards to stop the techies from morphing from value providers into something akin to encroachers for profit/power/control (e.g. encroaching upon our right to privacy by selling off our data). Providing value to the public shouldn't be used as a cloak under which the dagger used to erode our rights is hidden

    LT , May 19, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    In the links today, there is a Guardian story on Tesla workers with the quote: "Everything feels like the future but us."

    I'm reminded of another Guardian article about an ideology underpinning the grievances in Notes From An Emergency. It's imperative to understand the that the system we find ourselves in is a belief system – an ideology – and the choices to be made in regards to challenging it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in/
    An excerpt:
    "Accelerationists argue that technology, particularly computer technology, and capitalism, particularly the most aggressive, global variety, should be massively sped up and intensified – either because this is the best way forward for humanity, or because there is no alternative. Accelerationists favour automation. They favour the further merging of the digital and the human. They often favour the deregulation of business, and drastically scaled-back government. They believe that people should stop deluding themselves that economic and technological progress can be controlled. They often believe that social and political upheaval has a value in itself.

    Accelerationism, therefore, goes against conservatism, traditional socialism, social democracy, environmentalism, protectionism, populism, nationalism, localism and all the other ideologies that have sought to moderate or reverse the already hugely disruptive, seemingly runaway pace of change in the modern world "

    Be sure to catch such quotes as this:
    "We all live in an operating system set up by the accelerating triad of war, capitalism and emergent AI," says Steve Goodman, a British accelerationist

    That should remind one of this:
    "Musk is persuaded that we're living in a simulation, and he or a fellow true believer has hired programmers to try to hack it ."

    Oregoncharles , May 19, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    "Boycotts won't work, since opting out of a site like Google means opting out of much of modern life."

    I wish he wouldn't keep dropping into openly delusional statements like that. Granted, i use Google News, but there are alternatives.

    jrs , May 19, 2017 at 6:11 pm

    Yes I know, it's ridiculous. And we use them to "protect" us he claims. But about the only place where "protect" makes any sense in his whole argument is actually Amazon. It is pretty safe to buy from Amazon (or using Amazon-pay) if you fear a credit card being hacked from on online purchase. That much has some truth.

    But how does using Facebook protect anyone? How does Google protect anyone? Ok Android security is a different debate, but I really don't understand how issues of "security" etc. applies to using a Google search as opposed to any other.

    LT , May 19, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in

    A long read, but gives some background on the "disruptors" a rebrand of "accelerationism."

    (I thought I had accidently removed the link in the previous post)

    begob , May 19, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    The right wing in Britain seems to have come up with an authoritarian solution: "Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online."

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

    David, by the lake , May 19, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    Lost me right at the opening by bringing up the popular vote and the bemoaning of a "broken" system. We are a federal republic of states and I'd prefer to keep it that way. Ensuring that the executive has the support of the populations of some minimal number of states is a good thing in my view.

    craazyman , May 19, 2017 at 7:39 pm

    so much to read. so little time.

    that's when I bailed too. What drek. If a reader has half a mind, they slip and fall on a greasy doo doo in the first 15 seconds? No way can I stand to wade through the rest of what seems like a tortured screed (although I did speed read it). Turns out, I may agree in a minor way with some points, but I'll never know. I have time to waste in the real world, and I can't waste it if I'm reading somebody's internet screed about Donald Trump. God Good almighty. Enough.

    Authors watch your words. They matter! LOL. And always remember - sometimes less is more. Not NC's finest post evah. And post author's shouldn't refer to people's heads on pikes in their hotel room as being something they wouldn't object to. I mean really. That's not even junior high school humor. I give this post a 2.3 on a scale of 1-10. 1 is unbearable. 3 is readable. 10 is genius.

    PKMKII , May 19, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    The people who run Silicon Valley identify with progressive values

    Nope. There are some true progressives in the industry, yes, but they're few and far between. Understanding the dominant mindset in Silicon Valley is vital to understanding why there hasn't been pushback on all this. Sure, they like their neoliberal IdPol as it appeals to their meritocracy worship (hence the protests against the travel ban), but not with any intersectionality, especially with regards to women (the red pill/MRA mind virus infects a lot of brains in SV). Socio-economics, though, it's heavy on the libertarianism, albeit with some support for utopian government concepts like UBI, plus a futurist outlook out of that Neoliberal_rationality/ cult; Yudkowsky and his LessWrong nonsense have influence over a lot of players, big and small, in the bay area. So what you get is a bunch of people deluded into thinking they're hyperlogical while giving themselves a free pass on the begged question of where their "first principles" emerged out of. It's not just their sci-fi bubble that needs a poppin', it's their Rothbardian/Randite one as well.

    Sue , May 19, 2017 at 3:27 pm

    +1,000
    "The people who run Silicon Valley identify with progressive values"
    True! I've seen some smoking weed while talking machine language and screwing half of humanity

    Michael Fiorillo , May 19, 2017 at 5:49 pm

    Better still, they micro-dose on psychedelics while coding our binary chains: how cool is that!

    TheCatSaid , May 19, 2017 at 3:38 pm

    The points you raise are accurate. And even long before those things existed, Silicon Valley arose as conscious, deliberate high-level government strategy (or beyond-government deep state).

    The sources of new technology and funding have been deliberately obscured, at least as far as the general public debate goes. It has nothing to do with "innovation" and "entrepreneurship". It is amazing to see all countries around the world hop onto the innovation, let's-imitate-Silicon-Valley bandwagon, with no awareness that SV was no accident of a few smart/lucky individual entrepreneurs.

    jfleni , May 19, 2017 at 4:12 pm

    NOBODY has to join buttBook, review slimy effing GIGGLE, and especially use MICROSWIFT; ALTERNATIVES are easy and often more effective and especially annoying to the rich slime.

    When Balmer was Billy-Boy's Ceo he actually preached that Linux was a nefarious plot to deprive clowns like him of their well deserved "emoluments". Fortuneately, all he has to do now is sell beer and hot dogs, and make sure the cheerleaders keep their clothing on. Good job for him.

    Decide NOT to be a lemming; instead be a BOLSHIE and hit 'em hard. YOU and the whole internet will benefit.

    ginnie nyc , May 19, 2017 at 5:36 pm

    I think some of the naivete of this talk is based on a superficial knowledge of American history. Things like his remark about the Women's DC March – "America is not used to large demonstrations " Oh really.

    The writer, though intelligent, is apparently unaware of massive demos during the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Iraq war marches, the Bonus March etc etc. Perhaps his ignorance is a function of age, and perhaps the fact he was not born here, vis a vis his name.

    different clue , May 19, 2017 at 7:27 pm

    I will reply to an almost tangential little something which Maciej Ceglowski wrote near the beginning of his piece.

    " 65.8 million for Clinton
    63.0 million for Trump

    This was the second time in sixteen years that the candidate with fewer votes won the American Presidency. There is a bug in the operating system of our democracy, one of the many ways that slavery still casts its shadow over American politics."

    Really? A bug in the operating system of our democracy? That sounds like something a Clintonite would say. It sounds like something that many millions of Clintonites DID say, over and over and over again.

    Clinton got more popular votes? She got almost all of them in California. So Mr. Ceglowski thinks Clinton should be President based on that? That means Mr. Ceglowski wants the entire rest of America to be California's colonial possession, ruled by a President that California picked. And don't think we Midwestern Deplorables don't understand exACTly how Ceglowski thinks and what Ceglowski thinks of us out here in Deploristan.

    Some Clinton supporters are smarter than that. Some were not surprised. Michael Moore was not surprised. He predicted that we Deploristani Midwesterners would make Trump President whether the digitally beautiful people liked it or not. Did Mr. Ceglowski support Clinton? Did the "tech workers in short-lived revolt" support Clinton? And did they support NAFTA back in the day? You thought you would cram Trade Treason Clinton down our throat? Well, we flung Trade Patriot Trump right back in your face.

    [May 19, 2017] The instrumental and transformation view of the benefits of imperialism is reflected in comments I once read by Charles deGaulle who, as I recall saw the massacre of the Gauls by Julius Caesar, and the integration of the Gauls into the Roman polity as an essential step towards the emergence of a modern Europe

    Notable quotes:
    "... An alternative and modern view is that imperialism and colonialism are unreservedly adverse for the "natives' in that it deprives them of the freedom to shape their own futures. So many of us from the old colonies would not agree that imperialism the best thing that happened to us. But this debate continues. ..."
    "... He who pays the piper calls the tune. ..."
    "... What you are saying, sociologically, is that the Roman military conquests spread enabling technology. Well, it certainly is hard to suggest a counter-intuitive, except Jesus Christ. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    JA, May 18, 2017 at 08:02 PM

    The instrumental and transformation view of the benefits of imperialism is reflected in comments I once read by Charles deGaulle who, as I recall saw the massacre of the Gauls by Julius Caesar, and the integration of the Gauls into the Roman polity as an essential step towards the emergence of a modern Europe. [I wish I could find the reference].

    An alternative and modern view is that imperialism and colonialism are unreservedly adverse for the "natives' in that it deprives them of the freedom to shape their own futures. So many of us from the old colonies would not agree that imperialism the best thing that happened to us. But this debate continues.

    XXX, May 18, 2017 at 08:29 PM

    He who pays the piper calls the tune.

    I suspect that your citation is reasonably accurate, historically.

    What you are saying, sociologically, is that the Roman military conquests spread enabling technology. Well, it certainly is hard to suggest a counter-intuitive, except Jesus Christ.

    [May 19, 2017] Is neo-imprealism about which Branko Milanovic talks just neoliberal neocolonialism?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Installing compliant regime using the forces of internal "fifth column" of neoliberalism (which, is some cases, consists predominantly of former communists like happened in the USSR and China ;-). Actually, a step from communism to neoliberalism for Communist elite ("nomenklatura") was easy as neoliberalism is "Trotskyism for the rich." If necessary/possible it removes democratically elected governments from the power by claiming that election are falsified and the government is authoritarian (unlike the puppets they want to install). ..."
    "... After puppets came to power they mandate austerity, burden the country with debt most of which is stolen and repatriated to the West. The only new idea that neoliberals introduced in the old scenario of colonization is that the crisis for financial and political takeover can be manufactured and instead of psychical occupation of the colony you can use "comprador" regime and rule the country indirectly via financial mechanisms. This is the essence of Washington consensus. ..."
    May 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Is "neo-imperialism" the only path to development? [ in the current circumstances]

    libezkova, May 18, 2017 at 08:55 PM

    Yes, in a sense, "the rise of Asia" was a side effect of global neoliberal revolution. So the key here not imperialism per ce, but neoliberalism. Unfortunately it is missing from "questions to be asked" list and that diminished the value of the article.

    "(whence the origins of this transformation? the role of the nation-state and imperialism? the role of the bourgeois-led independence movements?)"

    Neo-imperialism (or, more correctly, neocolonialism) is intrinsically connected with neoliberalism and, by extension, with "casino capitalism" -- oversized role of financial sector under neoliberalism as the rent extraction mechanism (via "debt slavery"). It uses instead of old-fashion occupation of the country, political and financial takeover the countries in crisis.

    Installing compliant regime using the forces of internal "fifth column" of neoliberalism (which, is some cases, consists predominantly of former communists like happened in the USSR and China ;-). Actually, a step from communism to neoliberalism for Communist elite ("nomenklatura") was easy as neoliberalism is "Trotskyism for the rich." If necessary/possible it removes democratically elected governments from the power by claiming that election are falsified and the government is authoritarian (unlike the puppets they want to install).

    After puppets came to power they mandate austerity, burden the country with debt most of which is stolen and repatriated to the West. The only new idea that neoliberals introduced in the old scenario of colonization is that the crisis for financial and political takeover can be manufactured and instead of psychical occupation of the colony you can use "comprador" regime and rule the country indirectly via financial mechanisms. This is the essence of Washington consensus.

    That make neocolonialism more sustainable as the illusion of sovereignty is preserved. For example for all practical purposes Greece is now a colony. But armed struggle against occupation forces will not happen as there is no physical occupation forces in the country. They are all virtual ;-)

    "Regime change" favorable to neoliberal globalization is what the idea of "color revolution" is about. It can occur even in the country that already has a brutal neocolonial neoliberal administration. Like was the case with Yanukovich regime in Ukraine. That means that we can't separate neocolonialism and neoliberal globalization. They are two sides of the same coin.

    Also the development is not equivalent to the growth of GDP, even if we use purchase parity method of calculation of GDP. Standard of living of population and the growth of GDP can be detached under neoliberalism. Thay are not the same thing.

    Simultaneously, like under classic imperialism, the population of the "host" county (the imperial power) suffers too, because it carries the increasing burden of maintaining and expanding of the empire. The current situation in the USA is clear example of this trend.

    We also clearly see the attempts to lower the level of income to subsistence level in the USA (Wal-Mart), so this part of Marxism still have some validity. It looks like neoliberalism is not that interested in maintaining "worker aristocracy" in the "host" country. It might be replaced by upper strata of "guard labor" and "national security parasites".

    Industrialization of China was an interesting historical event -- the result to three very improbable events.

    1. Voluntarily conversion of China leadership of Communist Party to neoliberalism ( Deng Xiaoping theory "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice." )

    2. The USA successful attempt to play China against the USSR and Warsaw block.

    3. The neoliberal revolution in the USA itself, which removed the idea of sharing profits with working class (New Deal Capitalism), and opened the path to outsourcing first manufacturing and then services to the low wage countries, making China a very lucrative target for the transfer of manufacturing and wage arbitrage. Timewise it corresponded with retirement of the managerial class which fought in WWII and replacement of this generation with more technocratic and more "neoliberally brainwashed" boomers.

    Another interesting nuance is that out of "Asian tigers", only China can be viewed as nominally sovereign nation.

    Other countries are to various degrees vassals of the USA. And that puts strict limits to their growth. Actually Trump election might be a signal to those nations: "know you place".

    The idea that "Thus the seeds of the idea that imperialism may undermine class struggle in developed countries were sown and that had far reaching consequences." presuppose the working class, in classic Marxist tradition, has "revolutionary potential", the energy and the desire to overthrow the existing order.

    This part of Marxism proved to be false. It was the social-democratic parties which were key to mobilizing workers.

    This idea of the tremendous importance of the party for the modern society and that one party rule can stimulate economic development was actually inherited from Marxism by national socialism. Mussolini was a former prominent Italian social-democrat.

    The "iron rule of oligarchy" also severely undermined the Marxist idea of "socialist state" and the possibility of the rule of working class (and democracy as a political system -- Gφring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy).

    It is rumored that close to his death and seeing the emergence of "nomenklatura" as a new ruling class in the Soviet Russia Lenin exclaimed "My God, what we have done !".

    [May 19, 2017] Is neo-imperialism the only path to development

    May 19, 2017 | glineq.blogspot.com
    As is well-known (or should be well-known) Marxism has gradually developed two approaches to imperialism. Marx's own position was (until the very last years of his life) essentially and unbendingly positive: imperialism, however brutal and disruptive, was the engine whereby more advanced social formation, namely capitalism, was introduced in and transformed more backward societies. Marx's own writings on the British conquest of India are fairly unambiguous in that respect. Engels' writings on the French conquest of Algeria are (as is usually the case when one compares Engels' and Marx's writing styles) even more "brutal". In that "classical" view, Western Europe, the United States and the "Third World" would all develop capitalistically, may relatively quickly come to the approximately same levels of development, and capitalism will then directly be replaced by socialism in all of them.

    This view depended crucially on two assumptions: that (1) the Western working class remain at the low level of income (subsistence) which would then (2) assure its continued revolutionary fervor. Assumption (1) was common to all 19 th century economists, was supported until the mid-19 th century by the observed evidence, and Marx was not an exception. But towards the end of the century, Engels had noticed the emergence of "workers' aristocracy" which blunted the edge of class conflict in Britain, and possibly other advanced countries. The increase in wages was "fed", Engels argued, from colonial profits realized by British capitalists. Although the increases were mere "crumbs from capitalists' table" (Engels) they exploded the theory of the "iron law of wages" and, collaterally, the revolutionary potential of the working class in the West. Thus the seeds of the idea that imperialism may undermine class struggle in developed countries were sown and that had far reaching consequences.

    Bill Warren's "Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism" (published in 1980; unfinished due to Warren's death) credits Lenin of the post-1914 vintage for the change (or rather criticizes him for it). In Lenin's "Imperialism " the monopoly capitalism having lost the vigor of free-market capitalism and having become "decrepit" was seen in need of foreign expansion (to maintain profits at earlier levels). This in turn led to imperialist struggle for territories that ended up in World War I. At the same time, working classes' relative material ease in developed countries made them abandon the revolutionary path and support "opportunistic" and nationalistic social-democratic parties (and their leaders, notably the "renegade" Kautsky). The struggle of the "peoples of the East" (as they were called in the first congress in Baku in 1920) against imperialism become integrated into an overall struggle against capitalism, and imperialism ceased to be seen as a dynamic precursor of the forthcoming socialism, but rather the extension of moribund capitalism. In Warren's words, "it is now not the character of capitalism that determines the progressiveness of imperialism, but the character of imperialism that determines the reactionary character of capitalism" (p. 47).

    This change of position had far-reaching consequences for the thinking of the left that Warren excoriates. It led to the theories of "core" and "periphery", "structural dependency" etc. (Frank, Amin, Cardoso, Prebisch). These theories, Warren argues, were wrong because they predicted faster growth if countries were to disengage from the dominant global system (which all proved to have been illusions-Warren is less sanguine on that than we can be now), and they had nothing to do with workers' struggle in the emerging economies because they reflected the interests of nationalist Third World bourgeoisies.

    Now, I wish I could write a very lengthy review of Warren's extremely stimulating book-which also contains many infuriating sections-but I will have to leave it for another time. (In the "infuriating area", Warren, for example, celebrates the increase of inequalities in developing countries such as the concentration of land ownership into the hands of latidundistas because he regards it as an indicator of adoption of more efficient capitalistic methods of production in agriculture, p. 207). His celebrations of inequality throughout the second part of the book-dealing with post-1945 developments-would make Friedman and Hayek blush!) But my point is not Warren's book as such but its very contemporary implications.

    It is directly relevant for the understanding of the rise of new capitalist economies in Asia. Richard Baldwin's recent book (reviewed here ), even if Baldwin does not make any allusions to either the classical Marxist position or to the dependency theory, clearly shows that the economic success of Asia was based on the use of capitalistic relations of production and inclusion in the global supply chains, that is in active participation in globalization. Not passive-but a participation that was sought after, desired. It is thus no accident that China has become the main champion of globalization today. Therefore, Asian success directly disproves the dependency theories and is in full agreement with the classical Marxist position about the revolutionary impact of capitalism, and by extension of "neo-imperialism", in less developed societies.

    This has enormous implications on how we view and try to explain dramatic shifts in economic power which have occurred in the past half-century (whence the origins of this transformation? the role of the nation-state and imperialism? the role of the bourgeois-led independence movements?) and how we see the developments ahead. I will not develop these issues now because my thinking is still evolving and I plan to lay it out in a book, but I think that, in trying to understand the changes in the modern world, the best we can do is to go to the literature and the debates from exactly one hundred years ago. (And Warren's book although of course much more recent has its roots in what was discussed then). Short of that I cannot see any broader narrative that makes sense of the epochal changes we are living through.

    [May 17, 2017] Demonization of Russia that neoliberal DemoRats enjoy is not a policy. This is an attempt to create an alibi for Hillary fiasco

    May 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    pgl , May 17, 2017 at 11:28 AM

    Paul Ryan shows zero interest in investigating whether Trump obstructed justice or is in bed with the Russian government. Why? He needs to get these massive tax cuts for the 1% and take away from the "moochers" first.
    libezkova, May 17, 2017 at 07:12 PM
    " in bed with the Russian government."

    Are you a closet neocon ?

    libezkova, May 17, 2017 at 07:37 PM
    Demonization of Russia that people like PGL enjoy is not a policy. This is an attempt to create an alibi for Hillary fiasco.

    And as any witch hunt this is an obstacle to thinking rationally, of having a rational discourse about proper role of Russia in enhancing American national security.

    Which of cause is impossible with imperial pretension of Washington neocons.

    In any case Clinton's attempt to colonize Russia failed and after Yugoslavia war the USA neocons are responsible for the deteriorating relations.

    Taking into account complexity of modern weapon systems and the fact the USA has just 30 min and Russia 10-15 min for reacting to any emerging threat of rocket attack, my impression is that Washington is full of psychopaths, who enjoy walking on the blade edge. Kind of self-selection.

    Public is so successfully brainwashed that even mentioning the fact that Putin probably does not vivisect kittens provokes a strong negative reaction.

    Invoking Goodwin law there were already a country with the population brainwashed to the same extent.

    See Professor Stephen F. Cohen comments at

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/rethinking-russia-a-conve_b_7744498.html

    [May 17, 2017] The corporate media isnt interested in the truth or rationality. Russia is bad and needs to be destroyed is the narrative of the deep state that needs to be perpetuated.

    Hey this is blasphemous non-sense! Putin vivisects kittens for pleasure! We aren't supposed to think rationally about any of this. One of the foremost experts on Russia, Princeton's Stephen F. Cohen is rarely heard in the U.S. because the corporate media isn't interested in the truth or rationality. There is always some narrative of the deep state that needs to be perpetuated.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord , a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia. ..."
    "... Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. ..."
    "... Even Henry Kissinger - I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post ..."
    "... And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there. ..."
    "... Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ... ..."
    "... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed. ... ..."
    May 17, 2017 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    Last week I had the honor of interviewing Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton University, where for many years he was director of its Russian Studies program. Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord , a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia.

    Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. As Cohen explains:

    Even Henry Kissinger - I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post - wrote this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy."

    And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.

    And Cohen reminds us that, quite contrary to the common, manufactured perception in this country, we have a very willing and capable potential partner in Moscow right now. As Cohen explains, "Bill Clinton said this not too long ago: To the extent that he knew and dealt with Putin directly, he never knew him to say anything that he, Putin, didn't mean, or ever to go back on his word or break a promise he made to Clinton."

    What's more, as Cohen reminds us, when the 9/11 attacks happened, Putin was the very first international leader to offer help to President Bush:

    Putin called George Bush after 9/11 and said, "George, we're with you, whatever we can do," and in fact did more to help the Americans fight a land war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban from Kabul. ... Russia still had a lot of assets in Afghanistan, including a fighting force called the Northern Alliance. It had probably better intelligence in and about Afghanistan than any country, and it had air-route transport for American forces to fight in Afghanistan. He gave all this - Putin gave all this - to the Bush administration. Putin's Kremlin, not a member of NATO, did more to help the American land war and save American lives, therefore, in Afghanistan, than any NATO country.

    However, as Cohen explains, Bush strangely repaid Putin by (1) unilaterally withdrawing from the anti-ballistic (ABM) treaty, the "bedrock" of Russia's national security, and (2) launching the second wave of NATO expansion toward Russia.

    And, as Cohen points out, this was not the only case in which the U.S. quite brazenly betrayed Russia in recent decades. Thus he notes that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all violated the very clear agreement that, in return for Gorbachev's allowing the reunification of Germany, the U.S. would not move NATO one inch further east. In addition, the U.S. undermined then-President Medvedev (who we claim to prefer to Putin) by unseating Gaddafi in Libya - with disastrous consequences - despite our promise to Russia that we would do no such thing if Russia agreed to the Security Council resolution approving the no-fly zone over Libya.

    All of this history must be considered when we view the current crisis in Ukraine, which, Cohen warns, is quickly leading to a hot war with Russia. As Cohen relates:

    If you took even the short time frame of the Ukrainian crisis and you began it in November 2013, when the then-elected president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, didn't actually refuse to sign the European Union's offer of a partnership with Europe. He asked for time to think about it. That brought the protesters in the streets. That led to the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych, which, by the way, Poroshenko, the current president, strangely now admits was illegal. ...

    Then comes Putin's annexation or reunification of Crimea, as Russians call it. Then already evolving now in Eastern Ukraine are protests against what's happening in Kiev, because Eastern Ukraine was the electoral base of Yanukovych. Yanukovych was its president in a fundamental way. Then comes the proxy war, with Russia helping the rebel fighters in Eastern Ukraine and the United States and NATO helping the military forces of Kiev. ...

    And so it went, on and on. Now, if you back up and ask who began the aggression, it's my argument - for which I'm called a "Putin apologist," which I am not - ... but the reality is that Putin has been mostly reactive. Let me say that again: reactive. If we had the time, I could explain to you why the reportedly benign European Union offer to Kiev in 2013 was not benign at all. No Ukrainian who wanted to survive could have accepted that. And by the way, it had clauses buried below that would've obliged Kiev to adhere to NATO military security policy. ...

    Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ...

    This was clearly meant to be a war of destruction. ... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed. ...

    But this notion that this is all Putin's aggression, or Russia's aggression, is, if not 100-percent false, let us say, for the sake of being balanced and ecumenical, it's 50-percent false. And if Washington would admit that its narrative is 50-percent false, which means Russia's narrative is 50-percent correct, that's where negotiations begin and succeed.

    I can only hope that the policy makers in this country will hear the voices of people like Professor Cohen and enter into rational negotiations with Russia in order that we may be spared what is shaping up to be a disastrous war in Europe.

    Follow Dan Kovalik on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danielmkovalik

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef

    But underlying all of this, and all the furor, is a fundamental assumption. It's a term that's used constantly in the media and by the various political pundits on the media, which is "Russia is our adversary." You have to basically assume that the adversary, Russia, has an antagonistic relationship with the United States, and then underneath all of that, then you have Flynn and Comey investigation and so on. Because if Russia isn't the great adversary, then it's unlikely there'd be such a to-do about all of this.

    You know your opponent is a great master when you realize no one on this side is addressing that assumption.

    The bystanders, like us, are all too busy trying to find out if Trump didn't do this or he did do that.

    RMO May 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    We survived the original cold war (just barely and by chance – go ahead and look up how many times we came within a gnat's eyelash of global Armageddon) w don't need another one. The Washington DC elite have gone so far round the bend that General Jack D. Ripper looks calm, sane and trustworthy by comparison.

    Chauncey Gardiner

    Thanks for this informative interview with Robert English. I too share the view that a significant opportunity was squandered in the early to mid-1990s to build a constructive relationship with Russia, with the key actors mostly those who were unable to put the Cold War behind them, and who used the opportunity to debilitate Russia economically and expand U.S. power globally; as well as US and Western European financial and economic interests to a more limited extent.

    That the Trump administration is attempting to move the needle toward a more constructive geopolitical and economic relationship with Russia is a positive development IMO, as I agree with Trump that U.S. and Russian geopolitical, economic and environmental interests are often aligned, albeit not always. However, I remain concerned about global organized crime, oligarchic political and economic control, corruption and impairment of civil liberties, issues which transcend national boundaries and are not unique to Russia; and those politicians and their sponsors in the U.S. who are seeking expanded military conflict.

    I view the conversation reflected in this interview on two levels: Those predominantly interested in preserving (the perception of) U.S. global hegemony, and those primarily seeking to disempower and replace Trump as president, although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive groups. In any event, there is little question who presently has the media megaphone. It has been educational to see how pervasive their narrative can be.

    [May 17, 2017] Why Did the FBI Leak the Comey Memo naked capitalism

    May 17, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that a memo written by James Comey states that President Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into General Flynn. Now, this was all about Flynn's contacts with the Russians. He had attended an RT � the Russian television network � dinner in Moscow, he apparently held some discussions there, he was paid for attending that dinner. He also did some lobbying on behalf of Turkey and was paid for that, and the investigation also has to do with whether Flynn has something to do with the alleged interference of the Russians in the American elections. And this is a big breach of etiquette for a president to More than etiquette, I suppose � protocol, even the law � to tell an FBI director not to investigate something. I guess that's illegal. Trump, of course, and the White House denies this.

    But underlying all of this, and all the furor, is a fundamental assumption. It's a term that's used constantly in the media and by the various political pundits on the media, which is "Russia is our adversary." You have to basically assume that the adversary, Russia, has an antagonistic relationship with the United States, and then underneath all of that, then you have Flynn and Comey investigation and so on. Because if Russia isn't the great adversary, then it's unlikely there'd be such a to-do about all of this.

    Now joining us to talk about the Comey affair, the Trump affair, and just what is the issues in terms of the US-Russia relationship, is Robert English. Robert is a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California. He specializes in Russian and post-Soviet politics, US-Russian relations, and national security policy. He formerly worked for the US Department of Defense and the Committee for National Security, and has published widely in both academic and policy journals. Thanks very much for joining us, Robert.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: Happy to be here.

    PAUL JAY: Okay, so every day another storm, another drama. First of all, what do you make of Maybe the most interesting thing in all of this Comey thing today isn't Trump asking him to stop the investigation; that's not a great shocker. The more interesting thing is somebody at the FBI who has access to the Comey memo reads it to a journalist at the New York Times. There's a lot of people out to get Trump here.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: Yeah, you're pointing to this larger problem, which is this chaos, this infighting, and not just in a sort of careerist bureaucratic way, but a kind of serious pitched battle between different factions � in this case, between those in the Trump administration who seem to want a fresh start with Russia, to try to begin cooperation on things like Syria, terrorism, and so forth, and those dead set against it, who are now using leaks and so forth to In part, to fight their battles. And so the bureaucratic, the nasty, the backstabbing, the leaking, is one area of issues, but you're pointing to this larger fundamental. Can we get along with Russia? Is it worth trying to reset relations? And even if he's not the best executor so far � and he's not � is Trump's basic idea of "We can get along with Russia, let's give it a try" a good one? And I happen to think it is; it's just being carried out awfully clumsily.

    PAUL JAY: Yeah, I think one needs to separate the intent of Trump for wanting better relation with Russia, which one can analyze, and the policy itself. The policy of having a dιtente, although why there even needs to be a dιtente is kind of a question mark But why is so much of the American foreign policy establishment, the political class, the military leadership, the vast majority of that whole stratum wants to maintain a very antagonistic position towards Russia, and why?

    ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, four or five reasons that all come together, pushing in this Russophobic direction. We've always had sort of unreconstructed Cold Warriors, people who never were easy with the new Russia, right? Zbigniew Brzezinski and people of that ilk, who wanted to just push Russia in a corner, take advantage of its weakness, never give it a chance. Then you have people in the military-industrial complex, for lack of a better term, whose vested interests lie in a continued rivalry, and continued arms-racing, and continued threat inflation. You have other people who normally would be liberal progressive, but they're so angry at Hillary Clinton's loss, they're so uncomprehending of how someone they see as vulgar and unqualified as Trump could get elected, that they're naturally unwilling to let go of this "the Russians hacked our election, the Russians got Trump elected" theme, and therefore, Russia is even bigger enemy than they would be otherwise. These and other strains all come together in a strange way. Some of this is the hard right, all right? Some of it is from the left, some is from the center. And across the board, we have ignorance. Ignorance of Russia.

    PAUL JAY: Now, in an article you wrote recently, you went through some of the history, and we're going to do another segment that digs into this history more in depth, but when you look at the history of the '90s, and Yeltsin, and the whole role of the United States in helping bring down the Soviet Union, the whole point of bringing down the Soviet Union, and standing Yeltsin up, and interfering in Russian elections to make sure Yeltsin wins, and so on, was to open Russia for privatization for American oligarchs. I don't think the idea was to do it for Russian oligarchs, but that's how it turned out. Is that part of what is making this section of the American oligarchs so angry about it all?

    ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, when people look at Russia today, they try to explain it in terms of one evil man, Putin, and that sort of conceals an assumption that if we could just get rid of Putin, everything would be better, and that Putin is the way he is � anti-American � because he's from the KGB. You don't need to go back to his youth or his time in intelligence to understand why he's very skeptical, why we have bad relations with Putin and all those around him. You don't have to go back to the '50s or '40s. You can go back just to the '90s, when we interfered in Russia, when we foisted dysfunctional economic policies on them, when we meddled in their elections repeatedly, and basically for an entire decade, we were handmaidens to a catastrophe � economic, political, social � that sowed the seeds of this resentment that continues to this day. It's a-

    PAUL JAY: Yeah, you mention in your article that the consequences of the '90s depression in Russia far surpassed anything in the '07-'08 recession in the United States.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: They far surpassed that. They even far surpassed anything in our own Great Depression of the early 1930s, of '29, '30, '31 � you know, the Great Depression, under Hoover and then Roosevelt. At that time, our economy contracted by about a quarter, and the slump lasted about three years before growth resumed. Russia's economy contracted almost by half, and the slump lasted an entire decade, and it resulted not just in widespread poverty, but millions of excess deaths, of suicides, of people dying of despair, of heart disease, of treatable illnesses caused by the strains, the This deep, unbelievable misery of that decade. It's no wonder that there is deep resentment towards the US, and this underlies a lot of the Putin elites' attitudes towards us. It's not something pathological, Putin being a bad guy. If you got rid of Putin tomorrow, the next guy who came along, the person most Russians would probably elect in democratic elections, wouldn't be so different. It wouldn't be another Yeltsin or pro-Western liberal, believe me.

    PAUL JAY: Well, even if everything they say about Putin is true, and I doubt and Quite sure not everything is true. If he is such a dictator, United States foreign policy has never had any trouble with dictators, as long as they're our dictators, so the thing drips with hypocrisy.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: Hypocrisy and double standards all around are what Russians see, okay? I mean, where do you begin? Look at the recent The vote, the referendum in Crimea to secede from Ukraine, and of course, then Russia annexed it into Russian territory, and we find that outrageous, a violation of international law, and the Russians say, "Yeah, and what did you engineer in Kosovo? You yanked Kosovo out of Serbia, you caused Kosovo to secede from Serbia with no referendum, no international law. How is that different? Right? When it's your client state it's okay, but when it's ours, it's not?" And of course the list is a long one; we could spend all afternoon going through them. So the first thing we need to do is stop the sanctimony, and deal with Russia as an equal great power.

    But, you know, can I say one more thing about the '90s that connect it with what's going on today? In 1991, we had George Herbert Walker Bush in the White House. It was still the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was still in power for the rest of the year, and a warning came from our ambassador in Moscow, Jack Matlock, which was passed on to the White House. He had inside information from sources, from confidential sources, that a coup attempt was being planned. And, by the way, of course it happened in August of that year. That information came from our Ambassador Matlock, from his sources in Moscow, to the White House. George Bush had been instructed that this was highly sensitive, do not reveal the source of the information, keep it confidential. Bush fouled up, and within hours, he got on the phone to Moscow, a line that was open, monitored by the KGB, trying to reach Gorbachev, and he revealed the information, and he revealed the source, which went straight to the KGB. This was an unbelievable breach of confidentiality, dangerous, potentially deadly results, and the greatest irony is that George Herbert Walker Bush had been Director of the CIA before.

    Now, why am I telling this story? Obviously, my first point is, presidents have fouled up, and have declassified unwittingly, or sometimes for political purposes, highly sensitive information all the time. I'm not excusing what Trump did � it looks like he was very sloppy � but the first thing to note is it's not unusual, this happens a lot. The second thing, and let's talk about this, is sharing information intelligence with the Russians. Guys, we've been doing this for nearly 20 years. After 9/11, the Russians offered us valuable intelligence on the Taliban, on Afghanistan, to help us fight back against bin Laden, and we've been exchanging intelligence on terrorists ever since. A lot of people wish we'd exchange more information; we might have prevented the Boston bombing. So this hysteria about sharing intelligence with our adversary, no, we are cooperating with Russia because we have a common enemy.

    PAUL JAY: Now, I said in the beginning that I thought we should separate Trump's intent from a policy, which seems more rational, not to treat Russia as such an adversary, and try to work both in Syria and other places, negotiate more things out. But when you do look at the side of intent, I don't think you can negate or forget about the kind of historic ties that Trump has with Russian oligarchs. Some people suggest Russian Mafia. Tillerson's energy play, they would love sanctions lifted on Russia, and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be lifted, but the motive here is they want to do a massive play in the energy sector. So it's not I don't think we should forget about what drives Trump and his circle around him, which is they have a very big fossil fuel agenda and a money-making agenda. On the other hand, that doesn't mean the policy towards Russia isn't rational. I mean, what do you I don't know if you agree or not.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, yeah, you're right, those are important points, and whether you agree or not with people ranging from Ron Wyden to Lindsey Graham, they're all saying "follow the money," and in this case, I think they're right. All these probes, and all these suspicions that the Trump team colluded with Russian intelligence to throw the election, that they were cooperating, even coordinating with the Russians on the hacking, and then the release, I don't believe it. It could be true � you know, I don't have access to the evidence � but to me, it seems much more likely that what will turn up instead are financial crimes or malfeasance. People taking speaker's fees, people consulting with oligarchs, people aiding You know, helping with the elections with shady people, and depositing the money in the Cayman Islands or in Cypriot banks, not declaring income. I think that's what we're likely to find; I think that's probably what Flynn is guilty of. But the more serious charge of collusion with an adversary, even of treason to undermine our election, I doubt it very much. You're right to look at the energy business money, and sort of big-business oligarchic efforts to just get rich together.

    PAUL JAY: Yeah, because this is so much tied up with partisan politics. The Democratic Party leadership, you know, Schumer types, they just want to wound Trump any way they can, and this is a good way to cut some knives there, to get their knives out. But the real story is the financial shenanigans, and maybe Flynn was on to that. I'm not Excuse me, not Flynn, Comey. Maybe Comey was on to that, and maybe that's where this thing will lead. That's where Trump needs to fear, not the Flynn stuff.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: I think you're probably right, and again, I can only infer what might be going on, what evidence there might be, based on the subpoenas that are going out, but what we've heard says yeah, financial records, all these documents, evidence of I mean, let's go back to this issue that was the scandal of the week about five scandals ago, which means five days ago, and that was that The reason that Flynn was fired, you'll recall that after the election but before the inauguration, he met with the Russian ambassador, and they discussed all kinds of policy issues, including the possibility of moving towards removing the sanctions. When he got back to the White House, apparently he told Pence that they talked about other things, but he didn't admit that the sanctions subject had come up. Therefore, he lied; therefore, he was fired. And Sally Yates, right, the From the Attorney General's office, has made an important point that she briefed the White House on this, she warned that Flynn had been compromised, because the Russians had something on him now.

    Okay, technically they did, but come on, guys, hold on a second. Trump was about to be inaugurated, right? It wasn't as if he somehow � Flynn � could undermine a policy of Obama's when there were about five minutes left in the Obama administration. Secondly, the Russians and the Trump administration wanted openly � it was no secret � to move towards a removal of sanctions if they could find cooperation on Ukraine, cooperation on terror in the Middle East. There's no secret here. Therefore, what did the Russians have on Flynn that they could have blackmailed him with? How was he compromised? Yeah, because they'd caught him in a fib, but big deal. You see how these things are being exaggerated. No doubt Flynn broke the rules, he told a lie, but it's not a lie It's not the kind of information in the Russians' possession that's the equivalent of catching him in bed with another woman, or [inaudible 00:16:53].

    PAUL JAY: And you have to even believe that he did tell the lie, because we're being told he didn't tell Pence. We don't know if he's falling on his sword to some extent here in order to protect Pence. I mean, who knows the truth of any of that? And the rest of what he did, as far as we know, with the Russians is all public. There's a video of him speaking at an RT interview in Moscow that took place at the same time as this dinner that he was paid to attend on the 10th anniversary of RT, where he sits near Putin. There's nothing secret about any of this; this stuff's been out on YouTube for, like, ages.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: So what you have here when you add them up is a sequence of events or small misdeeds: telling a fib about this here, Trump leaking classified information there. None of them are of the magnitude that they're being portrayed with in the media, but when you string them together, it sounds like a hysterical series of

    PAUL JAY: So I can understand the Democratic Party, but in terms of what people call the permanent state, the deep state, they're very engaged in this. The leaks from the FBI We still don't, I don't think, unless I missed something, this thing where he Trump talks to the Russian ambassador and the Foreign Minister, Lavrov, and gives this Reveals this intelligence. Well, how do we know that? I mean, who's in that room that leaked that? Or, apparently, after it took place in Washington, some White House staffers phone the NSA and the CIA Well, you think they've got to call the heads of these organizations at this kind of level of information. So who's leaking that stuff? The state apparatus � CIA, FBI, maybe NSA � they're really antagonistic to this Trump administration. What is that about?

    ROBERT ENGLISH: Again, that's where we started, with not only the battle over "Should we try to improve relations with Russia, or are they incorrigible foes?" That's one thing, but now this sort of bureaucratic infighting, the use of leaks, of innuendo. And again, Trump gives them the fuel to do so with these continual misdeeds and misstatements. That's another whole arena of battle, and it's not healthy, right, to have And it's his fault too. He went to war with the intelligence community on day one. But this is so dysfunctional. It's causing us much more harm than the Russians ever could, and

    PAUL JAY: We're going to keep this conversation going in a future segment. I do want to add Anyone who watches The Real News knows this already. I mean, I think the Trump/Pence administration is going to prove to be more dangerous than the Bush/Cheney. I think it's extremely dangerous what they have in mind in terms of foreign policy. But all that being said, let's concentrate on the real stuff. Trump's in Saudi Arabia, and they're planning some bad stuff in the Middle East, and targeting of Iran, and back here, we're focusing on really what should be a sideline soap opera.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: Yeah. The series, the daily scandals that we're talking about � the Comey letter today, the leak to the Russians yesterday, on and on � are kind of distracting us from the bigger picture. Not only the question of, you know, what are our common interests, if any, with Russia, and can we seriously work towards them, but also, what are we going to do in the Middle East, and what are we doing in East Asia? These pivotal foreign policy strategic issues aren't getting much attention because of the daily soap opera. You're absolutely right.

    Let me just add at the end here � I know we're running out of time � I've noted the accidental clumsy careless leak that could've had tragic consequences of the first Bush president. We might also note that the second Bush presidency, that administration leaked like a sieve from, you know, exaggerated false intelligence on Iraq to the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative, when it suited their purposes. And the Obama administration wasn't a lot better. People like McCain and others were furious at some of the leaks, whether it was the Stuxnet cyber war tactic that was used against Iran, to a whole series of other military facts that were leaked selectively by the Obama administration to serve their purposes. Let's just remember this context. Mistaken leaks, strategic leaks, dishonest leaks go on all the time in Washington, and against that backdrop, let's not fall off the cliff here over Trump sharing some intel about terror attacks with the Russians, about our common enemy, the Islamic State in Syria.

    PAUL JAY: All right, thanks very much for joining us, and thank you for joining us on The Real News Network. Anonymous , May 17, 2017 at 2:09 am

    Some issues that are not mentioned. First, the 100 billion dollar a year cost of sanctions which gives Putin and the oligarchs incentive to do a lot of things. Second, the track record of journalists, human rights advocates and attorneys being killed in Russia. Third, the funds paid to Trump from oligarchs via over priced real estate deals.
    Guess they all fall into the "strategic issues aren't getting much attention".
    If the Putin administration or oligarchs are found to have acted illegally in the US it will be a different discussion.

    [May 16, 2017] The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
    "... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
    "... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
    "... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
    "... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
    "... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
    "... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
    "... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
    "... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
    "... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
    "... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
    "... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
    "... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.

    For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal.

    When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the 86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods" or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."

    The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was actually revealed. The Post describes how

    The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

    The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump, the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming that the Russians might have sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during the visit.

    No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting, have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations."

    So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.

    The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called Special Access Program , or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.

    There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place. Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.

    Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.

    The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret. It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.

    And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

    Thymoleontas, says: May 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    " The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East "

    On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.

    Dies Irae , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm
    You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
    MM , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm
    Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/terms_of_reference_for_the_Joint_Implementation_Group.pdf?tid=a_inl

    Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.

    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Apr 21, 2017 Ike and McCarthy: Dwight Eisenhower's Secret Campaign against Joseph McCarthy

    Author David A. Nichols reveals how President Dwight D. Eisenhower masterminded the downfall of the anti-Communist demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy.

    https://youtu.be/FAY_9aQMVbQ

    EliteCommInc , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Avoiding the minutia.

    I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky waters is important to having an effective agency.

    Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.

    I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way. I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in an appropriate manner.

    I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.

    I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.

    Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks.

    Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy objective that remains a dead end.

    __________

    And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.

    Cachip , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:12 pm
    How do you know it wasn't intended as pure misdirection?
    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

    No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/500-years-of-history-shows-that-mass-spying-is-always-aimed-at-crushing-dissent/5364462

    Johann , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
    Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
    EliteCommInc. , says: May 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm
    Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.

    What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline security.

    But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .

    Good greif . . .

    Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.

    Some relevant material on intel:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political

    http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/intelligence-failures-more-profound-than-president-admits/

    But if I were Pres Trump, I might steer clear of Russia for a while to stop feeding the beast.

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm
    Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no success in infiltrating ISIS.

    You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."

    You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-isis-evades-the-cia/

    Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia] would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."

    Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular' information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences."

    But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach." Indeed!

    You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House" – even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."

    That is, again, pure speculation on your part.

    One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of information – and the sources of dis-information.

    KennethF , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
    Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the Deep State is leaking the proof.
    collin , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
    In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC!
    charley , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:51 pm
    I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything.
    Brad Kain , says: May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm
    Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence. The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and our allies to trust the US less.

    [May 16, 2017] Trump facing shark tank feeding frenzy from military industrial media

    Notable quotes:
    "... o start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. ..."
    "... There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia. ..."
    "... Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.rt.com
    There are elements of the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with Russia, Jim Jatras, former US diplomat, told RT.

    Political analyst John Bosnitch joins the discussion. US President Trump said his White House meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ranged from airline safety to terrorism. A Washington Post story, however, has accused the American leader of revealing classified information to Russian officials.

    RT: What's your take on it? Is the media on to something big here?

    Jim Jatras: To start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. I would say that was the first thing.

    'I was in the room. It didn't happen' - National Security Advisor H.R. #McMaster https://t.co/gVIHigqXaT

    - RT America (@RT_America) 15 мая 2017 г.

    Second, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Deputy of National Security Adviser Dina Powell, who were both in the meeting, have stated since the Washington Post article appeared – there was nothing discussed with Mr. [Sergey] Lavrov and Mr. [Sergey] Kislyak that compromised what they call "sources and methods" that would lead to any kind of intelligence vulnerability on the part of the US. But rather this was all part of a discussion of common action against ISIS. Those are the first things to be noted

    Let's remember that there are elements of what we call the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with the Russians; they don't want improved relations with Moscow. And let's be honest, they have a very strong investment in the various jihadist groups that we have supported for the past six years trying to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. I am sure there are people – maybe in the National Security Council, maybe in the Staff, maybe in the State Department – who are finding some way to try and discredit the Trump administration. The question is where is the investigation into these leaks? Who is going to hold these people accountable?

    RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources.' Could it have a hidden agenda here?

    JJ: Of course. In fact, I would even go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised if President Trump timed his firing with the FBI Director James Comey – what some people even pointed out – he himself in one of his tweets says "drain the swamp." One of the first elements was getting rid of the principals of the Deep State who have been trying to hijack his policy; that he did this precisely because he was meeting with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kislyak the next day. He's shoving it in their face, saying: "I am moving forward with my program." And I think that's the reason we're getting this hysteria building around the Russians, the Russians, the Russians when what we need is to move forward on an America First national security policy.

    'US policy today: Aircraft, where co-pilots try to override pilots' (Op-Edge) https://t.co/x153yPtqVS

    - RT (@RT_com) 16 мая 2017 г.

    RT: Do you think mainstream media is a part of something big and controlled all over from the top?

    JJ: Absolutely. There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia.

    And unfortunately, there are Republicans who sympathize with this agenda, as well. I think we can say at this point that Mr. Trump is only partially in control of the apparatus of government. He does not yet have complete control and that there is a frantic effort by these elements to make sure he is not able to get control of the American government and carry out the policies he talked about.

    #Trump says he had 'absolute right' to share data on flight safety & terrorism with Russia https://t.co/U6h9FW2ZKy pic.twitter.com/eFBIRhVaI3

    - RT (@RT_com) 16 мая 2017 г.
    The 'military industrial media'

    The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media,' John Bosnitch , political analyst, told RT.

    RT: The media has run with this. Are they on to something big here?

    John Bosnitch: I wouldn't say so. I've worked in this field for three decades. I don't see a scrap of evidence here. But I do see like a shark tank of media feeding – no evidence.

    RT: Trump attacked Hillary Clinton as being unreliable with state secrets. Can the same now be said of him?

    JB: Trump is the chief executive officer of the United States of America. As the chief executive officer of the country, he has full legal and constitutional authority to use state secrets in the conduct of diplomacy. He's also the chief diplomat of the country. So there is a big difference between the chief executive officer deciding what information he can share in conducting of state policy, and Hillary Clinton deciding as a cabinet minister which laws she chooses to obey, and which ones she doesn't.

    'You cannot reset:' No way for US & Russia to start over 'with clean slate' – #Tillerson https://t.co/vC71YbLpQL

    - RT (@RT_com) 15 мая 2017 г.

    RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources'... could it have a hidden agenda here?

    JB: I don't see any other possibility, whatsoever. Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them.

    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

    [May 16, 2017] The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
    "... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
    "... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
    "... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
    "... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
    "... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
    "... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
    "... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
    "... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
    "... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
    "... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
    "... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
    "... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.

    For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal.

    When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the 86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods" or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."

    The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was actually revealed. The Post describes how

    The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

    The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump, the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming that the Russians might have sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during the visit.

    No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting, have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations."

    So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.

    The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called Special Access Program , or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.

    There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place. Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.

    Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.

    The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret. It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.

    And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

    Thymoleontas, says: May 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    " The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East "

    On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.

    Dies Irae , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm
    You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
    MM , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm
    Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/terms_of_reference_for_the_Joint_Implementation_Group.pdf?tid=a_inl

    Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.

    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Apr 21, 2017 Ike and McCarthy: Dwight Eisenhower's Secret Campaign against Joseph McCarthy

    Author David A. Nichols reveals how President Dwight D. Eisenhower masterminded the downfall of the anti-Communist demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy.

    https://youtu.be/FAY_9aQMVbQ

    EliteCommInc , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Avoiding the minutia.

    I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky waters is important to having an effective agency.

    Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.

    I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way. I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in an appropriate manner.

    I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.

    I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.

    Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks.

    Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy objective that remains a dead end.

    __________

    And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.

    Cachip , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:12 pm
    How do you know it wasn't intended as pure misdirection?
    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

    No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/500-years-of-history-shows-that-mass-spying-is-always-aimed-at-crushing-dissent/5364462

    Johann , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
    Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
    EliteCommInc. , says: May 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm
    Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.

    What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline security.

    But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .

    Good greif . . .

    Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.

    Some relevant material on intel:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political

    http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/intelligence-failures-more-profound-than-president-admits/

    But if I were Pres Trump, I might steer clear of Russia for a while to stop feeding the beast.

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm
    Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no success in infiltrating ISIS.

    You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."

    You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-isis-evades-the-cia/

    Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia] would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."

    Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular' information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences."

    But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach." Indeed!

    You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House" – even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."

    That is, again, pure speculation on your part.

    One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of information – and the sources of dis-information.

    KennethF , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
    Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the Deep State is leaking the proof.
    collin , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
    In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC!
    charley , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:51 pm
    I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything.
    Brad Kain , says: May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm
    Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence. The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and our allies to trust the US less.

    [May 15, 2017] Ann Coulter Is Worried The Trump-Haters Were Right

    May 15, 2017 | dailycaller.com
    So there's no wall, and Obama's amnesties look like they are here to stay. Do you still trust Trump?

    Uhhhh. I'm not very happy with what has happened so far. I guess we have to try to push him to keep his promises. But this isn't North Korea, and if he doesn't keep his promises I'm out. This is why we voted for him. I think everyone who voted for him knew his personality was grotesque, it was the issues.

    I hate to say it, but I agree with every line in my friend Frank Bruni's op-ed in The New York Times today. Where is the great negotiation? Where is the bull in the china shop we wanted? That budget the Republicans pushed through was like a practical joke Did we win anything? And this is the great negotiator?

    You said during the election and in columns that if there is no wall it's the end of America.

    Trump was our last shot. I kind of thought it was Romney, and then lo and behold like a miracle Trump comes along. I still believe in Trump_vs_deep_state. I have no regrets for ferociously supporting him. What choice did we have?

    We had no choice. Yeah, I mean, my fingers are still crossed. It's not like I'm out yet, but boy, things don't look good. I've said to other people, "It's as if we're in Chicago and Trump tells us he's going to get us to LA in six days. But for the first three days we are driving towards New York. Yes, it is true he can still turn around and get us to LA in three days, but I'm a little nervous.

    [May 15, 2017] Trump fires FBI director James Comey, Swamp Goes Wild

    May 10, 2017 | www.eutimes.net

    In the political swamp that is Washington, and in the press swamp, motor boats began speeding every which way in the wake of Trump's decision to fire FBI Director Comey.

    People in the boats are holding up signs to explain the reason for the firing.

    The first sign was: COMEY LIED. Comey lied the other day. He lied in testimony before Congress, when he said Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's long-time aide, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of emails to her husband, Anthony Weiner, some of which contained classified information. The truth was, the FBI says, contradicting Comey, a great many of those emails were merely "backed up" on Weiner's laptop via "backup devices." Huh? Does that actually mean something? Weiner obtained those emails out of the sky, delivered by a chariot, and not from Huma? Weiner's laptop was serving as a storage device, a personal little cloud? Somebody not connected to the Hillary campaign was using the social-media's porn star as a backup for classified data? Who would that be? Putin? Putin hacked the Hillary/DNC emails, and sent them to both WikiLeaks and Anthony Weiner? "Hi Anthony. Vlad here. Keep these thousands of emails for posterity."

    The next motor boat running through the swamp featured a sign that said: COMEY SCREWED UP THE HILLARY INVESTIGATION. This sign can be interpreted several ways, depending on who is in the boat. One, Comey didn't press the investigation into Hillary's personal email server far enough last summer and fall. He stalled it. He didn't ask for an indictment. That's why Trump fired him yesterday. Trump didn't fire Comey right after he was elected president, when it would have been a simple bye bye. No, Trump waited five months and then lowered the boom. Sure.

    The other meaning of COMEY SCREWED UP THE HILLARY INVESTIGATION is: Comey improperly told the world (last summer) that the FBI was investigating Hillary. His announcement influenced the election. The FBI is supposed to keep absolutely quiet about ongoing investigations. Comey didn't. Then he publicly closed the book on the investigation, opened it again, and closed it again. That's why Trump just fired him. Again, Trump waited five months after the election and then got rid of Comey. And of course, Trump was morally outraged that Comey exposed Hillary in the first place, when Comey should have remained silent. Sure. That makes a lot of sense.

    The next motor boat speeding across the swamp held up a big sign that said, TRUMP FIRED COMEY TO STOP THE FBI FROM INVESTIGATING THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION. You see, for five months, Trump happily left Comey in place, knowing Comey was investigating him, Trump, and yesterday Trump had enough of that, so he fired the FBI director. Right.

    The next motor boat in the swamp held up a sign that said, THIS IS NIXON ALL OVER AGAIN, THIS IS TRUMP'S WATERGATE. The sign refers to the last sign, but ups the ante. And there is another sign that says, in the same vein, NOW WE CAN IMPEACH TRUMP. And another one that says, APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION.

    I'm waiting for Bob Woodward of Watergate fame to step in and say, "It's all right, folks, I'm on the case. I'll handle it. I was just eating lunch and sipping a fine wine in my underground parking garage when a shadowy figure stepped out of the gloom and whispered, 'My throat is deep, and I'll spoon-feed you secrets for the next year, but you'll have to dig up the facts. Everybody is involved in the cover-up. Comey, Sessions, Pence, Bannon, Conway, Ivanka, Putin, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Stalin."

    So why did Trump fire Comey yesterday?

    I don't know, but the short answer might be: Comey's boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, told Trump to get rid of Comey. Sessions made the call.

    Sessions now has a specific plan to make the FBI over in the image he prefers. Sessions wants to shape the Bureau according to his agendas. Sessions has looked into the Bureau and he now knows which people he wants to fire. He wants to get rid of the Obama crowd. He wants loyalists. He doesn't want a Dept. of Justice that is going in one direction, while the FBI is going in another. Sessions wants a predictable FBI. His own.

    Joel Pollak, writing at Breitbart, has a simpler answer to the question, why fire Comey now? Pollak writes :

    "But why fire Comey now? The answer is simple. The day before, President Barack Obama's former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper repeated, under oath, what he told NBC News' Chuck Todd on Meet the Press on March 5 - that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. That gave the Trump administration the breathing room to dismiss Comey - which it simply did not have before."

    In other words, now Trump can't be accused of firing Comey to stop "the truth" emerging about a Trump-Russia collusion, because there isn't any collusion.

    Theoretically, that might be the case-but the spin machine doesn't care about the truth or who is right and who is wrong. The machine keeps running. Those motor boats keep moving across the swamp. Signs come out. People yell and scream.

    Chuck Schumer may soon compare Trump to Benedict Arnold.

    For the past 65 years, the CIA has been infiltrating media and promoting many messages. In certain cases, an op involves promoting CONFLICTING messages, because the intent is sowing discord, chaos, and division. In this instance (Comey/Trump), it's a walk in the park (or a ride in the swamp). All sorts of people on both sides already have steam coming out of their ears, without any nudging or provocation.

    A child could run this spin counter-spin op.

    And we're just getting started.

    Source

    [May 15, 2017] The Hazards of Military Worship: Everyone Loves the Troops and Their Generals, But History Indicates That Military Advice Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be by Danny Sjursen

    Afghan war is actually Afghanistan occupation with some insurgency, not a war...
    Notable quotes:
    "... civilian control of the military, and of the policymaking process that goes with military action, is not just a constitutional imperative but desirable for thoroughly practical reasons. Which, in turn, is why the makeup of the current administration - with an unprecedented number of generals in key positions - raises some serious questions. ..."
    "... And yet the problem is so much bigger than that. Somehow - and this should be truly unnerving - Americans have gotten to a place where, it seems, they trust only ..."
    "... Where the nation puts its money both reflects this reality and aggravates it. Consider that in this fiscal year military spending exceeded $600 billion, or 12 times the State Department's budget. Worse still, the new president's proposed budget would cut State by more than one-third - despite former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates's quip that there are already more members of military bands than Foreign Service officers. ..."
    "... MacArthur in Korea ..."
    "... Ike vs. the Generals ..."
    "... Kennedy and the Joint Chiefs Deal With Cuba ..."
    "... The Generals Grapple With Southeast Asia ..."
    "... our nation turned its lonely eyes to him ..."
    "... Before he used his new troops to launch his first major offensive into largely Taliban-controlled, opium-poppy-rich Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, McChyrstal proudly announced that he not only had a military force ready to go, but "a government in a box, ready to roll in," too. Seven years later, with more American soldiers once again being sent back into Helmand Province and the Taliban ascendant in significant parts of it, can there be any question how badly McChrystal's strategy failed? Today, in fact, more of Afghanistan is under Taliban control than at any time since 2001. As retired army colonel and Professor Gregory Daddis observed , "Looking back, the logic flaws become clear." After all, Daddis continued, "how could counterinsurgents provide security if the population too often saw U.S. soldiers as 'anti-bodies' invading their body politic?" ..."
    "... After much positive and often fawning news coverage in the wake of his recent Tomahawk missile strike in Syria, it's hard to imagine that the president won't grant the generals' wishes. In fact, he has already reportedly turned over decision-making on U.S. troop levels in Syria and Iraq to them. And yet it should be obvious enough that more of the same, without even the semblance of credible alternatives or dissenting voices, is an innovation-stifling loser of an option. Fifteen years later, it doesn't take a genius to know that something about U.S. strategy hasn't been and isn't working . ..."
    "... Civilian policymakers haven't always been right, but since World War II, the generals have the weaker (and far more hair-raising) record. ..."
    "... Republics are imperiled when a military caste diverges from civil society. Despite the glowing (if shallow) praise heaped on America's all-volunteer force, it is increasingly distant from the population in whose name it theoretically fights. ..."
    "... What's the purpose of this all-powerful US military? To transform much of the world into a simulacrum of a semi-religious Anglo-Celtic Israel-worshiper? Or turn the people of the world into a mass of secular hedonist consumerist debtors in servitude to the banks? The Soviet Union is long dead and every POTUS since 9/11 has said how much we all have to love Islam except for a tiny band of fanatics. ..."
    "... So what is all the fuss about and why are we worshiping the military? ..."
    May 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    More, more, more.

    I was guilty of it myself. Commanding a small cavalry troop of about 85 soldiers in southwest Kandahar Province back in 2011, I certainly wanted and requested more: more troopers, more Special Forces advisers, more Afghan police, more air support, more supplies, more money, more everything. Like so many others in Afghanistan back then, I wanted whatever resources would protect the guys in my unit and fend off the insurgent threat. No one, of course, asked me if the U.S. military should even be there, nor did I presume to raise the question. I was, after all, just a captain dug into a tough fight in a dangerous district.

    It's funny, though, people sometimes ask me now, "What's really going on in Afghanistan?" They ask the same question about Iraq, where I led a unit back in 2006-2007. I mean, the implication is: If you served over there, unlike those (liberal!) pundits and politicians who regularly mouth off on the subject, who would know better? But I've learned over the years that what they don't want to hear is my real answer to such questions, so I rarely bother to tell them that historians, analysts, and thoughtful critics, even ones who haven't been within thousands of miles of our war zones, probably understand the "big picture" better than most soldiers.

    That's the dirty little secret of America's wars: despite the omniscient claims of some veterans, most soldiers see their version of war as if gazing through a straw at 30,000 feet. Combat and dedication to your unit and mission naturally steer you toward such tunnel vision. And here's the sad thing that no one wants to admit: that mantra applies as strongly to generals as to sergeants (and if you don't believe that, just check out our wars of the last 15 years). So it's worrisome when president after president defers to and all too often hides behind the supposed wisdom of active and retired three- and four-star flag officers.

    Don't get me wrong, some of these guys can be impressive. No one is perfect, but former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey was a gem with genuine scholarly and combat bona fides . But consider him and a few others the exceptions that prove the rule. Which is why civilian control of the military, and of the policymaking process that goes with military action, is not just a constitutional imperative but desirable for thoroughly practical reasons. Which, in turn, is why the makeup of the current administration - with an unprecedented number of generals in key positions - raises some serious questions.

    And yet the problem is so much bigger than that. Somehow - and this should be truly unnerving - Americans have gotten to a place where, it seems, they trust only soldiers. In June 2016, for instance, a Gallup poll found that 73% of Americans had "quite a lot" of confidence in the military, versus 36% for the presidency and 6% for Congress. Such disparities ought to inspire distress about the direction of our public institutions, but rarely do.

    Where the nation puts its money both reflects this reality and aggravates it. Consider that in this fiscal year military spending exceeded $600 billion, or 12 times the State Department's budget. Worse still, the new president's proposed budget would cut State by more than one-third - despite former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates's quip that there are already more members of military bands than Foreign Service officers.

    The Myth of (Infallible) Military Judgment

    By now, it's part of American lore that, facing a thorny problem or potential conflict abroad, a president should throw some stars at it. If only generals were indeed pixie dust. Historically speaking, though, since World War II, calling on the generals has often resulted in abject failure. There's plenty of evidence of that in the last 15 years of, at best, inconclusive war in the Greater Middle East, but first, let's take a brief tour of military advice from the previous century's crises.

    MacArthur in Korea

    In October 1950, just months after the Korean War began, President Harry Truman met General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the coalition forces in Korea, on Wake Island. There, MacArthur assured the president of two things: that the Chinese would not intervene in the war and that the fighting would be over by Christmas. A month later, hundreds of thousands of Chinese "volunteers" streamed across the Yalu River into northern Korea, sending MacArthur's troops into headlong retreat. Wrong once, the general promptly called for a massive U.S. troop escalation and the bombing of China, perhaps even nuclear attacks on that country. Truman recoiled, fired the general, and opened negotiations, all while avoiding nuclear war. And what happened to the twice-wrong MacArthur? In April 1951, with the war still underway - an armistice wouldn't finally come until July 1953 - he received a record-breaking 19-mile-long ticker-tape parade through New York City in which 3,249 tons of paper rained down on him.

    Ike vs. the Generals

    President Dwight Eisenhower so loved the Army that he asked his successor to return him to his five-star rank. That way he'd be addressed as "General" rather than "Mr. President" in retirement. Yet no president was more dismissive of the notion that military men, rather than civilians, know what's best. When a senator contended that the Air Force was better positioned than politicians to assess its own needs, Ike snapped back, "Bunk!" (He knew the Pentagon regularly overstated its case.) As for sage military advice, Eisenhower dismissed General Mark Clark's plans for an all-out assault in Korea as "madness" and sacked all his service chiefs after they "revolted" over a truncated defense budget he proposed. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Arthur Radford, even hinted that it might be "high time" to reexamine the taboo against using nuclear weapons in that war. Despite significant saber-rattling, Ike ultimately chose restraint.

    In fact, he was notoriously skeptical of his generals' advice and left office famously warning Americans about a growing "military-industrial complex." The result of his presidency: the commanding general and hero of World War II held down defense spending, never used nukes, ended the bloody stalemate of a war in Korea, and - most importantly - avoided World War III.

    Kennedy and the Joint Chiefs Deal With Cuba

    The U.S. high command, like much of the American public, was obsessed with newly Communist Cuba. In April 1961, after the Bay of Pigs, a disastrous CIA-sponsored invasion by Cuban ιmigrιs, the generals proposed a new plan , Operation Northwoods. Approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it called for false-flag terrorist attacks on ιmigrιs in Miami or on U.S. ships off the coast to drum up public support for a war against Cuba. President John F. Kennedy refused.

    Soon after came the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought humanity as close to extinction as it's ever come. When U.S. intelligence learned that the Soviet Union had stationed nuclear missiles on that island, just 90 miles from Florida, the government entered full-scale panic mode. During deliberations on how to proceed, the Joint Chiefs - to a man - recommended air strikes against Cuba and a possible follow-on invasion. Later, in a memo, they declared that they were prepared to use "nuclear weapons for limited war operations in the Cuban area."

    Instead, Kennedy chose a blockade and negotiations. The Russians responded by pulling their missiles out of Cuba and humankind lived to fight another day. After one of those meetings, Kennedy remarked to an aide, "These brass hats [generals and admirals] have one great advantage. If we do what they want us to do, none of us will be alive later to tell them that they were wrong." Deeply disturbed by the advice of the Chiefs during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy later confided to some White House guests that "the first thing I'm going to tell my successor is to watch the generals, and to avoid feeling that just because they were military men, their opinions on military matters were worth a damn."

    The Generals Grapple With Southeast Asia

    In April 1961, the Joint Chiefs recommended that President Kennedy intervene to stop a "North Vietnamese-sponsored" Communist offensive in Laos through the use of air strikes and the introduction of U.S. ground forces in that country. When Kennedy asked the military chiefs what to do if the North Vietnamese Communists bombed Laotian airports as the U.S. flew in troops, one replied : "You [drop] a bomb on Hanoi, and you start using atomic weapons!" In fact, Army General Lyman Lemnitzer assured the president that "if we are given the right to use nuclear weapons, we can guarantee victory." Kennedy ruled against his generals on both counts.

    Nevertheless, Kennedy and then President Lyndon Johnson foolishly agreed to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In that war, admittedly, civilian policymakers were often the chief villains. However, the generals were anything but blameless. In 1967, as U.S. casualties increased and many Americans began to question the country's involvement in the conflict, the senior commander, General William Westmoreland, assured Congress that there was, in a phrase that became infamous, "light at the end of the tunnel." When Vietcong guerillas attacked nearly every American base in South Vietnam in the January 1968 Tet Offensive, he had only one answer, a solution once again all-too-familiar to twenty-first-century Americans: more. He requested 206,000 additional U.S. troops on top of the half-million-plus already in Vietnam. President Johnson balked and began negotiations with North Vietnam. It took - tragically - seven more bloody years, but eventually U.S. troops were extracted from what a near consensus of credible historians now conclude was an "unwinnable" war.

    These examples obviously don't imply that no general ever gave solid advice or that civilians weren't perfectly capable of concocting their own hare-brained war-making schemes. Rather, the point is to deflate - just a bit - the present all-too-popular notion of American military infallibility, or at least superiority.

    It's dangerous to deify any public institution, let alone the country's bureau of violence. That's not, in itself, a knock at the military to which I've dedicated my adult life, but a basic recognition of the gravity of all martial exertions. No government agency is so holy that it shouldn't be scrutinized, not in a real democracy. Yet American society is headed in that very direction, along with its new president. On Inauguration Day, finding himself in a crowded room with all the generals he had appointed to key positions in his administration around him, he declared emphatically, "I see my generals, generals that are going to keep us so safe."

    We usually imagine the threat of military control over decision-making as an aspect of opaque autocracies, but it can also stem from the excessive exultation of a "warrior" class in a democracy. Consider the chilling comments of White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer after a controversial raid in Yemen in January left Ryan Owens, a Navy SEAL, several al-Qaeda fighters, and a number of civilians, as well as several children, dead .

    Spicer took umbrage after a number of people, including the notoriously hawkish, wildly pro-military, former POW Senator John McCain, questioned the operation's value. The press secretary's statement, however, went beyond standard partisan defensiveness and into genuinely treacherous territory when he asserted that "anyone who would suggest [the raid] is not a success does disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens." That represents a new standard for public debate on military operations. Think of the implications: if a single serviceman dies, then all critical scrutiny of such actions is off the table, being by its very nature disrespectful and unpatriotic. Taken to its logical conclusion, such an approach would leave no room for public protest or even the vestiges of an antiwar movement in response to future American war making.

    Lest anyone imagine that Spicer simply misspoke, President Trump promptly upped the ante. He tweeted : "Sen. McCain should not be talking about the success or failure of a mission to the media. Only emboldens the enemy our hero died on a winning mission." Take a moment to let that sink in: to question the effectiveness of a raid in a country with which the U.S. is not at war, which resulted in multiple military and civilian deaths - even when the critic is the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee - should now be considered "emboldening" the enemy. Somebody pinch me.

    Generally, however, that raid led mainly to endless praise for both Chief Petty Officer Owens and the U.S. military. In fact, no matter the situation, the carnage involved, or the decision-making behind it, the rhetoric of praise for America's "warriors" has become a commonplace of our national life.

    In fact, we military professionals ought to be confident enough to weather genuine scrutiny of both our decision-making and our acts. The danger is this: while we're caught up in the countless " thanks-for-your-service " platitudes, upgraded airline seating, ever larger flags flying o'er sporting events, and other forms of hollow soldier-worship and militarized "patriotism," the nation may be losing something precious: the right to dissent.

    Bogus "Options"

    In nearly every recent instance when military commanders were asked for a strategy review, the response was the same. What was needed, swore the generals repeatedly, were more troops, more airstrikes, more bases, more money, and more time. A rare exception to this litany of more came from former Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey who laid out not just the options, but also the potential costs of a Syrian intervention.

    Presidents deserve and require such real options. Too often, however, especially in this country's 15-year "war on terror" across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, senior military leaders have failed to present plausible, achievable choices to the commander-in-chief. Nearly all of them have proved to be "more" guys.

    Consider, for instance, Afghanistan in 2009. Things had been going poorly indeed in what was already an eight-year-old war. And so our nation turned its lonely eyes to him - General Stanley McChrystal, a special operator fresh off a tour tracking down and killing al-Qaeda in Iraq's leadership, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

    Asked to conduct a "strategic review" and present Barack Obama with military options in Afghanistan, McChrystal instead offered the new president a Goldilocks dilemma. He submitted what were, in essence, three versions of the same option: surge big, surge little, or surge just right. Those "options" failed the Army's own doctrinal course of action test - solutions must be suitable, feasible, acceptable, and distinguishable. Since all three of McChrystal's choices involved counterinsurgency and troop escalation, they were hardly distinguishable.

    Instead, they did what they were meant to do and boxed the young president into an escalatory corner, a "more" decision being not just the commander's favored but only course of action. Obama grumbled and then sent McChrystal his reinforcements. It sounded like Iraq 2006-2007 all over again. Only this time - the president and Americans more generally were assured - the ensuing surge would be even better, involving a supposedly comprehensive, interagency approach to the Afghan War.

    Before he used his new troops to launch his first major offensive into largely Taliban-controlled, opium-poppy-rich Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, McChyrstal proudly announced that he not only had a military force ready to go, but "a government in a box, ready to roll in," too. Seven years later, with more American soldiers once again being sent back into Helmand Province and the Taliban ascendant in significant parts of it, can there be any question how badly McChrystal's strategy failed? Today, in fact, more of Afghanistan is under Taliban control than at any time since 2001. As retired army colonel and Professor Gregory Daddis observed , "Looking back, the logic flaws become clear." After all, Daddis continued, "how could counterinsurgents provide security if the population too often saw U.S. soldiers as 'anti-bodies' invading their body politic?"

    Perhaps at this point it won't surprise you to learn that two civilians on the Obama team - Vice President Joseph Biden and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (as well as ex-lieutenant general) Karl Eikenberry - doubted from the start the U.S. military's ability to impose an external solution on Afghans via such a surge. They were ignored. After all, who knows better than the guys overseeing the actual fighting?

    Which raises the question: How will the Trump administration's generals, now in crucial government positions, counsel the president regarding Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and North Korea? Predictions are always a dicey matter, but recent history suggests that we can expect military escalation, which already seems to be underway in at least three of those countries. More , after all, remains the option of choice for America's generals almost 70 years after MacArthur went head to head with his president over Korea.

    What then is to be expected when it comes to the conflict with ISIS in Iraq, the complex, multi-faceted Syrian civil war, and America's longest war of all in Afghanistan? All signs point to more of the same. Open up a newspaper or check out a relevant website and you'll find, for example, that U.S. Afghan commander General John Nicholson wants a new mini-surge of American troops dispatched into that country, while the U.S. commander in the fight against ISIS, General Stephen Townsend, may require yet more ground troops to "win" in Iraq and Syria.

    After much positive and often fawning news coverage in the wake of his recent Tomahawk missile strike in Syria, it's hard to imagine that the president won't grant the generals' wishes. In fact, he has already reportedly turned over decision-making on U.S. troop levels in Syria and Iraq to them. And yet it should be obvious enough that more of the same, without even the semblance of credible alternatives or dissenting voices, is an innovation-stifling loser of an option. Fifteen years later, it doesn't take a genius to know that something about U.S. strategy hasn't been and isn't working .

    The Choice

    So, isn't it well past time for the generals and civilian leaders to ask the obvious question: Does the U.S. even have the ability to improve such societies via military power? These days, unfortunately, such thinking rings heretical to martial ears. Yet not to raise such questions is to ensure that Americans will experience a kind of endless dιjΰ vu in their wars.

    What this country needs right now are civilian leaders who think strategically, exude confidence, and aren't afraid to challenge military advice. Appropriate respect for senior servicemen shouldn't mean either impulsive adulation or timid apprehension. Civilian policymakers haven't always been right, but since World War II, the generals have the weaker (and far more hair-raising) record.

    Republics are imperiled when a military caste diverges from civil society. Despite the glowing (if shallow) praise heaped on America's all-volunteer force, it is increasingly distant from the population in whose name it theoretically fights.

    For those of us still in uniform, thoughtlessly soldiering on may sound both stalwart and romantic, but it rarely amounts to a sagacious strategy. Don't take my word for it, consider the climactic scene in Once an Eagle , a legendary novel within the American officer corps and long a staple on every general's recommended professional reading list. This highly touted , if ill-understood , book ends as its protagonist, an aged, decorated general, slowly dies from wounds inflicted by a Vietnamese "terrorist" bomber. Gasping his final breath, the old soldier dispenses his last pearl of wisdom to a junior officer: "Remember, Joey, if it comes to a choice between being a good soldier and a good human being - try to be a good human being "

    In war, as in much else, there's often wisdom in abstention. And when it comes to war, sometimes less is more.

    Major Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife and four sons near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

    [ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]

    fnn says: May 12, 2017 at 1:24 am GMT • 100 Words

    What's the purpose of this all-powerful US military? To transform much of the world into a simulacrum of a semi-religious Anglo-Celtic Israel-worshiper? Or turn the people of the world into a mass of secular hedonist consumerist debtors in servitude to the banks? The Soviet Union is long dead and every POTUS since 9/11 has said how much we all have to love Islam except for a tiny band of fanatics.

    So what is all the fuss about and why are we worshiping the military?

    [May 14, 2017] The Russia Hacking Fiasco No Evidence Required by Mike Whitney

    Notable quotes:
    "... Whether Russia was involved in the US elections or not, is a matter of pure speculation. But speculation is not sufficient grounds for appointing a special prosecutor, nor are the lies and misinformation that appear daily in our leading newspapers, like the dissembling New York Times, the dissembling Washington Post and the dissembling Wall Street Journal. The call for a special prosecutor is not based on evidence, it is based on politics, the politics of personal destruction. ..."
    "... And that's precisely what the special prosecutor provision is designed to do; it provides the administration's rivals with the weapons they need to conduct a massive fishing expedition aimed at character assassination and, ultimately, impeachment. ..."
    "... Donald Trump had the audacity to win an election that was earmarked for establishment favorite and globalist warmonger-in-chief, Hillary Clinton. That's what this witch hunt is all about, sour grapes. ..."
    "... But why has Russia been chosen as the target in this deep state-media scam? What has Russia done to deserve all the negative press and unsupported claims of criminal meddling? ..."
    "... That's easy. Just look at a map. For the last 16 years, the US has been rampaging across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington intends to control critical oil and natural gas reserves in the ME, establish military bases across Central Asia, and remain the dominant player in an area of that is set to become the most populous and prosperous region of the world. It's the Great Game all over again, only this time-around, Uncle Sam is in the drivers seat not the Queen of England. But one country has upset that plan, blocked that plan, derailed that plan. Russia. ..."
    "... For the last quarter of a century– since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union– the world has been Washington's oyster. If the president of the United States wanted to invade a country in the Middle East, kill a million people, and leave the place in a smoldering pile of rubble, then who could stop him? Nobody. But now that's all changed. Now evil Putin has thrown up a roadblock to US hegemony in Syria and Ukraine. Now Washington's landbridge to Central Asia has been split in two, and its plan to control vital pipeline corridors from Qatar to the EU is no longer viable. Russia has stopped Washington dead-in-its tracks and Washington is furious. ..."
    "... The anti-Russia hysteria in the western media is equal to the pain the US foreign policy establishment is currently experiencing. And the reason the foreign policy establishment is in so much pain, is because they are not getting their way. It's that simple. Their global strategy is in a shambles because Russia will not let them topple the Syrian government, install their own puppet regime, redraw the map of the Middle East, run roughshod over international law, and tighten their grip on another battered war-torn part of the world. ..."
    "... So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught to hate Russia and all-things Russian. ..."
    "... Russia has become the all-purpose punching bag because Washington's plans for global domination have gone up in smoke. ..."
    May 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    There's no proof that Russia hacked the US elections. There's no proof that Russian officials or Russian agents colluded with members of the Trump campaign.

    There's no proof that Russia provided material support of any kind for the Trump campaign or that Russian agents hacked Hillary Clinton's emails or that Russian officials provided Wikileaks with emails that were intended to sabotage Hillary's chances to win the election.

    So far, no one in any of the 17 US intelligence agencies has stepped forward and verified the claims of Russian meddling or produced a scintilla of hard evidence that Russia was in anyway involved in the 2016 elections.

    No proof means no proof. It means that the people and organizations that are making these uncorroborated claims have no basis for legal action, no presumption of wrongdoing, and no grounds for prosecution. They have nothing. Zilch. Their claims, charges and accusations are like the soap bubbles we give to our children and grandchildren. The brightly-colored bubbles wobble across the sky for a minute or two and then, Poof, they vanish into the ether. The claims of Russia hacking are like these bubbles. They are empty, unsubstantiated rumors completely devoid of substance. Poof.

    It has been eight months since the inception of this unprecedentedly-pathetic and infinitely-irritating propaganda campaign, and in those eight months neither the media nor the politicos nor the Intel agents who claim to be certain that Russia meddled in US elections, have produced anything that even remotely resembles evidence. Instead, they have trotted out the same lie over and over again ad nauseam from every newspaper, every tabloid and every televised news program in the country. Over and over and over again. The media's persistence is nearly as impressive as its cynicism, which is the one quality that they seem to have mastered. The coverage has been relentless, ubiquitous, pernicious and mendacious. The only problem is that there's not a grain of truth to any of it. It is all 100 percent, unalloyed baloney.

    So it doesn't matter how many Democratic senators and congressmen disgrace themselves by lighting their hair on fire and howling about "evil Putin" or the imaginary "threats to our precious democracy". Nor does it matter how many hyperbolic articles appear in media alleging sinister activities and espionage by diabolical Moscow Central. It doesn't matter because there is have absolutely zero solid evidence to support their ludicrous and entirely politically-motivated claims.

    Whether Russia was involved in the US elections or not, is a matter of pure speculation. But speculation is not sufficient grounds for appointing a special prosecutor, nor are the lies and misinformation that appear daily in our leading newspapers, like the dissembling New York Times, the dissembling Washington Post and the dissembling Wall Street Journal. The call for a special prosecutor is not based on evidence, it is based on politics, the politics of personal destruction. The Democrats and the media want this tool so they can rummage through whatever private information or paperwork anyone in the Trump administration might possess. So while they might not dig up anything relevant to the Russia hacking investigation, they will certainly gather enough sordid or suspicious information to annihilate the people in their crosshairs. And that's precisely what the special prosecutor provision is designed to do; it provides the administration's rivals with the weapons they need to conduct a massive fishing expedition aimed at character assassination and, ultimately, impeachment.

    But, why?

    Because Donald Trump had the audacity to win an election that was earmarked for establishment favorite and globalist warmonger-in-chief, Hillary Clinton. That's what this witch hunt is all about, sour grapes.

    But why has Russia been chosen as the target in this deep state-media scam? What has Russia done to deserve all the negative press and unsupported claims of criminal meddling?

    That's easy. Just look at a map. For the last 16 years, the US has been rampaging across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington intends to control critical oil and natural gas reserves in the ME, establish military bases across Central Asia, and remain the dominant player in an area of that is set to become the most populous and prosperous region of the world. It's the Great Game all over again, only this time-around, Uncle Sam is in the drivers seat not the Queen of England. But one country has upset that plan, blocked that plan, derailed that plan. Russia.

    Russia has stopped Washington's murderous marauding and genocidal depredations in Ukraine and Syria, which is why the US foreign policy establishment is so pissed-off. US elites aren't used to obstacles.

    For the last quarter of a century– since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union– the world has been Washington's oyster. If the president of the United States wanted to invade a country in the Middle East, kill a million people, and leave the place in a smoldering pile of rubble, then who could stop him? Nobody. But now that's all changed. Now evil Putin has thrown up a roadblock to US hegemony in Syria and Ukraine. Now Washington's landbridge to Central Asia has been split in two, and its plan to control vital pipeline corridors from Qatar to the EU is no longer viable. Russia has stopped Washington dead-in-its tracks and Washington is furious.

    The anti-Russia hysteria in the western media is equal to the pain the US foreign policy establishment is currently experiencing. And the reason the foreign policy establishment is in so much pain, is because they are not getting their way. It's that simple. Their global strategy is in a shambles because Russia will not let them topple the Syrian government, install their own puppet regime, redraw the map of the Middle East, run roughshod over international law, and tighten their grip on another battered war-torn part of the world.

    So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught to hate Russia and all-things Russian. And, most of all, Russia must be blamed for anything and everything under the sun, including the firing of police-state Reichsfόhrer, James Comey, who -- at various times in his career -- "approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration .including torture , warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." (ACLU)

    This is the ethically-challenged scalawag the Democrats are now defending tooth in nail. It's pathetic. Russia has become the all-purpose punching bag because Washington's plans for global domination have gone up in smoke. The truth is, Putin's done us all a big favor.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

    [May 13, 2017] What Is Americas Goal in the World by Patrick Buchanan

    Notable quotes:
    "... Excellent, concise summary of Cold War and post-Cold War military history. I also thought that during the campaign Trump was broadly outlining a less interventionist approach – with the exception of ISIS. It's clear now his only political philosophy is "flexibility" and he surrounds himself with people of all kinds of persuasions, including neocons. ..."
    "... Patrick again draws attention to our over commitment around the world. It is time to implode and focus on issues here at home. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Sebastian , says: May 11, 2017 at 10:56 pm
    The root cause of our engagement in the world is to justify our treaty to protect israel no matter what.
    Mac61 , says: May 12, 2017 at 12:34 am
    Excellent, concise summary of Cold War and post-Cold War military history. I also thought that during the campaign Trump was broadly outlining a less interventionist approach – with the exception of ISIS. It's clear now his only political philosophy is "flexibility" and he surrounds himself with people of all kinds of persuasions, including neocons. I tend to favor "flexibility" over a all-neocon administration (Geo. W. Bush) but Trump's "flexibility" is in reality "impulsiveness" - let's just hope more stable voices prevail inside the White House of the President of the United States Donald "It's Complicated" Trump, AKA The Apprentice.
    MEOW , says: May 12, 2017 at 3:11 am
    Patrick again draws attention to our over commitment around the world. It is time to implode and focus on issues here at home. We still have an immigration problem. The problem of chronic unemployment continues to exist. The people that were displaced by the transfer of our industrial sector overseas continue to haunt us. Student loans are like a millstone around our academic necks. We bailed out the banksters after giving them an open-door policy to near ad infinitum indebt our student body. The Fed not only creates money out of thin air, but it is a price setting entity owned and operated in large foreign bankers; not Federal but Foreign. Does anyone know when setting wages and prices have been successful? We know the Fed has been a dismal and costly failure. Count their made in DC disasters since its inception in 1913. The unemployment stabilizer for the young from the non- elite class is the U.S. military with risk to life and limb. Time to bring back the military draft without any exceptions then designer wars will be challenged by the vast-unwilling when war becomes a reality not something to watch on nightly TV. Is there hope? There was absolutely no hope in the 2016 presidential election. The worst imaginable field of candidates in modern-history and we are now stuck with Trump and family who seem to enjoy wars, but have not participated in U.S. wars.
    John S , says: May 12, 2017 at 7:07 am
    Is Mr. Buchanan aware that these "war guarantees" are a two-way street? Is he aware that Latvians and Montenegrans have fought for America? And out of proportion to their size?
    Liam , says: May 12, 2017 at 8:13 am
    "seemed"

    No, Pat, you just were too eager to believe he understood this.

    He never understood this.

    And never will.

    Pay much more attention to that disturbance you are feeling rather than your hopes.

    Brian , says: May 12, 2017 at 8:49 am
    I believe the question should be more like what is the Pentagons Empire Dreams and Goals?

    December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

    The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of *30* million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of *737* bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the *Pentagon* one of the largest landowners worldwide!

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564

    SDS , says: May 12, 2017 at 9:01 am
    "Donald Trump once seemed to understand this. Does he still?"

    It appears he never did nor cared to ..
    P.T. Barnum was right again .
    We who clamored for an alternate path stuck our jaws out in desperation and were sucker-punched again .
    The Donald laughing all the way as he had no intent to know, care, or understand what he was getting into or what he wanted to do.

    He just wanted to be the Boss .
    SO he is; and floundering by the hour.

    God help the United States.

    collin , says: May 12, 2017 at 10:56 am
    May I suggest taking a different course here? Why are the 'Peace' Presidents winners change when in they are in the White House? And for all the complaints of the liberal MSM, why is the MSM so pro-war? Look the peace writers on the Times are the economist, Krugman, and religious one, Douthat.

    Anyway, I don't think Trump ever understood this because he believed the big mistake of the Iraq was not winning in 12 months and taking their oil.

    Moi , says: May 12, 2017 at 2:15 pm
    Once a nation starts thinking it's exceptional, it's screwed. It's really that simple.
    Igor , says: May 12, 2017 at 2:41 pm
    USA made a strategic mistake in the 1990s, focusing on the destruction and the weakening of Russia after the collapse of communism and the collapse of the USSR.
    If the US instead went the other way and supported Russia and strengthened its position in the post-Soviet space and in Eastern Europe, now US would have had a good ally in Eurasia, and not on what the Baltic dregs and torn by civil war fascist Ukraine.
    Eurasia under the control of the United States, anyway, will not take place for any scenario, but especially now – with the loss of the state of world hegemony.
    Eurasia under the leadership of Germany, Poland or Ukraine is the same scenario from the category of unscientific fantasy.
    But Eurasia led by Russia – it was a very real and viable project in the 1990s, the word, alive now only in a different, less responsive to the interests of the United States, form.
    By the way, the project more attractive to US than indicated by the perspective of the hegemony of China in Eurasia.
    Only now, the US should try very hard to, despite the flaws in his politics in the 1990s, to strengthen the position of Russia, and not any other player as Eurasian leader.
    EliteCommInc. , says: May 12, 2017 at 5:57 pm
    "Once a nation starts thinking it's exceptional, it's . . ."

    Nonsense. It's perfectly well and good to be exceptional and think of oneself as such. The issue does one's exceptionalism lead to taking unnecessary risks or needlessly throwing one's weight around.

    I think that is the issue. I think we are also being reminded that our exceptionalism does always make us right or intimidate others to do our bidding. That in the long run, it might have been a good idea not to disrupt the lives of others merely because they disagree or live a life different from our own. It fact, needlessly destroying the life of others for the sake of whatever – in unethical, something we used to press for, despite our own imperfections.

    Nothing quite so empty as undermining other people to get one's way and then attempting to blackmail with the consequence of your underhanded behavior.

    [May 12, 2017] The War Party is determined to make the offensive permanent, to keep up the pressure on the ultimate targets, Russia and China, The current, rabid anti-Russian hysteria adds another layer of fake news on top of the wholly fictional U.S. War on Terror scenario

    May 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Northern Star , May 11, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    "The War Party is determined to make the offensive permanent, to keep up the pressure on the ultimate targets, Russia and China, until they break or capitulate to U.S. domination of the world. The current, rabid anti-Russian hysteria adds another layer of fake news on top of the wholly fictional U.S. "War on Terror" scenario. But these mega-lies can no longer mask the great obscenity of the 21st century: that the U.S. is allied with al-Qaida, whose jihadists act as imperialism's foot soldiers in the Middle East."

    Absolute take down of the psycho shtstains in Brussels and Washington DC

    https://www.blackagendareport.com/jail_obama_and_trump_for_war_crimes

    Time for global regime change

    ucgsblog , May 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm
    They don't have to, look at the language: "Russia acted to influence"

    It doesn't say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence. Did RT broadcast something election related? Did some funds come from Russia? If so, Russia acted to influence the election. As did France. As did the UK. As did any major power.

    "Asked whether they believed" – again they don't have to prove that it happened. They have to show that they believed it happened.

    [May 12, 2017] It doesnt say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence

    May 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Northern Star , May 11, 2017 at 3:16 pm
    "WASHINGTON DC: Six top US intelligence officials told Congress Thursday they agree with the conclusion that Russia acted to influence last year's election, countering President Donald Trump's assertions that the hacking remains an open question."

    https://tribune.com.pk/story/1407409/trumps-intel-bosses-reiterate-russia-meddled-election/

    "Asked whether they believed the intelligence community's January assessment that Russia was responsible for hacking and leaking information to influence the elections was accurate, all six spy and law enforcement bosses appearing before the panel said "yes."
    Trump's firing of FBI director 'domestic matter': Kremlin'"

    Demand these vermin proffer PROOF that Russia F'd with the 2016 election..
    Then Fire every last one of these cckskkers..declare martial law if necessary

    ucgsblog , May 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm
    They don't have to, look at the language: "Russia acted to influence"

    It doesn't say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence. Did RT broadcast something election related? Did some funds come from Russia? If so, Russia acted to influence the election. As did France. As did the UK. As did any major power.

    "Asked whether they believed" – again they don't have to prove that it happened. They have to show that they believed it happened.

    [May 11, 2017] Forbidden Questions by Andrew Bacevich

    Notable quotes:
    "... What is the real relationship between international banking, a private central bank, the lack of sovereign credit, and the need to go to war by the USA? ..."
    "... This notion of Afghan War as the 'longest war' in US history. I disagree. I think it's better to see it as an Occupation. The Taliban are mostly sitting pretty and not fighting. They are just waiting for the US to leave. ..."
    "... The Afghan War ended long ago. It lasted one or two yrs at most. US pacified the enemy and installed a puppet regime. Since then, US has been occupying the nation. The Taliban and other elements(some criminal) hit and run, but the violence has been on a low scale. ..."
    "... Indeed, Afghan War ended so quickly that the US began to plan for Iraq. ..."
    "... The kind of low-level conflict in Afghanistan has to be seen as part of an Occupation, like Israel's occupation of West Bank. Once the Afghan Occupation ends, then a real war might break out with the Taliban regaining power. ..."
    "... Also, Russian economy depends on energy prices. So, US leverage against Russia depends on control of Middle Eastern oil. ..."
    "... A better question would be Why is the US working with its allies like Saudis and Turk to aid terrorists in Syria and elsewhere? Never mind 'caring less'. The fact is US has a hand in the terrorist attacks in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
    "... Because all nations have blood on their hands, it's best that US not judge other nations. Like Jesus said when the mob was about to stone Mary Magdalene. ..."
    "... Btw, US, as lone superpower, has gotten away with many Pearl Harbors or even worse. The GOOD WAR narrative says Japan deserved what it got for Pearl Harbor. It deserved Tokyo bombing, Okinawa disaster, and nukes too. ..."
    "... It seems to me US destruction of Iraq and Libya were built on bigger lies. And the violence and destruction went far beyond Pearl Harbor. After all, Japan was not trying to invade any part of US, not even Hawaii. So, using WWII logic, US deserves 20 nuke hits for its recent sins. But those with Power can do anything. It's good to be the king. ..."
    "... 1) The US military is not defending the homeland. (The Invader) 2) In order to win you have to get down and dirty. (Boots on the ground) 3) In war the only winners are the puppet masters. (You fill in the blanks) ..."
    "... There is now a single, global economy, unlike the Cold War which (at least in theory), could restrict access to resources. But more realistically, WW 2 was fought in the Pacific because the US could and did embargo oil from Japan. And Germany was able to put up a good fight over half a decade using a quantity of oil that amounted to what we (the US) burn up in a couple of weeks - but unfortunately (for them) needed a couple more weeks worth. ..."
    "... Congress has declared war only 5 times. The last time was WW2. Maybe a distinction should be made between formal wars, undeclared wars, police actions and military engagements (under whichever rubric is expedient). ..."
    "... " Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad " Note, too, the references to the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it; in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed. ..."
    "... Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment? ..."
    "... America delenda est. Great article and great truth telling. ..."
    "... American law prohibits "foreign aid" to any country which has not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Act" treaty and to any country that will not abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" guidelines on the inspection of nuclear weapons and facilities. Israel refuses to do either, but is STILL the number one recipient of American largesse (foreign aid), loan forgiveness and weapons acquisition, all paid for by the American taxpayers. ..."
    "... In addition, AIPAC, which is the most influential foreign lobbying group in the U S A is not required to register as an "agent of a foreign government" WHY?? It appears that our "foreign policy" is formulated in Tel Aviv, and NOT in Washington D C. Look at the 40 or so "dual-nationality" Israeli Americans who fill the seats in Congress, as well as the thousands of dual-nationality Israeli "policy wonks" who are infesting and infecting the federal government State Department. ..."
    "... I used to chuckle when I heard people discuss ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government), but no more. ZOG is real, and is detrimental to the existence of the United States of America. When discussing specific congress critters, I make it a point to put (D) Tel Aviv or (R) Tel Aviv after their names, as Tel Aviv is where they get their "marching orders" from ..."
    "... There is hardly anyone intelligent outside US who does not understand that the key problem in the World is that US has never felt the pain that it has been inflicting on others since the American-Spanish war of 1898 (aggressor first). It is as if all the morality free scum of the world has gurgled down just into one country. The Western movies explain it well – it was a plague spreading from the East to the West and then all over the planet. ..."
    "... Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment? ..."
    "... Our federal government employs (the taxpayers I mean) US military personnel in *156* countries! Our US Military has bases in 63 countries! The US government owns a total of *737* bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. Territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?5145-Pentagon-One-of-World-s-Largest-Landowners ..."
    "... @Kiza You are not the only one - read my comment above please. Prof. Bacevich is official (permitted) opposition critic. Thanks to the regular US MSM diet he reads like a revolutionary to most US zombies. I read him sometimes only to find out what this permitted official criticism in academia looks like - to find out where the minds of US intelligentia (if such thing exists) dwell - how far from the truth even a few intellectual outliers are, those who pride themselves on not being the usual MSM zombies. ..."
    "... "12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?" It's funny that I have never heard a single word about this issue from Trump, anyone around Trump, or the hysterical gaggle of anti-Trumpites. A true media blackout in the USA on the matter on all sides. Relegated to the fringe, to conspiracy-theory types. ..."
    "... As long as Afghanistan is the or one of the largest producers of opium, US troops will remain there in order to make sure that illicit demand can result in astronomical profits for those involved. ..."
    "... The answer to most of these questions is simple. The U.S. is not a country, it is an Empire like Britain and France before it but it is ruled by Jewish people not Christians. Everything should be clear now. ..."
    "... It's downright depressing. We have McCain, Clinton and other Blue Ribbon senators, congressmen, and officials that knowingly funded, armed, and trained what is now ISIS. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen – so much utter destruction, and it just goes on and on. That's just recent memory. The Federal Reserve is pumping out paper like no tomorrow. The government is borrowing it, spending most of it without the constitutional footing to do so. ..."
    "... Cultural suicide. The perversion of language, political correctness – you can't trust anything coming from the legacy media. The narratives they are driving are extinguishing Western Civilization. ..."
    May 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Hai ,Website May 8, 2017 at 6:04 am GMT

    12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?

    It's funny that I have never heard a single word about this issue from Trump, anyone around Trump, or the hysterical gaggle of anti-Trumpites. A true media blackout in the USA on the matter on all sides. Relegated to the fringe, to conspiracy-theory types.

    Robert Magill ,May 8, 2017 at 9:45 am GMT

    17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons proliferator. It supports the Taliban.

    But because USSR dared help India to establish nuclear energy, the US aided Pakistan to do the same. Pictures exist of a giant scaffolding of bamboo being used to install a huge vessel as part of the first Indian nuclear reactor. They lacked a crane so a swarm of guys pulled it up into place with ropes!

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Dissident Israeli , May 8, 2017 at 10:05 am GMT

    Thank you Andrew Bacevich. As a former military man and present professor, you have elucidated many issues which as a layperson, I am not fully aware.

    However I have a question if you don't mind. What is the real relationship between international banking, a private central bank, the lack of sovereign credit, and the need to go to war by the USA?

    The Alarmist ,May 8, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT

    15. Our friends the Saudis (I) .
    16. Our friends the Saudis (II) .

    Given that past Presidents have held hands of, kissed the cheeks of, and bowed before a couple Saudi Kings, maybe we should call a spade a spade and refer to them as our Lords and Masters.

    Ben Frank ,May 9, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT

    "Why should U.S. relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more "special" than its relations with a rising power like India? "

    Why is your own father more important than Narendra Modi? Great Britain gave us our laws, religion, language, and the Founding Fathers, and more. India gives us H1-B's. One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. Trim your list and throw out the stupid items.

    Priss Factor ,May 9, 2017 at 6:57 am GMT

    This notion of Afghan War as the 'longest war' in US history. I disagree. I think it's better to see it as an Occupation. The Taliban are mostly sitting pretty and not fighting. They are just waiting for the US to leave.

    There are skirmishes here and there, but nothing that could be called a war.

    The Afghan War ended long ago. It lasted one or two yrs at most. US pacified the enemy and installed a puppet regime. Since then, US has been occupying the nation. The Taliban and other elements(some criminal) hit and run, but the violence has been on a low scale.

    Indeed, Afghan War ended so quickly that the US began to plan for Iraq.

    The kind of low-level conflict in Afghanistan has to be seen as part of an Occupation, like Israel's occupation of West Bank. Once the Afghan Occupation ends, then a real war might break out with the Taliban regaining power.

    Priss Factor ,May 9, 2017 at 7:02 am GMT

    9. The Gulf: Americans once believed that their way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?

    Why? Because Gulf Oil is still the lifeblood to Asia and Europe. So, if the US is to be the preeminent superpower, it has to control the energy that its vassals and rivals depend on.

    Also, Russian economy depends on energy prices. So, US leverage against Russia depends on control of Middle Eastern oil.

    10. Hyping terrorism: Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do auto accidents, drug overdoses, or even lightning strikes. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?

    Because if a real big one hits, like 9/11, it can mean major disruption. Also, it could mean political death for whoever's in charge.

    11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don't: Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger numbers of Arabs?

    A better question would be Why is the US working with its allies like Saudis and Turk to aid terrorists in Syria and elsewhere? Never mind 'caring less'. The fact is US has a hand in the terrorist attacks in Syria and Ukraine.

    Anon , May 9, 2017 at 7:14 am GMT

    @Robert Magill


    17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons proliferator. It supports the Taliban.
    But because USSR dared help India to establish nuclear energy, the US aided Pakistan to do the same. Pictures exist of a giant scaffolding of bamboo being used to install a huge vessel as part of the first Indian nuclear reactor. They lacked a crane so a swarm of guys pulled it up into place with ropes!

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Priss Factor ,May 9, 2017 at 7:27 am GMT

    @The Alarmist 15. Our friends the Saudis (I) ....
    16. Our friends the Saudis (II) ....

    Given that past Presidents have held hands of, kissed the cheeks of, and bowed before a couple Saudi Kings, maybe we should call a spade a spade and refer to them as our Lords and Masters.

    Anon , May 9, 2017 at 7:35 am GMT

    24. Moral obligations: When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights, members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to "do something." But what determines the pecking order of such moral obligations? Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the U.S. invasion of 2003?

    Because all nations have blood on their hands, it's best that US not judge other nations. Like Jesus said when the mob was about to stone Mary Magdalene.

    There are rare cases when genocide is so horrible that action should be taken, like what happened in Rwanda. On the other hand, the US public and 'progressives' are fickle too.

    When Johnson and Nixon said US must stay in Southeast Asia to prevent communism barbarism, the progressives mocked the rationale. They said US must leave and let the Asians sort it out. Given that logic, how could US re-enter to save Cambodians from communists?

    Btw, US, as lone superpower, has gotten away with many Pearl Harbors or even worse. The GOOD WAR narrative says Japan deserved what it got for Pearl Harbor. It deserved Tokyo bombing, Okinawa disaster, and nukes too.

    It seems to me US destruction of Iraq and Libya were built on bigger lies. And the violence and destruction went far beyond Pearl Harbor. After all, Japan was not trying to invade any part of US, not even Hawaii. So, using WWII logic, US deserves 20 nuke hits for its recent sins. But those with Power can do anything. It's good to be the king.

    JoeCbart ,May 10, 2017 at 5:13 am GMT

    Andrew J. Bacevich:

    "2 . American military supremacy: The United States military is undoubtedly the world's finest. It's also far and away the most generously funded, with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities to practice their craft. So why doesn't this great military ever win anything?"

    1) The US military is not defending the homeland. (The Invader) 2) In order to win you have to get down and dirty. (Boots on the ground) 3) In war the only winners are the puppet masters. (You fill in the blanks)

    Anon , May 10, 2017 at 5:15 am GMT anon , May 10, 2017 at 9:00 am GMT

    The Gulf: Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter. Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are far greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?

    It is more than simply this. As if this isn't enough.

    There is now a single, global economy, unlike the Cold War which (at least in theory), could restrict access to resources. But more realistically, WW 2 was fought in the Pacific because the US could and did embargo oil from Japan. And Germany was able to put up a good fight over half a decade using a quantity of oil that amounted to what we (the US) burn up in a couple of weeks - but unfortunately (for them) needed a couple more weeks worth.

    The fact that ISIS was anxious to sell oil on world markets is a good indication that there is only one use for oil and that is to sell in global markets. We are stuck with WW 2 as the bedrock of strategic thinking. Hell yes, our current carrier task forces would have been decisive in WW 2, but now are just a high value targets with no proven survivability against cruise missile based attack. If they are simply for show, a WW 2 era battleship is more impressive to sail into port.

    Why fight for a commodity that you can simply purchase? And now, it is on sale. This is like fighting a war for access to strategic coal.

    Timur The Lame ,May 10, 2017 at 9:44 am GMT

    Congress has declared war only 5 times. The last time was WW2. Maybe a distinction should be made between formal wars, undeclared wars, police actions and military engagements (under whichever rubric is expedient).

    Using the word 'war' itself (as in the Afghanistan War) seems to give it some kind of credibility. It this case it would be 'the foreign war to re-establish opium production in aid of the domestic war on drugs".

    That truly brings to mind my favorite Bronstein quote " You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you". The choice for you young man is to put on the camo uniform or the orange jumpsuit. Some lucky lads get to do both.

    Cheers-

    anonymous , May 10, 2017 at 9:58 am GMT

    " Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad " Note, too, the references to the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it; in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.

    Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment?

    jacques sheete ,May 10, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT

    Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?

    You call that a fact? On what basis? I call it BS. On the basis of that ain't how stuff works.

    NoseytheDuke ,May 10, 2017 at 11:54 am GMT

    "15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?"

    Oh! Please! Does the author really believe this? Has he done any basic research, such as looked at Architects & Engineers for 9 / 11 truth? What was that about the attention span of a two year old? Or, is this very slick disinfo?

    Johann ,May 10, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

    America delenda est. Great article and great truth telling.

    anarchyst ,May 10, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT

    American law prohibits "foreign aid" to any country which has not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Act" treaty and to any country that will not abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" guidelines on the inspection of nuclear weapons and facilities. Israel refuses to do either, but is STILL the number one recipient of American largesse (foreign aid), loan forgiveness and weapons acquisition, all paid for by the American taxpayers.

    In addition, AIPAC, which is the most influential foreign lobbying group in the U S A is not required to register as an "agent of a foreign government" WHY??
    It appears that our "foreign policy" is formulated in Tel Aviv, and NOT in Washington D C. Look at the 40 or so "dual-nationality" Israeli Americans who fill the seats in Congress, as well as the thousands of dual-nationality Israeli "policy wonks" who are infesting and infecting the federal government State Department.

    I used to chuckle when I heard people discuss ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government), but no more. ZOG is real, and is detrimental to the existence of the United States of America. When discussing specific congress critters, I make it a point to put (D) Tel Aviv or (R) Tel Aviv after their names, as Tel Aviv is where they get their "marching orders" from

    Kiza ,May 10, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT

    The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first.

    I am guessing that in such imaginary situation the US would get rid of its own nuclear weapons by dropping them all on Russia and China, if those two were as foolish as to get rid of their own first. Obviously, US was the first country to develop them, US is the only country which has used the nuclear weapons to kill, and the only country which could use them at almost any moment again. Obviously, if US, and its owner Israel, got rid of their nuclear weapons, then there would be a very good chance that everybody else would and in a peaceful way. Therefore, this sentence pretends irony, but does a deliberate logical obfuscation. In other words, even when a US person tries to criticise US, he remains a mental slave of his own tribe. This kind of article is good for academic circles in US – to show the intellectual bravery to criticise whilst staying within the confines of the permitted narrative.

    There is hardly anyone intelligent outside US who does not understand that the key problem in the World is that US has never felt the pain that it has been inflicting on others since the American-Spanish war of 1898 (aggressor first). It is as if all the morality free scum of the world has gurgled down just into one country. The Western movies explain it well – it was a plague spreading from the East to the West and then all over the planet.

    Logan ,May 10, 2017 at 12:34 pm GMT

    "When the secrets were revealed, however, the U.S. government suffered considerable embarrassment, so much so that presidents foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones."

    We are pretty clearly at war with Islamic fundamentalism. Or at least they are at war with us. Attacking the enemy's command and control is a pretty obvious and generally considered entirely legitimate military tactic in time of war. So is this "assassination" or "murder?" Where is the line between legitimate killing of enemies and "politically motivated murder" to be drawn? Why? Generally a good article.

    fitzGetty ,May 10, 2017 at 12:42 pm GMT

    The special relationship with Great Britain needs to be expanded, and not only in the intelligence sphere – not sneered at so carelessly GB is to formalise a link with the Anglosphere nations – Oz, Canada, NZ – as part of life after Brexit as an extension of the 5 eyes .

    Kiza ,May 10, 2017 at 12:44 pm GMT

    @anonymous "... Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad..." Note, too, the references to the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it; in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.

    Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment?

    Z-man ,May 10, 2017 at 12:57 pm GMT

    Weak. What about The Fed, the bull shit 'Debt crisis', the 1% who should be all taxed to the hilt, the almost total control by the 2% (that infestation of 'you know who'). The working class that is being screwed by all of the above. The Republitards defending the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, LOL! Then there is the mention of The Zionist State in only one or two items. Well it should be in at least items 1, 3, 5. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 24! Oh, I forgot item 22, lol!!

    jilles dykstra ,May 10, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT

    The thinking people in Europe, a growing number, just want to defend ourselves against NATO, in order not to become a battle field for a nuclear war between Russia and the USA. These thinking people are quite happy with Russia as a supplier of natural gas, have no desire to make our houses some 40.000 euro's more expensive, in order not having to import Russian gas, as former EU chairman Van Rompuy wants us to do.

    These thinking people fear Groenlinks, the green leftists, whose objective seems to be, in order to save the planet, to destroy our country.

    These thinking people want an end to ME and N African wars, to save us from yet more immigration, that makes our social security systems a financial nightmare, and brings us on the brink of civil warfare.

    We also want sanctions against Russia to end, so that we again can export flowers and vegetables.

    And these thinking people do not want an European army, that might be used to suppress insurrections against Brussels, therefore they disapprove of the Ukraine association treaty.

    jilles dykstra ,May 10, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT

    @NoseytheDuke "15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?"

    Oh! Please! Does the author really believe this? Has he done any basic research, such as looked at Architects & Engineers for 9 / 11 truth? What was that about the attention span of a two year old? Or, is this very slick disinfo?

    Agent76 ,May 10, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT

    January 5, 2017 US SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES DEPLOY TO 138 NATIONS, 70 PERCENT OF THE WORLD'S COUNTRIES

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38993-the-year-of-the-commando-us-special-operations-forces-deploy-to-138-nations-70-percent-of-the-world-s-countries

    Pentagon: One of World's Largest Landowners

    Our federal government employs (the taxpayers I mean) US military personnel in *156* countries! Our US Military has bases in 63 countries! The US government owns a total of *737* bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. Territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?5145-Pentagon-One-of-World-s-Largest-Landowners

    jacques sheete ,May 10, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

    @NoseytheDuke "15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?"

    Oh! Please! Does the author really believe this? Has he done any basic research, such as looked at Architects & Engineers for 9 / 11 truth? What was that about the attention span of a two year old? Or, is this very slick disinfo?

    Kiza ,May 10, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT

    @Kiza You are not the only one - read my comment above please. Prof. Bacevich is official (permitted) opposition critic. Thanks to the regular US MSM diet he reads like a revolutionary to most US zombies. I read him sometimes only to find out what this permitted official criticism in academia looks like - to find out where the minds of US intelligentia (if such thing exists) dwell - how far from the truth even a few intellectual outliers are, those who pride themselves on not being the usual MSM zombies.

    Agent76 ,May 10, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT

    @Anon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69A8OPQ8Rg

    tjm ,May 10, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

    @Kiza Yet, many comments here are by MSM Zombies with slanted foreheads, for who Prof. Bachevic is like an unreachable height of intellectualism. Where is the old unz team of commenters who understood what was really going on?

    I know that Prof. Bachevic has lost his son in the US war on Iraq, but his criticism of US is still lukewarm and mild in order to be digestible by his US audience.

    Beefcake the Mighty ,May 10, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

    @anonymous "... Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad..." Note, too, the references to the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it; in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.

    Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment?

    Beefcake the Mighty ,May 10, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra The passport of one of the sept 11 hijackers was on top of the Twin Towers rubble.
    What more proof can one want ?

    jilles dykstra ,May 10, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT

    @Hail

    12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?
    "12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?" It's funny that I have never heard a single word about this issue from Trump, anyone around Trump, or the hysterical gaggle of anti-Trumpites. A true media blackout in the USA on the matter on all sides. Relegated to the fringe, to conspiracy-theory types.
    jilles dykstra ,May 10, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT

    @Eustace Tilley (not) You also forgot item 15.

    The explosive devices were carefully placed inside the Triple Towers by the Mossad, when security was down (on purpose). That's why Israeli "art students" were caught red-handed celebrating after the Towers went down. These shocking facts are available to anyone willing to turn off his TeeVee (it's tough; I know) and do a little bit of historical research. You can't make a better start than Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If anyone is truly interested in knowing the fundamental political facts of life in the USA today, he should start there. The way the tide of history is flowing, he may not have the chance in a few years.

    Make good use of your mind and your First Amendment freedoms while you still have both.

    jilles dykstra ,May 10, 2017 at 4:03 pm GMT

    @Anon Yup. US and Pakistan, partners in crime.

    US is no less a rogue state.

    Anonymous White Male ,May 10, 2017 at 4:21 pm GMT

    "The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?"

    As long as Afghanistan is the or one of the largest producers of opium, US troops will remain there in order to make sure that illicit demand can result in astronomical profits for those involved.

    Anon , May 10, 2017 at 4:47 pm GMT

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-anti-russia-inquisition-intensifies-20553?page=show

    OJ ,May 10, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT

    The answer to most of these questions is simple. The U.S. is not a country, it is an Empire like Britain and France before it but it is ruled by Jewish people not Christians. Everything should be clear now.

    Backwoods Bob ,May 10, 2017 at 5:13 pm GMT

    It's downright depressing. We have McCain, Clinton and other Blue Ribbon senators, congressmen, and officials that knowingly funded, armed, and trained what is now ISIS. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen – so much utter destruction, and it just goes on and on. That's just recent memory. The Federal Reserve is pumping out paper like no tomorrow. The government is borrowing it, spending most of it without the constitutional footing to do so.

    Cultural suicide. The perversion of language, political correctness – you can't trust anything coming from the legacy media. The narratives they are driving are extinguishing Western Civilization.

    Kiza ,May 10, 2017 at 5:35 pm GMT

    @Anonymous "the least corrupt countries in the world are in the Anglo-sphere what does that mean, lads?"

    That simply means that the Anglo-sphere has amassed enough wealth, firstly through looting via colonial conquests, then subsequently to a more covert system of looting, as we have now.

    That ill-gotten wealth has helped immensely in the Anglo-sphere attaining a superior level of, wealth generating, intellectual momentum. Of course, regular injections of other ill-gotten wealth, oils the system really well.

    Coming back to the topic of corruption, when a nation has enough wealth, the need for monetary corruption within it diminishes. That doesn't mean that the moral corruption required for looting other nations diminishes too. That fire is still raging in the heart of Anglo-sphere.

    The quest to maintain the evil dollar as the reserve currency of the world, at the expense of millions of lives, is just one example.

    Some will argue that the least corrupt are Scandinavian nations, which don't go around invading other nations, do they? I see them as simply piggybacking on the evil empire (after all people tend to help their own kind, right?), and in that manner gain handsomely from the spoils of conflict.

    Once a cultural error gets "stuck" in the culture, it is difficult to expunge.

    Tomster ,May 10, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT

    Another one: Why has the US put the Saudi caliphate in charge of human and womens' rights at the UN?

    Eustace Tilley (not) ,May 10, 2017 at 6:11 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra That the towers were demolished with thermite seems pretty sure to me, it explains why most of the steel melted.
    But why Mossad ? The towers security firm was headed by a brother of Bush jr, they had all the time and opportunity in the world to plant explosives in the service areas.

    Logan ,May 10, 2017 at 6:29 pm GMT

    "Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?"

    A darn good question. My understanding is that the theory is that, while we don't really need their oil anymore, our allies such as Europe and Japan do.

    You may or may not consider this reasonable.

    Logan ,May 10, 2017 at 6:37 pm GMT

    "How about the Filipinos, brutally denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the nineteenth century ended? "

    A reasonable question. However, given the period, the choice was not between independence and American empire.

    It was between incorporation into the American empire or into the British, French or German versions.

    Unless we wanted to assume a protectorate over the islands and protect them from conquest. Something like we did with the Monroe Doctrine.

    It is also reasonable to note that the "American empire" over the Philippines almost immediately began the process of working towards independence, unlike any of the other empires.

    Anonymous Nephew ,May 10, 2017 at 7:28 pm GMT

    "By what logic, since the 1940s, has the killing of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible than the Syrian government's use of "barrel bombs" to kill Syrians today?"

    Barrel bombs were called 'blockbusters' or 'cookies' in WW2.

    "The 4,000 lb high capacity design was little more than a cylinder full of explosives-it was unaerodynamic and did not have fins."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb#Design

    Agent76 ,May 10, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT

    November 21st, 2015 Fascists Running America Endorse Nazism. America didn't eliminate the scourge of fascism in WW II. It shifted its headquarters from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington.

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/11/21/fascists-running-america-endorse-nazism#more40892

    nsa ,May 10, 2017 at 9:49 pm GMT

    @Wally "Obama decided to have bin Laden killed"?

    Seriously? Nice trick considering there is no proof that OBL was actually killed by US forces. None. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bin_laden_death.html

    https://www.rt.com/usa/257557-bin-laden-raid-hersh/

    Lot ,May 10, 2017 at 10:38 pm GMT

    Who cares about Israel's official no-comment policy on its nukes. It has no effect on any nation's actual policy.

    A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference?

    Arabs place a low value on each others' lives, which is why they kill each other so often, over such petty reasons, and with no remorse. Copts should move to Lebanon in my opinion to create a safe Christian majority country in the middle east. They are not safe in Muslim countries.

    SolontoCroesus ,May 10, 2017 at 11:36 pm GMT

    @Agent76 November 21st, 2015 Fascists Running America Endorse Nazism

    America didn't eliminate the scourge of fascism in WW II. It shifted its headquarters from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington.

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/11/21/fascists-running-america-endorse-nazism#more40892

    Jake ,May 10, 2017 at 11:45 pm GMT

    These are all great questions in the realm of foreign policy. Each is not asked because the Elites want it that way. We have at least that many questions relating to race and ethnicity and religion and immigration and crime rates that need to be asked but are not because our Elites do not want them asked.

    L.K ,May 11, 2017 at 12:02 am GMT

    @SolontoCroesus The premise of the article is bass ackward: neither Italian Fascism nor German National Socialism harbored goals of international conquest.

    Didn't read past the second paragraph: why bother? It's a prime example of what happens when propaganda is relied upon as the basis for history.

    If Lendman were able to get his head out of the holohoax pit and look at the "war to end all war" and "good war" square in the face for what they were, his first paragraph would read something like,

    America's mask is increasingly being peeled away: having worn the mask of "saving the world for democracy" to eliminate Berlin and Tokyo as counterbalances to its global quest, then occupying them psychologically and economically, it is now openly running its global war on humanity overtly from Washington.

    Today, it has partnered with likeminded allies, destroying fundamental freedoms, risking the unthinkable, potential life-ending nuclear war.

    L.K ,May 11, 2017 at 12:10 am GMT

    @jilles dykstra That the towers were demolished with thermite seems pretty sure to me, it explains why most of the steel melted.
    But why Mossad ?
    The towers security firm was headed by a brother of Bush jr, they had all the time and opportunity in the world to plant explosives in the service areas.

    War for Blair Mountain ,May 11, 2017 at 2:19 am GMT

    My nephew just signed the ROTC contract I am devastated to the point of not posting on UNZ Review anymore .inconsolable grief .so many pointless meaningless deaths for Greater Israel

    L.K ,May 11, 2017 at 3:06 am GMT

    Although there are several good questions in the piece, there are also many problems, as others have noted.
    Perhaps the most bizarre is number 19, The mother of all "special relationships" .

    Now, Mr. Bacevich, the current mother of all "special relationships" ain't the one with ZUK, no, no it's the one with Israel and its zionist 5th column within ZUSA.

    "18. Free-loading Europeans";

    This one could be extended to the 'free-loading' Koreans, Japanese , etc. But in reality, ZUSA is not in ANY of these places to "defend" them , rather ZUSA is there for all the bases and hegemony, which includes these countries as ZUSA's vassal states, greatly enhancing US imperialism trough an appearance of multilateralism.

    Mr. Buchanan is another one who uses this less than honest formulation.

    NoseytheDuke ,May 11, 2017 at 4:02 am GMT

    @jacques sheete NtD, Notice my comment #16...

    Others have also noted foolishness in this article.

    I wonder if Sir Bacevich will come here and defend himself or whether he'll lay low and not add more damage to his credibility.

    Where do we get these scribblers? Reading such compost sure gets old. doesn't it?

    NoseytheDuke ,May 11, 2017 at 4:07 am GMT

    @Eustace Tilley (not) You're quite right about Bush's security firm having had the time and opportunity. They may have placed the explosive devices in the towers. Mossad almost surely had the expertise, and, most important, the access to the technology. Having the devices obtained domestically might have left an unnecessary "paper trail" in the supply chain that Israel did not have to concern itself with.

    We will know the answers to these questions (and, of course, 9/11 mysteries and anomalies are legion) when God-Emperor Donald J. Trump appoints a Special Presidential Commission on 9/11 Events, with the power to issue subpoenas and place witnesses under oath, later in his first term.

    anon , May 11, 2017 at 5:36 am GMT

    Comparing the long ago white settlement of almost uninhabited America (funny how Cortez and company always get a pass) with the modern settlement of largely already occupied Palestine is ludicrous. Other points are very good. America should abandon its empire.

    Wizard of Oz ,May 11, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT

    @SolontoCroesus The premise of the article is bass ackward: neither Italian Fascism nor German National Socialism harbored goals of international conquest.

    Didn't read past the second paragraph: why bother? It's a prime example of what happens when propaganda is relied upon as the basis for history.

    If Lendman were able to get his head out of the holohoax pit and look at the "war to end all war" and "good war" square in the face for what they were, his first paragraph would read something like,

    America's mask is increasingly being peeled away: having worn the mask of "saving the world for democracy" to eliminate Berlin and Tokyo as counterbalances to its global quest, then occupying them psychologically and economically, it is now openly running its global war on humanity overtly from Washington. Today, it has partnered with likeminded allies, destroying fundamental freedoms, risking the unthinkable, potential life-ending nuclear war.

    Alden ,May 11, 2017 at 11:35 pm GMT

    ...so many pointless meaningless deaths for Greater Israel...

    interesting ,May 12, 2017 at 1:34 am GMT

    "Could it be that we've taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing differently?"

    It's difficult to continue with the article after reading that the answers are so obvious it's laughable.

    [May 10, 2017] it looked like Trump was about to start wars everywhere but can this be a distraction for the establishment politicians and media?

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Trump show is becoming interesting. A short time ago it looked like Trump was about to start wars everywhere. US establishment seemed to all agree that made him very presidential. A distraction for the establishment politicians and media while Tillerson and Trump get a few things done? ..."
    May 10, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    james | May 10, 2017 12:21:57 PM | 30

    i can never understand why politics has to be so complex, but it is.. it could be a lot more simple.. so for those who want to understand why things happen, they have to go beyond the surface..

    i agree with @4 ftb.. now, just cause someone says trump is done, doesn't mean he stops doing the crazy shit he is going continue to do.. but so far, none of it amounts to a hill of beans.. i can't see him doing anything relevant at this point other then bringing more trouble to the usa.. if he would step down prematurely, it wouldn't surprise me. he is out of his league and needs to stick to twitter..

    Peter AU | May 10, 2017 2:24:06 PM | 43

    The Trump show is becoming interesting. A short time ago it looked like Trump was about to start wars everywhere. US establishment seemed to all agree that made him very presidential. A distraction for the establishment politicians and media while Tillerson and Trump get a few things done?

    In the last weeks there has been a meeting between Tillerson and Putin, Lavrov and Trump will be meeting soon. Comey in charge of the Trump/Russia investigation has now been sacked. In Syria, US has hardly moved towards Raqqa, agreed to the Russian de-escalation zones which free up Syrian forces for a drive on Deir Ezzor and possibly Raqqa. The other thing that has appeared in the news in the last couple of weeks is that the Trump white house has not approved any pentagon requests to run their so called freedom of navigation exercises against China.

    Grieved | May 10, 2017 2:56:51 PM | 47

    @43 Peter Au

    Nice observation. Personally, I still hold off any judgment on who Trump is - there simply isn't enough roller-coaster motion yet to judge where the trend lines belong.

    A lot of the things I see him get blamed for are actually only theater, including Korea - or else relatively minor actions that satisfy subordinate departments (such as the US Navy), and that appear to make waves but that don't actually capsize the big picture. It's an uncomfortable brinkmanship to watch if you believe it's real, but I'm not sure that Trump believes it's anything more than pre-negotiation sand in the eyes.

    And a lot of other things that actually do happen domestically are part of the Republican and classical conservative agenda anyway. No organized force in the US exists anymore to combat these things, certainly not the sold-out Democrats and their long co-opted unions.

    Meanwhile, as you note, the realities on the geopolitical ground globally proceed in a direction favorable to peace.

    Peter AU | May 10, 2017 3:34:24 PM | 48
    @ Greived

    Tillerson may be the one to watch to see where the Trump roller coaster is heading? Trump distracts attention allowing Tillerson to get on with what they want to do?

    menechem golani | May 10, 2017 1:55:11 PM | 39
    very said day indeed
    indeed
    for usa usa and when israel is mighty oded yinon.
    comey was the last man standing a modern day kevin costner elliot ness in a sea of nazi and evil doing al capones and ali akhbar oceans 11ish
    we champions of anti semitismus and lgbt plus minus barbera lerner spector multiculralism frankfurt school must fight for are man
    and woman and all the gender fluids in between.
    so what if comey has a 5 million dollar home in the hamptons.
    so what if he has a dossier for safe keeping and insurance .
    so what if hsbc invested in him and andrew mcabe making them future proof.
    we in the upper golan israeli oil and gas have too support and protect are assets if they be in the fbi or in the al nusra syriana.
    mcabe will do a great job smashing more phones hammer tongs and bleachbit. stabilising this situation be assured mcabae will not rest until the ratlines drugs,arms slave and live organ trades are back up to peak bush obarmee levels.

    [May 10, 2017] Will Trumps Firing of FBI Director James Comey Be His Saturday Night Massacre? (Updated)

    Notable quotes:
    "... More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging too hard into Trump-Russia connections ..."
    "... The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset. ..."
    "... I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt "intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton (which was not his job) render him unfit for office. ..."
    "... Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors. So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they are. ..."
    "... What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods. ..."
    "... I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone. ..."
    "... All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy to drive ad rates. ..."
    "... being anti Russian is in the very DNA of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer .. ..."
    "... Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats. Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still hate them. ..."
    "... Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed, could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes. ..."
    "... The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary (Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre reasons, Trump will maintain his hold. ..."
    "... fbi sorta sat on gulen charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu ..."
    "... People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail, Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury ..."
    "... I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political capital in it. ..."
    "... Since you can't prove a negative, the innuendo can continue ad nauseam. ..."
    "... I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message. ..."
    "... If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents, quite unintentionally. ..."
    "... Why doesnt he fire the top 10 layers of CIA instead? They are wreaking havoc for real everywhere domestically and abroad. ..."
    "... If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( ) ..."
    May 09, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on May 9, 2017 by Yves Smith Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump. The question is whether this move will simply serve as the basis for sowing further doubts in the mainstream media against Trump, or will dent Trump's standing with Republicans.

    Comey made an odd practice of making moves that were arguably procedurally improper in his handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation, but some favored Clinton while others were damaging, given an impression of impartiality to the general public via getting both parties riled with Comey at various points in time. And regardless of what one thinks of his political and legal judgment, Comey had a reputation of being a straight shooter.

    And more generally, the director of the FBI is perceived to be a role above the partisan fray. Firing him is fraught with danger; it has the potential of turning into in a Nixonian Saturday Night Massacre, where the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox led the press and public to see Nixon as desperate to stymie an investigation into Watergate charges. It was the archetypal "the coverup is worse than the crime".

    To minimize risk, Trump's would have needed to have engaged in a whispering campaign against Comey, or least have notified some key figures in Congress that this was about to happen and give the rationale for the turfing out. And it appears he did do that to at least a degree, in that (as you will see below), Lindsay Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a statement supporting the firing. But given the surprised reaction in the press, it looks like any ground-sowing for this move was minimal. Caution and preparation don't rank high as Trump Administration priorities.

    More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging too hard into Trump-Russia connections .

    We'll know more in the coming hours and days. The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset.

    From the Wall Street Journal :

    In a letter to Mr. Comey, the president wrote, "It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission."

    Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a statement thanked Mr. Comey for his years of service to the country but said that a change in leadership at the bureau might be the best possible course of action.

    "Given the recent controversies surrounding the director, I believe a fresh start will serve the FBI and the nation well. I encourage the President to select the most qualified professional available who will serve our nation's interests," said Mr. Graham, a South Carolina Republican.

    Note that Sessions himself had been fired from the attorney general's office in the Clinton Administration. Clinton's attorney Janet Reno, who was the first to engage in large-scale firings of attorneys in the Department of Justice, also fired the head of the FBI. From Bloomberg :

    Comey, who has led an investigation into Russia's meddling during the 2016 election and any possible links to Trump aides and associates, is only the second FBI chief to have been fired. In 1993, President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno dismissed William Sessions.

    Trump's decision means that he will get to nominate Comey's successor while the agency is deep into the Russia inquiry. The move quickly intensified Democratic calls for a special prosecutor.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Trump "has catastrophically compromised the FBI's ongoing investigation of his own White House's ties to Russia. Not since Watergate have our legal systems been so threatened, and our faith in the independence and integrity of those systems so shaken."

    The Financial Times confirms that the Trump Administration didn't lay much groundwork with Congress :

    Mr Comey's sudden dismissal shocked Republicans and Democrats. Brendan Boyle, a Democratic congressman, said the "stunning" action "shows why we must have a special prosecutor like our nation did in Watergate".

    The proof of the pudding is whether Trump and Sessions will be able to ride out demands for a special prosecutor. Given how much noise and how little signal there has been, I would have though it was possible for Trump to tough this out. With the Democrats having peripheral figures like Carter Page as their supposed smoking guns, all they had was innuendo, amplified by the Mighty Wurlitzer of the media. But that may have gotten enough to Trump and his team to distort their judgment. Stay tuned.

    Update 5/10, 12:15 AM . The Hill reports Dems ask Justice Dept, FBI to 'preserve any and all files' on Comey firing / Despite much howling for blood in the comments section, some readers there were able to provide what I was looking for, which is whether Congress had any basis for getting the info. Here are the two key remarks:

    cm , May 9, 2017 at 7:42 pm

    I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt "intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton (which was not his job) render him unfit for office.

    Anyone opposing this firing should note they share opinions w/ John McCain, which ought to give any non-neocon pause

    WeakendSquire , May 9, 2017 at 7:44 pm

    Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors. So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they are.

    What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods.

    Jim Haygood , May 9, 2017 at 8:01 pm

    The Scream:

    Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) made the biggest impression, going to the Senate floor about an hour after the announcement to clearly outline the stakes.

    "Any attempt to stop or undermine this FBI investigation would raise grave constitutional issues," he told colleagues.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article149589289.html#storylink=cpy

    Constitutional issues ? HA HA HA HA

    What is "Senator" Durbin doing about the war escalation in Afghanstan and Syria? My point exactly.

    We've got a problem in politics
    So few Richards, so many dicks

    screen screamer , May 9, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    Interestingly, Fed directors have a term of ten years and since Hoover, there has been only one to make it the full term. That would be Mr. Mueller who went twelve years as director directly following 911.

    I must confess that I do not know why the others were let go or retired. I think it would make an interesting study.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

    NotTimothyGeithner , May 9, 2017 at 11:02 pm

    FBI Director is one of those jobs where if you do a good job you should suffer burnout regardless of who you are. A 10 year term is bizarre if you expect a quality job. I would expect resignation and early retirement if the job is being taken seriously. Then you have to consider the quality of staff and team work arrangements at any given time and how much workload a FBI Director or Cabinet Secretary has to deal with.

    Matt , May 9, 2017 at 8:06 pm

    I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone.

    jo6pac , May 9, 2017 at 8:29 pm

    Thanks I love it and they just don't care and hoping the lame stream corp. owned media will carry their propaganda. Demodogs message is we didn't fail but those looser didn't vote for us the party of corp. Amerika. Double down

    John Zelnicker , May 9, 2017 at 9:51 pm

    @Matt – I don't think the Twitter Dems can conceive of the notion that there is a genie or even a bottle in this situation. They are so caught up in the Russia!, Russia! hysteria that there is no room in their thinking for any kind of rational thought or any consideration of consequences.

    Matt , May 9, 2017 at 10:39 pm

    You're more hopeful that I am. I think the more militaristic among them are so cavalier about conflict with Russia because of the Hitler-level delusions many of them have about the military capacity of Russia.

    "Just kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come down"

    "We'll be greeted as liberators when we defeat the tyrant Putin!"

    Just look at that SNL sketch that aired a few months ago. They think these people are frozen, ignorant peasants.

    marym , May 9, 2017 at 8:08 pm

    Nixon Library weighs in: https://twitter.com/NixonLibrary/status/862083605081862145

    RichardNixonLibrary‏2Verified account? @NixonLibrary
    FUN FACT: President Nixon never fired the Director of the FBI #FBIDirector #notNixonian

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 9, 2017 at 8:37 pm

    Nixon was smart enough to avoid Russia and the USSR, and instead, worked with China that would help suppress US wages for decades.

    AbateMagicThinking but Not mone y , May 9, 2017 at 8:39 pm

    Personally I would be no good at power. My reading has led me to believe that you need a very strong stomach to endure what you have to deal with, whether it be human gore, hypocrisy, or the dark side of any civilization. I don't have that stomach, and if you take Comey's words at face value neither does he.

    So I think you can take that as a thumbs-up.

    JTMcPhee , May 9, 2017 at 10:40 pm

    Nah, ask Obomber. Once you get past a little queasiness, getting "pretty good at killing folks" is a piece of cake. It's just business as usual. Ask any Civil War or WW I general officer, or Bomber Harris, or Lemay or the young guy, farm boy from Iowa who was a door gunner I knew on Vietnam. Just no problem killing gooks. His moral line was killing the water buffalo. "I know how I'd feel if someone blew away my John Deere."

    AbateMagicThinking but Not money , May 9, 2017 at 11:39 pm

    Re: The youg guy with the agricultural machinery sensibilities:

    Although he was the manipulator of terrible power, I see him as a victim (in the scheme of things), not a member of the power-elite. And the other military you mention, were they in the power-elite? Eisenhower should have been on your list, as he straddled the divide.

    Occasional Delurker , May 9, 2017 at 8:49 pm

    I'm curious how this will be interpreted by people who get their news mostly via headlines. (I also wonder what proportion of the voting population that is.)

    The headlines I've seen so far, if they give a reason, just make reference to the Clinton email investigation. I sort of think this will be interpreted by many mostly-headline news gatherers as meaning that Trump fired Comey because he did not, in fact, lock her up. Indeed, even those who dig deeper may still believe that this is the real reason.

    So, like so many things raged about in the media, I'm not sure this really hurts Trump amongst his voters. Probably helps, really.

    And for something completely different, Snowden is not a fan:

    https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/862069019301601281

    Art Eclectic , May 9, 2017 at 9:00 pm

    All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy to drive ad rates.

    Something for everyone.

    fresno dan , May 9, 2017 at 8:54 pm

    "Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump."

    How neutral or unconcerned with what the Establishment views as the requisite dogma regarding Russia is Trump? Articles about Trump being unhappy about McMaster gives the impression that Trump still believe he (Trump) is the boss.

    Yes, the dems have ridiculous notions about Russians as an excuse for Hillary. But being anti Russian is in the very DNA of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer ..

    Huey Long , May 9, 2017 at 9:00 pm

    You're right, the red party is a virulently anti-red outfit. I can see the die hard GOPers turning on the Trumpster, but will his base stand for it? The Trumpster does have a bit of a cult of personality going on in some circles.

    NotTimothyGeithner , May 9, 2017 at 10:25 pm

    Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats. Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still hate them.

    Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed, could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes.

    The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary (Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre reasons, Trump will maintain his hold.

    Carolinian , May 9, 2017 at 10:13 pm

    They still have to have a case to make and there is none. Impeachment is just as much a fantasy as it was several months ago. In fact they no longer even have the argument that Trump must be stifled and prevented from doing all his crazy promises since they don't seem to be happening anyway.

    Frankly I say good for Trump rather than letting Comey go all Janet Reno on him. If this country is going to be run by the NYT and the WaPo and CNN then we are truly sunk. He had it right when he was attacking this bunch rather than kowtowing to them.

    Huey Long , May 9, 2017 at 8:57 pm

    Although the Mighty Wurlitzer is going to take this firing and run with it, I wonder if anyone's really going to care outside of folks that watch a ton of CNN and MSNBC. I think scalping him at this point in his administration is likely to generate more protests and demonstrations than not scalping him.

    Alex Morfesis , May 9, 2017 at 9:00 pm

    Well don trumpioni may have stepped in it although, maybe this has less to do with russia perhaps fbi sorta sat on gulen charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu

    Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against people who dont fall in line the blob counterforce

    comey the straight shooter methynx is a bit of a "legend" but even the most slick and corrupt have certain lines they wont cross

    Huey Long , May 9, 2017 at 9:39 pm

    Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against people who dont fall in line the blob counterforce

    The FBI would be the preferred outfit for this sort of thing due to their many decades of experience bludgeoning those who don't fall in line.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

    alex morfesis , May 10, 2017 at 1:49 am

    oh come one now that stuff never happened all you have is proof how can that stand up to narratives

    oho , May 9, 2017 at 9:18 pm

    "Will Trump's Firing of FBI Director James Comey Be His Saturday Night Massacre?'

    It would be interesting to take a poll on what percentage of citizens know that "Saturday Night Massacre" is not a horror film.

    I'd be willing to bet a beer that this kerfuffle will be confined to the Beltway media and Sunday talk shows and will fade from the news cycle/Facebook feeds rather quickly.

    People are tapped out mentally with political talk.

    seabos84 , May 9, 2017 at 9:41 pm

    People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail, Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury

    1973 was 28 years after 1945. 1973 was 44 years ago. The post WW2 psuedo consensus is looooooooong gone.

    I thought we hated Comey cuz of what he did to HRC? Today we hate Trump cuz Comey was going after the Russians? Crap I hate missing the 2 minute hate.

    rmm

    Anonymous , May 9, 2017 at 10:23 pm

    I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political capital in it. It may be the Russian story will be proven to be nonsense about October, 2018.

    DJPS , May 9, 2017 at 11:02 pm

    Since you can't prove a negative, the innuendo can continue ad nauseam.

    John Wright , May 10, 2017 at 12:30 am

    I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message.

    It is truly remarkable, the Russians spend about 10% of what the USA does on "Defense" and are able to influence a US electorate that is largely unaware and unconcerned about world affairs.

    I believe enough voters know that Clinton played fast and loose with the email server to avoid FOIA and the Clinton Foundation pulled in a lot of money from foreign governments as payment in advance to President Hillary Clinton..

    The harping on the "Russia influenced the election enough to elect Trump" will bite the Democrats as they avoid the jobs, medical and economic issues that actually influenced the voters for Trump.

    If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents, quite unintentionally.

    Loblolly May 10, 2017 at 1:11 am

    That would require us to be rational actors rather than the cartoon idiots the media portrays us as.

    djrichard , May 10, 2017 at 1:25 am

    I've taken to using doge speak in my comments on Yahoo articles and WaPo articles. I figure that's about as much intelligence the publishers are investing into the articles and into the audience, that I therefore tune my intelligence accordingly.

    Kim Kaufman , May 9, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    CNN exclusive: Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation

    By Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Pamela Brown, CNN

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html

    What seems to me to be most problematic for Flynn is not so much Russia but that he was getting paid by Turkey as a lobbyist while heading the NSA.

    Art Eclectic , May 9, 2017 at 10:52 pm

    Nice. Team Trump managed to get out ahead of that story with their own. That's some ninja level media mastery.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , May 9, 2017 at 11:53 pm

    The plot thickens.

    juliania , May 9, 2017 at 11:04 pm

    If it has to do with the Russian electorial witch hunt stupidity, then yes, I think Comey ought to have been fired. For crying out loud, enough already! Delicate matters are being attempted in the Middle East, and there is no sense in pursuing that craziness. I don't understand why that shouldn't be a perfectly acceptable reason to change direction and start attending to real issues with someone in the office who would support Trump's legitimate claim (and Putin's) that there was no there there.

    Wrong Letters , May 9, 2017 at 11:12 pm

    Why doesnt he fire the top 10 layers of CIA instead? They are wreaking havoc for real everywhere domestically and abroad.

    Huey Long , May 10, 2017 at 1:26 am

    I would imagine the CIA/Intel guys are way harder to get rid of. To quote the late, great Sen. Frank Church:

    If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( )

    Toolate , May 9, 2017 at 11:27 pm

    So not one poster here thinks the Russia story has any merit whatsoever? With those odds, the contrarian in me says hmmm

    Yves Smith Post author , May 10, 2017 at 12:31 am

    Because people here are smart enough to be skeptical of hysterical MSM headlines with no real goods, you act as if you are some sort of smart contrarian, when you are just echoing a Democratic party/media narrative?

    You do not seem to recognize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The idea that billionaire, who was already famous in the US by virtue (among other things) of having a TV show that ran for 14 years and got billions of free media coverage during his campaign, is somehow owned by Putin, is astonishing on its face. Trump had to have been the focus of extensive Republican and Democratic party opposition research while he was campaigning.

    And perhaps most important, the night he won, Trump clearly did not expect to win. His longstanding friend Howard Stern stated a view similar to ours, that Trump ran because it would be good PR and the whole thing developed a life of its own. And before you try saying politics doesn't work that way, the UK is now on a path to Brexit for the same reasons.

    All the Dems and the media have come up with are some kinda-sorta connections to Russia. Trump as a very rich man who also has assembled a large team of political types in short order, would have people who knew people in all corners of the world. "X has done business with Y" is hardly proof o of influence, particularly with a guy like Trump, who is now famous for telling people what they want to hear in a meeting and backstabbing them the next day.

    We've been looking at this for months. The best they can come up with is:

    1. Manafort, who worked for Trump for all of four months and was fired. Plus his Russia connections are mainly through Ukraine. Podesta has strong if not stronger Russia ties, is a much more central play to Clinton and no one is making a stink about that. And that's before you get to the Clinton involvement in a yuuge uranium sale to Russia, which even the New York Times confirmed (but wrote such a weedy story that you have to read carefully to see that).

    2. Carter Page, who was even more peripheral

    3. Flynn, again not a central player, plus it appears his bigger sin involved Turkey

    4. The conversation with the Russian ambassador, which contrary to the screeching has plenty of precedent (in fact, Nixon and Reagan did far more serious meddling)

    5. The various allegations re Trump real estate and bank loans. Trump did have a really seedy Russian involved in a NYC development. One should be more worried that the guy was a crook than that he was Russian. Third tier, not even remotely in the oligarch class. There are also vague allegations re money laundering. The is crap because first, every NYC real estate player has dirty money in high end projects (see the big expose by the New York Times on the Time Warner Center, developed by the Related Companies, owned by Steve Ross). But second, the party responsible for checking where the money came from, unless it was wheelbarrows of cash, is the bank, not the real estate owner. Since the NYT expose there have been efforts to make developers/owners responsible too, but those aren't germane to Trump since they aren't/weren't in effect.

    So please do not provide no value added speculation. If you have something concrete, that would be interesting, but I've been looking and I've seen nothing of any substance.

    Huey Long , May 10, 2017 at 1:07 am

    +1 on the Time Warner Center

    Very few condos there are occupied for more than a few days per year, and most of the residents I encountered during my tenure there were not US citizens.

    We were all very entertained when the Times broke the story.

    Just FYI, Ross does not own the TWC outright, he only has a stake in the place albeit a sizable one since aquiring TIme Warner's office/studio unit.

    LT , May 10, 2017 at 1:50 am

    Trump a crook, but not any other oligarchs? The old saying goes something like behind every great fortune is a great crime.

    They clean up the image with a few rewrites and something like public office or foundations. The Presidency is Trump's ca-ching. And the pauses on the promises and the falling in line (bombs away!). He'll be right in the club.

    George Phillies , May 10, 2017 at 12:40 am

    Mr Comey also made some statements recently about Clinton emails and Mr Wiener, statements that seemed to be in need of significant reinterpretation. That might also have been the cause.

    VietnamVet , May 10, 2017 at 12:56 am

    Corporate Government messaging has fallen apart. The description of Anthony Weiner's laptop went from "explosive" to "careless but not criminal" to "just several" Clinton e-mails on it.

    Democrats are generally supported by Wall Street, GOP by military contractors; but, together they are one war party. The new Saturday Night Massacre shows that with Donald Trump's triumph, the government has split apart into nationalist and globalist factions. No doubt the James Comey firing buries the Russian interference investigation. However, with the wars in Syria and Afghanistan re-surging; this episode shows that nothing the government says or the media reports is near the truth.

    Loblolly , May 10, 2017 at 1:25 am

    This is ostensibly the full memo from Deputy AG Rosenthal recommending the removal of Director Comey.

    Link is to an imgur album consisting of three images.

    <

    [May 10, 2017] Trump Fires FBI Boss James Comey - Its About Time

    Notable quotes:
    "... But the political dimension of the dismissal is not about the Clinton email affair at all. It is about the "Russia interfered with the election" nonsense Clinton invented as excuse for her self-inflicted loss of the vote. The whole anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign run by neocons and "Resistance" democrats, is designed to block the foreign policy - detente with Russia - for which Trump was elected. The anti-Russia inquisition is dangerous groupthink . ..."
    "... He could have been sacked early on while the media's attention was focused on Trump's choices to fill the various Cabinet posts. ..."
    "... It's likely the world will witness the POTUS get his wings clipped. Mr. Trump has never been confronted with existential adversity, his wealth has always protected him from that prospect. He is now captive in a golden cage of political power and has neither the personal experience, resources nor the capacity to conduct governance. Be prepared to watch Trump's Gφtterdδmmerung. Put a fork in, Trump is done. ..."
    "... Curiously I've come to the opposite conclusion: Hillary Clinton is done. Mark my words. ..."
    "... This sort of stuff barely registers with me any more, since the one fact we can all rest assured isn't fakey is that long before an apparatchik such as Comey gets anywhere near the top trough, they will have been 'vetted' to ensure that they aren't the type of person to ever place principle ahead of self interest. ..."
    "... But The Demorats -> Schumer in tears , Warren in war paint, et al and Snowden! - all have selective memories and are exceptional hypocrites. ..."
    "... President Clinton today dismissed William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who had stubbornly rejected an Administration ultimatum to resign six months after a harsh internal ethics report on his conduct. ..."
    "... Who said it will make such a difference who sits in the FBI? A new guy will just show up saying the same stuff Comey have said. Just look at the new leaders at CIA, NSA, same warmongering hysterical stuff as under Obama. ..."
    "... Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director, pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution: (VIDEO) ..."
    "... Of course Comey wouldn't reveal who sent the email and to whom it was sent. But it sounds like it was sent from someone who worked closely with Lynch, and sent to someone who was very worried about Clinton going down in flames, probably someone very close to Clinton. At the end of the segment, Herridge pointed out that Comey suggested he was boxed in by Lynch and here is what she's talking about:[..] ..."
    "... Reminds me of a little passage I read somewhere about a dish served cold. ..."
    "... Some wonder why a guy like Trump, who made his bones telling people mano a mano that they were fired on prime time TV, wouldn't have picked up a phone to advise Comey he was done. Comey learned of his dismissal while giving a speech in LA. Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley says that was done so the president's people could access Comey's documents in his office while he was safely out of town. ..."
    "... The assault on the wealth of the working classes will continue unabated. Mr. Trump is here to represent the wealthy elites, and is doing a fine job at that. Welcome to the new age of feudalism. ..."
    "... Comey also gave immunity to 5 of Hillary's closest aids, including Huma. This insulated Hillary as these people could not be pressured to testify against her. ..."
    "... Not to mention, jackrabbit, Hillary was never sworn in during her Saturday interview with the FBI. ..."
    "... Trump fires Comey due to his political meddling but ... Trump won't prosecute Clinton about her email server. ..."
    "... Clinton's Benghazi was treasonous covering up for Islamic terrorist/email means espionage not electronic mail/Clinton Foundation is treason for hire by the Secretary of State (who ruled America during the Great Interregnum when there was no President, 2009-2117, except when John Kerry was Secretary of State but it was still actually Clinton running things because everyone knows the Secretary of State doesn't make foreign policy) fake scandals were kept alive by Comey to intervene in the US election. (Whether it was his eager doing or he was pressured is irrelevant. ..."
    "... Regarding "impromptu meeting b/w Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac", Comey was giving cover "to" Lynch, IMO. "no reasonable prosecutor". He was protecting the deal Lynch had already made with Clintons. ..."
    "... Did you by chance listen/watch his testimony last week? If not, I recommend it as must watch especially after his being fired. He added more detail to the email investigation and his thinking at the time. ..."
    "... The BBC running a live on Comey's end-of-contract?! Color revo any? Lavrov in Washington, guns for the Kurds, the US going for al-Nusra's head scalp... ..."
    "... so treasonable Obama's scumbucket FBI director Comey gets fired. wowie zowie. nevermind the perjury, the obstruction of justice, the accessory to Clinton's sedition... ..."
    "... Does Russia interfere in U.S. politics more than Israel does? ..."
    "... Yes, caught part of the hearings. Just proved to me that deal was in stone before any tarmac meeting took place. And I bet Comey might not have even known Lynch would expose them so stupidly, how dumb was that. Did a FBI person leaked the meeting to the press?? ..."
    "... I've been surprised that Russia doesn't release "white papers" that show what the NED and IRI have done including in places like Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia. ..."
    May 10, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    President Trump dismissed the Director of the FBI James Comey on recommendation of the Deputy Attorney General, who had served under Obama, and the Attorney General. The dismissal and the recommendation memos can be read here.

    Comey is accused of usurping the Attorney General's authority on several occasions. In July 2016 Comey decided and publicly announced the closing of the Clinton email-investigations without a recommendation of prosecution. He publicly announced the reopening of the investigation in October only to close it again a few days later.

    At the first closing of the investigation Comey held a press conference and said:

    "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

    That, by far, exceeded his competency, Since when can a police officer decide how "reasonable" a prosecutor may or may not be, and make public announcements about that? Clinton's running of a private email server broke several laws. Anyone but she would have been prosecuted at least for breaching secrecy and security regulations.

    It is not the job of the police to decide about prosecutions. The police is an investigating agent of the public prosecutors office. It can make recommendations about prosecutions but not decide about them. Recommendations are to be kept confidential until they are decided upon by the relevant authority - the prosecutor. There are additional issues with Comey. His agents used sting or rather entrapment to lure many hapless idiots into committing "ISIS terror acts". A full two third of such acts in the U.S. would not have been though about without FBI help. Comey himself had signed off on Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.

    The formal dismissal of Comey is, in my view, the right thing to do. It should have been done earlier.

    But the political dimension of the dismissal is not about the Clinton email affair at all. It is about the "Russia interfered with the election" nonsense Clinton invented as excuse for her self-inflicted loss of the vote. The whole anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign run by neocons and "Resistance" democrats, is designed to block the foreign policy - detente with Russia - for which Trump was elected. The anti-Russia inquisition is dangerous groupthink.

    There is no evidence - none at all - that Russia "interfered" with the U.S. election. There is no evidence - none at all - that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign. The Democratic Senator Dianna Feinstein, who sits on the Judiciary Committee as well as the Select Committee on Intelligence, recently confirmed that publicly (vid) immediately after she had again been briefed by the CIA:

    Blitzer mentioned that Feinstein and other colleagues from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had visited CIA headquarters on Tuesday to be briefed on the investigation. He then asked Feinstein whether she had evidence, without disclosing any classified information, that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.

    "Not at this time," Feinstein said.

    Jen | May 10, 2017 4:52:32 AM | 1
    It would be interesting to know why James Comey was sacked now and not earlier before the "Russia interfered in the elections" narrative had much chance to damage Trump's presidency. He could have been sacked early on while the media's attention was focused on Trump's choices to fill the various Cabinet posts.
    Formerly T-Bear | May 10, 2017 5:32:00 AM | 4
    It's likely the world will witness the POTUS get his wings clipped. Mr. Trump has never been confronted with existential adversity, his wealth has always protected him from that prospect. He is now captive in a golden cage of political power and has neither the personal experience, resources nor the capacity to conduct governance. Be prepared to watch Trump's Gφtterdδmmerung. Put a fork in, Trump is done.

    Had Madam Clinton won the election, this would not have been possible. The organisation she headed would have taken immediate control of all available power bases and would not have created such opportunity for attack.

    Quentin | May 10, 2017 5:53:23 AM | 5
    @ 4

    Curiously I've come to the opposite conclusion: Hillary Clinton is done. Mark my words.

    Anon | May 10, 2017 5:59:52 AM | 6
    The next one will be "Operation Gaslight ". The storyline will be that Trump is unstable and needs to be removed by his cabinet. Trumps many enemies will never stop. There is too much at stake.
    Debsisdead | May 10, 2017 6:01:23 AM | 7
    All this appointments soap opera is just distraction for the masses. The next appointee will just like Comey, do as he/she is told.

    This sort of stuff barely registers with me any more, since the one fact we can all rest assured isn't fakey is that long before an apparatchik such as Comey gets anywhere near the top trough, they will have been 'vetted' to ensure that they aren't the type of person to ever place principle ahead of self interest.

    If perchance there was any motive other than inspiring yet more vapid chatter, we can be equally certain that is not going to rate a mention from any of the hack pols or their media enablers until long after this storm in a teacup has subsided.

    A | May 10, 2017 6:04:42 AM | 8
    Put a fork in, Trump is done.

    Out of curiosity: does anyone know the very first time this was said about Trump? I'm sure we can all agree this much though: don't hold your breath on it being the last time it's said about Trump..

    likklemore | May 10, 2017 6:23:54 AM | 11
    @FTB 4 and thank you A @ 8

    I endorse b. Excellent.

    Recall Trump was written off through the Primaries as he offed 16 candidates. In the election cycle down to the wire HRC had a 90% chance. Newsweek published edition cover page Madame President. (Dewey anyone?) I dislike that the Trump presidency is a family affair -- Jared Kushner will be the stick and fork; the second high profile firing that should have been done.

    But The Demorats -> Schumer in tears , Warren in war paint, et al and Snowden! - all have selective memories and are exceptional hypocrites.

    Flashback: New York Times - July 19, 1993 -> President William J. Clinton fires FBI Director

    WASHINGTON, July 19- President Clinton today dismissed William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who had stubbornly rejected an Administration ultimatum to resign six months after a harsh internal ethics report on his conduct.

    Mr. Clinton said he would announce his nominee to replace Mr. Sessions on Tuesday. He was expected to pick Judge Louis J. Freeh of Federal District Court in Manhattan; officials said Judge Freeh had impressed Mr. Clinton favorably on Friday at their first meeting.

    Mr. Clinton, explaining his reasons for removing Mr. Sessions, effective immediately, said, "We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the F.B.I. It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency's history is brought to a close." Defiant to the End

    But in a parting news conference at F.B.I. headquarters after Mr. Clinton's announcement, a defiant Mr. Sessions -- his right arm in a sling as a result of a weekend fall -- railed at what he called the unfairness of his removal, which comes nearly six years into his 10-year term.

    "Because of the scurrilous attacks on me and my wife of 42 years, it has been decided by others that I can no longer be as forceful as I need to be in leading the F.B.I. and carrying out my responsibilities to the bureau and the nation," he said. "It is because I believe in the principle of an independent F.B.I. that I have refused to voluntarily resign."

    Mr. Clinton said that after reviewing Mr. Sessions's performance, Attorney General Janet Reno had advised him that Mr. Sessions should go. "After a thorough review by the Attorney General of Mr. Sessions's leadership of the F.B.I., she has reported to me in no uncertain terms that he can no longer effectively lead the bureau

    Despite the President's severe tone, he seemed to regret having to force Mr. Sessions from his post. He said he had hoped that the issue could be settled at the Justice Department without the necessity of using his authority to dismiss the Director, who has a 10-year term but may be removed by the President at any time.

    But Mr. Sessions's intransigence had festered into an awkward situation for Mr. Clinton.

    A Republican stranded in a Democratic Administration, Mr. Sessions was appointed to head the F.B.I. by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 amid the turmoil of the Iran-contra affair. Mr. Sessions arrived as a respected judge from San Antonio, but after five and a half years in office, he leaves with his star fallen, his agency adrift and his support at the F.B.I. all but drained away. Troubled Tenure."[.]

    in lieu of the "fake-news" rag content at the fly

    Anon | May 10, 2017 6:47:39 AM | 13
    Who said it will make such a difference who sits in the FBI? A new guy will just show up saying the same stuff Comey have said. Just look at the new leaders at CIA, NSA, same warmongering hysterical stuff as under Obama.

    Trump has a bad temper and demonstrates erratic behavior, like Hillary. The handlers keep it covered up until they no longer keep it covered up. They let it slip that Hillary frequently blew up and used the F word vigorously as she berated her underlings (which are everyone including Clenis). Trump is, likewise, a genuine asshole. He's not faking that part.

    Marko | May 10, 2017 7:30:14 AM | 16
    If McCabe is next to go , as he should be , this could represent a significant swamp-draining accomplishment for Trump. Depending on who replaces them , of course.

    The Rosenstein letter provided considerable legitimacy to Trump's move , considering the bipartisan support Rosenstein achieved. It wouldn't be a bad move for Trump to choose a replacement for Comey that comes with Rosenstein's strong endorsement. A Sessions endorsement would be about one-half as valuable.

    jfl | May 10, 2017 7:46:50 AM | 17
    did, 'All this appointments soap opera is just distraction for the masses. ... '

    well, amend that to are pushed as a distraction for the masses and i'll certainly agree. there are so many levels at "arms' length" now that they're really just filling in the alibis for the 'historians' ... schlesinger types who'll connect all the dots once the deeds are done and show us the tragi-comedy in five acts. the masses are undistracted. people know it's all pure bullshit. that they're being played and sold down the river. it would be really great if we did something about it. just for the hell of it.

    ProPeace | May 10, 2017 8:10:27 AM | 18
    Interesting: Inside Trumps War with Robert David Steele

    Also White House Petition for Unity Act Against the Deep State, Meeting with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, & Robert Steele

    Hoarsewhisperer | May 10, 2017 8:32:02 AM | 19
    Obama and Hillary, however, addressed us in whole sentences and presented clearly structured concepts and arguments. Trump spits out 140-character tweets at us from the early hours of the morning.
    I see a keen distinction there.
    Posted by: ralphieboy | May 10, 2017 7:23:56 AM | 15

    ... forgetting, of course, that most politicians (and an only slightly smaller proportion of ordinary folks) start talking, or writing, or dialing, before they've decided precisely what they intend to say.Trump, and probably Putin, thinks before he communicates. And if the result isn't worth saying, he shuts up. Same as Putin.

    Anon | May 10, 2017 8:34:53 AM | 20
    ralphieboy

    Then you are naive if you belive that Trump fire people through Twitter. Sure the stupid anti-Trump MSM want us to believe that.

    likklemore | May 10, 2017 8:51:26 AM | 21
    Marko @ 16

    Agree. McCabe should follow Comey out the door. Patience grasshopper, one-at-a- time. If I were Hillary, (thank G-d for small mercies), after reading Rosenstein's Memo for the Attorney General, I 'd be lawyering up with my wet work gang.

    This excerpt is a tell; confirming indeed there was some simmering mutiny within the FBI house. Judge Nap called it.

    [..] As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept nearly universal judgement that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.[.]

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    full Memo deserves a re- read. OMG, someone is setting the table for dinner. Comey was cleaning the Clintons' cess-pool and he was helpfully assisted by the not so honorable, Obama's Attorney General, Lowrenta Lynch

    Under-reported: May 03, 2017

    Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director, pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution: (VIDEO)

    Of course Comey wouldn't reveal who sent the email and to whom it was sent. But it sounds like it was sent from someone who worked closely with Lynch, and sent to someone who was very worried about Clinton going down in flames, probably someone very close to Clinton.
    At the end of the segment, Herridge pointed out that Comey suggested he was boxed in by Lynch and here is what she's talking about:[..]

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    in the district of criminals, (aka D.C.), we find not only a swamp, but a few deep cess-pools.

    Morongobill | May 10, 2017 9:19:59 AM | 22
    Reminds me of a little passage I read somewhere about a dish served cold.
    peter | May 10, 2017 9:49:52 AM | 23
    So Trump includes in his firing letter that he appreciates the fact that Comey told him personally on three separate occasions that he was not the subject of investigation. What's that doing there?

    Some wonder why a guy like Trump, who made his bones telling people mano a mano that they were fired on prime time TV, wouldn't have picked up a phone to advise Comey he was done. Comey learned of his dismissal while giving a speech in LA. Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley says that was done so the president's people could access Comey's documents in his office while he was safely out of town.

    The Senate investigation just got started. This business about six months of investigation failing to produce a shred of evidence and therefore the whole matter should be dropped isn't going to fly. The same people who natter on about how we masses, like mushrooms kept in the dark and nurtured with bullshit, should disregard all this bafflegab about impropriety also say we should accept their conclusion that there's nothing to see here and that it's time to move on. That ain't happening.

    Senator Al Franken, who's insipid alter-ego George Smiley on Saturday Night Live was the epitome of insecurity, has turned out to be a formidable poser of very tough questions to anyone unfortunate to be summoned before the senate panel. These senate guys don't fuck around and will not be stonewalled. We're in for some very interesting television.

    BRF | May 10, 2017 10:00:13 AM | 25
    Comey will land on his feet in some corporate gig, from whence he came. The only interesting aspect is whether or not his replacement will restore any smidgen of credibility to the FBI by acting on a basis of law or if the political games will continue. My guess would be that the plutocracy will see that their candidate is installed as FBI Director and at a minimum this person will remain at least neutral to the plutocracy's rule, silence being consent. That would be the big big silence on the Clinton criminality as it is intertwined with plutocratic rule. More of the same only more so as the FBI and co-conspirators keep the plot to assassinate any public leaders dusted off in case another Martin Luther King, another Occupy movement or some such should arise.
    ben | May 10, 2017 10:46:59 AM | 26
    DiD @ 7 said: "All this appointments soap opera is just distraction for the masses. The next appointee will just like Comey, do as he/she is told."

    Well said, an IMO, absolutely spot on.

    I think there are people above the Law, history proves that. HRC AND Mr. Trump are part of that group. I fully expect that nothing will happen to either. As DiD said, " A distraction for the masses( sheep)."

    The assault on the wealth of the working classes will continue unabated. Mr. Trump is here to represent the wealthy elites, and is doing a fine job at that. Welcome to the new age of feudalism.

    lysias | May 10, 2017 10:54:14 AM | 27
    Was a weekend fall the real reason why William Sessions's arm was in a sling?
    WorldBLee | May 10, 2017 11:21:16 AM | 29
    The musical chairs show in Washington is meaningless. The Democrats hated Comey but now that he's fired they love him because they can use it to attack Trump. It's all political theatre and should be regarded as such. As others have said, another chump willing to take orders will replace Comey and will surely carry out the same bad policies at the FBI.
    Circe | May 10, 2017 12:25:57 PM | 31
    Trump was just in the Oval Office with that imperial criminal punk, Kissinger, ironically, Nixon's NSA and Trump blurted out that he fired Comey because he wasn't doing a good job.

    The pot calling the kettle black is an understatement.

    I don't give a damn one way or another who Trumpster fires; what I do give a damn about is abuse of power and manipulation of the truth and Trump is repeatedly guilty of both.

    No such dictatorial power should ever again be vested in that position and in a person who is prone to exceed his competencies. And that's exactly how I would describe Herr Drumpf, danke!

    Here's a great example of integrity. Try it sometime!:

    https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/862069019301601281

    https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/862067649748119553

    Tinpot Trump:

    https://theintercept.com/2017/05/10/after-james-comeys-firing-who-will-stop-trumps-tinpot-dictatorship/

    This has nothing to do with Comey incompetence or the man himself. This is only about Trump abusing power as he's been doing since DAY ONE. He just took it to the next level...that's all!

    Willy2 | May 10, 2017 12:44:39 PM | 32
    - Wolf Blitzer was once employed by AIPAC.
    - Comey simply stepped on too many (sensitive) toes, both Republican & Democratic. In that regard it was a matter of time that he was fired. It would have happened as well if Hillary Clinton had been elected to become the new president.
    - But I also fear that a new FBI director (as appointed by one Jeff Sessions) will be as rightwing as one Jeff Sessions or even worse.
    SlapHappy | May 10, 2017 1:12:56 PM | 33
    @BRF #25

    I'd add Aaron Swartz, Pat Tillman, and the DC Madam to the list of people who threatened the cabal and were assassinated for their efforts.

    h | May 10, 2017 1:37:10 PM | 34
    Great post, b, and likklemore, your comments are appreciated.

    What is troubling to me with all of this is how politicized Obama's Cabinet/team became. It is becoming more and more obvious his appointments were made to serve him NOT the country and the public is witnessing the fallout from such authoritarian style of leadership.

    Comey is both a victim and beneficiary of this politicization. His testimony last week was more forthcoming than in previous hearings, but what spoke volumes was his reaction to the impromptu meeting b/w Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac in Arizona. He suggested his concerns about Lynch being compromised regarding the Clinton email investigation were confirmed during that meeting while stating it was the last straw so to speak.

    This pattern of politicization was obviously meant to continue under Hillary's leadership by cementing a permanent political class in DC who would serve the president rather than all of us outside of Washington. Some term this as the 'UniParty' - a majority of R and D's working in tandem to re orient DC machinations into a global governing body.

    The neo's - libs and cons - are giddy over resigning the U.S. Constitution and the rest of America's founding papers into the trash heap of history. Their march toward globalization is hindered by those pesky documents. But what these globalists never counted on was a Trump win and, more importantly, conservatives gaining power in 28 states, six states shy of holding a Constitutional Convention.

    Now that Hillary lost, Obama and team are pulling together an organizational structure to stave off wins in those six states while also trying to peel away those few who turned red in 2016.

    This is the new political battleground - conservatives fighting for a constitutional convention and neo's fighting to remain relevant. With Comey being gone, and soon McCabe and et al, the FBI has a shot at shedding the politicization of the department and returning to its investigative roots.

    This is the reason for Robby Mook's 'terrified' comment when learning of Comey's firing. He and his globalist cohorts should be concerned, but it's Hillary who really needs to be terrified.

    From The Hague | May 10, 2017 1:37:54 PM | 35
    #15 ralphieboy
    Obama and Hillary, however, addressed us in whole sentences and presented clearly structured concepts and arguments.

    Oh, that's your definition of lying and warmongering, idiot.

    Jackrabbit | May 10, 2017 1:40:00 PM | 36
    Comey also gave immunity to 5 of Hillary's closest aids, including Huma. This insulated Hillary as these people could not be pressured to testify against her.
    h | May 10, 2017 1:46:44 PM | 37
    Not to mention, jackrabbit, Hillary was never sworn in during her Saturday interview with the FBI.
    Jackrabbit | May 10, 2017 1:54:06 PM | 38
    Trump fires Comey due to his political meddling but ... Trump won't prosecute Clinton about her email server.
    xor | May 10, 2017 2:07:46 PM | 41
    I read that he was fired while giving some speech in Los Angeles or so and when he was asked to comment he thought it was a joke. Now that's funny!
    Anon | May 10, 2017 2:09:54 PM | 42
    Why is it such a big thing? Some people here seems to take talking points from neocon media. He was fired because Trump didnt have confidence in him, simply as that.
    RUKidding | May 10, 2017 2:32:04 PM | 45
    Not sad to see Comey go. I didn't think he was doing a good job, albeit he was put in a position where he had to tread carefully. I guess he did "ok" with that careful treading. Unsure of Trump's motivations to fire him but not that surprised. As others have posited here, Clinton would have done the same. Comey was probably at least partially prepared and possibly has a sinecure lined up as I type this.

    IMO, this isn't the worst of Trump's alleged "offenses" by a long shot. It certainly does provide a distraction from all the other sh*t swirling around Trump, like Kushner selling US citizenships to high priced Chinese gangsters, like Trump's various cabinet picks arresting citizens for questioning them the "wrong way" or laughing at them, like Trump's decisions to ruin the environment and give away public lands to his rich pals, like the travesty of TrumpDon'tCare AHCA (which could end up even worse after the Senate gets done with it - No women on the Senate committee, just great).

    Yes a nifty distraction while Trump and his plutocrat cronies rob us all blind. Duly noted the Democrats engage in their own dog 'n pony sideshow distractions re russia, Russia RUSSIA hysteria. All to avoid having to, you know, DO something about their own disaster of a corporate-bought-off "party" and avoid having to do one d*mn thing that benefits their traditional constituents, as opposed to ensuring that their Plutocratic masters are happy.

    Like Comey's my biggest "concern" du jour... not.

    steven t johnson | May 10, 2017 2:48:34 PM | 46
    Every analysis of any current US political events that says anything about Clinton losing the election is deranged or dishonest. There are no exceptions.

    Clinton's Benghazi was treasonous covering up for Islamic terrorist/email means espionage not electronic mail/Clinton Foundation is treason for hire by the Secretary of State (who ruled America during the Great Interregnum when there was no President, 2009-2117, except when John Kerry was Secretary of State but it was still actually Clinton running things because everyone knows the Secretary of State doesn't make foreign policy) fake scandals were kept alive by Comey to intervene in the US election. (Whether it was his eager doing or he was pressured is irrelevant.) The thing for Comey, and his natural human need to at least pretend to be a genuine human being, is, the Russia hacks the election is exactly the same kind of fake scandal, something arcane with dark, dark hints of treason! treason! Comey can't suddenly discover sanity when the BS is flying at Trump, after having vociferously claimed those were really Clark bars for the years prior.

    The OP doesn't quite have the nerve to explain clearly how the supposed loser has the clout to make Comey dish on Trump. Or the effrontery to clearly avow Benghazi/email server/Clinton cash/pizzagate were all gospel. Nonetheless it is still Trumpery.

    sl | May 10, 2017 3:39:47 PM | 49
    @ h:

    Regarding "impromptu meeting b/w Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac", Comey was giving cover "to" Lynch, IMO. "no reasonable prosecutor". He was protecting the deal Lynch had already made with Clintons.

    Just read about Comey history with Clintons. He has been giving them cover a long time.

    h | May 10, 2017 4:01:37 PM | 50
    sl - Yep, I concur. And I think he had to protect whatever deal was agreed to b/w Lynch, Obama and Clinton. I'm not even sure I'd call it a deal, but rather an order. I'm sure if he didn't adhere there would have been some hefty consequences to pay.

    Did you by chance listen/watch his testimony last week? If not, I recommend it as must watch especially after his being fired. He added more detail to the email investigation and his thinking at the time.

    ProPeace | May 10, 2017 4:04:59 PM | 51
    SlapHappy | May 10, 2017 1:12:56 Add to the long list:

    Seth Rich, sen. Paul Wellstone, JFK jr, princess Diana, Michael Hastings, mysterious deaths of 9/11 witnesses, Phillip Marshall with family, Michael Connell, that policeman from the WTC 1993 bombing investigation, Clinton body count, that German press insider, Gary Webb ...

    Mina | May 10, 2017 4:25:10 PM | 52
    The BBC running a live on Comey's end-of-contract?! Color revo any? Lavrov in Washington, guns for the Kurds, the US going for al-Nusra's head scalp...
    john | May 10, 2017 4:40:17 PM | 55
    so treasonable Obama's scumbucket FBI director Comey gets fired. wowie zowie. nevermind the perjury, the obstruction of justice, the accessory to Clinton's sedition...

    there's probably a multi-million dollar book deal in the pipeline. - Trump DOES have some very "interesting" connections to Russia and some shady Russian persons. But this is the result of his own "wheeling & dealing".

    SlapHappy | May 10, 2017 5:04:12 PM | 60

    Does Russia interfere in U.S. politics more than Israel does?
    sl | May 10, 2017 5:09:13 PM | 61
    @ h. Yes, caught part of the hearings. Just proved to me that deal was in stone before any tarmac meeting took place. And I bet Comey might not have even known Lynch would expose them so stupidly, how dumb was that. Did a FBI person leaked the meeting to the press??
    h | May 10, 2017 7:14:03 PM | 66
    Hey sl - here's a link to a post by RightScoop titled - FBI found email that Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from CRIMINAL CHARGES - Catherine Herridge reported recently on this find - http://therightscoop.com/revealed-fbi-found-email-that-lynch-would-do-everything-she-could-to-protect-hillary-from-criminal-charges/

    Yep, Rosenstein is a law man. I won't be the slightest bit surprised to learn Grand Jury indictments handed down sometime in the coming months for Hillary's arrest. Mr. Comey served as an obstacle to the DOJ to prosecute. Now that Sessions/Rosenstein, both law men, are heading the DOJ nothing will surprise me. Nothing.

    Curtis | May 10, 2017 7:47:42 PM | 68
    SlapHappy 60

    Does Russia interfere in the elections and governing institutions of others as much as the US does?

    I've been surprised that Russia doesn't release "white papers" that show what the NED and IRI have done including in places like Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia.

    [May 10, 2017] United to Protect Democracy filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration demanding he cough up all e-mails, memoranda, advisory opinions and/or anything which could be viewed as legal argumentation justifying the April 7, 2017 attack on the Syrian Airbase at Al-Shu'ayraat southeast of Homs City."

    May 10, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Anon @6

    Impeachment over his abuse of power in the Syrian airbase cruise missile attack?

    "United to Protect Democracy (UPD) is an advocacy group whose introductory web page describes it as a "nonpartisan nonprofit" organization established to hold the President of the United States accountable "to the laws and longstanding practices that have protected our democracy through both Democratic and Republican Administrations". The governing board of UPD is made up of former Obama Administration attorneys led by legal director, Justin Florence. They have just filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration demanding he cough up all e-mails, memoranda, advisory opinions and/or anything which could be viewed as legal argumentation justifying the April 7, 2017 attack on the Syrian Airbase at Al-Shu'ayraat southeast of Homs City."

    https://syrianperspective.com/2017/05/trump-sued-by-watchdog-to-discover-legal-reasons-for-his-attack-on-syria.html

    [May 10, 2017] What seems to me to be most problematic for Flynn is not so much Russia but that he was getting paid by Turkey as a lobbyist while heading the NSA.

    May 10, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Kim Kaufman , May 9, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    CNN exclusive: Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation

    By Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Pamela Brown, CNN

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html

    What seems to me to be most problematic for Flynn is not so much Russia but that he was getting paid by Turkey as a lobbyist while heading the NSA.

    [May 10, 2017] How ISIS Evades the CIA by Philip Giraldi

    By pushing the envelope CIA essentially armed terrorists is effective techniques of avoiding electronic eavedropping....
    Notable quotes:
    "... Terrorists now know that using cell phones is dangerous, that transferring money using commercial accounts can be detected, that moving around when a drone is overhead can be fatal, and that communicating by computer is likely to be intercepted and exposed even when encrypted. ..."
    "... So they rely on couriers to communicate and move money while also avoiding the use of the vulnerable technologies whenever they can, sometimes using public phones and computers only when they are many miles away from their operational locations, and changing addresses, SIM cards, and telephone numbers frequently to confuse the monitoring. ..."
    Jul 23, 2014 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    America's high-tech spies aren't equipped to penetrate low-tech terrorist organizations

    Terrorists now know that using cell phones is dangerous, that transferring money using commercial accounts can be detected, that moving around when a drone is overhead can be fatal, and that communicating by computer is likely to be intercepted and exposed even when encrypted.

    So they rely on couriers to communicate and move money while also avoiding the use of the vulnerable technologies whenever they can, sometimes using public phones and computers only when they are many miles away from their operational locations, and changing addresses, SIM cards, and telephone numbers frequently to confuse the monitoring.

    Technical intelligence has another limitation: while it is excellent on picking up bits and pieces and using sophisticated computers to work through the bulk collection of chatter, it is largely unable to learn the intentions of terrorist groups and leaders. To do that you need spies, ideally someone who is placed in the inner circle of an organization and who is therefore privy to decision making.

    Since 9/11 U.S. intelligence has had a poor record in recruiting agents to run inside terrorist organizations-or even less toxic groups that are similarly structured-in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Information collected relating to the internal workings of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, dissident Sunni groups in Iraq, and now ISIS has been, to say the least, disappointing. To be fair this is often because security concerns limit the ability of American case officers to operate in areas that are considered too dangerous, which is generally speaking where the terrorist targets are actually located. Also, hostile groups frequently run their operations through franchise arrangements where much of the decision making is both local and funded without large cash transfers from a central organization, making the activity hard to detect.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [May 07, 2017] More Spying and More Lying by Andrew Napolitano

    As one commenter explained below, the encryption of communications change very little if all your communications are watched. Envelope (metadata) in enough to watch you pretty closely.
    May 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    What the NSA does not tell the FISA court is that its requests for approvals are a sham. That's because the NSA relies on vague language in a 35-year-old executive order, known as EO 12333, as authority to conduct mass surveillance. That's surveillance of everyone - and it does capture the content of every telephone conversation, as well as every keystroke on every computer and all fiber-optic data generated everywhere within, coming to and going from the United States.

    This is not only profoundly unlawful but also profoundly deceptive. It is unlawful because it violates the Fourth Amendment. It is deceptive because Congress and the courts and the American people, perhaps even the president, think that the FISA court has been serving as a buffer for the voracious appetite of the NSA. In reality, the NSA, while dispatching lawyers to make sophisticated arguments to the FISA court, has gone behind the court's back by spying on everyone all the time.

    In a memo from a now-former NSA director to his agents and vendors, leaked to the public, he advised capturing all data from everyone all the time. This produces information overload, as there is more data than can be analyzed; each year, it produces the equivalent of 27 times the contents of the Library of Congress. Therefore, safety - as well as liberty - is compromised.

    The recent mass killings in Boston, San Bernardino and Orlando were all preceded by text messages and cellphone conversations between the killers and their confederates. The NSA had the digital versions of those texts and conversations, but it had not analyzed them until after the killings - because it has and has had too much data to analyze in a critical and timely manner.

    So, why did the NSA announce that it is pulling back from its customary uses of Section 702? To give the false impression to members of Congress that it follows the law. Section 702, the great subterfuge, expires at the end of this year, and the NSA, which has spied on Donald Trump since before he was president, fears the debate that will accompany the efforts to renew it - hence its softening public tone.

    Eagle Eye , May 6, 2017 at 7:14 pm GMT

    Does anyone seriously think that senior NSA officials do NOT personally ENRICH themselves through stock market manipulation in anticipation of earnings reports, mergers etc. based on illegal NSA intercepts?

    Does anyone think that at least NO NSA officer EVER uses illegally intercepted information to blackmail others or otherwise to secure a secret advantage in dealing with others?

    Does anyone think that Hillary's and the FBI's access to grossly illegal NSA intercepts was NOT a key factor in the 2016 presidential and Congressional elections?

    Svigor , May 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm GMT

    Here is the back story.

    The backstory is that Trump has the power to fire them all, easily and without much in the way of red tape. And that he can't be relied upon not to do so.

    So, why did the NSA announce that it is pulling back from its customary uses of Section 702? To give the false impression to members of Congress that it follows the law. Section 702, the great subterfuge, expires at the end of this year, and the NSA, which has spied on Donald Trump since before he was president, fears the debate that will accompany the efforts to renew it - hence its softening public tone.

    Oh, and Trump can veto any renewal bill. Too bad he won't.

    Svigor , May 6, 2017 at 7:49 pm GMT

    What will happen with this privacy thingy is that people with stuff to hide (legitimate or not) will get their hands on strong encryption and the hoi polloi just doesn't care enough.

    There needs to be a public movement toward encryption, so that everyone uses it. Then using it won't be prone to the abuse of "probable cause."

    Eagle Eye May 6, 2017 at 10:25 pm GMT
    @Svigor
    What will happen with this privacy thingy is that people with stuff to hide (legitimate or not) will get their hands on strong encryption and the hoi polloi just doesn't care enough.
    There needs to be a public movement toward encryption, so that everyone uses it. Then using it won't be prone to the abuse of "probable cause."

    movement toward encryption

    Think of a colleague, a personal enemy, a business partner, a spouse etc. Imagine you have access to their communications logs – a long list of times and other details of each email, text, USPS letter, phone call, wire transfer etc. to or from the subject, including the name of every person with whom she communicated, but NOT including the content of the message.

    What conclusions could you draw from the following (with HT to Electronic Frontiers Foundation):

    (1) Your business partner called a bankruptcy lawyer last Thursday and spoke for 27 minutes. You do not know what was discussed because the communication was encrypted.

    (2) Your spouse made several hours-long phone calls, wired money to a sibling in Brazil on five occasions in 2 days, and contacted an airline. You do not know any details because the communications were encrypted.

    (3) The senior dean of admissions at Princeton exchanged 17 encrypted emails with an individual in Saudi Arabia, and two days later received two bank transfers from another individual in Saudi Arabia to her numbered bank account in Moldova. You do not know the content of the emails, nor the amount of the wire transfers, because the communications were encrypted.

    [May 07, 2017] Enemies Are Always Dictators - Talking With Them Is Unpresidential

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's on par with US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross saying the criminal missile strike against Syria was "after dinner entertainment." Depravity in the nth degree, not insanity. ..."
    May 07, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Welcoming and supporting dictators who act in U.S. interests is the usual behavior of any U.S. president. U.S. media support such.

    Comments Piotr Berman | May 2, 2017 10:46:14 AM | 1
    "Who believes such marketing bullshit?"

    What the targets of marketing believe may be true, false or imponderable (are big chain hamburgers delicious?), but marketing itself is a science with proven track record: a lot of people believe.

    The problem with skepticism is that it is not catchy. There are some tunes of skeptical songs that are instantly memorized, but the message is absorbed by a few. The older of us remember how Ronald Reagan quoted a bitter anti-war song, "Born in the USA" with total cluelessness about the song's intention, and was warmly received by equally clueless public.

    karlof1 | May 2, 2017 11:00:46 AM | 2
    "Is that not just another form of insanity?"

    I see it as depravity, pure and simple; the billboard-sized calling card of the Outlaw US Empire's immorality as it's existed for decades and is essentially its own autonomic policy. It's on par with US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross saying the criminal missile strike against Syria was "after dinner entertainment." Depravity in the nth degree, not insanity.

    Piotr Berman | May 2, 2017 11:07:43 AM | 3
    From The Independent:

    NewsWorld Middle East
    UK government refuses to deny voting to put Saudi Arabia on the UN Women's Commission
    Belgium's prime minister has apologised for his country's vote in favor

    What is wrong with those chocolate makers? It was a secret vote, and the stupid Belgians did not keep their mouths shut. However, the high humanitarian tone of Her Majesty Government was disturb only for a moment. I can imagine dignified polished English toff accent "It is our policy to adhere to the spirit of the rules of the United Nations and thus we can neither confirm nor deny in which way our delegate casted her vote."

    ex-sarajlija | May 2, 2017 11:10:13 AM | 4
    U.S. police shoot dozens of innocent each year, but when drug dealers get killed in a Philippine police raid its elected president is called a "strongman".

    That is direct consequence of the "legal system" created in England, and these days practiced in the Five eyes. System without a rules and legislations, ideal for rich and powerful to abuse the system, and get away with a murder.

    The common-law tradition

    The common law is law that is not written down as legislation. Common law evolved into a system of rules based on precedent. This is a rule that guides judges in making later decisions in similar cases. The common law cannot be found in any code or body of legislation, but only in past decisions. At the same time, it is flexible. It adapts to changing circumstances because judges can announce new legal doctrines or change old ones.

    james | May 2, 2017 11:35:38 AM | 5
    thanks b.. it is worth addressing from time to time and you provide some good comments/questions for anyone who has been asleep for the past 50 years, lol.. here are some i like.

    "There surely is a certain "uniqueness" in U.S. global political behavior. But its is certainly not engagement for "human rights". It is exactly the opposite." growing up in the 70's and seeing the bs from the usa in south and central america opened my eyes.

    "Who believes such marketing bullshit?" unfortunately a lot of americans who follow these news outlets and lack any critical faculties when it comes to understanding the usa's foreign policy agenda..

    "Thuggish anti-American behavior" is automatically attributed to any head of state who works foremost in the interests of his own country." it would be hard for the nyt, wapo and wsj to come out everyday and say "We are the Greatest". this is a round about way of getting to that same place.. works like pablum with babies, lol..

    Hoarsewhisperer | May 2, 2017 11:37:18 AM | 6
    @ #2.
    Harbouring magnanimous beliefs TOWARD humanity and unconscionable beliefs AGAINST humanity, simultaneously, is insane.
    Acting on the unconscionable beliefs, whilst preaching the magnanimous beliefs is depraved.

    john | May 2, 2017 11:48:26 AM | 7
    Who believes such marketing bullshit?...Is that not just another form of insanity?

    unfortunately, b, i think most Americans still believe it, and yes, it does indicate some kind of deranged mind. the more interesting question would be, how does this insanity mostly manifest itself throughout society? and i guess i'd have to say, to make a big subject small, through fantasy and delusion.

    but i think far more psychological damage will ensue when Americans can no longer deny the bloodcurdling chronicle of their exceptionalism .

    RUKidding | May 2, 2017 11:53:28 AM | 8
    I was travelling through parts of SE Asia last October and asked various people (in different countries) what they thought about Duterte. Many were on the fence but granted that Duterte - in their minds anyway - was actually "taking care of" some real problems faced in the Philippines. Some had relatives who lived there, and they claimed that Philippine citizens mostly support Duterte.

    Speaking only for myself, I abhor what he's doing. OTOH, the USA has done nothing be murderous and genocidal (at least in terms of Native Americans, if not others) since the inception of Europeans here. We've definitely supported numerous muderous thug dictators around the globe. Some of our support comes under a "veil" so to speak, in that US citizens may not always be aware of what the thug dictators are doing, much less how much and what USA support is happening.

    On another hand, our own home-grown PDs have taken to routinely murdering citizens on our streets with almost no provocation or reason. It sounds like - I have not way to verify and doubt it's true in all instances - Duterte is "at least" going after known criminals. I still very much disagree, but... Here in the USA, if you're a 12 year old black dude that the cops don't like the look of, well get ready to meet your maker in a violent way. So, eh? What's the difference, really? We have this thin veneer of allegedly - cough cough ha ha - being some sort of "democracy" with a purported (yeah, right) "rule of law," and that somehow makes up better than Duterte. Again, let me stress that I very very much disagree with Duterte's methods. He's despicable.

    I speculate that Trump, in part, wants to "make nice" with Duterte because of Obama's opposition to Duterte. I truly think some small part of things motivating Trump is to be as anti-Obama as possible, even if it means doing horrible or ridiculous or counterproductive stuff.

    But all the hand-wringing and freaking out over Trump wanting to talk to Duterte is the usual hypocrisy. I mean, the media did the same kind of bs freaking out with Obama, too. It's just endless. But Duterte makes for a convenient scapegoat - in a somewhat similar way as Putin - so now it's all about "How could he even THINK of doing that???!!!???" This from the same media constantly dissing Obama (disclaimer: I'm not an Obama fan) for various other things.

    I dunno. It's all bullshite, propaganda, lies, hype and spin anymore. It's all meant to distract from what's really going on behind the curtain where the real damage is done.

    Do people "believe" this stuff? Well yeah. When Obama was in office, it was conservative voters who got their knickers in a knot over every little alleged "horrible" thing that Obama was supposedly doing (mostly dumb stuff. they never ever said word one about the important stuff like drone killings, etc). Now with Trump we get the shrieking about Duterte, which Democratic voters can reliably get their panties in a bunch over.

    Same old, different day. I fail to see how talking to yet another Thuggish World Leader will make much difference one way or the other. Team USA certainly has no human rights record to hold up as some sort of shining example. US Prison Industrial system anyone? Gitmo? Torture? Renditions? Drone Killings all over the place? MOAB? Tomahawks? Really? We're shrieking about Duterte? Really?

    fastfreddy | May 2, 2017 12:12:29 PM | 9
    Among all the bad PR, Duterte has made statements that a free-thinking mind can appreciate and applaud.

    peter | May 2, 2017 12:18:38 PM | 10
    Duerte exhorted his people to kill drug dealers. I have no idea how bad the drug problem is in the Philippines nor do I give a fuck but declaring open season on any group of people is not kosher regardless if one is democratically elected or not. People get to settle old scores that may have nothing to do with the drugs. I know how I pissed I would be if someone shot my dealer and tried to write it off as a good thing.

    No beef with the somewhat dog-eared premise that the US is an evil hypocritical empire of chaos, it's all true and I'm not sure we need to be reminded. But lets not pretend that Duerte was only doing what he thought best for his country. He essentially took the crime of murder off the books. He brags about the people he killed personally. Whether or not he should be invited to the White House is a question I'll leave to posters who are smarter than I am.


    NemesisCalling | May 2, 2017 12:23:40 PM | 11
    I had hope that with a Trump presidency we would start to see an end to the uniparty, duopoly rhetoric that has infected the public here in the states so that this is the only reality: rethugz vs. Demoshits. Indeed, I had even taken to listening to Fox news at time on the radio because I detected that same change in the air as Trump was gaining ground and anti-establishment sentiments were flourishing over Fox's airwaves.

    Fast forward three months into his presidency and boy do I feel like a total dipshit. A "turkey-butt" as my Dad used to call me. Now on Fox we are entering Bush 3.0, head-in-the-sand patriot drivel heard 1000x before. "We'll see which Democrat can challenge Donald next election." "He has to make consessions to look Presidential." And on. And on. Ad nauseum. Donald conceded the path way too fast and now we are back to comfortable tit-for-tat partisan bs everywhere one can view it or hear it.

    At least Mr. Trump mentioned that we ain't so nice, you know. But the media is already running with it and soon we will be back to that golden vision of the city on the hill. But for how long can the charade carry-on?

    Mina | May 2, 2017 12:42:04 PM | 12
    hrw agitating in new york with a new report on asad's supposed systematic use of sarin, let's wait 8th may and see how they ll pressure macron on that (he already said he ll send troops if the UN says so)

    Shakesvshav | May 2, 2017 12:45:33 PM | 13
    Since you mention Orwell, may I recommend his essay, 'Freedom of the Press' ( intended as a preface to 'Animal Farm'), which describes the media's toxic self-censorship. It is, however, pre-Cold War, so does not cover the complete volte face performed by the media in relation to the Soviet Union.

    When it comes to politicians effusing about strongmen, how about this by Churchill in the House of Commons, November 1945:

    "Therefore, I say that it is the profound desire of this House-and the House speaks in the name of the British nation-that these feelings of comradeship and friendship, which have developed between the British and Russian peoples, should be not only preserved but rapidly expanded. Here I wish to say how glad we all are to know and feel that Generalissimo Stalin is still strongly holding the helm and steering his tremendous ship. Personally, I cannot feel anything but the most lively admiration for this truly great man, the father of his country, the ruler of its destinies in times of peace, and the victorious defender of its life in time of war."

    Stalin ticked off Molotov for publishing it in Pravda. He did not need flattery from imperialists.

    karlof1 | May 2, 2017 1:22:20 PM | 14
    In yet another excellent example of USA Depravity, we have Alabama R-Rep Mo Brooks saying it's the fault of people with pre-existing conditions that they have them and ought to pay higher insurance premiums because they didn't "lead good lives, they're healthy, they've done the things to keep their bodies healthy," https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/05/02/exposing-gop-cruelty-alabama-rep-says-pre-existing-conditions-are-your-fault

    So, we have a Cabinet Head saying killing people is entertainment and an elected official saying people already suffering through no fault of their own ought to suffer further. And I'm sure more such sentiments are uttered daily and can easily be found since that's the mindset of far too many people within the Outlaw US Empire. It would seem to be Puritanical Thinking's logical conclusion, and one can find many examples of it beginning at Plymouth.

    fastfreddy | May 2, 2017 1:22:21 PM | 15
    From https://tinyurl.com/Duterte-Speech

    ASEAN affairs, Cambodia could not be theirs, 100 percent, it is an ally of China. Laos, it is always an ally of China. Vietnam, same thing. Widodo of Indonesia is neutral. Duterte of the Philippines is veering towards China. [applause]

    Because China has the character of an Oriental. [applause]
    It does not go around insulting people, insisting on policies to follow them and trying to control the money of the world through the IMF and the World Bank. [applause] Dito (here) Asian Development Bank.

    Now go that of late, China decided to make a counterbalance here and that is the AIIB. And so, America is really checkmate here. It is not ready for war because they are not ready to die anymore.

    And you can see it when in the special forces when they go home, there's a lot of crying and criticism and a congressman talking there, filibustering about the lost of an American life.

    Filipinos, if you want to go to war, go. As long as it is really the desire of the nation, to protect itself.

    WorldBLee | May 2, 2017 1:23:19 PM | 16
    When you're exceptional, anything is possible! A dictator can become a symbol of democracy, while an elected leader can become a brutal tyrant. The US owns the mainstream media's lexicon and the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, etc. always carefully toe the line of what the powers that be consider proper terminology. It's so much better than overt censorship!

    susan_sunflower | May 2, 2017 1:54:55 PM | 17
    Duarte is advocating and practicing (due-process free) vigilantism, see also lynching, which is often very very popular with everyone who is not a target ... the problems are many, most glaringly that of proportionality and mission-creep (see also lynching and/or Emmett Till) ... seriously, eventually in all likelihood, as with McCarthyism or 6 degrees of separation or NSA surveillance, you will likely become a target or collateral damage.

    Anon | May 2, 2017 2:04:06 PM | 18
    Just another stupid day in the liberal west, but after all these are the same guys that say: Russians Are Using Humor to 'Undermine the West'!
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/washington-post-watch-out-russians-are-using-humor-undermine-west/ri19698

    Johan Meyer | May 2, 2017 2:14:32 PM | 19
    As to the marketing bullshit, I suspect virtue morality naive realists believe it. The people who believe these things, including many (former) leftists, are naive, in the sense that they do not hold a prior theory or information of the world, and often lack means or willingness to develop such theories or find such information. A prior theory need not be an absolute bedrock, and it should be modified *logically* per the normal logical process of science, as expressed in the tautologies:

    for all a,z, ((a) AND (a implies z)) implies z
    for all a,z, z implies ((not a) OR (not (a implies z)))

    Let a be composite (c AND d AND ...), and apply de Morgan's theorem ((not c) OR (not d)...) with OR being inclusive or (a OR b = a OR b OR both). Let c be the fact that US supported (mis)information peddlers/propaganda houses claim a given violation, and d be the truth of a claim. Z is "Assad used Sarin," or "The rebels are moderate," etc. Attention to prior claims, especially long after the claims have served their purpose, may disabuse one of a high probability of d being true for a given c.

    Allow that d is probably false in a given case. If d is false, then no logical conclusion follows on z, although it should be assumed to be false until evidence to the contrary arrives; compare this situation to the defendant in a criminal case, who has been suborned to institutionalised perjury (plea bargain)---even if the defendant perpetrated the alleged actus reus, the particulars of the complaint are likely to be in error due to police sloppiness, efforts by the police to hide their own crimes, and erroneous presuppositions on the part of the police.

    There is a non-zero probability that a given claim, no matter how ridiculous on its face, may be substantially true. Put aside the fear of being abused verbally or prosecuted legally for de facto abetting a serious crime---leftists, and even apolitical journalists, will often face that risk, based on their beliefs and evidence before them, and proudly so. Rather, the problem is facing oneself, and living with oneself given the possibility that the propaganda is true. Once one caves once, caving to the propaganda in the future may become easier, and harder to recognise.

    Thus we may understand this problem of the left, and of otherwise critical journalists, not so much as prior fecklessness and dishonesty, but as subconscious fear of unvirtuous conduct. Some examples:

    Chomsky (and his hangers on, e.g. Amy Goodman, Michael Albert and similar folks), repeat lurid fantasies from the propaganda, about Assad, for example, but given an external reference ( Postol ), he may make a principled stand---his conscience may bear it.

    Another example is Stan Goff, who has written at some length on virtue ethics , complaining about Tulsi Gabbard , and sounding uncharacteristically like Louis Proyect; he has omitted to post my first comment, in which I gave a detailed criticism of the background to the current situation, especially regarding Ukraine. Allow that what he says about the character of Gabbard to be true---if she is not bound by virtue ethics, and judges matters based on self-interest, or on ethical frameworks other than virtue ethics, she can observe the reality in Syria far more keenly.

    Perhaps this is why universities have ethics courses that lay special emphasis on virtue ethics (when convenient)---my experience was a course on ethics for engineers, although the usual practice is to give the example of killing an infant, in order to save the lives of many infants. The purpose of such examples is precisely to produce an inability to act of one's own volition outside of social(ly engineered) norms. Goff's own example in the one link (crime novels) may serve a similar purpose.

    Because of the general weakness of logical thinking, especially in the west at the moment (elimination of Euclidean geometry a generation ago in most syllabi, followed by the elimination of syllabi for rot such as " outcomes based education ", and general incoherence when that farce is ended), a naive realism takes hold, in which the reality that is held to be true, is the information given.

    I abused Proyect recently, to rub in his face his support for aggression against Syria, but perhaps the problem is greater. He studied Turkish some years ago; this would have made him particularly receptive to Turkish propaganda on Syria. The fact that his background is programming, should not lead one to think that he has a good formal logical background---many programmers do not have such a background, and have simply developed a large set of algorithms that work, and algorithms to develop new algorithms, rather than clear logical thinking. I nearly ran into a similar problem when studying Ukrainian (around the time of the first Maidan), and if it weren't for prior information about Ukraine, and information from counterpunch at the time, I might well have gone down the same route.

    Thus there is a danger to see these individuals as necessarily unvirtuous, which is a precise misdiagnoses. A better solution was presented by Ward Churchill, who suggested deliberately non-virtuous conduct (guns, less than ideal feminist attitudes toward sex) as a curative for what ails the left. Once one can willingly do something evil, even as one generally avoids such conduct, and the fear of evil conduct (including abetting) no longer dominates how one approaches situations in which the information is incomplete, it becomes easier to resist the lurid propaganda.

    karlof1 | May 2, 2017 2:17:19 PM | 20
    Then of course, accompanying the Imperial Doublethink is its Junk Economics, an ideological system economist Michael Hudson's made a career of bashing/debunking. To further his mission, Hudson embraces what he calls "The economics of the future" in the form of Steve Keen's new book, Can We Avoid Another Financial Crisis? , http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/02/the-economics-of-the-future/

    Excerpt:

    "But mainstream models [Randian Neoliberal Economics, ie Junk Economics] ignore the overgrowth of debt, as if the economy operates on a barter basis. Keen calls this "the barter illusion," and reviews his wonderful exchange with Paul Krugman (who plays the role of an intellectual Bambi to Keen's Godzilla), who insists that banks do not create credit but merely recycle savings – as if they are savings banks, not commercial banks. It is the old logic that debt doesn't matter because "we" owe the debt to "ourselves."

    "The "We" are the 99%, the "ourselves" are the 1%. Krugman calls them "patient" savers vs "impatient" borrowers, blaming the malstructured economy on personal psychology of indebted victims having to work for a living and spend their working lives paying off the debt needed to obtain debt-leveraged homes of their own, debt-leveraged education and other basic living costs."

    jason | May 2, 2017 2:20:52 PM | 21
    fastfreddy @ 15 hit on it, I think. the USG does not give a hoot about anyone gunning down its own people, be they citizens, terrorists, drug dealers, minorities, migrants, refugees, homeless, witches, adulterers, etc.

    Philippines is about China, that big base there in Subic Bay, etc. trump knows what's up w/that. is he just sweet talking duterte for other reasons? and folks like at WaPo have to make a show of hand-wringing, Nicholas Kristof runs to buy another Thai out of the sex trade or whatev. propaganda for us rubes. is trump "the strongman coddler" in on this performance? a wink-wink nudge-nudge thing going on b/n the unitary executive & the msm?

    mauisurfer | May 2, 2017 2:29:46 PM | 22
    off topic, but i know others share my respect for Chas Freeman, so here is his latest:

    Greater Israel and the Prospects for Peace in the Middle East
    by Chas W. Freeman, Jr.

    mauisurfer | May 2, 2017 2:33:25 PM | 23
    http://lobelog.com/greater-israel-and-the-prospects-for-peace-in-the-middle-east/

    susan_sunflower | May 2, 2017 2:35:09 PM | 24
    most folks who were adults in the 1980's can remember how quickly hand-wringing over China's human rights issues (particularly wrt Tiananmen Square 1989) and "Buy American" and even "buy union" campaigns evaporated into the ether when size of the money to be made from off-shoring became apparent.

    NemesisCalling | May 2, 2017 2:36:48 PM | 25
    @19 Johan

    For myself, exposure to the working class as a laborer has undone much of my liberal arts programming where during the 90s in public education, post-feminist and generally postmodernist thought was idealistically tainting a healthy world view. You want geopolitics and how this shapes one's place say here in America? History can inform!

    Read Thucydides and pay attention to the Mytelanian Debate. Or the debate before Athens sailed to Sicily where it's empire was destroyed. Shades of John McCain...

    ALberto | May 2, 2017 3:15:55 PM | 26
    Hey Duterte! Bring your own food and water when you visit The Imperial City.

    Signed, Hugo Chavez

    47 | May 2, 2017 3:27:00 PM | 27
    Good piece, b!

    This essay, too, adds another dimension to why we fight evil:

    "In the United States, conquests are frequently labeled as humanitarian interventions whose sole purpose is to unilaterally help various people across the world. This has become an official mantra, despite the long-term outcomes of such actions. Within the context of the humanitarian interventions narrative, a framework of personalizing foreign evil holds great significance. American people have to be convinced that actions are indeed helping the people in distant lands get rid of evil dictators, and to feel that sacrifice is worth the promised outcome."
    and
    "Depending on national security interest, individual evil located somewhere between 90 and 10,000 miles from our country's shores has one of the three forms."

    http://www.zokpavlovic.com/conflict/humanitarian-intervention-personification-of-evil-geography-of-conflict/

    juannie | May 2, 2017 3:54:40 PM | 28
    "Who believes such marketing bullshit?"
    ... "but marketing itself is a science with proven track record: a lot of people believe."

    Unfortunately Piotr, 95 or better % of the American sheeple who read (sorry, see/hear, most can't read past a seventh grade level) and believe the prestitutetic MSM. A major roadblock to intelligence, sanity and peace.
    ...
    Yes, Edward Bernays style, not just marketing, but propaganda. In these times, a highly developed and effective science. Ronnie was just one of the trial balloons.

    jonku | May 2, 2017 4:02:49 PM | 29
    The article in the link from Zok Palivic just above is hilarious, thanks "47".
    Almost Hitler is an evil dictator who may have been our friend and ally at one time, but is not any more. Change occurred when he, in an apparent moment of madness, decided to simultaneously (A) run his own affairs and (B) for no reason begin torturing his own people.
    ...
    Hitler , or better say, the New Hitler , is the next form of evil. He not only tortures his own people, but tends, for example, to nationalize the country's oil industry and have economic and military interaction with other New Hitlers.
    ...
    Worse than Hitler is evil that has fully graduated. He not only tortures his own people and exports terrorism, but may have attempted to generate even worse crimes against humanity. Among them are attempts to abolish the country's central bank, return to a gold standard, and trade oil and goods internationally in currencies other than the dollar.

    I'm re-posting this in hope that we can return to some of the fun and snark of the Moon's early days ... not that I don't value the imformation-rich yet somehow monotonic, serious posts of recent times.

    Also popping my head up in harmony with other founding moonbats. Hey y'all!

    Kronos | May 2, 2017 4:20:38 PM | 30
    Lest we think this is some kind of new standard, Obama was raked over the coals for suggesting he even meet with Iranian diplomats. It cuts both ways of course. We were quite cozy with Sadaam until we decided it was not cool to be cozy with him so that we could go to war. Both the media and the government play us when it comes to who we should and shouldn't form relationships with.

    Johan Meyer | May 2, 2017 5:11:40 PM | 31
    @25
    Bemusing stuff---ancient adventurists for our neocons versus realist imperialists, although the ancient Hellenes lacked the bomb. Then again, on Syrian Perspective, there is a commenter who uses the name Thucydides, and he always suggests that we learn to love the bomb...

    Curtis | May 2, 2017 6:07:56 PM | 32
    the angel to evil making process
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsb6pSUvz08

    Yonatan | May 2, 2017 6:26:03 PM | 33
    An intriguing story from Germany. A cleaner working at Vienna airport found a handgun hidden in a restroom. The Austrian police checked the fingerprints and they matched those of a Syrian refugee in Germany. When the Germans called the refugee in, they found out that he was actually a soldier in the Bundeswehr. He had been pretending to be a Syrian refugee for 18 months, receiving the full benefits refugees are entitled to. In his original application, he claimed to be from a French colonial part of Damascus, in order to explain his lack of Arabic and fluency in French. Followup investigations found evidence suggesting a hit list of left wing German politicians. The soldier had right wing views (revealed in a Masters dissertation he wrote at an elite French university) and the theory is that he was planning to frame refugees for attacks. A whole can of worms has been opened.

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-promises-quick-answer-to-soldier-refugee-mystery/a-38642266

    Curtis | May 2, 2017 6:26:16 PM | 34
    Go back and read the NYT's thing about beacon of democracy while humming Pomp and Circumstance. The BS sounds even more noble then.

    GoraDiva | May 2, 2017 6:42:04 PM | 35
    @15
    Indonesia must not be too neutral, as DT seems busy there:
    https://theintercept.com/2017/04/18/trumps-indonesian-allies-in-bed-with-isis-backed-militia-seeking-to-oust-elected-president/
    The empire never sleeps, it seems...

    GoraDiva | May 2, 2017 6:44:03 PM | 36
    Oh - I forgot, neutrality has always been a crime in the eyes of the empire...

    jfl | May 2, 2017 8:28:56 PM | 37
    i don't think it's a question of 'belief' ... i think most people accept the role of lying propagandists for 'our side' ... people are fearful of losing what 'benefits' they enjoy from the lopsided system, stacked in their favor, and will support anything they feel will safeguard their 'privilege'. until it doesn't anymore.

    unless and until the 'tried and true' system is seen to be absolutely broken, unfixable, and an alternative proposed, one capable of eliciting mass faith and belief ... the beatings will continue, and the drivel to drip out of the tnc msm trumpets.

    people need to accept that the 'old way' is done, and a 'new day' is being born. certainly it seems the collapse of faith in the continued 'viability' of the old system must come before an opening can be found for an alternative.

    the present level of 'play' has sunk below all levels of believability - mina above mentions HRW's death by chemicals , the blueprint for the continued p2p destruction of syria.

    and people have linked the destruction of syria and other nations to be named later, somehow, with foreclosing the end of their own 'good thing' in the west.

    it's becoming clear that it's 'not working'. the way for an alternative is opening up.

    Outraged | May 2, 2017 8:52:21 PM | 38
    Re the topic ... much more than just 'talking' to them ... some New York City 'Ticker-tape' Parades of note:

    1953: October 1 – Josι Antonio Remσn, president of Panama.

    1954: August 2 – Syngman Rhee, president of South Korea.

    1955:
    January 31 – Paul Eugθne Magloire, president of Haiti, &
    November 4 – Carlos Castillo Armas, president of Guatemala.

    1957: May 13 – Ngo Dinh Diem, president of South Vietnam.

    1959: November 4 – Ahmed Sιkou Tourι, president of Guinea.

    1961: October 13 – Ibrahim Abboud, president of Sudan.

    1962: April 16 – Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Empress Farah of Iran.

    1965: May 19 – Chung Hee Park, president of South Korea.

    And a bonus, special mention:

    Fulgencio Batista, Cuba 1933-1959, with U.S. Army Chief of staff Malin Craig in Washington, D.C., riding in an Armistice Day parade, 1938 (Image/Jpg & JFK quote, etc ...)

    Jen | May 2, 2017 8:58:35 PM | 39
    RUKidding @ 8 and others:

    The Philippine Communist Party has published online its assessment of Rodrigo Duterte's first 100 days in office as President.
    "Philippine Communist Party (PKP-1939) - Assessment of the first 100 days of the Duterte administration"
    https://communismgr.blogspot.com.au/2016/10/philippine-communist-party-pkp-1939.html

    It makes for very interesting reading, not least because Duterte has adopted socialist initiatives and has expressed interest in a Cuban-style healthcare policy.

    Barry Desker has also written an analysis of Duterte's likely style of leadership.
    "President Duterte: A Different Philippine Leader – Analysis"
    http://www.eurasiareview.com/15062016-president-duterte-a-different-philippine-leader-analysis/

    Also try Googling "Duterte" with words like "gender" and "equality" and see what you get - you will be surprised!

    Pia Ranada "Duterte, the 'benevolent sexist'?"
    http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/163736-duterte-women-empowerment-sexist

    ben | May 2, 2017 9:05:30 PM | 40
    RUkidding @ 8 said: " they claimed that Philippine citizens mostly support Duterte."

    I just had a stay in the hospital, and, most of my attending RNs were from the Philippines.
    they ALL said they backed Duarte, so, maybe most of what we hear about him is BS?

    At any rate, as long as the U$A backs a murderous regime like the KSA, who cares?

    If such nations act in our interests, the rulers of the U$A don't care what they do...

    Grieved | May 2, 2017 9:10:40 PM | 41
    I appreciate all of b's efforts to deconstruct the nonsense of the MSM - perversely, this leaves me free not to care that much.

    Instead, I find the greater matter to be how Trump is behaving. I have a theory that he will come to be seen as the greatest Teflon president of all time, far surpassing Reagan in his ability to make a gaffe one day and rebound effortlessly the next.

    Indeed, perhaps only someone like Trump could play the card of actually meeting with Kim Jong-Un - which China wants - and make it sound, in his insouciance, like the US is holding a better hand than DPRK, when in fact both nations are holding lesser hands than China's, in my opinion.

    But everything about Trump requires time to see the full extent of the sine waves he rides: up and down, this and that - where does he come to rest? We have yet to see this because not enough time and motion have gone by. We and the Pentagon both have known all along that the US has no real violence it can lay on North Korea without reciprocal damage to itself an order of magnitude greater. And yet, all this bluster.

    I've maintained for some time that the US has no effective material power left that it can exert against serious opposition. All it has left is treachery and theater - theater aided and abetted by a servile MSM that loses the plot as quickly as it relays new ones, as shown by b's current analysis. And of these two tools, treachery loses its effectiveness as more people come not to believe you in the first place. But perhaps the theater still works?

    Is it possible that the true purpose of the US is served as soon as it manages to scare investment money away from this part of Asia, in capital flight to US Treasuries?

    We began a discussion about this in an earlier thread, and it was off topic. I'm not sure it fits here, but maybe we can keep carrying it forward. The original discussion occurs here, principally in comments 31 and 39 .

    These contain links to an Alasdair Mcleod analysis of a Chinese appraisal also presented in an alternative translation - all essentially saying that capital flight to the US dollar from trouble spots in the world, is actually the reason that the US incites trouble in those spots in the first place.

    bolt | May 2, 2017 9:27:10 PM | 42
    Thanks for claiming Australia is a democracy, the fact that the prime minister is a former goldman sacks banker and the ruling party are us supporting, brain dead, empathy bypassed, mainstream thinkers (who have ratified the tpp in the absence of the us) shows that murdock owning 65% of all the media was a good investment.
    The marketing bullshit works here too.

    fast freddy | May 2, 2017 9:27:24 PM | 43
    You know the MSM is completely full of shit and yet you accept that Duterte is the murderous thug they claim him to be. Nothing more to the man. Murderous thug.

    Why do you suppose they present him in that light?

    Subic Bay for the Chinese, baby. Dollar can take a shit.

    james | May 2, 2017 9:36:04 PM | 44
    @27 - 47.. thanks for that! very succinct on the thread topic at hand..

    @32 curtis.. good video.. thanks

    @33 yonantan.. wonder where that story ends? one wonders how he could have pulled that off - being a cop and getting the refugee benefits... sounds like the records are not cross checking names, or he gave a different name, or? interesting.

    @38 outraged.. good overview... i am sure the nyt covered it well, lol.. collective amnesia is alive and well at the nyt and in it's readership..

    syrian perspective has an article up today on the ridiculous mechanisms of the western msm - with the usa in the lead!

    jfl | May 2, 2017 11:02:24 PM | 45
    @33 @44

    penelope linked to an 'analysis' of the german false flag attempt ... claimed it was a no-go link from typepad ... i haven't tried it.

    b real | May 3, 2017 12:17:40 AM | 46
    gen. arthur macarthur:

    When the Filipino people realize the grandeur of their future destiny by reason of association with the great Republic, and come to understand that they are a chosen people to carry not only American commerce, but also republican institutions and the principles of personal liberty throughout Asia, they may be relied upon to rally to the inspiring thoughts thus suggested and follow and support the American flag in whatever contests the future may have in store for it as the symbol of human liberty throughout the world.


    ...


    We are now living in a heroic age of human history. ... There is one very noticeable feature in the American occupation of that archipelago. It arises from contrast with the inspiring motives that have actuated and controlled the action of other branches of the Aryan race, which have worked their way back, coming in the opposite direction. We are planting in those islands imperishable ideas. All other governments that have gone to the East have simply planted trading establishments; they have not materially affected the conditions of the people. ... The contrasting idea with our occupation is this: In planting our ideas we plant something that cannot be destroyed. To my mind the archipelagois a fertile soil upon which to plant republicanism. ... Beneficient republican American institutions once planted in the Philippines will last forever, and therefore, will radiate an influence the appreciation of which it is hard to estimate. But that fact in itself is beyond any possibility of dispute. We are planting the best traditions, the best characteristics of Americanism in such a way that they never can be removed from that soil.


    testimony of general arthur macarthur, american imperialism and the philippine insurrection: testimony taken from hearings on affairs in the philippine islands before the senate committee on the philippines - 1902 , little, brown and company, 1969

    alfred w. mccoy:


    ..this study's first substantive conclusion: the creation of sophisticated modern policing was crucial to the U.S. pacification of the Philippines.


    ..a second major conclusion: the U.S. colonial regime's reliance on police for pacification and political control embedded this securty apparatus within an emerging Philippine state, contributing ultimately to an unstable excess of executive power after independence.


    ..a fourth conclusion: by collaborating in the refinement of covert techniques for internal security, these two states have forged powerful instruments to fortify themselves against the processes of political change, slowing progress toward civil rights in America and social justice in the Philippines.


    The study of U.S.-Philippine security relations also serves as a microcosm for America's changing role in international affairs. No other nation has felt the force of American power so closely, so constantly throughout Washington's century-long rise to world leadership. No other nation can reveal so much about the character of America's international influence, both direct colonial rule and diffuse global hegemony.


    policing america's empire: the united states, the philippines, and the rise of the surveillance state , the university of wisconsin press, 2009

    Debsisdead | May 3, 2017 1:18:06 AM | 47
    There is no doubt that some of the strategies Duterte has promoted in a sensationalist attempt to address the Philippinnes crystal meth problem are beyond questionable, but equally Filipino politics have finally elected a president from outside the five ruling families of Luzon. Duterte himself originates from Mindanao - altho his origins are from the language group of an island that lies between Luzon & Mindanao.

    Mindanao has been treated like a garbage dump ever since imperialists chose Luzon as the administrative base for their takeovers.
    Spanish, amerikan, Japanese and then amerikan again, greedy fuckers. They didn't just fuck over Luzon, the uncaring assholes destroyed the ancient cultures of Mindanao by dint of slave driven resource extraction. Initially by using the low level conflicts that had been happily bubbling away between different clans on Mindanao. But it didn't take the indigenous people long to recognise that unity was needed to overcome the external threat; they unified so the next trick was to destroy the social fabric & cultures of the island by indulging in a program pretty similar to the Indonesian transmigration program. Indonesian transmigration caused many formerly peaceful & productive islands in the Indonesian archipelago to be 'javanised' due to the forced migration of thousands/millions of people from the slums of Djakarta to outlying islands.

    The same on Luzon. With a practice which appears to have been invented by the englanders & Australia, millions of Luzonese have been forcibly removed to other islands.

    Selecting the already disadvantaged as the forced migrants ensured that Mindanao, once a home to several successful if competong cultures, became anarchic and uncontrollable. Little surprise then that when Duterte was just a Mindanao pol, he promoted himself as the 'great bridgebuilder' whose stated aim was to restore a semblance of order by favouring neither indigenous nor the bigger population of exotic cultures. He became popular & he went on to dominate national politics.
    To also paraphrase FDR, Filipinos may believe Duterte is an asshole but he is their asshole.

    I don't wanna sound all drug elitist - there is no doubt that people who do bad shit when intoxicated, do that shit as a result of who they are - their behaviors - not the drug's; but one cannot deny that crystal meth does inspire/enable more people to do more dreadful shit that most other illegal intoxicants do.
    The shit meth heads can get up to reduces much more ordered societies than the Philippines' chaotic tightrope of a developing culture to near disaster.
    Most people just want to 'get by'. That is the unfortunate reality for those of us who understand the world could be much better for humans if more of us gave a fuck about more than just the immediate needs of our whanau , that is not how most people think however, so Duterte was elected in a reasonably honest (definitely a more accurate & true reflection of voters wishes than say, amerikan elections) ballot as the president of the Philippines.
    He announced he was going to go to war with the metho's and he did.
    There are many concerns particularly about the concentration on street level dealers who are frequently only in the game to fund their habits, whilst the 'Mr Bigs' have largely escaped the old double tap to the base of the brain, but even so most filipinos support his strategy.
    We all know what this dislike of Duterte by western media and to a lesser extent the trumpet himself, is really about.
    Firstly he is not a regular example of what a philippines prez should be. Ke doesn't prostrate himself in kneejerk obeisance to the biggest amerikan asshole in the room.
    Neoliberalism is only partially accepted - where the benefits are palpable and the 'deal' has been examined for fish hooks - worst of all President Duterte has taken on a few activists formerly with NPA (New Peoples Army) links into his team. amerika views them in still in 1950's terms as "Chicoms". Duterte understands that the Philippines has a substantial Islam population and that the only real hope the nation has of not being destroyed by sectarian civil war is if the primary driver of dissatisfaction towards the established order, inequality and its inevitable partner, poverty is seen to be addressed.
    Even that could be considered 'tolerable' by the assholes in DC, London, Paris and Tel Aviv, if Duterte led the way in allowing his nation to be a battleground for the coming war on China.
    Duterte may be old but he isn't stupid or senile; he knows that the only opportunity his people have lies in not taking sides in the coming blue.
    Hence he has backed away from previous governments' (amerikan poodles all of em) antagonism toward China particularly in regard to disputed territories.
    Not because he is a commie, but because he understands that if he can successfully negotiate a way through without overly antagonising either side, filipinos will benefit long term. As China shifts much of its low wage low skills work offshore, the Philippines can benefit and hopefully enjoy a similar move up the laddr as China has.

    We (correctly IMHO) can consider that to be a bad deal longterm for the Philippines, but OTOH if you have spent any time in that beautifully cursed nation you must concede that 'things cannot continue as they are'.
    amerika believes that things must continue as they are and has always blocked any move (even pointlessly cosmetic base closures by previous filipino govts) as being unacceptable.

    When the trumpet & Duterte talk, the trumpet will doubtlessly adopt the usual bully-boy tone towards Duterte that State, amerikan military and corporate assholes have always used.
    Except they cannot, if Duterte drops Xi Jinping's name as a more frequent dinner partner of his than trumpet's, amerika has to listen. Listen and alter the way they consider the Philippines in future.

    In the old days they would simply off Duterte, but just as with Latin America, the amerikan concentration on ME 'terrorism' since the late 90's, has left them somewhat impotent. Plus of course Filipinos would be understandably outraged & the country would either sink into a chaotic civil war with jihdists on one side, duterte-ists another and Luzonese neolibbs another, if somewhat less popular, third grouping.

    That doesn't prevent the Davos loving neoliberal cocksuckers from trying to revert back to the old days using their media propaganda. It won't work, but it could encourage amerikans to naively support the truly outrageous - the rape of Manila or something equally awful.
    So, for want of a viable alternative, it is Duterte who is the one most deserving of our support.

    michaelj72 | May 3, 2017 1:57:22 AM | 48
    B writes: "Meanwhile U.S. they U.S. directed war on drugs in Mexico has killed thousands...."

    in fact, this figure is in the many tens of thousands of lives, all a direct result of blatant US foreign policy dictates to the president/congress of mexico to start and continue this awful phony "war on drugs"

    https://www.vox.com/2016/1/9/10738912/drug-war-deaths-mexico


    ...Mexico stepped up its drug war in 2006, bringing a new wave of homicides as Mexican officials and drug cartels clashed in horrific violence that killed soldiers, police, drug cartel members, and civilians.

    The researchers noted, "The mortality rate for males ages 20–39 in Chihuahua in the period 2005–10 reached unprecedented levels: It was about 3.1 times higher than the mortality rate of US troops in Iraq between March 2003 and November 2006.".....

    ....as shown by Mexico's war on drugs, in which as many as 80,000 people have died....


    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war/

    from this July 2015 PBS article: "...Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 - a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation's war against the drug cartels - more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011...."

    jfl | May 3, 2017 6:28:45 AM | 49
    @46 b real

    thanks for that unbelievable quote from a macarthur jr. perfectly believable of course, just so opposite to reality, only someone in uniform or an american politician of the first water could have made it.

    and thanks for the link to the mccoy ... our russian friends have it on tap ... another paper by mccoy, touching on the philippines and his current penchant for analysis of the us information/surveillance regime, IMPERIAL HUBRIS: Information Infrastructure and America's Ascent to Global Power .

    i'm certainly no mccoy scholar, but i had always thought of him as a 'right' guy ... his more recent stuff makes me think he's been cia all along.

    martin | May 3, 2017 8:07:15 AM | 50
    @47 debsisdead
    one of the best comments ive read here in a long time

    Louis Proyect | May 3, 2017 8:23:35 AM | 51
    "Chomsky (and his hangers on, e.g. Amy Goodman, Michael Albert and similar folks), repeat lurid fantasies from the propaganda, about Assad, for example, but given an external reference (Postol), he may make a principled stand---his conscience may bear it."

    You should be aware that Postol is brain damaged.

    https://louisproyect.org/2017/04/29/baathists-caught-with-their-pants-down/

    Nick | May 3, 2017 8:59:11 AM | 52
    If anyone told me they're avid readers of the Washington Post, NY Times, etc I'd walk away immediately, they're a lost cause and cannot be reasoned with. I almost feel physically ill when even an excerpt from those rags is published on a site like this.

    Johan Meyer | May 3, 2017 9:09:56 AM | 53
    @51
    People who quote BellingCat are either brain damaged or willfully malevolent. Postol's point about the explosive being placed outside the container stands---which begs the obvious question of when the container was filled with Sarin, if it is to be believed that the container in fact contained Sarin. But then again, as Hersh correctly pointed out, Turkish prosecutors had prosecuted these 'rebels' before for being in possession of Sarin---hence the AKP and 'rebel' rubbish about anti-freeze, following a certain US movie, where the liquid form is identified as being green, where in fact it is colourless. But keep on spinning---the US/Saudi/Turkish sponsored rebels need their own industrial base, rather than use the industrial base of their sponsors---your claim. Once US policy changes, I hope to see you legally prosecuted, for abetting after the fact. The funniest thing in your link is your apparent lack of knowledge of highschool physical chemistry---you claim that special technology is needed to separate HF from Sarin, yet the boiling point of Sarin is 158C, while the boiling point of HF is 19C, at standard pressure.

    Johan Meyer | May 3, 2017 9:27:00 AM | 54
    @51
    The even more disgusting aspect of your comment about the need for an industrial base for separation of Sarin (the utter nonsense of it aside), is the looting, and shipping off to Turkey, of Syria's industrial base, by your so-called rebels. You clearly lack any sense of shame.

    Debsisdead | May 3, 2017 9:57:39 AM | 55
    Proyect = JAZT - just another zionist troll - many kangaroos loose in the top paddock and best left unfed.

    Liam | May 3, 2017 1:02:26 PM | 56
    Blowing the White Helmets ruse out of the water ..

    Father of Invention: Media Portrayed Grief Stricken Dad Turns Out To Be al-Nusra Front Terrorist -

    https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/05/02/father-of-invention-media-portrayed-grief-stricken-dad-turns-out-to-be-al-nusra-front-terrorist/

    "Now You See Me" – Over 100 White Helmet Self-Posted Facebook Images Expose Fake Humanitarian Group as FSA Terrorists Linked with Al-Qaeda -

    https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/05/01/now-you-see-me-over-100-white-helmet-self-posted-facebook-images-expose-fake-humanitarian-group-as-fsa-terrorists-in-bed-with-al-qaeda/

    Massive White Helmets Photo Cache Proves Hollywood Gave Oscar to Terrorist Group

    https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/02/27/massive-white-helmets-photo-cache-proves-hollywood-gave-oscar-to-terrorist-group/

    False Flagger: Al-Nusra Front Terrorist 'Reporter' Hadi Abdallah First Responder to Chemical Massacre in Idlib, Syria on April 4th, 2017

    https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/04/10/false-flagger-al-nusra-front-terrorist-reporter-hadi-abdallah-first-responder-to-chemical-massacre-in-idlib-syria-on-april-4th-2017/

    Louis Proyect | May 3, 2017 5:19:06 PM | 57
    Thanks for the chemistry lesson, Johan. I certainly could use some instruction on the boiling point of sarin but I certainly know the difference between 2013 and 2017.

    Johan Meyer | May 3, 2017 6:00:48 PM | 58
    @57
    The point about the boiling point of Sarin versus Hydrogen fluoride being that one can separate them by evaporation at room temperature. If degradation of Sarin is a concern (too slow separation), one can cool the mixture e.g. -40C/F and use vacuum distillation with a rough to low vacuum pump to lower the boiling point---no industrial base needed.

    As you cannot answer the substance of Postol's charges (local detonation outside vessel) nor Hersh's (Turkish prosecutors prosecuted your 'rebel' friends for possession of Sarin), you distract with a fumble of similar events in different years, by an elderly man (Postol). Your claims, that it is necessarily (let alone probably---again, not) Assad that launched a chemical attack, when even the rescue videos disprove a Sarin attack, speak to your habitual dishonesty, though I suspect that that dishonesty is in the first instance to yourself.

    jfl | May 3, 2017 6:15:39 PM | 59
    are wayoutwest and louisproyect actually the same person? or are their often convergent views brought about by their common provenance ... retired cia/state/dnc/mic hangers-on? they never die ... just fade away. too. poor wow has just about faded completely. may lp slowly hasten to join him.

    Johan Meyer | May 3, 2017 6:24:48 PM | 60
    @57
    The chemistry lesson is a reaction to the bunkum that you wrote, to which I linked in 53, to wit:

    In a must-read article on Bellingcat by Dan Kaszeta, we learn that Sarin gas is extremely volatile and cannot be stored as the final product used in military strikes since the main chemical reaction that produces Sarin creates one molecule of hydrogen fluoride (HF) for every molecule of Sarin. This hydrogen fluoride byproduct destroys nearly anything the Sarin would be stored in and quickly degrades the Sarin gas itself.

    Basic Boltzmann statistics and phase diagrams are enough to understand that what you wrote is idiotic. My comments on chemistry are of the spelling out variety that an irritated instructor might make to mock an arrogant and stupid (Dunning Kruger effect) student, and give a laugh to the capable students---a tactic I've seen a number of times in my day.

    x | May 6, 2017 9:04:00 AM | 61
    "Double think" --

    Rex Tillerson makes an interesting distinction between foreign policy missions/aims and 'values' ... not sure it all makes sense but there is some clarity in his expose of the situation in hand. Numerous internal re-org messages for a department under the 'change' banner, but also some good insights into US thinking at the top on global role and balance. I think he articulates his vision rather well although I'm not sure that vision is shared by others who see the large gap between the talk and the walk. Interesting omission at the end of a certain three-letter agency (CIA) in his linking of DoD and State Dept. Perhaps there is hope if Tillerson and Sergey Lavrov can establish a working relationship. Yet the emerging future will be based on the how close the Americans can actually get to their espoused set of immovable values in practice. Well worth the 39min, imo.

    "Secretary of State Tillerson Addresses Department of State Employees"
    (Published on May 3, 2017)
    https://youtu.be/jMqa2T4nRj0

    [May 06, 2017] What the N. Korean Crisis Is Really About by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... People should recall that back in the 1950s, Henry Kissinger wrote a study of the idea of limited nuclear war. As head of Nixon's NSC, Kissinger gave us SALT I, the first and in many respects most successful nuclear arms agreement. SALT I banned ballistic missile defense. It was understood by everyone, that ballistic missile defense is not a "defensive" system, but is part of a first strike weapons package. Ballistic missile defense can never be made good enough to defend against someone else's first strike. Ballistic missile defense can, however, be expected to defend after YOU have launched your own first strike and taken out most of the other side's nuclear forces. ..."
    May 06, 2017 | www.unz.com
    The North Korean "crisis" is a Washington orchestration. North Korea was last at war 1950-53. N. Korea has not attacked or invaded anyone in 64 years. N. Korea lacks the military strength to attack any country, such as South Korea and Japan, that is protected by the US. Moreover, China would not permit N. Korea to start a war.

    So what is the demonization of N. Korea by the presstitutes and Trump administration about?

    It is about the same thing that the demonization of Iran was about. The "Iranian threat" was an orchestration that was used as cover to put US anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia's borders. An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is intended to intercept and destroy nuclear-armed ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and prevent them from reaching their targets.

    Washington claimed that the anti-ABM bases were not directed at Russia, but were for the protection of Europe against Iran's nuclear ICBMs. Insouciant Americans might have believed this, but the Russians surely did not as Iran has neither ICBMs nor nuclear weapons. The Russian government has made it clear that Russia understands the US bases are directed at preventing a Russian retalliation against a Washington first strike.

    The Chinese government also is not stupid. The Chinese leadership understands that the reason for the N. Korean "crisis" is to provide cover for Washington to put anti-ballistic missile sites near China's border.

    In other words, Washington is creating a shield against nuclear retalliation from both Russia and China from a US nuclear strike against both countries.

    China has been more forceful in its reply to Washington's efforts than have the Russians. China has demanded an immediate halt to the US deployment of missiles in South Korea. https://www.rt.com/news/386828-china-thaad-south-korea/

    In order to keep Americans confused, Washington now calls anti-ABMs THAAD, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. China understands that THAAD has nothing whatsoever to do with N. Korea, which borders S. Korea, making it pointless for N. Korea to attack S. Korea with ICBMs.

    THAAD in S. Korea is directed against China's retaliatory forces. It is part of Washington's preparations to nuke both Russia and China with minimal consequence to the US, although Europe would certainly be completely destroyed as THAAD or anti-ABMs are useless against Russian nuclear cruise missiles and the Russian air force.

    But no Empire has ever cared about the fate of its vassals, and Washington is uninterested in Europe's fate. Washington is interested only in its hegemony over the world.

    The question is: now that Russia and China understand that Washington is preparing for a preemptive nuclear strike against them in order to remove the two constraints on Washington's unilateral behavior, will the two countries sit there and wait for the strike?

    What would you do?

    On April 27 I posted on this website a column, "Washington Plans to Nuke Russia and China." My column was a report that this was the conclusion of the Russians and Chinese themselves. I quoted Russian Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Head of Operations of the Russian General Staff and provided links for his expression of concern such as: https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/

    Jus' Sayin'... May 4, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT

    BTW, I agree entirely with the essential point of this essay, Mr. Roberets. It's obvious to any rational and informed person that the USA is engaged in a geopolitical strategy to surround Russia and China with a coordinated anti-ballistic-missile system. The posting of THAAD in the Korean peninsula is the latest phase of this plan. The USA's establishment seems to be planning a strategic system that they think will give the USA a first-strike capability and the flexibility to start a nuclear war with impunity. This plan is insanely dangerous and puts the entire world at risk of a nuclear conflagration.

    But the poignancy of your message is greatly diminished by the overwrought, paranoid style with which you present it.

    dearieme May 4, 2017 at 10:44 pm GMT

    Are the people who run the US really prepared to gamble on a guaranteed 100% success rate for anti-missile missiles? Won't they die too if they are wrong?

    Still, it's the simplest way to explain their very odd behaviour. Perhaps they think they can frighten the Russians and Chinese into surrender. Sounds awfully risky to me.

    KenH says: May 5, 2017 at 1:57 am GMT • 200 Words

    What I find disturbing in all this is that the U.S. has to know that they can't simultaneously neutralize Russia and China's entire nuclear arsenals and every means of delivery. But if so then this means they are ready and willing to sacrifice a portion of the American landmass and tens of millions of people to nuclear fire just to be the last man standing. Russia has "boomers" or submarines that can fire nuclear missiles from sea. I don't think the Chinese have that capability yet but I haven't been paying close attention.

    Russia has multiple ways to deliver nuclear warheads and even if our nuclear defenses are only partially breached that means a terrible loss of life. It seems the U.S. high command has war gamed every scenario imaginable and thinks we will win with "acceptable" losses which of course doesn't include they or their loved ones.

    We've become as bloodthirsty and psychopathic as the Likud party of Israel. For all intents and purposes the mover and shakers within our government are either real or honorary Likudniks.

    nickels May 5, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT
    I have to wonder if the South Korean regime change of a few months back wasn't a CIA color revolution designed to put a puppet into government in SK that would be willing to host these missiles.
    It had all the hallmarks:
    -Fancy stage with a visual/audio propaganda machine
    -Highly coordinated crowd (lighters, etc )
    -Trumped up charges
    -Demonization of the 'Church of Eternal Life', which is basically just another wacky protestant op,not a cult. If one looks at the google search results for this church (as opposed to, say bing) it is clear that they are on google's CIA list of organizations to demonize by leading search results to propaganda sites
    -Use of the media to constantly demonize a single individual (Choi Soon) whose father was adviser to Ms Park (sounds like a pretty legit advisor to me)
    -Ms Park had expressed a desire to work with both China and the US

    In Tolkien's Silmarillion he describes the lineage of Sauron as essentially a fallen angel, aka a demon.
    There is no doubt that Washington is run by a host of people who are possessed by demons.

    As far as using real names, the reason I don't spell a full name out is not the desire to be unknown, but to avoid a search engine like google from collating everything I do online into a search result. Its one thing to be known in a certain circle of the internet, another for any bloke to pull everything together without context or participation in the actual discussions.

    Harry Huntington, May 5, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

    @Paul Craig Roberts

    Folks who have seriously looked at the subject cannot help but agree with you. People should recall that back in the 1950s, Henry Kissinger wrote a study of the idea of limited nuclear war. As head of Nixon's NSC, Kissinger gave us SALT I, the first and in many respects most successful nuclear arms agreement. SALT I banned ballistic missile defense. It was understood by everyone, that ballistic missile defense is not a "defensive" system, but is part of a first strike weapons package. Ballistic missile defense can never be made good enough to defend against someone else's first strike. Ballistic missile defense can, however, be expected to defend after YOU have launched your own first strike and taken out most of the other side's nuclear forces.

    Of course the Russians have not been standing still with all of this. Their S400 system has capabilities against both US stealth aircraft and ballistic missiles. The Russians make incremental changes to their systems and the Russian S500 system will have full blown ballistic missile defense capabilities. The Russians are also deploying their Topol M ICBM systems, and soon a successor, which is mobile and has multiple maneuverable warheads and penetration aids designed to defeat US ballistic missile defense systems. Most likely, as it seems is always the case, the US neocons will trust too much in US technology and will be unpleasantly surprised by the Russian response to any US nuclear first strike.

    The wildcard of course is that a nuclear war need not be fought entirely with nuclear weapons. US conventional cruise missiles can be launched to target Russian radars. Likewise, however, the Russian Kalibr cruise missiles can directly take on US ballistic missile defense by threatening both US sea based defensive systems and land based THAAD systems.

    It is easy to picture a scenario where in a crisis Russia strikes first using its conventional cruise missiles to target US ballistic missile defense sites. US sea based systems cannot engage in ballistic missile defense if they have to expend all of their missiles defending themselves from conventional attack. Similarly, a THAAD system is of limited use if Russians successfully destroy the missiles on the ground, or if they destroy the radars.

    The US was surprised when the Russians used their Kalibr missiles with great success in Syria. That success created another layer of complexity in the US planning for nuclear war.

    botazefa: May 5, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT

    It is my understanding that our THAAD deployments are not particularly numerous in comparison to the existing ICBM arsenal. It is also my understanding that THAAD is not particularly accurate.

    If the author is so thin skinned that he cannot handle disagreement, then perhaps he lacks the self awareness to label dissenters as narcissists. To put it more plainly, the inability to take criticism is one of the diagnostic criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. To believe that ones comments are so interesting that they invite active espionage on the part of Mossad and NATO is indicative of grandiose thinking, another diagnostic criteria of NPD.


    alexander says:

    May 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @alexander

    As though perhaps in the final tally we will have hit fifty two of "their" cities and they will only have hit 20 of "ours" .like Seattle , Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Albany , Denver, Boston, Charlotte, San Francisco,Richmond, Trenton, Juneau,Wilmington, Raleigh, Concord,Providence,Detroit, Hartford and Columbia .

    Is this "victory "in your mind , Utu ?

    Can you really be suggesting this ?

    34.Mao Cheng Ji says:

    May 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @utu
    What is the purpose of anti-ABM installations around Russia and China? What is the purpose of claims of inflated abilities of these systems? Certainly not to prepare the first strike. It is to make Russia and China think that they will not win the first strike.

    It's exactly the opposite. Modern ABM systems are useless against the first strike with 1500 nuclear ICBMs among god knows how many decoys. They are useful, however, against a much weaker retaliation strike, provided that most of the enemy's ICBMs have been destroyed (by your first strike) inside their silos. You will probably lose a few cities, but win Total World Domination. And that's the game.

    [May 06, 2017] Fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function

    Notable quotes:
    "... The centrists have been parring away at the welfare state, not just pushing austerity on small nations. ..."
    "... In a way the triumph of neoliberalism created preconditions for far right movement renaissance. Neoliberalism encourages actors within it (especially "reckless" sectors of financial oligarchy such as hedge funds, private equity vultures, etc) to behave in ways that gradually make the neoliberal regime politically unworkable. ..."
    "... This way neoliberalism leads to, or contributes to the rise of neo-fascism. ..."
    "... Deregulated markets are disembedded markets that amplify the feeling that capitalism is inherently too dynamic and too unstable and as such unsafe for humans. It seems likely that what happened during the last elections is simply a revulsion against the circumstances in which people find themselves ..."
    May 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K., May 05, 2017 at 10:45 AM
    It's sort of weird column by Krugman.

    Macron isn't exactly in favor of the welfare state which Krugman likes as he is in favor of labor market reforms, etc.

    The centrists have been parring away at the welfare state, not just pushing austerity on small nations.

    Krugman appears to be sort of backing an economic explanation to the right-wing populist backlish (Brexit, Trump, Le Pen) in that he suggests the European elite's austerity is helping to create the crisis where a Le Pen can make it to a second round.

    Whereas center left Vox's Zak Beauchamp suggest it's only about immigration and Muslim extremists and nothing more.

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/beauchamp-vox-le-pen-corbyn-trump-populism/

    You'll hear nothing from Beauchamp about the European elite or austerity.

    And yet Krugman favorably links to Beauchamp about how leftist policies like universal health care wont' help against the backlash?

    Whereas DeLong is into discussing Polanyi now.

    http://crookedtimber.org/2017/05/01/the-thousand-day-reich-the-double-movement/

    libezkova -> Peter K.... , May 05, 2017 at 10:01 PM
    This idea that

    "fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function' (p.239). The more market crisis, the better fascism prospered, since it purportedly offered a way to re-embed markets within social structures, albeit at the cost of human freedom. "

    is a deep one.

    In a way the triumph of neoliberalism created preconditions for far right movement renaissance. Neoliberalism encourages actors within it (especially "reckless" sectors of financial oligarchy such as hedge funds, private equity vultures, etc) to behave in ways that gradually make the neoliberal regime politically unworkable.

    This way neoliberalism leads to, or contributes to the rise of neo-fascism.

    Deregulated markets are disembedded markets that amplify the feeling that capitalism is inherently too dynamic and too unstable and as such unsafe for humans. It seems likely that what happened during the last elections is simply a revulsion against the circumstances in which people find themselves...

    [May 05, 2017] How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room by the Saker

    I think the problem with this article is that the author can't distinguish were Neoliberalism starts and ends and were Anglo Zionism (which we will understand simply as Neocon ideology starts and ends. both are variants of Trotskyism -- "Trotskyism for the rich" to be exact. Also it is economic interest that trump all others, so that alliance of the USA and Israel is pragmatic and is about USA access to ME oil
    They definitely highly intersect, but they are still distinct political ideas ("The USA global empire uber alles in case of neocons; translational elites uber alles in case of neoliberals) and somewhat distinct ideologies. I am not convinced that Cheney cabals (which included Paul Wolfiwitz and several other neocons) was only or mostly pro-Israel political faction. And if tail really wags the dog -- the idea that Israel determine foreign policy of the USA -- is true of not. It can be be that empire has its own dynamics and Israel is just a convenient and valuable ally for now, much like Saudies
    Notable quotes:
    "... To sum it all up, I need to warn both racists and rabid anti-anti-Zionists that I will disappoint them both: the object of my discussion and criticism below will be limited to categories which a person chooses to belong to or endorse (religion, political ideas, etc.) and not categories which one is born with (race, ethnicity). ..."
    "... Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader ..."
    "... as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise ..."
    "... My own preference still goes for "Zionist" because it combines the ideological racism of secular Jews with the religious racism of Judaics (if you don't like my choice, just replace "Zionist" with any of the categories I listed above). Zionism used to be secular, but it has turned religious during the late 20th century now and so for our purposes this term can encompass both secular and religious Jewish supremacists. Add to this some more or less conservative opinions and minsets and you have "Ziocons" as an alternative expression. ..."
    "... doubleplusgoodthinking ..."
    "... The reason why I decided to tackle this issue today is that the forces who broke Trump in less than a month are also the very same forces who have forced him into a political 180: the Neocons and the US deep state. However, I think that these two concepts can be fused into on I would call the "Ziocons": basically Zionists plus some rabid Anglo imperialists ΰ la ..."
    "... There is some pretty good evidence that the person in charge of this quiet coup is Jared Kushner, a rabid Zionist . Maybe . Maybe not. This does not really matter, what matters now is to understand what this all means for the rest of us in the "basket of deplorables", the "99%ers" – basically the rest of the planet. ..."
    "... Syria . I think that we can all agree that having the black flag of Daesh fly over Damascus would be a disaster for Israel. Right? Wrong! You are thinking like a mentally sane person. This is not how the Israelis think at all. For them, Daesh is much preferable to Assad not only because Assad is the cornerstone of a unitary Syria, but because Daesh in power gives the Israelis the perfect pretext to establish a "security zone" to "protect" northern Israel. ..."
    "... Daesh is basically a tool to carve up an even bigger Zionist entity. ..."
    "... The bottom line is this: modern Neocons are little more than former Trotskyists who have found a new host to use. Their hatred for everything Russian is still so visceral that they rather support bona fide ..."
    "... Bottom line – Ziocons feel an overwhelming and always present hatred for Russia and Russians and that factor is one of the key components of their motivations. Unless you take that hatred into account you will never be able to make sense of the Ziocons and their demented policies. ..."
    "... Yes, Trump is a poorly educated ignoramus who is much better suited to the shows in Las Vegas than to be President of a nuclear superpower, but I don't see any signs of him being hateful of anybody. ..."
    "... The poor man apparently had absolutely no idea of the power and maniacal drive of the Neocons who met him once he entered the White House. ..."
    "... we now have the Ziocons in total control of BOTH parties in Congress (or, more accurately, both wings of the Ziocon party in Congress ..."
    "... I get the feeling that there are only two types of officers left in the top ranks of the US military: retired ones and " ass-kissing little chickenshit s " ΰ la ..."
    "... ZOG. Or "Zionist Occupation Government". That used to be the favorite expression of various Jew-haters out there and it's use was considered the surefire sign of a rabid anti-Semite. And yet, that is precisely what we are now all living with: a Zionist occupation government which has clearly forced Trump to make a 180 on all his campaign promises and which now risks turning the USA into a radioactive desert resulting from a completely artificial and needless confrontation with Russia. ..."
    "... Facts are facts, you cannot deny them or refuse to correctly qualify them that because of the possible "overtones" of the term chosen or because of some invented need to be especially "sensitive" when dealing with some special group. Remember – Jews are not owed any special favor and there is no need to constantly engage in various forms of complex linguistic or mental yoga contortions when discussing them and their role in the modern world. Still, I am using ZOG here just to show that it can be done, but this is not my favorite expression. ..."
    "... at the same time ..."
    "... ZOG is not an American problem. It is a planetary problem, if only because right now ZOG controls the US nuclear arsenal. ..."
    "... I don't believe that Trump is dumb enough to actually strike at North Korea. I think that his dumbass plan is probably to shoot down a DPRK missile to show that he has made "America great again" or something equally asinine. ..."
    "... To be totally honest, I don't think that the "very powerful armada" will do anything other than waste the US taxpayer's money. I am getting a strong sense that Trump is all about appearance over substance, what the Russians call "показуха" – a kind of fake show of force, full with special effects and "cool" photo ops, but lacking any real substance. Still, being on the receiving end of Trump's показуха (po-kah-zoo-kha) must be unnerving, especially if you already have natural paranoid tendencies. I am not at all sure the Kim Jong-un will find the presence of the US carrier strike group as pathetic and useless as I do. ..."
    "... They are the ONLY ONES who really want to maintain the AngloZionst Empire at any cost. Trump made it clear over and over again that his priority was the USA and the American people, not the Empire. ..."
    "... I can imagine the gasp of horror and disgust some of you will have at seeing me use the ZOG expression. I assure you, it is quite deliberate on my part. I want to 1) wake you up and 2) show you that you cannot allow the discomfort created by conditioning to guide your analyses ..."
    "... Things are coming to a head. Trump presented himself as a real alternative to the ultimate warmongering shabbos-shiksa Hillary. It is now pretty darn obvious that what we got ourselves is just another puppet, but that the puppet-masters have not changed. ..."
    "... From Ann Coulter to Pat Buchanan , many paleo-Conservatives clearly "got it". As did the real progressives . What we are left with is what I call the "extreme center", basically zombies who get their news from the Ziomedia and who have so many mental blocks that it takes weeks of focused efforts to basically bring them back to reality. ..."
    "... The modern western [neoliberal] society has been built on a categorical rejection of [Christian] ethics and morality. Slogans like "God is dead" or "Beyond good and evil" resulted in the most abject and viciously evil century in human history: the 20th century. Furthermore, most people by now can tell that Hollywood, and its bigger brother, the US porn industry, have played a central role in basically removing categories such as "good" or "truth" or "honor" from the mind of those infected by the US mass media, especially the Idiot-box (aka "telescreen" in Orwell's 1984). Instead unbridled greed and consumption became the highest and most sacred expression of "our way of life" as Americans like to say ..."
    "... Hollywood movies proclaimed that " greed is good ". In fact, at the very core of the capitalist [neoliberal] ideology is the belief that the sum total of everybody's greed yields the happiest and most successful society possible. Crazy and sick stuff, but I don't have the place to discuss this here. ..."
    "... Sidebar: by the way, and contrary to popular belief, Russia is not an especially religious country at all. While only a minority of Russians is truly religious, a majority of Russians seem to support religious values as civilizational ones. ..."
    "... for the time being we have this apparently paradoxical situation of a generally secular society standing for traditional and religious values ..."
    "... You might wonder how pacifism, international law, human and civil rights, democracy, pluralism, anti-racism, ethics and morality can help avert a nuclear war in Korea. In truth – they cannot directly do this. But in the long term, I firmly believe that these values can corrode the AngloZionist Empire from within. ..."
    "... Public protests does not work in a regime where the Ziomedia gets to decide which demonstration gets coverage and which one does not. ..."
    "... ZIG is a more accurate acronym as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks, lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc. ..."
    "... Excellent, thought provoking and depressingly accurate. Even the cavil about the Golan Heights is based, if I'm not mistaken, on the fact Israel declared it annexed in 1981. ..."
    "... I'll have to disagree. It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it. ..."
    "... That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them. ..."
    "... Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. ..."
    "... US are not the ones being controlled, they are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material. Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea. ..."
    "... If Trump's foreign policies are being dictated by someone else I want him to give us names, addresses and photographs of the real decision makers. Until that happens I hold him responsible. I have begun to regard Trump as Dubya with Jared as his Cheney. ..."
    "... Zionists are very powerful, but they are part of Globalism, a cabal of all elites of world: Chinese, EU, American, Jewish, Latin America, Hindus, Saudis, etc. It is the GLOB that rules. ..."
    "... In general, the US leadership has not proven itself bright, cunning or principled enough to resist the Zio agenda. For exhibit "A" just read up on Truman. Then consider LBJ's response to the attack on the USS Liberty. ..."
    "... One could also examine who the influential members of the admins of Wilson and FDR as well. ..."
    "... But ZOG goes beyond mere government. The Zions now permeate countless NGO's, media institutions including news and entertainment, high finance, folkways involving culture-wide taboos, and or course, higher and lower education. Even Christian doctrine has been altered to accommodate this highly-aggressive movement. The Zionist agenda is a burgeoning phenomena. And its zombie acolytes are similarly ubiquitous. The Zions have captured our government–and more. ..."
    "... So, we see a bunch of loyal dual American-Israeli citizens sitting at the top of the Israeli government, it's businesses, and its media? Oh – right – all those dual citizens are sitting atop US government, businesses and media. And we see Israel fighting wars for US' benefit? Oh – right – it's US doing the dirty work for Jewish expansionism. ..."
    "... You do not get it Saker. It does not work that way. In absolute numbers losses are very low. It is all up to media to create a perception. America can afford to have many 1000′s more dead w/o any dent in its well being. Just control the media. Vilify the enemies. ..."
    "... With the exception of Vietnam War America as and Empire hasn't lost a single war. Vietnam War was misguided from the point of view of the Empire which at the end of 1960′s and beginning of 1970′s was to be redirected to Middle East. ..."
    "... There will be everlasting chaos of sectarian fighting as as long as TPTB will be supplying weapons to one of the sides. Always the weaker one at given moment. The same goes for Libya and soon for Syria. No more stable, semi-secular states with strong central power in the Middle East. ..."
    "... Do not judge war success in terms of what is good or bad for Americans. It's all about the Empire, not about Americans. ..."
    "... My bet is that it is not Trump himself but Ivanka. The elites found a soft spot and are using this weakness to control him. Who would have the means to do this? None other than his son in law Jared. ..."
    "... Roland Bernard High Finance Shocking Revelations (Dutch with Subtitles) This video, more than any I have seen, exposes the dark heart of the matter. It's a must-watch from beginning to end. Highly credible, in my opinion. ..."
    "... The Zionist attempt to control language. The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY ..."
    "... But the Elephant driver is the British Empire System!!! ..."
    "... It is the British behind the coup against Trump. The British want to prevent the end of "Geopolitics" as we know it which is what would happen should America Russia and China come together per the New Silk Road and One Belt initiatives. This is why the British are setting off ..."
    "... Look at a swarm of the US Congresspeople blubbering praises for Israel during AIPAC' annual meetings. The US Congress is indeed the Zionist Occupied Territory, a picture of a host captured by a parasitoid. ..."
    "... How many referenda the Syrians have held to bring the Golan Heights to the embrace of Israel? We cannot wait to hear your story of Syrian people voting to join Israel. ..."
    "... Surely in the dreams of the US ziocons and in the criminal Oded Yinon's plan for Eretz Israel, which preaches for creating a civil disorder in the neighboring states so that Israel could snatch as much territory as possible from the neighbors. The ongoing Libyan and Syrian tragedies belong to that plan. ..."
    "... Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation " ..."
    "... when I read that I thought you might have meant Charlie Reese. he used to write for the Orlando Sentinel in Florida, until ((they)) ran him out ..."
    "... Doesn't matter. It was a political defeat, and war is an extension of politics. ..."
    Apr 16, 2017 | www.unz.com
    219 Comments

    First, a painful, but needed, clarification: Basement crazies . Neocons . Zionists . Israel Lobbyists . Judaics . Jews . Somewhere along this list we bump into the proverbial "elephant in the room". For some this bumping will happen earlier in the list, for others a little later down the list, but the list will be more or less the same for everybody. Proper etiquette, as least in the West, would want to make us run away from that topic. I won't. Why? Well, for one thing I am constantly accused of not discussing this elephant. Furthermore, I am afraid that the role this elephant is playing is particularly toxic right now. So let me try to deal with this beast, but first I have to begin with some caveats.

    First, terminology. For those who have not seen it, please read my article " Why I use the term AngloZionist and why it is important ". Second, please read my friend Gilad Atzmon's article " Jews, Judaism & Jewishness " (or, even better, please read his seminal book The Wondering Who ). Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,) from his discussion. He writes "I do not deal with Jews as a race or an ethnicity . I also generally avoid dealing with Judaism (the religion)". I very much include them in my discussion. However, I also fully agree with Gilad when he writes that " Jews Are Not a Race But Jewish Identity is Racist " (those having any doubts about Jews not being a race or ethnicity should read Shlomo Sand's excellent book " The Invention of the Jewish People "). Lastly, please carefully review my definition of racism as spelled out in my " moderation policies ":

    Racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than within the group. Second, racism is also a belief that the biological characteristics of your group somehow pre-determine your actions/choices/values in life. Third, racism often, but not always, assumes a hierarchy amongst human groups (Germanic Aryans over Slavs or Jews, Jews over Gentiles, etc.). I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all "brothers in Adam", that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection) of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).

    To sum it all up, I need to warn both racists and rabid anti-anti-Zionists that I will disappoint them both: the object of my discussion and criticism below will be limited to categories which a person chooses to belong to or endorse (religion, political ideas, etc.) and not categories which one is born with (race, ethnicity).

    Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader ). A tribe is a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon).

    Third, it is precisely and because Jews are a tribe that we, non-Jews, owe them exactly nothing: no special status, neither bad nor good, no special privilege of any kind, no special respect or "sensitivity" – nothing at all. We ought to treat Jews exactly as we treat any other of our fellow human beings: as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise (Luke 6:31). So if being Jewish is a choice and if any choice is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism, then (choosing to) being Jewish is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism. Conversely, those who would deny us the right to criticize Jews are, of course, the real racists since they do believe that Jews somehow deserve a special status. In fact, that notion is at the core of the entire Jewish identity and ideology.

    Now let's come back to our opening list: Basement crazies. Neocons. Zionists. Israel Lobbyists. Judaics. Jews. I submit that these are all legitimate categories as long as it is clear that "Jews by birth only", what Alain Soral in France calls "the everyday Jews", are not included in this list. Thus, for our purposes and in this context, these terms are all interchangeable. My own preference still goes for "Zionist" because it combines the ideological racism of secular Jews with the religious racism of Judaics (if you don't like my choice, just replace "Zionist" with any of the categories I listed above). Zionism used to be secular, but it has turned religious during the late 20th century now and so for our purposes this term can encompass both secular and religious Jewish supremacists. Add to this some more or less conservative opinions and minsets and you have "Ziocons" as an alternative expression.

    [Sidebar: it tells you something about the power of the Zionist propaganda machine, I call it the Ziomedia, that I would have to preface this article with a 700+ explanatory words note to try to overcome conditioned mental reflexes in the reader (that I might be an evil anti-Semite). By the way, I am under no illusions either: some Jews or doubleplusgoodthinking shabbos-goyim will still accuse me of racism. This just comes with the territory. But the good news is when I will challenge them to prove their accusation they will walk away empty-handed].

    The reason why I decided to tackle this issue today is that the forces who broke Trump in less than a month are also the very same forces who have forced him into a political 180: the Neocons and the US deep state. However, I think that these two concepts can be fused into on I would call the "Ziocons": basically Zionists plus some rabid Anglo imperialists ΰ la Cheney or McCain. These are the folks who control the US corporate media, Hollywood, Congress, most of academia, etc . These are the folks who organized a ferocious assault on the "nationalist" or "patriotic" wing of Trump supporters and ousted Flynn and Bannon and these are the folks who basically staged a color revolution against Trump . There is some pretty good evidence that the person in charge of this quiet coup is Jared Kushner, a rabid Zionist . Maybe . Maybe not. This does not really matter, what matters now is to understand what this all means for the rest of us in the "basket of deplorables", the "99%ers" – basically the rest of the planet.

    Making sense of the crazies

    Making sense of the motives and goals (one cannot speak of "logic" in this case) of self-deluded racists can be a difficult exercise. But when the "basement crazies" (reminder: the term from from here ) are basically in control of the policies of the US Empire, this exercise becomes crucial, vital for the survival of the mentally sane. I will now try to outline the reasons behind the "new" Trump policies using two examples: Syria and Russia.

    Syria . I think that we can all agree that having the black flag of Daesh fly over Damascus would be a disaster for Israel. Right? Wrong! You are thinking like a mentally sane person. This is not how the Israelis think at all. For them, Daesh is much preferable to Assad not only because Assad is the cornerstone of a unitary Syria, but because Daesh in power gives the Israelis the perfect pretext to establish a "security zone" to "protect" northern Israel. And that, in plain English, means fully occupying and annexing the Golan (an old Israeli dream). Even better, the Israelis know Daesh really well (they helped create it with the USA and Saudi Arabia) and they know that Daesh is a mortal threat to Hezbollah. By putting Daesh into power in Syria, the Israelis hope for a long, bloody and never ending war in Lebanon and Syria. While their northern neighbors would be plugged into maelstrom of atrocities and horrors, the Israelis would get to watch it all from across their border while sending a few aircraft from time to time to bomb Hezbollah positions or even innocent civilians under whatever pretext. Remember how the Israelis watched in total delight how their forces bombed the population of Gaza in 2014? With Daesh in power in Damascus, they would get an even better show to take their kids to. Finally, and last but most definitely not least, the Syrian Christians would be basically completely wiped out. For those who know the hatred Judaics and Jews have always felt for Christianity (even today ) it will be clear why the Israelis would want Daesh in power in Syria: Daesh is basically a tool to carve up an even bigger Zionist entity.

    Russia . Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian. Particularly the ex-Trotskyists turned Neocons. I have explained the origins of this hatred elsewhere and I won't repeat it all here. You just need to study the genocidal policies against anything Russian of the first Bolshevik government (which was 80%-85% Jews; don't believe me? Then listen to Putin himself ). I have already discussed " The ancient spiritual roots of russophobia " in a past article and I have also explain what rabbinical Phariseism (what is mistakenly called "Judaism" nowadays) is little more than an "anti-Christianity "(please read those articles if this complex and fascinating history is of interest to you). The bottom line is this: modern Neocons are little more than former Trotskyists who have found a new host to use. Their hatred for everything Russian is still so visceral that they rather support bona fide Nazis (isn't this ironic?) in the Ukraine than Russia, which is even more paradoxical if you recall that before the 1917 Bolshevik coup anti-Jewish feelings were much stronger in what is today the Ukraine than in what is the Russian Federation today.

    In fact, relations between Russians and Jews have, I would argue, been significantly improving since the Nazi coup in Kiev, much to the chagrin of the relatively few Russians left who truly hate Jews. While you will hear a lot of criticism of organized political Jewry in Russia, especially compared to the West, there is very little true anti-Jewish racism in Russia today, and even less publicly expressed in the media (in fact, 'hate speech' is illegal in Russia). One thing to keep in mind is that there are many substantial differences between Russian Jews and US Jews, especially amongst those Russian Jews who deliberately chose not to emigrate to Israel, or some other western country (those interested in this topic can find a more detailed discussion here ). Jews in Russia today deliberately chose to stay and that, right there, show a very different attitude than the attitude of those (Jews and non-Jews) who took the first opportunity to get out of Russia as soon as possible. Bottom line – Ziocons feel an overwhelming and always present hatred for Russia and Russians and that factor is one of the key components of their motivations. Unless you take that hatred into account you will never be able to make sense of the Ziocons and their demented policies.

    Making sense of Trump

    I think that Trump can be criticized for a lot of things, but there is exactly zero evidence of him ever harboring anti-Russian feelings. There is plenty of evidence that he has always been pro-Israeli, but no more than any politician or businessman in the USA. I doubt that Trump even knows where the Golan Heights even are. He probably also does not know that Hezbollah and Daesh are mortal enemies. Yes, Trump is a poorly educated ignoramus who is much better suited to the shows in Las Vegas than to be President of a nuclear superpower, but I don't see any signs of him being hateful of anybody. More generally, the guy is really not ideological. The best evidence is his goofy idea of building a wall to solve the problem of illegal immigration: he (correctly) identified a problem, but then he came up with a Kindergarten level (pseudo) solution.

    The same goes for his views on Russia. He probably figured out something along these lines: "Putin is a strong guy, Russia is a strong country, they hate Daesh and want to destroy it – let's join forces". The poor man apparently had absolutely no idea of the power and maniacal drive of the Neocons who met him once he entered the White House. Even worse is the fact that he apparently does not realize that they are now using him to try out some pretty demented policies for which they will later try to impeach him as the sole culprit should things go wrong (and they most definitely will). Frankly, I get the feeling that Trump was basically sincere in his desire to "drain the swamp" but that he is simply not too clever (just the way he betrayed Flynn and Bannon to try to appease the Ziocons is so self-defeating and, frankly, stupid). But even if I am wrong and Trump was "their" plant all along (I still don't believe that at all), the end result is the same: we now have the Ziocons in total control of BOTH parties in Congress (or, more accurately, both wings of the Ziocon party in Congress ), in total control of the White House, the mass media and Hollywood. I am not so sure that they truly are in control of the Pentagon, but when I see the kind of pliable and spineless figures military Trump has recently appointed, I get the feeling that there are only two types of officers left in the top ranks of the US military: retired ones and " ass-kissing little chickenshit s " ΰ la Petraeus. Not good. Not good at all. As for the ridiculously bloated (and therefore mostly incompetent) "three letter agencies soup", it appears that it has been turned from an intelligence community to a highly politicized propaganda community whose main purpose is to justify whatever counter-factual insanity their political bosses can dream up. Again. Not good. Not good at all.

    Living with ZOG

    ZOG. Or "Zionist Occupation Government". That used to be the favorite expression of various Jew-haters out there and it's use was considered the surefire sign of a rabid anti-Semite. And yet, that is precisely what we are now all living with: a Zionist occupation government which has clearly forced Trump to make a 180 on all his campaign promises and which now risks turning the USA into a radioactive desert resulting from a completely artificial and needless confrontation with Russia. To those horrified that I would dare use an expression like ZOG I will reply this: believe me, I am even more upset about having to admit that ZOG is real than you are: I really don't care for racists of any kind, and most of these ZOG folks looks like real racists to me. But, alas, they are also right! Facts are facts, you cannot deny them or refuse to correctly qualify them that because of the possible "overtones" of the term chosen or because of some invented need to be especially "sensitive" when dealing with some special group. Remember – Jews are not owed any special favor and there is no need to constantly engage in various forms of complex linguistic or mental yoga contortions when discussing them and their role in the modern world. Still, I am using ZOG here just to show that it can be done, but this is not my favorite expression. I just feel that committing the crimethink here will encourage others to come out of their shell and speak freely. At the very least, asking the question of whether we do or do not have a Zionist Occupation Government is an extremely important exercise all by itself. Hence, today I ZOG-away

    Some might argue with the "occupation" part of the label. Okay – what would you call a regime which is clearly acting in direct opposition to the will of an overwhelming majority of the people and which acts in the interests of a foreign power (with which the USA does not even have a formal treaty)? Because, please make no mistake here, this is not a Trump-specific phenomenon. I think that it all began with Reagan and that the Ziocons fully seized power with Bill Clinton. Others think that it all began with Kennedy. Whatever may be the case, what is clear is that election after election Americans consistently vote for less war and each time around they get more wars . It is true that most Americans are mentally unable to conceptually analyze the bizarre phenomena of a country with no enemies and formidable natural barriers needs to spend more on wars of aggression then the rest of the planet spends of defense. Nor are they equipped to wonder why the US needs 16/17 intelligences agencies when the vast majority of countries out there do fine with 2-5. Lastly, most Americans do believe that they have some kind of duty to police the planet. True. But at the same time , they are also sick and tired of wars, if only because so many of their relatives, friends and neighbors return from these wars either dead or crippled. That, and the fact that Americans absolutely hate losing. Losing is all the USA has been doing since God knows how long: losing wars against all but the weakest and most defenseless countries out there. Most Americans also would prefer that the money spent aboard on "defending democracy" (i.e. imperialism) be spent at home to help the millions of Americans in need in the USA. As the southern rock band Lynyrd Snynyrd (which hails from Jacksonville, Florida) once put it in their songs " Things goin' on ":

    Too many lives they've spent across the ocean
    Too much money been spent upon the moon
    Well, until they make it right
    I hope they never sleep at night
    They better make some changes
    And do it soon

    Soon? That song was written in 1978! And since then, nothing has changed. If anything, things got worse, much worse.

    Houston, we got a problem

    ZOG is not an American problem. It is a planetary problem, if only because right now ZOG controls the US nuclear arsenal. And Trump, who clearly and unequivocally campaigned on a peace platform, is now sending a " very powerful armada " to the coast of the DPRK. Powerful as this armada might be, it can do absolutely nothing to prevent the DPRK artillery from smashing Seoul into smithereens. You think that I am exaggerating? Business Insider estimated in 2010 that it would take the DPRK 2 hours to completely obliterate Seoul . Why? Because the DPRK has enough artillery pieces to fire 500,000 rounds of artillery on Seoul in the first hour of a conflict , that's why. Here we are talking about old fashioned, conventional, artillery pieces. Wikipedia says that the DPRK has 8,600 artillery pieces and 4,800 multiple rocket launcher systems. Two days a go a Russian expert said that the real figure was just under 20'000 artillery pieces. Whatever thee exact figure, suffice to say that it is "a lot".

    The DPRK also has some more modern but equally dangerous capabilities . Of special importance here are the roughly 200'000 North Korean special forces. Oh sure, these 200'000 are not US Green Beret or Russian Spetsnaz, but they are adequate for their task: to operate deep behind enemy lies and create chaos and destroy key objectives. You tell me – what can the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group deploy against these well hidden and dispersed 10'000+ artillery pieces and 200'000 special forces? Exactly, nothing at all.

    And did I mention that the DPRK has nukes?

    No, I did not. First, I am not at all sure that the kind of nukes the DPRK has can be fitted for delivery on a missile. Having a few nukes and having missiles is one thing, having missiles capable of adequately delivering these nukes is quite another. I suppose that DPRK special forces could simply drive a nuke down near Seoul on a simple army truck and blow it up. Or bring it in a container ship somewhere in the general vicinity of a US or Korean base and blow it up there. One neat trick would be to load a nuke on a civilian ship, say a fishing vessel, and bring it somewhere near the USS Carl Vinson and then blow it up. Even if the USN ships survive this unscathed, the panic aboard these ships would be total. To be honest, this mostly Tom Clancy stuff, in real warfare I don't think that the North Korean nukes would be very useful against a US attack. But you never know, necessity is the mother of invention , as the British like to say.

    I don't believe that Trump is dumb enough to actually strike at North Korea. I think that his dumbass plan is probably to shoot down a DPRK missile to show that he has made "America great again" or something equally asinine. The problem here is that I am not sure at all how Kim Jong-un and his Party minions might react to that kind of loss of face. What if they decided that they needed to fire some more missiles, some in the general direction of US forces in the region (there are fixed US targets all over the place). Then what? How will Trump prove that he is the biggest dog on the block? Could he decide to "punish" the offending missile launch site like he did with the al-Sharyat airbase in Syria? And if Trump does that – what will Kim Jong-un's reaction be?

    To be totally honest, I don't think that the "very powerful armada" will do anything other than waste the US taxpayer's money. I am getting a strong sense that Trump is all about appearance over substance, what the Russians call "показуха" – a kind of fake show of force, full with special effects and "cool" photo ops, but lacking any real substance. Still, being on the receiving end of Trump's показуха (po-kah-zoo-kha) must be unnerving, especially if you already have natural paranoid tendencies. I am not at all sure the Kim Jong-un will find the presence of the US carrier strike group as pathetic and useless as I do.

    Both Russia and Syria have shown an amazing about of restraint when provoked by Turkey or the US. This is mostly due to the fact that Russian and Syrian leaders are well-educated people who are less concerned with loss of face than with achieving their end result. In direct contrast, both Kim Jong-un and Trump are weak, insecure, leaders with an urgent need to prove to their people (and to themselves!) that they are tough guys. Exactly the most dangerous kind of mindset you want in any nuclear-capable power, be it huge like the USA or tiny like the DPRK.

    So what does that have to do with the ZOG and the Ziocons? Everything.

    They are the ONLY ONES who really want to maintain the AngloZionst Empire at any cost. Trump made it clear over and over again that his priority was the USA and the American people, not the Empire. And yet now is is playing a crazy game of "nuclear chicken" with the DPRK. Does that sound like the "real Trump" to you? Maybe – but not to me. All this crazy stuff around the DPRK and the (few) nukes it apparently has, is all just a pretext to "play empire", to show that, as Obama liked to say, the USA is the " indispensable nation ". God forbid the local countries would deal with that problem alone, without USN carrier strike groups involved in the "solving" of this problem!

    [Sidebar: by the way, this is also the exact same situation in Syria: the Russians have single-handedly organized a viable peace-process on the ground and then followed it up with a multi-party conference in Astana, Kazakhstan. Looks great except for one problem: the indispensable nation was not even invited. Even worse, the prospects of peace breaking out became terribly real. The said indispensable nation therefore "invited itself" by illegally (and ineffectually) bombing a Syrian air base and, having now proven its capacity to wreck any peace process, the USA is now right back in center-stage of the negotiations about the future of Syria. In a perverse way, this almost makes sense.]

    So yes, we have a problem and that problem is that ZOG is in total control of the Empire and will never accept to let it go, even if that means destroying the USA in the process.

    I can imagine the gasp of horror and disgust some of you will have at seeing me use the ZOG expression. I assure you, it is quite deliberate on my part. I want to 1) wake you up and 2) show you that you cannot allow the discomfort created by conditioning to guide your analyses . As with all the other forms of crimethink , I recommend that you engage in a lot of it, preferably in public, and you will get used to it. First it will be hard, but with time it will get easier (it is also great fun). Furthermore, somebody needs to be the first one to scream " the emperor has no clothes ". Then, once one person does it, the others realize that it is safe and more follow. The key thing here is not to allow ideological "sacred cows" to roam around your intellectual mindspace and limit you in your thinking. Dogmas should be limited to Divine revelations, not human ideological constructs.

    Where do we go from here?

    Things are coming to a head. Trump presented himself as a real alternative to the ultimate warmongering shabbos-shiksa Hillary. It is now pretty darn obvious that what we got ourselves is just another puppet, but that the puppet-masters have not changed. The good news is that those who were sincere in their opposition to war are now openly speaking about Trump great betrayal. From Ann Coulter to Pat Buchanan , many paleo-Conservatives clearly "got it". As did the real progressives . What we are left with is what I call the "extreme center", basically zombies who get their news from the Ziomedia and who have so many mental blocks that it takes weeks of focused efforts to basically bring them back to reality.

    The key issue here is how do we bring together those who are still capable of thought? I think that a minimalist agenda we can all agree upon could be composed of the following points:

    Peace/pacifism International law Human and civil rights Democracy Pluralism Anti-racism Ethics and morality

    Sounds harmless? It ain't, I assure you. ZOG can only survive by violence, terror and war. Furthermore, the AngloZionist Empire cannot abide by any principles of international law. As for human and civil right, once quick look at the Patriot Act (which was already ready by the time the 9/11 false flag operation was executed) will tell you how ZOG feels about these issues. More proof? How about the entire "fake news" canard? How about the new levels of censorship in YouTube, Facebook or Google? Don't you see that this is simply a frontal attack on free speech and the First Amendment?! What about Black Lives Matter – is that not a perfect pretext to justify more police powers and a further militarization of police forces? To think that the Zionists care about human or civil rights is a joke! Just read what the Uber-Zionist and [putative] human right lawyer, the great Alan Dershowitz writes about torture, Israel or free speech (for Norman Finkelstein). Heck, just read what ultra-liberal super-mega human righter (well, after he returned to civilian life) and ex-President Jimmy Carter writes about Israel -- Or look at the policies of the Bolshevik regime in Russia. It it pretty clear that these guys not only don't give a damn about human or civil right, but that they are deeply offended and outraged when they are told that they cannot violate these rights.

    What about democracy? How can that be a intellectual weapon? Simple – you show that every time the people (in the USA or Europe) voted for X they got Y. Or they were told to re-vote and re-vote and re-vote again and again until, finally, the Y won. That is a clear lack of democracy. So if you say that you want to restore democracy, you are basically advocating regime-change, but nicely wrapped into a "good" ideological wrapper. Western democracies are profoundly anti-democratic. Show it!

    Pluralism? Same deal. All this takes is to prove that the western society has become a "mono-ideological" society were real dissent is simply not tolerated and were real pluralism is completely ascent from the public discourse. Demand that the enemies of the system be given equal time on air and always make sure that you give the supporters of the system equal time on media outlets you (we) control. Then ask them to compare. This is exactly what Russia is doing nowadays (see here if you are interested). Western democracies are profoundly anti-pluralistic. Again, show it!

    Anti-racism. Should be obvious to the reader by now. Denounce, reject and attack any idea which gives any group any special status. Force your opponents to fess up to the fact that what they really want when they claim to struggle for "equality" is a special status for their single-issue minority. Reject any and all special interest groups and, especially, reject the notion that democracy is about defending the minority against the majority. In reality, minorities are always much more driven and motivated by a single issue which is why a coalition of minorities inevitably comes to power. What the world needs is the exact opposite: a democracy which would protect the majority against the minorities. Oh, sure, they will fight you on this one, but since you are right this is an intellectual argument you ought to be capable of winning pretty easily (just remember, don't let accusations of crimethink freeze you in terror).

    Last, my favorite one: ethics and morality.

    The modern western [neoliberal] society has been built on a categorical rejection of [Christian] ethics and morality. Slogans like "God is dead" or "Beyond good and evil" resulted in the most abject and viciously evil century in human history: the 20th century. Furthermore, most people by now can tell that Hollywood, and its bigger brother, the US porn industry, have played a central role in basically removing categories such as "good" or "truth" or "honor" from the mind of those infected by the US mass media, especially the Idiot-box (aka "telescreen" in Orwell's 1984). Instead unbridled greed and consumption became the highest and most sacred expression of "our way of life" as Americans like to say .

    Hollywood movies proclaimed that " greed is good ". In fact, at the very core of the capitalist [neoliberal] ideology is the belief that the sum total of everybody's greed yields the happiest and most successful society possible. Crazy and sick stuff, but I don't have the place to discuss this here. All I will say that that rehabilitating notions such as right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, healthy and natural versus unnatural and pathological is a great legal way (at least so far) to fight the Empire. Ditto for sexual morality and family. There is a reason why all Hollywood movies inevitably present only divorced or sexually promiscuous heroes: they are trying to destroy the natural family unit because they *correctly* identify the traditional family unit as a threat to the AngloZionist order. Likewise, there is also a reason why all the western elites are constantly plagued by accusations of pedophilia and other sexual scandals. One Russian commentator, Vitalii Tretiakov, recently hilariously paraphrased the old communist slogan and declared "naturals of all countries – come to Russia" [in modern Russian "naturals" is the antonym of "homosexual"). He was joking, of course, but he was also making a serious point: Russia has become the only country which dares to openly uphold the core values of Christianity and Islam (that, of course, only adds to the Ziocon's hatred of Russia).

    [ Sidebar: by the way, and contrary to popular belief, Russia is not an especially religious country at all. While only a minority of Russians is truly religious, a majority of Russians seem to support religious values as civilizational ones. I don't think that this is sustainable for too long, Russia will either become more religious or more secularized, but for the time being we have this apparently paradoxical situation of a generally secular society standing for traditional and religious values ]

    You might wonder how pacifism, international law, human and civil rights, democracy, pluralism, anti-racism, ethics and morality can help avert a nuclear war in Korea. In truth – they cannot directly do this. But in the long term, I firmly believe that these values can corrode the AngloZionist Empire from within. And look at the alternatives:

    Organizing political parties does not work in a system where money determine the outcome. "Direct action" does not work in a system which treats libertarians and ecologists as potential terrorists. Public protests does not work in a regime where the Ziomedia gets to decide which demonstration gets coverage and which one does not. Civil disobedience does not work in a regime which has no problem having the highest per capita incarceration rate on the planet. Running for office does not work in a regime which selects for spinelessness, immorality and, above all, subservience. Even running away abroad does not work when dealing with an Empire which has 700-1000 (depends on how you count) military bases worldwide and which will bomb the crap out of any government which strives at even a modicum of true sovereignty.

    The only other option is "internal exile", when you build yourself you own inner world of spiritual and intellectual freedom and you basically "live there" with no external signs of you having "fled" the Empire's ugly reality. But if nuclear-tipped ICBMs start flying no amount of "internal exile" will protect you, not even if you combine that internal exile with with a life far away in the boonies.

    Orthodox Christian eschatology teaches that the End Times are inevitable. However, the Fathers also teach that we can push the End Times back by our collective actions, be it in the form of prayers or in the form of an open resistance to Evil in our world. I have three children, 1 girl and 2 boys, and I feel like I owe it to them to fight to make the world they will have to live even marginally better.

    ... ... ..

    nsa, April 17, 2017 at 1:26 am GMT

    ZIG is a more accurate acronym as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks, lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc.

    exiled off mainstreet, April 17, 2017 at 2:10 am GMT • 100 Words

    Excellent, thought provoking and depressingly accurate. Even the cavil about the Golan Heights is based, if I'm not mistaken, on the fact Israel declared it annexed in 1981. I'm not sure it is internationally recognized, though the US, as an Israeli acolyte as indicated by the article in spades, may have done so at some point.

    Cyrano , April 17, 2017 at 2:44 am GMT

    Most of the time I like the way Saker thinks, but on this one I'll have to disagree. It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it.

    That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them.

    Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda." They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps, the US decided to change their tune.

    Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. That formula is still being used today, but it's mostly in Europe and US that it's still considered valid, for the rest of the world just too much time has passed and some of Israel's behavior in the ME has cast a shadow on their image as eternal victims.

    People on this site want to view the Jews as George Milton and US as Lenny Small – from Steinbeck novel "Of mice and men". But the reality is much different. US are not Lenny Small, a giant with great physical strength but not too much brain power. US are not the ones being controlled, they are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material. Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea.

    WorkingClass, April 17, 2017 at 4:20 am GMT /p>

    If Trump's foreign policies are being dictated by someone else I want him to give us names, addresses and photographs of the real decision makers. Until that happens I hold him responsible. I have begun to regard Trump as Dubya with Jared as his Cheney.

    Well done Saker. Please keep up the good work.

    Anon, April 17, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT

    Zionists are very powerful, but they are part of Globalism, a cabal of all elites of world: Chinese, EU, American, Jewish, Latin America, Hindus, Saudis, etc. It is the GLOB that rules.

    jacques sheete , April 17, 2017 at 12:37 pm GMT
    @Cyrano

    But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea.

    Nice try, but what have you to say about the originators of the Zionist project?

    P.S.: In general, the US leadership has not proven itself bright, cunning or principled enough to resist the Zio agenda. For exhibit "A" just read up on Truman. Then consider LBJ's response to the attack on the USS Liberty.

    One could also examine who the influential members of the admins of Wilson and FDR as well.

    Mark Green, April 17, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT

    This is a very thoughtful article. The Saker covers a lot of ground. Basically, he has provided his readers with not only a highly perceptive overview, but a blueprint from which they can begin resisting ZOG (or ZIG) tyranny. And let's make no mistake about it: ZOG exists and its impact is immense.

    But ZOG goes beyond mere government. The Zions now permeate countless NGO's, media institutions including news and entertainment, high finance, folkways involving culture-wide taboos, and or course, higher and lower education. Even Christian doctrine has been altered to accommodate this highly-aggressive movement. The Zionist agenda is a burgeoning phenomena. And its zombie acolytes are similarly ubiquitous. The Zions have captured our government–and more.

    The Saker also correctly notes that the distorting influence of Zionism has become too apparent to deny–even though it is, at the same time, nearly invisible; as it operates in plain sight under various pseudonyms, disguises and false pretenses.

    Indeed, its influence remains mostly unrecognized and it is therefore unresisted. For now.

    Indeed, even Trump–after only months in office–has fallen under its clever spell. We must therefore strive to examine, discuss, critique and resist this extra-national force of malevolence. Step one: Identify the source.

    The intellectual and culture-wide power of ZOG emanates in great part via our mainstream media. The mind-numbing and destructive impact of ZOG in Western media must be understood and unmasked.

    Fran Macadam, April 18, 2017 at 2:13 am GMT

    When you're right you're right. Logic like this is what leads the paranoiacs to think Russkis are taking over! When you make good sense, it can't help but "control" minds.

    One of the saddest developments, to a former implacable Cold Warrior and anticommunist, is that when by a miracle (yes, I count it that) the Russians ended communism by their own choice, without shots being fired, our side did not respond honorably (at least the ones at the commanding heights of our society.)

    Like your description of what Trump thought, "Hey Russia's fighting ISIS, let's have them take care of it and save us the trouble" I'm a simple guy too who'd rather see the destructive waste of war money instead be spent on infrastructure for our folks.

    I think of "House of the Dead" where the picture of the prisoners waiting for release through the coming of Christ, is a picture of us poor prisoners, but still of faith, waiting in this world too. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.

    CalDre, April 18, 2017 at 2:56 am GMT

    @Cyrano

    Wow, where to start when someone claims white is black .

    It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around.

    So, we see a bunch of loyal dual American-Israeli citizens sitting at the top of the Israeli government, it's businesses, and its media? Oh – right – all those dual citizens are sitting atop US government, businesses and media. And we see Israel fighting wars for US' benefit? Oh – right – it's US doing the dirty work for Jewish expansionism.

    US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it.

    That's not the case. The Jews were turned away because the Jewish Establishment/Zionists ordered the US to turn them back. Why? Because they wanted them to go to Israel to rob the Palestinians of their land instead. So it was not the Nazis the US was afraid of (then or now), but the Jewish oligarchs.

    Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda." They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps, the US decided to change their tune.

    There is not to this day any "overwhelming" or even "underwhelming" evidence of the Holohoax. Soviets made a bunch of propaganda out of the (labor) camps in large part to get back at Germany for the terrible losses the Soviets suffered, as well as the huge embarrassment when the Nazis revealed the Soviet crimes in Katlyn Forest. However when in the early 1990s Gorbachev released the notorious Auschwitz "death books", it turns out hardly any Jews were killed, and none by gassings, rather the vast majority of the dead succumbed to typhus (typhus being carried by lice, and Zyklon-B, the chemical Germany is (falsely) accused of using to murder Jews by the millions, was actually used to kill lice and thereby save Jews in the camps).

    utu, April 18, 2017 at 5:37 am GMT

    But even if I am wrong and Trump was "their" plant all along

    It's possible that Trump did not even know that he was their plant but at some point after psychological profiling of him and assessing all leverages available to them to pry and prod him it was decided he will be just fine for the job. That's why he was allowed to win the election. The anti-Trump color revolution conducted by the so-called liberal left was a crucial part from the arsenal of the leverages. In the end it worked out beautifully for them. Gen. Flynn was not too bright to realize what hit him but Bannon is perhaps the only guy, in the good guys camp, who knows what is really going on. I am just wondering why he is still there. Perhaps they are forcing him to stay for the sake of the deluded iron electorate of Trump to prolong their delusion.

    utu , April 18, 2017 at 5:54 am GMT

    they are also sick and tired of wars, if only because so many of their relatives, friends and neighbors return from these wars either dead or crippled. That, and the fact that Americans absolutely hate losing. Losing is all the USA has been doing since God knows how long: losing wars against all but the weakest and most defenseless countries out there

    You do not get it Saker. It does not work that way. In absolute numbers losses are very low. It is all up to media to create a perception. America can afford to have many 1000′s more dead w/o any dent in its well being. Just control the media. Vilify the enemies.

    With the exception of Vietnam War America as and Empire hasn't lost a single war. Vietnam War was misguided from the point of view of the Empire which at the end of 1960′s and beginning of 1970′s was to be redirected to Middle East.

    This was a new task for the Empire. So everything goes according to the plan, e.g. Iraq war goals were 100% accomplished. There is no more state of Iraq. Iraq will no pose a thread to anybody and Israel in particular. There will be everlasting chaos of sectarian fighting as as long as TPTB will be supplying weapons to one of the sides. Always the weaker one at given moment. The same goes for Libya and soon for Syria. No more stable, semi-secular states with strong central power in the Middle East.

    Do not judge war success in terms of what is good or bad for Americans. It's all about the Empire, not about Americans.

    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 6:54 am GMT
    The best Saker's essay so far, the most inspired and the most identifiable. Just two quick notes from me.

    First, the ZOG/ZIG is so ubiquitous and powerful that the past election with Trump against Hillary was really a duel between pro-Trump young Zionists and the pro-Hillary old Zionists, in other words it was a generational change among the Masters (it was also a change in who will profit from political power). Since Trump turned to the Dark Side, I have realised that Jared was always there, even during the election, as an ιminence grise and he pulled Trump's strings a forced a switch from election rhetoric to post-election reality. I have no doubt that Jared is the man behind the man, except that he also must have a fairly powerful Zionist base behind him.

    Second, Saker just like Mr Giraldi has become a magnet for all and sundry Hasbara trolls, obviously because both are the most prominent exposers of the ZOG/ZIG. It is important to remember that all Western Governments are ZOG/ZIG, without exception. Only BRICS countries appear free at the moment, despite 1000 military basis of the global ZOG/ZIG.

    Truth , April 18, 2017 at 12:09 pm GMT
    @Anonymous

    Trump is being blackmailed.

    My bet is that it is not Trump himself but Ivanka. The elites found a soft spot and are using this weakness to control him. Who would have the means to do this? None other than his son in law Jared.

    He could have coerced her into doing something stupid on camera like group sex or being blacked and little Jared would not think twice to use this to control a weak man like Trump.

    Translation from "alt-rightish" into English:

    "Ive been a dupe and a stupid sucker for the last 2 1/2 years, and I need to believe that somehow the Jooz corrupted and bent this fine American hero to their own will in two months, instead of acknowledging the obvious truth that he was a weak, pathetic asset, and a literal as well as figurative, cocksucker, all along."

    You're welcome

    Tha Philosopher , April 18, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT
    I don't know if you wrote this as a response to my comment some time back arguing you were ignoring the elephant in the room, but this article reflects my thoughts more or less on Zion.

    I would add the historical record of Zion from Pharoah, the catacombs under Rome, to Spain, to Edwardian England, Tsarist Russia and so on is a record much like a locust. You have to wonder where all the 'persecution' comes from. Where the causuality?

    Its seeks economic surplus.

    And yes, they are missing the part of the brain associated with white high empathy and 'fair play' as Jayman has mentioned. They studied that weakness in Tavistock to find these pavlonian words like 'rac-ism' and when designing the themes in their movies and the fiction work they publish.

    The way to defeat Zion is to say the Necromancers name. Say it. If you say whats going on, the power of the Illusion and the fraud subsists entirely. No violence is needed. Repeat no violence is needed. Just say it. Bring it up in a discussion about politics politely and with evidence. The higher IQ people you meet will cotton on when you anchor the pattern recognition.

    They are the real 1%, they cannot govern with enlightened chattel. This is why philosophy, psychology, economics, history, anthropology, biology, and so on have been debased into slogans in the academy.

    In time, they will come after your daughters and mothers and sisters and turn them into whores. They will send your sons to war. They will fleece your pension funds.

    The truth, is that the most persecuted race of man in history – with a notable minority of followers of truth like the editor of this webzine -Mr Unz, Mr Sanders, Mr Marx and so on – is that there is a number who are essentially a very high IQ version of the mafia.

    Tha Philosopher , April 18, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT
    • 100 Words My own reading leads me to identify the following as the Elders of Zion:

    Steve Schwarzmann
    Paul Singer
    Robert Rubin
    David Rubenstein
    Summer Rothstein
    Evelyn Rothschild
    Stephen Friedman
    Elliot Abrams

    There are some more. Put them on a map and draw the links between them and their agents. Khordovsky gave his money to Rothschild to mind after the 1990s pillaging of Russia when Putin imprisoned him.

    Ohhh they hate Putin because he stopped them in the 90s more than anything. Khordovsky was trying to buy a media outlet.

    Also the Protocols may be based on a satire but as Lord Syndenham mentioned in the Times 100 years ago, it was a spooky blueprint for the Bolshevik revolution .and the EU.

    Tha Philosopher , April 18, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT
    You can tell the puppets by their policies

    Lena Dunham social policy for jewish social freedom
    Milton Autism on economics to stop redistribution to the goyim
    Kristol on foreign policy for Israel's world domination.

    e.g Tony Blair, Macron, Cameroon, Merkel, Juncker, Bush, Clinton etc etc.

    There is no difference. They are all the same party.

    Zion.

    Uncle Davy , April 19, 2017 at 6:25 am GMT
    @Cyrano Most of the time I like the way Saker thinks, but on this one I'll have to disagree. It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it.

    That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them.

    Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda." They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps, the US decided to change their tune.

    Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. That formula is still being used today, but it's mostly in Europe and US that it's still considered valid, for the rest of the world just too much time has passed and some of Israel's behavior in the ME has cast a shadow on their image as eternal victims.

    People on this site want to view the Jews as George Milton and US as Lenny Small – from Steinbeck novel "Of mice and men". But the reality is much different. US are not Lenny Small, a giant with great physical strength but not too much brain power. US are not the ones being controlled, they are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material. Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea. With no disrespect Cyrano, you may need to read the 1996 report 'A Clean Break'
    - and you'll quickly discover its the zionist entity that is the tail that wags the American dog. The zionist entity is not limited to the geographical borders of the state of Israel, either.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20140125123844/http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

    Fran Macadam , • Website April 19, 2017 at 9:08 am GMT
    Before blaming "The Jews" for the ills of the world it would behoove everyone to take a good long hard look in the mirror. If you think you get an affirmative answer to "Who is the most beautiful of all?" you are living in a fairy tale.
    Deeply Concerned , April 19, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT
    • 100 Words May I add that calling for a worldwide demonstration on a preannouced day (similar to the one against W's Iraq war) is critically needed. The slogan of this demonstration should be "ANY US CITIZEN WHO PUTS THE INTEREST OF ISRAEL ABOVE THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE US IS – A TRAITOR . ANYONE WHO SUPPORT, PROMOTE, DEFEND A TRAITOR IS A TRAITOR". Traitor is the key word in my opinion and it should be the rallying word.
    Vires , April 19, 2017 at 5:50 pm GMT
    • 300 Words @Cyrano Most of the time I like the way Saker thinks, but on this one I'll have to disagree. It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it.

    That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them.

    Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda." They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps, the US decided to change their tune.

    Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. That formula is still being used today, but it's mostly in Europe and US that it's still considered valid, for the rest of the world just too much time has passed and some of Israel's behavior in the ME has cast a shadow on their image as eternal victims.

    People on this site want to view the Jews as George Milton and US as Lenny Small – from Steinbeck novel "Of mice and men". But the reality is much different. US are not Lenny Small, a giant with great physical strength but not too much brain power. US are not the ones being controlled, they are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material. Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea. Why are you trying to conflate Jews and Zionists? Are you unable to see the difference between the two concepts?

    It's pretty clear the issue is the stranglehold the Zionist Lobby AKA Israel lobby has on the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of the US Federal Government and the Federal Reserve, and its influence on the propaganda machine and academia.

    Therefore the issue is not about "Jews" using the USG, but rather the Zionist Lobby, AKA Israel Lobby in the US or Jewish Lobby in Israel, having and using the stranglehold on the USG, academia and propaganda machine (mass media and Hollywood) to further their goals.

    It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around

    When you refer to "Jews", do you mean the Zionist lobby AKA Israel lobby , or the average "Jew sixpack" living in the US i.e. the rest?

    If what you mean is the so called Israel lobby when you refer to "Jews", two professors, one of Political Sciences and one of International Affairs, both from top US Universities, disagree with your remarkable theory, and have written extensively and with plenty of references supporting their claims:

    John Mearsheimer
    R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Sciences
    Chicago University

    Stephen Walt
    Belfer Professor of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government
    Harvard University

    Three links, first two for an article, second with all references. Third for the even more detailed book, refuting your claims.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjoisrX36zTAhVIJlAKHbf5Bm4QFghAMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmearsheimer.uchicago.edu%2Fpdfs%2FIsraelLobby.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFlVQO8EGLPxZsbik8QZaH4vQ15Cw

    https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

    Are you familiar with their work? Are you rejecting their claims?

    If yes, on what are you basing your rebuttal and what is your background?

    Or are you trying to frame the blogger and everyone concerned with the subject as old Jew-haters and anti-semites?

    Now, if after reading the Saker's post, the only thing you understood was:

    The Saker: "The Jews" are to blame for the ills of the world folks

    Then I would recommend you should seriously improve your English, at least reading comprehension skills – perhaps some online courses – before commenting and making a fool of yourself again publicly.

    Cyrano , April 19, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Vires Why are you trying to conflate Jews and Zionists? Are you unable to see the difference between the two concepts?

    It's pretty clear the issue is the stranglehold the Zionist Lobby AKA Israel lobby has on the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of the US Federal Government and the Federal Reserve, and its influence on the propaganda machine and academia.

    Therefore the issue is not about "Jews" using the USG, but rather the Zionist Lobby, AKA Israel Lobby in the US or Jewish Lobby in Israel, having and using the stranglehold on the USG, academia and propaganda machine (mass media and Hollywood) to further their goals.


    It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around
    When you refer to "Jews", do you mean the Zionist lobby AKA Israel lobby , or the average "Jew sixpack" living in the US i.e. the rest?

    If what you mean is the so called Israel lobby when you refer to "Jews", two professors, one of Political Sciences and one of International Affairs, both from top US Universities, disagree with your remarkable theory, and have written extensively and with plenty of references supporting their claims:

    John Mearsheimer
    R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Sciences
    Chicago University

    Stephen Walt
    Belfer Professor of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government
    Harvard University

    Three links, first two for an article, second with all references. Third for the even more detailed book, refuting your claims.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjoisrX36zTAhVIJlAKHbf5Bm4QFghAMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmearsheimer.uchicago.edu%2Fpdfs%2FIsraelLobby.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFlVQO8EGLPxZsbik8QZaH4vQ15Cw

    https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

    What is your background, and on what are you basing your claims?

    Have you published an official rebuttal?

    Or is your theory just a "hunch"? I am just a writer, I don't have any agenda and I call the things as I see them. I don't buy the theory of the all-powerful Zionist lobby steering the American foreign policy either. Why? Because it makes no sense. Sure there is such a lobby, but US allows it to exist because it suits their interests. They (US establishment) are the ones responsible, not the Israel lobby.

    If all anyone had to do in order to influence US government – was to form a lobby – then during the cold war there would have been a communist lobby in Washington, financed by the USSR. They would have poured billions of dollars, and not only the cold war could have ended quickly, but maybe today America would have been communist. Do you see where I am going with this? US government allows lobbies to exist only after they comply with their interests. They are the initiators of policies, not lobbies. Have a nice day.

    Cyrano, April 20, 2017 at 3:56 am GMT

    • 100 Word\

    @Vires

    You know man, you are a perfect proof why there is so much propaganda in US. Because you make it easy on them. Them being the government. Yeah, poor US government at the mercy of evil Zionist lobby. If it wasn't for it, it would be the most benevolent government in the world, bringing peace and prosperity wherever they go. One day you'll wake up and you'll look into the abyss and you'll realize that the abyss is your complete ignorance. But don't listen to me, keep on voting every 4 years, that's going to change everything. And keep bitching about the Jewish lobby, you are so much smarter than the average American, you have it all figured out.

    wayfarer , April 20, 2017 at 4:44 am GMT
    Inevitably, somebody always volunteers to carry water, down the dark self-serving spiritual path.

    "Israel Benefits as World Loses"
    source: https://www.sott.net/article/268125-Israel-benefits-as-world-loses

    "True Cost of Israel"
    source: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    "History of the House of Rothschild"
    source: http://rense.com/general88/hist.htm

    Greasy William , April 20, 2017 at 6:18 am GMT

    Russia. Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian.

    Don't flatter yourself. Most Jews don't give a shit about Russia. Jews *DO* hate Iranians, Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Arab Christians but we really don't care about Russia. We like to mock Russian nationalists like yourself and Western Russophiles but we don't hate you. Okay, maybe we do hate Western Russophiles, I know I sure do, but we don't hate Russia or Russians.

    And the reason we don't hate you is because you just aren't important enough to be worth hating.

    I agree with your reasons for why Israel wants an ISIS victory (although it is ridiculous to suggest that Israel's current cucked out leadership wants to expand Israel's borders). It is probably the only thing you have gotten right in years. Good job! You are improving!

    ThereisaGod , April 20, 2017 at 6:40 am GMT
    Roland Bernard High Finance Shocking Revelations (Dutch with Subtitles) This video, more than any I have seen, exposes the dark heart of the matter. It's a must-watch from beginning to end. Highly credible, in my opinion.
    Wally , April 20, 2017 at 7:58 am GMT
    @Greasy William
    Russia. Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian.
    Don't flatter yourself. Most Jews don't give a shit about Russia. Jews *DO* hate Iranians, Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Arab Christians but we really don't care about Russia. We like to mock Russian nationalists like yourself and Western Russophiles but we don't hate you. Okay, maybe we do hate Western Russophiles, I know I sure do, but we don't hate Russia or Russians.

    And the reason we don't hate you is because you just aren't important enough to be worth hating.

    I agree with your reasons for why Israel wants an ISIS victory (although it is ridiculous to suggest that Israel's current cucked out leadership wants to expand Israel's borders). It is probably the only thing you have gotten right in years. Good job! You are improving! The True Cost of Israel
    Forced U.S. taxpayers money goes far beyond the official numbers.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security"

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    and:
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    and:
    The Zionist attempt to control language. The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY

    https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf

    and:
    The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses

    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014

    and:
    Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media

    and:
    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

    Anonymous, April 20, 2017 at 8:58 am GMT

    @Kiza

    "Only BRICS countries appear free at the moment "

    Apparently you haven't heard of the long amorous relationship between the Zionists and the I in BRICS.

    Agent76 , April 20, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT
    Apr 13, 2017 Empire Files: Silencing Palestine – Prison & Repression

    Israel's occupation of the West Bank is an internationally-recognized human rights crime-but those being impacted are harshly punished for not only acts of resistance, but even mere advocacy for their rights.

    wow , April 20, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT
    When Trump basically fellated AIPAC during his campaign it worried me. But I thought maybe just maybe, Trump was playing the Jews ..this article in all it's glory suggests I am very wrong.

    That any potential president has to genuflect to Israel and Jews is the saddest thing in American History. You can almost wish it would all implode. A hard reset minus Jewish whining and control would be a true utopia.

    Stonehands , April 20, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT
    @Cyrano You know man, you are a perfect proof why there is so much propaganda in US. Because you make it easy on them. Them being the government. Yeah, poor US government at the mercy of evil Zionist lobby. If it wasn't for it, it would be the most benevolent government in the world, bringing peace and prosperity wherever they go. One day you'll wake up and you'll look into the abyss and you'll realize that the abyss is your complete ignorance. But don't listen to me, keep on voting every 4 years, that's going to change everything. And keep bitching about the Jewish lobby, you are so much smarter than the average American, you have it all figured out. Jew finance capitalists [ the master money manipulators] and their cohort in MEDIA are most certainly jewish.. Who the hell do you think promotes all this homo rights crap? It's not so much the jew Svengali -but you- the rube in the mirror, who will have to be dealt with first when the lights go out..
    Bruce Marshall , April 20, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT
    But the Elephant driver is the British Empire System!!!

    It is the British behind the coup against Trump. The British want to prevent the end of "Geopolitics" as we know it which is what would happen should America Russia and China come together per the New Silk Road and One Belt initiatives. This is why the British are setting off
    World War III.

    http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/2017_10-19/2017-15/pdf/02-03_4415.pdf

    annamaria , April 20, 2017 at 4:18 pm GMT

    @Cyrano

    " you are a perfect proof why there is so much propaganda in US. "

    Don't you imply that "so much propaganda in US" is anti-Zionist? If yes, then you have no idea about MSM in the US. Just to give you a hint, try to google this name: Helen Thomas, specifically a story of her private conversation with a Jewish man (who happened to be a born informer). Look at a swarm of the US Congresspeople blubbering praises for Israel during AIPAC' annual meetings. The US Congress is indeed the Zionist Occupied Territory, a picture of a host captured by a parasitoid.

    annamaria , April 20, 2017 at 4:29 pm GMT
    @Quartermaster And so was Russia's annexation of Crimea. You don't think Saker would want to call attention to such things do you?

    How many referenda the Syrians have held to bring the Golan Heights to the embrace of Israel? We cannot wait to hear your story of Syrian people voting to join Israel. Tell us, when did the Golan Heights belong to Israel?

    Surely in the dreams of the US ziocons and in the criminal Oded Yinon's plan for Eretz Israel, which preaches for creating a civil disorder in the neighboring states so that Israel could snatch as much territory as possible from the neighbors. The ongoing Libyan and Syrian tragedies belong to that plan.

    The ziocons' cooperation with Ukrainian neo-Nazis is another story. "Never again," indeed.

    annamaria , April 20, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT
    @biz

    In the Middle Ages, antisemitism defined Jews as a religious group and focused on their religious separateness.

    In the more secular era of Dreyfus and the Nazis and Nasser, antisemitism defined Jews as an ethnic group and focused on their ethnic separateness.

    Now that we are in an era which celebrates group identity and views it as a virtue, antisemitism focuses on denying Jews their ethnic or religious identity.

    Fascinating.

    annamaria , April 20, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT
    @biz

    " antisemitism focuses on denying Jews their ethnic or religious identity.states "

    The article is about ziocons and it emphasizes, specifically, that conflating Jews and Zionists is dishonest. You need to read the article before making your generalizations.

    It was the Israelis that enjoyed the bombing of civilians in Israel-occupied Gaza by the "most moral" idiots of IDF. Palestinian children died in hundreds. White phosphorus was used by Israelis. https://friendsofpalestine.wordpress.com/resources-and-readings/image-galleries/photos-of-israeli-white-phosphorus-attacks-on-un-schools-in-gaza/ So much for "never again."

    Considering the number of synagogues in the US and the prominence of ziocons among policy-makers in the US, please tell us, who exactly "denies Jews their ethnic or religious identity." Have you heard about Wolfowitz, Feith, and Kagans? How about Nuland-Kagan fraternizing with neo-Nazis? Still OK? https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/

    annamaria , April 20, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT
    @Quartermaster And so was Russia's annexation of Crimea. You don't think Saker would want to call attention to such things do you? Oded Yinon' plan for creating Eretz Israel: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf
    Jus' Sayin'... , April 20, 2017 at 4:42 pm GMT
    @nsa

    ZIG is a more accurate acronym......as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks, lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc.

    Zionist Infested Government! Brilliant! I'm going to start using this term.

    Anyone who's spent any time inside the beltway quickly realizes that AngloZionists – the Saker's term is really useful if one wants to accurately and concisely summarize these people, their ideology, and their ultimate loyalties – infest from top to bottom the three branches of the federal government, all the supporting bureaucracies, and all the parasitic lobbying groups, consultants, foundations, think tanks, etc., that wield less official powers. Their proportional presence in Washington is many orders of magnitude greater than their proportion in the general population and their power is magnified by their informally shared ideologies and goals.

    Not many of these people are actually aware of the harm they are causing. Most are fundamentally decent people. Some I count as close friends. Yet the combined power these people wield and the varying levels of allegiance they bear to foreign powers whose interests are inimical to those of the USA and its citizens make them, considered en masse, an existential threat to this country, to world peace, and to international law and order.

    jilles dykstra , April 20, 2017 at 5:29 pm GMT
    Few US citizens nowadays seem to know any foreign language, pity, for the following book explains Russian anti semitism:
    Alexander Solschenizyn, ΄Die russisch- jόdische Geschichte 1795- 1916, >> Zweihundert Jahre zusammen <<΄, Moskau 2001, Mόnchen 2002
    Who is interested in the why of German anti semitism after 1870 has more luck:
    Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 – 1914', New York 1972
    Fritz Stern, 'Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichrφder, and the Building of the German Empire', New York, 1977.
    'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA
    Also interesting is:
    Horace Meyer Kallen, 'Zionism and World Politics; A Study in History and Social Psychology', New York, 1921
    Pre WWII 'neocons':
    Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices', New York, 1983

    jacques sheete ,

    April 20, 2017 at 6:23 pm GMT

    @Wally

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security"

    The so called non-profit scene also appears to me little more than a cesspool of corruption and I wonder who or what dominates those rackets.

    Art , April 20, 2017 at 9:06 pm GMT
    ZOG. Or "Zionist Occupation Government".

    ZOG is an excellent term that describes the situation in America perfectly. The fact of ZOG is undeniable to everyone politically involved in the US government.

    The question is will people use the term "ZOG" to attack Jews? It has one great advantage – the word "Jew" is not used.

    The thing that Jews themselves fear the most, is the word "Jew" used by Gentiles. The American population is conditioned not to use the word. Subliminal fear is attached to using the word "Jew."

    The goal of the American population must be to eliminate ZOG – but not Jews.

    The question is – can this be done without using the word "Jew" and all that goes with it?

    The answer is most likely – NOT!

    Peace - Art

    p.s. Great article.

    Dr. X , April 20, 2017 at 9:10 pm GMT
    @blaggard I applaud your honesty and logic. What a fight...

    Although it is made to appear so, the battle between the 'conservatives' and 'liberals' is not a battle of ideas or even of political organizations. It's is a battle of force, terror and power. The Jews and their accomplices and dupes are not running our country and its people because of the excellence of their ideas or the merit of their work or because they have the genuine backing of the majority. The Zionists are in power in spite of the lack of these things, and only because they have driven their way into power by daring minority tactics. They can stay in power only because people are afraid to oppose them, afraid they will be socially ostracized, afraid they will be smeared in the press, afraid they will lose their jobs, afraid they will not be able to run their businesses, afraid they will lose their political offices. It is fear and fear alone which keeps these filthy left-wing sneaks in power.

    George Lincoln Rockwell wrote that - in 1961 (!)

    Beefcake the Mighty , April 20, 2017 at 9:17 pm GMT
    @naro No one is more critical of Jews and Israel than other Jews. Jews are and have been a NATION in exile. Their genetic identity has been proven several times using Mitochondrial DNA in prestigious medical journals such as Nature and Science...so it is not in doubt. There is continuous historical record of Jews for at least 2000 years. Christian guilt is well deserved for their historical hounding, persecutions, exiled and pogroms against innocent Jews under their jurisdictions.

    The writer of this article is a hate monger. There are Jews of all political spectrum. They are not homogeneous in their political position.
    Jews succeed because they study hard, work hard, and take risks in business and politics. They think outside the box, and are inventive and scientifically curious. Instead of envying their success try to learn and emulate it losers.

    They also engage in pretty intense ethnic networking and favoritism, things they typically castigate others for doing.

    Re. diversity of Jewish political opinion, I don't see it. Most Jews are partisan Democrats in the US and there is very broad agreement on major issues, like immigration and Israeli-centric foreign policy, details notwithstanding. And very few Jews will acknowledge that historically, collective Jewish behavior has played a role in the negative opinions so many peoples hold against them, indeed they strenuously deny it. (Smoke but no fire? Unlikely.)

    Talha , April 20, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT

    Last, my favorite one: ethics and morality. The modern western society has been built on a categorical rejection of ethics and morality.

    Bravo – that paragraph was golden in my book. If this is gone – kiss your society good bye – you're just living on borrowed time – all the gold and all the nuclear spears in the world will not save you.

    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." – Henry David Thoreau

    Talha , April 20, 2017 at 9:52 pm GMT
    @Seraphim Tramp is a Joo himself!

    "Looks Like Donald Trump May Well Be Jewish. That Would Explain A Great Deal", By Miles Mathis via Jim Kirwan, 4-9-17

    - See more at: http://www.rense.com/general96/trumpjewish.htm#sthash.4xaQKh2i.dpuf

    Ivanka's mommy is of the tribe too: "Ivana is also Jewish. Geni.com lists her father's name as both Knavs and Zelnνcek. I'll give you a hint: drop the second "e". You get Zelnick. It is Yiddish for haberdasher. Clothier. It's Jewish, too. See Robert Zelnick, Strauss Zelnick, Bob Zelnick, etc. Robert was a fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford. Strauss was President of 20th Century Fox. Bob was ABC News producer. Also Friedrich Zelnik, silent film producer. Also David O. Selznick, whose name was originally Zeleznick, or, alternately, Zelnick. He and his father were major Hollywood produ - See more at: http://www.rense.com/general96/trumpjewish.htm#sthash.4xaQKh2i.dpuf

    It's all in the family (La famiglia, Kosher Nostra). The ones who voted for him are the suckers. Kosher Nostra!!!

    Oh man – that was awesome!!!

    Peace.

    wayfarer , April 20, 2017 at 10:12 pm GMT
    The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about anything under the sun that they please, including even large parts of a country's political system and government.

    Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner

    source: https://www.sott.net/article/348461-The-controversy-of-Jared-Kushner-A-suspected-gangster-within-the-Trump-White-House

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtf6TgQgWr4

    Seraphim , April 20, 2017 at 11:52 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Talha Kosher Nostra!!!

    Oh man - that was awesome!!!

    Peace. It is not my invention. All From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    "Jewish-American organized crime":

    'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער שטיק‎). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the latter is a direct translation of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in the United States

    In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs .

    Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation "

    Anonymous , April 21, 2017 at 3:31 am GMT

    @wayfarer

    Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard.

    He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed that more qualified students from his school didn't make the cut.

    Miro23 , April 21, 2017 at 5:26 am GMT

    Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader). A tribe is a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon).

    It's true that US Jews are mixed race (about 55% European and 45% Semitic) although they choose to Obama-ize the fact (the European part disappears).

    Also, after a lifetime of contact, I would say that the best guys leave the Tribe (often the most Semitic and through disgust ) and the worst girls join (Gentiles attracted by money and power).

    annamaria , April 21, 2017 at 9:40 am GMT
    @Ilyana_Rozumova @

    Saker!!!!

    FGS. Please give it up! Trying to solve Jewish question eventually leads to insanity. Saker (et al on this site) are not interested in "solving Jewish question." – We are interested in the survival of humanity, specifically in stopping a WWIII that could happen thanks to ziocons' policies.
    " fomenting sectarian strife in order to forestal the development of a unified Arab nation which could threaten it and creating the circumstances in which land could be acquired was at the root of Israel's relationship with its northern neighbor." http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-and-islamist-militias-a-strange-and-recurring-alliance/5586075
    " the "liberal" American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call "the constructive criticism." (In fact those among them who claim also to be "Anti- Stalinist" are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always "good intentions" and only "makes mistakes," and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf

    jilles dykstra , April 21, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT
    @JerseyJeffersonian Thanks Jilles,

    My German is not of the best, but I have been interested in 200 Years Together for a while, so maybe I can give it a try. I will try to check out these other titles you have provided, too. Sol Bloom, 'The Autobiography of Sol Bloom', New York 1948

    also is interesting, though just for one sentence, something like 'the great accomplishment of Roosevelt was that he slowy prepared the USA people for war'.
    This is in one sentence the book

    Charles A. Beard, 'American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities', New Haven, 1946

    Alas few people seem to read books any more, especially old books. The interesting thing about a book, great contrast with a web article, is, once printed, it cannot be changed any more.

    Sol Bloom was a jewish friend of Roosevelt. You might also want to read
    Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New Yirk, 1918
    Heath W. Lowry, 'The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', Istanbul 1990
    and
    Charles Callan Tansill, 'Amerika geht in den Krieg', Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War, 1938)
    How the USA, and especially Morgenthau, wanted to fight Germany, in WWI.
    Both Bloom and Morgenthau were of German descent, I suppose they hated Germany because of its antisemitism.

    jilles dykstra , April 21, 2017 at 10:03 am GMT
    @Ilyana_Rozumova @ Saker!!!!
    FGS. Please give it up! Trying to solve Jewish question eventually leads to insanity. Are maybe present events solving the jewish question ?
    There seems to be little doubt that Trump is in conflict with Deep State, neocons in the lead, mainly jews.
    See also:
    John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy', New York 2007
    It is possible that Marine le Pen of FN wins the French elections.
    FN is accused of being antisemitic:
    Pierre-Andrι Taguieff, Michθle Tribalat, 'Face au Front national, Arguments pour une contre-offensive', Paris, 1998 is an anti FN book written by two jews.
    Hungary is closing Soros's university.
    Putin already closed his institutions in Russia.

    Joe Levantine , April 21, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT

    @Cyrano

    Americans using Jews or vice versa? Just check the roles that Bernard Baruck and Rabbi Steven Wise have played from the administration of crooked Woodrow Wilson to the more crooked Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Two names among thousands of Jews who have shaped U.S. policies while hiding behind the facade of their puppet presidents should give anyone food for thought.
    If Cyrano can bring back into circulation the forbidden book of ' The Controversy of Zion' by the late Douglas Reed who turned from bestseller author to a nonexistent nothing the moment he published his 400+ book, I am positive that the commentator would apologise for this comment.

    annamaria , April 21, 2017 at 4:53 pm GMT
    @naro Mr. Petras you are a vile old man. Nazis were quite capable at merciless killing of defenseless Jewish (and others) men, women and children by the millions, as they were unprepared for the utter vile brutality that Nazism represented. Now the Jews are well defended and strong, and will defend themselves to the utmost. So come to to the fight old boy, we can take on Nazis . We know them better now. "Now the Jews are well defended and strong we can take on Nazis."

    Actually, an Israeli citizen Mr. Kolomojsky financed the neo-Nazi Azov battalion that auto-da-fe(d) a good number of civilians in Odessa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJexglSOF6s (see also Azov battalion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion )

    A member of the powerful Kagans' clan of warmongers, Mrs. Nuland-Kagan has been an eager collaborator with Ukrainian neo-Nazis (do you know about Baby Yar and such? – Mrs. Nuland-Kagan is obviously OK with the history of Ukrainian Jews during WWII). Neither ADL nor AIPAC made any noises about bringing Ukrainian neo-Nazis to power in Kiev in 2014. Why?

    And what about Israel' collaboration with ISIS against sovereign Syria? "The documents show that Israel has been doing more than simply treating wounded Syrian civilians in hospitals. This and a few past reports have described transfer of unspecified supplies from Israel to the Syrian rebels, and sightings of IDF soldiers meeting with the Syrian opposition east of the green zone, as well as incidents when Israeli soldiers opened up the fence to allow Syrians through who did not appear to be injured. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/New-UN-report-reveals-collaboration-between-Israel-and-Syrian-rebels-383926

    A Canadian darling of the US State Dept, Chrystia Freeland, happened to be a progeny of a Nazi collaborator from Ukraine (Mr. Chomiak), though Mrs. Freeland proclaimed loudly that her grandpa was "persecuted by the Soviets:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
    " it appears Freeland's grandfather – rather than being a helpless victim – was given a prestigious job to spread Nazi propaganda, praising Hitler from a publishing house stolen from Jews and given to Ukrainians who shared the values of Nazism. Chomiak's editorials also described a Poland "infected by Jews." Mrs. Freeland is still in office, spreading Russophobia that is so dear to ziocon hearts.

    In case you did not notice, Zionists (ziocons) are modern-day Nazis.

    " the "liberal" American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call "the constructive criticism." In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always "good intentions" and only "makes mistakes," and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20th

    Rurik , April 21, 2017 at 5:22 pm GMT

    Good ol' Charlie he knew.
    He learned to beware the POWER of the Cabal

    when I read that I thought you might have meant Charlie Reese. he used to write for the Orlando Sentinel in Florida, until ((they)) ran him out

    here's a light hearted one that shows his depth and humor

    http://thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Birds&OtherAnimals/+Doc-Birds&OtherAnimals-OtherAnimals/CharleyReeseOnSquirrels.htm

    more:

    We are guilty by proxy of murder, land theft, destruction of property and all the other human misery that Israel has caused in the region.

    So, if you're one of those rah-rah Israel First supporters, don't complain when the terrorists come looking for you. You've allowed your politicians to enlist you in somebody else's war, and in war there are always casualties on both sides.

    America has become a nation of pathological irresponsibility. Nobody wants to take responsibility for his or her own actions, which is the basic cause of the litigation flood. Least of all do American politicians wish to do so. They would rather heap on the manure that the terrorism directed at us has nothing whatsoever to do with the policies they have followed for the past 30 years or more. In truth, it has everything to do with those policies.

    So, if you or your loved ones get bloodied by terrorists, then blame your Christian Zionists, your Israel First crowd and your corrupt politicians who have their tongues in the ears and their hands in the pockets of the Israeli lobby.

    http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=2197

    there's a whole slew of treasures and beautiful prose and simple, human humility and decency in these archives.

    http://www.antiwar.com/reese/archives.php

    I heartily encourage the reader to peruse them with pleasure.

    more:

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-charley-reese-545-people-1984-073111-story.html

    Alden , April 21, 2017 at 5:53 pm GMT
    @turtle Sooner or later, the U.S. will go down to defeat, at which point "da Joos" will have to find a new host.
    I expect they will have a bit of a tough row to hoe in this, the New Chinese Century.
    No matter how hard you try, I doubt you can pass off this woman:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_Chung
    or any of her countrywomen, as "Semitic,"
    thus disproving that "Jewish" = "Semitic" or vice versa.
    Shlomo Wong? I think not. I read Jewish community publications all the time I have concluded they are planning their next jump to China after they destroy America
    There are endless articles about how much Jews and Chinese have in common (lie, cheat and steal). They discovered that in medieval and early modern times there was a community of Persian Jews in China and blather on about that.
    And there is approval of marriage of Jewish men to Chinese women.

    But the Chinese are not love thy neighbor Christians. Nor do they have millions of wanna be Jews Old Testament obsessed Protestants. Chinese officials are well known for accepting bribes and then doing exactly what they want.

    On the other hand, Israel and American DOD employees sell lots of stolen American military secrets to China.

    Jewish attempted takeover of China will be a battle of the Titans.

    Anon , April 21, 2017 at 6:05 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Wally Indeed, "non-profit", but Jews Only and huge salaries

    Recall the corrupt & hate mongering ADL, or SPLC.

    Look at the 'holocau$t' scam.

    Build yet another laughable 'holocaust' Theme Park, Potemkin Village, put up a picture of MLK, falsely claim that it's all about 'tolerance', 'diversity and civil rights while down playing it's obvious Jewish supremacism, and voila! Massive taxpayers subsidies.


    "One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of the gas chambers, and there can never be one."
    - endorsed by 34 "reputable historians" and published in the French daily Le Monde on February 21, 1979
    ====================================
    "These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures."

    - Steven Some, Chairman of the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education, Newark Star-Ledger, 23 Oct. 1996, p 15.

    Here's the top non-profits. None are identifiably Jewish:

    1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation United States Seattle, Washington $42.3 billion 1994 [1]
    2 Stichting INGKA Foundation Netherlands Leiden $34.6 billion €33.0 billion (EUR) 1982 [2]
    3 Wellcome Trust United Kingdom London $26.0 billion £20.9 billion (GBP) 1936 [3]
    4 Howard Hughes Medical Institute United States Chevy Chase, Maryland $18.2 billion 1953 [4]
    5 Ford Foundation United States New York City, New York $11.2 billion 1936 [5]
    6 Kamehameha Schools United States Honolulu, Hawaii $11.1 billion 1887 [6]
    7 J. Paul Getty Trust United States Los Angeles, California $10.5 billion 1982 [5]
    8 Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation United Arab Emirates Dubai $10.0 billion 37 billion د.إ (AED) 2007 [7]
    9 Azim Premji Foundation India Bangalore $9.8 billion 2001 [8]
    10 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation United States Princeton, New Jersey $9.53 billion 1972 [5]

    Art , April 21, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT
    @Alden I just read the latest ADL diktat. As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe. I just read the latest ADL diktat. As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe.

    They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his father is a x-convict. How did he come into billions of dollars?

    They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still living – did they get special tax treatment?

    Hmm?

    Peace - Art

    p.s. Jared Kushner is 100% Zionist – how can this work out good for America?

    Sam J. , April 21, 2017 at 7:29 pm GMT
    " Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,) "

    Well he's wrong to exclude them unless you're just excluding Zionist. It doesn't matter whether they are religious or secular. They're all made of the same stuff. Surely you've heard of all the organ smuggling, drug dealing and other goings on in the religious community and they're supposed to be the good guys?

    There's one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their, lying, their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are different from everyone else. There's a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much that also explains their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. No all, maybe not even the majority, but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud "great enlightenment" basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they're Jews and their lives don't matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.

    They've been thrown out of every single country that they've been to in any numbers. Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking "surely they will reform or repent" like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don't have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.

    Start over.

    Even if it's wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and Jew's behavior will make sense.

    In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, "The Mask of Sanity". Here's a chapter you should read. It's about the psychopath Stanley. Who does all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Look at the astounding array of things he's able to get away with. Maybe it will remind you of a certain tribe. New meme. "They're pulling a Stanley". The whole book is on the web and worth reading.

    http://www.energyenhancement.org/Psychopath/psychopath-Hervey-Cleckley-the-mask-of-sanity-SECTION-TWO-THE-MATERIAL-Part-1-The-disorder-in-full-clinical-manifestations-19-Stanley.html

    I use the simplest of logic to determine this. Form follows function, Occam's Razor. Their behavior is exactly like psychopaths. Their religious beliefs are exactly like the internal dialog of psychopaths. I don't know but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck. It's a duck and the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. The MOST IMPORTANT PART is that the behavior of the Jews as a group over time can not be reliably separated from the behavior of psychopaths. Even if I'm wrong their behavior is the same so they should be treated as psychopaths. A very dangerous, powerful group with no empathy towards anyone but other Jews.

    I don't know why Zionist get such a bad rap I want them all to go to Israel so I'm a Zionist too.

    Alden , April 21, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT
    @wayfarer The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about anything under the sun that they please, including even large parts of a country's political system and government.

    Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner

    source: https://www.sott.net/article/348461-The-controversy-of-Jared-Kushner-A-suspected-gangster-within-the-Trump-White-House

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtf6TgQgWr4

    Thanks, very interesting. Funny thing, most of the Jews I know are such fervent liberals they think Kushner is a traitor to the cause of liberalism.
    Seraphim , April 22, 2017 at 2:09 am GMT
    @Art You are a nazi. Your generalization are the vile ranting of a hate filled animal.

    Oh my - straight to the "N" word - what happened to "anti-Semite" - has it lost its sting? Ah' to bad.

    What are you going to call us next?

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. By the way Nazism and Zionism are brothers - both are fascists.

    p.s. What about you Jew animals in Israel - you have the most immoral army in the world.

    p.s. You Jews and your hateful bluster - you are fooling no one.

    p.s. ZOG is going to lose. It is an irrefragable law:

    "Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage which asserts that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches -‌that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler.

    Promulgated by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions. It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric where 'reductio ad Hitlerum'* occurs.

    *Reductio ad Hitlerum (pseudo-Latin for "reduction to Hitler"; sometimes argumentum ad Hitlerum, "argument to Hitler", ad Nazium, "to Nazism"), or playing the Nazi card, is an attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party, for example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, X is a vegetarian, therefore X is a Nazi". A variation of this fallacy, reductio ad Stalinum, also known as "red-baiting", has also been used in political discourse.

    Coined by Leo Strauss in 1951, reductio ad Hitlerum borrows its name from the term used in logic, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd). According to Strauss, reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem, ad misericordiam, or a fallacy of irrelevance. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler and Nazism have been condemned in the modern world.

    Sam J. , April 22, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT
    @Sam J. "... Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,)..."

    Well he's wrong to exclude them unless you're just excluding Zionist. It doesn't matter whether they are religious or secular. They're all made of the same stuff. Surely you've heard of all the organ smuggling, drug dealing and other goings on in the religious community and they're supposed to be the good guys?

    There's one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their, lying, their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are different from everyone else. There's a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much that also explains their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. No all, maybe not even the majority, but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud "great enlightenment" basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they're Jews and their lives don't matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.

    They've been thrown out of every single country that they've been to in any numbers. Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking "surely they will reform or repent" like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don't have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.

    Start over.

    Even if it's wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and Jew's behavior will make sense.

    In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, "The Mask of Sanity". Here's a chapter you should read. It's about the psychopath Stanley. Who does all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Look at the astounding array of things he's able to get away with. Maybe it will remind you of a certain tribe. New meme. "They're pulling a Stanley". The whole book is on the web and worth reading.

    http://www.energyenhancement.org/Psychopath/psychopath-Hervey-Cleckley-the-mask-of-sanity-SECTION-TWO-THE-MATERIAL-Part-1-The-disorder-in-full-clinical-manifestations-19-Stanley.html

    I use the simplest of logic to determine this. Form follows function, Occam's Razor. Their behavior is exactly like psychopaths. Their religious beliefs are exactly like the internal dialog of psychopaths. I don't know but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck. It's a duck and the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. The MOST IMPORTANT PART is that the behavior of the Jews as a group over time can not be reliably separated from the behavior of psychopaths. Even if I'm wrong their behavior is the same so they should be treated as psychopaths. A very dangerous, powerful group with no empathy towards anyone but other Jews.

    I don't know why Zionist get such a bad rap I want them all to go to Israel so I'm a Zionist too. I don't know if this guy is real or if it's true or not but there's a vast amount of information and cases which readily conform to the idea that everything he says is true. According to the witnesses in the dutroux-affair all the participants had to break the law to be in business with them on an intimate level. Mostly this was done through sexual abuse of children. Twenty years ago you might could laugh this off as some foolish rantings of conspiracy freaks but there's been too many verifiable cases with lots of physical evidence.

    Pizzagate Pedogate Dutch Whistleblower Real Big Money Revelations by an Insider

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO4rAYk-420

    I'm also not saying it's just Jews but I am saying they are the root of it all. They're the glue that keeps the whole thing together due to their insider grouping tribalism.

    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." – Henry David Thoreau

    annamaria , April 22, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT
    @Naro Again To Summarize JEWS ARE THE BRAINIEST AND MOST ACCOMPLISHED HUMANS ALIVE TRYING TO SURVIVE IN A WORLD OF MORONS AND IMPRESSIONABLE IDIOTS! Examples of the psychopathology and idiocy of the Nazis is obvious on this thread-ironically in a web site owned by a Jew.
    The envious losers, and political manipulators have always looked for scapegoats for their failures, and Jews were easy targets. Not any more. Jews are quite able to defend themselves ..thank you. You don't believe me? just try. " Jews are quite able to defend themselves .."

    At least now you have prudently omitted references to Nazis, since you became educated from other posts that American Jews – see Kagans' clan of warmongers – are in bed with Ukrainian neo-Nazis and, moreover, that an Israeli citizen is known as a financier of the bloody neo-Nazi battalion that had burnt a score of civilians to death in Odessa.
    American (and UK) Israel-firsters have betrayed western civilization for the benefit of mythological Eretz Israel. Your tribe was pushing for the slaughter in Iraq (see treasonous Wolfowitz and Feith and the despicable Kristol) and in Libya (the former pearl of North Africa, where citizens used to enjoy free education, free health care, and a sizable gold reserve – the latter stolen by the US "deciders"). Currently, it is an ongoing bloodbath in Syria, which Israel wants to prolong as much as possible in order to steal the Golan Heights. For the same reason your "most accomplished" Israeli generals proclaimed loudly their preference for ISIS. What have you claimed, that your tribe is the "brainiest?" – Relax. With such "activists" like the openly racist Avigdor Lieberman (ex-convict) and your half-wit hater Ayelet Shaked you are safely among mediocrities. As for the truly brainiest and ethical like Baruch Spinoza and Hanna Arend, they were rejected by your supremacist tribe. Check the location of Spinoza' grave.

    annamaria , April 22, 2017 at 11:16 pm GMT
    @Anonymous shut up naziscum. where is your thousand year reich? in the garbage An Israeli demonstrates her regular poor manners Aren't you trying to imply that Israelis are striving for their thousand-year reich? Good luck. Don't forget to take the neo-Nazi-loving Kagans' clan with you.
    Johnny F. Ive , April 23, 2017 at 6:48 am GMT
    What if the US Empire was financially bankrupted? How would it behave afterwards? I think it will end with military overstretch and bankruptcy or nuclear war. One or the other. Its sad that all this suffering is a tribal war. On man's way to civilization he forgot to leave that behind. Would the US behave after bankruptcy like the Soviets did after losing in Afghanistan or is the US going to be even more like a huge North Korea? Besides Israel there is the manipulations of other countries like the Europeans.

    I agree Trump is very concerned about appearance and that makes him weak. He like the rest of the American Establishment is like Narcissus and in their pond the Empire is reflected back at them. They won't let go of it.

    I disagree that the American people vote against war. The American people have had plenty of chances. They've had chances to turn the world's fortunes around plenty of times with Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader. That pretty much covers the whole ideological spectrum except the neocons. The American people have consistently voted for war at least since 1992. They had these men who ran for president in order to save us all and the were consistently rejected by the electorate. Its not just the government. Its the 4th estate. The corporations. I'm now a pessimist. War will come and it will fail. The question is who will the Empire wage war against and who will survive the war?

    Is Pauline Christianity legitimate? The problem with it has always been that it was built on a tribal story. A lot of good came from it. It was used to justify some bad things too. Its origins are not the classical world. That is probably why the alt-right has a fascination with modern pseudo-pagan religions. I think the real story is that the Ancient Greeks particularly the Epicureans have won the argument:
    https://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/Stoic-Epic-comp.html – these ideas are older than Christianity.

    The AngloZionist tribe is now considered what the Catholics considered the pagans were. The word paganus means hick. Pagan now means new age and Christian in the West means hick. The AngloZionist don't even like them but require their obedience and support. Perhaps its only a matter of time before the Judeo-Christian fairy tail loses its political power and just becomes good literature. It has no hope especially with the transhumanist wonders about to bequeathed to the world. It can't compete. They avoided the truth for about 2000 years and couldn't develop a convincing response against Epicureanism. Genesis is the best they could muster against natural selection after thousands of years of knowing about it? Epikoros (Hebrew for heretic) in the end won! But the US Empire has an unhealthy appetite of playing chicken with nuclear powers and western Judeo-Christianity will not go peacefully into the night. Read More Agree: Beefcake the Mighty

    Frankly Frivilous , April 23, 2017 at 6:50 am GMT
    @Yevardian Um, the Golan Heights was officially annexed by Israel in 1981.

    I enjoy your articles, but you can't be taken seriously whilst you keep making amateurish mistakes like this.

    Ditto on Russia being the only country truly upholding Islamic values. If Israel officially annexed the Golan heights in 1981, why is Netanyahu making noise about it now? Seems insecure. Also consider that "true" Islamic or Christian values would be those proposed by the actual adherents. Would Russians have any reason to discount or misrepresent their stated values if they were altruistic and high minded? I suggest you try and critique the Sakers comments on their intended merits if you wish to be taken seriously.

    Joe Franklin , April 23, 2017 at 7:05 pm GMT
    @nsa ZIG is a more accurate acronym......as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks, lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc. ZOP is accurate too, and ZOP is the specific cause of ZOG.

    ZOP is Zionist Occupied People, and ZOP is a description of the US and Israeli voter obsession with and participation in a neurotic victim cult.

    ZOP is the elephant in the room that nobody in broadcast media will discuss.

    US and Israeli victim cult lobbyist are obsessed with cult dominance of national elections and society.

    The US and Israel have a dominant victim cult that displays a neurotic persecution complex and frequently demands government remedies.

    A US and Israeli victim cultist is conditioned to demand government reparations and entitlements in exchange for their votes.

    A typical US and Israeli victim cultist is obsessed with Nazi and white supremacy, claiming that white-straight-Christian-males are deplorable Nazi or Nazi sympathizers.

    The US and Israeli victim cult is aggressive toward foreign nations that are a perceived threat to the cult.

    As an example, here are some of the government entitlements enjoyed by victim cultists in Israel:

    https://electronicintifada.net/content/lawsuit-challenges-israels-discriminatory-citizenship-definition/8767

    Israel refused to recognize an Israeli nationality at the country's establishment in 1948, making an unusual distinction between "citizenship" and "nationality." Although all Israelis qualify as "citizens of Israel," the state is defined as belonging to the "Jewish nation," meaning not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but also more than seven million Jews in the diaspora.

    Critics say the special status of Jewish nationality has been a way to undermine the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel, especially the fifth of the population who are Arab. Some 30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalization, access to land and employment.

    Arab leaders have also long complained that indications of "Arab" nationality on ID cards make it easy for police and government officials to target Arab citizens for harsher treatment.

    The interior ministry has adopted more than 130 possible nationalities for Israeli citizens, most of them defined in religious or ethnic terms, with "Jewish" and "Arab" being the main categories.

    Gene S. , April 23, 2017 at 9:02 pm GMT
    @wayne Read about King David in the Bible. He was a genocidal psychopath. It states in the Bible how he vicioulsy murdered civilian prisoners of war. And on at least one occasion he gave his men all the pre-puberty girls to "do with as they pleased", which was after they had murdered their parents and all family members. I am sure this was a great sadistical delight to him and his troops. Men of God? No God damned way. Undoubtely men of Satan. Different time, different standards. You are judging him with the modern "for show" standards, by which the "civilized" nations, which have instituted them, do not abide. The US govt has killed 10s of millions of mostly civilians (men, women, children) since the end of WWII, around the world, and now their clients in the Middle East and Ukraine continue mass rapes and murder. David's crimes pale by comparison. Those in Washington D.C. will never face justice for what they are doing, at least in this world, nor do they repent at all. You can read about King David's repentance in the same Bible.
    Anon , April 23, 2017 at 9:47 pm GMT
    300 Words @Incitatus I deeply apologize, Anon/Keith. I overestimated you. Mea colpa.

    The fable was intended to illustrate the difference between embarrassing irrational instinct (canine leg-humpers) and intelligent criticism. You excelled, once again, at the former, and proudly so. Knock yourself out. Polish those table legs.

    "I know I confuse you."

    The only one confused is you, Anon, the evader of any record who still fancies the distinction 'Keith.' Are you afraid that a record of your remarks will easily indict you for your narrow agenda and regurgitative screeds?

    No matter.

    You might look up Julius Streicher, your patron saint. A man so vile cardinal Nazis at Nόremberg avoided him as if he would leave excrement on them in any prolonged contact. They knew best. Keith ,

    "Are you afraid that a record of your remarks will easily endict you".

    Indict me for wanting to bring down the elephant in the room? Did the Jewnited states already pass hate speech laws, forbidding all criticism of Israel and for exposing Jewish power in America? Did the Jewmerica pass laws criminalizing Holocaust Revisionism? Did I wake up in a country without first amendment rights. Or is all of this wishful thinking on your part?

    Should I be indicted for a hate crime for asking for an autopsy proving several million Jews were gassed at the Auschwitz labor camps? Should I be hung because there is no autopsy evidence?

    Maybe this is the purpose of the Unz Review. My Unz Review remarks will be use to retro actively endict me for laws that weren't on the books when I made my forbidden remarks, just like the Germans were endicted, convicted and hung at Nuremberg?

    It is you and the other Hasbara trolls who have a defensive agenda and regurgitate
    the same old name calling " Its a trick, the Jews always use it"

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA

    When the Jewish Bolshevik NeoCons take over America, I am convinced I will be one of the first to be put in a NKVD Gulag. I also know my cell mates will be other patriotic Unz Review Americans along with millions of others who want to bring down the elephant in the room.

    I apologize for mentioning the forbidden news about Rabbis and Herpes and the Jewish Egypt slave myth. I know this upset you. Both of these stories were news published in the Israeli Haaretz News. I guess these stories were for Jews eyes only.

    Anon , April 23, 2017 at 11:01 pm GMT
    @Ace

    Vietnam was not a military defeat.

    Doesn't matter. It was a political defeat, and war is an extension of politics.

    [May 05, 2017] Jared a billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby

    Some comments are over top, but the term "Kosher Nostra" is pretty interesting. Jared's father sevred a jail term...
    Notable quotes:
    "... 'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער שטיק‎). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the latter is a direct translation of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in the United States ..."
    "... In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs ..."
    "... Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation ..."
    "... Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard. ..."
    "... He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed that more qualified students from his school didn't make the cut. ..."
    "... They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his father is a x-convict. How did he come into billions of dollars? They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still living – did they get special tax treatment? ..."
    "... p.s. Jared Kushner is 100% Zionist ..."
    May 05, 2017 | ...

    wayfarer , April 20, 2017 at 10:12 pm GMT

    The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about anything under the sun that they please, including even large parts of a country's political system and government.

    Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner

    source: https://www.sott.net/article/348461-The-controversy-of-Jared-Kushner-A-suspected-gangster-within-the-Trump-White-House

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtf6TgQgWr4

    Seraphim , April 20, 2017 at 11:52 pm GMT
    @Talha Kosher Nostra!!!

    Oh man - that was awesome!!!

    Peace. It is not my invention. All From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    "Jewish-American organized crime":

    'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער שטיק‎). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the latter is a direct translation of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in the United States

    In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs .

    Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation "

    Anonymous , April 21, 2017 at 3:31 am GMT

    @wayfarer

    Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard.

    He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed that more qualified students from his school didn't make the cut.

    Art , April 21, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT
    @Alden

    I just read the latest ADL diktat.

    As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe. I just read the latest ADL diktat. As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe.

    They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his father is a x-convict. How did he come into billions of dollars? They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still living – did they get special tax treatment?

    Hmm?

    Peace - Art

    p.s. Jared Kushner is 100% Zionist

    [May 05, 2017] Trump is not like Hitler; Trump does not believe in anything but pleasing himself. That is dangerous, but not as dangerous as if he had a delusional vision. Trump is not very bright and a bit lazy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well calling him a Fascist was somewhat drama queen-ish to begin with. In any case, the way the American system of checks and blanaces is set up was always going to balance out any excesses he thought he could ram through. ..."
    "... He never had any experience in government. He just assumed it was run like a business, where the boss says 'do it' and everyone follows. Much to his surprise, he has learnt it doesn't work that way. ..."
    "... The comparison to Hitler/Mussolini is interesting but omits a crucial difference: Germany and Italy were in the grip of profound and longlasting socio-economic chaos, with mass unemployment and massive poverty. ..."
    "... The USA, when Trump came to power, had a 4.7% unemployment rate and was economically is normal to good shape, albeit the outcomes were unequally distributed.So what accounts for Trump's rise and enduring protofascist appeal? My answer: the loss of cultural capital ..."
    "... His problem with CIA is that he is not their asset, as was every president since at least Reagan. But don't worry. The Agency will take care of the "problem" one way or the other. It's the american way, right? ..."
    May 05, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com
    uuuuuuu , 2d ago

    Trump is not like Hitler; Trump does not believe in anything but pleasing himself. That is dangerous, but not as dangerous as if he had a delusional vision. Trump is not very bright and a bit lazy (although restless at the same time); he is a billionaire's son who got away with everything in life and has no concern for anybody but himself.

    If the US institutions hold their nerve, we can get through his presidency with a functioning planet.

    A recent poll asked whether people think negatively about him because he has not fulfilled his campaign promises or positively despite not having fulfilled them. I am grateful that he has not achieved anything; that is a big positive.

    cynthearothrock , 2d ago

    As the article rightly pointed out fascism is a product of socialism. Socialists see the riches of the business world and strike a pact with it and the state they seize.
    Trump is very much part of that business world and strikes down the state to conservative levels of near libertarian scope.

    Namely: Trump is the polar opposite of a fascist. Thanks Professor de Grazia

    lochinverboy cynthearothrock, 2d ago

    Naw. He is just an extreme right wing, dumbed down Republican.

    Dickbird cynthearothrock , 2d ago

    Not sure if I missed something, but I can't see where the article 'points out' that fascism is a product of socialism and it would be a shaky hypothesis if it did considering that neither Italy nor Germany were socialist countries prior to the rise of fascism in the one and naziism in the other. Fear of socialism was certainly a driving force behind fascism, especially amongst those who had most to lose from it, but trying to put the blame for fascism on socialism is just silly.

    But a very good article, and one of the best analyses of what Trump is about I have read.

    John Hunter , 30 Apr 2017 10:21
    Differences between Trump and Hitler.

    Is it useful to refer to Trump as Hitler or a Fascist? Not really, because you are preoccupied by a label and trying constantly to make it stick by indulging in name calling while not analysing and dealing with the root of the problems in a rational or effective way.

    Bashing of minorities that are not considered legitimate members of the nation is not an exclusive Nazi or a pass time of Hitler alone, Stalin did so as well he also targeted Jews along with Kalmyk people, Crimean Tatars, Armenians and Azerbaijanis , Estonians, Cossacks, Ukrainians, Poles and even Germans and there were many other leaders and political systems and genocides the Armenian genocide or the Serbian genocides to name a few. Trump is not exactly involved in a nazi style genocide against undocumented migrants in America although some nutters would try hard to create some extreme narrative like that.

    anthr1agnststupidity , 30 Apr 2017 10:21
    My observations have told me from the very first time I saw him on TV in the 80's that he is a con man. Since the campaign I learned about his brother and I have seen more of him than I would have voluntarily subjected myself to. I still think he is a con man with the addition of some idea of his pathology.

    I expect that his father was an abusive twat. His brother was mercilessly mentally and emotionally beaten down and turned to drink as many do to kill the unspeakable pain of having ones self esteem destroyed by a parent. Donald saw this and chose to please dad for fear of facing the same fate. He dissociated that fact and internilized everything dad said.

    The him we see is the construct he created to please daddy, the little boy inside never got to grow into a man because he had to maintain the false construct to create the impression he had to for dad. This is why he has such disregard for the truth. He does not understand that truth is truth.

    Everything else is the frenetic activity adult children of abuse engage in to avoid feeling what they feel while waiting for the next opportunity to trot out the constructed self.

    He never became a person in his own right. He is a construct of all the behaviors he has developed, first to please daddy and then to please/manipulate those he wished to take advantage of or please.

    Bardolphe , 30 Apr 2017 09:29
    Trump and his republican henchmen and enablers isn't a Nazi because they do not possess the historical context or political tools to become proper fascists.

    If the Americans had been humiliated in war, undergone a vast currency devaluation, and starved in the streets, then these people would have everything they need to set up a real tyranny.

    People have predicted the rise of American fascism for years. When the true global emergency arrives, which is climate change and the wars that it will cause, and the coasts start contracting, and the dollar turns to confetti, and the militias start to march, then the military will seize control and true American fascism will emerge.

    thegoinggetsclough , 30 Apr 2017 09:19

    Well calling him a Fascist was somewhat drama queen-ish to begin with. In any case, the way the American system of checks and blanaces is set up was always going to balance out any excesses he thought he could ram through.

    He never had any experience in government. He just assumed it was run like a business, where the boss says 'do it' and everyone follows. Much to his surprise, he has learnt it doesn't work that way.

    cynthearothrock thegoinggetsclough , 30 Apr 2017 10:08
    A cool and calm assessment there. I would credit him with more nous than you provide but it's difficult to prove. How about going in with the worst eventualities and bargain from there as a way of getting what one wants.

    Two examples:

    1. I'm taking us out of NATO. NATO needs America more than vice versa but it's certainly useful for America to be a part of it, they just want to not pay so much.

    2. I'm going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. Trump wants a secure border and a total re-negotiation of Nafta, the wall is the bargaining chip.

    He can do both, he might yet end up doing so, nobody has called his bluff yet, we'll see. He's way smarter than certain people think.

    ralbin , 30 Apr 2017 08:53
    On target. A few points of amplification:
    1) The Nazis did not have enough votes to pass the Enabling Act that made Hitler the dictator of Germany. The key votes were provided by the deputies from the Catholic Center Party led by Msgr Ludwig Kaas. As in Italy, the Catholic Church played a significant role in enabling fascist dictatorship.
    2) The correct historical analogy for Trump isn't Hitler or Mussolini, its Alfred Hugenberg.
    3) The success of German and Italian fascism, and the Trump phenomenon, have some important common elements. All are rooted in the fact that conservative, elitist parties defending the interests of the wealthy can't attract sufficient masses of voters successfully without appeals to forms of bigotry. This is most successful when appealing to middle-class voters battered by economic changes and to those with frustrated middle-class aspirations.
    4) Readers interested in exploring this topic further should read Robert Paxton's (one time colleague of Prof. de Grazia at Columbia) thoughtful Anatomy of Fascism.
    digitalspacey , 30 Apr 2017 08:44
    Hmmm... Lets see.

    He's signing Executive Orders (remember when he said that Obama was behaving like a dictator for signing EO's, despite Obama signing less than he has?) that effectively dismantle any barrier to Corporations making profit, from slashing and burning Environmental Protection Laws to abolishing Consumer Protection Laws.

    He's using his position to build up the family business, including positioning family members into key political positions, and making the tax payer fund his various jaunts to the property he owns, while Ivanka sits in on important meetings then tweets that you too can own that piece of jewellery she wore that she coincidently will directly profit from if you do, while his sons use tax payer funds to travel overseas and make business deals.

    Trump is also slashing taxes for the rich and corporations while slashing programs that help the sick, the disabled, the elderly and the unemployed.

    He has also openly attacked the Judiciary, threatens to oust any one who dares go against him from within the Legislative Branch, attacks at will the 'Fourth Estate', and today stated the Constitution is 'archaic' and, I quote, 'really a bad thing for the country.'

    He attacks minorities at will, creates enemies by making false claims (no, Obama didn't have you tapped), holds rallies for the faithful making bombastic claims, openly states he could shoot someone in the head and his supporters would still love him, and on live television states he will have his political opponents jailed.

    He has close links and is supported by radical white supremacists ans also has close links to conspiracy theorists.

    He is a gross misogynist who has admitted to grabbing women by the pussy and is recorded as stating that he would often walk into the dressing rooms of young, underage teenage girls while they were in various states of undress essentially because he was the boss and he was entitled to.

    He also stated without foundation that millions of illegals voted in the Election attempting to throw into doubt the validity of any results (logically this would naturally throw into doubt his win, but hey, the guy is an idiot).

    He has also expanded the military budget despite the US spending by far more than any other nation (more than the next 7 nations combined in fact).

    He also has an obsession with nationalal security, deliberately making false claims not only about statistics within the US but also falsely claiming that events have occurred overseas when they clearly have not. He is also using his obsession with National Security to push for an enormous and expensive Border Wall while claiming that Mexico will pay for it.

    His disdain for intellectuals and the arts is clear (he had a juvenile dig at Hollywood today, again), in fact it was one of the platforms which he used to gain the Presidency, all couched within the term 'Liberal elite' which seems to include just about anyone who would dare speak out against him.

    He has now created a group that will announce crimes committed by immigrants, despite statistics that show immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the general population, which satisfy not only his obsession with crime and punishment, but also his obsession with scapegoating minorities.

    Now I know, many people don't like the term fascist, but what else should we call him??? The terms 'fascist' and 'fascism' actually have real meanings. And Trumps actions very much tick the majority of the following list:

    14 signs of fascism:

    Powerful and continuing nationalism
    Disdain for human rights
    Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
    Supremacy of the military
    Rampant sexism
    Controlled mass media
    Obsession with national security
    Religion and government intertwined
    Corporate power protected
    Labor [sic] power suppressed
    Disdain for intellectuals & the arts
    Obsession with crime & punishment
    Rampant cronyism & corruption
    Fraudulent elections

    Seems to tick a whole lot on that list, doesn't he??

    YowserMcTrowser digitalspacey , 30 Apr 2017 09:21
    In your head maybe but not in the real world. Grow up. Reply Share
    digitalspacey YowserMcTrowser , 30 Apr 2017 09:47
    So.... all the things I've listed just happened in may head?

    Trump hasn't attacked the judiciary?

    He hasn't threatened members of his own Party that if they didn't get on board he'd make sure they wouldn't get elected again?

    He didn't talk, on camera, about walking into the dressing room of your teenage women because he was the boss and could?

    He didn't say in a televised debate that he would make sure Hillary would be jailed?

    He isnt constantly attacking the press?

    He didn't, again, on camera, in a Press Conference, allude to the fact that something terrible had happened in Sweden the night before?

    Ivanka and Jared haven't been given key roles in the White House?

    Ivanka didn't sit in on a meeting with the Japanese PM then tweet that you could buy the piece of Jewelery she was wearing?

    The taxpayer isn't paying for Trumps trips to play golf at mar-o-lago??

    Trump don't say Obama was behaving like a Dictator by signing Executive Orders?

    Trump isn't slashing taxes for the rich while slashing Federal funding to things like Meals on Wheels?

    I can keep going if you like?

    Typical Trumpette.

    Trying to tell people who saw and heard what Trump said and what Trump did that what they saw Trump say and do did not in fact happen.

    What is wrong with you??

    YowserMcTrowser digitalspacey , 30 Apr 2017 10:06
    What you have listed is just a hysterical fruit salad of campaign speech quotes and catastrophist exaggerations. The notion that Trump encapsulates ALL that you find distasteful is one thing, but your attempt to prove (and fail) that in 100 days of office he has single-handedly transformed a liberal democracy into a fascist hell-hole is risible.
    snakeyear , 30 Apr 2017 08:23
    "Nazi storm troopers lit bonfires of un-German books"

    The only people I see burning books, attacking free speech, and starting streetfights with those they disagree with are the progressives (I resfuse to call them liberal or left wing as they are not). They are the new fascists.

    unclestinky snakeyear , 30 Apr 2017 08:31
    You haven't seen anyone burning books. Stop fibbing.
    Anders Ull snakeyear , 30 Apr 2017 08:32
    And yes only the right wing extremist that do the killing.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/quebec-city-mosque-shooting-latest-alexandre-bissonnette-donald-trump-marine-le-pen-facebook-social-a7554451.html

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/indian-killed-in-kansas-hate-crimes-in-us-are-rising-since-trump-assumed-office/story-zTBmdRsbsmI8hJJ1d88m5N.html

    realityseeker , 30 Apr 2017 08:19
    I dislike Mr. Trump intensely but to call him the only fascist is incorrect. It is the left that attack anyone who agrees with Mr. Trump - and I mean physically and with extreme violence. There is a major attempt to shut down free speech and drive the Trump supporters into silence. The comparison with the Nazi brownshirts in the harsh days of the 1930's is unmistakable. Actually the two sides in American politics show a mish-mash of Nazi characteristics each. I despair of sanity returning to the United States anytime soon.
    Laurence Bury , 30 Apr 2017 07:35
    The US is a corporate plutocracy and there is enormous false consciousness on the liberal side to take tax cutting and populist measures that are pro-American business to constitute a fascist regime.

    The psychology behind this false consciousness is the denial of the failure of the Obama's Democrat presidency to address the extremities of free market capitalism. Fair enough, as the US will always be a high risk free market society, but the partisan project of the liberal international media is to convince the world that somehow the Democrats are always on the side of the angels.

    This is wholly dishonest ideological manipulation which results only in the inevitable conversion of American politics into a never-ending culture war.

    cvneuves Laurence Bury , 30 Apr 2017 08:28

    never-ending culture war

    or identity politics .
    cvneuves , 30 Apr 2017 07:21
    Amazing, how a bombing raid on Syria supposedly transformed Trump from a "fascist" to a mere "reactionary". Reply Share
    dallasdunlap cvneuves , 30 Apr 2017 08:05
    Trump has adopted Hillary's foreign policy, so the MIC is happy with him. The liberals still hate jis domestic policies, though. So he's no longer fascist, just reactionary.
    forgodsake cvneuves , 30 Apr 2017 09:45
    A bombing raid carried out before any inquiry took place . The last time they investigated a supposed attack by Assad's troops the investigators did not even visit the site . This time they bombed one of the only places they could have gathered evidence. I guess the depth of an investigation or the burden of proof depend on the agenda. I don't know if it was a false flag or not .I do know no real investigation has taken place. I also know the media is biased. There were no cries of heinous crime when the following week the rebels backed by the US bombed busses full of civilians, mostly children being evacuated . The mainstream media hardly mentioned it. No cries of war crimes. We are living in a post truth era. America, Israel ,Saudi and Turkey have an agenda. Could it just be a coincidence Assad is that stupid to cross the line in the sand just as he realises he is winning. Britain's ex ambassador to Damascus certainly didn't think so when interviewed the day after the attack.
    OinkImSammy , 30 Apr 2017 07:11

    If we look at Adolf Hitler's action over his 100 days, we see his goals were terrifyingly consistent, namely, to build a world empire over the corpse of the Soviet Union and to eliminate the Jews.

    AND the Gypsies.
    ID3924525 , 30 Apr 2017 06:06
    He's a dangerous man - too dangerous for even the CIA Reply Share
    lsrnyc ID3924525 , 30 Apr 2017 07:51
    Indeed. Rallies. Sitins. Art projects. Television comedy. Rants. Raves. All passionate and probably fun too. But no real political response to Trump.
    newyorkred ID3924525 , 30 Apr 2017 11:29
    The comparison to Hitler/Mussolini is interesting but omits a crucial difference: Germany and Italy were in the grip of profound and longlasting socio-economic chaos, with mass unemployment and massive poverty. The USA, when Trump came to power, had a 4.7% unemployment rate and was economically is normal to good shape, albeit the outcomes were unequally distributed. So what accounts for Trump's rise and enduring protofascist appeal? My answer: the loss of cultural capital experienced by white Americans, and the ideology of liberalism-hatred this has produced. Democracy and social justice are hated because they underpin the transfer of social prestige away from whites and towards minorities and women--hence the economically irrational hatred of Democrats. The GOP is basically driven by an ideology of white hatred these days. The old left-right argument about the role of the state has given way to an identitarian politics.
    lsrnyc ID3924525 , 30 Apr 2017 07:51
    Indeed. Rallies. Sitins. Art projects. Television comedy. Rants. Raves. All passionate and probably fun too. But no real political response to Trump.
    newyorkred ID3924525 , 30 Apr 2017 11:29
    The comparison to Hitler/Mussolini is interesting but omits a crucial difference: Germany and Italy were in the grip of profound and longlasting socio-economic chaos, with mass unemployment and massive poverty.

    The USA, when Trump came to power, had a 4.7% unemployment rate and was economically is normal to good shape, albeit the outcomes were unequally distributed.So what accounts for Trump's rise and enduring protofascist appeal? My answer: the loss of cultural capital experienced by white Americans, and the ideology of liberalism-hatred this has produced.

    Democracy and social justice are hated because they underpin the transfer of social prestige away from whites and towards minorities and women -- hence the economically irrational hatred of Democrats. The GOP is basically driven by an ideology of white hatred these days. The old left-right argument about the role of the state has given way to an identitarian politics.

    MrHumbug ID3924525 , 30 Apr 2017 12:56
    His problem with CIA is that he is not their asset, as was every president since at least Reagan. But don't worry. The Agency will take care of the "problem" one way or the other. It's the american way, right?
    katastrofa OinkImSammy , 30 Apr 2017 07:19
    AND the homosexuals. And enslave the Slavic nations.

    [May 05, 2017] William Binney - The Government is Profiling You (The NSA is Spying on You)

    Very interesting discussion of how the project of mass surveillance of internet traffic started and what were the major challenges. that's probably where the idea of collecting "envelopes" and correlating them to create social network. Similar to what was done in civil War.
    The idea to prevent corruption of medical establishment to prevent Medicare fraud is very interesting.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I suspect that it's hopelessly unlikely for honest people to complete the Police Academy; somewhere early on the good cops are weeded out and cannot complete training unless they compromise their integrity. ..."
    "... 500 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent It's Never to Protect Us From Bad Guys No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it. ..."
    "... People are so worried about NSA don't be fooled that private companies are doing the same thing. ..."
    "... In communism the people learned quick they were being watched. The reaction was not to go to protest. ..."
    "... Just not be productive and work the system and not listen to their crap. this is all that was required to bring them down. watching people, arresting does not do shit for their cause ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Chad 2 years ago

    "People who believe in these rights very much are forced into compromising their integrity"

    I suspect that it's hopelessly unlikely for honest people to complete the Police Academy; somewhere early on the good cops are weeded out and cannot complete training unless they compromise their integrity.

    Agent76 1 year ago (edited)
    January 9, 2014

    500 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent It's Never to Protect Us From Bad Guys No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/government-spying-citizens-always-focuses-crushing-dissent-keeping-us-safe.html

    Homa Monfared 7 months ago

    I am wondering how much damage your spying did to the Foreign Countries, I am wondering how you changed regimes around the world, how many refugees you helped to create around the world.

    Don Kantner, 2 weeks ago

    People are so worried about NSA don't be fooled that private companies are doing the same thing. Plus, the truth is if the NSA wasn't watching any fool with a computer could potentially cause an worldwide economic crisis.

    Bettor in Vegas 1 year ago

    In communism the people learned quick they were being watched. The reaction was not to go to protest.

    Just not be productive and work the system and not listen to their crap. this is all that was required to bring them down. watching people, arresting does not do shit for their cause......

    [May 04, 2017] Jared Kushner fired me over Israel ten years ago by Philip Weiss

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... This couldn't last. In February 2007 Kaplan closed his office door and said he was a Zionist, Kushner was a Zionist, Kempner was a Zionist, and the janitor was a Zionist, too, and the newspaper would not pay for me to blog, as I was demanding (at that time I was only paid for published columns). It was fitting; I was gone. ..."
    "... Kushner reminds me of a few bosses I have had. They only know what they know which means SFA . Zero interest in the wider world. He probably knows loads about NY real estate and not much else ..."
    "... Very good profile, Phil. One thing struck me, as it did Keith. The only "peace" that Kushner and people like him want for Israel is the "peace" of total domination and rule over others with no disturbance. So, talking about him bringing "peace" makes no sense whatsoever. That's not at all what he or anyone around him wants. ..."
    "... Israelis and their supporters are forever talking about peace, when anyone of sound mind knows that the issue is not peace but justice for the Palestinians who have had their land stolen by European colonists. ..."
    "... Israel pushes the peace line because it knows the issue is not about peace and that a subjugated people like the Palestinians have not a snowball's chance in hell of wielding any sort of power which might contribute to peace. ..."
    "... While the appointment of Kushner is clearly nepotistic, it does not seem much worse than JFK's appointment of his brother. The historical record indicates that Robert Kennedy was if anything much more vile on Israel Palestine issues than Jared Kushner is. ..."
    www.unz.com

    Donald Trump has now named his son-in-law Jared Kushner as a senior adviser, notably on Middle East/Israel issues, and as Kushner fired me ten years ago over these issues, it seemed a good time to review my memories of our (limited) interactions and do what journalists do, make a prognosis about his future efforts.

    Kushner was 25 when he bought the New York Observer from investment banker/artist Arthur Carter in 2006, and as all such transactions do, the move set off panic on the editorial side of the paper. The editor, my dear friend Peter Kaplan, now deceased, was at once engaged in a struggle with his new boss over the paper's news budget and independence. For my part I had been a columnist for a few years, protected against attacks and my own ineptitude by my Harvard chum Kaplan (yes, Virginia, that's how media works), and had lately started Mondoweiss there as a personal blog, and because I was vehemently against the Iraq war and beginning to connect that tragedy to the US relationship to Israel in my postings, I was apprehensive about Kushner's view of the blog and me. I knew that he had been a big supporter of the orthodox Jewish Chabad House at Harvard and had lauded Alan Dershowitz there. Not a good sign - when I was discovering Rachel Corrie and The Israel Lobby.

    Peter Kaplan was a great student of character; it was his chief delight in life (after a cigar, a turkey leg, and a Preston Sturges film in the middle of the night); and my understanding of Kushner's character was formed by closed-door conversations with Peter. He told me that Kushner was smart, ambitious, and full of hubris. The two statements Peter made that resonate down through the years are: "Jared has ice in his veins." And: "He doesn't know what he doesn't know."

    For a little while the clear-skinned young owner took Kaplan on as his grizzled guide to the world of journalism, but that interval was short-lived. It was somewhat shocking to Kaplan that a guy who had no experience of journalism, and was a boob about literature, wasn't a very good reader, had spent his college years doing real estate deals, etc., was eager to make decisions about the paper's values. But such is the way of the world, and after an agonizing couple of years Peter went back to Conde Nast.

    I didn't last as long. Jared and I had a few polite conversations in the year that we cohabited on Broadway, and two very uncomfortable meetings over Israel and Palestine. One was before I went out there in July 2006 on his dime to see the country for the first time, during the Lebanon War, and the second one was after I got back that August. In the first, Kushner told me about his Holocaust background, his grandparents who barely survived , and his regard for Israel. When I got back, Kushner and Brian Kempner, the newspaper's publisher who had worked at the Israel lobby group AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), couldn't wait to hear what I had seen out there, they said. But when I started talking about the occupation, the room went cold as the poles, and Kushner gazed right through me with those unsmiling dark little eyes. Kaplan was even more uncomfortable than I was, and thankfully brought the tortuous meeting to a close.

    But I managed to get a frank description of apartheid in Hebron into the pages of the Observer .

    This couldn't last. In February 2007 Kaplan closed his office door and said he was a Zionist, Kushner was a Zionist, Kempner was a Zionist, and the janitor was a Zionist, too, and the newspaper would not pay for me to blog, as I was demanding (at that time I was only paid for published columns). It was fitting; I was gone.

    My interactions with Jared were limited, but they don't give me hope about his ability to achieve peace in the Middle East. He lived in a deeply-Zionist-patriarchal mental space then; I never saw him take a step out of it. There was a provincial element to his commitment. As Peter said, he didn't know what he didn't know. The guy who replaced Kaplan was even more of a Zionist than Kaplan, while the nimble-footed Kempner went on to work in the Kushner real estate firm. Kushner's ambition and political shrewdness were evident to us, but I never saw any worldliness or largeness of spirit. He was very impressed by his own family. The big asterisk is that he was 25 and 26. I wouldn't want anyone to judge me on the basis of stuff I said at that age . . .

    Lastly, I bear no ill will to Jared Kushner. He paid for my first trip to Israel and Palestine (at 50!); he paid for me to see the occupation. My firing was also a blessing; he cut me loose from the paternalist mainstream media, and I was forced to sink or swim on the internet. To some smaller or bigger degree, I can thank Jared for this website, and the wonderful relationships I have formed through the internet with people of strong hearts and principle, qualities prestige media culture does not select for. For the sake of all of us, I can only hope Kushner gets to enter a larger world too.

    Maghlawatan January 10, 2017, 5:09 pm
    Kushner reminds me of a few bosses I have had. They only know what they know which means SFA . Zero interest in the wider world. He probably knows loads about NY real estate and not much else
    Mivasair January 10, 2017, 9:37 pm
    Very good profile, Phil. One thing struck me, as it did Keith. The only "peace" that Kushner and people like him want for Israel is the "peace" of total domination and rule over others with no disturbance. So, talking about him bringing "peace" makes no sense whatsoever. That's not at all what he or anyone around him wants.
    echinococcus January 11, 2017, 1:52 am

    I suppose the peace of cemeteries is the best quality of peace if you're the undertaker.

    eljay January 11, 2017, 7:30 am

    Kushner likely desires the same sort of Zionist "peace" that jon s advocates, one which:

    rosross January 11, 2017, 5:29 pm
    Israelis and their supporters are forever talking about peace, when anyone of sound mind knows that the issue is not peace but justice for the Palestinians who have had their land stolen by European colonists.

    Justice first and then peace is possible. Israel pushes the peace line because it knows the issue is not about peace and that a subjugated people like the Palestinians have not a snowball's chance in hell of wielding any sort of power which might contribute to peace.

    hungrydave January 14, 2017, 2:44 am Brilliant.

    I will remember this. I've had the same thoughts but never realised how to enunciate it so clearly.

    Marnie January 11, 2017, 1:04 am

    I read somewhere that the soon to be FLOTUS (ivanka kushner) is scared s#%&less of israel. That's good. I don't imagine her husband has any plans to make it one of his homes.

    Lack of experience/knowledge in the positions being filled is the hallmark of the tRUMP administration, especially wrt tRUMP himself. I have no idea what the next 4 years are going to be like, but i imagine the worst.

    http://pre04.deviantart.net/5b05/th/pre/f/2016/272/2/7/end_of_the_world_by_alexiuss-dajaesc.jpg

    Pixel January 11, 2017, 5:27 pm

    " [Ivanka} is scared s#%&less of israel."

    Marnie, can you say more? I'm not sure what you mean

    Marnie January 12, 2017, 12:39 am

    No, I can't find the article I'd read about her fear for husband traveling to zioland. I shouldn't have brought it up without backup. Sorry everybody.
    YoniFalic January 11, 2017, 1:28 pm
    While the appointment of Kushner is clearly nepotistic, it does not seem much worse than JFK's appointment of his brother. The historical record indicates that Robert Kennedy was if anything much more vile on Israel Palestine issues than Jared Kushner is.

    [May 03, 2017] Trump and the Rush to Deploy THAAD by Raekyong Lee

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because of all these zigzags in U.S. policy, South Koreans perceive the Trump administration as irrational, self-centered, and impulsive. The demand for a large payment for THAAD has increased Moon Jae-in's skepticism of the system and boosted anti-American sentiment in the election. Moon is now openly critical of THAAD early deployment even in the face of conservative criticism. ..."
    "... The shift in Korean perceptions of the United States is driven by the complete lack of concern for procedure in the decision on THAAD. Acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn is not authorized to make such a critical decision. Also, former President Park Geun-hye agreed initially to THAAD without consulting with the National Assembly. ..."
    "... We do not know how the rapid deployment of THAAD was decided upon. Most likely it was an agreement reached between Kim Kwan-Jin, head of national security office in the Blue House, and Admiral Harry Harris, head of the US Pacific Command. Both are famous for their bellicose declarations and their close ties to military contractors. It seems less likely that Donald Trump was involved in the process. ..."
    "... But Donald Trump has just thrown oil on the fire with his recent comments that Korea had once been a part of China-according to Xi Jinping. He has eliminated all Asia experts from the State Department and has no one around him who has any expertise on the region. This lack of actual understanding combines with the astonishing capacity of the U.S. president to reverse himself on North Korea. ..."
    "... The failure of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to have dinner with acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn when he visited Korea in March only added insult to injury. ..."
    May 03, 2017 | fpif.org
    The Korean police swarmed onto the golf course in Seongju, just 300 kilometers southeast of Seoul, just before dawn on April 26. The officers pushed aside the dazed protesters and escorted a group of US Army military trailers that carried the critical parts for the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile defense system.

    The deployment of THAAD in Korea has become extremely contentious since China expressed its strong opposition. The sudden deployment of the AN/TPY-2 radar system and two missile launchers and interceptors a week before the Korean presidential election on May 9 has created even greater controversy. It looks for all the world like a bid to make deployment a fait accompli even as the liberal candidate Moon Jae-in, who is the frontrunner in several polls, suggests that the system requires further debate.

    Although the incident did not grab the headlines around the world, it was an obvious effort to circumvent the Korean political process. It also marks a fundamental shift in Korea-US relations .

    But that's not all. President Donald Trump also went on to demand that Korea pay one billion dollars for the cost of the deployment, even though the Korean military is not actually purchasing the missile defense system and has agreed to deployment in the face of strong opposition.

    President Trump went on to condemn the KORUS Free Trade Agreement, calling it a "horrible deal" and threatening to "terminate" it. Trump has linked together security issues with trade issues in an aggressive manner, hinting that the crisis might be resolved if Seoul were more accommodating in trade negotiations.

    This mix of trade issues with security issues goes against the grain of the entire shared-values strategy that the United States has employed since the Second World War. Trump suggests, in so many words, that the military alliance is an economic exchange and that THAAD, or just about anything, can be modified or even eliminated if the price is right. Though this approach may seem like common sense to Donald Trump, the implication is that the United States military is a mercenary force whose purpose is not determined by a commitment to democracy and free markets but rather the balance in the national treasury.

    And lo and behold, on May 1, Trump stated that he would be "honored" to meet with Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea, a country that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has refused to engage in discussions, despite numerous offers by the Chinese. At other times, the Trump administration has suggested that military action against North Korea was imminent.

    Korean Politics

    Because of all these zigzags in U.S. policy, South Koreans perceive the Trump administration as irrational, self-centered, and impulsive. The demand for a large payment for THAAD has increased Moon Jae-in's skepticism of the system and boosted anti-American sentiment in the election. Moon is now openly critical of THAAD early deployment even in the face of conservative criticism.

    The shift in Korean perceptions of the United States is driven by the complete lack of concern for procedure in the decision on THAAD. Acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn is not authorized to make such a critical decision. Also, former President Park Geun-hye agreed initially to THAAD without consulting with the National Assembly.

    There has been literally no debate among legislators on THAAD. The issue is simply not a matter of a North Korean threat. China perceives THAAD as an effort to undermine its own defensive capabilities. Although experts can debate the fine points, deployment will trigger an arms race in Northeast Asia that could draw in Korea, Japan, Russia, and perhaps other nations. China currently has under 300 nuclear weapons (as opposed to the United States with almost 7,000). Worried that THAAD could neutralize this relatively small arsenal, China could increase that number to a thousand or more.

    We do not know how the rapid deployment of THAAD was decided upon. Most likely it was an agreement reached between Kim Kwan-Jin, head of national security office in the Blue House, and Admiral Harry Harris, head of the US Pacific Command. Both are famous for their bellicose declarations and their close ties to military contractors. It seems less likely that Donald Trump was involved in the process.

    But Donald Trump has just thrown oil on the fire with his recent comments that Korea had once been a part of China-according to Xi Jinping. He has eliminated all Asia experts from the State Department and has no one around him who has any expertise on the region. This lack of actual understanding combines with the astonishing capacity of the U.S. president to reverse himself on North Korea.

    A New South Korean Policy?

    A Moon administration is likely to pursue improved relations with North Korea, in contrast to the last ten years of conservative government. It will also encounter at least the same hostility that the Roh Moo-hyun administration encountered from the George W. Bush administration.

    Moon is likely to try to bring back some version of Kim Daejung's "sunshine policy," which promoted diplomatic, economic, and cultural engagement with the North. Conservatives thought they'd put a stake through the heart of this engagement policy last year when they shut down the last vestige of cooperation, the Kaesong Industrial Complex, run jointly by the North and South. Such efforts to reopen dialog with North Korea will likely be combined with a push for the transfer of operational wartime control of the military to Korea over the next few years and a Korean foreign policy that is more independent of the United States.

    In fact, Korea could well be the one of the most independent-minded of all the United States allies under a Moon administration. Obama's "strategic neglect" of North Korea and inaction in the face of nuclear tests has caused enormous frustration for South Korea. A Moon administration could forge its own policy toward the North that would be substantially different from Washington's.

    North Korea is fully aware of the manner in which outside power overthrew governments in Libya and Iraq because they lacked sufficient deterrence. As a result, Pyongyang is unlikely to make any easy compromises, especially as Kim Jung-un has staked his legitimacy on the nuclear program as an assertion of national autonomy.

    But for all the rhetoric of the need to stand up to North Korea, American engagement in Korea is in retreat. Increasingly China offers the real economic opportunities to Koreans, and Chinese language schools are popping up all over the place. By contrast, Citibank announced the closure of one-third of its branches in Korea in April, and the percentage of Americans among foreigners in Korea has declined significantly.

    Astonishingly, in the face of threats of war with North Korea, the United States not only no longer has an ambassador to the Republic of Korea -- the last ambassador Mark Lippert was asked to step down on January 19 -- there is not even a candidate. Korea was essentially left out of the conversation between Trump and Shinzo Abe at the White House in February and also between Trump and Chinese president Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago. The failure of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to have dinner with acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn when he visited Korea in March only added insult to injury.

    Ultimately, the THAAD anti-missile system is part of a long-term relationship with the United States that dates back to the late nineteenth century. Overall, although North Korea is getting front-page coverage in the mainstream media, South Korea has not registered as a major player for the Trump administration. If steps are not taken to find common ground and engage Koreans about some other topic than the North Korean threat, there is a danger of a rise in anti-American sentiments and a corresponding drop in American influence.

    Raekyong Lee is president of The Tomorrow, a leading progressive think tank in Seoul, Korea, dedicated to economic and security issues. He was deeply involved in the democracy movement in the 1970s and 1980s in Korea and writes frequently about international relations and politics.

    [May 02, 2017] Fascism is a mindset that only the wealthy deserve to rule and the state is managed by corporations and the wealthy

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. " ..."
    "... "...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... ..."
    "... I think romnraven's definition and Mussolini's work very well together. Nothing odd about romnraven's characterization of "fascism" at all. YOUR specifically quoted portion of the Mussolinian dictionary definition (a piece of propaganda in its own right) is more about Totalitarianism than fascism. ..."
    May 02, 2017 | profile.theguardian.com

    romnraven , 2d ago

    Fascism has a clear meaning defined by Mussolini as, corporatism, when the state is managed by corporations and the wealthy. Fascism is a mindset that only the wealthy deserve to rule. Which is blindly adhered to by the Petit Bourgeoisie. For obvious reasons, fascists see organized labor, or any organized opposition to their agenda, as their enemy. The bourgeoisie is too self absorbed to even care about such things. t rump is a master of obfuscation. T rump gibberish is now substituted for official policy statements. While he is misdirecting our attention with blatant lies and gibberish, he is working to undermine years of bi partison work on policy that benefits we the people.

    Pat Deegan -> romnraven , 2d ago

    I thought this sounded rather odd so I did a quick search:

    "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. " Source: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp

    There was also, in the late 20th century, a general public understanding of fascists as those authoritarian policitians who would compel the public, burn books and have people beaten up.

    The early 21st century definition of a fascist appears to be "anyone who disagrees with ME" to a lot of people...

    Aldous0rwell -> Pat Deegan , 2d ago

    And from the same source you linked:

    "...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

    I think romnraven's definition and Mussolini's work very well together. Nothing odd about romnraven's characterization of "fascism" at all. YOUR specifically quoted portion of the Mussolinian dictionary definition (a piece of propaganda in its own right) is more about Totalitarianism than fascism.

    There are those who confuse "socialism" with "fascism". The link you provided shows how clearly such a conflation is nonsense.

    Cynthia Almy Savage , 2d ago

    I think the major difference between the US and the European experience is the timing between the existence of a monarchy/aristocracy and the implementation of totalitarian rule.

    The US has always been mostly democratic, even when the country was 13 colonies being ruled by a distant power. The likelihood that people would "accept their fates" in the face of an autocrat is much less likely here, whereas Germany still had experience with a monarch in the 20th century.

    Fascism is defined as a merger of state and corporate power so, really, the US has been a quasifascist state since Nixon embraced neoliberalism in the 70s. The difference is the existence of a police state.

    It is clear Hitler and Mussolini led fascist police states in the 20th century. As for whether or not the US is also a police state depends on who you ask. The US leads the world in incarcerations and a significant percentage of black and Latino males are incarcerated.

    simpledino -> Cynthia Almy Savage , 2d ago

    You make very good points. Still, I would suggest that the so-called War on Terror has considerably softened the American people's resolve against being treated as "serfs with cellphones." I don't believe Trump would succeed if he were, today, just to shut down Congress and ascribe by fiat all political power to himself. That, the people and the legislative branch wouldn't allow. But if there is a full-scale war or a major terrorist incident, I'm not at all certain that whatever drastically antidemocratic steps Trump might care to take wouldn't be sent right on through the legislative pipe, effectively ending the republic and replacing it with the reign of a corrupt plutocrat and his family, along with assorted flunkies in government and industry. That sounds an awful lot like fascist dictatorship, doesn't it? It could happen. It probably won't, but it could.

    ID1411575 Longerenong , 2d ago

    I think you Americans don't grasp the concept of fascism. Trump is a wanna be authoritarian leader and has some very backwards ideas, like Mussolini might have been, but you should not confuse ideology with the form of government. Back in the '20s, Italy was a parliamentary monarchy. It had a so called flexible constitution, meaning that it could be easily changed to give the government extraordinary powers to the detriment of the parliament, and this is exactly what Mussolini did. He eliminated the opposition parties both by changing the law and by force (he had the leader of the communist party Giacomo Matteotti killed), while the king stood there doing nothing. The rest is in the article. Trump does not have the power to do that, at least not alone. But if the entire Republican party allows him to get more power, shut out the congress and eliminate "unfriendly" judges, then the danger will be a lot more real.

    [May 02, 2017] The New York Times is dead long ago. If we lived in a sane world and not one run by lawless sociopaths, the Times owners and editors would be indicted and stand trial for their aiding and abetting war crimes in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass. ..."
    "... My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world. ..."
    "... The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast. ..."
    "... When these vile cretins get their war with Russia, it just won't matter how many lies they told to get there. The NYT is merely one small facet of the industrial lie-machine known as Zion, for lack of a more modern term. Their job was always to lie, but not of their own volition. ..."
    "... The decline in standards in the NYT this year has been astonishing. It is often impossible to tell if an article is in the NYT or clickbait Huffington Post if you are just offered a headline. ..."
    "... Alex Gibnev happened to be a person of easy virtues, similar to his brother-in-lies Luke Harding. ..."
    May 02, 2017 | www.unz.com
    CCZ , September 14, 2016 at 5:43 am GMT \n
    Early this year, aggravated by the majority of the content, especially the opinion columns, I canceled delivery of and my on-line access to the New York Times.

    Both articles and opinions seemed to always emphasize racial discord (despite the presence of millions of Hispanics and Asians everything was always portrayed as "black and white"), an inflated concern for Muslim sensitivities ("anti-Islamaphobia"), and "immigration" (and they always called illegal aliens "undocumented" immigrants and had all of these stories about families where a parent "migrated" years ago, left behind children who "migrated" separately years later, had a spouse who also "migrated" subsequently, and now had American born (citizen) children, so how could anyone now be penalized or deported.

    Not that I expected my words to have any impact, but my letter of cancellation included the below:

    Is there any economic inequity or disparity that the NY Times does not attribute to racism? Even when Blacks or Latinos are "disproportionately" affected, why the seemingly immediate jump to the conclusion that racism is responsible for the numbers or the motivation for the supposed "exploitation?" Why not report on the economic inequity as an economic rather than a racial issue? Whatever the racial percentages, economic inequity and "exploitation" ultimately affects poor and working class people of all races. Why does the NY Times almost always describe social and economic disparities as a racial rather than an economic issue? Always emphasizing who suffers by race rather than by economic standing (class) is a strategy that clearly divides rather than unites. The NY Times seems to have adopted the (unacknowledged) motto "All The News That Is Fit To Be Racialized." Agree: Miro23

    Alden , September 14, 2016 at 6:02 am GMT \n
    Didn't the NYSlimes print Al Sharpton's garbage about the false Twana Brawley accusations as though the fraud were the truth? It was a horrible witch hunt against several White men

    My first memory of the Slimes was an adulatory article about Castro right after he took over Cuba. He was going to create paradise in the Carribean. Didn't work out that way.

    Mark Green , September 14, 2016 at 6:27 am GMT \n
    May the pretentious, power-grabbing and corrupt NY TIMES die a slow, agonizing and ignoble death.
    vetran , September 14, 2016 at 10:00 am GMT \n
    The New York Times is dead long ago, being replaced by The Jew York Times.
    Greg Bacon , Website September 14, 2016 at 10:59 am GMT \n
    If we lived in a sane world and not one run by lawless sociopaths, the Times owners and editors would be indicted and stand trial for their aiding and abetting war crimes in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
    berserker , September 14, 2016 at 12:15 pm GMT \n
    Every morning, I skim the headlines of the New Joke Times for my daily dose of humor. The only articles I bother clicking on these days – as with the BBC – appear in the Sports section. The recent profile on Kyrgios was amusing.
    - It is unfortunate that the NYT and especially, the BBC are still taken quite seriously in the developing world.
    TheJester , September 14, 2016 at 2:48 pm GMT \n
    I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

    My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

    Has this always been the case or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

    Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM.

    Anonymous Smith , September 14, 2016 at 3:36 pm GMT \n
    "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

    It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

    – David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany.

    Almost Missouri , September 14, 2016 at 3:49 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    "during the current election cycle in the United States, The New York Times has so clearly abandoned all rudimentary standards of journalism and alienated its readership so badly, that it has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance."

    Actually, it abandoned all that a very long time ago, but better to notice late then never, I suppose.

    Miro23 , September 14, 2016 at 4:52 pm GMT \n
    For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.

    That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.

    One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself (although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space" type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian) or very heavily censored (New York Times – apparently).

    That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called leading online publications.

    The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece of journalism kicks off 100′s of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.

    Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can handle comments fast running into the 1000′s. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic interest, public involvement and social experience – basically a good party.

    Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light, and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.

    The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.

    Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication).

    pyrrhus , September 14, 2016 at 5:06 pm GMT \n
    Of course, the NYT would have disappeared already if it weren't for cash infusions from Mexican criminal (and World's riches man) Carlos Slim, in return for relentlessly defending the "right" of Mexicans to enter the US illegally and remit cash (untaxed) back to the home country.
    Alden , September 14, 2016 at 5:07 pm GMT \n
    @TheJester

    Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

    Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM. I'm a bit older than you are. I learned how the newspapers lie and lie back in 1966. My city, San Francisco had a black riot ostensibly because a cop shot a stick up man.
    The local papers were totally in favor of the rioters and against the police. That is when I stopped believing in anything published in a newspaper or "quality" magazine like Atlantic, New Republic Harper's etc.

    I soon went to work for a government agency that was under siege by federally funded radical non profits. I saw that everything published about my agency was a total lie. I also had a friend who was a reporter for the major newspaper in those days. He told me that reporters don't really investigate and write the stories. They just re write handouts from liberal or people

    Of course I am White. From 1960 on the "quality" newspapers and magazines have been solidly anti White. I realized that just out of college.

    The Los Angeles Slimes actually instigated and then justified the Rodney King riots. The Slimes blamed everybody but the black dreck for the riot, especially the police The Wave newspapers are a chain of local community newspapers in the southern Suburbs of Los Angeles. They were mostly black at the time of the Rodney King riots. The Wave papers were a lot more pro police and anti black rioters than the Times.

    How can Whites read the news papers all their lives and not notice that the newspapers totally hate Whites?

    Paul Bennett , September 14, 2016 at 5:25 pm GMT \n
    I haven't seen a NYT newspaper in decades. I know the NYT has a presence on the Internet, but last I checked (years ago) their archives (the only thing the NYT retains of value) are membership only. The NYT might still be a valuable record of historical events that occurred generations past, but most everything I'm looking for has already been extracted and is publicly available elsewhere. It's simply easier to do a Google search than find it on the NYT website (only to discover that to view it requires a subscription). If the link has a NYT in it, I go on to the next.

    When it comes to contemporary news, the last place I would look is the NYT. If I want to hear official lies for myself, then cable TV is the only possible source. The 24/7 news cycle can be recorded and the misstatements extracted later. A few hours later and the news has been purged of the offense, all references removed or left dangling. The NYT is simply not useful to catch glimpses of real events as they happen.

    Finally, when it comes to analysis the NYT has, as you say, deliberately made itself more and more irrelevant. Commentary and analysis is a dime a dozen on the Internet, and almost all of it is of a higher quality than what the NYT prints. The NYT attacks only official enemies, and maintains a passionless hands-off attitude towards the crimes of their powerful allies. Now, why would I bother to read that? My time is valuable and the Internet is full of insightful analysis. Life is too short to read propaganda.

    Lawrence Fitton , September 14, 2016 at 5:52 pm GMT \n
    @Anonymous Smith

    "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

    It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

    -- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany.

    nice post. thanks.

    i read a long article on the council of foreign relations that would interest you about 3 weeks ago. for the life of me, i can't remember the author or even the site. but, it definitely isn't a fringe site or a pajama blogger.

    i believe the group was established in the 1920′s. the piece stated that every ex-secretary of state, and all but one ex-secretary of defense has joined since the organization's founding.

    the council on foreign relations is also a proponent of a new world order. i suppose, the trilateral commission is too. megalomaniacs are always with us. but attempting to manipulate & control a world population is akin to herding cats. but these three nwo groups have influence.

    Durruti , September 14, 2016 at 6:35 pm GMT \n
    200 Words Mr. Wahlstrom,

    Nicely done. The NY Times was once regarded as America's premier News Outlet. It, was never pristine, but one could squeeze some facts out of its pages.

    Today, the Rag is excruciatingly Boring, (which is usually a by-product of propaganda organs).

    The Wall Street Journal , and Washington Post , and thousands of other print and informational medias, have declined into mind numbing and uninformative outlets.

    It is one thing for a pretend Newspaper, such as the NYT to support imperialism, and exploitation, and the rule of the Oligarchs; the NYT and the others have ever been that. But it is another for them to become (decline into), mere propaganda outlets for Government controlling Oligarchs.

    Some say, "The truth will make us free." Unfortunately, the Truth is often, and lately, increasingly Buried. It is the truth, our Liberties, that have received an Obituary. Orwell believed that sad event happened in 1984 , or, certainly, by then. I believe the obituary began, definitively, on November 22, 1963 , and expanded from there.

    For the Rebirth, we need to restore our Republic!

    Reese MacGruder , September 14, 2016 at 6:45 pm GMT \n
    I wholeheartedly agree with the main argument of the NY Times having lost all vestiges of journalistic integrity and ethical standards. They have ceased to be anything more than a combination; mouthpiece, pr flak and investigative attack dogs for the extended Clinton crime family and their friends on the left.

    That said, it's hard to see this author's work to not be his response to the Times's articles (which he includes here), which have criticized him.

    Whether valid criticism or not, it obviously is the source of Johannes Wahlstrom 's venom and it's impossible to not wonder how much of his subsequent tirade against the Times is a direct result of that animus.

    Ace , September 14, 2016 at 7:10 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @pyrrhus Of course, the NYT would have disappeared already if it weren't for cash infusions from Mexican criminal (and World's riches man) Carlos Slim, in return for relentlessly defending the "right" of Mexicans to enter the US illegally and remit cash (untaxed) back to the home country. It's amazing what roles foreigners play in our national life. We seem to lap it up.

    A digression on remittances: If we imposed a hefty tax on them I bet we'd see a whole lot of self-deportation. Punitive taxation on our own citizens is perfectly OK, such as with cigarettes, so there's no moral objection to collecting punitive income, Medicare, and employment taxes on the back end.

    Of course, the official position is that only Bureau of Prisons buses and RR cattle cars can be used to deport people, who must be rounded up Evian Gonzalez-style.

    nsa , September 14, 2016 at 7:41 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.

    That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.

    One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself (although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space" type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian) or very heavily censored (New York Times - apparently).

    That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called leading online publications.

    The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece of journalism kicks off 100's of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.

    Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can handle comments fast running into the 1000's. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic interest, public involvement and social experience - basically a good party.

    Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light, and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.

    The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.

    Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication). You want to see serious heavy duty censorship, try posting comments over at the aggressively anti-trump site "the american cuck .er conservative". In between displaying saintly religiosity, they never fail to censor any comment even remotely pro trump or anti jooie hooey ..all with a patina of intellectual superiority. One of them even works at a food bank handing out cans of crap to 300 lb starving afros and white trash in some third world pisshole called Louisiana.

    chris , September 14, 2016 at 7:42 pm GMT \n
    In the final stage, the gray lady is turning tricks for the .gov, and she'll do anything to survive. It's like Hillary at the 911 memorial, they're all desperately trying to keep her alive because she 's TBTF.
    dmaak112 , September 14, 2016 at 8:29 pm GMT \n
    The New York Times practices censorship of opinions that run contrary to their position. I had subscribed to their on-line edition. The paper would permit comments on some of the articles and opinion pieces. You're are limited to 1500 characters plus spaces.

    For a while, my comments were shown alongside others. Then, this September, I found that I could not make comments or even access previous comments. They had cut me off completely. I contacted them and was told that my access had suffered a glitch. They were working on it.

    I checked and saw that others were still able to comment and access this feature. But not me. I believe that the paper deliberately cut me off because I challenged their stories and analysis. I could not believe that they so wanted to control the story that they would ensure that contrary opinions would not appear.

    I have ended my subscription. For all the talk of freedom of expression, it only applies if you follow the line they set.

    DaveE , September 14, 2016 at 8:44 pm GMT \n
    When these vile cretins get their war with Russia, it just won't matter how many lies they told to get there. The NYT is merely one small facet of the industrial lie-machine known as Zion, for lack of a more modern term. Their job was always to lie, but not of their own volition.

    They've followed their mission-plan well. Now the BIG action is with the Mossad boys to implement the war the NYT has so feverishly set up.

    But, like a bad script waiting for the Production Dept. to catch up, they've run their course, in more ways than their tiny brains can even imagine.

    They didn't even know they were writing comedy.

    Chris Chuba , September 14, 2016 at 8:47 pm GMT \n
    200 Words NYT is now part of the U.S. Regime Media.

    The biggest story that Regime Media has failed to report is this, 'the U.S. govt is supporting Al Qaeda aligned rebels in Syria against the Assad govt'. This has been true since at least 2013 and likely true since 2012 yet it has never been reported.

    Instead, Regime Media has merely repeated the position of the U.S. State Dept. without any challenge whatsoever. What happened to the press that was suspicious of the govt narrative that existed during the Vietnam War? It evaporated in Iraq 2002 and is now just a mouthpiece of the govt. Sources exist other than the U.S. State Dept. Anyone who pays attention can easily see where our narrative falls apart.

    I won't go into details over all of the false narratives. I chose the most important example. If I sound bitter, it is because I am.

    Pedro Gama , September 14, 2016 at 8:48 pm GMT \n
    DISGUSTING -- Its becoming very obvious that the so called "mainstream" media is, IN FACT, protecting this or that Agenda ..NO WONDER people are turning to alternative media for RELYABLE information ..WHAT DISGUSTING PIECES OF SHIT -- The New York Time is part of TIME MAgazine? I am subscriber, I can tell you know .I WAS a subscriber .FUCK THEM !!
    Mike1 , September 14, 2016 at 9:19 pm GMT \n
    The decline in standards in the NYT this year has been astonishing. It is often impossible to tell if an article is in the NYT or clickbait Huffington Post if you are just offered a headline. Facts used have gone from being massaged to being outright false. What is weirder is that they don't care if what they are saying is provably false.
    Tim Rupright , September 14, 2016 at 9:50 pm GMT \n
    @TheJester I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

    My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

    Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

    Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post (and other newspapers) were certainly in the pocket of FDR and the pro-war intelligence services of both the US and of Britain since at least the late 1930s. They happily slandered any and all isolationists and planted false stories to manipulate the public just as they have done for the intervening 75 years. They are and have been for decades little more than a mouthpiece for the ruling elite. Let us hope this election finishes them off.

    res , September 14, 2016 at 11:15 pm GMT \n
    @CCZ Early this year, aggravated by the majority of the content, especially the opinion columns, I canceled delivery of and my on-line access to the New York Times.

    Both articles and opinions seemed to always emphasize racial discord (despite the presence of millions of Hispanics and Asians everything was always portrayed as "black and white"), an inflated concern for Muslim sensitivities ("anti-Islamaphobia"), and "immigration" (and they always called illegal aliens "undocumented" immigrants and had all of these stories about families where a parent "migrated" years ago, left behind children who "migrated" separately years later, had a spouse who also "migrated" subsequently, and now had American born (citizen) children, so how could anyone now be penalized or deported.

    Not that I expected my words to have any impact, but my letter of cancellation included the below:

    Is there any economic inequity or disparity that the NY Times does not attribute to racism? Even when Blacks or Latinos are "disproportionately" affected, why the seemingly immediate jump to the conclusion that racism is responsible for the numbers or the motivation for the supposed "exploitation?" Why not report on the economic inequity as an economic rather than a racial issue? Whatever the racial percentages, economic inequity and "exploitation" ultimately affects poor and working class people of all races. Why does the NY Times almost always describe social and economic disparities as a racial rather than an economic issue? Always emphasizing who suffers by race rather than by economic standing (class) is a strategy that clearly divides rather than unites. The NY Times seems to have adopted the (unacknowledged) motto "All The News That Is Fit To Be Racialized." Check out the ~5x increase in the prevalence of the word "racism" in NYT articles between 2011 and 2016:

    http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=racism

    "racist" is similar.


    Fran Macadam , September 14, 2016 at 11:37 pm GMT \n
    The comparison to Pravda is apt. As Solzhenitsyn explained, the propagandists of the old Soviet Union claimed, "we never make mistakes."

    TheBoom , September 15, 2016 at 12:03 am GMT \n
    @Alden I'm a bit older than you are. I learned how the newspapers lie and lie back in 1966. My city, San Francisco had a black riot ostensibly because a cop shot a stick up man.
    The local papers were totally in favor of the rioters and against the police. That is when I stopped believing in anything published in a newspaper or "quality" magazine like Atlantic, New Republic Harper's etc.

    I soon went to work for a government agency that was under siege by federally funded radical non profits. I saw that everything published about my agency was a total lie. I also had a friend who was a reporter for the major newspaper in those days. He told me that reporters don't really investigate and write the stories. They just re write handouts from liberal or people

    Of course I am White. From 1960 on the "quality" newspapers and magazines have been solidly anti White. I realized that just out of college.

    The Los Angeles Slimes actually instigated and then justified the Rodney King riots. The Slimes blamed everybody but the black dreck for the riot, especially the police The Wave newspapers are a chain of local community newspapers in the southern Suburbs of Los Angeles. They were mostly black at the time of the Rodney King riots. The Wave papers were a lot more pro police and anti black rioters than the Times.

    How can Whites read the news papers all their lives and not notice that the newspapers totally hate Whites? The fact that the mainstream media by and large hates whites is one of the main things about it that appeals to the whites on the left.

    annamaria , September 15, 2016 at 1:28 am GMT \n
    @TheJester I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

    My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

    Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

    Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM. " a text by Alex Gibney: "Johannes Wahlstrom, a Swedish journalist who helped to engineer a vilification campaign against the two women who accused Mr. Assange of sexual assaults"

    Alex Gibnev happened to be a person of easy virtues, similar to his brother-in-lies Luke Harding.

    Wizard of Oz , September 15, 2016 at 1:58 am GMT \n
    @dmaak112 The New York Times practices censorship of opinions that run contrary to their position. I had subscribed to their on-line edition. The paper would permit comments on some of the articles and opinion pieces. You're are limited to 1500 characters plus spaces. For a while, my comments were shown alongside others. Then, this September, I found that I could not make comments or even access previous comments. They had cut me off completely. I contacted them and was told that my access had suffered a glitch. They were working on it.
    I checked and saw that others were still able to comment and access this feature. But not me. I believe that the paper deliberately cut me off because I challenged their stories and analysis. I could not believe that they so wanted to control the story that they would ensure that contrary opinions would not appear.

    I have ended my subscription. For all the talk of freedom of expression, it only applies if you follow the line they set. Why might they – or at least some quite junior staff – regard you as important enough or your comments as powerful enough to engage in the censorship which they appear to deny?

    TomSchmidt , September 15, 2016 at 4:14 am GMT \n
    @Miro23 For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.

    That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.

    One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself (although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space" type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian) or very heavily censored (New York Times - apparently).

    That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called leading online publications.

    The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece of journalism kicks off 100's of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.

    Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can handle comments fast running into the 1000's. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic interest, public involvement and social experience - basically a good party.

    Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light, and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.

    The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.

    Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication). I really love the Unz commenting system. The ability to follow a thread through linking, and to trace the history of any commenter, is superb, best I have seen anywhere, and without the "indenting" that Mars other comment systems.

    I give great credit to Unz for his somewhat open-sourced method of adding comments features.

    Found at: https://books.google.com/ngrams

    Sadly, not just the NY Times has been racialized and transgenderized and social warriorized.

    sensor operator , September 15, 2016 at 7:40 am GMT \n
    Rudyard Kipling - 'I am, by calling, a dealer in words; and words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.'

    The other drug dealers will die and go out of business first. The newspapers have an incentive to see them die. The paid death notice.

    sensor operator , September 15, 2016 at 7:46 am GMT \n
    In his next sentence he said, "Not only do words infect, egotize, narcotize, and paralyze, but they enter into and colour the minutest cells of the brain ."

    http://www.truenorthquest.com/rudyard-kipling/

    Run your paper like a drug dealer!

    Miro23 , September 15, 2016 at 2:51 pm GMT \n
    @TomSchmidt I really love the Unz commenting system. The ability to follow a thread through linking, and to trace the history of any commenter, is superb, best I have seen anywhere, and without the "indenting" that Mars other comment systems.

    I give great credit to Unz for his somewhat open-sourced method of adding comments features. I agree, the Unz commenting system just needed some getting used to after the WaPo system and Disqus. It's very good.

    heymrguda , September 15, 2016 at 3:46 pm GMT \n
    @nsa You want to see serious heavy duty censorship, try posting comments over at the aggressively anti-trump site "the american cuck....er conservative". In between displaying saintly religiosity, they never fail to censor any comment even remotely pro trump or anti jooie hooey.....all with a patina of intellectual superiority. One of them even works at a food bank handing out cans of crap to 300 lb starving afros and white trash in some third world pisshole called Louisiana. Yes, I was (apparently) banned from commenting on that site for suggesting that several of their bloggers (some regular contributors, some not) seemed to favor a certain religious denomination as Conservatism's official religion. Didn't seem all that controversial to me. Hats off to Ron Unz for not censoring comments.
    res , September 15, 2016 at 4:31 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @CCZ Interesting that the NY Times has a publicly accessible tool that allows one to graph the newspaper's fixation on certain topics. I applied the term "transgender," those mostly men (males) identifying as women and demanding access to previously women only spaces (bathrooms and locker and shower rooms), and found an almost identical rocket ship rise in the newspaper's fixation on transgenders beginning in 2010-2011 (parallel with and to almost the same extreme heights as the words "racist" and "racism").

    Given the downward trend of using the words racist and racism until the dramatic 5X up tick in 2011, that you noted, I wonder what explains the timing of the change.

    Perhaps the NY Times owners' appointment of New Orleans born African-American / Creole / black journalist Dean Baquet as Managing Editor in September 2011 and his promotion to Executive Editor on May 14, 2014 signaled their intent to dramatically escalate the racial focus. Carlos Slim also bought into the NY Times in 2008 and increased his holdings in 2012.

    The on-line word tracing tool, Google N-Gram Viewer displays a similar dramatic recent rise in the appearance of words like racism and racist and transgender in books. Like the Chronicle.NYTLABS tool that you site, the N-Gram Viewer visually graphs the percent of books using selected words or phrases over a selected time period from the 25 million books scanned and digitized by Google. You can track the use of words in multiple languages from as early as 1700 up to 2009.

    Found at: https://books.google.com/ngrams

    Sadly, not just the NY Times has been racialized and transgenderized and social warriorized. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Transgender peaks below racism (as you noted), but the rise is much more dramatic–thanks for pointing that one out.

    Google N-Gram Viewer is great, but they don't seem to be updating it so it's less useful for tracking changes since Obama became president.

    Interesting thoughts about NYT changes as causes. I've tended to attribute the "racism" change to Obama's second term and post-Trayvon (early 2012) incitement, but you might have a better explanation. I wonder if the NYT articles database includes details like authors and section of the newspaper. It would be fascinating to see a more detailed analysis of who/what section seem to be driving the changes.

    One fear I have is that publicizing these examples of NYT word frequency will cause the Chronicle tool to disappear.

    annamaria , September 16, 2016 at 3:52 am GMT \n
    The New York Times has soiled its reputation long time ago. But to observe a vulgarization of the previously respectful New Yorker is rather painful; the nest of intellectuals has become a nest of opportunistic half-wits. The New Yorker' pandering to Clinton is beyond ridiculous.
    jeremy lansman , September 18, 2016 at 7:37 pm GMT \n
    "As a Swedish reader of The New York Times, I may be surprised that the paper has ignored election rigging in the governing party of the United States serious enough to cause its top five officials to resign." Governing partey? Now, please explain. Is that the R which is in control of the legislature, or the D in control of the WH? Not to defend the NYT, but I detect this writer has an ax to grind, so has gone a bit overboard. This comment is not a news story. Just my opinion!
    Anonymous , September 19, 2016 at 3:47 pm GMT \n
    The NYTimes receives occult payments from the Clinton foundation. In return of controlling the narrative. I have it from the inside.
    RadicalCenter , December 6, 2016 at 4:46 pm GMT \n
    @Walter Alter The news media in the US, and probably the world, has evolved into a mouthpiece for social engineering, feudal peasant ignorance, crowd control, the tyranny of political correctness, ideological speculation and self-serving congratulatory adulation of globalist liberalism. Following the dictates of the financier oligarchy, they have managed to successfully dash their hierarchical brains against the modern technological imperative and its stepchild, the Internet and peer to peer lateral communication.

    Their ideologically propelled mischaracterizations of Hillary's chances while the rest of us had mouse click access to the raw data, made it apparent EVEN TO THEMSELVES, that they are as blind as a Daniel Quayle potatoe. You seem not to know that he didn't spell the word wrong. Both versions are acceptable.

    Nice ignorant recycling of a rather stupid and childish lefty trope from the late 80s / early 90s.


    [May 01, 2017] Members of Congress Demand Trump Provide Legal Justification for Syria Attack

    Notable quotes:
    "... Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Rep. Adam Schiff of California sent a stern letter to the White House on Tuesday, warning that Trump could be setting a dangerous precedent for conducting pre-emptive strikes and risking war with major powers, while cutting Congress out of the picture. ..."
    "... Kaine and Schiff wrote: "These assertions of authority do not provide Congress with the information it needs to exercise our constitutional responsibilities. Nor do they provide comfort to a public that fears deeper involvement in a horrific civil war at a time when the U.S. troop presence in the region is already increasing. The legal justification for an attack on the Syrian government is not an afterthought, but rather a first order consideration, and something that is vital for the American people to understand at the outset." ..."
    "... The authors also expressed concern that the Trump administration might take pre-emptive strikes against North Korea without consulting Congress. ..."
    "... But that explanation did not satisfy a number of legal scholars , who argued that Trump's strikes were illegal without authorization. "President Trump has no constitutional authority to unilaterally commit the nation to war against Syria, which is the effect of launching cruise missiles against Syria," wrote Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project. ..."
    "... Back in 2013, when President Obama was considering strikes against Assad in retaliation for using chemical weapons, Trump tweeted that Obama "must get Congressional approval," and that it would be a "big mistake if he does not." ..."
    "... Congress in 2001 passed a resolution allowing the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" that were involved in the 9/11 terror attacks. And since then, the legislative branch has consistently ceded its authority in deciding to go to war. Bush and Obama have used the 2001 resolution to justify mass surveillance, bombing campaigns from Somalia to Pakistan, and prison operations from Afghanistan to Guantαnamo Bay, Cuba. ..."
    May 01, 2017 | theintercept.com
    Nearly three weeks after ordering a cruise missile attack against one of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad's airfields, Donald Trump has yet to explain how that was legal without congressional authorization.

    Two Democratic members of Congress are demanding that Trump offer some sort of legal justification beyond off-the-cuff remarks from administration officials.

    Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Rep. Adam Schiff of California sent a stern letter to the White House on Tuesday, warning that Trump could be setting a dangerous precedent for conducting pre-emptive strikes and risking war with major powers, while cutting Congress out of the picture.

    Two days after the missile strike, Trump sent Congress a notice that he had ordered it and that he had the "constitutional authority" to do so.

    Kaine and Schiff wrote: "These assertions of authority do not provide Congress with the information it needs to exercise our constitutional responsibilities. Nor do they provide comfort to a public that fears deeper involvement in a horrific civil war at a time when the U.S. troop presence in the region is already increasing. The legal justification for an attack on the Syrian government is not an afterthought, but rather a first order consideration, and something that is vital for the American people to understand at the outset."

    The authors also expressed concern that the Trump administration might take pre-emptive strikes against North Korea without consulting Congress.

    "While the President has the authority to use force to defend our service members and allies from an imminent threat, a preemptive strikes could easily spiral into a full-fledged war with a nuclear armed adversary," Kaine and Schiff wrote. "It is precisely because the decision to go to war is such a momentous one for any nation that the Constitution provides Congress alone with the power to declare war."

    Several administration officials have defended the Syria attack by saying that it is in U.S. interests to deter future chemical weapons strikes. But that is not the same thing as saying the attack was conducted in self-defense or in response to an imminent threat, which would at least resemble past presidents' justifications for not consulting Congress.

    Asked why Trump did not seek congressional authorization, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that "when it's in the national interest of the country the president has the full authority to act."

    But that explanation did not satisfy a number of legal scholars , who argued that Trump's strikes were illegal without authorization. "President Trump has no constitutional authority to unilaterally commit the nation to war against Syria, which is the effect of launching cruise missiles against Syria," wrote Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project.

    Back in 2013, when President Obama was considering strikes against Assad in retaliation for using chemical weapons, Trump tweeted that Obama "must get Congressional approval," and that it would be a "big mistake if he does not."

    Obama did seek congressional authorization - and it was denied, although he consistently maintained that he did not need it. At the time, Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, wrote that Obama's reasoning placed "no limit at all on the president's ability to use significant military force unilaterally."

    Congress in 2001 passed a resolution allowing the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" that were involved in the 9/11 terror attacks. And since then, the legislative branch has consistently ceded its authority in deciding to go to war. Bush and Obama have used the 2001 resolution to justify mass surveillance, bombing campaigns from Somalia to Pakistan, and prison operations from Afghanistan to Guantαnamo Bay, Cuba.

    [May 01, 2017] Noam Chomsky Abby Martin Electing The President of an Empire

    Notable quotes:
    "... To begin with, the Libertarians are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. ..."
    "... The corporation itself is based on an anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism. ..."
    "... One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations to monopolize and move wealth to the top. ..."
    "... Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries. ..."
    "... Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries. ..."
    "... The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked. ..."
    "... The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans ..."
    "... When the illiberal policies began to be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises and every time the public bails them out. ..."
    YouTube

    Stefan Adler 4 days ago

    Excellent interview. Personally I've been listening to so-called alternative media for a very long time now, more or less since about I finished school (I was reading books by Erich Fromm, Hans A. Pestalozzi and others at that time) and I read occasionally alternative newspapers and magazines.

    But this has rather dramatically changed now. In fact I more or less completely abandoned the so-called mainstream media, because at least in my opinion a big part of the mass media here in Germany has begun to turn into agencies for very radical and destructive policies designed in part by Brussels and in part by the German government. It doesn't matter which political issue you look at: The so-called refugee crisis, economical topics, the rise of right wing extremism in Germany and so on: A big part of the mainstream media systematically shifts attention away from the really interesting issues.

    Take for example the stream of refugees coming to Germany and other European countries. It could have been a starting point for the German media to discuss what the real reasons for this so-called crisis are: For example the German, British, French and other weapons exports and what they are used for. Or the ecomical policies of the European Union, which severely damages the economies of countries like Senegal or Burkina Faso. But this just doesn't happen. When you turn on the publicly financed radio stations you hear them discussing technical terms of Germans policies shutting down the European borders to stop the flow of refugees, but almost no word about what this means for the desperate people who end up there. It's a very shocking experience to basically see that even publicly financed media (which we are supposed to be proud of) stay diligently within the limits of discussion, which according to Noam's and Edward Herman's work you would expect for commercial media.

    Of course you can find journalism here which does not follow these restrictions, but in case of the publicly financed radio and news programmes you mostly have to wait until late in the evening (when most of the working population doesn't watch TV or listen to radio anymore) or turn to newspapers which are sold at only very few places. The media is in a terrible condition here nowadays, at least in my opinion.

    coldflame 1 day ago

    Siddharth Sharma 3 days ago

    Chomsky hits the nail on Bernie's campaign. The energy behind the campaign is great, but it's very likely to die after the election. Which Bernie also understands as his major hurdle. He has stated many times, about creating a political revolution, and said that Obama's biggest mistake was, that he let the mass movement that elected him die.

    Bernie wants people to be actively involved in politics, and take rational decisions. When asked how he intends to tackle Republicans while pushing for his progressive reforms, he replied(on the lines of), if his campaign was successful there won't be many Republicans to deal with. While I hope that to happen, it's rather optimistic of Bernie to think so.

    Many people are completely missing the point of his campaign, rather worshiping him as an idol, without understanding the ideals that he stands for. Sanders supporters need to be more mature and serious, as electing him President will not be a panacea; much will remain to be done.

    Callme Ishmael 5 hours ago

    Chomsky is always off the mark on American Libertarianism. To begin with, the Libertarians are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. His argument about environmental destruction are countered by arguments by Libertarians about private property and prosecution of fraud and the behavior of informed consumers in a free market. The corporation itself is based on an anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism.

    The master-servant relationship is not advocated by most Libertarians. That's absurd. And why does he think there wouldn't be any private bus systems? And no empathy or private forms of welfare?

    One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations to monopolize and move wealth to the top.

    Rodrigo Rodrigues 3 days ago

    Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries.

    Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries.

    The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked.

    He admitted he didn't deserve the prize at the presentation. He went on to praise militarism, and gave tepid support for preventive wars, a war crime. I would like to know Chomsky's opinion on Donald Trump being a candidate .

    EnnoiaBlog 2 days ago (edited)

    "The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans.' -- Noam Chomsky, in interview with Abby Martin, Oct. 24ish 2015.

    MY HERO!!!!!!!

    Chris Neglia 1 day ago (edited)

    10:00 -- "If a major financial institution gets in trouble, the government will bail it out, which happens repeatedly--only during the illiberal periods [not free / rights lacking] incidentally. There were no major failures during the 50s and 60s. When the illiberal policies began to be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises and every time the public bails them out.

    >>> Well that has consequeces. For one thing that means the credit agencies understand these corporations are high value beyond the level of what they actually do because they're gonna be bailed out. So they get good credit ratings, means they can get cheap credit, means they can get cheap loans from the government, they can undertake risky transactions which are profitable because if something goes wrong the tax payer will take care of it.

    >>>> Net result is: that amounts to practically all their profits. Is that Capitalism?"

    Nailed it Noam.

    [May 01, 2017] Hidden History: The Wall Street Coup Attempt of 1933

    Notable quotes:
    "... Prescott Bush and the Smedley Butler " Business Plot " Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America Nazis, he has praised Hitler, he talked last night in ... ..."
    jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    I wonder why this is never mentioned in history classes in the US.

    And I wonder why the US media has not frankly discussed what happened. Is it because it would embarrass powerful figures still on the scene today?

    I wonder why there is no frank discussion of the Wall Street interests who helped to finance the fascists in Europe, including the National Socialists in Germany, even during the 1940's?

    When the going gets tough, the moneyed interests seem to invariably reach for fascism to maintain the status quo.

    We keep too many things hidden 'for the sake of the system.' This obsession with secrecy is all too often the cover to hide misdeeds, incompetency, abuses of the system, and outright crimes.

    If some things cannot bear the light of day, the chances are pretty good that they can remain a festering sore and a moral hazard for the future.

    Here is a BBC documentary about what had happened.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o1KwaLa8zTQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o1KwaLa8zTQ

    Business Plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    1. VIDEO]

      General Smedley Butler & the Plot of 1933 · Corporate ...

      Click to view

      1:17:14

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3TumSVpfA
      • By Abel Danger ·
      • 3.9K views ·
      • Added Sep 27, 2013

      Mirrored from TheRapeOfJustice (exceptional channel for large library of relevant historical broadcasts and documentaries) http://www.youtube.com/user ...

    2. [PDF]

      The BBC's "Exposι" of Prescott Bush and Wall Street's ...

      valleyofsilicon.com/00_Google_resume/SmedlyButler-Coup5.pdf

      Prescott Bush and the Smedley Butler "Business Plot" Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America Nazis, he has praised Hitler, he talked last night in ...

    [May 01, 2017] Saber rattling: China and US at a dangerous military tipping point

    Notable quotes:
    "... Already there has been a blacklash. Liu Yuan, a retired Chinese general who is generally outspoken on Chinese security matters, wrote for China's state-run Global Times that the Chinese military could conduct a "surgical hard-kill operation that would destroy the target, paralyzing it and making it unable to hit back." ..."
    "... Though such military actions are unlikely, China has already forced the closing of 23 stores owned by Lotte, one of South Korea's huge family-run conglomerates (Lotte agreed to turn over a parcel of land in South Korea on which the THAAD system would be placed). State media has also encouraged Chinese citizens to boycott South Korean products, a move that, if effective, could rob major South Korean companies, like Samsung and Hyundai, of a massive consumer market. ..."
    "... THAAD is a relatively new addition to the U.S. military's missile defense arsenal. Produced by Lockheed Martin (and priced at more than $1 billion per system), THAAD consists of a battery of truck-launched interceptor missiles and a powerful X-band radar that can detect, track and target inbound missile threats. ..."
    "... In other words, THAAD can see enemy ballistic missiles coming and can knock them out of the sky as they plunge toward their targets. Unlike some missile interceptors that navigate into the proximity of a missile and then explode to destroy or deflect the incoming threat, THAAD's missiles simply slam into their targets head-on, destroying them purely through kinetic force. ..."
    "... THADD's military value is spelled out in its name. It intercepts ballistic missiles during their "terminal" phase - that is, when they have passed their apogee and begun falling toward their targets. They can intercept these missiles at very high altitudes, up to roughly 90 miles above Earth's surface. Unlike other missile defense systems, like the Patriot PAC-3 that are designed mainly to defend a particular patch of ground, THAAD's powerful AN/TPY-2 radar can both monitor and defend large areas from short- and medium-range missiles. ..."
    "... China has long vowed retaliation if the United States should deploy THAAD to South Korea, citing security concerns that center more on the radar than the interceptor missiles. THAAD's radar is powerful enough to peer into Chinese airspace, military officials there argue, allowing the United States to monitor Chinese missile tests and provide early warning of any Chinese missile launch, upsetting the strategic balance of power. ..."
    "... Radar installations in Taiwan, Japan and even Qatar already have the capacity to peer into Chinese airspace, to say nothing of the many space-based satellites that provide missile tracking and early warning capabilities to the United States. "It's not that [China's objections] are irrational, but it's more about what the deployment symbolizes than the radar's actual capability," Lewis says. ..."
    "... The United States and South Korea declared their intention to deploy THAAD to South Korea last year (and have discussed the possibility going back as far as 2013), but China's staunch opposition to the deployment and other geopolitical considerations kept the United States from doing so. ..."
    "... However, one potential negative consequence of THAAD's deployment stems from the sense of complacency that such systems can foster. THAAD can soften the effect of a missile salvo, but it's not a silver bullet for either North Korean or Chinese ballistic missile arsenals that are both growing in size and sophistication. ..."
    May 01, 2017 | www.cnbc.com
    THAAD deployment begins in South Korea on Tuesday, 7 Mar 2017

    China is lashing out at South Korea and Washington for the deployment of a powerful missile defense system known as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, deposited at the Osan Air Base in South Korea on Monday evening.

    The deployment of THAAD follows several ballistic missile tests by North Korea in recent months, including the launch of four missiles on Monday , three of which landed in the sea off the coast of Japan. Though THAAD would help South Korea protect itself from a North Korean missile attack, China is vocally protesting the deployment of the system, claiming it upsets the "strategic equilibrium" in the region because its radar will allow the United States to detect and track missiles launched from China.

    North Korean provocations aside, THAAD's arrival on the Korean Peninsula comes amid heightened tensions between the new U.S. administration and China, as well as uncertainty surrounding the U.S. military's commitment to its security relationships in the region and around the world. Within that context, THAAD's deployment packs a significant amount of symbolic firepower alongside its battery of interceptor missiles.

    Already there has been a blacklash. Liu Yuan, a retired Chinese general who is generally outspoken on Chinese security matters, wrote for China's state-run Global Times that the Chinese military could conduct a "surgical hard-kill operation that would destroy the target, paralyzing it and making it unable to hit back."

    Though such military actions are unlikely, China has already forced the closing of 23 stores owned by Lotte, one of South Korea's huge family-run conglomerates (Lotte agreed to turn over a parcel of land in South Korea on which the THAAD system would be placed). State media has also encouraged Chinese citizens to boycott South Korean products, a move that, if effective, could rob major South Korean companies, like Samsung and Hyundai, of a massive consumer market.

    South Korea is reportedly considering filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization over China's economic retaliation. The commercial ramifications of THAAD could still escalate further.

    What can THAAD do?

    THAAD is a relatively new addition to the U.S. military's missile defense arsenal. Produced by Lockheed Martin (and priced at more than $1 billion per system), THAAD consists of a battery of truck-launched interceptor missiles and a powerful X-band radar that can detect, track and target inbound missile threats.

    In other words, THAAD can see enemy ballistic missiles coming and can knock them out of the sky as they plunge toward their targets. Unlike some missile interceptors that navigate into the proximity of a missile and then explode to destroy or deflect the incoming threat, THAAD's missiles simply slam into their targets head-on, destroying them purely through kinetic force.

    THADD's military value is spelled out in its name. It intercepts ballistic missiles during their "terminal" phase - that is, when they have passed their apogee and begun falling toward their targets. They can intercept these missiles at very high altitudes, up to roughly 90 miles above Earth's surface. Unlike other missile defense systems, like the Patriot PAC-3 that are designed mainly to defend a particular patch of ground, THAAD's powerful AN/TPY-2 radar can both monitor and defend large areas from short- and medium-range missiles.

    There are a number of things THAAD cannot do, however. Given that its missiles do not contain a warhead, its batteries are fairly useless as an offensive weapon, a characteristic that some consider a feature from a political standpoint. In a statement announcing THAAD's deployment to South Korea, U.S Pacific Command was careful to note that "the THAAD system is a strictly defensive capability and it poses no threat to other countries in the region."

    Moreover, THAAD is not designed to destroy missiles while they are boosting skyward, nor can it shoot down something like an intercontinental-range ballistic missile, or ICBM. (Intermediate and intercontinental range missiles travel far too fast for systems like THAAD to target and intercept.) In a scenario in which North Korea or China were to launch missiles bound for targets in the United States, THAAD batteries in South Korea and Japan would not be able to target those weapons.

    A historical perspective

    China has long vowed retaliation if the United States should deploy THAAD to South Korea, citing security concerns that center more on the radar than the interceptor missiles. THAAD's radar is powerful enough to peer into Chinese airspace, military officials there argue, allowing the United States to monitor Chinese missile tests and provide early warning of any Chinese missile launch, upsetting the strategic balance of power.

    Following the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency in November, one Chinese official called the potential deployment of THAAD a " political weather vane " for the new U.S. administration and its relationship with China.

    "This marks a real act of courage on the part of the South Korean government, working with its American allies, to do what these two countries together feel is a necessary and appropriate action in the face of Chinese bullying." -Tom Karako, senior fellow, Center for Strategic and Int'l Studies

    But as Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterrey in California, points out, China's objection to THAAD rings somewhat hollow. Radar installations in Taiwan, Japan and even Qatar already have the capacity to peer into Chinese airspace, to say nothing of the many space-based satellites that provide missile tracking and early warning capabilities to the United States. "It's not that [China's objections] are irrational, but it's more about what the deployment symbolizes than the radar's actual capability," Lewis says.

    In other words, beyond its technical capability THAAD's deployment symbolizes further solidification of the military ties between the United States and South Korea, ties Beijing has sought to loosen for decades.

    "I think the photo op really helped seal the deal for some of the political and assurance significance," Tom Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says of the video released showing the first pieces of the THAAD system rolling off the C-17 at Osan on Monday evening. "This marks a real act of courage on the part of the South Korean government, working with its American allies, to do what these two countries together feel is a necessary and appropriate action in the face of Chinese bullying."

    If THAAD is a political weather vane, Beijing now knows which way the wind is blowing. Why is this happening now?

    The United States and South Korea declared their intention to deploy THAAD to South Korea last year (and have discussed the possibility going back as far as 2013), but China's staunch opposition to the deployment and other geopolitical considerations kept the United States from doing so.

    One reason the United States and South Korea are moving to deploy THAAD now, Lewis says, is likely due to the fact that at least one of the major political stumbling blocks has been removed. South Korean president Park Geun-hye is currently embroiled in political scandal and facing impeachment, creating a unique political opportunity for the South Korean government.

    "It's very controversial, the THAAD system," Lewis says. "And whoever comes after Park will have the system in place without the responsibility of having agreed to it." What lies ahead Consequences - intended and not - from the deployment of THAAD will continue to manifest themselves over the coming weeks and months. In terms of positive fallout, U.S.-based makers of missile defense systems like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are positioned to benefit from growing ballistic missile threats across Asia, the Middle East and Europe - threats underscored by THAAD's deployment to South Korea.

    A recent note to investors by Cowen and Co. defense analyst Roman Schweizer cites both Lockheed Martin (maker of THAAD) and Raytheon (maker of various interceptor missiles, as well as components of THAAD's radar and tracking systems) as likely beneficiaries of an ongoing uptick in global defense expenditures, in large part due to their missile defense technology.

    However, one potential negative consequence of THAAD's deployment stems from the sense of complacency that such systems can foster. THAAD can soften the effect of a missile salvo, but it's not a silver bullet for either North Korean or Chinese ballistic missile arsenals that are both growing in size and sophistication.

    "They're missiles, and this is missile defense, and for a lot of people that checks all the boxes," Lewis says. "The unintended consequence I can see is that you don't want the South Korean people to think this solves the North Korean missile problem, because it doesn't."

    - By Clay Dillow, special to CNBC.com

    [May 01, 2017] Strategies for resisting right-wing populism

    May 01, 2017 | understandingsociety.blogspot.com
    Apr 29, 2017

    A more comprehensive attempt at an answer to the question, why is populism on the rise?, is suggested in the concluding chapter of the volume in an interview with Jurgen Habermas. Habermas calls out several factors in the past twenty-five years that have led to a rising appeal of right-wing populism among large segments of the populations of democratic countries in Europe and the United States. First among these factors is the steep and continuing increase in inequalities that neoliberal economies brought about since 1989. He believes that this trend could only be offset by an active state policy of social welfare -- the policies of social democracy -- and that advanced capitalist democracies have retreated from such policies.

    Second, he highlights the deliberate politics and rhetoric of the right in both Europe and the United States in pursuing a politics of division and resentment. People suffer; and politicians aim their resentment at vulnerable others.

    Third, Habermas emphasizes the fact that neoliberal globalization has not delivered on the promises made on its behalf in the 1970s, that globalization will improve everyone's standard of living. In fact, he argues that globalization has led to stagnation of living standards in many countries and has led to an overall decline of the importance of the western capitalist economies within the global system overall. This trend in turn has given new energy to the nationalistic forces underlying right-wing populism.

    So what advice does Habermas offer to the progressive parties in western democracies? He argues that the progressive left needs to confront the root of the problem -- the increasing inequalities that exist both nationally and internationally. Moreover, he argues that this will require substantial international cooperation:

    The question is why left-wing parties do not go on the offensive against social inequality by embarking upon a co-ordinated and cross-border taming of unregulated markets. As a sensible alternative – as much to the status quo of feral financial capitalism as to the agenda for a vφlkisch or left-nationalist retreat into the supposed sovereignty of long-since hollowed-out nation states – I would suggest there is only a supranational form of co-operation that pursues the goal of shaping a socially acceptable political reconfiguration of economic globalisation. (Kindle Locations 566-569)
    In Habermas's judgment, the fundamental impetus to right-wing populism was the cooptation of "social-democrat" parties like the Democratic Party in the United States and the Labour Party in Britain by the siren song of neoliberalism:
    Since Clinton, Blair and Schrφder social democrats have swung over to the prevailing neoliberal line in economic policies because that was or seemed to be promising in the political sense: in the "battle for the middle ground" these political parties thought they could win majorities only by adopting the neoliberal course of action. This meant taking on board toleration of long-standing and growing social inequalities. Meantime, this price – the economic and socio-cultural "hanging out to dry" of ever-greater parts of the populace – has clearly risen so high that the reaction to it has gone over to the right. (Kindle Locations 573-578)
    So what is the path to broad support for the progressive left? It is to be progressive -- to confront the root cause of the economic stagnation of the working class people whose lives are increasingly precarious and whose standard of living has not advanced materially in twenty-five years.
    But this requires being willing to open up a completely different front in domestic politics and doing so by making the above-mentioned problem the key point at issue: How do we regain the political initiative vis-ΰ-vis the destructive forces of unbridled capitalist globalisation? Instead, the political scene is predominantly grey on grey, where, for example, the left-wing pro-globalisation agenda of giving a political shape to a global society growing together economically and digitally can no longer be distinguished from the neoliberal agenda of political abdication to the blackmailing power of the banks and of the unregulated markets. (Kindle Locations 590-595)

    [Apr 30, 2017] The Madder Trump Gets, the More Seriously the World Takes Him

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally appeared. ..."
    "... And my hope still is that Trump will prevent NATO and EU war on Russia, the war that indeed will end al wars, as already Wilson wanted, because this war will end all human life. ..."
    "... How it then ends is well described in the novel On the Beach, Neville Shute, 1953, the New Zealand government distributing suicide pills when the radio active dust reaches the island. ..."
    "... Trump got elected by declaring himself the enemy of international Zionist globalist bankers. Once in the White House he folded to their demands. He is now Clinton/Obama Mk 3. ..."
    "... ..."
    Apr 25, 2017 | www.unz.com
    It's one thing to have a lunatic in the White House who watches late night television and tweets all day. But when the same lunatic goes to war, it now emerges, he's a safer bet for democracy, a strong President who stands up to tyrants (unless they happen to be Saudis, Turks or Egyptians) and who acts out of human emotion rather than cynicism.

    How else can one account for the extraordinary report in The New York Times which recorded how Trump's "anguish" at the film of dying Syrian babies had led him to abandon "isolationism"?

    Americans like action, but have typically confused Trump's infantile trigger finger with mature decision-making. What else is there to think when a normally sane US columnist like David Ignatius suddenly compares Trump to Harry Truman and praises his demented President for his "flexibility" and "pragmatism"?

    This is preposterous. A madman who goofs off at something he doesn't like on CNN is just plain wacky. A man of unsound mind who attacks three Muslim countries – two of which were included in his seven Muslim nation refugee ban – is a danger to the world. Yet the moment he fires 59 missiles at Syria after more than 60 civilians die in an apparent chemical attack which he blames on Assad – but none after far more are massacred by a Syrian suicide bomber – even Angela Merkel takes leave of her senses and praises Trump, along with the Matron of Downing Street, Signora Mogherini and sundry other potentates. Hasn't someone cottoned on to the fact that Trump is now taking America into a shooting war?

    Handing more power to the Pentagon – about the most perilous act of any US President – means that Defence Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis is now encouraging the head-chopping Saudis to bomb Yemen – adding even more American intelligence "assets" to this criminal enterprise - and encouraging the Gulf Arabs' delusional idea that Iran wants to conquer the Arab world. "Everywhere you look," Mattis told his Saudi hosts this month, "if there's trouble in the region, you find Iran."

    Is that the case with Egypt, then, now under Isis attack as its President "disappears" thousands of his own people? Is that the case in Turkey whose even more crazed President has now locked up tens of thousands of his own people while turning himself into a dictator-by-law?

    Let's just briefly take a look at Trump's reaction to Recep Tayyip Erdogan's dodgy referendum, which has given him a Caliph's power over Turkey. A round-up of the latest figures from Turkey by the French newspaper Liberation show that there have been 47,000 arrests since last year's attempted coup, 140,000 passports revoked, 120,000 men and women fired from their jobs (including 8,000 military officers, 5,000 academics, 4,000 judges and lawyers, 65 mayors and 2,000 journalists). One thousand two hundred schools and 15 universities have been closed down, 170 newspapers, television and radio stations shut.

    And after the referendum which gave Erdogan a narrow (if very dubious) majority to legitimise these outrages, Trump called the Turkish President to congratulate him on his victory. Just as he continues to congratulate Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi in his "battle" against "terror", a war which al-Sisi – whose coup d'etat against Egypt's first elected president originally brought him to power – appears to be losing. Al-Sisi, Trump enthused, would be someone "very close to him".

    We know that the US Special Forces raid on Yemen, in which Navy Seal William Owens died, killed more civilians than al-Qaeda members. We don't know (or, I suspect, care) very much what the "mother of all bombs" did in the Nangahar province of Afghanistan. First it killed 60 Isis fighters. Then it killed 100 Isis fighters and not a single civilian – surely a first in US military history? But then, weirdly, nobody has been allowed to go to the site of this monster bomb's explosion. Because civilians were indeed killed? Or because – and this is a fact – Isis survivors went on fighting American ground troops after the bombing?

    Now Trump is sending a naval battle group to threaten North Korea, a past master at childish threats itself. Ye gods! And this is a man who is now "flexible" and "pragmatic"? It's instructive to note that after its first edition, The New York Times changed its headline about Trump's Syrian "anguish" to "Trump Upends His Own Foreign Policy", still gifting him with a "foreign policy" (which doesn't exist) while cutting out the "anguish". I am told the first original edition headline read: "On Syria Attack, Trump's Heart Came First". Intriguing. If that is correct, you can see how The New York Times slowly – far too slowly – realised it had itself started to fall in love with its shooting-from-the-hip President.

    Now we await the battle for Korea, forgetting that earlier war which drowned the peninsula in blood, American and British as well as Korean and Chinese. Maybe Trump, in his vague, frightening way, has decided that Southeast Asia will be his real war. And there, of course, the comparison with Truman gets rather too close to home. For Truman only came in at the end of the Second World War, after Roosevelt's death, and his crowning wartime achievement was also in Southeast Asia: the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Heaven spare us the next 100 days.

    Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally appeared.

    jilles dykstra, April 27, 2017 at 6:29 am GMT

    I still do not see Trump as a crackpot.

    Though I'm not sure about his ideas I still hope that he will end USA militarism, not because out of moral ideas, but because he sees, and his rich friends, that pursuing the goal of USA world hegemony will, or has already, ruined the USA.

    The attack on Syria, and his warlike talk about N Korea, hogwash to confuse Deep State, and to satisfy his voters. The Dutch professor Laslo Maracs, university of Amsterdam, explains all this eloquently, alas only in Dutch, as far as I know.

    And my hope still is that Trump will prevent NATO and EU war on Russia, the war that indeed will end al wars, as already Wilson wanted, because this war will end all human life.

    How it then ends is well described in the novel On the Beach, Neville Shute, 1953, the New Zealand government distributing suicide pills when the radio active dust reaches the island.

    ThereisaGod , April 27, 2017 at 7:31 am GMT

    Trump got elected by declaring himself the enemy of international Zionist globalist bankers. Once in the White House he folded to their demands. He is now Clinton/Obama Mk 3.

    Ignatius (not "normally sensible" but normally a blood-sucking Zionist warmonger) applauds Trump for his betrayal of those who elected him, for his submission to the usual suspects . by the way this guy (see below) explains what the power is that obedience-monkeys like Trump (and, more importantly, the rest of us) actually serve:

    https://youtu.be/nEpcY5JU120

    Art , April 27, 2017 at 7:35 am GMT
    Trump underestimated the problems he was going to have in government. It is true – he is a good business negotiator – he has proven himself at making business deals. The goal of the participants in a business deal is to create an ongoing business. The all-encompassing goal of government is to maintain power – second is getting things done. Trump must learn a new game – he must learn the game power. The first rule of power is you need to instill fear – you need to take someone out!

    Trump must use government power to crush someone (not twitter). Trump must take one of those jerk judges immediately to the supreme court. Trump needs to stick something that Schumer really wants, right where the sun don't shine. Using government power, Trump needs to make an example of some media person.

    Trump dropped some bombs and the world now has respect – that's power politics.

    He needs to do the same domestically.

    Zogby , April 27, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT
    Trump is not a mysogynist, just a straight horny male. With the rest I agree.
    jilles dykstra , April 27, 2017 at 9:41 am GMT
    100 Words @ThereisaGod Trump got elected by declaring himself the enemy of international Zionist globalist bankers.

    Once in the White House he folded to their demands.
    He is now Clinton/Obama Mk 3.

    Ignatius (not "normally sensible" but normally a blood-sucking Zionist warmonger) applauds Trump for his betrayal of those who elected him, for his submission to the usual suspects .... by the way ... this guy (see below) explains what the power is that obedience-monkeys like Trump (and, more importantly, the rest of us) actually serve:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEpcY5JU120&t=543s It is not easy, if that is what Trump wants, to turn around the policy of a country, that has been followed since Pearl Harbour.
    The one and only period that the USA was not imperialistic was from 1919, when the American people discovered why their sons had died in Europe, until 1933, when Roosevelt got power. Read More

    Robert Magill , April 27, 2017 at 10:16 am GMT
    100 Words Donald Trump evokes in us the same distortion of reality as a funhouse mirror at an amusement park.
    Apparently no one is immune to the phenomenon. Maybe it's black magic. Maybe it's Jungian.

    Whatever it is; it's pretty dark. In fact, the Trump effect on us has become a Litmus Test of more

    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/black-magic-or-jungian-shadow/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    dearieme , April 27, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT
    @Wizard of Oz Just sometimes Robert Fisk says something interesting and convincing, or at least, believable. But what is one to make of his expert knowledge if he thinks Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in SE Asia? "what is one to make of his expert knowledge if he thinks Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in SE Asia?"

    Maybe they were in 1945. Plates drift.

    Or maybe he's just woefully ignorant of the meaning of South East? That's what my money's on. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    naro , April 27, 2017 at 11:25 am GMT
    Robert Fisk the Iranian shill, and secret Shiia convert, doesn't even know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are NOT in Southeast Asia. Thank God that Trump and Israel are a lot smarter than this turd. Read More
    Sean , April 27, 2017 at 11:29 am GMT
    @jilles dykstra It is not easy, if that is what Trump wants, to turn around the policy of a country, that has been followed since Pearl Harbour.
    The one and only period that the USA was not imperialistic was from 1919, when the American people discovered why their sons had died in Europe, until 1933, when Roosevelt got power. The last American occupation troops did not leave Germany until the 1930′s. Read More
    Logan , April 27, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT
    @Wizard of Oz Just sometimes Robert Fisk says something interesting and convincing, or at least, believable. But what is one to make of his expert knowledge if he thinks Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in SE Asia? SE, NE, at this point in time what difference does it make? Read More
    jacques sheete , April 27, 2017 at 11:46 am GMT
    200 Words Trump, the malleable Chimp, is just the latest iteration of Cleopatra's monkeys, and the mask is off.

    It's now reported that Trump just did a NAFTA flip-flop.

    But at least the boob isn't Hillary, and maybe his simian antics will awaken a few more people to the reality of the futility of our political systems.

    All the dreamers ought to wake up to the fact that the Amerika of their fantasies has been dead for some time, and will never be resurrected.

    Somewhat different circumstances, but the idea is the same:

    22 1 Scipio, when he looked upon the city as it was utterly perishing and in the last throes of its complete destruction, is said to have shed tears and wept openly for his enemies. 2 After being wrapped in thought for long, and realizing that all cities, nations, and authorities must, like men, meet their doom; that this happened to Ilium, once a prosperous city, to the empires of Assyria, Media, and Persia, the greatest of their time, and to Macedonia itself, the brilliance of which was so recent, either deliberately or the verses escaping him, he said:
    A day will come when sacred Troy shall perish,
    And Priam and his people shall be slain.1

    1 Iliad VI.448 9.

    -POLYBIUS , THE HISTORIES,Fragments of Book XXXVIII, p389

    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/polybius/38*.html

    Me? I ain't shedding any tears for any stinking state! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Sean , April 27, 2017 at 11:53 am GMT
    100 Words @Abdul Alhazred Actually its the British!....well they are bloody insane!
    Anyone who says they reserve the right to make a thermonuclear "First Strike" is totally mad.

    https://larouchepac.com/20170426/brits-nuclear-first-strike-jolly-good Anyone who wants to stage a preemptive nuclear attack wouldn't say so beforehand. No-one can come up with a scenario in which Britain would ever first use nukes, so refusing to rule it out is simply the practice of confronting potential aggression with uncertain consequences though being slow to say what you will do, and never saying what you won't.

    Lets be clear: the British nukes are out in subs and if they got the coded order to fire off a first use strike (for some reason we cannot yet imagine) the Trident captain and crew would obey the command. Any statement to the contrary made by some politician on BBC radio years before is going to be bloody irrelevant. Read More

    Sean , April 27, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT
    100 Words Fisk writes as if the current US president's puny actions are the cause of wars and despotism all around the globe, although many like the Yemen have seen the same sides fighting for five decades, wich an altered cast of outside help. They are are rooted in local conditions, all these things Fisk is complaining about. He sometime talks as if the Middle east would settle down in a trice without the US. But America is just a country, big and strong, but still in need of allies.Even if America decided to withdraw from all involvement, It cannot halt others' interventions in local conflicts by washing US hands clean. Fisk implies otherwise. Read More
    quercusalba , April 27, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT
    200 Words I must disagree with Fisk on a number of his statements and to my surprise and chagrin he sounds almost unhinged in his article. Excuse me, but the misogynist claim is just too juvenile and so terribly, terribly boring. And those admittedly predominately Muslim countries from whom Trump wishes to ban immigration - they are also countries (with the exception of Iran, and we all know why it is on the list) which have no effective governments (thanks in good measure to policies of these United States), as a result there is very little background information available to our immigration officials for anyone wishing to come here from one of those countries. Wanting to find an improved 'vetting' process for such an individuals is prudent.

    I found Trump's rhetoric about the 'alleged' chemical weapons use in Syria troubling to say the least. His authorization to bomb that airport though seemed like a pinprick action (to my delight) and appeared to be an action to shut up his critics. I'm unsure if that is so, of course.

    Trump's tweeting is not 'crazed'. It is his only means to get out his own message as an extremely hostile and biased news media is not going to do it.

    It is very hard to know what is true and what is not true anymore. I don't think Fisk in this possesses the truth anymore than the rest of us. Read More

    jacques sheete , April 27, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT
    @Gleimhart The Trump Derangement Syndrome at Unz has gotten really tiring.

    And no, not everyone gives the least crap about his "misogyny." Not me, anyway.

    This site gets more anti-American by the day. Screw you leftwing dirtbags.

    This site gets more anti-American by the day.

    Which America you talkin about? The one it's become or the one in your dreams?

    If you loved what America is supposed to stand for, you'd also be against what it's become.

    You want a pity party er sumpin? Go elsewhere. Read More Agree: RadicalCenter

    War for Blair Mountain , April 27, 2017 at 12:35 pm GMT
    I'm looking forward to seeing the cockroach Ivanka Trump being prosecuted for War Crimes Read More Agree: Stephen R. Diamond Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Wizard of Oz , April 27, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT
    @Logan SE, NE, at this point in time what difference does it make? Indeed, why not the North Pole if you are aspiring to be an obscurely oracular pundit. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Agent76 , April 27, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT
    Apr 22, 2017 How Reality Is Being Manufactured

    Apr 9, 2017 No More

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    nsa , April 27, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT
    Good to see the vile jooie trolls (((naroberg, seanstein, gleimowitz))) showing up early today to defend their butt boy, Der Swampster. You lads ever worry about the white and black trash masses catching on to you IzzyFirster traitors? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anthony Chigurh , April 27, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT
    Crackpot?

    Misogyny?

    Where am I? The Guardian? What is this leftist trash? What has happened to Unz? This place was one of the last ones. Read More

    Moi , April 27, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT
    @Art Trump underestimated the problems he was going to have in government.

    It is true – he is a good business negotiator – he has proven himself at making business deals. The goal of the participants in a business deal is to create an ongoing business.

    The all-encompassing goal of government is to maintain power – second is getting things done.

    Trump must learn a new game – he must learn the game power.

    The first rule of power is you need to instill fear – you need to take someone out!

    Trump must use government power to crush someone (not twitter). Trump must take one of those jerk judges immediately to the supreme court. Trump needs to stick something that Schumer really wants, right where the sun don't shine. Using government power, Trump needs to make an example of some media person.

    Trump dropped some bombs and the world now has respect – that's power politics.

    He needs to do the same domestically. C'mon, Trump filed for bankruptcy FOUR times! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Rurik , April 27, 2017 at 1:56 pm GMT
    400 Words

    Yet the moment he fires 59 missiles at Syria after more than 60 civilians die in an apparent chemical attack which he blames on Assad – but none after far more are massacred by a Syrian suicide bomber – even Angela Merkel takes leave of her senses and praises Trump, along with the Matron of Downing Street, Signora Mogherini and sundry other potentates. Hasn't someone cottoned on to the fact that Trump is now taking America into a shooting war?

    Well Fisk, having been pontificating about Middle Eastern issues for quite a long time, haven't you cottoned to the fact that Merkel and the "Matron of Downing Street" and all the rest of these whores of the Zio-West are nothing more than quislings for the international PTB (Rothschild/Soros, et al)?

    I mean how ******** dumb can you be not to know that it's Israel that wants Assad out, and that just like with Saddam and Gadhafi and all the rest, it is Israel's bidding that is getting done here with all these serial and myriad atrocities and war crimes. Duh fucking duh!

    And if Merkel and May and the entire length and breath of the CIA controlled msm are finally happy about something Trump did, then it's only because what he did pleases the Likudicks in Israel. Duh.

    For a man of Fisk's stature in the realm of journalism to pretend that Merkel and May are acting the way they are independent of nefarious banking/war mongering/Zio-forces in the Western world is what is truly preposterous. Note to Fisk, Merkel and May are controlled, just like that other little bitch of Zion, Toady Blair.

    What would Mr. Fisk make of this video I wonder. A remarkable coincidence?!

    When Fisk pretends that there's no comprehensible reason for why the NYT all in the sudden gushes over Trump once he starts bombing Israel's foes, then you know it's all just dishonest blather.

    Perhaps Mr. Fisk is simply 'smart' enough to understand the score, and like all intellectual whores, use his pen to obscure the truth, and please the PTB, rather than tempt them like Dr. Udo Ulfkotte did. Eh Robert?

    As for N. Korea, whenever you want to understand the id of the Zio-Fiend, just look to this guy

    "The North Koreans - this very erratic, unstable regime - may soon have the capability to harm us directly," Bolton said in an interview with John Catsimatidis that aired Sunday on New York's AM 970

    http://thehill.com/policy/international/330080-former-un-ambassador-it-only-gets-worse-with-north-korea

    when Bolton says "harm *us* directly", he isn't talking about the US now is he? Read More

    jilles dykstra , April 27, 2017 at 1:56 pm GMT
    @Sean The last American occupation troops did not leave Germany until the 1930's. The WWII occupation troops never left. Read More
    jilles dykstra , April 27, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT
    200 Words @quercusalba I must disagree with Fisk on a number of his statements and to my surprise and chagrin he sounds almost unhinged in his article. Excuse me, but the misogynist claim is just too juvenile and so terribly, terribly boring. And those admittedly predominately Muslim countries from whom Trump wishes to ban immigration -- they are also countries (with the exception of Iran, and we all know why it is on the list) which have no effective governments (thanks in good measure to policies of these United States), as a result there is very little background information available to our immigration officials for anyone wishing to come here from one of those countries. Wanting to find an improved 'vetting' process for such an individuals is prudent.

    I found Trump's rhetoric about the 'alleged' chemical weapons use in Syria troubling to say the least. His authorization to bomb that airport though seemed like a pinprick action (to my delight) and appeared to be an action to shut up his critics. I'm unsure if that is so, of course.

    Trump's tweeting is not 'crazed'. It is his only means to get out his own message as an extremely hostile and biased news media is not going to do it.

    It is very hard to know what is true and what is not true anymore. I don't think Fisk in this possesses the truth anymore than the rest of us. I speak four languages, it is amazingly simple in these internet times, by comparing 'news', to find out, not always dead sure, what the truth is.

    On MH370 I still do not have more than suspicion, the USA again, the plane carried two groups of Chinese technicians experts in making planes invisible for radar.
    The control of the plane was taken from the crew, from the outside, this is nowadays possible with any modern plane, on sept 11 there was a problem.
    I suppose this failure led to some improvements.

    MH17, someone leaked a secret Australian report, Ukraine used passenger jet flights as human shields for their bombers.
    A BUK was nevertheless fired, dit not hit an Ukrainian bomber, but a passenger flight.
    Dutch prime minister the afternoon of the carnage made a very secret phone call to his vice prime minister, the call had to be over a land line, the vice was so stupid to state in public, 'because the Russians should not be able to listen to the call'.
    At that moment officially Rutte, prime minister, knew nothing about the cause.
    The only conclusion possible for me is that he did know, and told Asscher, vice, that the Russians should be blamed.

    Once one has understood who perpetrated sept 11, resulting in a very cynical view on politics, Ockam's Razor often gives the truth. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Rurik , April 27, 2017 at 2:11 pm GMT
    @Sean The last American occupation troops did not leave Germany until the 1930's.

    The last American occupation troops did not leave Germany until the 1930′s.

    they never left..

    they're still there

    how many US military bases are there on German soil today? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Rurik , April 27, 2017 at 2:15 pm GMT
    100 Words @Sean Fisk writes as if the current US president's puny actions are the cause of wars and despotism all around the globe, although many like the Yemen have seen the same sides fighting for five decades, wich an altered cast of outside help. They are are rooted in local conditions, all these things Fisk is complaining about. He sometime talks as if the Middle east would settle down in a trice without the US. But America is just a country, big and strong, but still in need of allies.Even if America decided to withdraw from all involvement, It cannot halt others' interventions in local conflicts by washing US hands clean. Fisk implies otherwise.

    Even if America decided to withdraw from all involvement, It cannot halt others' interventions in local conflicts by washing US hands clean. Fisk implies otherwise.

    as an American, I'm worried about our hands (souls) being clean

    if you want to go suit up for the IDF and get involved with interventions, then be my guest, but America needs to come home (like Trump promised)

    no more wars for Israel

    wouldn't you agree Sean? Read More

    Sam Shama , April 27, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT
    Although some of Trump's actions appear erratic, the much loftier and worthy goal of fixing and rebuilding the world remains intact.

    Trump and Pence are good men, their qualities, underestimated by many. Read More LOL: Astuteobservor II , L.K

    Che Guava , April 27, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT
    100 Words

    battle for Korea Trump, in his vague, frightening way, has decided that Southeast Asia will be his real

    [Truman's] crowning wartime achievement was also in Southeast Asia: the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    I never knew that Japan and the Koreas were in south-east Asia.

    Are the winters a collective delusion? Does it mean that parts of Russia and China are the only places in north-east Asia or even that there *is* no north-east Asia?

    Oh no! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Biff , April 27, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT
    Little geography lesson for Fisk – Hiroshima is not in Southeast Asia. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Mark Green , Website April 27, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT
    600 Words Fisk should have mentioned Trump's special affection for Israel and his unconditional support of Israeli militarism and Israeli brutality. This is key.

    Zio-Washington's double-standards vis-a-vis Israel are at the root of ongoing US lawlessness. No bilateral arrangement in our nation's history epitomizes this moral/political fraud better. Washington's 'unshakable' alliance with the Zionist entity is artificial. Americans do not benefit by this arrangement. In fact, the opposite is true. Yet no one says a word. It's taboo.

    Fragile, dubious myths involving US (and Israeli) exceptionalism endure and in plain view; this despite the fact that America (the 'proposition nation') is wedded to the ideas of 'Equality' and 'Freedom'.

    Sure we are–except when it doesn't suit us; except when it doesn't suit Israel.

    Thus, enforced inequality is just peachy in Israel. And American supremacism is how Washington implements its foreign policies. Zio-Washington decides.

    Thus, when it comes to defending the rights and interests of Palestine or Iran or Syria, principles involving freedom, equality and sovereignty are sidelined. And any references to 'existential threats' are reserved for you-know-who. It's a one-way street.

    Lesser peoples and 'bad' countries are not entitled to invoke their own interests and entitlements. Israel on the other hand, always is.

    Indeed, Trump's preemptive missile attack on Syria is a great example of Zio-American privilege and Zio-American lawlessness. Legal restraints are for other nations. Not Zio-America. When Zio-Washington gets upset, Zio-Washington gets to invade and bomb sovereign states, even though these same states have not attacked us.

    Washington has not only become 'the world's policeman', but the world's judge and jury.

    Both the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention however identify aggressive war (including a 'first strike') as the supreme international crime. Shouldn't this matter?

    Double-standard are nevertheless used routinely by Israel and Washington. This allows them to initiate serial warfare that lacks a clear legal foundation. It's all ad hoc. It subverts the rule of law.

    And our pro-Zionist MSM sanitizes this conduct and worldview.

    Special counties (and we know who they are) are therefore not bound by cumbersome restrictions that were designed to prevent war, expansion and aggression. Feelings and 'outrage' now matter more. This is part and parcel of Zio-American exceptionalism. Laws and ethics have been downgraded to accommodate political objectives and feelings.

    This is why Trump's anti-Assad 'outrage' (and subsequent missile attack) did not focus on aggressive war or the unjustified killing of civilians. Because if it did, Zio-Washington would be caught with its own pants down.

    Instead, Trump got weepy over the type of weapons used to kill civilians–not the slaughter itself.

    After all, we 'good guys' kill civilians all the time. And in massive quantities.

    The flimsy moral principle underlying Trump's strike on Syria strike is this:

    Gas is uncool. But missiles are perfectly fine.

    Gas, remember, is reminiscent of the Holocaust. And that's a no-no!

    Hidden within this fake moral paradigm is the message to always respect Jewish taboos (!) when initiating violence. Kill properly.

    These ethical distinctions however are politicized and empty. Murder is still murder. Aggression is still aggression. When will Zio-Washington take a look in the mirror?

    This declining level of moral thinking undermines real legal principles. Possessing nuclear weapons (and threatening to use them) has become 'OK' for exceptional nations but 'evil' when bad (anti-Israel) nations follow suit. And it's Zio-Washington alone that gets to decide which is which and who is who.

    This chicanery confers unique privilege. Our Zionized media gives cover to this fraud.

    Fisk does correctly note that Trump is being steered into a pattern of malevolent neoconservatism. This means war. Ironically, as Trump reverses the stated policies and goals that got him elected (and in the direction of neocon aggression) the MSM has done a similar about-face (supporting Trump).

    Trump is finally 'acting presidential'!

    These deceptions and grotesque fairy tales benefit global militarists, government careerists, and of course, Zionists. Read More Agree: anarchyst

    Che Guava , April 27, 2017 at 2:36 pm GMT
    @jilles dykstra The WWII occupation troops never left. . . . and ROFL at Sean's

    did not leave Germany until the 1930′s.

    That is so strange, a typo can't explain it.

    Alternative reality? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    War for Blair Mountain , April 27, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT
    The NeoCohen Spherial Cow Symmetrical Implosion Orange Head Glow Suicide Club!!!!

    How do you day this in Russian? Read More

    Che Guava , April 27, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
    @Rurik

    Yet the moment he fires 59 missiles at Syria after more than 60 civilians die in an apparent chemical attack which he blames on Assad – but none after far more are massacred by a Syrian suicide bomber – even Angela Merkel takes leave of her senses and praises Trump, along with the Matron of Downing Street, Signora Mogherini and sundry other potentates. Hasn't someone cottoned on to the fact that Trump is now taking America into a shooting war?
    Well Fisk, having been pontificating about Middle Eastern issues for quite a long time, haven't you cottoned to the fact that Merkel and the "Matron of Downing Street" and all the rest of these whores of the Zio-West are nothing more than quislings for the international PTB (Rothschild/Soros, et al)?

    I mean how ******** dumb can you be not to know that it's Israel that wants Assad out, and that just like with Saddam and Gadhafi and all the rest, it is Israel's bidding that is getting done here with all these serial and myriad atrocities and war crimes. Duh fucking duh!

    And if Merkel and May and the entire length and breath of the CIA controlled msm are finally happy about something Trump did, then it's only because what he did pleases the Likudicks in Israel. Duh.

    For a man of Fisk's stature in the realm of journalism to pretend that Merkel and May are acting the way they are independent of nefarious banking/war mongering/Zio-forces in the Western world is what is truly preposterous. Note to Fisk, Merkel and May are controlled, just like that other little bitch of Zion, Toady Blair.

    What would Mr. Fisk make of this video I wonder. A remarkable coincidence?!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFEudf8NOuY

    When Fisk pretends that there's no comprehensible reason for why the NYT all in the sudden gushes over Trump once he starts bombing Israel's foes, then you know it's all just dishonest blather.

    Perhaps Mr. Fisk is simply 'smart' enough to understand the score, and like all intellectual whores, use his pen to obscure the truth, and please the PTB, rather than tempt them like Dr. Udo Ulfkotte did. Eh Robert?

    As for N. Korea, whenever you want to understand the id of the Zio-Fiend, just look to this guy


    "The North Koreans - this very erratic, unstable regime - may soon have the capability to harm us directly," Bolton said in an interview with John Catsimatidis that aired Sunday on New York's AM 970
    http://thehill.com/policy/international/330080-former-un-ambassador-it-only-gets-worse-with-north-korea

    when Bolton says "harm *us* directly", he isn't talking about the US now is he? Rurik,

    I was just going to press 'Agree', but your last sentence mystifies me.

    Bolton was, as usual, talking out of his arse, but assuming sincerity on his part (with great strain), which *us* do you think he meant? Read More

    War for Blair Mountain , April 27, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT
    @War for Blair Mountain The NeoCohen Spherial Cow Symmetrical Implosion Orange Head Glow Suicide Club!!!!


    How do you day this in Russian? The NeoCohen Fat Boy Trump Spherical Cow Symmetrical Explosion Orange Day Glow Shockwave Suicide Club!!!! topped off with the Slovenian Slut's SCRUMPTIOUS CHOCOLATE CAKE!!!! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Anonymous White Male , April 27, 2017 at 2:57 pm GMT
    @Anthony Chigurh Crackpot?

    Misogyny?

    Where am I? The Guardian? What is this leftist trash? What has happened to Unz? This place was one of the last ones. Since I have been reading Utz, there have always been articles posted by leftist authors. I don't think Steve Sailer or the others agree with them. I think it is a know your enemy kind of thing. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Anonymous White Male , April 27, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT
    @jacques sheete

    This site gets more anti-American by the day.
    Which America you talkin about? The one it's become or the one in your dreams?

    If you loved what America is supposed to stand for, you'd also be against what it's become.

    You want a pity party er sumpin? Go elsewhere. What is America "supposed" to stand for and when was this agreed upon by anyone? Facts, remember. Not your "opinion". Read More Troll: jacques sheete Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Rurik , April 27, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT
    @Sam Shama Although some of Trump's actions appear erratic, the much loftier and worthy goal of fixing and rebuilding the world remains intact.

    Trump and Pence are good men, their qualities, underestimated by many.

    Although some of Trump's actions appear erratic, the much loftier and worthy goal of fixing and rebuilding the world remains intact.

    tikkun olam = stealing the Golan Heights?

    who knew? Read More

    Rurik , April 27, 2017 at 3:14 pm GMT
    100 Words @Che Guava Rurik,

    I was just going to press 'Agree', but your last sentence mystifies me.

    Bolton was, as usual, talking out of his arse, but assuming sincerity on his part (with great strain), which *us* do you think he meant?

    which *us* do you think he meant?

    Hey Che,

    when someone like Bolton says 'they directly threaten us'

    you can take it to the bank that the "us" he's referring to is Israel

    us, the Jews

    he purports to mean the American people, but anyone on the planet who knows the first thing about Ziocons like Bolton, know damn well he'd see virtually every single American goyim ground up into the dirt rather that see one fingernail on one Jewish hand suffer harm.

    N. Korea does not threaten America or our interests. If anything, it threatens its neighbors. And if so, then our trading partner China could effectively deal with it.

    the only reason N. Korea is in the crosshairs is because somehow Israel considers it a threat Read More

    JoaoAlfaiate , April 27, 2017 at 3:18 pm GMT
    100 Words Syria and Hizbollah represent resistance to Israel and its client state, the USA. So when Trump attacked Syria he was immediately praised by the ziocohen controlled American media and Congress who have consistently placed Israeli interests ahead of American interests. This is by no means a new development in world affairs and I am surprised that Fisk is surprised. I'm guessing that the only folks who were really shocked were the people who believed what Trump said during his campaign about the uselessness of US intervention in the Middle East and how he was going to change US policy . Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Sam Shama , April 27, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT
    @Rurik

    Although some of Trump's actions appear erratic, the much loftier and worthy goal of fixing and rebuilding the world remains intact.
    tikkun olam = stealing the Golan Heights?

    who knew? Why spew the common nonsense? Read More

    Socrates , April 27, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT
    American slaves, wake up and run for the mountains! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Rurik , April 27, 2017 at 3:32 pm GMT
    200 Words @Mark Green Fisk should have mentioned Trump's special affection for Israel and his unconditional support of Israeli militarism and Israeli brutality. This is key.

    Zio-Washington's double-standards vis-a-vis Israel are at the root of ongoing US lawlessness. No bilateral arrangement in our nation's history epitomizes this moral/political fraud better. Washington's 'unshakable' alliance with the Zionist entity is artificial. Americans do not benefit by this arrangement. In fact, the opposite is true. Yet no one says a word. It's taboo.

    Fragile, dubious myths involving US (and Israeli) exceptionalism endure and in plain view; this despite the fact that America (the 'proposition nation') is wedded to the ideas of 'Equality' and 'Freedom'.

    Sure we are--except when it doesn't suit us; except when it doesn't suit Israel.

    Thus, enforced inequality is just peachy in Israel. And American supremacism is how Washington implements its foreign policies. Zio-Washington decides.

    Thus, when it comes to defending the rights and interests of Palestine or Iran or Syria, principles involving freedom, equality and sovereignty are sidelined. And any references to 'existential threats' are reserved for you-know-who. It's a one-way street.

    Lesser peoples and 'bad' countries are not entitled to invoke their own interests and entitlements. Israel on the other hand, always is.

    Indeed, Trump's preemptive missile attack on Syria is a great example of Zio-American privilege and Zio-American lawlessness. Legal restraints are for other nations. Not Zio-America. When Zio-Washington gets upset, Zio-Washington gets to invade and bomb sovereign states, even though these same states have not attacked us.

    Washington has not only become 'the world's policeman', but the world's judge and jury.

    Both the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention however identify aggressive war (including a 'first strike') as the supreme international crime. Shouldn't this matter?

    Double-standard are nevertheless used routinely by Israel and Washington. This allows them to initiate serial warfare that lacks a clear legal foundation. It's all ad hoc. It subverts the rule of law.

    And our pro-Zionist MSM sanitizes this conduct and worldview.

    Special counties (and we know who they are) are therefore not bound by cumbersome restrictions that were designed to prevent war, expansion and aggression. Feelings and 'outrage' now matter more. This is part and parcel of Zio-American exceptionalism. Laws and ethics have been downgraded to accommodate political objectives and feelings.

    This is why Trump's anti-Assad 'outrage' (and subsequent missile attack) did not focus on aggressive war or the unjustified killing of civilians. Because if it did, Zio-Washington would be caught with its own pants down.

    Instead, Trump got weepy over the type of weapons used to kill civilians--not the slaughter itself.

    After all, we 'good guys' kill civilians all the time. And in massive quantities.

    The flimsy moral principle underlying Trump's strike on Syria strike is this:

    Gas is uncool. But missiles are perfectly fine.

    Gas, remember, is reminiscent of the Holocaust. And that's a no-no!

    Hidden within this fake moral paradigm is the message to always respect Jewish taboos (!) when initiating violence. Kill properly.

    These ethical distinctions however are politicized and empty. Murder is still murder. Aggression is still aggression. When will Zio-Washington take a look in the mirror?

    This declining level of moral thinking undermines real legal principles. Possessing nuclear weapons (and threatening to use them) has become 'OK' for exceptional nations but 'evil' when bad (anti-Israel) nations follow suit. And it's Zio-Washington alone that gets to decide which is which and who is who.

    This chicanery confers unique privilege. Our Zionized media gives cover to this fraud.

    Fisk does correctly note that Trump is being steered into a pattern of malevolent neoconservatism. This means war. Ironically, as Trump reverses the stated policies and goals that got him elected (and in the direction of neocon aggression) the MSM has done a similar about-face (supporting Trump).

    Trump is finally 'acting presidential'!

    These deceptions and grotesque fairy tales benefit global militarists, government careerists, and of course, Zionists.

    Fisk should have mentioned Trump's special affection for Israel and his unconditional support of Israeli militarism and Israeli brutality. This is key.

    it isn't only 'key' Mark. It's the frothing, slathering gorilla in the living room tossing hand grenades and breaking bones.

    And yet Fisk, whose very identity is undistinguishable from Western (British) based, Middle Eastern journalism ~ can not mention it.

    How the f are people supposed to get a glimmer of the things you (heroically) write about when the very people who are trusted to keep the West informed- would rather use their skills and position to specifically and methodically mislead and dissemble and obscure- by design?

    You're too kind to these intellectual whores Mark, imho.

    When Fisk writes about Trump's, (and Merkel's and May's) murderous treachery and folly in the Middle East by not mentioning *why* any of it is happening, he reminds me of Walter Duranty writing about the Soviet Union, and the ornery resistance to the agricultural reforms by certain classes of well-to-do peasants, who were just too greedy to understand the greatness of Stalin and his vision.

    IOW they're nothing but professional liars and shills for the PTB. Period. And should be called out as such. No? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Fuzzy , April 27, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT
    My hopes for dιtente under Trump were obviously a pipe dream. He folded like a cheap lawn chair. Read More
    Rurik , April 27, 2017 at 4:05 pm GMT
    100 Words @Sam Shama Why spew the common nonsense?

    Why spew the common nonsense?

    you mean how the whole nightmarish holocaust of Eternal War and strife and horrors writ large in the Middle East today are mostly a consequence of Zionist $ubversion of our governments and media?

    and that destroying Iraq and Libya and Syria (eventually Iran, Lebanon, etc..) are all part of a transparent agenda to remake the greater Levant into a giant concentration camp a la Palestine?

    that 'common nonsense'?

    or is it common knowledge? Read More

    Jonathan Mason , April 27, 2017 at 4:26 pm GMT
    100 Words I really doubt whether seeing pictures of dead Syrian children had anything to do with the decision to bomb the Syrian airfield.

    Fake news is at its best when it seems almost plausible. In reality no candidate for leader of the free world since the time of King Herod would lose a moment of sleep over killing a few Syrian children. Remember Trump even succeeded in killing an American child in Yemen.

    Trumpie, you're doing a heckuva job. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    wayfarer , April 27, 2017 at 4:34 pm GMT
    100 Words Not a peep out of turncoat traitor Trump regarding "9/11 truth." The deafening silence on this matter as-well-as other harsh issues facing rank-and-file Americans and the western world, speaks volumes.

    Now we've got masked gangs of ANTIFA punks running roughshod like spoiled brats and being handled with kid gloves, as law enforcement is ordered by owned politicians, to stand down.

    The self-serving globalist "elite" (~0.01%) and their Zionist trust fund baby financiers continue to engineer civil war, as revolutionary war would be their worst nightmare. Read More

    jilles dykstra , April 27, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT
    200 Words @Rurik

    Why spew the common nonsense?
    you mean how the whole nightmarish holocaust of Eternal War and strife and horrors writ large in the Middle East today are mostly a consequence of Zionist $ubversion of our governments and media?

    and that destroying Iraq and Libya and Syria (eventually Iran, Lebanon, etc..) are all part of a transparent agenda to remake the greater Levant into a giant concentration camp a la Palestine?

    that 'common nonsense'?

    or is it common knowledge? Not a concentration camp, just a gigantic destabilised region.
    There access to oil and gas is simple and cheap.
    And as anyone leaves they try to go to Europe, destroy the cultures of the European countries, so that Europe becomes a USA clone, where money reigns.
    One just has to be enough cynical to see it all.

    With me this cynicism began three years after sept 11, when I could no longer fool myself.
    Then the question came 'how became our saviour of WWII become a rogue state ?'.
    The answer was simple but shocking, Roosevelt was brought into politics in 1932 to wage war for USA world supremacy.

    Charles A Beard published his book on Roosevelt politics in 1946, also the year where the Pearl Harbour investigation took place.
    According to the democrats there had been no Roosevelt conspiracy, the republicans had other ideas.

    Roosevelt needed an attack, he had promised his voters in 1940 'that USA boys would nog be sent overseas, unless the USA was attacked'.
    His oil boycott succeeded, Japan attacked when it had oil left for three months.
    The republican ideas have many times been confirmed since then. Read More

    jilles dykstra , April 27, 2017 at 4:59 pm GMT
    100 Words @wayfarer Not a peep out of turncoat traitor Trump regarding "9/11 truth." The deafening silence on this matter as-well-as other harsh issues facing rank-and-file Americans and the western world, speaks volumes.

    Now we've got masked gangs of ANTIFA punks running roughshod like spoiled brats and being handled with kid gloves, as law enforcement is ordered by owned politicians, to stand down.

    The self-serving globalist "elite" (~0.01%) and their Zionist trust fund baby financiers continue to engineer civil war, as revolutionary war would be their worst nightmare. https://kenfm.de/untergang-der-humanitaet/

    Warren Buffett, eine der reichsten Personen auf dieser Welt, war es, der den Begriff ?„Finanzielle Massenvernichtungswaffen" prδgte. ??In einem Interview mit der New York Times am 26. November 2006 erklδrte er zudem freimόtig:

    „Es herrscht Krieg Reich gegen Arm. Es ist meine Klasse, die Klasse der Reichen, ?die den Krieg begonnen hat ?und wir werden diesen Klassenkampf gewinnen"

    Warren Bufett in 2006 'there is war between the rich and the poor, we, the rich, will win'.
    Finanzielle Massenvernichtungswaffen: financial WMD's.
    English is great in short expressions.

    Since the rich buy farms all over the world, especially New Zealand, with own runways, long enough for private jets, one wonders if the rich are sure now about winning. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    peterike , April 27, 2017 at 5:22 pm GMT
    Stopped reading at the idiot word "misogynist." Anyone who uses that word seriously is too pozzed to be trusted on anything, even the time of day. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    map , April 27, 2017 at 5:23 pm GMT
    200 Words The litmus test for a Trump foreign policy is not disengagement and isolation from the rest of the world.

    It is whether or not such foreign policy is calibrated to undermine the United States from within. Policies like rules of engagement and "war crimes" legal action designed to demoralize and kill US soldiers needlessly or refugee resettlement programs designed to give non-white enemies a fighting chance to kill Americans on their own soil.

    The US projecting power around the world is something that it has always done since WWII. The difference of late, starting under Bill Clinton, was utilizing foreign interventions in a way that deliberately blow back on the United States and are designed to hurt it or the West in general from within.

    So far, we have seen a pivot away from the anti-American foreign interventions of the recent past. Trump has pivoted to Asia which all but guarantees there won't be any boots-on-the-ground in North Korea. He has attempted to stem the flow of immigrants and refugees, so far, unsuccessfully, but it is still early in the game. Syria has not amounted to anything of note, but at least Trump is not propping up ISIS the way the Obama administration did.

    Remember, that, for America, the enemy is here. It is the Left and its anti-White policies that are the real enemy. So far, I have seen Trump slowly rolling back this anti-Whitism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Sean , April 27, 2017 at 5:41 pm GMT
    200 Words @Rurik

    Even if America decided to withdraw from all involvement, It cannot halt others' interventions in local conflicts by washing US hands clean. Fisk implies otherwise.
    as an American, I'm worried about our hands (souls) being clean

    if you want to go suit up for the IDF and get involved with interventions, then be my guest, but America needs to come home (like Trump promised)

    no more wars for Israel

    wouldn't you agree Sean? If you want to have clean hands then spend the money you don't need to live on global famine relief, like Peter Singer the philosopher does and talks about. Individually few do that and I suspect even Singer doesn't to the extent his ethics would suggest. people die of famine and poverty and we live in luxury in the West : deal with that before droning on a bout some careful military operations. Dropping a few bombs on the airdrome facilities of Assad's baby killer pilots is hardly dirty war.

    Assad is 100% responsible for this rebellion which started basically because his family had ran the country into the ground,and failing to see that his people really don't like him very much, he put up the price of basic necessities like fuel. Then he ignored the warnings of Obama's abortive bombing attempt, and brought in Russia (the Russians only came in after the US seemed impotent) to blast his unmotivated minority army to victory.

    The idea of Israel / US subversion of Syria is a joke. If Israel wanted to oust Assad it could have done it with a mere maneuver within territory Israel already controls: a build up on the Golan , which Assad would have had to match by transferring his army away from fighting the rebels. The US could have overthrown Assad with one air raid on a manufactured pretext at any time.

    Killing killers who hide among the innocent always involves collateral damage so American hands may be less than white, but America hands are clean by comparison with Assad's hands, which are dripping with the blood of Syrians. Read More

    Sean , April 27, 2017 at 5:50 pm GMT
    @Fuzzy My hopes for dιtente under Trump were obviously a pipe dream. He folded like a cheap lawn chair. A lawn chair cannot collapse like that, obviously it was the result of a controlled demolition Read More
    Rurik , April 27, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT
    500 Words @jilles dykstra Not a concentration camp, just a gigantic destabilised region.
    There access to oil and gas is simple and cheap.
    And as anyone leaves they try to go to Europe, destroy the cultures of the European countries, so that Europe becomes a USA clone, where money reigns.
    One just has to be enough cynical to see it all.

    With me this cynicism began three years after sept 11, when I could no longer fool myself.
    Then the question came 'how became our saviour of WWII become a rogue state ?'.
    The answer was simple but shocking, Roosevelt was brought into politics in 1932 to wage war for USA world supremacy.

    Charles A Beard published his book on Roosevelt politics in 1946, also the year where the Pearl Harbour investigation took place.
    According to the democrats there had been no Roosevelt conspiracy, the republicans had other ideas.

    Roosevelt needed an attack, he had promised his voters in 1940 'that USA boys would nog be sent overseas, unless the USA was attacked'.
    His oil boycott succeeded, Japan attacked when it had oil left for three months.
    The republican ideas have many times been confirmed since then. Hallo Jilles,

    what a treat it is to see people from Europe here at the inimitable Unz Review!

    Not a concentration camp, just a gigantic destabilised region.

    well, I guess it's just a matter of perspective. What Libya or Iraq (or the Palestinian occupied territories) seem like to me are one big open air prison of hopelessness and despair. Wrought with daily horrors and death. At least in a concentration camp the young women might be able to walk the streets without being raped by savages unleashed upon the people, as it seems is the case in Libya. Or blown to bits by CIA/Mossad car bombs like Iraq. Or subjected to random torture, white phosphorous or having their organs harvested like in Gaza.

    But then I guess it depends on the "concentration camp", since the ones Eisenhower ran for teenage German boys after the war was over are probably as bad as it gets. So perspective in all things, I suppose.

    And as anyone leaves they try to go to Europe, destroy the cultures of the European countries, so that Europe becomes a USA clone,

    that's what you call a twofer for the Zionists. Such a deal!

    'how became our saviour of WWII become a rogue state ?'.

    savior?!

    the US was never your savior Jilles. That's just the propaganda speaking that all German (and American) children were/are marinated in following that evil war.

    when a nation like America does to a people what American bombers did to cities like Dresden, it's hardly fitting to refer to such people as saviors. I read accounts where fighter pilots said that after the bombing, when the survivors were fleeing the holocaust, that they'd strafe anything with blonde hair, men women or children. That's not the talk of a savior, but of a race-hate crazed murderous demon. Remember, at the time Dresden was bombed, the war was effectively already over. They were unleashing genocidal hatred on the German people, not saving them.

    The answer was simple but shocking, Roosevelt was brought into politics in 1932 to wage war for USA world supremacy.

    it goes back farther than that, to W oodrow W ilson's I.
    and the point was always to secure the founding of the state of Israel.

    he had promised his voters in 1940 'that USA boys would nog be sent overseas, unless the USA was attacked'.
    His oil boycott succeeded, Japan attacked when it had oil left for three months.

    you really do have an excellent handle on things Jilles. But you're not cynical enough yet.

    the fount of treachery starts with the charter of the Federal Reserve Bank, the original treason and betrayal of biblical enormity that has set in motion all of these wars and assorted horrors and atrocities. And threatens to make this century just as bloody and Satanic as the last one, unless we can somehow collectively manage to waylay these Fiends.

    Prost -- Read More

    woodNfish , April 27, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT
    @Gleimhart The Trump Derangement Syndrome at Unz has gotten really tiring.

    And no, not everyone gives the least crap about his "misogyny." Not me, anyway.

    This site gets more anti-American by the day. Screw you leftwing dirtbags. Trump is not a misogynist. He loves and desires women as does any normal man. Mysogynists hate women. "Feminists" are misogynists. Stop buying into the Left's narration. It is a lie. It is always a lie. That is what they are best at. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    woodNfish , April 27, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT
    This "article" is just more leftist crap from the crappy leftists. There is no truth in it. It is leftist opinion masquerading as fake news. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    bluedog , April 27, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT
    100 Words @Sean If you want to have clean hands then spend the money you don't need to live on global famine relief, like Peter Singer the philosopher does and talks about. Individually few do that and I suspect even Singer doesn't to the extent his ethics would suggest. people die of famine and poverty and we live in luxury in the West : deal with that before droning on a bout some careful military operations. Dropping a few bombs on the airdrome facilities of Assad's baby killer pilots is hardly dirty war.

    Assad is 100% responsible for this rebellion which started basically because his family had ran the country into the ground,and failing to see that his people really don't like him very much, he put up the price of basic necessities like fuel. Then he ignored the warnings of Obama's abortive bombing attempt, and brought in Russia (the Russians only came in after the US seemed impotent) to blast his unmotivated minority army to victory.

    The idea of Israel / US subversion of Syria is a joke. If Israel wanted to oust Assad it could have done it with a mere maneuver within territory Israel already controls: a build up on the Golan , which Assad would have had to match by transferring his army away from fighting the rebels. The US could have overthrown Assad with one air raid on a manufactured pretext at any time.

    Killing killers who hide among the innocent always involves collateral damage so American hands may be less than white, but America hands are clean by comparison with Assad's hands, which are dripping with the blood of Syrians. Hmm Assad has a looong way to go to catch up with us, Nam Cambodia Thailand Philippines South America Iran Iraq Libya Syria and all other points on the compass, my your an ass for you don't even know your own history as you always try to blame others, the mark I presume of a real troll. Read More

    The White Muslim Traditionalist , April 27, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT
    @Dan Hayes "...even Angela Merkel takes leave of her senses..."

    What senses? Surely you jest! I find it interesting that people from America think that Merkel is some sort of crazed loon.

    She's an incredibly astute, conservative, pious Lutheran politician. Read More

    Rurik , April 27, 2017 at 6:33 pm GMT
    200 Words @Sean If you want to have clean hands then spend the money you don't need to live on global famine relief, like Peter Singer the philosopher does and talks about. Individually few do that and I suspect even Singer doesn't to the extent his ethics would suggest. people die of famine and poverty and we live in luxury in the West : deal with that before droning on a bout some careful military operations. Dropping a few bombs on the airdrome facilities of Assad's baby killer pilots is hardly dirty war.

    Assad is 100% responsible for this rebellion which started basically because his family had ran the country into the ground,and failing to see that his people really don't like him very much, he put up the price of basic necessities like fuel. Then he ignored the warnings of Obama's abortive bombing attempt, and brought in Russia (the Russians only came in after the US seemed impotent) to blast his unmotivated minority army to victory.

    The idea of Israel / US subversion of Syria is a joke. If Israel wanted to oust Assad it could have done it with a mere maneuver within territory Israel already controls: a build up on the Golan , which Assad would have had to match by transferring his army away from fighting the rebels. The US could have overthrown Assad with one air raid on a manufactured pretext at any time.

    Killing killers who hide among the innocent always involves collateral damage so American hands may be less than white, but America hands are clean by comparison with Assad's hands, which are dripping with the blood of Syrians.

    The idea of Israel / US subversion of Syria is a joke.

    golly Sean

    you could use that same argument with so many conflicts eh?

    The idea of Israel / US subversion of Iraq is a joke.

    The idea of Israel / US subversion of Libya is a joke.

    it works just the same with them all, huh?

    but then the notorious cowards in the IDF never like to get in harms way now do they, so just like with your hero general Ariel Sharon, they always prefer to stay in safety and get other goons to do their fighting for them, huh?

    Killing killers who hide among the innocent always involves collateral damage so American hands may be less than white

    isn't that pretty much what Sharon said about the Sabra and Shatila massacre?

    funny how that's always your modus operendi.. to use false flags to get others to do your fighting for you?

    like the Syrian false flag chemical attacks

    or 9/11

    or getting Druze Phalangist militia to slaughter women and children, lest one of them have a sharp object to fight back with, and pose a threat to a brave IDF soldier, huh?

    I suspect Robert Fisk may even know a little about that proud episode in chronicles of Zio-brave warrior-history. Read More

    jilles dykstra , April 27, 2017 at 7:46 pm GMT
    200 Words @Rurik Hallo Jilles,

    what a treat it is to see people from Europe here at the inimitable Unz Review!


    Not a concentration camp, just a gigantic destabilised region.
    well, I guess it's just a matter of perspective. What Libya or Iraq (or the Palestinian occupied territories) seem like to me are one big open air prison of hopelessness and despair. Wrought with daily horrors and death. At least in a concentration camp the young women might be able to walk the streets without being raped by savages unleashed upon the people, as it seems is the case in Libya. Or blown to bits by CIA/Mossad car bombs like Iraq. Or subjected to random torture, white phosphorous or having their organs harvested like in Gaza.

    But then I guess it depends on the "concentration camp", since the ones Eisenhower ran for teenage German boys after the war was over are probably as bad as it gets. So perspective in all things, I suppose.


    And as anyone leaves they try to go to Europe, destroy the cultures of the European countries, so that Europe becomes a USA clone,
    that's what you call a twofer for the Zionists. Such a deal!

    'how became our saviour of WWII become a rogue state ?'.
    savior?!

    the US was never your savior Jilles. That's just the propaganda speaking that all German (and American) children were/are marinated in following that evil war.

    when a nation like America does to a people what American bombers did to cities like Dresden, it's hardly fitting to refer to such people as saviors. I read accounts where fighter pilots said that after the bombing, when the survivors were fleeing the holocaust, that they'd strafe anything with blonde hair, men women or children. That's not the talk of a savior, but of a race-hate crazed murderous demon. Remember, at the time Dresden was bombed, the war was effectively already over. They were unleashing genocidal hatred on the German people, not saving them.


    The answer was simple but shocking, Roosevelt was brought into politics in 1932 to wage war for USA world supremacy.
    it goes back farther than that, to W oodrow W ilson's I.
    and the point was always to secure the founding of the state of Israel.

    he had promised his voters in 1940 'that USA boys would nog be sent overseas, unless the USA was attacked'.
    His oil boycott succeeded, Japan attacked when it had oil left for three months.
    you really do have an excellent handle on things Jilles. But you're not cynical enough yet. ;)

    the fount of treachery starts with the charter of the Federal Reserve Bank, the original treason and betrayal of biblical enormity that has set in motion all of these wars and assorted horrors and atrocities. And threatens to make this century just as bloody and Satanic as the last one, unless we can somehow collectively manage to waylay these Fiends.

    Prost -- Had you read earlier posts by me then you would have known that the Balfour declaration was the price Britain had to pay in 1917 in order to avoid capitulation in november 1917.
    You then also would have known that I know that
    Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New York, 1918
    was just war propaganda.
    Morgenthau's hatred of Germany I attribute to the German antisemitism that began after the unification in 1870.
    An anti semitism about which one Rothschildt wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.
    'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA says about the same in softer words.
    The Federal Reserve just is an institution.
    What matters is who runs it with what purpose.
    This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second half of the 19th century, it never became democratic, money still rules the USA.
    That this was and is possible I attribute to the lack of any culture in the USA, except hamburgers and oversized cars.
    The USA is not a melting pot, it is stew, all the ingredients still are there. Read More

    RadicalCenter , April 27, 2017 at 7:49 pm GMT
    100 Words @jilles dykstra I still do not see Trump as a crackpot.
    Though I'm not sure about his ideas I still hope that he will end USA militarism, not because out of moral ideas, but because he sees, and his rich friends, that pursuing the goal of USA world hegemony will, or has already, ruined the USA.

    The attack on Syria, and his warlike talk about N Korea, hogwash to confuse Deep State, and to satisfy his voters.
    The Dutch professor Laslo Maracs, university of Amsterdam, explains all this eloquently, alas only in Dutch, as far as I know.

    And my hope still is that Trump will prevent NATO and EU war on Russia, the war that indeed will end al wars, as already Wilson wanted, because this war will end all human life.
    How it then ends is well described in the novel On the Beach, Neville Shute, 1953, the New Zealand government distributing suicide pills when the radio active dust reaches the island. Don't be too sure that Trump voters favor this kind of mindless and dangerous violence abroad. On the contrary, for me, my family, and many Trump voters of our acquaintance.

    Many of us voted for trump in part because he was proposing a less belligerent, less unreasonable attitude towards Russia, if not towards Iran. We voted for him because he continually lambasted the US invasions of Iraq and said that the US should stop invading and trying to dictate how other peoples should operate in their countries.

    I don't think a majority of people who voted Trump OR a majority of people who voted Clinton favors attacking Syria or Iran or Russia. Yet here we are threatening each of them, attacking Assad's regime to the benefit of Islamists, and encircling& sanctioning & trying to humiliate and impoverish Russia.

    Will check out the Kiwi book you mentioned. Man, that will be some cheerful beach reading Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    RadicalCenter , April 27, 2017 at 7:51 pm GMT
    @jilles dykstra I still do not see Trump as a crackpot.
    Though I'm not sure about his ideas I still hope that he will end USA militarism, not because out of moral ideas, but because he sees, and his rich friends, that pursuing the goal of USA world hegemony will, or has already, ruined the USA.

    The attack on Syria, and his warlike talk about N Korea, hogwash to confuse Deep State, and to satisfy his voters.
    The Dutch professor Laslo Maracs, university of Amsterdam, explains all this eloquently, alas only in Dutch, as far as I know.

    And my hope still is that Trump will prevent NATO and EU war on Russia, the war that indeed will end al wars, as already Wilson wanted, because this war will end all human life.
    How it then ends is well described in the novel On the Beach, Neville Shute, 1953, the New Zealand government distributing suicide pills when the radio active dust reaches the island. P.S. Any relation to Lenny? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    jilles dykstra , April 27, 2017 at 7:58 pm GMT
    200 Words @The White Muslim Traditionalist I find it interesting that people from America think that Merkel is some sort of crazed loon.


    She's an incredibly astute, conservative, pious Lutheran politician. Sure, because she's such a pious woman, Kohl today got one million euro's in damages, because the ghost writer of his memoirs published volume four without his permission, with his statements about Merkel like 'she put the dagger in my back and turned it'.

    In 2001 or so there was a financial scandal in Kohl's party, Merkel made it public knowledge.
    The other remark was 'she just has lust for power', or something like that.
    I suppose now millions of copies of volume four will be sold.

    I also like to recall Merkel's statement about the huge numbers of immigrants 'wird Deutschland fόr immer δndern', 'will change Germany forever'.
    As if any German asked for this change, change for which Sarrazin already warned in 2010:
    Thilo Sarrazin, 'Deutschland schafft sich ab, Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen', Mόnchen 2010

    Sarrazin warned that Germany is destroying itself through the immigration of large numbers of immigrants with low IQ.
    Merkel fired him immediately. Read More Agree: Dan Hayes

    Sean , April 27, 2017 at 8:11 pm GMT
    100 Words @bluedog Hmm Assad has a looong way to go to catch up with us, Nam Cambodia Thailand Philippines South America Iran Iraq Libya Syria and all other points on the compass, my your an ass for you don't even know your own history as you always try to blame others, the mark I presume of a real troll. The US isn't as moral as it claim but who is? There is a thing called cognitive dissonance .Sounds like you believe the US should stay at home for ever after, because it was solely responsible for all deaths those conflicts, though many had started before US involvement. The lesson of US failure in Vietnam was that military strength was not enough against a opponent that was politically strong, Assad is not strong politically, the majority in Syria opposed him and dispute his inherited police state and even more ruthless army facing a rag tag piecemeal rebellion he would have lost by now without the Russians . The US is supposed to stay out and look on as Russia turns the rebels the US tried to protect into mincemeat and Assad sprays entire villages with poison gas like they were bugs, is it? Read More
    The White Muslim Traditionalist , April 27, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT
    @jilles dykstra Sure, because she's such a pious woman, Kohl today got one million euro's in damages, because the ghost writer of his memoirs published volume four without his permission, with his statements about Merkel like 'she put the dagger in my back and turned it'.

    In 2001 or so there was a financial scandal in Kohl's party, Merkel made it public knowledge.
    The other remark was 'she just has lust for power', or something like that.
    I suppose now millions of copies of volume four will be sold.

    I also like to recall Merkel's statement about the huge numbers of immigrants 'wird Deutschland fόr immer δndern', 'will change Germany forever'.
    As if any German asked for this change, change for which Sarrazin already warned in 2010:
    Thilo Sarrazin, 'Deutschland schafft sich ab, Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen', Mόnchen 2010

    Sarrazin warned that Germany is destroying itself through the immigration of large numbers of immigrants with low IQ.
    Merkel fired him immediately. Bro, how did that contradict anything that I just said?

    All the Christian churches advocate taking in migrants, it's literally in the Bible. In the Qur'an and Hadith we have similar obligations, but they're more measured. Read More

    anonymous , April 27, 2017 at 8:24 pm GMT
    200 Words

    The more dangerous America's crackpot President becomes, the saner the world believes him to be.

    What does this mean? That the world is insane and that as Trump spins into greater insanity he becomes more in sync with the prevailing insanity? Prior to the election he seemed to be the peace candidate which is a major reason why he won. Therefore not everyone out there is insane, least of all "the world". The war hounds are a minority of people who are in a position to publicly lobby for war through their mass media and spread fear and hysteria. The leaders of various countries have more in common with each other than with their own citizens and trade notes on how to keep their rabble in line. This sudden turn towards belligerence and war has taken people by surprise and everyone is puzzled as to what's really going on.
    The author's book "Pity the Nation" was a good read. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Rurik , April 27, 2017 at 8:25 pm GMT
    300 Words @jilles dykstra Had you read earlier posts by me then you would have known that the Balfour declaration was the price Britain had to pay in 1917 in order to avoid capitulation in november 1917.
    You then also would have known that I know that
    Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New York, 1918
    was just war propaganda.
    Morgenthau's hatred of Germany I attribute to the German antisemitism that began after the unification in 1870.
    An anti semitism about which one Rothschildt wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.
    'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA says about the same in softer words.
    The Federal Reserve just is an institution.
    What matters is who runs it with what purpose.
    This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second half of the 19th century, it never became democratic, money still rules the USA.
    That this was and is possible I attribute to the lack of any culture in the USA, except hamburgers and oversized cars.
    The USA is not a melting pot, it is stew, all the ingredients still are there.

    The Federal Reserve just is an institution.
    What matters is who runs it with what purpose.
    This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second half of the 19th century, it never became democratic, money still rules the USA.

    all too true

    That this was and is possible I attribute to the lack of any culture in the USA, except hamburgers and oversized cars.

    I can't argue with that too much, and I fully understand the hostility of so many people towards the US of A.

    what's good about it? Not too much, but there are a few things that are worth mentioning. We still have the First Amendment and free speech. Something most of Euopre are sadly lacking, as you can be tossed in jail for saying 5,999,999 Jews died in gas chambers during the Holocaust, and not the holy number of six million. Here in the states we're allowed to say it's 5,999,999 Jews.

    Also we still have the Second Amendment, that is the protector and guarantor of the First.

    Sure, our culture is a open pipe of spiritual sewage gushing out into the rest of the world, but that's all being done by Hollywood types. Not traditional Americans, who simply want to be left alone.

    most egregious however is the war mongering, and as you mentioned with FDR, (and Wilson and Obama and Trump, etc ) we always vote against the wars, but then always have it foisted upon us by the tribe. (as you mentioned, it's who owns the Fed).

    Anyways God bless and please keep commenting.. Read More

    Talha , April 27, 2017 at 8:27 pm GMT
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist Bro, how did that contradict anything that I just said?


    All the Christian churches advocate taking in migrants, it's literally in the Bible. In the Qur'an and Hadith we have similar obligations, but they're more measured. Salaam Bro,

    Welcome to UNZ! Are you in the US or Germany? It sounded like you might be German.

    Wa salaam Read More

    jacques sheete , April 27, 2017 at 8:43 pm GMT
    100 Words @Sam Shama Why spew the common nonsense?

    Why spew the common nonsense?

    You mean like this?

    Sam Shama , Next New Comment
    April 27, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT

    Although some of Trump's actions appear erratic, the much loftier and worthy goal of fixing and rebuilding the world remains intact.

    Trump and Pence are good men, their qualities, underestimated by many.

    Read More
    jacques sheete , April 27, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT
    @Fuzzy My hopes for dιtente under Trump were obviously a pipe dream. He folded like a cheap lawn chair.

    He folded like a cheap lawn chair.

    Or a really cheap camping toilet. Read More LOL: Talha Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    jacques sheete , April 27, 2017 at 8:51 pm GMT
    @Sean A lawn chair cannot collapse like that, obviously it was the result of a controlled demolition

    A lawn chair cannot collapse like that, obviously it was the result of a controlled demolition

    Which is pretty good evidence that Trump's collapse was controlled if not altogether pre-determined.

    Gee, I wonder who would do something like that. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    bluedog , April 27, 2017 at 9:00 pm GMT
    100 Words You have to be nuts the only ones we tried to protect are the head choppers our creation and the sooner the Russians turn them into dog meat the better off the world will be,as far as Assad using gas on his own people post the proof chapter and verse and no bullshit from either the CIA or white helmets will be accepted for none exist, except for propaganda for we have prevented anyone from investigating it or where it came from Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    The White Muslim Traditionalist , April 27, 2017 at 9:02 pm GMT
    @Talha Salaam Bro,

    Welcome to UNZ! Are you in the US or Germany? It sounded like you might be German.

    Wa salaam Wa alaikum as-salaam, I'm from a country called the Netherlands, but I'm currently a postgraduate in the United States. Thanks for the welcome, I appreciate it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Sean , April 27, 2017 at 9:14 pm GMT
    200 Words @Rurik

    The idea of Israel / US subversion of Syria is a joke.
    golly Sean

    you could use that same argument with so many conflicts eh?

    The idea of Israel / US subversion of Iraq is a joke.

    The idea of Israel / US subversion of Libya is a joke.

    it works just the same with them all, huh?

    but then the notorious cowards in the IDF never like to get in harms way now do they, so just like with your hero general Ariel Sharon, they always prefer to stay in safety and get other goons to do their fighting for them, huh?


    Killing killers who hide among the innocent always involves collateral damage so American hands may be less than white
    isn't that pretty much what Sharon said about the Sabra and Shatila massacre?

    funny how that's always your modus operendi.. to use false flags to get others to do your fighting for you?

    like the Syrian false flag chemical attacks

    or 9/11

    or getting Druze Phalangist militia to slaughter women and children, lest one of them have a sharp object to fight back with, and pose a threat to a brave IDF soldier, huh?

    I suspect Robert Fisk may even know a little about that proud episode in chronicles of Zio-brave warrior-history. Israel would hardly put effort into overthrowing Libyan or Egyptian governments without believing their replacement would be an improvement from Israel's point of view. It wouldn't because everyone in those counties hates Israel. I don't think there is any evidence at all that Israel wants Assad to be overthrown. No Syrian government is going to be anything but hostile to Israel and Syria has nothing Israel wants. Yes Israel would use a wedge on Arabs fighting one another to keep them at it, but it cannot create divisions within a country of between countries out of nothing. For example Iran and Iraq were at war in the 80s and Israel supplied both with arms to keep the war going, but it didn't create the conflict, which was a Persian versus Arab one with very ancient hational roots- just like the Iranian-Saudi proxy war playing out in Syria.

    As for false flags, as I said it does seem insane for Assad to gas kids right now but Assad and his tiny leadership are very isolated from good advice and they have a proven ability to make incredibly bad decisions. One thing that weighs heavily against a false flag is that the US intelligence could have very professionally faked an attack last year and got a major US airstrike to break the back of Assad before the rebels had been virtually annihilated in the cities. So why a why would Assad use nerve gas now argument cuts both ways. Read More

    englishmike , April 27, 2017 at 10:15 pm GMT
    100 Words @Abdul Alhazred Actually its the British!....well they are bloody insane!
    Anyone who says they reserve the right to make a thermonuclear "First Strike" is totally mad.

    https://larouchepac.com/20170426/brits-nuclear-first-strike-jolly-good Actually its the British! .well they are bloody insane!

    "Muhammed really is most popular baby name in the UK – as is Mohammed, Muhammad "
    (Reported in The Independent, Monday 1 December 2014).

    So do me a favour, Abdul, old chap: do stop blaming "the British" for what some of their politicians say. You wouldn't like them to make sweeping generalisations about British people called Mohammed being "bloody insane", now would you! Read More

    jacques sheete , April 27, 2017 at 10:50 pm GMT
    200 Words @jilles dykstra Had you read earlier posts by me then you would have known that the Balfour declaration was the price Britain had to pay in 1917 in order to avoid capitulation in november 1917.
    You then also would have known that I know that
    Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New York, 1918
    was just war propaganda.
    Morgenthau's hatred of Germany I attribute to the German antisemitism that began after the unification in 1870.
    An anti semitism about which one Rothschildt wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.
    'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA says about the same in softer words.
    The Federal Reserve just is an institution.
    What matters is who runs it with what purpose.
    This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second half of the 19th century, it never became democratic, money still rules the USA.
    That this was and is possible I attribute to the lack of any culture in the USA, except hamburgers and oversized cars.
    The USA is not a melting pot, it is stew, all the ingredients still are there.

    An anti semitism about which one Rothschildt wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.
    'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA says about the same in softer words.

    I'd appreciate a source for that quote.

    This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second half of the 19th century,

    Depends.

    Politically that's probably close to true except for the fact that back then we had at least a few politicians with spines and gonads. Now we just have slithering grubs and the intestinal parasites of swine, e.g. the Swine Large Roundworm, Ascaris suum.

    Morally, it hasn't even left the Stone Age.

    it never became democratic,

    True and you obviously know more than most Americans do about that. Democracy, in this country, is nothing more than a deeply ingrained fetish. As you probably know, democracy only works in small, homogeneous, MORAL groups otherwise it's simply mob rule.

    money still rules the USA.

    More precisely, money is the main idol that's worshipped. The rulers are vicious, sociopathic, corrupt, insatiable, moneyed hyenas and jackals. And they are completely incorrigible. Read More Agree: bluedog

    Alden , April 28, 2017 at 12:32 am GMT
    @Sean The last American occupation troops did not leave Germany until the 1930's. The last American troops left Germany in 1923. The French stayed until 1935 when Hitler forced them out. Read More
    Alden , April 28, 2017 at 12:38 am GMT
    @Rurik

    The Federal Reserve just is an institution.
    What matters is who runs it with what purpose.
    This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second half of the 19th century, it never became democratic, money still rules the USA.
    all too true

    That this was and is possible I attribute to the lack of any culture in the USA, except hamburgers and oversized cars.
    I can't argue with that too much, and I fully understand the hostility of so many people towards the US of A.

    what's good about it? Not too much, but there are a few things that are worth mentioning. We still have the First Amendment and free speech. Something most of Euopre are sadly lacking, as you can be tossed in jail for saying 5,999,999 Jews died in gas chambers during the Holocaust, and not the holy number of six million. Here in the states we're allowed to say it's 5,999,999 Jews.

    Also we still have the Second Amendment, that is the protector and guarantor of the First.

    Sure, our culture is a open pipe of spiritual sewage gushing out into the rest of the world, but that's all being done by Hollywood types. Not traditional Americans, who simply want to be left alone.

    most egregious however is the war mongering, and as you mentioned with FDR, (and Wilson and Obama and Trump, etc...) we always vote against the wars, but then always have it foisted upon us by the tribe. (as you mentioned, it's who owns the Fed).

    Anyways God bless and please keep commenting.. A French Mayor of a medium sized town was just fined € 2,000 for noting that some of the schools in town are 90% Muslim immigrants. He's a supporter of Le Pen. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    jilles dykstra , April 28, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT
    300 Words @Rurik

    The Federal Reserve just is an institution.
    What matters is who runs it with what purpose.
    This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second half of the 19th century, it never became democratic, money still rules the USA.
    all too true

    That this was and is possible I attribute to the lack of any culture in the USA, except hamburgers and oversized cars.
    I can't argue with that too much, and I fully understand the hostility of so many people towards the US of A.

    what's good about it? Not too much, but there are a few things that are worth mentioning. We still have the First Amendment and free speech. Something most of Euopre are sadly lacking, as you can be tossed in jail for saying 5,999,999 Jews died in gas chambers during the Holocaust, and not the holy number of six million. Here in the states we're allowed to say it's 5,999,999 Jews.

    Also we still have the Second Amendment, that is the protector and guarantor of the First.

    Sure, our culture is a open pipe of spiritual sewage gushing out into the rest of the world, but that's all being done by Hollywood types. Not traditional Americans, who simply want to be left alone.

    most egregious however is the war mongering, and as you mentioned with FDR, (and Wilson and Obama and Trump, etc...) we always vote against the wars, but then always have it foisted upon us by the tribe. (as you mentioned, it's who owns the Fed).

    Anyways God bless and please keep commenting.. I have no hostility whatsoever against the USA people in general.
    Several offered me hospitality in their homes.

    What struck me each time was the igorance, the lack of information.
    Local tv is just stupid advertising.
    None of my hosts watched serious tv news, nowhere did I see a serious paper, just something local about engagements, weddings and funerals.

    One of my hosts I presented with the book of Anne Applebaum From West to East, I think the title was, she travelled from the Baltic sea to the Black see.
    He read it, had never realised about so many peoples.
    Even a well traveled more or less well known American I found very ignorant, who reads Readers Digest ?

    A Berkeley assistant professor asked me what I knew about the Civil War, at the time, end of the seventies, very little, but when I explained to him that Europe had been wars galore, so why would I know much about an American war, he was shocked.

    My strong objections are against USA society as a system, that allows a tiny minority to run foreign policy at their pleasure, at the cost, expense and blood of others, USA citizens and far more foreign citizens.
    The death rate American soldiers against foreign casualties was calculated by Anatol Lieven as one to fifty.

    On Okinawa is was 7000 USA soldiers against 100.000 Japanese soldiers and 40.000 civilians.

    Being a social democrat it abhors me that the USA always has abundant money for death and destruction but seems incapable of providing decent affordable health care for all its citizens; Read More Agree: jacques sheete

    jilles dykstra , April 28, 2017 at 10:32 am GMT
    200 Words @jacques sheete

    An anti semitism about which one Rothschildt wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.
    'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA says about the same in softer words.
    I'd appreciate a source for that quote.

    This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second half of the 19th century,
    Depends.

    Politically that's probably close to true except for the fact that back then we had at least a few politicians with spines and gonads. Now we just have slithering grubs and the intestinal parasites of swine, e.g. the Swine Large Roundworm, Ascaris suum.

    Morally, it hasn't even left the Stone Age.


    it never became democratic,

    True and you obviously know more than most Americans do about that. Democracy, in this country, is nothing more than a deeply ingrained fetish. As you probably know, democracy only works in small, homogeneous, MORAL groups otherwise it's simply mob rule.

    money still rules the USA.
    More precisely, money is the main idol that's worshipped. The rulers are vicious, sociopathic, corrupt, insatiable, moneyed hyenas and jackals. And they are completely incorrigible. The Rothschildt letter,
    in one of the two following books.
    Both books now are not where I am right now.
    In about three weeks time I could check.

    Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 – 1914′, New York 1972

    Fritz Stern, 'Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichrφder, and the Building of the German Empire', New York, 1977.

    Both are written by jews, you should read both in order to understand the emergence of anti semitism in Germany after 1870.
    Who morally is to blame, one can debate for a very long time.

    In any case my idea is that jews behaved stupidly, the Schorsch book explains abundantly how jews in articles, books and creating organisations tried to show they were not to blame.

    That agreement among jews, even that was not realised, about the blame, would change nothing about the feelings of 'real' Germans, never seems to have occurred to them.

    One sees the same attitude now when Israel is critisized. Read More

    jilles dykstra , April 28, 2017 at 10:36 am GMT
    @Alden The last American troops left Germany in 1923. The French stayed until 1935 when Hitler forced them out. If you refer to the occupation of the Ruhr area by Belgian and French troops, as far as I know they left in 1925.
    Rhineland and Saar is another matter.
    Saar, maybe just after the 1936 election there.
    Rhineland, maybe 1938. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    jacques sheete , April 28, 2017 at 12:18 pm GMT
    100 Words @jilles dykstra The Rothschildt letter,
    in one of the two following books.
    Both books now are not where I am right now.
    In about three weeks time I could check.

    Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 - 1914', New York 1972

    Fritz Stern, 'Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichrφder, and the Building of the German Empire', New York, 1977.

    Both are written by jews, you should read both in order to understand the emergence of anti semitism in Germany after 1870.
    Who morally is to blame, one can debate for a very long time.

    In any case my idea is that jews behaved stupidly, the Schorsch book explains abundantly how jews in articles, books and creating organisations tried to show they were not to blame.

    That agreement among jews, even that was not realised, about the blame, would change nothing about the feelings of 'real' Germans, never seems to have occurred to them.

    One sees the same attitude now when Israel is critisized. Many thanks to you, fine sir!

    You appear to be one of the few who seems to have a grip on reality and I find your comments and insights informative and refreshing.

    Please continue to comment here even though the place is sometimes polluted by a few of the usual supercilious state worshiping trolls with trailer park opinions who obviously feel compelled to parrot the usual tiresome propaganda, and who have never learned to question anything. Read More Agree: bluedog Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    jacques sheete , April 28, 2017 at 12:32 pm GMT
    100 Words @jilles dykstra I have no hostility whatsoever against the USA people in general.
    Several offered me hospitality in their homes.

    What struck me each time was the igorance, the lack of information.
    Local tv is just stupid advertising.
    None of my hosts watched serious tv news, nowhere did I see a serious paper, just something local about engagements, weddings and funerals.

    One of my hosts I presented with the book of Anne Applebaum From West to East, I think the title was, she travelled from the Baltic sea to the Black see.
    He read it, had never realised about so many peoples.
    Even a well traveled more or less well known American I found very ignorant, who reads Readers Digest ?

    A Berkeley assistant professor asked me what I knew about the Civil War, at the time, end of the seventies, very little, but when I explained to him that Europe had been wars galore, so why would I know much about an American war, he was shocked.

    My strong objections are against USA society as a system, that allows a tiny minority to run foreign policy at their pleasure, at the cost, expense and blood of others, USA citizens and far more foreign citizens.
    The death rate American soldiers against foreign casualties was calculated by Anatol Lieven as one to fifty.

    On Okinawa is was 7000 USA soldiers against 100.000 Japanese soldiers and 40.000 civilians.

    Being a social democrat it abhors me that the USA always has abundant money for death and destruction but seems incapable of providing decent affordable health care for all its citizens;

    What struck me each time was the igorance, the lack of information.

    I'm a native, and agree with that. What's even more shocking is the smug, even hostile resistance to learning anything beyond the National Anthem and such.

    It's a continuous struggle especially when you're dealing with people such as you describe such as "professors."

    There is a locally well known personality, a "professor" of history, who is in great demand here for his presentation of the American Civil War ( poor label that), who disgorges"patriotic" nonsense as nauseating as it is mythical. Listening to one of his talks is as much an exercise of extreme self flagellation on my part as it is mental masturbation on his part yet people practically worship the sappy stuff he spews. There is no point in even attempting to counter what he sez.

    His audiences are completely deaf to anything but self (national) praise. It's as if nearly the whole nation positively delights in wallowing in prideful ignorance and they turn to the tube for their daily doses of it. Read More

    jacques sheete , April 28, 2017 at 12:45 pm GMT
    @jilles dykstra The Rothschildt letter,
    in one of the two following books.
    Both books now are not where I am right now.
    In about three weeks time I could check.

    Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 - 1914', New York 1972

    Fritz Stern, 'Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichrφder, and the Building of the German Empire', New York, 1977.

    Both are written by jews, you should read both in order to understand the emergence of anti semitism in Germany after 1870.
    Who morally is to blame, one can debate for a very long time.

    In any case my idea is that jews behaved stupidly, the Schorsch book explains abundantly how jews in articles, books and creating organisations tried to show they were not to blame.

    That agreement among jews, even that was not realised, about the blame, would change nothing about the feelings of 'real' Germans, never seems to have occurred to them.

    One sees the same attitude now when Israel is critisized.

    Both are written by jews, you should read both

    Orders placed.

    Thanks! Read More

    Bill , April 28, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
    @Sean Fisk writes as if the current US president's puny actions are the cause of wars and despotism all around the globe, although many like the Yemen have seen the same sides fighting for five decades, wich an altered cast of outside help. They are are rooted in local conditions, all these things Fisk is complaining about. He sometime talks as if the Middle east would settle down in a trice without the US. But America is just a country, big and strong, but still in need of allies.Even if America decided to withdraw from all involvement, It cannot halt others' interventions in local conflicts by washing US hands clean. Fisk implies otherwise. Indeed. Nobody ever does anything wrong. How could they? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Rurik , April 28, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT
    @Sean Israel would hardly put effort into overthrowing Libyan or Egyptian governments without believing their replacement would be an improvement from Israel's point of view. It wouldn't because everyone in those counties hates Israel. I don't think there is any evidence at all that Israel wants Assad to be overthrown. No Syrian government is going to be anything but hostile to Israel and Syria has nothing Israel wants. Yes Israel would use a wedge on Arabs fighting one another to keep them at it, but it cannot create divisions within a country of between countries out of nothing. For example Iran and Iraq were at war in the 80s and Israel supplied both with arms to keep the war going, but it didn't create the conflict, which was a Persian versus Arab one with very ancient hational roots- just like the Iranian-Saudi proxy war playing out in Syria.

    As for false flags, as I said it does seem insane for Assad to gas kids right now but Assad and his tiny leadership are very isolated from good advice and they have a proven ability to make incredibly bad decisions. One thing that weighs heavily against a false flag is that the US intelligence could have very professionally faked an attack last year and got a major US airstrike to break the back of Assad before the rebels had been virtually annihilated in the cities. So why a why would Assad use nerve gas now argument cuts both ways.

    I don't think there is any evidence at all that Israel wants Assad to be overthrown.

    imbecile Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    annamaria , April 28, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT
    200 Words @naro Robert Fisk the Iranian shill, and secret Shiia convert, doesn't even know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are NOT in Southeast Asia. Thank God that Trump and Israel are a lot smarter than this turd. Why don't you simply praise Trump for being obedient to Israel? "Never again," naro? You should have already noticed that the ordinary Americans are getting to realize that the US has been used as a living host by the paraziotid Israel that needs the US to implement the Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel. It also obvious that the implementation could end up with a glassy Middle East, where Israel would become a heap of ashes. Or you are ready to cry antisemitism, Holocaust, and special victimhood, despite your bloody subhuman ziocons that have arranged the slaughter of millions of human beings in the Middle East?
    Your people are collaborating with ISIS in the struggling Syria and with neo-Nazis in the deteriorating Ukraine. The Israel-firsters have "convinced" the US government to channel the country' resources towards the wars of aggression in the Middle East – all in the name of Eretz Israel (and war profits). Very moral. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    jilles dykstra , April 28, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT
    100 Words @jacques sheete

    Both are written by jews, you should read both...
    Orders placed.

    Thanks! First time in maybe ten years that anyone really wants to read books.
    The wonderful thing about old books is that they're cheap, easy to get these days, and, most important 'often history books tell more about the time they're written than about the time they describe'.
    In other words, they carry the old bias, not the bias of today.

    If you're interested in Islam
    Reuben Levy, 'The social structure of Islam', London, New York, 1931, 1932, 1957, 1971
    Richard Fletcher, 'Moorish Spain', Berkeley 1992

    And if you're interested in other writing about Islam, especially Bernard Lewis, try to find ' Lewis dissected', Sephardic Newsletter.
    Do hope I remember the title well.
    If rabbi David Shasha still runs the site, you can ask him. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    annamaria , April 28, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
    100 Words @Sean Fisk writes as if the current US president's puny actions are the cause of wars and despotism all around the globe, although many like the Yemen have seen the same sides fighting for five decades, wich an altered cast of outside help. They are are rooted in local conditions, all these things Fisk is complaining about. He sometime talks as if the Middle east would settle down in a trice without the US. But America is just a country, big and strong, but still in need of allies.Even if America decided to withdraw from all involvement, It cannot halt others' interventions in local conflicts by washing US hands clean. Fisk implies otherwise. Lets be precise: the ongoing wars in the Middle East have been planned and pushed by the US/UK ziocons to protect and enlarge the territory of Israel. Both Libya and Syria were doing quite well (particularly Libya) until the ziocon "ameliorators" came to fix the situation in the Middle East. The "big and strong" America and her resources have been used by the tribe to protect their supremacist home of shameless colonizers. Instead of developing trade and cooperation, the US came to the Midde East with weapons of mass destruction. The Israel-firsters cooked the plan for the interventions. Millions died as a result. Read More
    annamaria , April 28, 2017 at 4:14 pm GMT
    @Sam Shama Why spew the common nonsense? Well, why don't you explain the UNZ readers the rationale for Israelis' collaboration with ISIS? This collaboration is well-documented and it has been discussed in Israeli press.
    So, why does Israel help to and protect ISIS? Read More
    annamaria , April 28, 2017 at 4:21 pm GMT
    100 Words @Sean The US isn't as moral as it claim but who is? There is a thing called cognitive dissonance .Sounds like you believe the US should stay at home for ever after, because it was solely responsible for all deaths those conflicts, though many had started before US involvement. The lesson of US failure in Vietnam was that military strength was not enough against a opponent that was politically strong, Assad is not strong politically, the majority in Syria opposed him and dispute his inherited police state and even more ruthless army facing a rag tag piecemeal rebellion he would have lost by now without the Russians . The US is supposed to stay out and look on as Russia turns the rebels the US tried to protect into mincemeat and Assad sprays entire villages with poison gas like they were bugs, is it? China and Russia:
    " regardless of the circumstances, we will not change our policy of deepening and developing our strategic partnership and cooperation; our policy, based on joint development and prosperity, will not change; and our joint efforts to defend peace and justice and promote cooperation in the world will not change. These were the words of President Xi Jinping."

    http://thesaker.is/breaking-personal-message-from-xi-jinping-to-vladimir-putin-our-friendship-is-unbreakable/

    Imagine: crazy US brass wielding various weapons of mass destruction over Europe, Middle East, and Asia. Versus the Silk Road – a net of trade connections between Asia and Europe. Read More

    Rurik , April 28, 2017 at 4:23 pm GMT
    600 Words @jilles dykstra I have no hostility whatsoever against the USA people in general.
    Several offered me hospitality in their homes.

    What struck me each time was the igorance, the lack of information.
    Local tv is just stupid advertising.
    None of my hosts watched serious tv news, nowhere did I see a serious paper, just something local about engagements, weddings and funerals.

    One of my hosts I presented with the book of Anne Applebaum From West to East, I think the title was, she travelled from the Baltic sea to the Black see.
    He read it, had never realised about so many peoples.
    Even a well traveled more or less well known American I found very ignorant, who reads Readers Digest ?

    A Berkeley assistant professor asked me what I knew about the Civil War, at the time, end of the seventies, very little, but when I explained to him that Europe had been wars galore, so why would I know much about an American war, he was shocked.

    My strong objections are against USA society as a system, that allows a tiny minority to run foreign policy at their pleasure, at the cost, expense and blood of others, USA citizens and far more foreign citizens.
    The death rate American soldiers against foreign casualties was calculated by Anatol Lieven as one to fifty.

    On Okinawa is was 7000 USA soldiers against 100.000 Japanese soldiers and 40.000 civilians.

    Being a social democrat it abhors me that the USA always has abundant money for death and destruction but seems incapable of providing decent affordable health care for all its citizens;

    My strong objections are against USA society as a system, that allows a tiny minority to run foreign policy at their pleasure, at the cost, expense and blood of others, USA citizens and far more foreign citizens.

    I can't argue with that Jilles

    and you're right about the general ignorance and bovine stupidity of most Americans, but that has been very carefully created by the PTB, who don't want an educated, thinking populace.

    what was it papa Bush said?

    "if the American people knew what we have done, they would string us up from the lamp posts"

    if the American people could think, the results would be the same. If the American people could think and were in possession of a moral soul, then they'd know that wars based on lies should be repudiated and the war criminals brought to justice. But the American sheople have been systematically dumbed down to the point of zombies, infatuated with Kim Kardashian's ass. Today Idiocracy is a reality. It's true.

    But, let me just say on behalf of Americans, that I don't really see it any better across the pond. Sure, the Europeans are better educated, and generally speak at least two languages, and have heard of Yalta and Copernicus, but with all that education, they just don't seem to me to be any more principled or moral than the zombified Americans.

    Sure, it is the US military that is the biggest bully on the block, but does that excuse the other little bullies that stand behind him and give him moral support? There were French jets bombing Libya just as ferociously as any American ones. The Brits have never seen an act of aggression from the US military that they don't reverently applaud. And the Germans, whose government goes along with every war crime America commits in principle, are today complicit in a racial supremacist, genocidal holocaust against a completely innocent victim whose only crime is that they existed – in Palestine, on land that some Jewish supremacist coveted for themselves.

    The irony? That these very same Germans feel excruciating and debilitating guilt for a crime that they had nothing to do with, while at the same time facilitating the same crime of genocide today, in their names, by funding and arming and providing "moral" cover for the Zionists.

    So sure, Europeans are far more educated, but seem to fall very short when it comes to using that education to augment a moral foundation for their actions and the actions of their respective governments. There seems to me to be a sort of all-pervasive cowardice in Western Europe, and a Pavlovian, knee-jerk propensity to wallow in prostrate abasement and self-flagellate as soon as anyone says "Holocaust". Sort of what they used to be able to bludgeon Americans with by the pejorative "racist", until it became a joke.

    Anyways, yes, we're ignorant, and bovine and dangerous, but morally, I just don't see too many paragons of virtue or honor to hold up as examples today. Uruguay perhaps, and I would include Putin's Russia insofar as he's trying to put out the fires the Zio-Western-fiend is lighting all over the place, but then he too bolsters their agenda by antagonizing the former Soviet satellite states with ultra-nationalistic chest thumping over the "great war", (that the Bolsheviks in Russia were mainly responsible for). Note to Putin, let it rest! The great victory that you celebrate in May was a catastrophe for Eastern Europe (and millions of Russians too)

    sorry, I tend to rant at times.. Read More

    jilles dykstra , April 28, 2017 at 4:36 pm GMT
    200 Words @jacques sheete

    What struck me each time was the igorance, the lack of information.
    I'm a native, and agree with that. What's even more shocking is the smug, even hostile resistance to learning anything beyond the National Anthem and such.

    It's a continuous struggle especially when you're dealing with people such as you describe such as "professors."

    There is a locally well known personality, a "professor" of history, who is in great demand here for his presentation of the American Civil War ( poor label that), who disgorges"patriotic" nonsense as nauseating as it is mythical. Listening to one of his talks is as much an exercise of extreme self flagellation on my part as it is mental masturbation on his part yet people practically worship the sappy stuff he spews. There is no point in even attempting to counter what he sez.

    His audiences are completely deaf to anything but self (national) praise. It's as if nearly the whole nation positively delights in wallowing in prideful ignorance and they turn to the tube for their daily doses of it. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, 'Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts', 1898- 1907, Mόnchen

    If you can read German, I can recommend it.
    He was the brother of the 1938 Chamberlain, had a strange youth, attended gymnasia in different European countries.
    He was flabbergasted how the same history was taught differently in different countries.

    I long ago wrote a USA correspondent how European countries considered waging war over the Monroe Doctrine.
    The reply was 'it is still taught here in glowing terms', well, in Europe it was seen as colonialism, as many in S America feel they're still under the USA colonial yoke.
    Eduardo Galeano, 'Open Veins of Latin America', Five centuries of the pillage of a continent', 1971, 2009, Londen.

    Your Civil War, for the liberation of slaves.
    My knowledge is from different books, and of course there were people concerned with slavery.
    But the real reasons were quite different, destroying a cosmopolitan culture in the south, quite different from the NE, for NE hegemony over the whole USA, and demand for industrial labour, slavery does not work in factories.
    The liberated slaves soon found out that they often were worse off, especially in old age, at the plantations they could stay until their deaths. Read More

    jilles dykstra , April 28, 2017 at 4:38 pm GMT
    @annamaria China and Russia:
    "...regardless of the circumstances, we will not change our policy of deepening and developing our strategic partnership and cooperation; our policy, based on joint development and prosperity, will not change; and our joint efforts to defend peace and justice and promote cooperation in the world will not change. These were the words of President Xi Jinping."
    http://thesaker.is/breaking-personal-message-from-xi-jinping-to-vladimir-putin-our-friendship-is-unbreakable/
    Imagine: crazy US brass wielding various weapons of mass destruction over Europe, Middle East, and Asia. Versus the Silk Road - a net of trade connections between Asia and Europe. There were allegations that Hillary was prepared to wage an atomic war in Europe. Read More
    jilles dykstra , April 28, 2017 at 4:43 pm GMT
    100 Words @annamaria Lets be precise: the ongoing wars in the Middle East have been planned and pushed by the US/UK ziocons to protect and enlarge the territory of Israel. Both Libya and Syria were doing quite well (particularly Libya) until the ziocon "ameliorators" came to fix the situation in the Middle East. The "big and strong" America and her resources have been used by the tribe to protect their supremacist home of shameless colonizers. Instead of developing trade and cooperation, the US came to the Midde East with weapons of mass destruction. The Israel-firsters cooked the plan for the interventions. Millions died as a result. I was in Syria, 1987 or so.
    Of course it was dictatorial, secret services galore, five it was said.
    But the country was peaceful, not rich, but also not as poor as I experienced India some ten years before.
    Aleppo was the most cosmopolitan city I ever visited, anything accepted, from miniskirts to burka's.
    The sukh, now destroyed, was wonderful, medieval, happy looking people. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    jilles dykstra , April 28, 2017 at 4:46 pm GMT
    @annamaria Well, why don't you explain the UNZ readers the rationale for Israelis' collaboration with ISIS? This collaboration is well-documented and it has been discussed in Israeli press.
    So, why does Israel help to and protect ISIS? Maybe already 20 years ago studies appeared in Israel, stating that the destabilisation of the ME was the goal. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Sam Shama , April 28, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT
    100 Words @jacques sheete

    Why spew the common nonsense?
    You mean like this?

    Sam Shama , Next New Comment
    April 27, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT

    Although some of Trump's actions appear erratic, the much loftier and worthy goal of fixing and rebuilding the world remains intact.

    Trump and Pence are good men, their qualities, underestimated by many.

    No. Like these ones:

    jacques sheete ,
    April 27, 2017 at 11:46 am GMT

    • 200 Words

    Trump, the malleable Chimp, is just the latest iteration of Cleopatra's monkeys, and the mask is off.

    All the dreamers ought to wake up to the fact that the Amerika of their fantasies has been dead for some time, and will never be resurrected.

    [...]
    Me? I ain't shedding any tears for any stinking state!

    Bitterness of such intensity is impossible to miss. If you ain't shedding tears for no stinkin' state, you must consider yourself stateless. Who did you support in the last POTUS elections? Are you a communist anarchist? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    jilles dykstra , April 28, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT
    100 Words @jilles dykstra Houston Stewart Chamberlain, 'Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts', 1898- 1907, Mόnchen

    If you can read German, I can recommend it.
    He was the brother of the 1938 Chamberlain, had a strange youth, attended gymnasia in different European countries.
    He was flabbergasted how the same history was taught differently in different countries.

    I long ago wrote a USA correspondent how European countries considered waging war over the Monroe Doctrine.
    The reply was 'it is still taught here in glowing terms', well, in Europe it was seen as colonialism, as many in S America feel they're still under the USA colonial yoke.
    Eduardo Galeano, 'Open Veins of Latin America', Five centuries of the pillage of a continent', 1971, 2009, Londen.

    Your Civil War, for the liberation of slaves.
    My knowledge is from different books, and of course there were people concerned with slavery.
    But the real reasons were quite different, destroying a cosmopolitan culture in the south, quite different from the NE, for NE hegemony over the whole USA, and demand for industrial labour, slavery does not work in factories.
    The liberated slaves soon found out that they often were worse off, especially in old age, at the plantations they could stay until their deaths. Rereading, I do not want to defend slavery, not even in the USA, where it seems to have been far better for slaves than in Brazil

    Herbert Aptheker, 'Negro Slave Revolts in the United States 1526 – 1860 ', New York 1939

    Giorgio Marotti, 'Black Characters in the Brazilian Novel, Afro-American culture & society monograph series CAAS', 1987 Los Angelos Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Sam Shama , April 28, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT
    @Sean Israel would hardly put effort into overthrowing Libyan or Egyptian governments without believing their replacement would be an improvement from Israel's point of view. It wouldn't because everyone in those counties hates Israel. I don't think there is any evidence at all that Israel wants Assad to be overthrown. No Syrian government is going to be anything but hostile to Israel and Syria has nothing Israel wants. Yes Israel would use a wedge on Arabs fighting one another to keep them at it, but it cannot create divisions within a country of between countries out of nothing. For example Iran and Iraq were at war in the 80s and Israel supplied both with arms to keep the war going, but it didn't create the conflict, which was a Persian versus Arab one with very ancient hational roots- just like the Iranian-Saudi proxy war playing out in Syria.

    As for false flags, as I said it does seem insane for Assad to gas kids right now but Assad and his tiny leadership are very isolated from good advice and they have a proven ability to make incredibly bad decisions. One thing that weighs heavily against a false flag is that the US intelligence could have very professionally faked an attack last year and got a major US airstrike to break the back of Assad before the rebels had been virtually annihilated in the cities. So why a why would Assad use nerve gas now argument cuts both ways. Very good comment, Sean Read More LOL: Rurik Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Sean , April 28, 2017 at 5:13 pm GMT
    @Alden The last American troops left Germany in 1923. The French stayed until 1935 when Hitler forced them out. Thank you for taking the trouble to point out my error, Most embarrassing. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Sean , April 28, 2017 at 5:27 pm GMT
    100 Words @jilles dykstra There were allegations that Hillary was prepared to wage an atomic war in Europe. The US has contingency plans for nuking in almost every scenario without ever intending to do it. Very different from intending to carry out a nuclear first strike. I would not be surprised if the US has the targeting dating for a nuclear strike on Britain, just in case there was a need someday. But no way would the US ever dream of actually using nuclear weapons in Europe, because no ally country would agree to be a nuclear battlefield and hitting the enemy homeland would mean a nuclear strike on the US mainland in response. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Sam Shama , April 28, 2017 at 5:28 pm GMT
    100 Words @annamaria Well, why don't you explain the UNZ readers the rationale for Israelis' collaboration with ISIS? This collaboration is well-documented and it has been discussed in Israeli press.
    So, why does Israel help to and protect ISIS? Israel has a free press in which a great deal of speculation is tolerated, even welcomed. I haven't seen any articles in any of the major journals, or even in the smaller ones, where Daesh is described as a collaborator.

    To Israeli society's credit, humour is a normal and common enjoyment, in which spirit, some skits produced – Eretz Nehderet being the most prominent one – portray a darkly humourous relationship between Israeli doctors [and IDF medical corps] and Daesh operating in the Golan.

    So, Israeli med corps will, as modern protocol demands, aid any and all injured. Read More

    Sam Shama , April 28, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT
    1,400 Words @jilles dykstra Houston Stewart Chamberlain, 'Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts', 1898- 1907, Mόnchen

    If you can read German, I can recommend it.
    He was the brother of the 1938 Chamberlain, had a strange youth, attended gymnasia in different European countries.
    He was flabbergasted how the same history was taught differently in different countries.

    I long ago wrote a USA correspondent how European countries considered waging war over the Monroe Doctrine.
    The reply was 'it is still taught here in glowing terms', well, in Europe it was seen as colonialism, as many in S America feel they're still under the USA colonial yoke.
    Eduardo Galeano, 'Open Veins of Latin America', Five centuries of the pillage of a continent', 1971, 2009, Londen.

    Your Civil War, for the liberation of slaves.
    My knowledge is from different books, and of course there were people concerned with slavery.
    But the real reasons were quite different, destroying a cosmopolitan culture in the south, quite different from the NE, for NE hegemony over the whole USA, and demand for industrial labour, slavery does not work in factories.
    The liberated slaves soon found out that they often were worse off, especially in old age, at the plantations they could stay until their deaths. Egad! Houston Stewart Chamberlain was a neurotic character. I haven't read his Grundlagen , but Shirer's description of it is sufficient. Chamberlain wrote in spurts, gripped by a demonic fervour; he says so in his autobiography, Lebenswege , that he was often unable to recognise them as his own work because they surpassed his expectations!

    French scholar of Germanism Edmond Vermeil said Chamberlain's ideas were essentially "shoddy."

    Here is Shirer:

    [MORE]

    This son of an English admiral, nephew of a British field marshal, Sir Neville Chamberlain, and of two British generals, and eventually son-in-law of Richard Wagner, was born at Portsmouth in 1855. He was destined for the British Army or Navy, but his delicate health made such a calling out of the question and he was educated in France and Geneva, where French became his first language.

    Between the ages of fifteen and nineteen fate brought him into touch with two Germans and thereafter he was drawn irresistibly toward Germany, of which he ultimately became a citizen and one of the foremost thinkers and in whose language he wrote all of his many books, several of which had an almost blinding influence on Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler and countless lesser Germans.

    In 1870, when he was fifteen, Chamberlain landed in the hands of a remarkable tutor, Otto Kuntze, a Prussian of the Prussians, who for four years imprinted on his receptive mind and sensitive soul the glories of militant, conquering Prussia and also – apparently unmindful of the contrasts – of such artists and poets as Beethoven, Goethe, Schiller andWagner. At nineteen Chamberlain fell madly in love with Anna Horst, also a Prussian, ten years his senior and, like him, highly neurotic. In 1882, at the age of twenty-seven, he journeyed from Geneva, where he had beer, immersed for three years in studies of philosophy, natural history, physics, chemistry and medicine, to Bayreuth. There he met Wagner who, as he says, became the sun of his life, and Cosima, the composer's wife, to whom he would remain passionately and slavishly devoted all the rest of his days. From 1885, when he went with Anna Horst, who had become his wife, to live for four years in Dresden, he became a German in thought and in language, moving on to Vienna in 1889 for a decade and finally in 1909 to Bayreuth, where he dwelt until his death in 1927.

    He divorced his idolized Prussian wife in 1905, when she was sixty and even more mentally and physically ill than he (the separation was so painful that he said it almost drove him mad) and three years later he married Eva Wagner and settled down near Wahnfried, where he could be near his wife's mother, the revered, strong-willed Cosima.

    Hypersensitive and neurotic and subject to frequent nervous breakdowns, Chamberlain was given to seeing demons who, by his own account, drove him on relentlessly to seek new fields of study and get on with his prodigious writings. One vision after another forced him to change from biology to botany to the fine arts, to music, to philosophy, to biography to history. Once, in 1896, when he was returning from Italy, the presence of a demon became so forceful that he got off the train at Gardone, shut himself up in a hotel room for eight days and, abandoning some work on music that he had contemplated, wrote feverishly on a biological thesis until he had the germ of the theme that would dominate all of his later works: race and history.

    Whatever its blemishes, his mind had a vast sweep ranging over the fields of literature, music, biology, botany, religion, history and politics. There was, as Jean Real has pointed out, a profound unity of inspiration in all his published works and they had a remarkable coherence. Since he felt himself goaded on by demons, his books (on Wagner, Goethe, Kant, Christianity and race) were written in the grip of a terrible fever, a veritable trance, a state of self-induced intoxication, so that, as he says in his autobiography, Lebenswege, he was often unable to recognize them as his own work, because they surpassed his expectations.

    Minds more balanced than his have subsequently demolished his theories of race and much of his history, and to such a French scholar of Germanism as Edmond Vermeil Chamberlain's ideas were essentially "shoddy." Yet to the anti-Nazi German biographer of Hitler, Konrad Heiden, who deplored the influence of his racial teachings, Chamberlain "was one of the most astonishing talents in the history of the German mind, a mine of knowledge and profound
    ideas."

    The book which most profoundly influenced that mind, which sent Wilhelm II into ecstasies and provided the Nazis with their racial aberrations, was Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts) a work of some twelve hundred pages which Chamberlain, again possessed of one of his "demons," wrote in nineteen months between April 1, 1897, and October 31, 1898, in Vienna, and which was published in 1899.

    As with Gobineau, whom he admired, Chamberlain found the key to history, indeed the basis of civilization, to be race. To explain the nineteenth century, that is, the contemporary world, one had to consider first what it had been bequeathed from ancient times. Three things, said Chamberlain: Greek philosophy and art, Roman law and the personality of Christ. There were also three legatees: the Jews and the Germans, the "two pure races," and the half-breed Latins of the Mediterranean – "a chaos of peoples," he called them. The Germans alone deserved such a splendid heritage. They had, it is true, come into history late, not until the thirteenth century. But even before that, in destroying the Roman Empire, they had proved their worth, "It is not true," he says, " that the Teutonic barbarian conjured up the so-called 'Night of the Middle Ages'; this night followed rather upon the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the raceless chaos of humanity which the dying Roman Empire had nurtured; but for the Teuton, everlasting night would have settled upon the world." At the time he was writing he saw in the Teuton the only hope of the world. Chamberlain included among the "Teutons" the Celts and the Slavs, though the Teutons were the most important element. However, he is quite woolly in his definitions and at one point declares that "whoever behaves as a Teuton is a Teuton whatever his racial origin." Perhaps here he was thinking of his own non-German origin. Whatever he was, the Teuton, according to Chamberlain, was "the soul of our culture. The importance of each nation as a living power today is dependent upon the proportion of genuinely Teutonic blood in its population. . . True history begins at the moment when the Teuton, with his masterful hand, lays his grip upon the legacy of antiquity."

    And the Jews? The longest chapter in Foundations is devoted to them. As we have seen, Chamberlain claimed that the Jews and the Teutons were the only pure races left in the West. And in this chapter he condemns "stupid and revolting anti-Semitism." The Jews, he says, are not "inferior" to the Teuton, merely "different." They have their own grandeur; they realize the "sacred duty" of man to guard the purity of race. And yet as he proceeds to analyze the Jews, Chamberlain slips into the very vulgar anti-Semitism which he condemns in others and which leads, in the end, to the obscenities of Julius Streicher's caricatures of the Jews in Der Stuermer in Hitler's time. Indeed a good deal of the "philosophical" basis of Nazi anti-Semitism stems from this chapter.

    The preposterousness of Chamberlain's views is quickly evident. He has declared that the personality of Christ is one of the three great bequests of antiquity to modern civilization. He then sets out to "prove" that Jesus was not a Jew. His Galilean origins, his inability to utter correctly the Aramaic gutturals, are to Chamberlain "clear signs" that Jesus had "a large proportion of non-Semitic blood." He then makes a typically fiat statement: "Whoever claimed that Jesus was a Jew was either being stupid or telling a lie .. . Jesus was not a Jew."

    What was he then?

    Chamberlain answers: Probably an Aryan!

    To take Chamberlain's ideas seriously today is to indulge in a dangerous delusion. On balance, I prefer the refreshing American attitude you call "uninformed" over this all too perilous European "wisdom". 1939 anyone? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    anarchyst , April 28, 2017 at 6:59 pm GMT
    300 Words @jilles dykstra I have no hostility whatsoever against the USA people in general.
    Several offered me hospitality in their homes.

    What struck me each time was the igorance, the lack of information.
    Local tv is just stupid advertising.
    None of my hosts watched serious tv news, nowhere did I see a serious paper, just something local about engagements, weddings and funerals.

    One of my hosts I presented with the book of Anne Applebaum From West to East, I think the title was, she travelled from the Baltic sea to the Black see.
    He read it, had never realised about so many peoples.
    Even a well traveled more or less well known American I found very ignorant, who reads Readers Digest ?

    A Berkeley assistant professor asked me what I knew about the Civil War, at the time, end of the seventies, very little, but when I explained to him that Europe had been wars galore, so why would I know much about an American war, he was shocked.

    My strong objections are against USA society as a system, that allows a tiny minority to run foreign policy at their pleasure, at the cost, expense and blood of others, USA citizens and far more foreign citizens.
    The death rate American soldiers against foreign casualties was calculated by Anatol Lieven as one to fifty.

    On Okinawa is was 7000 USA soldiers against 100.000 Japanese soldiers and 40.000 civilians.

    Being a social democrat it abhors me that the USA always has abundant money for death and destruction but seems incapable of providing decent affordable health care for all its citizens; Your conception of American health care is incorrect. Yes, there are flaws, but ANYONE can walk into an American hospital emergency room and they will be treated REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY. Even illegal aliens will be treated
    Patients in countries with "socialized medicine" quite often, have interminable wait times for procedures that are routine here in the USA. Even Canada, our neighbor to the north, has problems with timely availability of services. Canada has first-rate medical personnel, who have to work under the constraints of a public system.
    It is interesting to note, that in most countries with "socialized medicine" there is a two-tier system of treatment those with private health insurance (or money) can (and do) get better treatment than those who depend on the "public system".
    In addition, there are life saving drugs that are unavailable in the public system as they are considered "too expensive"
    Witness Great Britain's "National Health Service" (NHS) with its NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), which refuses to pay for certain breast cancer drugs, deeming them to be "too expensive". One could argue that NICE is a "death panel" relegating those who are unfortunate enough to need care relegated to death.
    Go outside the NHS system to pay for your own care, and the door closes and locks behind you. "NHS has invoked a policy of refusing care altogether to patients who, often upon physician recommendation, choose to pay out-of-pocket for best-available drug treatments".
    A breast cancer patient in the UK "Found that out the hard way when she tried to buy Avastin out of her own pocket, only to have her doctor inform her that if she did so, she would have to pay for all her treatment." Yet she has been paying income taxes of 20 to 45 percent for her "government provided free healthcare".
    American health care needs improvement, but socializing it is not the answer Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Fidelios Automata , April 28, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT
    Why can't Trump be more like Putin? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Gleimhart , April 28, 2017 at 7:08 pm GMT
    100 Words @jacques sheete

    This site gets more anti-American by the day.
    Which America you talkin about? The one it's become or the one in your dreams?

    If you loved what America is supposed to stand for, you'd also be against what it's become.

    You want a pity party er sumpin? Go elsewhere. You haven't the least clue of my assessment of America. I already DO hate what it has become.

    And where did I ask for a pity party? Show me.

    Your problem is that you read into my comment things I did not say.

    jacques sheete, you are the dictionary definition of presumptuous.

    Don't ever address me again unless you have something intelligent to offer. Okay? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    annamaria , April 28, 2017 at 7:42 pm GMT
    100 Words @Sam Shama Israel has a free press in which a great deal of speculation is tolerated, even welcomed. I haven't seen any articles in any of the major journals, or even in the smaller ones, where Daesh is described as a collaborator.

    To Israeli society's credit, humour is a normal and common enjoyment, in which spirit, some skits produced - Eretz Nehderet being the most prominent one - portray a darkly humourous relationship between Israeli doctors [and IDF medical corps] and Daesh operating in the Golan.

    So, Israeli med corps will, as modern protocol demands, aid any and all injured. You should be more diligent in your search. Israel has been cooperating with ISIS and the Israeli generals have loudly proclaimed their preference for ISIS over sovereign Syria.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/alliance-of-convenience-israel-supports-syrias-isis-terror-group/5587203

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315347/Watch-heart-pounding-moment-Israeli-commandos-save-Islamic-militants-Syrian-warzone-risking-lives-sworn-enemies.html

    http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/02/19/un-report-reveals-how-israel-is-coordinating-with-isis-militants-inside-syria/

    http://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/1633-moshe-yaalon.html

    And please spare us your lecturing on special moral qualities of IDF and Israelis at large. Listen to your bloody Shaked; she is a Minister of Justice in your morally-lost lands: https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-lawmakers-call-genocide-palestinians-gets-thousands-facebook-likes
    "Israelis gather on hillsides to watch and cheer as military drops bombs on Gaza:" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing
    The ongoing blood bath in the Middle East (millions died) is directly related to Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw Read More

    Abdul Alhazred , April 28, 2017 at 8:46 pm GMT
    200 Words @Sean Anyone who wants to stage a preemptive nuclear attack wouldn't say so beforehand. No-one can come up with a scenario in which Britain would ever first use nukes, so refusing to rule it out is simply the practice of confronting potential aggression with uncertain consequences though being slow to say what you will do, and never saying what you won't.

    Lets be clear: the British nukes are out in subs and if they got the coded order to fire off a first use strike (for some reason we cannot yet imagine) the Trident captain and crew would obey the command. Any statement to the contrary made by some politician on BBC radio years before is going to be bloody irrelevant. Sean,
    I think you are underestimating the utter evil and horror of such a pronouncement which is an act of war and terrorism that is and has been standard operating practice of the British Empire. There are two operative words at play "Gunboat Diplomacy" where the emphasis is upon a canon in the face. Boom Baboom, but that's not gunpowder, nor iron ball, but a big flash of a sun exploding

    But there are those who think they can have a limited nuclear war
    And "The Bitch Set Him Up!"

    http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/2017_10-19/2017-15/pdf/02-03_4415.pdf

    Yeah its LaRouche, he is the only one who called this, Donny doing the 180, and why because Trump invoked the American System of Economics and was ready for peace with Russia and China and because the DEAL, the real deal, the only Deal is the invitation by the The Chinese and Russians as concerns the New Silk Road and One Belt Initiatives, which Lyndon and Helga Zepp LaRouche and associates are noted architects of this strategic move that would end British Empire Geopolotics Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Sam Shama , April 28, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT
    300 Words @annamaria You should be more diligent in your search. Israel has been cooperating with ISIS and the Israeli generals have loudly proclaimed their preference for ISIS over sovereign Syria.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/alliance-of-convenience-israel-supports-syrias-isis-terror-group/5587203
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315347/Watch-heart-pounding-moment-Israeli-commandos-save-Islamic-militants-Syrian-warzone-risking-lives-sworn-enemies.html
    http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/02/19/un-report-reveals-how-israel-is-coordinating-with-isis-militants-inside-syria/
    http://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/1633-moshe-yaalon.html

    And please spare us your lecturing on special moral qualities of IDF and Israelis at large. Listen to your bloody Shaked; she is a Minister of Justice in your morally-lost lands: https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-lawmakers-call-genocide-palestinians-gets-thousands-facebook-likes
    "Israelis gather on hillsides to watch and cheer as military drops bombs on Gaza:" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing
    The ongoing blood bath in the Middle East (millions died) is directly related to Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw You remind me of someone I can't quite remember this moment, flitting hither and thither, the busy little bee, nary a thought to what they are actually reading.

    Take e.g., the Daily Mail article you deposited, apparently a bolster for you claim. The Mail piece headlines say:

    Saving their sworn enemy: Heartstopping footage shows Israeli commandos rescuing wounded men from Syrian warzone – but WHY are they risking their lives for Islamic militants?
    ++ Elite Israeli troops rescue wounded Syrians from the world's worst war almost every night

    ++They have saved more than 2,000 people since 2013, at a cost of 50 million shekels (£8.7million)

    ++Many are enemies of Israel and some may even be fighters for groups affiliated to Al Qaeda

    ++MailOnline embedded with Israeli commandos stationed on the border between Israel and Syria

    ++Dramatic video filmed by MailOnline and the Israeli army shows these operations taking place

    ++Israel says that the operation is purely humanitarian but analysts believe Israel also has strategic reasons

    Go on, read the whole damned article. Take it from one of the victims, Ahmed, treated by IDF medical corps:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315347/Watch-heart-pounding-moment-Israeli-commandos-save-Islamic-militants-Syrian-warzone-risking-lives-sworn-enemies.html

    The casualties lavished praise on Israel:

    'I will not fight against Israel in the future. Israel looks after wounded people better than the Arabs. The Arabs are dogs,' said a wiry rebel fighter who gave his name as Ahmed, 23, who was recovering from a gunshot wound to the groin.

    This is overwhelmingly what Israel is doing there. At most, what you twist and label a collaboration, is the realpolitik behind Israel's work in this regard, to form an alliance of convenience, such that rockets are not launched into Israel, especially in the North. And why shouldn't she?

    You start your post, as usual, by instructing me to be more diligent in my readings. As I note that proposal with the seriousness it deserves, I take the occasion to remind you that you adopt the same attitude more broadly, as exempli gratia, when you bake goods, not inflict your male relatives with cordite when the bite was expectant of a sweet morsel. Read More

    S2 , April 28, 2017 at 9:58 pm GMT
    @Che Guava Rurik,

    I was just going to press 'Agree', but your last sentence mystifies me.

    Bolton was, as usual, talking out of his arse, but assuming sincerity on his part (with great strain), which *us* do you think he meant?

    "which *us* do you think he meant?"

    http://rense.com/general88/hist.htm

    So if you meet me
    Have some courtesy
    Have some sympathy, and some taste
    Use all your well-learned politesse
    Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mm yeah

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guessed my name, mm yeah Read More

    annamaria , April 29, 2017 at 12:11 pm GMT
    300 Words @Sam Shama You remind me of someone I can't quite remember this moment, flitting hither and thither, the busy little bee, nary a thought to what they are actually reading.

    Take e.g., the Daily Mail article you deposited, apparently a bolster for you claim. The Mail piece headlines say:


    Saving their sworn enemy: Heartstopping footage shows Israeli commandos rescuing wounded men from Syrian warzone - but WHY are they risking their lives for Islamic militants?
    ++ Elite Israeli troops rescue wounded Syrians from the world's worst war almost every night

    ++They have saved more than 2,000 people since 2013, at a cost of 50 million shekels (£8.7million)

    ++Many are enemies of Israel and some may even be fighters for groups affiliated to Al Qaeda

    ++MailOnline embedded with Israeli commandos stationed on the border between Israel and Syria

    ++Dramatic video filmed by MailOnline and the Israeli army shows these operations taking place

    ++Israel says that the operation is purely humanitarian but analysts believe Israel also has strategic reasons

    Go on, read the whole damned article. Take it from one of the victims, Ahmed, treated by IDF medical corps:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315347/Watch-heart-pounding-moment-Israeli-commandos-save-Islamic-militants-Syrian-warzone-risking-lives-sworn-enemies.html

    The casualties lavished praise on Israel:

    'I will not fight against Israel in the future. Israel looks after wounded people better than the Arabs. The Arabs are dogs,' said a wiry rebel fighter who gave his name as Ahmed, 23, who was recovering from a gunshot wound to the groin.

    This is overwhelmingly what Israel is doing there. At most, what you twist and label a collaboration, is the realpolitik behind Israel's work in this regard, to form an alliance of convenience, such that rockets are not launched into Israel, especially in the North. And why shouldn't she?

    You start your post, as usual, by instructing me to be more diligent in my readings. As I note that proposal with the seriousness it deserves, I take the occasion to remind you that you adopt the same attitude more broadly, as exempli gratia, when you bake goods, not inflict your male relatives with cordite when the bite was expectant of a sweet morsel. "This is overwhelmingly what Israel is doing there."
    Then why had not the Israelis' medics followed their "moral values" and rushed to save Palestinian children when the "most moral " IDF had been slaughtering the tightly-packed civilian population in Israel-occupied Gaza? http://gaza.ochaopt.org/2015/06/key-figures-on-the-2014-hostilities/ :
    "Of the Palestinian fatalities, 551 were children and 299 women. 11,231 Palestinians were injured including 3,436 children and 3,540 women, 10 percent of whom suffer permanent disability." Again, why the Israelis risk their lives to save ISIS "freedom fighters?"
    As for Israel's collaboration with ISIS, there are other links:

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/israel-and-isis-are-allies-there-we-said-it/ri19708

    The collaboration explains this revelation: "ISIS Apologized To Israel For Attacking IDF Soldiers" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-28/isis-apologized-israel-attacking-idf-soldiers
    "You can assume that these terrorists are fighting for Israel. If they aren't part of the regular Israeli army, they're fighting for Israel. Israel has common goals with Turkey, the United States, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries," Ynet quoted Assad " Sounds logical.

    On your sweet morsel of moral relativism: " what you twist and label a collaboration, is the realpolitik behind Israel's work in this regard "
    For some time, the state of Israel was hailed as a "moral" project. Here is one of the minor facts to dispel the nonsense: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing
    "Israelis sit on a hill to watch air strikes on Gaza, some bring drinks and snacks as they cheer the explosions a few miles away." Never again, in short.
    Meanwhile the warmongering Kagans' clan has got into collaboration with neo-Nazis:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554 https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article182892.html

    Here is an Israeli citizen who was involved in financing the neo-Nazis thugs that burned the scores of civilians alive in Odessa. The ziocons-run Wall Street Journal wrote a flattering article on the bloody Kolomojsky who also used to be a leader of Jewish community in Ukraine: https://www.rt.com/news/159168-kiev-businessman-massacre-mariupol/
    Not a peep from Israel and the "righteous" Jewish organizations, which invoke the memory of Holocaust to nick any criticism of Israel, but which are dead silent in the case of ziocons' collaboration with neo-Nazis. Your post calls this "realpolitic." Nothing to look at Though, how much have Jewish victims of WWII extracted from Germany for "moral sufferings and more?" Read More

    Che Guava , April 29, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
    200 Words @Rurik

    which *us* do you think he meant?
    Hey Che,

    when someone like Bolton says 'they directly threaten us'

    you can take it to the bank that the "us" he's referring to is Israel

    us, the Jews ;)

    he purports to mean the American people, but anyone on the planet who knows the first thing about Ziocons like Bolton, know damn well he'd see virtually every single American goyim ground up into the dirt rather that see one fingernail on one Jewish hand suffer harm.

    N. Korea does not threaten America or our interests. If anything, it threatens its neighbors. And if so, then our trading partner China could effectively deal with it.

    the only reason N. Korea is in the crosshairs is because somehow Israel considers it a threat Hello Rurik.

    Having thought about it, there are a few, but I will not list the others.

    The real and plausible threat (anybody knowing about the effects of nuclear weapons will know about the effects of US stratospheric tests of megaton weapons in the early '60s and understand) is beyond the technical capabilities of the DPRK.

    Their atomic bombs, on seismic data, are all damp fizzers. They don't have the lift to do maximum economic damage, either.

    They do seem to have the capacity to sink an attacking carrier battle group or two with conventional weapons.

    I would assign the highest probability, for ZOG USA, to the confrontation with Nth. Korea just being a shadow-play aimed at Iran.

    I vaguely recall the Izzy government being good buddies with DPRK.

    Will add one digression that is of interest, in old, turn-of-last century photos of party conferences in the DPRK, several officials in military uniform are cleary from former Warsaw Pact places, or from the USSR, but I have never seen an article to mention it. Read More

    annamaria , April 29, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT
    "Wikileaks Founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange joins the Liberty Report [with Ron Paul] to discuss the latest push by the Trump Administration to bring charges against him and his organization for publishing US Government documents:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwkrtpXp-wg Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Sam Shama , April 29, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT
    100 Words @annamaria "This is overwhelmingly what Israel is doing there."
    Then why had not the Israelis' medics followed their "moral values" and rushed to save Palestinian children when the "most moral " IDF had been slaughtering the tightly-packed civilian population in Israel-occupied Gaza? http://gaza.ochaopt.org/2015/06/key-figures-on-the-2014-hostilities/:
    "Of the Palestinian fatalities, 551 were children and 299 women. 11,231 Palestinians were injured including 3,436 children and 3,540 women, 10 percent of whom suffer permanent disability." Again, why the Israelis risk their lives to save ISIS "freedom fighters?"
    As for Israel's collaboration with ISIS, there are other links:
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/israel-and-isis-are-allies-there-we-said-it/ri19708
    The collaboration explains this revelation: "ISIS Apologized To Israel For Attacking IDF Soldiers" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-28/isis-apologized-israel-attacking-idf-soldiers
    "You can assume that these terrorists are fighting for Israel. If they aren't part of the regular Israeli army, they're fighting for Israel. Israel has common goals with Turkey, the United States, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries," Ynet quoted Assad " Sounds logical.

    On your sweet morsel of moral relativism: "...what you twist and label a collaboration, is the realpolitik behind Israel's work in this regard..."
    For some time, the state of Israel was hailed as a "moral" project. Here is one of the minor facts to dispel the nonsense: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing
    "Israelis sit on a hill to watch air strikes on Gaza, some bring drinks and snacks as they cheer the explosions a few miles away." Never again, in short.
    Meanwhile the warmongering Kagans' clan has got into collaboration with neo-Nazis:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554 https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article182892.html
    Here is an Israeli citizen who was involved in financing the neo-Nazis thugs that burned the scores of civilians alive in Odessa. The ziocons-run Wall Street Journal wrote a flattering article on the bloody Kolomojsky who also used to be a leader of Jewish community in Ukraine: https://www.rt.com/news/159168-kiev-businessman-massacre-mariupol/
    Not a peep from Israel and the "righteous" Jewish organizations, which invoke the memory of Holocaust to nick any criticism of Israel, but which are dead silent in the case of ziocons' collaboration with neo-Nazis. Your post calls this "realpolitic." Nothing to look at... Though, how much have Jewish victims of WWII extracted from Germany for "moral sufferings and more?" The usual dribblings.

    You manage to get the Kagans inserted in there somehow, although miss Nudelman (is that it?).

    Reading your posts are similar to tolerating the tiresome, repetitive adverts which plague television these days, mostly peddling shaky pharmaceuticals. You ought to end or preface each with the usual disclaimers on side effects, which in this case are mostly benign and somnambulic in effect.

    As to Gaza, I only remark that rocket attacks on Sderot will elicit a response; so that the cure is simple: stop the rockets.

    As to realpolitik, my comment pertained to ISIS in Syria; that Israel does what she can to prevent the lunatics from sending rockets to Northern Israel. But feel free to twist it to your heart's content and somehow link it to .Gaza!! There are no realpolitik interests in Gaza; do get that through your head. Read More

    Rurik , April 29, 2017 at 5:51 pm GMT
    100 Words @Che Guava Hello Rurik.

    Having thought about it, there are a few, but I will not list the others.

    The real and plausible threat (anybody knowing about the effects of nuclear weapons will know about the effects of US stratospheric tests of megaton weapons in the early '60s and understand) is beyond the technical capabilities of the DPRK.

    Their atomic bombs, on seismic data, are all damp fizzers. They don't have the lift to do maximum economic damage, either.

    They do seem to have the capacity to sink an attacking carrier battle group or two with conventional weapons.

    I would assign the highest probability, for ZOG USA, to the confrontation with Nth. Korea just being a shadow-play aimed at Iran.

    I vaguely recall the Izzy government being good buddies with DPRK.

    Will add one digression that is of interest, in old, turn-of-last century photos of party conferences in the DPRK, several officials in military uniform are cleary from former Warsaw Pact places, or from the USSR, but I have never seen an article to mention it. Hey Che,

    I would assign the highest probability, for ZOG USA, to the confrontation with Nth. Korea just being a shadow-play aimed at Iran.

    I just read something from one of the commenters here (Kiza) that the saber-rattling at DPRK is a less than oblique threat to Russia and China, as the need for Rothschild, et al- to exercise absolute and unilateral domination of the entire planet is growing to an event horizon type imperative. (I'm not quoting, but I think that's the gist)

    and that's as good of an analysis as I've seen yet, and it's consistent with everything I know about human nature and history and everything I know about Rothschild, et al Read More

    Rurik , April 29, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT
    @Sam Shama The usual dribblings.

    You manage to get the Kagans inserted in there somehow, although miss Nudelman (is that it?).

    Reading your posts are similar to tolerating the tiresome, repetitive adverts which plague television these days, mostly peddling shaky pharmaceuticals. You ought to end or preface each with the usual disclaimers on side effects, which in this case are mostly benign and somnambulic in effect.

    As to Gaza, I only remark that rocket attacks on Sderot will elicit a response; so that the cure is simple: stop the rockets.

    As to realpolitik, my comment pertained to ISIS in Syria; that Israel does what she can to prevent the lunatics from sending rockets to Northern Israel. But feel free to twist it to your heart's content and somehow link it to ....Gaza!! There are no realpolitik interests in Gaza; do get that through your head.

    stop the rockets.

    then stop the occupation

    - and murder and theft and oppression and torture and daily horrors and humiliations

    simple it'z Sammy ; )

    just join the human race! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Caterina , April 29, 2017 at 6:09 pm GMT
    Fisk = another idiot looking for relevance.

    These people need to shut their pie holes and stop seeking to be lauded by the masses. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    annamaria , April 29, 2017 at 9:27 pm GMT
    300 Words @Sam Shama The usual dribblings.

    You manage to get the Kagans inserted in there somehow, although miss Nudelman (is that it?).

    Reading your posts are similar to tolerating the tiresome, repetitive adverts which plague television these days, mostly peddling shaky pharmaceuticals. You ought to end or preface each with the usual disclaimers on side effects, which in this case are mostly benign and somnambulic in effect.

    As to Gaza, I only remark that rocket attacks on Sderot will elicit a response; so that the cure is simple: stop the rockets.

    As to realpolitik, my comment pertained to ISIS in Syria; that Israel does what she can to prevent the lunatics from sending rockets to Northern Israel. But feel free to twist it to your heart's content and somehow link it to ....Gaza!! There are no realpolitik interests in Gaza; do get that through your head. "There are no realpolitik interests in Gaza "
    Because the illegally occupied Gazans are defenseless, like dwellers of the former ghettos in Europe?
    By the way, why are you taking everything personally in my posts and then insert some cheap childish insults into every response-comment, instead of answering point by point to the documented facts ?
    One of the main points of my posts is the congruence of ziocons' policies in the Middle East with Oded Yinon plan. Another point is the incongruence of Israelis' pretense on being in possession of superior morality (this one always goes with references to Holocaust) in the context of the extraordinary influence of Israel-firsters on making military decision by the US/NATO in the Middle East. You have been steadily avoiding these two points, as if you have some case of cognitive blindness. Though to be fair, you did utter something about realpoitic (moral relativism, in other words) being factored in Israel's policies. But if you recognize this relativism, then your tribe should stop pestering Germans, reminding them again and again about their guilt. It is over. Israel's policies, beginning with the open terrorism in the 30-s and 40-s and up to the promoting the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East, have already concealed any pretense on victimhood. Whether in Europe, damaged by the influx of refugees from the ME and of low-IQ migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, or in the US, irritated by the price for the illegal wars in the ME, the citizenry is taking on a rather sour attitude towards the Lobby and other Friends of Israel. The floods of refugees (of various kinds) make a point for the populace. The cause of the wars and the Israel-firsters' efforts towards initiating these wars have been under discussion. The Israel-firsters love their mythological fatherland so much that they put the well-being of their countries of residence second to Israel. Not good for national policies. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Che Guava , April 30, 2017 at 1:53 am GMT
    @S2

    "which *us* do you think he meant?"
    http://rense.com/general88/hist.htm

    So if you meet me
    Have some courtesy
    Have some sympathy, and some taste
    Use all your well-learned politesse
    Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mm yeah

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guessed my name, mm yeah Thanks for the link and amusing comment. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Druid , April 30, 2017 at 4:09 am GMT
    @Sam Shama Although some of Trump's actions appear erratic, the much loftier and worthy goal of fixing and rebuilding the world remains intact.

    Trump and Pence are good men, their qualities, underestimated by many. You Ziofascists are so predictable! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Druid , April 30, 2017 at 4:14 am GMT
    @englishmike Actually its the British! .well they are bloody insane!

    "Muhammed really is most popular baby name in the UK - as is Mohammed, Muhammad..."
    (Reported in The Independent, Monday 1 December 2014).

    So do me a favour, Abdul, old chap: do stop blaming "the British" for what some of their politicians say. You wouldn't like them to make sweeping generalisations about British people called Mohammed being "bloody insane", now would you! True! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Druid , April 30, 2017 at 4:18 am GMT
    @Sam Shama Israel has a free press in which a great deal of speculation is tolerated, even welcomed. I haven't seen any articles in any of the major journals, or even in the smaller ones, where Daesh is described as a collaborator.

    To Israeli society's credit, humour is a normal and common enjoyment, in which spirit, some skits produced - Eretz Nehderet being the most prominent one - portray a darkly humourous relationship between Israeli doctors [and IDF medical corps] and Daesh operating in the Golan.

    So, Israeli med corps will, as modern protocol demands, aid any and all injured. It also has apartheid, land theft, a large concentration camp called Gaza, extrajudicial murders, crazy fundamentalist psycho settlers, supporters like you, amoral gambler supporters all over the US, etc., etc. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Druid , April 30, 2017 at 4:22 am GMT
    @annamaria "This is overwhelmingly what Israel is doing there."
    Then why had not the Israelis' medics followed their "moral values" and rushed to save Palestinian children when the "most moral " IDF had been slaughtering the tightly-packed civilian population in Israel-occupied Gaza? http://gaza.ochaopt.org/2015/06/key-figures-on-the-2014-hostilities/:
    "Of the Palestinian fatalities, 551 were children and 299 women. 11,231 Palestinians were injured including 3,436 children and 3,540 women, 10 percent of whom suffer permanent disability." Again, why the Israelis risk their lives to save ISIS "freedom fighters?"
    As for Israel's collaboration with ISIS, there are other links:
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/israel-and-isis-are-allies-there-we-said-it/ri19708
    The collaboration explains this revelation: "ISIS Apologized To Israel For Attacking IDF Soldiers" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-28/isis-apologized-israel-attacking-idf-soldiers
    "You can assume that these terrorists are fighting for Israel. If they aren't part of the regular Israeli army, they're fighting for Israel. Israel has common goals with Turkey, the United States, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries," Ynet quoted Assad " Sounds logical.

    On your sweet morsel of moral relativism: "...what you twist and label a collaboration, is the realpolitik behind Israel's work in this regard..."
    For some time, the state of Israel was hailed as a "moral" project. Here is one of the minor facts to dispel the nonsense: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing
    "Israelis sit on a hill to watch air strikes on Gaza, some bring drinks and snacks as they cheer the explosions a few miles away." Never again, in short.
    Meanwhile the warmongering Kagans' clan has got into collaboration with neo-Nazis:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554 https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article182892.html
    Here is an Israeli citizen who was involved in financing the neo-Nazis thugs that burned the scores of civilians alive in Odessa. The ziocons-run Wall Street Journal wrote a flattering article on the bloody Kolomojsky who also used to be a leader of Jewish community in Ukraine: https://www.rt.com/news/159168-kiev-businessman-massacre-mariupol/
    Not a peep from Israel and the "righteous" Jewish organizations, which invoke the memory of Holocaust to nick any criticism of Israel, but which are dead silent in the case of ziocons' collaboration with neo-Nazis. Your post calls this "realpolitic." Nothing to look at... Though, how much have Jewish victims of WWII extracted from Germany for "moral sufferings and more?" What do you expect from Ziofascists like Sam et al Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Druid , April 30, 2017 at 4:41 am GMT
    @Rurik

    My strong objections are against USA society as a system, that allows a tiny minority to run foreign policy at their pleasure, at the cost, expense and blood of others, USA citizens and far more foreign citizens.
    I can't argue with that Jilles

    and you're right about the general ignorance and bovine stupidity of most Americans, but that has been very carefully created by the PTB, who don't want an educated, thinking populace.

    what was it papa Bush said?

    "if the American people knew what we have done, they would string us up from the lamp posts"

    if the American people could think, the results would be the same. If the American people could think and were in possession of a moral soul, then they'd know that wars based on lies should be repudiated and the war criminals brought to justice. But the American sheople have been systematically dumbed down to the point of zombies, infatuated with Kim Kardashian's ass. Today Idiocracy is a reality. It's true.

    But, let me just say on behalf of Americans, that I don't really see it any better across the pond. Sure, the Europeans are better educated, and generally speak at least two languages, and have heard of Yalta and Copernicus, but with all that education, they just don't seem to me to be any more principled or moral than the zombified Americans.

    Sure, it is the US military that is the biggest bully on the block, but does that excuse the other little bullies that stand behind him and give him moral support? There were French jets bombing Libya just as ferociously as any American ones. The Brits have never seen an act of aggression from the US military that they don't reverently applaud. And the Germans, whose government goes along with every war crime America commits in principle, are today complicit in a racial supremacist, genocidal holocaust against a completely innocent victim whose only crime is that they existed - in Palestine, on land that some Jewish supremacist coveted for themselves.

    The irony? That these very same Germans feel excruciating and debilitating guilt for a crime that they had nothing to do with, while at the same time facilitating the same crime of genocide today, in their names, by funding and arming and providing "moral" cover for the Zionists.

    So sure, Europeans are far more educated, but seem to fall very short when it comes to using that education to augment a moral foundation for their actions and the actions of their respective governments. There seems to me to be a sort of all-pervasive cowardice in Western Europe, and a Pavlovian, knee-jerk propensity to wallow in prostrate abasement and self-flagellate as soon as anyone says "Holocaust". Sort of what they used to be able to bludgeon Americans with by the pejorative "racist", until it became a joke.

    Anyways, yes, we're ignorant, and bovine and dangerous, but morally, I just don't see too many paragons of virtue or honor to hold up as examples today. Uruguay perhaps, and I would include Putin's Russia insofar as he's trying to put out the fires the Zio-Western-fiend is lighting all over the place, but then he too bolsters their agenda by antagonizing the former Soviet satellite states with ultra-nationalistic chest thumping over the "great war", (that the Bolsheviks in Russia were mainly responsible for). Note to Putin, let it rest! The great victory that you celebrate in May was a catastrophe for Eastern Europe (and millions of Russians too)

    sorry, I tend to rant at times.. Rant away. Makes complete sense! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Che Guava , April 30, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT
    100 Words @Rurik Hey Che,

    I would assign the highest probability, for ZOG USA, to the confrontation with Nth. Korea just being a shadow-play aimed at Iran.
    I just read something from one of the commenters here (Kiza) that the saber-rattling at DPRK is a less than oblique threat to Russia and China, as the need for Rothschild, et al- to exercise absolute and unilateral domination of the entire planet is growing to an event horizon type imperative. (I'm not quoting, but I think that's the gist)

    and that's as good of an analysis as I've seen yet, and it's consistent with everything I know about human nature and history and everything I know about Rothschild, et al Hello Rurik.

    Have you read the Illuminatus! trilogy? I have, twice, once before and once after struggling through Anna Rosenbaum's Atlas Shrugged.

    It was better the second time, because it is partly a parody of Ayn Rand.

    It is dirty hippy material, but it is fun.

    All of these ideas, the Rothschilds, the Brit. Royal family, etc. do it all, they work even less than the Protocols of the Elders, which seems to be a template for reality, and the claims for it to just to being malicious fake are on very shallow foundations.

    Sure, I have no doubt that the Rothschild clan is mainly evil, but I do not see any sense in ideas that they have some solo supevillain role.

    If you have not read the book(s), it was originally published in three, I recommend, it should make you laugh at times.


    [Apr 28, 2017] The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elites Takeover of America by Paul Fitzgerald & Elizabeth Gould

    Notable quotes:
    "... The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize "truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine free speech. ..."
    "... the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend and foe alike. ..."
    "... The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950 Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know it. ..."
    "... The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. ..."
    "... PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development." ..."
    "... Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document. As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and so on.' ..."
    "... With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite. ..."
    "... The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism, whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda. ..."
    "... Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit the British Left." ..."
    "... The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in 1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." ..."
    "... Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International experience to use to undermine dιtente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers" as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives. When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser. ..."
    "... As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud." ..."
    www.truthdig.com

    Editor's note: This article is the last in a four-part series on Truthdig called "Universal Empire" -- an examination of the current stage of the neocon takeover of American policy that began after World War ll. Read Part 1 , Part 2 and Part 3 .

    The recent assertion by the Trump White House that Damascus and Moscow released "false narratives" to mislead the world about the April 4 sarin gas attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, is a dangerous next step in the "fake news" propaganda war launched in the final days of the Obama administration. It is a step whose deep roots in Communist Trotsky's Fourth International must be understood before deciding whether American democracy can be reclaimed.

    Muddying the waters of accountability in a way not seen since Sen. Joe McCarthy at the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, the " Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act " signed into law without fanfare by Obama in December 2016 officially authorized a government censorship bureaucracy comparable only to George Orwell's fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel "1984." Referred to as " the Global Engagement Center ," the official purpose of this new bureaucracy is to "recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The real purpose of this Orwellian nightmare is to cook the books on anything that challenges Washington's neoconservative pro-war narrative and to intimidate, harass or jail anyone who tries. As has already been demonstrated by President Trump's firing of Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian government airbase, it is a recipe for a world war, and like it or not, that war has already begun.

    This latest attack on Russia's supposed false narrative takes us right back to 1953 and the beginnings of the cultural war between East and West. Its roots are tied to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to James Burnham's pivot from Trotsky's Fourth International to right-wing conservatism and to the rise of the neoconservative Machiavellians as a political force. As Burnham's " The Struggle for the World " stressed, the Third World War had already begun with the 1944 Communist-led Greek sailors' revolt.

    In Burnham's Manichean thinking, the West was under siege. George Kennan's Cold War policy of containment was no different than Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. Dιtente with the Soviet Union amounted to surrender. Peace was only a disguise for war, and that war would be fought with politics, subversion, terrorism and psychological warfare. Soviet influence had to be rolled back wherever possible. That meant subverting the Soviet Union and its proxies and, when necessary, subverting Western democracies as well.

    The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize "truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine free speech. The real irony is that the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend and foe alike.

    The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950 Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know it.

    As historian Christopher Lasch wrote in 1969 of the CIA's cooptation of the American left,

    "The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists or state-censored time-servers but as 'free' intellectuals capable of policing their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility within the various intellectual professions."

    Key to turning these "free" intellectuals against their own interests was the CIA's doctrinal program for Western cultural transformation contained in the document PSB D-33/2 . PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development."

    While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2 itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing "a wide doctrinal system" that "accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity," embracing "all fields of human thought -- all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology." He concluded: "That is just about as totalitarian as one can get."

    Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document. As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and so on.' Weren't these the models used by James Burnham in his book the Machiavellians? Perhaps there was a copy usefully to hand when PSB D-33/2 was being drafted. More likely, James Burnham himself was usefully to hand."

    Burnham was more than just at hand when it came to secretly implanting a fascist philosophy of extreme elitism into America's Cold War orthodoxy. With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite.

    The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism, whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.

    Hard at work on that task since 1946 was the secret Information Research Department of the British and Commonwealth Foreign Office known as the IRD.

    Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit the British Left."

    IRD was to become a self-fulfilling disinformation machine for the far-right wing of the international intelligence elite, at once offering fabricated and distorted information to "independent" news outlets and then using the laundered story as "proof" of the false story's validity. One such front enterprise established with CIA money was Forum World Features, operated at one time by Burnham acolyte Brian Rossiter Crozier . Described by Burnham's biographer Daniel Kelly as a "British political analyst," in reality, the legendary Brian Crozier functioned for over 50 years as one of Britain's top propagandists and secret agents .

    If anyone today is shocked by the biased, one-sided, xenophobic rush to judgment alleging Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election, they need look no further than to Brian Crozier's closet for the blueprints. As we were told outright by an American military officer during the first war in Afghanistan in 1982, the U.S. didn't need "proof the Soviets used poison gas" and they don't need proof against Russia now. Crozier might best be described as a daydream believer, a dangerous imperialist who acts out his dreams with open eyes. From the beginning of the Cold War until his death in 2012, Crozier and his protιgι Robert Moss propagandized on behalf of military dictators Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet, organized private intelligence organizations to destabilize governments in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa and worked to delegitimize politicians in Europe and Britain viewed as insufficiently anti-Communist.

    The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in 1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." The key to Crozier's thinking was Burnham's distinction between the "formal" meaning of political speech and the "real," a concept which was, of course, grasped only by elites. In a 1976 article, Crozier marveled at how Burnham's understanding of politics had spanned 600 years and how the use of "the formal" to conceal "the real" was no different today than when used by Dante Alighieri's "presumably enlightened Medieval mind." "The point is as valid now as it was in ancient times and in the Florentine Middle Ages, or in 1943. Overwhelmingly, political writers and speakers still use Dante's method. Depending on the degree of obfuscation required (either by circumstances or the person's character), the divorce between formal and real meaning is more of less absolute."

    But Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International experience to use to undermine dιtente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet Union.

    In a secret meeting at a City of London bank in February 1977, he even patented a private-sector operational intelligence organization known at the Sixth International (6I) to pick up where Burnham left off: politicizing and privatizing many of the dirty tricks the CIA and other intelligence services could no longer be caught doing. As he explained in his memoir "Free Agent," the name 6I was chosen "because the Fourth International split. The Fourth International was the Trotskyist one, and when it split, this meant that, on paper, there were five Internationals. In the numbers game, we would constitute the Sixth International, or '6I.' "

    Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers" as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives. When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser.

    As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud."

    Today, Burnham's use of Dante's political treatise "De Monarchia" to explain his medieval understanding of politics might best be swapped for Dante's "Divine Comedy," a paranoid comedy of errors in which the door to Hell swings open to one and all, including the elites regardless of their status. Or as they say in Hell, " Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate ." Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

    This poart 4 of the series. For previous parts see

    1. Part 1: American Imperialism Leads the World Into Dante's Vision of Hell
    2. Part 3: How the CIA Created a Fake Western Reality for 'Unconventional Warfare'

    Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of " Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story ," " Crossing Zero: The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire " and " The Voice ." Visit their websites at invisiblehistory.com and grailwerk.com .

    [Apr 28, 2017] The US is at last facing the neocon captivity

    The new term is ZOC -- "AngloZionists occupied country."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Why did we invade Iraq ..."
    "... For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn't matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence ..."
    "... They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that's why I have a problem with that thinking ..."
    "... We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel ideologues - the neoconservatives - who had mustered forces in Washington over the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel as a great neighbor. ..."
    "... all of whom would go into the Bush administration ..."
    "... It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early in 2002 urging him to "accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from power" for the sake of Israel. ..."
    "... It is in Wolfowitz saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including Douglas Feith.) ..."
    "... of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv ..."
    "... Many writers, including Joe Klein , Jacob Heilbrunn, and Alan Dershowitz , have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives, for our own sake. ..."
    "... But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war. ..."
    "... This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don't make that terrible mistake again. ..."
    May 19, 2015 | mondoweiss.net t

    The best thing about this political moment in the U.S. (if not for the good people of Iraq) is that the rise of ISIS and the Republican candidates' embrace of the Iraq war is posing that deep and permanent question to the American public, Why did we invade Iraq ?

    Last night Chris Matthews asked that question again and David Corn said it was about the neoconservative desire to protect Israel. Both men deserve kudos for courage. Here's part of the exchange:

    Matthews: Why were the people in the administration like [Paul] Wolfowitz and the others talking about going into Iraq from the very beginning, when they got into the white house long before there was a 911 long before there was WMD. It seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don't get it. It seemed like WMD was a cover story.

    Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn't matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence

    Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there's a consistent pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways, neocons so called, Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it's the same crowd of people that want us to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it's the same group of people that don't want to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don't want any kind of rapprochement with the Iranians, they want to fight that war. They're willing to go in there and bomb. They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that's why I have a problem with that thinking . we've got to get to the bottom of it. Why did they take us to Iraq, because that's the same reason they want to take us into Damascus and why they want to have permanent war with Iran.

    What a great exchange. And it shows up Paul Krugman, who mystifies this very issue in the New York Times. (" Errors and Lies ," which poses the same question that Matthews does but concludes that Bush and Cheney "wanted a war," which is just a lie masquerading as a tautology.)

    Here are my two cents. We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel ideologues - the neoconservatives - who had mustered forces in Washington over the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel as a great neighbor. It's a variation on a neocolonialist theory that pro-Israel ideologues have believed going back to the 1940s: that Palestinians would accept a Jewish state if you got rid of their corrupt leadership and allowed the people to share in Israel's modern economic miracle.

    The evidence for this causation is at every hand.

    It is in the Clean Break plan written for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996 by leading neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser - all of whom would go into the Bush administration - calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the export of the Palestinian political problem to Jordan.

    It is in the Project for a New American Century letters written to Clinton in 1998 telling him that Saddam's WMD were a threat to Israel. (A letter surely regretted by Francis Fukuyama, who later accused the neocons of seeing everything through a pro-Israel lens.)

    It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early in 2002 urging him to "accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from power" for the sake of Israel.

    the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an "Axis of Evil." Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles - American principles - in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred.

    It is in Netanyahu testifying to Congress in 2002 t hat he promised there would be "enormous positive reverberations" throughout the region if we only removed Saddam.

    It is in Wolfowitz saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including Douglas Feith.)

    It is in all the neocon tracts, from Perle and Frum's An End to Evil, to Kristol and Kaplan's The War Over Saddam, to Berman's Terror and Liberalism, saying that Saddam's support for suicide bombers in Israel was a reason for the U.S. to topple him.

    It is in war-supporter Tom Friedman saying that we needed to invade Iraq because of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv - and the importance of conveying to Arabs they couldn't get away with that.

    It is in the head of the 9/11 Commission, former Bush aide Philip Zelikow, saying Israel was the reason to take on Iraq back in 2002 even though Iraq was no threat to us:

    "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002. "And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

    It is in Friedman saying that "elite" neoconservatives created the war in this interview with Ari Shavit back in 2003:

    It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

    It is in Tony Judt's statement about the Israel interest in the war back in 2003:

    For many in the current US administration, a major strategic consideration was the need to destabilize and then reconfigure the Middle East in a manner thought favorable to Israel.

    And yes this goes back to rightwing Zionism. It goes back to Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol launching neoconservatism in the 1970s because they said that the dovish policies of the Democratic Party were a direct threat to Israel– an analysis continued in this day by Norman Braman, Marco Rubio's leading supporter, who says that the U.S. must be a military and economic power in order to "sustain" Israel.

    An Economist blogger wrote several years ago that if you leave out the Zionism you won't understand the Iraq war:

    Yes, it would be ridiculous, and anti-semitic, to cast the Iraq war as a conspiracy monocausally driven by a cabal of Jewish neocons and the Israeli government. But it's entirely accurate to count neoconservative policy analyses as among the important causes of the war, to point out that the pro-Israeli sympathies of Jewish neoconservatives played a role in these analyses, and to note the support of the Israeli government and public for the invasion. In fact any analysis of the war's causes that didn't take these into account would be deficient.

    Many writers, including Joe Klein , Jacob Heilbrunn, and Alan Dershowitz , have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives, for our own sake.

    But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war.

    This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don't make that terrible mistake again. And yes: this issue is going to play out frankly in the 2016 campaign, thanks in good measure to Matthews.

    [Apr 27, 2017] what is a good defition fo deep state ?

    Apr 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Chibboleth , April 27, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    If you want a good definition / description of the Deep State you just have to watch the old Thatcher-era BBC comedy Yes, Minister – the whole show is more or less entirely about friction between elected representatives and the UK Deep State.

    Short, short version: the Deep State is the set of people (government officials, mostly) who wield some amount of power but whose positions are not affected by election results. Nothing particularly secret about it.

    justanotherprogressive , April 27, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    As a former government employee, I'm trying to figure out who "the set of people (government officials, mostly) who wield some amount of power but whose positions are not affected by election results" are. I hear about them all the time, particularly on right wing blogs, but I've never actually seen one

    The power in a government agency is held by political appointees ("politicos" in guvspeak) and those political appointees are the only ones that speak for or direct the agency. And they change every time there is a change in the Presidency. Most agencies have more than one political appointee. My last job was with a small agency (less than two hundred employees) that had five. If a senior staff member is not immediately in line with the politicos' policies, that person is removed (demoted, sidelined, or transferred to another agency). Those governmental employees that stay year after year (the "weebees") just do the work, they have no power, and they definitely cannot make any decisions for the agency.

    Vatch , April 27, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    In some government agencies, the high ranking career employees seem to be rather good at manipulating the political appointees. This does not apply to all agencies; the primary examples are in the military, intelligence, financial, and justice realms. Unsurprisingly, these are the agencies that are the heaviest users of secrecy. There's also a lot of cross pollination between portions of the private sector (completely unelected, of course), and the murky deep state. Some of this involves the "revolving door", but some is just shadowy cooperation, such as we see among the NSA and various giants in telecommunications and Silicon Valley, or among Wall Street, the Treasury Department, and the Federal Reserve. The public does not elect those people.

    justanotherprogressive , April 27, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    I don't think there is much "manipulation" needed. After all the politicos come from the lobby/contractor/donor class, whether they be Democrat or Republican and they are already unwilling to change anything that they perceive as giving them power and control ..

    But I guess it is easier to believe in a "Deep State" than realize that those shiny new politicians we just elected really do not want to change anything

    Vatch , April 27, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    Some of us believe that there is both a deep state and that there are elected politicians who wish to preserve the status quo.

    likbez , April 27, 2017 at 10:07 pm

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    When weI say "deep state" we typically understand this term as "intelligence agencies"; we say "intelligence agencies" and mean "deep state".

    From Wikispooks ( https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Deep_state ):

    "The phrase "deep state" derives from the Turkish "derin devlet", which emerged after the 1996 Susurluk incident so dramatically unmasked the Turkish deep state. It has experienced a surge of use in 2017, though often not in keeping with the meaning attributed by the diplomat who coined the phrase.

    As powerful and self-interest groups ( probably even more dominated by psychopaths and sociopaths than other large hierarchies ), deep states seek to frustrate radical and progressive change, so as to preserve their own power, and that of the establishment in general. In contrast to overtly authoritarian rule, deep states must operate more or less secretly, like terrorist groups, so preserving secrecy is a high priority. Control of the commercially-controlled media is essential to the effective preservation of secrecy need for the deep state to work effectively. In the US this is effected through deep state control of the CIA With the apparatus of nation states under their control, their subterfuges can be elaborate and complex. The deep states of the world have a natural common interest in hiding their existence, which predisposes them to mutual assistance. As a Turkish cartoon put it in 1997 "Deep state protects its own."[5] "

    I think the term "deep state" is closely connected with the notion of "national security state" and by extension with the term "military industrial complex". And the core of deep state are always intelligence agencies which tend to escape the control of the governments and in turn attempt to control the government that should control them. There are certain requirement for such agencies that very few agencies outside intelligence agencies meet.

    1. Institualized ability to collect dirt of politicians, or access to such information collected by other agencies.

    2. The veil of secrecy over the actions and funding. Access to some "non-controlled" or "semi-controlled" funding for "special operations" and "actions"

    3. Set of people trained for conducting covert operations, especially false flag operations.

    4. Experience with covert operations abroad that can be transferred to the "home territory" in case of necessity. Peter Dale Scott refers in a recent essay to "A Supranational Deep State", noting how their international integration effectively allows intelligence agencies to evade even the limited control national governments had on them in the first half of the 20th century.

    5. Infiltrated, or at lease "influencable" on the level of "useful contacts" with publishers and top journalists media. Deep state generally controls corporate media as Church commission established long ago.

    Any agency that meets whose three criteria is "by definition" belongs to deep state. That means that outside Pentagon and three letter agencies only State Department (which now performs a part of functions of CIA as for color revolutions preparation) and Energy Department can qualify.

    hunkerdown , April 27, 2017 at 6:22 pm

    Try Charles Hugh Smith 's working definition:

    The Deep State is fundamentally the public-private centralized nodes that collect, archive and curate dominant narratives and their supporting evidence, and disseminate these narratives (and their implicit teleologies) to the public via the media and to the state agencies via formal and informal inter-departmental communication channels.

    In other words, the people who, in the public mind, define and legitimize (or delegitimize) the agenda and the members and objectives of the ideal power structure you describe, which, contrary to almost any anecdotal observation of office politics in general, seems to contain no dotted lines, no stovepipes, perfect subordination, no split allegiances or conflicting interests, and no other indirect pressures from within or without. Sounds more liberal than progressive, tbh.

    eD , April 27, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    The bureaucrats that run America are employees of corporations and contractors.

    Chris , April 27, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    Years ago, while working in an Australian state public service department, we considered 'Yes Minister' to be a documentary, and used it amongst ourselves as training material.

    Lambert Strether Post author , April 27, 2017 at 4:26 pm

    My favorite episode is "Jobs for the Boys." My favorite line: "Great courage of course. But whatever possessed you?"

    [Apr 27, 2017] Taibbi Putin Derangement Syndrome Arrives

    Apr 27, 2017 | www.rollingstone.com

    Whatever the truth about Trump and Russia, the speculation surrounding it has become a dangerous case of mass hysteria

    Michael Flynn and Donald Trump Credit: John Locher/AP
    So Michael Flynn, who was Donald Trump's national security adviser before he got busted talking out of school to Russia's ambassador, has reportedly offered to testify in exchange for immunity.

    For seemingly the 100th time, social media is exploding. This is it! The big reveal!

    Perhaps it will come off just the way people are expecting. Perhaps Flynn will get a deal, walk into the House or the Senate surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers, and unspool the whole sordid conspiracy.

    He will explain that Donald Trump, compromised by ancient deals with Russian mobsters, and perhaps even blackmailed by an unspeakable KGB sex tape, made a secret deal. He'll say Trump agreed to downplay the obvious benefits of an armed proxy war in Ukraine with nuclear-armed Russia in exchange for Vladimir Putin's help in stealing the emails of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and John Podesta.

    I personally would be surprised if this turned out to be the narrative, mainly because we haven't seen any real evidence of it. But episodes like the Flynn story have even the most careful reporters paralyzed. What if, tomorrow, it all turns out to be true?

    What if reality does turn out to be a massive connect-the-dots image of St. Basil's Cathedral sitting atop the White House? (This was suddenly legitimate British conspiracist Louise Mensch's construction in The New York Times last week.) What if all the Glenn Beck -style far-out charts with the circles and arrows somehow all make sense?

    This is one of the tricks that keeps every good conspiracy theory going. Nobody wants to be the one claiming the emperor has no clothes the day His Highness walks out naked. And this Russia thing has spun out of control into just such an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria.

    Even I think there should be a legitimate independent investigation – one that, given Trump's history, might uncover all sorts of things. But almost irrespective of what ends up being uncovered on the Trump side, the public prosecution of this affair has taken on a malevolent life of its own.

    One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn't believe is accused of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media circles in recent weeks.

    The aforementioned Mensch, a noted loon who thinks Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart but has somehow been put front and center by The Times and HBO's Real Time , has denounced an extraordinary list of Kremlin plants.

    She's tabbed everyone from Jeff Sessions ("a Russian partisan ") to Rudy Giuliani and former Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom (" agents of influence ") to Glenn Greenwald (" Russian shill ") to ProPublica and Democracy Now! (also " Russian shills "), to the 15-year-old girl with whom Anthony Weiner sexted ( really , she says, a Russian hacker group called "Crackas With Attitudes") to an unnamed number of FBI agents in the New York field office (" moles "). And that's just for starters.

    Others are doing the same. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, upon seeing the strange behavior of Republican Intel Committee chair Devin Nunes, asked "what kind of dossier" the Kremlin has on Nunes.

    Dem-friendly pollster Matt McDermott wondered why reporters Michael Tracey and Zaid Jilani aren't on board with the conspiracy stories (they might be "unwitting" agents!) and noted , without irony, that Russian bots mysteriously appear every time he tweets negatively about them.

    Think about that last one. Does McDermott think Tracey and Jilani call their handlers at the sight of a scary Matt McDermott tweet and have the FSB send waves of Russian bots at him on command? Or does he think it's an automated process? What goes through the heads of such people?

    I've written a few articles on the Russia subject that have been very tame, basically arguing that it might be a good idea to wait for evidence of collusion before those of us in the media jump in the story with both feet. But even I've gotten the treatment .

    I've been "outed" as a possible paid Putin plant by the infamous "PropOrNot" group, which is supposedly dedicated to rooting out Russian "agents of influence." You might remember PropOrNot as the illustrious research team the Washington Post once relied on for a report that accused 200 alternative websites of being "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season."

    Politicians are getting into the act, too. It was one thing when Rand Paul balked at OKing the expansion of NATO to Montenegro, and John McCain didn't hesitate to say that "the senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin."

    Even Bernie Sanders has himself been accused of being a Putin plant by Mensch. But even he's gotten on board of late, asking , "What do the Russians have on Mr. Trump?"

    So even people who themselves have been accused of being Russian plants are now accusing people of being Russian plants. As the Russians would say, it's enough to make your bashka hurt.

    Sanders should know better. Last week, during hearings in the Senate, multiple witnesses essentially pegged his electoral following as unwitting fellow travelers for Putin.

    Former NSA chief Keith Alexander spoke openly of how Russia used the Sanders campaign to "drive a wedge within the Democratic Party," while Dr. Thomas Rid of Kings College in London spoke of Russia's use of "unwitting agents" and "overeager journalists" to drive narratives that destabilized American politics.

    This testimony was brought out by Virginia Democrat Mark Warner. Warner has been in full-blown "precious bodily fluids" mode throughout this scandal. During an interview with The Times on the Russia subject a month back, there was a thud outside the window. "That may just be the FSB," he said. The paper was unsure if he was kidding.

    Warner furthermore told The Times that in order to get prepared for his role as an exposer of 21st-century Russian perfidy, he was "losing himself in a book about the Romanovs," and had been quizzing staffers about "Tolstoy and Nabokov."

    This is how nuts things are now: a senator brushes up on Nabokov and Tolstoy ( Tolstoy !) to get pumped to expose Vladimir Putin.

    Even the bizarre admission by FBI director (and sudden darling of the same Democrats who hated him months ago) James Comey that he didn't know anything about Russia's biggest company didn't seem to trouble Americans very much. Here's the key exchange , from a House hearing in which Jackie Speier quizzed Comey:

    SPEIER: Now, do we know who Gazprom-Media is? Do you know anything about Gazprom, director?
    COMEY: I don't.
    SPEIER: Well, it's a – it's an oil company.

    (Incidentally, Gazprom – primarily a natural-gas giant – is not really an oil company. So both Comey and Speier got it wrong.)

    As Leonid Bershidsky of Bloomberg noted , this exchange was terrifying to Russians. The leader of an investigation into Russian espionage not knowing what Gazprom is would be like an FSB chief not having heard of Exxon-Mobil. It's bizarre, to say the least.

    Testimony of the sort that came from Warner's committee last week is being buttressed by news stories in liberal outlets like Salon insisting that "Bernie Bros" were influenced by those same ubiquitous McDermott-chasing Russian "bots."

    These stories insist that, among other things, these evil bots pushed on the unwitting "bros" juicy "fake news" stories about Hillary being "involved with various murders and money laundering schemes."

    Some 13.2 million people voted for Sanders during the primary season last year. What percentage does any rational person really believe voted that way because of "fake news"?

    I would guess the number is infinitesimal at best. The Sanders campaign was driven by a lot of factors, but mainly by long-developing discontent within the Democratic Party and enthusiasm for Sanders himself.

    To describe Sanders followers as unwitting dupes who departed the true DNC faith because of evil Russian propaganda is both insulting and ridiculous. It's also a testimony to the remarkable capacity for self-deception within the leadership of the Democratic Party.

    If the party's leaders really believe that Russian intervention is anywhere in the top 100 list of reasons why some 155 million eligible voters (out of 231 million) chose not to pull a lever for Hillary Clinton last year, they're farther along down the Purity of Essence nut-hole than Mark Warner.

    Moreover, even those who detest Trump with every fiber of their being must see the dangerous endgame implicit in this entire line of thinking. If the Democrats succeed in spreading the idea that straying from the DNC-approved candidate – in either the past or the future – is/was an act of "unwitting" cooperation with the evil Putin regime, then the entire idea of legitimate dissent is going to be in trouble.

    Imagine it's four years from now (if indeed that's when we have our next election). A Democratic candidate stands before the stump, and announces that a consortium of intelligence experts has concluded that Putin is backing the hippie/anti-war/anti-corporate opposition candidate.

    Or, even better: that same candidate reminds us "what happened last time" when people decided to vote their consciences during primary season. It will be argued, in seriousness, that true Americans will owe their votes to the non-Putin candidate. It would be a shock if some version of this didn't become an effective political trope going forward.

    But if you're not worried about accusing non-believers of being spies, or pegging legitimate dissent as treason, there's a third problem that should scare everyone.

    Last week saw Donna Brazile and Dick Cheney both declare Russia's apparent hack of DNC emails an "act of war." This coupling seemed at first like political end times: as Bill Murray would say, " dogs and cats, living together ."

    But there's been remarkable unanimity among would-be enemies in the Republican and Democrat camps on this question. Suddenly everyone from Speier to McCain to Kamala Harris to Ben Cardin have decried Russia's alleged behavior during the election as real or metaphorical acts of war: a "political Pearl Harbor," as Cardin put it.

    That no one seems to be concerned about igniting a hot war with nuclear-powered Russia at a time when both countries have troops within "hand-grenade range " of each in Syria other is bizarre, to say the least. People are in such a fever to drag Trump to impeachment that these other considerations seem not to matter. This is what happens when people lose their heads.

    There are a lot of people who will say that these issues are of secondary importance to the more important question of whether or not we have a compromised Russian agent in the White House.

    But when it comes to Trump-Putin collusion, we're still waiting for the confirmation. As Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters put it, the proof is increasingly understood to be the thing we find later, as in, " If we do the investigations, we will find the connections ."

    But on the mass hysteria front, we already have evidence enough to fill a dozen books. And if it doesn't freak you out, it probably should.

    Watch illustrator Victor Juhasz discuss what it means to draw President Donald Trump.

    [Apr 27, 2017] The House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power ,

    Apr 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    TarheelDem , April 27, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    You and James Carroll,

    The House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power ,

    Because he used to play in the Pentagon as a kid and demonstrated against the War in Vietnam outside of of (DIA Director) dad's office window, there is a lot of interesting chapter and verse to argue the point you both make.

    [Apr 26, 2017] Trumps Aggressions in Syria Will Have Long-Term Consequences

    Hat tip to antiwar.com.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's national security and "defense" advisors are just as bad, and worse. Matthew McCaffrey at the Mises Institute explains how Trump's "economic worldview could only ever have led to militarism and conflict." So the new warmongering should be of no surprise. ..."
    "... Although while he has suggested some hints of non-interventionist thought during the campaign, now we can see the kind of influence that his entourage of military generals can have on his "thinking." ..."
    "... Reuters ..."
    "... Guardian ..."
    "... The American Conservative ..."
    "... But, James Bovard noted in this article how during that first 1991 war the U.S. military went on to intentionally bomb Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment centers. Those illicit actions were followed by the U.S. government's sanctions to prevent the Iraqis from rebuilding that infrastructure. That was for the stated purpose of disabling the society as a whole as well as subverting "civilian morale," as the Air Force Col. John Warden put it, who was quoted in that Bovard article ..."
    "... The destruction of Iraqi water treatment centers and the sanctions during the 1990s led to high rates of cholera, typhoid and infant mortality, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands by the mid-1990s, from the U.S. government's first war on Iraq that then-President George H.W. Bush claimed would not be "another Vietnam." ..."
    Apr 26, 2017 | www.activistpost.com

    As I have noted in response to the latest U.S. government aggressions in the Middle East, Donald Trump's short-sighted military actions in Syria are not based on rational thought but on emotionalism, his feeling terrible about the children and other innocent victims of the chemical attack in Syria this week. But this is purely selective emotionalism, given that he doesn't seem so concerned about all the innocent victims of his own drone bombings that he has been authorizing since he was sworn in as President.

    Trump is also not concerned for the probable long-term results of his warmongering now. History indicates that the situation will only get worse from here, as we have seen with Iraq.

    And there are other examples of Trump's selective emotionalism and concern for Syrians. For example, where is Trump's concern for the innocent victims of the head-choppers and thousand-lashers in Saudi Arabia? Should he bomb the Royal Saudi King's palace? What about the starving victims of Venezuela's Maduro? Should Trump bomb Caracas? (But since when is U.S. foreign policy ever consistent?)

    As with his terrible economic advisors who have been advising Trump to support ObamaCare Lite and trillion-dollar infrastructure squandering, Trump's national security and "defense" advisors are just as bad, and worse. Matthew McCaffrey at the Mises Institute explains how Trump's "economic worldview could only ever have led to militarism and conflict." So the new warmongering should be of no surprise.

    Although while he has suggested some hints of non-interventionist thought during the campaign, now we can see the kind of influence that his entourage of military generals can have on his "thinking."

    According to Reuters , a " U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity ," said that "[Syria's Bashar] Assad has repeatedly shown that he is willing to use whatever chemical weapons he has retained or reconstituted to attack and terrorize his own people," even though those who have made that assertion have not presented any evidence of it.

    In a statement rationalizing his military strikes on Syria, Trump said, "Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the life of innocent men, women and children," as a matter of proven fact. Yet, there has been no evidence provided by anyone. And the government groupies of the mainstream media do not seem to be asking why Assad would intentionally gas his own people? What did he have to gain from that? What proof has there been that Assad is the true culprit?

    Although, there have been claims of evidence made mainly by the Islamist anti-Assad rebels as pointed out by Justin Raimondo , who lists some of the hoaxes committed by those "rebels." So really, there is no reliable evidence against Assad on this recent chemical weapons attack.

    And what about the Trump drones terrorizing innocents in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere? According to the U.K. Guardian , the Tuaiman family in Yemen is typical of people in those areas who now experience the terror of Trump's escalation of drones from once a week to every day, especially given Trump's campaign threat to kill "terrorists" (in a total absence of due process), as well as their families. Trump's bombs in Syria and Iraq have already resulted in a huge increase in numbers of civilians murdered .

    And speaking of chemical warfare, I guess Trump has not learned from, or perhaps doesn't even know about all the terrible things that the U.S. military did to the people of Iraq over these past 15 years, actually 26 years now, since 1991 . As Eric Margolis referred to , the U.S. military used white phosphorus in its invasions and bombings in Iraq, especially Fallujah.

    The people of Iraq have suffered not only from the U.S. military's use of chemical weapons but from depleted uranium and other contaminants which have polluted the Iraqis' water supply since the first U.S. government war on Iraq in 1991. Kelley Beaucar Vlahos wrote for The American Conservative of "babies born with two heads, one eye in the middle of the face, missing limbs, too many limbs, brain damage, cardiac defects, abnormally large heads, eyeless, missing genitalia, riddled with tumors," and a doubled rate of childhood leukemia.

    The bombing during the 1991 first war on Iraq also negatively affected U.S. soldiers , many of whom complain of health problems now as well.

    In the current bombing of Syria that Donald Trump has initiated, the U.S. military claims that their Tomahawk missiles, profitably produced by Raytheon, have pinpoint precision, so that they will not harm civilians.

    That precision bombing technology is what we witnessed from the proud warmongers of the U.S. government's first war on Iraq in 1991:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/V30vSPFLeoE

    But, James Bovard noted in this article how during that first 1991 war the U.S. military went on to intentionally bomb Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment centers. Those illicit actions were followed by the U.S. government's sanctions to prevent the Iraqis from rebuilding that infrastructure. That was for the stated purpose of disabling the society as a whole as well as subverting "civilian morale," as the Air Force Col. John Warden put it, who was quoted in that Bovard article.

    The destruction of Iraqi water treatment centers and the sanctions during the 1990s led to high rates of cholera, typhoid and infant mortality, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands by the mid-1990s, from the U.S. government's first war on Iraq that then-President George H.W. Bush claimed would not be "another Vietnam."

    Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator. Please visit his blog .

    [Apr 25, 2017] Gaius Publius: Hillary Clinton Explains Our North Korea, South Korea, China Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... it would have more to do with it probably leading to the US having a weaker hold over the Korean peninsula ..."
    "... 'A reunification would endow the fully up-to-date South Korean army backed by a roaring advanced economy with the one weapon it does not have: the atomic bomb.' ..."
    "... sixty-four ..."
    "... - H-bomb technology, and it took minds of the caliber of von Neumann and Teller a decade to work out how to make those. ..."
    "... Is it clear how much v Neumann had a hand in on that key problem? ..."
    Apr 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves here. Even though some may try arguing that Hillary Clinton was discussing China's view of North and South Korea in her Goldman speech, it is naive to think that it is actually different from ours, despite the regular histrionics. As an anonymous reader at DownWithTyranny pointed out:

    Again, if you review our (and their) policies since '50 and think about it for only a minute, you realize both we and the Chinese want a split Korea. And we want it for much the same reasons. The North provides an annoyance to the US which inspires fear and stupidity AND billions spent on weapons to keep certain sectors rich and occupied.

    Now that the south has emerged as an economic and manufacturing behemoth, the need to keep them separate is even more pronounced, for just the reasons enunciated.

    By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny

    "We don't want a unified Korean peninsula We [also] don't want the North Koreans to cause more trouble than the system can absorb."

    -Hillary Clinton, 2013, speech to Goldman Sachs

    Our policy toward North Korea is not what most people think it is. We don't want the North Koreans to go away. In fact, we like them doing what they're doing; we just want less of it than they've been doing lately. If this sounds confusing, it's because this policy is unlike what the public has been led to assume. Thanks to something uncovered by WikiLeaks, the American public has a chance to be unconfused about what's really going on with respect to our policies in Korea.

    This piece isn't intended to criticize that policy; it may be an excellent one. I'm just want to help us understand it better.

    Our source for the U.S. government's actual Korean policy - going back decades really - is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She resigned that position in February 2013 , and on June 4, 2013 she gave a speech at Goldman Sachs with Lloyd Blankfein present (perhaps on stage with her) in which she discussed in what sounds like a very frank manner, among many other things, the U.S. policy toward the two Korea and the relationship of that policy to China.

    That speech and two others were sent by Tony Carrk of the Clinton campaign to a number of others in the campaign, including John Podesta. WikiLeaks subsequently released that email as part of its release of other Podesta emails (source email with attachments here ). In that speech, Clinton spoke confidentially and, I believe, honestly. What she said in that speech, I take her as meaning truthfully. There's certainly no reason for her to lie to her peers, and in some cases her betters, at Goldman Sachs. The entire speech reads like elites talking with elites in a space reserved just for them.

    I'm not trying to impugn Clinton or WikiLeaks by writing this - that's not my intention at all. I just want to learn from what she has to say - from a position of knowledge - about the real U.S. policy toward North Korea. After all, if Goldman Sachs executives can be told this, it can't be that big a secret. We should be able to know it as well.

    What Clinton's Speech Tells Us about U.S. Korea Policy

    The WikiLeaks tweet is above. The entire speech, contained in the attachment to the email, is here . I've reprinted some of the relevant portions below, first quoting Ms. Clinton with some interspersed comments from me. Then, adding some thoughts about what this seems to imply about our approach to and relations with South Korea.

    The Korea section of the Goldman Sachs speech starts with a discussion of China, and then Blankfein pivots to Korea. Blankfein's whole question that leads to the Clinton quote tweeted by WikiLeaks above (my emphasis throughout):

    MR. BLANKFEIN: The Japanese - I was more surprised that it wasn't like that when you think of - all these different things. It's such a part of who they are, their response to Japan. If you bump into the Filipino fishing boats, then I think you really - while we're in the neighborhood [i.e., discussing Asia], the Chinese is going to help us or help themselves - what is helping themselves? North Korea? On the one hand they [the Chinese] wouldn't want - they don't want to unify Korea, but they can't really like a nutty nuclear power on their border. What is their interests and what are they going to help us do?

    Clinton's whole answer is reprinted in the WikiLeaks tweet attachment (click through to the tweet and expand the embedded image to read it all). The relevant portions, for my purposes, are printed below. From the rest of her remarks, the context of Blankfein's question and Clinton's answer is the threat posed by a North Korean ICBM, not unlike the situation our government faces today.

    MS. CLINTON: Well, I think [Chinese] traditional policy has been close to what you've described. We don't want a unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one South Korea would be dominant for the obvious economic and political reasons.

    We [also] don't want the North Koreans to cause more trouble than the system can absorb . So we've got a pretty good thing going with the previous North Korean leaders [Kim Il-sung and Kim Jung-il]. And then along comes the new young leader [Kim Jung-un], and he proceeds to insult the Chinese. He refuses to accept delegations coming from them. He engages in all kinds of both public and private rhetoric, which seems to suggest that he is preparing himself to stand against not only the South Koreans and the Japanese and the Americans, but also the Chinese.

    Translation - three points:

    It appears that China has the same interest in keeping this situation as-is that we do. That is, they want South Korea (and us) to have a Korean adversary, but they don't want the adversary acting out of acceptable bounds - coloring outside the lines laid down by the Chinese (and the U.S.), as it were. Clinton:

    So the new [Chinese] leadership basically calls him [Kim Jung-un] on the carpet. And a high ranking North Korean military official has just finished a visit in Beijing and basically told [him, as a message from the Chinese]: Cut it out. Just stop it. Who do you think you are? And you are dependent on us [the Chinese], and you know it. And we expect you to demonstrate the respect that your father and your grandfather [Kim Jung-il, Kim Il-sung] showed toward us, and there will be a price to pay if you do not.

    Now, that looks back to an important connection of what I said before. The biggest supporters of a provocative North Korea has been the PLA [the Chinese People's Liberation Army]. The deep connections between the military leadership in China and in North Korea has really been the mainstay of the relationship. So now all of a sudden new leadership with Xi and his team, and they're saying to the North Koreans - and by extension to the PLA - no. It is not acceptable. We don't need this [trouble] right now. We've got other things going on. So you're going to have to pull back from your provocative actions, start talking to South Koreans again about the free trade zones, the business zones on the border, and get back to regular order and do it quickly.

    Now, we don't care if you occasionally shoot off a missile. That's good. That upsets the Americans and causes them heartburn, but you can't keep going down a path that is unpredictable . We don't like that. That is not acceptable to us.

    So I think they're trying to reign Kim Jong in. I think they're trying to send a clear message to the North Korean military. They also have a very significant trade relationship with Seoul and they're trying to reassure Seoul that, you know, we're now on the case.

    Clinton ends with a fourth point:

    Clinton:

    So they want to keep North Korea within their orbit. They want to keep it predictable in their view. They have made some rather significant statements recently that they would very much like to see the North Koreans pull back from their nuclear program. Because I and everybody else - and I know you had Leon Panetta here this morning. You know, we all have told the Chinese if they continue to develop this missile program and they get an ICBM that has the capacity to carry a small nuclear weapon on it, which is what they're aiming to do, we cannot abide that. Because they could not only do damage to our treaty allies, namely Japan and South Korea, but they could actually reach Hawaii and the west coast theoretically, and we're going to ring China with missile defense . We're going to put more of our fleet in the area.

    So China, come on. You either control them or we're going to have to defend against them .

    The four bullets above (three, and then one) give a very clear definition of longstanding U.S. policy toward the two Koreas. I think the only surprise in this, for us civilians, is that the U.S. doesn't want the Korean peninsula unified. So two questions: Why not? And, do the South Koreans know this? I'll offer brief answers below.

    The "Great Game" In East Asia - Keeping the Korean "Tiger" in Check

    South Korea is one of the great emerging nations in East Asia, one of the "Asian tigers," a manufacturing and economic powerhouse that's lately been turning into a technological and innovative powerhouse as well.

    For example, one of just many, from Forbes :

    Why South Korea Will Be The Next Global Hub For Tech Startups

    American business has long led the way in high tech density or the proportion of businesses that engage in activities such as Internet software and services, hardware and semiconductors. The US is fertile ground for tech start-ups with access to capital and a culture that celebrates risk taking. Other countries have made their mark on the world stage, competing to be prominent tech and innovation hubs. Israel has been lauded as a start-up nation with several hundred companies getting funded by venture capital each year. A number of these companies are now being acquired by the likes of Apple, Facebook and Google. Finland and Sweden have attracted notice by bringing us Angry Birds and Spotify among others. But a new start-up powerhouse is on the horizon – South Korea . [ ]

    In other words, South Korea has leaped beyond being a country that keeps U.S. tech CEOs wealthy - it's now taking steps that threaten that wealth itself. And not just in electronics; the biological research field - think cloning - is an area the South Koreans are trying to take a lead in as well.

    It's easy to understand Ms. Clinton's - and the business-captured American government's - interest in making sure that the U.S. CEO class isn't further threatened by a potential doubling of the capacity of the South Korean government and economy. Let them (the Koreans) manufacture to their heart's content, our policy seems to say; but to threaten our lead in billionaire-producing entrepreneurship that's a bridge too far.

    Again, this is Clinton speaking, I'm absolutely certain, on behalf of U.S. government policy makers and the elites they serve: We don't want a unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one, an already-strong South Korea would be dominant for obvious economic reasons.

    As to whether the South Koreans know that this is our policy, I'd have to say, very likely yes. After all, if Clinton is saying this to meetings of Goldman Sachs executives, it can't be that big a secret. It's just that the South Korea leadership knows better than the North Korean leader how to handle it.

    0 0 64 0 2 This entry was posted in China , Doomsday scenarios , Guest Post , Politics on April 25, 2017 by Yves Smith . Subscribe to Post Comments 41 comments Harshin like 1989 , April 25, 2017 at 1:00 am

    Weren't we scared shitless of the Japanese in the 80s, thinking they were gonna clean our clocks? Try not to get too worked up and overestimate the ability of a conformist society to bury us.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 25, 2017 at 2:45 am

    It's a lot more complicated than that. You forget that Japan was and is a military protectorate of the US. For instance, in the 1987 crash, the Fed called the Bank of Japan and told it to buy Treasuries. The BoJ told the Japanese banks to comply and they did.

    The US ran the yen up via the Plaza Accords in 1985. Way up. They did succeed in denting Japanese exports to the US but it did squat for increasing US exports to Japan.

    The US also forced rapid bank deregulation on Japan. It was like telling someone who ran a drayage company that they were really in the transportation business, giving them a 747, and telling them to fly it. I had Sumitomo Bank as a client when the deregulation was starting. They were (correctly) considered the best run bank in Japan. They didn't even have modern asset-liability management adequate to handle traditional retail and wholesale banking, let alone capital markets operations. The Japanese bubble and bust was in no small measure our doing.

    Larry , April 25, 2017 at 8:59 am

    While I certainly understand all of that about Japan, is it not the same case with South Korea? My understanding is that we have between 25-30,000 troops constantly stationed along the DMZ and within South Korea. I would presume we're also gladly selling the South Koreans military technology. And let's say that magically North and South Korea do reunite, what happens then with the Chinese border? Won't the Koreans still want to remain essentially a military protectorate during what would certainly be a messy reunification period so as to not have to worry about China working to undermine the process? I would say the US would have a major role in shaping how the reunification were to go and do it's best to keep the billionaire classes happy as can be.

    oho , April 25, 2017 at 10:01 am

    > I would presume we're also gladly selling the South Koreans military technology.

    There's a big govt-sponsored push to develop an indigenous Korean defense/aerospace industry. It's 0.5 – 1 generation behind the US (on paper), but more than sophisticated enough for export to developing nations.

    >won't the Koreans still want to remain essentially a military protectorate

    Not necessarily. Koreans don't view China as an existential threat/rival as US neocons do. China is Korea's #1 export market. And Korea has no existential threats in its neighborhood (ex. North Korea).

    historically, the only invaders that came from the North were the Mongols and Khitans (a Manchurian tribe) not Han Chinese. (if i recall correctly)

    PlutoniumKun , April 25, 2017 at 11:58 am

    The Koreans have a very sophisticated domestic defence industry – and its already started to annoy the US as weapons like the T-50 trainer (a sort of cheap knock-off of the F-16) is attracting sales US companies were hoping for (it might even be in with a chance of winning the competition to supply the US with new supersonic trainers). They've a new tank purpose built for fighting in mountainous regions and is probably the best in the world for that role. But most of their weaponry is still US made.

    Korea is the Poland of Asia – a country forever plagued by being sandwiched between two larger, nastier neighbours. In theory they should be friends with Japan, but old wounds haven't healed, and they are not particularly pro-Chinese historically either. They currently have a very delicate relationship with China – in theory very good, in practice, the Chinese are fond of reminding them of their weaker position, as with the current economic-boycott-in-all-but-name over the siting of THAAD missiles in Korea. I don't think they would look forward at all to the decisions required if they found themselves sharing a border with China. Like Japan, they find delegating hard geopolitical decisions to the US to be comfortable, it avoids having to face up to hard issues.

    carycat , April 25, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    What is not mentioned is that Japan is a bigger threat in terms of military aggression or economic competition to Korea. Plenty of Koreans still have 1st hand knowledge of how they were treated by invading Japanese troops.

    Altandmain , April 25, 2017 at 10:12 am

    I would not underestimate Japan like that.

    Eamonn Fingleton is perhaps the best writer about this.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2015/04/01/this-is-no-april-fool-japan-is-beating-the-pants-off-the-united-states/#51d39cea5b88

    It is dumb and frankly, quite racist to assume the Japanese are conformist. Many of the top materials sciences areas are now dominated by Japan. The US continues to run a deficit on Japan.

    Oh and Japanese culture has its own following. Pokemon, Japanese anime, and a few things like Sushi are their own inventions.

    Mark P. , April 25, 2017 at 1:10 am

    Eh. This post is very much 'Department of Breaking News: Rain is Wet.'

    Two points -

    [1] The bolded quote from Forbes - But a new start-up powerhouse is on the horizon – South Korea. [ ] - very much understates the situation. For instance, some tech cognoscenti like to talk about the stacks. See forex this book -

    The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty
    By Benjamin H. Bratton
    https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/stack

    The stacks are Amazon, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Apple. There is only one non-American stack and that's Samsung. That's not a small deal. South Korea has arrived.

    [2] Gaius Publius claims: 'It's easy to understand Ms. Clinton's - and the business-captured American government's - interest in making sure that the U.S. CEO class isn't further threatened by a potential doubling of the capacity of the South Korean government and economy.'

    No. If Mrs. Clinton and the U.S. CEO class are threatened, then the one thing they won't mind is the re-unification of the two Koreas.

    That's because conservative estimates are that modernizing North Korea's economy could cost South Korea at least $500 billion. Per capita GDP in North Korea today is roughly $1,000-$1,200. Whereas South Korea's per capita GDP is $33,062, according to the World Bank.

    The cost of German reunification was a trifle by comparison.

    Colonel Smithers , April 25, 2017 at 5:01 am

    Thank you, Mark.

    With regard to reunification and its cost, around the time of Kim Il Sung's passing and the mass outpouring of grief, it was suggested that the Northerners had psychological issues and were not of a type that could fit into the South's economy / society, so reunification was best kicked permanently into the long grass.

    This sort of view has often been expressed about Ossis by Wessis in Germany. There is a joke that Wessis would like to rebuild the wall, but higher.

    Marco , April 25, 2017 at 5:35 am

    If Stuxnet could wreak havoc with Iranian nuclear infrastructure I wonder what strange and delightful memetic goodies our tech-spook chefs could cook up against an Apple rival like Samsung. The Galaxy Note S7 debacle was WEIRD.

    Colonel Smithers , April 25, 2017 at 5:43 am

    Thank you, Marco. Very good point.

    Larry , April 25, 2017 at 9:04 am

    I don't think the Galaxy Note fiasco was weird at all. The stories that emerged in the aftermath indicated that Samsung saw a gap to exploit in Apple's iPhone update cycle and they rushed their product to market with substandard QC. The battery was ultimately under physical stress that destabilized the Li batteries cells and leading to spontaneous combustion. Rushing substandard products to market to grab market isn't unique to Samsung by any stretch, but to think that America had anything to do with it is just pure speculation that ignores the reported facts.

    PlutoniumKun , April 25, 2017 at 7:00 am

    Yes, I was thinking that too, a fear of a united Korea as some sort of global competitor to the US doesn't really make sense in the short to medium term. It would certainly take up most of Koreas energies and spare resources at least 10 years to deal with it. And its hard to see how Korea's big companies would benefit so much, as they already have access to cheap manufacturing zones all over Asia. Anyway, a unified Korea would still be significantly smaller than in terms of population and economy than Japan.

    If the US establishment is really against unification (I have to say, that my interpretation of whats written is that HRC was talking more about China's views), I'd say it would have more to do with it probably leading to the US having a weaker hold over the Korean peninsula, as a unified Korea would likely pursue a more independent foreign policy.

    Bill Smith , April 25, 2017 at 7:30 am

    I agree with you that the way HRC was speaking she was giving the Chinese view.

    Our view for opposition would be a unified Korea led by what was North Korea.

    John B. , April 25, 2017 at 7:58 am

    I agree with you that Clinton was summarizing China's view, not the U.S. view, when she said, "We don't want a unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one South Korea would be dominant for the obvious economic and political reasons." I suspect U.S. strategists would prefer a unified, South-dominated Korea on China's border, to help contain China better. The Pentagon could hope for even more military sales to a unified Korea pressed right up against China.

    That said, getting from here to there would be so disruptive I doubt any U.S. administration would try to accomplish it. Though with Trump, who knows?

    visitor , April 25, 2017 at 9:48 am

    it would have more to do with it probably leading to the US having a weaker hold over the Korean peninsula

    South Korea has a technologically advanced economy and a modern army. It increasingly designs and produces its own fighting equipment (e.g. tanks) instead of buying them from, crucially, the USA. In several decades of hard work, it built entire industries that can provide everything that is needed: steel industry, naval yards, automobile industry, electronics, telecommunications, software, etc.

    A reunification would endow the fully up-to-date South Korean army backed by a roaring advanced economy with the one weapon it does not have: the atomic bomb.

    Neither China, nor the USA, nor Japan, nor Russia want that.

    joe defiant , April 25, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    This nails the situation IMHO. Everyone subjected to US imperialism dreams of nuclear power because the bargaining power it gives against US power. The US is doing more to promote other nations gaining nuclear weapons than it is in slowing it.

    Bill Smith , April 25, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    Other countries have had nuclear weapons and given them up. No reason to believe it couldn't happen in Korea if the South ended up with the whole thing.

    Mark P. , April 25, 2017 at 4:07 pm

    Absolutely correct.

    Mark P. , April 25, 2017 at 3:42 pm

    'A reunification would endow the fully up-to-date South Korean army backed by a roaring advanced economy with the one weapon it does not have: the atomic bomb.'

    No. The Norkean nukes are simple fission weapons that would provide no real technological or strategic advantage to any future re-unified Republic of both Koreas.

    Despite what you've heard, no nation-state that seriously tried to build simple fission weapons ever failed to do so. This includes the likes of South Africa, which dismantled its weapons. Ukraine also gave up its weapons and other countries, like Sweden have curtailed such nuclear bomb programs.

    These countries did this because it's not clear that in general nukes provide a strategic advantage in international relations, unless you're in a situation where you're surrounded by enemies like Israel or Pyongyang.

    Fission weapons are simple once you've acquired the enriched uranium and plutonium. How simple can they be? So simple that in the case of the Fat Man device dropped on Nagasaki, the U.S. bomber crew kept the fissile components disassembled till they approached the target because the potential existed otherwise to go critical if there was, say, excessive air turbulence that shook the plane on the way to the target.

    Basically, the Norkeans seem to be at the stage of boosted fission weapons, where (to simplify) some fusion fuel (deuterium) is wrapped around a fission device - what Edward Teller called an "Alarm Clock" type of bomb, and Andrei Sakharov a "Sloika" or "Layer Cake" device. In other words, the Norkeans have gotten no further than pre-1953 U.S. nuclear boosted fission technology - that is, no further than the U.S. sixty-four years ago.

    Not that you want such weapons in Pyongyang's hands. Also, what makes a difference is that they can access 2017 rocket and computer guidance technology, so they can put these relatively bulky bombs atop rockets. But if you really want serious nuclear warheads of all sizes and capabilities, you need staged fusion devices - H-bomb technology, and it took minds of the caliber of von Neumann and Teller a decade to work out how to make those.

    To sum up: if South Korea wanted to build mere fission weapons of the type that Pyongyang has it could do so immediately. So could Japan and others.

    redleg , April 25, 2017 at 8:01 pm

    (Over)Reliance on electronics makes a first world economy and way of life enormously vulnerable to that old design though EMP.

    Mark P. , April 25, 2017 at 10:30 pm

    True.

    Science Officer Smirnoff , April 25, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    - H-bomb technology, and it took minds of the caliber of von Neumann and Teller a decade to work out how to make those.

    Just a footnote: S Ulam should get at least equal billing with Teller. This is a notorious case of not giving credit where credit is due. Or discredit-when the future of humanity is at stake?

    (Is it clear how much v Neumann had a hand in on that key problem?)

    Mark P. , April 25, 2017 at 10:26 pm

    Sorry re. Ulam. I was in a hurry.

    Is it clear how much v Neumann had a hand in on that key problem?

    In the sense that all the other guys ran their maths and theories by von Neumann, and Ulam in particular was best buddies with him. When it came time in 1953, post-Ivy Mike, to do the road show presentation to the U.S. Air Force to tell them that in future H-bombs could be built small enough to make ICBMs feasible, it was von Neumann and Teller who made the presentation.

    Von Neumann also had the clout on the AEC and elsewhere by then to make it happen, too.

    Colonel Smithers , April 25, 2017 at 4:56 am

    Thank you for this clarification, Yves. Splendid, as always.

    This issue reminds me of attitudes towards Germany in / around 1989 – 90. You may recall Thatcher's trip / plea to Moscow to prevent unification. France came up with a different way of "containing" Germany I remember particular comments about the combination of wirtschaftwunder West Germany and what was then considered the Warsaw Pact / Comecon's best performer, including in intelligence, East Germany. The musings also stretched to sport, West Germany being good at football and East Germany at athletics, and, again, what a pairing that would be.

    With regard to Sumitomo, former colleagues who worked there (in the 1990s) say similar, but don't mention US interference. Did not Sumitomo and Hawai'i's Kamehameha, ahem, bail out Goldman Sachs soon after the Tequila crisis?

    Kurtismayfield , April 25, 2017 at 7:39 am

    German reunification was a threat to the other states of Europe, and history has shown that the threat was real. Look at their economic domination of the EU. I don't think a unified Korea is a threat to anyone. Perhaps the US laments that it is losing a semi-client state, and they prefer the "let's bribe the North Koreans every five years" strategy that worked with the previous regime.

    I am surprised that Russia does get more involved; there is a shared border with North Korea. Maybe they don't care if it is a Chinese client state or a neutral reunified Korea next door.

    barefoot charley , April 25, 2017 at 10:01 am

    As the great French postwar litterateur/politicien Paul Mauriac said, "I love Germany so much I'm glad there are two of them."

    Susan the other , April 25, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    From 1919 right up to Germany's blitz across Europe, Churchill was maneuvering to turn Germany's aggression eastward. I find it interesting that no one is analyzing Russia's reaction to NK's aggressiveness because it could well be that anti-Russian sentiment here in the US has considered turning NK inland, against eastern Siberia. It could also be that NK's nuclear capabilities are already neutered by Russian jamming technology. But still, the Russian have been very quiet. Allowing the reunification of the Koreas would entail a new constitution and new international treaties and agreements which would all serve to tame NK. It's just a piddly little state.

    jwwz , April 25, 2017 at 5:08 am

    Long-term, however, German reunification also provided the new Germany with cheap labor which was used to discipline its own workers and boost exports in order to undercut its neighbors/competitors, something I bet South Korean chaebol wouldn't mind.

    Reunification also brings into play proliferation issues. The ROK for many years had a nuclear arms program (enriching uranium as recently as 2000), and DPRK tech, however stone age it is in comparison, adds considerable weight to this issue. A reunified Korea with nukes is absolutely not something China or the US wants.

    Bill Smith , April 25, 2017 at 7:18 am

    Thatcher was concerned that German unification would threaten Gorbachev's political survival. Page 315, 'The President, The Pope and The Prime Minister'.

    This is explained in more details in published parts of Horst Telchuk diary (advisor to Helmut Kohl). make sure democracy takes hold in Eastern Europe before Germany unites otherwise push back on and or by the Soviet Union

    Further along in the book it says Mitterrand was passionately opposed to German unification in private but much more circumspect in public.

    Dwight , April 25, 2017 at 8:06 am

    When Clinton said "We don't want a unified Korean Peninsula" and "We don't want the North Koreans to cause more trouble than the system can absorb," she was speaking as the Chinese, not the U.S. Clinton switched to the third person "the Chinese" in the same paragraph, which may explain the confusion. The U.S. may fear economic competition from a unified Korea, but the main concern of the U.S. is losing a pretext for military bases on China's (and Russia's) border.

    Quite Likely , April 25, 2017 at 9:42 am

    Interesting stuff, but yeah this is pretty obviously Clinton talking about China not wanting a united Korea. Maybe she / other US policymakers have that same preference, but there's no evidence they do in this speech. It's obvious why China wouldn't want a strong American allied Korea on its border. American tech companies being concerned about South Korean competition being more of a threat if they absorbed the North is much less plausible.

    tegnost , April 25, 2017 at 11:09 am

    ok then what do clinton and goldman sachs want if she's telling the chinese view? American tech companies, indeed all american companies want to be protected from competition the world over, see the TPP, see ISDS Clinton defenders seem to be unable to see past her smartly pragmatic views into the fact that she carries water for the aforementioned goldman sachs, who if you haven't noticed basically run the gov't for both parties, and what they want is to make the most money with the least risk and they have no qualms about creating conflict, nurturing conflict, and sowing conflict if it means there is an easy competition free path to profit. Couldn't we just stop with the reading of tea leaves with clinton? All of the parsing about how she said something but that wasn't what she meant, especially when what she says is power is the most important thing, we don't care who gets hurt, unless it's one of us, the acceptable elite, who eat babies with their oatmeal. If you want to tell me what clinton thinks with citations that ould be great, but spare me the malarkey that you know what she didn't mean in her statements. Probably the main reason she lost is because she and her supporters could not say what she stood for. What does she stand for in this case?

    Painter's Drunk , April 25, 2017 at 9:48 am

    Folks:

    I think this sort policy – the policy of "Lets you and him fight" has parallels in domestic policy.

    Often referred to as "Wedge " issues. The center can much more easily control things if the proper buttons are pushed –

    This of any issue – guns, women's health, welfare, food stamps (SNAP), and so on – the list is long –

    Each side has proponents who can easily be influenced much like Pavlov's dog, to vote, contribute, and so forth. And these are deliberate manipulations to keep the center in power – nothing more.

    The elites use this power to continue the looting.

    Ask any Congress person.

    No Telling , April 25, 2017 at 10:37 am

    Enough hate to go around, so no telling.

    Teddy selling Korea to Japan, and hosing over the Czar.
    http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/121083

    China & Korea border/sea lane disputes
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12065626/Beijing-lays-claim-to-South-Korean-waters.html
    https://chinaperspectives.revues.org/806
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paektu_Mountain
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gando_Convention

    In summary, love / hate relationships, but toward the USA it is mostly hate.

    Boris Vian , April 25, 2017 at 11:22 am

    Good article- thanks for posting this. I don't fault the strategy here, but I think that our leaders need to do more to be this open with the American public and not just bankers.

    neighbor7 , April 25, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    "I'm not trying to impugn . . . WikiLeaks by writing this."

    To even suggest the possibility, while making use of their tremendous resources, has a hint of the schizophrenia of mainstream media re Wikileaks.

    HAL , April 25, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    This seems like a strained reading of the plain text of the statements:

    Well, I think [Chinese] traditional policy has been close to what you've described. We don't want a unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one South Korea would be dominant for the obvious economic and political reasons.

    The We here clearly refers to China - China doesn't want a unified Korea because it thinks it would be one big South Korea. This is exactly the sort of groundbreaking revelation that we have all come to expect from Hillary Clinton. Then later on in that same quote, she talks about We don't mind if you shoot off the occasional missile and that's good, again, using the same rhetorical technique (where "We" is the PLA).

    Finding basically no support for your thesis in the quotes, you then tack on some nonsense about how the US elites need North Korea because Google is afraid of Naver or whatever. Japan is within missile range, has over 2x as many people and a 50% higher GDP per capita, and seems not to be much of a threat. It just doesn't make sense that the US as afraid of the competition from a unified Korea, which would have only 25m more people than South Korea, basically all of whom are starving and crazy. Look what it cost Germany to unify, with much less of a disparity.

    There are a lot of reasons why the US might favor a divided Korea: an excuse to maintain a massive military base a few hundred miles from Beijing, or military spending and warmongering generally. But none of them are supported by this primary source, which is just a bland recitation of conventional wisdom, which, along with fealty, is all you get for $250,000.

    Anon , April 25, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    Agreed – my reading was also that the "we" is referring to China.

    Mark P. , April 25, 2017 at 10:28 pm

    Of course it is.

    H. Alexander Ivey , April 25, 2017 at 9:12 pm

    Well, I've seen it all. When people say Hillary meant China when she said "we" and there is no clear indication that "we" doesn't refer to the USA, when the actions of the last 50 years support the interpretation that "we" means the USA and not China, when "we" as in China would point away from the misdeeds of Hillary as SecState, then I've seen it all.

    [Apr 24, 2017] The Honeymoon of the Generals

    Notable quotes:
    "... As the 100-day mark of his presidency approaches, there's been no serious reassessment of America's endless wars or how to fight them (no less end them). Instead, there's been a recommitment to doing more of the familiar, more of what hasn't worked over the last decade and a half. ..."
    "... Like those generals, he's a logical endpoint to a grim process, whether you're talking about the growth of inequality in America and the rise of plutocracy – without which a billionaire president and his billionaire cabinet would have been inconceivable – or the form that American war-making is taking under him. ..."
    "... As the chameleon he is, he promptly took on the coloration of the militarized world he had entered and appointed "his" three generals to key security posts. Anything but the norm historically, such a decision may have seemed anomalous and out of the American tradition. That, however, was only because, unlike Donald Trump, most of the rest of us hadn't caught up with where that "tradition" had actually taken us. ..."
    "... Hence, Steve Bannon, his dream strategist while on the campaign trail, is now reportedly on the ropes ..."
    "... Think of Trump as a chameleon among presidents and much of this makes more sense. ..."
    "... Donald Trump isn't either a politician or a trendsetter. If anything, he's a trend-senser. (In a similar fashion, he didn't create reality TV, nor was he at its origins. He simply perfected a form that was already in development.) ..."
    "... What happens, then? What happens when the war honeymoon is over and the generals keep right on fighting their way? The last two presidents put up with permanent failing war, making the best they could of it. That's unlikely for Donald Trump. When the praise begins to die down, the criticism starts to rise, and questions are asked, watch out. ..."
    Apr 24, 2017 | antiwar.com
    Institutionalizing War and Its Generals

    Above all, President Trump did one thing decisively. He empowered a set of generals or retired generals – James "Mad Dog" Mattis as secretary of defense, H.R. McMaster as national security adviser, and John Kelly as secretary of homeland security – men already deeply implicated in America's failing wars across the Greater Middle East. Not being a details guy himself, he's then left them to do their damnedest. "What I do is I authorize my military," he told reporters recently. "We have given them total authorization and that's what they're doing and, frankly, that's why they've been so successful lately."

    As the 100-day mark of his presidency approaches, there's been no serious reassessment of America's endless wars or how to fight them (no less end them). Instead, there's been a recommitment to doing more of the familiar, more of what hasn't worked over the last decade and a half. No one should be surprised by this, given the cast of characters – men who held command posts in those unsuccessful wars and are clearly incapable of thinking about them in other terms than the ones that have been indelibly engrained in the brains of the U.S. military high command since soon after 9/11.

    That new ruling reality of our American world should, in turn, offer a hint about the nature of Donald Trump's presidency. It should be a reminder that as strange okay, bizarre as his statements, tweets, and acts may have been, as chaotic as his all-in-the-family administration is proving to be, as little as he may resemble anyone we've ever seen in the White House before, he's anything but an anomaly of history. Quite the opposite. Like those generals, he's a logical endpoint to a grim process, whether you're talking about the growth of inequality in America and the rise of plutocracy – without which a billionaire president and his billionaire cabinet would have been inconceivable – or the form that American war-making is taking under him.

    When it comes to war and the U.S. military, none of what's happened would have been conceivable without the two previous presidencies. None of it would have been possible without Congress's willingness to pump endless piles of money into the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex in the post-9/11 years; without the building up of the national security state and its 17 (yes, 17!) major intelligence outfits into an unofficial fourth branch of government; without the institutionalization of war as a permanent (yet strangely distant) feature of American life and of wars across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa that evidently can't be won or lost but only carried on into eternity. None of this would have been possible without the growing militarization of this country, including of police forces increasingly equipped with weaponry off America's distant battlefields and filled with veterans of those same wars; without a media rife with retired generals and other former commanders narrating and commenting on the acts of their successors and protιgιs; and without a political class of Washington pundits and politicians taught to revere that military.

    In other words, however original Donald Trump may look, he's the curious culmination of old news and a changing country. Given his bravado and braggadocio, it's easy to forget the kinds of militarized extremity that preceded him.

    After all, it wasn't Donald Trump who had the hubris, in the wake of 9/11, to declare a "Global War on Terror" against 60 countries (the " swamp " of that moment). It wasn't Donald Trump who manufactured false intelligence on the weapons of mass destruction Iraq's Saddam Hussein supposedly possessed or produced bogus claims about that autocrat's connections to al-Qaeda, and then used both to lead the United States into a war on and occupation of that country. It wasn't Donald Trump who invaded Iraq (whether he was for or against tht invasion at the time). It wasn't Donald Trump who donned a flight suit and landed on an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego to personally declare that hostilities were at an end in Iraq just as they were truly beginning, and to do so under an inane " Mission Accomplished " banner prepared by the White House.

    It wasn't Donald Trump who ordered the CIA to kidnap terror suspects (including totally innocent individuals) off the streets of global cities as well as from the backlands of the planet and transport them to foreign prisons or CIA " black sites " where they could be tortured. It wasn't Donald Trump who caused one terror suspect to experience the sensation of drowning 83 times in a single month (even if he was inspired by such reports to claim that he would bring torture back as president).

    It wasn't Donald Trump who spent eight years in the Oval Office presiding over a global " kill list ," running " Terror Tuesday " meetings, and personally helping choose individuals around the world for the CIA to assassinate using what, in essence, was the president's own private drone force, while being praised (or criticized) for his "caution."

    It wasn't Donald Trump who presided over the creation of a secret military of 70,000 elite troops cossetted inside the larger military, special-ops personnel who, in recent years, have been dispatched on missions to a large majority of the countries on the planet without the knowledge, no less the consent, of the American people. Nor was it Donald Trump who managed to lift the Pentagon budget to $600 billion and the overall national security budget to something like a trillion dollars or more, even as America's civilian infrastructure aged and buckled .

    It wasn't Donald Trump who lost an estimated $60 billion to fraud and waste in the American "reconstruction" of Iraq and Afghanistan, or who decided to build highways to nowhere and a gas station in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan. It wasn't Donald Trump who sent in the warrior corporations to squander more in that single country than was spent on the post-World War II Marshall Plan to put all of Western Europe back on its feet. Nor did he instruct the U.S. military to dump at least $25 billion into rebuilding, retraining, and rearming an Iraqi army that would collapse in 2014 in the face of a relatively small number of ISIS militants, or at least $65 billion into an Afghan army that would turn out to be filled with ghost soldiers .

    In its history, the United States has engaged in quite a remarkable range of wars and conflicts. Nonetheless, in the last 15 years, forever war has been institutionalized as a feature of everyday life in Washington, which, in turn, has been transformed into a permanent war capital. When Donald Trump won the presidency and inherited those wars and that capital, there was, in a sense, no one left in the remarkably bankrupt political universe of Washington but those generals.

    As the chameleon he is, he promptly took on the coloration of the militarized world he had entered and appointed "his" three generals to key security posts. Anything but the norm historically, such a decision may have seemed anomalous and out of the American tradition. That, however, was only because, unlike Donald Trump, most of the rest of us hadn't caught up with where that "tradition" had actually taken us.

    The previous two presidents had played the warrior regularly, donning military outfits – in his presidential years, George W. Bush often looked like a G.I. Joe doll – and saluting the troops, while praising them to the skies, as the American people were also trained to do. In the Trump era, however, it's the warriors (if you'll excuse the pun) who are playing the president.

    It's hardly news that Donald Trump is a man in love with what works. Hence, Steve Bannon, his dream strategist while on the campaign trail, is now reportedly on the ropes as his White House counselor because nothing he's done in the first nearly 100 days of the new presidency has worked (except promoting himself ).

    Think of Trump as a chameleon among presidents and much of this makes more sense. A Republican who had been a Democrat for significant periods of his life, he conceivably could have run for president as a more nativist version of Bernie Sanders on the Democratic ticket had the political cards been dealt just a little differently. He's a man who has changed himself repeatedly to fit his circumstances and he's doing so again in the Oval Office.

    In the world of the media, it's stylish to be shocked, shocked that the president who campaigned on one set of issues and came into office still championing them is now supporting quite a different set – from China to taxes, NATO to the Export-Import Bank. But this isn't faintly strange. Donald Trump isn't either a politician or a trendsetter. If anything, he's a trend-senser. (In a similar fashion, he didn't create reality TV, nor was he at its origins. He simply perfected a form that was already in development.)

    If you want to know just where we are in an America that has been on the march toward a different sort of society and governing system for a long time now, look at him. He's the originator of nothing, but he tells you all you need to know. On war, too, think of him as a chameleon. Right now, war is working for him domestically, whatever it may be doing in the actual world, so he loves it. For the moment, those generals are indeed "his" and their wars his to embrace.

    Honeymoon of the Generals

    Normally, on entering the Oval Office, presidents receive what the media calls a "honeymoon" period. Things go well. Praise is forthcoming. Approval ratings are heart-warming.

    Donald Trump got none of this. His approval ratings quickly headed for the honeymoon cellar or maybe the honeymoon fallout shelter ; the media and he went to war; and one attempt after another to fulfill his promises – from executive orders on deportation to repealing Obamacare and building his wall – have come a cropper. His administration seems to be in eternal chaos, the cast of characters changing by the week or tweet, and few key secondary posts being filled.

    In only one area has Donald Trump experienced that promised honeymoon. Think of it as the honeymoon of the generals. He gave them that "total authorization," and the missiles left the ships, the drones flew, and the giant bomb dropped. Even when the results were disappointing, if not disastrous (as in a raid on Yemen in which a U.S. special operator was killed, children slaughtered , and nothing of value recovered), he still somehow stumbled into highly praised "presidential" moments .

    So far, in other words, the generals are the only ones who have delivered for him, big-league . As a result, he's given them yet more authority to do whatever they want, while hugging them tighter yet.

    Here's the problem, though: there's a predictable element to all of this and it doesn't work in Donald Trump's favor. America's forever wars have now been pursued by these generals and others like them for more than 15 years across a vast swath of the planet – from Pakistan to Libya (and ever deeper into Africa) – and the chaos of failing states, growing conflicts, and spreading terror movements has been the result. There's no reason to believe that further military action will, a decade and a half later, produce more positive results.

    What happens, then? What happens when the war honeymoon is over and the generals keep right on fighting their way? The last two presidents put up with permanent failing war, making the best they could of it. That's unlikely for Donald Trump. When the praise begins to die down, the criticism starts to rise, and questions are asked, watch out.

    What then? In a world of plutocrats and generals, what coloration will Donald Trump take on next? Who will be left, except Jared and Ivanka?

    Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .

    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II , as well as John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands , Nick Turse's Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead , and Tom Engelhardt's Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .

    [Apr 24, 2017] Debunking Trumps Casus Belli

    "Many intelligence officials have concluded that the White House is lying and concealing what it knows." this is pretty damning statement which reminds of the Bush Ii administration Dick Cheney mafia of neocons which conrolled Bush II almost completely. Actually key figures are Trump administration such as Secretary of Defense and the head of national security council are friend of Paul Wolfowitz
    Notable quotes:
    "... Recently, with the cruise missile attacks on a Syrian airfield, there has been a considerable loosening of the normal restraints that employees exercise regarding their duties. Even more than the invasion of Iraq, which was viewed skeptically by many in the community, the decision by President Trump to retaliate with force against Damascus has been met with dismay among many of those closest to the action in the Middle East. ..."
    "... The insiders note that no evidence has been produced to demonstrate convincingly that Syrian forces dropped a chemical bomb on a civilian area. ..."
    "... Many intelligence officials have concluded that the White House is lying and concealing what it knows. ..."
    "... Some employees have even expressed a desire that a whistleblower might step forward to demolish the administration's casus belli , though none has yet offered to do so. Most of all, those on the ground are alarmed over ongoing preparations for expanding the war, including seemingly active plans to establish no-fly zones and safe havens. The uncompromising demand that al-Assad must go will lead, in their opinion, to a rapid escalation of military activity that inevitably will result in conflict with Russia. ..."
    Apr 24, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Recently, with the cruise missile attacks on a Syrian airfield, there has been a considerable loosening of the normal restraints that employees exercise regarding their duties. Even more than the invasion of Iraq, which was viewed skeptically by many in the community, the decision by President Trump to retaliate with force against Damascus has been met with dismay among many of those closest to the action in the Middle East.

    Many officers have expressed frustration and anger over what has taken place-not to challenge national-security policy, which they leave up to the politicians, but because they are perceiving a tissue of lies, as in Iraq. They have expressed their concerns in very specific ways to former fellow officers and friends. For the first time, people on the inside of the process are really talking. And we have been listening, astonished at the level of anger.

    The insiders note that no evidence has been produced to demonstrate convincingly that Syrian forces dropped a chemical bomb on a civilian area. U.S. monitors, who had been warned by the Russians that an attack was coming, believe they saw from satellite images something close to the Russian account of events, with a bomb hitting the targeted warehouse, which then produced a cloud of gas. They also note that Syria had absolutely no motive for staging a chemical attack. In fact, it was quite the contrary, as Washington had earlier that week backed off from the U.S. position that President Bashar al-Assad should be removed from office. The so-called rebels, however, had plenty of motive. Many intelligence officials have concluded that the White House is lying and concealing what it knows.

    Some employees have even expressed a desire that a whistleblower might step forward to demolish the administration's casus belli , though none has yet offered to do so. Most of all, those on the ground are alarmed over ongoing preparations for expanding the war, including seemingly active plans to establish no-fly zones and safe havens. The uncompromising demand that al-Assad must go will lead, in their opinion, to a rapid escalation of military activity that inevitably will result in conflict with Russia.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Apr 24, 2017] Trump and the Thucydides Trap The American Conservative

    Apr 24, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Speaking of Zen takes, check out my latest column at The Week , which is about how Trump's sloth and incompetence could wind up saving us from war with China:

    Students of international affairs who take the long view have for some time been worried about the trajectory of U.S.-China relations. While in theory a cooperative relationship would be most beneficial to both parties, in practice dominant powers and rising challengers rarely are able to work out a fruitful accommodation. Instead, most often the two stumble into a conflict that devastates both countries' interests.

    Graham Allison calls the underlying theory - detailed in his new book - the Thucydides Trap. So long as both powers rationally assume that the dominant power aims to maintain its supremacy, even accommodative policies will be interpreted as a way to get the rising power to settle for less than it might achieve by revisionist agitations. So if the dominant power is accommodative, the rising power will take advantage, provoking a reversal by the dominant power and a confrontation. But if the dominant power is confrontational and tries to encircle the rising power, it will provoke the rising power to break out - and in the meantime the dominant power will exhaust its resources more quickly than the rising power does, accelerating the power transition.

    So how can war be avoided?

    Allison's prescription is for robust communication along with a willingness on the part of the dominant power to think big in terms of how the international order will have to change to accommodate the rising power. Rather than try to prevent or limit the power transition, the dominant power has to facilitate it, get the rising power to understand that this is in fact the policy, and thereby forge a cooperative path through the transition that gives both powers an appropriate role to their new relative power position. I've argued in this space before that Korea would be a perfect place to try to achieve those twin goals.

    The Obama administration's much-touted but never-completed "pivot" to Asia could be understood as an effort to preserve America's position within the context of partnership with China - or as an effort to contain China and maintain American supremacy. Strengthened alliances with countries like Australia and Vietnam were intended to discourage China from adventurism in its near-abroad, while the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to counter Chinese economic leadership in the region. On the other hand, the TPP did not explicitly exclude China, and it is plausible to think that its ultimate purpose was more to keep America in than to keep China out. Obama clearly saw a value in working with the Chinese rather than merely against them, but he also recognized that China intended to challenge America's interests in the western Pacific and aimed to counter it.

    We'll never know whether the Obama strategy would have been a way out of the Thucydides Trap, or whether it would have led us right into it. We'll never know because President Trump has trashed the strategy entirely, pulling out of the TPP , musing about abandoning the one-China policy , threatening unilateral action in Korea , and calling for tariffs on Chinese manufacturers. His initial policy mix looked like it was premised on the assumption that war was inevitable, so we might as well make it happen on our terms.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the battlefield: The Chinese realized we were bluffing.

    Our military options in Korea aren't really viable , and Trump has proved that he knows they aren't by his eagerness to get the Chinese to handle the problem - eagerness so overwhelming it has already led him to abandon a core campaign theme, confronting the Chinese on trade . Trump has already reaffirmed the one-China policy. And he has not only gratuitously insulted key allies , but demonstrated tactical incompetence in his communications about the mission of the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson . Watching Trump, America's Asian allies surely are questioning our reliability and basic competence, while the Chinese surely are far less worried that America will be able to restrain their rise even if we desire to do so.

    Normally, this would provoke the rising power to be more confrontational. But if the Chinese really understand Trump, they'll see that they could get far more by picking his pocket than by mugging him. Trump is transparently eager for a deal - almost any deal. The Chinese could probably ask for the moon and the stars - or control of the South China Sea - in exchange for minor promises - to let their currency rise a bit (which has already happened), to build a few manufacturing plants in Ohio, to get North Korea to restrain itself for a few months. Why wouldn't the Chinese try to get what they want at the table rather than taking the risk of a confrontation?

    Of course, normally a political leader would pay a gruesome price for cutting a terrible deal with a key rival. If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had rolled over for the Chinese, the Republican Party would go ballistic. But Donald Trump's brand is all about making America great again. His most vocal liberal critics, meanwhile, are more concerned that he's going to stumble into World War III than that he is going to be insufficiently firm in defending America's interests. While, as with Syria, they may support any military actions he does take, they are unlikely to provoke him into backing up his blustery threats with actual shows of force.

    Paradoxically, Trump could achieve by sloth and incompetence what is very difficult for dominant powers to accept: a transition out of that dominant position.

    Read the whole thing there .

    [Apr 24, 2017] US 'Deep State' Sold Out Counter-Terrorism To Keep Itself in Business

    Notable quotes:
    "... Counter-terrorism specialists in the US government knew perfectly well that US regime change in Iraq through military force would give a powerful boost to Osama bin Laden's organization and to anti-American terrorism generally. ..."
    "... After it quickly became clear that the US war in Iraq was already motivating young men across the Middle East to wage jihad against the US in Iraq, the chief architect of the occupation of Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, came up with the patently false rationalization that Iraq would be a "flytrap" for jihadists. ..."
    "... But Hayden and the CIA had a huge bureaucratic interest in that war. He had lobbied Bush in 2007 to loosen restraints on drone strikes in Pakistan and let the CIA launch lethal attacks on the mere suspicion that a group of males were al-Qaeda. ..."
    "... It soon became clear that it wasn't really weakening the al-Qaeda in the northwest Pakistan at all. Even drone operators themselves began privately criticizing the drone attacks for making many more young Pakistanis hate the United States and support al-Qaeda. The only thing Leon Panetta, Hayden's successor as CIA director, could say in defense of the program was that it was "the only game in town" . ..."
    "... Barack Obama wanted out of a big war in Iraq. But CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus and Joint Staff director Gen. Stanley A McChyrstal, talked Obama into approving a whole new series of covert wars using CIA drone strikes and special operations commando raids against al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations in a dozen countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia. At the top of their list of covert wars was Yemen, where al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had just been formed. ..."
    "... In late 2011 and early 2012, the contradiction between the US pretension to counter-terrorism in its Middle East policy and the interests sharpened even further. That's when the Obama administration adopted a new anti-Iran hard line in the region to reassure the Saudis that we were still committed to the security alliance. That hard line policy had nothing to do with a nuclear deal with Iran, which came more than a year later. ..."
    "... The Obama national security team was willing to take advantage of the considerable military power of the Nusra Front-led jihadist alliance. But it was all done with a wink and a nod to maintain the fiction that it was still committed to defeating al-Qaeda everywhere. ..."
    "... AQAP will certainly emerge from the disastrous war in Yemen as the strongest political force in the south, with a de-facto safe haven in which to plot terrorist attacks against the US. And they can thank the war bureaucracies in the US who helped them achieve that powerful position. ..."
    "... But the reason for the betrayal of US counter-terrorism interests is not that the senior officials in charge of these war bureaucracies want to promote al-Qaeda. It is because they had to sacrifice the priority of countering al-Qaeda to maintain the alliances, the facilities and the operations on which their continued power and resources depend. ..."
    Apr 24, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    Since 2001, senior Pentagon and CIA officials have sacrificed American interests in weakening al-Qaeda to pursue their own interests

    New York Times columnist Tom Friedman outraged many readers when he wrote an opinion piece on 12 April calling on President Trump to "back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria". The reason he gave for that recommendation was not that US wars in the Middle East are inevitably self-defeating and endless, but that it would reduce the "pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah".

    That suggestion that the US sell out its interest in counter-terrorism in the Middle East to gain some advantage in power competition with its adversaries was rightly attacked as cynical.

    But, in fact, the national security bureaucracies of the US – which many have come to call the "Deep State" – have been selling out their interests in counter-terrorism in order to pursue various adventures in the region ever since George W Bush declared a "Global War on Terrorism" in late 2001.

    The whole war on terrorism has been, in effect, a bait-and-switch operation from the beginning. The idea that US military operations were somehow going to make America safer after the 9/11 attacks was the bait. What has actually happened ever since then, however, is that senior officials at the Pentagon and the CIA have been sacrificing the interest of American people in weakening al-Qaeda in order to pursue their own institutional interests.

    'The only game in town'

    It all began, of course, with the invasion of Iraq. Counter-terrorism specialists in the US government knew perfectly well that US regime change in Iraq through military force would give a powerful boost to Osama bin Laden's organization and to anti-American terrorism generally. Rand Beers, then senior director for counter-terrorism on the National Security Council staff, told his predecessor Richard Clarke in late 2002, "Do you know how much it will strengthen al-Qaeda and groups like that if we occupy Iraq?"

    After it quickly became clear that the US war in Iraq was already motivating young men across the Middle East to wage jihad against the US in Iraq, the chief architect of the occupation of Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, came up with the patently false rationalization that Iraq would be a "flytrap" for jihadists.

    But in January 2005, after a year of research, the CIA issued a major intelligence assessment warning that the war was breeding more al-Qaeda extremist militants from all over the Middle East and even giving them combat experience that they would eventually be able to use back home. In a 2006 National Intelligence Estimate , the intelligence community warned that the number of people identifying themselves as jihadists was growing and was becoming more widespread geographically and even the predicted growing terrorist threats from "self-radicalized cells" both in the US and abroad.

    The war managers continued to claim that their wars were making Americans safer. CIA Director Michael Hayden not only sought to sell the flypaper argument on Iraq, but also bragged to the Washington Post in 2008 that the CIA was making great progress against al-Qaeda, based mainly on its burgeoning drone war in Pakistan.

    But Hayden and the CIA had a huge bureaucratic interest in that war. He had lobbied Bush in 2007 to loosen restraints on drone strikes in Pakistan and let the CIA launch lethal attacks on the mere suspicion that a group of males were al-Qaeda.

    It soon became clear that it wasn't really weakening the al-Qaeda in the northwest Pakistan at all. Even drone operators themselves began privately criticizing the drone attacks for making many more young Pakistanis hate the United States and support al-Qaeda. The only thing Leon Panetta, Hayden's successor as CIA director, could say in defense of the program was that it was "the only game in town" .

    Covert wars

    Barack Obama wanted out of a big war in Iraq. But CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus and Joint Staff director Gen. Stanley A McChyrstal, talked Obama into approving a whole new series of covert wars using CIA drone strikes and special operations commando raids against al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations in a dozen countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia. At the top of their list of covert wars was Yemen, where al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had just been formed.

    Since 2009, the Joint Special Operations Command and the CIA have launched 16 cruise missile strikes and 183 drone strikes in Yemen. Unfortunately, they lacked the intelligence necessary for such a campaign. As many as one-third of the strikes killed innocent civilians and local notables – including the cruise missile strike in December 2009 which killed 41 civilians and attack on a wedding party in December 2013. Virtually every independent observer agrees that those killings have fed Yemeni hatred of the US and contributed to AQAP's luster as the leading anti-US organization in the country.

    The CIA again claimed they were doing a splendid job of hitting AQAP, but in fact the Yemeni offshoot of al-Qaeda continued to be the primary terrorism threat while the covert war continued. Three times between late 2009 and 2012, it mounted efforts to bring down airliners and nearly succeeded in two of the three.

    Sharpened contradictions

    In late 2011 and early 2012, the contradiction between the US pretension to counter-terrorism in its Middle East policy and the interests sharpened even further. That's when the Obama administration adopted a new anti-Iran hard line in the region to reassure the Saudis that we were still committed to the security alliance. That hard line policy had nothing to do with a nuclear deal with Iran, which came more than a year later.

    At first, it took form of covert logistical assistance to the Sunni allies to arm Sunni anti-Assad forces in Syria. But in 2014, the Obama administration began providing antitank missiles to selected anti-Assad armed groups. And when the Nusra Front wanted the groups the CIA had supported in Idlib to coordinate with the jihadist offensive to seize control of Idlib province, the Obama administration did not object.

    The Obama national security team was willing to take advantage of the considerable military power of the Nusra Front-led jihadist alliance. But it was all done with a wink and a nod to maintain the fiction that it was still committed to defeating al-Qaeda everywhere.

    When the Saudis came to Washington in March 2015 with a plan to wage a major war in Yemen against the Houthis and their new ally, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the deep state was ready to give Saudi a green light . A predictable consequence of that decision has been to fuel the rise of AQAP, which had already emerged as the primary threat of terrorist attack on the US, to an unprecedented position of power.

    The biggest winner

    As documented by the International Crisis Group, AQAP has been the biggest winner in the war, taking advantage of state collapse, an open alliance with the Saudi-supported government and a major infusion of arms – much of its provided indirectly by the Saudis.

    Endowed with a political strategy of playing up AQAP's role as champion of Sunni sectarian interests against those Yemenis whom they wrongly call Shia, AQAP controlled a large swath of territory across southern Yemen with the port of Mukalla as their headquarters. And even though the Saudi coalition recaptured the territory, they maintain a strong political presence there.

    AQAP will certainly emerge from the disastrous war in Yemen as the strongest political force in the south, with a de-facto safe haven in which to plot terrorist attacks against the US. And they can thank the war bureaucracies in the US who helped them achieve that powerful position.

    But the reason for the betrayal of US counter-terrorism interests is not that the senior officials in charge of these war bureaucracies want to promote al-Qaeda. It is because they had to sacrifice the priority of countering al-Qaeda to maintain the alliances, the facilities and the operations on which their continued power and resources depend.

    Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at [email protected] .

    Reprinted from the Middle East Eye with the author's permission.

    [Apr 22, 2017] Idiocy as WMD

    Apr 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
    May 13, 2012 1,000 Words

    Borges writes, "dictatorships foster oppression, dictatorships foster servitude, dictatorships foster cruelty; more abominable is the fact that they foster idiocy." As a preeminent mind, Borges rightly considers the mind to be a man's greatest asset, for without mind, a man is nothing. The more oppressive a political system, then, the greater its assault on its subjects' minds, for it's not enough for any dictator, king or totalitarian system to oppress and exploit, but it must, and I mean must, make its people idiotic as well. Every wrongful bullet is preceded and accompanied, then followed up by a series of idiotic lies, but we're so used to such a moronic diet by now, our trepanned intelligentsia don't even squirm in their tenured chairs.

    Sane men and women don't consent to kill, rob and rape, much less be killed, robbed and raped, least of all to enrich their masters , and that's why their minds must be molested as early and as much as possible. Hence our nonstop media brainwashing us from the cradle, literally, to the grave. Fixated by flickering boxes, even infants are now mind-conditioned to become scatterbrained idiots before they stagger into kindergarten, to begin a lifelong process of becoming docile and slogan-shouting Democrats and Republicans.

    Yes, savages killed, but, like apes, our ancestors, they mostly tried to intimidate and trash talk their way out of conflicts. Take the Maoris: from all accounts, they were a rather belligerent people, but their killing of each other really took off with the introduction of the musket. The greater a civilization, the greater its ability to accomplish great tasks, including massacre. A savage tribe could never imagine wiping out entire cities by defecating exploding metal from the sky, or sitting in a brightly lit and spic-and-span office stroking a joy stick to ejaculate missiles half a planet away. Drone hell fire for y'all, with sides of bank-sponsored debt slavery and austerity, plus an unlimited refill of American pop bullshit. Would you like a public suicide with that? No, sir, these savages need to take webcast courses from us sophisticates when it comes to genocide, or ecocide, or any other kind of cides you can think of. When it comes to pure, unadulterated savagery, these quaint brutes ain't got shit on us plugged-in netizens chillaxin' in that shiny upside down condo on da capital-punishment-for the-entire-world, y'all, hill.

    You'd think that a government with absolute power would not bother with expensive parades and elaborately-staged rallies in stadia, as are routine in North Korea, but such is the importance of propaganda and mind-control. America has gone way beyond Kim Jong-Un and his Nuremberg-styled pageantry, however, because the Yankee Magical Show is relentlessly pumped into our minds via television and the internet, at home, in office or even as we're walking down the street, so that we're always swarmed by sexy sale pitches, soft and hard porn, asinine righteousness and imbecilic trivia. All day long, we can stuff ourselves with unlimited kitsch. Today's urgent topic, "Sylvester Stalone Spotted in 16th Century Painting." Yesterday's, "Tom Cruise's Daughter Gets Inked." Imagine a triple-amputee Iraq vet or an unemployed mother, sitting in an about to be foreclosed home with unpaid bills scattered across her kitchen table, staring at such headlines. At 48, I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't this overwhelmingly stupid, though the dumbing down of America will only accelerate as this cornered and bankrupt country becomes ever more vicious to its citizens and foreigners alike.

    Not content to kill and loot, America must do it to pulsating music; cool, orgasmic dancing; raunchy reality shows and violence-filled Hollywood blockbusters, and these are also meant for its victims, no less. In a 1997 article published by the US Army War College, Ralph Peters gushes about a "personally intrusive" and "lethal" cultural assault as a key tactic in the American quest for global supremacy. As information master, the American Empire will destroy its "information victims." What's more, "our victims volunteer" because they are unable to resist the seductiveness of American culture.

    Defining democracy as "that deft liberal form of imperialism," Peters reveals how the word is conceived and used these days by every American leader, whether talking about Libya, Syria, Iran or America itself. Recognizing that the lumpens of his country are also victims of empire, Peters frankly acknowledges that "laid-off blue-collar worker in America and the Taliban militiaman in Afghanistan are brothers in suffering."

    Much has been made of the internet as enabling democracy and protest, but whatever utility it may have for the disenfranchised and/or rebellious, the Web is most useful to our rulers. As Dmitry Orlov points out in a recent blog, the internet is a powerful surveillance tool for the state and, what's more, it also keeps the masses distracted and pacified. Echoing Queen Victoria's remark, "Give my people plenty of beer, good and cheap beer, and you will have no revolution among them," Orlov observes that virtual sex thwarts rebellion. In sum, while the internet may empower some people, as in allowing John Michael Greer , Paul Craig Roberts or Orlov to publish their unflinching commentaries, the same internet also drowns them out with an unprecedented flood of drivel. Defending the empire, Ralph Peters cheerfully agrees, "The internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and community."

    Though our only hope is to be expelled from this sick matrix, many of us will cling even more fiercely to these illusions of knowledge, love, sex and community as we blunder forward. A breathing and tactile life will become even more alien, I'm afraid. Here and there, a band of unplugged weirdos, to be hunted down and exterminated, with their demise shown on TV as warning and entertainment. Inhabiting a common waste land, we can each lounge in our private electronic ghetto. Until the juice finally runs out, that is.

    [Apr 22, 2017] Idiocy as WMD

    Apr 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
    May 13, 2012 1,000 Words

    Borges writes, "dictatorships foster oppression, dictatorships foster servitude, dictatorships foster cruelty; more abominable is the fact that they foster idiocy." As a preeminent mind, Borges rightly considers the mind to be a man's greatest asset, for without mind, a man is nothing. The more oppressive a political system, then, the greater its assault on its subjects' minds, for it's not enough for any dictator, king or totalitarian system to oppress and exploit, but it must, and I mean must, make its people idiotic as well. Every wrongful bullet is preceded and accompanied, then followed up by a series of idiotic lies, but we're so used to such a moronic diet by now, our trepanned intelligentsia don't even squirm in their tenured chairs.

    Sane men and women don't consent to kill, rob and rape, much less be killed, robbed and raped, least of all to enrich their masters , and that's why their minds must be molested as early and as much as possible. Hence our nonstop media brainwashing us from the cradle, literally, to the grave. Fixated by flickering boxes, even infants are now mind-conditioned to become scatterbrained idiots before they stagger into kindergarten, to begin a lifelong process of becoming docile and slogan-shouting Democrats and Republicans.

    Yes, savages killed, but, like apes, our ancestors, they mostly tried to intimidate and trash talk their way out of conflicts. Take the Maoris: from all accounts, they were a rather belligerent people, but their killing of each other really took off with the introduction of the musket. The greater a civilization, the greater its ability to accomplish great tasks, including massacre. A savage tribe could never imagine wiping out entire cities by defecating exploding metal from the sky, or sitting in a brightly lit and spic-and-span office stroking a joy stick to ejaculate missiles half a planet away. Drone hell fire for y'all, with sides of bank-sponsored debt slavery and austerity, plus an unlimited refill of American pop bullshit. Would you like a public suicide with that? No, sir, these savages need to take webcast courses from us sophisticates when it comes to genocide, or ecocide, or any other kind of cides you can think of. When it comes to pure, unadulterated savagery, these quaint brutes ain't got shit on us plugged-in netizens chillaxin' in that shiny upside down condo on da capital-punishment-for the-entire-world, y'all, hill.

    You'd think that a government with absolute power would not bother with expensive parades and elaborately-staged rallies in stadia, as are routine in North Korea, but such is the importance of propaganda and mind-control. America has gone way beyond Kim Jong-Un and his Nuremberg-styled pageantry, however, because the Yankee Magical Show is relentlessly pumped into our minds via television and the internet, at home, in office or even as we're walking down the street, so that we're always swarmed by sexy sale pitches, soft and hard porn, asinine righteousness and imbecilic trivia. All day long, we can stuff ourselves with unlimited kitsch. Today's urgent topic, "Sylvester Stalone Spotted in 16th Century Painting." Yesterday's, "Tom Cruise's Daughter Gets Inked." Imagine a triple-amputee Iraq vet or an unemployed mother, sitting in an about to be foreclosed home with unpaid bills scattered across her kitchen table, staring at such headlines. At 48, I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't this overwhelmingly stupid, though the dumbing down of America will only accelerate as this cornered and bankrupt country becomes ever more vicious to its citizens and foreigners alike.

    Not content to kill and loot, America must do it to pulsating music; cool, orgasmic dancing; raunchy reality shows and violence-filled Hollywood blockbusters, and these are also meant for its victims, no less. In a 1997 article published by the US Army War College, Ralph Peters gushes about a "personally intrusive" and "lethal" cultural assault as a key tactic in the American quest for global supremacy. As information master, the American Empire will destroy its "information victims." What's more, "our victims volunteer" because they are unable to resist the seductiveness of American culture.

    Defining democracy as "that deft liberal form of imperialism," Peters reveals how the word is conceived and used these days by every American leader, whether talking about Libya, Syria, Iran or America itself. Recognizing that the lumpens of his country are also victims of empire, Peters frankly acknowledges that "laid-off blue-collar worker in America and the Taliban militiaman in Afghanistan are brothers in suffering."

    Much has been made of the internet as enabling democracy and protest, but whatever utility it may have for the disenfranchised and/or rebellious, the Web is most useful to our rulers. As Dmitry Orlov points out in a recent blog, the internet is a powerful surveillance tool for the state and, what's more, it also keeps the masses distracted and pacified. Echoing Queen Victoria's remark, "Give my people plenty of beer, good and cheap beer, and you will have no revolution among them," Orlov observes that virtual sex thwarts rebellion. In sum, while the internet may empower some people, as in allowing John Michael Greer , Paul Craig Roberts or Orlov to publish their unflinching commentaries, the same internet also drowns them out with an unprecedented flood of drivel. Defending the empire, Ralph Peters cheerfully agrees, "The internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and community."

    Though our only hope is to be expelled from this sick matrix, many of us will cling even more fiercely to these illusions of knowledge, love, sex and community as we blunder forward. A breathing and tactile life will become even more alien, I'm afraid. Here and there, a band of unplugged weirdos, to be hunted down and exterminated, with their demise shown on TV as warning and entertainment. Inhabiting a common waste land, we can each lounge in our private electronic ghetto. Until the juice finally runs out, that is.

    [Apr 21, 2017] The Reason Behind The Sales-Surge For Nuclear-Proof Bunkers Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... On April 17 th , Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon" , and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations: ..."
    "... March 14 th , the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada . ..."
    "... April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan ..."
    "... On April 7 th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists ..."
    "... April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border ..."
    "... April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command. ..."
    "... April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO ..."
    "... April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe ..."
    "... On April 13 th , the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) ..."
    "... April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zo r killing hundreds of people ..."
    "... April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea ..."
    "... April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe ..."
    "... April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan . The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region". ..."
    "... April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively ..."
    "... On April 16 th , the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s. ..."
    "... or there will be WW III. ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    > Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    On April 15th, Zero Hedge bannered "Doomsday Bunker Sales Soar After Trump's Military Strikes", but this growth in the market for nuclear-proof bunkers is hardly new; it started during the Obama Administration, in Obama's second term, specifically after the Russia-friendly government of Ukraine, next-door to Russia, got taken over in 2014 by a rabidly anti-Russian government that's backed by the U.S. government.

    This boom in nuclear-bunker sales is only increasing now, as the new U.S. President, Donald Trump, tries to out-do his predecessor in demonstrating his hostility toward the other nuclear superpower, Russia, and displaying his determination to overthrow the leader of any nation (such as Syria and Iran) that is at all friendly toward Russia. For earlier examples of feature-articles on this booming market for homes that allegedly would enable buyers to survive the first blast effects, and the most immediate nuclear contaminations, of a Third World War, see here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.

    This surging demand for nuclear bunkers started right after the U.S. government arranged a coup in Ukraine that replaced the existing Moscow-friendly democratically elected President by installing a rabidly anti-Russian Prime Minister and national-security appointees from Ukraine's two nazi Parties, the Right Sector Party, and the former Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine (which the CIA renamed "Svoboda" meaning "Freedom" so as to enable it to be acceptable to the American public). Then, the intensifying U.S. effort to replace the secular pro-Russian Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad by a sectarian jihadist government that would be dependent upon the Saudi-Qatari-UAE-Turkish-U.S. alliance, has only intensified further the demand for these types of "second homes".

    Whereas all of the purchasers of these bunkers are being kept secret, the U.S. federal government provides, free-of-charge, to top officials, nuclear bunkers, so as to allow the then-dictatorship (continuation of America's current dictatorship) to function, in order, supposedly, to serve their country, which they'd already have destroyed (along with destroying the rest of the world) by their determination to conquer Russia. No one knows what the reality would actually be in such a post-WW-III world, except that there would be no functioning electrical grid, nights would be totally dark for anyone whose sole reliance is on the grid, and all rivers and other water-sources would be intensely radioactive from the fallout, so that groundwater soon would also be unusable - and, of course, the air itself would also be toxic; so, lifespans would be enormously shortened, and excruciating, not to say extremely depressing.

    No one has published a computer-model of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, because doing that would be unacceptable to the "military-industrial complex" including the U.S. government, but in 2014 a "limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan" was computer-modeled and projected to produce global ozone-depletion and "the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years", which "could trigger a global nuclear famine". But such a war would be only 50 bombs instead of the 10,000+ that would be used in a WW III scenario; and, so, everyone who is paying money in order to survive WW III is simply wasting money.

    But, somehow, there are people who either want a Russia-U.S. war, or else whose preparations for it are directed at surviving in such a world, instead of at ending the current grip on political power in the United States, on the part of the people who are working to bring about this type of (end to the) world. At least the owners of the major U.S. armaments-firms, such as Raytheon Corporation, would have an explosive financial boost during the build-up toward that war, but buying bunkers in order to survive it, would seem to be a dubious follow-up to such an investment-plan. On the other hand, it might appeal to some thrill-seekers who don't even feel the need for a good computer-simulation of a post-WW-III world; maybe they've got money to burn and a craving to experience 'the ultimate thrill', and don't want unpleasant knowledge to spoil the thrill.

    After President Trump threw out his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and replaced him with the rabidly anti-Russian H.R. McMaster, and then lobbed 59 cruise missiles against the Syrian government (which is protected by the Russian government), the cacophony of press that had been calling for President Trump to be impeached and replaced by his rabidly anti-Russian Vice President Mike Pence, considerably quieted down; and, so, the Obama-Trump market for nuclear bunkers seems now to be established on very sound foundations, for the foreseeable immediate future. And, if anyone in the U.S. federal government has been planning to prepare the U.S. for a post-WW-III world, that has not been publicly announced, and no newsmedia have even been inquiring about it - so, nothing can yet be said about it.

    The general message, thus far, is that, after World War III, everyone will be on his or her own, but that the dictators will (supposedly) be in a far better position than will anyone outside that ruling group. However, if the survivors end up merely envying the dead, it will be no laughing matter, regardless of how silly those nuclear bunkers are. It would be nothing funny at all.

    On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:

    March 14th, the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada.

    April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan

    On April 7th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists

    April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border

    April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command.

    April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO

    April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe

    On April 13th, the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB)

    April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zor killing hundreds of people

    April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea

    April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe

    April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan. The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region".

    April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively

    On April 16th, the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s.

    Mr. Humor drew attention to an article that had been published in "The Daily Beast" a year ago, on 8 April 2016, "CALL OF DUTY: The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President. Gen. James Mattis doesn't necessarily want to be president-but that's not stopping a group of billionaire donors from hatching a plan to get him there". Though none of the alleged "billionaires" were named there, one prominent voice backing Mattis for the Presidency, in that article, was Bill Kristol, the Rupert Murdoch agent who co-founded the Project for a New American Century, which was the first influential group pushing the "regime-change in Iraq" idea during the late 1990s, and which also advocated for the foreign policies that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, have since been pursuing, each in his own way. It seems that whomever those "billionaires" were, they've now gotten their wish, with a figurehead Donald Trump as President, and James Mattis actually running foreign policy. Humor also noted that Mattis wants to boost the budget of the Pentagon by far more than the 9% that Trump has proposed. Perhaps Trump knew that even to get a 9% Pentagon increase passed this year would be almost impossible to achieve. First, the unleashed Pentagon needs to place the military into an 'emergency' situation, so as to persuade the public to clamor for a major invasion. That 'emergency' might be the immediate goal, toward which the March-April timeline of events that Humor documented is aiming.

    As regards the military comparisons of the personnel and equipment on both sides of a U.S.-Russia war, the key consideration would actually be not the 7,000 nuclear warheads that Russia has versus the 6,800 nuclear warheads that the U.S. has, but the chief motivation on each of the respective sides: conquest on the part of the U.S. aristocracy, defense on the part of the Russian aristocracy. (Obviously, the U.S. having continued its NATO military alliance after the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in 1991, indicates America's aggressive intent against Russia. That became a hyper-aggressive intent when NATO absorbed Russia's former Warsaw Pact allies. NATO even brought in some parts of the former USSR itself, when in 2004, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, entered NATO, and in 2014 U.S. President Obama tried to get Ukraine into NATO, and these five countries hadn't even been Warsaw Pacters, but had instead been parts of the USSR itself. It was as if Russia had grabbed not only America's allies, but some states in the U.S. itself. This constituted extreme aggression, and shows the U.S. aristocracy's obsessive intent for global empire - to include Russia.)

    Any limited war between the two powers would become a nuclear war once the side that's losing this limited war becomes faced with the choice of either surrendering that limited territory (now likely Syria) or else going nuclear. On Russia's side, allowing such military conquest of an ally would be unacceptable; the war would then expand with the U.S. and its allies invading Russian territory for Russia's continuing refusal to accept the U.S.-Saudi and other allies' grabbing of Syria (on 'humanitarian grounds', of course - as if, for example, the Sauds aren't far more brutal than Assad). After the traditional-forces' invasion of Russia, Russia's yielding its sovereignty over its own land has never been part of Russia's culture: If Russia were to be invaded by allies of the U.S., then launching all of Russia's nuclear weapons against the U.S. and America's invasion-allies, would be a reasonably expected result. Here's how it would develop: On America's side, which (very unlike Russia) has no record of any foreign invasion against its own mainland (other than the Sauds' own 9/11 'false flag' attacks), the likely response in the event of Russia's crushing its invaders would be for the U.S. President to seek to negotiate a face-saving end to that limited war, just as the American President Richard Nixon did regarding America's invasion and occupation of Vietnam.

    However, a reasonable question can be raised as to whether, in such a situation, Russia would accept anything less than America's total surrender, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in WW II was determined to accept nothing less than Germany's total surrender, at the end of that war. If Trump wants to play Hitler, then Putin (acting in accord with Russian tradition) would probably play both FDR and Stalin, even if it meant the end of the world. For Russia to be conquered, especially by such intense evil as those invaders would be representing, would probably be viewed by Russians as being even worse than ending everything, and this would probably be Putin's view as well. If America did not simply capitulate, Putin would probably nuclear-blitz-attack the U.S. and its allies, rather than give Trump (or Pence) the opportunity to blitz-attack Russia and to sacrifice all of the U.S. side's invading troops in Russia so as to 'win' the overall war and finally conquer Russia. It would be like WW II, except with nuclear weapons - and thus an entirely different type of historical outcome after the war.

    Consequently, either the U.S. will cease its designs on Russia, or there will be WW III. Russia's sovereignty will never be yielded, especially not to the thuggish gang who have come to rule the U.S. (both as "Republicans" and as "Democrats"). The bipartisan neoconservative dream of America's aristocrats (world-conquest) will never be achieved. Russia will never accept it. If America's rulers continue to press it, the result will be even worse than when the Nazis tried. It's just an ugly pipe-dream, but any attempt to make it real would be even uglier. And nobody who buys a 'nuclear-proof bunker' will get what he or she thinks is being bought - safety in such a world as that. It won't exist.

    Shemp 4 Victory -> Crash Overide , Apr 20, 2017 10:56 PM

    Fred Reed knocks one out of the park:

    First Transgender President: Trump Becomes Hillary http://www.unz.com/freed/first-transgender-president-trump-becomes-hillary/

    Luc X. Ifer -> Shemp 4 Victory , Apr 20, 2017 11:24 PM

    False. We have a simulation, and it is far worse than people can even imagine.

    [...

  • Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.

    ...]

    http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/hundredfiftytonessmoke/

  • Luc X. Ifer -> Luc X. Ifer , Apr 20, 2017 11:41 PM

    Another reason why USSA is in hurry to have the war with Russia ASAP is that they know that very soon - if not even now in the present, USSA ICBM defense is outdated and 100% ineficient against the newest Russian ICBMs, if by any bad chance Russia launches the 1st strike Disney Land USSA is Bye Felicia without even a chance to retaliate.

    https://www.rt.com/news/340588-hypersonic-warhead-sarmat-tested/

    winged -> Luc X. Ifer , Apr 20, 2017 11:41 PM

    If that time truly comes, make sure you know who's really responsible.

    http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-truth-about-the-c...

    [Apr 21, 2017] Trump has lost control over the Pentagon

    thesaker.is

    On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:

    1. March 14th, the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada.
    2. April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan
    3. On April 7th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists
    4. April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border
    5. April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command.
    6. April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO
    7. April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe
    8. On April 13th, the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB)
    9. April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zor killing hundreds of people
    10. April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea
    11. April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe
    12. April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan. The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region".
    13. April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively
    14. April 16th, the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s.

    [Apr 21, 2017] We May Be on the Verge of a Return to the Bush Administrations Worst Abuses

    What she does not understand is that ISIS is doing for American the dirty job of torturing civilians...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal ..."
    Apr 21, 2017 | fpif.org

    We May Be on the Verge of a Return to the Bush Administration's Worst Abuses

    The Trump administration may be preparing to bring back torture, extraordinary rendition, and indefinite detention - with Neil Gorsuch's help.

    By Rebecca Gordon , April 11, 2017 . Originally published in TomDispatch .

    When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney launched their forever wars - under the banner of a "Global War on Terror" - they unleashed an unholy trinity of tactics. Torture, rendition, and indefinite detention became the order of the day. After a partial suspension of these policies in the Obama years, they now appear poised for resurrection.

    For eight years under President Obama, this country's forever wars continued, although his administration retired the expression "war on terror," preferring to describe its war-making more vaguely as an effort to " degrade and destroy " violent jihadists like ISIS. Nevertheless, he made major efforts to suspend Bush-era violations of U.S. and international law, signing executive orders to that effect on the day he took office in 2009. Executive Order 13491, "Ensuring Lawful Interrogations," closed the CIA's secret torture centers - the "black sites" - and ended permission for the agency to use what had euphemistically become known as "enhanced interrogation techniques."

    On that same day in 2009, Obama issued Executive Order 13492, designed - unsuccessfully, as it turned out - to close the U.S. military prison at Guantαnamo Bay, the site of apparently endless detention without charges or trials. In 2015, Congress reinforced Obama's first order in a clause for the next year's National Defense Authorization Act that limited permissible interrogation techniques to those described in the U.S. Army Field Manual section on "human intelligence collector operations."

    All of that already seems like such ancient history, especially as the first hints of the Trump era begin to appear, one in which torture, black sites, extraordinary rendition, and so much more may well come roaring back.

    ... ... ...

    Torture Redux

    It should come as no surprise to anyone who paid minimal attention to the election campaign of 2016 that Donald Trump has a passionate desire to bring back torture. In fact, he campaigned on a platform of committing war crimes of various kinds, occasionally even musing about whether the United States could use nukes against ISIS. He promised to return waterboarding to its rightful place among twenty-first-century U.S. practices and, as he so eloquently put it, "a hell of a lot worse."

    There's no reason, then, to be shocked that he's been staffing his administration with people who generally feel the same way (Secretary of Defense James "Mad Dog" Mattis being an obvious exception).

    The CIA was certainly not the only outfit engaged in torture in the Bush years, but it's the one whose practices were most thoroughly examined and publicized . Despite his enthusiasm for torture, Trump's relationship with the agency has, to say the least, been frosty. Days before his inauguration, he responded to revelations of possible Russian influence on the U.S. election by accusing its operatives of behaving like Nazis, tweeting: "Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to 'leak' into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?"

    He quickly appointed a new director of the CIA (as hasn't been true of quite a few other positions in his administration). He chose former Congressman Mike Pompeo, whose advice about torture he has also said he would consider seriously. A polite term for Pompeo's position on the issue might be: ambiguous. During his confirmation hearings, he maintained that he would "absolutely not" reinstate waterboarding or other "enhanced techniques," even if the president ordered him to. "Moreover," he added, "I can't imagine that I would be asked that."

    However, his written replies to the Senate Intelligence Committee told quite a different, far less forthright tale. Specifically, as the British Independent reported , he wrote that if a ban on waterboarding were shown to impede the "gathering of vital intelligence," he would consider lifting it. He added that he would reopen the question of whether interrogation techniques should be limited to those found in the Army Field Manual. ("If confirmed, I will consult with experts at the Agency and at other organizations in the U.S. government on whether the Army Field Manual uniform application is an impediment to gathering vital intelligence to protect the country.")

    In other words, as the Independent observed, if the law prohibits torture, then Pompeo is prepared to work to alter the law. "If experts believed current law was an impediment to gathering vital intelligence to protect the country," Pompeo wrote to the Senate committee, "I would want to understand such impediments and whether any recommendations were appropriate for changing current law."

    Unfortunately for both the president and him, there are laws against torture that neither they nor Congress have the power to change, including the U.N. Convention against Torture, and the Geneva Conventions.

    Nor is Mike Pompeo the only Trump nominee touched by the torture taint. Take, for instance, the president's pick for the Supreme Court. From 2005 to 2006, Neil Gorsuch worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the wellspring for John Yoo's and Jay Bybee's infamous " torture memos ."

    Gorsuch also assisted in drafting Bush's "signing statement" on the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. That act included an amendment introduced by Senator John McCain prohibiting the torture of detainees. As the White House didn't want its favorite interrogation methods curtailed, Gorsuch recommended putting down "a marker to the effect that McCain is best read as essentially codifying existing interrogation policies."

    In other words, the future Supreme Court nominee suggested that the McCain amendment would have no real effect, because the administration had never engaged in torture in the first place. This approach was the best strategy, he argued, to "help inoculate against the potential of having the administration criticized sometime in the future for not making sufficient changes in interrogation policy in light of the McCain portion of the amendment."

    In his brief tenure at the Office of Legal Counsel, Gorsuch provided further aid to the supporters of torture by, for example, working on government litigation to prevent the exposure of further "Darby photos." These were the shocking pictures from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison that came into the possession of U.S. Army Sergeant Joe Darby. He then passed them up the chain of command, which eventually led to the public revelation of the abuses in that U.S.-run torture palace.

    Trump's new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is also a torture enthusiast. He was one of only nine senators to vote against the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. The Act limited the military to the use of those interrogation methods found in the Army Field Manual. In 2015, he joined just 20 other senators in opposing an amendment to the next year's military appropriations bill, which extended the Field Manual rules to all U.S. agencies involved in interrogation, not just the military.

    Reviving the Black Sites?

    So far, President Trump hasn't had the best of luck with his executive orders. His two travel bans, meant to keep Muslims from entering the United States, are at present trapped in federal court, but worse may be in the offing.

    Trump promised during the campaign to reopen the CIA's notorious black sites and bring back torture. Shortly after the inauguration, a draft executive order surfaced that was clearly intended to do just that. It rescinded President Obama's orders 13491 and 13492 and directed the secretary of defense and the attorney general, together with "other senior national security officials," to review the interrogation policies in the Army Field Manual with a view to making "modifications in, and additions to those, policies." That would mean an end run around Congress, since it doesn't take an act of that body to rewrite part of a manual (and so reinstitute torture policy).

    It also called on the director of national intelligence, the CIA director, and the attorney general to "recommend to the president whether to reinitiate a program of interrogation of high-value alien terrorists to be operated outside the United States and whether such program should include the use of detention facilities operated by the Central Intelligence Agency." In other words, they were to consider reopening the black sites for another round of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

    As in so many such documents, that draft order included a cover-your-ass clause, in this case suggesting that "no person in the custody of the United States shall at any time be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, as proscribed by U.S. law." As we learned in the Bush years, however, such statements have no real effect because, as in a 2002 memo produced by John Yoo and Jay Bybee, "torture" can be redefined as whatever you need it to be. That memo certified that, to qualify as torture, the pain experienced by a victim would have to be like that usually associated with "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." In other words, if he didn't die or at least come close, you didn't torture him.

    After the recent draft executive order on these subjects was leaked to the media and caused a modest to-do, a later version appeared to drop the references to black sites and torture. While no final version has yet emerged, it's clear enough that the initial impulse behind the order was distinctly Trumpian and should be taken seriously.

    As soon as the draft order surfaced in the press in late January, the White House disclaimed all knowledge of it and no version of it appears on current lists of Trump executive actions since taking office. But keep in mind that presidents can issue secret executive orders that the public may never hear about - unless the news spills out from an administration whose powers of containment so far could be compared to those of a sieve.

    Dιjΰ Vu, Rendition Edition

    Notably, neither of Obama's Inauguration Day executive orders addressed extraordinary rendition. In fact, this was a weapon he preferred to keep available.

    What is extraordinary rendition? Ordinary rendition simply means transferring someone from one legal jurisdiction to another, usually through legal extradition. Rendition becomes "extraordinary" when it happens outside the law, as when a person is sent to a country with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty, or when it is likely (or certain) that the rendered person will be tortured in another country.

    In the Bush years, the CIA ran an extraordinary rendition machine , involving the kidnapping of terror suspects (sometimes, as it turned out, quite innocent people ) off the streets of global cities as well as in the backlands of the planet, and sending them to those brutal CIA black sites or rendering them to torturing regimes around the world.

    Rendition continued in a far more limited way during Obama's presidency. For example, a 2013 Washington Post story described the rendition of three Europeans "with Somali roots" in the tiny African country of Djibouti and of an Eritrean to Nigeria. The article suggested that, in part because of congressional intransigence on closing Guantαnamo and allowing the jailing and trial of suspected terrorists in U.S courts, rendition represented "one of the few alternatives" to the more extreme option of simply killing suspects outright , usually by drone.

    Recently, there was news that a Trump associate might have been involved in planning a rendition of his own. Former CIA Director James Woolsey told the Wall Street Journal that, last September, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn discussed arranging an extralegal rendition with the son-in-law of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. At the time, he was serving as an adviser to the Trump campaign. He later - briefly - served as President Trump's national security adviser.

    The target of this potential rendition? Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic cleric who has lived for decades in the United States. President Erdogan believes that Gulen was behind a 2016 coup attempt against him and has asked the U.S. to extradite him to Turkey. The Obama administration temporized on the subject, insisting on examining the actual evidence of Gulen's involvement.

    Flynn's foray may have been an instance of potential rendition-for-profit, a plan to benefit one of his consulting clients. At the time, Flynn's (now-defunct) consulting firm, the Flynn Intel Group, was working for a Dutch corporation, Inovo, with ties to Erdogan. The client reviewed a draft op-ed eventually published in the Hill in which Flynn argued that Gulen should be extradited, because he is a "radical cleric" and Turkey is "our friend." In addition to lying about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the election campaign, it turns out that Flynn was probably working as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkish interests at that time.

    Mike Pompeo also appears to be bullish on renditions. In his written testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he indicated that under him the CIA would probably continue this practice. When asked how the agency would avoid sending prisoners to countries known to engage in torture, his reply could have come straight from the Bush-Cheney playbook:

    "I understand that assurances provided by other countries have been a valuable tool for ensuring that detainees are treated humanely. In most cases other countries are likely to treat assurances provided to the United States government as an important matter."

    Asking for such assurances has in the past given the U.S. government cover for what was bound to occur in the prisons of countries known for torture. (Just ask Maher Arar rendered to Syria or Binyam Mohammed rendered to Morocco about what happened to them.)

    We'll Always Have Guantαnamo

    "We'll always have Paris," Rick reminds Ilsa during their bittersweet goodbye in the classic film Casablanca . Our Guantαnamo lease with Cuba (which reads, "for use as coaling [refueling] or naval stations only, and for no other purpose") is a permanent one. So it looks like we'll always have Guantαnamo, with its memories of torture and murder , and its remaining 41 prisoners, undoubtedly stranded there forever.

    As it happens, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's fingerprints are all over the Bush administration's Guantαnamo policy, too. While at the Office on Legal Counsel, he helped the administration fight a major legal challenge to that policy in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld . In that case , the government argued that detainees at Guantαnamo did not have the right of habeas corpus, that the president has the authority to decide not to abide by the Geneva Conventions, and that detainees could be tried by military "commissions" in Cuba rather than by U.S. courts. Given that history, it's unlikely he'd rule in favor of any future challenge to whatever use President Trump made of the prison.

    While on the campaign trail, Trump made it clear that he would keep Guantαnamo eternally open. In a November rally in Sparks, Nevada, he told a cheering crowd:

    "This morning, I watched President Obama talking about Gitmo, right, Guantαnamo Bay, which by the way, which by the way, we are keeping open. Which we are keeping open and we're gonna load it up with some bad dudes, believe me, we're gonna load it up."

    In mid-February, Trump Press Secretary Sean Spicer reiterated his boss's affection for the prison, when he told the White House press corps that the president believes it serves "a very, very healthy purpose in our national security, in making sure we don't bring terrorists to our seas." Perhaps Spicer meant "our shores," but the point was made. Trump remains eager to keep the whole Guantαnamo prison system - including, we can assume, indefinite detention - up and running as an alternative to bringing prisoners to the United States.

    It seems that the head of the Pentagon agrees. In December 2016, retired Marine General (now Secretary of Defense) James Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee that any detainee who "has signed up with this enemy" and is captured wherever "the president, the commander-in-chief, sends us" should know that he will be a "prisoner until the war is over." Given that our post-9/11 military conflicts are truly forever wars, in Mattis's view, pretty much anyone the U.S. captures in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, or who knows where else will face at least the possibility of spending the rest of his life in Guantαnamo.

    Reading the Tea Leaves

    As far as we know, President Trump has yet to green-light his first case of torture or his first extraordinary rendition, or even to add a single prisoner to the 41 still held at Guantαnamo. All we have for now are his ominous desires and promises - and those of his underlings.

    These are enough, however, to give us a clear understanding of his intentions and those of his appointees. If they can, they will resurrect the unholy trinity of torture, rendition, and indefinite detention.

    The future may not yet be inscribed in Trumpian gold anywhere, but on such matters we should believe the autocrat.

    Rebecca Gordon, a TomDispatch regular , teaches in the philosophy department at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes . Her previous books include Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and Letters from Nicaragua .

    [Apr 21, 2017] Tillerson 'Iran's Provocative Actions Threaten the United States' Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... 2001 U.S. State Dept: NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328#efmADQAFfASJAT7 "The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad." ..."
    Apr 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    It's all coming together now. All inside Trump's 1st 100 days in office, we can clearly see where his administration is heading toward -- all out war. It's fun and games now, up until when the draft is reinstated and your ANTIFA fighting skills are put to the test inside of Tehran.

    Incredulously, our Sec. of State, Rex Tillerson, just did a presser, announcing the Trump administration was doing a 'comprehensive review' on Iran, followed by a lot of saber rattling.

    "The Trump administration is currently conducting across the entire government a review of our Iran policy ... an unchecked Iran has the potential to follow the same path as North Korea and take the world along with it. The United States is keen to avoid a second piece of evidence that strategic patience is a failed approach."

    The entire speech was filled with ridiculous anecdotal evidence, 'proving' how evil Iran was -- such as a photograph of a bomb scrawled with 'Death to Israel' on it. Clearly, that sort of graffiti and hate speech is unacceptable. We ought to go with war with them now.

    Tillerson's case for war with Iran. pic.twitter.com/1e0ZRmLvwJ

    - The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) April 19, 2017

    Tillerson droned on, tediously reminding the world how fucked up Iran was and how it was the job of the United States to police it -- instead of 'passing the buck' down to future administrations.

    Nothing says 'America first' like policing the shittiest parts of the planet -- all for the sake of proving American is tough again. Since we already destroyed most of the middle east, I suppose another war or two won't kill too many. We might as well do it -- providing it could stop the Iranians from saying 'death to Israel', menacing our boats in the Persian gulf, and annoying our good friends in Saudi Arabia by trying to sponsor more terrorists than them.

    Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

    HANGEMHIGHER , Apr 21, 2017 8:29 AM

    The US needs to stop being so frightened of everything. It seems to want to bomb anything that moves.

    SmallerGovNow2 , Apr 21, 2017 8:05 AM

    Tillerson, "everyone's a threat except USSA"...

    Thom Paine , Apr 21, 2017 8:02 AM

    All the ingredients of major blow back on the USA.

    Thom Paine , Apr 21, 2017 8:00 AM

    US State dept - Iran are naughty little rascals, so we should attack them a lot. SoS says Iran is evil because:

    1. they are not Saudi Arabia
    2. they are not Sunni
    3. they are not Israel
    4. they are not US puppet
    5. they are not enemy of Russia
    6. they are too big
    7. too much military
    8. they don't fight our fights
    9. they are too rational
    10. their geography is inconvenient
    11. Israel said so
    12. they make Saudis look bad

    Therefore we should sanction them and blow them up. Russia on Iran: Lets give them some nukes. Lets give them some more S300 S400

    Buy pop corn

    Watch President Kushner squirm.

    Dark star , Apr 21, 2017 7:48 AM

    If nearly every Country in the World is an enemy of the USA, that means that the USA is an existential threat to and the enemy of nearly every Country in the World.

    How long will it be before all those "Enemies of the USA" unite together to take action against their common enemy?

    The time will come.

    napper , Apr 21, 2017 7:38 AM

    No Tillerson. Your provocative actions threaten Iran and the world.

    silverer , Apr 21, 2017 6:52 AM

    The Eskimos have been very fortunate, so far.

    Davidduke2000 , Apr 21, 2017 5:03 AM

    Saudi money buys the biggest of them, they asshole met with the saudi prince who gave him the number of a new suiss account with $50 million to stir shit with iran, $10 million from israel and $40 million from saudi.

    every single politician in the us is corrupt to the core including trump who got back all the money he spent on his campaign with profits and interests, the swamp is as big as an ocean.

    AlbertthePudding , Apr 21, 2017 4:36 AM

    This has to do with that Russian Exxon deal you can just bet! It will be a concession to the Neocons in the State Department to grant approval of a waiver for Exxon on the sanctions on Russia . This hypocrisy is beyond the pale and totally transparent. How could any nation contemplate any sort of deal with thesde guys? Sheesh!

    lakecity55 , Apr 21, 2017 4:24 AM

    Bibi: Now, repeat after me, Rex: Iran's actions threaten the United States!
    Rex: Iran's actions threaten the United States.
    Bibi: You've got it, old boy! Now get out to that press conference!

    Ital Scratch , Apr 21, 2017 2:16 AM

    Peak madness? So Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Korea on the plate. How many fronts are needed for conflict to be called World War?

    Interesting how all went downhill since Syria (allegedly) took down Israeli aircraft?

    Davidduke2000 -> Ital Scratch , Apr 21, 2017 5:07 AM

    there are US troops in at least 70 countries and there are only 195 countries at the world.

    PaperTaperFakerCaper , Apr 21, 2017 1:38 AM

    2001 U.S. State Dept: NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328#efmADQAFfASJAT7 "The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad."

    Israel's been protecting AlQaeda on the Syrian border for years, that's why Kushner roped Trump into it. Check the receipts. #FireKushner https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/850758183287115776

    2010: When Assad said NO to Netanyahu on Iran https://rehmat1.com/2012/10/14/2010-when-assad-said-no-to-netanyahu-on-i...

    Oil and Gas find offshore Syria motive for US Israeli mercenary uprising and bloodshed in Syria http://presscore.ca/oil-and-gas-find-in-shores-off-syria-reason-why-us-b... +++ Noble Energy natural gas discovery in the Levant Basin launched US Israeli Operation ISIS/ISIL to overthrow Syrian government http://presscore.ca/noble-energy-natural-gas-discovery-in-the-levant-bas...

    The Natural Gas War Burning Under Syria http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Natural-Gas-War-Burning-Un...

    U.S. brushes off Iran-Iraq-Syria gas line http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Industry/2012/11/20/US-brushes-o...

    The Oil-Gas War Over Syria (In 4 Maps) http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-24/oil-gas-war-over-syria-4-maps

    Why Israel wants Assad Out (Golan Heights and Afek Oil & Gas) http://benwilliamslibrary.com/blog/?p=4688 +++ INTERVIEW: F. William Engdahl on US and Israeli Plans for Oil in Syria's Golan Heights https://soundcloud.com/21wire/interview-f-william-engdahl-on-us-and-isra...

    The Real Reason We're In Syria Is Enraging But Not Surprising https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjOr2YzrZDY Syria: Another Pipeline War http://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-1882180532.html

    "Greater Israel": The Zionist Plan for the Middle East The Infamous "Oded Yinon Plan". http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-mid... +++ 'We need another 100,000 settlers in the Golan' http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/227936

    Shemp 4 Victory -> LightBulb18 , Apr 20, 2017 10:47 PM

    I would rather Israel take care of iran by themselves, with the technologies they currently have available, against A nation that has threatened the existence of the Jewish state.

    Flagged as #Lie-Swallower

    As A proud Israeli, that's not my problem.

    The lies being spouted about Iran are indeed your problem. You do know, of course, that if the US attacks Iran, it will be a disaster far worse than most could have imagined. Never heard of Millennium Challenge 2002 ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

    As an added bonus, in 2012 General James Mattis was "troubled" by the results of a war simulation attempting to assess the consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/world/middleeast/united-states-war-gam...

    So right away the sunken US warships in the Persian Gulf and the smoking ruins of the Saudi oil terminal at Ras Tanura will send the price of crude oil well above all previous records. In the US, the economy will nose dive as gasoline, when available, will be over $20 a gallon.

    This turmoil will spell the end of the petrodollar system, and thus the US Empire, as nations beg to be let in to the Chinese/Russian replacement for SWIFT. And all this is just the beginning. Imagine how much worse things will get in the US.

    Of course, with the US economy a smoldering heap, this means the end of US subsidies to Israel. It also means that hungry, bankrupt, angry Americans will be looking for someone to blame. For years the Israeli government has been cheerleading for a US war against Iran, so it would not be unreasonable for Americans to place a good part of the blame on the government of Israel.

    And because so many people have difficulties discerning between the government of Israel and Jews in general, it would be both unreasonable and likely that many people in the US and elsewhere would blame all Jews for what had happened. It's not fair, but not unexpected.

    Again, as you stated,

    As A proud Israeli, that's not my problem.

    Too proud to accept that you've been lied to?

    asscannon101 -> LightBulb18 , Apr 20, 2017 10:05 PM

    I am not preoccupied with the Jews of Israel -- or the Jews of anywhere else. Remember, just like Islam, Judaism is not limited by nationality. It appears that YOU are preoccupied with Jews of Israel. Whatsamatta?!? Don't respect their diversity?!? Don't worry about the Americans, they have survived worse and done OK. They will be just fine without Iran, Israel, Syria and Lebanon. Knock yourself out. Nuke Damascus tomorrow. I am not worried about any pension and don't know why YOU would be? Threaten stupid shit much or are you just off your meds?

    TVP , Apr 20, 2017 9:21 PM

    Three nations on this piece of shit planet without a central bank: SYRIA, IRAN, NORTH KOREA. All supposed "enemies of America". How convenient.

    Wahooo -> TVP , Apr 21, 2017 6:00 AM

    +1,000,000 And the winner is!

    asscannon101 , Apr 20, 2017 7:31 PM

    "Everyone is a threat, except Saudi Arabia."

    Wahooo -> asscannon101 , Apr 21, 2017 5:55 AM

    Do you remember when we put the Shah in office?

    Do you remember when we planted a cancer nation in the middle east and gave it a nuclear military?

    I stand with the Persians.

    besnook -> asscannon101 , Apr 21, 2017 12:57 AM

    Look, the LAST thing I ever want to do is be a voice of reason, but do you remember when the Saudis stormed the US Embassy and took diplomats hostage for over a year back in '79? Yeah, neither do I... That was Iran.

    -----------------------------------------

    that had a little bit to do with the butcher the usa supported since the legitimately elected leader mossedegh was assassinated because he didn't toe the usa oil company line.

    -------

    Do remember when the Saudi government kept staging those huge, televised demonstrations and those shitstains kept chanting, 'Death to USA! Death to Israel!' Yeah, neither do I... That was Iran.

    -----------------

    see above

    -------------------

    Do you remember when the Saudi government kept supplying money and arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere so that they could launch rocket attacks across the border at civilians, including children? Yeah, neither do I... That was Iran.

    -----------hezbollah was created to protect lebanon from israel after the illegal invasion of lebanon by israel in 1980.

    --------------------------

    Do you remember when the Saudis built that reactor at Bushehr and kept pushing their nuke program, telling the international inspectors to go fuck themselves and denying access, while people were worried that they would supply a nuke to Hezbollah because of their repeated pattern of fuckstick behavior? Yeah, neither do I... That was Iran.

    ---------------the iranians never denied access to the inspectors. the conclusion by the inspectors, the cia and mossad is that iran has no nuclear program.

    ------------------------------------------------

    Remember back in 2014 when that senile, sadistic, Saudi asswipe Khameni tweeted, "This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated." Yeah, neither do I... Because he was Iranian.

    ------------------it never said that. he did say nutandyahoo and the likudites must go.

    try again. oh and fuck israel.

    Andre -> asscannon101 , Apr 20, 2017 10:10 PM

    While we're on the subject of remembering things....

    Remember when the Egyptians "mistook" the USS Liberty for a hostile vessels in international waters? Neither do I, because that was Israel.

    Remember when Syria sold the US SIOP to Russia? Neither do Y, because that was Israel, via their spy Jomathan Pollard. Do you remember why the Iraninas disliked the US so much? Could it possibly have something to do with the overthrow and murder of Mossadeq in 1953 by the CIA, and the installation of the Shah and SAVAK - as bloody a crowd as ever was.

    The US, France, and Britain spent 100 years teaching Arabs to hate us.

    They learned.

    While I have no intention of attempting to cure hate with hugs, at least I can appreciate the reaon for the hate well enough to understand this path needs to changw.

    Ih, and contrats on your other persona, "lighbulb18".

    Shemp 4 Victory -> asscannon101 , Apr 20, 2017 9:15 PM

    Flagged as #American-Projectionalism

    TRM -> asscannon101 , Apr 20, 2017 9:06 PM

    Do you remember when the USA overthrew the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh in Iran subjecting the people to the Shah and his police state for 25 years? That builds a bit of hatered. Maybe just quit while you are behind.

    besnook -> asscannon101 , Apr 20, 2017 7:51 PM

    remember when israel tried to sink a usa naval vessel aptly named uss liberty for an hour and a half and later claimed they made a mistake. remember 9/11. israel is the only country in the world that has directly attacked the usa yet they are our special friend.

    Kalymnian -> asscannon101 , Apr 20, 2017 7:48 PM

    Do you remember when Iran attacked just about every country in the mid east and all those poor EU states .

    Neither do i.That was the US doung Israels bidding.

    Do you remember when Iran said that Europe musy accept their own destruction as ethno states.

    Nope neithet do i .That was Jew Barbera LetnerSpectre.

    Free Man , Apr 20, 2017 6:28 PM

    Which Muslim country in the Middle East will President Kushner bomb next?

    Parasite Israel is the real threat to the US, not Iran.

    Our sold out Congress cares more about Israel & Jews than they do about the US or anyone else.

    read: The True Cost of Parasite Israel Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    see: How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    [Apr 21, 2017] How to Lose the Next War in the Middle East

    Apr 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Make no mistake: after 15 years of losing wars, spreading terror movements, and multiplying failed states across the Greater Middle East, America will fight the next versions of our ongoing wars. Not that we ever really stopped. Sure, Washington traded in George W. Bush's expansive, almost messianic attitude toward his Global War on Terror for Barack Obama's more precise, deliberate, even cautious approach to an unnamed version of the same war for hegemony in the Greater Middle East. Sure, in the process kitted-up 19 year-olds from Iowa became less ubiquitous features on Baghdad's and Kabul's busy boulevards, even if that distinction was lost on the real-life targets of America's wars - and the bystanders (call them "collateral damage") scurrying across digital drone display screens.

    It's hardly a brilliant observation to point out that, more than 15 years later, the entire region is a remarkable mess. So much worse off than Washington found it, even if all of that mess can't simply be blamed on the United States - at least not directly. It's too late now, as the Trump administration is discovering, to retreat behind two oceans and cover our collective eyes. And yet, acts that might still do some modest amount of good (resettling refugees, sending aid, brokering truces, anything within reason to limit suffering) don't seem to be on any American agenda.

    So, after 16 years of inconclusive or catastrophic regional campaigns, maybe it's time to stop dreaming about how to make things better in the Greater Middle East and try instead to imagine how to make things worse (since that's the path we often seem to take anyway). Here, then, is a little thought experiment for you: what if Washington actually wanted to lose? How might the U.S. government go about accomplishing that? Let me offer a quick (and inevitably incomplete) to-do list on the subject:

    As a start, you would drop an enlarged, conventional army into Iraq and/or Syria. This would offer a giant red, white, and blue target for all those angry, young radicalized men just dying (pardon the pun) to extinguish some new "crusader" force. It would serve as an effective religious-nationalist rallying cry (and target) throughout the region.

    Then you would create a news-magnet of a ban (or at least the appearance of one) on immigrants and visitors of every sort from predominantly Muslim countries coming to the United States. It's hardly an accident that ISIS has taken to calling the president's proposed executive order to do just that " the blessed ban " and praising Donald Trump as the "best caller to Islam." Such actions only confirm the extremist narrative: that Muslims are unwelcome in and incompatible with the West, that liberal plurality is a neo-imperial scam.

    Finally, you would feed the common perception in the region that Washington's support for Israel and assorted Arab autocrats is unconditional. To do so, you would go out of your way to hold fawning public meetings with military strongmen like Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and suggest that, when it came to Israel, you were considering changing American policy when it comes to a two-state solution and the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine. Such policies would feed another ISIS narrative: U.S. support for illiberal despots and the failure of the Arab Spring is proof that practicing Muslims and peaceful Islamists will never successfully gain power through the democratic process.

    Key to such a losing strategy would be doing anything you could to reinforce ISIS's twisted narrative of an end-of-days battle between Islam and Christendom, a virtuous East versus a depraved West, an authentic Caliphate against hypocritical democracies. In what amounts to a war of ideas, pursuing such policies would all but hand victory to ISIS and other jihadi extremist groups. And so you would have successfully created a strategy for losing eternally in the Greater Middle East. And if that was the desired outcome in Washington, well, congratulations all around, but of course we all know that it wasn't.

    Let's take these three points in such a losing strategy one by one. (Of course "losing" is itself a contested term, but for our purposes, consider the U.S. to have lost as long as its military spins its wheels in a never-ending quagmire, while gradually empowering various local "adversaries.")

    Just a Few Thousand More Troops Will Get It Done

    There are already thousands of American soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Syria, to say nothing of the even more numerous troops and sailors stationed on bases in Kuwait , Bahrain, Turkey, and other states ringing America's Middle Eastern battlefields. Still, if you want to mainline into the fastest way to lose the next phase of the war on terror, just blindly acquiesce in the inevitable requests of your commanders for yet more troops and planes needed to finish the job in Syria ( and Iraq, and Afghanistan , and Yemen, and so on).

    Let's play this out. First, the worst (and most plausible) case: U.S. ground forces get sucked into an ever more complex, multi-faceted civil war - deeper and deeper still, until one day they wake up in a world that looks like Baghdad, 2007 , all over again.

    Or, lest we be accused of defeatism, consider the best case: those endlessly fortified and reinforced American forces wipe the floor with ISIS and just maybe manage to engineer the toppling of Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime as well. It's V-Day in the Middle East! And then what? What happens the day after? When and to whom do American troops turn over power?

    Keep in mind as well that, when it comes to the U.S. military, the Iraqi and Afghan "surges" of 2007 and 2009 offered proof positive that more ground troops aren't a cure-all in such situations. They are a formula for expending prodigious amounts of money and significant amounts of blood, while only further alienating local populations. Meanwhile, unleashing manned and drone aircraft strikes, which occasionally kill large numbers of civilians, only add to the ISIS narrative.

    Every mass casualty civilian bombing or drone strike incident just detracts further from American regional credibility. While both air strikes and artillery barrages may hasten the offensive progress of America's Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian allies, that benefit needs to be weighed against the moral and propaganda costs of those dead women and children. For proof, see the errant bombing strike on an apartment building in Mosul last month. After all, those hundred-plus civilians are just as dead as Assad's recent victims and just as many angry, grieving family members and friends have been left behind.

    In other words, any of the familiar U.S. strategies, including focusing all efforts on ISIS or toppling Assad, or a bit of both, won't add up to a real policy for the region. No matter how the Syrian civil war shakes out, Washington will need a genuine "what next" plan. Unfortunately, if the chosen course predictably relies heavily on the military lever to shape Syria's shattered society, America's presence and actions will only (as in the past) aggravate the crisis and help rejuvenate its many adversaries.

    "The Blessed Ban"

    The Trump administration's proposed "travel ban" quickly became fodder for left-versus-right vitriol in the U.S. Here's a rundown on what it's likely to mean when it comes to foreign policy and the "next" war. First, soaring domestic fears over jihadi terror attacks in this country and the possible role of migrants and refugees in stoking them represent a potentially catastrophic over-reaction to a modest threat. Annually, from 2005 to 2015, terrorists killed an average of just seven Americans on U.S. soil. You are approximately 18,000 times more likely to die in some sort of accident than from such an attack. In addition, according to a study by the conservative Cato Institute, from 1975 to 2015 citizens of the countries included in Trump's first ban (including Iraq and Syria) killed precisely zero people in the United States. Nor has any refugee conducted a fatal domestic attack here. Finally, despite candidate and President Trump's calls for "extreme vetting" of Muslim refugees, the government already has a complex, two-year vetting process for such refugees which is remarkably "extreme."

    Those are the facts. What truly matters, however, is the effect of such a ban on the war of ideas in the Middle East. In short, it's manna from heaven for ISIS's storyline in which Americans are alleged to hate all Muslims. It tells you everything you need to know that, within days of the administration's announcement of its first ban, ISIS had taken to labeling it "blessed," just as al-Qaeda once extolled George W. Bush's 2003 "blessed invasion" of Iraq. Even Senator John McCain, a well-known hawk, worried that Trump's executive order would "probably give ISIS some more propaganda."

    Remember, while ISIS loves to claim responsibility for every attack in the West perpetrated by lost, disenfranchised, identity-seeking extremist youths, that doesn't mean the organization actually directs them. The vast majority of these killers are self-radicalized citizens, not refugees or immigrants. One of the most effective - and tragic - ways to lose this war is to prove the jihadis right.

    The Hypocrisy Trap

    Another way to feed the ISIS narrative is to bolster perceptions of diplomatic insincerity. Americans tend to be some of the least self-aware citizens on the planet. (Is it a coincidence that ours is about the only population left still questioning the existence of climate change?) Among the rare things that Democrats and Republicans agree on, however, is that America is a perennial force for good, in fact the force for good on Earth. As it happens, the rest of the world begs to differ. In Gallup global polls , the United States has, in fact, been identified as the number one threat to world peace! However uncomfortable that may be, it matters.

    One reason many Middle Easterners, in particular, believe this to be so stems from Washington's longstanding support for regional autocrats. In fiscal year 2017, Egypt's military dictator and Jordan's king will receive $1.46 and $1 billion respectively in U.S. foreign aid - nearly 7% of its total assistance budget. After leading a coup to overturn Egypt's elected government, General Sisi was officially persona non grata in the White House (though President Obama reinstated $1.3 billion in military aid in 2015). Sisi's recent visit to the Trump White House changed all that as, in a joint press conference , the president swore that he was "very much behind" Egypt and that Sisi himself had "done a fantastic job." In another indicator of future policy, the State Department dropped existing human rights conditions for the multibillion-dollar sale of F-16s to Bahrain's monarchy. All of this might be of mild interest, if it weren't for the way it bolstered ISIS claims that democracy is just an " idol ," and the democratic process a fraud that American presidents simply ignore.

    Then there's Israel, already the object of deep hatred in the region, and now clearly about to receive a blank check of support from the Trump administration. The role that Israeli leaders already play in American domestic politics is certainly striking to Arab audiences. Consider how unprecedented it was in 2015 to see Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticize a sitting president before a joint session of Congress in an Israeli election year and receive multiple, bipartisan standing ovations. Even so, none of this prevented the Obama administration, domestically labeled "weak on Israel," from negotiating a record $38 billion military aid deal with that country.

    While violent Palestinian fighters are far from blameless, for 40 years Israel has increasingly created facts on the ground meant to preclude a viable Palestinian state. Netanyahu and his predecessors increased illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories, built an exclusion wall, and further divided the West Bank by constructing a network of roads meant only for the Israeli military and Jewish settlers.

    Although most world leaders, publics, and the United Nations see the Jewish settlements on the West Bank as a major impediment to peace, the current U.S. ambassador to Israel was once the president of a fundraising group supporting just such an Israeli settlement. The notion that he could be an honest broker in peace talks borders on the farcical.

    All of this, of course, matters when it comes to Washington's unending wars in the region. Even Secretary of Defense James Mattis, soon after leaving the helm of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), recognized that he "paid a military security price every day as a commander of CENTCOM because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel." So, you want to lose? Keep feeding the ISIS narrative on democracy and Israel just as the Trump administration is doing, even as it sends more troops into the region and heightens bombing and drone raids from Syria to Yemen.

    Send in the Cavalry

    If the next phase of the generational struggle for the Middle East is once again to be essentially a military one, while the Trump administration feeds every negative American stereotype in the region, then it's hard to see a future of anything but defeat. A combination of widespread American ignorance and the intellectual solace of simplistic models lead many here to ascribe jihadist terrorism to some grand, ethereal hatred of "Christendom."

    The reality is far more discomfiting. Consider, for instance, a document from "ancient" history: Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa against the United States. At that time, he described three tangible motives for jihad: U.S. occupation of Islam's holiest lands in the Middle East, U.S. attacks on and sanctions against Iraq, and American support for Israel's "occupation" of Jerusalem. If ISIS and al-Qaeda's center of gravity is not their fighting force but their ideology (as I believe it is), then the last thing Washington should want to do is substantiate any of these three visions of American motivation - unless, of course, the goal is to lose the war on terror across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa.

    In that case, the solution is obvious: Washington should indeed insert more troops and set up yet more bases in the region, maintain unqualified support for right-wing Israeli governments and assorted Arab autocrats, and do its best to ban Muslim refugees from America. That, after all, represents the royal road to affirming al-Qaeda's, and now ISIS's, overarching narratives. It's a formula - already well used in the last 15 years - for playing directly into the enemy's hands and adhering to its playbook, for creating yet more failed states and terror groups throughout the region.

    When it comes to Syria in particular, there are some shockingly unexamined contradictions at the heart of Washington's reactions to its war there. President Trump, for instance, recently spoke emotionally about the "beautiful babies cruelly murdered" in Idlib, Syria. Yet, the administration's executive order on travel bans any Syrian refugees - including beautiful babies - from entering this country. If few Americans recognize the incongruity or hypocrisy of this, you can bet that isn't true in the Arab world.

    For ISIS, today's struggle in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere is part of an unremitting, apocalyptic holy war between Islam and the West. That narrative is demonstrably false. The current generation of jihadis sprang from tangible grievances and perceived humiliations perpetrated by recent Western policies. There was nothing "eternal" about it. The first recorded suicide bombings in the Middle East didn't erupt until the early 1980s. So forget the thousand-year struggle or even, in Western terms, the " clash of civilizations ." It took America's military-first policies in the region to generate what has now become perpetual war with spreading terror insurgencies.

    Want a formula for forever war? Send in the cavalry again.

    Major Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife and four sons near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

    [ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]

    [Apr 21, 2017] West does not want to investigate incident in Idlib, Russian diplomat says

    Apr 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC , April 20, 2017 at 05:36 AM
    West does not want to investigate incident in Idlib, Russian diplomat says

    Russian Politics & Diplomacy April 20, 8:28 UTC+3


    "We guess that Americans probably have something to hide, since they persistently want to take the Shayrat airport out of the investigation," the diplomat said


    THE HAGUE, April 20. /TASS/ Western countries do not want to properly investigate the incident with the possible use of chemical weapons in the Syrian province of Idlib, Alexander Shulgin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) told TASS.

    On Wednesday, the meeting of the OPCW Executive Council took place. During that meeting Russia and Iran submitted a revised draft proposal for the investigation of the incident in the Syrian province of Idlib.

    However, the United States opposed the visit of the Syrian Chemical Weapons Detection Mission to the Shayrat airfield, since it "has nothing to do with the situation," the diplomat said.


    The US delegation "spoke out against the involvement of any national experts in the work of the mission, they accused Russia of trying to "mix tracks and lead the investigation to a dead end."

    "But the connection between the incident in Idlib and the airfield of Shayrat was established by the Americans themselves, who stated that the Syrian planes had flown from this airfield," the Permanent Representative stressed. "Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to determine if sarin or other chemical munitions were stored there or not," he stressed.

    "Our view is that the Western countries are acting extremely inconsistently," the Russian diplomat said.

    "We guess that Americans probably have something to hide, since they persistently want to take the Shayrat airport out of the investigation. Maybe they knew from the start there was no chemical weapons there, and all this was used only as an excuse?" he added.


    On April 7, US President Donald Trump ordered a strike on Syria's Shayrat military air base located in the Homs Governorate. The attack, involving 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM), came as a response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Idlib Governorate on April 4. The US authorities believe that the airstrike on Idlib was launched from the Shayrat air base.

    http://tass.com/politics/942237

    pgl -> RGC... , April 20, 2017 at 05:51 AM
    TASS is the Russian News Agency. Somehow I do not find them all that credible.
    RGC -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:01 AM
    When the New York Times and Washington Post offer you fake news or no news, you might want to see what other sources say.

    It might be wise to check one against the other and then decide which is the more credible.

    pgl -> RGC... , April 20, 2017 at 06:08 AM
    Does other news sources include Faux News and Billo? Oh wait - Billo just got canned.

    BTW - we know sarin gas was used on the citizens of Syria. I guess you want to blame the French or something.

    RGC -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:24 AM
    People other than Russians have questioned the story.

    Like a prof at MIT:

    The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur:

    Analysis of the Times and Locations of Critical Events in the Alleged Nerve Agent Attack at 7 AM on April 4, 2017 in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria

    By Theodore A. Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/67102.html

    pgl -> RGC... , April 20, 2017 at 06:32 AM
    Read more carefully:

    "The conclusion of this summary of data is obvious – the nerve agent attack described in the WHR did not occur as claimed. There may well have been mass casualties from some kind of poisoning event, but that event was not the one described by the WHR."

    He is not saying attack did not occur. He is only saying the way the White House reported it was not entirely accurate. Yuuuge difference. Like Sean Spicer gets the details right every time - not.

    RGC -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:42 AM
    "This means that the allegedly "high confidence" White House intelligence assessment issued on April 11 that led to the conclusion that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack is not correct.

    For such a report to be so egregiously in error, it could not possibly have followed the most simple and proven intelligence methodologies to determine the veracity of its findings.

    Since the United States justified attacking a Syrian airfield on April 7, four days before the flawed National Security Council intelligence report was released to the Congress and the public, the conclusion that follows is that the United States took military actions without the intelligence to support its decision."

    RGC -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:27 AM
    NYT Mocks Skepticism on Syria-Sarin Claims
    April 18, 2017

    Exclusive: The New York Times and other major media have ruled out any further skepticism toward the U.S. government's claim that Syrian President Assad dropped a sarin bomb on a town in Idlib province, reports Robert Parry.
    ................
    Today, however, particularly on foreign policy issues, the major U.S. news outlets, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, apparently believe there is only one side to a story, the one espoused by the U.S. government or more generically the Establishment.
    .....................
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/18/nyt-mocks-skepticism-on-syria-sarin-claims/

    pgl -> RGC... , April 20, 2017 at 06:35 AM
    Facts on the ground in Assad's brutal regime are confusing? Stop the presses. I blame Assad. And no - I still do not trust the Russians.
    RGC -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:44 AM
    And I would never trust your judgement.
    pgl -> RGC... , April 20, 2017 at 06:48 AM
    Likewise! BTW it is judgment (only 1 e).
    RGC -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 07:02 AM
    This source says G_d is on my side:

    "judgement is the form sanctioned in the Revised Version of the Bible, & the OED prefers the older & more reasonable spelling. Judgement is therefore here recommended –Fowler p. 310."

    http://www.dailywritingtips.com/judgement-or-judgment/

    RGC -> RGC... , April 20, 2017 at 02:29 PM
    And of course, that means the devil is on your side.

    Just as I suspected.

    JohnH -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 07:02 AM
    What facts on the ground? There has been no investigation...only assertions made by the usual suspects.

    A nice summary of the story:
    https://youtu.be/rkj9UCHO0Tc

    As in economics, pgl is a staunch supporter of the dominant narrative and the conventional wisdom...one of those who believed that Saddam had WMDs.

    pgl -> JohnH... , April 20, 2017 at 07:29 AM
    The dominant narrative in Moscow is TASS. I guess you work for them now. BTW - I was doubting the Saddam WMD tale back in 2002. So take your usual lies somewhere else troll.
    JohnH -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 08:08 AM
    The dominant narrative among NY elites is the NY Times, whose reporting they swallow hook, line and sinker.

    Yet you won't see any mention Theodore Postol's critique of Trump's allegations about the Syrian chemical attack. When it comes to foreign affairs, the NY Times salutes and follows the party line...as do virtually all American news outlets.
    http://fair.org/home/out-of-46-major-editorials-on-trumps-syria-strikes-only-one-opposed/

    pgl is happy to join into the groupthink no questions asked...

    pgl -> JohnH... , April 20, 2017 at 07:35 AM
    Did you check your source here? The James Corbett Report? Featured here at American Loons:

    http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/06/584-james-corbett.html

    Even The Onion would not go here.

    JohnH -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 08:10 AM
    Question is, what facts in the Corbett Report were wrong? Seems to me that they pretty much nailed the contradictions and hypocrisy of the trumped up charges against Syria.
    pgl -> JohnH... , April 20, 2017 at 08:36 AM
    See below. The news today sort of debunks your apologist attitude toward Assad the Butcher.
    JohnH -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 12:26 PM
    Well, now we have the room and may have the weapon. But who done it? Colonel Mustard, Professor Plum, or Miss Scarlet?

    It is well known that the Syrian rebels also use chemical weapons.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

    But that doesn't dissuade pgl from believing everything that Trump the compulsive liar says! Until Trump bombed Syria, libruls like pgl didn't believe a word Trump said. Now they'll believe anything!!!

    After a lifetime of watching the US start pointless and futile wars under false pretenses (Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, etc.), pgl has no hesitation about gulping down the kool aid as fast as he can! In fact, libruls like pgl seem absolutely delighted when money that could be used for socially useful purposes like education and healthcare get diverted to fight phantom enemies abroad.

    anne -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:33 AM
    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2017/04/krugman-elizabeth-warren-lays-out-the-reasons-democrats-should-keep-fighting.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e201bb09927277970d

    April 19, 2017

    "Bernie Sanders was of course a civil rights activist in the 1960s..."

    A couple of marches does not make on Martin Luther King or John Lewis. I spent more time in the trenches than Sanders did back then...

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2017/04/links-for-04-20-17.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e201b8d279eb0e970c

    April 20, 2017

    I guess you want to blame the French or something....

    ilsm -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 03:24 PM
    Like VOA which had a long agitprop piece today.

    Do you think the Sarin was stored near the planes that could get to Idlib? Or maybe those cruise missiles damaged a Sarin site?

    Why not find the igloo that help the Sarin?

    Or do you want to believe the staged vids and pix?

    OPCW said to was Sarin...... or such!

    And French are selling the US' tale like they sold killing Qaddafi and that unneeded involvement in Europe 100 years ago.

    [Apr 21, 2017] First Transgender President Trump Becomes Hillary by Fred Reed

    Apr 20, 2017 | unz.com

    Oh Lord, it's happening–the remanufacture of Trump by the Establishment. During the campaign, Trump and the Basilisk had nothing in common but their hair dye. Now, almost daily, he looks more like her.

    He gets embarrassing. Regarding the alleged gassing in Syria, quoth Donald:

    "When you kill innocent children, innocent babies - babies, little babies - with a chemical gas that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."

    God almighty. Who wrote this–a middle school girl with C's in English, or the President of the United States? Did he retire to his bedroom for a good cry?

    Apparently he ordered his missile strike without bothering to find out what happened. The usual suspects are driving him like a sports car.

    The election was a choice between fetor and a lunatic. We chose the lunatic. Whether this was better than the alternative, we will never know, but Trump is going from bad to worse, or as the Mexicans say, de Guatemala a Guatepeor.

    Does he believe this stuff? Is he naive enough to think that there was something unusually horrible about the attack? Horrible, yes, but not in the least unusual. Do you know what everyday, boring artillery does to children? Five-hundred-pound bombs? Hellfire rockets? Daily Mr. Trump's military and his allies daily drop shrapnel-producing explosives on people, cities, towns, adults, children, weddings and goatherds in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Good draft-dodger that he was, he probably has never seen any of this. Good psychopath that he may be, he may not care.

    This whole gas-attack business smells to high heaven. It looks nicely calculated to force him to attack Assad. Gas was important: Killing babies, little babies with explosives is so routine that no one cares, but we have been programmed to shudder at the thought of Gas!

    Actually artillery has killed several orders of magnitude more people, but never mind.

    Targeting children was a nice touch. Definitely a PR bonus. So Donald goes into his Poor-widdle-fings weep, while Americans weekly kill more children in three to seven countries, depending on the date.

    Is the man consciously a liar? Hasn't got sense enough to think before operating his mouth? Actually believes what he says when he says it?

    Glance at a small part of the record and focus on his changing his tune, not on whether you agree with a particular policy. Erratic, erratic, erratic. He was going to run out the illegals within two years, absurd but he said it. Going to put high tariffs on Mexican goods. Didn't. On Chinese goods. Isn't. Tear up the Iran treaty. Didn't. Declare China a currency-manipulator. Isn't. Ban Muslims. Hasn't. Promote good relations with Russia. Isn't. Get the US out of Syria. Ha. Make NATO pay for itself. Isn't. The man has the steely determination one associates with bean curd. You cannot trust anything the man says.

    Having been reprogrammed as a good neocon, bombing places he promised to get out of, looking for a fight with Russia, he is now butting heads with Fat Thing in North Korea. He his said things closely resembling, "We have run out of strategic patience with the North. If nobody else will take care of it, we will." Grrrr. Bowwow. Woof.

    The problem with growly ultimata made for television is that somebody has to back down–that is, lose face and credibility. If Trump had quietly told Fat Thing, "If you crazy bastards scrap your nuke program, we will drop the sanctions," it might have worked. But no. Negotiations would imply weakness. Thus an ultimatum.

    So now either (a) Fat Thing knuckles under, humiliating himself and possibly endangering his grasp on power or (b) Trump blinks in a humiliating display of the Empire's impotence, possibly endangering his grasp on power.

    Kim Jong Il, or Il Sung Jong, or whatever the the hell the latest one of them is called, shows not the slightest sign of backing down. So does the Donald start an utterly unpredictable war, as usual in somebody else's country, or does he weasel off, muttering, and hope nobody notices?

    Fred's Third Law of International Relations: Never butt heads with a country that has a missile named the No Dong.

    Many of us favored Trump, slightly daft though he was, because he wasn't yet Hillary, wasn't yet a neocon robot, and didn't want war with every country he had heard of, apparently meaning a good half dozen. At least he said he didn't, not yet having been told that he did. In particular, he didn't want war with Russia. But when the neocons control the media and Congress, they can convince a naive public of anything and, apparently, the President.

    Why is the Hillarification of Trump important? The necessary prior question: What is the greatest threat to the neocons' American Empire? Answer: The ongoing integration of Eurasia under Chinese hegemony. The key countries in this are China, Iran, and Russia. (Isn't it curious that, apart from the momentary distraction of North Korea, these countries have been the focus of New York's hostility?) In particular if Russia and, through it, China develop large and very profitable trade with Europe, there goes NATO and with it the Empire.

    Oops.

    Thus the eeeeeeeeeeek! furor about Russia as existential threat and so on. Thus sending a few troops to Baltic countries to "deter" Russia. This was theater. The idea that a thousand garrison troops can stop the Russian army, which hasn't gone silly as ours has, on its doorstep is loony.

    Hillary was on board with the Russia hysteria and the globalization and the immigration and so on. Trump could have screwed the whole pooch by getting along with Russia, so he had to be reconfigured. And was. A work in progress, but going well.

    ORDER IT NOW

    Too much is being asked of him. One man cannot overcome the combined hostility of the media, the political establishment, the neocons, the myriad other special interests that he has threatened. Mass immigration is a done deal. China develops and America, already developed, cannot keep up. The country disintegrates socially. Washington, always depending on war and its threat, faces a new world in which trade is the weapon, and doesn't know what to do. The culture courses. The world changes.

    Yet if only Trump showed some sign of knowing what he is doing, and could remember from day to day, if only he realized that wars are more easily started than predicted, if only he were not becoming an unbalanced Hillary.

    Yet, apparently, he is.

    (Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)

    [Apr 21, 2017] Putins Warning Full Speech 2017

    Apr 21, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Bretislav Stejskal 3 weeks ago Gerry Lamb you don't really know much now, do you. You are a little Alice in wonderland when it comes to geopolitics. Russia never ever seeked war. If you knew enough about Russia, you'd know this first. the entire western greed cannot accept the ownership of the subhuman Russians of a vast and rich land. To the Anglo-Saxons all slavs will always be lesser people. It's in them. They sponsored the fascism, comunism and pretty much every evil on this planet. Even Stalin did what he did for all patriotic reasons, while the west does it all out of a simple and pure greed.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Trumps New Foreign Policy Is the Worst of Both Worlds

    Notable quotes:
    "... The neocons, who have rarely met a slippery military slope they weren't tempted to roll down, embraced wholeheartedly both the strike and its justification. They view it as a first - but absolutely necessary - step toward a new phase of U.S. interventionism of precisely the kind that Bannon and his "nationalist" and Islamophobic allies abhor. ..."
    "... During President Obama's two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days - one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 75 drone strikes or raids in 74 days - about one every day. ..."
    "... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | fpif.org
    It didn't take long for Donald Trump to discover that U.S. foreign policy is about as easy to turn around as a warship in dry dock. Despite any number of promises to shake things up - during the election and even in his first days as president - Trump is falling back on some very conventional approaches to the world.

    In the last week, for instance, Trump suddenly discovered that firing a few missiles at a much-hated target - in this case, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces - can gain him plaudits from across the political spectrum. Earlier, he said he'd focus American firepower on the Islamic State, not Assad. He was cautious about intervening in the Syrian civil war.

    Now the greenhorn president is heading down a well-worn path: see a problem, fire a missile at it.

    In so doing, Trump has scotched whatever remaining hopes his administration might have had about negotiating some quick deals with Moscow. The relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin had already been heading south - as I detailed a couple weeks back in Shortest Reset Ever - but now Trump has bloodied one of Russia's most important allies. Bye bye, bromance.

    Also this week, after bashing China left and right during his campaign, Trump met with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping and discovered that, hey, maybe the two countries can get along after all. Virtually every president in recent memory has gone through a similar transformation. There are no political costs in criticizing Beijing during an election campaign. But presidents soon discover the considerable costs of not doing business with China once they occupy the Oval Office.

    So much for Trump's promise to proclaim China a currency manipulator extraordinaire.

    Meanwhile, some of the more ideological voices in the administration appear to be heading to the sidelines. Strategic adviser Steve Bannon, reportedly as a result of his clashes with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, has lost his seat at the National Security Council and, it seems, even the trust of the president . K.T. McFarland, once the number two under the disgraced former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, is also out, and probably on her way to Singapore. The generals and the Wall Street execs seem now to have the upper hand.

    But Bannon hasn't given up, and the war at the top is far from over. Bannon loves a good fight, and he's the master of fighting dirty.

    The remaking of Donald Trump into a more conventional - and thus, predictable - president is good news in some quarters. No doubt the foreign policy establishment in Washington, which former president Barack Obama and his advisers called The Blob, is rejoicing that the new president can be weaned off his more fanatical delusions (and pumped full of The Blob's own fanatical delusions).

    But the New Donald Trump, just like the much-hyped New Coke so many years ago, is just as bad for our collective health as the old version. Don't be fooled by the ongoing Trump rebrand. The president is just finding new ways to be toxic.

    Striking Syria

    Bombardiers have a tradition of writing slogans on the bombs they drop on their enemies. Donald Trump might as well have scrawled "I'm Not Obama" on the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles U.S. forces directed at a Syrian airbase on Friday. The bombardment came in response to a chemical attack the Assad government allegedly launched a few days earlier against a town in rebel-held Idlib province that left 69 people dead.

    Trump's desire for big wins has previously kept him out of the Syrian conflict and focused instead on the Islamic State, which has been losing its grip over territory in recent months.

    But Trump also wants to demonstrate that he's bigger and better than Barack Obama: He's more popular, attracted more people to his inauguration, proposed a better health-care plan, has bigger hands, and so on. Obama failed to attack Syria after a high-profile chemical attack in 2013. Here was an opportunity for Trump to show his resolve. After sustaining non-stop attacks against his character, his policies, and his advisers over the last several months, Trump has finally hit back with the tools that, unfortunately, are now at his disposal.

    Yet it was not much of a show of force. The airbase was not damaged enough to prevent the Syrian government from restoring it to full operational status within a couple days. And Syrian forces subsequently re-bombed the very same town that had suffered the chemical attack. The Trump administration has not followed up with any other demonstrations of power, nor does it seem likely to do so.

    The problem isn't so much geopolitical, though the United States risks an outright confrontation with Russia if it escalates. Rather, the problem for Trump is domestic.

    Standard-issue hawks, like John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), are urging Trump to go the next step toward regime change. So are the neocons, as Jim Lobe points out :

    The neocons, who have rarely met a slippery military slope they weren't tempted to roll down, embraced wholeheartedly both the strike and its justification. They view it as a first - but absolutely necessary - step toward a new phase of U.S. interventionism of precisely the kind that Bannon and his "nationalist" and Islamophobic allies abhor.

    The nationalists and the libertarians have indeed reacted in horror. Richard Spencer, the darling of the far-right, not only condemned the attack but even suggested that he would support Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) in 2020 (presumably because she's sat down with both Assad and Trump, a tyrannical twofer). Ron Paul wrote that Trump's assertion that the missile attack was vital to U.S. national interests was "nonsense."

    Good luck trying to preserve such a fickle coalition. To do so, Trump will probably refocus his military attention, as Rex Tillerson has suggested , on the Islamic State. The limited missile strike accomplished its goal, which wasn't to cripple Syrian forces in any serious way. Rather, the attack put distance between Trump and Obama, reminded both Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un that Trump is trigger-happy when necessary, regained some credit with European allies (France, Germany, and the president of the European Council all pledged their support ), and did the minimum of damage to warn the Russians not to take Trump for granted.

    In this way, Trump is proving just as reluctant to engage in large-scale military adventures as his predecessor. Before you rejoice that the wolf has revealed his inner fleece, however, remember that the Trump administration has been in some ways more willing to use military force than the Obama administration. As Micah Zenko wrote at the CFR blog earlier this month:

    During President Obama's two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days - one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 75 drone strikes or raids in 74 days - about one every day.

    Moreover, as Michael Klare points out at The Nation , Trump has "stepped up the delegation of decision-making authority to senior military officers, making it easier for them to initiate combat operations in a half-dozen countries."

    It's all a question of targets. Until he attacked Syria, Trump was "bombing the shit" out of non-state actors, as he promised he would. Syria aside, he's not so interested in challenging actual states. So far, at least.

    Trump: What's Next?

    As the 100-day mark approaches for the administration, Trump's staff is reportedly desperate for a rebrand. The first months have been disastrous in so many different ways. RussiaGate remains a dark cloud over the administration. The travel ban and the health-care substitute were both high-profile disasters. The mainstream media has savaged Trump on a nearly daily basis.

    "One hundred days is the marker, and we've got essentially 2 1/2 weeks to turn everything around," one White House official told Politico . "This is going to be a monumental task."

    According to the same article, the administration is divided between those who believe that the Trump doctrine is "America First" and those who, like Communications Director Mike Dubke, argue that there is no Trump doctrine.

    When it comes to foreign policy, they're both right. The ostensible Trump doctrine is "America First," but it's not a doctrine. It's an empty slogan. At one level, every administration has adhered to some version of American exceptionalism and some effort at focusing on the U.S. economy. So, Trump's special sauce is nothing new.

    At another level, Trump has demonstrated that he will make the same concessions to international realities as his predecessors. He'll negotiate with the Chinese. He'll poke the Russian bear. He'll engage in showy military attacks. Maximum flexibility equals no doctrine.

    The new Trump, then, is the worst of both worlds: blustery nationalism plus the conventional pieties of the foreign policy establishment. It's certainly a relief that the United States won't go to war with China any time soon and the U.S. president cares about the deaths of (some) children.

    But as tensions escalate with North Korea and Trump's crude counter-terrorism campaign continues, Mr. America First seems conceptually ill equipped and all-too-committed to business as usual to push US foreign policy in a peaceful direction and make anyone sleep easy at night. John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Trumps New Foreign Policy Is the Worst of Both Worlds

    Notable quotes:
    "... The neocons, who have rarely met a slippery military slope they weren't tempted to roll down, embraced wholeheartedly both the strike and its justification. They view it as a first - but absolutely necessary - step toward a new phase of U.S. interventionism of precisely the kind that Bannon and his "nationalist" and Islamophobic allies abhor. ..."
    "... During President Obama's two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days - one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 75 drone strikes or raids in 74 days - about one every day. ..."
    "... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | fpif.org
    It didn't take long for Donald Trump to discover that U.S. foreign policy is about as easy to turn around as a warship in dry dock. Despite any number of promises to shake things up - during the election and even in his first days as president - Trump is falling back on some very conventional approaches to the world.

    In the last week, for instance, Trump suddenly discovered that firing a few missiles at a much-hated target - in this case, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces - can gain him plaudits from across the political spectrum. Earlier, he said he'd focus American firepower on the Islamic State, not Assad. He was cautious about intervening in the Syrian civil war.

    Now the greenhorn president is heading down a well-worn path: see a problem, fire a missile at it.

    In so doing, Trump has scotched whatever remaining hopes his administration might have had about negotiating some quick deals with Moscow. The relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin had already been heading south - as I detailed a couple weeks back in Shortest Reset Ever - but now Trump has bloodied one of Russia's most important allies. Bye bye, bromance.

    Also this week, after bashing China left and right during his campaign, Trump met with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping and discovered that, hey, maybe the two countries can get along after all. Virtually every president in recent memory has gone through a similar transformation. There are no political costs in criticizing Beijing during an election campaign. But presidents soon discover the considerable costs of not doing business with China once they occupy the Oval Office.

    So much for Trump's promise to proclaim China a currency manipulator extraordinaire.

    Meanwhile, some of the more ideological voices in the administration appear to be heading to the sidelines. Strategic adviser Steve Bannon, reportedly as a result of his clashes with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, has lost his seat at the National Security Council and, it seems, even the trust of the president . K.T. McFarland, once the number two under the disgraced former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, is also out, and probably on her way to Singapore. The generals and the Wall Street execs seem now to have the upper hand.

    But Bannon hasn't given up, and the war at the top is far from over. Bannon loves a good fight, and he's the master of fighting dirty.

    The remaking of Donald Trump into a more conventional - and thus, predictable - president is good news in some quarters. No doubt the foreign policy establishment in Washington, which former president Barack Obama and his advisers called The Blob, is rejoicing that the new president can be weaned off his more fanatical delusions (and pumped full of The Blob's own fanatical delusions).

    But the New Donald Trump, just like the much-hyped New Coke so many years ago, is just as bad for our collective health as the old version. Don't be fooled by the ongoing Trump rebrand. The president is just finding new ways to be toxic.

    Striking Syria

    Bombardiers have a tradition of writing slogans on the bombs they drop on their enemies. Donald Trump might as well have scrawled "I'm Not Obama" on the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles U.S. forces directed at a Syrian airbase on Friday. The bombardment came in response to a chemical attack the Assad government allegedly launched a few days earlier against a town in rebel-held Idlib province that left 69 people dead.

    Trump's desire for big wins has previously kept him out of the Syrian conflict and focused instead on the Islamic State, which has been losing its grip over territory in recent months.

    But Trump also wants to demonstrate that he's bigger and better than Barack Obama: He's more popular, attracted more people to his inauguration, proposed a better health-care plan, has bigger hands, and so on. Obama failed to attack Syria after a high-profile chemical attack in 2013. Here was an opportunity for Trump to show his resolve. After sustaining non-stop attacks against his character, his policies, and his advisers over the last several months, Trump has finally hit back with the tools that, unfortunately, are now at his disposal.

    Yet it was not much of a show of force. The airbase was not damaged enough to prevent the Syrian government from restoring it to full operational status within a couple days. And Syrian forces subsequently re-bombed the very same town that had suffered the chemical attack. The Trump administration has not followed up with any other demonstrations of power, nor does it seem likely to do so.

    The problem isn't so much geopolitical, though the United States risks an outright confrontation with Russia if it escalates. Rather, the problem for Trump is domestic.

    Standard-issue hawks, like John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), are urging Trump to go the next step toward regime change. So are the neocons, as Jim Lobe points out :

    The neocons, who have rarely met a slippery military slope they weren't tempted to roll down, embraced wholeheartedly both the strike and its justification. They view it as a first - but absolutely necessary - step toward a new phase of U.S. interventionism of precisely the kind that Bannon and his "nationalist" and Islamophobic allies abhor.

    The nationalists and the libertarians have indeed reacted in horror. Richard Spencer, the darling of the far-right, not only condemned the attack but even suggested that he would support Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) in 2020 (presumably because she's sat down with both Assad and Trump, a tyrannical twofer). Ron Paul wrote that Trump's assertion that the missile attack was vital to U.S. national interests was "nonsense."

    Good luck trying to preserve such a fickle coalition. To do so, Trump will probably refocus his military attention, as Rex Tillerson has suggested , on the Islamic State. The limited missile strike accomplished its goal, which wasn't to cripple Syrian forces in any serious way. Rather, the attack put distance between Trump and Obama, reminded both Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un that Trump is trigger-happy when necessary, regained some credit with European allies (France, Germany, and the president of the European Council all pledged their support ), and did the minimum of damage to warn the Russians not to take Trump for granted.

    In this way, Trump is proving just as reluctant to engage in large-scale military adventures as his predecessor. Before you rejoice that the wolf has revealed his inner fleece, however, remember that the Trump administration has been in some ways more willing to use military force than the Obama administration. As Micah Zenko wrote at the CFR blog earlier this month:

    During President Obama's two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days - one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 75 drone strikes or raids in 74 days - about one every day.

    Moreover, as Michael Klare points out at The Nation , Trump has "stepped up the delegation of decision-making authority to senior military officers, making it easier for them to initiate combat operations in a half-dozen countries."

    It's all a question of targets. Until he attacked Syria, Trump was "bombing the shit" out of non-state actors, as he promised he would. Syria aside, he's not so interested in challenging actual states. So far, at least.

    Trump: What's Next?

    As the 100-day mark approaches for the administration, Trump's staff is reportedly desperate for a rebrand. The first months have been disastrous in so many different ways. RussiaGate remains a dark cloud over the administration. The travel ban and the health-care substitute were both high-profile disasters. The mainstream media has savaged Trump on a nearly daily basis.

    "One hundred days is the marker, and we've got essentially 2 1/2 weeks to turn everything around," one White House official told Politico . "This is going to be a monumental task."

    According to the same article, the administration is divided between those who believe that the Trump doctrine is "America First" and those who, like Communications Director Mike Dubke, argue that there is no Trump doctrine.

    When it comes to foreign policy, they're both right. The ostensible Trump doctrine is "America First," but it's not a doctrine. It's an empty slogan. At one level, every administration has adhered to some version of American exceptionalism and some effort at focusing on the U.S. economy. So, Trump's special sauce is nothing new.

    At another level, Trump has demonstrated that he will make the same concessions to international realities as his predecessors. He'll negotiate with the Chinese. He'll poke the Russian bear. He'll engage in showy military attacks. Maximum flexibility equals no doctrine.

    The new Trump, then, is the worst of both worlds: blustery nationalism plus the conventional pieties of the foreign policy establishment. It's certainly a relief that the United States won't go to war with China any time soon and the U.S. president cares about the deaths of (some) children.

    But as tensions escalate with North Korea and Trump's crude counter-terrorism campaign continues, Mr. America First seems conceptually ill equipped and all-too-committed to business as usual to push US foreign policy in a peaceful direction and make anyone sleep easy at night. John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

    [Apr 20, 2017] The Problem is Washington, Not North Korea

    Apr 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Washington has never made any effort to conceal its contempt for North Korea. In the 64 years since the war ended, the US has done everything in its power to punish, humiliate and inflict pain on the Communist country. Washington has subjected the DPRK to starvation, prevented its government from accessing foreign capital and markets, strangled its economy with crippling economic sanctions, and installed lethal missile systems and military bases on their doorstep.

    Negotiations aren't possible because Washington refuses to sit down with a country which it sees as its inferior. Instead, the US has strong-armed China to do its bidding by using their diplomats as interlocutors who are expected to convey Washington's ultimatums as threateningly as possible. The hope, of course, is that Pyongyang will cave in to Uncle Sam's bullying and do what they are told.

    But the North has never succumbed to US intimidation and there's no sign that it will. Instead, they have developed a small arsenal of nuclear weapons to defend themselves in the event that the US tries to assert its dominance by launching another war.
    There's no country in the world that needs nuclear weapons more than North Korea. Brainwashed Americans, who get their news from FOX or CNN, may differ on this point, but if a hostile nation deployed carrier strike-groups off the coast of California while conducting massive war games on the Mexican border (with the express intention of scaring the shit of people) then they might see things differently. They might see the value of having a few nuclear weapons to deter that hostile nation from doing something really stupid.

    And let's be honest, the only reason Kim Jong Un hasn't joined Saddam and Gadhafi in the great hereafter, is because (a)– The North does not sit on an ocean of oil, and (b)– The North has the capacity to reduce Seoul, Okinawa and Tokyo into smoldering debris-fields. Absent Kim's WMDs, Pyongyang would have faced a preemptive attack long ago and Kim would have faced a fate similar to Gadhafi's. Nuclear weapons are the only known antidote to US adventurism.

    The American people –whose grasp of history does not extend beyond the events of 9-11 - have no idea of the way the US fights its wars or the horrific carnage and destruction it unleashed on the North. Here's a short refresher that helps clarify why the North is still wary of the US more than 60 years after the armistice was signed. The excerpt is from an article titled "Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea", at Vox World:

    "In the early 1950s, during the Korean War, the US dropped more bombs on North Korea than it had dropped in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. This carpet bombing, which included 32,000 tons of napalm, often deliberately targeted civilian as well as military targets, devastating the country far beyond what was necessary to fight the war. Whole cities were destroyed, with many thousands of innocent civilians killed and many more left homeless and hungry .

    According to US journalist Blaine Harden: "Over a period of three years or so, we killed off - what - 20 percent of the population," Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed "everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another." After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops

    "On January 3 at 10:30 AM an armada of 82 flying fortresses loosed their death-dealing load on the city of Pyongyang Hundreds of tons of bombs and incendiary compound were simultaneously dropped throughout the city, causing annihilating fires, the transatlantic barbarians bombed the city with delayed-action high-explosive bombs which exploded at intervals for a whole day making it impossible for the people to come out onto the streets. The entire city has now been burning, enveloped in flames, for two days. By the second day, 7,812 civilians houses had been burnt down. The Americans were well aware that there were no military targets left in Pyongyang

    The number of inhabitants of Pyongyang killed by bomb splinters, burnt alive and suffocated by smoke is incalculable Some 50,000 inhabitants remain in the city which before the war had a population of 500,000." ("Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea", Vox World)

    The United States killed over 2 million people in a country that posed no threat to US national security. Like Vietnam, the Korean War was just another muscle-flexing exercise the US periodically engages in whenever it gets bored or needs some far-flung location to try out its new weapons systems. The US had nothing to gain in its aggression on the Korean peninsula, it was mix of imperial overreach and pure unalloyed viciousness the likes of which we've seen many times in the past. According to the Asia-Pacific Journal:

    "By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans.10 Only emergency assistance from China, the USSR, and other socialist countries prevented widespread famine." ("The Destruction and Reconstruction of North Korea, 1950 – 1960", The Asia-Pacific Journal, Japan Focus)

    ORDER IT NOW

    Repeat: "Reservoirs, irrigation dams, rice crops, hydroelectric dams, population centers" all napalmed, all carpet bombed, all razed to the ground. Nothing was spared. If it moved it was shot, if it didn't move, it was bombed. The US couldn't win, so they turned the country into an uninhabitable wastelands. "Let them starve. Let them freeze.. Let them eat weeds and roots and rodents to survive. Let them sleep in the ditches and find shelter in the rubble. What do we care? We're the greatest country on earth. God bless America."

    This is how Washington does business, and it hasn't changed since the Seventh Cavalry wiped out 150 men, women and children at Wounded Knee more than century ago. The Lakota Sioux at Pine Ridge got the same basic treatment as the North Koreans, or the Vietnamese, or the Nicaraguans, or the Iraqis and on and on and on and on. Anyone else who gets in Uncle Sam's way, winds up in a world of hurt. End of story.

    The savagery of America's war against the North left an indelible mark on the psyche of the people. Whatever the cost, the North cannot allow a similar scenario to take place in the future. Whatever the cost, they must be prepared to defend themselves. If that means nukes, then so be it. Self preservation is the top priority.

    Is there a way to end this pointless standoff between Pyongyang and Washington, a way to mend fences and build trust?

    Of course there is. The US just needs to start treating the DPRK with respect and follow through on their promises. What promises?

    The promise to built the North two light-water reactors to provide heat and light to their people in exchange for an end to its nuclear weapons program. You won't read about this deal in the media because the media is just the propaganda wing of the Pentagon. They have no interest in promoting peaceful solutions. Their stock-in-trade is war, war and more war.

    The North wants the US to honor its obligations under the 1994 Agreed Framework. That's it. Just keep up your end of the goddamn deal. How hard can that be? Here's how Jimmy Carter summed it up in a Washington Post op-ed (November 24, 2010):

    " in September 2005, an agreement reaffirmed the basic premises of the 1994 accord. (The Agreed Framework) Its text included denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, a pledge of non-aggression by the United States and steps to evolve a permanent peace agreement to replace the U.S.-North Korean-Chinese cease-fire that has been in effect since July 1953 . Unfortunately, no substantive progress has been made since 2005

    "This past July I was invited to return to Pyongyang to secure the release of an American, Aijalon Gomes, with the proviso that my visit would last long enough for substantive talks with top North Korean officials. They spelled out in detail their desire to develop a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and a permanent cease-fire, based on the 1994 agreements and the terms adopted by the six powers in September 2005 .

    "North Korean officials have given the same message to other recent American visitors and have permitted access by nuclear experts to an advanced facility for purifying uranium. The same officials had made it clear to me that this array of centrifuges would be 'on the table' for discussions with the United States, although uranium purification – a very slow process – was not covered in the 1994 agreements.

    " Pyongyang has sent a consistent message that during direct talks with the United States, it is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the 'temporary' cease-fire of 1953 . We should consider responding to this offer. The unfortunate alternative is for North Koreans to take whatever actions they consider necessary to defend themselves from what they claim to fear most: a military attack supported by the United States, along with efforts to change the political regime."

    ("North Korea's consistent message to the U.S.", President Jimmy Carter, Washington Post)

    Most people think the problem lies with North Korea, but it doesn't. The problem lies with the United States; it's unwillingness to negotiate an end to the war, its unwillingness to provide basic security guarantees to the North, its unwillingness to even sit down with the people who –through Washington's own stubborn ignorance– are now developing long-range ballistic missiles that will be capable of hitting American cities.

    How dumb is that?

    The Trump team is sticking with a policy that has failed for 63 years and which clearly undermines US national security by putting American citizens directly at risk. AND FOR WHAT?

    To preserve the image of "tough guy", to convince people that the US doesn't negotiate with weaker countries, to prove to the world that "whatever the US says, goes"? Is that it? Is image more important than a potential nuclear disaster?

    Relations with the North can be normalized, economic ties can be strengthened, trust can be restored, and the nuclear threat can be defused. The situation with the North does not have to be a crisis, it can be fixed. It just takes a change in policy, a bit of give-and-take, and leaders that genuinely want peace more than war.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected] .

    [Apr 20, 2017] Grahams Deranged Idea for Attacking North Korea

    Notable quotes:
    "... Graham routinely supports the most irresponsible, dangerous, and immoral policies, so it is not surprising that he is in favor of doing this. ..."
    "... The senator casually contemplates a course of action that would likely lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and destabilize the region for years to come and he shrugs it off by saying the war "wouldn't be here." It doesn't shock me that a professional warmonger doesn't care about the effects of this preferred policies, but it is a bit of a surprise that he is so open about his callous disregard for the lives of civilians and soldiers in South Korea and Japan who would pay the price for the act of aggression he supports. ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Lindsey Graham outdoes himself in warmongering with a new call for attacking North Korea:

    "Would you be for a preemptive strike?" Today Show host Willie Geist asked the South Carolina Republican. "If that's what it would take," Graham replied resolutely.

    "It would be terrible but the war would be over here (there), wouldn't be here," Graham continued. " It would be bad for the Korean Peninsula. It would be bad for China. It would be bad for Japan, be bad for South Korea. It would be the end of North Korea. But what it would not do is hit America [bold mine-DL] and the only way it could ever come to America is with a missile."

    Graham routinely supports the most irresponsible, dangerous, and immoral policies, so it is not surprising that he is in favor of doing this. The striking thing about his answer is how cavalier he is about calling for starting a war that he admits would be disastrous for everyone in the region.

    Leave aside that he completely forgets about the tens of thousands of Americans stationed in South Korea that would come under immediate attack in retaliation for the so-called "preemptive strike" he wants. Note that the action he's talking about wouldn't actually be "preemptive," but would be an unprovoked attack and the start of a major war. Leave it to Graham to find a way to find a North Korea policy so horrible that it puts the U.S. in the wrong.

    The senator casually contemplates a course of action that would likely lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and destabilize the region for years to come and he shrugs it off by saying the war "wouldn't be here." It doesn't shock me that a professional warmonger doesn't care about the effects of this preferred policies, but it is a bit of a surprise that he is so open about his callous disregard for the lives of civilians and soldiers in South Korea and Japan who would pay the price for the act of aggression he supports.

    The next time you hear Graham feign concern for lives lost in some foreign conflict or pretend to be on the side of our allies, remember this answer and realize that his only desire is to get the U.S. into more unnecessary wars regardless of the consequences.

    Posted in foreign policy , politics . Tagged North Korea , Lindsey Graham , Japan , South Korea .

    [Apr 20, 2017] North Korea sees Trumps sabre-rattling as propaganda come true

    Notable quotes:
    "... The regime has held up Trump's actions in Syria, as well as those of his predecessors in Iraq and Afghanistan, as justification for seeking to further the North Korean nuclear weapons program, which it claims is vital for defense. "Previous US administrations have been attacking those countries who haven't gotten nuclear weapons, and the Trump administration is no different from previous US governments in pinpointing those non-nuclear states," a North Korean official told CNN. ..."
    "... Pyongyang fears that if it was not nuclear armed, it would suffer the same fate as Syria and plunge into chaos and civil war. ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | www.cnn.com
    North Korea is a country prepared for conflict.

    Still technically at war with its southern neighbor, ordinary North Koreans are warned to be in a state of constant vigilance to threats from the outside, particularly from the US. Those fears seemed to be confirmed this month, after US President Donald Trump launched a surprise strike on a Syrian airfield and dispatched a naval battle group -- which he described as " an armada " -- to northern Asia.

    Trump's saber-rattling -- he has accused Pyongyang of "looking for trouble" -- is familiar to consumers of North Korean state media, who have been warned for decades by their leaders of imminent US attack and attempted regime change. "The aggressive acts of war on the part of the United States are getting increasingly reckless," a North Korean official told CNN in Pyongyang this week. Read More "In response, we will continue to strengthen our self-defense capability."

    Tragic history

    Looking at the country's history, paranoia over a potential US attack is understandable. It's estimated that during the Korean War, American planes dropped some 625,000 tons of bombs on North Korea -- more than during the entire Pacific theater of World War II -- including 32,000 tons of napalm. Around 600,000 North Korean and 1 million South Korean civilians were killed , along with hundreds of thousands of troops. Curtis LeMay, an air force commander at the time, estimated in 1988 that US planes killed 20% of the population "over a period of three years or so." According to Blaine Harden , author of "The Great Leader and the Fighter Pilot," Kim Jong Un, like his father and grandfather before him, "(has) kept memories of the war and the bombing terrifyingly fresh. State media warn that, sooner or later, the Americans will strike again." To this end, North Korea maintains a massive standing army of more than 1.2 million soldiers, with millions more paramilitary troops and reservists, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). South Korea also maintains a high state of alert, with more than 500,000 people in its armed forces, IISS says, plus the thousands of US troops deployed in the country.

    The North Korean constitution states that "national defense is the supreme duty and honor of citizens," and the country is governed by the "songun" -- or military-first -- policy, which places the armed forces above all else. In recent years that has meant huge investment in the development and deployment of nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles.

    Paranoia

    Intense focus on the military in a cripplingly poor country like North Korea can cause much hardship, but Pyongyang justifies its policies based on a narrative of imminent threat from foreign forces. That narrative was on clear display this week, with North Korean state media -- which usually tightly controls information about the outside world -- going big on the deployment of the USS Carl Vinson and Trump's surprise strike in Syria. USS Carl Vinson heads to Korean Peninsula

    One Pyongyang resident told CNN, "we're at the brink of war, but if that happens, we'll all go to the front lines to fight the Americans."

    The regime has held up Trump's actions in Syria, as well as those of his predecessors in Iraq and Afghanistan, as justification for seeking to further the North Korean nuclear weapons program, which it claims is vital for defense. "Previous US administrations have been attacking those countries who haven't gotten nuclear weapons, and the Trump administration is no different from previous US governments in pinpointing those non-nuclear states," a North Korean official told CNN.

    Pyongyang fears that if it was not nuclear armed, it would suffer the same fate as Syria and plunge into chaos and civil war.

    Relative calm

    South of the border, the situation is much different. On Tuesday, officials sought to reassure South Koreans that the US would not take unilateral action against North Korea without consulting Seoul. "The United States makes it clear that it will not take a new policy or measure without consultations with us," South Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck told reporters.

    Defense Ministry spokesman Moon Sang-gyun warned people against being "blinded by exaggerated assessments on the security situation of the Korean Peninsula." Moon Jae-in, leader of the opposition Democratic Party and frontrunner to be the country's next President, said on Facebook that there "should never be a pre-emptive strike without South Korean consent." "Neighboring countries are taking advantage of the absence of a president in South Korea to try to exclude us and handle issues on the Korean Peninsula according to their own understanding," Moon said.

    The country's former President, Park Geun-hye, was impeached after a corruption scandal. On the streets of Seoul, South Koreans who spoke to CNN were far less worried about a potential of war than their northern neighbors. "I do feel uneasy about North Korea provoking war," said Jeon Hyung-min, 26. "But I don't think a US strike would happen and if North Korea can judge the situation, they will not continue any armed provocation for now." Seo Deok-il, in his 70s, said he was "not anxious" about the news. "I don't think war will break out," he said. "If I was scared, I would have immigrated to another country."

    CNN's Paula Hancocks and Jeung-un Kim contributed reporting from Seoul, South Korea. Will Ripley reported from Pyongyang, North Korea. James Griffiths reported and wrote from Hong Kong.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Putin crushes CNN smartass Fareed Zakaria on Donald Trump and US elections

    Apr 20, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    a really interesting, impressive reply at Zakaria provocation...


    MJ Augusto 4 months ago (edited)

    I am a true patriot. I'm America first all the way. But we've been giving Russia the short end of the stick since the end of WWII. Harry Truman started it with nuclear blackmail after we bombed Japan. Even though (yes it's true folks) the Soviets are the ones who really took the guts out of the Nazi war machine. We would have won anyway, but Russia accelerated the process in a huge way. They also invaded Japan forcing the emperors hand after we dropped the second atom bomb. During the Cuban missle crisis we really didn't have a leg to stand on in negotions. We had tactical nukes in Siberia armed and ready long before Russia put missiles in Cuba. I'm not a sympathizer, Stalin was an oppressor of human rights, and I feel communism is fundamentally flawed. But Putin is right, we've tried to force our ideas on the rest of the world and alienated most of it through out the process. Vietnam, El Salvador, Korea, Cuba, and Iran during the cold war.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Libya - More War And Reconciliation by Richard Galustian

    Notable quotes:
    "... A Libyan military solution to the civil war is fast becoming the only option however a Mandela type Truth and Reconciliation Commission following straight after such military victory is also a top priority. ..."
    Apr 19, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The West retains it's out of touch Libyan policies when in Luca, Italy last week the G7 'warned and commanded' that the fractious warring Libyan parties 'must' work with the dying UN appointed and recognised Government of National Accord (GNA), situated only in a small naval base in Tripoli and its so called Presidency Council (PC). And further ordered Libyans to work together to fix the economic crisis by recognising that the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) need to only collaborate with the GNA/PC, so out of touch with the real issues on the ground in Libya are the G7 Countries. Their language almost expressed in colonial terms!

    Other global interference in Libya continues. Most recently also the GNA and Presidency Council (PC) leader Fayez Serraj was seeing the head, at his HQ in Stuttgart, of the United Stated Africa Command (AFRICOM) General Thomas Waldhauser. I didn't know Stuttgart was in Africa?

    Other pronouncements of one kind or another backing the phantom GNA appear almost weekly.

    All a waste of time, as UN and EU efforts have proven these past years. As far as Serraj is concerned he is unelected by Libyans but chosen by the foreigners. That's never going to achieve forward progress for Libya's future.

    The one year anniversary of the General National Accord (GNA) created by the UN and headed by Serraj was on the 30th March just two weeks ago. But the GNA doesn't function. To compound the GNA's inability to govern, an acute emergency has emerged in the last 7 days revolving around further direct sales by Cyrenaica (East Libya) of oil bypassing Tripoli and the West. If this issue remains unresolved the country may split into two or three pieces. There is now tremendous in-fighting between National Oil Company (NOC) and a variety of diverse interests. The West's reactions to these realities remain puzzling and totally unrealistic to say the least.

    A Libyan military solution to the civil war is fast becoming the only option however a Mandela type Truth and Reconciliation Commission following straight after such military victory is also a top priority.

    These developments are part of a new dynamic that is entering the Libyan Civil War that is another trend that may satisfy weary Libyans themselves. The re-entry of two of Gaddafis children who are seeking a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, similar to South Africa's, in order to bring unity to the country. Specific Libyan tribes are starting to back the Gaddafi clan a new and hopefully peaceful attempt at country unification may appear that ousts the GNA and other Tripoli militias and extremists for good from the political scene. This is becoming a realistic proposition.

    It is to this point that national reconciliation must be addressed. South Africa's process helped to unify the country after decades of apartheid.

    The LNA's Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar is close to Elders of Warfalla tribe that give him their support in the war against terrorism. Warfalla tribe is the biggest tribe in Libya located in Bani Walid and Sirte area, the Warshfana tribe is second located to the South West of Tripoli. Both tribes are from the west of Libya and both are against extremists and very sympathetic to the Gaddafis. Importantly, the tribes believe that the Gaddafis can reach an accommodation with Libyan parties to one another forgive crimes committed before and after the revolt of 2011. Already, evidence can be seen of this trend: In the past week, Libyan authorities have released some Gaddafi era nobles from prison. The involvement of the former AQ-LIFG fighters to take credit for these releases is a vain attempt to try to align themselves with Gaddifites which will never succeed.

    While the limelight is on Saif, who still is believed to suffer from physical and mental injuries sustained during his capture, his sister Aisha Gaddafi is fast becoming the most important member of the family. She is generating a good deal of attention and she may well be very influential in future. Aisha is a pragmatic and sensible Libyan with acute political acumen and a sharp wit and intellect. She has a dynamic personality and is the most well educated of the Colonel's siblings. There is an argument that she needs to return to the political scene. Whether she wants to, no one knows due to her low profile so far.

    However with Aisha's victory last week in the European Court of Justice against the UN Security Council-sponsored sanctions this may very well be the first indicator. She has also had her travel ban lifted. A major achievement. Together with her brother, when he achieves 100 percent fitness, both Gaddafi's can begin to work together with all Libyans to rescue the country from its dreadful plight as part of a team never a return to dictatorship.

    This tandem approach -Gaddafi siblings and the Tribes- is the possible solution to Libya's civil war. Haftar recognizes the values of tribes and the Libyan Field Marshall is now using all his might to solidify and unify all Libyans whilst continuing to fight terrorists. As stated earlier, South Africa's dismantling of decades of apartheid serves as the example, the model for Libya.

    The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up to help deal with what awful things happened under apartheid, much worse than Gaddafi's crimes ever were. The remnants of conflict during this post-apartheid period resulted in still some limited violence and human rights abuses from all sides but no section of society escaped exposure or punishment.

    Libya is suffering under a system of constant outside international interference in a Libyan decision about their own future. Self-reflection is an important part of reconciliation and it is thought that if the Gaddafis assistance in such an effort will help in a "cleansing" to build a new Libyan future, this would be a good thing. Of course, Libya is not South Africa, and the issues completely different, yet it is the process of reconciliation and forgiveness itself which has its primordial roots in today's modern Libyan tribes.

    Russia involvement with Egypt is essential. Also African countries must unite to help Libya through this process, not US's AFRICOM, UN or even the EU. The only other country that appears to be a true friend to Libya is the UAE who also have the advantage of being anti-Muslim Brotherhood, a dangerous sect that has influence in the West of Libya.

    If body language is anything to go by, this picture (of Mohamed bin Zayed, the powerful Crown Prince of the UAE with Haftar) taken last week in Abu Dhabi speaks volumes!


    bigger

    Let us hope finally for a peaceful conclusion to the tragedy that has been Libya for these past six years.

    Thomas Bargatzky | Apr 19, 2017 5:38:53 AM | 2
    AFRICOM headquarters are in Stuttgart, because Gaddafi was adamantly against its location on Africa's soil. One of the reasons for NATO's war against Libya and the killing of Gaddafi.
    Jeff | Apr 19, 2017 5:40:38 AM | 3
    If only we could get a similar update for Yemen, where only continued famine and bombing seem on the agenda.
    And Somalia is such a black hole that not even its despair and deaths reach the MSM or social networks.
    guidoamm | Apr 19, 2017 7:02:37 AM | 4
    Only tangentially relevant to this post, but Libya is a good example of the power we have allowed our politicians to confer to central banks.

    Few will remember that whilst the war in Libya was raging, somehow, some faction found it both relevant and a priority to announce the creation of the central bank of Libya. This piece of news was reported far and wide by the international press too.

    jfl | Apr 19, 2017 7:49:10 AM | 5
    i hope the libyans can rally round aisha gaddafi and put their country back together. they need to keep the us/eu out of the country. sue for damages - at least, and bigtime - in international court if they are unable to prosecute the war criminals themselves. show the iraqis and the syrians and the afghans and the ukrainians and everyone else how war criminals must be treated.
    Alieu | Apr 19, 2017 7:51:35 AM | 6
    Libya deserves far more attention than it gets. The war is still going on there but receives no attention because the deaths there are not politically useful anymore. That's why after 2011 all the media coverage shifted to Syria. If the Israel/Nato alliance had their way, Syria would now be in the same situation Libya is - a failed state. This is what they mean when they refer to "bringing democracy" to the Middle East.

    Only Russia's intervention in August 2013 prevented that, which explains why they decided to punish Russia by organising the "regime change" in Ukraine and spreading the chaos to Russia's doorstep. Ukraine is now also a failed state with two different governments embroiled in a civil war. Funny how that always seems to be the result of the Israel/Nato alliance bringing "freedom and democracy" to countries - it's almost as if that was their plan all along...

    Mina | Apr 19, 2017 8:05:48 AM | 7
    The colonial language used by the EU and others is precisely what fuels people to join Djihadists movements. Is it on purpose?
    Eugene | Apr 19, 2017 8:52:29 AM | 8
    Perhaps Libya will be brought together again, the world can hope. Will that old saying: "what goes around, comes around" ring true on this? Colonialism is alive still, but there are those who just don't see the light. One fact is certain, the "war on terror" birthing after 9-11, if anything, created the mother of all C-F's to date. One might get the impression that the end game is to destroy the U.S./western ways?
    Curtis | Apr 19, 2017 9:53:15 AM | 9
    Alieu 6

    We don't hear much of US (Hillary, Obama, etc) "successes" in Libya from the US MSM. It's shameful that the UN tries to force govt from above (with outsiders) on these people like the US does in places like Iraq. What happened to the other two govts in Tripoli and Tobruk? I doubt any govt in the east will go along due to extremist influences and greed to dominate oil in that area. I wish Gaddhafis all the luck and success in fixing the wrong done to them and bringing this to the world. It's bad enough the US and especially western media participation in the death, destruction, pain, and suffering.

    Curtis | Apr 19, 2017 9:56:08 AM | 10
    Re: the photo
    Haftar had better hope Zayed's left hand does not contain a knife. The emirates and saudis are not known to be trustworthy fans of others in the ME neighborhood who do not conform.
    Greenbean950 | Apr 19, 2017 10:20:02 AM | 11
    AFRICOM is in Stuttgart because it was created out of the staff from US EUCOM (European Command). At first, the staff sections did both areas of operations (Europe & Africa). Once additional staff officers and NCOs were sent to EUCOM, AFRICOM was separated from EUCOM, but stayed in Stuttgart. AFRICOM was moved to another base in Stuttgart, Kelly Barracks. EUCOM is on Patch Barracks - a few miles away. The German government was quite displeased at the addition of a major US headquarters in their country, but had little power or courage to do anything except grumble. The US DoD wanted to put AFRICOM in Africa, but there were no countries willing to accept it that were in any way safe for families. When no options in Africa were viable, the US simply created the new headquarters in Stuttgart.

    I am a retired US Army officer that was assigned to US EUCOM from 2008-2009.

    jawbone | Apr 19, 2017 10:26:49 AM | 12
    How to understand the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) and its love of lies.

    The MCM will report factual truths, but usually buried somewhere in a long article, bracketed by the acceptable lies. Or, if the inconvenient truths do get an article of their own, those facts are subsequently ignored by the MCM with the lies being repeated over and over.

    And, then, even the lies become the conventional wisdom.

    Such as has happened with the lies about the August 2013 chemical attack in Syria. The MCM did note that the proof was not there to accuse the Syrian government, BUT it was buried and ignored and now, in 2017, it is accepted history that the Assad government did attack their own supporters with sarin.

    It's enough to make one never trust anything the MCM puts out.

    Which is probably the whole point.

    canuck | Apr 19, 2017 11:12:43 AM | 13
    Again b is mistakenly describing the attack on Libya as a civil war. A civil war is a war between different factions of a country; the war against Libya was carried out al most entirely external forces, by NATO and mercenaries. This constant reference to the attack on Libya, and indeed the attack on Syria, as civil wars, is the language of propaganda.

    Massive bombing by NATO led to the death and wounding of at least many tens of thousands of Libyans, and the destruction of much infrastructure, followed by hell on earth via head choppers and mass murdering and raping mercenaries.

    Libya in 2010 was leading the UN human development index for Africa, with a high standard of living, high literacy rate, largely happy and healthy people, with free education and health care, and generous financial presents for marriage and birth, and wonderful development projects. Blacks were doing well there. When Gaddafi took over, Libya was a colonized, wretchedly poor basket case.

    Libya had built up large gold reserves on the basis of its high quality oil and was attempting to implement a pan African alternative to the parasitic and criminal western banking system and its debt enslavement of much of Africa.

    Lurid lies were used to 'justify' a 'no fly zone' via the UNSC and this was then used to commit the ultimate crime according to Nuremberg trials, a war of aggression, by NATO and their useful mercenary monsters.

    The Stephen Miller Band | Apr 19, 2017 11:24:58 AM | 14
    What's interesting is the lack of interest in JASTA. I brought it up yesterday and there was nothing but silence. Hmmmm. One would think it would be ripe for critical dissection at this venue considering the revelatory implications that could possibly emanate from it. Unless. That's it. I think it's the unless. I'll let you guess what the unless is. Let me just say, it's what I've always known to be true.

    Where do Trump & Sessions stand on JASTA? If Trump truly is a patriot and believes his jingoistic "America First" rhetoric, then he has to support the integrity of this legislation and direct his DOJ and all the alphabet agencies to comply and let the chips fall where they may and act accordingly to the facts. Or he can be a Saudi chump and continue to bomb Yemen and Syria for the Saudi pricks.

    Needless to say, this is getting hardly any coverage in the press. Gee, I wonder why? But I expected different at this venue. Not really.

    9/11 Families File Complaint with Department of Justice

    On March 29, 2016, the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism organization filed a letter with the Department of Justice to request the DOJ commence an immediate national security investigation into potential widespread criminal violations of the Foreign Regisration Act ("FARA"), by foreign agents retained to conduct what we view as an unprecedented foreign influence campaign on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    The apparent goal of the massive Saudi-funded foreign agent offensive is to delude Congress into passing unprincipled and unwarranted amendments to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrrorism Act ("JASTA").

    In service of this dangerous effort to influence Congress into passing legislative text promoted by a foreign power, the Kingdom and its foreign agents have targeted U.S. veterans nationwide through a campaign that deeply mischaracterizes JASTA, and even more importantly has been conducted in ways that conceal the fact that the influence and propaganda onslaught has been and continues to be orchestrated and financed by the Saudi government and foreign agents working on its behalf. Read full complaint here: http://passjasta.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FARA-COMPLAINT-20170329.pdf

    james | Apr 19, 2017 11:57:08 AM | 17
    thanks richard for these periodic updates..

    i 2nd @5 jfls comments and hope they can move forward with the children of gaddaffi in forming a gov't and coalition.

    @7 mina.. i think you have the answer - yes.. every time the usa state dept mention libya it is in the context of everyone working with the gna.. i guess that will give the required structure for continued abuse from the west - bend over and take this..

    Curtis | Apr 19, 2017 12:05:54 PM | 18
    Among the west's successes in Libya is the return of slavery. That's not in the US MSM news even though it has made it to DW/Guardian.
    Mike Maloney | Apr 19, 2017 12:11:21 PM | 19
    Libya is hard to read. France, Russia, Egypt, and UAE are supposed to be supporting Haftar. Then France issues a statement yesterday supporting Serraj and the GNA in the wake of Haftar's Libyan National Army attack on Tamenhant air base in the south. Italian troops were reported to be stationed at Tamenhant working with the pro-GNA militias there.
    AtaBrit | Apr 19, 2017 2:34:51 PM | 20
    Fascinating article.
    Inspiring in that the T&R process allows the Libyans to take their future into their own hands - A fundemental right!
    But that the Gadaffis might actually be the key to the future of Libya is a resoundingly damning indictment of the West's actions!
    It also occurs to me how very imbalanced is the media coverage of the ME conflicts.
    Thanks, b, for providing the forum for such writing. And look forward to more articles, Richard.

    ProPeace | Apr 19, 2017 6:54:49 PM | 21

    Good news! Yemenis shoot down Saudi Black Hawk, at least 12 Saudi troops killed
    smuks | Apr 19, 2017 7:07:54 PM | 22
    Looks like they got rid of ISIS for good, even if some of its former fighters are probably still in the country. Good. Without major external assistance (as in 'massive air strikes and special forces'), no side is strong enough to conquer the entire country. This being obvious, there should be a good chance that they'll come to some sort of national unity agreement.

    Which is pretty much what I predicted in an article in early 2016.

    telescope | Apr 19, 2017 8:17:58 PM | 24
    Why would anyone even care about what the West thinks or wants? Clearly, it's a troubled, fast-declining polity that is desperately trying to cling to the glory days that are long gone, and will never return. It'll be getting weaker with every passing year.

    As soon as Trump becomes serious about tackling the US trade deficit, the globalization will stop and then kick into ferocious reverse, as the whole thing is sustained solely by the US' willingness to endure the unrelenting economic punishment for purely ideological reasons. Globalization in its present form is devastating America's core, and its patience is nearly exhausted. Give it a year, or two at the most, then lashing out begins.

    Once it's over, everything that globalization had birthed - the EU, the Singapores and Dubais of the world, the Israel - the end of globalization will bring to an inevitable denouement.

    Libya will be taken over by a neighboring country that is becoming hideously overpopulated and is in a dire need of additional living space and inexpensive energy. Egypt simply has no other options, other than a national implosion.

    jfl | Apr 19, 2017 9:18:47 PM | 25
    @24 telescope, '... the whole thing is sustained solely by the US' willingness to endure the unrelenting economic punishment for purely ideological reasons ...'

    the whole thing is sustained by the globalized 1%'s willingness to inflict unrelenting economic punishment purely for their own economic 'well-being' ... 'profit', at any rate. they've made a joke of money as 'a store of value' and - i agree - 'Globalization in its present form is devastating America's (all the west's) core, and its patience is nearly exhausted. Give it a year, or two at the most, then lashing out begins.'

    as for egypt - overpopulated - taking over libya - 'underpopulated' ... they'll certainly have to do that without russia's help ... think of the precedent that would set vis-ΰ-vis russia-china! or do you envision a takeover of russia by china as being in the cards ... that china, too, simply has no other options, other than a national implosion.

    ProPeace | Apr 19, 2017 9:32:45 PM | 26
    Any news on the Great Man Made River?
    Pft | Apr 20, 2017 12:06:57 AM | 27
    Libya has a central bank now and no longer exports as much oil to China as it once did. The people no longer get free health care and education. Why does anyone believe that the powers that be care much about anything else.
    jfl | Apr 20, 2017 12:27:05 AM | 28
    @26 pp

    no news. i have these links if anyone is unfamiliar ...

    Libya's "Water Wars" and Gaddafi's Great Man-Made River Project
    War Crime: NATO Deliberately Destroyed Libya's Water Infrastructure

    Mina | Apr 20, 2017 2:11:57 AM | 29
    #27: they DO care a lot. you see the positive results of their military campaign, when people have none of these. like in Egypt, KSA, Jordan and all the major allies.

    As of today, 40 mass graves have been discovered in Kassai (Congo Kinshasa=DRC) and 2 UN inspectors sent to enquire there were killed ten days ago. But who cares?

    Mina | Apr 20, 2017 2:18:23 AM | 30
    Mike, in Libya France has had a hand in two camps: with Haftar when in relation with some military deals with the Gulf but from the start, when it comes to their MB business plan, with the Benghazi militias
    http://international.minbarlibya.com/2016/11/06/french-emirati-airbase-in-libya-supporting-khalifa-haftar-operations/
    http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2016/07/21/u-n-sanctioned-libyan-military-helicopter-containing-french-troops-crashes-in-libya/
    claudio | Apr 20, 2017 2:50:12 PM | 31
    b, the name of the italian city is LUCCA
    Curtis | Apr 20, 2017 2:53:09 PM | 32
    Mina 30
    I believe the initial oil deals the NTC signed were with France. But according to this, Qatar played a part, too.

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/aug/25/libya-oil-deals-transparent-scrutiny

    In that article, it's funny to think of the NTC wanting to bring back foreign oil workers after how they treated them especially the blacks from neighboring countries. Foreigners like that couple who sold Libya cleaning products had to face al Qaeda so they might not be eager to return. But that was 2011. The current status sounds mixed.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/15/libya-national-army-oil-ports-sidra-ras-lanuf-russia-us

    In one of the books I read, there was a Libyan plan with the Chinese (and Russians?) to build a railway connecting Tripoli, Sirte, and Tobruk. But that ended with Gaddhafi gone.

    Sabotage | Apr 20, 2017 3:03:51 PM | 33
    It seems WWIII has just started. Sorry boys, no Pax Germana for you. Again.
    #Crymeariver.
    Tudaloo!

    [Apr 20, 2017] Bill Binney explodes the Russia witchhunt

    Mar 04, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    He also exposes the NSA penchant for "swindles", such as preventing the plugging of holes in software around the world, to preserve their spying access.

    Frank Oak 3 weeks ago Big Mike's boat 200 tons coke bust n Hussien on the run as cosmic Camelots​ crimes going viral

    Marija Djuric 3 weeks ago Bill Binney should be head of the NSA

    Nancy M 3 weeks ago The Clinton campaign to divert attention to Russia instead of her myriad of crimes that were revealed during the election must be stopped and the alt media needs to start talking about her and Obama's crimes again and demand justice...control the dialogue

    John 3 weeks ago It's almost comical to hear that they lie to each other. No wonder why these retards in the mid-east and every other third world country gets the better of us.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Bill Maher Interviews Bill Binney NSA Whistleblower Obama Worst Than Bush! Impeach Them ALL!

    Apr 20, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    Alex B 8 months ago

    This man is definitely a patriot in the strictest sense

    > > > > > > > > > > > >

    [Apr 20, 2017] NSA Whistleblower Everyone in US under virtual surveillance, all info stored, no matter the post

    Notable quotes:
    "... Who knew that the NSA mandate *is to exceed their mandate" ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    Ethercruiser 11 year ago

    Great interview, thanks RT. I knew most of the material in this interview for years now, but it's good for it to get out whatever way possible. Hope you continue doing more such great interviews.

    jake gittes 1 year ago

    RT? Imagine the Russian equivalent? Golly, NSA out of control? Who knew? Who knew that the NSA mandate *is to exceed their mandate" .

    If you were in prison for the last 15 yrs you would know that NSA security in triplicate is just doing what they've always been doing except that PRISM, restarted in 2007, is just updated software.

    Jim Jimmy 2 years ago

    there is one main reason they collect all information and target everyone, even members of congress and people like Angela merkel. If they have personal information on these powerful people there comes the chance to blackmail them. "vote this way on this" "consent to this policy". It's political leverage

    Fighting Words 3 weeks ago

    It's called POLICE STATE.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Oliver Stone Rages Against The Deep States Wonderful Job Of Throwing America Into Chaos

    Notable quotes:
    "... I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still mired. ..."
    "... It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals ..."
    "... well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after. ..."
    "... his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new american century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut out of hand. ..."
    "... Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered naive. ..."
    "... Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost control. ..."
    "... We were all deceived by a great, maybe brilliant, actor. ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    In March of last year, Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone warned the world :

    "we're going to war - either hybrid in nature...or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this, but they don't because our media is dumbed down in its 'Pravda'-like support for our 'respectable', highly aggressive government."

    And strongly rejected the establishment's "the Russians are coming" narrative shortly after the election and correctly forecast that it wouldn't be long before the deep state pushed Trump into an anti-Kremlin position...

    "As much as we may disagree with Donald Trump (and I do) he's right now target number one of the MSM propaganda -- until, that is, he changes to the anti-Kremlin track over, God knows, some kind of petty dispute cooked up by CIA, and in his hot-headed way starts fighting with the Russians ...

    I never thought I'd find myself at this point in time praying for the level-headedness of a Donald Trump . "

    Stone was correct and in a Facebook post tonight expresses his disappointment at Trump and disgust for The Deep State (and America's wilful ignorance).

    "So It Goes"

    I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still mired.

    It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals -- and he's being praised for it by our 'liberal' media who continue to play at war so recklessly. What a tortured bind we're in. There are intelligent people in Washington/New York, but they've lost their minds as they've been stampeded into a Syrian-Russian groupthink, a consensus without asking -- 'Who benefits from this latest gas attack?' Certainly neither Assad nor Putin. The only benefits go to the terrorists who initiated the action to stave off their military defeat.

    It was a desperate gamble, but it worked because the Western media immediately got behind it with crude propagandizing about murdered babies , etc. No real investigation or time for a UN chemical unit to establish what happened, much less find a motive. Why would Assad do something so stupid when he's clearly winning the civil war?

    No, I believe America has decided somewhere, in the crises of the Trump administration, that we will get into this war at any cost, under any circumstances -- to, once again, change the secular regime in Syria, which has been, from the Bush era on, one of the top goals -- next to Iran -- of the neoconservatives. At the very least, we will cut out a chunk of northeastern Syria and call it a State.

    Abetted by the Clintonites, they've done a wonderful job throwing America into chaos with probes into Russia's alleged hacking of our election and Trump being their proxy candidate (now clearly disproved by his bombing attack) -- and sadly, worst of all in some ways, admitting no memory of the same false flag incident in 2013, for which again Assad was blamed (see Seymour Hersh's fascinating deconstruction of this US propaganda, 'London Review of Books' December 19, 2013, "Whose sarin?"). No memory, no history, no rules -- or rather 'American rules.'

    No, this isn't an accident or a one-off affair. This is the State deliberately misinforming the public through its corporate media and leads us to believe, as Mike Whitney points out in his brilliant analyses, "Will Washington Risk WW3" and "Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road," that something far more sinister waits in the background .

    Mike Whitney, Robert Parry, and former intelligence officer Phil Giraldi all comment below. It's well worth 30 minutes of your time to read. Lastly, below is a link to Bruce Cumings's "Nation" analysis of North Korea, as he again reminds us of the purposes of studying history.

    Can we wake up before it's too late? I for one feel like the John Wayne veteran (of war) character in "Fort Apache," riding with the arrogant Custer-like General (Henry Fonda) to his doom. My country, my country, my heart aches for thee.

    FIAT CON -> knukles •Apr 19, 2017 8:22 PM

    Everything is finite on this planet except the US$, I can't see how believing this will cause any trouble. /s

    gregga777 -> SallySnyd •Apr 19, 2017 7:44 PM

    "One has to wonder how many fronts Congress thinks that the American military complex can fight and win wars?"

    The truth is that America, as a deliberate policy, does not win wars. Dragging out wars (e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) produces far greater revenues and profits for the War Profiteers and Merchants of Death that control United States foreign policy. They all deserve bullets to the back of the neck for their evil takeover of the United States and their willingness to sacrifice the lives of millions of people to their evil, illegal and Unconstitutional Wars of Aggression.

    VIS MAIOR -> gregga777 •Apr 19, 2017 7:53 PM

    135 000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/vietnam-american-holocaust/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties ... 1000 years ban for usa on OL games and other + forever ban on all --

    they kill own 135 000 + thousand more after in usa from depresions, alchdrugs.. + 4 milions !!!! asians what fuckretard nations cancer is usa ..

    please delete usa from this planet ..PLEASE

    Tothguy1948 -> Savyindallas •Apr 19, 2017 11:43 PM

    well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after.

    yeah, i've come to see him as a bit of fatuous idiot in some interviews, he sure has got his own achille's heel and hasn't offered every last truth on the subject, but who has done more to popularize critical thinking and research on it than him? i'm forever grateful for that

    his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new american century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut out of hand.

    Let it Go •Apr 19, 2017 8:12 PM

    Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered naive. To many people America is more than a little hypocritical when they criticize other countries for trying to gain influence considering our history of meddling in the affairs of other countries.

    Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost control.

    http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2017/04/psychological-warfare-and-propaganda.html

    peterk •Apr 19, 2017 8:50 PM

    trump is perhaps the best president for the deep state...... a president who doesn't really care about anything too much.

    he has been a carefree billionaire playboy all his life, never gets to involved in any fight, as he isnt all that bright, so he just

    moves along when things get tough.

    he betrayed the USA

    Anonymous IX •Apr 19, 2017 9:46 PM

    A very simple question.

    Why has Trump completely reneged on his promise to stay out of foreign wars and regime change? Not only Syria but Yemen. Why has Trump placed the U.S. in a needless confrontation with Russia? Before the election, he spoke about establishing strong economic relations with other countries in favor of the U.S.

    Part of making "American Great Again" involves staying out of foreign wars which do not concern us and using our monies to re-educate and protect the diminishing American worker.

    Mr. Stone is right.

    Akhenaten II -> Anonymous IX •Apr 20, 2017 12:44 AM

    Trump works for Israel and the jewish mob. Always has.

    We were all deceived by a great, maybe brilliant, actor. The only saving grace is that this play is nearing its last act before they knock the entire theatre down, to be abandoned like the Coliseum.

    [Apr 19, 2017] Bannons Worldview Dissecting the Message of The Fourth Turning

    This four seasons theory looks to me like some king of amateur dialectics...
    80 years is close to Kondratiev cycles length.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Stephen K. Bannon has great admiration for a provocative but disputed theory of history that argues that the United States is nearing a crisis that could be just as disruptive and catastrophic as the most seminal global turning points of the last 250 years. ..."
    "... This prophecy, which is laid out in a 1997 book, "The Fourth Turning," by two amateur historians, makes the case that world events unfold in predictable cycles of roughly 80 years each that can be divided into four chapters, or turnings: growth, maturation, entropy and destruction. Western societies have experienced the same patterns for centuries, the book argues, and they are as natural and necessary as spring, summer, fall and winter. ..."
    "... In an interview with The Times, Mr. Bannon said, "Everything President Trump is doing - all of it - is to get ahead of or stop any potential crisis." But the magnitude of this crisis - and who is ultimately responsible for it - is an unknown that Mr. Trump can use to his political advantage. This helps explain Mr. Trump's tendency to emphasize crime rates, terrorist attacks and weak border control. ..."
    "... We should shed and simplify the federal government in advance of the Crisis by cutting back sharply on its size and scope but without imperiling its core infrastructure. ..."
    "... One of the authors' major arguments is that Western society - particularly American culture - has denied the significance of cyclical patterns in history in favor of the more palatable and self-serving belief that humans are on an inexorable march toward improvement. They say this allows us to gloss over the flaws in human nature that allow for bad judgment - and bad leaders that drive societies into decline. ..."
    "... The authors envision a return to a more traditional, conservative social order as one outcome of a crisis. They also see the possibility of retribution and punishment for those who resist or refuse to comply with the new expectations for conformity. Mr. Trump's "with us or against us" attitude raises questions about what kind of leader he would be in such a crisis - and what kind of loyalty his administration might demand. ..."
    Apr 19, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    Stephen K. Bannon has great admiration for a provocative but disputed theory of history that argues that the United States is nearing a crisis that could be just as disruptive and catastrophic as the most seminal global turning points of the last 250 years.

    This prophecy, which is laid out in a 1997 book, "The Fourth Turning," by two amateur historians, makes the case that world events unfold in predictable cycles of roughly 80 years each that can be divided into four chapters, or turnings: growth, maturation, entropy and destruction. Western societies have experienced the same patterns for centuries, the book argues, and they are as natural and necessary as spring, summer, fall and winter.

    Few books have been as central to the worldview of Mr. Bannon, a voracious reader who tends to see politics and policy in terms of their place in the broader arc of history.

    But what does the book tell us about how Mr. Bannon is approaching his job as President Trump's chief strategist and what he sees in the country's future? Here are some excerpts from the book, with explanations from The New York Times.

    'Winter Is Coming,' and We'd Better Be Prepared

    History is seasonal, and winter is coming. The very survival of the nation will feel at stake. Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, one commensurate with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World War II. The risk of catastrophe will be high. The nation could erupt into insurrection or civil violence, crack up geographically, or succumb to authoritarian rule.

    The "Fourth Turning" authors, William Strauss and Neil Howe, started using that phrase before it became a pop culture buzzword courtesy of HBO's "Game of Thrones." But, as the authors point out, some winters are mild. And sometimes they arrive late. The best thing to do, they say, is to prepare for what they wrote will be "America's next rendezvous with destiny."

    In an interview with The Times, Mr. Bannon said, "Everything President Trump is doing - all of it - is to get ahead of or stop any potential crisis." But the magnitude of this crisis - and who is ultimately responsible for it - is an unknown that Mr. Trump can use to his political advantage. This helps explain Mr. Trump's tendency to emphasize crime rates, terrorist attacks and weak border control.

    The 'Deconstruction of the Administrative State,' and Much More, Is Inevitable

    The Fourth Turning will trigger a political upheaval beyond anything Americans could today imagine. New civic authority will have to take root, quickly and firmly - which won't be easy if the discredited rules and rituals of the old regime remain fully in place. We should shed and simplify the federal government in advance of the Crisis by cutting back sharply on its size and scope but without imperiling its core infrastructure.

    The rhythmic, seasonal nature of history that the authors identify foresees an inevitable period of decay and destruction that will tear down existing social and political institutions. Mr. Bannon has famously argued that the overreaching and ineffective federal government - "the administrative state," as he calls it - needs to be dismantled. And Mr. Trump, he said, has just begun the process.

    As Mr. Howe said in an interview with The Times: "There has to be a period in which we tear down everything that is no longer functional. And if we don't do that, it's hard to ever renew anything. Forests need fires, and rivers need floods. These happen for a reason."

    'The American Dream Is Dead'

    James Truslow Adams (wrote) of an 'American Dream' to refer to this civic faith in linear advancement. Time, they suggested, was the natural ally of each successive generation. Thus arose the dogma of an American exceptionalism, the belief that this nation and its people had somehow broken loose from any risk of cyclical regress . Yet the great weakness of linear time is that it obliterates time's recurrence and thus cuts people off from the eternal - whether in nature, in each other, or in ourselves.

    One of the authors' major arguments is that Western society - particularly American culture - has denied the significance of cyclical patterns in history in favor of the more palatable and self-serving belief that humans are on an inexorable march toward improvement. They say this allows us to gloss over the flaws in human nature that allow for bad judgment - and bad leaders that drive societies into decline.

    Though he probably did not intentionally invoke Mr. Strauss and Mr. Howe, Mr. Trump was channeling their thesis when he often said during his campaign, "The American dream is dead." One of the scenarios the book puts forward is one in which leaders who emerge during a crisis can revive and rebuild dead institutions. Mr. Trump clearly saw himself as one of these when he said his goal would be to bring back the American dream.

    Conform, or Else

    In a Fourth Turning, the nation's core will matter more than its diversity. Team, brand, and standard will be new catchwords. Anyone and anything not describable in those terms could be shunted aside - or worse. Do not isolate yourself from community affairs . If you don't want to be misjudged, don't act in a way that might provoke Crisis-era authority to deem you guilty. If you belong to a racial or ethnic minority, brace for a nativist backlash from an assertive (and possibly authoritarian) majority.

    The authors envision a return to a more traditional, conservative social order as one outcome of a crisis. They also see the possibility of retribution and punishment for those who resist or refuse to comply with the new expectations for conformity. Mr. Trump's "with us or against us" attitude raises questions about what kind of leader he would be in such a crisis - and what kind of loyalty his administration might demand.

    [Apr 19, 2017] Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell: Russian meddling in US election is the political equivalent of 9/11

    Really agitated Hillary supporter and a member of coup d'ιtat against Trump/
    Notable quotes:
    "... "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11." ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.businessinsider.com

    Evidence that Russia attempted to sway the outcome of the presidential election with a hacking campaign targeting Democrats "is the political equivalent of 9/11," the former acting director of the CIA, Michael Morell, said in an interview published Monday.

    Morell, an intelligence analyst who served as acting director of the CIA twice between 2011 and 2013, told The Cipher Brief that revelations disclosed in a new CIA report about how Russia meddled in the election to help get Donald Trump elected "is an attack on our very democracy."

    "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11."

    [Apr 19, 2017] Ex-CIA Director's kill Russians in Syria comment reveals neocon influence

    Looks like the former CIA Director Michael Morell is kind of "inside CIA" chickenhawk. Never was in field operations
    Notable quotes:
    "... Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly. ..."
    "... Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning? ..."
    "... What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it. ..."
    "... What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him. ..."
    "... Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. ..."
    "... You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war. ..."
    "... Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria? ..."
    "... The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Op-Edge 'Ex-CIA Director's 'kill Russians in Syria' comment reveals neocon influence' Published time: 13 Aug, 2016 12:53 Edited time: 14:38

    I want to scare Assad Mike Morell (Aug 8, 2016) Charlie Rose

    Former CIA Director Michael Morell sparked uproar when he said in an interview on Charlie Rose that Russians and Iranians should be killed in Syria. Was the provocative statement an effort to promote himself as the new CIA Director under Hillary Clinton?

    Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly.

    "We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria, we need to make the Russians pay a price," Morell told a stunned Charlie Rose, who asked if that means killing Iranians and Russians. Morell answered "Yes," saying the killings should be done "convertly" but done in such way that "Moscow would get the message."

    Two former CIA officials turned whistleblowers, Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou, appeared on RT's "Watching the Hawks" program to give their analysis on the disturbing comments, as well as other tantalizing bits of information.

    'Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' says ex-CIA chief backing #Clintonhttps://t.co/qd21Klts2Npic.twitter.com/Otcuwniwxw

    - RT America (@RT_America) August 9, 2016

    RT (Tyrel Ventura): Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning?

    John Kiriakou: This is the exception. It's not the norm. Even under George W. Bush when the CIA wanted to initiate or institute a policy or program that would result in the killing of foreign nationals, my God, we went to the UN Security Council and asked for a vote. What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it.

    Ray McGovern: What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him.

    JK: I worked closely with Mike Morell for several years in CIA headquarters. Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. It's emblematic of what has happened with what I like to think is a neoconservative takeover of CIA policy. You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war.

    #WatchingTheHawks SoundCloud Episode 44.2 is here of our best segments! @TabethaWatching@TyrelWatchinghttps://t.co/dxYcjCww42

    - RT America (@RT_America) August 13, 2016

    RT (Tabetha Wallace): Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria?

    JK: It doesn't, it can't and it won't. This whole idea that he espoused on the Charlie Rose show will not come to pass. If Mike Morell were serious about this, if this were something that Hillary Clinton would seriously consider, it would be kept so secret and so private that even inside the CIA 99 percent of employees wouldn't know anything about it. So for him to just go on TV and dramatically say this is what he would do it's just grandstanding.

    This is such an obviously transparent bid by Michael Morell to be the CIA Director under a Hillary Clinton administration... This is a political ploy by him that is not thought through at all - Gareth Porter, investigative journalist, to RT in a separate interview.

    RT (Tyrel Ventura): Why do you think Morell is getting on TV and grandstanding like that? What is his motivation for doing this?

    RM: He's not the only one. There are others who are candidates to be head of the CIA or other high positions. The whole thing is so vacuous. Charlie Rose has had this guy on 11 times in the last two years. They never question the unspoken premises. I mean, Hello? Why does Bashar al-Assad have to go? Is he a threat to the United States? No. Then why does he have to go? It's very simple. The neocons want him to go. Why do the neocons want him to go? The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it.

    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

    [Apr 19, 2017] A Lawless Plan to Target Syrias Allies by Ray McGovern

    Notable quotes:
    "... (Emphasis added) ..."
    "... And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that. ..."
    "... And here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. ..."
    "... (Emphasis added) ..."
    "... "Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have, and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right. But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was the way people interpreted it." ..."
    "... Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism." ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: Official Washington's disdain for international law – when it's doing the lawbreaking – was underscored by ex-CIA acting director Morell voicing plans for murdering Iranians and maybe Russians in Syria, ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern says.

    On Aug. 17, TV interviewer Charlie Rose gave former acting CIA Director Michael Morell a "mulligan" for an earlier wayward drive on Aug. 8 that sliced deep into the rough and even stirred up some nonviolent animals by advocating the murder of Russians and Iranians. But, alas, Morell duffed the second drive, too.

    Morell did so despite Rose's efforts to tee up the questions as favorably as possible, trying to help Morell explain what he meant about "killing" Russians and Iranians in Syria and bombing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad into submission.

    Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.

    In the earlier interview, Morell said he wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. make the Russians pay a price in Syria."

    Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"

    Morell: "Yeah."

    Rose: "And killing Iranians?"

    Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran."

    In the follow-up interview , some of Rose's fretful comments made it clear that there are still some American non-neocons around who were withholding applause for Morell's belligerent suggestion.

    Rose apparently has some viewers who oppose all terrorism, including the state-sponsored variety that would involve a few assassinations to send a message, and the notion that U.S. bombing Syria to "scare" Assad is somehow okay (as long as the perpetrator is the sole "indispensable" nation in the world).

    Rose helped Morell 'splain that he really did not want to have U.S. Special Forces kill Russians and Iranians. No, he would be satisfied if the U.S.-sponsored "moderate opposition" in Syria did that particular killing. But Morell would not back away from his advocacy of the U.S. Air Force bombing Syrian government targets. That would be "an okay thing" in Morell's lexicon.

    The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." That would seem to cover Morell's plan.

    But Morell seems oblivious to international law and to the vast human suffering already inflicted in Syria over the past five years by government forces, rebels, terrorists and outside nations trying to advance one geopolitical goal or another.

    What is needed is a serious commitment to peace talks without unacceptable preconditions, such as outside demands for "regime change." Instead, the focus should be on creating conditions for Syrians to make that choice themselves through elections or power-sharing negotiations.

    Morell prefers to think that a few more U.S.-directed murders and some more aerial-inflicted mayhem should do the trick. Perhaps he thinks that's the sort of tough-guy/gal talk that will impress a prospective President Hillary Clinton.

    A Slight Imprecision?

    Charlie Rose begins the "mulligan" segment with the suggestion that Morell might have slightly misspoken: "Tell me what you wanted to say so we understand it Tell me what you meant to say perhaps you did not speak as precisely as you should have or I didn't ask the right questions."

    TV interviewer Charlie Rose.

    Morell responded, "No, no, Charlie, you always ask the right questions," and then he presented his killing plan as a route to peace, albeit one in which the United States dictates "regime change" in Syria: "So there's not a military solution to this, there is only a political solution. And that political solution is, in my view, a transition of power from Assad to a, a, a transitional government that represents all of the Syrian people.

    "That is only going to happen if Assad wants it to happen, if Russia wants it to happen, if Iran wants it to happen. So we need to increase our leverage over those three people and countries, in order to get them more interested in having a conversation about a transition to a new government.

    "And sometimes you use military force for military ends. Sometimes you use military force to give you political leverage. So what I tried to say was, Look, we need to find some ways to put some pressure on Assad, or put some pressure on Russia, and put some pressure on Iran. Now, with regard to Russia and Iran, what I said was, what I wanted to say was: Look, the moderate opposition, which the United States is supporting (everybody knows that, right?), the moderate opposition is already fighting the Syrian government, and they're already fighting Russians and Iranians.

    "So the Syrian military, supported by Russia and the Iranians, is fighting the moderate opposition. And the moderate opposition is already killing Iranians and Syrians. What, what I said is that's an okay thing, right, because it puts pressure on Iran and Russia to try to see some value in ending this thing politically. And what I said is that we should encourage the moderate opposition to continue to do that and perhaps get a lot more aggressive." (Emphasis added)

    Rose: "You weren't suggesting that the United States should do that, but the moderate forces on the ground."

    Morell: "And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that.

    "So that's Russia and Iran. Now, Assad. How do you put some pressure on Assad, right? And here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. So, in the middle of the night you destroy one of his offices; you don't kill anybody, right, zero collateral. You do this with the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists . (Emphasis added)

    "You take out his presidential aircraft, his presidential helicopters, in the middle of the night, right, just to send him a message and get his attention that, that maybe your days are numbered here, just to put some pressure on him to think about maybe, maybe the need to think about a way out of this.

    "Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have, and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right. But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was the way people interpreted it."

    Acts of Illegal War

    Not to put too fine a point on this, but everything that Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism."

    Video of the Russian SU-24 exploding in flames inside Syrian territory after it was shot down by Turkish air-to-air missiles on Nov. 24, 2015.

    Remember, after the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014, when Russia intervened to allow Crimea to hold a referendum on splitting away from the new regime in Kiev and rejoining Russia, the U.S. government insisted that there was no excuse for President Vladimir Putin not respecting the sovereignty of the coup regime even if it had illegally ousted an elected president.

    However, regarding Syria, the United States and its various "allies," including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, have intervened directly and indirectly in supporting various armed groups, including Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, seeking the violent overthrow of Syria's government.

    Without any legal authorization from the United Nations, President Barack Obama has ordered the arming and training of anti-government rebels (including some who have fought under Nusra's command structure ), has carried out airstrikes inside Syria (aimed at Islamic State militants), and has deployed U.S. Special Forces inside Syria with Kurdish rebels.

    Now, a former senior U.S. intelligence official is publicly urging bombing of Syrian government targets and the killing of Iranians and Russians who are legally inside Syria at the invitation of the internationally recognized government. In other words, not only does the U.S. government operate with breathtaking hypocrisy in the Syrian crisis, but it functions completely outside international law.

    And, Morell says that in attacking Syrian government targets - supposedly without causing any deaths - the United States would employ "the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists," except those rules of engagement explicitly seek to kill targeted individuals. So, what kind of dangerously muddled thinking do we have here?

    One can only imagine the reaction if some Russian version of Morell went on Moscow TV and urged the murder of U.S. military trainers operating inside Ukraine – to send a message to Washington. And then, the Russian Morell would advocate Russia bombing Ukrainian government targets in Kiev with the supposed goal of forcing the U.S.-backed government to accept a "regime change" acceptable to Moscow.

    A Fawning Audition

    Rather than calls for him to be locked up or at least decisively repudiated, the American Morell was allowed to continue his fawning audition for a possible job in a Hillary Clinton administration by extolling her trustworthiness and "humanity."

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

    Morell offered a heartwarming story about how compassionate Clinton was as Secretary of State when he lost out to John Brennan to be the fulltime CIA Director. After he was un-picked for the job, Morell said he was in the White House Situation Room and Clinton, "sat down next to me, put her hand on my shoulder, and she simply said, 'Are you okay?' There is humanity there, and I think the public needs to know."

    And, Clinton was a straight-shooter, too, Morell explained: "You know, it's interesting, Charlie, I worked with her for four years. Leon Panetta, David Petraeus worked with her for four years. We trusted her word; we trusted her judgment. You know, [CIA] Director Panetta, [CIA] Director Petraeus, I provided her with some of the most sensitive information that the CIA collects and she never gave us one reason to doubt how she was handling that. You know, she spoke to us forthrightly. I trust her word and I trust her judgment."

    Can Morell be unaware that Clinton repeatedly put highly sensitive intelligence on her very vulnerable private email server along with other data that later investigations determined should have been marked SECRET, TOP SECRET, CODEWORD, and/or SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS?

    FBI Director James Comey, in announcing that he would not recommend prosecuting Clinton for compromising these secrets, called her behavior "extremely careless."

    For his part, Charlie Rose offered a lament about how hard it is for Clinton to convey her "humanity" and how deserving she is of trust. He riffed on the Biblical passage about those who can be trusted in small matters (like sitting down next to Morell, putting her hand on his shoulder, and asking him if he is okay) can be trusted on big matters, too.

    My Travails With Charlie

    Twelve years ago, I was interviewed by Charlie Rose, with the other interviewee (who participated remotely) James Woolsey, former head of the CIA (1993-95), arch-neocon, and self-described "anchor the Presbyterian wing of JINSA " (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).

    The occasion was the New York premier of Robert Greenwald's full-length film version of his documentary, "Uncovered: the Whole Truth About the Iraq War," in which I had a small part and which described the many falsehoods that had been used by President George W. Bush and his neocon advisers, to justify invading Iraq. Woolsey did not like the film, and Greenwald asked me to take the Rose invitation that had originally been extended to him.

    True to form, Charlie Rose knew on which side his bread was buttered, and it wasn't mine. He was his usual solicitous self when dealing with an "important" personage, such as Woolsey. I was going to count the minutes apportioned to me and compare them with those given to Woolsey, but I decided to spare myself the trouble.

    The last time I checked the Aug. 20, 2004 video is available for purchase but I refuse to pay for it. Fortunately, a friend taped and uploaded the audio onto YouTube. It might be worth a listen on a slow summer day 12 years after my travails with Charlie.

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

    [Apr 19, 2017] Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    TG , April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT \n

    300 Words An interesting article. A few random thoughts.
    1. "Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death" – Otto von Bismarck.
    2. In general I agree and wish that the United States military would be more defensive and waste fewer resources attacking irrelevant nations on the other side of the world. But. It is nevertheless true that "defensive" Russia has been invaded and devastated multiple times, and the United States has not. Perhaps creating chaos on the other side of the world is long-term not quite so ineffective as sitting around waiting for an attack?
    3. The American elites are simply corrupt and insane/don't care about the long-term. At every level – companies taking out massive loans to buy back their stock to boost CEO bonuses, loading up college students with massive unplayable debt so that university administrators can get paid like CEOs, drug prices going through the roof, etc.etc. Military costs will never be as efficient as civilian, war is expensive, but the US has gotten to the point where there is no financial accountability, it's all about the right people grabbing as much money as possible.

      To make more money you just add another zero at the end of the price tag. At some point the costs will become so inflated and divorced from reality that we will be unable to afford anything And the right people will take their loot and move to New Zealand and wring their hands at how the lazy Americans were not worthy of their brilliant leadership

    [Apr 19, 2017] How Liberals Fell In Love With The West Wing

    Notable quotes:
    "... House of Cards ..."
    "... The Thick of It ..."
    "... The Thick of It ..."
    "... The Thick of It ..."
    "... The Thick of It ..."
    Apr 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    voteforno6 , April 17, 2017 at 7:58 am

    Re: How Liberals Fell In Love With The West Wing

    I'm not surprised at all that the professional Democrats out there view American politics as an extended episode of The West Wing . It should come as no surprise, considering the impact that 24 had on the views that many have about torture.

    As far as politics-based TV shows go, The West Wing isn't bad, and is probably a little less ridiculous than the American version of House of Cards . Neither one of them is good as the Danish TV show Borgen , though.

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 17, 2017 at 8:59 am

    The West Wing isn't bad?

    -Rob Lowe had the relationship with the hooker who was nympho and made lots of money while she went to prestigious law school so it was okay. The hero Is really helping her. And Lowe's liberalism meant she didn't take his money.
    -the mindless support for free trade; "trade stops wars"
    -the Supreme Court nominee situation; hey let's get one guy who thinks guys should marry called Rodriguez and one guy who makes. Hitler look emphatic and call it a day because centrism is great!
    -Sheen did Welfare reform
    -Lawrence O'Donnell. He didn't become insufferable on MSNBC. His episodes were the worst.
    -the moderate Republican fetish
    -"smart wars"
    -an insane portrayal of deficit hawks as reasonable

    The show was garbage. The joke is "who is the office Jonah?" On "The West Wing", they were all Jonah. The Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama Administration were the West Wing put into action.

    Pat , April 17, 2017 at 10:36 am

    Admission, I loved the West Wing. I also enjoyed 24. In particular, West Wing is a joy for self admitted acting addict. And yes it played to my sensibilities, but even I began to realize that the episodes that meant the most to me, the ones that really resonated and stayed with me were the ones where the underlying issue was not solved or changed by working in the White House who most of the time just put on a bandage on it for themselves (and the viewers). So Veterans still didn't get their benefits and the care of a "grateful nation" but a funeral, drunk drivers still kill, etc. And on return to it a decade later, things like how crazy the voters are, and only a really smart staffer can realize that they are not seeing the real problem for the trees began to grate unbearably.

    Oh, and NTG, don't forget the Rob Lowe character was the speech writer for many of the Bartlett early speeches, which when you think about it is the prototype for the Obama administration talk pretty about things and dazzle them before failing to change anything prototype. He also later ran for Congress, loses and becomes a highly paid lawyer (because?) only to give it up to become the Deputy Chief of Staff of the first Latino President. (And maybe I am the only one who can see so much wrong with that.)

    diptherio , April 17, 2017 at 11:32 am

    I also enjoyed 24.

    That's the show where an American Patriot saves the day through torture, right? No accounting for taste, I suppose .

    craazyboy , April 17, 2017 at 11:42 am

    Sure, but Kiefer William Frederick Dempsey George Rufus Sutherland took it nearly as often as he dished it out. And it was him against a world full of bad guys.

    Good series, you just need to remind yourself it's only the TeeBee.

    FYI – This is really his full name!

    Kiefer William Frederick Dempsey George Rufus Sutherland

    Pat , April 17, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    I'm a fan of whodunnits and 24 was at its base a whodunnit/stop them before they can do more, and a well crafted one at that. The thing is that the one season I watched it, there was far less torture in it than probably one fifth of a season of Criminal Minds. Now CM does supposedly make the case the torturer is a criminal, but when it comes to torture porn (like the movies SAW) CM is near the top on television. And torture is one of those things that many people do find entertaining though they vocally condemn it. And most have not thought out the larger political and social implications of it. We are savage creatures with a veneer. Where 24 and Zero Dark Thirty are detrimental is they make people think torture actually works in real life rather than in fantasy.

    jrs , April 17, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    or life in this society is so boring and unrewarding that people need ever more violence (fictional OR real) to entertain themselves. Granted people have always liked stories with violence, but it probably does play in.

    witters , April 17, 2017 at 7:09 pm

    And if you are an atheist getting off on the righteous violence, then go the whole hog, and embrace Hell Fire & Eternal Damnation. (Or stop saying people who do are dumb, when they are just you, a step further.)

    Musicismath , April 17, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    Yeah, I nodded along to that article, but was surprised that it didn't connect the dots between liberals' love of war, sorry, "humanitarian intervention" and the appalling post-9/11 "West Wing" episodes. As we say around these parts, those storylines were "wonderfully clarifying."

    Carolinian , April 17, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    With you. Phooey on Aaron Sorkin and all his works.

    montanamaven , April 17, 2017 at 12:54 pm

    "The Newsroom" was like "The West Wing" a fantasy version of the real deal. But embedded in both fantasies was the same embrace of the exceptionalism of the USA, USA, USA. American politics should only be dished out to us in comedic form like the first two years of VEEP. If you want to get a funny view of our class system and urban versus rural dynamics, and just want a good laugh, watch "Schitts Creek" starring Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy.

    Pat , April 17, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    Anyone who has given money to a Sorkin production has largely gotten that (although less for his television industry set pieces), it is a feature of his work along with the soaring emotional speech by the lead. Don't forget that Sorkin's first big work had the following speech (delivered in typical style by Jack Nicholson in the movie):

    You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
    We use words like honor, code, loyalty we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 17, 2017 at 9:20 am

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/03/the-feel-good-presidency/302138/

    Annotherone , April 17, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    From the West Wing article:
    "The West Wing "took something that was for the most part considered dry and nerdy-especially to people in high school and college-and sexed it up", former David Axelrod advisor Eric Lesser told Vanity Fair in a longform 2012 feature about the "Sorkinization of politics".

    I didn't watch West Wing on TV as I wasn't in the USA during its original airing times, but we bought DVDs of the series and watched it in 2012, by which time I'd become plenty cynical about US politics in general! Looking back, rather than (or as well as) depicting politics' "Sorkinization" I'd say that West Wing = the Hallmark-ization of US politics.

    Plenue , April 17, 2017 at 8:48 pm

    One thing from the article that really stands out to me is where he talks about how the administration in The West Wing doesn't actually seem to stand for (or accomplish) much of anything, and viewers could project their views onto it. Compare this to The Thick of It/In the Loop, where the party of the characters is never specified, only there it's part of the joke. They're just 'The Party' and the other side is 'The Opposition'. Intentionally or not, this has the effect of portraying British politics as filled with parties that aren't actually terribly different internally, and just obsessed with optics and media relations. Both Armando Iannucci and Aaron Sorkin have created shows that portray politics as vapid, empty, and stupid, only Sorkin thinks this is something positive and praiseworthy, that this is how 'serious' politics should be.

    Also, bah, Borgen. I dropped that show after the "we must stay the course in Afghanistan, because reasons" episode.

    Marina Bart , April 17, 2017 at 9:26 pm

    The Thick of It also makes it clear that the intelligent but vicious consultants lead the dim-witted elected officials and party bureaucrats (all of whom went to Oxbridge) around by the nose.

    Literally no one in the world of The Thick of It is both competent and admirable. One episode does suggest that Malcolm Tucker, the famously nasty PR and messaging expert, honestly believes that his party is better for workers and regular people. But there's no way to map his beliefs onto policy. So there's no way to test whether he's a Blairite or an old fashioned Labor dude. (I think it's pretty clear his unnamed party is Labor and the other unnamed Party is the Tories - there's even a season whether that party is in a coalition with another, weaker party that's clearly the Liberals.)

    Of the many, many moments I love from the The Thick of It , I can't decide whether my favorite is the cleaning lady screaming at the idiot aristocrat MP, with Malcolm and his hench (IIRC) stepping in to apologize to her for the idiot aristocrat, or Malcolm's long speech describing Star Wars: https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/5r0klm/malcolm_tucker_describes_star_wars_the_thick_of_it/

    (Warning: Malcolm Tucker's vocabulary is not fit for a family blog - another way The Thick of It is superior to West Wing .)

    [Apr 19, 2017] Wikileaks Hillary Clinton Told Al Qaeda Is On Our Side

    Apr 19, 2017 | www.eutimes.net
    Wikileaks posted an unclassified email to Hillary Clinton from her foreign policy advisor, Jake Sullivan dated February 2012 saying, 'AQ is on our side in Syria'.

    The other part of the email published by Wikileaks read:

    UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05789138 Date: 10/30/2015 AL-ZAWAHIRI URGES MUSLIM SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION (U) Al-Qaida leader al-Zawahiri called on Muslims in Turkey and the Middle East to aid rebel forces in their fight against supporters of Syrian President Asad in an interne video recording. Al-Zawahiri also urged the Syrian people not to rely on the AL, Turkey, or the United States for assistance.Reuters)

    Read the full chain of unclassified emails in that document published by Wikileaks here .

    Source

    [Apr 19, 2017] Russia should be persistent and keep pressuring UNSC for investigation. This must not be swept under the rug.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Will the UN hold U$, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK responsible for this attack which was carried out by their takfiri, jihadist terrorist clients in Syria? ..."
    "... I agree. And if the OPCW refuses to do anything, have Bolivia, and other neutral third parties do the testing. Importantly, let's call those so-called White Helmet guys. Interview them and take the blood samples. ..."
    "... Agree. It's about keeping the momentum going. The more the warmedia avoids the blatant truth, the more people are going to be turned off by their crap. This story among many, must never be buried. Cheers from New Zealand. ..."
    "... Dead children shown only on white helmets videos, not one "rescuer" had correct protective clothing and nobody was affected by poison gas, so there was no gas? But children are dead? Assad was blamed immediately for what reason? The airport was back in use, one day after the attack. 23 Tomahawks hit the airport, 36 Tomahawks went missing? The US media was celebrating this attack which cost the lives of at least 6 people. Surrealistic psychopath behavior - That is the only real fact in this story. ..."
    "... The US is allowed to rain down as many Tomahawks/ Hellfires as they want wherever they want as long as they can get away with it. It is called the law of the jungle. If you are weak don' t complain about it. Get nukes, a strong army and be happy about a favourable geography and maybe a strong ally next to you (as North Korea is/was). ..."
    "... "It is called the law of the jungle". And it works out very satisfactorily as long as you are on top. Less so when someone else turns out to be more powerful, or unscrupulous, or sneaky. ..."
    "... I just have ten fingers so I give up counting the nations the US is having war like actions with. But technically the US has not declared war so it must be at peace right now? ..."
    Apr 19, 2017 | theduran.com
    Melotte 22 , 16 hours ago

    Russia should be persistent and keep pressuring UNSC for investigation. This must not be swept under the rug.

    christianblood Melotte 22 , 14 hours ago

    Well-said!

    In an another note: Will the UN and its so-called 'security council' condemn the horrific and barbaric attack on that took the lives of 126 mainly women and children refugee being evacuated from their villages?

    Will the UN hold U$, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK responsible for this attack which was carried out by their takfiri, jihadist terrorist clients in Syria?

    Tarciso Ribeiro Melotte 22 , 15 hours ago

    yeah, I agree ,if they don't they will keep using and talking about this fake attack even without any proof.

    Toxik Melotte 22 , 5 hours ago

    I agree. And if the OPCW refuses to do anything, have Bolivia, and other neutral third parties do the testing. Importantly, let's call those so-called White Helmet guys. Interview them and take the blood samples.

    Tahau Taua Melotte 22 , 4 hours ago

    Agree. It's about keeping the momentum going. The more the warmedia avoids the blatant truth, the more people are going to be turned off by their crap. This story among many, must never be buried. Cheers from New Zealand.

    Cale , 16 hours ago

    Dead children shown only on white helmets videos, not one "rescuer" had correct protective clothing and nobody was affected by poison gas, so there was no gas? But children are dead? Assad was blamed immediately for what reason? The airport was back in use, one day after the attack. 23 Tomahawks hit the airport, 36 Tomahawks went missing? The US media was celebrating this attack which cost the lives of at least 6 people. Surrealistic psychopath behavior - That is the only real fact in this story.

    Robson Robson -> Cale , 15 hours ago

    The US is allowed to rain down as many Tomahawks/ Hellfires as they want wherever they want as long as they can get away with it. It is called the law of the jungle. If you are weak don' t complain about it. Get nukes, a strong army and be happy about a favourable geography and maybe a strong ally next to you (as North Korea is/was).

    If you let the NeoConNazis (or Israelis, if you are close by) take your nukes you are one step closer to get disposed of (see Lybia, Syria, Iraq). From the 7 countries (as in 7 countries in 5 years) several ones have been already attacked but progress was kinda slow and we haven't seen vibrant democracies yet:

    Ah, let' s start war in a different country, why not in North Korea. What are the odds it could go south?

    tom -> Robson Robson , 14 hours ago

    Actually, the USA is still at war with North Korea, which it invaded in 1950, killing several million of its citizens.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

    Tommy Jensen -> tom , 13 hours ago

    The North Koreans killed 55000 American soldiers and marines in that war without mercy. McCain΄s father was singing like a songbird but the rice eaters hanged him anyway because they were against freedom.

    Robson Robson -> Tommy Jensen , 12 hours ago

    55000 dead americans? Do you know that 55000 Americans are not a lot compared to a total of more then 3 million deaths, most of them civilians? Most north korean cities were leveled by US bomber attacks. There were many massacres with more then 10000 dead civilians - committed by South Korean troops supported by the US. And also many atrocities committed directly by US soldiers.

    Same thing was repeated in Vietnam, except that especially the northern part of Korea was well industrialized so there was a stark contrast when the got bombed back to the stone age.

    Have you ever been to Jeju-Do? It is a cute little island - many South Koreans have spent their honeymoon their. In 1948 the South Korean strongmen president (who has been in exile in the US) made sure that everybody with suspected communist ties went to a camp. And some of these internment camps became death camps and about 20000 Koreans lost their life. Way to go! USA! USA! USA!

    So you stupid racist pig, calling asians rice eaters and crying about 55000 souls while many more people died by their hand: have a look at history and when maybe to think before supporting any kind of stupid war that just benefits the MIC...

    tom -> Robson Robson , 15 hours ago

    "It is called the law of the jungle". And it works out very satisfactorily as long as you are on top. Less so when someone else turns out to be more powerful, or unscrupulous, or sneaky.

    If a major US city were to disappear in a thermonuclear explosion, or to be immersed in a cloud of poison gas or deadly virus, the USA would not have a leg to stand on in protest.

    International law and the UN Charter unambiguously state that the only justified reasons for attacking another country are a UN mandate to use force, or self-defence against a country that has already attacked you. There are no exceptions.

    So we must conclude that the USA is now at war with at least several dozen nations. Go on, count the nations that the USA has attacked with military force since (let's say) 1945.

    Any one (or more) of those nations has the right, under international law, to commit acts of war against the USA. Including (now I come to think of it) North Korea, with whom the USA never agreed a treaty of peace.

    Robson Robson -> tom , 12 hours ago

    I just have ten fingers so I give up counting the nations the US is having war like actions with. But technically the US has not declared war so it must be at peace right now?

    The only wars fought I personally remember are the war on the middle class and the war against Xmas. Maybe also the the war against free speech called political correctness, something I liked about Trump... ;-)

    Tommy Jensen , 13 hours ago

    But Trump succeeded to kill 4 children and 8 civilians in his Tomahawk attack on a Syrian Airport and related village as revenge for a staged fake, while he was crying Assad is "an animal who kill beautyful babies".

    [Apr 19, 2017] American jingoism -- during civil war Both sides considered themselves very patriotic Americans, yet were revved up to kill each other to a total of aboutone million KIA

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 1:59 pm GMT \n

    100 Words @dearieme "Funny patriotism where they're most revved up to kill other Koreans". You could say that of the American "patriots" of 1776 who were revved up to kill fellow Britons. {You could say that of the American "patriots" of 1776 who were revved up to kill fellow Britons.}

    You could also say that about the 4 year long US Civil War.
    Both sides considered themselves very patriotic Americans, yet were revved up to kill each other to a total of about 785,000-1,000,000 KIA. Considering US population was about 20-25 million around then, that was huge number of dead.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the few principled politicians in this case and for that she is marginalized for saying what few others have the moral courage to say. Many on the left are hoping she will run in 2020 for President.

    Notable quotes:
    "... What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he walked into a trap prepared for him by the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could not disobey the military. They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving out American zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states. ..."
    "... Or Trump simply capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. ..."
    "... Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? ..."
    "... Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran? ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

    DB Cooper , April 18, 2017 at 4:13 am GMT

    100 Words This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:

    watch-v=g1VNQGsiP8M

    Carlton Meyer , Website April 18, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT
    Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/

    And why? They've been trying to overthrow Assad since 2005:

    NoldorElf , April 18, 2017 at 5:01 am GMT
    100 Words I am forced to conclude that the neoconservatives and indeed all of Washington DC are eager to go to war. They are just itching for any excuse to start yet another war in a nation of their choosing.

    If there is no good reason, they will make one up. There is an eerie resemblance to what is happening now with Syria and what happened leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

    I think the paleoconservative community also needs to come to terms with the fact that Trump has sold them out and is increasingly acting like a Washington insider neocon. Trump did to the paleoconservatives what Obama did to the left.

    It seems Trump will not put "America First" nor make any attempts to restore the American Middle Class nor American manufacturing to truly "Make American Great Again".

    Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the few principled politicians in this case and for that she is marginalized for saying what few others have the moral courage to say. Many on the left are hoping she will run in 2020 for President.

    Coming from the left, I'd say that the Sanders and Trump base have a lot more in common than we admit. We are both deeply unhappy with the way that Washington has handled things. They basically betrayed the American people and enriched themselves at public expense.

    The real question is, can the US be saved for the people or will it continue on its path to terminal decline?

    utu , April 18, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT
    100 Words Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media?
    Wizard of Oz , April 18, 2017 at 6:17 am GMT
    100 Words What is your view of David Kilcullen, what he knows about, and what his views are worth? No doubt "modified" or " qualified" respect but it is the qualifications and the reasons for them that I am interested in. When I've got round tobfinishing his article saying Assad is desperate and losing I'll probably be back.
    Anon , April 18, 2017 at 6:34 am GMT
    Get a load of this a ** hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.

    He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.

    But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.

    https://youtu.be/AhyD-fPS0vs

    And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis

    These academics are like mafia lawyers.

    The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
    It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.

    And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano

    So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
    They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.

    Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel.

    Brabantian , Website April 18, 2017 at 8:34 am GMT
    600 Words Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -

    Above all because of a very-censored explosive story – a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney & Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' anyone can invite medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/06/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/

    For an overview of the many wider points making clear the false flag, Aangirfan does an excellent job here as she very often does:

    http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/trump-at-war-with-assad-and-putin.html

    (1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened – Tweet , "Tomorrow a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"

    (2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack

    (3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred

    (4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"

    (5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it on Assad's regime' A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot at Aangirfan's page above

    (6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."

    (7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".

    (8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:

    In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only a few days later."

    By way of motive – Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria – Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria.

    Vlad , April 18, 2017 at 9:45 am GMT
    What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he walked into a trap prepared for him by the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could not disobey the military. They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving out American zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states.

    Or Trump simply capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. If that is the case we know now how American is governed, by the military industrial complex that dictates its policy. The sad part is that the Constitution is disregarded once again, that the Liberals who used to be peaceniks, are now cheering for war, that the UN is marginalized, that Trump uses it just as Bush did to justify an illegal war.

    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 10:22 am GMT

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.

    Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for the Assad regime having ordered it .

    Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
    By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton

    Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]

    But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.

    Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm faηade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]

    The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.

    [...]

    Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.

    THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD

    The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.

    This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria

    A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"

    Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position– he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.

    I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence facilities.

    The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.

    For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.

    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 10:25 am GMT
    @Carlton Meyer Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/

    And why? They've been trying to overthrow Assad since 2005:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pm8-vSo4Y4

    Russia was having too much success, they needed to understand that the US is not going to stand by any longer and wait to see. Read More

    AmericaFirstNow , Website April 18, 2017 at 11:19 am GMT
    Jewish AIPAC Israel firster Jared Kushner and his fellow Jewish AIPAC Israel first friends (like Reed Cordish who worked for Israel Lobby lackey Dick Cheney as well) whom he brought into the White House more than likely influenced Trump to push the Israel Lobby agenda vs Syria for regime change to weaken Iran:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2012/02/12/israel-lobby-pushes-for-us-action-against-the-syrian-government/

    More on Kushner and his fellow AIPAC Israel firster at the White House obviously influencing Trump to push the Israel Lobby agenda like he did with Syria as I heard Netanyahu praised the Syriaattack and Pence personally telephoned to thank him:

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/359120/jared-kushners-friend-picked-by-donald-trump-as-assistant/

    Hunsdon , April 18, 2017 at 12:07 pm GMT
    @Sean Russia was having too much success, they needed to understand that the US is not going to stand by any longer and wait to see. INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait.

    anonymous , April 18, 2017 at 1:03 pm GMT
    It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated. Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad.

    Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along?

    Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran?

    No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening.

    Quartermaster , April 18, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT
    @Anon Get a load of this a**hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.

    He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.

    But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyD-fPS0vs

    And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis

    These academics are like mafia lawyers.

    The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
    It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.

    And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano

    So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
    They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.

    Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel. Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia. He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision for Russia which is quite destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem for Russia and has set the country up for a serious fall. Read More LOL: geokat62 Troll: L.K , Rurik

    Quartermaster , April 18, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT
    @Brabantian Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -

    Above all because of a very-censored explosive story - a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney & Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' ... anyone can invite medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/06/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/

    For an overview of the many wider points making clear the false flag, Aangirfan does an excellent job here as she very often does:

    http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/trump-at-war-with-assad-and-putin.html

    (1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened - Tweet , "Tomorrow a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"

    (2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack

    (3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred

    (4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"

    (5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it on Assad's regime' ... A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot at Aangirfan's page above

    (6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama ... [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages ... videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."

    (7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".

    (8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament ... The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:

    In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV ... the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only a few days later."

    By way of motive - Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria - Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria. Sarin is a nerve agent and if that is what was used, gas masks are far less than what is needed to protect anyone.

    I don't see any motivation on Assad's part to stage such an attack. It simply was not in his interest to do so. Trump's action was a knee jerk reaction and stupid. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Agent76 , April 18, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT
    April 07, 2017

    Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of Chemical Weapons

    The Western media refutes their own lies.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/5583784

    Apr 9, 2017

    No More

    Wizard of Oz , April 18, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT
    Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/fighting-islamic-state/sarin-attack-shows-assad-is-desperate-as-jihadist-rebels-gain-ground/news-story/5265dee03a779671aefa32ef8d1a2fb3

    There is no reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom. However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al Qaeda affiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately lacking manpower.

    Does PG subscribe to the popular contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack?

    Clark Westwood , April 18, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT
    Is it possible that Trump and Putin cooked up this little show simply to give Trump more credibility in his approaching confrontation with North Korea?
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT
    @Anon Get a load of this a**hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.

    He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.

    But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyD-fPS0vs

    And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis

    These academics are like mafia lawyers.

    The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
    It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.

    And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano

    So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
    They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.

    Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel. What's the common denominator to these two ??????

    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT
    "Democratic Party liberal interventionists have also joined with Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio to celebrate the cruise missile strike and hardening rhetoric."

    All owned by the likes of http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.631441.1418390491!/image/412181903.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/412181903.jpg Repulsive no?

    Jeff Davis , April 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT
    @utu Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? " picture he found somewhere on social media."

    If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the "evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official story w/official "evidence".

    Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists - the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists - who control that area.

    Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event.

    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT
    @Hunsdon INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait. Well they do not get to set the rules until they are the most powerful state in the world–like the US. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    JoaoAlfaiate , April 18, 2017 at 3:33 pm GMT
    100 Words Remember WMD and Saddam? What did the top papers say after Colin Powell's speech to the UN "proving" that Iraq had WMD?

    New York Times: "[Powell's speech] may not have produced a 'smoking gun," but it left little question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal one."

    Wall Street Journal: "The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable. The only question remaining is whether the U.N. is going to have the courage of Mr. Powell's convictions."

    Washington Post: "To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make "

    "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."
    Joseph Goebbels Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    iffen , April 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT
    @Hunsdon INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait. Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port. Read More

    alexander , April 18, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT
    200 Words @Wizard of Oz Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/fighting-islamic-state/sarin-attack-shows-assad-is-desperate-as-jihadist-rebels-gain-ground/news-story/5265dee03a779671aefa32ef8d1a2fb3

    Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom. However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately lacking manpower.

    Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Hi Wiz,

    I think it is quite clear, that with the assistance of the Russian military, the Syrian army has mounted multiple strategic victories against ISIS over the past year and a half.

    The entry of Russia into the fray, at the request of Syria, provided a very deep reservoir of enhanced military power which has shown to be highly effective in degraded both Al Qaeda and ISIS on multiple fronts.

    It seems as absurd now , as it did in 2013, that Assad would do the ONE THING that would force the hand of the US military to enter the fray against him.

    I also doubt the notion of the Syrian regimes "desperation" given the complete cooperation of Russia in providing any assistance the Syrian army might need , to achieve victory against ISIS.

    One could argue, however ,that Assad is truly "bonehead" stupid.

    You are certainly free to make that argument, Wiz , because, in this case, it seems to be the one that would make the most sense. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    The Alarmist , April 18, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT
    100 Words @Sean

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
    Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for the Assad regime having ordered it .

    Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
    By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
    Purchase Article
    Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...

    But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.

    Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm faηade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]


    The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.

    [...]

    Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.

    THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD

    The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.


    This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria
    A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"

    Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.

    I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence facilities.


    The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.
    For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.

    "The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."

    Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds. Read More

    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT
    @Hunsdon INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait. IOW, the Russians have their own military in their own county guarding their own borders. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT
    @iffen Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port. "Illegal" not.

    Russia was right to accept the legitimate Crimean vote.

    The Crimean voters overwhelmingly approved returning to Russia.

    Democracy personified, the will of the people.

    Leftists hate that. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Ivy , April 18, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT
    See the article by Gaius Publius at Naked Capitalism for a deeper dive.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/gaius-publius-new-evidence-syrian-gas-story-fabricated-white-house.html Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT
    @utu Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? You won't find it by looking at CNN / ZNN.

    Try:

    http://russia-insider.com/en Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Philip Giraldi , April 18, 2017 at 4:58 pm GMT
    100 Words NEW! @Wizard of Oz Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/fighting-islamic-state/sarin-attack-shows-assad-is-desperate-as-jihadist-rebels-gain-ground/news-story/5265dee03a779671aefa32ef8d1a2fb3

    Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom. However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately lacking manpower.

    Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative on Syria and everywhere else in the Middle East so he does indeed have an agenda. Most intel and military types that I have spoken to agree that after the retaking of Aleppo al-Assad is winning and will eventually win. Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the evidence. Somebody obviously knows that happened. Read More

    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT
    @Quartermaster Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia. He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision for Russia which is quite destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem for Russia and has set the country up for a serious fall. Putin is so bad for Russia that the Russians overwhelmingly support him.

    I suggest you quit digging. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    SolontoCroesus , April 18, 2017 at 5:05 pm GMT
    600 Words @Jeff Davis "...picture he found somewhere on social media."

    If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the "evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official story w/official "evidence".

    Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists -- the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists -- who control that area.

    Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event. On Apr 13, 2017, Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted Mike Pompeo for his first public speaking appearance as CIA director.

    After Pompeo's prepared remarks, Juan Zarate queried the director on the Syria attack/s, starting his questions with comment on the rapidity with which "assessments were made."
    (Zarate is now at CSIS after proving his neoconservative bona fides as a charter member of Stuart Levey's Treasury Department "guerrillas in grey suits" - the gang that deploys financial blackmail to coerce international banks and corporations to join the US in constraining their commerce with states the USA does not like.)

    Pompeo responded to Zarate's request for "behind the scenes" description of how the assessments were made:

    "We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and we challenged ourselves. I can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we had it right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure? When you know he's contemplating an action based on the analysis your organization has provided, and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president have the opportunity to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place. "

    Zarate did not register dissatisfaction with this non-response; instead, he accepted the assessment as conclusive. Then he escalated the discussion:

    "What do you make of the Russian disputation of those conclusions? Bashar Al-Assad calling this a fabrication, the entire event. It's a battle of legitimacy and proof. How do you deal with that?"

    To which Pompeo delivered the money-quote:

    They're challenges. There are things we were able to use to form the basis of our conclusion that we cannot reveal. That is always tricky, but we've done our best and I think over time we can reveal a bit more. Everyone saw the open source photos, so we had reality on our side. "

    So apparently Pompeo and the "entire intelligence community" used the same photos that Dr. Postol examined exhaustively, but reached a different conclusion; they believe that the photos reflect "reality" and support their interpretation of events as fingering the Syrian government as perpetrators of the "red-line" "atrocity."

    Pompeo spent the next few minutes derogating Russia and Putin, stating that "Russia is on its sixth or seventh version of the story," and that "Putin is not a credible man . . . a man for whom veracity does not translate into English." (I think he meant "into Russian . . . .")

    -

    Recall that in 2013 Diane Feinstein also engaged the "rapid turnaround" efforts of the CIA to produce a video presentation of gassed children, which she claimed implicated the Syrian government, in her bid to drive the Obama administration across the "red line." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/07/cia-authenticates-13-videos-showing-syrian-gas-attack-aftermath-official-says.html
    and
    Lawmakers shown 'horrendous' video of alleged chemical attack in Syria Sept 05, 2013

    After extensive investigation by experts under the auspices of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon declared that it was "indisputable" that a chemical attack had occurred, but those responsible for the attack were not conclusively identified. Samantha Power, however, insisted that "it must have been Assad." http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/un-report-confirms-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-syria-a-922746.html

    Same lies, different liars. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    joe webb , April 18, 2017 at 5:09 pm GMT
    The Theodor Postel report made it onto Yahoo News surprisinly, last night. JW Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Jeff Davis , April 18, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT
    100 Words @Sean

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
    Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for the Assad regime having ordered it .

    Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
    By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
    Purchase Article
    Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...

    But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.

    Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm faηade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]


    The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.

    [...]

    Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.

    THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD

    The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.


    This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria
    A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"

    Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.

    I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence facilities.


    The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.
    For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens Assad.

    Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.

    The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you, are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist. Read More Agree: Z-man

    The Anti-Gnostic , Website April 18, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT
    @utu Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? How do we know it wasn't YOU? Prove it. I want pictures, names. Read More
    utu , April 18, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
    200 Words @The Anti-Gnostic How do we know it wasn't YOU? Prove it. I want pictures, names. It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right? Read More
    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 6:49 pm GMT
    100 Words @The Alarmist

    "The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."
    Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/

    Trump didn't wait for the gas attack, he was already laying the ground for getting involved in Syria, which is not a vital interest of Russia. Russians want to do stuff like support Assad and crush rebels the US has expressed sympathy for. they surely didn't expect to be left alone. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Svigor , April 18, 2017 at 6:59 pm GMT
    600 Words

    Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.

    So far it's been a Big Media claim, too. To the point of at least one piece (in The Atlantic , IIRC) poo-pooing the idea that the Big Media Narrative could be wrong.

    even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack

    I'm tired of reading this and seeing no explanation. I'd like to see that assertion supported. I'd like it to come from you, Phil, because so far, in my experience, you seem to be the most reasonable US-skeptic writer at TUR.

    It isn't self-explanatory. Chemical weapons have their uses, like clearing out heavily fortified urban areas that would be costly to clear the old fashioned way. Weighed against Trump's ostensible goal to stay out of Syria and drop the insane "Assad must go" rhetoric of the previous administration, it might've been tempting. Which is why I would like to know more about the target area and circumstances. But nobody seems to give a shit. I suppose it might have a lot to do with the fact that there are (or were, last I heard) no journalists in Syria. But if we simply don't know much about the target area, maybe we should stop assuming hitting it with chemical weapons had no utility.

    Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard

    Those principles being "don't invade the world, invite the world," I presume?

    There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents in 2013 and 2017, both of which read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S. intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence" and even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National Intelligence, which would be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what to do about Syria. Both documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically put out by the White House, suggesting that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support a political decision to use force that had already been made.

    The American Security Apparatus can shove their consensus up their asses anyway. Why should the American public take their word for anything?

    Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely from satellite surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government was behind the attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are not generally considered to be a classified source or method.

    And there are huge, consistent gaps in satellite coverage (and always have been, last I heard) that everyone and their mother knows about, meaning, it would be trivial for anyone to plan an attack when the satellites can't see. If Parry is right, then it sounds like the administration has jack shit. "Satellite surveillance" is the last source I'd find persuasive or conclusive in this context.

    Parry also cites the fact that there are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate with the intelligence and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White House.

    So this really is shaping up to all be a bunch of "Wag The Dog/I bombed Serbia to distract from my kosher blowjob scandal" bullshit. Great.

    The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area

    Meaning, this "innocent civilians" mantra we've been hearing from Big Media is bullshit. Read More

    bike-anarchist , April 18, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT
    @utu It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right? Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post truthful, unlike you. I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence. Read More
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT
    100 Words @Jeff Davis You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens Assad.

    Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast -- what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad -- is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.

    The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you,... are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist.

    What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.
    The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project.

    Bares repeating. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    utu , April 18, 2017 at 7:18 pm GMT
    @bike-anarchist Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post truthful, unlike you. I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence. You found it impudent for me calling Russian media and Russia's propaganda machine inept and indolent? You must be one of those who drank Putin's Kool-Aid and is now patiently awaiting his 2nd coming and saving us all from the grips of the NWO, right? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Svigor , April 18, 2017 at 7:20 pm GMT
    400 Words I think the take-home point for anyone who does his own thinking is that Trump acted so quickly (36 hours) that the evidence should be overwhelming and incontrovertible. The evidence forthcoming has been shit. Ergo, it seems very clear that Trump had no valid reason to act as he did.

    What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations?

    Either the area is full of innocent civilians, or it's an al-Qaeda stronghold.

    Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media?

    The Russians are going to need a lot more than counter-propaganda. I trust them even less than I trust western Big Media. Hard evidence or go home.

    Agent76, nobody who will trust globalresearch.ca needs to have their link cited, they'll know about it already, being Konspiracy Kooks. Nobody else is gonna buy that junk.

    Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port.

    Illegal, schmellegal. It's perfectly legit realpolitik. If Ukraine didn't want Russia taking back what was hers, she shouldn't have jumped into bed with hostile powers. Seriously, if you'd asked a Ukrainian on independence day what would happen in the current circumstances, they could have painted you an accurate picture.

    "We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and we challenged ourselves. I can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we had it right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure? When you know he's contemplating an action based on the analysis your organization has provided, and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president have the opportunity to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place. "

    "Trust me, I'm a professional liar." Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    alexander , April 18, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT
    400 Words Dear Mr. Giraldi,

    Not withstanding our Presidents "rush to judgement" tomahawk strike against the Assad regime last week, there should be very strong indications to our main stream media, that they are being abandoned by tens of millions of Americans across our country who no longer accept the medias willingness to defraud us ,at nearly every turn.

    I was an avid reader of the the NY Times, for over 25 years, and I watched the nightly news all the time.

    When we were all told by these media outlets in the run up to the Iraq war, that Saddam had launched an anthrax attack against our news rooms and our capitol I believed it completely 100%..without any reason in my own mind why I shouldn't .

    Once the war began, and the attribution to Saddam of the anthrax attack quickly collapsed , I felt defrauded by those who I had always trusted to be honest, most especially on issues of war and peace.

    In 2013,when the Ghouta Sarin attack was attributed to Assad by these very same pundits, the memory of the phony Saddam anthrax attribution reared its ugly head, and with good reason.

    If they were lying then why aren't they lying now ?

    I think our media has proven itself, scores of times, over the last fifteen years, to be, at best, disingenuous and at worst complicit in acts of war fraud and terror fraud which have taken the lives of millions of innocent people and cost our country tens of trillions of dollars.

    There is no reason why I , nor any American, should be happy about this.

    Whats worse is they have displayed such enormous contempt for all the tens of millions of innocent families who have suffered on account of their deceits that they have lost an overwhelming amount of respect from me,as well as, I imagine, countless others.

    Our Big Media can only cry "wolf" so many times before they are greeted by everyone with the middle finger.

    This reality will not go away, but only get worse, until they start to shoot straight, and have proven to their viewers, that they are not seeking to manipulate, or defraud us . into War. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    RobinG , April 18, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT
    @iffen Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port. Thanks, Wally.

    "iffen," the eff'n Israeli disinfo troll, is always trying to slip one in. Read More

    Biff , April 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm GMT
    With Trump's complete flip on foreign policy I'm starting to think(again) that U.S. Presidents are mere puppets for the real rulers of this world – who no doubt considered Obama to be just a corporate "house negro". Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Greg Bacon , Website April 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT
    100 Words President KUSHNER and his faithful toady Trump sure are busy these days. In between bites of chocolate cake, they are arming the terrorists and bombing Syrian civilians.

    Over 50 Civilians Killed, Injured in US-Led Coalition Airstrikes in Eastern Syria

    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960129000960

    US Continues to Airdrop More Aid Packages to ISIL Terrorists in Northwestern Iraq

    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960129000900

    There's one reason the USA is stuck in endless ME wars, with no end in sight. American troops are fighting and dying for Apartheid Israel, and our wealth is being spent on the same.

    When Syria is toast, the MSM will start attacking Iran, and they'll have plenty of friends who think the same way in the WH and Congress. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    iffen , April 18, 2017 at 7:37 pm GMT
    @RobinG Thanks, Wally.

    "iffen," the eff'n Israeli disinfo troll, is always trying to slip one in. always trying to slip one in

    Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day or so. The decent thing for you to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email address.

    BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold War. Read More

    Svigor , April 18, 2017 at 7:40 pm GMT
    200 Words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons

    There are three basic configurations in which these agents are stored. The first are self-contained munitions like projectiles, cartridges, mines, and rockets; these can contain propellant and/or explosive components. The next form are aircraft-delivered munitions. This form never has an explosive component.[41] Together they comprise the two forms that have been weaponized and are ready for their intended use. The U.S. stockpile consisted of 39% of these weapon ready munitions. The final of the three forms are raw agent housed in one-ton containers. The remaining 61%[41] of the stockpile was in this form.[56] Whereas these chemicals exist in liquid form at normal room temperature,[41][57] the sulfur mustards H, and HD freeze in temperatures below 55 °F (12.8 °C). Mixing lewisite with distilled mustard lowers the freezing point to −13 °F (−25.0 °C).[48]

    Higher temperatures are a bigger concern because the possibility of an explosion increases as the temperatures rise. A fire at one of these facilities would endanger the surrounding community as well as the personnel at the installations.[58] Perhaps more so for the community having much less access to protective equipment and specialized training.[59] The Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted a study to assess capabilities and costs for protecting civilian populations during related emergencies,[60] and the effectiveness of expedient, in-place shelters.[61]

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anon , April 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm GMT
    None of this would be an issue if the media did its job.

    But it doesn't.

    There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such. Read More

    RobinG , April 18, 2017 at 7:45 pm GMT
    @Svigor

    Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
    So far it's been a Big Media claim, too. To the point of at least one piece (in The Atlantic , IIRC) poo-pooing the idea that the Big Media Narrative could be wrong.

    even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack
    I'm tired of reading this and seeing no explanation. I'd like to see that assertion supported. I'd like it to come from you, Phil, because so far, in my experience, you seem to be the most reasonable US-skeptic writer at TUR.

    It isn't self-explanatory. Chemical weapons have their uses, like clearing out heavily fortified urban areas that would be costly to clear the old fashioned way. Weighed against Trump's ostensible goal to stay out of Syria and drop the insane "Assad must go" rhetoric of the previous administration, it might've been tempting. Which is why I would like to know more about the target area and circumstances. But nobody seems to give a shit. I suppose it might have a lot to do with the fact that there are (or were, last I heard) no journalists in Syria. But if we simply don't know much about the target area, maybe we should stop assuming hitting it with chemical weapons had no utility.


    Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard
    Those principles being "don't invade the world, invite the world," I presume?

    There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents in 2013 and 2017, both of which read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S. intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence" and even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National Intelligence, which would be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what to do about Syria. Both documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically put out by the White House, suggesting that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support a political decision to use force that had already been made.
    The American Security Apparatus can shove their consensus up their asses anyway. Why should the American public take their word for anything?

    Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely from satellite surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government was behind the attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are not generally considered to be a classified source or method.
    And there are huge, consistent gaps in satellite coverage (and always have been, last I heard) that everyone and their mother knows about, meaning, it would be trivial for anyone to plan an attack when the satellites can't see. If Parry is right, then it sounds like the administration has jack shit. "Satellite surveillance" is the last source I'd find persuasive or conclusive in this context.

    Parry also cites the fact that there are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate with the intelligence and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White House.
    So this really is shaping up to all be a bunch of "Wag The Dog/I bombed Serbia to distract from my kosher blowjob scandal" bullshit. Great.

    The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area
    Meaning, this "innocent civilians" mantra we've been hearing from Big Media is bullshit. " like clearing out heavily fortified urban areas.."

    Svigor, all parties seem to agree this was a small village and there were only civilian casualties. (Did I misread?) So, hardly a "tempting" target. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Brewer , April 18, 2017 at 8:16 pm GMT
    100 Words @DB Cooper This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M&t=22s It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. Read More

    RobinG , April 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
    200 Words @Anon None of this would be an issue if the media did its job.

    But it doesn't.

    There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such. Right you are! The Big, Bought and Biased Media must be RELENTLESSLY exposed and discredited.

    Trump's airstrike was triggered by the latest Assad-Did-It-Again, "gassing his own people" story, that we first heard in 2013. Once again evidence is lacking, and worse, there is a total lack of interest in finding evidence, or in asking the obvious questions of motive, cui bono? In a replay of "Gulf of Tonkin," "WMDs in Iraq," and numerous other false provocations, the mainstream media has once again rushed to judgment with no penetrating questions asked.

    Since 2011, U.S. corporate media has acted as advocate for militant factions. Rather than reporting events as they occurred, our "journalists" have repeated stories selected by anti-Assad "sources" such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, i.e. Rami Abdul Rahman. Yes, the SOHR is one guy, an ex-pat member of the so-called "Syrian opposition" who operates out of his house in Coventry, England. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Orville H. Larson , April 18, 2017 at 8:33 pm GMT
    100 Words @anonymous It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated. Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad. Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran?
    No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening. " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. . . ."

    Yeah, it looks like it.

    I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed–I hoped!–that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . . Read More

    anon , April 18, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT
    200 Words How does the lie work? It survives . It always survives . King is dead! Long live the king! It come back. People ignore when they find it out . Same propel tweak the margins and support the new version to build another lie.

    That's why we hear that "Saddam did not have nukes but they found weapons they found this they found that they found gas chemical"

    I tell them " that is none of your and this Gov's Freaking business"

    Now these guys are busy saying "Assad sent refugees he doesn't want this or that or he poured chem s or make attack it possible"

    Mu answer is usually this " The Gov can go to war tomorrow because r the sky was not blue above the desert of Iran proving they are not compliant and is busy destroying the climate . You will accept that logic as well or shrug it off but will vote him or his surrogate next time " Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    unseated , April 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT
    @Philip Giraldi Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative on Syria and everywhere else in the Middle East so he does indeed have an agenda. Most intel and military types that I have spoken to agree that after the retaking of Aleppo al-Assad is winning and will eventually win. Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the evidence. Somebody obviously knows that happened. I assume that someone called "Wizard of Oz" might, like myself, be a resident of Australia.
    What is surprising, then, is that he/she gives any credibility to a Murdoch rag and the Australian at that. Its political positions with respect to the Middle East in particular are well known. Read More
    SolontoCroesus , April 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT
    100 Words @utu It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right?

    One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff.

    According to newly minted director of CIA, that organization and the entire "intelligence community" relied on the "reality" of those photos, in addition to other things that "can't be revealed right now, maybe later."

    Maybe it will be revealed after Assad is safely dead or in exile in Moscow what the CIA's can't be revealed methods were. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Philip Giraldi , April 18, 2017 at 9:24 pm GMT
    NEW! @unseated I assume that someone called "Wizard of Oz" might, like myself, be a resident of Australia.
    What is surprising, then, is that he/she gives any credibility to a Murdoch rag and the Australian at that. Its political positions with respect to the Middle East in particular are well known. Yes, Australian. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    alexander , April 18, 2017 at 9:34 pm GMT
    100 Words @Brewer It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. Hi Brewer,

    Is there a link to the video ?

    Moreover, if what you are saying is true, then it would seem to indicate the White Helmets, as well as ISIS were leaked information as to the time of the Syrian strike so as to stage the chemical event well beforehand.

    This means there is a big leak in the shared information between the White House and Moscow.

    My understanding is Moscow shared advanced warning of the Syrian strike with D.C., as part of their non confrontation agreement.

    Somebody leaked that information to ISIS and Al Qaeda .I wonder who ?

    How else could ISIS obtain advanced knowledge about exactly when to plant their gas canister
    and stage the gas attack ? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Incitatus , April 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm GMT
    300 Words It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative. OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs. Honest.

    GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere! Nope, no weapons over there! Maybe under here?" while pretending to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic, was dead.

    The media loves it now. Easy stories – sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.

    Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?

    True corruption. There are no excuses.

    Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back to' Department of War.' Read More

    utu , April 18, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT
    100 Words @Brewer It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked.

    It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am.

    Why Russian media does not make the same point? Wouldn't it be nice if there was an article in Sputnik or even better, a video on rt.com that would argue that the video was made one day before? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Rurik , April 18, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT
    200 Words @Orville H. Larson " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. . . ."

    Yeah, it looks like it.

    I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed--I hoped!--that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . .

    With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. .

    Israel has a well known deterrent referred to as the 'Samson option'.

    I think it would be prudent, and I hope that the sane world has already made those in a position to force a major war between the zio-West vs. Russia (for instance)..

    .. that the first place to get glassed will be that shitty little country- as a kind of reverse Samson option

    I would like to hope that even now, all sane nations.. (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, et al) who have nukes, have them all trained at ground zero (T.A.) for the strife in the world.

    and I suppose to be effective, they'd have to be aimed at some of the snake pits in the Western world as well- I really don't think Rothschild, (Soros, Kristol, etc..) would care too much if most of Israel proper were glowing, so long as they and the diaspora would be able to take control of what ever was left after the fallout dispersed.

    the Fiend needs to know that he'd get it first, and there would be the peace

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn6Cf30HgNI Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Rurik , April 18, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT
    100 Words @Incitatus It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative. OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs. Honest.

    GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!...Nope, no weapons over there!...Maybe under here?" while pretending to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic, was dead.

    The media loves it now. Easy stories - sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.

    Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?

    True corruption. There are no excuses.

    Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back to' Department of War.'

    Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow.

    that's not specifically true. They've come right out and said they prefer Al Nursa and the cannibals and crucifying head slicers to a stable government with a viable middle class.

    "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,"

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-israel-idUSBRE98G0DR20130917

    Israel wants in Syria what it got in Iraq and Libya.. a complete dystopian hell on earth. Old Testament vengeance and unimaginable suffering. It is written.

    They literally thrive on that shit

    Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47

    nope

    it started in earnest with the Balfour Declaration and Wilson's war. A hundred years ago exactly to the day from Trump's attack on Syria.

    The attack on Syria on that notorious anniversary was sort of like a modern day Passover, when the kings of Europe slaughtered the new born of Europa, and the chosen were blessed with a country of their own out of the smoking ashes of Christendom Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Bill , April 18, 2017 at 10:45 pm GMT
    100 Words @iffen always trying to slip one in

    Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day or so. The decent thing for you to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email address.

    BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold War. Pretty sure the Commies had Sevastopol at the start of the Cold War and all the way through it. Sevastopol doesn't really count as a warm water port in the way you mean since you have to go through two straits controlled by NATO before you are in the real ocean.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Trump Foreign Policy Becomes Bush 2.0 and Obama 1.5

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump's pivot to U.S. involvement in regime change in multiple countries, combined with military and diplomatic bluster, swagger, and chest-thumping can best be summed up as combining the unitary executive imperialistic foreign policy of George W. Bush with the regime change agenda of Barack Obama, or "Bush version 2.0/Obama version 1.5" ..."
    "... During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's supporters did not mind the real estate billionaire's swashbuckling attitude. After all, Trump said he would worry about "America First". Trump decried the role played by his predecessors as the "world's policeman". Trump said he would not be the "president of the world" but the president of the United States. Everything changed on April 7, 2016, when Trump ordered 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched on the Syrian air base. ..."
    "... At the United Nations, Trump's ambassador, Nikki Haley, proclaimed that the U.S. would take additional actions against Syria and that the United States did not see a future for Assad as president of Syria. Haley told CNN : "there's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime... regime change is something that we think is going to happen ". ..."
    "... Haley also expanded America's goals in Syria by stating that Trump also sought to eliminate Iranian influence in Syria. The statement about Iran and Syria went far beyond anything ever suggested by the Obama administration. ..."
    "... In 2013, Trump tweeted the following about calls for the U.S. to attack Syria: "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval." Trump sought no congressional approval for his action against Syria. In fact, Trump informed Chinese president Xi Jinping, while he was departing Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, about the attack on Syria before he informed members of Congress. Trump's attempt to impress President Xi had little impact. No sooner had Xi's plane departed Florida, the Chinese government news agency Xinhua stated: "It has been a typical tactic of the U.S. to send a strong political message by attacking other countries using advanced warplanes and cruise missiles". ..."
    "... Trump had become what he decried earlier: an unaccountable world policeman who would, without U.S. constitutional or international legal authority, seek regime change through military means. ..."
    "... All around the world, officials of the Trump administration re-adopted the regime change tactics of Obama. Trump's ambassador to Serbia, Kyle Scott, let it be known that Washington was not happy with the re-election on April 2 of Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic. Scott sent messages that Washington did not favor Vucic's continued close relations with Russia, encouraging anti-Vucic street protesters in the service of George Soros to stage anti-Vucic demonstrations. In neighboring Macedonia, Trump's ambassador Jess Baily continued to provide U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) support for Soros-backed protesters and opposition parties that were trying to replace the Macedonian government with one that favored integration with the European Union and a freeze in relations with Russia. ..."
    "... At the end of March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave Baily, who was visiting the State Department, a green light to continue the destabilization activities in Skopje that began under Obama. In Serbia and Macedonia, what appeared on the streets were the first signs of a concordat between Trump and Soros, something that was bound to enrage Trump's anti-globalization and anti-Soros erstwhile base of supporters. ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org
    OPINION

    Donald Trump's pivot to U.S. involvement in regime change in multiple countries, combined with military and diplomatic bluster, swagger, and chest-thumping can best be summed up as combining the unitary executive imperialistic foreign policy of George W. Bush with the regime change agenda of Barack Obama, or "Bush version 2.0/Obama version 1.5".

    Trump's knee-jerk decision to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles against the Shayrat air base, a forward operating base for Syrian and Russian military forces battling against Islamic State forces in Palmyra and other locations, represents the type of reckless unilateralism employed by the Bush administration in Iraq coupled with the "regime change" tactics of the Obama administration throughout the Middle East and North Africa. However, even Barack Obama refused to be drawn into direct military action against the Syrian government, preferring instead to use Syrian rebel factions backed by the Turkish, Saudi, and Qatari governments and overseen by Central Intelligence Agency operatives to launch attacks on Syrian government forces.

    Trump's decision to attack Syria's forces was based on the shoddiest of video and photographic "evidence" that was tainted with the fingerprints of the very dubious and terrorist-connected Syrian "White Helmets" and the pathetic joke known as the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" in Coventry, England. There was no wonder that Trump's cruise missile attack was celebrated wildly in the Islamic State and Al Qaeda camps around the Middle East, by the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and in the royal courts of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These quarters had previously been worried about Trump's campaign rhetoric to join with the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad and Russia in defeating the jihadist scourge that swept across Syria as the result of Obama's "Arab Spring" and regime change goals.

    As the first Tomahawks were fired from the U.S. Navy destroyers USS Porter and USS Ross , anxiety among the jihadist rebels in Syria, who were losing ground to Syrian and allied forces, quickly turned to ecstasy. The Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, the Al Nusra Front, Liwa al-Haqq, and others had just been awarded by Trump their own high-tech military force: the United States Navy.

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's supporters did not mind the real estate billionaire's swashbuckling attitude. After all, Trump said he would worry about "America First". Trump decried the role played by his predecessors as the "world's policeman". Trump said he would not be the "president of the world" but the president of the United States. Everything changed on April 7, 2016, when Trump ordered 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched on the Syrian air base.

    At the United Nations, Trump's ambassador, Nikki Haley, proclaimed that the U.S. would take additional actions against Syria and that the United States did not see a future for Assad as president of Syria. Haley told CNN : "there's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime... regime change is something that we think is going to happen ".

    Haley also expanded America's goals in Syria by stating that Trump also sought to eliminate Iranian influence in Syria. The statement about Iran and Syria went far beyond anything ever suggested by the Obama administration.

    There were reports that Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, a White House adviser without portfolio, and her husband Jared Kushner, the senior White House presidential adviser, had convinced Trump to attack Syria after being convinced of the authenticity of photos and videos showing Sarin victims, including children, in the village of Khan Sheikoun. The sources of the "evidence" – the same sources that originated previous dubious "evidence" of Syrian use of chemical weapons – were totally suspect.

    In 2013, Trump tweeted the following about calls for the U.S. to attack Syria: "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval." Trump sought no congressional approval for his action against Syria. In fact, Trump informed Chinese president Xi Jinping, while he was departing Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, about the attack on Syria before he informed members of Congress. Trump's attempt to impress President Xi had little impact. No sooner had Xi's plane departed Florida, the Chinese government news agency Xinhua stated: "It has been a typical tactic of the U.S. to send a strong political message by attacking other countries using advanced warplanes and cruise missiles".

    Trump had become what he decried earlier: an unaccountable world policeman who would, without U.S. constitutional or international legal authority, seek regime change through military means.

    Trump also decided to beef up U.S. air and naval forces in Northeast Asia in a show of force to North Korea. In media leaks, Trump advisers let it be known that a nuclear attack on North Korea or a U.S.-sanctioned assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jon Un, both with the goal of North Korean regime change, were on the table as options. Trump's actions in Syria and on the Korean peninsula demonstrated that he has gone "full neocon", much to the distress of his alt-right and "America First" supporters. There were reports out of the White House that Trump's strategic policy adviser Stephen Bannon had been kicked off the National Security Council in deference to the wishes of the neocons who had effectively seized control of the White House's foreign policy apparatus.

    All around the world, officials of the Trump administration re-adopted the regime change tactics of Obama. Trump's ambassador to Serbia, Kyle Scott, let it be known that Washington was not happy with the re-election on April 2 of Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic. Scott sent messages that Washington did not favor Vucic's continued close relations with Russia, encouraging anti-Vucic street protesters in the service of George Soros to stage anti-Vucic demonstrations. In neighboring Macedonia, Trump's ambassador Jess Baily continued to provide U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) support for Soros-backed protesters and opposition parties that were trying to replace the Macedonian government with one that favored integration with the European Union and a freeze in relations with Russia.

    At the end of March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave Baily, who was visiting the State Department, a green light to continue the destabilization activities in Skopje that began under Obama. In Serbia and Macedonia, what appeared on the streets were the first signs of a concordat between Trump and Soros, something that was bound to enrage Trump's anti-globalization and anti-Soros erstwhile base of supporters.

    In Latin America, Trump's envoys were backing the forces of reactionary proto-fascism. Washington questioned the legitimacy of Ecuadorian leftist leader Lenin Moreno's presidential election victory over a Wall Street-backed crony capitalist named Guillermo Lasso. In Argentina, U.S. embassy officials rallied around Trump's billionaire friend, President Mauricio Macri, against labor and student leaders protesting the Wall Street-directed austerity measures of the Argentine government.

    While Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner prevailed on Trump to avenge the deaths of civilians in Khan Sheikoun by launching a missile attack on Syria, neither of these two self-entitled products of crony capitalism had much to say about the massacre of 43 Coptic Christians by the Islamic State while attending Palm Sunday services at churches in Tanta and Alexandria in Egypt. Trump's vapid family were silent in any call for retaliation against the actual financial and logistical supporters of the Islamic State in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Ivanka certainly would not want to jeopardize her fashion line sales in the high-priced boutiques of Jeddah, Doha, and Istanbul.

    [Apr 18, 2017] How the U.S. Government Spins the Story by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013," ..."
    "... The Assad Regime's Use of Chemical Weapons on April 4, 2017 ..."
    "... These academics are like mafia lawyers. The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia. It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob. ..."
    "... So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates. They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob. ..."
    "... Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event. ..."
    "... Recall that in 2013 Diane Feinstein also engaged the "rapid turnaround" efforts of the CIA to produce a video presentation of gassed children, which she claimed implicated the Syrian government, in her bid to drive the Obama administration across the "red line." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/07/cia-authenticates-13-videos-showing-syrian-gas-attack-aftermath-official-says.html ..."
    "... After extensive investigation by experts under the auspices of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon declared that it was "indisputable" that a chemical attack had occurred, but those responsible for the attack were not conclusively identified. Samantha Power, however, insisted that "it must have been Assad." http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/un-report-confirms-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-syria-a-922746.html ..."
    "... Same lies, different liars. ..."
    "... Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program. ..."
    "... The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you, are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist. ..."
    "... Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. ..."
    "... Trump didn't wait for the gas attack, he was already laying the ground for getting involved in Syria, which is not a vital interest of Russia. Russians want to do stuff like support Assad and crush rebels the US has expressed sympathy for. they surely didn't expect to be left alone. ..."
    "... Not withstanding our Presidents "rush to judgement" tomahawk strike against the Assad regime last week, there should be very strong indications to our main stream media, that they are being abandoned by tens of millions of Americans across our country who no longer accept the medias willingness to defraud us ,at nearly every turn. ..."
    "... In 2013,when the Ghouta Sarin attack was attributed to Assad by these very same pundits, the memory of the phony Saddam anthrax attribution reared its ugly head, and with good reason. ..."
    "... I think our media has proven itself, scores of times, over the last fifteen years, to be, at best, disingenuous and at worst complicit in acts of war fraud and terror fraud which have taken the lives of millions of innocent people and cost our country tens of trillions of dollars. ..."
    "... Our Big Media can only cry "wolf" so many times before they are greeted by everyone with the middle finger. ..."
    "... It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. ..."
    "... There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such. Right you are! The Big, Bought and Biased Media must be RELENTLESSLY exposed and discredited. ..."
    "... Trump's airstrike was triggered by the latest Assad-Did-It-Again, "gassing his own people" story, that we first heard in 2013. Once again evidence is lacking, and worse, there is a total lack of interest in finding evidence, or in asking the obvious questions of motive, cui bono? In a replay of "Gulf of Tonkin," "WMDs in Iraq," and numerous other false provocations, the mainstream media has once again rushed to judgment with no penetrating questions asked. ..."
    "... Since 2011, U.S. corporate media has acted as advocate for militant factions. Rather than reporting events as they occurred, our "journalists" have repeated stories selected by anti-Assad "sources" such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, i.e. Rami Abdul Rahman. Yes, the SOHR is one guy, an ex-pat member of the so-called "Syrian opposition" who operates out of his house in Coventry, England. ..."
    "... I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed–I hoped!–that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . ..."
    "... According to newly minted director of CIA, that organization and the entire "intelligence community" relied on the "reality" of those photos, in addition to other things that "can't be revealed right now, maybe later." ..."
    "... My understanding is Moscow shared advanced warning of the Syrian strike with D.C., as part of their non confrontation agreement. Somebody leaked that information to ISIS and Al Qaeda .I wonder who ? How else could ISIS obtain advanced knowledge about exactly when to plant their gas canister and stage the gas attack ? ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th. Shortly after the more recent incident, President Donald Trump, possibly deriving his information from television news reports, abruptly stated that the government of President Bashar al-Assad had ordered the attack. He also noted that the use of chemicals had "crossed many red lines" and hinted that Damascus would be held accountable. Twenty-four hours later retribution came in the form of the launch of 59 cruise missiles directed against the Syrian airbase at Sharyat. The number of casualties, if any, remains unclear and the base itself sustained only minor damage amidst allegations that many of the missiles had missed their target. The physical assault was followed by a verbal onslaught, with the Trump Administration blaming Russia for shielding al-Assad and demanding that Moscow end its alliance with Damascus if it wishes to reestablish good relations with Washington.

    The media, led by the usual neoconservative cheerleaders, have applauded Trump's brand of tough love with Syria, even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack while the so-called rebels had plenty to gain. The escalation to a war footing also serves no U.S. interest and actually damages prospects for eliminating ISIS any time soon. Democratic Party liberal interventionists have also joined with Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio to celebrate the cruise missile strike and hardening rhetoric. Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard, has demanded evidence of Syrian culpability, saying "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia-which could lead to nuclear war. This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning." For her pains, she has been vilified by members of her own party, who have called for her resignation .

    Other congressmen, including Senators Rand Paul and Tim Kaine, who have asked for a vote in congress to authorize going to war, have likewise been ignored or deliberately marginalized. All of which means that the United States has committed a war crime against a country with which it is not at war and has done so by ignoring Article 2 of the Constitution, which grants to Congress the sole power to declare war. It has also failed to establish a casus belli that Syria represents some kind of threat to the United States.

    What has become completely clear, as a result of the U.S. strike and its aftermath, is that any general reset with Russia has now become unimaginable, meaning among other things that a peace settlement for Syria is for now unattainable. It also has meant that the rebels against al-Assad's regime will be empowered, possibly deliberately staging more chemical "incidents" and blaming the Damascus government to shift international opinion farther in their direction. ISIS, which was reeling prior to the attack and reprisal, has been given a reprieve by the same United States government that pledged to eradicate it. And Donald Trump has reneged on his two campaign pledges to avoid deeper involvement in Middle Eastern wars and mend fences with Moscow.

    There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents in 2013 and 2017, both of which read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S. intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence" and even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National Intelligence, which would be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what to do about Syria. Both documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically put out by the White House, suggesting that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support a political decision to use force that had already been made.

    The two documents provide plenty of circumstantial information but little in the way of actual evidence. The 2013 Obama version "Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013," was criticized almost immediately when it was determined that there were alternative explanations for the source of the chemical agents that might have killed more than a thousand people in and around the town of Ghouta. The 2017 Trump version " The Assad Regime's Use of Chemical Weapons on April 4, 2017 ," is likewise under fire from numerous quarters. Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely from satellite surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government was behind the attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are not generally considered to be a classified source or method. Parry also cites the fact that there are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate with the intelligence and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White House. MIT Professor Theodore Postol, considered to be an expert on munitions, has also questioned the government's account of what took place in Khan Sheikhoun through a detailed analysis of the available evidence. He believes that the chemical agent was fired from the ground, not from an airplane, suggesting that it was an attack initiated by the rebels made to appear as if it was caused by the Syrian bomb.

    In spite of the challenges, "Trust me," says Donald Trump. The Russians and Syrians are demanding an international investigation of the alleged chemical weapons incident, but as time goes by the ability to discern what took place diminishes. All that is indisputably known at this point is that the Syrian Air Force attacked a target in Idlib and a cloud of toxic chemicals was somehow released. The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area and benefits greatly from the prevailing narrative. If it was in fact the actual implementer of the attack, it is no doubt cleaning and reconfiguring the site to support the account that it is promoting and which is being uncritically accepted both by the mainstream media and by a number of governments. The United States will also do its best to disrupt any inquiry that challenges the assumptions that it has already come to. The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.

    DB Cooper , April 18, 2017 at 4:13 am GMT \n

    • 100 Words This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:

    Read More •
    Carlton Meyer , • Website April 18, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT \n
    Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/

    And why? They've been trying to overthrow Assad since 2005:

    Read More •
    NoldorElf , April 18, 2017 at 5:01 am GMT \n
    • 100 Words I am forced to conclude that the neoconservatives and indeed all of Washington DC are eager to go to war. They are just itching for any excuse to start yet another war in a nation of their choosing.

    If there is no good reason, they will make one up. There is an eerie resemblance to what is happening now with Syria and what happened leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

    I think the paleoconservative community also needs to come to terms with the fact that Trump has sold them out and is increasingly acting like a Washington insider neocon. Trump did to the paleoconservatives what Obama did to the left.

    It seems Trump will not put "America First" nor make any attempts to restore the American Middle Class nor American manufacturing to truly "Make American Great Again".

    Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the few principled politicians in this case and for that she is marginalized for saying what few others have the moral courage to say. Many on the left are hoping she will run in 2020 for President.

    Coming from the left, I'd say that the Sanders and Trump base have a lot more in common than we admit. We are both deeply unhappy with the way that Washington has handled things. They basically betrayed the American people and enriched themselves at public expense.

    The real question is, can the US be saved for the people or will it continue on its path to terminal decline?

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    utu , April 18, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT \n
    • 100 Words Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? Read More •
    Wizard of Oz , April 18, 2017 at 6:17 am GMT \n
    • 100 Words What is your view of David Kilcullen, what he knows about, and what his views are worth? No doubt "modified" or " qualified" respect but it is the qualifications and the reasons for them that I am interested in. When I've got round tobfinishing his article saying Assad is desperate and losing I'll probably be back. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anon , April 18, 2017 at 6:34 am GMT \n
    • 100 Words Get a load of this a ** hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.

    He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.

    But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.

    And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis

    These academics are like mafia lawyers. The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
    It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.

    And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano

    So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates. They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.

    Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Brabantian , • Website April 18, 2017 at 8:34 am GMT \n
    • 600 Words Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -

    Above all because of a very-censored explosive story – a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney & Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' anyone can invite medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/06/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/

    For an overview of the many wider points making clear the false flag, Aangirfan does an excellent job here as she very often does:

    http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/trump-at-war-with-assad-and-putin.html

    (1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened – Tweet , "Tomorrow a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"

    (2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack

    (3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred

    (4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"

    (5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it on Assad's regime' A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot at Aangirfan's page above

    (6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."

    (7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".

    (8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:

    In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only a few days later."

    By way of motive – Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria – Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria.

    Read More •
    Vlad , April 18, 2017 at 9:45 am GMT \n
    • 200 Words What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he walked into a trap prepared for him by the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could not disobey the military. They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving out American zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states. Or Trump simply capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. If that is the case we know now how American is governed, by the military industrial complex that dictates its policy. The sad part is that the Constitution is disregarded once again, that the Liberals who used to be peaceniks, are now cheering for war, that the UN is marginalized, that Trump uses it just as Bush did to justify an illegal war. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 10:22 am GMT \n
    • 1,100 Words

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.

    Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for the Assad regime having ordered it .

    Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
    By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
    Purchase Article
    Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]

    But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.

    Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm faηade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]

    The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.

    [...]

    Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.

    THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD

    The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.

    This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria

    A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"

    Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position– he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.

    I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence facilities.

    The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.

    For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.

    Read More •
    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 10:25 am GMT \n
    @Carlton Meyer Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/

    And why? They've been trying to overthrow Assad since 2005:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pm8-vSo4Y4 Russia was having too much success, they needed to understand that the US is not going to stand by any longer and wait to see. Read More •

    AmericaFirstNow , • Website April 18, 2017 at 11:19 am GMT \n
    • 100 Words Jewish AIPAC Israel firster Jared Kushner and his fellow Jewish AIPAC Israel first friends (like Reed Cordish who worked for Israel Lobby lackey Dick Cheney as well) whom he brought into the White House more than likely influenced Trump to push the Israel Lobby agenda vs Syria for regime change to weaken Iran:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2012/02/12/israel-lobby-pushes-for-us-action-against-the-syrian-government/

    More on Kushner and his fellow AIPAC Israel firster at the White House obviously influencing Trump to push the Israel Lobby agenda like he did with Syria as I heard Netanyahu praised the Syriaattack and Pence personally telephoned to thank him:

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/359120/jared-kushners-friend-picked-by-donald-trump-as-assistant/

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Hunsdon , April 18, 2017 at 12:07 pm GMT \n
    @Sean Russia was having too much success, they needed to understand that the US is not going to stand by any longer and wait to see. INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait.

    Read More •
    anonymous , April 18, 2017 at 1:03 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated. Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad. Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran?
    No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening. Read More •
    Quartermaster , April 18, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT \n
    @Anon Get a load of this a**hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.

    He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.

    But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyD-fPS0vs

    And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis

    These academics are like mafia lawyers.

    The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
    It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.

    And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano

    So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
    They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.

    Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel.

    Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia. He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision for Russia which is quite destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem for Russia and has set the country up for a serious fall. Read More • LOL: geokat62 • Troll: L.K , Rurik •
    Quartermaster , April 18, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words @Brabantian Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -

    Above all because of a very-censored explosive story - a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney & Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' ... anyone can invite medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/06/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/

    For an overview of the many wider points making clear the false flag, Aangirfan does an excellent job here as she very often does:
    http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/trump-at-war-with-assad-and-putin.html

    (1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened - Tweet , "Tomorrow a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"

    (2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack

    (3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred

    (4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"

    (5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it on Assad's regime' ... A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot at Aangirfan's page above

    (6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama ... [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages ... videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."

    (7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".

    (8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament ... The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:

    In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV ... the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only a few days later."

    By way of motive - Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria - Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria. Sarin is a nerve agent and if that is what was used, gas masks are far less than what is needed to protect anyone.

    I don't see any motivation on Assad's part to stage such an attack. It simply was not in his interest to do so. Trump's action was a knee jerk reaction and stupid.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Agent76 , April 18, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT \n
    April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of Chemical Weapons

    The Western media refutes their own lies.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/5583784

    Apr 9, 2017 No More

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Wizard of Oz , April 18, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/fighting-islamic-state/sarin-attack-shows-assad-is-desperate-as-jihadist-rebels-gain-ground/news-story/5265dee03a779671aefa32ef8d1a2fb3

    Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom. However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately lacking manpower.

    Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack?

    Read More •
    Clark Westwood , April 18, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT \n
    Is it possible that Trump and Putin cooked up this little show simply to give Trump more credibility in his approaching confrontation with North Korea? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT \n
    @Anon Get a load of this a**hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.

    He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.

    But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyD-fPS0vs

    And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis

    These academics are like mafia lawyers.

    The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
    It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.

    And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano

    So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
    They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.

    Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel.

    What's the common denominator to these two ?????? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT \n
    "Democratic Party liberal interventionists have also joined with Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio to celebrate the cruise missile strike and hardening rhetoric."

    All owned by the likes of http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.631441.1418390491!/image/412181903.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/412181903.jpg Repulsive no?

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Jeff Davis , April 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words @utu Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? " picture he found somewhere on social media."

    If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the "evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official story w/official "evidence".

    Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists - the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists - who control that area.

    Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event.

    Read More •
    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT \n
    @Hunsdon INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait. Well they do not get to set the rules until they are the most powerful state in the world–like the US. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    JoaoAlfaiate , April 18, 2017 at 3:33 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words Remember WMD and Saddam? What did the top papers say after Colin Powell's speech to the UN "proving" that Iraq had WMD?

    New York Times: "[Powell's speech] may not have produced a 'smoking gun," but it left little question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal one."

    Wall Street Journal: "The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable. The only question remaining is whether the U.N. is going to have the courage of Mr. Powell's convictions."

    Washington Post: "To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make "

    "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."
    Joseph Goebbels

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    iffen , April 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT \n
    @Hunsdon INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait. Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port. Read More •

    alexander , April 18, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT \n
    • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/fighting-islamic-state/sarin-attack-shows-assad-is-desperate-as-jihadist-rebels-gain-ground/news-story/5265dee03a779671aefa32ef8d1a2fb3

    Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom. However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately lacking manpower.

    Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Hi Wiz,

    I think it is quite clear, that with the assistance of the Russian military, the Syrian army has mounted multiple strategic victories against ISIS over the past year and a half.

    The entry of Russia into the fray, at the request of Syria, provided a very deep reservoir of enhanced military power which has shown to be highly effective in degraded both Al Qaeda and ISIS on multiple fronts.

    It seems as absurd now , as it did in 2013, that Assad would do the ONE THING that would force the hand of the US military to enter the fray against him.

    I also doubt the notion of the Syrian regimes "desperation" given the complete cooperation of Russia in providing any assistance the Syrian army might need , to achieve victory against ISIS.

    One could argue, however ,that Assad is truly "bonehead" stupid.

    You are certainly free to make that argument, Wiz , because, in this case, it seems to be the one that would make the most sense.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    The Alarmist , April 18, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words @Sean

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
    Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for the Assad regime having ordered it .

    Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
    By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
    Purchase Article
    Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...

    But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.

    Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm faηade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]


    The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.

    [...]

    Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.

    THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD

    The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.


    This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria
    A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"

    Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.

    I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence facilities.


    The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.
    For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.

    "The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."

    Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds.

    Read More •
    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT \n
    @Hunsdon INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait. IOW, the Russians have their own military in their own county guarding their own borders. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT \n
    @iffen Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port. "Illegal" not.

    Russia was right to accept the legitimate Crimean vote.

    The Crimean voters overwhelmingly approved returning to Russia.

    Democracy personified, the will of the people.

    Leftists hate that.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Ivy , April 18, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT \n
    See the article by Gaius Publius at Naked Capitalism for a deeper dive.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/gaius-publius-new-evidence-syrian-gas-story-fabricated-white-house.html

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT \n
    @utu Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? You won't find it by looking at CNN / ZNN.

    Try:

    http://russia-insider.com/en

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    SolontoCroesus , April 18, 2017 at 5:05 pm GMT \n
    • 600 Words @Jeff Davis "...picture he found somewhere on social media."

    If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the "evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official story w/official "evidence".

    Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists -- the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists -- who control that area.

    Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event.

    On Apr 13, 2017, Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted Mike Pompeo for his first public speaking appearance as CIA director.

    After Pompeo's prepared remarks, Juan Zarate queried the director on the Syria attack/s, starting his questions with comment on the rapidity with which "assessments were made."
    (Zarate is now at CSIS after proving his neoconservative bona fides as a charter member of Stuart Levey's Treasury Department "guerrillas in grey suits" - the gang that deploys financial blackmail to coerce international banks and corporations to join the US in constraining their commerce with states the USA does not like.)

    Pompeo responded to Zarate's request for "behind the scenes" description of how the assessments were made:

    "We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and we challenged ourselves. I can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we had it right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure? When you know he's contemplating an action based on the analysis your organization has provided, and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president have the opportunity to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place. "

    Zarate did not register dissatisfaction with this non-response; instead, he accepted the assessment as conclusive. Then he escalated the discussion:

    "What do you make of the Russian disputation of those conclusions? Bashar Al-Assad calling this a fabrication, the entire event. It's a battle of legitimacy and proof. How do you deal with that?"

    To which Pompeo delivered the money-quote:

    They're challenges. There are things we were able to use to form the basis of our conclusion that we cannot reveal. That is always tricky, but we've done our best and I think over time we can reveal a bit more. Everyone saw the open source photos, so we had reality on our side. "

    So apparently Pompeo and the "entire intelligence community" used the same photos that Dr. Postol examined exhaustively, but reached a different conclusion; they believe that the photos reflect "reality" and support their interpretation of events as fingering the Syrian government as perpetrators of the "red-line" "atrocity."

    Pompeo spent the next few minutes derogating Russia and Putin, stating that "Russia is on its sixth or seventh version of the story," and that "Putin is not a credible man . . . a man for whom veracity does not translate into English." (I think he meant "into Russian . . . .")

    -

    Recall that in 2013 Diane Feinstein also engaged the "rapid turnaround" efforts of the CIA to produce a video presentation of gassed children, which she claimed implicated the Syrian government, in her bid to drive the Obama administration across the "red line." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/07/cia-authenticates-13-videos-showing-syrian-gas-attack-aftermath-official-says.html

    and

    Lawmakers shown 'horrendous' video of alleged chemical attack in Syria Sept 05, 2013

    After extensive investigation by experts under the auspices of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon declared that it was "indisputable" that a chemical attack had occurred, but those responsible for the attack were not conclusively identified. Samantha Power, however, insisted that "it must have been Assad." http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/un-report-confirms-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-syria-a-922746.html

    Same lies, different liars.


    joe webb , April 18, 2017 at 5:09 pm GMT \n
    The Theodor Postel report made it onto Yahoo News surprisingly, last night.
    Jeff Davis , April 18, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT \n
    @Sean

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
    Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for the Assad regime having ordered it .
    Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
    By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
    Purchase Article
    Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...

    But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.

    Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm faηade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]


    The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.

    [...]

    Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.

    THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD

    The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.

    This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria
    A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"

    Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.

    I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence facilities.


    The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.
    For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens Assad.

    Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.

    The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you, are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist.

    Agree: Z-man •
    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 6:49 pm GMT \n
    @The Alarmist
    "The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."
    Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/

    Trump didn't wait for the gas attack, he was already laying the ground for getting involved in Syria, which is not a vital interest of Russia. Russians want to do stuff like support Assad and crush rebels the US has expressed sympathy for. they surely didn't expect to be left alone.

    bike-anarchist , April 18, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT \n
    @utu It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right? Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post truthful, unlike you. I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence. Read More •
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words @Jeff Davis You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens Assad.

    Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast -- what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad -- is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.

    The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you,... are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist.

    What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.
    The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project.

    Bares repeating.

    utu , April 18, 2017 at 7:18 pm GMT \n
    @bike-anarchist Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post truthful, unlike you. I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence. You found it impudent for me calling Russian media and Russia's propaganda machine inept and indolent? You must be one of those who drank Putin's Kool-Aid and is now patiently awaiting his 2nd coming and saving us all from the grips of the NWO, right? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    alexander , April 18, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT \n
    Dear Mr. Giraldi,

    Not withstanding our Presidents "rush to judgement" tomahawk strike against the Assad regime last week, there should be very strong indications to our main stream media, that they are being abandoned by tens of millions of Americans across our country who no longer accept the medias willingness to defraud us ,at nearly every turn.

    I was an avid reader of the the NY Times, for over 25 years, and I watched the nightly news all the time.

    When we were all told by these media outlets in the run up to the Iraq war, that Saddam had launched an anthrax attack against our news rooms and our capitol I believed it completely 100%..without any reason in my own mind why I shouldn't .

    Once the war began, and the attribution to Saddam of the anthrax attack quickly collapsed , I felt defrauded by those who I had always trusted to be honest, most especially on issues of war and peace.

    In 2013,when the Ghouta Sarin attack was attributed to Assad by these very same pundits, the memory of the phony Saddam anthrax attribution reared its ugly head, and with good reason.

    If they were lying then why aren't they lying now ?

    I think our media has proven itself, scores of times, over the last fifteen years, to be, at best, disingenuous and at worst complicit in acts of war fraud and terror fraud which have taken the lives of millions of innocent people and cost our country tens of trillions of dollars.

    There is no reason why I , nor any American, should be happy about this.

    Whats worse is they have displayed such enormous contempt for all the tens of millions of innocent families who have suffered on account of their deceits that they have lost an overwhelming amount of respect from me,as well as, I imagine, countless others.

    Our Big Media can only cry "wolf" so many times before they are greeted by everyone with the middle finger.

    This reality will not go away, but only get worse, until they start to shoot straight, and have proven to their viewers, that they are not seeking to manipulate, or defraud us . into War.

    RobinG , April 18, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT \n
    @iffen Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port. Thanks, Wally.

    "iffen," the eff'n Israeli disinfo troll, is always trying to slip one in.

    Read More •
    Biff , April 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm GMT \n
    With Trump's complete flip on foreign policy I'm starting to think(again) that U.S. Presidents are mere puppets for the real rulers of this world – who no doubt considered Obama to be just a corporate "house negro". Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Greg Bacon , • Website April 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words President KUSHNER and his faithful toady Trump sure are busy these days. In between bites of chocolate cake, they are arming the terrorists and bombing Syrian civilians.

    Over 50 Civilians Killed, Injured in US-Led Coalition Airstrikes in Eastern Syria

    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960129000960

    US Continues to Airdrop More Aid Packages to ISIL Terrorists in Northwestern Iraq

    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960129000900

    There's one reason the USA is stuck in endless ME wars, with no end in sight. American troops are fighting and dying for Apartheid Israel, and our wealth is being spent on the same.

    When Syria is toast, the MSM will start attacking Iran, and they'll have plenty of friends who think the same way in the WH and Congress.

    Anon , April 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm GMT \n
    None of this would be an issue if the media did its job.

    But it doesn't.

    There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such.

    Brewer , April 18, 2017 at 8:16 pm GMT \n
    @DB Cooper This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M&t=22s

    It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked.

    RobinG , April 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT \n
    @Anon None of this would be an issue if the media did its job.

    But it doesn't.

    There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such. Right you are! The Big, Bought and Biased Media must be RELENTLESSLY exposed and discredited.

    Trump's airstrike was triggered by the latest Assad-Did-It-Again, "gassing his own people" story, that we first heard in 2013. Once again evidence is lacking, and worse, there is a total lack of interest in finding evidence, or in asking the obvious questions of motive, cui bono? In a replay of "Gulf of Tonkin," "WMDs in Iraq," and numerous other false provocations, the mainstream media has once again rushed to judgment with no penetrating questions asked.

    Since 2011, U.S. corporate media has acted as advocate for militant factions. Rather than reporting events as they occurred, our "journalists" have repeated stories selected by anti-Assad "sources" such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, i.e. Rami Abdul Rahman. Yes, the SOHR is one guy, an ex-pat member of the so-called "Syrian opposition" who operates out of his house in Coventry, England.

    Orville H. Larson , April 18, 2017 at 8:33 pm GMT \n
    @anonymous It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated. Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad. Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless.

    Next up, N Korea and then Iran?

    No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening. " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. . . ."

    Yeah, it looks like it.

    I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed–I hoped!–that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . .

    anon , April 18, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT \n
    How does the lie work? It survives . It always survives . King is dead! Long live the king! It come back. People ignore when they find it out . Same propel tweak the margins and support the new version to build another lie.

    That's why we hear that "Saddam did not have nukes but they found weapons they found this they found that they found gas chemical"

    I tell them " that is none of your and this Gov's Freaking business"

    Now these guys are busy saying "Assad sent refugees he doesn't want this or that or he poured chem s or make attack it possible"

    Mu answer is usually this " The Gov can go to war tomorrow because r the sky was not blue above the desert of Iran proving they are not compliant and is busy destroying the climate . You will accept that logic as well or shrug it off but will vote him or his surrogate next time "

    unseated , April 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT \n
    @Philip Giraldi Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative on Syria and everywhere else in the Middle East so he does indeed have an agenda.

    Most intel and military types that I have spoken to agree that after the retaking of Aleppo al-Assad is winning and will eventually win.

    Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the evidence. Somebody obviously knows that happened. I assume that someone called "Wizard of Oz" might, like myself, be a resident of Australia.

    What is surprising, then, is that he/she gives any credibility to a Murdoch rag and the Australian at that. Its political positions with respect to the Middle East in particular are well known. Read More •

    SolontoCroesus , April 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT \n
    @utu It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right?

    One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff.

    According to newly minted director of CIA, that organization and the entire "intelligence community" relied on the "reality" of those photos, in addition to other things that "can't be revealed right now, maybe later."

    Maybe it will be revealed after Assad is safely dead or in exile in Moscow what the CIA's can't be revealed methods were.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    alexander , April 18, 2017 at 9:34 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words @Brewer It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. Hi Brewer,

    Is there a link to the video ?

    Moreover, if what you are saying is true, then it would seem to indicate the White Helmets, as well as ISIS were leaked information as to the time of the Syrian strike so as to stage the chemical event well beforehand.

    This means there is a big leak in the shared information between the White House and Moscow.

    My understanding is Moscow shared advanced warning of the Syrian strike with D.C., as part of their non confrontation agreement. Somebody leaked that information to ISIS and Al Qaeda .I wonder who ? How else could ISIS obtain advanced knowledge about exactly when to plant their gas canister and stage the gas attack ?

    Incitatus , April 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm GMT \n
    It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative. OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs. Honest.

    GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere! Nope, no weapons over there! Maybe under here?" while pretending to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic, was dead.

    The media loves it now. Easy stories – sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.

    Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?

    True corruption. There are no excuses.

    Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back to' Department of War.'

    Rurik , April 18, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT \n
    • 200 Words @Orville H. Larson " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. . . ."

    Yeah, it looks like it.

    I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed--I hoped!--that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . .

    With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. .

    Israel has a well known deterrent referred to as the 'Samson option'.

    I think it would be prudent, and I hope that the sane world has already made those in a position to force a major war between the zio-West vs. Russia (for instance)..

    .. that the first place to get glassed will be that shitty little country- as a kind of reverse Samson option

    I would like to hope that even now, all sane nations.. (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, et al) who have nukes, have them all trained at ground zero (T.A.) for the strife in the world.

    and I suppose to be effective, they'd have to be aimed at some of the snake pits in the Western world as well- I really don't think Rothschild, (Soros, Kristol, etc..) would care too much if most of Israel proper were glowing, so long as they and the diaspora would be able to take control of what ever was left after the fallout dispersed.

    the Fiend needs to know that he'd get it first, and there would be the peace

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn6Cf30HgNI

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Rurik , April 18, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT \n
    @Incitatus It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative. OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs. Honest.

    GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!...Nope, no weapons over there!...Maybe under here?" while pretending to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic, was dead.

    The media loves it now. Easy stories - sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.

    Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?

    True corruption. There are no excuses.

    Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back to' Department of War.'

    Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow.

    that's not specifically true. They've come right out and said they prefer Al Nursa and the cannibals and crucifying head slicers to a stable government with a viable middle class.

    "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,"

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-israel-idUSBRE98G0DR20130917

    Israel wants in Syria what it got in Iraq and Libya.. a complete dystopian hell on earth. Old Testament vengeance and unimaginable suffering. It is written.

    They literally thrive on that shit

    Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47

    nope

    it started in earnest with the Balfour Declaration and Wilson's war. A hundred years ago exactly to the day from Trump's attack on Syria.

    The attack on Syria on that notorious anniversary was sort of like a modern day Passover, when the kings of Europe slaughtered the new born of Europa, and the chosen were blessed with a country of their own out of the smoking ashes of Christendom

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Bill , April 18, 2017 at 10:45 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words @iffen always trying to slip one in

    Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day or so. The decent thing for you to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email address.

    BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold War.

    Pretty sure the Commies had Sevastopol at the start of the Cold War and all the way through it. Sevastopol doesn't really count as a warm water port in the way you mean since you have to go through two straits controlled by NATO before you are in the real ocean.

    [Apr 18, 2017] NSC has been filled with McMaster loyalists aka Neocon preemptive strikers

    Apr 18, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    XXX

    Ok, dunno the official Naked Capitalism stance on Mike Cernovich. So if all links to him are verboten, no probs . (from April 8)

    Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the Flynn/Bannon camp (aka pragmatic-realists).

    https://medium.com/@Cernovich/h-r-mcmaster-manipulating-intelligence-reports-to-trump-wants-150-000-ground-soldiers-in-syria-83346c433e99

    "Petraeus' influence in the NSC remains strong.

    McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster's name was included on the short-list. McMaster's appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to the position ."

    fresno dan , April 17, 2017 at 9:33 am

    oho
    April 17, 2017 at 9:00 am

    oho, I used to look at a lot of right wing stuff and be very skeptical of it. Than my skepticism of "mainstream" has gone up to be equivalent to my skepticism of the right wing stuff.
    You just have to read the stuff and decide for yourself if it is credible AND relevant. I have found very few "reporters" really are even trying to be objective. I carry no water for Trump or for Obama – its a very lonely place other than at NC .

    EXAMPLE: Napolitano of Fox is suspended because of the article about Obama admin using foreign intelligence sources.

    Now the mediamatters article I link below is critical of Napolitano. I link to it specifically to distinguish between facts in an article and spin. In my view the article is trying to "spin" (or emphasize – I'm really not trying to "spin" my comment) the story as to it being about discredited "wiretapping" and that foreign surveillance was specifically ORDERED by the Obama admin – now, I AGREE that is a very, very important point that Obama did not order specifically foreign searches (at least that we know of now) and that as far as that is concerned, the mediamatters point appears CORRECT.

    But in my view, it is NOT THE ONLY POINT. The real point to me is that surveillance on US citizens can occur without a warrant when it happens overseas, that this is happening constantly, and apparently this information can come back to the US, again, apparently without any safegrards***. I leave it to people's own sense of skepticism if this arrangement is ever used to circumvent getting a warrant on a US citizen (HECK, I leave it to people's skepticism if the FISA court is nothing but a circumlocution of the US constitution)
    The FACT is that there are FACTS out there, and certain people have FACTS they want to emphasize, and other FACTS they want to de-emphasize ..

    https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/04/14/pro-trump-outlets-and-fake-news-purveyors-misinterpret-new-reports-vindicate-foxs-napolitano/216031

    ***does anyone know when the British have surveillance of US citizens and they send it to the US, what procedures or constraints on those conversations are???

    dontknowitall , April 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    I believe the controlling law is section 702 of the Patriot Act and Executive Order 16333. To be sure you should check out Emptywheel's website because she has done a thorough analysis of all of this and it is all archived in her website.

    a different chris , April 17, 2017 at 9:35 am

    Petraeus for President 2024! Seriously, you know it's coming. :p

    Pat , April 17, 2017 at 10:51 am

    Unfortunately you are probably right. And a certain portion of the so-called liberal intelligentsia aka Clinton wing I am exposed to, loves them some General Petraeus. Scary, I know.

    Susan the other , April 17, 2017 at 11:41 am

    Chernovich is considered by NC to be a very reliable source, I think. And his analysis of McMaster's push for more troops is accurate. I didn't like the article because I felt it failed to account for the difference in Mattis and McMaster in any coherent way. And Trump just gave the Pentagon the ability to make its best decisions and follow through on them. (this was reported after Chernovich's article). Amazing really. But that puts Mattis in charge and he would rather work with the other interests fighting in Syria than unilaterally. McMaster, it was implied by Chernovich, was all for sending 150,000 troops in to finish the job. So there is a huge leeway of possibilities according to Chernovich. Maybe the military is softening up the public to accept what seems to be an attitude of having had enough and wanting to just go in and take care of business. They all seem to agree on that.

    Susan the other , April 17, 2017 at 11:54 am

    Also today's link from Reuters re McMaster getting down to business with Russia. McMaster wants to have the tough talks to sort it all out. Because "Syria's government has got to go." OK, and McMaster thought Tillerson's trip to Moscow and his meeting with Lavrov was a good start because relations are so bad right now that there's "nowhere to go but up." I think my compass is pointing to an agreement with the Russians to remove Assad. But they will never say it. If I were Assad, I'd want to get out – Syria is rubble, there's not much left to govern; even if his enemies would leave him alone. They're all just positioning themselves for the best deal they can get. And the threat of 150K troops on the ground is saying loud and clear that we will be the ones to decide the new direction for Syria. To my thinking.

    tgs , April 17, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    You may be right. But that will be the end of Syria. The country is still filled with foreign backed jihadis who really want to establish an islamic state. The US may think it can take someone currently residing in France or the US and install them. But there is no one available with any popular support that I know of. Things almost definitely will get worse for Syria – the carnage will continue.

    And Putin must realize that those insisting that Assad must go also want Putin out as well. Surely, he sees that he has to draw a line somewhere.

    Susan the other , April 17, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian nationalists to know it it's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few.

    Mark P. , April 17, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    In 2017 Putin has become the reliable constant in international affairs, especially next to the idiots who've been doing U.S. foreign policy.

    People will miss him when he's gone.

    Olga , April 17, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    IMHO, you could not be more wrong. Russians went into Syria in Sept. 2015 – after notifying the whole world via a UN speech. The decision must have taken months to complete. What makes you think that after all the work and effort this took, Russians would suddenly reverse course? If they were to give up on Assad so quickly, why go in in the first place? Remember – they have a VERY LONG-TERM VIEW (just like the Chinese). The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for that matter) is that the US public ends up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand (and not just a negative one). Just like with Putin – the story is not just about one man. There is a large power structure connected to each man. Neither one makes decisions in a vacuum. Russians and Iranians understand that if they give up on a unified Syria- which is what Assad represents – they would be next (Chechnya war, anyone?). One must assess these things from the perspective of the other – not from what the US would like.

    anonymous , April 17, 2017 at 9:32 pm

    Isn't the greater Damascus area relatively unscathed? Granted other vast areas are in ruins

    Christopher Fay , April 17, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150 k means 450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according to the Shinseki ratio.

    [Apr 18, 2017] NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers versus the Flynn/Bannon camp aka pragmatic-realists

    Notable quotes:
    "... Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the Flynn/Bannon camp (aka pragmatic-realists). ..."
    "... "Petraeus' influence in the NSC remains strong. McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster's name was included on the short-list. McMaster's appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to the position . ..."
    "... maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian nationalists to know it. It's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few. ..."
    "... In 2017 Putin has become the reliable constant in international affairs, especially next to the idiots who've been doing U.S. foreign policy. People will miss him when he's gone. ..."
    "... The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for that matter) is that the US public ends up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand (and not just a negative one). Just like with Putin – the story is not just about one man. ..."
    "... The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150k means 450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according to the Shinseki ratio. ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Ok, dunno the official Naked Capitalism stance on Mike Cernovich. So if all links to him are verboten, no probs . (from April 8)

    Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the Flynn/Bannon camp (aka pragmatic-realists).

    https://medium.com/@Cernovich/h-r-mcmaster-manipulating-intelligence-reports-to-trump-wants-150-000-ground-soldiers-in-syria-83346c433e99

    "Petraeus' influence in the NSC remains strong. McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster's name was included on the short-list. McMaster's appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to the position ."

    fresno dan , April 17, 2017 at 9:33 am

    @oho April 17, 2017 at 9:00 am

    oho, I used to look at a lot of right wing stuff and be very skeptical of it. Than my skepticism of "mainstream" has gone up to be equivalent to my skepticism of the right wing stuff.
    You just have to read the stuff and decide for yourself if it is credible AND relevant. I have found very few "reporters" really are even trying to be objective. I carry no water for Trump or for Obama – its a very lonely place other than at NC .

    EXAMPLE: Napolitano of Fox is suspended because of the article about Obama admin using foreign intelligence sources.

    Now the mediamatters article I link below is critical of Napolitano. I link to it specifically to distinguish between facts in an article and spin. In my view the article is trying to "spin" (or emphasize – I'm really not trying to "spin" my comment) the story as to it being about discredited "wiretapping" and that foreign surveillance was specifically ORDERED by the Obama admin – now, I AGREE that is a very, very important point that Obama did not order specifically foreign searches (at least that we know of now) and that as far as that is concerned, the mediamatters point appears CORRECT.

    But in my view, it is NOT THE ONLY POINT. The real point to me is that surveillance on US citizens can occur without a warrant when it happens overseas, that this is happening constantly, and apparently this information can come back to the US, again, apparently without any safegrards***. I leave it to people's own sense of skepticism if this arrangement is ever used to circumvent getting a warrant on a US citizen (HECK, I leave it to people's skepticism if the FISA court is nothing but a circumlocution of the US constitution)
    The FACT is that there are FACTS out there, and certain people have FACTS they want to emphasize, and other FACTS they want to de-emphasize ..

    https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/04/14/pro-trump-outlets-and-fake-news-purveyors-misinterpret-new-reports-vindicate-foxs-napolitano/216031

    ***does anyone know when the British have surveillance of US citizens and they send it to the US, what procedures or constraints on those conversations are???

    dontknowitall , April 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    I believe the controlling law is section 702 of the Patriot Act and Executive Order 16333. To be sure you should check out Emptywheel's website because she has done a thorough analysis of all of this and it is all archived in her website.

    a different chris , April 17, 2017 at 9:35 am

    Petraeus for President 2024! Seriously, you know it's coming. :p

    Pat , April 17, 2017 at 10:51 am

    Unfortunately you are probably right. And a certain portion of the so-called liberal intelligentsia aka Clinton wing I am exposed to, loves them some General Petraeus. Scary, I know.

    Susan the other , April 17, 2017 at 11:41 am

    Chernovich is considered by NC to be a very reliable source, I think. And his analysis of McMaster's push for more troops is accurate. I didn't like the article because I felt it failed to account for the difference in Mattis and McMaster in any coherent way. And Trump just gave the Pentagon the ability to make its best decisions and follow through on them. (this was reported after Chernovich's article). Amazing really. But that puts Mattis in charge and he would rather work with the other interests fighting in Syria than unilaterally. McMaster, it was implied by Chernovich, was all for sending 150,000 troops in to finish the job. So there is a huge leeway of possibilities according to Chernovich. Maybe the military is softening up the public to accept what seems to be an attitude of having had enough and wanting to just go in and take care of business. They all seem to agree on that.

    Susan the other , April 17, 2017 at 11:54 am

    Also today's link from Reuters re McMaster getting down to business with Russia. McMaster wants to have the tough talks to sort it all out. Because "Syria's government has got to go." OK, and McMaster thought Tillerson's trip to Moscow and his meeting with Lavrov was a good start because relations are so bad right now that there's "nowhere to go but up." I think my compass is pointing to an agreement with the Russians to remove Assad. But they will never say it. If I were Assad, I'd want to get out – Syria is rubble, there's not much left to govern; even if his enemies would leave him alone. They're all just positioning themselves for the best deal they can get. And the threat of 150K troops on the ground is saying loud and clear that we will be the ones to decide the new direction for Syria. To my thinking.

    tgs , April 17, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    You may be right. But that will be the end of Syria. The country is still filled with foreign backed jihadis who really want to establish an islamic state. The US may think it can take someone currently residing in France or the US and install them. But there is no one available with any popular support that I know of. Things almost definitely will get worse for Syria – the carnage will continue.

    And Putin must realize that those insisting that Assad must go also want Putin out as well. Surely, he sees that he has to draw a line somewhere.

    Susan the other , April 17, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian nationalists to know it. It's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few.

    Mark P. , April 17, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    In 2017 Putin has become the reliable constant in international affairs, especially next to the idiots who've been doing U.S. foreign policy. People will miss him when he's gone.

    Olga , April 17, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    IMHO, you could not be more wrong. Russians went into Syria in Sept. 2015 – after notifying the whole world via a UN speech. The decision must have taken months to complete.

    What makes you think that after all the work and effort this took, Russians would suddenly reverse course? If they were to give up on Assad so quickly, why go in in the first place? Remember – they have a VERY LONG-TERM VIEW (just like the Chinese).

    The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for that matter) is that the US public ends up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand (and not just a negative one). Just like with Putin – the story is not just about one man. There is a large power structure connected to each man. Neither one makes decisions in a vacuum. Russians and Iranians understand that if they give up on a unified Syria- which is what Assad represents – they would be next (Chechnya war, anyone?). One must assess these things from the perspective of the other – not from what the US would like.

    anonymous , April 17, 2017 at 9:32 pm

    Isn't the greater Damascus area relatively unscathed? Granted other vast areas are in ruins

    Christopher Fay , April 17, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150k means 450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according to the Shinseki ratio.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Trump Foreign Policy Becomes Bush 2.0 and Obama 1.5

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump's pivot to U.S. involvement in regime change in multiple countries, combined with military and diplomatic bluster, swagger, and chest-thumping can best be summed up as combining the unitary executive imperialistic foreign policy of George W. Bush with the regime change agenda of Barack Obama, or "Bush version 2.0/Obama version 1.5" ..."
    "... During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's supporters did not mind the real estate billionaire's swashbuckling attitude. After all, Trump said he would worry about "America First". Trump decried the role played by his predecessors as the "world's policeman". Trump said he would not be the "president of the world" but the president of the United States. Everything changed on April 7, 2016, when Trump ordered 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched on the Syrian air base. ..."
    "... At the United Nations, Trump's ambassador, Nikki Haley, proclaimed that the U.S. would take additional actions against Syria and that the United States did not see a future for Assad as president of Syria. Haley told CNN : "there's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime... regime change is something that we think is going to happen ". ..."
    "... Haley also expanded America's goals in Syria by stating that Trump also sought to eliminate Iranian influence in Syria. The statement about Iran and Syria went far beyond anything ever suggested by the Obama administration. ..."
    "... In 2013, Trump tweeted the following about calls for the U.S. to attack Syria: "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval." Trump sought no congressional approval for his action against Syria. In fact, Trump informed Chinese president Xi Jinping, while he was departing Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, about the attack on Syria before he informed members of Congress. Trump's attempt to impress President Xi had little impact. No sooner had Xi's plane departed Florida, the Chinese government news agency Xinhua stated: "It has been a typical tactic of the U.S. to send a strong political message by attacking other countries using advanced warplanes and cruise missiles". ..."
    "... Trump had become what he decried earlier: an unaccountable world policeman who would, without U.S. constitutional or international legal authority, seek regime change through military means. ..."
    "... All around the world, officials of the Trump administration re-adopted the regime change tactics of Obama. Trump's ambassador to Serbia, Kyle Scott, let it be known that Washington was not happy with the re-election on April 2 of Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic. Scott sent messages that Washington did not favor Vucic's continued close relations with Russia, encouraging anti-Vucic street protesters in the service of George Soros to stage anti-Vucic demonstrations. In neighboring Macedonia, Trump's ambassador Jess Baily continued to provide U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) support for Soros-backed protesters and opposition parties that were trying to replace the Macedonian government with one that favored integration with the European Union and a freeze in relations with Russia. ..."
    "... At the end of March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave Baily, who was visiting the State Department, a green light to continue the destabilization activities in Skopje that began under Obama. In Serbia and Macedonia, what appeared on the streets were the first signs of a concordat between Trump and Soros, something that was bound to enrage Trump's anti-globalization and anti-Soros erstwhile base of supporters. ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org
    OPINION

    Donald Trump's pivot to U.S. involvement in regime change in multiple countries, combined with military and diplomatic bluster, swagger, and chest-thumping can best be summed up as combining the unitary executive imperialistic foreign policy of George W. Bush with the regime change agenda of Barack Obama, or "Bush version 2.0/Obama version 1.5".

    Trump's knee-jerk decision to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles against the Shayrat air base, a forward operating base for Syrian and Russian military forces battling against Islamic State forces in Palmyra and other locations, represents the type of reckless unilateralism employed by the Bush administration in Iraq coupled with the "regime change" tactics of the Obama administration throughout the Middle East and North Africa. However, even Barack Obama refused to be drawn into direct military action against the Syrian government, preferring instead to use Syrian rebel factions backed by the Turkish, Saudi, and Qatari governments and overseen by Central Intelligence Agency operatives to launch attacks on Syrian government forces.

    Trump's decision to attack Syria's forces was based on the shoddiest of video and photographic "evidence" that was tainted with the fingerprints of the very dubious and terrorist-connected Syrian "White Helmets" and the pathetic joke known as the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" in Coventry, England. There was no wonder that Trump's cruise missile attack was celebrated wildly in the Islamic State and Al Qaeda camps around the Middle East, by the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and in the royal courts of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These quarters had previously been worried about Trump's campaign rhetoric to join with the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad and Russia in defeating the jihadist scourge that swept across Syria as the result of Obama's "Arab Spring" and regime change goals.

    As the first Tomahawks were fired from the U.S. Navy destroyers USS Porter and USS Ross , anxiety among the jihadist rebels in Syria, who were losing ground to Syrian and allied forces, quickly turned to ecstasy. The Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, the Al Nusra Front, Liwa al-Haqq, and others had just been awarded by Trump their own high-tech military force: the United States Navy.

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's supporters did not mind the real estate billionaire's swashbuckling attitude. After all, Trump said he would worry about "America First". Trump decried the role played by his predecessors as the "world's policeman". Trump said he would not be the "president of the world" but the president of the United States. Everything changed on April 7, 2016, when Trump ordered 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched on the Syrian air base.

    At the United Nations, Trump's ambassador, Nikki Haley, proclaimed that the U.S. would take additional actions against Syria and that the United States did not see a future for Assad as president of Syria. Haley told CNN : "there's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime... regime change is something that we think is going to happen ".

    Haley also expanded America's goals in Syria by stating that Trump also sought to eliminate Iranian influence in Syria. The statement about Iran and Syria went far beyond anything ever suggested by the Obama administration.

    There were reports that Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, a White House adviser without portfolio, and her husband Jared Kushner, the senior White House presidential adviser, had convinced Trump to attack Syria after being convinced of the authenticity of photos and videos showing Sarin victims, including children, in the village of Khan Sheikoun. The sources of the "evidence" – the same sources that originated previous dubious "evidence" of Syrian use of chemical weapons – were totally suspect.

    In 2013, Trump tweeted the following about calls for the U.S. to attack Syria: "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval." Trump sought no congressional approval for his action against Syria. In fact, Trump informed Chinese president Xi Jinping, while he was departing Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, about the attack on Syria before he informed members of Congress. Trump's attempt to impress President Xi had little impact. No sooner had Xi's plane departed Florida, the Chinese government news agency Xinhua stated: "It has been a typical tactic of the U.S. to send a strong political message by attacking other countries using advanced warplanes and cruise missiles".

    Trump had become what he decried earlier: an unaccountable world policeman who would, without U.S. constitutional or international legal authority, seek regime change through military means.

    Trump also decided to beef up U.S. air and naval forces in Northeast Asia in a show of force to North Korea. In media leaks, Trump advisers let it be known that a nuclear attack on North Korea or a U.S.-sanctioned assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jon Un, both with the goal of North Korean regime change, were on the table as options. Trump's actions in Syria and on the Korean peninsula demonstrated that he has gone "full neocon", much to the distress of his alt-right and "America First" supporters. There were reports out of the White House that Trump's strategic policy adviser Stephen Bannon had been kicked off the National Security Council in deference to the wishes of the neocons who had effectively seized control of the White House's foreign policy apparatus.

    All around the world, officials of the Trump administration re-adopted the regime change tactics of Obama. Trump's ambassador to Serbia, Kyle Scott, let it be known that Washington was not happy with the re-election on April 2 of Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic. Scott sent messages that Washington did not favor Vucic's continued close relations with Russia, encouraging anti-Vucic street protesters in the service of George Soros to stage anti-Vucic demonstrations. In neighboring Macedonia, Trump's ambassador Jess Baily continued to provide U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) support for Soros-backed protesters and opposition parties that were trying to replace the Macedonian government with one that favored integration with the European Union and a freeze in relations with Russia.

    At the end of March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave Baily, who was visiting the State Department, a green light to continue the destabilization activities in Skopje that began under Obama. In Serbia and Macedonia, what appeared on the streets were the first signs of a concordat between Trump and Soros, something that was bound to enrage Trump's anti-globalization and anti-Soros erstwhile base of supporters.

    In Latin America, Trump's envoys were backing the forces of reactionary proto-fascism. Washington questioned the legitimacy of Ecuadorian leftist leader Lenin Moreno's presidential election victory over a Wall Street-backed crony capitalist named Guillermo Lasso. In Argentina, U.S. embassy officials rallied around Trump's billionaire friend, President Mauricio Macri, against labor and student leaders protesting the Wall Street-directed austerity measures of the Argentine government.

    While Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner prevailed on Trump to avenge the deaths of civilians in Khan Sheikoun by launching a missile attack on Syria, neither of these two self-entitled products of crony capitalism had much to say about the massacre of 43 Coptic Christians by the Islamic State while attending Palm Sunday services at churches in Tanta and Alexandria in Egypt. Trump's vapid family were silent in any call for retaliation against the actual financial and logistical supporters of the Islamic State in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Ivanka certainly would not want to jeopardize her fashion line sales in the high-priced boutiques of Jeddah, Doha, and Istanbul.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Russian Defence Minsitry No one has asked for antidotes or medicines around location of alleged Idlib chemical attack

    Notable quotes:
    "... Thus far, the only video of the alleged attack's aftermath have been provided by the White Helmets, an organisation widely exposed as fraudulent , comprising known and open supporters of al-Qaeda factions in Syria. ..."
    "... "The impact zone in Khan Shaykhun, from where locals had to be evacuated, has not been identified. The town is living its life. Neither locals nor pseudo-rescuers have even asked for medicines, antidotes, (nor) decontaminants. ..."
    "... It is clear that, as in Iraq and Libya, there are simply no plans to carry out a qualified investigation in Khan Shaykhun by the current 'schemers' of the chemical attack". ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | theduran.com
    A puzzling new development has emerged in the aftermath of the alleged chemical weapons incident in Syria's Idlib Governorate from the 4th of April.

    Since the incident, apparently no one in the Khan Shaykhun area in question has asked for any antidotes for exposure to toxic sarin gas, the chemical allegedly deployed on the 4th of April.

    Many have consequently questioned whether the images presented of sarin gas victims were entirely inauthentic.

    Thus far, the only video of the alleged attack's aftermath have been provided by the White Helmets, an organisation widely exposed as fraudulent , comprising known and open supporters of al-Qaeda factions in Syria.

    Russian Defence Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov has described the rather strange and incongruous developments at the location of the alleged attack over the last weeks,

    "The impact zone in Khan Shaykhun, from where locals had to be evacuated, has not been identified. The town is living its life. Neither locals nor pseudo-rescuers have even asked for medicines, antidotes, (nor) decontaminants.

    It is clear that, as in Iraq and Libya, there are simply no plans to carry out a qualified investigation in Khan Shaykhun by the current 'schemers' of the chemical attack".

    Konashenkov continued,

    "It has been exactly two weeks after the incident with the alleged use of chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun. However, the only 'proof' of the use of chemical weapons remain only two White Helmets videos".

    The Russian Defence Ministry spokesman also stated,

    "At the same time, every day the number of unbiased experts grows, especially in Western countries, who ask these evident questions. These specialists, who have the knowledge and experience, cannot explain how these representatives of the White Helmets could work in the contamination zone for so long remaining alive without any gas masks and special uniform".

    These revelations may indicated that the incident was more than even a false flag, it may have been a false attack in totality.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Attack Against Syria and the Region Speaking Up

    Apr 18, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
    By Andre Vltchek

    April 18, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - Beirut - As the US Tomahawk missiles were raining on Syria, the entire Middle East was shaken to its core. Here, even the name itself – Syria – triggers extremely complex and often contradictory sets of emotions. To some, Syria is synonymous with pride and a determined struggle against Western imperialism, while others see it as an uncomfortable reminder of how low their own rulers and societies have managed to sink, serving foreign interests and various neo-colonialist designs.

    Many people are hiding their heads in the sand, obediently repeating the official Western narrative, while others are gradually resorting to the alternative sources of information that are coming from outlets such as RT Arabic, Al-Mayadeen and Press TV.

    Here in the Middle East and, in fact, all over the entire Arab world, feelings towards the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad are always 'strong'; no one appears to be 'neutral'. But even the divisions are often 'pre-defined', carved along pan-Arab versus pro-Western, or Sunni versus Shi'a lines. It is rarely being mentioned that the Syrian state is constructed mainly on secular and socialist principles.

    The recent opportunistic statements by certain badly informed and biased Western 'progressive' intellectuals, calling the Syrian system "disgraceful" has confused things even further.

    *****

    Overall, in the countries encircling Syria, there is very little support among the general population as well as among the intellectuals, for the Western assaults on the country, conducted directly, and indirectly by proxies. Pro-Western regimes and governments are currently governing Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and all of them are officially supporting the Western military actions. So is, naturally, Israel. The leaders of both Turkey and Israel would actually like to see more military actions, and more attacks against one of the last Arab countries, which is still upholds its independence.

    But ask the thinkers from all over the region, and the reaction is near unanimously against the assaults that are being conducted by the West.

    Ms Zeinab Al-Saffar (Photo: Andre Vltchek)

    An Iraqi educationalist, prominent journalist and researcher, Ms Zeinab Al-Saffar explained:

    I believe that the attacks against Syria that we are now witnessing, are a pre-orchestrated flagrant imperialist violation of a sovereign state, a flexing of muscles which is supposed to prove that the US is still the global power. Why on earth would the Syrian government perform a chemical attack knowing that the fingers would be immediately pointed at it, consequently thwarting an ongoing political process? Only fools could buy such narratives that are reminiscent of the 2003 US-led aggression to destroy the WMDs in Iraq, which only resulted in the devastation of Iraq, in the ruining of its people, and wiping out of its culture.

    After the US missile assault on Syria, the Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations, Sacha Llorenti, lashed out at Trump's decision, which he defined as, "an extremely serious violation of international law."

    Llorenti reminded the Council of February 5th, 2003, when the then US secretary of State Colin Powell, "came to this room to present to us, according to his own words, convincing proof that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

    Incirlik NATO air base in Turkey near Syria (Photo: Andre Vltchek)

    Such views are not held in Iraq only; I encountered fairly similar logic and recollection of the events even in Turkey, from where a well-known columnist Feryal Ηevikφz wrote to me:

    The real question is: "who orchestrated that chemical attack?" It seems that only the US could benefit from this chemical assault. The US had finally found the 'reason', the pretext for its direct attack against Syria. There were already many similar incidents in the region and in other parts of the world, and the screenplay is always the same. It seems that only the players, the actors keep changing.

    In Latin America, Russia, China, much of Africa and, of course, in the neighboring Iran, people are beginning to see clearly both the pattern and predictability of the Western foreign policy.

    A young prominent Iranian researcher, columnist and filmmaker, Hamed Ghashghavi, gave me his opinion on the recent developments:

    It seems to me that the US behaves like an injured wolf that is close to its death, but before vanishing is trying to hurt others. The more aggressively the US behaves, the closer, it appears to be at its end. The recent attack against Syria, whatever the reasons and consequences, has symbolically proven how and why the so-called US Empire is declining. What the US did is also sending a strong signal to Iran and its project of the military base near the Syrian town of Khmeimim, but it is also a message to an anti-Trump wing of neocons who have been accusing him of being too much 'pro-Putin' and 'pro-Assad'.

    What is now clearly detectable in the region is not just a condemnation of the US and Western actions, it is also a deep fatigue of having to endure the same type aggression which brings absolutely nothing except misery to the people of the Middle East and the world.

    In Syria, the sentiments are clear. My friend, a Syrian educator Ms. Fida Bashour summarized it all, I believe:

    I feel sad and worried. I want this war to finally stop, no blood any more, I want peace and to have my safe existence. I don't want others to interfere in our life. Why doesn't Trump let us live as we want to; why is he doing this to us?

    Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel "Aurora" and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: " Exposing Lies Of The Empire " and " Fighting Against Western Imperialism " . View his other books here . Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit , his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter .

    First published by NEO

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Putin Syria Chemical Attack Was 'False Flag,' More 'Provocations' Coming

    Notable quotes:
    "... Independent ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    At a Tuesday press conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed last week's chemical weapons attack in the Idlib province of Syria was a "false flag" – a phony operation staged by enemies of Russia and Syria to discredit them. He said more such false flag operations were on the way.

    "We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," said Putin, as reported by Russia's RT.com .

    "President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq," Putin continued, referring to Italian President Sergio Mattarella, who appeared with him at the press conference in Moscow.

    "The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," Putin declared.

    According to RT.com, the Russian General Staff has prepared a report that claims "militants" among the Syrian rebellion are "transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria."

    "These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," said Colonel-General Sergey Rudskoy, head of operations for the General Staff.

    The Associated Press reports that Russia's General Staff has expressed a willingness to allow international inspectors to examine the Sharyat airbase in Syria for traces of chemical weapons, and offered to provide military security for the inspectors. Putin said he would appeal to the United Nations to investigate the incident.

    The UK Independent reports that Putin more specifically accused the United States of planning to drop chemical weapons on Damascus and then blame the incident on Assad, although it does not provide a translation of the Russian president's precise words to that effect.

    On Monday, Russia and Iran declared the United States "crossed red lines" by attacking Sharyat airbase, borrowing a phrase made infamous by former President Barack Obama. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has accused the Russians of either being "complicit" in the Syrian chemical weapons deployment, or "incompetent" for allowing it to happen. The Pentagon is investigating the possibility that Russia actually participated in the chemical weapons attack, and/or the bombing of a hospital where victims were receiving treatment afterward.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Blame Putin! scheme is much older then recent Presidential elections

    Notable quotes:
    "... Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He died in the 1983 embassy bombing. ..."
    "... Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the time Nimr died. ..."
    "... Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action. ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Andrew Watts , December 31, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    *I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to yesterday's hastily written comment on the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment can be attributed to my gullibility.

    Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He died in the 1983 embassy bombing.

    -The individual who was tortured and died soon afterward was Elias Nimr . A Christian intelligence chieftain who appears to have played every side and angle he could during the Lebanon Civil War.

    -The name of the CIA contractor who tortured Nimr was identified as Keith "Captain Crunch" Hall . He was originally identified by Mark Bowden in his book Road Work: Among Tyrants, Heroes, Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) A former Marine before he joined the CIA and was later a cop in California.

    Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the time Nimr died.

    -Bob Baer neglects to mention this specific incident of torture in See No Evil but doesn't blame Nimr for the bombing of the embassy. *cough* Appropriately titled book if you ask me. *cough* A part of his theory on the masterminds behind the '83 embassy bombings involves a former PLO turned Hezbollah operative named Imad Mughniyeh . Baer claims that Mughniyeh is was still in contact with his old Fatah contacts when the embassy was bombed.

    Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action.

    -The name of the alleged defector from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was actually a deputy defense minister and former brigadier general named Ali Reza Asgari . There was and still probably is controversy whether he was kidnapped or defected. The Iranians wouldn't want it known that such a high ranking defector went over to the West hence the kidnapping story.

    Hah! Guess not posting much for a few months finally caught up with me.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Trump Is Moving Full Speed Ahead in War in Yemen, Despite Massive Civilian Casualties

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.truth-out.org
    Since taking office, Trump has rapidly expanded US military operations in Yemen. Last month, the US reportedly launched more than 49 strikes across the country -- more strikes than the US has ever carried out in a single year in Yemen. The US has also resumed some weapons sales to the Saudis, after the transfers were frozen by President Obama amid concerns about mounting civilian casualties in Yemen. For more, we speak with longtime investigative reporter Allan Nairn.

    TRANSCRIPT

    AMY GOODMAN: With the attacks, from Syria to Mosul in Iraq to Yemen, it wasn't -- what? -- eight days before -- after Donald Trump was inaugurated that the US Navy SEAL strike happened in Yemen. Something like 25 civilians were killed, many of them children. And perhaps the reason we know about it is because a US Navy SEAL was killed. That US Navy SEAL's father, William Owens, refused to meet President Trump, who surprised Owens when he came to Dover Air Base with his daughter Ivanka, his son's body brought to the base. He was harshly critical of the raid. Mr. Owens said, "Why did he have to do this now, to move so quickly in his administration?" Can you talk about that first attack, if it was the first attack, and what it means to talk about these attacks as presidential initiation rites?

    ALLAN NAIRN: Well, first, the particulars of that attack, that attack was aimed to be targeting al-Qaeda, a local al-Qaeda affiliate. It's worth noting that in Syria many of the rebels, who the US has been backing and arming and training, often conduct joint operations with al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. And, indeed, a good number of them have joined up with al-Nusra. But on this raid, it took place in a context of a broader war and a broader assault, which on -- on Yemen, on the Houthi armed rebel movement in Yemen, by Saudi Arabia. And in these raids, the Saudis are using US planes. They're using US bombs. There are actually US personnel sitting in the Saudi Air Force headquarters, helping them with targeting. And the Saudis are systematically targeting Yemeni civilians. After one particularly egregious and especially widely reported massacre on a funeral gathering, the US admonished the Saudis. They criticized them. They temporarily froze and pulled back a bit of their aid. But now, under Trump, again, it's full speed ahead with assaults on civilian targets by the Saudis in -- in Yemen.

    And if you look at the press, including outlets like MSNBC, various press outlets that are considered to be liberal, one of the main arguments they make is that a US action is good when it pleases the Saudis. They always -- there's this constant line of criticism, which has been going on for decades, criticism against US presidents who are considered to be too soft at a given moment. And that criticism is: You're letting down our Middle Eastern allies, i.e. you're letting down the Saudis. The journalists will say, "I've just been in the Middle East, and I've been talking to our allies there," i.e. the Saudis, the Gulf states, "and they're very unhappy, because they think the US is not showing enough credibility. We're letting them down" -- i.e. the US isn't being violent enough. And that's the context in which this attack on Yemen by the Special Forces took place.

    As to why Trump authorized it in that way, I think a very important motivating factor, that is really underestimated by people, especially scholars, is the extent to which, when you have power, when you're the king, a lot of the motivation for violence, for war, it's not just interest. A lot of the motivation is fun, is thrill, is getting a charge out of ordering violence, and thrilling the public, exciting the courtiers around you, exciting the press around you. The recent reaction to the Syria attack is a very good example of that. I think to really understand how big powers operate, when it comes to going out and killing people, I mean, don't just study their concrete interests, like, you know, mineral exports and geopolitics. Also study Shakespeare. Study the the whims of kings, because that's what a lot of it is about. And if you look back at the debates in the campaign between Clinton and Trump, when they were talking about the violent system, they they did not disagree at all about the US right to commit aggression, about the US right to kill civilians. What they did disagree about was how those decisions would be made. Clinton invoked the traditional establishment criteria that I discussed before of, yes, you can bomb, but you can only kill up to 25 civilians with your bombing run. Trump invoked a different standard, saying, "I'll attack whenever the hell I feel like it." Both of them allow the killing of civilians, which is a crime.

    AMY GOODMAN: And Trump saying, "I was just continuing what President Obama started"?

    ALLAN NAIRN: In that sense, Trump does have a point, because it was Obama who started the support of the Saudi attack on -- in Yemen and the general policy of US sending -- doing its own military-CIA strikes in Yemen. And, of course, US support for the Saudi order and dominance in the region and for their violence goes back for many decades. And it's also the case that Clinton would probably have done this strike on the Syria airfield, just as Trump did. In fact, a day or so before, she gave an interview to The New York Times where she was recommending strikes on the Syrian airfields.

    AMY GOODMAN: No, actually, the interview that Hillary Clinton did was with Nicholas Kristof, and it was in the Women in the World conference. It was several hours before the attack took place.

    ALLAN NAIRN: Just hours, uh-huh.

    AMY GOODMAN: And that video clip of her saying, "Why doesn't he bomb an airfield?" or "I would bomb an airfield," was played before the attack took place.

    ALLAN NAIRN: Yeah. In fact, come to think of it, the way Trump operates, maybe Trump saw that -- if that was publicly available --

    AMY GOODMAN: Yes.

    ALLAN NAIRN: -- maybe Trump saw that clip. That's exactly the kind of thing that would set him off, say, "Oh, my god. I've got to at least match her, and maybe top her." But this gets back to the more fundamental point that it's really important to understand, which is, US has this violent system, which is criminal, and it has had it for decades. It is willing to commit aggression and kill civilians in country after country after country. And all of those responsible for it should be judged by the same standards that we judge domestic killers. And by those standards, they should all be in prison, including the living US presidents, including Hillary Clinton.

    But Trump -- now, that all said, Trump makes it even worse. Trump is bringing in a doctrine and a group of people who are in the process of and are definitely going to commit even more killings of civilians, even more aggression. And that's why it was such -- one of many reasons why it was such a catastrophe that Trump and the radical-right Republicans won, because it will make it even worse. And the argument which you hear going around, especially in some circles on the left, that, "Oh, they're all bad. They're equally bad," it's insane, and it's irresponsible, given that now even more people are going to suffer as a result.

    AMY GOODMAN: Award-winning investigative journalist Allan Nairn. We'll be back with him in a minute, as he talks more about his assessment of the Trump presidency. Stay with us. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. Amy Goodman Amy Goodman is the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!, a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on more than 1,100 public television and radio stations worldwide. Time Magazine named Democracy Now! its "Pick of the Podcasts," along with NBC's "Meet the Press."

    [Apr 17, 2017] Paul Craig Roberts It Has Become Embarrassing To Be An American

    Notable quotes:
    "... Authored by Paul Craig Roberts, ..."
    "... What were the lies used to justify bombing tribesmen in Pakistan, to bomb a new government in Yemen? No American knows or cares. Why the US violence against Somalia? Again, no Americans knows or cares. Or the morons saw a movie. ..."
    "... the Russians and Chinese, Iran and North Korea. ..."
    "... Did you know that Russia is so powerful and the NSA and CIA so weak and helpless that Russia can determine the outcome of US elections? You must know this, because this is all you have heard from the utterly corrupt Democratic Party, the CIA, the FBI, the Amerian whore media, and the morons who listen to CNN, MSNBC, NPR or read the New York Times and Washington Post. ..."
    "... Did you know that the president of Russia, which world polls show is the most respected leader in the world, is, according to Hillary Clinton "the new Hitler"? ..."
    "... Did you know that the most respected leader in the world, Vladimir Putin, is a Mafia don, a thug, a tarantula at the center of a spy web, according to members of the US government who are so stupid that they cannot even spell their own names? ..."
    "... Did you know that Putin, who has refrained from responding aggressively to US provocations, not out of fear, but out of respect for human life, is said to be hellbent on reconstructing the Soviet Empire? ..."
    "... What are we to do, what is the world to do, when we have utter morons as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as President of the US, as National Security Adviser, as Secretary of Defense, as Secretary of State, as US Ambassador to the UN, as editors of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, MSNBC? How can there be any intelligence when only morons are in charge? ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    It has become embarrassing to be an American. Our country has had four war criminal presidents in succession. Clinton twice launched military attacks on Serbia, ordering NATO to bomb the former Yugoslavia twice, both in 1995 and in 1999, so that gives Bill two war crimes. George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and attacked provinces of Pakistan and Yemen from the air. That comes to four war crimes for Bush. Obama used NATO to destroy Libya and sent mercenaries to destroy Syria, thereby commiting two war crimes. Trump attacked Syria with US forces, thereby becoming a war criminal early in his regime.

    To the extent that the UN participated in these war crimes along with Washington's European, Canadian and Australian vassals, all are guilty of war crimes. Perhaps the UN itself should be arraigned before the War Crimes Tribunal along with the EU, US, Australia and Canada.

    Quite a record. Western Civilization, if civilization it is, is the greatest committer of war crimes in human history.

    And there are other crimes-Somalia, and Obama's coups against Honduras and Ukraine and Washington's ongoing attempts to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Washington wants to overthrow Ecuador in order to grab and torture Julian Assange, the world's leading democrat.

    These war crimes committed by four US presidents caused millions of civilian deaths and injuries and dispossessed and dislocated millions of peoples, who have now arrived as refugees in Europe, UK, US, Canada, and Australia, bringing their problems with them, some of which become problerms for Europeans, such as gang rapes.

    What is the reason for all the death and destruction and the flooding of the West with refugees from the West's naked violence? We don't know. We are told lies: Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," which the US government knew for an absolute fact did not exist. "Assad's use of chemical weapons," an obvious, blatant lie. "Iranian nukes," another blatant lie. The lies about Gaddafi in Libya are so absurd that it is pointless to repeat them.

    What were the lies used to justify bombing tribesmen in Pakistan, to bomb a new government in Yemen? No American knows or cares. Why the US violence against Somalia? Again, no Americans knows or cares. Or the morons saw a movie.

    Violence for its own sake. That is what America has become.

    Indeed, violence is what America is. There is nothing else there. Violence is the heart of America.

    Consider not only the bombings and destruction of countries, but also the endless gratuitous, outrageous police violence against US citizens. If anyone should be disarmed, it is the US police. The police commit more "gun violence" than anyone else, and unlike drug gangs fighting one another for territory, police violence has no other reason than the love of committing violence against other humans. The American police even shoot down 12-year old American kids prior to asking any question, especially if they are black.

    Violence is America. America is violence. The moronic liberals blame it on gun owners, but it is always the government that is the source of violence. That is the reason our Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment. It is not gun owners who have destroyed in whole or part eight countries. It is the armed-at-taxpayer-expense US government that commits the violence.

    America's lust for violence is now bringing the Washington morons up against people who can commit violence back: the Russians and Chinese, Iran and North Korea.

    Beginning with the Clinton moron every US government has broken or withdrawn from agreements with Russia, agreements that were made in order to reduce tensions and the risk of thermo-nuclear war. Washington initially covered its aggressive steps toward Russia with lies, such as ABM missile sites on Russia's border are there to protect Europe from (non-existent) Iranian nuclear ICBMs.

    The Obama regime still told lies but escalated to false charges against Russia and Russia's president in order to build tensions between nuclear powers, the antithesis of Ronald Reagan's policy. Yet moronic liberals love Obama and hate Reagan.

    Did you know that Russia is so powerful and the NSA and CIA so weak and helpless that Russia can determine the outcome of US elections? You must know this, because this is all you have heard from the utterly corrupt Democratic Party, the CIA, the FBI, the Amerian whore media, and the morons who listen to CNN, MSNBC, NPR or read the New York Times and Washington Post.

    Surely you have heard at least one thousand times that Russia invaded Ukraine; yet Washington's puppet still sits in Kiev. One doesn't have to have an IQ above 90 to understand that if Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine would not still be there.

    Did you know that the president of Russia, which world polls show is the most respected leader in the world, is, according to Hillary Clinton "the new Hitler"?

    Did you know that the most respected leader in the world, Vladimir Putin, is a Mafia don, a thug, a tarantula at the center of a spy web, according to members of the US government who are so stupid that they cannot even spell their own names?

    Did you know that Putin, who has refrained from responding aggressively to US provocations, not out of fear, but out of respect for human life, is said to be hellbent on reconstructing the Soviet Empire? Yet, when Putin sent a Russian force against the US and Israeli trained and supplied Georgian army that Washington sent to attack South Ossetia, the Russian Army conquered Georgia in five hours; yet withdrew after teaching the morons the lesson. If Putin wanted to reconstruct the Russian Empire, why didn't he keep Georgia, a Russian province for 300 years prior to Washington's breakup of the Russian Empire when the Soviet Union collapsed? Washington was powerless to do anything had Putin declared Georgia to be again part of Russia.

    And now we have the embarrassment of Trump's CIA director, Mike Pompeo, possibly the most stupid person in America. Here we have a moron of the lowest grade. I am not sure there is any IQ there at all. Possibly it reads zero.

    This moron, if he qualifies to that level, which I doubt, has accused Julian Assange, the world's Premier Journalist, the person who more than anyone represents the First Amendment of the US Constitution, of being a demon who sides with dictators and endangers the security of American hegemony with the help of Russia. All because Wilileaks publishes material from official sources revealing the criminal behavior of the US government. Wikileaks doesn't steal the documents. The documents are leaked to Wikileaks by whistleblowers who cannot tolerate the immorality and lies of the US government.

    Anyone who tells the truth is by definition against the United States of America. And the moron Pompeo intends to get them.

    When I first read Pompeo's accusation against Assange, I thought it had to be a joke. The CIA director wants to revoke the First Amendment. But the moron Pompeo actually said it. https://www.rt.com/usa/384667-cia-assange-wikileaks-critisize/

    What are we to do, what is the world to do, when we have utter morons as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as President of the US, as National Security Adviser, as Secretary of Defense, as Secretary of State, as US Ambassador to the UN, as editors of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, MSNBC? How can there be any intelligence when only morons are in charge?

    Stupid is as stupid does. The Chinese government has said that the moronic Americans could attack North Korea at any moment. A large US fleet is heading to North Korea. North Korea apparently now has nuclear weapons. One North Korean nuclear weapon can wipe out the entirety of the US fleet. Why is Washington inviting this outcome? The only possible answer is moronic stupidity.

    North Korea is not bothering anyone. Why is Washington picking on North Korea? Does Washington want war with China? In which case, is Washinton kissing off the West Coast of the US? Why does the West Coast support policies that imply the demise of the West Coast of the US? Do the morons on the West Coast think that the US can initiate war with China, or North Korea, without any consequesnces to the West Coast? Are even Amerians this utterly stupid?

    China or Russia individually can wipe out the US. Together they can make North America uninhabitalbe until the end of time. Why are the Washington morons provoking powerful nuclear powers? Do the Washington morons think Russia and China will submit to threats?

    The answer is: Washington is a collection of morons, people stupid below the meaning of stupid. People so far outside of reality that they imagine that their hubris and arrogance elevates them above reality.

    When the first Satan 2 hits Washington, the greatest collection of morons in the world will cease to exist.

    The world will breathe a huge sigh of relief.

    Bring it on! Come on morons, eliminate yourselves! The rest of us cannot wait.

    HardAssets -> Manthong , Apr 16, 2017 11:45 PM

    PCR has the southern gentleman's understanding of the grip of New England Puritan arrogance and hypocrisy on this nation. When you think you are 'the shining city on the hill' you can do no wrong. You think you're bringing 'democracy' to the world and G-d has 'shed his grace on thee'. This is an old problem & leading Americans wrote & spoke on it, including Thomas Jefferson.

    Never One Roach -> HardAssets , Apr 17, 2017 12:04 AM

    Profiteers and crooks run DC; Hillary Clinton is a good example.

    While middle class Americans suffer, DC politicans line thier pockets with Loot and fail to be responsible leaders.

    Radical Marijuana -> buckstopshere , Apr 16, 2017 10:43 PM

    "People so far outside of reality that they imagine that their hubris and arrogance elevates them above reality."

    Globalized Neolithic Civilization, that the USA became the "leader" of, is the maximizing expression of the abilities to back up more or less legalized lies with legalized violence, despite that doing so never stops those lies from still being false ... In general, the overall situation is FAR WORSE than the superficially correct analysis provided by Paul Craig Roberts!

    Indeed, what is "Easter," but the metaphorical expression of yet another manifestation of the criminal insanities which follow from the excessive successfulness from being able to back up lies with violence, emerging out of the deep history of Neolithic Civilization?

    Meanwhile, the entire political economy is almost totally based on public governments enforcing frauds by private banks, while it, therefore, has become politically impossible to prevent those vicious spirals of the funding of political processes from automatically becoming worse, faster, at about an exponential rate, due to prodigious progress in physical science and technology being channeled through Civilization based on the abilities to back up lies with violence, despite that being able to do so results in Civilization becoming more and more psychotic, at about an exponential rate:

    "Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad."

    Archive_file , Apr 16, 2017 10:30 PM

    Critical theory (Henry A. Gireoux)

    https://youtu.be/F_ayf-IEoZ4

    redc1c4 , Apr 16, 2017 10:33 PM

    DC isn't America...

    neither is new Yak Shitty or Lost Angels, Frisco or any of the others.

    #HTH.

    Giant Meteor -> flaminratzazz , Apr 16, 2017 10:59 PM

    Paul is a bit heated. I thought this one of his best.

    Rebel yell -> bpj , Apr 16, 2017 11:39 PM

    America had 44,000 suicides in 2014, 16,000 homicides, 10,000 heroin overdoses, and 10,000 prescription opioids overdoses., and one percent of our population is in the prison industrial complex, with the most corrupt criminals in our government, banking system, and mic roaming freely and committing more atrocities every day. Glad it's working out for ya! https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nvdrs/

    silverer , Apr 16, 2017 11:52 PM

    Wow. I've never seen Paul this pissed. I guess he, along with a lot of other Americans, feel a certain helplessness to counter the insane policies and decisions coming from these people who have built their false power on the backs of the working people. He's right. If the US gets nuked, the rest of the world will breathe a sigh of relief. Imagine if the tables were turned, and our country looked like Libya, Iraq, Syria, Bosnia from being bombed, day in and day out. And wondering if you'd be alive the next day because you weren't in the right place at the right time. Way overboard with the empire crap, the US is.

    flaminratzazz -> Ms No , Apr 17, 2017 1:06 AM

    my thoughts is that last century's nukes are big ponderous dinosaurs that wont get 5000 feet before the new and improved anti missiles kill them. or the satellites.. I have no doubt that all the land based ICBMs are worthless.

    Maybe we could get a few through from our subs but that too is speculation..

    Years ago my brother was in the navy and his job was to fly around in an awacs type plane and intercept and decode Russian messages and he told me that one of the messages he decoded was the locations of every Trident in our fleet.

    Ms No -> flaminratzazz , Apr 17, 2017 1:12 AM

    It seems like bullies always go down the same way. They rule by intimidation and then when they get challenged and eventually wounded everybody sees that they are weak and can/should be beaten. They then get throttled because there is blood in the water. We don't seem to far off from that.

    Joe A , Apr 17, 2017 1:40 AM

    America is Rome. Modeled after the old Rome including political/legal structure, architecture and symbols. New Rome same as the old Rome except the weaponry is more powerful.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Trump, A Symptom Of What A Radical Message From a Half-Century Ago

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the American system we live under can create this atrocity, there must be something wrong with the whole thing. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.truth-out.org
    You could hear the deep sadness in the preacher's voice as he named "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government." With those words, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., launched a scathing indictment of America's war in Vietnam. It was April 4, 1967.

    That first antiwar sermon of his seemed to signal a new high tide of opposition to a brutal set of American policies in Southeast Asia. Just 11 days later, unexpectedly large crowds would come out in New York and San Francisco for the first truly massive antiwar rallies. Back then, a protest of at least a quarter of a million seemed yuge .

    King signaled another turning point when he concluded his speech by bringing up "something even more disturbing" -- something that would deeply disturb the developing antiwar movement as well. "The war in Vietnam," he said, "is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit."

    Many of those who gathered at antiwar rallies days later were already beginning to suspect the same thing. Even if they could actually force their government to end its war in Vietnam, they would be healing only a symptom of a far more profound illness. With that realization came a shift in consciousness, the clearest sign of which could be found in the sizeable contingent of countercultural hippies who began joining those protests. While antiwar radicals were challenging the unjust political and military policies of their government, the counterculturists were focused on something bigger: trying to revolutionize the whole fabric of American society.

    Why recall this history exactly 50 years later, in the age of Donald Trump? Curiously enough, King offered at least a partial answer to that question in his 1967 warning about the deeper malady. "If we ignore this sobering reality," he said, "we will find ourselves... marching... and attending rallies without end." The alternative? "We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values."

    Like many of my generation, I feel as if, in lieu of that radical revolution, I have indeed been marching and attending rallies for the last half-century, even if there were also long fallow periods of inactivity. (In those quiet times, of course, there was always organizing and activism going on behind the scenes, preparing for the next wave of marches and demonstrations in response to the next set of obvious outrages.)

    If the arc of history bends toward justice, as King claimed , it's been a strange journey, a bizarre twisting and turning as if we were all on some crazed roller-coaster ride.

    The Trump era already seems like the most bizarre twist of all, leaving us little choice but to march and rally at a quickening pace for years to come. A radical revolution in values? Unless you're thinking of Trump's plutocrats and environment wreckers, not so much. If anything, the nation once again finds itself facing an exaggerated symptom of a far deeper malady. Perhaps one day, like the antiwar protestors of 1967, anti-Trump protestors will say: If the American system we live under can create this atrocity, there must be something wrong with the whole thing.

    But that's the future. At present, the resistance movement, though as unexpectedly large as the movement of 1967, is still focused mainly on symptoms, the expanding list of inhumane 1% policies the Republicans (themselves in chaos) are preparing to foist on the nation. Yet to come up are the crucial questions: What's wrong with our system? How could it produce a President Trump, a Republican hegemony, and the society-wrecking policies that go with them both? What would a radically new direction mean and how would we head there?

    In 1967, antiwar activists were groping their way toward answers to similar questions. At least we have one advantage. We can look back at their answers and use them to help make sense of our own situation. As it happens, theirs are still depressingly relevant because the systemic malady that produced the Vietnam War is a close cousin to the one that has now given us President Trump.

    Challenging the Deeper Malady

    The Sixties spawned many analyses of the ills of the American system. The ones that marked that era as revolutionary concluded that the heart of the problem was a distinctive mode of consciousness -- a way of seeing, experiencing, interpreting, and being in the world. Political and cultural radicals converged, as historian Todd Gitlin concluded, in their demand for a transformation of "national if not global (or cosmic) consciousness."

    Nor was such a system uniquely American, they discovered. It was nothing less than the hallmark of Western modernity.

    In exploring the nature of that "far deeper malady," Martin Luther King, for instance, turned to the European philosopher Martin Buber, who found the root of that consciousness in modernity's "I-It" attitude. From early childhood, he suggested, we learn to see other people as mere objects ("its") with no inherent relation to us. In the process, we easily lose sight of their full humanity. That, in turn, allows us free rein to manipulate others (or as in Vietnam simply destroy them) for our own imagined benefit.

    King particularly decried such dehumanization as it played itself out in American racism: "Segregation substitutes an 'I-it' relationship for the 'I-thou' relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things." But he condemned it no less strongly in the economic sphere, where it affected people of all races. "The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system," he said, "encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that inspire men to be more I-centered than thou-centered... Capitalism fails to realize that life is social."

    Another influential thinker of that era was a German-American philosopher, Herbert Marcuse . (Some radicals even marched in rallies carrying signs reading "Marx, Mao, Marcuse.") For him, the dehumanization of modernity was rooted in the way science and technology led us to view nature as a mere collection of "things" having no inherent relation to us -- things to be analyzed, controlled, and if necessary destroyed for our own benefit.

    Capitalists use technology, he explained, to build machines that take charge both of the workers who run them and of aspects of the natural world. The capitalists then treat those workers as so many things, not people. And the same hierarchy -- boss up here, bossed down there -- shows up at every level of society from the nuclear family to the international family of nations (with its nuclear arsenals). In a society riddled with structures of domination, it was no accident that the US was pouring so much lethal effort into devastating Vietnam.

    As Marcuse saw it, however, the worst trick those bosses play on us is to manipulate our consciousness, to seduce us into thinking that the whole system makes sense and is for our own good. When those machines are cranking out products that make workers' lives more comfortable, most of them are willing to embrace and perpetuate a system that treats them as dominated objects.

    Marcuse would not have been surprised to see so many workers voting for Donald Trump, a candidate who built his campaign on promises of ever more intensified domination -- of marginalized people at home, of " bad hombres " needing to be destroyed abroad, and of course, of nature itself, especially in the form of fossil fuels on a planet where the very processes he championed ensured a future of utter devastation.

    One explanation for the electoral success of Trump was the way he appealed to heartland white working-class voters who saw their standard of living and sense of social status steadily eroding. Living in a world in which hierarchy and domination are taken for granted, it's hardly surprising that many of them took it for granted as well that the only choice available was either to be a dominator or to be dominated. Vote for me, the billionaire businessman (famed for the phrase "You're fired!") implicitly promised and you, too, will be one of the dominators. Vote against me and you're doomed to remain among the dominated. Like so many other tricks of the system, this one defied reality but worked anyway.

    Many Trump voters who bought into the system will find themselves facing even harsher domination by the 1%. And as the Trumpian fantasy of man dominating nature triggers inevitable twenty-first-century blowback on a planetary scale, count on growing environmental and social disasters to bring disproportionate pain to those already suffering most under the present system. In every arena, as Marcuse explained back in the 1960s, the system of hierarchy and domination remains self-perpetuating and self-escalating.

    "The Long and Bitter but Beautiful Struggle for a New World"

    What's the remedy for this malady, now as lethally obvious at home as it once was in Vietnam?

    "The end of domination [is] the only truly revolutionary exigency," Marcuse wrote. True freedom, he thought, means freeing humanity from the hierarchical system that locks us into the daily struggle to earn a living by selling our labor. Freedom means liberating our consciousness to search for our own goals and being able to pursue them freely. In Martin Luther King's words, freedom is "the opportunity to fulfill my total capacity untrammeled by any artificial barrier."

    How to put an end not only to America's war in Vietnam, but to a whole culture built on domination? King's answer on that April 4th was deceptively simple: "Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door... The first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word."

    The simplicity in that statement was deceptive because love is itself such a complicated word. King often explained that the Greeks had three words for love: eros (aesthetic or romantic love), philia (friendship), and agape (self-sacrificing devotion to others). He left no doubt that he considered agape far superior to the other two.

    The emerging counterculture of those years certainly agreed with him on the centrality of love to human liberation. After all, it was "the love generation." But its mantra -- "If it feels good, do it" -- made King's rejection of eros in the name of self-negating agape a non-starter for them.

    King, however, offered another view of love, which was far more congenial to the counterculture. Love unites whatever is separated, he preached. This is the kind of love that God uses in his work. We, in turn, are always called upon to imitate God and so to transform our society into what King called a "beloved community."

    Though few people at the time made the connection, King's Christian understanding of love was strikingly similar to Marcuse's secular view of erotic love . Marcuse saw eros as the fulfillment of desire. He also saw it as anything but selfish, since it flows from what Freud called the id, which always wants to abolish ego boundaries and recover that sense of oneness with everything we all had as infants.

    When we experience anyone or anything erotically, we feel that we are inherently interconnected, "tied together in a single garment of destiny," as King so eloquently put it. When boundaries and separation dissolve, there can be no question of hierarchy or domination.

    Every moment that hints at such unification brings us pleasure. In a revolutionary society that eschews structures of domination for the ideal of unification, all policies are geared toward creating more moments of unity and pleasure.

    Think of this as the deep-thought revolution of the Sixties: radically transformed minds would create a radically transformed society. Revolutionaries of that time were, in fact, trying to wage the very utopian struggle that King summoned all Americans to in his April 4th speech, "the long and bitter but beautiful struggle for a new world."

    Fifty Years Later: The Thread That Binds

    At this very moment 50 years ago, a movement resisting a brutal war of domination in a distant land was giving birth to a movement calling for the creation of a new consciousness to heal our ailing society. Will the resistance movement of 2017 head in a similar direction?

    At first glance, it seems unlikely. After all, ever since the Vietnam War ended, progressives have had a tendency to focus on single issues of injustice or laundry lists of problems. They have rarely imagined the American system as anything more than a collection of wrong-headed policies and wrong-hearted politicians. In addition, after years of resisting the right wing as it won victory after victory, and of watching the Democrats morph into a neoliberal crew and then into a failing party with its own dreary laundry lists of issues and personalities, the capacity to hope for fundamental change may have gone the way of Herbert Marcuse and Martin Luther King.

    Still, for those looking hard, a thread of hope exists. Today's marches, rallies, and town halls are packed with veterans of the Sixties who can remember, if we try, what it felt like to believe we were fighting not only to stop a war but to start a revolution in consciousness. No question about it, we made plenty of mistakes back then. Now, with so much more experience (however grim) in our memory banks, perhaps we might develop more flexible strategies and a certain faith in taking a more patient, long-term approach to organizing for change.

    Don't forget as well that, whatever our failings and the failings of other past movements, we also have a deep foundation of victories (along with defeats) to build on. No, there was no full-scale revolution in our society -- no surprise there. But in so many facets of our world, advances happened nonetheless. Think of how, in those 50 years just past, views on diversity, social equality, the environment, healthcare, and so many other issues, which once existed only on the fringes of our world, have become thoroughly mainstream . Taken as a whole, they represent a partial but still profound and significant set of changes in American consciousness.

    Of course, the Sixties not only can't be resurrected, but shouldn't be. (After all, it should never be forgotten that what they led to wasn't a dreamed of new society but the "Reagan revolution," as the arc of justice took the first of its many grim twists and turns.) At best, the Sixties critique of the system would have to be updated to include many new developments.

    Even the methods of those Sixties radicals would need major revisions, given that our world, especially of communication, now relies so heavily on blindingly fast changes in technology. But every time we log onto the Internet and browse the web, it should remind us that -- shades of the past -- across this embattled Earth of ours, we're all tied together in a single worldwide web of relations and of destiny. It's either going to be one for all and all for one, or it's going to be none for 7.4 billion on a planet heading for hell.

    Today is different, too, because our movement was not born out of protest against an odious policy, but against an odious mindset embodied in a deplorable person who nonetheless managed to take the Oval Office. He's so obviously a symptom of something larger and deeper that perhaps the protesters of this generation will grasp more quickly than the radicals of the Vietnam era that America's underlying disease is a destructive mode of consciousness (and not just a bad combover).

    The move from resisting individual policies to transforming American consciousness may already have begun in small ways. After all, "love trumps hate" has become the most common slogan of the progressive movement. And the word love is being heard in hard-edged political discourse, not only on the left , but among mainstream political voices like Van Jones and Cory Booker . Once again, there is even talk of " revolutionary love ."

    Of course, the specific policies of the Republicans and this president (including his developing war policies ) must be resisted and the bleeding of the immediate moment staunched. Yet the urgent question of the late 1960s remains: What can be done when there are so many fronts on which to struggle and the entire system demands constant vigilant attention? In the age of a president who regularly sucks all the air out of the room, how do we even talk about all of this without being overwhelmed?

    In many ways, the current wave of regressive change and increasing chaos in Washington should be treated as a caricature of the system that we all have been living under for so long. Turn to that broader dimension and the quest for a new consciousness may prove the thread that, though hardly noticed, already ties together the many facets of the developing resistance movement.

    The largest mobilization for progressive politics since the Vietnam era offers a unique opportunity to go beyond simply treating symptoms and start offering cures for the underlying illness. If this opportunity is missed, versions of the same symptoms are likely to recur, while unpredictable new ones will undoubtedly emerge for the next 50 years, and as Martin Luther King predicted, we will go on marching without end. Surely we deserve a better future and a better fate. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here .

    Ira Chernus Ira Chernus is a professor emeritus of religious studies at the University of Colorado and author of MythicAmerica: Essays . He blogs at mythicamerica.us , hosted by History News Network .

    Related Stories Trump Is Moving "Full Speed Ahead" in War in Yemen, Despite Massive Civilian Casualties By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview Trump Tees Off on Syria By Matt Bors, Universal Uclick | Cartoon Trump Says He'll Combat the Opioid Crisis, but His Agenda Could Make It Worse By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | News Analysis

    [Apr 17, 2017] What Would Korean War II Look Like? by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan. ..."
    "... The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing. ..."
    "... Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years. ..."
    "... How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD. ..."
    "... North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder. ..."
    "... China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. ..."
    "... China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there. ..."
    "... America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. ..."
    "... We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. ..."
    "... It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. ..."
    "... What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire. ..."
    "... Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah . ..."
    "... Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago. ..."
    "... Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue. ..."
    "... As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe ..."
    "... That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. ..."
    "... The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. ..."
    "... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever.... ..."
    "... The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it. ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | unz.com
    Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have any idea how ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly defenseless nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.

    The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles. But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast China, including the capital, Beijing.

    China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and hard to identify and knock out.

    This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world's economy to nuclear contamination, not to mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.

    A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan.

    North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots, ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.

    Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.

    US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10 billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military conscription might have to be re-introduced.

    Timur The Lame says: April 16, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT

    Indeed. It was a sorrowful read with the exception of the heroics of the First Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Wiki called that action a victory as if rearguard actions or successful retreats could ever be put in a victory column.

    The big point now is what do the Chinese think. They were the reason that there even was a Korean War for those who prefer headlines over history or happen to be in elective office in the US government (or Pentagon).

    The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing.

    " Hit the dirt, join the crowd, lookee mamma, a mushroom cloud" from MAD magazine, in the sixties, a kids rag that makes some people wonder why the non funny, non witty Onion even exists.

    Today that cloud thing suddenly becomes real possibility. Did I say MAD?

    Cheers-

    Art , April 16, 2017 at 5:29 pm GMT
    Who do we have to fear the most – Kim or Trump?

    Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years.

    How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD.

    It is time to deescalate – it is time to trade with the bastard – it is time to open up N Korea. Send in the food. Help the people. Be better than the dictator. Give his people what he cannot deliver. Give them the power to demand freedom. It is hard to see – but when dictator governments trade with others, they evolve to freedom.

    Peace - Art

    p.s. The Trump Whisperer – Ivanka – needs to get in daddy's ear and say "cool it Pops."

    Sean , April 16, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
    North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder.

    History shows that the leadership of states in danger of losing their independent status will choose uncertain and perilous courses of action . The best thing is this will fizzle out. If China tries to pressure Kim, he would seriously consider starting a conventional war. He couldn't possibly win, but that is the point: China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. Nuclear weapons will not be used in any event.

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 7:32 pm GMT
    @bob sykes Any discussion of a new Korean War that does not emphasize China is asinine, like this one. China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there.

    China will not permit an American ally on the Yalu River. Any state bordering China on the Yalu must be explicitly pro-Chinese. If a war does break out on the peninsula, China will intervene on the side of the North Koreans.

    To call the first Korean War inconclusive is tendentious: China decisively defeated the US/NATO forces, and did so with with a primitive WW I style army and no navy or air force to speak of. Human wave assaults sufficed then. They did not occupy the whole peninsula because their primitive army lacked the logistical capacity to do so.

    Today China has a large modern military with a full spectrum of capabilities, including tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and a large amphibious force. China would crush the US, Japanese and South Korean militaries, even assuming Russia stands aside. It didn't in Korea I and Vietnam. And China's strategic nuclear forces would prevent the US from using nuclear weapons on the peninsula. Anyway, the antique nuclear weapons we have today may not even work.

    America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. The military that invaded Iraq no longer exists, and it was smaller than the one that liberated Kuwait. The US military has been downsized to the point that it cannot meet our treaty commitments. Sequestration has stripped the remaining military of funds needed for training and maintenance. Only a third of our fighter/bombers are available for war, and the pilots get only half the hours needed to maintain their skills. We do not practice combined arms warfare any more.

    We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. The use of the MOAB against ISIS in Afghanistan was an indicator of panic in our military command there and at home. It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.

    What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire.

    {We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. }

    Almost true.

    Imperial Japan was no Nazi Germany.

    Although Japanese were tenacious fighters and they had first-rate military hardware*, U.S. and U.S. Navy were a rung above the Imperial Japanese military. Japan simply did not have the resources or the industrial might of U.S.

    By the time Allies (really the U.S.) landed in Europe in 1944, Wehrmacht was a spent force: 80% of its best, toughest units were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Even then, at the Battle of the Bulge U.S. troops ran from the advancing Germans (mostly ** ). GIs were saved by the powerful USAF when the skies cleared up.

    So we don't really have a good example of peer-to-peer land warfare for US military (other than the US Civil War).

    --
    * Zero was considered superior to US equipment in the beginning.
    ** Heroic defense of Bastogne.

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT
    @anon It's really China's problem.

    And the only thing that has kept Japan and South Korea non nuclear is the US. A real threat would be for the US to simply to go home. When Trump was tweeting that exactly -- it was seen as quite threatening.

    A nuclear North Korea which is barely in the nuclear club and doesn't have the economy to militarize is simply an annoyance to China. Japan and South Korea could be real threats quite quickly. And there is no love lost between any of them.

    An irony is that the US has effectively disarmed Europe via NATO, and if the US told Germany to take care of themselves, Russia wouldn't feel threatened, they would be threatened.

    The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in Vietnam.

    North Korea's only threat is nuclear, which is hollow, since they are assured of massive retaliation in kind. I suppose China has been OK with the situation, since it annoys us to no end and hasn't cost them much. So far. {The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in Vietnam.}

    This an enduring myth that was created to salve the psych wound of being beaten by 'inferior' yellow-man.

    Other than using atomic bombs, there were no constraints on US military. US military was given a free hand to bomb and destroy anything and everything, including civilian targets* in both wars.

    As to nukes.

    China had no nukes during Korean war, but Soviet Union did.

    First SU nuke test: Aug 1949.
    First US thermonuke test: Nov 1952
    First SU thermonuke test: Aug 1953.

    POTUS Truman fired delusional Gen McArthur because he knew SU would most certainly use tac nukes in Korea if US did.
    If you recall, Truman had no compunction using nukes on civilian targets, so he must have had good reason to restrain the crazy generals.

    Same with Viet Nam: yes US military wanted to nuke Hanoi in desperation, but cooler civilian heads prevailed. Again, there was near-certainty that SU would respond in kind in Viet Nam.
    --
    * targeted deliberately: war crimes.

    denk , April 17, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT
    '" If China is not going to solve North Korea , we will."

    With this porky pie,
    Trump becomes the 45th 'bald faced liars' elected by the murkkans.

    And .
    With the bombing of Syria, Yemen
    Trump joins the 'prestigious' ranks of the previous 44 war criminals in WH.

    Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah .

    B.S. --

    Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago.

    Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue.

    As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe

    Joe Wong says: April 17, 2017 at 11:11 am GMT @Vendetta
    Why not allow that? That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention.
    daniel le mouche , April 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm GMT @Timur The Lame
    I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but a super salesman.

    While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.

    The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).

    The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct. With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really. It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights..."

    To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever....

    Cheers- The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Zero chance of any attack on Korea beyond a prearranged choreographed pinprick

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    nsa , April 16, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    @Willem Hendrik

    If there were ever a Just Cause for the Yanks to invade and bring democracy somewhere, it would be North Korea. The horrors that generations of North Koreans in concentration camps are enduring, would even make the holo-jews cringe.

    Then again, is Israel ready to take a second row seat on the holocaust narrative and let the North Koreans take the gold medal of international victimhood?

    And what do you do with millions of people coping with culture shock, paranoia, etc.? And, last but not least, who would make our clothing for 5 cents a piece?

    All in all. I do not think the Israeli's would let the USA attack North Korea.

    Zero chance of any attack on Korea beyond a prearranged choreographed pinprick. The explanation is simple: nothing in it for the Jooies and Izzies who worked overtime to install a US government of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies. Why would they waste their satrap's assets when they could be used on Iran?

    [Apr 17, 2017] What Would Korean War II Look Like? by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan. ..."
    "... The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing. ..."
    "... Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years. ..."
    "... How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD. ..."
    "... North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder. ..."
    "... China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. ..."
    "... China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there. ..."
    "... America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. ..."
    "... We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. ..."
    "... It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. ..."
    "... What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire. ..."
    "... Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah . ..."
    "... Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago. ..."
    "... Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue. ..."
    "... As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe ..."
    "... That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. ..."
    "... The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. ..."
    "... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever.... ..."
    "... The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it. ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | unz.com
    Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have any idea how ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly defenseless nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.

    The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles. But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast China, including the capital, Beijing.

    China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and hard to identify and knock out.

    This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world's economy to nuclear contamination, not to mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.

    A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan.

    North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots, ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.

    Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.

    US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10 billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military conscription might have to be re-introduced.

    Timur The Lame says: April 16, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT

    Indeed. It was a sorrowful read with the exception of the heroics of the First Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Wiki called that action a victory as if rearguard actions or successful retreats could ever be put in a victory column.

    The big point now is what do the Chinese think. They were the reason that there even was a Korean War for those who prefer headlines over history or happen to be in elective office in the US government (or Pentagon).

    The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing.

    " Hit the dirt, join the crowd, lookee mamma, a mushroom cloud" from MAD magazine, in the sixties, a kids rag that makes some people wonder why the non funny, non witty Onion even exists.

    Today that cloud thing suddenly becomes real possibility. Did I say MAD?

    Cheers-

    Art , April 16, 2017 at 5:29 pm GMT
    Who do we have to fear the most – Kim or Trump?

    Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years.

    How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD.

    It is time to deescalate – it is time to trade with the bastard – it is time to open up N Korea. Send in the food. Help the people. Be better than the dictator. Give his people what he cannot deliver. Give them the power to demand freedom. It is hard to see – but when dictator governments trade with others, they evolve to freedom.

    Peace - Art

    p.s. The Trump Whisperer – Ivanka – needs to get in daddy's ear and say "cool it Pops."

    Sean , April 16, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
    North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder.

    History shows that the leadership of states in danger of losing their independent status will choose uncertain and perilous courses of action . The best thing is this will fizzle out. If China tries to pressure Kim, he would seriously consider starting a conventional war. He couldn't possibly win, but that is the point: China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. Nuclear weapons will not be used in any event.

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 7:32 pm GMT
    @bob sykes Any discussion of a new Korean War that does not emphasize China is asinine, like this one. China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there.

    China will not permit an American ally on the Yalu River. Any state bordering China on the Yalu must be explicitly pro-Chinese. If a war does break out on the peninsula, China will intervene on the side of the North Koreans.

    To call the first Korean War inconclusive is tendentious: China decisively defeated the US/NATO forces, and did so with with a primitive WW I style army and no navy or air force to speak of. Human wave assaults sufficed then. They did not occupy the whole peninsula because their primitive army lacked the logistical capacity to do so.

    Today China has a large modern military with a full spectrum of capabilities, including tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and a large amphibious force. China would crush the US, Japanese and South Korean militaries, even assuming Russia stands aside. It didn't in Korea I and Vietnam. And China's strategic nuclear forces would prevent the US from using nuclear weapons on the peninsula. Anyway, the antique nuclear weapons we have today may not even work.

    America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. The military that invaded Iraq no longer exists, and it was smaller than the one that liberated Kuwait. The US military has been downsized to the point that it cannot meet our treaty commitments. Sequestration has stripped the remaining military of funds needed for training and maintenance. Only a third of our fighter/bombers are available for war, and the pilots get only half the hours needed to maintain their skills. We do not practice combined arms warfare any more.

    We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. The use of the MOAB against ISIS in Afghanistan was an indicator of panic in our military command there and at home. It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.

    What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire.

    {We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. }

    Almost true.

    Imperial Japan was no Nazi Germany.

    Although Japanese were tenacious fighters and they had first-rate military hardware*, U.S. and U.S. Navy were a rung above the Imperial Japanese military. Japan simply did not have the resources or the industrial might of U.S.

    By the time Allies (really the U.S.) landed in Europe in 1944, Wehrmacht was a spent force: 80% of its best, toughest units were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Even then, at the Battle of the Bulge U.S. troops ran from the advancing Germans (mostly ** ). GIs were saved by the powerful USAF when the skies cleared up.

    So we don't really have a good example of peer-to-peer land warfare for US military (other than the US Civil War).

    --
    * Zero was considered superior to US equipment in the beginning.
    ** Heroic defense of Bastogne.

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT
    @anon It's really China's problem.

    And the only thing that has kept Japan and South Korea non nuclear is the US. A real threat would be for the US to simply to go home. When Trump was tweeting that exactly -- it was seen as quite threatening.

    A nuclear North Korea which is barely in the nuclear club and doesn't have the economy to militarize is simply an annoyance to China. Japan and South Korea could be real threats quite quickly. And there is no love lost between any of them.

    An irony is that the US has effectively disarmed Europe via NATO, and if the US told Germany to take care of themselves, Russia wouldn't feel threatened, they would be threatened.

    The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in Vietnam.

    North Korea's only threat is nuclear, which is hollow, since they are assured of massive retaliation in kind. I suppose China has been OK with the situation, since it annoys us to no end and hasn't cost them much. So far. {The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in Vietnam.}

    This an enduring myth that was created to salve the psych wound of being beaten by 'inferior' yellow-man.

    Other than using atomic bombs, there were no constraints on US military. US military was given a free hand to bomb and destroy anything and everything, including civilian targets* in both wars.

    As to nukes.

    China had no nukes during Korean war, but Soviet Union did.

    First SU nuke test: Aug 1949.
    First US thermonuke test: Nov 1952
    First SU thermonuke test: Aug 1953.

    POTUS Truman fired delusional Gen McArthur because he knew SU would most certainly use tac nukes in Korea if US did.
    If you recall, Truman had no compunction using nukes on civilian targets, so he must have had good reason to restrain the crazy generals.

    Same with Viet Nam: yes US military wanted to nuke Hanoi in desperation, but cooler civilian heads prevailed. Again, there was near-certainty that SU would respond in kind in Viet Nam.
    --
    * targeted deliberately: war crimes.

    denk , April 17, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT
    '" If China is not going to solve North Korea , we will."

    With this porky pie,
    Trump becomes the 45th 'bald faced liars' elected by the murkkans.

    And .
    With the bombing of Syria, Yemen
    Trump joins the 'prestigious' ranks of the previous 44 war criminals in WH.

    Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah .

    B.S. --

    Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago.

    Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue.

    As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe

    Joe Wong says: April 17, 2017 at 11:11 am GMT @Vendetta
    Why not allow that? That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention.
    daniel le mouche , April 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm GMT @Timur The Lame
    I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but a super salesman.

    While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.

    The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).

    The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct. With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really. It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights..."

    To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever....

    Cheers- The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it.

    [Apr 17, 2017] US Attack on Syria Cements Kremlins Embrace of Assad

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    By championing Mr. Assad and condemning American "aggression," President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia seemed to be burying the idea that he could somehow cooperate with the Trump administration to end the conflict on his terms.

    The solidarity with Damascus is likely to cause problems for Russia in the long run, analysts said, although Mr. Putin probably cannot be persuaded to loosen his embrace any time soon.

    The Russian government often takes its time to react to major world events, but the Kremlin issued a prompt statement early Friday castigating the United States for the missile strike on Al Shayrat airfield in retaliation for Syria's chemical weapons attack.

    The Russian Ministry of Defense vowed to strengthen Syria's air defense systems, sent a frigate on a port call and froze an agreement with the United States to coordinate activity in Syrian air space.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Why North Korea Needs Nukes - And How To End That

    Notable quotes:
    "... Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?! ..."
    "... The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie. ..."
    "... I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood they shed. ..."
    "... The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its South Korean proxies. ..."
    "... This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. ..."
    "... No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed they did) ..."
    "... There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week. ..."
    "... China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves. ..."
    "... I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China. Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise? Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up. ..."
    "... It is utmost stupidity. Trump is parking US war ships in reach of North Korea, Russia and China. Now he depends on them not to do anything. ..."
    "... If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind. ..."
    "... China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do. ..."
    "... Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc. ..."
    "... why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down.. ..."
    "... This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens the US. Of course, the opposite is more true. ..."
    "... Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now, disgusting. ..."
    "... NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse. ..."
    "... Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie. ..."
    "... One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the area. ..."
    "... I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop. ..."
    "... This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war. ..."
    "... Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again, what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept this tremendous blunder? ..."
    "... At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China. ..."
    "... Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead. ..."
    "... Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo. ..."
    "... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
    "... The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans." ..."
    "... Anyways, cornering Iran is the goal that the US/Israel trying to accomplish, at least from reading the pattern of activities. Slippery slope indeed. ..."
    "... The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production plants. ..."
    "... The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought. The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and physical experiments on real people. ..."
    "... The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician. ..."
    "... From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control escalation. ..."
    "... North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated. ..."
    "... If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ? ..."
    "... IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe ? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;) ..."
    "... Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy of tension' goes on and on ... ..."
    "... "The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks, again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted. ..."
    "... Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ..."
    "... Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda bullshit the MSM saturates us with. ..."
    "... Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China 'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ? ..."
    "... I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China is because of that rather stark reality. ..."
    "... ...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable: The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations, and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy... ..."
    "... "...On the admission of [U.S.] General Ridgeway's Head Office, more POWs died in United Nations camps than in North Korean camps..." http://wherechangeobama.blogspot.com/2013/05/revisiting-history-of-korea-again-part-4.html?m=0 ..."
    "... China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800 Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400, also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly. ..."
    "... US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol Limited will testify. ..."
    "... It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster to win the day? ..."
    "... Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware of this before. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that. ..."
    "... "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a place unsuitable for life," he explained. ..."
    "... I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars. Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed. Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country, they were willing to gamble everything to have it all. ..."
    "... This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the US become more threatening. ..."
    "... A primary problem there is that they have convinced at least 20% of those 300M to be human shields in the service of Empire. ..."
    "... In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation. ..."
    "... it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa. ..."
    "... "Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy" trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track. ..."
    "... Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today. ..."
    "... Wide ranging fascinating interview with former high ranking CIA intelligence officer, Robert David Steele https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UfYLA7FCqQ ..."
    "... If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot. ..."
    "... The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century. Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars would be needed. ..."
    "... we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars and missiles. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/ ..."
    "... Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff ..."
    "... A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent). ..."
    "... ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because they ran out of other targets in some way). ..."
    "... Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks. Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force. ..."
    "... The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential election in the South. ..."
    "... As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be in South Korea. ..."
    "... The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will be front and centre in the campaign. ..."
    "... South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM. ..."
    "... who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ... the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash. ..."
    "... The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. But the US managed to create a security conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for North Korea. ..."
    "... South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional. ..."
    "... Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement, Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about the THAAD installation. ..."
    "... "The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society, an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers. ..."
    "... Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen' (from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid! ..."
    "... According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together. ..."
    "... This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook. ..."
    "... I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though. Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views of a few people I talk to in SK though. ..."
    "... What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression. Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on? ..."
    "... Don't know about Russia but I have some thoughts re. China. Xi made it clear to Donald that China would support Kim if NK is attacked i.e WW3. ..."
    "... Wikileaks, Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs "We don't want a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification. ..."
    "... Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees '. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 9:18:34 AM | 1

    Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?!

    As b show, North Korea is the rational, but no one in our "free" western media brings these fact up.

    No wonder western populations dont have any faith in their states and media.

    I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have backed away apparently..

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 9:30:57 AM | 2
    Bravo b. Bravo.

    Another key consideration from a strategic military perspective, re the massive extensive military 'exercises' by US/SK annually is such can and have been used historically in war to create a sense of routine & normalcy, so if the Nth should be complacent, and its been going on for decades, a surprise attack can be launched and have devastating effects, even thought the Nth is on 'annual' 'alert'.

    Maintaining heightened readiness, to Stand To! , stand ready for an attack, especially daily before dawn and prior to & after sunset, bayonets fixed, eye-peeled, adrenaline pumping, day after day, when the extended 'exercises' run, year after year after year is very difficult psychologically for the troops involved, corrosive of morale and discipline, and the Empire is very cognizant of this indeed.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14, 2017 9:50:19 AM | 3
    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 9:18:34 AM | 1

    I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have backed away apparently..

    China doesn't have the option of backing away because a North Korea threatened by AmeriKKKa is also a China threatened by AmeriKKKa. I hope Trump knows what he's doing because the Chinese most certainly do know what they're doing.

    Jeff Kaye | Apr 14, 2017 10:04:05 AM | 4
    Thank you, b!

    The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie.

    The oozing sore of a Cold War that never ended, that was really a Hot War for millions, now threatens to metastasize into Total War. I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood they shed.

    BRF | Apr 14, 2017 10:07:06 AM | 5
    The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its South Korean proxies.

    The imposition of a state of tension by the west is all the west seems capable of with the result in the current situation and any time a solution is proposed that could lead to a lessening of tensions the west either sabotages or outright rejects the initiative.

    This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. The only fix that I can see is an economic collapse in the west that leads to a pull back from western imperial outposts as they become too expensive to maintain. This can only take place with the demise of the Federal Reserve Note (USD) as the world reserve currency which is printable in any amount the western elites desire in maintaining their grip and domination through imperial dictate over the rest of the world. End this financial death grip and the rest follows very very quickly.

    Mark Stoval | Apr 14, 2017 10:11:29 AM | 6
    No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed they did)

    The USA has always believed the myth that WW2 saved the economy from the Great Depression and that the country would have slide back into depression without a war to fight --- hence the cold war and all the CIA wars ever since. Then came the "destroy the middle east" for the sake of Israel. (or oil or whatever)

    The USA remains today the greatest impediment to world peace that there is. The USA may set off nuclear war and the destruction of all civilization at some point.

    God help us all.

    stumpy | Apr 14, 2017 10:13:43 AM | 7
    Dead on, b.

    If you parse Obama's Nobel prize acceptance speech he hints at the theoretical model he used to cut off chances for peace anywhere. With China's premiere in the room, no less.

    Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach - and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

    Effing liar. America offers the choice of an open door to North Korea? Ha. We like our indignation without cream and sugar, to maximize purity.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 10:15:53 AM | 8
    Hoarsewhisperer

    There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week.

    China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 10:22:50 AM | 9
    @ Posted by: Jeff Kaye | Apr 14, 2017 10:04:05 AM | 4

    All honor & respect to you Invictus , for daunting, tireless & seemingly endless endeavor. Deepest & abiding respect indeed, Sir/Madam. Wishing you & yours safety & joy this Easter. ' Vale, Pax Tecum '.

    Ronak | Apr 14, 2017 10:31:30 AM | 10
    I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China. Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise? Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up.
    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 10:35:14 AM | 11
    Chinese way of rebuking Trump
    "On the Korean Peninsula issue, it is not the one who espouses hasher rhetoric or raises a bigger fist that will win," Wang said.

    It is utmost stupidity. Trump is parking US war ships in reach of North Korea, Russia and China. Now he depends on them not to do anything.

    Lysander | Apr 14, 2017 10:39:27 AM | 12
    If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind.
    @ 8, China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do.

    If Trump actually is dumb enough to strike, the Chinese will happily stand by and watch him hang himself. Just as promised at Mar-a-Lago.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 10:48:53 AM | 14
    Lysander

    +1 on that.
    Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc.

    stumpy | Apr 14, 2017 11:11:39 AM | 15
    Trump throwing stones at the mother of all hornet nests. Wonder what this all does for Samsung and Hyundai stock prices.
    james | Apr 14, 2017 11:28:04 AM | 16
    thanks b... many good comments already too! thanks folks.. @12 lysander - bang on example of how ignorant most folks remain.. why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down..
    WorldBLee | Apr 14, 2017 11:38:51 AM | 18
    Good article, b. This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens the US. Of course, the opposite is more true.

    It's important to note that every country that disagrees with the US is called crazy. Al-Assad is a "butcher", an "animal", a "dictator who kills his own people". Every time the US wants regime change they first vilify the leader of said country to turn him into a non-human entity that should be feared and loathed. This self-justifies the impending destruction of the country, which after all happened "for its own good."

    Tobin Paz | Apr 14, 2017 11:59:34 AM | 19
    If I told you ten years ago that the defacto American diplomat to North Korea Dennis Rodman would get kicked out of the country for getting drunk and taking a shit in a Pyongyang hotel; and that WWE hall of famer and reality TV star Donald Trump would threaten to attack North Korea as POTUS... would you have believed me?
    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:02:37 PM | 20
    Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now, disgusting.
    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 12:13:11 PM | 21
    The Huge Moron has got himself into a situation now where China is mediating between the US and Korea.
    likklemore | Apr 14, 2017 12:19:51 PM | 22
    Kudos b putting this together. That was some digging.

    Here is my 2 dumb questions: will the person who did the tallying of the MOAB taking out the 36 in Afghanistan be sent to NK for a similar task? Not to be crass, but given it was the "mother of all bombs" should the Pentagon folks not be embarrassed to release the count? KROI.

    China warns, and this from Her Majesty's paper, The Telegraph.co.uk with video interview:
    LINK

    "World 'on the brink of thermo-nuclear war', as North Korea mulls test that could goad Trump"

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Trump, as we have observed, does not enjoy being goaded - fights back when he is accused of having small hands.

    And Kim Jong-Un? Well never mind.

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    Wish all abundant blessings this Easter. We may not see 2018.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14, 2017 12:25:07 PM | 23
    Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 10:15:53 AM | 8

    Imo, the main reason AmeriKKKa is threatening Korea at this time is because Xi scared them, and their freedom of navigation charade, out of the South China Sea. And now they're adding blackmail to the provocation by putting NK between them. It's cowardly and stupid, which is why I said I hope Trump knows what he's doing, because it doesn't look that way to me.

    A violent conflict in NK will create a NK refugee problem which, as history illustrates, is AOK with AmeriKKKans but no-one else.
    And if Xi has scared AmeriKKKa once, he can do it again.

    likklemore | Apr 14, 2017 12:26:43 PM | 24
    and linked in the article is Democratic-Leader Pelosi 's tweet:

    President Trump's escalation on Syria, Saber-Rattling on North Korea Necessitate Immediate Congressional Scrutiny

    ~ ~ ~ ~
    somewhat late after Congress abandoned it's war powers to the past 4 presidents.

    Greg Bacon | Apr 14, 2017 12:33:42 PM | 25
    Why is NK our problem?

    NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse.

    Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie.

    So why should Kim give up his nukes, where's the benefit?

    GoraDiva | Apr 14, 2017 12:36:48 PM | 26
    For anyone even marginally interested in the issue of NK vs SK - please take time to listen to this interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A (actually, 2 2-hr interviews).

    Historian Bruce Cumings looks way back in trying to explain the peninsula and its troubles. One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the area.

    fastfreddy | Apr 14, 2017 12:47:00 PM | 28
    Trump is not a huge moron. He is an actor - pretending to be a moron for his moron fan club. He is very convincing. Superb acting. Terrific. An Armada of Stagecraft. Unfortunately, his moronic behavior leads to moronic and zany consequences.

    I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:49:02 PM | 29
    Hoarsewhispet

    IMO, if anyone it is Trump that have "scared" the chinese or rather baited the Chinese with good trade deals and have got the word from the chinese that they wont rescue NK nor attack US if US feel like attacking NK. This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war.

    E Ring 46Z Vet | Apr 14, 2017 12:51:46 PM | 30
    b, this occasion, your writing is very one-sided. You left out (as did all the commentators to this moment) the decades of brinksmanship by NK, demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments.

    Consider this: (who ever is in charge of the WH now or last time, etc.) does not matter as much as "perhaps" that entire region, and the multiple layers of MIC/Deep State folks/their proxies in Congress in the USA, are finally fed up with the brinksmanship for cash to keep that guy's family and supporters in power, and now that NK lunatic has raised the anti to the nuke level (thanks Bill for helping them out there in the 1990's)... it looks like the Pentagon will work the decisions at their level as we now see in real-time.

    I served a recent tour there. "Ready to Fight Tonight" is not just a motto with South Korea. They have lived it since 1953 and they are really tired of it.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 1:00:32 PM | 31
    30

    Could you rephrase your whole chunk of text, it makes no sense, US dont "pay" North Korea anything and the lunatic is not in NorthKorea but in the White House allied with your dear South Koreans.

    GoraDiva | Apr 14, 2017 1:03:41 PM | 33
    @30
    You've likely absorbed too much MCM (c - corporate) reporting; for a more complex understanding of the subject, pls listen to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A - that is you're interested in learning, as opposed to just repeating MCM talking points.
    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 1:08:11 PM | 34
    @ Posted by: E Ring 46Z Vet | Apr 14, 2017 12:51:46 PM | 30

    Respectfully, your comments are very one-sided, and you appear to be profoundly ignorant of the entire genesis of the Korean v US conflict and the motivations and conduct of involved parties since the days of the Kuomintang (KMT), Chiang Kai-shek, in the Chinese Civil War starting in 1940 but especially US actions from Sept 1946 and 1949 onward, as well as relevant USSR/Chinese involvement.

    Should you be interested there is significant detail in posts re 'Forgotten & buried History' of which you may be oblivious in the last three threads posts, or not.

    If you served in SK, ' Ready to Fight Tonight ', then why did you not bother to actually learn something of the Korean history, if only the last 70 years, with you and your buddies lives 'on the line', as opposed to merely regurgitating 'kool-aid' propaganda & misinformation ?

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:32:44 PM | 37
    And while we are studying this, the empire is making more plans.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-mattis-idUSKBN17G1C1
    U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis will visit Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Qatar and Djibouti starting on Tuesday, the Pentagon said in a statement on Friday.

    It said Mattis would "reaffirm key U.S. military alliances," and "discuss cooperative effort to counter destabilizing activities and defeat extremist terror organizations" during the April 18-23 tour. In Israel, he will hold talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the statement said.
    .......

    Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organizations they are talking Hezbollah. It is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 1:33:11 PM | 38
    @ Posted by: From The Hague | Apr 14, 2017 1:20:25 PM | 36

    Have been involved in detailed discussions that have carried thru the last three threads re Korea covering from 1940, to the critical events of Sept 1945, then thru to 1949 and just as important 1949 onwards, PRECEDING the Korean War of '50 ... many extracts, numerous links/sources/references, from multiple participating posters. Hm, suppose start around here:

    b | Apr 14, 2017 1:33:38 PM | 39
    @E Ring 46Z Vet

    I you come here for "neutral" piece that give equal weight and view to all sides you are in the wrong place. No author does that anyway and there are mountains to read that always highly endorse the U.S. side on each and every issue. I am not from the States and have a way more neutral view than you will find in your media. But I am not one sided. I have my moral position, my conscience and I follow it. I know what the U.S. has done to Korea - unnecessarily and for what I consider nefarious reasons.

    I also know that the claim NoKo was "demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments." is stupidly wrong.

    It was only Clinton who made a deal with NoKo which included for the U.S. side the delivery of oil and grain and the building of two civil nuclear reactors in North Korea. North Korea, in exchange, was to stop all nuclear work it had proceeded with including its own building of civil reactors which it urgently needed for electricity. It was a deal. Both side got something out of it.

    It was Clinton who broke that deal. It was Clinton who never delivered on his promises. The delivery of oil and grain was slow and ended early. Only the foundations of the reactors were build (by North Korea). No components were delivered. Bush only officially ended the deal Clinton had already renegaded on.

    chump change | Apr 14, 2017 1:39:08 PM | 40
    "demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43"

    Should take lessons from Israel and demand 3 Bil. 50 mil is chump change. How much do you think these annual maneuvers cost? More to the point, isn't it interesting that the US's war budget is practically unlimited, while money spent on peace is always too much.

    You probably support tax cuts for oligarchs while bitching about money squandered upon the poor, homeless and ill.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 1:41:42 PM | 41
    Followup to #38

    Also very highly recommend the following article and embedded links/references re Korea and consequences/issues surrounding detailed expert factual analysis re possible war here:

    Posted by: Outraged | Apr 12, 2017 8:38:58 PM | 248, 'Is There A New U.S. Syria Policy? Is There One At All?' thread. Cheers.

    Skip | Apr 14, 2017 1:43:49 PM | 42
    @30

    I wonder how warm and fuzzy the USA would be if NK had 60+ years ago, devastated our population with the bloodlust described by MacArthur, yet still had 50,000 troops stationed all along the Mexican border(DMZ)with nuclear capabilities that in an instant could destroy Houston, Austin, Dallas, Phoenix and Los Angeles??? Somehow I hear screaming and howling coming from the bowels or our esteemed Washington overlords. Kim's behavior is no more foolish.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 1:52:11 PM | 43
    Air China to suspend some flights to North Korea http://presstv.ir/Detail/2017/04/14/518018/Air-China-suspend-flights-North-Korea

    Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again, what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept this tremendous blunder?

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:14 PM | 45
    Is the US going the full John McCain? China rising, pivot on Asia behind schedule. Resources Diverted back to Middle East when Obama's headchoppers threatened US oil at Erbil. More resources for the pivot on China with Russia's re entry into the world of hard power.

    At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China.

    Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead.

    So US going full John McCain to make up for time lost / ground lost through the Obama years?

    Ronak | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:59 PM | 46
    @ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:32:44 PM | 37

    I still think it's a one-front war. Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo.

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 1:57:01 PM | 47
    @37, Peter AU
    Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organisations they are talking Hezbollah.It is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.

    US is in no position to launch any serious military operation as of now, certainly not against Iran, not to speak about Russia. Bombing something? Sure, as long as it is stand-off weapons and no US casualties. Yet, US is under pressure to "perform" something because, as of lately things are not going too well for US in general and her military in particular. Consider all these plans a self-medication. Per China, China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now, not does she want to risk losing the access to US markets.

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 2:08:37 PM | 48
    For those wondering what book the page is from, it's Napalm: An American Biography by Robert Neer, Belknap, 2013. Using google, enter this exactly into the search box: macarthur "biblical devastation resulted" hit search and the top result will take you to the page. (The actual url is about 4 lines, so I refrained from posting.) I do suggest reading the next several paragraphs, but they are not for the squeamish as what's described is 100% revolting. If after reading the text you cannot fathom why the North Koreans detest Americans more than anything else, then you'll make a perfect Neocon and ought to join Cheney and Co.

    Thanks b for posting that extract provided by Jeffery Kaye!

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 2:10:57 PM | 49
    No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat the experience.

    Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 2:11:06 PM | 50
    46) Not true
    PAKISTAN'S Parliament rejected a Saudi request to dispatch troops to combat Houthi rebels in Yemen, much to the chagrin of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). When Pakistan joined the Saudi led 34 nation military alliance, Iran took offence believing itself to be the target. Pakistan thus found itself between a rock and a hard place. Stung by the sensitivities of both its friends, Pakistan has had to rethink its diplomatic overtures to maintain the right balance between Tehran and Riyadh.
    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 2:14:53 PM | 52
    @ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:14 PM | 45

    Succinct overview recap, though very pessimistic ;)

    Its occurred to me you may not fully follow, with utmost respect, what I've referred to on occasion as: no key indicators re logistics/materiel mandatory pre-deployments with minimum ~3-6 months lead times, ONCE, a decision to go to War, or an Op that risks War breakout, any War, has been taken and formally committed to, before the War or risk 'of' Operation, can commence ?

    To do so without such pre-deployments well in advance of boots-on-the-ground, ships firing armaments or aircraft launching strikes, ie engaging in Ops that have inherent escalation to War risk, virtually guarantees failure and defeat should a War subsequently breakout ... Lieutenants study tactics, Field officers/Commanders/Generals/Admirals study logistics, to paraphrase numerous famous military commanders, especially smarmy/cheeky/insubordinate military logisticians ;)

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 2:15:00 PM | 53
    SmoothieX12 47 China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now

    That is a good reason for the US to act now. Look up the Rand Corp report - Thinking the Unthinkable. Report finance by the pentagon as a military strategy for taking down China.

    In the report, if the US acts now, they have a good chance. In five years time it will it will be 50/50 and in ten year it is all over for the US. By then China will be militarily superior or at a point when any US force projection against China will be totally destroyed very quickly.

    Rand report here. I had the title wrong in earlier posts. PDF can be read online or downloaded from the Rand Corp link
    Thinking Through The Unthinkable http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html

    Monolycus | Apr 14, 2017 2:27:04 PM | 54
    Thank you, E Ring 46Z Vet @#30 for that.

    I still read this blog from time to time, but this very issue is why I almost never comment anymore. North Korea is to the Left as Israel is to the Right, and it infuriates me. The decades of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts-- basically 70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified because... "America" spelled any various number of ways is eeeeeeeevil.

    I live in South Korea and have for the past 15 years. I posted a story here in 2012, shortly after Kim Jong-un came to power, about a defector badmouthing North Korea. B chastised me for believing such propaganda and responded with a linked story about how Kim Jong-un had created an agricultural revolution resulting in a surplus of crops that year and was a hero as a result of it. I am in South Korea.

    Kim Jong-un had been in power for less than a year. The time of year was very, very early Spring and the ground in South Korea was still frozen and no crops of any sort had been planted at all, so I know they could not possibly have been planted yet in the north. Yet I was the one believing in baseless propaganda. There's just no way to have any rational debate when the subject is as sacred a cow to the residents here as North Korea is. You'll catch abuse for your comment daring to suggest any culpability whatsoever for poor, innocent bystander North Korea, but I wanted to reassure you that there do exist a small minority of us who appreciated what you had to say.

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 2:28:49 PM | 55
    The conclusion from a review of the book by SF Gate: "Neer has provided a valuable book that fills in historical gaps and sheds much-needed light on a history that many would rather forget ." [Emphasis mine] http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/Napalm-by-Robert-M-Neer-4377836.php

    The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans."

    However, that doesn't excuse the remainder of the planet's citizenry from demanding an end to the criminal actions of the Rogue United States.

    Ronak | Apr 14, 2017 2:29:12 PM | 56
    @ Posted by: somebody | Apr 14, 2017 2:11:06 PM | 50

    Thanks for the link.

    This rejection was a while ago, 2015 or so? Or was there a new one after the general was given the top post? I had assumed things have changed since.

    Anyways, cornering Iran is the goal that the US/Israel trying to accomplish, at least from reading the pattern of activities. Slippery slope indeed.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 2:35:49 PM | 57
    @ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 2:15:00 PM | 52

    Thought scenario ... US launches attacks and starts War with China, no virtually 'non-concealable' 6 month mandatory preparation lead-time ... however unlikely, events don't go well for PLA ... China assesses at risk of conventional defeat ... however unlikely, no possibility to continue to conventionally resist or recover for an extended conventional conflict or guerilla campaign... fires a demonstration tactical nuke (no casualties) to send a message re de-confliction/de-escalation, or else ... US either stands down or its MAD. Game Over.

    Alternately US just goes MAD straight up and risks it all with a supposed surprise First Strike (highly improbable to adequately conceal) ... only a few Sino nukes make it to Stateside, yet enough to wipe out 80Million+ instantly and same number in initially non-KIA casualties of varying degrees plus turn to 'glass' half a dozen major cities ... well armed citizens response/reaction to their new post-apocalyptic lives of joy & happiness ?

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 2:45:17 PM | 58
    53 / Monolycus

    Thanks for proving how well the South Korean state propaganda work, you are basically calling for war against your own country (or perhaps you are not even a native korean?) and your own people, and you are calling people here crazy?

    Yonatan | Apr 14, 2017 2:47:10 PM | 59
    The 'Big Event' that Kim Jong Un boasted of, and had 'everyone' paralyzed in fear of nuke tests - the grand opening of a new mass residential area in Pyongyang.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxPw26MeviQ

    As others have stated, this whole mess is yet another US creation - the consequence of a 'nukes for oil' deal that the US reneged on - NK would cease nuke development in exchange for eased sanctions.

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 2:47:13 PM | 60
    Posted by: Ronak | Apr 14, 2017 2:29:12 PM | 55

    Dated April 14, 2017

    Another fresh link - 17 hours ago

    ISLAMABAD: Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on Thursday assured the National Assembly that Pakistan would not become part of any alliance against a Muslim state.

    Responding to a calling attention notice, he said that the terms of reference (TOR) of the Saudi-led military alliance would be unveiled by Saudi authorities next month.

    He said that the TOR of the alliance, which is to be led by former Chief of the Army Staff Gen Raheel Sharif, and its aims and objectives will be presented in parliament before formally deciding whether Pakistan should become part of it or not.

    "We have committed to safeguarding Saudi Arabia's soil for the safety and sanctity of the two holy sites - Makkah and Medina - but we will not become part of any conflict against any Muslim state, including Iran," the defence minister said, responding to the notice moved by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) MNA Dr Shireen Mazari.

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 2:56:20 PM | 61
    add to 59

    Egypt's cooperation is not that safe either

    In Libya, the three states seem to be in lock step, supporting Khalifa Haftar, for example. In Palestine, a theatre long abandoned by the Arab leaders, Cairo has a deep-seated interest and is backing the anti-Hamas Mohammed Dahlan, who is also very close with the ruling family in the UAE.

    In Yemen, the Egyptian regime has announced its plan to maintain its limited presence, although Cairo's unwillingness to expand this presence is another source of disagreement with Riyadh.

    The issue on which there is the most daylight between Cairo and Riyadh, however, is the most significant conflict affecting the region today: the Syrian war.

    While Riyadh has backed forces opposed to the regime since the outset, Cairo has moved from a position of ambivalence to open support for the regime.

    ...

    Although rumblings of an Egyptian military presence in Syria have not been substantiated, Egyptian rhetoric and diplomatic efforts have firmly supported Assad. Most recently, Cairo abstained from a key vote in a UN Security Council resolution that would have imposed sanctions on the Syrian government, no doubt to the displeasure of the Saudis.

    This position is more consistent with the Egyptian regime's outlook; Sisi rose to power on an anti-Islamist platform and is waging a war against a small scale insurgency in the Sinai. The Trump administration's policy goals in the region seem to align with Sisi's vision of supporting authoritarian regimes against Islamists. This agenda puts both Trump and Sisi into Assad's camp.

    For this reason, it seems that Sisi's dream of a joint Arab military force will not materialise anytime soon, at least not with joint Egyptian and Saudi participation.

    Without agreement on Syria, this endeavor to unify Arab governments under his leadership is dead on arrival, as the Syrian conflict is currently the most significant security threat.

    b | Apr 14, 2017 3:03:08 PM | 62
    The link to the book extract in the post which @karlof1 provided. The book is Napalm: An American Biography by Robert Neer, Belknap, 2013

    The linked pages following the one above are about the extremely cruel effects of Napalm as used in Korea.

    Yonatan | Apr 14, 2017 3:03:41 PM | 63
    Karlof1 @48, @54

    The US laid a similar (though smaller scale) trail of destruction in Germany at the end of WWII.

    The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production plants.

    The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought. The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and physical experiments on real people.

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 3:04:29 PM | 64
    @ outraged

    I have been giving your posts a lot of consideration. How to tie the logistics and so forth lead time, to what we are seeing take place?
    create major incident, congress quickly votes for war?

    Can the US deploy faster than we have seen in the past? Most US wars since WWII have been wars of choice, done at leisure, in a time and place of US choosing.

    The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician.

    The US now have total and complete control over all its vassal. The US can now say and do anything, no matter how obvious, and the bobble heads as Putin calls them, just bobble their heads in agreement.

    I think what we will see in the next few years will be much different to the last 70 or so years. If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded by other currencies taking up market share.

    I believe US will act, and that means taking down China as China is currently the number one threat to the US. China simply continuing the way it is, manufacturing, trading ect will take down the US.

    The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. At the same time, China and Russia are working to prevent the US from going to war.

    What you have said about lead time does have to be taken into account to try and work out US strategy. Does the US need another Pearl Harbour to get its population on a war footing for the coming war with China? Sink a few useless aircraft carriers, similar to battleships being sunk at Pearl harbour when WWII was a aircraft carrier war and battle ships were largely obsolete?


    US think tanks like Brookings and Rand. Fronts for the 0.01% ? US policy roughly follows the lines put out by these type think tanks.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 3:06:51 PM | 65
    @ Monolycus

    If you truly earnestly believe:

    The decades of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts-- basically 70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified because...

    following on from the defeat of Japan at end WWII occurred without any similar actions prior to, concurrent with and subsequent to events of the Korean War, and the issues are purely of Left & Right 'isms', not basic matters of Humanity, then frankly, you're viewpoint/position is wilfully documented counter-factual, IMHO. Have seen no 'abuse' as you assert.

    You live in SK ? Respectfully, please enlighten us as to the history of the island of Jeju from Sept 1945 thru to today, as an example, maybe comment on the abandoned truth & reconciliation inquiries/compensation and the persisting existing community divisions thru to this day, hm ?

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 3:14:00 PM | 66
    @52, Peter AU
    That is a good reason for the US to act now.

    From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control escalation. Conventionally, North Korea is a punching bag. But I also would be very careful with any (I underscore--any) supposedly "reputable" US analytical source assessments of anyone. Overwhelming empirical evidence testifies to the fact that often they have no idea what they are talking about.

    ronny | Apr 14, 2017 3:16:05 PM | 67
    Kim Jong-un orders evacuation of Pyongyang: report

    North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated.

    http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170414000689

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 3:25:30 PM | 68
    @ Peter AU
    If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded by other currencies taking up market share.

    Stepping back from fundamental military strategy/necessities ...

    If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ?

    IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe ? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;)

    Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy of tension' goes on and on ...

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 3:31:49 PM | 69
    Another thing to consider now when looking at US actions... US have pinned all their hopes for military dominance on the F-35. Thirty years of R&D, a trillion dollars, and all they have produced is a flying scrapyard. The F-22 is a top aircraft, but they scrapped production to concentrate all resources on the F-35. I read not long ago that production of upgraded Super Hornets is about to kick off again.

    The F-35 has put the US too far behind. By the time they have designed and produced another 5th gen or later version aircraft, it will be all over for the US.

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 3:37:12 PM | 70
    53/monolycos It is possible your opinion is not shared by South Koreans

    2003, report for congress South Korean Politics and Rising "Anti-Americanism": Implications for U.S. Policy Toward North Korea

    These shifts in the South Korean polity, particularly the rise in anti-Americanism, confront the Bush Administration with a policy dilemma: how to manage the U.S.-ROK alliance while pursuing a more confrontational approach toward North Korea than that favored by many, if not most, South Koreans.
    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 3:40:15 PM | 71
    You make good points Outraged. Will wait and watch, but I have a bad feeling that comes from a lot of small, on their own, seemingly inconsequential events/moves.
    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 3:41:39 PM | 72
    add to 69
    Opinion polls taken over the past few years generally have found that large majorities of respondents favor a partial or total withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, though most holding this position say they favor a drawdown unless there are improvements in North-South Korean relations; few favor an outright withdrawal.
    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 3:41:41 PM | 73
    @68, Peter AU
    The F-35 has put the US too far behind.

    It is not just F-35, it is a combination of factors of strategic, technological and operational nature. Take a look at LCS program or at the cost of SSBN Ohio-class replacement--a single hull for $8.1 billion. This is more than Russia spent on all 8 of her latest state-of-the-art SSBNs of Borey-class (Project 955, 955A)--3 afloat, 5-in different stages of readiness.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 3:42:31 PM | 74
    Followup to 67
    The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary.

    "The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks, again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted.

    Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ... since then, and now, the window has closed and the opportunity lost ... the vassals you refer to have been as suborned as they are now since the late '40's, they just are now led by such incompetents that they don't have the sense to conceal that they are, bought & paid for, bobbleheads. Yet, they are good time opportunists and no guarantee of staying the course should it come to a potential WWIII, see Germany/Italy/etc ...

    Ike | Apr 14, 2017 3:50:58 PM | 75
    Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda bullshit the MSM saturates us with.
    If more people read this the outrage would force the fascist US government to back off.
    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 3:51:40 PM | 76
    And again,

    US successfully test drops nuclear gravity bomb in Nevada https://reportuk.org/2017/04/14/breaking-us-successfully-test-drops-nuclear-gravity-bomb/

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14, 2017 3:56:35 PM | 77
    Of passing interest...according to CGTN World Today, April 15, China and Russia's foreign ministers spoke by telephone on Friday to discus stability on the Korean Peninsula.
    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 4:03:27 PM | 78
    @ Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14, 2017 3:56:35 PM | 76

    Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China 'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ?

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 4:06:09 PM | 79
    Peter AU--

    Perhaps the most important yet neglected fact related to the build-up for war with China is the lack of preparing the ignorant US citizenry via the sort of dehumanization campaign waged at Islam/Muslims. Heck, just the great preference for Chinese food makes such a campaign more than difficult--the Yellow Peril proclamations of the past long ago ceased to resonate. Plus, I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China is because of that rather stark reality.

    Yonatan @62--

    Thanks for your reply. Napalm was developed at Harvard and the book was published by one of Harvard's publishing houses. Given its current attitude, I bet Harvard would now call its own published work Fake News, and disallow it from classrooms while removing it from libraries.

    Monolycus--

    The following extracts are from Australian National University Professor Gavan McCormack's Target Korea: Pushing North Korea To The Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe and detail just which side did most of the murdering:

    "At the outbreak of war in 1950, one of the first acts of the [South Korean] Rhee regime was to order the execution of political prisoners, whose deaths were in due course attributed to atrocities by the incoming Northern forces...Declassified U.S. documents indicated that `more than 2,000' political prisoners were executed without trial in the early weeks, hundreds of them were taken out to sea from the port of Pohang and shot, their bodies dumped overboard...Throughout the country, according to Gregory Henderson, then a U.S. Embassy official in Seoul and later a prominent historian of Korea, probably over 100,000 people were killed without trial or legal warrant. Investigations into all this have scarcely begun...

    "When Seoul was recaptured by U.S. and South Korean forces perhaps as many as 29,000 Koreans were executed on suspicion of collaboration with the North...The occupation of Pyongyang and many other cities and villages above the 38th parallel [by South Korean forces] was characterized by atrocities...According to one estimate, 150,000 people were executed or kidnapped...

    "The official U.S. Army report at the end of the [Korean] war gave 7,334 as the figure for civilian victims of North Korean atrocities, a small fraction of those now known to have been executed by [government of South Korean leader] Rhee in the first moments of the war alone...

    "...The Taejon Massacre...became the centerpiece of the U.S. case for North Korean brutality...A U.S. Army report on the massacre, including graphic photographs, was published around the world in October 1953...
    "At Taejon, a town of about 160 kilometers south of Seoul, a massacre undoubtedly occurred...

    "...It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the most brutal North Korean atrocity in the South was actually a Southern atrocity in a brutal ongoing civil war...

    "...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable: The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations, and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy...

    "...On the admission of [U.S.] General Ridgeway's Head Office, more POWs died in United Nations camps than in North Korean camps..." http://wherechangeobama.blogspot.com/2013/05/revisiting-history-of-korea-again-part-4.html?m=0

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 4:10:21 PM | 80
    Re US war manufacturing base. Where is the MIC at now? US is by far the largest manufacturer of military hardware. The assembly of the final product has not been offshored. How much do they import in the way of raw or processed materials? Steel smelting, rolling ect - Aluminium - Titanium?

    Rare earth metals required for high tech military is imported from China, North Korea has the other known large recoverable rare earth reserve. Any US war with China would most likely be a naval missile war, something along the lines of the Rand report?

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 4:13:54 PM | 81
    Lawrence Wilkerson, a former U.S. Army colonel: U.S. Creating New Foes, Too Many To Handle
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/former-bush-chief-staff-u-s-creating-new-foes-many-handle/225999/
    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 4:21:06 PM | 82
    Any US war with China would most likely be a naval missile war, something along the lines of the Rand report?

    China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800 Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400, also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly.

    China's very weak spot navy-wise is their submarine force, despite some good SSKs, PLAN's nuclear submarine component is atrocious--a generation or two behind what Russia and US operate. So, for now it is a mixed bag. Plus there is an issue of targeting, I don't know if Russia will make her Liana system available to China. Can China today sink US nuclear carrier? Possibly, In 5-7 years it will become not only possible but highly probable.

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 4:25:05 PM | 83
    Peter AU @79--

    US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol Limited will testify.

    It would be far cheaper, saner and moral to obtain rare earth minerals and other goods via trade than expanding industrial capacity, instituting a military draft, outfitting such a force, then waging a war for conquest.

    b | Apr 14, 2017 4:40:02 PM | 84
    @Monolycus

    I tried for some 15 minutes to find the comment you wrote about and can not find it.

    But two remarks:

    byongjin policy ('progress in tandem' or 'move two things forward simultaneously') was developed and implemented years before Kim Jong-un came to power. He (more precise: those who are behind him) made it an official party policy and created the slogan long after the program had started. The first nuclear test in NoKo was 2006 - five years before him. The deterrence effects were already in place as well as a lessened conventional positioning, the economic trend was already positive.

    I may well have berated you about the uncritical quoting of a North Korean defector. These are notorious liars. Their income in South Korea was reported to be paid by the secret service in dependence of the media splash they create.

    There is huge amount of fake horror stories about North Korea in the South Korean (esp. Chosun Ilbo) and global press. Much of it is planted by the South Korean government. U.S. media have thankfully stopped to regurgitate most of the stories for now as too many turned out to be false .

    Kim Jong-un had his dogs maul one of his uncles?
    Stripped naked, thrown into a cage and torn apart by 120 starving dogs: How Kim Jong Un had 'scum' uncle executed
    That story ran one way or another in every bigger western media. It was false. The uncle was executed but after a (sham) trial and with guns by a regular execution command.

    North Korea hacked Sony? No it did not. It was an insider hack by a former Sony IT person. Sony made the "North Korea hack" up to escape culpability and to sell an otherwise unsellable bad movie.

    Kim Jong-un's ex-girlfriend reportedly executed by firing squad
    Bad, bad boy. But later she turns up on live TV , smiling and laughing as ever.

    Kim Jong-Un kills his half brother by having an unprotected person smear highly toxic VX in his face in a very public place in Malaysia? The person who does that gets not hurt one bit? Check the life style of his half brother - girls and drugs and rock&roll - lots of drugs and lots of alcohol. The dude much more likely had a heart infarct and the rest was made up like the other stories above.

    North Korea did and does some outrageous stuff. So did and do other countries. How many alleged "communists" and "sympathizers" did the various dictatorships in South Korea kill under U.S. tutelage? Thousands? Ten thousands? A hundredthousand at least. How many sabotage acts did they engineer in North Korea? How many were hurt by those?

    I am not blind on one eye. But the anti-NoKo propaganda is similar to the propaganda that created the war on Iraq fever. It is now even more important to look from the other side and to write that up, not just some pseudo-concerned "all sides are bad" pieces.

    Looking in vain for the old Monolycus comment I came across a piece I wrote in 2012.

    Therein I quote Tariq Ali from a piece he wrote about his 1970s visit to North Korea. This bit from the end of the piece on the U.S. position under Bush/Obama is enlightening:

    Over lunch I asked her about [the Bush administration] plans for North Korea. She was cogent. 'You haven't seen the glint in the eyes of the South Korean military,' she said. 'They're desperate to get hold of the North's nuclear arsenal. That's unacceptable.' Why? 'Because if a unified Korea becomes a nuclear power, it will be impossible to stop Japan from becoming one too and if you have China, Japan and a unified Korea as nuclear states, it shifts the relationship of forces against us.' Obama seems to agree with this way of thinking.
    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 4:40:46 PM | 85
    SmoothieX12 karlof1

    It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster to win the day? Anon1 @80 put up a good link. It is one of the things that has me worried.

    What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type culture - US can overcome all no matter what?

    Willy2 | Apr 14, 2017 4:43:41 PM | 86
    - North Korea has some good reasons to not trust the US.

    1) In the 1990s they had a deal with the US, in which the US would supply Nort Korea with oil in return for a suspension of their nuclear program. But the US didn't deliver on theri promises.

    2) In 2003 or 2004 the US made some serious movements that did suggest that the US was preparing a MAJOR attack on North Korea. Under secretary Paul Wolfowitz also made some remarks that would suggest such a move.

    3) The G.W.Bush administration (2000-2008) deliberately increased tension with North Korea.

    From The Hague | Apr 14, 2017 4:45:58 PM | 87
    38 41 Outraged

    Thanks!
    Very relevant historical background.

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 4:46:09 PM | 88
    @84, Peter AU.
    What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type culture - US can overcome all no matter what?

    Both. I am not sure that I can correctly estimate a percentage of both. Let me take a wild guess: bluster/bluff-60-65%, Doolittle--35-40%. The foundation of Pax Americana is a mythology of the "best military in the world", without this myth the whole house of cards begins to fold. It was folding with increasing speed since circa 2008 and accelerated tremendously in 2014.

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 4:47:27 PM | 89
    Shadowbrokers just released NSA hacks for Windows Systems enabling kids to go to work over the Easter Weekend.

    NSA hacks include the Swift System.

    By the way, google "North Korean hackers" and have fun.

    Win | Apr 14, 2017 4:48:24 PM | 90
    @Monolycus

    Great that you swing by every so often. But I am not sure why you are offended when people criticise your point of view. That's what comments are for. And that's why this blog is here. To present an alternative view to mainstream lies. And just because you live in South Korea does not mean you have an objective view of the situation there. In the bigger picture, the mad dogs in the US government do all the things you mention, but no doubt because they are America they are ignored and their actions declared righteous. The agreements are historical and it was not North Korea who backed away, broke them or refused to consider them. North Korea has the tightest sanctions on earth and so b's reporting about the rationale for North Korea's actions is timely. Instead of the insidious propaganda we get from Western media. Enjoy yourself in South Korea. Just remember who invaded who there and who is causing mayhem in the rest of the world. Hint; it is not Kim Yong-Un.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 5:05:51 PM | 91
    @ Peter AU

    An old saw, but a profound truism, 'No Battleplan survives first engagement with the enemy'.

    So Rands 'plan' ain't worth much ... secondly, if you go into combat/war without actually considering the enemies own moves/counters/plans/actions, then you've already lost before the first shot is fired.

    For example, the Chinese have built an autobahn grade highway which ends ~10Kms short of the China-Afghan border, they have 3 combined arms army groups including air divisions from the adjacent Western Military Region they could send over that border pass, after getting the combat engineers, sweating hard and using machinery, to finish the final stretch in a matter of hours ... the remaining army group & numerous Police divisions could secure the military region, as its isolated from potential threats other than Indian border effectively.

    Within 3-4 days forced march, worst case, they've crossed the Iran-Afghan border and the ME is toast ... concurrent and co-ordinated with similar capabilities from Russia, the ME is toast. And in conjunction with Iran free to wipeout the GCC's pathetically unprofessional non-commital 'green' 'parade only' militaries.

    What has the US got, pre-positioned to prevent it ?

    The conventional forces that NATO used to have deployed, pre-positioned and in number to defend a USSR, now RF, multi echelon armored deep penetration into EU, no longer exists ...

    The Bundeswehr is a shadow of its glory days as an armored/mechanized shield during the Cold War, now periodically ridiculed for not having sufficient MGs or ammunition to train with on joint training exercises ... War ready in 2017 ?

    The nuclear and non-nuclear subs of both sides would promptly slaughter each other in a mutual knife-fight, sudden death, whilst taking out the majority of the Carriers, US/UK/FR ... the remainder of the Carrier group escorts exist and are designed/configured to defend/protect & shield the carrier, not very useful once its at the bottom of the ocean along with all the strike aircraft, pilots, support crews and sailors ...

    @ From the Hague

    You are most welcome, a group effort.

    okie farmer | Apr 14, 2017 5:07:18 PM | 92
    link http://eng.tibet.cn/world/1481178463674.shtml
    b | Apr 14, 2017 5:21:19 PM | 93
    For those beating up on China (or applauding it) for suspending flights with NoKo.

    Air China clarifies ticket sales to blame for temporary flight cuts to Pyongyang; no suspension of services

    Jen | Apr 14, 2017 5:23:04 PM | 94
    Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware of this before.

    Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that.

    Also thanks to Karlof1 for being the tireless terrier that he is in hunting down the information about US-allied atrocities during the Korean War.

    I would like to pose to Monolycus and the other South Korean-based commenter the challenge of explaining how South Korea rapidly recovered from total war devastation in the early 1960s to the point where in 1988 the nation's capital could host the Summer Olympic Games. This all took place in the space of less than 30 years. If you both can do this convincingly and somehow mention Park Chunghee as an enlightened free-market democratic capitalist ideologue, rest assured I will be blown away.

    fastfreddy | Apr 14, 2017 5:33:25 PM | 95
    American Technological progress is probably stymied by the manner in which it is conducted. That is to spread contracts for hardware/software/parts among competing states via state representative congressional bag men. Wasting time and money in the process. Hoping for cost overruns and delays which increase profits. Small wonder the state-of-the-art US warplane is shit.
    Pft | Apr 14, 2017 5:41:44 PM | 96
    I'd have to question Kims sanity if he OK's a missile or nuclear test at this time. Trumps obviously a mad man trying to show how tough he is in order go terrorize countries and maybe his own citizens into submission. However, he has the means to execute the destruction. The MSM will be behind him all the way and Americans love war because God blesses them and they believe they are the good guys fighting evil and making the world safe for liberty and Democracy. American exceptionalism they call it.. The citizens as a group might be the most insane of all of these entities. Certainly the dumbest.
    james | Apr 14, 2017 5:45:36 PM | 97
    b - great responses to the naysayers here.. very informative as well. thank you..
    Jen | Apr 14, 2017 5:49:40 PM | 98
    B @ 92: I should think Air China's flight cuts are due to people suddenly cancelling flight plans after the threats made by the Trump government against Nth Korea.

    Anticipating though that if the US were to make the first move against Nth Korea, Air China's flights back and forth between China and Nth Korea are going to be very full. I believe there are some 2 million Koreans living in China (mainly in Manchuria) and many if not most of them have family in Nth Korea. Beijing must consider preparing for a refugee exodus into China's northeast provinces if there are as yet no plans.

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 5:52:13 PM | 99
    mmm... well something major is brewing. What is smoke and mirrors and deflection and what is the real US strategy?
    Syria, Korea, Mattis cooking up a plot with GCC+Isreal = Iran
    paul | Apr 14, 2017 6:40:24 PM | 101
    Wow - I'm impressed with this approach from China. But they still need to be a bit stronger about denying the US the right or the chance to attack NK. Even Russia has several times sent a fleet to Syria. China should do this to ward off the Hegemon.
    jfl | Apr 14, 2017 7:00:05 PM | 102
    @or, @p au

    interesting discussion on the likelihood of war, upcoming.

    i think certainly outraged has the 'rational' analysis of war well in hand. but i don't think that war is rational in, literally, the end.

    i think the 'smartest guys in the room' in the us are not military types, but financial types. the same guys who run the hedge funds run the 'rational analysis' and forecast the 'outcomes' of wars, purely imaginary. and they have the rest of the world backing down before the 'overwhelming' might of the us wehrmacht, though a good part of their analysis is based on their own 'funny money' based 'power', which is only as good as everyone else's willing suspension of disbelief. no 'rational actor' would not back down, they say, in double negative. they're reductionists, and their results only hold true in the very much reduced world they've disconnected, bottled, and simulate their 'trades' in.

    i think there is a very real chance that they'll take us all over the edge, especially now that they have the donald himself unequivocally - well for him - on board. we'll see, won't we?

    we won't be safe from all this until after the air has been let out of their financial balloon, for good this time, and they are no longer the 'smartest guys' in the room. and then we'll only be safe if we claim our world and install an alternative management.

    thanks b, for the excellent perspective on the ceaseless grind the us has put the peninsula under over the past six decades. i never noticed their lockstep of stress and torture with the agricultural cycle either. hades and persephone all over again. i guess it never stops.

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 7:01:52 PM | 103
    Jen @94--

    Thanks much for the complement. There are two main credible reporters on the Korean War that I use: IF Stone's The Hidden History of the Korean War was published in 1952 and was excellent for its timely veracity; Bruce Cumings, recently History Chair at University of Chicago, has written extensively on Korea, and his two volume The Origins of the Korean War is the most extensive examination of the conflict. In 2010, he published a very abridged version that looks serviceable, easier to find and much less expensive. This links to a review of Stone's book in doc format, www.ais.org/~jrh/Hidden_History_of_Korean_War.doc Cumins also co-authored Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth about North Korea, Iran, and Syria which is short and very readable. Cumins has also examined and written about the relationship between War and Television within the USA. And here's a website containing many of IF Stone's writings, http://www.ifstone.org/index.php

    Krollchem | Apr 14, 2017 7:13:33 PM | 104
    I am amazed by the depth of the comments on Trump's military threats against North Korea (trolls excepted). I would hope that Trump is just playing Teddy Roosevelt who "carried the big stick" using the white fleet to intimidate Japan:
    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h942.html

    Unfortunately, would appear that Trump actually wants to degrade North Korea's nuclear program using strategic bombers (B52, B-1b and B2) currently deployed at Guam (a rerun of the US attack on Iraq nuclear reactor?).
    https://reportuk.org/2017/04/14/us-defcon-nuclear-threat-warning-increased-with-north-korea-on-verge-of-war/

    The US has positioned two cruise missile carrying destroyers within 300 miles of the North Korean nuclear test site awaiting the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group including the WC-135 "nuclear sniffer" aircraft.

    U.S. Air Force has also just staged and epic Elephant Walk at Kadena Air Base Japan comprised of HH-60 Pave Hawks, F-15 Eagles, E-3 Sentries and KC-135 Stratotankers as a show of force (see Superstation95 for photos).

    In addition to the thermobaric bomb demonstration in Afghanistan, the US just tested the upgraded B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb (just linked by Anon1)

    Trump's "Big Stick" approach has led to mass movements of:

    (1) China moved 200,000 troops on the border of North Korea;

    (2) Evacuation of about 600,000civilians from Pyongyang;

    (3) Plans by Japan's National Security Council on how to evacuate its nearly 60,000 citizens from South Korea;

    (4) Lots of flights out of South Korea.

    There are reports that China has sent its submarines sent out to sea (setting on the bottom?) and is likely making additional preparations without fanfare.

    North Korea has recently stated that if an attack is perceived a nuclear war will occur. I would expect that the first strike would be an airburst meant to wipe out all electronics not protected by Faraday cages, including unhardened military communications systems.

    I hate to speculate on where the other nuclear bombs will be " delivered". Under a worst-case scenario it could result in some global cooling about 20% of that predicted http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000205/full

    On the US West coast it would be wise to stock up on iodine tablets as attacks on nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities will release iodine 131 from fuel rods as well as other biologically hazardous radionuclides including strontium-90, cesium-137, and uranium-234.

    It may be the Make America Great Again is actually represents the Jewish word for combat (MAGA). Such an approach was warned against by General Smedley Butler in his critical essay "War is a Racket". https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    As a side note the South Korean elections are coming up soon. Does anyone have a point of view?

    dh | Apr 14, 2017 7:15:01 PM | 105
    @104 The hedge fund guys are only good if they make the right bets. What they depend on is inside information, which companies are in trouble, which country is going to get whacked etc. But they don't always get it right. And their thinking is mostly short term.

    'Alternative management' would be nice. Maybe a race of benevolent aliens could take over.

    blues | Apr 14, 2017 7:18:52 PM | 106
    I feel I should simply repeat what I said yesterday on this site. It still seems rather relevant:

    This is where this is going, I would guess:

    US Airstrike on North Korea Risks Leading to '5-6 Chernobyl-Type Disasters' https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704131052612166-us-north-korea-chernobyl/
    /~~~~~~~~~~
    "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a place unsuitable for life," he explained.
    \~~~~~~~~~~

    But that's not all we're going to get:
    /~~~~~~~~~~
    The Pentagon "cannot but take into account that in case of an airstrike against North Korea, US-made Tomahawks will fly toward the territory of Russia and China. This is a more dangerous scenario than the show of force in Syria," he said. "Russia will not be able to wait for US missiles to accidentally land on its territory. Moscow will be forced to shoot down the missiles while they are in North Korean airspace."
    \~~~~~~~~~~

    Meanwhile, tens of millions of South Koreans perish, with a few becoming radionuclide refugees. Good job, eh?

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 7:43:14 PM | 107
    @ blues
    I would guess that SK, Japan, Australia, are all viewed simply as forward military bases by the US, that can be abandoned if required.

    @ jfl

    I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars. Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed. Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country, they were willing to gamble everything to have it all.

    This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the US become more threatening.

    So for me that needs to be matched/reconciled to Outraged comments on pre-positioning, indicators ect.

    Piotr Berman | Apr 14, 2017 7:51:15 PM | 108
    TRUMP READY TO REMOVE CRAZED NORTH KOREAN KILLER [GLOBE as observed in my supermarket yesterday, front page reported on-line]

    IN a gutsy move to save the world from global disaster, courageous ­President ­Donald Trump has drawn up a ruthless, top-secret plan to kill North Korean ­warmonger Kim Jong Un before he can push the ­button that would unleash nuclear holocaust!

    D.C. insiders tell GLOBE the iron-willed president is fed up with roly-poly Kim's blustery bull and is determined to squash the pint-sized dictator, who recently launched four intercontinental ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan!

    "Trump has put the elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in Trump has put the elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in South Korea on standby and ordered Tomahawk missiles and nuclear weapons to the North Korean border!" a White House insider tells GLOBE.

    Get all the details and the latest information on the White House's latest moves against the tyrannical North Korean dictator in this week's issue of GLOBE.

    ====

    Piotr: I understand how "top-secrets" can make it to our intrepid GLOBE reporters. But how did they determined who is "iron-willed" and who is "rolly-polly". E.g. it seems to me that Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim have similar BMI. Or how both leaders exhibited iron will firing employees.

    Willy2 | Apr 14, 2017 7:53:30 PM | 109
    - MEDIA MATTERS had a VERY interesting take why we could see a US attack on North Korea:

    https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/04/13/punditry-syrian-airstrikes-encouraging-trump-escalate-tensions-north-korea/216023

    jfl | Apr 14, 2017 8:27:18 PM | 110
    @109 p au

    i agree. no matter what happens, it won't be good ... until the Mother Of All Bubbles has burst. and then it might be but a brief respite indeed if we don't take advantage of the lull in 'play' to 'decapitate' our own 'leadership'. it's our sheer, mere 300 million+ souls (600 million+ soles?) to their 535 caputs ... think we have a chance?

    Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 14, 2017 8:39:34 PM | 111
    @jfl #114:

    A primary problem there is that they have convinced at least 20% of those 300M to be human shields in the service of Empire.

    Julian | Apr 14, 2017 8:44:26 PM | 112

    Apologies if this has already been mentioned - but if the USA were to unilaterally launch strikes on North Korea could Russia itself intervene and launch missiles against the ships/fleet at fault - ie - against those who have abrogated their responsibilities to international peace and security? The aggressor nation.

    Could Russia sink the ships with the USS Carl Vinson in the name of maintaining international peace and security??

    What side of Korea is the Carl Vinson and is it closer to the coastline of Russia or Syria?

    frances | Apr 14, 2017 9:02:27 PM | 113

    According to Jim Stone NK has a very formidable 50+ submarine fleet. He also said these subs are of NK manufacture based on their upgrades to Russian 1990's designs. They are nowhere to be seen at the moment and as they run on batteries when still, there is no easy way to detect them if they are on the ocean floor.

    Many are nuclear, have on average 100 mile range and the largest one could travel to and hit the West Coast. So if the Trump armada attacks they may quickly find themselves on the bottom of the South China Sea. And as for a war with China, IMO there is no way the US can win conventionally IMO. And if it looks to go to nuclear, Russia will regretfully reduce us to ash. It appears Trump has turned over management of the military to the generals. I have the same sense of pending disaster that I would have if I, on rounding a corner bumped into 1000 Daleks and with not a Doctor in sight.

    Krollchem | Apr 14, 2017 9:24:28 PM | 115
    A Russia missile cruiser arrived in Korea on April 11th:

    https://already-happened.com/2017/04/11/russian-guided-missile-cruiser-varyag-and-rfs-pechenga-have-arrived-at-port-of-busan-south-korea-today/

    DemiJohn | Apr 14, 2017 9:33:42 PM | 116
    Amazing how Kim Jung-un is demonized. Certainly a bully but there is much worse ... and Erdogan is untouchable.
    Krollchem | Apr 14, 2017 9:43:21 PM | 117
    blues @108

    Good point about the nuclear reactors.

    In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation.

    An even more critical issue is that a lack of power would shutoff cooling water to the spent nuclear fuel storage ponds. This would result in the water boiling off and

    "Once the fuel is uncovered, it could become hot enough to cause the metal cladding encasing the uranium fuel to rupture and catch fire, which in turn could further heat up the fuel until it suffers damage. Such an event could release large amounts of radioactive substances, such as cesium-137, into the environment."

    http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/safer-storage-of-spent-fuel#.WPF2kI61tt8

    http://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/spent-fuel-damage-pool-criticality-accident

    It is important to remember that there is more spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel rods than in the reactors. There is a DOE computer program for calculating the radionuclide composition of the fuel vs storage time (Origin code). but I cannot find it on the internet. The release of these daughter products and the long term dispersal onto the land would turn Korea into a dead zone for hundreds of years.

    jfl | Apr 14, 2017 10:13:07 PM | 118
    @125 username ... not your real name. my name is john francis lee. i've never understood people who hide behind 'clever' usernames.
    Alaric | Apr 14, 2017 10:17:31 PM | 119
    This is very disturbing but I still believe it is show and that trump is just using theater to intimidate N Korea and actually China to control N Korea.

    i fully expect that China will give him a bogus way of looking tough that will achieve nothing and do little to n Korea. The problem is what happens if n Korea and China call his bluff and give him no way to look tuff.

    Is it possible this is a distraction for further actions in Syria?

    marcus_lepidus | Apr 14, 2017 11:11:46 PM | 120
    Maybe connected.....maybe not? With the election of Trump....word gets out that North Korea is very interested in talks with the incoming administration....and then what happens: Kim Jong-un's brother dies in a spectacularly suspicious fashion. Now that Park has been impeached.......and her likely successor looks to be someone open to talks with North Korea, the US is suddenly on the brink of war with the DPRK. Coincidence...neocon serendipity? Inquiring minds wanna know!
    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 11:12:18 PM | 121
    129
    into sci-fi entertainment much?
    yesu | Apr 14, 2017 11:23:25 PM | 122
    @29 - This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war.Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:49:02 PM | 29


    ridiculous idea to even contend with. scared of what? the very first place for he n.korean nukes will be US army basesin japan, even before s korea.

    everyone knows the so called armada is a bluff here in asia, on other note, it shows USA doesn't provide security to the freedom of navigation that it keeps on pushing onto others. it does the opposite, it shows all the nations what freedom of navigation really means ..... to push for war instead of protecting trade, of which almost all the trade is coming from china anyways.

    it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa.

    if trump does do something ridiculous, there won't be much of US/japan influence left in asia as china/russia will be forced to respond, and respond it will not like the fake wars washington is content with nowadays. trump obviously wants to change the tune of the conflicts....... but sending an armada into enemy territory while espousing support from nato..... (pacific nato?) puts so much fear into any nation here, knowing there is no petroleum logistics here for the war lovers.

    where u going to buy oil from Hong kong? singapore? japan? russia?

    NotTimothyGeithner | Apr 14, 2017 11:33:03 PM | 123
    @127 The simple answer is much like Obama, Trump is turning to bumbling around the international stage now that his domestic Presidency is finished. Between the Freedom Caucus and extinction of the Democrats who have been reliable crossover votes, there isn't a working majority in Washington.

    The key event wasn't the chemical weapon false flag or Rachel Maddow's latest Glenn Beck screed but the failure to repeal ACA and the recognition the Republicans don't have a plan to go or much of anything. The budget will be up in a few months, and he still has the same problem he has ACA: Demcorats who cant provide cover and the Freedom Caucus types.

    "Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy" trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track.

    Kalen | Apr 14, 2017 11:34:00 PM | 124
    One other jewel of US propaganda is why US is there, Keeping peace between NK and SK? Not at all US is there to keep peace between both Koreas and Japan and US stake imperial claim against China.

    Numerous cases of Japanese even minute encroachments on territorial waters of whole Korea were met by SK and NK alike with joint condemnation recalling ambassadors and even small shooting war and that including sharp conflict between both Koreans and Japan over so called disputed islands and waters.

    In fact a claim that US role there is stabilizing the situation cannot be entirely dismissed however the issue is that it is the US THAT CAUSED THIS INSTABILITY IN THE FIRST PLACE pushing regional divisions what amounts to precluding possibility to really end WWII among enemies resolve issues that still remind unresolved like Korea and move on with acknowledgment of reality of Chinese economic and political leadership which would be just return to historical situation just two centuries ago with modern solutions for coexistence.

    But that would spell the end of globalist project under US imperial umbrella, a prospective that is strongly opposed on all sides for diametrically different reasons.

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 11:47:55 PM | 125
    Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today.
    Anoncommentator | Apr 14, 2017 11:51:21 PM | 126
    Wide ranging fascinating interview with former high ranking CIA intelligence officer, Robert David Steele
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UfYLA7FCqQ
    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 11:55:22 PM | 127
    continuing from 135

    Russia/USSR won WWII in Vietnam, and Vietnam is now an independent sovereign country. US won WWII in Germany and Germany is still an occupied country. Japan has never been disputed and remains a US occupied country. Korea has never been settled and WWII is still ongoing.

    Krollchem | Apr 14, 2017 11:58:45 PM | 128
    "Deputy Defense Minister General of the Army of Russia, Dmitry Bulgakov has arrived in Khabarovsk Krai near North Korea to inspect troops."

    "Russia also moved military vehicles (Air Def) toward Vladivostok not far from the border with North Korea"

    Link also shows videos of Chinese units moving toward the North Korean border

    http://thesaker.is/news-brief-brics-joint-communique-troops-deployment-near-korean-peninsula/

    Circe | Apr 15, 2017 12:12:39 AM | 129
    If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot.
    Anoncommentator | Apr 15, 2017 12:31:18 AM | 130
    This is going viral and so it should!!! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rkj9UCHO0Tc
    denk | Apr 15, 2017 1:03:56 AM | 131
    so mark pence is in sk with the troops 'observing easter prayer', what fucking hypocrites , 'god's army' on the way to another killing spree. --

    i wonder if pence's son is with the grunts ? mao sent his son together with the troops to help nk beat back the murkkans, hundreds of thousands never went home, including mao's son.

    but nuthin about the chinese sacrifice was mentioned in the nk war memorial hall, its all about the 'great leader'.
    during the sino/soviet split, nk had no hesitation ditching beijing for the more powerful ussr.

    by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful unitedsnake...if only washington would accept him.

    wouldnt be surprised if kim is eventually 'cowed' by trump's armada and submit to washington wish.

    then trump would brag 'didnt i tell you all the past prez are pussies, it takes a real man to get things done'

    hehhehe
    =============

    Peter AU | Apr 15, 2017 1:10:32 AM | 132
    @ outraged.
    What would we see for a naval and to a lesser extent air war to blockade China? No ground war component with the massive logistic tail that requires. Obama's pivot on China entailed moving 60% of US naval assets to Asia pacific region.

    Where are US subs located? Where are US missile ships located. What is classified in the way of US naval asset positioning and not available to the public?
    Carriers are smoke and mirrors. A bygone era.

    From what I can make of it, Carter pre-positioned India as a US asset in 2016.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 1:20:07 AM | 133
    it may be that b has hit the nail on the head again ...
    "As a first step, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) may suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises," Wang told a press conference on the sidelines of the annual session of the National People's Congress.
    ... what happens is that tee-rump unveils essentially this plan at the 'last minute' and takes credit for it, having exercised us all and directed the attention to his spotlight on the yellow sea.

    i hope that's what happens. we're stuck with this clown for four more years. he has no talent of his own, unless you call this kind of 'performance' talent ... and in fact he seems to have claimed it ... he may be an a**hole but he's the world's biggest a**hole! ... at least we might all live through it, ruled by a 70 year-old enfant terrible. tee-rump will play dummy and putin and xi can alternate as ventriloquists ... smiling and holding the dummy up to take the bows.

    Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 15, 2017 1:21:00 AM | 134
    @145: I don't really consider folks here'bouts as peasants. There are trolls and sock puppets. B and the commentators here (you and jfl are high on the list!) comprise a collection of 'reality lenses' that I find useful.

    RE: My initial response to jfl, the 20% I envision as human shields might be splittable, but you're only going to flake off a few %. Also, ignorance/apathy/fear (or incapacity for some other reason) on 'our side' brings the numbers way down. Add to that attrition from whatever course of action Empire attempts, and you have even fewer. Since we seem to be dealing with the 'upset-the-table' kind of losers, I'm sure they'll do something spectacular as a coda.

    Anyway, currently reading "The Shining", "Conquest of the Useless", "Roughing It", "Moby Dick". Just finished Gregory Benford's "Galactic Center" series...that was gripping and depressing for 6 long volumes.

    somebody | Apr 15, 2017 1:30:34 AM | 135
    North Korea's statement names the "Trump's administration serious military hysteria" This description is correct.
    blues | Apr 15, 2017 1:31:08 AM | 136
    Hmmm. Hmmm.

    /~~~~~~~~~~
    Zero Hedge -- Krunch Time for Korean Krackpot Despot, Kim Jong-Un: Missile Crisis Countdown Has Begun -- Apr 14,2017
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-14/krunch-time-korean-krackpot-despot-kim-jong-un-missile-crisis-countdown-has-begun

    Vice President Pence is scheduled to visit Seoul on Sunday, during his first Asian trip. The timing of his visit, after the Day of the Sun, might indicate the US does not plan any pre-emptive strike against North Korea on the Day of the Sun However, while Pence is ostensibly going to South Korea to talk with the government there about North Korea's nuclear development, the White House has also said it has contingency plans for the VP's visit, should North Korea carry out another nuclear test, indicating the possibility of a sudden shift to a war footing if Kim goes ahead with his apparent plans.
    \~~~~~~~~~~

    What if Pence doesn't make it out in time?

    Hmmm.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 1:34:21 AM | 137
    @146 denk, 'by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful unitedsnake...'

    but that's a plan made looking in the rearview mirror ... isn't it? the future is china's. the very recent past is the 'legacy' of the us, burnt-out shooting star. sacrificed to the greed of its ruling class. in this life, at any rate.

    any opportunist worth his wages would go with china at this point in the game. and isn't kim really just the korean version of trump?

    an apprentice working for the apparat that really runs the country as their frontman, to bound about on stage and keep the world's attention on korea?

    Peter AU | Apr 15, 2017 1:40:24 AM | 138
    151
    Ignorance/apathy covers the middle 75% or so. A US manual on special forces hybrid/covert warfare covers that well. Even has a pie chart. Too many home brews at the moment to dig up the link, compounded by the fact that it is nearly time for my nana nap.
    Julian | Apr 15, 2017 1:53:59 AM | 139
    Re: Posted by: Pft | Apr 14, 2017 5:41:44 PM | 97

    If Kim does want to 'provoke' the Americans and test a missile or nuke surely he's most likely to do it a bit later than people think - ie - like Tuesday night Korean time - perhaps just before US markets open for Tuesday after the holidays. Or are they open on Monday? If they are, perhaps 9-10pm Monday night Korean time???

    Try and cause a 'panicked' market crash before Trump can react? Ensuring he will react against the backdrop of a market crash should he choose to react.

    Anyone know - are US markets open on Monday?

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 2:05:06 AM | 140
    @151 tjk

    i re-read moby dick myself a couple of years ago. found a whale chart to go along with it, which helped bring the voyage to life ... back in the day ... when i was a kid there were always films from africa on tv, millions of gazelles and wildebeasts. i imagine they're all gone now, as are the buffalo, as go the whales.

    i think that, just as the man himself has turned on a dime when confronted with 'reality', so too will we and many of our usian brothers and sisters, many his followers, once we reach the point of personal betrayal required to open our eyes to our real enemies, to forget the scripted 'enemies' our real enemies had taught us to love to hate. but i've never been through a real meltdown and revolution before, so i don't know. that looks to me the way things are headed though. deplored by all sides, yet thought to be well under control, yet we all have our own peculiar 'red lines', and are being pushed, relentlessly toward them. we are many and growing more numerous; they are few and getting fewer, by their own design.

    Pft | Apr 15, 2017 2:29:45 AM | 141
    @135 Peter AU

    The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century. Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars would be needed.

    The main change has been the form of government envisioned for the future. This has changed from Communism to Fascism. Many supporters of fascism here in the 1930's including FDR. After WWII many of the fascist bankers and industrialists in Germany and Japan got off light and were reintegrated into the global economy where they trained up the next generation of fascists. They joined forces with those likeminded folks in the US and Brits by working together in BIS, various international agencies and groups like the Bilderbergers and Trilaterals to develop strategies to acccomplish their goals in the short and long terms

    This is oversimplistic but time is short

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 15, 2017 2:31:02 AM | 142
    ...
    After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ?
    Posted by: Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 4:03:27 PM | 78

    That's a really good question. Imo, Western propaganda often seems to have an influence on the actions and statements of AmeriKKKa's fake enemies. There are two (maybe more?) ways of looking at this.

    1. The fake enemies really are worried about public opinion in the West.
    2. They're not worried, but deem it sensible to pretend that they are, because anything they can do to encourage AmeriKKKa to believe more of its own bullshit should lead to an escalation to the point where it crosses the line dividing the sublime from the ridiculous - which is what seems to have happened this year.

    michaelj72 | Apr 15, 2017 2:40:23 AM | 143
    we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars and missiles. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/

    Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff

    .....But what would the result of such a strike be?

    For one thing, almost certainly it would mean the contamination of part or even much of the country in North Korea with nuclear fallout and radiation. For another it - given the long history of US "precision" targeting going terribly wrong - it would mean much death and destruction for the long-suffering North Korean people.

    It would also mean chaos in a country that for nearly three-quarters of a century has been ruled by one absolute tyrant or another, in which there is simply no organized system of governance at lower levels to handle anything, from delivery of health services to distribution of food. If you think the chaos that followed the US invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist leadership of Iraq was bad, or that the chaos of the US overthrow of Gaddafy in Libya was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet if North Korea's leader gets offed in a US strike.

    In theory, China, South Korea or Japan could step in with troops, money and civilian personnel to help reestablish some kind of order and peace, while preventing the rise of yet another tyrannical government, but none of that is likely. The Chinese would probably not want to take it on, the Japanese are viewed negatively as a former colonial power, and South Korea may not want the financial burden of rescuing the North, which would be staggering.

    Meanwhile, while the US could relatively easily, and at minimal cost, "take out" North Korea's missiles, nukes and leadership, especially in the case of the Trump administration, there is absolutely no interest in taking on the costs of occupying and subsidizing the rebuilding North Korea following such an ill-conceived attack......

    Peter AU | Apr 15, 2017 2:51:26 AM | 144
    163
    "Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions."

    Just part of human nature. Very common throughout history.
    As technology increases, the scale increases.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 3:27:44 AM | 145
    A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent).

    ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because they ran out of other targets in some way).

    Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks. Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force.

    Crazy world. And most people can't see past it at a level more deep than "crazy dictator with a bad haircut."

    The world is so fucked up.

    okie farmer | Apr 15, 2017 3:28:25 AM | 146
    The 'mother of all bombs' is big, deadly – and won't lead to peace Medea Benjamin
    "I'm really very good at war. I love war, in a certain way," bragged candidate Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Iowa. This is the same Donald Trump who avoided the Vietnam draft by claiming a bone spur in his foot, a medical problem that never kept him off the tennis courts or golf courses, and miraculously healed on its own.
    But with the escalation of US military involvement in Syria, the record number of drone attacks in Yemen, more US troops being sent to the Middle East and, now, the dropping of a massive bomb in Afghanistan, it looks like Trump may indeed love war. Or at least, love "playing" war.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/14/the-mother-of-all-bombs-big-deadly-ineff

    https://youtu.be/FMArIc5Hn_g

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 3:30:53 AM | 147
    I've also heard the total death toll was between 1/10 and 1/5 of the total population.

    Of the TOTAL population. Imagine knowing no one could name a person not being touched by the violence. Having total families decimated. Breeds a ton of hatred and understandably so. We need to get that its not just as one sided as having everyone "brainwashed" without access to outside culture. Its an insane outlook.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 3:37:42 AM | 148
    Solo sorry for the triple post, also needed to say that because everyone hates this crazy dictator people never take the anti war position. Its just we should charge in with our guns - or giant missiles - blazing hooorahh.

    No one sees the death and destruction that will take place. The artillery alone not even nukes, would smash Seoul. They can't see beyond the black and white of 'allow dictator nukes' and 'kill him.' There's never room for diplomacy here - its just as bad as 'negotiating with terrorists.' What a crock of shit. And trumps played his hand badly cause he has no wiggle room. Makes Syrian strike looks like a joke. So much for being friendly with China. How about a piece of delicious cake as consolation?

    b | Apr 15, 2017 3:45:16 AM | 150
    @Outraged - deleted a bunch of your comments with long list of military equipment no one is interested in

    provide links to such stuff, don't copy it.

    --

    @all - deleted a bunch of nonsensical one-liners and some sniping at each other that I considered off topic. Go back to kindergarten if you need that.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 3:45:27 AM | 151
    LOVE B's take on the economics of nuclear might is. Crazy I never heard of those documents. Doesn't help that the North has been straved of food - and more importantly OIL. Means a lot of money when you get down to brass taxes. Worst of all, north Korea NEEDS subsistence farming and its so mountainous you need oil and diesel to blow these hilly as hell fields. When you strave them of oil, you strave them of food again in a way. Without subsistence farming they strave for the most part. And people think that drives people AWAY from a demagogic/personality cult type figure. It only endears them more. It, in a way, is proving the dictator right... That the US IS OUT TO GET US (and it is) and THE US IS STARVING YOU NOT ME (also true).
    b | Apr 15, 2017 4:02:52 AM | 152
    @all - done some housecleaning here for Day of the Sun - Juche 105 (.i.e.today)
    ---

    The parade in North Korea yesterday was quite a show. Lots of new TEL (Transport-Erector-Launch Vehicles) for big intercontinental missiles. We don't know if real missiles were inside but NoKo likes to show new stuff off and only field it a year or two later.

    Video of the 3 hour parade from NoKo TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okxM0AUsh_w The interesting mil stuff starts around 2h 14m with the leg swinging girls (intentionally?)

    Some remarks on the off-road capable TEL North Korea's 2017 Military Parade Was a Big Deal. Here Are the Major Takeaways

    Even though Pyongyang withheld from testing this weekend amid rumors of possible retaliation by the United States, North Korea is still looking to improve its missile know-how. Moreover, the long-dreaded ICBM flight test also might not be too far off now. Given the ever-growing number of TELs - both wheeled and tracked - North Korea may soon field nuclear forces amply large that a conventional U.S.-South Korea first strike may find it impossible to fully disarm Pyongyang of a nuclear retaliatory capability. That would give the North Korean regime what it's always sought with its nuclear and ballistic missile program: an absolute guarantee against coercive removal.
    (will put the above in a post update)
    ashley albanese | Apr 15, 2017 4:31:45 AM | 153
    smoothie X2 82
    Ah -- what lies beneath the waves? . I remember in the early 1970's comments in the Western press that China through budget constraints was putting its 'eggs' into the submarine basket - cost effectiveness - . The article stressed that Chinese strategists deliberately eschewed using non-Chinese designs and 'fast track' technology so as to develop submarine systems that would have unique , secret capabilities honed to Chinese conditions . Perhaps of all weaponary the Chinese sub-mariners may have some surprises in store . Let's hope we never have to find out --
    oneoffposter | Apr 15, 2017 4:38:31 AM | 154
    Dear b and community. I read all of your posts on this topic with interest.

    The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential election in the South.

    For the past two presidential terms, the South has had Lee Myung-Bak and Park Geun-Hye both of whom took a hardline against North Korea and have killed the Sunshine Policy of their predecessors (Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-Hyun). As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be in South Korea.

    The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will be front and centre in the campaign.

    Just a thought. Thanks for everyone's contributions. This is a really good place to gain insight.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 5:17:39 AM | 155
    @154

    Extremely interesting take. Plus the anti THAAD movement is growing. Incidents between American soldiers in South Korean bases and the locals have been growing and that doesn't help. Remember that Osprey crash a couple months back?

    It all adds up.

    PavewayIV | Apr 15, 2017 5:24:32 AM | 156
    oneoffposter@154 - Thanks for that, oneoffposter. Korea would (supposedly) have been re-unified in the late 90's if it wasn't for US and Japanese efforts to prevent that from happening. I don't have specifics to back that up, but that 'feels' about right with regards to US actions over the years.

    South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM.

    Likewise, the US does everything possible to antagonize North Korean leaders and rattle their cage, making them seem even more insane than they usually are. Resulting, of course, in the South Koreans eagerly approving an eternal US presence for protection and the North Korean leaders sliding further into a black hole of indignation and rage. We didn't create the psychopaths in North Korea, but we're sure good at keeping them in power. They're useful to us.

    I'll be watching the elections in the South with much interest now.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 6:15:41 AM | 157
    i wonder how much we really know about the koreans. it's hard for me to imagine that the korean people hate and fear each other. korea is not a settler country, like us five eyes, where the possibility of setting one group against another is so conveniently ready to hand to the oppressors. can either set of koreans hate and fear one of their governments more than the other? i think, as someone else pointed out above, the worst of the terror after the war was undertaken by korean compradors of the japanese, at american instigation. i remember reading about a program to 'allow' southerners to cross the border for family reunions. i think it was terrifically popular.

    who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ... the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash.

    treating peoples like objects, we'll be objects of hate ourselves, finally. already are in many quarters, of course. but in far fewer than we 'merit'. i don't see how that cannot change now that we have embraced 'the dark side', as cheney put it, and now the unabashed evil-clown/wicked-witch with trump/clinton in the 2016 coin toss.

    now with mercenaries, cruise missiles, drones, chemical weapons, and none of our own skin in the game ourselves any longer, we really do fit the description of creatures from another planet to our victims. the image of hg wells' aliens in tripods sticks in my mind. that must be just what americans - not even in - drones and cruise missiles must seem to our victims.

    atonement. at-one-ment a friend of mine used to say. with the human race. how long will that take for america and americans, once 'the pride of man' is broken in the dust again.

    V. Arnold | Apr 15, 2017 6:36:59 AM | 158
    Well, it's 19:02m in Korea, on the 15th and no nuke blast. President Loon (my apology to the bird) will have to pack up his toys and go home.
    I wonder how much that hubris cost the US?
    somebody | Apr 15, 2017 6:43:12 AM | 159
    Posted by: oneoffposter | Apr 15, 2017 4:38:31 AM | 154

    From German experience this would not work. Every South Korean knows that war with the North was/would be total desaster.

    It is also clear that North Korea will only open up if they feel safe. The break down of communist systems is over, there is no use to wait for that.

    German Social Democrats had their best election results when promoting a "change by approach" policy.

    The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. But the US managed to create a security conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for North Korea.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 7:14:42 AM | 160
    @159 sb, 'South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. '

    you win your bet...

    The top export destinations of South Korea are
    China ($131B),
    the United States ($72.7B),
    Vietnam ($26.6B),
    Hong Kong ($26.3B) and
    Japan ($25.5B).

    The top import origins are
    China ($90.1B),
    Japan ($44.6B),
    the United States ($42.7B),
    Germany ($20.2B) and
    Saudi Arabia ($17.7B).

    oneoffposter | Apr 15, 2017 7:54:29 AM | 161
    @160 jfl

    Thanks for posting the figures. I don't know what the present day figures are like (your source seems to be posting figures for 2015).

    Since then, Park Geun-Hye gave the go ahead for THAAD to be installed overriding the objections of the local people. People more informed than I question (to put it mildly) the benefit this gives to South Korea. However, it has already had an impact on the South's economic relationship with China (and I guess, the political relationship too), showing just how important the question of who holds power in South Korea really is.

    Posters here often refer to the US/NATO attempt to split the Russia/China axis. It seems to me that this KOR/CHINA relationship also would not be welcomed.

    The ideas and slow-build towards reunification as evidenced by Kim Dae-Jung & Roh Moo-Hyun (e.g. Sunshine policy and the Truth commissions) were (in my opinion) logical steps to be taken towards first reducing the tensions on the peninsula leading perhaps to reunification talks (you never know). It is impossible to know now where they would have led, but they have been thoroughly discredited at this point and it is difficult to see how they could be restarted.

    somebody | Apr 15, 2017 7:57:38 AM | 162
    S.Koreans file petition with constitutional court against THAAD deployment
    SEOUL, April 6 (Xinhua) -- South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional.

    Residents from Seongju county and Gimcheon city in southeast South Korea and peace activists gathered outside the constitutional court in central Seoul, holding a press conference before submitting the constitutional appeal.

    According to the petition document, the residents and activists said the THAAD deployment violated many of the constitution clauses while failing to follow any appropriate procedures.

    Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement, Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about the THAAD installation.

    Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se visited a department store when the THAAD deployment decision was announced, indicating no advance discussions between ministers of defense and foreign affairs and the presidential office.

    The petitioners said the decision-making process on THAAD was rough and ready as there was no approval in the cabinet meeting, and that it was unilaterally determined by the national security council of the presidential office.

    "The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society, an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers.

    smuks | Apr 15, 2017 8:17:00 AM | 163
    So much provocation, vilification and preparation of the public...for nothing.

    The Neocons had really hoped that NK would react in some spectacularly 'menacing' way on its national holiday...but no, just a parade with some huge phal...er, missiles. Sad.

    It doesn't really matter *who* starts an aggression, but somebody at some point would surely lose his nerves, no? And NK would make for such a good villain, reminding SK and Japan of how dearly they need all that 'protection'.

    Let's see where the next act will play out. Ukraine once again, or Libya?

    (on that MOAB - looks like a strong message that 'we' are not about to give Afghanistan up, but rather willing to up the ante...)

    col from oz | Apr 15, 2017 8:26:51 AM | 164
    Beautifully written 157 jfl esp NOW
    smuks | Apr 15, 2017 8:32:42 AM | 165
    @ oneoffposter | Apr 15, 2017 7:54:29 AM | 161

    Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen' (from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid!

    The THAAD deployment places SK (even more) firmly in the cross-hairs of China's missiles. So now, at least they have some reason to fear it and scramble for 'protection'...mission accomplished!

    (President Park didn't approve of this...which is why she was removed.)

    Is there a way out of this? Not really. The US running out of money, maybe.

    Curtis | Apr 15, 2017 8:59:05 AM | 166
    b
    I read the nj.gov link and it does not tend to match your narrative in that paragraph although I agree that official narratives tend to twist the truth. I cannot see the Soviet motives towards Korea as anymore altruistic than Japan's especially in that time period. The Soviets are no more saints in the WWII period than the US.

    I do agree that US maneuvers close to the borders of "opponents" whether Russia or NK are antagonistic and unnecessary. And sometimes stupid action takes place after them like we saw in Georgia 2008. Putin shook a finger at Bush and rightly so. If Mr. "Art of the Deal" really were a deal maker he would meet at Panmunjon with the leaders of NK, SK, Russia, and China and sign an final official end to the Korean war and set the framework for demilitarization of the peninsula and trade/other deals.

    Curtis | Apr 15, 2017 9:01:20 AM | 167
    somebody jfl
    Excellent points. What South Korea wants should be paramount to the issue of what the US should do. Seoul is very vulnerable.
    Anon1 | Apr 15, 2017 9:06:26 AM | 168
    smuks

    For nothing? The american ship have pretty much just arrived, within next 4 weeks we probably will see something happen by the US. He simply cant back now.

    Gravatomic | Apr 15, 2017 9:18:57 AM | 169
    @Hoarsewhisperer

    According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together.

    This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook.

    I have friends who use Facebook, I don't, who constantly say the oddest, incorrect things to me that could only have been fomented there.

    Gravatomic | Apr 15, 2017 9:23:57 AM | 170
    @ oneoffposter

    Yes, when the arm twisting doesn't suffice they remove you, that's part of what the NSA and CIA do. Smear, blackmail and gather corruption evidence, whether real, perceived or planted to keep US puppets in line.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 10:29:41 AM | 171
    @161 oop,

    yes, somebody's link had the china-south korea trade at 300 billion, whereas the numbers in the link i found were at ~220 billion. but the the china-south korea trade at 220 billion was just about twice the us-south korea trade in that period. i imagine it ratio was higher, if anything, up until thaad.

    @162, sb,

    maybe the trade value lost due to the thaad deal will make everyone 'notice' its illegality ... now that they're starting to bleed. money speaks louder than the law, in most countries these days.

    @167 curtis

    they'd set the peninsula on fire if they thought it would bring them closer to world domination. the us ruling class cares not a whit for humans of any 'brand', americans included. certainly not for koreans, north or south.

    @170 gravatomic

    i have no proof but that's exactly the thought that ran through my head when park went down : she wasn't 'on board' the thaad train. i suppose it was the memory of the pictures with xi ... and of the vile cia's past actions, all over the world.

    Monolycus | Apr 15, 2017 10:32:57 AM | 172
    @b

    I saw your response earlier about how no writer can represent both sides equally, and I agree. I still lurk here and find no fault with your insights 99% of the time. You know perfectly well that in most situations, I am a staunch non-interventionist. I simply disagree (strongly) on this particular issue. Anyway, I apologize for sounding so hostile--especially at you. This situation just has my nerves pretty frayed right now.

    I don't want to be dragged into a giant tu quoque match, so I won't respond to much more here, except to address George Smiley @155, above. I'm not sure where you read that the anti-THAAD movement is "growing," but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case from here on the ground. I am about 20 minutes from Seongju, and have spoken to many of the anti-THAAD people about their concerns. There's very, very little going on there politically; Seongju is a very poor area which is economically dependent on a particular melon crop they are famous for. Most of the anti-THAAD demonstrators were local farmers who had gotten the idea that the EM radiation coming from the THAAD radar would hurt their crops. In the wake of China's economic retaliation against THAAD, however, a good many of the locals have reversed their opinion and now support it. When the deployment was first announced, there was a lot of buzz about it (nobody wanted it here in their backyard,) but now when the subject is brought up at all (increasingly rarely,) it's usually digging in their heels about how China deserves it for kicking out their K-pop stars and shutting down the Lotteria fast food restaurants unfairly. Public opinion might change again if Moon Jae-in declares a firm position about it instead of waffling back and forth, but at this moment it's only a small but vocal minority that are opposed to it.

    dh | Apr 15, 2017 10:33:07 AM | 173
    @158 The US armada will be off to Pattaya soon for some well deserved R&R.

    The BBC coverage is worth a watch BTW for those who like to read between the lines. Lots of spin of course but the commentator does admit at one point that NK needs its nukes to avoid going the way of Iraq and Libya.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39607343

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 10:47:18 AM | 174
    @168 anon

    was there ever an 'official' announcement of a nuclear test planned for saturday? or was it just an 'expectation' ... if the latter, maybe the cia fostered it, knowing it wasn't going to happen, so they could thwack tee-rump's rump and have him take a 'victory lap' when it didn't? if they're serious about nukes ... and they should be as long as the us has them in its sights ... the north koreans have got to test more at some point.

    it's really hard for me to imagine any good excuse for a us battle group to be between china and korea in the yellow sea without an invitation. what would the us position be if a chinese - not to mention a russian - battle group showed up in the caribbean, or hudson's bay, concerned about the rogue american state and it's mad leader ?

    denk | Apr 15, 2017 11:03:02 AM | 175
    jfl 137


    here's the oft derided 'unelected' ccp partial plan for 2017,
    'to lift another 10-20m people outta poverty and step up the anti corruption battle'.
    thats in addition to the 70m already bailed out , cited by UN as a text book case of social development.

    whats the vaunted 'elected' leaders of murkka plan for 2017,
    to do 'syria, nk, iran, china, russia.... '?
    350 ships for the 'depleted' USN ?
    'star war' redux ?
    by the guy who got 'elected' on his 'anti deep state' and 'populist' platform --


    denk | Apr 15, 2017 11:09:48 AM | 176

    lots of people say mdm park is a murkkan stooge and she's been removed by people power.

    well like i say many times before, park is a very reluctant 'stooge',
    first off she is a known sinophile who's well versed in chinese culture,
    she had been dragging her feet over the thaad installation for years and china is sk's largest market.
    hence antagonising china must be the last thing on her mind.

    anyone of the above is enough reason for a regime change.
    the last straw was most likely when she defied washington's dictat and join putin in china's ww2 memorial ceremony in 2015.
    mind you, she's the only leader from the murkkan camp with 'cojones'to attend. [1]
    i guess her fate was sealed from that moment.

    so is her ouster yet another color rev masqueraded as 'people power',like the 'arab spring' etc ?

    some observers think so.

    we shall see.

    [1]
    Xi extended a particularly warm welcome to Park, who attended the ceremony over the objections of Japan and the U.S.
    http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Ties-between-Park-Xi-shape-East-Asia-diplomacy

    Anon1 | Apr 15, 2017 11:27:54 AM | 177
    jfl / 174

    Re: US provocations

    Yes you are of course right, as usual when US does it themselves, it is apparently the fault of the other party (North Korea) according to the useless MSM in the west.

    There are some rumours that NK will test its nuclear tech. again soon and then US will strike.
    China is getting nervous somehow, apparently dont understand what they effectively have giving a green light to:

    China : "We call on all parties to refrain from provoking and threatening each other, whether in words or actions, and not let the situation get to an irreversible and unmanageable stage."
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/15/nkor-a15.html

    The chinese cant even condemn the foreign aggressor anymore.

    juliania | Apr 15, 2017 12:13:45 PM | 178
    Thank you very much for this important and critical posting, b. I wish for you and all who come here a joyful and rich Springtime holy season to assuage our fears and give us hope for the future.

    Peace to all.

    Rick | Apr 15, 2017 2:37:35 PM | 179
    Sure would be nice to find the original of the comments attributed to MacArthur. I've looked at the references in "Napalm: an American biography" by Robert M. Neer but can't find any original sources online. The footnote for this passage is jumbled, citing seven sources for this passage.

    I did find that at the time MacArthur was advocating far more attacks in Korea, not less, which makes such comments suspect. Why would someone who was losing their job, and likely their career, due to their stance advocating more military action make such comments?

    mauisurfer | Apr 15, 2017 3:14:19 PM | 180

    It's Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose

    From Foreign Policy Magazine (behind the paywall)

    The first step to solving the North Korean problem is removing U.S. troops from the middle of it.

    By Doug Bandow
    April 13, 2017

    It's Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose

    Asia contains the world's two most populous nations, the country with the largest Muslim population, the two largest economies after America, and the next superpower and peer competitor to the United States. But when U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited the continent recently, small, impoverished North Korea nearly monopolized his attention.

    Why is the United States, which dominates the globe militarily, politically, and economically, fixated on this poor, isolated, and distant nation? Because America has gotten entangled where it does not belong.

    Washington has been deeply involved in the Korean Peninsula since the end of World War II. Subsequently, the Cold War gave a zero-sum quality to international relations, with Washington's loss being the Soviet Union's gain. Having invested some 37,000 lives to save South Korea during the Korean War, America's credibility was also at stake. And with the "loss" of China to communism fresh on Americans' minds, nobody was willing to see another Asian nation go red.

    But that world disappeared long ago.

    The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness, and America's Korea commitment its purpose.

    The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness, and America's Korea commitment its purpose. While there is much to criticize in the approach of Donald Trump's administration to the rest of the world, the president correctly sees the need for a foreign policy that more effectively protects America's interests. A good place to start shifting course is the region home to the world's newest and least responsible nuclear power.

    The Koreas are no longer a proxy battleground between superpowers. There was a time when U.S. withdrawal from a confrontation with a Soviet ally in Asia would have, analysts believed, signaled weakness a continent away in Europe. But the Soviets are long gone and the cause for American commitment with them. An inter-Korean war would be tragic and the body count enormous, but absent American involvement the fighting would largely be confined to the peninsula. The continued presence of U.S. forces, by contrast, virtually guarantees the spread of conflict.

    South Korea's defense no longer requires Washington's presence. The South's economy began racing past its northern antagonist during the 1960s. Democracy arrived in the late 1980s. By the 1990s, when mass starvation stalked Pyongyang as Seoul's economy boomed, the gap between the two Koreas was already huge and growing. The South's military potential is correspondingly great though as yet unrealized - in part because dependence on the U.S. presence has affected strategic choices.

    Yet America's military presence has remained sacrosanct. Jimmy Carter's plan to bring home U.S. troops was opposed even by his own appointees. Ronald Reagan pushed a more muscular confrontation with the Soviet Union and other communist states. With the end of the Cold War, his successors expanded alliance commitments, particularly in Europe, but also in Asia. Today, 28,500 troops remain in South Korea, backed up by U.S. forces in Okinawa and other Asian-Pacific bases, and highlighted by periodic decisions to overfly the North with bombers or send aircraft carriers to nearby waters whenever Washington wants to demonstrate "resolve" to Pyongyang.

    So why is America still there?

    One argument, advanced by analyst Robert E. McCoy, is moral, "since it was American ignorance that facilitated the division of the Korean Peninsula in the concluding days of World War II." Some Koreans malign America for this division. But this is the wisdom of hindsight; in the chaotic aftermath of global conflict, no U.S. official wanted to push the Soviets over a faraway peninsula. The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their northern neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did a very good deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism and claims that it must forever police the peninsula.

    More practical is the contention of analysts such as the Heritage Foundation's Bruce Klingner that U.S. backing is "necessary to defend" the South. Yet, in contrast to 1950, there is no reason the South cannot protect itself - if properly motivated to do so by the departure of U.S. conventional forces. With a bigger economy, larger population, and significant technological edge, as well as greater international support, Seoul could construct armed forces capable of deterring and defeating the North. Doing so would be expensive and take serious effort, but so what? The South Korean government's most important duty is to protect its people.

    Taking on that responsibility also would force Seoul to treat Pyongyang more consistently. The "Sunshine Policy" begun under former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung resulted in the transfer of some $10 billion in cash and assistance to the North, even as the latter was developing missiles and nuclear weapons. That approach was viable only because Washington provided a military backstop (and if the new South Korean president, to be elected in May, revives the Sunshine Policy, as some have suggested, there's no telling if the Trump administration would be so forgiving). The South needs to bear both the costs and benefits of whatever approach it takes.

    But even if South Korea couldn't defend itself, the argument would still fall short.

    American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and everywhere.

    American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and everywhere. The United States should go to war only when its most important interests are at stake.

    South Korea's prosperity is not one of those vital interests, at least in security terms. A renewed conflict confined to the two Koreas would be horrific, but the consequences for the United States would be primarily humanitarian and economic, not security. The cost would be high but fall primarily on the region. In contrast, direct U.S. involvement in another Korean War would be much more expensive than the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, which have cost America thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

    Of course, the North's possession of what we assume to be a growing and at some point deliverable nuclear arsenal skews the peninsula's balance of power. However, this doesn't create a need for a conventional American military presence on the peninsula. Washington could still guarantee massive retaliation against any North Korean use of nuclear weapons, providing a deterrent against the North's threats.

    But it is worth contemplating whether it would be better to allow South Korea to construct its own deterrent. In the late 1970s, South Korean President Park Chung-hee worried about Washington's reliability and began work on a Korean bomb - only to stop under U.S. pressure. Since then, support for reviving such work has periodically surfaced in South Korea. Encouraging such efforts might actually be in the best interests of the United States, even if America has to maintain its nuclear umbrella while the Korean bomb is developed.

    Yes, encouraging nuclear proliferation is a risky path. But the United States would gain from staying out of Northeast Asia's nuclear quarrels. China, fearful that Japan would join the nuclear parade, might take tougher action against Pyongyang in an attempt to forestall Seoul's efforts. The South could feel confident in its own defense, rather than remaining reliant upon U.S. willingness to act.

    A potpourri of broader claims is also made for maintaining U.S. forces. America's presence supposedly constrains China, promotes regional stability, and deters an arms race. Let's consider those claims in order. What sort of constraint is allegedly being posed to China? If the idea is to coerce it into assuming responsibility for North Korea in the event of its collapse, Beijing has shown no interest in attempting to swallow a Korean population likely to prove indigestible. And if the calculation is rather that Washington can persuade South Korea to pressure China on non-Korean matters, it's easy to predict the unfriendly response Seoul's Blue House would give if invited by the White House to join it in warring against China to, say, save an independent Taiwan, counter Chinese moves in the South China Sea - or, horror of horrors, defend Japan. Indeed, absent U.S. protection, South Korea and Japan might feel greater pressure to finally settle historical disputes so often misused by their nationalist politicians.

    As for the idea that the U.S. presence deters a regional arms race, building weapons so others don't have to is not the sort of charity America should engage in. Alliances can deter. But, as dramatically demonstrated by World War I, they also can act as transmission belts of war. Moreover, small nations often act irresponsibly - such as underinvesting in defense - when protected by big powers.

    The U.S. security presence in South Korea is an expensive and dangerous commitment that America can no longer afford. Nor has it ever brought the United States much popularity in the country, where U.S. soldiers are a constant irritant to nationalists. The South is no longer a poor nation in need of protection from the specter of global communism but one more than capable of standing on its own two feet.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 4:50:38 PM | 181
    @172 That makes me sad to hear. I appreciate a perspective that comes from first hand experience. Its hard to get a proper outloom I feel outside of speaking with Koreans or even knowing the language.

    Perhaps reading articles published by journalists opposed to THAAD has distorted my handle of the situation. Sad the movement doesn't have more traction.

    I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though. Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views of a few people I talk to in SK though.

    Any thoughts? I appreciate your response greatly.

    Kalen | Apr 15, 2017 5:01:37 PM | 182
    What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression. Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on?
    karlof1 | Apr 15, 2017 5:19:16 PM | 183
    Rick @179--

    I wanted to see the footnotes for that section, too, but I don't have a paper copy of the book. However, based upon other readings of same testimony, I believe they were made during Congressional testimony.

    Perhaps the most important element to learn from the aggression waged against the peoples of Korea, Indochina, and Iraq by the Outlaw US Empire is their Genocidal nature, and the additional fact that in their post-war environment the killing and maiming continues unabated: All casualty categories combined add up to well over 10 million and rising, far outperforming Hitler's genocide of jews, gypsies and others.

    Outraged | Apr 15, 2017 5:21:08 PM | 184
    @ b 150

    Apologies. Understood. Will comply.

    Re b @ 152 & post update

    Heres an 8min38Sec Youtube of the military personnel & 'hardware' portion only:

    North Korea Holds Massive Military Parade 'Day of the Sun Parade' in Pyongyang ( Show Case Missile )
    dh | Apr 15, 2017 5:22:19 PM | 185
    @182 Don't know about Russia but I have some thoughts re. China. Xi made it clear to Donald that China would support Kim if NK is attacked i.e WW3.

    At the same time Xi told Kim not to provoke Donald i.e. no nuclear test. Let them think they've won.

    Outraged | Apr 15, 2017 5:42:46 PM | 186
    @ Posted by: dh | Apr 15, 2017 5:22:19 PM | 185

    Fully concur. And the Chinese are 'civilized' re public discourse, just because the are not openly bellicose and full of aggressive rhetoric, does not mean they are push over pussies, exactly the opposite behind the agreeable, diplomatic, ' face '. Talk softly, yet have a big stick ready, just in case.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 6:26:20 PM | 187
    @180 mauisurfer

    the foreign policy article extends tee-tump's 'pay for a native implementation of us policy' a la nato to south korea ... and wouldn't it be a good idea if south korea had nukes, too. their summary of us 'involvement' in korea post-wwii is shameful ...

    The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their northern neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did a very good deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism ...
    Depraved foreign policy recommendations from the us foreign policy establishment might as well stay in their echo chamber, behind their paywall, as far as i'm concerned. news of the us foreign policy establishment's depravity is dog bites man.
    smuks | Apr 15, 2017 7:05:05 PM | 188
    @ Anon1 168

    Why should that happen, if no side is willing to fire the first shot? There's been 'increased tensions' many times before, missile and nuclear tests, naval drills...so far it's all just scaremongering to me, and I don't quite see why it should be heating up *now*.

    Peter AU | Apr 15, 2017 7:11:02 PM | 189
    Looks like NK may have done a missile test. Failed apparently.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-missile-idUSKBN17H0NL
    https://sputniknews.com/asia/201704161052679707-north-korea-fails-misile-launch/

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 8:10:03 PM | 190
    there's a brief summary at the nation of the most germane us-north korean history by Burce Cumings, on 23 March This Is What's Really Behind North Korea's Nuclear Provocations .
    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 16, 2017 1:21:37 AM | 191
    Other authors sympathetic to the plight of Korea are...
    Gavan NcCormack
    Gregory Elich
    Desaix Anderson, who delivered an address on the US monstrous and systematic betrayal of NK to the Nautilus Institute called Crisis In North Korea. Anderson was the CEO of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO).
    I can no longer find the article on the www but one of the sleuths here may be able to track it down.
    Mr Reynard | Apr 16, 2017 2:44:06 AM | 192
    Actually, all the problems started with the demands that Kim Jong Un made to USA --
    First, he has demanded that USA give up all of its nuclear weapons, that USA stop all nuclear research, that there should be a "regime change" in Washington, plus he had the chutzpah to send assassins to USA to kill the POTUS !! So I'm not surprised at the reaction of D Trump to this provocation ??
    b | Apr 16, 2017 10:11:11 AM | 194
    Had forgotten this when I wrote the post above:

    Wikileaks, Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs "We don't want a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification.

    JMiller | Apr 16, 2017 10:26:08 AM | 195
    The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises"

    It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities.

    Outraged | Apr 16, 2017 10:32:20 AM | 196
    @ JMiller

    Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees '.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 16, 2017 12:28:22 PM | 197
    Link to Desaix Anderson's Nautilus Institute address Crisis In North Korea.
    http://oldsite.nautilus.org/fora/security/0325A_Anderson.html
    JMiller | Apr 16, 2017 2:39:37 PM | 198
    The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises".

    It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities, just that they may. It is not surprising that the U.S. turned down the offer since it did not guarantee that NK would do anything.

    Anon1 | Apr 16, 2017 3:08:42 PM | 199
    Jimiller

    Yeah how dare NK offer peaceful ways to solve problems in this world. Yeah no wonder US not accepted it, go figure.

    [Apr 17, 2017] The pot calling the kettle black

    Notable quotes:
    "... As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole. ..."
    "... On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm. ..."
    "... One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." ..."
    "... RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag. ..."
    "... As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S." ..."
    "... The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT. ..."
    "... The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion. ..."
    "... Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. ..."
    "... The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. ..."
    Apr 16, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    From: A Lesson in Moscow About Trump-Style 'Alternative Truth' - The New York Times by Jim Rutenberg >

    Mr. Trump had just ordered a Tomahawk strike against Syria's Shayrat air base, from which, the United States said, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had launched the chemical weapons attack that killed more than 80 and sickened hundreds.

    As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole.

    Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike. There was some "reportage" from sources like the conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones - best known for suggesting that the Sandy Hook school massacre was staged - that the chemical attack was a "false flag" operation by terrorist rebel groups to goad the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. But that was a view from the fringe.

    Here in Russia, it was the dominant theme throughout the overwhelmingly state-controlled mainstream media.

    On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm.

    One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

    That teed up Mr. Putin to suggest in nationally televised comments a couple of days later that perhaps the attack was an intentional "provocation" by the rebels to goad the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag." The full Alex Jones was complete.

    When Trump administration officials tried to counter Russia's "false narratives" by releasing to reporters a declassified report detailing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles - and suggesting to The Associated Press without proof that Russia knew of Mr. Assad's plans to use chemical weapons in advance - the Russians had a ready answer borrowed from Mr. Trump himself.

    As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S."

    It was the best evidence I've seen of the folly of Mr. Trump's anti-press approach. You can't spend more than a year attacking the credibility of the "dishonest media" and then expect to use its journalism as support for your position during an international crisis - at least not with any success.

    While Mr. Trump and his supporters may think that undermining the news media serves their larger interests, in this great information war it serves Mr. Putin's interests more. It means playing on his turf, where he excels.

    Integral to Mr. Putin's governing style has been a pliant press that makes his government the main arbiter of truth.

    While talking to the beaten but unbowed members of the real journalism community here, I heard eerie hints of Trumpian proclamations in their war stories.

    Take Mr. Trump's implicit threat to the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, during the election campaign. In case you've forgotten, while calling The Post's coverage of him "horrible and false," Mr. Trump warned that if he won the presidency Mr. Bezos's other business, Amazon, would have "such problems." (The Post was undaunted, and the issue hasn't come up again.)

    ... ... ...

    Alexandra Odynova contributed research.

    for-the-record , April 17, 2017 at 6:16 pm GMT \n
    300 Words Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.

    To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from Newsweek today (April 17) via Yahoo News:

    ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops

    The author tells us that

    Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.

    Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream media.

    The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.

    I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-ΰ-vis Russia).

    Altai , April 17, 2017 at 8:29 pm GMT \n
    400 Words @for-the-record Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.

    To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from Newsweek today (April 17) via Yahoo News:


    ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops
    The author tells us that

    Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
    Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream media.

    The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") -- but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.

    I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-ΰ-vis Russia).

    many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-ΰ-vis Russia).

    It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points harder than most US outlets.

    Don't ever trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this simply can't be said for mainstream media)

    I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.

    I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM looks like InfoWars and is scary.

    It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned helplessness like this.

    WorkingClass , April 17, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT \n
    I know it's bullshit. I read it in the New York Times.

    The NYT is an enemy of the human race.

    Assad didn't do it. Just like he didn't do it last time. Just like he will not have done it next time.

    El Dato , April 17, 2017 at 10:19 pm GMT \n
    300 Words @Altai

    many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-ΰ-vis Russia).
    It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points harder than most US outlets.

    Don't ever trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this simply can't be said for mainstream media)

    I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.

    I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM looks like InfoWars and is scary.

    It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned helplessness like this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok Nice short film. However, I cannot agree that people are in some kind of "oh dear" mindset. On the contrary, they are easily instrumented into supporting any random "something must be (militarily) done" call for action. Maybe a direct consequence of post-Gulf War 1 triumphalism, when the US was great again and apparently had left behind of trauma of Vietnam for good (that was an actual talking point, believe it or not!). With the Soviet Union no more, poised to rework the world in its own image, the US was!

    It all went south of course. We got the Yougoslavia catastrophe. Taking sides along with Europeans acting according to reflexes harking back to 1914 and dropping bombs didn't go all that well. When bombing started, Serbia was as MSM-tarred as Syria is today. We got 10 years of suppressing Mr. Hussein. Something was happening in Russia and maybe Chechnya and Georgia but no-one was all too certain what or why. We got the surprise Hutu-on-Tutsi massacre after which liberventionists were clamoring that "something should have been done". There was some "cruise missile diplomacy" (i.e. Clinton bombs Sudan). There were noises from Afghanistan with military commanders in particular Ahmad Shah Massoud fighting someone called "Taliban" but nobody cared about that. There was the marginally interesting Israel-Palestinian conflict with neverending talks and the Israelis starting to behave like jerks after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. We got first "hard" terrorism hits: A bombing in the WTC basement, a sarin gas attack in Tokyo, a diplomatic mission in Africa and of course the OKC bombing. Well, I guess those years of practically pre-Internet chaos were when "liberventionism" gelled.

    After the 9/11-Anthrax events it was of course full neocon time and everyone was on the same track for foreign land adventurism. By hook or by crook. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Johnny F. Ive , April 17, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT \n
    The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion.

    Also VIPS had American intelligence contacts in the Middle East who said the Syrians hit something that had chemicals in it. Everyone has their anonymous intelligence sources. Assad isn't going anywhere there could have been a proper investigation. The US media salivated at the bombing of Syria. The US media is the American Empire's id. It tells it to do stupid stuff that is going to get it killed. The US media loves to play nuclear chicken with Russia. I suppose psychopaths need a lot of stimulation and what could be more stimulating than a risk of nuclear war.

    If the US media was doing its job it would not just be after Trump's relationship with Russia. It would be after the whole American establishments cozy relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia. They've turned the US into a banana empire. Of course the US media is tied to weapons producers and Israel gets a welfare check to buy American arms and Saudi Arabia buys American arms. Also Israel no matter what it does is protected because of guilt (which will be its undoing because its bad behavior is not being checked). If Russia bought American arms I bet the US media would love Putin. The US media then would take it upon themselves to support Putin against his enemies.

    Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. Its irrational unless you realize who its working for. Its not the American people. Its not even working to keep the US Empire in a position of strength. It demands obedience to the whims of the Empire's global subjects and its domestic war industry. That is what this Russian crap was about Trump. Maybe they tried to interfere. People were going to vote the way they voted anyway because Trump struck an emotional cord with his larger than life personality and the Democrats conspired against the candidate that could have beaten him (Bernie) while making sure no one that could win would run for the Democrat nomination. Also the Israelis are right wing and they get away with stuff the Alt-right could never get away with in the US (and I hope wouldn't want to engage in). What they do to the Palestinians is straight out of Nazi Germany before the holocaust (which is coming for the Palestinians). They loved Trump and voted for him. US media doesn't make a big deal about this. Any reporter who did would risk losing their job.

    The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. By being whores for war profiteers and their global allies the US media makes Russian government controlled media seem great in comparison. There is no reason why the US should be a whore for unsavory governments and organizations across the world. Its 20 trillion in debt and the US media uses verbal abuse and praise to manipulate the President into making war, while framing the war into simplistic and cartoonish terms. There are some that are extremely wealthy. The Europeans could handle their own security but manipulating the US to do it is easy because of the US media and easily malleable politicians.

    How about the US media find some poor defenseless country and harp up a war and bleed the US Empire dry of its wealth in a fruitless quagmire and call it a day? Some of us do have a self preservation instinct and fighting Russia for the mess in Syria is stupid. If it was me I'd try to get the defense companies to focus on space and space mining. Whoever controls outer space will control humanity's destiny. But go ahead bleed the US dry on these short sided money grabbing crusades so other countries can take over outer space instead.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Trump is escalating foreign conflicts

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, but the question of how that ends, and the transition itself, could be very important, in our view, to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria. We are not presupposing how that occurs," the more measured Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted by The Washington Post as saying in Italy before he flew to Russia. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/12/trump-is-escalating-foreign-conflicts/ ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    okie farmer | Apr 15, 2017 3:40:13 AM | 149

    Trump is escalating foreign conflicts

    So we're not going into Syria, but neither are we going to tolerate the tactics Assad has been using for six years. Where exactly is the "red line" in Syria? The president's spokesman, Sean Spicer, further muddied the waters, making similar statements about barrel bombs.

    This kind of confusion doesn't help American allies or even our foes like Syria, Russia and Iran who are trying to navigate this conflict. Trump needs to take a page from the book of his cabinet members who have been talking with more clarity about Syria and Russia.

    "I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, but the question of how that ends, and the transition itself, could be very important, in our view, to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria. We are not presupposing how that occurs," the more measured Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted by The Washington Post as saying in Italy before he flew to Russia. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/12/trump-is-escalating-foreign-conflicts/

    [Apr 17, 2017] The Syria Strikes A Conspiracy Theory

    Nice satire... almost Gavlin style...
    Notable quotes:
    "... This is the 100% true story of the #SyriaStrikes, and if you support sites like The Corbett Report that question it in any way you are a moonbeam fake news tyrant-loving hippy pinko Russian agent and should commit ritual suicide immediately. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Anoncommentator | Apr 15, 2017 12:31:18 AM | 130
    This is going viral and so it should!!! corbettreport

    The Syria Strikes A Conspiracy Theory

    TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/syriast...

    On the morning of April 4th 2017, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, on the verge of a military victory against the terrorist insurgency in his country and on the eve of peace talks that would secure his position as president, decided to use chemical weapons he didn't have against a target of no military significance in front of as many cameras as possible to cross the one red line that would insure his own government's downfall.

    Soon after, the Academy Award-winning White Helmets –noted for their Oscar-worthy performances , persistent proximity to Al Qaeda , and financial dependence on USAID –bravely risked their lives, handling Sarin victims barehanded against every protocol in the book.

    Without presenting a shred of evidence, President Donald Trump boldly launched a military strike against Shayrat airfield because "national security interest," promising to help the "beautiful children" (*offer does not apply to babies in Gaza , Yemen , Pakistan , or basically anywhere else).

    That military strike, a volley of 59 Tomahawk land attack missiles of which 23 actually made it to their target, failed to take out a single runway or even keep the airbase from operating for even 24 hours , but was a complete success for ExxonMobil , Raytheon and Donald Trump .

    No one could question the wisdom of striking Syria ( except Donald Trump ). And no one could oppose such a move ( except Russia ).

    The Trump Train, still convinced by candidate Trump (" dropping bombs on Assad " and " look what happened after Gaddafi ") concluded that this was 7th dimensional backgammon to make China afraid of the US' willingness to spend $100 million in a fearsome show of failing to destroy a single airfield.

    Throughout the world people rejoice as a horrible secular regime in the Middle East is replaced by yet another peace-loving band of ragtag human rights campaigners and child beheaders motivated by a desire to subdue the armies of Rome in an apocalyptic confrontation in Dabiq. (* actual ISIS belief )

    The chemicals for the previous "red line" attack in Syria have since been proven to come from Libya with US approval , but that's probably not relevant to this case.

    The CIA has released declassified report after declassified report showing that the plan to topple Syria's government has been in the works for decades, but this just shows that they were right all along.

    The mainstream media unquestioningly asserts that the story is true because the US government says so, but that's OK because we all know the msm is full of unbiased truthtellers and dig hard to get the raw facts on every story. (" beauty of our weapons ")

    Even members of congress think the story is a load of hogwash , but that's OK because they're probably crazy.

    Meanwhile the White House has released a report on its intelligence about the chemical attack that refutes its own version of the story , but that's OK because when has the White House ever lied people into war?

    This man doesn't exist, and if you think he does you're an enemy of humanity who should apologize for having been born. Likewise him , her , her , him and him . And him and her .

    This is the 100% true story of the #SyriaStrikes, and if you support sites like The Corbett Report that question it in any way you are a moonbeam fake news tyrant-loving hippy pinko Russian agent and should commit ritual suicide immediately.

    If you love your country and/or liberty, NASCAR, supermodels, TV, water slides or your mother you will not question this story in any way. Ever.

    This message has been brought to you by the Friends of the Brookings Institute , Raytheon , Genie Oil , Oded Yinon , I-CIA-SIS and The New York Times .

    Because IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

    [Apr 17, 2017] The cruise missile attack was planned several days before it actually happened. Most likely, the attack was decided on before the Ross left Rota on April 3

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Regarding the US cruise missile strike against the Shirat airbase, the USS Ross was at its forward base, Rota, southern Spain on April 3. The launch area for the cruise missile attack was some 4000 km away at the far east end of the Mediterranean. Even steaming at top speed for 24 hours a day, it would have taken the Ross 3 days to get to the launch area. ..."
    "... For it to have travelled at top speed from the get go, it suggests a specific time-critical mission was planned from before it sailed. If the ship had travelled at a lower cruising speed, it would have taken say 4.5 days to get there, ie sometime between midday 7th (for an early departure on the 3rd) to midday on the 8th (for a late departure at the end of the 3rd). ..."
    Apr 14, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 6:01:32 PM | 100
    Although somewhat OT to this thread's topic, the following info just shared relates to the planning and prepositioning of assets prior to an attack, albeit on a small scale. Re, the USS Ross's participation in the supposedly off-the-cuff retaliatory attack for the Idlib False Flag courtesy of Anonymous at SyrPers:

    "Regarding the US cruise missile strike against the Shirat airbase, the USS Ross was at its forward base, Rota, southern Spain on April 3. The launch area for the cruise missile attack was some 4000 km away at the far east end of the Mediterranean. Even steaming at top speed for 24 hours a day, it would have taken the Ross 3 days to get to the launch area.

    For it to have travelled at top speed from the get go, it suggests a specific time-critical mission was planned from before it sailed. If the ship had travelled at a lower cruising speed, it would have taken say 4.5 days to get there, ie sometime between midday 7th (for an early departure on the 3rd) to midday on the 8th (for a late departure at the end of the 3rd).

    Even if the Ross departed at cruise and received an attack order in route, there would have been a narrow window where it was possible to get there with a combination of cruise and full speed.

    This strongly suggests the cruise missile attack was planned several days before it actually happened rather than the Ross fortuitously being on station before the order was made. Most likely, the attack was decided on before the Ross left Rota on April 3." https://syrianperspective.com/2017/04/dia-officer-declares-attack-in-idlib-to-be-fake-usa-slaughters-hundreds-of-civilians-in-dayr-el-zor-tillerson-rebuffed-in-russia-over-illegal-attack-on-syrian-base-kafarayyaa-and-al-fawa.html#comments

    [Apr 17, 2017] Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political elite is generally an office plankton with law or political science (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill)

    Notable quotes:
    "... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 2:10:57 PM | 49

    No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat the experience.

    Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).

    [Apr 17, 2017] Ostara, Ishtar And A Happy Easter Walk

    Notable quotes:
    "... Just as the day of rest was a spiritual discipline that demonstrated there is more to life than production and consumption - and so was a threat to every narrative of power and control... ..."
    "... The spring festival was originally a fertility celebration, so the bunnies connection runs deep. And shallow. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Ostara, Ishtar And A Happy Easter Walk

    Easter echoes the eons old human festivity to celebrate the March exquinox (in the northern hemisphere) and the arrival of spring. The dark and cold days of winter are gone. The bright time of fertility has come.

    Today's fertility symbols of Easter, the egg and the hare, relate to the old Germanic fertility goddess Eostre (Ostara). Ishtar, a Mesopotamian goddess of love, stepped down into the underworld of death but was revived. The Christian resurrection of Jesus is probably a transformation of this older hopeful tale.

    When the Christian message spread from its eastern Mediterranean origin its incorporation of old local gods and fables helped to convert the multi-theistic societies to the new monotheistic * believe. The gods of the pre-Christian religions were not completely discarded but their tales transformed to support the new united message the Christian preachers were spreading.

    But whatever. - It is spring, the darkness vanishes and it is my favored holiday. This year the Julian and Gregorian calendars coincide. We thus follow the Russian Barbarians and wish us all

    Happy Easter


    Faberge egg with spring flowers and music box- bigger

    Please join me, v. Goethe and Dr. Faust in our traditional Easter Walk:

    Look from this height whereon we find us
    Back to the town we have left behind us,

    Where from the dark and narrow door
    Forth a motley multitude pour.

    They sun themselves gladly and all are gay,
    They celebrate Christ's resurrection to-day.

    For have not they themselves arisen?
    From smoky huts and hovels and stables,
    From labor's bonds and traffic's prison,
    From the confinement of roofs and gables,
    From many a cramping street and alley,
    From churches full of the old world's night,
    All have come out to the day's broad light.
    ...
    How it hums o'er the fields and clangs from the steeple!
    This is the real heaven of the people,
    Both great and little are merry and gay,
    I am a man, too, I can be, to-day.

    * The Christian Trinity , the three aspects of the one God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is a doctrinaire addition of the 4th century. It just adds an explanatory layer on top of the Abrahamic core of the monotheistic Christian message.

    Glorious Bach | Apr 16, 2017 7:41:48 AM | 1

    Hope, always hope--even in this dreariest of mean times.
    Jen | Apr 16, 2017 7:52:22 AM | 2
    Happy Easter to all and may we celebrate more Happy Easters to come!

    Thanks B for reminding us that as long as we continue to celebrate Easter and remember what it represents, we are also celebrating hope, the possibility of renewal and setting humanity on a path towards peace and away from greed, violence, exploitation and lack of care for our fellow humans, animals and other travellers on this planet.

    John Merryman | Apr 16, 2017 8:15:44 AM | 3
    Actually the Trinity was one of the earliest pantheistic traditions incorporated and the most foundational to Christianity, as it incorporated the Greek Year Gods, essentially past, present and future. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
    A good book on the subject;
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30250/30250-h/30250-h.htm
    John Merryman | Apr 16, 2017 8:19:09 AM | 4
    Of course, the Catholic Church, as the eternal institution, didn't really care for a foundational concept of renewal and did its best to fudge the message. Which they did a good job of, resulting in the need for Luther to push the reset button.
    John Merryman | Apr 16, 2017 8:27:01 AM | 6
    Then again the essential fallacy of monotheism is that absolute is basis, not apex, so a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which consciousness rises, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement from which it fell. The new born babe, not the wise old man.

    It's just socially effective to assert the laws are given, rather than emergent with the processes they describe. The assumptions are still deeply embedded in western culture, even if the folk concepts have faded.

    Frosty | Apr 16, 2017 8:55:06 AM | 7
    sonnet 114

    Or whether doth my mind, being crowned with you,
    Drink up the monarch's plague, this flattery?
    Or whether shall I say, mine eye saith true,
    And that your love taught it this alchemy,
    To make of monsters and things indigest
    Such cherubins as your sweet self resemble,
    Creating every bad a perfect best,
    As fast as objects to his beams assemble?
    O! 'tis the first, 'tis flattery in my seeing,
    And my great mind most kingly drinks it up:
    Mine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
    And to his palate doth prepare the cup:
    If it be poisoned, 'tis the lesser sin
    That mine eye loves it and doth first begin.

    William Shakespeare

    fast freddy | Apr 16, 2017 9:11:27 AM | 8
    Christianity proclaims that it is righteous and it is at war with (battling) ALL the other religions which are deemed to be (at best) false. The adherents to these other religions are misled (at best) or evil. Christianity says that it cannot tolerate (must destroy) evil. Accordingly, one day the king of Christianity will return to rule the world.

    Islam offers up the same story.

    What a perfect formula we have for fomenting war. Inspiring youths to kill for their (faith) religion.

    Religion is a fundamental component in the justification of mass murder. It's been used this way for centuries and it has not ebbed.

    les7 | Apr 16, 2017 12:24:55 PM | 11
    Just as the day of rest was a spiritual discipline that demonstrated there is more to life than production and consumption - and so was a threat to every narrative of power and control...

    So the resurrection is a symbol that the alternative narrative of the Kingdom of Heaven does triumph over the fear and death we all live in. Not only does the Kingdom of Heaven out-survive death, it transforms it. The resurrection narrative does not defeat the powers of this world through conflict. It 'outlives' them, most especially with those eternal qualities of mercy, forgiveness, life, light, and yes, love.

    May we all celebrate this day and the lives of those who have pointed us all to a life of wholeness.

    thank you b, for this site and for your work to host it.

    Blessings!

    John Merryman | Apr 16, 2017 1:08:03 PM | 14
    Curtis,

    Lol. The spring festival was originally a fertility celebration, so the bunnies connection runs deep. And shallow.

    Piotr Berman | Apr 16, 2017 1:11:18 PM | 15
    I checked and indeed, you can find Russian greeting cards "Happy Easter", but that seems to be copied from the West. More standard is to greet people on that day with words "Christ has resurrected", and post cards have those words but there are also other, less religious versions. From Holy Internet: " Traditional Easter greeting is Христос воскрес! (Christ is risen!) and the response is Воистину воскрес! (In truth He is risen!) ".
    smuks | Apr 16, 2017 1:43:24 PM | 16
    There was a nice cartoon in the paper yesterday:

    A muslim couple walk past a shop, there's eggs & stuff and a big sign reading 'Happy Easter'.
    One of them to the other: 'From what I understand, some rabbit was born to them...'

    Happy Easter!

    John Merryman | Apr 16, 2017 2:29:48 PM | 17
    I think the next phase change of human evolution will involve a switch back from the linear, growth oriented view of the last several thousand years, to a more cyclical, thermodynamic conceptual foundation.

    For instance, we think of time as the point of the present moving past to future, but the reality is change turning future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. Events have to occur, in order to be determined.

    Alan Watts used the example of a boat and its wake, as analogy, in that the wake doesn't steer the boat, the boat creates the wake. Events are first in the present, then in the past.

    This makes time an effect of activity, similar to temperature, color, pressure, etc.

    If you consider the actual, physical manifestation of time and history, this concept on which human culture is based, it is residue in the present state. What is measured as time; duration, is the state of the present, as events form and dissolve.

    The overwhelming physical reality is the thermodynamic convection cycles/feedback loops in which we evolved. They underlay all aspects of biology and civilization. Right now, you might say we are at the crest of an enormous wave and it's mostly foam and bubbles, with a massive undertow.

    fast freddy | Apr 16, 2017 2:52:32 PM | 19
    Something biblical for Christians to ponder:

    Everyone whom had died remains dead and knows and senses nothing. http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/9-5.htm

    There is NO afterlife for ANYONE without the second resurrection which you await.

    There is no purpose for a second resurrection if everyone who has died gets a free pass to a glorious afterlife.

    Check it out.

    Curtis | Apr 16, 2017 7:15:24 PM | 23
    The Christians of the Middle East must be very resilient to withstand the onslaught.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-horrific-onslaught-on-aramaic-christian-community-of-maaloula-at-hands-of-western-backed-moderate-terrorists/5585352

    james | Apr 17, 2017 12:24:33 AM | 24
    thanks for the easter reminder, amidst everything else that is being focused on.. new beginnings which we surely do need... looking for new leaders to pave a new direction here at this moment and don't see anything on the horizon yet..
    Curtis | Apr 17, 2017 12:44:41 PM | 31
    It's shameful what has happened to Christians in the Middle East. In the west, I've only heard the Catholics say anything about this.
    http://buchanan.org/blog/will-christianity-perish-birthplace-126816

    [Apr 17, 2017] Did Al Qaeda Fool The White House Again

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bannon is anti-intervention, so Trump had to kick him out of the NSA planning room. General Kushner is now in charge. Love to send General Kushner to the Syrian front lines, where he could dazzle us all with his acts of supreme bravery. ..."
    "... The key in that conflict with the Soviets was giving AQ shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles , Stingers, which were needed to enable freedom of movement against the Hind attack helicopters. That worked great. ..."
    "... If they're talking about giving what, MANPADS? to the Al Nusras or ISIS holy fuck that's stupid. But it worked before, remember? That's how they'll think. ..."
    "... I believe we have to go back to some of the first Big Lies told to the worldwide populace and their subsequent success, (at least as viewed by the purveyors of those Big Lies) and then we can understand why this metric is not changing. ..."
    "... "The American way of life is not negotiable", Dick Cheney. The dye is already cast for WWIII, and the timetable is set by the construction of the Sino Russian energy pipelines. By its recent actions the USA is now viewed by it enemies as a non rational player in the game of MAD (mutually Assured Destruction,just in case you went to a US public School). ..."
    "... For the threat of MAD to deter, each player must be convinced of the rationality of the other players, if they're not, a first strike makes the only logical move. Its better to give than recieve it IOW.. The USA has become a suicidal death cult. ..."
    "... I am afraid we have squandered, so much money on defense, that our civilian economy is permanently damaged. ..."
    "... Fool the White House again? No, you moron. ... The White House, CIA AND ISIS fooled (or attempted to fool) the USSA tax payers............AGAIN! ..."
    "... No actual "American" - the true and prophesied "Chosen of God," the "El-ectorate" - is a "caretaker of truth" until JFK's and MLK's known assassins and their satanic ruling false-elite "Deep State" faction are brought to Justice ..."
    "... Everybody knew it was a false flag, but they spun it as Assad. Now they've painted themselves into a corner and can never walk it back. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    by bamawatson -> chunga , Apr 16, 2017 3:30 PM

    https://steemit.com/pizzagate/@rebelskum/pizzagate-wiki-gets-even-more-on-the-ties-between-max-maccoby-laura-silsby-and-james-alefantis

    Manthong -> bamawatson , Apr 16, 2017 5:21 PM

    The deep state "advisors" knew damn well the "intelligence" was at the least thin and at the most bogus.

    Trump, his still wet-behind-the ears son-in-law and his bleeding heart daughter are probably just not seasoned enough to see through the bad advice.

    It is likely still going on.

    Draining the swamp with a soda straw won't work.

    evoila -> Manthong , Apr 16, 2017 5:35 PM

    they didn't get fooled. they were trying to trick the populace.

    http://thesaker.is/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Paul Kersey -> flaminratzazz , Apr 16, 2017 3:58 PM

    Bannon is anti-intervention, so Trump had to kick him out of the NSA planning room. General Kushner is now in charge. Love to send General Kushner to the Syrian front lines, where he could dazzle us all with his acts of supreme bravery.

    TheLastTrump -> Future Jim , Apr 16, 2017 4:31 PM

    Well, blame Reagan, because that's when we built Al Qaida in Afghanistan.

    The key in that conflict with the Soviets was giving AQ shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles , Stingers, which were needed to enable freedom of movement against the Hind attack helicopters. That worked great.

    If they're talking about giving what, MANPADS? to the Al Nusras or ISIS holy fuck that's stupid. But it worked before, remember? That's how they'll think.

    BorisTheBlade -> Normalcy Bias , Apr 16, 2017 3:53 PM

    Precisely, if you want evidence, it's out there. And if you want a balanced position, you ought to examine every possibility to determine which one ultimately makes more more sense.

    Additionally, we live in an age where obtaining and studying evidence is streamlined and one could find a killer who committed a crime 20 years ago just by studying some residue of his hair on victim's shoulder [exageration obviously, but not that far fetched]. However, manufacturing evidence progressed as well and it is easier to do it given a certain [geo]political momentum.

    Bad_Sushi , Apr 16, 2017 3:25 PM

    I believe we have to go back to some of the first Big Lies told to the worldwide populace and their subsequent success, (at least as viewed by the purveyors of those Big Lies) and then we can understand why this metric is not changing.

    IOW...

    They got away with it before, they are sure they will get away with it again.

    Business as usual boys and girls, business as usual.

    Winston Churchill , Apr 16, 2017 3:50 PM

    "The American way of life is not negotiable", Dick Cheney. The dye is already cast for WWIII, and the timetable is set by the construction of the Sino Russian energy pipelines. By its recent actions the USA is now viewed by it enemies as a non rational player in the game of MAD (mutually Assured Destruction,just in case you went to a US public School).

    For the threat of MAD to deter, each player must be convinced of the rationality of the other players, if they're not, a first strike makes the only logical move. Its better to give than recieve it IOW.. The USA has become a suicidal death cult.

    williambanzai7 , Apr 16, 2017 3:32 PM

    Friedman is a fucking used globalist donkey condom.

    sgt_doom -> williambanzai7 , Apr 16, 2017 3:51 PM

    Well, sometimes you are right!

    Deep Snorkeler , Apr 16, 2017 3:33 PM

    I am afraid we have squandered, so much money on defense, that our civilian economy is permanently damaged.

    I sip absinthe, a grain of sand on the Beach of Lost Prosperity.

    besnook , Apr 16, 2017 3:38 PM

    al Qaeda is the USA so we fooled ourselves or just the people?

    DuneCreature , Apr 16, 2017 3:45 PM

    Fool the White House again? No, you moron. ... The White House, CIA AND ISIS fooled (or attempted to fool) the USSA tax payers............AGAIN!

    What fucking planet do hail from, Spanky? ... Did you just wake up from your little nap? ... You sound like you received a big dose of colorless, odorless stupid in your sleep.

    Live Hard, The Press Is STUXNET On Burnt Toast And Smoking Up The Room, Die Free

    ~ DC v5.0

    iamerican4 , Apr 16, 2017 3:56 PM

    No actual "American" - the true and prophesied "Chosen of God," the "El-ectorate" - is a "caretaker of truth" until JFK's and MLK's known assassins and their satanic ruling false-elite "Deep State" faction are brought to Justice

    Snνpιir_Ag_Obair -> TheLastTrump , Apr 16, 2017 4:13 PM

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/iran-the-destabilizer/

    Parry is great - but he will never point out the heavy role of Zionist Jews in the media and government in advocating for war on Syria and Iran, using naked lies and a Jewish dominated media to control the narrative - and all to benefit Israel.

    Goldberg is a Jewish Supremacist Zionist, and about as dishonest a person as Bill Kristol and Alan Pedo Dershowitz.

    It is not 'the Jews' nor are all or even most of DC's warmongers Jewish.

    But the Goldbergs and Friedmans, and on and on, are Israel Firster Jews, and they are motivated by Israel, and they play a major, and perhaps predominant role in both the lies/propaganda and the political impetus.

    It's fair, and necessary, to say so.

    Snνpιir_Ag_Obair -> IranContra , Apr 16, 2017 4:25 PM

    You sure are trying real hard to vilify Iran even using Orwellian reversals of the facts and naked lies - as hasbara trolls do.

    The problem is your claims have no real support, while evidence to the contrary is abundant and essentially incontrovertible re the hostility of the Zionists ergo Deep State to a free and independent Iran which can support the Lebanese resistance, sell oil for gold, have its own central bank, etc.

    Why not stop straining to make 2+2 = 5?

    Serve Truth, and serve God.

    Serve Likud, and serve 'Satan'

  • http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/brookings-which-path-to-persia...
  • https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/16/a-neocon-admits-the-plan-to-bomb-i...
  • http://lobelog.com/neocons-who-brought-you-the-iraq-war-endorse-aipacs-i...
  • http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/facing-neocon-captivity/
  • https://theintercept.com/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-crying-wolf-...
  • https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/us-media-condemns-irans-aggression-i...
  • mc888 , Apr 16, 2017 4:47 PM

    Instead, Official Washington's propaganda bubble will stay firmly in place allowing its inhabitants to go happily about their business believing that they are the caretakers of "truth."

    mc888 smoked Robert Parry when he wrote: most entertaining is the mainstream US-cum-Soviet media spinning out of control about the chemical attacks.

    Everybody knew it was a false flag, but they spun it as Assad. Now they've painted themselves into a corner and can never walk it back.

    <snip>

    Any proper investigation must be delegitimized.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-11/joe-scarborough-giddy-over-sour...

    [Apr 17, 2017] News became propaganda when alternative viewpoints are not fairly represented or worse, supressed

    This is how the US MSM covered Niki Haley demise by Bolivian representative. " Nikki Haley forces public UN meeting to put Assad's defenders in 'full public view '"
    Apr 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    reason

    I made a comment that was swallowed?

    I think Simon Wren-Lewis When journalism becomes propaganda - mainly macro
    missed the main point here.

    Propaganda is when:

    1. Alternative viewpoints are not fairly represented

    2. News and opinion are not clearly delinearated (as Dean Baker tirelessly points out).

    We need a good discussion of how to de-propagandize and de-polarize society. Getting rid of winner-take-all politics would sure help.

    [Apr 16, 2017] Joe Scarborough Giddy Over Souring Russian-US Relations, Says Russia is Helpless to Protect Syria

    All wars are bankers wars
    Notable quotes:
    "... After the USSR collapsed Russia is as good as an ally to have as any like UK or Australia for US as a nation. But lets face it, this is bank wars, not political wars, just like the other world wars were. This is Putin vs. Goldman Sachs and nothing less. And gullible fools like Trump just love being the pawn if you use the code word "child" for some reason. Wow. ..."
    "... Politics in banking means hundreds of millions dead last century. Could well be billions of dead this century. All Putin really has to say is this: "My message to Goldman Sach's is that your bank will be in rubble if you stop getting Trump to side with terrorists. We won't talk to Trump as he is not in power any more." Free advice to Putin there, no charge. ..."
    "... All I've seen from Assad is him doing battle with the Sunni rebels who are from Al Qaeda their ISIS allies. Assad is the only leader not perpetrating genocide against non-Muslim or different Muslim sects currently in Syria. ..."
    "... End-game in Syria? Same as the end-game in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya: US Global Hegemony engineered by complete annihilation throughout the whole region... complete chaos is the plan ..."
    "... Scarborough's utterings are just a desperate attempt to maintain his fantasy. He is in a panic because the faηade of American Exceptionalism is falling from his eyes. His words are the braggadocio of a coward. ..."
    Apr 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    tangent , Apr 11, 2017 4:37 PM

    After the USSR collapsed Russia is as good as an ally to have as any like UK or Australia for US as a nation. But lets face it, this is bank wars, not political wars, just like the other world wars were. This is Putin vs. Goldman Sachs and nothing less. And gullible fools like Trump just love being the pawn if you use the code word "child" for some reason. Wow.

    Politics in banking means hundreds of millions dead last century. Could well be billions of dead this century. All Putin really has to say is this: "My message to Goldman Sach's is that your bank will be in rubble if you stop getting Trump to side with terrorists. We won't talk to Trump as he is not in power any more." Free advice to Putin there, no charge.

    Was Trump really pretending to be on the side of common sense or was that a charade he was playing to get in power?

    True Blue , Apr 11, 2017 4:46 PM

    "you go into these places that you're not going to face a show of force"

    Um; "people in glass houses" much? Places like what? Grenada? Panama (remember Manuel Noriega?*) Iraq? Afghanistan? 15 years of the mightiest armed force in the world fighting "cavemen" and the "JV Team" retakes half of that territory in a few months (in tennis shoes and Toyota pickups.)

    *Should also watch out for the precedents you set, invading a foreign nation in order to kidnap their leader and put him on trial for violating the provincial laws of 'your' nation just might not have been such a brilliant idea; especially when charges of "war crimes" start floating around.

    TemporarySecurity , Apr 11, 2017 2:39 PM

    Everybody is giddy over going to war and destroying Syria and the bad guy.

    What exactly is the end solution? Put one of the nice Islamist ex-Al Qaeda rebel leaders in charge? Chances are anybody we can find will be a Sunni Islamist who will finish killing other sects of Muslims and all Christians in the area. A slaughter worse than anything we've seen so far.

    All I've seen from Assad is him doing battle with the Sunni rebels who are from Al Qaeda their ISIS allies. Assad is the only leader not perpetrating genocide against non-Muslim or different Muslim sects currently in Syria.

    Personally I think we are witnessing the decline and fall of the American Empire.

    Posa -> TemporarySecurity , Apr 11, 2017 4:19 PM

    End-game in Syria? Same as the end-game in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya: US Global Hegemony engineered by complete annihilation throughout the whole region... complete chaos is the plan

    shortonoil , Apr 11, 2017 4:12 PM

    Between the media, the intelligence services, and the cheap self serving politicians the US is a basket case. With a faltering industrial base, dying financial system, and withering energy sector the Russians only have to wait for the clowns in charge to complete its destruction. The only reason that Scarborough believes that this is funny is because he hasn't figured out yet that the joke is on him.

    Shemp 4 Victory , Apr 11, 2017 3:17 PM

    As shown by Scarborough and the yapping poodle Brzezinski, US citizenism rewards well propagandists and fantasists. But they are becoming fearful. Propaganda is losing in quality because the level of reality that propagandists use to back their propaganda is growing more and more adverse to them.

    Scarborough's utterings are just a desperate attempt to maintain his fantasy. He is in a panic because the faηade of American Exceptionalism is falling from his eyes. His words are the braggadocio of a coward.

    moneybots , Apr 11, 2017 2:52 PM

    "Russian foreign policy since Christmas 1991 has been all about resentment, resentment of losing the cold war."

    I don't recall Yeltsin being that way. In fact, TIME ran a cover story about the secret U.S. plan to get Yeltsin elected in 1996.

    onthedeschutes , Apr 11, 2017 12:27 PM

    Not surprised one bit. Joe's teammate, Mika, is also giddy as is her father, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Look at this evil bastard.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO2U9jJoWsM

    Buck Johnson -> onthedeschutes , Apr 11, 2017 2:13 PM

    Hey Joe, lets talk about Lori Klausutis!!!!!!

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/21/1613261/-What-Really-Happened-to-Lori-Klausutis-Everything-Joe-Scarborough-Does-NOT-Want-Viewers-To-Know

    MalteseFalcon -> yttirum , Apr 11, 2017 2:40 PM

    Yeah Joe, the neocons and Trump launched cruise missiles into Syria and half of them actually landed somewhere in Syria.

    You can't conquer a country from the air. You need boots on the ground for that.

    So we'll see.

    This is a tremendous policy error and not in America's interest. Even if Syria is toppled.

    [Apr 16, 2017] I'm Back in the USSR - You Don't Know How Lucky You Are naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Economic stagnation ..."
    "... Degradation of public health and morale ..."
    "... queues and being embarrassed by petty apparatchik: ..."
    Apr 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    geoff , April 16, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    Russian writer Dmitry Orlov has in fact written an entire book on just this subject: "Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American Prospects" (2011). In it he argues that the American empire is headed for the same kind of collapse as the Soviet Union experienced, but that Americans will have a harder time of it as we're much less self-sufficient both individually and as a society as a whole.

    Carla , April 16, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    Just found a used copy (in "very good condition") at http://www.betterworldbooks.com for $4.68. Thanks for the recommendation!

    geoff , April 16, 2017 at 5:44 pm

    Thank YOU for using Better World Books. I volunteer at our local library and we send many of our discarded books to BWB and they PAY us for them. So their business helps support libraries : )

    Carl , April 16, 2017 at 5:50 pm

    Yes, he likens it to falling out of a several stories high window, as opposed to falling out of a ground floor window. People were used to getting by with less and so when the USSR collapsed (economically, not in any other way) people didn't have that hard a time of it. Not to worry, the gradual diminishing of expectations that's being conducted right now should help us along.

    Etnograf , April 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm

    Thank you very much for this, Lambert. I am in the late stages of an anthropology doctorate and have been studying the Soviet Union and its legacy for nearly a decade. The parallels between the U.S. and the late Soviet period have been becoming more obvious with each passing year. I especially think that your emphasis on the out-of-touch character of the elite nomenklatura is on point. To me this stands out as one of the primary reasons for the Soviet Union's dissolution. It was their increasing desire to emulate Western consumption, their appetite for foreign goods, and their own loss of faith in the Soviet project that was instrumental to tearing it apart. In Central Asia, where I've done most of my work, it is rarely the Soviet Union per se that is the subject of critique, but rather the actions of its leaders, who lived in an increasingly insular world with its own set of institutions and norms, their own resorts, their own stores, etc. apart from the rest of the population.

    There are important differences with the contemporary U.S., however. Despite hiccups and shortages in many areas of the economy, the late Soviet Union did a very good job of ensuring access to basic goods such as food, housing, and medical care. Even with quotas and shortages, my sense is that the average person had far better access to these things in the USSR than many people in the U.S. do today. i.e. You could not always get an apartment in central Moscow, but you would have a place to live somewhere in the country. The planned economy did a very poor job at providing automobiles and "consumer goods," which many came to desire, but it did a very good job at providing basic welfare, especially in its later years. It's critical to emphasis this point so as not to fall into the narrative of capitalist inevitability, what Francis Fukuyama called "the end of history." I don't think the Soviet Union's end was inevitable and it could have been managed differently if the interests of the broader population rather than the elites had been the focus of concern. (There are also important differences across regions: the Baltic states, Ukraine, etc. had a much more hostile relationship to Moscow than did Central Asia and the Caucasus; a lot of this nuance sometimes gets lost in discussions of the end of the USSR in which Eastern Europe looms large in the U.S. imagination).

    The more important parallel, it seems to me, is what the post-Soviet situation can tell us about our own near-future. The experience of the Soviet Union's end left people in a state of shock and surprise. It also exposed the way in which so many social institutions only work to the extent that people believe in them or at least act as if they believe in them. It is a profoundly disorienting sensation and I think that that is where some of the greatest parallels between the end of these two different empires will be most pronounced.

    Oregoncharles , April 16, 2017 at 3:17 pm

    Something you might look into: When I was in college and studying anthropology, about 1967, I was told there was an Indian (from India) anthropologist doing fieldwork in a small town in the greater midwest – Missouri? I never followed up and found his monograph, but it's probably out there, and there should be many more like it.

    So, the bigger question: is there ethnography of the US, done by cultural outsiders? It should be very revealing.

    And best of luck with your degree.

    Alex Morfesis , April 16, 2017 at 5:15 pm

    Etnog
    Confused ussr politboro & military had created great animus among muslim southern flank provinces with its bombing of muslims in Afghanistan not that the blob did not help, but the advent of cheap/affordable still & video cameras, along with the vcr removed the power of the govt approved media to control the narrative with porous borders along the muslim provinces, the central committee had lost control of the Soviet union and was not prepared to revert to Stalinist retributions to regain control

    As to the main question there is no breaking up america russia spans two/three continents and had a very distinct religious divide with borders across dozens of countries with enemies on all sides working to disrupt it

    Neither canada nor mexico have a navy, air force nor army of any real consequence and except for opportunistic economic activities, do not have any history or inkling of wanting to disrupt the u.s. of "ay what you lookin at"

    Many parts of the country have been economically abandoned and most state and local govts are led and fed by failed attorneys hiding their incompetence on the bench or in elected office

    Things are not as they should be, but most people will suffer and live rather than fight and die

    We don't have all the loose ends which brought the soviet collapse and sadly, we killed off most of those who were here before us, taking advantage of their own disunity and discooperationalism to slowly eliminate them in the quest for sea to shining sea

    The world is not full of people who are looking to pay tens of thousnds of dollars to be illegally entered into russia for its "opportunities"

    We are stuck with each other

    different clue , April 16, 2017 at 3:09 pm

    Perhaps we should change our name to the CCSA.

    Corporate Capitalist States of America.

    CCSA.

    nick , April 16, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    Thanks for posting this, Lambert. Like many others, I've been thinking about how the US has been following a similar downward path as the USSR. I recently read "Armageddon Averted" by Stephen Kotkin, who pointed to the following reasons for Soviet collapse:

    1. Economic stagnation (no incentives for workers, stalled productivity, R&D diverted to military applications, inflexibility and high costs of the heavy industry physical plant)
    2. Elite apathy on the communist project (who saw they could make more money under capitalism while retaining power in a new regime)
    3. Degradation of public health and morale (popular cynicism and civic disengagement, escalating drug, alcohol use, illness, and disability)

    The reasons I think we may go a different way than the USSR (perhaps even avoiding collapse) is that while we have been suffering stagnation for about a decade now, we still have a pretty dynamic economy. Many Americans aspire to be small business owners and workers across sectors have, comparatively, pretty high productivity. The ethos for fairness and hard work is very strong, it is just hard to believe this country is fair on any fronts these days (we're all cynics now). Even though cartels and a complicit government have allowed the financialization and oligopoloziation of the economy, it is not outside the realm of possibility that these things get dismantled over the next few decades if the right groups get energized, mobilized, and gain power.

    Another reason for the likely perpetuation of the status quo or avoidance of collapse is that the elites are raking in the money. American capitalism has worked and continues to work very well for them. If anything, they may be more willing now to turn away from the democratic project (but they've always been against democracy). Then again, we should ask ourselves: are we more/less democratic or more/less surveilled and oppressed now than we were fifty or sixty years ago, under Jim Crow and the Red Scare? How much more/less? Probably about the same. In other words, the elite are probably not willing to let the USA go down the tubes the same way the elites of the USSR were okay with their collapse.

    I think the symptoms of USSR/USA collapse are similar, but the causes are very different. And we also have some historical experience with these causes (monopolies/oligopolies, wealth inequality, anti-democratic elites). It can be reversed.

    Carla , April 16, 2017 at 3:38 pm

    "Then again, we should ask ourselves: are we more/less democratic or more/less surveilled and oppressed now than we were fifty or sixty years ago, under Jim Crow and the Red Scare? How much more/less? Probably about the same."

    I would say Big Brother has many more ways to watch us and track our every movement now. Also, it's my impression that Americans under 40 not only don't know the value of privacy, they don't even want to know what it is.

    Also, American materialism has had another 5-6 decades to do its corrosive work of undermining the human spirit.

    So, I would say, in many ways, more surveilled/less democratic.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , April 16, 2017 at 4:55 pm

    Um, "Prices That Do Not Send Signals": can we put the price of our centrally planned, monopoly-issued, fiat-declared money into that category? The Politboro Fed meets and declares exactly how much money the system will need at what precise time and at what precise price. Then the analysts practice their Kremlinology (did Yellen say "may increase" or "might increase"?) and then scramble to buy or sell the goods and services represented by this so-called "money". Right now the Commissars Fed analysts have decided that the precisely-right price of money according to their calculations and astrological observations should be the lowest it has ever been in recorded history. Like the Soviet Union, however, they come out every so often to declare "все прекрасно" ("everything is great!")

    Yves Smith , April 16, 2017 at 5:05 pm

    Setting the base rate of money is not a terribly offense, market-wise. However, practices like the Greenspan-Bernanke and presumably Yellen put, to intervene to stop stock market swoon is one example. Another is the extensive intervention in the mortgage market, with 90% of mortgages now government guaranteed. The result of artificially cheap credit is inflated housing prices, which helps builders and brokers (and those who got in early, meaning older people who could buy housing and haven't suffered reversals) at the expense of most citizens.

    skippy , April 16, 2017 at 5:46 pm

    Seems slicing and dicing income streams, w/ long expectation tails, w/ at the center of it is RE, w/ everything else bolted on it, all whilst wages and jobs are crapified, meaning the aforementioned is a substitute for the former wellie that's a wee bit of pressure on the – unknown – future ™ and as we all know you can't price the unknown now can we .

    Don't know about the centrally planned rant, the bimetallism standard, is just as, if not more authoritarian, let alone just an sole object as a price anchor vs. a basket of assets. But as YS is want to repetitively inform political and ideological factors during the Vietnam period had a much more fundamental role in setting the stage than say bimetallism vs fiat fixations. Had the anti taxers taken a intellectual and functional purview of the state of things, then we might not be in this mess, but yeah ev'bal fiat . sigh

    I would add per your last response to a comment of mine wrt enabling capital flows freedom, remind me again the manifold size of the shadow sector and its velocity vs USD base money. Not to mention its ability to FX shape shift in a blink of an eye.

    disheveled . with no less than a hundred years of history its a bit much to lay it all at the feet of fiat.

    different clue , April 16, 2017 at 6:16 pm

    I read somewhere that one thing the Founding Fathers WANTed Congress to do was to issue the money and "regulate the value thereof". I presume that means they wanted the value of the money kept constant so people could always understand what "things cost" or "were worth" in relation to eachother.. .
    now, right now, tomorrow and next week.

    It is fun making The Amazing Rubber Yardstick longer or shorter at your every whim, but just try measuring something with The Amazing Rubber Yardstick.

    skippy , April 16, 2017 at 6:25 pm

    You have to be careful about reading into history, you have to make sure its in accurate context. Observational Bias has a pertinacity to project ones desires where they are not warrantied.

    Rosario , April 16, 2017 at 5:01 pm

    There are some parallels, particularly WRT leadership, but our situation is fairly unique in that we are getting far too much of what we don't need for cheap (bad food, entertainment, junk consumer products) and getting far too little of what we need for a premium (good food, education, healthcare, etc.). Capitalists figured out Brave New World was far more effective than 1984.

    thoughtful person , April 16, 2017 at 5:29 pm

    Thanks for the post. I find this an interesting subject. A few years ago, I met Johan Galtung, who wrote a book on this, in 2009.

    Here's a link (has a short video clip)
    https://www.transcend.org/tup/index.php?book=5

    The Fall of the US Empire – And Then What?

    Successors, Regionalization or Globalization? US Fascism or US Blossoming?

    This book explores the why, how, when and where of the present decline and fall of the US Empire, based on a theory of synergizing contradictions used in 1980 to predict the fall of the Soviet empire. It then maps possible futures for the US and the world, with a blueprint for a desirable global future. This book is best read as a companion to Peace Economics: From a Killing to a Life Enhancing Economy.

    Author: Johan Galtung, born 1930 in Oslo, Norway. Lives in Spain, France, Japan and the USA and is mainly engaged in mediation and research. He founded TRANSCEND: A network for Peace and Development, in 1993, and is the rector of TRANSCEND Peace University.

    Vatch , April 16, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    I would like to disagree with the thesis of this article, and if I think of something I'll let you know. I don't think I'll be letting you know. Sure, there are differences, but there are numerous similarities between the late stage USSR and the current USA, and we ignore them at our peril.

    charles leseau , April 16, 2017 at 5:44 pm

    I'm reminded of the Sovoks. Here's some very early, pre-fame, classic eXile Taibbi on the subject:

    http://www.russialist.org/archives/5622-11.php

    As for part of the problem with Russian queuing in general, the initial discussion of this particular breed of post-USSR-fall Russians c. 2001 at McDonald's in Taibbi's writeup is a good and very funny illustration in short (quote below). But the full length of it is golden prose and very worth reading for those of you who might be interested in keen observation of social types, with an interesting early assessment of Putin as anti-Sovok. It's overall right on the money to anyone who has ever spent any time in Russian social circles.
    ____________________________

    The specific mission of the staffers at the McDonald's take-out window was to record the number of instances of a certain kind of conversation, a conversation only possible in Russia- the old Russia, anyway. It takes place when a middle-aged and usually overweight person makes his way to the front of a long line at McDonald's. The person has had as long as five full minutes to read the menu before getting to the front of the line, but he's waited until he actually reaches the front to do so. Now that he is at the front of the line, and six or seven people are safely camped behind him in impatient agony, he squints up at the menu, scanning the letters some 4-6 minutes longer than it is physically possible to actually read the information. From there, he starts asking questions of the cashier:

    "A Royal Cheeseburger, what's that?"

    "Which is the sandwich that comes with tomatoes and horseradish?"

    "Why should I order the meal if it's not cheaper than ordering the items separately?"

    "Can I get an extra box with the McNuggets?"

    And so on, and so on. There is no way to stop such a person, no way to make the process go faster. He is progressing at maximum speed. Any attempt to speed him up will only cause behavioral spillage in any number of new and ugly directions. You are at his mercy.

    OIFVet , April 16, 2017 at 6:04 pm

    America is a hot, decaying mess. And using examples of our mess of a healthcare system is spot on, though you could have just as easily used our decaying infrastructure, for example. Anyway, I just spent the last two weeks dealing with a very serious health scare, and I bless my lucky stars for having access to the VA system. Given my sharply reduced income, the "market"-based system would have really extracted a nice chunk of my savings. All I had to worry about with the VA was showing up on time for my many appointments with various specialists (all of which were made in a timely manner, given the urgency of my situation). I want EVERYBODY to have what I have, because it is good and it saves lives, rather than mint cash for stockholders and MBA douchenozzles. Of course, that's precisely why the VA is a thorn in the side of our politicos, and explaisn why they have been trying to strangle the VA and privatize it in order to turn it into yet another rent-extraction opportunity for our rentier class.

    VietnamVet , April 16, 2017 at 6:08 pm

    Yes. The fall of the Soviet Union was due to the party elite finding a way to cash out and the people felt that they no longer had a vested interest In their government thanks gulf between reality and the propaganda. Both are occurring in the USA right now with similar results.

    schultzzz , April 16, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    Thanks for examples! I've been saying this since the Clinton-fans went into Permanent Putin mode, but I wasn't able to break it down with examples.

    I think the Russia Paranoia has 2 psychological roots:

    the pundit class is terrified that USA is going to be like post-communism Russia: they lost their empire and became a laughing-stock, despite going capitalist. That's why a Russian future is more scary to them than a, say, Chinese or Nazi future. In their hearts they know it's more likely. That's why nobody big is accusing trump of being a "chinese spy"

    Plus even though Russia is no longer communist, the word 'russia' still packs commie connotations. So centrist Dems frightened of a Sanders-like party takeover can say "russia" to strike at their left flank and right flank simultaneously.

    No other country I can think of fills both these psychological needs so well.

    different clue , April 16, 2017 at 6:19 pm

    The question for America's future is . . . does America "have" an Empire? Or is America "is" an Empire?
    If we "have" an Empire, perhaps we can get rid of it gracefully and preserve our worthwhile national existence. If we "are" an Empire, then we may delaminate into tens or dozens of mutually hostile nasty little pieces and no-man's-lands between them. Because we don't have a core Mother AngloSaxonia dominating other regions the way the USSR had a core Mother Russia. We are a bunch of other regions with no core. If the "sum total" of the regions is NOT a core, then there is NO CORE.

    And that would be bad.

    Bob Haugen , April 16, 2017 at 6:48 pm

    The elite in the USSR, especially those who ran the nominally state-owned businesses, wanted to be capitalists, and ditching the nominally socialist system was their ticket. What do the elites in the US want to be? And what do they want to ditch the whatever-you-call-what-we-got-now system for?

    (This is the biggest difference. The other big diff might be if the general population arises in the US rather than a sector of the elites as happened in the USSR.)

    Peter Pan , April 16, 2017 at 6:58 pm

    President Reagan called the USSR "the evil empire".

    I suspect that the USA (NATO, Five Eyes, etc.) has fallen from grace and can claim that title now.

    IDontKnow , April 16, 2017 at 7:25 pm

    queues and being embarrassed by petty apparatchik: Found at any North American airport, stadium, coming to your local subway and train station? Meanwhile oligarchy in private jets go unsoiled.

    [Apr 16, 2017] Trumps Beautiful Syria Airstrike and What It Means Opinion teleSUR English

    Apr 16, 2017 | www.telesurtv.net
    With Trump's inauguration, policy in Syria has begun to take a different direction. After having failed at regime-change, with the Syrian insurgency badly defeated, on the defensive and fighting amongst themselves , it appeared the rebels' international sponsors had realized the futility of their efforts and started to discontinue their support.

    The Trump administration reportedly ended the CIA's train-and-equip program. This represents a long-standing feud between the Pentagon and the CIA The Pentagon had vehemently opposed the CIA's rebel program on the grounds that it was empowering radical extremists which would eventually turn their guns toward Americans, and if successful would turn Syria into a country of chaos ruled by warring factions of jihadists, similar to Libya.

    However, the sectors of power that Obama represented largely centered around the financial institutions and the intelligence apparatus, and therefore the CIA won the tug-of-war and the rebel program continued. Under Trump, the program was ended and the CIA's control over foreign policy was diminished , while the generals and military officials were largely granted discretion to conduct overseas operations with little oversight from the chief executive. The interests steering foreign policy are largely those of the weapons and defense contractors and the profit incentives of the military industrial complex as a whole.

    Given this, instead of covertly funneling aid to al-Qaeda, Trump began increasing the coalition's bombing of the group and adopted a different regional strategy. This increased bombing only materialized, however, after al-Qaeda had been routed on the battlefield .

    Nevertheless, the strategy became one of overt military occupation and a partitioning of Syrian territory.

    The purpose of the U.S.-led "anti-ISIS" campaign had up to this point been to project the image that the U.S. was fighting the group while simultaneously allowing them to prosper and militarily bleed out Iran and Russia. In this way, the presence of ISIS was redirected into a useful pretext which legitimized an illegal military presence in Syria which otherwise would not have been possible. The universally despised attitude toward ISIS could conveniently be transformed into a mandate for annexing and occupying Syrian territory. The strategy could shift from "Assad must go" to "defeating ISIS."

    Signaling this shift, the Trump administration had announced that it "accepts" the "political reality with respect to Assad," and that "foremost among its priorities" from here on out would be "the defeat of ISIS."

    Concurrent with this was an agreement reached between Trump and the Saudi king after their meeting in mid-March, where it was decided that the Gulf would reopen supply channels to their proxies and occupy Russia on the battlefield, allowing the U.S. to concentrate on dividing northern Syria and establishing their occupation.

    Within this environment, it appeared that some kind of negotiated settlement might have materialized, wherein Russia would agree to the U.S. annexation in return for certain concessions. Powerful factions within the U.S. were vehemently opposed to this, however, and were determined to reverse it.

    The chemical weapons incident in Khan Sheikhoun effectively accomplished that and upended all previous hopes for a settlement.

    After the horrendous attack, killing upwards of 70 people, procedures were underway for a thorough UN investigation to determine culpability. Without having completed that process, and without any evidence presented, the Trump administration launched a barrage of cruise missiles and attacked a Syrian military installation which was being used to fight ISIS . The timing of the attack prevented the investigation from going forward.

    This was a clear violation of international law and a blatant act of unjustified aggression against another state, which according to the Nuremberg Tribunals represents the "supreme international crime." The pain and suffering of the victims was cynically exploited as a pretext for such an aggression, unsurprisingly to the high moral acclaim of Western officials and media personalities. The attack, hailed as a " beautiful " display of our weapons, which revealed the " heart " and compassion of President Trump, reportedly murdered half a dozen Syrian soldiers , as well as four children .

    Who cares? It was our moral duty to punish Assad for killing children, by killing other children, albeit through the justified and morally honorable way, with U.S. bombs.

    Even more egregious, the attack was almost certainly carried out by the rebels, dominated by al-Qaeda and a rabble of other sectarian extremists. Washington would have you believe that Assad, having given up all of his chemical weapons in 2013 and barely escaping a Libya-style overthrow, after now having devastated the rebels on the battlefield, would on the eve of important international congregations aimed at ending the war launch a militarily insignificant attack with the kind of weapons that are literally the one thing that could endanger his rule and lead to a U.S. invasion. Assad may be a brutal autocrat, but he has never displayed any signs of being insane .

    The opposition, however, has everything to gain from this. Desperate, staring at defeat and a reduction in supplies, along with a U.S. administration abandoning its former "Assad must go" policy, the last recourse they had was for a "red-line" to be crossed which could justify a U.S. invasion. It has also been widely reported that they, in fact, have access to chemical weapons and have utilized them in the past.

    Not surprisingly then, the U.S. intelligence community largely holds the Russian explanation, that Assad's forces bombed a rebel storage facility containing chemical weapons, to be true , and the official U.S. line to be false. Sources from the CIA have stated that it was their belief that "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison gas incident in northern Syria." One intelligence source said "the most likely scenario" was "a staged event by the rebels intended to force Trump to reverse a policy that the U.S. government would no longer seek 'regime change' in Syria."

    War is a Racket

    In the aftermath of the attack, it has become apparent that the entire motivation behind the Democratic Party's antagonism toward Trump, along with the CIA, the neocons and the rest of the liberal interventionists, had absolutely nothing to do with opposition towards Trump's racism, xenophobia, attacks against civil rights, or even any connection with Putin, the accusations of course lacking any foundation in evidence. Instead, these were pretexts used to wage an all-out campaign of manipulation with a single goal in mind: pressuring him to continue carrying out the previous administration's strategy of overthrowing the Syrian government and maintaining a war-footing against Russia.

    This is why the liberal resentment was solely focused on undermining the one aspect of his platform which was actually worth pursuing , cooperation with Russia and a dιtente of the increasingly dangerous confrontation that had been festering between the two nuclear powers. By portraying Trump as nothing more than a spy for Putin, the liberal establishment was able to guarantee that business-as-usual against Russia would be resumed, under threat that their efforts would be directed toward undermining the presidency if it did not.

    Explaining the situation , the Wall Street Journal reported that "in Washington, probes by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Congress into possible connections between Mr. Trump's associates and Russia have restricted the new administration's ability to cut deals seen as conciliatory to the Kremlin in the near term without provoking an outcry from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill."

    Exposing this antagonism for the opportunistic warmongering that it was, following Trump's attack, in reality a war-crime for which Trump should be impeached and tried, all of his most forceful opponents of only a few days prior are now simply fawning in praise at their "great commander-in-chief." The pressure has effectively been called off, though Trump will realize why that is and will remember again in the future when it is reapplied. After having found such an effective mechanism for ensuring that the proper course is maintained, it will continue to be utilized.

    In addition to having mitigated domestic opposition, the attack will likely remedy the problem of Trump's approval ratings , which were below that of any comparable president. Nothing more effectively rallies a country around their leader like a war. In this sense, being a celebrity personality whose foremost concerns are seemingly how others view him, the incident was largely orchestrated around boosting the president's national image. Trump will now be seen as the "strong" leader who attacked the evil Assad and wasn't afraid of Russian threats, while Obama was the "weak" president who wouldn't do the same even without Russia protecting him. It appears that such a reckless attack was largely the result of one man's ego.

    However, it also represented the increased power and influence of the military, Trump having vowed to listen to his generals in the same way that Obama did not. When it comes to military officials, every solution resembles a nail, and are "solved" through military means such as missile strikes. The power of the military-industrial base to secure profit-making interests through state policy was also on display. Most notably the defense contractor Raytheon, who manufactures the missiles that were used in the attack, and thereby stands to gain when the government resupplies its arsenal. Their stock instantly surged following the incident, adding nearly five billion dollars to its overall market value. Even more to the point are the reports which suggest that Trump still holds shares in Raytheon , and therefore will directly profit from this and from similar decisions in the future. Oil stocks as well have precipitously increased .

    History, it seems, is repeating itself, with Smedley Butler's classic " War is a Racket " coming to mind.

    The attack is also related to the Trump administration's strong ties with Israel and the AIPAC lobby. Shortly before the chemical incident took place, Israeli jets had interfered on the side of the Islamic State and targeted Syrian army positions . Syria shot at the jets violating their airspace and forced them to retreat. The same airbase that Trump attacked was the one from which the Israeli jets were targeted, Trump giving his friend Bibi a gift in the form of retribution.

    In a similar vein, the order was given during Trump's dinner with the President of China, and comes with a message in mind. The message is that "my threats aren't hollow," and carry force behind them, referring to recent bellicose statements directed towards China if it refuses to "solve" the situation in North Korea. This, unsurprisingly, has only further encouraged North Korea and others to continue acquiring nuclear capabilities to deter American aggression. After all, this is what the North Korean nuclear program is all about , at least according to US military intelligence .

    Nevertheless, Trump now has immense incentives to continue pursuing confrontation with Russia and Syria.

    For what it was worth though, the actual attack represents a small-scale and largely symbolic accomplishment. It did not greatly damage Syria's military capabilities, the airbase reportedly already being back in operation. It does, however, carry with it extraordinarily dangerous and potentially unforeseeable consequences.

    A Lifeline for the Jihadists

    The situation in Syria was already extremely precarious. For the first time in the modern period fighter jets of two nuclear powers were circling each other within the bounds of a single state in defense of opposing ground forces; one false move could've potentially sparked a WWIII scenario. Trump's careless actions have only further hurdled the world toward possible catastrophe, further strengthening the opinion of the world's population that the U.S. is by far the greatest threat to world peace , with constantly-invoked official adversaries trailing far behind.

    Directly after the attack, Russia severed the communication channels between itself and the US military. The agreed upon "deconfliction" precautions have been abandoned while the memorandum of understanding used to prevent military confrontations and air accidents has been tabled . US jets are now operating in Syria under constant threat of being targeted by the Russian air force and the Syrian army. Given this, former members of the US-led coalition have suspended their involvement and evacuated their aircraft, saying it is no longer safe to remain. Others are likely to follow. One false move could bring us to the brink of a cataclysmic confrontation. Wasn't this decision just wonderful?

    On top of all this, the maneuver has greatly damaged Russia's credibility. The US effectively called the Russian narrative a lie and exposed Putin's "protection" of his allies to be hollow. The Russian military has been discredited and their already strained relations with Syria and Iran have only further been maligned. Unsurprisingly the Russian's are furious .

    Importantly, however, it seems likely that some kind of an agreement was reached when the US notified the Russians and warned them of the attack. Important military equipment and personnel were evacuated from the site. The question, however, is what concession Russia received in return for allowing Trump to save face after his "red line" comments and what will be the Russian response. Already a Russian warship is steaming toward the Mediterranean while further steps are being taken to increase Syria's air defenses.

    The other direct consequence was the strengthening of ISIS and al-Qaeda, who unsurprisingly exploited the attack to launch their own offenses. The military installation that was hit was one of the main bases from which attacks against ISIS were carried out. It was instrumental in keeping nearby ISIS militants at bay and protected the surrounding inhabitants from an ISIS attack. Following the incident residents say they now fear an assault, stating that "women and children have already started to leave Shayrat to go to Homs city. We're not afraid of airstrikes. Our fear is the [ISIS] attack from the east." For the residents, all these airstrikes amount to is "proof that the U.S. helps Daesh." Perhaps this is what the New York Times meant when they said , "It was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done, when American cruise missiles struck an airfield in Syria on Thursday."

    All of the most reactionary forces on the ground praised and welcomed the strikes, and its main beneficiaries were ISIS and al-Qaeda. How glorious.

    Furthermore, the implicit message that Trump has sent to the jihadists is that the international media and the US administration will not attempt to deliberate over evidence and demonstrate factual culpability, but instead will automatically blame Assad for any chemical weapons attacks. This effectively gives them a mechanism by which to call in US airstrikes should they ever need to improve their battlefield positions or gain the support of foreign intervention. Far from deterring dangerous weapon use, this provides an overwhelming incentive for chemical weapons to continue to be deployed, especially in terms of the Gulf monarchies should they ever need to redirect Trump towards an explicit "Assad must go" policy.

    Leaked memos from Saudi Arabia say that Assad must be overthrown at all costs, because if he is not then Syria's primary goal will be "taking revenge on the countries that stood against it, with the Kingdom coming at the top of the list," which represents "a high degree of danger for the Kingdom." The Saudi rulers make clear their view that the main stumbling block in the way of achieving this is the "lack of 'desire' and not a lack of 'capability' to take firm steps" on the part of the United States, and therefore they "must seek by all means available and all possible ways to overthrow the current regime in Syria." (emphasis added)

    Isn't it wonderful how we taught Assad a lesson?

    Given all of this, the pressures leading towards war and destruction will continue, as will the strategy of occupying northern Syria while denying the Syrian government from controlling the totality of its former territories. Rebel jihadi supply lines through Turkey will continue fueling the conflict, and with it the innocent deaths, while the money and weapons from the Gulf will continue to be forthcoming in an attempt to sink Russia down into the Syrian quagmire. This course of action, based on motivations of regional dominance, will continue to be the largest stumbling block towards peace that will further prolong the already 6-year long conflict.

    Obstacles to Peace

    Russia still has a fresh memory of the debacle in Afghanistan during the 1980s and desperately fears another repeat in Syria, especially given the newfound influence they have now been able to establish with the buildup of their military presence around the Mediterranean. The conflict in Syria provided them the opportunity to accomplish this. It is therefore within their interests for a quick political settlement to be reached and for a termination of the conflict, along with a cleanup of the Russian-nationals fighting in the ranks of the jihadists, and to further consolidate and exploit its newfound position as an influencer in regional Middle Eastern affairs. This comes into stark conflict with their Iranian and Syrian partners who are urging Russia to continue the offensive and reclaim the totality of Syrian territory.

    Because of this, Russia would likely be willing to exert the pressure necessary to force its allies to accept a settlement which includes extraordinary concessions. For this reason, too, Russia will likely acquiesce to the US-backed balkanization effort in some form in order to freeze the conflict.

    At the same time, the Americans and Europeans desperately want to see Russia get bogged down in another Afghanistan scenario, not the least of which because Russia was instrumental in preventing their regime-change efforts. It is for this reason that the US and the EU do not have a coherent plan to end the conflict, but do have a strategy of partitioning Syrian territory which will likely result in an all-out corporate resource-grab afterwards, allowing Western investors access to exploit the area and obtain the rebuilding contracts that will then be signed. This being paramount in their calculations, the reactionary al-Qaeda forces on the ground again become a useful asset rather than an enemy to be destroyed, while the ISIS pretext justifies the annexations.

    Following the completion of partition, the strategy will shift directly back toward regime change, only with newly acquired territories and levers of pressure from which to exert such demands. The eventual goal is a complete eviction of Russia from the Mediterranean and from its ability to frustrate Western ambitions for regional hegemony.

    Fueling this is the embedded and institutional nature of an American policy of regime change toward all non-compliant states, euphemistically referred to as the "axis of evil." These policies are not at all related to the changing personalities which happen to occupy the White House from time to time. This is because government policy is representative of the very narrow class interests of those which dominate the socio-economic hierarchy. That is, the dominant plutocracy made up of the individuals and interests who own the private economy and enjoy control over vast consolidations of wealth and resources. It is from this dominant business-class that the top level positions within the executive are filled, and from these interests that policy is crafted and legislated. This has been shown in prominent political science studies which explain "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence." Or, in other words, "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy," while decision-making is confined almost exclusively to the top 1%.

    This is why prominent political analysts have concluded since the 1950s that "at every level of the administration of the American state, domestically and internationally, business serves as the fount of critical assumptions or goals and strategically placed personnel." Policy, therefore, stemming from "the most powerful class interests" which inform the "nature and objectives of American power at home and abroad." It is the "ideology and the interest and material power of the physical resources of the ruling class of American capitalism" which determine courses of action, "the latter [the material power of their physical resources] being sufficient should consensus break down." This "economic ruling elite" being "the final arbiter and beneficiary of the existing structure of American politics and of United States power in the world."

    This the reason why US policy towards Syria has remained consistent for nearly a century. The CIA has been attempting, since its inception, to overthrow the Syrian government since the middle of the 20th century , through countless administrations and countless fluctuations between Democrats and Republicans. The core policy remains the same, so it should be no wonder that the current incumbent would opportunistically seize upon an opportunity to attack the Syrian state. These actions cannot solely be laid at the feat of the liberals nor domestic political concerns.

    Instead, the overthrow of non-compliant regimes is a staple of US policy because doing so secures the economic and material interests of the dominant ruling class within America. It is within their interests for governments to allow their economies to be penetrated by Western corporations seeking to exploit their markets, and to denationalize state assets and coveted resources for the exploitation of foreign investors. Furthermore, these interests are further secured through regional support for US military aggressions and occupations. This is why so much emphasis was put upon securing control over Iraqi oil and the establishment of US military bases in Iraq, and why similar aggressions are not pursued against client states which comply with these developments. Syria, although it began to allow Western economic penetration, has on the whole frustrated attempts for greater access. In addition, Syria has opposed US military aggression in the region, such as their attempts to undermine the occupation of Iraq.

    The Logic of Imperialism

    The other major issue is the pipeline war between the US and Russia over the natural gas field which bisects Iranian and Qatari territory, the largest in the world. Qatar's attempts to connect their holdings directly to European markets was denied by Assad, while an Iranian and Russian-backed pipeline was put into motion. It is only after the ball began rolling for the Russian-Iranian-Syria pipeline that the insurgency was fostered against Assad.

    This is why Trump has used this opportunity to further aggress upon the Syrian state, now writing up a new batch of sanctions to apply under the pretext of chemical weapons use. The sanctions, after all, are an economic siege against the entirety of the country, and are fueling much of the suffering and the fleeing of refugees. These new ones will continue a tactic of brutalization of the civilian population with little effect against the government, the strategy being to force massive economic suffering as a means to pressure the current regime. This is also why the US again is demanding Assad's ouster , saying "There's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime."

    As self-righteous pundits, officials, and intellectuals who should know better wax poetically and bask in their own self-righteousness over how moral and justified this immoral act of aggression was, it is not hard to see why the world considers the US the leading threat to peace and a leading terrorist rogue state.

    The US and its clients, who have all hailed Trump's belligerent attacks on moralistic grounds, are the only states rampaging through the region attacking countries at will while destroying any that stand in their way. The US now, and the British before them, have consistently opposed and overthrown any truly progressive, democratic, and secular movement or government that has emerged in the Middle East while at the same time propping up the forces of extremist-Islam and fueling the spread of violent jihadism throughout the region. This is because the US has, since the 1950s, pursued an agenda of global domination and has insisted on securing its ambitions through tyranny and oppression .

    Imagine, for an instance, that Syria manufactured a false claim and said the US military used chemical weapons against them, and used that pretext to launch a cruise missile assault on an American base in American territory, murdering the innocent civilians living nearby, including four children. Now imagine that on top of that, the officials and intellectuals from Syria didn't apologize, but instead hailed the intolerable injustice as being a display of " justice done ," something that was " beautiful ," which elicited a "sense of emotional satisfaction" and was righteous and good, showing how heartfelt and compassionate they are.

    How malicious and sociopathic would we view those officials?

    Yet we all carry on, blind and drunk off the desire to dominate and control.

    The logic of imperialism is truly wondrous to behold .

    RELATED:

    How 'Anti-Trump' Liberal Media Cheered Syria Attack

    China Blasts Syria Attacks

    Stupid Trump Move in Syria Raises Global Tensions

    Chile to Welcome at Least 60 Syrian Refugees

    Syria Crisis

    US Imperialism Attacks Syria, Venezuela Based on Lies

    [Apr 16, 2017] Bolivia UN Envoy on Syria Attack History Teaches Us that US Lies to Justify Wars

    See also Bolivian Ambassador to UN Sacha Llorenti Gives a History Lesson YouTube 360p - YouTube
    Notable quotes:
    "... Holding up an enlarged photo of Colin Powell's "weapons of mass destruction" speech, Llorenti made an impassioned plea to hold the U.S. to account for Thursday's unprovoked attack on Syria, noting the U.S. history of imperialist interventions in other nations, including Latin America. ..."
    "... "Now the United States believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the executioners. That's not what international law is about ..."
    "... "I believe it's vital for us to remember what history teaches us and on this occasion (in 2003), the United States did affirm, they affirmed that they had all the proof necessary to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but they were never found never were they found," the Bolivian envoy told the emergency Security Council meeting on Friday ..."
    "... On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented fabricated "proof" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, including deadly nerve agents. The presentation has since been widely discredited, as no evidence of a weapons program was ever discovered. Powell himself expressing regret over what he termed "a great intelligence failure" - a failure that originated in his own exaggerated and doctored interpretation of intercepted Iraqi communications ..."
    "... Arguing that the U.S. acted unilaterally and in flagrant violation of the U.N. charter, the Bolivian envoy called for a closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council ..."
    "... United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley denied the request. The U.S. holds the presidency of the Security Council this month. ..."
    Apr 07, 2017 | telesurtv.net

    "I believe it's vital for us to remember what history teaches us," the Bolivian envoy told the U.N. Security Council. | Photo: United Nations

    "Now the U.S. believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the executioners," the Bolivian ambassador said.

    Lambasting the United States' aggression against Syria, Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations Sacha Llorenti compared the basis for the unilateral move to former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous 2003 presentation to the body, when fraudulent evidence of an alleged Iraqi weapons program was presented to justify the U.S. war on Iraq.

    Holding up an enlarged photo of Colin Powell's "weapons of mass destruction" speech, Llorenti made an impassioned plea to hold the U.S. to account for Thursday's unprovoked attack on Syria, noting the U.S. history of imperialist interventions in other nations, including Latin America.

    "Now the United States believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the executioners. That's not what international law is about."

    The Andean nation currently holds a non-permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.

    "I believe it's vital for us to remember what history teaches us and on this occasion (in 2003), the United States did affirm, they affirmed that they had all the proof necessary to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but they were never found never were they found," the Bolivian envoy told the emergency Security Council meeting on Friday.

    On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented fabricated "proof" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, including deadly nerve agents. The presentation has since been widely discredited, as no evidence of a weapons program was ever discovered. Powell himself expressing regret over what he termed "a great intelligence failure" - a failure that originated in his own exaggerated and doctored interpretation of intercepted Iraqi communications.

    The U.S. launched dozens of tomahawk cruise missiles at the Shayrat air base in Homs Thursday night. The Russian Defense Ministry claims that only 23 of 59 missiles reached the intended target, with the remainder landing in nearby villages. Syrian media sources are reporting that nine civilians died in the attack, four children.

    The attack was a response to an alleged Sarin gas attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. The incident claimed 89 lives, including 33 children and 18 women, according to local opposition authorities.

    Syrian government representatives have denied that it would use such weapons, stating that the alleged proof of a Syrian military role is, in fact, propaganda fabricated by opposition groups like Jabhat al-Nusra. Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that Putin considers the strikes to be "aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law, and under a false pretext."

    Arguing that the U.S. acted unilaterally and in flagrant violation of the U.N. charter, the Bolivian envoy called for a closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

    "The United States was preparing once again and carried out a unilateral attack," Llorenti said. "The missile attack, of course, is a unilateral action. They represent a serious threat to international peace and security."

    United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley denied the request. The U.S. holds the presidency of the Security Council this month.

    [Apr 15, 2017] 3-31-17 Arnaldo Claudio on National Security Advisor Gen. H.R. McMasters human rights violations of Iraqis in 2005

    Apr 15, 2017 | www.libertarianinstitute.org

    Arnaldo Claudio, a retired senior US Military Police officer, discusses his 2005 investigation of human rights abuses of detainees in Tal Afar, in a camp commanded by then-Colonel H.R. McMaster, whom Claudio threatened to arrest. According to Claudio, detainees were kept in overcrowded conditions, handcuffed, deprived of food and water, and soiled by their own urine and feces. A so-called "good behavior program" was implemented by McMaster, that held detainees indefinitely (beyond a rule requiring release after 2 weeks) unless they provided "actionable intelligence."

    [Apr 15, 2017] SECSTATE TILLERSONS CHIEF OF STAFF MARGARET PETERLIN HAS BEEN MANAGING US CYBER WARFARE OPERATIONS AGAINST RUSSIA FOR YEARS

    Notable quotes:
    "... Stack, who started with family money he incorporated as the Stack Family Office and diversified into computer engineering and IT technology investments, is a decade younger than Peterlin. Both of them have worked on cyber weaponry for US Government agencies. According to the Wikileaks release last month of the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) "Vault 7" files, these weapons include UMBRAGE. ..."
    "... The CIA's UMBRAGE operation "collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques." ..."
    "... Reporting on the applications of UMBRAGE lack conclusiveness on whether US Government agents have used UMBRAGE as a "factory for false flag hacking operations" to make the intrusions into the US election campaign, which have subsequently been blamed on Russian cyber operations – blame Tillerson endorsed in his press conference in Moscow yesterday. For that story, read this . ..."
    "... According to another report , "it would be possible to leave such fingerprints if the CIA were reusing unique source code written by other actors to intentionally implicate them in CIA hacks, but the published CIA documents don't say this. Instead, they indicate the UMBRAGE group is doing something much less nefarious." ..."
    "... What Tillerson knows also is that Peterlin has spent most of her career participating in these operations. Whether or not the CIA's Operation UMBRAGE has been used to manufacture the appearance of Russian hacking in the US elections, Peterlin knows exactly how to do it, and where it's done at the CIA, the Pentagon, and other agencies. Peterlin has also drafted the memoranda so that for Americans to do it, it's legal. And for men like Stack, something to boast about. ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | johnhelmer.net
    Peterlin's appointment to run Tillerson's office was announced more authoritatively by the Washington Post on February 12. There her Texas Republican Party credentials were reported in detail, but not her expertise in signals, codes, and cyber warfare.

    "Peterlin has a wealth of government and private-sector experience. After distinguished service as a naval officer, she graduated from the University of Chicago Law School and clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit [Texas and Louisiana]. She then went to work for House Majority Leader Dick Armey [Republican, Texas], just days before the 9/11 attacks. Afterward, she helped negotiate and draft key pieces of national security legislation, including the authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, the Patriot Act and the legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security. 'She's very substance- and policy-focused. She's not necessarily a political person,' said Brian Gunderson, a State Department chief of staff for Condoleezza Rice who worked with Peterlin in the House [Armey's office]. Following a stint as legislative counsel and national security adviser for then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Peterlin moved over to the Commerce Department, where she served as the No. 2 official in the Patent and Trademark Office."

    Peterlin's appointment triggered a lawsuit by a group of patent lawyers and investors against the Secretary of Commerce. On July 23, 2007, two months after Peterlin was sworn in, papers filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia charged that Peterlin's appointment violated the Patent Act of 1999 requiring the Director and Deputy Director of the Patent Office to have "professional experience and background in patent or trademark law." Peterlin, the lawsuit charged, "lack[ed] the requisite professional experience and background." The court was asked to order a replacement for Peterlin "who fulfills those requirements." Six months later, in December 2007 Judge James Robertson dismissed the case on several technicalities. Peterlin's lack of professional skill and alleged incompetence were not tested in court. Peterlin didn't last long in her job and left in 2008. Peterlin's career publications focus on computer and internet surveillance, interception, and espionage. She started with a 1999 essay entitled "The law of information conflict: national security in cyberspace." In December 2001, with two co-authors, she published a paper at the Federalist Society in Washington entitled "The USA Patriot Act and information sharing between the intelligence and law enforcement communities". It can be read in full here .

    Peterlin argued "the unalterable need for greater information sharing means that the U.S. no longer has the luxury of simply separating law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Separation is a security risk." Peterlin's conclusion: "Who performs the surveillance may also matter, but the conditions of the performance are of the most critical importance the focus of attention should be principally on the techniques by which intelligence is gathered domestically and not on whether other members of the intelligence community are permitted to view the intelligence gathered as a result of those operations."

    After she left the Patent and Trademark Office in 2008, Peterlin became an employee of the Mars family companies with the job title, "technology strategy officer". That lasted six years, before she went into business for herself at a consulting company she called Profectus Global Corporation. There is almost no trace of that entity on the internet ; it appears unrelated to similarly named entities in Hungary and Australia. Peterlin then joined XLP Capital in Boston in November 2015.

    Peterlin's appointment as managing director of the firm, according to XLP's press release, reveals that when Peterlin was in the US Navy she was a cyber communications specialist. She was also seconded by the Navy to the White House as a Navy "social aide" when Hillary Clinton was First Lady.

    XLP didn't mention that at the time Peterlin was hired, she was also a board member at Draper Labs, the Massachusetts designer, among many things, of US missile guidance systems and the cyber weapons to combat them. According to XLP, one of Peterlin's selling points was "extensive experience with administrative law as well as deep operations exposure to Federal agencies, including the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, and Health and Human Services." For deep operations, read cyber warfare.

    Before Peterlin joined Tillerson two months ago, her employer at XLP Capital was Matthew Stack (below). In his internet resume Stack reports he is "an accomplished computer hacker and cryptanalyst, and has written and advised on state-run network cyber-warfare policy, and agility-based strategic combat. He was recognized in 2009 by Hackaday as one of the top 10 most influential hardware hackers."

    ... ... ...
    Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=71987011&privcapId=302978562

    At Lambda Prime, Stack claims credit for two cyber warfare projects in 2013 – the practical, "weaponized virtual machines with heterogenous nodes for unpredictable and agile offensive fronts" and the theoretical, "Clausewitz, a modern theory of grand strategy for cyber military forces, and the role of guerilla cyber tactics". The following year Stack hosted his first "Annual Hackathon" - "Hackathoners flew in from all across the United States to inhabit a 27 acre, early 1900s mansion that serves as the Lambda Prime corporate headquarters".

    On social media Stack has revealed his involvement in internet hacking operations in Kiev; also which side he was on. "Ominous clouds hang over Kiev's central square, like Russia over its post-Soviet era neighboring Slavic states, " Stack instagrammed to his followers. "The country may be a mess, but Kiev has the fastest internet I've ever clocked – now I know why so many hackers live in Kiev. Thanks to my amazing tour guide @m.verbulya."

    Stack, who started with family money he incorporated as the Stack Family Office and diversified into computer engineering and IT technology investments, is a decade younger than Peterlin. Both of them have worked on cyber weaponry for US Government agencies. According to the Wikileaks release last month of the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) "Vault 7" files, these weapons include UMBRAGE.

    This was developed for the CIA's Remote Devices Branch; the leaked files for the UMBRAGE operations date from 2012 to 2016. The CIA's UMBRAGE operation "collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques."

    Some of the UMBRAGE components date from 2012; most from 2014. A leaked memo dated June 19, 2013, reveals one of the UMBRAGE managers telling others: "As far as Stash organization, I would recommend that you create one larger "Umbrage" project, and then create separate repositories within that project for each component. Then there is one central point on the site for 'all things Umbrage'."

    Reporting on the applications of UMBRAGE lack conclusiveness on whether US Government agents have used UMBRAGE as a "factory for false flag hacking operations" to make the intrusions into the US election campaign, which have subsequently been blamed on Russian cyber operations – blame Tillerson endorsed in his press conference in Moscow yesterday. For that story, read this .

    According to another report , "it would be possible to leave such fingerprints if the CIA were reusing unique source code written by other actors to intentionally implicate them in CIA hacks, but the published CIA documents don't say this. Instead, they indicate the UMBRAGE group is doing something much less nefarious."

    Yesterday Tillerson claimed to make "a distinction when cyber tools are used to interfere with the internal decisions among countries as to how their elections are conducted. That is one use of cyber tools. Cyber tools to disrupt weapons programs – that's another use of the tools." With Peterlin prompting by his side during his meetings with Lavrov and Putin, Tillerson knew this was not a distinction US cyber operations against Russia make.

    What Tillerson knows also is that Peterlin has spent most of her career participating in these operations. Whether or not the CIA's Operation UMBRAGE has been used to manufacture the appearance of Russian hacking in the US elections, Peterlin knows exactly how to do it, and where it's done at the CIA, the Pentagon, and other agencies. Peterlin has also drafted the memoranda so that for Americans to do it, it's legal. And for men like Stack, something to boast about.

    Peterlin's and Stack's public records are two reasons why none of this is secret from the Russian services. That's another reason why in Moscow yesterday Lavrov would not look at Tillerson during their press conference - and why Putin refused to be photographed with him.

    [Apr 15, 2017] Report issued on April 11 consciously use false claims for justifying a war of aggression act against Syria supporting ISIS:

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Kassandra | Apr 15, 2017 3:27:01 PM | 9

    Proof that the alleged Syrian Government chemical weapons attack on April 5 was staged, and that the White House either did not care for a professional intelligence check on their draft for the White House Intelligence

    Report issued on April 11 consciously use false claims for justifying a war of aggression act against Syria supporting ISIS:

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/04/video-evidence-of-false-claims-made-in-the-white-house-intelligence-report-of-april-11-2017-by-ted-p.html

    [Apr 15, 2017] Top Ten Reasons To Doubt Official Story On Assad Poison-Gas Attack

    Notable quotes:
    "... The sarin-gas attack story prompted the US missile strike on a Syrian runway. Here are the top ten reasons for doubting that story, and instead calling it a convenient pretext: ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | www.globalresearch.ca

    The sarin-gas attack story prompted the US missile strike on a Syrian runway. Here are the top ten reasons for doubting that story, and instead calling it a convenient pretext:

    ONE: Photos show rescue workers treating/decontaminating people injured or killed in the gas attack. The workers aren't wearing gloves or protective gear. Only the clueless or crazy would expose themselves to sarin residue, which can be fatal.

    TWO: MIT professor Thomas Postol told RT,

    "I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the [US intelligence] document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real. No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it." How would a canister purportedly dropped from an Assad-ordered plane incur "crushing from above?"

    THREE: Why would President Assad, supported by Russia, scoring victory after victory against ISIS, moving closer to peace negotiations, suddenly risk all his gains by dropping sarin gas on his own people?

    FOUR: In an interview with Scott Horton, ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi states that his intelligence and military sources indicate Assad didn't attack his own people with poison gas.

    FIVE: Ex-CIA officer Ray McGovern states that his military sources report an Assad air strike did hit a chemical plant, and the fallout killed people, but the attack was not planned for that purpose. There was no knowledge the chemicals were lethal.SIX: At consortiumnews.com , journalist Robert Parry writes,

    "There is a dark mystery behind the White House-released photo showing President Trump and more than a dozen advisers meeting at his estate in Mar-a-Lago after his decision to strike Syria with Tomahawk missiles: Where are CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top intelligence officials?"

    "Before the photo was released on Friday, a source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA's belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier - and thus Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision."

    "After the attack, Secretary of State Tillerson, who is not an institutional intelligence official and has little experience with the subtleties of intelligence, was the one to claim that the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a 'high degree of confidence' that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province."

    "While Tillerson's comment meshed with Official Washington's hastily formed groupthink of Assad's guilt, it is hard to believe that CIA analysts would have settled on such a firm conclusion so quickly, especially given the remote location of the incident and the fact that the initial information was coming from pro-rebel (or Al Qaeda) sources."

    "Thus, a serious question arises whether President Trump did receive that 'high degree of confidence' assessment from the intelligence community or whether he shunted Pompeo aside to eliminate an obstacle to his desire to launch the April 6 rocket attack."

    SEVEN: As soon as the Assad gas attack was reported, the stage was set for a US missile strike. No comprehensive investigation of the purported gas attack was undertaken.

    EIGHT: There are, of course, precedents for US wars based on false evidence-the missing WMDs in Iraq, the claims of babies being pushed out of incubators in Kuwait, to name just two.

    NINE: Who benefits from the sarin gas story? Assad? Or US neocons; the US military-industrial complex; Pentagon generals who want a huge increase in their military budget; Trump and his team, who are suddenly praised in the press, after a year of being pilloried at every turn; and ISIS?

    TEN: For those who doubt that ISIS has ever used poison gas, see the NY Times (11/21/2016). While claiming that Assad has deployed chemical attacks, the article also states that ISIS has deployed chemical weapons 52 times since 2014.

    I'm not claiming these ten reasons definitely and absolutely rule out the possibility of an Assad-ordered chemical attack. But they do add up to a far more believable conclusion than the quickly assembled "Assad-did-it" story.

    These ten reasons starkly point to the lack of a rational and complete investigation of the "gas attack."

    And this lack throws a monkey wrench into Trump's claim that he was ordering the missile strike based on "a high degree of confidence."

    [Apr 15, 2017] Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria

    A "chicken hawk" is a person "who strongly supports war or other military action, yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age." And, according to Wikipedia, "generally the implication is that chicken hawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict." Why would the NYT run a column suggesting the US should support ISIS "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen... this is "tantamount to saying that the US should have reduced pressure on the Nazis to keep the Soviets bleeding" back in the 1940's. In Friedman's defense, ORB International (an American research firm) revealed in 2015 how 85 percent of Iraqis and 82 percent of Syrians believe the US created ISIS. With The New York Times publishing columns like this, this just became better proven.
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.nytimes.com
    ... ... ...

    Let's go through the logic: There are actually two ISIS manifestations.

    One is "virtual ISIS." It is satanic, cruel and amorphous; it disseminates its ideology through the internet. It has adherents across Europe and the Muslim world. In my opinion, that ISIS is the primary threat to us, because it has found ways to deftly pump out Sunni jihadist ideology that inspires and gives permission to those Muslims on the fringes of society who feel humiliated - from London to Paris to Cairo - to recover their dignity via headline-grabbing murders of innocents.

    The other incarnation is "territorial ISIS." It still controls pockets in western Iraq and larger sectors of Syria. Its goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria - plus its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies - and to defeat the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq, replacing both with a caliphate.

    Challenge No. 1: Not only will virtual ISIS, which has nodes all over the world, not go away even if territorial ISIS is defeated, I believe virtual ISIS will become yet more virulent to disguise the fact that it has lost the territorial caliphate to its archenemies: Shiite Iran, Hezbollah, pro-Shiite militias in Iraq, the pro-Shiite Assad regime in Damascus and Russia, not to mention America.

    Challenge No. 2: America's goal in Syria is to create enough pressure on Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah so they will negotiate a power-sharing accord with moderate Sunni Muslims that would also ease Assad out of power. One way to do that would be for NATO to create a no-fly safe zone around Idlib Province, where many of the anti-Assad rebels have gathered and where Assad recently dropped his poison gas on civilians. But Congress and the U.S. public are clearly wary of that.

    So what else could we do? We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations. Fine with me.

    What else? We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they're the ones overextended in Syria, not us. Make them fight a two-front war - the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other. If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing power with them.

    I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for free? When was the last real estate deal Trump did where he volunteered to clean up a toxic waste dump - for free - before he negotiated with the owner on the price of the golf course next door?

    This is a time for Trump to be Trump - utterly cynical and unpredictable. ISIS right now is the biggest threat to Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and pro-Shiite Iranian militias - because ISIS is a Sunni terrorist group that plays as dirty as Iran and Russia.

    Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria? Not for free, not now. In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad's, Iran's, Hezbollah's and Russia's headache - the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan.

    --> Sharon5101 Rockaway Beach Ny April 12, 2017

    How is this administration supposed to 'fix" the chaos that is engulfing and devouring Syria when it's woefully unprepared to host the annual Easter Egg Roll?

    Cathy Hopewell Junction April 12, 2017

    Mr. Friedman is thinking that Trump is a chess player, all strategy and end-game.

    Trump is a checkers player. King Me!

    He has a very simple set of ideas. ISIS bad. Iran bad. Russia good except when bad. Assad bad when gasses babies. He isn't thinking of hegemony and spheres of influence. He isn't thinking of a Hydra that grows a few more heads when you cut one off. He isn't thinking six moves ahead.

    Syria is an intractable, long term problem. Sunni ideologues are an intractable long term problem and a Hydra. Iran is a long term problem, but maybe not totally intractable. And Russia is self interested and big on hegemony.

    Trump has no plan to deal with all that. Just ISIS bad. So that's why he is fighting in Syria.

    Patrick Stevens Mn April 12, 2017

    Your question has an obvious answer. Why did Reagan invade Grenada? Why did Bush attack Panama? Why did Bush II assault Iraq after being struck by Saudis?
    Republican Presidents have learned that flexing military might wins elections for them and their party. It costs a lot, but has a huge pay off. Trump is just doing what he thinks he needs to do to improve his odds of staying in office. It is a calculated risk, but given his poll numbers, and the likely collusion of his people with the Russians during the election, this was a perfect plan.
    That is the answer to your question.

    Jack Hartman Douglas, Michigan April 12, 2017

    The question should not be why are we fighting ISIS in Syria but why are we fighting in the literal sense at all? The U.S. is the strongest economic, political and military country in the world by far and yet we seem to rely on military solutions rather than using our economic and political assets.

    In the Middle East, at least, the answer is not that complicated. Using our political and economic assets would put us squarely at odds with some of our so-called allies, particularly the Sunni Saudis who are primarily responsible for the rise of militant Islam in recent decades. We'd have to call them out on moral grounds, which would be embarrassing for them, as well as on economic grounds, which might cause us and our other allies some economic pain.

    Instead, we use only our military assets to go after what Saudi Arabia's support of radical Islam has produced, extremists who see terror as their best weapon. Furthermore, our economic and political assets would be much more effective against both Iran and Russia than essentially the empty threat of knocking out a Syrian air base for a few hours.

    That is, remember, how we brought down the USSR and got Iran to agree to stop their nuclear arms development. Nary a shot was fired in what were two of our most important victories in the past few decades. Compare that to our "military solution" in Iraq which still plagues us.

    Bruce Rozenblit is a trusted commenter Kansas City, MO April 12, 2017

    This editorial is based upon a false premise. It assumes that Trump has a Syrian strategy. There is no Syrian strategy. There is no why. There is no goal. There is no policy team. There is only Trump and he only does what makes him look good at any given moment. The attack on the Syrian airport was such an event. It is still in operation but Trump got a big boost in the polls from it.

    Mr. Friedman is trying to make sense of the senseless. Trump is a never ending contradiction. His positions flip flop from day to day. This is exactly how he spoke during the campaign. He would contradict himself from one minute to the next. This is how his mind works. This is how he is governing. Why is anyone surprised?

    M.I. Estner Wayland MA April 12, 2017

    Sometimes when people appear to be doing illogical things, we strain to try to understand the logic behind them, i.e., what we are missing. But oftentimes people doing apparently illogical things are just being illogical.

    In terms of substantive policy and strategy in Syria, Trump is being illogical. The most logical thing is to leave the fighting to others and just to help all Syrians who want to emigrate to do so and then help then to resettle including in the US.

    But Trump does not act in the interests of substance. For him, there is no substance. There is only appearance, his image, that concerns him. He wants that image to be that of a strong leader protecting the US from terrorism in the form of ISIS.

    Attacking the virulent form of ISIS has no optics. It cannot be shown on TV. Attacking territorial ISIS has optics, and Trump can manipulate the media to show these attacks and thus further his desired image.

    One of Trump's many problems is his obsession with his image. A subsidiary part of that problem is he wants to project the wrong image. If he could only get past his overwhelming narcissism to understand that he'd actually be much better liked if people felt that he actually cared about other people.

    Lawrence Kucher Morritown NJ April 12, 2017

    Since it is always all about Him, my guess is that He's going
    to start a war, maybe two, because war time presidents do well
    in the polls. He doesn't have a plan for Syria, remember the
    "secret plan to defeat ISIS?" Where's that plan??
    This Country is not going to survive 4 years of this.
    Everybody is on edge and loosing sleep, but Trump plays
    golf on the taxpayer dime at the cost of 3 mill a week end.
    Mexico, will you take us when Canada turns us down?
    Maybe California and Massachusetts could secede?
    (I'm grasping for answers and a new place to live)

    Larry Eisenberg is a trusted commenter New York City April 12, 2017

    Commenting on Trump is degrading
    All logic and sense he's evading,
    Bankruptcy's his gambit
    Illogic his ambit
    His ego growth isn't abating.

    A TV reality show
    Is about the one thing he does know
    A statesman he's not
    The POTUS we've got
    As a learner? Egregiously slow.

    Dan Welch East Lyme, CT April 12, 2017

    Your questions are valid absolutely provided that "Defeating Isis" is really some kind of serious issue rather than a campaign soundbite. This administration hasn't yet figured out the difference. So "Defeating Isis" is simply the backbeat to an incoherent set of practices.

    Christine McM is a trusted commenter Massachusetts April 12, 2017

    "I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for free?"

    Good points. I don't think Trump gives one hoot about Syria. Nor do I believe would have done anything like he did last week if his daughter hadn't spoken up. That blew my mind: it takes a daughter to convince her father that banned chemical gassing is criminal?

    As to your main point, that ISIS is a state of mind that can't be simply eliminated, I say yes, yes, and yes. Virtually all recent ISIS attacks on American soil were committed by naturalized Americans converted to jihadism online.

    The Trump administration seems unconcerned about the more powerful online ISIS while territorial ISIS has so many players it's a wonder they all know who they're shooting at.

    Syria is going the way of Lebanon, stripped down to rubble. Trump should do some hard thinking (not easy for him) as to what his objective is in Syria, if any. It's a complex dilemma that risks focusing on the easier aspects of war ( troops and treasure) over the near impossible task of eliminating online jihadism made worse by administration policies like the "Muslim ban," all Trump's (and Bannon's) anti-Islam rhetoric.

    soxared, 04-07-23 Crete, Illinois April 12, 2017

    "Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah."

    Nine times in your essay, Mr. Friedman, you employ this construction. Here's the problem: Donald Trump doesn't understand any of them. Why do you think he hasn't resorted to his go-to move, the tweet? He doesn't know what to do.

    Had he bothered to attend daily security briefings and acquaint himself with the regional problems after Nov. 8 it wouldn't be "gee, who knew fighting ISIS would be so complex?" But no; he embarked upon victory laps, post-Nov. 8 campaign rallies, retreats with good ole boys to Philly when he should have been assembling a team and a policy and demanding briefing papers. The foreign policy professionals could have told him that ISIS is like a bad smell after an even worse dinner and "deal with it."

    It says here that if Trump were at all smart (which he is not) he would allow Bashar al-Assad to remain Vladimir Putin's headache. Let his Russian pal prop up a regime that destroys "babies...beautiful babies...children." Israel should have some skin in this game; they're all neighbors.

    I disagree with you, Mr. Friedman, when you write that ISIS has two manifestations; they have as many as they have willing warriors. They're like flies at a picnic; you can wave them away and maybe kill some, but they'll always return. They will always be there. ISIS isn't so much a fighting force as it is an idea. Trump can't destroy the Internet.

    He'll soon learn what his predecessor did: ISIS may be defeated but not destroyed.

    Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich April 12, 2017

    "The Trump foreign policy team"

    Stop right there. That is not what we are seeing. It is not a "team."

    There are various isolated factions, vying for the favor of a man who does not really know what he's doing. They slash at each other.

    So far, they've drawn a lot of blood internally, but there is not semblance of any accepted outcome yet. They are in mid-brawl.

    My money is on people with experience, discipline, and hard fists. But we'll see. Meanwhile, there is no "foreign policy team."

    Hal Donahue Scranton April 12, 2017

    Following the 911 attacks, the United States misidentified the enemy and never stepped back. The media was as complicit as Congress in not demanding answers or questioning rationales prior to sending this nation to endless war. The enemy was identified as terrorism (a license to attack any group anywhere deemed too hostile to US goals). Conservatives and republicans, with major media approval, began identifying terrorists as 'Islamic'.
    Media and political leaders never stepped forward to identify the specific enemy as extremist Muslims influenced and often supported by the Sunni Wahhabi and Salafi sects, not all of Islam and most certainly not the Shia Islam practiced by much of Iran and Iraq. Why?

    Perhaps the answer is that Saudi Arabia is the global promulgator of Wahhabism, the sect most often fueling terrorist attacks in the region and abroad. It is Saudi Arabia and Israel who worked together in defiance of the US to block constitutional government in Egypt and install a Salafi influenced military dictatorship. As I type this the Trump gang is working with the Saudis to restore order in Syria – a recipe for disaster and long term terrorism.

    Trump has no knowledge; the least this paper can do is attempt to educate him.

    Hugh CC Budapest April 12, 2017

    I understand the urge to write about Trump as if he has a plan, a strategy or even thinks in depth with intelligence about anything. Americans are yearning for a president, not someone who sets foreign policy based on what he sees on Fox and Friends or what his handbag selling daughter whispers in his ear. We want to think that there is something in Trump that is redeemable. But Mr. Friedman, there isn't.

    Five months after the election and he still refers to Hillary Clinton as "crooked Hillary" in a NYT interview. The man is irredeemable. Give up trying to make something of him and let's just figure out how to run him from office.

    Michael California April 12, 2017

    Mr. Friedman: I agree with your strategy: let the Russians and Iranians deal with ISIS on the ground. I also agree with your assessment of Trump; that he should be unpredictable so our adversaries don't know what he will do next. But there is one fundamental place where your logic seems to fall short:

    "And those will only emerge if there are real power-sharing deals in Syria and Iraq"

    Show me a single Arab country where Sunni and Shi'a factions have a working power sharing arrangement without one side dominating the other, and I'll agree that this is a reasonable goal. The only formulas that seem to work in that part of the world are to put a strongman in place to force compliance, or to divide the place up, Sunni here, Shi'a there.

    IMHO if you could help the locals develop a federal method of power sharing that works for all parties, you could clean up the whole Middle East. There must be enough of them that want the fighting to stop, but each group is terrified of being subjugated by the other, and for good reason, because their history shows them that this is inevitable. That is the true knot that must be untangled before there will be peace in the Middle East.

    John LeBaron MA April 12, 2017

    The problem, it seems to me, is that if "moderate" Sunni movements exist in Iraq and Syria in the first place, they lack the military power and brutal drive of an ISIS that observes no humanitarian boundry moral limitation to its behavior.

    Obscene brutalization has become so endemic in Syria and the territory around it that it has become normalized colective behavior. Russia is fully complicit, but the US carries its own oversized share of the blame. Absent Bush's misguided Iraq debacle, we would be facing a completely different Middle East today.

    These are the consequences of brain-dead, knee-jerk decision-making where the world's greatest military power resides.

    john.jamotta Hurst, Texas April 12, 2017

    Mr Friedman, I am steadily losing all hope that POTUS and DC politicians have the capability and the caliber to lead and inspire America through the many and varied challenges we face.

    To me, politicians ask citizens for their votes based on a fantasy world where complexity is never recognized and Americans have the God given right to expect a world where they receive more of everything without the sacrifice or payment needed to secure these benefits.

    Although I am inherently optimistic about life, I think we are facing challenges that will only be solved by the next generation because our generation is failing to defend our fragile democracy.

    Joseph Huben Upstate NY April 12, 2017

    Wahhabism is an essential part of the ISIS problem, but is often overlooked, or hidden. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchs are responsible for the global reach of ISIS through their support of Wahhabi schools and preachers. Fighting ISIS in Syria is foolish, for all of the reasons given here and because America and Europe have failed to tell the truth about the Wahhabi basis of ISIS.
    The war in Iraq and Syria is a war between Sunni Wahhabi extremists and Shiites. For propaganda purposes our government and our pundits have implied that world terrorism is related to Shiites, knowing all the while that it is and has always been a Sunni Wahhabi terror. Russia's Muslim population ranges between 6% and 15% of it's population, with 1 million Muslims living in Moscow. 90% of Russia's Muslim population is Sunni. Chechnya is a Sunni state under Russian sway. Russia is under threat by ISIS. Why should we fight ISIS in Syria. Friedman is correct. America and the EU have no interest in defeating ISIS in Syria. We do have an interest in preventing the use of poison gas.

    Bos is a trusted commenter Boston April 12, 2017

    ISIL in Syria v. ISIL in Iraq? Does terrorism have a border?

    Syria is a can of worms. By now, people should appreciate what President Obama. Just as President Clinton before President Bush the 43rd, Mr Obama navigated the rapid by minimizing damages. But both Messrs. Clinton and Obama are followed by two simpletons whose one-dimensional thinking will inevitably lead the U.S. into quagmire. Well, we really don't know what is in Trump's head. His Syrian excursion might very well be a sleight of hand light show - how else can you explain the facts that he pre-warned Russia before the raid and little damage was done to an airbase after 59 tomahawks dropped there? If that is a light show for N Korea, then it is doubtful Trump would do anything more. For all we know, Trump-Russia rift may very well be a charade

    While one could argue Syria now is Iraq before Bush's invasion, Syria is too far gone. Everyone is at risk. Trump is riding the tiger now. There is only one certainty: his bombing of Syria is as inexplicable as his saying the U.S. no longer cares if Assad wanted to stay. Either there are ulterior motives in both situations or Trump's ADHD acting up, neither of the scenarios bodes well to the world's future

    Joseph Thomas Reston, VA April 12, 2017

    The situation in Syria is exactly why our unfit and unstable president is such a danger to our country and the world.

    He doesn't know the history of Syria, he doesn't know the current situation in Syria and he has no desire to learn either. His missile attack came days after his administration seemed to be willing to accept Assad as president. It accomplished nothing except to confuse both our allies and our adversaries.

    Now you want him to distinguish between the territorial ICIS and the virtual ICIS, between the ICIS in Syria and the ICIS in Iraq, and to implement a strategy that involves long term thinking while Tweeting about something other than himself. It's not going to happen, he doesn't have the intelligence or the vision to follow through on such a plan.

    Nice idea, though.

    roarofsilence North Carolina April 12, 2017

    There are no moderates in Syria, it is a fantasy created in the minds of John McCain and other neoconservatives who seem to be blind to the disasters they have created in Libya, Iraq and Yemen. Syria is in the midst of a Sunni-Shia civil war.

    DanC Massachusetts April 12, 2017

    Once again there is the usual mistake of thinking that Trump can stick to a plan, any plan. He is impulsive through and through, in a compulsive way. He has neither a complete functioning brain nor a complete functioning personality. That is why he needs his daughter-wife-and-second-first-lady and Kushner as advisers. He does not look for information that experts can provide but to the family members who serve as a collective nanny to more or less try to keep him in line and to clean up the messes he makes. Understanding Trump is easier when one thinks of his White House as an extension of his dysfunctional family relations.

    Aubrey Alabama April 12, 2017

    Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't make them smart.

    Trump could have been a good President -- we sure could use a fresh look at many policies and programs but his lack of basic knowledge (enough to select good people and work with them to develop strategies/plans, which he would then follow) has created chaos. Our adversaries, other governments, our own government -- nobody knows what our foreign policy is.

    silver bullet Warrenton VA April 12, 2017

    In answer to your question, this administration has no coherent military strategy to fight ISIS at all. The president was all campaign talk and no action. He has yet to lay a glove on ISIS. He knew more about ISIS than his generals, so his unilateral strike last week was carried out without the need to consult his military brass or Congress. Just trust him, his actions said.

    The missile strike was, in your words, a "headline-grabbing" ploy to distract attention away from the investigations into his ties to Russia last year. His act of war produced a spike in his popularity, especially among Republicans and his base who joyfully celebrated the awakening of the sleeping American giant who finally had enough of Middle East terrorism. The bully was thumping his chest and braying "bring it on, radical Islam".

    Syria, like Viet Nam, is a no-win proposition. Any protracted military involvement there will cost many American lives and Treasury spending will go through the roof. Mr. President and erstwhile draft dodger, don't raid the war chest and let your mouth write out a check that your behind can't cash.

    James Landi Salisbury, Maryland April 12, 2017

    "Where's that Trump when we need him?" Geez Tom, you're asking Trump to think five steps ahead of today--- you''re talking strategy, Tom? The man is incapable of putting a complex sentence together with a qualifying clause, and you're asking the Trump we know to "think"--to plot strategy... never happen.

    [Apr 15, 2017] Leaks NSA Penetrated Mideast Banking Networks -- News from Antiwar.com

    Apr 15, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    New leaked documents released by the Shadow Brokers includes information showing that the NSA penetrated Middle Eastern financial networks , initially with an eye toward being able to track all financial transactions in the region as an "anti-money laundering" effort.

    This involved hacking into the region's SWIFT banking system, and unsurprisingly,, given the NSA's penchant for mission creep fairly quickly grew this into an effort not only to have access to the information on financial transactions, but to try to gain access to a long list of banks "of interest."

    The leaks provided information showing that SWIFT bureau in the Middle East, EastNet, made some very poor security choices, which would've allowed the NSA to easily attack essentially all of the banks on the network, as soon as they had compromised the first one.

    Documents showed at least five of the banks "of interest" had been compromised. It is unclear from the documents whether the NSA continues to have these banks' systems compromised and is continued to collect data from them, though at the very least they now have a heads up that it's going on.

    [Apr 14, 2017] The west used colonies as laboratories for weapons. Its not different today

    Apr 14, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    The United States has dropped its largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat against Isis targets in Afghanistan. But why drop such a gargantuan bomb in the first place? No one can have any sympathy for Isis and its murderous offshoots, but you don't need to be a military expert to suspect something strange might be going on here.

    Since the US's stated objective was to destroy underground tunnels, wouldn't so-called bunker buster bombs, which can also be huge and dig deep into the earth, serve the aims of this mission just as well, if not better?

    Look to the history of colonial warfare for the answer. The lands of the colonized have always served as the western world's laboratory for the newest and worst weapons of war.

    Bombs may have been with us since the invention of gunpowder, but the phenomenon of aerial warfare is only as old as 1 November 1911, when Libya became the first country to suffer a bombardment from the sky.

    Late to the colonial scramble for Africa, Italy coveted Libya, then a province of the failing Ottoman empire. In 1911, the Italians invaded the north African territory and that November, Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti flew over Ain Zara, just east of Tripoli. Unbeknownst to his superiors, Gavotti tossed four 1.5kg grenades out of his window, pulling the pins with his teeth, and watching them explode on the oasis town below. He later wrote that he was "really pleased with the result".

    Just like today, the press went crazy with the news. The innovation of aerial warfare was mind blowing. Gavotti was lauded as a true Italian hero, although Europe's professional warriors initially thought otherwise. They considered the act beneath the rules of civilized combat. Their contempt didn't last long, and a new era of aerial warfare, especially against "uncivilized" peoples, began.

    In 1920, Britain took charge of Iraq, and a popular revolt quickly erupted. The Royal Air Force responded with a new strategy they called "control without occupation". The thinking was that there would be no need for large and costly contingents of soldiers on the ground if one could simply bomb the local population into submission from the sky. And bomb they did. For days, weeks, and months on end.

    Churchill , who in 1919 had penned a memo stating that he was "strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes", even pushed Air Marshal Trenchard in 1920 to "proceed with the experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them". Historians now believe there wasn't enough mustard gas to go around, so large-scale conventional bombing was left to achieve Britain's desired result in Iraq.

    The United States is not immune to such military opportunism either. The US fired its first depleted uranium munitions during the 1991 Gulf war. A total of 320 tons (290,300 kgs) landed in Iraq in that war, and depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, as old as our solar system now is. The results have been spectacularly terrible throughout Iraq, with birth defects and cancer rates disturbingly elevated throughout the country.

    The Russian military has exploited its campaign assisting the Assad regime in Syria to test out 162 new weapons systems, including new cruise missiles and long-range bombers. It would seem the Russians are very proud of their new weapons. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu used the occasion of Vladimir Putin's 63 rd birthday to announce that Russia had fired cruise missiles at targets in Syria from the Caspian Sea, some 900 miles away.

    Look at the countries mentioned thus far – Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan . Southeast Asia of course also suffered terribly when it was the west's main laboratory of death and destruction, but this list of countries should give us a sense of history regarding our current conflicts along with some much-needed humility about the success of bombing people into submission.

    This brings us to the GBU-43/B, a 22,600-pound bomb that is known as a Moab, officially a Massive Ordinance Air Blast and unofficially a Mother of All Bombs. Developed for the 2003 Iraq war, each GBU-43/B reportedly costs $16m. The bomb, which explodes before impact and with a reported blast radius as large as a mile in diameter, is the second largest non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal. It has never been used before. Until now.

    Once again, the territory inhabited by the "uncivilized" has been shelled so the west can try out its new lethal toys. Forgotten in all of this is that bombs, especially ones this size, don't affect only people. Munitions may be aimed at enemies, but an enormous bomb such as this kills plant life massively as well. When such a bomb detonates, a percussive blast destroys everything in it fatal path, shattering the insides of humans and animals alike.

    The air is literally sucked out of the atmosphere to feed the jealous fire created by its explosion. The aim of such a bomb is to kill enemies but at what consequence to our earth? There is something narcissistic to think that bombs of this enormity are an attack on humanity. In fact, they are an assault on all forms of life.

    --> Devondaddy , 13m ago The MOAB used in Afghanistan was almost exactly the same size as Barns Wallace's Grandslam' bomb deployed by the RAF against the Nazis in 1945.
    Sorry if that doesn't fit with the narrative, but in conflict the most appropriate weapons are deployed irrespective of who the enemy are.
    Try reading a little military history if you are going to write about it.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb )

    --> , MartinSilenus , 14 Apr 2017 18:01

    Oh, Poison Gas was first used, on Europeans, by Europeans.
    Nuclear weapons only use was not on `uncivilised tribes`, but an Industrial Nation, Imperial Japan.
    Mostly, we used the most sdvanced weapons, to kill other western forces: only then, were they used in Colonial wars. Custers men at the Little Big Horn, used single shot rifles, the only repeating rifles were used by some of the Native Americans. He could have taken `Gatling Guns`he refused!
    "The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors did join the battle with a number of Henry and Spencer repeating rifles"
    https://www.wired.com/2009/06/dayintech_0625 /
    http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm
    http://custerlives.com/7thcav11.htm
    , Briar , 14 Apr 2017 17:57
    Of course The West doesn't do things like this - as far as its own self portrait is concerned. You won't find any shade of the opinion of this commentator in the items singing the praises of America's massive WMDs in the media today. They are so excited about the size of the bomb! About the message it sends about the West's Greatness. I daresay most men of god will similarly support it this Sunday by not mentioning the obscenity of calling the bomb a "mother" or deploying it at Easter. It's just so Christian - killing people of lesser gods en masse at what the West regards as the holiest time of the year.
    , Black_Sparrow , 14 Apr 2017 17:56
    Failing banana republics like the US need to distract as much as possible from the domestic problems. Dropping big bombs in Afghanistan makes Americans think they are still powerful, while the country is collapsing like a cheap tent.
    , MartinSilenus , 14 Apr 2017 17:49
    Note, in the below - famous - Churchill memo on the use of `poison gas` he states quite clearly the type he envisages using: "making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas".

    Lachrymatory means tears/crying, in other words tear gas, formally known as a lachrymatory agent. He had been in the Trenches, the effects of Mustard gas on the Eyes, Skin & Lungs would have been familiar to him, read the memo yourself, does it sound like WWI poison gasses: Chlorine, Phosgene or Mustard gas, was being proposed? Note: the blinded of Mustard Gas, could have lived until the late 20th Century, why no accounts of them blinded as children, great anti British propoganda, so why has no such tales of gas blindings from the 1920`s ever been reported from Iraq?

    " as shown in a War Office minute of 12 May 1919 in which Winston Churchill argued :

    "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

    , PierreCorneille , 14 Apr 2017 17:48
    It amazes me, well, not anymore, how ignorant Americans are. This "Mother" bomb is not the biggest ever used. One of them yes, but the RAF used a 22,000 pound bomb called the Grand Slam. Carried by the Avro Lancaster, it was used for highly reinforced positions like U boat pens. Reply Share
    , CforCynic PierreCorneille , 14 Apr 2017 17:53
    Biggest in terms of the amount of explosives inside it. Grand Slam had just less than half the amount of explosives inside it that the MOAB does. We used to have a few empty Grand Slam casings laying around on one of the MoD sites I worked at. Extremely thick steel, to say the least. Reply Share
    , Pfalze CforCynic , 14 Apr 2017 18:06
    Grand Slams were designed to go deep into the ground and explode creating an underground chamber.They were also known as earthquake bombs.The largest high explosive bomb was the Blockbuster. A 12000lb bomb 3/4 of the weight of the bomb was the contents.It was designed as a blast bomb. Reply Share
    , CforCynic Pfalze , 14 Apr 2017 18:17
    I spent a bit of my MoD career working with what was euphemistically referred to as "energetic materials". We had quite a few WW2 relics at one of the sites. From bits of Tallboy and Grand Slam casings, to all different types of MC and HC bombs. Last I heard the scrappy got his hands on them, so they're probably baked-bean cans by now.
    , Pier16 , 14 Apr 2017 17:40
    I have figured out 90% of the US government activity is selling BS to the American people so that they can continue doing what they're doing without being questioned.

    In the big scheme of things this is a big bomb to take out supposedly a large depot of arms belonging to the ISIS terrorists who were about to commence their spring offensive in that area.

    Americans have done bombings like this before (not with MOAB ~~ but hundreds of smaller bombs). But, the "public relations" aspect of this bombing was just out of this world. For example retired general McCaffrey on MSNBC said this is a weapon of terror (he meant it in a good way). It terrorizes ISIS and anyone who cooperates with them. I guess he meant in a "shock and awe" way. The American media is cheering this, as if no one in the world knows US has nukes and can blow everyone off the face of the earth several times, until they deployed this weapon. You hear from the talking heads and their echo chambers, this is going to give a message to the North Koreans and this or that group. The message North Koreans, and this or that group is getting is US has a huge amount of weapons, a big military, but after fighting for 16 years in an impoverished country, with a GDP of $3 billion, US has resorted to biggest nonnuclear weapon in its arsenal to show how tough they are. The message this sends to the rest of the world is US military is impotent and incompetent, so is the US government.

    , CriticAtLarge Pier16 , 14 Apr 2017 17:49
    The Taliban control more of Afghanistan than at any point since 2001. Yeah, I am sure a massive bomb will turn the tide. Reply Share
    , moria50 CriticAtLarge , 14 Apr 2017 18:06
    The Taliban have head office in Turkey, UAE and Qatar....and business meetings in the Maldives.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22957827

    [Apr 14, 2017] 'Brought to you by agency which produced Al-Qaeda ISIS' – Assange trolls CIA chief

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Called a 'non-state intelligence service' today by the 'state non-intelligence agency' which produced Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran & Pinochet." ..."
    "... "non-state hostile intelligence service," ..."
    "... "he and his ilk make common cause with dictators." ..."
    "... "firm and continuing policy " ..."
    "... "We publish truths regarding overreaches and abuses conducted in secret by the powerful," ..."
    Apr 14, 2017 | www.rt.com
    Julian Assange has responded to CIA Director Mike Pompeo's accusation that WikiLeaks is a "non-state intelligence agency" by trolling the CIA over its own roles in producing "Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran and Pinochet."

    Called a "non-state intelligence service" today by the "state non-intelligence agency" which produced al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran & Pinochet.

    - Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) April 14, 2017

    Assange tweeted, "Called a 'non-state intelligence service' today by the 'state non-intelligence agency' which produced Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran & Pinochet."

    Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of siding with dictators and being a "non-state hostile intelligence service," at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event on Thursday. He called Assange and his associates "demons" and said "he and his ilk make common cause with dictators."

    BREAKING: #WikiLeaks is 'hostile intel' and #Assange & his followers are 'demons' - CIA chief Mike #Pompeo https://t.co/DA5MmJIYWF pic.twitter.com/MjQ87lKJgR

    - RT America (@RT_America) April 13, 2017

    Assange in turn accused the CIA of producing terrorist groups and dictators. He said the CIA produced Al-Qaeda, referring to the agency's role in arming and training mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets during the 1970s, some of whom – including Osama Bin Laden – later evolved into Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

    Assange has previously stated that the CIA's role in arming the mujahideen led to Al-Qaeda, which led to 9/11, the Iraq invasion and, later, the formation of ISIS.

    The CIA admitted it was behind the 1953 coup in Iran which overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and reinstalled the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose 26 year rule led to the 1979 Islamic revolution.

    #WikiLeaks releases more than 500k US diplomatic cables from 1979 https://t.co/9Ophyvp2zD

    - RT America (@RT_America) November 28, 2016

    Assange's Pinochet reference alludes to the CIA's "firm and continuing policy " to assist in the overthrowing of Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973, and its support for dictator Augusto Pinochet.

    Pompeo's attack on WikiLeaks appears to be in response to an op-ed Assange wrote in the Washington Post on Tuesday which referenced President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell speech, in which he warned of the dangers of the influence of the military industrial complex. Assange said the speech is similar to WikiLeaks' own mission statement.

    READ MORE: 40 targets in 16 countries: Scale of CIA-linked #Vault7 hacking tools revealed by Symantec

    "We publish truths regarding overreaches and abuses conducted in secret by the powerful," he said, going on to say that WikiLeaks' motives are the same as those of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

    Pompeo himself has previously appeared to support WikiLeaks' revelations, while President Donald Trump praised the whistleblowing site on more than one occasion during the presidential election, even professing his love for WikiLeaks in October.

    [Apr 13, 2017] The Escalating War on Syria and Need for International Law Opinion teleSUR English

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Yesterday's chemical attack in Syria [was] against innocent people including women, small children and even beautiful little babies. Their deaths was an affront to humanity. These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much." ..."
    "... "The only plausible scenario that fits the evidence is an attack by opposition forces." ..."
    "... Faulty intelligence could have led to an unjustified US military action." ..."
    "... Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
    "... What the U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which, according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State can commit against another State." ..."
    "... Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He lives in the SF Bay Area and can be contacted at [email protected] ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | www.telesurtv.net
    Opinion > Articles The Escalating War on Syria and Need for International Law --> By: Rick Sterling
    Published 7 April 2017 Increases text size - Decreases text size Follow us TheWorldToday International law has been undermined and replaced by "humanitarian law,"contributing to the current disastrous situation whereby a war is being waged under a humanitarian pretext. On Tuesday, April 4, there were reports of children and other civilians killed by chemical poisoning in the town of Khan Sheikhoun, Syria. There were contradictory reports, some saying they smelled the gas; others claiming it caused immediate death like odorless sarin.

    RELATED: US Attacks Syrian Base with 59 Missiles After Chemical Attack

    On Wednesday, April 5, President Trump blamed the Syrian government despite conflicting reports and contradictory information and accusations. He said, "Yesterday's chemical attack in Syria [was] against innocent people including women, small children and even beautiful little babies. Their deaths was an affront to humanity. These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."

    On Thursday, April 6, Trump ordered a 'targeted military strike' on Syria with 50 tomahawk missiles attacking the primary Syrian air base near Homs. This base is used to support the combat with ISIS in eastern Syria and Nusra / al Qaida in Idlib province.

    As I will show below, it is likely the deaths in Khan Sheikhoun were caused by an armed opposition faction, not the Syrian government. The goal was precisely what has happened: a media firestorm leading to direct U.S. aggression against Syria.Syria.

    What Happened and How?

    On April 4 news broke of a 'chemical weapon' attack in Syria. Western media and governments quickly blamed the Syrian government. Just as quickly, neoconservatives such as Sen. John McCain recalled the 2013 crisis when Pres Obama ultimately decided not to attack Syria. Israeli PM Netanyahu chimed in with a not-too-subtle renewed call for war on Syria. He tweeted that it's time for the international community to "fulfill its obligations from 2013."

    Basic facts include:

    - On March 22, the government-controlled town of Khattab was over-run by militants with some civilians kidnapped and taken to the nearby opposition-controlled town of Khan Sheikhoun.

    - On April 4, up to 80 persons, including many children, died at Khan Sheikhoun. Some showed signs of chemical poisoning. Photographs, videos, analyses and other sources are documented at "A Closer Look At Syria" .

    - one of the videos features the UK born and raised Dr. Shajul Islam . He received his UK medical license in 2012 but had the license suspended due to reports he was involved in the kidnapping in Syria of journalist John Cantlie.

    - Many of the video scenes depict an area set into a limestone quarry with apparent caves and storage depots. There are flatbed trucks with bodies scattered on the ground in this semi-industrial area. Other video show scenes in a medical clinic.

    - Photographs show "White Helmet" individuals handling bodies without gloves which is very strange if they died or were dying from chemical poison.

    Who is responsible?

    There are three theories about what happened:

    - The western government narrative is that the Syrian "regime" is responsible. They fired illegal chemical weapons into the town, primarily killing innocent civilians and many children.

    - The Syrian army acknowledges firing air strikes but denies using chemical weapons at this or anytime. This area was the base for militant attacks against government areas in Hama province in the preceding weeks. The Russian Ministry of Defense says that militants had a weapons production factory including chemical weapon ingredients, and that may have been hit and caused the chemical weapon deaths.

    - A third theory is the kidnapped civilians from Khattab were killed or poisoned by the militants as part of a staged event.

    Evidence Pointing to the Militants

    Looking at the facts, history and overall circumstances, it is far more likely the armed opposition is responsible for this event. Here is why:

    (1) The incident and publicity help the opposition and hurt the government.

    Crime investigations usually begin with the question: Who has a motive? In this case, it's strikingly clear that the armed opposition and their supporters benefit from this event. They have used the story to further demonize the Assad government and make renewed calls for the United States and "the world" to intervene.

    The Syrian government is making steady advances in many parts of the country. They have no reason to use chemical weapons; they have every reason to NOT use chemical weapons. They know very well that the armed opposition has immediate access to major media.

    RELATED: US Attacks on Syria Constitutes International Armed Conflict: Red Cross

    Accusations that the Syrian government intentionally attacks civilians is contradicted by their policies and actions. As demonstrated last Decembers in Aleppo, civilians are welcomed from opposition areas into government controlled areas. Even Syrian militants are welcomed after they sign an agreement to lay down arms.

    It is also relevant to consider timing. There is a pattern of sensational events helpful to the armed opposition occurring simultaneously with critical international meetings or actions. In this case, the events in Khan Sheikhoun occurred the day before an important conference on Syria in Brussels. The conference titled "Supporting the future of Syria and the region" has been effectively sidetracked by news about the chemical weapons attack and the Syrian government being blamed.

    (2) Extremists were responsible for the August 2013 Chemical Weapon attack in Damascus.

    Western supporters of the armed opposition were quick to blame the Syrian government for the chemical attack in Ghouta on August 21, 2013. However, subsequent investigations by the most credible investigative journalists and researchers concluded the Syrian government was probably NOT responsible. Seymour Hersh and Robert Parry concluded the attack was most likely carried out by militants with support from Turkey. The in-depth examination titled WhoGhouta concluded , "The only plausible scenario that fits the evidence is an attack by opposition forces." An MIT study made a detailed trajectory analysis, concluded that the missile could not have been fired from government territory and warned: " Faulty intelligence could have led to an unjustified US military action."

    (3) Armed Opposition Groups have a history of Staging Incidents

    From the start, the Syrian conflict has included an information war. Hillary Clinton boasted of "training for more than a thousand activists, students and independent journalists." In December 2012, NBC journalist Richard Engel was reportedly kidnapped and abused by "shabiha" supporters of the Syrian government. Engel and his film crew were "liberated" by Free Syrian Army rebels after a gunfight with the Assad supporting kidnappers. In reality, the entire episode from kidnapping to rescue was a hoax designed to demonize Assad supporters and glorify the "rebels". The true story emerged years later after the actual events were leaked. When it was going to be made public, Engel finally admitted the truth.

    (4) Supporters of the armed opposition have a history of fabricating stories which demonize the Syrian Government.

    In February 2014, it was announced that a defecting Syrian military photographer, who was anonymous but code-named "Caesar", had 55,000 photos showing the torture and murder of 11,000 innocent Syrian civilians. This news received sensational media attention with live interviews on CNN and front page coverage throughout the western world. The news relied on the judgment of legal prosecutors who "verified" the story and produced a "Caesar Report". This was released the day before the start of Geneva negotiations. It effectively disrupted the talks and facilitated the "rebels" refusal to negotiate and walk away. In reality, the "verification" and report was commissioned by the government of Qatar which has been a major funder of the armed opposition. Since then it has been discovered that nearly half the 55,000 photos show the opposite of what was claimed: they show dead Syrian soldiers and victims of explosions NOT tortured civilians. That is just one of the findings confirming the fraud involved in this sensational story. A concise expose of "Caesar" is here .

    How the Public has been Misinformed on Syria

    Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has said , " Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." Here are a few examples showing the bias, half-truths and outright false statements regarding the events at Khan Sheikhoun:

    Trump Syria

    - The PBS Newshour typically features two guests who are questioned by the host. The problem is that their guests consistently share the same basic viewpoint. On April 4, one guest was from the Soros-funded Physicians for Human Rights. She claimed, "We know that sarin has been used before by the Assad regime." In fact, that has NOT been confirmed by any credible organization. On the contrary, the most thorough investigations point to sarin being used by the armed opposition NOT the Syrian government. The other guest was Andrew Tabler from the neoconservative Israeli associated "Washington Institute". His editorial from last Fall makes clear what he wants: " The case for (finally) bombing Assad ." The discussion on Syria at PBS Newshour is consistently biased.

    - The New York Times feature story on April 4 was " Worst Chemical Attack in Years in Syria; U.S. Blames Assad" . One of the authors, Michael Gordon, was an influential proponent for "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" that justified the 2003 invasion. But that has apparently not hurt his career. In this story on Syria, he and co-author Anne Barnard claim that "American intelligence agencies concluded" the 2013 attack was carried out by the Syrian government. That is false. The intelligence agencies did NOT agree and the "assessment" came from the White House not the intelligence agencies. It is astounding that they either do not know this or they are intentionally misleading the public. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity explained the significance in their memorandum "A Call for Syria - Sarin Proof" .

    - DemocracyNow is a popular television/radio show. It is widely considered to be "progressive" but is also highly biased in its presentation on Syria. It almost solely promotes the perspective of those who support the armed opposition and/or western intervention in Syria. On April 5, they interviewed Dr. Rola Hallam. She is infamous for being the key player in the documentary "Saving Syria's Children" which purports to show a chemical weapon attack in Aleppo but was actually staged . The "documentary" was then broadcast at a critical time trying to influence the 2013 vote in British parliament for an attack on Syria. On April 6, DemocracyNow interviewed another "Syrian" who lives in the West and promotes western intervention: Lina Sergie Attar. Viewers of DemocracyNow have no idea that the majority of Syrians support the government and especially the national Army in their struggle against invasion and terrorism.

    Public understanding about what's happening in Syria has been seriously confused by the bad analysis of prominent analysts. Some have suggested that Israel was content to live with Assad. Former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren clarified the truth as he said "we always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to those who were backed by Iran." In short, Israel prefers al Qaida or ISIS or, better yet, the conflict to continue so that both sides are destroyed.

    Before the conflict began, in 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made demands to Damascus that all revolved around Israeli interests. She wanted Syria to end its alliance with Hezbollah, to reduce its interactions with Iran and to come to an agreement with Israel. In contrast to what some analysts have said, Israeli interests have been a major factor driving and maintaining the conflict. With the liberation of Aleppo and prospect of a victory by Syria and allies, Israeli demands to escalate the war have probably increased.

    Some of the world's most famed political analysts have contributed to the confusion and lack of resistance as the war on Syria has continued. For example, Noam Chomsky on DemocracyNow two days ago said "The Assad regime is a moral disgrace, the Russians with them." Evidently, he believes all or most of the accusations which have said about the 'regime'. In sharp contrast with Chomsky's assessment, it's remarkable that Syria has held together as well as it has in the face of attack by some of the most powerful and rich countries on earth. Over 100,000 Syrians have given their lives defending their country against the onslaught. Russia has supported their ally in compliance with international law, continually trying to work with the U.S. coalition as a "partner" against terrorism. Evidently, Chomsky is unaware or does not believe the extent of lies that have been created around Syria. Evidently, he does not recognize the distorted and shameful media coverage mentioned by Kinzer. Everyone makes mistakes but Chomsky's poor analysis here is a whopper. If he was to visit Syria and talk with real Syrians I think his perception would be dramatically changed just as described by the PBS Frontline crew here . With consummate hypocrisy, both Syrian and Russian governments are now demonized by western neoconservatives and liberals who have done little or nothing to stop their own government's collusion with terrorists raining havoc and destruction in Syria.

    The need to restore International Law

    International law has been undermined and replaced by "humanitarian law". This has contributed to the current disastrous situation whereby the U.S. and NATO are waging aggression under a humanitarian pretext.

    International law regarding attacks on sovereign states is clear: it is illegal unless authorized by the UN Security Council or in legitimate self-defense. It is clear that Syria poses no threat to any of its neighbors or any other nation. It is also clear that Syria has been the victim for six long years of aggression by foreign states which have funded and promoted a proxy army of fanatics and mercenaries from around the world.

    As the former Nicaraguan Foreign Minister and President of the UN General Assembly, Father Miguel D'Escoto, has said: " What the U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which, according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State can commit against another State."

    RELATED: Syria Wants Turkey 'Invasion Forces' Out, US, Russia Cooperate

    There has been a sustained attempt to derail Trump's campaign pledge to stop the US "regime change" policy. This has been accompanied by a semi-hysterical demonization of Syria's ally Russia. Liberals have been willing accomplices in this campaign which serves the interests of the U.S. military-security complex, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    It looks like the foreign policy hawks and neocons have succeeded. Yesterday's attacks on Syria mark an escalation in the war of aggression and violation of international law against Syria. This could lead to WW3 unless there is sufficient outcry and opposition.

    Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He lives in the SF Bay Area and can be contacted at [email protected]

    [Apr 13, 2017] Simply no incentive for the SAF to launch a chemical weapons attack.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is throwing the haters a bone to gnaw on while he completes the rest of his agenda. Then he'll get back to the likely fake news of chemical weapons use and debunk it. ..."
    "... Fake news. Fake. news. You think this was fake news? Not only that, but you think it was fake news and that the only person able to determine reality is Donald Trump? Good lord. ..."
    "... It is not an accident that chemical poisoning happened a day after Trump decided not to remove Assad. Rebel-terrorists supported by the West want Assad removed, they arranged that chemical spill ... and not for the first time. ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
    Rob Saunders , 6d ago

    This article alludes to the "merits of western intervention in Syria". It is therefore nonsensical.

    green_forest -> Rob Saunders , 6d ago

    Yip. Simply no incentive for the SAF to launch a chemical weapons attack.

    Robert Fisk's most recent article on the pummeling of Nusra and ISIS is here:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-deir-hafer-syria-army-soldiers-town-village-death-muder-islamic-state-daesh-murder-killing-army-a7660481.html

    Els Bells , 6 Apr 2017 14:20

    Trump is throwing the haters a bone to gnaw on while he completes the rest of his agenda. Then he'll get back to the likely fake news of chemical weapons use and debunk it.
    petesire Els Bells , 6 Apr 2017 15:03
    Fake news. Fake. news. You think this was fake news? Not only that, but you think it was fake news and that the only person able to determine reality is Donald Trump? Good lord.
    DillyDit2 petesire , 6 Apr 2017 15:29
    I know, right? Check out comments on any Brietbart news story, though, and you'll how typical of a select minority of Americans that kind of thinking represents (suggest you wear earphones to block out the cacophony of thousands of bleeting sheep).
    fanUS , 6 Apr 2017 14:20
    It is not an accident that chemical poisoning happened a day after Trump decided not to remove Assad. Rebel-terrorists supported by the West want Assad removed, they arranged that chemical spill ... and not for the first time.

    [Apr 13, 2017] Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the US?

    Apr 13, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com
    johnbonn , 2h ago Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.

    ... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.

    .... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war commander.

    ...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.

    ......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the US?

    BlueCollar , 2h ago

    Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not another family owned enterprises called UAE.

    Pier16 , 12 Apr 2017 15:58

    The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia. The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want." These are the same people who elected Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.
    freeandfair , 12 Apr 2017 15:53
    > Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.

    Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change?
    And Syria is not the only country were this happened.
    Will there ever any responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?

    First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the pieces.

    Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves have some responsibility as well?

    Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 15:35
    The choice as I see it is this:

    A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.

    B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they do go out in public.

    It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.

    [Apr 13, 2017] Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern debunks the alleged Syria 'Chemical Attack'

    Apr 09, 2017 | gosint.wordpress.com
    Posted on April 9, 2017 by L

    "A source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA's belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier - and thus Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision."

    Robert Parry – Consortium News

    Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern

    Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern explains what he has learned from his sources about how the Syrian "chemical attack" actually went down. Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY

    The Facts

    On 4 April 2017, the town of Khan Shaykhun in the Idlib Governorate of Syria, was struck by a heavy airstrike followed by massive civilian chemical poisoning.

    At the time of the attack the town was under the control of Tahrir al-Sham,formerly known as the al-Nusra Front.

    The President of the United States, Donald Trump, as well as the UK Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, blamed the attack on the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad, while the Russian and Syrian governments said it was caused by the Syrian Air Force's destruction of a nearby rebel-operated chemical weapons warehouse.

    In response, the United States launched 59 cruise missiles at Shayrat Air Base, which U.S. Intelligence believed was the source of the attack.

    Ray McGovern

    According to the former CIA Analyst:

    "Syrian aircraft 'knew' there was a weapons cache in this particular rebel-held area. That was correct, and the Syrian aircraft bombed it.

    What seems not to have been known was the existence nearby of a large storage facility for chemicals. That too was damaged, releasing a cloud of chemicals that the wind blew south and poisoned those villagers."

    The most likely scenario

    As I reported recently, here is what most likely happened:

    The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.

    The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons and explosives depot for Islamic rebels.

    The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.

    There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.

    We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you.

    RELATED POST: Former DIA Colonel: "US strikes on Syria based on a lie"

    Where is CIA Director Mike Pompeo?

    As President Trump was launching his missile strike against Syria, CIA Director Pompeo and other intelligence officials were nowhere in sight.

    Back row from left: Deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, senior adviser Jared Kushner, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Sean Spicer, President Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, chief strategist Steve Bannon, senior adviser Stephen Miller, national security official Michael Anton. Front from left: Chief of staff Reince Priebus, national security adviser HR McMaster, chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, deputy national security adviser Dina Powell.

    According to Spicer's tweet, the people present are looking at a screen showing Vice-President Mike Pence, Defence Secretary James Mattis and Joseph Dunford, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Robert Parry - from Consortium News - reports the following:

    "Before the photo was released on Friday (April 7 2017), a source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA's belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier - and thus Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision."

    "You don't see Pompeo or Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats or any other intelligence official. Even The New York Times noted the oddity in its Saturday editions, writing: "If there were CIA and other intelligence briefers around, they are not in the picture." [Robert Parry – Consortium News]

    RELATED POST: CIA Director Mike Pompeo - Who Is Who in World Intelligence and Security Agencies?

    ABOUT Ray McGovern

    Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst from the administration of John Kennedy to that of George H.W. Bush, and prepared the President's Daily Brief for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

    RELATED POST: Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern: "Michael Morell's Comments are Reckless and Vapid"

    Interview

    REFERENCES

    Khan Shaykhun chemical attack - Wikipedia

    Decoding the Trump 'war room' photograph - BBC News

    Where Was CIA's Pompeo on Syria? - Consortium News

    =

    Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern debunks the alleged Syria 'Chemical Attack'

    [Apr 13, 2017] Former DIA Colonel: "US strikes on Syria based on a lie"

    Apr 07, 2017 | gosint.wordpress.com
    Posted on April 7, 2017 by L

    "In the coming days the American people will learn that the [US]Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib."

    Patrick Lang - a former DIA Colonel - does not mince words about the US attacks on Syria. Lang claims that Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY

    Patrick Lang is truly a top expert on the Middle-East. The former DIA Colonel is highly respected for his deep knowledge and absolute honesty.

    [NOTE: Many years ago, Lang helped me to understand a very 'murky' dossier regarding Libya. I trust his analysis 100%. Last week - knowing full well that 'the shit was going to hit the fan' - I asked him permission to reproduce his posts on my blog. Colonel Lang kindly agreed.]

    RELATED POST: Veteran Intelligence Professionals: "Trump Should Rethink Syria Escalation"

    RELATED POST: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: "The Syrian chemical attack story is a hoax."

    RELATED POST: Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern debunks the alleged Syria 'Chemical Attack'

    ANALYSIS by retired Col. Patrick LANG

    Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened.

    1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
    2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
    3. The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.
    4. There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.
    5. We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through "Live Agent" training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

    There are members of the U.S. military who were aware this strike would occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the Defense Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon attack. In fact, Syrian military chemical weapons were destroyed with the help of Russia.

    This is Gulf of Tonkin 2. How ironic. Donald Trump correctly castigated George W. Bush for launching an unprovoked, unjustified attack on Iraq in 2003. Now we have President Donald Trump doing the same damn thing. Worse in fact. Because the intelligence community had information showing that there was no chemical weapon launched by the Syrian Air Force.

    Here's the good news. The Russians and Syrians were informed, or at least were aware, that the attack was coming. They were able to remove a large number of their assets. The base the United States hit was something of a backwater. Donald Trump gets to pretend that he is a tough guy. He is not. He is a fool.

    This attack was violation of international law. Donald Trump authorized an unjustified attack on a sovereign country. What is even more disturbing is that people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and NSA Director General McMaster went along with this charade. Front line troops know the truth. These facts will eventually come out. Donald Trump will most likely not finish his term as President. He will be impeached, I believe, once Congress is presented with irrefutable proof that he ignored and rejected intelligence that did not support the myth that Syria attacked with chemical weapons.

    It should also alarm American taxpayers that we launched $100 million dollars of missiles to blow up sand and camel shit. The Russians were aware that a strike was coming. I'm hoping that they and the Syrians withdrew their forces and aircraft from the base. Whatever hope I had that Donald Trump would be a new kind of President, that hope is extinguished. He is a child and a moron. He committed an act of war without justification. But the fault is not his alone. Those who sit atop the NSC, the DOD, the CIA, the Department of State should have resigned in protest. They did not. They are complicit in a war crime.

    About Patrick Lang

    Walter Patrick "Pat" Lang, Jr. (born May 31, 1940) is a commentator on the Middle East, a retired US Army officer and private intelligence analyst, and an author. After leaving uniformed military service as a Colonel, he held high-level posts in military intelligence as a civilian. He led intelligence analysis of the Middle East and South Asia for the Defense Department and world-wide HUMINT activities in a high-level equivalent to the rank of a lieutenant general. [ WIKIPEDIA ]

    REFERENCES

    Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker by Publius Tacitus - P. Lang FaceBook Page

    =

    Former DIA Colonel: "US strikes on Syria based on a lie"

    [Apr 13, 2017] The problem with handing an ultimatum, is what will the US do when Russia rejects and ignores the ultimatum? More harsh words? More name calling? More sanctions. I think Russia is prepared for any eventuality.

    The problem for Russia is that Trump secured China neutrality in voting in Security council beforehand.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The individual sources may each have to be taken with a grain of salt, but a number of different outlets, including Robert Parry, seem to collaborate each other. Namely, U. S. intelligence analysts knew that Russia's account of the matter was accurate, and that it was also a false flag. ..."
    "... I was confused by the fact that Syria and Russia are sticking to their statement that it was a conventional Syrian airstrike on a rebel warehouse, which, unknown to the SAA or the Russians, contained chemical substances. It didn't seemed to mesh with the numerous and obvious signs of the entire incident being a prearranged false flag. The Saker, too, in his analysis, felt that this version of the events would require one to "believe in coincidence". However, it doesn't have to be coincidence at all, considering what one source claims: ..."
    "... There US and its coalition of lap dogs were supposedly fighting ISIL/Daesh but missed the massive convoys of oil to Turkey that propped them up. ..."
    "... In short, the US is exceptional and no-one is going to succeed bringing it the International Criminal Court because it is not a member and no-one would dare (not even those fearsome fighters for humanitarian law, the Spanish – sic, how are you dealing with Franco's widespread crimes?). The US will continue to ignore anything it doesn't like, but for everyone else particularly in Europe, nope. Even the Brits would be a lot more cautious. ..."
    "... Even if it were true – so what? The United States has intervened any number of times to keep leaders in power in various countries, against the demonstrated will of their populations, so long as it suited American interests. My favourite example is Hosni Mubarak; the Egyptian people loved him so much that they tried to assassinate him six times to show their adoration. ..."
    "... The group which benefited most immediately and strongly was the Muslim Brotherhood, and look what a peaceful and prosperous western-leaning market democracy Egypt is now . ..."
    "... I don't buy for a minute that Russia's primary motive is to keep Assad in power – my take is that Russia's focus is on stopping the United States from carrying out another of its regime-change colour revolutions. It so happens that keeping Assad in power accomplishes that endeavour, and he remains the choice of the majority in Syria. That's where Russian 'intervention' and American meddling differ – Washington does not care if the leader it wants is popular with the people or not. ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 4:52 am

    Neuters: Putin says trust erodes under Trump, Moscow icily receives Tillerson
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-russia-idUKKBN17E1AD?il=0

    Just as Tillerson sat down for talks, a senior Russian official assailed the "primitiveness and loutishness" of U.S. rhetoric, part of a volley of statements that appeared timed to maximize the awkwardness during the first visit by a member of Trump's cabinet.

    "One could say that the level of trust on a working level, especially on the military level, has not improved but has rather deteriorated," Putin said in an interview broadcast on Russian television moments after Tillerson sat down with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in an ornate hall .

    Moments earlier, Lavrov greeted Tillerson with unusually icy remarks, denouncing the missile strike on Syria as illegal and accusing Washington of behaving unpredictably.

    "I won't hide the fact that we have a lot of questions, taking into account the extremely ambiguous and sometimes contradictory ideas which have been expressed in Washington across the whole spectrum of bilateral and multilateral affairs," Lavrov said.

    "And of course, that's not to mention that apart from the statements, we observed very recently the extremely worrying actions, when an illegal attack against Syria was undertaken."

    Lavrov also noted that many key State Department posts remain vacant since the new administration took office - a point of sensitivity in Washington.

    One of Lavrov's deputies was even more undiplomatic.

    "In general, primitiveness and loutishness are very characteristic of the current rhetoric coming out of Washington. We'll hope that this doesn't become the substance of American policy," Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told Russia's state-owned RIA news agency.

    "As a whole, the administration's stance with regards to Syria remains a mystery. Inconsistency is what comes to mind first of all."
    ####

    I don't see the point of Trump firing TLAMS only to play nicey-nicey with Moscow in public. So in short, are the public and private messages the same? As for Russia, their message should be clear (and it is) " No more 'fun' or WE are done ". The only role the West can play is that of a spoiler , particularly in Syria. They have absolutely nothing to gain even if their tame media claims they do. Everyone should keep their pants on and not be rude – including you NS!

    marknesop , April 12, 2017 at 6:06 pm
    Trump seems to have reasoned that all he had to do was release the dreaded American cruise missiles and Putin would roll over submissively and expose his belly. He has a hell of a lot to learn about foreign policy, and I don't think he's going to have the time to learn it.
    Moscow Exile , April 12, 2017 at 6:12 am
    Her impudence pales into insignificance when compared with that of Tillerson, who has flown to Russia in order to issue an ultimatum to the Russians on their own territory.

    When he finished his speech, Lavrov politely said in English to the impolite United States journalist : "You may shout now".

    It was reported in Russian that he said to her: "Теперь можете кричать, если хотите", which literally translates as "Now you can shout if you want to", which in English sounds less polite (it does to me, anyway) than what he actually said politely but with irony, in that he politely invited someone to continue to act in an uncultured fashion.

    I am pretty sure Mr. Lavrov is aware of the adage that Americans "don't do irony".

    Warren , April 12, 2017 at 2:29 pm
    The problem with handing an ultimatum, is what will the US do when Russia rejects and ignores the ultimatum? More harsh words? More name calling? More sanctions. I think Russia is prepared for any eventuality.

    As regards the impudent US hack that was shouting; I think she is your typical loud, ignorant and obnoxious US hack.

    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 6:46 am
    The Daily Caller: Pentagon Casts Doubt On AP Report Claiming Russia Knew About Syrian Chemical Attack
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/10/dod-discredits-associated-press-report-claiming-russia-knew-about-syrian-chemical-attack-in-advance/

    A Department of Defense spokesman discounted an Associated Press report that claimed Russia knew in advance about the chemical weapons attack in Syria last week that left more than 80 people dead.

    "I've seen nothing that corroborates this definitive statement," Major Jamie Davis told the Daily Caller in a statement Monday. "We continue to review the available intelligence surrounding this incident."

    Though Davis noted that the DOD is continuing to assess the details of the situation, he noted they have found nothing so far that could verify the AP story .

    A senior administration official in the White House also cast doubt on the AP report.
    ####

    So unlike the anonymous intelligence source that did not have ' authorization to speak to the media ' quoted by AP, here we have an official sources calling BS. Does that make the AP piece Fake News or 'in the interests of the American public'? F/tards.

    I think it is fairly clear that sensationalist leaking is part of the strategy balanced by later rowing back or dismissing, knowing that the Pork Pie News Networks cannot resist it. It's a balance of sorts that is aimed to keep the PPNN and others off-balance. Again, these are just words, not actions. We also see the same method over the earlier reports that a USN CVBG was steaming towards North Korea, now we are being told that it is not and is just in the general area. It's a pattern:

    Antiwar.com: Mattis: Navy Strike Group Not Headed to North Korea for Any Reason
    http://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/11/mattis-navy-strike-group-not-headed-to-north-korea-for-any-reason/
    ####

    How long it will take the PPNN to cotton on is anybody's guess, but it don't see how this strategy can work in the medium to long term.

    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 6:48 am
    Antiwar.com: Mattis: US-Russia Tensions Won't Spiral Out of Control
    http://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/11/mattis-us-russia-tensions-wont-spiral-out-of-control/

    Secretary of Defense James Mattis sought to downplay the situation, however, saying that he was certain the situation "will not spiral out of control,"* a belief he appeared to rest on the idea that Russia wouldn't dare retaliate against further US attacks against Syria, as they have threatened to.

    "I'm confident the Russians will act in their own best interests," Mattis insisted. Yet he also threatened further US strikes on Syria, and Russia has made clear in recent days that they would respond with force to any additional such US strikes .

    * http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-mattis-idUSKBN17D2L1

    marknesop , April 12, 2017 at 7:02 pm
    Yes, the USA is so firmly in control of global events. I totally believe him.
    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 6:53 am
    Antiwar.com: US Officials Can't Explain Reason for Syria 'Chemical Attack'
    http://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/11/us-officials-cant-explain-reason-for-syria-chemical-attack/

    Administration officials are trying to manufacture one, with an unnamed "senior official" today delivering a briefing* to the media claiming that the Syrian military was afraid of a rebel offensive in the Hama Province, and launched the attack against the rebels' rear support areas for operational purposes

    On top of this, the US narrative's initial premise is faulty, as the Hama offensive had already ground to a halt two weeks prior to the putative Syrian attack, and Syrian forces appeared well on their way to recovering lost territory from the rebels
    ####

    I'm surprise they even bothered with a new narrative. The PPNN had it already well covered with their numerous conspiracy theories so the Administration has only unnecessarily muddied the waters here.

    Chinese American , April 12, 2017 at 6:53 am
    Interesting collection of reports on what happened with the chemical weapons attack on April 4, including Robert Perry, citing sources within U. S. intelligence and military:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-11/intelligence-and-military-sources-who-warned-about-wmd-lies-iraq-war-now-say-assad-d

    The individual sources may each have to be taken with a grain of salt, but a number of different outlets, including Robert Parry, seem to collaborate each other. Namely, U. S. intelligence analysts knew that Russia's account of the matter was accurate, and that it was also a false flag.

    I was confused by the fact that Syria and Russia are sticking to their statement that it was a conventional Syrian airstrike on a rebel warehouse, which, unknown to the SAA or the Russians, contained chemical substances. It didn't seemed to mesh with the numerous and obvious signs of the entire incident being a prearranged false flag. The Saker, too, in his analysis, felt that this version of the events would require one to "believe in coincidence". However, it doesn't have to be coincidence at all, considering what one source claims:

    1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.

    2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.

    The dedicated phone line would have been part of the deconfliction agreement between Russia and the U. S., started soon after the Russian began military intervention in fall 2015. If it is true that the U. S. knew about the planned target long ahead of time, then the fact that McCain took a secret trip to Syria recently becomes even more sinister.

    Whatever chemicals (not sarin) were used were planted at the warehouse, or simply released nearby at the time of the airstrike. As for the photos and videos from the White Helmets, etc., those were probably produced ahead of time, on a Saudi or Qatari or Turkish production stage, for all we know.

    This theory would give another dimension to the fact that Russia suspended the deconfliction agreement immediately after the Tomahawk attack.

    Fern , April 12, 2017 at 7:39 am
    This is what I'm inclined to think – that some element(s) within the Trump Administration ensured those charming basket-weaving, flowers-in-the-hair-wearing, kumbaya-singing 'moderate' rebells knew an air-strike was planned and left it to them to arrange the chemical exposure.
    Cortes , April 12, 2017 at 4:47 pm
    Thierry Meyssan apparently agrees:

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article195904.html

    kirill , April 12, 2017 at 8:07 pm
    Exactly. There US and its coalition of lap dogs were supposedly fighting ISIL/Daesh but missed the massive convoys of oil to Turkey that propped them up.

    In fact, the US was bombing to disrupt SAA operations and really protecting ISIL. I do not know why Russia agreed to share any such operational details. This looks like an epic fail by Russia. They just needed real time coordination to prevent collisions in the air.

    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 7:00 am
    Deutscher's Willy: US missile strike on Syria 'a violation of international law'
    http://www.dw.com/en/us-missile-strike-on-syria-a-violation-of-international-law/a-38389950

    The US has called its attack on an airbase in Syria "a strong signal" for the Assad regime. Legal experts, however, criticized the action. In an interview with DW, international law expert Stefan Talmon explains why.
    ####

    More at the link.

    In short, the US is exceptional and no-one is going to succeed bringing it the International Criminal Court because it is not a member and no-one would dare (not even those fearsome fighters for humanitarian law, the Spanish – sic, how are you dealing with Franco's widespread crimes?). The US will continue to ignore anything it doesn't like, but for everyone else particularly in Europe, nope. Even the Brits would be a lot more cautious.

    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 7:05 am
    Neuters: U.S. asks G7 ministers why it should care about Ukraine conflict
    http://www.reuters.com/article/g7-foreign-ukraine-idUSKBN17D1P6

    U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asked his European counterparts on Tuesday why American voters should care about the conflict in Ukraine, France's foreign minister said .

    French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said Tillerson had openly questioned why "American taxpayers" should be concerned about Ukraine, which has been racked by a separatist conflict for the last three years
    ####

    Another PR stunt designed for domestic consumption.

    marknesop , April 12, 2017 at 7:19 pm
    If God had any sort of a sense of humour at all, G7 leaders would break out in painful boils every time one of them used the phrase 'rules-based international order' in a manner which implied the G7 nations give a flying fuck about obeying international rules which do not permit them to act as they please.
    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 10:19 am
    I just made the mistake of watching 'BBC World News'. There was a report by their Moscow Correspondent Steve Rosenberg who said "Russia intervened in Syria to keep Assad in power". No nuance, no other details such as I-rack, Libya etc. descending into chaos and spreading terrorists, weapons & refugees in to Europe, let alone Chechen and other terrorists who would head back to Russia fully trained or that the IS/ISIS/ISIL/DAESH was allowed to grow on the West watch and Russia intervened long after Syria descended in to hell.

    That the BBC continues to employ a tabloid correspondent like Rosenberg all these years shows how seriously they take their reporting of Russia. Very poorly, very poorly indeed. He's the Luke Harding of the broadcasting news. A f/kwit. And f/k the BBC too.

    marknesop , April 12, 2017 at 7:30 pm
    Even if it were true – so what? The United States has intervened any number of times to keep leaders in power in various countries, against the demonstrated will of their populations, so long as it suited American interests. My favourite example is Hosni Mubarak; the Egyptian people loved him so much that they tried to assassinate him six times to show their adoration.

    Yet the USA propped him up over and over, and no attempts to unseat him enjoyed any kind of success until Washington decided he was no longer useful. Then suddenly the winds of (regime) change began to blow, and *poof*, we had the 'Arab Spring', and all American politicians of whatever stripe suddenly became conscious that the dictator they had propped up for 30 years 'must step down'.

    The group which benefited most immediately and strongly was the Muslim Brotherhood, and look what a peaceful and prosperous western-leaning market democracy Egypt is now .

    I don't buy for a minute that Russia's primary motive is to keep Assad in power – my take is that Russia's focus is on stopping the United States from carrying out another of its regime-change colour revolutions. It so happens that keeping Assad in power accomplishes that endeavour, and he remains the choice of the majority in Syria. That's where Russian 'intervention' and American meddling differ – Washington does not care if the leader it wants is popular with the people or not.

    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 11:34 am
    Vladimir Safronkov rips Matthew Rycroft at the UNSC

    Warren , April 12, 2017 at 2:23 pm
    Hilarious, the Russian Deputy Ambassador doesn't mince words! I look forward to hearing more from him.
    Northern Star , April 12, 2017 at 4:47 pm
    War Crimes and Remembrance

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

    [Apr 12, 2017] Outraged Ivanka influenced Donald Trumps decision to strike Syria, Eric Trump says

    Apr 12, 2017 | watoday.com.au

    He also confirmed that President Trump's decision to bomb a Syrian airbase to punish President Bashar al-Assad for a nerve gas attack last week was influenced by the reaction of his sister Ivanka, who said she was "heartbroken and outraged" by the atrocity.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Regime change in Syria? That would be a mistake by Prof Michael John Williams

    Notable quotes:
    "... The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government. ..."
    "... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
    "... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
    "... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
    "... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
    "... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
    "... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
    "... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
    "... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
    "... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
    "... Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries. ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government.

    Soon, the new regime is considered a "puppet" and its existence is questioned by the people. Interestingly, the Middle East has proven particularly resistant to durable regime change and democratization, further making the success of any US-led intervention doubtful.

    The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do. The US experienced the downside of this during the ill-conceived war in Vietnam. During the Soviet-led war in Afghanistan, the US played the spoiler of Soviet efforts, funnelling money and weapons to the anti-Soviet mujahideen, turning the USSR's intervention into a protracted, bloody war.

    Prof Michael John Williams is Director of the International Relations Program at New York University.

    ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 17:57
    Those interested in how the MSM fell in love with terrorists in Syria should go back and check out Charlie Skelton's illuminating piece from The Guardian 2012 .
    Ciarαn Here , 12 Apr 2017 17:48
    The Gulf of Tonkin, WMD in Iraq...
    Ciarαn Here , 12 Apr 2017 17:46
    Did the USA bomb war planes that they said had been used to carry chemical weapons - a chemical attack!
    Robert Rudolph , 12 Apr 2017 17:40
    Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove their liberality, they allowed Pistoia to be destroyed."

    ... ... ..

    1Cedar , 12 Apr 2017 17:39
    In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.

    That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack before yet again demanding regime change.

    Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies.

    unsouthbank , 12 Apr 2017 17:32
    I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.

    Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on.

    If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher.

    Ruthie Riegler , 12 Apr 2017 17:21
    ...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes on the regime airbase carrying a sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
    NezPerce macmarco , 12 Apr 2017 17:37

    There are two possible regimes, the Assad fascists, or the rebel jihadist

    The Syrian government is Baathist, it was elected.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_–_Syria_Region

    http://www.france24.com/en/20160417-syria-bashar-assad-baath-party-wins-majority-parliamentary-vote

    Latest update : 2016-04-17

    Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections last week across government-held parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced late Saturday.

    Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-falls-to-syrian-regime-bashar-al-assad-rebels-uk-government-more-than-one-story-robert-fisk-a7471576.html

    And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates in the Gulf – have been supporting.

    They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the "folk" – as George W Bush called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember the War on Terror? Remember the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in the UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?

    jimbo2000M , 12 Apr 2017 16:55
    Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay.
    unsouthbank , 12 Apr 2017 16:40
    I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader, struggling to maintain the unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to be the psychopathic monster that he is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical attack in Idlib province.

    Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on every airstrike made by their aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile. Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this chemical attack would end up being a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low or medium ranking Syrian airforce officer.

    Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival, and as such, has blood on his hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied the numerous rebel groups with billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.

    Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit mass indiscriminate murder on a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical statements about Syria.

    martinusher , 12 Apr 2017 16:35
    Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're democracy might not be our democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other). Syria until we started messing with it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing with its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries in the area. (Our actions might suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)

    Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the world we should probably adopt a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence people.

    KhalijFars , 12 Apr 2017 16:07
    Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.

    Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces.

    Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.

    The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people. Syria was a paradise before the British and US did their usual work. The journalists, government and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure will not escape the consequences of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria. These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.

    TomasStedron KhalijFars , 12 Apr 2017 16:27
    Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any opposition to their rule. In 1982 Assad΄s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations who have their headquarters in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different ways......
    MacMeow KhalijFars , 12 Apr 2017 17:30

    Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria

    Link please. Because without evidence the rest of your post collapses.

    KhalijFars MacMeow , 12 Apr 2017 17:50
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

    The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.

    His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

    Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

    Jermaine Charles , 12 Apr 2017 16:02
    More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace Assad and in Syria he remains very popular, despite the western media like lies!
    johnbonn , 12 Apr 2017 16:00
    Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.

    ... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.

    .... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war commander.

    ...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.

    ......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?

    BlueCollar , 12 Apr 2017 15:59
    Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not another family owned enterprises called UAE.
    stratplaya , 12 Apr 2017 15:58
    History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain and Iraq, but didn't. We would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.

    The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central authoritarian leader. No matter if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.

    Pier16 , 12 Apr 2017 15:58
    The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia. The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."

    These are the same people who elected Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.

    freeandfair , 12 Apr 2017 15:53
    > Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.

    Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?

    First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the pieces.

    Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves have some responsibility as well?

    GlozzerBoy1 , 12 Apr 2017 15:40
    Absolutely, stay the hell out, we should have no footprint in that awful part of the world.
    Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 15:35
    The choice as I see it is this:

    A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.

    B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they do go out in public.

    It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.

    Weefox Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 15:43
    Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian Christians who are terrified of what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
    Tom1982 Weefox , 12 Apr 2017 15:46
    I'd imagine the Shia feel the same.
    freeandfair Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 16:06
    Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection of Islam. Basically Choice B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
    oddballs , 12 Apr 2017 15:35
    Assad would stand a good chance of winning a fair and honest election,

    Still waiting for evidence by forensic experts over the chemical weapons , who did what and where.

    Until proof is given hat prove otherwise the rebels are the most likly suspects. --> normankirk , 12 Apr 2017 15:35

    SHA2014 , 12 Apr 2017 14:24
    The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions and possible extinction of life on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be laughing in his grave.
    aleph SHA2014 , 12 Apr 2017 14:45
    1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably because no-one would seriously believe them.

    2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers. Let alone imply they somehow deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.

    Fort Sumpter aleph , 12 Apr 2017 14:54
    If you have the evidence of a nerve gas agent being present please supply it forthwith.

    I keep asking you guys, who must be on the ground in Idlib such is your certainty, to provide the proof but you always refuse. Why is that?

    SHA2014 aleph , 12 Apr 2017 14:56
    An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by a terrorist organisation. The children were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers' so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those who produced the report on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course a crime, but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.

    An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including children in Mosul and by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.

    SHA2014 , 12 Apr 2017 14:13
    Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran and in Ukraine. Attempted regime change has also been used often in South America to oust populist rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis raises the very good point that change has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all of the death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start from. The point that is to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all of those against the Syrian government in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily with terrorists making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
    Imperialist , 12 Apr 2017 14:07
    America should not be the one who decides who is an acceptable government, and sends soldiers to enforce its will.

    The UN should have done that long ago. To Assad. To Kim. Stopped the Khmer Rouge. Or Rwanda.

    Yet the only time they ever have actually fought is in the Korean War.

    Fort Sumpter Imperialist , 12 Apr 2017 14:55
    *cough* The US supported the Khmer Rouge *cough*
    Mauryan , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world order drive. The fact that they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically elected governments tells clearly that imposing democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources and gaining ground for business opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
    diddoit Mauryan , 12 Apr 2017 13:58
    It's all about what's best for the US and the incredibly powerful(in the US) Israel lobby. The UK just goes along with it.
    NezPerce , 12 Apr 2017 13:52
    The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving democrats. We have ample evidence that they are infinitely worse than Assad.

    We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another regime change in the middle east and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag gas attacks. This article goes into detail.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-08/false-flag-how-us-armed-syrian-rebels-set-excuse-attack-assad

    False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad

    Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.

    The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria but a hugely powerful Deep State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.

    Nat-Nat aka Kyl Shinra , 12 Apr 2017 13:50
    "Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "

    well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a lot of the refugees you're talking about may very well be pro-Assad.

    This said, I agree, leave Assad and Syria alone.

    Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:48
    Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible leader but atleast with him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every oil producing country in the Middle East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq. Both Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the lives of thousands and displaced millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia against the real enemy - ISIS.
    diddoit Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance , not democracy. A good(brutal) dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader , look at events in Egypt for example.

    Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.

    dusktildawn Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More like defending them against the threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
    diddoit Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    call themselves. -typo
    dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:47
    The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat of Isis.

    While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps impossible given Russias backing, the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam Hussein and even his father, from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.

    Mauryan dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:52
    Partition would create more Assads.
    Jemima15 , 12 Apr 2017 13:46
    If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth do you enforce any sort of civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist organizations the world has ever known. With organizations like ISIS around, a government is gong to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community service and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
    DanielDee , 12 Apr 2017 13:46
    Regime change? Why not?

    Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi would make a fine statesman!

    Pipcosta DanielDee , 12 Apr 2017 14:03
    Until he turns on his mater
    IamDolf , 12 Apr 2017 13:45
    Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those who have no problem with a woman going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be worse. As in the case of the butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an attempt to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
    diddoit IamDolf , 12 Apr 2017 13:49
    Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone believe whoever follows Assad be it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so tolerant?
    Patin , 12 Apr 2017 13:43
    Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about time that they are compelled to comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority vote?

    Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against humanity. Syrians should be entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.

    The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to secure Syria's future. It should require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance should be met with expulsion and the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.

    freeandfair Patin , 12 Apr 2017 16:19
    > Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity?

    You should start with American leaders like Bush. If you are serious about this.

    roachclip , 12 Apr 2017 13:42

    There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western governments can do is provide aid and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.

    You are absolutely right.

    Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser extent, France, are in fact the same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.

    Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change against the Middle Eastern leaders who were threatening their control of the oil market.

    This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the Middle East for nigh on a century. Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's. That also was to achieve regime change.

    All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door of the 'Western Powers' and their willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.

    Taku2 , 12 Apr 2017 13:35
    One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into abandoning the Syrian Government, so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising they have been towards the Russians and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards the Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians, and ignoring the Syrian government.

    Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate, as it does with the global economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted to making merciless and unjustified attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.

    It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make Russia out to be 'the bad guy', the 'devil', as it were.

    As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming Russia and demonising the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home, to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia. There you will find more demons disguised as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.

    The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.

    Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic prevented this cartel from exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven? The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to the right.

    Arapas Taku2 , 12 Apr 2017 13:42

    so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal

    Your point is of great importance.

    Now that Russia has done the dirty work at great cost, pushing them out of the way.........................

    That will not happen, Rex was told by Sergei.

    Arapas , 12 Apr 2017 13:34
    robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.

    Is meant to be the joke of the month.

    What did they ever fix ? Just look what the Korean war has lead to.

    Vietnam, where the Americans were defeated, is now a united and peaceful country.

    On the other hand, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other regime change candidates have been reduced to failed states.

    In Syria, the fate of the Alwites will be the same of that of women and children cowering in St Sophia in 1453.

    Utter slaughter!

    ganaruvian , 12 Apr 2017 13:32
    Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian version of events about the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it is known that the bigger terrorist organisations such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed commentators have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/ Alawite/Christian/ Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's Shiites, fighting for their very survival against Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the face of the earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for bombing civilians, whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same reasons. The rebels take over and then surround themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western public opinion against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now behaving in exactly this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not even Syrians. It was always a war that the west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers in that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's why Boris is so engaged?
    Nolens , 12 Apr 2017 13:20
    Assad is the lesser of two evils. Those who are hailed as rebels pose an enormous threat to our security.
    jonnyross Nolens , 12 Apr 2017 13:44
    There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia allies have slaughtered the vast majority of the victims.

    Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime is anyone's guess.

    Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.

    john evans , 12 Apr 2017 13:20
    Syria is finished.

    According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358 and 470,000.

    On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.

    Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January 2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684 registered refugees.

    Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.

    Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.

    No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.

    Arapas john evans , 12 Apr 2017 13:37

    No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.

    It can --

    Look at Chechnya! A newly rebuilt Grosny, living in peace.

    Bearing in mind Iraq, Libya etc who wants to see that --

    NativeBornTexan Arapas , 12 Apr 2017 14:08
    Chechnya is ruled by a Russian puppet dictator who executes gay men.
    Shad O NativeBornTexan , 12 Apr 2017 15:13
    That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet local petty king in the area keeps it stable and does not a politically costly military operation, everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".

    It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different in goals. If the goal of regime change is achieved and political points collected, everything else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately islamist", "democratic" rebels may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties, but it's all for the greater good.

    Pipcosta , 12 Apr 2017 13:18
    Why do we send a sewer rat to the UN as our ambassador
    brianboru1014 , 12 Apr 2017 13:14
    Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries affairs, the end product is a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
    Ruby4 , 12 Apr 2017 13:13
    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

    Albert Einstein

    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

    Chilcot report: Findings at-a-glance:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36721645

    FFC800 , 12 Apr 2017 13:08
    This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change for once, but it still falls short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct in the peace.

    He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged.

    Most of that was done by rebels.
    jackrousseau , 12 Apr 2017 13:03
    I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and universal truth. History doesn't rhyme at all; it parodies.

    The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion. All the way down to allegations of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job", and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler". All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy grail, "yellowcake uranium".

    Of course, 6 months ago --with full knowledge of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds--Trump said toppling Hussein was a "uge" mistake and defended him as an "efficient killer of terrorists". "Efficient" indeed... https://cnn.com/cnn/2016/07/05/politics/donald-trump-saddam-hussein-iraq-terrorism/index.html

    I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage for a hilarious parody of WWII).

    Who knows...I guess at least it's interesting.

    John Smythe , 12 Apr 2017 13:03
    Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is the political position of the conservative government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia. So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government in what they want, not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.

    There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more right wing America.

    bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 13:00
    I find the commments on here quite confusing...

    Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want to oust a tyrannical and unelected leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups of at least).

    Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?

    The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.

    Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels (freedom fighters) I'm quite sure public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.

    So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on a pedestal of righteousness as Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....

    Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.

    dusktildawn bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 13:34
    I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to view their actions after Iraq and give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to mention the incredible numbers of dead and wounded.

    And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge ignoring even the possibility of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country indefinitely putting a lid on refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.

    bemusedfromdevon dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 14:11
    My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists commenting on here as he is clearly seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...

    I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in their droves due to gas, bombs or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large number of comments on here in relation to this article and how Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'

    I'm embarrassed to be honest....

    Shad O bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 15:25

    Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with

    what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over the last remnants of the FSA. Since then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat acceptable.

    In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed several other "rebel" group, including the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper) as "opposition" during the recapture of Aleppo.

    Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something all the local powers agree on (Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an independent Kurdish state.

    NezPerce , 12 Apr 2017 12:58

    President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult decision that was in many ways the right on.

    Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the UK public from right to left. David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose the US war machine, it took them all by surprise.

    Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.

    The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you hear it from them they are anti-war. The American working class understands what war is like in the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are clearly anti another war in the middle east. proof:

    https://www.infowars.com/exclusive-michael-savage-begs-trump-to-stop-wwiii/

    In this off the cuff interview Michael Savage begs Donald Trump to not plunge the world into another world war that could destroy life as we know it

    .

    Trump has been subjugated by the deep state, his base is outraged and in despair.

    dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 12:58
    You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting and massacring civilians. And surely the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as well.
    Mates Braas dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 15:05
    You can start proceedings against your own war criminals. There is a long list of them, stretching from, Paris, London, Washington and Tel Aviv.
    freeandfair dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 16:41
    In that case North Korea and Saudi Arabia should be on top of the list.
    Trekkie555 , 12 Apr 2017 12:57
    Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab countries must come together to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
    Nolens , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    diddoit , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham Palace with the Queen(google it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google it).

    But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah, thus his fate was sealed.

    zolotoy diddoit , 12 Apr 2017 12:59
    Nope, wrong. Assad wouldn't give the USA, Qatar, and Turkey a nice pipeline to kneecap Russian natural gas sales in Europe.

    It's all about oil and money, petrodollars and ensuring American worldwide hegemony.

    sokkynick zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 13:07
    +1
    diddoit zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 13:42
    Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part due to oil interests, they talk about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in the region after the Iraq war, and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance the region.

    I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.

    Ilan Klinger , 12 Apr 2017 12:53
    A regime changing in Syria?

    Can someone here try and convince me that the State of Syria still exists?

    And change it from what to what?From a Murderouscracy to a Oppressionocracy?

    peterwiv , 12 Apr 2017 12:52
    The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and that springs directly from our disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight against ISIS just as the far more horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.

    Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.

    aleph , 12 Apr 2017 12:51
    Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts to take hold. But Assad cannot travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or antithetical. Putin has backed the wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
    elaine naude aleph , 12 Apr 2017 15:43
    Who should he have backed? - Isis?
    algae64 , 12 Apr 2017 12:47
    Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad is a better leader for Syria than Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.

    Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things if Assad is deposed. More than likely, it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.

    BorisMalden , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble

    Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.

    Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators, has left nothing but chaos in its wake.

    We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.

    Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.

    The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.

    aleph Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:56
    "Better to help Assad stabilise the Country"

    Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot think of an alternative. Great.

    Oldfranky aleph , 12 Apr 2017 13:58
    Are you sure it's only Assad, laugh all you will.
    BorisMalden , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble

    Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.

    Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators, has left nothing but chaos in its wake.

    We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.

    Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.

    The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.

    aleph Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:56
    "Better to help Assad stabilise the Country"

    Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot think of an alternative. Great.

    Oldfranky aleph , 12 Apr 2017 13:58
    Are you sure it's only Assad, laugh all you will.
    Foracivilizedworld , 12 Apr 2017 12:44

    Regime change in Syria? That would be a mistake

    Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting not only all ME countries including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it all "Over There"

    And I think Trump would do it.

    SaracenBlade , 12 Apr 2017 12:43
    Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia, regime change has resulted in complete chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians, Kurds. Who is going to make a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz Assaad ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
    notDonaldTrump SaracenBlade , 12 Apr 2017 12:49
    'regime change has resulted in complete chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict.'

    If one tried to think impartially the evidence might lead one to think that was the plan all along.

    BlueCollar notDonaldTrump , 12 Apr 2017 15:50
    If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud, even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back swing of executioner .
    timefliesby , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    Have we learnt nothing?
    zolotoy timefliesby , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    Some of us have learned to be very comfortable with scraps from the war machine table -- Western legacy media in particular.
    moreorless2 , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the minority's in Syria. All of the opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists. They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad is a murdering bastard but he kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
    Terra_Infirma , 12 Apr 2017 12:39
    Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is secondary. In particular, the greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq, where it simply does not work. Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria. This is a fantasy - as democracy always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether the West is just naive in these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to mask the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame on us.
    StrongMachine Terra_Infirma , 12 Apr 2017 12:47
    Are you calling George W Bush a liberal?
    PSmd Terra_Infirma , 12 Apr 2017 13:07
    It's not liberal cultural imperialism. It's painted as that to sell to domestic audiences.

    It's liberal economic imperialism.

    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief diplomat or his UN envoy, who have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this is a very, very bad idea.

    WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.

    The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US arrogance and lying manipulation.

    juster , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of the international rule book sinc 2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.

    Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia to change the regime in Kiev. They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.

    freeandfair juster , 12 Apr 2017 16:58
    > They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.

    An excellent point.

    bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 12:35
    There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted or just let the despots get on with it...

    There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate their opposition, utilise death squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and, outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....

    If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple answer... just hope everyone can sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian readers.

    Jared Hall bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals and helping the Saudis cluster bomb fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
    bemusedfromdevon Jared Hall , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    We're pulling the trigger??

    And that makes supporting a tyrant who will do anything a satisfactory solution to you?

    Sounds like crocodile tears to me.

    SterlingPound Jared Hall , 12 Apr 2017 13:11
    Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni hospital on the BBC last year. The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in the Commons - what is it about the British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set up an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.

    It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted to beat his father's record for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's untutored idea of elections is surely farcical.

    Muzzledagain , 12 Apr 2017 12:35
    Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad falls, anarchy due to vacuum will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially pressuring the countries that feed the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of the infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
    Aethelfrith , 12 Apr 2017 12:31
    Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over the world , mainly for the benefit of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately elected governments were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.

    This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing so called "moderate" terrorists seems to be the excuse to get involved.

    More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around the world , or even the cost of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people , but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical control games that is the true beating heart of western aggression.

    austinpratt , 12 Apr 2017 12:30
    And it will serve as a welcome distraction from the lack of domestic achievements by the U.S. govt.
    Fort Sumpter austinpratt , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    Theresa could also do with some distraction from her shambolic government and the whole Brexit disaster.
    timefliesby austinpratt , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    Got to agree. Dead cat. Nobody is talking about links and the FBI any more and Putin is mentioned on a new context.

    Approval ratings from US voters?

    Moo1234 Fort Sumpter , 12 Apr 2017 12:45
    We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame David Cameron and get on with the job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
    dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 12:30
    What if this was Apartheid era South Africa and the white minority were bombing the hell out of the majority black civilians who wanted them out?
    duthealla dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 12:49
    Nobody intervened in South Africa despite massacres like Sharpeville....perhaps it would've let to full on racial war though?
    dusktildawn duthealla , 12 Apr 2017 12:55
    I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite in that case if the white minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that hypocrisy?
    Fort Sumpter dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:04
    It isn't hypocrisy because your South African scenario bears little resemblance to what is happening in Syria. Simple as that.
    Moo1234 , 12 Apr 2017 12:28
    Boris obviously has a more pressing engagement over Easter.
    BeanstalkJack , 12 Apr 2017 12:27
    Regime change - a phrase that reminds us imperialism is alive and well.
    Gandalf66 BeanstalkJack , 12 Apr 2017 12:47
    The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern bloc were initiated by the people themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
    BeanstalkJack Gandalf66 , 12 Apr 2017 13:03
    The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the Soviet Union caused by an arms race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly war in Afghanistan?
    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:27
    Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary. Such thinking has a long pedigree in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.

    I think the word is arrogance rather than belief.

    Mates Braas sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 14:51
    I think the word is arrogance rather than belief...............and exceptionalism.
    brucebaby , 12 Apr 2017 12:26
    Trump is the new boy on the block, trying to use missiles as a penis substitute.

    Sorry, but simple definitions are sometimes correct.

    yshani brucebaby , 12 Apr 2017 13:19
    Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the duration of the cold war. If US did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment about it.

    Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.

    brucebaby yshani , 12 Apr 2017 13:26
    WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances. The cold war would not have happened if not for the USA.

    Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent, a real threat to the world.

    MacMeow brucebaby , 12 Apr 2017 17:01

    WW2 was won principally by the USSR

    That old clunker again, it's like the war in the Pacific never happened.

    Sorry4Soul , 12 Apr 2017 12:26
    Why it would be a mistake ?

    Libya was such a success story.

    Trumbledon , 12 Apr 2017 12:24
    Finally, at long last, some sense.

    I agree wholeheartedly; by far the best analysis I've read in this paper.

    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:24
    If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault. Shoot first questions later? Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply cannot blame someone without having the facts independently checked out. Yet they didn't wait and decided to break interantional law instead.
    joAnn chartier , 12 Apr 2017 12:23
    There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing and droning and etc, why does the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads etc etc -- where profits are made by arms manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
    Fakecharitybuster , 12 Apr 2017 12:20
    Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only realistic alternatives. We should stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
    ganaruvian Fakecharitybuster , 12 Apr 2017 13:40
    Spot-on!
    Viva_Kidocelot , 12 Apr 2017 12:20
    Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still a rush to judgement when the case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely Phosgene.
    Moo1234 , 12 Apr 2017 12:19
    At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West, including the petulant Boris Johnson need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy of the British government would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and Theresa put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
    Gandalf66 Moo1234 , 12 Apr 2017 12:51
    Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would probably leap at the chance of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided by the Syrians themselves.
    Mates Braas Gandalf66 , 12 Apr 2017 14:50
    "Why isn't Syria ready for Western values?"

    The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/ ethnic allegiances need to be carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before all the US led interventions.

    There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners ask them that is what they will likely say.

    shockolat1 , 12 Apr 2017 12:18
    So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few thousand people and hey presto! A darling of the left.
    bemusedfromdevon shockolat1 , 12 Apr 2017 12:22
    That's how it seems...
    Fort Sumpter shockolat1 , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    Not the left. These writers are pro-British Establishment, pro mixed economy liberals. Soft right if anything.
    zolotoy Fort Sumpter , 12 Apr 2017 12:51
    You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie Sanders's, or practically any Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.

    Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.

    They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green Party members is statistically insignificant.

    richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:17
    "Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary"

    The Guardian reported that in Libya, the last country to benefit from US and "our" attempts at regime change there are now open air slave auctions.

    So yeah, why not do the same in Syria; what is there to lose?

    Mates Braas , 12 Apr 2017 12:16
    Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western capitals, and their Gulf vassals. These are the only group of people in the entire planet who talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.

    Imperial hubris knows no bounds.

    tjt77 Mates Braas , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product' is that International Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership, does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile, Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing and exporting the goods the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
    jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:16
    President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need weapons, tanks, missiles, air support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also die by the sword. For the U.S. to stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not liking him at all to liking him just a bit more.
    sceptic64 jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:24
    And what comes after?
    duthealla sceptic64 , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    That'd be a problem for the EU. We cook , you clean - as some neocon asshat said about Iraq.
    richmanchester duthealla , 12 Apr 2017 13:14
    Well the Guardian was reporting on open air slave auctions in

    Libya this week.

    So clearly arming "the people" and supplying air support worked well there.

    Obviously the same course should be followed in Syria.

    richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:15
    "All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. "

    And that's Assad'd fault?

    Or is it the fault of the originally US and still Gulf states/Turkey backed Wahhabis that have damaged them?

    Trumbledon richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    All Assad's fault, if he hadn't tried to liberate Palmyra, it'd still be standi... Oh wait.
    richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:14
    "The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in the country will change. "

    Absolute tosh.

    The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which aligned itself with the USSR with one that aligned itself with the USA.

    The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern

    Elinore richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:23
    It would work in the USA.
    Nietzschestache , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and Libya to see that. Nor does a country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants any room to take the moral high ground.
    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the rebels? The one certainty in all of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what I see is vested interest propaganda.
    pete8s sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:21
    Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.

    There is no love of Assad anywhere.

    If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed war crimes – bombing hospitals using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation creeps back into the equation.

    bemusedfromdevon sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    Perhaps because the rebel areas are getting the shit bombed out of them by the Russians and Assad...

    How many heavy bombers and fighters do those fighting Assad have...?

    Just think about it a little....

    Fort Sumpter pete8s , 12 Apr 2017 12:26

    There is no love of Assad anywhere.

    How many Syrians do you know and how many times have you been there?

    scipioafricanus , 12 Apr 2017 12:10
    The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do.

    A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump and Putin you have two leaders who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd rather pursue a misguided policy rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.

    Amanzim , 12 Apr 2017 12:10
    Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does not seem likely in the middle east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes in laws of yesteryears.
    zankaon , 12 Apr 2017 12:09
    Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?

    Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked ordinance is likely to be conventional explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute (reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.

    Elinore , 12 Apr 2017 12:08
    You could put Assad in the White House and Trump in Syria and and nothing would change except that the White House might be a tad more intelligent.
    Gandalf66 Elinore , 12 Apr 2017 12:59
    Assad is actually a qualified doctor so he's pretty intelligent. Strange that he's ignoring the Hippocratic Oath on a daily basis.
    jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:08
    So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts with its own title), but we disagree on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve freedom although their reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled by a ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding enough blood for their freedom, then you are living in a hole in the ground.
    Mickmarrs jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:18
    Yeah and the guys that get in are head loppers
    ProfJake , 12 Apr 2017 12:05
    Well said. Worth taking a look at Global Peace Index, which is produced annually by the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace:

    http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index /

    In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least peaceful countries on earth, include Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where "regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there is arguably an ongoing attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.

    The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even when the behaviour of those regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.

    Fort Sumpter , 12 Apr 2017 12:05

    He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged.

    Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the local populace as human shields were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.

    Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves doing it and posted the videos online for goodness sake.

    mp66 , 12 Apr 2017 12:04
    Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.

    So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do with it? Did the US led forces in now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the city? Also for all world heritage sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was moved to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even muslim graveyards when they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through western capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly not a single american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled to liberate it twice from the death cult.

    ID1941743 , 12 Apr 2017 12:02
    Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not work is 'the west' dusting off it's world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
    ariaclast , 12 Apr 2017 12:01
    This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a policy favouring the removal of Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.

    One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties so grotesque that our intervention could scarcely make things any worse

    Vetinary ariaclast , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    Are you actually blind?
    ariaclast Vetinary , 12 Apr 2017 12:15
    Who said that?
    LucyandTomDog , 12 Apr 2017 12:00
    The US?

    Syria?

    Regime change?

    Moi?

    It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy into attempting to apologise for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth making yet another gaffe;

    "I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a distraction from the president's decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."

    (my emphasis)

    Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television interview too.

    As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?

    zolotoy LucyandTomDog , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    I'm sure it was an unintentional but very revealing Freudian slip.

    The advantage of letting dunces speak is that they're not very good at hiding what they think.

    LucyandTomDog LucyandTomDog , 12 Apr 2017 13:21
    Typo

    'As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?'

    Should be destabilise

    Guy1ncognito , 12 Apr 2017 11:59

    Bashar al-Assad is not a good person.

    Don't hold back...

    Moo1234 Guy1ncognito , 12 Apr 2017 12:22
    Daesh/ isis are even less good people......
    Gandalf66 Guy1ncognito , 12 Apr 2017 13:00
    More like Assad is the least worst.
    davshev , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the same time he wants a ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
    sceptic64 davshev , 12 Apr 2017 12:15
    Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure for being a Russian patsy, something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to Putin'.

    This whole thing stinks.

    davshev sceptic64 , 12 Apr 2017 12:26
    Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then why wouldn't they be sleazy enough to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
    zolotoy davshev , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    Good question. How sleazy is it to be complicit with Al Qaeda, the only entity on the planet that the USA is semiofficially at war with?
    scipioafricanus , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state amongst the masses before it culminates in regime change at the top.

    The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers, doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have fled to Europe, or are currently being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.

    The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy is reduced through the participation of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.

    This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone who is now merely a "puppet" for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?

    As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance to those in distress, whilst pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.

    As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.

    Mates Braas scipioafricanus , 12 Apr 2017 14:37
    "The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible oppostion to his regime;"

    There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM and governments, because it does not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian government. It was refused participation when the first peace talks were arranged.

    lemonsuckingpedant , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have a hotline to Trump and the rest of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
    zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 11:53
    Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't do regime change" pieces? I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime change."

    Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons to the combatants (should they be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached with this whopper:

    The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do.

    --as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been quite actively engaged.
    Janeira1 zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    Didn't notice Iraq faring too well the last time the US intervened in regime change.
    jamie evans , 12 Apr 2017 11:50
    Trump told him over some cake?

    This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of his actions. Nor does he care. How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it all by himself. Some one needs to step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.

    Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.

    Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between NATO affiliated forces in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting back on military spending and very few European countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions from the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic terrorism throughout Europe and with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its forces into the non-Russian caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality. And what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.

    So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term interests? The destruction of Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world demanding hard action against Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be in whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial? Well... there's two countries in the Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.

    dusktildawn Jack1R , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return? Will anyone invest in rebuilding the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed the conflict as a whole recede?
    Jack1R dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:02
    They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect the refugees in the Middle East and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be forced to return back.

    The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to Russia and allows Syria to survive under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally... and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Gulf monarchies would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.

    It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that can rule Syria at the moment, other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build, that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete result as our attempt in Iraq shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian and Alawite regions go towards Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as Iran, would never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria as well.

    I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular Arab leader is toppled. No one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving it.

    There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either Turkish expansion (which, the last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories) or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than desirable). We have no friends in the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests and I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain the balance of power. Perhaps only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni and Shia interests.

    Alderbaran Jack1R , 12 Apr 2017 13:04
    Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure whilst different factions are brought together to defeat ISIS?

    In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation commission, and a commitment from the international community and other bodies independent of the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism and corruption. The dogmatic belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair, Assad does not have a great track record in Syria.

    And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad or do you think it will be happy to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to support other dictators)

    Laurence Bury , 12 Apr 2017 11:50
    How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad was sponsored by multifarious power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy disastrously. The country now needs to be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional government is agreed upon.
    WellmeaningBob Laurence Bury , 12 Apr 2017 12:11
    A little contradictory, no? Oh we fucked up, so you need to be colonised anyway.
    Laurence Bury WellmeaningBob , 12 Apr 2017 12:19
    No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.

    The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the opposition are awful sectarians who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a dictatorship indefinitely.

    WellmeaningBob Laurence Bury , 12 Apr 2017 12:27
    Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than not understand "protectorate" pretty much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
    Mates Braas elan , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    Civil war means that both sides are killing their own people.
    zolotoy jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:57
    Only because his opposition is even more barbaric.
    Fort Sumpter jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 12:09
    'indiscriminate weapons'

    Oh dear, are they rally still pushing this 'our weapons don't kill civilians' BS?

    No need for evidence of chlorine gas bombs apparently.

    And anyone who questions the MSM narrative and who is sickened by endless war is an 'apologist'. What are you but an apologist for war?

    Mates Braas jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 12:23
    Unfortunately, there is no way to make war nice.
    SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 12 Apr 2017 11:42
    Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the record. So is john Kerry, on record on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called ''civil war'' even started.

    They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled out of the deal (all because of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through Syria).

    The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and acted alone initiating the takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign jihadists eventually came to a standstill without direct US support.

    The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take place behind the scenes after they defeated Assad)

    The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that crap

    hpe974 SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 12 Apr 2017 16:26
    Of course it is!! The USA is truly the biggest sponsor of terror and mayhem and destruction in the M.E.
    namjodh , 12 Apr 2017 11:38
    Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading and proof of the failure of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
    HuckelburryPin namjodh , 12 Apr 2017 11:46

    Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.

    Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........

    WellmeaningBob namjodh , 12 Apr 2017 12:04
    I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely desirable. Witness Kissinger who out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests through war, disease and starvation.
    ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 11:37
    Scott Ritter has been commenting on the alleged Assad gas attacks . Unlike the MSM the former Iraq weapons inspector seems far from convinced.
    Levant1998 ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 13:46
    Former UN weapons inspector Richard Lloyd, and Professor Theodore Posto of MIT also authored a piece:

    http://m.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217

    jadamsj ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 17:12

    Scott Ritter has been commenting on the alleged Assad gas attacks. Unlike the MSM the former Iraq weapons inspector seems far from convinced.

    What that before or after Russia blocked an investigation into it?

    ploughmanlunch , 12 Apr 2017 11:35
    'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'

    Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be done' brigade. Popping those bubbles is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure that makes things drastically worse.

    zolotoy ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 11:46
    Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest first"). Rather appalling that someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame for the carnage and destruction on one side.
    EdmundLange , 12 Apr 2017 11:29
    We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
    EdmundLange jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:58
    Excellent, I'm glad we're going to topple Assad so the Jihadists can take control. Just what we needed.
    capatriot , 12 Apr 2017 11:26

    He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.

    What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his own nation's cities?

    But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed into a civil war, aided and abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West, with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that later, as it looked like the recognized govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to help it?

    Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps we should leave it to them?

    zolotoy jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let alone his armed forces? He's a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes sense to assume that his powers over an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally serving him, aren't limitless.

    [Apr 12, 2017] The danger Turkey poses to Russia in Syria

    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Фланкербандит on April 11, 2017 · at 11:48 pm UTC
    @ Simon Chow

    I agree with you completely about the danger Turkey poses to Russia in Syria. You may even be right about this being a trap that Putin walked into by making a half-hearted military commitment to Syria and that now Drumpf decides to call the bluff by sicking Erdo on Russia exposed in Syria

    This would surely be catastrophic for Russia and Putin himself he would have no chance to continue as leader of this great nation. However that is making a big leap of faith about Putin's basic math skills and resolve. What if VVP decides to pick up the glove that Drumpf appears to be throwing down ?

    What then ?

    Do you or anyone think that the Russian military is unprepared to put in place a very strong road block to any aggression on Syria ? As I mentioned elsewhere it would take only a couple of Iskander rocket brigades to cut Erdo's tank army to shreds if the move on Syria proceeds

    I also believe that Russia is now moving in real time and is ready to spring its own trap as Professor Cohen noted on US TV today Russia is 'preparing for a hot war '. The rest of your comments about the Islamic threat to Russia's southern underbelly the first attempt with Chechnya in the '90s already failed badly

    No doubt West still dreams of this but it would be a major project of 10 or 20 years at least would take a lot of ground laying

    The idea that some kind of jihadist army is quickly going to march on Moscow is quite frankly silly

    I would say that China's problem in Xinjiang is just as serious if not more how many Uighur takfiris have traveled from PRC to fight in Syria ?

    Yet PRC does nothing At least Russia has Chechen military police in Syria and who knows what else that is operating in 'shadows'

    Do you think those bearded Uighur fanatics are going to come back home and continue the fight in Xinjiang with support of US George Soros Amnesty International NED etc ? Also Tibet ? You seem to have some blind spots when it comes to assessing geopolitical strength

    ' Syria is not essential to Russia except for Russia's economically premature claim to super power status '

    You sound like someone who needs a lesson in your own country's history

    ' In the 17th and 18th centuries, the demand for Chinese goods (particularly silk, porcelain, and tea) in the European market created a trade imbalance because the market for Western goods in China was virtually non-existent; China was largely self-sufficient and Europeans were not allowed access to China's interior. European silver flowed into China '

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

    Yes the Chinese were smart to conduct trade on their terms they told the English, French, Dutch and other colonial pirates [including America] that if they want Chinese tea then just bring silver and trade in one place where we allow it. Very good and wise policy .also incidentally followed at the time by Japan and Korea [another story]

    Only problem was you see the mighty British Empire thought it had the god-given right to rule the world like another country today

    They did not like the fact that they could not make anything off China and even had to buy silver from the Portuguese silver mines in Brazil for all the tea that Englishmen wanted to drink

    So here is what happened the Brits decided to 'open up' the Chinese market [I love that phrase how do you do that like with a can opener ?]

    You see the English had a nice little trade going in dope opium that they were growing in plantations in India which they ruled with an iron fist and they were making a nice business selling that to Chinese drug dealers under the table of course. And guess what the Chinese drug dealers were using to pay for that British dope if you guessed silver you would be right

    ' This reverse flow of silver and the increasing numbers of opium addicts alarmed Chinese officials '

    Gee you think ?

    ' In 1839, the Daoguang Emperor, rejecting proposals to legalise and tax opium, appointed viceroy Lin Zexu to solve the problem by abolishing the trade. Lin confiscated around 20,000 chests of opium (approximately 1210 tons or 2.66 million pounds) without offering compensation, blockaded trade, and confined foreign merchants to their quarters.[6] The British government, although not officially denying China's right to control imports of the drug, objected to this unexpected seizure and used its naval and gunnery power to inflict a quick and decisive defeat,[5] a tactic later referred to as gunboat diplomacy "

    Well gee that didn't turn out so well now did it ? China ended up having to 'open' its market to British dope while millions of Chines peasants destroyed themselves and their families as junkies

    After that China was basically 'subdued' by the colonialists pirates until they managed to get Hong Kong back a few years ago and even now the pirates are stirring up trouble there

    Sure the Imperial Russians jumped on China too after all Russian Czar and German Kaiser were first cousins colonialism was a great European gravy train for the elites of the day

    Russia got China to give it the railroad concession in Manchuria [btw not Han ethnic at that time] and Russians built a railroad and a city [Harbin] now a city of over 5 million people

    ' Polish engineer Adam Szydłowski drew plans for the city [Harbin] following the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway, which the Russian Empire had financed.[9] The Russians selected Harbin as the base of their administration over this railway and the Chinese Eastern Railway Zone. The Chinese Eastern Railway extended the Trans-Siberian Railway: substantially reducing the distance from Chita to Vladivostok and also linking the new port city of Dalny (Dalian) and the Russian Naval Base Port Arthur (Lόshun) '

    So what was the lesson in 'trading' with British /

    You can be very good and clever and not let foreigners get the better of you when selling them tea but unless you have guns that are bigger than theirs you may end up losing

    What is going on today ? China makes and sells the 21'st century equivalent of tea and porcelain iphones and walmart stuff

    Only now it is selling not for real money like silver but for IOUs printed by US banksters can be used to buy stuff in US not China maybe China wants to buy Disneyland ?

    Try to buy Boeing or Lockheed Martin with Chinese big stack of dollars see what US say

    Also can be used to buy US govt debt which allows US to print fake money to pay for its military industrial complex buy Russian rocket engines etc

    Isn't it great when markets are 'opened up' ? everybody wins

    My point is simply this please don't talk insultingly about Russian superpower 'pretensions'

    How many nuclear submarines does China make ?

    I hear recently China is making good progress on its first 'good' jet engine for its fighter aircraft

    You may know that only a handful of nations produce 'good' turbojet and turbofan engines in the world today US Russia UK France

    That China may soon join this exclusive club is something to be proud of

    In 2003 China put its first man in space

    ' In 1994, Russia sold some of its advanced aviation and space technology to the Chinese. In 1995 a deal was signed between the two countries for the transfer of Russian Soyuz spacecraft technology to China. Included in the agreement was training, provision of Soyuz capsules, life support systems, docking systems, and space suits. In 1996 two Chinese astronauts, Wu Jie and Li Qinglong, began training at the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center in Russia. After training, these men returned to China and proceeded to train other Chinese astronauts at sites near Beijing and Jiuquan. The hardware and information sold by the Russians led to modifications of the original Phase One spacecraft, eventually called Shenzhou, which loosely translated means "divine vessel." '

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_(spacecraft)#Design

    Mother Russia is always willing to help her friends

    I can also tell you about the Chinese army more than 60 years ago in Korea

    ' US Eighth Army was decisively defeated at the Battle of the Chongchon River and forced to retreat all the way back to South Korea The defeat of the U.S. Eighth Army resulted in the longest retreat of any American military unit in history The Chinese broke through the American defenses despite American air supremacy and the Eighth Army and U.N. forces retreated hastily to avoid encirclement. The Chinese offensive continued pressing American forces, which lost Seoul, the South Korean capital. Eighth Army's morale and esprit de corps hit rock bottom, to where it was widely regarded as a broken, defeated rabble

    One more thing to be proud of. I'm sure if you decided to become a little more serious about your studies you could find many more instances in your nation's history to be proud of. Belittling another country in order to make yourself seem bigger is how shall I put rather un-Chinese

    Actually very American

    [Apr 12, 2017] Russia became strong because of the sanctions. It made Russia concentrate on internal production

    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Russia became strong because of the sanctions. It made Russia concentrate on internal production, on self-reliance. As Putin noted, "Thanks, couldn't have done it without you"

    So, how is this for left field

    I agree, the US and China are economically interdependent.

    Trump wants to make America great again. Wants the jobs and the factories back. So, why not 'fry' China. Nuke Nth Korea, declare war on China after either a false flag or China retaliating.

    Then, as an enemy state, confiscate all China's assets in the US and repudiate any debt to China via Bonds etc. WTF is China going to do?

    Smile a lot???

    America is then forced to make things again, and getting rid of a few trillion in bond debt will help economically I expect.

    Concentrate on internal production and consumption.

    Oh yes, it is all a lot more complicated than that .. but think about it .. interesting scenario

    And it would fit in with Trumps child-like simple view of the world.

    We are still essentially a group of nation states, basically at war because each state only acts in its own interests. Until we can work together as a common humanity, war seems the only way to resolve differences.

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:41 am UTC
    You may need to educate your self with some simple facts: 18.3% of Chinese export goes to US and 15% of US export goes to China. Anything happen to trade with US will hurt, but Chinese can Manage.

    US can frozen Chinese asset, and Chinese will hit where it hurts. There are plenty of American finial products in China and China will have her pick.

    Like Germans said to Trump, "We are not a nation without means, and we will fight back!" I have yet see China fail to retaliate any so called punishment from US.

    I fail to see why a smart people like you running with some one who is not living in this reality.

    Nachtigall on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:00 am UTC
    TYS, you are wrong on one thing: The Chinese political apparatchiks are not idiots like their European, American and Russian liberal counterparts. You forget that credit inflation and deflation can be controlled by the CCB at will. It's a balance sheet operation in the accounting department. Bad debts can be cleared (bonds of economic useful actors can be bailed out – parasites like 90% of bond holders can go tits up) if need be. It's true that in the confines of neoclassical economic thinking an operation like that is unfathomable, but it is still just a technical operation which has to be executed in a planned manner. In contrast to the so called "free market in the West" the Chinese government has the means to get all necessary actors to comply and the ability to get the necessary information. The shadow banking system in China is a much bigger problem, once again not because the assets cannot be restructured, but because of the lack of control and, in some cases, the integral part they play in the Chinese economy.

    Many make the faulty assumption that money is somehow an integral part of our physical reality – it's not. A social unit of account, claim on work, the materialised form of consolidated power, is a necessary illusion to keep humans devided in a hierarchical power structure. This has nothing to do with physical laws, which cannot be manipulated. Humans can do whatever they want with the stored energy in form of atom bonds to electromagnetic radiation. If it means they want to push some electrons in the CB mainframe to get society to keep believing in real or electronic paper, they can do it. BTW the US debt was created though the transfer of reserves at the CB into an interest bearing asset e.g. treasuries. Translation: the Chinese swapped their reserves at the FED for treasuries. The US cannot default on its currency because its the SOLE issuer of it. It stupefies me to no end that the myth of a US default in DOLLAR is still discussed seriously. On the other hand, Chinese assessts in dollars are at a real risk. They CAN drop in value if the US were to create more dollar denominated credit with which it would buy up REAL assessts and not fictional wealth f.e. at the stock market.

    There are no economic laws. There is only an established social system which is very profitable for a few and is the legacy of a previous power struggle.

    nice try on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:15 pm UTC
    @ Nachtigall: Well put! The US put it's neck in the "reserve currency to the world" noose at Bretton Woods. An imperial overstep, the Daffy Duck in Aladdin's Cave moment "MINE MINE, ALL MINE!!!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIlCSBfksM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE0miV8YBBw

    TYS on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:54 pm UTC
    I agree that the Chinese leadership are not idiots, I don't believe I ever said they were.

    I repeat, the Chinese are not going to throw away their ability to gain access to western technology and corporations (or destabilize, any further, their social systems by disrupting their export oriented industries) by doing anything stupid like threatening the US with their current Empire currency & debt holdings. So I agree with you, I don't think the Chinese leadership are reckless idiots: that's my point.

    Have you forgotten that the Chinese economic growth has nearly halved even based on their faked inflated "official" 6.5 % GDP growth figures (their actual growth figure is between 3-4%)? They are not operating from a position of strength.

    Gold reserves, during a trade war, will not give the Chinese access to the Western technologies and assets they desire.

    Someone mentioned a scenario where the US will declare war on China in order to tear up their debt obligations to the Chinese and seize Chinese assets in the West. Why would they need to do that? One can easily make the counter argument: the US can provoke China into doing something wreckless and then default on China. Isn't that what the close shore patrols the US performs along China's coastline designed to underscore?

    Again, a very good point was brought up in the article, President Xi needs to do more than behave like a smiling Buddha: they continue to let Russia does all the heavy lifting (and dying). Let's see if they do finally step up to the plate, – I don't believe they will.

    Nachtigall on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:44 pm UTC
    I agree with you. They are very cautious not to upset their dollar apple card, as you've rightly pointed out: the Chinese worked themselves like slaves to get this mountain of dollar reserves. I once picked up the rumor that the Russians tried to convince the Chinese to drop their dollar reserves on the market in 2008-2009 so as to crash the dollar, but again this would have meant shooting themselves in the foot. The US doesn't give s* about its debt, they don't have to default on anything because its their currency! So you're right the US could provoke China into doing something rash. Indeed China is very much an export driven economy, and they will absolutely do jack to threaten their position by getting into a military confrontations with the US. How do you even, like the Saker points out regularly, deal with war mongering freaks like the US officials? The US is itching to destroy its competitors by any means necessary.

    The crucial point I wanted to make, and this is what I mean by not being idiots, is that they know how they should play the capitalist game of smoke in mirrors, they know that the debt bubble in thw real estate sector is unsustainable, they know that they inflate GDP numbers, but here is the BIG difference (to eurocrats f.e.): If the real estate bubble pops the CB can bail out all useful actors and let the bad ones go bankrupt. It can create yuan at infinitum. It would send initially shock waves through the economy, but depending on the prudent restructuring of all the debts the economy can resume on working again. This is what no Western bureaucrat would dare to think – when they bail out something, it's parasites like JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Goldman and large funds, never small time debtors f.e. home owners. As I recall, Micheal Hudson talked about how Sheila Bair (EX FDIC Chairman) did suggest that you should save real people (depositor's money) instead of bank balance sheets, and that the FED was able to do that (a small summary of her views with a lot weasel words and smoke: https://jrc.princeton.edu/news/sheila-bair-former-fdic-chairman-discusses-financial-crisis ).

    This subject is much more complex than everything said by us, but I understand why Chinese officials refrain from doing the rational thing of restructuring the debts right now; i think they speculate on the fact that as long as the economy is growing they will continue to build cities, ports, planes, buy out western companies and infrastructure till the bell rings. After the process of consolidation I described they will reinflate the credit bubble again. They try everything at the same time. Reining in the shadow banking system, slowing down credit inflation and than restarting it again and letting the economy grow etc. China is trying to establish its very own yuan vacuum cleaner by which they can buy up (real!) assets like mines, factories etc. all over the world.

    That is the perspective of the capitalist class (not to speak of silly name calling like"communists"), take another viewpoint esp. in terms of the eco-system and all of this is a big fat net loss. They once tried to measure their "Green GDP" but quickly stopped doing that after it became apparent how much "natural capital" was destroyed each year.

    All of our terminology, definitions, ethics are sloppy and misleading by design if we talk about who decides what, when and who gets what, when and how much.

    Nachtigall on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:40 pm UTC
    Interesting interview with Michael Hudson about the FIRE=FinanceInsuranceRealEstate sector:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/15/how-bankers-became-the-top-exploiters-of-the-economy/

    TYS on April 12, 2017 , · at 12:49 am UTC
    @Nachtigall

    Very well put. Thanks for elaborating in detail. I agree the very premise of "currency" based systems are virtualized models and artificial. Hudson's work is very revealing, I agree.

    Evilc on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:32 pm UTC
    @Nachtigall
    Very well put, but may I add that the 'economy' is an expression of energy; past, present and future and we (in the west anyway) have borrowed rather heavily from the future. We can print as much money as we want but we cant print energy, well not yet anyway.
    Little Black Duck on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:40 am UTC
    China has hedged its exposure to US debt by accumulating gold.
    When the US dollar crashes, gold will soar and the effect may well be beneficial to China even if they initiate the crash.
    It's the USA that is between a rock and a hard place.
    nice try on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:27 pm UTC
    Yup, China and Russia are divesting US$-based reserves, using those artificially inflated US$ instruments to buy physical gold at artificially deflated market prices literally hundreds of tonnes/year.

    Meanwhile the US has to buy/steal gold from other countries, bought about 220 tonnes from Canada to give about the same to Netherlands in the "rehypothecated WW2 safe-keeping gold repatriation scam", plus steal from Libya and Ukraine to do the same for Germany and France. The hegemon is in a weak position when the vassal states don't trust them to hold their physical gold and can demand it back.

    Russia and China have already set up an alternate international currency/exchange/trade system, using yuan-renminbi/ruble plus accommodating other local currencies. The only-US$-based WTO/IMF/World Bank/BIS/SWIFT/etc. system can be bypassed if the US/Rothschilds decide to attempt any M.A.D. economic tactics.

    Simon Chow on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:24 pm UTC
    Yes I agree. Accumulating gold seems to be part of their plan. If the USD crash for whatever reasons, the rise in the price of gold will at least cover up for the loss in value of USD assets. I think China has enough gold to be now more than ready to dump USD assets; and the US knows this. This means that China can survive a crash of the USD but USA will not. That's why Trump is talking nice to Xi. Neither will the US survive if the USD is manipulated too high through interest rates by the Fed.
    TYS on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:07 pm UTC
    @ Little Black Duck

    The United States Reserve hold 8 times as much gold as China's. So where does your argument go now?

    If we include the BS internet rumor that China has unofficial holdings of an additional 9000 tonnes raising their total seizable holdings to 10,000 tonnes that is still dwarfed by US private holdings. Europe has comparable reserves in private and central bank hands. Finally, the country with largest gold holdings in both in govt and private hands is India, at approx 20,000 tons.

    So China has no net advantage here.

    Anonymous on April 12, 2017 , · at 3:40 am UTC
    Just look at the yearly production of gold in China, the gold that never reaches the market. The official Chinese reserves of 1,000 tones are nothing compared to it. Coupled with official Swiss mints data of gold export to China in the last 10 years, and you are coming really close to BS internet rumor numbers.

    When was the last time that US gold holdings were audited? Do you know that US had 24,000 tones of gold in 1945? They reduced their holdings for more than 15,000 tones from 1945 to 1971, and after that they didn't reduce it for an ounce?

    Peace on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:45 am UTC
    Saker, a pat on the back for you, excellent job. I don't expect but pray that the anglozionist read this article

    [Apr 12, 2017] With Bannon and Kushner not getting along, well, it's a slam dunk that Bannon's out.

    Serial betrayer...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets. Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will not be restored. ..."
    "... Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary, but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations," they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon, the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind and responsible for his success. ..."
    "... I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day. So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks as his "inside" advisors. ..."
    "... Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change. Clearly, that ain't gonna happen. ..."
    "... Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there." ..."
    "... Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss - because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening. I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately. It's pretty appalling. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    x | Apr 12, 2017 10:28:48 AM | 3

    Elvis has (almost) left the building...

    quote
    ----
    Goodwin says he asked Trump if he still has confidence in Bannon, who is reportedly feuding with Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner. And Trump didn't exactly disabuse Goodwin of the idea that Bannon is embattled. In fact, he did quite the opposite.

    "I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late," Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve. I'm my own strategist, and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/11/trump-just-made-some-very-strange-comments-about-stephen-k-bannon

    likklemore | Apr 12, 2017 10:56:15 AM | 7
    Thanks b,
    Lunacy has truly taken over the White House but even more so the U.S. media. How can sanity be brought back to town?

    Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets. Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will not be restored.

    I am reading the release of an ex see-i-aye officer that McCain, McMaster, Brennan are in a huddle and Bannon is out. Somewhat confirming Where is Trump's loyalty? I was winning before he rescued me: In an interview with Michael Goodwin of NYPOST

    Trump won't definitively say he still backs Bannon

    "I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late," Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve. I'm my own strategist and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary."
    He ended by saying, "Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will."

    ~ ~ ~ ~
    My take is Trump has given too much of his presidential responsibility to Jared. Israel and Family are always First.

    RUKidding | Apr 12, 2017 12:20:29 PM | 26
    Vis Trump and Bannon in terms of Bannon apparently being tossed out:

    Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary, but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations," they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon, the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind and responsible for his success.

    I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day. So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks as his "inside" advisors.

    With Bannon and Kushner not getting along, well, it's a slam dunk that Bannon's out.

    "How can sanity be brought to town?"

    Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change. Clearly, that ain't gonna happen.

    Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there."

    Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss - because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening. I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately. It's pretty appalling.

    How will this end? No doubt, not well, especially if you're brown skinned in the ME. The dog help us all.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Mattis US-Russia Tensions Wont Spiral Out of Control by Jason Ditz

    There were rumors that the USA military brass is less hawkish then neocon chickenhawks. After all they say death with their own eyes. But those rumors seems to be greatly exaggerated. People who rise to the level of the top level military brass those days are mostly unprincipled sycophants and careerists (or worse sociopaths) that might be even more dangerous the civial neocon chickenhawks.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Two weeks ago, the Kremlin expressed major concern about US-Russia relations, describing them as "maybe even worse" than they had been during the Cold War. Since that time, they've gotten dramatically worse, with US missile attacks on Syria fueling soaring acrimony. ..."
    "... "I'm confident the Russians will act in their own best interests," Mattis insisted. Yet he also threatened further US strikes on Syria, and Russia has made clear in recent days that they would respond with force to any additional such US strikes. ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    Mattis: US-Russia Tensions Won't Spiral Out of Control Insists Russia Won't Act Against Their 'Best Interests' , April 11, 2017

    Two weeks ago, the Kremlin expressed major concern about US-Russia relations, describing them as "maybe even worse" than they had been during the Cold War. Since that time, they've gotten dramatically worse, with US missile attacks on Syria fueling soaring acrimony.

    Secretary of Defense James Mattis sought to downplay the situation, however, saying that he was certain the situation "will not spiral out of control," a belief he appeared to rest on the idea that Russia wouldn't dare retaliate against further US attacks against Syria, as they have threatened to.

    "I'm confident the Russians will act in their own best interests," Mattis insisted. Yet he also threatened further US strikes on Syria, and Russia has made clear in recent days that they would respond with force to any additional such US strikes.

    [Apr 12, 2017] If Assad is removed, Iran is the next and then Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast. ..."
    "... So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk. ..."
    "... I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran. And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something! ..."
    "... Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. ..."
    "... So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. ..."
    "... The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not. ..."
    "... The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness. ..."
    "... This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations. ..."
    "... Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON / FIVE EYES gang. Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it. ..."
    "... Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump? I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA. ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is

    But the two countries which really need to step up to the plate are Russia and China. So far, it has been Russia who did all the hard work and, paradoxically, it has been Russia which has been the object of the dumbest and most ungrateful lack of gratitude (especially from armchair warriors). This needs to change. China has many more means to pressure the USA back into some semi-sane mental state than Russia. All Russia has are superb military capabilities. China, in contrast, has the ability to hurt the USA where it really matters: money. Russia is in a pickle: she cannot abandon Syria to the Takfiri crazies, but neither can she go to nuclear war with the USA over Syria. The problem is not Assad. The problem is that he is the only person capable, at least at this point in time, to protect Syria against Daesh.

    If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast.

    So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk.

    I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran. And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something!

    Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. That is especially true since the Americans show even less fear of China than of Russia.

    [Sidebar: the Chinese military is still far behind the kind of capabilities Russia has, but the Chinese are catching up really, really fast. Just 30 years ago the Chinese military used to be outdated and primitive. This is not the case today. The Chinese have done some tremendous progress in a record time and their military is now a totally different beast than what it used to be.

    I have no doubt at all that the US cannot win a war with China either, especially not anywhere near the Chinese mainland. Furthermore, I expect the Chinese to go full steam ahead with a very energetic military modernization program which will allow them to close the gap with the USA and Russia in record time.

    So any notions of the USA using force against China, be it over Taiwan or the DPRK, is an absolutely terrible idea, sheer madness. However, and maybe because the Americans believe their own propaganda, it seems to me like the folks in DC think that we are in the 1950s or 1960 and that they can terrify the "Chinese communist peasants" with their carrier battle groups.

    What the fail to realize is that with every nautical mile the US carriers make towards China, the bigger and easier target they make for a military which has specialized in US carrier destruction operatons. The Americans ought to ask themselves a simple question: what will they do if the Chinese either sink or severely damage one (or several) US Navy carriers?

    Go to nuclear war with a nuclear China well capable of turning many US cities into nuclear wastelands? Really? You would trade New York or San Francisco for the Carl Vinson Strike Group? Think again.]

    So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. If there was a sane man in the White House, one who would never ever do something which might result in war with Russia, that would not be a problem. Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear chicken against Russia. But he can't. Let me be clear he: if pushed into a corner the Russian will fight, even if that means nuclear war. I have said this over and over again, there are two differences between the Americans and the Russians

    The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not.

    The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness.

    This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations.

    [Sidebar. The profound cultural differences between the USA and Russia are perfectly illustrated with the polar difference the two countries have towards their most advanced weapons systems. As soon as the Americans declassify one of their weapon systems they engage into a huge marketing campaign to describe it as the "bestest of the bestest" "in the world" (always, "in the world" as if somebody bothered to research this or even compare). They explain at length how awesome their technology is and how invincible it makes them. The perfect illustration is all the (now, in retrospect, rather ridiculous) propaganda about stealth and stealth aircraft. The Russians do the exact opposite. First, they try to classify it all. But then, when eventually they declassify a weapons system, they strenuously under-report its real capabilities even when it is quite clear that the entire planet already knows the truth!

    There have been any instances when Soviet disarmament negotiators knew less about the real Soviet capabilities than their American counterparts!

    Finally, when the Russian export their weapons systems, they always strongly degrade the export model, at least that was the model until the Russians sold the SU-30MKI to India which included thrust vectoring while the Russian SU-30 only acquired later with the SU-30SM model, so this might be changing.

    Ask yourself: did you ever hear about the Russian Kalibr cruise missile before their first use in Syria? Or did you know that Russia has had nuclear underwater missiles since the late 1970 s capable of "flying under water" as speeds exceeding 230 miles per hour?]

    Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON / FIVE EYES gang. Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it.

    In the meantime Russia will walk a very fine like between various bad options. Her best hope, and the best hope of the rest of mankind, is that the US elites become so involved into fighting each other that this will leave very little time to do any foreign policy. Alas, it appears that Trump has "figured out" that one way to be smart (or so he thinks) in internal politics is to do something dumb in external politics (like attack Syria). That won't work.

    Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump? I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Look at what the Bolivian representative at the UNSC dared to do:

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bolivia: a profile in courage ..."
    "... Your long explanation of current reality in Europe, which seemingly contradicts Saker's sentence you quoted, says exactly the same. There is no dignity. What you listed are excuses. None of the European countries condemned the obvious aggression on Syria in UN. Where is dignity in that? Nowhere and is it a shame. I am from EU and I find the EU's position shameful as well. ..."
    "... Bolivia mercilessly trolls US over Iraq WMD lie in front of UN Security Council (VIDEO) https://www.rt.com/viral/383979-bolivia-un-syria-us-wmd/ ..."
    "... Exactly rigth, well said. There is nothing to admire about EU, but plenty to despise. From its Russophobic mentality to spineless following of orders from their masters in Washington. ..."
    "... Not a single one of these puppets have criticised obvious crime of aggression by US against sovereign state of Syria. Not a single one. But they all bark at Russia and follow lies and spread fake news. Like a pack of hyenas. ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Some countries, however, are showing an absolutely amazing level of courage. Look at what the Bolivian representative at the UNSC dared to do:

    Bolivia: a profile in courage

    And what a shame for Europe: a small and poor country like Bolivia showed more dignity that the entire European continent. No wonder the Russians have no respect for the EU whatsoever.

    What Bolivia did is both beautiful and noble.

    Anonymous on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:21 am UTC
    Your long explanation of current reality in Europe, which seemingly contradicts Saker's sentence you quoted, says exactly the same. There is no dignity. What you listed are excuses. None of the European countries condemned the obvious aggression on Syria in UN. Where is dignity in that? Nowhere and is it a shame. I am from EU and I find the EU's position shameful as well.

    Bolivia clearly condemned the strikes. Speaking at the emergency meeting to discuss the United States' missile strikes against Syria on Thursday, Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations, Sacha Llorenti, criticized the Trump's decision to take unilateral action against Syria, which he described as being "an extremely serious violation of international law."

    Bolivia mercilessly trolls US over Iraq WMD lie in front of UN Security Council (VIDEO)
    https://www.rt.com/viral/383979-bolivia-un-syria-us-wmd/

    Melotte 22 on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:35 am UTC
    Exactly rigth, well said. There is nothing to admire about EU, but plenty to despise. From its Russophobic mentality to spineless following of orders from their masters in Washington.

    Not a single one of these puppets have criticised obvious crime of aggression by US against sovereign state of Syria. Not a single one. But they all bark at Russia and follow lies and spread fake news. Like a pack of hyenas.

    [Apr 12, 2017] US Threatens Further Attacks on Syria

    Apr 12, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    US Threatens Further Attacks on Syria
    Despite Threats, Mattis Insists US Policy 'Unchanged'

    by Jason Ditz, April 11, 2017

    Print This | Share This


    With the region still reeling after last week's US missile attacks on Syria, top administration officials continue to threaten further attacks against the Syrian military, with the White House saying President Trump retains the option to attack Syria whenever he thinks it's "in the national interest."

    Defense Secretary James Mattis concurred, adding that any use of chemical weapons would draw US attacks against the Syrian government. The US claimed last week's attacks were a response to an accused Syrian "gas attack" against rebel-held Idlib.

    Since then, US officials have repeatedly talked up thew idea of further missile attacks against Syria, though at the same thing Mattis once again insisted today that US military policy in Syria is totally unchanged in the wake of the attacks.

    That's demonstrably untrue, of course, as Pentagon officials have confirmed changes inside Syria designed to protect US ground troops from potential retaliation, and have confirmed that US airstrikes against ISIS targets have decreased significantly since the attack, again fearing Syrian air defense will target the US warplanes as potential hostiles.

    Officials have sent conflicting messages on their exact position on Syria since then, insisting that ISIS remains their "priority," but continuing to pick fights with the Syrian government, and needle Russia in such a way as to greatly diminish the US ability to operate against ISIS.

    [Apr 12, 2017] White House claims on Syria chemical attack 'obviously false' – MIT professor

    Notable quotes:
    "... "contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft," ..."
    "... "I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun," ..."
    "... "I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct," ..."
    "... "very clear who planned this attack, who authorized this attack and who conducted this attack itself," ..."
    "... "doubting the entire international reporting crew documenting this." ..."
    "... "a wide body of open-source material" ..."
    "... "social media accounts" ..."
    "... "Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real," ..."
    "... "No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it." ..."
    "... "the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides." ..."
    "... "We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report," ..."
    "... "What the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true," ..."
    "... "and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security." ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.rt.com
    A professor who challenged the 2013 claims of a chemical attack in Syria is now questioning the Trump administration's narrative blaming the Assad government for the April 4 attack in the Idlib province town of Khan Shaykhun. On Tuesday, the White House released a declassified intelligence brief accusing Syrian President Bashar Assad of ordering and organizing the attack, in which Syrian planes allegedly dropped chemical ordnance on civilians in the rebel-held town.

    The report "contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft," wrote Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Professor Theodore Postol, who reviewed it and put together a 14-page assessment, which he provided to RT on Wednesday.

    Leading CW expert Theodor Postol of MIT just published a 14-page document questioning WH claims that Sarin was dropped from #Syrian AF plane pic.twitter.com/kMJgxwsN8Z

    - EHSANI2 (@EHSANI22) April 12, 2017

    "I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun," wrote Postol.

    A chemical attack with a nerve agent did occur, he said, but the available evidence does not support the US government's conclusions.

    Read more US accuses Moscow of 'sowing doubt' over narrative of Assad's culpability in chemical attack

    "I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct," Postol wrote.

    It is "very clear who planned this attack, who authorized this attack and who conducted this attack itself," Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday.

    Earlier in the day, White House spokesman Sean Spicer also said that doubting the evidence would be "doubting the entire international reporting crew documenting this."

    The report offered by the White House , however, cited "a wide body of open-source material" and "social media accounts" from the rebel-held area, including footage provided by the White Helmets rescue group documented to have ties with jihadist rebels, Western and Gulf Arab governments.

    Postol was not convinced by such evidence.

    "Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real," he wrote. "No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it."

    Instead, "the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides."

    "We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report," he concluded, recalling the 2013 situation when the Obama administration claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against the rebels in Ghouta, near Damascus.

    "What the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true," Postol wrote, "and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security."

    Report by White House Alleging Proof of Syria as the Perpetrator of the Nerve Agent Attack in Khan Shaykhun... by RT America on Scribd

    [Apr 12, 2017] Did Assad Really Use Sarin

    Notable quotes:
    "... is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger or email: [email protected] ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

    Almost immediately after video of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Idlib hit Western media, Assad was declared guilty by US news networks and political commentators. The front page of the New York Times on April 5 th showed a heartbreaking image of a child wounded in the alleged chemical attack with a headline claiming Assad was responsible.

    By the afternoon of April 7, a US attack seemed inevitable as both Rex Tillerson and Trump said action would be taken.

    Between Democrats and Republicans, a bipartisan consensus emerged, rare in the Trump presidency, whereby Assad was deemed guilty and Trump was goaded on to attack. The few voices of dissent seemed mostly concerned with the lack of constitutional approval for the strike

    The night of the strike, US media snapped into DPRK-style, state media mode. TV pundits fell into a trance while expressing the " beauty " of American power being unleashed on a country already destroyed by 6 years of war.

    Pundits described the attack as "surgical" despite the pentagon quietly admitting one of the missiles missed its target and they don't know where it landed. My questions to both CENTCOM and the Secretary of Defense Office on the missing cruise missile have thus far gone unanswered. However, Syrian sources claim civilians were killed in the missile strike.

    Trump justified the attack by invoking religiously themed buzzwords and unconvincing blather on the "beautiful babies" murdered in the chemical attack.

    Following the attack, Trump officials' statements indicated there was a shift towards regime change. UN ambassador Nikki Haley said Sunday that removing Assad is now a priority.

    The Neocon sharks have started circling too. Bill Kristol tweeted that these strikes should be used to move towards regime change in Iran. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain have all joined in too, their mouths watering at the thought of ousting Assad.

    But was Assad really responsible for the attack?

    To ask such a question is to be deemed an "Assadist" by pundits and discourse police across the political spectrum.

    Neither the lack of an independent investigation, nor the fact that nearly all the information on the alleged attack has come from rebel sources, who stand to benefit from a US response, is deemed sufficient cause for skepticism.

    In a civilized society an actor is be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If guilt is determined, a legally justified course of action is taken. In the US however, if the accused is a US enemy, no evidence is needed, and even deranged conspiracies are given play in mainstream media coverage.

    The best recent example of this is the US media's conspiracy about Russia stealing the US election and working for Trump. The US media has stooped so low as to even push bizarre conspiracies by Louise Mensch . She recently claimed the 2014 uprising in Ferguson was a Russian plot.

    In the case of the alleged attack on Khan Sheikhun, US officials and pro-war experts immediately declared Assad's guilty and then cheered on an illegal use of force. This is all very reminiscent of the lead up to the Iraq war.

    In an eerie coincidence, Michael R. Gordon, who with Judith Miller helped sell the Iraq WMD story to Americans, coauthored the New York Times April 4th article on Assad's alleged sarin attack at Khan Sheikhun.

    To help sell the sarin narrative, the US media brought on a doctor to describe the alleged attack that has been accused of helping kidnap journalists in his work with extremists.

    When the US investigated its own airstrike in Mosul this March, it took a number of days before it admitted it had killed hundreds of civilians. Yet, guilt was immediately assigned in the Khan Sheikhun attack.

    In 2013, the US media also rushed to the conclusion Assad used sarin in a horrific incident in Ghouta. The US was on the verge of attacking Assad then, but Obama decided against it. Obama claimed he held off because US intelligence voiced skepticism about Assad's guilt.

    The UN investigation on the Ghouta attack took almost a month and even its conclusions have been disputed.

    In December of 2013, Seymour Hersh published a lengthy investigation into the 2013 attack in Ghouta and found reason to doubt Assad's responsibility for attack. He was forced to publish it in the London Review of Books after the New York Times and the Washington Post refused to run it.

    He reported that classified US reports claimed that Syria's al Qaeda affiliate had "mastered the mechanics of creating sarin".

    A month after Hersh's piece appeared, a MIT study cast further doubt on the US government's story by demonstrating that the rockets used in the Ghouta attack couldn't have flown as far as the US government claimed.

    Ted Postol, one of the authors of the study said, "We were within a whisker of war based on egregious errors."

    In this latest alleged gas attack, a few individuals have dared question the state narrative.

    The journalist Robert Parry has recently claimed there is much to be made of the fact that Mike Pompeo, the CIA Director, wasn't among those helping sell this latest sarin story to the American people. He believes it indicates doubt in the CIA over Assad's involvement.

    Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, has raised skepticism over Assad's involvement. He says rebels have had chemical weapons facilities in Syria and some of the witnesses' statements describe a strong smell during the attack, which indicates something other than sarin was used.

    The Canadian government originally called for an investigation and stopped short of blaming Assad at the UN, but then later championed Trump's strikes.

    Groups like Organizations for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Human Rights Watch are still investigating the alleged attack in Khan Sheikhun.

    Whether these groups or others will be able to conduct an independent investigation is not known. But in usual fashion, the US had no interest in investigating facts, which may provide the wrong answers.

    It's possible that Assad carried out the attack, but just because he's a reprehensible figure doesn't mean there is no need to present evidence and conduct an independent investigation.

    What's clear now is that the US attack benefitted jihadi groups, has made further US military action more likely, and has increased the chances of a direct military confrontation with Russia. All of these results are very dangerous.

    Future US military action in Syria should be resisted with popular pressure. History shows we can't count on the media or pundits to act as the voice of reason. Join the debate on Facebook

    Paul Gottinger is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger or email: [email protected]

    [Apr 12, 2017] Putin Will Not Meet Tillerson In Russia, As Confusion Grows Over US Policy Toward Syria

    Putin changed he mind :-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Once again reiterating the policy confusion over Syria, Tillerson said at the weekend that the defeat of Islamic State remained the U.S. priority, while the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said that "regime change" in Syria was also a priority for Trump. ..."
    "... "The Americans say they agree, but there's nothing to show for it behind (the scenes). They are absent from this and are navigating aimlessly in the dark," said a senior European diplomat, who declined to be named. ..."
    "... They will also discuss Libya. Italy is hoping for vocal support for a United Nations-backed government in Tripoli which has struggled to establish its authority even in the city, let alone in the rest of the violence-plagued north African country. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Apr 10, 2017 | http://www.zerohedge.com/print/592878

    While the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson seem unable to agree on what the right policy is regarding Syria and specifically Assad, with the former saying a top priority of Trump is to oust Assad, while the latter claimed over the weekend that the Islamic State is the key concern while Assad's fate and that the people of Syria should decide Assad's fate, Russia is not waiting for clarification.

    On Monday morning, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was not due to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin when he visits Moscow later this week. He will meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov however, Peskov said.

    "So far there is no meeting with Tillerson on the president's schedule," Peskov told reporters in a phone call. "We never announce such meetings, whether they will take place or not – we won't announce it."

    The Kremlin spokesman assured reporters though that if there is such a plan, media would be "properly notified."

    Commenting on U.S. missile strikes against Syria last week, Peskov said the action had shown Washington's total unwillingness to cooperate on Syria. He said renewed calls for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down would not help to resolve the crisis.

    "The US side thus has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to somehow cooperate on Syria and take into account each others' interests and concerns," Peskov said, while commenting on the suspension of the Memorandum on Air Safety in the aftermath of the US missile strike on Syrian military airfield overnight on Thursday.

    "There is no other alternative," to peace talks in Geneva and Astana, Peskov said.

    Meanwhile Tillerson, who on Monday was in Italy for a meeting of G7 foreign ministers in Tuscany, said the United States will hold responsible anyone who commits crimes against humanity, just days after the U.S. military unexpectedly attacked Syria. We assume US drone operators, whose actions have caused thousands of innocents deaths over the past decade, will be exempts from this "responsibility."

    While prior to the April 7 missile strikes President Donald Trump had indicated he would be less interventionist than his predecessors and willing to overlook human rights abuses if it was in U.S. interests, Tillerson said the United States would not let such crimes go unchallenged. "We rededicate ourselves to holding to account any and all who commit crimes against the innocents anywhere in the world," he told reporters while commemorating a 1944 German Nazi massacre in Sant'Anna di Stazzema.

    As Reuters adds, European ministers are eager to hear whether Washington is now committed to overthrowing Assad, who is backed by Russia. They also want the United States to put pressure on Moscow to distance itself from Assad.

    Once again reiterating the policy confusion over Syria, Tillerson said at the weekend that the defeat of Islamic State remained the U.S. priority, while the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said that "regime change" in Syria was also a priority for Trump.

    The mixed messages have confused and frustrated European allies, who are eager for full U.S. support for a political solution based on a transfer of power in Damascus.

    "The Americans say they agree, but there's nothing to show for it behind (the scenes). They are absent from this and are navigating aimlessly in the dark," said a senior European diplomat, who declined to be named.

    Italy, Germany, France and Britain have invited foreign ministers from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Qatar to sit down with the G7 group on Tuesday morning to discuss Syria. All oppose Assad's rule.

    The foreign ministers' discussions in Tuscany will prepare the way for a leaders' summit in Sicily at the end of May where foreign ministers will also talk about growing tensions with North Korea, as the United States moves a navy strike group near the Korean peninsula amid concerns over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.

    They will also discuss Libya. Italy is hoping for vocal support for a United Nations-backed government in Tripoli which has struggled to establish its authority even in the city, let alone in the rest of the violence-plagued north African country. The Trump administration has not yet defined a clear policy and Rome fears Washington may fall into step with Egypt and Russia, which support general Khalifa Haftar, a powerful figure in eastern Libya.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Arnaldo Claudio on National Security Advisor Gen. H.R. McMasters human rights violations of Iraqis in 2005

    Mar 31, 2017 | www.libertarianinstitute.org

    Arnaldo Claudio, a retired senior US Military Police officer, discusses his 2005 investigation of human rights abuses of detainees in Tal Afar, in a camp commanded by then-Colonel H.R. McMaster, whom Claudio threatened to arrest.

    According to Claudio, detainees were kept in overcrowded conditions, handcuffed, deprived of food and water, and soiled by their own urine and feces.

    A so-called "good behavior program" was implemented by McMaster, that held detainees indefinitely (beyond a rule requiring release after 2 weeks) unless they provided "actionable intelligence."

    [Apr 12, 2017] The Verifiable Information Vacuum From Syria

    Apr 12, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    It is hard to underestimate the paucity of objective information coming from Syria.

    Wars always have their propaganda machine feeding media sources, from the Israeli Army's largely false assertions that Hamas used human shields during the 2014 Gaza War to Robert McNamara's claim that American campaigns were leading to success in Vietnam. But rarely has the public been fed and believed information from a rebel opposition dominated by terrorist groups, as is the case in the Syrian Civil War. The lack of the civil war's neutral information may be the case in the recent images we saw from apparent chemical attacks in Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib province, Syria, where Al-Nusra is the most powerful opposition group.

    The Syrian opposition has been trying to get the US to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since the beginning of the conflict. After the US's "leading from behind" in the NATO-led overthrow of Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi, the Syrian opposition assumed that Assad's head would be next on the US's chopping block. But this would not come to pass.

    It should be remembered that these initial anti-Assad protests were certainly legitimate acts of dissent and the Assad regime overreacted with disproportionate violence. In response, protesters grew in number and the regime increased its violence, leading to the development of an armed opposition, shortly after which the US, Europe and Gulf States called for Assad to step down. Though receiving arms and funding from its international supporters, the rebel opposition had trouble coalescing and remained highly disorganized, during which time terrorist groups, such as al-Nusra, ISIS and Ahrar al Sham, established themselves in Syria. These terrorist groups were far more organized and effective at fighting than the discombobulated opposition and soon became the principal anti-regime actors in Syria. Thousands of disaffected fighters from the "moderate" opposition joined these terrorist groups, as they proved to be the most effective fighting forces against Assad.

    This brings us back to the informational vacuum that is the Syrian Civil War. On the one hand, Russian, Syrian and Iranian state news continuously depicting Assad's war on "terrorists," which is not entirely true – the opposition is not fully composed of jihadists. Interestingly, Assad and his supporters used the same "terrorist" designation early in the conflict, when there were few terrorist groups involved, as there are now. On the other side, there is rebel media, consisting of White Helmets (pro-Assad media shows members of the White Helmets holding weapons next to ISIS members and the White Helmets cinematographer had been previously barred from entering the United States under Obama) and other partisans supporting the ouster of Assad.

    While some non-mainstream Western journalists are occasionally based with the Assad regime, it suffices to say that they usually only present one side of the story – the pro-regime one – and tend to already be partial towards the regime. In opposition-held territory, journalists rarely, if ever, dare to venture. This is due to safety concerns of reporting from regions where "moderate" opposition groups often ally and commingle with more powerful terrorist groups. The result is an absence of verifiable, unbiased information emerging from the Syrian conflict.

    Rather than acknowledging this complexity and the difficulty of discerning the veracity of information emerging from Syria, the Western media often plays footage it receives from the opposition; an opposition that even US government officials have long acknowledged is terrorist-dominated.

    This level of gullibility that the Western media has towards rebel footage is quite astounding. For instance, it would be like relying on propaganda footage taken by Bin Laden and spreading it as though it were factual.

    With the recent chemical weapons attack footage, there is a significant chance that we're being played by al-Nusra, or even by the "moderate" opposition. Then again, reality could be closer to what we are told/shown: a brutal chemical attack by the Syrian regime was orchestrated on the people of Khan Sheikhoun.

    Even if the latter were true, brutal as this maybe, it is far less harrowing than the totality of the Syrian Civil War that has killed approximately a half million people. The goal should be stopping the war, rather reacting to what amounts to less than a pinprick that took less than 100 lives.

    It should also make us question how we respond to digital information that we receive today, amidst a cacophony of news images. How does it affect us?

    If one recalls, the events which seemed to push the West into beginning the campaign against ISIS in September 2014, were the horrible images fed to the media by terrorists (again?) showing the decapitation of journalist James Foley and other Americans. Should video recordings that are designed to incite us, the viewer, have their intended effect? Obama's airstrikes seemed to serve ISIS's purpose, increasing their popularity and allure for young disaffected Muslim men, who were often marginalized in Western societies.

    This has happened against in April 2017, after President Donald Trump viewed images from the Khan Sheikhoun attack and immediately reversed his more realistic policy of not supporting regime change, through launching 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian government airbase of Shayrat. Should we reflexively react to images that emotionally move us? Or would a clear, concise strategy towards terrorism and peacebuilding in the region serve us better?

    Trump's strike on Syria government forces also makes us consider how American politicians and the public react to military strikes – worryingly, it is with utmost reverence. While Democrats and even some Republicans have compulsively criticized Trump for alleged Russia ties and seeking US-Russia rapprochement; orchestrating a military strike receives support from an overwhelming majority.

    Whether this is a "one-off" strike against the Syrian government or may escalate into further conflict with Syria, and potentially Russia, remains to be seen. One thing is for certain, it has temporarily increased the popularity of a failing administration, helped coalesce a fractured Republican Party and neutered the hostile Democratic opposition.

    The question of whether this Tomahawk strike will prove to be a kind of Gulf of Tonkin event, leading the US to a path of embroiled long-term conflict in Syria – that question remains open.

    Whatever the future may hold, we should try to remember this simple fact: when there are no independent observers on the ground in a conflict, one should be wary of the information presented.

    Peter Crowley is a recent graduate from the Northeastern University Global Studies' Conflict Resolution MS program. He works as a Workflow Coordinator for a prominent library science company. His writings can be found in Boston Literary Magazine, Mint Press News, (several publications in) Wilderness House Literary Review, Mondoweiss, Green Fuse Press, Inquiries Journal, and a periodical publication of the Brookline, MA Historical Society.

    [Apr 12, 2017] US Officials Cant Explain Reason for Syria Chemical Attack

    Apr 12, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    While it wouldn't be unusual for Syria to bomb targets belonging to al-Qaeda's Nusra Front in the Idlib Province with airstrikes, a big hole in the US-backed allegations of a "chemical weapons attack" by the Syrian military is that there was no reason for such a strike.

    Administration officials are trying to manufacture one, with an unnamed "senior official" today delivering a briefing to the media claiming that the Syrian military was afraid of a rebel offensive in the Hama Province, and launched the attack against the rebels' rear support areas for operational purposes.

    This new narrative, that the strike was done for operational reasons,, seemingly contradicts previous claims that Syria attacked civilians with chemical weapons for no reason at all, and when pressed by reporters, the US official was clearly shaken, insisting the attacks were for operational purposes, but not against militarily significant targets, which of course wouldn't make sense.

    On top of this, the US narrative's initial premise is faulty, as the Hama offensive had already ground to a halt two weeks prior to the putative Syrian attack, and Syrian forces appeared well on their way to recovering lost territory from the rebels.

    Small tit-for-tat offensives and counteroffensives on the frontier between government and rebel forces are common enough at any rate, that the losing a handful of villages in northern Hama would not have sparked such an act of desperation, meaning the US claim is not credible.

    If anything, the underlying assumptions make Russia's own narrative of conventional attacks against al-Qaeda's Nusra Front make even more sense, since the US apparently assessed the area targeted as having operational significance to the jihadist rebels.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Tillerson Meets Putin; Visit Polite But Major Differences Remain

    Apr 12, 2017 | news.antiwar.com
    The tone of the conference was polite, with both sides emphasizing current problems with bilateral relati ons and the need to improve on the current "low point," but in addressing questions from reporters, the answers almost exclusively needled the other side, underscoring how deeply divided the nations are.

    Tillerson continued to hype accusations of a Syrian "gas attack" last week, though he admitted when pressed that his repeated accusations of Russian involvement or at least complicity in the incident weren't based on any "firm" information that the US possesses.

    On top of that, Tillerson complained of Syria's use of cluster bombs in the civil war, arguing they are "designed to maim." The US, of course, also has rejected the global cluster munition ban, and has routinely used them in their various wars.

    But the most tense moment was likely the talk of interference in the 2016 US elections, with Tillerson insisting that Russia had done so, and that more sanctions might be warranted. Lavrov fired back that the allegations were slanderous, and pushed for actual evidence.

    The demand for evidence of US accusations was a big talking point for Lavrov, who urged an impartial, international investigation into the putative gas attack, instead of just drawing conclusions and reacting before the information is all in.

    Lavrov went on to criticize the US impulse to impose regime change in general, citing a long list of US failures dating back to Serbia, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the NATO regime change in Libya, and culminating with the establishment of, and virtually immediate collapse of, South Sudan.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: The Syrian chemical attack story is a hoax

    Notable quotes:
    "... However, it is now quite obvious that "a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid." [Robert Parry - Trump's 'Wag the Dog' Moment ] ..."
    "... According to Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson's well informed sources, the explanation presented by the Russians is the most likely scenario. ..."
    "... I would probably have missed the meaning of these few words if it was not for the fact that a well informed source has told me last night that the US will indeed seek a no-fly zone on the entire part of Syria West of the Euphrates. ..."
    Apr 10, 2017 | gosint.wordpress.com

    "Assad's military has gained a decisive advantage over the rebels and he had just scored a major diplomatic victory with the Trump administration's announcement that the U.S. was no longer seeking 'regime change' in Syria. The savvy Assad would know that a chemical weapon attack now would likely result in U.S. retaliation and jeopardize the gains that his military has achieved with Russian and Iranian help. ( ) But logic and respect for facts no longer prevail inside Official Washington, nor inside the mainstream U.S. news media."

    Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson - Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell - does not believe the official narrative of the 'Syrian chemical attack'. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi agrees and describes the story as nothing short of a "sham". Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY

    Last Thursday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson claimed the U.S. Intelligence Community had assessed with a "high degree of confidence" that the Syrian government forces had unleashed a toxic chemical bomb against innocent civilians in Khan Sheikhoun in Syria's Idlib Governate.

    However, it is now quite obvious that "a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid." [Robert Parry - Trump's 'Wag the Dog' Moment ]

    According to Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson's well informed sources, the explanation presented by the Russians is the most likely scenario. Wilkerson also confirmed that the intelligence on this ISIS depot had been shared prior to the strike with both US and Russian Military.

    "In fact most of my sources are telling me - including members of the team that monitor global chemical weapons, including people in Syria, including people in the US Intelligence community - that what most likely happened (and this intelligence was shared with the US by Russia in accordance with the de-conflicting agreement) is that they hit a warehouse that they intended to hit and had told both sides, Russia and the US, that they were going to hit. This is a serious air force, of course. And this warehouse was alleged to have ISIS supply in it and indeed it probably did. And some of these supplies were precursors for chemicals (or possibly an alternative they were phosphates for fertilizing) Conventional bombs hit the warehouse and the wind dispersed these ingredients and killed some people."

    RELATED POST: Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern debunks the alleged Syria 'Chemical Attack'

    Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi

    Giraldi told Scott Horton's Webcast :

    "I'm hearing from sources on the ground in the Middle East, people who are intimately familiar with the intelligence that is available who are saying that the essential narrative that we're all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is a sham."

    "The intelligence confirms pretty much the account that the Russians have been giving which is that they hit a warehouse where the rebels – now these are rebels that are, of course, connected with Al Qaeda – where the rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear."

    RELATED POST: Former CIA Analyst Philip Giraldi: "Morell's bluster deserves a bit of a fact check"

    Former DIA Colonel Pat Lang

    Yesterday, the former DIA officer posted the following analysis:

    "The American media and many American political leaders, Republicans and Democrats, are a complete disgrace as they have cheered Donald Trump's illegal and unjustified order to launch of cruise missiles against a backwater Syrian Air Force outpost. The American public are being sold a profound and dangerous lie via a massive propaganda campaign that, without one shred of empirical evidence, insists that the Air Force of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dropped a chemical weapon for the express purpose of killing civilians. That did not happen. There is no intelligence supporting this claim by the Trump Administration." [ Where Are the Heroes?]

    RELATED POST: Former DIA Colonel: "US strikes on Syria based on a lie"

    A cryptic statement around the 5′ mark, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson drops a strange comment:

    "Assad has a number of ways to achieve this - Including artillery - which by the way a no-fly zone would not stop "

    I would probably have missed the meaning of these few words if it was not for the fact that a well informed source has told me last night that the US will indeed seek a no-fly zone on the entire part of Syria West of the Euphrates.

    About Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson

    Lawrence B. "Larry" Wilkerson (born 15 June 1945) is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wilkerson has criticized many aspects of the Iraq War, including his own preparation of Powell's presentation to the UN.

    "My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."

    RELATED POST: TURKEY - Former US Secretary chief of staff: "The CIA knew about the coming coup "

    Interview: "Trump Attack on Syria Driven by Domestic Politics"

    Lawrence Wilkerson - Wikipedia

    Ex-CIA Agent: The Official Story of Syria Govt "Gassing Innocent Civilians is a Sham"

    =

    Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: "The Syrian chemical attack story is a hoax."

    Related

    [Apr 12, 2017] US-Russia relations at a low, says Tillerson after meeting with Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The perspective from the US is supported by facts we have that are conclusive that the chemical attack was planned and directed and executed by Syrian regime forces," Tillerson said, adding that the "reign of the Assad family is coming to an end" and "Russia perhaps has the best means of helping the Assad regime recognise this reality". ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    Tillerson stuck to the Trump administration insistence that a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 80 people last week in Syria was the work of -> Bashar al-Assad , and that the Syrian president could play no part in the country's long-term future.

    "The perspective from the US is supported by facts we have that are conclusive that the chemical attack was planned and directed and executed by Syrian regime forces," Tillerson said, adding that the "reign of the Assad family is coming to an end" and "Russia perhaps has the best means of helping the Assad regime recognise this reality".

    [Apr 12, 2017] A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences The Vineyard of the Saker

    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    The pretext:

    I don't think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody. To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat . Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true). Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have . He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras. Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support. And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack . Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV. For the rest of us, there are three options:

    a classical US-executed false flag a Syrian strike on a location which happened to be storing some kind of gas, possibly chlorine, but most definitely not sarin. This option requires you to believe in coincidences. I don't. Unless, the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored.

    What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop chemical weapons from their aircraft and that no chemical gas was ever stored at the al-Shayrat airbase. There is no footage showing any munitions or containers which would have delivered the toxic gas. As for US and other radar recordings, all they can show is that an aircraft was in the sky, its heading, altitude and speed. There is no way to distinguish a chemical munition or a chemical attack by means of radar.

    Whatever option you chose, the Syrian government is obviously and self-evidently innocent of the accusation of having used chemical weapons. This is most likely a false flag attack.

    Also, and just for the record, the US had been considering exactly such a false flag attack in the past. You can read everything about this plan here and here .

    The attack:

    American and Russian sources both agree on the following facts: 2 USN ships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria. The US did not consult with the Russians on a political level, but through military channels the US gave Russia 2 hours advance warning. At this point the accounts begin to differ.

    The Americans say that all missiles hit their targets. The Russians say that only 23 cruise missiles hit the airfield. The others are "unaccounted for". Here I think that it is indisputable that the Americans are lying and the Russians are saying the truth: the main runway is intact (the Russian reporters provided footage proving this) and only one taxiway was hit. Furthermore, the Syrian Air Force resumed its operations within 24 hours. 36 cruise missiles have not reached their intended target. That is a fact.

    It is also indisputable that there were no chemical munitions at this base as nobody, neither the Syrians nor the Russian reporters, had to wear any protective gear.

    The missiles used in the attack, the Tomahawk, can use any combination of three guidance systems: GPS, inertial navigation and terrain mapping. There is no evidence and even no reports that the Russians shot even a single air-defense missile. In fact, the Russians had signed a memorandum with the USA which specifically comitting Russia NOT to interfere with any US overflights, manned or not, over Syria (and vice versa). While the Tomahawk cruise missile was developed in the 1980s, there is no reason to believe that the missiles used had exceeded their shelf live and there is even evidence that they were built in 2014 . The Tomahawk is known to be accurate and reliable. There is absolutely no basis to suspect that over half of the missiles fired simply spontaneously malfunctioned. I therefore see only two possible explanations for what happened to the 36 missing cruise missiles:

    Explanation A: Trump never intended to really hit the Syrians hard and this entire attack was just "for show" and the USN deliberately destroyed these missiles over the Mediterranean. That would make it possible for Trump to appear tough while not inflicting the kind of damage which would truly wreck his plans to collaborate with Russia. I do not believe in this explanation and I will explain why in the political analysis below.

    Explanation B: The Russians could not legally shoot down the US missiles. Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that these cruise missiles flew a direct course from the Mediterranean to their target (thereby almost overflying the Russian radar positions). Tomahawk were specifically built to be able to fly tangential courses around some radar types and they also have a very low RCS (radar visibility), especially in the frontal sector. Some of these missiles were probably flying low enough not to be seen by Russian radars, unless the Russians had an AWACS in the air (I don't know if they did). However, since the Russians were warned about the attack they had plenty of time to prepare their electronic warfare stations to "fry" and otherwise disable at least part of the cruise missiles. I do believe that this is the correct explanation. I do not know whether the Russian were technically unable to destroy and confuse the 23 missiles which reached the base or whether a political decision was taken to let less than half of the cruise missiles through in order to disguise the Russian role in the destruction of 36 missiles.

    [Apr 11, 2017] Tulsi Gabbard: We need to learn from Iraq and Libya-wars that were propagated as humanitarian but actually increased human suffering many times over.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard We need to learn from Iraq and Libya-wars that were propagated as "humanitarian" but actually increased human suffering many times over. ..."
    "... Tulsi is a really courageous woman. It is tough to fight against the neocon "swamp". Trump already folded. She is still standing. ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne April 11, 2017 at 12:56 PM
    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/851872500484980736

    Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard We need to learn from Iraq and Libya-wars that were propagated as "humanitarian" but actually increased human suffering many times over.

    12:00 PM - 11 Apr 2017

    sanjait -> anne... , April 11, 2017 at 01:57 PM

    Gabbard is right to be skeptical of the usefulness and righteousness of missile strikes, but deeply stupid to carry water for the denials by Assad and the Russian state media about complicity for the chemical weapons attacks.

    Anne, real skepticism is when you question your own heroes and assumptions.

    Peter K. -> sanjait... , April 11, 2017 at 02:05 PM
    Which you never do.
    libezkova -> anne... , April 11, 2017 at 03:43 PM
    Anne,

    Tulsi is a really courageous woman. It is tough to fight against the neocon "swamp". Trump already folded. She is still standing.

    [Apr 11, 2017] The Democratic attacks on Representative Gabbard for wanting to understand what has happened in Syria are an attack on our democracy.

    Apr 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne -> anne... , April 11, 2017 at 05:42 PM
    The Democratic attacks on Representative Gabbard for wanting to understand what has happened in Syria are an attack on our democracy.
    ilsm -> anne... , April 11, 2017 at 06:13 PM
    Gabbard is correct.

    Both mainstream US parties are war parties, it requires huge lying, faulty logic and misplaced faux morality to justify state sanctioned, industrial scale murder.

    'If you took the money out of war there would be less of it.'

    Obama doctrine is wrong there have been no instances of 'unjust peace' since Cain killed Abel.

    anne -> ilsm... , April 11, 2017 at 06:34 PM
    Obama doctrine is wrong, there have been no instances of 'unjust peace' since Cain killed Abel.

    [ What an interesting passage. I will think this over carefully. ]

    [Apr 11, 2017] Is There A New U.S. Syria Policy? Is There One At All?

    Notable quotes:
    "... It appears that US foreign policy is in turmoil and no longer well managed. The key goal has been to keep the US dollar as a reserve currency and every state in-line with their privately owned central bank. ..."
    "... The petrol dollar is no longer working and debts are out-of-control. Libya and Operation Odyssey Dawn helped bring down a functional government but remember the first thing they did was establish a new private central bank and get rid of an independent one. Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan still have an independent bank and people at the top don't like that. What a coincidence that having an independent central bank and being an enemy of America are the same. ..."
    "... everybody's fed up with the neocons... the prospect of war with Russia makes americans sick to their stomachs, jared and ivanka have three little kids and they probably love them ..."
    "... world leaders are fed up, including xi ..."
    "... what makes you so sure Trump isn't Stupid? He is way over his head, he has no idea of policy, process nor much else. Our one hope was that he was isolationist, but I think that ship has sailed... ..."
    "... I think at least part of this is because some of the things he naively thought were problems are actually dilemmas. Problems can be worked out or smoothed over by methods he's familiar with and comfortable with; dilemmas, not so much. ..."
    "... As I see it little of the Syria policy has much to do with Syria policy. We see a naked struggle for power in Washington. This struggle has been brewing at least since the Syria operation started came out more in the open, more or less, in the 2013 false flag gas attack. ..."
    "... You saw there the marriage of both Democrats and Republicans in pushing for War. ..."
    "... This was the first time I've seen such an open and obvious soft coup within the National Security State and Obama was stripped of his power. Part of why Carter did this is because everyone knew that Trump could not win so Clinton would hit the ground running and go into full-tilt war. Washington was held by the War Party and when Trump entered Washington he entered a town bent on War! Inc. all the way every day. ..."
    "... I'm guessing that the War Party made Trump an offer he could not refuse and he complied ..."
    "... The office of the President does not grant you automatic rule over the Washington establishment as many people falsely believe--that power must be seized and few Presidents have been able to do that. ..."
    "... Just so you know--by "Washington" I mean the entire apparatus of the Deep State which includes major corporations, foreign oligarchs, and governments like Saudi Arabia, Israel and the EU all who favor the War Party. This way they can utterly ignore the interests and prefernces of the American people whose interests are of no account in Washington. ..."
    "... The current US foreign policy depends on who last spoke to the president? Oh wait, wasn't that Ronnie 'Shoot first, ask questions later' Raygun? ..."
    "... Or Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on which a frustrated American public could project their desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out. ..."
    "... A bipartisan group called the war party now has control of the presidency and executive powers. The major flip flops in policy recently is the outward signs of the coup. Policy will soon steady to that of a tafiri suicide bomber. ..."
    "... On further thoughts, it is clear that there is no coherent persistent US foreign policy. Therefore Russia cannot trust a word the US says, especially in relation to issues concerning Russia's national security. ..."
    "... If the rumored deal is serious, it shows the west has either no concept of what Russia has been saying for years or they believe all leaders can be bought off for the right price. ..."
    "... Would Russia trade Assad for the removal of the supposed 'missile defense' (actually nuke-capable first strike) systems in Poland and Romania? I doubt it as those systems can be dealt with in other ways without compromising the prime mission of defeating the terrorists in Syria. ..."
    "... There is nothing the US can say now. It has totally destroyed its negotiating credibility in the eyes of Russia. All it can do is act. It either really supports the removal of all terrorists in Syria (no chance now?) or it tries to prevent Russia and allies destroying them. And that will mean military intervention. ..."
    "... US is pushing to launch strikes against Syrian gov. Much propaganda build up now in prep for next chemical false flag attacks. These nuts are ready to go to war against Syria Air strikes, missile strikes) to destroy the Syrian government even with Russia in Syria. ..."
    "... I suggest there are multiple agenda with one over-riding (or perhaps underwriting) theme that joins them all -- follow the money and it leads to the Saudi Regime (and other related gas stations in the region) ..."
    "... Media: silence when necessary -- 9/11; Yemen, little prince-lings delivering ISIS 'go' drugs in private jets via Lebanon; the weekly beheading and hand removal medieval style -- noise when necessary, "Assad Must Go!" at EVERY opportunity etc. I suggest it highly likely that all globalist politicians get a $kickback for the words sprouted in accord with the main themes. Easy to test the theory: just nuke Riyadh and see how quickly the ex-goat herders from the 11th century STFU. The war on Syria (and Islamic modernity) would end over night. ..."
    "... Neocons and enough rope: there may be a bit of that as well, but I suggest it is 3rd to the previous listed. What does the U.S. administration want with regards to Syria? -- Whatever the $money wants, and with an Economic Depression underway, the money wants distraction most of all. Bread and circus. ..."
    "... In ancient Rome they crowded the Colosseum to watch the blood sports -- now they just tune in on CNN & Co for their daily dose of fact-less Hollywood narrative. Syrian kid gassed, and it's the end of the world snowflake sobbing stupor; Yemen, Gaza, Iraqi, Afghani, (and the list goes on) and it's the big yawn if it even gets a mention between the sponsor's adverts. ..."
    "... Nations don't exist anymore, in practical terms -- as George Carlin said... the owners ... https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ ..."
    "... Trumps rush to judgment instead of attacking fake news, as he has in the past, shows that the 'fix is in'. In that light, Trump's business dealings with Qataris, Turks, etc. are suspect. ..."
    "... b, "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan." Everone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" [ ..."
    "... All your answers can be found in Oded Yinon's 1982 plan to bust up the ME so Israel would be the only remaining dominant influence, and make it easier for that Apartheid nightmare to steal more land. ..."
    "... The US policy is to install a pro-Western leader in Syria. An impossibility IMO but they won't stop trying. Tillerson is going to Moscow to deliver an ultimatum. ..."
    "... Difficult to guess, what is rolling inside Trumps brains. Author William Engdhal thinks, that " Trumps΄s Job is to Prepare America for War ." ..."
    "... I'll elaborate later why I "hate the game, not the players". But, thanks to reading strategic policy plans (Yinon Plan, Wolfowitz Doctrine, PNAC policy document) and the "news" cohesively (rather than as unrelated events the way Big Brother Media frames them), the grand story arc in the ME seems to be unfolding in a manner consistent with Yinon's vision. Is the consistency due to (a) causation or (b) correlation? ..."
    "... I'm afraid Trumps commitment to a non-interventionist agenda was only superficial. As a businessman he saw a niche in the political market (the interests of working class people, so against illegal immigration, offshoring jobs and neocon interventions) and he played it for what it's worth. An additional benefit is that it was contra Obama who he hates. ..."
    "... Now that Bannon is downsized too, there is only the same neoliberal-neocon administration left that we had with Obama, Bush and Clinton. ..."
    "... It looks like there is no deep strategy behind the sudden switch concerning Syria. Trump just wants to look good and he saw an opportunity to get it in an easy way. ..."
    "... I've never thought that Trump was capable of formulating his own plans. I thought it was clear from the campaign that he didn't have mastery of the details of any of his businesses or government policies to fend off attacks. He appeared to be the type of executive who left the details and the decision-making to his VP's. If you can surround him with the right people on his staff, they would essentially run the ship. ..."
    "... Was Obama 'forced' to give up his populist progressive agenda? No. He proved to be a servant of TPTB. His progressiveness was a shame. Obama barely tried to fight back, but his adoring fans made excuses for him at every turn. 11-dimension chess became a joke. ..."
    "... Trump has now proven to be the Republican Obama. He wasn't 'forced' to abandon 'America First'. That is a canard. And he is/will reap financial benefits from serving wealthy ME interests. ..."
    "... The plan is to throw the neocon controlled media off their track. The momentum against Trump was strong - led partly hysteria around the Russia election meddling propaganda. Even Flynn had to be sacrificed. For Trump to survive, he knows he has to throw the media off its track and being the master of media manipulation that he is, he has just managed that. Look at the headlines in NYT or WaPo or the other neocon controlled media in the last few days. The round the clock negative coverage of Trump has been stopped in its tracks. In fact, in WaPo Robert Kagan recently wrote a post praising Trump and saying more is needed. Of course, he wants more bloodshed in the mideast. ..."
    "... In my opinion, there will be no escalation from here on. Trump has been silent on Syria. His various officials will go off in different directions and everyone (especially the neocons) will believe what they want to - just look at that Kagan article - it's so dripping with hope. That gives him the time to consolidate and carry on his own strategy. He just needs time and with this gambit, he has got it. ..."
    "... Greg Bacon - I agree with you 100% (the Yinon Plan is the key). The Zionist influence in the US is scary ... I recently watched a video (youtube) / watch?v=hUJHA9VhUZE where Roger Mattson talked about his book "Stealing the Bomb" - how Israel acquired the knowledge and material to build their nuclear arsenal in the US ... what I found extremely disturbing is the fact, that after the AEC, found that 94 kg of HEU (highly enriched uranium) was "missing" in 1965, what happened? Nothing. ..."
    "... In 1968, the Tel Aviv CIA-station chief collected some samples outside Dimona and sent them to a forensic lab. Result: definitely of US origin, they could even tell from which plant because the unusual enrichment level (97,7%) did exactly match. So finally, the FBI starts to investigate .. (meanwhile Israel is producing plenty of plutionium...)and finds clear evidence of who did it and why ... ..."
    "... LBJ pretended it did not happen (he also knew what the Zionists had done to the USS Liberty but ordered it a "state secret" after the Zionists told him, if he spilled the beans, Jewish money would dry up for the Dems).. the relevant documents were classified for 50 yrs ..all this "frustrates US democracy" says Mattson ... (you bet) ..."
    "... So the Zionists did exactly what they accuse Iran of ... they do this all the time and then play the moral outrage card ... Zionism is a perfidious form of fascism ... the "Neo-cons" are all Zionists (or supporters of Zionism) so in reality fascism is driving US foreign policy ... (Allan Dulles did not bring all these Nazi-war criminals to the US for nothing ....) ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    "Trump was grab by is pussy by the deep state, now we are in a deep shit :)"

    What does the U.S. administration want with regards to Syria?

    The elements were clear just a few days ago. The U.S. would split off the east and set up a Kurdish enclave which it would then occupy with the help of proxy forces. It would use the leverage to push for political regime change in western Syria. Israel would occupy another piece of the Golan.

    While that looked somewhat favorable for the U.S. in the short term it was bad long term strategy. U.S. forces in the east would be surrounded by hostiles, cut off from the sea and under permanent guerilla attack from various opposing forces. But it looked at least like a viable short term way forward.

    The new strategy, which may not be one at all, and the new U.S. commitment is all over the place :

    As various officials have described it, the United States will intervene only when chemical weapons are used - or any time innocents are killed. It will push for the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria - or pursue that only after defeating the Islamic State. America's national interest in Syria is to fight terrorism. Or to ease the humanitarian crisis there. Or to restore stability.

    I don't get it. The cacophony of the last days does not make any sense. There is no viable endgame I see here that would be advantageous for Trump or general U.S. borg policy - neither internationally nor domestically - neither short term nor long term. Trump is now losing the "America First" followers he will need to win another election.

    Due to the anti-Russian panic Trump surrendered to the neocons . Suddenly the borg is lauding him for a senseless escalation. The neocons want chaos but chaos is not a plan. There seems to be no plan that will help any cause.

    There is no chance that the U.S. can split Syria from its allies, Hizbullah, Iran and Russia. While Russia is under pressure in Kaliningrad, Crimea and Syria it has lived through way worse situation and these have always increased its determination. I don't see how or why it would fold now.

    Trump had an intelligent strategy when he won against Clinton. He deftly use his advantages. There are few advantages that he has and can play with regards to Middle East policy. Use pure military force? That's not a strategy, just tactical game play. Though the generals who run his cabinet may not be capable to see that. If he destroys Syrian then Lebanon and Jordan will also fall to radicals. Other countries will follow. Iraq would again throw out all U.S. troops. Would the U.S., or Israel, want that? Why?

    Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan.

    Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all.

    david | Apr 11, 2017 7:19:55 AM | 1
    Deep state.

    It's the only viable explanation, it also appears Trumps lost his twitter password. Lost the offhand style and is now being managed.
    His plan is survive, i think that's as far as it gets now, he cannot control US foreign policy under any circumstances.

    unn | Apr 11, 2017 7:26:37 AM | 2
    Talked about fake news. victim of fake news or now the generator of it? lies from the beginning to the end. that is the bread and butter.
    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 7:32:56 AM | 3
    trump and putin are setting a trap for theneocons
    Outraged | Apr 11, 2017 7:39:50 AM | 4
    Touched on it somewhat in the open thread discussions, b.

    The administrations motivations appear to be purely domestic political, defensive, under siege, and extremely short term reactionary.

    The leaders of the Empires various vassal States openly declare they're just as confused, too.

    Should this incoherent non doctrine, of ' Make it up as you go along from day-to-day ', be formally christened, the 'Trump Doctrine', perhaps ?

    Ah, we're the world's sole remaining superpower, supposedly, displaying our true colors, deep omnipotence and thorough deliberative forward planning, for all the world to see ... /snark

    @ Posted by: flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 7:32:56 AM | 3

    Hoarsewhisperer suspects a similar possibility ... have my doubts.

    jfl | Apr 11, 2017 7:44:38 AM | 5
    b, 'Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan. Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all.'

    tee-rump is stupid. he has no plan. he's reacting. everyone who thinks he/she has a plan is pushing it as tee-rump's plan. tee-rump lets them all go forward - probably isn't even aware of them all - will 'fire' those that fail, 'adopt' any that might not, that at least give him 'topical relief'.

    the fools - the evil clowns - are in power in ac/dc.

    meshpal | Apr 11, 2017 7:46:36 AM | 6
    It appears that US foreign policy is in turmoil and no longer well managed. The key goal has been to keep the US dollar as a reserve currency and every state in-line with their privately owned central bank.

    The petrol dollar is no longer working and debts are out-of-control. Libya and Operation Odyssey Dawn helped bring down a functional government but remember the first thing they did was establish a new private central bank and get rid of an independent one. Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan still have an independent bank and people at the top don't like that. What a coincidence that having an independent central bank and being an enemy of America are the same.

    In any case, it looks like the US is just winging it in Syria; anything to stop Russia, Iran, and Syria working together in peace. And make sure that central bank ownership is changed. Chaos may not be great, but it seems to generate profits and achieve goals for people at the top of the food chain. I do not hear much complaining about Libya. Why not the same for Syria?

    Eugene | Apr 11, 2017 7:50:20 AM | 7
    Whether or not Trump has a plan, he does have a trump card, Nuclear. After all, the Congress used it with the conformation process the other day. They might be similar in name only, but the fact 1/2 was used - i.e. the congress - means the U.S. might use the other 1/2. One has to wonder, just whose side are the pooh-baas really on?
    Mina | Apr 11, 2017 7:52:50 AM | 8
    G7 in Italy today; French FM says it is just the calendar chance, but they spoke mainly about Syria (Tillerson was there before he flies to Moscow). Ayrault says they are 100 percent in agreement on the plan for Syria with ARAB and TURKISH allies...

    i.e. they saved the Merkel-Turkey deal about the million Syrians in Turkey. No question about Erdogan's policies will be taken. Business as usual.

    Ox | Apr 11, 2017 7:52:54 AM | 9
    "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."

    Absolutely, a "very stupid plan"....... Or he had a plan and that plan was blown away by the Deep Forces that Trump, obviously ,will not dare to challenge . So much for the "Good All USA Swamp Cleaning"

    So, where is everybody now? On the streets? No, watching TV and eating Burritos.

    Edward | Apr 11, 2017 7:53:41 AM | 10
    The new Syria policy seems to be the plan of Kushner, who resembles/is a neocon:

    nomoremister.blogspot.com/2017/04/in-trump-white-house-democrats-and.html

    I don't see this plan working. The question is at what point does Trump give up and try something else, hopefully before igniting WWIII. Trump is in a real jam. He doesn't really have any ideas/solutions of his own, his advisors lack any real solutions, and he lacks institutional or public support. Will he end up surrendering to the borg? He may want to resign. He will try to blame others.

    Jen | Apr 11, 2017 7:54:42 AM | 11
    The US attack on Sha'riat airbase turned out to be much less than it was portrayed by the corporate presstitutes. As we know already, 23 of the 59 Tomahawk missiles reached their targets. Of the others, about 5 or 6 might have gone astray and the rest could have been intercepted and redirected by Russian forces near Latakia. The missiles fell around the perimeter of Sha'riat airbase, the main runway was not damaged and Syrian jets were using it not long after the attack. Russia was pre-warned of the US attack and managed to evacuate most personnel (as did the Syrians). The Russians also knew the US attack had been pre-planned even before the Syrian airforce dropped a conventional bomb on the terrorist warehouse storing sarin gas and chlorine gas components in Idlib.

    The whole incident may have been staged in part to buy Trump time and to trick the neocon establishment on Capitol Hill into believing it has Trump by the short and curlies. Trump has a good opportunity to gauge the loyalty or treachery of his cabinet and administration, and of Congress, by observing how they react to the Tomahawk attack.

    Also, is it necessarily a given that after the Sha'riat airbase attack, the US will engage in further attacks on Syrian territory? There's been some news that since the attack, US bombing flights over Syria have decreased. Perhaps there was some deal-making that we don't know about.

    Outraged | Apr 11, 2017 7:55:02 AM | 12
    @ mesphal
    ... looks like the US is just winging it in Syria; anything to stop Russia, Iran, and Syria working together in peace.

    Though the actual effect appears to actually be very much the opposite, as well as disrupting vassal State cohesion/alignment and stiffening resolve among the non-aligned States re blatant, outright, 'Rogue' conduct.

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 7:57:12 AM | 13
    "trump and putin are setting a trap for the neocons"

    the logic runs like this...

    everybody's fed up with the neocons... the prospect of war with Russia makes americans sick to their stomachs, jared and ivanka have three little kids and they probably love them

    world leaders are fed up, including xi

    so putin and trump will terrorize americans into doing some thinking, and xi is in on the gag

    McCain and graham will go down in flames, along with the main media

    that is admittedly the bright side... the dark side is: Richard Perle has the negative of trump and that burro

    Outraged | Apr 11, 2017 8:09:17 AM | 14
    @ Jen

    Given the RF promptly cancelled the de-confliction MOU and communication channel, that means any US/coalition aircraft in flight over Syria within ~250Km+ of Latakia or Tartus (S400/300+ complexes) are at extreme risk.

    This is because those aircraft fly at mid to high altitudes to avoid possible engagement by numerous Syrian AD SAM/Gun systems captured and in known use by ISIS/AQ & various moderate head-choppers ...

    if true US/Coalition have ceased overflights, may not necessarily indicate anything more than that for now, simple force protection measure in the interim, perhaps.

    somebody | Apr 11, 2017 8:16:13 AM | 16
    Posted by: Jen | Apr 11, 2017 7:54:42 AM | 11

    Russia stopped to communicate on airstrikes - the deconflicting. It is the opposite of a deal, US planes risk running into accidents.

    harrylaw | Apr 11, 2017 8:22:36 AM | 17
    It is all about who will be the hegemon in the middle east, Apartheid Israeli expansionism in the West Bank, Golan Heights and beyond, not forgetting Israels claims on the Litani river. Plus Israels ability to influence the US electoral process through bundlers like Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban etc, plus the almost 100% support of Israel in Congress, winning US elections is what it is all about. Saudi Arabia also has good friends in Congress, just so long as they continue to use the petro dollar and continue purchasing 100's of billions of dollars on US arms.

    Both countries are coming together in their fear of Iran, thinking that Israels military power and Saudi money will fix everything is delusional. US thinking has it that the 'arc of resistance' must be defeated and that Syria 'the low hanging fruit' of that coalition shall be the first to fall, followed by Hezbollah then Iran.

    The US realize their hegemony in the region is at stake, that is why they are thrashing about with futile gestures accusing Syria and Russia in turn of war crimes. In my opinion the 'arc' will prevail, such is the existential nature of the struggle, the US, Israel/Saudi Arabia and the head choppers are on the wrong side of history.

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 8:24:44 AM | 18
    that blackwater guy met with Russians in the sychelles, set up a back-channel communications link between trump and Putin

    Jared's been meeting with Russians, a fact he "forgot" to put on his job application

    meanwhile, McCain is making a leaping gaping asshole of himself, and so is the main media

    it's a risky strategy, it may backfire, it may not even exist, but...

    hope springs eternal, doesn't it?

    scottindallas | Apr 11, 2017 8:26:25 AM | 19
    what makes you so sure Trump isn't Stupid? He is way over his head, he has no idea of policy, process nor much else. Our one hope was that he was isolationist, but I think that ship has sailed...
    PhilK | Apr 11, 2017 8:33:26 AM | 21
    Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan.

    I think at least part of this is because some of the things he naively thought were problems are actually dilemmas. Problems can be worked out or smoothed over by methods he's familiar with and comfortable with; dilemmas, not so much.

    Banger | Apr 11, 2017 8:34:13 AM | 22
    As I see it little of the Syria policy has much to do with Syria policy. We see a naked struggle for power in Washington. This struggle has been brewing at least since the Syria operation started came out more in the open, more or less, in the 2013 false flag gas attack.

    You saw there the marriage of both Democrats and Republicans in pushing for War.

    Against this newly united faction realists in the military and other national security agencies opposed drastic military action and for three years there was a back and force--sometimes the War Party held some advantage and sometimes the realists dragged their feet.

    In late September of 2016 the realists seemed to have some momentum and the Kerry/Lavrov agreement was signed. With stunning swiftness the agreement was condemned by the War mongers and SecDef Carter mutinied and scuttled the agreement within a week.

    This was the first time I've seen such an open and obvious soft coup within the National Security State and Obama was stripped of his power. Part of why Carter did this is because everyone knew that Trump could not win so Clinton would hit the ground running and go into full-tilt war. Washington was held by the War Party and when Trump entered Washington he entered a town bent on War! Inc. all the way every day.

    I'm guessing that the War Party made Trump an offer he could not refuse and he complied and probably convinced himself that he was doing the right thing--what else could he do? The office of the President does not grant you automatic rule over the Washington establishment as many people falsely believe--that power must be seized and few Presidents have been able to do that.

    I have no idea if Trump is playing possum and waiting to fight another day or if he is merely content in being Head of State and letting the bureaucracy (Deep State) run the government without interference.

    Just so you know--by "Washington" I mean the entire apparatus of the Deep State which includes major corporations, foreign oligarchs, and governments like Saudi Arabia, Israel and the EU all who favor the War Party. This way they can utterly ignore the interests and prefernces of the American people whose interests are of no account in Washington.

    Yonatan | Apr 11, 2017 8:35:35 AM | 23
    The current US foreign policy depends on who last spoke to the president? Oh wait, wasn't that Ronnie 'Shoot first, ask questions later' Raygun?

    Given the scary way things are going, so light relief may be in order, so here is a link I came across of Russian press call in which Lavrov expertly trolls Tillerson.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl8126Iy6gM&t=4m40s

    CasualObserver | Apr 11, 2017 8:36:46 AM | 24
    I think Trump (Bannon) gave a piece of rope to neocon guys in his house and they used it to make this current mess. Bannon excused himself so other guys can hang themselves without him being burn. They wanted a fire, they got one.

    DS is not stupid enough to really start WW3 and fireplaying guys will ultimately burn at some moment this whole Bannon stratagem plays out. It looks risky as hell, but given precision of other guys strategic arms nobody is crazy enough to play too far.

    Other side knows this, and just makes fire hotter an hotter - while helping SAA to became more and more of A and many other steps all around the world. Once this plays out somebody will pay and I think Trump will not be one paying. He will get out of this a winner, an empathic and wise leader. And Putin will still be smiling one.

    TG | Apr 11, 2017 8:37:33 AM | 25
    What are Trump's thoughts? Good question.

    I really have no idea. It does look as if he was finally beaten down by the so-called 'deep state' (more properly, the oligarchy).

    Or Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on which a frustrated American public could project their desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out.

    So sad.

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 8:41:18 AM | 26
    one last little thing, here...

    google: fake chemical attack Syria: About 5,350,000 results

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=fake+chemical+attack+syria&spf=1020

    *shrug*

    guidoamm | Apr 11, 2017 8:42:40 AM | 27
    You are assuming that anyone elected to office has the power to do anything. Politics is merely a sideshow.

    Take Europe as a typical case in point. In the past 40 years, Europe has experienced all manners of political ideology. From the Marxists and the military in Portugal and Greece to the Fascists in Spain and all manner of "Democrats" elsewhere.

    Yet, the result is exactly the same across the board. We have stagnating wages, a sky rocketing cost of living, decrepit infrastructure that all result in increasing fiscal and legislative pressure.

    Clearly, politics has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life.

    Marxists, Fascists and Democrats all subscribe to a policy of perpetual fiscal deficits. No exception.

    Regardless the underlying condition of the economy, Western governments run fiscal deficits and rack up sovereign debt perpetually.

    But in a closed system where there is an entity that has been anointed as the owner of the currency and where the unit of account is imposed under penalty of law, perpetual deficits have arithmetical ramifications.

    The ramification is the migration of profit towards the owner of the currency.

    As profit migrates, so does title and political power.

    Essentially, the central bank has been allowed to draw a boundary around society. The central bank doesn't care what happens within the boundary because their sole role is to push credit into the system.

    Central banks have no other role.

    In this regard, the central bank has the most to gain when the economy is faltering.

    In this regard too, the roles of the World Bank, the IMF or the UN should become clearer. Hence the reason, for example, that the UN always, always, alway disburses funds even when corruption has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the reason that despite subsequent damning reports by SIGAR, USAid still spends hundreds of millions on white elephants in war zones.

    Syria is but a side show. As is Yemen, Iraq, Libya and many other theatres prior.

    The end game the transfer of title.

    Title is transferred by precipitating chaos.

    As you precipitate chaos, the fiscal strain compels the political construct to tighten the fiscal and legislative screws on people.

    In a first instance, this monetary system can only result in the political construct having to, eventually, fight against the people.

    Shortly after that, the political construct will have to fight against the owners of the currency too. This arrangement however, also builds up and nourishes an increasingly necessary security apparatus to ensure its own survival.

    As the fiscal situation worsens however, the Praetorians will, though gradually, inevitably take over. The Praetorian Guard has now taken over. That is what is happening in Syria

    g

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 8:43:26 AM | 28
    A bipartisan group called the war party now has control of the presidency and executive powers. The major flip flops in policy recently is the outward signs of the coup. Policy will soon steady to that of a tafiri suicide bomber.
    terry | Apr 11, 2017 8:52:56 AM | 29
    I am thinking that the Putin plan of a stalemate is going well ...Most plebs in the west want the US out of the ME and most in the ME want the US out so its looking like a win win . >)
    Yonatan | Apr 11, 2017 9:17:01 AM | 31
    On further thoughts, it is clear that there is no coherent persistent US foreign policy. Therefore Russia cannot trust a word the US says, especially in relation to issues concerning Russia's national security.

    There are rumors in the British press that Tillerson is going to make Russia an offer, presumably one seen by the US as something Russia cannot possibly refuse. The deal in question - give up Assad in favor of returning to the G7.

    This is totally laughable for several reasons.

    If the rumored deal is serious, it shows the west has either no concept of what Russia has been saying for years or they believe all leaders can be bought off for the right price.

    Would Russia trade Assad for the removal of the supposed 'missile defense' (actually nuke-capable first strike) systems in Poland and Romania? I doubt it as those systems can be dealt with in other ways without compromising the prime mission of defeating the terrorists in Syria.

    There is nothing the US can say now. It has totally destroyed its negotiating credibility in the eyes of Russia. All it can do is act. It either really supports the removal of all terrorists in Syria (no chance now?) or it tries to prevent Russia and allies destroying them. And that will mean military intervention.

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 9:36:12 AM | 32
    best place to find out what US is up to is perhaps Russian intelligence.

    https://www.rt.com/news/384333-putin-idlib-attack-provocation/

    (Putin)..."We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack,"...

    ..."President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," ....

    ...A separate report of a potential false flag operation in Syria came from the Russian General Staff, which said militants were transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria...

    US is pushing to launch strikes against Syrian gov. Much propaganda build up now in prep for next chemical false flag attacks. These nuts are ready to go to war against Syria Air strikes, missile strikes) to destroy the Syrian government even with Russia in Syria.

    x | Apr 11, 2017 9:39:48 AM | 33
    "Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all."
    ---

    I suggest there are multiple agenda with one over-riding (or perhaps underwriting) theme that joins them all -- follow the money and it leads to the Saudi Regime (and other related gas stations in the region).

    Media: silence when necessary -- 9/11; Yemen, little prince-lings delivering ISIS 'go' drugs in private jets via Lebanon; the weekly beheading and hand removal medieval style -- noise when necessary, "Assad Must Go!" at EVERY opportunity etc. I suggest it highly likely that all globalist politicians get a $kickback for the words sprouted in accord with the main themes. Easy to test the theory: just nuke Riyadh and see how quickly the ex-goat herders from the 11th century STFU. The war on Syria (and Islamic modernity) would end over night.

    Trump: he looks bored already. Suggest he's just pressed the whiz button on the DC food processor -- Republicans are acting like they won the election. Wrong, Trump and Bannon and Flynn won the election. Payback will be the mid-term in 2018 where all 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives and 34 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate will be contested.

    He's moving to hand these parasites back to 'the people' in one fine mess.

    Neocons and enough rope: there may be a bit of that as well, but I suggest it is 3rd to the previous listed. What does the U.S. administration want with regards to Syria? -- Whatever the $money wants, and with an Economic Depression underway, the money wants distraction most of all. Bread and circus.

    In ancient Rome they crowded the Colosseum to watch the blood sports -- now they just tune in on CNN & Co for their daily dose of fact-less Hollywood narrative. Syrian kid gassed, and it's the end of the world snowflake sobbing stupor; Yemen, Gaza, Iraqi, Afghani, (and the list goes on) and it's the big yawn if it even gets a mention between the sponsor's adverts.

    The only way this system of systemic corruption and abomination is going to stop is if/when the Russians/Chinese and any others simply target their "10,000" nukes on the GPS readings of the 0.01% cohort of individuals and start the countdown.

    Nations don't exist anymore, in practical terms -- as George Carlin said... the owners ... https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ

    David | Apr 11, 2017 9:41:02 AM | 34
    In regards to the Trumpet's middle east mess I submit this link from Brandon Smith (Alt-market.com)

    Economic End Game

    An interesting blog. Brandon seems like someone willing to look beyond normal stereotypes and has a unique take on current affairs. I'd suggest checking-out some of his other blog post about the election. He also has information on making a ghillie suit which defeats thermal imaging (FLIR) – I'm sure this is something all MoA folks will be wearing come summer (snark).

    Thanks to the patrons and especially b for keeping this place open and interesting. As a side note I prefer the commenters who comment on news and not bash each other.

    I've been reading aleksandr solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, but I find I can't finish it. Too stark and too many moments that make me think the folks in the USA are about to experience the book first hand. Sigh.

    Peace

    Jackrabbit | Apr 11, 2017 9:46:23 AM | 35
    Trumps rush to judgment instead of attacking fake news, as he has in the past, shows that the 'fix is in'. In that light, Trump's business dealings with Qataris, Turks, etc. are suspect.

    Trump's NY-sized ego forces him to seek to dominate. In Trump's world, that means $$$$$. By servicing wealthy ME interests, he can leverage his business to make billions.

    Obama only got a $60m book deal. Trump's 'take' will rival the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play scheme.

    Jackrabbit | Apr 11, 2017 9:48:01 AM | 36
    The weak attack on Shayrat was a 'shot across the bow'. Trump sent a signal that further R+6 advances will not be tolerated. It is a 'one off' only if Putin agrees to a deal.
    FecklessLeft | Apr 11, 2017 9:48:12 AM | 37
    @34 thanks for the blog recommendation - looks interesting at a first glance.

    And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement: "Thanks to the patrons and especially b for keeping this place open and interesting. As a side note I prefer the commenters who comment on news and not bash each other."

    never mind | Apr 11, 2017 9:49:22 AM | 38
    I don't really see this one unified front when it comes to US foreign policy, one might view this administration, going forward, as schizophrenic as the last one.

    Which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, after all, the US is considered to be an oligarchy , there are too many influental people, corporations and institutions pulling the strings of the empire.

    The question is, how does one deal with the US considering its mental health issues?

    mireille | Apr 11, 2017 9:51:29 AM | 39
    ... ... ...
    2. Trump controls nothing and never will. When Peter Dale Scott began talking about the Deep State many years ago he made it clear that the term derived from the Turkish "Donmeh". The donmeh has always been strpngly crypto Jewish and was the decisive force behind Kemal Attaturk that put the secular Turkish government in place. The donmeh includes Turkish, Israeli, and Saudi power factions with differing but allied agendas. The Syria situation is confused because the Turks are deeply confused about what would be acceptable to them.
    ... ... ...
    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 9:54:14 AM | 40
    36
    The deal is, Putin pulls support of Syria totally. No weapons, no ammunition into Syria, no support whatsoever so AQ can get the upper hand.
    Though I doubt the strike is a one off. The decision has already been made to hit Syria, Russia or no Russia.
    harrylaw | Apr 11, 2017 10:02:41 AM | 41
    b, "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan." Everone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" [Mike Tyson ]

    That punch... The Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah's acceptance of the Syrian invitation to help them defeat the headchoppers.Game set and match to Syria.

    Greg Bacon | Apr 11, 2017 10:10:35 AM | 43
    All your answers can be found in Oded Yinon's 1982 plan to bust up the ME so Israel would be the only remaining dominant influence, and make it easier for that Apartheid nightmare to steal more land.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf

    After Syria is destroyed, it will be on to Iran and the MSM will be more than happy to oblige in killing another nation.

    dh | Apr 11, 2017 10:18:20 AM | 44
    The US policy is to install a pro-Western leader in Syria. An impossibility IMO but they won't stop trying. Tillerson is going to Moscow to deliver an ultimatum.
    Outraged | Apr 11, 2017 10:19:14 AM | 45
    Syria war: G7 fails to agree sanctions on Russia after 'chemical attack'
    BBC News - 14 minutes ago

    The BBC's Steve Rosenberg in Moscow says experience shows that Russia does not take well to threats or ultimatums. If Mr Tillerson thinks he can weaken Moscow's support for President Assad, he may need to re-think, our correspondent says, adding that ...

    Tillerson Gives Russia Ultimatum: Side With The US Or Iran
    International Business Times - 25 minutes ago
    U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was scheduled to meet with Russian diplomats this week to discuss Russia's obligation to drain Syria of chemical weapons under a 2013 agreement. Tillerson gave Russia an ultimatum Tuesday to side with the U.S ...

    maningi | Apr 11, 2017 10:20:48 AM | 46
    B

    Difficult to guess, what is rolling inside Trumps brains. Author William Engdhal thinks, that " Trumps΄s Job is to Prepare America for War ."
    But maybe we should better ask Kissinger, who once said:
    "No one knows, what he (Trump) is going to do. So we can make of him anything we want to.
    He is what we want to make him
    .

    Guess that was the big, somehow erratic plan right from the beginning - I am afraid.

    Anyway, most likely its a waste of time trying to find out, what big plans Trumps will be pulling out of the wizards hat.
    On the other hand, it could be live saving to start to thing about the plan WE should come up to get us out of this mess.

    mfg,

    dumbass | Apr 11, 2017 10:37:34 AM | 48
    I'll elaborate later why I "hate the game, not the players". But, thanks to reading strategic policy plans (Yinon Plan, Wolfowitz Doctrine, PNAC policy document) and the "news" cohesively (rather than as unrelated events the way Big Brother Media frames them), the grand story arc in the ME seems to be unfolding in a manner consistent with Yinon's vision. Is the consistency due to (a) causation or (b) correlation?

    (a) If "causation", then the US will likely keep increasing its activities and presence until Syria is partitioned and the US has permanent bases.

    For us peaceniks, potential upside is to mitigate militant Israeli rulers lack of confidence in their long-term survivability:

    Once they feel substantially less threatened, then maybe a later generation of people living in the region will not know war so intimately.

    (Still on their "to do" list is "relocate the Palestinians somewhere". Maybe relocate the Palestinians to a re-partitioned Syria or Libya, now that part of those populations has been sent to Europe as refugees?? Again, gotta wonder about causation versus correlation.)

    About "hate the game, not the players", I understand why Israeli militant rulers feel the way they do. If they choose not to play brutal geopolitcal games, others will. Indeed, when you observe the ease with which they and others successfully excited Christian sheeple into becoming attack dogs, you can see they have no choice but to do so, because other irrational rulers could and would eventually come along and turn those same sheeple against them. The world is cruel and you cannot safely "choose not to play".

    (If most self-professed "Christians" weren't so easily goaded into supporting killing people, then maybe they wouldn't need to be "wagged". But, I don't see that day coming. Especially with the way history is (not) taught.)

    (b) It could simply be "correlation". After all, imperialist but self-professed "Christian" hordes have been killing each other, Muslims, and Jews with abandon for millenia. (What's that about "religion of peace"?? In recent memory, "Christianity as practiced" is far less a "religion of peace" than Islam.) What we see in the ME could simply be more ordinary US/UK/Western European imperialism, like the kind we've seen historically and continuing to present day everywhere else around the world.

    The "light at the end of the tunnel" is that general artificial intelligence is coming soon. If it doesn't kill us, there's some "hope" the hegemon that emerges within 10 years will use its omniscience and omnipotence to impose/guarantee safety to all of us in the panopticon.

    dumbass | Apr 11, 2017 10:45:09 AM | 50
    guidomann @ 27

    >> Clearly, politics has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life.

    Not true. Capitalist colonies that transformed from capitalist to Marxist experiences giant improvements in literacy and longevity within just a few years. That in spite of a constant state of war imposed on them by their former and future masters.

    Compare Cuba people's fortunes with any and every other tiny nation in Oceania's direct shadow. Heck, Cuba's biggest export was doctors. Better than "the world's greatest purveyor of violence" by a long shot.

    Jerry | Apr 11, 2017 10:46:38 AM | 51
    I'm afraid Trumps commitment to a non-interventionist agenda was only superficial. As a businessman he saw a niche in the political market (the interests of working class people, so against illegal immigration, offshoring jobs and neocon interventions) and he played it for what it's worth. An additional benefit is that it was contra Obama who he hates.

    So when Obama starts wars all over the Middle East, Trump claimed to want peace. When Obama struck a deal with Iran, Trump wanted to nuke it. Same with TPP, Obama care etc. In the same way I suspect that Trumps hatred for Mexico comes from several botched businessdeals in Mexico that cost him a lot of money.

    Now that Trump has what he wants (the White House and giving Obama the finger), he is only interested in 'winning'. So when the Bannon-Flynn wing couldn't give him victories, he started to go with the Kushner-Cohn wing. Trump seems to be very opportunistic without any commitment to a principled policy. And with people he acts the same: anyone remember how he dropped Christy and Gingrich after they campaigned for him? Same with Flynn: he dropped him for no good reason. Now that Bannon is downsized too, there is only the same neoliberal-neocon administration left that we had with Obama, Bush and Clinton.

    It looks like there is no deep strategy behind the sudden switch concerning Syria. Trump just wants to look good and he saw an opportunity to get it in an easy way. And he did get it: the MSM is suddenly loving him, the Trump-is-Putin-meme has all but disappeared, his approval rate just bumped up and the Israel-lobby is elated. It is not even that Trump sold out his voter-base. He was never committed to them in the first place and now they're in for a rude awakening - how sad!

    dumbass | Apr 11, 2017 10:51:37 AM | 52
    Team Chaos has found the perfectly inscrutable figurehead in Trump. Confusing the hell out of their contrived adversaries 24x7.
    Pislyak | Apr 11, 2017 11:04:07 AM | 53
    Trump buckling under to these policies (from neocon Robert Kagan Washington Post, Sunday, April 9)reported by Consortium News:

    "The testing of Trump's resolve actually begins now. If the United States backs down in the face of these challenges, the missile strike, though a worthy action in itself, may end up reinforcing the world's impression that the United States does not have the stomach for confrontation."

    "Instead of being a one time event, the missile strike needs to be the opening move in a comprehensive political, diplomatic and military strategy to re-balance the situation in Syria in America's favor."

    "Thursday's action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect the Syrian people from the brutality of the Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral of US power and influence in the Middle East and throughout the world. A single missile strike unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration over the past six years."

    "The United States' commitment to such a course will have to be clear enough to deter the Russians from attempting to disrupt it. This in turn will require moving sufficient assets to the region so that neither Russia nor Iran will be tempted to escalate the conflict to a crisis, and be sure that the American forces will be ready if they do . . ."

    "Let's hope that the Trump administration is prepared for the next move. If it is, then there is a real chance of reversing the course of global retreat that Obama began. A strong response in Syria will make it clear to the likes of Putin, Xi Jinping, Ayatollah Khamenei and Kim Jong Un that the days of American passivity are over."

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/10/neocons-have-trump-on-his-knees/

    juliania | Apr 11, 2017 11:06:48 AM | 54
    What Trump hasn't seen but Putin does see is that in order to become a leader recognized by history as great and ultimately able himself to face himself, one has to stand by what he has told the people he will do. In that illusory state of blindness he resembles Obama greatly and resides within a bubble of immediate, transitory acclaim. Our hope was that, in his later years now, he would have realized, with our support, what a sham that attitude has been - Obama has yet to realize it, but he eventually will, and his declining years will face him with that reality. It's a huge shame for both men that they seem unable to appreciate that they both had the potential to be great and have both shunned the prospect.

    Putin will now turn away. Not belligerently, but with great sadness. Tillerson is taking, RT says, an ultimatum from the G7 which Putin will not accept. If he, Tillerson, presents this, he will quickly be shown the door. Politely, but quickly. Russia will not, cannot, accept any 'deal'. The best we can hope for is that they will ignore us and concentrate on the real tragedies of people under siege and lives lost. The best we can hope for is that our blustering 'leader' will find some other distraction that doesn't get in the way, for whatever sort of time he still wants to spend pretending to be president. Because that he is not. If Russia can manage without us, they will have to do so, and I really don't know how the US is going to be able to manage.

    Movies and tv shows maybe. Movies and tv shows. And blue jeans. We could go back to making blue jeans; we were good at that.

    Les | Apr 11, 2017 11:10:45 AM | 55
    I've never thought that Trump was capable of formulating his own plans. I thought it was clear from the campaign that he didn't have mastery of the details of any of his businesses or government policies to fend off attacks. He appeared to be the type of executive who left the details and the decision-making to his VP's. If you can surround him with the right people on his staff, they would essentially run the ship.
    Jackrabbit | Apr 11, 2017 11:12:53 AM | 56
    Jerry @51

    Was Obama 'forced' to give up his populist progressive agenda? No. He proved to be a servant of TPTB. His progressiveness was a shame. Obama barely tried to fight back, but his adoring fans made excuses for him at every turn. 11-dimension chess became a joke.

    We are failing to learn from that history.

    Trump has now proven to be the Republican Obama. He wasn't 'forced' to abandon 'America First'. That is a canard. And he is/will reap financial benefits from serving wealthy ME interests.

    Hannibal | Apr 11, 2017 11:14:55 AM | 57
    Trump does not have a plan, he's a clueless eco-centric blowhard bully. He's dangerous!
    ancient archer | Apr 11, 2017 11:15:14 AM | 58
    "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."

    The plan is to throw the neocon controlled media off their track. The momentum against Trump was strong - led partly hysteria around the Russia election meddling propaganda. Even Flynn had to be sacrificed. For Trump to survive, he knows he has to throw the media off its track and being the master of media manipulation that he is, he has just managed that. Look at the headlines in NYT or WaPo or the other neocon controlled media in the last few days. The round the clock negative coverage of Trump has been stopped in its tracks. In fact, in WaPo Robert Kagan recently wrote a post praising Trump and saying more is needed. Of course, he wants more bloodshed in the mideast.

    Is it a wonder that in the age of fake news the master media manipulator won the elections??

    In my opinion, there will be no escalation from here on. Trump has been silent on Syria. His various officials will go off in different directions and everyone (especially the neocons) will believe what they want to - just look at that Kagan article - it's so dripping with hope. That gives him the time to consolidate and carry on his own strategy. He just needs time and with this gambit, he has got it.

    Also, with the war crazy neocons flocking to his banner, they have proved that they are neither republicans nor are they democrats. they just support whoever seems ablest to sow more war and chaos. A blight on their houses!

    john | Apr 11, 2017 11:28:34 AM | 59
    Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan

    well, if he's not stupid the idea that he's been 'captured' doesn't really hold up. unless, of course, the man with no name put the old luger to his temple and talked to him softly about the well-being of his beautiful wife and children.

    after all these years, decades really, the aggregate of lies, betrayals, and deceptions, criminality of the vilest nature, has sucked all the oxygen out of strategic thinking . off-the-cuff accusations of gas attacks without a shred of evidence, or even a sham investigation, followed hours later by a cruise missile bombardment pretty much confirms this. now it looks like raw imperialism on steroids.

    of course the only viable plan would be to pack up and go home, start a political reconciliation process, and pay a massive reparations bill.

    fat chance.

    Miss Marple | Apr 11, 2017 11:32:57 AM | 60
    Greg Bacon - I agree with you 100% (the Yinon Plan is the key). The Zionist influence in the US is scary ... I recently watched a video (youtube) / watch?v=hUJHA9VhUZE where Roger Mattson talked about his book "Stealing the Bomb" - how Israel acquired the knowledge and material to build their nuclear arsenal in the US ... what I found extremely disturbing is the fact, that after the AEC, found that 94 kg of HEU (highly enriched uranium) was "missing" in 1965, what happened? Nothing.

    In 1968, the Tel Aviv CIA-station chief collected some samples outside Dimona and sent them to a forensic lab. Result: definitely of US origin, they could even tell from which plant because the unusual enrichment level (97,7%) did exactly match. So finally, the FBI starts to investigate .. (meanwhile Israel is producing plenty of plutionium...)and finds clear evidence of who did it and why ...

    End result: huge cover-up .... according to Mattson:

    "CIA-information withheld from NRC and FBI" ... "FBI did not look until too late" .. "FBI & CIA feared Israel's pushback" (!)

    LBJ pretended it did not happen (he also knew what the Zionists had done to the USS Liberty but ordered it a "state secret" after the Zionists told him, if he spilled the beans, Jewish money would dry up for the Dems).. the relevant documents were classified for 50 yrs ..all this "frustrates US democracy" says Mattson ... (you bet)

    So the Zionists did exactly what they accuse Iran of ... they do this all the time and then play the moral outrage card ... Zionism is a perfidious form of fascism ... the "Neo-cons" are all Zionists (or supporters of Zionism) so in reality fascism is driving US foreign policy ... (Allan Dulles did not bring all these Nazi-war criminals to the US for nothing ....)

    Heliopause | Apr 11, 2017 11:40:51 AM | 61
    Trump undoubtedly has a plan, such as it is, but the competing plans from the many different major actors make it difficult to discern or execute. Imagine a football game where a dozen teams are all playing one another at the same time. Obama's plan was to kinda sorta do something, hoping nobody would notice the dearth of morality or coherence, and Trump may be falling into the same trap.
    Flavius | Apr 11, 2017 11:49:01 AM | 64
    Ockham: every appearance points to no plan, ergo, until evidence directs otherwise, the hypothesis that there is no plan best explains the circumstances. Trump, like our past 3 Presidents, appears to be over his head, unable to reconcile streams of advice into a coherent policy, and close to flailing. He has thrown away his cover on the intelligent right; he has defaulted into cover from the borg where he is despised. If/when evidence is presented that the Syria 'gas attack' was a false flag, he is through. Better lucky than smart, but it sure looks time has run out on Trump with respect to both.
    Backdoor | Apr 11, 2017 12:00:18 PM | 65
    Still funny how so many people fall for the "Trump is an idiot" scheme, go on underestimating him, that's what he wants.
    Personally I think it's important to look at the "military action" he took. Sending a bunch of tomahawks on an unimportant target, all with a prior warning, is hardly a heavy retaliation, which makes sense since Assad did nothing worthy of retaliation, and Trump most certainly knew that. But look what happend, everyone is loosing their shit, complaining about how Trump will start WW3, and all the while, the warhawks flook to trump and endorse his actions, actions that the majority of the population condems because they're either pro-Trump, and hold him to his campaign promise of "america first", or are against Trump, and therefore condem absolutly everything he does. Imagine Hilary doing the same thing, her followers would have hailed her as a hero for fighting this Evil-Monster-Assad™. We will have to see how this situation plays out, but to toss in my two cents, I suspect that the war tension will get seriously hyped up by the media and Trump will play his part in that aswell, either by remaining silent or by resorting to vague politically meaningless statements. Once the public is outraged and people are frigthend enough Trump can handle syria without appearing weak or being attacked as a russian ploy. Afterall Trump has nothing to win by starting a war in syria, it wouldn't make sense for him to suddenly outobama Obama, for what reason? Money? Power? Sure the deepstate could blackmail him, but I'm honestly sure that after all these baseless attacks they could have a video of him in full SS-Garb shooting a bunch of puppies and the public wouldn't give a shit.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 11, 2017 12:00:50 PM | 66
    Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid.
    He must have some kind of plan.

    Welcome to the club.
    Given his inaugural drain the swamp declaration, and the inherent hazards and complexities, there was no chance at all that His presidency would be anything other than a perpetual guessing game. Imo, Trump seems to be the first POTUS in modern times to fully comprehend, and exploit, the outer limits of the power and respect that the position confers on the incumbent. Everyone who matters on the World Stage is obliged to listen when POTUS speaks, and at least pretend to take him seriously, whether they agree or not.
    ----------------------
    As Outraged has alluded to above, the G8-1 wank-fest was as anti-climactic as Xi's meeting with Trump. Perhaps someone stayed sober enough to suggest they all take a cold shower and stop talking a load of drivel that even they, themselves, were having trouble pretending to believe.
    Howzat?!
    Putin won, in absentia!

    Susan Sunflower | Apr 11, 2017 12:04:16 PM | 67
    Trump's "plan" seems to be to rush the net and provoke a sense of crisis, "danger" (to whom by what?) and "chaos" (no coherent storyboard or "message discipline" as many have mentioned).

    No, I don't think Trump is "smart" ... pre-inauguration (even) he was described as a person whose opinion is most formed by the person he last spoke to ... and he appears to be an easily distracted, never-shuts-up (talking about himself), poor listener. He may not be "stupid" but he's not smart or disciplined either. He's impressed by his own mythology wrt flying by the seat of his pants through crisis after crisis, with multiple spinning plates ... he's a plate-spinner of some skill.

    The G7 has declined to impose additional sanctions on Putin -- OR -- Syria, meaning, I hope, they recognize how overblown and opportunistically exploited this alleged use of chemical weapons incident has become. Guardian .

    The US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, had hoped to underscore the US position with a unified message from the G7, which condemned the chemical attack at a summit in Italy on Tuesday. However, G7 foreign ministers were divided over possible next steps and refused to back a UK call for fresh sanctions.

    (It's likely not of much too much significance, but does represent at least detour or delay as opposed to an Anti-Putin and Anti-Assad rubber stamp)

    Is R2P even part of Trump's vocabulary? Yes, sentence first, trial after (if anyone can be forced to remember the incident is disputed and the investigation is incomplete)

    Anon1 | Apr 11, 2017 12:15:44 PM | 68
    Bernie Sanders on Syria Strikes: Assad Is a War Criminal and a Child-Killer
    https://medium.com/@pplswar/bernie-sanders-on-syria-strikes-assad-is-a-war-criminal-and-a-child-killer-6be6c1e32cb9
    ToivoS | Apr 11, 2017 12:17:17 PM | 69
    Banger | Apr 11, 2017 8:34:13 AM | 22

    I have to agree with these comments. In 2002 the Bush admin had a plan for Iraq. We all know what that was. The problem for Bush was that he started losing the resulting war. After 2004 just about every decision was some ad hoc fix and compromise after another to avert a more obvious defeat. Obama inherited that situation and his policies, if they can be called that, were unchanged. The only initiative Obama has shown was to extend Bush's plan to Libya and Syria but without massive use of US troops on the ground. This has resulted in the destruction of the Libyan state and the Syrian War. Again Obama's wars have failed just as Bush's. Like Bush, Obama resorted to ad hoc fixes and compromises that led directly to the incoherent policies pursued by Kerry.

    What Trump has added is a quantitative change, not qualitative. The frequency of incoherent and contradictory moves has just increased. Even the open split in current policy where Nikki openly contradicts Tillerson was seen in the Obama admin when Ash Carter shot down Kerry's efforts at a Syrian deal.

    It is pointless to try to define a policy from this mess. It should be obvious that the incoherence is the result of some serious divisions inside the deep state and what is likely stirring the current crisis in US policy is an effort by part of the deep state to overthrow or neuter the Trump admin. Identifying the competing factions is not that difficult. Assessing the relative power of those factions and what policies those faction's prefer are more difficult.

    Mina | Apr 11, 2017 12:19:40 PM | 70
    Bhadhrakumar was poitint to Erdogan has not wanting an international enquiry on the chemical used. Who need an enquiry when you can provide the result you want?
    http://www.rfi.fr/contenu/ticker/syrie-analyses-confirment-desormais-utilisation-sarin-ministre-turc-sante
    We all have to believe the Turkish authorities...
    While the Sweden attacker travelled to Syria (via Turkey) and one of the two EGyptians who blew themselves in Egyptian churches last sunday was expelled from Kuwait for links with IS (as tipped by.. the Egyptian authorities...), the EU probably think that they will manage to control the flood of former IS recruits (from Idlib to the rest of the world) by occupying Syria? i doubt it works.
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/262728/Egypt/Politics-/Alexandria-bombing-suspect-was-extradited-from-Kuw.aspx

    More demonstration of Arab solidarity and ethics
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/262777/World/International/African-migrants-seeking-Europe-sold-as-slaves-for.aspx
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/262773/World/Region/Lebanon-army-order-evicts-,-Syria-refugees-from-ca.aspx we enforce by selling them billions of dollars of weapons have nothing to say about that...
    But the "moral authorities"

    PavewayIV | Apr 11, 2017 12:20:58 PM | 71
    This:

    https://twitter.com/PavewayIV/status/851830282164555776

    Susan Sunflower | Apr 11, 2017 12:21:21 PM | 72
    So many folks breathlessly anticipating mushroom clouds in our future, I fear we are being manipulated into gratitude and relief at anything less ... which also seems to have become a recognizable Trump (and MSM) tactic ...

    Team Trump has apparently failed to "normally" and effectively stage-manage the annual White House Easter Egg hunt -- a logistical nightmare that a hotelier and beauty pageant magnate and staff might have been expected to ace... diminished expectations ... many fewer participants, military bands rather than A-list acts (Bieber apparently was a past entertainer 2010 to an onsite audience of 30,000 mentioned). Commemorative "eggs" ordered late, local schools still have not received their invitations. Apparently, they have only half the "normal" number of volunteers to staff the event

    Washington-area public schools that normally receive blocks of tickets for as many as 4,000 children have yet to hear from the White House, according to representatives for school systems in the District of Columbia; Arlington, Va.; and Alexandria, Va. Several groups representing military families, who have accounted for as many as 3,000 guests in recent years, also said they had yet to be contacted.

    This should have been a gimme --

    NYT .

    WG | Apr 11, 2017 12:29:29 PM | 73
    Look what's happened with Trumps initial moves in the whitehouse in some detail:

    -Appoints Michael Flynn
    -Flynn appoints Ezra-Cohn Watnik to senior director of intelligence at National Security Council
    -Flynn alters national security council January 28
    -removes director national intelligence
    -removes chairman of joint chiefs of staff
    -removes director of the CIA
    -removes US chief representative to the UN (state department?)
    -removes secretary of energy (nuclear weapons complex)
    -adds chief strategist to the president (Bannon)

    -Flynn gets removed by Vice President leaking that Flynn lied to him about Russia, Trump asks for Flynn resignation.
    -Ezra-Cohn Watnik discovers who unmasked Flynn during Obama admin, leaks info to Nunes.
    -NYT reveals Watnik is the leaker
    -McMaster tries to transfer Watnik out of NSC, Trump and Jared intervene.
    -April 4 McMaster succeeds in altering National Security Council back to original pre Trump configuration, removing Bannon's position and reinstating all of the others.
    -within days of that move, events unfold in Syria and US policy shifts 180 degrees, both in Syria and apparently in North Korea.

    -----
    It's clear that Flynn's departure was the beginning of the end, it's just taken a little bit of time. Bannon, Watnik and Nunes were working to try and maintain control however they've clearly been crippled as Bannon's now off of NSC and Nunes recused himself from the probe into Russia.
    There is no Trump master plan in motion, the people who he originally hired to enact his vision are either sidelined or fired.

    TG | Apr 11, 2017 12:35:19 PM | 74
    Some have suggested that Trump is practicing "Mad Dog" diplomacy, wherein an appearance of being dangerously unpredictable can be useful in getting your way.

    Perhaps.

    I do point out, however, that to be long-term effective "Mad Dog" diplomacy requires that one not actually BE a mad dog.

    Lea | Apr 11, 2017 12:39:56 PM | 75
    @Posted by: guidoamm | Apr 11, 2017 8:42:40 AM | 27

    Quote, "In the past 40 years, Europe has experienced all manners of political ideology. From the Marxists and the military in Portugal and Greece to the Fascists in Spain and all manner of "Democrats" elsewhere.
    Yet, the result is exactly the same across the board. We have stagnating wages, a sky rocketing cost of living, decrepit infrastructure that all result in increasing fiscal and legislative pressure.
    Clearly, politics has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life. "

    I am not sure things are like that because of some sort of natural decline. I have a link that tells a whole different story, one of occupation of Europe by the USA since right after WW2.
    That US occupation came most at the same time as the end of the European colonies (pushed by the USA with the Atlantic Charter). Unable to carry on plundering its colonies, the post-war, destroyed and impoverished Europe was left well-nigh totally dependent on US investments.
    The US occupation of Europe (and Japan) was economic, military and cultural. And we are still ruled by the USA swamp creatures (I am French).
    http://www.entelekheia.fr/how-did-europe-become-an-american-turf/

    I also recommend the blog of the author, where I found historical absolute pearls of wisdom.
    http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~roehner/

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 12:52:41 PM | 76
    Paveway 71

    The blue pipeline in your link - why the need for it to skirt around Iraq? Why not up through US controlled Iraq and into Turkey?

    xor | Apr 11, 2017 1:00:50 PM | 77
    Trump's plan is to stay in the presidential seat and try to deliver on at least 1 of his promises which he will so desperately cling to just like Obama clung so desperately to 1 of his promises, health care, that eventually became an abomination. Trump has no power over the chain of events occurring in Syria or beyond and is just there to give it legitimacy, to keep the illusion allive as if the pursued policy is being led by someone people voted for. It's like in Europe when NATO first bombed Libya and then the parliaments voted for the military action giving their approval while it should have been the other way round so it was just to give the impression that there is some democratic veneer to the pursued policies.

    The policy of the US deep state/borg is chaos and fragmentation like Yugoslavia, Libya, Somalia, ... resulting in weak meaningless pliable statelets.

    dh | Apr 11, 2017 1:08:24 PM | 78
    A lot depends on Tillerson's reception in Moscow. It will be interesting to see how the Russians handle him.

    It could be that the inconclusive result he got from the G7 has caused some second thoughts.

    LXV | Apr 11, 2017 1:08:29 PM | 79
    Congratulations b, for your on-the-record giving in to Tavistock's smoke and mirrors .

    Lest you forget, propaganda is still legal in the US of A, courtesy of the Patriot Act. You too must have noticed the Trump administration's decision to double down on their predecessors' efforts in spreading the 'fog of war' far and wide, by disseminating contradictory reports and opinions by .gov officials, "anonymous sources" and various psy-ops projects. Simultaneously Trump decides to black out all info regarding US troops deployment in the ME (as opposed to Obama's most.transparent.administration.ever. that at least reported some 'numbers') and send more boots on the ground in Jordan and with the Kurds.

    Now all we have to do is just sit back, relax and wait for the next "barrel bombing by Assad's regime" to (not) take place and be "reported" by zionist presstitutes, the rest is a question of simple math...

    chu teh | Apr 11, 2017 1:09:36 PM | 80
    "Trump is now losing the "America First" followers he will need to win another election. "...

    Neither Trump nor his minders have need nor great desire for "must have" a 2nd-Pres. term. The deed is already done and more deeds are works in progress.

    The DeepState, SecretTeam, DarkSide, 5thColumn and other clichιs for CovertActions are the continuation of plans at least going back to Federal Reserve creation 1913 [which arguably involved blackmail-control of Woodrow Wilson via his alleged, late-stage syphilis].
    So a 2nd pres term is a distraction.

    When considering global movers-and-shakers, understand that old-wealth families have the privileges of generation-to-generation , continuous communication networks and accumulated implanted agents
    and mutual benefits that are vital to continuing their wealth status, with its growing control networks that span generations.

    Any "new money" lacks such time-honed privileges. BTW, "they" know all about assassination; there is no tech that rivals assassination when it becomes necessary to maintain old-wealth status.
    The removal of the Russian Czar system and its 300-year old Romanov family reign, threatened and terrified all other old-wealth families and established an all-out war to maintain the status of the remaining "families". If you were looking for the real movers-and-shakers, you might start here.

    ToivoS | Apr 11, 2017 1:13:49 PM | 81
    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 12:52:41 PM | 76

    " Why not up through US controlled Iraq and into Turkey? "

    Well maybe because the US does not control Iraq (at least to the level to secure a pipeline) and probably does not control Turkey either.

    These pipeline stories as an explanation for every twist and turn in US actions in the ME are becoming tedious. Oil and gas are not the drivers of US policy in the ME. Maybe it was in the 1950s but it is not today. A much simpler explanation is the infiltration of the neocons (i.e. Zionist) into US foreign policy circles.

    B. Nathanael | Apr 11, 2017 1:15:46 PM | 82
    Here's why:

    http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1201

    Netanyahu visits Trump; IsraHell bombs Syria; Netanyahu demands buffer zones into the Golan Heights; Tillerson says Assad can stay; 'Sarin gas' (fake news) explodes in Idlib; The Jew-owned media blames Assad sans any proof; War criminals Mattis and McMaster concur and Trump buys the JEW LIE; Tillerson caves; Trump BOMBS Syria; Tillerson reverses and says Assad must go and Russia is complicit; Jews applaud!

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 1:16:12 PM | 83
    Add to WG's list that Trump now has a fully legal impeachment hanging over his head.

    For the past twelve months or so, US has been building up forces on Russia's borders. Not enough for any sort of attack - apart from Kaliningrad perhaps - but enough that Russia must maintain sufficient forces in place to face that threat. The build up of US forces in Europe seems to have begun some time after Russia moved into Syria for the purpose of tying up Russian forces.

    Syria - outraged has posted links to a couple of relevant articles further back in the thread.
    Add to that what Putin has said to reporters -
    https://www.rt.com/news/384333-putin-idlib-attack-provocation/

    Russian MoD http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12118216@egNews
    ...Moreover, according to the information, insurgents are delivering toxic substances to the areas of Khan Sheikhoun, Jira airport, East Ghouta and to the west from the Aleppo city.
    The purpose of these actions is making another reason to accuse Syrian government of chemical weapons use and provocation of new US attacks.
    The Russian party warns against making such steps.

    Russia are now beefing up Syrian air defences and apparently other measures.

    Has the decision to attack Syria already been made?
    Was the Tomahawk attack a warning for Russia to get out before the main attack comes?

    chris m | Apr 11, 2017 1:18:53 PM | 84
    his "base" is beginning to turn against him.
    all of a sudden, the Dems and Liberals are cock-a whoop for him
    while those who actually supported him are turning against him.
    i think he's probably lost it.


    jayc | Apr 11, 2017 1:19:59 PM | 85
    I would say the bombing of the Syrian airfield served the function of a valve - opened to relieve pressure. The pressure was the intense hysteria in the USA media and political culture over the "chemical attack" with the additional context of alleged Russian meddling in favour of the new administration.

    As to the end of the de-confliction communications, I suspect this will be reinstated at some point. Based on statements by Russian military soon after the "chemical attack" - to the effect that the flight plan of the plane, which conducted a mission in the area at the same time as the alleged attack, had been shared with the Americans ahead of time, as routine, and the Russians assume this information was passed to the rebel groups who staged the attack so the theatrical presentation could be timed to coincide with the presence of that plane.

    Pnyx | Apr 11, 2017 1:44:51 PM | 86
    "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."
    His plan is to survive as Potus. That's all. He has pretty strong fascistoid beliefs, but of course surviving is more important. So the nihilistic neocons are on the march again.
    ben | Apr 11, 2017 1:56:44 PM | 87
    Could we all just grab a clue please? Mr. Trump, in the role of Reagan, is nothing more than a salesperson selling whatever the corporate giants have to sell. He is here to sell his brand, and by way of that, the empire's goals also. Global hegemony is the game for the empire/NATO. This modern empire will not tolerate competition of any kind. So regime change is in store for any nation that will not comply.

    Mr. Trump is a spoiled rich brat, but is is a superb "snake oil salesman". Like Reagan, perfect for the empire's needs.

    harrylaw | Apr 11, 2017 2:02:19 PM | 88
    TG@74 We already have a mad dog on the Trump team 'Mad dog Mattis. here are some of his quotes.
    "The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot."
    (Business Insider)
    3. "I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all."
    (San Diego Union Tribune)
    4. "Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they're so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact."

    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."

    Outraged | Apr 11, 2017 2:04:50 PM | 89
    Perhaps we should take a deep breath and exhale slowly ... a short take on the G8-1 love-in:

    After two days of the usual, a supplementary joint position/statement was sought, the primary driver being Perfidious Albion, UK, with US, Tillerson in support, the response of the Foreign Ministers of Italy, France, Germany, Canada & Japan, whilst diplomatic observers of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar & Turkey stand around looking on sternly:

    1. We should all agree to launch action against Russkies to teach 'em a lesson: No.
    2. Well what about agreeing to take action against Syria and that demon-head Assad: No.
    3. Alright, lets agree to new sanctions against Russia then: No.
    4. Can we at least agree to new sanctions against Evil Assads Syria: No.
    5. What about we agree the chemical incident was a bad bad thing and it should be thoroughly investigated: Yes.

    Righy-O then, says Tillerson, with that unanimous ringing endorsement and steadfast explicit backing & support I'm off to Moscow to present my credentials and on arrival immediately thereafter issue an Ultimatum to Evil Beelzebubic(sic) Putin and put him in his place --

    Meanwhile Putin and the President of Italy are meeting and declare the reported chemical incident should be thoroughly investigated ...

    The corporate owned MSM is hyping all this to the max and beyond ... meanwhile, later this week the foreign ministers of Syria and Iran will meet in Moscow ...

    WG | Apr 11, 2017 2:06:20 PM | 90
    @Peter AU

    Exactly! Trump has traded threatened impeachment over groundless accusations for the threat of impeachment (if he doesn't play along) over legitimate impeachable offences. Seems at best a decision made in panic to buy time, and at worst an acknowledgement of capitulation.

    I fear they've already decided to attack they're just not sure when. Perhaps they're just going to keep pushing until US soldiers are killed and then there will be the congressional vote for war.

    Christophe Doutι | Apr 11, 2017 2:08:54 PM | 91
    I suggest listening to Dr. Pieczenik on the Alex Jones Show... especially his appearance there on April 10th explains it probably pretty well... it is less than 20 minutes long.
    Or even shorter, this report on that interview: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-10/pieczenik-explodes-issues-warning-trump-mathis-and-mcmaster-about-going-war-syria
    Pat Bateman | Apr 11, 2017 2:10:13 PM | 92
    Something is brewing. For Putin to publicly call the Americans out today during a press conference with the Italian President by stating US plans to bomb Damascus, is exceptional.
    Matt | Apr 11, 2017 2:10:55 PM | 93
    Of course Israel wants it. Having backwards salafist principalities on the Israeli border will be no threat at all.
    ruralito | Apr 11, 2017 2:11:21 PM | 94
    @82, Brother Nate is here! Not all "Jews applaud", Bro Nate. Neturei Karta for one. http://www.nkusa.org/
    Love your videos, you got a fire under you, and it shows. But your suggestion that Jews are born evil contradicts science AND Jesus whom you claim to venerate.
    somebody | Apr 11, 2017 2:20:08 PM | 95
    Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 1:16:12 PM | 83

    "Has the decision to attack Syria already been made?
    Was the Tomahawk attack a warning for Russia to get out before the main attack comes?"

    The US never had the power to do this - see Cuban missile crisis. Both militaries are careful not to get involved in any tit for tat that would finally lead to nuclear war. So Ukrainians and Syrians have to go to a proxy war against each other with outside support. It was better in the cold war when lines were drawn who was allowed to support which government.

    The G7 countries have just refused further sanctions for Russia and are asking for proof.

    The truth will come out, probably via Turkey, especially if Erdogan loses the referendum.

    Peace would be easy if everybody took regime change from the table - the US, Iran, Saudi.

    Trump means the end of US influence if he combines an aggressive foreign policy with a trade war. Countries just have no reason left to ally with the US.

    Quentin | Apr 11, 2017 2:28:17 PM | 96
    Idlib province borders on Turkey. Yes, Turkey.
    Curtis | Apr 11, 2017 2:39:17 PM | 97
    David 34
    Thanks for the interesting link. The US banking holiday of 1933, the Cyprus haircut of 2013, the Indian demonetization of 2017. There are precendents for the banking systems to take dramatic/drastic steps either as the result of economic change or precipitously/preemptively. Will TPTBs do such a thing to the US? Hopefully not anytime soon. But it does fit in with their stated overall game plan.

    jayc 85
    Perhaps Trump released the valve. It's sad that that's the best we can hope for. Meanwhile, Trump can now relish that - like his predecessors going back for decades - he is officially a wartime president.(with the associated madness that entails)
    http://theweek.com/articles/691356/dcs-war-madness

    Susan Sunflower | Apr 11, 2017 2:40:54 PM | 98
    Unfortunately for everyone, the United States is utterly opposed to "peace" ... couldn't find it in the dictionary, much less the encyclopedia, much less draw a picture of it, except maybe one that has a tripartite Syria to match the tripartite several times proposed and rejected for Iraq and now apparently also to Libya. Balkanization or Bosnification appears to be one unifying "plan" under the pretense of dividing the pie "fairly" -- but, at least as proposed for Iraq, was absurdly unfair, in addition to having (IIRC) zero popular support and hitting the re-set button when it comes to reducing governmental legitimacy back to near-zero.
    Mina | Apr 11, 2017 2:42:58 PM | 99
    89 outraged
    French journalists are on another (qatari) planet. They report that evryone stand with the us, no mention ofthe Italian president talking with putin and give as a fact that the Turks have published the results of the analysis. Well yesterday they were convinced that the us strike had destroyed "20% of syrian aviation".
    Mina | Apr 11, 2017 2:48:24 PM | 100 Posted by b at | Comments (152)
    Former prez of msf ( doctors without borders) stated that use of chlorine in bombing is not forbidden... and that even if the bombed chemicals belonged to the rebels it is a warcrime to bomb that knowingly!
    the pair | Apr 11, 2017 2:56:47 PM | 101
    he might not be stupid but i don't think he's particularly intelligent either. a few things that lined up:

    - professional dumb hick nikki haley (who, by the way, is actually indian and from a sikh family so who knows if ingrained islamophobia is part of her "deal") and dick cheney's idiot brother tillerson started off the confusion. maybe hanging out with the saudis and israelis at UN HQ made her want to sit at the cool kids' table. tillerson is just an oil tard...but maybe he has other agendas. just doesn't seem that sharp to me.

    - chief of meritocracy jared kushner took some time off from being the jewish patrick bateman to run around the globe with the same kind of psycho generals that are currently badgering his dad-in-law into stupid decisions. they went to iraq and israel and all the fun places that make you wish the US would just collapse already.

    that and his public feud with bannon line up nicely and it seems obvious the globalists further infected his tiny little yuppie mind with nonsense and shiny weapons and tales of anecdotal tragedies that could have been averted if only the people had been bombed by us instead of shot by syrians. trump for some reason thinks this kid has a mind of his own ("well, he did score my hot daughter...noice!") and will definitely choose him over bannon cementing not only his closet globalism but his increasing tendency to crap on anyone who got him elected, even the mercers with their piles of cash and love of bannon's politics.

    - the neocons/israel-firsters have lost patience now that the russians and syrians and their allies have started to reach a plainly visible victory. not only did they stage (probably with help from turkey) a blatantly fake attack and then had their media lackeys turn the Screech Factor to 11, but they've seen how easy it was and simply cannot help themselves. i guess they haven't gotten it out of their system with a full scale slaughter of gazans lately so they need to let off steam by grabbing golan and any other territory they can grasp in their slimy claws (and people thought west bank settlements were cheeky).

    - "veterans today" is a bit of an odd site but they claim to have actually gone to the area and confirmed the (possibly chlorine but definitely not sarin) attack was a turkey/al nusra joint. they also claim that another is being filmed and planned with the white helmets and even a few guys from reuters nearby. if they're not full of it (the article had no pictures or video and was a bit rushed looking) then the next one will be the true "never again" moment that leads to boots on the ground.

    - speaking of which, sure it's a TOTAL coincidence that flynn was sacked for his pro-diplomacy outlook vis a vis russia only to be replaced by an obvious lunatic like mcmaster. word on the street is he's blatantly cooking intelligence before showing it to trump and wants 150k troops on the ground by june for a full scale invasion. he's a real "jack d. ripper" type and looks like he loves the taste of netanyahu's bum. watch out for this psycho.

    so tl;dr = lots of moving parts and it would resemble keystone cops if it wasn't so terrifying.

    somebody | Apr 11, 2017 2:57:38 PM | 102
    95 plus Trump's team is completely incompetent - they can't even get their Assad = Hitler stuff right.
    Ops1 | Apr 11, 2017 3:00:00 PM | 103
    Trump was grab by is pussy by the deep state, now we are in a deep shit :)
    james | Apr 11, 2017 3:00:54 PM | 104
    thanks b.. good question and many interesting responses to your question.

    i think the empire is coming apart personally.. trump will be the fall guy, but it will probably hang in their for longer then his term, if he makes his term. the usa approach at this point seems very chaotic at best.. unfortunately all hell could break lose at any moment, thanks the war party that continues to guide the world into a ditch..

    i don't believe trump and putin have got together to hatch a brilliant plan...that just doesn't ring true to me. i do believe we continue to be in trouble on the planet and this is just the latest installment we have to work thru. so much can go wrong, but one thing for sure - many folks are going to wake up fast, if at all..

    Kalen | Apr 11, 2017 3:04:48 PM | 105
    As long as b ignores central role of Israel in the Syrian War, he will continue to be lost in seemingly chaotic developments, which to his defense is a bread and butter of MENA politics of global proxies.

    What if chaos was the real goal of this war?

    Already Israel is safe from Syria and Egypt and even of war ends will be safe for decades. If this war last another decade Iran will be exhausted, substantially weakened.

    Of course this assumes US imperial dominance to continue while this is the biggest risk in the entire mess, what makes Bibi a drunken gambler with the fate of Israeli nation which may not even see celebration of 70.

    Alaric | Apr 11, 2017 3:05:52 PM | 106
    Trump has entered political survival mode. From here on I'd expect an erdogan style play all sides strategy. That means some concessions will be made to neocons.
    PavewayIV | Apr 11, 2017 3:23:23 PM | 107
    ToivoS@81 - "Oil and gas are not the drivers of US policy in the ME. Maybe it was in the 1950s but it is not today. A much simpler explanation is the infiltration of the neocons (i.e. Zionist) into US foreign policy circles."

    Your second sentence contradicts your first one if I'm reading that right. I agree, there is little direct benefit to the US regarding access to oil and gas. But I would disagree the direct interests of the US in the Middle East have any bearing here. Everything happening in the Middle East (at least the view from under my tin-foil visor) seems to benefit Israel and Saudi Arabia (and Gulf cronies). Even the laughable claims of trying to "fight Islamic extremism" are not a rational goal when Islamic extremists are being funded IN ORDER TO keep the US there. Israeli and Saudi interests have an inordinate amount of influence on my government's foreign policy. I like to throw around the word 'treason' but that's just useless. When the US population is brainwashed into thinking Israeli and Saudi/GCC interests ARE US interests, then it seems like we (the US) are somehow vaguely serving our own interests there when in reality we have - or should have - none.

    When some power-drunk delusional bastards think they're the world's cop, then you can manipulate them with little effort by providing a suitable evil criminal gang that must be eliminated. You know what suckers Americans are for demonization - it's almost cartoonish in it's effect.

    Peter AU@76 - "Why not up through US controlled Iraq and into Turkey?"

    I think that was the plan at one time, but the Saudis/Qataris are pretty much hated by Iraq today - something about funding head-choppers. I think they would have a much better luck running it up through Syrian head-chopperistan and whatever Rojava is called today. That's why I keep harping about the entire purpose of any 'government' in partitioned east Syria must have the authority to sign oil and pipeline contracts that supersedes the authority of the Syrian government. If that is not explicitly obtained, then the US. will simply assume it's there (like in Barzanistan) and have their fake partition governments sign anyway. And since the Saudis already have a gas pipeline and compressor stations nearly all the way to Jordan, it will be cheapier/easier to run it up through Syria. That also benefits Israel - they do not want to pay for an underwater Leviathan pipeline and want Leviathan gas intermingled with Qatari gas as far back in the pipeline as possible (BDS and all). Jordan will support both - it will enjoy cheap, plentiful gas either way. Jordan needs it for power generation.

    ALberto | Apr 11, 2017 3:36:29 PM | 108
    NEW IRAN SYRIA 2.DOC

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    If previously posted please excuse

    karlof1 | Apr 11, 2017 3:42:35 PM | 109
    Outlaw US Empire Imperial Policy hasn't changed; the clue is to look at the rest of the world situation, and there it's easy to see that Full Spectrum Dominance is still the #1 policy goal. By very openly declaring the Idlib incident to be a false flag with more expected, Putin torpedoed anything Tillerson might have said of substance, while Iran and Russia escalate their military efforts.

    The US "strategy" reminds me of the fire bases they set up deep in VC territory and serviced via UH-1s & CH-47s that proved to be a total failure. The Empire lacks the required number of boots to properly occupy/pacify Syraq and eventually will be forced to completely withdraw; as with Vietnam, it's just a matter of time. But will US military openly stand and fight with Daesh and al-Ciada, or will such a choice provoke mutiny?

    sTrumpet reminds me of W, but lacking the boots needed to fulfill the same policy goal mapped out decades ago--Yinon. IMO, at the moment, the real, dangerous, conflict point is Korea. And the wild card still remains China.

    Vollin | Apr 11, 2017 3:43:27 PM | 110
    Suspect US warmongering may tone down quite a bit if military starts to take significant casualties. neocons seem to implicitly assume that US losses will always be trivial.
    Ghostship | Apr 11, 2017 3:57:38 PM | 111
    Yet again the United States will be playing catch-up with the Russians and Syrians yet again. The Syrians are removing the last block to an offensive against Idlib - the populations of Al-Fou'aa and Kafraya are being exchanged for the populations of Madaya and Al-Zabadani, and rebel prisoners currently in SAG prisons. Once the exchange is complete, there'll be no reason for the SAA not to attack the rebels in Idlib.

    From AMN :

    The first batch of buses sent by the Syrian Government have arrived in besieged Madaya and Al-Zabadani, Damascus Now reported this afternoon.

    The buses are prepared to transport more than 2,500 residents and militants from the besieged towns in rural Damascus to the Idlib Governorate, as part of the deal set forth by the Qatari and Iranian governments.

    In exchange for the 2,500 residents of Madaya and Al-Zabadani, more than 1,500 civilians from besieged Al-Fou'aa and Kafraya will be transported from their villages to Damascus.

    Once this exchange is made, the second phase of the agreement will reportedly begin with the release of rebels from the Syrian government's prisons and the transportation of another 1,500 residents of Al-Fou'aa and Kafraya from jihadist-held territory.

    The first phase of this agreement is expected to commence in the coming hours, a government source told Al-Masdar

    Maybe Trump's policy for Syria just became irrelevant.

    Ghostship | Apr 11, 2017 3:58:15 PM | 112
    End quote
    Steve | Apr 11, 2017 4:00:42 PM | 113
    "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid."
    Uhmm... I wouldn't bet on that.
    mischi | Apr 11, 2017 4:08:01 PM | 114
    this is my $.02

    Trump is used to having brainstorming sessions to run his business and he welcomes many different opinions. However, he allows these people to speak to the press and they give a wildly varying position for the Administration.

    He has allowed himself to be persuaded to have a strike on Syria but now it remains to be seen how he will deal with other gas attacks because you know there will be many. He has painted himself into a corner.

    somebody | Apr 11, 2017 4:12:33 PM | 115
    Posted by: ALberto | Apr 11, 2017 3:36:29 PM | 108

    The correct date of that is 2012 according to Wikileaks.

    Thanks.

    Russia's intervention was not part of the calculus.

    \flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 4:22:40 PM | 116

    for the time being, I'm sticking to the theory that trump,
    putin and xi are working together to discredit the neocons

    what would force trump, putin and xi to cooperate?

    ...the realization that the neocons are the worst thing to come
    down the pike since the Nazis?

    that theory is intolerable --and very scary-- to our resident
    kommissars... but in terms of human survival, it makes sense,
    and that scares our kommissars even more

    .

    what can our kommissars do to eliminate the possibility that
    trump, putin and xi are cooperating?

    ...keeping in mind that it ought to be something that is televised
    live, like the second impact at the twin towers

    .

    Kmart | Apr 11, 2017 4:56:16 PM | 117
    "for the time being, I'm sticking to the theory that trump,
    putin and xi are working together to discredit the neocons"

    I don't see how that is even possible.

    Where and how would this coordination have taken place? Every single bit of communication by Trump has been monitored by the US intellegence agencies. If there was anything remotely close to some sort of behind the scenes coordination with China and/or Russia Trump would be sititng in jail with wackjob Hillary in the Oval Office.

    The much simpler explanation is:

    1. Trump, like anyone who knows nothing about Syria, sees reports of the US funding and aiding jihadist terror groups. He makes completely reasonable comments about stopping those types of activities with his administration

    2. Trump being a political outsider lacks the army of political lackeys presidential cannidates have when they take office

    3. This lack of support has left Trump completley vunerable to the long time Washington players.

    4. The neocons have relentless taken out Trumps political amateurs one by one to the point we are now where he is almost entirely surrounded by them

    5. The neocons are now feeding him a continuous stream of fake intel about Syria and other hotspots around the world

    I don't think it is because Trump is dumb. He simply is completely out of his leage in his ability to take on the long time Washington powers. Previous administrations have come in with an army of lackeys to defend the president and enforce the president's will upon the so called deep state.

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 5:00:13 PM | 118
    Kmart has never heard of showbiz
    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 5:00:51 PM | 119
    Another 'Dossier' out

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-11/what-reset-white-house-to-call-out-russia-s-fake-news-on-syria
    "The Syrian regime and its primary backer, Russia, have sought to confuse the world community about who is responsible for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people in this and earlier attacks," the dossier says. Another passage says Moscow's response to the April 4 incident "follows a familiar pattern of Russia's response to egregious actions; it spins out multiple, conflicting accounts in order to create confusion and sow doubt within the international community." The dossier also derided a "drumbeat of nonsensical claims" from Syria and its allies, a clear reference to Russia....

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 5:06:00 PM | 120
    google: fake chemical attack Syria

    About 7,070,000 results

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=fake+chemical+attack+syria&spf=548

    .

    the propaganda campaign isn't working so pretty good

    .

    thecelticwithinme | Apr 11, 2017 5:10:48 PM | 121
    Since everyone is throwing their hat into the ring, here is my take:

    US military has a thing about initiating conflict when world leaders are in close proximity. If you recall, at the start of the Georgia-Russia conflict, world leaders (including Bush and Putin) were gathered in China for the summer Olympics. Putin immediately left and returned to Moscow to administer to the engagement while Bush stayed behind to get in close with the women's beach volleyball team.

    The decision to initiate combat was not made by Saakashvili alone. He was operating under the umbrella of the world's only super power, i.e., with US blessing. Putin knew that Bush knew, but put an overwhelming stop to all that. Never the less, combat was commenced at the time when world leaders were gathered together in China.

    Now we have a situation in which the Chinese leader is visiting with Trump (all off the record) with the hope of coming to some kind of understanding perhaps, and US military initiates attack against Syria. There is a message US is sending here with regard to US intensions. The timing is not coincidental but intentional. I haven't put my finger on it.

    And I don't believe Trump (at this time) is thinking about re-election. He's too busy hoping to make it through this first year.

    Syria claims they were monitoring a warehouse thought to belong to ISIS. It observed increase in amount of traffic coming and going, into and out of said facility. It decides to attack and explodes CW being stored there.

    But there was some thing else going on there important enough that the US thought it had to retaliate. I don't believe it was CW alone nor do I believe it was pics of innocent children.

    It's not the act but the message it sends that one must discern with care. From what I've read, US intelligence is lacking in the ME in that much of what gets reported as classified is not much more that paper clippings. Little in the way of person-to-person contacts.

    I don't know where I'm going with all of this but it appears that increased chaos is indeed the end game.

    The people crying out for more strikes are delusional.

    telescope | Apr 11, 2017 5:13:34 PM | 122
    Syria will be partitioned, it's simply not a viable country anymore, given Arabs' clannishness, susceptibility to foreign intrigue and the existing animosity between the various groups. Now is the time for the West to insert 50k soldiers into the ISIS country (the mooted 150 000 US soldiers is a pie in the sky - America doesn't have those) and start bleeding - and negotiating the contours of the partition. Russians already got what they came for, and now they wait the rest of the gang to stake their claims. People in the West should listen to what the King of Jordan - a very good personal friend of Putin - had said recently, namely that in Moscow's mind the issue of Syria is inextricably linked to the issue of Crimea and the Ukraine. He knows how it works. And Trump did 180 on Syria during his visit. The West will resist Syria-Ukraine linkage, but it can't do it forever. Russia simply won't agree to anything until that's achieved. What's good for the goose (Syria) must be good for the gander (Ukraine). The issues are similar, whatever others may say.
    As for Trump, he wants to put his soldiers into the Syrian desert (Latakia, Tartus and Damascus are in the Russian domain), but can't because US public opinion is hostile to the idea. The latter can be gradually molded by the mounting hysteria, which is exactly what's happening.


    motive464 | Apr 11, 2017 5:20:15 PM | 123
    I think the plan is to up the ante on what was proposed in backchannels during the transition/flynn debacle - supposedly they were trying to make a deal of good relations with Russia and sanctions removal in exchange for russia abandoning support for Syria and Iran. Of course, that failed.
    So now I think the chem weapons pretense is like some face-saving 'opportunity', or politial excuse for putin to back out from supporting assad, and at the same time a thinly veiled threat, that more sanctions could come "if" its determined Russia facilitated or had some foreknowledge since they were "responsible" for ensuring that Assad's stockpiles were destroyed. They've been careful not to vindicate or blame Russia, to keep the door open, they are waiting for their next move.

    Thats entirely ludicrous of course, but from the mirrored exceptionalist bubble that the US establishment operates out of, I'm sure its 'the dealmaker's most brilliant idea ever.

    It seems they have more false flag attacks like this scheduled to occur as Putin stated, and as one could almost read from Mathis' nervous lips during his press conference today.

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 5:24:02 PM | 124
    "Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all."

    The common theme with Trump, Tillerson, Haley is that the US is prepared to act bilaterally. Self appointed sheriff. Above the UN.

    President Trump‏Verified account @POTUS 7h7 hours ago
    More
    North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.

    Tillerson.. "Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Monday that the U.S. will stand up to anyone who commits crimes against innocent people"

    Haley .. "When the U.N. consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action,"

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 5:28:20 PM | 125
    ...US is prepared to act unilateraly..

    Forgot to check the spell checker.. maybe 'unilateraly' is not even a word?

    Lochearn | Apr 11, 2017 5:49:56 PM | 126
    As james said good question.

    I think Trump works on hunches. I think he goes to bed with a question and wakes up with an answer. Israel Shamir wrote about the hunch aspect of Trump. Nothing is thought out logically. It is the opposite of the academic approach and appears to have yielded much success for him in his business and TV life. But international politics and economics is vast and requires years of study. There is no easy way. The people who really control things have covered up their moves and each one has to be uncovered through much research. Trump relies on people rather than books. He relied on Bannon for election strategy and was smack on. But now he is up against masters like Putin, Netanyahu and Xi Jinping and he is lost. So he goes back to ratings; what gets good ratings as a sort of feel-good factor like a drinker with his bottle, like a baby with its milk.

    One thing that stuck in my mind about FDR was a long period of illness in the 1920s and how he devoured books, the better to prepare him for the massive changes he was about to bring in.

    swmcl | Apr 11, 2017 6:38:21 PM | 127
    Here's my take ...

    Trump allows the neocons to advise hime to strike and to celebrate the strike.
    Slowly, the world comes to realise the Syrians did not have the chemicals and did not use them against their own people.
    As this slowly is being realised, various others who are against Trump on the inside are exposed.
    Then Trump can get up and say he was misinformed and the various traitors and mis-informers will have to go.
    This would include a massive re-alignment of intelligence agencies (abolish the CIA).
    It would also expose the media who have been complicit in their support of the strife for many decades.
    All pre-organised with Russian help to identify a airbase that had no significant assets ...

    Take all the piss-clowns down in one stroke.

    Ops1 | Apr 11, 2017 6:43:27 PM | 128
    http://theweek.com/articles/691356/dcs-war-madness


    Interested reding for all!

    Kmart | Apr 11, 2017 6:51:54 PM | 129
    "Kmart has never heard of showbiz"

    Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

    The reality is that God Emporer master 5d chess player is nothing more than an experienced businessman who is completely out of his element in Washington politics and is in the process of being eaten alive by the neocon establisment.

    Trump's failure and capture by the Washington establishment is a perfect example of the folly of populists screaming for term limits. You get politcal amateurs who get chewed up and spit out by the unelected state actors who have had decades of experience.

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 6:59:19 PM | 130
    the Chinese and Russian are not concerned about the neocons' published ambition to establish "benevolent
    global hegemony"...

    and they aren't alarmed that the neocons apparently
    intend to achieve their hegemony by killing anyone
    who resists their benevolence

    .

    world leaders, according to Kmart's theory, are too stupid
    to recognize mental illness when they see it and are threatened by it


    *shrug*

    Ann | Apr 11, 2017 7:00:02 PM | 131
    Trump seems to be keen on taking Intelligence away from civilians like Susan Rice, and letting those who know what a battlefield looks like advise him. He is essentially depriving foreign banks and multinational corporations to use the US for their Nation Building, i.e. to have us pay for it with our taxes, and use our soldiers as cannon fodder.

    So he made a bold stroke. Some chats with the presidents of Russia, China, Syria, and the King of Jordan, for instance, but not our so-called allies in NATO. It also allows him to smoke out the snakes here and elsewhere. Of course for the trick to work, various leaders had to talk tough and condemn Trump's action.

    Websites which address some of these issues:
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article195862.html
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article195904.html
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU2TapgWl-A

    jfl | Apr 11, 2017 7:02:46 PM | 132
    @89 or

    thanks for the bullet list from the g7

    @95 sb, 'Trump means the end of US influence if he combines an aggressive foreign policy with a trade war. Countries just have no reason left to ally with the US.'

    we've all said that for some time now ... but if the g7 meeting means that the countries ... other than the poodles in the uk, of course ... are seeing themselves as the accomplices of the usofa in the crytal ball, and not liking it at all, then maybe 'Countries [have really, finally come to understand that they] just have no reason left to ally with the US'.

    somebody | Apr 11, 2017 7:05:39 PM | 133
    Posted by: Ops1 | Apr 11, 2017 6:43:27 PM | 128

    Yep, it is a good read. It is like with old people where the brain has not adapted to what the body can no longer do.

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 7:07:56 PM | 134
    can you establish benevolent global hegemony by killing anyone who resists?

    so far, the neocon project has wrecked country after country, caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, and millions of refugees

    where's the benevolence in that?

    .

    and don't people like Russians and Chinese have a right to
    be alarmed? ...especially in light of the US's nuclear primacy policy, which is based on nuke first strikes so
    overwhelming that Russia and china are unable to retaliate

    it's no wonder, considering the neocpns' ambitions, performance and policies, that world leaders would cooperate to rid the world of neocons, is it?

    .

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 7:12:27 PM | 135
    here's the consolation prize...

    if humanity is stupid and crazy enough to exterminate itself in a fit on mental illness, then they are a failed species

    that's kinda cold consolation, isn't it?

    .

    Perimetr | Apr 11, 2017 7:15:00 PM | 136

    I don't think Trump has a plan or a clue. Can't wait for the Armada to arrive at North Korea.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-11/trump-were-sending-very-powerful-armada-north-korea

    BARTIROMO: You redirected navy ships to go toward the Korean Peninsula. What we are doing right now in terms of North Korea?

    TRUMP: You never know, do you? You never know.

    BARTIROMO: That's all (INAUDIBLE)...

    TRUMP: You know I don't think about the military.

    BARTIROMO: Yes.

    TRUMP: I'm not like Obama, where they talk about in four months we're waiting -- we're going to hit Mosul.

    BARTIROMO: Right.

    TRUMP: And in the meantime, they get ready and like you've never seen -- look, they're still fighting. Mosul was supposed to last for a week and now they've been fighting it for many months and so many more people died. I don't want to talk about it. We are sending an armada, very powerful. We have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier, that I can tell you. And we have the best military people on Earth. And I will say this. He is doing the wrong thing. He is doing the wrong thing.

    BARTIROMO: Do you...

    TRUMP: He's making a big mistake.

    BARTIROMO: -- do you think he's mentally fit?

    TRUMP: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know him. But he's doing the wrong thing.

    I think the shit is going to hit the fan. Maybe we will find out if the North Korean satellites that orbit over the US every day are actually EMP weapons? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/expert-north-korea-threatens-emp-nuke-attack-on-u.s./article/2614739

    But why not just attack Damascus while were at it? The neocons seem quite sure that "Russia will back down".

    Julian | Apr 11, 2017 7:18:50 PM | 137
    Why is escalation in Syria happening now?

    Ie, why was the go-ahead given on the CW False Flag in terms of it's timing.

    It could be as simple as trying to swing the French Election.

    Pro NATO (Macron & Fillon) against Anti-NATO (Le Pen & Melenchon).

    If either of the Anti-NATO candidates were to become President there's absolutely no doubt they would split NATO at the first sign of conflict with Russia - which could be imminent.

    What better way to tie their hands than attack Syria until there is a forceful Russian military response, Article 5 is invoked, and Hollande goes along with it full boar as one of his last acts.

    The hands of the next French President are essentially tied at that point - even better (from that point of view) if some French soldiers are inserted into the conflict and perhaps killed).

    How could a new President possibly climb down from that policy position? How could Le Pen or Melenchon argue that France should not go along with the invoking of Article 5?

    Would this really play well with the French voting public to be seen as "abandoning" long-held NATO allies in their time of need?

    Surely it would torpedo their candidatures - unless of course they are the two in the run-off - which is possible.

    Speaking to young French voters recently (in their early 20s) - they do not like Macron - they see him as a fake, a phony, a creep. They won't be voting for him - and they're from Paris.

    james | Apr 11, 2017 7:19:19 PM | 138
    @122 telescope.. some of what you say i agree with and some not!

    @ 124 peter au.. i think what you point out is all a given.. the exceptional warmongering nation will not be deterred regardless just how effective the propaganda machine is... this is why i believe we are in a more dangerous place now then ever before. even when the propaganda is breaking apart, all parties opposed to the war party will have to remain fully prepared for more war..lousy actors playing a bad hand with the 'exceptional warmongering' status on shaky ground..

    @132 jfl... those poodles are looking into something more like a crystal meth ball, then an actual crystal ball.. if they weren't so hooked on the crack, they would have been calling it quits on their bad habit of aligning with the exceptional warmongering nation, but alas - they are too addicted to the crack..

    jfl | Apr 11, 2017 7:40:14 PM | 139
    @106 alaric, 'From here on I'd expect an erdogan style play all sides strategy.'

    i think viewing tee-rump as an american erdogan is quite apt. except that he's not as smart as erodogan, certainly not as observant or well-studied.

    @127 swmel

    that's quite an agile acrobatic performance. i think you're right as far as tee-rump's letting his 'apprentices' try 'their' plans and then blaming and firing those whose efforts don't work out. but trump works on the 31st floor . and he very well knows there are people at work on the floors above him - the bankers, in his business career - whom he must please in order to be allowed to continue. and his plan is to continue. business career, political career ... same thing.

    Vor | Apr 11, 2017 7:43:38 PM | 140
    The mainstream media more or less gave us an explanation of what the US cruise missile attack on Syria was all about - to be regarded as a 'player' in the Syrian theatre. That may seem trivial & petty on the surface, but think again, things are often not what they appear. The attack was a demonstration effect, which many US bombing attack often are, they are sending a message that the US deployment with the Kurds (YPG/SDF) in the North is the beginning of Syria's partition. This will be backed up by more heavy US military engagement, hence the cruise missile attack. That's why Russia responded so vociferously, they know this was not for show as Thierry Meyssan & others have suggested, it was just made to look that way because for starters the US has chosen not to escalate, but to warn. That is why they have followed up with threats of further attacks, because the first was just a taste, but the next will be more strategic & will target the SAA &/or vital state infrastructure. Partition of Syria is key, because at the heart of all of this is the dissolution of all Middle Eastern states so as to facilitate Israeli expansion.
    peter | Apr 11, 2017 7:49:54 PM | 141
    Trump has told Fox that he's not going into Syria in an interview that airs in the morning. I hope that Tillerson got the memo before he talks to Lavrov.

    Putin has publicly made the case for a false flag. The G7 boys have denied Tillerson the kind of wholehearted support he was hoping for by wanting an investigation before any punitive actions are taken against Syria or Russia. It's been put out there while the world is totally focused on events so there's no chance the MSM can ignore it. There will be no UN sanctioned attack on Syria or Assad without doing the dance. Unless Trump goes rogue.

    The response to the Tomahawks was mostly positive in the West. Trump finally got some positive press and Russiagate was like it never happened. I think even Putin was perfectly happy to let him have one kick at the cat so he didn't look like a pussy. But the followup babel of tweets and sound bytes about everything from Russian involvement to the necessity of removing Assad was sure to up the ante. I think the Tillerson-Lavrov meeting is critical. I hope that Putin finds time to meet with Tillerson.

    The business on the Korean Peninsula is the more worrisome of the two crises. Now there's two unpredictable leaders fixin' to kick ass and take names. There can't be any winners over there. It blows my mind that these vaunted generals have allowed Trump and the US to find themselves at loggerheads with so many enemies at once. I thought these fucking clowns went to West Point. It's been a hell of a ride from non-intervention to taking on half the world. And we only just got started.

    There used to be a pool of seasoned diplomats to try to see if there were ways to avoid sabre-rattling and confrontation. But they're all gone. All that's left is generals and CEOs. And the generals seem to be in the catbird seat.

    There's some that are still carrying water for Trump. They say the deep state has him snookered. Well, Trump is the deep state or trying very hard to be part of it. He owns this debacle. Lets hope he's not the fucking antichrist, I'm not up for getting raptured.

    Rapier | Apr 11, 2017 7:58:34 PM | 142
    I'll help you out. Syria doesn't matter. Whatever happened with the gas and its aftermath doesn't matter. Forget Syria.

    Instead think about Iran. Trump is going to destroy Iran and in so doing will put an end to China's New Silk Road and will also take out a large marginal supplier of oil to the world market and so oil prices will recover. Now if Trump is thinking in such strategic terms I have no clue. It matters not.

    jfl | Apr 11, 2017 8:02:43 PM | 143
    @136 perimetr

    the talk of 'submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier' on their way towards north korea is interesting. the Syrian Tomahawk Strike review had an interesting line ...


    This should also tell us how useful (or useless, as the case may be) our Virginia class submarines that carry only 12 Tomahawks will be – not very. It would have required five subs to carry out this attack and this was only a partial attack against a small airfield. Those who believe that our subs will constitute a significant land strike capability are mistaken. The subs are more likely to be used as snipers, taking out smaller, undefended targets. The retirement without replacement of our four SSGNs which each carried 154 Tomahawks may come to be viewed as a mistake.

    ... i wonder if those 'four SSGNs' ( Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia ?) is a done deal, or whether one or more might be sailing beneath waves toward north korea?

    fresh from his 'triumph' and accompanying great reviews from his syrian cruise missle performance, is he about the try an encore, on a much larger scale, in north korea?

    silly to point out that it's irrational. the play's the thing! think of the curtain calls for this one!

    h | Apr 11, 2017 8:03:40 PM | 144
    WH Lays Out Evidence that Syria was behind deadly attack...

    "A senior administration official laid out evidence that the Syrian regime was behind the chemical attack in the country that killed at least 80 people last week."

    "The official said intelligence gathered from social media accounts, open source videos, reporting, imagery, and geospatial intelligence showed that the chemical attack was a regime attack."

    "I don't think there's evidence to the contrary at all," an official who briefed reporters on background Tuesday said."

    FUNNY THAT...

    Intelligence and Military Sources Who Warned About Weapons Lies Before Iraq War Now Say that Assad Did NOT Launch Chemical Weapon Attack

    "A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda's arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population."

    FUNNIER THAT, NOT AS IN A HAHA, BUT RATHER IRONY -

    UK-trained doctor hailed a hero for treating gas attack victims in Syria stood trial on terror offences 'and belonged to the group that kidnapped British reporter John Cantlie'

    "Dr Shajul Islam, from East London, published a video of the patients on his Twitter account after the attack. He said his hospital took care of three victims all with narrow, pinpoint pupils that did not respond to light."

    "The University of London graduate was arrested and charged with kidnapping two journalists - Mr Cantlie and Dutch reporter Jeroen Oerlemans - in 2012 but was released after the trial collapsed when neither of the prosecution's witnesses were able to give evidence."

    THIS WOULDN'T BE COMPLETE WITHOUT MAD DOG'S LOUSY TWO CENTS -

    "The goal right now in Syria and the military campaign is focused on accomplishing that is breaking ISIS, destroying ISIS in Syria. This was a separate issue that arose in the midst of that campaign. The use by the Assad regime of chemical weapons and we addressed that militarily but the rest of the campaign stays on track"...

    To sum this bunch of crap up - in less than 48 hours we are to believe the DOD's use of friggin social GD media proved beyond reasonable doubt that Assad chemed his own people in a town that is known worldwide as 'ground zero' for jihadi's, filmed by a doc who was brought to trial on terror charges (lest we forget about the UK/US financed White Helmets at $100M playing pretend propaganda chit) with the bad ass retired general now in charge of all of the militaries toys and humans stating as fact, FACT, this violation of U.S. law and international law was a one time deal b/c Assad is bad, bad, bad - I looked at the evidence and was convinced beyond doubt blah, blah blah F'ing bullshit!

    Sick of it. Just sick and tired of all of it! I loathe being lied to and that SOB lied today. LIED LIED LIED.

    My rant is done.

    Links:

    1. http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/11/white-house-lays-out-evidence-that-syria-was-behind-deadly-chemical-attack/

    2. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/intelligence-military-sources-warned-iraq-war-say-assad-not-launch-chemical-weapon-attack.html

    3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4388780/Doctor-Syria-stood-trial-terror-offences.html

    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgvnvvIoyEE

    jfl | Apr 11, 2017 8:06:01 PM | 145
    @143, i wonder if the retirement of those 'four SSGNs' (Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia?) is a done deal?
    dh | Apr 11, 2017 8:06:20 PM | 146
    @141 "I hope that Putin finds time to meet with Tillerson."

    Putin will certainly be able to find the time. It depends what message Tillerson has come to deliver. Putin will need to know that before he agrees to any meeting. Tillerson must first have a friendly chat with Lavrov. Putin will probably be listening in.

    Ron | Apr 11, 2017 8:06:41 PM | 147
    No, there isn't a new policy in place. The target has been the Iranian hegemonic ambition, not Assad. It's the same policy as before. The plan is the same: break up Syria (and Iraq). The break-up takes places in stages and all the players attempt to force each other's hand, hence the ever-expanding chaos. The north of Syria is going to be a part of the future Kurdistan, the east is going to be part of an independent Sunni state. Finally, the west was destined to shape the new Syria, which would include most of the country's territory, but this plan was botched after the rise of Daesh and the Russian intervention in Assad's favor. What I describe is a slight amendment on the borders proposed here ; the blue-colored "Sunni Iraq" state between Baghdad and the (still current) Syrian border and the Kurds will have more Syrian territory than the map depicts. As you will notice, the map is American-made. That's the plan, broadly speaking and Trump's bombing of Assad's airfield is another move in the framework defined by this plan.

    Trump has chosen to use the opportunity offered by the sad event of last week, the actual origin of which is hotly debated, to unleash a warning strike to Iran. Israel is the only US ally which is not openly opposed to the plan I describe above, because it will guarantee to a large extent its security. In fact Israel wants an independent Kurdistan; such a country will provide strategic depth to Israel. The Turks don't like it for obvious reasons, as well as the Saudis. The Iranians will be affected too by an independent Kurdistan, but they have not shied from the opportunity to extend their sphere of influence to Iraq and to cement and broaden their pre-existent influence in the Mediterranean.

    A relevant digression: The reason the Saudis invaded Yemen is that they want to foil the Iranian attempt to establish strategic maritime connection between Iran and its Mediterranean proxies by controlling the entrance to the Red Sea. Remember that the plan is to have a Sunni state and Kurdistan between Shiite-controlled Iraq and Assad's territories and Lebanon, so land is a no-go for the Iranians at this point.

    The Israelis do not want Iran to have so much influence that the obstacles placed deliberately in its path will not foil its hegemonic tendencies. Of course, the Israelis need any Sunni hegemonic tendencies to be in check, too. Remember, the map provides for territorial interruption to the perpendicular Sunni axis starting from Turkey and ending at the Gulf of Aden (which is Kurdistan), as well as for an interruption of the horizontal Shia axis of the region (the Sunni state and Kurdistan). Apparently the Persians have been doing rather well for themselves in Syria and Trump was in all probability advised to grasp the opportunity to remind them that the reality that is taking shape in that part of the world will have to follow the provisions of the mentioned map. This account also explains why the Israelis were fast to declare that it was Assad's Syrian Arab Republic which was behind the attacks with chemical weapons: the Israelis want to see the American plan implemented, not foiled. It also explains Russia's gift to Israel: it was a message of the type "we respect your concerns, but keep out of this". You see, if Israel accepted the Russian gift, it would de facto enter the current Syrian fray (as a beneficiary); this is not what Israel should want and this is also not what the US have planned for Israel (in order to keep it safe). For the US Israel and Palestine are a different matter. This is depicted in the map of the new Middle East as no radical border changes; by accepting Russia's gift the Israelis would show themselves to be rather short-sighted, something which would cause the US to discipline it.

    So there is no new policy, just a different way of moving the pieces on the chessboard - Obama's way was far subtler.

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 8:21:15 PM | 148
    jfl 139

    Trump is pleasing the bankers right now
    https://twitter.com/search?q=Trump%20Frank%20Dodd&src=typd

    At 1.40 in this video of his speech he actually says the bankers will be very happy.
    https://twitter.com/Forever_Lucid/status/851840956915748865

    Pft | Apr 11, 2017 8:27:39 PM | 149
    There is no fundamental change in Syria or the Middle East. The basic plan is to break everyone up into small competing pieces. Divide and Rule. The essense of the Odin Plan and the long proven tactic of British Colonialism.

    Trumps a puppet. Compromised and controlled asset of the neocon faction of the Deep State. He may have been forced to run or face losing all to the Rico Act due to his many mob connections. Surveillance in the 21st century means pretty much anyone is vulnerable, but Trump especially. Russians call it Kompromat,

    In any case, we cant say his turn around is real or not. Perhaps just scripted. Said what he needed to say to get elected with help from Comey. Needed a valid reason to explain the turnaround other than gross deception which was anticipated , so we had this Putin connection which was manufactured and engineered by the Deep State , and Trump willingly went along calling for Putin to help get the emails and appointing some pro-russian cabinet members who would be sacrificed. All a sham. He does have Russian connections but its the Russian Mafia and not Putin. Some of these guys deal with Putin out of self preservation but all want him gone. Many are Isreali as well or have ties to Israel.

    US is strongly allied with British and Israeli interests in the region. This alliance is so strong one may consider the trio as one entity. Its been that way since 1917 when we went to War for the British and the future Israel.

    Now how does the script read for Syria in coming years?. Perhaps only Hollywood knows. In the long term Syria, Lebanon, Iran will be carved up with regime changes in Egypt and Turkey. Outside the region conflict with China over North Korea and Russia over Ukraine/Crimea is possible but I doubt anyone is foolish enough to allow escalation to WWIII

    And obviously there are many more false flags to come since people refuse to believe in them unless MSM spells it out for them, and they won't.

    jfl | Apr 11, 2017 8:28:21 PM | 150
    @148, never stopped pleasing the banksters. been working for them his whole life long.
    Pespi | Apr 11, 2017 8:33:20 PM | 151
    Theory 1: Obama deftly played the CIA/State and DoD against each other, limiting their lust for bloodshed and chaos in Syria by putting their proxies at odds with each other. Trump, in his clumsiness thought giving the DoD a free hand would speed up the Defeat of ISIS and make him look good.

    But the CIA and Neocons kept pushing the Russia angle, and he's too petty a person to sweat out the false accusations, so he "does something."

    Theory 2: The US has gone full North Korea, "rabid dog" mode where they just lash out violently at random to make it appear as if they have more power and control of a situation, when in truth they are at the mercy of many layers of facts and realities.

    Sad Canuck | Apr 11, 2017 8:35:38 PM | 152
    We know little about the relationship between actors moving in the shadows and anything revealed is increasingly cartoonish and staged for public consumption. That Assad would use WMD at this point is as ridiculous as the damage caused by the supposed launch of 59 tomahawks. In that sense it looks like this is a wag the dog moment to distract from domestic issues. But there are also likely connections with recent events in Syria. IDF jets have been bombing Syria more lately for some reason and one or more jets may have been downed a few weeks ago. The progress against ISIS in eastern Allepo seems to have unnerved Assad's opponents who have been doing everything possible to draw key resources like Tiger Forces away from this front and down to Hama. Russian Kalibr cruise missiles were launched with little fanfare and no announced targets a couple of weeks ago (I think I have my timing right). The Russians never scream about their targets or successes with these cruise missile attacks, but it seems they reserve these for serious targets. If this weeks events were not a wag the dog distraction then something valuable certainly seems to have been lost or about to be lost to set off this reaction. Connecting sparse dots is difficult but the dots are there to be connected.

    [Apr 11, 2017] Vladimir Putin claimed ISIS planned false-flag chemical weapon attacks to justify further US missile strikes.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Putin said Russia had information that the US was planning to launch new missile strikes on Syria , and that there were plans to fake chemical attacks there. ..."
    "... "We have information that a similar provocation is being prepared in other parts of Syria, including in the southern Damascus suburbs where they are planning to again plant some substance and accuse the Syrian authorities of using [chemical weapons]," ..."
    "... In his remarks Putin said Russia would ask the UN to carry out an investigation into the attack, and accused unnamed western countries of supporting the US strikes in a bid to curry favour with Donald Trump. ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    Vladimir Putin has deepened his support of the Syrian regime, claiming its opponents planned false-flag chemical weapon attacks to justify further US missile strikes.

    The Russian president's predictions on Tuesday of an escalation in the Syrian war involving more use of chemical weapons came as US officials provided further details of what they insist was a sarin attack by Bashar al-Assad's forces against civilians on 4 April, and accused Moscow of a cover-up and possible complicity.

    The hardening of the Kremlin's position, and its denial of Assad's responsibility, accelerated a tailspin in US-Russian relations, just as the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson , arrived in Moscow for direct talks.

    Analysis What's Trump's plan for Syria? Five different policies in two weeks Until late last month, Donald Trump was fine with Bashar al-Assad remaining in power. Since then, his administration has struggled to articulate a clear plan

    Tillerson had hoped to underscore the US position with a unified message from the G7, which condemned the chemical attack at a summit in Italy on Tuesday. However, G7 foreign ministers were divided over possible next steps and refused to back a British call for fresh sanctions.

    Putin said western and Turkish accusations that Syria's government dropped the nerve agent that killed dozens of civilians in Idlib earlier this month were comparable to the now-discredited claim that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    "It reminds me of the events in 2003 when US envoys to the security council were demonstrating what they said were chemical weapons found in Iraq," the president told reporters on Tuesday. "We have seen it all already."

    Putin said Russia had information that the US was planning to launch new missile strikes on Syria , and that there were plans to fake chemical attacks there.

    He insisted that Assad was not behind the alleged sarin attack in Khan Sheikhun, saying Moscow had information "from different sources" that it was carried out by rebel groups intent on dragging the US into the conflict.

    "We have information that a similar provocation is being prepared in other parts of Syria, including in the southern Damascus suburbs where they are planning to again plant some substance and accuse the Syrian authorities of using [chemical weapons],"

    he said, without offering any proof for the assertion. Putin predicted such fake attacks would be used to justify further US missile strikes on the regime, like the attack on Shayrat air force base on Friday.

    Senior White House officials said that Syrian military officers involved in the regime's chemical weapons programme were at the Shayrat base ahead of and on the day of the Khan Sheikhun attack, which they claimed was carried out by a Syrian air force Su-22 warplane, dropping at least one munition containing sarin nerve agent.

    One official said that there was "no consensus based on the information we have" of direct Russian complicity, but pointed out that the Russian and Syrian military had a long history of close cooperation and that Russian troops were at Shayrat base at the time of the attack.

    In his remarks Putin said Russia would ask the UN to carry out an investigation into the attack, and accused unnamed western countries of supporting the US strikes in a bid to curry favour with Donald Trump.

    [Apr 11, 2017] The road to war and the death of millions is paved with dead baby propaganda

    Notable quotes:
    "... In fact, western authorities are well aware that Assad was not to blame for the Ghouta massacre, and know as well – or should – that there is every chance the sarin gas used was supplied by Turkey. ..."
    "... When Erdogan consolidated his power following the failed coup attempt to oust him, one of the first things his administration did was shut down Today's Zaman ..."
    "... What's the cost to the West of being proved wrong over the latest 'chemical attack'? Absolutely nothing. ..."
    "... They will simply say that they acted on the information on the time and it was a reasonable action to take, and that it was unfortunate that it turned out to be more complicated. The US is not going to be dragged in front of the ICJ because it is not a member and is certainly not going to pay any reparations. USS Vincennes v. Iran Air 310 anyone? They simply don't care, whether it is Trump or some other President. Facts are Scrotums (to modify a former claim used by the Guardian's old 'Comment is Free' opinion section). ..."
    "... So why? Because they can? Like a bear in woods? Or is it to show that it is still some sort of player and save face from the fact that Assad, with the backing of Russia, Hezbollah & I-ran have been very effective in fighting IS/ISIS/ISIL/DAESH/Whatever whereas the West had simply ignored it for years? ..."
    "... je ne sais quoi ..."
    "... I don't know if one should believe this 100%, and in the comments, there are people who quote opposing reports but Cernovich does have sources. Basically, Trump's new national security adviser McMaster is the one pushing for war, and wants 150,000 US ground troops in Syria. Currently, there is still some resistance in the Trump administration against this. ..."
    "... I think Trump's 'strategy', if you can call it as such, is to shake the tree to see who folds under pressure. It's likely it will blow up in his face, but as we have seen with the TLAM strike in Syria, even the Dems were on board and congratulating him so they own the consequences too. ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Analysis of evidence contradicts allegations on Syrian gas attacks kirill , April 9, 2017 at 3:04 pm
    The road to war and the death of millions is paved with dead baby propaganda. Time for humans to change their idiotic values. Even thousands of dead babies are not worth millions of dead from large scale wars. Initiation of war as retaliation for some alleged atrocity must fall under war crime. Alleged good intentions are not enough. Unfortunately the Nuremberg principles are useless to cover these cases.
    marknesop , April 9, 2017 at 10:39 pm
    That is truly depressing. It is plain the leaders of the western powers are willfully ignoring exculpatory evidence in order to push a narrative they know, or ought to know, is false.
    Moscow Exile , April 8, 2017 at 11:00 pm
    Russia is to blame for "every civilian death" in the chemical weapons attack last week in Syria, Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon has claimed.

    A really, really annoyed Fallon: "Russia must show the resolve necessary to bring this regime to heel."

    See: Russia to blame for Syria deaths – Sir Michael Fallon – BBC

    kirill , April 9, 2017 at 6:35 am
    Yeah, sure, whatever US regime elements claim. The same regime that excuses itself with "shit happens" when it slaughters civilians by the hundred.
    Hoffnungstirbtzuletzt , April 9, 2017 at 12:12 am
    https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2017/04/09/1373821/trump-following-netanyahu-s-footsteps-in-syria-russian-analyst

    "Along these lines, the message being delivered to President Xi is that Trump might even launch limited strikes against North Korea next, and it's no surprise that both leaders came out of their meeting with a supposedly new strategy for responding to Pyongyang.

    The other point that Trump was conveying is that he is the "alpha male" not only over President Putin (whom he feels that he embarrassed by the strike), but also President Xi, who apparently seems to need Trump more than the reverse and therefore didn't walk away from the dinner in spite of Trump's aggression in Syria.

    It's true that China needn't get directly involved in Mideast affairs nor take on the responsibility of being Syria's protector (a duty which it has no mandate or obligation to perform), but the optics surrounding the fact that President Xi dined with Trump after the latter ordered a military strike against the SAA are nonetheless uncomfortable and negative."

    Tasnim: Do you believe that the US and Russia are on road to a final collision? Do you think that the US is beating the drum for World War III?

    Korybko: No, the two sides will not enter into a conventional war with one another, let alone over Syria, for the reasons which I thoroughly explained in my article for Geopolitika.Ru, "How The Neocons Are Tempting Trump On Syria".

    I released it Thursday night before the attack took place and accurately forecast that Russia wouldn't militarily intervene to stop Trump because its mandate only covers anti-terrorist activities, not supporting President Assad, the SAA, or Syria's sovereignty.

    The global perception, however, is that Russia has tacitly taken on these responsibilities, though this myth was painfully shattered the moment that Russia's state-of-the-art anti-air defense systems stood silent and weren't ordered to fire at the Tomahawks.

    Having said that, however, the two sides are definitely engaged in a New Cold War which is being advanced through the US' Color Revolutions, Unconventional Wars, Hybrid Wars, and Conventional Wars in third-party states, all of which are examples of strategic warfare and represent a new era of proxy conflict.

    More at the link.

    niku , April 9, 2017 at 2:16 am
    "President Xi, [] apparently seems to need Trump more than the reverse and therefore didn't walk away from the dinner in spite of Trump's aggression in Syria. [The Optics is] uncomfortable and negative."

    I think it is a mistake to imagine that diplomacy's goal is to produce headlines for the newspapers. The goal is to get something you want. There should be some meaning in the act of walking away - just "showing displeasure" is meaningless. Would President Xi not cooperate with President Trump henceforth? Why not, if it suits China's interest? Russia too has not recalled or expelled Ambassadors after many provocations, because it would be meaningless.

    Anyway, China hasn't stood up to the US till now, and it has served it quite well. China keeps on downplaying the news reports that it is now world's largest economy - because there is nothing to gain from this distinction, and only something to lose. (Such a distinction will bring the spotlight onto China, and people will notice bad things about it, e.g. environmental pollution. While it is an "underdog", all is forgiven!).

    Lao Tzu:

    In order to contract a thing, one should surely expand it first.
    In order to weaken, one will surely strengthen first.
    In order to overthrow, one will surely exalt first.
    "In order to take, one will surely give first."
    This is called subtle wisdom.

    Thanks, Jen and Mark for the article(s)! I am from India, by the way.

    Jen , April 9, 2017 at 5:34 am
    Thanks Niku – yes, to walk away just to show displeasure is an almost empty gesture. Xi would need to have something in reserve to support that gesture, that at the same time is a warning to Trump. Also the context matters: Xi was dining at Trump's resort at Mar-a-Lago while the Tomahawk airstrikes were under way, and for this guest to walk out on his host would make him look petulant and potentially embarrass him and China.
    Hoffnungstirbtzuletzt , April 9, 2017 at 10:46 am
    According to Pepe Escobar Xi's delegation left Mar-a-Lago exactly six minutes after the first missiles started hitting Syria. I haven't found any other information about this.
    marknesop , April 9, 2017 at 10:48 pm
    Thank you, Niku, and welcome! Your perspective is an interesting one. It remains to be seen if China's behavior will continue on this course, but its thinking is hard to predict using a western template and assuming it will act in its own interest seems a safe one. However, China must also be aware that Washington plans for China to either be a vassal, or an enemy who must be demonized and destroyed as it intends for Russia. The USA will not acknowledge any other world power as an equal.
    niku , April 11, 2017 at 1:21 am
    Beijing calls for preserving Syria's sovereignty and opposes the use of military force in the conflict, China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying said on 10th April.

    "China has always called against using military force in international relations and for preserving territorial sovereignty," the diplomat said, noting that the Syrian crisis can be only resolved by political means.

    "It is up to the Syrian people to decide on Syria's future," the spokesperson said, stressing that China is ready to "work with all the sides for resolving the crisis as soon as possible."
    http://tass.com/world/940435

    Moscow Exile , April 9, 2017 at 3:53 am

    You have been warned "We are taking names". https://www.youtube.com/embed/BfS5ZWiaPiQ

    The Empire has spoken! What a plonker she is!

    karl1haushofer , April 9, 2017 at 3:56 am
    And a big Ha Ha to those Trump voters who thought he would bring a change.

    As I said, move out of the Babylon (America, Australia, Canada, Britain etc.).

    yalensis , April 9, 2017 at 5:46 am
    OMG! This is the first time I heard this c**t talk.

    She sounds half hockey mom and half corporate bigmouth announcing the formation of some big new project team to the assembled slaves while simultaneously bullying her immediate underlings.
    These people have no clue how to act on the world stage!

    et Al , April 9, 2017 at 11:20 am
    Look like Tina Fey to me.
    Jen , April 9, 2017 at 6:37 pm
    She's Sarah Palin Version 2.0.
    kirill , April 9, 2017 at 6:33 am
    Evidence how deluded the US elites are. They think they are already ruling the world.

    yalensis , April 9, 2017 at 6:04 am

    Very good clip. The interlocutors make the point that Trump's true target is Iran.
    This is what Netanyahu is pushing him to: bomb bomb bomb Iran .

    Other point they make: America Deep State at war with itself.

    My thoughts: I think it goes without saying that the CIA could have Trump assassinated any time of their choosing. Or harm his family. Trump is most likely aware of this by now. Although Trump himself is evil, his family truly does seem like lovely people, and, in retrospect, he never should have dragged them into this.

    marknesop , April 9, 2017 at 10:57 pm
    That's probably why Washington flipped its lid when Russia initially announced sales of the S-400 system to Iran.
    yalensis , April 9, 2017 at 6:10 am
    My latest post on Russian reaction to the Trump rocket strike.

    While on my blog, please check out Lyttenburgh's "Futurology" essay , if you haven't started reading it yet. We're about halfway through with the installments. Well worth reading, so please take the time to catch up, if you haven't already!

    kirill , April 9, 2017 at 6:10 am
    http://russia-insider.com/en/breaking-trumps-national-security-adviser-wants-full-scale-war-syria/ri19516

    So Uncle Scumbag couldn't bait Russia into a war in Ukraine and will now instigate a direct confrontation in Syria. Russia needs to ratchet up the rhetoric at the UN that any non-sanctioned US deployment in Syria is the action of a rogue state that authorizes a Russian response. NATzO is trying to destroy the basis of international relations and norms. (Forget about law.) This is a clear neo-colonial agenda where some cheesy false flag can "authorize" NATzO to regime change at leisure. No investigation by independent bodies, just ad hoc response by the pack of hyenas. A wall needs to be placed for this agenda and Syria is the do or die moment.

    Cortes , April 9, 2017 at 7:17 am
    In contrast to the inane Sir Michael Fallon, David Habakkuk at the Turcopolier site provides a lengthy, detailed account of the behaviour of grownup people dealing with the mad neocon kids and their jihadi besties who conjured up the Ghouta incident:

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/04/sentence-first-verdict-afterwards.html#more

    Well worth taking the time to read, I think.

    marknesop , April 9, 2017 at 8:10 am
    In fact, western authorities are well aware that Assad was not to blame for the Ghouta massacre, and know as well – or should – that there is every chance the sarin gas used was supplied by Turkey.

    When Erdogan consolidated his power following the failed coup attempt to oust him, one of the first things his administration did was shut down Today's Zaman newspaper, and replace it with a Turkish-language alternate which parroted the Erdogan line. Our erstwhile former-intelligence-professional colleague Ronald Thomas West did an excellent story on the article which appeared in the doomed paper before its demise, reporting that the Turkish government shut off an investigation which would prove Turkey was involved at the state level and that the sarin was provided by a group of Turkish businessmen with the collusion of Turkey's intelligence services. The story was widely unreported elsewhere, but I am still on RTW's mailing list.

    NATO would be wise to remember the strangling of opposing voices like this when it is whooping and strutting and screaming about Putin crushing opposition news media and the horrible climate of censorship which prevails in Russia, because Saakashvili did just the same thing with the Georgia Media Center.

    et Al , April 9, 2017 at 11:39 am
    What's the cost to the West of being proved wrong over the latest 'chemical attack'? Absolutely nothing.

    They will simply say that they acted on the information on the time and it was a reasonable action to take, and that it was unfortunate that it turned out to be more complicated. The US is not going to be dragged in front of the ICJ because it is not a member and is certainly not going to pay any reparations. USS Vincennes v. Iran Air 310 anyone? They simply don't care, whether it is Trump or some other President. Facts are Scrotums (to modify a former claim used by the Guardian's old 'Comment is Free' opinion section).

    So why? Because they can? Like a bear in woods? Or is it to show that it is still some sort of player and save face from the fact that Assad, with the backing of Russia, Hezbollah & I-ran have been very effective in fighting IS/ISIS/ISIL/DAESH/Whatever whereas the West had simply ignored it for years?

    As for Erdogan, I expect another change of wind once he becomes Prez for Life.

    Moscow Exile , April 9, 2017 at 7:54 am
    Syria crisis: Russia raises prospect of war if it is given G7 ultimatum as it mocks Boris Johnson's no-show

    Russia has raised the prospect of war with the West as it mocked Boris Johnson for cancelling a trip to Moscow in the wake of the Syrian nerve gas attack.

    The Russian Embassy in London posted a series of provocative tweets on its official account in which it suggested that "a conventional war" could be one outcome if the G7 group of nations presents it with an ultimatum later this week.

    Oh tut tut! How dreadful of those Russians are to pen such scurrilous messages in the social media Such uncultured louts!

    Note how the Telegraph accuses Russia of sabre rattling.

    cartman , April 9, 2017 at 1:03 pm
    Big girl shirt, he is.
    marknesop , April 10, 2017 at 6:15 pm
    Excellent. You have a certain je ne sais quoi .
    Warren , April 9, 2017 at 2:16 pm
    Fallon has particular axe to grind with respect to Russia.

    Visibly drunk Michael Fallon forcibly separated from attractive Russian spy by minder

    https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/12/11/visibly-drunk-michael-fallon-had-to-be-forcibly-separated-from-attractive-russian-spy-by-a-minder/

    marknesop , April 10, 2017 at 7:55 pm
    Dear God. Are there no responsible adults left at all?
    marknesop , April 10, 2017 at 5:29 pm
    Ha, ha!!! The proposal is said to contain a tacit offer to Russia to rejoin the G7 if it plays nice, withdraws all its military forces from Syria and drops its backing for Assad – after which the west would be in there like stink and ISIS would be running the joint before the next Ramadan.

    And a flood of Syrian refugees would be fleeing sectarian prosecution or death. As the west so often makes me say, fuck off. And when you get there, fuck off a bit further. Russia prefers the G20 forum to the G8, and an offer to rejoin the cash-strapped G7 is not an enticement.

    Drutten , April 9, 2017 at 11:14 am
    Nothing new here, but a well written essay nonetheless:

    Patrick Cockburn: Who supplies the news?
    London Review of Books, vol 39, no. 3.
    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n03/patrick-cockburn/who-supplies-the-news

    Chinese American , April 9, 2017 at 1:44 pm
    A new report by Mike Cernovich:

    I don't know if one should believe this 100%, and in the comments, there are people who quote opposing reports but Cernovich does have sources. Basically, Trump's new national security adviser McMaster is the one pushing for war, and wants 150,000 US ground troops in Syria. Currently, there is still some resistance in the Trump administration against this.

    Pavlo Svolochenko , April 9, 2017 at 2:15 pm
    Oh, nothing to worry about then – he's shown such fortitude in the face of pressure so far.

    There is no way this ends in any way but WWIII – these fellows either think they're invincible or they'd truly rather see Syria and Russia destroyed than see their grandchildren grow up.

    Either way, the Russian government's options are decreasing to a singular course.

    et Al , April 10, 2017 at 1:21 am
    Like Whatever -- Trump likes to have people with strongly conflicting views around him, which I suspect is to make it easier to divide & rule but also maintain an element of uncertainty (like Hitler!) abroad. It plays well to the Pork Pie News Networks but we keep coming back to the fundamental issue that large numbers of Americans voted for Trump on America first, not more war – which would require a coalition and all those complications.

    Does anyone see European militaries putting significant boots on ground? No. So far only Special Foreskins. Would the US seek to emulate the succes of Russia by using local forces? Saudi & Qatari troops? Even Jordanian troops? They're beof tartar people put in their sandwiches before they get eaten. All the known unknowns say that that the potential blowback(s) from another such a mission could be considerable, and yet again it would be Europe who would pay the price.

    Chinese American , April 9, 2017 at 3:28 pm
    Another good link, detailed analysis of the videos "Dr. Shajul Islam" (a documented terrorist) that supposedly document the chemical weapons attack at Khan Sheikhoun:
    http://logophere.com/Topics2017/17-04/17_015-BLA-ShajulIslam.htm
    (Also older detailed articles on the 2013 Ghouta attack at the site.)

    The Western MSM is trying to slip the idea of sarin into the public consciousness, counting on the idea that the uninformed public would mentally conflate "sarin" and "chemical weapons". For instance the BBC talking head going on about how the Russian/Syrian story was that an airstrike hit a rebel "sarin" warehouse, which I am fairly sure was not what Russia and Syria said.

    Warren , April 9, 2017 at 3:50 pm

    Published on 5 Apr 2017
    When you serve imperialism you get burned by imperialism.
    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/
    https://www.rt.com/news/371250-aleppo

    et Al , April 10, 2017 at 7:11 am
    Asia Times: The West bashes Russia while China is busy bridging the gap to Europe
    http://www.atimes.com/west-bashes-russia-china-builds-rail-roads/

    By Jan Krikke

    Russia-bashing has become the staple of the Western mainstream media in recent months. Some headlines suggest a level of paranoia not seen since the Cold War: "Russia is the world's biggest threat to democracy." "Our freedom under assault." "Nato must strengthen its defenses." It is unlikely that Russian tanks will be rolling into Western Europe any time soon. Instead, a steady stream of Chinese freight trains is rolling in from the Far East. They make a 12,000-kilometer journey across the Eurasian Land Bridge to Germany, where they unload Chinese flat-screen TVs, notebooks, and tablets. European consumers will use them to watch the news with its daily dose of Russia-bashing.

    As the sun rises in the United States, a new day of Russia-demonizing begins. There are new revelations about Russian super hackers, spying Russian diplomats and "bad actors with connections to Putin." The ostensibly liberal media and formerly dovish Democratic senators have suddenly turned into hawks while repeating a now-familiar mantra: Putin stole the US presidential election from Hillary Clinton. The Democrats had a billion-dollar war chest and overwhelming support from the media, yet a handful of Russian hackers and Internet trolls were able to steal the election. A look at recent history suggests the anti-Russia hysteria is part of a failing attempt to isolate Russia and derail the Eurasian Land Bridge .

    Northern Star , April 10, 2017 at 3:54 pm

    http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/12/hr-mcmaster-injured-army/

    Northern Star , April 10, 2017 at 4:38 pm
    Throughout history words of war have often been antecedent to eventual actual combat.
    The words written in Mein Kampf or the rantings of the Nazi maniac's speeches led straight to to WW2. (see link infra)
    Some of you stooges have tried to downplay the significance of the current crisis following the alleged gas attack and the following cruise missile retaliation. You seem to think that the rhetoric spewing from the rotten Sikh whore or that bonehead war criminal McMaster isn't necessarily probative of how close we are to the edge of a nuclear holocaust abyss. You are surprisingly foolish and naive in tha assumption.

    "The airstrikes in Syria and the war drive of American imperialism

    10 April 2017

    In the aftermath of last week's cruise missile attack on Syria, the relentless logic of military escalation is driving decisions in Washington. The US political establishment and media are demanding that the action be followed up by a "comprehensive strategy" to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and escalate the confrontation with Russia.
    The Trump administration's ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, declared on Sunday that "regime change [in Syria] is something that we think is going to happen." As for Russia and Iran, she said, "We're calling them out. But I don't think anything is off the table at this point You're going to continue to see the United States act when it needs to act."
    Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called on Sunday for the deployment of "five to six thousand" US troops to Syria and for economic sanctions against Russia. Assad, he said, is making a "serious mistake because if you are an adversary of the United States and you don't worry about what Trump may do on any given day, then you're crazy."
    The chorus of calls for action against the Russian government came from both Democrats and Republicans. "They're accomplices," Republican Senator Marco Rubio said. "Vladimir Putin is a war criminal who is assisting another war criminal." His colleague, Democrat Ben Cardin, declared the UN Security Council should set up a tribunal to indict both Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes.

    *****Such rhetoric is the language of war. The denunciation of one or another foreign leader as a war criminal is the standard prelude to military action.*** "
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/10/pers-a10.html

    The fascists and psychopaths in DC,Brussels and London are livid and panic stricken with rage and frustration that the other whore wasn't elected and their schemes to implement global hegemony have been thwarted by Russia.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/07/pers-a07.html
    "The claim that this attack is a response to the Syrian government's use of poison gas is a transparent lie. Once again, as in the air war against Serbia in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, and the attack on Libya in 2011, the United States has concocted a pretext to justify the violation of another country's sovereignty.
    The bombing of Syria is a unilateral abrogation by the US of the agreement negotiated with Russia in 2013, which resulted in the calling off of a long-planned direct military intervention by the US in the on-going civil war.
    As the International Committee of the Fourth International warned in September 2013, "The postponement of war does not lessen the likelihood, indeed, the inevitability, of the outbreak of a major war. As the bellicose statements emanating from Washington make clear, the 'military option' remains on the table. Nor is Syria the only target for military attack. US operations against Syria would set the stage for a clash with Iran. And, still further, the logic of US imperialism's drive for global dominance leads to a confrontation with Russia and China. Nor can it be excluded that the conflict of interests among the major imperialist powers-for example, the United States and Germany-might under certain conditions metastasize into armed conflict." [1]
    This warning has been substantiated.
    Moreover, the attacks signify at least a partial resolution of the bitter conflict over foreign policy that has been raging within the highest echelons of the American state since last November's presidential election. With the support of the most powerful factions of the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency, the Democratic Party's demand for war against Syria and intensified confrontation with Russia has prevailed. The Trump White House has been compelled to execute an astonishing about-face from the policy that it had publicly announced only days earlier"

    We are headed to a nuclearr September 3 ,1939..sure as fuck and some stooges ..however brilliant ..don't seem to get that through your heads..

    Moscow Exile , April 10, 2017 at 9:41 pm
    Well wadya know!

    NYT wins Pullitzer Prize for reporting on " attempts by the Russian government to assert its power".

    See 2017 Pulitzer Prize Winners

    In "Russia's Dark Arts," a team of New York Times journalists across two continents chronicled the covert and sometimes deadly actions taken by President Vladimir V. Putin's government to grow Russian influence abroad. The series, which began last spring, explored the rise of online "troll armies," the strategic spreading of disinformation and Russia's unprecedented - and politically consequential - cyberattack on the 2016 American presidential election.

    No prize awarded for use of English though: "to grow influence abroad" in a similar way as one grows potatoes in one's garden, for example?

    I should imagine that the verb "to grow" used in the passive voice with "influence" would sound better:"Russian influence is growing abroad", or in the subjunctive mood: actions taken by President Vladimir V. Putin's government so that Russian influence grow abroad – but "to grow influence"?

    marknesop , April 10, 2017 at 10:44 pm
    The Times is just a tabloid now, blowing with the political wind and seeking sensationalist stories which it reports in hyperbolic terms. Just that one line, "The series, which began last spring, explored the rise of online "troll armies," the strategic spreading of disinformation and Russia's unprecedented - and politically consequential - cyberattack on the 2016 American presidential election" is enough to tell you what the Pulitzer is worth these days. Just like the Nobel Peace Prize, it's a political pat on the head for being a good doggie.
    Moscow Exile , April 10, 2017 at 9:50 pm
    Shitwit Hague pontificating again:

    Russia is a nation in decline, stuck with a Cold War KGB mindset – the West must treat it as such

    There are three reasons why Donald Trump was right to launch a cruise missile strike against the Syrian Air Force facilities responsible for the chemical weapons attack last week on a town in northern Syria.

    First, the use of such weapons, in this case against civilians including children, is an abhorrent crime that is internationally outlawed and was generally avoided even in the Second World War. There has to be a response to such a crime. In August 2013, Ed Miliband's Labour Party and some rebel Conservatives prevented any retaliation, which has only led to further atrocities.

    Second, Trump acted quickly, which is crucial to making a clear connection between the crime and the response. Obama initially intended to do this four years ago, but then became bogged down in the decision-making, accepting instead a Russian plan to disarm Assad of chemical agents – a plan we can now see was not

    All based on the irrefutable evidence of, amongst other impeccable sources, the "White Helmets" and a bloke who lives in a Birmingham council house in the UK and a host of objective reporters at the Guardian, NYT etc.that the crime was committed by the Assad "regime".

    Moscow Exile , April 10, 2017 at 9:58 pm
    DISTURBING IMAGES: White Helmets BUSTED killing babies in PR stunt to start war in Syria
    marknesop , April 10, 2017 at 10:51 pm
    Ah, but you see, the Russians are dumb, like dogs. When your dog pees on the floor, you have to rap him on the nose with your rolled-up newspaper right away, rather than investigating to see if perhaps it was the wife who pissed on the carpet and not the dog, because punishment delayed merely confuses the poor animal – what have I done? You have to strike immediately, so the dumb creature can make the connection between offense and punishment. No time for investigation, old chappie, old bean.

    Logic like that is demonstrative of a nation of halfwits. I daresay Trump will be pleased, because he is a halfwit as well, and he will certainly make the connection between using the military and international approbation, as people who yesterday would not cross the street to spit on him if he was on fire today praise him as a decisive leader.

    Maybe a nuclear holocaust that cracks the planet in two like a plate is just what the doctor ordered; the human race isn't worth saving.

    Fern , April 11, 2017 at 10:47 am
    Quite extraordinary the number of people prepared to go to war on the basis of youtube videos filmed by an anti-Assad propaganda outfit funded by, amongst others, the US State Department and the UK government. Goebbels, thou shoulds't be living at this hour

    As far as Hague's comments on Russia are concerned, I think he's forgotten the golden rule .it's a really, really bad idea to start believing your own propaganda.

    Cortes , April 11, 2017 at 4:28 pm
    Hague is the original white helmet.
    marknesop , April 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm
    Actually, he's a purple helmet.


    Fucking idiot of a British foreign minister at the same table as his beaming Canadian Svidomite counterpart at G7 meeting yesterday.

    Boris Johnson threatens Russia with fresh sanctions over support for 'toxic' Assad regime in Syria

    Moscow Exile , April 11, 2017 at 11:28 am
    Boris Johnson fails to secure backing of the G7 nations for swift sanctions against Russia and Syria

    Boris Johnson has failed to secure the backing of the G7 nations for swift sanctions against Russia and Syria, leaving the US-UK plan to pressurise Vladimir Putin in tatters.

    Germany and Italy vetoed the idea of targeting Russian and Syrian military leaders until an investigation has been carried out into who was to blame for last week's nerve gas attack in Idlib province.

    The Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano said Mr Putin "must not be pushed into a corner", suggesting Italy may not support extra sanctions even if an investigation proves Assad was to blame.

    Moscow Exile , April 11, 2017 at 11:28 am
    G7 not stronk!
    marknesop , April 11, 2017 at 5:24 pm
    It's a circle-jerk of debtor nations, among whom – when it was a member – Russia held the lowest debt level by far. Russia is better off out of it, and the sooner it replaces the IMF and other western institutions in its daily dealings and ceases its capitalization of them, the better off Russia will be. Choose between America and Assad, indeed. What fool would choose to publicly seek the friendship of a country that spits on it all day long, every day, week in, week out? Even if Assad were actually guilty of all the horrible things know-nothing Washington claims he is, he would still be a better choice.
    Cortes , April 11, 2017 at 12:14 am
    The Saker on the Tomahawk strike:

    http://thesaker.is/a-multi-level-analysis-of-the-us-cruise-missile-attack-on-syria-and-its-consequences/

    Includes detail on how Russian misdirection of the 36 AWOL missiles may have been done plus loads more. Apologies if linked to earlier.

    et Al , April 11, 2017 at 3:21 am
    The Charlotte Observer: US Official: Russia knew Syrian chemical attack was coming
    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article143893739.html

    By ROBERT BURNS and LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press

    The United States has made a preliminary conclusion that Russia knew in advance of Syria's chemical weapons attack last week, but has no proof of Moscow's involvement, a senior U.S. official says.

    The official said Monday that that a drone operated by Russians was flying over a hospital as victims of the attack were rushing to get treatment. Hours after the drone left, a Russian-made fighter jet bombed the hospital in what American officials believe was an attempt to cover up the usage of chemical weapons

    couldn't have been a coincidence, and that Russia must have known The official, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly on intelligence matters and demanded anonymity, didn't give precise timing for when the drone was in the area, didn't provide details for the military and intelligence information

    Another U.S. official cautioned official wasn't authorized to speak about internal administration deliberations and spoke on condition of anonymity

    Until Monday, U.S. officials had said they weren't sure whether Russia or Syria operated the drone. The official said the U.S. is now convinced Russia controlled the drone. The official said it still isn't clear who was flying the jet that bombed the hospital, because the Syrians also fly Russian-made aircraft
    ####

    Purlitzer here please! I wonder what a judge would say to the Prosecution in a criminal case if they said that they don't have the actual evidence but that they are 'convinced' the defendant is guity?

    I don't really know why AP is needed at all here as all this can be put straight out by US officials. Who says main steam establishment journalism is dead? I do. All that remains is establishment piss stream journalism.

    Moscow Exile , April 11, 2017 at 3:49 am
    "Who the fuck invited him to speak???" they must have been screaming in the BBC Breakfast TV studio control room.

    BBC with egg on its face during a breakfast TV interview with former UK ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, on April 7, 2017:

    Love it at the end when the interviewer asks:

    "Well, how will his [Assad's] behaviour change now he knows President Trump is prepared to launch cruise missile attacks?"

    [Classic "begging of the question", it being taken as a given by the interviewer that Assad was responsible for the CW attack in Ibidem and, therefore, suffered the consequences in the form of a cruise missile attack by the Exceptional Nation.]

    Ford replies:

    "But he probably didn't do it in the first place, so it can't change his behaviour if he didn't do it in the first place "

    Moscow Exile , April 11, 2017 at 5:57 am
    AP:

    Tillerson: Russia must choose between Assad and the US

    Hmmmm ..

    Tough choice!

    Moscow Exile , April 11, 2017 at 6:17 am
    "Two Russian servicemen were killed in the Syrian Arab Republic as a result of an attack by militants A mine explosion killed the two Russian servicemen. Military medics are struggling for the life of a wounded Russian serviceman" – Russia MoD.

    This news cannot have reached Finland yet.

    See: Militants Kill Two Russian Servicemen in Syria, Medics Fighting for Third's Life
    14:04 11.04.2017(updated 14:32 11.04.2017)

    Warren , April 11, 2017 at 7:24 am
    Boris Johnson: Russia will want a way out on Syria

    UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, predicts Russia will want "a way out" of its current position on Syria and says that the G7 meeting has proposed measures which offer a way forward.

    Mr Johnson was speaking to the BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39563637

    BoJo continues to embarrass himself, how presumptuous of him to think he knows what Russia wants. What on Earth makes BoJo think that "Russia wants an way out"? Russia's relationship with Syria contrary to his erroneous assertion is not an "albatross around Russia's neck". BoJo got one thing right, Russia's intervention in September 2015, absolutely "changed the game", the threat of direct NATO aggression along the lines of what occurred in Libya was neutered.

    kirill , April 11, 2017 at 6:27 pm
    Russia is in Syria until the battle is won. It is rather obvious that Russia decide to take the fight to the Wahabbis near their home turf instead of having the Wahabbis set the agenda along its border. It diverted Wahabbi resources from Chechnya and elsewhere in the process. Good job!
    Warren , April 11, 2017 at 7:54 am
    What is behind Toshiba's financial crisis?

    11 April 2017 Last updated at 01:12 BST

    Toshiba is currently trying to sell off its prized computer chips unit in an attempt to cover losses from its troubled US nuclear unit Westinghouse.

    But it's not the only Japanese firm to struggle in recent years.

    The BBC's Tokyo correspondent Rupert Wingfield-Hayes looks at some of the reasons why.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39557757

    Looks like the Japanese corporate model is coming to an end. I wonder if revelations will emerge that Toshiba has committed fraud and hid its losses in shell companies, in the same way Olympus had done?

    kirill , April 11, 2017 at 6:25 pm
    So Westinghouse was a black hole to the extent that it practically broke Toshiba. Wow. How much of the rest of the US super duper ubermenschen power house hyper economy nothing more than a rotten facade?
    Northern Star , April 11, 2017 at 1:18 pm
    The only appropriate Russian response to Tillerson';s ultimatum would be along the lines of:

    You fascist vermin have two options:

    1) All of North America ,Western Europe and Western Russia wiil be turned into sheets of glass serving as the mass tombs of a billion or so putrefying radioactive corpses.

    2) You will immediately completely cease and desist from fucking -IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER- with Russia or any sovereign nation with which Russia is allied

    Your call motherfuckers

    The fact that this cocksucker Tillerson would give an ultimatum to the Russians IN RUSSIA no less speaks to the unbounded psycho arrogance of the rabid vermin in the Western elite.

    et Al , April 11, 2017 at 1:26 pm
    I think Trump's 'strategy', if you can call it as such, is to shake the tree to see who folds under pressure. It's likely it will blow up in his face, but as we have seen with the TLAM strike in Syria, even the Dems were on board and congratulating him so they own the consequences too.
    Northern Star , April 11, 2017 at 1:39 pm

    "even the Dems were on board " Exactly .see my post infra We have ZERO fuckin' leadership of substance-moral and intellectual- in this country(America)-whatsoever the Congressional Black Caucus is as full of spineless dogshit as the white dominated DNC black vermin political opportunists white vermin political opportunists..all cut from the same bolt.

    Jen , April 11, 2017 at 3:19 pm
    The people who say that Adolf Hitler refused to use sarin gas because of his own experiences during WW1 when he was gassed with mustard gas will have to juggle their belief with the fact that Zyklon B and carbon monoxide gas were used on people in concentration / death camps in Poland or on people travelling packed sardines-in-tin style in the backs of trucks travelling to the camps. Saying that Hitler or his government would not have used gas comes dangerously close to denying the use of gas in camps like Treblinka, Chelmno, Sobibor and Auschwitz-Birkenau to kill people.

    As Lina Arabi says, people like Hannon and Simon are completely lost and totally ignorant.

    et Al , April 11, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    Al Beeb s'Allah GONAD (God's Own News Agency Direct): Syria: Boris Johnson denies defeat over sanctions call
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39563640

    ####

    There's a job waiting for him as a spokesman for the US Government.

    He'll have to top this though.

    Huff Blow: Sean Spicer Says Hitler 'Never Used Chemical Weapons' As If He's Never Heard Of The Holocaust
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sean-spicer-chemical-weapons-holocaust_uk_58ed23e9e4b0df7e20460dc3

    Northern Star , April 11, 2017 at 1:29 pm
    To the stooges who have Chamberlain Syndrome:

    "Pseudo-left endorses imperialist onslaught against Syria
    11 April 2017
    Nearly 16 years after the beginning of the "war on terror" and more than a quarter-century after the first Gulf War in 1991, the unending imperialist war drive is entering a new and more dangerous stage. In the aftermath of the Trump administration's air strikes against Syria, the US media and political establishment, parroting the official propaganda line used to justify the attacks, is demanding even more aggressive action against Syria and Russia. There is the very real danger of a direct military conflict between the US and nuclear-armed Russia, with incalculable consequences.
    And yet, fourteen years after the mass protests against the Iraq war in 2003, there does not exist any organized anti-war movement. With each successive war, accompanied by ever more brazen propaganda and lies, the level of organized popular protest has diminished. This is despite the fact that among broad sections of the population there is profound disquiet and hostility to the warmongering of the government. How is this to be explained?
    It is impossible to answer this question without analyzing the role of the nominally "left" political parties and publications that have become vocal cheerleaders of US regime-change operations. Included among them are the International Socialist Organization (Socialist Worker) and the Pabloite International Viewpoint."

    Spot on comment:

    "Blaine • 7 hours ago
    The article makes it sound as if the Left political establishment has any sort of control over citizens with left leaning tendencies.

    I believe the real reason for anti-war silence is that it does no good to speak up and rally. This was learned from Iraq.

    You will also be arrested and beaten and nothing will come of it – learned from Occupy.

    Whoever you put into office will continue on a war footing, learned from Obama.

    Unless one is ready and committed to playing smash mouth with LE in large numbers and really dragging this thing into a genuine national crisis, how you feel or vote or whether you speak up or peaceably assemble will not have any effect.

    People are waking up but at a very slow pace. Too slowly. The anti-war movement has no leaders to galvanize it, no eloquent speeches to incite the spirit, no folk singers wondering where the flowers have gone."

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/11/pers-a11.html

    To which I would add to the above :'Half measures' don't work. Learned from DonBass and now Syria

    [Apr 11, 2017] After Trumps Syria Attack, What Comes Next

    Trump probably has a horse head in his bed
    Notable quotes:
    "... From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA -- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war. ..."
    "... The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed by poison gas or by a US missile? ..."
    "... Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US military action in Syria, it is now! ..."
    Apr 10, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Thursday's US missile attack on Syria must represent the quickest foreign policy U-turn in history. Less than a week after the White House gave Assad permission to stay on as president of his own country, President Trump decided that the US had to attack Syria and demand Assad's ouster after a chemical attack earlier in the week. Trump blamed Assad for the attack, stated that "something's going to happen" in retaliation, and less than two days later he launched a volley of 59 Tomahawk missiles (at a cost of $1.5 million each) onto a military airfield near where the chemical attack took place.

    President Trump said it is in the "vital national security interest of the United States" to attack Syria over the use of poison gas. That is nonsense. Even if what Trump claims about the gas attack is true – and we've seen no evidence that it is – there is nothing about an isolated incident of inhuman cruelty thousands of miles from our borders that is in our "vital national security interest." Even if Assad gassed his own people last week it hardly means he will launch chemical attacks on the United States even if he had the ability, which he does not.

    From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA -- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war.

    Would the neocons and the mainstream media lie to us about what happened last week in Syria? Of course they would. They lied us into attacking Iraq, they lied us into attacking Gaddafi, they lied us into seeking regime change in Syria in the first place. We should always assume they are lying.

    Who benefits from the US attack on Syria? ISIS, which immediately after the attack began a ground offensive. Does President Trump really want the US to act as ISIS's air force?

    The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed by poison gas or by a US missile?

    What's next for President Trump in Syria? Russia has not backed down from its claim that the poison gas leaked as a result of a conventional Syrian bomb on an ISIS chemical weapons factory. Moscow claims it is determined to defend its ally, Syria. Will Trump unilaterally declare a no fly zone in parts of Syria and attempt to prevent Russian air traffic? Some suggest this is his next move. It is one that carries a great danger of igniting World War Three.

    Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US military action in Syria, it is now!


    Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Apr 11, 2017] Idlib chemical attack was false flag to set Assad up, more may come – Putin - RT News

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," ..."
    "... "President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," ..."
    "... "The sight of people being gassed and blown away by barrel bombs ensures that if we see this kind of action again, we hold open the possibility of future action," ..."
    "... "We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results of such a probe," ..."
    "... "These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | www.rt.com
    Russia has information of a potential incident similar to the alleged chemical attack in Idlib province, possibly targeting a Damascus suburb, President Vladimir Putin said. The goal is to discredit the government of Syrian President Assad, he added. https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FRTvids%2Fvideos%2F1533173910026190%2F&show_text=0&width=560" name="I1">

    "We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," he said at a joint press conference with Italian President Sergio Mattarella in Moscow.

    Damascus denied the allegations, noting that the targeted area may have been hosting chemical weapons stockpiles belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) or Al-Nusra Front jihadists.

    The incident has not been properly investigated as yet, but the US fired dozens of cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase in a demonstration of force over what it labeled a chemical attack by Damascus.

    "President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," he added.

    Read more Future strikes on Syria a 'possibility'– White House

    It was the first time the US had targeted Syrian troops deliberately. The White House says it will repeat military action in response to any possible new chemical weapon attacks.

    "The sight of people being gassed and blown away by barrel bombs ensures that if we see this kind of action again, we hold open the possibility of future action," spokesman Sean Spicer said Monday.

    Putin reiterated the call to properly investigate what happened in Khan Sheikhoun, saying that the alleged use of chemical weapons demands one.

    "We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results of such a probe," he said.

    A separate report of a potential false flag operation in Syria came from the Russian General Staff, which said militants were transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria, including Eastern Ghouta, the site of the 2013 chemical weapons incident.

    "These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," said Colonel General Sergey Rudskoy, the head of Operations.

    [Apr 11, 2017] John McCain interview On CBSs Face the Nation with John Dickerson (4-9-2017)

    McCain is making a fool of himself, and so is the main media
    Apr 11, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Sebastian Ionescu 2 days ago

    YOU CAN SEE JOHN MCCAIN, BUT ALL YOU HEAR IS ISRAEL AND ZIONISM. McCain should be rotting in a jail cell waiting for execution by SAWED OFF SHOTGUN FIRING SQUAD. This jew owned whore deserves nothing less than to have his fucking head blown off by an American appointed execution squad supported by the American people and put in place to deter : 1.) LOYALTY TO ISRAEL OVER AMERICA. 2.) THE ENRICHMENT OF PRIVATE WAR PORTFOLIOS. 3.) THE WARMONGERING AND DESTABILIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

    The American people know that this is nothing more than a war for ISRAEL. NOTHING BUT ISRAEL.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-grants-illegal-oil-rights-inside-syria-to-murdoch-and-rothschild/5517488

    [Apr 11, 2017] Robert Steele - Inside Source Says Brennan, McCain McMaster Responsible for Syrian False Flag

    Does Donald Trump switched from "America first" to "Israeli firsts" ?
    Apr 10, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    From Robert Steele - We do now know (I did not know this at the time the below video was recorded and I have no link for this, it comes to me from an inside source) that former CIA Director John Brennan plotted this false flag attack, which may have involved some real sarin allegedly destroyed during the Obama Administration, with Senator John McCain and National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster.

    Brennan got the Saudis to pay half and McCain got Israel to pay half. They blind-sided – this is clearly treason – not only the Director of the CIA, but the President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense. In my personal view, both John McCain and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be impeached by their respective legislative bodies.

    Whether true or not I cannot certify – it is consistent with my evaluation of each of these people, and a good starting point for an international investigation. I have long felt that John Brennan should be standing before the International Court of Justice as a war criminal, not least because of the CIA's drone assassination program that I recently denounced in a book review article for Intelligence and National Security.

    If you appreciate what we do here at VL, consider supporting us on Patreon.. Thank you :-)

    https://www.patreon.com/victuruslibertas

    [Apr 11, 2017] Mattis Syria Will Not Spiral Out Of Control

    Apr 11, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    SgtShaftoe , Apr 11, 2017 3:30 PM

    Fuck you Pentagram demons. Haven't you yet tasted enough death and human suffering?

    Looney -> SgtShaftoe , Apr 11, 2017 3:31 PM

    Barking orders works well with the UK, Germany, France, and the rest of the EU.

    This shit doesn't fly with the Russians or the Chinese.

    Dubya tried it, although very carefully. 0bama tried it, not so carefully.

    Now, Trump wants to "make deals" by giving orders to Xi (on N. Korea) and Putin (on Syria).

    Is this how he used to "make deals" with the Unions, NY regulators, or byers/sellers of Real Estate?

    Looney

    Raffie -> Ghost of Porky , Apr 11, 2017 3:43 PM

    Mad Dog says "We believe Assad attacked..." Believe, not Know... big difference.

    pods -> Raffie , Apr 11, 2017 3:51 PM

    They don't even BELIEVE that cause they KNOW who really did.

    pods

    NoDecaf -> pods , Apr 11, 2017 4:03 PM

    If this goes all the way...I mean ALL the way.

    It'll be open season on neocons

    44magnum -> NoDecaf , Apr 11, 2017 4:22 PM

    American revolution 2.0

    Chupacabra-322 -> 44magnum , Apr 11, 2017 4:54 PM

    These ZioNeoConFascist have crossed The American Patriots "Red Line."

    These Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Deep State Psychopaths have been & are "Going All In."

    This is Irrefutably, Absolutely the Last chance of Peacefully, Diplomatically walking away from a Situational Inter National Crises of which the CIA / Deep State Dept is Gulty of causing.

    The Global Criminal Oligarch Cabal Bankster Intelligence Crime Syndicate has been exposed for all the World to See.

    The Emperor is Stark Naked & the World doesn't seen to Care.

    The Deception that was once "Hidden in plain view" is now Globally Tyrannically Lawlessly open for all the World to See.

    Pure Unadulterated Evil.

    SoilMyselfRotten -> Chupacabra-322 , Apr 11, 2017 5:01 PM

    Can you imagine how much shit the Pentagon is into if it cant account for $6 trillion?

    http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/18/trillions-go-missing-military-penta...

    john doeberg -> SoilMyselfRotten , Apr 11, 2017 5:31 PM

    ONLY if US stops helping ISIS

    Donald Trump -> john doeberg , Apr 11, 2017 5:36 PM

    Slim chance of that happening.

    ISIS got MORAL support now, and even if US will take longer to react to their COMING false flags, they are already embolden by the missile attack.

    They now know they can summon Trump whenever they do some stunt.

    By Bombing the Syrian Government, Trump Turned the U.S. into ISIS' Air Force

    http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-04-11/by-bombing-the-syrian-governme...

    MillionDollarButter -> bob_bichen , Apr 11, 2017 5:40 PM

    Proof that the dysfunctional element is the controlling element . But don't assume the other players will not turn dysfunctional. They know the endgame goes all the way to Iran. They will have to draw a line sooner or later.

    Donald Trump -> MillionDollarButter , Apr 11, 2017 5:41 PM

    Trump is losing face, and might bactrack on his warmongering.

    Maybe he's still juggling the pros (and cons) he might get from the Swamp.

    [Apr 11, 2017] If US succeeds in regime change future bands of terrorists attacking the infidel will be trained in Aleppo

    Apr 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Lee A. Arnold ... , April 10, 2017 at 02:01 PM
    War [leaving Syria to 9/11 terrorists who want to do what they were not doing in Iraq in 2002, that is build a terror states to compete with Libya and Afghanistan] is the life of the US state in the 'American Century'.

    If US succeeds in regime change future bands of terrorists attacking the infidel will be trained in Aleppo!

    [Apr 11, 2017] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Why Does Assad Have To Go -- With Lew Rockwell

    Apr 11, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Why Does Assad Have To Go? -- With Lew Rockwell

    It was supposed to be different with Trump. Dozens of times as candidate and even early on as president, he stated that it would be a big mistake to go into Syria. He also finally cancelled Obama's "Assad must go" policy. Then came reports of a gas attack in Syria which was blamed on Assad with no evidence given. Suddenly missiles are flying, US boots are on the ground, and again we hear "Assad must go."

    Is it our role to determine who can and cannot rule foreign countries? We are joined in-studio today by Mises Institute founder Lew Rockwell to discuss:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/n7nQaXyvowA

    Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given. Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Apr 11, 2017] US Bolsters Protection of Ground Troops in Syria as Tensions Rise Growing Concerns Last Week's Strikes Could Fuel Retaliation

    Apr 11, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    by Jason Ditz, April 10, 2017
    Last week's US missile strikes against Syria have been something of a game-changer in US policy across the region. Nowhere is the concern greater than among the US ground troops stationed in Syria, however, as if the strikes ultimately provoke a retaliation, they're in the line of fire.

    While they're not offering details on exactly what they're doing, US officials have confirmed that they have made adjustments since the attacks, seeking to increase the protection of US forces in Syria in case they do come under attack in the course of their operations.

    The ground troops are deployed in Syria overwhelming in anti-ISIS operations, and this is the second time in as many days officials have confirmed anti-ISIS operations were changed because of last week's attack, after confirming yesterday they'd cut back on airstrikes against ISIS for fear of coming under attack from Syrian air defense.

    At this point, retaliation appears unlikely unless the US launches further attacks, with Russia making it clear that any future attacks are a "red line" for them. US officials continue to talk up potential justifications for such strikes, however, which might mean they're hoping they can call Russia's bluff, assuming it is a bluff.

    [Apr 11, 2017] Donald Trump surrendered to neocons and sacrificed his Syrian policy in hope to squash Russian-ties witch hunt against him and his close allies

    Apr 11, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    The president has just swaggered his way into the single most complex civil war in living memory – and he does so with little credibility or legitimacy

    It may be hard to believe, but Donald Trump is even more simplistic than George W Bush in matters of war. George W Bush enjoyed all the certainty of a very simple man: you were either with us or against us, good or evil, marching for democracy or plotting terrorist attacks.

    Yet Donald Trump manages to make Bush look like Baron von Metternich. He just launched military strikes against a brutal Syrian regime he used to describe as "NOT our problem".

    Yes, Donald Trump is a great big bag of contradictions and he just swaggered his way into the single most complex civil war in living memory – a war that is even more complicated than raising a high-rise hotel in a foreign capital.


    At least Bush took more than a year after 9/11 before he invaded Iraq. Trump hasn't reached the 100-day mark and he's already walking into his own quagmire.

    seedeevee , 7 Apr 2017 15:25
    It would have been nice if the Guardian wasn't such a cheerleader for this warfare.
    ID1720063 , 7 Apr 2017 15:27
    Going from dangerous to lethal - he's graduated to blindly lobbing bombs at foreign countries for reasons he doesn't fully understand and causing consequences he'll never comprehend.
    Gwion Williams LetsBeClear , 7 Apr 2017 15:45
    Helping to further destabilise one of the most dangerous regions in terms of international terrorism is a good thing? If Assad is toppled today the people placed to fill the vacuum are some of the most abhorrent Wahhabist nutters you could imagine. The secular rebels such as they were have either been killed or surpassed in power and influence, several years ago by now. Atrocities committed by Assad need to be dealt with by international courts following the managed conclusion of the war.
    ThumbSprain , 7 Apr 2017 15:27
    Remember "Hillary will start a war over Syria"? Oh well.

    On the up side for him I suppose that's the investigation in collusion with Russia nixed, Cui Bono eh? Share Facebook Twitter

    littlebillykershaw ThumbSprain , 7 Apr 2017 15:42
    "Cui Bono eh?"

    Don't be getting him involved :)

    Muzzledagain , 7 Apr 2017 15:31
    What Trump did was totally illegal, and you won't find anyone to tell him so. All the ones that hated him before are at his feet now for further collaboration in destroying Syria and thus prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people.
    GuyPeron , 7 Apr 2017 15:31
    I am still troubled by the Guardian editorial line and journalists unquestioningly concluding that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in question. I of course cannot say it is not, but I have also not been presented with any evidence anywhere that it was. I certainly haven't seen any convincing evidence presented in the Guardian. Most troubling for me is that I haven't seen any Guardian journalists asking what benefit the Assad regime thought it would gain from carrying out these chemical attacks (if it did). Who is to benefit from these attacks? That is what I would be asking as that is a long way to discovering who is guilty. Share
    AndyMcCarthy GuyPeron , 7 Apr 2017 15:44
    If Trump says Assad is responsible Assad is responsible. Trump doesn't need evidence. Not even a dodgy dossier.

    [Apr 11, 2017] Russian MoD US Missile Attack on Syrian Airbase was Prepared Long Time Ago

    Notable quotes:
    "... I am a Chinese American, I voted for trump. I feel betray after the missile strike. Trump seems just like another puppet by the Zionist Jew to eliminate Syria then Iran ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    Russian view: This attack as a blatant violation of Memorandum.

    Attack was prepared for long time and the event in sevred just a trigger for already prepared attack.

    george washington 3 days ago

    I am a Chinese American, I voted for trump. I feel betray after the missile strike. Trump seems just like another puppet by the Zionist Jew to eliminate Syria then Iran

    kentucky fried 3 days ago (edited)

    so trump clearly has no choice in things it's soo clear. everything that happens is decided by the zionists. so let me get this straight, the CIA provide chemical weapons like sarin gas to terrorists groups and when the Syrian army bombs the factory it explodes the gas killing the civilians in the area, America proceeds to Launch 60 tomahawk missiles(and only half land) at a Syrian air base and terrorist groups just happen to launch a quick offensive soon after.

    didn't the trump administration say getting rid of assad is no longer on the agenda?

    then who is pushing the buttons?

    [Apr 11, 2017] Something about typical narrow-minded, provincial neocon chichenhawks

    Apr 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. April 10, 2017 at 09:22 AM
    "But the liberal Democrat, who was one of then-Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' few supporters in Congress last year, explained she wanted to engage in dialogue with Assad."

    If you support peace, you work for Russia. McCarthyism.

    sanjait -> Peter K.... , April 10, 2017 at 01:40 PM
    McCarthyism is indeed a bad thing, but the only ones I see complaining about it recently are useful idiots, and useful idiocy is also a bad thing. So I'm left only to despair at the state of political thought in the United States today.
    ilsm -> sanjait... , April 10, 2017 at 02:21 PM
    If you question malarkey you are a "useful idiot". War is the Life of the Deep State. eh.
    libezkova -> sanjait... , April 10, 2017 at 05:22 PM
    "McCarthyism is indeed a bad thing, but the only ones I see complaining about it recently are useful idiots, and useful idiocy is also a bad thing."

    Nothing is worse then being McCarthyist. Nothing. That's the bottom: they are real intellectual bottom feeders. Think about this.

    Even being useless "neoliberal idiot", essentially a shill of financial oligarchy, the role that you played before in this forum, is much, much better.

    And please stop treating ilsm as if he is subpar to you just because you are "politically correct".

    Please understand that your post pretty well attest that you are just a typical narrow-minded, provincial neocon chichenhawk.

    Brainwashed by propaganda to the extent that you lost any ability to think independently and skeptically. Capable only regurgitating CNN.

    sanjait -> libezkova... , April 10, 2017 at 05:55 PM
    "Brainwashed by propaganda to the extent that you lost any ability to think independently and skeptically."

    Says the 9/11 truther... lolz. Go ahead and insult me. If people like you thought I made sense, I would have a serious problem.

    ilsm -> sanjait... , April 10, 2017 at 05:32 PM
    You should to go in to that area in north Syria where the chemical attack/false flag was staged, ask for hard evidence and see how long you live.

    The propaganda is "Assad is a brute", jihadi shell loyal sections of Syria every day but no one run pictures of those casualties, just like none from Sanaa or Gaza.

    The guys who were going to replace Qaddafi? Where are the liberals?

    sanjait -> ilsm... , April 10, 2017 at 05:56 PM
    Sure, because inability to investigate a war zone without danger indicates it all MUST be false flag operations. That's very logical ... for me to poop on.
    libezkova -> sanjait... , April 10, 2017 at 05:56 PM
    Looks like in addition to having zero knowledge of physics, you have zero knowledge of chemistry. Congratulations. Looks like you might seek the job as MSM political commentator.

    But now a little bit chemistry:

    == quote ==
    Sarin, or GB (G-series, 'B'), is a colorless, odorless liquid,[5] used as a chemical weapon due to its extreme potency as a nerve agent.
    ... ... ...
    People who absorb a non-lethal dose, but do not receive immediate medical treatment, may suffer permanent neurological damage.
    == end of quote ==

    Syrian revels were already producing sarin in 2013 and injured several US solders with it in Iraq (using artillery shell delivery system).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn22Pfmw85A
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMSU6A6UCcI

    This is a really diabolic substance which is probably 10 to 100 times more dangerous then cyanide. Poor man weapon of mass destruction, if you wish. BTW that's why Assad had have it -- to counterbalance Israeli nuclear weapons as such bombs/rockets would wipe out country population. Not so much because he was such an evil dictator who enjoys collecting dangerous staff.

    Lethal concentration is so low that if a person touches the victim with bare hands he/she essentially touches dispersed cyanide power. And has reasonably high chances to absorb a non-lethal doze to be injured for life, if this was a military grade sarin.

    This was not the case. And that raises a very important question: what if this was not a military grade sarin. And the most plausible answer is: no it was not. Oops...

    What was is the most plausible source of not military grade sarin with primitive systems of delivery (artillery shells). Right. Rebels. Such product is an amateur product typical for rebel's underground labs. So if you shell the territory that is bombed by Assad forces with your shell with sarin warhead you get what? Right. A very potent false flag with no witnesses and difficulties to find the truth.

    If one compare how Japanese dealt with sarin attack in the subway with the way first responders in Syria treated victims the hypothesis that it was military grade chemical weapon promoted by the MSM instantly becomes much less convincing and their level of indignation start looking somewhat phony.

    Some even suggest that this was phosgene -- a much easier synthesized (phosgene can be produced by passing purified carbon monoxide and chlorine gas through a bed of porous activated carbon, which serves as a catalyst -- undertaking simple enough for any rebel group) or it was sarin, but in "amateur concentration" with simplistic warhead: less lethal then "military grade" with sophisticated dispersion via bomblets

    Again sarin is a really diabolical substance even in comparison with phosgene -- that is very important to understand.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTZI2lS6MYo

    "Phosgene is the chemical compound with the formula COCl2. This colorless gas gained infamy as a chemical weapon during World War I where it was responsible for about 85% of the 100,000 deaths caused by chemical weapons. It is also a valued industrial reagent and building block in synthesis of pharmaceuticals and other organic compounds. In low concentrations, its odor resembles freshly cut hay or grass"

    After some research, this incident to me looks more and more like a successful repetition of previous false flag operation conducted in the same province in 2013 with the same explicit goal: to implicate Assad and provoke the USA for invasion of the country with the goal of regime change.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

    With the same players and the same suspiciously hysterical reaction of neocon dominated MSM -- the reaction which occurred before any investigation.

    Which means this is a propaganda campaign, not a natural reaction for the tragedy.

    And Trump reaction in the best cowboy style increased my suspicions even more: that means that he folded: "Russian links" neo-McCarthyism smear got him (it is incorrectly to call it McCarthysim as "classic" ten year campaign was about communists as a political movement, not only about a particular country -- the USSR ).

    Now anti-war right is typically blamed with anti-Semitism, which is less potent weapon. Anti-Russian smear was the invention of Hillary Clinton campaign staff.

    And "last but not least." Nikki Haley is a pretty clever, fast learning politician, so when she imitates Colin Powell in the UN (suicidal, career limiting move), condemning Assad, Russia and Iran before any investigation of chemical attack in Syria ( 'They defied the conscience of the world' ) additional questions arise about the USA motives and the level of cooperation with the al Nusra rebels on the level of government agencies.

    She got "all in" without any second thought. Politicians don't do that unless forced or convinced that this is "slam dunk".

    To me her behavior was a real red flag -- the smell of Iraqi WDMs -- the smell of government operation -- the signal that something is really fishy here: after listening to her I assumed "false attack" as the primary hypothesis.

    Because of cuo bono principle.

    And started looking at those sites which the provide alternative hypothesis and information, mainly British. I now wonder if all victims were locals, or some of them were hostages, "human shields" and did people died exactly from air attack and subsequent release of chemicals ("Russian hypotheses") or the area was shelled in parallel with the air attack with shells that carry chemical warheads.

    Another unanswered but troubling question: Why such a disproportional number of children ? Was this staged to increase the level of anger against Assad government (which worked) ?

    But I am a skeptic by nature, so your mileage may vary.

    My impression is that CNN is good enough for your intellectual level, so you can continue in your typical, already well learned, standard brainwashed way. I do not see any desire to dig in the substance in your political-related posts. You just regurgitate CNN and happy about it.

    Which has a definite advantage of being always "politically correct".

    And what is important is that you seems to enjoy this position so much that you just can't stop from reminding me about this your advantage on each and every occasion, especially if you have no valid arguments ;-).

    [Apr 11, 2017] The US should have supported a through UN investigation and international law in regard to the gas attacks in Syria.

    Apr 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC , April 10, 2017 at 08:19 AM
    Five major US newspapers-the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Daily News-offered no opinion space to anyone opposed to Donald Trump's Thursday night airstrikes.

    By contrast, the five papers ran a total of 18 op-eds, columns or "news analysis" articles (dressed-up opinion pieces) that either praised the strikes or criticized them for not being harsh enough:

    http://www.alternet.org/media/five-top-papers-run-18-opinion-pieces-praising-syria-strikes-zero-are-critical-0

    RGC -> RGC... , April 10, 2017 at 08:51 AM
    A pair of veteran leaders on the left, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden, called on Hawaiians to vote Rep. Tulsi Gabbard out of office after the Democrat questioned whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for last week's chemical attack.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/09/politics/democratic-leaders-gabbard-syria/

    anne -> RGC... , April 10, 2017 at 10:01 AM
    "A pair of veteran leaders on the left, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden, called on Hawaiians to vote Rep. Tulsi Gabbard out of office after the Democrat questioned whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for last week's chemical attack."

    [ Astonishing, Neera Tanden and Howard Dean are wildly intolerant of dissent by Democrats from the dictates of the Clintons but I would not have imagined they were this intolerant. Tulsi Gabbard is an elected official of conscience, but evidently conscience is intolerable for the likes of Tanden and Dean.

    The point I suppose is for "leading" Democrats to clear the party of those who are not suitably dogma intimidated. ]

    anne -> anne... , April 10, 2017 at 04:46 PM
    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/850478090887319552

    Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard

    The US should have supported a through UN investigation and international law in regard to the gas attacks in Syria.

    3:39 PM - 7 Apr 2017

    [ Such a statement strikes me as completely reasonable, and for any prominent Democrat to find the statement intolerable is to me lacking in tolerance and judiciousness. Then again, the implied or lightly veiled criticism of President Obama for failing to intervene forcefully enough in Syria has startled me. ]

    [Apr 10, 2017] Took Red Pill

    Apr 10, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    new game , Apr 10, 2017 8:30 AM

    Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the only sensible politicians;

    http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/04/06/breaking-news/rep-tulsi-gabbard...

    [Apr 10, 2017] Liberals Call For Ouster Of Democrat Representative After She Questions Syria Attacks Zero Hedge

    Apr 10, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Liberals Call For Ouster Of Democrat Representative After She Questions Syria Attacks ronaldwilsonreagan , Apr 10, 2017 12:22 PM

    If you are a warmonger you are not really a liberal.

    BaBaBouy -> ronaldwilsonreagan , Apr 10, 2017 12:25 PM

    NON Deep State Shill...

    She's A Hero ...

    Looney -> BaBaBouy , Apr 10, 2017 12:28 PM

    Did Howard Dean actually find time in his busy child-molesting schedule to criticize Gabbard?

    Shut the fuck up, you perv!

    Looney

    Ghost of PartysOver -> BaBaBouy , Apr 10, 2017 12:26 PM

    Tulsi is one of the very very few Dems that I will actually listen to what they have to say. Perhaps she would relocate to AZ and take McCain's seat. That would be nice.

    Jim in MN -> ronaldwilsonreagan , Apr 10, 2017 12:24 PM

    The Deep State globalists are gunning for any opponents.

    Sad how many 'liberals' are on board with these monsters.

    LawsofPhysics , Apr 10, 2017 12:24 PM

    LOL!!! Stupid is as stupid does!!! Just more proof that liberals are not capable of critical thinking, even when one of there own is waking up to the MIC action!!!!

    Philo Beddoe , Apr 10, 2017 12:24 PM

    If Howard Dean is against her I am behind her.

    Being behind her would be ok, I suppose.

    Cursive , Apr 10, 2017 12:24 PM

    Howard Dean called her a disgrace? I have bowel movements that are more productive and graceful then that dumbass.

    replaceme , Apr 10, 2017 12:25 PM

    This is a disgrace - Howard Dean.

    I would tend to agree; that guy is an expert on disgrace.

    SidSays -> replaceme , Apr 10, 2017 12:30 PM

    Howard Dean?

    That guy is bat-shit crazy .

    SidSays , Apr 10, 2017 12:32 PM

    Hero to zero....

    In no time flat...

    Thats how democracy (and the Technocracy) works ...

    Thankfully we live in a representitive republic.

    Bay of Pigs , Apr 10, 2017 12:27 PM

    One of the few sane voices in Congress on this issue.

    She is spot on and over the target which is why they are all attacking her.

    [Apr 10, 2017] If US succeeds in regime change future bands of terrorists attacking the infidel will be trained in Aleppo

    Notable quotes:
    "... The main accomplishment of bombing Syria was the sabotage of Trumps stated goal of corporation with Russia. I wonder which of his advisers convinced Trump to fock himself? Peter K. -> pgl... , April 10, 2017 at 11:44 AM As Krugman points out it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Trump has no long-term strategy. A one-off of destroying some planes and a Syrian janitor wouldn't matter in the long run. It's like Bill Clinton's strategy with Iraq. Launch some missiles at them to distract attention. ..."
    "... Of course there is a long term strategy, it is to use Saudis and the GCC to keep permanent war going. ..."
    "... How could shooting insanely from the hip further weaken US 'credibility'? How can continuously repeating unsubstantiated allegations as fact be any different than Goebbels' propaganda? ..."
    "... The US is defender of Sunni terror, you know the kind behind 9/11/01, against Shiite Muslims and Middle East Christians living in places controlled by US' oil sheiks or their jihadi clients! ..."
    "... To 96% of the people in the world the US is either a conscienceless, heavily armed thug or a dog with half the world's war spending to be unleashed by any thug with resources or banks. ..."
    "... Defeating ISIS is priority to no one. The Saudis, Turkey, etc like ISIS exactly where they are. ..."
    "... While the staged "fight" for Raqqah is malarkey, an excuse to deliver heavy weapons to jihadists. The US' jihadis moved south to 'grab the dam', so that ISIS' logistics road from turkey was not cut! How ISIS has not been starved out in Mosul and Raqqa is beyond imagining. ..."
    Apr 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Lee A. Arnold ... , April 10, 2017 at 02:01 PM
    War [leaving Syria to 9/11 terrorists who want to do what they were not doing in Iraq in 2002, that is build a terror states to compete with Libya and Afghanistan] is the life of the US state in the 'American Century'.

    If US succeeds in regime change future bands of terrorists attacking the infidel will be trained in Aleppo!

    anne -> ilsm... , April 10, 2017 at 05:49 PM
    This series of laments and explanations are remarkably interesting, and I am grateful for them. I have found these last days discouraging, though foolishly so no doubt. So the laments help and can be most informative even though outlines.
    DeDude , April 10, 2017 at 03:39 AM
    The main accomplishment of bombing Syria was the sabotage of Trumps stated goal of corporation with Russia. I wonder which of his advisers convinced Trump to fock himself?
    Peter K. -> pgl... , April 10, 2017 at 11:44 AM
    As Krugman points out it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Trump has no long-term strategy. A one-off of destroying some planes and a Syrian janitor wouldn't matter in the long run. It's like Bill Clinton's strategy with Iraq. Launch some missiles at them to distract attention.
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , April 10, 2017 at 02:06 PM
    Of course there is a long term strategy, it is to use Saudis and the GCC to keep permanent war going.

    " .and weaken American credibility .."

    How could shooting insanely from the hip further weaken US 'credibility'? How can continuously repeating unsubstantiated allegations as fact be any different than Goebbels' propaganda?

    The US is defender of Sunni terror, you know the kind behind 9/11/01, against Shiite Muslims and Middle East Christians living in places controlled by US' oil sheiks or their jihadi clients!

    To 96% of the people in the world the US is either a conscienceless, heavily armed thug or a dog with half the world's war spending to be unleashed by any thug with resources or banks.

    Defeating ISIS is priority to no one. The Saudis, Turkey, etc like ISIS exactly where they are.

    While the staged "fight" for Raqqah is malarkey, an excuse to deliver heavy weapons to jihadists. The US' jihadis moved south to 'grab the dam', so that ISIS' logistics road from turkey was not cut! How ISIS has not been starved out in Mosul and Raqqa is beyond imagining.

    [Apr 10, 2017] Took Red Pill

    Apr 10, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    new game , Apr 10, 2017 8:30 AM

    Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the only sensible politicians;

    http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/04/06/breaking-news/rep-tulsi-gabbard...

    [Apr 10, 2017] That was roundly 30 tons of weight.

    Apr 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> DrDick... April 10, 2017 at 02:04 PM

    That was roundly 30 tons of weight.

    In Vietnam US exploded 10's of millions of tons and got nothing!

    Bombing does not work, which is the conclusion of the suppressed minority including JK Galbraith of the bombings in WW II.

    Except the A bomb which scared the emperor.

    [Apr 10, 2017] ANN COULTER POLICE STATE Is Now In The Control Of President Trump

    Apr 10, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    John Graves 4 days ago Russian connection = Democrats Red Herring! They're experts at it. In reality a Nothing Burger! g bridgman 4 days ago The whole Russian conspiracy thing is so preposterous as to not even merit discussion yet the MSM has been all over it from at least 6 months. g bridgman 3 days ago Yes, if credit is the right word, they deserve an A+. It's amazing to me democrats are stupid enough to believe this wild conspiracy with no proof and the politicians pushing the narrative are cunning enough to realize their rank and file will believe the BS and continue to push it using the MSM as their vehicle. I suppose it is a stellar accomplishment in deception. It's also an extreme dis-service to the nation and could ultimately lead to the total destruction of the democratic party. RUHDD4HVN 3 days ago I smell a deep state set up to distract from all the crimes that are being committed within the US government. Distract, Divert, to Deceive.......The deep state doing what it does. They have now thrown President Trump into a political stumbling mode that will make it hard for him to catch his balance once again. Such a shame....... Aiz Mor 3 days ago RUSSIA did not care who won. There purpose is to make us look like police state, banana Republic., Embarrass us in front of the world. Which they have succeeded. This deep state they probably knew about: as well as the unmasking and leaking. The DNC cheating sanders, 45% of americans are basket of deplorable, christians are backward people, Pro life woman expelled from woman march, News outlets giving debate questions, it goes on and on. One caucus refuses to respect President, the other bunch wearing white...open riots to stop free speech.. it goes on and on and on.One of the best qualified Judges Fillabusted ( breaking 200 year od tradition) causing a need for rule change. .Because of political reasons mostly hurt feelings.. These people, politicians are a national disgrace. Just what Russia wanted..Russia did not care who won election.

    [Apr 10, 2017] The Sarin Gas Attack In Syria Ignited an Information Battle

    Apr 10, 2017 | www.defenseone.com

    The Russian Defense Ministry wrote a Facebook post to that effect: "According to the objective monitoring data, yesterday, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (local time) the Syrian aviation made a strike on a large terrorist ammunition depot and a concentration of military hardware in the eastern outskirts of the Khan Sheikhun town. On the territory of the depot, there were workshops, which produced chemical warfare munitions.Terrorists had been transporting chemical munitions from this largest arsenal to the territory of Iraq. Both international organizations and the authorities of the country had repeatedly proved their usage by terrorists." FedUpWithWelfareStates • 2 days ago I tend to go with the 'Logical' Russian version of the incident...

    ONE, Syria had NO reason to throw away all of the gains made.

    TWO, the Pentagon & State Department has LIED so much to the American people, that they are NO longer believable...

    Max South • 2 days ago
    There are no "denials" of the warehouse explanation that would even remotely make sense.
    Also, there is not only no evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Syrian air force, but there is no even a motive. Assad is expanding the control of his territory, he is winning almost everywhere. Why he would all of sudden decide to use chemical weapons (which he does not even have as the UN inspection got full access to any and all facilities that stored them or could manufacture, and certified that all of the chemical weapons were destroyed).
    Max South Kingfish • 2 days ago
    The "evidence" comes from Al-Qaeda that controls the city, and from one of its doctors who as tweeting all day during the "emergency" on how he will receive videocalls and interviews. The doctor has been implicated in kidnapping of UK citizens, and was disbarred.
    Way more sane evidence has been to very well in a YouTube video called "Evidence Suggests S-Y-R-I-A G-A-S ATTACK Is False Flag".

    [Apr 09, 2017] Tucker Carlson Takes on Sen Graham After Syrian Strikes

    Notable quotes:
    "... So basically the Neoconservatives haven't learned a goddamn thing! ..."
    www.youtube.com

    Donal Lenehan

    I don't trust that Lindsey Graham any more than Obama

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    Graham is a fucking asshole. The man is despicable FILTH.

    Yanin Rodriguez

    Disappointing questions Tucker with all due respect. Fact - Syrians support Assad up to 82%. Fact #2 - Rebels in Syria are by most accounts not even Syrian. Follow up on "liberating the Syrians" - with that mentality what about the Saudis?????

    War is profits and comprises of the highest % of employment in the US - so until we transfer that sector of the economy to more peaceful endeavors - we will be permanently be in illegal wars. Lastly - where are any of these wars constitutional?

    Why has congress relinquished this responsibility???

    We know the answers but never hear the questions asked...

    Josh Hempfleng

    The strike in Syria really made the Military industrial complex show themselves. The media, Democrats and Rhino's all cheering on the attack now that they see a chance to make some money off war.

    Rumi900

    +Josh Hemplfeng - You say '... Democrats and Rhino's all cheering ...' Why Democrats and Rhino's?

    I'd be okay with you saying Democrats and Republicans, but you seem to be letting the bulk of Republicans off the hook. Or, are you saying all the Republican elite are Rhinos? If so, I agree. The point is, surely, that much of Washington (on both sides) is bought and paid for by the wealthiest elites, through their lobbyists.

    This isn't a partisan issue. I wish people would stop making it one! Republicans and Democrats are all equally culpable.

    There are Democrats and Republicans who are not just shills for the elite. And those are the politicians we should be championing.

    Trump talked about it during the election - 'draining the swamp'. The 'swamp' is not some secret power, some nefarious underground that is controlling things.

    The 'swamp' is bought and paid for politicians - politicians bought and paid for by massive donations that can now hide behind the opaque screens of the SuperPACs. It's not just politicians on the 'other' side. Both sides are equally involved.

    I don't believe Trump is serious about 'draining the swamp'. If he is, he should be going after things like the Citizen's United decision. The Supreme Court bounced that back to the House, because it's the House that makes the law. The Supreme Court is there to say whether the law is Constitutional. They don't make law. it's up to Congress to do that.

    But politicians in the house, Republicans and Democrats alike, are happy with Citizen's United and SuperPACs and the opportunities for massive secret donations it has allowed. It's how they all get rich.

    If Trump was serious about draining the swamp, he'd be tackling those issues. But he's not. Just look at his appointees! I didn't vote for Trump. Because I didn't believe his rhetoric. I still don't.

    It's you guys, his ardent supporters, who should be holding his feet to the fire! And unfortunately, I see way too much adulation, mindless hero worship, and not enough demanding accountability.

    Joanne K

    They don't want us to know that ISIS is in Syria (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and that is what Assad is fighting, along with other Islamic groups. The L in ISIL stands for Levant. Leave Syria out so that overthrowing Assad will only leave the amorphous oppressed rebels (really ISIS or Al Nusra or Al Qaeda).

    They are deceivers.

    Zack Edwards

    So basically the Neoconservatives haven't learned a goddamn thing!

    [Apr 09, 2017] Agent Orange failed to understand that he was elected mostly due to Hillary jingoism, not on his own merits

    Notable quotes:
    "... Villagers reported the victims as three-month-old Asma Fahad Ali al Ameri; Aisha Mohammed Abdallah al Ameri, 4; Halima Hussein al Aifa al Emeri, Hussein Mohammed Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri, both 5; Mursil Abedraboh Masad al Ameri, 6; Khajija Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri, 7; Nawar Anwar al Awlaqi, 8; Ahmed Abdelilah Ahmed al Dahab, 11; Nasser Abdallah Ahmed al Dahab, 12. ..."
    "... The concierge at Mar-a-Lago had the good manners not to interrupt Trump, Kushner, Bannon and the rest at dinner with pictures of the dead children. Therefore, no change of policy: they can go back to eating and planning the next raid. ..."
    Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Julio, April 09, 2017 at 11:30 AM
    From Newsweek's report
    http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-yemen-raid-killed-nine-children-what-went-wrong-554611
    on Trump's Yemen raid:

    "Villagers reported the victims as three-month-old Asma Fahad Ali al Ameri; Aisha Mohammed Abdallah al Ameri, 4; Halima Hussein al Aifa al Emeri, Hussein Mohammed Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri, both 5; Mursil Abedraboh Masad al Ameri, 6; Khajija Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri, 7; Nawar Anwar al Awlaqi, 8; Ahmed Abdelilah Ahmed al Dahab, 11; Nasser Abdallah Ahmed al Dahab, 12."

    The concierge at Mar-a-Lago had the good manners not to interrupt Trump, Kushner, Bannon and the rest at dinner with pictures of the dead children. Therefore, no change of policy: they can go back to eating and planning the next raid.

    No chemical weapons were used, so all is OK.

    libezkova -> Julio , April 09, 2017 at 01:40 PM
    Agent Orange failed to understand that he was elected mostly due to Hillary jingoism, not on his own merits. [And that voters expect to hism to stop the wars for neoliberal empire expansion as well as neocons war in support of Israeli regional interests.]

    Or was forcefully "converted" into Hillary during the first 100 days of his presidency.

    [Apr 09, 2017] You would hope that our independent media might ask some important questions, rather than simply swallow the narrative our governments feed them

    Notable quotes:
    "... In fact there are already reports that ISIS has launched an offensive in the Homs region sure in the knowledge that the Syrian regime has lost its air cover in that region. Consequently do US actions like this help ISIS? ..."
    "... Why did Al Qaeda attack Homs at the same time as the US strikes? ..."
    "... And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for more strikes from the US? ..."
    "... American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep! ..."
    "... The world does not need another full scale war! ..."
    "... Maybe he's someone who questions overt propaganda pushing wars. ..."
    "... This last bombing is very much in line with Trump steaks and Trump vodka, just a hell of a lot uglier. ..."
    "... And so we see once again that it does not matter who the American president is, what he/she wants or plans for their foreign policy - when the real masters whistle, the interchangeable White House puppet rolls over and bombs anyone who endangers the corporate profits*. ..."
    "... Where's the actual proof that Assad did this?. The whole thing stinks of another Gulf of Tonkin incident. ..."
    "... Just goes to show, how dangerous Trump actually is. We need to be given the 'clear' evidence, that Trump vindicated his action on. ..."
    "... Unless, 'experts' can investigate the bombed area, there is, as yet, no unequivocal evidence, that Syrian forces we're responsible, and Assad's and Russian explanations, could be just as valid. ..."
    "... Let's face it, the only one's to benefit from this, is Isis and the other extreme Islamist rebel factions, and Trump himself, who could be attempting to shore up his failing presidency at home. ..."
    "... Trump is doing exactly what the Establishment has told him to do. ..."
    "... I can't be the only person who's thinking false flag here. Something doesn't add up. Clearly there has been a chemical attack - it just doesn't make any sense why the Syria regime are behind it. How do they benefit? ..."
    "... I too can't believe that Assad would shot himself in the foot by using chemical weapons. The most plausible explanation is the one being advanced by the Russians. ..."
    "... But whatever the truth, and no one seems to know, unless you swallow the false-news regularly advanced by this newspaper, everybody as seized on the news to advance their own agenda. ..."
    "... And the the Guardian and BBC jump to use it as propaganda to steer the UK government to a foreign policy of which the Guardian and BBC approve. ..."
    "... We are fed, lie, after lie, after lie, and they expect us to swallow it - it is insulting. ..."
    "... The US is above international law. Plus they have just destroyed the crime scene. ..."
    "... In a single day, we've gone from Assad's air force being 'suspected' of the war crime, to an air base 'believed to be' that from which the attack was launched, to both being established facts, reported as such by the media - with no investigation or proof in between. ..."
    "... But if Trump has decided to get Assad out, who is the US going to put in to replace him? ..."
    "... Loathed though I am to contemplate it on this occasion it is possible that Assad has been framed. Only evidence can clear this up. ..."
    "... The absolute worst aspect of all, and we do know this for sure, is that the bastard claims god is his guide. ..."
    "... As he escalates on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex, which is desperately in need of profit and growth. ..."
    "... Liberals want the Wahhabis to be in charge. ..."
    "... Dec 2016 - Erdogan confirms Turkey has evidence that the US coalition is supporting ISIS and rebels in Syria ..."
    "... It almost seems too perfect doesn't it? Could be another false flag.. ..."
    "... America is simply showing it stays one step or 10 ahead and can and will act with impunity - anywhere. ..."
    "... It's not even proved that Assad used gas. In fact it's not proved what gas it was...Thanks to media and political spin its a cert is was Sarin. So, the US launches yet another military intervention without evidence or legality. ..."
    "... There is no deliberation in Syria, there is only violence. An uprising has morphed into a major proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran based on sectarian lines, with Turkey tilting the scales a bit for the Saudis and Russian the same for the Iran-backed side. ..."
    "... A similar situation in Germany 400 years ago has become labelled 'the 30 years war', although with modern munitions that seems unlikely. ..."
    "... Meanwhile Syrian children will continue to be murdered by all comers. None of the international parties taking an "interest" in Syria is innocent or guileless in this respect. We don't know for certain yet who carried out the chemical attack - it could well have been ISIS or other "rebels", or it could have been the "regime". But let's remember that Trump has said publicly that America created ISIS. ..."
    "... Trump's recent action doesn't just reveal a lack of understanding about what's going on in Syria. (And let's face it, which of us really knows what is going on there? There is no news source whose credibility is beyond question concerning that conflict). No, far more worryingly, Trump's recent action reveals a cynical willingness to act regardless of his understanding of the situation in order to refute a critical narrative (against himself) or promote a more favourable narrative (towards himself). In other words, not that different than any other politician has been regarding acts of war in the past few decades. ..."
    "... An interesting year ahead. We will see soon what Putin really has in his Trump file. We might see one or the other interesting picture or video this year. ..."
    "... Who's warmonger now? ..."
    "... A UK ex-Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, describes how Jihadi opposition in Syria were storing chemical weapons in schools, and that Western journalists saw this. ..."
    "... With no evidence that the Syrian military actually has dropped chemical munitions on people, the rush to attack the Syrian installation speaks volumes. ..."
    "... According to the Guardian headline, after the gas attack killed 70, "'The dead were wherever you looked': ..In the botched US airstrike 230 were killed ( 'ours' are just collateral damage)... ..."
    "... Tomahawk diplomacy ..."
    "... IMO there are only two options now. ..."
    "... Trump and his neolibcons plan to escalate this to the brink of WWIII, and possibly over the brink, or ..."
    "... He has been blackmailed with the lives of his nearest ones, so winning the 2020 doesn't feel that important anymore ..."
    "... The man's a total fool. He's taken Syria down the same road as his predecessors did with Libya and Iraq. Remove the leaders, just contend with hordes of warring tribals. By that time the incumbent President of the USA has moved on, leaving his mess for others to clean up. ..."
    "... Along with the fact that ONLY THE SYRIAN GOV COULD POSSIBLY LOSE BY SUCH AN ATTACK -- and would have ZERO to gain , is a compelling reason for investigation : NOT blanket repetition of what ISIS say -- according to the Guardian itself . ..."
    "... Anyway, the least actions of US in Syria, which can be qualified as an agression against a sovereign state from any point of view, shows that US, as a drunk cowboy, firing at bottles in a saloon, understand only a policy of superior force and is negotiable only when you put a colt to his head. ..."
    "... BTW: 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1,590,000 each [Wiki] is $93,810,000. Or the annual income of 4,690 people making $10/hr spent within a few minutes... to send a message to a vacated airbase? If 80 people killed in Syria is senseless, then what is 210 people shot in America on the first day of 2017? Should we send 2.5 times as many Tomahawk cruise missiles to ORD and LAX? Will the NRA get the "message"? Rattel , 7 Apr 2017 09:48 So the answer to the question 'Cui bono' appears to be Donald Trump. ..."
    "... Last time I saw the guardian posting pic of the vehicles carrying humanitarian aid that were allegedly attacked by syrian planes...and they were full of visible small arms bullet holles with is impossible to come from planes. The scenes had been staged! ..."
    "... Further escalation of this mess is terrifying - especially now we've seen how easy Trump is to manipulate. ..."
    "... "Hitting one airbase is not enough, there are 26 airbases that target civilians," a key figure in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on his Twitter account. "The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar (al-Assad) and his aides." Siding with a group called the Army of Islam - what could possibly go wrong? beren56 , 7 Apr 2017 09:50 Sadam and Gadaffi were removed from power and it only created a vacuum. Getting rid of Assad will likely do the same. The dictators kept radical Islam in check. It's not like they will thank America if they did get rid of Assad-they would still hate America ..."
    "... As soon as the current Assad regime fall, it will bring chaos, instability and death to Syria and indeed the ME on a unprecedented scale. The West should should be very careful. Assad is many times more preferable than a post Assad situation with various religious nutters wielding power. ..."
    "... ''Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.'' Donald Trump on Twitter, 9 October 2012. ..."
    "... "Meanwhile, the heart of the problem is that the United States seems always to have only one solution to war: make more war. " ..."
    "... In my youth a frequent moniker said "fighting for peace is like fu.king for virginity" - it hasn't changed ..."
    Apr 09, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com
    ajcook , 2d ago

    You would hope that our "independent" media might ask some important questions, rather than simply swallow the narrative our government's feed them...

    For instance, where is the evidence that the Syrian regime did this? Only on Wednesday the UN stated that it could not say with any certainty that the chemicals were delivered by air.

    Indeed the UN investigation has barely started, so if the US have information that Assad did this surely they should present it?

    What about motive, why would Assad who everyone agrees is on the brink of winning this war give the US a reason to intervene against him? Besides didn't we also oversee the distruction of his chemical weapons stockpile 4 years ago?

    We know ISIS have chemical weapons because our ally Turkey has let them import them over their border.

    Also, even if we ignore the legality of last night's strike, what has it done to help the situation in Syria?

    In fact there are already reports that ISIS has launched an offensive in the Homs region sure in the knowledge that the Syrian regime has lost its air cover in that region. Consequently do US actions like this help ISIS?

    I don't know about anyone else but it is pretty standard for me that when someone is accused of something I look for the evidence and motives. It seems unfortunately that our media have long stopped asking any difficult questions, as we sleepwalk into yet another middle eastern war...

    hewasrightabout42 , 7 Apr 2017 09:14
    The number of countries not bombed by the USA grows smaller all the time. It is a foreign policy based on high explosives - mindless, cruel and bound to create more enemies.
    12inchPianist , 7 Apr 2017 09:14
    What the hell exactly is the message? Don't use chemical weapons on the beautiful babies, stick to blowing them to pieces and mutilating them with conventional weapons like civilized people?
    Muzzledagain , 7 Apr 2017 09:14
    Asking again: where is the toxic chemical cloud from the airbase the US attacked overnight that was allegedly the base from where chemical air raids were launched and thus presumably where the toxic material was in storage?

    Why did Al Qaeda attack Homs at the same time as the US strikes?

    Joγo Paulo Caron , 7 Apr 2017 09:14
    There is simply NO REASON at all that Assad would go out of his way to gas 100 people including children KNOWING the backlash that would follow right after. Assad does not strike me as an idiot. Specially being so close to end this mess once and for all.

    Doesn't the UN has a organisation that was in charge of the inspection and removal of all chemical weapons from Syria back in 2013/14 ?

    And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for more strikes from the US?

    Something fundamental changed on the ground in this past days to make so many heads of states turn 180 on this issue. Fishy at best!

    American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep!

    The world does not need another full scale war!

    KeithNJ -> Joγo Paulo Caron , 7 Apr 2017 09:16
    I see from your photo that you are a Russian propagandist. Does it pay well?
    dopamineboy KeithNJ , 7 Apr 2017 09:19
    Maybe he's someone who questions overt propaganda pushing wars.
    maguro , 7 Apr 2017 09:16
    Trump's actions aren't but a dirt cheap smokescreen. He might as well have ponded sand.

    Little babies, the president said, tiny little babies.

    Where does this concern for the Syrian civilians suddenly come from?

    Not even three weeks ago, the US bombed a school near Raqqa, killing 33 civilians, and shortly before that, a mosk in al Jinah, kiliing 49.

    This last bombing is very much in line with Trump steaks and Trump vodka, just a hell of a lot uglier.

    F this.

    nishville , 7 Apr 2017 09:16
    And so we see once again that it does not matter who the American president is, what he/she wants or plans for their foreign policy - when the real masters whistle, the interchangeable White House puppet rolls over and bombs anyone who endangers the corporate profits*.

    International laws are ignored, pretexts hastily fabricated (did you notice they don't pay so much attention to detail anymore?) and people die to be used as an excuse for yet another war crime in the perpetual quest for more and more and more money.

    *If they refuse, they are shown the footage of Kennedy assassination taken from a yet unseen angle (RIP Bill Hicks).

    fran terion , 7 Apr 2017 09:16
    Islamic state takes advantage of US attack on government to storm western Palmyra

    BEIRUT, LEBANON (9:40 A.M.) – Not long after the U.S. attacked the Shayrat Airbase in eastern Homs, the Islamic State (ISIL) launched two separate attacks on the Syrian Arab Army's (SAA) defenses in the Palmyra.

    Ottomanboi , 7 Apr 2017 09:17
    USA ...the rogue state whose name no one dares mention.
    United Europe needed more than ever.
    BigWeedge , 7 Apr 2017 09:17
    I struggle to see why bombs are almost universally accepted way of solving foreign problems, even by most of the left.

    It might seem like standing by and doing nothing in the face of appalling horrors, but enlightenment and revolution has to come naturally and from the people, and dropping foreign bombs is just going to confuse the issue.

    There are so many non-violent, more effective options that we never seem to use. Why not open borders to allow show refugees compassion and that the rest of the world is not like their home country? Why not charter warships to peacefully collect those seeking refuge, removing them from the conflict rather than raining down more conflict on them? Why not do low fast flybys as a show of not only vast force, but restraint, responsibility, compassion? Why not remove military force peacefully, by cutting off arms trade? Why not drop thousands of flowers? Why not drop information? Food? Teddy bears?

    Why not?

    Making war doesn't end war.

    StrangerInParadise , 7 Apr 2017 09:18
    Well the liberal elite finally got what they wanted. A shooting war in the Middle East. I hope The Guardian, BBC and Vauxhall Cross are all very proud of themselves this morning.
    dopamineboy StrangerInParadise , 7 Apr 2017 09:20
    At least Hillary is smiling in her mansion.
    tsonga , 7 Apr 2017 09:18

    Russia has suspended the memorandum of understanding on flight safety in Syria with the United States amid the US missile strike on Syria's Shayrat military airfield, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry's statement.

    And there is more to come. Now, US (and UK) aircrafts can be freely knocked down from the sky.
    Greg38585 , 7 Apr 2017 09:19
    Where's the actual proof that Assad did this?. The whole thing stinks of another Gulf of Tonkin incident.

    Also whenever the media just blindly report something as fact without any concrete evidence, without any critical thought, investigation & examination etc then I'm always highly suspicious

    (just like tthe last chemical attack, where they were eagerly stating that Assad did it, there was video footage etc etc yet it turned out that it was the "Rebels" who were behind the attack all along.

    Of course the media never told us that, as soon as it became apparent that Assad did not do it they dropped the story so fast, swept under the rug never to be reported ever again).

    I mean it really doesn't add up as Assad has no reason to use chemical weapons (he's winning the war(and would've won along time ago if it wasn't for the West proping up the supposed "Rebels & Moderates" more like Isis and AQ), he benifets in no way, and only brings about international scorn) risking the advantage he has), the whole thing comes across as very fishy.

    All too convenient & very contrived. I think we're being had by the powers that be, and unfortunately too many people aren't smart enough, don't possess the critical thinking to see that and will fall for it hook, line and sinker, will take it all at face value.

    volkswin Greg38585 , 7 Apr 2017 09:22
    You would expect a gas attack using a nerve agent dropped by a plane to be far more effective than it was.
    ardvark2 , 7 Apr 2017 09:19
    Just goes to show, how dangerous Trump actually is. We need to be given the 'clear' evidence, that Trump vindicated his action on.

    So far, the information available, is not irrefutable i.e. that Assad's forces were involved in a deliberate gas attack, and in fact he would be mad to do so, knowing it couldn't be concealed, and the consequences are what we're seeing now.

    At the moment, we are told that planes took off from that airfield, were logged on US radar to the town, on which explosives were dropped, and that the military base, might have had stocks of chemical weapons, in 2013.

    Unless, 'experts' can investigate the bombed area, there is, as yet, no unequivocal evidence, that Syrian forces we're responsible, and Assad's and Russian explanations, could be just as valid.

    Let's face it, the only one's to benefit from this, is Isis and the other extreme Islamist rebel factions, and Trump himself, who could be attempting to shore up his failing presidency at home.

    Of course, if Assad is directly to blame, and that can be demonstrated without doubt, then by all means, retaliate, and very hard, but until then, a more measured and circumspect appraisal is now necessary.

    DT48 ardvark2 , 7 Apr 2017 09:21
    Trump is doing exactly what the Establishment has told him to do.
    diddoit , 7 Apr 2017 09:19
    I think we in the west need to be very careful and set an example by respecting international law, for one day the Anglo world might not be the world's dominant military powers. There needed to be a proper investigation before any action. Working with Russia to find out exactly what happened.

    How would we like to be struck at will with a total inability to respond by a militarily superior foe wherever & whenever that foe feels like it? It could be a superior Chinese military floating off our coast one day , with us screaming about international law.

    Chris Farouk Hussain , 7 Apr 2017 09:19
    I can't be the only person who's thinking false flag here. Something doesn't add up. Clearly there has been a chemical attack - it just doesn't make any sense why the Syria regime are behind it. How do they benefit?

    Why use chemical weapons when the US said it was the "line"? Who does benefit from this? Have false flag operations happened before (with proof)? It's extremely dangerous to believe what has been said in the US and UK since this attack, and not answered these questions as well. Something clearly is amiss here.

    ID629977 , 7 Apr 2017 09:20
    I too can't believe that Assad would shot himself in the foot by using chemical weapons. The most plausible explanation is the one being advanced by the Russians.

    But whatever the truth, and no one seems to know, unless you swallow the false-news regularly advanced by this newspaper, everybody as seized on the news to advance their own agenda.

    For the Trump administration it was a great moment to show China and North Korea that the USA is capable of delivering a knock-out blow to the North Koreans nuclear ambitions.

    And the the Guardian and BBC jump to use it as propaganda to steer the UK government to a foreign policy of which the Guardian and BBC approve.

    We are fed, lie, after lie, after lie, and they expect us to swallow it - it is insulting.

    cygnetborn , 7 Apr 2017 09:20
    This seems so coordinated - alleged chemical attack, universal condemnation of Assad, US missile strike and then within hours ISIS are attacking Syrian army bases.

    Shame so little condemnation here when US killed 100s if not 100s recently in Iraq, but seems most here are now disgusting Trump supporters so no surprise.

    dopamineboy cygnetborn , 7 Apr 2017 09:23
    It's all a convenient set up - ever since Trump announced he was pulling back from confronting Assad - the war machine went into overdrive - and sucked Don in.
    madeiranlotuseater , 7 Apr 2017 09:22
    Another knee jerk reaction from the USA. Next thing we know the west can add Syria to its list of disastrous military campaigns that will sink another country into even bigger chaos. Greater loss of life and like Libya, a breeding ground for Daesh.
    But still, think of the profit for the manufacturer of Cruise missiles. Another twenty six and a half million dollars of missiles to be replaced. One wonders if top brass are on a commission from the arms manufacturers?
    TracyJavid , 7 Apr 2017 09:22
    Don't get me wrong, I loathe Assad. But I don't get why he would have launched a chemical attack now. He's winning. He knows he loses by doing something like that. Are we sure he did it? If he goes who's next? Are they worse? Why aren't we airlifting kids out of these areas, we could do that. We moved kids during WW2, and we didn't have the technology we have now. If we can use a drone to drop a missille, why can't it drop food and medications on people who need it. We are morally bankrupt. In the face of all this immorality we sit here and order another Starbucks and type with impotent rage. How can we get this to stop?
    Nathaniel Gould , 7 Apr 2017 09:22
    When was the investigation into the alleged chemical weapons attack concluded? Did I miss that news?
    anonym101 -> Nathaniel Gould , 7 Apr 2017 09:26
    The US is above international law. Plus they have just destroyed the crime scene.
    liberalexpat , 7 Apr 2017 09:23
    This is frightening: policy replaced by a knee-jerk reaction based on Trump's moods. The atrocity was unspeakable, Assad is a vicious despot, Russia's backing for him is purblind. But..

    In a single day, we've gone from Assad's air force being 'suspected' of the war crime, to an air base 'believed to be' that from which the attack was launched, to both being established facts, reported as such by the media - with no investigation or proof in between.

    And still US policy on Syria is a mystery, not to say non-existent: the strike raises more questions than it answers. If this was limited action, was it anything more than gesture politics? But if Trump has decided to get Assad out, who is the US going to put in to replace him?

    Marika Whitfield -> liberalexpat , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    Good to see an intelligent comment. Share Facebook Twitter
    Shaker56 -> liberalexpat , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    Good comment - as mentioned elsewhere today Trump seems to be rapidly reversing his policy on Syria - re Assad and refugees allowed entry to America etc. Might this airstrike action usefully get him off the hook with regard to the Puppet of Russia accusations and define him in a "good" light with his home audience in juxtaposition to Obama's reluctance to strike?
    Sowester , 7 Apr 2017 09:24
    The Americans have surveillance that should be able to prove Assad was guilty. Time to show it.

    Or maybe the Russians are right and Trump has been played by the jihadists who are quite capable of gassing civilians to provoke a response against Assad.

    Loathed though I am to contemplate it on this occasion it is possible that Assad has been framed. Only evidence can clear this up.

    Felipe1st , 7 Apr 2017 09:24
    The absolute worst aspect of all, and we do know this for sure, is that the bastard claims god is his guide.

    As he escalates on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex, which is desperately in need of profit and growth.

    All psychopaths and bullies avoid direct responsibility for what they unleash.

    martybishop , 7 Apr 2017 09:24
    The worrying issue to me is that Trump seems to be capable of knee-jerk reactions with very little diplomacy or forethought as to the inevitable consequences. The chemical raids were undoubtedly a ghastly act by whoever perpetrated them, but in this particular conflict, like so many in that troubled part of the world, it is virtually impossible to distinguish the good guys from the bad. Now Trump wades in with unilateral air strikes - gunboat diplomacy at its worst that could spark wider conflict. Now where did I put those instructions on how to build my nuclear shelter?
    ruffledfeathers , 7 Apr 2017 09:24
    So many people want Assad gone. Who will be put in his place? The result of removing brutal dictators from the Middle East is all too clear to see, not only across the Middle East, but across Europe and across the world.

    Where is the proof that it was Assad?

    A year back Saudi smuggled weapons to Turkey supposedly in relation to the Syrian conflict, but which the Turks would have used against the Kurds.

    There is too much that isn't known in this instance to take action. I can't see Russia and Assad now backing away. North Korea might even offer them a helping hand (whether that hand would be taken might be unlikely, but backed into a corner - who knows).

    Nathaniel Gould -> ruffledfeathers , 7 Apr 2017 09:28
    Liberals want the Wahhabis to be in charge.
    SubjectiveSubject , 7 Apr 2017 09:25
    Dec 2016 - Erdogan confirms Turkey has evidence that the US coalition is supporting ISIS and rebels in Syria .

    Jan 2017 - May visits Erdogan and signs major trade deal and supplies arms to the regime. Erdogan now backs the strike on Syria.

    Joγo Paulo Caron , 7 Apr 2017 09:26
    There is simply NO REASON at all that Assad would go out of his way to gas 100 people including children KNOWING the backlash that would follow right after. Assad does not strike me as an idiot. Specially being so close to end this mess once and for all.

    Doesn't the UN has a organisation that was in charge of the inspection and removal of all chemical weapons from Syria back in 2013/14 ?

    And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for more strikes from the US?

    Something fundamental changed on the ground in this past days to make so many heads of states turn 180 on this issue. Fishy at best!

    American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep!

    The world does not need another full scale war!

    Dyler Turdan , 7 Apr 2017 09:26
    Wasn't a week ago US decided change policy on removing Assad..the Turks and the terrorists couldn't have that so they made up this gas attack because its a red line, some of those filming those horrific pictures were terrorists..the hawks used it and Trump fell for it.
    HerbGuardian , 7 Apr 2017 09:26
    The West wants to topple Syria in order to get closer to Iran and do the same thing there ( send in and supply the murderous cut throats to collapse it from the inside) therefore anything about Assad being this and the Syrian Government being that, as per the Western Media , is just Bull ....as far as I am concerned.
    disqusagain , 7 Apr 2017 09:27
    Personality related impulsive behaviour? Seems Trump feels a need for power without reflection of the consequences of his actions and consultation with the leaders of other nations. abuse of his position of power? If he makes these decisions what else will follow?
    blairsnemesis disqusagain , 7 Apr 2017 09:38
    Trump is not capable of reflection or even forethought. He acts in the way he speaks, i.e. whatever is passing through his head is the next thing to do/say. He is the most clueless US president I've heard of, and that includes Reagan.
    Timelord421 , 7 Apr 2017 09:27
    Orwell predicted a machine that would churn out garbage music to satisfy the proles. Does the Guardian have such a machine simply attach a name before publishing?

    6 years of hand-wringing? Let's have some more of that.

    Mark Dawson , 7 Apr 2017 09:27
    Amazing how many people, on both sides of the argument, are ready with hard and fast opinions so rapidly. Might be an idea to wait until a few more facts are in, and the ramifications begin to reveal themselves. But I guess that's not how the internet (or commentary) works.
    ConCaruthers Mark Dawson , 7 Apr 2017 09:35
    Regime change of Syria was on Wesley Clarke's list 16 years ago after 9/11.

    Assad had only just come to power, so it's clearly an orchestrated exercise and the US is frankly running out of time and excuses not to get in and get the job done, ironically for the Swamp creatures that Donald said he wanted to get rid of, what a complete numskull.

    Raptorius , 7 Apr 2017 09:28
    I thought Trump wasn't the warmonger and would focus on the USA, which would only concern itself with other countries if there was something to gain from it. First he doesn't care and now that he has seen dead children it is suddenly different? How rash and unpredictable.
    BreqJustice Raptorius , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    The USA are the best are creating dead children - nobody can come close ...
    StrongMachine Raptorius , 7 Apr 2017 09:37
    That's right - we were warned Hillary was the warmonger. Goodness only know what she would have done!

    (She was also supposed to be in hock to Goldman Sachs - Trump cut out the middleman and brought them directly into his administration).

    mugsey Raptorius , 7 Apr 2017 09:41
    Well, dead children that HE didn't kill.
    Forthestate , 7 Apr 2017 09:28
    This from the Guardian this morning:

    Friday briefing: Assad's atrocity answered with hail of Tomahawks

    It appears that the Guardian doesn't think it necessary to wait for the conclusion of any investigation into the chemical attack before pronouncing Assad responsible. I take it this approach is an example of what the Guardian considers to be "quality journalism". Most people would consider quality journalism to rely upon evidence, rather than an editorial agenda.
    dopamineboy Forthestate , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    Not when Dr Strangelove is in charge.
    Forthestate Forthestate , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    And then again this:

    The chemical attack had in all likelihood been carried out by the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

    Seems they want it both ways.
    Grantbarking , 7 Apr 2017 09:29
    FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG The only thing which could derail Assad's total victory in Syria is if he uses chemical weapons. Then he uses chemical weapons. Whatever you think of Assad he isn't mad. This is clearly a con and Trump has fallen for it. Share Facebook Twitter
    Sowester Grantbarking , 7 Apr 2017 09:33
    Not clearly but I would like to see some evidence.
    Zetenyagli , 7 Apr 2017 09:29

    Donald Trump, the man who just over a month ago wanted to bar entry of all Syrian refugees into the United States, now wants us to think that he cares deeply about Syrian children. I don't believe it

    Neither do I. I think he is trying to save his job. With Trump if you can't baffle them with brains baffle them with BS. This attack is a distraction from the Russian/Flynn investigation.

    What it achieves for Trump is the following:
    1. Makes him look anti Russian. This is important because of the investigation into his cronies connections with Russia.
    2. Proves he has given up on Ukraine, so no removal of sanctions and therefore no big oil deal with Russia.
    3. Encourages ISIS and Al-Quaeda.
    4. Has committed an act of war against Syria so America is now at war with Syria. A war with no strategy like Iraq, Libya.
    5. Makes Trump look like a leader.
    6. Has probably alienated many of his supporters.

    Most of all he thinks this action will save his job.

    StrangerInParadise Zetenyagli , 7 Apr 2017 09:32
    Bannon was obviously against this. I doubt Trump will do anymore yuge rallies.
    anonym101 , 7 Apr 2017 09:29
    Assad was winning. Turkey and the US needed a circuit breaker. Petty the real culprits could show up in Paris or Sydney in a few months time.
    jonmac65 , 7 Apr 2017 09:30
    I see the international context as secondary to the US-domestic one. Since taking office Trump has been made to look a twat by judges, demonstrators and his own legislature. And so the Syrian chemical attacks previded him with a wonderful opportunity to do something military which is always the fall-back of poor leaders. He can now say he is strong, America is strong, we'll take on the bad guys, etc etc.
    To be honest nobody really cares much about Assad (I doubt even the Russians do beyond his country's strategic usefulness) so it was a target that while championed at home was always going to win approval abroad (even if muttered under the breath).
    It also allowed Trump to do the hard-man/big-swinging-dick act right in the Chinese leader's face - again a 'win' for him.
    I think he is calculating that he has just saved his presidency. Given the lunacy of US politics at the moment he is probably right.
    Raptorius jonmac65 , 7 Apr 2017 09:35
    It almost seems too perfect doesn't it? Could be another false flag..
    pfg2powell jonmac65 , 7 Apr 2017 09:35
    I think your are probably exactly right.
    garedelyons , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    If there is anyone out there who would really think that Assad would be stupid enough to use chemical weapons, he/she (Trump/May) must be, well, stupid.

    Mr Trump admitted that US had done "bad things". This is just another example. What he has done plays wholly into the hands of some very questionable regimes and IS.

    The tomahawk was an offensive weapon. What is offensive about white USA adopting it to name its modern killer is that the original carriers, defending their land, were mown down using the latest weapon of the time - the Gatling gun.

    America is simply showing it stays one step or 10 ahead and can and will act with impunity - anywhere.

    hugodegauche , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    When reading articles like this I fear ultimately there will be no possible compromise with globalists who want it all but at all costs open borders.
    Johnny Kent , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    It's not even proved that Assad used gas. In fact it's not proved what gas it was...Thanks to media and political spin its a cert is was Sarin. So, the US launches yet another military intervention without evidence or legality.
    KeithNJ , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    There is no deliberation in Syria, there is only violence. An uprising has morphed into a major proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran based on sectarian lines, with Turkey tilting the scales a bit for the Saudis and Russian the same for the Iran-backed side.

    Civil wars come to end either with defeat of one party or all sides becoming exhausted of violence. The proxy backers ensure that defeat for their side is impossible, and the sectarian aspect makes exhaustion a far off prospect since each side fears genocide should it lose. Nonetheless, it might be over by now if Russia has not intervened to prop up Assad, reducing his need to compromise.

    A similar situation in Germany 400 years ago has become labelled 'the 30 years war', although with modern munitions that seems unlikely.

    As for the American air strike, a negative spin would be it made no difference (but the Russian reaction suggest that is not the case) while a positive spin was that it tilted the balance back towards a compromise ending (since Assad can no longer assume the Russian presence gives him immunity from serious harm).

    No one knows, and all arguments are propaganda.

    unbritannia , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    Isn't this exactly the kind of action that The Guardian and CNN etc have been goading Trump towards since he took office? With every article accusing Trump of being a Russian stooge or a Manchurian candidate, the "liberal" media has pushed him ever closer to sending this message .

    The "message" isn't intended for Assad, and it's quite clearly marked with sheepish apologies to Russia - which aren't going to wash, as Trump possibly guesses, but he had more urgent priorities than Russia, such as proving that he isn't their "man" to domestic critics. This was all done for the benefit of US and European audiences. Those in the media who clamored for it, must have lost all sense of irony, not to say integrity, to come out with umbrage now that Trump as reacted precisely as should have been predictable in order to defend his reputation against their jibes.

    The only redeeming feature of Trump's campaign was that he didn't seem to want to keep America (and with it so much of the globe) embroiled in endless war. That broad instinct for a bit less less war, if translated into actual policy, was the one Trump offering that you'd think the "liberal" media could get behind.

    But no. Trump was working for "the Russians", don't you know, and now he's prepared to push us all one step closer to war with them just to disprove the playground taunts.

    Meanwhile Syrian children will continue to be murdered by all comers. None of the international parties taking an "interest" in Syria is innocent or guileless in this respect. We don't know for certain yet who carried out the chemical attack - it could well have been ISIS or other "rebels", or it could have been the "regime". But let's remember that Trump has said publicly that America created ISIS.

    Trump's recent action doesn't just reveal a lack of understanding about what's going on in Syria. (And let's face it, which of us really knows what is going on there? There is no news source whose credibility is beyond question concerning that conflict). No, far more worryingly, Trump's recent action reveals a cynical willingness to act regardless of his understanding of the situation in order to refute a critical narrative (against himself) or promote a more favourable narrative (towards himself). In other words, not that different than any other politician has been regarding acts of war in the past few decades.

    When will the media accept the role they play in this? It is frankly grueling to read these "outraged" reports while none of that goes acknowledged.

    chrisu2012 , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    An interesting year ahead. We will see soon what Putin really has in his Trump file. We might see one or the other interesting picture or video this year.
    dopamineboy , 7 Apr 2017 09:33
    Trump tweet 2013 - What will we get from bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict. Do not attack Syria. Very many bad things will happen and US gets nothing!
    Nathaniel Gould , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    I remember sitting in front of my TV watching the horror of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre. Fast forward 16 years and leader of the so called free world has bombed Syria on the say so of Al-Qaeda while liberals cheer! What's going on?
    wullieg , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    This is a smokescreen, it has more to do with Trump giving a message to Xi face to face. He (Trump) is telling Xi that if he doesn't deal with North Korea this is what he is capable of. Now watch this drive.
    abecedadeda , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    Who's warmonger now?
    Bert9000 , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    I utterly despise how the narrative has just moved on and no one seems concerned with seeing any proof of whether Assad is actually responsible for these attacks.

    This is a sobering read http://www.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217

    Assad probably had nothing to do with the attacks in 2013, and he has literally zero motive for these attacks. Yet a vast majority of people just accept it because they trust the media to do their job instead of act as a mouthpiece for warmongering assholes.

    Shame on you Guardian, shame on all the journalists not questioning and demanding facts.

    Clearly the chemical weapons attack was horrendous, not something we ever want to see repeated. But i fear what we have done here, by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions, is ensured that the real perpetrator of these attacks is now emboldened and considering the whole thing a great success. You'll note it is Al Qaeda (Al Nusra) and ISIS who are celebrating these US led attacks on Syria. Think about that for a second. Are you really convinced they didn't carry out the chemical attacks, in territory they held? They had everything to gain by doing so and casting the blame on Assad, and given their defeat is currently almost certain, they had everything to gain.

    Their ability to use such weapons is well documented in US intelligence reports.

    Why are we so quick to jump to conclusions, when our chosen suspect has literally ZERO motive for doing something like this.

    Think people. Your journalists won't do it for you unfortunately.

    dopamineboy Bert9000 , 7 Apr 2017 09:37
    In an interview conducted on April 5, 2017, Damian Walker, a former army bomb disposal officer, made these observations: When I initially read that sarin nerve agent had been used in an attack on Idlib, I was surprised that the chemical warfare agent had been identified so quickly. On watching the video of the incident, I quickly concluded that it was unlikely a sarin attack. If it was the first responders would also have been killed, and the victims' symptoms appeared to be the result of a "choking agent", and not a military grade agent.
    ID3121651 , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    "largely ineffective bombing does little but make US lawmakers feel good".

    Grateful for this insight. I think your last line covers what Trump actually intended. To look to his own people, that he is acting decisively and those that supported him will see this action as doing that. I think he intends no more than the appearance of looking like a decisive leader. That can only be short lived as the reality impinges on his projected image to his supporters.

    We have to vane men at the head of large countries - what could go wrong?!

    diddoit , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    If it was a false flag Trump will probably be the last to find out.
    thejerk2 , 7 Apr 2017 09:35
    We knew this new regime wanted war, Syria being it's first target, who knows north Korea and the Russia.
    The yanks need war to fuel and feed it's inhabitants, it simply can't resist without it.
    Scary times to be a living in a world with mad yanks and that man controlling them.
    God bless the people that suffer daily in Syria at the hands of American funded terror.
    ID4104389 , 7 Apr 2017 09:35
    I'm quite suspicious that it happened at all. Syria denies responsibility and it seems logical to question why they'd do the "chemical massacre" when it could only harm their own position. May was in Saudi Arabia pretty quickly after Brexit was triggered to talk "trade" etc. It seems that everybody hates Iran. Support for Trump's "targeted" attack is being quickly announced by the apparent current alliance states, have there actually been any pictures released of the "chemical massacre" of dead bodies? Just graves being dug, and graves already filled in with neatly placed headstones - tidy. And, yes, children with oxygen masks on, but isn't sarin gas pretty quick acting, being "26 times more deadly than cyanide" and leading to death by losing your insides to the outside, basically.
    Down2dirt , 7 Apr 2017 09:36
    I see that the war criminal McCain and the rest of the relic Cold War establishment couldn't be happier.
    DT48 , 7 Apr 2017 09:36
    A UK ex-Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, describes how Jihadi opposition in Syria were storing chemical weapons in schools, and that Western journalists saw this.

    With no evidence that the Syrian military actually has dropped chemical munitions on people, the rush to attack the Syrian installation speaks volumes.

    *If* there was actual evidence that Syria committed that crime, do you who favour military action in Syria not think that most people would back attacking them with full force?

    The rush to attack with no evidence says it all - it says there is none, the same MO as before.

    anonym101 DT48 , 7 Apr 2017 09:39
    Unfortunately no one cares about fact. The media is excited by the prospect of a war with Syria and they possibly with Iran in the future.
    Wirplit , 7 Apr 2017 09:36
    Even the NY Times hardly a fan of Assad has backed down on the endless repeated assertions that it was Assad forces that caused the 2O13 Ghouta chemical attack. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/06/nyt-retreats-on-2013-syria-sarin-claims/that the BBC does not even seem to question. This is the notorious Red line case that Obama allegedly fudged. The reason was the evidence pointed clearly to it being a Rebel False Flag as Seymour Hersh the guy who broke the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam first opined to near universal silence . https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
    On this much every Guardian reader needs to at least assess the evidence and they won't get much help from the MSN
    But who needs evidence? And don't think for one moment Intelligence services not capable of doing this. We all know about the WMD claims that were enough, despite being completely baseless, to launch a war while the State Dept scrambled desperately to prove a non existent connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
    This is the Age of The Big Lie... the technique so ably initiated by Goebbels. Better than repeat opinions at least research the evidence.
    expats11 , 7 Apr 2017 09:36
    According to the Guardian headline, after the gas attack killed 70, "'The dead were wherever you looked': ..In the botched US airstrike 230 were killed ( 'ours' are just collateral damage)...

    Can someone/ anyone explain why, when he is winning on all fronts, Assad would use chemical weapons?

    StillAbstractImp , 7 Apr 2017 09:36
    Tomahawk diplomacy
    Trouble cementing authoritarianism at home?
    Let the foreign diversions begin!
    StillAbstractImp , 7 Apr 2017 09:38
    He's already got two war crimes
    20 dead in Yemen
    200 dead in Mosul
    ...next?
    piebeansMontrachet , 7 Apr 2017 09:38
    When the other bad guys...isis twist of as a reaction...hope Trump will take them to court. Of course such does not apply to USA...them not having signed up to ICC. An alleged isis in your back garden gives them licence to bomb you. Happy days...for American arms industry
    emma linnery , 7 Apr 2017 09:40
    The issues in Syria are due to both uk and usa acting like mercenary in the first place, i see it that obama is guilty of war crimes all due to been a puppet of saudi.
    Its when we look at the bigger picture we can begin to realise what is causing all this..... The UK is the world's second biggest arms exporter with a market share of about 20% and directly employs 350,000 people spread over 11,000 firms, with as many as 1.2 million people relying on it for a living, now at the same time, then we must look back to when 2013, Wahhabism was identified by the European Parliament in Strasbourg as the main source of global terrorism, we must ask ourselves as to why the UK is still selling weapons to saudi...as for Assad, the Syrian government of Assad supports a secular regime and lifestyle while Saudi Arabia supports a conservative and religious world view. The rebels supported by the Saudi Arabian government are religious extremists. In this fight, UK and the usa are supporting the side of religious extremism against a secular state for financial gain. Disgraceful really,
    magila_cutty , 7 Apr 2017 09:40
    Trump saw some pictures of the victims of this chemical attack so he launches. The same people have been killed in their hundreds of thousands with reports of same coming in regularly. The written reports have no impact on him as he doesn't /can't read but the pictures..
    A clear demonstration of how easily he could be manipulated.
    anonym101 , 7 Apr 2017 09:41
    I think Trump just lost 50 million votes. And he knows it.

    IMO there are only two options now.

    1) Trump and his neolibcons plan to escalate this to the brink of WWIII, and possibly over the brink, or
    2) He has been blackmailed with the lives of his nearest ones, so winning the 2020 doesn't feel that important anymore

    Davelad , 7 Apr 2017 09:41
    The man's a total fool. He's taken Syria down the same road as his predecessors did with Libya and Iraq. Remove the leaders, just contend with hordes of warring tribals. By that time the incumbent President of the USA has moved on, leaving his mess for others to clean up.
    THKMTL , 7 Apr 2017 09:44
    There is as per , no investigation in the Guardian's coverage . The ultimate in unethical journalism being the quoting of ' sources ' and "' the Syrian opposition ' ( ISIS ) say ......"
    The credibility of the Syrian Gov. s claim that :

    a) It was bombing ' opposition ' ( ISIS ) occupied enclave and

    b) The chemicals were contained on the ground there and were released only by bombing the fact of Syrian bombing :

    Is not even mentioned let alone investigated . Yet it is an infinitely logical , credible and likely claim .

    Along with the fact that ONLY THE SYRIAN GOV COULD POSSIBLY LOSE BY SUCH AN ATTACK -- and would have ZERO to gain , is a compelling reason for investigation : NOT blanket repetition of what ISIS say -- according to the Guardian itself .

    Trumbledon , 7 Apr 2017 09:44
    It'll be interesting to see how the media reacts when Al Qaeda launch their next chemical attack on civilians and blame it on the 'Regime' (Or 'government', if we're using correct terminology): will they still insist it's the regime doing it, even now it's clear that using chemical weapons will bring immediate retaliation from the USA? Yes, they probably will.

    This whole thing stinks. Assad is a wanker but he is not stupid, there's no way he'd deliberately lose a war he's currently certain to win, by doing the only thing that could possibly result in western interference.

    The only way I can see the chemical attack having been the work of Assad would be if the whole Trump/Russia business goes deeper than we realise, and this whole episode has been premeditated, I.E. Assad used chemical weapons with the express agreement of Trump, who could then be seen as standing up for civilised values and in defiance of Russia by launching retaliatory strikes, after which no more chemical attacks occur, making Trump look like the good guy and taking some of the heat off him regarding his links to Russia, with Assad losing a couple of planes and a handful of soldiers - no great loss in the grand scheme of things.

    Other than that slightly far-fetched conspiracy theory, I can think of no reason of any sort why Assad would seek to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    ploughmanlunch , 7 Apr 2017 09:44
    The US attack was carried out in retaliation for what they believe was a chemical attack initiated by Assad's forces. The US has not waited for a thorough and unbiased investigation.

    Inevitably this means that blame for any subsequent incidents involving chemical weapons will automatically be ascribed to Assad - not to do so would call into question the justification of the US action carried out overnight. The rebels have a Trump card. If hard pressed they can manufacture a chemical atrocity and call in the cavalry. Haley won't even have to hold up pictures of wounded children.

    marc80 , 7 Apr 2017 09:44
    A bit confused here. And I'm not trying to be ironic.

    1) Doesn't this attack help ISIS in the current war in Syria?

    2) How sure are we that it was the Al-Assad regime who used chemical weapons in the attack?

    3) Final question. Is there a third choice other than Al-Assad or ISIS?

    justapleb , 7 Apr 2017 09:44
    While the western powers seem to have made up their mind that Assad was guilty of the poison gas attack, serious doubts must remain. The explanation of the Assad government and Russia seem credible to me. The dismissal of those explanations is very lightweight indeed. This amounts to two arguments.

    1. Bombing a sarin gas chemical weapons store would not release the gas. Really? That defies logic.

    2. The rebels do not possess sarin gas? How do we know that?

    Apart from the lack of a credible motive for the use of chemical weapons, Assad, like Sadam Hussein before him claims he does not possess such weapons. As in 2003 this has not prevented a US missile attack on a foreign state. Back in 2003, Sadam Hussein was eventually proved right and we all know what happened after that.

    What is the evidence that Assad's air force carried out this attack? This seems to rely on the fact of the gas poisoning (which no-one is disputing) and witness statements from the area under attack from the Syrian air force. This is Idlib, to where the allegedly murderous Assad allowed free passage to armed jihadist terrorists humanely ejected (rather than killed or taken prisoner) from other parts of Syria including East Aleppo, from where skilled propaganda outlets fed the appetites of Western media including the disgraceful Ch4 News, which has again been agitating for military action against the Syrian government.

    It will clearly be very hard to find independent witnesses amongst such a population, heavily controlled by Jihadist fighters well used to targeting civilian areas of government controlled Syria.

    This development is sinister indeed. That Trump has shown such willingness to take such extreme action so quickly, without firm evidence, should make us all very, very afraid.

    nic , 7 Apr 2017 09:45
    Due to the USAs long history of making shit up to start wars, I dont believe a fucking word of it.
    vivazapata38 , 7 Apr 2017 09:46
    The Guardian reports "Syrian rebels have welcomed the attack" but want more. Job done and it was so easy for them. They also have a, UN proven, history of setting off chemical weapons in order to get the US etc involved.
    AfinaPallada , 7 Apr 2017 09:46
    Trimp's actions show that US policy never changes. It is defined not by US President, but by US establishment. It can change it's forms but never cnages in essence. Republicans and Demoсrats in US are two wings of one bird.

    It seems, that Trump, had he had noble intensions to change it's policy for the good was swallowed by establishment the same as it happened with any US president, from Kennedy to Nixon. Otherwise, it again shows that he is a talanted populist which perfectly played at protest spirits against messiah tensions and nepotism in US (the Clinton and Bush dynasties).

    Anyway, the least actions of US in Syria, which can be qualified as an agression against a sovereign state from any point of view, shows that US, as a drunk cowboy, firing at bottles in a saloon, understand only a policy of superior force and is negotiable only when you put a colt to his head.

    And even in this case, you should beware of a shot in back when you put this colt off. This is how the world now feels the US.

    doctuscumlibro , 7 Apr 2017 09:46
    one Tomahawk costing 1,59 milion $ , so the US last night spend around 100 million $ .....Enjoying the world s reserve currency and print as much as you want of it is comfy innit ? Attacking yet another nation without irrefutable justification reminds me of the Iraq debacle and its WMD, the US of course can get away with similar acts of war being the world s "stabilizer", diverting at the same time the attention from the civilian bloodshed in Mosul and Yemen. Thank you US of A, the world is happy to have you around the world.
    Jackhammer1 Andrew Terhorst , 7 Apr 2017 09:50
    I notice the "army of Islam" very happy about the strike. US/UK now explicitly supporting Islamic extremism.
    BevanBoyAus Andrew Terhorst , 7 Apr 2017 09:50
    Whereas the US using chemical Napalm bombs is humane and caring and only targeted at the military and 'terrorist'?
    Aryu Gaetu , 7 Apr 2017 09:48
    BTW: 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1,590,000 each [Wiki] is $93,810,000. Or the annual income of 4,690 people making $10/hr spent within a few minutes... to send a message to a vacated airbase?

    If 80 people killed in Syria is senseless, then what is 210 people shot in America on the first day of 2017? Should we send 2.5 times as many Tomahawk cruise missiles to ORD and LAX? Will the NRA get the "message"?

    Rattel , 7 Apr 2017 09:48
    So the answer to the question 'Cui bono' appears to be Donald Trump.
    SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 7 Apr 2017 09:49
    Its not bloody Trump that is the problem, is it? He didn't want to attack Syria, we did. All these fucking news agencies spouting propaganda coming straight from Al Qaida and their supporters. The Guardian like all the others have completely forgotten the fake evidence of WMDs in Iraq and are actually egging on for war. First they say Trump is dangerous to get into war and then the same bloody people are demanding Trump to attack Syria!

    This whole gas attack is the clearest red flag attack ever and every god damn main steam reporter goes along with it, no questions asked.

    Just look every single time an attack like this has occured just happens to be in what would be the most illogical time for the Syrian government. Are you seriously saying that they are so stupidly insane to think killing 100 people with gas is worth the diplomatic losses and military wrath of the west? They could kill 1000 with conventional weapons, it makes zero sense.

    Where is the god damn basic logic of looking at the beneficiaries to deduce the real motive in what look like a murky issue.

    The guardian quoting 'experts' saying a facility creating and stockpiling chemicals would not leaked if bombed? Are you kidding me? You need incendiary napalm to burn the gas, but napalm is porhibited and was NOT used in the alleged attack. Jeasus, use your god damn brain for once.

    Last time I saw the guardian posting pic of the vehicles carrying humanitarian aid that were allegedly attacked by syrian planes...and they were full of visible small arms bullet holles with is impossible to come from planes. The scenes had been staged! Go back and look at them. There are cars that look crumpled up, not burned and without any glass at all. That is impossible to be as part of an attack by planes

    FrankLeeSpeaking SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 7 Apr 2017 09:53
    Well said. The Guardian and other MSM are complicit in war. Share Facebook Twitter
    Picasso82 , 7 Apr 2017 09:49
    Recruiting now! Western Dictator to run oil rich country in the Middle East. No experience necessary, but must have a basic knowledge of civilian oppression, creating vacuums to religious extremists and oil sales.
    ID776729 , 7 Apr 2017 09:49
    Why would Assad use chemical weapons on civilians when:

    A) It's almost sure to provoke a reaction from Trump, an unpredictable and untested US President.
    B) Assad has almost won the war using conventional weapons.
    C) It increases pressure from the World community to displace him.
    D) It will piss of his major ally Russia, who just had to effectively run from American missiles and have zero will for direct conflict with the US. This is a proxy war.

    It makes zero sense. None whatsoever and I'm sorry I'm having a hard time believing it.

    I'm no fan of Assad - his barrel bombs are disgusting enough. I'm no fan of Putin or the USA/Trump/the Jihadi rebel extremists they've armed: So I'm taking no sides other than to say that this stinks and looks exactly as if it was designed to escalate the conflict and get what a lot of people want - US involvement in toppling Assad and sending a message to Russia and Iran.

    Further escalation of this mess is terrifying - especially now we've seen how easy Trump is to manipulate.

    ShanksArmitage , 7 Apr 2017 09:50
    "Hitting one airbase is not enough, there are 26 airbases that target civilians," a key figure in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on his Twitter account.

    "The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar (al-Assad) and his aides."

    Siding with a group called the Army of Islam - what could possibly go wrong?

    beren56 , 7 Apr 2017 09:50
    Sadam and Gadaffi were removed from power and it only created a vacuum. Getting rid of Assad will likely do the same. The dictators kept radical Islam in check. It's not like they will thank America if they did get rid of Assad-they would still hate America
    Nolens , 7 Apr 2017 09:51
    As soon as the current Assad regime fall, it will bring chaos, instability and death to Syria and indeed the ME on a unprecedented scale. The West should should be very careful. Assad is many times more preferable than a post Assad situation with various religious nutters wielding power.
    Raptorius , 7 Apr 2017 09:51
    ''Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.'' Donald Trump on Twitter, 9 October 2012.
    Telvannah Raptorius , 7 Apr 2017 09:56
    LOL - well picked up
    kirby1 , 7 Apr 2017 09:51
    A purely political act by Trump to show that he's not beholden to Putin in the face of mounting concern about his campaign and the election. Red meat for the rednecks who backed him. Doesn't bode well for the future - in flagrant breach of international law.

    ...

    "There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ignored the urging of the UN security council," Trump said on Thursday night.

    The challenge for this all-new season of Trump is that his first and biggest test is credibility. The world needs to trust the United States: that these bombing targets are legitimate, that the Syrian regime is indeed responsible, and that the president has the legal authority and political support of the international community and Congress.

    DanielDee, 7 Apr 2017 09:53

    The strikes were senseless in that there is no proof of Syrian involvement in the chemical attacks beyond information coming from Al Quaeda controlled territory.
    Motive is important and Assad is no fool. Why on earth would he risk it all for no gain in using chemical weapons when the war is all but won.
    Trumps been hoodwinked by the neocons and war hungry establishment

    Nathaniel Gould , 7 Apr 2017 09:53
    The CDC says:

    Sarin is combustible. The agent may burn but does not ignite readily. Fire may produce irritating, corrosive, and/or toxic gases. If a tank, rail car, or tank truck is involved in a fire, isolate it for 0.5 mi (800 m) in all directions; also, consider initial evacuation for 0.5 mi (800 m) in all directions.

    Small spills (involving the release of approximately 52.83 gallons (200 liters) or less), when sarin (GB) is used as a weapon.

    https://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/ershdb/EmergencyResponseCard_29750001.html

    An air strike could have hit an al-Qaeda depot storing sarin, some could have burnt releasing toxic gasses, some may have been dispersed .

    Telvannah , 7 Apr 2017 09:54
    I can see the trolls are out in force, but thank you so much for an interesting article.

    "Meanwhile, the heart of the problem is that the United States seems always to have only one solution to war: make more war. "

    In my youth a frequent moniker said "fighting for peace is like fu.king for virginity" - it hasn't changed

    [Apr 09, 2017] Tucker Carlson Takes on Sen Graham After Syrian Strikes

    Notable quotes:
    "... So basically the Neoconservatives haven't learned a goddamn thing! ..."
    www.youtube.com

    Donal Lenehan

    I don't trust that Lindsey Graham any more than Obama

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    Graham is a fucking asshole. The man is despicable FILTH.

    Yanin Rodriguez

    Disappointing questions Tucker with all due respect. Fact - Syrians support Assad up to 82%. Fact #2 - Rebels in Syria are by most accounts not even Syrian. Follow up on "liberating the Syrians" - with that mentality what about the Saudis?????

    War is profits and comprises of the highest % of employment in the US - so until we transfer that sector of the economy to more peaceful endeavors - we will be permanently be in illegal wars. Lastly - where are any of these wars constitutional?

    Why has congress relinquished this responsibility???

    We know the answers but never hear the questions asked...

    Josh Hempfleng

    The strike in Syria really made the Military industrial complex show themselves. The media, Democrats and Rhino's all cheering on the attack now that they see a chance to make some money off war.

    Rumi900

    +Josh Hemplfeng - You say '... Democrats and Rhino's all cheering ...' Why Democrats and Rhino's?

    I'd be okay with you saying Democrats and Republicans, but you seem to be letting the bulk of Republicans off the hook. Or, are you saying all the Republican elite are Rhinos? If so, I agree. The point is, surely, that much of Washington (on both sides) is bought and paid for by the wealthiest elites, through their lobbyists.

    This isn't a partisan issue. I wish people would stop making it one! Republicans and Democrats are all equally culpable.

    There are Democrats and Republicans who are not just shills for the elite. And those are the politicians we should be championing.

    Trump talked about it during the election - 'draining the swamp'. The 'swamp' is not some secret power, some nefarious underground that is controlling things.

    The 'swamp' is bought and paid for politicians - politicians bought and paid for by massive donations that can now hide behind the opaque screens of the SuperPACs. It's not just politicians on the 'other' side. Both sides are equally involved.

    I don't believe Trump is serious about 'draining the swamp'. If he is, he should be going after things like the Citizen's United decision. The Supreme Court bounced that back to the House, because it's the House that makes the law. The Supreme Court is there to say whether the law is Constitutional. They don't make law. it's up to Congress to do that.

    But politicians in the house, Republicans and Democrats alike, are happy with Citizen's United and SuperPACs and the opportunities for massive secret donations it has allowed. It's how they all get rich.

    If Trump was serious about draining the swamp, he'd be tackling those issues. But he's not. Just look at his appointees! I didn't vote for Trump. Because I didn't believe his rhetoric. I still don't.

    It's you guys, his ardent supporters, who should be holding his feet to the fire! And unfortunately, I see way too much adulation, mindless hero worship, and not enough demanding accountability.

    Joanne K

    They don't want us to know that ISIS is in Syria (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and that is what Assad is fighting, along with other Islamic groups. The L in ISIL stands for Levant. Leave Syria out so that overthrowing Assad will only leave the amorphous oppressed rebels (really ISIS or Al Nusra or Al Qaeda).

    They are deceivers.

    Zack Edwards

    So basically the Neoconservatives haven't learned a goddamn thing!

    [Apr 09, 2017] Something Smells Rotten in Syria (and in Washington, too)

    Notable quotes:
    "... It tells me that they have finally found some way to co-opt him, whether through his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, which I have seen reports of, or in some other way. All of a sudden Trump is dealing with the very folks that, a month ago, were working to slit his political throat. And his core concept of making America great again seems to be going by the wayside in favor of the neo-con's "nation building" program in the Middle East – the exact same game Comrade Obama played so very well, as did Bush 2 before him. ..."
    "... "Donald Trump campaigned on the promise he would 'bomb the hell out of ISIS.' Instead he bombed installations of the Syrian government. This was on April 6, 2017–one hundred years to the day after the House voted for war with Germany." This gas attack has "false flag" written all over it! ..."
    "... Back when Slick Willie was in office and having his problems over "that woman" Monica Lewinsky, and there was talk of his impeachment, Clinton "suddenly" decided to bomb Iraq–with "the unanimous support of his national security advisers." Given the body count of those who had disagreed with the Clintons over something or other, would they have dared to say anything else? ..."
    "... So it often seems that problems in the Middle East suddenly erupt when some scandal in Washington is about to erupt–and they are very convenient for focusing media and public attention on the Middle East, and away from the potential scandal problem. ..."
    "... Consider this; there seems to be a growing possibility that this Susan Rice affair could turn out badly for Hillary and the other socialist Democrats and there has been mounting concern over that in the past couple weeks. How much have you seen in the prostitute press about that since this Syrian situation hit? ..."
    Apr 08, 2017 | revisedhistory.wordpress.com

    And something else bothers me about all this. All of a sudden all the people in Washington that hated Trump's guts; McCain, Pelosi, Schumer, and a whole batch of other slithery Leftist creatures who couldn't say enough bad things about him re now, all of a sudden, staunchly in his corner and they just love what he is doing in Syria Does that tell you anything???

    It tells me that they have finally found some way to co-opt him, whether through his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, which I have seen reports of, or in some other way. All of a sudden Trump is dealing with the very folks that, a month ago, were working to slit his political throat. And his core concept of making America great again seems to be going by the wayside in favor of the neo-con's "nation building" program in the Middle East – the exact same game Comrade Obama played so very well, as did Bush 2 before him.

    Interestingly enough, on http://www.garynorth.com for April 8th, Mr. North noted: "Donald Trump campaigned on the promise he would 'bomb the hell out of ISIS.' Instead he bombed installations of the Syrian government. This was on April 6, 2017–one hundred years to the day after the House voted for war with Germany." This gas attack has "false flag" written all over it!

    Back when Slick Willie was in office and having his problems over "that woman" Monica Lewinsky, and there was talk of his impeachment, Clinton "suddenly" decided to bomb Iraq–with "the unanimous support of his national security advisers." Given the body count of those who had disagreed with the Clintons over something or other, would they have dared to say anything else?

    According to an article on http://www.dailymail.co.uk for August 26, 2016: "The strikes–known as Operation Desert Fox–were ordered the day after the House of Representatives issued report accusing the president of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and ended the day the articles of impeachment were passed. Previous strikes in 1996, Operation Desert Strike, were ordered during a campaign finance scandal."

    So it often seems that problems in the Middle East suddenly erupt when some scandal in Washington is about to erupt–and they are very convenient for focusing media and public attention on the Middle East, and away from the potential scandal problem. Understand, I am not accusing President Trump of anything, except possibly a lack of historical knowledge and probably taking bad advice from some family members, and those who have a vested interest in dragging us (and him) away from his "America first" agenda and back into the New World Order agenda.

    Consider this; there seems to be a growing possibility that this Susan Rice affair could turn out badly for Hillary and the other socialist Democrats and there has been mounting concern over that in the past couple weeks. How much have you seen in the prostitute press about that since this Syrian situation hit?

    Mr. Trump has been a shrewd businessman (and I don't mean that in a negative sense), but I don't think he has yet grasped the totally devious nature of the political mind and how underhanded it can really be. That, and bad advice, for whatever reason, from his in-laws, seems to be leading him down the New World Order's garden path at this point. Let us pray the Lord will give him wisdom to see where all this is going, and that he might repent of it and return to his original vision–the one the voters put him into office to enact.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Michael Savage Turns on Trump, Says Syrian Gas Attack Was False Flag Operation

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Conservative talk show host, Michael Savage, who fervently supported Trump during the Presidential campaign, soured on him today. Savage, referencing his background in science, having a PhD in epidemiology, said the alleged gas attack in the ISIS controlled city of Idlib was most likely phosgene and not sarin.

    Backing up his claim that the attack did not contain sarin, Savage made reference to photos showing first responders attending to bodies without gloves or protective gear. Had sarin been used in the attack, all of those men in white helmets would be dead.

    In nearly a 15 minute soliloquy over the attack, Savage lamented that the neocon 'military tweet' by Trump was a ploy to increase his popularity, in light of falling poll numbers. Verbosely, Savage hemmed and hawed with disappointment, dispirited that he spent over a year advocating for Trump, who said he eschewed the interventionist policies of people like McCain, Graham, and Schumer, only to cave in shortly after winning the Presidency.

    Savage also questioned the timing of Jared Kushner's trip to Iraq, coupled with Bannon's timely demotion from the NSC -- just ahead of the attacks as being highly suspicious.

    "This whole thing stinks to high heaven,' said Savage. Furthering his criticism of the President, Savage proclaimed: "It looks like Hillary, deep state won, and Trump is doing her bidding."

    As it pertained to who was responsible for the attack, Savage reminded his audience that just last week Putin was considered to be the smartest and most diabolical man on earth. If so, why on earth would he permit Assad to launch a chemical weapons attack, when they had already defeated the rebels, which was sure to turn public opinion against them?

    "Why would he do it, you morons you?", said Savage.

    Who are we supporting? According to Lindsey Graham , the 'free Syrian army.'

    Savage exploded: "The free Syrian Army? There is no such thing. The free Syrian Army are our moderate terrorists created by the CIA and John McCain. John McCain and Lindsey Graham are the mouthpieces for this army of murderers."

    "The west jumped to a conclusion, before there was any investigation."

    A must listen to a voice of reason.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/pO5BT7AZLqM

    The_Real_Fly , Apr 8, 2017 10:55 PM

    Here you go shills. The Quick Rundown on today's Syria happenings.

    http://ibankcoin.com/flyblog/2017/04/08/heres-quick-rundown-todays-syria...

    Savyindallas , Apr 8, 2017 9:02 PM

    I was against the 1990 Iraq war and all neocon wars since then. However, I just went back and saw a picture of the Kuwaiti baby that Saddam's troops pulled out of the incubator -- now I think we should rebomb Iraq, take out syria, Iran and russia. We need to send a message to the Chinese.

    Old Hippie Patriot , Apr 8, 2017 7:50 PM

    The only hope in this apparent 180 degree turn in Trump's moves is that he is playing chess while his opponents are still on checkers. He has finally put an end to the Russian collusion lie. Everyone in the area was warned in plenty of time so that the base could be abandoned and anything that flew could be flown out. The damage was confined to hangers with non serviceable aircraft and the runways were left intact. It was the perfect false flag response to a false flag attack. Now, Trump is free to negotiate with Syria and Russia and work out a way to end the Saudi inspired, Obama supported war on Europe and the west. The timing of the attack also served to warn the visiting Chinese Xi that the US is no longer being run by a President that hates the country. Only time will tell if Trump has been compromised or duped.

    miketv Old Hippie Patriot , Apr 8, 2017 11:20 PM

    Shame that falls apart as moves continue.. "Reports of US tanks & troops entering # Syria from northern # Jordan "

    gregga777 , Apr 8, 2017 7:47 PM

    Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner is making sure that Trump does the bidding of the racist paradise of Apartheid Israel. Apartheid Israel is very happy that American blood and treasure is being expended to overthrow Syria's President Bashar Assad solely for the benefit of Apartheid Israel.

    Non-Corporate Entity , Apr 8, 2017 7:11 PM

    I'm waiting for the narrative to turn to "Trump gassed Syrian babies..." What the f**k is wrong with you fakes that "used to support Trump"? Is it the fluoride in your water? I think maybe you're past Bernie supporters, still feeling The Burn. Poor things.

    Bigly Non-Corporate Entity , Apr 8, 2017 8:46 PM

    Ok. I'll bite.

    I have my own well. No fluoride. So fuck off there.

    People are extremely disappointed/angered because this is icing on the cake.... and the worst decision yet.

    -Not firing corrupt people, not draining the swamp

    -Questionable appointments, both imbeciles and (((deep state amish)))...i am being nice

    -Questionable judgment left and right including deferring to others who are obviously making poor decisions (any 5th grader can see this) AND HE GOES ALONG WITH IT.

    I call bullshit. And unless there is something very impt. that we all seem to be missing, this is becoming one epic clusterfuck

    Flicker , Apr 8, 2017 7:02 PM

    And gas as a WMD Is so old school. It's inclusion in WMD predated tanks, planes, aerial bombs, jet bombers, napalm, carpet bombing, nukes, ICBMs, cruise missiles and EMPs. (Now THESE bad boys are MASS DESTRUCTION.) But it's the gas, man. We must punish the use of gas, regardless of our own laws. Forget declarations of war. Forget the separation of powers.

    And the congress and all those who hated him now applaud. He's become one of us! My eyes are moist wiith joy. We haven't seen a moment like this since we all hailed G.H.W. Bush's NWO inaugurated with the invasion of Somalia. And we all see how wonderfully that ended.

    TRM Flicker , Apr 8, 2017 8:48 PM

    Don't forget our favorite WMD .. depleted uranium munitions!

    http://umrc.net/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-VkpR-wka8

    Yes they know the airborne (40% vaporization on impact) dust is inhaled and will kill American troops as well as enemy troops, civilians and it has a half life of a billion years (YES A BILLION WITH A "B" YEARS). But hey go ahead and "serve your country" or "volunteer".

    MikeOz , Apr 8, 2017 7:02 PM

    The whole Planet knows Syria did not drop chemical gas on it's own defenceless citizens. Trump has been compromised! The Deep State Military Industrial complex now owns him!

    10fold , Apr 8, 2017 6:51 PM

    Why were 59 missiles fired at an old disused bunker?

    zazou pitts 10fold , Apr 8, 2017 10:15 PM

    It was a statement against Israel.

    This particular base defended against Israel's encroachment into Syria. From there Assad had successfully attacked 4 Israeli aircraft a few weeks before. https://twitter.com/venilagorilla/status/850775978662088704

    veritas semper ... 10fold , Apr 8, 2017 9:48 PM

    This is one of the most important military airport ,strategic, they use to bomb in Palmyra, Homs. ISIS tryed multiple times to cease it and could not.

    Immediately after US bombed, ISIS/Al Qaeda started an attack . It was coordinated with US attack -- US army is ISIS air support

    Savyindallas , Apr 8, 2017 6:32 PM

    Wow! I used to despise Savage as a typical Jewish Neocon. However, he has been really good for quite some time. He knocked this one out of the park.

    DirtySanchez , Apr 8, 2017 5:54 PM

    Huge Trump supporter until the Syrian war crime.

    Fuck Trump.

    I hope they impeach and imprison the mutt.

    Collectivism Killz Non-Corporate Entity , Apr 8, 2017 9:21 PM

    Lobbing 100 million worth of tomahawks at a government trying to fight ISIS is not exactly a small mistake. Trump is proving to be exactly what he spoke out against, more hope and change Republitard style.

    Swamidon , Apr 8, 2017 4:53 PM

    Didn't take the Left long to find Trump's Achilles Heel. Anybody remember the outcry when JFK appointed his brother (and he was qualified)? Middle America and Trump's Base will quickly tire of the influence his young daughter and younger son-in-law have on things they know nothing about.

    daveO Swamidon , Apr 8, 2017 7:19 PM

    Oh, they know alright. I warned people about them. Most people I talked to didn't even know they were Jewish. Clearing out the Golan Heights. $$$

    urhotdogs silverer , Apr 8, 2017 7:06 PM

    Trump needs to move his family out of his administration and get back to fulfilling his promises.

    Berspankme urhotdogs , Apr 8, 2017 8:36 PM

    Back to? Name one he has accomplished. Obamacare lite? Hilary for prison? Drain the swamp? Stop the overseas interventions? Obama club indictments?

    Fuckers a phony

    Flicker SummerSausage , Apr 8, 2017 6:50 PM

    I was a Trump supporter only because the bad guys (the media, CIA, NSA, the Left, the Republican intelligencia, the RNC?, and congress) all hated him and worked to keep him out, and then to put him out. So he must have been their enemy, right?

    Well, now he has joined them. He likes the swamp, doesn't he.

    joeyman9 SummerSausage , Apr 8, 2017 5:38 PM

    Assad, you know the last guy in power who wears suits, raised in England, protects Christians and Jews and other religious minorities unlike the "Rebels."

    joeyman9 rockstone , Apr 8, 2017 4:33 PM

    Trump HAS done several good things domestically (Killed TPP, TPIA, Reduce EPA, Cut State Dpt Budget, Killed lots of regulations, not anti-gun (so far)) BUT...you go to war and all that good will is undone.

    I am officially OFF the Trump Train and regret supporting him. We really didn't have much of a choice this (or any other) election cycle. The solution????

    DEVOLVE POWER BACK TO THE STATES (WHO DON'T WANT WAR and couldn't support it if they did).

    [Apr 09, 2017] Trump is a traitor

    Looks like Hillary (who was a puppet of deep state) won and Trump is now yet another puppet, doing deep state bidding.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump just says no questions can be asked about this? Well I question everything in particular things which sure look like a total false flag to me! ..."
    "... The Free Syrian Army aks FSA was known as the Farouk Bridage. They are all Salfist from the Muslim Brotherhood. Only 15% of their ranks are Syrians. ..."
    "... Savage is on the money. It is good to see an actual radio host who isn't bought and paid for by the "Conservatives" and the Republican party. I hope Trump is listening to Savage. This is not good for America. Trump needs to re-read some of his tweets and remember his positions. The war issue was a huge issue for moderates supporting Trump. Peace Presidents always win. ..."
    "... Swamp-rat Donald assists the Deep State in their efforts to divert attention elsewhere. Rather than being drained, the swamp just got a little deeper! Note: Was it a coincidence when rice first appeared when she did, saying she knew nothing? And after her lies were exposed, she reappeared saying she leaked 'nothing to nobody?' Is it a coincidence that Hillary suddenly reappears? Tough-talking, tough-tweeting Donald has CAVED! ..."
    "... This was a self-serving move, to bolster Trump's 'image' among his detractors ..."
    "... Welcome to the swamp, swamp-rat Donald! ..."
    www.youtube.com

    Trump Train

    Trump is a traitor

    ryvr madduck

    Hillary and McCain approved of this bombing. If those fucking nitwits approved is means Trump really fucked up!!!

    onemansopinion

    Who are these intel insiders and shadow brokers? who do they work for and what skin do they have in the game.

    The President has info presented to him that we and the so called insiders are not privy to and I Trust the Presidents judgment more than I do phony insiders or shadow brokers.

    Boris Odor

    Michael Savage didnt turn on Trump, Trump turned on his core supporters.

    davids11131113

    Trigger Happy RIGHT! Just a month ago Trump was saying there's nothing in Syria worth getting involved in and one would be stupid to do anything there it's not in our interest and not our business....so what changed in a month?

    Trump just says no questions can be asked about this? Well I question everything in particular things which sure look like a total false flag to me!

    The cure for Ignorance-is knowledge

    hey, mr. savage, i think its about time to cease and desist on calling americans stupid. you are correct, this is nonsense that assad did this, graham saying" we cant defeat isis with assad in power." ha.

    what we have in this country are people who want to believe their government has their best interests at heart. being gullible, and being naive, does not represent stupidity.

    we are in trouble, the best thought i can have is, he, 'trump' was hypnotized.

    davids11131113

    We weren't 'wrong', we had to reject Hitlery the known evil, but Michael and me too never said Trump is a demigod above any question or doubt....

    Michael has always said he hopes Trump does right but always had his warnings and doubts just read his book it's all in there we're not sycophants.

    Hoyum Toy

    When has the government ever had our best interest at heart??? BIG BROTHER is an public enemy of the American peoples, all they do is look for ways to take our freedom rights away, look after Corporate America, allowing them to leave the country, give them special tax breaks, same time focus on dividing the American peoples.

    Crystal Giddens

    The gassing was a lie, agreed. That means our public motive is a lie but it does not mean our motive is wrong.

    What are our national interest in being their? Why is it so important to every administration? We are not spending more on our military than the next ten biggest spenders for nothing are we? Savage needs to address this from another angle I think.

    David Argento

    The Free Syrian Army aks FSA was known as the Farouk Bridage. They are all Salfist from the Muslim Brotherhood. Only 15% of their ranks are Syrians.

    banemaler

    Savage is on the money. It is good to see an actual radio host who isn't bought and paid for by the "Conservatives" and the Republican party. I hope Trump is listening to Savage. This is not good for America. Trump needs to re-read some of his tweets and remember his positions. The war issue was a huge issue for moderates supporting Trump. Peace Presidents always win.

    toonarmy -> footsoldier

    Trump has had the 'tap on the shoulder' from the Deep State, and he has been warned! Look at the sequence of events: Comey lied to the House Intelligence Committee. The narrative was clear - 'Get Trump'. Comey 'very selective' with questions he can answer in a non secure setting.

    Gowdy sees what's going, focusses on the undisputed fact that someone has committed a felony. Gowdy smartly introduces to the record, the names of potential leakers/felons. Comey makes it clear that FBI not interested in a felony 'bigger-than-Watergate'. Decision made that they should meet again in a 'secure setting' so Comey will be less selective with his answers.

    Enter Nunes, who comes forward with some very disturbing information ... all eyes on Nunes. Comey now refuses to meet in a 'secure setting'. (The questions will now be a lot tougher than previously thought). Susan Rice exposed (And one or two others know they too will be exposed - Comey knows this). Wheels are beginning to fall off the Deep State conspiracy - too many careers at stake. Susan Rice suddenly appears, repeating her diversionary performance over Benghazi. Time to give Trump the 'tap on the shoulder' and warn him that the 'FIX' is in! Trump caves.

    Swamp-rat Donald assists the Deep State in their efforts to divert attention elsewhere. Rather than being drained, the swamp just got a little deeper! Note: Was it a coincidence when rice first appeared when she did, saying she knew nothing? And after her lies were exposed, she reappeared saying she leaked 'nothing to nobody?' Is it a coincidence that Hillary suddenly reappears? Tough-talking, tough-tweeting Donald has CAVED!

    toonarmy -> footsoldier

    Right on the money! This was a self-serving move, to bolster Trump's 'image' among his detractors. Assad may be mad enough to do it ..but he isn't STUPID enough to do it. Welcome to the swamp, swamp-rat Donald!

    Moz the great

    I agree with Savage. Deffo a false flag op. The question is why Trump said Yes? Does he know its a false flag? Is he in on the plot. Has he gone along for political reasons? Prove hes not soft on Russia.

    Did Bannon get pushed out cause he knows its all bullshit? Worrying signs for all of us who were truly hoping Trump was the real deal.

    Sheree Rabe

    I am just purely heartsick over Trump. I warned everyone he might just be the best actor of all and it appears unfortunately I was right!

    FarFromEquilibrium

    Thankfully, somebody knows something about chemistry. And those containers that the media paraded -> they were not gas containers, they were corrosive solids containers.

    FarFromEquilibrium

    All anyone needs to know is : Hildabeast, Graham, McInsane, Merkel, Pelosi, Schumer, and that ilk likes the action - therefore it's the wrong action. You can't make anyone of them happy by doing the right thing.

    Dan Sam

    Assad had nothing at all to gain from the gassing. this single fact is all you need to realize that this was a false flag. Trump either fell for it, or was pressured into his actions.
    I am one Trump supporter that is very close to taking away my support.

    Cat Cook

    The week before this "gas attack", 250 Syrian civilians were kidnapped by rebels. Gee, what a coincidence that they are the ones being identified amongst the dead.

    The White Helmets got hazmat suits the same week and filmed a training video in their compound carved out of solid rock.

    Now we see a film of them washing off the gas victims with the same compound in the background, obviously filmed in the same location.

    But oh, gee, they forgot to wear their new hazmat suits... oh and look, they forgot to put on their gloves to handle the sarin gas victims, even though a micro dot can be absorbed thru the skin and kill within minutes. I'll post link to this story below.

    Astra2012

    i also think it was a false flag - if we know it i think Trump knows it too. He did his best to avoid casualties, but wants to show that us will react fast if necessary - and to close many mouths. i still trust him for now! That analysis you make about WHY is probably not true.

    Dorian Edwards

    There are videos out there of the rebel gas bomb making factories. They have the bags and the bomb casings. They have all that out there. Anyone who knows anything knows this was not Assad. This is Trump jumping at the chance to finally sit at the big table with the Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the rest.

    What a dumb fuck you are thinking that he was ever anything but this. He always wanted this to happen. I knew he would jump at this. HE HAS NO IDEOLOGY. NONE! Only himself.

    And his perceived place in the world. That has ALWAYS been the fact. NO matter what your book says. HE HAS NO IDEOLOGY!!!!

    Dorian Edwards

    If you actually believed that Donald Trump was anything other than a New York liberal, who would have loved to have been a part of the military industrial complex. He loved those elites, he wanted to be anything but a plain old real estate developer.

    He wished he was a big player with Lockheed or any of the other big defense companies. The first chance he got, to look good to them, he took it. This incident, which is just exactly what the Russians are saying it is, a bombing of a munitions dump that contained Clorine gas. Trump jumped on it. Big time!

    Albert Benson

    I agree with Dr. Savage. This was a total false flag operation. Check out the latest article on
    http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com

    [Apr 09, 2017] False Flag: How the US Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad

    Apr 08, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Apr 8, 2017 12:47 PM Via The Daily Bell

    Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.

    President Trump approved the bombing of the Syrian military base controlled by Dictator Bashir al-Assad supposedly to destroy the Syrian government's ability to launch further chemical attacks on civilians.

    "Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children," Trump said in remarks from Mar-a-Lago, his family compound in Palm Beach, Florida. "It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons."

    But Trump's statements contradict the reality that rebel groups have been trained to secure, monitor, and transport chemical weapons. Included in the opposition to Assad are terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and ISIS. Should we believe these rebels' claims against Assad, especially given their access to chemical weapons?

    Documents from Wikileaks show that the U.S. State Department wanted to help rebels overthrow Syrian Dictator Assad in order to strengthen Israel's position against Iran. The State Department discussed how Iran and Syria trained forces in opposition to Israel. The fall of Assad, they said, would destroy the only Iranian ally in the region positioned to help Iran in the event of Israeli aggression to stop Iran's nuclear program.

    Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition.

    The State Department makes it quite clear their belief that "Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly."

    This is nothing new, and really not surprising, as the U.S. has been involved in dozens of similar operations around the world. But just how far would the U.S. and Israel go to bring down Assad?

    Just what type of training would be given to the rebels to help overthrow Assad? The groundwork had already been laid out by President Obama. As soon as chemical weapons were used by Assad, the international community would have the justification to become more involved in removing him from power. We know they were interested in doing so regardless of whether or not he used chemical weapons against the people of Syria.

    CNN reported in 2012 that America was involved in training the rebels to secure and monitor chemical weapons sites.

    The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.

    The training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

    This confirms that rebel forces had access to chemical weapons and that the U.S. helped familiarize rebel groups with storing and transporting the weapons.

    But a removed article from The Daily Mail seems to prove that the U.S. had planned on helping the rebels actually use chemical weapons as well. The article was supposedly removed because the source of the information was untrustworthy. A Malaysian hacker was said to have taken emails from British defense contractors from an unprotected server.

    Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.

    A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme 'approved by Washington' is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.

    Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.

    Lending credence to this theory that the United States trained rebel forces in the use of chemical weapons in order to initiate a false flag attack are the events surrounding the death of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens in 2012.

    The story is far from Trump's claim that the U.S. attempts to "prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons."

    The U.S. is an active player in moving weapons all throughout the middle east, arming all sorts of rebel groups, militias, and government. It appears the United States funneled weapons out of Libya to provide Syrian rebels the ability to fight Assad.

    A book called The Real Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don't Want You to Know details the role Stevens fulfilled in Libya of brokering weapons exports from Libya to countries which backed the Syrian rebels.

    The author, Aaron Klein, said a group called the February 17 Brigade worked with the CIA to provide security for a special operation in Benghazi and helped facilitate weapons transfers .

    The exact nature of the U.S. involvement with the February 17 Brigade that guarded the U.S. special mission might have been unintentionally exposed when a Libyan weapons dealer formerly with the Brigade told Reuters in an in-person interview he had helped ship weapons from Benghazi to the rebels fighting in Syria.

    Klein noted that no one seems to have connected the dots from what the weapons dealer said to the activities taking place inside the Benghazi compound and whether the Brigade serves as a cut out to ship weapons.

    In the Reuters interview published June 18, 2013, Libyan warlord Abdul Basit Haroun declared he is behind some of the biggest shipments of weapons from Libya to Syria. Most of the weapons were sent to Turkey, he said, where they were, in turn, smuggled into neighboring Syria.

    It was Steven's job to facilitate the retrieval of these Libyan weapons and funnel them to U.S. interests. His death may have been related to militia groups inside Libya not trusting the United States with these weapons, or wanting them for their own use or profit.

    Libyan weapons were shipped to places like Turkey which were already participating in training the Syrian rebels. Part of this training, we know, had to do with chemical weapons.

    We also know that the U.S. wanted to see Assad brought down and that they had drawn a line over the use of chemical weapons. They needed a chemical weapons attack to justify stronger interventions in the conflict against Assad.

    That chemical attack happened last week, followed by the subsequent U.S. bombing of an Assad base.

    We know the terrorist groups forming the opposition to Assad had access to chemical weapons.

    Is this enough evidence to prove the United States facilitated a false flag chemical weapons attack in order to justify military intervention, and finally defeat Assad, in support of Israel?

    [Apr 09, 2017] Miilitary brass notes only 40% of Tomahawk missiles fired hit targeted Syrian base

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Damson , April 7, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    And yet more:

    Russian radar data show that the Tomahawk missiles were fired from the US destroyers Porter and Ross in the Mediterranean between 03:42 and 03:56 Moscow time, the general said.
    The Syrian army's air defense system will be reinforced in the near future to protect the most important infrastructure facilities, Konashenkov assured.
    In 2016, several batteries of Russia's air defense system S-300 were moved to the naval logistic facility at Tartus to provide protection for the base and Russian ships off Syria's shores. Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said a multi-tier defense system had been created around Tartus and the Hmeymim air base. At the end of November the newest air defense system S-400 was delivered to Syria after a Turkish F-18 fighter shot down Russia's Sukhoi-24 bomber.
    Pantsir systems protect Russian military facilities from low-flying aircraft and missiles. Also, the defense of Russian facilities incorporates the system Bastion, capable of hitting naval and ground targets 350-450 kilometers away. Russia has helped Syria to restore the operation of its S-200 air defense systems that protect Russian bases from potential attacks from the east. Also, the Syrian army uses air defense systems Buk.

    The chemical attack

    The US missile strike in Syria had been planned in advance, while the chemical weapons incident was used just as a pretext, Konashenkov has noted.

    "It is nakedly clear that the attack on a Syrian air base with US cruise missiles had been planned well beforehand," he said.
    "For any specialist it is clear that the decision to conduct the missile strike on Syria had been made in Washington long before the events at Khan Shaykhun, which were used a far-fetched pretext.
    The show of military muscle stemmed exclusively from internal political reasons," the ministry's spokesman added.

    Cooperation with Pentagon
    The Russian Defense Ministry has suspended cooperation with Pentagon on prevention of incidents in Syria.
    "We consider these steps taken by the United States to be a blatant violation of the 2015 Memorandum on preventing military incidents and ensuring security during operations in Syria's air space," the ministry's spokesman said.
    "The Russian Defense Ministry is suspending cooperation with Pentagon aimed at the implementation of the memorandum."
    "To protect the most sensitive facilities of the Syrian infrastructure, a set of measures will be taken in the immediate future to reinforce and raise the effectiveness of the Syrian armed forces' air defense system," he added.

    Syria' losses
    US strikes on military airfield in Homs province leave six dead - Syrian armed forces.
    "According to the air base command, two Syrian servicemen went missing, while four were killed and six sustained burn injuries while combating the fire," Konashenkov said.
    At the same time, according to the Syrian army command, the attack killed six people.
    According to the Russian Defense Ministry, six Mikoyan MiG-23 fighter jets, a radar station and other equipment have been destroyed.
    "The strike destroyed a logistics warehouse, a training building, a canteen, six MiG-23 planes in the repair hangars and also a radar station."
    "The runway, taxiways and parked planes of the Syrian Air Force have not been damaged," the spokesman said.

    Trump admits he issued order for missile strike on Syrian airbase

    On Thursday night, at the direction of US President Donald Trump, the US forces fired 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles on a Syrian military air base located in the Homs Governorate. The attack came as a response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Idlib Governorate on April 4. The US authorities believe that the airstrike on Idlib was launched from that air base.

    [Apr 09, 2017] The Syrian military denies using chemical weapons

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com
    The Syrian military denies using chemical weapons. Their international backer, Russia, claims that the Syrian military did drop bombs in the affected area but that the chemical effect was not in the bombs dropped but rather from the explosion of an alleged chemical warehouse under the control of unnamed rebel forces. The same report by the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that found Syrian government responsibility for chlorine attacks also found that ISIS had used another chemical weapon, mustard gas, and investigated at least three other chemical weapons attacks whose perpetrators could not be identified. So that could be possible as well.

    For a variety of reasons, some of these possibilities don�'t hold up so well if the chemical used this week was the sarin nerve agent � but we don�'t know yet what it was.

    There are some other, perhaps even more important things, that we do know. We know that in 2013, at the time of an earlier, even more deadly chemical weapon attack, similar accusations against the Syrian regime were widely made, assumed to be true, and used as the basis for calls for direct US military intervention in the civil war. And we know those accusations were never proved, and that it remains uncertain even now, almost four years later, who was actually responsible.

    And we know that the bombing of Syria in 2013 was averted, despite President Obama�'s �red line� being crossed, because an enormous US and global campaign against such a disastrous escalation made it politically too costly to launch a new US war. This was a president willing but not eager, or driven, to go to war. When Obama turned decision-making over to Congress, hundreds of thousands of people across the United States called and wrote and emailed their representatives, urging them to prevent a new war. In some offices calls were running six or seven hundred to one against a new bombing campaign.

    And we know that President Obama turned it over to Congress in the first place because the British parliament, facing massive public opposition, made clear that the UK would not join its US ally in going to war against Syria. And eventually, when Congressional opposition became undeniable, Russia provided the US with a way out, arranging for international collection and destruction of Syria�s chemical weapons arsenal. Chlorine was not included, and it is certainly possible that Syria didn�'t declare all of its weapons, or perhaps the precursor chemicals to make them, and but that claim was never proven. Ultimately, though, a US attack was averted.

    [Apr 09, 2017] If Trump says Assad is responsible Assad is responsible. Trump doesnt need evidence. Not even a dodgy dossier.

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
    Muzzledagain , 7 Apr 2017 15:31
    What Trump did was totally illegal, and you won't find anyone to tell him so. All the ones that hated him before are at his feet now for further collaboration in destroying Syria and thus prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people. Share Facebook Twitter
    MadJackMacMadd Muzzledagain, 7 Apr 2017 15:45

    Yes, you're right. It was 'unconstitutional' for a start in that he didn't get Congressional approval, he didn't get the approval of the UN and he committed an act of war against a sovereign nation (also a UN member).

    Is anyone going to hazard a guess as to what happened to the 36 cruise missiles that didn't find their target?

    GuyPeron, 7 Apr 2017 15:31
    I am still troubled by the Guardian editorial line and journalists unquestioningly concluding that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in question. I of course cannot say it is not, but I have also not been presented with any evidence anywhere that it was. I certainly haven't seen any convincing evidence presented in the Guardian. Most troubling for me is that I haven't seen any Guardian journalists asking what benefit the Assad regime thought it would gain from carrying out these chemical attacks (if it did). Who is to benefit from these attacks? That is what I would be asking as that is a long way to discovering who is guilty. Share
    AndyMcCarthy GuyPeron, 7 Apr 2017 15:44
    If Trump says Assad is responsible Assad is responsible. Trump doesn't need evidence. Not even a dodgy dossier.
    Elinjo, 7 Apr 2017 15:33
    "Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread".
    His impetuosity makes me fear, that should he fail to convince China to put pressure on North Korea, he will carry out his threats to take matters into his own hands.
    GeeDeeSea, 7 Apr 2017 15:34
    The US targeted 59 cruise missiles on the airfield which is supposedly storing chemical bombs and yet no chemical weapons are blown-up!

    Another US intelligence failure. Share Facebook Twitter

    MadJackMacMadd GeeDeeSea, 7 Apr 2017 15:36
    They didn't all reach the target.
    sean7889 7 Apr 2017 15:37
    Chemical attack or no chemical attack it doesn't change the fact that Assad is the lesser of two evils.

    We have a choice between a broadly secular evil, or fundamentalist Islam evil.

    I know which one I would rather be dealing with. You only have to look at what's happening in Libya now we have disposed of Gaddaffi.

    KoreyD sean7889, 7 Apr 2017 15:57
    The major evil is the Americans arming and supporting the Jihadsists since day one of the civil war and using their propaganda machine to demonize Assad. Russia and Iran are the only 2 countries legally in Syria at it's request. America is an invader and shows absolutely no regard for international law. After all who would enforce it? Without America's intervention this civil war would have been over 6 months after it started, 400,000 more people would be alive and there would be 7 million less refugees million what gives the US the right to do this in Syria, never mind Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Yemen, Ukraine?
    tc2011 7 Apr 2017 15:37
    Dutiful little lapdogs. Nothing like some hot military action to get our war-loving establishment back into bed with the Donald, eh?

    When push comes to shove, we scratch a liberal and find a Trumpist.

    Let's just pretend that Donald Trump has undergone a conversion of biblical proportions on the road to Damascus.


    Let's pretend that the vast majority of you really wanted to oppose him in the first place.
    sustaingbr 7 Apr 2017 15:38
    What if this was rebel jihadists who set off the chemical attack? Or the bombs fell on to a rebel chemical storage site?
    The US has jumped to a very dangerous conclusion here - it took them 6 days to confirm that US bombs had dropped in Mosul but 1 day to confirm a Syrian government aircraft had specifically dropped a chemical bomb!?
    ColinMay sustaingbr, 7 Apr 2017 15:49
    CNN reported that the US tracked a flight from the base to the area that was gassed. Share Facebook Twitter
    HarrytheHawk ColinMay, 7 Apr 2017 16:04
    There is no question that they bombed the area.

    There is no evidence that the sarin came from those bombs.

    Jack Rowse , sustaingbr, 7 Apr 2017 16:54
    I'm just going to repeat the comment, as no-one has brought it up in this thread...

    They wrote an article about it. They sent "journalists" to the town. According to the journalists and photos that they took, the 'warehouse' was empty and the gas had radiated from a canister that was dropped from the air:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/the-dead-were-wherever-you-looked-inside-syrian-town-after-chemical-attack

    ort Sumpter Joss_Wynne_Evans, 7 Apr 2017 15:53

    scuppered the Clinton Project

    Clinton wanted to bomb Syria.

    MrConservative2016 , 7 Apr 2017 15:39
    I certainly hope those strikes were a one-off

    Trump should not repeat the mistakes of the previous administrations and drag the USA into even more prolonged conflict; even more so in view of the fact that we know the so-called 'opposition' to be a motley of Islamist terror groups

    [Apr 09, 2017] The USA and its allies such as Turkey and KSA invested six billions or so building insurgency supplying them with weapons (including some from Lybia)

    Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    pgl , April 07, 2017 at 01:12 PM
    General Wesley Clark just asked what is Trump's policy towards Assad. As in is it OK for Assad to kill his own people the regular way just so he does not use chemical weapons. Harsh commentary but the key question.
    libezkova -> pgl... , April 07, 2017 at 05:44 PM
    "..is it OK for Assad to kill his own people the regular way".

    That's a great question. and the answer is that he is doing it with some help and the USA is complicit.

    The USA and its allies such as Turkey and KSA invested six billions or so building insurgency supplying them with weapons (including some from Lybia).

    Repeating my old post:

    libezkova -> Chris G...

    "an uneasy alliance of foreign-funded jihadists, Western intelligence, and NGOs like Doctors Without Borders" is a fact in Syria too.

    Another good read is Sy Hersh story of the previous "false flag" sarin poisoning operation during Obama term:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS5DOg-_XXE

    I like how MSM honchos picked up sarin story this time. As if somebody kicked them in the butt.

    BTW both Turkey and KSA had bet all cards on Syrian insurgency. In the past Turkey's intelligence service MIT was supporting not only the Free Syrian Army but also Al-Nusra, which produced sarin from components bought in Turkey.

    ilsm -> libezkova... , April 07, 2017 at 05:55 PM
    If it were "sarin" there would be large pieces of debris from the delivery hardware........

    No pix, no sarin!

    Or the Syrian super pilots flew crop dusters 200 miles one way!

    ilsm -> pgl... , April 07, 2017 at 05:53 PM
    For the US it is okay to supply oil rich Sunnis to kill Shi'a.

    Toady asks the wrong question......

    Clark got his 4th star from Bill Clinton. Clark is a DNC toady.

    [Apr 09, 2017] No evidence of air attack using low or no explosive type cluster munitions which are needed for this type of ordinance

    Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> libezkova... April 09, 2017 at 09:02 AM

    Delivering sarin requires low to no explosive type cluster munitions. Cannot be done from barrel bomb!

    There would be many dozens of UXB 'containers' and shells of the ones that worked.

    If there were any evidence the propagandists would not use pix of supposedly decontaminated casualties with "rescue workers" unprotected. And using garden hoses when a solvent is needed to neutralize sarin.

    The 2013 staged example was never proved either.

    [Apr 09, 2017] False flag or not ?

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Damson , April 7, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    Note:

    The attack was 'reported' TWENTYFOUR HOURS before it happened as a 'chemical attack' by journo working for Saudi/ Gulf agencies in a tweet.

    So how did he spin it before the depot was targetted by SAA?

    False flag – absolutely.

    Aumua , April 7, 2017 at 3:45 pm

    How about a link? Anything? Bueller?

    DJPS , April 7, 2017 at 6:40 pm

    They may have been talking about this? https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/849720967781863425

    Aumua , April 7, 2017 at 8:39 pm

    Yeah. It's not that I don't think some kind of 'false flag' or falsehood in general is possible here. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. I simply don't know. It's just that I see so many loudly proclaiming that they know for SURE that it definitely IS a false flag, while providing only the flimsiest evidence, if any.

    People who are doing that are doing the same thing 'they' are when they say they know for SURE that Assad is behind the attack. I don't trust either side, and I don't recommend anyone else does either. There's a lot of agendas flying around, both personal and interpersonal.

    [Apr 09, 2017] This is Colin Powell's justification for Iraq war all over again

    Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 10:14 AM
    US vows to keep up pressure on Syria after missile strikes
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2017/04/08/vows-keep-pressure-syria-after-missile-strikes/SxuJkb18xGmO2HPKeY1MTK/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

    Julie Pace - AP - April 8, 2017

    PALM BEACH, Fla. - The United States is vowing to keep up the pressure on Syria after the intense nighttime wave of missile strikes from U.S. ships, despite the prospect of escalating Russian ill will that could further inflame one of the world's most vexing conflicts.

    Standing firm, the Trump administration on Friday signaled new sanctions would soon follow the missile attack, and the Pentagon was even probing whether Russia itself was involved in the chemical weapons assault that compelled President Donald Trump to action. The attack against a Syrian air base was the first U.S. assault against the government of President Bashar Assad.

    Much of the international community rallied behind Trump's decision to fire the cruise missiles in reaction to this week's chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of men, women and children in Syria. But a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the strikes dealt ''a significant blow'' to relations between Moscow and Washington.

    A key test of whether the relationship can be salvaged comes next week when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson becomes the first Trump Cabinet member to visit Russia.

    British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson also had planned to visit Russia this coming week, but decided Saturday to cancel the trip because of the fast moving events in Syria. Johnson, who condemned Moscow's continued defense of Assad, said Tillerson will be able to give a ''clear and coordinated message to the Russians.''

    At the United Nations on Friday, Russia's deputy ambassador, Vladimir Safronkov, strongly criticized what he called the U.S. ''flagrant violation of international law and an act of aggression'' whose ''consequences for regional and international security could be extremely serious.'' He called the Assad government a main force against terrorism and said it deserved the presumption of innocence in the chemical weapons attack.

    The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, said the world is waiting for the Russian government ''to act responsibly in Syria'' and ''to reconsider its misplaced alliance with Bashar Assad.'' ...

    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 08:02 PM
    "The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, said the world is waiting for the Russian government ''to act responsibly in Syria'' and ''to reconsider its misplaced alliance with Bashar Assad.'' ..."

    Summary: "This is Colin Powell's justification for Iraq war all over again"

    In two years or so most of the evidence will probably be discredited. But what is done is done. Shoot first and ask questions later is the most noble tradition in the USA foreign policy.

    The USA now gave rebels and their allies such as Turkey and KSA a huge incentive to fake another chemical attack in order to bring the US ground troops into Syria.

    Syria will then be left to the warring Islamist factions to fight it out just like in Libya and Iraq."

    [Apr 09, 2017] Even the liberals were all over this -- Bill Maher disgusted by the cable news response to Syria

    An interesting feature of comments in WaPo -- only one suggest the possibility of false flag attack. all other take "Assad gassed people" at face value. Acouple of comments suggest that was "Monica-style" bombing: "Wow. So Trump is willing to kill to get the discussion off of him being a Russian puppet.".
    www.washingtonpost.com

    FergusonFoont, 9:17 AM EDT

    Hey, Bill. I'm a liberal and I am not "all over this." I absolutely hate it.

    What Bashir Assad does in the country he heads is not our responsibility. Atroticities happen all over the world nearly every day, particularly in Africa, and we don't police their actions.

    StreetPhD, 9:15 AM EDT [Edited]

    Very predictable. When political popularity is in desperate need of a fix, blowing stuff up is a routine fallback ploy. The trick is tuning and timing the roll out script:
    > Video: innocent victims of Evil Boogeyman's barbarism
    > Video: Avenging Angel strikes back with thrilling nighttime missile launch
    > Reaction: Drooling media does back flips; polls might improve
    > Recharge & Repeat: Loop launch video on Jumbotron as pop singer screeches Anthem at televised sport events - audience gets big dose of sticky britches - loves diversion from real concerns

    > Outcome: Over inflated right wing sends eagle into tailspin.

    hereandnow100, 8:41 AM EDT

    Red lines??? We just crossed one. And talk about shooting from the hip!! The little man said it himself: I don't think, or read. Little trump has got, what was it, gut instinct? Will he just trust his gut all the way to armageddon? He just might.

    maverick13, 8:37 AM EDT

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York called it "the right thing to do." Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California called the military response "a limited, and I think an important strike, and it accomplished its purpose and sent a message."

    Rex Block, 8:36 AM EDT [Edited]

    Brian Williams is an idiot. Without that pretty-boy face, he is nothing.

    Lurker_no_Longer, 8:44 AM EDT

    I really can't believe that NBC put that liar back on the air. Trust of him was gone long ago, and I have to change the channel whenever I see him.

    garythomaszeman 8:32 AM EDT
    Another nice little war. The CIA, raising hell around the world since 1948. "Democracy Dies in Darkness."
    ReasonableDiscourse 8:35 AM EDT
    Col Jack Jacobs on the strike "What are we trying to accomplish?"

    We seem to have no thoughtful answer to that question. Only talking points and and cliched babble about being "presidential".

    Dr--Bob 7:54 AM EDT
    
    Kilgore: Smell that? You smell that?  
    Lance: What?  
    Kilgore: Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that.  
    [kneels]  
    Kilgore: I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like  
    [sniffing, pondering]  
    Kilgore: victory. Someday this war's gonna end...  
    [suddenly walks off]  
    -----Apocalypse Now (1979)  
    
    KingJethro 7:54 AM EDT
    Hey, now! Nobody does wag-the-dog better than the U.S. This is why we are so exceptional!!!
    rabrophy 7:43 AM EDT
    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

    Trump wanted to distract the Media and it worked! Wolf Blitzer got wood for the first time in years.

    And this keeps happening over and over - Some empty military gesture that has no effect or another Savior-General who will make all thing right ( are we at Savior 15 or 16 now?) All we need next is an Op Ed in the Times by Hillary commending Trump's stupid trick.

    alfa67 7:51 AM EDT
    Wolf Blitzer thought the illegal US attack was great because he ALWAYS stays on script with AIPAC. You people DO know that Blitzer used to work for AIPAC don't you? See my comment below and give it some thought. It's pretty obvious really.
    alfa67 7:38 AM EDT
    I think that there is a pretty good chance that the Israelis used the poison gas in Syria.

    The Israelis have been trying for at least 30 years to get the US to do a regime change in Iraq.

    The Israelis have hinted on a number of occasions that that they have stockpiles of the full range of chemical and biological weapons. The Israelis have shown before (for example in Iraq and Libya) that they can pressure/manipulate (using AIPAC et al) a US president into conducting regime change against someone the Israelis don't like. Conversely why would Assad do something stupid like killing some civilians with poison gas? It's not going to win anything for him and would bring down the wrath of the world on him. This use of poison gas reeks of an Israeli operation to get the US involved in getting rid of Assad. Remember the USS Liberty affair where the Israelis shot up an American ship (killing and wounding dozens of Americans) and tried to blame it on the Egyptians in order to get the Americans into their war? And what about the "Lavon affair" where the Israelis blew up an American library and information center in Cairo and tried to blame it on the Egyptians in order to get the US into a war with Egypt? And, of course, the Israelis easily get ALL of the US media to jump in with both feet saying what a horrible thing Assad has done and the US has to start bombing and sending in troops RIGHT NOW! You need to do some reading and thinking , folks, and not let the Israelis railroad us into YET ANOTHER DISASTER!

    17B 7:47 AM EDT
    Brian Williams had his Iraq, Hillary had her Bosnia, and Trump had 'My Vietnam' in the form of sexual promiscuity in the 60s (his Howard Stern interview).

    There's a pattern here. Perhaps Fox can have Ollie North have all three on his War Stories show.

    trytobenice 7:28 AM EDT
    The easily swayed television media, without scruples, is why we have trump in the white house. They promoted his campaign and now this. Everything for ratings. Disgusting.
    Javalin2016 7:26 AM EDT
    Why is Brian Williams even considered a journalist and why is he still on air?

    As for the other comments, we went down this rabbit hole before with W., and look where it got us.

    The media hasn't learned a thing in 16 years, so don't expect anything different when the Punk in Chief attacks a country that didn't attack us. Sounds familiar?

    edbyronadams 7:25 AM EDT
    The liberals sat on their hands when Obama ordered the firing of more than one hundred cruise missiles at Libya with less justification. They haven't got the credibility to complain now. Holding the "other party" accountable while ignoring the transgressions of your own won't carry much weight.
    michaelanncb 6:59 AM EDT
    Comp[letely agree. Anybody remember weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And why should Trump be so sympathetic to those poor children but he won;t let them in the U.S. and cuts foreign aid which will affect refugee camps? What were the media thinking to jump on this bandwagon? Can't ANYBODY be trusted?
    LeonDeZurich 6:19 AM EDT
    Who would have thought that all Trump needed to do to convince his critics was to throw some bombs around? What's Brian Williams going to call it if Trump uses nukes - a spectacular show? Count me among the disgusted.
    broaddusromu 3:13 AM EDT
    Sick, sick, and sicker. The United States is run by a sick and bloodthirsty collection of imbeciles who can only get their kicks by attacking and killing people who have done nothing to this country. Look at Iraq, and look at Libya. And their bloodthirsty dumbed-down constituents robotically cheer them on.

    This is what this land of liberty is truly about. My country, 'tis of thee.

    Eilis Nic Ionmhain 3:32 AM EDT
    It's not just the U.S. The international media and politicians are pleased with President Trump for the first time since he took office -or was even elected. "Getting along with people" or negotiating solutions, obviously didn't appeal to them. It seems that risking conflict with Russia, or plunging Syria into further difficulty, is a better deal.

    RT are the only source of criticism I've encountered, but that's from Moscow.

    If a show of strength is needed to extract a better settlement for the Syrian people, that's fine, but the comfortable reaction of President Trump's opponents creates worry as to what really drives them, and how that will impact in the Middle East, or in relations with Russia.

    51fordf2 1:49 AM EDT
    @Outofshape: Chemical weapons are not "outlawed" but are banned by an international treaty. But this treaty is only binding on the nations that ratify it. Three nations have not ratified and one has signed but not ratified. The treat took effect in 1997, not 100 years ago. This augments the Geneva Protocol which took effect in 1925, also not 100 years ago.
    Get real people, 4/8/2017 10:17 PM EDT [Edited]
    Trump succeeded AGAIN. The discussion of his ties to Russia have been pushed off the front page.

    Wow. So Trump is willing to kill to get the discussion off of him being a Russian puppet.

    Who will need to die when the Senate hearings get back underway?

    Mark Sparkman 4/8/2017 9:40 PM EDT
    The MSM is reliving the attacks on Baghdad - when the world and the American public was transfixed on the bombing and the anti-aircraft counters that night. They - the MSM - can't get over the drama of the night and the visual impact it had. They are continuously looking for a repeat performance.
    Andromeda5 4/8/2017 9:33 PM EDT [Edited]
    This strike was three-quarters distraction from the Russian collusion story and one quarter little man/baby itching to play with his big toys. Yeah, inching towards war, just what so many people feared when this moron got into power. I hope all the other morons who voted him into power will be happy with the US going to war all over the place and dragging everyone else into it ... yeah, the world thanks you *sarcasm* for those moron voters because you probably missed it being the morons that you are.
    DoNotEnterYourDisplayName 4/8/2017 10:04 PM EDT
    And yet the liberals are soiling themselves in delight over this bombing. In fact, Hillary Clinton has done several speeches/interviews in the last 48 hours calling for a full-scale bombing campaign against all Syrian military targets, even the ones embedded in civilian neighborhoods. Maybe stop shilling for a moment and realize that the MIC has its money sunk deep in the pockets of warmongers in both parties. Recognize that the problem transcends party. And, when you realize the scope of the problem, be glad that Trump isn't as trigger-happy as the rest of these clowns.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Former CIA Officer The Intelligence Confirms The Russian Account On Syria

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Robert Parry via ConsortiumNews.com,

    President Trump earned neocon applause for his hasty decision to attack Syria and kill about a dozen Syrians, but his rash act has all the earmarks of a "wag the dog" moment.

    Just two days after news broke of an alleged poison-gas attack in northern Syria, President Trump brushed aside advice from some U.S. intelligence analysts doubting the Syrian regime's guilt and launched a lethal retaliatory missile strike against a Syrian airfield.

    Trump immediately won plaudits from Official Washington, especially from neoconservatives who have been trying to wrestle control of his foreign policy away from his nationalist and personal advisers since the days after his surprise victory on Nov. 8.

    There is also an internal dispute over the intelligence. On Thursday night, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a "high degree of confidence" that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.

    But a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid.

    One intelligence source told me that the most likely scenario was a staged event by the rebels intended to force Trump to reverse a policy, announced only days earlier, that the U.S. government would no longer seek "regime change" in Syria and would focus on attacking the common enemy, Islamic terror groups that represent the core of the rebel forces.

    The source said the Trump national security team split between the President's close personal advisers, such as nationalist firebrand Steve Bannon and son-in-law Jared Kushner, on one side and old-line neocons who have regrouped under National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, an Army general who was a protιgι of neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus.

    White House Infighting

    In this telling, the earlier ouster of retired Gen. Michael Flynn as national security adviser and this week's removal of Bannon from the National Security Council were key steps in the reassertion of neocon influence inside the Trump presidency. The strange personalities and ideological extremism of Flynn and Bannon made their ousters easier, but they were obstacles that the neocons wanted removed.

    Though Bannon and Kushner are often presented as rivals, the source said, they shared the belief that Trump should tell the truth about Syria, revealing the Obama administration's CIA analysis that a fatal sarin gas attack in 2013 was a "false-flag" operation intended to sucker President Obama into fully joining the Syrian war on the side of the rebels - and the intelligence analysts' similar beliefs about Tuesday's incident.

    Instead, Trump went along with the idea of embracing the initial rush to judgment blaming Assad for the Idlib poison-gas event. The source added that Trump saw Thursday night's missile assault as a way to change the conversation in Washington, where his administration has been under fierce attack from Democrats claiming that his election resulted from a Russian covert operation .

    If changing the narrative was Trump's goal, it achieved some initial success with several of Trump's fiercest neocon critics, such as neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, praising the missile strike, as did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The neocons and Israel have long sought "regime change" in Damascus even if the ouster of Assad might lead to a victory by Islamic extremists associated with Al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State.

    Wagging the Dog

    Trump employing a "wag the dog" strategy, in which he highlights his leadership on an international crisis to divert attention from domestic political problems, is reminiscent of President Bill Clinton's decision to attack Serbia in 1999 as impeachment clouds were building around his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky.

    President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at joint press conference on Feb. 15. 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

    Trump's advisers, in briefing the press on Thursday night, went to great lengths to highlight Trump's compassion toward the victims of the poison gas and his decisiveness in bombing Assad's military in contrast to Obama's willingness to allow the intelligence community to conduct a serious review of the evidence surrounding the 2013 sarin-gas case.

    Ultimately, Obama listened to his intelligence advisers who told him there was no "slam-dunk" evidence implicating Assad's regime and he pulled back from a military strike at the last minute – while publicly maintaining the fiction that the U.S. government was certain of Assad's guilt.

    In both cases – 2013 and 2017 – there were strong reasons to doubt Assad's responsibility. In 2013, he had just invited United Nations inspectors into Syria to investigate cases of alleged rebel use of chemical weapons and thus it made no sense that he would launch a sarin attack in the Damascus suburbs, guaranteeing that the U.N. inspectors would be diverted to that case.

    Similarly, now, Assad's military has gained a decisive advantage over the rebels and he had just scored a major diplomatic victory with the Trump administration's announcement that the U.S. was no longer seeking "regime change" in Syria. The savvy Assad would know that a chemical weapon attack now would likely result in U.S. retaliation and jeopardize the gains that his military has achieved with Russian and Iranian help.

    The counter-argument to this logic – made by The New York Times and other neocon-oriented news outlets – essentially maintains that Assad is a crazed barbarian who was testing out his newfound position of strength by baiting President Trump. Of course, if that were the case, it would have made sense that Assad would have boasted of his act, rather than deny it.

    But logic and respect for facts no longer prevail inside Official Washington, nor inside the mainstream U.S. news media.

    Intelligence Uprising

    Alarm within the U.S. intelligence community about Trump's hasty decision to attack Syria reverberated from the Middle East back to Washington, where former CIA officer Philip Giraldi reported hearing from his intelligence contacts in the field that they were shocked at how the new poison-gas story was being distorted by Trump and the mainstream U.S. news media.

    Giraldi told Scott Horton's Webcast : "I'm hearing from sources on the ground in the Middle East, people who are intimately familiar with the intelligence that is available who are saying that the essential narrative that we're all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is a sham."

    Giraldi said his sources were more in line with an analysis postulating an accidental release of the poison gas after an Al Qaeda arms depot was hit by a Russian airstrike.

    "The intelligence confirms pretty much the account that the Russians have been giving which is that they hit a warehouse where the rebels – now these are rebels that are, of course, connected with Al Qaeda – where the rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear."

    Giraldi said the anger within the intelligence community over the distortion of intelligence to justify Trump's military retaliation was so great that some covert officers were considering going public.

    "People in both the agency [the CIA] and in the military who are aware of the intelligence are freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely misrepresented what he already should have known – but maybe he didn't – and they're afraid that this is moving toward a situation that could easily turn into an armed conflict," Giraldi said before Thursday night's missile strike. "They are astonished by how this is being played by the administration and by the U.S. media."

    One-Sided Coverage

    The mainstream U.S. media has presented the current crisis with the same profound neocon bias that has infected the coverage of Syria and the larger Middle East for decades. For instance, The New York Times on Friday published a lead story by Michael R. Gordon and Michael D. Shear that treated the Syrian government's responsibility for the poison-gas incident as flat-fact. The lengthy story did not even deign to include the denials from Syria and Russia that they were responsible for any intentional deployment of poison gas.

    The article also fit with Trump's desire that he be portrayed as a decisive and forceful leader. He is depicted as presiding over intense deliberations of war or peace and displaying a deep humanitarianism regarding the poison-gas victims, one of the rare moments when the Times, which has become a reliable neocon propaganda sheet, has written anything favorable about Trump at all.

    According to Syrian reports on Friday, the U.S. attack killed 13 people, including five soldiers at the airbase.

    Gordon, whose service to the neocon cause is notorious, was the lead author with Judith Miller of the Times' bogus "aluminum tube" story in 2002 which falsely claimed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting a nuclear-weapons program, an article that was then cited by President George W. Bush's aides as a key argument for invading Iraq in 2003.

    Regarding this week's events, Trump's desperation to reverse his negative media coverage and the dubious evidence blaming Assad for the Idlib incident could fit with the "Wag the Dog" movie from 1997 in which an embattled president creates a phony foreign crisis in Albania.

    A fake war scene in the dark 1997 comedy "Wag the Dog," which showed a girl and her cat fleeing a bombardment in Albania.

    In the movie, the White House operation is a cynical psychological operation to convince the American people that innocent Albanian children, including an attractive girl carrying a cat, are in danger when, In reality, the girl was an actor posing before a green screen that allowed scenes of fiery ruins to be inserted as background.

    Today, because Trump and his administration are now committed to convincing Americans that Assad really was responsible for Tuesday's poison-gas tragedy, the prospects for a full and open investigation are effectively ended. We may never know if there is truth to those allegations or whether we are being manipulated by another "wag the dog" psyop.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Russian FM US Secretary of State discuss US strike on Syria in phone call

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.rt.com
    A thorough and impartial investigation must be launched following the alleged chemical attack in Idlib, which the US cited as the reason for its missile strike, Lavrov told the American official.

    The US attack ordered by President Trump only played into terrorists' hands, Russia's top diplomat told Tillerson.

    US missile strike killed people fighting terrorists – top Assad adviser to RT

    The US Secretary of State is set to travel to Moscow next week and hold meetings with a number of Russian officials, including Lavrov.

    Experts should be sent to Syrian airbase attacked by US to carry out chemical probe – Russian MoD https://t.co/DKcy06LHNm pic.twitter.com/F4OXX2tDrA

    - RT (@RT_com) April 8, 2017

    Earlier Saturday, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson canceled his planned trip to Moscow. Citing the recent events in Syria, the UK official pulled out of the Russia trip just hours before he was supposed to depart. Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman has described the cancellation as "absurd."

    [Apr 09, 2017] Trump now supports removal of Assad and another American led genocide

    Notable quotes:
    "... This shit makes no sense and I am certain in years to come we will find out that this attack was instigated by the supposed allies of the US. ..."
    "... Where have all the little orange Trumpsters that were calling Clinton " Killary" and Obama warmonger gone now? ..."
    Apr 09, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com
    pittens -> tonystoke , 2d ago
    Replaced by isis and a another American led genocide.
    Phil Gollin -> tonystoke , 2d ago

    No, the USA is just being mindlessly violent. It has spent years supporting terrorist groups in Syria (both directly and via Saudi Arabia) - it is just a demonstration of US aggression and hypocrisy.

    Harvey North -> tonystoke, 2d ago

    Yeah, it would have been all sweetness and light, like Libya and Iraq if this action had been taken by Obama

    Peter Gunn -> tonystoke , 2d ago

    If this action had been taken by Obama

    The history of the post WW2 world is that the US has been on the wrong side on every big conflict although I will give you Serbia was complicated.

    Anything they do is wrong. This is a display of his prowess and to consider it as anything else is simplistic tosh

    roccov -> tonystoke , 7 Apr 2017 08:54

    finally there is a US president that doesn't ignore his own red lines.

    That's laughable. Trump crossed his own red line about not intervening in foreign wars. Also read this:

    Even more confounding was Trump's declaration that the Idlib gas attack crossed "many, many lines – beyond a red line". The comment came only hours after the president had lambasted Barack Obama for laying down the original red line on Assad's use of chemical weapons in 2012 and then not attacking when the line was crossed in August 2013.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/syria-chemical-attack-trump-administration-response-assad

    ThomasPaine3 -> FatCat08 , 7 Apr 2017 09:45
    The US were never bombing ISIL in all seriousness. If they were, they would have joined forces with Assad and Russia and ISIS would have been vaporized. The truth is rather more complex. ISIL is funded, supported and directed in its operations by Israeli, Saudi, Qatari and US assets on the ground in Syria. This was discovered after Aleppo fell. 18 members of the command structure of Al Nusra/ISIL were discovered in a bunker in East Aleppo while the Syrian army were evacuating the town. The 'rebels' to whom they gave safe passage - teamed up with those in Idlib and were responsible for another false flag operation to draw international outrage and US direct attacks on the Syrian armed forces.

    The only people laughing this morning are the head-chopping fascists, that the West hypocritically claims we must defeat. If anyone can't see that this chemical attack only benefitted Al Nusra they are either lying or stupid.

    jondonnis2000 , 7 Apr 2017 08:26
    I get the feeling he's only done it to say "Look, see, I'm not in bed with Russia". To devert the attention from the ongoing Russian links investigation.
    Earl_Grey , 7 Apr 2017 08:27
    It certainly appears to be a decision made on the run catching US allies off guard.

    Rather dangerous to have someone like this with the ability to start a nuclear war. Probably a good idea to stock up on non perishable food items.

    HHeLiBe , 7 Apr 2017 08:28
    Assad was finally at the point where he was ready to make his peace with the international community and continue ruling with their support.
    But he somehow managed to snatch failure from the jaws of success.
    No wonder the bumbling fool has left his nation in such disarray. Share Facebook Twitter
    Phil Gollin HHeLiBe , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    .

    Errrrr. . . . . I think you mean Trump there.

    londonhongkong1 HHeLiBe , 7 Apr 2017 08:36
    care to explain why he would launch an attack which has not brought the US into direct involvement in the conflict? Ah yes, he's a "bumbling fool"....that must be it.

    This shit makes no sense and I am certain in years to come we will find out that this attack was instigated by the supposed allies of the US.

    MABKenward -> MajorHumpage , 7 Apr 2017 08:53
    Oh look! Oil prices have jumped. Now, can you remind who's in Trump's team? Share Facebook Twitter
    Ranger75th -> MajorHumpage , 7 Apr 2017 09:25
    $800,000 * 59 = a lot of money.

    But this has been the policy of the US and UK for the last 25 years. Perpetual war in middle east. Surely we cannot blame trump. Trump did not even want to be involved there. But it must be difficult to be the POTUS and having dozens of lobbyists, advisors, generals all day remidning you that bombs is the only solution, you end up getting convinced

    Joe Dert -> ChrisD58 , 7 Apr 2017 08:43
    "Trump finally does something right"

    According to himself he didn't. There's a 2013 tweet where Trump told Obama to "save his powder" and not get involved in Syria over chemical weapons. Of course now he has the gall to criticize Obama for leaving a mess when Obama just did what Trump said. Consistently and clearness isn't exactly Trump's strong suit.

    Where have all the little orange Trumpsters that were calling Clinton " Killary" and Obama warmonger gone now?

    nishville -> hoytred , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    A passenger plane is shot down by someone, before the last piece hits the ground Russia is hit with the sanctions - evidence of the crime substituted by orchestrated media shrieks. Someone uses poisonous gas on civilians and Russian ally is attacked with cruise missiles - evidence of the crime is substituted by statements given by the only people who were caught using chemical weapons in Syria and yet another media lynch mob.

    We are pushed into war by a bunch of greedy murderous liars. None of them give two fucks about the Syrians or their children, they want their pipeline through Syria and it will be built even if it takes a murder of thousands of people. Do you realize what kind of monsters we allow to rule our lives?

    somebody_stopme , 7 Apr 2017 08:30
    Nothing is strong word. It accomplices demand for defence industries which they wanted. Share Facebook Twitter
    UrinalShuvinsky -> somebody_stopme , 7 Apr 2017 09:24
    Trump's meeting the Chinese premiere this week, so no doubt he thinks this will send the message that he's not to be messed with, a man of action etc. Of course the Chinese will be thinking things like 'idiotic, hasty, premature,' etc. But yes, guided cruise missiles cost a few million a pop, so spunking a 59 on a dusty Syrian airfield full of (mostly inoperative) ancient rusting Migs will do the arms suppliers no harm.
    Commentator6 , 7 Apr 2017 08:30
    Assad with Russian help has pretty much won this war so why would he use WMD's at this point?

    The US must provide proof of this use of WMD ... chucking 59 cruise missiles into the mix without checking your facts seems somewhat careless.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Trump, Syria, and Chemical Weapons What We Know, What We Dont, and the Dangers Ahead naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... I can't verify the symptoms of sarin, but if you watch the videos posted you will note the people walking among the victims and those picking up and carrying victims are not wearing any protective gear. No gas masks, no protective suits, no protective footwear, and no gloves. ..."
    "... I'd say this pretty well rules out sarin, because sarin can be absorbed through the skin. ..."
    Apr 09, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Damson , April 7, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    More ( repost of comment on Moon of Alabama):

    This best way to see immediately that the victims have not died from sarin intoxication is that in almost every case their skin is red/pink. Sarin turns people blue - always. Sarin makes people puke on themselves, urinate on themselves, shit themselves. Show me the evidence of sarin. Scores and scores of "sarin victims," not a single one has the constellation of symptoms produced by sarin. Not a single one.

    The red/pink color of the victims in the vids suggests the people were executed with cyanide or carbon monoxide, which, in turn, suggests these scenes are staged after the executions. The evidence for KS is just now being collected. The evidence for Ghouta is very, very strong: those people were gassed by the terrorists using, probably, CO.

    Please quit spreading the lie that these are sarin victims and sarin attacks. They are false flags and now that there is a moron in the WH we see how effective those false flags will be unless the public understands what is going on biologically.

    My PhD is in pharmacology, specializing in neuropharmacology, University of Virginia. My postdoc was at Harvard in neurosciences. I am a lawyer. I know bullshit when I smell it. This sarin bullshit has to stop. " (Posted by: Denis | Apr 7, 2017 8:09:40 AM | 47)

    Procopius , April 8, 2017 at 10:23 am

    I can't verify the symptoms of sarin, but if you watch the videos posted you will note the people walking among the victims and those picking up and carrying victims are not wearing any protective gear. No gas masks, no protective suits, no protective footwear, and no gloves.

    I'd say this pretty well rules out sarin, because sarin can be absorbed through the skin.

    If you thought someone was the victim of sarin you would not want to expose your bare skin to possible residue. I say this based on the CBR training I got in the Army thirty years ago. Maybe current doctrine is different.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Russia condemns US missile strike on Syria, suspends key air agreement by David Filipov

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

    President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said the risk of confrontation between aerial assets of the U.S.-led coalition and Russia has "significantly increased" after President Trump ordered the launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base in retaliation for a chemical attack that killed scores of civilians.

    Later Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that it has officially informed the United States that it is suspending its obligations under the memorandum at midnight.

    Under the pact, the two countries have traded information about flights by a U.S.-led coalition targeting the Islamic State and Russian planes operating in Syria in support of the Assad government. Moscow was taking its action, the Defense Ministry said, because it sees the U.S. strike "as a grave violation of the memorandum."

    During a special U.N. Security Council session on the airstrikes Friday, Russia's United Nations envoy condemned what he called an "illegitimate action by the United States."

    "The consequences of this for regional and international stability could be extremely serious," Deputy Ambassador Vladimir Safronkov said. "The U.S. has often talked about the need to combat international terrorism," he said, yet it attacked the Syrian air force, which he claimed is leading that fight in Syria.

    "It's not difficult to imagine how much the spirits of terrorists have been raised by this action from the United States," Safronkov said.

    ... ... ...

    The council has set aside for now a separate discussion of whether to condemn the Assad government for Tuesday's chemical attack. Russia is expected to veto a resolution supported by the United States, Britain and France.

    Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, earlier claimed that the Syrian government had no chemical weapons and dismissed the Trump administration's explanation as an excuse to enter the conflict.

    "President Putin considers the American strikes against Syria an aggression against a sovereign government in violations of the norms of international law, and under a far-fetched pretext," Peskov told reporters. "This step by Washington is causing significant damage to Russian-American relations, which are already in a deplorable state."

    ... ... ..

    Konashenkov said the attack destroyed a warehouse, classrooms, a cafeteria, six Mig-23 fighter jets that were being repaired and a radar station. The runway and other aircraft were not affected, he said.

    ... ... ...

    Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry, also dismissed the U.S. assertion that the attacks were a response to this week's chemical weapon attack in northern Syria, which left scores dead in a village in Idlib province - one of the last strongholds of anti-Assad factions.

    "It is obvious that the strike by U.S. cruise missiles was prepared well in advance," Zakharova said on Russian state television. "It is clear to any specialist that the decision to deliver the strikes was made in Washington before the Idlib events, which were simply used as a pretext for demonstrating force."

    Putin's spokesman said the Russian president considered the attack an attempt to distract attention from the heavy civilian casualties caused by a U.S.-backed offensive to capture the northern Iraqi city of Mosul from the Islamic State group.

    Dan Lamothe and David Nakamura in Washington and Andrew Roth in Moscow contributed to this report.

    Jeff Black, 4/8/2017 3:46 AM EDT [Edited]

    You Liberals lost the election because you had a failed candidate. This led you to your safe rooms where you thumb sucked and did your bed wetting while playing with your tinker toys and dreamed of a Russian conspiracy between Putin and Trump. Got any evidence on the Russian deal? I didn't think so.

    3August, 4/7/2017 9:52 PM EDT

    For a British diplomatic official to call Assada a war criminal is beyond reason. He is a duly elected leader of a sovereign country who is fighting not only opposition rebels but also international terrorist within his country. He is not attacking other countries as is the West. Who has destroyed Yemen with the help of the US, Saudia Arabia. They are the true war criminals!

    georgex9 4/7/2017 9:31 PM EDT
    The U.S. policy of trying change dictatorships has not been working in the Middle East. And, yet, here we are in Syria trying to oust this brutal dictator who now has support from Russia. Our objective in Syria ought to be limited to defeating radical religious fanatics like ISIS. If Assad is replaced who knows what subsequent turmoil will follow. Of course, the warmongers in Congress are happy with this missile attack in Syria. This means more profits for the makers of the cruise weapons.
    whatthe---- 4/7/2017 10:39 PM EDT
    What's to complain about, more jobs now available in the munitions industry.

    ezpaddler, 4/7/2017 8:18 PM EDT [Edited]

    The President is prohibited from starting a war without the approval of Congress unless we are under the threat of impending attack. This of course is not the case.

    Once again Trump ignores the Constitution.

    NS Bingo, 4/7/2017 8:32 PM EDT

    Just like Bill Clinton bombed an Aspirin factory without approval from congress.

    ezpaddler, 4/7/2017 8:50 PM EDT

    Why do neocons always try to defend the crimes of NOW by referencing the past?
    Weak, pathetic, Sad.

    BostonCommon, 4/7/2017 7:43 PM EDT

    Why not Trump in front of the Hague for crimes against humanity? With 3 military actions he has killed over 150 children.. Mosul 300 civilians, mostly children.. Syria attack last night 6 children... And the Navy Seal engagement a few days after his Inaugural.. 7 children.
    And he hasnt even been office 100 days..

    supermoe88, 4/7/2017 7:38 PM EDT

    While the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and should be condemned, since when was the U.S. the globally elected policeman of the world? No country has the right to attack another sovereign country, which has not initiated an attack on it, without an approved UN resolution. This is an illegal act and a blatant violation of international law, as Putin rightly states. If Trump is so concerned by the killing of babies then why has he not condemned the killing of babies by the U.S. bombing of innocent civilians and babies in Iraq last week?? What a double standard!

    Vladdie Luvs Donnie, 4/7/2017 7:39 PM EDT

    We're the biggest Suckers.

    BostonCommon, 4/7/2017 7:23 PM EDT

    biggest winners today? ISIS.. That airfield launched bombing raids on them, as well.

    AMR56 4/7/2017 6:53 PM EDT
    I've been watching "Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket" recently. It's clear to me that history is repeating itself in East Ukraine and Syria.

    America is the world's most powerful country. It needs to make the right decisions about which side to back...otherwise defeat beckons. Again.

    sasha59 4/7/2017 6:44 PM EDT
    So MAGA hat wearing Trump lovers, are you or your kids ready to take off that hat, put on a helmet and some Kevlar, and go fight in Donny's new war if this escalates?

    [Apr 09, 2017] As a result of President Trump's actions, that provision has now become a dead letter. The last constraints inhibiting the use of force by whoever happens to be commander-in-chief have now disappeared. When it comes to initiating hostilities, the occupant of the Oval Office is now omnipotent

    Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Being omnipotent to unleash military actions is a sign of imperial presidency, and the sign that the US is not longer democracy, even if we assume that it was for some period of time such a republic.
    But Bacevich conveniently forgot that this was situation did not suddenly appeared with Trump -- the case with several previous Us presidents.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs.. April 08, 2017 at 10:21 AM

    Trump doesn't have authority to order strikes against Syria
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/04/07/trump-doesn-have-authority-order-strikes-against-syria/AwUgfHIvGctBS0ImGTHGFM/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe - Andrew J. Bacevich April 07, 2017

    Let's be clear: Syria's Bashar Assad is a bum and probably a war criminal. Yet it does not follow that the president of the United States possesses the authority to order an armed attack on the sovereign state that Assad governs.

    That authority rests with the Congress, as Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly states. As a result of President Trump's actions, that provision has now become a dead letter. The last constraints inhibiting the use of force by whoever happens to be commander-in-chief have now disappeared. When it comes to initiating hostilities, the occupant of the Oval Office is now omnipotent.

    Granted, presidents have been encroaching on congressional war powers for decades now. At least since Harry Truman ordered US troops into Korea back in 1950, the role allotted Congress in authorizing the use of force has eroded. Not since December 1941 has Congress actually "declared" war, now a quaint notion akin to asking your girlfriend's dad for her hand in marriage.

    True, to sustain a pretense of relevance, Congress has periodically issued broad statements that essentially give presidents a free hand to do as they see fit. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 offers one infamous example of this practice. The so-called Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, passed with minimal debate on September 14, 2001, offers a second.

    That document directs the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the events of 9/11. In effect, it says to the president: You decide; just keep us safe.

    The AUMF is the ultimate blank check. In the 15-plus years since, senior US officials have cited it as a basis for conducting military operations against various and sundry evildoers who had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. It has become the point of departure for permanent war conducted according to the whim of whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office. What's left to the Congress is simply to pay the bills, which it does routinely with minimal complaint or partisan bickering. When it comes to funding wars, bipartisanship reigns.

    Small wonder then that in initiating hostilities against Syria, Trump felt no need to consult Congress. In what the New York Times describes as a "meeting of considerable length," he huddled with a handful of aides - more than a few of them career military officers - and rendered a decision. From start to finish, the process consumed less time than Trump normally spends in signing off on the construction of a new luxury golf resort.

    All indications suggest that this one military action - not much more than a pinprick really - is a mere prelude. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has announced that regime change in Syria has now become an administration priority. Unless Assad goes voluntarily, that suggests the prospect of further US military action, the nature and duration of which remain to be seen. Always eager to "support the troops," a compliant Congress will pony up the necessary funds. The $54 billion increase to the Pentagon budget that Trump has already requested will be just for starters.

    Perhaps Trump will convene another "meeting of considerable length" to assess the consequences likely to follow if and when Assad is finally removed. We must hope so. The previous results of regime change - Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 - suggest that the real trouble begins after the evil dictator leaves the scene. ...

    [Apr 09, 2017] Full blown neo-McCartism is now politically correct in the USA

    Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. -> BenIsNotYoda... , April 07, 2017 at 01:39 PM
    If there is some connection, it will come out after some time. Comey said there was an FBI investigation into Russian interference in the election. The former National Security adviser Flynn wants an immunity deal.

    But the liberals like PGL have certainly gone hysterical in that it reminds me of McCarthyism. They'd rather talk about the traitors than why Hillary lost the election to a buffoon. Samantha Bee joked that the Russian hackers who spread fake news in Midwest swing states had a better game plan than Hillary.

    The center-left cant' believe they lost to Trump. So they focus on Russia, the external enemy.

    Kind of like wagging the dog.

    Sanjait -> Peter K.... , April 07, 2017 at 11:37 PM
    The Trump Organization subsisted for years off Russian oligarch money and his campaign and administration are lousy with people paid directly by them for political activities including his son.

    And you wonder "if" there is a connection? Bless your useful heart.

    ilsm -> Sanjait... , April 08, 2017 at 06:48 AM
    while the Clinton

    mob took Sunni

    royals' money

    in exchange for US

    keeping the Shi'a down

    it is different'

    when it is

    slaughter by US'

    puppet masters

    ilsm -> BenIsNotYoda... , April 07, 2017 at 05:36 PM
    What is the difference between Watergate and Obama wire tapping Trump and the GOP?

    Nixon did not trash the US constitution.

    If you think that is peanuts I suggest you look at pictures of US cemeteries in France.

    Sanjait -> ilsm... , April 07, 2017 at 11:38 PM
    I'm going to bet you are a 9/11 truther, and I suspect you're also the type who thinks fluoridated water is some kind of conspiracy.
    ilsm -> Sanjait... , April 08, 2017 at 06:52 AM
    your thinking skills

    are suspect

    what would you

    risk to find out?

    you do well betting?

    as Twain said

    it is difficult

    to argue with

    non "thinkers"

    they bring you

    into their delusion

    and beat you

    with experience

    libezkova -> Sanjait... , April 08, 2017 at 10:29 AM
    "I'm going to bet you are a 9/11 truther"

    I am going to bet that you are Hillary email scandal denier. And worse -- clueless jingoist, who get your all foreign policy information from the CNN and then uncritically regurgitate this neoliberal propaganda here.

    Each of us has a set of positions, and there should be some level of respect of them despite differences, because it is the debate that gets us closer to the truth.

    And it is a required behavior for those, who like you continuously try to show up your university education, despite the evidence to the contrary that that their posts often produce.

    The real sign of the university education is the tolerance toward the opponents. It is badly lacking in your behavior in this forum.

    [Apr 08, 2017] Was Trumps Syria Strike Illegal?

    Apr 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 10:29 AM
    Was Trump's Syria Strike Illegal? Explaining
    Presidential War Powers https://nyti.ms/2oaFfoB
    NYT - CHARLIE SAVAGE -mAPRIL 7, 2017

    WASHINGTON - President Trump ordered the military on Thursday to carry out a missile attack on Syrian forces for using chemical weapons against civilians. The unilateral attack lacked authorization from Congress or from the United Nations Security Council, raising the question of whether he had legal authority to commit the act of war.

    Mr. Trump and top members of his administration initially justified the operation as a punishment for Syria's violating the ban on chemical weapons and an attempt at deterrence. But they did not make clear whether that was a legal argument or just a policy rationale.

    The strike raises two sets of legal issues. One involves international law and when it is lawful for any nation to attack another. The other involves domestic law and who gets to decide - the president or Congress - whether the United States should attack another country.

    Did Trump have clear authority under international law to attack Syria?

    No. The United Nations Charter, a treaty the United States has ratified, recognizes two justifications for using force on another country's soil without its consent: the permission of the Security Council or a self-defense claim. In the case of Syria, the United Nations did not approve the strike, and the Defense Department justified it as "intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again," which is not self-defense.

    Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, in a briefing with reporters, invoked Syria's violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a related Security Council resolution from 2013, saying, "The use of prohibited chemical weapons, which violates a number of international norms and violates existing agreements, called for this type of a response, which is a kinetic military response."

    However, while the resolution said the Security Council would impose "measures" if anyone used chemical weapons in Syria in the future, it did not directly authorize force. The chemical weapons treaty does not provide an enforcement mechanism authorizing other parties to attack violators as punishment.

    Mr. Trump's attack was different from the United States' bombings targeting the Islamic State in rebel-held areas of Syria. The United States has justified those airstrikes as part of the collective self-defense of Iraq, which asked for help against the group. But Syria did not use its chemical weapons against the United States or an ally like Iraq.

    Could the strike be justified as a humanitarian intervention?

    Some human rights advocates have argued that customary international law, which develops from the practices of states, also permits using force to stop an atrocity. Others worry that accepting such a doctrine could create a loophole that would be subject to misuse, eroding important constraints on war. The United States has not taken the position that humanitarian interventions are lawful absent Security Council authorization.

    Still, in 1999, the United States participated in NATO's air war to stop the Serbian ethnic-cleansing campaign in Kosovo, even though the operation lacked a Security Council authorization. The Clinton administration never offered a clear explanation for why that operation complied with international law. Instead, it cited a list of "factors" - like the threat to peace and stability and the danger of a humanitarian disaster - without offering a theory for why those factors made that war lawful. In a seeming acknowledgment that this was dubious, the administration said the Kosovo intervention should not serve as a precedent.

    Did Trump have domestic legal authority to attack Syria?

    The answer is murky because of a split between the apparent intent of the Constitution and how the country has been governed in practice. Most legal scholars agree that the founders wanted Congress to decide whether to go to war, except when the country is under an attack. But presidents of both parties have a long history of carrying out military operations without authorization from Congress, especially since the end of World War II, when the United States maintained a large standing army instead of demobilizing.

    In the modern era, executive branch lawyers have argued that the president, as commander in chief, may use military force unilaterally if he decides a strike would be in the national interest, at least when its anticipated nature, scope and duration fall short of "a 'war' in the constitutional sense," as a Clinton administration lawyer wrote in the context of a contemplated intervention in Haiti. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 10:35 AM
    The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

    The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. ... (Wikipedia)

    (That is, IN THE SHORT TERM, the President
    can do 'as necessary', i.e., as he pleases,
    with US armed forces, overseas at least.)

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 11:12 AM
    War without an endgame in Syria
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2017/04/07/esyria/YAuy4QnGZYGsCvWC8PGNdN/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe - editorial - April 8

    'The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory," wrote Sun Tzu in his book "The Art of War."

    That's good advice - and advice that the author of "The Art of the Deal" should take to heart when thinking about the act of war that he unilaterally ordered this week against the Syrian regime. A cruise missile fusillade is an efficient way to wreck an airbase. But it is only a military tactic, not a strategy for victory.

    To be sure, there won't be any victors in the years-long human tragedy unfolding in Syria. The poison gas used against civilians there is a stark reminder of man's capacity for indiscriminate cruelty as well as the international community's inability or unwillingness to restrain it.

    Restraint is important when it comes to waging war. It is the reason our constitution prevents the president from launching one alone. Congress restrains the executive by approving or rejecting war. Donald Trump certainly thought so when he tweeted, on August 30, 2013: "The President must get congressional approval before attacking Syria - big mistake if he does not!" Just so. Congress considered military action in Syria after a poison gas attack and opposed it.

    Trump must seek immediate congressional approval for continued conflict in Syria. The idea that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks is somehow applicable here is farcical. The Assad regime is not Al Qaeda.

    One of the first questions that legislators will - or should - ask, and which the president must explain, is this: What are US goals in Syria, and how will these particular military actions help achieve them? There may indeed be answers to those questions, but they have yet to be brought before the American people, in whose name those missiles are being fired.

    Articulating a coherent strategy and the way that strategy will be implemented is critical, because it forces a unity of effort between military, diplomatic, humanitarian, and intelligence efforts, which have often been at cross purposes.

    The Trump administration is coming late to the war in Syria. Yet it seems keen to fight first and afterwards look for a victory. What they should also be looking for is an exit strategy from one of the world's bloodiest quagmires.

    (Indeed, given that there ARE US troops on the
    ground in Syria, and have been for some time,
    an AUMF would seem to be necessary.)

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 11:50 AM
    The US has not listened to Sun Tsu since 1945.

    In Syria US is bin Laden's heirs and assigns' Air Force.

    While no one sees pictures of starving Shiite kids in Yemen. Or the results of cluster munitions on civilians in Sanaa.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 11:47 AM
    There is no evidence for the national government of Syria to have done the 2013 or last week's supposed sarin attacks.

    http://www.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217

    Unless I see evidence of ordnance that delivered the volatile liquefied sarin, and there would be plenty, I will not accept the unsubstantiated fake news from NYT.

    To say Assad had nothing to lose is mind reading.

    US will bomb away toward regime change and another Yemen for less truth than this.

    And passing jihadi propaganda as reason for becoming their air support is insane.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , April 08, 2017 at 12:37 PM
    ... Victims of a suspected chemical attack in Syria appeared to show symptoms consistent with reaction to a nerve agent, the World Health Organization said on Wednesday.

    "Some cases appear to show additional signs consistent with exposure to organophosphorus chemicals, a category of chemicals that includes nerve agents," WHO said in a statement, putting the death toll at at least 70.

    The United States has said the deaths were caused by sarin nerve gas dropped by Syrian aircraft. Russia has said it believes poison gas had leaked from a rebel chemical weapons depot struck by Syrian bombs.

    Syria attack symptoms consistent with nerve agent
    use: WHO http://reut.rs/2nWTdZo via @Reuters

    (It is the Trump admin that says Assad is to blame.)

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 01:28 PM
    Symptoms are not evidence that the agent, whether sarin or bug spray from a plant trying to make sarin (see Bhopal), was delivered the by government.

    If by jets, or helos the canisters and bomblet debris would be just as easy to show as distraught fathers who support terrorists.

    Or, the government could have flown a crop duster....... with sprayer bars...... at night and caught by US radar!!!

    Too much innuendo to justify shooting 59 cruise missiles to shut the runway for a few hours and destroy a few broken, old jets

    [Apr 08, 2017] Theyre terrified that peace was going to break out – Ron Paul on US Syria strike

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I don't think the evidence is there, at least it hasn't been presented, and they need a so-called excuse, they worked real hard, our government and their coalition." ..."
    "... "If any of this was true, I don't know why they couldn't wait and take a look at it. In 2013, there were similar stories that didn't go anywhere, because with a little bit of a pause, there was a resistance to it built in our Congress and in the American people. They thought that it was a fraud and nothing like that was happening, and right now, I just can't think of how it could conceivably be what they claim, because it's helping ISIS, because it's helping Al-Qaeda." ..."
    "... "From my point of view, there was no need to rush. There was no threat to national security. They have to give a reason to do these things," ..."
    "... The Syrian situation now is "a victory for neo-conservatives, who've been looking for Assad to go," ..."
    "... "I don't believe that our people or the American government should be the policemen of the world, it makes no sense, it causes us more trouble and more grief, it causes us more financial problems, and it's hardly a way that we could defend our constitutional liberty." ..."
    "... "The peace talks have ended now. They're terrified that peace was going to break out! Al-Qaeda was on the run, peace talks were happening, and all of a sudden, they had to change, and this changes things dramatically! I don't expect peace talks anytime soon or in the distant future." ..."
    Apr 08, 2017 | www.rt.com

    "A victory of neo-conservatives" – that's how Ron Paul, a former member of the US House of Representatives and three-time presidential candidate, described the US strike on Syria, adding that he does not expect peace talks to resume any time soon. Speaking to RT, Ron Paul said that there is no proof of Damascus' guilt that could trigger such a rash and violent response from the US.

    "I don't think the evidence is there, at least it hasn't been presented, and they need a so-called excuse, they worked real hard, our government and their coalition."

    This is not the first time something like this has happened in Syria or elsewhere, Paul said, but now it is convenient to pay attention and react immediately.

    "If any of this was true, I don't know why they couldn't wait and take a look at it. In 2013, there were similar stories that didn't go anywhere, because with a little bit of a pause, there was a resistance to it built in our Congress and in the American people. They thought that it was a fraud and nothing like that was happening, and right now, I just can't think of how it could conceivably be what they claim, because it's helping ISIS, because it's helping Al-Qaeda."

    "From my point of view, there was no need to rush. There was no threat to national security. They have to give a reason to do these things," Paul added.

    A factor that contributed to the speedy reaction was of course the US president, the politician told RT.

    "I have no idea what his purpose was. Maybe he just didn't want to hear the debate, because the last time they debated it, they lost. And this time, it was necessary for them to jump onto this, before people came to know what was really going on."

    The Syrian situation now is "a victory for neo-conservatives, who've been looking for Assad to go," Paul said.

    "They want to get rid of him, and you have to look for who is involved in that. Unfortunately, they are the ones who are winning out on this, and the radicals, too! There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here, because at one minute we say, well, maybe Assad has to stay, the next day he has to go, and we're there fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At the same time, what we end up doing is we actually strengthen them! It is a mess.

    "I don't believe that our people or the American government should be the policemen of the world, it makes no sense, it causes us more trouble and more grief, it causes us more financial problems, and it's hardly a way that we could defend our constitutional liberty."

    This policy clearly does not lead to peace, Paul told RT.

    "The peace talks have ended now. They're terrified that peace was going to break out! Al-Qaeda was on the run, peace talks were happening, and all of a sudden, they had to change, and this changes things dramatically! I don't expect peace talks anytime soon or in the distant future."

    Last but not least, the politician spoke out about the deeper reasons – and potential disastrous consequences – of the latest attack's timing.

    "I was wondering about the fact that the announcement came when Trump was talking to Xi [Jinping, the Chinese president]. And of course, [North] Korea's high on the list of targets for our president and our administration. It might be a warning: this is what's going to happen to you if you don't do what we tell you. I just don't like us being involved in so many countries, in their internal affairs; I think it's so detrimental."

    READ MORE:

    [Apr 08, 2017] US just flew tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM) in order to support al Qaeda, acting essentially as Al Qaeda air force.

    Apr 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Chris G ... , April 07, 2017 at 05:23 PM
    We could have Hillary in the oval office. Trump applied Obama doctrine of 'unjust peace has to be stopped by just cruise missiles aiding terrorists'.

    Soviet cluster munitions (CBUs)in Afghanistan were evil. Saudi cluster munitions killing Shi'a kids in Yemen are "leadership". CBU's artillery shells dispensing bomblets and land mines are banned by other treaties the US does not follow.

    Pix of dead kids only matter in Syria. US double standard.

    US just flew tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM) support for al Qaeda!

    [Apr 08, 2017] CIA bluff: Brennan claims that CIA had Evidence of Russian Effort to Help Trump Earlier Than Believed

    Looks like John O. Brennan , then the CIA director was a very important player in creating anti-Russian hysteria. Who put a lot of efforts is fanning the "Russian threat" meme designed to suppress Hillary email scandal and DNC revelations. some senators such as McCain and Reid also played a role: "Mr. Reid fired off another letter on Oct. 30, accusing Mr. Comey of a "double standard" in reviving the Clinton investigation while sitting on "explosive information" about possible ties between Russia and Mr. Trump."
    Apr 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    pgl, April 07, 2017 at 11:41 AM

    So on the same night, we sent missiles against an Assad airbase, the New York Times rant this story:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/trump-russia-cia-john-brennan.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

    CIA Had Evidence of Russian Effort to Help Trump Earlier Than Believed

    ilsm -> pgl... , April 07, 2017 at 05:47 PM
    No way could Russia have done worse than the crooks in the DNC!

    Besides the Russia Putin canard diverts attention from the DNC trashing of the constitution.....

    libezkova -> ilsm... , April 08, 2017 at 12:31 PM
    I suspect that this is more of an attempt to unite the divided nation (and, especially, the Democratic Party), in which the majority of population now rejects official ideology of neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization. With trust in official institution such as Congress, at dangerously low levels. And rumors (aka "fake news") rampant due to lack of trust in discredited official media channels. Proliferation of rumors ("improvised news") as Tamotsu Shubitani noted in his book ( https://www.amazon.com/Improvised-News-Sociological-Study-Rumor/dp/0672511487 ) is a definitive sign of the crisis of legitimacy of the ruling elite and/or dominant ideology of a given society. Sign of growing level of distrust.

    War hysteria is a proven cure in such circumstances. It also helps to suppress Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Susan A. Brewer is Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point book, Why America Fights: Patriotism and War Propaganda from the Philippines to Iraq, told a fascinating history of how the US elite has conducted what Donald Rumsfeld called "perception management" on the US population:

    == quote ==

    10. WE FIGHT TO STOP ANOTHER HITLER. There was only one Hitler, but he lives on in wartime propaganda since World War II.

    9. WE FIGHT OVER THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT HERE. In this message, America typically is portrayed as a pastoral land of small towns, not as an urban, industrialized and militant superpower.

    8. WE FIGHT CLEAN WARS WITH SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY. This message suggests that U.S. troops will not be in much danger, nor will innocent civilians be killed in what is projected to be a quick and decisive conflict.

    7. WE FIGHT TO PROTECT WOMEN AND CHILDREN. A traditional theme of war propaganda since ancient times, it is accompanied by compelling visuals and heartrending stories.

    6. WE FIGHT BRUTISH, FANATICAL ENEMIES. Another classic, it dehumanizes enemy fighters.

    5. WE FIGHT TO UNITE THE NATION. Here war is shown to heal old wounds and unify the divisions caused by the Civil War, class conflict, racial and ethnic differences, or past failures such as the Vietnam War.

    4. WE FIGHT FOR THE FLAG AND THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. The trend has been to emphasize the flag over the republic. The more flags on display, the less likely the people's elected representatives will debate foreign policy or exercise their power to declare war.

    3. WE FIGHT TO LIBERATE THE OPPRESSED. When the oppressed resist U.S. help, they appear ungrateful and in need of American guidance especially if they have valuable resources.

    2. WE FIGHT TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE. During the Philippine War, for example, this message advised that Uncle Sam knew what was best for the little brown brothers.

    1. WE FIGHT TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. Although the American way of life stands for peace, it requires a lot of fighting.

    == end of quote ==

    So it like the real goal of current warmongering hysteria is to unite the nation in general and Democratic Party in particular against the common enemy, using Russian threat as a scapegoat.

    This also helps to preserve the grip of Clinton (neoliberal) wing on Democratic Party, because after Hillary momentous fiasco, in normal circumstances, all of them need to go and be replaced with Sanders wing appointees.

    [Apr 07, 2017] Syria The Toxic Meltdown

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump – and/or the alphabet soup of US intelligence agencies, with no detailed investigation – are convinced that the Russian Ministry of Defense is simply lying. ..."
    "... Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov, stressing "fully objective and verified" information, identified a Syrian Air Force strike launched against a "moderate rebel" warehouse east of the town of Khan Sheikhoun used to both produce and store shells containing toxic gas. ..."
    "... Konashenkov added the same chemicals had been used by "rebels" in Aleppo late last year, according to samples collected by Russian military experts. ..."
    "... And Western public opinion conveniently forgot that before Barack Obama's theoretically trespassed red line on chemical weapons, a secret US intelligence report had made it clear that Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, had mastered the sarin gas-making cycle and was capable of producing it in quantity. ..."
    "... So those toxic weapons that "disappeared" – en masse - from Gaddafi's arsenals in 2011 ended up upgrading al-Qaeda in Syria (not the Islamic Stare/Daesh), re-baptized Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and widely described across the Beltway as "moderate rebels". ..."
    "... Trump's ambassador to the UN, Heritage Foundation asset Nikki Haley, predictably went ballistic, monopolizing the whole Western news cycle. Lost in oblivion, also predictably, was Russia's deputy UN ambassador Vladimir Safronkov shattering to bits the West's "obsession with regime change" in Syria, which is "what hinders this Security Council." ..."
    "... Idlib Chemical Attack: West Blames Assad Even Before Probe Launched Safronkov stressed the chemical attack in Idlib was based on "falsified reports from the White Helmets", an organization that has been "discredited long ago". Indeed; but now the Helmets are Oscar winners , and this pop culture badge of honor renders them unassailable – not to mention immune to the effects of sarin gas. ..."
    "... The dead "children of Syria" are now pawns in a much larger, perverse game. The US government may have killed a million men, women and children in Iraq – and there was no serious outcry among the "elites" across the NATO spectrum. A war criminal still at large admitted , on the record, that the snuffing out, directly and indirectly, of 500,000 Iraqi children was "justified." ..."
    "... For his part, Nobel Peace Prize Barack Obama instrumentalized the House of Saud to fund – and weaponize - some 40 outfits "vetted" by the CIA in Syria. Several of these outfits had in fact already merged with, or were absorbed by, Jabhat al-Nusra, now Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. And they all engaged in their own massacres of civilians. ..."
    "... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. ..."
    Apr 07, 2017 | sputniknews.com
    Syria: The Toxic Meltdown © AFP 2017/ Omar haj kadour Columnists 19:29 06.04.2017 Get short URL Pepe Escobar 6 3147 52 0

    "These heinous acts by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated." Thus spoke the President of the United States.

    Instant translation;

    Donald Trump – and/or the alphabet soup of US intelligence agencies, with no detailed investigation – are convinced that the Russian Ministry of Defense is simply lying.

    Using Chemical Weapons Against Civilians? Assad 'Would Never Make Such a Crazy Move' That's a pretty serious charge.

    Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov, stressing "fully objective and verified" information, identified a Syrian Air Force strike launched against a "moderate rebel" warehouse east of the town of Khan Sheikhoun used to both produce and store shells containing toxic gas.

    Konashenkov added the same chemicals had been used by "rebels" in Aleppo late last year, according to samples collected by Russian military experts.

    Still, Trump felt compelled to telegraph what is now his own red line in Syria; "Militarily, I don't like to say when I'm going and what I'm doing. I'm not saying I won't do anything one way or another, but I certainly won't be telling you [the media]."

    By his side at the White House lawn, the pathetic King Playstation of Jordan praised Trump's "realistic approach to the challenges in the region." This might pass as a Monty Python sketch. Unfortunately, it's reality.

    What's at stake in Idlib

    Washington 'Knows Damascus Has No Chemical Weapons', But Still Blames Assad Hysteria unleashed – once again -, Western public opinion conveniently forgot that declared chemical weapons held by Damascus had been destroyed way back in 2014 on board of a US maritime vessel, no less, under UN supervision.

    And Western public opinion conveniently forgot that before Barack Obama's theoretically trespassed red line on chemical weapons, a secret US intelligence report had made it clear that Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, had mastered the sarin gas-making cycle and was capable of producing it in quantity.

    Not to mention that the Obama administration and its allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar had made a secret pact in 2012 to set up a sarin gas attack and blame Damascus, setting the scene for a Shock and Awe replay. Funding for the project came from the NATO-GCC connection coupled with a CIA-MI6 connection, a.k.a. rat line , of transferring all manner of weapons from Libya to Salafi-jihadis in Syria.

    So those toxic weapons that "disappeared" – en masse - from Gaddafi's arsenals in 2011 ended up upgrading al-Qaeda in Syria (not the Islamic Stare/Daesh), re-baptized Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and widely described across the Beltway as "moderate rebels".

    'Red Line' Revisited? What's Behind Trump Accusing Damascus of Reported Chemical Attack in Syria Cornered in Idlib province, these "rebels" are now the top target of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the Russian Air Force. Damascus and Moscow, unlike Washington, are bent on smashing the whole Salafi-jihadi galaxy, not only Daesh. If the SAA continues to advance, and if these "rebels" lose Idlib, it's game over.

    So the offensive by Damascus had to be smeared, no holds barred, in full view of global public opinion.

    Yet it does not make any sense whatsoever that only two days before another international conference on Syria, and immediately after the White House was forced to admit that "the Syrian people should choose their destiny" and "Assad must go" is over and done with, Damascus should launch a counterproductive gas attack antagonizing the whole NATO universe.

    This walks – and talks - more like the tsunami of lies that predated Shock and Awe on Iraq in 2003, and certainly walks and talks like the renewed turbo-charging of an "al-CIAda" campaign. Jabhat al-Nusra never ceased to be the CIA's babies in the preferred Syrian regime change scenario.

    Your kids are not toxic enough

    Trump's ambassador to the UN, Heritage Foundation asset Nikki Haley, predictably went ballistic, monopolizing the whole Western news cycle. Lost in oblivion, also predictably, was Russia's deputy UN ambassador Vladimir Safronkov shattering to bits the West's "obsession with regime change" in Syria, which is "what hinders this Security Council."

    Idlib Chemical Attack: West Blames Assad Even Before Probe Launched Safronkov stressed the chemical attack in Idlib was based on "falsified reports from the White Helmets", an organization that has been "discredited long ago". Indeed; but now the Helmets are Oscar winners , and this pop culture badge of honor renders them unassailable – not to mention immune to the effects of sarin gas.

    Whatever Trump and the Pentagon may eventually come up with an independent US intel analyst, averse to groupthink, is adamant; "Any air attack on Syria would require coordination with Russia, and Russia will not allow any air attack against Assad to take place. Russia has the defensive missiles there that can block the attack. This will be negotiated out. There will be no attack as an attack can precipitate a nuclear war."

    The dead "children of Syria" are now pawns in a much larger, perverse game. The US government may have killed a million men, women and children in Iraq – and there was no serious outcry among the "elites" across the NATO spectrum. A war criminal still at large admitted , on the record, that the snuffing out, directly and indirectly, of 500,000 Iraqi children was "justified."

    For his part, Nobel Peace Prize Barack Obama instrumentalized the House of Saud to fund – and weaponize - some 40 outfits "vetted" by the CIA in Syria. Several of these outfits had in fact already merged with, or were absorbed by, Jabhat al-Nusra, now Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. And they all engaged in their own massacres of civilians.

    Meanwhile, the UK keeps merrily weaponizing the House of Saud in its quest to reduce Yemen to a vast famine wasteland pinpointed by "collateral damage" graveyards. The NATO spectrum is certainly not crying for those dead Yemeni children. They are not toxic enough.

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

    [Apr 07, 2017] Ron Paul Zero Chance Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria; Likely A False Flag Zero Hedge

    The first question to be asked in such cases is " Cue bono " "Commonly the phrase is used to suggest that the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain. The party that benefits may not always be obvious or may have successfully diverted attention to a scapegoat , for example."
    Notable quotes:
    "... According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could have been a false flag attack. ..."
    "... "It's the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it's derailed the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria," said Paul. ..."
    "... Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels. ..."
    "... Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, "The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria. ..."
    "... Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East? ..."
    "... The propaganda is so prevalent, the indoctrinated so blinded, there is no way at this point for the populace to have any idea of "what is truth?". ..."
    "... Trump is too sharp not to sense something smells fishy. It's a deliberate ignorance. ..."
    "... You mean like lacing ammunition with depleted Uranium, U.S. style? Or showing up, undeclared, and initiating aggressive war in other countries, violating international law, U.S. style? Or gunning down civilians and children rendering aid, U.S. style like that Manning/Collateral Murder video showed, exclaiming, "Well, the kids shouldn't be in a war zone." Everyone within earshot, muttering, "Yep." ..."
    "... Let's not forget using DU weapons in populated areas. Also no problem. Babies getting incinerated by thermobarics? No problem either. Illegal use of the double tap, targeting first responders using the specious argument that if you dig the body parts out of a building or attempt to help those unlucky enough to be in the blast radius of one of our thermobarics? Nope, no problem. ..."
    "... If it was sarin, these White Helmet fraudsters would be dead: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jumping-conclusions-something-not-a... ..."
    "... Japanese first responders dealing with a real sarin attack in Tokyo. Those handling the victims are wearing positive-pressure hazmat suits. The White Helmets? Sneakers, no gloves and a generic gas mask. http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/n-sarin-b-2015032... ..."
    "... Like the US government has no clue about what is going on here in the US, regarding to politics, IRS Scandals, Clinton scandals, Trump scandals, Obamacare, Obama scandals.... but some how, some way, they always know everything that was happening in Syria and always confirm everything within 24 hours and telling the world what really went on in Syria... ..."
    "... So 'follow the money', who wins from this chemical attack - US deep state, neocons, MIC and media lapdogs. ..."
    "... Deep state and their legacy media pawns are using Syria to manipulate and get control of Trump. With media all parroting 'Assad did it' Trump has played to their tune and deep state sucks Trump deeper into their swamp. ..."
    "... No bomb blast kids. No burned kids. No adults. I guess the kids were in a field of clover, wearing orange vests and pilots were just flying crop dusters, wearing full nerv agent proof suits and sprayed them. ..."
    "... Looking deeper, Israel has been pushing this hard. Putin to Netanyahu: Unacceptable to Make 'Groundless Accusations' on Syria Chemical Attack http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.782007 ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Ron Paul: "Zero Chance" Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria; Likely A False Flag

    According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could have been a false flag attack.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/LULzvg1gA5U

    As Paul Joseph Watson details, pointing out that the prospect of peace in Syria was moving closer before the attack , with ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the run, Paul said the attack made no sense.

    "It looks like maybe somebody didn't like that so there had to be an episode," said Paul, asking, "who benefits?"

    " It doesn't make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases – I think there's zero chance he would have done this deliberately, " said Paul.

    The former Congressman went on to explain how the incident was clearly being exploited by neo-cons and the deep state to enlist support for war.

    "It's the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it's derailed the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria," said Paul.

    Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels.

    Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, "The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria.

    Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East?

    Manthong -> auricle •Apr 6, 2017 11:07 AM

    If President Trump does not fire and publicly humiliate any of those who told him that the Syrians attacked civilians with chemical weapons, he will lose a lot of respect from those of us who know better.

    Mr. Universe -> Manthong •Apr 6, 2017 12:10 PM

    Tulsi Gabbard's Twitter is ablaze with "shame on you Tulsi, you know who is responsible as you met with him a few months ago. "

    The propaganda is so prevalent, the indoctrinated so blinded, there is no way at this point for the populace to have any idea of "what is truth?".

    beemasters -> Comtrend Apr 6, 2017 3:46 PM

    Every president has always been elected for the purpose of benefiting the very few at the expense of the many.

    X22Report on this false flag... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0mS_z50A_w&t=19m40s

    Trump is too sharp not to sense something smells fishy. It's a deliberate ignorance.

    Arnold -> Ghost of Porky , Apr 6, 2017 11:04 AM

    You are a good discriminator of legal and illegal war.

    Ghost of Porky -> Arnold , Apr 6, 2017 11:45 AM

    Oh, did congress declare war? Must have missed that.

    Stranger_in_a_S... -> Arnold , Apr 6, 2017 2:45 PM

    You mean like lacing ammunition with depleted Uranium, U.S. style? Or showing up, undeclared, and initiating aggressive war in other countries, violating international law, U.S. style? Or gunning down civilians and children rendering aid, U.S. style like that Manning/Collateral Murder video showed, exclaiming, "Well, the kids shouldn't be in a war zone." Everyone within earshot, muttering, "Yep."

    So I guess Assad should just utter, "Kids shouldn't have been in a war zone," and the rest of the world would go, "Oh, yeah, that's how it works because that is what the U.S. explained to us about those kids riddled with .50 calibers during the slaughter of those Reuters reporters went. Everything's OK then."

    Or they should have had more responsible father's, like the 16 year old Awlaki kid. That works too, because that's how the U.S. rolls.

    Besides, Assad could also just tell us how it's all worth it, kids dying, because that is another acceptable rationalization per Albright.

    In essence, there is a laundry list of 'acceptable' excuses Assad could use, because the U.S. uses them all the time. Would save him a lot of trouble and this recent fakery wouldn't even have to be denied.

    greenskeeper carl -> Ghost of Porky , Apr 6, 2017 11:26 AM

    Let's not forget using DU weapons in populated areas. Also no problem. Babies getting incinerated by thermobarics? No problem either. Illegal use of the double tap, targeting first responders using the specious argument that if you dig the body parts out of a building or attempt to help those unlucky enough to be in the blast radius of one of our thermobarics? Nope, no problem.

    lets say we give most of the government their war they seem to want so desperately. How many babies will we kill when we invade Syria? Children killed by our bombs are just as dead as babies killed by gas.

    Shemp 4 Victory -> Mtnrunnr , Apr 6, 2017 10:36 AM

    You can't stockpile what kind of gas? I haven't heard anything specific regarding even the cause of death of the victimized stage props used in this Made-For-TV drama.

    Shemp 4 Victory -> Mtnrunnr , Apr 6, 2017 10:49 AM

    No, you're fucking wrong.

    If it was sarin, these White Helmet fraudsters would be dead: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jumping-conclusions-something-not-a...

    HowdyDoody -> Shemp 4 Victory , Apr 6, 2017 2:03 PM

    Japanese first responders dealing with a real sarin attack in Tokyo. Those handling the victims are wearing positive-pressure hazmat suits. The White Helmets? Sneakers, no gloves and a generic gas mask. http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/n-sarin-b-2015032...

    Yog Soggoth -> Mtnrunnr , Apr 6, 2017 8:30 PM

    You are such a tard.

    Army: Disposal Of Sarin Containers To Begin Next Spring When was that? What did the ASS press say? Sarin is very soluble in water whereas other nerve agents are more sparingly soluble. VX has the unexpected property of being soluble in cold water but sparingly soluble in warm water (>9.5 °C). What did we see this morning? People in warm weather spraying down children without real protection from Sarin.

    abyssinian -> nyse , Apr 6, 2017 10:13 AM

    Thanks Ron for pointing out the obvious! But you are the only MAN brave enough to say it.

    Like the US government has no clue about what is going on here in the US, regarding to politics, IRS Scandals, Clinton scandals, Trump scandals, Obamacare, Obama scandals.... but some how, some way, they always know everything that was happening in Syria and always confirm everything within 24 hours and telling the world what really went on in Syria...

    stilletto2 -> nyse , Apr 6, 2017 11:12 AM

    So 'follow the money', who wins from this chemical attack - US deep state, neocons, MIC and media lapdogs. So CIA set their terrorist buddies to release chems in the vacinity of a syrian bombing - easy to plan and do and then feed the brain dead media and Trump is ambushed - textbook CIA

    Deep state and their legacy media pawns are using Syria to manipulate and get control of Trump. With media all parroting 'Assad did it' Trump has played to their tune and deep state sucks Trump deeper into their swamp.

    Offthebeach -> nyse , Apr 6, 2017 11:53 AM

    Gee, the Syrian do one, single nerve agent bomb.....and they just hit kids. How accurate.

    My fking ass. No bomb blast kids. No burned kids. No adults. I guess the kids were in a field of clover, wearing orange vests and pilots were just flying crop dusters, wearing full nerv agent proof suits and sprayed them. Do the kids look like those Palestinian kids that are supposedly shot, then get up and run away.

    Of course the poor saps that we support would never stage a fake attack. ?

    Fake News ( is there any other? )

    bmore -> nyse , Apr 6, 2017 2:13 PM

    Looking deeper, Israel has been pushing this hard. Putin to Netanyahu: Unacceptable to Make 'Groundless Accusations' on Syria Chemical Attack http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.782007

    Bill of Rights , Apr 6, 2017 10:09 AM

    Nuff said

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2dpyR1kEP4

    Consuelo -> Bill of Rights , Apr 6, 2017 10:36 AM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oQTWn1JfeA

    NFLX...?

    BigFatUglyBubble , Apr 6, 2017 10:10 AM

    This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

    [ to Neo who is choosing the red pill ] Remember... all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more.

    Morpheus

    Dangerclose , Apr 6, 2017 10:11 AM

    Trump jumped like a trained dog when he answered the reporter's question about Syria yesterday. Someone like Ron Paul has to help this man and by all means lets keep the laser pointers away from him!! GEESCH!!

    Ward no. 6 -> Dangerclose , Apr 6, 2017 10:58 AM

    i am not pro-trump but i would think that there is extreme pressure for him to do as he is told

    truthseeker69 , Apr 6, 2017 10:11 AM

    >Swap Creature Transformation Complete

    >Commening 'Syria Propaganda' sequence.

    I just can't help but wonder what the trumpsters are going to do with thier 'MAGA' hats?

    [Apr 07, 2017] Trump took Hillary Clintons advice to bomb Assad Air Bases

    Apr 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne, April 06, 2017 at 06:38 PM
    https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/status/850081192376500224

    Jack Goldsmith‏ @jacklgoldsmith

    My arg that military action in Syria in response to chem weapons would've been illegal in 2013 still applies today.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/opinion/what-happened-to-the-rule-of-law.html

    What Happened to the Rule of Law?

    1:22 PM - 6 Apr 2017

    libezkova -> anne... , April 06, 2017 at 10:29 PM
    Looks like it took only 100 days for Trump to metamorphose into Hillary Clinton in foreign policy area.

    Ron Paul Institute thinks that ground invasion of Syria is imminent. More dead and more destruction in already war torn country. Will Damascus be captured without a fight or not ? This is one of oldest cities in the world.

    This rush to military actions reminds me Colin Powell performance in the UN. A million or more Iraqis are dead now.

    https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/05/colin-powell-discusses-wmd-blot-his-record

    Aside from legality (and Trump does not care about legality as long it is not directed against him) there are some common sense questions to neocons who successfully captured Trump administration and manipulated Trump into action (on April 5th Bannon was removed from National Security Council):

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-06/cnn-anchor-speechless-after-congressman-questions-syria-chemical-attack-narrative


    1. Gassed by whom? Was there any investigation? What type of gas was used ? ""It's hard to know exactly what's happening in Syria right now. I'd like to know specifically how that release of chemical gas, if it did occur - and it looks like it did - how that occurred," Representative Thomas Massie told CNN's Kate Bolduan."

    2. Was the gas released by weapons from airplanes (but there is no bomblets on the scene) or as a result of the attack on chemical munitions factory producing shells with chemical warheads?

    3. Is there a possibility that attack was staged specifically to get USA actions ("false flag operation")

    4. Cue Bono ? "Ahrar Al-Sham, Tahrir Al-Sham (#AlQaeda) and #ISIS private Telegram channels praising #UnitedStates attack tonight..." as Representative Thomas Massie told CNN's Kate Bolduan. "Because frankly, I don't think Assad would have done that. It does not serve his interests. It would tend to draw us into that civil war even further."... "I don't think it would've served Assad's purposes to do a chemical attack on his people It's hard for me to understand why he would do that - if he did."

    Essentially the USA verdict was instant -- Assad needs to go. But no information was shared with public.

    Ron Paul thoughts:

    http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2017/april/06/syria-crisis-update-us-attack-imminent-and-what-you-can-do/

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-06/ron-paul-zero-chance-assad-behind-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-likely-false-flag

    im1dc , April 06, 2017 at 06:40 PM
    McConnell started something today that he may not get tomorrow but if he does the GOP will regret it, imo.
    im1dc , April 06, 2017 at 07:08 PM
    Trump took Hillary Clinton's advice to bomb Assad's Air Bases

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKBN1782S0

    "Trump unleashes military strikes against Assad airbase in Syria"

    "PALM BEACH, Fla. - The U.S. military launched cruise missile strikes ordered by President Donald Trump against a Syrian airbase controlled by President Bashar al-Assad's forces in response to a deadly chemical attack in a rebel-held area, a U.S. official said on Thursday."

    [Apr 07, 2017] Tillerson Warns Russia Coalition Steps Are Underway To Remove Assad

    Apr 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    VIX was being crushed and stocks were leaking higher just as planned, until Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hit the tape beating war drums and announcing a new US policy on Syria, just a week after he said the US had no interest in removing the Syrian president.

    Specifically, Tillerson said that steps are underway to remove Syrian President Bashar al- Assad, and that the U.S. is considering an "appropriate response" to the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons.

    "The process by which Assad would leave is something that requires an international community effort both to first defeat ISIS within Syria, to stabilize the Syrian country to avoid further civil war and then to work collectively with our partners around the world through a political process that would lead to Assad leaving," Tillerson said at the news conference in Palm Beach, Fla.

    Tillerson on Assad: "Clearly with the acts that he has taken it would seem there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people." pic.twitter.com/Nr5BcHJmz1

    - ABC News (@ABC) April 6, 2017

    Tillerson also called into question Assad's future in Syria, saying there would be "no role" for authoritarian ruler in Syria, and said that there is no doubt the Assad regime was reponsible for the Syria attack.

    As a result, Tillerson said that "Assad's role in the future is uncertain clearly, and with the acts that he has taken it would seem that there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people"

    Acknowledging that a conflict with Syria would involve Russia, Tillerson said that " it's very important that the Russian government consider carefully their continued support of the Assad regime."

    All of which was a quick U-turn from last Thursday's comments when Tillerson said that "I think the longer term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," a statement which as we reported infuriated John McCain .

    The reaction in the market was quick:

    VD -> SenselessPanic , Apr 6, 2017 3:12 PM

    voted for Trump in no small part for his promised detente while simultaneously voting against neocon Hitlery criminal muderding sociopathic warmonger and now we're still pushing into WW3.

    just another BTFD opportunity off the thermonuclear war (rumor)... .. . ..

    dogsandhoney2 -> Shemp 4 Victory , Apr 6, 2017 6:36 PM

    let's see... bannon out, fakenews pesticide bomb, assad from evil to neutral to evil, more war in middle east.

    mic taking the reins, again.

    no woof.

    Comtrend -> Killer the Buzzard , Apr 6, 2017 4:32 PM

    Deep State got to Rex:

    Deep State pulls on Tillerson's Strings: "No Role for Assad"

    and they move FAST

    US Official: Pentagon in Detailed Discussions with White House on Military Options in Syria

    I bet the 2 neocohens McCain and Graham are in on this, maybe conditioning Gorsuch vote on having their war.

    tmosley -> bob_bichen , Apr 6, 2017 7:54 PM

    You guys have really gone full retard. Step one is to remove ISIS. Step two is to stabilize Syria. Only after that is finished would they turn to removing Assad, ie years from now when everyone has forgotten all about this incident and he can just not do it and no-one will care.

    Big question here: why does the ZH comment section hate Trump with such a vengence? Many, if not most here seem to have wanted him to fail from the start, or for him to suddenly turn evil for some reason, and every time there is a new bit of data to feed that confirmation bias, they are screaming "I told you so's" from the rooftops, and after the "scandal" dies down, everyone else still likes Trump and they are back looking for the next sign of the coming of the anti-Christ.

    Is it just the doomboner crowd having withdrawals, or what?

    chunga -> wildbad , Apr 6, 2017 3:27 PM

    Me too. I hope the Russians have evidence of this "attack" by Assad and release it to the world.

    Beyond that I wish them well in their fight against the monsters calling the shots in this govt, even if I become collateral damage.

    strannick -> chunga , Apr 6, 2017 3:46 PM

    Sociopaths dont regard evidence. They just screech their lies louder in the MSM

    EuroPox -> hoyeru , Apr 6, 2017 3:46 PM

    Well here is the proof it wasn't Assad - a tweet (from an anti-Assad reporter) warning about a sarin attack in Idlib 24 hours before it happened...

    https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/849635794994286592

    Laddie -> VD , Apr 6, 2017 4:00 PM

    Well I thought compared to Hyena Rodthem Clinton that Trump was superb. He is still better than that creature, but he has sadly disappointed me.

    Roger Stone Tells AJ Jared Kushner Leaking Anti-Bannon Information to MSNBC Andrew Anglin April 5, 2017 Start at about 9:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAap1rM0Dq4

    Greasy Whore Nimrata Randhawa Threatens Invasion of Syria US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley strongly condemned Russia and the Syrian government Wednesday over the chemical weapons attack on civilians, suggesting that the US is open to using military action to solve the country's ongoing civil war."

    Stranahan: Kushner Forcing Out Bannon? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibmiTrvKVQE

    Soros backed Trump son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in real estate venture with $259 MILLION: George Soros was the man who provided Cadre with a $259 million line of credit. "Soros has had a long and productive relationship with the Kushner family."

    Dr. Duke had British author and activist Mark Collett as his guest for the hour. They talked about the prominent role being played in the Trump administration by first son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is being put "in charge" of everything from reinventing the government to bringing peace to the Middle East. Dr. Duke points out that Kushner, who is an orthodox Jew, has a close association with the Chabad Lubavich movement, which embraces a theology that elevates Jews to divine status while denigrating the goyim as beasts.

    Kushner's family has given large sums of money to Chabad Lubavich, and has been very active in its events. They also discussed the bombing incident in St. Petersburg, which is more evidence of the cultural enrichment white countries are benefiting from, among other benefits of vibrant multiculturalism. AUDIO April 3, 2017 Photo: Kushner- Zarchi

    But if we consider such things from the standpoint of the race, not from the standpoint of the individual Jew who battens on us, is it not likely that the material profit counts for much less than the spiritual satisfaction? And if we consider some of the Jews' work, I cannot see how it could conceivably yield a net profit. What monetary gain can they have obtained, or intended to obtain, by spending vast sums to incite the (blacks) to rape, murder, and arson? What profit from destroying civilization in Rhodesia and making that land again a land of savages? What can the Jews in South Africa gain in material terms from their present intensive effort to destroy the white population and make of that country another Rhodesia? Is it not obvious that they could squeeze much more money out of the White population by peaceful parasitism and without inciting the racial hatreds that disrupt the economy and could conceivably bring retribution upon themselves? The only explanation, it seems to me, is that with their race as a whole spiritual considerations are paramount, paramount over profit and even over self-preservation. One can foresee the logical end in a future that may not be too distant: one can see the last Jews dying with exultation on the surface of a planet from which they have exterminated all other human beings, all animals, all vegetation, all life -- a planet of which they have made "a desolation of desolations."

    THE YELLOW PERIL (1983) Revilo P. Oliver, late Professor of the Classics, University of Illinois at Urbana

    rodocostarica -> VD , Apr 6, 2017 4:21 PM

    Call White house switchboard. Someone answers. They hang up on you when you call Trump a Neocon but hopefully the message gets through. CALL NOW>>>

    202-456-1414

    N0TME -> Snνpιir_Ag_Obair , Apr 6, 2017 4:48 PM

    Also on mintpress: http://www.mintpressnews.com/russia-reports-discovery-rebel-held-chemica...

    meditate_vigorously -> EuroPox , Apr 6, 2017 3:13 PM

    We need to assemble coalition forces to regime change Washington D.C.

    BlindMonkey -> meditate_vigorously , Apr 6, 2017 3:42 PM

    It is absolutely time for a regime change in DC. I was watching a video on this and the announcer had the best summary of this:

    "Summing up the events in few sentences, the whole story pushed to the public looks this way: The bloody Assad regime took back Aleppo city and wide areas in its countryside, the Western Ghouta region, the Wadi Barada region, once again recaptured Palmyra from ISIS, and repelled a powerful rebel advance in northern Hama. The US even declared that the toppling of Assad was no longer the main priority in Syria.

    Then, the military leadership of the regime decided that was not enough and ordered a Su-22 warplane to use chemical weapons against people in Khan Sheikhoun. Some kind of small Soviet unguided rockets hit a road in the village and inflicted mass poisoning of civilians in the nearby areas. Fortunately, members of the Syrian Civil Defense and local journalists nearby were equipped with dust respirators. They filmed the incident and saved some people."---Harold Hoover
    Dr. Engali -> EuroPox , Apr 6, 2017 3:16 PM

    Trump never had a grip. He has been a tool of the deep state from the beginning. His purpose is to act as a lightning rod and distract attention from the real owners of this country while they continue to rape and pillage in the back ground. He also gave the red team faith that the system still works so they can continue the charade a little while longer.

    chicken_goose , Apr 6, 2017 3:03 PM

    Great more unnecessary wars for the MIC and cabal of international bankers.

    chunga -> chicken_goose , Apr 6, 2017 3:05 PM

    Trump goes from populist champion to fraudulent zio war criminal fraud in what...12 weeks?

    Lady Jessica , Apr 6, 2017 3:04 PM

    Isn't there the option of the Trump administration pretending to fight Assad, much as the Obama administration pretended to fight ISIS/ISIL/whatever?

    What's that called in psyop speak?

    directaction , Apr 6, 2017 3:08 PM

    Trump is shaping up to be as crazy as Obama and Bush II.

    zeroboris -> directaction , Apr 6, 2017 4:02 PM

    Trump is far more dangerous than Obama, as he pretends to be a tough-guy.

    HowdyDoody -> zeroboris , Apr 6, 2017 4:43 PM

    So did Obomber in September 2013

    "Obama is pursueing limited strikes against Syria as punishment for the alleged use of chemical weapons"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPhIPT9yOu8

    Meet the new flase flag, same as the old false flag.

    blue51 , Apr 6, 2017 3:11 PM

    This is sickening .Putin is in a jam , now . BIG decisions coming soon .

    sheikurbootie , Apr 6, 2017 3:29 PM

    Remember, this could be a negotiation tactic. We have not done anything to remove Assad...yet. I agree with Ron Paul. It makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons.

    Same with NK. We have not done ANYTHING but threaten a military option.

    We could pull bring the troops home from S.Korea too. We're not wanted their by half the population. Understandably so, we've been there for 70 fucking years. How much did that shit cost us?

    Before everyone plays armchair general, let's see what ACTUALLY happens.

    FBaggins , Apr 6, 2017 3:45 PM

    Fake News About Syria Exposed by Real Journalist Eva Bartlett

    December 14, 2016

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YANWFzMG9sU

    Nothing has changed even with the election of Trump. Tillerson's aim is to ensure control of oil/gas resources and pipeline routes in the middle east. As a CEO of Exxon what does anyone expect.

    As soon as he was elected, Trump opened the WH doors to let in the slime of the swamp and he is now drowning in their crarp.

    man of Wool , Apr 6, 2017 3:46 PM

    Removing Assad is a politically bad move. Assad keeps the country's many factions together.

    Remove Assad and replace with brutal American puppet?

    The one good thing i can see coming out of this long term is a Kurdistan country.

    [Apr 07, 2017] Trump Orders Strikes Against Syrian Regime Airbase in Response to Chemical Attack

    Apr 07, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    WASHINGTON –President Trump has ordered cruise missile strikes against a Syrian regime military airbase, a defense official said late Thursday.

    A U.S. official said "more than 50" Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched at the airbase, located in Western Syria. That base, called Shayrat, was where the U.S. believes the Assad regime carried out a chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians this week that killed at least 70 people.

    The strikes were carried out from two U.S. destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea, the official said. The attack occurred between 8 and 9 p.m. ET, according to CNN.

    Trump had hinted on Wednesday that he would take action against the chemical weapons attack during a Rose Garden briefing with the King of Jordan.

    The U.S. military has not yet completed a battle damage assessment, the official said.

    He said the attack had crossed "many, many lines, beyond a red line - many, many lines."

    "That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact," Trump had said. "That was a horrible, horrible thing, and I've been watching it and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that."

    It was reported earlier in the day that Trump was considering military options against the Syrian regime.

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called on the president to come to Congress to obtain congressional authorization for military action in Syria.

    "While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the US was not attacked," he said in a statement.

    "The President needs congressional authorization for military action and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate on our role. Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer and Syria will be no different. – Senator Rand Paul

    Meanwhile, Republican defense hawks praised the airstrikes.

    "Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action," said Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

    "I think it was an important step," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said on CNN. "This was not some symbolic measure."

    In a statement, President Trump explained the urgency behind the strikes:

    My fellow Americans, on Tuesday, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many, even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.

    Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where a chemical attack was launched. It is in the vital, national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council.

    Years of previous attempts at changing Assad's behavior have all failed, and failed very dramatically. As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies. Tonight I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types.

    We ask for God's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed and we hope that as long as America stands for justice, that peace and harmony will, in the end, prevail. Good night and God bless America and the entire world. Thank you.

    [Apr 07, 2017] Missile strike demonstrates American leadership. Always bipartisan support for that

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is no longer the dove it seems. But he is an incompetent hawk. ..."
    "... Incompetent hawks are awful. We can at least take some comfort that Schumer and Pelosi called out Trump for acting recklessly... Oh, wait, that was in an alternate reality where they did that. @#$%. If it weren't for incompetence and belligerence we would have any foreign policy at all. ..."
    "... "an uneasy alliance of foreign-funded jihadists, Western intelligence, and NGOs like Doctors Without Borders" is a fact in Syria too. ..."
    "... Another good read is Sy Hersh story of the previous "false flag" sarin poisoning operation during Obama term: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS5DOg-_XXE ..."
    "... I like how MSM honchos picked up sarin story this time. As if somebody kicked them in the butt. ..."
    "... BTW both Turkey and KSA had bet all cards on Syrian insurgency. In the past Turkey's intelligence service MIT was supporting not only the Free Syrian Army but also Al-Nusra, which produced sarin from components bought in Turkey. ..."
    Apr 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Chris G -> Peter K....

    Missile strike demonstrates American leadership. Always bipartisan support for that. Death chemical warfare agents unacceptable so must do something. Didn't I read a Syrian quoted the other day "I buried my family today. If they had been killed by barrel bombs I could have given Assad a pass but death by chemical weapons is unacceptable."? Did I not read that? That aside, clearly there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to kill civilians. Assad crossed that line and we had to do something.

    PS Real men don't consult Congress before ordering missile strikes on sovereign nations. It'd be un-American to question the wisdom of bombing a butcher like Assad. What downside could there be?

    pgl -> Chris G ... April 07, 2017 at 07:34 AM

    Trump is no longer the dove it seems. But he is an incompetent hawk. He told Russia ahead of time. And of course Russia tipped off Syria. Which is why most of their planes got away.

    The Russian military today is mocking us.

    An incompetent hawk is the worst kind.

    Chris G -> pgl... April 07, 2017 at 09:02 AM

    Incompetent hawks are awful. We can at least take some comfort that Schumer and Pelosi called out Trump for acting recklessly... Oh, wait, that was in an alternate reality where they did that. @#$%. If it weren't for incompetence and belligerence we would have any foreign policy at all.

    Chris G -> Chris G ... April 07, 2017 at 09:36 AM

    Worth reading over at Jacobin - https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/when-humanitarianism-became-imperialism/

    Consider political interests and potential outcomes before deciding whether or not to engage. Choosing to act based on emotional reactions does not set the stage for good outcomes.

    libezkova -> Chris G ...

    Thank you --

    "an uneasy alliance of foreign-funded jihadists, Western intelligence, and NGOs like Doctors Without Borders" is a fact in Syria too.

    Another good read is Sy Hersh story of the previous "false flag" sarin poisoning operation during Obama term: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS5DOg-_XXE

    I like how MSM honchos picked up sarin story this time. As if somebody kicked them in the butt.

    BTW both Turkey and KSA had bet all cards on Syrian insurgency. In the past Turkey's intelligence service MIT was supporting not only the Free Syrian Army but also Al-Nusra, which produced sarin from components bought in Turkey.

    [Apr 07, 2017] MoA - WMDs In The UNSC - History Repeats Itself, First As Tragedy, Second As Farce

    Notable quotes:
    "... So finally Trump got slapped in the face and started to regurgitate psychotic delusions of his MIC and Wall Street masters.Now he is ready for war with Russia while his face stil sours. ..."
    "... Here I found a prophetic post about Trump from just a week before his election 2016. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/us-elections-a-farcical-spectacle-of-blood-and-imperial-hubris/ ..."
    "... Standard operating procedure of right-wing politicians: When you don't get anything accomplished domestically, distract with some foreign policy 'adventure'/ escalation and watch them rally around the flag. Trump's yielding to Neocon interventionist demands was just a matter of time, as it was obvious that he wouldn't be able to 'deliver' on economic issues etc. ..."
    Apr 07, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Pic: April 5 2017 - U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley during an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council

    Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, on Wednesday strongly condemned the Syrian government in the wake of an alleged chemical weapons attack perpetrated on its own civilians this week. "When the UN consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action," Haley said. She added that if the UN doesn't take collective action, "we may."
    Greg Bacon | Apr 5, 2017 1:54:17 PM | 3
    Hackers Expose U.S. False Flag to Frame Syria

    Hacked emails from a British mercenary company were posted online, leading to claims Washington was backing a dirty war against Syria in which a chemical attack on Syria could be blamed on the Syrian regime, thereby strengthening the case for immediate intervention on the part of the United States military.

    One of the hacked emails that has resulted in the most embarrassment for the U.S. government concerned Syria. The email reads as follows:

    Phil, we've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved in Washington. We'll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell [sic] from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record. Frankly, I don't think it is a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

    Kind regards,

    David

    http://americanfreepress.net/hackers-expose-u-s-false-flag-to-frame-syria/

    Brian | Apr 5, 2017 2:39:58 PM | 8
    Yet another US spokes person pretends to a humanitarianism she doesn't feel ot is overridden by a report she too readily believes . Syria has no Chem weapons and US change of govt more illusion than reality
    https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201704051052321244-unsc-russia-syria-idlib/

    Kalen | Apr 5, 2017 2:40:36 PM | 9
    So finally Trump got slapped in the face and started to regurgitate psychotic delusions of his MIC and Wall Street masters.Now he is ready for war with Russia while his face stil sours.

    Here I found a prophetic post about Trump from just a week before his election 2016. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/us-elections-a-farcical-spectacle-of-blood-and-imperial-hubris/

    Petri Krohn | Apr 5, 2017 2:40:44 PM | 10
    THERE WAS NO GAS ATTACK ON KHAN SHEIKHOUN!

    If dead children are paraded in front of cameras, it does not show a chemical weapons attack. It is proof of murder, someone massacred these children and their families.

    To claim a gas attack , you have to show photos and videos of the attack site; dead families in or outside their homes. Dead animals. Rescue workers breaking into houses and discovering the bodies.

    The Western press is buying the hoax narrative. I have heard hysterical screaming on the radio all day. No one ever asked or answered the essential questions: When and where did the attack happen? How was the chemical delivered? What neighborhoods were affected? Where was the wind blowing from? How were the victims taken to the place where they were first filmed? Who did the rescue work? Where where the White Helmets and their camera crews when this happened?

    The White Helmets did not exist in 2013. Today they are an Oscar-winning film crew, with GoPro action cams attached to their signature helmets. They film each and every real and fake rescue operation they take part in. So why no video of the Khan Sheikhoun rescue and recovery work?

    This is just another staged hoax, like the Ghouta chemical massacre of August 2013. Hostages were kept in cellars and then gassed with chlorine when the time came to make propaganda videos and call for a No-Fly Zone.

    Brian | Apr 5, 2017 2:41:39 PM | 11
    @7
    Shows how easy it is to manipulate simple minds. Post any image of children and you can twist people to do what ever you wAnd

    Madeira | Apr 5, 2017 2:44:42 PM | 12
    Two good articles on the gas attack:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46801.htm

    The Stephen Miller Band | Apr 5, 2017 2:45:01 PM | 13
    Actually, if Trump really does sneak attack Damascus and take on Putin if he tries to intervene it would prove his Russian connections are meaningless and he's not a quisling afterall, therefore, the news spectacle surrounding this issue and the investigation by the Senate can be dropped even though there will be no one left to set the record straight except a few cockroaches and last time I checked they don't have opposable thumbs so therefore they aren't up to the task if they were so inclined.

    My what tangled webs we weave.

    Jackrabbit | Apr 5, 2017 2:55:53 PM | 15
    Petri Krohn @10:
    The Western press is buying the hoax narrative.
    I think we know enough by now to know that they are not dupes. They are complicit.

    likklemore | Apr 5, 2017 3:22:57 PM | 19
    Over the last days I recall reading the UN-OPCW had taken ALL Syria's chemical weapon on ship out to sea for destruction. Was I dreaming?

    Here is a report for you

    4 September 2014

    Ninety-six percent of Syria's declared chemical weapons destroyed – UN-OPCW mission chief
    UN Link

    The Special Coordinator for the Joint Mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations (OPCW-UN) told the Security Council today that 96 percent of Syria's declared stockpile, including the most dangerous chemicals, had been destroyed and preparation were underway to destroy the remaining 12 production facilities.

    "This is a chemical weapons disarmament process, it's been unique," said Sigrid Kaag after her final briefing to the Security Council in her capacity as the head of the joint mission dealing with Syria's chemical weapons, which is winding up its work at the end of September.

    "At the same time, we reiterate our strong hope that if this is achieved, that conditions for peace and security and the political process will be centre stage for the benefit of the people of Syria and that of the region, particularly in these days of profound crisis."

    Ms. Kaag told a press conference at UN Headquarters following her closed-door briefing to the Council that the mission had overseen that destruction of 100 percent of "priority chemicals" and 96 percent of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, but the good offices of the UN Secretary-General on this issue, discussions on monitoring verification, and accurate reporting to the Council will be continued [.]

    See..I did not dream that ship, it's real AND it was a U.S. vessel

    "UN chief welcomes destruction of Syrian chemical weapons aboard U.S. vessel"
    UN Link

    The Secretary-General welcomes the destruction of the declared chemical weapons material on board the United States Maritime Vessel Cape Ray. This marks a significant achievement in the international community's efforts to eliminate the chemical weapons programme of the Syrian Arab Republic following the framework agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States of America.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    The USUKEU should stop throwing sh**T. Propaganda Fatigue has taken root. There is the Net for instant recall. As b observed, if it was sarin, how is it those timely "rescuers" were not affected?

    Intelligence insulted.

    Alaric | Apr 5, 2017 3:34:46 PM | 20
    Every time Assad is winning, we have a chemical attack or humanitarian trajedy. Oh sure, I believe it. The propaganda and false flags will continue until the SAA finally wins. Putin best have his EW and S-400s ready and both Russia and Iran need to send more troops to help Assad win already.

    Les | Apr 5, 2017 3:36:44 PM | 21
    The Syrian opposition has stated their motive for the attack. Suspicions of who's responsible lies strongly with the opposition.

    A suspected Syrian government chemical attack in Syria was a "direct consequence" of recent U.S. statements that it was not now focused on making Syrian President Bashar al-Assad leave power, a Syrian opposition member said on Tuesday.

    "The first reaction from Syrians is that this is a direct consequence of American statements about Assad not being a priority and giving him time and allowing him to stay in power," Basma Kodmani told Reuters in Washington.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-opposition-idUSKBN1762QC

    smuks | Apr 5, 2017 4:04:11 PM | 22
    Just checked comments & likes in a major conservative European newspaper: Roughly 5% seem to believe that Assad is to blame.

    Nikki Haley is as Neocon as Samantha Power, now who would've guessed. As I've been saying for a year: Even if Trump has a different foreign policy agenda (which I doubt), he's far too weak to stand up to them. In times of crisis, a country needs a strong president, not a narcissist showmaster.

    Pnyx | Apr 5, 2017 4:05:54 PM | 23
    2:15:04 PM | 5

    "Jesus, these people are insane, why on earth do Trump that have spoken out against useless war put this stupid woman in the UN?"
    Well , I think this is Tronalds way out of the pressure he's under. Start a war, then they will unite behind their Fόhrer.

    Lozion | Apr 5, 2017 4:39:46 PM | 24
    Bannon is replaced by Rick Perry at the NSC? Neoconia rules..

    Wonder what those flyboys in Quatar are up to today?

    aniteleya | Apr 5, 2017 4:52:30 PM | 27
    smuks - 22

    I fear you may be right. Neo-cons on a roll again. This chemical farce is clearly designed to put pressure on Trump to see which way he turns. Looks like he may move away from his 'America First' isolationist rhetoric in a desperate bid to say something meaningful. Loads of Neo-cons on his back to push for more mayhem in the Middle East. Things aren't the way they were in 2003 tho', so probably won't go for the invasion. Cantonisation of Syria is probably what the neo-cons are after. Shit crazy.

    canuck | Apr 5, 2017 4:54:07 PM | 29
    If Trump is going all teary eyed over this unclear, suspect, plausibly 'WMD' false flag, he is a child, an ignoramus, or too near the raw onions; or he is being fed hogwash. If he is posturing 'tactically' to justify making more war, he is a fiend and war criminal. One might hope that this was merely a random neural-tweet-impulse by force of habit, signifying nothing much.

    rm | Apr 5, 2017 5:04:37 PM | 31
    "Well , I think this is Tronalds way out of the pressure he's under. Start a war, then they will unite behind their Fόhrer." 23

    Yep. that's what it feels like to me. The abject snivel of his response serves that purpose absolutely. God. How STUPID people can be! Kidnap then murder then staging with the dead..fcking white helmets necrophilia ..

    Susan Sunflower | Apr 5, 2017 5:56:46 PM | 32
    ere's an alarming "hey, batter, batter" heckling "what'za matta, you chicken??" quality to the media war drums. I can't tell if people actually want Trump to "do something" (as they are demanding) or hoping that he punts or walks, this time at bat. It's (presidenting) "harder than it looks" has been a popular refrain for weeks and the still insulted Obama crowd seems more interested in seeing Trump shamed, than that anything be "done" about Assad or Syria ... coming within two weeks of our 200 dead in Mosul, Trump's self-proclaimed change of heart wrt Assad (of course undefined) seems right out of PT Barnum ... The timing really couldn't be better for something showy, given China's Xi Jinping's imminent arrival at Mar-A-Lago ... want's to top the theatrical show they he put-on Abe of Japan (on the event ot a Korean missle launch) ... I am and have been nauseated with anxiety

    Scotch Bingeington | Apr 5, 2017 6:04:44 PM | 33
    These photos and videos that we saw of Khan Sheikhoun, some of them showed a site with white rock in the background and sleazy white mud on the ground (like here: https://youtu.be/fGPa0k3J4vI). Some have described it as a rebel dugout.
    Maybe it was hit by the Syrian Airforce, though almost certainly not with any chemical ammunitions. I think that the hit on said site could be in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYOMEDK_uVs - third impact on the right, where much brighter dust is rising, but much slower than from the other impact sites, plus the height and shape of the cloud is very different.
    I'm saying "maybe" it was hit by the Syrian Airforce because to me, it seems equally likely that something was set off on the ground there - by rebels, in that case. It would explain the strikingly different appearance of this one cloud that I mentioned (and there has to be an explanation for it).
    This whitish rock background that I mentioned in the beginning looks very much like limestone or chalk to my eyes. Maybe it's a limestone quarry turned rebel hideout. Anyway, for any makeshift Sarin production or storage facility a limestone/chalk surrounding would be the perfect setting. Short of a state-of-the-art chemical plant, you couldn't make up any better location, and there's two reasons for that.
    One concerns possible manufacturing of Sarin. Whatever process you use, there will be leftover acids in your end product. You have to get rid of those in order for your product to have an acceptable shelf life. Even the most masterfully created Sarin will be usable for only about 5 years. This time is strongly reduced if you don't purify it by eliminating the excess acids in the product. This can only be done with a nice base or alkaline substance, and limestone/chalk is the perfect raw material to create such an alkaline (namely lye or brine or whatever you want to call it), large scale.
    The other reason a limestone surrounding such as seen in Khan Sheikhoun is a perfect match for Sarin has to do with safeguarding against the obvious hazards of dealing with Sarin – accidental spilling and poisoning. For decontamination and neutralizing purposes any strong and simple alkaline is, again, the go-to substance. While Sarin victims need to have atropine injected asap to even have the slightest chance for survival, their clothes and the body have to be thoroughly rinsed with an alkaline solution, too.
    And even if you don't use the limestone for anything at all, just moving in a "limy" environment when having to deal with Sarin release will help, and would have helped the White Helmets in this case. This might help to explain why so many of them were able to "do their thing" there and then without wearing any protective gear. As it happens, limestone/chalk will also help with destroying any Sarin-related evidence.
    We could also see some kind of tanker truck in the pictures. People were sprayed with liquid coming from this truck. It's not just water that comes to mind here, it could also have been ready-made lye solution in that tank.
    But whatever had been going on in this place prior to the incident, I'm also wondering what all those children and young people were doing there. Why would they gather (or be gathered) right there , of all places? I know this will sound gross, but some of the bodies I saw didn't look so "recently deceased" either.
    This whole thing, it's just All the BS we're getting from western politicians and the MSM right now - nothing adds up, nothing makes sense here, and yet it's cheered as a pretext for more war?

    jfl | Apr 5, 2017 7:19:32 PM | 37
    Unknown airstrikes reportedly hit Army positions in southern Syria

    "It's very, very possible, and I will tell you it has already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad, has changed very much," Mr. Trump said

    all aboard! the train is leaving the station.

    FecklessLeft | Apr 5, 2017 7:20:42 PM | 38
    "If Trump is going all teary eyed over this unclear, suspect, plausibly 'WMD' false flag, he is a child, an ignoramus, or too near the raw onions; or he is being fed hogwash. If he is posturing 'tactically' to justify making more war, he is a fiend and war criminal. One might hope that this was merely a random neural-tweet-impulse by force of habit, signifying nothing much."

    Posted by: canuck | Apr 5, 2017 4:54:07 PM | 29

    While I agree with your sentiment, war crimes are not defined by the perpetrators' states of minds. Threatening the UNSC to go with the US 'or else' is a war crime already, full stop. I'm sure many thought launching a war of aggression on Iraq and Afghanistan was the 'right' or 'moral' position at the time (however deluded that may be), but they are still war criminals.

    I think many of us need to separate any actions in question from intent and reasons when it comes to war crimes. It's like the US saying "well we bombed a hospital by accident sorry but we thought we were striking a weapons cache. Terrible tragedy and it won't happen again" - even if every they said was true it doesn't make it any less of a war crime. Maybe easier for us as individuals to sympathise with but that should be another question as a whole.

    I think people would be well served to read a little about the subject (not directing this at you cancuck so don't get me wrong). There's a lot of misconceptions I see held by many, including here and other similar forums.

    Regardless of all that, to threaten the security council to do what they want - coming only hours after initial reports and with no confirmation for much of the official western state sanctioned story - it doesn't look good. I follow developments in Syria awful closely and I really am blown away and would never have expected such a development. Really came out of no where. I had few if any hopes for change from Trump re foreign policy but goddamn I def didn't expect this. I really hope its just further bluster and big talk, but i doubt it would do that job effectively. Just seems counterproductive towards western goals (unless goal is overt aggression and occupation). Crazy day.

    I implore everyone here to keep Syria and its people in your thoughts and/or prayers these coming days. I suppose that goes for basically the entire MENA region the way it'd go up like tinder if another US occupation force entered.

    Piotr Berman | Apr 5, 2017 8:05:43 PM | 40
    I may be biased, but Powell's performance at UN is a tough act to follow. Steady delivery, deep baritone, and the gaze so straight that it could drill brain of any doubter. That said, Tony Blair was a clear champion in the tenor class. While Powell was all experience of a principled elder, Blair was in his own words "passionate", like a 9 year old boy describing how he was personally instructed by Our Lady of Fatima (together with two pre-teen girls, now we have 100-th anniversary*). Which gives pointers to soprano section.

    Condoleeza Rice was a total miscast in that role. Shifty eyes, unsteady diction, twitching head. Perhaps I will check a video of Nikki Halley.

    Piotr Berman | Apr 5, 2017 8:17:21 PM | 41
    I regret to say that Nikki is from the Condi school. But at least she looks better than Ms. Powell, and boys, she has guts: fuchsia business suit!!

    Piotr Berman | Apr 5, 2017 8:24:48 PM | 42
    Petri Krohn | Apr 5, 2017 2:40:44 PM | 10: To claim a gas attack, you have to show photos and videos of the attack site;

    The Guardian shows a photo : a bomb was apparently so powerful that it made a pothole in the street pavement.

    Tobin Paz | Apr 5, 2017 8:31:44 PM | 43
    The "War and Peace Report" strikes again:

    Syria Has Become a Circus of Death: Doctor Warns of Growing Humanitarian Crisis as War Rages On

    AMY GOODMAN: Let me go to a clip from the 2013 BBC documentary Saving Syria's Children, where the filmmakers traveled with you, Dr. Rola Hallam, inside Syria to reveal how children are impacted by the war. This is Dr. Hallam describing the aftermath of an airstrike at a school playground, as patients pour into a hospital in Aleppo.

    Hermius | Apr 5, 2017 8:33:50 PM | 44
    The US doesnt want a military conflict with Russia over the Syria Crisis. Trumps stance has changed towards Assad. Therefore expect a US response to events (as aluded to at the UNSC). The only way to achieve all three of the above is a precision strike against Assad personally.

    mischi | Apr 5, 2017 8:34:47 PM | 46
    it looks like someone was tweeting about the gas attack before it happened.

    https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/849635794994286592

    h | Apr 5, 2017 10:52:08 PM | 56
    SYRIAN AVIATION AIRSTRIKE IN IDLIB TARGETED CHEMICAL ARMS LAB - RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY -

    "MOSCOW, April 5. /TASS/. A Syrian aviation airstrike on the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhun on Tuesday targeted workshops to produce chemical-laden projectiles, a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry said Wednesday.

    "According to Russian airspace monitoring systems, yesterday between 11.30 and 12.30 local time the Syrian aviation carried out an airstrike on the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhun, targeting a major ammunition storage facility of terrorists and a cluster of military hardware. The territory of this storage facility housed workshops to produce projectiles stuffed with toxic agents," Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said.

    "From this major arsenal, chemical-laden weapons were delivered by militants to Iraq. Their use by terrorists was confirmed on numerous occasions by international organizations and official authorities of the country," he said.

    The spokesman added that these projectiles were similar to those used by militants in Syria's Aleppo, where their use was recorded by Russian military specialists.

    [...]

    h | Apr 5, 2017 11:08:24 PM | 57
    Of course Trump knows this. No question. If he takes any kind of military action whatsoever in Syria against sovereign troops, over a really lame propaganda campaign all of us can see through, well, that's about as dumb as it gets. If I know this, a lowly news aggregator blogger, you can damn well be sure Trump knows this.

    Anyone and everyone who can read or talk or see knows for a fact that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S military has not been invited into Syria by Syria nor has the U.S. Congress passed a WAR RESOLUTION. Thus, if the U.S. Military takes aim at Syria and her government it will be under the extremely nimble CIA article whatever for covert action. And no lawyer worth chit can, not even Gonzalez, twist the law into the pretzel necessary to take 'legal' covert military action.

    If I'm wrong please feel free to inform me with the facts. I'm happy to be wrong...

    Circe | Apr 6, 2017 1:38:40 AM | 66
    And I will tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much. [notice he says: it already happened therefore the plan for Syria was already in the works and the chemical attack was like 9/11 for justifying the plan] Syrian chemical attack crossed a lot of lines for me...beyond a red line. I now have responsibility. [translation: I now have the excuse, cover to expand this war] That responsibility could be made a lot easier if it was handled years ago. [don't blame me for what I'm about to unleash; blame the other guy who hesitated to put boots on the ground and kicked the can to me.]

    I'm not saying I'm doing anything one way or another, but I'm certainly not going to be telling you. [sneaky, opaque agenda]

    Trump Neocon-speak in italics.

    Sigh...if only Obama had put boots on the ground and expanded this war, then Trump man-god wouldn't have to burst the bubble of his adoring followers here and we could all keep on pretending we don't see the Emperor's naked ass and keep blaming Obama for all Trump's screw-ups. Trump and Mattis met with the Saudi Defense Minister and blacked-out the press on that meeting, but we're supposed to believe that a plan wasn't in the works and that Trump is moved solely to defend the innocent in Syria, while he helps the Saudis slaughter children on the brink of starvation in Yemen.

    Every day I'm vindicated more and more.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 6, 2017 1:56:10 AM | 68
    In the Various Issues thread, 'maningi' at #101 points out that young children don't usually stray far from their mothers. This makes images depicting lots of dead young children, but no dead mothers, smell a bit fishy.

    How selective is sarin?

    ThatDamnGood | Apr 6, 2017 2:02:55 AM | 69
    no country for Trumpsters

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-05/suddenly-both-obamacare-repeal-and-trump-tax-reform-are-dead

    Translation: both healthcare and tax reform are now indefinitely dead, which means that a suddenly pivoting Trump, who earlier today said he had "changed his mind" on Syria, may have no choice but to begin war with Assad to distract from everything else that is going on in the US.

    Cream rises till its sours. Trump looks really out of his league atm.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 6, 2017 2:05:33 AM | 70
    The only woman I've seen in any of the MSM's 'news' was alive and purported to be recovering in a hospital in Turkey which, imo, could be any hospital, anywhere, on the planet.

    Julian | Apr 6, 2017 4:34:45 AM | 75
    Tillerson to meet Lavrov in Moscow next week
    By MADELINE CONWAY 04/05/17 11:09 AM EDT

    Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will travel to Moscow next Wednesday for a meeting with Russian officials, including the Kremlin's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov.

    Tillerson plans to discuss issues including Ukraine, North Korea, Syria, and counterterrorism with the officials while in Moscow, according to the State Department.

    The "trip is part of our effort to maintain direct lines of communication with senior Russian officials and to ensure U.S. views are clearly conveyed, including on next steps in Minsk implementation," the department said in a statement.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/rex-tillerson-moscow-trip-236906

    I'll be interested to see what comes out of this - meeting on Wednesday April 12, 2017 .

    Julian | Apr 6, 2017 4:36:01 AM | 76
    Re: Posted by: john | Apr 6, 2017 4:07:00 AM | 72

    Tulsi Gabbard. Being roundly ignored by the MSM of course.

    They won't be having her on anytime soon (except to try and make her look stupid of course).

    neocon butcher | Apr 6, 2017 4:57:32 AM | 78
    The pathetic Tillerson shows what a weak person he is

    Russia must stop support for Syria
    http://presstv.ir/Detail/2017/04/06/516934/Tillerson-calls-on-Russia-to-rethink-support-for-Syrian-government

    Yonatan | Apr 6, 2017 6:11:34 AM | 81
    Matthew Rycroft , the barking UK UN representative, once worked with NATO and also Tony Blair. He was the author of the infamous secret memo about the lead up to the Iraq war in which he said words to the effect that 'facts' and 'intelligence' were being fixed to comply with policy. Nothing has changed. 'Facts' and 'intelligence' are still being fixed to policy.

    harrylaw | Apr 6, 2017 6:18:44 AM | 82
    Nice to see you Taxi. This mass hysteria from Western Politicians and MSM against Assad 'Sentance first, verdict afterwards' should only serve to instruct Putin and Assad that regime change [by any means necessary] are the ultimate goals of the West, and formulate their policies accordingly. Many in the West like neo con John McCain think US aggression against Assad will not receive push back from Russia. Now might be the right time for Putin to quietly disabuse the US of that notion.

    Curtis | Apr 6, 2017 8:57:14 AM | 92

    smuks | Apr 6, 2017 8:59:35 AM | 93
    @aniteleya 27

    Standard operating procedure of right-wing politicians: When you don't get anything accomplished domestically, distract with some foreign policy 'adventure'/ escalation and watch them rally around the flag. Trump's yielding to Neocon interventionist demands was just a matter of time, as it was obvious that he wouldn't be able to 'deliver' on economic issues etc.

    There won't be a 'full-scale' invasion like 2003, but an increased use of SF embedded with the regional (or foreign jihadi) allies. To make sure the war goes on for as long as possible, hopefully get Russia and Iran drawn deeper into that quagmire, or at least prevent them from securing their positions.

    There's no international support whatsoever (apart from the GCC), but Trump is not the one who'd care. So it seems the only thing that could stop this would be the US running out of money...

    Note that a couple of days ago, the US govt stopped disclosing the number of troops deployed:
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-deployment-20170330-story.html

    trumpobamabush | Apr 6, 2017 9:44:24 AM | 102
    Turkey sent a report to the United Nations just before a U.N. Security Council meeting to address accusations that the Syrian government staged a chemical weapons attack on April 4, stating that the gas used in the attack was chlorine gas.

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-sends-report-to-un-over-possible-chlorine-gas-attack-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=111675&NewsCatID=359

    somebody | Apr 6, 2017 11:03:57 AM | 106
    100/101

    The significant fact is that they say chlorine gas, not sarin. Chlorine gas is dual use, easy to obtain and manufacture, and the "rebels" are known for using it. It was not on the list of chemical weapons Syria was supposed to destroy.

    The Russian version of hitting a warehouse where chlorine gas was stored is very likely depending on how the wind blows. There are accidents with chlorine gas all over the world.

    It is industrally used and produced - as simple as that.

    Actually first reporting in German media was chlorine gas, I was surprised to hear it was switched to sarin.

    Turkish medics seem to have diagnozed "gas poisoning" - they keep it as unspecific as that.

    Scotch Bingeington | Apr 6, 2017 11:35:44 AM | 109
    Posted by: hopehely | Apr 6, 2017 2:38:06 AM | 70

    It is absorbed through skin, one drop is enough to kill.
    If that was indeed sarin attack, there would be scores of dead people, dogs, cats, rats, sheep, cows, chicken and white helmets littered all around in all kinds of contorted positions.
    Oxygen masks on vicims are pointless. The affected are in neural shock, muscles twitching and spasming over all body. There is no coughing, because coughing reflex is disrupted.
    Only treatment is atropine injection straight to the muscle. You need gas mask and full hazmat overall and gloves to enter the contaminated zone. Surgical mask over face will help you nil.

    You're spot-on.
    Skin, any mucous membrane, Sarin will enter the body even through the eyeballs.
    And even if you had full protective gear, you'd have to thoroughly decontaminate that before you could even think about taking it off again.

    To think that hordes of college-educated, well paid, experienced people in politics, in the media everywhere should be impressed by such a cheap stunt by the White Helmet freaks, who are effectively using corpses for props - it just makes me scream inside.

    CarlD | Apr 6, 2017 12:20:14 PM | 112
    I have been reading the following article: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8b63/5e885486c0672aaaa962afe500ca65e1a8a1.pdf

    It is a scholarly article about nerve agents Sarin, Soman , Tabun and VX.

    Throughout the article, reference is made to the actual application of these substances to actual living human beings!

    It doesn't mention if these guinea pigs were volunteers or unwilling participants. But does indicate that research was being willfully conducted.

    Was this the work of some Dr. Mengele? Apparently not. Real Western scientists no less.

    canuck | Apr 6, 2017 12:20:24 PM | 113
    One might wonder what Trump actually understood when he declared ISIS the great enemy:

    Was he aware that ISIS was a PTB creature, and that his beloved Israel's IDF have been low profile participants in ISIS?
    For example: www.globalresearch.ca/israel-supports-isis/5492807

    "Dec. 2, 2015 – Israel Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon admitted Israel support for ISIS"

    somebody | Apr 6, 2017 12:32:37 PM | 114
    Doctors without Borders assume two toxins have been involved
    A number of victims of the April 4 attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun were brought to the hospital, located about 60 miles to the north, near the Turkish border. Eight people who were examined by MSF staff displayed symptoms consistent with exposure to an agent such as sarin gas or similar compounds, including constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary defecation.

    The MSF team provided drugs and antidotes to treat patients, and distributed protective clothing to medical staff in the hospital's emergency room.

    MSF medical teams also visited other hospitals treating victims of the attack, and reported that they smelled of bleach, indicative of possible exposure to chlorine.

    These reports strongly suggest that victims of the attack on Khan Sheikhoun were exposed to at least two different chemical agents.

    somebody | Apr 6, 2017 12:52:50 PM | 117
    add to 112

    Actually a lot of legitimate stuff can be neurotoxic

    Pesticides for example.

    Khan Sheikhoun is an agricultural place with cotton farming. Pesticides will be freely available there.

    jawbone | Apr 6, 2017 12:55:30 PM | 118
    Nikki Haley barks very loudly and may be getting on Trump's nerves. He must regret not having chosen Bolton at the UN. At least he was predictable and would have submitted to Trump's authority.

    Nikki is a wild goose.

    Posted by: virgile | Apr 5, 2017 2:57:47 PM | 16

    Nikki is the front for The Heritage Foundation. Trump seems to have outsourced US foreign policy (along with most of domestic policy) the Heritage.

    frances | Apr 6, 2017 1:00:54 PM | 119
    There was an interesting post on Zero Hedge:
    ""A day prior to the attack, Gulf-based Orient TV announced "Tomorrow we are launching a media campaign to cover the airstrikes on Hama country side including the usage of chemical warfare against civilians." This shows clear foreknowledge that the rebels were going to stage an attack by Orient TV."
    As Taxi 105 noted, If Trump attacks Syria he will lose the Independents and Dems that rejected HC et al and voted for him. But more than losing them he may turn them against him and they may well support the current Dem's Impeach Him effort. People are tired of being lied to, they will not take much more IMO, from either side.

    somebody | Apr 6, 2017 1:47:15 PM | 123
    Posted by: jawbone | Apr 6, 2017 12:55:30 PM | 115

    Well, the Heritage Foundation is recommending more of the same in Syria .

    virgile | Apr 6, 2017 2:06:25 PM | 127
    @Grieved

    I agree with you. Trump always say that he will not reveal what he intends to do and when.

    In this case he will watch the current. There already voices in the congress doubting that the Syrian president actually ordered a chemical attack that goes against his interests. Why would the Syrian army be interested to randomly kill dozens of civilians when it has to fight ten of thousands of well armed Islamist terrorists.

    Trump will come to his senses and do nothing. The neocons will certainly come up with something else because they only want an Israel-friendly Sunni leader in Syria, not an Iran-friendly leader.

    Trump has a VERY tough fight against the Dems and the Neocons. It will be bloody and the USA will weaken even further in the next 4 years.

    lysias | Apr 6, 2017 2:24:53 PM | 128
    Nunes taking himself off the investigation (presumably under White House orders) is another sign that the Trump administration is surrendering to the Russophobes.

    karlof1 | Apr 6, 2017 3:11:42 PM | 131
    Pepe Escobar, as usual, posts a very potent riposte to the sTrumpet's cries, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201704061052371707-syria-toxic-meltdown/

    By the sTrumpet's own criteria, every nation on the planet has 100% justification to attack his Outlaw US Empire anywhere and everywhere until it's completely devastated.

    AtaBrit | Apr 6, 2017 3:51:43 PM | 133
    Erdogan stating in an interview this evening that Trump should put his words into action and that Turkey is willing to do anything it takes to support the US militarily in Syria AND Iraq!! "Let's pull together all the strength of the coalition with the US at its head..."

    Erdogan also stated that he had spoken to Putin, but that Putin was still questioning whether Assad had done it or not ...
    This looks very much like Turkey seeing how far it can push Trump.

    Is this really it?

    Top link - Turkish; bottom link - English.

    http://www.t24.com.tr/haber/trumptan-suriyeye-askeri-mudahale-sinyali-erdogandan-destek,397829

    https://www.komnews.com/turkey-will-support-us-operation-syria-takes-place-president-erdogan/

    karlof1 | Apr 6, 2017 4:11:56 PM | 135
    Southfront has posted an article first published by Veterans Today (yes, I know about its unreliable nature) that is essentially an attempt to provide wider distribution of a very damning report about the White Helmet terrorists by the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights organization: "The doctors found that the videos were counterfeit, where even Arabic stage directions were overheard, and that the alleged "Rescue" in actuality is a murder." https://southfront.org/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/

    Southfront provides a video featuring Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wher she cites a report by a new (to me) publication, The Indicter , which provided the basis for the VT report. Here's the link to its article an imbedded videos, http://theindicter.com/white-helmets-movie-updated-evidence-from-swedish-doctors-confirm-fake-lifesaving-and-malpractices-on-children/ And that's not their only report indicting the White Helmets as frauds and terrorists. The site warrants further investigation as it appears to be another member of the Multipolar Alliance, http://theindicter.com/

    Curtis | Apr 6, 2017 5:53:28 PM | 136
    Just caught Deutche Welle news on PBS World channel. They interviewed Abdullah with White Helmets. The announcer said the Syrian government claimed it had hit a base with illegal weapons. Then he asked Abdullah about this. HA HA HA!. Right! As if the ones reporting the incident would ever reverse themselves. So Mr. White Helmet reiterated the earlier strikes and govt denial and then said who would have such weapons. Geeeeee, maybe those opposed to Assad who have a lot of outside help?

    Petri Krohn | Apr 6, 2017 9:57:31 PM | 146
    DID WORLD WAR 3 JUST BREAK OUT?

    The United States tried to launch a war of aggression against Syria in August 2013, following the #ChemicalHoax massacre in Ghouta. It was prevented from doing so by the Russian Navy, which had taken control of the Eastern Mediterranean.

    The plan in 2013 was to coordinate the missile strike with al-Qaeda forces, so that Islamist would quickly overrun the government bases and capture Damascus. I believed at the time that Russia would respond to the attack, the secret orders to the fleet were to sink any U.S. ship launching an illegal attack.

    Will Russia respond this time? (Or has it already retaliated?) I do not think so. The difference is that the Syrian government is no longer in a mortal danger. The missiles are mainly symbolic. There is no al-Nusra army waiting for the signal to launch their coordinated attack.

    Trump Orders Military Strike in Syria; Dozens of Cruise Missiles Launched at Government Targets

    The United States launched a military strike on Syrian government targets in retaliation for their chemical weapon attack on civilians earlier in the week, CNN is told.

    On President Donald Trump's orders, US warships launched 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    The strikes are the first direct military action the US has taken against the leadership of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the country's six-year civil war and represent a substantial escalation of the US' military campaign in the region, which could be interpreted by the Syrian government as an act of war. The US began launching airstrikes in Syria in September 2014 under President Barack Obama as part of its coalition campaign against ISIS, but has only targeted the terrorist group and not Syrian government forces.

    dh | Apr 6, 2017 10:22:24 PM | 150
    This cruise missile attack isn't totally pointless. It makes Trump look tough and shuts the war party up temporarily. Syria loses a few planes and runways.

    The question is will Assad retaliate? If he lets it pass it's just a question of time until the next 'gas attack'.

    psychohistorian | Apr 6, 2017 10:25:21 PM | 151
    It is interesting that Trump et. al. executed an attack on Syria within hours of the Xi/Trump meeting.

    If we don't go the nuclear extinction route out of this I suspect the China and Russia can take the US to the UN and see what happens. If nothing else it may build a coalition to stop funding further war crimes by buying more US Treasuries.

    That is the high road that I think that China/Russia and ??? will take.

    Sigh! May you live in interesting times. Call it a curse or a blessing, either way, live this interesting time honorably.

    [Apr 06, 2017] The only pre-election promises that actually will be retained are torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil. Did you vote for these items? Anyway, that is all you are left with. Get used to it

    Notable quotes:
    "... you like most losers are driven by your own projections. You projected your hopes and wishful thinking on Trump and it worked perfectly for him. He got elected. ..."
    "... now after firing Bannon there is nothing left. He was the last and the only guarantor of your hopes. That's why MSM hated Bannon so much. ..."
    "... torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil ..."
    "... enjoy your Trump as president ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | www.unz.com

    utu , April 6, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMTn

    @Buzz Mohawk
    This turn of events is the biggest challenge ever to my support of Trump. If he really goes the way he is indicating, he will lose the support of people like me -- and there may be millions like me. We have no alternative candidate, but we will never again be led down this road.

    If Trump turns, that is the end of everything.

    " we will never again be led down this road." You will, you will because you like most losers are driven by your own projections. You projected your hopes and wishful thinking on Trump and it worked perfectly for him. He got elected.

    But now after firing Bannon there is nothing left. He was the last and the only guarantor of your hopes. That's why MSM hated Bannon so much.

    The only pre-election promises that actually will be retained are torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil. Did you vote for these items? Anyway, that is all you are left with. Get used to it:

    torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil

    And enjoy your Trump as president.

    [Apr 06, 2017] Bannon no longer on Trump's National Security Council

    Notable quotes:
    "... "regular attendees" ..."
    "... "Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal. ..."
    "... "General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added. ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | www.rt.com
    President Donald Trump has reorganized the National Security Council, and his Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon is apparently no longer on the Principals Committee, according to a memo that has surfaced. Bloomberg has posted a memo from Trump, dated April 4, reorganizing the National Security Council and updating the list of officials who sit on its Principals Committee. The document shows no role for Bannon and a reduced role for Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert.

    Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, are again considered "regular attendees" of the principals committee.

    In addition to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, the regular attendees will be the secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security and the Attorney General; the national and homeland security advisers; and the US envoy to the UN, as well as the CIA director, in addition to the Joint Chiefs chair and the DNI.

    The White House chief of staff, counsel and deputy counsel for national security, and the director of the Office of Management and Budget are also invited to attend any NSC meeting, the memo says.

    "Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.

    "General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added.

    [Apr 06, 2017] Where are canisters and where are bomblets.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I find revealing is that the United States Ambassador to the UN should decide in effect to dictate to the UN. Diplomacy and belligerency differ, Ambassador Haley does not appear to care. ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> pgl..., April 05, 2017 at 03:11 PM
    bomblet debris is missing. need pictures. sarin is volatile. cannot be exploded. must be canister dropped.

    where are canisters and where are bomblets.

    about 40% duds on average if they are bad as US CBU's

    anne -> anne... , April 05, 2017 at 02:13 PM
    What the outcome may be I have no idea, but what I find revealing is that the United States Ambassador to the UN should decide in effect to dictate to the UN. Diplomacy and belligerency differ, Ambassador Haley does not appear to care.

    [Apr 06, 2017] Richmond Fed's Jeffrey Lacker Departs Due to Leak Defenestration as Coverup

    Apr 06, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    From a trading perspective, the big news was at the top: "The minutes will show it will be unlikely that the labor market improvement will be substantial enough to stave off new Treasury purchases into 2013." And in the sixth paragraph it describes how the Fed was likely to vote as early as December to stop the part of its MBS buying designed to counter the bonds being paid off (due to foreclosures, home sales, refis) and buy roughly $45 billion a month of Treasuries instead.

    The amount of granular detail was stunning. For instance:

    The committee will attach a predictive timetable outlining the duration of these purchases The monthly MBS purchases of around $40 billion will continue along side the new program Tomorrow's minutes will reference a staff paper The minutes will show the dovish majority was ready .[to make] open ended MBS and Treasury purchases as early as last month.

    This is so specific that it comes of as if Medley either got its hands on an advance draft of the FOMC minutes or someone read it to her.

    The report also describes, again in depth, how the decision process prior to the September meeting departed from established norms as well as voyeristic tidbits, such as that finalizing the text of the policy recommendations kept staffers up until after midnight.

    Given how extraordinarily revealing this note was, Lacker's departure is unsatisfactory. Specifically:

    Either Lacker lied or the investigators aren't even close to getting to the bottom of this . Lacker has admitted only to taking a call from the Medley analyst, supposedly having her run insider detail by him, and indirectly confirming it by not getting off the phone. From his resignation letter, which was released by law firm McGuireWoods, not the Richmond Fed:

    During that October 2, 2012 discussion, the [Medley] Analyst introduced into the conversation an important non-public detail about one of the policy options considered by participants prior to the meeting. Due to the highly confidential and sensitive nature of this information, I should have declined to comment and perhaps have ended the phone call. Instead, I did not refuse or express my inability to comment and the interview continued. Additionally, after that phone call, I did not, as required by the Information Security Policy, report to any FOMC personnel that the Analyst was in possession of confidential FOMC information. When Medley published a report by the Analyst the following day, October 3, 2012, it contained this important detail about one of the policy options and I realized that my failure to decline comment on the information could have been taken by the Analyst, in the context of the conversation, as an acknowledgment or confirmation of the information.

    This reads like the equivalent of a plea bargain, that Lacker and his lawyers negotiated him to 'fess up to the most minimal breach possible provided he resign.

    Alternatively, if Lacker is being truthful, it means that one or more additional people provided the information to the Medley analyst, Regina Schleiger.

    [Apr 06, 2017] Bannon no longer on Trump's National Security Council

    Notable quotes:
    "... "regular attendees" ..."
    "... "Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal. ..."
    "... "General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added. ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | www.rt.com
    President Donald Trump has reorganized the National Security Council, and his Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon is apparently no longer on the Principals Committee, according to a memo that has surfaced. Bloomberg has posted a memo from Trump, dated April 4, reorganizing the National Security Council and updating the list of officials who sit on its Principals Committee. The document shows no role for Bannon and a reduced role for Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert.

    Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, are again considered "regular attendees" of the principals committee.

    In addition to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, the regular attendees will be the secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security and the Attorney General; the national and homeland security advisers; and the US envoy to the UN, as well as the CIA director, in addition to the Joint Chiefs chair and the DNI.

    The White House chief of staff, counsel and deputy counsel for national security, and the director of the Office of Management and Budget are also invited to attend any NSC meeting, the memo says.

    "Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.

    "General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added.

    [Apr 06, 2017] Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed

    Apr 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc

    , April 05, 2017 at 09:36 AM
    US Navy has a new Arleigh Burke

    http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/04/05/General-Dynamics-christens-US-Navys-USS-Thomas-Hudner/8921491404714/

    "General Dynamics christens U.S. Navy's USS Thomas Hudner"

    By Ryan Maass...April 5, 2017...11:34 AM

    "April 5 (UPI) -- General Dynamics Bath Iron Works christened the U.S. Navy's future Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Thomas Hudner during a ceremony.

    The christening took place at Bath Iron Works' shipyard on Saturday, and was attended by the ship's namesake, Capt. Thomas Hudner. During the Korean War, Hudner intentionally crash-landed his plane to save Ensign Jesse Brown, the first African-American Navy pilot...

    The christening comes almost two after the keel for the vessel was laid down in Bath, Maine. The Navy expects to commission the ship in Boston in 2018.

    Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers are multirole surface ships built to engage threats in all directions. The vessels can be used to support anti-air warfare as well as anti-submarine warfare. They can operate independently or as part of larger groups."

    ilsm -> im1dc... , April 05, 2017 at 03:03 PM
    Years behind in replacing Arleigh Burkes*. Nothing replacing the Ticonderoga class cruisers.

    Two more hulls and the Arleigh Burkes class gets an upgrade, designated "Flight III" about 1000 more tons, 4 ft wider stern, and if it works (might use some new materials GaNi chips) a new radar replacing the 40 year old Aegis.

    The extra weight is to make room for air conditioners to keep all the denser electronics cool.

    The Navy lost Zumwalt (DD 1000) at 3 ships and never got a chance for bigger cruiser class ships.

    A serious compromise and risky proposition with air and missile defenses that are questionable from the outset.

    *there seems to be about 17 new hulls for Arleigh Burke with the last 15 being new "Flt III" for the newer radar. I see s schedule issue!

    libezkova -> ilsm... , April 05, 2017 at 07:12 PM
    This is a lot of money ...

    Eisenhower:

    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

    It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

    The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

    It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

    It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

    We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

    We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

    This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

    This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

    [Apr 06, 2017] Diplomats warn of Russia hysteria

    Apr 06, 2017 | thehill.com
    "That's total horseshit," said Wayne Merry, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council who worked as a U.S. diplomat to Russia and has known Kislyak for decades. "It's a witch-hunt with paranoia and hysteria at its core. Normally it's the Russians who become paranoid and hysterical. That the conspiracy theories and paranoia is coming from Americans makes me very uncomfortable."

    The past two U.S. ambassadors to Russia defended Kislyak in interviews with The Hill: Michael McFaul a fierce Trump critic who was appointed by former President Obama, and John Beyrle, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush but served for three years under Obama.

    Both former ambassadors tell The Hill that the Russian ambassador was merely doing his job and that there is no evidence of any illicit collusion between him and the Trump campaign.

    McFaul and Beyrle say they are extremely troubled by evidence that suggests the Russians interfered in the U.S. election. They support an independent investigation into the matter.

    But allegations and insinuations that Kislyak was the point person for this - and that it could have played out in broad daylight at meetings on Capitol Hill or at Trump campaign events - are preposterous, they say.

    "Kislyak's job is to meet with government officials and campaign people and I think he's good at his job," said McFaul. "People should meet with the Russian ambassador and it's wrong to criminalize that or discourage it. I want the Russian government to be as informed as possible about the American political process. When I was ambassador, it was frustrating how poorly informed the Russian government was. It's a good thing to meet with him, not a bad thing."

    National security experts generally agree that Sessions and other Trump campaign officials have handled the Russia issue poorly.

    Sessions, they say, should have told Congress about his meeting with Kislyak.

    And they say Flynn was reckless and wrong to speak with Russian diplomats about sanctions during the transition period when Obama was still president.

    Still, former diplomats say the atmosphere in Washington over anything that carries even a whiff of Russia is out of control.

    "It's the usual Washington breathlessness that accompanies any story these days about Trump or the Russians," said Beyrle. "That doesn't mean there isn't need for an investigation. There is almost no question that there was Russian interference in the election and there needs to be an investigation. But to conclude from all this that Kislyak was somehow a bad actor is missing the target."

    National security experts say the uproar around Kislyak could have foreign policy reverberations, potentially making life difficult for the current U.S. ambassador to Russia, John Tefft, or his successor, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.

    "The Russian default mode is reciprocity," said Beyrle. "If they feel we're doing it to them, more often than not they'll do it back to us."

    McFaul has experienced this first-hand. He routinely landed on the front page of Russian newspapers, accused of fomenting revolution.

    "I was demonized and called all kinds of things in the Russian press and I don't want Americans to do to Kislyak what the Russian government did to me," McFaul said. "It's not good for U.S. Russian relations. People should be able to meet with him without fear of being called a double-agent. Throwing around loosely, without documentation, that this person is an intelligence officer is dangerous."

    It's damaging to U.S. interests for lawmakers to be skittish about meeting with foreign ambassadors, according to Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security at the U.S. Naval War College.

    From the Russian perspective, Gvosdev is worried that the frenzy around Kislyak will provoke the Russians to shut down diplomatic backchannels needed for the countries to cooperate on even basic levels.

    "Russia is still a major player. We can't not talk to them, " Gvosdev said. "We are really creating issues for future diplomacy with the Russians and this will make it harder when there's an actual major challenge from them."

    Andrey Sushentsov, the head of the Moscow-based Foreign Policy Advisory Group and a program director at the Valdai Club there, says the damage has already been done.

    "It seems that the "Russian question" is becoming one of the issues in America's culture wars," Sushentsov said in an email to The Hill. "By demonizing a foreign partner for a political purposes the U.S. limits it's capability in global governance and diplomacy.

    "Russia was not expecting the relations with the U.S. to improve significantly, but was not striving to worsen them even more. What Russia needs is predictability and stability in its relations with the US - even if this is a negative stability. Current climate in Washington does not permit this." Tags Jeff Sessions

    [Apr 04, 2017] Big Companies Shake Fingers at Employees for Raiding 401K accounts

    Notable quotes:
    "... If I had a 401K, I would not be trusting those jackals with my money. My ex lost pretty much everything after he had contributed for 12+ years. ..."
    "... As far as cutting off Wall Street from the teat of the Fed, this is a virtual impossibility. Wall Street, the Fed, and the Federal Government, and particularly the National Security State, are all just different faces of the same entity. It would be like trying to separate the front and the back of a dollar bill. You can't do it without destroying the whole thing. ..."
    "... "Companies are worried about their employees retirement prospects" Gotta love the language. Maybe they should pay their employees more ..."
    "... this is why I don't read the news anymore. The ongoing casual lies are embedded within a broader tapestry of falsehood. ..."
    "... Even of the boomers I bet many of them don't have pensions. Why? They didn't work for government or fortune 500s, and it was probably never that many people with lifetime at careers at small companies that got pensions. But much of the employment is small businesses. ..."
    "... "The great lie is that the 401(k) was capable of replacing the old system of pensions," No kidding. There are so many great lies with 401(k)'s, the biggest being that it is now expected that people should be able to save enough for their own retirement if they would only assume some personal responsibility. ..."
    "... Over the years, I have been astonished at how little many executives understand about finance, taxes, and business. I have always wondered what they actually do in their cocooned meetings. Generally speaking, those meetings result in hilarious memos re-organizing people that don't appear to have anything to do with the normal business while cutting costs that are essential to executing the business. ..."
    "... So it is not a surprise to me that a high-level executive would be unaware that a 401k is tax-deferred, not tax-exempt. He probably also thinks that a hedge fund is guaranteed to outperform the S&P 500 and has already moved his money into one, which means he will have less money to pay his taxes with. ..."
    "... I'm curious: If you pay the interest on the 401k loan with already-taxed money, is that interest taxed again upon withdrawal from the 401k? ..."
    "... Yes it is a 35% tax savings, even if not in the highest bracket. Say in the 25% fed bracket (income of $37,950 to $91,900). Then California income taxes for that income can come to nearly 10%. ..."
    "... many 401k accounts tend to have higher costs for equivalent funds than one can get in a rollover IRA. Buyer gots to do their research. ..."
    "... No, he's correct. 401(k)s have TONS of hidden fees. You can't even get full disclosure of the full fees. You are guaranteed to have lower fees and more choices at Vanguard. ..."
    Apr 04, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Michael Fiorillo , April 3, 2017 at 7:21 am

    Soylent Green is people!

    cnchal , April 3, 2017 at 7:29 am

    Since American companies are run by the greediest psychopaths on the planet, the real reason for the objection to 401K withdrawals might as well be that selling overpriced stock and using the cash to pay bills, reduces the opportunity of the chief corporate psychopaths to cash out on their stock options.

    It's personal. How dare a peasant beat a corporate bigwig by cashing out early, and reduce the bigwig's monetary takings by even a penny.

    Tapping or pocketing retirement funds early, known in the industry as leakage, threatens to reduce the wealth in U.S. retirement accounts by about 25% when the lost annual savings are compounded over 30 years, according to an analysis by economists at Boston College's Center for Retirement Research.

    That's 25% less available funds that Wall Street can steal from customers. Starve the beast? How do we cut them off from the teat of the FED?

    Bernie Sanders: The business of Wall Street is fraud and greed.

    Portia , April 3, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    precisely. If I had a 401K, I would not be trusting those jackals with my money. My ex lost pretty much everything after he had contributed for 12+ years.

    Helix , April 3, 2017 at 4:32 pm

    Re: " American companies are run by the greediest psychopaths on the planet "

    I have a quibble with this point of view. Greed takes many forms, and greed for power is just as motivating as greed for wealth. So I'm of the opinion that corporate psychopaths have plenty of company in the halls of government, particularly in the National Security arena. These people have shown that killing hundreds of thousands and destroying the lives of millions more is not enough to satisfy their lust for power and control. Oh no, not nearly enough. The beast you speak of must eat every day.

    As far as cutting off Wall Street from the teat of the Fed, this is a virtual impossibility. Wall Street, the Fed, and the Federal Government, and particularly the National Security State, are all just different faces of the same entity. It would be like trying to separate the front and the back of a dollar bill. You can't do it without destroying the whole thing.

    And if I was Marc Jones, I wouldn't be crying "ovens" too loud. It's happened before, and by people who may not have been all that much further along the psychopath curve than the ones we are dealing with now.

    Larry , April 3, 2017 at 7:52 am

    I have friends who are just past their mid-30s and borrowed against their 401k to make a house purchase. A promotion lead to a desire for a bigger home in a nicer town (i.e. schools) and when they sold their current house a combination of real estate transaction fees and being slightly underwater on mortgage (I thought housing prices always went up!?) meant the only place they could go for excess savings was their retirement accounts. Now that's something I would never do, but I understand the motivation. And from their perspective, things are still on the upswing in terms of their age and career expected earnings.

    I have another colleague who has been at our large company long enough to still have a pension plan, while our U.K. colleagues are still in a union. Instead of wondering why our older colleagues have it so good with regards to benefits and time off, they just joke about the days of a pension being gone and make with the old man cracks.

    Quanka , April 3, 2017 at 8:10 am

    "Companies are worried about their employees retirement prospects" Gotta love the language. Maybe they should pay their employees more

    If you actually believe that's what companies are concerned about but seriously this is why I don't read the news anymore. The ongoing casual lies are embedded within a broader tapestry of falsehood.

    Moneta , April 3, 2017 at 8:51 am

    They can't pay more they need to maximize their eps or stock price for the big pension plans who own them.

    The irony is that they need to minimize the pay of their workers to maximize the pensions of workers not necessarily in their firm.

    jrs , April 3, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    Well they could just make contributions to the 401ks for employees themselves without even requiring the employee to put anything in (without requiring matching). Some companies do do this. Probably better than just paying them more if they are really worried about their retirement funds, because if they just paid them more there's a good chance it wouldn't go to retirement. I'm not opposed to more pay, just realistic about how much might go to retirement. A pension of course is better but small companies aren't going to manage that financially even if they wanted to.

    Even of the boomers I bet many of them don't have pensions. Why? They didn't work for government or fortune 500s, and it was probably never that many people with lifetime at careers at small companies that got pensions. But much of the employment is small businesses.

    KYrocky , April 3, 2017 at 8:29 am

    "The great lie is that the 401(k) was capable of replacing the old system of pensions," No kidding. There are so many great lies with 401(k)'s, the biggest being that it is now expected that people should be able to save enough for their own retirement if they would only assume some personal responsibility.

    But the math has never worked. According to Reaganomics, personal responsibility is the solution to retirement needs, medical costs, education costs, child care costs, unemployment, etc. No one has ever been able to produce a household budget for a family in the lower half of income that would ever come remotely close to fulfilling the conservative's fantasy of personal responsibility. It. Can't. Be. Done.

    The great lie that is the 401(k) and Reaganomics serves the same purpose as so many other conservative lies: it allows more money to flow to Wall Street and the richest Americans. It also is used to justify tax cuts for the rich and cuts in social programs. It is about the greed of the few against the living standards of the rest of our society.

    The 401(k) was intended to be a supplemental income to a pension, but those pensions no longer exist and are never coming back. In the face of what has happened, particularly the graft Wall Street and financial managers have imposed on 401(k)'s and other retirement investments, what is needed is a much more muscular Social Security system for retirement.

    jrs , April 3, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    Does anyone know what percentage of boomers (or even older boomers) have pensions? I'm guessing it's not all that high (even if it's 50%, that means half would be relying on SS and other savings etc.).

    jfleni , April 3, 2017 at 8:33 am

    It's a good reaon to increase SSI, as Bernie and friends say; lock it up so the plutocrat thieves won't plunder it first!

    Moneta , April 3, 2017 at 8:40 am

    So if all benefited from well funded DB plan wouldn't the economy be smaller from less spending and markets even more overvalued?

    Oh no, the economy would have been smaller so there would have been less money to save

    My head hurts thinking about all those what ifs!

    It just seems to me that the cost of living for the vast majority will always equal disposable income because there is alway someone out there younger, willing to work longer hours, willing to take a pay cut or pay extra for a house. Arbitrage rules.

    Moneta , April 3, 2017 at 9:10 am

    Asking everyone to save for 30 years of retirement is a farce and sure to fail. And we are currently witnessing its failure. There are just too many variables.

    All it takes is for someone out there to plan using a life expectancy of 80 while another with the same income uses 95. This gives them way more cash flow during their working years to increase the price of everything screwing up the plans of those using more conservative assumptions.

    And this is just one variable

    Moneta , April 3, 2017 at 9:44 am

    And if every American saved for retirement owning part of the equity index, wouldn't that be approaching communism?

    Interesting that capitalists would have thought up such a pension system. Lol!

    PhilM , April 3, 2017 at 10:19 am

    Pension funds own about 1/6th of equities as it is.

    m , April 3, 2017 at 9:09 am

    Since companies don't care if you survive after you leave them and I bet in many of these big box stores newbies and old timers probably earn about the same amount 10-15/hr. What is the real reason they want to stop leakage? That 25% drop in gambling money & earnings for fund managers.
    I am guilty moved on to new job and cashed it out. I didn't put any money in, don't care and don't see this as a real way to ?retire.
    After 2008 it seems like 401ks are just a place to dump garbage. What do I know, I am young & dumb.

    Moneta , April 3, 2017 at 9:15 am

    Older workers = higher health care expenses and higher matching contributions.

    phemfrog , April 3, 2017 at 9:17 am

    Question:
    So my spouse has changed jobs 4 times in the last 5 years. Each time we have to cash out the old 401k and deposit it in the new one. Some times this rollover was done by direct wire transfer from old to new, but one time they sent us a check, which we signed over to the new 401k account. Are these somehow being counted as "cashing out"? We though these are really rollovers? Just curious

    jrs , April 3, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    is there a reason you aren't just depositing it in an IRA when she leaves?

    Billy-Bob , April 3, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    If you move monies from one 401k into another, or transfer it into a rollover IRA it is not considered as a taxable event, I.e., you did not cash out.

    oh , April 3, 2017 at 9:21 am

    The Wall Street crooks through the governments they own have convinced the majority of the people that 401(k)s are good because of (1) tax deferral and (2) company contributions. Americans are obsessed with paying lower taxes that they let the Wall Street Banksters get their claws on their savings. The laws dictate that only the banksters/brokers can keep and handle your savings. Each trade results in a commission. Add to this mix the myriad of so called financial consultants who churn the account for their own benefit. When Wall Street crashes, Good Bye!

    m April m , April 3, 2017 at 10:25 am

    Exactly! And they dump sub prime this and that in there. No fiduciary obligation=garbage.

    Octopii , April 3, 2017 at 9:23 am

    BIL (high-level TV executive mostly unemployed for two years) withdrew his entire 401k without understanding the tax consequences. April 15 a very large number is due to the Feds. Oops.

    DH , April 3, 2017 at 9:40 am

    Over the years, I have been astonished at how little many executives understand about finance, taxes, and business. I have always wondered what they actually do in their cocooned meetings. Generally speaking, those meetings result in hilarious memos re-organizing people that don't appear to have anything to do with the normal business while cutting costs that are essential to executing the business.

    So it is not a surprise to me that a high-level executive would be unaware that a 401k is tax-deferred, not tax-exempt. He probably also thinks that a hedge fund is guaranteed to outperform the S&P 500 and has already moved his money into one, which means he will have less money to pay his taxes with.

    DH , April 3, 2017 at 9:35 am

    Borrowing against your 401k is only an issue if you are saving in it at a low rate. The really big issue with 401ks is that companies generally do not put much in matching funds in – typically far less than their old pension fund contributions would be. Instead, those funds have been going to pay for exorbitant healthcare insurance plans in the vastly over-priced US healthcare system.

    I have borrowed against my 401ks over the years. However, I also save at a pretty high rate, generally at the highest rate that the company permits. So I get the tax savings (been in some of the highest tax brackets for over 20 years and live in a high income tax state, so about 35% or so tax deferral) while building an asset base.

    Occasionally, something comes up that needs some cash, so I take a loan against the 401k (generally the value is less than a year's worth of contributions) and set up a schedule to pay it back over a couple of years. Some years the interest rate on the loan (that you are paying to yourself) is higher than the portfolio returns and other years it is lower. In the end, I have come out ahead because I am not trying to save those chunks of money after tax in a bank savings account that pays little or not interest.

    Mr. P , April 3, 2017 at 11:10 am

    I'm curious: If you pay the interest on the 401k loan with already-taxed money, is that interest taxed again upon withdrawal from the 401k?

    jrs , April 3, 2017 at 12:44 pm

    Yes it is a 35% tax savings, even if not in the highest bracket. Say in the 25% fed bracket (income of $37,950 to $91,900). Then California income taxes for that income can come to nearly 10%.

    Ernesto Lyon , April 3, 2017 at 11:14 am

    You almost never want to roll your 401k into a new employers plan. Shift it to your own IRA.

    When you roll to your employer's plan you lose flexibility and can even put your pre-existing funds at risk in certain cases.

    Billy-Bob , April 3, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    Mostly true, but it depends. If the new 410k has good, low cost investment options that one wishes to utilize then it's probably fine. That said, many 401k accounts tend to have higher costs for equivalent funds than one can get in a rollover IRA. Buyer gots to do their research.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 3, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    No, he's correct. 401(k)s have TONS of hidden fees. You can't even get full disclosure of the full fees. You are guaranteed to have lower fees and more choices at Vanguard.

    susan the other , April 3, 2017 at 11:27 am

    Not just the corporation investing in equities or stock buybacks, or workers investing in equities, but also the corporations turn themselves into finance/insurance businesses (Westinghouse, etc.) It's funny that they can't see how they have defeated themselves – and they are blaming leakage when spending the money is the antidote to stagnation as the system now works. It's hard to imagine that the corporations want to retire the old workers to make room for new – I don't believe that for a second because they'll gladly retire 4 olds and hire 1new. It's "flexibility" they are looking for.

    Stephen Hemenway , April 3, 2017 at 11:44 am

    If they want people to retire earlier maybe they could lower the age at which social security pays out.

    [Apr 04, 2017] Drones, special operations, CIA arms supplies, military advisers, aerial bombings - the whole nine yards.

    Apr 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC , April 04, 2017 at 07:42 AM
    US Military Should Get Out of the Middle East Jeffrey Sachs, Boston Globe

    It's time to end US military engagements in the Middle East.

    Drones, special operations, CIA arms supplies, military advisers, aerial bombings - the whole nine yards. Over and done with.

    That might seem impossible in the face of ISIS, terrorism, Iranian ballistic missiles, and other US security interests, but a military withdrawal from the Middle East is by far the safest path for the United States and the region. That approach has instructive historical precedents.

    America has been no different from other imperial powers in finding itself ensnared repeatedly in costly, bloody, and eventually futile overseas wars. From the Roman empire till today, the issue is not whether an imperial army can defeat a local one. It usually can, just as the United States did quickly in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.

    The issue is whether it gains anything by doing so. Following such a "victory," the imperial power faces unending heavy costs in terms of policing, political instability, guerilla war, and terrorist blowback.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/03/us-military-should-get-out-middle-east

    anne -> RGC... , April 04, 2017 at 08:42 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/magazine/the-empire-slinks-back.html

    April 27, 2003

    The Empire Slinks Back
    By NIALL FERGUSON

    Wheresoever the Roman conquers, he inhabits. -- Seneca

    Iraq has fallen. Saddam's statues are face down in the dust. His evil tyranny is at an end.

    So -- can we, like, go home now?

    You didn't have to wait long for a perfect symbol of the fundamental weakness at the heart of the new American imperialism -- sorry, humanitarianism. I'm talking about its chronically short time frame. I wasn't counting, but the Stars and Stripes must have been up there on the head of that statue of Saddam for less than a minute. You have to wonder what his commanding officer said to the marine responsible, Cpl. Edward Chin, when he saw Old Glory up there. ''Son, get that thing down on the double, or we'll have every TV station from here to Bangladesh denouncing us as Yankee imperialists!''

    An echo of Corporal Chin's imperial impulse can be heard in the last letter Cpl. Kemaphoom Chanawongse sent home before he and his Marine unit entered Iraq. Chanawongse joked that his camp in Kuwait was like something out of ''M*A*S*H'' -- except that it would need to be called ''M*A*H*T*S*F'': ''marines are here to stay forever.''

    But the question raised by Corporal Chanawongse's poignant final joke -- he was killed a week later, when his amphibious assault vehicle was blown up in Nasiriya -- is, Are the marines in Iraq ''to stay forever''? No doubt it is true, as President Bush said, that the America will ''honor forever'' Corporal Chanawongse and the more than 120 other service personnel so far killed in the conflict. Honored forever, yes. But there forever? In many ways the biggest mystery about the American occupation of Iraq is its probable duration. Recent statements by members of the Bush administration bespeak a time frame a lot closer to ephemeral than eternal. As the president himself told the Iraqi people in a television broadcast shortly after the fall of Baghdad: ''The government of Iraq and the future of your country will soon belong to you. . . . We will respect your great religious traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are essential to Iraq's future. We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave.''

    What the president didn't make entirely clear was whether the departing troops would be accompanied by the retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner and his ''Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance,'' newspeak for what would once have been called Omgus -- the Office of Military Government (United States). Nor was he very specific about when exactly he expected to see the handover of power to the ''peaceful and representative government'' of Iraqis.

    But we know the kind of time frame the president has in mind. In a prewar speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Bush declared, ''We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more.'' It is striking that the unit of measure he used was days. Speaking less than a week before the fall of Baghdad, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, suggested that Garner would be running Iraq for at least six months. Other administration spokesmen have mentioned two years as the maximum transition period. When Garner himself was asked how long he expected to be in charge, he talked about just three months.

    If -- as more and more commentators claim -- America has embarked on a new age of empire, it may turn out to be the most evanescent empire in all history. Other empire builders have fantasized about ruling subject peoples for a thousand years. This is shaping up to be history's first thousand-day empire. Make that a thousand hours.

    Let me come clean. I am a fully paid-up member of the neoimperialist gang. Two years ago -- when it was not at all fashionable to say so -- I was already arguing that it would be ''desirable for the United States to depose'' tyrants like Saddam Hussein. ''Capitalism and democracy,'' I wrote, ''are not naturally occurring, but require strong institutional foundations of law and order. The proper role of an imperial America is to establish these institutions where they are lacking, if necessary . . . by military force.'' ...

    [Apr 04, 2017] No Evidence That Khan Sheikhoun Gas Attack Resulted From Aerial Bombardment

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Israeli Minister of Internal Affairs, Aryeh Deri, also responded to the rumours of the jihadists and the associated images, by saying "Israel, the only superpower and democracy in the region, must lead the world to put an end to the horrible massacres in Syria. " ..."
    Apr 04, 2017 | www.therussophile.org
    This post was originally published on this site
    April 4th, 2017 – Fort Russ News – – Breakingnews.sy – – translated by Samer Hussein –

    According to the unverified rumours, spreading in the corporate press, a a poisonous gas attack was carried out in the Syrian village of Khan Sheikhoun, located in Idleb province. Dozens of civilians are said to be killed, with Syrian and Russian air force units being named as the main suspects, despite no evidence. The affected area is otherwise under complete control of the terrorist groups whose positions are occasionally being targeted by the Russian and Syrian Air Force.

    The news of the incident were allegedly forwarded by the controversial White Helmets and the Syrian Observatory for Human Right.

    Both NGOs are notorious for their association with the terrorist groups. Meanwhile, the unconfirmed reports have already triggered international response. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, commented on the news, peddled by representatives of the jihadist groups on Twitter, by saying "the shocking images that are being shared on social networks must shake the conscience of every human being", adding that "Israel strongly condemns the use of chemical weapons, especially against civilians."

    The Israeli Minister of Internal Affairs, Aryeh Deri, also responded to the rumours of the jihadists and the associated images, by saying "Israel, the only superpower and democracy in the region, must lead the world to put an end to the horrible massacres in Syria. "

    The correspondent of the TV channel Orient News, known for being associated with the terrorist groups, Al Nusra Front including, yesterday announced on this Twitter page that "Tomorrow is the start of a new media campaign to cover the intensified number of air strikes, launched in the northern countryside of Hama, and the use of poisonous chlorine gas against civilians. "

    The village of Khan Shaikhoun itself is located on the administrative border between the provinces of Hama and Idlib.

    The notorious organisation White Helmets published photo and video material, claiming that gas attack caused deaths of more than 50 civilians, mostly adolescents due to suffocation from chemical substances that were "fired from the air", while blaming the Russian and Syrian Air Force. However, it failed to provide evidence that the gas attack was the result of an aerial bombardment. In the meantime, the Turkish government closed the Bab Al Hama border crossing, thus refusing ambulances, coming from the direction of Khan Sheikhoun, to enter Turkish territory.

    The Russian government has since denied the accusations of being involved in Khan Sheikhoun gas attack, saying no Russian fighter jets, carrying chemical agents, participated in assaults on Khan Sheikoun.

    The controversial rumours, surrounding the events in Khan Sheikhoun, come right in time when the Syrian Army is achieving significant victories against the terrorists in the Northern countryside of Hama, namely Al Nusra Front which started its large-scale offensive right after the beginning of the fifth round of talks in Geneva on settlement of the Syrian crisis in the last week of March.

    >

    [Apr 04, 2017] Beyond Vietnam

    Notable quotes:
    "... Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such. ..."
    "... Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. ..."
    "... Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. ..."
    "... Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. ..."
    "... Each day the war goes on the hatred increased in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. ..."
    "... It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism. ..."
    "... sustained applause ..."
    "... applause continues ..."
    "... sustained applause ..."
    "... sustained applause ..."
    "... In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. ..."
    "... It is with such activity that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ..."
    "... A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [ sustained applause ..."
    "... Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. ..."
    Apr 04, 1967 | kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu

    Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your people?" they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment, or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church-the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate-leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

    I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.

    Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

    Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

    ... .. ..

    And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

    They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954-in 1945 rather-after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China-for whom the Vietnamese have no great love-but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

    For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

    After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed and Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

    The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

    So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

    What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

    We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

    Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

    Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC" or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there was nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

    How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only real party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of a new violence?

    Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

    So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western worlds, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led this nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a unified Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be considered.

    Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

    Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the north. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight hundred, or rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.

    At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

    Surely this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroy, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor in America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and dealt death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

    This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

    Each day the war goes on the hatred increased in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies.

    It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.

    Unquote.

    If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.

    I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:

    Part of our ongoing [ applause continues ], part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country if necessary. Meanwhile [ applause ], meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

    As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. [ sustained applause ] I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. [ applause ] Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. [ applause ] These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

    Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

    The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality [ applause ], and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. [ sustained applause ] So such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

    In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.

    It is with such activity that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." [ applause ] Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on to the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin [ applause ], we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

    A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see than an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [ applause ]

    A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

    A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [ sustained applause ]

    America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

    This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. [ applause ] War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy [ applause ], realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.

    These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.

    It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low [ Audience: ] ( Yes ); the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."

    A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

    This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I'm not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another ( Yes ), for love is God. ( Yes ) And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

    We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word." Unquote.

    ... ... ...

    [Apr 04, 2017] Clear and undeniable case of mass hysteria in the USA -- a new anti-russian witch hunt

    Line was the case during McCartyism, when mass hysteria grips the USA it becomes a powerful and destructive material force. Kind of a new type of explosive device.
    It would be very fanny, if it is not so tragic for a country to descend into some king of pseudo-religious trance...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Whatever the truth about Trump and Russia, the speculation surrounding it has become a dangerous case of mass hysteria ..."
    "... This is one of the tricks that keeps every good conspiracy theory going. Nobody wants to be the one claiming the emperor has no clothes the day His Highness walks out naked. And this Russia thing has spun out of control into just such an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria. ..."
    "... But if you're not worried about accusing non-believers of being spies, or pegging legitimate dissent as treason, there's a third problem that should scare everyone. ..."
    "... But on the mass hysteria front, we already have evidence enough to fill a dozen books. And if it doesn't freak you out, it probably should. ..."
    www.rollingstone.com

    Putin Derangement Syndrome Arrives by Taibbi

    Whatever the truth about Trump and Russia, the speculation surrounding it has become a dangerous case of mass hysteria

    I personally would be surprised if this turned out to be the narrative, mainly because we haven't seen any real evidence of it. But episodes like the Flynn story have even the most careful reporters paralyzed. What if, tomorrow, it all turns out to be true?

    What if reality does turn out to be a massive connect-the-dots image of St. Basil's Cathedral sitting atop the White House? (This was suddenly legitimate British conspiracist Louise Mensch's construction in The New York Times last week.) What if all the Glenn Beck-style far-out charts with the circles and arrows somehow all make sense?

    This is one of the tricks that keeps every good conspiracy theory going. Nobody wants to be the one claiming the emperor has no clothes the day His Highness walks out naked. And this Russia thing has spun out of control into just such an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria.

    Even I think there should be a legitimate independent investigation – one that, given Trump's history, might uncover all sorts of things. But almost irrespective of what ends up being uncovered on the Trump side, the public prosecution of this affair has taken on a malevolent life of its own.

    One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn't believe is accused of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media circles in recent weeks.

    The aforementioned Mensch, a noted loon who thinks Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart but has somehow been put front and center by The Times and HBO's Real Time, has denounced an extraordinary list of Kremlin plants.

    She's tabbed everyone from Jeff Sessions ("a Russian partisan") to Rudy Giuliani and former Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom ("agents of influence") to Glenn Greenwald ("Russian shill") to ProPublica and Democracy Now! (also "Russian shills"), to the 15-year-old girl with whom Anthony Weiner sexted (really, she says, a Russian hacker group called "Crackas With Attitudes") to an unnamed number of FBI agents in the New York field office ("moles"). And that's just for starters.

    Others are doing the same. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, upon seeing the strange behavior of Republican Intel Committee chair Devin Nunes, asked "what kind of dossier" the Kremlin has on Nunes.

    Dem-friendly pollster Matt McDermott wondered why reporters Michael Tracey and Zaid Jilani aren't on board with the conspiracy stories (they might be "unwitting" agents!) and noted, without irony, that Russian bots mysteriously appear every time he tweets negatively about them.

    Think about that last one. Does McDermott think Tracey and Jilani call their handlers at the sight of a scary Matt McDermott tweet and have the FSB send waves of Russian bots at him on command? Or does he think it's an automated process? What goes through the heads of such people?

    I've written a few articles on the Russia subject that have been very tame, basically arguing that it might be a good idea to wait for evidence of collusion before those of us in the media jump in the story with both feet. But even I've gotten the treatment.

    I've been "outed" as a possible paid Putin plant by the infamous "PropOrNot" group, which is supposedly dedicated to rooting out Russian "agents of influence." You might remember PropOrNot as the illustrious research team the Washington Post once relied on for a report that accused 200 alternative websites of being "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season."

    Politicians are getting into the act, too. It was one thing when Rand Paul balked at OKing the expansion of NATO to Montenegro, and John McCain didn't hesitate to say that "the senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin."

    Even Bernie Sanders has himself been accused of being a Putin plant by Mensch. But even he's gotten on board of late, asking, "What do the Russians have on Mr. Trump?"

    So even people who themselves have been accused of being Russian plants are now accusing people of being Russian plants. As the Russians would say, it's enough to make your bashka hurt.

    Sanders should know better. Last week, during hearings in the Senate, multiple witnesses essentially pegged his electoral following as unwitting fellow travelers for Putin.

    Former NSA chief Keith Alexander spoke openly of how Russia used the Sanders campaign to "drive a wedge within the Democratic Party," while Dr. Thomas Rid of Kings College in London spoke of Russia's use of "unwitting agents" and "overeager journalists" to drive narratives that destabilized American politics.

    This testimony was brought out by Virginia Democrat Mark Warner. Warner has been in full-blown "precious bodily fluids" mode throughout this scandal. During an interview with The Times on the Russia subject a month back, there was a thud outside the window. "That may just be the FSB," he said. The paper was unsure if he was kidding.

    Warner furthermore told The Times that in order to get prepared for his role as an exposer of 21st-century Russian perfidy, he was "losing himself in a book about the Romanovs," and had been quizzing staffers about "Tolstoy and Nabokov."

    This is how nuts things are now: a senator brushes up on Nabokov and Tolstoy (Tolstoy!) to get pumped to expose Vladimir Putin.

    Even the bizarre admission by FBI director (and sudden darling of the same Democrats who hated him months ago) James Comey that he didn't know anything about Russia's biggest company didn't seem to trouble Americans very much. Here's the key exchange, from a House hearing in which Jackie Speier quizzed Comey:

    SPEIER: Now, do we know who Gazprom-Media is? Do you know anything about Gazprom, director?
    COMEY: I don't.
    SPEIER: Well, it's a – it's an oil company.

    (Incidentally, Gazprom – primarily a natural-gas giant – is not really an oil company. So both Comey and Speier got it wrong.)

    As Leonid Bershidsky of Bloomberg noted, this exchange was terrifying to Russians. The leader of an investigation into Russian espionage not knowing what Gazprom is would be like an FSB chief not having heard of Exxon-Mobil. It's bizarre, to say the least.

    Testimony of the sort that came from Warner's committee last week is being buttressed by news stories in liberal outlets like Salon insisting that "Bernie Bros" were influenced by those same ubiquitous McDermott-chasing Russian "bots."

    These stories insist that, among other things, these evil bots pushed on the unwitting "bros" juicy "fake news" stories about Hillary being "involved with various murders and money laundering schemes."

    Some 13.2 million people voted for Sanders during the primary season last year. What percentage does any rational person really believe voted that way because of "fake news"?

    I would guess the number is infinitesimal at best. The Sanders campaign was driven by a lot of factors, but mainly by long-developing discontent within the Democratic Party and enthusiasm for Sanders himself.

    To describe Sanders followers as unwitting dupes who departed the true DNC faith because of evil Russian propaganda is both insulting and ridiculous. It's also a testimony to the remarkable capacity for self-deception within the leadership of the Democratic Party.

    If the party's leaders really believe that Russian intervention is anywhere in the top 100 list of reasons why some 155 million eligible voters (out of 231 million) chose not to pull a lever for Hillary Clinton last year, they're farther along down the Purity of Essence nut-hole than Mark Warner.

    Moreover, even those who detest Trump with every fiber of their being must see the dangerous endgame implicit in this entire line of thinking. If the Democrats succeed in spreading the idea that straying from the DNC-approved candidate – in either the past or the future – is/was an act of "unwitting" cooperation with the evil Putin regime, then the entire idea of legitimate dissent is going to be in trouble.

    Imagine it's four years from now (if indeed that's when we have our next election). A Democratic candidate stands before the stump, and announces that a consortium of intelligence experts has concluded that Putin is backing the hippie/anti-war/anti-corporate opposition candidate.

    Or, even better: that same candidate reminds us "what happened last time" when people decided to vote their consciences during primary season. It will be argued, in seriousness, that true Americans will owe their votes to the non-Putin candidate. It would be a shock if some version of this didn't become an effective political trope going forward.

    But if you're not worried about accusing non-believers of being spies, or pegging legitimate dissent as treason, there's a third problem that should scare everyone.

    Last week saw Donna Brazile and Dick Cheney both declare Russia's apparent hack of DNC emails an "act of war." This coupling seemed at first like political end times: as Bill Murray would say, "dogs and cats, living together."

    But there's been remarkable unanimity among would-be enemies in the Republican and Democrat camps on this question. Suddenly everyone from Speier to McCain to Kamala Harris to Ben Cardin have decried Russia's alleged behavior during the election as real or metaphorical acts of war: a "political Pearl Harbor," as Cardin put it.

    That no one seems to be concerned about igniting a hot war with nuclear-powered Russia at a time when both countries have troops within "hand-grenade range" of each in Syria other is bizarre, to say the least. People are in such a fever to drag Trump to impeachment that these other considerations seem not to matter. This is what happens when people lose their heads.

    There are a lot of people who will say that these issues are of secondary importance to the more important question of whether or not we have a compromised Russian agent in the White House.

    But when it comes to Trump-Putin collusion, we're still waiting for the confirmation. As Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters put it, the proof is increasingly understood to be the thing we find later, as in, "If we do the investigations, we will find the connections."

    But on the mass hysteria front, we already have evidence enough to fill a dozen books. And if it doesn't freak you out, it probably should.

    Watch illustrator Victor Juhasz discuss what it means to draw President Donald Trump.

    See also

    Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on RussiaTaibbi: Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the MediaTaibbi: The Russia Story Reaches a Crisis PointAll Stories

    Taibbi on Trump the Destroyer

    [Apr 04, 2017] Hysteria is to be expected when the privileged in politics and the media feel as though their privileges are at risk

    Notable quotes:
    "... hysteria is to be expected when the privileged in politics and the media feel as though their privileges are at risk. ..."
    Apr 04, 2017 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

    Just another day in the oligarchy.

    There was an intraday note about the returns of stocks and precious metals year to date posted here .

    Matt Taibbi had a nice article today titled Putin Derangement Syndrome Arrives.

    And on the other hand here is a video with Jimmy Dore and Josh Fox about the breathtaking decline and servile desperation for corporate money of MSNBC here and here .

    Well, hysteria is to be expected when the privileged in politics and the media feel as though their privileges are at risk.

    [Apr 04, 2017] Senate's Russia Hearings Will Lead Nowhere

    Apr 04, 2017 | therealnews.com

    Michael Hudson explains that the Senate hearings on Russia are an effort by Democrats to torpedo improvements in Russia-US relations and lack any real evidence of Russian meddling

    William W Haywood • 2 hours ago He builds his story around Clapper being a truth teller? UNBELIEVABLE idiocy when you expect me to believe this crap! Seer • 5 hours ago Two top US experts on Russia, Professor Stephen Cohen and Ray McGovern (ex-CIA analyst) and Robert David Steele (ex-CIA0 and Bill Binney (ex NSA) ALL state the Dems accusations are ALL BOGUS. I tend to believe them rather than mainstream media and wonder if RN is going mainstream soon? Marko • 6 hours ago " Russia Hearings Will Lead Nowhere "

    Nowhere involving Russia , perhaps , but they're leading somewhere involving the U.S. :

    http://www.zerohedge.com/ne...

    They're leading to the uncovering of an illegal political witch-hunt , probably on the orders of Obama , though Rice will likely take the fall. Said fall should include jail time , but we all know that elites don't "do" jail in the U.S. , unlike in the less-advanced democracies , like Iceland or S. Korea. Jon Henri Matteau • 7 hours ago Really, this collusion is what is harming any US Russian relation, that and the Ukraine issue. If there wasn't an issue, sit back and let the investigations prove it. We had NINE redundant investigations into an exaggerated scandal. what are people afraid of if this is pursued? weilunion • 8 hours ago They are designed by the deep state to lead to nowhere but destraction. Octavia Bee • 9 hours ago Oh my--how does Hudson know there is no evidence? Does he have some sort of top-secret security clearance? It's also curious how Hudson is so supportive of Putin, who is a horrific dictator.
    He's obviously another deluded Trumpster. Why would this man be given the role of an expert? Sad! Donatella Octavia Bee • 8 hours ago More empty rhetoric from the McCarthyite Democrat party. The Democrat party did not allow the government to inspect the server that was "hacked". Instead they used the information from a private company that depends upon them for income. So we really don't know if it was a hack or a leak by a Democrat insider like Seth Rich. Obama was more of a "horrific" leader killing tens of thousands of innocents than Putin. Anyone calling him a "dictator" is just either parroting talking points or is uninformed. Donatella Wallace • 7 hours ago As usual you are mindlessly parroting neocon or Democrats talking points. Putin won his last election with 63% of the votes cast. And yes, the oligarchs stole Russian wealth under Yeltsin with the help of the U.S. Yeltsin would have lost his reelection if it had not been for the intervention of American help. You should take your own suggestion and read some history.

    The only reason Russia has not experienced high growth is because of the U.S. imperial financial sanctions. The U.S. also pushed Russian into a closer alliance with China, which the U.S. will learn to regret. The U.S. is on a long-term decline and the 21st century will see a rising China and Russia.

    And yes, his annexation of Crimea by a 90+ vote by the Crimean voters (majority are Russian) is a good example of Putins populist strengthening of Russia. Better than letting the neo-Nazis in Kiev take over what has been Russian territory and give NATO a military base.

    [Apr 03, 2017] Matt Drudge Warns Trump Surrounded by Traitors, In Crisis Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind!

    Apr 03, 2017 | www.infowars.com
    "I do think there is a crisis, on many fronts," Drudge admitted.

    "Is some of it of his own making?" he asked before going to calls.

    The DrudgeReport.com founder indeed invoked his former radio host days when he joined Savage in California to celebrate the veteran broadcaster's 75th birthday.

    "We're trying to save this young Trump administration," Drudge declared.

    Drudge claimed Trump single-handedly saved floundering leftist media outlets like the New York Times and Vanity Fair, which seemed destined to fail before the "opposition" party "consolidated."

    "I'm getting a little bit nervous about the media situation. Do you know, the media was near death. The New York Times was hanging on the short hairs. Do you know Vanity Fair was going under. CNN barely had a fraction," Drudge said. "Trump has saved the media."

    The influential news figure also called attention to the president's flagging approval ratings in Rasmussen polls, which he is concerned currently spell danger for the Trump administration.

    [Apr 03, 2017] Dr. Nick Begich About What We Can Expect From The Globalists In Future - YouTube

    Apr 03, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Nick Begich - Wikipedia Dr. Nick Begich is the eldest son of the late United States Congressman from Alaska, Nick Begich Sr., and political activist Pegge Begich. He is well known in Alaska for his own political activities. He was twice elected President of both the Alaska Federation of Teachers and the Anchorage Council of Education. He has been pursuing independent research in the sciences and politics for most of his adult life. Begich received Doctor of Medicine (Medicina Alternitiva), honoris causa, for independent work in health and political science, from The Open International University for Complementary Medicines, Colombo, Sri Lanka, in November 1994.

    Published on Mar 24, 2017

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy0e0VoqYVg

    [Apr 03, 2017] Russian Foreign Ministry offers election hacking for April Fools' Day - YouTube

    Apr 03, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Gary Duarte 1 day ago Proof that America is a laughing stock thanks to media and the democrats.

    lissa leggs 1 day ago Gary Duarte Your hero putin needs a history lesson.

    Raoulfr des Roches 1 day ago Gary Duarte You're delusional!!! The FBI and The CIA have both implicated the Russians in interfering in the American political process.

    Deplorable Me 1 day ago I'm just surprised the liberal media even knows it's a joke Natalia Jensen 1 day ago I bet MENSA member, Maxine Waters fell for it.

    Primero Ultimo 14 hours ago I think the Liberal media knows it's all a bunch of nonsense.....

    Geral Hammonds 1 day ago Because EVERYONE knows Russia hacking , interfering, meddling, influencing is a complete joke. Its only the MSM & the democrats that pretend its real. SMH

    206 guy 1 day ago (edited) timmy turner Only a fool would a believe a central intelligence agency just because they're the central intelligence agency. Fucking sheep's. 

    Natalia Jensen 1 day ago timmy turner Not only are you a brainwashed, delusional libtard, you're also a racist. Poor baby. The Alt-Left libtards are a worldwide joke & I love it.

    [Apr 03, 2017] Globalists who express the interests of transnational corporations and world financial organisations vs populists who express the interests of the people in their countries

    Apr 03, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Question: Today we see a growing split of the world political elites. There are globalists who express the interests of transnational corporations and world financial organisations and there is a new political concept, the so-called populists who express the interests of the people in their countries. A vivid example is the election of US President Donald Trump, and there are a number of other political leaders who are seen as fringe politicians in the West, for example Marine Le Pen. Given this, it is not by chance that Russia is seen as a leader in half of the world. Is this view justified? Can we talk about a future victory for one of these ideologies? How would this influence today's world order?

    Sergey Lavrov: I wouldn't call Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen "fringe politicians" if only because they absolutely fit into the principles that underlie the functioning of the American and French states. Marine Le Pen is a European member of parliament and her party is active in the national parliament. Donald Trump has been elected in full accordance with the American constitution, with its two-level indirect system of electing the president. I would not even call them populists. The word "populist" has a negative connotation. You said interestingly that populists are those who represent the people. There are nuances in the interpretation of the word "populist." In modern Russian it tends to be applied to people who go into politics, but do not bear the responsibility for their words and just seek to lure voters. A populist is someone who might promise to triple wages while the budget absolutely cannot support it, etc. So I would rather call them realists or anti-globalists, if you like. Having said that, anti-globalists are also associated with hooligans who try to disrupt the G20 and G7 summits, and so on. Come to think of it, even now that the new president of the world's largest power has declared that it is necessary to think not of global expansion, but of how America lives, the role of globalists will be changing. American corporations have already demanded a reduction in manufacturing in developing countries to move it to the US in order to create jobs there. Granted, this may not be very good news for the consumer because labour is more expensive in the US, so the prices for goods, cars and so on will increase. But this is the trend. In general, President Trump's conceptual slogans during his election campaign to the effect that America should interfere less in the affairs of other countries and address its own issues send a very serious signal to the globalists themselves. Again, up until now the US has been perceived as a symbol of globalism and the expansion of transnational corporations. Those who represent their interests are the huge team that has taken up arms against President Trump and his administration and in general against everything he does, and which tries, in any way possible, to throw a spanner in the works. Something similar things are happening in France where mountains of compromising materials of ten or fifteen years ago have been unearthed which invariably are presented through an "anti-Russia prism." It's been a long time since I've seen such a dirty campaign when at stake are the concepts and ideas of how to develop the state and their country, and a smear war is being waged. We had this not so long ago, and I don't see anything good about it.

    In parallel the global market and the global trade system are being reappraised through the actions and statements of the new US administration. As you know, they have walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and said they would work through regional and bilateral agreements. We believe, though, that the World Trade Organisation which it took us such a long time to join did provide a common umbrella for world trade. Some regional structures could be built into these universal systems so as not to break the ties with the non-members of these regional organisations to maintain some common contact and exchanges through the WTO. That too is now under threat. So, we are in a period of rethinking our approaches, and I don't think it has everything to do with Trump. These changes have been brewing; otherwise the American position on so many issues could not have changed so abruptly. They were long in coming, and the WTO was in a major crisis when the Western countries categorically refused to listen to the leading developing countries on a range of issues connected with investment, financial services, etc.

    I wouldn't say that there are globalists and populists. There are simply people who want to get elected and follow a well-trodden path and preserve the neoliberal structures that are all over the place in the West, and then there are people who see the neoliberalism and permissiveness which are part of the neoliberal approach as a threat to their societies, traditions and cultures. This is accompanied by philosophical reflections and practical discussions of what to do about the problem of illegal migrants, their own roots and religions, whether it is politically correct to remind people that you are an Orthodox or Catholic or whether you should forget about religion altogether. I have said more than once that the European Union wanted to adopt a constitution many years ago and was drafting it. The commission was headed by Giscard d'Estaing and he proposed a very simple sentence about Europe having Christian roots. He was prevented from doing so on the grounds that it would not be politically correct and would insult the Muslims. In reality it turns out that if you are cautious about making your religious roots known you end up not caring about the religious roots of others and the consequences are not usually good. Therefore, at the UN and UNESCO, we actively support all the initiatives that are particularly relevant today: the Dialogue of Civilisations, the Dialogue of Cultures and the Dialogue of Religions. It is not by chance that they have become topical issues on the agenda because they reflect the fermentation within societies and the need to somehow search for a national consensus.

    [Apr 03, 2017] Clinton-Morell Make Russia Pay a Price

    Apr 03, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Aug 10, 2016

    "Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell, who supports Hillary Clinton and insists that Donald Trump is being manipulated by Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly to "pay the price."

    The top CIA official, who twice served as the acting director of the agency, and worked with Clinton while she was secretary of state, told PBS host Charlie Rose that Iran and Russia should "pay a big price" in Syria – and by that he meant killing them.

    "I ran the CIA now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton and I want Hillary to kill lots of Russians and Iranians in Syria"

    Referring to the US-backed rebels in Syria, Morell said he wanted Washington to support them in more aggressive actions, not only against Bashar Assad's government, but against Iranians and Russians.

    Morrell then went on a diatribe about how the US should "scare" Assad, including going after his national guard and "bombing his offices in the middle of the night."

    After he retired from the CIA in August 2013, Morrell took a job at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington, DC consultancy founded by Clinton aides Philippe Reines and Andrew Shapiro. There he worked with Leon Panetta, another Clinton aide and his predecessor at the helm of the CIA, who also spoke in support of Clinton at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia last month.

    Last year, Morrell apologized to "every American" and finally owned up to the "mistakes" made by the CIA in Iraq, where over 4,000 US soldiers and at least 250,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the 2003 US invasion." - RT News

    https://www.rt.com/usa/355291-morrell...

    [Apr 03, 2017] Mike Morell CIA leak an inside job

    Apr 03, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Mar 11, 2017

    Employees of the Central Intelligence Agency find themselves in challenging times. The agency is dealing with the release by WikiLeaks of top-secret documents, apparently detailing highly-classified surveillance methods, and a fraught relationship with President Trump, who has criticized the intelligence community ever since he campaigned for president. CBS News senior security contributor Michael Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the state of the agency, and what it means for America's security.

    Get the latest news and best in original reporting from CBS News delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to newsletters HERE: http://cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T

    Get your news on the go! Download CBS News mobile apps HERE: http://cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8

    Get new episodes of shows you love across devices the next day, stream local news live, and watch full seasons of CBS fan favorites anytime, anywhere with CBS All Access. Try it free! http://bit.ly/1OQA29B

    ---
    Delivered by Charlie Rose, Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King, "CBS This Morning" offers a thoughtful, substantive and insightful source of news and information to a daily audience of 3 million viewers. The Emmy Award-winning broadcast presents a mix of daily news, coverage of developing stories of national and global significance, and interviews with leading figures in politics, business and entertainment. Check local listings for "CBS This Morning" broadcast times. Geral Hammonds 3 weeks ago

    Jfk wanted to disband the CIA (Military industrial complex ) and i guess the CIA didn't like that very much and let Kennedy know how kuch they didn't like that in the most violent way possible, :(. And its really strange that the democrats are pro deep state, pro war, just advocates for the CIA But then again anything an anyone that is anti Trump is goo for them, Since the guy from the apprentice has completely devistated them as individuals and as a political party.
    Diane Watson 3 weeks ago
    Sure, the CIA always follows the law, I'm sure American citizens have never been targeted by them....uh-huh.

    econogate 3 weeks ago
    And monkeys fly out my butt.
    busymountain 2 weeks ago
    The US government and president is not your customer - you are our employee.
    Yvette Campos 2 weeks ago
    At 2:25 , Hillary supporter Mike Morell even admits that someone in the Obama CIA leaked info. Reports are that in December, 2016, a small group of IT contractors gave the info to WikiLeaks. Obama has other people do the dirty work for him.
    Peter Lemmon 3 weeks ago
    CIA killed journalist Mike Hastings with remote crashing his car. CIA has surpassed the authority of the NSA. CIA has no oversight, not even by President Trump. They are colluding with media to destroy Trump's presidency via revealing lies manufactured to bring criminal charges on him.

    CIA is out of control, need the entire senior officers fired, investigated, charged and imprisoned or executed for treason & espionage & Title 8. If CIA does this to a president, they will do it to Americans who interfere with their criminal activities world-wide.

    Rezarf 3 weeks ago
    another MSM whitewash .... a ex CIA talking head minimising the illegalities of CIA actions and promoting a big $$$$ spend on an upgrade of CIA systems.... no doubt the US zombie public will swallow it hook line and sinker. There is no future for the US , it will either cause a WW3 scenario or disintegrate in to an internal civil conflict....
    I. Sokolov 3 weeks ago
    Mike Morell interview reveal it ia an inside job and many in the CIA is disillusioned, demoralized, and become Whistle Blowers! There have been to many scandals and leaks. The entire US Intelligence INDUSTRY must be dismantled and then rebuild. \

    It is deeply troubling that sensitive data that can create huge problems is released. There is too many with security clearance to look at the data. Security clearance should only be given for the data relevant to do their job. The NSA collects all our data, all the time, and can query/search the database for something as simple as a phone number, IP address, bank account or name.

    If the NSA, FBI, or CIA wants email or phone calls, on Trump or Flynn all they must do is query their name or phone number or email and date range. Bingo, they got it! This is going on 24/7. They capture all data flowing through the major fiber optic lines in the US. Over 5,000 people in the intel community are assigned to do nothing but mine this data.The NSA, CIA, and FBI have access to the information realtime, anytime! All of this is done without a warrant. Hell, who needs a FISA request? They have everything, and thousands of intel personnel have access to the information! You wonder why Jim Comey and others are freaking out! This is totally illegal. It was part of an Executive Order issued with the intent of pursuing drug dealers and know criminals NOT spying on the American people, but of course they wouldn't do that, or Would They? Businesses world-wide has now to spend large sums of money protecting themselves against CIA criminally invented malware and viruses. More than 1,5 BILLION phones and computers using Apple or Android operating system is affected. So far only 1% of Vault 7 released. What if the remaining 99% contain top-secret information on US neuro science programs (Mind and Mass Control). No problem, if this top-secret programs falls into the hands of Russia or China, since their neuro science programs is even better, but it would be a catastrophe if Mr. Kim in North Korea got hold of it and continued developing it.

    [Apr 03, 2017] Russias cyberwar against America isnt over - and the real target is democracy

    The article is pure low quality McCarthyism (as one commenter characterized it "Bullshit of the most brainless sort") and signify that Democratic Party brass kointed forces with neocons to undermine Trump. But some comments are interesting
    Notable quotes:
    "... Popycock! Complete and utter drivel! Hillary's credibility has been undermined by many years of attacks by the "legitimate" media, as well as the right-wing conspiracy media. Was James Comey, a right-wing hack himself, a Russian plant? ..."
    "... Secondly, by far most of the Republicans would've voted for Trump regardless. Beyond that he managed to seduce some voters in the key states that he was bringing jobs back. He lied, of course, and everyone knew it, but ti was still more compelling than whatever Hillary was peddling. And let's face it, Clinton just failed to inspire voters. ..."
    "... The Clintoncrats for a start should be purged from the party as expediently as is polite. Like real fucking soon. ..."
    "... What a pathetic display of failed propaganda, Salon. Even Sith Lord Clapper came out and said there's NO EVIDENCE. Piss off and go fight your WW3 alone you warmongers! ..."
    "... That investigation is just beginning. And today, Nunes didn't help Easy D's case. On the other hand, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin does not wrestle bears. ..."
    "... Don't pull that innocent bullshit -- America is complicit in virtually every geopolitical disaster on the planet since the end of WW II. You play with the bull, you get the horn... . ..."
    "... Democrats!! -- Your candidate lost! The Russians didn't steal the election! I know that The Powers That Be need an Enemy, an "Other" to justify America's monstrous defense budget, but enough of the anti-Russia hysteria bullsh*t! ..."
    "... Um, the candidate who ostensibly 'won' is proposing to increase our defense budget at the expense of virtually everything ..."
    Apr 03, 2017 | www.salon.com
    Knowing what we know now, it's no longer a stretch to report that Trump was placed in office by Putin. But it only happened because millions of Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants, undermining and betraying their own country and their own democratic elections. Make no mistake: Putin's attack was less about electing Donald Trump and more about turning Americans against America. Whether you were suckered by Putin or voted for Trump based on fake news, we all suffer from a skewed view of U.S. elections today. We're all more suspicious about whether our elections are on the level, and we should be. Putin's goal was to goad us into asking the perpetual question: How can we possibly trust the outcomes of future elections knowing that Russia preselected our president years ago and then set about guaranteeing that outcome by turning our people against us?

    This is the next colossal problem to solve. Once we weed out Putin's quislings inside the White House, we have no choice but to pursue a far greater task: re-establishing the integrity of our elections while re-establishing facts and reality as the basis for our decisions. There are too many of us who sadly and disturbingly can't tell the difference between foreign propaganda - fake news - and legitimate news. This has to change or else Putin will have won, and democracy as we know it will cease to exist.

    Bob Cesca is a regular contributor to Salon.com. He's also the host of "The Bob Cesca Show" podcast, and a weekly guest on both the "Stephanie Miller Show" and "Tell Me Everything with John Fugelsang." Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

    Ilya Ratner · Works at APCON Mar 28, 2017 11:10am

    Popycock! Complete and utter drivel! Hillary's credibility has been undermined by many years of attacks by the "legitimate" media, as well as the right-wing conspiracy media. Was James Comey, a right-wing hack himself, a Russian plant?

    Secondly, by far most of the Republicans would've voted for Trump regardless. Beyond that he managed to seduce some voters in the key states that he was bringing jobs back. He lied, of course, and everyone knew it, but ti was still more compelling than whatever Hillary was peddling. And let's face it, Clinton just failed to inspire voters.

    John Stich · Mar 28, 2017 4:34pm

    Southeastern Louisiana University http://www.slate.com/.../the_trump_russia_investigation...

    John Stich · Southeastern Louisiana University Mar 28, 2017 4:37pm

    The DNC is in deep trouble as they look to project all their woeful inadequacies on nefarious Russian hackers. The Clintoncrats for a start should be purged from the party as expediently as is polite. Like real fucking soon.

    Leonardus Caron · Moderator Forum at Gearslutz.com Mar 28, 2017 3:58pm

    What a pathetic display of failed propaganda, Salon. Even Sith Lord Clapper came out and said there's NO EVIDENCE. Piss off and go fight your WW3 alone you warmongers!

    Chris Maley · Freelance Writer at Chris Maley Mar 28, 2017 6:49pm

    That investigation is just beginning. And today, Nunes didn't help Easy D's case. On the other hand, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin does not wrestle bears.

    Manfred Humphries · Works at Self-Employed Mar 28, 2017 9:38am

    Is it possible you have mistaken Russias target? It is not democracy that they are attempting to undermine, because they don't exhibit this kind of animus towards any of the other democracies in the world, with the exception of those that consistently meddle in Russian interests.

    Don't pull that innocent bullshit -- America is complicit in virtually every geopolitical disaster on the planet since the end of WW II. You play with the bull, you get the horn... .

    And he is one smart bull.

    Chester Bridal Mar 28, 2017 11:23am

    Democrats!! -- Your candidate lost! The Russians didn't steal the election! I know that The Powers That Be need an Enemy, an "Other" to justify America's monstrous defense budget, but enough of the anti-Russia hysteria bullsh*t!

    John Stich · Southeastern Louisiana University Mar 28, 2017 4:48pm

    Bullshit of the most brainless sort.

    Dorothy C. Benson · Jersey City, New Jersey

    Um, the candidate who ostensibly 'won' is proposing to increase our defense budget at the expense of virtually everything else so your logic does not track, Comrade. Oh, and have a shot of Putinka on me, Comrade.

    [Apr 02, 2017] Dr. Nick Begich Why Russia Is A Threat To Globalists

    Apr 02, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HQbHGFUxHg

    Published on Mar 31, 2017

    Dr. Nick Begich breaks down what he thinks is why the globalists are so afraid of Russia, relating to it's history and it's progress post communism.

    Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show

    [Apr 02, 2017] Democrats claim that Russia Ate Our Homework

    Notable quotes:
    "... A major reason that Democrats have become neo-McCarthyite is to keep the Bernistas at bay. Blaming everything on Putin blocks any accountability for the party's Wall Street leadership. If Masha Gessen is complaining about Democratic overreach (" Don't Fight Their Lies With Lies of Your Own ") then you know something is seriously out of whack. ..."
    "... the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party's central committee ..."
    "... by the state Democratic Party committee ..."
    "... a number of elected officials serving in an ex officio capacity ..."
    "... representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies ..."
    Mar 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Democrats: "Russia Ate Our Homework"

    TRUMP increases sanctions on Russia.

    DEMOCRATS: "Putin installed this president! Trump is illegitimate!"

    TRUMP expands wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria

    DEMOCRATS: "Russia is out to get us!"

    TRUMP dismantles environmental regulations.

    DEMOCRATS: "White House distracts from Russia investigation!"

    TRUMP kills worker protection, lowers billionaire taxes.

    DEMOCRATS: "Putin's interference cost us the election!"

    TRUMP launches nuclear war with North Korea.

    DEMOCRATS: "Russia ate our homework!"

    Posted by b on March 28, 2017 at 01:15 PM

    Mike Maloney | Mar 28, 2017 1:33:07 PM | 2
    A major reason that Democrats have become neo-McCarthyite is to keep the Bernistas at bay. Blaming everything on Putin blocks any accountability for the party's Wall Street leadership. If Masha Gessen is complaining about Democratic overreach (" Don't Fight Their Lies With Lies of Your Own ") then you know something is seriously out of whack.
    karlof1 | Mar 28, 2017 1:44:52 PM | 3
    b, doesn't a similar dynamic operate in your nation?
    hopehely | Mar 28, 2017 1:48:49 PM | 4
    Scapegoating is the oldest weapon of mass distraction.
    Susan Sunflower | Mar 28, 2017 1:54:52 PM | 5
    Salon's latest appears to blame America ennui and cynicism on deliberate putin ploys ... I suspect he's soon to be blamed for the rising "despair suicide epidemic" (amazed he's been spared blame for the opiate, fentanyl, epidemic)

    Salon: Russia's cyberwar against America isn't over - and the real target is democracy -- The Soviet Union never attacked America as blatantly as Putin has - and we're in danger of losing democracy .

    It would be funny if they weren't deadly serious and if Gessen were not getting thumbs-up retweets and endorsements all over the place from folks who should be wiser.

    The autocratic Russian president, his oligarch allies and his intelligence services, including the Federal Security Service (or FSB) and the GRU, recognized an emerging perfect storm in America that included a convergence of the following:
    1. A distrust in institutions and the news media.
    2. The emergence of almost universal social-media usage.
    3. The willingness to repeat outrageous rumors or fake news to help boost personal social-media branding.
    4. Political polarization and the accompanying emergence of information bubbles, confirmation bias and echo chambers.
    5. The metastasizing of the post-Watergate misconception that anyone can or should be president, leading to the candidacy of a reality-show celebrity named Trump. (Today's folksy "have a beer" qualification nearly supersedes other qualifications.)

    It rained today but I wanted sun ... the cynicism-inducing effects of the "revealed" Obama and Clinton over the last decade not.worth.mentioning.

    Bob In Portland | Mar 28, 2017 2:10:04 PM | 6
    When you are owned by Wall Street and the Deep State you aren't concerned with trivial things that the hoi polloi are dying to have.

    If you want to see how the DNC reacted to last November's total defeat take a look at Jon Ossoff, the guy chosen to run for Tom Price's open seat in the 6th District of Georgia. Georgetown, Madeleine Albright, London School of Economics, propaganda films. The only thing missing in his wikipedia bio is when he signed up with the CIA I'm guessing it was sometime in high school.

    The Democratic Party is dead to Democrats.

    Susan Sunflower | Mar 28, 2017 2:33:37 PM | 7
    The thing I find so insidious in this Russian conspiracy mongering is the underlying helplessness, even defeatism, suggesting that -- "self evidently" -- Putin has already won and we've already lost -- it suggests some upcoming apocalyptic ("which side are you on") day-of-reckoning ... which I (perhaps erroneously) doubt reasonates with most folks who long-ago turned off the fear-mongering press .. perhaps in favor of savoring the present and being surprised when the end comes.
    james | Mar 28, 2017 2:40:37 PM | 8
    lol... good one b! sad kettle of fish for the american people and for the people of the world with a political system that is the laughing stock of the world at this point..
    Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 28, 2017 2:51:22 PM | 9
    It's always fun to hear Right-wing Cranks/Wannabe Masters Of The Universe blaming someone else when one, or more, of their half-baked plots collapses under the weight of the bullshit which made it seem like a good idea.
    Qualtrough | Mar 28, 2017 2:53:06 PM | 10
    If Putin and the Russians are so diabolically clever and successful at subverting US democracy that means that US intelligence agencies have been abject failures. Have any heads rolled over these alleged massive intelligence failures? Rhetorical question.
    Ort | Mar 28, 2017 3:15:21 PM | 11
    @ Susan Sunflower | 5

    "Salon's latest appears to blame America ennui and cynicism on deliberate putin ploys ..."
    _____________________________

    Whether it's genuine Russophobia, or fake Party Line Russophobia, I've noticed that it includes this thread of cultural "soft criticism".

    That is, the US/EU/NATO infoganda artists-- Elected Misrepresentatives and state mass-media consent manufactories-- have made "hard" allegations, albeit based on insinuations and innuendo, that Russia's state-security apparatus has directly and overtly "tampered with" election results, sponsored or colluded with hackers, cultivated "fifth column" sympathizers and de facto operatives to nefariously influence Western public opinion, etc.

    But they also work in the "charge(s)" that the evil, pernicious Russkies have also sought to undermine the public's faith and confidence in government and the electoral process. The charlatans utter this indictment with the gravest, Churchillian high dudgeon and self-righteousness.

    How dare some "outsider" cast aspersions upon the paragons of Modern Democracy represented by the US and EU hegemony! Surely, any radical criticism of these governments and their policies and actions is implicitly false and meritless, and can only be understood and explained as an attempt to undermine and destroy appropriate faith and trust in their political leadership!

    Any discerning observer can see that this impassioned cri de cœur, stripped of its high-flown rhetoric, amounts to whining, "Hey! Those damned Russkies are making us look bad !" It is to laugh!

    This phenomenon induced a feeling of dιjΰ vu. Of course, this complaint isn't novel. Conservative Elders have traditionally excoriated iconoclasts for supposedly encouraging social decay and "anarchy" by refuting Panglossian exceptionalism and exposing political leaders' feet of clay.

    Among other precedents, it reminds me of the 1970s reactionary criticisms of writers like Kurt Vonnegut. Indignant wingnuts chastised writers like Vonnegut and Joseph Heller for impermissibly "teaching Youth to be cynical about patriotism and democratic institutions".

    It's no surprise that "Salon", a progressive-liberal lite bastion, echoes this "soft" authoritarian-submissive doctrine.

    aaaa | Mar 28, 2017 3:15:23 PM | 12
    The democrat party is the same as it was before Trump got elected. The DNC are going to maintain their establishment and wait for Trump and the REpublicans to fail miserably at their jobs. I guess that is all they can do
    karlof1 | Mar 28, 2017 4:14:01 PM | 13
    Lavrov's recent lecture at Russia's Military Academy for the General Staff provided some insights in to how Kremlin leaders view the Outlaw US Empire and its "slanderous" campaign against Russia. Here's the passage most relevant to the current discourse:

    "Question: Recent experience shows that, in terms of the damage they cause, aggressive actions in the media at times have consequences similar to the use of weapons of mass destruction. In your opinion, isn't it time, at the UN, in the format of bilateral ties with other states, to move forward with drafting and signing a comprehensive treaty in this field, similar to strategic arms limitation treaties?"

    "Sergey Lavrov: We've been working on this for several years now. Russia put forward an initiative that became known at the UN as International Information Security [Initiative]. It has been a subject of independent resolutions at a number of UN General Assembly sessions. While initially these resolutions were rejected by some of our Western partners, in recent years resolutions related to the UN contribution to international information security have been adopted unanimously.

    "Several years ago, a group of government experts was set up. It drafted a report that was approved by consensus at the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly expressed support for continuing this effort in the context of identifying specific cyberspace risks at present. Another government expert group was also formed, which is beginning to work. It is meant to prepare specific proposals in one and a half years.

    "I'd like to say right away that despite the apparently constructive participation of all states in this discussion, we are aware of the desire [of certain states] to limit themselves to discussions and not reach practical international legal agreements. So, alongside the work that I just mentioned, Russia and its partners, in particular in the SCO, have drafted a document entitled Code of Conduct for Cyberspace. It was also distributed at the UN and is designed to promote targeted dialogue on the legal aspects of this problem. Overall, we believe (and we have already submitted this proposal) that it is time to draft an international convention on cyber security, including the elimination of threats and risks related to hacking. We were the first to propose penalising and banning hacking within the framework of international law. We will see how those who are accusing Russian hackers of seeking to blow up the world in the style of James Bond will respond to this.

    "There is another important topic related to these issues. It concerns internet governance. For several years now a discussion on the democratisation of the internet and internet governance has been ongoing at the International Telecommunication Union. A very serious ideological struggle, if you will, is under way. Some people are upholding free market principles but there are also those who believe that farming out the internet to the free market is tantamount to giving it away to just one country. In this context, serious debate lies ahead.

    "We see all these problems. The majority of countries agree on the need to enforce some generally acceptable order. Focused work is under way but it is too early to expect any results yet."

    There are other points within the Q&A where this topic gets discussed further, although within a somewhat different context than the above. Relative to Hybrid War, Lavrov says: "An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition for the media. This is an objective fact." Later in response to another question regarding the defense of national interests, Lavrov replies:

    "It's amazing to see how the media in the countries you mentioned and other EU countries come up with absolutely fictional and, most importantly, inept, clumsily written articles and reports about Russia's widespread influence on their electoral processes. I would say they should be ashamed of having election systems they cannot even protect from external interference. I am referring to such major countries as Germany and France, not some small countries. Second, they do not offer a single fact. We constantly remind them about it; President Vladimir Putin regularly communicates with German politicians and business leaders. My German counterpart, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, has visited Russia recently. He met with President Putin and they had a frank discussion of these issues. When you talk to them at our regular meetings, they show no such fanaticism. But obviously, someone really wants this fanaticism to be artificially maintained and whipped up. I could never imagine that these self-respecting media outlets could sink so low – to flagrant slander without even bothering to provide facts."

    As noted above, I again emphasize this lecture is a must read , http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/video/-/asset_publisher/i6t41cq3VWP6/content/id/2702537

    Anon1 | Mar 28, 2017 4:28:46 PM | 14
    Well one could laugh but this hysteria is sick and dangerous, this is what happens if you question western news today:

    Danish journalist Iben Thranholm: 'Does this make me a Russian agent?':
    The Danish journalist Iben Thranholm is branded as a "pro-Russian propagandist" by EU task force EastStracom.

    https://www.facebook.com/freewestmedia/posts/1874109846198716

    Sabine | Mar 28, 2017 4:33:00 PM | 15
    hang on?

    So he is the one to start world war three? I thought that was the one no one could vote for?

    Surely, one day Trump is gonna be all presidential and bring peace to all of us, together with Russia. xoxoxox

    And can anyone tell us what Jared! and Ivanka! are doing? Nepotism, or is that only for countries that are not US American and Russa?

    fuck me, but seriously this post is bullshit.

    h | Mar 28, 2017 4:43:29 PM | 16
    Jimmy Dore of the Jimmy Dore show agrees with you - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY7CxRO5AkA
    maningi | Mar 28, 2017 6:10:31 PM | 18
    Anyone here read the "Russian Democracy Act 2002" enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America?

    Section 2, Finding and Purposes:

    (3A) Since 1992, United States Government democratic reform programs and public diplomacy programs, including training, and small grants have provided access to and training in the use of the Internet, brought nearly 40,000 Russian citizens to the United States, and have led to the establishment
    of more than 65,000 nongovernmental organizations
    , thousands of independent local media outlets, despite governmental opposition, and numerous political parties
    .
    (Unquote)

    More than 65.000 NG0s established in Russia by the US-Government from 1999-2002? What a crazy number! And how many more NGOs have been created there in the following 15 years till today? In the tens of thousands the figure must be. But how many NGOs have the Russians established in the West meanwhile (the West, not only US)? Its far less than a dozen, as far as I am know.

    Imagine the Russian had tried to installed only 650 Russian NGOs (1% of the numbers above) in the US?
    Link to the public Law Document:

    Petri Krohn | Mar 28, 2017 6:22:15 PM | 19
    I wrote this earlier today:
    WHAT IS HYBRID WAR?

    Hybrid war is somewhere between diplomacy and war. It is like being half-pregnant. Hybrid war is never all-out war. Instead it tries to limit escalation into a real war.

    NATO's definition of Russian hybrid war arises from the short appearance of polite people or the 50 or so unmarked green men at the Simferopol airport on February 28, 2014. Russia could naturally have sent in a whole tank division or moved its 15,000 troops on Crimea from their bases, but that could have resulted in a formal state of war existing between the Russian Federation and the Maidan regime in Kiev. By leaving out national identification markings Russia allowed Kiev to ignore the incident and to maintain diplomatic ties.

    The "Little Green Men" caused huge alarm and hysteria in NATO headquarters. They were suddenly seen as a Russian miracle weapon that could threaten the security of Western Europe. This of course is bullshit!

    The window for the use of "Green Men" and other methods of hybrid warfare arises from the internal weaknesses and conflicts of the target country. These by definition cannot exist in an open society like the democratic West purports to be. The clear exception is the Baltic apartheid states of Estonia and Latvia. They are not democracies but more like ethnic dictatorships and U.S. protectorates.

    Someone more informed on the NATO side wrote an article two years ago debunking the whole narrative. He said that the "hybrid" threat of domestic insurrection as seen in Estonia and Latvia cannot be countered by NATO security guarantees or international intervention, but must be handled by local police and security forces locally.

    Western security looks different if one rejects the notion that Western democracies are open societies and instead sees them as semi-dictatorships controlled by the Anglo-American "Deep State" and by the the fake news and false narratives of the mainstream media. In this scenario the election of Trump as president becomes an act of Russian hybrid war. It was the result of hostile elements of Russian information influence entering the U.S. information space. If one lives in a hybrid war mentality, then everything the "enemy" does or may have done becomes and act of hybrid war.

    The link given by Susan Sunflower @5 proves the point. Bob Cesca of Salon is totally delusional!

    Russia's cyberwar against America isn't over - and the real target is democracy

    Russia declared war on the United States last year, and it's a war that continues to be waged today...

    Millions of our own people, millions of American voters on both sides of the aisle were manipulated into acting as unwitting foot soldiers for Vladimir Putin's invasion...

    Trench by trench, Facebook group by Facebook group, Americans executed Putin's attacks for him...

    Trump was placed in office by Putin. But it only happened because millions of Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants, undermining and betraying their own country and their own democratic elections. Make no mistake: Putin's attack was less about electing Donald Trump and more about turning Americans against America. Whether you were suckered by Putin or voted for Trump based on fake news, we all suffer from a skewed view of U.S. elections today. We're all more suspicious about whether our elections are on the level, and we should be. Putin's goal was to goad us into asking the perpetual question: How can we possibly trust the outcomes of future elections knowing that Russia preselected our president years ago and then set about guaranteeing that outcome by turning our people against us?

    This is the next colossal problem to solve. Once we weed out Putin's quislings inside the White House...

    Peter AU | Mar 28, 2017 6:25:41 PM | 20
    That many games being played... Political hacks working against Trump, many Presidential appointments still unfilled, Trying to take out those around Trump and Trump himself and concentrating on the fight against Russia.
    Even though Trump was not the anointed, he still has qualities the P-nacker types can work with. Those that write the constant updates to manifest destiny always have Iran and North Korea in their sights.
    If Trump cannot be removed he can be used to try and take out Iran and NK and also take the blame for US boots in bodybags.
    The partitioning of Syria is now going ahead to Rand Corp plans. This will give the US control of a large amount of territory on Irans western border. US has already announced it Will keep military forces in Iraq after ISIS is defeated. Genocide of the people of Yemen is underway as US will need full control of Bab al-Mandab straight before attacking Iran.

    A couple of plays occurring? Political hacks will continue to try and remove or restrict Trump, meantime the powers that be are moving forward with their plans, simply adjusting them to Trump for the moment?

    karlof1 | Mar 28, 2017 6:35:05 PM | 21
    maningi @19--

    That's an excellent example of Cultural Imperialism. Russia is trying to rid itself of those deemed detrimental to its sociocultural being. And Russia is far from the only victim of such.

    Peter AU | Mar 28, 2017 6:44:23 PM | 22
    maningi 19

    Something like that was listed on the US Russian embassy website about two years ago

    At that time the US Syrian embassy website, amongst other things where advertising for American companies to supply and install oil infrastructure in rebel held parts of Syria.

    Most everything the US was doing around the world at that time was blandly in your face listed on their various embassy websites, no tinfoil hat required.

    Tony B. | Mar 28, 2017 6:50:09 PM | 23
    Everyone seems to present this as a Putin v. U.S. war when, in fact, the Brits have been much more vicious against Putin than the U.S. media. The real war here is Putin v. the Rothschild cabal in its City of London. The U.S. and the CIA (CIA has no real U.S. connection, works directly for the cabal) are just the present kneecappers for the cabal.

    Tony B. | Mar 28, 2017 6:56:51 PM | 24
    Correction: CIA has no U.S. OVERSIGHT . . . .

    Frank | Mar 28, 2017 7:00:41 PM | 25
    For some readson i read all of that in Dany Devitos voice which made it all the more funnier. But seriously their Focus on the russian "allegations" is just going to strengthen Trump when the whole thing just blows up in their faces. It kind of reminds me of the Situation back in 2008 when Obama was First elected and panicing republicans called him a commie and claimed that he wad going to fuck up the country. I mean sure they were right, but they could not have possibly known that then. The point is this "ressistance" is a joke, and Trump will probably deliver the punchline soon enough

    Susan Sunflower | Mar 28, 2017 7:57:34 PM | 26
    I keep thinking that this is all fanfare leading up to Hillary Clinton's moment of triumphant return (or something) ... in which she will galvanize the party, which will unify behind her and drive Trump and his minions from Washington (actual method and details to be determined / unspecified) ... "like in a movie" or more likely Hillary's "dream sequence"

    It feels like the sort of noisy loud barking that's heard with over-anxious "guard dogs", who would actually be willing and eager to be called off by their master, but won't stop barking until given permission to stop ... or something.

    Professional Putin hater Gessen is getting kudos galore for point out that the Putin Trump conspiracy theory lacks evidence ... yes, I was glad for the NYRB piece ... but I fear it may mean that she (and her Putin hating) will gain stature and credibility on her next go-around ... Has Gessen displaced Applebaum temporarily? Pussy Riot has been in the news again ... and I'm on the look out for some Michael Khodorkovsky update or editorial, since like the seasons these things seem to follow one another and -- gosh -- Putin is up for reelection this year ... speaking of whom: WAshington Times: Russian dissident hopes Trump will end Putin's power (03/08/2017) .

    jfl | Mar 28, 2017 8:33:12 PM | 27
    TRUMP: increases sanctions on Russia.
    TRUMP: expands wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria
    TRUMP: dismantles environmental regulations.
    TRUMP: kills worker protection, lowers billionaire taxes.
    TRUMP: launches nuclear war with North Korea.

    DEMOCRATS: sh*t ... Trump did our homework ... "Trump's a russki-commie-pinko-faggot!"

    whenever the demoblicans loose to the republicrats they make an end-run around them on the right. only now that requires going out of bounds completely, over the edge and into mccarthyism, jingo, fascism and ... shrill irrelevance.

    confusing the democrat party with an opposition to the neolibraconians?

    at this late stage in the 'game'?

    there may be less than a dime's worth of difference between the repbublicrats and demoblicans ... but the salaries of hundreds of thousands / millions of neolibraconian hacks are on the line here ... and trump ain't hirin'!

    what we need to do ... sez i ... is to organize and seriously start firin' ... there are only 546 of them (537, the supremes are not yet elected)! there are 313 million of us!

    replace all the elephants and jackasses with ordinary americans chosen from among ourselves.

    it'll take a decade. no time like the present to begin.

    no citizen denied her/his vote* for any reason => federal recall, referendum, initiative.

    * we citizens register ourselves, authorize and authenticate ourselves, run our paper-ballot polls ourselves, count and store the results ourselves.

    Jonathan | Mar 28, 2017 8:48:52 PM | 28
    I think the only level of disregard that will move Democrats is to respond to their every speech act with a call to literally commit seppuku. Anything else admits of a continued need for them and their performative contrition Rollenspiel.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 28, 2017 10:03:36 PM | 29
    @16 Sabine

    fuck me, but seriously this post is bullshit.

    What is bullshit about it? The fact that Trump is a fraud and dismantling America while rattling sabers at all and sundry abroad, or the fact that the DNC and its sycophants blame Russia and Putin for, well, everything they dislike?

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 28, 2017 10:06:49 PM | 30
    @ 14 karlof1

    Thanks for this, sir. Best post of the week.

    Circe | Mar 28, 2017 10:32:50 PM | 31
    @30

    You have to ask? They're two corrupt sides of the same coin. I've been repeating this for months now and getting nothing but abuse around here for it. Trump is a CON, a snake oil salesman, i.e. a LIAR, a narcissist i.e. megalomaniac and everything is unfolding as I was convinced it would.

    Peter AU | Mar 28, 2017 10:46:20 PM | 32
    One of Trumps first moves was to kill the TPP, something that would have put all governments signed up to it under the control of the mostly US based multi-national corporations ????

    Jackrabbit | Mar 28, 2017 11:07:49 PM | 33
    It's important to maintain perspective. The "big news" today was that Dick Cheney called Russian meedling in the 2016 Elections an "act of war". McCain had said the same in December but for Cheney to repeat that now - after little, if any, evidence of such interference only shows (again) how much the establishment despises Trump.

    Trump hate is a blind alley. Purposely so. Promoting such thinking does a disservice. We see to think about what comes after Trump (ike jfl above). IMO, a successful Movement that returns power to the people is one that unites the principled left and principled right. I think direct democracy can do that. I encourage everyone to explore the Pirate Party, a Party that provides a form of direct democracy that makes a good start.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 28, 2017 11:22:29 PM | 34
    @32 Circe

    They're two corrupt sides of the same coin. I've been repeating this for months now and getting nothing but abuse around here for it. Trump is a CON, a snake oil salesman, i.e. a LIAR, a narcissist i.e. megalomaniac

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I was asking "Sabine", who apparently does not agree, what exactly is "bullshit" about pointing out the failings of Trump and the DNC crowd.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 28, 2017 11:31:36 PM | 35
    I hope that today's offering indicates "b" has let the scales fall from his eyes regarding Trump and sees the guy for the nefarious danger he and his junta and Goldman Sachs/corporate raider administration are to the United States and the world.

    Anyone who looks into Steve Bannon's background and reads his public comments and still thinks the Chump administration stands for peaceful trade and ending American imperialism is a fool or an idiot.

    Jackrabbit | Mar 28, 2017 11:51:20 PM | 36
    It's important to understand what the establishment dislikes about Trump.

    1) Trump is NOT a proponent of Assad must go! .
    Neocons and their ME sponsors reject any middle-ground/accommodation on Syria. They want total victory for headchoppers because that eliminates Iranian influence and the Hezbolla 'threat to Israel.

    2) Trump is anti-TPP.
    This trade deal is sold as the best way to contain China. But it is actually a means off destroying sovereignty that strengthens the form of Empire that powerful "allies" prefer.

    3) Trump uses the power of his office to connect and communicate with people.
    Obama scolded us and communicated when he had to. Trump trashes the media, former Presidents, etc.

    4) Drain the Swamp
    Trump has instituted tough rules on lobbying. Washington doesn't care for rules that constrain money-making.

    stumpy | Mar 29, 2017 12:01:05 AM | 37
    Historical traditions should also be mentioned among the factors that determine a nation's role in world politics. "History is the memory of States," said Henry Kissinger, the theoretician and practitioner of international relations. By the way, the United States, whose interests Mr Kissinger has always defended, did not aspire to be the centre of the liberal world order for a greater part of its own fairly short history, and did not see that role as its preeminent mission. Its Founding Fathers wanted its leadership and exceptional nature to derive from its own positive example. Ironically, the American elite, which emerged as freedom fighters and separatists anxious to cast off the yoke of the British crown, had transformed itself and its state by the 20th century into a power thirsting for global imperialist domination. The world is changing, however, and – who knows – America might yet purify itself and return to its own forgotten sources.

    Excerpt from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to questions during a lecture for senior officers of the Military Academy of the General Staff, Moscow, March 23, 2017

    Link [use at your own risk]: http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2702537

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 12:39:28 AM | 38
    @35

    Why doesn't b just come right out and slam Trump and expose him in every sense for the lying, pretender ass that he is? Right away, the title tells you who he's really blaming; the title says nothing of Trump...but-but the buck stops with Trump. Every criticism is couched by the Democrats are distracted by Russiagate, but isn't everyone??? Which is the bigger elephant in the room: grandpa Trump's pretense at respectability and more laughably, President, or Russia collusion?

    Russia or no Russia Trump is disgusting. One Howard Stern interview is enough proof; it's not rocket science for crying out loud! sleazy and corrupt does Washington, specifically, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; that's the least of it.

    V. Arnold | Mar 29, 2017 12:44:29 AM | 39
    Hmm; is this true? If so, about time.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-28/dnc-asks-entire-staff-resignation-letters

    Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 29, 2017 12:45:08 AM | 40
    ...
    4) Drain the Swamp
    Trump has instituted tough rules on lobbying. Washington doesn't care for rules that constrain money-making.
    Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 28, 2017 11:51:20 PM | 37

    Trump's inaugural Drain The Swamp promise was no accident. It put The Swamp Club on notice which was unnecessarily sporting of him considering their own tactics. He wouldn't have been so upfront about his intentions if he hadn't already written the How To Drain the Swamp Manual long before the Election. Anyone who thinks he expected a smooth run, after such a confrontational start, isn't terribly bright; or grown-up.

    stumpy | Mar 29, 2017 12:48:12 AM | 41
    Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

    Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

    President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address, January 17, 1961.

    Nick | Mar 29, 2017 1:09:10 AM | 42
    Is Trump destroying the GOOGLE? There is a coordinate boycott ads campaign against them going on. They can lose billions because of this. http://mobilemarketingmagazine.com/youtube-advertiser-boycott-extremist-content-cost-google-750m

    For who doesn't know. Google has deep ties with CIA since Stanford days in 1998.

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 1:11:06 AM | 43
    @42

    Oh yeah Ike was a real authority on peace in the world , he only threatened the Chinese with nuclear weapons and ordered the CIA to overthrow the democratically-elected leader of Iran at the time to install the Shah and conspire with the U.K. to steal Iranian oil and commit atrocities against the people of Iran. From wiki:

    He therefore authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.[174] This resulted in an increased strategic control over Iranian oil by U.S. and British companies.[175]

    Such a nice guy! It's like I always say: actions speak louder than silver-tongued words.

    stumpy | Mar 29, 2017 1:25:43 AM | 44
    Also, I would like to say that if the practice of leaking information that concerns not just the United States but also Russia, which has become a tradition in Washington in the past few years, continues, there will come a day when the media will publish leaks about the things that Washington asked us to keep secret, for example, things that happened during President Obama's terms in office. Believe me, this could be very interesting information.

    h/t Zerohedge -- Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria , Moscow, March 23, 2017

    Next door to the Lavrov speech @14 karlof1 (Thank you!)

    Let's consider the possibility that Russia has fully penetrated the CIA (not a stretch) (and by transposition the DNC) (laugh if you like) and actually DID run Trump as a presidential stooge. Let's say that the US media accidentally stumbled upon the theoretical truth that Snowden and Assange are in fact operating with/for Russia (who pays their bills?) (Ecuador?)(Iran?)(Soros?)

    Why would Russia agree to keep American secrets as Zakharova implies, and what do we think of the threat of Russia revealing the dirt it has on the MOBama administration? Is Russia playing the USG or is it a pointed insinuation to make fun of the Russophobia?

    Elsewhere in her remarks, Zakharova refers to the assassination in Kiev:

    Note that she condemns Ukraine's reflexive finger-pointing at Moscow yet she herself asserts evidence that it was a contract killing to send a message. How would she know? What evidence? What message?

    The Russians are a sophisticated yet ruthless bunch. Their theme of taking the high road and pointing their condescending finger at anyone who accuses them is fairly consistent. I still wouldn't dismiss the idea that they are in fact pulling some strings along with Turkey, the Saudis, the Izzies, etc. or were they played? The Clintons harvested a lot of cash from folks that wanted favor in the new administration, if you believe the Guccifer leaks. So many leaks, ship sinks, rats swim.

    stumpy | Mar 29, 2017 1:27:34 AM | 45
    Quote:

    Evidence suggests it was a contract killing that, by all indications, was meant to send a message. As soon as the media reported this assassination Moscow hoped that Ukrainian law enforcement agencies would be able promptly to solve this crime and identify the masterminds behind it and of course its perpetrators, without any politicisation[sic] and based on objective data. However, after Ukrainian President Poroshenko announced that this assassination was "an act of terror perpetrated by Moscow," naturally, there was no more hope left that the investigation would be impartial or objective. We have no doubt about that. By all indications, this time as well the "killer regime" (as it is already being referred to) will do its best to make sure that no one will ever know the truth about what happened in Kiev.

    PavewayIV | Mar 29, 2017 1:28:10 AM | 46
    b - too funny.

    Ort@12 - Well said!

    karlof1@14 - Lavrov understands my country better than I do - I always enjoy being educated by him. I have to say that there was one zinger at the very end: What will Russia do about that girl they won't let in Eurovision? Now I know this has outraged many Russians (and rightfully so), but to put this question to the Russian Foreign Minister after THAT lecture? If I were him, I would have said with the most deadpan face I could muster, "We have not taken the option of a pre-emptive nuclear strike off the table at this time." and than just walked off the stage.

    Jackrabbit | Mar 29, 2017 1:32:00 AM | 47
    Trump haters don't talk about what comes after Trump.

    A BIG clue as to what motivates them.

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 1:33:53 AM | 48
    The Eisenhower quote put up by stumpy is interesting... US ingrained culture, manifest destiny, exceptional people ect.

    In looking up the various missiles systems and aircraft over the last few years, something starts to stand out.
    Since WWII Soviet, and now Russian design perimeters are guided by keeping the US out.
    US designs always have had the base perimeter of breaking through Soviet and now Russian defence systems.
    US culture is based on total aggression to any who do not bow to its power.
    No matter the US president is a nationalist or a globalist, this culture will continue until it is destroyed

    stumpy | Mar 29, 2017 1:35:40 AM | 49
    @44, Circe -- yup, hoisted on his own petard. He was the last one who could get away with it being halfway credible. Every president gets more rotten.

    ben | Mar 29, 2017 1:50:17 AM | 50
    Enjoy the theater folks.. Blaming Russia for all that's evil in the world, instead of speaking up for the workers in the U$A, is the Dems newest plan. Trump was elected because he ran as a progressive. We know now, he has no interest in such foolishness. Both parties are the parties of $, and will further the interests of corporate America, over the interests of the people. That means " Full Spectrum Dominance."

    Talk about hypocrisy::

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:18700:US-Has-Interfered-in-More-Elections-Than-Any-Other-Nation

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 2:10:18 AM | 51
    Trump haters don't talk about what comes after Trump.

    A BIG clue as to what motivates them.

    Here's a big clue: A jackass who doesn't have to pretend he's not one ergo we can all rally to kick his ass. The thing about Trump is that those who used to fight on the good side moved to the dark side when they were reeled in by Trump.

    So who cares who comes after Trump as long as we all go back to fighting in solidarity the enemy that Trump represents and his successor from the right or left aisle will surely represent as well.

    Julian | Mar 29, 2017 2:12:38 AM | 52
    Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 12:39:28 AM | 39

    I won't go as far as disagreeing with you about Trump, but I would ask the obvious question given you are just so relentlessly anti-Trump.

    Logically that means a few things.

    1. You would have preferred Hillary Clinton won the Election and became President.

    If you reject that assertion then please remove the scales from your eyes - there was no other choice - it was Clinton or Trump . No one else was going to win that election, saying "I don't like either" isn't an answer and is a failure to acknowledge reality.

    2. You would like Mike Pence to step up and take over from Trump (because Trump is so awful he must be replaced asap).

    Pence is the only person who is going to replace Trump - so logically you would prefer a President Pence to Trump. Fair enough - but is that really your view? Or is your view that they're all awful and we'd be better off with Jill Stein? Or Ralph Nader? Or Ross Perot? Rand Paul? Who? Doesn't matter anyway - because it is again evidence that you are living in a place detached from reality if your argument is NO TRUMP, NO PENCE - someone else!

    Nope. Forget it.

    At the moment your choice is Trump (or Pence) - no one else. So clarify again for me - you prefer Pence then?

    If your answer to all of the above is No, No, No, No, No, we need someone else I'm afraid it is completely pointless to argue with you - What are YOU going to do about it?

    Because I sure as hell am not going to try and find a way to get someone else installed besides Trump, or Pence. Just how would one go about doing that anyway? Not worth thinking about as far as I'm concerned.

    It's called living in an alternate reality, and perhaps it's best if you retire to Patagonia and live out your fantasies far far away from anyone else who might deign to interrupt you.

    Julian | Mar 29, 2017 2:20:49 AM | 53
    Re: Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 29, 2017 1:32:00 AM | 48

    It's interesting isn't it. Trump haters logically want to see President Mike Pence.

    But why this yearning for Pence? On the face of it it would appear that given their complaints about Trump Pence would be even more odious to them, but yet - Pence is exactly what they want!

    Strange isn't it Jack.

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 2:25:43 AM | 54
    Looks like you nailed it Julian.

    Willy2 | Mar 29, 2017 2:29:37 AM | 55
    - The Democrats are looking more and more stupid every day. Keep in mind, I don't get the impression that Trump has the best in mind for the US Joe sixpack as well.

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 2:32:19 AM | 56
    @53

    Spare me your long-winded cynicism. What's YOUR point if Trump is as corrupt as the rest?

    My point is that its better to fight the system together than divided by a worthless shit like Trump!

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 2:47:11 AM | 57
    Circe you throw tantrums without putting up alternatives. Much like my daughters when they were in a huff.
    Sniff some salts, fan your face, you'll be right.

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 3:03:59 AM | 58
    @58

    You're ad homs for lack of an argument are predictable. If you have nothing better to write don't *remove all doubt*. You know the saying: better to keep your trap shut and be thought a fool than open it up and...**

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 3:13:27 AM | 59
    Miss/Mrs Circe... by your username I take it you identify as female?

    Address Julian's questions. Who would you prefer as head warmonger
    A) Clinton
    B) Trump
    C) Pence

    Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.

    For me, I would like to see the US and its culture of manifest destiny totally destroyed. I cannot see that happening in the foreseeable future unless they initiate mutual assured destruction.

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 3:14:57 AM | 60
    D)

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 3:30:54 AM | 61
    Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 3:14:57 AM | 61

    Well that was a rational and well thought out reply.
    Reminds me of Wile E Coyote looking down into the chasm, just before he drops.

    One thing I have to say about earlier pre political correctness US. They had some great cartoons.

    Perhaps you are auditioning Circe?

    Lozion | Mar 29, 2017 3:32:11 AM | 62
    D)? Hope that means none of the above..

    Julian | Mar 29, 2017 3:56:47 AM | 63
    Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 2:32:19 AM | 57

    Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 3:14:57 AM | 61

    D eh. Once again you fail to answer a simple question. Your response is pointless. It lacks a basis in reality.

    There is no D option. Are you the D option. You seem to think so.

    My point is that its better to fight the system together than divided by a worthless shit like Trump!

    And how exactly are you fighting this system? Writing a few sentences on someone's (admittedly GREAT! Blog) ain't going to get you very far.

    Thanks for the support Peter. I don't think anyone here who supported Trump (over Clinton) was under the illusion Trump was going to be a "Great" President by any stretch of the imagination.

    But it was fairly simple - do you want the proven warmongering maniac, or the egotistical narcissist?

    Easy choice for mine - and like you Peter, I don't get to vote in US Elections so I could hardly make my voice heard at a US ballot box.

    For the record, speaking as someone with libertarian leanings, Rand Paul was my initial choice in the US Primaries Republican/ Democrat. Rand seems eminently sensible on foreign policy issues. Stop expanding NATO, leave the Middle East. Of course Rand (like his father) is roundly ignored by the MSM most of the time.

    Rand even jumped on Tulsi Gabbard's Stop Arming Terrorists Act! Good move for your credibility Rand, bad move if you want higher office.

    Re: Posted by: Lozion | Mar 29, 2017 3:32:11 AM | 63

    I assume D means none of the above as well, but provide the alternative then - a realistic alternative. As far as I can see - there is no D alternative being offered at the moment in reality .

    dumbass | Mar 29, 2017 4:00:20 AM | 64
    Oh, lord. You people ganging up on Circe again? It's beneath your normally good commentary. Irritatingly so.

    Circe's expectations about Trump have so far proven correct. Many of you -- INCLUDING ME! -- who hoped to see more sensible behavior from Trump must admit you're disappointed.

    So far, it seems I -- and many of you -- owe Circe "you told me so". (*Not* like it would've made me change my vote from "Jill Stein" to "Killary" just to try to keep Trump out of office.)

    >> It's interesting isn't it. Trump haters logically want to see President Mike Pence.

    You're not using logic. You're mocking it.

    I, for one, abhor Trump's decisions thus far. Do you really think it's a matter of "logic" that I would prefer Pence's?

    That argument is embarrassing.

    >> Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.

    People are free to condemn what Trump does without being obligated to "choose" a veritable "s*** sandwich" from your "replacement menu".

    But more importantly, stay civil! I choose to lurk because I rarely have anything (other than "thumbs up" to practically everything from jfl or psychohistorian). But, I read comments fairly regularly and have seen very little hostility from Circe -- except for maybe one understandable comment as a reaction to constant harassment -- that would justify this antagonism, Peter AU.

    Julian | Mar 29, 2017 4:03:08 AM | 65
    In the mean-time we have the Ecuador run-off Presidential Election this week. Sunday April 2, 2017.

    Pro-Assange
    Lenin Moreno

    Anti-Assange
    Guillermo Lasso


    Easy choice for mine. Go Lenin.

    Then we have the French Election (April-June 2017). Viva Le Pen (Destroyer of the EU).

    The German Elections (September 2018). A total non-event. Schulz v Merkel - both as bad as each other.

    The Russian Elections (March-April 2018). Putin to be re-elected assuming he stands.

    The Italian Elections (By May 2018). Can Beppe Grillo win and take Italy out of the Euro and thereby destroy the Europeon project? Perhaps, but I don't trust Grillo as much as Le Pen.

    Unfortuntely, if Le Pen loses, Grillo might be the last hope for a sane resolution to all that ails the world (The West) at the moment.

    If things continue going to plan I foresee Russia/Putin shutting down all gas supplies to the EU either Winter 2018/19 or Winter 2019/20.

    At that point, the election season is completed, and why bother extending chance after chance for the Europeons to wise up? Plus, the TurkStream and pipes to China will be completed by then.

    That's my estimate of when Russian patience with the EU runs out anyway.

    The only question then becomes, does the West collapse economically before then?

    Perhaps, but I see no reason they can't just continue with the tricks of the last decade for another 2 years.

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 4:10:17 AM | 66
    Dunmbass is correct. User name that is.

    Dumbass, come up with an alternative narrative.
    JFL and psychohistorian I have respect for, but I do feel their alternatives are dreamtime stuff.
    What we see is the real world. Human nature at its "finest".

    Constant revolution is perhaps the most applicable to the real world though perhaps not in the intention of the originator.

    Human nature. Does not change with knowledge.


    jfl | Mar 29, 2017 4:11:00 AM | 67
    @40

    Democratic_National_Committee


    The DNC is composed of

    1. the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party's central committee ,
    2. two hundred members apportioned among the states based on population and generally elected either on the ballot by primary voters or by the state Democratic Party committee ,
    3. a number of elected officials serving in an ex officio capacity , and
    4. a variety of representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies .


    1. public enemies of the jackass persuasion numbers 1 through 100 ...
    2. like to see the breakdown of 'elected' / appointed ... even when elected, elected by their cronies, no one else knows who they are ...
    3. political hacks given sinecures ... the 'grateful dead' ...
    4. lobbyists for wall street, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, the medical industrial complex, the 'intelligence community', enemies of the people in general ...

    don't imagine these folks will be resigning. they're just killing off the hired hands ... they're the ones who 'ate our homework!' ... right ... the hh's will be replaced by interchangable clones. the dnc are dead men and women walking. and talking, of course.

    @43

    probably a false-flag by the googleplex itself, an alibi for discontinuing 'extremist' postings. 'hey, it's not us! it's our advertizers ... it's just bidnez, g-o-i ...'

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 4:22:14 AM | 68
    Prior to Trumps election, The US/globalist fellow travelers were all walking along nicely. Trump usurped the throne from the anointed one and now the fellow travelers are arguing.
    Some say Trump will take us to a few places on our bucket list, others say say- no Trump has to go.

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 4:33:54 AM | 69
    Oh Where art thou Circe?
    Three choices. A, B, or C. Easy peasy. Or do you have X held back in secrecy?

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 4:40:26 AM | 70
    Miss/Mrs Circe

    My alternative in imagination is total fucking destruction of US and their fucked up culture. What is yours?
    You have never put forth any alternative?

    Sabine | Mar 29, 2017 4:50:29 AM | 71
    @ 35

    the reason i consdier this post to be a load of bullshit is simple.

    the democratic party is so diminised it has not effect on anything the orange turd and his henchmen do.

    So they can whinge about what ever they want to.

    secondly: in general the US American Jane and Joe Do don't give a flying fuck about war. Its the only thing they have going for the, the million plus peoples army of the US and the weapons manufactures. If they don't have the army and the weapons company US unemployemnt would be through the roof and there would be rioting in the streets. Can you imagine the orange turd bringing home his troops from anywhere in Europe if they 'don't pay his bill for Nato"?

    thridly: many of us predicted precisely that. Namely that the orange turd will do as any other US president did before him, war oversees and weapons selling. But oh noes, he is gonna be besties with Putin (who will win the election cause anyone else running will be dead by the time people get to put their fingerprints on a piece of paper)

    fourth: i find it funny how many here over the years are ok with foreign influence in the US election, obviously its ok now to just delegitimze the last little bit of 'influence' people get to have in their countries.

    fifth: i no more rejoice in the forth coming misery for the US American women and children then i do in the ongoing misery for the women of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, Westbank, Somalia.

    and as another poster said above, there was no real choice for teh US, there was Hillary with all her faults, and then there was the orange turd.

    as for 'sabine' i have used my name as a handle since the time of billmon. and frankly this blog is going to shite. Sadly so.

    Sabine | Mar 29, 2017 4:55:24 AM | 72
    @ 71

    Circe answered, D none of the above.

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 5:07:03 AM | 73
    Sabine.

    D is not an option.

    D more likely refers to duh

    The only option is destruction of the US which can only be put plainly and not as duh, as in imbecile.

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 5:19:23 AM | 74
    @ Circe

    What do you make of Laverov's recent speech?
    Russia has been through both communism and wide open capitalism.

    MadMax2 | Mar 29, 2017 6:09:54 AM | 75
    Lavrov's speech to the military academy sits in nicely behind Putin's speech to the UN Assembly a couple of years ago. Writing the global script with openness, clarity and integrity.

    Makes a great sequel due to the ease and detail of which Lavrov breaks down each and every question. Nothing mealy mouthed as you might expect from a US state department press outing...from the top down the Russians' believe in what they say, mean what they say, and do not mince words because its so much easier to give quick, detailed and direct answers when they are guided by truth and not a forked tongue.

    From him you get a sense that today's Russia has very much evolved from a deep appreciation of it's history and, in a typically strong yet understated fashion, very much understands it's place within it. All the while the west embarrasses itself under the weight of repeatedly failing realities.

    ...the difference between a politician and a statesman.

    fast freddy | Mar 29, 2017 7:07:14 AM | 76
    It is apparent that Pence would be even worse than Trump.

    The Deep State, the CIA and it's media arm wants Pence. The Democrats and most of the Republicans also want Pence.

    Trump the degenerate Orange Turd must be good for something if all that is evil intends to usurp him.

    Curtis | Mar 29, 2017 9:14:20 AM | 77
    aaaa 13
    "It's still rock and roll to me." - Billy Joel
    In the case of the DEMs, it's all about politics and winning. (and not much diff to the GOP). For FDR and the DEMs in 1932 it was more important to let more of the economy (and banks) fail to have a more spectacular loss for Hoover and the GOP. (The Roosevelt Myth) And now the DEMs and the media sycophants are more shrill. Their one-trick pony obsession is Putin (riding a horse without his shirt - ha ha). If they cannot stand up for anything else, it's about time those in the party notice and change things.

    The surprise of FDR was to find out he had no real ideology and simply took on people whose ideas sounded good. Otherwise it was the political machines of NYC, Chicago, and the unions (some dominated by Communists) that propelled him into higher office. He wanted to win and that was all that counted.

    Susan Sunflower | Mar 29, 2017 9:24:33 AM | 78
    Like Gessen, Anne Applebaum is attempting to be the voice of reason and reality:

    WAPO: The critical questions on Russia .

    Russian private money has also played a role in Trump's career. Though Trump has said repeatedly that he has never invested in Russia, Russia has invested in him. Famously, Donald Trump Jr. declared in 2008 that Russian money made up a "pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets." More recently, a Reuters investigation showed that holders of Russian passports invested at least $98 million into seven Trump properties in Florida alone, a number that doesn't include any investors who hid their names behind anonymous shell companies.

    Technically, none of this money had anything to do with the Russian state. But in practice, it likely won goodwill and influence for Russia. Over many years, and long before he became president, Trump repeatedly praised Russia and its president. In 2007, he declared that Putin is "doing a great job." In 2015, he described the Russian president as a "man so highly respected within his own country and beyond."

    Just like Deripaska's payments to Manafort, the "disproportionate" Russian investments in Trump's businesses, which Trump still owns, weren't bribes. They didn't involve the KGB, and they probably didn't include any secret payments either. The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the question "was this all legal," because it probably was. Congress, or an independent investigator, needs to find a way to ask, "was this moral," because it surely wasn't, and "does it constitute undue influence," which it surely does.

    Apparently Congress will need to parse the morality of all Russian dealings with, oh hell, about everyone everywhere ... she's implicating pretty much the entire Russian Business class as Putin's water carrying agents of influence ... regardless, in this climate, this appears to be something resembling "a voice of reason and moderation" (or at least goal posts and some definitions of the 5 questoins -- who, what, why, where, when --variety)

    Morongobill | Mar 29, 2017 9:25:57 AM | 79
    Sometimes it occurs to me that what some of the writers(the Salon piece in particular) need is a good ass whipping. Pardon my French please.

    Come to think of it, I feel the same way about some of these anti-Trump protestors.

    Susan Sunflower | Mar 29, 2017 9:32:10 AM | 80
    The Salon article seemed to be echoing Malcolm Nance of last week's fantasy ... part Jules Verne, part really bad third-tier LeCarre knockoff ...

    NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 29, 2017 9:37:34 AM | 81
    @2 The long term effects of recruiting self funding non entities are at play too. Many of these Democrats were recruited at lower levels because they were bland enough to not offend local interests and had the money to upfront the funding for their campaign. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders wasn't entrusted with the budget and veteran committee select spots because he is such a shining star or has leverage with the caucus, he's not joining the GOP. He holds those positions because the Democrats don't have people interested or even capable of those jobs serving in Congress. Russia is a convenient refrain. They know voters want answers, and a good portion of the elected Democrats know so little about policy they can't possibly offer answers.

    JohnThomas | Mar 29, 2017 9:42:53 AM | 82
    The US is whining about how Russia dealt with 100s of people attending unlicensed demonstrations in Russia. Russians are pussies when it comes to dealing with protestors. This is how the US does it.

    http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/203/420/UCDavis_pepperspray.jpg?1321852699

    http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/303385/14835326/1357272278107/scott-olsen.JPG?token=V6gtNZZjC66o%2BDSGDxYcrfFcFZY%3D

    Anon1 | Mar 29, 2017 10:56:38 AM | 83
    US have just accepted Montenegro as a coming member of NATO, you guys think that Nato will come to formally accept Montenegro on the Nato meeting on 31 of march?

    blues | Mar 29, 2017 11:29:00 AM | 84
    /~~~~~~~~~~
    Zero Hedge -- ACLU Actively Assisting With Soros-Driven Protest Organization After Accepting Funds From The Open Society Institute -- Mar 6, 2017
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-06/aclu-...

    The ACLU itself has received massive amounts of funding from George Soros. A February 6th, 2017 article from Zerohedge cited research from LifeZette and the Capital Research Center indicating that Soros's Open Society Institute has sunk over $35 million into the ACLU alone and millions more to other liberal organizations directly involved in filing lawsuits against various policies of Donald Trump all around the country. The massive donation drive is part of Soros' overall effort to "reshape the American justice system" by buying district attorneys in races across the country.
    \~~~~~~~~~~


    /~~~~~~~~~~
    ACLU / People Power -- Join People Power
    https://go.peoplepower.org/signup/join?source=root

    On March 11, the ACLU is holding a Resistance Training. This event will launch People Power, the ACLU's new effort to engage grassroots volunteers across the country and take the fight against Donald Trump's policies not just into the courts, but into the streets. We're organizing grassroots events in communities across the country to watch the livestream together. Please join us!

    Sign up to learn more about People Power and the Resistance Training livestream on March 11 at 5pm ET. We'll follow up with you about opportunities to volunteer and attend events near you.
    \~~~~~~~~~~

    So. George Soros gives the ACLU $35 million and they promptly "take the fight against Donald Trump's policies not just into the courts, but into the streets". Of course, if they dispose of Trump, we get -- Mike Pence as president. He would be so much better? Consider:

    Vice President Mike Pence voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, which called for the use of military force in Iraq.

    Pence went on a widely condemned trip with Senator John McCain to Iraq in 2007.

    In a 2002 statement on the floor of the House of Representatives (reported in the Congressional Record), Pence told his colleagues "... I also believe that someday scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a remotely rational explanation for the known universe."

    "[Indiana governor] Mike Pence's time in office has been so toxic that Hoosier Republicans are publicly begging Donald Trump to save their party," [by getting him out of Indiana] said Drew Anderson, [Indiana Democratic] communications director.

    blues | Mar 29, 2017 11:32:55 AM | 85
    I've given up complaining about Circe. Maybe he works for Soros, or is Soros' grandson. Or something. Nearly constant single complaint, no alternatives discussed.

    It's just another of those nutty things.

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 12:30:47 PM | 86
    @85

    Can't you just leave it at your comment @84 rather than wasting a separate post just to personally attack me by taking a cheap shot with bullshit speculation? You just had to back-up the other 2 offenders; makes you feel big, huh?

    @70

    Yes I have posted my political preferences and leadership preferences that don't include any of the choices you listed. Either you weren't paying attention or you just don't give a damn what I think. I suspect it's the latter, since you pay too much attention as obviously you never fail to deliver with your ad homs each and every time I comment on a topic and you disagree with what I write. I don't have to repeat what I posted previously to live up to your standards or pass some kind of litmus test to meet with your approval.

    peter | Mar 29, 2017 1:10:12 PM | 87
    Here's the acceptable viewpoints as near as I can tell,


    1) it's infallible truth that there's no substance to the awful rumors that the Trump team and the Putin team may have colluded prior to the election.

    2) Putin has been a beacon of integrity and forthrightness with no desire for anything but the nations of the world to live in harmony.

    3) Trump is really on the same page as Putin but the evil forces of the deep state try mightily to derail his plans for our betterment

    4) any attempt at free trade is inherently evil, the machinations of that cabal that seeks to rule the world

    5) we should accept Trump simply because there's nobody that can do any better.


    If you stick to these the no one will flame you. If you don't then you work for Soros. Yeah, fucking right, Trump's the man. we should learn to love him.


    1) love how he's pouring troops and assets into the ME

    2) accept that climate change is bullshit and cheer the deregulation that is currently taking place

    3) accept that the bankers aren't so bad and realize that the regulations placed on them had to go because they were really hurting business and consequently their plans for making America great

    4) accept that Latinos are the root of many of America's problems and cheer the zeal with which they are being rounded up

    5) accept that the poor have only themselves to blame and applaud the way their safety net is being dismantled


    Because Trump likes Putin and Putin likes Trump and that's all that really matters. Well suck me dry and call me Dusty, how could anybody not see that?


    dumbass | Mar 29, 2017 1:28:54 PM | 88
    >> Dunmbass is correct. User name that is.

    Ad hom straight off? Choices...action...habit...character.

    >> Dumbass, come up with an alternative narrative.

    Your "narrative" thus far is to make the same pitch the 2-party duopolists make: choose from the shitty choices we give you. History proves the governments' imperialist policies do not change from one administration/party to another. So, I choose options not on your list. I'm not changing my "narrative" to accommodate your dogmatism.

    >> What we see is the real world.

    Real world? Your choices are not even "real". Here they were:
    >> Address Julian's questions. Who would you prefer as head warmonger
    >> A) Clinton
    >> B) Trump
    >> C) Pence
    >> Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.

    Those aren't even "real world" choices. They're your own artificial, limited construct. Another election isn't until 2020. Clinton may or may not run. Your choices are stupid and contradict your self-professed "real world" pragmatism.

    By the way, saying your choices are "stupid" and that you contradict yourself isn't ad hominem, though judgments about your comment quality might lead people to draw inferences about you personally.

    Jackrabbit | Mar 29, 2017 2:05:52 PM | 89
    Circe @86

    Circe did post his preference.

    IIRC, he/she supports Kucinich (Democratic Party) as next President.

    karlof1 | Mar 29, 2017 6:18:49 PM | 90
    peter @87--

    "Putin likes Trump"

    There're no grounds for that supposition. All Putin and Lavrov have stated is their willingness to work with whomever was elected. Mr Lavrov just again in an interview published today, 3/29, in National Interest Magazine : "We said what we did, that we are ready to work with any administration, any president who would be elected by the American people. This was our line throughout the electoral campaign, unlike the acting leaders of most European countries who were saying absolutely biased things, supporting one candidate, unlike those who even bluntly warned against the choice in favor of the Republican candidat[sic], and this somehow is considered normal." http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2710445

    Tom in AZ | Mar 29, 2017 10:21:30 PM | 91
    @54

    It is worse than just Pence. It goes Pence, Speaker Ryan, president pro tempore box turtle McConnell, and then Exxon Sec. State Tillerman. And eventually in the cabinet, you would get to Ben Carson. Jesus wept...

    Tom in AZ | Mar 29, 2017 10:32:07 PM | 92
    Peter AU @69

    C'mon Peter. A, Clinton is NOT an option at all. Unless the entire government is overthrown to install her. See my comment above re succession. There is no 'reset' to give her the election. Surely you know this, so why are you trying to make Clinton an option for Circe?

    Tom in AZ | Mar 29, 2017 10:38:13 PM | 93
    @76 fast freddy

    IMO Pence will be an order of magnitude worse than Trump. He will be piously waving his bible while screwing the people of the US more than can be imagined, as he knows all the crazies in Congress and agrees with the most disgusting views of the right wing. He will be more effective in our destruction.

    PavewayIV | Mar 29, 2017 10:43:58 PM | 94
    dumbass@64 - Sir, I have *never* in my life heard a more precise and succinct description of the U.S. perverse election process. Bravo!

    "...People are free to condemn what Trump does without being obligated to "choose" a veritable "s*** sandwich" from your "replacement menu"..."

    I shall steal this for future use, but forgive me if I do not give proper attribution as "the dumbass on MoA"

    Sabine | Mar 30, 2017 12:39:42 AM | 95
    @73

    if you fill out none of the cases in a form, which one will you have choosen?

    you have choosen the one that you left out.

    D. None of the above fuckwits.

    thanks

    denk | Mar 30, 2017 1:30:38 AM | 96
    Julian 52

    *I won't go as far as disagreeing with you about Trump, *

    Hmm

    You agrees with Circe on Trump, --

    But you sides with JR the Trump apologist --

    Can you make up your mind, are you a 'Trump hater', [sic]
    or a 'Trump lover' ?

    dumbass | Mar 30, 2017 1:39:08 AM | 97
    Hey, thanks, Paveway IV.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 30, 2017 2:05:45 PM | 98
    "b" dude, maybe your playing to your crowd here and cha-ching and all that...but Blowhard Chump and the MSM's crazed rantings about him just aren't that interesting. Ya know? He's not going to bring world peace, detente with Russia or make America great again. Probably quite the opposite. And the media will continue to focus on him and ignore the many failings of the Demosplats et al. Move on is my advice.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 30, 2017 2:23:39 PM | 99
    Look, I don't like Clinton/Obama, neoliberalism, "free trade" agreements etc. BUT I don't like Trump either. If you thought Obama was bad how can you like Chump? He's a fucking liar and an όber-capitalist piece of shit who takes his orders from Darth Bannon. Fuck em' all I say. I am not a Soros agent btw. (but if I was I probably wouldn't tell ya...heheheheh)

    I also think Trump is "better", or at least less terrible, than Pence, McCain/Graham, Hillary or any of the demented fanatics and war mongers waiting in the wings. So while I don't like the guy or his junta/corporate raider administration impeaching him is not cool. And the "Russia did it" crap is seriously insane and there is no evidence Putin "threw" the election.

    The people holding a candle for Chump are like the morons who still maintain O'Bomber did good things for America and the world. You are the other side of that particular coin. That's what you get when you meed a hero figure to worship.

    [Apr 02, 2017] Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign dictator! Oh my!! We do get AIPAC in our elections! And Riyadh pay for play

    Notable quotes:
    "... Someone is accused of foiling the neocon plot to start WWIII. Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign dictator! Oh my!! we do get AIPAC in our elections! And Riyadh pay for play ..."
    Apr 02, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    lsm -> point... , April 01, 2017 at 07:12 AM
    Someone is accused of foiling the neocon plot to start WWIII. Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign dictator! Oh my!! we do get AIPAC in our elections! And Riyadh pay for play

    Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign power to hack

    O my someone helped Assange, someone is accused of putting truth about the CONARTISTS in DNC to the American people

    I have as much basis in facts as NYT!

    O my!

    [Apr 02, 2017] The myth about this great oilman Obama

    Apr 02, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova -> mulp... , April 01, 2017 at 06:45 PM
    " if Obama had not created 5 years of shelter to small oil drill baby fracking on private land with oil embargoes limiting global supply in conjunction with restrictions on oil production on Federal leases?"

    This would be an interesting myth: the myth about this great oilman Obama ...

    Do you know how much junks bonds were issued during this spectacular increase is shale oil output ?

    and it was really spectacular: from 5.7 million barrels/day in 2011 to 9.2 million barrels/day in 2014 and 9.4 million barrels/day in March 2015.

    The United States increased production by 5.1 million barrels per day (Mb/d) from 2010 to 2015. In comparison, the increase in production from Persian Gulf was less at 5.0 Mb/d. Total world production increase was 8.4 Mb/d. Which means the rest of the world oil producers declined by some ~ 1.7 Mb/d. This was despite Canadian production rising 1.0 Mb/d plus increases from Russia, and Brazil. Most oil producing countries are now in a long term decline or plateau at best. US is in decline, but that might reverse with prices hitting $70.

    But it was not just oil production. It was oil plus junk bonds production and it is unclear in what area they were the most efficient :-).

    If you add cost of bankruptcies in 2015-2017 to the cost of US shale oil it becomes so high, that it would be more cost efficient to buy it elsewhere and do not risk ecological consequences.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/11/half-of-us-shale-drillers-may-go-bankrupt-oppenheimers-gheit.html

    "Half of the current [US] producers have no legitimate right to be in a business where the price forecast even in a recovery is going to be between, say, $50, $60. They need [above] $70 oil to survive,"

    More than 60 North American oil and gas companies have gone belly-up since the start of last year, with liabilities totaling $22.5 billion as of April of 2016 ( http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Trends/Bankruptcies-continue-in-US-shale-oil-industry )

    And even now then prices somewhat recovered to $50 per barrel level the only possibility to survive for US shale oil producers are "evergreen" loans.

    That might change if the price hits $70 or higher. But I would keep my fingers crossed on that: something is happening in the world if oil managed to get this low and stay at this level in 2015-2017.

    See

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-11/fed-bubble-bursts-in-550-billion-of-energy-debt-credit-markets

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-18/oil-junk-bonds-cost-investors-billions

    But Obama has one thing under the belt: his administration managed to crash oil prices and this way "saved" Obama recovery, while partially wiping out the US shale.

    [Apr 02, 2017] Obama's Passport Breach Unanswered Questions, and an Unsolved Murder

    Notable quotes:
    "... not because I have any particular concerns" ..."
    Apr 02, 2017 | www.americanthinker.com
    There is no way to tell what might have been done to Obama's passport records by those who accessed them. Key information could have been altered or destroyed. On April 8, 2008, after the breach became public, Obama confessed to having taken a trip to Pakistan in 1981. The then-candidate said: "I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college." Journalist Jake Tapper was surprised and said: "This last part -- a college trip to Pakistan -- was news to many of us who have been following the race closely. And it was odd that we hadn't hear about it before, given all the talk of Pakistan during this campaign."

    Did Obama confess to this trip, which he doesn't mention in either of his autobiographies, because of the passport breach? While the oft-repeated charge that Americans were forbidden to travel to Pakistan in 1981 appears to be false , questions remain about why Obama took the trip at all, and what he did there. Indian counterterrorism expert Bahukutumbi Raman asked pointed questions about this trip:

    Why did he keep mum on his visit to Pakistan till this question was raised? Has he disclosed all the details regarding his Pakistan visit? Was it as innocuous as made out by him -- to respond to the invitation of a Pakistani friend or was there something more to it? As I read about Obama's visit to Pakistan in the 1980s, I could not help thinking of dozens of things. Of the Afghan jihad against communism. Of the fascination of many Afro-Americans for the jihad. Of the visits of a stream of Afro-Americans to Pakistan to feel the greatness of the jihad. Of their fascination for Abdullah Azzam[.]

    It bears noting that John Brennan has made some incredible pro-terror remarks -- some in Arabic no less -- about the beauty of jihad.

    Raman acknowledged that these were "morbid" speculations but said they were "understandable when one has a feeling that one has not been told the whole story, but only a part of it."

    And Obama confessed to this trip two weeks after his passport was tampered with. There is a video here of Obama's response to the passport breach back on March 21, 2008. It's telling that he assures everyone that he has nothing to hide: " not because I have any particular concerns" (0:23). This is before the birth certificate controversy. Who would say that -- unless he did have particular concerns?

    Obama said at the time that attempts to "tap into people's personal records" were "a problem not just for me, but for how our government functions."

    [Apr 02, 2017] The Great Recession clearly gave rise to right-wing populism

    Apr 02, 2017 | theweek.com
    Ryan Cooper

    In 2008, the whole world was convulsed by a financial crisis, leading to mass unemployment in the United States and Europe. The initial response was fairly similar in both places, featuring immense public bailouts of ailing banks. But after that, there was a sharp divergence: America generally tried large fiscal and monetary stimulus, while Europe did the opposite with spending cuts and tax increases - that is, austerity - and tight money.

    Though the U.S. stimulus was inadequate, the worst was avoided, and economic conditions improved slowly, surpassing its pre-crisis GDP by 2011. In Europe - and especially within the eurozone, where the common currency became a gold standard-esque economic straitjacket - the result was disaster. So much austerity was forced on debtor nations that they fell into full-blown depression. Greece's economy is worse than that of America in the 1930s - and the eurozone as a whole only matched its pre-crisis GDP in April of last year .

    Mass unemployment is electoral poison, and about every party that happened to be holding power during the worst of it - generally either center-right (Fianna Fαil in Ireland, People of Freedom in Italy) or center-left (the Socialist Party in France, the Democrats in America) - suffered serious setbacks in subsequent elections. Radical parties on both the left and right gained as establishment parties were badly discredited. New fascist parties (Golden Dawn in Greece) sprung to prominence, and older fascist-lite ones (National Front in France) gained strength.

    But Beauchamp barely even references this history, restricting his argument almost entirely to welfare policy. He assembles reasonably convincing evidence and expert testimony to the effect that welfare states increase racist resentment in both the United States and Europe. But he does not mention mass unemployment, austerity, or the eurozone. These are yawning absences in an article purporting to deal with the social effects of economic policy.

    Welfare is one chapter of leftist economic policy, but the first and most important one is full employment. That is the major route by which leftist economic policy can deflate right-wing nativism. Center-left parties often claim to support full employment, but they have manifestly failed to do so over the last eight years, and arguably long before that . (President Obama was plumping for austerity in February of 2010, with unemployment at 9.8 percent .) Fascists organize best in the chaos and misery of depression, as people lose faith in traditional solutions and root around for scapegoats. Is it really a coincidence that the Nazi electoral high tide came at a time of nearly 30 percent unemployment?

    Now, politics is a chaotic process. It takes a lot of ideological spadework to convince people that austerity is the problem, and a lot of time and effort to build a political coalition dedicated to an anti-austerity platform. And sometimes it doesn't work well, as Beauchamp's detailed discussion of the U.K. Labour Party's difficulties since losing the elections of 2015 (on a pro-austerity platform, mind you). But savage infighting within the party is likely just as much to blame for Labour's collapse as leader Jeremy Corbyn's left-wing views. Sometimes political coalitions fracture over personality and internal struggles for dominance.

    Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.

    [Apr 02, 2017] Barack Obamas theory of politics is and always has been garbage

    Apr 02, 2017 | theweek.com
    ny Ryan Cooper

    The absolute nadir of Obama's presidency was the moment he chose to try to negotiate with Republicans over the debt ceiling (which limits the amount the federal government can borrow) to try to get a "grand bargain" on taxes and social insurance. If Republicans would agree to some tax hikes, he would get Democrats to support large cuts to Social Security and Medicare. This was stone idiocy on several levels: It accepted the legitimacy of Republicans taking the debt ceiling hostage - thus threatening national default and world financial crisis - to extract unrelated policy concessions; and as policy it was actively harmful. The narrative of looming debt crisis due to excessively generous social insurance was and is despicable garbage - and austerity and cuts to social insurance were the exact opposite of what was needed in July 2011, when the unemployment rate was 9.0 percent .

    Obama was so enamored of the idea of being the president who finally cut through the partisan gridlock that he nearly undermined two of the country's most foundational programs. The only reason the grand bargain didn't pass was that the extremist faction of House Republicans refused to countenance any tax increases whatsoever .

    After that humiliating failure, Obama retreated somewhat from trying to get compromises. Locked out of traditional governing, but still needing to address emergencies like climate change, he ended up resorting to a lot of unilateral executive orders.

    But it seems this was merely a tactical retreat. In his 2015 State of the Union address , and again at the 2016 Democratic National Convention , he once more sounded the same anti-partisan notes of compromise and reasoned discussion. And as Jeff Stein reports after interviewing multiple top figures in Obama circles, the former president is preparing to redouble his anti-partisan efforts with a new foundation dedicated towards a rather content-free notion of "citizenship." This was also one major reason why Obama installed his loyal follower Tom Perez at the DNC - because he could liberate "himself from having to personally respond to Trump over the next several years" and thus stay above the partisan fray.

    Now, as Steve Randy Waldman writes , it's not wrong to believe that a nation-state needs a basic commonality of belief and fellow feeling among the citizenry to succeed. Tying the nation together with cords of mutual dependence is one underrated function of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, for instance. But when confronted with a political faction fanatically dedicated to cutting those cords, the right approach is not to keep reaching across the aisle to get tased. Instead, as FDR showed when New Deal Democrats constructed the basic structure of modern American society, one must comprehensively defeat that faction politically, over and over, until their views are exiled from the political mainstream. With agreement again defined along reasonable lines, civil political discourse will flourish once more.

    But until then, it's fight or lose.

    Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.

    [Apr 02, 2017] 'Press 2 if hackers needed' Russian FM April Fools voicemail leaves US media unamused

    Notable quotes:
    "... add foreign languages ..."
    "... CNN is the so-called news network that gave questions to Hillary Clinton during the debate. So we shouldn't really take them seriously. When it comes to laughing matters, they are now the laughing stock of the news world ..."
    Apr 02, 2017 | www.rt.com
    On Friday, WikiLeaks released a batch of documents detailing CIA hacking tactics and how the US agency can divert forensic investigators from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks to the spy agency. One of the documents revealed that the framework supports the ability to " add foreign languages " to malware, listing Chinese, Russian and Korean in the example code, indicating the potential for the CIA to focus attention on another party to be blamed for the hack.

    CNN, however, decided to not cover the story, Gaunt told RT.

    " CNN is the so-called news network that gave questions to Hillary Clinton during the debate. So we shouldn't really take them seriously. When it comes to laughing matters, they are now the laughing stock of the news world ," the British commentator and politician said.

    [Apr 02, 2017] Liberals are losing their minds over Trump and Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... in their quest to find a connection - particularly some sort of direct conspiracy between Trump and Putin - some liberals are abandoning good sense and becoming credulous toward nutty thinkers. ..."
    "... I'm reminded in a way of the Second Red Scare. The era of Joseph McCarthy is rightly remembered as a time of deranged witch hunts and fevered anti-Communist paranoia. ..."
    "... In other words, the defining characteristic of McCarthyism was not a false belief that KGB spies had infiltrated the government, because they had. It was paranoia and hysterical panic about such spying, especially in how it was used to further partisan Republican ends. McCarthy was a fool and an incompetent drunk, but other Republican elites tolerated him and his accusations because he whipped up unhinged outrage against Democratic Party elites and policies. ..."
    "... They loved it when he was falsely smearing Dean Acheson and George Marshall as secret Soviet sympathizers, or slagging public housing bills as the first step to Communism. It was only when McCarthy's erratic, diseased thinking, his constant lying and fabrication, and his utter investigative incompetence became undeniable that they began to desert him. ..."
    "... A corollary of this is that McCarthy was an active impediment to anti-espionage efforts. During the Red Scare, it's possible his various lists of supposed Communists included a small fraction of actual Soviet spies . But what tiny truth was there was swamped by the huge number of innocents caught up in the panic. What's more, after McCarthy's downfall the whole idea of Soviet infiltration of the American government was badly tainted by association with his vile methods. ..."
    "... Now, liberals' Trump-Russia fever is not remotely as bad as what struck Republicans during the McCarthy era. There is no full-blown panic, nor any show trials. Yet there is an echo of the basic mechanics. Instead of a Wisconsin senator, we have Louise Mensch, a former Conservative MP and bug-eyed conspiracy hound who has been all over cable news making one unsubstantiated accusation after another - and even somehow got a piece in The ..."
    "... Washington Monthly ..."
    "... The New Republic ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    Apr 02, 2017 | theweek.com

    An awful lot of American liberals have become rather possessed by the possibility that President Trump is somehow in league with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The circumstantial evidence that there is some sort of connection is rather strong - Putin very probably helped Trump win in 2016, some Trump associates have a rat's nest of connections with Russia, and Trump himself has been relying on financing from Eastern Europe for many years.

    But definitive proof has yet to surface. So in their quest to find a connection - particularly some sort of direct conspiracy between Trump and Putin - some liberals are abandoning good sense and becoming credulous toward nutty thinkers.

    It's important to avoid this not only because clear thinking is important, but because it is the best way to root out the truth.

    I'm reminded in a way of the Second Red Scare. The era of Joseph McCarthy is rightly remembered as a time of deranged witch hunts and fevered anti-Communist paranoia. Something that is a bit less remembered is that the Soviet Union did indeed have extensive espionage success within the American government, particularly during the Second World War. They penetrated the Manhattan Project, they scooped up all manner of non-nuclear weapons technology, they recruited one of the very top economic policy officials in the country, and on and on.

    In other words, the defining characteristic of McCarthyism was not a false belief that KGB spies had infiltrated the government, because they had. It was paranoia and hysterical panic about such spying, especially in how it was used to further partisan Republican ends. McCarthy was a fool and an incompetent drunk, but other Republican elites tolerated him and his accusations because he whipped up unhinged outrage against Democratic Party elites and policies.

    They loved it when he was falsely smearing Dean Acheson and George Marshall as secret Soviet sympathizers, or slagging public housing bills as the first step to Communism. It was only when McCarthy's erratic, diseased thinking, his constant lying and fabrication, and his utter investigative incompetence became undeniable that they began to desert him.

    A corollary of this is that McCarthy was an active impediment to anti-espionage efforts. During the Red Scare, it's possible his various lists of supposed Communists included a small fraction of actual Soviet spies . But what tiny truth was there was swamped by the huge number of innocents caught up in the panic. What's more, after McCarthy's downfall the whole idea of Soviet infiltration of the American government was badly tainted by association with his vile methods.

    (As an aside, it's important to note that all of this is orthogonal to the question of whether Soviet spying necessitated a hyper-belligerent diplomatic stance towards the USSR. All countries spy, America very much included, and in the end all the espionage probably didn't amount to much - indeed, it may have actually calmed tensions somewhat.)

    Now, liberals' Trump-Russia fever is not remotely as bad as what struck Republicans during the McCarthy era. There is no full-blown panic, nor any show trials. Yet there is an echo of the basic mechanics. Instead of a Wisconsin senator, we have Louise Mensch, a former Conservative MP and bug-eyed conspiracy hound who has been all over cable news making one unsubstantiated accusation after another - and even somehow got a piece in The New York Times . And she is only the most prominent of a cottage industry of instant Russia "experts" who have sprung up to write long tweet threads and create infographics in Microsoft Paint validating liberals' darkest suspicions about Trump.

    ... ... ...

    Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com . His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly , The New Republic , and the Washington Post .

    [Apr 01, 2017] Nunes own intelligence sources informed him that documents showed further collection of information about, and unmasking of, Trump transition officials.

    Apr 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "What Devin Nunes Knows" [Kimberly Strassel, Wall Street Journal ]. Why Nunes left his cab:

    Around the same time, Mr. Nunes's own intelligence sources informed him that documents showed further collection of information about, and unmasking of, Trump transition officials. These documents aren't easily obtainable, since they aren't the "finished" intelligence products that Congress gets to see. Nonetheless, for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn over said documents-with no luck, so far.

    Mr. Nunes earlier this week got his own source to show him a treasure trove of documents at a secure facility. Here are the relevant details:

    First, there were dozens of documents with information about Trump officials. Second, the information these documents contained was not related to Russia. Third, while many reports did "mask" identities (referring, for instance, to "U.S. Person 1 or 2") they were written in ways that made clear which Trump officials were being discussed. Fourth, in at least one instance, a Trump official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. Finally, these documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.

    To sum up, Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.

    Mr. Schiff's howls about Mr. Nunes's methods are bluster; the Republican was doing his job, and well.

    It would be interesting to know if this was still going on. And from the other side of the aisle:

    Readers, those of you who can endure tweet storms and clicked through, what do you think of these three?

    "The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [ NBC ].

    "Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [ Raw Story ]. You knew this was coming, right? The story is just as sloppy and misleading as the headline. For example: "Over time the anti-Clinton online faction became known by the nickname 'Bernie Bros.'" Note lack of agency in "became known"; #BernieBro was in fact propagated by Clinton supporters. And then there's this: "'Senator, I think what they were trying to do was drive a wedge within the Democratic Party between the Clinton group and the Sanders group," said [Retired Gen. Keith Alexander - former director of the National Security Agency]. "And then in our nation between Republicans and Democrats.'" Where to begin? Can Alexander really mean that Sanders and Clinton supporters wouldn't be in conflict if it weren't for the evil Russkis? Or Republicans and Democrats? I hope when Alexander analyzes Lower Slobovia he does a better job.

    [Apr 01, 2017] What Is Jingoism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Johnson's Russia List ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The Wall Street Journal ..."
    Apr 01, 2017 | www.economicprincipals.com
    October 23, 2016 | Posted in Uncategorized A propaganda war bubbled up in London last week as an antiquated Russian aircraft carrier steamed down the English Channel, on its way to the coast of Syria.

    NatWest, subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, which is mostly owned by the British government, announced that it planned to close the accounts of Russia Today, the Russian government's news service and television network – presumably because RT publishes material critical of Britain and the US.

    I read one or two RT items almost every day, via Johnson's Russia List . In fact RT publishes a good deal of interesting material.

    Meanwhile, The Economist prepared a scary Putinism cover, a special section , and a tough editorial : "How to contain Vladimir Putin's deadly, dysfunctional empire".

    ( The Spectator countered with Stop the Stupid Sabre-Rattling against Russia "It's not their side that worries me; it's ours," wrote Rod Liddle, a Spectator columnist.).

    Moscow bureau chief Neil MacFarquhar, of The New York Times , heaped ridicule on that Russian aircraft carrier. Neoconservative stalwart Robert Kagan , in The Wall Street Journal , asked, What can the next president do about Russia? Send US troops back to Europe? Retaliate for cyber-offenses?

    This is jingoism . Let's get the election over with. Then we can get back to business.

    [Apr 01, 2017] Red Scare Economic Principals

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    "... Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire ..."
    "... The Chicago Tribune ..."
    "... Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China ..."
    "... The New York Times Magazine ..."
    "... The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy ..."
    Apr 01, 2017 | www.economicprincipals.com
    Red Scare March 5, 2017 - No Comments ↓ | Posted in 2016 elections , Russia Tagged with: Andrew Krepinevich , Andrew Marshall , Barry Watts , David Remnick , Evan Osnos , Joshua Yaffa , The Last Warrior , Valery Gerasimov
    In a week in which Attorney General Jeff Sessions's unremembered visit with the Russian ambassador dominated the news, the most interesting thing I read was a 13,000-word article in The New Yorker . It exemplified all the preconceptions typical of what I have come to think of as reporters of the Generation of '91 .

    David Remnick , b. 1958, was Moscow bureau chief 1988-1992 for The Washington Post , before he moved to the magazine. In 1998 he was named its editor. Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire won a Pulitzer Prize in 1993. Evan Osnos , b. 1976, joined the magazine from The Chicago Tribune in 2008 and covered China for five years. Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China appeared in 2014 and was a Pulitzer finalist. Joshua Yaffa is a journalist based in Moscow. He has written for The Economist and The New York Times Magazine .

    Nothing in the article – Active Measures: What lay behind Russia's interference in the 2016 election – and what lies ahead ? – was quite as punchy as the art that accompanied it. The magazine's traditional anniversary cover featured Vladimir Putin, as a dandy peering through a monocle at a raging butterfly Trump, instead of the customary rendering of Eustace Tilley . That was non-committal enough, though it reminded me of the magazine's 2014 Sochi Olympics cover , a figure-skating Vladimir Putin leaps while five little Putin lookalikes feign disinterest from the judges' stand.

    More alarming was the art opposite the opening page, Saint Basil's Cathedral, in Moscow, administering a jolt of light (a digital illumination ray?) to the White House from the skies above. The caption states, "Democratic National Committee hacks, many analysts believe, were just a skirmish in a larger war against Western institutions and alliances."

    The article was organized in five little chapters.

    In "Soft Targets," Putin orders an unprecedented effort to interfere in the US presidential election. It is a gesture of disrespect, ordered out of pique and resentment of perceived US finagling in the 2012 Soviet election, intended to be highly public.

    In "Cold War 2.0," the Obama administration is caught flat-footed by the campaign and fails to respond effectively. The Russians have adopted a new and deeply troubling offensive posture "that threatens the very international order," a former Obama official states.

    In "Putin's World," a capsule history of the decline of Russian pride during the 1990s is presented alongside an argument for the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Putin's mistrust of democracy at home is described, as well as his recoiling from the US invasion of Iraq. Differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama after the annexation of Crimea are recounted: she sometimes favors the use of military force whereas he does not.

    In "Hybrid War," Russia becomes technically adroit at cyberwarfare and experiments with a digital blitz on Estonian communications after a statue of a Soviet soldier is removed; meanwhile the US unleashes its Stuxnet computer virus on Iran's uranium refinery operations. The Russian Army chief of staff, Valery Gerasimov, is introduced, along with his 2013 article, The Value of Science Is in the Foresight , urging "the adoption of a Western strategy," combining military, technological, media, political and intelligence tactics to destabilize a foe, the article having "achieved the status of legend" as the Gerasimov doctrine, following the invasion of Ukraine. An estimated thousand code warriors are said to be working for the Russian government on everything from tapping former Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland's cell phone in Kiev ("a new low in Russian tradecraft") to the forthcoming French and German elections. Finally, the hacking campaign against the Democratic Party is rehashed, and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta says the interaction between Russian intervention and the FBI "created a vortex that produced the result" – a lost election.

    In "Turbulence Theory," Trump is said to be a phenomenon of America's own making, like the nationalist politicians of Europe, both the consequence of globalization and deindustrialization, but Russia likes the policies that are the result: leave Russia alone and don't talk about civil rights. Meanwhile, the hacking campaign may have backfired, and Trump may no longer have the freedom to accommodate Russian ambitions as might have been wished, but at least Russia has come up with a way to make up for its economic and geopolitical weakness, namely inflict turbulence on the rest of the world.

    Three things about this assessment stand out.

    Putin's views of US foreign policy are not integral to the account: they are presented in two widely separate sections, one on the history of US "active measures," the other on changes in his opinion wrought by the war in Iraq.

    Putin is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, the authors write, but his opinions, and those of others, especially who compare the invasions of Crimea and Iraq (where the US immediately set out to build an embassy for 15,000 workers) are dismissed as "whataboutism ," exercises in false moral equivalence. NATO expansion is more or less taken for granted. The military alliance's extension to the borders of Russia forms no part of the narrative.

    Second, no attention is paid to Putin's problems, aside from a nod to his suppression of oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the rock group Pussy Riot. His plans for a Eurasian Union, which were at the heart of the Ukraine crisis, go unmentioned. There's nothing about the centuries-old struggle between Westernizers and Slavophiles who oppose policies that would tie Russia more closely to the West.

    Third, the history of the Cold War itself gets short shrift. The genesis of the doctrine of "hybrid war," ascribed to Gen. Gerasimov, is described at length in The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy , by Andrew F. Krepinevich and, Barry D. Watts (Basic Books, 2015). Marshall founded the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment. In 1973 he described what would become a dramatic strategic shift:

    In general we need to look for opportunities as well as problems; search for areas of comparative advantage and try to move the competition into these areas; [and] look for ways to complicate the Soviets' problems.

    Many factors led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. "Active measures," of the sort propounded by Marshall, were prominent among them. You can hardly be surprised that the Russians have sought to master new techniques. The underlying proposition of the New Yorker's article is that the world is, or at least it should be, unipolar, with the US in charge of its democratic values. After all these years, the Russians still don't agree.

    [Apr 01, 2017] Paul Krugman and Paul Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... " This looks more like what you'd see in a banana republic, " says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group. " You've got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business. " ..."
    "... In the first paragraph, we're told that jobs are moving to Mexico -- as usual. It's taken for granted (and without much concern here from Krugman) that US employers are going to keep exporting manufacturing jobs. This is followed by a defense of NAFTA, an attack on protectionism, and the suggestion that there is no alternative better than the status quo. And Democrats wonder why they're losing the Rust Belt states? ..."
    "... The governmental action that was probably most important in creating the rust belt was the Reagan tax cuts. Those came as the Volcker effort to end inflation was still happening. That had to be continued, so the Reagan deficit could not be paid by inflating the money supply, and the necessary US bond sales kept our interest rate up, making the US the best place in the world to park money. Foreign exchange poured in, and the dollar's value soared by 70%. That rise made foreign production cheaper to Americans, and made US production uncompetitive elsewhere. ..."
    "... Isn't this the same question that the British asked in 1845. The only thing we really know is that there are millions who no longer have a role in our economy. ..."
    "... Liberals and Conservatives will not emerge until after the purge. Paul Krugman and Paul Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism. The belong to the same Tory Party of Robert Peel the only debate is about how best to grow the economy. ..."
    "... The world's financial elite all fly the same flag called the Jolly Roger and finally we have a US government not ashamed to unfurl it. ..."
    "... globalization has clearly not produced the promised big boost in overall growth in this country - economists would not be talking about "secular stagnation" if it had. ..."
    "... Instead of denying the obvious facts and trying to divert the discussion with false claims about robots, why don't US economist try to work through the complications of trade and aim at policies which really would benefit US workers and might reduce the ever-growing inequality? Do they need to devote all their attention to defending the Democratic political establishment and their own failed theories and assumptions? ..."
    "... It is obvious to most that the huge trade surge with China disrupted many commodity industries, steel, solar cells, electronics. ..."
    "... If you do not see nothing obviously wrong, when a US company , bailed out by the US taxpayer, thanks the tax payer by importing cars made at Chinese wages to the US, putting out of work US workers, you must be a macro economist. ..."
    "... Nowhere on the GM website is mentioned that those cars are made in China. Check ..."
    "... the effective ban on big Western internet services like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, as well as local data storage rules for those who are allowed to operate. It's all done in the name of security ..."
    Apr 01, 2017 | blogs.nytimes.com
    Ezra K Arlington, MA 1 day ago

    Amazing how so many conservatives dismiss what Krugman as to say since he's so clearly a 'commie.' Then they support Trump the capitalist businessman who will get things done.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, Krugman is writing capitalist essays on his blog about the benefits of Trade, and trump is running a kleptocracy that seeks to bring back a disproven form of protectionism that would be much more at home among early 20th century socialists than with Milton Freedman or Adam Smith.

    It goes to show that the Republicans are a party without a purpose. They have given up on their capitalist roots and instead just cater to the whims of the highest bidding campaign contributors and the worst instincts of their bigoted base.

    Paul Mathis is a trusted commenter Fairfax, Virginia 1 day ago

    Nobody Knew Trade Could Be So Complicated!

    Actually everybody knows that negotiating trade deals takes years of intensive efforts because there are many moving parts that all affect each other.

    Since Trump has the attention span of the average 3 year old, he has no time for anything more complicated than banning Muslims from traveling to America. That simple "solution" did not work out either.

    So Trump is not going to do anything on trade simply because it is way too complicated and time consuming. After all, he couldn't even spend 3 weeks on replacing Obamacare with his "fantastic" plan. One month ago:
    "We have a plan that I think is going to be fantastic. . . . I think it's going to be something special ... I think you're going to like what you hear." --CNN

    George H. Blackford Michigan 1 day ago

    Re: "Oh, and China currency manipulation was an issue 5 years ago - but isn't now." I find this interesting. Five years ago China was building up their reserves by purchasing US government and agency bonds to keep their exchange rate low. Today those reserves of government and agency bonds are falling as they are converted into US real estate and corporate assets while the trade deficit remains at some $500 billion. This is supposed to make everything OK. What am I missing here? http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm

    Sanjai Tripathi Corvallis, OR 1 day ago

    China has more than 1.3 billion people, and wages in China have risen faster for a longer period of time than anywhere ever.

    It's not a mystery why wages in China are what they are. It started as a poor country with an enormous, mostly rural population. If anything, the surprise is that they have managed to increase wages so strongly for so long.

    Sanjai Tripathi Corvallis, OR 1 day ago

    There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about trade and immigration, of course, but understanding Trump requires one to abandon the notion that he is appealing to legitimate concerns.

    He is appealing to spite. Anything resembling a legitimate concern is pretense, to give cover to what would otherwise be recognized as ugly and deplorable. He says the spiteful parts loudly and doesn't even feign competence or coherence on policy.

    Once this is fully recognized, all that he says and does makes sense. It also suggests that people interested in real substantive policy discussions should disregard Trump entirely.

    R. Law is a trusted commenter Texas 23 hours ago

    Dr. K. is correct we should watch what DJT actually does, instead of what he says, though what DJT says is designed to whip up his partisans by pointing to real issues, but instead of blaming the ' lost factories ' and ' stripped wealth ' on the portion of economic strata DJT inhabits - which is where the wealth stripping/lost factory hedgies and sacrosanct banker pay contract holders also exist - DJT always points somewhere else.

    Somewhere else is a moving target that can shift each time a new sun rises on the Twitter-verse.

    And it's hard to see how everyone will continue to admire the Emperor's new clothes when the stock markets reverse course, or if there is a 2011 re-dux next month over House GOP'ers raising the debt ceiling.

    Anyhoooo, the best indicator of how things are going regarding economic policies at the White House is to see how DJT adviser Carl Icahn has benefited from specific policy carve-outs:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-16/trump-adviser-carl-ic...

    wherein DJT's policy is accurately depicted:

    " This looks more like what you'd see in a banana republic, " says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group. " You've got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business. "

    Though DJT may be correct there are issues with NAFTA and at WTO, those issues are preferable to bald-faced kleptocracy.

    Tom Allen Minneapolis, MN 18 hours ago

    In the first paragraph, we're told that jobs are moving to Mexico -- as usual. It's taken for granted (and without much concern here from Krugman) that US employers are going to keep exporting manufacturing jobs. This is followed by a defense of NAFTA, an attack on protectionism, and the suggestion that there is no alternative better than the status quo. And Democrats wonder why they're losing the Rust Belt states?

    Doug Rife Sarasota, FL 1 day ago

    Trump's record low approval rating is likely to take a further hit in the near future from deteriorating economic conditions. Measures of consumer and business confidence soared since the election yet hard economic data continues to weaken with the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow estimate of first quarter GDP growth falling to just 0.9%, after this morning's weak personal income and spending report. Indeed, growth in real personal consumption expenditures peaked way back in January 2015. While there was a mild rebound that started in March 2016 the trend has since turned negative since the start of the 2017. See chart:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=dcOI

    Interesting fact is the recent polarization of consumer confidence readings. Democrats are generally pessimists while Republicans are optimistic about the economy. That suggests consumer confidence readings will fall when Republicans get over their infatuation with Trump. And will most likely be driven by disappointing economic growth -- actual growth and not empty promises. Trump promised 4% growth which is impossible over the long term due to slow population growth. Yet, that growth rate now looks far out of reach even for a single quarter and fiscal stimulus looks less and less likely to happen even if some tax cuts for the wealthy do manage to pass Congress. Tax cuts are not stimulative if they heavily favor the wealthy. Probably the opposite is true considering the Bush tax cuts were so ineffective.

    Chas Simmons Jamaica Plain, MA 11 hours ago

    Krugman is an economist; he's not merely trying to sway voters. And he knows that the decline in industrial jobs is more due to productivity gains than factories' moving abroad. In any case, measures like Trump's scolding businessmen is not and will not be important in keeping jobs from leaving. More important is the exchange rate.

    The governmental action that was probably most important in creating the rust belt was the Reagan tax cuts. Those came as the Volcker effort to end inflation was still happening. That had to be continued, so the Reagan deficit could not be paid by inflating the money supply, and the necessary US bond sales kept our interest rate up, making the US the best place in the world to park money. Foreign exchange poured in, and the dollar's value soared by 70%. That rise made foreign production cheaper to Americans, and made US production uncompetitive elsewhere.

    But the decline in manufacturing would be happening regardless. It is the same process that did in most US family farms throughout the 20th century. US farming is now so efficient that farmers, once 3/4 of us, are now as small a fraction of Americans as "gardeners, groundskeepers, and growers of ornamental plants." The same thing is now happening to factories; we're just too efficient at making things to require the number of manufacturing workers we once did.

    For more on this, read this:

    http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/24/14363148/trade-deals-nafta-wto...

    Ron Cohen is a trusted commenter Waltham, MA 20 hours ago

    Prof. Krugman, in your column today about Coal Country, you rightfully identify it as a state of mind. But that state of mind is not nostaglia as you argue. Rather, it is a profound cultural resentment that motivates the voters of West Virginia.

    For perspective on this subject, I urge you to read Arlie Hochschild's, widely praised, "Strangers in Their Own Land." http://thenewpress.com/node/10362 .

    All but one of the columns, below, are from The New York Times. Taken together, they form a coda to Hochschild's book. I suggest you start with the last one, Sabrina Tavernise's piece.

    Montreal Moe WestPark, Quebec 23 hours ago

    Professor Blackford,

    Thank you or the opportunity of answering your question with my question.

    Isn't this the same question that the British asked in 1845. The only thing we really know is that there are millions who no longer have a role in our economy.

    Liberals and Conservatives will not emerge until after the purge. Paul Krugman and Paul Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism. The belong to the same Tory Party of Robert Peel the only debate is about how best to grow the economy.

    The question that comes to my mind is why do we want to grow an economy where production exceeds demand every day and our ideological Dogma says we must work even harder than ever to increase the inequality between supply and demand?

    We have ceded control to the Whigs and I fear it isn't only 3 million Irish peasants who will disappear. The conversion of dollars into real estate really struck a high note as those worthless hovels that housed 3 million economically worthless peasants provided room for what was most important in the Irish economy pigs and cattle. Again I feel I must repeat there was no famine in Ireland it was a failure of potato crops and each year Ireland exported enough food to feed all of Ireland's hungry for seven potatoless years. Then as now the bible was The Economist.

    The world's financial elite all fly the same flag called the Jolly Roger and finally we have a US government not ashamed to unfurl it.

    StephenKoffler New York 1 day ago

    A good start would be to insist on living wages in mexico and Asia along with humane working conditions. That's a starting position a trump or Clinton administration would never consider, but Sanders would have. Bringing those changes about would create more of a level playing field for US workers. Also if China isn't controlling currency anymore why is labor still so cheap.? It can't be fully explained by excess labor supply. Something must be going on, and we should be trying to figure it out.

    skeptonomist is a trusted commenter Tennessee 1 day ago

    lt's true that modern trade is very complicated but certain things are obvious. One is that the US runs huge trade deficits, amounting to nearly $750 billion in goods. Yes, this is obviously bigly unfair to the United States, that is considering the majority of its citizens and especially wage earners, who have been put into competition with those in developing countries, rather than the capitalists whose profits have been increased by the lower wage costs. Those goods represent a very large number of jobs that are now in other countries. Another is that globalization has clearly not produced the promised big boost in overall growth in this country - economists would not be talking about "secular stagnation" if it had.

    Instead of denying the obvious facts and trying to divert the discussion with false claims about robots, why don't US economist try to work through the complications of trade and aim at policies which really would benefit US workers and might reduce the ever-growing inequality? Do they need to devote all their attention to defending the Democratic political establishment and their own failed theories and assumptions?

    Don Richland, WA 1 day ago

    Trade is a tough policy to debate with people and come to consensus. It is obvious to most that the huge trade surge with China disrupted many commodity industries, steel, solar cells, electronics. More should have been done to minimize the disruption. That said we are where we are.

    Our manufacturing now is higher up the value chain. Our commodity mills now need to innovate to take advantage of niche higher value low volume markets that big producers can't supply effectively.

    Innovate to develop new materials and specialized processes that displace current materials. Innovation, flexibility and agility is our competitive advantage. Time to make the jobs of the future, commodity production is in the past.

    Woof is a trusted commenter NY 5 hours ago

    Re China

    "But even there it's not obvious what you would demand from a new agreement."

    Let me help out the professor with an article from the NY Times 3/30/17 and provide an obvious example

    "China's Taxes on Imported Cars Feed Trade Tensions With U.S."

    reporting that a Jeep retailing for $ $40,530 in the US cost in China , quote " $ $71,000, mostly because of taxes that Beijing charges on every car, minivan and sport utility vehicle that is made in another country"

    Meanwhile , quote "General Motors started shipping the Buick Envision model from a factory in eastern China's Shandong Province to the United States last year. That decision irritated the United Automobile Workers union"

    But that is not all. The NY Times reported on 1/29/16 that GM's Cadillac devision started to import its " plug-in hybrid version of its new CT6 flagship sedan from China " and "A PEEK under the hood of three new cars from Buick and Cadillac will not reveal a Made in China label"

    If you do not see nothing obviously wrong, when a US company , bailed out by the US taxpayer, thanks the tax payer by importing cars made at Chinese wages to the US, putting out of work US workers, you must be a macro economist.

    Either US consumer win (cheaper cars) or US companies (more profit for the stock holders).

    Final Note

    Nowhere on the GM website is mentioned that those cars are made in China. Check

    http://www.buick.us/envision-crossover-suv.html

    Montreal Moe WestPark, Quebec 15 hours ago

    Ron,
    Europe's parliamentary democracies have always given the 20% an outsized role in elections and governance because coalitions are the rule not the exception and 20% is a lot of seats.
    From here on a less than 4 hour drive to Waltham it looks like your 20% has the house, the senate, the executive and soon the courts and the Supreme Court.
    Donald Trump was a wake-up call for the world's 80% as Europe like North America is over 80% urban.

    Glen Tomkins Reston, VA 1 day ago

    If Trump had the attention span and work ethic needed to become a dictator, he would seek the confrontation over expelling the undocumented, not over trade. Trade isn't visceral enough, not existential enough, to sustain the fear of the Other a dictator needs.

    Woof is a trusted commenter NY 4 hours ago

    What am I missing here?

    Foreign investment in the US is considered an asset by macro economist. Including investment in real estate and corporations.

    Eric 15 hours ago

    On China, there actually are a few obvious imbalances that affect the tech industry, though it's doubtful the US has the leverage to change them.

    The first comes from the Chinese government's drive to build their domestic tech industry by coercing technology transfer from Western firms outsourcing manufacturing in China.

    The second is the effective ban on big Western internet services like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, as well as local data storage rules for those who are allowed to operate. It's all done in the name of security (and censorship), of course, but it's also an obvious form of protectionism. Baidu and Weibo might not exist otherwise.

    The government is also investing in a Chinese variant of Linux, no doubt with the ultimate goal of gaining complete control over all software running inside the country.

    [Apr 01, 2017] My speculation is Flynn doesn't want to have the Logan act hanging over his head

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [NBC]. ..."
    Apr 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    djrichard , March 31, 2017 at 4:20 pm

    "The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [NBC].

    So what's the over/under on this?

    My speculation is Flynn doesn't have anything to say about Trump. He just doesn't want to have the Logan act hanging over his head. But if he's got nothing to contribute, that means Flynn is more valuable to anti-Trump forces if he doesn't open his mouth – gotta keep the other narratives going.

    [Apr 01, 2017] There some signes the quite coup happened under Obama and the remnants of democracy were lost

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780's and 1790's both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything resembling true economic democracy ..."
    Apr 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    juliania, March 31, 2017 at 9:53 pm

    Thank you, thank you, Lambert, for that excellent Matt Stoller piece ( https://thebaffler.com/salvos/hamilton-hustle-stoller ). At the risk of repeating what others I hope have already read, this stood out for me:

    As economist Simon Johnson pointed out in a 2009 essay in The Atlantic titled "The Quiet Coup," what the bailouts truly represented was the seizure of political power by a small group of American financiers. Just as in the founding era, we saw a massive foreclosure crisis and the evisceration of the main source of middle class wealth. A bailout, similar to one that created the national debt, ensured that wealth would be concentrated in the hands of a small group. The Citizens United decision and the ever-increasing importance of money in politics have strong parallels to the property disenfranchisement along class lines that occurred in the post-Revolutionary period. Just as turnout fell to record lows in much of the country in 2014, turnout collapsed after the rebellions were put down. And in another parallel, Occupy Wall Street protesters camped out across the country were evicted by armed guards-a martial response coordinated by banks, the federal government, and many Democratic mayors.

    The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780's and 1790's both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything resembling true economic democracy "

    The parallels he draws are irrefutable.

    [Apr 01, 2017] US neocons have a hard time coming to terms with a multi-lateral world. Still detente offered to Russia is likely to be conditioned on pulling Russia out of Chinas orbit and accepting Us terms in Syria

    Apr 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 31, 2017 3:08:38 PM | 17

    b's quote from Obama is from January 2016. I don't think Obama was EVER serious about fighting ISIS. He helped to create ISIS when he ignored their rise, calling them al Queda's "JV team". He confirmed his support for ISIS with his "leading from behind" policy.

    In January 2016, the US was starting the charade of separating moderate rebels. We know how that farce turned out.

    Even after the San Bernardino (Dec. 2015) and Orlando (Jun. 2016) terror attacks - attributed to ISIS - nothing really changed. For Obama it was business as usual.

    Trump initiated talks between US military command and Russians for the first time since 2014. Gen. Dunford met with Gen. Gerasimov in Feb. 2017. We now see Israel stepping up operations in Syria as a result of US pulling back from the failed 'Assad must go!' policy.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Has there been any real change or just a hiatus? I don't think we'll know until Trump meets with Putin.

    Many in the US (esp. neocons) will have a hard time coming to terms with a multi-lateral world. Whatever peace is offered to Russia is likely to be conditioned on pulling Russia out of China's orbit.

    Hayder | Mar 31, 2017 1:17:42 PM | 1
    I'm sorry about this long contribution, but as I was writing this, more information and ideas came to hand.


    Iraqi situation:


    Recently, Iraqi PM Al-Abadi met with President Trump in the White House.

    As well as the usual niceties of a meeting between two heads of state in Washington, the meeting centred around three main areas where the US has objectives that need to be address by their Iraqi counterparts:​


    1) The Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU): These forces must be disbanded, and are seen as a stumbling block in the face of US objectives in Iraq and the wider region. There has been some indications that PM Al-Abadi will disband them after the elimination of Daesh/ISIS, allowing those that wish to remain to be integrated into the Iraqi security apparatus and disbanding those that do not. This is the "objective", but whether Al-Abadi can deliver is an entirely different matter. Already, Iraqi members of parliament have come out in protest at there mere possibility of the disbandment of the PMU, stating that the PM does not have the legal authority to disband them, and it needs parliamentary approval, where any MP voting for this will be committing political suicide due to the popularity the the PMU among ordinary Iraqis.


    2) Permanent american Bases in Iraq and increasing the number of troops in the country: This is a big issue for President Trump. During his presidential campaign, he repeatedly stated the need to control Iraqi oil, and stated that leaving Iraq was a mistake. He even said this IN FRONT OF PM Al-Abadi several times.There is also widespread concern amongst Iraqis that the US is on its way back to Iraq, and in large numbers- some report a figure of up to fifty thousand troops, in permanent bases. There is also a very large US military base being build in Al Qayyarah area in Northern Iraq (about half way between Beiji and Mosul), that reports say will equal the size of Incirlik. This is another very "hot" topic in Iraq, and has widespread rejection by the Iraqi people. Once again, Iraqi MPs state that Al-Abadi DOES NOT have legal authority to allow permanent bases or keep foreign troops permanently in Iraq, and that such a step would need approval by parliament. Again, any MP voting for this will be committing political suicide. There is genuine fear amongst Iraqis about the situation "after" Daesh/ISIS. The concern is, that in the event the Government DOES NOT cede to the will of the US, and approve bases and troops etc.. there will be a dramatic political change, either in the form of a coup, or declaration of a state of emergency, through which special measures will take place. There is also talk of appointing a military governor for the mainly Sunni provinces of Nainawa, Salahuldeen (Saladin) and Anbar- a de facto state within a state- this could link up with Eastern Syria (see bellow).


    3) Moving Iraq away from Iran and closer to the Saudi "camp". The recent visit to Iraq by the Saudi Foreign Minister has been well covered. There was also a meeting between the Iraqi PM and the Saudi King on the 29th on March. Al-Abadi's speech at the Heads of State of the Arab League in Jordan (29th March) was notable in that it was close to the Saudi position on several topics: a) His statement did not mention Syria, b) It stated that Iraq will "expel ISIS outside Iraq" { ?into Syria as per the objectives of others wishing to topple the Syrian state}, c) Is stressed the need for a unified Arab front against threats to Iraqi sovereignty, or the sovereignty of any Arab nation {reference to alleged Iranian interference in the region}. On the face of it, it seems that Iraq is moving away from Iran and edging closer to the Saudi camp, albeit slowly, but this is purely at the level of the current Iraqi government. I think efforts to distance Iraq from Iran and closer to Saudi Arabia will ultimately fail, for two reasons:


    Firstly, The vast majority of Iraqi people view Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf Monarchies very negatively. Unlike Iraqi politicians, who will certainly have some personal gains from closer ties with Saudi Arabia, Iraqi people are unwilling to just "forgive and forget" how the Saudis and others persistently conspired against the Iraqi people over the years. It was the Saudis and other Gulf States who supported Saddam Hussein and his regime, which oppressed Iraqis terribly, they supported him to the tune of over 200 billion dollars for the war against Iran and persistently opposed the political process since 2003 (and Democracy was NOT the reason!). More recently, the Saudis have been supporting Daesh/ISIS both financially and ideologically. This support has carried on unabated to this day.


    Secondly: the links between Iraq and Iran are much closer and deeper than others realise, and including at a cultural, religious and tribal level, and no government can alter that. The only exception to this would be a harsh dictatorial regime, such as that of Saddam Hussein, whereby government policy had absolutely no relation to Iraqi public opinion, and was simply a tool for carrying out the wishes of the "Dear Leader".


    Other Iraq developments:


    A) PMU still barred from entering Tel Afar. The Iraqi government has succumbed to pressure from Turkey to prevent Tal Afar from being liberated, with a threat of invasion by a Turkish force stationed at the boarder town of Silopi should the PMUs enter Tel Afar.


    B) Rumours that Daesh/ISIS evacuating injured/ getting supplies from through a corridor to the North of Mosul, via Masoud Barzani controlled territory / Turkey, and plans are to slow down the Iraqi advance long enough for the majority of Daesh/ISIS forces to evacuate into Syria. The route takes them through Tell Kayf and Batnay (see Southfront mosul situation update map 31 March https://southfront.org/military-situation-in-mosul-on-march-31-2017-iraqi-map-update/ ).

    Syria situation:


    With the ongoing advance towards Raqqa by US/SDF forces, the bid event recently was the surprise Tabqa operation. It is notable that the airborne landings in Tabqa by a small US/SDF force occurred with relatively little resistance from Daesh/ISIS, with few casualties. Some have concluded that the majority of ISIS had already withdrawn. Contrast this with the Ithriyah-Raqqa offensive carried out by the Syrian Arab Army in 2016, whereby the SAA suffered heavy casualties and resulted in Daesh/ISIS gains. There are also reports of a rapid withdraw on ISIS from East As-Suwayda to reinforce strength in Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and As-Sukhnah.


    The US/SDF landings in Tabqa aimed at achieving several objectives. The most important is blocking the path of the Syrian army and allies from Reqqa.

    If/when US/SDF forces defeat Daesh/ISIS in Reqqa , they will have virtual control of the whole of Eastern Syria, save for three pockets of SAA control in Qamishli, Hasakah and Deir Ezzur, as well as some areas where Daesh/ISIS will remain.

    The Eastern part of Syria is where the baulk of the oil and gas is located as well as being the agricultural heartland of the country. The US secretary of State, Tillerson stated that the the US longer sees toppling President Assad as a primary objective. This may be the case (for now), but on the ground, events are such that Syria is being divided into regions of influence whereby the Damascus Government no longer has authority over large swathes of it. We are witnessing a de facto federalisation of Syria, with the Eastern part no longer under the rule of Damascus, and in effect a US protectorate, with troops on the ground. The creation of this "region" also serves another critical US objective in the region - it acts as a "wall" separating Iran & "Shia" Iraq from the Government of Syria and Lebanon. There are whispers that parts of Western Iraq will be added to this new entity in a "redrawing" of the political maps in the region. As stated in a previous post of mine, I believe that Daesh/ISIS will concentrate its forces in Deir Ezzor after its defeat in Raqqa, for a final "showdown" with other forces. It will likely face both US/SDF and Syrian/Russian forces there, but time will tell.


    Turkey announced the Euphrates Shield has concluded. Turkey has managed to split the two areas of Kurdish influence in Syria, but I believe the operation was concluded as there was no more room for Turkey to move, rather than by choice. Erdogan has finally got a foothold in Norther Syria. Could this area now be used to house refugees as per "safe zones" advocated by Turkey, Saudi and now the new US administration?

    Arab Summit:

    Some are sating that the recent summit of the Arabs Heads of State held in Jordan on March 29th marked the unofficial start of the "Arab NATO" to face Iran. There was the usual anti-Iran rhetoric from the "usual suspects" but Iraq was usually cold towards Iran. The question of Palestine was high on the agenda at the summit, but it is thought that this is merely being used as a tool to provide "political cover" for the upcoming Sunni NATO, with an expected summit to be held sometime down the line in Washington that will bring together these Arab leaders together with their Israeli counterparts in a public display of a new type alliance between Arabs and Israelis to face the "Iranian threat".


    War in Yemen:

    There are signs that the US is about to enter the war in Yemen, against the government in Sana'a (Houthi-Saleh alliance). This is seen as a war against Iran in Yemen. There are currently three US destroyers with support vessels in the Red Sea. The is a media storm from the Saudi side regarding the port of Hodeida, and that it is used to smuggle weapons into Yemen, stressing the importance of "taking it out". The next large operation could well be the battle for the West coast of Yemen (on the Red Sea). The Sana'a forces have stated that they will NOT tolerate an attack on Hodeida, and any such action will mean a major escalation on their part. At present, the Sana'a forces have refrained from going deep into Saudi territory- but this could change and their forces may receive the political green light to proceed if Hodeida is attacked.


    End in sight in Syria .....?


    Things seem to be clearing up in Syria.. Daesh/ISIS is on the ropes, US/SDF making steady progress in the East, and the Syrian army, backed by the Russians is in control of most of the major population areas, and the fact that the US publicly states that removal of Assad is no longer a priority have lead some to argued that it is the beginning of the end.. that the players are making their final touches before a political settlement is reached.. they argue that at the start, the US and its allies wanted regime change by supporting the rebels, and aimed at taking the whole of Syria- this has failed. Now, the US and its allies are involved directly and will settle for a different model, whereby there are regions of influence, a division between the US and Russian Axis. I disagree with this. I think it is still too early, and the US, Turkey, Saudi and other will still relish the overthrow of the Syrian government- and as things stand, they cant do it, but are still open to seizing any opportunity that may present itself in the future to achieve this. That is the only explanation for the lack of full co-ordination between the US and Russia to bring a devastating defeat to Daesh/ISIS, Al-Nusra and groups allied to them. If the US and its allies were serious in accepting what gains they have made, then they would start the full co-ordination of efforts to defeat the extremists with a view of working out a final political settlement. We have to remember that Daesh/ISIS and other groups are only a tool, a means to an end. they are weapons on mass destruction- some may have outlived their usefulness and will need to be exterminated, others still have a role to play.


    Its not over yet,. it is not clear what the final outcome for both Iraq and Syria will be after Daesh/ISIS. As regards Syria, I think there is a false sense of security, and the danger to the Syrian government will stem from the South- contrary to expectations.

    Hayder, the Iraqi abroad

    WorldBLee | Mar 31, 2017 3:12:54 PM | 18
    I used to use the term "Obusha" for the hybrid nature of the last two administrations where the Coke/Pepsi branding masked the fact that the core policies were the same. Perhaps "Trama" is the term for the current state where the Washington-Wall Street consensus types scream about how Trump is an abomination while in reality business as usual goes in most areas. Certainly Trama describes the impact on the rest of the world, particularly in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 31, 2017 3:14:17 PM | 19
    @1 Hayder

    Excellent analysis. I wonder what the Iranian, Syrian, Hezbollah reaction will be. Part of Trump's goal, I suspect, is moving Russia away from Iran. There are already points of contention between Russia and Syria/Iran namely that the former has not made the continued unity of Syrian territory a non-negotiable condition. Which begs the question what Russia's actual goals in Syria are.

    james | Mar 31, 2017 3:33:23 PM | 20
    b - thank you... the only dupes who are going to swallow the change in the words, are the same dupes who believed all the previous lies... meanwhile, until an actual change happens, it will be the same biz as usual from the same group of liars... they must think folks are complete idiots to believe any of their bs!! change my ass... hopey changey, lol...

    dh | Mar 31, 2017 1:45:47 PM | 6
    Good point b about this being Obama policy but

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/03/31/team-trump-doubles-down-on-obamas-horrendous-betrayal-of-syria

    likklemore | Mar 31, 2017 2:00:02 PM | 8
    yes b, Haley also said "Assad regime, Iran and Russia committed war crimes"

    No, never mind "war crimes" Assad may stay because we failed the regime change thingy after Mr. Putin entered in support of Syria..Bad Putin who hijacked our elections they are no match for us. So, our new focus is North Korea, third world dictator Kim Jung-Un, piece of cake we can readily beat just like we did the Taliban in Afghanistan. Kim Jung's half brother was offed - we will continue to send a message. This time around we really do intend to teach NK people a lesson in democracy and vassalship. See..the USA Sec. of War

    In London, Mad-Dog Mattis: "North Korea 'Has Got to Be Stopped"

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/defense-sec-james-mattis-north-korea-has-got-be-stopped-n740966

    Mad-Dog is an apt descriptor MAD --setting up the final event for total collapse.
    I gotta go buy some supplies: plastic sheeting, duct tape, water and food. Can't afford a luxury underground bunker.

    likklemore | Mar 31, 2017 3:02:23 PM | 14
    hopehely @ 10

    Guess, I should have included the /S tag


    Dh @ 12

    John McCain loves his friends, ISIS. Here he is outing himself on Hannity Show saying:
    "ISIS! not true" "I know these people intimately, I know these people I am in contact with them all the time."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHtS3c5olMY

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    You think?
    All doubts of McCain ISIS connection now debunked.

    Peter AU | Mar 31, 2017 4:19:29 PM | 22
    Temporarily Sane 19 "There are already points of contention between Russia and Syria/Iran namely that the former has not made the continued unity of Syrian territory a non-negotiable condition. Which begs the question what Russia's actual goals in Syria are."

    There is the matter of the UNSC resolution, that Russia put up and US agreed to, that Syria retains its territorial integrity.
    US may occupy part of Syria for awhile. Nothing Russia can do about that in the short term, short of going to war with the US. Russia is looking at the long term.

    Louis Proyect | Mar 31, 2017 5:16:50 PM | 23
    Okay, it is now six years and counting. How many years will it take for you to figure out that the USA prefers Assad to the religiously conservative rural poor? Maybe both Obama and Trump took the advice of the RAND corporation:: "Regime collapse, while not considered a likely outcome, was perceived to be the worst possible outcome for U.S. strategic interests"

    Yonatan | Mar 31, 2017 5:23:00 PM | 24
    Temporarily Sane @19

    Russia's primary goal in Syria is to destroy the Islamic terrorists so they can't be sent on to Russia. They have already taken out around 4500 terrorists whose passports show they were from RF states. The Russia media is littered with details of small scale takfiri terrorist acts around the RF southern borders - the biggest most recent was 6 or so taken out on the border to Chechnya.

    Secondary goals include the support for primacy of international law relating to national integrity, support for an ally, testing military systems in real conditions and increasing the strength of the multipolar opposition to Anglo-Zionist hegemony.

    Harry | Mar 31, 2017 5:38:31 PM | 25
    @ Peter AU | 22

    There is the matter of the UNSC resolution, that Russia put up and US agreed to, that Syria retains its territorial integrity.

    If Kurds get de-facto independence within Syria (according to their manifesto) a la Barzanistan, resolution of "territorial integrity" technically remains intact. Russia could make such concessions (even blasted Assad for desiring to return all of Syria's territory) if only US would agree to barter, so far they didnt (or maybe Trump/Putin already did, who knows). While for Syria/Iran its as bad as it gets.

    US may occupy part of Syria for awhile. Nothing Russia can do about that in the short term, short of going to war with the US. Russia is looking at the long term.

    US wont be the one occupying, Kurds will (US will just rule them). Do you think Syria will start a war with Kurds (especially under US protection)? Of course not. Kurds expanded their territory 10x (now finishing off ethnic cleansing that ISIS started), occupied as many oilfields as they could.

    Kurds themselves are divided, but US will make sure their puppets have the power, while pro-Syrian Kurds will be marginalized or simply killed. The idea that Kurds will come to their senses is slim and most likely wont happen, just look at Barzanistan. Independence US dangling in front of them is powerful motivator, not to speak of how much influence and money US, Israel, monarchies, etc. have.

    As for Russia, both short and long term its looking after its own interests, which may or may not be whats the best for Syria. Hence the clashes.

    telescope | Mar 31, 2017 10:31:53 PM | 30
    The more US soldiers are stuck in Islamic badlands (Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq) - without any chances of even remotely favorable outcome - the better it's for America's foes. The US will keep bleeding financially, emotionally, spiritually and literally, until its military machine simply unravels and disappears into a memory hole. The Russians and the Chinese must be watching US moves with utter amazement. America's inability to perform even the simplest geopolitical calculations may very well be unprecedented in world's history.

    Alaric | Mar 31, 2017 10:36:32 PM | 31
    While i agree that the goal remains one of dividing Syria, I doubt it will work out as planned by the US/Saudis/Israelis etc. Raqqa is not Kurd territory and I'm skeptical that the various arab tribes there are going to accept governance by a Kurd/US alliance. I also wonder why Kurds are liberating Raqqa. The main advantage to them beyond killing ISIS is really leverage in negotiations with Assad. Do you want Raqqa back? Well here is what we want. I have a hard time believing the Kurds really expect to occupy Arab territories under the nose of Assad, Russia and Turkey for any extended period of time?

    Net: capturing Raqqa gives the kurds bargaining power against the Asaad government towards Kurd autonomy.

    [Apr 01, 2017] Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation campaign

    Apr 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The worst liars are often form intelligence agents. timbers , March 31, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    "Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [Raw Story].

    Medicare for all and universal single payer healthcare is a Russian plot to divide America and was used to interfere with the election to get Trump elected and steal the Presidency from Hillary, who would have defeated Putin by now if she had won, just like we won in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and lots of other places.

    I think I'm going to try this line out on customers next time I tend bar. Their input should be very helpful especially after they've had several cocktails.

    LT , March 31, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    Of course. The Democratic Party is dismissive of the fact that the institutions they hold so dear are corrupted beyond reformability. They have zero self-awareness no matter how much yoga or meditation they practice and the sooner the party goes extinct the better.

    dontknowitall , March 31, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    So now Bernie Bros are Stalin's unwitting dupes since "Trump is a Putin agent" doesn't seem to be working out. As a Bernie Bro this Russian connection is news to me, I couldn't stand Hillary forever (before Putin even) and even less her hapless cadre of well wishers. If you pile up all the lying and obfuscating that went on with Obama and Bush, I was more than ready to look outside the Beltway for a life raft.

    I tell you when I absolutely decided I was not going to play the 'lesser evil' game and that was when it became patently obvious that Sec State Hillary Clinton was going to approve of the DAPL pipeline by having its environmental impact 'independently' scrutinized by a contractor that was also working for the pipeline's owners. That piece of straw broke the camel's back

    I have yet to figure out why Apple's autocorrect keeps changing Bernie Bros to beriberi

    Alex Morfesis , March 31, 2017 at 3:50 pm

    White russians vs formerfakered russians 100 yrs later, razputin sez read my hips no interference in american election

    but from archangel where about 100 years ago the only americans ever shot by russians died about 20 there and 30 Vladivostok if I have split the 50 killed over two years from actual combat correctly

    America and russia must always be kept apart otherwise europe (and china) will not flourish

    Russia is twice the physical size of the usa with one third its population

    Are there and have there been conflicts between the 2 nations these last 100 years well we invaded them at the end of ww1 just as we (& others) invaded and occupied china for a few decades but yes major countries and with russia spanning three continents(arguing diomide island & Aleutian isles are part of n. America) it is impossible for Russian interests to not involve most northern hemisphere economies

    Just as communism and marxism is not some communicable disease neither is hamiltonianism

    If fearless leader were powerful, the trappings of power(big building we see you erdo ), big posters, big parades & 365247 as talking head would not be necessary

    If pinochet, fidel, marcos, stalin & franco were "powerful" they would not have had to round up and kill "dissidents"

    Who would ever want to be king

    aletheia33 , March 31, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    actually i am worried about this. if they can persistently smear sanders enough with this kind of associated-with-foreign-enemies lie–which they can escalate in various directions from a foundational "russians used bernie"–i can see it taking him out from any further effectiveness. the younger generation may not take it seriously, but knee-jerk patriotism is still quite useful–it's never failed when TPTB want a war, has it?–for directing americans' minds to where TPTB want them to go. i keep thinking of how easy it was for mccarthyism to take hold in the 1950s, and we are now seeing so much that is reminiscent of that. and mccarthyism was very effective in crushing the left, with consequences we are still suffering. the more followers sanders attracts, the more dangerous and frightening to TPTB he will become. they have barely begun to take him seriously as a threat. this is only the beginning of what they will try in their effort to erase it if they see it escalating.

    please correct me, i want to be wrong.

    a different chris , March 31, 2017 at 7:14 pm

    Unfortunately, the only thing you are wrong about is just being worried about "this" so specifically the TPTB will try any and all possible levers to get what they want. It will take more than Sanders to stop them, and they will crush quite a few people along the way. Might include Sanders, but if he's the only resistance then they will certainly crush his movement and will get their war on.

    We need a 1000 flowers to bloom. Every type and in every direction.

    aletheia33 , March 31, 2017 at 7:33 pm

    @a different chris,

    agreed. i am specifically worried about the russia/sanders thing (and not mentioning all the rest that you refer to) because i don't see it being taken seriously now at its inception. i think it's important to call attention at the first emergence of a new disinfo campaign, which often evokes from people, initially, laughter and disbelief.

    HopeLB , March 31, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    I was thinking along the lines of an internet deluge of messages which convey something along the lines of , " Do you actually think you have dumbed us down to the point where we would actually believe this Red Scare Shit? Or are just gauging how much worse you have to make common core education and lead levels to get us there?" Not catchy but something to that effect.

    different clue , March 31, 2017 at 9:13 pm

    Or . . . How long did it take you people to come up with that?

    How much did it cost you to have that focus-grouped?

    Steve , March 31, 2017 at 4:20 pm

    I was reading the comments on the RawStorys piece last night. It was absolutely frightening the hate the majority of commenters have for people who supported Bernie. The fact that almost all of their information is untrue doesn't make any difference to them. They are poorly informed and becoming very unhinged.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 31, 2017 at 4:53 pm

    Wait till 2018.

    The Great Purge will be quite a show.

    NotTimothyGeithner , March 31, 2017 at 5:01 pm

    They were always unhinged.

    Do you remember "battle tested" and boasts about Hillary winning Republicans? Those were just as fantastical. Hillary ran in two elections (2006 doesn't count). She carpet bagged her way into New York where she wound up facing a candidate too extreme for Peter King and only won by 10 points. Gore won by 25. Then she lost to Obama. She polled as a consistent drag on down ticket races.

    The stuff about Obama's soaring rhetoric was absolutely nuts. "We aren't red states or blue states. We are the United states." He was dopey then. This is largely the result of emotional investment in candidates. Admittedly, they are lashing out because their imaginary friends aren't on TV all the time. They remind me very much of Lonzo Ball's old man or crazed sports parents and stage mom's in general.

    Of course, one does wonder about Brock's trolls.

    Big River Bandido , March 31, 2017 at 5:23 pm

    They are completely unhinged. No better than birthers, Tea Partiers, and anti-vaxxers.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 31, 2017 at 5:34 pm

    Unhinged, or just their true selves this is normal for them?

    Is it a bug, or a feature?

    Is it divorce time? Finally knowing there is no changing the two-timer.

    a different chris , March 31, 2017 at 7:26 pm

    *this* - realize the Republican Party, hard to say about Trump himself, but the Rs are literally no more to the right of these people than Sanders is to the left.

    So it's not unhinged to treat him just as badly.

    They are OK with US tax levels because they are comfortably well off, and being more urban they can see the infrastructure and understand that it has to be paid for. They are OK with Obamacare because they aren't subject to it and it "sounds good". They are OK with wars because other people fight them. And so on.

    different clue , March 31, 2017 at 9:15 pm

    I have said before that the millions upon millions of Klinton Koolaid Kultists will be a social problem going forward. They may well become a menace.

    Should Sanders supporters quietly begin forming armed and trained militias to be able to protect themselves and eachother from rioting Clintonite mobs, Clintonite home-invaders, and so forth?

    Vatch , March 31, 2017 at 2:43 pm

    "Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [Raw Story]. You knew this was coming, right?

    Well, no, I did not know that this was coming. I suppose I should have; I did not realize that I, as a Sanders supporter, was a tool of Russian propaganda. I naively thought that I opposed Clinton because of her immoral family foundation activities, her secret and lucrative speeches to Wall Street firms, her Senate vote for the invasion of Iraq, her vote to make it harder for people to get out of bankruptcy, her votes to create and reauthorize the Patriot Act, her disdain for environmentalists, and all of the bizarre events associated with her private email server. I guess I now better now. (sarc)

    djrichard , March 31, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    That's no excuse. One must strive to not have overlap with the Russian agenda. America depended on us when we were most needed and in our failings we failed America. /sarc

    Cujo359 , March 31, 2017 at 3:51 pm

    Almost as though a term as a US Senator and four years as SoS would give us no idea how she might govern. It was Russian propaganda that made us believe she was going to do no better than give us more of the same

    DJG , March 31, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    Vatchushka: I knew all along that you are a running dog of Russian imperialism. Come on. Admit it.

    Vatch , March 31, 2017 at 4:42 pm

    I didn't even realize that I'm a sleeper agent!

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 31, 2017 at 5:28 pm

    A Manchurian sleeper agent.

    Arizona Slim , March 31, 2017 at 4:44 pm

    And to think that my beloved aunt (RIP, Jean!) turned me on to Bernie Sanders. Does that make her a BernieAunt? If so, she'd think that it was hilarious.

    craazyboy , March 31, 2017 at 5:44 pm

    First they come for the Bros, then they come for the LezBros.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 31, 2017 at 6:13 pm

    First the came for the Deplorables.

    Now, they are coming for the Bros.

    Gareth , March 31, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    I take this as meaning that the Queen of Chaos is running again. This time in a leather jacket.

    Marina Bart , March 31, 2017 at 6:22 pm

    Every time she does her leather lesbian routine, I get excited for a brief moment that she's going to come out as bi, which would be one cool progressive thing she could achieve that would cost her nothing (in reality - in her mind, I think she still believes she's going to be President).

    And then I remember the scam about the hot sauce in her purse, and I wonder whose pocket she's trying to pick by doing this.

    [Mar 31, 2017] The Coup Against Trump and Why Russia Must Be Destroyed by Henry Romero

    Notable quotes:
    "... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | sputniknews.com
    The Coup Against Trump and Why Russia 'Must Be Destroyed' © REUTERS/ Opinion 17:04 16.01.2017 (updated 13:51 22.01.2017) Get short URL John Wight 95 36555 208 27 Delenda est Cathargo ("Carthage must be destroyed") are words that come down to us from ancient history. It is said they were spoken by the famed Roman statesman and orator Cato the Elder at the end of his speeches. They remain relevant today in the case of Trump, Russia and a Washington establishment that is intent on destroying both. The Rome of our time is Washington, Russia is Carthage, and today's Cato the Elder is none other than US Senator John McCain, whose quest for conflict with Russia is unbounded. © AP Photo/

    Indeed for Mr. McCain the belief that Russia must be destroyed has been elevated to the status of a self evident and received truth.

    Origins of the 'Dodgy Dossier'

    It was McCain who passed the "dodgy dossier" on Trump to the FBI, after receiving it from former UK ambassador to Russia, Sir Andrew Wood. Contained within the dossier is information purporting to reveal how Trump has been compromised by Russian intelligence over various sexual encounters with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room. Compounding the scandal, adding to the lurid nature of it, are reports of the existence of a second Russian dossier on the President-elect.

    The dossier's originator has been revealed as former British MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who now runs a private intelligence company and has, according to reports, gone into hiding in the UK, supposedly fearing assassination by Russian agents.

    The fact that Mr. Steele hasn't set foot in Russia for a number of years and reportedly, on behalf of Trump's enemies within the Republican Party establishment, paid for the information contained in the 35-page dossier, recently released with the caveat that its contents cannot be verified, should have been more than enough to have it instantly dismissed as, well, fake news?

    In an article that appeared on the UK's Independent newspaper website - titled "The dodgy Donald Trump dossier reminds me of the row over Saddam Hussein and his fictitious weapons of mass destruction" - Patrick Cockburn writes, "I read the text of the dossier on Donald Trump's alleged dirty dealings with a scepticism that soon turned into complete disbelief." Later in the same article he observes, "In its determination to damage Trump, the US press corps has been happy to suspend disbelief in this dubious document."

    More significant than the fact this dossier was not immediately dismissed is the timing of its emergence and subsequent publication by the US news site, BuzzFeed. It comes on the very cusp of President-elect Donald Trump's official inauguration as the 45 th President of the United States on January 20th, and the very point at which his cabinet appointees were being grilled over their views of Russia, the threat Russia allegedly poses to the US and the West, during their official Senate confirmation hearings.

    Political Coup Underway Against Trump

    By now most people are aware, or at least should be, of Washington's long and ignoble history when it comes to fomenting, planning, supporting, and funding political and military coups around the world - in Central and Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere the CIA and other US agencies have brought down countless leaders and governments that have refused to toe the line when it comes to serving US interests.

    In unprecedented fashion, what we have in this instance are those same deep state actors, working in conjunction with the US liberal establishment, currently engaged in a coup designed to destroy the Trump presidency - if not before it begins then certainly soon after, with the prospect of impeachment proceedings against him already being mooted in Washington circles.

    During his recent press conference , Trump felt minded to declaim against Washington's bloated intelligence community, accusing it of releasing the dossier to the media, an allegation US intelligence chiefs have denied. The result is an unprecedented open war between the country's next president and his soon-to-be intelligence services that has pitched the country into a political crisis that grows deeper by the day.

    The Power of the Military Industrial Complex

    On the question of why the US deep state and Washington's liberal establishment is so intent on maintaining Russia in the role of deadly enemy, the answer is very simple - money.

    Huge and powerful economic and ideological interests are tied up in the new Сold War of the past few years.

    We're talking the country's previously mentioned gargantuan defense and intelligence budgets, continuing US support and financing of NATO, along with reason for the continued existence and funding of the vast network of political think tanks in Washington and throughout the West, all of which are committed to sustaining a status quo of US hegemony and unipolarity.

    Russia's emergence as a strategic counterweight to the West in recent years has and continues to challenge this hitherto uncontested hegemony, providing lucrative opportunities for organizations, groups, and individuals with a vested interest in the resulting new Cold War. For those of a skeptical persuasion in this regard, I refer you to the chilling warning issued by former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower prior to leaving office in 1960 to make way for his replacement, John F. Kennedy.

    In his televised farewell address to the American people in 1961, Eisenhower said, "We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations."

    He continued:

    "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."

    Finally, Eisenhower warned the American people how, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

    Though neoconservatives may no longer be in the driving seat in Washington, neoconservative ideas undoubtedly are. And prime among them is the idea that not only must Russia be destroyed but also anyone who would dare stand in the way of this narrative, up to and including President-elect Donald J. Trump.

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

    [Mar 31, 2017] Boosting Aid to Riyadh, US May Be Drawn Into War in Which It Has No Interest

    Mar 31, 2017 | sputniknews.com
    06:54 31.03.2017 Get short URL 0 34 1 0 Increased US military aid or tactical air support for the Saudi-led coalition involved in Yemen's civil war can only drain American strength in a remote conflict where it has no real interests, former CIA analyst and whistleblower John Kiriakou told Sputnik. WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The US Department of Defense is considering increasing its support for Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies in their support for the government of Yemen seeking to suppress Houthi rebel forces, according to US media reports this week.

    "Any increase in support for the Saudis, whether in weapons sales, hardware, air support, or anything else, will draw the US into a conflict in which it has no interest," Kiriakou, who served in the Middle East as a CIA officer said on Thursday.

    A tank used by fighters loyal to Yemen's government is pictured at the frontline of the fighting against Houthi rebels in Yemen's northern province of Marib November 8, 2015. © REUTERS/ Is Trump Planning a Major US Escalation in Yemen? However, just stepped up military aid could not bring any rapid end to the conflict that has already cost many thousands of lives, Kiriakou cautioned.

    Instead, it would only enable the Saudi-led coalition to conflict ever larger numbers of casualties, increasing hatred of the Sanaa government and thereby prolonging the conflict, he observed.

    "It can only lead to more destruction in an already almost destroyed country," he said,

    Far from ending or alleviating the sufferings of the Yemeni people in the conflict, increased US aid and support to the Saudi-led coalition would only make that suffering worse while also further draining US financial resources, Kiriakou added.

    "It will add to human misery among Yemenis, and it will cost the American taxpayer untold millions of dollars," he stated.

    A pro-government fighter walks at the site of recent battles between Houthi fighters and pro-government troops , on the second day of a 48-hour ceasefire in the southwestern city of Taiz, Yemen November 20, 2016 © REUTERS/ Anees Mahyoub Desperate Measures: Yemenis Repair and Modernize Soviet Missiles to Counter Saudi Coalition Attacks President Donald Trump campaigned in the 2016 presidential election on the pledge that he would end the drain of US wealth poured into fighting unwinnable wars across the Middle East that had cost the United States trillions of dollars in the 21st century.

    Kiriakou gained international recognition as the only person the US government sent to prison for exposing the George W. Bush administration's torture program.

    After revealing classified information to ABC News in 2007, Kiriakou was sentenced to 30 months in prison, of which he served 23 months between February 2013 and February 3, 2015.

    [Mar 31, 2017] Russian Disinformation Works Because Donald Trump 'Parrots The Same Lines,' Cyber Expert Testifies The Huffington Post

    Look like Clinton Watt can't (or does not want) to distinguish crisis of neoliberalism in the USA after 2008 and Russian influence. This is definitely pro-Clinton stance. He discredited himself by stating that Trump tower was wired is "fake news." It is not a "fake news". After Snowden revelations this is a plausible hypotheses that needs to be investigated and iether proved or disproved. This "Putindidit" stance is a very convenient smoke screen for Clinton supporters.
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    President Donald Trump aided Moscow's disinformation campaign during the 2016 U.S. election by spreading false information originating from Russian state-sponsored news outlets and internet bots, a cybersecurity expert testified before Congress on Thursday.

    "Part of the reason active measures have worked in this U.S. election is because the commander in chief has used Russian active measures, at times, against his opponents," Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told members of the Senate intelligence committee during the panel's first public hearing on Russian election interference since Trump's inauguration in January.

    The charge from Watts, a former FBI Special Agent who tracks Russian influence operations, came in response to a question from Republican Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), who asked why Russian President Vladimir Putin believed he could get away with interfering in last year's U.S. elections.

    "They parrot the same lines," Watts responded, referring to Trump and Moscow. "[Trump] denies the intel from the United States about Russia. He claimed that the election could be rigged. That was the No. 1 theme pushed by RT, Sputnik news," Watts continued. "He's made claims of voter fraud, that President Obama is not a citizen, that Congressman Cruz is not a citizen."

    In some instances, Trump and his campaign team propagated fake stories they appear to have learned about directly from Russian state media. Last year, then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort accused the U.S. media of failing to cover a terrorist attack against the NATO air base in Incirlik, Turkey. There was no such attack ― but RT, Sputnik and pro-Russian Twitter accounts pushed a series of stories suggesting Incirlik was under threat.

    According to Watts, pro-Russian Twitter accounts noticed Trump's loose relationship with facts and sought to capitalize on it. They "tweet at President Trump during high volumes when they know he's online and they push conspiracy theories," Watts testified.

    The U.S. intelligence community released a public assessment in January concluding that the Russian government used a campaign of false information and cyber hacking efforts to discredit Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and help Trump win the 2016 election. There is an ongoing FBI-led investigation into Moscow's alleged efforts and possible collusion with the Trump team. The House and Senate intelligence committees are conducting their own separate probes into the matter.

    While the Kremlin appeared to favor Trump in the 2016 presidential election, there are indications that Moscow has sought to undermine Republican politicians as well, Watts said Thursday. During the presidential primary races, Russian media outlets "sought to sideline opponents on both sides of the political spectrum with adversarial views towards the Kremlin," Watts said.

    Turning his gaze toward Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a committee member and a GOP presidential candidate last year, Watts said, "Senator Rubio, in my opinion you, anecdotally, suffered from these efforts."

    This past week, Watts continued, social media accounts pushed material discrediting Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis).

    AshLee Strong, a Ryan spokeswoman, said she wasn't familiar with the activity mentioned by Watts but added that it was unsurprising "that foreign adversaries are trying to undermine our efforts."

    Rubio, who did not immediately respond to Watts' claim, later confirmed that former members of his presidential campaign team were targeted by IP addresses that traced back to an unknown location within Russia. According to Rubio, the attempted breaches occurred in July 2016, shortly after he announced he would run for Senate re-election, and again this week, at 10:45 a.m. on Wednesday. Both attempts were unsuccessful, he said.

    It's likely Moscow will turn against Trump as it becomes politically and strategically prudent to do so, Watts warned. "They win because they play both sides," he said.

    Russia began developing its active measures campaign in 2009, with its capabilities progressing all the way up until the 2016 election, Watts said. The U.S. was slow to catch on to the threat, he charged, because the intelligence community has been "over-focused on terrorism" and biased against open-source information.

    "My two colleagues and I use three laptops and we do this at our house," Watts said. "But for some reason, the entire intel apparatus, with billions of dollars, will miss a tweet or a Facebook post that's right in front of them."

    [Mar 31, 2017] US Senators Get Lesson on Twitter Trolls at Costly Russian Interference Hearing

    Mar 31, 2017 | sputniknews.com
    Titled "Disinformation: A Primer in Russian Active Measures and Influence Campaigns," the Senate Intelligence Committee's rare public hearing on Thursday was promoted with a promise to provide details on how the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 US presidential election. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, in his opening remarks, asserted that the hearing would provide a "foundational understanding of the problem."

    Once again, however, evidence primarily consisted of speculation, and appeared to fall short.

    "Russian propaganda outlets like RT and Sputnik successfully produced and peddled disinformation to American audiences" in favor of the campaign of Donald Trump, Vice Chairman Mark Warner asserted in his remarks, as if it was a well documented and proven fact.

    "This Russian 'propaganda on steroids' was designed to poison the national conversation in America."

    FBI Director James Comey, left, joined by National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, right, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, March 20, 2017, before the House Intelligence Committee hearing on allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election © AP Photo/ Manuel Balce Ceneta Dozen Most Insane Statements From US Congress' Hearing on 'Russian Spying' Eugene Rumer, a former national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the US National Intelligence Council, claimed that "fake news" and "trolls" are an "integral part of Russian foreign policy."

    "It is the totality of Russian efforts in plain sight - to mislead, to misinform, to exaggerate - that is more convincing than any cyber evidence. RT, internet trolls, fake news and so on, are an integral part of Russian foreign policy today," Rumer claimed.

    Roy Godson, a former Georgetown University professor still apparently stuck in the Cold War era, continuously referred to Russia as "the Soviets." He did admit that there is little evidence that Russia attempted to change vote tallies.

    Former FBI agent Clinton Watts offered testimony about how "trolls" will push hashtags and stories on Twitter until they make it into the top 10 trending items - forcing mainstream media to cover the topic. Stating the obvious, he explained that once information gets on to Twitter's trending list it will gain organic traction.

    Dick Cheney © Flickr/ Tony Swartz Cheney Seeks to Manipulate Trump 'Splashing Gasoline' Into Election 'Scandal' Watts cited hashtags such as "God," "constitution," "conservative," and "Trump" as examples of hashtags used by "Russian trolls." He also claimed that Kremlin operatives did not stop meddling in American politics after the election, and just this week engaged in a campaign to smear House Speaker Paul Ryan.

    "This past week we observed social media campaigns targeting Speaker of the House Paul Ryan hoping to foment further unrest amongst US democratic institutions," Watts testified.

    Many US Trump supporters took to Twitter following his comments to declare that the former agent was giving Russia credit for their efforts, as prominent supporters of the president have long voiced displeasure with Ryan.

    Watts urged mainstream traditional media to boycott WikiLeaks, so that "Russian influence dies on the vine."

    He also claimed that the efforts did not just target Clinton during the primaries, but other politicians as well - specifically including Senator Marco Rubio, who was sitting on the panel.

    "They were in full swing during both the Republican and Democratic primary season - and may have helped sink the hopes of candidates more hostile to Russian interests long before the field narrowed," Watts claimed. "Senator Rubio, in my opinion, you anecdotally suffered from these efforts."

    'Enter' key Pixabay The 'Democrats' Benghazi': Russian Hacking Saga Continues During the second panel, Rubio shocked the room when he stated that former members of his presidential campaign were "targeted" by people using IP addresses in Russia, first in July, and again on Wednesday.

    "Former members of my presidential campaign team who had access to the internal information of my presidential campaign were targeted by IP addresses with an unknown location within Russia," Rubio said Thursday. "That effort was unsuccessful."

    "I would also inform the committee within the last 24 hours, at 10:45 a.m. yesterday, a second attempt was made, again, against former members of my presidential campaign team who had access to our internal information - again targeted from an IP address from an unknown location in Russia. And that effort was also unsuccessful."

    Following the hearing, Rubio was asked by Sputnik News whether he was able to verify the person was actually in Russia and not just using a VPN to show a Russian address. He paused for an extended moment before answering.

    "I'm going to stay with what I said in the committee and not outline anything further," Rubio told Sputnik News, measuring his words carefully. "We've turned it over to the appropriate authorities and we'll go from there."

    U.S. President Donald Trump reacts after delivering his first address to a joint session of Congress from the floor of the House of Representatives iin Washington, U.S., February 28, 2017 © REUTERS/ Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool Trump 'Takes Advantageous Position,' Accuses Hillary Clinton of Russia Ties Another Senate witness, Thomas Rid, professor in the Department of War Studies at King's College London, strangely asserted that WikiLeaks, Twitter and "over eager journalists" are all "unwitting Russian agents."

    Earlier this month, Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Vladimir Putin, told CNN that "hysteria in official Washington and in the American media" is harming relations between the two nations. He also vehemently denied Russian involvement in election-related hacking.

    "This is unimaginable and someone has to say - all this is not true. We have to be sober, let's come to our minds," Peskov added.

    On Tuesday, Burr and Warner spoke to reporters about their investigation.

    Burr, a Republican, announced that seven staffers are working full time on the probe, compared to three on the Benghazi investigation. The smaller investigation into the 2012 attack cost American taxpayers over $7 million.

    "This one's one of the biggest investigations that the Hill has seen in my tenure here," Burr said.

    [Mar 31, 2017] People propagating anti-russian hysteria r emind population of a certain country in the past.

    Mar 31, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    EMichael -> ken melvin... , March 30, 2017 at 08:30 AM
    Russia has owned him for a long, long time.

    "Trump scholars gradually will determine how material was the sales boost in the complicated ups-and-downs of Trump's financial position in those days. For an explication of some of the favors owed, which in one case went back to 1976, see the current article. This much is indelibly clear: the president has seen Russia as a prime source of revenue, if not investment, for twenty years. Again, BBw:

    Simultaneous with when the tower was going up, developer Gil Dezer and his father, Michael, were building a Trump-backed condo project in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla. "Russians love the Trump brand," [Dezer] says, adding that Russians and Russian Americans bought some 200 of the 2,000 units in Trump buildings he built. They flooded into Trump projects from 2001 to 2007, helping Trump weather the real estate collapse, he says."

    http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/2017.03.26/1983.html

    libezkova -> EMichael... , March 30, 2017 at 08:27 PM
    My God, what an indoctrinated, completely brainwashed twat you are. Note to Anne: this word is listed by the British Board of Film Classification as an example of "moderate language" for the 12 certificate...

    Incapable (in this particular area) of any independent thinking and like parrots capable only repeat Anti-Russian propaganda from some questionable sources.

    Reminds me population of a certain country in the past.

    I wonder what will happen, if Russia opens archives and show the world the level of greed and corruption of US politicians during 1991-2000 "economic rape of Russia." In this case Wikileaks staff can take a very long vacation.


    [Mar 30, 2017] Truly populist up politics in the long run reduce financialization, for-profit scams, phara gouging

    Notable quotes:
    "... Centralized bargaining (sector wide labor agreements) practiced by the Teamster's National Master Freight Agreement -- also by French Canada, continental Europe and I think Argentina and Indonesia -- blocks the Walmart-killing-supermarket-contracts race to the bottom. Airline employees would kill for centralized too. ..."
    "... Truly populist up politics in the long run reduce financialization, for-profit scams, phara gouging, etc. etc., etc. Dean of Washington press corps said when he came to Washington (1950s?) all the lobbyists were union. ..."
    "... The center-left are technocrats and don't really believe in unions or economic democracy. ..."
    "... They're all about the meritocracy and so instead of arguing for workers to get organized and political and instead of arguing for a hot economy so labor markets are tight, they scold workers for not "skilling up" and acquiring the skills business want for their jobs. ..."
    Mar 30, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Denis Drew , March 29, 2017 at 06:42 AM

    STARTS OUT A LITTLE OFF TOPIC BUT THEN GOES PRECISELY WHERE THE AUTHOR WANTS US TO GO I THINK

    Re: Keynes' flaws - Stumbling and Mumbling
    [cut-and-paste]
    Neither rust-belt Americans nor Chicago gang-bangers are interested in up-to-date kitchens or two vans in the driveway. Both are most especially not interested in $10 an hour jobs.

    Both would be very, very especially interested in $20 an hour jobs.

    80 years ago Congress forgot to put criminal enforcement in the NLRA(a). Had union busting been a felony all along we would be like Germany today. Maybe at some point our progressives might note that collective bargaining is the T-Rex in the room -- or the missing T-Rex.

    The money is there for $20 jobs. 49 years -- and half the per capita income ago -- the fed min wage was $11. Since then the bottom 45% went from 20% overall income share to 10% -- while the top 1% went from 10% to 20%.

    How to get it -- how to get collective bargaining set up? States can make union busting a felony without worrying about so-called federal preemption:

    + a state law sanctioning wholesalers, for instance, using market power to block small retail establishments from combining their bargaining power could be the same one that makes union busting a felony -- overlap like min wage laws -- especially since on crim penalties the fed has left nothing to overlap since 1935

    + First Amendment right to collectively bargain cannot be forced by the fed down (the current) impassable road. Double ditto for FedEx employees who have to hurdle the whole-nation-at-once certification election barrier

    + for contrast, examples of state infringement on federal preemption might be a state finding of union busting leading to a mandate for an election under the fed setup -- or any state certification setup for labor already covered by NLRA(a) or RLA(a). (Okay for excluded farm workers.)

    Collective bargaining would ameliorate much competition for jobs from immigrants because labor's price would be set by how much the consumer can be squeezed before (s)he goes somewhere else -- not by how little the most desperate worker will hire on for. Your kid will be grabbed before somebody still mastering English.

    Centralized bargaining (sector wide labor agreements) practiced by the Teamster's National Master Freight Agreement -- also by French Canada, continental Europe and I think Argentina and Indonesia -- blocks the Walmart-killing-supermarket-contracts race to the bottom. Airline employees would kill for centralized too.

    Republicans would have no place to hide -- rehabs US labor market -- all (truly) free market.

    Truly populist up politics in the long run reduce financialization, for-profit scams, phara gouging, etc. etc., etc. Dean of Washington press corps said when he came to Washington (1950s?) all the lobbyists were union.

    PS. After I explained the American spinning wheels labor market to my late brother John (we were not even talking about race), he came back with: "Martin Luther King got his people on the up escalator just in time for it to start going down for everybody."

    Peter K. -> Denis Drew ... , March 29, 2017 at 06:52 AM
    I agree. All of the center-left are like Keynes in a bad way. Chris Dillow nails it.

    The center-left are technocrats and don't really believe in unions or economic democracy.

    They're all about the meritocracy and so instead of arguing for workers to get organized and political and instead of arguing for a hot economy so labor markets are tight, they scold workers for not "skilling up" and acquiring the skills business want for their jobs.

    They enjoy scolding the backward rural and dying manufacturing towns where the large employers have closed.

    The technocrats are running the economy the best they can, it's up to the workers to educate themselves so they can be "competitive" on international markets.

    Meanwhile for the past 40 years the technocrats have been doing a poor job.

    (or maybe a good job from their sponsors' perspective as Chris Dillow points out.)

    DeLong is right about mainstream economics. SWL is wrong. "Mainstream" economics is complicit as the technocrats are complicit.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , March 29, 2017 at 06:53 AM
    Perhaps even DeLong is too much like Keynes and too much the "neoliberal" technocrat to understand why businessmen keep voting Republican even though the economy does better on Democrats.

    [Mar 30, 2017] "Un Village Franηais," which began in 2009, was also a sensation, possibly because it was the first major French television series seriously to address collaboration during the Nazi occupation in World War II. Vichy is not a taboo subject by any means

    Mar 30, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne -> ken melvin...

    , March 29, 2017 at 11:51 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/arts/television/spiral-and-3-other-french-shows-worth-seeking-out.html

    August 20, 2013

    The Elusive Pleasures of French TV Series
    'Spiral' and 3 Other French Shows Worth Seeking Out
    By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

    anne -> anne... , March 29, 2017 at 11:56 AM
    "Un Village Franηais," which began in 2009, was also a sensation, possibly because it was the first major French television series seriously to address collaboration during the Nazi occupation in World War II. Vichy is not a taboo subject by any means. There have been scores of history books, novels, movies, documentaries and even graphic novels about the occupation. (Though it is a measure of how quickly postwar amnesia and myth making took hold that in the 1970s, one of the first scholars to point out that the Pιtain regime willingly went along with Hitler was an American historian, Robert O. Paxton.)

    But France is not as much of a television culture as are Britain and other European countries. The French film industry, internationally respected and state subsidized, has thrived better than most, and, accordingly, producers and stars tended to favor movies over television. Films, commercial and art house, were a better reflection of the national mood and cultural mainstream; most of the top-rated series on French television are made in the United States.

    "Un Village Francais," which is about to start its fifth season, is evidence that the tide has shifted. The drama begins in June 1940 in Villeneuve, a fictional village in the Jura Mountains, when the Germans are at the door, and the illusion of invulnerability is crumbling. The byword of the series is "To live is to choose," and in each episode, and each season, the war intensifies, options narrow and collaboration thickens....

    ken melvin said in reply to anne... , March 29, 2017 at 03:02 PM
    Spiral, too, is outstanding. Both masterpieces.

    [Mar 28, 2017] Trump Asks Why Intelligence Committee Isn t Probing The Clintons

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night. ..."
    "... Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed. ..."
    "... The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation. ..."
    "... This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC and oversight committee who can be trusted? ..."
    "... I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar. ..."
    "... CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment. ..."
    "... Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying their best to emulate them. ..."
    "... Because they are VIPs...very important pedophiles. ..."
    "... Actually, IIRC, he said, "If I am president, you will be in prison", to Hillary. Lets keep the campaign promise Donalt!! ..."
    Mar 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Following a day of drama involving the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, who has been under constant onslaught by Democrats ever since his disclosure last week that Trump had indeed been the object of surveillance, and whose Democrat peer at the Intel panel, Adam Schiff, on Monday night called for Nunes to recuse himself , moments ago Trump waded into the news cycle when he asked on Twitter why the House Intelligence Committee is not investigating the Clintons for various ties of their own to Russia. He then slammed the ongoing anti-Russian witch hunt, saying "the Russia story is a hoax."

    "Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night.

    Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech....

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2017

    ...money to Bill, the Hillary Russian "reset," praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA --

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2017

    Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed.

    Democratic lawmakers have now called on Nunes to recuse himself from the committee's probe into Russia's interference in the United States presidential election. Nunes on Monday evening said the chairman would not step aside from the investigation.

    The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation.

    ... ... ...

    GUS100CORRINA -> LetThemEatRand , Mar 27, 2017 10:59 PM

    This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC and oversight committee who can be trusted?

    As someone recently said, President TRUMP needs to take the word GOOD out of his vocabulary when referencing people. GOOD is very clear about His perspective on humanity. None are GOOD, no NOT one!

    I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar.

    CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment.

    azusgm -> GUS100CORRINA , Mar 27, 2017 11:02 PM

    Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying their best to emulate them.

    The Joker , Mar 27, 2017 10:24 PM

    Because they are VIPs...very important pedophiles.

    Beam Me Up Scotty -> LN , Mar 27, 2017 11:01 PM

    Actually, IIRC, he said, "If I am president, you will be in prison", to Hillary. Lets keep the campaign promise Donalt!!

    MsCreant , Mar 27, 2017 10:28 PM

    I work with smart folks. Today I was listening to a guy go on about how Trump might be guilty of treason. I asked about Hillary and the Clinton Foundation and some of the issues brought up in this article. Crickets...

    I am worried.

    Trump may be a lot of distasteful things. I don't see treason here. But if smart folks buy into this... aw hell we are in for it.

    PoasterToaster , Mar 27, 2017 10:28 PM

    The Democratic Party is the party of White Slavery.

    Ms No , Mar 27, 2017 10:31 PM

    This is the part where he regrets saying that he was going to leave the Clintons alone because they were good people and have been through enough. Our election system needs to be investigated before the next election also. Obviously we need hearings on the CIA, NSA, all of it. Of course who will oversee the hearings? What a joke.

    Yes We Can. But... -> Ms No , Mar 27, 2017 10:46 PM

    Or is this where Trump plays dumb and says "I thought they were good people. But that was before I knew XYZ"?

    Trump knows they're not good people. I mean, he just asked why they aren't under investigation.

    Trump knows Bill is a rapist and a predator. Trump knows why Hillary as SOS refused to use required .gub email, why she set up a secret server with classified info on it, why she wiped 30k+ yoga emails.

    Animal Mother -> Yes We Can. But Lets Not. , Mar 27, 2017 10:49 PM

    Trump personally has to have some things he can point to in order to prove his impartiality when the DOJ finally starts looking into the Bubba Foundation. He can claim that he is impartial and say in a nice tweet, "Hey, I thought they were nice people. Now I see how she fooled all her voters" and still have her sent to Federal Prison along with Bubba and Soetoro too.

    biker , Mar 27, 2017 10:39 PM

    Maxine Waters talks about Obama OFA shared-access amazon cloud secret database on USA citizens/agencies (shadow government) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d69X20HhEQg

    Akzed , Mar 27, 2017 10:41 PM

    "Trump Asks Why Intelligence Committee Isn't Probing The Clintons"

    Nunes is head of the committee. Why didn't Trump think to ask him when he had him over?!

    BitchesBetterRe... , Mar 27, 2017 10:44 PM

    Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary........

    Hey Trump - who's in the White house now? YOU !!!! So stop whining, get your team together & Go after them instead of tweeting about it!!!!

    WTF Donald.....

    Cabreado -> BitchesBetterRecognize , Mar 27, 2017 11:02 PM

    The government wasn't designed to work that way. It is a mistake (and it always was) to expect the Presidency to fix-it-all-up. Your sentiments are dangerous, in part because of your expectations, and in part because you give a pass to corrupt points of control.

    But don't feel bad -- nobody here (or anywhere, really) seems to give a damn.

    [Mar 28, 2017] Bill Black: Why Did Preet Bharara Refuse to Drain the Wall Street Swamp?

    Notable quotes:
    "... New York Times' ..."
    "... Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany, so the swampiest part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction. ..."
    "... Obama was a rapacious doer for the .001%. ..."
    "... That smirky dubya-esque smile on his face while on Sir Richard Branson's private island off of the coast of Madagascar says it all. "Fuck all of y'all, I got out and away with screwing the rest of the nation, not once, but twice!" ..."
    "... Draining Wall Street is more challenging than cleaning out the Augean stables. ..."
    "... Not for nothing, but Preet came out of Schumer's office who has parlayed being Wall Street's senator into dejure leadership of the Senate Dems and defacto control of the Democratic party. ..."
    Mar 28, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and c–founder of Bank Whistleblowers United. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives

    The New York Times' editorial board published an editorial on March 12, 2017, praising Preet Bharara as the "Prosecutor Who Knew How to Drain a Swamp." I agree with the title. At all times when he was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (which includes Wall Street) Bharara knew how to drain the swamp. Further, he had the authority, the jurisdiction, the resources, and the testimony from whistleblowers like Richard Bowen (a co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United (BWU)) to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bowen personally contacted Bharara beginning in 2005.

    You were quoted in The Nation magazine as saying that if a whistleblower comes forward with evidence of wrongdoing, then you would be the first to prosecute [elite bankers].

    I am writing this email to inform you that there is a body of evidence concerning wrongdoing, which the Department of Justice has refused to act on in order to determine whether criminal charges should be pursued.

    Bowen explained that he was a whistleblower about Citigroup's senior managers and that he was (again) coming forward to aid Bharara to prosecute. Bowen tried repeatedly to interest Bharara in draining the Citigroup swamp. Bharara refused to respond to Bowen's blowing of the whistle on the massive frauds led by Citigroup's senior officers.

    Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp and was positioned to do so because he had federal prosecutorial jurisdiction over Wall Street crimes. Whistleblowers like Bowen, who lacked any meaningful power, sacrificed their careers and repeatedly demonstrated courage to ensure that Bharara would have the testimony and documents essential to prosecute successfully some of Wall Street's most elite felons. Bharara never mustered the courage to prosecute those elites. Indeed, Bharara never mustered the courtesy to respond to Bowen's offers to aid his office.

    The editorial lauds Bharara for his actions against public corruption in New York.

    New Yorkers, who have had a front-row seat to his work over the last seven years, know him for his efforts to drain one of the swampiest states in the country of its rampant public corruption.

    We are all for rooting out public corruption. The editorial ignores three key facts. First, New York politics are less corrupt than many other states, but Wall Street's leaders created the "swampiest" region in American business. Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany, so the swampiest part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction. Second, Wall Street CEOs created, and infest, the swampiest of regions over which Bharara had jurisdiction. They led the epidemics of "control fraud" that hyper-inflated the housing bubble, drove the financial crisis, and caused the Great Recession. Third, Bharara did not prosecute any of them even when whistleblowers brought him the cases on platinum platters. Indeed, Bharara did not prosecute even low-level bank officers who were minor leaders in implementing those fraud epidemics.

    I will summarize briefly Bowen's story as it intersects Bharara. Bowen held a senior position with Citigroup supervising a staff of several hundred professionals that conducted risk assessments on roughly $100 billion in annual mortgage purchases – a majority of which Citigroup resold to Fannie and Freddie or mortgage securitizers. Citigroup was exposed to enormous losses on these mortgages because the sellers had strong incentives to provide false "reps and warranties" to Citigroup and sell them fraudulently originated loans that were particularly likely to default and suffer larger losses upon default. Citigroup could only sell these fraudulently originated mortgages to others through making essentially the same fraudulent reps and warranties that it received from the original sellers. Bowen's staff found originally that 60% of the loans it was buying had false reps and warranties. He warned his superiors about the problem, but they responded by weakening Citigroup's already inadequate underwriting by buying pervasively fraudulent "liar's" loans. Bowen put Citigroup's senior management, including Robert Rubin, on written notice of the growing crisis and called for immediate intervention to stem the crisis. Citigroup's senior management responded by removing Bowen's staff and responsibilities. The incidence of fraud grew to 80 percent.

    Bowen was blowing the whistle internally at Citigroup and acting exactly as he was supposed to do – as Citigroup articulated what an officer should do in such circumstances. He was not looking for money or a lawsuit. He was the opposite of a disgruntled employee. He had never gone public.

    Citigroup's top leaders forced Bowen out – for doing exactly the right think according to Citigroup's own policies. Bowen did eventually blow the whistle to the public about the Citigroup's top leadership and the banks hundreds of billions of dollars in sales of mortgages through false reps and warranties. Those sales, because of the losses they caused to Fannie and Freddie, were substantial contributors to Fannie and Freddie's failures and the public bailout of both firms. Bowen met with the SEC staff and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in several districts to provide them with the critical facts and documents. Bowen also testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which made multiple criminal referrals against Citigroup, including a referral based on Bowen's testimony. Bowen was the perfect witness for a criminal prosecution of Citigroup's senior managers and for an SEC enforcement action against Citigroup for securities fraud.

    Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in Denver, the Eastern District of New York (where Loretta Lynch was then the U.S. Attorney), and Bharara's office told Bowen that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had never sent the criminal referrals that FCIC made about Citigroup to them. Bowen met with the AUSAs to assist them in what he had expected to be a series of prosecutions in 2016. Phil Angelides, FCIC's Chairman, made public in 2016 the fact that the FCIC had made a criminal referral about Citigroup based on Bowen's testimony before the inquiry. Bowen was by 2016 one of the best-known and most respected whistleblowers in America. FCIC's chair found his testimony about Citigroup's leaders highly credible, leading him to make the criminal referral, but DOJ's leadership not only refused to prosecute, but also buried the criminal referrals to discourage any U.S. Attorney from prosecuting Citigroup's fraudulent leaders.

    AUSA Jonathon Schmidt (San Francisco) called Bowen on July 10, 2010. Bowen gave him everything. Schmidt was excited and said that they were going to pursue the claims that Bowen had laid out, particularly Citigroup's fraudulent reps and warranties. Bowen challenged Schmidt, telling him that I believed that once he talked to DC DOJ that Bowen would never hear from him again. Schmidt promised he would be back to Bowen within a week. Bowen never heard from him again.

    Alayne Fleischmann, also one of the most famous whistleblowers to emerge from the crisis, provided vital information and documents to DOJ prosecutors about frauds led by JPMorgan's senior managers. Fleischmann continued to seek to aid a DOJ prosecution after the Attorney General transferred responsibility for the case to Bharara's office. No prosecution has occurred.

    Bharara is like every other federal prosecutor and the SEC's top leaders. Bowen met with the SEC staff and five Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in four different districts (including Bharara's) to provide them with the critical facts and documents. Each failed to prosecute the elite Wall Street officials who drove the three epidemics of fraud that drove the financial crisis. What is different is that because his office had jurisdiction over the elite frauds and the staff to conduct sophisticated investigations and prosecutions he could have drained the Wall Street swamp. Bharara simply had to take advantage of the courage and competence of whistleblowers like Bowen and Fleischman who brought him cases against the top managers of two of the world's largest banks on a platinum platter. Bharara also could have taken advantage of the expertise and experience of regulators and prosecutors who worked together to produce over 1,000 felony convictions in "major" cases against financial executives and their co-conspirators in the savings and loan debacle. Bharara (and Lynch and their counterparts) failed to take either approach.

    Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp. He had the facts, the staff, and the jurisdiction to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bharara refused to do so.

    0 0 0 6 0 This entry was posted in Banana republic , Banking industry , Credit markets , Guest Post , Politics , Regulations and regulators on March 28, 2017 by Yves Smith .
    Trade now with TradeStation – Highest rated for frequent traders
    Subscribe to Post Comments 31 comments skippy , March 28, 2017 at 5:48 am

    Sorry Bill . but the Flexians are lined up deeper than the ramparts to the south Korea

    disheveled . per MMT to much money and people is a bad mix . sigh

    TK421 , March 28, 2017 at 1:20 pm

    Huh?

    skippy , March 28, 2017 at 2:34 pm

    Money as a vote, where those with the most votes, maximize their utility over the control of the aforementioned.

    disheveled ultimate self licking ice cream cone .

    ambrit , March 28, 2017 at 6:24 am

    Sorry to say it but the situation as it stands now makes mob actions against the financial elites a rational choice.
    I know that such ideas are an essential part of the Libertarian Dream State, but, what else is left to do then either submit or fight?
    As is the case in our politics now, reform is no longer an option.

    Larry , March 28, 2017 at 7:17 am

    Of course the NYT defines the liberal version of draining the swamp. Government actors are already considered bad eggs. But the upper echelons of elite Wall St firms sit on the boards of America's cultural and educational institutions and are culturally liberal, so whatever they may have done was done with no ill intent nor malice. Black exposes this as completely bogus in a short editorial but the leading pundits will be pounding on Russia, Hillbillies, and Russia some more.

    steelhead23 , March 28, 2017 at 11:33 am

    Dang, NC needs those up arrows so I could show my approval. The philanthropy fig-leaf of America's elite hides a plentitude of warts. Too many people are duped by these 'pillars of community.'

    allan , March 28, 2017 at 8:01 am

    Prof. Black loses some credibility when he writes,

    First, New York politics are less corrupt than many other states

    Evidence? Links to studies? Anything?

    Given the national trends of the last few decades (many of them originating from Wall Street or Wall Street-owned politicians in D.C.), the NYS economy would have been fighting some very strong headwinds in any case. But the cesspool in Albany helped convince a lot of businesses and individuals to make their futures elsewhere.

    Parents in NYS know that their children's adult lives will (if they're lucky) be spent somewhere else.

    Yes, Preen is a fraud, but Albany was and remains a very corrupt place and the state suffers because of it.

    Arizona Slim , March 28, 2017 at 8:57 am

    And this has been going on for a long time. My mom and dad were born and raised New Yorkers​ who got out as soon as they could.

    DorothyT , March 28, 2017 at 10:30 am

    Recall Bill Black's work during the S & L crisis across the country. I'm one who was involved with the economic class of Americans who were likely to have their savings in CDs in the fraudulent institutions in the swamp that Black was instrumental in draining. And, pertinent to this piece about Citi, I recently met a group of former Citi mid-level execs who were laid off during the mortgage mess: they rec'd golden parachutes, stock options, and never had to work again.

    Bill Black has my respect and gratitude.

    Julie , March 28, 2017 at 11:07 am

    I couldn't paste the link successfully but this is from the Center for Public Integrity: New York GRADE:D-(61)RANK:31ST

    So 19 states are worse than New York. More than a few in other words, and only 3 states scored higher than a D+. At any rate, the swamp in Albany was not under Bhahara's jurisdiction anyway, as Black points out.

    Seems unfair to attack his credibility over this.

    allan , March 28, 2017 at 11:38 am

    I have great respect for the work that Prof. Black did in the past and the work he continues to do.

    But public corruption can be incredibly damaging to government functions
    in the short and medium run, and corrosive to trust in government in the long run.
    To suggest that NYS doesn't have a serious problem is not helpful.
    I would much rather have the USA for SDNY devoting limited resources to going after that,
    even if it might be publicity-seeking bigfooting of the USA in Albany,
    rather than crusading against insider trading.

    Even though I agree that Bharara, Breuer and Holder (and the czar they all worked for)
    were a disaster for the rule of law in this country.

    Left in Wisconsin , March 28, 2017 at 11:34 am

    Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany, so the swampiest part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction.

    Not good enough?

    Stephen Gardner , March 28, 2017 at 3:46 pm

    Bill Black has all the credibility he needs. This is a classic propaganda technique to focus on unimportant minor points to impeach an otherwise very import essay. People here know better than to listen to that.

    KYrocky , March 28, 2017 at 8:25 am

    The Obama Administration prevented any investigations, let alone prosecutions, of Wall Street and large scale mortgage fraud. Obama's 50 State Solution was sold as consolidation of multiple state efforts, which were making good progress, into a single, streamlined and comprehensive federal effort that would take the burden off the states. It was a lie.

    Preet Bharara was fired by Trump and has gotten a lot of sympathetic press over his firing. And he has certainly done many good things. But when it came to the biggest financial crimes in the history of the world he followed his orders, failed to do his job, and kept his mouth shut as the criminals reaped hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of American families suffered. And he is still keeping his mouth shut. But other than that .

    robnume , March 28, 2017 at 5:40 pm

    +1,000,000! Obama was a rapacious doer for the .001%.

    That smirky dubya-esque smile on his face while on Sir Richard Branson's private island off of the coast of Madagascar says it all. "Fuck all of y'all, I got out and away with screwing the rest of the nation, not once, but twice!"

    There's not one politician who doesn't deserve pitchforks and lamposts. Tar and feather these folk!

    Good essay by a man I highly respect, but I, too, noted long ago that New York State politics are real down and dirty. It's the home of Wall Street, so how could it be otherwise?

    johnnygl , March 28, 2017 at 9:51 am

    It's been a long time since the crisis and it's clear that the elites would like to pretend there was very little of interest here.

    Incidents like this are helpful to remember just how much criminality took place and just how bad the obama administration was on corporate crime.

    linda amick , March 28, 2017 at 9:51 am

    It is all theater. We read Wikileaks exposures. There are crimes or at least valid reasons for investigations.
    We get teasers that investigations will happen.
    They never do.
    The political and corporate leadership class is immune from prosecution except for passing fine monies back and forth.
    These people are completely corrupt and have greatly participated in corrupting our society and its cultures.

    Robert NYC , March 28, 2017 at 9:56 am

    I have always found the Richard Bowen story particularly fascinating and infuriating. His memo to Rob Rubin is unbelievable. Frontline also did a piece on the failure to prosecute the banks. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission took testimony from Bowen but then locked it up under seal for five years. Do we have any rational explanation for this other than that the system is that corrupt. I am a cynic but this still shocks me to the point where I can't fathom that it is really this bad.

    jhallc , March 28, 2017 at 10:42 am

    "Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp. He had the facts, the staff, and the jurisdiction to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bharara refused to do so."

    If my memory serves me, perhaps, like Neil Barofsky (SIGTARP), he had lunch with Larry Summers where it was explained to him that if he wanted to have a $$$career after leaving government it would be wise to let things slide ( i.e. see Lanny Breuer).

    RUKidding , March 28, 2017 at 10:58 am

    Bahara did what he was told by Obama. That's the end of it.

    Anyone who wants to deify Obama – and I know far too many people who do – are completely ignoring Obama's and Bahara's criminal neglect to hold the banks and Wall St truly accountable.

    Recall Jamie "Presidential Cufflinks" Dimon basically thumbing his snooty nose at the hoi poloi. What? Me, worry? Sucks to be you, great to be me.

    These crooks will never do a perp walk, and Bahara made sure that they didn't. All the whining about Bahara being "fired" by Trump is ignoring these inconvenient truths.

    UserFriendly , March 28, 2017 at 11:21 am

    I'm no Obama apologist, but if Bahara indited someone on Wall Street just how was Obama going to explain firing him? If either had an ounce of integrity the right people would be in jail.

    Ian , March 28, 2017 at 5:31 pm

    Some manufactured scandal or leak regarding improper or compromising behaviour, well before the ball trully got rolling on prosecuting our criminal elite forcing Obama to step in and either move him down, sideways or outright let go to ensure the integrity of the office.

    sd , March 28, 2017 at 11:08 am

    Citigroup (previously Citibank, etc) has always been corrupt. They were caught money laundering for drug cartels in the 1980s and terrorism back in the 1990s and should have been shut down forever both times. They weren't.

    The only conclusion I can come to is that Citigroup is a heavily exposed to CIA activity. It sounds like a loony conspiracy theory until you look at the history of Riggs Bank, BCCI, etc and realize that historically its in the realm of possibility. So yes, its entirely possible.

    Susan the other , March 28, 2017 at 12:58 pm

    It doesn't sound at all loony to me, sd. I think the current mess goes all the way back to the 50s. In defiance of financial prudence, in 1954, the rich guys went to DC, like some super mercenary army (pun intended) and threw what was called "The Bankruptcy Ball" which everyone who was anyone attended, all decked out in tuxedos and gowns. Catherine Graham's autobiography. And I think it marks a point in time when our government became blood brothers with the banks. A relationship that saw us through the Cold War – which had already bankrupted us – and the Vietnam War which was an awful and senseless debacle; and on through till the USSR finally said "enough" – at which point our government and the banks were one. One big mess. We should have had the integrity at that point, 1990, to fix things. But we couldn't because our capitalist economy, upon which most of the world had become addicted, would have failed without the crazy growth that the banksters provided so, god. Talk about a mess. But that's just my opinion.

    Susan the other , March 28, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    So, clearly we did learn one thing: we can supply the money to accomplish our goal, whatever it is. The important thing is to have a good goal.

    JohnnyGL , March 28, 2017 at 4:55 pm

    Well, there's also the fact that it's partially owned by Saudi Arabia. :)

    robnume , March 28, 2017 at 5:44 pm

    Ah, yes, the ol' "Bank of Crooks and Criminals, Intl." I remember them and good old Clark Clifford. Boy, that guy died just in time, huh? Good times! / sarc

    Sluggeaux , March 28, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    Well said, Professor Black. The Southern District of New York was the biggest crime scene in the U.S. during Bharara's tenure as United States Attorney, and he was the man in charge of the Holder doctrine, printing "Get Out of Jail Free" cards for the donor class. Of course, Bharara is ambitious enough not to take a multi-million dollar desk at Covington like Holder and Breuer did. Bad optics. He's going to academia, as a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at NYU School of Law. How noble!

    NOT. Naked Capitalism readers recognize NYU as what Pam Martens called "a tyrannical slush fund for privileged interests" where Obot Flexian grifters roost in luxury:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/the-art-of-the-gouge-nyu-as-a-model-for-predatory-higher-education.html

    blert , March 28, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    Draining Wall Street is more challenging than cleaning out the Augean stables.

    Your first steps take you down the rabbit hole.

    White collar paper crime is brutally difficult to prosecute. It corn fuses the juries.

    (* per my Uncle in his career he prosecuted 10,000 cases ultimately as District Attorney with 700+ attorneys in his office.)

    Yes, it's very slow going. It just is.

    Dr Duh , March 28, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    Not for nothing, but Preet came out of Schumer's office who has parlayed being Wall Street's senator into dejure leadership of the Senate Dems and defacto control of the Democratic party.

    Picking off egregious individuals like Madoff, who can be described as "bad apples" while ignoring systemic fraud is the playbook.

    [Mar 28, 2017] Russia Is Pissed Threatens To Spill Obama Admin Secrets If US Intel Does not Stop Leaking

    Another fake news. this time from Zero Hedge...
    Mar 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Russia Is Pissed: Threatens To Spill Obama Admin Secrets If US Intel Doesn't Stop Leaking logical-different , Mar 28, 2017 5:56 PM

    Here's what you have to do Russia

    Tell the American government that they'll have to apply for a VISA before you'll them come into your country. Personally, I don't know why you'd want the bastards to come for a visit. If you think your confused now wait until the inmates from the USA finish with their visit.

    Herdee , Mar 28, 2017 4:36 PM

    Like how the CIA trained these F'n morons?

    https://www.infowars.com/german-mp-erdogan-a-terrorism-godfather/

    NobodyNowhere , Mar 28, 2017 3:59 PM

    Obama was never a world-class leader - not even close. An arguably good speaker but not on topics of state, mostly on ethnic divide, cummunal politics - things that touch heart strings in disadvantaged sections of society (minorities, unemployed whites, etc).

    As a politician he was pedantic (community level); as a statesman, zero.

    Onan_the_Barbarian -> NobodyNowhere , Mar 28, 2017 4:55 PM

    Google for "Obama without teleprompter". Not impressive.

    nobodysfool , Mar 28, 2017 1:44 PM

    It's all about Leverage...

    Don Corleone : Good. Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day - accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day.

    DirtySanchez , Mar 28, 2017 10:44 AM

    Russia and others may be of help.

    The entire world needs verifiable proof of the US war criminal behavior for the past 20+ years.

    Prison sentences are not enough.

    Former US Presidents need to face their accusers for the raping, pillaging, destruction, and murder of several soverign nations.

    God help them.

    dvfco -> DirtySanchez , Mar 28, 2017 2:21 PM

    It's time they nailed everyone in the Obama Administration to the wall, then follow up with every Republican in a former Bush Administration who is a NeverTrump douche and handcuff them to one from Obama's group.

    The only reason there are Republican - Never Trumpers is that they're terrified all their sins will surface.

    Once Trump starts reaming Obama and Clinton, they'll turn on Bush, etc.

    Gonna get fugly!

    LawsofPhysics , Mar 28, 2017 10:32 AM

    Ultimately there is no honor among theives...

    esum , Mar 28, 2017 10:13 AM

    Someone should shit or get off the pot with this Russian stuff... The REAL STORY IS SPYING ON US CITIZENS AND CONGRESS AND OBAMA'S USE OF CLASSIFIED INTEL AND COMEY BRENNAN CLAPPER CRIMES..... Lets get to it

    MrBoompi , Mar 28, 2017 9:00 AM

    There is nothing Russia could divulge that would come as a surprise to most of us here. At this point it would just be a confirmation of the highly corrupt and immoral behavior we've seen this government engage in for decades now. Besides, if we couldn't throw Bush and Cheney in the slammer after what they did, what hope would we have to hold Obama and Clinton accountable? Until further notice, this class of folks is above the law.

    OCnStiggs , Mar 28, 2017 8:39 AM

    The Progressive Liberal Democrats who have been staunch allies with the Russians for nearly 50 years have now turned on them to hide their own failure in running Hillary. Big mistake Mr. Schumer.

    The Russians are looking out for Russia. They will uncork a plethora of very bad news for you, including all the private dealings Progressives have had with them ('ala Ted Kennedy asking Andropov to help screw Reagan during his last election) and the timing couldn't be better for the mid-term elections.

    The Progressives are no friend of America and as the word gets out to mainstream America, the result will be devastating to the Democratic Party. Good. About time.

    MORE INVESTIGATIONS OF DEMOCRATS!!!! FRY HILLARY!!!

    Reaper , Mar 28, 2017 8:07 AM

    Did Putin foolishly expect swine to be honorable?

    d edwards -> Reaper , Mar 28, 2017 8:41 AM

    I bet they do have Hillary's 30k missing emails.

    goober -> d edwards , Mar 28, 2017 1:17 PM

    Just like NSA always has and has never released any of it, why is that ? Do we actually have a legitimate government or simply a giant criminal enterprise control mechanism ? Here are the answers --

    http://www.downtoearththinking.com/our-government-created-google-and-fac...

    http://www.downtoearththinking.com/the-war-against-donald-trump-.html

    The Russians have their own shit to keep secret and when that is less important and damaging then they will release the flood gates of hell on BHO and crew as well as Hillary and the Bushites. Not until, but I suspect that time is approaching or very near. The tangled web of sociopaths and psychopaths that control us, Hey ?

    TheEndIsNear -> PleasedToMeatYou , Mar 28, 2017 8:07 PM

    Most of the American population are so ignorant of the physical laws of nature that they prefer to believe what the government tells them to believe instead of straining their brains to exercise a little common sense. I think the disappearing 757 airliners at the Pentagon and Shanksville are the most blatant of the government lies since they require no knowledge of high-rise building construction. How people can ignore this kind of thing would be a mystery except that almost everyone gets their news from the TeeVee.

    IranContra , Mar 28, 2017 7:08 AM

    Fortunately, liberal thugs have not succeeded in derailing Trump-Putin cooperation, even in the most difficult areas: There is complete Russian-American military coordination in Iraq and Syria, even where Turkey and Iran disagree. Russia is allowing the US to arm the Kurds against ISIS in Syria, and Russia has asked Iran to withdraw its troops and militias from Iraq and Syria, exactly as Trump wants.

    Not Too Important -> PleasedToMeatYou , Mar 28, 2017 1:35 PM

    Russia can pull out of SWIFT any time they want. Europe depends on their gas. Russia can demand payment in rubles, too, or gold.

    Europe's nuclear energy has already gone off a cliff, due to all the bad reactor parts from the French. That makes Russian energy much more valueable, and they don't have enough LNG receiving facilities to buy elsewhere in any significant amounts.

    The only option now for the NWO is a quiet retirement, or mass global nuclear suicide. Any guesses?

    nmewn , Mar 28, 2017 6:45 AM

    "The US Department of State has more than once asked us not to announce planned visits until the last minute. This is not our tradition. We have been operating openly for years, but we have respected the requests we have received from our colleagues in Washington in the past few years . But what happened after that? First, the US Department of State asked us to keep the planned visit quiet and not to announce it until the last possible minute, until we coordinated the date. We did as they asked. But a day or two later the information was leaked by the US State Department and sometimes by the US administration. Frankly, this put Russia and the media in a strange situation, because they didn't know who to believe – the official agencies or the many leaks."

    And as of this moment, the second quietest person in the room just happens to be...John Kerry.

    Anybody seen ole horse face around lately? ;-)

    fleur de lis -> NO QANA , Mar 28, 2017 10:15 AM

    Russia must have a lot of info that they swept up over the years thanks to DC morons.

    They relseased the recording of Icky Vicky Neudelmann because she instigated a war on their border.

    But they must have picked up much more than that, thanks to her obnoxious ego.

    Bastiat -> fleur de lis , Mar 28, 2017 3:20 PM

    Remember when they released the crystal clear recording of Vicky Nuland organizing the Ukraine government? They must have been shocked at the utter indifference of supporters of the Obama regime.

    [Mar 28, 2017] Heres The Story Behind Trumps Podesta-Russia Tweet Zero Hedge

    Mar 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    The Daily Caller reports:

    John Podesta, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2016 national campaign chairman, may have violated federal law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company when he joined the Obama White House in 2014, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation's Investigative Group.

    Joule Unlimited Technologies - financed in part by a Russian firm - originally awarded Podesta 100,000 shares of stock options when in 2010 he joined that board along with its Dutch-based entities: Joule Global Holdings, BV and the Stichting Joule Global Foundation.

    When Podesta announced his departure from the Joule board in January 2014 to become President Obama's special counsellor, the company officially issued him 75,000 common shares of stock.

    The Schedule B section of the federal government's form 278 which - requires financial disclosures for government officials - required Podesta to "report any purchase, sale or exchange by you, your spouse, or dependent children of any property, stocks, bonds, commodity futures and other securities when the amount of the transaction exceeded $1,000."

    The same year Podesta joined Joule, the company agreed to accept 1-Billion-Rubles - or $35 million - from Rusnano, a state-run and financed Russian company with close ties to President Vladimir Putin.

    Anatoly Chubais, the company CEO and two other top Russian banking executives worked together with Podesta on the Joule boards. The board met six times a year.

    Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director said because of the Kremlin backing, it was essential Podesta disclose the financial benefits he received from the company.

    "I think in this case where you're talking about foreign interests and foreign involvement, the collateral interest with these disclosure forms is put in the forefront of full disclosure of any foreign interest that you may have," he told TheDCNF in an interview.

    The existence of the 75,000 shares of Joule stock was first revealed by the Government Accountability Institute report issued last year.

    But Podesta didn't pocket all the shares. Correspondence from Podesta to Joule instructed the firm to transfer only 33,693 shares to Leonidio Holdings, a brand-new entity he incorporated only on December 20, 2013, about ten days before he entered the White House.

    Leonidio is registered in Delaware as a limited liability corporation. Podesta listed the address of his daughter, Megan Rouse, in the incorporation papers. His mother and father also appear to be co-owners of Leonidio.

    TheDCNF made multiple inquiries to OGE and received no reply. TheDCNF inquiries to Mr. Podesta were not returned.

    That's not the end of the story though, as John Podesta's brother, Tony, confirmed Russia's largest bank had hired the Podesta Group to lobby for an end to sanctions ...

    JuliaS -> Chris Dakota , Mar 28, 2017 2:23 PM

    Like Ron Paul says - since the government spies on everyone, it's a certainty that the last administration spied on Trump.

    By the same token, since it's guaranteed that there are pedophiles existing in positions of power pretty much everywhere (not just in the Catholic church), one can make a blind guess that there is a pedo ring inside the government and be right.

    My suspicion is that pizzagate conspiracy is invented, but regardless of that fact, real pedophiles in the government are scared shitless that if the authorities begin digging, they'll be discovered. That's why they want pizzagate talk silenced.

    TheGardener -> JuliaS , Mar 28, 2017 2:40 PM

    "pizzagate conspiracy is invented" ? More like pizzagate conspiracy is inverted ..poking a deep state hornest nest is what would

    could have triggered that aggressive counter-action. Pedo-rings as horrible and stomach turning they really are still are old school

    intelligence modes of operation, East Germany had one set up in the West by spies it sent in camouflaged as refugees.

    Tasked at compromising politicians.

    [Mar 28, 2017] Foundation - Fall Of The American Galactic Empire Zero Hedge

    Mar 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Mar 27, 2017 10:40 PM Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    "The fall of Empire, gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a freezing of caste, a damming of curiosity-a hundred other factors. It has been going on, as I have said, for centuries, and it is too majestic and massive a movement to stop." – Isaac Asimov, Foundation

    "Any fool can tell a crisis when it arrives. The real service to the state is to detect it in embryo." – Isaac Asimov, Foundation

    I read Isaac Asimov's renowned award winning science fiction trilogy four decades ago as a teenager. I read them because I liked science fiction novels, not because I was trying to understand the correlation to the fall of the Roman Empire. The books that came to be called the Foundation Trilogy (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation) were not written as novels; they're the collected Foundation stories Asimov wrote between 1941 and 1950. He wrote these stories during the final stages of our last Fourth Turning Crisis and the beginning stages of the next High. This was the same time frame in which Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Orwell wrote 1984 . This was not a coincidence.

    The tone of foreboding, danger, dread, and impending doom, along with unending warfare, propels all of these novels because they were all written during the bloodiest and most perilous portion of the last Fourth Turning . As the linear thinking establishment continues to be blindsided by the continued deterioration of the economic, political, social, and cultural conditions in the world, we have entered the most treacherous phase of our present Fourth Turning .

    That ominous mood engulfing the world is not a new dynamic, but a cyclical event arriving every 80 or so years. Eight decades ago the world was on the verge of a world war which would kill 65 million people. Eight decades prior to 1937 the country was on the verge of a Civil War which would kill almost 5% of the male population. Eight decades prior to 1857 the American Revolution had just begun and would last six more bloody years. None of this is a coincidence. The generational configuration repeats itself every eighty years, driving the mood change which leads to revolutionary change and the destruction of the existing social order.

    Isaac Asimov certainly didn't foresee his Foundation stories representing the decline of an American Empire that didn't yet exist. The work that inspired Asimov was Edward Gibbon's multi-volume series, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , published between 1776 and 1789. Gibbon saw Rome's fall not as a consequence of specific, dramatic events, but as the result of the gradual decline of civic virtue, monetary debasement and rise of Christianity, which made the Romans less vested in worldly affairs.

    Gibbon's tome reflects the same generational theory espoused by Strauss and Howe in The Fourth Turning . Gibbon's conclusion was human nature never changes, and mankind's penchant for division, amplified by environmental and cultural differences, is what governs the cyclical nature of history. Gibbon constructs a narrative spanning centuries as events unfold and emperors' successes and failures occur within the context of a relentless decline of empire. The specific events and behaviors of individual emperors were inconsequential within the larger framework and pattern of historical decline. History plods relentlessly onward, driven by the law of large numbers.

    Asimov described his inspiration for the novels:

    "I wanted to consider essentially the science of psychohistory, something I made up myself. It was, in a sense, the struggle between free will and determinism. On the other hand, I wanted to do a story on the analogy of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but on the much larger scale of the galaxy. To do that, I took over the aura of the Roman Empire and wrote it very large. The social system, then, is very much like the Roman imperial system, but that was just my skeleton.

    It seemed to me that if we did have a galactic empire, there would be so many human beings-quintillions of them-that perhaps you might be able to predict very accurately how societies would behave, even though you couldn't predict how individuals composing those societies would behave. So, against the background of the Roman Empire written large, I invented the science of psychohistory. Throughout the entire trilogy, then, there are the opposing forces of individual desire and that dead hand of social inevitability."

    Is History Pre-Determined?

    "Don't you see? It's Galaxy-wide. It's a worship of the past. It's a deterioration – a stagnation!" – Isaac Asimov, Foundation

    "It has been my philosophy of life that difficulties vanish when faced boldly." – Isaac Asimov, Foundation

    The Foundation trilogy opens on Trantor, the capital of the 12,000-year-old Galactic Empire. Though the empire appears stable and powerful, it is slowly decaying in ways that parallel the decline of the Western Roman Empire. Hari Seldon, a mathematician and psychologist, has developed psychohistory, a new field of science that equates all possibilities in large societies to mathematics, allowing for the prediction of future events.

    Psychohistory is a blend of crowd psychology and high-level math. An able psychohistorian can predict the long-term aggregate behavior of billions of people many years in the future. However, it only works with large groups. Psychohistory is almost useless for predicting the behavior of an individual. Also, it's no good if the group being analyzed is aware it's being analyzed - because if it's aware, the group changes its behavior.

    Using psychohistory, Seldon has discovered the declining nature of the Empire, angering the aristocratic rulers of the Empire. The rulers consider Seldon's views and statements treasonous, and he is arrested. Seldon is tried by the state and defends his beliefs, explaining his theory the Empire will collapse in 300 years and enter a 30,000-year dark age.

    He informs the rulers an alternative to this future is attainable, and explains to them generating an anthology of all human knowledge, the Encyclopedia Galactica, would not avert the inevitable fall of the Empire but would reduce the Dark Age to "only" 1,000 years.

    The fearful state apparatchiks offer him exile to a remote world, Terminus, with other academic intellectuals who could help him create the Encyclopedia. He accepts their offer, and sets in motion his plan to set up two Foundations, one at either end of the galaxy, to preserve the accumulated knowledge of humanity and thereby shorten the Dark Age, once the Empire collapses. Seldon created the Foundation, knowing it would eventually be seen as a threat to rulers of the Empire, provoking an eventual attack. That is why he created a Second Foundation, unknown to the ruling class.

    Asimov's psychohistory concept, based on the predictability of human actions in large numbers, has similarities to Strauss & Howe's generational theory. His theory didn't pretend to predict the actions of individuals, but formulated definite laws developed by mathematical analysis to predict the mass action of human groups. His novel explores the centuries old debate of whether human history proceeds in a predictable fashion, with individuals incapable of changing its course, or whether individuals can alter its progression.

    The cyclical nature of history, driven by generational cohorts numbering tens of millions, has been documented over centuries by Strauss & Howe in their 1997 opus The Fourth Turning . Human beings in large numbers react in a herd-like predictable manner. I know that is disappointing to all the linear thinking individualists who erroneously believe one person can change the world and course of history.

    The cyclical crisis's that occur every eighty years matches up with how every Foundation story centers on what is called a Seldon crisis, the conjunction of seemingly insoluble external and internal difficulties. The crises were all predicted by Seldon, who appears near the end of each story as a hologram to confirm the Foundation has traversed the latest one correctly.

    The "Seldon Crises" take on two forms. Either events unfold in such a way there is only one clear path to take, or the forces of history conspire to determine the outcome. But, the common feature is free will doesn't matter. The heroes and adversaries believe their choices will make a difference when, in fact, the future is already written. This is a controversial viewpoint which angers many people because they feel it robs them of their individuality.

    Most people don't want to be lumped together in an amalgamation of other humans because they believe admitting so would strip them of their sense of free will. Their delicate sensibilities are bruised by the unequivocal fact their individual actions are virtually meaningless to the direction of history. But, the madness of crowds can dramatically impact antiquity.

    "In reading The History of Nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities, their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first." – Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

    Many people argue the dynamic advancements in technology and science have changed the world in such a way to alter human nature in a positive way, thereby resulting in humans acting in a more rational manner. This alteration would result in a level of human progress not experienced previously. The falsity of this technological theory is borne out by the continuation of war, government corruption, greed, belief in economic fallacies, civic decay, cultural degradation, and global disorder sweeping across the world. Humanity is incapable of change. The same weaknesses and self- destructive traits which have plagued them throughout history are as prevalent today as they ever were.

    Asimov's solution to the failure of humanity to change was to create an academic oriented benevolent ruling class who could save the human race from destroying itself. He seems to have been well before his time with regards to creating Shadow Governments and Deep State functionaries. It appears he agreed with his contemporary Edward Bernays. The masses could not be trusted to make good decisions, so they needed more intellectually advanced men to guide their actions.

    "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.

    Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." – Edward Bernays – Propaganda

    In Part Two of this article I will compare and contrast Donald Trump's rise to power to the rise of The Mule in Asimov's masterpiece. Unusually gifted individuals come along once in a lifetime to disrupt the plans of the existing social order.

    Beam Me Up Scotty -> BaBaBouy , Mar 27, 2017 10:56 PM

    " He seems to have been well before his time with regards to creating Shadow Governments and Deep State functionaries. It appears he agreed with his contemporary Edward Bernays. The masses could not be trusted to make good decisions, so they needed more intellectually advanced men to guide their actions."

    The masses aren't the ones begging to start all of these wars. They are the ones TRYING to make a few good decisions. The Shadow Government and Deep State however, are hell bent on getting us all killed. Who exactly is the problem here??

    LetThemEatRand , Mar 27, 2017 10:50 PM

    Asimov was a good writer and created some great fiction. That's as far as it goes.

    Huxle LetThemEatRand •Mar 27, 2017 10:50 PM y is the one who predicted the current state of affairs. Orwell gets honorable mention. You could also throw in some biblical passages for the mark of the beast, though the best part was clearly written about Nero.

    biker Mar 27, 2017 11:06 PM
    Of course its better to watch them eat themselves
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/rewriting-the-rules...

    [Mar 27, 2017] Michael Hudson: Trump is Obama's Legacy. Will this Break up the Democratic Party?

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy ..."
    "... Naked Capitalism ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... U.S. presidential elections no longer are much about policy. Like Obama before him, Trump campaigned as a rasa tabla ..."
    "... There is a covert economic program, to be sure, and it is bipartisan. It is to make elections about just which celebrities will introduce neoliberal economic policies with the most convincing patter talk. That is the essence of rasa tabla ..."
    Mar 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on March 26, 2017 by Yves Smith By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy

    Nobody yet can tell whether Donald Trump is an agent of change with a specific policy in mind, or merely a catalyst heralding an as yet undetermined turning point. His first month in the White House saw him melting into the Republican mιlange of corporate lobbyists. Having promised to create jobs, his "America First" policy looks more like "Wall Street First." His cabinet of billionaires promoting corporate tax cuts, deregulation and dismantling Dodd-Frank bank reform repeats the Junk Economics promise that giving more tax breaks to the richest One Percent may lead them to use their windfall to invest in creating more jobs. What they usually do, of course, is simply buy more property and assets already in place.

    One of the first reactions to Trump's election victory was for stocks of the most crooked financial institutions to soar, hoping for a deregulatory scythe taken to the public sector. Navient, the Department of Education's knee-breaker on student loan collections accused by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) of massive fraud and overcharging, rose from $13 to $18 now that it seemed likely that the incoming Republicans would disable the CFPB and shine a green light for financial fraud.

    Foreclosure king Stephen Mnuchin of IndyMac/OneWest (and formerly of Goldman Sachs for 17 years; later a George Soros partner) is now Treasury Secretary – and Trump is pledged to abolish the CFPB, on the specious logic that letting fraudsters manage pension savings and other investments will give consumers and savers "broader choice," e.g., for the financial equivalent of junk food. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos hopes to privatize public education into for-profit (and de-unionized) charter schools, breaking the teachers' unions. This may position Trump to become the Transformational President that neoliberals have been waiting for.

    But not the neocons. His election rhetoric promised to reverse traditional U.S. interventionist policy abroad. Making an anti-war left run around the Democrats, he promised to stop backing ISIS/Al Nusra (President Obama's "moderate" terrorists supplied with the arms and money that Hillary looted from Libya), and to reverse the Obama-Clinton administration's New Cold War with Russia. But the neocon coterie at the CIA and State Department are undercutting his proposed rapprochement with Russia by forcing out General Flynn for starters. It seems doubtful that Trump will clean them out.

    Trump has called NATO obsolete, but insists that its members up their spending to the stipulated 2% of GDP - producing a windfall worth tens of billions of dollars for U.S. arms exporters. That is to be the price Europe must pay if it wants to endorse Germany's and the Baltics' confrontation with Russia.

    Trump is sufficiently intuitive to proclaim the euro a disaster, and he recommends that Greece leave it. He supports the rising nationalist parties in Britain, France, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands, all of which urge withdrawal from the eurozone – and reconciliation with Russia instead of sanctions. In place of the ill-fated TPP and TTIP, Trump advocates country-by-country trade deals favoring the United States. Toward this end, his designated ambassador to the European Union, Ted Malloch, urges the EU's breakup. The EU is refusing to accept him as ambassador.

    Will Trump's Victory Break Up the Democratic Party?

    At the time this volume is going to press, there is no way of knowing how successful these international reversals will be. What is more clear is what Trump's political impact will have at home. His victory – or more accurately, Hillary's resounding loss and the way she lost – has encouraged enormous pressure for a realignment of both parties. Regardless of what President Trump may achieve vis-ΰ-vis Europe, his actions as celebrity chaos agent may break up U.S. politics across the political spectrum.

    The Democratic Party has lost its ability to pose as the party of labor and the middle class. Firmly controlled by Wall Street and California billionaires, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) strategy of identity politics encourages any identity except that of wage earners. The candidates backed by the Donor Class have been Blue Dogs pledged to promote Wall Street and neocons urging a New Cold War with Russia.

    They preferred to lose with Hillary than to win behind Bernie Sanders. So Trump's electoral victory is their legacy as well as Obama's. Instead of Trump's victory dispelling that strategy, the Democrats are doubling down. It is as if identity politics is all they have.

    Trying to ride on Barack Obama's coattails didn't work. Promising "hope and change," he won by posing as a transformational president, leading the Democrats to control of the White House, Senate and Congress in 2008. Swept into office by a national reaction against the George Bush's Oil War in Iraq and the junk-mortgage crisis that left the economy debt-ridden, they had free rein to pass whatever new laws they chose – even a Public Option in health care if they had wanted, or make Wall Street banks absorb the losses from their bad and often fraudulent loans.

    But it turned out that Obama's role was to prevent the changes that voters hoped to see, and indeed that the economy needed to recover: financial reform, debt writedowns to bring junk mortgages in line with fair market prices, and throwing crooked bankers in jail. Obama rescued the banks, not the economy, and turned over the Justice Department and regulatory agencies to his Wall Street campaign contributors. He did not even pull back from war in the Near East, but extended it to Libya and Syria, blundering into the Ukrainian coup as well.

    Having dashed the hopes of his followers, Obama then praised his chosen successor Hillary Clinton as his "Third Term." Enjoying this kiss of death, Hillary promised to keep up Obama's policies.

    The straw that pushed voters over the edge was when she asked voters, "Aren't you better off today than you were eight years ago?" Who were they going to believe: their eyes, or Hillary? National income statistics showed that only the top 5 percent of the population were better off. All the growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during Obama's tenure went to them – the Donor Class that had gained control of the Democratic Party leadership. Real incomes have fallen for the remaining 95 percent, whose household budgets have been further eroded by soaring charges for health insurance. (The Democratic leadership in Congress fought tooth and nail to block Dennis Kucinich from introducing his Single Payer proposal.)

    No wonder most of the geographic United States voted for change – except for where the top 5 percent, is concentrated: in New York (Wall Street) and California (Silicon Valley and the military-industrial complex). Making fun of the Obama Administration's slogan of "hope and change," Trump characterized Hillary's policy of continuing the economy's shrinkage for the 95% as "no hope and no change."

    Identity Politics as Anti-Labor Politics

    A new term was introduced to the English language: Identity Politics. Its aim is for voters to think of themselves as separatist minorities – women, LGBTQ, Blacks and Hispanics. The Democrats thought they could beat Trump by organizing Women for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), LGBTQ for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), and Blacks and Hispanics for Wall Street (and a New Cold War). Each identity cohort was headed by a billionaire or hedge fund donor.

    The identity that is conspicuously excluded is the working class. Identity politics strips away thinking of one's interest in terms of having to work for a living. It excludes voter protests against having their monthly paycheck stripped to pay more for health insurance, housing and mortgage charges or education, or better working conditions or consumer protection – not to speak of protecting debtors.

    Identity politics used to be about three major categories: workers and unionization, anti-war protests and civil rights marches against racist Jim Crow laws. These were the three objectives of the many nationwide demonstrations. That ended when these movements got co-opted into the Democratic Party. Their reappearance in Bernie Sanders' campaign in fact threatens to tear the Democratic coalition apart. As soon as the primaries were over (duly stacked against Sanders), his followers were made to feel unwelcome. Hillary sought Republican support by denouncing Sanders as being as radical as Putin's Republican leadership.

    In contrast to Sanders' attempt to convince diverse groups that they had a common denominator in needing jobs with decent pay – and, to achieve that, in opposing Wall Street's replacing the government as central planner – the Democrats depict every identity constituency as being victimized by every other, setting themselves at each other's heels. Clinton strategist John Podesta, for instance, encouraged Blacks to accuse Sanders supporters of distracting attention from racism. Pushing a common economic interest between whites, Blacks, Hispanics and LGBTQ always has been the neoliberals' nightmare. No wonder they tried so hard to stop Bernie Sanders, and are maneuvering to keep his supporters from gaining influence in their party.

    When Trump was inaugurated on Friday, January 20, there was no pro-jobs or anti-war demonstration. That presumably would have attracted pro-Trump supporters in an ecumenical show of force. Instead, the Women's March on Saturday led even the pro-Democrat New York Times to write a front-page article reporting that white women were complaining that they did not feel welcome in the demonstration. The message to anti-war advocates, students and Bernie supporters was that their economic cause was a distraction.

    The march was typically Democratic in that its ideology did not threaten the Donor Class. As Yves Smith wrote on Naked Capitalism : "the track record of non-issue-oriented marches, no matter how large scale, is poor, and the status of this march as officially sanctioned (blanket media coverage when other marches of hundreds of thousands of people have been minimized, police not tricked out in their usual riot gear) also indicates that the officialdom does not see it as a threat to the status quo." [1]

    Hillary's loss was not blamed on her neoliberal support for TPP or her pro-war neocon stance, but on the revelations of the e-mails by her operative Podesta discussing his dirty tricks against Bernie Sanders (claimed to be given to Wikileaks by Russian hackers, not a domestic DNC leaker as Wikileaks claimed) and the FBI investigation of her e-mail abuses at the State Department. Backing her supporters' attempt to brazen it out, the Democratic Party has doubled down on its identity politics, despite the fact that an estimated 52 percent of white women voted for Trump. After all, women do work for wages. And that also is what Blacks and Hispanics want – in addition to banking that serves their needs, not those of Wall Street, and health care that serves their needs, not those of the health-insurance and pharmaceuticals monopolies.

    Bernie did not choose to run on a third-party ticket. Evidently he feared being accused of throwing the election to Trump. The question is now whether he can remake the Democratic Party as a democratic socialist party, or create a new party if the Donor Class retains its neoliberal control. It seems that he will not make a break until he concludes that a Socialist Party can leave the Democrats as far back in the dust as the Republicans left the Whigs after 1854. He may have underestimated his chance in 2016.

    Trump's Effect on U.S. Political Party Realignment

    During Trump's rise to the 2016 Republican nomination it seemed that he was more likely to break up the Republican Party. Its leading candidates and gurus warned that his populist victory in the primaries would tear the party apart. The polls in May and June showed him defeating Hillary Clinton easily (but losing to Bernie Sanders). But Republican leaders worried that he would not support what they believed in: namely, whatever corporate lobbyists put in their hands to enact and privatize.

    The May/June polls showed Trump and Clinton were the country's two most unpopular presidential candidates. But whereas the Democrats maneuvered Bernie out of the way, the Republican Clown Car was unable to do the same to Trump. In the end they chose to win behind him, expecting to control him. As for the DNC, its Wall Street donors preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Bernie. They wanted to keep control of their party and continue the bargain they had made with the Republicans: The latter would move further and further to the right, leaving room for Democratic neoliberals and neocons to follow them closely, yet still pose as the "lesser evil." That "centrism" is the essence of the Clintons' "triangulation" strategy. It actually has been going on for a half-century. "As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when he was accused by the US of running a one-party state, 'The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them'." [2]

    By 2017, voters had caught on to this two-step game. But Hillary's team paid pollsters over $1 billion to tell her ("Mirror, mirror on the wall ") that she was the most popular of all. It was hubris to imagine that she could convince the 95 Percent of the people who were worse off under Obama to love her as much as her East-West Coast donors did. It was politically unrealistic – and a reflection of her cynicism – to imagine that raising enough money to buy television ads would convince working-class Republicans to vote for her, succumbing to a Stockholm Syndrome by thinking of themselves as part of the 5 Percent who had benefited from Obama's pro-Wall Street policies.

    Hillary's election strategy was to make a right-wing run around Trump. While characterizing the working class as white racist "deplorables," allegedly intolerant of LBGTQ or assertive women, she resurrected the ghost of Joe McCarthy and accused Trump of being "Putin's poodle" for proposing peace with Russia. Among the most liberal Democrats, Paul Krugman still leads a biweekly charge at The New York Times that President Trump is following Moscow's orders. Saturday Night Live, Bill Maher and MSNBC produce weekly skits that Trump and General Flynn are Russian puppets. A large proportion of Democrats have bought into the fairy tale that Trump didn't really win the election, but that Russian hackers manipulated the voting machines. No wonder George Orwell's 1984 soared to the top of America's best-seller lists in February 2017 as Donald Trump was taking his oath of office.

    This propaganda paid off on February 13, when neocon public relations succeeded in forcing the resignation of General Flynn, whom Trump had appointed to clean out the neocons at the NSA and CIA His foreign policy initiative based on rapprochement with Russia and hopes to create a common front against ISIS/Al Nusra seemed to be collapsing.

    Tabula Rasa Celebrity Politics

    U.S. presidential elections no longer are much about policy. Like Obama before him, Trump campaigned as a rasa tabla , a vehicle for everyone to project their hopes and fancies. What has all but disappeared is the past century's idea of politics as a struggle between labor and capital, democracy vs. oligarchy.

    Who would have expected even half a century ago that American politics would become so post-modern that the idea of class conflict has all but disappeared. Classical economic discourse has been drowned out by their junk economics.

    There is a covert economic program, to be sure, and it is bipartisan. It is to make elections about just which celebrities will introduce neoliberal economic policies with the most convincing patter talk. That is the essence of rasa tabla politics.

    Can the Democrats Lose Again in 2020?

    Trump's November victory showed that voters found him to be the Lesser Evil, but all that voters really could express was "throw out the bums" and get a new set of lobbyists for the FIRE sector and corporate monopolists. Both candidates represented Goldman Sachs and Wall Street. No wonder voter turnout has continued to plunge.

    Although the Democrats' Lesser Evil argument lost to the Republicans in 2016, the neoliberals in control of the DNC found the absence of a progressive economic program to less threatening to their interests than the critique of Wall Street and neocon interventionism coming from the Sanders camp. So the Democrat will continue to pose as the Lesser Evil party not really in terms of policy, but simply ad hominum . They will merely repeat Hillary's campaign stance: They are not Trump. Their parades and street demonstrations since his inauguration have not come out for any economic policy.

    On Friday, February 10, the party's Democratic Policy group held a retreat for its members in Baltimore. Third Way "centrists" (Republicans running as Democrats) dominated, with Hillary operatives in charge. The conclusion was that no party policy was needed at all. "President Trump is a better recruitment tool for us than a central campaign issue,' said Washington Rep. Denny Heck, who is leading recruitment for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)." [3]

    But what does their party leadership have to offer women, Blacks and Hispanics in the way of employment, more affordable health care, housing or education and better pay? Where are the New Deal pro-labor, pro-regulatory roots of bygone days? The party leadership is unwilling to admit that Trump's message about protecting jobs and opposing the TPP played a role in his election. Hillary was suspected of supporting it as "the gold standard" of trade deals, and Obama had made the Trans-Pacific Partnership the centerpiece of his presidency – the free-trade TPP and TTIP that would have taken economic regulatory policy out of the hands of government and given it to corporations.

    Instead of accepting even Sanders' centrist-left stance, the Democrats' strategy was to tar Trump as pro-Russian, insist that his aides had committed impeachable offenses, and mount one parade after another. "Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio told reporters she was wary of focusing solely on an "economic message" aimed at voters whom Trump won over in 2016, because, in her view, Trump did not win on an economic message. "What Donald Trump did was address them at a very different level - an emotional level, a racial level, a fear level," she said. "If all we talk about is the economic message, we're not going to win." [4] This stance led Sanders supporters to walk out of a meeting organized by the "centrist" Third Way think tank on Wednesday, February 8.

    By now this is an old story. Fifty years ago, socialists such as Michael Harrington asked why union members and progressives still imagined that they had to work through the Democratic Party. It has taken the rest of the country half a century to see that Democrats are not the party of the working class, unions, middle class, farmers or debtors. They are the party of Wall Street privatizers, bank deregulators, neocons and the military-industrial complex. Obama showed his hand – and that of his party – in his passionate attempt to ram through the corporatist TPP treaty that would have enabled corporations to sue governments for any costs imposed by public consumer protection, environmental protection or other protection of the population against financialized corporate monopolies.

    Against this backdrop, Trump's promises and indeed his worldview seem quixotic. The picture of America's future he has painted seems unattainable within the foreseeable future. It is too late to bring manufacturing back to the United States, because corporations already have shifted their supply nodes abroad, and too much U.S. infrastructure has been dismantled.

    There can't be a high-speed railroad, because it would take more than four years to get the right-of-way and create a route without crossing gates or sharp curves. In any case, the role of railroads and other transportation has been to increase real estate prices along the routes. But in this case, real estate would be torn down – and having a high-speed rail does not increase land values.

    The stock market has soared to new heights, anticipating lower taxes on corporate profits and a deregulation of consumer, labor and environmental protection. Trump may end up as America's Boris Yeltsin, protecting U.S. oligarchs (not that Hillary would have been different, merely cloaked in a more colorful identity rainbow). The U.S. economy is in for Shock Therapy. Voters should look to Greece to get a taste of the future in this scenario.

    Without a coherent response to neoliberalism, Trump's billionaire cabinet may do to the United States what neoliberals in the Clinton administration did to Russia after 1991: tear out all the checks and balances, and turn public wealth over to insiders and oligarchs. So Trump's his best chance to be transformative is simply to be America's Yeltsin for his party's oligarchic backers, putting the class war back in business.

    What a Truly Transformative President Would Do/Would Have Done

    No administration can create a sound U.S. recovery without dealing with the problem that caused the 2008 crisis in the first place: over-indebtedness. The only one way to restore growth, raise living standards and make the economy competitive again is a debt writedown. But that is not yet on the political horizon. Obama's doublecross of his voters in 2009 prevented the needed policy from occurring. Having missed this chance in the last financial crisis, a progressive policy must await yet another crisis. But so far, no political party is preparing a program to juxtapose to Republican-Democratic austerity and scale-back of Social Security, Medicare and social spending programs in general.

    Also no longer on the horizon is a more progressive income tax, or a public option for health care – or for banking, or consumer protection against financial fraud, or for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, or for a revived protection of labor's right to unionize, or environmental regulations.

    It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims. At the time these essays are going to press, Sanders has committed himself to working within the Democratic Party. But that stance is based on his assumption that somehow he can recruit enough activists to take over the party from Its Donor Class.

    I suspect he will fail. In any case, it is easier to begin afresh than to try to re-design a party (or any institution) dominated by resistance to change, and whose idea of economic growth is a pastiche of tax cuts and deregulation. Both U.S. parties are committed to this neoliberal program – and seek to blame foreign enemies for the fact that its effect is to continue squeezing living standards and bloating the financial sector.

    If this slow but inexorable crash does lead to a political crisis, it looks like the Republicans may succeed in convening a new Constitutional Convention (many states already have approved this) to lock the United States into a corporatist neoliberal world. Its slogan will be that of Margaret Thatcher: TINA – There Is No Alternative.

    And who is to disagree? As Trotsky said, fascism is the result of the failure of the left to provide an alternative.

    [Mar 26, 2017] The operatives of what Gore Vidal called the Property Party, (which has two right wings,) co-opted each successive movement. Lower middle class and working class people had the Koch brothers funded Tea Party pushed on them. The DNC sponsored identity groups quickly sucked all oxigen from the protest movement they represented

    Notable quotes:
    "... As Mr. Hudson explained in the piece, the operatives of what Gore Vidal called the Property Party, (which has two right wings,) co-opted each successive movement. Lower middle class and working class people had the Koch brothers funded Tea Party pushed on them. The DNC sponsored "identity groups" quickly sucked all originality out of the various specious "identities" so represented. On the war front, the Pentagon imposed "embedment" upon journalists. In each case, the viewpoints of the "average" person so involved were restricted to vistas guaranteed to promote the "sponsored" agenda. Thus, the present assault upon "alternative" media makes sense from a status quo perspective. It is all about control of the dialogue. ..."
    "... Perez only got 235 votes; Sanders' candidate Ellison got 200. The Democratic Party establishment did not "ignore" Sanders by running Perez. They were semi-desperately trying to block him (and his cohort) from advancing on a low rung on the ladder to power. ..."
    "... Wikileaks made it plain what the Democrats do to mavericks who win races without a party bit in their mouths. The corruption is institutional, it is their operatives' identity. ..."
    "... The "masses of people who have dropped out of the workforce" are old, overweight, have multiple physical deficits and are hooked on at least 2 types of prescription dope. They will not be manning your nostalgia-draped barricades. Not ever. ..."
    "... I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is not easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym. ..."
    "... "Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to run Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative and a way to deflect from economic issues," ..."
    "... " it does not logically follow that voters do not often think of themselves and their goals in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural "us v them" identities that have a powerful effect on politics." ..."
    "... "We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate those ideas to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party is needed." ..."
    "... I also agree that there is no solution, certainly not an evolutionary solution via EITHER of the two parties. ..."
    "... The big changes in the USA occurred during the Great Depression as financial reform was introduced, the idea of government infrastructure could provide employment and what I believe is little mentioned, an increased awareness on the part of many that their success was not achieved solely by their own efforts. ..."
    "... Many of the USA's post war corporate executives should have remembered that their families struggled during the thirties, and this may have made them more connected with their employees and communities. ..."
    "... People are not sheep. We've been psyop'd senseless. "Public relations" began around the turn of the 20th century. It was ramped up by orders of magnitude after WWII. ..."
    "... Gore Vidal quotes JFK as saying to him, we've entered an era in which "it is the *appearance of things that matters" ..."
    "... Psychology and other social sciences have been weaponized and turned against us. With a facile understanding of the human mind (as if it were nothing but a mere mechanism), immense effort has gone into controlling the inputs in order to control the outputs (behavior). ..."
    "... Newly declassified documents from the Reagan presidential library help explain how the U.S. government developed its sophisticated psychological operations capabilities that – over the past three decades – have created an alternative reality both for people in targeted countries and for American citizens, a structure that expanded U.S. influence abroad and quieted dissent at home. ..."
    "... Today, "public opinion" is a Frankenstein's monster. Most of my fellow Americans believe in a world that never existed and doesn't exist right now. We can't even agree on what happened to JFK, or MLK, or what happened on 9/11/01. ..."
    "... Contra UF, it's not that people are incapable of rational thought; rather, the information we have is hopelessly corrupted. People are acting rationally, but the numerators and denominators have been faked. On purpose. Or did the Russians really do it? ..."
    "... It's far more simpler. Charter schools are about following the money. Public schools have seemingly huge revenue streams. Why can't GE get a cut is the thought process? For profit Healthcare was forbidden until 1973 (thanks to Teddy), why not public schools? ..."
    "... The HMO Act of 1973 (thanks Teddy and Tricky Dick; bipartisanship at its finest) made it easier to start and run HMOs which faced regulatory hurdles mostly due to financing. Non profits had an easier time of it hence Hospitals named "St X" or "X General." Since the hospital were non profits and employers made deals with the hospitals, health insurance was effectively non-profit. There were gaps, mostly in rural areas. Other changes from the HMO Act of 1973 encouraged profit seeking from denial of coverage to pushing unnecessary procedures or prescriptions. ..."
    "... The US Left has been controlled opposition since 1950. There was never a chance it could provide a reasonable and effective alternative. FBI/CIA moles make sure they never will. The Democrats have never been true Left FDR didn't really betray his class, he saved them from their own stupidity. ..."
    "... "As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when he was accused by the US of running a one-party state, 'The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them'." ..."
    "... The identity politics of today lack in solidarity, too. What with Hillary Clinton running the most ageist campaign in memory, Obama breaking the record on deportations, Bill Clinton blowing racist dogwhistles as hard he can and also helping to shepherd a police state that puts Thailand to shame, and the whole of the Democratic Party stoking Russophobia and neoconservative. ..."
    "... The diagnosis is mostly correct. But omits the role class bigotry and affluenza with attendant celebrity culture and pursuit of prestige plays. Thus the prognosis and protocol go astray. ..."
    "... The wealthy and the politicians don't care about you/us. They care about maintaining any fiction that allows them to keep acquiring. Trump is not the problem; Mercer"s values are The Problem. Trump is the PERFECT reality TV/celebrity fantasy creature to keep the twisted Mercer chariot's wheels turning. ..."
    "... Bernie was NOT The Answer. Putting on a mask of concern does not take away the sorrows of empire. As long as the blatant US militarism and imperialism continues we cannot unite the working class. Everything it needs to flourish continues - mass incarceration, join the military or stay in the ghetto, graft and corruption of military/industrial/media complex, no respect for other cultures being swarmed, consumerism. ..."
    "... The jobs plan: more prison guards, border agents, munitions makers, soldiers, cops, various bodyguards for the rich and the other useful mandarins to the affluenza-stricken is set in stone. ..."
    "... Michael Hudson makes great points but I am still wrestling with his (and others) push back against so-called identity politics as it pertains to this perception of it splintering or at least limiting the Democratic party. The Dems are most certainly a party committed to the ideals of neoliberalism and corporatism. They did not lose this election based on "Russian hacking/emails" and other trite nonsense. ..."
    "... The Obama part of maintaining the looting of society status quo. ..."
    "... The point about Trump being the US Yeltsin is one very much worth considering, if only because Russia, after much degradation and also suffering, has managed to begin to overcome those shameful and depressing times. May we do so also. ..."
    "... Excellent piece. Americans have forgotten that the things they took for granted (40 hour week, humane working conditions, employer provided benefits etc.) were gained by the blood, sweat and tears of their forebears. ..."
    "... The Clintons, the Obamas, the Blairs, possibly the Macrons, the Ruttes, even the Merkels of this world are wolves in sheep's clothing. They have come to represent, for increasing numbers, little better than managed decline in apparently safe hands, conducted in plain sight, in the ever narrower interests of the few. ..."
    "... Regarding the subject line of the article. I'd say that the Democratic Party has been the "paid loyal opposition" for quite a while. . . meaning they are paid to loose. Given the party's ties to Wall Street and Big Pharma it's pretty clear they mostly work for the same folks that own "mainstream" Republicans so their apparent fecklessness and inability to mount ANY sort of effective opposition, even when they are in the majority, shouldn't be any surprise. ..."
    Mar 26, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ambrit, March 26, 2017 at 5:29 am

    As long as the people of America had a reasonable expectation of gaining a better life, or, the next best thing, that their children would gain that better life, the Social Contract remained strong. Aspiration was both a spur to striving within the existing system, and a palliative for most discontents encountered. Where the status quo did not offer any real hope, the Civil Rights for minorities being an example, more "robust" methods were necessary, and were employed. What else is civil disobedience but counter violence against the State? Naturally, the State ramps up it's 'violence' in an attempt to quash the disaffected masses.

    In this struggle, optics and expectations are crucial. As Gil Scott-Heron famously invoked; "The revolution will not be televised." Paradoxically, by ensuring the wide dissemination of images of the nascent "Revolution," activists ensured that whatever came out of the Days of Rage would not be a true revolution. The newsreels of colored people bravely enduring police oppression in the American South guaranteed that that particular issue would not be dumped down Orwell's "Memory Hole." Television footage of young American men fighting and dying in Vietnam spurred the families of those who could even potentially be drafted to go overseas to die for their country to take to the streets and vote against the war and the warmongers. Gay rights is generally considered to have begun to take form and substance after the "Stonewall Riots" in New York in 1969. See: https://www.socialistalternative.org/stonewall-riots-1969/ By "going postal," the New York gays declared loud and proud that the old way of doing business was no longer acceptable to them.

    As Mr. Hudson explained in the piece, the operatives of what Gore Vidal called the Property Party, (which has two right wings,) co-opted each successive movement. Lower middle class and working class people had the Koch brothers funded Tea Party pushed on them. The DNC sponsored "identity groups" quickly sucked all originality out of the various specious "identities" so represented. On the war front, the Pentagon imposed "embedment" upon journalists. In each case, the viewpoints of the "average" person so involved were restricted to vistas guaranteed to promote the "sponsored" agenda. Thus, the present assault upon "alternative" media makes sense from a status quo perspective. It is all about control of the dialogue.

    The main strength of the old style identity politics is it's ability to focus the energies of participants toward a particular goal. To that end, the concept of the "United Front" is useful. You watch my back, I'll show up at your demonstration is the operative concept. Thus, the development and widespread dissemination of images of a uniting "struggle" are needed. All of this is actually self evident. What is needed are "leaders" ready to stand up and shout it out over the rooftops.

    When Paul Revere made his famous ride, he was actually stopped by British troops before he could reach either Concord or Lexington, Massachusetts. A companion, a Dr. Prescott made the actual warnings to the American rebels. Revere and Prescott were members of an extensive Patriot organization. A Doctor and an Artisan, two usually distinct social classes at the time were collaborating towards a common goal. A "United Front" made the American Revolution. See: http://www.biography.com/news/paul-reveres-ride-facts Today's struggle can proceed no differently.

    Jagger , March 26, 2017 at 9:45 am

    A Doctor and an Artisan, two usually distinct social classes at the time were collaborating towards a common goal

    "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." A bit of wisdom from the mind of Ben Franklin in the early days of the revolution.

    ambrit , March 26, 2017 at 11:26 am

    Wonderful! Dr. Franklin would be considered a "radical" even by today's standards. "The more things change .."

    steelhead23 , March 26, 2017 at 11:38 am

    Let us remember, when a college student asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi whether the party might move toward a more socialistic economic system, she answered, " We're capitalists. That's just the way it is. ", and went on to support a return to noblesse oblige, completely failing to grasp the contradiction between modern neoliberal theology (maximizing shareholder return/profits) and such niceties as paying a living wage. We the left have a problem we need to attack head-on – our semantics have been demonized. Socialism is widely disparaged as subordinating individual will to the state – as tyranny – and the MSM often portrays economic downturns in social democracies (Venezuela, Argentina) as caused by foolish socialist policies, not broadscale economic issues (oil glut), or financial stupidity of prior governments (Argentina). I applaud Senator Sanders for continuing to use the moniker "social democrat" as he has done much to legitimize the word. We need more. Ich bin ein social democrat.

    ambrit , March 26, 2017 at 1:44 pm

    Oh yes, and I remember wondering when I first read about that "interaction," just what did Pelosi really mean by Capitalist? As someone else here remarked, she might have been confusing capitalist with corporatist in her mind.

    polecat , March 26, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    'Crony' capitalists is what she really meant ..

    Ah the Crony California Quotient Always looking out for them and theirs' --

    Gman , March 26, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    Doctrinaire [adj]

    seeking to impose a doctrine in all circumstances without regard to practical considerations:

    1. 'Nancy Pelosi asked whether the party might move toward a more socialistic economic system, she answered, "We're capitalists. That's just the way it is."

    pissed younger baby boomer , March 26, 2017 at 7:23 pm

    That's why I am changing my party status to one of the socialist parties in Oregon .

    DJG , March 26, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    ambrit: Excellent comment. What I would add, though, is that all three of the movements that you cite had equality as a main goal: Black people wanted equality in civil rights and civil liberties. The antiwar movement drew strength from the draft, which affected people of all classes (men most directly) and led to various unequal uses of deferments that are causes of political problems to this very day. Gay folk also wanted civil rights and civil liberties (although marriage equality may not be the proper culmination–identity politics gone divergent).

    A while back, I read Norberto Bobbio's influential little book, Right and Left. He states that the main motivators of leftist politics are liberty, equality, and fraternitι (let's call it solidarity). And he points out that leftists usually place equality first. So to animate a new movement, we have to get back to issues of political and economic equality. The metaphor of The One Percent is a hint. That hint has to be expanded.

    ambrit , March 26, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    Good point. The American Revolt had it's "Committees of Correspondence." They operated outside of the MSM of the day. The Civil Rights movement early on had the black churches as sanctuaries and disseminators of the message. The anti-war movement had both the Underground press and, unwittingly, later, the MSM of the day proclaiming the problem. In general, each information spreading system used was not a part of the "Official Version" apparatus.

    The point about equality is important. The unmentioned basis of Capitalism is competition. Competition implies inequality as the outcome. This is not true aspiration, but aspiration's evil twin, ambition. So, the Left's real uphill slog is going to be to frame the debate about social policy in an anti-competitive form.

    Bashing the .01% is always good fun, but, as many have remarked, and the recent failed Democrat Party campaigns have demonstrated, a positive goal is needed to really motivate and engage those of us "on the ground." As earlier remarked, a "Single Payer" healthcare campaign, framed as an "equality" measure would do the trick. There are doubtless many other issues that would lend themselves to a similar treatment. Meld these issues into a "Progressive United Front" campaign and we will begin to see some movement.

    In essence, as the earlier socialist and communist thinkers proclaimed, the ownership of the means of production are a good place to start. Given the unequal distribution of such ownership however, the next best thing would be the control of the distribution of the fruits of production; especially germaine with the rise of automation.

    It's time to make "We the People" great.

    DJG , March 26, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    ambrit: Agreed, again. And time for some poetry, too:

    Langston Hughes

    https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/let-america-be-america-again

    Note "equality" front and center in his prophetic vision.

    ambrit , March 26, 2017 at 3:19 pm

    I also see the dream ahead of him, beckoning, beguiling, beatifying despite the false realities around him.
    Something to believe in will generally trump something to be fearful of, in the hearts of men.

    marym , March 26, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    Great comment and resulting discussion.

    IMO there's not a practical electoral solution, in the sense of electing a bunch of candidates at multiple levels of government to unwind or replace all the laws, regulations/lack of regulations, court decisions, and algorithms that misgovern our lives and misappropriate our wealth.

    Building on your comment ambrit@5:29 and Ulysses@8:38:

    A – No more than 3 universal issues (Medicare for All; publicly funded tuition for post-secondary education, training, and apprenticeships; end the wars, for example). Medicare for All is part of the discussion now and should have a prominent place.

    B – Activism continues, as it must and will, in other areas: issues of survival (police violence, incarceration, homelessness and hunger; minimum wage ); support for activism across issues (Food not Bombs, ACLU and NLG, Light Brigades, local jail and bail support ); and forward-looking activism (local sustainable food and energy solutions, workplace and community coops ).

    C – Electoral politics that functions as the political arm of the movement for "A" and locally appropriate subsets of "B" issues. In practical term, this may need to be an insurgency in the Dem ranks, or more organized Greens, plus coordination with other "third" parties that have a presence and ballot access in some places.

    Then we work on ambrit's:

    "You watch my back, I'll show up at your demonstration"

    Adding: "We recruit candidates who understand your issues and have policy proposals to address them, you show up to vote".

    DJG , March 26, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    marym: Excellent comment.

    I can't find much on the Light Brigades. Who are they?

    And my issues at the universal level would be health care for all (with minimal fees and premiums), free education for all, an end to the endless wars, and, if I may have a fourth, expansion of Social Security with some big raises to recipients to give people a base income that they can retire on (or safely go into disability retirement). The money is there for all of these, but the political will consists of the likes of Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi.

    Yes: You watch my back, and I'll watch your back. But "back" is defined broadly–we are all in this together.

    Ancient 1 , March 26, 2017 at 10:25 pm

    Good Comment. What bothers me is there is a lot of conversation about all our issues and proposed solutions, but I see no actions taking place. There are no leaders on the national level, other than Senator Sanders. We need a Socialist Huey Long with a big horn and perhaps a little action like, Act Up" to get things moving. There is going to be a revolt sooner or later. It will get to a point where ordinary people, especially our young, who will not take it anymore.

    PH , March 26, 2017 at 5:58 am

    Love Hudson, but no one is right about everything.

    He accepts as an article of faith that it would be easier to start a new party than win primaries in Dem party. Not clear at all.

    Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to run Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative and a way to deflect from economic issues, it does not logically follow that voters do not often think of themselves and their goals in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural "us v them" identities that have a powerful effect on politics.

    I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is not easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym. And what exactly is the Hudson platform to address debt or FIRE now? I understand the argument (as I understand it) that 2009 was an opportunity to use bankruptcy of Wall Street to break up economic olarchy and write down debt for homeowners. I agree. I am angry and frustrated by the lost opportunity. I also understand the sly reference to having to wait for the next crisis to get another chance. Why do we have to wait? This is Hudson's concession that there is no general understanding of the debt problem or support for Willy-Nilly support for dismantling Wall Street or existing debt relationships.

    I am convinced by Hudson that rising housing prices are a scam for loading debt on people and raising the burden of a rentier class. But most people who own houses are excited when you tell them housing prices are going up. What exactly should be our political message.

    Some districts have strong evangelical communities and find abortion to be the top issue year in andvyear out. Some evangelicals stuck with Trump in the hope of a Supreme Court that will outlaw abortion. How to Dems or a new Hudson party win in those districts?

    Politics is a fluid business. Forget coalition building (extremely tough), even finding a message for one voter (who may be of 2 or 3. Or 4 minds about the world, and change views daily, is tough.

    In my view, a Progressive majority must be put together piece by piece, place by place, from the ground up. Bernie articulated a place to start. The Schumer crowd own the Dems now, but it is a fragile hold. We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate those ideas to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party is needed.

    Carolinian , March 26, 2017 at 9:44 am

    Why do we have to wait?

    Because we have a political system–from the Fed to the Congress to the media–that is designed to keep current arrangements in place. Public complacency has allowed this to happen and now only another systemic breakdown is likely to force change on an entrenched elite and confused electorate. One might hope that the Democratic party would be the necessary force for reform but it's surely clear by now that its leadership intends to go down with the ship. Time for the rest of us to pile into the lifeboats (a third party). And even if one believes there is hope for the Dems, it's unlikely they will change without some serious threat to their power and that would be a viable third party. For much of the country's history there were lots of third parties and splinter movements which is what one would expect from such a diverse population. The duopoly is a very artificial arrangement.

    Sanders should never have taken this third party threat off the table and it is why the Dem leadership doesn't take him seriously. It's also a reason for some of the rest of us to question his seriousness. "Don't want to be the Nader" isn't the sort of call to arms that has one putting up the Che posters.

    Carolinian , March 26, 2017 at 11:40 am

    Did Bernie have a big impact? The mainstream media mostly ignore him and the Dems go out of their way to ignore him by running Perez. And didn't the Bernie endorsed primary challengers in the last cycle do poorly?

    You will only get the elites' attention by threatening their power, not their message. Obviously establishing a viable third party is extremely difficult which is why I agree with Hudson that it will take the next crisis to change things. Incrementalism has been shown not to work.

    FluffytheObeseCat , March 26, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    Perez only got 235 votes; Sanders' candidate Ellison got 200. The Democratic Party establishment did not "ignore" Sanders by running Perez. They were semi-desperately trying to block him (and his cohort) from advancing on a low rung on the ladder to power.

    Primary challenges across the nation, in every city council and state assembly race. Again and again. Then on to the governorships and federal offices. This is the swiftest, least expensive and least damaging way to power for Sanders partisan. We could take over the party in under ten years if this tactic were widely deployed.

    barefoot charley , March 26, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    Wikileaks made it plain what the Democrats do to mavericks who win races without a party bit in their mouths. The corruption is institutional, it is their operatives' identity. A successful third party will be very difficult to achieve, but is perhaps possible. A useful Democratic party is not possible until every careerist is unemployed–ie until their employers run out of money. That can't come about, as long as there are empowered Democrats and Republicans.

    Jeff W , March 26, 2017 at 4:16 pm

    FluffytheObeseCat

    Primary challenges across the nation, in every city council and state assembly race. Again and again. Then on to the governorships and federal offices. This is the swiftest, least expensive and least damaging way to power for Sanders partisan. We could take over the party in under ten years if this tactic were widely deployed.

    I agree with this statement.

    And it's happening: various groups (Our Revolution, Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats, and probably others) are planning primary challengers in just that way. And it's already happened at the local and district level in California. It's a different political environment than even just a few years ago and it will be even still more different when some (or, let's hope, many) of these candidates start winning.

    Norb , March 26, 2017 at 9:48 am

    The real problem is corporatism. The power to make decisions on public policy has been transferred from democratic government to corporations, run by oligarchs. Both political parties in the US are committed to this political arrangement. The thin veneer of democracy is used to check public dissatisfaction. In short order, even this facade will be deemed unnecessary and discarded. This consolidation of power was enabled by masking class consciousness. Worker aspirations mirror their corporate masters. Life consists of maximizing personal wealth in the form of money and possessions. Mass media provides the conduit to achieve this conditioning.

    Trying to rebuild the Democratic party form within is a waste of energy and time that most citizens don't have. If anything, the existing political establishment has perfected the techniques and tools needed to make dissent impotent. This is largely accomplished by perpetuating the myth that change can occur by working within the existing system, and then undermining effective policy that would focus on worker interests. The chumps get scraps.

    In the end, oligarchy is the cost that must be paid for our modern life of convenience and endless entertainment. Moving forward must be about rejection. Rejection of the current social and cultural order. A new party, a true workers party, is needed to restore equilibrium to the existing power imbalance. The mass of people who have dropped out of the workforce and electoral system are waiting for leadership to offer a better vision for the future. This vision is not forthcoming because the human imagination must turn outside the existing failed norms and seek new horizons removed from capitalist ideology. Political power follows or grows naturally from a social order, not the other way around. Imposed social orders are always unstable and need violence to maintain. A way of life determines the political possibilities. This is why those wanting change must always work outside the existing system, both mentally and physically.

    Just as crony capitalist ideology turned the notion of individual freedom on its head to justify the greatest inequality known to human societies, the remedy centers on the rejection of exploitive violence. It is based on preservation, regeneration, and a spiritual awareness that one must give back to the world and not only take from it. To my mind, coalitions built on these principles stretch across all social groups. Spending time, money, and energy building these networks and infrastructure will be productive and longer lasting. Strikes, boycotts, and dropping out of the existing system sends a much more powerful message to the oligarchs. They will respond with violence, but then their true nature is open for all to see, making it easier for others to reject their ideology.

    Capitalism was born of Feudalism. Individual rights superseding the rights of Kings. Nothing lasts forever. A post- capitalist world must be first envisioned and then articulated. Capitalism maintained the inequality and hierarchical use of violence of the previous system. This relationship forms most of the underlying root causes of intractable problems faced today. Egalitarianism provides a way and an alternative. Socialist ideas can be suppressed but never eradicated. Human social evolution points in this direction. Slavery will never return. The human spirt will not allow it.

    two beers , March 26, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    Your note has a 1930s sound to me. Spain, maybe.

    What a cavalier and condescending dismissal. With an arrogant wave of the hand, history goes *poof*. And though you "agree" (how generous of you!) )with some of the symptoms Hudson identifies, you categorically deny what he identifies as the root systemic cause of those ills. Instead, a little modest, cautious, sensible, "piece by piece", "place by place" reform around the edges, and everything will work out just fine in its own time, because abortion.

    You are an exemplary and model Democrat, and Exhibit A why left politics will never emerge from within the Democrat Party.

    jrs , March 26, 2017 at 2:28 pm

    although it may be an uphill climb now, striking and unionizing still sounds infinitely less pie in the sky and far more brass tacks and addressing some of the actual problems, than creating a 3rd party in the U.S.. If that is one's solution they have no right to criticize anyone on their proposals not being practical. At least striking has some history of actually working.

    Norb , March 26, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    It is the participation in our own destruction that I am trying to express and get my head around. Engagement by all means, but somehow the rules need to be changed.

    The amount of time, energy, and resources needed to engage in effective politics today is prohibitive to most citizens. What Hudson is saying is that the two party system in America is broken and the only way forward is to start anew. I would tend to agree. In my lifetime, the Democratic party has been reforming for close to 40 years now. That is a long time to be ineffectual concerning worker's interests. The long dissent of the American workforce is reaching critical mass and some radical thinking and action is needed.

    The left needs to develop some productive alternatives, which again Hudson points out. An egalitarian alternative needs to be articulated. Candidates running for office as socialists, espousing actual socialist ideals. Win or loose, speaking in public about socialist ideals can only help. Government sponsorship of small business and cooperatives over monopolistic corporations. Actually running and building sustainable communities. As was stated in comments, Sanders raised upwards of 240 million dollars during the last campaign. What is there to show for all that effort and resource depletion?

    An actual show of distain for the elite ruling class for their crass barbarism and masked cruelty is a start. Followed by actually building something of lasting value.

    FluffytheObeseCat , March 26, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    The "masses of people who have dropped out of the workforce" are old, overweight, have multiple physical deficits and are hooked on at least 2 types of prescription dope. They will not be manning your nostalgia-draped barricades. Not ever.

    jrs , March 26, 2017 at 2:34 pm

    alrighty, everyone who can't get a job is overweight and a drug addict and unhealthy etc.. Get real. Old sometimes has something to do with it, just because companies do age discriminate in hiring.

    tegnost , March 26, 2017 at 10:04 am

    I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is not easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym.

    People are not a miniscule fraction as stupid as you think they are, and I will posit that this is one of, if not the main problem with democrat loyalists such as yourself.

    first you say this

    "Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to run Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative and a way to deflect from economic issues,"

    shorter, I realize democrats don't represent you, and that's too bad but you have no other option and PH doesn't want you to have another option.
    followed by

    " it does not logically follow that voters do not often think of themselves and their goals in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural "us v them" identities that have a powerful effect on politics."

    Is this unmoored jab at rural identity not a double negative that can be rephrased "it logically follows that voters think of themselves in terms of racism or religion or guns"? and isn't that just another way of saying people are stupid and you are not because you can hide your class and race bias behind a double negative, and people being stupider than you will never know it because clever, but clever ain't working anymore, and isn't likely to start working any time soon.

    You close with a call for incrementalism yeah that's worked really great for all of us in the hoi polloi, and you don't fail to mention abortion, the only democrat platform, and schumer et al's "fragile grip" is in reality an "iron law of institutions" grip and they and you are not going to let go.

    "We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate those ideas to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party is needed."

    so who is this "we" kemo sabe? I am in the veal pen. Come into the veal pen with me. We will be in the veal pen thanks but no thanks. I've had plenty of common sense discussions with my neighbors, and it's depressing as we all know none of those sensible policies will be enacted by the useless to the common citizen and enabler to the criminals on wall street democrat party, rotten to it's core.

    Paul Greenwood , March 26, 2017 at 6:20 am

    Федеральное агентство по управлению государственным имуществом (Росимущество) was what created Oligarchs under Yeltsin. It was headed by Chubais who helped make Khordorovsky and the rest of the Oligarchs incredibly rich. He then headed the 1996 Re-Election Campaign for Unpopular Yeltsin and bought victory and sold off State assets for nugatory worth.

    Khordorovsky was to deliver Yukos to Exxon and let US interests control Russia's natural resources. Berezhovsky needed a "roof" – he had Chechens protecting his outside interests but once Yeltsin's liver gave out the KGB Siloviki would put The Family on trial so he found Putin as a Lieut-Col. with a background in St Petersburg where Chubais had been active for Sobchak also. Putin was the "roof" to keep the KGB from executing the looters for treason.

    Like a new Tsar with Boyars, Putin had to find which were his "Oligarchs" and Berezhovsky turned his assets over to Abramovich who is Putin's man. Chubais now sits on CFR and JP Morgan Board for his good works.

    jackiebass , March 26, 2017 at 6:56 am

    Trump won on the slogan Make America Great. I live in upstate NY which is strong republican. These people thought the slogan meant great for them. That coupled with a bitter hate of Clinton made it easy for Trump to get their vote. A sad thing is that these voters are very uninformed and depend on what they know from corporate media especially FOX news. None of them know what Neoliberal means and that the root of their problems lie with neoliberal policies.

    When I tell them that Obama and Cuomo aren't really democrats but moderate republicans they think I'm out of my mind. I tend to look at thing objectively based on verifiable facts.Most of these voters look at issues in an emotional way. They will say Obamacare is bad and need to be repealed. When you ask them how it's bad the best they can come up with is it forces you to buy insurance and you can't keep your own doctor. I guess what I'm saying is that the average voter is too lazy to get informed and relies on the political propaganda fed to them.

    At 75 years old I don't see that the immediate future will change much. The only hope I see is in the young of our country. Unless someone or a movement can educate them about the evils that are destroying their future, democracy is dead. Because of how the economy is structured the economic future for most of the population is grim. They will not be able to afford to retire and will live in poverty. Perhaps this will wake them up. Unfortunately it will be too late for them.

    UserFriendly , March 26, 2017 at 8:03 am

    People are all sheep. No one thinks, they just vote based on emotions. I have never seen that more blatantly laid bare then in this one article.

    HOW HIGH-END STUDENT COMPLEXES CREATED THE MOST GOP PRECINCT IN LEON COUNTY

    Which ties in nicely with the slate star codex piece from yesterday.
    GUIDED BY THE BEAUTY OF OUR WEAPONS

    At best we can work at the margin on the handful of people that are capable of rational thought. Which is why nothing ever changes, appeals to emotion are always more potent than appeals to reason. There is no solution.

    John Wright , March 26, 2017 at 9:45 am

    I also agree that there is no solution, certainly not an evolutionary solution via EITHER of the two parties.

    The big changes in the USA occurred during the Great Depression as financial reform was introduced, the idea of government infrastructure could provide employment and what I believe is little mentioned, an increased awareness on the part of many that their success was not achieved solely by their own efforts.

    Many of the USA's post war corporate executives should have remembered that their families struggled during the thirties, and this may have made them more connected with their employees and communities.

    Now we have a government of the internally connected top 10%, with the bottom 90% detached and watching from outside.

    And CEO's and the executive class have loyalty only to their company's stock price.

    The recent rehabilitation of serial screw-up George W. Bush and attempted elevation of serial screw-up Hillary Clinton is direct evidence that the political class does not care how much harm they do to the "deplorable" voters they appeal to every 2/4/6 years.

    With the money sloshing around DC and the media control of content, how does one replace the leadership of both parties with more progressive people in any reasonable time frame?

    Per Mark Blyth, Global Trump_vs_deep_state is the current response, but what will this morph into after Global Trump_vs_deep_state hangover manifests?.

    sundayafternoon , March 26, 2017 at 10:57 am

    I think although it may seem that only a small percent of the population is capable of rational thought I think this is actually not the case and its more productive (and optomistic) to think of this issue in terms of a behaviour rather than a fixed capability, like how some ancient Greek philosophers thought about moral behaviour or how some modern phychologists think about psychopathy. Almost everyone is capable of rational thought (or moral or psychopathitic behaviour) but its how often or more precisly in what situations an individual decides to engage in or deploy rational thought.

    jrs , March 26, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    Capable of rational thought really doesn't do much good for all the things one has no exposure to. Ok in this case they may have little real understanding of say leftists ideas. And I really think they don't. That may not be the case for the political junkies here for political ideas, but we all have our areas of things (not politics) we may have a similar stupidity about.

    Katharine , March 26, 2017 at 11:23 am

    Sorry, but I think that's way too disrespectful of other people and not realistic. All, save those with extreme mental disabilities, are capable of some degree of rational thought. That doesn't mean they can be quickly or easily convinced, but they will be more amenable to persuasion if you approach them as equals and open your mind to their reality in order to find the right terms with which to present your ideas. Bernie has shown himself to be very good at that, as are all good teachers. Those who insist on framing everything in their own terms without adapting their communication to another's experience will always get blank stares.

    knowbuddhau , March 26, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    Well said, Katharine.

    Dehumanizing ("people are sheep") and dismissing our neighbors as incapable of rational (good?) thinking will get us nowhere. Like I've said, the propaganda is working when we're dividing and conquering ourselves. That horrid little word often seen in this context, "sheeple," is just another word for "deplorables."

    People are not sheep. We've been psyop'd senseless. "Public relations" began around the turn of the 20th century. It was ramped up by orders of magnitude after WWII.

    Gore Vidal quotes JFK as saying to him, we've entered an era in which "it is the *appearance of things that matters" (emphasis original in the TRNN video, The National Security State with Gore Vidal ). Psychology and other social sciences have been weaponized and turned against us. With a facile understanding of the human mind (as if it were nothing but a mere mechanism), immense effort has gone into controlling the inputs in order to control the outputs (behavior).

    From How US Flooded the World with Psyops

    Newly declassified documents from the Reagan presidential library help explain how the U.S. government developed its sophisticated psychological operations capabilities that – over the past three decades – have created an alternative reality both for people in targeted countries and for American citizens, a structure that expanded U.S. influence abroad and quieted dissent at home.

    Today, "public opinion" is a Frankenstein's monster. Most of my fellow Americans believe in a world that never existed and doesn't exist right now. We can't even agree on what happened to JFK, or MLK, or what happened on 9/11/01.

    Contra UF, it's not that people are incapable of rational thought; rather, the information we have is hopelessly corrupted. People are acting rationally, but the numerators and denominators have been faked. On purpose. Or did the Russians really do it?

    Once again, TPTB thought they had found a magic method of machining people into permanent compliance. But they neglected the fact that relying on psyops drives people crazy. You just can't keep rejecting real reality and substituting a manufactured Narrative (looking at you, NYT) forever.

    ISTM we're acting without sufficient contact with reality. The effort to control the population, the better to exploit us, has driven many of us mad. Neglecting the century or so of effort that's gone into manufacturing consent leads to blaming the victims.

    Propagandists and PSYOPeratives have put out the people's eyes, and you berate them for their blindness?

    sundayafternoon , March 26, 2017 at 7:23 pm

    While I would absolutely agree with everything you've just said and believe the facts you've cited are the main reason for the bleak outlook for our species, how the myriad of lies fed to the population is received is a more complex process than just plain deception. People are incredibly complex and operate on a number of levels simultaneously. For instance the notion that universal health care or a strong union would be personally beneficial, or that the banking system is corrupt and that all the wars since 1945 have been unnecessary must be known to anyone with functioning eyes and ears on a relatively conscious level, but the majority have chosen to effectively overlook this reality I believe for reasons that ultimately feed in to human predispositions for conformity. It's ironic that our evolutionary highly successful nature of collectivism is now working against us as a species and leading to a destructive subservience that is almost sadomasochistic. If the population were to be unequivocally presented with reality I doubt many would tolerate the state we have now but conversely this would mean that the elite in our society had sanctioned truthfulness, so we would not really be going against the wishes of the powerful. Basically the fact that the powerful in our society have presented us with lies means lies are what they want us to believe, so dutifully most will oblige, however obviously at odds with reality those lies are.

    Why such an overwhelming percent of the population do not vote in their own economic interest is because political affiliations seem to be a complex expression of self-identity, something which includes attitudes, social prejudices and 'beliefs' that are dependent on complex emotional interactions between internal and external events, and can include for instance a desire for status within your tribe, family loyalty, even sadistic impulses. I;m probably wrong about most of this but part of me cant help feeling some of the victims share a little of the blame

    knowbuddhau , March 26, 2017 at 9:23 pm

    >> For instance the notion that universal health care or a strong union would be personally beneficial, or that the banking system is corrupt and that all the wars since 1945 have been unnecessary must be known to anyone with functioning eyes and ears on a relatively conscious level, but the majority have chosen to effectively overlook this reality I believe for reasons that ultimately feed in to human predispositions for conformity.

    You're projecting your knowledge and views, and then blaming people who don't see things your way. A majority supports single payer, yes, but the rest is wishful thinking.

    If you read Zinn's A People's History of the US, you'll see that even WWII was a manufactured war. I'm willing to bet a majority still thinks we were attacked out of the blue on Pearl Harbor Day, despite FDR's plan to provoke Japan. Or that incinerating Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended the war and saved tens of thousands of US lives. There was an almost perfectly complete news blackout on the aftermath specifically so that opposition to the bombings couldn't form. There are endless examples like this.

    We're not told what we need to know to govern ourselves. What we are told amounts to propaganda, sometimes explicitly so.

    Yes, a lot of people have drunk the koolaid, some with gusto. Who's pouring it? You can blame the victims all you like. I blame the people who've deliberately set out to deceive us.

    What our deluded brothers and sisters need is our compassion. It's hard to have compassion for someone trying to run you over for exercising your rights (been there, done that), but no one ever said it would be easy.

    Kokuanani , March 26, 2017 at 7:55 am

    The only hope I see is in the young of our country.

    I think Trump, the Repubs and most of the Dems see that too. That's why they've promoted DeVos, Arnie Duncan, and all the other advocates of "charter schools," strangled public education, and attacked teachers.

    UserFriendly , March 26, 2017 at 8:05 am

    and decided college was a great opportunity to make debt slaves ...

    Deadl E Cheese , March 26, 2017 at 8:56 am

    The problem with this approach is that all this does is kill off liberal cosmopolitanism, not Marxism. Marxism doesn't need a widespread secondarily-educated population to spread. And it definitely does not need liberal cosmopolitanism as a stepping stone; quite the opposite, really. Just in the US, when the wobblies and Black Panthers started turning red, how many of their rank and file went to college or even finished high school?

    Considering that the elites are using liberal cosmopolitanism to strangle Marxism (class-only Marxists want to throw women and nonwhites under the bus to get their single-payer and you, the woke liberal identitarian, must support capitalism to protect the marginalized), this strategy is not only pointless but it's also self-defeating.

    NotTimothyGeithner , March 26, 2017 at 9:35 am

    It's far more simpler. Charter schools are about following the money. Public schools have seemingly huge revenue streams. Why can't GE get a cut is the thought process? For profit Healthcare was forbidden until 1973 (thanks to Teddy), why not public schools?

    NotTimothyGeithner , March 26, 2017 at 11:45 am

    The HMO Act of 1973 (thanks Teddy and Tricky Dick; bipartisanship at its finest) made it easier to start and run HMOs which faced regulatory hurdles mostly due to financing. Non profits had an easier time of it hence Hospitals named "St X" or "X General." Since the hospital were non profits and employers made deals with the hospitals, health insurance was effectively non-profit. There were gaps, mostly in rural areas. Other changes from the HMO Act of 1973 encouraged profit seeking from denial of coverage to pushing unnecessary procedures or prescriptions.

    There is a noticeable correlation between this act and the explosion of Healthcare costs. The Miller Center had a series on Nixon expressing doubts to the Kaiser about HMOs. The arguments played out just like charter schools today.

    philnc , March 26, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    I recall hearing the tape of a conversation among Nixon and his aides regarding HMOs. The audio, like most of the Johnson & Nixon tapes, was poor, but what did come through was Nixon's support for Kaiser's business model, summed up by Erlichman as, "the less care they give them, the more money they make."

    https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/all-the-incentives-are-toward-less-medical-care

    Huey Long , March 26, 2017 at 11:49 am

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973

    Disturbed Voter , March 26, 2017 at 8:39 am

    The US Left has been controlled opposition since 1950. There was never a chance it could provide a reasonable and effective alternative. FBI/CIA moles make sure they never will. The Democrats have never been true Left FDR didn't really betray his class, he saved them from their own stupidity.

    Randall Stephens , March 26, 2017 at 9:42 am

    "As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when he was accused by the US of running a one-party state, 'The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them'."

    OK, that made me laugh out loud.

    Arizona Slim , March 26, 2017 at 10:07 am

    I seem to recall that the identity politics of yore were lacking in solidarity. The antiwar protestors, some of whom were hippies, were beaten up by working class union members. Remember the hard hat riots? And the African American leadership of the Civil Rights era? Well, they were from the black churches​, and they thought that the hippies were uncouth.

    Deadl E Cheese , March 26, 2017 at 10:13 am

    The identity politics of today lack in solidarity, too. What with Hillary Clinton running the most ageist campaign in memory, Obama breaking the record on deportations, Bill Clinton blowing racist dogwhistles as hard he can and also helping to shepherd a police state that puts Thailand to shame, and the whole of the Democratic Party stoking Russophobia and neoconservative.

    A cynic might say that liberal identity politics (as opposed to post-Frankfurt/Focault Marxist identity politics) was intentionally designed to do these things both in the 60-70s and now.

    And I am that cynic.

    Kukulkan , March 26, 2017 at 10:30 am

    I don't see how antiwar protestors qualify as identity politics, since the group is defined by a policy concern, not by some quasi-biological tag. Same with working class union members; policy and economic interests, not tags.

    I'd say the same about the African American leadership of the Civil Rights era, even though they did generally share the tag of being "black". They focused on a policy goal and welcomed those who didn't share the tag to participate in the struggle.

    Identity politics are not the same thing as left-wing or progressive or liberal (or whatever you want to call it) politics. In very real sense, Identity politics are a form of anti-politics since they don't address interests, policy or allow any form of accommodation or reconciliation of different points of view.

    Identity politics is about tags. Non-identity politics is about interests and policies.

    Kukulkan , March 26, 2017 at 4:25 pm

    But the focus is on the policy issues. The campaign for gay marriage was about getting gay marriage, not about being gay. And anyone who supported gay marriage was a part of that campaign - gay, straight, black, white, male, female; all the tags. It may have started with those who were gay, but it wasn't exclusive to the tag.

    By contrast, Hillary's campaign was just about the tags. Not doing anything for those with the tags, or changing any policies, no matter how they affected various tags, or even addressing any issues that are important to one or more of the tags, just acknowledging the tags and verbally supporting pride in them. That's why even a bunch of people possessing the tags didn't support her: there was nothing there for them, or, indeed, anyone else outside the financial and imperial elite.

    NotTimothyGeithner , March 26, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    Abernathy and King were from black churches. The rest of the leadership came from the street or universities. King's lament about the "white moderate" was code for the "black church." Ministers were glorified house slaves and liked the big houses. Jim Crow worked for black ministers. If better of blacks moved to white neighborhoods and more importantly white churches, who would put money in the collection plate?

    With the exception of Jackson when he showed up (he was young), those young black men who were always around King were Communists and atheists. They didn't broadcast it for obvious reasons, but a guy like Malcolm X was skeptical of King for real reasons.

    Jackson was important because he forced the black churches to get with the program. If there was a minister successor to King, the congregants might ask questions about their own ministers.

    The black church hated hippies, but the real civil rights leadership didn't.

    SumiDreamer , March 26, 2017 at 10:10 am

    The diagnosis is mostly correct. But omits the role class bigotry and affluenza with attendant celebrity culture and pursuit of prestige plays. Thus the prognosis and protocol go astray.

    The wealthy and the politicians don't care about you/us. They care about maintaining any fiction that allows them to keep acquiring. Trump is not the problem; Mercer"s values are The Problem. Trump is the PERFECT reality TV/celebrity fantasy creature to keep the twisted Mercer chariot's wheels turning.

    Bernie was NOT The Answer. Putting on a mask of concern does not take away the sorrows of empire. As long as the blatant US militarism and imperialism continues we cannot unite the working class. Everything it needs to flourish continues - mass incarceration, join the military or stay in the ghetto, graft and corruption of military/industrial/media complex, no respect for other cultures being swarmed, consumerism.

    Bernie picked up Occupy"s talking points (good plagarist!) but left the hurdle of recognizing plutocracy the same as Occupy did. Plutocracy is democratic as well it just usnt!

    What is there to show for 200 million in donations to overcome the Third Way? A new minuet with the crushing DemocRATic "party".

    The war has come home. First step is to admit it. Consistency in VALUES is the left"s primary directive. There needs to be funerals for both parties not more illusion.

    The tax break "fight" will be hilarious. Another example of how our rulers cannot solve a single problem .

    The jobs plan: more prison guards, border agents, munitions makers, soldiers, cops, various bodyguards for the rich and the other useful mandarins to the affluenza-stricken is set in stone.

    You cannot heal a chronic disease without seeing the entirety of its degenerative properties. We're fighting a nasty virus.

    Mac na Michomhairle , March 26, 2017 at 12:34 pm

    Bernie did not plagiarize Occupy. He had been saying the same things in Vermont for 25 years, but saying them in ways that lots of very various people connected with.

    20 years ago, Bernie lawn signs used to be run over by irate people who knew he was a no-good dirty Socialist. But because he has consistently framed issues in terms of ordinary people's lives and because he has always been absolutely honest and forthright, most of those people who flattened the signs now like and respect him and vote for him. They also pay attention to issues that only no-good dirty Socialists do in most other states.

    Denis Drew , March 26, 2017 at 10:20 am

    "a revived protection of labor's right to unionize"

    Do this and everything else will follow - don't do this and nothing will ever follow.

    "It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims."

    Don't depend on right or left parties. Depend on yourselves: rebuild American union density (6% unions in private economy analogous to 20/10 BP - starves every other healthy process). Both parties will come begging to your door.

    Here's how to "do this":

    [snip]
    80 years ago Congress forgot to put criminal enforcement in the NLRA(a). Had union busting been a felony all along we would be like Germany today. Maybe at some point our progressives might note that collective bargaining is the T-Rex in the room - or the missing T-Rex .

    The money is there for $20 jobs. 49 years - and half the per capita income ago - the fed min wage was $11. Since then the bottom 45% went from 20% overall income share to 10% - while the top 1% went from 10% to 20%.

    How to get it - how to get collective bargaining set up? States can make union busting a felony without worrying about so-called federal preemption:

    + a state law sanctioning wholesalers, for instance, using market power to block small retail establishments from combining their bargaining power could be the same one that makes union busting a felony - overlap like min wage laws - especially since on crim penalties the fed has left nothing to overlap since 1935;

    + First Amendment right to collectively bargain cannot be forced by the fed down (the current) impassable road. Double ditto for FedEx employees who have to hurdle the whole-nation-at-once certification election barrier;

    + for contrast, examples of state infringement on federal preemption might be a state finding of union busting leading to a mandate for an election under the fed setup - or any state certification setup for labor already covered by NLRA(a) or RLA(a). (Okay for excluded farm workers.)
    [snip]

    PhilipL , March 26, 2017 at 11:14 am

    Michael Hudson makes great points but I am still wrestling with his (and others) push back against so-called identity politics as it pertains to this perception of it splintering or at least limiting the Democratic party. The Dems are most certainly a party committed to the ideals of neoliberalism and corporatism. They did not lose this election based on "Russian hacking/emails" and other trite nonsense.

    Nor did they lose it by appealing to so-called identity politics or tribalism. If the Left is going to move forward effectively it can't pretend we are merely having class and by extension economic arguments. Race is the thru line and has consistently been since the countries inception. Many things cited i.e. the New Deal, pro-Union policy, etc are standard bearers on the Left but have also been rife with racist treatment of potential Black and Latino allies. Why would that be ignored if we are only having conversations of class? Class does not explain redlining which has economic and social implications.

    Access to universal healthcare is great and should be a goal but what does one do when the practice of medicine is still effected by race based/racial administration –> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/10/black-patients-bias-prescriptions-pain-management-medicine-opioids

    Acces to higher education and supposedly higher paying job with more opportunities is also great but that access is still shielded by exclusion that again is race based –> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/african-americans-with-college-degrees-are-twice-as-likely-to-be-unemployed-as-other-graduates/430971/

    These are complex issues, but they are not as class focused (solely) as many on the Left would like to believe. Our failure to speak honestly and openly about it and critique capitalism and its most malevolent (and seductive form neoliberalism) as being tied to the practice and idea of white supremacy is why we ultimately will find it more and more challenging to wage a successful countermovement against it.

    Scylla , March 26, 2017 at 5:19 pm

    Wow. Ok, so since racial bias was written into past economic policy that was intended to address class issues, addressing class based inequality should just be abandoned?

    How about just demanding policy that addresses class based inequality simply be written without the racial bias? Why is this so difficult to get into the minds of liberals? This is not that hard.

    Jason Boxman , March 26, 2017 at 11:21 am

    The refusal to recognize is a nice idea. I've often thought of late that Democrats, or at least the Left, should refuse to recognize Trump's horrible cabinet appointments, even if the delegitimizing effect is minimal. Just referring to these people at citizen or whatever rather than secretary would be some small repudiation, at least.

    Mel , March 26, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    There's a very long and comprehensive musing on politics and public dialog at slatestarcodex. My takeaway: if your dialog is weaponized, if you consider your mission to be "How do I force these people to admit that I'm right?" then you'll keep seeing the same results we see now.

    Tim , March 26, 2017 at 12:48 pm

    Been saying #TrumpIsObamaLegacy since early morning in November. Yves was WAAAAY ahead of the curve back in late 08 calling that out. The Obama part of maintaining the looting of society status quo.

    juliania , March 26, 2017 at 1:14 pm

    The point about Trump being the US Yeltsin is one very much worth considering, if only because Russia, after much degradation and also suffering, has managed to begin to overcome those shameful and depressing times. May we do so also.

    Blue Pilgrim , March 26, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    Actually, his latest book is J is For Junk Economics
    http://michael-hudson.com/2017/02/j-is-for-junk-economics-a-guide-to-reality-in-an-age-of-deception/

    John k , March 26, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    Great summary, forwarding to friends.
    As commented above, progressive candidates that Bernie backed did not do well. Neolib always willing to boost funding for any candidate of any party if primary challenged by a progressive. Takeover of state party machinery e.g. Ca did have some success, but pretty slow.

    Third party seems both the only way and imo more doable than many think unlike in the past, electorate is now desperate for real change. Third party impossible until probable. IMO we are now at just such a point.

    But neolib will fight tooth and nail to keep a progressive party off the ballot....

    Vatch , March 26, 2017 at 6:35 pm

    progressive candidates that Bernie backed did not do well.

    I'm not so sure about that. Here's the list of candidates backed by Our Revolution (not precisely the same as Sanders, but close). I didn't bother to do an exact count, but it appears that the winners exceed the losers by about 6 to 5.

    https://ourrevolution.com/election-2016/

    The Republicans control a majority of the state legislatures, governorships, and both houses of Congress. Compared to the establishment Democratic Party as a whole, the Sanders people in Our Revolution are doing pretty well. A new party isn't required; we just need some new people in charge of the Democratic Party. Heck, a lot of the same people could remain in charge, so long as they change their attitudes and stop obeying Wall Street and the billionaires.

    Temporarily Sane , March 26, 2017 at 3:59 pm

    Excellent piece. Americans have forgotten that the things they took for granted (40 hour week, humane working conditions, employer provided benefits etc.) were gained by the blood, sweat and tears of their forebears.

    Today, as the attack on what's left of employee protections and benefits is ramped up, people are alienated from one another and encouraged to channel their despair and anger into blaming scapegoats or invest their energy stoking paranoid delusions about the illuminati and Russian agents. If that gets boring there's always alcohol and heroin to take the edge off.

    The left has a momentous job – it has to convince people to give a shit and think of their fate as intertwined with others in a similar position. After decades of neoliberal economics empathy and giving a shit are associated with weakness and losers in many people's minds. Nobody wants to give a shit about anyone outside their preferred identity group or groups but everyone wants, demands , others give a shit about them.

    It's almost comical how self-defeating and illogical people can be.

    Gman , March 26, 2017 at 6:52 pm

    Almost.

    My belief is that Trump (and his kin) is likely the 'apotheosis' of neoliberalism or, as is far less likely, he (or they) might pleasantly surprise us.

    Like Brexit in the UK, I for one, hopefully not mistakenly, mark this anti establishment ascendency as the beginning of the end of neoliberal economics rather than a further ringing endorsement ie I fully accept things may have to get worse before they get better.

    People mostly vote to maintain a status quo they believe serves or may serve their interests in the future or, increasingly in the case of ever plausible (to the trusting and naοve) neoliberalism, out of misplaced hope, desperation, exasperation or understandable fear of the unknown.

    The Clintons, the Obamas, the Blairs, possibly the Macrons, the Ruttes, even the Merkels of this world are wolves in sheep's clothing. They have come to represent, for increasing numbers, little better than managed decline in apparently safe hands, conducted in plain sight, in the ever narrower interests of the few.

    Unfortunately events are conspiring to demand the once virtuous, now vicious, circle be broken by fair means or foul.

    habenicht , March 26, 2017 at 8:57 pm

    It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims. At the time these essays are going to press, Sanders has committed himself to working within the Democratic Party. But that stance is based on his assumption that somehow he can recruit enough activists to take over the party from Its Donor Class.

    I suspect he will fail. In any case, it is easier to begin afresh than to try to re-design a party (or any institution) dominated by resistance to change, and whose idea of economic growth is a pastiche of tax cuts and deregulation. Both U.S. parties are committed to this neoliberal program – and seek to blame foreign enemies for the fact that its effect is to continue squeezing living standards and bloating the financial sector.

    I couldn't have said it better myself. Its encouraging to know that minds like Hudson's are thinking in these terms.

    Kirk , March 26, 2017 at 9:31 pm

    Regarding the subject line of the article. I'd say that the Democratic Party has been the "paid loyal opposition" for quite a while. . . meaning they are paid to loose. Given the party's ties to Wall Street and Big Pharma it's pretty clear they mostly work for the same folks that own "mainstream" Republicans so their apparent fecklessness and inability to mount ANY sort of effective opposition, even when they are in the majority, shouldn't be any surprise.

    The question might more appropriately be can EITHER party survive Trump? Frankly, one can only HOPE that the current version of the Democratic Party DOES go the way of the Whig Party. I can only hope that the Republicans stay as gridlocked as they currently are by the stupid faction of their party.

    [Mar 26, 2017] They are an American Taliban: I have never read such a vitriolic comments section. Lots of Americans a seething mad.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple. ..."
    "... They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly violent way. ..."
    "... Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period. That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard of living and uncertain job prospects. ..."
    "... US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending. ..."
    "... The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human rights and the US' Bill of Rights. ..."
    "... The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their media... ..."
    Mar 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    reason , March 25, 2017 at 03:01 PM
    I just read this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/25/why-republicans-were-in-such-a-hurry-on-health-care/?utm_term=.590e103e2761

    I have never read such a vitriolic comments section. Lots of Americans a seething mad.

    reason -> reason... , March 25, 2017 at 03:03 PM
    By mad - I mean angry. And at the Republican party more than Trump.
    libezkova -> reason... , March 25, 2017 at 05:10 PM
    I like the following comment:

    Farang Chiang Mai, 7:39 PM EDT

    The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple.

    I would love to see this lying, cheating, selfish, crazy devil (yeah, I know I sound a bit OTT but the description is fact based) of a president and his enablers challenged on their Christian values.

    They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly violent way.

    libezkova -> libezkova... , March 25, 2017 at 05:31 PM
    An interesting question arise:

    Are the people who consider our current rulers to be "American Taliban" inclined to become "leakers" of government activities against the citizens, because they definitely stop to consider the country as their own and view it as occupied by dangerous and violent religious cult?

    Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period. That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard of living and uncertain job prospects.

    ilsm -> libezkova... March 26, 2017 at 05:42 AM

    I see the angst over Sessions talking to a Russia diplomat twice as a red herring.

    US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending.

    The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human rights and the US' Bill of Rights.

    The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their media.....

    [Mar 26, 2017] Dear Americans: the Democratic Party is purely neoliberal, NOT Left!

    Mar 26, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: nmb | Mar 12, 2017 4:36:54 PM | 4

    Dear Americans: the Democratic Party is purely neoliberal, NOT Left!

    From Tsipras to Corbyn and Sanders: This is not the Left we want

    blues | Mar 12, 2017 4:38:33 PM | 5
    The Dems and The Repubs are BOTH austerity mongers. They both want to starve the 99% and wage trillion dollar wars. The spoiler effect induced two party system is what sustains the Deep State.

    Of the now literally hundreds of "fancy" voting methods all over the Internet, strategic hedge simple score voting is the only one that specifically enables the common voters to win elections against the two-party empowered Deep State. (All of the many others treat elite interest involved elections as if they were casual "hobby club" elections.)

    Too bad we don't have simple score voting. Then we could give between 1 and 10 votes to many candidates. But no votes at all for Hillary the war monger. We might place 8 votes for Bernie (since he is less bad than Hillary (or more accurately, was previously though to be)), 10 write-in votes for Jesse Ventura, and 10 write-in votes for Dennis Kucinich.

    Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from one to ten votes (or five to ten votes, for easier counting) for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve candidates, so people don't hog voting booths), and then simply add all the votes up.

    We must also abolish Deep State subvertible election machines ("computer voting"), and get back to had counted paper ballots, with results announced at each polling station just prior to being sent up to larger tabulation centers.

    VietnamVet | Mar 12, 2017 5:45:45 PM | 10
    b. Excellent post. The same phenomenon is occurring throughout the Atlantic Alliance. This indicates that all share something in common. It is the neo-liberal economic philosophy of the Oligarchy who have purchased western politicians, media, think tanks and education and are superseding democracy with corporate supranational rule. Inequality and chaos are hardwired into the current system.

    nonsense factory | Mar 12, 2017 5:46:22 PM | 11
    It's interesting that the Salon piece (essentially the Sanders viewpoint) was written in response to a Vanity Fair piece (the Clintonite viewpoint) that ends with the claim that non-Party members share
    . . . the belief that the real enemy, the true Evil Empire, isn't Putin's Russia but the Deep State, the CIA/F.B.I./N.S.A. alphabet-soup national-security matrix. But if the Deep State can rid us of the blighted presidency of Donald Trump, all I can say is "Go, State, go."

    So that's your Clinton Democrat / McCain Republican viewpoint - aka "neoliberal-neoconservative fascism." Rather tellingly, the Salon piece does not include the world "neoliberal" but just rehashes the stale PR-speak of "liberals vs. conservatives" that dominates mass corporate media in the United States. In reality, policy in Washington is made by politicians and bureaucrats who adhere to neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies and who are really servants of consolidated wealth - the American oligarch class - and their conflicts merely reflect disagreements among the oligarchs; for example do Warren Buffett and George Soros and the Koch Brothers see eye-to-eye on all issues? No, they don't, so their sock puppets like Bush and Clinton have their differences. However, the neocons and neolibs are so close to one another as to be indistinguishable to the average American citizen:

    The main similarity between the two is that they have both become known as "technofacists", meaning melders of corporate, state and military power into a few political elites that allow comprehensive control. The left and the right have marched full circle and met one another.

    As blues@5 notes above, fixing the electoral system (paper ballots, ranked-choice voting, voting districts that are coherent regional sectors, not octopus-like, maybe drawn along watershed boundaries, etc.) is a key step in breaking their grip on power.

    Another critical issue is using anti-trust to break up the media conglomerates and destroy the centralized propaganda system that controls U.S. corporate mass media, in which a handful of Wall Street-owned corporate monsters dictate what kind of news stories are fed to the American public via television, radio and print journalism.

    These reforms seem highly unlikely, however, in the current political environment.

    What we probably have to look forward to is more likely continued economic downturn and rising poverty. The deep state and establishment politicians are not likely to give Trump anything, and will probably try to push an economic collapse just to make Trump look bad - not that Trump's policies have much to offer; infrastructure looks dead in the water and at best will look like Iraqi Reconstruction 2.0 under GW Bush and Cheney. We'd need an FDR-scale New Deal to turn that around and neither neocons nor neolibs will ever go for that. Instead we'll likely get infighting and factionalism, maybe a war between Trump and the Federal Reserve, etc.

    Honestly given the rot in the federal government it seems the only hope is for states to take matters into their own hands as much as possible and set their own policies on rebuilding infrastructure and creating jobs but the federal government and their oligarchic corporate overlords are pressing down on that as well. One hell of a nasty situation for the American people is what it is, and maybe massive Soviet-scale collapse, and a fundamental change in government (as happened with Putin in Russia post-Boris Yeltsin) followed by rebuilding from the ground up is the only way out of this mess.

    karlof1 | Mar 12, 2017 6:23:18 PM | 12
    Outraged @8--

    For too long, I've pointed out that the detailed list of grievances stated in the Declaration of Independence were currently alive and being carried out by the executive of the US federal government; and that if the Patriots of 1776 were correct to revolt from British tyranny, then the US citizenry was just as right and proper to revolt against Outlaw US Empire tyranny. I expounded that position through the comments at CommonDreams.org until I was banned because they went against that website's support for Obama then the Killer Queen HRC.

    At the end of the previous thread, I wrote that society has only one tool to control human behavior--culture--and I've long argued that human culture in the great majority of its societies is dysfunctional and has been for quite some time--in what's now the USA, from the founding of Jamestown onward. My view is the culture has reached a level of dystopia well beyond the ability of anyone to return it to a functional state and find myself agreeing with Reg Morrison-- The Spirit in the Gene --that humanity is what's known as a plague species, a conclusion shared by some very powerful minds, https://regmorrison.edublogs.org/1999/07/20/plague-species-the-spirit-in-the-gene/

    I don't particularly enjoy reaching such a conclusion given its meaning for my progeny and the remainder of humanity. But unless we--humanity as a whole--can regain control over ourselves through the imposition of a new, stronger--perhaps seen as more ridged--culture capable of suborning vice and desire to a satisfactory fitness for all, then we will reap the results of having grossly overshot our ecological support systems and like other species die-off as Morrison describes. How to accomplish such a radical change in a very short time period given the levels of resistance to such change is really the question of the moment. We know where the root of the problem lies. But uprooting that weed that threatens the garden of humanity presents the greatest challenge to humanity it will ever have to face.

    jo6pac | Mar 12, 2017 6:28:13 PM | 14
    The demodogs will not change any time soon if ever. They the party leaders are only interest taking all the money the can from supporters small and large giving to friends foundations and consultants.

    I vote Green.

    karlof1 | Mar 12, 2017 6:40:02 PM | 15
    As an example of our dysfunctional culture, I offer this article as exhibit 1, which explores a microcosm of what's essentially systemic dysfunction amid unbelievable corruption, https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/epa-chief-denies-basic-climate-science

    CluelessJoe | Mar 12, 2017 6:44:13 PM | 16
    It's funny that pseudo-Leftists like Dems, PS, Labour, SD and others don't realize that what Kennedy once said still stands:
    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
    Which is why it's no wonder many of those on the shitty end of the current neo-liberal take-over are flocking to the few really leftist groups and to the numerous and vast ultra-right parties/movements.
    Which is also why trying to keep them out of power at all costs - as happens in Europe, most notably in France - or trying to impeach/oust/coup/kill the elected right-wing populist - as happens in the US right now - is a suicidal move. If that sizable fraction of the population never gets anything, never any part of power, not even a bone to gnaw, sooner or later, they'll just get fed up, and when they'll have barely anything of value to lose, they will go nuts. This, of course, would be even worse in the US than in EU, considering that it's the part of society with the guns, the training to use them, and more or less the will to use them if forced to.
    But then, as another US president once said, the tree of liberty must be refreshed in blood from time to time - his one famous quote who's conspicuously absent from the Jefferson Memorial. And when I look closely, I can't see any Western country where this "refreshment" isn't long overdue.

    Mike Maloney | Mar 12, 2017 7:06:11 PM | 17
    You're right, b. Dems will continue to bleed out. A good place to see this will be the special election to replace in Georgia's 6th CD Rep. Tom Price, who took the job to be Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary. Daily Kos and ActBlue are shaking the can raising money for a young Dem staffer named Jon Ossoff. Here's the Daily Kos pitch for Ossof:
    But while Price might love him some Trump, his district doesn't feel the same way. In fact, the 6th saw a remarkable shift on election night. Four years ago, voters in this conservative but well-educated area supported Mitt Romney by a wide 61-37 margin. In 2016, however, hostility toward Trump gave the president just a 48-47 win-a stunning 23-point collapse. That dramatic change in attitudes means this seat might just be in play.
    The "Women's Strike" on International Women's Day was a dud. The Dems are labeling what they're doing a "Resistance," as if they are fighting a guerrilla war against Vichy. But what they're "fighting" for is really a restoration of Vichy (Trump is more a caudillo) with young corporate-friendly Dems like Ossoff.

    Jackrabbit | Mar 12, 2017 7:11:04 PM | 18
    jo6pac @14

    Unfortunately, the Greens seem to be hobbled. They can't get past the Democratic FEAR machine. And Jill Stein's recounts reeked of collusion with Democrats.

    That's why I switched from Greens to Pirate Party. Direct democracy has appeal to anyone that doesn't want rule by a permanent monied class of neolib cronys.

    Laguerre | Mar 12, 2017 7:13:57 PM | 19
    Actually I don't agree that the Left has lost. There's simply a lack of ideas.

    The extreme nationalist right goes in the US because geographically isolated. In Europe it is time limited. In UK Brexit has won for the moment, but it is falling apart, because it can't deliver economic success. (more to see). In continental Europe, the extreme right are not gaining in the polls (Wilders, Le Pen), rather stagnating.

    Macron, in france, could have the right attitude, oriented to the young. But it could turn bad.

    fairleft | Mar 12, 2017 7:37:19 PM | 20
    The managed resistance serves corporate interests, just as the ruling party does. Whichever party is in power. Billions of dollars in 1% money and nearly all the media are behind keeping the 'resistance' and the party in power the only two 'acceptable' vehicles for expressing yourself politically.

    But it's worse ... The universities are almost entirely populated by identity politics and/or neoliberal 'left' professors, which of course generates brain-fried future leaders and cadres of the two mainstream parties. Such university environments also mean that alternative, real left research and ideas are severely underfunded and legitimized.

    But it's worse ... Even the left opposition to the two party system can't bring itself to (or is too scared to) oppose open borders for economic immigrants. Minimizing immigration had always been standard pro-worker position prior to the rise of identity politics in the 1970s.

    Pnyx | Mar 12, 2017 7:52:31 PM | 21
    "Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep labor (real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply economic migrants."
    Sorry B, but this is outright bullshit. No country in EU-Europe needs to import cheep labor from not-EU-countries. There are more then enough EU-Europeans in search of better wages. The EU was extended exactly in order to achieve this 'abundance' (o.k. not the only reason). The people you denounce as "simply economic migrants" are not an imported good - they enter the EU against all odds. And many, many are refguees coming from countries ruined by western military interventions.

    paul | Mar 12, 2017 7:57:57 PM | 22
    I don't know why this blog has to be homophobic, but the basic point is valid - class struggle is the meat and potatoes of the Left

    Fedya Trezvin | Mar 12, 2017 7:59:47 PM | 23
    Well, if Zero Hedge is anything to go by, in a few years automation will abolish the working class anyway. Then Bill Gates' depopulation scheme will mop up the remnants.

    james | Mar 12, 2017 8:00:33 PM | 24
    quote from the book ishmael by daniel quinn..

    "The ship was sinking---and sinking fast. The captain told the passengers and crew, "We've got to get the lifeboats in the water right away."
    But the crew said, "First we have to end capitalist oppression of the working class. Then we'll take care of the lifeboats."

    Then the women said, "First we want equal pay for equal work. The lifeboats can wait."

    The racial minorities said, "First we need to end racial discrimination. Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly."

    The captain said, "These are all important issues, but they won't matter a damn if we don't survive. We've got to lower the lifeboats right away!"

    But the religionists said, "First we need to bring prayer back into the classroom. This is more important than lifeboats."

    Then the pro-life contingent said, "First we must outlaw abortion. Fetuses have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else."

    The right-to-choose contingent said, "First acknowledge our right to abortion, then we'll help with the lifeboats."

    The socialists said, "First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that's done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats."

    The animal-rights activists said, "First we must end the use of animals in medical experiments. We can't let this be subordinated to lowering the lifeboats."

    Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been lowered, everyone drowned.

    The last thought of more than one of them was, "I never dreamed that solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink so SUDDENLY."
    ― Daniel Quinn

    EnglishOutsider | Mar 12, 2017 8:12:44 PM | 25

    b - exactly so. Thank you.

    On the question of the far right, only if substantial sections of the political spectrum are shut out is there scope for the extremists to come in and fill the gap. That is the danger to a minor degree in England and to a greater degree in Continental Europe, as we are told it was the danger in the Weimar republic. Some precedent, that.

    I am not sure about the "populist" movements in Continental Europe but the Brexit vote in England and the Trump movement in America do not, in spite of the almost universal assertion to the contrary, represent a swing to the right, let alone the far right. They represent a return to the centre, a centre that has long been shut out in Western politics generally and that is now tentatively re-asserting itself. It is only if that return to the centre fails that we need fear the Neo-Nazis and the like coming in to fill the gap.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 12, 2017 8:25:36 PM | 26
    Great post, b. Short and sweet and right on the money.

    There's certainly a looming trend. Western Australia's 8 year-old (Turnbull affiliated) Liberal Govt was annihilated at the weekend.
    On Saturday night the interim result was:
    Labor 39, Liberal 11, Nats 4, unresolved 5.
    (39 seats in a 59-seat parliament)
    Malcolm Turnbull is pretending to be 'philosophical' about it...

    jfl | Mar 12, 2017 8:39:46 PM | 27
    the 'left' is a gang of 'middle-class' would-be jacobins, directing 'the masses' while eating cake. there is no left, there is no right, there is a top - the few - and a bottom - the many. as b points out the desperately vocal few are left and/or right, they are on their own side of the top, definitely not on the side of us many on the bottom. their policies create more and more of us every day. they are our fathers and mothers in that sense. we will dance on their graves.

    b, please don't say 'pseudo democrats' it sounds too jacobin, like the trots at wsws.org and their constant 'pseudo left'. 'fake' will do for pseudo. and it's two fewer key strokes - three in the same row. stick with the bottom against the top.

    write what you want of course ... that's just a rant roiling my gut gaining vent.

    Kalen | Mar 12, 2017 8:45:09 PM | 28
    B in case you do not know (I doubt that) "true left" has been murdered long time ago also in Europe where betrayal of working class interests by the so-called mainstream workers parties/socialists, so-called communists and trade unions in the West was fought on the streets in 1968 Paris and all over the Europe and surprisingly it spilled out to eastern Europe in a form of Prague revolt, Warsaw riots and mass strikes that swept across the eastern block in anger of betrayal of workers interests by the ruling socialist workers parties who turned into a calcified cliques and turned against socialist workers movements and ideals of egalitarianism and equality and started selling out to the Western oligarchs.

    It was at that time that under the guise of fake political detente first time massive policies of outsourcing jobs from the western Europe to the Eastern Europe commenced (starting with Hungary and Poland and later in Romania where the Ceausescu's mafia turn away openly from Russian sphere of influence in ideological, economic and political realm) in a ploy to provoke strikes in the West and subsequently shutting down the factories (in fact transferring the production to the eastern block in Europe and/or south America ruled under dictatorships) if demanded by the oligarchs concessions of lowering wages and decrease of benefits was not agreed upon by the Trade Unions.

    In other words if Trade Unions did not completely capitulate they close striking factories. Similar tactics have been use in the US under environmental or productivity requirements pretension in 1960-tois and 1970-ties and later openly outsourcing for profits down south Mason-Dickson line parallel and later to Mexico and Asia.

    This unified betrayal of working class simultaneously by the West and the East prompted proud vanguard of working class (leftists students of European Universities and some of the trade unions) to respond to the exigent circumstances, to respond to mortal threat to workers movements all over the Europe in 1960-ties and 1970-ties.

    These were unsung heroes of last true revolutionary leftist organizations such as ETA, BR, RAF, AD, FLQ (in Canada) who took upon themselves a heroic, revolutionary responsibility for defending vital interests of working people, betrayed by mainstream leftists political parties, via a measured, targeted and restrained self-defense campaign that aimed at threatening and destruction of vital economic and financial interest of European oligarchy including direct assaults on their personal safety and welfare, as a way to, through a personal pain, humanize for them their abhorrent inhumane ways and to make them suffer as working class comrades suffered under their inhuman policies and acts including of violence, intimidation and murder.

    This was the last stand of the true left against evil of spawning global neoliberalism that in following decades swept the world with no opposition to speak of left to fight it may be except for neo-Maoist guerrillas in South America and Indian subcontinent. Even anti-imperial Palestinian FATAH has been tamed while Islamic/religious movements have been supported to control leftist tendencies within populations, a consequences of such a cold decision of globalists we live with today.

    This was the last stand of the true left in the Eastern and Western Europe against betrayal of the Soviet Union elites, betrayal of the programs and ideals of the international working class struggle they proliferated all over the world.

    It was utter betrayal by the descendants of soviet revolutionaries who later transformed the hope for just, socialist egalitarian project into a shallow propaganda faηade of a mafia state conspiring with the West to rob their own working people of the national treasure soviet/Eastern Block working class worked hard to produce and preserve for future generations.

    The betrayal culminated with a western orchestrated political collapse of Soviet Union while the country was still on sound economic footing despite of cold war military baggage, western embargoes and massive theft of the corrupted party apparatchiks and cronies of Soviet ruling elite in last decade before 1991, in way resembling massive US national treasure theft by US banking mafia especially after 2008.

    It is true that true left in US (decades before) and in Europe had to be murdered since it was the last bastion of defenders of working class interests against neoliberal globalist visions of a dystopia under umbrella of US imperial neoconservative rule.

    Now voters throughout the world have only two "no choice" choices between full throttle globalist neoliberalism or globalist neoliberalism with national flavor of corrupted Identity Politics of race or nationality, a politics of division to prevent reinsurgency of the true leftist ideology of simple self-defense or working class under assault that naturally brews underneath the political reality of mass extermination and neoliberal slavery.

    The call to International Working Class: Proletariat or more appropriately today "Precariat of the World Unite" has not been more appropriate and needed since at least 1848 after collapse of another globalization freed trade sham under umbrella of British empire.

    We must unite, and not succumb to a mass manipulation and stay united in solidarity among all ordinary working people who see through provocation and manipulation of identity politics of phony left or phony right and see that they do not have any interest in this fight set up in a way that ordinary people can only lose while cruel inhumane neoliberalism will always win.

    lizard | Mar 12, 2017 8:49:04 PM | 29
    I contributed to a progressive blog for years until I was finally kicked off for suggesting Bernie was herding progressives into Hillary's tent. I often criticized Obama's foreign policy and the local partisan blogs--when they weren't ignoring the perspective I represented--ridiculed me for being a "conspiracy theorist" when I pushed back against the anti-Russian consensus.

    I spent many years working with chronic homeless people in Montana in the "progressive" utopia known as Missoula and when the Democrats that run this town aren't actively making housing more unaffordable with their bonds for parks and endless schemes to gentrify this town into being Boulder, Colorado, they are making symbolic stands against guns and enabling Uber.

    now I work with aging individuals and I am learning a lot about the cruel complexity of Medicare and Medicaid. it's already really bad and, sadly, it will only get worse--just in time for the American Boomer generation's silver tsunami to hit entitlement programs.

    dh | Mar 12, 2017 8:53:59 PM | 30
    I noticed a lot of British Proletariat have moved to the Costa del Sol leaving plenty of job openings for the Polish and Roumanian Proletariat. Not sure if this is a typical European trend.

    Andrew Homzy | Mar 12, 2017 10:01:12 PM | 31
    It reminds me of the attitudes espoused by Ishmael:

    "The ship was sinking---and sinking fast. The captain told the passengers and crew, "We've got to get the lifeboats in the water right away."
    But the crew said, "First we have to end capitalist oppression of the working class. Then we'll take care of the lifeboats."

    Then the women said, "First we want equal pay for equal work. The lifeboats can wait."

    The racial minorities said, "First we need to end racial discrimination. Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly."

    The captain said, "These are all important issues, but they won't matter a damn if we don't survive. We've got to lower the lifeboats right away!"

    But the religionists said, "First we need to bring prayer back into the classroom. This is more important than lifeboats."

    Then the pro-life contingent said, "First we must outlaw abortion. Fetuses have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else."

    The right-to-choose contingent said, "First acknowledge our right to abortion, then we'll help with the lifeboats."

    The socialists said, "First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that's done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats."

    The animal-rights activists said, "First we must end the use of animals in medical experiments. We can't let this be subordinated to lowering the lifeboats."

    Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been lowered, everyone drowned.

    The last thought of more than one of them was, "I never dreamed that solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink so SUDDENLY."
    ― Daniel Quinn

    Liam | Mar 12, 2017 10:29:22 PM | 32
    Here's am investgative post that is quite revealing about Snopes and definitely worth a look.

    Examining the Bizarre Facebook Page of the Snopes 'Fact-Checker' of the White Helmets Terrorist Ruse in Syria

    https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/03/04/examining-the-bizarre-facebook-page-of-the-snopes-fact-checker-of-the-white-helmets-terrorist-ruse-in-syria/

    Debsisdead | Mar 12, 2017 10:36:35 PM | 33
    Life isn't gonna get better for those who are not born into a solidly upper middle class family until nation states are downsized. amerika needs to be carved up into 40 or 50 - units maybe even more particularly for the large population seaboard 'states'. The one good thing about the brexit the englander tory government is gonna deliver is that it is likely to cause scots and maybe even ulster-people to leave the union.

    I've lived in quite a few nation states over the years and have found that a small population state is far more responsive to the needs of its citizens than large ones - even when a mob of carpet-bagging greedheads has jerry-mandered their way into political power in a small state and an allegedly humanist political entity is running the large state this holds true.

    As far as I can discern there are two reasons for this or maybe 2 facets of one reason. Firstly even the rightist greedheads cannot shit on any group be it divided by race gender or sexual preference long term in a small population state. The reason is that in smaller population units people tend to know others better and obvious injustices always reach the ears and consciences of rightist voters - even supporters of racist or sexist asshole governments and it results in a backlash. Humanist pols in large entities fall back on 'pragmatic' excuses about 'perception' at the drop of a hat - no different in action than their 'enemy'.
    The second reason is the other end of the first. Because of that degrees of separation thing, when you live in a small population political unit, you find you will always know someone who knows any political aspirant. Those with a rep for being greedy, malicious or deceitful cannot hide behind press spokespeople and bullshit for long - they cop the flick quickly.

    I have long believed that this is the real motive for the corporatists to support politicians' incessant centralising & empire building.
    Claims about large population groups somehow being more efficient are quickly shown to be false when put to the test of reality. In nature biological systems, even those within large entities are localised and full of seemingly inefficient redundancies because one thing evolution has taught is that a system that has inbuilt alternative modes of survivability will keep the entity alive much longer than some 'simple & straightforward' system whose failure means the death or massive disability of the entity. Corporations themselves tend to be labyrinthine full of small similarly named but legally discrete modules because that is what works best, yet corporations keep underwriting politicians who strive to make their 'entity' bigger, more centralised and 'simpler' - why?

    Well because political failure is a capitalist's best ally and of course when a political entity is really large as amerika is, it is possible to deceive all the people all the time. The average citizen is a stranger to any/all of the members of the political elite and as such are entirely dependent upon third party information vectors - the so-called mainstream media who push out whatever deceit their masters instruct them to.

    I make the point in this thread because too many people appear to believe that it would be possible to reform the amerikan political system despite the fact that helluva lot have already tried and failed long before they got anywhere near the centre of power.

    It just isn't possible because of the simple principle that anyone who is capable of convincing large numbers of people who he/she has never had any personal contact with, to support their 'character', ideas and political objectives is by virtue of their success, unworthy of anyone's vote.

    No person can convince that many strangers without resorting to some form of gamesmanship and that makes them a bad choice. There is no way around that reality yet most citizens adopt the usual cognitive dissonace every election cycle and pay no heed to what should be blindingly self-evident.

    Nur Adlina | Mar 12, 2017 11:31:27 PM | 34
    Finally!...this is where all mericans eyes and ears has to be, i.e if they still have them...non is so blind as those who refuse to see.Clean your own backyards before commenting on or trying to clean others.

    NemesisCalling | Mar 12, 2017 11:34:46 PM | 35
    b's premise is that disenfranchised voters will go the polls for far right interests under the promise of nationalistic interests and the policy that springs from this. However, I do not believe that they will rue the day for this choice from being squeezed out. The Nazi party ascension was a huge success for bread and butter interests of the common kraut. Autobahn, infrastructure, industry: this nationalism scared the allies enough to go to war with Germany for asserting it's independence and own interests. Are we Weimar Germany? No, no, no. Our military is already to the hilt and yet is being halted in its advance by Russia, Iran, etc. You can't keep squeezing the same lemon and expect more lemonade. The only option for Trump is to invest in America again, period. Anything less or a further downward trajectory will only incite the deplorables more and Trump would be gone after four years, and maybe sooner to the clicking of boots marching on the White House. Something truly unpredictable and unexpected might transpire at that juncture.

    blues | Mar 13, 2017 12:25:36 AM | 36
    @ nonsense factory | Mar 12, 2017 5:46:22 PM | 11

    You said:
    /~~~~~~~~~~
    As blues@5 notes above, fixing the electoral system (paper ballots, ranked-choice voting, voting districts that are coherent regional sectors, not octopus-like, maybe drawn along watershed boundaries, etc.) is a key step in breaking their grip on power.
    \~~~~~~~~~~

    Actually, what the "election methods cognoscenti" call "ranked-choice voting" always fails spectacularly. It is quite different than what they call "score voting", which can actually work, if kept simple enough.

    blues | Mar 13, 2017 12:31:00 AM | 37
    @ Debsisdead | Mar 12, 2017 10:36:35 PM | 33

    Actually, there is a way around that. If a candidate has a previous "track record" from lower levels of power, then that can usually be relied upon.

    Erelis | Mar 13, 2017 12:41:14 AM | 38
    Like other people never heard of Preet Bharara. Appears he was called the "Sheriff of Wall Street". Looked up his record and yes, he did not put any banksters in jail. Lots of fines which were tax deductible I believe. Strange Sheriff who has no jail. I would bet he joins a Wall Street legal firm and gets paid six-to-seven figures to defend the banksters.
    This is where Wall Street feared Sanders--Bernie appeared to insist the Sheriff's he appointed actually have jails.

    guy | Mar 13, 2017 12:57:55 AM | 39
    A safe bet: next wednesday ultra right-wing Geert Wilders will win the dutch elections, after the diplomatic row with sultan-wanna-be Erdogan. And then Marine Le Pen...

    Perimetr | Mar 13, 2017 1:21:57 AM | 40
    In the US, the Democrats and Republicans are two wings on the same bird.
    Left wing, Right Wing
    The US is a democratic theme park, where the levers and handles are not attached to anything,
    whose only purpose is to deceive the masses into thinking that
    they make a "difference"

    Debsisdead | Mar 13, 2017 1:38:06 AM | 41
    blues | Mar 13, 2017 12:31:00 AM |
    Yep they can be relied upon to be corporate slaves for sure I cannot think of a single example over the past 50 years of any amerikan pol who succeeded at a national level, who wasn't a forked toungued corporate shill.
    There are plenty of examples of pols whose history at a low level 'seemed OK' - where their occasional examples of perfidy could be dismissed as just having to toe the party line; "Once he's his own man/woman he will really strut his/her stuff for the people" a certain Oblamblamblam comes to mind as the most egregious recent example - when they get in power everyone gets to see what whores they always were. Whores concealing their inner asshole to get into real power. That type of duplicity is much more difficult to pull off in smaller populations - it gets found out and the pol really struggles to get past the bad reputation chiefly because a lot of voters can put a face to the 'victim' which makes the evil palpable.

    What I find really odd is the way that even self described lefties who acknowledge the massive evil committed by amerika still seek to evade and/or justify the evil.
    It goes to show how brainwashed all amerikans are. I guess they think everyone feels that way - when people who haven't been subjected to that level of conditioning about their homeland actually don't hold that blind 'right or wrong determination. I like where I live now and everything else being equal probably would go in to bat for my friends or family if this country somehow got into a tussle. But I would back off and advocate for the other side in a heartbeat if I felt the nation I lived in was doing wrong.
    I was living in Australia when Gulf War 1 kicked off and up until that point I doubt there was a more dedicatedly loyal Australian but the cynical decision to suppoft GH Bush made by the Australian Labor Party just wouldn't wash and without wanting to be accused of the current heinous crime de jour ie virtue signalling, I like many others took a stance against my adopted nation that cost me professionally & personally. This was no great achievement by me, it was easy because I hadn't been indoctrinated into any sort of exceptionalism.
    Yet I see the effects of the cradle to the grave conditioning amerikans are subjected to in the posts on virtually any subject made by amerikans.
    That of itself makes the destruction of amerika essential, a prerequisite that must be met if there is to be any real change in the amerikan political structure.

    psychohistorian | Mar 13, 2017 2:10:27 AM | 42
    @ Debsisdead who wrote about ".....how brainwashed amerikans are." and
    "
    What I find really odd is the way that even self described lefties who acknowledge the massive evil committed by amerika still seek to evade and/or justify the evil.
    "
    I live in the belly of the beast you want to destroy. What exactly is it that I should do to effect your goal? I continue to struggle with knowing that. I also disagree that it is amerika that must be destroyed but the tools of those that control our world.......private finance.

    I also want to state to commenter karlof1 that her call for focus on "culture" is exactly what I think I am attacking by wanting to end private finance. And I had the pleasure of studying under an anthropologist for a year and very much appreciate that perspective on our current social maladies. I think that anthropological characterizations of our species are harder to misrepresent than history....hence my reference to tenets of social organization, etc.

    We need some adults in the world to stand up to the bastardization of language and communication.

    Any form of social organization not based on any type of compulsion is inherently socialistic. If we can agree to socialize the provision of water, electricity, etc. why can't we do the same for finance?

    Probably for the same reason we continue to prattle on about right/left mythologies and ignore the top/bottom reality.

    Effective brainwashing.

    OSJ | Mar 13, 2017 2:46:24 AM | 43
    b, excellent analysis. Amerika is rotten to its core. There are no cures..... just sit and watch on the sideline for these tugs NeoCon, NeoLiberal, progressive etc.. Kill themselves and blames it on Putin.

    I hold two valid passports, neither better than the other. Hot frying pans, hot boiling oil?

    ben | Mar 13, 2017 2:50:50 AM | 44
    b said.."When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and other such niceties beat out programs to serve the basic needs of the common people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must always be the well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues follow from and after that."

    You nailed b, with that one paragraph!!

    ben | Mar 13, 2017 3:01:25 AM | 45
    P.S.- When the microphones are owned by the wealthy, they're the only voices heard by the masses.

    Peter AU | Mar 13, 2017 3:17:27 AM | 46
    41

    Private finance... most countries have a reserve bank. Yours has the fed.
    Your country has made private money an ideology and tries to export this ideology around the globe. The opposite extreme to collective communism.
    Most countries have foreign policy and foreign ministers. When I looked up the websites of Your presidential candidates, none had a foreign policy. In place, all had war policy. Sanders had his titled war and peace.

    Most countries have foreign ministers. Your country has a secretary of state. I guess when you are a country that feels it has the god given right to rule the world, no country is foreign, all are vassal states.

    Your country needs to collapse, or be destroyed, to knock this ideology out of the inhabitants, and then rebuilt as a normal country.

    What the US is now, is just a natural progression of its foundations.

    estouxim | Mar 13, 2017 3:58:36 AM | 47
    Thank you b, for stating the essential question.

    I think there's no left left for the simple reason that it's role in the system, at least since the end of ww2, became void after 91. No competing system, no need for niceties, back to the 30's, plenty of unfinished business, 80 years of taxes to get back. New Deal and European Social Model are obsolete. The armies of workers offshored, what is left is a kind of lumpen, busy fingering their smartphones. A highly educated lumpen, probably the highest educated generation ever, but lumpen nonetheless, Indoctrinated by all media to individualism, their atomization seems assured. I wonder if anyone under 30 reads MoA. Might be wrong but looks like most of us are over 60 considering the muppet like kind of grumpyness that erupts so often.

    There are drops in the ocean, in places were solidarity still has strong roots. Marinaleda (sorry, the english wiki sucks, a machine translation from the spanish wiki is certainly more informative) 0% unemployment, equal pay to all residents, housing provided through self-building, the city council provides plot, technical supervision, building materials, charges 15 euros monthly rent. Collective economy based on farming, husbandry and industrial transformation of it's products. I repeat, equal pay to all residents 1,128 euros for 35 hours a week. Just a drop in the ocean, but a worthy one.

    Elsewhere true social-democracy can be found in Latin America. Nicaragua, Venezuela, Equador, Bolivia, Uruguay pop up as examples that neoliberalism, racism and neocolonialism can be defeated, on their terms, even if there are setbacks like Brazil and Argentina. There one can find rivers of solidarity. Telesur english keeps you up to date, with better coverage on Syria than CNN.

    estouxim | Mar 13, 2017 4:47:48 AM | 48
    Sorry, missed the monthly after 1,128 euros:

    equal pay to all residents 1,128 euros monthly for 35 hours a week.

    better correct it before you all start flocking to Andalucia

    Anonymous | Mar 13, 2017 5:30:31 AM | 49
    Very good post b,
    leftists parties is a joke today there is no other way to put it, its a real shame and a real tragedy.

    Also on this topic:
    PROBLEMS WITH SWEDISH MEDIA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t20xx5Khov0&feature=youtu.be&t=275

    Anonymous | Mar 13, 2017 6:06:42 AM | 50
    Although b you actually forgot the 2 new things the leftist parties have embraced:

    *Anti-russian racism and
    *Warmongering

    Greg Bacon | Mar 13, 2017 6:37:39 AM | 51
    All those USAG's and IG's and NO one wants or has investigated where all those Pentagon missing trillions went to?
    Ditto for the MSM, who use all that print space pushing to let men dressed as women use the little girl's bathroom. The USA project has failed, it's Kaput, time to turn out the lights.

    Yonatan | Mar 13, 2017 7:07:07 AM | 52
    The 'Left' has been bought by the oligarchs, just like the media, the NGOs, the 'human rights' organizations, etc. Tony Blair was perhaps the most blatant example, especially with his 'third way', undefined by him to this day. I guess it tried to merge bits from the right such as Nationalism and bits from the left such as Socialism, but who knows!


    FecklessLeft | Mar 13, 2017 7:29:46 AM | 53
    I highly recommend Chris Hedge's book "The Death of the Liberal Class." One of my favourite reads ever.

    More concise lectures are available on YouTube for those who won't pick up a book.

    mischi | Mar 13, 2017 8:14:16 AM | 54
    I am German but not living in Germany. I am disgusted with my compatriots. They seem to have bought the line that in order to atone for their parents or grandparents' crimes they have to open the doors to the dregs of the Earth and let themselves get plundered and their daughters raped without a protest. Meanwhile, the German police continue to prosecute Germans for any transgression, including speaking out about it.

    jfb | Mar 13, 2017 9:03:12 AM | 55
    So the left is good at pointing to its own flaws & decay but your simplistic view of a "static" right that doesn't evolve and alway represent the "evil" is laughable. Both the left and right have merged on most issue, it's a system of croony capitalism with a big government and where "financial capitalism" has destroyed industrial capitalism and innovations. Who would invest to hire employees or innovate if it's more lucrative to sell private bonds to a central bank or "buy back" the shares of the cies (to boost their price with a loan in order to get a "productivity" bonus?
    A long, long time ago both left/right were pretending to offer a solution and improve the living standards, one faction with individual liberties, low taxes and a sound money policy (gold & silver) while the left was fighting against inequalities and proposing wealth redistribution with a big government & taxes. Both the left & right started to be coopted in the 1960's

    TG | Mar 13, 2017 10:08:39 AM | 56
    "Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep [sic: that should be "cheap"] labor (real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply economic migrants. (Even parts of the German "Die Linke" party are infected with such nonsense.)"

    Kudos. It's rare to see someone intelligent admit that an open borders immigration policy is all about cheap labor, period. Bernie Sanders started to say that, but after a couple of days of being screamed at for his 'racism' he of course folded.

    I note that by refusing to acknowledge that importing massive numbers of workers we are pushing wages down, we are also responsible for the misery in places like Yemen and Somalia etc. How can we expect people in these places to stop having more children than they can afford, when our Nobel-prizewinning whores keep screaming that more people are always better? I mean, if we propagandize that eating arsenic is wonderful (or at lest not an issue), and people somewhere else keep eating arsenic, we are to blame.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 13, 2017 10:08:55 AM | 57
    The characteristics which define Right-wingers are...
    1. They are are obliged to believe their own bullshit in order to sell it to the masses.
    2. Bribery is an indispensable component of Modern Democracy.
    3. Whenever one of their inane schemes backfires, it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault, NEVER their own.

    Malcolm & the Liberals will spend the next 6 months looking for scapegoats (with their fingers in their ears - another R-W trait).

    WorldBLee | Mar 13, 2017 10:15:36 AM | 58
    Democrats become neoliberal Republicans, letting actual Republicans get elected. Rinse and repeat while blaming Russia for failure. That is the center-right mantra of the elite Democrats and their NGO supporters (who are well paid to represent the party line without deviation, if they deviate they get cut off). Yet my Democrat friends howl that I'm a Trump supporter because I wouldn't vote for Hillary.

    The unfortunate truth is that outside of protest votes there is no political force in America for dissenters to turn to outside of what they can do on their own. The two-headed hydra of the Demopublicans appears to be fighting against itself now but in reality they still agree on most issues, to the detriment of all working people.

    nonsense factory | Mar 13, 2017 10:36:25 AM | 59
    @35 Your version of "score voting" is clearly the best approach to "ranked choice voting" as currently used. Also, using paper ballots that are counted by optical scanning machines? That's just as subject to hacking as electronic voting machines are, since nobody is going to back and hand-count those paper ballots.

    But really, under current finance rules, the oligarchs tightly control the electoral process via their control of corporate media and their ability to run puppet candidates against any honest politicians who defy their agenda. Ultimately this is why politicians gravitate towards the BS issues describe by b, i.e.

    "When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and other such niceties beat out programs to serve the basic needs of the common people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must always be the well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues follow from and after that."

    But addressing the well-being of the working people - wages, homes, affordable healthcare for their parents and education for their children - that impacts multinational corporate profits. This is why politicians steer clear of such issues - they don't want to incur the anger of the oligarchs, who can spend millions to get them removed from office. Journalists do the exact same thing, wanting to keep their jobs in corporate media outfits controlled by Wall Street oligarchs. This is highly similar to how the oligarchs ran Russia during the Boris Yeltsin era.

    There are clearly many similarites between the Russian billionaires of that era and their various American counterparts today, from the Silicon Valley billionaires to the oil & gas billionaires to the finance billionaires; they could never have made all that money without the active cooperation of politicians and bureaucrats who serve their interests in Washington as well as in many state governments. This vast extraction of wealth from the middle class, coupled with a desire to control the whole world and move money freely across borders without restrictions, and to use the military to invade and crush any countries who don't go with the program, that's what the neocon-neolib agenda is all about.

    Perimeter | Mar 13, 2017 10:38:02 AM | 60
    When people like b start to make tremendous confusion between the Neoliberal Democratic party and the Left, I fear things will go from bad to worse ...
    Confusing Neolib and Left after all these years, b? There's no light at the end of the tunnel, huh?
    We've heard stupid people say that Hitler was Socialist ... after all the NSDAP had the "S", hadn't it? But they are stupid people, right?
    Now this?

    estouxim | Mar 13, 2017 11:22:07 AM | 61
    Perimeter @ 59

    What should we then call left in Yankeeland?

    fast freddy | Mar 13, 2017 11:24:05 AM | 62
    Well-meaning populist politicians throughout history are either bought off or assassinated.

    Populist rhetoric is tolerated (and necessary for R vs. D political theater to function).

    The rhetoric is one thing. BUT if anyone actually DOES anything of value for the common people, he will be maligned, castigated, shunned and soon become enmeshed in a manufactured scandal.

    Corruption has totally overwhelmed the system.

    dh | Mar 13, 2017 11:48:17 AM | 63
    @60 Unorthodox gringos.

    fast freddy | Mar 13, 2017 11:49:16 AM | 64
    When the fake left embraced war (with all the money for crony war profiteers - no money for the commons) it abandoned its ideology.

    The brilliantly-played Charles Manson Psyop killed the anti-war (peace) movement in one stroke.

    They couldn't make Castro's beard fall off, but they got the hippies to shave and cut their hair and become Republicans.

    fast freddy | Mar 13, 2017 11:54:46 AM | 65
    Democrats more likely to accept gifts from lobbyists; while Republicans prefer cash in brown paper bags under the desk.

    blues | Mar 13, 2017 12:02:18 PM | 66
    @ nonsense factory | Mar 13, 2017 10:36:25 AM | 58

    What the "election methods cognoscenti" call "ranked-choice voting" is quite distinct from "score voting" With the score voting method I described you could give from (1) to (10) votes to up to (12) candidates. So you could give, for example, (10) votes to Candidates (A), (B), and (C), and (8) votes to (D), (E), and (F). But with ranked choice voting, you cannot do that, since you must "rank" the candidates in an "ordinal" fashion. This could look like: (A) > (B) > (C) >(D) > (E) > (F). And this forced "ranking" leads to astonishingly complex dilemmas. So, score voting is definitely not a version of ranked voting.

    I did insist on "hand counted paper ballots" because ballot scanning machines are absurdly complex, and can easily be hacked. Remember that the Deep State will always completely control anything that becomes sufficiently complex. The fine print on insurance policies is an example.

    While I'm here, I might as well point out that the "holy founding fathers" of the U.S. despised the concept of democracy (except perhaps for a few, maybe Franklin). You can read all about this (it's a somewhat long read, but well worth the time) at:
    http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Enough-with-the-Holy-Founders-Undemocratic-Constitution-20150531-0025.html

    Yes, it's all true!

    ALberto | Mar 13, 2017 12:07:53 PM | 67
    b,

    "gluten free food"

    Take a look at the Italian Cooking Show ladies. They aren't fat. Their immune system see gluten as an invader causing physical inflammation.

    Personally if I eat gluten my lower gut blows up like an inflated bicycle tire. Gluten intolerance is not a trend. Check out online videos titled 'wheat belly.'

    The wheat we eat today has been genetically modified mainly to increase crop yields.

    Gluten intolerance is not a fad.

    Tim | Mar 13, 2017 12:10:39 PM | 68
    Yep. There's a reason the Democratic Socialists of America has seen a huge explosion in growth over the past year. The Democratic Party has no soul, and the DSA, by far the most major democratic socialist group in the country, is benefiting from Bernie Sanders constantly calling himself a "democratic socialist." If Democrats don't take their cue from this and other leftist groups, they're going to lose elections for decades to come. We need policies that work for the people, not neoliberal giveaways to corporations or conservative policies outright hostile to people who aren't rich.

    LXV | Mar 13, 2017 12:15:29 PM | 69
    What do you call a Social-Democracy without social-democrats?

    Although many have called the "crisis of social-democracy" in previous years (especially after the "crash" of 2007-8), so far it is James Corbett that has given us the most extensive non-scholar research on How The Left Stopped Worrying and Learned to Embrace War


    Bonus reading: AD Lavelle's academic case-study on the transformation of Swedish and German social-democracy into neo-liberalism .

    RudyM | Mar 13, 2017 12:24:23 PM | 70
    all I can say is "Go, State, go."

    This is disturbingly close to what a co-worker said to me, before knowing my views about the matter, when US-backed forces were overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya: "Go, rebels, go!" He said he "normally" wasn't pro-war. A lot of ditzy liberals out there.

    NemesisCalling | Mar 13, 2017 12:29:32 PM | 71
    b states that the disenfranchised will rue the day they threw in their card for the far-right. I am not sure that this reality will pan out here in the states, though I am unsure what will ultimately transpire. My reasonING for this goes back to the nazification of Germany and the great benefits to that nationalist movement in general. Autobahn, infrastructure, industry: their new deal was very beneficial for the common kraut in addressing their concerns, though this nationalism scared the shit out of the global finance cabal and hence war. I am not entirely versed as to the legitimacy of their claim to Poland or the moral implications of that seizure, though the ethnic cleanses in the Russian steppes were evil.

    My point is that nationalism could be one of the only forces that could bring down the global finance elite. This propelled me to vote for Trump and to hold out hope for a while. My thought is that we already have military spending covered and I don't see how the trickle down of more military spending would impress the deplorables too much. If Trump wants a 2.0, he will have to invest in another new deal. And what choice does he have? Continually being blocked my Russia and Iran? I am not convinced yet of his total idiocy, but if he continues along a neoconservative route, there will be little doubt. I guess tyrannies are stupid after all. Are Americans that stupid, too? We'll see.

    Curtis | Mar 13, 2017 12:44:36 PM | 72
    Clueless Joe 16
    I've started to like that JFK quote more and more these days, too. At the time he did not mean it for the US but it truly applies here.

    Noirette | Mar 13, 2017 12:55:23 PM | 73
    1945 - 2000 +. In Europe the 'Left' was overcome in principally 2 ways.

    1) Was the 'red scare of communism', i.e. against the USSR - old memes now home again. Even though there were some quite strong Communist parties, particularly in France. (Today, the ex-leader of the dead communist party, R. Hue, has come out supporting Macron.) The 'liberals' (economic liberalism) of course used any tool and propaganda to hand.

    2) The expansion of W economies, 1950-1980 (about), that so to speak 'lifted all boats', and afforded for ex. cars, fridges, TVs, and at the start, just the basics like a small flat and some electricity, and water plus a flush toilet (or better services for small houses) plus universal free education (to age 14-15) and some basic health / social care. Transport flowered (fossil fuel use and railways) As opposed to living in a hut in a filthy slum though rurals were always better off. The economy basically boomed and jobs, even if ugly and badly paid, were available. This was all a tremendous advance and it was credited to a 'liberal' economic model. NOT-communist. (Though it had nothing to do with any political arrangement per se. See Hobsbawm on the USSR.)

    Later, Third-wayers (Bill Clinton, Tony Blair..) tried to 'snow' ppl who would become 'poorer' with fakey Socialist-Dem party platforms, actually favoring the 'rich' (Corps, Finance, MIC, Big Gov..), in an attempt to keep ppl quiet. This 'third way' has now failed, ppl turn where they can, for now it is voting for the 'alt-right' (Trump, Wilders, Le Pen..) along a sort of nationalist line, which seems to contain germs of proto-fascim (as some would say), but which is actually principally directed against the PTB.

    juliania | Mar 13, 2017 1:00:44 PM | 74
    I haven't yet read comments, but actually I don't agree with the title of this piece, though the point about no left is certainly valid. I really can't see folk just swinging far right because there is nowhere else to go, since at least in this country, the US, we were burned so badly by the right - the right took us into Iraq and we have not escaped the horrors there even now. No way we're going back to that group of crazies just because another group of crazies, and now apparently Trump as well, are marching to the same bloody tune. We are being smothered by all of them.

    I'm no prognosticator - I can't see the future. All I can do is say this ongoing spilling of blood is not what I voted for, and thank heavens I did not vote for Trump. I don't blame those who did, thinking he might break the mold. In doing that, they were not 'voting far right.' They were voting for what Trump said he would do, act peacefully towards each country, take care of citizens' grievances. He hasn't, and now we know. What happens next is anyone's guess but it won't be more of the same, not in this country. Experience does matter, and when we sort ourselves out and finish licking our wounds, us deplorables will build on what has come before. And perhaps in other countries citizens facing such non-choices and aware of what has happened here will trim their sails accordingly.

    Almand | Mar 13, 2017 1:11:30 PM | 75
    The great tragedy of the collapse of the left is that there will be nobody around to protect the minorities who live in the nations of the West. As a nonwhite American, I see the polarization of politics around racial lines is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The Democrats want to play the good cop, using fear of to control their minority vote bank while doing sweet F A for their communities that they profess to love so much. The Trumpian right has now dropped all pretense and is openly embracing white supremacy, race baiting for votes and stirring up all kinds of anti-foreigner sentiment on top of the folksy old fashioned racism done by "good" GOPers. As disgusting as the smug, patronizing prejudice of liberals is, the wild vitriolic hatred found in parts of the white community is backed up with state force. Even when faced with this reality, the Democratic party views discussions of economic issues as pandering to the "deplorables"! Never mind the rampant poverty and unemployment in black and latin ghettoes, talking about jobs is racism! They will continue this political death spiral and we will pay the price. There have been two shootings I know of where Indians (mistaken for Muslims by rednecks hopped up on hate) and I'm sure we'll see plenty more. God help Europe when their right wingers crack down on the Muslims. You think the young are being radicalized now? You ain't seen nothing yet.

    RudyM | Mar 13, 2017 1:22:29 PM | 76
    That of itself makes the destruction of amerika essential

    You left out two k's.

    Noirette | Mar 13, 2017 2:05:24 PM | 77
    Juliana at 73 wrote about Trump voters.

    I don't blame those who did, thinking he might break the mold. In doing that, they were not 'voting far right.' They were voting for what Trump said he would do, act peacefully towards each country, take care of citizens' grievances.

    Yes, right on. And that extends to all the 'nationalist' voters. What they - perhaps confusedly for some - are trying to effect is a timid step in the present horrific political landscape, towards having a say, >> having the space, and scope, of decision-making circumsribed, and made not only smaller, but more rigidly, clearly defined - in this case down to nation size where the ppl may hopefully garner some more power.

    The labels 'right' and 'left' of course are nonsense, but we all use them as 'tags' for e.g. Dems vs. Reps, and that's ok, as long as everyone undertands the short-hand. Being 'nationalist', 'anti-globalist', 'localist', 'community oriented' (footnotes skipped) is not left or right, it doesn't project to any point on the left-right polarity. Nor does it relate to an authoritarian, controlling axis. vs. a libertarian one. But of course these challengers are painted as Hitler 'nationalist' stooges and putative vicious invaders, war mongers, conquerers, as is for ex. Putin.

    ruralito | Mar 13, 2017 2:29:32 PM | 78
    Lefties fight imperialism, and by fight I don't mean metaphors.

    Perimeter | Mar 13, 2017 3:07:30 PM | 79
    @60

    And why should we call something "Left" in Yankeeland?
    Why, if there is nothing not even close of this there?

    Perimetr | Mar 13, 2017 3:11:23 PM | 80
    Just for the record, someone seems to be attempting to use/mimic my Permetr name with post number 78.
    Not appreciated, Mr. Troll.

    Perimetr | Mar 13, 2017 3:29:58 PM | 81
    And if anyone is interested, I chose the name "Perimetr" because that is the way my friend Colonel Yarynich spelled it . . .

    Also known as the "Deadhand" system, Perimetr is a semi-automated system through which a retaliatory nuclear strike can be ordered by a decapitated Russian National Command Authority. Perimetr came into being in the 1980s and appears to still be functional. You can read a detailed analysis of it in the book by Colonel Valery Yarynich, "C3: Nuclear Command, Control, Cooperation" (if you can get your hands on a copy). https://www.amazon.com/C3-Nuclear-Command-Control-Cooperation/dp/1932019081

    Perimetr uses emergency communication rockets to issue launch orders to any (surviving) Russian nuclear forces; such orders would automatically trigger a launch of these forces without further human intervention. The crew that mans the Perimetr launch control center requires several things to happen before they launch: (1) an initial preliminary authorization from the National Command Authority following the detection of an incoming attack, (2) a complete loss of communication on all channels (various radio frequencies, land lines, etc) with the National Command Authority, and (3) a simultaneously set of positive signals from seismic, optical, and radiological nuclear detonation detectors indicating that a nuclear attack has occurred.

    At that point, the crew is ordered to launch the ECRs. This "Deadhand" launches the missiles even after those who gave the preliminary launch order have been incinerated in a nuclear strike. Valery thought that Perimetr added a measure of safety having the system, in that it would make it less likely that the NCA would launch a "retaliatory" strike (Launch on Warning, LOW) before nuclear detonations confirmed the strike was real (if the warning was false, then the "retaliatory strike" would actually be a first strike . . . hence Perimetr offers some certainty of retaliation for choosing to "ride out" a perceived attack). I took less comfort that did Valery, as I found it disconcerting that there was a non-human mechanism or means to order a Russian nuclear attack.

    see "Launch-Ready Nuclear Weapons: A threat to all nations and peoples" http://www.psr.org/nuclear-weapons/launch-ready-nuclear-weapons.pdf and http://thebulletin.org/2004/may/lets-go-no-low

    Paul Cockshott | Mar 13, 2017 6:29:31 PM | 82
    @21
    The aim of importing cheap labour is to allow continued expansion of capital without depressing the rate of profit. Unless the labour force constantly expands, any accumulation of capital tends to drive down the rate of profit in two ways: 1) it raises the ratio of capital stock to national income, so if the wage share remains the same, the rate of profit falls; 2) Accumulation of capital faster than the growth of the labour force creates a sellers market for labour and allows real wages to rise. For these two reasons big business favours rapid immigration.

    Perimeter | Mar 13, 2017 10:14:10 PM | 83
    @80

    Are you illiterate?
    "Perimeter" is graphically different of "Perimetr". In addition and mainly, interested people can differentiate one from the other ideologically. So do not worry, kid.

    Fernando Arauxo | Mar 13, 2017 11:03:07 PM | 84
    The thing is black people in USA are fed up. White people (including some jews) are fed up. Black people have been marginalized and are no longer the primary darlings of the Bleeding Heart Party. You must add as well that many of them like Carson are quite conservative and wealthy, so they go Republican. One cannot discount the very high sense of patriotism that many Afro-Americans feel for the USA. They can smell the BS.
    "White's", can be racially disparaged, mocked, used and abused and it O.K.
    You can call a certain segment of the population; "White Trash", white bitch, fucking cracker, honky, racist, etc, etc and they just have to take it.
    You can openly say that it's no longer their country, that they will no longer be the majority, if you are an immigrant and have a short time in USA, you are toasted and cheered while saying it. So soft genocide against "whites" is ok.
    This is wrong and it's true what B say's, there is nothing LEFT. I gave Obama 8 and I'm still waiting for my change.

    Willy2 | Mar 14, 2017 3:55:52 AM | 85
    - Someone in a townhall meeting asked a Democratic representitive: "What do the Democrats stand for". And the representitive replied with platitudes. and the whole thing was captured on video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9KyR86CZ1E

    john | Mar 14, 2017 8:01:55 AM | 86
    the left in America is small and estranged, like an illegitimate child. the blacks fucked up long ago when they aligned with the Democratic Party, which, as we know, is just a gaggle of pro-war liberals. their reckoning is on its way...like a bad asteroid.

    jfl | Mar 14, 2017 9:07:47 AM | 87
    @67 ALberto

    i'd check out the relationship between the exponential growth in the use of glyphosate, decimated microbial populations in the human gut as a result of its use, and the sudden eruption of gluten intolerance. that'd get any biochemist / epidemiologist fired in short order, or demonized on publication. i'm sure that's why we haven't seen it.

    estouxim | Mar 14, 2017 10:23:35 AM | 88
    jfl @ 87

    Right, plus the other wonder trans, bacilus thuringiensis.

    Outraged | Mar 14, 2017 10:33:11 AM | 89
    @ Posted by: Willy2 | Mar 14, 2017 3:55:52 AM | 85

    Thank you for the link. Succint & concise. Tragicomedy(sic) ... :(

    What was highlighted with cutting clarity is what the average Joe & Betty six-pack, and not just Stateside, throughout the 'West' are primarily up in arms about, IMV. And the Owned & Controlled, Corporate 'Mainstream' Mega-Media will not touch it nor even acknowledge 'it' ... hopefully the scales will fall from enough peoples eyes to awaken from the somnolance induced by all-encompassing ' digital valium ' ...

    If locales can ever reach a critical mass re numbers ... maybe the Tumbrels will yet again roll to swing humanities 'pendulum' back the other way. If they don't ...

    BRF | Mar 14, 2017 10:34:28 AM | 90
    There never has been a political party of the Left in America that held any political power or even a balance of power at important state or federal levels. Leaders of the emerging Left in America have been either jailed or assassinated. Any other leaders of the people, not necessarily of the left, have also met a similar fate. The American establishment has always been a repressive clique of any populous movements. Other western nations, being further from the central authority, developed at minimum Leftist political opposition that at least held a balance of power enough to effect national policies that were of benefit to the working classes as defined. In America Leftist appeal of grievances was applied through the existing two party system, mainly the Democrats with their unionized labour wing. This has all fallen by the wayside. Enough said....

    Perimetr | Mar 14, 2017 12:03:31 PM | 91
    RE: Perimeter | Mar 13, 2017 10:14:10 PM | 83 "Perimeter" is graphically different of "Perimetr". In addition and mainly, interested people can differentiate one from the other ideologically. So do not worry, kid.

    Well let's see, would Circe be upset if someone started posting under "Circes"? Would Outraged mind if someone started posting here as "Outrages"? How about "Alberto" instead of "ALberto"??

    Sorry, there are lots of other names available, so what is the point in posting under one that is essentially identical to mine, except to confuse those who might not be paying much attention?

    Outraged | Mar 14, 2017 12:59:06 PM | 92
    @ Posted by: Perimetr | Mar 14, 2017 12:03:31 PM | 91

    Concur with your sentiments, a perfectly reasonable request. Such IDs create needless potential ambiguity/confusion/mis-attribution.

    So do not worry, kid.
    Hm, does not augur well re civility ... nor intent ...

    ruralito | Mar 14, 2017 1:02:04 PM | 93
    @84, the racial-ethnic divides among populations pale in comparison to the divisions between classes. The Reptilian Order must rake up the former through media exploits lest the proles wise up to the latter.

    estouxim | Mar 14, 2017 2:37:48 PM | 94
    Outraged @ 89
    Thanks for the compliment on the other thread.
    I also value what you write.
    In certain conditions it is possible to attain meaningfull goals without setting the tumbrells in motion. I linked to Marinaleda in a comment above. They din't decapitate the Duque del Infantado, they cut a substantial part of his estate. It was possible for 3 reasons, a charismatic leader, a strong sense of solidarity and a strong cultural identity. It's a tiny scale but if one looks at current examples in a multinational scale Chαvez, Evo, Correa, Kirchner, Lula, were/are all outstanding leaders in nations that have strong cultural identities and a solidarity forged by resistance.


    BRF @ 90
    Exactly, jailed or assassinated. And when this was no longer feasible, when human rights became a tool in the cold war, the discourse was deflected to identitary policies and sex drugs and r&r

    Outraged | Mar 14, 2017 3:56:55 PM | 95
    @ Posted by: estouxim | Mar 14, 2017 2:37:48 PM | 94

    My views tend towards pacifism these last many years and am totally opposed to capital punishment for common criminal acts ... the death of even one innocent due to failures of the system, injustice, or mere errors, is one life too many, IMV.

    Have personally seen the dire consequences of psychopaths & sociopaths, in Military, Intelligence, Government & Corporate environments, in positions of leadership/authority. They select alike as near peers and congregate fellow-travellers, arch-opportunists & sellswords as underlings, enablers/facilitators.

    Yet, long reflection on ... bitter ... experiences, have brought me to a perceived unpalatable truth, that there likely must be, long overdue, a cull of the 'Impune', via the tender mercies of such as madame guillotine, to reset the balance, for their number and reach in primarily western first world countries has become a vast cancer upon humanity.

    If one can be reviled by the community and dealt with at Law for a simple common murder, why can one who abuses the authority of the State, or delegated thereof, order policies or acts that result in dozens, 100's or thousands or more deaths of innocents, yet be impune, wholly and forever, unassailable, unaccountable ?

    When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once again quietly assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium of Caesars, Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past ?

    Had thought the last 'Sun King' was in France ~160 years ago ...

    Technology has opened a Pandora's Box of expanding destructive forces & potentialities at the behest of these psychopaths that, as Karlof1 somewhat similarly fears, will have a singular end result, if left unchecked.

    Do not believe a little pruning of wealth/capital will any longer suffice ... Iceland alone, started tentatively upon the right path, after the GFC.

    Outraged | Mar 14, 2017 3:56:55 PM | 96
    @ Posted by: estouxim | Mar 14, 2017 2:37:48 PM | 94

    My views tend towards pacifism these last many years and am totally opposed to capital punishment for common criminal acts ... the death of even one innocent due to failures of the system, injustice, or mere errors, is one life too many, IMV.

    Have personally seen the dire consequences of psychopaths & sociopaths, in Military, Intelligence, Government & Corporate environments, in positions of leadership/authority. They select alike as near peers and congregate fellow-travellers, arch-opportunists & sellswords as underlings, enablers/facilitators.

    Yet, long reflection on ... bitter ... experiences, have brought me to a perceived unpalatable truth, that there likely must be, long overdue, a cull of the 'Impune', via the tender mercies of such as madame guillotine, to reset the balance, for their number and reach in primarily western first world countries has become a vast cancer upon humanity.

    If one can be reviled by the community and dealt with at Law for a simple common murder, why can one who abuses the authority of the State, or delegated thereof, order policies or acts that result in dozens, 100's or thousands or more deaths of innocents, yet be impune, wholly and forever, unassailable, unaccountable ?

    When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once again quietly assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium of Caesars, Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past ?

    Had thought the last 'Sun King' was in France ~160 years ago ...

    Technology has opened a Pandora's Box of expanding destructive forces & potentialities at the behest of these psychopaths that, as Karlof1 somewhat similarly fears, will have a singular end result, if left unchecked.

    Do not believe a little pruning of wealth/capital will any longer suffice ... Iceland alone, started tentatively upon the right path, after the GFC.

    karlof1 | Mar 14, 2017 5:16:09 PM | 97
    Outraged @95--

    "When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once again quietly assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium of Caesars, Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past?"

    I don't believe the Divine Right of Monarchs was ever completely expunged as it continued to operate in the shadows until it retuned to the surface at WW2's end with Truman.

    Don't know how much you agree with my assessment above @12, but one of the smartest people I've ever known--the late Lynn Margulis, Carl Sagan's first wife, the superior microbiologist who proved symbiosis within species and agent of evolution to be fact--wrote the forward to the paperback edition of Morrison's work I cited, agreeing with him.

    It's easy to observe and analyze the situation then prescribe the remedy. But said remedy must be applied by millions of currently very disparate individuals having almost no solidarity or in agreement about said remedy, or even knowing a remedy exists. I'd do more, but my responsibilities limit me to my current activities--writing and exhorting those able to act.

    The great irony of our dilemma is humans have overcome Nature in almost every sphere, yet that triumph is precisely what threatens humanity and the biota--a triumph driven by Nature itself. So, to overcome our overcoming of Nature, we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting the impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient technology--culture, by making certain actions by humans taboo and their violation punishable by death as the Polynesians practiced.

    Yes, radical, controversial, requiring a great deal of prior knowledge to comprehend the logic driving the remedy. Yet, as Spock would say, there it is: Long life and prosperity lies down remedy's path; massive destruction, pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo continues.

    Outraged | Mar 14, 2017 6:20:04 PM | 98
    @ Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 14, 2017 5:16:09 PM | 96

    ... it returned to the surface at WW2's end with Truman.

    ... we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting the impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient technology--culture, by making certain actions by humans (Leaders/Leadership) taboo and their violation punishable by death as the Polynesians practiced.

    ... massive destruction, pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo continues.

    Concur.

    Yet, would take that slightly further re amending formal application of Law & Sentencing & Punishment.

    A number of Navies apply Mandatory MAXIMUM punishments for any offense, where found guilty, committed outside the parent nations 12 Mile limit, for good reason re discipline under a Captain's authority ... the ship becomes the nation and the crew the 'people' thereof and the ultimate survival of all dependent upon such.

    The greater the status, rank, education, authority, experience, length of service of the ' Taboo Breaker, ' ( Leaders/Leadership ), the less any mitigating circumstances can be considered, and the proportionally higher the punishment, towards the maximum. Such should be able to plead no excuse, ignorance or misunderstanding, or lack of comprehension whatsoever, compared to a 'Constable/Trooper/Sailor/Airman'.

    The pyramid of actual accountability & consequent punishment, must be inverted , by society.

    If one looks carefully throughout humanities recorded history, across cultures, down thru millennia, sooner or later the stone ( society ) could be squeezed no further, and there was inevitably blowback and a, culling.

    Yet, since the inter-continent telegraph and the widespread ubiquitous distribution of the mass 'Press', concurrent with the machinations of the Bankers & War Profiteers behind the scenes since the late 1800's, IMV, the ability to manipulate, divide & rule, society has become an artform, ever accelerating in scope, scale & effectiveness, preventing the necessary 'cull' in the 'International Community' of the 'west'.

    IMV, the old grey men may have misunderstood/underestimated the accident of the 'net, hence desperation of such as ProPornOT etc, which provides alternate independent voices re communication & re perceived reality ... it may be enough, a small window of opportunity given the obvious accident of 'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a reckoning, there are a few discordant shrill cries and desperate pleas arising amongst the 'narrative' from the Globalists/Atlanticists (US/EU/UK/AUS/CAN), to believe & trust TPTB ... but only if there is a true, not faux, accounting .

    Otherwise, yes, almost inevitably, your last. Faint hope ...

    Outraged | Mar 14, 2017 6:20:04 PM | 99
    @ Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 14, 2017 5:16:09 PM | 96

    ... it returned to the surface at WW2's end with Truman.

    ... we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting the impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient technology--culture, by making certain actions by humans (Leaders/Leadership) taboo and their violation punishable by death as the Polynesians practiced.

    ... massive destruction, pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo continues.

    Concur.

    Yet, would take that slightly further re amending formal application of Law & Sentencing & Punishment.

    A number of Navies apply Mandatory MAXIMUM punishments for any offense, where found guilty, committed outside the parent nations 12 Mile limit, for good reason re discipline under a Captain's authority ... the ship becomes the nation and the crew the 'people' thereof and the ultimate survival of all dependent upon such.

    The greater the status, rank, education, authority, experience, length of service of the ' Taboo Breaker, ' ( Leaders/Leadership ), the less any mitigating circumstances can be considered, and the proportionally higher the punishment, towards the maximum. Such should be able to plead no excuse, ignorance or misunderstanding, or lack of comprehension whatsoever, compared to a 'Constable/Trooper/Sailor/Airman'.

    The pyramid of actual accountability & consequent punishment, must be inverted , by society.

    If one looks carefully throughout humanities recorded history, across cultures, down thru millennia, sooner or later the stone ( society ) could be squeezed no further, and there was inevitably blowback and a, culling.

    Yet, since the inter-continent telegraph and the widespread ubiquitous distribution of the mass 'Press', concurrent with the machinations of the Bankers & War Profiteers behind the scenes since the late 1800's, IMV, the ability to manipulate, divide & rule, society has become an artform, ever accelerating in scope, scale & effectiveness, preventing the necessary 'cull' in the 'International Community' of the 'west'.

    IMV, the old grey men may have misunderstood/underestimated the accident of the 'net, hence desperation of such as ProPornOT etc, which provides alternate independent voices re communication & re perceived reality ... it may be enough, a small window of opportunity given the obvious accident of 'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a reckoning, there are a few discordant shrill cries and desperate pleas arising amongst the 'narrative' from the Globalists/Atlanticists (US/EU/UK/AUS/CAN), to believe & trust TPTB ... but only if there is a true, not faux, accounting .

    Otherwise, yes, almost inevitably, your last. Faint hope ...

    karlof1 | Mar 14, 2017 8:10:59 PM | 100
    Outraged @97--

    "... it may be enough, a small window of opportunity given the obvious accident of 'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a reckoning..."

    Like using The Force to guide a missile into the exhaust shaft of the Death Star. But that was just one victory amidst many losses prior to the decapitation of the sole Evil Leader. I believe our task just as daunting with our enemy best depicted as The Hydra. In both myths, Good triumphed. In both tales, the multitude of innocents had no idea what was taking place or why. I don't think we can prevail unless the multitudes know what's happening and why. All too often they seem to differ little from my Alzheimer's afflicted mom. But her fate is determined; it's just a matter of time. Our fate's in the balance, with time being of the essence.

    [Mar 26, 2017] When Nothing Left Is Left The People Will Vote Far Right

    Mar 26, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Some of the people around the U.S. Democrats finally start to get the message of the 2016 election. An editor at Salon writes a slightly satirical critic of the Democratic Party under the headline: How the DudeBros ruined everything: A totally clear-headed guide to political reality . The core sentence:

    When "the left" endlessly debates which core issues or constituencies must be sacrificed for political gain, as if economic justice for the poor and the working class could be separated from social justice for women and people of color and the LGBT community and immigrants and people with disabilities, it is no longer functioning as the left.

    When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and other such niceties beat out programs to serve the basic needs of the common people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must always be the well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues follow from and after that.

    Many nominally social-democratic parties in Europe are on the same downward trajectory as the Democrats in the U.S. for the very same reason. Their real policies are center right. Their marketing policies hiding the real ones are to care for this or that minority interest or problem the majority of the people has no reason to care about. Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep labor (real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply economic migrants. (Even parts of the German "Die Linke" party are infected with such nonsense.)

    The people with real economic problems, those who have reason to fear the future, have no one in the traditional political spectrum that even pretends to care about them. Those are the voters now streaming to the far right. (They will again get screwed. The far right has an economic agenda that is totally hostile to them. But it at least promises to do something about their fears.) Where else should they go?

    The U.S. Democrats are currently applauding the former United States attorney in Manhattan, Preet Bharara. The position is a political appointed one. Whoever is appointed serves "at the pleasure of the President". It is completely normal that people in such positions get replaced when the presidency changes from one party to the other. The justice department asked Bharara to "voluntary resign". He rejected that, he was fired.

    Oh what a brave man! Applause!

    The dude served as United States attorney during the mortgage scams and financial crash. Wall Street was part of his beat. How many of the involved banksters did he prosecute? Well, exactly zero. What a hero! How many votes did the Democrats lose because they did not go after the criminals ruling Wall Street?

    Bharara is one reason the Democrats lost the election. Oh yes, he is part of a minority and that makes him a favorite with the pseudo left Democrats. But he did nothing while millions got robbed. How can one expect to get votes when one compliments such persons?

    But the top reader comments to the New York Times report on the issue are full of voices who laud Bharara for his meaning- and useless "resistance" to Trump.

    Those are the "voices of the people" the political functionaries of the Democratic Party want to read and hear. Likely the only ones. But those are the voices of people (if real at all and not marketing sock-puppets) who are themselves a tiny, well pampered minority. Not the people one needs to win elections.

    Unless they change their political program (not just its marketing) and unless they go back to consistently argue for the people in the lower third of the economic scale the Democrats in the U.S. and the Social-Democrats in Europe will continue to lose voters. The far right will, for lack of political alternative, be the party that picks up their votes.

    [Mar 26, 2017] Staggering cost of Finance Sector under neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Originally published at the Tax Justice Network ..."
    "... US finance sector is a net drag on their economy ..."
    "... It is a cleverly worked out system for wealth transfer. Complex laws, political backing and protection even if you break the law. At least in the old days when you got robbed you had the signal of having a pistol pointed at you. The modern version, with all the insider media psyops, leaves those who are preyed upon feeling that they are the ones to blame. ..."
    "... The business model is straight out of the Cosa Nostra playbook – except there is media, political and legal backing. ..."
    "... As an Italian friend of mine (who rarely goes north of 14th Street) once remarked, "The difference between the Mafia and bankers is that the Mafia always leaves a few crumbs on the table." ..."
    "... Did I hear that right – the private finance sector will have cost us (in the US) 23Tr$ by 2020. And from 1990 to 2005 big finance cost us (already) 14Tr in fees, pay, fraud, misallocation and lost productivity. Yet we continue to deregulate even though all governments know how destructive deregulated finance is. ..."
    "... yes, the EU does seem to be hungry to grab up all that finance for itself I keep thinking about Schaeuble coming to NYC c2012 and holding an impromptu news conference wherein he said it was fine with him if some banks went down because "we are overbanked." But we do have to admit that "overbanked" is an understatement since there are no productive investments and it's just self-defeating. I mean, how long can this go on? ..."
    "... I don't know, how much money do you have left? ..."
    "... It pays to remember that prior to 2008, hot (sovereign state backed) money flowed unimpeded like water across all EU borders, regardless of regulation, in search of quick handsome and easy returns, and much of it from subsequently bailed out by the ECB backdoor major lenders in France and Germany lending recklessly to poorer EZ members. ..."
    "... The lasting results of this and its hasty, damaging retreat and the inequitable socialisation of the debt across the EZ are, of course, still being felt today. ..."
    "... One of the major causes of the financial crisis was lax global regulation period. So let's not kid ourselves that by removing the UK from the European Union equation it is suddenly going to render it a bastion of sound prudential banking practice, particularly given various members recent comments that they intend to do anything in their power to tempt a post Brexit UK's financial services at the earliest opportunity. ..."
    "... I do subscribe to the belief that the UK financial services sector has been and still is toxic to its economy and long-term future, and without a doubt this informed the Brexit vote, albeit in some cases on a subconscious level. ..."
    Mar 26, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on March 25, 2017 by Yves Smith Originally published at the Tax Justice Network

    In our March 2017 Taxcast: the high price we're paying for our finance sectors – we look at staggering statistics showing how the US finance sector is a net drag on their economy .

    Also, as the British government initiates Brexit divorce negotiations to leave the EU, we discuss something they ought to know, but obviously don't – they're actually in a very weak position. Could it mean the beginning of the end of the finance curse gripping the UK economy?

    Featuring: John Christensen and Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network, and Professor of Economics Gerald Epstein of the University of Masachusetts Amhurst , author of Overcharged: The High Cost of High Finance . Produced and presented by Naomi Fowler for the Tax Justice Network.

    Professor Gerald Epstein:

    If you look at particular finance centres, say London and New York, the problem is that the net cost of this system is quite significant, it imposes a cost not only on people who use finance but for the whole economy. So, what we need to think about is what are the more productive activities that ought to be substituted for these excessive aspects of finance?

    John Christensen, Tax Justice Network on Britain's weak position in Brexit negotiations:

    We might be seeing the start of the end of Britain's grip by the Finance Curse

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/E7oOiJl1n1I

    Download the mp3 to listen offline anytime on your computer, mobile/cell phone or handheld device by right clicking here and selecting 'save link as'.

    Want more Taxcasts? The full playlist is here .

    Want to subscribe? Subscribe via email by contacting the Taxcast producer on naomi [at] taxjustice.net OR subscribe to the Taxcast RSS feed here OR subscribe to our youtube channel, Tax Justice TV OR find us on iTunes

    skippy , March 25, 2017 at 3:01 am

    Drag = Rentier = bottle neck economics which in the end becomes a death spiral due to lack of demand and jobs quality .

    Si , March 25, 2017 at 3:45 am

    It is a cleverly worked out system for wealth transfer. Complex laws, political backing and protection even if you break the law. At least in the old days when you got robbed you had the signal of having a pistol pointed at you. The modern version, with all the insider media psyops, leaves those who are preyed upon feeling that they are the ones to blame.

    The business model is straight out of the Cosa Nostra playbook – except there is media, political and legal backing.

    Genius.

    Hayek's Heelbiter , March 25, 2017 at 6:14 am

    As an Italian friend of mine (who rarely goes north of 14th Street) once remarked, "The difference between the Mafia and bankers is that the Mafia always leaves a few crumbs on the table."

    Watt4Bob , March 25, 2017 at 11:00 am

    "Wouldn't you rather give me my money, that you have in your pocket, rather than force me to take the pistol out of my pocket, and point it at you, and rob you, and become a criminal?"

    As you can clearly see, the logic is flawless, we are all much better off acquiescing to the reasonable demands of the FIRE sector, the only alternative being an admission that we're in the clutches of a deeply organized criminal element.

    susan the other , March 25, 2017 at 11:44 am

    thanks for this Taxcast, very to the point.

    Did I hear that right – the private finance sector will have cost us (in the US) 23Tr$ by 2020. And from 1990 to 2005 big finance cost us (already) 14Tr in fees, pay, fraud, misallocation and lost productivity. Yet we continue to deregulate even though all governments know how destructive deregulated finance is.

    And we know that the US is the biggest and most secret tax haven of them all

    The first part of Taxcast speculated that Brexit will actually free the UK from the stranglehold of big finance and the country will be able to move on to more productive economic activity. So let us hope the US comes to its senses – just as the EU has finally isolated the rot of UK finance, maybe the rest of the world will isolate us.

    Regulation seems to be hand-in-glove with national sovereignty. Whereas globalized finance might have escaped national regulation bec. there was always a safe haven for banksters, now with a backlash of indignant people all over the world there will be re-regulation at national levels. Since there is no global authority that can do that yet. Anyway, now that economies are trashed, there is way too much hot money to find good investments. It has already become absurd.

    Colonel Smithers , March 25, 2017 at 11:51 am

    Thank you, Susan.

    I would not be so hasty thinking that the EU(27) has finally isolated the rot of UK finance. Much of that finance was not UK, but using the UK. The EU(27) is no less corrupt than the UK and as susceptible to big finance's charms.

    I worked as a lobbyist in Brussels (and Basel and DC) for years.

    susan the other , March 25, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    yes, the EU does seem to be hungry to grab up all that finance for itself I keep thinking about Schaeuble coming to NYC c2012 and holding an impromptu news conference wherein he said it was fine with him if some banks went down because "we are overbanked." But we do have to admit that "overbanked" is an understatement since there are no productive investments and it's just self-defeating. I mean, how long can this go on?

    Watt4Bob , March 25, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    I mean, how long can this go on?

    I don't know, how much money do you have left?

    Gman , March 25, 2017 at 6:25 pm

    Great piece. Thank you.

    I'm not sure I get the 'rules on financial services are different than other goods and services' line being peddled here though. Maybe in theory, but it's pretty much a moot point.

    It pays to remember that prior to 2008, hot (sovereign state backed) money flowed unimpeded like water across all EU borders, regardless of regulation, in search of quick handsome and easy returns, and much of it from subsequently bailed out by the ECB backdoor major lenders in France and Germany lending recklessly to poorer EZ members.

    The lasting results of this and its hasty, damaging retreat and the inequitable socialisation of the debt across the EZ are, of course, still being felt today.

    One of the major causes of the financial crisis was lax global regulation period. So let's not kid ourselves that by removing the UK from the European Union equation it is suddenly going to render it a bastion of sound prudential banking practice, particularly given various members recent comments that they intend to do anything in their power to tempt a post Brexit UK's financial services at the earliest opportunity.

    I do subscribe to the belief that the UK financial services sector has been and still is toxic to its economy and long-term future, and without a doubt this informed the Brexit vote, albeit in some cases on a subconscious level.

    [Mar 25, 2017] Putin is not the only one who knows how to play a Dead Hand

    Mar 25, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    warsev Mar 25, 2017 6:40 PM

    Thing is, if Binney was actually a problem for the NSA et. al, the problem would be quickly eliminated. That he's still around to say what he says means that the NSA at least doesn't care, or more likely that he's a controlled disinformation mouthpiece.

    Let the downvotes commence...

    Not Too Important -> warsev Mar 25, 2017 6:49 PM

    Or his 'insurance policy' is as big as Snowden's and Montgomery's. Putin isn't the only one that knows how to play a 'Dead Hand'.

    Winston Churchill -> warsev Mar 25, 2017 6:54 PM

    He probably has something much more dangerous to them to be released on a dead mans switch.

    9/11 the full story perhaps.

    CnStiggs Winston -> Churchillmm Mar 25, 2017 7:10 PM Indeed.

    Like Kevin Shipp. I just got his book, "From The Company of Shadows" about his career in the CIA

    Paper Mache -> Winston Churchill Mar 25, 2017 7:34 PM

    II was thinking about that today. How is this man still alive, given the information he was talking about to Carlson?

    I hope that the climate continues to warm towards whistleblowers, and more and more honest whistle blowers come forward to speak up. It''s the way to drain the sulphurous swamp. 9/11 might could surface and blow that way .

    Perhaps Trump should start looking at Snowdon and Assange in completely different light too.

    crossroaddemon -> warsev Mar 25, 2017 8:12 PM

    That's what I was thinking, too. To consider this genuine, or at least important, one has to assume that there's an uncompromised press outlet.

    I don't believe that. I think wikileaks is a psyop as well. Maybe even Snowden.

    [Mar 25, 2017] Theyre Like The Praetorian Guard - Whistleblower Confirms NSA Targeted Congress, The Supreme Court, Trump Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... "They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said. ..."
    "... "That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it." ..."
    "... "I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded. ..."
    "... Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult. ..."
    "... "This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said. ..."
    "... "Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count." ..."
    "... Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor is..." ..."
    Mar 25, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Chris Menahan via InformationLiberation.com,

    NSA whistleblower William Binney told Tucker Carlson on Friday that the NSA is spying on "all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House."

    Binney, who served the NSA for 30 years before blowing the whistle on domestic spying in 2001, told Tucker he firmly believes that Trump was spied on.

    "They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said.

    "That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it."

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/lkChOSdOgcc

    "Inside NSA there are a set of people who are -- and we got this from another NSA whistleblower who witnessed some of this -- they're inside there, they are targeting and looking at all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House," Binney said.

    "And all this data is inside the NSA in a small group where they're looking at it. The idea is to see what people in power over you are going to -- what they think, what they think you should be doing or planning to do to you, your budget, or whatever so you can try to counteract before it actually happens," he said.

    "I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded.

    Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult.

    "This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said.

    "Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count."

    Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor is..."

    Who's going to stop them?

    toady -> Bank_sters Mar 25, 2017 9:22 PM
    I'm continually amazed that anyone thinks they are not being "wiretapped".

    One more time;

    Everyone, from the queen to the homeless guy on the corner, is being tracked, recorded, and data mined to the hilt.

    I hope people start to REALLY understand this....

    NAV GUS100CORRINA Mar 25, 2017 7:19 PM

    Bringing history more up to date, this is Stalinism, i.e., fascism. As John T. Flynn states, "Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator." Neo-fascism of course is Stalinism-blame Hitler.

    So, is it fascism?

    Yes, says Major Todd Pierce (retired) in an interview with Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss - who says NSA whistle blower Bill Binney has "got to be one of the smartest people in the world, I don't think that's an exaggeration. He was one of the smartest people at the NSA.

    Says Weiss: "And he agrees with me fully. Because he's seen the NSA. We're a more sophisticated form of what I think has to be called fascism. The term fascism was applied to the way the communists and Stalin got on as well. You bring the term fascist to what it really means, and that ultimately is, ultramilitarism and authoritarianism combined with an expansionist foreign policy. And that's us-what you can see us becoming."

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/09/innocence-worldview-retired/#sthash.XjFDU6km.dpuf

    Rubicon727 -> GUS100CORRINA •Mar 25, 2017 7:38 PM

    The Roman Empire's death was far more complicated than "moral rot" and its "currency devaluation." Read some history books.

    Chris Hedges makes the observation that ALL empires that are scourges of the earth, eventually turn inwards. As the empire begins its fatal decline, the terror they inflicted on outsiders, is then turned against its own citizens.

    We now see that happening in America. Banks, corporations, intel/military, etc. are turning inward: destroying meaningful employment, humane health care, and pilfering billions of $s reserved for the 1%.

    Just Another Vi... -> FriendlyAquaponics •Mar 25, 2017 8:05 PM

    A video worth revisiting......

    Reuters ..........

    ... Obama criticizes Donald Trump endlessly....over Trumps assertions that the election is rigged..,

    telling the candidate to "stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN12I27L

    HRClinton -> JLee2027 •Mar 25, 2017 8:15 PM

    Who does the NSA work for on the Org Chart?

    That's right, the DOD. They can't go completely rogue, without the explicit or implicit approval of the Secretary of Defense and his Deputies.

    It is rather phoney and hypocritical of any POTUS - including Pres. Thump - to moan about the NSA, without loping off heads at the DOD and NSA. By that, I include all the Deputies, who do the real work and know the real secrets.

    It's time that Thump had a "Come to Jesus" meeting with all these guys. Else he's part of the problem, and no amount of sugar coating can stop a turd being a turd.

    TheReplacement -> HRClinton •Mar 25, 2017 9:42 PM

    In an honest world, sure.

    In reality, no. Like Binney said, they don't have to do anything they don't like because NOBODY can prove they haven't complied with orders. There is nobody who can watch the watchers. They can blackmail anyone.

    'Gosh, I have no idea how that child porn got on my computer.'

    CIA or NSA knows exactly how it got there. They put it there.

    [Mar 25, 2017] What is Economism and why it is so damaging

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ugh what an awful display of pop economism. Globalization and technology are "impersonal forces." No mention of the rise of inequality or the SecStags. No mention of monetary policy fail in Europe. The biggest lies of economism are the lies of omission. ..."
    "... Looks like this concept of "Economism" introduced by James Kwak in his book Economism is very important conceptual tool for understanding the tremendous effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda. ..."
    "... When competitive free markets and rational well-informed actors are the baseline assumption, the burden of proof shifts unfairly onto anyone proposing a government policy. ..."
    "... For example, the basic Econ 101 theory of supply and demand is fine for some products, but it doesn't work very well for labor markets. It is incapable of simultaneously explaining both the small effect of minimum wage increases and the small impact of low-skilled immigration. Some more complicated, advanced theory is called for. ..."
    "... But no matter how much evidence piles up, people keep talking about "the labor supply curve" and "the labor demand curve" as if these are real objects, and to analyze policies -- for example, overtime rules -- using the same old framework. ..."
    "... An idea that we believe in despite all evidence to the contrary isn't a scientific theory -- it's an infectious meme. ..."
    "... Academic economists are unsure about how to respond to the abuse of simplistic econ theories for political ends. On one hand, it gives them enormous prestige. The popularity of simplistic econ ideas has made economists the toast of America's intellectual classes. ..."
    "... It has sustained enormous demand for the undergraduate econ major, which serves, in the words of writer Michael Lewis, as a "standardized test of general intelligence" for future businesspeople. But as Kwak points out, the simple theories promulgated by politicians and on the Wall Street Journal editorial page often bear little resemblance to the sophisticated theories used by real economists. ..."
    "... And when things go wrong -- when the financial system crashes, or millions of workers displaced by Chinese imports fail to find new careers -- it's academic economists who often get blamed, not the blasι and misleading popularizers. ..."
    Jan 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : January 20, 2017 at 04:35 AM

    Noah Smith: The Ways That Pop Economics Hurt America - Noah Smith

    "So I wonder if economism was really as unrealistic and useless as Kwak seems to imply. Did countries that resisted economism -- Japan, for example, or France [Germany?] -- do better for their poor and middle classes than the U.S.? Wages have stagnated in those countries, and inequality has increased, even as those countries remain poorer than the U.S. Did the U.S.'s problems really all come from economism, or did forces such as globalization and technological change play a part? Cross-country comparisons suggest that the deregulation and tax cuts of the 1980s and 1990s, although ultimately excessive, probably increased economic output somewhat."

    Ugh what an awful display of pop economism. Globalization and technology are "impersonal forces." No mention of the rise of inequality or the SecStags. No mention of monetary policy fail in Europe. The biggest lies of economism are the lies of omission.

    libezkova -> Peter K.... , -1
    Thank you --

    Looks like this concept of "Economism" introduced by James Kwak in his book Economism is very important conceptual tool for understanding the tremendous effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda.

    I think it is proper to view Economism as a flavor of Lysenkoism. As such it is not very effective in acquiring the dominant position and suppressing of dissent, but it also can be very damaging.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-19/the-ways-that-pop-economics-hurt-america

    == quote ==

    ...When competitive free markets and rational well-informed actors are the baseline assumption, the burden of proof shifts unfairly onto anyone proposing a government policy. For far too many years, free-marketers have gotten away with winning debates by just sitting back and saying "Oh yeah? Show me the market failure!" That deck-stacking has long forced public intellectuals on the left have to work twice as hard as those safely ensconced in think tanks on the free-market right, and given the latter a louder voice in public life than their ideas warrant.

    It's also true that simple theories, especially those we learn in our formative years, can maintain an almost unshakeable grip on our thinking.

    For example, the basic Econ 101 theory of supply and demand is fine for some products, but it doesn't work very well for labor markets. It is incapable of simultaneously explaining both the small effect of minimum wage increases and the small impact of low-skilled immigration. Some more complicated, advanced theory is called for.

    But no matter how much evidence piles up, people keep talking about "the labor supply curve" and "the labor demand curve" as if these are real objects, and to analyze policies -- for example, overtime rules -- using the same old framework.

    An idea that we believe in despite all evidence to the contrary isn't a scientific theory -- it's an infectious meme.

    Academic economists are unsure about how to respond to the abuse of simplistic econ theories for political ends. On one hand, it gives them enormous prestige. The popularity of simplistic econ ideas has made economists the toast of America's intellectual classes.

    It has sustained enormous demand for the undergraduate econ major, which serves, in the words of writer Michael Lewis, as a "standardized test of general intelligence" for future businesspeople. But as Kwak points out, the simple theories promulgated by politicians and on the Wall Street Journal editorial page often bear little resemblance to the sophisticated theories used by real economists.

    And when things go wrong -- when the financial system crashes, or millions of workers displaced by Chinese imports fail to find new careers -- it's academic economists who often get blamed, not the blasι and misleading popularizers.

    ... ... ...

    Russia and China have given up communism not because they stopped having working classes, but because it became obvious that their communist systems were keeping them in poverty. And Americans are now starting to question economism because of declining median income, spiraling inequality and a huge financial and economic crisis.

    [Mar 25, 2017] Hillary and her faction were puppets of deep state. Their liberal interventionist hawk was the same idea as neocons, in many cases it was the same people.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I suspect that Bill and Hillary Clinton were recruited in the sixties under COINTELPRO (Hillary) and the CIA to do spywork for them. Having been a college student in the late sixties, if you went to a peace rally there was an undercover FBI agent to your left, a CIA asset to your right, a military intelligence officer sitting behind you and a cop from the local red squad in front of you. ..."
    "... I understand that Bill's friends in England just presumed he was CIA ..."
    "... Hillary's morphing from Goldwater Girl to neoliberal Democrat occurred while she was hovering around Black Panther legal problems. She observed the Panther trials in New Haven and then spent a summer interning for the law firm in Berkeley that at the time was representing the Black Panthers on the West Coast. The Panthers were the FBI's number one target back then. ..."
    "... having "moderate" Dems connected to the Deep State is always helpful. It appears that the role of the Clintons in our unwritten history was to move the Democratic Party to the corporate right. ..."
    "... Hillary, when serving on the legal staff for the Democratic Watergate Committee, certainly sat in a place where she could report Democratic progress and how various intelligence leaks were viewed by the other Democrats. ..."
    "... The current "Russia hack/Trump traitor" false flag (I describe it more fully below) was originally to give a self-righteous President Clinton the moral high ground to march into Ukraine, the one thing that Trump wouldn't give the Deep State. ..."
    Mar 25, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Mark Thomason , March 23, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    This should be no real surprise. Hillary and her faction were neo-Republicans. Their liberal interventionist hawk was the same idea as neocons, in many cases it was the same people.

    They kept control of the party. It is not Democratic in the sense of opposing war or McCarthyism or corporate abuses or Wall Street or trade agreements. It is bought and paid for by the people who were the Republicans all along.

    This is the end state of triangulating courtesy of Bill Clinton. We have two Republican parties, one even crazier than the other.

    Bob In Portland , March 23, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    I suspect that Bill and Hillary Clinton were recruited in the sixties under COINTELPRO (Hillary) and the CIA to do spywork for them. Having been a college student in the late sixties, if you went to a peace rally there was an undercover FBI agent to your left, a CIA asset to your right, a military intelligence officer sitting behind you and a cop from the local red squad in front of you.

    I understand that Bill's friends in England just presumed he was CIA

    Hillary's morphing from Goldwater Girl to neoliberal Democrat occurred while she was hovering around Black Panther legal problems. She observed the Panther trials in New Haven and then spent a summer interning for the law firm in Berkeley that at the time was representing the Black Panthers on the West Coast. The Panthers were the FBI's number one target back then.

    After JFK's removal, the Deep State wanted better control of both parties. Nixon wasn't supposed to be the problem he was for them, so Watergate. But having "moderate" Dems connected to the Deep State is always helpful. It appears that the role of the Clintons in our unwritten history was to move the Democratic Party to the corporate right.

    Perhaps Bill earned his bones with Asa Hutchinson in the 80s by ignoring Mena. Hillary, when serving on the legal staff for the Democratic Watergate Committee, certainly sat in a place where she could report Democratic progress and how various intelligence leaks were viewed by the other Democrats.

    The current "Russia hack/Trump traitor" false flag (I describe it more fully below) was originally to give a self-righteous President Clinton the moral high ground to march into Ukraine, the one thing that Trump wouldn't give the Deep State.

    JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 9:14 pm

    Interesting speculations. For new readers just getting acquainted with the Deep State, consider the scholarly work by professor Peter Dale Scott. Here are three interviews about his books.

    In the Conversations With History series from UC Berkeley.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBGgxU27kJA

    Deep Politics on the 50th anniversary of JFK's murder.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0CFpMej3mA

    The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QH9yOzhkio

    [Mar 25, 2017] Every time the ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California opens his mouth to propagate unsubstantiated allegations against Russia and Russian influence on the last US elections, he makes a reminder, inadvertently, of the First Husband (the philanderer) taking $500.000 from Russians.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan. US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies to the Afghan Taliban". ..."
    "... It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say "the dog ate my homework". ..."
    "... He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird of prey" ..."
    "... 69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing ..."
    "... I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist traitors. They are Ziocrats. ..."
    "... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that Israel's exaggerated influence in the US. ..."
    "... Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right. ..."
    "... US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and Japan. ..."
    "... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. ..."
    "... Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship". ..."
    "... The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." ..."
    "... I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away. ..."
    "... When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, ..."
    Mar 25, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Anna , March 23, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    Every time the ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California opens his mouth to propagate unsubstantiated allegations against Russia and Russian influence on the last US elections, he makes a reminder, inadvertently, of the First Husband (the philanderer) taking $500.000 from Russians. The money was a bribe intended to make a right impression on Mrs. Clinton. Keep going Mr. Schiff. There were also tens of millions of $US dollars delivered to Clintons Foundation by the major sponsors of terrorism. These tens of millions of dollars from Saudis, Qatari, and Moroccans constitute bribing of a State Department official. As a result of these bribes, the US government has violated the US Constitution by supplying the US-made weaponry to the Middle Eastern warmongering despots/sponsors of terrorism. That is indeed a treason. Let Mr. Schiff talk. He has been making a nice rope for his own hanging.

    Skip Scott , March 24, 2017 at 8:02 am

    Great post Anna.

    Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:06 am

    Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan. US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies to the Afghan Taliban".

    It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say "the dog ate my homework".

    But what this sick and unintelligent bull does to Russia? It appears that the US coup in Ukraine and its support for Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria have solidified Putin's popularity rating at around an unimaginable 85%. All this in the middle of a fairly serious economic crisis in Russia. There is and there has been no major country in the World where the leader has had such approval rating, for so long and despite the economy in a bad shape. Read all about it: http://johnhelmer.net/the-us-war-has-been-good-for-president-vladimir-putin-and-the-russian-economy-looks-stable-through-the-presidential-election-so-if-you-are-a-us-warfighter-what-is-the-regime-change-opportunity-no/#more-17368

    Therefore, all these US Demopublicans, generals and other assorted officials are obviously all on Putin's payroll, because they keep working to increase his popularity.

    Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    Democrats. Republicans. Same old, same old.

    In 1904 Upton Sinclair wrote in The Jungle :

    "The original edition of the novel concluded with its proletarian protagonist attending a mass rally addressed by the American Socialist Party's mesmerizing presidential candidate – Sinclair's fictional representation of Eugene Debs. The candidate, Sinclair wrote:

    "was a man of electric presence, tall and gaunt, with a face worn think by struggle and suffering. The fury of outraged manhood gleamed in him – and the tears of suffering. When he spoke he paced the stage restlessly; he was lithe and eager, like a panther. He leaned over, reaching out for his audience; he pointed into their souls with an insistent finger. His voice was husky from much speaking, but the hall was still as death, and everyone heard him. He spoke the language of workingmen – he pointed them the way. He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird of prey" [emphasis added]. The people were allowed to choose between their candidates, and both of them were controlled, and all their nominations were dictated by, the same [money] power."

    In a number of essays Walter Karp made similar points backed up by lots of evidence.

    Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:04 pm

    That book should be required reading in this country. I suspect most people have never even heard of it despite the fact that it was undoubtedly one of the most influential books of the early 20th century.

    D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    The time is extraordinary in the reckless and naked way the PTB (i.e. the two major parties) are exposing themselves as to NOT serving the people. I was disappointed today to read on RT that 69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing (showing I've been wrong lately on my estimates), but I'm hopeful that will not last. More important, Robert's article shows us the dedication of the parties to their deeper playbook, which is obviously controlled by financial interests, not the people's interests. The nakedness of this exposure today is unusual in my experience of watching Washington.

    Recommended: a look at what could be a companion piece to Robert's article from Mike Whitney in today's counterpunch, titled "Will Washington risk WWIII to block an emerging EU-Russia super-state":

    From that article:

    "For the last 70 years the imperial strategy has worked without a hitch, but now Russia's resurgence and China's explosive growth are threatening to break free from Washington's stranglehold. The Asian allies have begun to crisscross Central Europe and Asis with pipelines and high-speed rail that will gather together the far-flung statelets scattered across the steppe, draw them into a Eurasian Economic Union, and link them to an expansive and thriving superstate, the epicenter of global commerce and industry."

    BannanaBoat , March 23, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    Neither the proud Russians nor Chinese will diminish their nation and culture. BRICS is the level of unity they will accept.

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist traitors. They are Ziocrats.

    J. D. , March 23, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that Israel's exaggerated influence in the US.

    Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right.

    US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and Japan.

    Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    Well said. It's also time to get rid of the phony "Special Relationship" (between 1%er oligarchs of The City and The Street), to replace it with the actual Special Relationship, so as to ease UK's transition into the New multi-polar Era dawning: this is tribal, in that dear old "Mother Country" need not worry that Her "Four Children" (Australia, Canada, N.Z., USA) will leave Her out in the cold. THAT is the TRUE special relationship; the far-flung, English-speaking Tribe will see to the General Welfare of ALL of its' members, but without degrading the well-being of the rest of the World. War is obsolete, not conducive to anyone's well-being, Geopolitics & divide & conquer is over, finished.

    Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    Zionism is a product of Cecil Rhodes' RoundTable Group, which, in concert with the Synarchist Movement for Empire, concerned how to manage African and Middle East colonies and assets belonging mainly to British and French Empires (which also explains WHY the Brits dawdled in North Africa during WWII, much to the chagrin of Stalin and Gen Marshall, who wanted to open up the Western Front ASAP).

    They found the perfect opportunity to implement the strategy post-WWII, and suckered USA, via The City's Wall Street Tories, into guaranteeing the existence of Israel. End of story.

    Check out the tons of articles on the subject at the EIR website. Tarpley covers it well also. Argue your case with them, F Sam. Good luck. You'll need lots of it.

    rosemerry , March 23, 2017 at 4:49 pm

    All the talk of "Russian interference" takes over the media, but the ever-present Israeli connection is just accepted as normal. Saudi Arabia, too, is allowed plenty of influence while Iran is demonized.

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm

    Yes, Brad, I agree that Cecil Rhodes and others were involved with the zionists fairly early, although perhaps the greatest British interest was in the Suez canal. Also agree that the US was fooled into taking over the Suez protection and pressuring the UN to create Israel. No doubt there was Wall St interest, although I gather that zionists made direct "donations" to Truman's campaign for the UN pressure.

    No doubt there were British zionists involved. But I think that JD's theory that Brits control US policy in the Mideast is a diversion from the obvious zionist control, whether he knows it or not. I will look again at your EIR website. Did not mean to offend.

    Brad Owen , March 24, 2017 at 4:27 am

    Sam, we just disagree on the location of the REAL enemy. The zionistas are indeed real, and a threat, a real enemy to the USA, but I maintain they are just a weapon wielded by our traditional enemy who has always fought to undermine us here in America; the British Empire (an entity distinct from the Anglo-Celtic people living on the British Isles who are our tribal mates and suffering under the same yoke of Empire as are we).

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:26 pm

    Completely wrong: it is an obvious fact that the Democrats have been taken over by the zionists. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." Hillary's major campaign sponsors are all Jewish.
    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/033116/top-10-corporate-contributors-clinton-campaign.asp
    The top 10 contributors to HRCs Superpac were as follows:
    1. Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna: $35 million
    2. Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners: $21,100,000
    3. Jay Robert Pritzker (Mary), Pritzker Group and Foundation: $12,600,000
    4. Haim Saban and Cheryl Saban, Saban Capital Group: $10,000,000
    5. George Soros (Schwartz): $9,525,000 (changed name from Schwartz)
    6. S. Daniel Abraham, SDA Enterprises: $9,000,000
    7. Fred Eychaner (Eichner), Newsweb Corporation: $8,005,400
    8. James Simons (Shimon), Euclidean Capital: $7,000,000
    9. Henry Laufer and Marsha Laufer, Renaissance Technologies: $5,500,000
    10. Laure Woods (Wald), Laurel Foundation: $5 million

    Your suggestion that this is "British empire" policy is way beyond the ridiculous, it is zionist propaganda. The entire UK economy is a small fraction of that of the US, and there is little financial connection.

    I challenge you to deny these facts, or to substantiate the absurd theory of British control. US mass media.

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    To continue, the US mass media are also controlled by Jews, presumably zionists. About 40-60 percent of US newspapers are controlled by persons of identifiable Jewish surnames, while less than half of Jewish people can be so identified. Most of the rest are indirectly controlled by Jews.

    No further explanation is needed of the mass media craze for Hillary Clinton (Kleinberg). The DNC emails show that she talks to no one but Jews about Mideast policy.

    No further proof is needed of the origins of Democrat policy in the Mideast. It may play to the interests of the MIC and oil companies sometimes, but not in Syria/Libya/Egypt. And we got no special deals on Iraqi oil anyway, and had no reason to expect them.

    Your move.

    JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:33 pm

    In support of your points, here is an excellent article at a Jewish-run, anti-Zionist website that points out the huge known influence of Israel on American politics that is being ignored amidst all the speculation about possible Russian influence, "Let's talk about Russian influence"
    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/

    Mondoweiss is a site of news and analysis with high journalistic standards. Like Consortium News it has also been attacked by the Deep State for its honesty.

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm

    Thank you; it is very appropriate to note that many Jewish people are strong critics of zionism and Israeli policies. There is some hope that they will assist in liberating Jews as well as Palestinians from the racism of the zionists, as many whites assisted in greatly reducing racism among whites in the US against African-Americans.

    Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking.

    There were references in an earlier post quoting two former Israeli prime ministers saying, in effect, they could take care of U.S. politicians to ensure they would do Israel's bidding. I recall Yitzhak Shamir was one of them. The spectacle of Netanyahu showing contempt for Obama in the way he addressed Congress and the standing ovations Netanyahu got from the senators and Congresspersons who sold their souls to the Israel lobby kind of supports the proposition that "the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists"" Same thing goes for the Republicans.

    Anna , March 23, 2017 at 6:08 pm

    Have you heard about PNAC? Have you heard about the Lobby?
    http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/neocons-as-a-figment-of-imagination/#comment-1810991

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 9:55 pm

    Thanks for the links. PNAC founders Kristol and Kagan helped harness forces for zionist goals. PNAC signers W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were principal promoters of Iraq War II, as Wolfowitz installed Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser at CIA/DIA/NSA offices to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite the war.

    Jerry Alatalo , March 23, 2017 at 6:50 pm

    J. D.,

    "The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking."

    Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship".

    Can you share the names of major influential figures composing what you describe as the "Anglo-American financial oligarchy" for the benefit of others who pass this way?

    It's hard to explain away Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and so many other U.S. politicians fighting each other to get to the head of the pack in supporting Israel. Bernie Sanders only mentioned that Palestinians suffer human and civil rights deficiencies and the world shook, despite it being only a very minor, tiny critique of Israel. Can we imagine what would have happened – the titanic reaction – had Mr. Sanders blurted out during one of the debates with Ms, Clinton the same conclusion that Professor Virginia Tilley and Professor Richard Falk's report arrived at very recently – that the State of Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid?

    Years ago while Mr. Sanders appeared weekly with Thom Hartmann on "Brunch With Bernie" we redialed the call-in program until finally getting through and asking two questions. The first was a request for a response from Senator Sanders on the trillion-dollar / year global tax haven-evasion industry facilitated by the world's most powerful accounting, legal and banking firms. The second requested response on the suggestion that it was time to "nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve". Mr. Sanders responded to the 1st, then suddenly the show went to music and a break – then after the break until show's end nothing about the Federal Reserve.

    My guess is that Mr. Sanders and Mr. Hartmann were aware of a "panic button to break" to be triggered when the live call-in topics became, let's say, "unmanageable". That is just a guess,but another guess is that Mr. Sanders was the recipient of, how shall we put it, very "risky" news during his campaign for president when running against Ms. Clinton. So, long story short, Sanders capitulated because he's fully aware of what happened to JFK, MLK and RFK, Clinton became spoiled goods and unacceptable as America's new CEO, and Donald Trump was selected. Trump's long-time friends include "Lucky" Larry Silverstein, who just happened to avoid being in his Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, breaking his religiously kept routine of breakfast every morning in a restaurant located in the top floors of one of the towers – because his wife fortunately convinced him to keep an appointment with his dermatologist.

    Donald Trump, "Lucky Larry" and Benjamin Netanyahu are long-time friends.

    ***

    Men and women wishing to read, copy, save and disseminate the report on Israel apartheid by Professor Tilley and Professor Falk can find it online at the co-author's internet platform, available at:

    https://richardfalk.wordpress.com

    Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor."

    In exchange Israel got a $38 BILLION package of US aid. What a deal!! Presumably, the Israel lobby will show its appreciation to Obama with donations to his presidential library probably making that library the most expensive ever.

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:27 pm

    Yes, there can be little doubt that the zionist campaign money comes at least indirectly from US aid to Israel, and that the aid is intended substantially for that purpose. Investigation of such cashflows might turn up evidence, although there is a quid pro quo economy on both sides that could easily obscure the feedback.

    You may well be right in suggesting that the vast aid flows simply make campaign donations a great investment for those who would otherwise have invested in Israel. But the Dems and Reps know that this aid to Israel is for campaign bribes, pure and simple.

    JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:42 pm

    In addition to the carrot bribes, there are also the blackmail sticks. This possibility is consistent with the following segment of a 1998 interview with Kay Griggs, former wife of the U.S. Army's director of assassination training.

    Kay Griggs: "Even when he [General Al Gray] was General he ran an intelligence operation which was a contract organization trying to hook politicians, and get them. What is the word? In other words "

    Interviewer: "In compromising situations?"

    Kay Griggs: "Yes, yes. He had and still has an organization which brings in whores, prostitutes, whatever you want to say, who will compromise politicians so they can be used."

    The above is in Part 2 of the whole interview, starting at 48:00 in the video at
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-SEA9W6pmA

    In Part 1 of the interview she explains the motives behind this.

    Kay Griggs: "I'm talking about the Brooklyn-New Jersey mob. My husband, Al Gray, Sheehan, they're all Brooklyn. Cap Weinberger. Heinz Kissinger – there's the Boston mob, which was shipping weapons back and forth to Northern Ireland. And I don't want to get too deeply involved in that, but it goes – Israel – some of the Zionists who came over from Germany, according to my husband, were – he works with those people – they do a lot of money laundering in the banks, cash transactions for the drugs they're bringing over, through Latin America, the Southern Mafia, the Dixie Mafia, which now my husband's involved with in Miami. The military are all involved once they retire. They're – you know, they go into this drug and secondary weapon sales."

    The above starts soon after 18:00 in the video at
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNitCNycKQ
    (Part 1 of interview)

    Further on the following exchange occurs.

    Interviewer: "And directly under whose instructions to sell these weapons, do you know that?"

    Kay Griggs: "Yeah."

    Interviewer: "Okay, who would that be?"

    Kay Griggs: "Well, uh, [pause] it's the Israeli-Zionist group in New York."

    The above starts at 1:06:45 in the same video at
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNitCNycKQ

    Shortly afterward in the same segment is this exchange.

    Kay Griggs: "It's kind of like Monica and Bill. I think they put Monica in there to have something on Bill. That's my own feeling. Sarah McClendon feels the same way. Because "

    Interviewer: "And Linda Tripp was there to guide the situation."

    Kay Griggs: "Absolutely, of course. Linda Tripp was Delta Force. Linda Tripp was trained by Carl Steiner, who's in the diary [her husband's] with my husband. And he [Steiner] tried to trip up Schwarzkopf. I mean, he was trying to take, to take the whole Iraqi thing over because they had been baiting, you know using the Israeli rogues in Turkey. They were having little zig-zag wars. It's all to sell weapons. It's all about weapons sales, it's all about drugs, it's all about funny money."

    A blackmail factor, combined with financial carrots, and especially if backed up with a death threat, could easily explain why a reasonably intelligent and educated person would act uninformed and irrational. The surface inconsistency becomes easy to understand. A strategic system of blackmail of the sort Kay Griggs described could easily explain a phalanx of politicians lying in lockstep to American voters, and voting against America's best interests.

    backwardsevolution , March 24, 2017 at 12:19 am

    JWalters – fascinating! Thanks for posting. Makes sense, doesn't it?

    Sam f , March 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    That is fascinating. There must be material on the linkages of secret agencies, ex-military staff, political gangsters, and money-laundering banksters to the drugs and weapons trade. They would be useful tools for false-flag incidents and to supply terror groups.

    Those with connections should contact independent news reporters, who could perhaps train journalism students to investigate further. There may be material in the Wikileaks Vault-7 dump of CIA docs.

    Pablo Diablo , March 23, 2017 at 1:39 pm

    A military buildup=an empire in decline.

    chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:25 pm

    before they let their hegemony over humanity collapse, they blow up the planet.

    what's remarkable, for me as an outsider at least, how many insane people are running the show and that's not exclusive to the psychotic right. seeing the mad general at hillary's DNC coronation and the "U!S!A!" chants from the crowd, i'm under the impression that the majority of Americans, that has not yet been marginalized and impoverished, is as deranged as ecstatic Germans cheering on Goebbels and his total war.

    Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:29 pm

    Actually what's happening now in the US is more like France in 1848

    Pauline Saxon , March 23, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    I have supported you from the beginning. I would like to understand why you seem to be protecting Trump

    D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    I don't believe Robert Parry or this site are protecting Trump. Questioning the demonizing and slandering of Trump, and efforts to remove him, also do not constitute "protecting."

    Trump was elected legitimately to be the president for better or worse. An assessment means looking at both sides of whatever it is. Trump is obviously not doing well and getting negative evaluations, but some of his views (for one example) that promise toward dιtente or acceptance of a multi-polar world are worth considering.

    Is he genuinely moving in this direction, or faking for some hidden reason? The jury is still considering. So investigating an attack on Trump that is primarily bogus and motivated as a smoke screen to demonize Russia, and prepare the nation for war, is not protecting Trump, but trying to get at the underbrush of what's really going on behind the headlines.

    Perhaps you could give us some idea of what you see as protecting Trump?

    For myself I'm very critical of Trump. At this time he seems bent on building up ground troops in Syria, but with ISIS already being subdued without this action, we should question why. What's going on. Is he seeking a Ronald Reagan/George W. type of glory moment as One Tough Supreme Commander? Is he now falling in to the neocon overview of controlling the middle east? It's more foolishness in my view, that will not settle the problems and what W uncorked with his phony Iraq war. But this kind of considering doesn't take the heat off the DEM Party for its unconscionable manipulations with Trump and Russia bashing at this time.

    Hayden Head , March 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    Well said! You are spot on in your defense of Parry, who has consistently shown himself to be committed to the truth, regardless of whom he is defending or the consequences of his position. Many of us are waiting to see if Trump might, just might, lead us away from endless war to something approaching a rational foreign policy. Is such hope foolishness? Well, hope usually is.

    Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 8:08 pm

    Unfortunately, this site is afflicted with the utterances of sloppy readers who are triggered to hit their keyboard when some sentence gets their attention and causes them to ignore other contradictory commentary.

    Jake G , March 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    What are you talking about? There are as many Trump-critic articles from him.

    JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm

    It seems to me Parry is not so much protecting Trump as trying to protect America from another needless war manufactured by the Deep State, e.g. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror"
    http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

    Gina , March 23, 2017 at 1:52 pm

    Excellent article. I am pretty horrified at the direction of the Dems which has become Rethuglican-lite.

    LJ , March 23, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    The Democrats abandoned their core constituency , LABOR, when Clinton got the 1992 nomination promising to sign NAFTA a short time after having been pictured attending a Bilderberg Beer fest, Since then by jumping further under the sheets with High Finance and Tech Billionaires they have continuously bled votes everywhere except the West Coast. Recent Polling you may have noticed has the Democrats declining in favorability even more since the election. Strange Days have found us haven't they?. .when all else fails we can whip the horses eyes and make them sleep and cry .. I say for starters we separate the words Military and Intelligence forever with a Constitutional Amendment .. How then will Senators McCain and Feinstein react? What will they do for God's sake? The rest of the Two Party infrastructure will quickly implode. Sorry. Thank God and the ACA,, the Amazon Drone has just delivered my prescription meds.. Peace in our time.

    chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    i think it's safe to say that the democrats have been equally adept at waging war since the nutcase LBJ didn't know if they were shooting at whales in the bay of tomkin and started the American holocaust. obama let his darling Hillary run amok which resulted in a rise of refugees and idp by 50% to over 60 million, in just his first term. you actually live in a country run by Nazis for a very long time. from Kissinger to McCain, they are people in power who have collaborated with Nazis (phoenix, condor) and continue to do so in Ukraine or with Islamic extremists in syria. the prospect of McCain anywhere near the state dept must be avoided by an means necessary.

    Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    "[B]ut what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom." That's it Mr. Parry. That is the key that we need to understand. It is not, not, a priority of either political half of the Republican/Democratic dynamic, to do good for the American people. We are being subjected to the policies which previously were our export, the evisceration of nation(s) to benefit private capital.

    I had previously wondered, back in the 90's when Russia was being subjected to neo liberal economic intervention, why these vultures hadn't descended upon the United States, being the feted calf that it were. But I was blind, they were already descending, it only has take some time and a couple of "opportunities", such as 9/11, the Katrina hurricane, to implement those same measures here.

    We need to understand that our current political structure is indifferent to the well being of the majority of the "citizens" ie; what are now more commonly called consumers. If the prisons stay full and the indebtedness mounts that is part of the program. Stop thinking that our present system is offering anything that would be recognized by a rational and moral human being as something even close to "a government of the People, by the People, for the People; [or] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

    ltr , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away.

    Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    It is nearly impossible to engage with someone in a political context and advocate for a least a fair mind, some neutrality in examining the domestic political situation and relations with Russia. I have to mute myself unless I am willing to engage in a long and tiring argument/discussion in which my point is lost and I have to defend simple ideas of statesmanship and diplomacy.

    Sheryl , March 23, 2017 at 5:22 pm

    I can relate. The frustrating part is that they think I'm a nut wearing a tinfoil hat.

    Realist , March 23, 2017 at 5:55 pm

    Would you go so far as to say that most such discussions now take place on terrain far removed from the real world? And, if you insist on sticking to facts rather than fantasy, are you immediately branded an enemy of the state, an intellectual exile without friends or influence, and probably someone marked for extinction, at least on the professional level, if this country must repeat the greatest mistakes of the 1930's and 40's, as it seems headed? So glad I am retired, and I worked in the natural sciences, not the more volatile and political social sciences. Now their only leverage against me is my state pension and health benefits, which many do want to make into a political football.

    Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 7:31 pm

    The distinction between the real and the ideological has been blurred in accordance with the principles of public opinion management, ie; propaganda. The prevailing mania, contextualized via the dynamic of globalized free market capitalism masquerading as the promotion of freedom and democracy, is where one finds that the seeds of "treason" are sown wider and wider against heretics.

    Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:35 am

    Just reading what all of you guys have written about the prevailing atmosphere in the so called intellectual community, which is much more serious than the atmosphere in the nutty MSM, makes me think of the Decline of the Roman Empire. Many people here are leftists, therefore they will disagree with me, but I see absolutely solid parallels between Russia-hate and AGW. Both have become religion for the vast majority of the Western intellectual class, devoid of the principal tool of the intellectuals – rationality. If you are a doubter, you will be ostracized .

    Enquiring Mind , March 23, 2017 at 2:24 pm

    They have no decency, sir.
    At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat, even though his methods and execution were unsound.

    Miranda Keefe , March 23, 2017 at 3:59 pm

    "At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat."

    The US was the aggressor in the Cold War. The Soviet Union, after the war, wanted to continue to co-exist under the spheres of influence agreed on by the US at Yalta.

    When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, his VP, his chosen future VP and successor, the great Henry Wallace.

    Gregory Herr , March 23, 2017 at 7:52 pm

    Wallace instead of Truman? One of the big "what might have been" turns of history.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/14297-henry-wallace-americas-forgotten-visionary

    [Mar 24, 2017] Democrats Trade Places on War and McCarthyism – Consortiumnews

    Notable quotes:
    "... During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called "smart power" aggressively, including maintaining harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade including the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting "propaganda." ..."
    "... After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats – including presidential hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled "soft" in Republican attack ads. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party's new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn't vote at all for president, although it's difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. ..."
    "... At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom. ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    Mar 24, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: The anti-Russia hysteria gripping the Democratic Party marks a "trading places" moment as the Democrats embrace the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism, flipping the script on Republicans, writes Robert Parry.

    Caught up in the frenzy to delegitimize Donald Trump by blaming his victory on Russian meddling, national Democrats are finishing the transformation of their party from one that was relatively supportive of peace to one pushing for war, including a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.

    This "trading places" moment was obvious in watching the belligerent tone of Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee on Monday as they impugned the patriotism of any Trump adviser who may have communicated with anyone connected to Russia.

    Ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, acknowledged that there was no hard evidence of any Trump-Russia cabal, but he pressed ahead with what he called "circumstantial evidence of collusion," a kind of guilt-by-association conspiracy theory that made him look like a mild-mannered version of Joe McCarthy.

    Schiff cited by name a number of Trump's aides and associates who – as The New York Times reported – were "believed to have some kind of contact or communications with Russians." These Americans, whose patriotism was being questioned, included foreign policy adviser Carter Page, Trump's second campaign manager Paul Manafort, political adviser Roger Stone and Trump's first national security adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

    In a 15-minute opening statement, Schiff summed up his circumstantial case by asking: "Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence? Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated."

    As an investigative journalist who has covered (and uncovered) national security scandals for several decades, I would never accuse people of something as serious as betraying their country based on nothing more than coincidences that, who knows, might not be coincidental.

    Before we published anything on such topics, the news organizations that I worked for required multiple layers of information from a variety of sources including insiders who could describe what had happened and why. Such stories included Nicaraguan Contra cocaine smuggling, Oliver North's secret Contra supply operation, and the Reagan campaign's undermining of President Carter's Iran-hostage negotiations in 1980.

    For breaking those stories, we still took enormous heat from Republicans, some Democrats who wanted to show how bipartisan they were, and many establishment-protecting journalists, but the stories contained strong evidence that misconduct occurred – and we were highly circumspect in how the allegations were framed.

    Going Whole-Hog

    By contrast, national Democrats, some super-hawk Republicans and the establishment media are going whole-hog on these vague suspicions of contacts between some Russians and some Americans who have provided some help or advice to Trump.

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo] Given the paucity of evidence – both regarding the claims that Russia hacked Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks, and the allegations that somehow Trump's advisers colluded in that process – it would appear that what is happening is a political maneuver to damage Trump politically and possibly remove him from office.

    But those machinations require the Democratic Party's continued demonization of Russia and implicitly put the Democrats on the side of escalating New Cold War tensions, such as military support for the fiercely anti-Russian regime in Ukraine which seized power in a 2014 U.S.-backed putsch overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

    One of the attack lines that Democrats have used against Trump is that his people toned down language in the Republican platform about shipping arms to the Ukrainian military, which includes battalions of neo-Nazi fighters and has killed thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the east in what is officially called an Anti-Terrorism Operation (or ATO).

    The Democratic Party leaders have fully bought into the slanted Western narrative justifying the violent overthrow of Yanukovych. They also have ignored the human rights of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minorities, which voted overwhelmingly in Crimea and the Donbass to secede from post-coup Ukraine. The more complex reality is simply summed up as a "Russian invasion."

    Key Democrats also have pressed for escalation of the U.S. military attacks inside Syria to force "regime change" on Bashar al-Assad's secular government even if that risks another military confrontation with Russia and a victory by Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists.

    In short, the national Democratic Party is turning itself into the more extreme war party. It's not that the Republicans have become all that dovish; it's just that the Democrats have become all that hawkish. The significance of this change can hardly be overstated.

    Questioning War

    Since late in the Vietnam War, the Democrats have acted as the more restrained of the two major parties on issues of war, with the Republicans associated with tough-guy rhetoric and higher military spending. By contrast, Democrats generally were more hesitant to rush into foreign wars and confrontations (although they were far from pacifists).

    Especially after the revelations of the Pentagon Papers in the 1971 revealing the government deceptions used to pull the American people into the Vietnam War, Democrats questioned shady rationalizations for other wars.

    Some Democratic skepticism continued into the 1980s as President Ronald Reagan was modernizing U.S. propaganda techniques to whitewash the gross human rights crimes of right-wing regimes in Central America and to blacken the reputations of Nicaragua's Sandinistas and other leftists.

    The Democratic resolve against war propaganda began to crack by the mid-to-late 1980s – around Reagan's Grenada invasion and George H.W. Bush's attack on Panama. By then, the Republicans had enjoyed nearly two decades of bashing the Democrats as "weak on defense" – from George McGovern to Jimmy Carter to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis.

    But the Democratic Party's resistance to dubious war rationalizations collapsed in 1991 over George H.W. Bush's Persian Gulf War, in which the President rebuffed less violent solutions (even ones favored by the U.S. military) to assure a dramatic ground-war victory after which Bush declared, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."

    Fearful of being labeled disloyal to "the troops" and "weak," national Democrats scrambled to show their readiness to kill. In 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton left the campaign trail to return to Arkansas to oversee the execution of the mentally impaired Ricky Ray Rector.

    During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called "smart power" aggressively, including maintaining harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade including the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting "propaganda."

    After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats – including presidential hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled "soft" in Republican attack ads.

    The American public's revulsion over the Iraq War and the resulting casualties contributed to Barack Obama's election. But he, too, moved to protect his political flanks by staffing his young administration with hawks, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. (and later CIA Director) David Petraeus. Despite receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama also became comfortable with continuing Bush's wars and starting some of his own, such as the bombing war against Libya and the violent subversion of Syria.

    By nominating Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Democratic Party completed its transformation into the Party of War. Clinton not only ran as an unapologetic hawk in the Democratic primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders – urging, for instance, a direct U.S. military invasion of Syria to create "no fly zones" – but positioned herself as a harsh critic of Trump's hopes to reduce hostilities with Russia, deeming the Republican nominee Vladimir Putin's "puppet."

    Ironically, Trump's shocking victory served to solidify the Democratic Party's interest in pushing for a military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. After all, baiting Trump over his alleged "softness" toward Russia has become the centerpiece of Democratic hopes for somehow ousting Trump or at least crippling his presidency. Any efforts by Trump to ease those tensions will be cited as prima facie evidence that he is Putin's "Manchurian candidate."

    Being Joe McCarthy

    National Democrats and their media supporters don't even seem troubled by the parallels between their smears of Americans for alleged contacts with Russians and Sen. Joe McCarthy's guilt-by-association hearings of the early Cold War. Every link to Russia – no matter how tenuous or disconnected from Trump's election – is trumpeted by Democrats and across the mainstream news media.

    But it's not even clear that this promotion of the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism will redound to the Democrats' political advantage. Clinton apparently thought that her embrace of a neoconservative foreign policy would bring in many "moderate" Republicans opposed to Trump's criticism of the Bush-Obama wars, but exit polls showed Republicans largely rallying to their party's nominee.

    Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party's new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn't vote at all for president, although it's difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

    More broadly, the Democratic obsession with Russia and the hopes for somehow exploiting those investigations in order to oust Trump have distracted the party from a necessary autopsy into why the Democrats have lost so much ground over the past decade.

    While many Democratic leaders and activists are sliding into full-scale conspiracy-mode over the Russia-Trump story, they are not looking at the party's many mistakes and failings, such as:

    Yet, rather than come up with new strategies to address the future, Democratic leaders would rather pretend that Putin is at fault for the Trump presidency and hope that the U.S. intelligence community – with its fearsome surveillance powers – can come up with enough evidence to justify Trump's impeachment.

    Then, of course, the Democrats would be stuck with President Mike Pence, a more traditional Religious Right Republican whose first step on foreign policy would be to turn it over to neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, a move that would likely mean a new wave of "regime change" wars.

    At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom.

    [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's " Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon " and " Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party .]

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    [Mar 24, 2017] Surveillance State Goes After Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein. ..."
    "... Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how Democratic hawks, neocons and other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support for a permanent war policy around hatred of Russia. ..."
    "... 'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen. Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s. ..."
    "... We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence of Russians and there's a lot of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin and other top Russians hated Hillary Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would they take the risk? Because, at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical for them to have done these things, to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president. There's just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense. ..."
    "... And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates, all connected to the military industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately the Democrat Party has become the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very dangerous narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we all should ask for the full evidence of this. If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's nothing in it. ..."
    Mar 24, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein.

    Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how Democratic hawks, neocons and other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support for a permanent war policy around hatred of Russia.

    Rowley, whose 2002 memo to the FBI Director exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11failures, compared the current anti-Russia hysteria to "the

    'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen. Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

    In an interview, Rowley told me that while Trump was wrong about his claim that President Obama ordered a surveillance "tapp" of Trump Tower, the broader point may have been correct as explained by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, who described how U.S. intelligence apparently picked up conversations by Trump associates while monitoring other targets.

    Dennis Bernstein: A former high-level FBI whistleblower says Trump is vindicated on his claims of being surveilled by the previous administration. Joining us to take a close look at what's been going on, what's been unfolding in Washington, D.C. is Coleen Rowley. She's a former FBI special agent and division council. She wrote a May 2002 memo to the FBI director that exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, major failures. She was Time magazine's person of the year in 2002. Help us explain what chairman Nunes reported in terms of the collecting process and Trumps innocence or guilt?

    ... ... ...

    CR: Well, I don't think there has and it's not just myself, it's really most of our veteran intelligence professionals, retired CIA, retired NSA, we've all been conferring for a while on this. And we have asked, we actually put out a memo asking for evidence. Because it's just been assertions and innuendoes, and demonization

    We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence of Russians and there's a lot of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin and other top Russians hated Hillary Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would they take the risk? Because, at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical for them to have done these things, to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president. There's just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense.

    FBI Director James Comey

    And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates, all connected to the military industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately the Democrat Party has become the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very dangerous narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we all should ask for the full evidence of this. If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's nothing in it.

    DB: And, this is the same media who for the last ever since Trump claimed that he was wiretapped using the wrong terminology, these journalists they couldn't stop saying "if he did lie, this is a felony. He did lie. He did accuse the former president of the United States " So, you're saying, based on your long experience and information this was just a confusion of a term of art, and the idea of the possibility of Trump Towers being under investigation, this was all incredibly not strange, not crazy, and totally normal in the context of an investigation.

    CR: Yes, and I again, there could be grounds for legitimate investigation of the periphery of the Trump campaign, certain staffers. And you know what, corruption in Washington, D.C. is quite rampant. And I think many, many of the politicians if they actually put them under the microscope they could find just as you look at foreign leaders, Netanyahu was indicted for corruption, whatever. It's not uncommon to have conflicts of interests, and under the table deals. That's very possible.

    So, that's not what our news is saying. Our mainstream news is saying that, what you said at the beginning, the Russians own Trump, and basically that this has undermined our democracy and our electoral process. That part of it we have seen no evidence of. And, Trump is partially vindicated, because obviously whether he was personally targeted, his campaign at least seems to have been monitored, at least in part.

    DB: Were you amazed that, for instance, the FBI director raised the issue of the Clinton investigation, but not the Trump investigation?

    CR: Well, I've been trying to figure that out. Because back, during when he went public, he was put into the spot because Loretta Lynch should have been the one to be public on these things. But she was tainted because of having met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac. And so my explanation was that that Comey shouldered the burden from Loretta Lynch. He was doing her a favor in a way because he thought it would look like this is more independent and more professional coming from the FBI. Because at the time Loretta Lynch was under a cloud. And I think that is the explanation for why he was so public at the time.

    And, of course, things have developed the summer, if any investigation started during the summer, again, it was not known. It was probably legitimate if they got some information in about some act of corruption, or whatever, it was certainly legitimate. But since this summer what has happened is this whole narrative has just gone on steroids, because of the leaks about the Russians, etc. And the fact that they put out this report, the FBI, the NSA, and the director of National Intelligence. And I think that that's the problem right now is the public just is so confused because there has been so much wrong information out there in the media. And no one knows what to believe.

    Actually, to Comey's credit he did say this a couple of times that these media accounts are not accurate. And, I think that, again, we there's been a lot of "sources" anonymous sources which I do not think are whistleblowers. But these anonymous sources seem to have come from political operatives, and even higher level people. I'm guessing some of this came from the Obama administration appointees, not Obama, of course, personally.

    And, who knows if he knew anything about this, but some of those prior appointees, I think, when all is said and done will be seen as the ones, if they can ever uncover this. It's hard with anonymous sources. But I think they were probably the ones leading this. And maybe over time we can get back to some sanity here without so much of this planted information, and wrongful leaks. And I, again, I'm all for whistle blowing. But, I don't agree with leaks like Scooter Libby's where they were actually using the media to plant false info.

    [Mar 24, 2017] Whether the Soviet union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an enemy to divert the sheeples attention that their so called American dream is really a nightmare

    Mar 24, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    hoyeru , Mar 24, 2017 9:17 PM

    Whether the Soviet union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an enemy to divert the sheeple's attention that their so called American dream is really a nightmare. Besides, USA's empire is failing and Russia is getting stronger. of course USA will be pissed off about it.

    daveO -> hoyeru , Mar 24, 2017 9:34 PM

    "Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia." I'm glad to have lived to see them almost fail. When I first read this in 1984, by coincidence, there seemed to be no end in sight. As soon as the USSR failed they replaced it with terrorism(Eastasia)....

    lester1 , Mar 24, 2017 9:21 PM

    Help out of you can. Seth Rich was exposing corruption with the DNC against Bernie Sanders. He was mysteriously shot in the back last summer, but his wallet and watch weren't taken.

    https://www.gofundme.com/SethRich

    xrxs , Mar 24, 2017 9:36 PM

    I still can't figure this Russiophobia out. We went from a path to mutual arms reduction and normalizing relations to the shitstorm in Ukraine and Syria. I think I know who started that whole mess, but I still haven't figured out why other than maintaining friendly control of European petrochemicals.

    We went from Bush II and Vlad fishing and hanging out at the ranch to where we are today. WTF happened?

    HRH Feant -> xrxs , Mar 24, 2017 9:58 PM

    Same here. This new obsession is complete and utter insanity.

    The leftists in the US remind me of the revolutionaries in Bolshevik Russia. They want a revolution and dream of communal living.

    Communal living is my worst nightmare! Anyone that has shared a house with roomies soon understands that one person pays the bills while another eats all the food and one person cleans the toilet while everyone else makes a mess of the entire place. Communal living sounds great, in theory. In practice? It doesn't work.

    shovelhead , Mar 24, 2017 9:39 PM

    Nobodies "Russo-phobic". That's the story they're trying to sell the world.

    That's just a convenient excuse for retaliating on Ukraine, Syria and now Trump. Russia and Putin have become like Mr. Clean in the household.

    Good for every mess you make.

    Cabreado , Mar 24, 2017 9:49 PM

    "This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics."

    More importantly, it is a decay in the electorate and how it relates to the elected (isn't that the real heart of US politics?)

    And so the elected, naturally, have become a corrupt mass of opportunists.

    This is why they ("We") invented Rule of Law. We just have to give a damn like We mean it.

    [Mar 24, 2017] CIA Developed Tools to Spy on Mac Computers, WikiLeaks Disclosure Shows

    The documents posted by WikiLeaks suggest that the CIA had obtained information on 14 security flaws in Apple's iOS operating system for phones and tablets. The leaked documents also identified at least two dozen flaws in Android, the most popular operating system for smartphones, which was developed by Alphabet's Google division.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The spy software described in the latest documents was designed to be injected into a Mac's firmware, a type of software preloaded in the computer's chips. It would then act as a "listening post," broadcasting the user's activities to the CIA whenever the machine was connected to the internet. ..."
    "... A similar tool called NightSkies was developed in 2009 to spy on iPhones, the documents said, with the agency figuring out how to install it undetected before a new phone was turned on for the first time. (Apple said that flaw affected only the iPhone 3G and was fixed in all later models.) ..."
    "... By rewriting the firmware of a computer or a phone, tools that operate at the chip level can hide their existence and avoid being wiped out by routine software updates. ..."
    Mar 24, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    The CIA developed tools to spy on Mac computers by injecting software into the chips that control the computers' fundamental operations, according to the latest cache of classified government documents published on Thursday by WikiLeaks .

    Apple said in a statement Thursday evening that its preliminary assessment of the leaked information indicated that the Mac vulnerabilities described in the disclosure were previously fixed in all Macs launched after 2013.

    However, the documents also indicated that the Central Intelligence Agency was developing a new version of one tool last year to work with current software.

    The leaked documents were the second batch recently released by WikiLeaks, which said it obtained a hoard of information on the agency's cyberweapons programs from a former government worker or contractor. The first group of documents , published March 7, suggested that the CIA had found ways to hack Apple iPhones and Android smartphones, Microsoft Windows computers, Cisco routers and Samsung smart televisions.

    Since the initial release of the CIA documents, which the agency has not confirmed are authentic, major technology companies have been scrambling to assess whether the security holes exploited by the CIA still exist and to patch them if they do.

    All of the surveillance tools that have been disclosed were designed to be installed on individual phones or computers. But the effects could be much wider. Cisco Systems, for example, warned customers this week that many of its popular routers, the backbone of computer networks, could be hacked using the CIA's techniques.

    ... ... ...

    The spy software described in the latest documents was designed to be injected into a Mac's firmware, a type of software preloaded in the computer's chips. It would then act as a "listening post," broadcasting the user's activities to the CIA whenever the machine was connected to the internet.

    A similar tool called NightSkies was developed in 2009 to spy on iPhones, the documents said, with the agency figuring out how to install it undetected before a new phone was turned on for the first time. (Apple said that flaw affected only the iPhone 3G and was fixed in all later models.)

    Although most of the tools targeted outdated versions of the Apple devices' software, the CIA's general approach raises new security concerns for the industry, said Eric Ahlm, who studies cybersecurity at Gartner, a research firm. By rewriting the firmware of a computer or a phone, tools that operate at the chip level can hide their existence and avoid being wiped out by routine software updates.

    Under an agreement struck during the Obama administration, intelligence agencies were supposed to share their knowledge of most security vulnerabilities with tech companies so they could be fixed. The CIA documents suggest that some key vulnerabilities were kept secret for the government's use.

    The CIA declined to comment Thursday, pointing reporters to its earlier statement about the leaks, in which it defended its use of "innovative, cutting-edge" techniques to protect the country from foreign threats and criticized WikiLeaks for sharing information that could help the country's enemies.

    [Mar 23, 2017] The president-elect requested security clearance for Kushner to attend top-secret presidential briefings

    Mar 23, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    Trump has described his son-in-law as a "great guy". The president-elect has also reportedly taken the unprecedented step of requesting security clearance for Kushner to attend top-secret presidential briefings, the first one of which was on Tuesday. It's unclear if the request will be approved. It marks an astonishing departure and invites the accusation of nepotism.

    Kushner's options for a White House job are limited given his family ties to the president, Richard Painter, who served as President George W Bush's White House ethics lawyer, told the Associated Press. Congress passed an anti-nepotism law in 1967 that prohibits the president from appointing a family member – including a son-in-law – to work in the office or agency they oversee. The measure was passed after President John F Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy, as attorney general.

    But the law does not appear to prevent Kushner from serving as an unpaid adviser, and few doubt that Kushner will play a decisive role in shaping the Trump presidency, acting as policy adviser and gate-keeper. As Trump and Barack Obama met privately at the White House last week, Kushner strolled the mansion's South Lawn, deep in conversation with Obama's chief of staff. As Kushner walked through the bustling West Wing during Trump's visit last week, he was heard asking Obama aides: "How many of these people stay?", apparently blissfully unaware that the entire West Wing staff will leave at the end of Obama's term.

    His contacts already include Henry Kissinger and Rupert Murdoch; he has received foreign ambassadors. Like Trump, Kushner has never had a formal role in government, but he now appears set to be more important than many who do.

    we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but far fewer are paying for it. And advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

    Fund our journalism and together we can keep the world informed.

    [Mar 23, 2017] Jane Harmon on On Point Radio also denied the existence of an American Deep State. That was especially rich coming from a long time supporter of the Military Industrial Complex

    Mar 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Peter Van Erp , March 22, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    "Why Steve Bannon Wants You to Believe in the Deep State" [Politico]. Yesterday, Jane Harmon on On Point Radio also denied the existence of an American Deep State. That was especially rich coming from a long time supporter of the Military Industrial Complex, and current member of the pundit class from her position as the First Woman to Head the Wilson Center.
    Let the word go forth from this time and place that the government works in your best interests, despite the apparent fact that it doesn't work for most Americans and keeps delivering more and more benefits to the oligarchy. Any attempt to explain it as deliberate policy is a fantasy, a fever dream of rabid leftists right wing nuts.

    Paid Minion , March 22, 2017 at 4:47 pm

    Funny how some are getting their undies in a twist over "foreign interference" in our elections.

    Globalists push global markets, global labor pools, global "race to the bottom" rules for white collar crime. Yet are surprised/offended by "global elections". Especially when the US government interferes (directly or indirectly) with every country on the face of the earth.

    Maybe we should be happy that our government is for sale to the highest bidder, worldwide. After all, global competition has done so much for US business and labor.

    So we have Global Kleptocrats. In charge of the Global Banana Republic.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 22, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    "Domestic interference' is not OK.

    But I think we should ignore it for now, per the Propaganda Ministry.

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:51 am

    Putin forced the Democrats to lose all those ballots in Brooklyn. It's incredible.

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:58 am

    > the deep state

    Watch that definite article. (What that Politico article shows is how easy it is to write sloppy articles about the "deep state." That's because the deep state is such a sloppy, amorphous concept. It's very sloppiness is what makes it simultaneously (a) useful to our scribes in the political class, who can (b) bang out stories with click-baity headlines easily, while (c) disempowering to the rest of us (since to have power over your enemies, you have to understand them).

    [Mar 23, 2017] Anti-russian hysteria became a witch hunt which is by-and-large out of control of Democratic leadership, and they feel that they became hostages of it

    Notable quotes:
    "... " The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on the phone calls or other communications now being cited as partial vindication for the president's wiretapping claims against the Obama administration, according to a spokesperson. ..."
    "... I think im1dc along with a couple of other commenters here symbolize perfectly well the problem Democratic leadership got on themselves. ..."
    "... He got the taste of sniffing Russian pants and now he can't stop, despite the fact that all his knowledge of Russia came from US media. Kind of political graphomania, of some sort. Or, incontinence, if you wish. ..."
    "... In other words now in the USA hysteria became detached from the facts and has now its own life. Obtained classic witch hunt dynamics. ..."
    "... "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. ..."
    "... And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed. ..."
    "... Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence. ..."
    Mar 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 04:32 PM
    Devin Nunes is unfit to be Intel Chair of the House Committee

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/23/nunes-now-unsure-if-trump-team-was-surveilled.html

    "Intel chair Devin Nunes unsure if Trump associates were directly surveilled"

    By Mike Levine...Mar 23, 2017...5:24 PM ET

    " The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on the phone calls or other communications now being cited as partial vindication for the president's wiretapping claims against the Obama administration, according to a spokesperson.

    "He said he'll have to get all the documents he requested from the [intelligence community] about this before he knows for sure," a spokesperson for Nunes said Thursday..."

    libezkova -> im1dc..., March 23, 2017 at 07:04 PM

    I think im1dc along with a couple of other commenters here symbolize perfectly well the problem Democratic leadership got on themselves.

    He got the taste of sniffing Russian pants and now he can't stop, despite the fact that all his knowledge of Russia came from US media. Kind of political graphomania, of some sort. Or, incontinence, if you wish.

    In other words now in the USA hysteria became detached from the facts and has now its own life. Obtained classic witch hunt dynamics.

    It became by-and-large out of control of Democratic leadership, and they feel that they became hostages of it. But they can't call the dogs back.

    It was a dirty but effective trick to avoid sacking Democratic Party failed, corrupt neoliberal leadership (Clinton wing of the party). It worked, but it come with a price.

    As Glenn Greenwald noted.

    "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence.

    And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.

    Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.

    The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton's most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to "cast doubt" on "allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia." "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all," he said, adding, "There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it."

    https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

    [Mar 23, 2017] The Russian Hacking Story Changes Again Zero Hedge

    Mar 23, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    "Obama's "Russia Hacked The Election" is CODE for "Trump Stole The Election." Any "provable" instance of Russian hacking might also be a false flag operation to justify new round of sanctions. That make Obama to look especially bad as he asked CA to investigate this case, while t might well be that CIA is the agency that needs to be investigated. They now have a lot of friends n Baltic republics and Ukrane to stage also false flag operation attributable to Russia, they wish. Remeber Oswald and JFK assassination.

    Shemp 4 Victory -> Wow72 , Jan 5, 2017 7:46 AM

    In keeping with the theme of providing no proof to the general public, the officials declined to describe the intelligence obtained about the involvement of a third-party in passing on leaked material to WikiLeaks, saying they did not want to reveal how the U.S. government had obtained the information . So just trust them, please.

    Good thing we can completely trust the integrity of 17 Intelligence Agencies because this explanation is exactly what a corrupt and politicized institution would use to try to pass off a completely fabricated story as legitimate.

    Tarzan -> Shemp 4 Victory , Jan 5, 2017 8:03 AM

    Would this third party happen to be a disgruntled DNC insider named seth rich?

    MalteseFalcon -> Tarzan , Jan 5, 2017 8:23 AM

    It's like arguing with a teenager.

    You catch them in a lie, and debunk it.

    The teenager processes the debunking and alters the lie to conform with the "new truth".

    The iterations continue until you give up or simply "ground" the punk.

    And who are these 17 intelligence agencies?

    Will they all be called to "Songbird" McCains hearing?

    Will the hearing end before Songbird keels over from old age?

    CuttingEdge -> MalteseFalcon , Jan 5, 2017 8:31 AM

    "Dissolve the CIA"

    The Langley gym swimming pool filled with hydrochloric acid, maybe?

    Works for me, as long as that evil cunt Morell is first in.

    CuttingEdge -> CuttingEdge , Jan 5, 2017 8:41 AM

    Just imagine Friday's meeting if Trump actually knows who lifted the DNC files?

    Only, judging by the way he is playing this thus far in being openly dismissive of anything put forward, that may very well be the case.

    To have the entire combined intel machine by the balls without them knowing, as they project their politicised billion dollar bullshit...now that would be a beautiful thing to behold.

    Joe Davola -> CuttingEdge , Jan 5, 2017 9:03 AM

    Looking at some of the 'information' from previous hacks

    1. Sony - claimed to be North Korea

    2. DNC/Clinton email - claimed to be Russia

    3. Various - claimed to be China

    4. Iranian centrifuges - no claims, but pretty good indication it was CIA/NSA/Israel

    Now, who from that list didn't want HRC to be president. One could make a compelling case that #4, particularly Israel, would go this route and have the wherewithall/foresight to make it look like #2 - and Obama/Kerry allowing the UN vote to go through as punishment. Or, we can believe #2 was sloppy (or intentionally sloppy to send a message/rub our noses in it). Or, it was some 14 year old operating from their parents basement - nah, no 14 year old would think of covering their tracks to make it look like someone else.

    jeff montanye -> Manthong , Jan 5, 2017 3:49 PM

    thought crimes are where you find them, ask the catholic church.

    seriously though, john mccain is an asset of the mossad. no other formation does it justice:

    "We will obviously be talking about the hacking, but the main thing is the whole issue of cybersecurity," the committee's Republican chairman, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said ahead of the hearing. "Right now we have no policy, no strategy to counter cyberattacks."

    check this shit out (my bold): Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War

    By Jeff Gates, State Street Publications, 2008, paperback, 320 pp. List: $27.95; AET: $18 (if you really want to understand why this is going on, read.on; others be assured it is true.).

    In his chapter on "John McCain and the Financial Frauds," Gates reviews McCain's unsavory role in the "Keating Five" scandal. The following chapter recounts the shameful role of McCain's father in helping to cover up Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War in which 34 of the crew were killed and 294 wounded . "From a game theory perspective," Gates explains, "by covering up the murder of Americans aboard the USS Liberty, a U.S. president (with the aid of Admiral John McCain, Jr. ) confirmed that Israeli extremists could murder Americans without endangering U.S. support."

    Reviewed by Andrew I. Killgore

    Books

    GUILT BY Association is an initially confusing masterpiece almost too stuffed with evidence to concentrate on making clear its basic theme. But author Jeff Gates did so in a recent letter to a distinguished retired American diplomat: "The research pivoted off the firsthand experience of "˜John Doe' whose experience spans 56 years of dealing with a transnational criminal syndicate whose senior operatives share a common ideology in fundamental Judaism and a skill set experienced in displacing facts with beliefs. Thus the common source of the fixed intelligence that took us to war in Iraq. And, thus the same network now being employed to expand this war to Iran."

    From 1980 to 1987 Gates served as counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, working with Sen. Russell Long of Louisiana, son of the state's former Gov. Huey Long, who was assassinated at age 42 as he was preparing a presidential campaign. James Farley, postmaster general under President Franklin Roosevelt, had run a "penny postcard" poll confirming that if Huey Long actually ran for president, Roosevelt could not be re-elected. Fifty years later Russell Long remained convinced that Roosevelt's people had killed his father.

    At a 2002 speech Gates gave in London, he met "John Doe," related to one of the well-known people who had endorsed two of Gates' earlier books. Soon afterward, Doe assured him that if Gates undertook the research and analysis the results of which appear in Guilt, the evidence would identify who killed Huey Long, and why. The facts Gates assembled point not to Roosevelt's people but to the syndicate identified in Guilt.

    The brilliantly provocative Guilt by Association consists of nine chapters: "Game Theory and the Mass Murder of 9/11"; "Organized Crime in Arizona"; "John McCain and Financial Frauds"; "McCain Family Secret: The Cover-Up"; "The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime"; "Money, Democracy and the Great Divide"; "The New Anti-Semitism"; "Would Obama Be Better?"; and "The Way Forward."

    In the first chapter Gates illustrates the intergenerational sophistication with which neoconservatives "prepared the minds" of the American public to invade Iraq in response to 9/11. Academics and think tanks pushed Samuel Huntington's 1996 Clash of Civilizations to promote a "clash consensus"-five years before 9/11. That same year Richard Perle along with other neocons such as Douglas Feith wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. This helped lay more "mental threads" for removing Saddam Hussain. Then Senators McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Distracted by the Monica Lewinsky affair, President Bill Clinton signed it.

    Four days after the destruction of the World Trade Towers, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was urging President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Not only was there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but there was no real connection between Saddam's secular regime and the deeply religious al-Qaeda. At the same time, other Zionists from the U.S. Defense Department under Wolfowitz and, not so coincidentally, Feith were feeding false intelligence to the White House. The war would not be costly, according to Wolfowitz, and the entirely unnecessary and illegal war was launched.

    In the chapter on "The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime," Gates describes a John McCain who was either "ignorant about-or complicit in" Russian organized crime. During Boris Yeltsin's first term as president of Russia, a handful of "oligarchs' financially pillaged Russia. Six of the "Big Seven" oligarchs, whom Gates terms Ashkenazis, qualify for Israeli citizenship.

    McCain described Mikhail Khodorovsky, the most infamous of Russia's corrupt oil oligarchs, as a "political prisoner." Notes Gates: "To claim Khodorovsky as a "˜political prisoner' requires a closer look at how, at 32 years of age, a single Russian-Ashkenazi citizen amassed state-owned assets worth more than $30 billion." Gates goes on to document the widespread criminality involved in Khodorovsky's billions.

    "To solve this systemic criminality," Gates explains, "requires that a broad base of Americans understand how this "˜fields-within-fields' modus operandi operates unseen yet in plain sight, and how its operations progress working through people whose profiled needs become the means for influencing their behavior."

    Guilt describes how Americans were induced to freely choose the very forces that endanger their freedom. Thus the role of those masterful at waging "war by deception" (the motto of the Israeli Mossad) by displacing facts with what the "mark" (i.e., the U.S.) could be deceived to believe: for example, that Iraq had nuclear weapons and mobile biological weapons laboratories and that the secular Saddam Hussain had ties with the fundamentalists of al-Qaeda.

    Crafted as a wake-up call, the author documents how Tel Aviv wields control over U.S. foreign policy in an environment where lawmakers have been intimidated by the Israel lobby. "U.S. national security," Gates writes, "requires a rejection of the self-deception that Israel operates as a trustworthy ally in an unstable region while ignoring its multi-decade role in provoking and sustaining instability."

    As Gates points out, the charge of anti-Semitism is used to misdirect and intimidate. As the criminality he documents becomes transparent, moderate Jews in fact are emerging as allies. The Zionist component-which Gates convincingly portrays as ideology in the service of criminality -has as its goal an extensive, Jews-only realm in an oil-rich region.

    The facts confirm that Tel Aviv will never agree to peace with the Palestinians, as that would preclude their expansionist agenda for a Greater Israel. An oft-employed "entropy strategy" remains Israel's means to preclude settlement of the conflict. Indeed, Huntington's Clash of Civilizations is revealed as only the latest in a long series of manipulations-each of which is designed to ensure a plausible evildoer. Meanwhile, fundamentalist Jews catalyze serial conflicts of opposites, while this transnational criminal syndicate profits off the misery of both.

    Andrew I. Killgore is publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

    America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government

    By Grant F. Smith, Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), 2008, paperback, 340 pp. List: $14.95; AET: $11.

    Reviewed by Delinda C. Hanley

    Books

    The declassification on June 10, 2008 of long-secret Department of Justice (DOJ) documents is the springboard for Grant F. Smith's latest book revealing the inner workings of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This ground-breaking study spotlights the Israel lobby's key architect, Isaiah L. Kenen, and uncovers how he and subsequent Israel-firsters morphed from being openly registered as foreign agents, who should have remained employees of the Israeli Embassy's Office of Information, into "American" domestic lobbyists for Israel, a far more benign, if dishonest, nomenclature.

    Smith's very readable book reproduces and analyzes the highly deceptive Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) filings Kenen made while he was still an employee of the Israeli government in New York. It proceeds on to the American Zionist Council (ACZ), the precursor organization where AIPAC gestated. Referencing internal DOJ records, the book painstakingly documents previously undisclosed attempts by the Justice Department and dissenting Jewish groups, including the American Council for Judaism, to close down Kenen's Israeli-financed political propaganda operation-or to at least make it openly register and disclose its activities under FARA.

    Thanks to Kenen's efforts, AIPAC's Zionist financial backers succeeded in laundering money, purchasing arms, smuggling stolen U.S. military hardware, and launching Israel's nuclear and military weapons industries. They paid for some of it with tax-exempt "charitable" donations, though a far larger percentage came from U.S. tax-dollars-without ever having to come out of the shadows.

    Coming 20 years after Kenen's death, Smith's book is a powerful reminder to readers about the effectiveness of stealth public relations and the importance of framing stories for the mainstream media. (Kenen also launched the Near East Report, AIPAC's biweekly flagship publication, which is still a vital public relations tool for Israel.) This close examination of AIPAC's birth and struggle for power is a valuable lesson about nascent foreign interest lobbies, prosecutorial discretion, and the subversion of the rule of law by political elites.

    America's Defense Line reads like a fascinating spy thriller or "who done it" that is hard to put down-until, that is, one remembers that AIPAC and its supporters are still at it-and, usually, getting away with it. (Stay tuned for the espionage trial of former AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.)

    Readers of Smith's book, perhaps alongside Jeff Gates' Guilt By Association, will have all the history and information necessary to loosen AIPAC's grip upon our nation once and for all-but only if we all insist that the rule of law once again become the law of the land.

    Delinda C. Hanley is news editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

    y3maxx -> CuttingEdge , Jan 5, 2017 11:10 AM

    -Clapper is a lying felon.

    DjangoCat -> cali , Jan 5, 2017 10:36 AM

    I call you on the statement "Assange even stated that he received the DNC material from Seth Rich!"

    Wikileaks is dogmatic on the protection of sources. Wikileaks did provide a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Seth Rich's murderer, however.

    MrBoompi -> DjangoCat , Jan 5, 2017 10:50 AM

    You're correct, but Assange did offer $20,000 for information on Rich's murder. One could infer this was Assange's way of telling us his murder is related to the leaked emails without technically divulging his source.

    cali -> DjangoCat , Jan 5, 2017 1:07 PM

    Your question is absolutely valid! Assange said that the first batch of documents he published were given to him by a 'democratic staffer from the DNC'. After Seth was murdered - he offered the monies to find the murderer. I should have stated it that way in my comment. Be as it may Assange connected the dots for me when using the verbiage 'democratic staffer - DNC - Seth Rich - murdered. My bad!

    Krungle -> cali , Jan 5, 2017 11:09 AM

    You don't have to wonder since Craig Murray has said the source was domestic. That is the absurdity of this entire affair--we have the intermediary on record, a career diplomat, and no one has publicly questioned him. This whole thing is akin to the cops catching a white guy leaving a house with stolen goods, then they go into the house to investigate and find a dead body and there is another guy standing there with a smoking gun and then they decide not only to ignore the murder, they put out a warrant for a black guy who was nowhere near the crime, letting the original burgler off the hook too. That's how idiotic and off the trail of the important crimes these guys are. I mean why the hell are we not talking about the legit classified docs that Hillary allowed to be pilfered by multiple foreign (and probably domestic) sources anymore? Seems to me that is the actual crime.

    Parrotile -> 847328_3527 , Jan 5, 2017 3:56 PM

    > How about we send Congressional children and cia children first into battle against the Russians if they feel so strongly about it. <

    Well, "someone's children" are already being sent to what could easily be the "Front Line" in a land battle against Mother Russia, and you can safely bet that none of these cannon-fodder will have families "with connections". THEIR children are all assured comfortable office jobs in the Pentagon, or similar.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-05/us-has-begun-amassing-troops-ru...

    ChanceIs -> NoDebt , Jan 5, 2017 9:07 AM

    California just hired Eric "Too Big To Jail" Holder as its point man against Trump deporting the illegals. I am dumbfounded. He is obviously such a whore and incompetent/unethical attorney. I figured he would be smart and stay on the gold course. Shows you how stupid and blindly partisan Californians are.

    Add Holder to the list of those who have lied so much that nobody believes jack shit from them. Dems don't get it. The Clintonistas have gone back to the well about one thousand times too many. They are sooooo old and worn. Incapable of flexing with the wind and forming new ideas.

    Nancy Pelosi is starting to look her age all of the sudden. Put on about ten pounds. And wrinkles and saggy jowels.

    BTW: We don't need new ideas, just the Constitution.

    Krungle -> ChanceIs , Jan 5, 2017 11:20 AM

    This cracked me up since Holder is probably going to spend the next four years defending himself against crimes he committed while in office.

    scrappy -> NoDebt , Jan 5, 2017 12:11 PM

    Alternate - Alternate narrative.

    The Grizzly Steepe report is a mishmash.

    http://www.robertmlee.org/critiques-of-the-dhsfbis-grizzly-steppe-report/

    This instance (DNC Wiki) may have been an insider leak. We need more info to be sure.

    That said, we should not be so niave to think that russia does not ever hack us, of course they do.

    We hack them too.

    That is why we need to be careful about attribution .

    https://www.tenable.com/blog/attribution-is-hard-part-1

    https://www.tenable.com/blog/attribution-is-hard-part-2

    [Mar 23, 2017] The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies

    Mar 23, 2017 | onclick="TPConnect.blogside.reply('6a00d83451b33869e201b8d26ddde2970c'); return false;" href="javascript:void 0">

    JohnH said in reply to Anachronism ... Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 08:38 AM

    Where's the collusion? Even former DNI Director Clapper said there is no evidence.

    Glenn Greenwald explains: "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.

    Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.

    The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton's most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to "cast doubt" on "allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia." "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all," he said, adding, "There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it."
    https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

    Democrats will do just about anything to avoid sacking their failed, corrupt, sclerotic leadership.

    Anachronism said in reply to JohnH... ◾The White House also tweeted that former intelligence director James Clapper was "right" to say there was "no evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump Campaign." But Clapper said he had no such information "at the time," meaning before he left office in January.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/spinning-the-intel-hearing/

    It further says:

    'No Evidence of Collusion'

    The White House, in a tweet, and Spicer, in his daily press briefing, attempted to dismiss the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials by citing comments made by intelligence leaders in the Obama administration, as well as by Democratic and Republican leaders who have been briefed on the investigation to date.

    But the White House misrepresented the comments of those officials.

    As the attached video shows, the White House tweet left out an important qualifier. Comey said Clapper was "right" to say that there was no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign contained in the declassified report released Jan. 6 on Russian activities during the 2016 presidential election.

    Clapper made his remarks about the report in a "Meet the Press" interview on March 5, when he was asked whether there were "improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials."

    "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians," Clapper said. "There was no evidence of that included in our report."

    Clapper went on to say "at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion." But he added, "This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government."

    Clapper also said, "I do think, though, it is in everyone's interest, in the current president's interests, in the Democrats' interests, in the Republican interest, in the country's interest, to get to the bottom of all this."

    "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd asked, "You admit your report that you released in January doesn't get to the bottom of this?"

    "It did - well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent of the evidence we had at the time," Clapper said. "Whether there is more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations will be revelatory, I don't know."

    Asked what the Senate intelligence committee could learn through an investigation that Clapper's agency could not, Clapper replied, "Well, I think they can look at this from a broader context than we could."

    So Clapper did not say there was no collusion. He said there was no evidence of collusion "at the time" he left office in January. And he went on to say that he believed a Senate investigation was warranted to clear the air.

    Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 09:56 AM Anachronism said in reply to Anachronism ... And of course, there's this:

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/key-dem-points-evidence-collusion-between-russia-team-trump/amp

    Key Dem points to evidence of collusion between Russia, Team Trump

    03/23/17 08:00AM - Updated 03/23/17 01:37PM

    By Steve Benen

    . . .

    But on MSNBC yesterday afternoon, the California Democrat again talked to Chuck Todd, and this time he took another step forward when describing the nature of the evidence.


    TODD: But you admit, all you have right now is a circumstantial case?
    SCHIFF: Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that. And I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now. So, again, I think -

    TODD: You have seen direct evidence of collusion?

    SCHIFF: I don't to want go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial, and it very much worthy of investigation. So, that is what we ought to do.

    When we contacted the congressman's office, asking if Schiff may have misspoken, and giving him a chance to walk this back, his office said Schiff meant what he said. . . .

    There's some fire along with all the smoke being generated.

    Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 11:12 AM RGC said in reply to Anachronism ... " Info suggests"

    " may have coordinated"

    "possibly coordinate"

    "FBI is investigating"

    "according to one source"

    "now reviewing that information"

    "according to those U.S. officials"

    "raising the suspicions"

    " may have taken place'

    "officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive"

    "investigation is ongoing"

    " began looking into possible coordination"

    "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe"

    "One law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests"

    " it appeared"

    "it's premature to draw that inference"

    " it's largely circumstantial"

    "cannot yet prove that collusion took place"

    "CNN has not confirmed"

    " according to U.S. intelligence agencies"

    " investigations are notoriously lengthy"

    "can make it difficult for investigators to bring criminal charges"

    "Investigators continue to analyze"

    "unverified information"

    "suggested coordination"

    Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 08:43 AM Gerald said in reply to RGC... And what did you expect at this point? A little investigative realism, please. Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 11:33 AM Paine said in reply to Anachronism ... Assume you are a business man looking for experts on Russia tht share your
    Dovish views and your business posture and view point

    Surely you'll scoop up Russian tools and mercenaries etc

    My guess these guys operated beyond trumps awareness and control
    in as Much as they were Russian state contract drones etc

    Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 11:39 AM Paine said in reply to Paine... Trump likes doing business with out castes marginal in the shadows players
    Dark operatives etc

    Criminal corrupt co opted ..whatever

    Why ?


    THEY PAY BETTER THEN MNC outfits

    He instinctively sees
    Opportunities in Russia Iran and china

    Rule one

    Wave a carrot or threaten to kick them in the cubes

    Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 11:43 AM

    [Mar 23, 2017] CNN doubles down on Russia threat hysteria

    Mar 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Anachronism : March 23, 2017 at 04:41 AM , 2017 at 04:41 AM
    The story is starting to get interesting:

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/us-officials-info-suggests-trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/index.html

    US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians

    By Pamela Brown, Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Jim Sciutto, CNN

    US officials: Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians 14:11

    Washington (CNN) - The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN.

    This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, according to one source.

    The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S. officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.

    In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives because the bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power."

    The White House did not comment and the FBI declined to comment.

    White House press secretary Sean Spicer maintained Monday after Comey's testimony that there was no evidence to suggest any collusion took place.

    "Investigating it and having proof of it are two different things," Spicer said.

    One law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests "people connected to the campaign were in contact and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready." But other U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it's largely circumstantial.

    The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of the investigation, the officials said.

    The FBI has already been investigating four former Trump campaign associates -- Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page -- for contacts with Russians known to US intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts and CNN has not confirmed any of them are the subjects of the information the FBI is reviewing.

    One of the obstacles the sources say the FBI now faces in finding conclusive intelligence is that communications between Trump's associates and Russians have ceased in recent months given the public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the Trump campaign. Some Russian officials have also changed their methods of communications, making monitoring more difficult, the officials said.

    Last July, Russian intelligence agencies began orchestrating the release of hacked emails stolen in a breach of the Democratic National Committee and associated organizations, as well as email accounts belonging to Clinton campaign officials, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.

    The Russian operation was also in part focused on the publication of so-called "fake news" stories aimed at undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign. But FBI investigators say they are less focused on the coordination and publication of those "fake news" stories, in part because those publications are generally protected free speech.

    The release of the stolen emails, meanwhile, transformed an ordinary cyber-intrusion investigation into a much bigger case handled by the FBI's counterintelligence division.

    FBI counterintelligence investigations are notoriously lengthy and often involve some of the U.S. government's most highly classified programs, such as those focused on intelligence-gathering, which can make it difficult for investigators to bring criminal charges without exposing those programs.

    Investigators continue to analyze the material and information from multiple sources for any possible indications of coordination, according to US officials. Director Comey in Monday's hearing refused to reveal what specifically the FBI was looking for or who they're focusing on.

    US officials said the information was not drawn from the leaked dossier of unverified information compiled by a former British intelligence official compiled for Trump's political opponents, though the dossier also suggested coordination between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.

    kthomas -> Anachronism ... , March 23, 2017 at 04:51 AM
    He's probably bangin' his daughter.
    anne -> kthomas... , March 23, 2017 at 05:54 AM
    He's probably ------- his --------.

    [ This person is continually obscene. This person is continually trying to terrorize and destroy. ]

    kthomas -> anne... , March 23, 2017 at 06:40 AM
    Piss off. Nobody elected you to blog sheriff, you hypocrite.
    Peter K. -> kthomas... , March 23, 2017 at 07:06 AM
    troll.
    anne -> kthomas... , March 23, 2017 at 07:21 AM
    He's probably ------- his --------.

    ---- off.

    Oh look, a new ------- ----------.

    [ This person is continually obscene. This person is continually trying to terrorize and destroy. This person continually threatens others.

    I am afraid of this person. ]

    Gerald -> Anachronism ... , March 23, 2017 at 06:24 AM
    "The story is starting to get interesting."

    There's little doubt in my mind that Trump's team did in fact collude with the Russians, and that the investigation will ultimately come to the same conclusion. That's when the fun begins, if impeachment proceedings can be called fun. Trump will deny, deny, deny that he had any knowledge of the collusion; the fact that he's a serial liar won't prevent most Republicans from voting against his impeachment. Only Trump can save us by doing a Nixon and resigning. He won't though, and we'll be right back where we are, with one huge exception: we'll have a proven traitor sitting in the White House, kept there by a spineless GOP.

    Anachronism -> Gerald... , March 23, 2017 at 06:41 AM
    Agreed. If in fact the FBI can prove substantial ties between the Russians and the Trump team co-ordinating the Wikileak email dump, that has to qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors".

    And given that, at this point, President Cheeto is so unpopular, plus the FBI's evidence (yet to be proven), they would almost have to vote for impeachment or risk losing re-election in their home districts.

    Go make some popcorn, grab your favorite beverage, sit back and enjoy the sound of them imploding.

    Gerald -> Anachronism ... , March 23, 2017 at 07:18 AM
    "...and enjoy the sound of them imploding." Can't wait to hear it. :)
    JohnH -> Anachronism ... , March 23, 2017 at 07:15 AM
    Like Whitewater, this investigation will take years and may well come up empty.

    Meanwhile, Democrats can obsess about how unfair the election was, deny any notion that Hillary was a lousy candidate, and refuse to figure out how to talk to working people or come up with any kind of coherent economic message.

    Trump-Putin shows that they are willing to do most any distraction to keep from having to keep their eye on the ball!

    As a result, Democrats will mostly likely circle the wagons to foist another mealy mouthed neoliberal on the electorate in 2020 in the tradition of Gore, Kerry, and Hillary, a candidate who will almost certainly assure Trump a second term.

    Despite a string of congressional losses, the sclerotic, corrupt leadership refuses get rid of their losing leadership. It would appear that Democrats have grown to love playing Washington Generals to Republicans' Harlem Globetrotters.

    The current requirement for a duopoly assures that there is always a place for losers.

    JohnH -> Anachronism ... , March 23, 2017 at 08:02 AM
    Mark my words: "The Trump-Putin investigation [will take] years because [investigators can't] find any wrongdoing from [Trump-Putin] and so then continued looking into [Trump-Putin] whenever they could, simply to keep the witch hunt going."

    If they had any evidence beyond innuendo and hearsay, we would have seen some of it by now.

    Trump-Putin has become an elaborate distraction to keep Democrats from looking honestly at their failure, and to keep the American public entertained as Trump guts the remnants of their safety net.

    [Mar 22, 2017] Trumps billionaire coup dιtat

    Mar 22, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    Donald Trump is about to break the record of withdrawing his promises faster than any other US president in history. It's not only the fact that his administration has been literally taken over by Goldman Sachs, the top vampire-bank of the Wall Street mafia.

    Recently, Trump announced another big alliance with the vulture billionaire, Paul Singer, who, initially, was supposedly against him. It looks like the Trump big show continues.

    The 'anti-establishment Trump' joke has already collapsed and the US middle class is about be eliminated by the syndicate of the united billionaires under Trump administration.

    As Greg Palast told to Thom Hartmann:

    Paul Singer whose nickname is "the vulture", he didn't get that nickname because he is a sweet an honest businessman. This is the guy who closed the Delphi auto plants in Ohio and sent them to China and also to Monterrey-Mexico. Donald Trump as a candidate, excoriated the billionaires who sent Delphi auto parts company down to Mexico.

    Paul Singer has two concerns: one of them is that we eliminate the banking regulations known as Dodd–Frank. He is called 'the vulture' cause he eats companies that died. He has invested heavily in banks that died. He makes his billions from government bail-outs, he has never made a product in his life, it's all money and billions made from your money, out of the US treasury.

    He is against what Obama created, which is a system under Dodd–Frank, called 'living wheels', where if a bank starts going bankrupt, they don't call the US treasury for bail-out. These banks go out of business and they are broken up so we don't have to pay for the bail-out. Singer wants to restore the system of bailouts because that's where he makes his money.

    The Mercers are the real big money behind Donald Trump. When Trump was in trouble in the general election he was out of money and he was out of ideas and he was losing. It was the Mercers, Robert, who is the principal at the Renaissance Technologies, basically investment banking sharks, that's all they are. They are market gamblers and banking sharks, and that's how he made his billions, he hasn't created a single job as Donald Trump himself like to mention.

    Both the vulture and the Mercers, they don't pay the same taxes as the rest. They don't pay regular income taxes. They have a special billionaires loophole called 'carried interest'. They were two candidates who said that they would close that loophole: one was Bernie Sanders and the other, believe it or not, was Donald Trump, it was part of his populist movie, he said ' These Wall Street sharks, they don't build anything, they don't create a single job, when they lose we pay, when they win, they get a tax-break called carried interest. I will close that loophole. ' Has he said a word about that loophole? It passed away.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/z-q5R4k_3rE"

    Take a taste of Paul Singer from Wikipedia :

    His political activities include funding the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and he has written against raising taxes for the 1% and aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act. Singer is active in Republican Party politics and collectively, Singer and others affiliated with Elliott Management are "the top source of contributions" to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

    A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist", largely on account of his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture fund. Elliott was termed by The Independent as "a pioneer in the business of buying up sovereign bonds on the cheap, and then going after countries for unpaid debts", and in 1996, Singer began using the strategy of purchasing sovereign debt from nations in or near default-such as Argentina, ]- through his NML Capital Limited and Congo-Brazzaville through Kensington International Inc. Singer's business model of purchasing distressed debt from companies and sovereign states and pursuing full payment through the courts has led to criticism, while Singer and EMC defend their model as "a fight against charlatans who refuse to play by the market's rules."

    In 1996, Elliott bought defaulted Peruvian debt for $11.4 million. Elliott won a $58 million judgement when the ruling was overturned in 2000, and Peru had to repay the sum in full under the pari passu rule. When former president of Peru Alberto Fujimori was attempting to flee the country due to facing legal proceedings over human rights abuses and corruption, Singer ordered the confiscation of his jet and offered to let him leave the country in exchange for the $58 million payment from the treasury, an offer which Fujimori accepted. A subsequent 2002 investigation by the Government of Peru into the incident and subsequent congressional report, uncovered instances of corruption since Elliott was not legally authorized to purchase the Peruvian debt from Swiss Bank Corporation without the prior approval of the Peruvian government, and thus the purchase had occurred in breach of contract. At the same time, Elliott's representative, Jaime Pinto, had been formerly employed by the Peruvian Ministry of Economy and Finance and had contact with senior officials. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Peruvian government paid Elliott $56 million to settle the case.

    After Argentina defaulted on its debt in 2002, the Elliott-owned company NML Capital Limited refused to accept the Argentine offer to pay less than 30 cents per dollar of debt. With a face value of $630 million, the bonds were reportedly bought by NML for $48 million, with Elliott assessing the bonds as worth $2.3 billion with accrued interest. Elliott sued Argentina for the debt's value, and the lower UK courts found that Argentina had state immunity. Elliott successfully appealed the case to the UK Supreme Court, which ruled that Elliott had the right to attempt to seize Argentine property in the United Kingdom. Alternatively, before 2011, US courts ruled against allowing creditors to seize Argentine state assets in the United States. On October 2, 2012 Singer arranged for a Ghanaian Court order to detain the Argentine naval training vessel ARA Libertad in a Ghanaian port, with the vessel to be used as collateral in an effort to force Argentina to pay the debt. Refusing to pay, Argentina shortly thereafter regained control of the ship after its seizure was deemed illegal by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Alleging the incident lost Tema Harbour $7.6 million in lost revenue and unpaid docking fees, Ghana in 2012 was reportedly considering legal action against NML for the amount.

    His firm... is so influential that fear of its tactics helped shape the current 2012 Greek debt restructuring." Elliott was termed by The Independent as "a pioneer in the business of buying up sovereign bonds on the cheap, and then going after countries for unpaid debts", and in 1996, Singer began using the strategy of purchasing sovereign debt from nations in or near default-such as Argentina, Peru-through his NML Capital Limited and Congo-Brazzaville through Kensington International Inc. In 2004, then first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund Anne Osborn Krueger denounced the strategy, alleging that it has "undermined the entire structure of sovereign finance."

    we wrote that " Trump's rhetoric is concentrated around a racist delirium. He avoids to take direct position on social matters, issues about inequality, etc. Of course he does, he is a billionaire! Trump will follow the pro-establishment agenda of protecting Wall Street and big businesses. And here is the fundamental difference with Bernie Sanders. Bernie says no more war and he means it. He says more taxes for the super-rich and he means it. Free healthcare and education for all the Americans, and he means it. In case that Bernie manage to beat Hillary, the establishment will definitely turn to Trump who will be supported by all means until the US presidency. "

    Yet, we would never expect that Trump would verify us, that fast.

    [Mar 22, 2017] 6 years after catastrophic regime change in Libya, read the UK Parliament report on how NATOs war was based on lies

    Notable quotes:
    "... British investigation: Gaddafi was not going to massacre civilians; Western bombing made Islamist extremism worse ..."
    Mar 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne , March 22, 2017 at 06:10 AM

    https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/844247162817003520

    Ben Norton @BenjaminNorton

    6 years after catastrophic regime change in Libya, read the UK Parliament report on how NATO's war was based on lies

    http://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

    U.K. Parliament report details how NATO's 2011 war in Libya was based on lies

    British investigation: Gaddafi was not going to massacre civilians; Western bombing made Islamist extremism worse

    10:59 AM - 21 Mar 2017

    anne -> anne... March 22, 2017 at 06:11 AM

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/world/africa/libya-isis.html

    March 20, 2017

    Warnings of a 'Powder Keg' in Libya as ISIS Regroups

    By ERIC SCHMITT

    Punishing strikes in December and January hurt the terrorist group, but it is exploiting the chaos and political vacuum gripping the country, American and allied officials say.

    [Mar 22, 2017] At least 400K people were killed directly by the USA's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan

    Mar 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    yuan -> Jerry Brown, March 19, 2017 at 08:41 PM
    367-395,000 people killed directly by the USA's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

    ~800,000 killed indirectaly by the USA's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures

    ~4.8 trillion dollars spent killing people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2016/us-budgetary-costs-wars-through-2016-479-trillion-and-counting

    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2016/direct-war-death-toll-iraq-afghanistan-and-pakistan-2001-370000

    Jerry Brown -> yuan... , March 19, 2017 at 08:58 PM
    Yes, George W. Bush will never get a thank you from me.
    yuan -> Jerry Brown... , March 20, 2017 at 08:00 AM
    The unnecessary killing and spending did not end under Obama.
    Jerry Brown -> yuan... , March 20, 2017 at 08:30 AM
    I am of the opinion that less killing is an improvement over more killing. There was a lot less killing under Obama.

    [Mar 22, 2017] Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on Russia

    Mar 22, 2017 | www.rollingstone.com

    10:05 a.m. It's a small issue in the grand scheme of things, but the effort to describe the Russia Today network as diabolical propaganda without mentioning Voice of America and Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe continues to amaze. Apparently Russia is the only country that funds a media network intended to influence foreign audiences.

    Nunes in his opening statement characterizes RT as a disinformation effort that "traffics in anti-American conspiracies," rivaling Soviet propaganda. Here it is hard not to think of the joint intel report that cited the network's reporting on Occupy Wall Street, "corporate greed" and fracking as evidence of its anti-American nature. It also decried the network's use of the term "surveillance state" to describe the U.S., which will be pretty ironic considering the content of today's hearing.

    Again, it's a small point, but by these standards pretty much any alternative media outlet is "anti-American," and it's alarming to hear Democrats later ape this language in reference to RT.

    10:20 a.m. Schiff delivers a long speech that essentially lays out the Trump-Russia conspiracy. Twitter seems to be unanimous that it's a powerful piece of rhetoric.

    Among other things, he unblinkingly cites the Christopher Steele's "golden showers" dossier as a source. This seems like a pretty intense political calculation given that Michael Morell, who would have been Hillary Clinton's CIA director, basically called the dossier useless just last week. The dossier "doesn't take you anywhere, I think," Morell said. But it's all over this hearing, with multiple Democratic members citing it. What that means, who knows, but it's interesting to see that level of commitment from the Democrats.

    10:32 a.m. Comey creates the big headline of the day by saying, "I have been authorized ... to confirm that the FBI is investigating" the Russia story.

    This both is and isn't big news. Although it's the first time it's been stated publicly, the existence of this investigation has been common knowledge for a long time. Most of the leaked reports on the topic have included this information.

    For instance, The New York Times story from February 14th, about Trump officials having had "contact" with Russian intelligence, spoke definitively of an investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Putin government.

    Still, that doesn't mean Comey had to do what he did today. Is this payback to Trump for accusing the FBI of illegally wiretapping him? Is it a good-faith effort to square the ledger in terms of his previous highly controversial decision to out the Clinton email investigation? It's curious and bold either way. One wonders if Trump might fire him.

    The true newsworthy detail, of course, isn't that Comey disclosed the existence of an FBI investigation into Trump – as Democrats should know better than anyone, that doesn't necessarily mean anything – but that Comey is doing this now and didn't do so earlier, before the election. Obviously, he made a different choice with regard to the Clinton email story, and the Democrats rightfully should be furious about that.

    10:36 a.m. Nunes asks Rogers if Russians hacked vote tallies in Michigan. Rogers answers no, noting that the NSA doesn't do domestic surveillance. Nunes goes on to ask about Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, knowing Rogers won't answer. It's a totally meaningless exchange, but instantly becomes Twitter fodder:

    This is what these hearings are for, primarily. Except for very rare occasions when mega-careful witnesses like Comey and Rogers decide to give up tidbits, for the most part these hearings are held so that House members can ping-pong talking points off witnesses, and then circulate clips of themselves asking questions to which they already know the answers.

    10:39 a.m. Florida Republican Tom Rooney asks Rogers about incidental collection of data about "U.S. persons" under the Section 702 program. Admiral Rogers' explanation for how they use that data, and how they protect the rights of U.S. companies and citizens – redacting or "masking" identities, for instance – is almost comically non-reassuring.

    Reading between the lines, the NSA seems to have basically unrestricted ability to snoop on foreigners. When their targets are speaking to American persons or communicating with American companies, the agency also seems to have an absurdly permissive mandate to listen to whatever they want to listen to. Only later, it seems, do they figure out how to justify it legally.

    This is an example of how the hyper-partisan nature of these hearings spoils American politics. Liberals especially should be seriously concerned about such surveillance overreach by the intelligence agencies, and also about leaks directed against individuals by intelligence officials. Similarly, conservatives should be mortified by the possibility of foreign interference in our electoral process.

    But because both of these issues are tied in highly specific ways to the political fortunes of Donald Trump, each issue will be ignored by one side and thundered over by the other.

    11:03 a.m. Schiff asks both men if Obama wiretapped Trump as Trump claimed. "I have no information that supports those tweets," Comey says. Asked if he engages in McCarthyism, Comey says he tries "not to engage in any isms of any kind, including McCarthyism." He gets laughs. Comey is a very, very slick witness, difficult to read.

    An interesting development in this hearing is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are treating these witnesses as hostile. And both Comey and Rogers are in their own ways giving both Nunes and Schiff what they want so far. They're allowing members of both parties to make speeches and ask their suggestive questions, while giving them next to nothing.

    11:19 a.m. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, last seen spending two expensive years stepping on his weenie in a pathetic effort to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton through the Benghazi probe, comes on to the delight of, well, nobody. Gowdy is the first to cross over into open unfriendliness. Ominously, he starts trying to get Comey to say reporters could be held criminally liable for disclosing secret information.

    Gowdy later scores a point by getting Comey to explain a hypothetical: how he would go about investigating the leak of a U.S. citizen's name that appears in a newspaper. (He's clearly talking about Flynn.)

    Comey, with the caveat that he's not talking about anyone specific, lays out how he would do that, talking about identifying the "universe" of people with access to that information and then using investigative techniques to further narrow the field. Indirectly, Comey confirms Gowdy's interpretation of a "felonious" disclosure to a newspaper that must be prosecuted. It sets up a demand that Comey investigate and prosecute that leak.

    Gowdy does in fact go on to make such a demand. But Comey cockblocks Gowdy and says he "can't" promise that he will investigate the leaks.

    Gowdy looks like someone just stole his box of Mike and Ikes. He seems surprised, like he didn't expect Comey's answer. Comey smiles and glares at Gowdy like the third-rater he is.

    11:43 a.m. Jim Himes asks Comey if Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union. Comey says yes. Glad we cleared that up.

    11:52 a.m. Mike Conaway of Texas points out that determining the source of a hacking campaign is a forensic enterprise, but asks how they determine intent. In the process, he pins down Rogers as saying he had a "lower level" of confidence in the idea that the Russians preferred Trump to Clinton.

    Conaway then plunges into a bizarre metaphor about how his wife went to Texas Tech, so he roots for the Red Raiders and dislikes the Longhorns, or something. Conaway seemed to want to ask if it is possible to root against Texas without liking the Red Raiders, or the opposite, but pretty much everyone watching instantly loses track of whether Hillary Clinton is Texas or Texas Tech in the metaphor.

    Comey confidently goes with it. "Wherever the Red Raiders are playing, you want them to win and their opposition to lose," he says. He goes on to elaborate on the metaphor, talking about how the Russians later in the year knew the Red Raiders were going to lose, "so you hope key people on the other team get hurt so they are not as tough an opponent down the road."

    The substantively interesting thing here is Comey's sly disclosure that the Russians late in the game expected Trump to lose the election. But his deft handling of Conaway's bumbling hypothetical overshadows the answer.

    12:21 p.m. Nunes tries on a new rhetorical line: It's absurd to say Russians prefer Republicans, because Reagan!

    This is silly, of course, because Trump is a different animal from Reagan, but then Comey and Rogers do something equally silly. On the question of whether the Russians preferred Romney or McCain over Obama, they both look at each other like it's crazy to suggest they ever considered the question. Isn't it their job to know things like that? They're clearly dissembling.

    12:25 p.m. Peter King, the most mumbly member on the panel, asks about the report that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told Reince Priebus that one of the New York Times stories on Russia was "BS."

    "Is there any way you can comment on whether or not Mr. McCabe told that to Mr. Priebus?" King asks.

    Comey gives a classically Comeyish answer:

    "I can't, Mr. King, but I can agree with your general premise. Leaks have always been a problem. I read over the weekend [about] George Washington and Abraham Lincoln complaining about them. But I do agree in the last six weeks and months there apparently have been a lot of instances of conversations appearing in the media, and a lot of it is dead wrong. Which is one of the challenges, because we don't correct it. It's made it difficult because people are talking, or at least reporters are saying people are talking, in ways that have struck me as being unusually active."

    Translation: blow me, I'm not telling you what McCabe said to Priebus. King basically thanks them both and retreats. King will spend much of the day apologizing for asking perfectly legitimate questions.

    Although the hearing has generated tons of headlines before it hits the halfway mark, it's really a giant tease.

    Both Comey and Rogers indicated from the start that they will reserve their more candid testimony for a later classified hearing with these same members. For the public, this means one thing: we'll continue to get no real answers, and a heavily partisan and politicized version of events, no matter what happens. So long as the investigations aren't closed, and the real information is kept behind closed doors, both parties can pursue their rhetorical campaigns unchecked. And the testimony of people like Comey and Rogers will be useful only for driving interest in the reading of tea leaves.

    There should probably be three entirely separate investigations. One should concern the question of whether, or to what extent, the Russians interfered with the election. That's a non-partisan question, really, one everyone should care about, but Republicans won't do anything about it because they will perceive the entire issue as a partisan attack on Trump.

    A second inquiry could deal with the question of illegal/politicized leaks of secret surveillance data coming from the "IC." Again, in reality this is a non-partisan concern. Were congressional Democrats really interested in getting at whatever the intelligence community has on Trump, a bipartisan inquiry of this nature would be an excellent pressure point.

    Lastly, you could have a completely separate set of hearings into the question of whether or not the Trump campaign engaged in anything untoward in its dealings with Russians last year. If there's anything to this, the public needs to hear it, and it all needs to be public.

    But don't expect answers anytime soon. Hearings like today's only add to the frustrating strangeness of this scandal, and it looks like this will continue for quite some time.

    [Mar 22, 2017] A Breach in the Anti-Putin Groupthink by Gilbert Doctorow

    Anti-Russian campaign is too profitable to be affected by minor setbacks.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Does Russia Have a Future? ..."
    Mar 21, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    The mainstream U.S. media has virtually banned any commentary that doesn't treat Russian President Putin as the devil, but a surprising breach in the groupthink has occurred in Foreign Affairs magazine, reports Gilbert Doctorow.

    Realistically, no major change in U.S. foreign and defense policy is possible without substantial support from the U.S. political class, but a problem occurs when only one side of a debate gets a fair hearing and the other side gets ignored or marginalized. That is the current situation regarding U.S. policy toward Russia.

    For the past couple of decades, only the neoconservatives and their close allies, the liberal interventionists, have been allowed into the ring to raise their gloves in celebration of an uncontested victory over policy. On the very rare occasion when a "realist" or a critic of "regime change" wars somehow manages to sneak into the ring, they find both arms tied behind them and receive the predictable pounding.

    While this predicament has existed since the turn of this past century, it has grown more pronounced since the U.S.-Russia relationship slid into open confrontation in 2014 after the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and sparking a civil war that led Crimea to secede and join Russia and Ukraine's eastern Donbass region to rise up in rebellion.

    But the only narrative that the vast majority of Americans have heard – and that the opinion centers of Washington and New York have allowed – is the one that blames everything on "Russian aggression." Those who try to express dissenting opinions – noting, for instance, the intervention in Ukrainian affairs by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland as well as the U.S.-funded undermining on Yanukovych's government – have been essentially banned from both the U.S. mass media and professional journals.

    When a handful of independent news sites (including Consortiumnews.com) tried to report on the other side of the story, they were denounced as "Russian propagandists" and ended up on "blacklists" promoted by The Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets.

    An Encouraging Sign

    That is why it is encouraging that Foreign Affairs magazine, the preeminent professional journal of American diplomacy, took the extraordinary step (extraordinary at least in the current environment) of publishing Robert English's article , entitled "Russia, Trump, and a new Dιtente," that challenges the prevailing groupthink and does so with careful scholarship.

    A wintery scene in Moscow, near Red Square. (Photo by Robert Parry)

    In effect, English's article trashes the positions of all Foreign Affairs' featured contributors for the past several years. But it must be stressed that there are no new discoveries of fact or new insights that make English's essay particularly valuable. What he has done is to bring together the chief points of the counter-current and set them out with extraordinary writing skills, efficiency and persuasiveness of argumentation. Even more important, he has been uncompromising.

    The facts laid out by English could have been set out by one of several experienced and informed professors or practitioners of international relations. But English had the courage to follow the facts where they lead and the skill to convince the Foreign Affairs editors to take the chance on allowing readers to see some unpopular truths even though the editors now will probably come under attack themselves as "Kremlin stooges."

    The overriding thesis is summed up at the start of the essay: "For 25 years, Republicans and Democrats have acted in ways that look much the same to Moscow. Washington has pursued policies that have ignored Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests. It is no wonder that Russia pushes back. The wonder is that the U.S. policy elite doesn't get this, even as foreign-affairs neophyte Trump apparently does."

    English's article goes back to the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and explains why and how U.S. policy toward Russia was wrong and wrong again. He debunks the notion that Boris Yeltsin brought in a democratic age, which Vladimir Putin undid after coming to power.

    English explains how the U.S. meddled in Russian domestic politics in the mid-1990s to falsify election results and ensure Yeltsin's continuation in office despite his unpopularity for bringing on an economic Depression that average Russians remember bitterly to this day. That was a time when the vast majority of Russians equated democracy with "shitocracy."

    English describes how the Russian economic and political collapse in the 1990s was exploited by the Clinton administration. He tells why currently fashionable U.S. critics of Putin are dead wrong when they fail to acknowledge Putin's achievements in restructuring the economy, tax collection, governance, improvements in public health and more which account for his spectacular popularity ratings today.

    English details all the errors and stupidities of the Obama administration in its handling of Russia and Putin, faulting President Obama and Secretary of State (and later presidential candidate) Hillary Clinton for all of their provocative and insensitive words and deeds. What we see in U.S. policy, as described by English, is the application of double standards, a prosecutorial stance towards Russia, and outrageous lies about the country and its leadership foisted on the American public.

    Then English takes on directly all of the paranoia over Russia's alleged challenge to Western democratic processes. He calls attention instead to how U.S. foreign policy and the European Union's own policies in the new Member States and candidate Member States have created all the conditions for a populist revolt by buying off local elites and subjecting the broad populace in these countries to pauperization.

    English concludes his essay with a call to give dιtente with Putin and Russia a chance.

    Who Is Robert English?

    English's Wikipedia entry and biographical data provided on his University of Southern California web pages make it clear that he has quality academic credentials: Master of Public Administration and PhD. in politics from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He also has a solid collection of scholarly publications to his credit as author or co-editor with major names in the field of Russian-Soviet intellectual history.

    Red Square in Moscow with a winter festival to the left and the Kremlin to the right. (Photo by Robert Parry)

    He spent six years doing studies for U.S. intelligence and defense: 1982–1986 at the Department of Defense and 1986-88 at the U.S. Committee for National Security. And he has administrative experience as the Director of the USC School of International Relations.

    Professor English is not without his political ambitions. During the 2016 presidential election campaign, he tried to secure a position as foreign policy adviser to Democratic hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders. In pursuit of this effort, English had the backing of progressives at The Nation, which in February 2016 published an article of his entitled "Bernie Sanders, the Foreign Policy Realist of 2016."

    English's objective was to demonstrate how wrong many people were to see in Sanders a visionary utopian incapable of defending America's strategic interests. Amid the praise of Sanders in this article, English asserts that Sanders is as firm on Russia as Hillary Clinton.

    By the end of the campaign, however, several tenacious neocons had attached themselves to Sanders's inner circle and English departed. So, one might size up English as just one more opportunistic academic who will do whatever it takes to land a top job in Washington.

    While there is nothing new in such "flexibility," there is also nothing necessarily offensive in it. From the times of Machiavelli if not earlier, intellectuals have tended to be guns for hire. The first open question is how skilled they are in managing their sponsors as well as in managing their readers in the public. But there is also a political realism in such behavior, advancing a politician who might be a far better leader than the alternatives while blunting the attack lines that might be deployed against him or her.

    Then, there are times, such as the article for Foreign Affairs, when an academic may be speaking for his own analysis of an important situation whatever the political costs or benefits. Sources who have long been close to English assure me that the points in his latest article match his true beliefs.

    The Politics of Geopolitics

    Yet, it is one thing to have a courageous author and knowledgeable scholar. It is quite another to find a publisher willing to take the heat for presenting views that venture outside the mainstream Establishment. In that sense, it is stunning that Foreign Affairs chose to publish English and let him destroy the groupthink that has dominated the magazine and the elite foreign policy circles for years.

    President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

    The only previous exception to the magazine's lockstep was an article by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault" published in September 2014. That essay shot holes in Official Washington's recounting of the events leading up to the Russian annexation of Crimea and intervention in the Donbass.

    It was a shock to many of America's leading foreign policy insiders who, in the next issue, rallied like a collection of white cells to attack the invasive thinking. But there were some Foreign Affairs readers – about one-third of the commenters – who voiced agreement with Mearsheimer's arguments. But that was a one-time affair. Mearsheimer appears to have been tolerated because he was one of the few remaining exponents of the Realist School in the United States. But he was not a Russia specialist.

    Foreign Affairs may have turned to Robert English because the editors, as insider-insiders, found themselves on the outside of the Trump administration looking in. The magazine's 250,000 subscribers, which include readers from across the globe, expect Foreign Affairs to have some lines into the corridors of power.

    In that regard, the magazine has been carrying water for the State Department since the days of the Cold War. For instance, in the spring issue of 2007, the magazine published a cooked-up article signed by Ukrainian politician Yuliya Tymoshenko on why the West must contain Russia, a direct response to Putin's famous Munich speech in which he accused the United States of destabilizing the world through the Iraq War and other policies.

    Anticipating Hillary Clinton's expected election, Foreign Affairs' editors did not hedge their bets in 2016. They sided with the former Secretary of State and hurled rhetorical bricks at Donald Trump. In their September issue, they compared him to a tin-pot populist dictator in South America.

    Thus, they found themselves cut off after Trump's surprising victory. For the first time in many years in the opening issue of the New Year following a U.S. presidential election, the magazine did not feature an interview with the incoming Secretary of State or some other cabinet member.

    Though Official Washington's anti-Russian frenzy seems to be reaching a crescendo on Capitol Hill with strident hearings on alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election, the underlying reality is that the neocons are descending into a fury over their sudden loss of power.

    The hysteria was highlighted when neocon Sen. John McCain lashed out at Sen. Rand Paul after the libertarian senator objected to special consideration for McCain's resolution supporting Montenegro's entrance into NATO. In a stunning breach of Senate protocol, a livid McCain accused Paul of "working for Vladimir Putin."

    Meanwhile, some Democratic leaders have begun cautioning their anti-Trump followers not to expect too much from congressional investigations into the supposed Trump-Russia collusion on the election.

    In publishing Robert English's essay challenging much of the anti-Russian groupthink that has dominated Western geopolitics over the past few years, Foreign Affairs may be finally bending to the recognition that it is risking its credibility if it continues to put all its eggs in the we-hate-Russia basket.

    That hedging of its bets may be a case of self-interest, but it also may be an optimistic sign that the martyred Fifteenth Century Catholic Church reformer Jan Hus was right when he maintained that eventually the truth will prevail.

    Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book, Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015.

    [Mar 22, 2017] The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc

    Rachel Maddow looks at the role of Russian bot networks and cyber war tactics during the 2016 U.S. election and notes that those things didn't just go away after the election. She proves to be a talented anti-Russian warmonger. Very impressive piece of propaganda. Classic brainwashing.
    MSNC clearly is in neo-McCarthyism camp and try to capitalize on anti-Russian hysteria. Of cause, Rachel Maddow was and still is a Hillary puppet, so she should have her credibility already destroyed. but people still watching her show and that's a problem. Previously she supported this neocon warmonger, now she became one. The problem with her blabbing is that accounting to FBI Russians have written off Trump in Summer 2016.
    Looks like Democratic party brass can no longer control the anti-Russian hysteria why wiped up, even if they realized that they went too far and the ability to lick thier wound by launching anti-Russian hysteria and getting it to the sky level pitch has some adverse effects in a long run ...
    Notable quotes:
    "... This anti-Russian warmonger Rachel Maddow is a Hillary puppet. That is a known fact. She has been dyed-in-the-wool supported neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign. ..."
    "... A company related to a NATO aligned "think-tank", which is financed by weapon producers and other special interests, raises allegations against Russia that are quite possibly unfounded. These allegations are then used by NATO to build up a public boogeyman picture of "the Russian enemy". In consequence the budgets for NATO militaries and the profits of weapon producers increase. ..."
    "... It is a simple racket, but with potentially very bad consequences for all of us. ..."
    Mar 22, 2017 | www.msnbc.com

    Duration: 20:44

    libezkova -> Peter K .... March 22, 2017 at 04:24 PM

    This anti-Russian warmonger Rachel Maddow is a Hillary puppet. That is a known fact. She has been dyed-in-the-wool supported neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign.

    All her blows were below the belt.

    This selective reporting of pieces of information is actually pretty disingenuous. Anybody using those methods and by selective reporting of bits of information that support your viewpoint can be painted as a Russian agent. Even EMichael :-)

    The problem with her blabbing is that according to FBI Russians have written off Trump in Summer 2016.

    Listening to this show by MSNBC is so disguising, that I lost any respect for it.

    RGC -> EMichael... March 22, 2017 at 04:45 PM
    Fool Me Once ... - Crowdstrike Claimed Two Cases
    Of "Russian Hacking" - One Has Been Proven Wrong

    The cyber-security company Crowdstrike claimed that the "Russia" hacked the Democratic National Committee. It also claimed that "Russia" hacked artillery units of the Ukrainian army. The second claim has now be found to be completely baseless. That same is probably the case with its claims related to the DNC.
    ..........................

    The DNC was likely not hacked at all. Some insider with access to its servers may have taken the emails to publish them. On July 10 2016 the DNC IT administrator Sean Rich was found fatally shot on the streets of Washington DC. To this day no culprit has been found. The crime is unsolved. Five Congressional staffers and IT administrators from Pakistan, some of whom also worked for the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, are under criminal investigation for unauthorized access to Congressional computers. They had the password of Wasserman-Schultz and may have had access to the DNC servers.

    Crowdstrike's claims of "Russian hacking" have evidently been false with regards to the Ukrainian artillery. Crowdstrike's claims of "Russian hacking" in the case of the DNC have never been supported or confirmed by independent evidence. There are reasons to believe that the loss of control of the DNC's email archives were a case of unauthorized internal access and not a "hack" at all.

    A company related to a NATO aligned "think-tank", which is financed by weapon producers and other special interests, raises allegations against Russia that are quite possibly unfounded. These allegations are then used by NATO to build up a public boogeyman picture of "the Russian enemy". In consequence the budgets for NATO militaries and the profits of weapon producers increase.

    It is a simple racket, but with potentially very bad consequences for all of us.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/ Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 04:45 PM

    [Mar 22, 2017] New Cold War and anti-Russian hysteria news March 2017 edition

    Notable quotes:
    "... the wrong foreign power ..."
    Mar 22, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Devin Nunes is a conservative Republican from the San Joaquin Valley who advised Donald Trump through his transition to the presidency. Adam Schiff is a Los Angeles Democrat who campaigned for Hillary Clinton and isn't shy in his criticisms of the man who defeated her" [ RealClearPolitics ]. Now the two California congressmen find themselves at the center of the political universe, leading a House probe into Russian meddling in American politics . The two have no qualms about expressing disagreements with what they deduce from the same pot of information, but their joint appearances are a vestige of the kind of bipartisanship that has all but disappeared from Washington. And yet, Monday's hearing showed the partisan divide on the issue, with Republican members focused on plugging government leaks of sensitive information and Democrats interested in possible collusion." "Meddling," "collusion." Pretty squishy words

    "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [ Politico ]. (Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians were hacking tampering with meddling in seeking to influence our election! Where's that declaration of war I had lying around

    "From Russia, with Panic" [Yasha Levine, The Baffler (DG)]. This is an important post. Key point: "But in private conversations, as well as little-noticed public discussions, security professionals take a dimmer view of the cybersecurity complex. And the more I've looked at the hysteria surrounding Russia's supposed hacking of our elections, the more I've come to see it as a case study of everything wrong and dangerous about the cyber-attribution business." For example: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ analyst and founder of Capital Alpha Security who blogs under the influential Twitter handle @pwnallthethings, found a Word document pilfered from the DNC and leaked by Guccifer 2.0. As he examined its data signatures, he discovered that it had been edited by Felix Edmundovich-a.k.a. Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Cheka. To him, it was proof that Guccifer 2.0 was part of the same Russian intelligence operation. He really believed that the super sophisticated spy group trying to hide its Russian ties would register its Microsoft Word processor in the name of the leader of the infamously brutal Soviet security service."

    "Could the President Spy on His Political Opponents?" [ The American Conservative ]. "But regardless of whether [Trump's "wiretapping"] claims turn out to be completely false, which is all but certain now, they do raise a question that shouldn't be casually dismissed: Could President Obama's administration have surveiled his political opponents under its interpretation of the law? Could President Trump's administration now do the same? The answer, unfortunately, is yes."

    "Report: Paul Manafort Drafted a Plan in 2005 to Influence American Politics for Putin's Benefit" [ Slate ]. I used Slate because "2005" somehow didn't get into the headlines in the other stories. Here's a blow-by-blow from NPR .

    I can well believe that the Democrats are so feckless that they ginned up a Trump scandal with the wrong foreign power :

    on Twitter
    Follow Mark Ames @MarkAmesExiled

    One claim in piss-Trump dossier that rang true-Trump happy media focus on his Russia ties rather than his China biz https:// twitter.com/matthewstoller /status/843888616774483968

    2:48 PM - 20 Mar 2017

    Heatlh Care

    "A White House in full-court press mode deployed President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence to Capitol

    [Mar 22, 2017] Noted Putin Critic Warns Of Confrontation Between Trump And Russia, Not Collaboration Zero Hedge

    Mar 22, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    One thing we should have learned over the past year or so is you can take any narrative being pushed by the corporate media and Democrats, and assume that the exact opposite is true . The current Trump-Russia hysteria could very well turn out to be the latest and most embarrassing example of this phenomenon. In fact, well known Putin-critic, Masha Gessen, recently warned in an interview with Politico that her biggest fear is a Trump-Putin conflict, not some imagined alliance.

    Below I provide the excerpts from this lengthy interview which I believe are relevant to the topic.

    From Politico :

    Glasser : I want to talk a little bit about where we are right now. And then back up to why it is, in your life, you've figured out this expecting the unimaginable. But recently, you know, American politics has been consumed by Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. And you wrote something that a lot of people were surprised by the other day, although I was not. And you said, "Beware the conspiracy trap."

    And that, in fact, the Russia scandal that now threatens to engulf President Trump's very new presidency, you wrote, "In effect, could be actually helping President Trump and amount to a sort of a colossal distraction for us." What did you mean by that?

    Gessen : Well, a couple things. One is that, if you look at, you know, what we actually know about the Russia story, which changes every day, but what-at this point, what we actually know suggests that the likelihood that there's going to be a causal link between the Russian interference in the American election and the outcome of the election. The likelihood that was a causal link, and that that causal link can be shown, is basically vanishingly small, right?

    So-and I think that part of the reason-there are basically two reasons that a lot of journalists and a lot of activists have been focusing on Russia is because it serves as a crutch for the imagination. And again, I'm coming back to this topic of imagination, which obsesses me.

    So one way in which it serves as a crutch for the imagination is that it allows us to imagine that, maybe, Trump will be so sullied by this Russia scandal, by this connection, even if he can't prove a cause-causal link, just that the darkness of the scandal will be thick enough of a cloud that he will eventually be impeached by a Republican Congress.

    That's a huge leap. And it also, I think, doesn't take into account the tools-the rhetorical tools that will have to be used to sully Trump in such a way, right? Which are basically xenophobic and, you know, corrosive to the public sphere. And the other way in which it serves as a crutch for the imagination is it also serves to explain how Trump could have happened to us, right? The Russians did it.

    Glasser : That's exactly right; if it's an external thing. And you wrote that very, very early on. Actually, before this latest round, that the real threat to Trump would be to misunderstand where this comes from. And if it's not Americans who voted for him, but somehow, it's a wily, dark conspiracy theory. That leads you down a whole different set of responses to Trump.

    Gessen : Right. Which-

    Glasser : I think that's your point.

    Gessen : That is my point. And also that it's destructive to politics. Politics is what happens out in the open. And there's lots of politics happening, right? There's this endless barrage of frightening bills being filed at this point. There are the Cabinet appointments. There's the, you know, dismantling of the federal government as we have known it for generations.

    All of that is going on out in the open. And we only have so much bandwidth. If we're not talking about what's going on out in the open, if we're talking about conspiracy instead, then we are, by doing that, destroying the politics that we should be preserving, right? I mean, how do we emerge out the other end, when Trump ends, and Trump will eventually end. Everything ends, right?

    If we've engaged in conspiracy theorizing this whole time, instead of engaging in politics-and only by engaging in politics can we actually preserve the political space

    Gessen : I'm worried about Russia. I'm-this is-I mean, we're already out of the honeymoon phase, and it's been less than two months. And I think it's-I mean, the danger of having these two unhinged power-hungry men at their-respective nuclear buttons cannot be overestimated. But-

    Glasser : So you would see them as potential enemies as much as potential friends? That this scenario-

    Gessen : Oh, absolutely.

    Glasser : -we should worry about is Trump versus Putin, not just Trump and Putin uniting?

    Gessen : Right. I'm actually worried about a collision with them.

    She's exactly right. I completely agree that the disaster scenario with Putin and Trump is if and when they actually clash. Once that happens, the corporate media and Democrats will pretend they had nothing to do with it, as they always do. As Mark Ames noted on Twitter:

    All the worst Iraq war liars still have their fat media jobs-where they now tell us public distrust in Establishment is a Kremlin conspiracy

    - Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) March 20, 2017

    Moving on, I want to once again turn to Robert Parry of Consortium News to highlight just how ridiculous the whole "Putin bought off Trump aides" conspiracy is. From yesterday's piece, The Missing Logic of Russia-gate :

    Democrats circulated a report showing that retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who served briefly as President Donald Trump's national security adviser, had received payments from several Russia-related entities, totaling nearly $68,000.

    The largest payment of $45,386 came for a speech and an appearance in Moscow in 2015 at the tenth anniversary dinner for RT, the international Russian TV network, with Flynn netting $33,750 after his speakers' bureau took its cut. Democrats treated this revelation as important evidence about Russia buying influence in the Trump campaign and White House. But the actual evidence suggests something quite different.

    Not only was the sum a relative trifle for a former senior U.S. government official compared to, say, the fees collected by Bill and Hillary Clinton, who often pulled in six to ten times more, especially for speeches to foreign audiences. ( Former President Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin, The New York Times reported in 2015,)

    Yet, besides Flynn's relatively modest speaking fee, The Washington Post reported that RT negotiated Flynn's rate downward.

    Deep inside its article on Flynn's Russia-connected payments, the Post wrote, "RT balked at paying Flynn's original asking price. 'Sorry it took us longer to get back to you but the problem is that the speaking fee is a bit too high and exceeds our budget at the moment,' Alina Mikhaleva, RT's head of marketing, wrote a Flynn associate about a month before the event."

    So, if you accept the Democrats' narrative that Russian President Vladimir Putin is engaged in an all-out splurge to induce influential Americans to betray their country, how do you explain that his supposed flunkies at RT are quibbling with Flynn over a relatively modest speaking fee?

    Of course, you'll never hear any of this emphasized in the corporate media, they're too busy pushing for a conflict between the U.S. and Russia. A conflict that once it happens, they will vehemently deny playing any role in propagating.

    [Mar 19, 2017] Intel Chair No Collusion Between Trump and Russia... Leak Is The Only Crime Zero Hedge

    Mar 19, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Intel Chair: "No Collusion Between Trump and Russia... Leak Is The Only Crime" Shemp 4 Victory , Mar 19, 2017 11:57 AM

    Reason won't matter to snowflakes. They'll cling to the comfort of their illusions.

    Erek -> Shemp 4 Victory , Mar 19, 2017 11:59 AM

    Hmm. It seems the "Intelligence" chair is leaking on the snowflakes.

    Looney -> Erek , Mar 19, 2017 12:01 PM

    ... No evidence of collusion

    But but 0bama said Hillary said 17 intelligence agencies said CNN said

    LetThemEatRand -> Shemp 4 Victory , Mar 19, 2017 11:59 AM

    The Deep State/MSM trots out shit like this precisely because the facts don't matter once the narrative is set. Half the country will go on thinking there's no way the story would have made it this far were there not some there there.

    MsCreant -> chunga , Mar 19, 2017 12:55 PM

    I have wondered if some of the strategy is to keep him on the run, on the defensive, so that if he does go after some of the elite who need to go down for their crimes, that it will be framed as a dictator abusing his power, engaged in partisan politics.

    I wonder if he can go after them at all without looking like Mussolini?

    chunga -> MsCreant , Mar 19, 2017 1:07 PM

    Guys like Schiff, Schumer, and Blitzer will say that but they hate Trump no matter what.

    Trump's deplorable supporters know the score and will criticize if he doesn't go after them hard and now is a perfect opportunity. It was the Dummycrats who demanded this investigation but want the scope restricted to Russia, and Russia only. And the rEpublicans won't bring this up either because they suck too.

    The first rule of Swamp Club is you DO NOT talk about Anthony Weiner's laptop.

    Jubal Early -> chunga , Mar 19, 2017 1:46 PM

    "Guys like Schiff, Schumer, and Blitzer will say that but they hate Trump no matter what."

    This whole "jew media hates Trump" meme is starting to put off a foul stench. For one thing Trump has yet to do anything to stop this war for greater Israel. Or take this latest leak/Russian collusion news. After months of bluster, its a nothing burger. Is Trump really made of that much teflon, or is this all a show for the goyim and all the ignorant jews.

    Just keep on scrolling. It really is starting to look like Trump is a crypto jew:

    http://thezog.info/who-controls-donald-trump/

    Lurk Skywatcher -> kellys_eye , Mar 19, 2017 12:27 PM

    Baseless accusations to try and draw attention away from what the Dems actually DID, with evidence and all.

    Libtards wreck everything they touch, even the hard work of theorists who until recently achieved an amazing level of success in converting conspiracys into fact.

    DaddyO -> Shemp 4 Victory , Mar 19, 2017 12:07 PM

    <- They'll cling to the comfort of their illusions ->

    Isn't delusions a better word choice?

    There's a part of me that wants the tide to change quickly, for the intel and deep state apparatus pendulum to swing back the other way.

    This slow motion train wreck is wreaking havoc on my libertarian leanings. I keep hoping against hope for a dramatic event like indictments and perp walks.

    The best outcome would be the elimination of the many 3 letter agencies that have become pygmalian.

    DaddyO

    Giant Meteor -> DaddyO , Mar 19, 2017 12:41 PM

    Yes, delusion, due to the illusion ...

    Madness .. in short

    Pathologic insanity if ya wanna go clinical

    Giant Meteor -> Canary Paint , Mar 19, 2017 12:24 PM

    Most reasonable people are sickened by this entire shit show, feel they have no say, nor control. As always it is mostly a partisan echo chamber, while the real events take on a life of their own. The great many, the unwashed masses are merely riding on the crazy train, and the reality is could give two shits. Other than that, another percentage spits back up what they are told on the tee vee .

    Yes, this paints a bleak picture, but there you have it.

    Giant Meteor -> Automatic Choke , Mar 19, 2017 1:09 PM

    Sure its been goin on forever. Partisan head games, lying, spying, stealing, cheating, theft, deep state parlor tricks, hat tricks, etc. all that .. I didn't say the game nor human beings were / was invented yesterday, and of course you're spot on about glimpsing past the curtain, thank you interwebs. I am merely saying, the depth of of problem, the extent, is becoming increasingly "larger" by degrees of magnitude, as will the eventual blow off top in my opinion, and also the blowback, I would imagine ..

    Obviously I could be completely wrong on this and things will just swim along such as they are, forever ..

    TheLastTrump -> Shemp 4 Victory , Mar 19, 2017 1:08 PM

    That IS what they say about Trump voters you know ....

    Watched more media this am, Trump kicked their ass into a puddle with this Obama wiretapping charge. Totally bitch slapped them. Now he's made Merkel & the EU & G20 look stupid along with the media.

    post turtle saver -> Shemp 4 Victory , Mar 19, 2017 2:30 PM

    it was a lie from the beginning

    HRC and Soros should be in jail

    if it comes to it, former President Obama should be in jail... probably has too mucn plausible deniability to shield him, but where there's smoke there's fire

    if I were Trump D.C. would be undergoing a serious witch hunt as we speak... the people who did this need to do time and the lying lapdog 'media' needs to be sanctioned

    fbazzrea -> DirtySanchez , Mar 19, 2017 12:29 PM

    should be on the front lines of the war with Russia.

    what war with Russia?

    chubbar -> fbazzrea , Mar 19, 2017 12:43 PM

    We start a war with Russia, we'll all be on the "front line". The retarded snowflakes don't even know that they are supporting this effort to start a war with Russia.

    az_patriot , Mar 19, 2017 12:00 PM

    ...and the liberal snowflakes and their puppets in the "news" media will run from this story like a vampire from garlic. Anything that proves them wrong or might in any way bolster Trump is bad medicine for them...

    [Mar 17, 2017] The deep state will move to overthrow trump there is a secret agenda to allow a crisis and get rid of the president

    Video
    Mar 17, 2017 | www.shtfplan.com

    [Mar 17, 2017] The Never-Ending War in Afghanistan

    Permanent war for permanent peace
    Notable quotes:
    "... What are we to make of the chasm between effort expended and results achieved? Why on those increasingly infrequent occasions when Afghanistan attracts notice do half-truths and pettifoggery prevail, rather than hard-nosed assessments? Why has Washington ceased to care about the Afghan war? ..."
    "... The answer, it seems to me, is this: As with budget deficits or cost overruns on weapons purchases, members of the national security apparatus - elected and appointed officials, senior military officers and other policy insiders - accept war as a normal condition. ..."
    "... Once, the avoidance of war figured as a national priority. On those occasions when war proved unavoidable, the idea was to end the conflict as expeditiously as possible on favorable terms. ..."
    "... These precepts no longer apply.... ..."
    "... As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion. ..."
    "... When was the last time you saw a major economist...or a prominent Democrat complain about wasteful 'defense' spending? ..."
    Mar 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : March 13, 2017 at 05:04 AM , 2017 at 05:04 AM

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/the-never-ending-war-in-afghanistan.html

    March 12, 2017

    The Never-Ending War in Afghanistan
    By ANDREW J. BACEVICH

    BOSTON - Remember Afghanistan? The longest war in American history? Ever?

    When it comes to wars, we Americans have a selective memory. The Afghan war, dating from October 2001, has earned the distinction of having been forgotten while still underway.

    President Trump's Inaugural Address included no mention of Afghanistan. Nor did his remarks last month at a joint session of Congress. For the new commander in chief, the war there qualifies at best as an afterthought - assuming, that is, he has thought about it all.

    A similar attitude prevails on Capitol Hill. Congressional oversight has become pro forma. Last week Gen. Joseph Votel, the head of Central Command, told Congress that the Pentagon would probably need more troops in Afghanistan, a statement that seemed to catch politicians and reporters by surprise - but that was old news to anyone who's been paying attention to the conflict.

    And that's the problem. It doesn't seem that anyone is. At the Senate hearings on the nomination of James Mattis as defense secretary, Afghanistan barely came up.

    To be fair, Mr. Mattis did acknowledge that "our country is still at war in Afghanistan," albeit without assessing the war's prospects. In response to a comment by Senator John McCain, the Armed Services Committee chairman, that "we are in serious trouble in Afghanistan," Mr. Mattis merely allowed that the Taliban had "eroded some of our successes."

    That was it. No further follow up. Other members of the committee, Republican and Democratic, focused on more pressing concerns like seeking to induce Mr. Mattis to endorse military programs and installations in their home state.

    The military brass deserves some of the blame. Soon after Mr. Mattis's hearing, Gen. John Nicholson, the latest in a long line of American commanders to have presided over the Afghan mission, arrived in Washington to report on its progress. While conceding that the conflict is stalemated, General Nicholson doggedly insisted that it is a "stalemate where the equilibrium favors the government." Carefully avoiding terms like "victory" or "win," he described his strategy as "hold-fight-disrupt." He ventured no guess on when the war might end.

    All of this flies in the face of what the conflict in Afghanistan has become, a reality made clear in a recent report from the Defense Department's special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction.

    Despite appropriating over three-quarters of a trillion dollars on Afghanistan since 2001, Afghan security forces continue to be plagued by the problem of inflated rolls, with local commanders pocketing American-supplied funds to pay for nonexistent soldiers; according to the report, "The number of troops fighting alongside 'ghost soldiers' is a fraction of the men required for the fight."

    Large-scale corruption persists, with Afghanistan third from the bottom in international rankings, ahead of only Somalia and North Korea. Adjusted for inflation, American spending to reconstruct Afghanistan now exceeds the total expended to rebuild all of Western Europe under the Marshall Plan; yet to have any hope of surviving, the Afghan government will for the foreseeable future remain almost completely dependent on outside support.

    And things are getting worse. Although the United States has invested $70 billion in rebuilding Afghan security forces, only 63 percent of the country's districts are under government control, with significant territory lost to the Taliban over the past year. Though the United States has spent $8.5 billion to battle narcotics in Afghanistan, opium production there has reached an all-time high.

    For this, over the past 15 years, nearly 2,400 American soldiers have died, and 20,000 more have been wounded.

    What are we to make of the chasm between effort expended and results achieved? Why on those increasingly infrequent occasions when Afghanistan attracts notice do half-truths and pettifoggery prevail, rather than hard-nosed assessments? Why has Washington ceased to care about the Afghan war?

    The answer, it seems to me, is this: As with budget deficits or cost overruns on weapons purchases, members of the national security apparatus - elected and appointed officials, senior military officers and other policy insiders - accept war as a normal condition.

    Once, the avoidance of war figured as a national priority. On those occasions when war proved unavoidable, the idea was to end the conflict as expeditiously as possible on favorable terms.

    These precepts no longer apply....

    anne -> anne... , March 13, 2017 at 05:06 AM
    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security

    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.

    But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger. From the civilians harmed or displaced by violence, to the soldiers killed and wounded, to the children who play years later on roads and fields sown with improvised explosive devices and cluster bombs, no set of numbers can convey the human toll of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or how they have spilled into the neighboring states of Syria and Pakistan, and come home to the US and its allies in the form of wounded veterans and contractors. Yet, the expenditures noted on government ledgers are necessary to apprehend, even as they are so large as to be almost incomprehensible....

    JohnH -> anne... , March 13, 2017 at 08:05 AM
    Thanks, anne. Seems that most economists turn a blind eye when it comes to 'defense' spending and its crowding out of spending for social programs.

    When was the last time you saw a major economist...or a prominent Democrat complain about wasteful 'defense' spending?

    [Mar 17, 2017] Chickenhawks from Kagan family

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they certainly know how to get millions killed by others. ..."
    "... Their money ensures that their aggressive writings still get published in the usual Deep State media. I particularly liked a touch of light humor by Mr Parry: "There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of State." ..."
    "... What is troublesome is with the Kagan's screaming out, 'watch the Russians, beware of the Russians' and with the 24/7 MSM alarm bells going off over Russia, will the Trump Adminstration need to craft their foreign policy around the likes of these Russia Haters? ..."
    "... The common denominator is profit and increased market share fueled by greed ..Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the average USA investor who fuels the stock market looking for the best return on his/her money. ..."
    "... After finding this early warning essay by Cartalucci I have often wondered that if our MSM were to have scooped this kind of news regarding the travels of Senator John McCain would the tragedy of Benghazi have never happened. ..."
    "... http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/john-mccain-founding-father-of.html ..."
    "... Plus this article adds insight to how the Deep State operates. McCain should be the one held for high treason, but as things are that will never happen. The more you may learn the more you may find that Donald Trump seems to be less of a problem than we all know. Now that isn't an endorsement of Trump, as much as it is a heads up to notice who all is behind the curtain. ..."
    "... I recommend reading the latest blog by Moon of Alabama and enlightened comments. You will get further details on what the Kagans' plans are – what they would have done for sure under their L'Amour Toujours, Clinton as President. ..."
    "... I read that moonofalabama, b is always right on. In fact b and Robert Parry are excellent examples of how 'small' is good. http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/15/us-expands-defacto-syrian-invasion/ The above article by Tony Cartalucci is along the same lines as moonofalabama. ..."
    "... Excellent point – how to quickly recognise psychopaths: "psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content". A large proportion of our politicians fit the description. ..."
    "... "I noted two years ago in an article entitled "A Family Business of Perpetual War": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks." ..."
    "... "the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers." ..."
    "... For instance, Robert's brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). ..."
    "... Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[21] ..."
    "... Here's Andrew Bacevich's 2014 piece on the Kagans: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/duplicity-ideologues ..."
    "... But Mr Parry, I think it will also be interesting to examine the 'Vault 7' disclosure with regards to this Russia bashing. If the CIA has the ability to put out any email or documentation without a trail as to its origin, the Kagans could be shown as the charlatans they are if it was the CIA who meddled with the US election. ..."
    "... "The US military will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds in coordination with Syrian government forces. The Syrian government will also destroy al Qaeda in Idleb. The chance that Trump will pick up on any of these neo-con plans is practically zero. But who knows?" ..."
    "... On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars. ..."
    "... It's just reported on Global Research that Russia has absorbed 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees since the US 2014 coup and Europe 900,000 more, according to a Kremlin parliamentarian in February. Thanks to Victoria Nuland! ..."
    "... Far too much money which MIC wants play with. ..and as Admiral Thomas Moorer commented, " No American President can stand up to Israel " ..."
    "... the virulent fixation on Russia is out of control. ..."
    Mar 17, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
    Bart in Virginia March 15, 2017 at 6:49 pm

    It's not the Family Kagan, but rather as Glenn Greenwald dubbed them, The Warrior Kagan Family with a trade mark sign as suffix.

    I'll bet Victoria resigned from State, seeing her future there granting visas in Baku.

    Thanks, Robert, I haven't had a Kagan fix in quite a while!

    Kiza , March 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm

    "The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they certainly know how to get millions killed by others.

    As to Mr Parry, calling them the American neocon royalty, it certainly is some foul-mouth royalty, telling another Zio servant EU to get f'ed.

    Thank you Robert Parry for a great article, just like Bart I was wondering what happened to the cookie distributing "royalty" after the Clinton fail. It is not surprising that they are now learning to manipulate outcomes from the opposition. Their money ensures that their aggressive writings still get published in the usual Deep State media. I particularly liked a touch of light humor by Mr Parry: "There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of State."

    Between the Clinton liberals and the Ziocons C'est une Affaire d'Amour Toujours , as Pepι Le Pew likes to say.

    Skip Edwards , March 15, 2017 at 11:28 pm

    "The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they certainly know how to get millions killed by others.

    I learned how to laugh again; and, at the expense of all those despicable Kagen's.

    Joe Tedesky , March 15, 2017 at 11:49 pm

    KIza there is good news inside Robert Parry's article if you look for it. One good thing is that Hillary isn't the president, and if she were one could only imagine what her and the Kagan's would be up to right now. The other piece of good news, is that the Kagan's are writing op-eds and not working for the Trump Adminstration.

    Now I have read somewhere where the U.S. is working with Russia, and that for the most part for now has to be done on the low key. Of course with news being 'fake' and all of that, who's to know?

    What is troublesome is with the Kagan's screaming out, 'watch the Russians, beware of the Russians' and with the 24/7 MSM alarm bells going off over Russia, will the Trump Adminstration need to craft their foreign policy around the likes of these Russia Haters?

    Cheney and Rumsfeld developed 'the Continuity of Government Program' and I'm wondering if that cast of characters could seep into the mix of things? Plus don't forget the ever reliable CIA So with all of that working against you, one could only wonder if Ghandi and Jesus could do much better up against this evil array of villains.

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 12:10 am

    Here is something worth reading Tony Cartalucci explains the Deep State, and goes on to talk about how it may be defeated. Here's a hint, the world will not be run by the New World Order.

    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2017/03/exposing-real-deep-state.html

    John , March 16, 2017 at 11:28 am

    Very good link, Joe!! The common denominator is profit and increased market share fueled by greed ..Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the average USA investor who fuels the stock market looking for the best return on his/her money. I would not look for much altruistic behavioral changes in human nature Greed is still the preferred method of operation .and firmly in control ..

    Common Tater , March 16, 2017 at 11:30 am

    Joe T.
    Excellent article, thanks!

    D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 12:29 pm

    Joe, many thanks for this powerful link on the deep state, and its explanation of the multi-polar conditions needed, and as happening, plus the link you supplied below related to what's going on in Syria, also clear and helpful.

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    I'm glad that you all found the link to be informative. I am posting another link to a Tony Cartalucci article that got my attention of his work a few years ago, and ever since I look forward to reading his reporting.

    This link is interesting for the fact that the original article was published March 2012 which was somewhere in the neighborhood of six months before the deadly attack took place in Benghazi. After finding this early warning essay by Cartalucci I have often wondered that if our MSM were to have scooped this kind of news regarding the travels of Senator John McCain would the tragedy of Benghazi have never happened.

    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/john-mccain-founding-father-of.html

    Plus this article adds insight to how the Deep State operates. McCain should be the one held for high treason, but as things are that will never happen. The more you may learn the more you may find that Donald Trump seems to be less of a problem than we all know. Now that isn't an endorsement of Trump, as much as it is a heads up to notice who all is behind the curtain.

    Curious , March 16, 2017 at 5:16 pm

    Thanks for the two links Joe. I didn't think it was possible for me to dislike McCain more than I already did, but I was wrong. I did like Senator Pauls' comment about McCain today however. He basically said McCain is a perfect example of why we should have term limits in the Senate, which is so true.

    Kiza , March 16, 2017 at 12:24 am

    Oh no, I did not mean that it is bad news this is why I wrote that the Kagans are learning to spew hate from the opposition not from the government. Like D5-5, I recommend reading the latest blog by Moon of Alabama and enlightened comments. You will get further details on what the Kagans' plans are – what they would have done for sure under their L'Amour Toujours, Clinton as President.

    As to Jesus, he self-sacrificed himself to show the way out of human predicament. Jesus was fighting against such ideologues of hate and moneychangers as the Kagans, who are an exemplar of the mad-gleaming-eye-greedy-finger types so well known in the old Europe. Just observe the first photo to the article: she looks like she would murder just about any baby in the world to take her sweet candy.

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 1:08 am

    I read that moonofalabama, b is always right on. In fact b and Robert Parry are excellent examples of how 'small' is good.

    http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/15/us-expands-defacto-syrian-invasion/

    The above article by Tony Cartalucci is along the same lines as moonofalabama.

    At this stage of the game the best that I can put forward with, is we got to take one day at a time, in order to make sense of whatever the real news is going on inside Syria. From one article to another it's hard to tell who's fighting, or going to fight who. With the atmosphere here in America I'm waiting for an arrest to be made if you talk favorably about Russia, or Putin. Seriously, our MSM cable news networks are going hells bells on this Russian hacking, Russian tampering with our democracy, Russia has a puppet in the White House, Russia _______fill in the blank. We have gone totally nuts this time, and it looks like we are going to stay that way for awhile.

    I always like to ponder the politics that would have prevailed during the time of Jesus. If you get a grasp on that then Jesus really stands out better for what he was preaching too, and preaching against. I'm sure Herod or Ceasar had their Kagan's around in their day, and who knows how discreetly those ancient Kagan's could have whispered vile and nasty ideas of war and conquest into their leaders head. When it's all about power and money it's easy to lose ones head, or so they say. Let's all hope the Kagan's amount to be nothing more than sore losers.

    Peter Loeb , March 16, 2017 at 6:13 am

    WITH MCCAIN AS HELPER

    A good comment Joe Tedesky.

    As to Syria, we already have invaded and already plan more (see Defense Appropriation). Of interest would be Putin's response on the ground.

    (When Netanyahu went to Moskow to ask for help in getting Syria to reign in Iran, he was referred to the sovereign government of Syria! Is the current (and future) US invasion of the sovereign state of Syria at the invitation of the Syrian Government??

    Ans: No! See UN Charter on aggression, I think it is Article 4(2) if memory serves. Besides the current administration wants to make all its sins of commission such as drones done by the CIA Which is to say covert and not accountable to anyone (such as DOD, White House etc.).Our invasion will evidently be
    accountable to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    I am certain Moscow has a plan, a response (diplomatic or otherwise).

    Donald Trump likes war and being "Commander-in-Chief". All countries involved in war are always absolutely persuaded that their victory will be quick, easy etc.It also helps(??) the US economy as all wars have for hundreds of years. No one will oppose more money for defense. I have already contacted my Mass. Senators in regard to funds for the invasion of Syria as well as my Congressional Representative. (I expect little support. All lawgivers are dependent on AIPAC support )

    --Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 10:15 am

    Except for Desert Storm every war has lasted long past it's end date, and even one could argue over Desert Storm if you add in the time of occupation or establishing no fly zones to how long we have been there.

    I'm not all that sure yet that Trump likes war. There are times he stresses peace, after he rally's the people around a powerful military speech. Now, what I do worry about is the people around him. NIkki Haley just recently in a NBC interview said how we should never trust Russia. Wow, and she is our UN ambassador. So much for statesmanship and diplomacy.

    As far as our CIA goes they are going to get everyone on this planet killed. It's long overdue to crunch the CIA down to being an information gatherer and stop with the convert intrigue. If we factor in stability and the quality of human life, then tell me about the one CIA operation which has been a success. The CIA's interference, and trashing of foreign government sovereignty is a disgrace, and should I add be prosecuted as a war crime in the highest order. If Trump could shred the CIA into a thousand pieces then I say, do it Mr President.

    The real problem we face while attempting to establish the Yinon Plan, is that we will finally either partner with Russia somehow over something, or end up fighting Russia and possibly not fight them through proxies. I don't see either Russia or the U.S. using nukes on each other at first, but I would be praying for the poor souls in places such as Iran, Yemen, or places like that. And while we are at it North and South Korea, and once again Japan would most likely be countries well inside the lines of being in jeopardy.

    Russia, and China, should be our natural allies, but there's nothing natural about our country's foreign policy when world hegemony overrides man's human nature to life in peace.

    John , March 16, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    Joe,

    The other piece of good news is that they are actually starting to walk back the Russia hacked the election an we can prove it nonsense. Read Glenn Greenwald's latest piece at The Intercept. At long last sir have they actually some human decency? Nah!!!

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    Thanks John I will be sure to read Greenwald's article, but you know we in America need a bogey man .so if not Russia then who?

    Dominic Pukallus , March 16, 2017 at 4:43 am

    Concerning the foul-mouthing, I was disturbed to hear such strong talk (at least to this earthy soul) in such a delicate voice. To me a sign of psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content. Another is causing the killing of no small amount of people with a large amount of apparent unconcern, but then again that's a net which would drag an alarming amount of people from corridors of power. Perhaps the majority of these have mastered the art of matching tone and content in their requirement to at least appear Human to their subjects.

    Kiza , March 16, 2017 at 6:00 am

    Excellent point – how to quickly recognise psychopaths: "psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content". A large proportion of our politicians fit the description. Thank you.

    Nastarana , March 16, 2017 at 10:34 am

    Kiza, Please don't forget that is a "sign of psychopathy". There are other kinds of derangement in which the unfortunate sufferers are prone to the use of inappropriate body language and verbal tone, but are not necessarily a danger to others. As for the Kagans, I consider them to be criminals, plain and simple.

    Anon , March 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    I am waiting to see the male ballerina "foot soldiers" demanding transgender bathrooms in the trenches.

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 3:46 pm

    Anon in 1919 Max Sennett was way ahead of you. You might get a kick out of watching Sennett's movie called 'Yankee Doodle in Berlin'. It is a story about an American soldier dressed as a woman going behind enemy lines to entice the Kaiser. Also notice the slanted propaganda of the way American Hollywood film producers were characterizing the Germans. We are all but a product of who came before us I'm sad to say .but hey enjoy the silent flick anyway.

    https://archive.org/details/YankeeDoodleInBerlin

    Oh and with all due respect let's at least give a salute to Chelsea Manning.

    BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , March 16, 2017 at 9:26 am

    BART IN VIRGINIA!!

    Are you really "Bart" as in short for "Bartholomew"!!!!

    Parry, thank you for a GREAT article.

    Early on you pegged them:

    "Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow's alleged help in electing Donald Trump."

    Then skillfully reminding us: "I noted two years ago in an article entitled "A Family Business of Perpetual War": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks."

    Your conclusion is actually overly optimistic:

    "the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers."

    Instead, the Deep State is preparing to begin getting rid of Trump on June 1st:

    http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/video-on-june-1st-the-deep-state-will-move-to-overthrow-trump-there-is-a-secret-agenda-to-allow-a-crisis-and-get-rid-of-the-president_03142017

    IF you the reader haven't read my "The Deep State Versus President Trump" it is time (on Amazon for only $12.95 or less).

    Parry, I will immediately post this EXCELLENT article on Facebook. Because my wife and I are living "by the skin of our teeth" on social security, I can't make a donation, but I will send in an article on why the Deep State wants Trump gone as a pro bono contribution. Hope you think it is worthy of publication.

    Dr. Bart Gruzalski, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy (ethics, public policy) and Religion (books: "On the Buddha": "On Gandhi"; and "Why Christians and World-Peace Advocates Voted for President Donald Trump"), Northeastern University, Boston, MA-and the only Ph.D. in philosophy among the thousands that I and my mentor Professor Samuel Gorovitz know who voted for and supports Trump [no, Sam was and is opposed to our POTUS].

    dineesh , March 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    Who is behind them rascals?

    evelync , March 15, 2017 at 8:22 pm

    Good question! And I don't know the answer, but I googled the question and FWIW depending on the reliability of the writers of the articles, here's what I found:

    "A Family Business

    There's also a family-business aspect to these wars and confrontations, since the Kagans collectively serve not just to start conflicts but to profit from grateful military contractors who kick back a share of the money to the think tanks that employ the Kagans.

    For instance, Robert's brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

    According to ISW's annual reports, its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations, such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it was later backed by a host of national security contractors, including major ones like General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which provided training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing of the CIA's venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplied software to US military intelligence in Afghanistan.

    Since its founding in 2007, ISW has focused mostly on wars in the Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, including closely cooperating with Gen. David Petraeus when he commanded US forces in those countries. However, more recently, ISW has begun reporting extensively on the civil war in Ukraine. [See "Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War."]

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-26/meet-kagans-seeking-war-end-world

    from wikipedia:

    "In 1983, Robert Kagan was foreign policy advisor to New York Republican Representative Jack Kemp. From 1984–86, under the administration of Ronald Reagan, he was a speechwriter for Secretary of State George P. Shultz and a member of the United States Department of State Policy Planning Staff. From 1986–1988 he served in the State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs.[10]

    In 1997, Kagan co-founded the now-defunct neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century with William Kristol.[3][5][11] Through the work of the PNAC, Kagan was a strong advocate of the Iraq war.

    From 1998 until August, 2010, Kagan was a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was appointed senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution in September 2010.[12][13][14][15] He is also a member of the board of directors for the neoconservative think tank The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).[16]

    During the 2008 presidential campaign he served as foreign policy advisor to John McCain, the Republican Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election.[17][18]

    Since 2011, Kagan has also served on the 25-member State Department's Foreign Affairs Policy Board under Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton[19] and John Kerry.[20]

    Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[21]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan

    also check out the footnotes from the wiki article ..

    Here's Andrew Bacevich's 2014 piece on the Kagans: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/duplicity-ideologues

    Bottom line, though, it seems like the Kagans have been at the center of Washington policy think for decades and decades and therefore fit neatly within the comfort zone of powerful people who carry out U.S. foreign policy – Republicans and Democrats.
    That's who we are, apparently ..
    I recently saw Wally Shawn's play in NYC – 'Evening at the Talk House', an amazing play about who we are – or have become .
    https://www.timeout.com/newyork/blog/theater-review-evening-at-the-talk-house-is-wallace-shawns-political-party-trick-021617
    http://www.vulture.com/2017/02/theater-evening-at-the-talk-house-and-escaped-alone.html

    Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 11:26 pm

    Thank you for your research and report

    jaycee , March 15, 2017 at 9:28 pm

    It's not too difficult to identify the think-tanks the Kagans belong to or run. These organizations have web sites, and the web sites usually list who the funders are. That's the information you seek.

    For example, the Institute for the Study of War is supported by the likes of General Dynamics, CACI, Microsoft, Centerra, Capital Bank, etc.

    Diana , March 16, 2017 at 7:02 am

    Robbie Martin has produced a three-part documentary on them rascals called "A Very Heavy Agenda." It's well worth watching, but it's expensive the box set of the three DVDs costs $50.00. I opted for the Vimeo version, where each part can be purchased for $6.99 or rented for $2.99. You can watch the trailers and learn more at http://averyheavyagenda.com .

    Diana , March 16, 2017 at 8:10 am

    You can find the Vimeo versions at https://vimeo.com/ondemand/averyheavyagenda . Watch the trailer for Part 3 and you will see that it refers to Robert Parry's "Family Kagan" article.

    Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:03 am

    The ME warmongers are largely zionist Jews, including the Kagan/Nulands and the 2003 Iraq War II sponsors SecDef Wolfowitz and his Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser installed at CIA/DIA/NSA offices to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite war. The Kochs are of course complicit. Any who aren't zionist Jews are after their stolen US funds to Israel, fed to stink tanks and political bribe donations.

    The war in Iraq was such a success that the US was forced out having ensured the pro-Iran government it most feared, having built AlQaeda from a CIA proxy to a regional and then a worldwide enemy, and having guaranteed the violent Sunni uprising now called IS. Read Bamford's Pretext for War. Don't we need more of those wars.

    BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , March 16, 2017 at 9:29 am

    dineesh,

    This is a reply to your (lost in the undergrowth): MORE RASCALS, in fact, THE ENTIRE DEEP STATE.

    dineesh's question: Who is behind those rascals.

    D5-5 , March 15, 2017 at 7:17 pm

    Take a look at Moon of Alabama on this Kagan rehash. The comments in response to the analysis also recommended. Posted today.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/03/third-times-the-charm-the-neocons-want-another-sunni-insurgency.html

    Sally Snyder , March 15, 2017 at 7:18 pm

    As shown in this article, the United States is using ammunition in Syria that is adding to the already significant problems that Syrians are facing:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2017/02/the-united-states-and-cancer-of-warfare.html

    Apparently, the lessons taught in Iraq have been forgotten.

    Scott , March 15, 2017 at 8:06 pm

    A lesson can be had only by those willing to learn. Democrats just lost over 900 seats across state and federal offices and even that proved not to be a teachable moment.

    Curious , March 15, 2017 at 7:50 pm

    What a disturbing headline. I had hoped they would have been neutered after the Hillary defeat.

    But Mr Parry, I think it will also be interesting to examine the 'Vault 7' disclosure with regards to this Russia bashing. If the CIA has the ability to put out any email or documentation without a trail as to its origin, the Kagans could be shown as the charlatans they are if it was the CIA who meddled with the US election. It would shake their entire platform of blaming Russia to the core. It is difficult enough as it is to tell the originator of many internal docs leaked to the public, so the blame game is false as it is. I would welcome more release of the CIA vault 7 if only to show how often the CIA is involved in internal US politics and "homeland" situations. This meddling is supposedly against the law.

    One could only hope.

    Tannenhouser , March 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm

    Not only that .A 'democrats' views are so symbiotic to a kagans shows they play for the same team while occasionally wearing different color jersey's. Curious indeed . I share your hope.

    Jonathan , March 16, 2017 at 12:49 pm

    In connection with the legality of CIA meddling in internal affairs, and the Trump wire-tapping charge, Scott Ritter has made what seems to be a rather good point in a recent article published in Truthdig. The article digs a little deeper into the matter and comes up with a surprising and quite optimistic conclusion.
    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trumps_wiretapping_charge_could_contain_some_explosive_truth_20170314

    D5-5 , March 15, 2017 at 8:32 pm

    As b says, analyst at Moon of Alabama (he's German by the way) on this topic, "The US military will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds in coordination with Syrian government forces. The Syrian government will also destroy al Qaeda in Idleb. The chance that Trump will pick up on any of these neo-con plans is practically zero. But who knows?"

    He also finds the Kaganista notions on a THIRD try at raising "the moderates" to get rid of Assad "drinking the kool aid."

    My question is how does this troop infusion, made problematical as Assad has not okayed it, calling it illegal, and which includes 2500 "tip of the spear" paratroopers in Kuwait, move the situation on, additional to (or beyond) the goal of cleaning out ISIS? To what, why? Suppose ISIS defeated (replaced in how long by another ISIS unless the political/economic situation changes for the sunnis) then what? Trump does an Obama and the US leaves again? Or cuts a deal with the neocons on pipeline projects etc?

    LJ , March 15, 2017 at 9:01 pm

    I read that article. The Qatar Turkey Pipeline was one of the hoped for outcomes of the Regime Change in Syria . This was problematic for Russia and will remain so. If the USA>NATO>EU thought that they could bring Turkey into the fold with this pipeline it might make sense but right now this is very unlikely.

    Personally I do not think Trump and Tillerson would go for World War .Do not forget that China is allied with Russia on this and they see Syria as very important to the completion of One Belt One Road'. Israel's role in the region and in Syria should not be forgotten ever. They are anxious about the Golan and Russia and they always want the USA to attack Iran. So does Saudi Arabia and you may have noticed the Saudi Foreign Minister dropping a comment a couple days ago that this planned action against Hezbollah and Iran is very much on the table.

    There are many heads on the chopping block right now not just Assad's, enemies and allies also. The Planners cannot control the outcome in Turkey (We played our card already), in Iraq, in Syria or in Lebanon. WE are not liked. All the USA can do at this point is destroy, we can never win hearts and minds in the Middle East.. Can of Worms.

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 1:23 am

    I think the biggest worry is to hope that whoever loses can bear the cost of loss. This Syrian war I don't think at this point is as much about ISIS as it is about land. Land for pipelines mostly, but land for a whole host of other reasons as well. Sunni, Shia, and Kurds, are the predominant people who are fighting for space, but so are countries like Turkey, Saudi's, and the Israeli's in the Golan Heights. So stretching pipelines, and building new one road infrastrutures need land oh and let's not forget the Shia Crescent and Iran. This area is so messed up I'm not that sure even the winner will have won much more than a big headache.

    Enjoyed reading both of your comments, and thought I'd make some noise to accompany your conversation.

    MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 2:41 am

    Joe, both the Syrian and Iraq wars now have two purposes. First is to prevent the dreaded "Shia Crescent," and the second is to protect Israel. The latest surge in Iraq and Syria by the US forces is to keep the perpetual wars going by creating "Sunni" zones in Iraq and Syria. When the Iraqi Army and the Shia militias were battling the ISIS, there were no US boots on the ground. Same thing in Syria. Consider the timing of this surge. ISIS is almost routed in Iraq and Syria and all of a sudden Trump sends ground forces to help mop up the remnants of ISIS.

    The real purpose is not to clean up ISIS but to prevent the government forces to establish rule in Mosul. Saudi Arabia wants that part to remain Sunni. This way Iran doesn't win. The US wants to divide Iraq in three parts, Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish, as has been her plan all along. Similarly, in Syria, if Assad wins the whole of Syria is under his rule. By inserting herself in the war, the US wants to set up a Sunni section on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Israel, to be a thorn in Assad's side and a Kurdish side to punish Erdogan for his behavior and keep him occupied. The wars will continue in the Middle East, the Military-Industrial Complex will continue to sell weapons and Israel will be worry free.

    What I don't understand is why is US so against the Shias. I can understand Israel's position. Israel got her rear end kicked twice by a tiny Hezbollah force but why US. It can't be just to please Israel or is it? So much bloodshed just for that.

    Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:13 am

    The US is involved solely to get political campaign funds from Israel stolen from US "aid".

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 10:25 am

    Going back to the old communist days and Nassar the U.S. sided with Israel. That was back at a time when we Americans were exposed to the propaganda that Israeli's were like us Americans, and all Arabs were crazy. We were fine with Iran as long as we had the Shad there to protect our interest. The Iran Hostage event was excellent PR to demonize Iran for over a forty year period, and life goes on.

    You and I along with many others here believe now is a great time to hit the Middle East reset button .now how do we convince our country's leadership to do that, is the question.

    John P , March 16, 2017 at 8:49 pm

    Good article and I think you hit the nails on the heads MEexpert. Your final paragraph, I think the U.S. wants a stable ally in the region and they believe Israel fills that roll, even though I see little common interest in eithers ambitions, one for stability the other for annexations. Perhaps the U.S. politicians hold their noses and hope.

    Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:21 am

    The Qatar-Turkey pipeline concept tried to break the "Shiite crescent" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon and compete with the southern Russia-Turkey pipeline; otherwise they would not be seeking war near pipelines that could more easily have coexisted.

    MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 2:57 am

    "Suppose ISIS defeated (replaced in how long by another ISIS unless the political/economic situation changes for the sunnis) then what?"

    Why such concern about the Sunnis? In Iraq only 20% population is Sunni. Yet Saddam, a Sunni, ruled more that 60% Shias for 35 years and other Sunni rulers before that. There was no concern for their feelings or their safety by Papa Bush in 1991 or after that when Saddam gassed the Shias and the Kurds. Bahrain, on the other hand, at one time was 90% Shia with a Sunni ruler, thanks to the British. The Emir of Bahrain has been systematically stripping the Shias of their citizenship and importing Sunnis from other countries and giving them Citizenship by recruiting them into the Bahraini Armed Forces. Even when the uprising started in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia moved in there to put the uprising down, all US did was to send down the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs to reassure the Emir of Bahrain and to make sure that the 5th fleet was safe.

    D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    @ ME Expert:

    Thank you for your comments! I'm looking at the above responses, including the additional link on Syria from Joe, which provides historical perspective also, in terms of US establishing a presence in eastern Syria to be "a thorn in Assad's side" as you say, and continue to push for regional control allied with Israel and Saudi Arabia, et al.

    On your question why such concern about the Sunnis, here's my impression, which could be too simple.

    With the conquest of Iraq and Bremer's releasing the 400,000 military, a highly Shia favored sort of revenge government program fell into place, favoring Shias and leading to problems for Sunnis (including high unemployment) that led on to the creation of ISIS. If similar economic and political problems are not dealt with, wiping out this iteration of ISIS could lead to another version of it. I also have the impression the potential number of these dissatisfied, as potential recruits, could number in many millions (not sure how many). I don't intend to take a position favoring Sunnis, but am trying to understand the complexity of the grievances of whomever. As part of this, my understanding is that many members of ISIS are not head-chopping maniacs but joined as ISIS was the only available opposing force.

    On your question why is the US so against the Shias, my impression is they haven't been against the Shias in Iraq, while simultaneously (and shortsightedly) exercising no influence on fair governance of Iraq following the 03 invasion, and this favoritism favored the Shias there and stirred Sunni resistance. But, I'm thinking, the animosity toward Shias elsewhere is related to alignments in the region, toward dominating the entire region, including taking down Syria and Iran. So it's not so much animosity toward Shias per se as it is to regime change uncooperative rulers, whether in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran, with their Shia populations (and lately of course throw in Russia). At stake is pipelines of various sorts, and water rights, and overall in terms of globalism and full spectrum dominance taking over the entire middle east region.

    I welcome being straightened out on where I'm correct or too simplistic. Thanks again.

    D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    Meant to say INcorrect or too simplistic!

    LJ , March 16, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    The politics of divide and conquer can create strange bedfellows. There is deep routed historical enmity between the Sunnis and Shiites to begin with. Search Twelver. The US has allies and enemies, Bottom line, Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil and Israel has a lot of political power through it's representatives in the USA especially but also in Britain and France. The Iranians were our friends too after the USA overthrow their Democratic Government in 1953 and installed the Shah and the CIA set up ZAVAK to protect him. It worked until he got weak. . Iran's enmity with the USA and Israel is well supported by facts . So is Hezbollah's enmity as is the enmity of Palestinians living in camps in stateless exile in Lebanon and elsewhere. . We don't necessarily hate Shias. It's policy. A fun fact to know and tell is that the Saudis pump oil from under the feet of the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia. who have live near the Persian Gulf since they were Persians and Zoroastrians. Also The US 5th Fleet is stationed in Bahrain courtesy of a treaty with the Sunni Rulers of the 90% Shiite nation. Yemen in the same story. Policy is a reason why during the Bush years the USA began referring to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. So too, When I was young Yemen was not unified. It will never be. Houthis are being oppressed in a genocidal manner right now with US backing because House of Saud sits on the Thrown of Damocles . That is why the King of Saudi Arabia is on a worldwide tour shaking hands with Xi in China yesterday. etc.,,,, ad nauseum

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 4:16 pm

    I wouldn't argue with any of you who are commenting here on this thread, because I agree with all of you. I would like to point out that when Iraq fell the Shia (Shiites) became the popular ruling segment of Iraq, and then came General David Petraeus. The Sunni Awakening has had profound ramifications on what we are up against now, if we should be up against anything at all since most of what we are dealing with is U.S. inspired. The ultimate goal was to descale Iraq away from Iranian influence, and this social engineering by the U.S. could not have been a bigger mistake than what it's turned out to be. Now we are turning Yemen into our new Cambodia, and this will also turn out to be an even bigger mistake unless better minds prevail inside of our White House (if the Oval Office even has the deciding decision on this). Take a look at a map and see where Iran is, and then see where we are positioning ourselves. My thoughts are that Iran is the final goal, and until Iran is brought down, done of us will get a good nights sleep hoping to wake up to a peaceful world. Also don't take that last sentence of mine to be an endorsement to attack Iran. I am more than happy to let Iran be Iran.

    https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/waking-up-to-the-truth-about-the-sunni-awakening/

    If we wish to end war, then let's quit fighting them!

    MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm

    I agree Iran is the real target. The Afghan and Iraq wars were less against Al-Qaeda, since there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but more against Iran. George Bush wanted to establish bases around Iran. In addition to these two countries, he wanted to establish one more in Turkmenistan. US already had a base in Turkey. Turkmenistan refused to allow any US base. Turkey refused the use of Turkish base to launch an attack on Iran. US got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the attack on Iran never came. Mind you, the largest US base in Iraq is near the Iran border.

    The dismantling of the Iraqi army wasn't the only thing Paul Bremer did wrong. He gave veto power to the minority Kurds and Sunnis. That is the reason for the non-functional Iraqi government. Nothing gets done. The Kurds are taking advantage of this situation and with the help of US are consolidating their territorial position. Saudi Arabia doesn't want another Shia government as its neighbor and so keeps the sectarian war going adding to the instability of the government.

    D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 7:56 pm

    I keep trying to post a link to The Saker for Feb 7 this year, and it keeps disappearing. Easy to find, however. His analysis on what war with Iran would mean is excellent. "US vs Iran a war of apples vs. oranges."

    LJ , March 15, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    Pence seems to be on board already as are McCain and Graham.I agree we can't can't on the Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer's Liberal wing of the Democrats here. Maybe the Trump's Generals will save us? Yeah right. The House of Representatives ? Not likely . Strange days indeed .,

    CitizenOne , March 15, 2017 at 9:45 pm

    I was not aware of the Kagan's role and I thank you for doing the due diligence on outlining how this family is intertwined with recent misadventures. But also it is kind of picking at Nits. This is a smallish operation. It does not compare to the decades long operation of Cheney to privatize the DOD, teach his corporate buddies a Halliburton how to cash in, dream of further cashing in himself with PNAC and the Carlyle Group, gin up a war, destabilize the middle east and get a pass from the media. Cheney and Bush ignored all of the warnings from the FBI and the CIA that Saudi terrorists were planning an attack which would instantly make the Carlyle Group the wealthiest private equity firm on the planet.

    I agree it is all planned. Planned well in advance. The goal is to become rich by creating a war or wars.

    I realize it is aimed at a microscopic part of the picture but fails to connect the dots of Kagan and PNAC and 9/11. Cheney's own admission that short of "A New Pearl Harbor" Americans would not likely go along with his dreams of launching preemptive wars reveal a naked desire to become rich along with his buddies over at the Carlyle Group which snatched up defense stocks when the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR was disintegrating. While the rest of the World was celebrating the possibility of future peace with Russia, The PNAC folks were buying up stock in the defense industry and were dreaming of a war. which they created by ignoring all of the signs that 9/11 was underway. I get that they felt some future democratic branch of the government would botch an opportunity to create a fake enemy in Iraq and would fail to launch a war.

    But the facts are the whole thing was avoidable and was pushed with a mountain of lies which the major media simply regurgitated leading us to war.

    It doesn't end there. While we are now busy banning millions of people from coming to America because they might be terrorists, the real terrorists from abroad and here at home with Islamic ties were all known by the authorities. Yet they did nothing to stop them and instead have used their failures as excuses to create chaos which they hope will lead to more violence.

    How does a guy who went to the FBI and confessed was delusional and heard voices in his head trying to convert him to an ISIS terrorist then be allowed to board an airplane with a gun?

    How was the underpants bomber allowed on a plane when his parents called the US Consulate to inform US officials that their son was getting on that plane with a bomb. Yet we let this person on a plane. Why has the media never investigated this failure?

    It is failure after failure with gross incompetence from federal authorities charged with our security that has led to terrorist acts and not the failure to keep millions of people from traveling here.

    The Boston Marathon bombers were singled out to US intelligence agencies by none other than the Russians that they were terrorists but we let them in. No investigation of that but banning entire nations is an option we have now tried twice. What about the failure of intelligence to flag two people who were singled out as terrorists?

    There is a much bigger story here.

    The US government and intelligence agencies have obviously allowed terrorist attacks to happen. This has happened time and time again and yet the media focuses on the terrorists time and time again while ignoring and under reporting the backstory of how we just let it happen.

    It can be rationalized by a reasoned argument that we must allow some attacks to focus our efforts on thwarting even bigger attacks like nuclear attacks but there has been no action by the government to actually improve security so what is the point.

    The meaningless act of taking ones shoes off at an airport is only not copied by forcing us to all strip down to our underpants based on a similar event to the shoe bomber because people would not tolerate being forced to take off all their clothes.

    Now since an FAA test of airport security revealed that guns were not detected 95% of the time we are all preparing for pat downs. Nobody is examining the reason that 95% of the time somebody with a gun in their baggage gets through security which is supposedly equipped with machines that can spot guns. Where is the investigation of the machines since they fail so often?

    There are all sorts of similar stories which all conclude that we are faced with a rational reason that our government needs to allow some terrorist action to happen which in turn turns our state increasingly toward a militaristic police state.

    What I have a problem with is that we are more likely to be attacked by known terrorists and that nobody seems to be concerned with. I guess that allowing terrorist attacks provides the political concurrence to launch trillion dollar wars against other nations all for profit and put spy cupcakes in our refrigerators. Watch out! There's a camera just below the icing on the cupcake! Don't eat it!

    We can't just ignore home grown terrorists like the shooters in California who, while on a watch list, were allowed to purchase weapons or the crazy guy who told FBI ISIS was inside his head to board an airplane with a gun and do nothing to investigate these intelligence failures and instead use them to seek Apple to grant access to all our information on smartphones and order travel bans for millions of people while justifying turning our TVs into Big Brother.

    We can't ignore the obvious windfalls of Cheney and his pals at the Carlyle group to grow rich by allowing terrorists to kill thousands of people.

    If we are going to spill blood in preparation for war, then we need to make sure we are doing everything in our power to prevent it and especially not to seek to become rich from it. We also need to protect our privacy.

    So now it comes down to making Russia the new enemy. We have to reinvent an old enemy to justify further reasons for keeping America strong. But we spend ten times the money on our National Defense than the Russians do. Where does that line up with weakness? How do we just invent some myth that there are liberators working abroad in Ukraine and Syria to justify military spending just like we invented Vietnam? Has Vietnam attacked us recently? I think not. Is Syria a serious player in the international terrorism game? I think not.

    Here is a suggestion. Apply all that money used to create advanced defensive capability into an industry aimed at real security.

    Destabilizing the whole World to get rich is a bad idea. Getting rich by providing the means of nonmilitary industry aimed at enhancing security is a good idea. Easy money is a crime. Earning it the hard way is an honest living.

    Time for the easy money folks to be sidelined and for the people interested in long term survival to hold power.

    Bruce Walker , March 16, 2017 at 9:36 am

    Anyone in the USA who can say they are not aware of the Kagan clan no nothing and should not be writing such a long comment. Go back to sleep.

    CitizenOne , March 16, 2017 at 7:48 pm

    That would be spelled: knows nothing
    Perhaps you should wake up, learn to spell, and spend more than a lazy moment trolling me. If you have something intelligent to say we are all waiting with baited breath.

    CitizenOne , March 16, 2017 at 7:54 pm

    Well I guess I have to forgive Bruce Walker for not being a very good speller.

    That would be : bated breath.

    My bad.

    geoff , March 15, 2017 at 10:07 pm

    kagans never fail to excite. a package of madness on my monitor and how the hell did they get to screw things up. oh!! scuse me yes, hillary whatsaname!!!

    Brad N , March 15, 2017 at 10:15 pm

    The picture painted here is actually rather dismal when one considers the long term consequences of having such nonsense going on. Trump as possible savior from a war with Russia is a really hard pill to swallow. Very hard indeed, it is worth repeating. I have no confidence in his consistency at all. As for this article, I wish I could find fault with the analysis presented here. Sadly, I cannot.

    Chris Jonsson , March 15, 2017 at 10:37 pm

    War, Inc. A family owned and operated corporation.

    TheSkepticalCynic , March 15, 2017 at 10:39 pm

    Fuck the Kagans

    LJ , March 15, 2017 at 10:43 pm

    But they might multiply!

    Fran Macadam , March 15, 2017 at 10:42 pm

    "Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton,"

    I greatly appreciate Mr. Parry's reporting and insights. However, I believe that the determination of fitness for the Presidency is determined by the voters and democracy determines who is qualified.

    Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:35 am

    If only we had a democracy, Fran. But in fact elections and mass media are controlled by money, and our Constitution has no protection of these tools of democracy from money power, because there were no businesses then larger than plantations and small ships that would be small businesses today. We do not have a democracy now.

    Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 10:44 pm

    On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.

    This quote suggests it is time to send a team of men with a strait-jacket into the New York Times to cart this nutcase off to the loony bin. Come to think of it, maybe they should take several strait-jackets with them and clean out the editorial staff.

    Gregory Herr , March 16, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    It's absolutely asinine isn't it?! I'll have to take a look, but I'll bet there wasn't a snicker or even a raised eyebrow when Friedman (the oh-so-serious-in-the-know hushed-toned Friedman who reveled in promoting the Iraq killing field) spittled his brain drool. He really should be referred. At the very least, he should have been called out for his absurdity before being excused at the next commercial break.

    It's amazing how people like Kagan & Friedman can straight-face their farcical musings about Russian "interference". It's funny too how they can go on about the integrity and reliability of democratic processes when it is precisely the compromise of such that Wikileaks revealed. As noted by Mr. Parry:

    " by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee's tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters, as well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation. In other words, the WikiLeaks' releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S. democratic process. The emails were not "disinformation" or "fake news." They were real news."

    So much for real news in this country. And my God Mr. Kagan, Trump doesn't necessarily have faith in the findings or motives of the "intelligence community". I wonder why.

    I hope the Kagans find their karma. Oh, and that weasel Friedman too.

    Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 10:48 pm

    Given the wars the Kagans have helped promote and the consequences of these wars, surely there is some crime they could be charged with.

    MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 11:29 pm

    We wish.

    F. G. Sanford , March 15, 2017 at 11:21 pm

    The desperation with which neocons are baiting for a new Cold War suggests that there is something much bigger than "election hacking" that needs covering up. Profit motives aside, the cost-benefit ratio looks more like a ploy to stay out of jail. Not that anyone in the "deep state" ever faces penalties for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, but it must be a nagging thought to anyone familiar with Julius Streicher and Alfred Rosenberg.

    Jessica K , March 16, 2017 at 12:11 am

    Institute for the Study of War, that says it all! I remember when Dennis Kucinich as Representative from Ohio introduced a bill to create a Department of Peace. It didn't go very far.

    I also did not know about Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. How many more of these Kagans can be spawned?

    Thanks for a good warning, Robert Parry. These people must dream of war at night. I hope Trump and Tillerson are wary of them.

    Eric Bischoff , March 16, 2017 at 9:11 am

    "How many more of these Kagans can be spawned?"

    Yes and how many more Devos and Princes can we afford as well. Or how many Bushes, Clintons or Trumps!

    Sr. Gibbonk , March 16, 2017 at 1:10 am

    Ah yes, The Project for a New American Century manifesto: primary authors Robert Kagan and William Kristol on behalf of the neocon cabal and the European colonial Zionist project. Another demonstration that narrow, selfish interests, greed and the thirst for power drive this world. And all the while there are two great storms brewing on the horizon, each capable of driving our's and the majority of this earth's species to extinction. One, perhaps the most imminent, is the very real possibility of nuclear annihilation which is being spearheaded by the reckless ideologues and predatory capitalist deep state demagogues in their quest for Full Spectrum Dominance of global affairs. Even if the dire specter of nuclear holocaust is somehow avoided the global corporate world's avaricious, boundless appetite for short term profits, especially through fossil fuel extraction, will make the worst predictions of climate change inevitable: ecological collapse and along with it the collapse not only of nation states but of the human capacity to reason. How will the great nuclear powers, flailing like dinosaurs during the Permian-Triassic extinction - also known as The Great Dying - not then Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds?

    Stygg , March 16, 2017 at 6:44 pm

    FWIW, dinosaurs did not yet exist by the end of the Permian.

    Eric Downey , March 16, 2017 at 3:15 am

    Robert Parry thank you, and please continue your hard work. Our best hope for peace lies with Trump, Bannon, Tillerson and the Generals. It sounds crazy (and it is!) but they are well suited because they are aligned with a good chunk of the vocal electorate. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) proposed a bill Stop Arming Terrorists Act, and it has a companion in the Senate, sponsored by Rand Paul:
    https://www.mintpressnews.com/rand-paul-joins-tulsi-gabbard-calling-congress-stop-funding-isis-al-qaeda/225868/

    This is an informed electorate taking action. Parry is doing his job by informing us. Our job is to support H.R.608 and S.532.

    Gary , March 16, 2017 at 5:05 am

    There are so many in Washington who deserve to be tried for crimes against humanity that it is difficult to know where one would start. Actually, come to think of it, the Kagan family would be a great place to start! Then of course we'd have to move on to Bill and Hillary and another highly deserving couple Samantha Powers and hubby Cass Sustien of "cognitive infiltration" fame. Apparently psychopaths do find each other quite attractive, though who knows how many homicidal fantasies these particular spouses might actually harbor toward each other??

    Seema Gillani , March 16, 2017 at 7:00 am

    Trump has been neutralised to become a puppet of deep state. The world should expect the war business as usual.

    Geoffrey de Galles , March 16, 2017 at 7:44 am

    If I were the Kagans with as loaded an agenda as they share in the worldwide assertion of American exceptionalism, then I would consider the POTUS's Achilles heel to be Jared Kushner and his wife; and, in a more or less gentle and subtle way, would endeavour first to establish a relationship with them as a means of gradually bringing the pater familias around to my bellicose and imperialistic way of thinking. Myself, I consider the Kagans (among many others) to be the true enemy of the people. But that's my concern - viz., with trying to anticipate and out-think the enemy. So best watch out in that direction.

    fudmier , March 16, 2017 at 8:00 am

    The problem here is lack of ideal structure to for the concerned to become involved with
    No one has outlined the ideal America as seen from the point of everyday Americans..
    these 340,000,000 millions have no idea what to be for and against because they have
    no structure and no purpose .. seems to me developing that structure (culture, education,
    health care, voting rights, financial security, infra structure, and the like).
    Developing the structure is a first step to mounting the support Trump needs to make the right decisions..
    Trump himself lacks that structure.. Once the structure becomes a household word everyone knows the
    right decision they might agree to disagree on its implementation but the result intended is in plain view.

    Bryan Hemming , March 16, 2017 at 8:17 am

    Why would the Russians need to undermine democracy in the United States when the Democratic and Republican party machines are doing such a marvellous job of it by themselves?

    Del Spurlock , March 16, 2017 at 8:51 am

    EXCEPTIONAL

    Donald Kagan
    Spawned a tribe
    Of tinhorn
    Warriors

    Practice war he
    Said to them
    Make men
    Sacrifice
    Their reason and
    Their rectitude
    Their dreams of paradise.

    Make them fear
    The empty space
    Filled with conjured devils
    Make them sacrifice their young
    To save god's holy settlers.

    Make Obama toe their line
    Add John Lewis too
    Watch Black leaders
    Act so dumb
    And crap on King to Boot.

    Roberto , March 16, 2017 at 9:01 am

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXspsfoPX50

    Roberto , March 16, 2017 at 8:57 am

    The title should be, "How To Turn Unemployment Into A Great Day At The Gallows."

    Eric Bischoff , March 16, 2017 at 9:08 am

    Aren't there laws that the Kagan family are breaking? Seems to me we should start with them and arrest them for the lies that took the Bush regime into the Middle East wars and definitely for the Ukraine coup. They are financing and spreading terrorism therefore the money and the financiers behind these war think tanks are also guilty. This goes all the way to the Koch Brothers and they should be arrested as well! Why are we, the peace crusaders, on the defensive. We need to go on the offensive. Enough already!

    Dan Kuhn , March 16, 2017 at 10:17 am

    As P T barnum said " Theres a sucker born every minute". The real question is ; Are the American people going to get suckered into a war with Russia and or China? Given their past record of seriously questioning the propaganda put out by the Kagans et all i am not too hopeful over this present push to what will be a catastrophic war.

    LJ , March 16, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    It's all talk. We can't beat the Taliban or the Viet Cong or the Mexican and Central American drug Gangs on the ground if it comes to that. Russia? China? That's funny. This is to justify perpetuation of the status quo in this nation. We the People can't be allowed to pick up our heads and gaze at reality. We need to be preoccupied with the BS. Political Correctness has done it's job now we have to spend a bunch of money on imaginary threats so billionaires and bankers can get richer and we can all pretend that they matter and that this is fair and justified and Democracy in action , We need idiotic Generals in charge and tough talking politicians too. Obfuscation, whatever word or combination of words you like . It's fascistic crap. We the People didn't want more war in Syria under Obama . Nothing has changed , next time it won't matter if 90% of calls to Congressional offices are against a war. This is what Eisenhower said would happen back in 1958 though the entrenchment of the Military Industrial Financial Cyber Intelligence Complex.

    exiled off mainstreet , March 16, 2017 at 10:26 am

    Rather than being extolled and given mainstream platforms to exercise their baleful interests, the Kagans should face some sort of legal accountability as professional war criminals.

    Stiv , March 16, 2017 at 11:42 am

    Jesus Christ. Yea yea yea. Same old same old. In searching for a sign of light after the elections, the best I was able to do is " well at least Nuland won't be Secretary of State". But to go on and on and on

    Isn't there more important stuff going on? How about the "Hard diplomacy" Trumpistas are spouting about?

    It's been funny .in a sick way to see Trump and administration figures using the same language as Parry and his hangers on. "McCarthyism", "Deep State" are used every other paragraph.

    It's been noted a marked shift towards the Trump administration talking points in commentary here at Consortium "news". Even the "fake news" debacle is furthered here.

    And not in the right direction.

    My question .When does the news start, Robert?

    D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    You know it's possible you're so angry you're not really paying attention. It you think there's been a "marked shift towards Trump administration talking points in commentary here" you're not really reading what's here, just swiftly glancing and stamping your foot with irritation. Why don't you provide a little news yourself instead of your same old same old bitching all the time?

    MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 11:53 pm

    Here is that link to Saker's article:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/u-s-against-iran-a-war-of-apples-vs-oranges/

    Gregory Herr , March 16, 2017 at 6:41 pm

    So your grasp of what has "importance" is not aligned with CN and the thrust of its commentary. I think you've made that clear on several ad nauseam occasions.
    I should think that if this site was about reiterating Trump Administration talking points, we'd have the "hard diplomacy" thing covered by now. If you are concerned about what Mr. Parry publishes, submit articles on what you think is important. If you are concerned about the level or direction of commentary here, contribute with something substantive.

    LJ , March 16, 2017 at 10:18 pm

    Well, the Trump team players even Donald himself need to defend themselves for their own reasons. I think most commenters here are a little worried and rightly so for their own reasons, I personally do not like the vilification of all things Russian and the obvious McCarthy like tactics that have been going on calling for a witch hunt, a special prosecutor on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. Democrats aren't calling out for justice they want to geld Trump but Pense would be even worse. Maybe it's time tobelieve in Democracy at some level.

    John , March 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    The Kagans are simply supplying a strategy to further a growing agenda ..The average USA citizen's strategy is complacency and their agenda is simply to do nothing ..This is why the 1% rule over the 99% ..

    Jessica K , March 16, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    Tony Cartaluccu's article on The Deep State is excellent, thank you, Joe. The multipolar world he speaks of, which Putin often refers to, is what the neocon imperialists such as the Kagans don't want, but they're getting it, anyway. Since the days of the Iraq War, many great alternative journalists, such as this website, have exposed and continue to expose the facts behind deep state propaganda so these folks can't dominate as they used to. The USA doesn't look so good to a lot of nations after the disasters created by the regime change proxy wars. Despite the badmouthing of Putin and Russia in the US, many other countries aren't signing on to that attitude, from what I've read. I have just read that China wants to help rebuild Syria, since Syria is an important geographic route on their One Belt, One Road project. If the US can't recognize it can't remain top dog forever and that it's a multipolar world, it might find itself isolated.

    Dag , March 16, 2017 at 1:23 pm

    The Kagans should be in prison for all the crimes they've enabled, all the lives they've destroyed.

    Airman Sparky , March 16, 2017 at 1:33 pm

    Robert Parry & Glenn Greenwald are at the top of my short list of real-life, courageous, truth-telling heroes but, for today, Kiza reigns supreme with her tour de force:"Between the Clinton liberals and the Ziocons C'est une Affaire d'Amour Toujours, as Pepι Le Pew likes to say."
    Massive props, Zika, for referencing Pepe, HRC, & neocons in a single sentence

    Ted , March 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    OK, I get it about the Kagans, but I still don't trust Putin.

    Jessica K , March 16, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    So then, Ted, why don't you move to Russia so that you can do an objective evaluation of the country and under Putin? Of course, Russian is not an easy language to learn! It's just reported on Global Research that Russia has absorbed 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees since the US 2014 coup and Europe 900,000 more, according to a Kremlin parliamentarian in February. Thanks to Victoria Nuland!

    Ted , March 16, 2017 at 4:46 pm

    Hmm that's a response I would expect at TheBlaze – knee-jerk and black-and-white. Perhaps I should learn Russian. Are you offering to teach me, comrade?

    J'hon Doe II , March 16, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    UK/US is the Last Empire and Trump is an 'angel-of-death'.
    Nothing good can or will from his spurious administration .

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/11/09/20161111_trump1.jpg

    Brad Isherwood , March 16, 2017 at 4:39 pm

    The PNAC psychopaths did their part in 911. The conquer 7 Nations in 5 years for Israel has been delayed.

    The MIC has Al qeada,ISIS. ..even Muslim Brotherhood, ..all over the place, to give the MIC years and years. ..even another decade or more war pleasuring. Trump kicked huge gift to the Military. ..before the Ides of March arrived.

    The Saudi/Qatar block have invested multi millions in regime change Assad. The trained Mercs forces, logistics, weapons. posture against Iran, and the dream of Pipelines.

    Erdogan the Mad Caliph is the receiver of the Terrorists from Saudi or Libya and other, the reciever of the pipelines.
    Israel will not give back the Golan .wants Hezbollah gone from near its Safe Zone.

    Far too much money which MIC wants play with. ..and as Admiral Thomas Moorer commented, " No American President can stand up to Israel "

    US boots going back into Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Iraq, going into Syria, media bleating about US needs go back to Libya and fix that mess.

    Trump is where on his supposed non intervention promises? The John McCain and Deep State media rush against Russia with lies like WMD Iraq. Is this Deja Vu

    Jessica K , March 16, 2017 at 5:18 pm

    Ted, my comment was sarcastic because you did not back up your opinion with any facts. The situation is getting very sticky with now Canada's Foreign Minister getting into the smearfest. Freeland just pulled out the Crimean Tatars as being victims of Russian aggression, and I, knowing nothing about the issue, had to start digging, which began with US articles supporting brutalization by Russia, some from 2016. Digging out further are some articles that this is not the case, Tatars supported going with Russia as Crimeans voted. All which supports that propaganda is rife, is there a free press anymore, and the virulent fixation on Russia is out of control. And my position is that some politicians are willing to take us to extinction to get their way, while we have a planet with many problems we should be addressing.

    [Mar 17, 2017] The Kagans Are Back; Wars to Follow

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Kagan family, America's neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency. ..."
    "... "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. ..."
    "... "This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks. ..."
    "... the Ukraine putsch led to the secession of Crimea and a bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine with ethnic Russians, events that the State Department and the mainstream Western media deemed "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." ..."
    "... Yet, the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. ..."
    "... It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. ..."
    "... As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers. ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    Mar 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: The neocon royalty Kagans are counting on Democrats and liberals to be the foot soldiers in the new neocon campaign to push Republicans and President Trump into more "regime change" wars, reports Robert Parry.

    The Kagan family, America's neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency.

    Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow's alleged help in electing Donald Trump.

    In a Washington Post op-ed on March 7, Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a key architect of the Iraq War, jabbed at Republicans for serving as "Russia's accomplices after the fact" by not investigating more aggressively.

    Then, Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and his wife, Kimberly Kagan, president of her own think tank, Institute for the Study of War, touted the idea of a bigger U.S. invasion of Syria in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on March 15.

    Yet, as much standing as the Kagans retain in Official Washington's world of think tanks and op-ed placements, they remain mostly outside the new Trump-era power centers looking in, although they seem to have detected a door being forced open.

    Still, a year ago, their prospects looked much brighter. They could pick from a large field of neocon-oriented Republican presidential contenders or – like Robert Kagan – they could support the establishment Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose "liberal interventionism" matched closely with neoconservatism, differing only slightly in the rationalizations used for justifying wars and more wars.

    There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, from Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs to Secretary of State.

    Then, there would have been a powerful momentum for both increasing the U.S. military intervention in Syria and escalating the New Cold War with Russia, putting "regime change" back on the agenda for those two countries. So, early last year, the possibilities seemed endless for the Family Kagan to flex their muscles and make lots of money.

    A Family Business

    As I noted two years ago in an article entitled " A Family Business of Perpetual War ": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats.

    "This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.

    "Not only does the broader community of neoconservatives stand to benefit but so do other members of the Kagan clan, including Robert's brother Frederick at the American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly, who runs her own shop called the Institute for the Study of War."

    But things didn't quite turn out as the Kagans had drawn them up. The neocon Republicans stumbled through the GOP primaries losing out to Donald Trump and then – after Hillary Clinton muscled aside Sen. Bernie Sanders to claim the Democratic nomination – she fumbled away the general election to Trump.

    After his surprising victory, Trump – for all his many shortcomings – recognized that the neocons were not his friends and mostly left them out in the cold. Nuland not only lost her politically appointed job as Assistant Secretary but resigned from the Foreign Service, too.

    With Trump in the White House, Official Washington's neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment was down but far from out. The neocons were tossed a lifeline by Democrats and liberals who detested Trump so much that they were happy to pick up Nuland's fallen banner of the New Cold War with Russia. As part of a dubious scheme to drive Trump from office, Democrats and liberals hyped evidence-free allegations that Russia had colluded with Trump's team to rig the U.S. election.

    New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman spoke for many of this group when he compared Russia's alleged "meddling" to Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor and Al Qaeda's 9/11 terror attacks.

    On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.

    So, with many liberals blinded by their hatred of Trump, the path was open for neocons to reassert themselves.

    Baiting Republicans

    Robert Kagan took to the high-profile op-ed page of The Washington Post to bait key Republicans, such as Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was pictured above the Post article and its headline, "Running interference for Russia."

    Gen. David Petraeus posing before the U.S. Capitol with Kimberly Kagan, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War. (Photo credit: ISW's 2011 Annual Report)

    Kagan wrote: "It would have been impossible to imagine a year ago that the Republican Party's leaders would be effectively serving as enablers of Russian interference in this country's political system. Yet, astonishingly, that is the role the Republican Party is playing."

    Kagan then reprised Official Washington's groupthink that accepted without skepticism the claims from President Obama's outgoing intelligence chiefs that Russia had "hacked" Democratic emails and released them via WikiLeaks to embarrass the Clinton campaign.

    Though Obama's intelligence officials offered no verifiable evidence to support the claims – and WikiLeaks denied getting the two batches of emails from the Russians – the allegations were widely accepted across Official Washington as grounds for discrediting Trump and possibly seeking his removal from office.

    Ignoring the political conflict of interest for Obama's appointees, Kagan judged that "given the significance of this particular finding [about Russian meddling], the evidence must be compelling" and justified "a serious, wide-ranging and open investigation."

    But Kagan also must have recognized the potential for the neocons to claw their way back to power behind the smokescreen of a New Cold War with Russia.

    He declared: "The most important question concerns Russia's ability to manipulate U.S. elections. That is not a political issue. It is a national security issue. If the Russian government did interfere in the United States' electoral processes last year, then it has the capacity to do so in every election going forward. This is a powerful and dangerous weapon, more than warships or tanks or bombers.

    "Neither Russia nor any potential adversary has the power to damage the U.S. political system with weapons of war. But by creating doubts about the validity, integrity and reliability of U.S. elections, it can shake that system to its foundations."

    A Different Reality

    As alarmist as Kagan's op-ed was, the reality was far different. Even if the Russians did hack the Democratic emails and somehow slipped the information to WikiLeaks – an unsubstantiated and disputed contention – those two rounds of email disclosures were not that significant to the election's outcome.

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. (NBC photo)

    Hillary Clinton blamed her surprise defeat on FBI Director James Comey briefly reopening the investigation into her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State.

    Further, by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee's tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters, as well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

    In other words, the WikiLeaks' releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S. democratic process. The emails were not "disinformation" or "fake news." They were real news.

    A similar disclosure occurred both before the election and this week when someone leaked details about Trump's tax returns, which are protected by law. However, except for the Trump camp, almost no one thought that this illegal act of releasing a citizen's tax returns was somehow a threat to American democracy.

    The general feeling was that Americans have a right to know such details about someone seeking the White House. I agree, but doesn't it equally follow that we had a right to know about the DNC abusing its power to grease the skids for Clinton's nomination, about the contents of Clinton's speeches to Wall Street bankers, and about foreign governments seeking pay-to-play influence by contributing to the Clinton Foundation?

    Yet, because Obama's political appointees in the U.S. intelligence community "assess" that Russia was the source of the WikiLeaks emails, the assault on U.S. democracy is a reason for World War III.

    More Loose Talk

    But Kagan was not satisfied with unsubstantiated accusations regarding Russia undermining U.S. democracy. He asserted as "fact" – although again without presenting evidence – that Russia is "interfering in the coming elections in France and Germany, and it has already interfered in Italy's recent referendum and in numerous other elections across Europe. Russia is deploying this weapon against as many democracies as it can to sap public confidence in democratic institutions."

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flanked by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria "Toria" Nuland, addresses Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]

    There's been a lot of handwringing in Official Washington and across the Mainstream Media about the "post-truth" era, but these supposed avatars for truth are as guilty as anyone, acting as if constantly repeating a fact-free claim is the same as proving it.

    But it's clear what Kagan and other neocons have in mind, an escalation of hostilities with Russia and a substantial increase in spending on U.S. military hardware and on Western propaganda to "counter" what is deemed "Russian propaganda."

    Kagan recognizes that he already has many key Democrats and liberals on his side. So he is taking aim at Republicans to force them to join in the full-throated Russia-bashing, writing:

    "But it is the Republicans who are covering up. The party's current leader, the president, questions the intelligence community's findings, motives and integrity. Republican leaders in Congress have opposed the creation of any special investigating committee, either inside or outside Congress. They have insisted that inquiries be conducted by the two intelligence committees.

    "Yet the Republican chairman of the committee in the House has indicated that he sees no great urgency to the investigation and has even questioned the seriousness and validity of the accusations. The Republican chairman of the committee in the Senate has approached the task grudgingly.

    "The result is that the investigations seem destined to move slowly, produce little information and provide even less to the public. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely the intent of the Republican Party's leadership, both in the White House and Congress.

    "When Republicans stand in the way of thorough, open and immediate investigations, they become Russia's accomplices after the fact."

    Lying with the Neocons

    Many Democrats and liberals may find it encouraging that a leading neocon who helped pave the road to war in Iraq is now by their side in running down Republicans for not enthusiastically joining the latest Russian witch hunt. But they also might pause to ask themselves how they let their hatred of Trump get them into an alliance with the neocons.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    On Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Robert Kagan's brother Frederick and his wife Kimberly dropped the other shoe, laying out the neocons' long-held dream of a full-scale U.S. invasion of Syria, a project that was put on hold in 2004 because of U.S. military reversals in Iraq.

    But the neocons have long lusted for "regime change" in Syria and were not satisfied with Obama's arming of anti-government rebels and the limited infiltration of U.S. Special Forces into northern Syria to assist in the retaking of the Islamic State's "capital" of Raqqa.

    In the Journal op-ed, Frederick and Kimberly Kagan call for opening a new military front in southeastern Syria:

    "American military forces will be necessary. But the U.S. can recruit new Sunni Arab partners by fighting alongside them in their land. The goal in the beginning must be against ISIS because it controls the last areas in Syria where the U.S. can reasonably hope to find Sunni allies not yet under the influence of al Qaeda. But the aim after evicting ISIS must be to raise a Sunni Arab army that can ultimately defeat al Qaeda and help negotiate a settlement of the war.

    "The U.S. will have to pressure the Assad regime, Iran and Russia to end the conflict on terms that the Sunni Arabs will accept. That will be easier to do with the independence and leverage of a secure base inside Syria. President Trump should break through the flawed logic and poor planning that he inherited from his predecessor. He can transform this struggle, but only by transforming America's approach to it."

    A New Scheme on Syria

    In other words, the neocons are back to their clever word games and their strategic maneuverings to entice the U.S. military into a "regime change" project in Syria.

    The neocons thought they had almost pulled off that goal by pinning a mysterious sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013, on the Syrian government and mousetrapping Obama into launching a major U.S. air assault on the Syrian military.

    But Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped in to arrange for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to surrender all his chemical weapons even as Assad continued to deny any role in the sarin attack.

    Putin's interference in thwarting the neocons' dream of a Syrian "regime change" war moved Putin to the top of their enemies' list. Soon key neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman, were taking aim at Ukraine, which Gershman deemed "the biggest prize" and a steppingstone toward eventually ousting Putin in Moscow.

    It fell to Assistant Secretary Victoria "Toria" Nuland to oversee the "regime change" in Ukraine. She was caught on an unsecured phone line in late January or early February 2014 discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt how "to glue" or "to midwife" a change in Ukraine's elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych.

    Several weeks later, neo-Nazi and ultranationalist street fighters spearheaded a violent assault on government buildings forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives, with the U.S. government quickly hailing the coup regime as "legitimate."

    But the Ukraine putsch led to the secession of Crimea and a bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine with ethnic Russians, events that the State Department and the mainstream Western media deemed "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion."

    So, by the last years of the Obama administration, the stage was set for the neocons and the Family Kagan to lead the next stage of the strategy of cornering Russia and instituting a "regime change" in Syria.

    All that was needed was for Hillary Clinton to be elected president. But these best-laid plans surprisingly went astray. Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton, a bitter disappointment for the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks.

    Yet, the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda.

    It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes.

    As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    [Mar 17, 2017] The Democrats Trump-Russia Conspiracy Campaign Collapses

    Notable quotes:
    "... From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party's base since Trump's victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election - a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented. ..."
    "... The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected ..."
    "... now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed. ..."
    Mar 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Is sanity finally returning? After weeks of ranting and raving about Russian "interference" and Putin-Trump conspiracies, so-called 'intelligence' agencies and high-ranking Democrats are quietly walking back their rhetoric and managing their base's expectations - simply put: there's no 'there', there .

    'Moon of Alabama' reminds us that a while ago Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone warned: Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media :

    If we engage in Times-style gilding of every lily the leakers throw our way, and in doing so build up a fever of expectations for a bombshell reveal, but there turns out to be no conspiracy – Trump will be pre-inoculated against all criticism for the foreseeable future.

    And now, as The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald writes , key Democratic officials are now warning their base not to expect ...

    From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party's base since Trump's victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election - a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented.

    The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.

    [Mar 17, 2017] In constant dollars, the US defense spending is as large as during the Vietnam war. It was The spending was 94.261 billion in 1968

    Mar 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... March 16, 2017 at 07:20 AM , 2017 at 07:20 AM
    While I strongly disagree with the proposed cuts in domestic spending and I would not want to see more defense spending, let's put this in context:

    "The $54 billion boost for the military is the largest since President Ronald Reagan's Pentagon buildup in the 1980s"

    In 2016, defense spending had declined to 3.9% of GDP. If all of this passed - defense spending would be 4.2% of GDP. Under Reagan, this ratio was closer to 7%.

    Hey I'm fine with keeping defense spending low but this quote is a bit of hyperbole.

    anne -> pgl... , March 16, 2017 at 07:36 AM
    http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=2007&903=5&906=a&905=1000&910=x&911=0

    January 15, 2017

    Defense spending was 58.8% of federal government consumption and investment in 2016. *

    $732.2 / $1,244.5 = 58.8%

    Defense spending was 22.3% of all government consumption and investment in 2016.

    $732.2 / $3,277.1 = 22.3%

    Defense spending was 3.9% of GDP in 2016.

    $732.2 / $18,565.6 = 3.9%

    * Billions of dollars

    anne -> anne... , March 16, 2017 at 07:41 AM
    I know, I know military spending of $732.2 billion in 2016 was not really that high when we stand upside down and look in a mirror. Let's have more, after all there is the war we are fighting while not fighting in Yemen to consider. Yemen?
    mulp -> anne... , March 16, 2017 at 11:28 AM
    "I know, I know military spending of $732.2 billion in 2016 was not really that high when we stand upside down and look in a mirror. Let's have more, after all there is the war we are fighting while not fighting in Yemen to consider."

    In constant dollars, "defense spending" is as large as during the Vietnam war.

    The spending was 94.261 billion in 1968 which is according to measuring worth, "In 2015, the relative value of $94,261.00 from 1968 ranges from $503,000.00 to $1,800,000.00."

    But war is primarily labor engaged in destroying capital and killing workers and consumers. Bombs and bullets cost the labor to manufacture them, as everything is consumption by the end of wars.

    Thus the best measure is "labor earnings of that commodity is $659,000.00 (using the unskilled wage) or $818,000.00 (using production worker compensation)"

    The nominal cost in 2015 from the same source, us governmentspending.com, is 797.878 billion.

    But the number of soldiers in the military, in and out of combat, is about 3.5 million in 1968 vs 1.4 million today.

    http://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1954-2014

    The military until Nixon was a major job training system. The military did virtually everything with soldiers, and soldiers served an average of 3 years, so in three years, a soldier, did a few "normal" jobs, while at the same time being ready to "fight", and serving active soldiers with some appreciation of why their work mattered to soldiers.

    Today, the military no longer provides much in the way of job training and worker development. It is far less efficient and productive, and that is the result of bad policy by both conservatives and progressives.

    Progressives are especially bad because they want job killing defense cuts to pay the poor to not work and stay in economic dead zones. After all, what progressive has called for creating a government job Corp of, in population adjusted terms, at least 3 million workers, drafted into the job Corp, paid low wages because they are given room and board, and working for 2-3 years in whatever backwater government sends you, doing whatever crap job tells you to do?

    pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , March 16, 2017 at 08:29 AM
    While we are having fun with nominal figures over time, defense spending was only $181 billion in 1980 but grew to $412 billion by 1991. It was $392 billion in 2000 (the last year of the peace dividend) and grew to $837 billion by 2011 (when we finally pulled out of Iraq). Of course all this needs to be adjusted for inflation etc.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl... , March 16, 2017 at 08:48 AM
    It goes almost without saying
    that our country is extremely
    nutty about defense spending.

    That is 'ok' (i.e. 'accepted')
    because National Security is a
    role ceded to the federal guv'mint
    by the states, and has a military
    focus. The 'general welfare' aspects
    of National Security are much less
    appreciated/accepted/understood by
    the population at large, it would seem.

    [Mar 16, 2017] Assange Claims Hillary, Intel Officials Quietly Pushing A Pence Takeover

    Mar 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Over the weekend we noted chatter that some saw Mike Pence as "the Deep State's insurance policy," and now, judging by tweets from Wikileaks' Julian Assange, that may well be the Clinton/Intelligence Officials plan...

    Clinton stated privately this month that she is quietly pushing for a Pence takeover. She stated that Pence is predictable hence defeatable.

    - Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) March 14, 2017

    Adding that...

    Two IC officials close to Pence stated privately this month that they are planning on a Pence takeover. Did not state if Pence agrees.

    - Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) March 14, 2017

    As The Daily Caller notes, Assange's claims appear to come in response to reports that President Trump authorized the CIA to perform drone strikes on terrorists Monday evening...

    By handing unilateral power to the CIA over its drone strikes at this time White House signals that bullying, disloyalty & incompetence pays

    - Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) March 14, 2017

    As we concluded previously, if Trump doesn't adopt the Cold War 2.0 approach of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and is forced out of his own administration in the same manner as Flynn, it will become clear why once we learn who would replace him: Mike Pence.

    No matter what one makes of Trump - or his administration and the policies that have been initiated thus far - the fact remains that Trump won the U.S. election. The people working behind the scenes to oust him are not subject to democratic controls, nor are they working in the best interests of the American public. We are left to ask ourselves exactly how renewing relations with Russia – a nuclear power – could possibly endanger American lives.

    Either way, we are more or less left with two paths ahead of us.The firs t path involves Trump giving in and adopting an anti-Russian agenda, as is already apparent in his decision to send more ground troops to Syria alongside Saudi troops , who will intentionally oppose the Syrian regime (a close ally of Russia). The second involves the possibility of another direct coup within the Trump administration, this time one that may ultimately force Trump out of the White House so he can be replaced by Mike Pence, a war hawk who will be more than happy to do the job Hillary Clinton wanted to do.

    froze25 , Mar 14, 2017 12:17 PM

    Groan... Start charging people for sedition already. Although Sessions cleaning house was a good start, we will see where this goes.

    InTheLandOfTheBlind -> froze25 , Mar 14, 2017 12:17 PM

    Assange gets the no shit sherlock award. Hang the traitors

    BullyBearish -> InTheLandOfTheBlind , Mar 14, 2017 12:21 PM

    NOTHING worse than a zionist-enabling evangelical christian neocon...they are the pawns that keep this $hitshow going...

    Logan 5 -> wildbad , Mar 14, 2017 1:41 PM

    "color me VERY doubtful on this scenario playing out"

    Not so fast...

    Unless you haven't noticed, Trump has surrounded himself with Jared Kushner & Goldman types...

    Let's face it, nobody around here wanted HRC to win, but they backed Trump more on a ANYTHING BUT HILLARY notion, plus, a [DRAIN THE SWAMP = HOPE & CHANGE] ideaology.

    Trump is, and always has been, a 'narcissist' in his good moments... It's hard for me to believe he even wants this job... Many of his appointments have been suspect (& the good ones like Flynn have been shown the door)... It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Trump was just 'satisfied that he won' which amounts to a checked box on his personal bucket list.

    I would not be surprised AT ALL to see this scenario have some success... JUNK me all you want... The end result would be that this country is, most truly, fucked beyond all possible return...

    If this were to end up happening, without a resultant uprising & civil war... Then we're truly repeating what Solzhenitsyn warned against.

    chubbar -> NidStyles , Mar 14, 2017 2:43 PM

    Here is another crooked FBI story that is just breaking. If true, Trump needs to clean that outhouse as well!!!!

    http://truepundit.com/exclusive-fbis-own-political-terror-plot-deputy-director-and-fbi-brass-secretly-conspired-to-wage-coup-against-flynn-trump-2/

    "Mere days before Gen. Michael Flynn was sacked as national security advisor, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe gathered more than a dozen of his top FBI disciples to plot how to ruin Flynn's aspiring political career and manufacture evidence to derail President Donald Trump, according to FBI sources.

    McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: "Fuck Flynn and then we Fuck Trump," according to direct sources. Many of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such rhetoric. A scattered few did not.

    This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as 16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present."..........

    froze25 -> Pinto Currency , Mar 14, 2017 12:31 PM

    I believe you are right and the Military is behind Trump, the military does have a intelligence branch that rivals the CIA my guess is that we are seeing a battle between the Military and the CIA

    Jayda1850 -> froze25 , Mar 14, 2017 12:36 PM

    Then why would Trump give the CIA the power to commit drone strikes, something that was only supposed to be done by the military?

    froze25 -> Jayda1850 , Mar 14, 2017 12:41 PM

    They already had the power, Obama gave it to them. My guess is they came to him, said we have a target of opportunity Trump probably looked to his advisers in his cabinet and they agreed that it should be done and then he said, "do it". My guess is that the CIA is big enough that the people that do the Drone strikes aren't the same agents that are undermining him. Probably not even in the same branch or division.

    Jayda1850 -> froze25 , Mar 14, 2017 12:57 PM

    They didn't have the power, Obama was the one who curtailed it. They could pick targets, but the military were the ones who pulled the trigger. Trump handed over the kill order to the CIA

    http://thehill.com/policy/defense/323808-trump-gives-cia-power-to-launch...

    [Mar 16, 2017] A Soft Coup, or Preserving Our Democracy by Philip Giraldi

    A rare even-handed analysis of Russian leaks and Anti-Trump campaign in mass media. Intelligence agencies became political actors, like is typical for color revolution. The only difference is that now they are acting is concert with neoliberal media against their own elected administration.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on ..."
    "... the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign. This was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even suggesting that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. ..."
    "... The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain the election loss in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in, and to bring about the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump. ..."
    "... It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal and constitutional election. ..."
    "... Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. ..."
    "... It contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades. ..."
    "... In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the election and this is possibly what Trump was referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House. ..."
    "... Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already know that and he presumably approves of it. ..."
    "... Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a view contrary to that of Clapper, saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court." FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped." ..."
    "... The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
    "... British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. ..."
    "... President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for Hillary. President Obama called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms. ..."
    "... Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration, Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place. ..."
    "... Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government." ..."
    "... Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence officials who had access to such highly restricted information, ..."
    "... The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties. ..."
    "... Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S. intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been in contact with Trump representatives. ..."
    "... The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin, a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration. ..."
    "... The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe. ..."
    "... Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed by former consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged in developing a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active. ..."
    "... The actions undertaken by the lame duck Obama administration were certainly politically motivated, but there also might have been genuine concern over the alleged Russian threat. The Obama administration's actions were quite likely intended to hobble the new administration in general as Trump would be nervous about the reliability of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies while also being constantly engaged in fighting leaks, but they might also have been designed to narrow the new president's options when dealing with Russia. ..."
    "... It should also be observed that all of the investigations by both the government and the media have come up with almost nothing, ..."
    "... I would suggest that if there continue to be damaging leaks coming from inside the government intended to cripple the White House the possibility that there is a genuine conspiracy in place begins to look more attractive. ..."
    "... If, however, it turns out that the intelligence agencies have indeed been actively collaborating with the White House in working against opposition politicians, the whole tale assumes a particularly dangerous aspect as there is no real mechanism in place to prevent that from occurring again. The tool that Obama has placed in Trump's hands might just as easily be used against the Democrats in 2020. ..."
    Mar 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    ... ... ...

    Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on. There are two competing narratives to choose from and there is inevitably considerable gray area in between depending on what turns out to be true.

    This is what we know or think we know described chronologically:

    The sources all agree that in early 2016 the FBI developed an interest in an internet server in Trump Tower based on allegations of possible criminal activity, which in this case might have meant suspicion of involvement in Russian mafia activity. The interest in the server derived from an apparent link to Alfa Bank of Moscow and possibly one other Russian bank, regarding which the metadata (presumably collected either by the Bureau or NSA) showed frequent and high-volume two-way communications. It is not clear if a normal criminal warrant was actually sought and approved and/or acted upon but, according to The New York Times , the FBI somehow determined that the server did not have "any nefarious purpose" and was probably used for marketing or might even have been generating spam.

    The examination of the server was only one part of what was taking place, with The New York Times also reporting that, "For much of the summer, the FBI pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats ." The article also noted that, "Hillary Clinton's supporters pushed for these investigations," which were clearly endorsed by President Obama.

    In June, with Trump about to be nominated, some sources claim that the FBI sought a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court to tap into the same Trump Tower server and collect information on the American users of the system. FISA warrants relate to investigations of foreign intelligence agents but they also permit inadvertent collection of information on the suspect's American contacts. In this case the name "Trump" was reportedly part of the request. Even though FISA warrants are routinely approved, this request was turned down for being too broad in its scope.

    Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was being worked on in June and by one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by Steele in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented to FBI Director James Comey for action. It contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades.

    At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote to Comey and demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September, Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."

    In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the election and this is possibly what Trump was referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House.

    Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already know that and he presumably approves of it.

    Several other sources dismiss the wiretap story as it has appeared in the media. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper "denied" on March 5 that there had been a FISA warrant authorizing surveillance of the Trump Tower server. He stated that there had never been any surveillance of Trump Tower "to my knowledge" because, if there had been a FISA warrant, he would have been informed. Critics immediately noted that Clapper has previously lied about surveillance issues and his testimony contradicts other evidence suggesting that there was a FISA warrant, though none of the sources appear to know if it was ever actually used. Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a view contrary to that of Clapper, saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court." FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped."

    The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile. Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his connections to Russia.

    President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for Hillary. President Obama called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms.

    After the election, the drumbeat about Trump and Russia continued and even intensified. There was a 25-page report issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on January 6 called "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections . " Four days later, this was followed by the publication of the 35-page report on Trump compiled by British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The ODNI report has been criticized as being long on conjecture and short on evidence while the British report is full of speculation and is basically unsourced. When the Steele dossier first appeared, it was assumed that it would be fact-checked by the FBI but, if that was ever done, it has not been made public.

    Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration, Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place.

    Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government."

    Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence officials who had access to such highly restricted information, presumably hold-overs from the Obama Administration, and Flynn was eventually forced to resign on February 13 for having lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the calls. For what it's worth, some at the CIA, FBI and State Department have been openly discussing and acknowledging that senior officers are behind the leaks. The State Department is reported to be particularly anti-Trump.

    One day after Flynn resigned The Times cited "four current and former officials" to claim that Trump campaign associates had had "repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials," but admitted that there was no evidence that the campaign had in any way been influenced by the Russians.

    The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties.

    Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S. intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been in contact with Trump representatives.

    The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin, a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration.

    The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe.

    The turmoil on Capitol Hill is matched by street rallies and demonstrations denouncing the Trump administration, with much of the focus on the alleged Russian connection. The similarities and ubiquity in the slogans, the "Resist" signs and the hashtags #notmypresident have led some to believe that at least a part of the activity is being funded and organized by progressive organizations that want Trump out. The name George Soros, a Hungarian billionaire and prominent democracy promoter, frequently comes up . Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed by former consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged in developing a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active.

    If one were to come up with a summary of what the government might or might not have been doing over the past nine months concerning Trump and the Russians it would go something like this: FBI investigators looking for criminal activity connected to the Trump Tower server found nothing and then might have sought and eventually obtained a FISA issued warrant permitting them to keep looking on national security grounds. If that is so, the government could have been using the high-tech surveillance capabilities of the federal intelligence services to monitor the activity of an opposition political candidate. Additional information was undoubtedly collected on Trump and his associates' dealings with Russia using federal intelligence and law enforcement resources, and NSA guidelines were changed shortly before the inauguration so that much of the information thus obtained, normally highly restricted, could then be disseminated throughout the intelligence community and to other government agencies. This virtually guaranteed that it could not be deleted or hidden while also insuring that at least some of it would be leaked to the media.

    The actions undertaken by the lame duck Obama administration were certainly politically motivated, but there also might have been genuine concern over the alleged Russian threat. The Obama administration's actions were quite likely intended to hobble the new administration in general as Trump would be nervous about the reliability of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies while also being constantly engaged in fighting leaks, but they might also have been designed to narrow the new president's options when dealing with Russia. Whether there is any intention to either delegitimize or bring down the Trump White House is, of course, unknowable unless you had the good fortune to be in the Oval Office when such options were possibly being discussed.

    It should also be observed that all of the investigations by both the government and the media have come up with almost nothing, at least insofar as the public has been allowed to see the evidence. Someone, widely presumed but not demonstrated to be in some way associated with the Russian government, hacked into the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The factual information was then passed to WikiLeaks, which denies that it came from a Russian source, and was gradually released starting in July. There has been a presumption that Moscow was either trying to influence the outcome of the election in support of Donald Trump or that it was trying to somehow subvert American democracy, but no unimpeachable evidence has as of yet been produced to support either hypothesis. The two senior Trump officials – Flynn and Sessions – who have been under the gun have not been pummeled because they did anything wrong vis-ΰ-vis the Russians -they did not - but because they have been accused of lying.

    So, whether there is some kind of coup in progress ultimately depends on your perspective and what you are willing to believe to be true. I would suggest that if there continue to be damaging leaks coming from inside the government intended to cripple the White House the possibility that there is a genuine conspiracy in place begins to look more attractive.

    And the possibility of impeachment is also not far off, as Trump is confronted by a hostile Democratic Party and numerous dissidents within the GOP ranks. But if nothing comes of it all beyond an extremely rough transition, the whole business might just be regarded as a particularly nasty bit of new style politics. If, however, it turns out that the intelligence agencies have indeed been actively collaborating with the White House in working against opposition politicians, the whole tale assumes a particularly dangerous aspect as there is no real mechanism in place to prevent that from occurring again. The tool that Obama has placed in Trump's hands might just as easily be used against the Democrats in 2020.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Mar 16, 2017] We cut taxes for the wealthy by $60 billion a year, to spend another $54 billion on the military, and take away healthcare insurance from 20 million and more. And, in case readers are wondering, we spent $732.2 billion on the military in 2016

    Mar 16, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne -> anne... March 14, 2017 at 03:45 AM

    , 2017 at 03:45 AM
    Yes, I am really frightened. We cut taxes for the wealthy by $60 billion a year, to spend another $54 billion on the military, and take away healthcare insurance from 20 million and more. And, in case readers are wondering, we spent $732.2 billion on the military in 2016:

    http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=2007&903=5&906=a&905=1000&910=x&911=0

    ilsm -> anne... , March 14, 2017 at 05:25 AM
    if we discussed how badly that $732.2B was spent!
    Anachronism said in reply to anne... , March 14, 2017 at 06:15 AM
    Our defense spending is as much as the next 10 countries combined. But sure, let's spend more on it while we cut clean water projects in the Chesapeake bay cleanup(Trump's nominee to head EPA has opposed the Chesapeake Bay cleanup):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trumps-nominee-to-head-epa-has-opposed-the-chesapeake-bay-cleanup/2017/01/16/a881d408-d90a-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.df72c941788d

    Meanwhile the people in Flint are completely forgotten.

    Or cutting eduction (Trump Sharpens Budget Knife for Education Department, Sources Say):

    http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2017/03/budget_hold.html

    You're frightened? So am I. My daughter works as an epidemiologist at a state (but all the staff work on federal grants) and they're all scared that "Trumponomics" will force layoffs there.

    anne -> Anachronism ... , March 14, 2017 at 09:12 AM
    My daughter works as an epidemiologist at a state (but all the staff work on federal grants) and they're all scared that "Trumponomics" will force layoffs there.

    [ Important, and the Chesapeake Bay is a treasure. ]

    anne -> anne... , March 14, 2017 at 09:09 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/841655273349611521

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    This war has been raging for 15 1/2 years. The US has escalated multiple times under 2 Presidents. This war-loving duo wants more of that.

    John McCain @SenJohnMcCain

    My @washingtonpost op-ed with @LindseyGrahamSC today: "Why we need more forces to end the stalemate in #Afghanistan"

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-mccain-and-lindsey-graham-why-we-need-more-forces-to-end-the-stalemate-in-afghanistan/2017/03/13/6c8f7a6e-05b4-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_story.html

    7:20 AM - 14 Mar 2017

    [Mar 16, 2017] Is Trump administration under survellance from its own intelligence agencies?

    Mar 16, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    rjs -> pgl... March 14, 2017 at 02:16 PM , 2017 at 02:16 PM
    it's obvious that Conway was reading about the wikileaks release of the CIA's Vault 7, which shows they have the capability of remotely turning over the counter smart phones and TVs into spying devices...the release was widely covered in the foreign press, not so much here..

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikileaks-cia-what-are-they-explained-vault-7-year-zero-julian-assange-secrets-a7616826.html

    1) The CIA has the ability to break into Android and iPhone handsets, and all kinds of computers. The US intelligence agency has been involved in a concerted effort to write various kinds of malware to spy on just about every piece of electronic equipment that people use. That includes iPhones, Androids and computers running Windows, macOS and Linux.
    2) Doing so would make apps like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp entirely insecure Encrypted messaging apps are only as secure as the device they are used on – if an operating system is compromised, then the messages can be read before they encrypted and sent to the other user. WikiLeaks claims that has happened, potentially meaning that messages have been compromised even if all of the usual precautions had been taken.

    3) The CIA could use smart TVs to listen in on conversations that happened around them. One of the most eye-catching programmes detailed in the documents is "Weeping Angel". That allows intelligence agencies to install special software that allows TVs to be turned into listening devices – so that even when they appear to be switched off, they're actually on.

    4) The agency explored hacking into cars and crashing them, allowing 'nearly undetectable assassinations'

    5) The CIA hid vulnerabilities that could be used by hackers from other countries or governments Such bugs were found in the biggest consumer electronics in the world, including phones and computers made Apple, Google and Microsoft. But those companies didn't get the chance to fix those exploits because the agency kept them secret in order to keep using them, the documents suggest.

    6) More information is coming. The documents have still not been looked through entirely. There are 8,378 pages of files, some of which have already been analyzed but many of which hasn't. When taken together, those "Vault 7" leaks will make up the biggest intelligence publication in history, WikiLeaks claimed.

    [Mar 14, 2017] Angler 2.0 Brennan Wields His Puppet Strings Differently by emptywheel

    John Brennan was Obama's Cheney
    Notable quotes:
    "... But instead of telling the story of John Brennan, Obama's Cheney, the story pitches Obama as the key decision-maker–a storyline Brennan has always been one of the most aggressive pitchmen for, including when he confirmed information on the Anwar al-Awlaki strike he shouldn't have. In a sense, then, Brennan has done Cheney one better: seed a story of his own power, but sell it as a sign of the President's steeliness. ..."
    "... "Pragmatism over ideology," his campaign national security team had advised in a memo in March 2008. It was counsel that only reinforced the president's instincts. ..."
    "... The memo was written not long after Brennan started playing a more central role among Obama's campaign advisors. But the story makes no mention of his presumed role in it. Further, in describing Jeh Johnson to introduce a quote, the piece notes that he was "a campaign adviser" (it doesn't say Johnson was also focused on voter protection). But it does not note that Brennan, too, was a key campaign advisor, one with an exclusively national security focus. ..."
    "... In other words, in several places in this story, Brennan plays a key role that is downplayed. ..."
    "... There is clearly an attempt to sell the Team Obama Campaign 2012 political viewpoint of a steely-eyed leader astride his charging steed slaying the nation's enemies left and right. ..."
    "... There is clearly an attempt by Father John, Blabbermouth of Brennan to sanctify his patron Saint Obama (and no less sanctify himself). ..."
    "... In the end, it seems to me that Team Obama Campaign 2012 narrative was the overarching theme, and a somewhat defensive one at that. ..."
    "... By that I mean, the campaign narrative seemed to say that even if Obama hasn't done much of anything else, not much to get Americans back to work, not much to keep Americans in their homes, not much to calm the waters and heal the American political discourse, at least the American voting public can rest assured that he's personally taken charge of the nation's war on terrorism and has been slaying the dragons wherever they've appeared ..."
    May 29, 2012 | www.emptywheel.net
    As I said earlier , the parallel between the Jo Becker/Scott Shane Angler 2.0 story and the earlier series by Becker and Barton Gellman is hard to miss.

    But I'm very interested in how the stories are structured differently. With Angler 1.0, the story was very clearly about Dick Cheney and the methods he used to manipulate Bush into following his advice. Here, the story is really about John Brennan, Obama's Cheney, portrayed deep in thought and foregrounding Obama in the article's picture. Indeed, halfway through, the story even gives biographical background on Brennan, the classic "son of Irish immigrants" story, along with Harold Koh's dubious endorsement of Brennan's "moral rectitude."

    But instead of telling the story of John Brennan, Obama's Cheney, the story pitches Obama as the key decision-maker–a storyline Brennan has always been one of the most aggressive pitchmen for, including when he confirmed information on the Anwar al-Awlaki strike he shouldn't have. In a sense, then, Brennan has done Cheney one better: seed a story of his own power, but sell it as a sign of the President's steeliness.

    The Silent Sources for the Story

    I already pointed out how, after presenting unambiguous evidence of Brennan's past on-the-record lies, the story backed off calling him on it.

    But there are other ways in which this story shifts the focus away from Brennan.

    A remarkable number of the sources for the story spoke on the record: Tom Donilon, Cameron Munter, Dennis Blair, Bill Daley, Jeh Johnson, Michael Hayden, Jim Jones, Harold Koh, Eric Holder, Michael Leiter, John Rizzo, and John Bellinger. But it's not until roughly the 3,450th word of a 6,000 word article that Brennan is first quoted–and that's to largely repeat the pre-emptive lies of his drone speech from last month.

    "The purpose of these actions is to mitigate threats to U.S. persons' lives," Mr. Brennan said in an interview. "It is the option of last recourse. So the president, and I think all of us here, don't like the fact that people have to die. And so he wants to make sure that we go through a rigorous checklist: The infeasibility of capture, the certainty of the intelligence base, the imminence of the threat, all of these things."

    That is the only on-the-record direct quote from Brennan in the entire article, in spite of the centrality of Brennan to the story.

    And I would bet several of the sources quoted anonymously in the section describing Obama's method of counting the dead (which still ignores the women and children) are Brennan: "a top White House adviser" describing how sharp Obama was in the face of the first civilian casualties; "a senior administration official" claiming, in the face of credible evidence to the contrary, that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan were in "single digits."

    Note, too, the reference to a memo his campaign national security advisors wrote him.

    "Pragmatism over ideology," his campaign national security team had advised in a memo in March 2008. It was counsel that only reinforced the president's instincts.

    The memo was written not long after Brennan started playing a more central role among Obama's campaign advisors. But the story makes no mention of his presumed role in it. Further, in describing Jeh Johnson to introduce a quote, the piece notes that he was "a campaign adviser" (it doesn't say Johnson was also focused on voter protection). But it does not note that Brennan, too, was a key campaign advisor, one with an exclusively national security focus.

    Nor does the story note, when it describes how Obama "deployed his legal skills to preserve trials in civilian courts" it was John Brennan making that case , not the Attorney General .

    In other words, in several places in this story, Brennan plays a key role that is downplayed.

    The Pro-Drone Narrator

    Given that fact, I'm really interested in the several places where the story adopts a pro-drone viewpoint (it does adopt a more critical stance in the narrative voice at the end).

    For example, the story claims, in the first part of the story, that the drone strikes "have eviscerated Al Qaeda" without presenting any basis for that claim. This, in spite of the fact that al Qaeda has expanded in Yemen since we've started hitting it with drones.

    Later, the article uncritically accepts the claim that the drone–regardless of the targeting that goes into using it–is a "precision weapon" that constitutes a rejection of a "false choice between our safety and our ideals."

    The care that Mr. Obama and his counterterrorism chief take in choosing targets, and their reliance on a precision weapon, the drone, reflect his pledge at the outset of his presidency to reject what he called the Bush administration's "false choice between our safety and our ideals."

    For fucks sake! This article describes how the White House has adopted a "guilt by association" approach to drone targeting. It describes renamed signature strikes (though presents what is almost certainly an outdated picture of the targeting review process). Yet it uncritically accepts this "precision" claim–which clearly reflects a source's judgment–as true.

    Finally, a potentially even bigger bias is in the presentation of the al-Majala strike on December 17, 2009.

    It killed not only its intended target, but also two neighboring families, and left behind a trail of cluster bombs that subsequently killed more innocents. It was hardly the kind of precise operation that Mr. Obama favored. Videos of children's bodies and angry tribesmen holding up American missile parts flooded You Tube, fueling a ferocious backlash that Yemeni officials said bolstered Al Qaeda.

    The sloppy strike shook Mr. Obama and Mr. Brennan, officials said, and once again they tried to impose some discipline.

    The story doesn't name who the target was; it says only that the strike killed him, and the NYT repeats the claim without asking for such details.

    As I have noted , though, sources speaking immediately after the strike explained the target struck where "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned." (The quotes here are from the source, not the ABC report.) There was, of course, an imminent attack being planned at the time, one about which we had at least some advance intelligence. That was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attack. I'm pretty sure the strike on a Yemeni site 10 days after he left the country missed him, though.

    These last two quotes–perhaps all three–look like comments a White House figure (and it'll surprise no one that I suspect it's Brennan) gave on deep background, such that his exact words are used, but without quotation marks or any indication of the source. Credible journalists would have no other reason to make such unsubstantiated claims, particularly the "precision" claim that they disprove elsewhere in the same article.

    Who Okayed Killing Mehsud's Wife?

    Ultimately, the depiction of John Brennan as Obama's puppetmaster is most interesting in the telling of Baitullah Mehsud's killing. This version conflicts in key ways from the story that Joby Warrick told in his book, starting with the uranium claim that provided the excuse for targeting him. And while I'm working from memory, I believe Warrick portrayed the approval of that killing–which might kill Mehsud's wife in addition to Mehsud–as involving Panetta alone. This version says Panetta consulted Obama–through Brennan.

    Then, in August 2009, the CIA director, Leon E. Panetta, told Mr. Brennan that the agency had Mr. Mehsud in its sights. But taking out the Pakistani Taliban leader, Mr. Panetta warned, did not meet Mr. Obama's standard of "near certainty" of no innocents being killed. In fact, a strike would certainly result in such deaths: he was with his wife at his in-laws' home.

    "Many times," General Jones said, in similar circumstances, "at the 11th hour we waved off a mission simply because the target had people around them and we were able to loiter on station until they didn't."

    But not this time. Mr. Obama, through Mr. Brennan, told the CIA to take the shot, and Mr. Mehsud was killed, along with his wife and, by some reports, other family members as well, said a senior intelligence official.

    I'm not surprised by (or critical of) the conflict in the stories. It seems like Warrick relied primarily on CIA sources telling a packaged version of the strike, while this story tells another packaged version of it. (Note, curiously, Panetta is only named in this passage and never quoted.)

    But I am struck by how obviously this story–whether filtered through Brennan as a direct source for this story, or filtered through Brennan for Panetta's consumption at the time–depends on John Brennan to narrate Obama's role. If he weren't involved somehow, the NYT wouldn't have included the "through Mr. Brennan." And while the detail doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things–Mehsud's wife's death will weigh no more or less against Obama's and Brennan's record than Abdulrahman al-Awlaki or the Bedouin women and children at al-Majala–it is a testament to the degree to which this story, and so many of those cited in this article, depend on Brennan narrating Obama's role.

    As I'll show in a later post, I think this story is an attempt to combat the picture of John Brennan's private signature strike shop that has developed over the last month. Perhaps it's even a way to protect himself by implicating the President , as Brennan's old boss George Tenet did with torture . Perhaps, too, this article (which given the number of on-the-record quotes, must be sanctioned) is meant to add to the campaign's portrayal of Obama as a fearless counterterrorism warrior.

    But I'm just as fascinated by the way that Angler 2.0 managed to wield puppet strings for the story about himself, too.

    emptywheel

    Marcy has been blogging full time since 2007. She's known for her live-blogging of the Scooter Libby trial, her discovery of the number of times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, and generally for her weedy analysis of document dumps. Marcy Wheeler is an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including the Guardian, Salon, and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial. Marcy has a PhD from the University of Michigan, where she researched the "feuilleton," a short conversational newspaper form that has proven important in times of heightened censorship. Before and after her time in academics, Marcy provided documentation consulting for corporations in the auto, tech, and energy industries. She lives with her spouse and dog in Grand Rapids, MI.

    joanneleon says: May 29, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Wow, that NYTimes story has 1088 public comments as of now.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html

    MadDog says: May 29, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Like you EW, I got the sense that this NYT story was the product of a number of different motivations.

    There is clearly an attempt to sell the Team Obama Campaign 2012 political viewpoint of a steely-eyed leader astride his charging steed slaying the nation's enemies left and right.

    There is clearly an attempt by Father John, Blabbermouth of Brennan to sanctify his patron Saint Obama (and no less sanctify himself).

    There are a number of attempts by lesser Doubting Thomases to question the sanctity of both Saint Obama and Father John.

    There is a certain amount of seemingly NYT editorial tut-tutting as well as cheerleading.

    In the end, it seems to me that Team Obama Campaign 2012 narrative was the overarching theme, and a somewhat defensive one at that.

    By that I mean, the campaign narrative seemed to say that even if Obama hasn't done much of anything else, not much to get Americans back to work, not much to keep Americans in their homes, not much to calm the waters and heal the American political discourse, at least the American voting public can rest assured that he's personally taken charge of the nation's war on terrorism and has been slaying the dragons wherever they've appeared.

    [Mar 14, 2017] United States of Secrets William Binney - YouTube

    Mar 14, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    > > > > > >

    [Mar 13, 2017] Against the Fascist Creep

    Notable quotes:
    "... Against the Fascist Creep ..."
    Mar 13, 2017 | www.akpress.org

    This is the founding idea behind the fantastic new book, Against the Fascist Creep , by anti-fascist journalist and author, Alexander Reid Ross . The book, just released by AK Press , outlines a history of fascism since its development in Italy, Germany, Austria, and other European nations, and how it has shifted and evolved in the decades since.

    The "fascist creep," as I am using the term in this text, refers to the porous borders between fascism and the radical right, through which fascism is able to "creep" into mainstream discourse. Howev­er, the "fascist creep" is also a double-edged term, because it refers more specifically to the crossover space between right and left that engenders fascism in the first place. Hence, fascism creeps in two ways: (1) it draws left-wing notions of solidarity and liberation into ultranationalist, right-wing ideology; and (2), at least in its early stages, fascists often utilize "broad front" strategies, proposing a mass-based, nationalist platform to gain access to mainstream po­litical audiences and key administrative positions. (AtFC, pg. 3)

    Ross weaves a history in the crevices where fascism attempts to find an avenue into mainstream discourse and reclamation of its revolutionary potential. In the years after World War II, fascist ideologues changed their rhetoric and strategies, often arguing for ethnic separatism, anti-colonial racial nationalism, and meta-political orientations so that they could avoid the associations with the failed movements of Mussolini and Hitler. At the same time, far right terrorism through the Years of Lead had direct ties to the spiritual paths of people like Julius Evola and to right populist political parties like France's Front Nationale. Over the years the development of neofolk, Asatru and ethnic forms of Nordic paganism, the militia movement, the European New Right, and, later, the Alt Right, were all attempts at finding a new space for fascist ideas and a way to make them new and exciting again to an upcoming generation of racialists.

    [Mar 13, 2017] Boris and Natasha version of hacking might well be a false flag operation. How about developing Russian-looking hacking tools in CIA? To plant fingerprints and get the warrant for monitoring Trump communications

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you did not noticed Vault 7 scandal completely overtook everything else now. This is a real game changer. ..."
    "... Tell me who stole the whole arsenal of CIA hacking tools with all the manuals? Were those people Russians? ..."
    Mar 13, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc: March 12, 2017 at 10:14 PM

    Am I alone in thinking that Preet Bharara, the just fired US Attorney for Southern District of New York, would be the ideal Special Prosecutor of the Trump - Russia investigation

    Tom aka Rusty -> im1dc... Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 11:41 AM
    Bharara did not push back against "too big to prosecute" and sat out the biggest white collar crime wave in the history of the world, so why is he such a saint?

    Lots of easy insider trading cases.

    im1dc -> Tom aka Rusty... Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 05:01 PM
    I don't think you considered the bigger picture here which includes in Bharara's case his bosses to whom he would have to had run any cases up the flag pole for approval and Obama and Company were not at the time into frying Wall Street for their crimes b/c they were into restarting the Bush/Cheney damaged, almost ruined, US and global Economy.
    libezkova -> im1dc... Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 09:11 PM
    If you did not noticed Vault 7 scandal completely overtook everything else now. This is a real game changer.

    Just think, how many million if not billion dollars this exercise in removing the last traces of democracy from the USA and converting us into a new Democratic Republic of Germany, where everybody was controlled by STASI, cost. And those money were spend for what ?

    BTW the Stasi was one of the most hated and feared institutions of the East German government.

    If this is not the demonstration of huge and out of civil control raw power of "deep state" I do not know what is.

    If you are not completely detached from really you should talk about Vault 7. This is huge, Snowden size scandal that is by the order of magnitude more important for the country then all those mostly fake hints on connections of Trump and, especially "Russian hacking".

    Tell me who stole the whole arsenal of CIA hacking tools with all the manuals? Were those people Russians?

    If not, you should print your last post, shred is and eat it with borsch ;-).

    libezkova -> libezkova... Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 10:01 PM

    From this video it looks like CIA adapted some Russian hacking tools for their own purposes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z6XGl_hLnw

    In the world of intelligence false flag operations is a standard tactics. Now what ? Difficult situation for a Midwesterner...

    libezkova -> libezkova...
    Another difficult to stomach hypothesis:

    "Boris and Natasha" version of hacking might well be a false flag operation. How about developing Russian-looking hacking tools in CIA? To plant fingerprints and get the warrant for monitoring Trump communications.

    VAULT 7: CIA Staged Fake Russian Hacking to Set Up Trump - Russian Cyber-Attack M.O. As False Flag

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4CHcdCbyYs

    == quote ==

    Published on Mar 7, 2017

    "The United States must not adopt the tactics of the enemy. Means are important, as ends. Crisis makes it tempting to ignore the wise restraints that make men free. But each time we do so, each time the means we use are wrong, our inner strength, the strength which makes us free, is lessened." - Sen. Frank Church

    WikiLeaks Press Release

    Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault 7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.

    The first full part of the series, "Year Zero", comprises 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virgina. It follows an introductory disclosure last month of CIA targeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election.

    Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.

    "Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of "zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.

    Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.

    [Mar 13, 2017] Here is the edited version of Dr Steve Pieczenik interview

    Video
    www.youtube.com

    [Mar 11, 2017] Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists

    Notable quotes:
    "... Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the front of the battle with rebels ..."
    "... But Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics", proclaimed in eastern Ukraine in March, should send a shiver down Europe's spine. Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky, their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming. ..."
    "... The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf's Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites. ..."
    "... The regiment's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine. ..."
    "... Azov has gained notoriety among its detractors due to allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as the neo-Nazi sympathies of some of its members. ..."
    Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC : March 11, 2017 at 07:47 AM
    Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists


    Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the front of the battle with rebels

    By Tom Parfitt
    9:00AM BST 11 Aug 2014

    ......................................

    But Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics", proclaimed in eastern Ukraine in March, should send a shiver down Europe's spine. Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky, their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming.

    The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf's Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11025137/Ukraine-crisis-the-neo-Nazi-brigade-fighting-pro-Russian-separatists.html

    RGC -> RGC... , March 11, 2017 at 07:52 AM
    The Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов) is a National Guard of Ukraine regiment.[1][2][3][4]

    The unit is based in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal region.[5] It saw its first combat experience recapturing Mariupol from pro-Russian separatists forces in June 2014.[3]

    Initially a volunteer militia, formed as the Azov Battalion on 5 May 2014 during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, since 12 November 2014 Azov has been incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine.[6] All members of the unit are under contract of and serve as part of the National Guard of Ukraine.[7]

    More than half of the Battalion members are from eastern Ukraine and speak Russian,[8] and some of its recruits come from the eastern cities of Donetsk and Luhansk.[9] The regiment's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine.[10][11]

    In its early days, Azov was the Ministry of Internal Affairs' special police company, led by Volodymyr Shpara, the leader of the Vasylkiv, Kiev, branch of Patriot of Ukraine and Right Sector.[12][13][14] Under the "Azov" umbrella were also created the non-governmental organization "Azov Civil Corps" and the political party National Corps.[15]

    Azov has gained notoriety among its detractors due to allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as the neo-Nazi sympathies of some of its members.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

    [Mar 11, 2017] Whos Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?

    Notable quotes:
    "... While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle so they could defend themselves and their territory and a number of Russian nationalists have crossed the border to join the fight the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence. ..."
    "... One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing." ..."
    "... Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures. ..."
    "... "You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led attack on Iraq." ..."
    "... Slavs are killing each other for the same reason Arabs are killing each other: to ensure the USA geopolitical and economic interests are served well. Divide and conquer was polished by British elite to perfection, and the USA elite adopted this policy like a very talented student. This is what neocolonialism is about. Disaster capitalism in action. ..."
    Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC -> EMichael... March 11, 2017 at 09:10 AM , March 11, 2017 at 09:10 AM
    Who's Telling the 'Big Lie' on Ukraine?

    September 2, 2014

    By Robert Parry


    Official Washington draws the Ukraine crisis in black-and-white colors with Russian President Putin the bad guy and the U.S.-backed leaders in Kiev the good guys. But the reality is much more nuanced, with the American people consistently misled on key facts.
    ...............

    A Mysterious 'Invasion'

    And now there's the curious case of Russia's alleged "invasion" of Ukraine, another alarmist claim trumpeted by the Kiev regime and echoed by NATO hardliners and the MSM.

    While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle so they could defend themselves and their territory and a number of Russian nationalists have crossed the border to join the fight the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence.

    One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing."

    Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures.

    Concerned about the latest rush to judgment about the "invasion," the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former U.S. intelligence officials and analysts, took the unusual step of sending a memo to German Chancellor Angela Merkel warning her of a possible replay of the false claims that led to the Iraq War.

    "You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led attack on Iraq."

    But these doubts and concerns are not reflected in the Post's editorial or other MSM accounts of the dangerous Ukraine crisis. Indeed, Americans who rely on these powerful news outlets for their information are as sheltered from reality as anyone living in a totalitarian society.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/02/whos-telling-the-big-lie-on-ukraine/

    kthomas -> RGC... , March 11, 2017 at 08:27 AM
    Poor Slavs. Always killing each other because the other is too Slav or not Slav enough.
    libezkova -> kthomas... , March 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM
    Slavs are killing each other for the same reason Arabs are killing each other: to ensure the USA geopolitical and economic interests are served well. Divide and conquer was polished by British elite to perfection, and the USA elite adopted this policy like a very talented student. This is what neocolonialism is about. Disaster capitalism in action.

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

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

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

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

    More

    [Mar 11, 2017] Polanyi has shown that the rise of fascism was the direct result of the preceding rise of market liberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Polanyi has shown that the rise of fascism was the direct result of the preceding rise of market liberalism (Robber barons epoch in the USA) and the Crash of 1929 and subsequent Great Depression. ..."
    "... As Polanyi noted the fascist (far right militaristic nationalism) impulse -- in the impulse to protect society from "enemy forces" -- the liberalized market -- by sacrificing human freedom. In other words it was the direct result of the failure of market liberalism. ..."
    "... As Polanyi stressed "Fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function". ..."
    Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova -> anne... March 11, 2017 at 02:32 PM Polanyi has shown that the rise of fascism was the direct result of the preceding rise of market liberalism (Robber barons epoch in the USA) and the Crash of 1929 and subsequent Great Depression.

    Due to the financial bubble created in 20th nations were forced to choose between protecting the exchange rate, or protecting their citizens. In was out of this choice in favor of exchange rate and gold standard that fascism emerged.

    As Polanyi noted the fascist (far right militaristic nationalism) impulse -- in the impulse to protect society from "enemy forces" -- the liberalized market -- by sacrificing human freedom. In other words it was the direct result of the failure of market liberalism.

    Fascism and Bolshevism were not only alternatives social-economic systems; they also represented a drastic, radical departure from market liberalism. Kind of dialectic thesis-antithesis development.

    As Polanyi stressed "Fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function".

    anne -> libezkova... , March 11, 2017 at 02:46 PM
    Quite interesting. Do you have a specific reading in mind?
    libezkova -> anne... , March 11, 2017 at 06:11 PM
    This is Polianyi views, so his work is definitive.

    Connection between the crisis of neoliberalism and rise of neo-fascist movements was discussed by many researchers.

    You can try an excellent summation and update to Polanyi's critique of free-market fundamentalism in the book:

    The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi's Critique Paperback – August 29, 2016 by Fred Block (Author), Margaret R. Somers (Author)

    Here is one amazon review:

    Excellent review of Polanyi and excellent critique of the modern economy

    B. Brinkeron May 10, 2014

    This book deserves to be a part of the national discussion, as do Polanyi's thoughts. I read Polanyi some years ago and was looking for a refresher when I came across this book. This book not only reviews Polanyi's work and places it in the context of modern economic and sociological research, but also adapts many of his theories to the current times. Along the way the authors offer useful insights into Polanyi's life and how his experiences shaped his thoughts.

    ... ... ...

    Have you been noticing how politics is becoming increasingly polarized? If you hop over to look at the reviews for Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century" you'll notice that literally 100's of ideological zealots have been attacking the book. Not reading and critiquing, but posting bad reviews even though they've never read it.

    Ever wonder why people act like this? Why Market Fundamentalism has become so strong? This book will help you think on and answer these questions.

    Isn't it odd that we have been pursuing neo-liberal policies for 30 years, even though they have already proven to be a failure? Debt is rising, health care costs are spiraling out of control, college is unaffordable, the gap between rich and poor is widening. Despite the fact that we live in an age of failed neoliberalism, rolling back such policies isn't the answer, oh no what we need is more neoliberalism.

    This book will help you understand the appeal of neoliberalism and its emergence as a utopian ideal that can never be achieved. The book also explains the historical context of market fundamentalism and the decline of Keynesian economics to show why the one serious challenge to neoliberalism was eventually marginalized.

    The concept of neoliberal rationality and its link to the rise of anti-democratic movements was discussed by Wendy Brown

    https://www.amazon.com/Undoing-Demos-Neoliberalisms-Stealth-Revolution/dp/1935408534

    Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution


    Also see (weaker) Henry A. Giroux

    Proto-Fascism In America: Neoliberalism and the Demise of Democracy (Intersections: Education, Politics, Law, and Policy)

    https://www.amazon.com/Proto-Fascism-America-Neoliberalism-Democracy-Intersections/dp/0873678524

    And his article

    http://dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Giroux0807.htm


    Neoliberalism and the Demise of Democracy:
    Resurrecting Hope in Dark Times
    by Henry A. Giroux
    www.dissidentvoice.org
    August 7, 2004

    Send this page to a friend! (click here)

    Neoliberalism has become one of the most pervasive, if not, dangerous ideologies of the 21st century. Its pervasiveness is evident not only by its unparalleled influence on the global economy, but also by its power to redefine the very nature of politics itself.

    Free market fundamentalism rather than democratic idealism is now the driving force of economics and politics in most of the world, and it is a market ideology driven not just by profits but by an ability to reproduce itself with such success that, to paraphrase Fred Jameson, it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of neoliberal capitalism.

    ... ... ...

    As democracy becomes a burden under the reign of neoliberalism, civic discourse disappears and the reign of unfettered social Darwinism with its survival-of-the-slickest philosophy emerges as the template for a new form of proto-fascism. None of this will happen in the face of sufficient resistance, nor is the increasing move toward proto-fascism inevitable, but the conditions exist for democracy to lose all semblance of meaning in the United States..

    [Mar 11, 2017] US spies still wont tell Congress the number of Americans caught in dragnet

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump at least seems to have a problem with him or his associates being spied on lately. ..."
    "... Nothing can be done because the intelligence services are in the privileged position of being able to sabotage anybody's political career. So everyone keeps going through the motions of simulating free will while actually only doing as they're told. And it will only get worse so brace for it. ..."
    "... So essentially, the 3 letter agencies are not accountable to the US government. They can lie, cheat and hide information at will without any kind of consequence. They are running the show. ..."
    "... The US people has completely lost control over their governance. The constitution is a totally empty shell. ..."
    "... You would need more then just IP's to make that determination - anyone with a VPN can have an American IP address, same with TOR exit nodes. ..."
    "... The heads of these agencies knows if they ever say any number, that will be the end due to outrage. There is little to be gained, unless they are sent to prison. If I were a senator, I'd give immunity to some of the whistle blowers to find the truth. Give them a chance to testify about their bosses. ..."
    "... If they're scanning the backbone, AND checking the main sites people go to, that's pretty danged close to everybody. ..."
    "... The evasiveness is deceptive in and of itself. When the NSA says it "would require the Intelligence Community to conduct exhaustive analysis of every unknown identifier in order to determine whether they are being used inside or outside the U.S." that's because they don't even count the data as "collected" unless an analyst looked at it. Recorded? Doesn't count. Searched by computer programs for keywords or pattern matching? Doesn't count. A human looked at it? Ok, that counts. ..."
    "... By our definition, which says if you put the data in your database and use it when running searches, that data has been collected, there's no doubt the number is nearly the same as the US population, discounting only people with no online presence (e.g. infants). ..."
    Mar 11, 2017 | arstechnica.com
    In 2013, a National Security Agency contractor named Edward Snowden revealed US surveillance programs that involved the massive and warrantless gathering of Americans' electronic communications. Two of the programs, called Upstream and Prism , are allowed under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That section expires at year's end, and President Donald Trump's administration, like his predecessor's administration, wants the law renewed so those snooping programs can continue.

    That said, even as the administration seeks renewal of the programs , Congress and the public have been left in the dark regarding questions surrounding how many Americans' electronic communications have been ensnared under the programs. Congress won't be told in a classified setting either, despite repeated requests.

    mod50ack , Smack-Fu Master, in training Mar 10, 2017 6:38 AM Popular
    Yeah, you're not going to see anybody in the Federal Government really stopping this, no matter their party. 99 posts | registered 2/23/2014
    gmerrick , Ars Praefectus Mar 10, 2017 6:40 AM Popular
    If a government employee is not answering questions to the comittees regarding these issues, what measures can the comitties take to force an answer? Can they impeach, or compel testimony? Can they throw somebodies ass in jail until the question gets answered? 3033 posts | registered 9/20/2006
    Ziontrain , Ars Praefectus Mar 10, 2017 6:40 AM Popular
    Thing is, we all know two things:
    1) the number is 300 million +
    2) the "esteemed" members of congress are singled out for special surveillance

    As a result, the only possible outcome is the same procedure as all the previous times: congress rolls over. As should everyone's eyes who is watching this elaborate kabuki performance... 3189 posts | registered 7/7/2006

    d4Njv , Ars Scholae Palatinae Mar 10, 2017 7:23 AM Popular
    mod50ack wrote:
    Yeah, you're not going to see anybody in the Federal Government really stopping this, no matter their party.
    Trump at least seems to have a problem with him or his associates being spied on lately. Not sure how he feels about ordinary Americans /s. 1635 posts | registered 10/1/2013
    close , Wise, Aged Ars Veteran Mar 10, 2017 7:25 AM
    gmerrick wrote:
    If a government employee is not answering questions to the comittees regarding these issues, what measures can the comitties take to force an answer? Can they impeach, or compel testimony? Can they throw somebodies ass in jail until the question gets answered?
    Nothing can be done because the intelligence services are in the privileged position of being able to sabotage anybody's political career. So everyone keeps going through the motions of simulating free will while actually only doing as they're told. And it will only get worse so brace for it.
    arcite , Ars Legatus Legionis Mar 10, 2017 7:35 AM
    mod50ack wrote:
    Yeah, you're not going to see anybody in the Federal Government really stopping this, no matter their party.
    Ostensibly, they have the power to bring down the Trump admin...odds are he will increase their funding. ;)
    AHuxley , Wise, Aged Ars Veteran Mar 10, 2017 7:45 AM
    gmerrick wrote:
    If a government employee is not answering questions to the comittees regarding these issues, what measures can the comitties take to force an answer? Can they impeach, or compel testimony? Can they throw somebodies ass in jail until the question gets answered?
    The lack of overnight issue was attempted in the 1970's with the Church Committee.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee


    All that domestic US spying should have been stopped.

    Operation CHAOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHAOS showed domestic legal protections did not work.

    boondox , Ars Centurion Mar 10, 2017 8:04 AM
    Reisner wrote:
    The American people don't know and don't care to know. John Conyers really need to focus on the things that matter, like stopping Detroit from sinking into the abyss; getting jobs for his constituents; lowering the amount of kids being born out of wedlock and preventing them from killing each other over trivial things like clothes and being disrespected.
    I agree with you on the underlined. America seems more interested in amusing itself to death more than anything.

    The representatives of the people have their work cut out for them.

    Personne , Ars Scholae Palatinae Mar 10, 2017 8:28 AM
    So essentially, the 3 letter agencies are not accountable to the US government. They can lie, cheat and hide information at will without any kind of consequence. They are running the show.

    The US people has completely lost control over their governance. The constitution is a totally empty shell.

    AHuxley , Wise, Aged Ars Veteran Mar 10, 2017 8:37 AM
    Personne wrote:
    So essentially, the 3 letter agencies are not accountable to the US government.

    The US people has completely lost control over their governance. The constitution is a totally empty shell.

    Its more that staff feel Congress has no oversight as who they work for did not get established by Congress. The question of oversight authority was used to avoid questions until the 1970's.
    AutisticGramma , Ars Scholae Palatinae Mar 10, 2017 8:45 AM
    AHvivere wrote:
    Small nitpick to the author. You do know that having that particular picture on there constitutes a spillage for every single DoD and Federal employee that clicks on the article to read it right?
    And this is exactly why it should stay up. These agencies behavior is creating this for themselves. No over sight no funding, who ever signs the check is on the hook. The fed budget needs to reflect this. Someone signed off on authority to operate.
    SewerRanger , Ars Centurion et Subscriptor Mar 10, 2017 8:50 AM
    Hookgrip wrote:
    I would assume that they're collecting IP addresses along with this traffic. Couldn't that be used to generate at least a rough estimate of the number of US citizens targeted? Is there another way to generate a good estimate?
    You would need more then just IP's to make that determination - anyone with a VPN can have an American IP address, same with TOR exit nodes.

    This number would be completely useless. You'd have to cross reference the IP with a bunch of other data and that leads to a catch-22: you'd have to maintain a database of American data to be able to detect when you have American data so you can not keep it except what you have in your database of American data that you use to detect American data so you can not keep it.

    arcite , Ars Legatus Legionis Mar 10, 2017 8:54 AM
    Personne wrote:
    So essentially, the 3 letter agencies are not accountable to the US government. They can lie, cheat and hide information at will without any kind of consequence. They are running the show.

    The US people has completely lost control over their governance. The constitution is a totally empty shell.

    Vast bureaucracies have a life of their own, detached from the earthly proclivities of democractic transitions.
    Buchliebhaber , Wise, Aged Ars Veteran et Subscriptor Mar 10, 2017 9:18 AM
    Quote:
    Still, US spies say they don't track the number of Americans caught in this dragnet, in part to protect Americans' privacy. Performing this task would require spies to de-anonymize phone numbers and IP addresses to determine whether they're American, according to April Doss, a former NSA lawyer who testified (PDF) before the House Judiciary Committee on March 1.
    This seems to imply that they're reading the request to "get the count of Americans monitored" extremely literally, interpreting it as "get the exact number of Americans".

    The NSA has some very good mathematicians - they should easily be able to give a pretty highly accurate estimate using the sample data they already have from when they've de-anonymized targeted persons.

    Bodacious , Smack-Fu Master, in training Mar 10, 2017 9:21 AM
    AHvivere wrote:
    You are literally saying that 5 million people are bad. You sound retarded.
    I think he literally said the agencies' behavior is bad, which is literally not the same thing as saying everyone who works for them is. Are you a DoD or Federal employee?
    AutisticGramma , Ars Scholae Palatinae Mar 10, 2017 9:29 AM
    Buchliebhaber wrote:

    Still, US spies say they don't track the number of Americans caught in this dragnet, in part to protect Americans' privacy. Performing this task would require spies to de-anonymize phone numbers and IP addresses to determine whether they're American, according to April Doss, a former NSA lawyer who testified (PDF) before the House Judiciary Committee on March 1.

    This seems to imply that they're reading the request to "get the count of Americans monitored" extremely literally, interpreting it as "get the exact number of Americans".

    The NSA has some very good mathematicians - they should easily be able to give a pretty highly accurate estimate using the sample data they already have from when they've de-anonymized targeted persons, +/-10%.

    This estimate I'm sure was rolling around in the head of someone at the table.

    The whole point of the system is to provide information that they're requesting, literally how computers work.

    Stonewalling Congress needs to be a good way to find an agency with out funding or mandate.

    Instead it's more like Kanye stealing the mic at the grammys, but with more chest medals.

    AHuxley , Wise, Aged Ars Veteran Mar 10, 2017 9:31 AM
    AutisticGramma wrote:
    Do you have some context for 5 million people, this comment is an island not found on any map.
    The 5.1 million people number? Its amount of people who held some US government security clearance as of around 2013. Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, Gov staff, Contractors as a total.
    TheFu , Ars Scholae Palatinae Mar 10, 2017 9:32 AM
    We should send them to Guantanamo Bay until they talk and cut their funding 50%. The US Govt is supposed to work FOR US citizens. Something has gone wrong. People need to be held accountable. Spying on everyone is NOT ok without an individual, specific, tied-to-location, warrant signed by a judge outside some secret court.

    PERIOD.

    The heads of these agencies knows if they ever say any number, that will be the end due to outrage. There is little to be gained, unless they are sent to prison. If I were a senator, I'd give immunity to some of the whistle blowers to find the truth. Give them a chance to testify about their bosses.

    AnchorClanker , Wise, Aged Ars Veteran et Subscriptor Mar 10, 2017 9:40 AM
    Seems like it would be a minor exercise to analyze a valid sample of their intercepts and to project with enough accuracy to answer the question.

    A cynic might suspect that the answer to, "How many Americans' electronic communications have been ensnared under the programs?" may well be, "All of them."

    waasoo , Wise, Aged Ars Veteran Mar 10, 2017 9:41 AM
    Reisner wrote:
    The American people don't know and don't care to know. John Conyers really need to focus on the things that matter, like stopping Detroit from sinking into the abyss; getting jobs for his constituents; lowering the amount of kids being born out of wedlock and preventing them from killing each other over trivial things like clothes and being disrespected.
    I agree with a part of your sentiment but feel, maybe wrongly, that you are also hiding racism behind those words.

    The part that I agree with - most people don't care enough about spying programs or which 3 letter agency is scanning their ass. You can probably get 100 million Americans to sign a petition on facebook or twitter or your neighborhood supermarket and only because those are low investment options. There is nothing wrong with such an existential position; I am guilty of that for most part of the day. If the scanning keeps me "safe" and I have nothing to hide, why bother?

    Now, you will get a lot more people involved if such scanning led to prosecution for the little technical crimes we do every day of our life; until then this will continue if only with another name. 139 posts | registered 5/9/2012

    yankinwaoz , Ars Centurion Mar 10, 2017 9:50 AM
    I'm sure Feinstein has her rubber stamp out. There is no request from NSA/CIA that she doesn't love.

    Grrrrrr... 321 posts | registered 2/20/2013

    Jacee , Smack-Fu Master, in training Mar 10, 2017 9:56 AM
    Hookgrip wrote:
    I would assume that they're collecting IP addresses along with this traffic. Couldn't that be used to generate at least a rough estimate of the number of US citizens targeted? Is there another way to generate a good estimate?
    "Another way to generate a good estimate?" Certainly. Go to the US Census Bureau. They can get you real close. Or just google it. As of 2014, it was 318.4million

    If they're scanning the backbone, AND checking the main sites people go to, that's pretty danged close to everybody.

    bothered , Ars Scholae Palatinae Mar 10, 2017 10:13 AM
    yankinwaoz wrote:
    I'm sure Feinstein has her rubber stamp out. There is no request from NSA/CIA that she doesn't love.

    Grrrrrr...

    Don't vote for her again, I know I won't. Just got an email from Feinstein's office today with a laundry list of ways she is opposing Trump and his picks, no mention of national security issues. Im sure that Feinstein and the current Administration will come together on National Security - in their view its about "protecting American's" which I read as "covering my ass on my watch".
    ars diavoli , Ars Centurion Mar 10, 2017 10:46 AM
    gmerrick wrote:
    If a government employee is not answering questions to the comittees regarding these issues, what measures can the comitties take to force an answer? Can they impeach, or compel testimony? Can they throw somebodies ass in jail until the question gets answered?

    They could start cutting budgets, but that won't happen.

    carcharoth , Ars Scholae Palatinae Mar 10, 2017 10:56 AM
    "Congress and the public have been left in the dark regarding questions surrounding how many Americans' electronic communications have been ensnared under the programs."

    how is this acceptable? how are these programs still running period? where is the outcry?

    why wont they tell? because its not about "dragnet casualties," they're not accidentally spying on Americans, they've got a system they use to spy on who they want when they want to

    Its insane that these organizations can lie to the people, to their own gov't, and not get torn down

    AutisticGramma , Ars Scholae Palatinae Mar 10, 2017 11:03 AM

    The 5.1 million people number?

    Its amount of people who held some US government security clearance as of around 2013. Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, Gov staff, Contractors as a total. And how many of them are responsible for signing off on carte blanche spying on Americans with 0 oversight. Since clearance is on a need to know basis, did that many people need to know? I see you looking to divide and conquer here, you just end up sounding guilty. 5.1 million people wanted a paycheck while serving their country and deserve one. Around 500 elected officials are letting a select few ruin all of this for rest of us because rules are 'unamerican.'

    This is what happens 20 years after 'rules kill jobs' the same business leaders who didn't need rules 'cause jobs' now don't need rules as government appointees.

    NotJustAnotherRandmGuy , Wise, Aged Ars Veteran Mar 10, 2017 11:08 AM
    Hookgrip wrote:
    I would assume that they're collecting IP addresses along with this traffic. Couldn't that be used to generate at least a rough estimate of the number of US citizens targeted? Is there another way to generate a good estimate?
    All of it... the answer is all of it. Everything. Everybody. All. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein
    BobsYourUncleBob , Ars Tribunus Militum Mar 10, 2017 11:22 AM
    We cannot provide an answer to your request, Senator, simply because we don't know the answer. Should we ever embark upon data analysis that would provide the answer you're seeking, such action would constitute an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion on the privacy of U.S. persons; without specific statutory authorization, it would likely also be unlawful, since it would be both intrusive and unrelated to any need for foreign intelligence gathering.

    And we don't want to act in any manner that may be regarded as unlawful ... unless Congress were to provide authorization for us to do so ...

    Then there is the matter of resource allocation: current budgets constrain us from embarking upon such a program of data analysis, in terms of both the hardware and human resources that such a program would require.

    Estimates on the additional funding that such a program would require have been developed, however these budgetary requirements cannot be released to Congress, as they are classified. Should Congress decide to provide both authorization and funding for such a program, we can advise on the number of zeros ( "0" ) that the funding authorization should include.

    In summary, Senator, it would appear that "the ball is entirely in your court" so to speak ...

    jdale , Ars Tribunus Militum Mar 10, 2017 11:26 AM
    The evasiveness is deceptive in and of itself. When the NSA says it "would require the Intelligence Community to conduct exhaustive analysis of every unknown identifier in order to determine whether they are being used inside or outside the U.S." that's because they don't even count the data as "collected" unless an analyst looked at it. Recorded? Doesn't count. Searched by computer programs for keywords or pattern matching? Doesn't count. A human looked at it? Ok, that counts.

    By this definition, they should be able to produce a deceptively low number, perhaps thousands to tens of thousands per year.

    By our definition, which says if you put the data in your database and use it when running searches, that data has been collected, there's no doubt the number is nearly the same as the US population, discounting only people with no online presence (e.g. infants).

    In any case, the fact that they have prevaricated about this for the past 6 years makes pretty clear that the answer will not look good. It's time to end these programs. If they want them renewed, the replacements will need real oversight.

    [Mar 11, 2017] Snowden What The Wikileaks Revelations Show Is Reckless Beyond Words

    Notable quotes:
    "... The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words. ..."
    "... Evidence mounts showing CIA & FBI knew about catastrophic weaknesses in the most-used smartphones in America, but kept them open -- to spy. ..."
    "... So the CIA was doing the NSA's job, dropped the ball and let the weapons out to the world. I wonder if they were using these "tools" domestically outside of their mandate? As an agency you couldn't be more incompetent. Does anyone understand how much security they (CIA) have just compromised? This is so serous it's insane. ..."
    "... The issue is now all that software is running on nearly every computer out there. Every computer in the current paradigm is considered a security risk. ..."
    "... Android is Linux based as well as the routers that have been reportedly compromised use Linux as a Operating system. Nothing has been spared. ..."
    "... Now if IBM Mainframes are compromised it means, Banks, Insurance, and other behemoths (they mostly use IBM Main Frames for their back-end functions) maybe ticking time bombs. Scary shit. ..."
    Mar 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    While it has been superficially covered by much of the press - and one can make the argument that what Julian Assange has revealed is more relevant to the US population, than constant and so far unconfirmed speculation that Trump is a puppet of Putin - the fallout from the Wikileaks' "Vault 7" release this morning of thousands of documents demonstrating the extent to which the CIA uses backdoors to hack smartphones, computer operating systems, messenger applications and internet-connected televisions, will be profound.

    As evidence of this, the WSJ cites an intelligence source who said that " the revelations were far more significant than the leaks of Edward Snowden ."

    Mr. Snowden's leaks revealed names of programs, companies that assist the NSA in surveillance and in some cases the targets of American spying. But the recent leak purports to contain highly technical details about how surveillance is carried out. That would make them far more revealing and useful to an adversary, this person said. In one sense, Mr. Snowden provided a briefing book on U.S. surveillance, but the CIA leaks could provide the blueprints.

    Speaking of Snowden, the former NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower, who now appears to have a "parallel whisteblower" deep inside the "Deep State", i.e., the source of the Wikileaks data - also had some thoughts on today's CIA dump.

    In a series of tweets, Snowden notes that "what @Wikileaks has here is genuinely a big deal", and makes the following key observations "If you're writing about the CIA/@Wikileaks story, here's the big deal: first public evidence USG secretly paying to keep US software unsafe " and adds that "the CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words ."

    He then asks rhetorically "Why is this dangerous?" and explains " Because until closed, any hacker can use the security hole the CIA left open to break into any iPhone in the world. "

    His conclusion, one which many of the so-called conspiratorial bent would say was well-known long ago: " Evidence mounts showing CIA & FBI knew about catastrophic weaknesses in the most-used smartphones in America, but kept them open -- to spy. "

    To which the increasingly prevalent response has become: "obviously."

    Still working through the publication, but what @Wikileaks has here is genuinely a big deal. Looks authentic.

    - Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017

    If you're writing about the CIA/ @Wikileaks story, here's the big deal: first public evidence USG secretly paying to keep US software unsafe. pic.twitter.com/kYi0NC2mOp

    - Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017

    The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words.

    - Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017

    Why is this dangerous? Because until closed, any hacker can use the security hole the CIA left open to break into any iPhone in the world. https://t.co/xK0aILAdFI

    - Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017

    Evidence mounts showing CIA & FBI knew about catastrophic weaknesses in the most-used smartphones in America, but kept them open -- to spy. https://t.co/mDyVred3H8

    - Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017

    Looney -> PoasterToaster , Mar 7, 2017 2:33 PM

    The "Pandora's Box" clichι doesn't quite fit the use of Cyber Weapons, but another metaphor does – "Pinocchio's Screw".

    When Pinocchio discovered a screw inside of his belly button, he grabbed a screwdriver and two seconds later, his ass fell off . ;-)

    Looney

    froze25 -> nuubee , Mar 7, 2017 2:44 PM

    So the CIA was doing the NSA's job, dropped the ball and let the weapons out to the world. I wonder if they were using these "tools" domestically outside of their mandate? As an agency you couldn't be more incompetent. Does anyone understand how much security they (CIA) have just compromised? This is so serous it's insane.

    WordSmith2013 -> froze25 , Mar 7, 2017 2:56 PM

    "It doesn't get any bigger than Vault 7!"

    http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/03/vault-7-opened-up-the-biggest-meg...

    Vault 7 Opened Up: The Biggest Megillah of Them All
    CPL -> froze25 , Mar 7, 2017 3:06 PM

    Why do you think the geek community decided to go develop their own tools in parallel (Linux, BitCoin, DevOps platforms, etc)? We knew, we complained, we got shut down. The issue is now all that software is running on nearly every computer out there. Every computer in the current paradigm is considered a security risk.

    It also means the insurance industry now has to pull out of all insurance guarantees on engineered systems with an ISO certification for every industry. It's a fucked up mess that's going to cost tens of trillions of dollars to migrate and patch every existing system on the planet.

    froze25 -> CPL , Mar 7, 2017 3:22 PM

    Android is Linux based as well as the routers that have been reportedly compromised use Linux as a Operating system. Nothing has been spared. I believe IOS is UNix based (or IOS is just IOS) so that one is compromised as well. Now if UNIX is compromised that means (potentially) that IBM mainframes are compromised.

    Now if IBM Mainframes are compromised it means, Banks, Insurance, and other behemoths (they mostly use IBM Main Frames for their back-end functions) maybe ticking time bombs. Scary shit.

    [Mar 11, 2017] CIA faces huge problem over malware claims

    Mar 11, 2017 | www.bbc.com
    BBC
  • WikiLeaks, the CIA and your devices: what the documents reveal FT
  • CIA contractors likely source of latest WikiLeaks release: U.S. officials Reuters. Neoliberalism's "market state" puts government functions up for sale. So it's not surprising that people sell them.
  • CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley Moon of Alabama. Watch for the "atttribution problem" when CrowdStrike testifies at the upcoming Russki hearings. As I've said, "Internet evidence is not evidence."
  • WikiLeaks strikes again. Here are 4 big questions about Vault 7. WaPo. "In cyberspace, we mainly have a reasonability problem, not an attribution problem." Oh. OK.
  • CIA Did Not Have Multi-Factor Authentication Controls for All Users as Recently as August 2016 emptywheel
  • Oh, that traitorous WikiTrump Pepe Escobar, Asia Times (Re Silc).
  • Spicer says 'massive difference' between CIA WikiLeaks leak and Podesta email leak ABC
  • [Mar 11, 2017] Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and trashing WikiLeaks

    CIA and militarism loving Democrats are what is called Vichy left...
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help you. You have become The Borg." ..."
    "... There is a large amount of ground between being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies ..."
    "... I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them hard regarding all this. ..."
    "... US Deep state analogy to Stalin's machinations against his rivals seems reasonable. ..."
    Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Clinton wing of Democratic Party was always undistinguishable from Vichy left

    ilsm : March 11, 2017 at 03:26 AM

    pk love the dog, the rest is same-o-same, jumped the shark Stalinist rant except instead of Putin! it's Ryan!!

    reading vox.....

    feed your cognitive dissonance

    standards.......

    ilsm -> ilsm... , March 11, 2017 at 04:18 AM
    "Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help you. You have become The Borg."

    [my edits]

    ken melvin said in reply to ilsm... , March 11, 2017 at 09:13 AM
    Actually - Prof Rosser said it to you

    Barkley Rosser :

    anne and ilsm,

    I am going to make one more point, a substantive one. There is a large amount of ground between being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies and simply rolling over to be a patsy for the worst fort of RT propaganda and saying that there is no problem whatsoever with having a president who is in deep financial hock to a murderous lying Russian president and who has made inane and incomprehensible remarks about this, along with having staff and aides who lie to the public about their dealings with people from Russia.

    I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them hard regarding all this.

    If you find this offensive or intimidating, anne, sorry, but I am not going to apologize. Frankly, I think you should apologize for the stupid and offensive things you have said on this subject, about which I do not think you have the intimately personal knowledge that I have.
    Reply Wednesday, March 08, 2017 at 12:36 AM

    Paine -> ilsm... , March 11, 2017 at 08:19 AM
    My dear interlocutor
    As a once overt and future sleeper cell Stalinist
    I'm perplexed by your artful use of Stalinist

    In my experience that label was restricted to pinko circles notably
    Trotskyists pinning the dirty tag on various shades of commie types
    On the other side of the great divide of the early thirties

    Buy you --

    To you it seems synonymous with Orwellian demons of all stripes

    A part can of course stand in for a whole

    But can uncle joe really stand in for the DLC ?

    Paine -> Paine... , March 11, 2017 at 08:21 AM
    The new left extended fascist to fit Hubert Humphrey
    So I confess the stretch is conceivable but is it catalytic
    RGC -> Paine... , March 11, 2017 at 08:31 AM
    US Deep state analogy to Stalin's machinations against his rivals seems reasonable.

    Maybe you are more a Bukharinist than Stalinist.

    [Mar 11, 2017] Whos Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?

    Notable quotes:
    "... While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle so they could defend themselves and their territory and a number of Russian nationalists have crossed the border to join the fight the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence. ..."
    "... One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing." ..."
    "... Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures. ..."
    "... "You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led attack on Iraq." ..."
    "... Slavs are killing each other for the same reason Arabs are killing each other: to ensure the USA geopolitical and economic interests are served well. Divide and conquer was polished by British elite to perfection, and the USA elite adopted this policy like a very talented student. This is what neocolonialism is about. Disaster capitalism in action. ..."
    Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC -> EMichael... March 11, 2017 at 09:10 AM , March 11, 2017 at 09:10 AM
    Who's Telling the 'Big Lie' on Ukraine?

    September 2, 2014

    By Robert Parry


    Official Washington draws the Ukraine crisis in black-and-white colors with Russian President Putin the bad guy and the U.S.-backed leaders in Kiev the good guys. But the reality is much more nuanced, with the American people consistently misled on key facts.
    ...............

    A Mysterious 'Invasion'

    And now there's the curious case of Russia's alleged "invasion" of Ukraine, another alarmist claim trumpeted by the Kiev regime and echoed by NATO hardliners and the MSM.

    While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle so they could defend themselves and their territory and a number of Russian nationalists have crossed the border to join the fight the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence.

    One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing."

    Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures.

    Concerned about the latest rush to judgment about the "invasion," the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former U.S. intelligence officials and analysts, took the unusual step of sending a memo to German Chancellor Angela Merkel warning her of a possible replay of the false claims that led to the Iraq War.

    "You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led attack on Iraq."

    But these doubts and concerns are not reflected in the Post's editorial or other MSM accounts of the dangerous Ukraine crisis. Indeed, Americans who rely on these powerful news outlets for their information are as sheltered from reality as anyone living in a totalitarian society.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/02/whos-telling-the-big-lie-on-ukraine/

    kthomas -> RGC... , March 11, 2017 at 08:27 AM
    Poor Slavs. Always killing each other because the other is too Slav or not Slav enough.
    libezkova -> kthomas... , March 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM
    Slavs are killing each other for the same reason Arabs are killing each other: to ensure the USA geopolitical and economic interests are served well. Divide and conquer was polished by British elite to perfection, and the USA elite adopted this policy like a very talented student. This is what neocolonialism is about. Disaster capitalism in action.

    [Mar 11, 2017] Searching For The Origins Of Fascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not too long ago I argued * that Bonapartism in the nineteenth century was the predecessor of Mussolini fascism in the twentieth, the emphasis on a militaristic dictator emphasizing strong nationalism that smothers all groups into following the national leader. ..."
    "... Cola di Rienzo seized power in Rome in 1347, declaring a revived Roman republic and attempted to conquer Italy and declared that he wished to conquer the whole world. His rule did not last long and he fell from power after trying, but he took power under the first use of a red flag in political history, and he had a grandiose notion of himself, to put it mildly, giving himself the title "Nicholas, the Severe and Merciful, Tribune of Liberty, Peace and Justice, Liberator of the Holy Roman Republic." He was also the first person in history to write with a silver pen, with which signed official decrees. ..."
    "... "These are: literary, artistic, vague and contradictory ideas, practically unrelated to the contemporary world, the vast ambition to dominate all Italy, to re-establish the Empire, and, in the end the rest of Europ; the dream of building a 'new State,' inspired by ancient history, in which peace, law and virtue would prevail; a genuine love for his people,his country, and their glorious past, a love so intense it could be confused with self-love, as if he identified himself with Italy and the Italians; and the desire to avenge his peoples' ruin and humiliation, which he attributed solely to the wickedness of others." ..."
    Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : March 11, 2017 at 07:16 AM
    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2017/03/searching-for-origins-of-fascism.html

    March 9, 2017

    Searching For The Origins Of Fascism

    Not too long ago I argued * that Bonapartism in the nineteenth century was the predecessor of Mussolini fascism in the twentieth, the emphasis on a militaristic dictator emphasizing strong nationalism that smothers all groups into following the national leader. However, it turns out that Napoleon Bonaparte had his own model. When he invaded Russia he carried a book with him written in 1733 called Conjurat de Nicholas, dit de Rienzi, about Cola di Rienzo.

    Cola di Rienzo seized power in Rome in 1347, declaring a revived Roman republic and attempted to conquer Italy and declared that he wished to conquer the whole world. His rule did not last long and he fell from power after trying, but he took power under the first use of a red flag in political history, and he had a grandiose notion of himself, to put it mildly, giving himself the title "Nicholas, the Severe and Merciful, Tribune of Liberty, Peace and Justice, Liberator of the Holy Roman Republic." He was also the first person in history to write with a silver pen, with which signed official decrees.

    The astute Luigi Barzini in The Italians claims that he was the pure Italian hero and describes him as having the following characteristics (one sentence):

    "These are: literary, artistic, vague and contradictory ideas, practically unrelated to the contemporary world, the vast ambition to dominate all Italy, to re-establish the Empire, and, in the end the rest of Europ; the dream of building a 'new State,' inspired by ancient history, in which peace, law and virtue would prevail; a genuine love for his people,his country, and their glorious past, a love so intense it could be confused with self-love, as if he identified himself with Italy and the Italians; and the desire to avenge his peoples' ruin and humiliation, which he attributed solely to the wickedness of others."

    Addendum: Wagner's obscure early opera, "Rienzi," is about this figure....

    * Missing reference link

    -- Barkley Rosser

    RGC -> anne... , March 11, 2017 at 08:21 AM
    Fascist: origins in ancient Rome

    12:01AM GMT 24 Dec 2005

    The word fascist, perhaps one of the most abused forms of political abuse, should properly apply to those connected with the Italian party of that name, founded by Benito Mussolini and others in 1919.

    A fascis was a birch rod carried in ancient Rome by the lictors, a kind of proto-police force.

    The individual fascis was used to impose discipline on behalf of the state, but when bound together in a bundle of fasces, the one rod became, both symbolically and physically, stronger.

    The bundled rods, which also incorporated an axe symbolising the lictors' right to carry out judicial executions, became a symbol of power for the Romans, but it survived into later history.

    Some representations of the American flag contain a fasces symbol, as does the statue of Abraham Lincoln in his Memorial in Washington DC, albeit without the axe.

    The Romans were undoubtedly racist in outlook, and many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were slave-owners.

    Mussolini's political philosophy was not based to such an all-encompassing extent as Hitler's on dogmas of racial purity, but Jews and black people were routine targets of his thuggish supporters in post-First World War Italy.

    The history of Paolo di Canio's straight-armed salute, favoured by Mussolini and later adopted by the Nazis, also pre-dates Italian fascism.

    It is a subject steeped in dissent, but the salute seems to date back to the French Revolutionary period when the painter David depicted scenes of ancient Rome in which oaths of allegiance were accompanied by that type of salute.

    There seems to be no pictorial evidence of the salute in use in ancient Rome.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1506259/Fascist-origins-in-ancient-Rome.html

    [Mar 11, 2017] In the West, its now common for politicians to shout Russian fake news when embarrassing facts come out - as happened with Canadas new foreign minister hiding a Nazi family skeleton

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the West, it's now common for politicians to shout Russian "fake news" when embarrassing facts come out - as happened with Canada's new foreign minister hiding a Nazi family skeleton. ..."
    "... Over the next week, the article entitled "A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet" by journalist Arina Tsukanova (which I personally edited and fact-checked) circulated enough that Freeland was asked about it by the Canadian news media. As often happens these days, Freeland chose not to tell the truth but rather portrayed the article as part of a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign. ..."
    Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : March 11, 2017 at 09:25 AM

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/09/another-russia-fake-news-red-herring/

    March 9, 2017

    Another Russia 'Fake News' Red Herring

    In the West, it's now common for politicians to shout Russian "fake news" when embarrassing facts come out - as happened with Canada's new foreign minister hiding a Nazi family skeleton.

    By Robert Parry

    On Feb, 27, Consortiumnews.com published an article * describing misrepresentations by Canada's new Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland about her Ukrainian maternal grandfather whom she has portrayed as a hero who struggled "to return freedom and democracy to Ukraine" but left out that he was a Nazi propagandist whose newspaper justified the slaughter of Jews.

    Over the next week, the article entitled "A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet" by journalist Arina Tsukanova (which I personally edited and fact-checked) circulated enough that Freeland was asked about it by the Canadian news media. As often happens these days, Freeland chose not to tell the truth but rather portrayed the article as part of a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign.

    Freeland told reporters, "I don't think it's a secret. American officials have publicly said, and even [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel has publicly said, that there were efforts on the Russian side to destabilize Western democracies, and I think it shouldn't come as a surprise if these same efforts were used against Canada. I think that Canadians and indeed other Western countries should be prepared for similar efforts to be directed at them."

    Though Freeland did not comment directly on the truthfulness of our article, her office denied that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator.

    Other leaders of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government joined in the counterattack. Citing the danger of Russian disinformation, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, said, "The situation is obviously one where we need to be alert."

    In an article on March 6, Canada's Globe and Mail also rallied to Freeland's defense claiming that she was "being targeted by allegations in pro-Moscow websites that her maternal Ukrainian grandfather was a Nazi collaborator."

    The newspaper also reached out to other experts to add their denunciations of Consortiumnews.com and other news sites that either reposted our story or ran a similar one.

    "It is the continued Russian modus operandi that they have. Fake news, disinformation and targeting different individuals," said Paul Grod, president of the Canadian Ukrainian Congress. "It is just so outlandish when you hear some of these allegations – whether they are directed at minister Freeland or others."

    The Globe and Mail also quoted Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, Andriy Shevchenko, citing our supposedly fake news as "another reason we should realize that Russia is waging a war against the free world. It is not just about Ukraine."

    The ambassador then offered some advice about standing up to the Russians and their disinformationists: "I am absolutely sure they will seek new targets in the free world so I would encourage our Canadian friends to be prepared for that, to stay strong and we will be happy to share our experience in how to deal with all these information wars."

    A Second-Day Story

    The only problem with all these righteous condemnations was that the information about Freeland's grandfather was true – and Freeland knew that it was true.

    In a second-day story, The Globe and Mail had to revisit the issue, reporting that "Freeland knew for more than two decades that her maternal Ukrainian grandfather was the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper in occupied Poland that vilified Jews during the Second World War."

    In other words, not only was our story accurate but Freeland knowingly launched a deceptive attack on us and other news outlets to punish us for writing the truth.

    And not only was our story correct but it was newsworthy, given Freeland's fierce support for Ukrainian nationalism and her deep hatred of Russia. Canadians have a right to know what drives those passions in their Foreign Minister. In this case, her worldview derived from her grandparents who sided with Adolf Hitler and who fled to the West as the Soviet Red Army defeated the Nazis.

    Yet, instead of fessing up and acknowledging these facts, Freeland chose to dissemble and slander journalists who were doing their job. And the smears didn't entirely stop.

    Even as the Globe and Mail admitted the reality about Freeland's grandfather, it continued to disparage the journalists who had exposed the facts. The second line of the newspaper's second-day article read: "Ms. Freeland's family history has become a target for Russian forces seeking to discredit one of Canada's highly placed defenders of Ukraine." ...

    * https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/

    [Mar 11, 2017] The exposι on how Canada's Foreign Minister knowingly lied for 20 years about grandfather's past, now blames Russia

    Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : March 11, 2017 at 06:02 AM , 2017 at 06:02 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/840200091394818054

    Glenn Greenwald‏ @ggreenwald

    The exposι on how Canada's Foreign Minister knowingly lied for 20 years about grandfather's past, now blames Russia

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/freeland-knew-her-grandfather-was-editor-of-nazi-newspaper/article34236881/

    Freeland knew her grandfather was editor of Nazi newspaper

    Stories published in pro-Russian websites have said Ms. Freeland's strong stand against Russian aggression in Ukraine is linked to her grandfather's past.

    5:58 AM - 10 Mar 2017

    anne -> anne... , March 11, 2017 at 06:03 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/840199378459607044

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    Canada's Foreign Minister lied for 20 years about her Ukrainian grandfather being a Nazi collaborator, now blames Russia

    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/chrystia-freelands-granddad-was-indeed-a-nazi-collaborator-so-much-for-russian-disinformation

    Chrystia Freeland's granddad was indeed a Nazi collaborator – so much for Russian disinformation

    5:55 AM - 10 Mar 2017

    anne -> anne... , March 11, 2017 at 06:03 AM
    https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/839921709230747649

    Paul Krugman‏ @paulkrugman

    The people who brought us Trump now smearing the superb Chrystia Freeland, with mainstream media as useful idiots. Of course.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/terry-glavin-enter-the-freeland-nazi-conspiracy-and-the-amping-up-of-russias-mischief-in-canada

    Terry Glavin: Enter the Freeland-Nazi conspiracy - and the amping-up of Russia's mischief in Canada

    11:31 AM - 9 Mar 2017

    ilsm -> anne... , March 11, 2017 at 07:39 AM
    East Ukraine [Russians therein] have as much right to independence as Turks left behind in Kosovo.

    When the Red Army sets up a permanent [Camp Bonesteel] armed presence to assure the minority are safe it might look a tiny fraction like of the crimes of the US/NATO.

    Early in the "occupation" of Ukraine Hitler turned down the non Aryan volunteers, by D Day they were killing Americans in Normandy.

    In the case of Russian news I err on the side they are correct compared to the NYT which tells every who could be conned they "tell the neoliberal truth".

    anne : , March 11, 2017 at 06:28 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/840199378459607044

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    Canada's Foreign Minister lied for 20 years about her Ukrainian grandfather being a Nazi collaborator, now blames Russia

    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/chrystia-freelands-granddad-was-indeed-a-nazi-collaborator-so-much-for-russian-disinformation

    Chrystia Freeland's granddad was indeed a Nazi collaborator – so much for Russian disinformation

    5:55 AM - 10 Mar 2017


    https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/839921709230747649

    Paul Krugman‏ @paulkrugman

    The people who brought us Trump now smearing the superb Chrystia Freeland, with mainstream media as useful idiots. Of course.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/terry-glavin-enter-the-freeland-nazi-conspiracy-and-the-amping-up-of-russias-mischief-in-canada

    Terry Glavin: Enter the Freeland-Nazi conspiracy - and the amping-up of Russia's mischief in Canada

    11:31 AM - 9 Mar 2017

    anne -> anne... , March 11, 2017 at 06:35 AM
    Imagine such a Democratic opinion maker having absorbed and been overtaken by Cold War thinking, unable to be self-reflective enough to understand the disdain of a people that is being fostered, how damaging this can be, evidently wishing a return to the fearful 1950s.

    That such a Democratic opinion maker has come to use the language of the 1950s to instill disdain for a people and spread fear in those who would question or dissent from the prejudice continues to be shocking and dismaying.

    ilsm -> anne... , March 11, 2017 at 07:42 AM
    McCarthy bad analogy, he did not use the FBI on opponents to invade their privacy during a presidential campaign!
    kthomas -> ilsm... , March 11, 2017 at 08:31 AM
    Really? How do you know Hoover was not passing information to Sen. McCarthy?

    [Mar 11, 2017] John Helmer: Australian Government Trips Up Ukrainian Court Claim of MH17 as Terrorism

    Notable quotes:
    "... By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears ..."
    "... The Australian Government refuses to declare the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 a terrorist act, and is withholding state payments of $75,000 to each of the families of the 38 Australian nationals or residents killed when the plane was shot down in eastern Ukraine on July 14, 2014. ..."
    "... In public Turnbull said on Monday: "Vladimir Putin's Russia is subject to international sanctions, to which Australia is a part, because of his conduct in shooting down the MH17 airliner in which 38 Australians were killed. Let's not forget that. That was a shocking international crime." ..."
    "... Why were successive Australian officials so quick to designate the Nairobi and Brussels incidents as terrorism, before the local police and courts had time to investigate and prosecute, and why have the Australian officials spent two years and eight months refusing to designate the Ukrainian incident? Canberra sources believe the answer is that there is no legal basis in the Australian Criminal Code for doing so because the evidence of terrorism in the MH17 case isn't there. ..."
    "... Only a bloody fool would suggest that Putin has anything to gain by shooting down a civilian airliner. If Turnbull really believes this he should issue a travel advisory on all Australian airlines crossing Russian airspace. Whan I first heard of this it appeared that the rebels had shot the plane down thinking it was some kind of Ukranian plane. The Ukranian went full court with this to brand Russia a terrorist state, things went downhill from there. The Ukraine bears culpability for allowing transit flights over a disturbed area, thus they can't really press for a neutral judgement. ..."
    "... There was one KH-11 (USA-161) (2001-044A) that provides optical imagery in position at that time that might have had chance to image the area. However it might no longer have been functioning as it was deorbited a few months later. ..."
    "... On that day several radar imaging satellite / systems made passes over the area. Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A), FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A), the SAR-Lupe satellites, the Hιlios system and IGS. These are operated by the US, Germany, France and Japan. ..."
    "... My understanding is that the SBIRS saw the missile launch. Likely others 'saw' something. But likely, nothing any one satellite 'saw' is going to 'prove' anything. It would take the assembly of a number of things that were 'seen' to provide a weighted conclusion. Also a number of those satellites would have been looking at the Middle East instead of the Ukraine when they made those passes. ..."
    "... This sounds like another sleazy compromise. Maybe the secret is that the Russians have cold hard evidence against Nato and Ukraine on this. Perhaps evidence that the Netherlands also compromised its notorious caution and allowed somebody to let MH17 fly over a war zone. So with this obfuscation about lack of intent both Russia and Ukraine have won. ..."
    "... You make me think John Helmer. Yes, if Russian citizens, Putin or otherwise, are directly responsible for supplying the Buk that allegedly shot down flight MH17 to anyone in Ukraine or actually committed such an act, why are the Netherlands, USA, Australia, all countries of the world, especially those of Anglo-American persuasion, allowing their commercial aircraft to overfly Russian and Ukrainian territory? Why? Because they don't believe the story themselves, see Australia's stance, for instance. What a bunch of flaming hypocrites. The dead are dead so why not makt the best of them use them as an unprincipled excuse to achieve political ends. ..."
    "... This whole MH17 incident stinks to high heaven and I cannot believe how much of our media here in Oz is uncritically accepting the official story. What is worse is knowing that all those deaths are being used as a convenient political football, the truth be damned. I can think of a dozen things that set of my BS Indicator here with MH17 such as the Ukrainians absolutely refusing to release the ground control comms to the downed airliner or that, unlike the Russians, the US has refused to release detailed radar and radio intercepts for that day. They did reference a nice YouTube clip of a moving truck though ..."
    "... How many people know that the Ukrainians had their own BUK missiles in the area because they were shit-scared of the Russian Air Force maybe paying them a visit. Or that they had previously shot down an airliner – and had refused to accept responsibility? I think that Turnbull does not want the crash labelled a terrorist incident as when the full truth comes out (and it always does in the end) it would open up all sorts of legal liabilities and it could be him left swinging in the wind. ..."
    "... If you asked people in Australia if it was a good idea to ship uranium to a semi-failed state in the middle of a civil war that has made indications that they would like to acquire nuclear weapons most of them would say no way. And yet last year we signed an agreement to do precisely that with Ukraine. ..."
    "... As a former combat veteran, I can attest that the "smoking gun" in the MH17 case is the clearly identifiable circular holes in the fuselage which could only have been caused by the cannons of a fighter aircraft and not from shrapnel produced from an exploding missile. Shrapnel does not produce perfectly circular and consistent holes. MH17 was most likely brought down by the fighter jet following it in eyewitness accounts. ..."
    Mar 11, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on March 11, 2017 by Yves Smith By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

    The Australian Government refuses to declare the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 a terrorist act, and is withholding state payments of $75,000 to each of the families of the 38 Australian nationals or residents killed when the plane was shot down in eastern Ukraine on July 14, 2014.

    The Australian Attorney-General, George Brandis, has written to advise Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (lead image, left; right image, Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko) there is insufficient evidence of what and who caused the MH17 crash to meet the Australian statutory test of a terrorist act. Because the Attorney-General's legal opinion flatly contradicts Turnbull's public opinions, Brandis's advice is top-secret; he refuses to answer questions about the analysis of the MH17 incident which he and his subordinates, along with Australian intelligence agencies and the Australian Federal Police, have been conducting for more than two years.

    In public Turnbull said on Monday: "Vladimir Putin's Russia is subject to international sanctions, to which Australia is a part, because of his conduct in shooting down the MH17 airliner in which 38 Australians were killed. Let's not forget that. That was a shocking international crime."

    On Wednesday Turnbull was asked to explain why, after so long, the Prime Minister, on the advice of the Attorney-General, refuses to designate the MH17 incident as criminal terrorism according to the provisions of the Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Act. Turnbull replied through a spokesman that he is still investigating. "The criminal investigation of MH17 is ongoing. The outcomes of this investigation could be relevant in determining whether this incident should be declared for the purposes of the Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Payment scheme."

    Brandis was asked to explain the reason for the legal opinion Canberra sources confirm he has sent to the prime ministry denying the MH17 incident was terrorism. That he has provided the advice on AVTOP is confirmed by a source in Turnbull's office.

    AVTOP is the Canberra acronym for Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Payment. This is how the AVTOP scheme operates, and how eligibility is decided, according to the Australian social security ministry. It records that the last terrorism incident for which Australians qualify for AVTOP compensation was the Westgate shopping mall killings in Nairobi on September 21, 2013. There were 67 fatal casualties in that incident, and more than double that number of wounded. One Australian was killed. On October 6, 2013, two weeks after the incident, the Australian prime minister issued a formal designation of the terrorist incident for AVTOP compensation. That commenced on October 21, one month after the incident, according to the statutory filing in the Australian parliament.


    Source: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2013L01799/Explanatory%20Statement/Text

    The prime minister then was Tony Abbott; his attorney-general was Eric Abetz.

    In March 2016 Turnbull had replaced Abbott as prime minister; the attorney-general was Brandis. They agreed to designate three bombing attacks in Brussels, at the airport and at a city train station, as terrorist incidents for AVTOP. The date of the incidents was March 22 (pictured below). The date of the Turnbull-Landis designation was May 6 – 45 days later.

    There are press reports that Australians were in Brussels, and were anxious; there are no reports of Australians being killed or wounded in the attacks.

    Why were successive Australian officials so quick to designate the Nairobi and Brussels incidents as terrorism, before the local police and courts had time to investigate and prosecute, and why have the Australian officials spent two years and eight months refusing to designate the Ukrainian incident? Canberra sources believe the answer is that there is no legal basis in the Australian Criminal Code for doing so because the evidence of terrorism in the MH17 case isn't there.

    The 2013 and 2016 designations, along with the Canberra sources, identify a terrorist incident according to the Australian Criminal Code. Officials working under Brandis and Turnbull must satisfy the Attorney-General and Prime Minister that the incident comes under the Code's sub-section 100.1(1). This says a terrorist act "means an action or threat of action where: (b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and (c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of: (i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or (ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public."

    For background on the debate among government officials, police and lawyers about the impact of Australian law on the MH17 incident, read this .

    Canberra sources explain that even if Brandis had told Turnbull there was enough evidence to certify the MH17 shoot-down as a terrorist incident, according to the criminal code provisions, the prime minister still has a broad discretion in deciding whether or not to make a declaration regarding a particular incident.

    That Turnbull hasn't done so for the MH17 carnage means he doesn't want to do so - and not only because of his attorney-general's advice. Turnbull was also behind press leaks that as a cabinet minister under Prime Minister Abbott in August 2014, he opposed a scheme of Abbott's to send 3,000 Australian troops to join Dutch and other NATO forces in a US-backed military operation in eastern Ukraine. Abbott and NATO had prepared the justification for the military operation as Russian state terrorism in downing the MH17. Turnbull arranged for his son-in-law to reveal the cabinet papers and intelligence reports from the time, and to record his assessment that Abbott was foolhardy. For that story, click here .

    Australian sources who know Turnbull don't agree in their interpretation of what he is now saying and doing. Some sources believe that with his political mouth Turnbull is backing the US position against Russia and protecting himself from opposition party attacks that he is "soft" on the Kremlin. With his legal mind Turnbull knows there is no admissible evidence and no prospect of prosecuting terrorism in the MH17 case.

    The Australians haven't realized that their decision that the MH17 is not a terrorist act undermines this month's proceedings in The Netherlands, where the Ukrainian government has applied to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to convict Russia of financing, arming and aiding terrorist acts, including the destruction of MH17. The lawyers engaged this week at The Hague haven't realized either.

    The 45-page Ukrainian claim against Moscow to the ICJ is dated January 16, 2017, and can be read here . The US law firm Covington & Burling is defending the Kiev government; the advocates for the Russian side include British and French lawyers.

    Advocates for Kiev at the ICJ this week: left US lawyer Marney Cheek; right, Olena Zerkal, Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine

    According to the Ukrainian claim, the destruction of MH17 was an act of terrorism. "When the Russian Federation delivered this deadly surface-to-air missile system to the DPR, it knew precisely the type of organization it was aiding The Russian government knew or should have known that their proxies would use these powerful antiaircraft weapons in a manner consistent with their previous pattern of disregard for civilian life."

    "By the early summer of 2014, the Russian Federation was well aware that its proxies operating on Ukrainian territory were engaged in a pattern and practice of terrorizing civilians. Yet rather than intervening to abate those actions, the Russian Federation's response was to substantially increase these groups' firepower by supplying them with powerful weapons. An early result of this decision was the attack on Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17. In July 2014, as part of this escalation of arms supplies and other support, the Russian Federation delivered a Buk surface-to-air missile system to DPR-associated forces. Those illegal armed groups used the Buk system to commit a devastating surface-to-air attack, destroying a civilian airliner transiting Ukrainian airspace and murdering the 298 individuals on board These perpetrators committed this terrorist attack with the direct support of the Russian government There is no evidence that the Russian Federation has taken any responsibility before the peoples of the world for supporting this horrific terrorist act."

    "Ukraine respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Russian Federation bears international responsibility, by virtue of its sponsorship of terrorism and failure to prevent the financing of terrorism under the Convention, for the acts of terrorism committed by its proxies in Ukraine, including: a.The shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17."

    The Russian presentations in open court so far can be read here . Ilya Rogachev, Director of the Department of New Challenges and Threats at the Russian Foreign Ministry, testified in front of 16 judges of the court on March 7. Rogachev was followed for the Russian side by London Queens Counsel, Samuel Wordsworth.

    According to Rogachev, "it should be noted that during the summer of 2014 the Ukrainian Army's anti-aircraft missile regiment No. 156, equipped with 'BUK-M1' missile systems, was stationed in the zone of conflict. The regiment's headquarters and its first division were located in Avdiivka near Donestk, its second division in Mariupol and its third in Lugansk. In total the regiment was armed with 17 BUK-M1 SAMs, identical to the one identified by the JIT."

    He went on to argue that whether the Ukrainian forces fired the BUK missile, or whether the separatists did, there is no evidence that either force intended to do so. "It is enough to note," said Rogachev, "that neither the DSB [Dutch Safety Board] nor the JIT [Joint Investigation Team] appear to be concluding that the civil airliner was shot down with malicious intent or, which is what matters most for today, that the equipment allegedly used was provided for that specific purpose."

    The JIT, according to Turnbull's spokesman in Canberra this week, includes Australia,Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine. The spokesman said they "remain committed to ensuring those responsible for the downing of MH17 are held to account." On the other hand, the evidence so far produced by the JIT hasn't satisfied the admissibility and prosecution tests of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) officers on the JIT staff. The AFP's Commissioner Andrew Colvin reports to the Australian Justice Minister and he, as well as the AFP , are part of the portfolio of Attorney- General Brandis.

    In two Australian coroners court hearings, the AFP has revealed serious reservations about the Dutch evidence and Ukrainian claims in the MH17 investigation; for details read this and this .

    Turnbull adds through his spokesman an additional qualification. "The outcomes of this investigation could be relevant" in determining whether the downing of MH17 was a terrorist act. In Australian law and in the Prime Minister's judgement, could means not now – and not at the International Court.

    "For the action to fall under the Montreal Convention," Rogachev testified this week in The Hague, referring to the principal international treaty covering compensation for aircraft incidents, "the intention must have been to shoot down a civilian aircraft "

    Wordsworth told the ICJ judges that for every act alleged in the court papers by the Kiev regime, "there is a separate requirement of specific intent. So far as concerns Ukraine's allegations with respect to Flight MH17, Article 2.1 (a) incorporates the offences under the Montreal Convention, which comprise the unlawful and intentional destruction of a civilian aircraft. So far as concerns the other allegations of Ukraine, there is a requirement of both specific intent and purpose. Article 2 (1) (b) refers to: "(b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

    Wordsworth was repeating in open court what the Australian Attorney-General has already advised the Australian Prime Minister. Because the Australians have decided there is no case for a terrorist act to justify compensating their own citizens, the Ukrainians have already lost their case.

    Ivan , March 11, 2017 at 2:20 am

    Only a bloody fool would suggest that Putin has anything to gain by shooting down a civilian airliner. If Turnbull really believes this he should issue a travel advisory on all Australian airlines crossing Russian airspace. Whan I first heard of this it appeared that the rebels had shot the plane down thinking it was some kind of Ukranian plane. The Ukranian went full court with this to brand Russia a terrorist state, things went downhill from there. The Ukraine bears culpability for allowing transit flights over a disturbed area, thus they can't really press for a neutral judgement.

    hemeantwell , March 11, 2017 at 7:49 am

    I'll add the usual point that the charge is all the more incredible because none of the US' radar and satellite coverage at the time has been brought to bear to "prove" Russian complicity. Ukraine air space 7/24/14, unplugged?

    Bill Smith , March 11, 2017 at 9:12 am

    There was one KH-11 (USA-161) (2001-044A) that provides optical imagery in position at that time that might have had chance to image the area. However it might no longer have been functioning as it was deorbited a few months later.

    There were also a number of commercial imaging satellites that passed through the area that day.

    On that day several radar imaging satellite / systems made passes over the area. Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A), FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A), the SAR-Lupe satellites, the Hιlios system and IGS. These are operated by the US, Germany, France and Japan.

    There were numerous (too many to list) SIGNIT satellites operated by a number of countries from LEO to HEO (SBIRS).

    My understanding is that the SBIRS saw the missile launch. Likely others 'saw' something. But likely, nothing any one satellite 'saw' is going to 'prove' anything. It would take the assembly of a number of things that were 'seen' to provide a weighted conclusion. Also a number of those satellites would have been looking at the Middle East instead of the Ukraine when they made those passes.

    But what do you mean by 'prove'?

    susan the other , March 11, 2017 at 10:48 am

    This sounds like another sleazy compromise. Maybe the secret is that the Russians have cold hard evidence against Nato and Ukraine on this. Perhaps evidence that the Netherlands also compromised its notorious caution and allowed somebody to let MH17 fly over a war zone. So with this obfuscation about lack of intent both Russia and Ukraine have won.

    If intent cannot be proven against the Russians, it can't be proven against the Ukrainian army either because the evidence presented eliminated all the above top secret details. So now the whole thing was an "accident". When, if all the evidence were reviewed, a case for intent falls against Nato and Ukraine – they intended to frame Russia for the incident to gain support for their cause. And as such it does meet the definition of terrorism. At least Turnbull refused to call it Russian terrorism.

    rkka , March 11, 2017 at 2:38 am

    What I want to know is why the Ukrainian air traffic control system directed this flight over a zone of active hostilities, where the Ukrainian Air Force had previously had a good many military aircraft shot out of the sky.

    Bill Smith , March 11, 2017 at 9:19 am

    The answer to the first part of your question is that countries get paid for over flights. The second part of your question is that all the Ukrainian Air Force planes that had been shot down were flying much, much lower and it was assumed the equipment being used to do it couldn't go as high as the commercial airliners were flying.

    You, know sort of like the Soviets couldn't reach the U-2.

    tgs , March 11, 2017 at 9:29 am

    And of course the tapes from the control tower have simply disappeared.

    Here is a another Australian lawyer who outlines why the investigation was compromised from the beginning.

    MH17 and the JIT: A Flawed Investigation

    dcrane , March 11, 2017 at 4:32 am

    Indeed – even if they had no reason to believe that a capability to shoot down airliners at 30,000 feet plus (i.e., a weapon like the Buk-M1) was present on the ground at that point, commerical airliners are sometimes required to descend rapidly to much lower altitudes (e.g., by pressure emergencies) so it makes no sense to rely on an assumption that hostile weapons can't reach the usual cruising altitude. It is a fair question what the airline ops people were thinking as well.

    Agreed that this has always seemed more likely to be a reckless screwup by the people running the BUK than a deliberate terrorist act. (Then again, I think the host nations do make money from these flyovers.)

    Bill Smith , March 11, 2017 at 9:16 am

    I agree with your conclusion that it was a total screw up. Only part of the system was present and that cut down the ability to see the entire picture (or better see the entire picture).

    martanus , March 11, 2017 at 5:20 am

    interesting study of accident MH17

    https://mh17web.wordpress.com/

    Barry Fay , March 11, 2017 at 10:05 am

    What a great article! Must read!

    Quentin , March 11, 2017 at 6:32 am

    You make me think John Helmer. Yes, if Russian citizens, Putin or otherwise, are directly responsible for supplying the Buk that allegedly shot down flight MH17 to anyone in Ukraine or actually committed such an act, why are the Netherlands, USA, Australia, all countries of the world, especially those of Anglo-American persuasion, allowing their commercial aircraft to overfly Russian and Ukrainian territory? Why? Because they don't believe the story themselves, see Australia's stance, for instance. What a bunch of flaming hypocrites. The dead are dead so why not makt the best of them use them as an unprincipled excuse to achieve political ends.

    The Rev Kev , March 11, 2017 at 7:39 am

    This whole MH17 incident stinks to high heaven and I cannot believe how much of our media here in Oz is uncritically accepting the official story. What is worse is knowing that all those deaths are being used as a convenient political football, the truth be damned. I can think of a dozen things that set of my BS Indicator here with MH17 such as the Ukrainians absolutely refusing to release the ground control comms to the downed airliner or that, unlike the Russians, the US has refused to release detailed radar and radio intercepts for that day. They did reference a nice YouTube clip of a moving truck though.

    How many people know that the Ukrainians had their own BUK missiles in the area because they were shit-scared of the Russian Air Force maybe paying them a visit. Or that they had previously shot down an airliner – and had refused to accept responsibility? I think that Turnbull does not want the crash labelled a terrorist incident as when the full truth comes out (and it always does in the end) it would open up all sorts of legal liabilities and it could be him left swinging in the wind.

    Following American policy for this area, of which Australia has no connection, has led to all sorts of weird repercussions. Tony Abbott wanted to send a brigade of our troops to eastern Ukraine as part of a NATO force. That would of worked out well! If you asked people in Australia if it was a good idea to ship uranium to a semi-failed state in the middle of a civil war that has made indications that they would like to acquire nuclear weapons most of them would say no way. And yet last year we signed an agreement to do precisely that with Ukraine.

    andyb , March 11, 2017 at 8:23 am

    As a former combat veteran, I can attest that the "smoking gun" in the MH17 case is the clearly identifiable circular holes in the fuselage which could only have been caused by the cannons of a fighter aircraft and not from shrapnel produced from an exploding missile. Shrapnel does not produce perfectly circular and consistent holes. MH17 was most likely brought down by the fighter jet following it in eyewitness accounts.

    Persona au gratin , March 11, 2017 at 10:34 am

    Agreed. This would not be an issue at all were it not for the propaganda smoke screen the western MSM was ordered to throw up to protect those who must never be named.

    originalone , March 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I remember reading that Putin was traveling back to Russia and his flight path was changed prior to the shoot down of MH17, which was on the same flight path, but wasn't altered. A mistake by the Ukrainians who didn't get the word? As for the silence of the U.S., seems to go with the territory considering who is/was at center stage in the overthrow revolution.

    [Mar 10, 2017] CIA Leak Shows Sliding Down the Slippery Slope Toward Totalitarianism, Where Private Lives Do Not Exist

    Notable quotes:
    "... The elephant in the room is not privacy problems. It is blackmail for various purposes. ..."
    "... This makes he US Government totally dysfunctional. the spread of such spy technique has created chaos. Latest news is that Democrats paid some hackers for not revealing their server information. ..."
    "... I don't think this can be stopped. But we need more open discussion about blackmailing and thus protection from such methods. An elected President or Official should not have their private life discussed by the Media. It should be banned ..."
    "... And Clinton never feared anything, probably because the CIA was in her pocket and could get the goods on anybody even Loretta Lynch. ..."
    Mar 10, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    That the CIA has reached into the lives of all Americans through its wholesale gathering of the nation's "haystack" of information has already been reported.

    It is bad enough that the government spies on its own people. It is equally bad that the CIA, through its incompetence, has opened the cyberdoor to anyone with the technological skills and connections to spy on anyone else.

    The constant erosion of privacy at the hands of the government and corporations has annihilated the concept of a "right to privacy," which is embedded in the rationale of the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

    It is becoming increasingly clear that we are sliding down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism, where private lives do not exist.

    We have entered a condition of constitutional crisis that requires a full-throated response from the American people.

    Before you label Kucinich as being overly-dramatic, you may want to note that Bill Binney – the high-level NSA executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information, the 36-year NSA veteran widely who was the senior technical director within the agency and managed thousands of NSA employees – told Washington's Blog that America has already become a police state.

    And Thomas Drake – one of the top NSA executives, and Senior Change Leader within the NSA – told us the same thing.

    And Kirk Wiebe – a 32-year NSA veteran who received the Director CIA's Meritorious Unit Award and the NSA's Meritorious Civilian Service Award – agrees (tweet via Jesselyn Radack, attorney for many national security whistleblowers, herself a Department of Justice whistleblower):

    It's not just NSA officials Two former U.S. Supreme Court Justices have warned that America is sliding into tyranny.

    A former U.S. President , and many other high-level American officials agree.

    BuckWild , Mar 9, 2017 9:01 PM

    #1 problem all other unconstitutional problems stem from FRB

    Wild E Coyote , Mar 9, 2017 8:58 PM

    The elephant in the room is not privacy problems. It is blackmail for various purposes.

    We have many indications that politicians, judges, officials and even other intel organizations are being blackmailed, and destroyed using lucid information from their private life.

    This makes he US Government totally dysfunctional. the spread of such spy technique has created chaos. Latest news is that Democrats paid some hackers for not revealing their server information.

    I don't think this can be stopped. But we need more open discussion about blackmailing and thus protection from such methods. An elected President or Official should not have their private life discussed by the Media. It should be banned.

    GRDguy , Mar 9, 2017 8:56 PM

    All we're really seeing is the wet dreams of banksters efforts of over 400+ years "to own the earth in fee-simple."

    Our real problem is that their efforts makes them richer while making everyone else poorer.

    The only way to stop the Money Kings is not to do business with them; an extremely difficult task.

    Sometimes The Dragon Wins

    JailBanksters , Mar 9, 2017 8:51 PM

    The old adage about, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear ....

    I don't think a lot of people realize the scope of this, because it's not about you.

    If Trump was hacked, that information could be used against him, like blackmail in order to change his action or direction on certain things.

    Clinton: You should be in Jail, they're GOOD People, so I won't be appointing a special prosecutor.

    And Clinton never feared anything, probably because the CIA was in her pocket and could get the goods on anybody even Loretta Lynch.

    That's what this is about. And that's why Trump can't win.

    [Mar 10, 2017] Latest WikiLeaks dump reveals CIA can hack computers, smartphones, even TVs

    Notable quotes:
    "... the code tracking system of the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence has more than 5,000 registered users. ..."
    "... Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook ..."
    "... The documents, which appear to have been acquired at least several months ago, detail exploits (or techniques to expose vulnerabilities) for a wide variety of desktop and mobile operating systems, including Android, iOS, Windows, Linux and the server operating system Solaris. ..."
    "... The documents appear to have been extracted from an internal CIA wiki website that was established to provide authorized users download access to the malware programs and also to instruct users on how to deploy them. ..."
    "... an archive of the software and its documentation had been circulating among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner for some time. ..."
    "... The site's editor, Julian Assange, said there was an "extreme proliferation risk" in the development of malicious software by governments, which he compared to the global arms trade. ..."
    "... The Vault 7 documents also disclose that the CIA purchases software exploits from other intelligence agencies, including Britain's MI5. The documents also indicate that the CIA has purchased exploits from shadowy private companies going by such names as Fangtooth, Anglerfish and SurfsUp. Instead of reporting security holes to software companies like Microsoft or Google, these companies peddle the vulnerability to the highest bidder. ..."
    "... If this information is accurate, the agency may be in violation of a policy put into place by former President Barack Obama in 2013 that was intended to prohibit the government from exploiting vulnerabilities that were unknown to software makers. ..."
    "... Besides speeding up the development time for malware for the CIA's use, the agency's use of outside-sourced malware also enables the CIA to make digital forensic investigators believe that an unknown outside party may have been behind an infiltration, rather than a government agency. ..."
    "... A veteran writer, tv producer, and web developer, Matthew Sheffield writes about politics, media, and technology for Salon. You can email him via [email protected] or follow him on Twitter . ..."
    "... Okay, so "who cares" that we have a CIA with unchecked powers and no publicly discernible agenda, but RUSSIA!! ..."
    "... How many agencies do we need to do the same things and replicate each others work? 16 intelligence agencies? ..."
    "... And if you think you only need to worry about your computers, phones, and TVs being full of Mama Gubmint's lackeys consider your car. It has it's own ID and the roads are bristling with detectors too. License plate scanners, facial recognition, chem/radiation detectors, etc. 1984 has long been with us. ..."
    Mar 10, 2017 | www.salon.com
    ...The disclosure revealed that the CIA has its own division dedicated solely to computer hacking that rivals the National Security Agency's online espionage operation. According to WikiLeaks, the code tracking system of the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence has more than 5,000 registered users.

    "Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook," WikiLeaks said in an introductory statement accompanying the documents. "The CIA had created, in effect, its 'own NSA' with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified."

    Tuesday's disclosure is only the first part of what WikiLeaks is calling its "Vault 7" series of documents obtained from what it said was an "isolated, high-security network" located within the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The documents, which appear to have been acquired at least several months ago, detail exploits (or techniques to expose vulnerabilities) for a wide variety of desktop and mobile operating systems, including Android, iOS, Windows, Linux and the server operating system Solaris.

    The CIA also appears to have developed methods to hijack internet-enabled televisions from Samsung to use them to record audio such as conversations, through the use of a "Fake Off" mode so that the TV appears to be powered down but actually is not.

    The stolen information indicates that the intelligence agency also appears to have the ability to gain access to messaging programs like Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal and iMessage that have been billed as secure because they encrypt all messages between participants. Instead of intercepting a messages en route, however, the exploits work at more basic level to intercept and capture audio and text before they are encrypted and transmitted.

    The documents appear to have been extracted from an internal CIA wiki website that was established to provide authorized users download access to the malware programs and also to instruct users on how to deploy them.

    WikiLeaks did not release any of the code behind the so-called cyber-weapons, but said that an archive of the software and its documentation had been circulating among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner for some time.

    The site's editor, Julian Assange, said there was an "extreme proliferation risk" in the development of malicious software by governments, which he compared to the global arms trade.

    The Vault 7 documents also disclose that the CIA purchases software exploits from other intelligence agencies, including Britain's MI5. The documents also indicate that the CIA has purchased exploits from shadowy private companies going by such names as Fangtooth, Anglerfish and SurfsUp. Instead of reporting security holes to software companies like Microsoft or Google, these companies peddle the vulnerability to the highest bidder.

    If this information is accurate, the agency may be in violation of a policy put into place by former President Barack Obama in 2013 that was intended to prohibit the government from exploiting vulnerabilities that were unknown to software makers.

    Besides speeding up the development time for malware for the CIA's use, the agency's use of outside-sourced malware also enables the CIA to make digital forensic investigators believe that an unknown outside party may have been behind an infiltration, rather than a government agency.

    ... ... ...

    A veteran writer, tv producer, and web developer, Matthew Sheffield writes about politics, media, and technology for Salon. You can email him via [email protected] or follow him on Twitter .

    zackeryzackery , 2017-03-10T03:32:31

    Anyone interested in the Russian Bank / Trump Server connection:

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/01/heres-the-problem-with-the-story-connecting-russia-to-donald-trumps-email-server/

    Looks like the libtards will twist any facts to fit their narrative.

    DirtyDan23 , 2017-03-09T19:30:29
    But ... but .... RUSSIA!!!!!. Look guys, RUSSIA! The Obama administration repeatedly broke federal laws, lied about breaking those laws, got caught lying about breaking those laws (thank you "whistle blowers") then said it stopped breaking said laws. Then it got caught lying about saying it stopped breaking laws.
    A Real American , 2017-03-09T16:55:26
    Who cares. But what we also know is that The "President" is Putin's puppet. When is Assange going to leak that? And Don the Con has already paid Putin back by destroying the State Department. Sad.
    Captain America , 2017-03-09T17:05:13

    @ A Real American

    Okay, so "who cares" that we have a CIA with unchecked powers and no publicly discernible agenda, but RUSSIA!!

    You sound like McCarthy. Is that the New Democratic Party?

    Fester N Boyle , 2017-03-09T11:16:11

    How many agencies do we need to do the same things and replicate each others work? 16 intelligence agencies? There's 500+ govt. agencies, the system needs a reorg. Make new agencies to combine the old one's critical functions, fire all the worthless govt. employees and move the good ones into the new agency.

    And if you think you only need to worry about your computers, phones, and TVs being full of Mama Gubmint's lackeys consider your car. It has it's own ID and the roads are bristling with detectors too. License plate scanners, facial recognition, chem/radiation detectors, etc. 1984 has long been with us.

    [Mar 10, 2017] When Whistleblowers Tell The Truth Theyre Traitors. When Government Lies Its Politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... Immediately after Wikileaks released thousands of documents revealing the extent of CIA surveillance and hacking practices, the government was calling for an investigation - not into why the CIA has amassed so much power, but rather, into who exposed their invasive policies . ..."
    Mar 09, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Mar 9, 2017 6:05 PM Via Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Immediately after Wikileaks released thousands of documents revealing the extent of CIA surveillance and hacking practices, the government was calling for an investigation - not into why the CIA has amassed so much power, but rather, into who exposed their invasive policies .

    " A federal criminal investigation is being opened into WikiLeaks' publication of documents detailing alleged CIA hacking operations, several US officials, " reportedly told CNN .

    According to USA Today :

    " The inquiry, the official said, will seek to determine whether the disclosure represented a breach from the outside or a leak from inside the organization. A separate review will attempt to assess the damage caused by such a disclosure, the official said ."

    Even Democratic representative Ted Lieu, who has been urging whistleblowers to come forward to expose wrongdoing within the Trump administration, has turned his focus away from what the documents exposed and toward determining how it could have possibly happened.

    " I am deeply disturbed by the allegation that the CIA lost its arsenal of hacking tools, " he said while calling for an investigation. " The ramifications could be devastating. I am calling for an immediate congressional investigation. We need to know if the CIA lost control of its hacking tools, who may have those tools, and how do we now protect the privacy of Americans ."

    According to Lieu's statements, the problem isn't necessarily that the CIA is spying on Americans and invading innocent people's technology without consent. It's that the CIA mishandled their spying tools, and in doing so, endangered Americans' privacy by exposing the tools to presumably 'bad actors.' The problem isn't the corrupt agency violating basic privacy rights, but that they weren't skillful enough to keep their corruption under wraps.

    So goes the familiar whistleblower narrative in the United States. Whistleblowers step forward to expose wrongdoing on the part of government - something the government claims to support - and immediately, establishment institutions and the media bend the conversation away from the wrongdoing in order to focus on the unlawful release of secrets.

    Putting aside the fact that, according to popular American mythology breaking the law is a patriotic duty, the government and politicians' reactions are both hypocritical and habitual.

    When Chelsea Manning revealed damning evidence of U.S. war crimes in Iraq, including soldiers directly targeting Reuters news staff, the response was not to investigate who allowed those crimes (in fact, a later Pentagon manual went on to describe instances in which it's permissible to kill journalists; that version was later retracted after outcry from reporters). Rather, Manning was subject to a military tribunal and issued multiple life sentences, a cruel and unusual punishment reversed only in President Obama's last days in office amid his attempts to salvage his abysmal human rights, transparency, and whistleblower record.

    When Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the NSA's warrantless mass surveillance of American citizens and millions of others around the world, the government's response was not to investigate why those programs existed in the first place . Rather, they thrashed and flailed around the world, ordering the plane of Bolivian President Evo Morales to be grounded in the hopes of catching the whistleblower. Congress later passed the deceptive "USA Freedom Act," which codified continued surveillance.

    Edward Snowden remains in exile, and establishment politicians repeatedly call him a traitor for exposing the crimes of his government. Some, including Trump's CIA Director Mike Pompeo, have called for his execution. Mass surveillance continues, and the president himself is seeking to retain those powers as he condemns former President Obama for allegedly spying on him.

    And so on and so forth. The same was true for John Kiriakou , Thomas Drake , William Binney , and Jeffrey Sterling . The government is exposed for wrongdoing, and rather than prove themselves to be representatives of the people by remedying those transgressions, they point fingers and divert, all the while refusing to relinquish the unjust power any given agency is exposed for having.

    Many people are already aware that the government does little to actually serve them (Americans' trust in political leaders and government , in general, is abysmally low). Rather, government agents and agencies operate to advance and concentrate their own interests and power. This is why penalties against killing government employees are more stringent than killing civilians. It is why stealing from the government is perceived as more outrageous to the State than stealing from a civilian. The government considers "crimes" committed against itself to carry the utmost offense, yet often fails to deliver justice to the people who provide their financial foundation.

    As a result, the State does not even try to show remorse for its volatile policies, even when they are exposed and splattered across social media for the world to see. Instead, with the help of corporate media, the debate is shifted to whether or not WikiLeaks is a criminal organization, or whether or not Edward Snowden is a traitor.

    As White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said of the leaks:

    "This is the kind of disclosure that undermines our country, our security. This alleged leak should concern every American for its impact on national security. Anybody who leaks classified information will be held accountable to the maximum extent of the law ."

    Meanwhile, we're supposed to accept the government's investigation of itself, which (surprise!) usually finds little or no wrongdoing on their own behalf and often consolidates and extends the very same power whistleblowers exposed in the first place.

    LawsofPhysics , Mar 9, 2017 6:09 PM

    Yes. The truth is always treason in an empire of lies.

    All by design motherfuckers.

    indygo55 , Mar 9, 2017 6:23 PM

    Binney said the NSA has everything. Every phone call, text, website visited, everything. The FISA court is theater. Window dressing. The FISA court allows prosecutors to recreate fake parallel sources to make it look like they got permission to create the illusion they didn't break the 4th amendment. THEY ALREADY BROKE THE 4TH AMENDMENT!!!

    Its all theater. Thats what Binney said. It was written here on ZH. These talking heads keep refering to warrants. They don't need a fucking warrant. They alreay have it. EVERYTHING.

    Brazen Heist -> indygo55 , Mar 9, 2017 6:31 PM

    In theory they could have ALOT of data with their backdoors and dragnets.

    But in reality, they have finite manpower to sift through all that data, and make sense of it. The more of us that rebel, encrypt and become defiant, the more taxing it is on their resources.

    Like I enjoy saying. They can have my data. But I'm going to make the fuckers work for it, and waste their finite resources in getting it.

    Ms No -> Brazen Heist , Mar 9, 2017 6:43 PM

    They might not need people to sift through some of the data. They could probably have a computer program sift through terms: guns, the Constitution, the Federal Reserve, Jews, drugs, gold... etc. Then you could be catagorized a whether not you were a proper sheep or a target.

    Brazen Heist -> Ms No , Mar 9, 2017 7:18 PM

    You're probably right. The algos will be hard at work.

    Thing is. I don't give a shit. I can already see the limits to their powers.

    quax -> indygo55 , Mar 9, 2017 6:37 PM

    And if you'd bother to add the amount of storage that'll require you'd know this is BS.

    They may have the metadata on pretty much everything but not the actual transcripts.

    DuneCreature -> quax , Mar 9, 2017 6:58 PM

    Nonsense. ..... They have all the content that is meaningful to them and save EVERYTHING to parse through it. ....... Your mom's phone calls to the hairdresser timeout and get discarded after they sniff it good.

    My guess is, anyone posting here at ZH gets their stuff tagged for archiving. ..... As do a bunch of other categories of 'interesting people'.

    Live Hard, You Do The Math On What A Terabyte Will Store, Die Free

    ~ DC v5.0

    IndyPat -> quax , Mar 9, 2017 7:02 PM

    If you'd bother to read up on Binney, you'd know to not talk shit about that which you have no idea of.

    Storage is dirt cheap.

    Not that money is an issue. At all.

    TeethVillage88s -> indygo55 , Mar 9, 2017 7:01 PM

    ***- Right to freedom from quartering of govt in our house without our consent (Americans don't want NSA, CIA, DHS, TSA, or border control inside out devices, smart phones, PDAs, PCs, TVs, Refrigerators) (And Trump E.O Today: Our Kids are Precious they have Cell Phones and Devices, this is Tyranny, Protect our kids from Pedos!!!)

    E.O. Today, President Donald J. Trump, Please! - Call it the CIA, NSA, Govt in our Homes, Anti-Pedo Act

    Chupacabra-322 -> indygo55 , Mar 9, 2017 7:06 PM

    The "Spoofing" or Digital Finger Print & Parallel Construction tools that can be used against Governments, Individuals, enemies & adversaries are Chilling.

    Effective immediately defund, Eliminate & Supeona it's Agents, Officials & Dept. Heads in regard to the Mass Surveillance, Global Espionage Spying network & monitoring of a President Elect by aforementioned Agencies & former President Obama, AG Lynch & DIA James Clapper.

    The CIA can not only hack into anything -- they can download any "evidence" they want onto your phone or computer. Child pornography, national secrets, you name it. Then they can blackmail you, threatening prosecution for whatever crap they have planted, then "found" on your computer. They can also "spoof" the source of such downloads -- for instance, if they want to "prove" that something on your computer (or Donald Trump's computer) came from a "Russian source" -- they can spoof the IP address of a Russian source.

    The take-away: no digital evidence the CIA or NSA produces on any subject whatsoever can be trusted. No digital evidence should be acceptable in any case where the government has an interest, because they have the complete ability to fabricate and implant any evidence on any iphone or computer. And worse: they have intentionally created these digital vulnerabilities and pushed them onto the whole world via Microsoft and Google. Government has long been at war with liberty, claiming that we need to give up liberty to be secure. Now we learn that they have been deliberately sabotaging our security, in order to augment their own power. Time to shut down the CIA and all the other spy agencies. They're not keeping us free OR secure, and they're doing it deliberately. Their main function nowadays seems to be lying us into wars against countries that never attacked us, and had no plans to do so.

    TePikoElPozo , Mar 9, 2017 6:50 PM

    "There are a few rules that I live by. Number 1: I don't believe anything that the government says"

    -GEORGE CARLIN

    [Mar 10, 2017] CIA's Creator Came to Regret It ... Said the CIA Was a Government All Its Own Which Was Destroying Democracy

    Mar 10, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    CIA's Creator Came to Regret It ... Said the CIA Was a "Government All Its Own" Which Was Destroying Democracy

    Whodathunkit , Mar 9, 2017 7:58 PM

    Read something by Douglas Valentine. Or listen to him on YouTube. Guy laid it all out in book form in 1990, The Phoenix Program. Guy is a great historian on many subjects but they all lead back to the CeyeA.

    blindman , Mar 9, 2017 7:50 PM

    Steve Pieczenik: Vault 7 Is Aimed To Take Down CIA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPaV5tEwZ0g

    Consuelo , Mar 9, 2017 5:38 PM

    Dreamscape, 1984 (wow, what a coincidence...)

    Blair (intelligence/defence agency director) to the President (Eddie Albert):

    "You can't touch me John, and you know it..."

    DuneCreature , Mar 9, 2017 5:14 PM

    This is getting kind of funny! ... I love it.

    George Webb is slicing and dicing all of the CIA dirty tricks the agency has going on US soil. Dyncorpse, JTTF, hacking and cracking, brownstone operations, etc. etc. etc. ...... And now, Gulan is getting undressed in public. (I was warned to stay out of that one myself because it would really piss off the CIA) ..... Next up? .. Chemtrails, I hope. That one has us all in the cross hairs and needs to be addressed. (Listening, Mr President? ... The chems are killing your grandkids too)

    Day 137 Part 1 = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQelhNiEKE Day 137 Part 2 = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-hUclNzcJs

    My working theory about George Webb is; He has a big time tap into CeyeA resources and probably CeyeA protection too.

    George is the Energizer Terminator Bunny and his target is the CIA

    Go George! Go!

    Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip. ... Show the CIA what water torture is really all about, George! ... Day 133, Day 134, Day 135, Day 136.... Hahaha!

    Live Hard, You Were Warned, You Don't Shit In Your Own Nest, Mr. Langley(s), Die Free

    ~ DC v5.0

    GRDguy , Mar 9, 2017 3:56 PM

    Truman signing off on the creation of the Israeli state was also a huge mistake.

    Too bad his best friend was Jewish. He would have never signed it otherwise.

    In fact, quoting from Truman's biography (McCullough):

    "If Jesus Christ couldn't make these people happy when He was here on earth,

    what the hell do they expect from me?" But he signed it anyway.

    cheech_wizard -> GRDguy , Mar 9, 2017 6:09 PM

    or this from a 1947 diary...

    Truman wrote in a July 21 passage, "The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog."

    Standard Disclaimer: Tell me that last line is not the most honest truth you've read today.

    GRDguy -> cheech_wizard , Mar 9, 2017 8:45 PM

    James Warburg, son of Federal Reserve founder Paul Warbug, gained some notice in a February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said,

    "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it.

    The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

    As much as I respect Truman (I was born and raised in Independence, Missouri),

    I think now that he was THEIR patsy. I suspect he never saw it coming.

    south40_dreams , Mar 9, 2017 3:42 PM

    "17 U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Russia was responsible for damaging WikiLeaks disclosures of DNC and Clinton...."

    CIA is just one?

    We're screwed

    DuneCreature , Mar 9, 2017 3:37 PM

    It wouldn't be quite so bad if the CIA didn't have a strangle hold on the media too. ... You can't even get any information about the sumy-bitches in print or on the tube.

    ~~ ( The CIA News Agency Isn't Going To Cover This News Story )~~

    I guess we'll have to tune into Russia Today to find out what's going on in Wash DC.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER6rjPFK1Ls

    Pretty soon they will have to encrypt the news feeds, I can just feel it in my spooks.

    If the CIA wants us to leave them alone they better get out of news crushing business. .......... In your face lies 24/7 doesn't help their PR any at all.

    Live Hard, News With A Spin Doesn't Mean It Has To Be Red-Lined All Of The Time, Just A Leisurely Slow Twist Will Do It, Die Free

    ~ DC v5.0

    mtanimal , Mar 9, 2017 2:31 PM

    And yet - what did they do after 9/11? The formed an even larger and more convoluted organization, DHS, because they supposedly "needed at that time a central organization that would bring all the various intelligence reports we were getting in those days, and there must have been a dozen of them, maybe more, bring them all into one organization so that the President would get one report on what was going on in various parts of the world" . Instead of a dozen, now there are what ... 17?

    The bullshit of history repeats itself.

    mtanimal , Mar 9, 2017 2:28 PM

    Truman was a complete tool if he couldn't have seen that coming. Kind of like Greenspan trying to claim he didn't know his actions would cause financial bubbles. Bullshit.

    Stef1304 , Mar 9, 2017 1:35 PM

    This issue of CIA level of illegal needs definitively to be feed and exposed to the audience, until its dealt with. Same for this BIT FAT conglomerate of 17 Intelligence communities. That many is definitively NOT needed. Not only does it hurt the budget (paid with american people taxes), it also hurt the spirit of the republic itself. Since the killing of JFK and 9/11 (without even mentionning the number of people dying in the middle east and elsewhere), this level of organized criminality is a disgrace and a ongoing shame for the country.

    steelhead23 -> CAPT DRAKE , Mar 9, 2017 2:57 PM

    The spider-web of influence in the U.S. Congress may include the Deep State - but, that connection is facilitated by the Deep State's coziness with the intelligence services of other nation states, notably, Israel's Mossad, which supports AIPAC, which funds many members of Congress and scares the shit out of the rest.

    rf80412 -> CAPT DRAKE , Mar 9, 2017 2:52 PM

    Congress has simply abdicated most of its responsibilities to the executive branch. They seem to think their only job is pork and pandering, then retiring to become a lobbyist or a sinecure at some corporation they did favors for ... rather than being the sole source of all legislation and - the way the Founding Fathers expected - jealous of their prerogatives and fearful of executive power.

    A healthy Congress would act like the executive branch works for them - as in a parliamentary system.

    steelhead23 , Mar 9, 2017 1:15 PM

    More recently, ex-president Carter told us that the U.S. is "no longer a democracy", in large measure due to the Citizens United case . The combination of a CIA-dominated deep state and an elitist election process has seriously injured democracy in the U.S.

    Big Hugh -> steelhead23 , Mar 9, 2017 1:44 PM

    The U.S. never was a democracy, but Jimmuh Carter was always a moron.

    cheech_wizard -> Big Hugh , Mar 9, 2017 5:57 PM

    No downvotes from me, but in his defense, he did qualify on subs.

    https://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/jec/jcnavy.phtml

    Standard Disclaimer: Got dolphins?

    steelhead23 -> Big Hugh , Mar 9, 2017 2:51 PM

    He was educated in the public school of Plains, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946. In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, New York, where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf , the second nuclear submarine.

    That's a high level of scholarship for a moron.

    runnymede -> steelhead23 , Mar 9, 2017 5:16 PM

    Huge difference btw education and training; credentials and competence; government and the State; cleverness and intelligence.

    Read chapter 8

    Memoirs of a Superfluous Man

    By Albert Nock

    Then return and report.

    If you're disinclined to read a book like 90% of the world, youtube the "Malaise speech" and see what an awesome leader Billy Carter's brother was.

    Carter: "nookuler"

    I was embarrassed for him and I was only a young teen at the time.

    goober -> steelhead23 , Mar 9, 2017 3:58 PM

    Depends entirely on what you think scholarship is and intelligence ? If you think you get them from what we call our higher ed system, you are completely mind fucked just as they are ? Do you see much if any real scholarship taking place anywhere these days or the complete denial of any form of free speech and Orwellian extremes at what we call our higher ed institutions ? Time to rethinhk a bunch of stuff my man -- Most higher ed today is more about sucking the brains out of peoples heads, indoctrination and propaganda, not scholarship or any form of truth. And it is nothing new at all for sure. Really got rolling during Carter's era and been rolling stronger ever since. You are well behind the curve, not up to speed as you seem to think and I do not say this as a negative, just information for you to ponder and rethink. Good luck with it.

    Here is a starting point http://www.downtoearththinking.com/cogdis-and-normalcy-bias.html

    Big Hugh -> steelhead23 , Mar 9, 2017 3:12 PM

    You're right. Highly educated, yet without the common sense to defend himself against swamp rabbits. Jimmy Carter's Afghanistan policy as President is what brought the Taliban to power.

    He spent 40 Billion in 1979 dollars to train and equip the Mujahideen, in some misguided attempt to thwart the damn Russki's.

    The Carter Administration also tried to seat the Khmer Rouge as the rightful government of Cambodia even though they slaughtered one out of three Cambodians in the 1975-78 genocide.

    That's a pretty high level of moronity for an educated man.

    Insurrector -> Big Hugh , Mar 9, 2017 4:21 PM

    Yes Carter inherited a mess - Pakistani nuclear weapons and the oil crisis too. A lot fo bad shit happening back then. It seemed early on tha the was a one term president. Serving only one term is probably why he is still alive today and wasn't stressed to death by a second term.

    Unfortunately Reagan doubled down on it and he funded Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He went all in with a weak hand.

    The Mujahideen have been around for centuries though, but the CIA brought them into the 20th century.

    DonaldWashington , Mar 9, 2017 1:03 PM

    Vilfredo Pareto , Mar 9, 2017 12:22 PM

    Now as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don't just report on wars and the like, they go out and make their own, and there's nobody to keep track of what they're up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they'll have something to report on. They've become ... it's become a government all of its own and all secret. They don't have to account to anybody.

    Harry S Truman

    KingTut -> East Indian , Mar 9, 2017 2:03 PM

    The CIA doesn't waste it's time with Pot, Heroin & Cocaine are much more profitable.

    Manthong -> DrData02 , Mar 9, 2017 1:04 PM

    It really all started with Alan Dulles. When JFK fired him, he never went away and that is why JFK was assassinated.

    The Deep Spook State is persistent and vicious. Just ask GHW Bush, who worked for Dulles and was in Dallas when Kennedy was shot.

    I hope that Trump and Bannon see that something similar appears to be forming today.

    Substitute the name Obama for Dulles.

    [Mar 10, 2017] Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media

    Notable quotes:
    "... At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and CNN sexed up the transcript. ..."
    "... Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous: ..."
    "... Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out. ..."
    "... Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it. ..."
    "... In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on. ..."
    Mar 10, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Trump Transition

    "Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media" [Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone ]. Well worth a read. "There is a lot of smoke in the Russia story . Moreover, the case that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee now appears fairly solid. Even Donald Trump thinks so ."

    At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and CNN sexed up the transcript. Here's the CNN quote: "'I think it was Russia, [1] but I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people. ' Trump said. Putin '[2]should not be doing it. He won't be doing it. Russia will have much greater respect for our country when I am leading it than when other people have led it.'" From the full transcript , [1] shows what CNN deleted, and [2] comes 45 minutes later, in response to a very qualified question. Trump doesn't do nuance well, but I think he was trying to do it here.

    Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous:

    [T]he manner in which these stories are being reported is becoming a story in its own right. Russia has become an obsession, cultural shorthand for a vast range of suspicions about Donald Trump.

    The notion that the president is either an agent or a useful idiot of the Russian state is so freely accepted in some quarters that Beck Bennett's shirtless representation of Putin palling with Alec Baldwin's Trump is already a no-questions-asked yuks routine for the urban smart set .

    We can't afford to bolster [Trump's] accusations of establishment bias and overreach by using the techniques of conspiracy theorists to push this Russia story. Unfortunately, that is happening.

    One could list the more ridiculous examples, like the Washington Post's infamous "PropOrNot" story identifying hundreds of alternative media sites as fellow travellers aiding Russia, or the Post's faceplant over a report about a hacked utility in Vermont.

    Setting all of that aside, look at the techniques involved within the more "legitimate" reports. Many are framed in terms of what they might mean, should other information surface.

    There are inevitably uses of phrases like "so far," "to date" and "as yet." These make visible the outline of a future story that isn't currently reportable, further heightening expectations.

    Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out.

    Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it.

    In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on.

    Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance in the media. What does this mean?

    [Mar 09, 2017] The Surge Delusion: An Iraq War Anniversary to Forget

    Mar 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : March 09, 2017 at 05:31 PM , 2017 at 05:31 PM
    http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176252/

    March 9, 2017

    The Surge Delusion: An Iraq War Anniversary to Forget
    By Danny Sjursen

    The other day, I found myself flipping through old photos from my time in Iraq. One in particular from October 2006 stood out. I see my 23-year-old self, along with my platoon. We're still at Camp Buerhing in Kuwait, posing in front of our squadron logo splashed across a huge concrete barrier. It was a tradition by then, three and a half years after the invasion of neighboring Iraq, for every Army, Marine, and even Air Force battalion at that camp to proudly paint its unit emblem on one of those large, ubiquitous barricades.

    Gazing at that photo, it's hard for me to believe that it was taken a decade ago. Those were Iraq's bad old days, just before General David Petraeus's fabled "surge" campaign that has since become the stuff of legend, a defining event for American military professionals. The term has permanently entered the martial lexicon and now it's everywhere. We soldiers stay late at work because we need to "surge" on the latest PowerPoint presentation. To inject extra effort into anything (no matter how mundane) is to "surge." Nor is the term's use limited to the military vernacular. Within the first few weeks of the Trump administration, the Wall Street Journal, for instance, reported on a deportation "surge."

    For many career soldiers, the surge era (2007-2011) provides a kind of vindication for all those years of effort and seeming failure, a brief window into what might have been and a proof certain of the enduring utility of force. When it comes to that long-gone surge, senior leaders still talk the talk on its alleged success as though reciting scripture. Take retired general, surge architect, and former CIA Director Petraeus. As recently as 2013, he wrote a Foreign Policy piece entitled "How We Won in Iraq." Now "win" is a bold word indeed. Yet few in our American world would think to question its accuracy. After all, Petraeus was a general, and in an era when Americans have little or no faith in other public institutions, polls show nearly everyone trusts the military. Of course, no one asks whether this is healthy for the republic. No matter, the surge's success is, by now, a given among Washington's policy elite.

    Recently, for instance, I listened to a podcast of a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) panel discussion that promoted a common set of myths about the glories of the surge. What I heard should be shocking, but it's not. The group peddled a common myth about the surge's inherent wisdom that may soon become far more dangerous in the "go big" military era of Donald Trump.

    CFR's three guests -- retired General Raymond Odierno, former commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq and now a senior adviser to JPMorgan Chase; Meghan O'Sullivan, former deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush; and Christopher Kojm, former senior adviser to the Iraq Study Group -- had remarkably similar views. No dissenting voices were included. All three had been enthusiastic promoters of the surge in 2006-2007 and continue to market the myth of its success. While recognizing the unmistakable failure of the post-surge American effort in Iraq, each still firmly believes in the inherent validity of that "strategy." I listened for more than an hour waiting for a single dissenting thought. The silence was deafening.

    Establishing the Bona Fides of Victory in Washington, If Not Iraq

    With the madness of the 24-hour news cycle pin-balling us from one Trump "crisis" to another, who has time for honest reflection about that surge on its 10th anniversary? Few even remember the controversy, turmoil, and drama of those days, but believe me, it's something I'll never forget. I led a scout platoon in Baghdad and my unit was a few months into a nasty deployment when we first heard the term "surge." Iraq was by then falling apart and violence was at an all-time high with insurgents killing scores of Americans each month. The nascent central government, supported by the Bush administration, was in turmoil and, to top it all off, the Sunni and Shia were already fighting a civil war in the streets.

    In November 2006, just a month into our deployment, Democrats won control over both houses of Congress in what was interpreted as a negative referendum on that war. A humbler, more reticent or reflective president might have backed off, cut his losses, and begun a withdrawal from that country, but not George W. Bush. He doubled down, announcing in January 2007 an infusion of 30,000 additional troops and a new "strategy" for victory, a temporary surge that would provide time, space, and security for the new Iraqi government to reconcile the country's warring ethnic groups and factions, while incorporating minority groups into the largely Shiite, Baghdad-based power structure.

    Soon after, my unit along with nearly every other American already in theater received word that our tours had been extended by three months -- 15 months in all, which then seemed like an eternity. I sat against a wall and chain-smoked nearly a pack of cigarettes before passing the word on to my platoon. And so it began.

    Less than nine months later, the administration paraded General Petraeus, decked out in full dress uniform, at congressional hearings to plug the strategy, sell the surge, and warn against a premature withdrawal from Iraq. What a selling job it proved to be. It established the bona fides of victory in Washington, if not Iraq.

    The man was compelling and over the next three years violence did, in fact, drop. The additional troops and "new" counterinsurgency tactics were, however, only part of the story. In an orgy of killing in Baghdad and many other cities, the two main sects ethnically cleansed neighborhoods, expelling each other into a series of highly segregated enclaves. The capital, for instance, essentially became a Shiite city. In a sense, the civil war had, momentarily at least, run its course.

    In addition, the U.S. military had successfully, though again only temporarily, convinced many previously rebellious Sunni tribes to switch sides in exchange for money, support, and help in getting rid of the overly fundamentalist and brutal terror outfit, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). For the time being, AQI seemed to the tribal leaders like a bigger threat than the Shiites in Baghdad. For this, the Sunnis briefly bet on the U.S. without ever fully trusting or accepting Shiite-Baghdad's suzerainty. Think of this as a tactical pause -- not that the surge's architects and supporters saw (or see) it that way.

    Which brings us back to that CFR panel. The most essential assumption of all three speakers was this: the U.S. needed to establish "security first" in Iraq before that country's government, set in place by the American occupation, could begin to make political progress. They still don't seem to understand that, whatever the bright hopes of surge enthusiasts at the time, no true political settlement was ever likely, with or without the surge.

    America's man in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, was already in the process of becoming a sectarian strongman, hell-bent on alienating the country's Sunni and Kurdish minorities. Even 60,000 or 90,000 more American troops couldn't have solved that problem because the surge was incapable of addressing, and barely pretended to face, the true conundrum of the invasion and occupation: any American-directed version of Iraqi "democracy" would invariably usher in Shia-majority dominance over a largely synthetic state. The real question no surge cheerleaders publicly asked (or ask to this day) was whether an invading foreign entity was even capable of imposing an inclusive political settlement there. To assume that the United States could have done so smacks of a faith-based as opposed to reality-based worldview -- another version of a deep and abiding belief in American exceptionalism.

    A Surge Believer as National Security Adviser?

    ...

    [Mar 07, 2017] The Deep State Targets Trump by Patrick J. Buchanan

    Notable quotes:
    "... When Gen. Michael Flynn was forced to resign as national-security advisor, Bill Kristol purred his satisfaction, "If it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state." ..."
    "... To Kristol, the permanent regime, not the elected president and his government, is the real defender and rightful repository of our liberties. Yet it was this regime, the deep state, that carried out what Eli Lake of Bloomberg calls "The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn." ..."
    "... In December, when Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats, Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador. He apparently counseled the envoy not to overreact, saying a new team would be in place in a few weeks and would review U.S.-Russian relations. ..."
    "... But apparently, this did not sit well with the deep state. For when Vice President Pence told a TV show that Flynn told him that sanctions did not come up in conversation with the Russian ambassador, a transcript of Flynn's call was produced from recordings by intelligence agencies, and its contents leaked to the Washington Post . ..."
    "... The real crime here, however, is not that the incoming national-security advisor spoke with a Russian diplomat seeking guidance on the future president's thinking. The real crime is the criminal conspiracy inside the deep state to transcribe the private conversation of a U.S. citizen and leak it to press collaborators to destroy a political career. ..."
    "... But the deep state is after larger game than General Flynn. It is out to bring down President Trump and abort any move to effect the sort of rapprochement with Russia that Ronald Reagan achieved. ..."
    "... Purpose: stampede the White House into abandoning any idea of a detente with Russia. And it appears to be working. At a White House briefing Tuesday, Sean Spicer said, "President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to return Crimea." ..."
    "... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
    "... and the author of the book ..."
    "... What has become obvious to me is that the United States government is operating as any regime which fears it's people (but does not fear them enough) operates. ..."
    "... They drum up fears of an outside enemy. In this case, it's Russia. If they succeed, then they can subvert the will of the people as expressed through an elected President. They can prevent peace and prosperity for the benefit of the few who hold power through, as we have seen, blackmail. Trump should pardon Snowden and start firing upper level management in any intelligence agency that behaves insubordinately. They serve at the President's pleasure with Congressional oversight on their activities and bureaucrats need to be reminded of this, frequently. In this case, the record of these intelligence agencies renders the argument that we can't afford to lose the expertise these people represent is moot. Elected officials must take precedence over unelected functionaries and intelligence agencies do not have any business in determining policy. ..."
    Feb 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    When Gen. Michael Flynn was forced to resign as national-security advisor, Bill Kristol purred his satisfaction, "If it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."

    To Kristol, the permanent regime, not the elected president and his government, is the real defender and rightful repository of our liberties. Yet it was this regime, the deep state, that carried out what Eli Lake of Bloomberg calls "The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn."

    And what were Flynn's offenses?

    In December, when Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats, Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador. He apparently counseled the envoy not to overreact, saying a new team would be in place in a few weeks and would review U.S.-Russian relations.

    "That's neither illegal nor improper," writes Lake. Vladimir Putin swiftly declared that there would be no reciprocal expulsions and U.S. diplomats and their families would be welcome at the Kremlin's Christmas and New Year's parties. Diplomatic crisis averted. "Great move (by V. Putin)," tweeted Trump, "I always knew he was very smart."

    But apparently, this did not sit well with the deep state. For when Vice President Pence told a TV show that Flynn told him that sanctions did not come up in conversation with the Russian ambassador, a transcript of Flynn's call was produced from recordings by intelligence agencies, and its contents leaked to the Washington Post .

    After seeing the transcript, the White House concluded that Flynn had misled Pence, mutual trust was gone, and Flynn must go. Like a good soldier, Flynn took the bullet.

    The real crime here, however, is not that the incoming national-security advisor spoke with a Russian diplomat seeking guidance on the future president's thinking. The real crime is the criminal conspiracy inside the deep state to transcribe the private conversation of a U.S. citizen and leak it to press collaborators to destroy a political career.

    "This is what police states do," writes Lake.

    But the deep state is after larger game than General Flynn. It is out to bring down President Trump and abort any move to effect the sort of rapprochement with Russia that Ronald Reagan achieved.

    For the deep state is deeply committed to Cold War II.

    Hence, suddenly, we read reports of a Russian spy ship off the Connecticut, Delaware, and Virginia coasts, of Russian jets buzzing a U.S. warship in the Black Sea, and Russian violations of Reagan's INF treaty outlawing intermediate-range missiles in Europe.

    Purpose: stampede the White House into abandoning any idea of a detente with Russia. And it appears to be working. At a White House briefing Tuesday, Sean Spicer said, "President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to return Crimea."

    Is the White House serious?

    Putin could no more survive returning Crimea to Ukraine than Bibi Netanyahu could survive giving East Jerusalem back to Jordan.

    How does the deep state go about its work? We have seen a classic example with Flynn. The intelligence and investigative arms of the regime dig up dirt, and then move it to their Fourth Estate collaborators, who enjoy First Amendment immunity to get it out.

    For violating their oaths and breaking the law, bureaucratic saboteurs are hailed as "whistleblowers" while the journalists who receive the fruits of their felonies put in for Pulitzers.

    Now if Russians hacked into the DNC and John Podesta's computer during the campaign, and, more seriously, if Trump aides colluded in any such scheme, it should be investigated.

    But we should not stop there. Those in the FBI, Justice Department, and intelligence agencies who were complicit in a conspiracy to leak the contents of Flynn's private conversations in order to bring down the national-security advisor should be exposed and prosecuted.

    An independent counsel should be appointed by the attorney general and a grand jury impaneled to investigate what Trump himself rightly calls "criminal" misconduct in the security agencies.

    As for interfering in elections, how clean are our hands?

    Our own CIA has a storied history of interfering in elections. In the late '40s, we shoveled cash into France and Italy after World War II to defeat the communists who had been part of the wartime resistance to the Nazis and fascists.

    And we succeeded. But we continued these practices after the Cold War ended. In this century, our National Endowment for Democracy, which dates to the Reagan era, has backed "color revolutions" and "regime change" in nations across what Russia regards as her "near abroad."

    NED's continued existence appears a contradiction of Trump's inaugural declaration: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone."

    The president and GOP should get out front here. Let Congress investigate Russia meddling in our election. And let a special prosecutor run down, root out, expose, and indict those in the investigative and intel agencies who used their custody of America's secrets, in collusion with press collaborators, to take down Trump appointees who are on their enemies lists.

    Then put NED down.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    Bob K. , says: February 16, 2017 at 10:38 pm
    It used to be that no one knew what "the deep state" was. Now it has become a common news item.

    Bill Kristol and other people close to it may come to regret their satisfied "purring" about its actions against American democracy.

    Joe , says: February 17, 2017 at 3:31 am
    Is it conclusive that the leak came from the IC?
    Rdevagiri , says: February 17, 2017 at 4:46 am
    Hi – I agree with all you say. As an Australian citizen, I am outraged that the conversation between my Prime Minister and your President was leaked. This leak occurred from within the White House. There were reportedly four people from the Donald Trump admin who were on line. So yes, deep state boogey stuff is sexy, who among the reported President's team – Steve Bannon, Sean Spicer, Michael Flynn or God forbid the president himself leaked? No deep state involvement in a call with the only ally that has fought all wars with the USA since WW2 right?
    John S , says: February 17, 2017 at 7:05 am
    "The real crime is the criminal conspiracy inside the deep state "

    Mr. Buchanan could have written this in his piece "Hillary's High Crimes and Misdemeanors" published just a few short months ago in reference to leaks from the FBI. In that case, for Buchanan, "the people have a right to know." Seems like a double standard to me.

    Mark Thomason , says: February 17, 2017 at 7:16 am
    It is important to expose the American origins of this drive for Cold War II, and its motives.

    Good work.

    Drue Gawel , says: February 17, 2017 at 9:39 am
    Strange how Patrick Buchanan didn't complain about the Deep State when it was leaking information about Hillary. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/hillarys-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors/

    Seems like he is just a partisan as politicians who complained about the FBI leaks.

    With regard to making leaks public, I think Buchanan's comments about Hillary are as true for Trump. "Indeed, it would seem imperative that FBI Director James Comey, even if it violates protocol and costs him his job, state publicly whether what Baier's FBI sources are telling him is false or true."

    I personally think that if Trump has conflicts of interest and can be subject to Russian pressure, the public deserves to know. And as Buchanan suggests, the leakers should take the consequences. Why did Trump not chose transparency and release his Tax Returns and why did he not choose the public's interest and divest himself of his business holdings?

    Sceptic , says: February 17, 2017 at 11:10 am
    What the sniping comments here ignore is context. This is not about just matters of correct process and form - to which it is easy to respond sarcastically to the Trump objections: it's about starting or stopping Cold War II. And let's not forget, Cold War II increases the dangers of the hot kind, which could be quite unpleasant.

    One correction. It is not just about Putin's government, as Mr. Buchanan states. Despite fond dreams inside NED, no conceivable Russian government will 'give back' Crimea - that is, short of WWIII - or, as an outside possibility, the establishment of a neutral zone after the dissolution of NATO and the reordering of the international system.

    Will Harrington , says: February 17, 2017 at 11:46 am
    Ben Stone, Seriously? Boy, you lived in a whole different country 4 months ago than I did.

    What has become obvious to me is that the United States government is operating as any regime which fears it's people (but does not fear them enough) operates.

    They drum up fears of an outside enemy. In this case, it's Russia. If they succeed, then they can subvert the will of the people as expressed through an elected President. They can prevent peace and prosperity for the benefit of the few who hold power through, as we have seen, blackmail. Trump should pardon Snowden and start firing upper level management in any intelligence agency that behaves insubordinately. They serve at the President's pleasure with Congressional oversight on their activities and bureaucrats need to be reminded of this, frequently. In this case, the record of these intelligence agencies renders the argument that we can't afford to lose the expertise these people represent is moot. Elected officials must take precedence over unelected functionaries and intelligence agencies do not have any business in determining policy.

    Seriously, I didn't vote for the guy, but Trump is not the one we need to worry about when it comes to taking away our liberty. If a President can be brought to heel through tactics like this by unelected bureaucrats then we officially live in a police state.

    Will Harrington , says: February 17, 2017 at 11:53 am
    John S

    You make a category error. Hillary Clinton was not an sitting President at the times those leaks were made. Donald Trump is. That makes a very real difference. If you leaked information about a vice president of the company that employed you in an attempt to get him fired and embarrass your CEO, then you should be fired for insubordination.

    Dennis , says: February 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm
    The media and Deep State's obsession with Russia, and desire to fan the flames of war with Russia, is truly mystifying and terrifying. Why are they so obsessed with Russia, and acting as if Russia were still an enemy and we were still in the midst of the Cold War?

    We have more in common with Russia than not, and should work together to promote common interests, particularly in combating ISIS and radical Islam. Russia and Eastern Europe in general are also at the forefront of fighting against the US & Western European liberal monoculture consensus that dominates US & EU media and policy-making elites. On Russia policy Trump's instincts are right, but I fear the Deep State and some of his own advisors are doing their best to undermine those instincts and promote conflict. How else could one make sense of Spicer's idiotic comment the other day that the President expects Russia to give back the Crimea? One can make an historical case that not only the Crimea but all of the Ukraine should be part of Russia, but that is not our problem and we need to stay out of it and focus on areas of agreement where we can make common cause with Russia.

    [Mar 06, 2017] Is Obama the First U.S. President Ever to Try to Topple His Successor

    Mar 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    This post won't debate whether Trump or Obama are good or bad guys. It will simply ask a historical question ...

    The Daily Mail claims :

    Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama section of the nation's capital – just two miles away from the White House – into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump.

    Obama's goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.

    And Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere, Valerie Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion with the former president and Michelle Obama, long time best friends.

    ***

    According to the family source, Obama was at first reluctant to assume the role of leader of the opposition.

    'No longer the most powerful man in the world, he was just observing Trump and not liking what he saw,' said the source.

    'He was weary and burned out after eight years in office. But Valerie convinced him that he didn't have any choice if he wanted to save his legacy. And, as usual, he bowed to Valerie's political wisdom and advice.'

    ***

    'He had hoped to write his memoirs, golf to his heart's content. and bask in the glory of his eight years in power and the progressive achievements he brought about. Instead, he is going to be leading the fight and strategy to topple Trump.' says the insider.

    If true, would this be the first time in U.S. history that a former president has tried to topple his successor?

    VIP-LA , Mar 6, 2017 12:34 AM

    I support Trump and his appointees, however, his ppl are either too naive or don't have a back bone for this insurgency.

    Raging Debate , Mar 5, 2017 11:33 PM

    Since he is no longer POTUS fuck you Obama, you bankster, cum guzzling assblaster.

    DuneCreature , Mar 5, 2017 9:19 PM

    Barry just can't shake this FISA itch. .... I wonder if it's contagious?

    George Webb has some good detail on the FISA court OPeeping Barry story.

    'Parallel construction' when building a LE case, Google it if you want to know what the FISA court is really all about. ..... The phone taps are there and used all of the time and the FISA is the 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card for all the agencies listening in to your phone conversations. ..........

    When legal details count, .......FISA is there..........to rubber stamp your bad, bad, bad LEO behavior.

    Live Hard, Killary Might Be Throwing Barry Under The Moving Prison Bus Along With His Consular, Die Free

    ~ DC v5.0

    flyingcaveman , Mar 5, 2017 7:59 PM

    Alexander Hamilton gets that distinction...Bitchez!

    Fidelios Automata -> flyingcaveman , Mar 5, 2017 10:56 PM

    Not true, since Hamilton was never president. Like Barry, Hamilton was not a native born citizen, and in those days they respected the Constitution.

    hibou-Owl , Mar 5, 2017 7:50 PM

    He's the same as the zimbawe fossil who didn't like the election result. Only he has a higher IQ dictatorship.

    navy62802 , Mar 5, 2017 6:14 PM

    The peaceful transition of power has traditionally been one of the hallmarks of America's system of government. Obama and Valerie Jarret hate the United States and are trying to end the system of government we have. They and their operatives should be charged and tried for sedition.

    Dead Indiana Sky , Mar 5, 2017 6:13 PM

    Maybe he can be the 1st guest on Killary's new TV show. They can give each other handjobs under the desk while telling the person watching how evil everyone else is.

    [Mar 06, 2017] Newsmax CEO I Spoke To Trump About The Wiretap Story: I Havent Seen Him This Pissed Off In A Long Time

    Notable quotes:
    "... He's not going to. Trump thinks he can enact his policies and make America great again. He is completely underestimating how controlled the country is. FBI, CIA, NSA all of it.. The learning curve is way to steep and he is losing. ..."
    Mar 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    PoasterToaster , Mar 5, 2017 4:06 PM

    No one is denying that the Russians outrageously interfered in the U.S. election. What, exactly, did they do?

    JLee2027 -> PoasterToaster , Mar 5, 2017 4:10 PM

    Nothing. But they keep repeating it, because they think people will eventually believe it.

    Belrev -> JLee2027 , Mar 5, 2017 4:13 PM

    Pelosi loses it "Trump can't stop lying", doubles down on her lies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoEArKwMSdM

    Chris Dakota -> stizazz , Mar 5, 2017 4:51 PM

    Trump supporter getting revenge on M13 gangster.

    https://twitter.com/San___Frexit/status/838456709714673664/photo/1

    I told you those red heads are trouble.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6LKyqeUwAAgVgH.jpg

    bamawatson -> Chris Dakota , Mar 5, 2017 4:52 PM

    mcStain's blue dress http://www.northcrane.com/2017/03/04/john-mccains-campaign-manager-arres...

    sleigher -> Stainless Steel Rat , Mar 5, 2017 10:21 PM

    "I hope he cleans fucking house and outs every last shit politician for every last little thing they are probably already being blackmailed on"

    He's not going to. Trump thinks he can enact his policies and make America great again. He is completely underestimating how controlled the country is. FBI, CIA, NSA all of it.. The learning curve is way to steep and he is losing.

    I hate to say this but we are gonna see a sad end to this administration. Trump should be dropping any and every bomb he has but he isn't. By the time he figures out what to do it will be too late. I think it might be already. He expects the American people to stand behind and we are but that is not enough. I think it may be that time... that time we all fear would come and will show us the real America and Americans.

    Trump, if you read ZH, and you read this, drop everything NOW. DROP EVERY BOMB YOU HAVE. ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    fleur de lis -> sleigher , Mar 6, 2017 12:46 AM

    I agree. By now Trump has enough pix and AV to crush the firebugs in public. And if the Deep State and their psychotic friends in the CIA NSA FBI, etc., want to take it outside, Trump should unleash what good Intel forces are left and go Roman on them.

    Since the pervert Dems and their psycho alphabetroid friends are hell bent on destroying this country if they can't keep it in the swamp, then they may as well take a real beat down in the process.

    The one good thing about all this is that it is forcing all the DC sleaze out in the open where we can all see them for the power abusers they are.

    [Mar 06, 2017] The shadow of JFK assassination: is the US Intelligence community trying to depose Trump ?

    Flynn definitely was compromised deliberately, because he just spoke with Russian ambassador as a private person (but may be on instructions from Trump) and then understanding that lied to the vice president. So releasing his conversations was a part "color revolution" against Trump, launched by neocons in intelligence services. As for the role of Jews in this affair is is naive to consider neocons to be purely ethnically based, although "Israel firster" are an important part of them. So in Fred C. Dobbs post below one needs to replace "Jew" with "Neocon" in Nixon's remarks. You will instantly see the point and it is difficlut nt to agree with Nixon that neocons influence is huge threat to the USA. In this sense Nixon proved again that his was very talented, pretty shred politician...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.) ..."
    "... Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). ..."
    "... The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power. ..."
    "... Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power. ..."
    "... Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us. ..."
    "... Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo ..."
    "... if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance ..."
    "... ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies. ..."
    "... Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added: ..."
    "... "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right? ..."
    "... The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it. ..."
    "... We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. ..."
    "... Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance. ..."
    "... The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category. ..."
    "... But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules ..."
    "... At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence. ..."
    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... February 18, 2017 at 10:12 PM , 2017 at 10:12 PM
    Is this Intel community trying to undermine Trump's presidency? If so congratulations ask yourself if are living in a modern incarnation of a police state. Intelligence agencies as a pinnacle of political power == police state.

    The swamp lost part of the power and fights back.

    Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.)

    All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. Media dominance is one essential part. Coordinated series of leaks is a standard scenarios.

    Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Gen. Michael Flynn resigning as President Trump's National Security Advisor and the divide between the intelligence community and Trump.

    "Who knows what is truth anymore. It's like a version of Mad magazine". -- Kusinich

    All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump.

    Media dominance and hostility of media to the government is one essential part of any color revolution. That's what we have now in the USA. Here is Kucinich warning:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j_ZfKmcnSk

    Defiant Christian Infidels

    Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). Death to the Globalist/Islamic/Leftist alliance. Deus Vult!

    Mike V

    In 2009, the Haitian parliament voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage, up to 61 cents per hour. US-based multinational textile corporations such as Hanes and Levi's objected, claiming that paying these workers slightly more would cut into their profits. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton intervened and pressured Haiti to back off - blocking the raise. We only know about this from WikiLeaks.

    How on Earth is that something a communist would do? Communists want workers to unite and fire their bosses. Communists want the workers to run the factories. How on God's green Earth does a Communist - who wants the workers to directly control the means of production - intervene to block a tiny wage increase for those same workers.

    Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so mindbogglingly stupid that I don't even know how to respond to someone so blinded by partisanship.

    Gg Mo

    See: The Young Hegelians . CRONY Totalitarian "Communism" is the Goal, and the Minions are screaming for it , in their estrogen soaked , Marxist indoctrinated IDIOCY.

    IT WIZARD

    Trump needs to drain the swamp on the Intel community

    Joe

    The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power.
    sequorroxx

    Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power.

    Trisha Holmeide

    Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us.

    ilsm -> libezkova... , February 19, 2017 at 04:12 AM
    Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo. As the Japanese Imperial Army noted, never invade America there would be a "rifle behind every blade of grass"
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 04:09 AM
    if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance

    faux media is a tool of 'leftie' oppressors who are okay!

    'leftie' oppressors want to force Christian bakers to make cakes

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , February 19, 2017 at 05:06 AM
    In Nixon's day, the Deep State was all about 'Jews in the Guv'mint'. Not gonna happen on Trump's watch, not yet anyway, so that's something. Now, it's 'Progressives', presumably. Call them NeoLiberals if you like.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/oct99/nixon6.htm

    Washington Post - October 6, 1999

    ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies.

    Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added:

    "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?"

    Haldeman agreed wholeheartedly. "Their whole orientation is against you. In this administration, anyway. And they are smart. They have the ability to do what they want to do--which is to hurt us." ...

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , February 19, 2017 at 05:19 AM
    Trump Is Showing How the Deep State Really Works
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/15/trump-is-showing-how-the-deep-state-really-works/
    Foreign Policy - Feb 15

    The who, what, where, and why of the Trump administration's first major scandal - Michael Flynn's ignominious resignation on Monday as national security advisor - have all been thoroughly discussed. Relatively neglected, and deserving of far more attention, has been the how.

    The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it.

    We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak.

    Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance.

    But a welter of laws, many of them tweaked after the Snowden revelations, govern the distribution of any information that is acquired by such surveillance. And this is where it's highly relevant that this scandal was started by the public leaking of information about Mike Flynn's involvement in the monitoring of Kisylak.

    The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category.

    But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules

    At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence.

    For anything out of the ordinary - and, again, Flynn's status qualifies - the head of the National Security Division would be notified, and he or she would bring the raw FISA transcript to FBI Director James Comey or his deputy. Then, the director and his deputy would determine whether to keep the part of the communication that contained Flynn's words. The NSA has its own procedures for determining whether to destroy or retain the U.S. half of an intercepted communication.

    In this case, there were three sets of communications between Flynn and Kislyak, at least one of which is a text message. The first occurs on Dec. 18. The last occurs on Dec. 30, a day after sanctions were levied against people that the Russian ambassador knew - namely, spies posing as diplomats.

    The factors FBI Director Comey and his deputy would have had to consider in this case are complex. Flynn was a former senior intelligence official not in power at the time of the communications, though he did have an interim security clearance. Then there was the policy context: The United States wanted to know why Russia decided not to retaliate, according to the Washington Post.

    (Justice Department warned White House that
    Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail,
    officials say https://wpo.st/fthc2 Feb 13)

    But the most important factor would have been that Flynn was talking to the ambassador of a country who has been credibly accused of interfering in the election of his boss. Regardless of the content of Flynn's side of the call, it would be negligent if the FBI decided to minimize, or ignore, these calls, simply because Flynn is a citizen who is not subject to surveillance himself. But what Flynn said in the calls would have played a role in the FBI's determination to keep the transcripts unminimized - a fancy way of saying "unredacted."

    The Justice Department would then decide whether to pursue the matter further. If they thought Flynn was acting as an agent of a foreign government - and there's not a gram of evidence for this - they could apply for a normal surveillance warrant under Title III of the U.S. code.

    It is rare for the FBI or NSA to distribute raw, unminimized FISA material outside of controlled channels. But given the intelligence questions at stake, they would have had an obligation to circulate the Flynn transcripts to the National Security Council, which, during most of January, was peopled with President Obama's staff and detailees from other government agencies.

    Sometime before January 12, the fact that these conversations had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius, who wrote about them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January 16, Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls were mostly about the logistics of arranging further calls when Trump was President.

    At this moment, we are four days away from Trump's inauguration. The FBI agents and analysts who monitored the calls, as well as some NSC officials in the Obama administration, along with a few senior Justice Department attorneys, all knew with certainty that the content of the calls contradicted Flynn's account of them. The transcript of the Dec. 30 call proved as much.

    For reasons unclear to us, the FBI director, James Comey, did not believe that Flynn's misrepresentations amounted to a sufficient national security risk on January 16 to spring FBI investigators on the Trump team, or even on Flynn. Perhaps he felt that doing so right before the inauguration would have been too unseemly.

    But he did want to know more. In an extraordinary turn, agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn just a few days after Trump was sworn in, according to the New York Times. We don't know what they learned. But by January 26, Comey had dropped his objections to notifying the White House. (In the interim, Sean Spicer was asked about the calls again, and repeated the Flynn untruth.)

    Acting attorney general Sally Yates informed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, that their account of what Flynn said did not match what Flynn insisted he said.

    McGahn had the clearance to see the transcript, but it's fair to assume that many members of Trump's team probably did not. But that does not explain why it took 11 days for Vice President Pence, who certainly did have such clearance, to learn about the Justice Department warning. And it does not explain what the White House was doing as it mulled over this information for weeks.

    Here we have to leave the realm of reasonable conjecture, but the best explanation might be the easiest: incompetence or ineffectiveness from the White House counsel and an inability to foresee the real world consequences of their own decisions by White House principals. The country's intelligence agencies, by contrast, were far more clear-sighted in the use of their prerogatives and power.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 07:26 AM
    Obama's executive order and an act make it okay to attempt a coup trashing the 4 th amendment.

    The US confirms to the world it is not what it claims.

    [Mar 06, 2017] Russian effect is tiny compared to CIA Vickie Nuland color coup in Kyiv, sodomizing Qaddafi, greenlighting the military coup in Egypt, busting up Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan

    Mar 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    DeDude -> libezkova...

    , March 05, 2017 at 04:05 AM
    Yes sure Russians did all they could to get Hillary elected ??

    Now your desperation is becoming pathetic - comrade.

    ilsm -> DeDude... , March 05, 2017 at 07:34 AM
    How fast the loser become take the role of the enemies.

    Russian effect is tiny compared to CIA Vickie Nuland color coup in Kyiv, sodomizing Qaddafi, greenlighting the military coup in Egypt, busting up Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan.......

    There is nothing more than a politicized 'thought experiment' on how the Russians could in their alter reality have kept the career criminal from taking Pa and Wi.


    Their press even rolls out dead journalists against Putin while the 65 dead around the Clinton crime family is 'tin foil hat....'

    They'll fact check Trump on each 140 characters!

    [Mar 04, 2017] There is extremely powerful and influential fifth column of globalization within the country which intends to block Trump efforts to reverse neoliberal globalization

    Notable quotes:
    "... He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated" anti-neoliberal sentiments. ..."
    "... And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals: ..."
    "... Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve dιtente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism ..."
    "... Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization itself. ..."
    "... "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," ..."
    "... This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980. So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at ..."
    Mar 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    cm -> im1dc... March 04, 2017 at 05:59 PM 2017 at 05:59 PM
    The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president. What would motivate many people to go out for weekend rallies now?
    libezkova -> cm... , -1
    "The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president."

    You are absolutely wrong. Mission is not accomplished. It is not even started.

    Trump IMHO was just a symbol of resistance against neoliberalism that is growing in the USA.

    He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated" anti-neoliberal sentiments.

    And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals:

    1. Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve dιtente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism (despite being neoliberal country with neoliberal President -- Putin is probably somewhat similar to Trump "bastard neoliberal" a strange mixture of neoliberal in domestic politics with "economic nationalist" on international arena that rejects neoliberal globalization, on term favorable to multinational corporations).
    2. Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization itself.

    The problem is there is extremely powerful and influential "fifth column" of globalization within the country and they can't allow Trump to go this path. As Senator Dick Durbin said about banks and the US Congress

    == quote ==

    Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been battling the banks the last few weeks in an effort to get 60 votes lined up for bankruptcy reform. He's losing.

    On Monday night in an interview with a radio host back home, he came to a stark conclusion: the banks own the Senate.

    "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place,"

    == end of the quote ==

    This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980. So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/03/03/done-paul-craig-roberts/

    [Mar 04, 2017] DNC hack is used for fueling the witch hunt in best traditions of Russians are coming

    Notable quotes:
    "... Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security. ..."
    "... Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually is. ..."
    "... If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity. ..."
    "... There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today. ..."
    Mar 04, 2017 | www.newyorker.com

    March 04, 2017 at 05:33 AM

    Game Warden -> ilsm... March 04, 2017 at 05:57 AM

    The dems are like fishermen, baiting the water (and viewership) and then setting the hook to try to land the fish. They are following the old DC approach of pursuing one hot topic if there is any potential for a catch.

    The reps did that with the e-mails during the campaign and it paid off for them. They landed the Hillary carp and found that it rotted from the head anyway.
    The dems will see what type of fish, or old tire, or whatever, they land.
    The Old Man and The Sea it ain't.

    ilsm -> Game Warden...March 04, 2017 at 06:04 AM

    Oh well Clinton was never good with flies.

    My resident Hillary lover foresaw this week's Sessions version of 'the Russians are coming' two weeks ago.

    They should keep the operational schedule for the coup closer.

    libezkova -> ilsm... March 04, 2017 at 02:58 PM

    Those three neocon stooges wrote a really interesting piece. I would say this can qualify as a classic anti-Russian propaganda. All major anti-Russian myths are present.

    But in the sea of standard propaganda drivel and anti-Russian myths there are a couple of interesting admissions (it is difficult to lie all the time ;-)

    Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, frequently points to this history. He sees a straight line from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color revolutions," in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

    Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave the signal," Putin said.

    "They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, began active work." (No evidence was provided for the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and civil-society groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised instruments of regime change.

    ... .. ...

    Initially, members of the Russian ιlite celebrated Clinton's disappearance from the scene, and the new drift toward an America First populism that would leave Russia alone. The fall of Michael Flynn and the prospect of congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm. Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."

    In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has the political latitude to end sanctions against Moscow and accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the shifting mood in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage of the new President.

    ... ... ...

    *An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties.

    I especially like the last paragraph.

    Paine -> libezkova... March 04, 2017 at 03:39 PM

    The history of uncle Sam's Interference in foreign elections since1946 is a fun house with many many rooms

    anne -> anne... March 04, 2017 at 12:45 PM

    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....

    anne -> anne... March 04, 2017 at 01:00 PM

    Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security.

    Peter K. -> anne...March 04, 2017 at 01:05 PM

    "Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually is."

    Pinkybum -> anne... March 04, 2017 at 02:55 PM

    Surely you would want to express this number at least as inflation adjusted per-capita dollars (which GDP sort-of captures.)

    ilsm -> pgl... March 04, 2017 at 01:09 PM

    I like the OMB historical tables that reflects outlay/ordering authority that is the checking account to obligate money which might not show up in GDP expenditures for delivery for years.

    Tracking GDP metric is limited in perspective, it shows what was delivered and paid for in the accounting year. It does not show what is on the order books nor what new stuff is added to the order books.

    If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity.

    There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today.

    Why I am not sure measuring GDP impact without getting some account information on backlog procurements means much for any country.

    2009 was a big year for the peace prize surge!

    [Mar 03, 2017] Goose-stepping Our Way Toward Pink Revolution - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... The system the deep state primarily serves is not the United States of America, i.e., the country most Americans believe they live in; the system it serves is globalized Capitalism. ..."
    Mar 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Berlin. So the global capitalist ruling classes' neutralization of the Trumpian uprising seems to be off to a pretty good start. It's barely been a month since his inauguration, and the corporate media, liberal celebrities, and their millions of faithful fans and followers are already shrieking for his summary impeachment, or his removal by well, whatever means necessary, including some sort of "deep state" coup. Words like "treason" are being bandied about , treason being ground for impeachment (not to mention being punishable by death), which appears to be where we're headed at this point.

    In any event, the nation is now officially in a state of "crisis." The editors of The New York Times are demanding congressional investigations to root out the Russian infiltrators who have assumed control of the executive branch. According to prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, "a foreign dictator intervened on behalf of a US presidential candidate" "we are being governed by people who take their cues from Moscow," or some such nonsense. The Washington Post , CNN , MSNBC , The Guardian , The New Yorker , Politico , Mother Jones , et al. (in other words virtually every organ of the Western neoliberal media) are robotically repeating this propaganda like the Project Mayhem cultists in Fight Club .

    The fact that there is not one shred of actual evidence to support these claims makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. As I wrote about in these pages previously , such official propaganda is not designed to be credible; it is designed to bludgeon people into submission through sheer relentless repetition and fear of social ostracization which, once again, is working perfectly. Like the "Iraq has WMDs" narrative before it, the "Putin Hacked the Election" narrative has now become official "reality," an unchallengeable axiomatic "fact" that can be cited as background to pretend to bolster additional ridiculous propaganda.

    This "Russia Hacked the Election" narrative, let's remember, was generated by a series of stories that it turned out were either completely fabricated or based on "anonymous intelligence sources" that could provide no evidence "for reasons of security." Who could forget The Washington Post 's "Russian Propagandist Blacklist" story (which was based on the claims of some anonymous' blog and a third rate neo-McCarthyite think tank), or their "Russians Hacked the Vermont Power Grid" story (which, it turned out later, was totally made up), or CNN's "Golden Showers Dossier" story (which was the work of some ex-MI6 spook-for-hire the Never Trump folks had on their payroll), or Slate 's "Trump's Russian Server" story (a half-assed smear piece by Franklin Foer, who is now pretending to have been vindicated by the hysteria over the Flynn resignation), or (and this is my personal favorite) The Washington Post 's "Clinton Poisoned by Putin" story? Who could possibly forget these examples of courageous journalists speaking truth to power?

    Well, OK, a lot of people, apparently, because there's been a new twist in the official narrative. It seems the capitalist ruling classes now need us to defend the corporate media from the tyrannical criticism of Donald Trump, or else, well, you know, end of democracy. Which millions of people are actually doing. Seriously, absurd as it obviously is, millions of Americans are now rushing to defend the most fearsome propaganda machine in the history of fearsome propaganda machines from one inarticulate, populist boogeyman who can't maintain his train of thought for more than fifteen or twenty seconds.

    All joking aside, the prevailing mindset of the ruling classes, and those aspiring thereto, is more frightening than at any time I can remember. "The Resistance" is exhibiting precisely the type of mindlessly fascistic, herd-like behavior it purports to be trying to save us from. Yes, the mood in Resistance quarters has turned quite openly authoritarian. William Kristol captured it succinctly: "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, [I] prefer the deep state to the Trump state." Neoliberal Rob Reiner put it this way: "The incompetent lying narcissistic fool is going down. Intelligence community will not let DT destroy democracy." Subcommandante Micheal Moore went to the caps lock to drive the point home: "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on: TRUMP COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS TO THROW THE ELECTION TO HIM," and demanded that Trump be immediately detained and renditioned to a secure facility: "Let's be VERY clear: Flynn DID NOT make that Russian call on his own. He was INSTRUCTED to do so. He was TOLD to reassure them. Arrest Trump."

    These a just a few of the more sickening examples. The point is, millions of American citizens (as well as citizens of other countries) are prepared to support a deep state coup to remove the elected president from office and it doesn't get much more fascistic than that.

    Now I want to be clear about this "deep state" thing, as the mainstream media is already labeling anyone who uses the term a hopelessly paranoid conspiracy theorist. The deep state, of course, is not a conspiracy. It is simply the interdependent network of structures where actual power resides (i.e., the military-industrial complex, multinational corporations, Wall Street, the corporate media, and so on). Its purpose is to maintain the stability of the system regardless of which party controls the government. These are the folks, when a president takes office, who show up and brief him on what is and isn't "possible" given economic and political "realities." Despite what Alex Jones may tell you, it is not George Soros and roomful of Jews. It is a collection of military and intelligence officers, CEOs, corporate lobbyists, lawyers, bankers, politicians, power brokers, aides, advisers, and assorted other permanent members of the government and the corporate and financial classes. Just as presidents come and go, so do the individuals comprising the deep state, albeit on a longer rotation schedule. And, thus, it is not a monolithic entity. Like any other decentralized network, it contains contradictions, conflicts of interest. However, what remains a constant is the deep state's commitment to preserving the system which, in our case, that system is global Capitalism.

    I'm going to repeat and italicize that to hopefully avoid any misunderstanding. The system the deep state primarily serves is not the United States of America, i.e., the country most Americans believe they live in; the system it serves is globalized Capitalism. The United States, the nation state itself, while obviously a crucial element of the system, is not the deep state's primary concern. If it were, Americans would all have healthcare, affordable education, and a right to basic housing, like more or less every other developed nation.

    And this is the essence of the present conflict. The Trump regime (whether they're sincere or not) has capitalized on people's discontent with globalized neoliberal Capitalism, which is doing away with outmoded concepts like the nation state and national sovereignty and restructuring the world into one big marketplace where "Chinese" investors own "American" companies that manufacture goods for "European" markets by paying "Thai" workers three dollars a day to enrich "American" hedge fund crooks whose "British" bankers stash their loot in numbered accounts in the Cayman Islands while "American" workers pay their taxes so that the "United States" can give billions of dollars to "Israelis" and assorted terrorist outfits that are destabilizing the Middle East to open up markets for the capitalist ruling classes, who have no allegiance to any country, and who couldn't possibly care any less about the common people who have to live there. Trump supporters, rubes that they are, don't quite follow the logic of all that, or see how it benefits them or their families.

    But whatever they're all just fascists, right? And we're in a state of crisis, aren't we? This is not the time to sit around and analyze political and historical dynamics. No, this is a time for all loyal Americans to set aside their critical thinking and support democracy, the corporate media, and the NSA, and CIA, and the rest of the deep state (which doesn't exist) as they take whatever measures are necessary to defend us from Putin's diabolical plot to Nazify the United States and reenact the Holocaust for no discernible reason. The way things are going, it's just a matter of time until they either impeach his puppet, Trump, or, you know, remove him by other means. I imagine, once we get to that point, Official State Satirist Stephen Colbert will cover the proceedings live on the "Late Show," whipping his studio audience up into a frenzy of mindless patriotic merriment, as he did in the wake of the Flynn fiasco (accusing the ruling classes' enemies of treason being the essence of satire, of course). After he's convicted and dying in jail , triumphant Americans will pour out onto the lawn of Lafayette Square again, waving huge flags and hooting vuvuzelas, like they did when Obama killed Osama bin Laden. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't attend. Flying home may be a little complicated, as according to The Washington Post , I'm some kind of Russian propagandist now. And, also, I have this problem with authority, which I don't imagine will go over very well with whatever provisional government is installed to oversee the Restoration of Normality, and Love, of course, throughout the nation.

    C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (US). He can reached at his website, cjhopkins.com, or at consentfactory.org.

    [Mar 03, 2017] Neocons are trying to re-whip anti-Russian hysteria of McCarthy years but do not find as receptive an audience as they used to

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria. ..."
    Mar 03, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    financial matters , February 27, 2017 at 9:15 am

    It seems that the last worthwhile president we had was JFK. He started out his presidency as a Cold Warrior but at the end saw the futility of being involved in Vietnam and of the cold war in general.

    At the time there was a very strong anti-communist pro-war sentiment in the US which resonated well with the military industrial complex that Kennedy was up against when his views became more conciliatory with Russia. This anti-Russian sentiment is trying to be re-whipped up in the US but isn't finding as receptive an audience.

    Kennedy essentially lost control of his presidency. Trump seems to be facing similar pressures but I don't think he's so isolated in his battles. He has strong allies in both the military and industry and there is a different public sentiment.

    I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria.

    Russia seems to be treating its Arab neighbors with more respect and it would be good if Trump could get on that train. It would also be good to see Trump transition to a more climate friendly attitude such as partnering with China on solar energy.

    [Feb 27, 2017] Attack trump, fear Russia, ignore the deep state, scare them about racists and fascists*, there is nothing going to be fixed by the new crooks running the new DNC

    Feb 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K, February 24, 2017 at 05:52 AM , 2017 at 05:52 AM
    Nobody wants to talk about the DNC Chair debate. Huh.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/us/democrats-dnc-chairman-trump-keith-ellison-tom-perez.html

    Weakened Democrats Bow to Voters, Opting for Total War on Trump

    By JONATHAN MARTIN and ALEXANDER BURNS
    FEB. 23, 2017

    Reduced to their weakest state in a generation, Democratic Party leaders will gather in two cities this weekend to plot strategy and select a new national chairman with the daunting task of rebuilding the party's depleted organization. But senior Democratic officials concede that the blueprint has already been chosen for them - by an incensed army of liberals demanding no less than total war against President Trump.

    ... ... ...

    ilsm -> Peter K.... , February 24, 2017 at 06:55 PM
    attack trump, fear Russia, ignore the deep state, scare them about racists and fascists*, there is nothing going to be fixed by the new crooks running the new DNC

    * a few of tonight's pity party decorations.........

    [Feb 27, 2017] Whitney believes that Flynn's defenestration was the end of Trump's vaunted reconciliation with Russia policy.

    Feb 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    jo6pac , February 24, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    As some one here pointed out. It's Friday time for some Jeffery St Clair.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/24/roaming-charges-exxons-end-game-theory/

    Mike Whitney has a good article there also.

    geoff , February 24, 2017 at 5:59 pm

    Agreed– Whitney believes that Flynn's defenestration was the end of Trump's vaunted (around here anyway) reconciliation with Russia policy. New National Security Advisor McMaster is a Petraeus follower, and has repeatedly called out Russia as an aggressive power which must be contained and deterred with US and NATO military power.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/24/mcmaster-takes-charge-trump-relinquishes-control-of-foreign-policy/

    EndOfTheWorld , February 24, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    He's just an advisor. MacMaster will not make policy. But Trump is finding out, as many presidents have before him, that to a large extent the Pentagon runs itself. The military plans things way ahead of time. As president it's difficult to buck heads with the PTB on foreign policy. The best Trump may be able to do for the time being is stay out of war.

    I would prefer an outright lovefest with Russia. I like their anti-GMO policy. Maybe in a few years.

    [Feb 27, 2017] D efense amounts to almost 60 percent of federal spending,

    Feb 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : February 26, 2017 at 04:58 PM , 2017 at 04:58 PM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/us/politics/trump-budget.html

    February 26, 2017

    Trump to Seek Spending Spike for Military and Cuts Elsewhere
    By GLENN THRUSH and KATE KELLY

    President Trump will call on federal agencies to make major cuts to nondefense areas like the Environmental Protection Agency, officials said.

    But his outline does not reduce funding for the largest entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare.

    anne -> anne... , February 26, 2017 at 05:00 PM
    http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=2007&903=5&906=a&905=1000&910=x&911=0

    January 15, 2017

    Defense spending was 58.8% of federal government consumption and investment in 2016. *

    $732.2 / $1,244.5 = 58.8%

    anne -> anne... , February 26, 2017 at 05:56 PM
    * Billions of dollars

    So defense spending in 2016 was $732.2 billion or 3.9% of Gross Domestic Product.

    anne -> anne... , February 26, 2017 at 05:06 PM
    Since defense amounts to 58.8% of federal spending, and since there is going to be a federal tax cut and since increasing the federal deficit will be considered a problem, with defense spending increasing there will be no real or significant possibility of increasing infrastructure spending and there will be pressure to significantly cut nondefense spending.
    a
    anne -> anne... , February 26, 2017 at 06:12 PM
    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.

    But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....

    [Feb 26, 2017] US Gov Vetting Next President for Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... A Viktor Bout and Snowden Swap Imminent? ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Oui | Feb 22, 2017 12:52:15 AM | 2

    Posted earlier ...

    US.Gov Vetting Next President for Ukraine, Tymoshenko?

    Firtash can evade prison term if he "sells out" Russian leaders – Gerashchenko

    Oui | Feb 22, 2017 12:56:33 AM | 3
    More about Firtash in a post here ... Former Manafort UA Partner Facing Extradiction

    A Viktor Bout and Snowden Swap Imminent?

    Oui | Feb 22, 2017 1:07:23 AM | 5
    Dutch fake referendum on Ukraine ...

    Dutch Parliament secures required majority to support ratification of EU-Ukraine deal – outcome of debate

    On last day before recess and the March general election!

    [Feb 26, 2017] a textbook illustration how color revolution methods are used to discredit the government. To attack Trump Russia is skillfully painted as Big Satan contact with whom is sin

    Feb 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : February 24, 2017 at 08:26 PM

    RREAKING NEWS WaPo Exclusive RREAKING NEWS WaPo Exclusive

    "Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories"

    Ring any Nixon Bells with anyone???

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-enlist-intelligence-officials-key-lawmakers-to-counter-russia-stories/2017/02/24/c8487552-fa99-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html

    "Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories"

    By Greg Miller and Adam Entous...February 24, 2017...at 9:34 PM

    "The Trump administration has enlisted senior members of the intelligence community and Congress in efforts to counter news stories about Trump associates' ties to Russia, a politically charged issue that has been under investigation by the FBI as well as lawmakers now defending the White House.

    Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, U.S. officials said.

    The calls were orchestrated by the White House after unsuccessful attempts by the administration to get senior FBI officials to speak with news organizations and dispute the accuracy of stories on the alleged contacts with Russia.

    The White House on Friday acknowledged those interactions with the FBI but did not disclose that it then turned to other officials who agreed to do what the FBI would not - participate in White House-arranged calls with news organizations, including The Washington Post."...

    libezkova -> im1dc... , February 26, 2017 at 06:56 AM
    This article is a textbook illustration how "color revolution" methods are used to discredit the government.

    Russia is skillfully painted as "Big Satan" contact with whom is sin for Christians.

    What a despicable scum those presstitutes are...

    [Feb 26, 2017] The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins by John R. Schindler

    First of all "IC community" == Deep State and as such is against Trump, as he initially intended (but like Obama before performed bait and switch maneuver instead ) to change in some aspects neocon/neolib policy that the Deep State, and especially CIA and the State Department advances. well coordinated set of leaks and attack on members of trumps administration (starting with Flynn) followed. Appointment of the special prosecutor was an icing on the cake.
    If you exaggerate the significance of some conversation and then leak transcripts this is an intelligence operation against Flint. At least he ddid not expose internal kitchen of the State Department to any significant intelligence agency in the world.
    Flint behavior was non-professional, to say the least, as he surely understood (or should) that all conversations with Russians are recorded and can be leaked -- Obama has special interest in torpedoing Trump and probably during his eight years tenure acquired some fronds in those eservices, beyond his direct appointees. The author clearly has anti=Trump bias and try of exaggerate significance of conversation and put Russian actions in some bad light. what about similar Israeli actions. Or money flowing from KSA into Hillary coffers? British intelligence spying of Trump is also pretty interesting case, if you did into it deeply.
    Serious cleaning of intelligence agencies from neocons is needed, but Trump has not power of stamina to accomplish this Hercules level task. So as long as he remain President, intelligence agencies represent a direct danger for him as the key part of Deep State fighting Trump attempts to squash neoliberal globalization (and abandon key treaties, like NAFTA) and the wars of imperial expansion.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That the IC has ample grounds for concern is demonstrated by almost daily revelations of major problems inside the White House ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... In pretty much every capital worldwide, embassies that provide sanctuary to hostile intelligence services are subject to counterintelligence surveillance, including monitoring phone calls. Our spy services conduct signals intelligence -- SIGINT for short -- against the Russian embassy in Washington, just as the Russians do against our embassy in Moscow. Ambassadors' calls are always ..."
    "... Ambassador Kislyak surely knew his conversations with Flynn were being intercepted, and it's incomprehensible that a career military intelligence officer who once headed a major intelligence agency didn't realize the same. Whether Flynn is monumentally stupid or monumentally arrogant is the big question that hangs over this increasingly strange affair. ..."
    "... John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he's also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He's published four books and is on Twitter at @20committee. ..."
    Feb 12, 2017 | observer.com

    Intelligence Community pushes back against a White House it considers leaky, untruthful and penetrated by the Kremlin

    The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins Intelligence Community pushes back against a White House it considers leaky, untruthful and penetrated by the Kremlin By John R. Schindler • 02/12/17 10:00am

    In a recent column , I explained how the still-forming Trump administration is already doing serious harm to America's longstanding global intelligence partnerships. In particular, fears that the White House is too friendly to Moscow are causing close allies to curtail some of their espionage relationships with Washington -- a development with grave implications for international security, particularly in the all-important realm of counterterrorism.

    Now those concerns are causing problems much closer to home -- in fact, inside the Beltway itself. Our Intelligence Community is so worried by the unprecedented problems of the Trump administration -- not only do senior officials possess troubling ties to the Kremlin, there are nagging questions about basic competence regarding Team Trump -- that it is beginning to withhold intelligence from a White House which our spies do not trust.

    That the IC has ample grounds for concern is demonstrated by almost daily revelations of major problems inside the White House, a mere three weeks after the inauguration. The president has repeatedly gone out of his way to antagonize our spies, mocking them and demeaning their work, and Trump's personal national security guru can't seem to keep his story straight on vital issues.

    That's Mike Flynn, the retired Army three-star general who now heads the National Security Council. Widely disliked in Washington for his brash personality and preference for conspiracy-theorizing over intelligence facts, Flynn was fired as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency for managerial incompetence and poor judgment -- flaws he has brought to the far more powerful and political NSC.

    Flynn's problems with the truth have been laid bare by the growing scandal about his dealings with Moscow. Strange ties to the Kremlin , including Vladimir Putin himself, have dogged Flynn since he left DIA, and concerns about his judgment have risen considerably since it was revealed that after the November 8 election, Flynn repeatedly called the Russian embassy in Washington to discuss the transition. The White House has denied that anything substantive came up in conversations between Flynn and Sergei Kislyak, the Russian ambassador.

    That was a lie, as confirmed by an extensively sourced bombshell report in The Washington Post , which makes clear that Flynn grossly misrepresented his numerous conversations with Kislyak -- which turn out to have happened before the election too, part of a regular dialogue with the Russian embassy. To call such an arrangement highly unusual in American politics would be very charitable.

    In particular, Flynn and Kislyak discussed the possible lifting of the sanctions President Obama placed on Russia and its intelligence services late last year in retaliation for the Kremlin's meddling in our 2016 election. In public, Flynn repeatedly denied that any talk of sanctions occurred during his conversations with Russia's ambassador. Worse, he apparently lied in private too, including to Vice President Mike Pence, who when this scandal broke last month publicly denied that Flynn conducted any sanctions talk with Kislyak. Pence and his staff are reported to be very upset with the national security adviser, who played the vice president for a fool.

    It's debatable whether Flynn broke any laws by conducting unofficial diplomacy with Moscow, then lying about it, and he has now adopted the customary Beltway dodge about the affair, ditching his previous denials in favor of professing he has "no recollection of discussing sanctions," adding that he "couldn't be certain that the topic never came up." That's not good enough anymore, since the IC knows exactly what Flynn and Kislyak discussed.

    In pretty much every capital worldwide, embassies that provide sanctuary to hostile intelligence services are subject to counterintelligence surveillance, including monitoring phone calls. Our spy services conduct signals intelligence -- SIGINT for short -- against the Russian embassy in Washington, just as the Russians do against our embassy in Moscow. Ambassadors' calls are always monitored: that's how the SpyWar works, everywhere.

    Ambassador Kislyak surely knew his conversations with Flynn were being intercepted, and it's incomprehensible that a career military intelligence officer who once headed a major intelligence agency didn't realize the same. Whether Flynn is monumentally stupid or monumentally arrogant is the big question that hangs over this increasingly strange affair.

    Prominent Democrats in Congress are already calling for Flynn to be relieved over this scandal, which at best shows him to be dishonest about important issues. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has bluntly asked for the national security adviser's ouster. Republicans on the Hill who would prefer that the White House stop lying to the public about its Kremlin links ought to get behind Schiff's initiative before the scandal gets worse.

    In truth, it may already be too late. A new report by CNN indicates that important parts of the infamous spy dossier that professed to shed light on President Trump's shady Moscow ties have been corroborated by communications intercepts. In other words, SIGINT strikes again, providing key evidence that backs up some of the claims made in that 35-page report compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence official with extensive Russia experience.

    As I've previously explained , that salacious dossier is raw intelligence, an explosive amalgam of fact and fantasy, including some disinformation planted by the Kremlin to obscure this already murky case. Now SIGINT confirms that some of the non-salacious parts of what Steele reported, in particular how senior Russian officials conspired to assist Trump in last year's election, are substantially based in fact. This is bad news for the White House, which has already lashed out in angry panic, with Press Secretary Sean Spicer stating, "We continue to be disgusted by CNN's fake news reporting."

    That is hardly a denial, of course, and I can confirm from my friends still serving in the IC that the SIGINT, which corroborates some of the Steele dossier, is damning for the administration. Our spies have had enough of these shady Russian connections -- and they are starting to push back.

    There are pervasive concerns that the president simply isn't paying attention to intelligence.

    How things are heating up between the White House and the spooks is evidenced by a new report that the CIA has denied a security clearance to one of Flynn's acolytes. Rob Townley, a former Marine intelligence officer selected to head up the NSC's Africa desk, was denied a clearance to see Sensitive Compartmented Information (which is required to have access to SIGINT in particular). Why Townley's SCI was turned down isn't clear -- it could be over personal problems or foreign ties -- but the CIA's stand has been privately denounced by the White House, which views this as a vendetta against Flynn. That the Townley SCI denial was reportedly endorsed by Mike Pompeo, the new CIA director selected by Trump himself, only adds to the pain.

    There is more consequential IC pushback happening, too. Our spies have never liked Trump's lackadaisical attitude toward the President's Daily Brief, the most sensitive of all IC documents, which the new commander-in-chief has received haphazardly. The president has frequently blown off the PDB altogether, tasking Flynn with condensing it into a one-page summary with no more than nine bullet-points. Some in the IC are relieved by this, but there are pervasive concerns that the president simply isn't paying attention to intelligence.

    In light of this, and out of worries about the White House's ability to keep secrets, some of our spy agencies have begun withholding intelligence from the Oval Office. Why risk your most sensitive information if the president may ignore it anyway? A senior National Security Agency official explained that NSA was systematically holding back some of the "good stuff" from the White House, in an unprecedented move. For decades, NSA has prepared special reports for the president's eyes only, containing enormously sensitive intelligence. In the last three weeks, however, NSA has ceased doing this, fearing Trump and his staff cannot keep their best SIGINT secrets.

    Since NSA provides something like 80 percent of the actionable intelligence in our government, what's being kept from the White House may be very significant indeed. However, such concerns are widely shared across the IC, and NSA doesn't appear to be the only agency withholding intelligence from the administration out of security fears.

    What's going on was explained lucidly by a senior Pentagon intelligence official, who stated that "since January 20, we've assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the SITROOM," meaning the White House Situation Room, the 5,500 square-foot conference room in the West Wing where the president and his top staffers get intelligence briefings. "There's not much the Russians don't know at this point," the official added in wry frustration.

    None of this has happened in Washington before. A White House with unsettling links to Moscow wasn't something anybody in the Pentagon or the Intelligence Community even considered a possibility until a few months ago. Until Team Trump clarifies its strange relationship with the Kremlin, and starts working on its professional honesty, the IC will approach the administration with caution and concern.

    I previously warned the Trump administration not to go to war with the nation's spies, and here's why. This is a risky situation, particularly since President Trump is prone to creating crises foreign and domestic with his incautious tweets. In the event of a serious international crisis of the sort which eventually befalls almost every administration, the White House will need the best intelligence possible to prevent war, possibly even nuclear war. It may not get the information it needs in that hour of crisis, and for that it has nobody to blame but itself.

    John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he's also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He's published four books and is on Twitter at @20committee.

    [Feb 26, 2017] US Gov Vetting Next President for Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... A Viktor Bout and Snowden Swap Imminent? ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Oui | Feb 22, 2017 12:52:15 AM | 2

    Posted earlier ...

    US.Gov Vetting Next President for Ukraine, Tymoshenko?

    Firtash can evade prison term if he "sells out" Russian leaders – Gerashchenko

    Oui | Feb 22, 2017 12:56:33 AM | 3
    More about Firtash in a post here ... Former Manafort UA Partner Facing Extradiction

    A Viktor Bout and Snowden Swap Imminent?

    Oui | Feb 22, 2017 1:07:23 AM | 5
    Dutch fake referendum on Ukraine ...

    Dutch Parliament secures required majority to support ratification of EU-Ukraine deal – outcome of debate

    On last day before recess and the March general election!

    [Feb 26, 2017] The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its flock

    Notable quotes:
    "... The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its flock. The terrorists that want to kill us for our liberties You should have included this in your article. ..."
    Feb 26, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The trend is to Deep State co-opt democracy, and use it overthrow legit goverment and replace it will neoliberal stooges what pray on the altor of democracy-killing Globalism that makes of all governments just enforces for wishes of multinationals. Corporatism does not involves any real democracy, not at all.
  • Sceptic , says: February 23, 2017 at 11:28 am
    Bacevich is one of our very few strategic thinkers. What Bacevich has disclosed here is something far more significant than merely the faults of Brooks' or of neoconservatism generally (and to be fair, where Brooks goes beyond neoconservatism/nationalism, he can be thoughtful).

    What he has disclosed in fact is that America's primary - I emphasize again, primary - strategic threat is not N. Korea, or radical Islam, or Russia, but its own revolutionary, messianic, expansionist ideology. That is the source of our woes, our growing insecurities and looming financial bankruptcy (to say nothing of the sufferings of millions of our victims).

    America's strategic problem is its own mental imprisonment: its self-worship, its inability to view itself - its destructive acts as well as its pet handful of ideas torn from the complex fabric of a truly vibrant culture - with any critical distance or objectivity.

    Joined to that, and as a logical consequence of it - the United States' persistent inability to view with any objectivity its endless, often manufactured enemies.

    Cornel Lencar , says: February 23, 2017 at 11:46 am
    Kudos Mr. Bacevich for an exceptional piece!

    Somehow the current situation in the U.S. reminds me of the end of a TV miniseries, "Merlin", where Sam Neil plays the role of Merlin. At the end, Merlin speaks to his archenemy, Morgana, that she will loose her grip on the people because they will just stop believing in her and her powers. And as he speaks, the group of countrymen surrounding Merlin turn their back one after another at Morgana and after the last one turns her back, Morgana simply vanishes

    The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its flock. The terrorists that want to kill us for our liberties You should have included this in your article.

    Also, mentioning Jerusalem, a place of madness and fervor, and pain, and strife, that has brought nothing civilizational to the world, as in par with Rome, Athens, Baghdad, Florence, and other cultural centres in Iran, China, India, Japan, is an overstretch

  • [Feb 25, 2017] The Conflictual Relationship Between Donald Trump And The US Deep State - Part 1 Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. ..."
    "... "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?" ..."
    "... What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God". ..."
    "... "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly. ..."
    "... If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy. ..."
    "... The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. ..."
    Feb 25, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    ... ... ...

    The first two weeks of the new presidency have already provided a few significant events. The operation that took place in Yemen, conducted by the American special forces and directed against Al Qaeda, has reprised the previous administration. Being a complex operation that required thorough preparation, the new administration thereby had to necessarily represent a continuation of the old one. Details are still vague, but looking at the outcome, the mission failed as a result of incompetence. The American special forces were spotted before arriving at al Qaeda's supposed base. This resulted in the shooting of anything that moved, causing more than 25 civilian deaths.

    The media that had been silent during the Obama administration was rightfully quick to condemn the killing of innocent people, and harsh criticism was directed at the administration for this operation. It is entirely possible that the operation was set up to fail, intended to delegitimize the operational capabilities of the new Trump team. Given the links between al Qaeda, the Saudis and the neoconservatives, something historically proven, it is not unthinkable that the failure of the operation was a consequence of an initial attempt at sabotaging Trump on a key aspect of his presidency, namely the successful execution of counter-terrorist efforts against Islamist terrorism.

    Another structural component in the attempts to undermine the Trump administration concern the deployment of NATO and US troops on the western border of the Russian Federation. This attempt is obvious and is one of the strategies aimed at preventing a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow. The EU persists in its self-defeating policy, focusing its attention on foreign policy instead of gaining strategic independence thanks to the new presidency. It is now even more clear that European Union leaders, and in particular the current political representatives in Germany and France, have every intention of continuing in the direction set by the Obama presidency, seeking a futile confrontation with the Russian Federation instead of a sensible rapprochement.

    Europe continues to insist on failed economic and social policies that will lead to bankruptcy, using foreign-policy issues as diversions and excuses. The consequences of these wrongheaded efforts will inevitably favor the election of nationalist and populist parties, as seen in the United States and other countries, which will end in the destruction of the EU. For the US deep state and their long-term objectives, this tactic has a dual effect: it prevents the proper functioning of the EU as well as significantly halts any rapprochement between the EU and the Russian Federation. The latter strategy looks more and more irreversible given the current European Union elites. In this sense, the UK, thanks to Brexit, seems to have broken free and started to slowly restructure its foreign- policy priorities, in close alignment to Trump's isolationism.

    Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. The intentions are clear and assorted. First is the constant attempt to sabotage any rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, hoping to engulf Trump in an American/NATO escalation of events in Ukraine. Second, given the critical situation in Europe, is the effort to push Berlin to assume the burden of economically supporting the failing administration in Kiev. Third is the increasing pressure applied to Russia and Putin, as was already seen in 2014, in an effort to actively involve the Russian Federation in the Ukrainian conflict so as to justify NATO's direct involvement or even that of the United States. The latter situation would be the dream of the neoconservatives, setting Trump and Putin on a direct collision course.

    The new American administration has thus far suffered at least three sabotage attempts, and it is the attitude Trump intends to have with the rest of the world that has spurred them. In an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Trump reiterated that his primary focus is not governed by the doctrine of American exceptionalism, a concept he does not subscribe to anyhow. The religion driving democratic evangelization looks more likely to be replaced with a pragmatic, realist geopolitical stance.

    This is how one could sum up Trump's words to Bill O'Reilly:

    "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?"

    What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God".

    In an article a few weeks ago, I tried to lay the foundations for a future US administration, placing a strong focus on foreign policy and revealing a possible shift in US historic foreign relations. In a passage I wrote:

    "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly.

    In general, the Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference in foreign governments, Arab springs and color revolutions. They just don't work. They cost too much in terms of political credibility, in Ukraine the US are allied with supporters of Bandera (historical figure who collaborated with the Nazis) and in Middle East they finance or indirectly support al Qaeda and al Nusra front".

    The recent meeting in Washington with Theresa May, the first official encounter with a prominent US ally, revealed, among other things, a possible dramatic change in US policy. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom expressed her desire to follow a new policy of non-intervention, in line with the isolationist strategy Trump has spoken about since running for office. In a joint press conference with the American president, May said: "The era of military intervention is over. London and Washington will not return to the failed policy in the past that has led to intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya".

    During the election campaign, Trump made his intentions clear in different contexts, but always coming from the standpoint of non-interventionism inspired by the concept of isolationism. It is becoming apparent that these intentions are being put into action, though the rhetoric regarding Iran has become alarming. In typical Trump fashion (which contrasts with the Iran issue), the situation in Syria is normalizing and the initial threats directed at China appear to have been put aside. The case of Iran is a different and complex story, requiring a deeper analysis that deserves a separate article. What will gradually be important, as the Presidency progresses, is understanding the necessity to distinguish between words and actions, separating provocations from intentions.

    Conclusions and future questions

    There is a whole list of Trump statements that are seen as threats to other countries, primarily Iran. The next article will further explain the possible strategy to be employed by Donald Trump to fight these attempts to sabotage his administration, a strategy that seems to be based on silences, bluffs and admissions to counter the perpetual attempts to influence his presidency. If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy.

    The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. It is only in the next few months that we will come to understand if Trump will be willing to continue the fight against war or bend the knee and pay the price.

    Mustafa Kemal , Feb 21, 2017 11:21 PM

    " What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy."

    This was a strange article, but after reading the above quote I had to laugh and could not find the gumption to continue reading.

    Who could write something like that?

    BarnacleBill , Feb 21, 2017 11:29 PM

    The Deep State ought to have beaten Trump already - one way or another...! But somebody with brains has realised that it's not just Trump. It's the political movement that he heads***. Even if they killed DT tomorrow (and it's certain to have been on their agenda), the Trumpista Party would survive: it's too active and too popular to disappear. So the establishment pretty much has to wrap up the entire movement. They have left things dangerously late, from their point of view.

    *** I know he didn't start it; it's the old Pat Buchanan + Ron Paul gang, but Donald is twice as cunning as those chaps. I really don't think he'll win his war with the bad guys - the War Party - but his influence will be quite long-lasting. And of course he is our last hope to roll back the spectre of "1984".

    [Feb 25, 2017] Stephen Kinzer: The Brothers - Rise of Exceptionalism and Aspirations of Empire

    Video: watch-v=Mxw0B8wgoQU. the book The Brothers John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War Stephen Kinzer 9780805094978 Amazon.com Books
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Exceptionalism"- the view that the United States has a right to impose its will because it knows more, sees farther, and lives on a higher moral plane than other nations-was to them not a platitude, but the organizing principle of daily life and global politics... ..."
    jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

    "Exceptionalism"- the view that the United States has a right to impose its will because it knows more, sees farther, and lives on a higher moral plane than other nations-was to them not a platitude, but the organizing principle of daily life and global politics...

    With a glance, a nod, and a few words, without consulting anyone other than the President, the brothers could mobilize the full power of the United States anywhere in the world."

    Stephen Kinzer, The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War

    [Feb 25, 2017] The American Disease: I Deserve To Get Away With Anything Everything

    Notable quotes:
    "... entitlement and power means you never have to apologize for anything ..."
    "... What the American with power does have in nearly limitless abundance is a grandiose yet unacknowledged sense of entitlement and a volcanic sense of indignation . ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Here's the American Disease in a nutshell: entitlement and power means you never have to apologize for anything. Public relations might require a grudging, insincere quasi-apology, but the person with power can't evince humility or shame--he or she doesn't have any.

    What the American with power does have in nearly limitless abundance is a grandiose yet unacknowledged sense of entitlement and a volcanic sense of indignation .

    [Feb 25, 2017] Iraq Is It Oil naked capitalism

    Feb 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Arthur MacEwan. Originally published at Triple Crisis

    The Issue Revisited

    Around the time that the United States invaded Iraq, 14 years ago, I was in an auditorium at the University of Massachusetts Boston to hear then-Senator John Kerry try to justify the action. As he got into his speech, a loud, slow, calm voice came from the back of the room: "O – I – L." Kerry tried to ignore the comment. But, again and again, "O – I – L." Kerry simply went on with his prepared speech. The speaker from the back of the room did not continue long, but he had succeeded in determining the tenor of the day.

    Looking back on U.S. involvement in the Iraq, it appears to have been largely a failure. Iraq, it turned out, had no "weapons of mass destruction," but this original rationalization for invasion offered by the U.S. government was soon replaced by the goal of "regime change" and the creation of a "democratic Iraq." The regime was changed, and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain was captured and executed. But it would be very had to claim that a democratic Iraq either exists or is in the making-to say nothing of the rise of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) and the general destabilization in the Middle East, both of which the U.S. invasion of Iraq helped propel.

    Yet, perhaps on another scale, the invasion would register as at least a partial success. This is the scale of O – I – L

    The Profits from Oil

    At the time of the U.S. invasion, I wrote an article for Dollars & Sense titled "Is It Oil?" (available online here ). I argued that, while the invasion may have had multiple motives, oil-or more precisely, profit from oil-was an important factor. Iraq, then and now, has huge proven oil reserves, not in the same league as Saudi Arabia, but in group of oil producing countries just behind the Saudis. It might appear, then, that the United States wanted access to Iraqi oil in order to meet the needs of our highly oil-dependent lifestyles in this country. After all, the United States today, with just over 4% of the world's population, accounts for 20% of the world's annual oil use; China, with around 20% of the world's population is a distant second in global oil use, at 13%. Even after opening new reserves in recent years, U.S. proven reserves amount to only 3% of the world total.

    Except in extreme circumstances, however, access to oil is not a major problem for this county. And it was not in 2003. As I pointed out back then, the United States bought 284 million barrels of oil from Iraq in 2001, about 7% of U.S. imports, even while the two countries were in a virtual state of war. In 2015, only 30% as much oil came to the United States from Iraq, amounting to just 2.4% of total U.S. oil imports. Further, in 2015, while the United States has had extremely hostile relations with Venezuela, 24% of U.S. oil imports came from that country's nationalized oil industry. It would seem that, in the realm of commerce, bad political relations between buyers and sellers are not necessarily an obstacle.

    For the U.S. government, the Iraq oil problem was not so much access, in the sense of meeting U.S. oil needs, as the fact that U.S. firms had been frozen out of Iraq since the country's oil industry was nationalized in 1972. They and the other oil "majors" based in U.S.-allied countries were not getting a share of the profits that were generated from the exploitation of Iraqi oil. Profits from oil exploitation come not only to the oil companies-ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, British Petroleum, and the other industry "majors"-but also to the companies that supply and operate equipment, drill wells, and provide other services that bring the oil out of the ground and to consumers around the world-for example, the U.S. firms Halliburton, Emerson, Baker Hughes, and others. They were also not getting a share of the Iraqi oil action. (Actually, when vice president to be Dick Cheney was running Halliburton, in the period before the invasion, the company managed to undertake some operations in Iraq through a subsidiary, in spite of federal restrictions preventing U.S. firms from doing business in Iraq.)

    After the Troops

    In the aftermath of the invasion and since most U.S. troops have been withdrawn, things have changed. "Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, U.S. and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera in 2012. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

    From the perspective of U.S. firms the picture is mixed. Firms based in Russia and China have developed operations in Iraq, and even an Indonesian-based firm is involved. Still, ExxonMobil (see box) has established a significant stake in Iraq, having obtained leases on approximately 900,000 onshore acres and by the end of 2013 had developed several wells in Iraq's West Qurna field. Exxon also has agreements with the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq to explore for oil. Chevron holds an 80% stake and is the operator of the Qara Dagh block in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, but as of mid-2014 the project was still in the exploratory phase and there was no production. No other U.S. oil companies have developed operations in Iraq. The UK-headquartered BP (formerly British Petroleum) and the Netherlands-headquartered Shell, however, are also significantly engaged in Iraq.

    While data are limited on the operations of U.S. and other oil service firms in Iraq, they seem to have done well. For example, according to a 2011 New York Times article:

    The oil services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International [founded in Texas, now incorporated in Switzerland] and Schlumberger [based in France] already won lucrative drilling subcontracts and are likely to bid on many more. "Iraq is a huge opportunity for contractors," Alex Munton, a Middle East analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm based in Edinburgh, said by telephone. "There will be an enormous scale of investment."

    The Right to Access

    While U.S. oil companies and oil service firms-as well as firms from other countries-are engaged in Iraq, they and their U.S. government supporters have not gained the full legal rights they would desire. In 2007, the U.S. government pressed the Iraqi government to pass the "Iraq Hydrocarbons Law." The law would, among other things, take the majority of Iraqi oil out of the hands of the Iraqi government and assure the right of foreign firms to control much of the oil for decades to come. The law, however, has never been enacted, first due to general opposition to a reversal the 1972 nationalization of the industry, and recently due to continuing disputes between the government in Baghdad and the government of the Kurdistan Region in northern Iraq.

    U.S. foreign policy, as I elaborated in the 2003 article, has long been designed not simply to protect U.S.-based firms in their international operations, but to establish the right of the firms to access and security wherever around the world. Oil firms have been especially important in promoting and gaining from this right, but firms from finance to pharmaceuticals and many others have been beneficiaries and promoters of the policy.

    Whatever else, as the Iraq and Middle East experience has demonstrated, this right comes at a high cost. The best estimate of the financial cost to the United States of the war in Iraq is $3 trillion. Between the 2003 invasion and early 2017, U.S. military forces suffered 4,505 fatalities in the war, and allied forces another 321. And, of course, most of all Iraqi deaths: estimates of the number of Iraqis killed range between 200,000 and 500,000.

    Altandmain , February 25, 2017 at 1:03 am

    Basically the US seems to have invaded for the enrichment of the multinational corporations at the expense of the rest of the world. Americans will pay a monetary price, but worse many have died and many more have lost their lives.

    Even if it had gone to plan, the average American would not have benefited. They would have paid the costs for war. Let us face the reality. There was no noble intent in invading Iraq. It was all a lie.

    The ridiculousness of Paul Wolfowitz and his claim that invading Iraq could be paid for through its oil revenue has become apparent. It has destroyed the stability of the area. We should nor idealize Saddam, who was a horrible dictator, but the idea that the US is going to be able to invade and impose its will was foolish.

    There was never any need to invade Iraq. If oil was the goal, Washington DC could easily have lifted the sanctions around Iraq. I doubt that the neoconservatives believed that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons of destruction or had anything to do with the 9-11-2001 attacks, which is why they claimed they invaded.

    If this madness does not stop, it will do much more damage, and like the Soviet Union, bankrupt the US.

    Mike , February 25, 2017 at 1:06 am

    Great overview of the real tragedy of Iraq-US companies having to share the spoils.

    It reminds me of Russia: the US seethes because Putin is the one looting the country and not them.

    Back in the 90s President Clinton issued countless demands to Yeltsin about oil pipelines and output increases, showing great impatience when the Russians dared to suggest environmental impact studies. (See the linked UPI article.) If only Putin would have let us frack the Kremlin he'd be our best friend!

    http://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/09/28/Clinton-presses-Yeltsin-on-oil-deals/6188780724800/

    [Feb 24, 2017] Andrew Bacevich Washington in Wonderland, Down the Iraq Rabbit Hole(Again)

    Notable quotes:
    "... *American style fascism. Spain and Italy still had a royal family under Franco and Mussilini, and in much the same way, the U.S. will always have elections. The national pride aspects will still reflect the host country at a level. ..."
    "... Take the "Pussy Riot" outrage. Yes, we ignore our pals in Riyadh, but DC rallied to the side of a group that trespassed and damaged a state museum. Freedom of speech was the rallying cry, and of course, "Pussy Riot" disappeared from the National discussion when the elites saw the actual video. The propaganda has to focus around American values. ..."
    "... Pussy Rioters served less time than US Terrorists serve waiting to be dismissed without charge. ..."
    "... Regardless, US anti-ISIS operations in Iraq/Syria amount to around $30 million a day, a tiny fraction of the several hundred million daily cost of the decade long occupation of Iraq. Until a united Iraqi political structure solidifies, the US is well positioned to continue grinding away at the ISIS threat for the foreseeable future. ..."
    "... Occupation was a $2 trillion disaster but the long game is stability and access to $20-30 trillion in oil, gas, and development. Obama has been consistent in his views that American 'ownership' of the Iraqi problem is a red-herring. Iraqis must rule themselves, and nothing forces divisive political groups together faster than the prospect of mutual annihilation. This will entail hard choices by all sides, border may be redrawn. However, Obama could yet pull a rabbit out of this hat. ..."
    "... The US supports various "moderate" jihadi groups in Syria fighting against the Syrian government which, of course, is the main opponent of ISIS in Syria. ..."
    "... How on earth does wearing down the Syrian government and effectively helping ISIS in Syria translate to "grinding down" ISIS in Iraq? Seems to me, if defeating ISIS is the main goal, supporting Syria would be the response. ..."
    "... The neocon reapproachment with saudi arabia was the first part of this sunni islamist attack on every other faith of the native people of the me. ..."
    "... I would love to know what Andrew Bacevitch thinks of Michael Glennon's little book "National Security and Double Government." ..."
    "... I would say that defense industry sales and profits trump everything else- in a corporatocracy nothing else could be as important. ..."
    "... If destroying the world means record profits, well then it is their fiduciary duty to do so. ..."
    "... A hidden point: The American Imperial system is creating it's own enemies as it goes. When will it create an enemy who is a serious threat, say, someone who can shut down or take over The Kingdom and it's resources? ..."
    "... Right now, the lunatics in DC are running the asylum. ..."
    "... I try very hard not to be more cynical than others on NC, debating the fine points of foreign policy or banking reform or election strategy, but the fact-checker in my head keeps getting in the way. That checker tells me that the right answer for each of those boils down to one thing: filthy lucre. ..."
    "... We do what we do, whether it is in Iraq or Wall St or Iowa because of one thing: there are a few billionaires who want another zero on their bank balances, and they could care less whether people starve or die or if the planet as a whole just chokes itself to death as a result. ..."
    "... Colonel, now Professsor, Andrew Bacevich again points to D.C.'s collective security delusions, using a recent TV discussion about ISIS with three D.C. insiders. Leon Panetta (former Defense Secretary and CIA Director) expresses the insanity most clearly: "Our national security interests are involved; otherwise, why would we be over there in the first place?" This is inverted logic, which Bacevich rightly calls "madness lurking just beneath the surface." ..."
    "... The principle threat to the nation is our disasterous policy of "internationalism", which inevitably puts us into the position of intervention - pouring blood and treasure into doubtful causes. ..."
    Jun 20, 2015 | naked capitalism

    digi_owl June 19, 2015 at 5:39 am

    The big F fascism of the 1930s may be "gone", but its basic tenets live on.

    hell, i'll claim right here and now that USA is potentially a single leadership change away from going overtly fascist.

    And its foreign policy is backing many potential fascists as well.

    participant-observer-observed June 19, 2015 at 6:40 am

    "single leadership change away"

    No change needed: dear leader fast track defender and exporter of "American corporate interests" [which latter now write the laws elected reps used to write] is now an un-elected entity and knows no term limits.

    Your day has arrived, friend.

    NotTimothyGeithner June 19, 2015 at 9:48 am

    *American style fascism. Spain and Italy still had a royal family under Franco and Mussilini, and in much the same way, the U.S. will always have elections. The national pride aspects will still reflect the host country at a level.

    Take the "Pussy Riot" outrage. Yes, we ignore our pals in Riyadh, but DC rallied to the side of a group that trespassed and damaged a state museum. Freedom of speech was the rallying cry, and of course, "Pussy Riot" disappeared from the National discussion when the elites saw the actual video. The propaganda has to focus around American values.

    There isn't a full blown aspect to fascism.

    Gio Bruno June 19, 2015 at 1:27 pm

    or that Russian culture (Orthodox Church) is deeply embedded in its relatively conservative population. (Most Russians were outraged at the desecration.) That's why Putin came down hard on the P-Riot. (Just like US courts come down hard on Terrists.)

    I have Russian emigre' friends (Millienials) who think P-Riot is off the deep end.

    Otter June 20, 2015 at 2:34 am

    Russians were outraged. But, came down hard?

    Pussy Rioters served less time than US Terrorists serve waiting to be dismissed without charge.

    Nick June 19, 2015 at 6:02 am

    On the other hand . The Kurds (purported good guys – secular, progressive, inclusive, oil rich) are growing stronger every day. ISIS continues weakening the Assad regime (which is still supported by Russia and Iran at great cost) – but now controls little more than a cluster of towns near the coast and could lose Damascus altogether in the coming months. Iran is a wild card, do they double-down in Iraq/Syria, or make a nuclear deal to reap billions on oil exports?

    Regardless, US anti-ISIS operations in Iraq/Syria amount to around $30 million a day, a tiny fraction of the several hundred million daily cost of the decade long occupation of Iraq. Until a united Iraqi political structure solidifies, the US is well positioned to continue grinding away at the ISIS threat for the foreseeable future.

    Occupation was a $2 trillion disaster but the long game is stability and access to $20-30 trillion in oil, gas, and development. Obama has been consistent in his views that American 'ownership' of the Iraqi problem is a red-herring. Iraqis must rule themselves, and nothing forces divisive political groups together faster than the prospect of mutual annihilation. This will entail hard choices by all sides, border may be redrawn. However, Obama could yet pull a rabbit out of this hat.

    James Levy June 19, 2015 at 6:59 am

    Couple of problems: 1) what evidence do you have that Iraq can be salvaged as a unified state? 2) why, given the reality of global climate change, would we ever want that oil and gas extracted? 3) please provide a map of this shrunken territory you claim is all that ISIS controls today–have they lost Ramadi yet? 4) ISIS is a creature of the Saudis and the Turks–how do they fit in all this? 5) Why are the Israelis so conspicuously leaving ISIS alone while continuing intermittent attacks against the duly constituted government of Syria?

    Nick June 19, 2015 at 8:02 am

    Well, no one probably knows what's going to happen in Iraq, so many pieces are in play. What is known, Assad is growing weaker, Syria is disintegrating, huge parts of Iraq are lawless without governance. So much depends on a nuclear deal with Iran, political consensus among Iraqi political groups ect the next 6 months will point to which direction things will move.

    lolcar June 19, 2015 at 9:08 am

    One more Friedman Unit, huh. That'll be about 19 FUs since we first heard that the next six months would be critical.

    NotTimothyGeithner June 19, 2015 at 9:53 am

    I checked. There have been 18 Friedman units since the term was used, so I guess this is the 19th. Friedman has been using "six month" intervals since November 03.

    lolcar June 19, 2015 at 10:14 am

    You're right. The term was coined in '06 but it was '03 that Friedman actually first said the next six months were critical and it makes more sense to count from there. So 11 and a half years or 23 FUs.

    sufferinsuccotash June 19, 2015 at 1:27 pm

    Your second point is the real kicker. The overriding US (and Western) policy regarding the Middle East should be: Keep The Fossil Fuels In The Ground.

    DJG June 19, 2015 at 9:36 am

    Has anyone yet been able to substantiate the gazillions that Iran is supposedly spending on a campaign to destabilize Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq? {Hey, and why not throw in destabilizing Greece, too?}

    How long have you been on the White House staff?

    sleepy June 19, 2015 at 9:56 am

    The US supports various "moderate" jihadi groups in Syria fighting against the Syrian government which, of course, is the main opponent of ISIS in Syria.

    How on earth does wearing down the Syrian government and effectively helping ISIS in Syria translate to "grinding down" ISIS in Iraq? Seems to me, if defeating ISIS is the main goal, supporting Syria would be the response.

    I'm not sure at all that Russia and Iran are anywhere close to giving up on Syria either, particularly Russia with its Syrian naval base.

    Pepsi June 20, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    There are several problems with your information.

    1. The kurds are not a monolith. There is the secular progressive marxist YPG in Syria, and then the Barzani one clan state of Kurdistan. The YPG have been baring the brunt of the fighting against daaesh.

    2. The islamist advances in syria only come because of the supply of thousands of anti tank weapons from the us and saudi. Along with air cover and artillery screens on the israeli border and turkish border. If this support would cut off, they would again fail.

    3. The us wrote the iraqi constitution to split it into ethnic statelets. The us set up the iraqi military to be ineffectual. Everything here is going according to plan.

    The neocon reapproachment with saudi arabia was the first part of this sunni islamist attack on every other faith of the native people of the me. A human presence in washington could end this very quickly.

    Doug June 19, 2015 at 6:52 am

    There are at least two additional elements to the deeper consensus being affirmed by the speakers. In addition to (1) ISIS is existential threat to US; (2) US must 'own' the problem; and, (3) 'ownership/leadership' must build around military might is this pair:

    A. Profits accruing to private sector military contractors are both sacrosanct and justified in light of free market superiority; and,

    B. The government/military/political establishment (e.g. these three speakers) cannot afford democratic practices such as critical thinking and debates across all three of Hallin's spheres (instead of just conventional wisdom) because that would undermine - be 'inefficient' – respecting the other elements of this consensus.

    Carla June 19, 2015 at 8:05 am

    I would love to know what Andrew Bacevitch thinks of Michael Glennon's little book "National Security and Double Government."

    Mbuna June 19, 2015 at 9:13 am

    I would say that defense industry sales and profits trump everything else- in a corporatocracy nothing else could be as important.

    If destroying the world means record profits, well then it is their fiduciary duty to do so.

    Raj June 19, 2015 at 2:37 pm

    I would put oil/gas right beside the defense industry in this case the U.S. isn't pushing all of its chips into the overthrow of the Assad regime for nothing Israel (and its U.S.-based partner, Noble Energy) needs to get the natural gas from the Levantine Basin to the Europe market somehow, and the ideal solution is to construct a pipeline across Syria but that can't happen until Assad is out and a "friendly" regime is put in place.

    Larry Headlund June 19, 2015 at 9:35 am

    If only Iraq had strong leadership that could maintain order; leadership hostile both to Islamic fundamentalism and to Iran.

    short memory June 19, 2015 at 1:26 pm

    I was under the impression that Saddam Hussein fit that bill rather nicely. Whatever happened to him?

    ambrit June 19, 2015 at 9:40 am

    We all know that this is not going to end well for the Middle East, and for America.

    A hidden point: The American Imperial system is creating it's own enemies as it goes. When will it create an enemy who is a serious threat, say, someone who can shut down or take over The Kingdom and it's resources?

    There's the real danger. We are forcing an evolution of Islamist militancy. Each time, the survivors of the current battle get more efficient.

    MikeNY June 19, 2015 at 10:16 am

    Andrew Bacevich for President, or Czar, or at least Secretary of Defense.

    Right now, the lunatics in DC are running the asylum.

    RUKidding June 19, 2015 at 10:43 am

    Good post with good info. All I can say is: eh? what else is new? Sending tanks to Iraq, are we now (again)? CHA CHING!!!!! What's good for the MIC is good for the crooks, thieves and liars in Washington DC.

    Why if ISIS didn't exist, it's almost like the CIA would have to recruit, arm, train and fund a similar group. Oh wait .

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL June 19, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    I try very hard not to be more cynical than others on NC, debating the fine points of foreign policy or banking reform or election strategy, but the fact-checker in my head keeps getting in the way. That checker tells me that the right answer for each of those boils down to one thing: filthy lucre.

    We do what we do, whether it is in Iraq or Wall St or Iowa because of one thing: there are a few billionaires who want another zero on their bank balances, and they could care less whether people starve or die or if the planet as a whole just chokes itself to death as a result.

    I should stop posting, it's not as though I want to see the the debates stop, and showing up and farting at the dinner party is such bad form. But I guess I hope people will ponder whether we really just have a money problem, and all of our other problems devolve from it.

    Steve June 19, 2015 at 11:56 am

    Maybe the best thing at this point is to tacitly acknowledge that Iran is best positioned to deal with ISIS and let them do it. This also entails accepting the reality of Iran's growing hegemony in the region. And that this is the price of having acted like such bad asses in taking out Saddam, only to get our pants pulled down in the aftermath.

    Cebepe June 19, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    Colonel, now Professsor, Andrew Bacevich again points to D.C.'s collective security delusions, using a recent TV discussion about ISIS with three D.C. insiders. Leon Panetta (former Defense Secretary and CIA Director) expresses the insanity most clearly: "Our national security interests are involved; otherwise, why would we be over there in the first place?" This is inverted logic, which Bacevich rightly calls "madness lurking just beneath the surface."

    Panetta also most clearly expresses (3 times, every time he opens his mouth) the D.C. doctrine of the "threat to our homeland," which is now ISIS in the Middle East, replacing al-Qaida. Bacevich says: "Peer out of the rabbit hole and the sheer lunacy quickly becomes apparent." Michele Flournoy reinforces Panetta by confirming that ISIS " is the new jihad." General Zinni reinforces the message by saying a stable Middle East is in "our national interest," and that trouble there can quickly "metastasize."

    Bacevich cannot do much with these three "smirking cats, ill-mannered caterpillars, and Mock Turtles" (though he does not identify which is which!), and he evidently was dissatisfied with his own performance, hence his subsequent excellent article republished here.

    Yet I wish Bacevich would focus on the main items of lunatic thinking, which is that ISIS is a "threat to the U.S. homeland," and that our merely being over there is proof that our national security interests are involved. We do not hear the leaders of European nations talking like this, though they are closer to the Middle East. We do not hear the Chinese or the Indians talking like this, though they are heavily reliant of buying oil in world markets. We do not hear anyone else talking like this, and yet the United States is the safest country in the world, geographically, yet it constantly talks as if it faces imminent threat.

    bh2 June 19, 2015 at 11:11 pm

    The principle threat to the nation is our disasterous policy of "internationalism", which inevitably puts us into the position of intervention - pouring blood and treasure into doubtful causes.

    The Chinese have meanwhile steadily grown their economic and political influence around the world without ever firing a single shot. Unlike us, they will trade with any country that trades in peace with them.

    Which strategy does it seem more likely will win in the long term?

    [Feb 23, 2017] The American Century Has Plunged the World Into Crisis. What Happens Now?

    Authors outlined important reasons of the inevitability of the dominance of chicken hawks and jingoistic foreign policy in the USA political establishment:
    .
    "...Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our infrastructure crumbles. Democracy itself has become virtually dysfunctional."
    .
    "...leading presidential candidates are tapping neoconservatives like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz - who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power - for advice. Our leaders seem to forget that following this lot's advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned."
    .
    "...A "war first" policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain. "
    .
    "...But challenging the "exceptionalism" myth courts the danger of being labeled "unpatriotic" and "un-American," two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning voices."
    .
    "...The United States did not simply support Kosovo's independence, for example. It bombed Serbia into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force in regions thousands of miles from its borders."
    .
    "...The late political scientist Chalmers Johnson estimated that the U.S. has some 800 bases worldwide, about the same as the British Empire had at its height in 1895.
    .
    The United States has long relied on a military arrow in its diplomatic quiver, and Americans have been at war almost continuously since the end of World War II. Some of these wars were major undertakings: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Libya. Some were quick "smash and grabs" like Panama and Grenada. Others are "shadow wars" waged by Special Forces, armed drones, and local proxies. If one defines the term "war" as the application of organized violence, the U.S. has engaged in close to 80 wars since 1945."
    .
    "...The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security state to levels that many dictators would envy. The Senate torture report, most of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus that runs the most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised."
    .
    "...the U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. The 1979 "Carter Doctrine" - a document that mirrors the 1823 Monroe Doctrine about American interests in Latin America - put that strategy in blunt terms vis-ΰ-vis the Middle East:"
    .
    "...In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans agreed that "over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism." Only 37 percent believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State began, those numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46 percent opposed it.
    .
    It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS, disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war, a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy.
    "
    Notable quotes:
    "... Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our infrastructure crumbles . Democracy itself has become virtually dysfunctional. ..."
    "... leading presidential candidates are tapping neoconservatives like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz - who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power - for advice. Our leaders seem to forget that following this lot's advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned. ..."
    "... A "war first" policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain . ..."
    "... But challenging the "exceptionalism" myth courts the danger of being labeled "unpatriotic" and "un-American," two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning voices. ..."
    "... The United States did not simply support Kosovo's independence, for example. It bombed Serbia into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force in regions thousands of miles from its borders. ..."
    "... As military expenditures dwarf funding for deteriorating social programs, they drive economic inequality. The poor and working millions are left further and further behind. Meanwhile the chronic problems highlighted at Ferguson, and reflected nationwide, are a horrific reminder of how deeply racism - the unequal economic and social divide and systemic abuse of black and Latino youth - continues to plague our homeland . ..."
    "... The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security state to levels that many dictators would envy. The Senate torture report , most of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus that runs the most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised. ..."
    "... the U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. ..."
    "... In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans agreed that "over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism." Only 37 percent believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State began, those numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46 percent opposed it. It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS, disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war, a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy. ..."
    Jun 22, 2015 | fpif.org

    U.S. foreign policy is dangerous, undemocratic, and deeply out of sync with real global challenges. Is continuous war inevitable, or can we change course?

    There's something fundamentally wrong with U.S. foreign policy.

    Despite glimmers of hope - a tentative nuclear agreement with Iran, for one, and a long-overdue thaw with Cuba - we're locked into seemingly irresolvable conflicts in most regions of the world. They range from tensions with nuclear-armed powers like Russia and China to actual combat operations in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.

    Why? Has a state of perpetual warfare and conflict become inescapable? Or are we in a self-replicating cycle that reflects an inability - or unwillingness - to see the world as it actually is?

    The United States is undergoing a historic transition in our relationship to the rest of the world, but this is neither acknowledged nor reflected in U.S. foreign policy. We still act as if our enormous military power, imperial alliances, and self-perceived moral superiority empower us to set the terms of "world order."

    While this illusion goes back to the end of World War II, it was the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union that signaled the beginning of a self-proclaimed "American Century." The idea that the United States had "won" the Cold War and now - as the world's lone superpower - had the right or responsibility to order the world's affairs led to a series of military adventures. It started with President Bill Clinton's intervention in the Yugoslav civil war, continued on with George W. Bush's disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and can still be seen in the Obama administration's own misadventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and beyond.

    In each case, Washington chose war as the answer to enormously complex issues, ignoring the profound consequences for both foreign and domestic policy. Yet the world is very different from the assumptions that drive this impulsive interventionism.

    It's this disconnect that defines the current crisis.

    Acknowledging New Realities

    So what is it about the world that requires a change in our outlook? A few observations come to mind.

    1. First, our preoccupation with conflicts in the Middle East - and to a significant extent, our tensions with Russia in Eastern Europe and with China in East Asia - distract us from the most compelling crises that threaten the future of humanity. Climate change and environmental perils have to be dealt with now and demand an unprecedented level of international collective action. That also holds for the resurgent danger of nuclear war.
    2. Second, superpower military interventionism and far-flung acts of war have only intensified conflict, terror, and human suffering. There's no short-term solution - especially by force - to the deep-seated problems that cause chaos, violence, and misery through much of the world.
    3. Third, while any hope of curbing violence and mitigating the most urgent problems depends on international cooperation, old and disastrous intrigues over spheres of influence dominate the behavior of the major powers. Our own relentless pursuit of military advantage on every continent, including through alliances and proxies like NATO, divides the world into "friend" and "foe" according to our perceived interests. That inevitably inflames aggressive imperial rivalries and overrides common interests in the 21st century.
    4. Fourth, while the United States remains a great economic power, economic and political influence is shifting and giving rise to national and regional centers no longer controlled by U.S.-dominated global financial structures. Away from Washington, London, and Berlin, alternative centers of economic power are taking hold in Beijing, New Delhi, Cape Town, and Brasilia. Independent formations and alliances are springing up: organizations like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa); the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (representing 2.8 billion people); the Union of South American Nations; the Latin American trade bloc, Mercosur; and others.

    Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our infrastructure crumbles. Democracy itself has become virtually dysfunctional.

    Short Memories and Persistent Delusions

    But instead of letting these changing circumstances and our repeated military failures give us pause, our government continues to act as if the United States has the power to dominate and dictate to the rest of the world.

    The responsibility of those who set us on this course fades into background. Indeed, in light of the ongoing meltdown in the Middle East, leading presidential candidates are tapping neoconservatives like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz - who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power - for advice. Our leaders seem to forget that following this lot's advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned.

    While the Obama administration has sought, with limited success, to end the major wars it inherited, our government makes wide use of killer drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and has put troops back into Iraq to confront the religious fanaticism and brutality of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) - itself a direct consequence of the last U.S. invasion of Iraq. Reluctant to find common ground in the fight against ISIS with designated "foes" like Iran and Syria, Washington clings to allies like Saudi Arabia, whose leaders are fueling the crisis of religious fanaticism and internecine barbarity. Elsewhere, the U.S. also continues to give massive support to the Israeli government, despite its expanding occupation of the West Bank and its horrific recurring assaults on Gaza.

    A "war first" policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain. Though it's attempted to distance itself from the neocons, the Obama administration adds to tensions with planned military realignments like the "Asia pivot" aimed at building up U.S. military forces in Asia to confront China. It's also taken a more aggressive position than even other NATO partners in fostering a new cold war with Russia.

    We seem to have missed the point: There is no such thing as an "American Century." International order cannot be enforced by a superpower alone. But never mind centuries - if we don't learn to take our common interests more seriously than those that divide nations and breed the chronic danger of war, there may well be no tomorrows.

    Unexceptionalism

    There's a powerful ideological delusion that any movement seeking to change U.S. foreign policy must confront: that U.S. culture is superior to anything else on the planet. Generally going by the name of "American exceptionalism," it's the deeply held belief that American politics (and medicine, technology, education, and so on) are better than those in other countries. Implicit in the belief is an evangelical urge to impose American ways of doing things on the rest of the world.

    Americans, for instance, believe they have the best education system in the world, when in fact they've dropped from 1st place to 14th place in the number of college graduates. We've made students of higher education the most indebted section of our population, while falling to 17th place in international education ratings. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation, the average American pays more than twice as much for his or her education than those in the rest of the world.

    Health care is an equally compelling example. In the World Health Organization's ranking of health care systems in 2000, the United States was ranked 37th. In a more recent Institute of Medicine report in 2013, the U.S. was ranked the lowest among 17 developed nations studied.

    The old anti-war slogan, "It will be a good day when schools get all the money they need and the Navy has to hold a bake sale to buy an aircraft carrier" is as appropriate today as it was in the 1960s. We prioritize corporate subsidies, tax cuts for the wealthy, and massive military budgets over education. The result is that Americans are no longer among the most educated in the world.

    But challenging the "exceptionalism" myth courts the danger of being labeled "unpatriotic" and "un-American," two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning voices.

    The fact that Americans consider their culture or ideology "superior" is hardly unique. But no other country in the world has the same level of economic and military power to enforce its worldview on others.

    The United States did not simply support Kosovo's independence, for example. It bombed Serbia into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force in regions thousands of miles from its borders.

    The U.S. currently accounts for anywhere from 45 to 50 percent of the world's military spending. It has hundreds of overseas bases, ranging from huge sprawling affairs like Camp Bond Steel in Kosovo and unsinkable aircraft carriers around the islands of Okinawa, Wake, Diego Garcia, and Guam to tiny bases called "lily pads" of pre-positioned military supplies. The late political scientist Chalmers Johnson estimated that the U.S. has some 800 bases worldwide, about the same as the British Empire had at its height in 1895.

    The United States has long relied on a military arrow in its diplomatic quiver, and Americans have been at war almost continuously since the end of World War II. Some of these wars were major undertakings: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Libya. Some were quick "smash and grabs" like Panama and Grenada. Others are "shadow wars" waged by Special Forces, armed drones, and local proxies. If one defines the term "war" as the application of organized violence, the U.S. has engaged in close to 80 wars since 1945.

    The Home Front

    The coin of empire comes dear, as the old expression goes.

    According Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, the final butcher bill for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars - including the long-term health problems of veterans - will cost U.S. taxpayers around $6 trillion. One can add to that the over $1 trillion the U.S. spends each year on defense-related items. The "official" defense budget of some half a trillion dollars doesn't include such items as nuclear weapons, veterans' benefits or retirement, the CIA and Homeland Security, nor the billions a year in interest we'll be paying on the debt from the Afghan-Iraq wars. By 2013 the U.S. had already paid out $316 billion in interest.

    The domestic collateral damage from that set of priorities is numbing.

    We spend more on our "official" military budget than we do on Medicare, Medicaid, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development combined. Since 9/11, we've spent $70 million an hour on "security" compared to $62 million an hour on all domestic programs.

    As military expenditures dwarf funding for deteriorating social programs, they drive economic inequality. The poor and working millions are left further and further behind. Meanwhile the chronic problems highlighted at Ferguson, and reflected nationwide, are a horrific reminder of how deeply racism - the unequal economic and social divide and systemic abuse of black and Latino youth - continues to plague our homeland.

    The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security state to levels that many dictators would envy. The Senate torture report, most of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus that runs the most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised.

    Bombs and Business

    President Calvin Coolidge was said to have remarked that "the business of America is business." Unsurprisingly, U.S. corporate interests play a major role in American foreign policy.

    Out of the top 10 international arms producers, eight are American. The arms industry spends millions lobbying Congress and state legislatures, and it defends its turf with an efficiency and vigor that its products don't always emulate on the battlefield. The F-35 fighter-bomber, for example - the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history - will cost $1.5 trillion and doesn't work. It's over budget, dangerous to fly, and riddled with defects. And yet few lawmakers dare challenge the powerful corporations who have shoved this lemon down our throats.

    Corporate interests are woven into the fabric of long-term U.S. strategic interests and goals. Both combine to try to control energy supplies, command strategic choke points through which oil and gas supplies transit, and ensure access to markets.

    Many of these goals can be achieved with standard diplomacy or economic pressure, but the U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. The 1979 "Carter Doctrine" - a document that mirrors the 1823 Monroe Doctrine about American interests in Latin America - put that strategy in blunt terms vis-ΰ-vis the Middle East:

    "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

    It's no less true in East Asia. The U.S. will certainly engage in peaceful economic competition with China. But if push comes to shove, the Third, Fifth, and Seventh fleets will back up the interests of Washington and its allies - Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Australia.

    Trying to change the course of American foreign policy is not only essential for reducing international tensions. It's critically important to shift the enormous wealth we expend in war and weapons toward alleviating growing inequality and social crises at home.

    As long as competition for markets and accumulation of capital characterize modern society, nations will vie for spheres of influence, and antagonistic interests will be a fundamental feature of international relations. Chauvinist reaction to incursions real or imagined - and the impulse to respond by military means - is characteristic to some degree of every significant nation-state. Yet the more that some governments, including our own, become subordinate to oligarchic control, the greater is the peril.

    Finding the Common Interest

    These, however, are not the only factors that will shape the future.

    There is nothing inevitable that rules out a significant change of direction, even if the demise or transformation of a capitalistic system of greed and exploitation is not at hand. The potential for change, especially in U.S. foreign policy, resides in how social movements here and abroad respond to the undeniable reality of: 1) the chronic failure, massive costs, and danger inherent in "American Century" exceptionalism; and 2) the urgency of international efforts to respond to climate change.

    There is, as well, the necessity to respond to health and natural disasters aggravated by poverty, to rising messianic violence, and above all, to prevent a descent into war. This includes not only the danger of a clash between the major nuclear powers, but between regional powers. A nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, for example, would affect the whole world.

    Without underestimating the self-interest of forces that thrive on gambling with the future of humanity, historic experience and current reality elevate a powerful common interest in peace and survival. The need to change course is not something that can be recognized on only one side of an ideological divide. Nor does that recognition depend on national, ethnic, or religious identity. Rather, it demands acknowledging the enormous cost of plunging ahead as everything falls apart around us.

    After the latest U.S. midterm elections, the political outlook is certainly bleak. But experience shows that elections, important as they are, are not necessarily indicators of when and how significant change can come about in matters of policy. On issues of civil rights and social equality, advances have occurred because a dedicated and persistent minority movement helped change public opinion in a way the political establishment could not defy.

    The Vietnam War, for example, came to an end, despite the stubbornness of Democratic and Republican administrations, when a stalemate on the battlefield and growing international and domestic opposition could no longer be denied. Significant changes can come about even as the basic character of society is retained. Massive resistance and rejection of colonialism caused the British Empire and other colonial powers to adjust to a new reality after World War II. McCarthyism was eventually defeated in the United States. President Nixon was forced to resign. The use of landmines and cluster bombs has been greatly restricted because of the opposition of a small band of activists whose initial efforts were labeled "quixotic."

    There are diverse and growing political currents in our country that see the folly and danger of the course we're on. Many Republicans, Democrats, independents, and libertarians - and much of the public - are beginning to say "enough" to war and military intervention all over the globe, and the folly of basing foreign policy on dividing countries into "friend or foe."

    This is not to be Pollyannaish about anti-war sentiment, or how quickly people can be stampeded into supporting the use of force. In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans agreed that "over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism." Only 37 percent believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State began, those numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46 percent opposed it.

    It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS, disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war, a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy.

    Making Space for the Unexpected

    Given that there is a need for a new approach, how can American foreign policy be changed?

    Foremost, there is the need for a real debate on the thrust of a U.S. foreign policy that chooses negotiation, diplomacy, and international cooperation over the use of force.

    However, as we approach another presidential election, there is as yet no strong voice among the candidates to challenge U.S. foreign policy. Fear and questionable political calculation keep even most progressive politicians from daring to dissent as the crisis of foreign policy lurches further into perpetual militarism and war. That silence of political acquiescence has to be broken.

    Nor is it a matter of concern only on the left. There are many Americans - right, left, or neither - who sense the futility of the course we're on. These voices have to be represented or the election process will be even more of a sham than we've recently experienced.

    One can't predict just what initiatives may take hold, but the recent U.S.-China climate agreement suggests that necessity can override significant obstacles. That accord is an important step forward, although a limited bilateral pact cannot substitute for an essential international climate treaty. There is a glimmer of hope also in the U.S.-Russian joint action that removed chemical weapons from Syria, and in negotiations with Iran, which continue despite fierce opposition from U.S. hawks and the Israeli government. More recently, there is Obama's bold move - long overdue - to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba. Despite shifts in political fortunes, the unexpected can happen if there is a need and strong enough pressure to create an opportunity.

    We do not claim to have ready-made solutions to the worsening crisis in international relations. We are certain that there is much we've missed or underestimated. But if readers agree that U.S. foreign policy has a national and global impact, and that it is not carried out in the interests of the majority of the world's people, including our own, then we ask you to join this conversation.

    If we are to expand the ability of the people to influence foreign policy, we need to defend democracy, and encourage dissent and alternative ideas. The threats to the world and to ourselves are so great that finding common ground trumps any particular interest. We also know that we won't all agree with each other, and we believe that is as it should be. There are multiple paths to the future. No coalition around changing foreign policy will be successful if it tells people to conform to any one pattern of political action.

    So how does the call for changing course translate to something politically viable, and how do we consider the problem of power?

    The power to make significant changes in policy ranges from the persistence of peace activists to the potential influence of the general public. In some circumstances, it becomes possible - as well as necessary - to make significant changes in the power structure itself.

    Greece comes to mind. Greek left organizations came together to form Syriza, the political party that was successfully elected to power on a platform of ending austerity. Spain's anti-austerity Podemos Party - now the number-two party in the country - came out of massive demonstrations in 2011 and was organized from the grassroots up. We do not argue one approach over the over, but the experiences in both countries demonstrate that there are multiple paths to generating change.

    Certainly progressives and leftists grapple with the problems of power. But progress on issues, particularly in matters like war and peace and climate change, shouldn't be conceived of as dependent on first achieving general solutions to the problems of society, however desirable.

    ... ... ...

    Conn Hallinan is a journalist and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. His writings appear online at Dispatches From the Edge. Leon Wofsy is a retired biology professor and long-time political activist. His comments on current affairs appear online at Leon's OpEd.

    [Feb 21, 2017] David Stockman provides one of the best commentaries on Flynn assassination by deep state and Trymp betrayal of Flynn

    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    David Stockman provides one of the best commentaries on Flynn assassination by deep state and Obama neocon holdovers in the administration. This is a really powerful astute, first class analysis of the situation:

    Flynn's Gone But They're Still Gunning For You, Donald

    http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/february/17/flynns-gone-but-theyre-still-gunning-for-you-donald/

    == quote ==
    ... ... ...
    This is the real scandal as Trump himself has rightly asserted. The very idea that the already announced #1 national security advisor to a President-elect should be subject to old-fashion "bugging," albeit with modern day technology, overwhelmingly trumps the utterly specious Logan Act charge at the center of the case.

    As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy:

    Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against potential members of the Trump administration, and disclosed that information to others. Even Richard Nixon didn't use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance operations. Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the leaking related thereto, smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and The Week both noted, it wreaks of 'police-state' style tactics. But knowing dear Sally as I do, it comes as no surprise.

    Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State.

    Indeed, it seems that the layers of intrigue have gotten so deep and convoluted that the nominal leadership of the permanent government machinery has lost track of who is spying on whom. Thus, we have the following curious utterance by none other than the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes:

    'I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,' he told The Washington Post. 'The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.'

    Well, yes. That makes 324 million of us, Congressman.

    But for crying out loud, surely the oh so self-important chairman of the House intelligence committee knows that everybody is bugged. But when it reaches the point that the spy state is essentially using its unconstitutional tools to engage in what amounts to "opposition research" with the aim of election nullification, then the Imperial City has become a clear and present danger to American democracy and the liberties of the American people.

    As Robert Barnes of LawNewz further explained, Sally Yates, former CIA director John Brennan and a large slice of the Never Trumper intelligence community were systematically engaged in "opposition research" during the campaign and the transition:

    According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping, listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember the infamous LA cases), and reported what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee. What justification was there for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future Trump appointee?

    Consider this little tidbit in The Washington Post . The paper, which once broke Watergate, is now propagating the benefits of Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort. (With the) FBI 'routinely' monitoring conversations of Americans...... Yates listened to 'the intercepted call,' even though Yates knew there was 'little chance' of any credible case being made for prosecution under a law 'that has never been used in a prosecution.'

    And well it hasn't been. After all, the Logan Act was signed by President John Adams in 1799 in order to punish one of Thomas Jefferson's supporters for having peace discussions with the French government in Paris. That is, it amounted to pre-litigating the Presidential campaign of 1800 based on sheer political motivation.

    According to the Washington Post itself, that is exactly what Yates and the Obama holdovers did day and night during the interregnum:
    Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries.

    So all of the feigned outrage emanating from Democrats and the Washington establishment about Team Trump's trafficking with the Russians is a cover story. Surely anyone even vaguely familiar with recent history would have known there was absolutely nothing illegal or even untoward about Flynn's post-Christmas conversations with the Russian Ambassador.

    Indeed, we recall from personal experience the thrilling moment on inauguration day in January 1981 when word came of the release of the American hostages in Tehran. Let us assure you, that did not happen by immaculate diplomatic conception -- nor was it a parting gift to the Gipper by the outgoing Carter Administration.

    To the contrary, it was the fruit of secret negotiations with the Iranian government during the transition by private American citizens. As the history books would have it because it's true, the leader of that negotiation, in fact, was Ronald Reagan's national security council director-designate, Dick Allen.

    As the real Washington Post later reported, under the by-line of a real reporter, Bob Woodward:

    Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described 'Iranian exile' who offered, on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan, not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November 4, 1980 election.

    The American participants were Richard Allen, subsequently Reagan's first national security adviser, Allen aide Laurence Silberman, and Robert McFarlane, another future national security adviser who in 1980 was on the staff of Senator John Tower (R-TX).

    To this day we have not had occasion to visit our old friend Dick Allen in the US penitentiary because he's not there; the Logan Act was never invoked in what is surely the most blatant case ever of citizen diplomacy.

    So let's get to the heart of the matter and be done with it. The Obama White House conducted a sour grapes campaign to delegitimize the election beginning November 9th and it was led by then CIA Director John Brennan.

    That treacherous assault on the core constitutional matter of the election process culminated in the ridiculous Russian meddling report of the Obama White House in December. The latter, of course, was issued by serial liar James Clapper, as national intelligence director, and the clueless Democrat lawyer and bag-man, Jeh Johnson, who had been appointed head of the Homeland Security Department.

    Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies.

    Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed!

    But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom.

    That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive.

    The Donald has been warned.

    [Feb 21, 2017] Stockman Warns Trump Flynns Gone But They are Still Gunning For You, Donald by David Stockman

    Notable quotes:
    "... In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down. ..."
    "... But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we shall amplify momentarily. ..."
    "... But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy as a private citizen. ..."
    "... It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that: ..."
    "... 'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a press release. ..."
    "... And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential peace overture to the Russians: ..."
    "... We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger. But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts" mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter of course. ..."
    "... As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy: ..."
    "... Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State. ..."
    "... Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries. ..."
    "... Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies. ..."
    "... Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed! ..."
    "... But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom. ..."
    "... That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive. ..."
    "... The Donald has been warned. ..."
    Feb 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    General Flynn's tenure in the White House was only slightly longer than that of President-elect William Henry Harrison in 1841. Actually, with just 24 days in the White House, General Flynn's tenure fell a tad short of old "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too". General Harrison actually lasted 31 days before getting felled by pneumonia.

    And the circumstances were considerably more benign. It seems that General Harrison had a fondness for the same "firewater" that agitated the native Americans he slaughtered at the famous battle memorialized in his campaign slogan. In fact, during the campaign a leading Democrat newspaper skewered the old general, who at 68 was the oldest US President prior to Ronald Reagan, saying:

    Give him a barrel of hard [alcoholic] cider, and a pension of two thousand [dollars] a year and he will sit the remainder of his days in his log cabin.

    That might have been a good idea back then (or even now), but to prove he wasn't infirm, Harrison gave the longest inaugural address in US history (2 hours) in the midst of seriously inclement weather wearing neither hat nor coat.

    That's how he got pneumonia! Call it foolhardy, but that was nothing compared to that exhibited by Donald Trump's former national security advisor.

    General Flynn got the equivalent of political pneumonia by talking for hours during the transition to international leaders, including Russia's ambassador to the US, on phone lines which were bugged by the CIA Or more accurately, making calls which were "intercepted" by the very same NSA/FBI spy machinery that monitors every single phone call made in America.

    Ironically, we learned what Flynn should have known about the Deep State's plenary surveillance from Edward Snowden. Alas, Flynn and Trump wanted the latter to be hung in the public square as a "traitor", but if that's the solution to intelligence community leaks, the Donald is now going to need his own rope factory to deal with the flood of traitorous disclosures directed against him.

    In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down.

    But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we shall amplify momentarily.

    But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy as a private citizen.

    It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that:

    'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a press release.

    Yet, we should rephrase. The re-litigation aspect reaches back to the Republican primaries, too. The Senate GOP clowns who want a war with practically everybody, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, are already launching their own investigation from the Senate Armed Services committee.

    And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential peace overture to the Russians:

    Sen. Lindsey Graham also said he wants an investigation into Flynn's conversations with a Russian ambassador about sanctions: "I think Congress needs to be informed of what actually Gen. Flynn said to the Russian ambassador about lifting sanctions," the South Carolina Republican told CNN's Kate Bolduan on "At This Hour. And I want to know, did Gen. Flynn do this by himself or was he directed by somebody to do it?"

    We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger. But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts" mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter of course.

    This is the real scandal as Trump himself has rightly asserted. The very idea that the already announced #1 national security advisor to a President-elect should be subject to old-fashion "bugging," albeit with modern day technology, overwhelmingly trumps the utterly specious Logan Act charge at the center of the case.

    As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy:

    Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against potential members of the Trump administration, and disclosed that information to others. Even Richard Nixon didn't use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance operations. Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the leaking related thereto, smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and The Week both noted, it wreaks of 'police-state' style tactics. But knowing dear Sally as I do, it comes as no surprise.

    Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State.

    Indeed, it seems that the layers of intrigue have gotten so deep and convoluted that the nominal leadership of the permanent government machinery has lost track of who is spying on whom. Thus, we have the following curious utterance by none other than the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes:

    'I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,' he told The Washington Post. 'The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.'

    Well, yes. That makes 324 million of us, Congressman.

    But for crying out loud, surely the oh so self-important chairman of the House intelligence committee knows that everybody is bugged. But when it reaches the point that the spy state is essentially using its unconstitutional tools to engage in what amounts to "opposition research" with the aim of election nullification, then the Imperial City has become a clear and present danger to American democracy and the liberties of the American people.

    As Robert Barnes of LawNewz further explained, Sally Yates, former CIA director John Brennan and a large slice of the Never Trumper intelligence community were systematically engaged in "opposition research" during the campaign and the transition:

    According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping, listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember the infamous LA cases), and reported what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee. What justification was there for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future Trump appointee?

    Consider this little tidbit in The Washington Post . The paper, which once broke Watergate, is now propagating the benefits of Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort. (With the) FBI 'routinely' monitoring conversations of Americans...... Yates listened to 'the intercepted call,' even though Yates knew there was 'little chance' of any credible case being made for prosecution under a law 'that has never been used in a prosecution.'

    And well it hasn't been. After all, the Logan Act was signed by President John Adams in 1799 in order to punish one of Thomas Jefferson's supporters for having peace discussions with the French government in Paris. That is, it amounted to pre-litigating the Presidential campaign of 1800 based on sheer political motivation.

    According to the Washington Post itself, that is exactly what Yates and the Obama holdovers did day and night during the interregnum:

    Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries.

    So all of the feigned outrage emanating from Democrats and the Washington establishment about Team Trump's trafficking with the Russians is a cover story. Surely anyone even vaguely familiar with recent history would have known there was absolutely nothing illegal or even untoward about Flynn's post-Christmas conversations with the Russian Ambassador.

    Indeed, we recall from personal experience the thrilling moment on inauguration day in January 1981 when word came of the release of the American hostages in Tehran. Let us assure you, that did not happen by immaculate diplomatic conception -- nor was it a parting gift to the Gipper by the outgoing Carter Administration.

    To the contrary, it was the fruit of secret negotiations with the Iranian government during the transition by private American citizens. As the history books would have it because it's true, the leader of that negotiation, in fact, was Ronald Reagan's national security council director-designate, Dick Allen.

    As the real Washington Post later reported, under the by-line of a real reporter, Bob Woodward:

    Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described 'Iranian exile' who offered, on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan, not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November 4, 1980 election.

    The American participants were Richard Allen, subsequently Reagan's first national security adviser, Allen aide Laurence Silberman, and Robert McFarlane, another future national security adviser who in 1980 was on the staff of Senator John Tower (R-TX).

    To this day we have not had occasion to visit our old friend Dick Allen in the US penitentiary because he's not there; the Logan Act was never invoked in what is surely the most blatant case ever of citizen diplomacy.

    So let's get to the heart of the matter and be done with it. The Obama White House conducted a sour grapes campaign to delegitimize the election beginning November 9th and it was led by then CIA Director John Brennan.

    That treacherous assault on the core constitutional matter of the election process culminated in the ridiculous Russian meddling report of the Obama White House in December. The latter, of course, was issued by serial liar James Clapper, as national intelligence director, and the clueless Democrat lawyer and bag-man, Jeh Johnson, who had been appointed head of the Homeland Security Department.

    Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies.

    Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed!

    But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom.

    That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive.

    The Donald has been warned.

    xythras , Feb 20, 2017 10:02 PM

    Assange is about to face censorship from one LENIN Moreno (next Ecuadorian president)

    Assange must Reduce "Meddling" in US Policies While in Ecuadorian Embassy

    http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-02-20/assange-must-reduce-meddling-i...

    How ironic

    Darktarra -> xythras , Feb 20, 2017 10:11 PM

    We haven't had deep state (successfully) take out a President since JFK. I am sure they will literally be gunning for Donald Trump! His election screwed up the elite's world order plans ... poor Soros ... time for him to take a dirt knap!

    Be careful Trump! They will try and kill you! The United States government is COMPLETELY corrupt. Draining the swamp means its either you or they die!

    wanglee -> Darktarra , Feb 20, 2017 10:18 PM

    Let us help Trump's presidency to make America (not globalist) great again.

    Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even though she has poor judgement (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent (her email server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be corrupt by Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration, discourage work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone. Democratic government employees/politicians also committed crimes to leak classified information which caused former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job and undermined Trump's presidency.

    However middle/working class used their common senses voting against Clinton last November. Although I am not a republican and didn't vote in primary but I voted for Trump and those Republicans who supported Trump in last November since I am not impressed with the "integrity" and "judgement" of democrats, Anti-Trump protesters, Anti-Trump republicans, and those media who endorsed Clinton during presidential election and they'll work for globalists, the super rich, who moved jobs/investment overseas for cheap labor/tax and demanded middle/working class to pay tax to support welfare of illegal aliens and refugees who will become globalist's illegal voters and anti-Trump protesters.

    To prevent/detect voter fraud, "voter ID" and "no mailing ballots" must be enforced to reduce possible "voter frauds on a massive scale" committed by democratic/republic/independent party operatives. All the sanctuary counties need to be recounted and voided county votes if recount fails since the only county which was found to count one vote many times is the only "Sanctuary" county, Wayne county, in recount states (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) last year. The integrity of voting equipment and voting system need to be tested, protected and audited. There were no voting equipment stuck to Trump. Yet, many voting equipment were found to switch votes to Clinton last November. Voter databases need to be kept current. Encourage reporting of "voter fraud on a massive scale" committed by political party operatives with large reward.

    Cashing in: Illegal immigrants get $1,261 more welfare than American families, $5,692 vs. $4,431 ( http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261... ) DEA Report Shows Infiltration of Mexican Drug Cartels in Sanctuary Cities ( http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/09/08/dea-report-shows-infiltration-... ) Welfare Discourages Work( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/27/the-science-is-settle... ) Hillary Clinton Says Bernie Sanders's "Free College" Tuition Plan Is All a Lie ( http://www.teenvogue.com/story/clinton-says-sanders-free-tuition-wont-wo... UC Berkeley Chancellor: Hillary Clinton 'Free' College Tuition Plan Won't Happen ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/30/uc-berkeley-chancello... ) Bill Clinton Impeachment Chief Investigator: I'm 'Terrified' of Hillary because we know that there were "People" who "Disappeared" ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/30/exclusive-bil... ) Former FBI Asst. Director Accuses Clintons Of Being A "Crime Family" ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/former-fbi-asst-director-accuse... ) FBI boss Comey's 7 most damning lines on Clinton ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-clinton-email-server-comey-da... ). Aides claiming she "could not use a computer," and didn't know her email password– New FBI docs ( https://www.rt.com/usa/360528-obama-implicated-clinton-email/ ). 23 Shocking Revelations From The FBI's Clinton Email Report ( http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/02/23-shocking-revelations-from-the-fbis-... ) DOJ grants immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up her email server ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-just... ) Former House Intelligence Chairman: I'm '100 Percent' Sure Hillary's Server Was Hacked ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/06/former-house-... ) Exclusive - Gen. Mike Flynn: Hillary Clinton's Email Setup Was 'Unbelievable Active Criminal Behavior' ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/06/exclusive-gen... ) Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials ( http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-clas... ) Obama lied to the American people about his secret communications with Clinton( http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/president-barack-obama-hillary-email-... ) Former U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft: FBI didn't 'clear' Clinton ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFYQ3Cdp0zQ ) When the Clintons Loved Russia Enough to Sell Them Our Uranium ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-cli... ) Wikileaks: Clinton Foundation Chatter with State Dept on Uranium Deal with Russia ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/08/wikileaks-putting-on-... ) Russian officials donated $$$ to Clinton Foundation for Russian military research ( http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/12/16/schweizer-insecure-left-wants-... ) Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal ( https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-... ) HILLARY CAMPAIGN CHIEF LINKED TO MONEY-LAUNDERING IN RUSSIA ( HTTP://WWW.WND.COM/2016/10/HILLARY-CAMPAIGN-CHIEF-LINKED-TO-MONEY-LAUNDE... ) The largest source of Trump campaign funds is small donors giving under $200 ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-self-fund_us_57fd4556e4... ) How mega-donors helped raise $1 billion for Hillary Clinton ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-mega-donors-helped-raise-1-b... ) Final newspaper endorsement count: Clinton 57, Trump 2 ( http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304606-final-news... ) Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash ( https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hill... ) Judicial Watch Planning to Sue FBI, NSA, CIA for Flynn Records ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/16/judicial-watch-planni... )

    President Trump Vowed to Investigate Voter Fraud. Then Lawmakers Voted to "Eliminate" Election Commission Charged with Helping States Improve their Voting Systems ( http://time.com/4663250/house-committee-eliminates-election-commission-v... ) California's Recipe for Voter Fraud on a Massive Scale( http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/01/27/voter-fraud/ ) California Republican Party Official Alleges Voter Fraud In California, a "Sanctuary" state ( http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/28/trump-among-those-saying-vot... ) BREAKING: Massive Voter Fraud Discovered In Mailing Ballots In Pennsylvania! See Huge Twist In Results! ( http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/massive-voter-fraud-pennsylvania/ ) "Voting Fraud" revealed during "Recount": Scanners were used to count one vote many times to favor Clinton in Wayne County, a "Sanctuary" county including Detroit and surrounding areas.( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-06/michigan-republicans-file-emerg... ) Illegal Voters Tipping Election Scales ( http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/243947/illegal-voters-tipping-election-s... ) Voter Fraud: We've Got Proof It's Easy ( http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368234/voter-fraud-weve-got-proof-... ) Voter Fraud Is Real. Here's The Proof ( http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/ ) Here's Why State Election Officials Think Voter Fraud Is a Serious Problem ( http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/17/heres-why-state-election-officials-thi... ) Documented Voter Fraud in US ( http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/ViewSubCategory.asp?id=2216 ) No, voter fraud isn't a myth: 10 cases where it's all too real ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth... ) Non-US citizen gets eight years for voter fraud in Texas after "Sucessfully Illegally Voted for at least Five Times" in Dallas county, a "Sanctuary" county( http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/09/non-us-citizen-gets-eight-years-... ) Democratic party operatives tell us how to successfully commit voter fraud on a massive scale ( http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/james-okeefe-rigging-elections-d... ) Texas Rigged? Reports Of Voting Machines Switching Votes To Hillary In Texas( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/texas-rigged-first-reports-voti... ) Voting Machine "Irregularities" Reported in Utah, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, & North Carolina ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-08/voting-machine-irregularities-r... ) Video: Machine Refuses to Allow Vote For Trump in Pennsylvania ( http://www.infowars.com/video-machine-refuses-to-allow-vote-for-trump-in... ) Electoral fraud ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud ) Voter fraud ( https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_fraud ) Sanctuary Cities Continue to Obstruct Enforcement, Threaten Public Safety( http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map ) List of Sanctuary cities( http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html ) Map Shows Sanctuary City Islands of Blue In Sea of Red ( http://www.infowars.com/map-shows-sanctuary-city-islands-of-blue-in-sea-... )

    Chris Dakota -> wanglee , Feb 20, 2017 10:59 PM

    I hit some long click bait about famous people IQ

    Barack Obama 140

    Donald Trump 156

    Trump knows whats coming. Rush Limbaugh said "I've known Trump for a long time, he is a winner and I am sure none of this phases him at all. The media didn't create him, the media can't destroy him."

    CheapBastard -> Darktarra , Feb 20, 2017 10:19 PM

    Flynn has been there for several years. If he was such a threat why did they not take action sooner since Soweeto appointed him in 2012? It must be that Soweto Obama is his spy buddy then, both of them in league with the Russians since Obama has been with Flynn for a much longer time he had to know if something was up.

    The entire Russian spy story is a complete Fake news rouse.

    I am wondering what they'll say tomorrow to draw attention awya form the muslim riots in Sweden. If the news of Muslim riots in Sweden, then Trump will be even more vindicated and the MSM will look even more stupid and Fake.

    Chupacabra-322 -> CheapBastard , Feb 20, 2017 10:54 PM

    The Deep State has accentually lost control of the Intelligence Community via its Agents / Operatives & Presstitute Media vehicle's to Gas Light the Masses.

    So what Criminals at large Obama, Clapper & Lynch have done 17 days prior to former CEO Criminal Obama leaving office was to Decentralize & weaken the NSA. As a result, Intel gathering was then regulated to the other 16 Intel Agencies.

    Thus, taking Centuries Old Intelligence based on a vey stringent Centralized British Model, De Centralized it, filling the remaining 16 Intel Agenices with potential Spies and a Shadow Deep State Mirror Government.

    All controlled from two blocks away at Pure Evil Criminal War Criminal Treasonous at large, former CEO Obama's Compound / Lair.

    It's High Treason being conducted "Hidden In Plain View" by the Deep State.

    It's the most Bizzare Transition of Power I've ever witnessed. Unprecedented.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-18/jay-sekulow-obama-should-be-hel ...

    oncefired -> CheapBastard , Feb 20, 2017 11:07 PM

    http://www.thomaswictor.com/leakers-beware/

    Duc888 -> CheapBastard , Feb 20, 2017 11:11 PM

    Flynn did not tell Pence that Pence's best friend was front and center on the Pizzagate list. That's what cost Flynn his job...it had fuck all do do with the elections.

    [Feb 21, 2017] Lawrence Wilkerson Travails of Empire - Oil, Debt, Gold and the Imperial Dollar

    Notable quotes:
    "... The BRICS want to use oil to "force the US to lose its incredibly powerful role in owning the world's transactional reserve currency." It gives the US a great deal of power of empire that it would not ordinarily have, since the ability to add debt without consequence enables the expenditures to sustain it. ..."
    "... Later, after listening to this again, the thought crossed my mind that this advisor might be a double agent using the paranoia of the military to achieve the ends of another. Not for the BRICS, but for the Banks. The greatest beneficiary of a strong dollar, which is a terrible burden to the real economy, is the financial sector. This is why most countries seek to weaken or devalue their currencies to improve their domestic economies as a primary objective. This is not so far-fetched as military efforts to provoke 'regime change' have too often been undertaken to support powerful commercial interests. ..."
    "... A typical observation is that the US did indeed overthrow the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran. But 'the British needed the money' from the Anglo-Iranian oil company in order to rebuild after WW II. Truman had rejected the notion, but Eisenhower the military veteran and Republic agreed to it. Wilkerson says specifically that Ike was 'the last expert' to hold the office of the Presidency. ..."
    Aug 15, 2015 | Jesse's Cafι Amιricain
    "We are imperial, and we are in decline... People are losing confidence in the Empire."
    This is the key theme of Larry Wilkerson's presentation. He never really questions whether empire is good or bad, sustainable or not, and at what costs. At least he does not so in the same manner as that great analyst of empire Chalmers Johnson.

    It is important to understand what people who are in and near positions of power are thinking if you wish to understand what they are doing, and what they are likely to do. What ought to be done is another matter.

    Wilkerson is a Republican establishment insider who has served for many years in the military and the State Department. Here he is giving about a 40 minute presentation to the Centre For International Governance in Canada in 2014.

    I find his point of view of things interesting and revealing, even on those points where I may not agree with his perspective. There also seem to be some internal inconsistencies in this thinking.

    But what makes his perspective important is that it represents a mainstream view of many professional politicians and 'the Establishment' in America. Not the hard right of the Republican party, but much of what constitutes the recurring political establishment of the US.

    As I have discussed here before, I do not particularly care so much if a trading indicator has a fundamental basis in reality, as long as enough people believe in and act on it. Then it is worth watching as self-fulfilling prophecy. And the same can be said of political and economic memes.

    At minute 48:00 Wilkerson gives a response to a question about the growing US debt and of the role of the petrodollar in the Empire, and the efforts by others to 'undermine it' by replacing it. This is his 'greatest fear.'

    He speaks about 'a principal advisor to the CIA Futures project' and the National Intelligence Council (NIC), whose views and veracity of claims are being examined closely by sophisticated assets. He believes that both Beijing and Moscow are complicit in an attempt to weaken the dollar.

    This includes the observation that "gold is being moved in sort of unique ways, concentrated in secret in unique ways, and capitals are slowly but surely divesting themselves of US Treasuries. So what you are seeing right now in the supposed strengthening of the dollar is a false impression."

    The BRICS want to use oil to "force the US to lose its incredibly powerful role in owning the world's transactional reserve currency." It gives the US a great deal of power of empire that it would not ordinarily have, since the ability to add debt without consequence enables the expenditures to sustain it.

    Later, after listening to this again, the thought crossed my mind that this advisor might be a double agent using the paranoia of the military to achieve the ends of another. Not for the BRICS, but for the Banks. The greatest beneficiary of a strong dollar, which is a terrible burden to the real economy, is the financial sector. This is why most countries seek to weaken or devalue their currencies to improve their domestic economies as a primary objective. This is not so far-fetched as military efforts to provoke 'regime change' have too often been undertaken to support powerful commercial interests.

    Here is just that particular excerpt of the Q&A and the question of increasing US debt.

    I am not sure how much the policy makers and strategists agree with this theory about gold. But there is no doubt in my mind that they believe and are acting on the theory that oil, and the dollar control of oil, the so-called petrodollar, is the key to maintaining the empire.

    Wilkerson reminds me very much of a political theoretician who I knew at Georgetown University. He talks about strategic necessities, the many occasions in which the US has used its imperial power covertly to overthrow or attempt to overthrow governments in Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and the Ukraine. He tends to ascribe all these actions to selflessness, and American service to the world in maintaining a balance of power where 'all we ask is a plot of ground to bury our dead.'

    A typical observation is that the US did indeed overthrow the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran. But 'the British needed the money' from the Anglo-Iranian oil company in order to rebuild after WW II. Truman had rejected the notion, but Eisenhower the military veteran and Republic agreed to it. Wilkerson says specifically that Ike was 'the last expert' to hold the office of the Presidency.

    This is what is meant by realpolitik. It is all about organizing the world under a 'balance of power' that is favorable to the Empire and the corporations that have sprung up around it.

    As someone with a long background and interest in strategy I am not completely unsympathetic to these lines of thinking. But like most broadly developed human beings and students of history and philosophy one can see that the allure of such thinking, without recourse to questions of restraint and morality and the fig leaf of exceptionalist thinking, is a terrible trap, a Faustian bargain. It is the rationalization of every nascent tyranny. It is the precursor to the will to pure power for its own sake.

    The challenges of empire now according to Wilkerson are:

    1. Disequilibrium of wealth - 1/1000th of the US owns 50% of its total wealth. The current economic system implies long term stagnation (I would say stagflation. The situation in the US is 1929, and in France, 1789. All the gains are going to the top.
    2. BRIC nations are rising and the Empire is in decline, largely because of US strategic miscalculations. The US is therefore pressing harder towards war in its desperation and desire to maintain the status quo. And it is dragging a lot of good and honest people into it with our NATO allies who are dependent on the US for their defense.
    3. There is a strong push towards regional government in the US that may intensify as global warming and economic developments present new challenges to specific areas. For example, the water has left the Southwest, and it will not be coming back anytime soon.
    This presentation ends about minute 40, and then it is open to questions which is also very interesting.
    Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William Mary, and former Chief of Staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.
    Related: Chalmers Johnson: Decline of Empire and the Signs of Decay

    [Feb 21, 2017] The Term "Deep State" in Focus: Usage Examples, Definition, and Phrasebook

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Lambert Strether of Corrente . ..."
    "... The Atlantic ..."
    "... derin devlet ..."
    "... Glenn Greenwald, Democracy Now! ..."
    "... Peggy Noonan, Patriot Post ..."
    "... Breitbart ..."
    "... Jefferson Morley, Alternet ..."
    "... Greg Grandin, The Nation ..."
    "... Benjamin Wallace, The New Yorker ..."
    "... Counterpunch ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... Marc Ambinder, NPR ..."
    "... Marc Ambinder, Foreign Policy ..."
    "... "Deep State Blooper" ..."
    "... "Deep State Operation" ..."
    "... "Deep State Actor" ..."
    "... "Deep State Faction" ..."
    "... That's ..."
    "... Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq ..."
    "... Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich ..."
    "... within the territory of the State ..."
    "... Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street, and the Frustration of American Politics ..."
    "... "permanent government" ..."
    "... "permanent government", ..."
    "... "permanent government", ..."
    "... "conducting killings" ..."
    "... The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government ..."
    Feb 21, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on February 20, 2017 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    Since today is President's Day, there will be no Water Cooler. Which is a good thing, because this puppy took forever to write. –lambert

    * * *

    "It's called the ruling class because it rules." –Arthur Silber

    Readers know that I've been more than dubious about that incredibly virulent earworm of a term, "deep state" ( December 1, 2014 ). However, in the last week or so, "deep state" is all over mainstream discourse like kudzu, and so it's time to look at it again. As we shall see, it's no more well-defined than before, but I'm hoping that if we aggregate a number of usage examples, we'll come up with a useful set of properties, and a definition. Following the aggregation, I'll propose a number of phrases that I hope can attenuate deep state 's virulence, and render it a sharper and more subtle analytical tool in posts and comments.

    While the usage of "deep state" exploded last week after General Flynn's defenestration by Trump, it seems likely to me that the term had been spreading in the recent past before that, given that a series of politically motivated leaks by the "intelligence community" (IC) from summer 2016 onwards could colorably be attributed to such an entity. The examples are in no particular order; I haven't had the time to find a "patient zero."

    Usage Examples of "Deep State"

    1. The Atlantic . Since "deep state" as a term originated in Turkey ( derin devlet ), I'll start with a Turkish analyst:

    There Is No American 'Deep State'

    Zeynep Tufekci, a Turkish sociologist and writer at the University of North Carolina, tweeted a string of criticisms about the analogy Friday morning. " Permanent bureaucracy and/or non-electoral institutions diverging with the electoral branch [is] not that uncommon even in liberal democracies," she wrote. "In the Turkey case, that's not what it means. There was a shadowy, cross-institution occasionally *armed* network conducting killings, etc. So, if people are going to call non electoral institutions stepping up leaking stuff, fine. But it is not 'deep state' like in Turkey."

    Comment: One danger I always face is projecting American politics onto other countries. Tufekci warns us the opposite is a bad idea too!

    Properties: Permanent bureaucracy and/or non-electoral institutions; "shadowy," cross-institutional. We cross out "conducting killings" for the American context (or do we?).

    2. Glenn Greenwald, Democracy Now! . Greenwald thinks the term is sloppy too (though "scientific" is a high bar):

    The deep state, although there's no precise or scientific definition , generally refers to the agencies in Washington that are permanent power factions . They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are elected come and go. They typically exercise their power in secret , in the dark, and so they're barely subject to democratic accountability, if they're subject to it at all. It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol, but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from-in fact, in opposition to-the political officials to whom they're supposed to be subordinate.

    Comment: Later in the show, Greenwald says that the deep state is "almost engag[ing] in like a soft coup." Here's the Kristol tweet to which Greenwald alludes, explicitly applauding that coup with the bracing clarity so foreign to most Democrats:

    I characterized Greenwald's soft coup - and Kristol's - more delicately as "a change in the Constitutional Order" ( "Federalist 68, the Electoral College, and Faithless Electors" ) but the sense is the same.

    Properties: Kristol, not normal, not democratic, not constitutional; Greenwald: permanent power factions, agencies, especially intelligence agencies, which specialize in deception and require secrecy.

    3. Peggy Noonan, Patriot Post :

    Is [the current chaos], as some suggest, "deep state" revenge for the haughty, dismissive way Donald Trump spoke of the U.S. intelligence community during and after the campaign? Is it driven by the antipathy of the permanent government toward Mr. Putin, and a desire to bring down those, like Mr. Trump, who hope for closer relations with Russia?

    It is a terrible thing if suddenly, in America, there is a government within the government that hates the elected government - and that secretly, silently, and with no accountability , acts on it.

    Properties: Government within a government; secret; not accountable.

    4. Breitbart . I don't normally cite to Breitbart, but since they're in the heart of the battle and have a usage example:

    The "deep state" is jargon for the semi-hidden army of bureaucrats, officials, retired officials, legislators, contractors and media people who support and defend established government policies .

    Comment: Interestingly, Breitbart finds it necessary to define the term for its readership, meaning it didn't originate on the right. Even more interestingly, Breitbart - very much unlike the more staid Peggy Noonan - urges, in my view correctly, that actors outside the alphabet agencies need to be considered.

    Properties: Bureaucrats, officials (some retired), legislators, contractors, media. Brietbart doesn't use Janine Werel's term, Flexian - retired officials become talking heads, for example - but the concept is implicit.

    5. Jefferson Morley, Alternet :

    What Is the 'Deep State'-And Why Is It After Trump?

    The Deep State is shorthand for the nexus of secretive intelligence agencies whose leaders and policies are not much affected by changes in the White House or the Congress . While definitions vary, the Deep State includes the CIA, NSA, Defense Intelligence Agency, and components of the State Department, Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, and the armed forces.

    With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized Democratic Party in opposition, the leaders of the Deep State are the most-perhaps the only-credible check in Washington on what Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump's "wrecking ball presidency."

    And Roger Stone, a man who knows his memes:

    "This is an effort by the Deep State to destabilize the president," Stone said.

    Comment: Morley, then, agrees with Kristol (the "only check" in Trump).

    Properties: Intelligence agencies; permanent.

    6. Greg Grandin, The Nation . A useful review of the literature:

    What Is the Deep State?

    So at least as long as there has been private property, there has been private plotting, and talk of a "deep state" has been a vernacular way of describing what political scientists like to call "civil society," that is, any venue in which powerful individuals, either alone or collectively, might try to use the state to fulfill their private ambitions, to get richer and obtain more power .

    Much of the writing frames the question as Trump versus the Deep State, but even if we take the "deep state" as a valid concept, surely it's not useful to think of the competing interests it represents as monolithic , as David Martin in an e-mail suggests. Big Oil and Wall Street might want deregulation and an opening to Russia. The euphemistically titled "intelligence community" wants a ramped-up war footing. High-tech wants increased trade. In 1956, C. Wright Mills wrote that "the conception of the power elite and of its unity rests upon the corresponding developments and the coincidence of interests among economic, political, and military organizations." If nothing else, the "Trump v. Deep State" framings show that unity is long gone.

    Comment: Grandin does give an early usage example, but I'm totally unpersuaded by his identification of the "deep state" with "civil society." Rather - as Breitbart, amazingly enough, suggests - the deep state more plausibly includes components of civil society (media, contractors, etc.).

    Properties: Not monolithic; includes (components of) civil society.

    7. Benjamin Wallace, The New Yorker :

    The Deep-State Theory Cuts Both Ways

    This pattern of dissent ["#TheResistance"], and its early successes, has brought about a vogue for the theory of the deep state, usually used in analyzing authoritarian regimes, in which networks of people within the bureaucracy are said to be able to exercise a hidden will of their own

    The federal government employs two million people; its sympathies move in more than one direction. While many federal employees may want to oppose the White House, others (especially border-patrol and immigration agents, whose support Trump often cited on the campaign trail) have already been taking some alarming liberties to advance the President's politics.

    Comment: Wallace urges that some Federal employees in the permanent bureaucracy are, in essence, "working toward the Fuhrer," which is a consequence of the deep state not being monolithic. He attributes the "vogue" for "deep state" to the resistance, but I (and most others cited here) think it's the Flynn firing.

    Properties: Bureaucratic networks; hidden.

    8. Counterpunch

    A Deep State of Mind: America's Shadow Government and Its Silent Coup

    So who or what is the Deep State?

    It's the militarized police, which have joined forces with state and federal law enforcement agencies in order to establish themselves as a standing army. It's the fusion centers and spy agencies that have created a surveillance state and turned all of us into suspects. It's the courthouses and prisons that have allowed corporate profits to take precedence over due process and justice. It's the military empire with its private contractors and defense industry that is bankrupting the nation. It's the private sector with its 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, 'a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government.' It's what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as 'a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies': the Department of Defense, the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a handful of vital federal trial courts, and members of the defense and intelligence committees."

    Comment: Seems pretty big to be deep

    Properties: Law enforcement, contractors, agencies, the courts.

    9. New York Times

    As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a 'Deep State' in America

    Though the deep state is sometimes discussed as a shadowy conspiracy, it helps to think of it instead as a political conflict between a nation's leader and its governing institutions.

    That can be deeply destabilizing, leading both sides to wield state powers like the security services or courts against one another, corrupting those institutions in the process.

    In countries like Egypt, Mr. El Amrani said, the line is much clearer.

    There, "the deep state is not official institutions rebelling," he said, but rather "shadowy networks within those institutions, and within business, who are conspiring together and forming parallel state institutions."

    Comment: Weird all around: The President is the President , the Chief Magistrate of the United States. He's not the "nation's leader," like in the title of sone kinda hardback in the "Business" section of your airport bookstore. And quite frankly, the description of the deep state in Egypt ("shadowy network," "parallel state institutions") jibes with a several of the other usage examples I've collected, right here in the United States.

    Properties: I'll use Egypt's! Network, shadowy, businesses forming parallel state institutions.

    10. Marc Ambinder, NPR :

    With Intelligence Leaks, The 'Deep State' Resurfaces

    GARCIA-NAVARRO: So how do you define the deep state?

    AMBINDER: Well, I try to define it simply – maybe the national security and intelligence bureaucracy , the secret-keepers in the United States, people who have security clearances, who have spent 10 to 20 to 30 years working in and around secrets.

    GARCIA-NAVARRO: So when we're hearing about this term this week to do with Michael Flynn, what do we – what are people making that connection with potentially a huge group of people and this particular case?

    AMBINDER: They're essentially alleging that the national security state, this metastate that exists and, again, traffics totally in secret – used its collective power in order to bring down a duly chosen national security adviser because they disagreed with him or they disagreed with his president or they disagreed with his policies. It is a term of derision, a term that suggests people are using their power for ill-begotten ends. And that, if true, sets up a crisis.

    Comment: Ambinder, then, rejects putting a "civil society" construction on "deep state." (He also rejects Greenwald, and Kristol's, "soft coup.")

    Properties: National security and intelligence bureaucracy; long-term.

    11. Marc Ambinder, Foreign Policy . Ambinder gives an example of the deep state in action:

    Trump Is Showing How the Deep State Really Works

    The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it.

    Sometime before January 12, the fact that these [Flynn's] conversations [with the Russian ambassador] had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius, who wrote about them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January 16, Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls were mostly about the logistics of arranging further calls when Trump was President.

    Comment: Note the lack of agency in "was disclosed." Had the deep state not been able to use David Ignatius as a cut-out, the scandal would never have occured. Therefore, a media figure, a member of civil society, was essential to the operation of the Deep State, even though Ambinder's definition of the deep state doesn't reflect this.

    Properties: Network; civil society.

    * * *

    So now I'm going to aggregate the properties suggested by these 10 sources, and make some judgements about what to keep and what to throw away. Throwing out Noonan's concept of "a government within a government", I get this. The deep state:

    1. Gains power through (legal) control of state functions of secrecy and deception

    2. Is "permanent"

    3. Is not monolithic

    4. Is composed of "cross-institutional" networks of individuals in both state (agencies, law enforcement) and civil society (media, contractors)

    5. Is not democratic in its operation; and (potentially) is not accountable, not normal, not constitutional.

    (Individuals within the deep state belong to factions that compete and cooperate, often in addition to their "day jobs," rather as in a "matrix management" construct.)

    So, what'd I miss?

    A "Deep State" Phrasebook

    So, here are some phrases to use that reflect the above - very tentative - understanding. What I really want to do - and who know, maybe I'm trying to shovel back the tide here, too - is get away from the notion of "the" deep state. The deep state is not monolithic! Factional conflict within the deep state exists! So, in my view, the definite article is in this case disempowering; it prevents you from, as it were, knowing your enemy. So, if I have to join the chorus of people using the term, I'm going to think carefully about how do it. This list is a step toward doing that. (I'm going to use examples from the run-up to the Iraq War because it's less tendenitious and way less muddled than the Flynn defenestration.)

    1. "Deep State Blooper" . I'm putting this first as an antidote to CT. Quoting Frank Herbert's Dune :

    " [I]t occurred to Kynes that his father and all the other scientists were wrong, that the most persistent principles of the universe were accident and error."

    It's important to put into our thinking right from the start that Deep State actors are not all-powerful, and that Deep State operations are not invariably successful. I mean, can anybody look at the foreign and nationally security outcomes from what these guys are doing and urge that the baseline for performane is very high? I don't think so. Accidents happen all the time, and these guys, for all the power their positions bring them, are accident-prone. (After all, they're not accountable, so they never get accurate feedback, in a typical Banana Republic power dynamic.

    Example: "The Iraq WMD's yellowcake uranium episode was a Deep State Blooper." ( See here for details; the yellowcake uranium was part of the Bush administration's WMD propaganda operation to foment the Iraq War.)

    2. "Deep State Operation" . I think it's important to view the Deep State (as defined above) as able to act opportunistically; although many Deep State Actors work for agencies, their operations are not bureaucratic in nature.

    Example: "The White House Iraq Group was a Deep State propaganda operation that succeeded tactically but failed strategically" (See here for details ; the WHIG planted stories in the press to foment the Iraq War. They succeeded in that narrow goal, but the war itself was a debacle, and the damage to the credibility of the press as an institution took a hit.)

    3. "Deep State Actor" . An individual can be a member of the Deep State as an official, and then later as media personality or contractor. (It also seems to me that once you have been within the intelligence community, you can never be said to have left it, since how could anyone know you have really left?

    Example: "Leon Panetta is a consummate Deep State Actor." ( Panetta has been OMB Director, CIA Director, White House Chief of Staff, and Secretary of Defense. "[Panetta] regularly obtains fees for speaking engagements, including from the Carlyle Group.[55] He is also a supporter of Booz Allen Hamilton."

    4. "Deep State Faction" . This is a no-brainer:

    Example: "The Neoconservatives are a Deep State Faction."

    Conclusions

    I apologize for the length as I fought my way through the material, and I hope I haven't made any gross errors - especially political science-y ones! And any further additions to the Deep State Phraseology will be very welcome (but watch those definite articles!).

    1 0 27 0 0 This entry was posted in Banana republic , Politics on February 20, 2017 by Lambert Strether . About Lambert Strether

    Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism ("Because markets"). I don't much care about the "ism" that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don't much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue - and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me - is the tens of thousands of excess "deaths from despair," as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics - even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton's wars created - bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow - currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press - a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let's call such voices "the left." Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn't allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I've been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.

    View all posts by Lambert Strether → Subscribe to Post Comments 109 comments Carolinian , February 20, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    Gee you didn't even mention California's Bohemian Grove meeting where CEOs romp in togas and such.

    And taken literally Deep State would presumably mean a secretive (deep) and more or less permanent ruling apparatus. We may have the latter but it doesn't seem all that secretive since they love to join think tanks and talk about their loony ideas. The term is often used to bolster conspiracy theories about how the CIA killed Kennedy and are secretly running the country. While recent movies like to portray CIA operatives as super human martial arts specialists they are just as likely boobs who make many mistakes but nevertheless don't mind ratting out Trump's phone calls as petty revenge. I'd say it's the not so secretive but still behind the scenes state we have to worry about. Think the CFR or that Kristol guy. In other words if the term means anything it could be the secondary tier of influencers who have the ear of our MSM.

    sgt_doom , February 20, 2017 at 3:59 pm

    Nothing theoretical about elements within the CIA (such as the fired Allen Dulles, and his still-in-the CIA cousin, Tracy Barnes - oopsy, Fake News never told you they were cousins, now did they?) - just requires a bit of reading and cross-referencing with declassified documents from the CIA, State and the FBI.

    Deep State is really the financial-intelligence-complex who believes they are running things - the intel establishment was originally founded by the super-rich and their minions (such as Lovett and McCloy, etc.). When JFK was assassinated the Deputy Director of the CIA was Gen. Marshall Carter, recommended to McCone for that position by Nelson Rockefeller. And the fellow in charge of the reorganization of the CIA at the same time was Gen. Schuyler, Nelson Rockefeller's assistant.

    You just have to look a bit . . .

    Direction , February 20, 2017 at 4:34 pm

    Juicy comment! Can you recommend any books or favorite articles?

    James McFadden , February 20, 2017 at 11:42 pm

    Some book recommendations about the deep state:

    C. Wright Mills "The Power Elite" – describes how the indoctrination mechanisms create the deep state (military industrial political complex).

    David Talbot "The Devil's Chessboard" – about the rise of the CIA and Allan Dulles

    Laurence Shoup "Wall Street's Think Tank" – about the Council on Foreign Relations – the deep state's premier think tank

    Michael Parenti "Dirty Truths" – about empire

    John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" – CIA coups and soft coups

    I'm sure other readers can recommend many more on this subject.

    Caveat Emptor , February 21, 2017 at 12:39 am

    The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government
    Mike Lofgren

    The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy
    Peter Dale Scott

    WhatsNotToLike , February 21, 2017 at 10:27 am

    James Galbraith, Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government

    nonsense factory , February 21, 2017 at 12:55 am

    There are a couple of books by Dan Briody that are very illuminating about how Deep State actors in government interface with corporate agendas:
    The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money (2004)
    The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group (2003)

    I think of the Deep State as the military-industrial-intelligence-Congressional long-term national-security complex that grew up after World War II, there are perhaps four major elements:
    (1) military and intelligence contractors who rely on the massive $600 billion military budget for their profits.
    (2) executive branch bureaucrats who develop the contracts that are delivered to contractors (State/Pentagon/CIA/NSA/NRO/FBI/DOE etc.)
    (3) Congressmembers (long-serving) on appropriations, intelligence, etc. committees who sign off on budget requests.
    (4) Elements of mass media and think tanks who work overtime to promote the interests of the Deep State elements of the above actors.

    It's a kind of self-perpetuating system that's primary agenda is to keep their budget from being cut by a healthy 50% – which is what we'd need to do to rebuild infrastructure, set up high-quality public education, and create a first-world health care system, i.e. to get up to German or Japanese standard-of-living norms.

    Some have also pointed out that there's an element of the judicial branch that can be included in "Deep State" definitions (such as FISA Court); note that judicial review of executive foreign policy decisions is very rare in the American court system.

    It's also factionalized; i.e. there's the nuclear weapons sector (DOE/NNSA and their contractors), the various Pentagon branches and their suppliers, NSA and their contractors, CIA and their contractors, etc. So they compete with each other for a share of the pie, but they all have a shared interest in preventing the overall pie from shrinking.

    jo6pac , February 20, 2017 at 6:44 pm

    Please a little help as Direction ask just to get us started. The dulles bros were truly evil and have trained their puppets well.

    Vatch , February 20, 2017 at 7:18 pm

    he intel establishment was originally founded by the super-rich and their minions (such as Lovett and McCloy, etc.).

    Wow, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy. For about three decades they were at the pinnacle of the United States Establishment. They were like Sejanus during the reign of Tiberius or Marcus Agrippa during the reign of Augustus. Very, very influential behind the scenes.

    DH , February 20, 2017 at 8:08 pm

    Yeah, and they totally missed Davos.

    I always thought the original deep state was the networks of the Knights Templar, Masons, and Illuminati.

    However, I was wrong – according to the definitions above, it is probably Treadstone and Blackbriar.

    Enquiring Mind , February 20, 2017 at 2:23 pm

    Rex Tillerson's dealing with the seventh floor apparatchiks at the State Department is another productive step in calling out the nomenklatura . Russian themes seem so popular these days.

    Cat's paw , February 20, 2017 at 2:39 pm

    Perhaps helpful to know the original provenance of the term it comes from Turkish journalism when one fine evening a sedan was involved in a nasty wreck. Passengers in said sedan included a high ranking military official, a state or federal(?) representative/official, a crime boss, and a beauty queen.

    My understanding: trying to comprehend what such a collection of worthies were doing in the same car led journalists to coin the term deep state. A networked web of power interests/relations across sectors and institutions that operate beyond above below out of sight of normative or visible politics.

    Emma , February 20, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    Here are more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susurluk_scandal

    Charles Tuttle , February 20, 2017 at 2:41 pm

    David Chibo in Unz Review Political Science's "Theory of Everything"
    http://www.unz.com/article/political-sciences-theory-of-everything/

    neo-realist , February 20, 2017 at 9:05 pm

    I checked out that article from a previous post of the link and thought it was a very valuable, terrific and detailed explanation of Deep State theories w/ some fine literature recommendations.

    Grebo , February 20, 2017 at 10:45 pm

    The totality of truths is that the US "elephant" consists of a power elite hierarchy overseeing a corporatocracy, directing a deep state that has gradually subverted the visible government and taken over the "levers of power."

    Complete with tables and diagrams! A must read IMHO.

    oh , February 21, 2017 at 8:51 am

    It's a good recommendation and well worth reading.

    Qufuness , February 20, 2017 at 2:42 pm

    People within the American Deep State are said to have compassed the removal of General Flynn, who was a prominent member of DS organizations himself, so yes, the DS is not a monolith. But are there powerful "permanent" factions with the DS that pursue long-term strategies?

    There is another way of asking this. Much of what is now labelled "DS" grew out of the investment-banker+intelligence nexus in the immediate postwar period, or at least came to the surface around that time. America has made a series of disastrous unforced errors in the past 70 years, Vietnam and Iraq being the most prominent examples. While these errors have been harmful to the American people at large, is there a clique (besides the Military Industrial Complex) that benefits from these "errors," that has far-reaching goals that completely diverge from those of American constitutional democracy?

    Minh , February 20, 2017 at 5:58 pm

    Both Kennedy's and Diem brothers' assasinations and 911 mass murders were deep events to sell and organize war for the Empire part of American democracy. Not mentioning Peter Dale Scott is a minus of the listing of properties. What does the Deep state did ? 911 and JFK so Afghan Iraq and Vietnam wars.

    ex-PFC Chuck , February 20, 2017 at 8:33 pm

    It's my understanding that the investment banking crowd served as the government's intelligence arm on an informal, sub rosa basis well before WW II. Prescott Bush, GHWB's father, was involved in that.

    Mark P , February 20, 2017 at 2:48 pm

    Lambert, there is a Deep State in the U.S. as distinct from the mere ruling class (and yes, by definition, it has competing factions and power centers at different agencies).

    A clarifying example of that is this guy, Andy Marshall, aka Yoda, who arguably had more effect on the direction of U.S. policy than any U.S. president over the last half-century and was finally removed from heading the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment just before his 95th birthday. That's power.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marshall_(foreign_policy_strategist)#cite_note-5

    Yet most people have never heard of Marshall and he never enriched himself particularly. You won't be able to tell the influence he exerted from his Wiki page either, except perhaps for the mention of Marshall 'proteges' being the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. Furthermore, before Nixon installed him at the Pentagon, in the 1950s and 60s Marshall was at the RAND corporation helping to formulate nuclear strategy.

    Here's an old trove of press material from over the years.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20070309161816/http://portland.indymedia.org:80/en/2004/02/281049.shtml

    Emma , February 20, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    Interesting. And taking into account the comment from Cat's Paw above, I'd suggest to Lambert there are two distinct components to the term 'Deep State'. One element comprises the majority ie. the facilitators who foster the deep state, while the other element consists of the all-important minority ie. the instigators or 'deep state en nom propre' .

    michael hudson , February 20, 2017 at 2:50 pm

    I think the key to the "Deep state" is simply COVERT.
    It is all covert activities that a public relations officer for the neocons and neoconservatives would not acknowledge in their fairy-tale view of the state.

    Mark P. , February 20, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    Yes.

    Josh Stern , February 20, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    Technical note – for CIA/Pentagon, a *covert* activity is something that is known, but where US influence or the extent of that is supposed to stay hidden – e.g. a coup d'etat. And a *clandestine activity* is something where the entire activity is supposed to stay hidden – e.g. CIA running Heroin and Cocaine, unlicensed human experimentation, or controlling the editorial desk & ownership if the Washington Post. In that sense, the clandestine activity are even deeper, and the set of people in the know, is even smaller.

    Jim Haygood , February 20, 2017 at 3:58 pm

    " barely subject to democratic accountability, if they're subject to it at all " - Glenn Greenwald

    The $50 billion-plus black budget for the IC, covering many clandestine projects and activities, is not even subject to Congressional accountability. It is discussed verbally with the majority and minority leaders, and the ranking members of the intelligence committees.

    Then the other 427 members (or at least a majority of them) are obliged on instructions from their caucus to whoop it through, without a clue (or even a right to ask) what is in it. To paraphrase the great stateswoman Nancy Pelosi, " We have to pass it to avoid finding out what's in it. "

    Secret funding via this procedure is unconstitutional and illegitimate. Yet neither the president, the judiciary, nor anyone in Congress appears able to stop it. The IC is a fourth-stage cancer devouring the guts of the former republic.

    Josh Stern , February 20, 2017 at 4:59 pm

    Secret funding is a huge unknown. Everything from mostly legitimate front companies, to business donations for favors, to drug running. One would think, incorrectly, that the drug running is some kind of big secret the following links show it is not:
    Collection of quotes from DEA agents, John Kerry, etc:
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5878115
    Video with Robert Bonner, ex-head of DEA, on 60 minutes in 1993, just after he stepped down:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx1bL_Gp03g

    Persona au gratin , February 20, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    YES!

    Crazy Horse , February 20, 2017 at 7:42 pm

    50 billion? That is just the cost of coffee and donuts. A week before 911 Rumsfeld acknowledged that 2.3 TRILLION dollars was missing and unaccounted for in the DOD budget.

    " CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.
    "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.
    $2.3 trillion - that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.
    "We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-on-waste/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

    Conveniently the accounting records that might have made possible an investigation of that little error were located in Building 7 of the WTC and in the exact section of the Pentagon which the skilled Saudi pilots targeted and and then vaporized their airliner leaving only a few token pieces on the lawn.Of course 911 is ancient history that nobody cares about anymore. Apparently we are in need of another accounting cleansing, since the Inspector General reports that an additional 6.5 TRILLLION has gone missing since then.

    http://www.newstarget.com/2016-08-18-how-did-the-pentagon-lose-over-6-5-trillion-in-taxpayer-money.html

    JTMcPhee , February 20, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    What, me worry? those are all MMT dollars, after all plenty more where that came from.

    ex-PFC Chuck , February 20, 2017 at 9:19 pm

    Susan Lindauer, in her memoir of her role as a CIA asset serving as a go-between in the failed negotiations to avert the Iraq War ( Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq ), recounts that in the desperate last few weeks before March 20, 2003, she was paying her considerable expenses out-of-pocket. Her handler was having trouble getting her reimbursement approved, and by the time he did she was making a pest of herself about the fact that the negotiations had been deliberately sabotaged, and had become a pariah. At that point the handler had no difficulty, not to mention compunction, about simply stiffing her and diverting the funds to the McMansion he was building.

    How much of that $50B black budget is similarly diverted?

    Elasmo Branch , February 20, 2017 at 4:28 pm

    "Covert" means the activity is against the law. "Clandestine" means the activity is secret but within the confines of the law. The military undertakes clandestine activity authorized by law, not covert activity. A US soldiers cannot break the law. On the other hand paramilitary activity is often covert.

    For example, a US soldier on a clandestine mission is captured. Since the soldier is acting legally, albeit in secret, he is afforded all of the rights as a prisoner of war if he id's himself as a US soldier in uniform, name, rank, serial number. A CIA agent [likely a contractor and not a gov't employee] is captured on a covert mission, he can be summarily executed, legally, on the spot for a number of reasons: conducting warfare in civilian clothes and not in uniform, espionage, piracy, etc. There is grey area, for instance, if soldiers ingress to an area in civilian clothes [or the enemy's uniform] then put on their own uniforms before conducting an attack, as the SS did in the Ardenne.

    Josh Stern , February 20, 2017 at 4:54 pm

    This article: Joseph Berger III. "Covert Action – Title 10, Title 50, and the Chain of Command." Joint Force Quarterly 67 (Q4 2012). http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-67/JFQ-67_32-39_Berger.pdf . is exactly on this topic. I take my definitions from there. The article does note that it takes some doing to resolve the different usages within CIA and DOD.

    DH , February 20, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    Sounds like the Koch Brothers network.

    SerenityNow , February 20, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    It seems to me that the Canadian "poet, academic and diplomat" author Peter Dale Scott should be included in any mention of "Deep State" Activities.

    Here is an excerpt from his well foot-noted book:

    "The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil and the Attack on U.S. Democracy"

    He has many more interesting excerpts and articles on the same site :

    Lambert Strether Post author , February 20, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    I bought, read, and reviewed one of Scott's books; link in the first para .

    NotSoSure , February 20, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    Don't forget the final property of Deep State: "No objections to Goldman Sachs". At least in that one they see eye to eye with Trump.

    ebr , February 20, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    No Illuminati ? - but I jest.

    It would be good if we could separate 'what is the deep state' and 'what are the factions of the deep state' and 'who belongs to the deep state' I suspect that Cambridge Analytics & their Facebook scraping could answer the question 'who belongs to the deep state' as they could they easier track a social network of people more loyal to each other than to the US Gov or the POTUS of the day. Asking the 'Deep State' to define itself could be an exercise in futility as members of the 'Deep State' likely mix ideology & the opportunity to make money in ways that blind them to the full implications of their actions.
    Slate magazine today had an article up of a doctor who tried the revolving door and then wrote about it
    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/going_undercover_through_washington_s_revolving_door.html
    If you all need a fun book to read, try Interface by Neal Stephenson (written after Snow Crash and before Cryptonomicon)

    UserFriendly , February 20, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    IMO: Deep State: Anyone who will be in DC regardless of who is president and can still have some degree of power. They are sometimes well known people like Neera Tanden and sometimes they work in the IC. They are the people who no matter how many times they fuck up, destroy lives, lose a campaign, or completely fail at whatever task they are given, they can always count on a nice cushy paycheck and a new gig where they can [Family Blog} it up some more. The entire class of DC insiders who just can't fail down no matter what.

    Carla , February 20, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    A couple more books of interest: "National Security and Double Government" by Michael J Glennon (2014) and "The Deep State" by Mike Lofgren (2016).

    ewmayer , February 20, 2017 at 6:33 pm

    A PDF version of Glennon's book is freely available online at the Harvard National Security Journal website.

    REDPILLED , February 20, 2017 at 3:16 pm

    DEEP STATE READING LIST:

    The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by David Talbot

    The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the attack on U.S. Democracy by Peter Dale Scott

    The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government by Mike Lofgren

    Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World by Tom Engelhardt and Glenn Greenwald

    Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer

    Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky

    The New Media Monopoly: A Completely Revised and Updated Edition With Seven New Chapters by Ben H. Bagdikian

    They Rule: The 1% VS. Democracy by Paul Street

    NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe (Contemporary Security Studies) by Daniele Ganser

    An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King (Updated Edition) by William F. Pepper

    The True Story of the Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin

    JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass

    9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed by David Ray Griffin (2011)

    JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by Fletcher L. Prouty (2011)

    The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World by Fletcher L. Prouty (2011)

    Mounting Evidence: Why We Need A New Investigation Into 9/11 by Paul W. Rea (2011)

    The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War by Peter Dale Scott (2013)

    JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State by Laurent Guyenot (2014)

    All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power by Nomi Prins (2014)

    The Orwellian Empire by Gilbert Mercier (2015)

    The Hidden Structure of Violence: Who Benefits from Global Violence and War
    by Marc Pilisuk (2015)

    Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World (American Empire Project) by David Vine (2015)

    The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins (2016)

    The End of the Republic and the Delusion of Empire by James Petras (2016)

    Two web sites:

    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/

    Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report: http://patriotsquestion911.com/

    Jim Haygood , February 20, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    Excellent list.

    Don't forget the late, great Chalmers Johnson, who coined the term blowback and left us with guides such as The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic.

    Lambert Strether Post author , February 20, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    Chalmers Johnson is great.

    Emma , February 20, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Another suggestion for your list of additional reading material:
    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Democratic_State_v_Deep_State
    It's a document/paper by Ola Tunander ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ola_Tunander ) who is quite familiar with the topic (see his experience/research of US/UK PSYOPs naval activities in Scandinavian waters ..).

    Ulysses , February 21, 2017 at 9:21 am

    Good book!!

    dbk , February 20, 2017 at 4:32 pm

    Yes, thanks for that list, much appreciated.

    As long as we're on the subject, more or less, I have a question about Dark Money (I'm reading Mayer's book these days) and the Deep State: Do they overlap, or are they rivals? Or are their goals sometimes in sync and sometimes at odds with one another?

    Another way of posing this question is this: If we assume that the President is not the preference of the Deep State, are we also to assume he was not the preference of Dark Money?

    I'm having a hard time figuring out who's going after whom these days, and what short- and long-term objectives are being fought out, almost – but not quite – before our eyes.

    Here's a case from a different field, education, which is the one I follow most closely. A blogger has recently identified the "blueprint" for the new Sec of Education to follow, laid out in a planning document by a Dark Money group which is below the radar (well, below my radar, anyway). It's pretty clear that the Sec is their cabinet member, but are there others? Were these appointments made in the form of favors called in? For what, though, if the Pres isn't part of this network?

    The Sec of Education, it emerged in the course of contentious hearings, had contributed to no less than 23 Republican Senators' campaign war chests. What are we to conclude about them?

    Anyway, here's the link to the post (link to the actual document through it – it was removed from the organization's own site, so is no longer available there):
    http://www.eclectablog.com/2017/02/chilling-this-is-why-weve-been-trying-to-warn-the-usa-about-betsy-devos-destroying-the-wall-between-church-state.html

    Josh Stern , February 20, 2017 at 5:12 pm

    Another good book to mention, which plays a different role, is "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner. It covers a lot of CIA dirt – coups, assassinations, defying/lying to Presidents, etc. – but it is different because basically all of it is drawn from the CIA's own files. So it is purely historical and outside of any "conspiracy" controversy. The files are not complete. Richard Helms ordered the most incriminating ones destroyed in a giant purge in the early '70s – this is described in the book too. But what is there and was saved is often pretty dirty.

    Scott Noble's film series is entertaining on free video: http://metanoia-films.org/counter-intelligence/

    Persona au gratin , February 20, 2017 at 6:11 pm

    To add: Family of Secrets : The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years, by Russ Baker (2010).

    JCC , February 20, 2017 at 9:15 pm

    Definitely a good list. I've read a few of these books and want to read more on the list. And don't forget any of Sheldon Wolin's recent books and essays. This one is 13 to 14 years old and still appropriate – https://www.thenation.com/article/inverted-totalitarianism/

    He points out the basic structure, I think, in which following the money makes the most sense.

    neo-realist , February 20, 2017 at 9:38 pm

    Pepper's last book on the MLK assassination, The Plot to Kill King: The Truth behind the Assassination of Martin Luther King would also be a worthy addition to the list.

    Excellent discussion about it on this podcast.

    https://kpfa.org/episode/guns-and-butter-june-29-2016/

    ex-PFC Chuck , February 20, 2017 at 9:56 pm

    I second your recommendation of Pepper's book.

    Kim Kaufman , February 20, 2017 at 10:05 pm

    Imo, a must read: Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance Between the Vatican, the CIA and the Mafia by Paul Williams. I think it's newer than most of the books above and connects a lot of dots.

    peter , February 21, 2017 at 6:24 am

    I've always throught that 'Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky' should be mandatory on high school curriculum as a speed course on intellectual self-defense.

    nobody , February 21, 2017 at 9:42 am

    Another for the list:

    Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich , by Guido Giacomo Preparata

    nobody , February 21, 2017 at 10:24 am

    Three essays by Charles Hollander: "Pynchon's Inferno," "Pynchon's Politics: The Presence of an Absence," and "Pynchon, JFK and the CIA: Magic Eye Views of The Crying of Lot 49."

    PlutoniumKun , February 20, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    I would put it simpler and define a 'Deep State' as a major (i.e. not minority rogue) element within the existing government structures (or quasi-government structures) which is willing to commit serious illegal acts or unauthorised acts of violence within the territory of the State to achieve its aims independent of the legally constituted government. In other words, I'd not define it by its structure or nature, but by what it actually does.

    I'd define it this way to distinguish it from the sort of bureaucratic plotting which takes place within any large institution which finds itself led by someone who doesn't buy into the organisations core consensus. An example I would use would be Operation Gladio . If Operation Gladio had simply operated as designed, as a secretive military operation which government leaders may not have been aware of, then it was not an example of Deep State. But if, as alleged (but never proved), it carried out acts of terrorism and false flag operations with the specific aim of forcing elected governments to do what they didn't want to do, and this was part of a deliberate high level strategy (i.e. not just the act of a rogue element), then it would be an example of the Deep State at work within democratic western governments.

    Put into contemporary terms, if the internal resistance to Trump takes the form of leaks, internal manoeuvres to slow down his agenda, etc., then that is 'normal' bureaucratic operations. If it takes the form of blackmail, false flag terrorist attacks, assassinations, etc., then it is the Deep State in operation.

    Given that we know parts of the US and allied intelligence communities have for decades been involved in highly illegal operations around the world which has included torture, murder, blackmail and high level assassinations, is it really so far fetched that there is an element willing to do the same thing within the US?

    Greg Taylor , February 20, 2017 at 4:18 pm

    Defining "Deep State" by its actions is appealing. Would the military veto of Kerry-negotiated ceasefire in Syria count? Some officers acted without apparent authority and were not reprimanded as a result. Would this have transpired "within the territory of the State" and, thus, meet this definition? Should it?

    PlutoniumKun , February 21, 2017 at 3:34 am

    Thats an interesting question. There can be a fine line between bureaucratic infighting and actual illegal and anti-democratic actions. On my definition I would say 'no', its not Deep State in that the actions were insubordinate and dangerous, but they took place outside the US so arguably were more the result of a power struggle between government factions. It was the result I think of Obama's weakness as a leader, not an actual Deep State action.

    Quentin , February 20, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    Wouldn't any so-called Deep State be supported by factions in Congress? Sure. For instance, John McCain is in my view the epitome of the Deep State, one of its chief representatives, out in the open, a vanguard. The Clintons too, doubtless, though now outside government. If Congress gives no pushback, it bestows tacit/active agreement. Congress can rescind the privileges and power of all the organisations observers ascribe to the Deep State. So what's so mysterious? The notion of a Deep State's existence might just serve as a way to avoid responsibility, accountability, deny agency. Some shadowy bunch is running things, anything else new? On the other hand think tanks, contractors and subcontracters are less easily kept in place. Yet Congress can put an end to prisons for profit and erase one element of the deception, reduce the numbers if security clearances by defunding, etc. not things were are about to do. Eminence grise, one two buckle my shoe

    sgt_doom , February 20, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    McCain is too stupid. To better understand the Deep State, one must go a bit higher up the ladder.

    Look into the membership of the Bretton Woods Committee - the lobbyist group for the international super-rich (www.brettonwoods.org), and the Group of Thirty (www.group30.org).

    Once you understand these two groups, you'll be more aware.

    Persona au gratin , February 20, 2017 at 6:05 pm

    Loved the Group of Thirty pictorials on their home page. I counted exactly one genuine person of color (aka, "token negro") among the melange, with a handful of "half and halfs" of former British colonial heritage who of course have had time to assimilate and duly "see the light" as to the wisdom of continued perpetual white northern European supremacy. As for the few token Asians, they'll come around soon enough as well, although they ARE amazing students, aren't they?

    Kim Kaufman , February 20, 2017 at 10:06 pm

    Politicians are the puppets not the puppetmasters.

    Steve H. , February 20, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    We can avoid definite articles, but this is a defining article, and could become the definitive article.

    The most curious fact is that the phrase is showing up in the msm. I take it as confirmation of Lambert's point: 'Factional conflict within the deep state exists!'

    roger gathmann , February 20, 2017 at 4:11 pm

    I always attributed the use of the word to Peter Dale Scott. The Turkish phrase seems to me more of a parallel usage than the place from which the phrase is derived. In my cursory reading, the phrase originated in conspiracy theory – particularly around the assassination of JFK. I am not using conspiracy theory in a disparaging sense, since I don't think a belief in conspiracies (which is legally recognized, and was long one of the great themes of political science, from Aristotle to Montesquieu) is per se disqualifying. Scott, in the preface to Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, has a good take on the prototype of the Deep State – in his theory, there is always a deep political practice that is unacknowledged officially. For instance, Tammany New York of the late 19th century operated, on the surface, according to the legal order with a mayor and a bureaucracy, etc., but in practice, it was run by an elaborate system of kickbacks and the investment of certain private players with enormous governmental power. The Deep State, under this p.o.v., shouldn't be confused with bureaucrats and those invested with public power, but instead, is a collaboration between such bureaucrats and those in private positions who retain unacknowledged public power. To quote Scott: " A deep political system or process is one which habitually resorts to decision making and enforcement procedures outside as well as inside those publicly sanctioned by law and society." By this definition, the endorsement of Trump by the National Border Patrol Council and the way in which, under Obama, certain Border Patrol officials sought to impede or change processes for taking in and giving due process to refugees are evidences of a deep political process.

    Cat's paw , February 20, 2017 at 5:33 pm

    Well, Scott's Deep Politics is published in 93. The Turkish term Deep State appears in print around 96 (maybe as late as 98–I'd have to look around for a cite). While the terms are relatively synonymous they are by no means equal. Best I can tell, Scott's starts using the word Deep State widely in the mid-2000's.

    Additionally, as I've come to understand it the term did not originate in conspiracy theory. Rather the term was picked up by conspiracy theorists from Turkish journalism as a useful shorthand for the alleged (and hidden) events and actors they were trying to describe. Personally, not that it matters, I think it's important to keep the original usage/meaning in mind. 1. b/c it was coined to describe a real yet inexplicable event–not speculation or a theory of some conspiracy: i.e., the JFK assassination. Wherein agents of military, representative government, and criminality (along with a "bimbo" straight out of central casting) who have no legitimate business doing business were obviously doing business–but what kind of business? Who knows, that's why it's Deep. 2. The term itself can easily drift into being an amorphous, ill-defined, but overdetermined and overly unified signifier on the order of "cabal" which is likely to happen anyway now that its wound its way into common parlance.

    I may just be quibbling, but I don't see deep political processes like Tammany or Border Patrol shenanigans as being of the same phenomena as the so-called Deep State. Deep State would usually imply elements of the military or, more especially, elements of the security apparatus (public and private) at times coordinating with, at other times interfering with, known political/institutional actors, corporate power, and criminal concerns that might involve money laundering or drug and human trafficking. As most here are noting, it is factional and adversarial–a network of several or many discreet entities that coordinate, align, and conflict according to shifting interests. It's paralegal, parapolitical, paraeconomic (or paramarket), and parainstitutional.

    And all of that to say that such a definition is wholly contingent upon there being empirical and on-going phenomena which corresponds approximately to the term itself.

    Yves Smith , February 20, 2017 at 7:58 pm

    Lambert debunked Scott's sloppy and internally inconsistent analysis, per the link he provided at the very top of the post. That's why he kept arguing against its use.

    DonCoyote , February 20, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    Thanks Lambert. Here's a bit more grist for this particular mill/passages from the rabbit hole (depending on what set of metaphors you like)

    1) Paranoia , a tabletop RPG game from the 80's. "The game's main setting is an immense, futuristic city called Alpha Complex. Alpha Complex is controlled by The Computer, a civil service AI construct The Computer employs Troubleshooters, whose job is to go out, find trouble, and shoot it. Player characters are usually Troubleshooters The player characters frequently receive mission instructions from the Computer that are incomprehensible, self-contradictory, or obviously fatal if adhered to, and side-missions (such as Mandatory Bonus Duties) that conflict with the main mission each player character is generally an unregistered mutant and a secret society member (which are both termination offenses in Alpha Complex), and has a hidden agenda separate from the group's goals, often involving stealing from or killing teammates."

    So: big on non-monolithic, also big on double/triple identities (troubleshooter/mutant/secret society), which we associate with the intelligence agencies, but also with revolving door politicians/lobbyists.

    2) The "incomprehensible/self-contradictory/conflict with the main mission" made me think of seven/eleven/twelve (depending on scholarship/personal preference) chess, most recently attributed to BHO–that is, actions who on the surface don't seem to make sense given the situation, but which conspiracy theorists/true believers think are actually directed at a future/buried/hidden/alternative problem. Although this would seem to fit better with at least a semi-monolithic Deep Society, because it is strategy, and a non-monolithic Deep Society would presumably be less organized/more tactically inclined.

    3) The Final Reflection , and especially the Klingon "equivalent" of chess, klin zha , and it's reflective version. Reflective klin zha is played with only one set of pieces. "The Reflective is not so much a variation but a strategic approach to an otherwise tactical game Once set up, the first to place is also the first to move. During each turn, the player chooses one piece, making all others the enemy. The player who captures the Goal on his turn is the victor." So I kill a piece protecting (next to) the goal, but on your turn you now control that piece, use it to capture the goal, and beat me.

    So: a smaller (but still non-monolithic) Deep State, with a large unitary set of "pieces" (the non-Deep State?). Again, while there are two sides playing, they are both using the same pieces to try to do the same thing, and they only have "control of the board" some of the time.

    So my takeaways: non-monolithic (and especially more than two sides), partial control (whether because of multiple/hidden identities or non-monolithic is unknown), and given the pathetic state of most of our media, most motives are "hidden", at least from casual view (cf for the media's "hidden" motives in today's links

    sgt_doom , February 20, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    Globalists against (non-deep state capitalists) economic nationalists?

    susan the other , February 20, 2017 at 4:26 pm

    Here's a reminder (from NC a while back). It is a waste of time to deliberate over the existence of the deep state. What's important is participating in a state – a society – that is well run; where inequality is always exposed; where propaganda is always obvious. It's impossible to define "the deep state." I think Lambert was right when he said the definition of the deep state always turned out to be a big hairball.

    hemeantwell , February 20, 2017 at 8:15 pm

    I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but try this: I think that factional conflict, occurring during periods of systemic strain/crisis, is what leads otherwise contented and inertial sections of the state to act in ways that require concealment, either of actor or action. Reading a bit from the Glennon book linked above, wherein he makes much of Bagehot, reminded me of how the French political system used to be described as having something like a bureaucratic ballast keeping the ship of state from capsizing. That sort of conservative, continuity-maintaining function can grow claws, and that's what we're seeing now, particularly when US elites are trying to cobble a revised foreign/imperial policy to deal with China and Russia and the president is having trouble intoning the verities of US exceptionalism.

    barrisj , February 20, 2017 at 4:41 pm

    Well, that lengthy disquisition seems to indeed "validate" – as it were – the "deep state" terminology if not its epistemological derivation(s) at the very least, readers keeping to the various formulae offered for "correct usage" won't be whacked upside their haids by the moderators if the term appears in a comment.
    Cheers.

    Michael , February 20, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    My first encounter with the idea of the Deep State was from Mike Lofgren's 2014 essay, "Anatomy of the Deep State", based upon his 25 year career as a Capitol Hill staffer. Here is the link:

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

    JTMcPhee , February 20, 2017 at 4:44 pm

    Maybe worth a footnote or something? Is Charlie Wilson "deep state" in any way? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson_(Texas_politician) And his apparently occasional bed partner, Joanne Herring? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Herring

    How about those little quiet gatherings of the Koch-convened sort, that attract so little "press" attention, at Palm Springs and etcetera? Is the "deep state" limited to Great Game and globalism, or is the long steady erosion of even the myth of "democracy" and the transformation of that word into its opposite, via the efforts of all those very small number of people who profit from killing public education and regulatory capture and ascension to elected positions in everything from little town councils and school boards to state legislatures and statehouses, constitute part of what might qualify as some sort of "deep state?" ALEC is not on everyone's tongue, after all, but the power the people in it exert, through long application, sure forks over a whole lot of what maybe most people would think of as "the general welfare" and "public goods." IS Davos "over?" Is Bilderburg?

    Interesting how many of what would seem to me to be deep-staters are tied to Afghanistan, and of course Israel. One might even posit the Israelites have their own deep state, that has interlocking membership with players and factions and elements of the unelected and maybe public but mostly invisible thing that the phrase calls up in the minds of many of us.

    Having named the demon, if there is ever any agreement on a name and frame, does that give us mopes any power over the demon, or just another opening for its immanence in our sad little lives?

    integer , February 20, 2017 at 10:49 pm

    The first step would seem to be forcing the demon out from the shadows and into the sunlight so everyone can get a good look at it. I imagine it will then lash out with everything it has like a cornered animal, which will harden public opinion against it, and then it will be game on for real. A very dangerous game, to be sure, but what is the alternative?

    Horsewithnoname , February 20, 2017 at 5:04 pm

    From http://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb14/dollar-deep-state2-14.html [Charles Hugh Smith, 02/2014]
    I have been studying the Deep State for 40 years, before it had gained the nifty name "deep state." What others describe as the Deep State I term the National Security State which enables the American Empire, a vast structure that incorporates hard and soft power–military, diplomatic, intelligence, finance, commercial, energy, media, higher education–in a system of global domination and influence.

    Back in 2007 I drew a simplified chart of the Imperial structure, what I called the Elite Maintaining and Extending Global Dominance (EMEGD):

    stockbrokher , February 20, 2017 at 5:14 pm

    1. "Example: "The Iraq WMD's yellowcake uranium episode was a Deep State Blooper." (See here for details; the yellowcake uranium was part of the Bush administration's WMD propaganda operation to foment the Iraq War.)"

    How is this an example of a blooper? It helped to achieve its intended goal. That it was exposed much later as a fabrication didn't vitiate its effect.

    2. Surprised so many examples/references (especially here) but none with Wall Street as a primary Deep State actor. Read something revelatory ( to me, anyway) recently re the CIA ( post WWII) being engineered mostly by Wall Street for the sole purpose of protecting big U.S Corporate interests. Sorry no time to dig it up, but I'm sure others more knowledgeable can expound. (As SerenityNow notes, Scott's book puts WS in the title.)

    Skip Intro , February 21, 2017 at 10:23 am

    Good points.
    What is interesting to me is the similarity of the modus operandi revealed in the yellowcake episode, where privileged information was 'leaked' to a tame 'journalist' to take out an enemy. In the case of the yellowcake, we generally accept the narrative that blowing Joe Wilson's wife's Non-Official Cover, but as part of a non-proliferation team, Valerie Plame was also in a position to directly interfere with WMD claims from the administration. OTOH, the WHIG and OVP are not very deep.
    In addition, it is easy to point to the Iraq debacle as a failure on the part of the 'deep state' that contrived it, but a more cynical view would consider that a quick victory is less profitable than a slow defeat. In that light, apparently glaring errors, like the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, may be understood to be insurance that has paid off with a successful insurgency, a weakened state where oil can be bought or taken without any pesky national government interference, and eventually, trained military leaders for IS, the next-gen enemy with actual ground troops and conquered territory.

    I was surprised that there wasn't a reference to Ike's warning about the Military Industrial Complex, which seems like the original American reference to an extra-democratic coalition of interests that could influence or control policy.
    Another milestone would be the Iran-Contra affair, where we heard North and Poindexter drooling over an 'off the shelf operational capacity' to circumvent constitutional control of foreign policy (a market niche now filled by Erik Prince and Blackwater/Xe/Academi). In connection with this scheme, we also witnessed intelligence officials colluding with arms merchants to influence a US election by arming enemies, as well as running drugs into the US to fund said independent foreign policy. I think the illegality is well established, as for killings within the US territory, we can ask Orlando Letelier.

    scraping_by , February 20, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    Ran into an interesting passage in Kevin Phillips's 1994 book Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street, and the Frustration of American Politics . He speaks of an 'iron triangle' of politics, interest groups, and media that turns aside the cyclic outsider revolutions that would otherwise renew American political institutions. If Trump has this view of his populism, it makes sense he spends so much time disparaging the MSM; not just a celebrity feud, not just annoyance about bitchiness, but a reasoned effort to break an elite power tool.

    If Phillips's iron triangle fits the description of a Deep State, and it can, this may be an actual conflict over principles and convictions. Because the elite believe deeply in their own position, and are convinced they're doing God's work.

    PhilM , February 20, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    To me this is the kind of synthetic journalism that really sifts meaning from noise. And uniquely, on this site, the reading lists and comments are sophisticated and thoughtful additions and refinements, like the peer review offered from any scholarly community. This article is not definitive; but it could grow and grow, and then one could easily call it "seminal." This is work that I happily pay for.

    From the history of the 1930s: one notes that for Heydrich to consolidate his bosses' power over Germany, he felt it necessary to "declare war" on the existing German civil service in 1935–not just the police force, but the entire bureaucracy; and to seize control of the foreign intelligence services as well as the domestic. The only successful hold-out was the Abwehr, the military intelligence service, which succeeded in preserving its independence in a very much more closely circumscribed field.

    So Heydrich definitely felt there was a "state within the state" that needed to be co-opted and ideologically purified and above all surveilled, before Hitler's power was secured. That, in my humble view, is what the "deep state" is. It's the most important part of the question "quis custodiet custodes ipsos," and why Plato had a philosopher king instead of just a bunch Guardians, and why a nobility requires a monarchy.

    integer , February 20, 2017 at 10:42 pm

    Yes it's great to see this issue being given the attention it deserves and being subjected to serious analysis by NC and the commentariat. Thanks Lambert!

    witters , February 21, 2017 at 2:22 am

    A philosopher king who was poor, lived on public provision, owned no property, had no family, and lived in accomodation from whom none could be forbidden. And so just & virtuous.

    Gman , February 20, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    Only relatively recently having become aware of the term, 'deep state' I would assume, in its most basic form, it refers to those mostly 'unseen' and 'unknown' conservative we know best types who wield uninterrupted, often disproportionate influence without having to suffer the dreadful inconvenience or potential indignity of seeking a periodic democratic mandate.

    Watt4Bob , February 20, 2017 at 6:29 pm

    It seems to me that there was a lot of talk about the birth of the DHS being the biggest reorganization of the federal government since the New Deal.

    That talk included concerns that Bush was putting thousands of dead-enders in bureaucratic positions, and that they would be impossible to remove in the future.

    From Occupy.com (May 2013);

    But here's the strange thing: unlike the Pentagon, this monstrosity draws no attention whatsoever - even though, by our calculations, this country has spent a jaw-dropping $791 billion on "homeland security" since 9/11. To give you a sense of just how big that is, Washington spent an inflation-adjusted $500 billion on the entire New Deal.

    We've been talking around here about the breaking of rice bowls and its affect on the credentialed class, the implication being the hysterical, unorganized revolt of people who feel their well-being threatened by the rise of Trump.

    Bush II broke a lot of rice bowls when he leveraged the fearful post 9/11 environment to bring about the reorganization of the federal government under the DHS;

    From Legislating Civil Service Reform:
    The Homeland Security Act of 2002
    ; (emphasis mine)

    The Administration presents their strategy as one that requires them
    to have more control over federal personnel in order to provide national
    security and protect America. For example, President Bush argued that he needed the freedom "to put the right people at the right place at the right
    time to protect the American people."

    The metaphor of physical placement-to "put" federal workers in particular places at particular times-is rationalized as a strategy to protect America,
    much like one would move a Bishop or Knight in a chess game to protect
    the King.

    This physical placement metaphor was also picked up by the news
    media. In one summary of the issues, an article in the Washington Post
    noted, "The White House wants to retain the ability to remove
    some employees from unions for national security reasons," and "Bush
    wants the ability to move workers from one part of the department to
    another to meet rapidly changing needs.

    This metaphor of physical placement suggests that the Administration requires a particularly high degree of power and control over personnel,
    but that degree of power is presented as rational and justified in light of national security.

    To the extent that the audience is concerned about national security, then
    they are invited to see the Administration strategy-in this case,
    its need for power over personnel-as one that is consistent with that concern.

    From the same paper, the other side of the argument ; (emphasis mine)

    Union leaders saw this issue in a different light; they disputed the details of the proposal and also questioned the motives behind them.
    Brian DeWyngaert, Assistant to the President of AFGE, saw the reforms
    as an attempt by the administration to weaken the civil service system, to shift from "public administration" to "political administration."

    DeWyngaert cites a paper, written by two former Republican personnel
    management officials, that asserts, " The President can expect opposition
    from official Washington's 'permanent government ,' a network that includes the career civil service, and its allies in Congress, the leaders of federal
    unions, and the chiefs of managerial and professional associations
    representing civil servants."

    DeWyngaert expresses union distrust of the administration, arguing that
    the real goal of the administration was to "control what agencies do
    [ ] to change some of the personnel rules [ ] to the point where they are going to follow your line because you control their pay, their determination at will,
    their layoff.

    W4B;

    What I'm pointing out, is that what we're calling the Deep State includes the "permanent government" mentioned above, and that in reorganizing the government under the control of the new DHS, the right, in the person of Bush II was attempting to replace a unionized, independent, New Deal flavored government bureaucracy with one that could be more easily controlled, because it was more politicized.

    I'm saying that both the democratic, and the republican wings of the republican party have made peace with the notion of a more politicized "permanent government", and that more politicized "permanent government", is now showing its loyalty to the status quo by doing what's expected of it, joining the resistance.

    PhilM , February 20, 2017 at 9:24 pm

    This is exactly what I think, too, and what Heydrich recognized in 1935: that a large government has a hive mind. Without the SD ("Security Services"), the SS, and the Nazi Party organization, he could never have bent that hive mind, made of all those entrenched, entitled, relatively law-abiding functionaries, to his will.

    Trump has none of those tools at his disposal, so there's no reason to expect his lasting very long or getting much done.

    That's what makes the hysteria about his being like Hitler so very misplaced. If Trump had an organization like the Nazi party hundreds of thousands strong, ready to die in the streets for him, with operatives ready to put into place to take over the management of the government effectively at all upper levels, it would be another matter. As it is, he's grasping at straws from other talent pools. No wonder the bookies are giving him lower odds.

    schultzzz , February 20, 2017 at 6:48 pm

    Chris Hedges, on his RT show, recently defined it almost exclusively in terms of big business. I think the quote was something very short like, "It's Raytheon, Goldman, and Exxon!!!"

    Which complicates things, as Trump's cabinet has reps from Goldman and Exxon in it.

    neo-realist , February 20, 2017 at 10:36 pm

    On that tip more or less, I recall watching a video of Dick Gregory and Mark Lane talking about the MLK Assassination, and Gregory made a point of saying more or less that the intelligence apparatus doesn't act unilaterally, but that it acts at the direction of the aristocrats, i.e., oligarchs, big business, etc. The aristocrats tells the apparatus to go after those governments and politicians that are acting against their interests.

    In a documentary called King–Montgomery to Memphis (GREAT DOCUMENTARY), Harry Belafonte said that when King antagonized the "money power" , he was pretty much marked for death.

    Anonymous , February 20, 2017 at 6:52 pm

    Anecdotally, I was working with a former Senator at the time of the DHS formation who was still highly involved with the Bush administration. in fact Cheney had them on speed dial. I can tell you flat out that despite spouting the same garbage about freedom to reorganize on the fly, if you talked with them long enough the ability to fire employees at will ALWAYS ended up being the reason when anyone pinned him down about how departments would be reorganized on the fly. Very clearly it was about making sure that employees would know that they should show no integrity at all in doing their job most particularly in regards to either upholding the Constitution or recognizing the legal rights of any person, citizen of America or not.

    Dave in Austin , February 20, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    Deep state versus deep government

    All modern states are bureaucratic. So the surface state which the public can replace, what we usually call "the government", is underpinned by a deep and essentially invisible substrate of people and institutions. The characteristics of the deep government are 1) opaque bureaucratic decision-making and written output designed to mislead not inform, 2) invisibility because the press cant easily turn the story into a narrative with individuals who represent good and evil, and because the national press (NYT, WP, and even the WSJ) no longer reports the news but filters the policies to either spark outrage or encourage cooperation, 3) The deep government employees are smart, educated and have come up through the ranks (think Bob Gates). They are great people, fun to be with but often incredibly insular and sure that "You people out there don't understand". And they are often right about that. Don't underestimate their knowledge.

    Under most conditions the surface government, the deep government and the parts of the deep state outside the government (ie the press) are in general agreement and work together smoothly. Today the surface state (President, congress and soon probably the courts) are trying to bring about change that the individuals within the deep government fundamentally disagrees with on issues like immigration, national self-sufficiency and overseas threats. All major changes (our entry into WWI and WWII, the civil rights movement, tax and subsidy law, Obama's immigration program) generate resistance. Sometimes I agree with the deep, sneaky part of the government (entering WWII); other times, I don't (Vietnam, Bush in Iraq, Obama's immigration policy).

    Our deep state is like that of most democracies and differs from authoritarian deep states in a number of fundamental ways: 1) our military is adamantly apolitical. All officers take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not the government (in the late 1960s, as the military got sucked into domestic policing, many senior officers started reading and discussing the Constitution among themselves), 2) No U.S. deep state emerged out of our two formative struggles, the revolution and the Civil War . Much of the world (China, Russia and the colonies that became free in the 1950s and 60s) had a different history, 3) We have no ethnic and religious deep states- no Moslem Brotherhood, no Burmese Buddhist nationalist, although we do have passionate ethnic groups that prefer to operate out-of-sight (Jewish, Irish Catholic, Cuban, Indian to name a few) . 4) Countries that fight overseas wars or that fear internal revolutions all develop a deep state. All the ex-colonies that didn't (Iraq, Egypt, Guatemala and a hundred more) had the weak state overthrown and replaced with a strong and deep state. In the US the first deep state hints came after WWI (not WWII) with large caches of unappropriated money going into the hands of Naval Intelligence (who do you think paid for the Flying Tigers?). The original sin of our liberal deep state was the campaign to get us into WWII. A good cause- and a terrible precedent.

    Finally, the deep government and the national elite are not the same. The deep government is largely a meritocracy filled with alert people who know which way the wind is blowing. If real Communists or real Fascists took over they would either stay inside, keep getting paid, and quietly try to undermine the new leaders or they would take early retirement. They don't write biographies or make statements because they are essentially private people immersed in their private lives, what the Communists used to call Careerists. The national elites are something else. They either feel independent (the hereditary rich, celebrities and Trump and the self-made billionaires) or are the insecure product of upper middle class families, Ivy League and second-level private colleges and good social backgrounds. They work in large institutions they don't own or control. The latter group wants to exercise power because it gives meaning to their otherwise uninteresting lives (think, academics, the non-profit sector and Federal judges). The self-made rich exercise power to become richer and because they love to control organizations that compete (Who owns all the NFL teams?). Both the deep state and the deep government are open to people of education, good breeding, ambition, discretion and good luck.

    Is there any way to fix this? Probably not but nobody seems to bother the countries that don't do foreign adventures To roughly quote from the Bin Laden interview after 9/11, when he as asked "Why did you attack America?" he laughed and said "We didn't attack Switzerland". A better national press would help. If there are any billionaires out there interested in providing $100K salaries to real smart MBA students who like to dig, let me know. A few platoons of young I.F. Stones of various political hews might go a long way. But deep states are here to stay. The best we can do is monitor. analyze and publicize them.

    Patricia , February 20, 2017 at 8:03 pm

    What a fascinatingly bland presentation, revering deep state careerists for their solid private lives and good-breeding, while others are power-hungry insecure product searching for a cure to their dullness.

    And calling for "platoons" of new IF Stones from among MBAs, of all places!

    Thanks for the entertainment.

    integer , February 20, 2017 at 10:31 pm

    +1

    Tomonthebeach , February 20, 2017 at 7:54 pm

    As a retired member of the Deep State, I find it amusing at the imbecility of right- (or left) wing conspiracy nuts who can invent amazing chains of undermining collaboration across agency lines orchestrated by some powerful shadow demons.

    If federal employees were really that effective, there would be no private sector wage gap, the VA and DOD would share a seamless electronic record system, and Snowden would have the Medal of Freedom, and HRC's fingerprints would have been all over the gun that killed Vince Foster.

    The Deep State, if you want to call it that, exists so the people get the support and services they need despite confusing and often conflicting legislation, presidential directives, and agency regulations.

    DH , February 20, 2017 at 8:27 pm

    I generally apply Occam's Razor to conspiracy theories. It is generally more likely that events occur due to incompetence, lack of attention, or emotional reactions than conspiracy. To pull a secret conspiracy off successfully over a long time, you need to be really smart, really focused and not have many people, otherwise it is no longer secret.

    The bigger the organization, the more likely you are to have a reversion to the mean of most of the population, and most people are more likely to turn a blind eye than participate in something that means they could lose their pension as well as getting home late for dinner.

    So the biggest issue that Trump has with the bureaucracy is how to manage Parkinson's Law. He did in the private sector by running around saying "You're fired" but he can't do that to career civil servants. http://www.economist.com/node/14116121

    I am sure that there are a bunch of bureaucrat top dogs that don't like the invasion of their turf. They are, after all, fundamentally political animals very jealous of their territory. Some of them might even talk to each other, but probably half of them despise the other half.

    The biggest threat to us is that we slowly acquiesce to security theater that quietly gets more and more invasive. The police etc. are the most likely to be organized as some sort of "deep state" as some departments already have an us vs. them attitude.

    JTMcPhee , February 20, 2017 at 8:43 pm

    Tom, maybe one part of the bigger thing called "federal service" does that. I spent 13 years with the US EPA through the Reagan Revolution (and it was an amazing coup). A number of EPA employees, despite the threats of "RIFs" (reductions in force, or wholesale politically motivated firings), worked hard and quietly to do everything they could to slow the assault on "regulation" of sh!tty corporate behavior that threatened human health and the environment. There were a lot of go-alongs, usually later comers who were looking to get their resumes padded before moving to the dark side, but there were a lot who were serious in their commitment, and aware of their vulnerability, who continued to press for enforcement actions, regulations with teeth that required industries to spend money ("internalize") to install process changes and end-of-pipe-or-stack controls (which often resulted in increased profits for the corpos who had an excuse and tax deductions to update their plants. And there was continued insistence on doing the data gathering that supported the proofs of harm that pollution and toxics cause. There was an 'environmental justice" initiative despite the "f__k the poor" administration attitudes and policies, and a criminal enforcement operation that actually put corporate officers in jail and at least made them take notice of potential consequences. There are obviously still a lot of employees at EPA to take their mission to be protection of public health and the environment, preserving decades of data collection and soldiering on despite the "Mandate for Leadership" quackery and fear-and-loathing fomenting.

    But your limiting the definition as you do is incomplete at best. The state security overlords, the oligokleptocracy, and the other inimical factions and parties that have been described in this post and comments, seem to me the real nuts and bolts of what 'deep state' is getting at. Not the many federal employees who, despite all the sh!t that flows down from above and laterally from the culture inside and outside the agencies, actually try to do the job of "positive governance," like a few people I have dealt with in the Social Security Admin, the VA, the CMS behemoth and a few others. I often wonder how people persist in those jobs and don't burn out or get fired. I was close to both while doing my thing at EPA, 1980-90 (the Reagan years - I had two-plus with Carter as president before that, to see how a less hostile-to-regulation-in-the-best-sense admin might operate.

    Vatch , February 20, 2017 at 9:27 pm

    Tom, I'm curious. In which department of the federal government were you employed?

    integer , February 20, 2017 at 10:22 pm

    Hard to take your comment seriously. Do you really think that the Deep State consists of federal employees who are concerned with VA and the rank and file of the DOD, or that they are interested in providing "support and services" to the people? I think it's likely that your belief that you were part of the Deep State is incorrect.

    Mothy , February 20, 2017 at 8:01 pm

    No discussion of the Deep State would be complete without reading "Spooks," by Jim Hougan. It was a seminal book written in 1980 (I believe) that introduced the notion of retiring IC operatives joining private company security apparati. Tell your compatriots you're acting on behalf of the government and a patriot will do ANYTHING. "The Conversation" was a depiction of one of the main characters in the book who had previously wiretapped most of Manhatten back in the early Sixties; he worked for either Hoffa or the Kennedy brothers or both. Really an unbelievable book getting more and more difficult to find. Ironically– or not– I believe it was Hougan's last piece of investigative journalism.

    No Idea , February 20, 2017 at 9:14 pm

    We cross out "conducting killings" for the American context (or do we?).

    "Character assassination. What a wonderful idea. Ordinary assassination only works once, but this one works every day."
    ― Terry Pratchett, The Truth

    Fool , February 20, 2017 at 10:02 pm

    A succinct way that i like to think of the "deep state" is whoever the CIA works for.

    Vatch , February 20, 2017 at 10:13 pm

    "It's called the ruling class because it rules." –Arthur Silber

    The rulers are the ones who rule. The ruling class includes non-rulers who are in the same socio-economic class as most of the people who rule.

    buermann , February 21, 2017 at 12:48 am

    I'd always assumed the concept originated with Peter Dale Scott, who, before he wrote the book "The American Deep State", used it all over the place in 2007's "The Road to 9/11". I've read neither but for excerpts, the concept merely referred to covert agencies acting outside the scope of democratic oversight - whether it's local police departments running out of control torture squads and black sites or national intelligence agencies acting as the private armies of the executive. That such groups might oust a sitting executive is of course the heart and soul of all his conspiracy mongering about the JFK assassination (I like his poetry an awful lot, but I remember trying to get through Cocaine Politics and either the sources didn't check out or they were untraceable, in any case I gave up on it).

    https://books.google.com/books?id=op39ymd2um0C&printsec=frontcover&q=%22deep%20state%22

    H. Alexander Ivey , February 21, 2017 at 1:18 am

    If you want to find a consistent, broad, and useful meaning of a concept, and a phase or 'name' for that concept, look for books written on the subject. Postings, blogs, and even published articles do not have the authority that books have (it's not just because being hit upside the head with a book will hurt a lot more than with a blog posting, har,har).

    My recommendation is Deep State, based on my understanding on Mike Lohgren's The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government .

    I must say I personally don't like the term. When I use it with people who believe that Rep & Dem describe the US government, I get the old eye roll, tin foil hat outfitting treatment. Humm, maybe I'll lead in with the term 'Washington Consensus'. They get that one around here in Southeast Asia. They haven't forgotten or forgiven the IMF about the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

    St Jacques , February 21, 2017 at 4:03 am

    I hate the term deep state because, unlike the mic, for example, which has a clarity about it, it is so vague and malleable a term as to be almost useless except for Hollywood films and conspiracy nutters, but if there is such a thing, here is what it might look like:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8IvKx0c19w

    Damson , February 21, 2017 at 6:56 am

    It goes back to 9/11.

    A must-read is the 'Collateral Damage' investigation in which the Office Of Naval Intelligence features as the main exposing agency of exactly this issue – a parallel power structure operating on a black budget:

    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Collateral_Damage_-_part_1.pdf

    fairleft , February 21, 2017 at 7:36 am

    The central task of the U.S. 'deep state' is to maintain or expand the permanent war economy. So it is the military-industrial complex. The top-of-food-chain spy agencies - whose primary task within the MIC is to create enemies and paranoia - are the brains and mouthpiece of the deep state.

    begob , February 21, 2017 at 7:58 am

    Didn't see any mention of organised crime. And does the DS distinguish between unlawful and illegal?

    PH , February 21, 2017 at 8:53 am

    Think kaleidoscope in motion. Colors are real but hard to predict. Preset patterns, but affected by outside movement.

    I love histories, but I know they simplify and often mislead. Anyway, the trick is to spot the power emerging, not how it turned out with the last generation.

    I suggest that the best approach looking forward is to start with the existing visible power bureaucracies both inside govt and outside govt but on its periphery.

    For each behemoth, daily routine is the biggest driver. And with that usually goes shared values. Such things usually push events.

    Offhand, I can think of a few starting points. If these separate bureaucracies are subject to some common control, I would like to know exactly who and exactly how.

    Military/defense contractors. Mostly consumed with myopic concerns. Top generals and bureaucrats do think tank type stuff, but mostly technical. Obvious collusion with industry over defense budgets.

    Not sure what attitude is toward Donald.

    NSA and tech contractors. Foreign world to me, but obvious iceberg.

    State Dept and White House and press chattering class. Propaganda organizations, basically. I am sure they have clubs and secret handshakes, but not sure should've called organized.

    Main CIA Narrow bureaucrats.

    Off-the-books CIA intersecting with business. These have been the most spectacular stories and escapades. Edwin Wilson. Air America. Coups in the 50s. Maybe CIA assassination of Kennedy.

    Did these operations drive history? Maybe. If those types of connections drive events today, what are they?

    I do not see a unitary deep state.

    Steven Greenberg , February 21, 2017 at 9:10 am

    Nobody has raised the issue of COG. Here is one excerpt from Peter Dale Scott's book that talks about and somewhat defines it. Much more in the book of course.

    One factor linking Dallas, Watergate, the 1980 "October Surprise" plot to prevent Carter's reelection, Iran-Contra, and 9/ 11 has been the background involvement in all these deep events of personnel from America's highest-level emergency planning, that is, Continuity of Government (COG) planning, known inside the Pentagon as "the Doomsday Project." The implementation of COG plans on 9/ 11 was the culmination of decades of such planning, and has resulted in the permanent militarization of the domestic United States, and the imposition at home of institutions and processes designed for domination abroad.

    Scott, Peter Dale. The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy (War and Peace Library). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Mattski , February 21, 2017 at 9:28 am

    "Seems pretty big to be deep "

    Not logical. The Deep State is those elements of the establishment that direct the course of government irrespective of e pluribus.

    Perfectly good term, arising from popular usage, whose boundaries–hopefully needless to say–people who know better will not dictate anyway. Would have been much better, rather than to attack its use at the outset, just to investigate it. Elitist exercise, shaped like this.

    [Feb 21, 2017] Democratic Ex-Dove Proposes War on Iran

    Notable quotes:
    "... Rep. Alcee Hastings has sponsored a bill to authorize President Trump to attack Iran. ..."
    "... Alcee Hastings is better known to the public as a federal judge who was impeached for bribery and for a series of ethical lapses as a Congressman than for his legislative record. The 2012 Family Affairs report by the Committee for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington found that Hastings paid his partner, Patricia Williams, $622,000 to serve as his deputy district director from 2007 to 2010, the largest amount paid to a family member by any Member of Congress in the report. ..."
    "... Alcee Hastings's voting record on war and peace issues has been about average for a Democrat. He voted against the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) on Iraq, and his 79 percent lifetime Peace Action score is the highest among current House members from Florida, although Alan Grayson's was higher. ..."
    "... In the new Republican-led Congress, with the bombastic and unpredictable Donald Trump in the White House, Hastings's bill could actually serve as a blank check for war on Iran, and it is carefully worded to be exactly that. It authorizes the open-ended use of force against Iran with no limits on the scale or duration of the war. The only sense in which the bill meets the requirements of the War Powers Act is that it stipulates that it does so. Otherwise it entirely surrenders Congress's constitutional authority for any decision over war with Iran to the President, requiring only that he report to Congress on the war once every 60 days. ..."
    "... The wording of Hastings's bill perpetuates dangerous myths about the nature of Iran's nuclear program that have been thoroughly investigated and debunked after decades of intense scrutiny by experts, from the U.S. intelligence community to the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). ..."
    "... As former IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei explained in his book, The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times, the IAEA has never found any real evidence of nuclear weapons research or development in Iran, any more than in Iraq in 2003, the last time such myths were abused to launch our country into a devastating and disastrous war. ..."
    "... In Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, investigative journalist Gareth Porter meticulously examined the suspected evidence of nuclear weapons activity in Iran. He explored the reality behind every claim and explained how the deep-seated mistrust in U.S.-Iran relations gave rise to misinterpretations of Iran's scientific research and led Iran to shroud legitimate civilian research in secrecy. This climate of hostility and dangerous worst-case assumptions even led to the assassination of four innocent Iranian scientists by alleged Israeli agents. ..."
    "... The discredited myth of an Iranian "nuclear weapons program" was perpetuated throughout the 2016 election campaign by candidates of both parties, but Hillary Clinton was particularly strident in claiming credit for neutralizing Iran's imaginary nuclear weapons program. ..."
    "... President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry also reinforced a false narrative that the "dual-track" approach of Obama's first term, escalating sanctions and threats of war at the same time as holding diplomatic negotiations, "brought Iran to the table." This was utterly false. Threats and sanctions served only to undermine diplomacy, strengthen hard-liners on both sides and push Iran into building 20,000 centrifuges to supply its civilian nuclear program with enriched uranium, as documented in Trita Parsi's book, A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran. ..."
    "... When Brazil and Turkey persuaded Iran to accept the terms of an agreement proposed by the U.S. a few months earlier, the U.S. responded by rejecting its own proposal. By then the main U.S. goal was to ratchet up sanctions at the U.N., which this diplomatic success would have undermined. ..."
    "... Trita Parsi explained that this was only one of many ways in which the two tracks of Obama's "dual-track" approach were hopelessly at odds with each other. Only once Clinton was replaced by John Kerry at the State Department did serious diplomacy displace brinksmanship and ever-rising tensions. ..."
    "... Rand Paul: If John McCain Were In Charge, U.S. 'Would Be In Perpetual War' "John McCain is the guy that has advocated for war everywhere." ..."
    "... How many wars are enough? ..."
    "... That begs the question "What's Rand Paul's definition of perpetual war?" We've been at war since 2003. There's no end in sight. That seems like "perpetual" to me. Do they need to be bigger wars or for there to be more of them in order to meet Paul's threshold for perpetual? ..."
    "... 'Know neither your enemy nor yourself', is how US got into this predicament. How many places has the CIA 'organized' to such good effect? Most effectively with Jihadis grown from Afghanistan reorganized in Syria over nearly 40 years. ..."
    "... What are you who calls the 'enemy' sinners when your country out does the 'enemy' in war crime across the world? ..."
    "... I have never seen a ranking federal bureaucrat do something illegal by accident. ..."
    "... Or the faux security services who found yellow cake that don't exist found GOP spies that do not exist. ..."
    "... Deep State = Big Brother ..."
    Feb 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC -> RGC... February 20, 2017 at 06:02 AM , 2017 at 06:02 AM
    Democratic Ex-Dove Proposes War on Iran

    February 19, 2017

    Exclusive: The Democrats' rush to rebrand themselves as super-hawks is perhaps best illustrated by the once-dovish Rep. Alcee Hastings proposing stand-by authorization for the President to attack Iran, reports Nicolas J S Davies.

    By Nicolas J S Davies

    Rep. Alcee Hastings has sponsored a bill to authorize President Trump to attack Iran.

    Hastings reintroduced H J Res 10, the "Authorization of Use of Force Against Iran Resolution" on Jan. 3, the first day of the new Congress after President Trump's election.

    Hastings's bill has come as a shock to constituents and people who have followed his career as a 13-term Democratic Member of Congress from South Florida. Miami Beach resident Michael Gruener called Hastings's bill, "extraordinarily dangerous," and asked, "Does Hastings even consider to whom he is giving this authorization?"

    Fritzie Gaccione, the editor of the South Florida Progressive Bulletin noted that Iran is complying with the 2015 JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and expressed amazement that Hastings has reintroduced this bill at a moment when the stakes are so high and Trump's intentions so unclear.

    "How can Hastings hand this opportunity to Trump?" she asked. "Trump shouldn't be trusted with toy soldiers, let alone the American military."

    Speculation by people in South Florida as to why Alcee Hastings has sponsored such a dangerous bill reflect two general themes. One is that he is paying undue attention to the pro-Israel groups who raised 10 percent of his coded campaign contributions for the 2016 election. The other is that, at the age of 80, he seems to be carrying water for the pay-to-play Clinton wing of the Democratic Party as part of some kind of retirement plan.

    Alcee Hastings is better known to the public as a federal judge who was impeached for bribery and for a series of ethical lapses as a Congressman than for his legislative record. The 2012 Family Affairs report by the Committee for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington found that Hastings paid his partner, Patricia Williams, $622,000 to serve as his deputy district director from 2007 to 2010, the largest amount paid to a family member by any Member of Congress in the report.

    But Hastings sits in one of the 25 safest Democratic seats in the House and does not seem to have ever faced a serious challenge from a Democratic primary opponent or a Republican.

    Alcee Hastings's voting record on war and peace issues has been about average for a Democrat. He voted against the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) on Iraq, and his 79 percent lifetime Peace Action score is the highest among current House members from Florida, although Alan Grayson's was higher.

    Hastings voted against the bill to approve the JCPOA or nuclear agreement with Iran and first introduced his AUMF bill in 2015. With the approval of the JCPOA and Obama's solid commitment to it, Hastings's bill seemed like a symbolic act that posed little danger – until now.

    In the new Republican-led Congress, with the bombastic and unpredictable Donald Trump in the White House, Hastings's bill could actually serve as a blank check for war on Iran, and it is carefully worded to be exactly that. It authorizes the open-ended use of force against Iran with no limits on the scale or duration of the war. The only sense in which the bill meets the requirements of the War Powers Act is that it stipulates that it does so. Otherwise it entirely surrenders Congress's constitutional authority for any decision over war with Iran to the President, requiring only that he report to Congress on the war once every 60 days.

    Dangerous Myths

    The wording of Hastings's bill perpetuates dangerous myths about the nature of Iran's nuclear program that have been thoroughly investigated and debunked after decades of intense scrutiny by experts, from the U.S. intelligence community to the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA).

    As former IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei explained in his book, The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times, the IAEA has never found any real evidence of nuclear weapons research or development in Iran, any more than in Iraq in 2003, the last time such myths were abused to launch our country into a devastating and disastrous war.

    In Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, investigative journalist Gareth Porter meticulously examined the suspected evidence of nuclear weapons activity in Iran. He explored the reality behind every claim and explained how the deep-seated mistrust in U.S.-Iran relations gave rise to misinterpretations of Iran's scientific research and led Iran to shroud legitimate civilian research in secrecy. This climate of hostility and dangerous worst-case assumptions even led to the assassination of four innocent Iranian scientists by alleged Israeli agents.

    The discredited myth of an Iranian "nuclear weapons program" was perpetuated throughout the 2016 election campaign by candidates of both parties, but Hillary Clinton was particularly strident in claiming credit for neutralizing Iran's imaginary nuclear weapons program.

    President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry also reinforced a false narrative that the "dual-track" approach of Obama's first term, escalating sanctions and threats of war at the same time as holding diplomatic negotiations, "brought Iran to the table." This was utterly false. Threats and sanctions served only to undermine diplomacy, strengthen hard-liners on both sides and push Iran into building 20,000 centrifuges to supply its civilian nuclear program with enriched uranium, as documented in Trita Parsi's book, A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran.

    A former hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran who rose to be a senior officer on the Iran desk at the State Department told Parsi that the main obstacle to diplomacy with Iran during Obama's first term was the U.S. refusal to "take 'Yes' for an answer."

    When Brazil and Turkey persuaded Iran to accept the terms of an agreement proposed by the U.S. a few months earlier, the U.S. responded by rejecting its own proposal. By then the main U.S. goal was to ratchet up sanctions at the U.N., which this diplomatic success would have undermined.

    Trita Parsi explained that this was only one of many ways in which the two tracks of Obama's "dual-track" approach were hopelessly at odds with each other. Only once Clinton was replaced by John Kerry at the State Department did serious diplomacy displace brinksmanship and ever-rising tensions.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/19/democratic-ex-dove-proposes-war-on-iran/

    RGC -> RGC... , February 20, 2017 at 06:19 AM
    02/19/2017 11:53 am ET

    Rand Paul: If John McCain Were In Charge, U.S. 'Would Be In Perpetual War' "John McCain is the guy that has advocated for war everywhere."

    By Laura Barron-Lopez

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rand-paul-john-mccain-perpetual-war_us_58a9c139e4b07602ad55ad23

    RGC -> RGC... , February 20, 2017 at 06:21 AM
    How many wars are enough?
    Chris G -> RGC... , February 20, 2017 at 09:09 AM
    That begs the question "What's Rand Paul's definition of perpetual war?" We've been at war since 2003. There's no end in sight. That seems like "perpetual" to me. Do they need to be bigger wars or for there to be more of them in order to meet Paul's threshold for perpetual?
    EMichael -> RGC... , February 20, 2017 at 06:30 AM
    "There are no regular units of the Russian military in the breakaway provinces"

    Amazing coordination of these volunteer irregulars. Must be social media.....

    ilsm -> EMichael... , February 20, 2017 at 06:53 AM
    'Know neither your enemy nor yourself', is how US got into this predicament. How many places has the CIA 'organized' to such good effect? Most effectively with Jihadis grown from Afghanistan reorganized in Syria over nearly 40 years.

    What are you who calls the 'enemy' sinners when your country out does the 'enemy' in war crime across the world?

    ilsm -> RGC... , February 20, 2017 at 01:01 PM
    I would rather find out that the deep state hacking was caused by politics rather than [the lie of] coincidence.

    I have never seen a ranking federal bureaucrat do something illegal by accident.

    Or the faux security services who found yellow cake that don't exist found GOP spies that do not exist.

    EMichael -> RGC... , February 20, 2017 at 05:41 AM
    Yeah, I'll pay attention to a guy who seems to have no knowledge whatsoever of what McCarthyism was.
    pgl -> EMichael... , February 20, 2017 at 05:50 AM
    I wonder if he has read 1984.
    Mike S -> pgl... , February 20, 2017 at 05:57 AM
    I don't think liberals are going to establish a committee on un-American activities or blackball people.

    On the other hand, I do think that some people would publish things like Robert Parry's article because they don't like sunshine shining on their activities.

    ilsm -> pgl... , February 20, 2017 at 06:46 AM
    I only read historical novels why bring in Orwell?
    RGC -> pgl... , February 20, 2017 at 06:51 AM
    Deep State = Big Brother
    ilsm -> EMichael... , February 20, 2017 at 06:45 AM
    Say what was McCarthyism? Do you think Zwicker was handled differently than Flynn?

    How so?

    Pity HRC is not d=running the deep state they would not be running scared telling the world they wiretap US citizens!

    EMichael -> ilsm... , February 20, 2017 at 06:51 AM
    Mc·Car·thy·ism məˈkδrTHēˌizəm/
    noun
    noun: McCarthyism

    a vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the US government and other institutions carried out under Senator Joseph McCarthy in the period 1950–54. Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their jobs, although most did not in fact belong to the Communist Party.

    ilsm -> EMichael... , February 20, 2017 at 06:55 AM
    How does Stalin lead communist equal GOPster talking to Russians? Or even suggest trampling the bill of rights?
    EMichael -> ilsm... , February 20, 2017 at 07:05 AM
    When you become incomprehensible, there is no sense talking. Before it is too late,

    http://www.tricare.mil/CoveredServices/Mental/GettingMHCare

    ilsm -> EMichael... , February 20, 2017 at 07:12 AM
    I had 20 or 30 more questions about how the deep state is justified by not looking like Joe McCarthy.

    You are smart enough to quit before I commence a "forlorn hope" effort to teach you how to think.

    At least you did not toss out some vague phrase about marshy land.

    HEH!

    kthomas -> RGC... , February 20, 2017 at 06:41 AM
    GOOD!

    You deserve to live in fear. Facists like you love to throw stones.

    ilsm -> kthomas... , February 20, 2017 at 06:47 AM
    while patriots like you stand by and watch the bill of rights trampled!
    RGC -> kthomas... , February 20, 2017 at 06:59 AM
    The Nazis are in the Ukraine government and were supported by the Obama state department.
    ilsm -> RGC... , February 20, 2017 at 07:08 AM
    k has TDS, cognitive dissonance, everything else is confirmation bias leading from a severe case of self pity over the neolibs' Clinton losing and missing the chance to experience WW III over Putin.

    [Feb 21, 2017] Red Hysteria Engulfs Washington

    Feb 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Eric Margolis via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    President Dwight Eisenhower's warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex made half a century ago ring as loud and clear today . The soft coup being mounted against the Trump government by America's 'deep state' reached a new intensity this week as special interests battled for control of Washington.

    The newly named national security advisor, Lt Gen Michael Flynn, was ousted by Trump over his chats with Russia's ambassador and what he may or may not have told Vice President Pence. The defenestration of Flynn appeared engineered by our national intelligence agencies in collaboration with the mainstream media and certain Democrats.

    Flynn's crime? Talking to the wicked Russians before and after the election. Big, big deal. That's what security advisors are supposed to do: keep an open back channel to other major powers and allies. This is also the job of our intelligence agencies.

    There is no good or bad in international affairs. The childish concept of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' comes from the Bush era when simple-minded voters had to be convinced that America was somehow in grave danger from a bunch of angry Mideast goat herds.

    The only nations that could threaten America's very existence are nuclear powers Russia, China, India, France, Britain and Israel (and maybe Pakistan) in that order.

    Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on the US mainland. Any real war with Russia would invite doom for both nations. Two near misses are more than enough. Remember the 1962 Cuban missile confrontation and the terrifying 1983 Able Archer scare – near thermonuclear war caused by Ronald Reagan's anti-Russian hysteria and Moscow's panicked response.

    Margolis' #1 rule of international relations: make nice and keep on good terms with nations that have nuclear weapons pointed at you. Avoid squabbles over almost all matters. Intelligence agencies play a key role in maintaining the balance of nuclear terror and preventing misunderstandings that can cause war.

    Gen. Flynn was a fanatical anti-Islamic wing nut. He was, to use Trumpese, a bigly terrible choice. I'm glad he is gone. But Flynn's sin was being loopy, not talking on the phone to the Russian ambassador. The White House and national intelligence should be talking every day to Moscow, even 'hi Boris, what's new with you guys? 'Nothing much new here either besides the terrible traffic.'

    The current hue and cry in the US over Flynn's supposed infraction is entirely a fake political ambush to cripple the Trump administration. Trump caved in much too fast. The deep state is after his scalp: he has threatened to cut the $80 billion per annum intelligence budget – which alone, boys and girls, is larger than Russia's entire defense budget! He's talking about rooting waste out of the Pentagon's almost trillion-dollar budget, spending less on NATO, and ending some of America's imperial wars abroad.

    What's to like about Trump if you're a member of the war party and military-industrial-intelligence-Wall Street complex? The complex wants its golden girl Hilary Clinton in charge. She unleashed the current tsunami of anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Vladimir Putin which shows, sadly, that many Americans have not grown beyond the days of Joe McCarthy.

    As a long-time student of Cold War intelligence, my conclusion is that both sides knew pretty much what the other was up to, though KGB and GRU were more professional and skilled than western special services. It would be so much easier and cheaper just to share information on a demand basis. But that would stop the Great Game.

    It's sickening watching the arrant hypocrisy and windbaggery in Washington over alleged Russian espionage and manipulation. The US has been buying and manipulating foreign governments since 1945. We even tapped German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone. This week Wikileaks issued an intercept on CIA spying and manipulation of France's 2012 election. We live in a giant glass house.

    The Russians are not our pals. Nor are they the evil empire. We have to normalize our thinking about Russia, grow up and stop using Moscow as a political bogeyman to fight our own internal political battles.

    Right now, I'm more worried about the far right crazies in the Trump White House than I am about the Ruskis and Vlad the Bad.

    [Feb 21, 2017] The Did-You-Talk-to-Russians Witch Hunt

    Notable quotes:
    "... Exclusive: Democrats, liberals and media pundits – in their rush to take down President Trump – are pushing a New McCarthyism aimed at Americans who have talked to Russians, risking a new witch hunt. ..."
    "... As Democrats compete to become the new War Party – pushing for a dangerous confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia – some constituents are objecting, as Mike Madden did in a letter to Sen. Amy Klobuchar. ..."
    Feb 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC : February 20, 2017 at 05:29 AM , 2017 at 05:29 AM
    The Did-You-Talk-to-Russians Witch Hunt

    February 18, 2017

    Exclusive: Democrats, liberals and media pundits – in their rush to take down President Trump – are pushing a New McCarthyism aimed at Americans who have talked to Russians, risking a new witch hunt.

    By Robert Parry

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/18/the-did-you-talk-to-russians-witch-hunt/

    RGC -> RGC... , February 20, 2017 at 05:35 AM
    February 17, 2017

    France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface

    by Diana Johnstone

    As if the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign hadn't been horrendous enough, here comes another one: in France.

    The system in France is very different, with multiple candidates in two rounds, most of them highly articulate, who often even discuss real issues. Free television time reduces the influence of big money. The first round on April 23 will select the two finalists for the May 7 runoff, allowing for much greater choice than in the United States.

    But monkey see, monkey do, and the mainstream political class wants to mimic the ways of the Empire, even echoing the theme that dominated the 2016 show across the Atlantic: the evil Russians are messing with our wonderful democracy.

    The aping of the U.S. system began with "primaries" held by the two main governing parties which obviously aspire to establish themselves as the equivalent of American Democrats and Republicans in a two-party system. The right-wing party of former president Nicolas Sarkozy has already renamed itself Les Rιpublicains and the so-called Socialist Party leaders are just waiting for the proper occasion to call themselves Les Dιmocrates. But as things are going, neither one of them may come out ahead this time.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/17/france-another-ghastly-presidential-election-campaign-the-deep-state-rises-to-the-surface/

    RGC -> RGC... , February 20, 2017 at 05:53 AM
    Challenging Klobuchar on Ukraine War

    February 19, 2017

    As Democrats compete to become the new War Party – pushing for a dangerous confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia – some constituents are objecting, as Mike Madden did in a letter to Sen. Amy Klobuchar.


    From Mike Madden (of St. Paul, Minnesota)

    Dear Senator Klobuchar, I write with concern over statements you have made recently regarding Russia.

    These statements have been made both at home and abroad, and they involve two issues; the alleged Russian hack of the presidential election and Russia's actions in the aftermath of the February 22, 2014 coup in Kiev.

    U.S. intelligence services allege that President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to denigrate Hillary Clinton and help elect Donald Trump. The campaign is purported to include the production of fake news, cyber-trolling, and propaganda from Russian state-owned media. It is also alleged that Russia hacked the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, subsequently providing the emails to WikiLeaks.

    Despite calls from many quarters, the intelligence services have not provided the public with any proof. Instead, Americans are expected to blindly trust these services with a long history of failure. Additionally, the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, have both been known to lie to the public and to Congress, Mr. Clapper doing so under oath.

    Meanwhile, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange maintains the emails did not come from Russia (or any other state actor) and his organization has an unblemished record of revealing accurate information in the public interest that would otherwise remain hidden. While responsible journalists continue to use the word 'alleged' to describe the accusations, Republicans with an ax to grind against Russia, and Democrats wishing to distract from their own failings in the campaign, refer to them as fact. Indeed, on the Amy in the News page of your own website, Jordain Carney of The Hill refers to the Russian meddling as "alleged".

    A congressional commission to investigate the alleged Russian hacking is not necessary. Even if all the allegations are true, they are altogether common occurrences, and they certainly don't rise to the level of "an act of aggression", "an existential threat to our way of life", or "an attack on the American people" as various Democratic officials have characterized them. Republican Senator John McCain went full monty and called the alleged meddling "an act of war".
    Joining War Hawks

    It is of concern that you would join Senator McCain and the equally belligerent Senator Lindsey Graham on a tour of Russian provocation through the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, and Montenegro. The announcement of your trip (December 28, 2016) on the News Releases page of your website renewed the unproven claim of "Russian interference in our recent election". It also claimed that the countries you were visiting were facing "Russian aggression" and that "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".

    It is unfortunate that these claims have become truisms by sheer repetition rather than careful examination of the facts. Russia has not invaded eastern Ukraine. There are no regular units of the Russian military in the breakaway provinces, nor has Russia launched any air strikes from its territory. It has sent weapons and other provisions to the Ukrainian forces seeking autonomy from Kiev, and there are most certainly Russian volunteers operating in Ukraine.

    However regrettable, it must be remembered that the unrest was precipitated by the February 22, 2014 overthrow of the democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych which, speaking of meddling, was assisted by U.S. State Department, other American government agencies, and one Senator John McCain. The subsequent military and paramilitary operations launched by the coup government against the People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk were described by President Putin as "uncontrolled crime" spreading into the south and east of the country. In American parlance, both the interim coup government in Kiev and the current government of President Petro Poroshenko have engaged in "killing their own people".

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/19/challenging-klobuchar-on-ukraine-war/

    [Feb 21, 2017] How Sally Yates May Have Gotten The Ball Rolling On Michael Flynn's Resignation

    So the gang that ousted Flynn included Yates, Brennan and unknowm leakers in NSA.
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    Near the end of her short tenure at the head of the Justice Department, Yates reportedly informed the White House that Flynn may have misled senior officials about his calls with the Russian ambassador, according to reports from The Post, which cited unnamed officials:

    The acting attorney general informed the Trump White House late last month that she believed Michael Flynn had misled senior administration officials about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States, and warned that the national security adviser was potentially vulnerable to Russian blackmail, current and former U.S. officials said.

    The message, delivered by Sally Q. Yates and a senior career national security official to the White House counsel, was prompted by concerns that Flynn, when asked about his calls and texts with the Russian diplomat, had told Vice ­President-elect Mike Pence and others that he had not discussed the Obama administration sanctions on Russia for its interference in the 2016 election, the officials said. It is unclear what the White House counsel, Donald McGahn, did with the information.

    Those concerns were later echoed by James Clapper, President Barack Obama's former director of national intelligence, and John Brennan, the former director of the CIA

    Yates made headlines at the end of January after announcing the Justice Department would refuse to defend Trump's controversial executive order on immigration. She was fired within hours, and the White House released a strongly worded statement saying she had "betrayed" the administration.

    [Feb 20, 2017] Trump Chooses General McMaster as National Security Adviser

    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : , February 20, 2017 at 12:28 PM
    Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National
    Security Adviser https://nyti.ms/2lo3mNK
    NYT - PETER BAKER - February 20, 2017

    WASHINGTON - President Trump picked Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, a widely respected military strategist, as his new national security adviser on Monday, calling him "a man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience."

    Mr. Trump made the announcement at his Mar-a-Lago getaway in Palm Beach, Fla., where he has been interviewing candidates to replace Michael T. Flynn, who was forced out after withholding information from Vice President Mike Pence about a call with Russia's ambassador.

    The choice continued Mr. Trump's reliance on high-ranking military officers to advise him on national security. Mr. Flynn was a retired three-star general and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is a retired four-star general. His first choice to replace Mr. Flynn, who turned the job down, and two other finalists were current or former senior officers as well.

    Shortly before announcing his appointment, Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter: "Meeting with Generals at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. Very interesting!"

    General McMaster is seen as one of the Army's leading intellectuals, first making a name for himself with a searing critique of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for their performance during the Vietnam War and later criticizing the way President George W. Bush's administration went to war in Iraq.

    As a commander, he was credited with demonstrating how a different counterterrorism strategy could defeat insurgents in Iraq, providing the basis for the change in approach that Gen. David H. Petraeus adopted to shift momentum in a war that the United States was on the verge of losing.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 20, 2017 at 01:38 PM
    He is an armor guy with a Ranger tab!

    Passed over for Brigadier twice but made it by the board run by Petraeus who looked for "combat leaders".

    [Feb 20, 2017] Russia contacts insinuations by neocons as a ruse

    It was very apt definition. But the reality is that this is not just a trap, this is a multistage covert operation to regain neocon power in Washington...
    Feb 17, 2017 | www.merriam-webster.com
    Lookups for ruse ("a stratagem or trick usually intended to deceive") spiked after the President of the United States used the word while denying the reports of improper communication between his campaign and Russian intelligence. The FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the presidential election.

    "Russia is a ruse," Mr. Trump said. "I have nothing to do with Russia, haven't made a phone call to Russia in years."
    - cbsnews.com , 16 Feb. 2017

    Ruse comes to English from French, in which language it long ago had the meaning of both "trickery" and "a roundabout path taken by fleeing game." The second of these two definitions had a brief period of use in English during the 15th century, but is now quite obsolete.

    The word is now little used as a hunting term, and primarily is found to refer to some instance of subterfuge .

    [Feb 20, 2017] People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage

    Notable quotes:
    "... Blackmailing Russia can probably be viewed as just an attempt to avoid asking uncomfortable questions (Like who is guilty and who should go to jail ;-) , and to distract the attention from the real problems. As if the return us to the good old Obama days of universal deceit (aka "change we can believe in") , can solve the problems the country faces. ..."
    "... As Galbright put it: "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith ..."
    "... Neoliberal economists often talk about "flexible labor markets" as desirable but I don't think Krugman ever has. Maybe he has in a roundabout, indirect way. ..."
    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... February 20, 2017 at 06:39 AM
    Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Spread by neolib propaganda organs claiming to be the "free" press.

    More dangerous than Obama's deep state wiretapping republicans and raping the Bill of Rights falsely screaming 'Trump the traitor'!

    There is no freedom to lie and to mislead 'we the people'.

    New Deal democrat -> ilsm... , February 20, 2017 at 07:34 AM

    At risk of being flamed by everybody else with an opinion on this matter, I can see both sides of the issue:

    You are correct if Trump is not selling out to Russia.

    You are also correct if (1) Trump *is* selling out to Russia, *AND* (2) his voters were aware that he is selling out to Russia, but voted for him with eyes wide open on that issue.

    In either of those two cases the Intelligence Community leakers are trying to subvert the democratic will of the people in elected Trump president.

    You are wrong if: (1) Trump is selling out to Russia, *AND* (2) his voters did not believe it when they voted for him. In this case the Intelligence Community leakers, in my opinion, are patriotic heroes.

    Just because the Intellligence Community is not laying the sources of its intelligence out in the open on the table does not mean that the leakers are wrong. My suspicion is that they are correct (see, e.g., Josh Marshall today. Google is your friend.) The deeper problem is that I suspect Trump's voters simply don't care, even if the Intelligence Community is correct.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> New Deal democrat... , February 20, 2017 at 08:07 AM
    No flames from me, Dude. Ya nailed it.
    ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , February 20, 2017 at 08:09 AM
    I did a mini max regret: More regret with Clinton sold out to neoliberal profiteering war mongers who care only for perpetual war, the max regret I see is unneeded nuclear war over a few hundred thousand Estonians who hate Russia since the Hanseatic league was suppressed by Ivan the Terrible.

    Lesser regret with Trump sold out to Russia* that would only bring China I against both US and Russia in about 50 years.

    *Trump sold to Russia is Clintonista/Stalinist fantasia sold by the yellow press.

    Julio -> New Deal democrat... , February 20, 2017 at 08:25 AM
    I disagree. It is not enough that Trump voters were aware of Trump selling out to Russia and didn't care; if there had been conclusive proof of that before the election, other people might have come out to vote against him.

    Besides, some of his voters might not care and some might.

    In any case, whether the leakers are patriots or traitors does not have to do with subverting "the will of the people". At the most extreme, leaks could lead to, say, impeachment, which is another way to express the will of the people. (Or actually, the will of the plutocrats and their Republican and Democratic running dogs, but that's another discussion).

    libezkova -> ilsm... , February 20, 2017 at 11:59 AM
    New Deal democrat and couple of other Hillary enthusiasts here used to sing quite a different song as for Hillary bathroom email server ;-).

    Russia bogeyman (or "ruse" as Trump aptly defined it) is now used to swipe under the carpet the crisis of neoliberal ideology and the collapse of Democratic Party which is still dominated by Clinton wing of soft neoliberals). Chickhawks like a couple of people here (for example, im1dc), are always want to fight another war, but using some other ("less valuable") peoples bodies as the target of enemy fire.

    Democratic Party now is playing an old and very dirty trick called "Catch the thief", when they are the thief.

    Why we are not discussing the key issue: how the redistribution of wealth up during the last two decades destabilized the country both economically and politically?

    Also it is unclear whether a simple, non-painful way out exists, or this is just something like a pre-collapse stage as happened with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR. The Damocles sword of "peak/plato oil" hangs over neoliberal globalization. That's an undeniable and a very important factor. Another ten (or twenty) years of the "secular stagnation", and then what? Can the current globalized economy function with oil prices above $100 without severe downsizing.

    The economic plunder of other countries like the plunder of xUSSR economic space (which helped to save and return to growth the USA economics in 90th, providing half a billion new customers and huge space for "dollarization") is no longer possible as there are no any new USSR that can disintegrate.

    Obama achievement of reinstalling neoliberal regimes in Brazil and Argentina ( https://nacla.org/news/2015/10/10/brazil%C2%B4s-sudden-neoliberal-u-turn ) was probably the "last hurrah" of neoliberalism, which is in retreat all over the globe.

    And "artificial disintegration" of the countries to open them to neoliberal globalization (aka "controlled chaos") like practiced in Libya and Syria proved to be quite costly and have unforeseen side effects.

    The forces that ensured Trump victory are forces that understood at least on intuitive level that huge problems with neoliberalism need something different that kicking the can down the road, and that Hillary might well means the subsequent economic collapse, or WWIII, or both.

    Trump might not have a solution, but he was at least courageous enough to ask uncomfortable questions.

    Blackmailing Russia can probably be viewed as just an attempt to avoid asking uncomfortable questions (Like who is guilty and who should go to jail ;-) , and to distract the attention from the real problems. As if the return us to the good old Obama days of universal deceit (aka "change we can believe in") , can solve the problems the country faces.

    And when neoliberal presstitutes in MSM now blackmail Trump and try to stage "purple" color revolution, this might well be a sign of desperation, not strength.

    They have no solution for the country problem, they just want to kick the can down the road and enjoy their privileges while the country burns.

    As Galbright put it: "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> JohnH... , February 20, 2017 at 08:16 AM
    If you are peddling developed land then you want low interest rates for your customers so that you can get the highest price for your developments. Still there might theoretically be a narrow channel that your deal might slip through if commercial real estate were for some reason assigned a lower risk premium than residential, but ordinarily the opposite is true.

    A higher percentage of new businesses fail than new households and if more new households fail then even more new businesses will fail right along with them.

    The one possibility for Trump to have it this way would be that he crashes the US economy and all new commercial development would be for Russian tourist to visit America while either deflation and depression or Weimar scale inflation was suppressing prices for US goods in real ruble terms.

    JohnH -> New Deal democrat... , February 20, 2017 at 07:31 AM
    I expect that if you look at the pre-bellum South, there will be plenty of examples of stagnant wages, low interest rates...

    In Mexico, wages never rose regardless of monetary policy.

    The point that I've been making for a while: despite a few progressive economists delusions for rapid economic growth to tighten wages, it won't happen for the following reasons.

    1) most employers will just say 'no,' probably encouraged centrally by the US Chamber of Commerce and other industry associations. Collusion? You bet.

    2) employers will just move jobs abroad, where there's plenty of slack. Flexible labor markets has been one of the big goals of globalization, promoted by the usual suspects including 'librul' economists like Krugman.

    3) immigration, which will be temporarily constrained as Trump deports people, but will ultimately be resumed as employers demand cheap, malleable labor.

    New Deal democrat -> JohnH... , February 20, 2017 at 07:35 AM
    If what we get is easy money, no inflation, and stagnant wages, then that is the Coolidge bubble. We know how that ends.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , February 20, 2017 at 07:36 AM
    I disagree. It happened in late 90s. The ideas you mention are factors, including the decline of unions.

    What has happened in recent decades is that asset bubbles - like the dot.com and housing bubbles - have popped sending a high pressure economy into a low pressure one with higher unemployment.

    Neoliberal economists often talk about "flexible labor markets" as desirable but I don't think Krugman ever has. Maybe he has in a roundabout, indirect way.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , February 20, 2017 at 07:58 AM
    Peter K still insists on propagating the myth that the 1990s was a period of easy money that led to increasing wages. Not so:
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS

    Fed funds rates were consistently about double the rate of inflation.

    The fact that the economy boomed and wages increased was due to the tech boom--an unrepeatable anomaly. The Fed and Clinton administration unsuccessfully attempted to stifle it with high rates and budget balancing.

    To make sure that wages never rose again, Clinton signed China PNTR, granting China access to WTO, ushering in the great sucking sound of jobs going to China. Krugman cheered.

    libezkova -> JohnH... , February 20, 2017 at 12:02 PM
    If the neoliberal elite can't part with at least a small part of their privileges, the political destabilization will continue and they might lose everything.

    "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    [Feb 19, 2017] Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by wet starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind

    Pretty interesting video...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
    "... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
    "... FakeStream Media ..."
    "... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
    Feb 18, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal

    TheBase1aransas 3 minutes ago

    Alvina I think people that believe in freedom is not only the Best thing, but what built it. We finally have Trump to speak for us.

    Christine Lesch 4 hours ago
    McCains a shumuck
    Herbert Stewart 11 minutes ago
    @Christine Lesch

    I feel sorry for Arizona they are stuck with this guy. he needs to change parties he had his turn and LOST1 america first!

    Geoffry Allan

    it appears quite apparent that you people are really sad. trump is above all else, a good american. so.... stop being a moron.

    hexencoff 3 hours ago
    no one gives a shit what John McCain says he's a scumbag!
    hexencoff 3 hours ago
    Jodi Boin i hope so too it's honestly very scary how far we have regressed as a country we are fighting about the same things from 50 years ago everyone has their own beliefs and opinions and some how adult conversation has been thrown away i mean we are still fighting over race relations for crying out loud
    Louis John 2 hours ago
    @hexencoff

    McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag

    Gary M 3 hours ago
    McCain is a globalist
    belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
    (edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.

    ryvr madduck 1 hour ago

    +belaghoulashi

    Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?

    Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
    When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
    Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
    @Michael Cambo

    don't they...they do say shit floats.

    Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago

    @Michael Cambo - Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living - explain to me how he is draining the swamp

    tim sparks 3 hours ago
    Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
    Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
    @tim sparks

    He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies 2017 the best is yet to come

    Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
    McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
    Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
    Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
    Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
    FakeStream Media
    Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
    @Patrick Reagan

    Very FakeStream Media

    aspengold5 4 hours ago
    I am so disappointed in McCain.
    orlando pablo 4 hours ago
    my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
    Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
    McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
    Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
    Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six more years!
    robert barham 4 hours ago
    The very Fake Media has met their match
    H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
    Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
    Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
    (edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
    kazzicup 3 hours ago
    We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News Network.

    Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago

    @kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country - if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree

    [Feb 19, 2017] The swamp fights back

    The "neoliberal establishment" (aka Washington Swamp) is deeply unpopular with American people. Trump is not that popular, but he definitely less unpopular. Such statements s of "the national media is the enemy" would be unthinkable a decade or two ago.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained. ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Barbara waters 2 days ago (edited)

    The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained.

    Like former, despise current president matters not. We are still a nation of laws. The people have spoken. We want the laws followed period. CNN, MSNBC, and others who continue to go after our president will be met with an unbridled wave of conservative determination to restore law and order.

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
    "... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
    "... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : February 18, 2017 at 05:32 PM
    This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for yourself

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/18/im-democrat-and-ex-cia-but-spies-plotting-against-trump-are-out-control.html

    "I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"

    By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com

    ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...

    Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."

    ilsm -> im1dc... , February 18, 2017 at 06:08 PM
    The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!

    Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!

    +40 years around the puzzlers.

    [Feb 19, 2017] How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other countrys Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?

    Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm :

    , February 18, 2017 at 04:45 AM
    Vox, what about reporting from a crystal ball requires truth?
    Peter K. -> ilsm... , February 18, 2017 at 07:37 AM
    The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!

    Hide under your bed.

    ilsm -> Peter K.... , February 18, 2017 at 12:42 PM
    Flynn could have said something "inappropriate" by a Clintonista definition of "inappropriate", and he "could" be prosecuted under a law designed to muzzle US citizens, that has never been tried bc a Bill of rights argument would win!

    How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?

    If the fascists are coming they would keep Obama's FBI!

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
    "... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
    "... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : February 18, 2017 at 05:32 PM
    This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for yourself

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/18/im-democrat-and-ex-cia-but-spies-plotting-against-trump-are-out-control.html

    "I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"

    By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com

    ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...

    Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."

    ilsm -> im1dc... , February 18, 2017 at 06:08 PM
    The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!

    Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!

    +40 years around the puzzlers.

    [Feb 19, 2017] Flynn's Head Rolls. Is Trump's Next

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Post ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org
    Finian CUNNINGHAM | 15.02.2017 | WORLD Flynn's Head Rolls. Is Trump's Next?

    Just three weeks into the Trump presidency, and his political enemies in the Washington establishment have scored big, with the forced resignation of Trump's National Security advisor Michael Flynn. The establishment includes state intelligence agencies and aligned corporate news media, who have been gunning for Trump ever since his shock election last November.

    It's a hugely damaging blow to the inner circle of the Trump White House. The US media reporting on Flynn's resignation this week had the unmistakable air of victory-crowing. Like sharks in a pool, they smell blood.

    Flynn had to go after the Washington Post and others reported that he wasn't telling the truth about phone calls he had been holding with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition to the Trump administration. Flynn hadn't denied the calls in late December, but he had maintained that the subject of US sanctions on Russia were not discussed.

    Persistently the US media did not give up on the charges against Flynn, which shows that their confidence on the subject was underwritten by intelligence sources. Or put another way, this was an intelligence-led witch-hunt which was based on the illegal disclosure of private information.

    Flynn had told the US Vice President Mike Pence that sanctions were not discussed and that the conversation with the Russian diplomat was only about seasonal pleasantries and making arrangements about a forthcoming phone call between President Trump and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin – that call was finally made on January 28.

    Pence stood by Flynn initially, telling media outlets that there was nothing untoward in the phone calls.

    Legally, a private US citizen – which Flynn was at that stage before Trump became inaugurated on January 10 – is not permitted to talk about government policy with a foreign state in a presumptive official capacity.

    Apparently now, as it turns out, sanctions were discussed between Flynn and Kislyak, according to FBI investigators and US officials quoted by the Washington Post . Russia has refused to comment on the nature of the phone calls.

    What was Flynn thinking of? At one stage during the Obama administration, he had served as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency – one of the 16 US federal spy organizations. It seems incredible that given his expertise in matters of US state surveillance practice, Flynn could have been so reckless as to hold phone conversations with Russia's top diplomat in Washington on national security issues outside of his then remit.

    Especially considering too that Flynn was shortly about to assume office as a senior national security advisor to the new president, Donald Trump, who was already under intense media scrutiny over his alleged links to Russia.

    Not only hold phone conversations, but as seems likely, Flynn broached the subject of how US sanctions levied by Obama might be lifted under the Trump administration. For Flynn not to realize that every word would be tapped by US intelligence seems an incredible lapse of judgment on his part.

    The suspect phone contact occurred at the time Obama sanctioned several Russian diplomats over allegations that Russian hackers had interfered in the presidential elections. Those allegations of Russian state-sponsored hacking have never been proven.

    The way the Washington Post tells it, US intelligence officials were surprised when Russian President Vladimir Putin did not reciprocate with Obama's sanctions announced on December 29, instead choosing to respond by wishing Americans a Happy Christmas.

    According to the Post , US intelligence began searching for a possible explanation for Putin's unexpected response, and they found their putative answer in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador. It is claimed that Flynn indicated to the Russian diplomat that the new sanctions imposed by the outgoing Obama administration would be duly reversed by Trump.

    It seems more plausible, however, that the US intelligence agents did not engage in some retrospective random search for a mole, but rather they had Flynn in their sights all along, having listened into this phone call with the Russian ambassador.

    And as the Washington Post pointedly noted this week, Trump promptly praised Putin for not taking retaliatory action to Obama's sanctions.

    The inference here is that Flynn was acting as mediator with the Russians under instruction from Trump.

    "The current and former officials said that although they believed that [Vice President] Pence was misled about the contents of Flynn's communications with the Russian ambassador, they couldn't rule out that Flynn was acting with the knowledge of others in the transition", reports the Washington Post.

    Trump's administration had already caused deep consternation among the Washington establishment of State Department, foreign policy think-tanks, intelligence-military apparatus and aligned corporate news media. Trump's avowed intentions of normalizing relations with Russia before and after his election on November 8 have collided with Washington's long-term geo-strategic agenda of fomenting hostility with Moscow.

    The forced resignation of Michael Flynn, who was an influential advocate in the Trump White House for normalizing relations with Russia, can be seen as a much-desired blow against Trump over Russia – inflicted by the US Deep State operatives.

    There seems little doubt that Flynn was set up in a sting operation. The only wonder is that he seemed to walk right into the trap.

    It seems very likely that having procured Flynn's scalp, the political enemies of Trump will not stop there. The big prize is Trump himself and his ousting from the presidency through impeachment on charges of conspiring with an enemy state.

    All the hoopla over Flynn in the US media is just the beginning of a campaign to finger Trump as the person who gave him clearance to illicitly contact the Russians.

    A soft coup against Trump by the US Deep State has been speculated for some time now, especially over his "friendly" Russia policy being at odds with the powers-that-be who are hellbent on hostility towards Moscow. And it seems that incompetence within the Trump administration is playing straight into that agenda to oust him from the White House.

    [Feb 19, 2017] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/17/russian-spies-targeted-u-s-sanctions.html

    Feb 19, 2017 | www.thedailybeast.com

    "Russian Spies Targeted U.S. Sanctions"

    'Talking with Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn was one of many ways Moscow tried to get inside information about America's financial war against the Kremlin'

    by Katie Zavadski...02.17.17

    "The last major Russian spy arrested on U.S. soil was busted for seeking the kind of information retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has been accused of dishing out.

    During a White House press conference on Thursday, President Donald Trump defended Flynn, his former national security adviser, for talking about U.S. sanctions against Moscow with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while Barack Obama was still in office. It's an act that may have put Flynn in legal jeopardy; The Washington Post reported Thursday that Flynn denied to the FBI having such conversations, despite evidence that he did.

    Recently filed court documents show just how important information about sanctions was to Russian intelligence.

    Those documents involve a two-year-old case against Evgeny Buryakov, a Russian bank employee who admitted to being an unregistered agent of Russian intelligence in the U.S. Buryakov pleaded out and the case never went to trial. But case filings show that the SVR, Russia's foreign intelligence service, was keenly interested in the U.S. government's attempts to use financial sanctions to retaliate against Russian military aggression.

    His handlers asked Buryakov to look for information on the "effects of economic sanctions on our country," according to court documents, and he complied. The FBI sent an undercover operative to keep him interested.

    In August 2014, an undercover agent showed Buryakov a document from the Treasury Department marked "Internal Treasury Use Only," that "contained information regarding Russian individuals subject to sanctions," according to court filings. (It's not clear whether the papers in question were actual internal Treasury Department memos.) Buryakov told the undercover that he wanted more information.

    A few weeks later, the undercover agent and a confidential source fed him another document, telling him that "the Treasury Department was using the document in connection with its deliberations regarding additional sanctions," which Buryakov promptly fed to his handlers at Russia's foreign intelligence service.

    That is exactly the kind of information that would be useful to foreign spies, said Zachary Goldman, a former Treasury and Department of Defense official who's now the executive director of the Center on Law and Security at New York University.

    The U.S. authorized sanctions against Russia relating to its annexation of Crimea in March of 2014 and began a crackdown against individuals and a Russian bank. In the period Buryakov was fishing, then, his overseers would have wanted to know which entities or people would be sanctioned next.

    "In that period, the first half of 2014, the Russian government was very interested in figuring out what we were going to do," Goldman said.

    When Flynn spoke to Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, in December 2016, the Russians would've been in much the same situation.

    The sanctions announced by the Obama administration that month exercised a relatively new authority enacted by the president in April 2015. Obama's order on cyberattacks was originally in response to Chinese attacks on the private sector, and later broadened to be applicable to the Russian attempts to interfere in U.S. elections.

    Finding out who was going to be targeted, and what the policy would be like under the next administration, would have been a top priority for all actors of Russian intelligence. They come in various categories: Some, like Buryakov, conduct espionage in secret while pretending to be an ordinary employee of a foreign company, while others construct alternate identities and lay in wait for years. The third category come here under diplomatic cover, having, in effect, a dual role as diplomats and spies.

    "It seems that the reports are that there was some kind of suggestion that Flynn gave Kislyak, along the lines of, don't worry about these sanctions, when we take office, things will improve significantly," Goldman said. "And undoubtedly, that's something they would want know."

    The point of sanctions is to change another country's behavior, Goldman added.

    "If you were the Russians, you would want to know what the trigger for new sanctions would be, and what the catalyst for the removal of sanctions would be," he said. "Whether that's what Flynn discussed with Kislyak, I have no idea."

    Details about the conversations, and whom Flynn misled about their content, are still emerging. But we know that when the Obama administration exiled 35 diplomats and shut down a Russian compound on Long Island, Russian officials announced they would not be following suit.

    At a press conference on Thursday, however, Trump backed Flynn's right to discuss that matter.

    "Very simple. Mike [Flynn] was doing his job," Trump said. "He was calling countries and his counterparts. So, it certainly would have been OK with me if he did it.

    "I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn't doing it," Trump added." Reply Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 02:24 PM libezkova said in reply to im1dc... An alternative view on what Flynn resignation means:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIVrvihtKgE Reply Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 03:39 PM ilsm said in reply to libezkova... libezkova, the US "press" has no more concern for truth than the Nazi papers under Goebbels! Reply Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 05:07 PM im1dc said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... Fred do not get caught up in libezkova's or ilsm's worldview, they do not play with our team USA. Reply Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:48 AM libezkova said in reply to im1dc... I can only guess who are the members of your "team USA". With your jingoism and anti-Russian stance, I assume that they include such people:

    Charles Krauthammer
    David Frum
    Douglas Feith
    John McCain
    Lindsey Graham
    Michael Ledeen
    Paul Wolfowitz
    Richard Perle
    Robert Kagan
    Samantha Power
    Scooter Libby
    Susan Rice
    Victoria Nuland
    ... ... ...

    If so, you are in good company... Don't forget to buy M16, ammunition and tickets to Syria. We probably will be able to survive without your posts for some time. Reply Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 02:58 PM ilsm said in reply to im1dc... im1dc, read your 4th amendment, and say wht the FBI etc did to republicans is okay!

    My team USA is not run by neoliberal neocons running an illicit deep state. Reply Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 04:50 PM

    [Feb 19, 2017] Youtube reaction on Flynn resignation

    Feb 19, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    [Feb 19, 2017] The Anti-Trump Deep State Color Revolution Coup Targets Flynn

    Feb 19, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Feb 15, 2017

    Russian Insider quotes an old joke goes like this: "Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States?

    Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States."

    Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the USA right now.

    It is a coup. That simple. It's not a leak. It's a coup. Direct from the Deep State. The naive Trump never saw it coming.

    Kucinich says it's a Deep State move to remove Flynn. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j_Zf...

    The Anti-Flynn Deep State Coup
    http://thesaker.is/the-anti-flynn-dee...

    A 'Color Revolution' Is Now Underway in the United States
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics...

    Sign up for Lionel's Newsletter and Truth Warrior manifestos. http://lionelmedia.com/2015/05/04/inf...

    First Amendment3 days ago (edited)

    What Trump did was uncover the deep State by using Flynn as a soldier to ferret-out the deep dark places....what you are seeing is the enemy being uncovered. Trump made this happen and now you will see who is in charge....the deep State has now been exposed. We will now see the eradication of this foul 5th column.

    [Feb 19, 2017] The swamp fights back

    The "neoliberal establishment" (aka Washington Swamp) is deeply unpopular with American people. Trump is not that popular, but he definitely less unpopular. Such statements s of "the national media is the enemy" would be unthinkable a decade or two ago.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained. ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Barbara waters 2 days ago (edited)

    The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained.

    Like former, despise current president matters not. We are still a nation of laws. The people have spoken. We want the laws followed period. CNN, MSNBC, and others who continue to go after our president will be met with an unbridled wave of conservative determination to restore law and order.

    [Feb 18, 2017] The company of blackmail against Trump continues unabated

    Notable quotes:
    "... The neocons and neoliberals want war. The cia/fbi/nsa wants to take away my freedom. The fake news wants to spread lies. This military industrial complex wants to send hundreds of millions to their deaths. As a nation, we are fucked. I'm guessing lots of innocent people are going to be slaughtered in the name of freedom. ..."
    Feb 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    A Medical Theory for Donald Trump's Bizarre Behavior ... Many mental health professionals believe the president is ill. But what if the cause is an untreated STD? ... Al Franken recently raised a provocative question about Donald Trump: Is he mentally ill? On HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher last week, the Minnesota senator claimed that some of his Republican colleagues have "great concern about the president's temperament," adding that "there's a range in what they'll say, and some will say that he's not right mentally. And some are harsher." Two days later, he told CNN's Jake Tapper, "We all have this suspicion that-you know, that he's not-he lies a lot And, you know, that is not the norm for a president of the United States, or, actually, for a human being." - The New Republic

    So according to the The New Republic, President Donald Trump may have syphilis and should explore treatment option as necessary with his personal physician.

    He may have contracted it, according to the magazine, in the 1970s of 1980s when syphilis was on the rise. If he didn't get it treated, it would be far advanced by now. Advanced syphilis, neurosyphilis, and manifest itself in numerous ways, according to the article.

    "Commonly recognized symptoms include irritability, loss of ability to concentrate, delusional thinking, and grandiosity. Memory, insight, and judgment can become impaired. Insomnia may occur. Visual problems may develop, including the inability of pupils to react to the light. This, along other ocular pathology, can result in photophobia, dimming of vision, and squinting. All of these things have been observed in Trump. Dementia, headaches, gait disturbances. and patchy hair loss can also be seen in later stages of syphilis."

    DirtySanchez , Feb 18, 2017 7:01 PM

    The neocons and neoliberals want war. The cia/fbi/nsa wants to take away my freedom. The fake news wants to spread lies. This military industrial complex wants to send hundreds of millions to their deaths. As a nation, we are fucked. I'm guessing lots of innocent people are going to be slaughtered in the name of freedom.

    honest injun , Feb 18, 2017 6:42 PM

    Interesting. When Hillary was followed by an ambulance, had crazy eyes, needed to be carried to her car from time to time, had spasms, was delusional, was irritable, and had a dozen other symptoms of medical problems, the media whores told us that she had pneumonia for one day. Now they tell us that someone who puts them in their place is mentally ill. They are digging their own grave. Soon nobody will believe the retard media.

    Lost in translation , Feb 18, 2017 7:25 PM

    The "mentally ill" narrative was a trademark of the Soviet Regime, which used it to institutionalize its critics and domestic enemies.

    Now, the Neocons and their disciples are resorting to it.

    spooz , Feb 18, 2017 6:07 PM

    Hard to believe the New Republic wasn't being satirical with their "syphilis" theory.

    It seems that psychiatry wishes to make every personality type a disorder, in an effort to convince people that their specialty is based on science and perhaps to drum up business, so Trump has "Narcissistic Personality Disorder".

    Narcissim is pretty common in US presidents, and is seen as a positive trait in many respects.

    Research has estimated that the average US president's narcissism is about a standard deviation beyond the average citizen – and even higher than that of the average reality television star. We also know that narcissism in US presidents is linked to ratings of greatness. Highly narcissistic presidents like Lyndon Johnson are leaders who make big changes. Less narcissistic presidents like Jimmy Carter are rated as mediocre (but, in the case of Carter, also regarded as admired ex-presidents because they are seen as moral and caring).

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/don...

    [Feb 16, 2017] Hatchet job ordered by whom? - The New York Times neocons try to destrory Flynn

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Washington Post is complicit in a treasonous betrayal of trust by unelected, arrogant and truly dangerous intelligence agents. It is long past due to have a TOTAL house cleaning of these agencies with dire penalties imposed on such malevolent enemies of democracy. If that then includes the Post itself, let the Post clean up its act. ..."
    "... The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. ..."
    "... This Russian nonsense is not going to fly. Why should anyone believe a word of this story? So what if Flynn discussed sanctions anyway! Who are these traitors in the State Department, and why are they still on the payroll? The majority of the public is not going to buy this nonsense , you are still in denial that you lost the election. ..."
    "... This reminds me of Obama getting caught on a hot mic telling the Russian president, "I'll have more flexibility after the election." Signaling that the hardline against Russia would soften if he won reelection. (Clearly a national security issue.) ..."
    "... But of course, it's only when the perpetually-outraged left don't like somebody holding different views than them that it becomes a 'dire constitutional crisis.' ..."
    "... This is just another Left wing hit job with no real substance, that elevates innuendo and a passing brushed off question to the level of "negotiation". The article uses the requisite obscure language of "officials" who in turn offer little up. This is politics pure and simple. ..."
    Feb 16, 2017 | www.nytimes.com
    Note how skillfully NYT presstitutes present Russians as the next incarnation of Satan, contact with which is prohibited for Christians.
    Who are those nine officials... Looks like Jeff Bezos is just a puppet. Taking on Flynn is a serious game which is far above his head. I do not remember any fuss over Bill Clinton getting Russian money (really outrageous honorarium for the speech) which if you think about it is even more clear violation of Logan act.
    Didn't Obama do a similar thing before running for election?

    From the start, Michael Flynn, a retired army lieutenant general, was a disturbing choice as President Trump's national security adviser. He is a hothead with extremist views in a critical job that is supposed to build consensus through thoughtful, prudent decision-making. The choice is now growing more unnerving every day.

    A conspiracy theorist who has stoked dangerous fears about Islam, Mr. Flynn was fired by the Obama administration as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and led anti-Hillary Clinton chants of "lock her up" at the 2016 Republican Convention. He raised eyebrows by cultivating a mystifyingly cozy relationship with Russia, which the Pentagon considers a major threat.

    Now we have learned that in the weeks before the inauguration, Mr. Flynn discussed American sanctions on Russia, and areas of possible cooperation, with Moscow's ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak. They spoke a day before President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for hacking the Democrats' computers, probably in an effort to sway the election in Mr. Trump's favor.

    Mr. Flynn's underhanded, possibly illegal message was that the Obama administration was Russia's adversary, and that would change under Mr. Trump and that any sanctions could be undone. The result seems to be that Russia decided not to retaliate with its own sanctions.

    We know this not from Mr. Flynn or the administration, but from accounts first provided to The Washington Post (aka CIA Pravda) by nine current and former government officials who had access to reports from American intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Bizarrely, Mr. Trump told reporters on Friday afternoon that he was unaware of the Post report, but would "look into that."

    jburack, 6:01 AM EST

    The Washington Post is complicit in a treasonous betrayal of trust by unelected, arrogant and truly dangerous intelligence agents. It is long past due to have a TOTAL house cleaning of these agencies with dire penalties imposed on such malevolent enemies of democracy. If that then includes the Post itself, let the Post clean up its act.

    ausmth, 2/14/2017 8:02 PM EST

    Who leaked classified telephone intercepts of a foreign diplomat to the Post? Why isn't that person in jail?

    Cecile Pham, 2/14/2017 1:34 PM EST

    Flynn would not dare to go ahead with telling Russia not having to worry about sanctions and that the future would be better with Trump without Trump direction.

    So Flynn's resignation is just an appeasement. The real story is Trump relationship with Russia.

    Mike Mitchell, 8:12 AM EST

    As though Flynn is just an idiot who would have never suspected the NSA was listening in on his phone call to ... a Russian Ambassador. Yeah right.

    SittingOnThePotty, 2/14/2017 12:29 AM EST

    People make reference to the Logan Act and brushing it off as nothing that will be used against Flynn. But the law is on the books, regardless. So I gather now we pick and chose which laws to apply and which not to apply? Am I a bit confused? It was placed as a law for a good reason, just because no one has ever been prosecuted under this law do we dismiss it as "old" and pretend it is not there?

    The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.[2]

    The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.

    To date, only one person has ever been indicted for violating the act's provisions.[2] However, no person has ever been prosecuted for alleged violations of the act.[2]

    Joe Smith, 2/13/2017 3:00 PM EST

    Yet ANOTHER fake news story based on "anonymous sources". The media is now nothing more than a means for distributing rumors, dressed up to look like "news" by labeling the rumor mongers as "anonymous sources".

    Stan Lippmann , 2/13/2017 2:27 PM EST

    This Russian nonsense is not going to fly. Why should anyone believe a word of this story? So what if Flynn discussed sanctions anyway! Who are these traitors in the State Department, and why are they still on the payroll? The majority of the public is not going to buy this nonsense , you are still in denial that you lost the election.

    moonshadow168, 2/13/2017 5:45 PM EST

    Looks like a preemptive set up so that Obama's historic legacy-building tough-guy sanctions, in response to imaginary "election hacking", will not be touched. If anyone dares question Obama's historic legacy-building tough-guy sanctions, in response to imaginary "election hacking", then they must be "in cahoots" with those darn Russians who "hacked the election".

    Meanwhile, President Trump continues to do good work for all Americans.

    Scott Cog, 2/13/2017 1:30 PM EST

    Americans want to know if kickbacks are/were being offered (by Russians) to Flynn and other Trump-team members in positions to push for rollback of trade sanctions against Russia.

    moonshadow168, 2/13/2017 1:34 PM EST

    "Americans want to know"... you mean like Bill C's "speaking fees" or "donations" (cough-cough) to the family foundation? LOL!

    moonshadow168, 2/13/2017 5:52 PM EST [Edited]

    Is that an attempt to get Hillary off the hook?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-...

    Sure looks like a distraction!

    moonshadow168, 2/13/2017 12:16 PM EST

    Funny how the words of anonymous Obama administration "current and former U.S. officials", apparently fellow Hillary supporters, are treated as unbiased, indisputable and fact.

    Laugh out loud at this, it is revealing: "Those officials were already alarmed by what they saw as a Russian assault on the U.S. election." Just so so you know what planet they are coming from. Hillary lost. You can't blame it on Russia. Get over it.

    In addition to not questioning the words of anonymous Obama administration "current and former U.S. officials" there appears to be obvious discrimination and bias against the Trump administration.

    Typhon , 2/13/2017 3:02 AM EST

    This is going to turn out to be another nothing-burger. All Trump has to do is wait it out for any proof to come up, and if it is just unsubstantiated rumors, then to just write it off as more fake news by frothy Dems ... Regarding Russian "hacking" the election, all Trump has to do is get Brennan and Clapper on the hot seat, and have them talk for hours and hours about John Podesta's Gmail password. Then ask "What else?" only to find that Big Ed at RT TV is a Russian spy!! And so is Tucker Carlson. And probably Mel Gibson too, leading to the conclusion that the Dems are a bunch of loons. Then ask "Who taught you this?" only to find out that Obama ordered an in-depth sabotage of the incoming administration

    wesevans, 2/12/2017 9:33 PM EST

    Didn't Obama do a similar thing before running for election?

    NVCardinalfan , 2/12/2017 3:22 PM EST

    Typical Washington Post, running a story without confirmed sources to back up the story. Just speculation as usual.

    clewish09, 2/12/2017 11:42 AM EST

    Russia hacked the DNC with Iraq's WMDs...

    Tyler.Woods99, 2/11/2017 3:20 PM EST

    This reminds me of Obama getting caught on a hot mic telling the Russian president, "I'll have more flexibility after the election." Signaling that the hardline against Russia would soften if he won reelection. (Clearly a national security issue.)

    But of course, it's only when the perpetually-outraged left don't like somebody holding different views than them that it becomes a 'dire constitutional crisis.'

    JungleTrunks, 2/11/2017 11:17 AM EST

    Approach the logic of the accusation in reverse, any Russian official meeting an American official will be pressed to finding an opening to discuss sanctions. Any American official knows a Russian diplomat will bring sanctions up and have a deflection to handle it. This doesn't represent a "discussion" on a diplomatic level.

    This is just another Left wing hit job with no real substance, that elevates innuendo and a passing brushed off question to the level of "negotiation". The article uses the requisite obscure language of "officials" who in turn offer little up. This is politics pure and simple.

    KingMax, 2/11/2017 11:34 AM EST

    He spoke with Kislyak the same day the sanctions were announced and then lied about what was discussed (oh, right, suddenly "couldn't remember" because, you know, it was over a month ago). But good job rationalizing his deceit.

    JungleTrunks, 2/11/2017 11:50 AM EST

    And yours is the typical cry of left wing malcontents that create as much controversy as you can from what signifies nothing. No reporter ha disclosed what actually was said. It's a virtual certainty that expected overtures were made, and typical brush off language was reciprocated. You know nothing but innuendo backed by a desire of extreme prejudice to prosecute any opportunity to defame anyone in the administration, this much is certain, the only certainty frankly.

    [Feb 16, 2017] Flynn Is Said to Have Talked to Russians About Sanctions Before Trump Took Office by MATTHEW ROSENBERG and MATT APUZZO

    Feb 09, 2017 | nytimes.com

    Federal officials who have read the transcript of the call were surprised by Mr. Flynn's comments, since he would have known that American eavesdroppers closely monitor such calls. They were even more surprised that Mr. Trump's team publicly denied that the topics of conversation included sanctions.

    The call is the latest example of how Mr. Trump's advisers have come under scrutiny from American counterintelligence officials. The F.B.I. is also investigating Mr. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort; Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign; and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.

    Prosecutions in these types of cases are rare, and the law is murky, particularly around people involved in presidential transitions. The officials who had read the transcripts acknowledged that while the conversation warranted investigation, it was unlikely, by itself, to lead to charges against a sitting national security adviser.

    But, at the very least, openly engaging in policy discussions with a foreign government during a presidential transition is a remarkable breach of protocol. The norm has been for the president-elect's team to respect the sitting president, and to limit discussions with foreign governments to pleasantries. Any policy discussions, even with allies, would ordinarily be kept as vague as possible.

    "It's largely shunned, period. But one cannot rule it out with an ally like the U.K.," said Derek Chollet, who was part of the Obama transition in 2008 and then served in senior roles at the State Department, White House and Pentagon.

    "But it's way out of bounds when the said country is an adversary, and one that has been judged to have meddled in the election," he added. "It's just hard to imagine anyone having a substantive discussion with an adversary, particularly if it's about trying to be reassuring."

    Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt contributed reporting.

    [Feb 15, 2017] Flynn Resignation Is a Surveillance State Coup Nightmare

    The globalist mafia is trying to destroy Trump. There might be the same part of intelligence community which is still loyal to Bill and Hillary Clinton.
    Still Flynn discussing sanctions, which could have been a violation of an 18th century law, the Logan Act, that bars unauthorized citizens from brokering deals with foreign governments involved in disputes with the United States.
    Keith Kellogg links with Oracle my be as asset to Trump team.
    Feb 15, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    As far back as the passage of the Patriot Act after 9/11, civil libertarians worried about the surveillance state, the Panopticon, the erosion of privacy rights and due process in the name of national security.

    Paranoid fantasies were floated that President George W. Bush was monitoring the library cards of political dissidents. Civil libertarians hailed NSA contractor Edward Snowden as a hero, or at least accepted him as a necessary evil, for exposing the extent of Internet surveillance under President Barack Obama.

    Will civil libertarians now speak up for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, whose career has been destroyed with a barrage of leaked wiretaps? Does anyone care if those leaks were accurate or legal?

    Over the weekend, a few honest observers of the Flynn imbroglio noted that none of the strategically leaked intercepts of his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak proved he actually did anything wrong .

    The media fielded accusations that Flynn discussed lifting the Obama administration's sanctions on Russia – a transgression that would have been a serious violation of pre-inauguration protocol at best, and a prosecutable offense at worst. Flynn ostensibly sealed his fate by falsely assuring Vice President Mike Pence he had no such discussions with Kislyak, prompting Pence to issue a robust defense of Flynn that severely embarrassed Pence in retrospect.

    On Tuesday, Eli Lake of Bloomberg News joined the chorus of skeptics who said the hive of anonymous leakers infesting the Trump administration never leaked anything that proved Flynn lied to Pence:

    He says in his resignation letter that he did not deliberately leave out elements of his conversations with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak when he recounted them to Vice President Mike Pence. The New York Times and Washington Post reported that the transcript of the phone call reviewed over the weekend by the White House could be read different ways. One White House official with knowledge of the conversations told me that the Russian ambassador raised the sanctions to Flynn and that Flynn responded that the Trump team would be taking office in a few weeks and would review Russia policy and sanctions . That's neither illegal nor improper.

    Lake also noted that leaks of sensitive national security information, such as the transcripts of Flynn's phone calls to Kislyak, are extremely rare. In their rush to collect a scalp from the Trump administration, the media forgot to tell its readers how unusual and alarming the Flynn-quisition was:

    It's very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S. officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.

    Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.

    In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.

    While President Trump contemplated Flynn's fate on Monday evening, the Wall Street Journal suggested: "How about asking if the spooks listening to Mr. Flynn obeyed the law?" Among the questions the WSJ posed was whether intelligence agents secured proper FISA court orders for the surveillance of Flynn.

    That s the sort of question that convulsed the entire political spectrum, from liberals to libertarians, after the Snowden revelations. Not long ago, both Democrats and Republicans were deeply concerned about accountability and procedural integrity for the sprawling surveillance apparatus developed by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Those are among the most serious concerns of the Information Age, and they should not be cast aside in a mad dash to draw some partisan blood.

    There are several theories as to exactly who brought Flynn down and why. Was it an internal White House power struggle, the work of Obama administration holdovers, or the alligators of the "Deep State" lunging to take a bite from the president who promised to "drain the swamp?"

    The Washington Free Beacon has sources who say Flynn's resignation is "the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump's national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran."

    Flynn has prominently opposed that deal. According to the Free Beacon, this "small task force of Obama loyalists" are ready to waylay anyone in the Trump administration who threatens the Iran deal, their efforts coordinated by the sleazy Obama adviser who boasted of his ability to manipulate the press by feeding them lies, Ben Rhodes.

    Some observers are chucking at the folly of Michael Flynn daring to take on the intelligence community, and paying the price for his reckless impudence. That is not funny – it is terrifying. In fact, it is the nightmare of the rogue NSA come to life, the horror story that kept privacy advocates tossing in their sheets for years.

    Michael Flynn was appointed by the duly elected President of the United States. He certainly should not have been insulated from criticism, but if he was brought down by entrenched, unelected agency officials, it is nearly a coup – especially if, as Eli Lake worried on Twitter, Flynn's resignation inspires further attacks with even higher-ranking targets:

    This was a major error for @Reince & @mike_pence It's now open season on this administration from without and within. #FlynnResignation

    - Eli Lake (@EliLake) February 14, 2017

    Lake's article caught the eye of President Trump, who endorsed his point that intelligence and law enforcement agencies should not interfere in U.S. politics:

    Thank you to Eli Lake of The Bloomberg View – "The NSA & FBI should not interfere in our politics and is" Very serious situation for USA

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2017

    On the other hand, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard openly endorsed the Deep State overthrowing the American electorate and overturning the results of the 2016 election:

    Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.

    - Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) February 14, 2017

    Among the many things hideously wrong with this sentiment is that the American people know absolutely nothing about the leakers who brought Flynn down, and might be lining up their next White House targets at this very moment. We have no way to evaluate their motives or credibility. We didn't vote for them, and we will have no opportunity to vote them out of office if we dissent from their agenda. As mentioned above, we do not know if the material they are leaking is accurate .

    Byron York of the Washington Examiner addressed the latter point by calling for full disclosure:

    Important that entire transcript of Flynn-Kislyak conversation be released. Leakers have already cherrypicked. Public needs to see it all.

    - Byron York (@ByronYork) February 14, 2017

    That is no less important with Flynn's resignation in hand. We still need to know the full story of his downfall. The American people deserve to know who is assaulting the government they voted for in 2016. They deserve protection from the next attempt to manipulate our government with cherry picked leaks.

    They also deserve some intellectual consistency from those who have long and loudly worried about the emergence of a surveillance state, and from conservatives who claim to value the rule of law. Unknown persons with a mysterious agenda just made strategic use of partial information from a surveillance program of uncertain legality to take out a presidential adviser.

    Whether it's an Obama shadow government staging a Beltway insurrection, or Deep State officials protecting their turf, this is the nightmare scenario of the post-Snowden era or are we not having that nightmare anymore, if we take partisan pleasure in the outcome?

    [Feb 15, 2017] Its Over Folks The Neocons The Deep State Have Neutered The Trump Presidency

    Trump wants to tell Russia to do what? ( https://www.rt.com/usa/377346-spicer-russia-return-crimea/ ) ? To return Crimea? Is this what opposition to neocons means in Trumpspeak ???
    Notable quotes:
    "... "It's Over Folks" The Neocons & The "Deep State" Have Neutered The Trump Presidency ..."
    "... For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council. ..."
    "... Put differently, Flynn tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them back to the White House. ..."
    "... Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. ..."
    "... It's over, folks, the deep state has won. From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy , the errand boy of the Israel lobby. Hassan Nasrallah was right when he called him 'an idiot '. ..."
    "... The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won't – they will be polite, they will smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight. ..."
    "... Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also acutely aware that 'more of the same' was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control – this is over. Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality. ..."
    "... I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to show the resolve needed to stop the 'color revolution' started against him. But if Trump is the new Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine? ..."
    "... Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns. ..."
    Feb 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    "It's Over Folks" The Neocons & The "Deep State" Have Neutered The Trump Presidency

    Submitted and Authored by The Saker

    Less than a month ago I warned that a 'color revolution ' was taking place in the USA . My first element of proof was the so-called "investigation" which the CIA, FBI, NSA and others were conducting against President Trump's candidate to become National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Last night, the plot to get rid of Flynn has finally succeeded and General Flynn had to offer his resignation . Trump accepted it.

    Now let's immediately get one thing out of the way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise man who would single handedly saved the world. That he was not.

    However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone of Trump's national security policy . For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council.

    Put differently, Flynn tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them back to the White House. Flynn also wanted to work with Russia. Not because he was a Russia lover, the notion of a Director of the DIA as a Putin-fan is ridiculous, but Flynn was rational, he understood that Russia was no threat to the USA or to Europe and that Russia had the West had common interests. That is another absolutely unforgivable crimethink in Washington DC.

    The Neocon run 'deep state' has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that he had a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian ambassador.

    And Trump accepted this resignation.

    Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope.

    But now Trump has betrayed us all.

    Remember how Obama showed his true face when he hypocritically denounced his friend and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. ? Today, Trump has shown us his true face. Instead of refusing Flynn's resignation and instead of firing those who dared cook up these ridiculous accusations against Flynn, Trump accepted the resignation. This is not only an act of abject cowardice, it is also an amazingly stupid and self-defeating betrayal because now Trump will be alone, completely alone, facing the likes of Mattis and Pence – hard Cold Warrior types, ideological to the core, folks who want war and simply don't care about reality.

    Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump's hero. And Trump betrayed him.

    The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It took the 'deep state' only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be . Those who would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they will all move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst enemy and emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again.

    It's over, folks, the deep state has won. From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy , the errand boy of the Israel lobby. Hassan Nasrallah was right when he called him 'an idiot '.

    The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won't – they will be polite, they will smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight.

    The EU leaders will, of course, celebrate. Trump was nowhere the scary bogeyman they feared. Turns out that he is a doormat – very good for the EU.

    Where does all this leave us – the millions of anonymous 'deplorables' who try as best we can to resist imperialism, war, violence and injustice?

    I think that we were right in our hopes because that is all we had – hopes. No expectations, just hopes. But now we objectively have very little reasons left to hope. For one thing, the Washington 'swamp' will not be drained. If anything, the swamp has triumphed. We can only find some degree of solace in two undeniable facts:

    1. Hillary would have been far worse than any version of a Trump Presidency.
    2. In order to defeat Trump, the US deep state has had to terribly weaken the US and the AngloZionist Empire. Just like Erdogan' purges have left the Turkish military in shambles, the anti-Trump 'color revolution' has inflicted terrible damage on the reputation, authority and even credibility of the USA.

    The first one is obvious. So let me clarify the second one. In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show they true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. In other words, just like Israel, the USA has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse.

    Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also acutely aware that 'more of the same' was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control – this is over. Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality.

    Trump probably could have made America, well, maybe not "great again", but at least stronger, a major world power which could negotiate and use its leverage to get the best deal possible from the others. That's over now. With Trump broken, Russia and China will go right back to their pre-Trump stance: a firm resistance backed by a willingness and capability to confront and defeat the USA at any level.

    I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to show the resolve needed to stop the 'color revolution' started against him. But if Trump is the new Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine?

    Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns.

    Today's Neocon victory is a huge event and it will probably be completely misrepresented by the official media. Ironically, Trump supporters will also try minimize it all. But the reality is that barring a most unlikely last-minute miracle, it's over for Trump and the hopes of millions of people in the USA and the rest of the world who had hoped that the Neocons could be booted out of power by means of a peaceful election. That is clearly not going to happen.

    I see very dark clouds on the horizon.

    * * *

  • UPDATE1 : Just to stress an important point: the disaster is not so much that Flynn is out but what Trump's caving in to the Neocon tells us about Trump's character (or lack thereof). Ask yourself – after what happened to Flynn, would you stick your neck out for Trump?
  • UPDATE2 : Just as predicted – the Neocons are celebrating and, of course, doubling-down:
  • Son of Captain Nemo , Feb 14, 2017 10:12 PM

    Trump wants to tell Russia to do what? ( https://www.rt.com/usa/377346-spicer-russia-return-crimea/ )

    Here is the REAL United States of America President ( https://www.israelrising.com/bibi-netanyahu-president-trump-see-eye-eye-... ) Booby!!!

    Smell the fetid gas coming out of this "Gluteal Cleft with horns" that owns the U.S. military!

    [Feb 15, 2017] The Neocons and the deep state have neutered the Trump Presidency, its over folks! (UPDATED 2x) The Vineyard of the Saker

    Notable quotes:
    "... "It is difficult to avoid the impression that Flynn formed his ideas about Iran as a US intelligence officer during the George W. Bush administration's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both of those wars Iran and the US pursued parallel but often conflicting strategies, with both countries seeking the defeat of fundamentalist Sunni Jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq, but wanting to prevent the other country from emerging the undisputed victor. The result was what might be called 'duplicitous cooperation', with Iran and the US simultaneously working with and against each other in an often totally ruthless and treacherous way. ..."
    "... Flynn was as much a warmonger as other Neo-Cons, he was just more focused on Iran and friendlier towards Russia. The next goal in the US grand strategy in the mid-east is Iran though, and as such he was the choice Trump went for when picking him. I think the Saker is overreacting a bit here, maybe he was hoping for more of a change under D Trump, which I never expected, so this early ouster to me is not as shocking as to him. ..."
    "... To say the firing of Flynn alone was the breaking point for Trump's administration, vastly over-estimates the president's wilingness or ability to take on the US deep-state. Had he wanted to do so, why pick Pompeo as head of the CIA? Why cosy up to Saudi-Arabia? ..."
    "... Anyway, on the grand chess board of things a pawn just tumbled and fell, because the King would not protect him. But it was just a pawn and the pieces will have to keep on moving. ..."
    "... As i said it from the beginning, this so called trump hype was way over exaggerated and this wishful thinking of Trump-Putin duo saving the world was ridiculous. Putin's Russia is clearly rejecting the very foundation of what is the current USA, the petro $, so unless Putin was planning to return Russia to it's 90's era Zio-colony, there could never have been a common ground between the two. ..."
    "... Besides that there were also other signs like, an ex goldman sachs and soros fund management banker at the head of the secretary treasury, the constant hammering by the media about trump (as contrary to the complete black out on someone like Dr Ron Paul) ..."
    "... At last the truth. I was getting fed up with all the Trump fans. He never did anything to deserve the adulation. Since being in the whitehouse it has been a mess. He had not shown any foresight or strategic thinking. Whatever cards he had to play he wasted them l ..."
    "... He has employed a whole team of neocons and as for any Russian partnership with the USA this was never ever going to happen – I don't even know why anyone would think so, There are too many differences. As for Flynn he was extremely anti Iranian how is that good for Russia ..."
    "... Trump, like Nixon, has awoken the "silent majority" and has done us a great service by attacking political correctness. Trump, like Nixon, had to surround himself with members of the tribe that owns Congress, in order to have a fighting chance of success. Trump, like Nixon will not succeed, because the minefields were laid before he was sworn in. ..."
    "... The fact that outsider Trump has: exposed the internationalists, like Soros, for what they are; shown the "Antifa" hatefest to be ridiculously shallow; and, exposed the political activism of the courts; will pay long term dividends for those who oppose the current system. ..."
    "... I would not put too much significance to this - Trump was never some kind of knight in shining armor, but just the alternative to Clinton. He may still do a few good things here and there, but the general thrust of his ideology - and yes he not simply transactional, because US realism (realpolitik) in itself is an ideology (at the heart of capitalism and empire, in fact). ..."
    "... The deciding reason I voted for Trump is still holding - avoiding nuclear war, and it may yet hold for quite a while despite the neocons, since Clinton is not in the driver's seat. ..."
    "... It's a war and when you realize it really is a war, and there is no easy, quick "peace channel" to switch to, you may as well figure you more than likely won't live through this war, so you're already a dead man or woman walking.. ..."
    "... There is not a no-fly-zone in Syria, and we are not composed of radioactive ash. That's quite significant. The president is not all together but he is not the raging psychopath Clinton is. Let us be thankful for 'small blessings'. I don't recall anyone promising a rose garden. ..."
    "... For those of us with a HCIS (High Cynical Index Syndrome) Trump and his circus clowns were simply a lesser flop than Clinton and her criminal gang. ..."
    "... Flynn was already compromised by the very neocon elements of which you write: Michael Ledeen. ..."
    "... And I would add, the counter argument to your neutered Trump, although I agree reasonable, is the clear signal that "You're fired!" applies to all and everyone. I doubt Pence is 100% bullet proof, nor beyond sacrifice if needs be. ..."
    "... Nasrallah has it right. Trump is a limited character, a one term President at best. Most of us will be only too glad to be fooled again when Ms. Gabbard makes it to position 1 or 2 on the next Democratic Presidential ticket. ..."
    "... Trump is the periphery displacing the centre in a Corporate dictatorship, it is the same when the Grand Council of Fascism ousted Mussolini and arrested him, as Trump did to Hillary Clinton's turn, but the real power exerts itself to reverse the decision. ..."
    "... Trouble is when giants fight little people get squashed. The empire has been squashing people by the millions for half a century (and before that). So I have indifference as to who gets hurt, I just want it to stop. If the US people are the last victims, then so be it. ..."
    "... But we keep calm because we are sure that if amateur analysts could see through the fog of deception, the Russians saw it long before. Be sure that all counter-measures are in place. ..."
    "... Can we get some name recognition for the Russians who were comparing Trump to Yanukovich from the start? Who were they? ..."
    "... You mean Trump is "White People's Obama" ? ..."
    "... It is naive from the get go to think that Trump will undo the Neocons' agenda that started since 911! Trump from the beginning should have made sure the backings of the majority of the American people including the immigrants, remain neutral on Muslim issues, Russia, any policies that the fake liberals would have reason to antagonize him with, in order to minimize protests against him, like the fake Obama and Clintons. Once elected, he could then implement his policies. His administration and presidency campaign may have been sabotaged from the get go so that they have reason to blame him with afterwards. ..."
    "... Flynn's departure is probably a sign of things to come: more neo-conservativism, more empire building, and more neoliberalism: back to the Washington Consensus – which never really disappeared. ..."
    "... I essentially agree with the premise that the conflict between the Establishment and Trump is basically over Trump being elected as someone who didn't rise through, and was not acculturated in a conventional Establishment political milieu. I further agree that Flynn's resignation represents an important Establishment victory. However, the notion that Donald Trump represented the last chance to avert a major US meltdown, that he aspired to significantly change the path our capitalist system is pursuing, is quite frankly, hyperbole. You endow Donald Trump with undeserved importance. ..."
    "... Donald Trump does not represent now, nor did he ever, a challenge to the prevailing neo-liberal system. Even if he had parried Establishment's previous challenges, or goes to ultimately push back successfully against existing and future challenges to his policies, there will not be a historical, significant change to ruling class domestic policies. Any alteration in US foreign policies, would be selective, and would not persist in the long term. Donald Trump, for all his idiosyncrasies, is very much a ruling class individual, possessing ruling class ideology. ..."
    "... Folks, think about it, Trump's campaign had a hole in it from the beginning; the contradiction of Russia Vs Israel. The relationship between those two nations is paradox: Russia contradicts what Israel wants in the ME. Trump can't be pro Russia and pro Israel at the same time. ..."
    "... The trump regime really should be called the pence regime, since it is obvious now that pence manages it and trump is mostly the "showman" mouth and face. ..."
    "... The conversation of flynn and the Russian ambassador being the cause seems to me to be a phony reason. I speculate the real reason is something else. It could be about Russian relations, in which case, maybe flynn was actually more open to warming these, and pence/trump were not (trump having lied). They had a disagreement and flynn left. ..."
    "... It is also possible the israelis ordered flynn's resignation for reasons unknown by me. They've done this before, and this whole scenario has a strong deja vu feel. Remember Andrew Young? They got him fired in almost the exact same manner, hyping a conversation he had with a Palestinian in their zio-gay media and forcing carter to fire him. Only in Young's case, mossad spied on him and leaked info about Young's meeting with Palestinians to the zio-gay media. ..."
    "... It's just a dispute between 2 factions of the Zionist empire with Trump representing the more cautious faction. ..."
    "... I think Flynn was a Trojan horse planted by the neocons himself. His history shows a career full of anti-Iran sentiment and an excessive push for a harsher approach toward that country, I can't seem to see why his removal is necessarily a bad thing ..."
    "... What I don't understand is this. We see and read of the power exerted by the liberal/neocon "deep state" and their abilities to disrupt and damage Trump's presidency. But in order to get where he has gotten to today, Trump must have some powerful backers too. So where are these powerful Trump supporters and what are they doing if anything? ..."
    Feb 15, 2017 | thesaker.is
    bjo on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:36 am UTC
    I don't hold out much hope that enough people in this country will wake up under any circumstances. Essay by Caitlin Johnson (Feb 5) on the enjoyment of "liberals" participating in "fear porn" is interesting in this regard.

    http://www.newslogue.com/debate/323/CaitlinJohnstone

    Laika von old Monkshusen on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:33 pm UTC
    Yes well, these aren't people of course but sheeple. They do not count anyway, otherwise they wouldn't watch JM$M, nor even worry about their totally obvious pack of lies (Caitlin Johnson).

    II completely agree with Saker's point 2, which is all there is to it, anyway. I don't see what is the big deal about this Flynn. He's just a Nazi 'educated' general, not unlike all the rest of them (otherwise they wouldn't be generals). I only once saw him on RT's SophieCo and I didn't like him at all. It (the interview) was a meaningless catastrophe actually.

    As long as Trump isn't assassinated (or poisoned/disabled) things are going just fine. The Roth-child mob is certainly trying to do that. It's been these posonous rats' trademark for centuries. Givi was one of their latest victims.

    Othmar Regin on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:57 pm UTC
    Both Trump and AfD where (are, not so much anymore) possibly the last hope for a peaceful solution.. everything else means civil/war
    AriusArmenian on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:25 pm UTC
    Another round of suffering is in the near term and beyond which is a continuation of the trajectory the US has been on since the end of the Cold War. With the start of the previous three US administrations there was always hope for better but it always ended up worse.

    Why should we not expect more millions to suffer and more death and destruction? The US neocon/neolib ruled Deep State with Wall St and its intelligence agency jackals at it core want more and will kill and destroy to get it and will continue until they run up against a brick wall. It is up to the powers in the East, with Russia and China at its core, to stop the US and its Anglosphere and EU vassals.

    All my hopes for the future depend on the Eastern powers standing up to the US. There is nothing in the West to give me any hope that it can correct itself.

    T1 on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:20 am UTC
    Well said. Can anyone say "President Pence?"
    Mr Pindo on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:00 am UTC
    Indeed, If Trump did everything on Saker's list he would already be dead and Pence would be president in a manner that is more than figurative.
    nice try on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:31 pm UTC
    While the US neocon Deep State as revealed itself to intelligent observers (like Saker and his readers), the US general public is still as clueless as ever, caught in the MSM web of Bernays-ian duopoly identity politics. No, Pence is looking to be the new Dick Cheney, the power behind the buffoon. That way the US public will not see his hand manipulating the Trump-puppet.
    Veritas on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:01 pm UTC
    Dear The Saker,

    https://www.rt.com/news/377282-flynn-resignation-kremlin-usa/

    The end of this RT article states the following: "General Keith Kellogg was appointed as acting national security advisor after Flynn's resignation. "

    Who is Kellogg? Here is his background:

    https://sputniknews.com/us/201702141050662670-keith-kellogg-biography/

    Veritas on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:46 pm UTC
    Wikileaks have claimed the following:

    https://sputniknews.com/us/201702141050674796-wikileaks-flynn-resignation/

    "Former US National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has made a decision to step down as a result of a destabilization campaign by the media, intelligence community and the Democratic party, WikiLeaks said on Tuesday .."

    Another article which puts some perspective:

    http://theduran.com/first-defeat-donald-trump-michael-flynn-resigns/

    Ann on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:07 pm UTC
    well. Cynthia McKinney, on her FB page commented "Good, but for different reasons than they're stating" Flynn was a jerk .good riddance.
    Uncle Bob 1 on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:43 am UTC
    It seems that VP Pence, in league with the deep-state was the driving force behind the Flynn resignation. Trump made a fatal error in picking a Russophobe neo-con for his Vice President. It will most likely end destroying him. If you are going to have a "second in command" who isn't totally loyal to you. At least you pick one you can control. He made the mistake of not doing that. And unlike others in the regime. Even if Trump wanted to, he can't fire his Vice President. He was elected to office,at the same time as Trump. So he's stuck with him.
    AlfaAlfalfa on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:08 am UTC
    Trump did not select Pence anymore than Reagan selected Bush, who later tried to kill him very early in his Presidency. Pence was appointed as an overseer and guarantor of the Necon Deep State interests. If Trump does not play ball he will be eliminated quicker than you can say JFK. The calls for his assasination in MSM, couched as 'predictions,' were too frequent to ignore.
    Frankie on February 15, 2017 , · at 4:39 am UTC
    Trump is pathetic. I never trusted much on him. He's weak and has no idea of strategic play.
    Robert HARNEIS on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:44 am UTC
    Let us hope you are wrong. Perhaps his chief of staff Kellogg and possible sucessor will fulfill the same role as Flynn with less trumpets and drums.
    Kerjean on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:54 am UTC
    CNN and Fox say that they weigh for Petraeus. Yes, it's not a joke .
    Beijing Expat on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:19 pm UTC
    Whenever there is an opening the corporate media shills for a neocon
    Mr Darcy on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:59 pm UTC
    Oddly enough, when I heard about Flynn, the first thing to pop into my head was "Petraeus!" A real snake in the grass.
    albagen on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:47 am UTC
    @ saker: Why did Flynn lie about the content of the conversation?
    The Saker on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:54 am UTC
    I don't think that he did. He had to say that to protect Trump. He "took the bullet". Why would he lie about a totally benign conversation (had it been something important, an ex-Director of the DIA and a Russian Ambassador would not have used on open, insecure, line). No – Trump sacrificed him under political pressure. Disgusting.
    The Saker
    The Kulak on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:09 am UTC
    Dear Saker,

    My friend I do think this is an overreaction. I will be watching in the next few days to see if Flynn goes away quietly. Flynn may take a vacation for a while. But when he's back, probably by the end of March, I expect him to start acting as a Trump surrogate - and going after his Deep State adversaries with both barrels. Watch for leaks of memos warning John Brennan about the rise of ISIS in 2014 or that TOW missiles and other US arms sent to 'moderate rebels' in Syria were flowing to Al Nusra/Qaeda if not ISIS. If there is no pushback or punishment of the neocons in govmt through firings of WaPost/NYT sources and further exposure of neocon complicity in the rise of Daesh, and if all the talk of detente with Russia comes to nought by summer, then I'll agree with this analyses by the Saker.

    I do concur that none of this makes much sense unless Flynn was carrying out his boss's orders to see if he could basically cool off the confrontation Obama was deliberately creating with the Russians. It is hard to be a patriot who does the right thing and has his name dragged through the mud for it, but at least Flynn is still young enough to fight back - together with his son Mike Flynn Jr. who while not the most competent guy seems fiercely loyal to his dad.

    The war to root out the neocons is a long one, and requires patience. If Trump is going to fight back, he needs ammo and allies from within the Deep State prepared to nail some of their colleagues on their soft coup actions and arming of terrorists, among other things. Putin had a critical mass of 'siloviki' who were prepared to do what needed to be done. Does Trump?

    Greg Schofield on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:58 am UTC
    Remember when Varoufakis stepped aside and then what happened to Syriza. These people take no prisoners, obey no rule they just apply pressure, there will be no respite they will pick another and then another. This is the beginning of the final showdown between the corporate powers and the people, by proxy as a factional war, but the Saker is right they lose everything in winning the first battle.
    Greg Schofield on February 14, 2017 , · at 11:51 pm UTC
    Sorry Mr. Dacy I can be cryptic.

    Read it in reverse, that is this group the core of US imperialism has had a minor setback with Trump, they are correcting it, but their blunt force way in which they rule the world is now applied to the home state (the US). It is like using a sledge hammer to crack an egg, it works but the results aren't useful.

    Trump does not have an organisation behind him, he represents a set of interests larger than his associates, but together they form a small faction that orbits the core power group. So Trump has a small tight web which is being pulled apart, and a large popular tendrils from the base up to his group there is no coordinating centre that links these two.

    So Trump is vulnerable and was always vulnerable, he may occasionally act interdependently, but he does not have a powerful base so he looses, he must lose. That part is Obama part 2. However, what is incredible is the ineptness and weakness of the 'powerful hub' that has changed since 2008.

    Excessive hegemonic force spends itself by such complete mobilisation, it looses its coordinating ability by overusing it. People wise up very fast now, illusions simply fall away, The real fight is now on the schedule, between the people's public interest and cabal of private corporate interests.

    If instead of taming or eliminating Trump they used him as a proxy to paper over the big problem,es and patch up the small ones (Obama could not they owned him too well), then the regime would last longer, internally strengthen. Some, if not most of what Trump is saying is not directed at people but at the core power group, he actually is a reformer of their more daft policies - but they are too corrupt for that they only now know the course they are on and anything that suggests change is threat to their control - that is weakness and it is showing internationally.

    The empire is starting to deteriorate internally, the client states are floating away, Australia is so 'Hillary' bound that there has been a US troop increase in Darwin (doubling thew strength) and a continued partisanship against Trump politically and in the media -- we have always been so loyal to every US president until now, and that knot has been severed. This is happening all over.

    Internal to the US the last vestige of of connection between the people, which was the presidential office, and the state has been fatally eroded. Soros has loosed the dogs, and when the participants sober up, they will not go back to their kennels to be released again - forces are being spent recklessly. The media whose standing has been low fro a long time, has become a joke that it cannot recover from, being ridiculed by the public is the last connection (the mainline media was the church of the modern world - it is no longer).

    So regardless of anyone's theory or thoughts, desires or dreams, society, world wide, has divided into two camps.

    The fighting side, the side of apparent strength - "them" - have created "us". The accord that is civil society has been destroyed by them, we are already in a period of civil war. We are many but lack coherence, all our power is potential there is nothing that realises it. Anything they comes up now is new, virginal and can concentrate a lot of latent power. But this will only come about when the old discords that kept us at each other's throats are allowed to fade away.

    The irony is that Trump was their last best chance.

    Beijing Expat on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:41 am UTC
    I agree. Flynn did what all good soldiers do and fell on his sword for the boss. You have to remember, Flynn probably represented the faction of the elite that wanted to bring back reality. That elite is still there and Flynn can work with them behind the scenes. Look at Roger Stone who left the campaign in August and has been working hard behind the scenes, mostly behind the scenes with the alternative media (infowars) to great effect.

    Flynn is a huge loss to Trump and the country. But the battle is not over yet. There were several times during the campaign when I thought it was over but Trump just kept on winning against impossible odds.

    I don't think Trump is tired of winning yet. And don't forget, his support grows a little every day.

    pogohere on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:05 pm UTC
    It's not at all clear that Flynn's fall is such a great loss: Flynn and the colonels have a thing for Iran that will do no one any good:

    The colonels shaping Trump's Middle East policy

    2-9-17

    Underneath the drama and chaos of the Donald Trump White House - the rival power centers, combative press conferences mercilessly mocked on Saturday Night Live, leaked transcripts of Trump's phone calls to allied leaders, and the often inflammatory tweeter-in-chief, fuming over the latest perceived insult while watching "Morning Joe" - a cadre of deeply serious, tested military intellectuals at the National Security Council is shaping Trump's Middle East policies.

    http://tinyurl.com/zt6k4td

    Transcript: Michael Flynn on ISIL

    Read the full transcript of our discussion about the rise of ISIL, the War on Terror, torture and how to deal with Iran.

    13 Jan 2016

    http://tinyurl.com/hww2e4x

    Mr Darcy on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:08 pm UTC
    Most interesting. Thanks for posting. I hope you're right.
    pogohere on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:57 pm UTC
    Your ideas of what constitutes the Deep State have proven to be too shallow. See: http://breskin.com/Inquiramus/2017/01/18/the-deep-state/ There's a reason for Obama to have vacationed in Bariloche, Argentina in 2016. See: http://tinyurl.com/hrd3haw and http://tinyurl.com/zds85no

    Your hopes for the Trump administration were based on sentiment, not on political calculation. Trump is over his head.

    The IMF meets April 21-23 in Wash DC. Quotas are up for review. A fall in the US quota of 16.53% ( https://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx ) below 15% would eliminate the US veto on major actions that requires an 85% majority. The shake up in confidence in the global monetary regime should not be underestimated. April may come in like a lamb, but it may not go out as one.

    The Reshetnikov interview is a gem. Thanks for that. Russia appears to be a civilization pulling itself together and searching for its cultural metaphors, as the man said:

    "An Idea is what always wins, and if we do not offer an Idea but are offering just material values instead, we will only achieve temporary solutions that are essentially failures.
    . . .
    Attempts at resolving the conflicts among the nations or the states using exclusively economic methods are doomed, that's is why we are losing."

    http://thesaker.is/general-reshetnikov-return-to-the-empire-superbly-controversial-interview/

    Avarachan on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:58 am UTC
    Regarding Gen. Flynn and Iran, I recommended this article from "The Duran": http://theduran.com/general-flynn-hate-iran/

    "It is difficult to avoid the impression that Flynn formed his ideas about Iran as a US intelligence officer during the George W. Bush administration's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both of those wars Iran and the US pursued parallel but often conflicting strategies, with both countries seeking the defeat of fundamentalist Sunni Jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq, but wanting to prevent the other country from emerging the undisputed victor. The result was what might be called 'duplicitous cooperation', with Iran and the US simultaneously working with and against each other in an often totally ruthless and treacherous way.

    It is not difficult to see why against this background General Flynn as a front line intelligence officer might come to see the Iranians as deceitful and treacherous, and conclude that they can't be trusted, and why he might develop an intense loathing for them. Thus his interview with Al-Jazeera is peppered with comments like this

    'I could go on and on all day about Iran and their behaviour, you know, and their lies, flat out lies, and then their spewing of constant hatred, no matter whenever they talk.'"

    Alexander P on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:46 am UTC
    Thank you for this summary Avarachan. Flynn was as much a warmonger as other Neo-Cons, he was just more focused on Iran and friendlier towards Russia. The next goal in the US grand strategy in the mid-east is Iran though, and as such he was the choice Trump went for when picking him. I think the Saker is overreacting a bit here, maybe he was hoping for more of a change under D Trump, which I never expected, so this early ouster to me is not as shocking as to him.

    This doesn't mean there wasn't any infighting in the deep state on organizational matters and raw power, but foreign policy wise, I doubt this move will much alter the very pre-determined course of history. Iran has been singled out, Ryan used the term 'You have been put on notice', after a completely legal missile launch by Teheran and Trump's rhetoric with his Tweets towards Teheran are saying as much. I don't get why anyone can't see that. To say the firing of Flynn alone was the breaking point for Trump's administration, vastly over-estimates the president's wilingness or ability to take on the US deep-state. Had he wanted to do so, why pick Pompeo as head of the CIA? Why cosy up to Saudi-Arabia?

    Anyway, on the grand chess board of things a pawn just tumbled and fell, because the King would not protect him. But it was just a pawn and the pieces will have to keep on moving.

    Riadh on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:11 pm UTC
    As i said it from the beginning, this so called trump hype was way over exaggerated and this wishful thinking of Trump-Putin duo saving the world was ridiculous. Putin's Russia is clearly rejecting the very foundation of what is the current USA, the petro $, so unless Putin was planning to return Russia to it's 90's era Zio-colony, there could never have been a common ground between the two.

    Besides that there were also other signs like, an ex goldman sachs and soros fund management banker at the head of the secretary treasury, the constant hammering by the media about trump (as contrary to the complete black out on someone like Dr Ron Paul)

    Clearly this is a "non ιvιnement" and just another nail in the US coffin.

    James lake on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:07 am UTC
    At last the truth. I was getting fed up with all the Trump fans. He never did anything to deserve the adulation. Since being in the whitehouse it has been a mess. He had not shown any foresight or strategic thinking. Whatever cards he had to play he wasted them l

    He has employed a whole team of neocons and as for any Russian partnership with the USA this was never ever going to happen – I don't even know why anyone would think so, There are too many differences. As for Flynn he was extremely anti Iranian how is that good for Russia

    Curmudgeon on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:53 pm UTC
    Trump, like Nixon, has awoken the "silent majority" and has done us a great service by attacking political correctness. Trump, like Nixon, had to surround himself with members of the tribe that owns Congress, in order to have a fighting chance of success. Trump, like Nixon will not succeed, because the minefields were laid before he was sworn in.

    The fact that outsider Trump has: exposed the internationalists, like Soros, for what they are; shown the "Antifa" hatefest to be ridiculously shallow; and, exposed the political activism of the courts; will pay long term dividends for those who oppose the current system.

    My late Vietnam vet cousin predicted another revolution, but not in his lifetime. More of this treachery will only build the pyre waiting for a spark.

    blue on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:14 am UTC
    I would not put too much significance to this - Trump was never some kind of knight in shining armor, but just the alternative to Clinton. He may still do a few good things here and there, but the general thrust of his ideology - and yes he not simply transactional, because US realism (realpolitik) in itself is an ideology (at the heart of capitalism and empire, in fact).

    As for the neocons, one might recall the advice (Sun Tzu?) that one should never intervene when the enemy is making a mistake. The deciding reason I voted for Trump is still holding - avoiding nuclear war, and it may yet hold for quite a while despite the neocons, since Clinton is not in the driver's seat.

    As for the economy, Trump, overall, will still bring it down, if simply by not averting the previously scheduled meltdown, with further deregulation, corporate tax cuts, hand-outs to the rich, destruction of social welfare, and so on.

    It is not so much that it is over as that it was never really there, except as a very remote dream. This is just shifting another deck chair as we hit the iceberg, and all the great forces are still in play, albeit with the Clinton monster exorcised and sporting a necklace of garlic. The situation itself has improved, however, with Trump winning, and with more people more awake than ever in the last century. A lot more people can now see the iceberg.

    Bro 93 on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:45 am UTC
    Nice metaphors, blue! One after the other. And many cool under pressure comments I have read in this thread. That's comforting. I can turn in and sleep soundly. I'm not joking. It's a war and when you realize it really is a war, and there is no easy, quick "peace channel" to switch to, you may as well figure you more than likely won't live through this war, so you're already a dead man or woman walking..

    And just count your blessings if your grim assessment is wrong.

    James lake on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:16 am UTC
    Can we have some some sense analysis now based on what is happening not what people want to happen

    1. Ukraine escalation
    2. NATO on Russia's borders
    3. Exercises in the black sea
    4. Anti Iranian rhetoric and sanctions
    5. The smearing of Syrian govt by amnesty international
    6. Unrest in Iraq – what is going on geolpolitical impact
    7. Afghanistan – smearing or Russia

    There is a whole list of issues that will impact Russia now can we talk about them instead of Trump

    The environment around Russia has not improved and is set to get worse – Russia would be stupid to have relaxed its guard. They need to behave as if Hillary was elected

    blue on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:54 am UTC
    There is not a no-fly-zone in Syria, and we are not composed of radioactive ash. That's quite significant. The president is not all together but he is not the raging psychopath Clinton is. Let us be thankful for 'small blessings'. I don't recall anyone promising a rose garden.
    E on February 15, 2017 , · at 12:05 am UTC
    Trump told Erdogan and the Saudis if they can pay for it the US will back a NFZ in Syria. That's my assumption.
    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:38 am UTC
    Also add:
    8. Bling medals for the Saudi regime.
    9. Unlimited honey pot $$$ for the Israeli apartheid state.
    10. Media back out of Yemen crisis.
    Sam on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:54 pm UTC
    @ james

    Russia would be stupid to have relaxed its guard They need to behave as if Hillary was elected. Agreed, exactly right, James!

    bjo on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:45 am UTC
    So pleased to find this commentary here after having felt pretty sick about this development ever since it was reported tonight. Very grim. Have always thought that Trump did not pick the right close advisors in the beginning to protect him in what they had to know was going to get ugly. Agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. I got nowhere earlier tonight trying to explain my similar take to a few friends and family members. Nothing is going to save the US from its fate in the 11th hour. I find myself sometimes thinking that the collective psyche in this country actually years for its own destruction.
    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:47 am UTC
    Saker,

    " the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis" ? these are the creation of the west. Saker, why not Israel? why not the "zionists"?

    Ann on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:58 am UTC
    the Wahhabis are from Saudi Arabia – although that regime was set up by England, I don't think the Wahhabis were made in the West
    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:56 pm UTC
    That may be, but they were on the receiving of vast pots of excess USD courtesy of Kissingers' creation of the USD monopoly over oil pricing/sales. A cynic would suggest that the subsequent rise of extremist jihadis was forseen and deemed to be useful for the US/Anglo-Zionist Deep State.

    Just to give everyone a laugh. It seems that 250 of the most experienced Ukraine ATO forces have been sent to the Congo – to act as peacekeepers! Orwell is not only turning over in his grave, he is spinning sufficiently rapidly to give us free unlimited energy if we could only harness it.

    Rolf B on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:24 pm UTC
    "Orwell is not only turning over in his grave, he is spinning sufficiently rapidly to give us free unlimited energy if we could only harness it."
    Thank you sir, best comment of the year. :) Yes my friends, this is a war and it's gonna get ugly. Things are not moving in the right direction.
    E on February 15, 2017 , · at 12:12 am UTC
    Israel is also created by the west. The only enemy of the "west" is anybody that opposes them. See Iran, China, Russia, etc. Now enemies of the people, not crooked govs, is a different story. My enemy is NOT Russia, China, Iran but the Zionist and wahabis.
    Redford on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:56 am UTC
    From what I read Trump was mad at Flynn for two reasons. First he thinks in retrospect that the immigration ban he was pushed to sign by his advisors was a botched legal job. I guess that includes Flynn. Second it seems Flynn did lie to Trump about this, and I can't see this flyξg with Trump.

    Key Trump assets are hiring/firing and negociating. Maybe Flynn wasn't up for the job. I'll wait to see who he picks instead before making any call.

    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:46 am UTC
    "I'll wait to see who he picks instead before making any call." Exactly. The Saker is normally 'strategically' a few days/weeks late on response to tectonic shifts here he seems disappointed and early. For those of us with a HCIS (High Cynical Index Syndrome) Trump and his circus clowns were simply a lesser flop than Clinton and her criminal gang.

    Different finger puppets in the kid's burger: same business hand on the till(er), imo.

    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:04 pm UTC
    Happy to disagree with Saker this time – Trump is, thus far, a proven entity. He replaced his campaign director in his " hopeless " campaign with just 4 months left to election day with Bannon and Conway and they knocked it out of the park. Trump has a good eye for talent and I am almost sure he'll find someone like-minded as Kelly in relatively short order.

    The good captain is revealed in the storm. Trump will do what he can. It's up to us to set our jaws and move forward. OK – the deep state has declared war; Molon Labe.

    Peter AU on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:09 am UTC
    Watching the senate hearings for the Trump nominees – all nominees had to express aggression towards at least one country. The US has lived by the sword and will die by the sword.. Sooner the better.
    ioan on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:18 pm UTC
    Hi Peter, I'm glad to find you here again. Regarding the hearings, I have watched them also, my first impression was that they were like some Gestapo hearings in the Third Reich times. And as you said, everyone had to say something to satisfy the Committee in order to get their approval. Actually, all of them have been cornered.
    Cynthia McKinney on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:09 am UTC
    Flynn was already compromised by the very neocon elements of which you write: Michael Ledeen. Also, Flynn isn't the only one who can serve unflinchingly in this position. But, the Trump team will have to look beyond the tight circle of ideologues with no governance experience in order to find a suitable replacement. And yes, I do have some suggestions.
    Redford on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:23 am UTC
    If you're indeed Cynthia McKinney, it's an honor to read you here. Curious about your suggestions, although I'd probably know nothing about them initially.
    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 11:04 am UTC
    Hey Cynthia !! Great and positive comment – I hope Trump can find his way – Saker's article is pretty convincing and sad.
    sarz on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:18 pm UTC
    I have a feeling all that anti-Iran rhetoric, like the anti-Russia rhetoric by all of Trump's candidates in their hearings (that Trump claimed was just them speaking their own mind, irrespective of his expressed core views), is for getting Trump's team in place without too much resistance by his own Republicans who are, after all, sworn to the neocon/Zionist order. (Who would know that better than you, Dr McKinney?}

    That means Flynn's participation in the book coauthored with Ledeen was perhaps a ruse. Sure, he could subscribe to the theoretical part that condemns Wahhabism in support of traditional Islam (as Ledeen, the neocon, would pretend to do, to look human). But the operative part took issue with not just Iran but also with Russia for their supposed support to 'terrorism'. So it looks like the whole thing was for show. Trump could have stuck it out with support for Flynn. I think there might have been other considerations. (Flynn's son was earlier an embarrassment with his pursuit of Pizzagate.) If the Saker has privileged knowledge about the critical and indispensable role of Flynn, now is the time to come out with it.

    Crosley Bendix on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:55 am UTC
    As usual, if someone wants to understand what is going on in the world, he should look up what Nasrallah has to say. Finkelstein knows the score: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpIYHXHQOzA
    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:03 am UTC
    As I expressed under Redford (February 14, 2017 at 8:56 am UTC) I'll wait to see the next move.

    However, if as the Saker implies, Flynn was a key knight on Trump's board then perhaps he now has other 'duties' and freedoms to work across certain lines. Russians leaving the military to 'free lance' in the south east corners of the Ukraine come to mind.

    In any case, one step back is sometimes a strategic move for another day. And if such a screw up then why isn't John F. Tefft taking some heat for letting the trap be set?

    Trump is muddling along and his approach (so far) reminds me of Deng Xiaoping's "crossing the river by feeling the stones" analogy.

    The task of reforming the corrupt and evil saturated DC swamp can't be any less complicated than transforming China out of state communism.

    I suspect Putin et al are just shrugging their shoulders and knocking another green bottle of the wall.

    And I would add, the counter argument to your neutered Trump, although I agree reasonable, is the clear signal that "You're fired!" applies to all and everyone. I doubt Pence is 100% bullet proof, nor beyond sacrifice if needs be.

    juliania on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:22 pm UTC
    He can't be fired, but he can be assigned other duties. A certain vp Quail comes to mind. Agnew, anyone?
    Larchmonter445 on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:28 pm UTC
    Taking down Agnew was the beginning of the end of Nixon. That's how coups work. Carter: Hamilton Jordan. Reagan: Richard Allen

    JFK: His brother was always in the gunsights. Check your history and you'll see the Deep State patterns. Even Ike had ungodly pressure to drop Dulles.

    Then "mistakes" overseas. And "false flags" to get the wars going big time.

    Louis Robert on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:07 am UTC
    REMINDER "The dangerous deception called the Trump presidency."

    "I state clearly my conviction, and please recall this as Trump Presidency policies unfold after January 20, 2017 to see if I am correct or not: Donald Trump was put into office to prepare America for war, a war the banks of Wall Street and the US military industrial complex are not presently in a position economically or industrially or otherwise, geopolitically, to win. His job will be to reposition the United States for them to reverse the trend to disintegration of American global hegemony, to, as the Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz Project for the New American Century put it in their September, 2000 report, "rebuild America's defenses." " (F. William Engdahl)

    http://journal-neo.org/2016/11/25/the-dangerous-deception-called-the-trump-presidency/

    ***

    In less than a month

    "With Trump broken, Russia and China will go right back to their pre-Trump stance: a firm resistance backed by a willingness and capability to confront and defeat the USA at any level."

    Empire is Empire is Empire

    Robert Ferrin on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:38 pm UTC
    No all empires fall from Rome to Spain to England and we are in the final days of the empire, bankrupt with a stagnant GDP and a 100,000,000 unemployed and poverty on the rise. For the first time since 1960 I didn't bother to vote for the country is not governed by those we elect, but those in the shadows that pull the string's as Chalmers Johnson said in his last book in the series" Dismantling The Empire" that it was "Americas Last Best Hope", and I agree with the Saker that hope is gone and its going to be a very long rough ride to the bottom with wars and rumors of war
    Srbenda Legenda on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:10 am UTC
    Thanks for the great post Mr Saker, insightful as always. Being of Serbian descent I never had a real interest in US politics as nothing would change when it came to our political interests, be they historically or morally correct.

    Naturally I despised the Bushes, especially the Clintons and like many supported Trump despite never truly believing he would succeed. We truly are in a historical moment in time and I share your thoughts regarding the "Color Revolution" currently under way in the US.

    It appears the powers that be are positioning themselves to remove him from office and I sadly predict that President Trump will lose out to the establishment who are hell bent to see his agenda destroyed!

    My optimism that President Trump would bring about true change has been shattered by his somewhat reluctance to challenge those enemies within his own "party" and administration.

    Sadly I only see this going one way and that is with President Trump walking away from this position in the foreseeable future as it is obvious the enemies abroad and within are determined to see him removed. He's clearly over his head and the establishment would happily see VP Pence and the Republican trash continue the neocon agenda and ultimately draw us that step closer to war and destruction.

    I never thought I would share the sympathies with the American people but the recent elections have demonstrated clearly to the world that despite all the posturing and illusions, the US is far from being a beacon of hope, freedom and prosperity. I truly believe President Trump genuinely wishes to "MAGA" but the opposition is too strong and with Flynn's resignation it's clear his team are working covertly to sabotage his presidency.

    For the sake of world peace I pray that President Trump succeeds but my heart tells me he will falter and step aside allowing the enemy to continue to policies of death, suffering and enslavement of the American people.

    In finishing I share your views regarding the unfolding developments and wish you and your family safety and continued success with the site. My apologies for the long post

    Il Discobolo on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:12 am UTC
    All ok what written but, if the stakes are so high, why were general Flynn and the Russian ambassador so naive?
    Nathan on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:22 am UTC
    Trump was brought in to trigger the world wide financial collapse and start war. Earlier Obama was brought in to the chant Hope and Change.
    I would give it a maximum of 4 months time before the earth caves in.
    AlfaAlfalfa on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:23 am UTC
    Well you're right about almost everything here Saker.

    One slight quibble, I suggest Trump has always been setup man for a long planned US colour revolution, though I am fairly certain he was personally unaware of it, just as he was unaware he would win the election.

    Nasrallah has it right. Trump is a limited character, a one term President at best. Most of us will be only too glad to be fooled again when Ms. Gabbard makes it to position 1 or 2 on the next Democratic Presidential ticket.

    Democracy has always been a cloak for the oligarchy.

    Always.

    Suzanne Majo De Kuyper on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:30 am UTC
    I hope that you may be wrong. it feels as if you are right. USA is over then for sure.
    Stalin on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:34 am UTC
    I always knew that hopes in Trump are baseless. I am actually happy about development, we already reach point where the war is the only escape, there's no other way around. It does NOT mean we gonna have a nuclear war, Hitler could use chemical warfare during battle for Stalingrad. He didn't use it., so neocons will not dare either, and if they do, well, a new beginning.
    ioan on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:37 pm UTC
    Well, Stalin, I confess I did have hope and still have some till Trump will meet Putin personally. (a few days ago, Putin said that he would meet Trump in Slovenia – that made to have some bad feelings) . If nothing positive comes out, then the war shall solve all the problems (as continuation of policy with other means )
    Stalin on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:49 pm UTC
    I guess you heard that picture of Russian ambassador's assassination won World Press Photo award. Disgrace!, they deserve the war. They are spoil brats, they will cry like little children. After all is done we send Chechen to clean the swamps.
    Greg Schofield on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:38 am UTC
    Another astute analysis from the Saker.

    Trump is the periphery displacing the centre in a Corporate dictatorship, it is the same when the Grand Council of Fascism ousted Mussolini and arrested him, as Trump did to Hillary Clinton's turn, but the real power exerts itself to reverse the decision.

    Trump appeases because that is all that is allowed him, his victory was measured in days, and so perhaps was Obama's. Probably there have been direct threats, this is common when anybody steps out of line with the empire, blackmail (based on real or fictitious evidence is also common), and bribes - these are not alternatives they come all at once. Being threatened, blackmailed and bribed is a common enough gangster's tactic. Then of course there are the favours, the often fake evidence of misdeeds done by the closet allies, who ride to the rescue their own fifth column having prepared the way for them. None of this excuses Trump, he uses similar but milder tactics.

    The weakness is leadership, relying on it, the saviour complex, that somehow someone will blaze the way forward and change things for us, the beaten and oppressed. It is not happening, either we take the initiative or we fix up the mess once the whole thing has exploded - we get all the danger and all the work no matter what.

    I am an Australian, my country has been run by yours since 1975 after we enjoyed three years of Independence from the US and Britain, after '75 we got US gangster-ism - no velvet glove. so my point of view is so-long as the empire collapses all is well. Trump was a faction, there is civil war in the US between the big and little barons. Let both destroy each other.

    Trouble is when giants fight little people get squashed. The empire has been squashing people by the millions for half a century (and before that). So I have indifference as to who gets hurt, I just want it to stop. If the US people are the last victims, then so be it.

    The alternative is that the people of the US do everyone a favour including themselves and take these fascists out. I use the term in its exact meaning as corporatism (where corporations and the state become a joint enterprise, fostering a class of managers in its wake). I also acknowledge something very few here have heard - this includes social fascists.

    Back in the thirties there were right wing fascists and also left wing 'social' fascists, you might recognise this in George Orwell's 1984. The fact is the liberals (social fascists par excellence) have buried this, while the militant right wing fascists have been distanced from brethren by being described as Nazis. Neo-Nazis are detestable, but strangely enough are not actually fascists so much as criminal gangs (there is a difference).

    Left and right don't make much sense when the enemy has its own left and right. So there are the corporatists (fascists ) and us, the people.

    So without leaders the people need to push and push hard, otherwise the next lot of cannon fodder will be you, not the client states, but the home state of ultra-imperialism. You do the world a favour by doing yourself a favour.

    My suggestion is open rebellion means unsuccessful slaughter, guns are not going to work. The common weapon sounds like a joke, and it is a joke as it now stands - the Law. Make the corporates subject to the law. And the first effort is not the corporates, but the judges - the judicial system needs to be purged first, and from the bottom up.

    Look for corruption, look for tax evasion, conflicts of interests anything that should qualify a judgement for acting in the people's interest and get rid of them. Never mind their sex lives, or opinions, just whether they would be fit to judge cases of corporate fraud, tax fraud, misappropriations of funds, running corporations against the interests of shareholder dividend payout, corruption etc.,

    Start the pressure locally, start with the local collaborators, ignore the higher ups, get to them later. If you are right work with lefties if you're a lefty work with right-wingers, work across the spectrum, but get the judges on the people's side by getting rid of the others - not issue based politics, but on facts, those that hobnob with the local bigwigs instead of the people, of belonging to a club where where business does private deals.

    Start doing the little things that will make local self-organisation possible and the key is not the police, not the politicians, but the judiciary. Gather evidence, and when it sufficient make it public and demand legal remedies, and if none come, then some direct action.

    RMM on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:37 pm UTC
    Your recommendations in the last para are wise. Unfortunately, Trump & team lack the required skill, and they thought they should go for the CIA first. So not, there they are: le bec dans l'eau as the French say
    Greg Schofield on February 15, 2017 , · at 12:00 am UTC
    RMM thanks. Trump could never provide what is needed. My view is that getting things right comes after getting rid of what is wrong. even if Trump was perfect with the perfect team and large coordinated popular support, he could not get things right, because of the attrition of the corrupt, and if these are 'fixed' politically rather than legally society suffers. New laws are basically a political fix.

    Redeploying existing laws, applying them to corporate entities and gaoling offenders is how a civil society works. First reform the lower judiciary, they will deal with rather small corporate misdeeds, but they will arrest criminals, who will be systematically let off by higher courts, which makes them the target for coordinated reform.

    The elimination of corrupt judiciary, the promotion of honest magistrates creates a dual power in the modern world, the old way was to organise force for a showdown, I am suggesting winning a war of attrition, not movement - they are weak there, anything else will be brutally suppressed.

    Kerjean on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:53 am UTC
    Once again, Saker was right
    And I was wrong.

    I feel terribly ill this morning. It's a disaster. Especially when I read, with horror, that Trump consider . PETRAEUS(!!!!!!!!) for the job!! It's amazing.
    Why not Nuland or Kagan as State Secretary and Breedlove as Defens Secretary?

    And what's about Bannon? I can't imagine that and Trump and Bannon are both totaly stupid and unaware.
    Engdhal and Brandon Smith, for month and month warn that Trump is a fake from head to toes. Are they right.
    If it is, we'll soon see new tension with Russia and especially in Donbass. And if it's true, we'll see mainstream medias becoming very nice indulgent with Trump. Then, all the "liberals" and "progressists" who are shouting everywere again "Trump the fascist" will soon realise they're cuckold, the medias batteries will now turn against them and they will very soon test what is the true fascism. It's a tragedy.
    If Trump is sincere, without Flynn to protect him against the services, he's dead. If Trump is a fake

    Franz on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:22 pm UTC
    Trump is the perfect President for America – ignorant, arrogant and lost – but sensing that something is not right. I am at peace since my father always told me: "Remember, even the best of them are snakes."
    WizOz on February 14, 2017 , · at 11:03 am UTC
    Saker's frustration is understandable. Seeing your hopes dashed is always painful. But the few Cassandras (yours truly among them) who had no hope whatsoever that anything good can possibly come out from making "America great again" kept their calm. We took the cold shower and puked in advance. 'We told you so' and in no uncertain terms:

    William Engdahl ("The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency"):
    "The project called the Trump Presidency has just two months before its formal beginning. Yet already the hopes and fantasies of much of the world are making him into something and someone Donald Trump most definitely is not. Donald Trump is yet another project of the same boring old patriarchs who try again and again to create a one world order that they control absolutely, a New World Order that one close Trump backer once referred to as universal fascism. Ignore the sometimes fine rhetoric in some of his speeches. Talk is cheap. If we consider rather the agenda that's taking form even in these very early days of cabinet naming, we can see that Donald Trump is the same agenda of war and global empire as Obama, as Bush before him, as Bill Clinton and Clinton's "tutor", George H.W. Bush before him. There is no good side to what the world is about to experience with President Trump."

    http://journal-neo.org/2016/11/25/the-dangerous-deception-called-the-trump-presidency/

    And people refuse to see the elephant trumping through the rooms of the Trump Tower (and now of the White House), blinded by the 'glamour' of Ivanka or the 'Sois belle et tais-toi' Melanie (excuse my French).

    But we keep calm because we are sure that if amateur analysts could see through the fog of deception, the Russians saw it long before. Be sure that all counter-measures are in place.

    Olli on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:23 pm UTC
    Remember that Trump has still plenty of options left. The fate of the US or, for that matter, of the world does not depend on mr Flynn whose judgement has shown so wanting that he would not have been the person to take down the bad elements among CIA et al anyhow. I trust in Trump's fighting spirit and resilience, and I expect general Flynn's resignation just to be a jump start to take on neocon elements in US governement and intelligence community seriously and, this time, hard and harsh. With whom in the lead, I don't know, but remember that the US is a vast country with lots of folk competent and willing to accept the job of draining the intelligence part of the swamp.
    Stavros Hadjiyiannis on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:47 pm UTC
    Even though I respect The Saker's opinion to a very high degree, I will have to disagree with some of the assertions made here.

    But first of all, allow me to begin with what I agree with. This is no doubt a major victory for the neocons, the Deep State and the EU. This is a loss for Russia and the USA.

    But, I'm not sure that Trump is done and dusted. From what I realize, Flynn did in fact breach protocol and the Deep State found a perfect opportunity to go on the offensive. It's still within Trump's power to appoint one of his own to replace Flynn. We'll see.

    But my main disagreement with The Saker is this. Trump (and his backers, themselves a minority within the Deep State) is not interested in cutting a deal with Russia due to any concerns about Wahabism, the neocons or any other such. Trump's reason for wanting to withdraw the US from the NATO-GCC-ISR attack on Russia, was because he wanted to divert US power and energies against China and Iran. Trump also believes that the US is not getting anything out of its unconditional support for the EU and wanted to rearrange America's posture.

    The neocons, neoliberals and Eurocrats who oppose Trump so vehemently, believe that the EU project is sacrosanct (because it weakens and undermines Russia) that Iran should be brought on their side and used against Russia (only the most Zio-fanatics are not find of this proposition) and that China can only be faced down after Russia has been annihilated. If Russia cannot be defeated, then China must only be militarily contained (so that the PRC does not turn towards Russia in a serious way) and the "Free World" can only hope that China may collapse under its own contradictions. For the US Deep State, Russia must be fought against to the most bitter end, and on this, the Europeans are in enthusiastic agreement.

    We'll see how this turns out, but this development is nothing but deeply worrying. It would be stupid to sugarcoat this.

    Baerlas on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:47 pm UTC
    I always thought that "The Empire was, is and will be the Empire" and the president is merely the figurehead of this very Empire. That was obvious president after president, "beautifully depicted" by president Obama. To really make any changes you'd need a revolution which is totally outside the mental conceptions of Western peoples today, last not least lacking leading figures who could organize the people. Similarly, dreaming about Trump changing the world for a better one was an illusion right from the start. These who have always driven this ship along will, of course, now drive Trump. So apart from a lot of shallow noise, what has changed? Nothing. And if that is correct it is still the better solution of whatever might be in the offing.
    _smr on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:56 pm UTC
    Trump is a trickster. His job is not to make America great again – an impossible task anyway, as the Masonic project 'America as the New Atlantis' was a con job from the get go and was, like any film set, built primary as an eye candy and for temporarily use only. The ZWO needed the USA as the launch pad, staging ground and propaganda central for almost resistance-less military-industrial subjection of the vast, still virgin goy-lands sprinkled all over planet Earth.

    Who cared about the enslavement of South America, Africa, South East Asia, Bolshevik Russia, Maoist China as long Hollywood kept spinning out blockbuster after blockbuster, as long as NASA made everybody proud with their staged moon landings, as long as CIA lifetime actors like Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan, Jack Nicholson, Ernest Hemingway, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk dazzled our eyes and minds with magic too good to be true.

    Now that the project is almost complete and the USA bankrupt beyond repair, the ZWO faces the tricky task of ushering in a rougher phase, while making sure the blame doesn't fall on them, but on conspiracy theorists!, Nazis!, White Supremacists!, Fake News bloggers!, sexists!, racists! and what not.

    That is where Trump comes in. All he has to do is to upset the apple cart. Saying some right words at wrong time. And some wrong things at the right time. Taking the wrong decisions at appropriate moments. Playing the joker not once, but again and again.

    This is the best we can hope for now. And Trump – Inshallah! – will deliver.

    Mairon on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:56 pm UTC
    I was always cautiously optimistic about Trump. My expectations of his were rather modest. Of course, the very first thing that recommended him was the simple fact he is not Hillary. The second, perhaps, was his unortodox approach and what seems (still in the present, I think) to be a genuine desire to shake the establishment currently pulling the string in Washington.
    He had some profound statements that were previously unthinkable from any US President (we'll stop toppling regimes).

    Taking all of that into consideration, and assuming that Trump has been sincere, there was always a huge problem for him: he is completely alone. He has no reliable allies to help him even start the battle with the power elite governing the US.
    From his first day in office, it was clear they were going to oppose him at every step and Trump has little or no means to fight back.

    I generally appreciate and agree with the Saker, but I think he is overly pessimistic here.
    In my view, Trump has already showed to be willing to fight, but the resistance is too great for one man to handle. And Trump is, more or less, alone.

    J.L.Seagull on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:00 pm UTC
    Can we get some name recognition for the Russians who were comparing Trump to Yanukovich from the start? Who were they?
    ALex on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:08 pm UTC
    You mean Trump is "White People's Obama" ?
    realist on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:10 pm UTC
    It is naive from the get go to think that Trump will undo the Neocons' agenda that started since 911! Trump from the beginning should have made sure the backings of the majority of the American people including the immigrants, remain neutral on Muslim issues, Russia, any policies that the fake liberals would have reason to antagonize him with, in order to minimize protests against him, like the fake Obama and Clintons. Once elected, he could then implement his policies. His administration and presidency campaign may have been sabotaged from the get go so that they have reason to blame him with afterwards.

    Flynn resigned during PM Abe's visit and when N Korea fired the missiles. Could these be the reason for his resignation instead of Russia?

    cortisol on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:31 pm UTC
    Look at the cuckold Trudeau and Trump meeting. Look at Trump when he is being forced to talk for the feminist agenda after 03:00. Just awful. This is total humiliation. He's finished.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqkb-sJ31S4

    Francisco Almeida on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:34 pm UTC
    I deeply admire and respect The Saker. But I think this time you rushed into final conclusions , while the game is just in its first few shots. Trump still has infinite ammo : he can replace the hell out of whoever he wants to. He won't behave as a loser and cower down.

    There'll be counter-attacks , plenty I believe. He's calling the shots, not the neo-cons. Mattis clearly states he hates wars, and he is not a traitor ; he was put there to shield Trump – and he obviously agreed – while "barking war" for domestic consumption towards keeping quiet the warmonger crowd. Smokes and mirrors game. I think the core plan is still in place.

    Gunnar Sivertsen on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:20 pm UTC
    I don't always agree with the Saker, but this time I do. The resignation of Flynn suggests that he was pushed out by the neocons and that Trump was unable – not unwilling – to prevent the push. Flynn's lie, or cover-up is neither here nor there; it's not the reason he had to resign. Trump has been left relatively isolated within his own administration. Unless he sacks some key figures, he will be politically vulnerable. So, Flynn's departure is probably a sign of things to come: more neo-conservativism, more empire building, and more neoliberalism: back to the Washington Consensus – which never really disappeared.
    Katherine on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:19 pm UTC
    "The resignation of Flynn suggests that he was pushed out by the neocons and that Trump was unable – not unwilling – to prevent the push. "

    I agree with this. I don't have evidence. But I think there must be more to the story. As for the telephone call, so what? What about the Iran-Contra meetings in Paris that sank Carter by getting a promise out of the Iranians not to free the hostages until Reagan was being sworn in? Same deal. Has anyone told Trump about that? Why not just say: Hey, there is no difference, guys! If that was OK, so was Flynn's call to Russia to say "hello, and we plan to be friends wijoo." What is, actually, wrong with that?

    There must be some other pressure on Trump. This is probably Trump's last chance to get a powerful loyalist near him. He has made it easy for his enemies on the left and right with the Bannon appointment, immigration ban, and wild words re Iran, etc.

    Katherine

    XL on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:46 pm UTC
    *puts on tinfoil hat

    Didnt Flynn accuse Hillary Clinton of being involved in chip trafficking around the time of the Pizzagate shooter? I've also read that the new media face of the Trump campaign, Stephen Miller is somehow involved with the nonsense going on behind the scenes in the WH. Is it possible these things are related?

    Astraea on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:49 pm UTC
    Trump's daughter Ivanka and his son in law Jared Kushner are apparently Lubavitch Jews. That seems even more relevant to Trump's weakness than Pence or anything much else. It was a group of Lubavitch rabbis who persuaded George Bush Junior to sign the so called "Noahide Laws" into American Law – which I find astounding, to put it mildly.

    These so called "laws" demand the beheading of all people who practice "idolatry" . According to them I think the only religion on Earth which does not allow any kind of idolatry is Islam (perhaps also the Jains). Christianity definitely, according to these sinister people, practices idolatry in the form of The Cross and pictures of Jesus and so forth.

    There have been rumors for years now about "fema camps", but there are also photographs and videos of long white painted trains with UN painted on the sides. They are three storied carriages or cabooses with flat beds in between every few of these. Someone got into these carriages, years ago, and said that there are metal benches in them with ankle irons fixed to the floors.

    On the flat beds guillotines were seen – "made in China".

    Which all makes my blood run cold. These Lubavitch really are as sinister as the original Levites!

    Talks-to-Cats on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:58 pm UTC
    A friend of mine who was in the Secret Service told me that, some years ago, they discovered a tank the "Jewish Defense League" had hidden in a warehouse in Philadelphia.
    WizOz on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:39 pm UTC
    @Ivanka and his son in law Jared Kushner are apparently Lubavitch Jews.

    They definitely are. That was a 'secret' only to the extent that nobody wanted to see it, although the sickening details were all over the place:

    "Trump was raised Presbyterian. Before her wedding, in July 2009, after studying for over a year with Rabbi Elie Weinstock from the Modern Orthodox Ramaz School, she converted to Orthodox Judaism and took the Hebrew name "Yael". She describes her conversion as an "amazing and beautiful journey" and that her father supported her studies from day one, due to his respect for the Jewish religion. She attests to keeping a kosher diet and observing the Jewish Sabbath, saying in 2015: "We're pretty observant It's been such a great life decision for me I really find that with Judaism, it creates an amazing blueprint for family connectivity. From Friday to Saturday we don't do anything but hang out with one another. We don't make phone calls."Trump sends her daughter to kindergarten at a Jewish school in New York City. She says that "It's such a blessing for me to have her come home every night and share with me the Hebrew that she's learned and sing songs for me around the holidays." (Wikipedia)

    "Trump vowed to be an advocate for women and Israel. Regarding her father's support for Israel, Trump said he would be "an unbelievable champion for Israel and for the Jewish people. You will not be disappointed."@http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/10/28/ivanka-trump-at-florida-synagogue-my-father-called-before-jewish-high-holidays-and-said-you-better-pray-hard-for-me/

    "The biblical story of Esther is an imperfect allegory for the Trump family, but as for Ivanka, the comparison isn't half bad. Esther is a Jewish woman who conceals her identity when she becomes the bride of a powerful king. It is only when she reveals who she is that she can save the Jewish people from an evil adviser plotting their destruction.

    Like Esther, Ivanka might appear to be nothing more than a pretty face until she shows that she's the savviest person in the room. Like Esther, Ivanka has a familial, almost accidental position of influence with a powerful gentile political figure. And like Esther, Ivanka's Jewishness is veiled: Something she describes as an important part of her identity and family life-she's an Orthodox convert, but she rarely agrees to talk about her faith-is essentially invisible to those who don't know it's there".She's the Orthodox daughter of David Duke's favorite candidate for president-and a perfect cipher for the anxiety of assimilation.@https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/what-should-american-jews-make-of-ivanka-trump/498476/ So much for David Duke!

    "Ynetnews reports: Businesswoman Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner have purchased a home in Washington DC in preparation for President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration. As a practicing Jewish couple, their impending move also necessitated joining a local synagogue. They Chose TheSHUL, a small synagogue run by international the Chabad Jewish community and outreach organization.
    Rabbi Levi Shemtov heads TheSHUL, which has a congregation of 40 – 60 members, among them former senator Joe Lieberman, current Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew as well as several former ambassadors and Israeli dignitaries".

    It was never so 'in your face'. Other overlooked detail: 'World's Largest Jewish Center in Dnepropetrovsk', 'Dnepropetrovsk could be renamed – Jerusalem-on-the-Dnieper'
    Would Trump abandon Ukraine?

    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 11:13 pm UTC
    And why do you explain that, for example, Scott, who is always researching about Chabad Lubavitch, have overlooked this? And, has been this information just discovered today, or the so much informed people here knew it in advance and, in spite, promoted Trump as if there was not tomorrow, you included?
    eric calderone on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:53 pm UTC
    I essentially agree with the premise that the conflict between the Establishment and Trump is basically over Trump being elected as someone who didn't rise through, and was not acculturated in a conventional Establishment political milieu. I further agree that Flynn's resignation represents an important Establishment victory. However, the notion that Donald Trump represented the last chance to avert a major US meltdown, that he aspired to significantly change the path our capitalist system is pursuing, is quite frankly, hyperbole. You endow Donald Trump with undeserved importance.

    Donald Trump does not represent now, nor did he ever, a challenge to the prevailing neo-liberal system. Even if he had parried Establishment's previous challenges, or goes to ultimately push back successfully against existing and future challenges to his policies, there will not be a historical, significant change to ruling class domestic policies. Any alteration in US foreign policies, would be selective, and would not persist in the long term. Donald Trump, for all his idiosyncrasies, is very much a ruling class individual, possessing ruling class ideology.

    Reorganization of the national security agencies, relegating the power of the CIA to the Executive, bringing some measure of common sense to America's foreign policies vis a vis the Russian Federation, pulling back on America's bloated and unsustainable military engagements, while welcome, would not amount to a material and long-term change to the nature of the American system and its empire.

    Working people would have lived, and will still live, in a society with inadequate and worsening healthcare, housing, education, and public infrastructure,;and with declining unionization rates and collective bargaining power in the workplace. They would and will still pay taxes to a government which would expend those funds on a gargantuan and growing military budget; and on assistance to giant corporations. They would and will continue to be indoctrinated by a government and mass media with neo-liberal and bourgeois ideology. Nothing critical would have, or will change, under a Donald Trump administration.

    Foreign policy is shaped by the economic nature of the beast. America under Donald Trump, or any other candidate of the "two" party system, in the long-term must pursue policies which continue to inject excess revenue into the system. That revenue represents value extracted from other countries. Otherwise, the economic engine of the US will not expand, and the system will soon collapse upon itself. Inevitably, the dynamic of the system engenders conflict with any foreign power or powers which stand in its way. That is why any lessening of conflict with Russia or China or any other major actor on the world stage would be purely temporary, and selective in nature.

    Donald Trump was no one's last hope. Don't bestow upon him a significance he does not deserve.

    blue on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:04 pm UTC
    In other words, Trump is not of the crazies in the basement, but one the crazies on the main floor, as we had before GW Bush.

    The only solution looks to me to be distributed leadership (real anarchy - no chiefs) and not looking for 'leaders' and 'heroes' to save the day. It has parallels with using relational (table driven) databases instead of the older hierarchical databases - a different model of organization.

    Unfortunately, most people can't yet conceive of or understand how this works on large scale - although they use it all the time among a group of friends which do things by consensus, and some people do it in worker-run businesses (which often takes a lot of adjustment for people to get the hang of).

    Monty Pythons explains:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0
    Dennis The Constitutional Peasant

    Texac in Donbass on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:01 pm UTC
    This is an excellent article. Very realistic and precise. The thin hopes on Trump just got "wafer thin", and it looks like we will all be in for a ride. So be it. Better to face the sad truth than fool ourselves. GREAT analysis, I will share.
    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:42 pm UTC
    Hi, Texac
    Please deliver kindest and warmest regards to people in Donbass.
    blue on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:10 pm UTC
    Greetings, and thanks and for work,
    And perhaps it was never really about hope, but about many people just just keeping on working - and if one wants some hope one can find it in all those people who do.
    Robert Draco on February 15, 2017 , · at 1:40 am UTC
    In consolation to Mike Flynn leaving take a look at this: Why Mike Flynn leaving was actually good for Trump by ex-CIA Robert Steele ..(not just a paper pusher he was actually clandestine for 10 of his years in intelligence work) -Robert Steele: Dick Cheney, Not Donald Trump, Orchestrated Firing of Mike Flynn. Flynn Deserved to Be Fired, But Not for Talking to Russians--

    http://phibetaiota.net/2017/02/robert-steele-dick-cheney-not-donald-trump-orchestrated-firing-of-mike-flynn-flynn-deserved-to-be-fired-but-not-for-talking-to-russians/#more-123958

    apna on February 15, 2017 , · at 4:38 am UTC
    Duck Cheney is a known spy working for england. He is an English asset for serving interest of england and anglosaxon cabal of 5 evil eyes.
    Astraea on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:03 pm UTC
    I also want to mention the fantastic new book by the Legendary Dmitri Orlov – and an see why he is spoken of as legendary. It is called "Shrinking the Technocracy." Not to read this book would be a great loss.
    Il Discobolo on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:14 pm UTC
    Let me be clear. If it is true that It is illegal for private citizens to conduct US diplomacy (as BBC writes), then the past December Flynn-Russia's ambassador Kislyak phone conversation should not occur anyway before he was officially appointed National Security Adviser.

    Considering the hysterical activity and agitation of the neocons/deep state and their russophobia, they would not loss any minimal pretext to attack Trump and his collaborators. The question is: was the ambassador aware of that? With no clear benefits from such early talk, it should have appeared as a possible trap, planted for a "delayed" explosion. As indeed it has been. The results is that now Flynn had to resign And Kislyak?

    Lars on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:17 pm UTC
    The problem is that Flynn lied on the highest level. It's not a problem to have a phone conversation with the Russians or be Russian friendly. The problem is when you claim it hasn't happened. Flynn should've known better. His resignation is not a sign of the deep state taking over, but a logic consequence after breaking the trust.
    blue on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:21 pm UTC
    He didn't claim it didn't happen, and he didn't break any trust. As said at the Duran, it's a concoction - a pretense. The main purpose of the call was apparently to start arrangements between Trump and Putin and get some conversation started, and there's nothing wrong with that - except for the 'neo'-crazies who insist on making Russia an enemy. This accusation is abut the same as accusing Russia of invading Crimea. There is a technical term for it in political science: horse-s**t.

    It isn't the deep state trying to take over, BTW, but one of the factions therein. The US is in a political (and cultural) civil war.

    Jeff Chiacchieri on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:20 pm UTC
    I have been saying to everyone I know and posting on FB since Hillary entered the race it looks to me like the globalists could get more of what they want faster with Trump in the Whitehouse than with Hillary because they would have a better chance at destroying/blaming the liberty movement for the fiscal/social collapse planned. The only way to prevent the new administration from avoiding its promise to return power to the people is pro-liberty Americans opposing elected officials that were never drained from the swamp when they embrace globalism for the globalist plan abandoning pro-liberty legislation. How long can President Trump, his administration and America continue to endure so much subversion? There are endless criminal corrupt globalist organizations behind endless subversion's openly against America/Trump

    • CFR & Foundations behind the U.N. Agenda's 21/2030/2050
    • EU parliament
    • Planned Parenthood
    • All population control organizations
    • George Soros and everything he funds
    • The leaders of the global warming/climate change movement
    • The mainstream media in the West that are controlled by global elites.
    • The LGBT/feminist movements backed by the U.N..
    • American public education institutions.
    • The Vatican using Pope Francis openly laying the groundwork for a moral and religious case in favor of population control, all for totalitarian world government control
    • The world's largest corporations and multi-billionaires
    • Militant Islam
    • All of Obama's Czars and thousands of other globalists like Obama working openly and not openly subverting America.

    realist on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:55 pm UTC
    Folks, think about it, Trump's campaign had a hole in it from the beginning; the contradiction of Russia Vs Israel. The relationship between those two nations is paradox: Russia contradicts what Israel wants in the ME. Trump can't be pro Russia and pro Israel at the same time. If he supports Israel fully, he has to oppose Russia's involvement in Syria and Iran. Besides, The encirclement of Russia by NATO also involves Zionists. The irony is that, most Jews in Israel come from Russia and yet, they antagonize Russia. Is being anti Russia from the beginning the work of Zionists or the West? Hope some here can answer this for me. Who benefits from being Anti Russia? I believe Zionists and the West may have huge benefit from elliminating Russia so that they can scramble Russia's resource and land.

    That being said, Trump's base is his supporters, unless they come out in full force to protect him and make neocons back off, he will further be controlled by the Neocons and Zionists. Already, Trump is backing on issues such as One China policy, not having US embassy in Jerusalem (probably a signal for Zionists to oust Trump) .

    Hmm on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:58 pm UTC
    The problem of firing/getting rid of someone for being "too pro-russian" is that this empowers anti-russian paranoia, Mccartism, and you never know who is next. This is a field day for those looking for russians under the beds.

    Trump is an idiot because he endangered himself, as he too can be seen as "too pro russian". He could be next. If Flynn lost his post for being too pro-russian, why not Trump too? He could be next.

    Bro 93 on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:17 pm UTC
    Wrong!

    The deplorables don't want war and on some level (sex, "Christian values") respect Putin as a straight shooter and despise all of our crooked arrows when they make any comparison. If Trump had not said what he said about Russia and Putin during the campaign, he never would have gotten 10% as far as he got. You can't be afraid of your shadow. If you are, you're just a dead man walking, and you may as well jump into your grave and pull the lid over your coffin.

    Keep pushing on "Russia is OK with me" the McCarthy record is already severely scratched and is even a broken record with a lot of Americans, and it's becoming a sad joke to many of them. They're sick of those pulling this mind control chain. It's ridiculous, and more and more Americans realize it every day. Escalate till the chains break on many millions more, whose minds have been weak enough to put up with this nonsense for far too many decades.

    vot tak on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:02 pm UTC
    Saker

    The trump regime really should be called the pence regime, since it is obvious now that pence manages it and trump is mostly the "showman" mouth and face.

    The conversation of flynn and the Russian ambassador being the cause seems to me to be a phony reason. I speculate the real reason is something else. It could be about Russian relations, in which case, maybe flynn was actually more open to warming these, and pence/trump were not (trump having lied). They had a disagreement and flynn left.

    It also could be about something else entirely, other policies flynn was tasked to work on, even a personality clash between flynn and pence.

    It is also possible the israelis ordered flynn's resignation for reasons unknown by me. They've done this before, and this whole scenario has a strong deja vu feel. Remember Andrew Young? They got him fired in almost the exact same manner, hyping a conversation he had with a Palestinian in their zio-gay media and forcing carter to fire him. Only in Young's case, mossad spied on him and leaked info about Young's meeting with Palestinians to the zio-gay media.

    Perhaps mossad has something on flynn, they certainly spied on him. Regardless, perhaps they found out something, not necessarily to do with Russia, they didn't like. With zionazis, pet goys have to be 100% unequivocally loyal or they're out.

    ioan on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:58 pm UTC
    You know where is Netanyahu right now ? in Washington, wanting to meet with Trump.
    Ann on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:35 pm UTC
    vt – didn't you ever see the video interviews of Kay Griggs ? Military Intelligence Wife Whistleblower – look it up –

    Flynn must be involved in some of that cult stuff – its really bad – no one wants to hear about it but there's so much pedophilia of young princes – Saudis – and then they are forever silenced – and Flynn being where he is in the Military Intelligence community – must have at least known it was going on

    He's a creep and we're fortunate he's gone.

    John on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:09 pm UTC
    It's just a dispute between 2 factions of the Zionist empire with Trump representing the more cautious faction. It is good he has been defeated this way so all the fools who think he could make any deals will have those illusions crushed. Even if his faction made deals they would be broken the second his faction is pushed out of power anyway, so such deals are worthless, just like the NATO pact not moving east.
    T.C. on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:10 pm UTC
    From Reuters:

    Michael Flynn resigned late on Monday after revelations he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with the Russian ambassador to the United States before Trump took office and misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.

    "It's obvious that Flynn was forced to write the letter of resignation under a certain amount of pressure," Leonid Slutsky, head of the lower house of parliament's foreign affairs committee, was quoted as saying by the RIA news agency.

    Flynn was a strong advocate for the need for softer foreign policy toward Russia and his departure could slow Trump's pledge to improve relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    "The target was Russia-U.S. relations, undermining confidence in the new U.S. administration," Slutsky said, without specifying who he thought was responsible. (MORE)

    https://goo.gl/8mJ1P0

    Peace loving Japanese on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:12 pm UTC
    With all respect, I think the Saker blogger had been little too much in his optimism for late few months. Trump is not gone tonight, but was gone when he turned his words, in admitting "Russians were meddling with the election" right after the brief conference of intelligence agency.
    That was the very moment he surrendered. Not tonight. I was giving up on him since then. Lately he did associate with our awful dictator Shinzo Abe, why? As long as he's "asked", not by Abe, but by the people who can tell what to do to Trump.
    Alan on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:15 pm UTC
    Quite opposing view to Saker at UNZ by Philip Giraldi (Article: Two Uninspiring Choices http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/two-uninspiring-choices/ ). He thinks of Flynn rather differently. He says that "Michael Flynn the National Security Advisor and Nikki Haley as U.N. Ambassador unfortunately did manage to squeak through and will presumably be well placed to wreak havoc over the next four years". Also the same day Elliott Abrams, the certified neocon is dismissed. This tells a lot. I tend to lean towards P.Giraldi. IMO it is NOT a "huge" victory for the neocon cabal but may be quite the contrary.
    juliania on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:39 pm UTC
    Yes, I agree. It is sometimes necessary to see the persons who have said they will support your policies in action. Not only shall I await further developments on the political scene, but also further analysis from Saker. He's not above correcting his assumptions when and if that is needed, and this sudden techtonic shift in the powers that be does need further analysis. The press is rushing to interpret it one way, which has me very leery of theirs. Not for the first time.
    Carmel by the Sea on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:34 pm UTC
    Alan,

    Thank you so much for link. Philip Giraldi has always been one of those I admire greatly. Again, thank you.

    Carmel by the Sea

    Mulk on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:23 pm UTC
    Good thing too. Trump is a efin' disaster. I despise a possible president Pence, but to have someone stable at the US rudder would make me feel just a bit better. Trump is a train wreck running through more and more houses. People think they can control him, but they can't. He wants to be in control, or look like he is, even though he has no idea of what he is doing. You can explain stuff to him, but he won't listen or just doesn't understand. He's no genious, not even a business one. He is heading for tragedy.
    Marek on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:26 pm UTC
    I think Flynn was a Trojan horse planted by the neocons himself. His history shows a career full of anti-Iran sentiment and an excessive push for a harsher approach toward that country, I can't seem to see why his removal is necessarily a bad thing
    Anonymous on February 15, 2017 , · at 12:46 am UTC
    All those with anti-Iran sentiment are working for Israel's interests firstly. Flynn is one of them. As soon as they start anti-Iran rhetoric, you can immediately conclude who is behind them.
    geoff on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:46 pm UTC
    Saker, I am afraid that the only way anything will change is if the PEOPLE rise up and DEMAND change, possibly in a not entirely peaceful manner.

    We cannot expect change from within the USG. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Trump is not powerful enough, he is no Putin or even a Kennedy. He is clueless and the only reason he rose to power was because he wasn't Hillary.

    Trump can still be worked with. But someone on "OUR" team must get an in with his administration.

    It is the PEOPLE who must stand and demand change, demand an end to the Neocon infestation, demand an end to Imperialism, and demand an end to all regime change wars. It is the people who must demand that all those who Betrayed Humanity in their disgusting quest for power and self-aggrandizement be Punished for their crimes.

    Do not worry. We will find a way to make it happen. And do not forget – You play a very important role in this process. Maybe you will find that one day, it was kind of like a self fulfilling prophesy.

    -geoff

    Robert Draco on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:48 pm UTC
    You are premature. It will all depend on who Trump replaces him with.

    In fact Flynn had already blundered by blaming Iran for attacking a US war ship, which they didn't and called Iran the world's biggest terror sponsor when it is Saudi Arabia. Flynn could have become a liability eventually and better for him to go now rather than later and I heard ex-CIA guy Philip Giraldi talk about this in this interesting read.
    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/iran-hawks-take-the-white-house/

    twilight on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:49 pm UTC
    Once again I'll state the biggest mistake here was Putin's. Instead of ignoring the mountain of demonising press against Russia and Putin during the election of Trump, Putin allowed it to get to him, and he backed away in the aftermath of Trump's election to 'prove' Trump was his own man.

    But Putin's decision created a vacuum (which was the entire idea behind the propaganda attacks), which Deep State agents all around Trump immediately filled. Putin should have moved heaven and Earth to craft a ***day one*** alliance to "fight ISIS to destruction". Yes I know this would have been just PR nonsense, but that was all Trump had asked for daily on his election trail. With a guy like Trump, you race toward him, grasp him firmly by the hand, and promise him whatever he wants to hear. Putin did not do this.

    Now Putin's chance is dead. Trump is actually being successfully coerced to do and say anti-Russian stuff now. Nothing major, butenough to kill any hope to Trump working with Russia. And worse, the instinct in Trump to put Humanity's greatest killing machine to immediate use is being successfully exploited.

    We know Iran is the real target- not bluster over North Korea. But the bluster sets a tone that "rogue states" should not be allowed to advance their systems of self-defense. And that, of course, is the consistant cry of America against Iran. And for those of you who claim Iran is too 'sneaky' and 'wily' to give the USA an 'excuse'- well sorry you are really clueless as to how this game is played.

    Let me explain. Saddam after Gulf War 1 got down on his knees and begged the Americans to be allowed to offer them whatever they wanted in exchange for resurrecting the alliance America had with Iraq before the 'invasion' of Kuwait. His supply of oil to the USA would have been an economic boon beyond belief, so he did not get what the actual issue was. But we now know. Even tho Iraq was the idea Empire slave state, there were bigger plans in motion. The ***secular*** sunni state had to be destroyed so the skilled civilised sunnis of Iraq could be turned into slaves of the depraved wahhabi state of Saudi Arabia, and made the commanders of SA's new extremist terror hoardes- butchers that we currently know as ISIS.

    Saddam couldn't imagine in a million years that his masters in the West wanted to Middle East to burn and fall to 'sunni' (actually wahhabi) extremist savages. After all the Deep State project, since the 19th century when Britain helped the Turkish Empire to fade away, was to encourage ***secular*** civilised Islamic rule. And those rulers of islamic heritage wanted to be as civilised as their brothers in the West- they didn't want to hark back to medieval values or encourage their people to do the same. Saddam didn't know that Tony Blair and the other demons had ripped up the rule book- and were determined to create hell on Earth within a lifetime.

    PNAC made it clear that the 9/11 false flag would be the road to Iran's ending. History shows their plans slipped- especially since the invaion of Iraq had no possible excuse, creating waves of revulsion amongst the general sheeple that became an anti-war sentiment. Obama was 'accidently' elected over Clinton slowing things down even more, and leading to the acceleration of the wahhabi terror play. Libya was taken out almost pointlessly (because Libya isn't a good source of ISIS cannon fodder) simply because old animosity between the USA and Libya made it too much of a testing ground for the latter use of the same animosity between Iran and the USA.

    For most Americans- Trump above all- Libya was the 'little brother' of Iran, and now the USA has finally 'beaten up' Libya, well it is 'obvious' it is time for Iran to go down as well.

    There is but one issue now. Those Deep State demons that really run the USA have a level of power players beneath them that mostly think attacking Iran is the stupidest move possible. They can now jerk Trump around like a perfect puppet, but anyone Trump tries to use to put together the Iran war plan will hit long standing, well argued resistance. For conventional right-wing hard men, Iran is all lose and no gain. Sure, the racist psychopaths that frequently rule the zionist terror state of Israel are all for war with Iran, but this very fact is used as evidence that such a war would be utterly moronic by the right-wing thinkers of the USA.

    Iran is the immovable object, but the demons are the irresistable force. And Iran only has to make one fatal slip- without even knowing it ***is*** a slip before successful demonising anti-Iranian propaganda takes hold. Of course, the BBC and every other zionist outlet has already tried attacking Iran every which way without success so far, but successful propaganda is as 'trendy' as a pop hit so you never know when a particular mud ball will stick.

    We have a sense of this with the foul Soros HRW attack against Syria today, stating that "Syria used chemical weapons to take Allepo". The Israeli controlled French government immediately demanded UN action against Assad. Of course, the demon play in Syria is done, but anti-Syrian rhetoric is just practise for Iran.

    HRW is Soros and the US State Dept. Amnesty International is MI6. Neither is now trusted to the slightest degree by the informed, but the actions of both show current thinking and strategy of the Deep State.

    Having lost Trump,Putin must now act ***immediately*** to save Iran. Giving weapons to Iran cannot do this. Having a public formal alliaince, with Russians working on the ground in Iran can. Of course the religious leaders who rule Iran distrust Russia, and Putin must do everything he can to point out that it is Russia protection or utter destruction for Iran- and to bluntly state the ***truth** – which is if the West does attack Iran, Russia will back off and leave Iran to its fate. It is prevention or disaster,

    Robert Draco on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:53 pm UTC
    I forgot to add this ex-CIA guy to the first. Robert David Steele ..on Mike Flynn. He thinks he deserved to be fired and he basically liked Flynn.

    http://phibetaiota.net/2017/02/robert-steele-dick-cheney-not-donald-trump-orchestrated-firing-of-mike-flynn-flynn-deserved-to-be-fired-but-not-for-talking-to-russians/#more-123958

    vot tak on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:03 pm UTC
    WikiLeaks chimes in: WikiLeaks Claims Flynn's Resignation Triggered by 'Destabilization Campaign'

    https://sputniknews.com/us/201702141050674796-wikileaks-flynn-resignation/

    "Trump's National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigns after destabilization campaign by US spies, Democrats, press https://t.co/vKlX1Tqek1
    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) 14 февраля 2017 г."

    Just speculation, or do they have something solid?

    vot tak on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:20 pm UTC
    A Russian take: Flynn's Resignation 'Won't Have an Impact' on Russian-US Relations

    https://sputniknews.com/politics/201702141050673917-us-russia-flynn-resignation/

    "The resignation of the US President's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn won't affect Russian-American relations because they are not shaped yet and there is, in fact, nothing to have an impact on," Fyodor Lukyanov told Sputnik.

    The political analyst further explained that it still remains unclear whether Donald Trump wanted to reset the relations with Russia with the help of either Michael Flynn or new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. However, he again reiterated that it is impossible to have an impact on something that does not yet exist.

    The expert explained that the attacks on Trump's National Security Adviser for his alleged pro-Russian position were "something made out of thin air." However he had to resign because he was not careful enough.

    He further noted that there are still chaotic developments in the Trump administration and there might be more resignations coming."

    T.C. on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:23 pm UTC
    "The White House is under attack from elements inside the intelligence community" - Dennis Kucinich

    An important interview:

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/02/14/kucinich-pins-flynn-leak-on-intel-community-warns-another-cold-war.html

    erichwwk on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:42 pm UTC
    Kucinich: "Be VERY careful. That's my warning this morning. WAKE UP AMERICA "

    "This isn't about whether you're for or against Donald Trump. Hello! This is about whether the American people are bystanders in a power play inside the intelligence community . and whether we can be forced to go to war with any country. ,,,, A game is being played with the security of our country. I [Dennis Kucinich] don't often share the interviews I do, but ask that you watch and share this one because it's important.

    https://www.facebook.com/denniskucinich/posts/10154592754758218

    Greg on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:34 pm UTC
    What I don't understand is this. We see and read of the power exerted by the liberal/neocon "deep state" and their abilities to disrupt and damage Trump's presidency. But in order to get where he has gotten to today, Trump must have some powerful backers too. So where are these powerful Trump supporters and what are they doing if anything?
    JJ on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:30 pm UTC
    Yup am wondering about the 200 military people said to be having Trump any news of them? Maybe preparing a counter revolution on his behalf?
    Larchmonter445 on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:36 pm UTC
    Saker, as you know very well my warnings that Flynn was the keystone, the means through which reform could come to IC, MIC, Deep State-the wombs of Khazarian Russophobia and Hegemony-I agree with you completely that your analysis is correct. It is over.

    Trump will not be able to control Pompeo or Mattis.
    Trump will not be able to penetrate the Deep State and uproot the warmongers.
    Trump will not be able to end the Hegemony.

    What he presented as stiff opening arguments against Iran and Russia are now weaponized with his signature on them. Ukraine will be on some budget line and kept viable. Syria will be a target again per Wolfowitz-Perle and Bibi.

    Where ceasefire and peace was possible we will get more war and chaos.

    ISIS will not be defeated anywhere soon. Russia will be forced to supply regular troops soon if it intends to clean out ISIS and al Nusra while it can. Or it will be bogged down (US goal for certain.)

    Now, for what we must do: keep exposing the tools and persons who removed Flynn.
    This was all at the surface of the Deep State. Most of the players were visible. No subtle, covert operation this assassination. And from that careful documentation we can keep "outing" the enemy within.

    Trump, sadly, may have bought a one-term Presidency when he let this become a neocon issue.
    His daughter and son-in-law tamping down his instincts to fight have been a huge disservice.
    Bannon, a hegemonic ideologue in foreign policy, certainly would not protect Flynn. Bannon served the Naval Intel world in his career, and nothing good has ever come out of US Naval Intel. They plotted against their own man, JFK.

    We, have, a hard choice. Despair and gnash our teeth, or continue to expose the evil operators inside the US government. Spare the Trump-bashing. He erred hugely. But it was predictable. Flynn was a wild card warrior. He was fearless and reckless in behalf of his mission. Trump sent him to the Russians. They had to know the outcome would be intense heat.

    But what was unknown, the treachery in the inner circle. Pence is fully exposed now. Trump knows this clearly. He can't share that with anyone. His circle is filled with like-minded who would serve Pence more comfortably than Trump himself.

    Pence is Brutus. Watch him as he goes to the Munich meeting. He is pure Neo-Con and a treacherous liar himself.

    No greater threat exists to Peace than a traitor to the nation and the opportunity for Detente being thrown away.

    Trump failed to protect his warrior. But the Intel agencies were withholding approvals of deputies' clearances. They had denied Robin Townley, deputy for Africa a clearance for NSC. This signaled that they would undermine Flynn and Trump every day like the Dems have with the nominations and street riots. It was all Trump could do to try to get control of things. Messaging was scrambled, forward movement was stalled. He had to jettison Flynn. But it was all on him. He didn't control Pence and marginalize him. He faced Pence and blinked.

    Sad. Maybe Tragic. But, Trump has comeback potential. It just won't be with the Intel Community.
    He has to find leverage from elsewhere. Probably, why he's talking to Chris Christie. I suspect DOJ and Sessions is one weapon. Maybe they will bring Christie in to DOJ, if he has a huge role, and use him to prosecute the leakers in Deep State. It's only a guess.

    Listen to Pence, watch Mattis. And know that Pompeo is more of the same in CIA.

    Also, Kelly in DHS is weak and a go-along general. He'll test the wind.

    What has happened is Trump thought he had built a citadel using Flynn and the generals around him, with Mattis and Kelly. It has all been turned into a prison, and Trump is hostage.

    JJ on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:05 pm UTC
    http://theduran.com/these-8-neocons-are-gearing-up-to-destroy-president-trump-and-make-america-bomb-again/

    background to these people

    blue on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:49 pm UTC
    Ahh an article on demonology at the Duran. (Check out pictures of Abrams - clearly a creature from the netherworld.)
    Demons, vampires, goblins and orcs, the occasional ogre.
    Some crazies are made to live in the attic, while these prefer the basement and other underground abodes.
    About the same gang as always.
    (I see dead people. They are everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know they are dead. - The living dead - all psychopaths, surviving on human blood, so to speak.)

    When Trump started loading up his cabinet with these ghouls and their associates or rivals it became obvious where it was going. As I said once before, the doctrine that states have no friends but rather interests this was saying the state is run by psychopaths, as that is precisely the mind set of psychopaths, individually or collectively.

    Traits:
    http://www.psych2go.net/10-traits-of-a-psychopath/
    http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html

    also Forbes article
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/#10c4eca52740
    The Disturbing Link Between Psychopathy And Leadership
    [but the percentages seem to be way too low, and the current system tends to weed out non-psychos: wolves like to hang out with other wolves, not with sheep, whom they munch on for snacks]

    Jean-David on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:36 pm UTC
    If Trump understands this, and its implications, I suppose he will resign in frustration. Does anyone think he will have the political and emotional stamina to persevere?
    anon21 on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:45 pm UTC
    If one follows the logic that the globalist cabal touting the female was bent to attack Russia in early 2017, then the Trump election may has interrupted the schedule, but not, evidently, the plan, the war-plan, itself. They never gave up power

    The implication is that the war was scheduled, and still is.

    Repeat. The implication is that the march to war is ongoing and deliberate.

    Ralph on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:52 pm UTC
    Well Saker, I'm going contrarian, which does not necessarily mean 180 degrees. I viewed Flynn's appointment as plus/negative, positive re Russia, negative re Iran. It's still potentially positive re Russia as Tillerson is still in. To write off Trump so early in his Presidency is really not very helpful, considering the monumental task he has of taking on the very corrupt establishment, did you think there would be no blowback? Also, clearly Trump is inexperienced politically and doesn't know all the ins and outs of the political establishment in DC, so has to find his feet.
    A big plus is that we have moved away from warfare and potentially a nuclear holocaust – if anybody thinks that mere radioactive fallout from exploding warheads is survivable hasn't taken into account something which is far more deadly, how about many more nuclear power reactor failures like Fukushima, or worse?

    Another point which has been overlooked is that he got rid of nuland – or at least she couldn't work under him – either way I see that as major (personally) together with the much less hostile if not almost indifference to the Donbass, with kiev in turmoil. It was reported that a US warship won't now visit Odessa – small but unmistakeable changes happening.

    simon wagstaff on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:54 pm UTC
    There is an old saying; "When you're up to your ass in alligators it's easy to forget your original intention was to drain the swamp."

    The single greatest lesson I learned in a decade of trying (and failing) to change national policy is that success is measured in inches, not miles. Bureaucratic inertia is a highly under-rated force in its own right. Real change can only be generational. Unless and until there is a "b" team of keenly aware and circumspect underlings who see the problems and understand the patience required to make incremental change, there will be no meaningful change.

    Success isn't home runs (although most who desire positive change would welcome the odd one). Real success is bases-on-balls, running out infield hits and bloop singles and advancing runners.

    Trump must remember business 101 under-promise and over-deliver. If he wants to keep the tens of millions who voted for him engaged and positive he must deliver on small promises. I am dismayed that so many here see the "beginning of the end" instead of "the end of the beginning".

    Flynn (more than most) knew the rules going in and he blew it. His sins are sins of over-reach and forgetting the basics of protocol. His sacrifice will encourage others to step up. The dream of untangling the web is not dead. Too many millions (arguably billions) demand meaningful, positive change those who have faith understand it will be a slow and sometimes painful process.

    Dear Saker, don't lose your faith

    Talks-to-Cats on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:22 pm UTC
    Real success is bases-on-balls, running out infield hits and bloop singles and advancing runners.

    @Simon Wagstaff -

    Allow me a moment of comedic relief in this tragic drama ?

    This is true as a general principle. But somebody PLEASE get through to Clint Hurdle (Pittsburgh Pirates Manager) that wasting outs by bunting runners from first to second predictably results in them being stranded at third.

    Small advances are potentially valuable, but when you run out of outs to achieve them they were mistakes.

    Marnie on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:03 pm UTC
    if there is any reason to save the Trump presidency, Pence needs to be isolated asap – w/removal of all Republican loyalists within WH including Priebus. More to come re Pence role on how this all unfolded. All politics is smoke and mirrors ie cabinet appointees – watch what we do; not what we say. Tillerson and Sessions esp forced to grovel by R's and Dems –

    One benefit to all this has been public revelation of Dems as partners with the Deep State parties. The true depth of their betrayal to the country is now undeniable as we already knew R's could not be trusted. ie payback coming re Lizzie Warren's vitriol on Sessions. her poll numbers for 2018 election not looking good.

    Cynthia – if those suggested names are viable, keep to yourself so as to avoid public exposure at this point perhaps best messenger may be Ivanka
    – .

    Outlaw Historian on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:05 pm UTC
    The entirety of tRump's foreign policy doesn't revolve around Flynn's status. Has tRump decided to reinstate the TTP and TTIP as "trade" policy goals? Decided to not renegotiate/pull out of NAFTA and other so-called trade pacts? Pull back/reconsolidate the Empire of Bases? Attempt to totally disrupt China's OBOR or Russia's EEU through the use of terrorist proxies as HRC's Neocons planned? Then there's Flynn's illogical hatred of Iran and the complications that posed for reestablishing cordial relations with Russia. And those points are just a few of many.

    IMO, Saker and other commentators have reacted in knee-jerk fashion to Flynn's resignation, for he didn't represent the be-all/end-all of tRump's foreign policy agenda. I'm far more disturbed by many of tRump's cabinet choices plus the fact that they were confirmed despite their lies and criminal actions, which is what's provoked most of the resistance to the current national government–congress especially.

    Dario on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:11 pm UTC
    yes, and there's more Apparently the media makes their bets on VP Mike Pence very similar to what happened in Brazil same method, anyway

    from Politico.com:

    "Pence molds the government in his own image

    Pence and his team bring an entirely different ethos and set of values to the administration."

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/how-does-mike-pence-view-government-234956

    JJ on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:35 pm UTC
    Alexander Mercouris posted article on the Duran believes Trump's nominations cabinet picks will be approved eventually

    [Feb 14, 2017] Deep state is way too strong and Trump rebellion , if such existed, can be squashed with the help of big guns of NYT, Wapo and Bloomberg charged with good old compromat

    Trump has no party behind him. And he is no FDR to hit establishment with the full force of Federal Administration
    Notable quotes:
    "... This not about "how easy to convict Trump". This is about who is the real boss in Washington, DC. ..."
    "... Today's Neocon victory might well as huge event as Trump victory. Now it is Trump defeat. I think it's over for Trump... He did not last long, did he ? From now on he might well be just "yet another puppet". Much like Obama, or Bush II, or Clinton. ..."
    "... Neocons are celebrating. That's for sure. Deep state is way too strong and "Trump rebellion", if such existed, in now squashed with the help of big guns of NYT, Wapo and Bloomberg charged with good old "compromat". ..."
    Feb 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : February 14, 2017 at 06:56 PM

    Margaret Carlson rips Trump not for lying but for covering up Flynn

    My point confirmed!

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/14/flynn-s-the-first-casualty-of-trump-s-unsustainable-disinformation-campaign.html

    "Flynn's the First Casualty of Trump's Unsustainable Disinformation Campaign"

    'In this White House, honesty is not the best policy but one to be considered among other possibilities"

    by Margaret Carlson...02.14.17...2:06 PM ET

    "General Michael Flynn didn't resign Monday night because he lied about his calls with the Russian ambassador and was vulnerable to blackmail. He resigned because the public found out about the lie and keeping him, at long last, became "unsustainable" for the Trump administration.

    Just a few hours earlier, it was sustainable. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said so. The president, she said Monday afternoon, had "full confidence" in Flynn. Another White House official confirmed this to Washington Post reporter Philip Rucker who reported, also on Monday, that Trump, knowing what he knew, wasn't going to decide about Flynn for a few more days.

    What changed? Throw out the old saw it's the cover-up that gets you. The White House ceded Tuesday that it knew about the cover-up for weeks. It's the dribbling out of the details of Flynn's mission to coddle Russia-in keeping with Trump's policy-that presented a clear and present danger that could only be staunched if Flynn were let go.

    But they want us to believe it was about the lying. At his daily briefing Tuesday, Sean Spicer said it was "plain and simple a matter of trust." But in this whole mess, lying is a lesser included offense, one which this White House is particularly unsuited to cast stones at. Honesty is not the best policy there but one to be considered among other possibilities.

    There would have been no resignation if what Flynn said in the taped calls, and White House knowledge of it, hadn't been exposed late Monday in a Washington Post piece. The White House counsel-and likely others in the Administration-had been told by then Acting Attorney General Sally Yates that Flynn had actually made multiple calls, during the transition and going back to the campaign, to the ambassador of a sworn adversary of the United States. Flynn's message to the ambassador was that President Vladimir Putin might want to hold off on retaliating for sanctions imposed by then President Barack Obama for hacking the U.S. elections. It wouldn't be that bad under the new president.

    Yates' information was reportedly weeks late getting to the White House because FBI Director James Comey, who seems to be everywhere these days, asked her to hold off because of his ongoing investigation into contacts between Trump associates and Russia. But after they'd been told, Spicer put out the opposite of what the Justice Department knew to be true: that Flynn had discussed Christmas greetings, among other things, not sanctions in his calls. With that disinformation (Spicer likely didn't know the truth), Comey's request fell by the wayside and Yates, since fired by Trump for not backing him up on his travel ban but perhaps for this, proceeded to inform Trump White House counsel Donald McGahn. (McGhan, Spicer said Tuesday, immediately informed Trump.)

    Whatever Flynn said, we know Putin took his outreach to heart and let the sanctions pass virtually unnoticed. Since the calls, we might ask who has done more to coddle Russia, Flynn or the president. Trump has kept praising Putin to the point of accusing the country he now leads of killing its own people as Putin has done to his internal enemies. The two countries, in Trump's telling, are morally equivalent.

    To the excuses for why Flynn was let go, add "leaks" which Trump blamed in a tweet for all that's wrong in Washington.

    On TV, Trump surrogates including former military officer Carl Higbee, who's been interviewed for a high level White House job, have dressed up the resignation in the usual nothing's-been-proven talk about how Flynn had become a "distraction" and that this is a "rough town for good people." Actually, that's true but not the case here as few people not on Trump's payroll thought Flynn was the right choice.

    The only reason Flynn got appointed to the most sensitive job in the Administration is that he is a crony of Trump who stuck by him during the campaign and who could be trusted to do his bidding without asking too many questions. If National Security Adviser were a post that required Senate confirmation, Republicans, who have acquiesced to about everything else, would have balked. By a margin even wider than those who dare to question the month-old presidency-that is Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake-Flynn wouldn't have made it.

    With Flynn's ouster, the Wall Trump was actually been able to build around himself may crumble. Until now calls for an independent investigation into the Russian hacking have been rejected. Now, that investigation is likely to proceed, along with McCain's effort to codify Russian sanctions. Speaker Paul Ryan may eventually grow a spine. Amid a running joke at his Tuesday press conference wishing wives of the leadership a Happy Valentine's Day, Ryan was pinned down to admitting Flynn was rightly let go. Look for the heat to be turned up on the inquiry into the ties between Russia and Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

    Just maybe there may be less flagrant lying now from this administration. This last weekend, Trump's anointed wunderkind Stephen Miller was sent out on his first Sunday morning talk show appearances. He regurgitated Trump's insistence that there's rampant voter fraud in the country and a costly investigation should ensue. Miller brought up the fact-free claim that hordes of Massachusetts voters drove to New Hampshire to cast illegal ballots in November. Fresh denunciations of that claim came afterwards from former New Hampshire GOP chair Fergus Cullen and from current New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, a scion of the multigeneration Republican loyalists, who said it was false. Don't think Miller was freelancing.

    The only praise for Miller came from Trump himself who lavished him with it. In this White House, lying is not a firing offense.

    Trump is having a hard time in his public effort to replace Spicer and perhaps his chief of staff in an effort to fine one single person with the experience and maturity to mind the store. That looks easy compared to replacing Flynn. Trump has made it clear he won't hire anyone who's criticized him. In filling the open national security adviser position, that leaves almost no one."

    ilsm -> im1dc... , February 14, 2017 at 07:12 PM
    What "public"? Not the one which elected most of the state governments. Maybe the one which pushed Bernie aside for no convictions Clinton.

    How easy to convict Trump and his while HRC was always innocent and picked upon.....

    ilsm -> im1dc... , February 14, 2017 at 07:12 PM
    What "public"? Not the one which elected most of the state governments. Maybe the one which pushed Bernie aside for no convictions Clinton.

    How easy to convict Trump and his while HRC was always innocent and picked upon.....

    libezkova said in reply to ilsm... , February 14, 2017 at 07:37 PM
    "How easy to convict Trump and his while HRC was always innocent and picked upon....."

    This not about "how easy to convict Trump". This is about who is the real boss in Washington, DC.

    Today's Neocon victory might well as huge event as Trump victory. Now it is Trump defeat. I think it's over for Trump... He did not last long, did he ? From now on he might well be just "yet another puppet". Much like Obama, or Bush II, or Clinton.

    There was a dream that with the election of Trump neocons will be booted from Washington, DC by peaceful means via electoral mechanisms or at least their influence will be cut. It was a high time to do this clean up, anyway. They outlived their usefulness long ago (if they were useful ever). This dream now is probably over. Wolfowitz, Perle, Ledeen, Robert Kagan and Co are back.

    For nationalists and "nationally oriented part of US capitalists" now the choice is very difficult.

    libezkova -> im1dc...
    Neocons are celebrating. That's for sure. Deep state is way too strong and "Trump rebellion", if such existed, in now squashed with the help of big guns of NYT, Wapo and Bloomberg charged with good old "compromat".

    After losing Flint Trump is done.

    The problem that Trump is facing is that now he does not have any viable support to counterbalance neocon dominated faction of intelligence services.

    Essentially Trump task was impossible from the very beginning. Most of the Washington DC neocon nests needed to be cleaned. And that is much more difficult than Hercules clean up of the Augean Stables

    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/stables.html
    == quote ==
    For the fifth labor, Eurystheus ordered Hercules to clean up King Augeas' stables.

    Hercules knew this job would mean getting dirty and smelly, but sometimes even a hero has to do these things. Then Eurystheus made Hercules' task even harder: he had to clean up after the cattle of Augeas in a single day.

    Now King Augeas owned more cattle than anyone in Greece. Some say that he was a son of one of the great gods, and others that he was a son of a mortal; whosever son he was, Augeas was very rich, and he had many herds of cows, bulls, goats, sheep and horses.
    ... ... ...

    [Feb 14, 2017] Ancient Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Flynn's sin was inferring to the Russian ambassador that senselessly pushing Russia into a corner for Vicky Nuland might end. ..."
    Feb 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    There's that notorious ancient Chinese curse: 'May you live in interesting times!'

    Sadly, according to Wikipedia:

    Despite being widely attributed as a Chinese curse, there is no equivalent expression in Chinese. The nearest related Chinese expression is "寧為太平犬,莫做亂離人" (nμng wιi tΰipνng quǎn, mς zuς luΰn lν rιn), which is usually translated as "Better to be a dog in a peaceful time, than to be a human in a chaotic (warring) period."

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 14, 2017 at 07:00 PM
    It s reputed the Chinese kangji for crisis is: two words 'opportunity and danger'.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc... , February 14, 2017 at 04:41 PM
    "May you live in interesting times" is an English expression purporting to be a translation of a traditional Chinese curse. Despite being so common in English as to be known as "the Chinese curse", the saying is apocryphal and no actual Chinese source has ever been produced. ...

    Evidence that the phrase was in use as early as 1936 is provided in a memoir written by Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen, the British Ambassador to China in 1936 and 1937, and published in 1949. He mentions that before he left England for China in 1936 a friend told him of a Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times". ...

    http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/May_you_live_in_interesting_times

    (I'm sure all remember Sir
    Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen.)

    ilsm -> im1dc... , February 14, 2017 at 07:06 PM
    There is a lot of pity party nitpicking going on.

    When Trump gets the peace prize and talks about starting wars to stop unjust peace and nation build with no success.....

    Flynn's sin was inferring to the Russian ambassador that senselessly pushing Russia into a corner for Vicky Nuland might end.

    Why the Russians are doing the new GLCMs is perfectly reasonable from their perspective. It is called looking out for your country, which US is doing with blood all over but US is the exceptional shining city on the hill.

    And if Trump is a war criminal W. and Obama better look out for the Haig coming after them.

    [Feb 12, 2017] Trump is now assigned to be as designated scapegoat for all blunders of three previous neoliberal administrations by three Deep State wholly-owned subsidiaries: Bloomberg, NYT and Wapo

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bloomberg, like WaPo and NYT, is "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State" ..."
    "... Thank God they stopped their Putin-did-it nonsense. Now they have found something new along the lines Trump-did-it. Both those attempts to control the narrative are false and dishonest. ..."
    "... I understand that Trump is now assigned to be as designated scapegoat for all blunders of three previous neoliberal administrations. ..."
    Feb 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : February 12, 2017 at 07:44 PM

    The Tax stuff is maybe, this is happening now

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-12/america-s-biggest-creditors-dump-treasuries-in-warning-to-trump

    "America's Biggest Creditors Dump Treasuries in Warning to Trump"

    by Brian Chappatta...February 12, 2017...5:00 PM EST

    > Japanese investors cull U.S. government debt by most since '13

    > Currency-hedged returns were worst on record last quarter

    "In the age of Trump, America's biggest foreign creditors are suddenly having second thoughts about financing the U.S. government.

    In Japan, the largest holder of Treasuries, investors culled their stakes in December by the most in almost four years, the Ministry of Finance's most recent figures show. What's striking is the selling has persisted at a time when going abroad has rarely been so attractive. And it's not just the Japanese. Across the world, foreigners are pulling back from U.S. debt like never before.

    From Tokyo to Beijing and London, the consensus is clear: few overseas investors want to step into the $13.9 trillion U.S. Treasury market right now. Whether it's the prospect of bigger deficits and more inflation under President Donald Trump or higher interest rates from the Federal Reserve, the world's safest debt market seems less of a sure thing -- particularly after the upswing in yields since November. And then there is Trump's penchant for saber rattling, which has made staying home that much easier.

    "It may be more difficult than usual for Japanese to invest in Treasuries and the dollar this year because of political uncertainty," said Kenta Inoue, chief strategist for overseas bond investments at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities in Tokyo. "Treasury yields may rise rapidly again in the near future, which will continue to discourage them from buying aggressively."

    Nobody is saying that foreigners will abandon Treasuries altogether. After all, they still hold $5.94 trillion, or roughly 43 percent of the U.S. government debt market. (Though that's down from 56 percent in 2008.) A significant drawdown can harm major holders like Japan and China as much as it does the U.S.

    And, of course, homegrown demand has of late been able to absorb the pickup in overseas selling..."

    libezkova -> im1dc...
    im1dc,

    Here is the link https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2017-02-12/america-s-biggest-creditors-dump-treasuries-in-warning-to-trump )

    Bloomberg, like WaPo and NYT, is "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State"

    Thank God they stopped their Putin-did-it nonsense. Now they have found something new along the lines Trump-did-it. Both those attempts to control the narrative are false and dishonest.

    I understand that Trump is now assigned to be as designated scapegoat for all blunders of three previous neoliberal administrations.

    But can you please ask yourself two very simple questions:

    1. Who and how accumulated that much debt?
    2. Who did run the wars of neoliberal empire expansion to the tune of five trillion dollars?

    Was it Trump?

    I would greatly appreciated if you can answer them in the reply to this post. Or, even better, make some pause in posting neoliberal propaganda.

    [Feb 12, 2017] America Versus the Deep State by James Howard Kunstler

    Notable quotes:
    "... Support James Howard Kunstler blog by visiting Jim's Patreon Page -- ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds ..."
    "... Did the Russians make Hillary Clinton look bad? Or did Hillary Clinton manage to do that herself? The NSA propaganda was designed as a smokescreen to conceal the veracity of the Wikileaks releases. Whoever actually rooted out the DNC and Podesta emails for Wikileaks ought to get the Pulitizer Prize for the outstanding public service of disclosing exactly how dishonest the Hillary operation was. ..."
    "... The story may have climaxed with Trump's Friday NSA briefing, the heads of the various top intel agencies all assembled in one room to emphasize the solemn authority of the Deep State's power. ..."
    "... This hulking security apparatus has become a menace to the Republic. ..."
    "... Whether Trump himself is a menace to the Republic remains to be seen. Certainly he is the designated bag-holder for all the economic and financial depravity of several preceding administrations. When the markets blow, do you suppose the Russians will be blamed for that? Did Boris Yeltsin repeal the Glass-Steagall Act? Was Ben Bernanke a puppet of Putin? No, these actions and actors were homegrown American. For more than thirty years, we've been borrowing too much money so we can pretend to afford living in a blue-light-special demolition derby. And now we can't do that anymore. The physics of capital will finally assert itself. ..."
    "... perhaps it's a good thing that the American people for the moment cannot tell exactly what the fuck is going on in this country, because from that dismal place there is nowhere to go but in the direction of clarity. ..."
    Feb 12, 2017 | kunstler.com

    Support James Howard Kunstler blog by visiting Jim's Patreon Page --

    The bamboozlement of the public is nearly complete. The Deep State has persuaded 80 percent of Americans that all news is propaganda, especially the news emanating from the Deep State's own intel department. They're still shooting for 100 percent. The fakest of all "fake news" stories turns out to be "Russia Hacks Election." It was reported conclusively Saturday on the front page of The New York Times , a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State:

    Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds

    WASHINGTON - President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation's top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.

    You can be sure that this is now the "official" narrative aimed at the history books, sealing the illegitimacy of Trump's election. It was served up with no direct proof, only the repeated "assertions" that it was so. In fact, it's just this repetition of assertions-without-proof that defines propaganda. It can also be interpreted as a declaration of war against an incoming president. The second civil war now takes shape: It begins inside the groaning overgrown apparatus of the government itself. Perhaps after that it spreads to the WalMart parking lots that have become America's new town square. (WalMart sells pitchforks and patio torches.)

    Did the Russians make Hillary Clinton look bad? Or did Hillary Clinton manage to do that herself? The NSA propaganda was designed as a smokescreen to conceal the veracity of the Wikileaks releases. Whoever actually rooted out the DNC and Podesta emails for Wikileaks ought to get the Pulitizer Prize for the outstanding public service of disclosing exactly how dishonest the Hillary operation was.

    The story may have climaxed with Trump's Friday NSA briefing, the heads of the various top intel agencies all assembled in one room to emphasize the solemn authority of the Deep State's power. Trump worked a nice piece of ju-jitsu afterward, pretending to accept the finding as briefly and hollowly as possible and promising to "look into the matter" after January 20 th - when he can tear a new asshole in the NSA. I hope he does. This hulking security apparatus has become a menace to the Republic.

    Whether Trump himself is a menace to the Republic remains to be seen. Certainly he is the designated bag-holder for all the economic and financial depravity of several preceding administrations. When the markets blow, do you suppose the Russians will be blamed for that? Did Boris Yeltsin repeal the Glass-Steagall Act? Was Ben Bernanke a puppet of Putin? No, these actions and actors were homegrown American. For more than thirty years, we've been borrowing too much money so we can pretend to afford living in a blue-light-special demolition derby. And now we can't do that anymore. The physics of capital will finally assert itself.

    What we're actually seeing in the current ceremonial between the incoming Trump and the outgoing Obama is the smoldering wreckage of the Democratic Party (which I'm still unhappily enrolled in), and flames spreading into the Republican party - as idiots such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain beat their war drums against Russia. The suave Mr. Obama is exiting the scene on a low wave of hysteria and the oafish Trump rolls in on the cloudscape above, tweeting his tweets from on high, and perhaps it's a good thing that the American people for the moment cannot tell exactly what the fuck is going on in this country, because from that dismal place there is nowhere to go but in the direction of clarity.

    ... ... ...

    [Feb 12, 2017] An Alleged Muslim Spy Ring - Is This Why Rex Tillerson Cleaned House

    Feb 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    kavlar , Feb 11, 2017 10:27 PM

    What about this SPY RING?

    "I want Netanyahu to begin telling the truth, what the involvement of Israel was in 9/11. Over 134 Mossad operatives were picked up on 9/11. The FBI picked them up [and] debriefed them." - Dr. Steve Pieczenik, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.

    nmewn -> Arnold , Feb 12, 2017 6:00 AM

    As I understand it, these "IT experts" also worked on Debbie Wassername-Schultz's computers. Oh no nmewn, what the hell can you possibly be thinking?! Clearly, beyond any shadow of a doubt... The Russians did it! ;-)

    nmewn -> Arnold , Feb 12, 2017 7:00 AM

    They are definitely trying to quash this one as it goes against most (if not all) false narratives they've created for public consumption.

  • False Narrative: Hillary was the more competent candidate! - No, she purposely setup & ran an unsecured personal network and used it for government business.
  • False Narrative: The Russians hacked the DNC! - No, according to the dims own sources a phishing email was clicked on that could have been sent by anyone.
  • ... ... ...

    WeekendAtBernankes -> ThanksChump , Feb 12, 2017 10:42 AM

    Oldest brother had two years of experience getting paid 157k/yr. Median salary for IT Admin in Congress: 50k. He was highest paid person of all his (Democrat) Rep's staffers, including her Chief of Staff. The question is how and why? Were they all employed as a political favor in return for a large donation from anyone in particular? This should be investigated further.

    http://congressional-staff.insidegov.com/l/43573/Jamal-M-Awan

    Mementoil -> kavlar , Feb 12, 2017 7:07 AM

    So... an Islamic spy ring is allegedly acting at the highest echelons of the federal government, and "American" commentators on ZH are hammering about Israel??? I'm calling bluff on you guys.

    You are not American patriots, and you don't belong to the right.

    You are a bunch of paid shills, working to white wash Islamic Jihad and obfuscate the ongoing war which Islam is waging against the west:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/132010/arab-nations-hire-10-new-pr-agenc...

    Fathead Slim -> Mementoil , Feb 12, 2017 8:07 AM

    Oy vey, Avi. You came out and blew your cover after only 9 weeks? That was really dumb of you.

    Mementoil -> Fathead Slim , Feb 12, 2017 11:03 AM

    I don't have any "cover". I have already announced openly that I'm an Israeli. So what? I still seem to care about American interests more than most people in this forum.

    Kayman -> finametrics , Feb 12, 2017 10:59 AM

    Today's Israel exists on a foundation of Western guilt about German's murdering Jews in WWII.

    As time has passed Israel has become what the Germans were. And for the most part, they are blind to that fact.

    groaner -> kavlar , Feb 12, 2017 10:04 AM

    I think a lot of stuff on 9/11 towers is misdirection.. This is the best examination of the evidence that disproves and eliminates a lot of what we think we know!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg&t=82s

    [Feb 12, 2017] US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016 are close to five trillioins

    Feb 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ken melvin : , February 10, 2017 at 07:43 AM

    The FBI overheard The over reaction to 9/11, greatly abetted by the media, marked the beginning of this slide into Stasi-land. The associated paranoia has led to the likes of Trump and this goofy arsed Congress. We now have governance based not on reality, but on paranoia; on evidence free facts, on convenient facts, on alternative facts, to each of us our own facts. I've seen no accounting of the economic and social costs of this paranoia, but am certain they exceed the damage of 9/11 by orders of many magnitude.

    Are these symptoms of America's undeniable demise? How do we turn the ship of state around? This precedent set by the election of Trump, how does the nation remove the stain? Can we avoid the continuance into despotism, authoritarianism?

    anne -> anne... , February 10, 2017 at 08:29 AM
    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....

    ilsm -> anne... , February 10, 2017 at 04:52 PM
    The pentagon and congress are spending the US to disarmament.

    While congress spent $4.8T directly on the wars they spent at least $9T more on the usual stuff for the military industry complex troughers.

    pk's observation about a shoot out with a small PLA Navy unit made me laugh.

    In one of those China would be in complete control!

    anne -> anne... , February 10, 2017 at 08:39 AM
    America has been continually at war since 2001, at war under 2 presidents, at war in a range of countries that were in no way connected to the attack on America and did not threaten America. Tensions were building even with Russia and China. We have now the possibility of ending our warring or working to mutual advantage with China and Russia, which will be to the advantage of many countries.

    China and America have just moved to the forming of a new mutually beneficial partnership. I find reason to be hopeful.

    [Feb 12, 2017] Instead of the endless perception management or strategic communication or psychological operations or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point moments and share the facts with the citizens

    Notable quotes:
    "... This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries. ..."
    "... But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken. ..."
    "... There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures. ..."
    "... But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia. ..."
    "... Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance. ..."
    "... The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." ..."
    "... What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor. ..."
    "... My first concern, however, is the USA predilection for 'regime change" wars - and for that I blame the neocons. ..."
    Feb 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC : February 10, 2017 at 06:44 AM

    If you wanted to bring sanity to a U.S. foreign policy that has spun crazily out of control, there would be some immediate steps that you – or, say, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – could take, starting with a renewed commitment to tell the truth to the American people.

    Instead of the endless "perception management" or "strategic communication" or "psychological operations" or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point moments and share the facts with the citizens – the "We the People" – who are supposed to be America's true sovereigns.

    For instance, you could release what the U.S. government actually knows about the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria; what the files show about the origins of the Feb. 22, 2014 coup in Ukraine; what U.S. intelligence analysts have compiled about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine. And those are just three examples of cases where U.S. government propagandists have sold a dubious bill of goods to the American and world publics in the "information warfare" campaign against the Syrian and Russian governments.

    If you wanted to base U.S. foreign policy on the firm foundation of reality, you also could let the American people in on who is actually the principal sponsor of the terrorism that they're concerned about: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban – all Sunni-led outfits, none of which are backed by Shiite-ruled Iran. Yet, all we hear from Official Washington's political and media insiders is that Iran is the chief sponsor of terrorism.

    Of course, that is what Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Israel want you to believe because it serves their regional and sectarian interests, but it isn't true. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are the ones arming and financing Al Qaeda and Islamic State with Israel occasionally bombing Al Qaeda's military enemies inside Syria and providing medical support for Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate operating near the Golan Heights.

    The reason for this unsavory network of alliances is that Israel, like Saudi Arabia and the Sunni-led Gulf states, sees Iran and the so-called "Shiite crescent" – from Tehran through Damascus to Beirut – as their principal problem. And because of the oil sheiks' financial wealth and Israel's political clout, they control how pretty much everyone in Official Washington's establishment views the Middle East.

    But the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are not in line with the interests of the American people – nor the average European – who are not concerned about militant Shiites as much as militant Sunnis. After all, the worst terror attacks on Europe and the U.S. have come from Sunni extremists belonging to or inspired by Al Qaeda and Islamic State.

    This gap between the reality of Sunni-extremist terrorism and the fantasy of Official Washington's "group think" fingering Shiite-ruled Iran explains the cognitive dissonance over President Trump's travel ban on people from seven mostly Muslim countries. Beyond the offensive anti-Muslim prejudice, there is the fact that he ignored the countries that produced the terrorists who have attacked the U.S., including the 9/11 hijackers.

    This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries.

    But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken.

    There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures.

    But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia.

    Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance.

    The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

    In other words, if one neocon is given a key job, other neocons can be expected to follow. Then, any Trump deviation from neocon orthodoxy would be undermined in the classic Washington tradition of strategic leaking to powerful media and congressional allies.

    So far, the Trump inner circle has shown the administrative savvy to avoid bringing in ideologues who would dedicate their efforts to thwarting any significant change in U.S. geopolitical directions.

    What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/09/trumps-foreign-policy-at-a-crossroads/

    Julio -> RGC... , February 10, 2017 at 09:04 AM
    Very good analysis.
    The first and obvious question about the ban is "why isn't Saudi Arabia included"? As the article shows, this question unravels this (Trump's) current version of dysfunctional foreign policy based on misleading the public.
    RGC -> Julio ... , February 10, 2017 at 09:43 AM
    Yes, Trump seems to want to act directly but he also seems to often be off-target.

    My first concern, however, is the USA predilection for 'regime change" wars - and for that I blame the neocons.

    sanjait said in reply to RGC... , February 10, 2017 at 10:56 AM
    I am all for transparency but very strongly opposed to asinine conspiracy theories.
    RGC -> sanjait... , February 10, 2017 at 11:29 AM
    Why should anyone care? Maybe you should actually learn something about a topic before you comment on it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American

    [Feb 10, 2017] General Nicholson the commander of the American-led international military force in Afghanistan wants a few thousand more troops

    Notable quotes:
    "... Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending. ..."
    "... As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.... ..."
    Feb 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : , February 09, 2017 at 10:52 AM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/us-afghanistan-troops.html

    February 9, 2017

    U.S. General Seeks More Troops in Afghanistan
    By MICHAEL R. GORDON

    Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., the commander of the American-led international military force in Afghanistan, said "a few thousand" more troops were needed.

    anne -> anne... , February 09, 2017 at 11:00 AM
    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....

    [Feb 08, 2017] The stunning collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989-91 has often been heralded in the West as a triumph of capitalism and democracy, as though this eventwere obviously a direct result of the policies of the Reagan and Thatcher governments. This self-congratulatory analysis has little relation to measurable facts, circumstances, and internal political dynamics that were the real historical causes of the deterioration of the Soviet empire and ultimately the Soviet state itself

    Notable quotes:
    "... Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it would never emerge. Increasingly, the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide hard currency financing through massive loans, while the U.S. became a major supplier of grain.[1] Despite moments of anti-Communist grandstanding, the Americans and Western Europeans maintained trade relations with the cash-strapped Soviet Union, which dipped into its Stalin-era gold reserves to increase availability of consumer goods . ..."
    "... Soviet living standards remained poor by Western standards. By 1980, only 9 percent of Soviets had automobiles, which was actually a vast improvement under Brezhnev. Very little was computerized, due to state paranoia about the use of telecommunications for counterrevolutionary purposes. The USSR was able to endure this technological lag because its closed economy protected it from competition, but its ability to maintain military superiority increasingly depended on the ability to keep pace with Western modernization. ..."
    "... It did not need a foreign enemy to "defeat" it, for it was deteriorating from within. ..."
    "... In the Great Game of "chicken," in which we all are mostly passengers in the speeding cars with loony drivers ya-hooing out the windows, I recall the Soviets were the ones to veer off from that head-on collision that might have ended it all earlier than it seems increasingly likely to end anyway. And Russian leadership seems more concerned about the survival of the nation than our own clown-car leadership. ..."
    "... And patently the military-security monkey that's riding our backs is doing a p!ss-poor job of "defending us" in any ordinary sense of the term, and not even a vary good job of playing Imperial Forces. Though of course the net effects of military and political chaos-building and destabilization do blast out a nice open-pit mine for corporate looters to get at the extractables.. ..."
    Feb 08, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    February 7, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    An over extended Soviet Empire collapsed in no small part due to its obsession with winning a war, albeit one that thankfully remained 'cold', that it never could.

    A corrupt, nepotistic distant, paranoid elite that instead of dividing its efforts into looking after its own society's well-being, as well a apparently just defending it, opted for near as dammed bankrupting itself attempting to feed an insatiable military machine it could ill afford (and would mostly never use) at its increasingly disaffected, divided, restive people's expense.

    Mind you, they were just dumb Commies.

    JTMcPhee, February 7, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    First, did the Soviet state "bankrupt itself damm near" mostly by trying to feed an "insatiable military machine," or did the wealth of the Soviets get dissipated into other ratholes as well, alongside various external pressures and effects? And what scale applied to each political-decision "allocation"? One view, among a flood of intersecting and competing interpretations, of course:

    The stunning collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989-91 has often been heralded in the West as a triumph of capitalism and democracy, as though this event were obviously a direct result of the policies of the Reagan and Thatcher governments. This self-congratulatory analysis has little relation to measurable facts, circumstances, and internal political dynamics that were the real historical causes of the deterioration of the Soviet empire and ultimately the Soviet state itself. Fiery political speeches and tough diplomatic postures make good theater, but they are ineffective at forcing political transformation in totalitarian nations, as is proven by the persistence of far less powerful Communist regimes in Cuba and east Asia in the face of punishing trade embargos. The key to understanding the reasons for the demise of the Soviet Union is to be found not in the speeches or policies of Western politicians, but in internal Soviet history.

    1. Stagnation in the 1970s

    The Soviet Union was already in decline as a world power well before 1980. Any illusions of global Communist hegemony had evaporated with the collapse of Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s. As the Nixon administration improved American relations with an increasingly independent China, the Soviets saw a strategic need to scale down the nuclear arms race, which placed enormous strains on its faltering economy. The threat of a nuclear confrontation was reduced considerably by the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) and strategic arms limitation treaties (SALT) contracted with the Nixon administration in 1972. This dιtente, or easing of tensions, allowed Leonid Brezhnev to focus on domestic economic and social development, while boosting his political popularity.

    Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it would never emerge. Increasingly, the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide hard currency financing through massive loans, while the U.S. became a major supplier of grain.[1] Despite moments of anti-Communist grandstanding, the Americans and Western Europeans maintained trade relations with the cash-strapped Soviet Union, which dipped into its Stalin-era gold reserves to increase availability of consumer goods .

    Foreign trade and mild economic reforms were not enough to overcome the inefficiencies of the Soviet command economy, which remained technologically backward and full of corruption. Economic planners were frequently unable to diagnose and remedy problems, since they were given false reports by officials who only pretended to be productive.

    Soviet living standards remained poor by Western standards. By 1980, only 9 percent of Soviets had automobiles, which was actually a vast improvement under Brezhnev. Very little was computerized, due to state paranoia about the use of telecommunications for counterrevolutionary purposes. The USSR was able to endure this technological lag because its closed economy protected it from competition, but its ability to maintain military superiority increasingly depended on the ability to keep pace with Western modernization.

    In his radio broadcasts during the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan complained that the capitalist nations propped up the intrinsically flawed Soviet regime, instead of allowing it to naturally collapse from its own inefficiency and inhumanity.[2] In contrast to his later hagiographers, Reagan did not envision defeating the Soviet Union by forceful action, but instead he perceived that the regime would collapse from its own failings once the West removed its financial life support system. It is this early Reagan, far more thoughtful than he is generally credited, who proved to be most astute in diagnosing the state of the USSR. It did not need a foreign enemy to "defeat" it, for it was deteriorating from within.
    http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/soviet.htm

    And I recall the Soviet military leadership was largely (no, not exclusively of course, humans being what they are) reacting to the clear and present danger that "the West" presented. Among many other considerations, of course. In the Great Game of "chicken," in which we all are mostly passengers in the speeding cars with loony drivers ya-hooing out the windows, I recall the Soviets were the ones to veer off from that head-on collision that might have ended it all earlier than it seems increasingly likely to end anyway. And Russian leadership seems more concerned about the survival of the nation than our own clown-car leadership.

    Seems to me that all of us ordinary people, many of whom would gladly take advantage of opportunities to do some looting themselves, to "get ahead" in the "rat race," if only those opportunities were presented, have insufficient collective concern about the many systems, living and political-economy, that apparently are collapsing or running out of control. And patently the military-security monkey that's riding our backs is doing a p!ss-poor job of "defending us" in any ordinary sense of the term, and not even a vary good job of playing Imperial Forces. Though of course the net effects of military and political chaos-building and destabilization do blast out a nice open-pit mine for corporate looters to get at the extractables..

    But yeah, the halls of history are full of echoes and shadows and reflections in a glass darkly And I wonder if London bookies are running a line on when history, as recorded and debated and acted out by humans, will REALLY end, thanks to our wonderful unbridled inventiveness and lack of that genetic predisposition to survive as a species that ants and termites and rats and cats and other "lesser creatures" seem to have

    Anon , February 7, 2017 at 12:50 pm

    Commies? That last paragraph sounds like post-WWII history in the US.

    Gman , February 7, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    ;-)

    [Feb 07, 2017] How the CIA made Google

    Feb 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Pinto Currency -> J S Bach , Feb 6, 2017 10:47 PM

    How the CIA made Google

    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a...

    918pigpen -> buckstopshere , Feb 6, 2017 10:42 PM

    People ask me why I refused to use google many years ago.

    THIS!!!

    Yars Revenge , Feb 6, 2017 10:39 PM

    (((GOOGLE)))

    rlouis , Feb 6, 2017 10:45 PM

    So, the alphabet company, aka CIA is funding this?

    wisefool , Feb 6, 2017 10:45 PM

    Who would have think some kids working on bublesort 2.0 (1980s era search engine tech) could have bootstrapped themselves to the biggest brand in the world. Until facebook came along.

    They did not get a 1 million dollar loan from their dad like donald trump did. They might have got some money from big brother. But we don't talk about that in polite company.

    Neochrome , Feb 6, 2017 10:48 PM

    If you're a thief, it's your "duty" to break the law.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/google-tax-dodge_n_2292077.html

    Google's chairman says he is "proud" of the way his company avoids paying taxes.

    "It's called capitalism," Eric Schmidt told Bloomberg in a Wednesday article. "We are proudly capitalistic. I'm not confused about this."

    Google's effective U.S. tax rate is unclear. Citizens for Tax Justice did not analyze Google in a 2011 study because Google reports most of its profits as foreign, even though that may not be true.

    [Feb 04, 2017] A color revolution is under way in the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. ..."
    "... US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk. ..."
    "... In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing. ..."
    "... Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that). ..."
    "... But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently. ..."
    "... By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President. ..."
    "... pussyhat revolution ..."
    "... pussyhat revolution ..."
    "... Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example: ..."
    "... Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children". ..."
    "... Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable ..."
    "... My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump. ..."
    "... One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast. ..."
    "... The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective. ..."
    "... 9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia). ..."
    "... First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success. ..."
    "... Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program". ..."
    "... Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic? ..."
    "... Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof. ..."
    "... will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ..."
    Feb 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    A Russian joke goes like this: " Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. "

    Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the USA right now.

    Politico seems to feel the same way. See their recent cover :

    While I did predict that " The USA is about to face the worst crisis of its history " as far back as October of last year, a month before the elections, I have to admit that I am surprised and amazed at the magnitude of the struggle which we see taking place before our eyes. It is now clear that the Neocons did declare war on Trump and some, like Paul Craig Roberts, believe that Trump has now returned them the favor . I sure hope that he is right.

    Let's look at one telling example:

    US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk.

    According to Wikipedia, General Flynn is the former

    Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Chair of the Military Intelligence Board Assistant Director of National Intelligence Senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command.

    He is also Trump's National Security Advisor. In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing.

    Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that).

    That roughly means that the top 500 members of the Soviet state could not be investigated by the KGB at all. Furthermore, such was the subordination of the KGB to the Party that for common criminal matters the KGB was barred from investigating any member of the entire Soviet Nomenklatura , roughly 3 million people (and even bigger mistake!).

    But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently.

    By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin.

    Which, come to think of it, they might well do it soon

    This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.

    In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the " pussyhat revolution " as explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists, you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the "subtle" hint about their " pussyhat revolution " is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image on the right shows.

    This would all be rather funny, in a nauseating way I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that the media, Congress and Hollywood are fully behind this "100 days of Resistance to Trump" which began by a, quote, "queer dance party" at Mike Pence's house.

    This would be rather hilarious, if it was not for all gravitas with which the corporate media is treating these otherwise rather pathetic "protests".

    Watch how MCNBS's talking head blissfully reporting this event:

    Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will "celebrate the fact that Obama is still the President of the United States" and the presstitute replies to him, "yes he is" not once, but twice.

    What are they talking about?! The fact that Obama is still the President?!

    How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for rebellion and sedition ?

    So far, the protests have not been too large, but they did occur in various US cities and they were well covered by the media:

    Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example:

    Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children".

    Want even more proof?

    Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable. From this nauseating collection, I will select just two:

    The first one clearly accuses Trump of being in the hands of Putin. The second one make Trump the heir to Adolf Hitler and strongly suggests that Trump might want to restart Auschwitz. Translated into plain English this sends a double message: Trump is not the legitimate President of the USA and Trump is the ultimate Evil.

    This goes far beyond the kind of satire previous Presidents have ever been subjected to.

    My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump.

    One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.

    The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective.

    The bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.

    Can he do that?

    Until now I have suggested several times that Trump deal with the US Neocons the way Putin dealt with the oligarchs in Russia: get them on charges of tax evasion, corruption, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, etc. All that good stuff which the US deep state has been doing for years. The Pentagon and the Three Letter Agencies are probably the most corrupt entities on the planet and since they have never been challenged, never mind punished, for their corruption, they must have become fantastically complacent about how they were doing things, essentially counting on the White House to bail them out in case of problems. The main weapons used by these circles are the numerous secrecy laws which protect them from public and Congressional scrutiny. But here Trump can use his most powerful card: General Flynn who, as former director of the DIA and current National Security Advisor to the President will have total access. And if he doesn't – he can create it, if needed by sending special forces to ensure "collaboration".

    However, I am now beginning to think that this might not be enough. Trump has a much more powerful weapon he can unleash against the Neocon: 9/11.

    Whether Trump knew about it before or not, he is now advised by people like Flynn who must have known for years that 9/11 was in inside job. And if the actual number of people directly implicated in the 9/11 operation itself was relatively small, the number of people which put their full moral and political credibility behind the 9/11 official narrative is immense. Let me put it this way: while 9/11 was a US "deep state" operation (probably subcontracted for execution to the Israelis), the entire Washington "swamp" has been since "9/11 accomplice after the fact" by helping to maintain the cover-up. If this is brought into light, then thousands of political careers are going to crash and burn into the scandal.

    9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia).

    I fully understand that danger of what I am suggesting as any use of the "9/11 weapon" will, of course, result in an immense counter-attack by the Neocons and the deep state. But here is the deal: the latter are already dead set in impeaching, overthrowing or murdering Donald Trump. And, as Putin once said in an interview, "if you know that a fight is inevitable, then strike first!".

    You think that all is this over the top? Consider what is at stake.

    1. First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success.
    2. Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program".
    3. Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic?
    4. Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof.

    There is much more at stake here than just petty US politics.

    Every time I think of Trump and every time I look at the news I always come back to the same anguished thought: will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ?

    I don't know.

    I have a great deal of hopes for General Flynn. I am confident that he understands the picture perfectly and knows exactly what is going on. But I am not sure that he has enough pull with the rest of the armed forces to keep them on the right side should a crisis happen. Generally, "regular" military types don't like intelligence people. My hope is that Flynn has loyal allies at SOCOM and JSOC as, at the end of the day, they will have the last say as to who occupies the White House. The good news here is that unlike regular military types, special forces and intelligence people are usually very close and used to work together (regular military types also dislike special forces). SOCOM and JSOC will also know how to make sure that the CIA doesn't go rogue.

    Last but not least, my biggest hope is that Trump will use the same weapon Putin used against the Russian elites: the support of the people. But for that task, Twitter is simply not good enough. Trump needs to go the "RT route" and open his own TV channel. Of course, this will be very hard and time consuming, and he might have to begin with an Internet-based only channel, but as long as there is enough money there, he can make it happen. And, just like RT, it needs to be multi-national, politically diverse (including anti-Empire figures who do not support Trump) and include celebrities.

    One of the many mistakes made by Yanukovich in the Ukraine was that he did not dare to fully use the legal instruments of power to stop the neo-Nazis. And to the degree that he used them, it was a disaster (like when the riot cops beat up student demonstrators). After listening to a few interviews of Yanukovich and of people near him during those crucial hours, it appears that Yanukovich simply did not feel that he had a moral right to use violence to suppress the street. We will never now if what truly held him back are moral principles of basic cowardice, but what is certain is that he betrayed his people and his country when he refused to defend real democracy and let the "street" take over replacing democracy with ochlocracy (mob rule). Of course, real ochlocracy does not exists, all mobs are always controlled by behind-the-scenes forces who unleash them just long enough to achieve their goals.

    The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.

    I am not a US citizen (I could, but I refuse that citizenship on principle because I refuse to take the required oath of allegiance) and the only loyalty I owe the USA is the one of a guest: never to deliberately harm it in any way and to obey its laws. And yet it turns my stomach to see how easy it has been to turn millions of Americans against their own country. I write a lot about russophobia on this blog, but I also see a deep-seated "Americanophobia" or "USophobia" in the words and actions who today say that Trump is not their President. To them, they micro-identity as a "liberal" or as a "gay" or as "African-American" means more than the very basic fundamental principles upon which this country has been built. When I see these crowds of Trump-bashers I see pure, seething hatred not of the AngloZionist Empire, or of a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, but a hatred of what I would call the "simple America" or the "daily America" – the simple people amongst whom I have now lived for many years and learned to respect and appreciate and whom the Clinton-bots only think of as "deplorables

    It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word " быдло ", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again in 2017.

    [Feb 04, 2017] The Washington Post Has Declared War On Peacemakers; Dennis Kucinich Rages Against The Military-Industrial-Complex

    Feb 04, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Feb 4, 2017 11:53 AM Via Dennis Kucinich's Facebook page... I have dedicated my life to peace. As a member of Congress I led efforts to avert conflict and end wars in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iran. And yet those of us who work for peace are put under false scrutiny to protect Washington's war machine. Those who undermine our national security by promoting military attacks and destroying other nations are held up as national leaders to admire. Recently Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and I took a Congressional Ethics-approved fact finding trip to Lebanon and Syria, where we visited Aleppo and refugee camps, and met with religious leaders, governmental leaders and people from all sides of the conflict, including political opposition to the Syrian government. Since that time we have been under constant attack on false grounds. The media and the war establishment are desperate to keep hold of their false narrative for world-wide war, interventionism and regime change, which is a profitable business for Washington insiders and which impoverishes our own country. Today, Rep. Gabbard came under attack yet again by the Washington Post's Josh Rogin who has been on a tear trying to ruin the reputations of the people and the organization who sponsored our humanitarian, fact-finding mission of peace to the Middle East. Rogin just claimed in a tweet that as community organization I have been associated with for twenty years does not exist. The organization is in my neighborhood. Here's photos I took yesterday of AACCESS-Ohio's marquee. It clearly exists, despite the base, condescending assertions of Mr. Rogin. Enough of this dangerous pettiness. Let's dig in to what is really going on, inside Syria, in the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon. These leaders of the Christian faith in Aleppo begged for the US to stop funding terrorists in #Syria. They expressed that before international interventions (covert and overt) Syrians lived in peace without concern as to whether they were Christian, Muslim or Jew. In the words of President Eisenhower, let's beware (and scrutinize) the military-industrial-complex. It is time to be vigilant for our democracy.

    Uzda Farce -> Liberal , Feb 4, 2017 4:16 PM

    Janet Yellen, like every other Fed chairman since WW2, is a member of the Rockefeller/CFR. See member lists at cfr dot org.

    John McCain, David Petraeus, Joe Lieberman and Lynn Forester de Rothschild are also CFR members. All of them are trustees at the McCain Institute at U. of Arizona. Does that help?

    https://www.mccaininstitute.org/staff/?filter=board-of-trustees

    Wulfkind -> Looney , Feb 4, 2017 12:12 PM

    Rage all you want peaceniks.

    War is a money making machine. And what makes money....has to abide no matter what.

    So says the banksters.

    And no one is going to corral the banksters because this high tech, utopian just in time Amazon, robot A.I assisted casheless society all comes crumbling down.

    So.....bones will be crushed, blood will be shed because somewhere someone has some natural resource the Elties need to feed the machinery of modern life.

    And the Spice Must Flow at all costs. Including human lives if need be.

    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey , Feb 4, 2017 12:43 PM

    The Washington Post is a propaganda machine for the Deep State establishment.

    Uzda Farce -> Paul Kersey , Feb 4, 2017 4:29 PM

    "Operation Mockingbird was established by Frank Wisner, director of the Office of Policy Coordination... Wisner recruited Philip Graham from the Washington Post to run the project within the industry... After 1953, the media network was overseen by CIA Director Allen Dulles, by which time Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies." -- Wikipedia

    Wisner, Graham and Dulles were also members of the Rockefeller/CFR.

    YHC-FTSE -> Wulfkind , Feb 4, 2017 1:10 PM

    I follow Dennis Kucinich, Tulsi Gabbard and Ron Paul in my newsfeed to remind myself that there are sane people who dedicate themselves to fight against the MIC and the Fed.

    Unreported here, but this week, Tulsi Gabard made a two-pronged attack on the establishment to curb funding to the terrorists in Syria/Iraq with the self-explanatory bill entitled, "Stop Arming Terrorists Bill" . And at the same time, flanking the banksters to reinstate the Glass Steagall Act . I have never been so impressed by a politician's tactical awareness and passion to fight against the criminals in power.

    She had the foresight and courage to visit Syria to see for herself what is happening on the ground and I reckon she deserves all the help I can muster. I cannot praise her enough and having satisfied myself that the lady is genuine, I think she will be the next primary target of a smear campaign against her. If Trump is at all serious about draining the swamp, he should be giving the Congresswoman a major role in his cabinet.

    We've just handed what Snowden described as a system that was built to be, "turn-key tyrrany", to a political outsider hoping he can take on the establishment. Yet he has surrounded himself with the worst of the establishment bunch, the Israel-first zionists, connected to Wall St., Wahabist nutjobs, the Federal Reserve's zionist owners. What will transpire in the coming months, complicated by yet another set of zionists in the media and civil services who are invested in Hitlery, is the question. War and chaos are what the establishment thrives on - if not with Russia, then Iran or China. A huge drive is going on to slip in a wedge - to divide and conquer - these countries but equally within the USA, wedges are being driven in between people to paint Trump as an incompetent monster. It is the oldest tactic in the book, often practiced by the zionists at home to keep the fear and loathing, stealing and murdering going for decades.

    Quite frankly, I'm fucking sick of those who drive the narrative on both sides of the political spectrum - one side calling the other, "Racists and Nazis" while the other calls them "Pussies and Libtards". It's tiresome and infantile that distracts people from the real problems of the MIC, Banking and media cartels hidden in plain sight, pulling the strings to enrich and protect their homeland: Israel. Look, I don't want to sound like a broken record and god knows I don't ever want to hate people, but whenever I look at every major crime against humanity from 9/11, to Ukraine and Syria, zionists keep popping up at the epicentre and we are led once again to destroy Israel's enemies causing untold misery to innocent people.

    Ms No , Feb 4, 2017 11:57 AM

    Dennis Kucinich was always the real deal. I do not agree with his economics but he was the real version of what Bernie Sanders pretended to be. He voted with Ron Paul all the time.

    BabaLooey -> Ms No , Feb 4, 2017 12:15 PM

    You should have seen what Kucinch did in Cleveland Ms. No....

    I lived there during his tenure as mayor. 1977 to 1979. Jesus did he give the establishment the stink finger.

    The Plain Squealer reported on him like they do Trump today. EVERY day was "Dennis this and Dennis that". His wife at the time, Sandy, was a lunatic, which did not help him. His handling of Muni Light was decades before the time when politicians called out the debt-game. He damn near got whacked for it, and the "boy-mayor" got defeated by Voinovich - seen then as "an adult".

    Dennis is most times whack-o with his fiscal policies, but holy SHIT the entire U.S. Government is also!

    If Tulsi Gabbard likes him, then it shows Dennis is not far off base.

    Kucinch is a different politician - to say the least. He actually needs to get back IN Congress, IMO.

    jonny quest -> BabaLooey , Feb 4, 2017 2:42 PM

    Yeah, I was there too and before. Burn on big river, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtW8RkI3-c4 , Muny Light, etc. We were circling the drain back then. Not so much better now, but god damn, Trump, you gotta keep the EPA! You've got mountaintops blown apart in WV for coal, and eastern NC awash in pigshit. Chemical and radioactive waste aplenty across the rest. There's your infrastructure stimulus right there, Donny J.

    BabaLooey -> jonny quest , Feb 4, 2017 3:23 PM

    Former Brunswick, Middleburg Heights, Parma, Willowick, North Olmstead, Richmond Heights - and then Copley denizen here.

    The Land of the Cleves was a sorry state in the 70's. That black bastard Stokes. Guvnuh Jimmy Rhodes.

    I survived the Blizzard of '77 living at the Islander Apartments.

    Kucinich didn't have a chance. He was surrounded by fat-cat politicians, and I can still remember John Hambrick's arching eyebrow, and Dorothy Fuldheim slaying Dennis at every turn.

    Fuck, even Gib Shanley weighed in on him. Big Chuck & Hoolihan didn't help much either. I fondly remember loitering around with Kid Leo at a Peaches opening the summer of '78, when he said; "Kucinich doesn't stand a chance; the buzzard's are circling - no pun intended".

    jonny quest -> BabaLooey , Feb 4, 2017 3:55 PM

    Gawd, Gib Shanley, John Hambrick, Big Chuck & Hoolihan, and Dorothy Fuldheim. Haven't heard those names mentioned in years. Remember Paige Palmer? My mom's TV workout coach. Dick Goddard finally retired. The Boss was a friend of Kid Leo's. Oh those concerts @ the Agora that segued to Richfield...

    IntTheLight -> Ms No , Feb 4, 2017 1:38 PM

    Bernie is loyal to his tribe. He was the pied piper leading earnest, well meaning people off a cliff. His supporters represented the last gasp of white people in that party. If you recall, Hillarys people repeatedly mocked the berniebots as too white.

    DetectiveStern , Feb 4, 2017 11:58 AM

    Snowflakes are out in Manchester protesting Trump again over refugees, still non of them protesting the actual wars.

    Sad fucks.

    Mustafa Kemal -> DetectiveStern , Feb 4, 2017 12:17 PM

    "protesting Trump again over refugees, still non of them protesting the actual wars."

    In a conversation with a muslim friend of mine the other day, he told me

    1) "I dont give a fuck( he rarely cusses) if they make me leave the US, I want them instead to stop desroying Syrian, Libya, ....."

    2) "dont talk to me about killing babies in Syria. Instead stop destroying Syria"

    It seems we have a meeting of the minds

    Bay of Pigs , Feb 4, 2017 11:58 AM

    The local rag here in Maui was criticizing Gabbard for meeting with Assad.

    This state is full of brainwashed libtards.

    Ignatius -> Bay of Pigs , Feb 4, 2017 12:04 PM

    When it comes to American delusions about the nature and purpose of the national security state, the brainwashing is across the board, left to right. We could wish that it's just liberal idiots.

    BarkingCat , Feb 4, 2017 12:00 PM

    Dennis Kucinich is probably the only truly honest democrat. While I have always disagreed with much of his point of view, I have never doubted his honesty and sincerity.

    HowdyDoody -> BarkingCat , Feb 4, 2017 12:32 PM

    Gabbard is a Democrat too.

    [Feb 01, 2017] Neoliberal Hypocrite of the Month for February 2017: Former Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

    Feb 01, 2017 | blackagendareport.com
    Madeleine Albright got her start as the protιgι of notorious cold warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was her dissertation advisor at Columbia. As Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor Z-big put Albright on as his special assistant. The next time a Democrat occupied the White House she was UN ambassador in Clinton's first term and secretary of state in his second. Madeleine Albright famously asserted in a 1996 60 Minutes interview that although the US blockade of Iraq which she vigorously championed killed a half million Iraqi children that "...it was a hard choice but it was worth it..."
    Enrique Ferro's insight: "Progressives" is the name Democrats call themselves when they need to draw attention away from the greedy and murderous one percenters who actually call the shots in their party. Lazy, hypocritical progressive followers protest the unconstitutional machinations of Republican administrations like those of George W. Bush and Donald Trump while they ignore excuse the same crimes when committed by Democrats like the Clintons or Barack Obama.

    [Feb 01, 2017] Ok To Bomb Them But Don't Ban Them : Information Clearing House - ICH

    Feb 01, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    By Jimmy Dore Show

    January 31, 2017

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FTFB9GDfls
    Trump Muslim Ban Made Possible By Obama Admin & Media Won't Tell You

    tictac · 1 day ago
    Jimmy Dore makes some great points from time to time but this particular rant has so many flaws that it would be a real undertaking to itemize all of them.

    Millions if not billions of people, including millions of USAmericans have been horrified at US terrorism wherever it occurs. We weren't OK with the US terrorizing these seven countries or any of the other countries the US has terrorized. We protested. We talked to our political representatives. We advised young men to refuse to volunteer to kill and be killed for money. We did whatever we could think of to stop the carnage. We were unsuccessful.

    It's not the temporary ban on immigration that upsets people so much as singling out people from specific countries, whether Obama's Republican Congress in did it or Trump did it. The ban should be on all religious extremists including apartheid Zionists and Christian extremists. Religious extremists from all of the major religious have committed heinous atrocities.

    I could go on, but those are the main points I wanted to make.

    Belisarius6 · 1 day ago
    What? Fake news isn't enough for you, so now you're engaging in fake debate? You have problems with Jimmy's points then argue them. Too many for you? Then pick the top six and critique them. Otherwise stop stuffing your fingers in your ears and loudly singing patriotic songs to drown out the unpleasant truths. P.S. There were significant protests when Bush Jr. was running the show but they all died out after Obama took over the nation's reins. After that all I heard from the American left about his constant assault on the Constitution, keeping Guantanamo, the country's wars of aggression, U.S. support of the military coup in Honduras, his unconditional and unlimited subsidization of Wall Street, his unprecedented vendetta against government whistle blowers, and his impressive accumulation of 306 golf outings (at a gob smacking five hours a pop!) ... was crickets.
    tictac · 13 hours ago
    You read different stuff than I do. I heard a fire hose stream of Progressive/liberal criticism of Obama's policies and enormous disappointment in Obama - including from people like Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, and Amy Goodman, and especially from Glenn Greenwald, Assange and other brilliant political thinkers as well as from Veterans for Peace, Pro-Palestine humanitarians, and anti-nuclear activists. Medea Benjamin has been on the front lines for eight years attacking Obama's war mongering. Of course we need many more like her. Unless you are her, using a fake name, then why weren't you right there with her?
    weevil wobbly · 1 day ago
    And the Demo establishment lines up to attack Drumpf's ban; hoping to get some easy votes for corporatist neo-con hypocrites? Cynical demo pigs would love to impeach Drumpf and wage nice with Pence. We are f*^ked unless we (us "lefty ranters" and more) don't demand radical change from the Corporatist neo-fascist establishments of both parties - the party of dicks and the party of pant-suited V's. And the media/wall street/military industrial complex can't get enough of this.
    Dr. Nomas Kakita · 1 day ago
    Jimmy Great Information --

    BEWARE -- Why is the Zionist control media, and many Zionist controlled organizations, so adamant about allowing people from war torn Muslim countries come to the US ?

    The main purpose of all the noise against president Trump is to weaken him and then force him to take the positions the deep state wants him to take. Among the many problems he has he is only an apprentice.

    bubbles · 1 day ago
    thanks, jimmy, for the truth. from the mouths of comedians......
    Mahmoud El-Yousseph · 1 day ago
    Trump's Muslim ban is not about terrorism or keeping America safe. Otherwise Saudia Arabia would have been on the top of list. This is about countries that stand against the US/Israel agenda. https://www.darkmoon.me/ /dona.. .
    гость · 23 hours ago
    This guy should take Wolf Blitzer's job and expose the truth on the national media. Blitzer can be consigned to telling risible lies on You Tube, as should most of the jokers in the so-called mainstream media.
    Schlόter 87p · 20 hours ago
    Well, double standards implemented since long!
    "Only ISIS is Barbaric? Burning People Alive!" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/only-is...
    anonymous · 16 hours ago
    Good Point, But you ae biased. You never mention Zionism. The Zionists are at the center of this policy.
    romanaorfred · 13 hours ago
    HYPOCRISY.

    People attacking Trump after 11 days in office, NEVER criticized Mrs. Clinton, Obama forblowing up and killing hundreds of thousands in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, the phony bought and paid for Establishment Liberals who only call them 'war crimes ' when an (R) is attached to the Presidents name like: Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, Medea Benjamin and Amy Goodman,
    all frauds and liars like CNN, CBS and NBC, who ran this slimey headline:

    NBC Today Show Warns of Possible Drone Bombing at Trump Inauguration
    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/media-warns-po...

    more evidence bogus tv news:

    "Citizens" who speak at town meetings are hired, scripted actors

    "Last December, the town council in Camarillo, a small town in southern California, a man called Prince Jordan Tyson stood up and delivered a three minute speech as a "concerned citizen" about a planned construction project before the council.

    Tyson is not a concerned citizen of Camarillo: he's a struggling actor from Beverly Hills, who was paid $100 to deliver a scripted position from the podium while misrepresenting himself as a local, sincere citizen.

    Tyson worked for Adam Swart, a recent UCLA grad, who runs a company called "Crowds on Demand," which hires actors to attend politicians' campaign meetings, and to deliver scripted dialog in the guise of concerned citizens. Swart says that he has been paid by "dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016 presidential candidates" whom he won't name, because if he "did, nobody would hire us."
    http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-spe...

    ringo · 11 hours ago
    All those demonstrating against Trump are a asset to the deep state. I can't understand why those demonstrators in the UK/EU
    bashing Trump, there are more pressing reasons to demonstrate
    in the UK, poverty, austerity, families relying on food banks that the supermarkets have thrown out, where are the marches against that obscenity, instead of going along with the agenda of the Clinton band wagon, those causing havoc in the US/UK/EU, would be better employed in demonstrating against those who have created all those immigrants Muslim or otherwise in the first place, ie; bush blair obama the clintons etc; time those out on the streets got their priorities right.
    European_Dad 98p · 6 hours ago
    why use obama's list, donald, why? you were not elected to continue his policies, i thought.
    romanaorfred · 4 hours ago
    HYPOCRISY.

    People attacking Trump after 11 days in office, NEVER criticized Mrs. Clinton, Obama forblowing up and killing hundreds of thousands in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, the phony bought and paid for Establishment Liberals who only call them 'war crimes ' when an (R) is attached to the Presidents name like: Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, Medea Benjamin and Amy Goodman,
    all frauds and liars like CNN, CBS and NBC, who ran this slimey headline:

    NBC Today Show Warns of Possible Drone Bombing at Trump Inauguration
    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/media-warns-po...

    more evidence bogus tv news:

    "Citizens" who speak at town meetings are hired, scripted actors

    "Last December, the town council in Camarillo, a small town in southern California, a man called Prince Jordan Tyson stood up and delivered a three minute speech as a "concerned citizen" about a planned construction project before the council.

    Tyson is not a concerned citizen of Camarillo: he's a struggling actor from Beverly Hills, who was paid $100 to deliver a scripted position from the podium while misrepresenting himself as a local, sincere citizen.

    Tyson worked for Adam Swart, a recent UCLA grad, who runs a company called "Crowds on Demand," which hires actors to attend politicians' campaign meetings, and to deliver scripted dialog in the guise of concerned citizens. Swart says that he has been paid by "dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016 presidential candidates" whom he won't name, because if he "did, nobody would hire us."
    http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-spe...

    [Feb 01, 2017] The Neocon Lament Nobody wants them in Trump's Washington

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    Feb 01, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Philip Giraldi January 24, 2017 1,300 Words 151 Comments Reply There is no limit to the hubris driven hypocrisy of America's stalwart neoconservatives. A recent Washington Post front page article entitled "'Never Trump' national-security Republicans fear they have been blacklisted" shares with the reader the heartbreak of those so-called GOP foreign policy experts who have apparently been ignored by the presidential transition team seeking to staff senior positions in the new administration. Author David Nakamura describes them as "some of the biggest names in the Republican national security firmament, veterans of past GOP administration who say, if called upon by President-elect Donald Trump, they stand ready to serve their country again."

    "But," Nakamura adds, "their phones aren't ringing." And I wept openly as he went on to describe how they sit forlorn in a "state of indefinite limbo" in their law firms, think tanks and university faculty lounges just thinking about all the great things they can do for their country. Yes, "serve their country," indeed. Nothing personal in it for them. Nothing personal when they denounced Trump and called him incompetent, unqualified, a threat to the nation and even joined Democrats in labeling him a racist, misogynist, homophobe, Islamophobe and bigot. And they really got off when they explained in some detail how The Donald was a Russian agent. Nothing personal. It's was only business. So let's let bygones be bygones and, by the way, where are the jobs? Top level Pentagon or National Security Council only, if you please!

    And yes, they did make a mistake about some things in Iraq, but it was Obama who screwed it up by not staying the course. And then there was Libya, the war still going on in Afghanistan, getting rid of Bashar and that funny business in Ukraine. It all could have gone better but, hey, if they had been fully in charge for the past eight years to back up the greatly loved Vicki Nuland at the State Department everything would be hunky dory.

    Oh yeah, some of the more introspective neocons are guessing that the new president just might be holding a grudge about those two "Never Trump" letters that more than 200 of them eventually signed. Many now believe that they are on a blacklist. How unfair! To be sure, some of the language in the letters was a bit intemperate, including assertions about Trump's personality, character and intelligence. One letter claimed that the GOP candidate "lacks self-control and acts impetuously," that he "exhibits erratic behavior," and that he is "fundamentally dishonest." Mitt Romney, who did not sign the letters but was nevertheless extremely outspoken, referred to Trump as a "phony" and a "fraud."

    One of the first anti-Trump letter's organizers, Professor Eliot Cohen described presidential candidate Trump as "a man utterly unfit for the position by temperament, values and policy preferences." After the election, Cohen even continued his scathing attacks on the new president, writing that "The president-elect is surrounding himself with mediocrities whose chief qualifications seem to be unquestioning loyalty." He goes on to describe them as "second-raters."

    Cohen, who reminds one of fellow Harvard bombast artist Alan Dershowitz, might consider himself as "first rate" but that is a judgment that surely might be challenged. He was a prominent cheerleader for the Iraq War and has been an advocate of overthrowing the Iranian government by force. He opposed the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense because Hagel had "made it clear that he [did] not want to engage in a confrontation with Iran." Cohen, a notable Israel Firster in common with many of his neocon brethren, has aggressively condemned even well-reasoned criticism of the Israel Lobby and of Israel itself as anti-Semitism. Glenn Greenwald has described him as "extremist a neoconservative and warmonger as it gets."

    One has to wonder at the often-professed intelligence and experience of Cohen and his neocon friends if they couldn't figure out in advance that backing the wrong horse in an election might well have consequences. And there is a certain cynicism intrinsic in the neoconservative whine. Many of the dissidents like Cohen, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Eric Edelman, Kori Schake, Reuel Gerecht, Kenneth Adelman and Michael Morell who came out most enthusiastically for Hillary Clinton were undoubtedly trimming their sails to float effortlessly into her anticipated hawkish administration. Gerecht, who has advocated war in Syria, said of the Democratic candidate that "She's not a neoconservative, but Hillary Clinton isn't uncomfortable with American power."

    That the defeat of Hillary was also a defeat of the neoconservatives and their alphabet soup of institutes and think tanks is sometimes overlooked but was a delicious dish served cold for those of us who have been praying for such a result. It was well worth the endless tedium when watching Fox News on election night to see Bill Kristol's face when it became clear that Trump would be victorious. Back to the drawing board, Bill!

    And there may be yet another shocker in store for the neocons thanks to Trump. The fact that the new administration is drawing on the business world for staffing senior positions means that he has been less interested in hiring think tank and revolving door academic products to fill the government bureaucracies. This has led Josh Rogin of the Washington Post to warn that the death of think tanks as we know them could be on the horizon. He quotes one think-tanker as opining that "the people around Trump view think tanks as for sale for the highest bidder. They have empowered other centers of gravity for staffing this administration." Rogin adds "If the Trump team succeeds in diminishing the influence of Washington think tanks and keeping their scholars out of government, policymaking will suffer. Many of these scholars hold the institutional knowledge and deep subject matter expertise the incoming administration needs."

    Rogin, who is himself a neocon who has been an associated "expert" with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) affiliated Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), is peddling bullshit. The record of the geniuses who have been guiding U.S. foreign policy ever since the Reagan Administration has not been exactly reassuring and can be considered downright disastrous if one considers Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Think tanks have agendas that in most cases actually work against the public interest. Their designation of staff as "scholars" is a contrivance as their scholarship consists of advocacy for specific causes and ideologies. They should be seen for what they are and what they are is not very pretty as they are into endless self-promotion.

    Fear mongering Danielle Pletka, who is vice president for foreign policy at the American Enterprise Institute, has supported every war coming out of the past two Administrations and has called repeatedly for more of the same to close the deal on Syria and Iran. Like Cohen, Rogin, Kagan, Gerecht and many other neocons she is both Jewish and an Israel Firster. And her annual salary is reported to be $275,000.

    It is a pleasure to watch the think tanks begin thinking of their own demises. It is also intriguing to speculate that Trump with his populist message might just take it all one step farther and shut the door on the K Street lobbyists and other special interests, which have symbiotic relationships with the think tanks. The think tanks sit around and come up with formulations that benefit certain groups, individuals and corporate interests and then reap the rewards when the cash is handed out at the end of the year. How fantastic it would be to see lobbies and the parasites who work for them put out of business, particularly if our much beloved neoconservatives are simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security policy and their think tanks are withering on the vine. What a wonderful world it would be.

    NoseytheDuke , January 24, 2017 at 5:32 am GMT \n

    Even more wonderful if these psychopaths were held to account and subjected to some solitary space for lengthy contemplation. Manning is due to vacate some digs soon so there is space available.

    Kyle McKenna , January 24, 2017 at 5:37 am GMT \n

    The Neocon Lament
    Nobody wants them in Trump's Washington

    Even allowing that this is a bit of an exaggeration, it's one of the happiest headlines I've read in a long, long time.

    Now maybe we can get to work on convincing the MSM that putting "America First" isn't actually hideously racist and anti-semitic. Well I can dream, can't I?

    Cato , January 24, 2017 at 5:39 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    These losers think they are indispensable. In fact, the talent pool is deep, deep, deep. In my own social sciences department, in a tier-3 university, there are multiple people who speak multiple languages from West Asia, and keep current on what is happening RIGHT NOW. Plug them into the latest info from NSA, and they would be excellent filters–reducing the noise to policy-relevant information. If this is true in my shop, it must be true at the tier-1s and 2s. The President's team can find the talent, if they just look for it.

    Mark Green , January 24, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT \n
    200 Words

    What a delicious take on the demise of the neocons. Unfortunately, these vampires have a way of coming back from the near-dead. They're not going anywhere right away. NY-Washington is their hood.

    True, it's possible that the salaries of a few of these warstars might dip into the low triple-digits, but these rapacious insiders will never leave Washington voluntarily. Parasites tend not wander far from their host.

    Equally worrisome is the fact that Trump is surrounded by a fresh, new cabal of Israel-firsters. And the Prez has already indicated (according to MSM news reports) that he's prepared to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's eternal and 'undivided' capitol.

    Maybe this Jerusalem claim is exaggerated or fake, but even The Donald knows that by pleasing the Jews now he will likely encounter reduced political headwinds later. So like any politician, Trump's doing a balancing act.

    This unspoken truism concerning Jewish power is why the Zions generally emerge victorious in Washington. Fighting them just doesn't pay; even when you're the President of the United States.

    Cloak And Dagger , January 24, 2017 at 7:06 am GMT \n
    200 Words

    Phil,

    if our much-beloved neoconservatives are simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security policy and their think tanks are withering on the vine

    From your mouth to Trump's ears! If the lobbies cease to exist, so will the bribes to Israel-firsters in Congress. Their demise would be particularly sweet as they, more than anyone, represent the vilest of 5th columnists in our government, a veritable den of vipers that personifies corruption.

    I can only scoff at the "wisdom" of these think-tank "scholars" to conceive that publicly opposing the election of a victorious president would have no negative consequences. Even the holiest of saints would refuse to turn the other cheek. The denouncements from these charlatans were remarkable. By what possible rationale would they perceive that Trump would welcome them into his government? It boggles the mind!

    I hope that Trump publicly chastises these rogues so that there remains no possibility of them darkening the doorsteps of the Whitehouse under some future sympathetic president. Ah, to see them pelted with rotten tomatoes and shamed for how they have harmed this nation! It would warm the cockles of my heart!

    I am beginning to feel the first twinges of optimism after a long time. I hope nothing happens to piss on this spark before it has had a chance to become a flame.

    Antiwar7 , January 24, 2017 at 7:16 am GMT \n

    Maybe they could organize their own Million Warmonger March?

    exiled off mainstreet , January 24, 2017 at 8:26 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    This would appear to make the Trump presidency worthwhile no matter how bad his domestic policy may end up being, though his elimination of the so-called "trade" pacts is already a positive development which renders many of later negative developments more reversible than the neoliberal trade pacts would have been under the harpy. The bottom line is that no nukes is good news, and that, hopefully, the arrogance and criminality of this crowd of war criminals has sealed their oblivion.

    AmericaFirstNow , Website January 24, 2017 at 8:46 am GMT \n

    ISIS result of Israeli Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iraq, Syria and beyond :

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/07/13/the-unfolding-of-yinons-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-the-crisis-in-iraq-and-the-centrality-of-the-national-interest-of-israel/

    Zionist PNAC Neocon agenda vs Russia to include in Ukraine as well :

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/02/24/us-has-neocon-agenda-in-ukraine-russia-analyst/

    Let's talk about Russian influence but not Israel's :

    http://america-hijacked.com/2016/08/29/lets-talk-about-russian-influence/

    jacques sheete , January 24, 2017 at 8:52 am GMT \n

    I don't see what they're whining about since most of them probably don't really need the jobs and Trump will most likely implement their most cherished pro-Izzy policies in any case.

    Anyway, the more whining the better. It's music to my ears.

    Haxo Angmark , Website January 24, 2017 at 8:55 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    these Judeo-globalists aren't just warmongers, they're Class A War Criminals: the number of people massacred in the neo-cons' wars of choice – Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Ukraine, Syria – in Syria alone nearly a half-million dead – continues to mount day after bloody day. What's left of Syria – just look at some of the hundreds of youtube videos on that Zionist-induced butchery – is enough to make one weep; and it's only thanks to Russia and Hezbollah that ISIS – Isramerica's pet headchopping terrorists – aren't setting up shop in Damascus right now and heading for Lebanon. I wish I could share Giraldi's confidence that Trump will continue to exclude the Jew neo-cons and their Israel ueber alles machinations from his regime. But, given Trump's own well-known rabid Zionism, I fear he may eventually blunder into a terminal war with Russia over yet another object of neo-con bloodlust: Iran.

    animalogic , January 24, 2017 at 9:01 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    "How fantastic it would be to see lobbies and the parasites who work for them put out of business, particularly if our much beloved neoconservatives are simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security policy and their think tanks are withering on the vine. What a wonderful world it would be."
    AMEN!

    AmericaFirstNow , Website January 24, 2017 at 9:01 am GMT \n
    100 Words @AmericaFirstNow CIA's Mike Scheuer on Israel & Iraq war as terrorism motivation :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp

    Israel 1st AIPAC agent Jared Kushner (who is an orthodox Jew too) is senior White House advisor to Donald Trump and is bringing in AIPAC friends as well (Trump has put Kushner in charge of bringing about a 'peace agreement' between Israel and the Palestinians):

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/359120/jared-kushners-friend-picked-by-do

    Additional at following URL:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2016/08/01/who-is-running-trumps-campaign/

    AmericaFirstNow , Website January 24, 2017 at 10:49 am GMT \n
    @Mark Green What a delicious take on the demise of the neocons. Unfortunately, these vampires have a way of coming back from the near-dead. They're not going anywhere right away. NY-Washington is their hood.

    True, it's possible that the salaries of a few of these warstars might dip into the low triple-digits, but these rapacious insiders will never leave Washington voluntarily. Parasites tend not wander far from their host.

    Equally worrisome is the fact that Trump is surrounded by a fresh, new cabal of Israel-firsters. And the Prez has already indicated (according to MSM news reports) that he's prepared to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's eternal and 'undivided' capitol.

    Maybe this Jerusalem claim is exaggerated or fake, but even The Donald knows that by pleasing the Jews now he will likely encounter reduced political headwinds later. So like any politician, Trump's doing a balancing act.

    This unspoken truism concerning Jewish power is why the Zions generally emerge victorious in Washington. Fighting them just doesn't pay; even when you're the President of the United States.

    Sharon's infamous comment: We Control America :

    http://rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm

    Wizard of Oz , January 24, 2017 at 11:26 am GMT \n
    100 Words @Cloak And Dagger Phil,
    if our much-beloved neoconservatives are simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security policy and their think tanks are withering on the vine
    From your mouth to Trump's ears! If the lobbies cease to exist, so will the bribes to Israel-firsters in Congress. Their demise would be particularly sweet as they, more than anyone, represent the vilest of 5th columnists in our government, a veritable den of vipers that personifies corruption.

    I can only scoff at the "wisdom" of these think-tank "scholars" to conceive that publicly opposing the election of a victorious president would have no negative consequences. Even the holiest of saints would refuse to turn the other cheek. The denouncements from these charlatans were remarkable. By what possible rationale would they perceive that Trump would welcome them into his government? It boggles the mind!

    I hope that Trump publicly chastises these rogues so that there remains no possibility of them darkening the doorsteps of the Whitehouse under some future sympathetic president. Ah, to see them pelted with rotten tomatoes and shamed for how they have harmed this nation! It would warm the cockles of my heart!

    I am beginning to feel the first twinges of optimism after a long time. I hope nothing happens to piss on this spark before it has had a chance to become a flame.

    "Bribes to Israel firsters in Congress" sounds like wishful thinking (about the end of lobbying for Israel) confusing your understanding of how things work.

    Isreal firsters aren't the ones who need bribing and the effective bribing of Congressmen to vote the way any particular lobby wants is all about money given to or withheld from them or potential opponents so that their campaigns directly or indirectly have the superior funding.

    Lobbies and think tanks may trim their budgets and staff numbers under the Trump presidency. But can you explain how or why the flow of money in support of those who vote the "right way" is going to stop?

    Ram , January 24, 2017 at 11:38 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    We should NOT be too hasty to judge what's happening. Tel Aviv seems more than happy with Trump and Trump's appointments from the very same swamp that he so ridiculed, must be cause for anxiety.

    I have been disappointed that the USA has been unable to liberate itself from the Tel Aviv yoke that has been in place for many decades now.

    annamaria , January 24, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Kyle McKenna
    The Neocon Lament
    Nobody wants them in Trump's Washington
    Even allowing that this is a bit of an exaggeration, it's one of the happiest headlines I've read in a long, long time.

    Now maybe we can get to work on convincing the MSM that putting "America First" isn't actually hideously racist and anti-semitic. Well I can dream, can't I?

    Agree.
    "Think tanks have agendas that in most cases actually work against the public interest They should be seen for what they are and what they are is not very pretty as they are into endless self-promotion. Fear mongering Danielle Pletka, who is vice president for foreign policy at the American Enterprise Institute, has supported every war coming out of the past two Administrations Like Cohen, Rogin, Kagan, Gerecht and many other neocons she is both Jewish and an Israel Firster. And her annual salary is reported to be $275,000."
    They are covered in blood of the innocent people. The ziocons are modern-day cannibals.

    Tom Welsh , January 24, 2017 at 2:11 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    "She's not a neoconservative, but Hillary Clinton isn't uncomfortable with American power."

    War crimes. Hillary Clinton isn't uncomfortable with American *war crimes* . Power is fine, as long as it is exercised justly and within the law. Clinton and her tribe have exulted in using power to trample on the law – and everyone else. Remember – "we came, we saw, he died cackle, cackle, cackle"?

    Tom Welsh , January 24, 2017 at 2:14 pm GMT \n
    200 Words

    "If the Trump team succeeds in diminishing the influence of Washington think tanks and keeping their scholars out of government, policymaking will suffer. Many of these scholars hold the institutional knowledge and deep subject matter expertise the incoming administration needs."

    That's a laugh, coming from a colleague of the fellow who told us that:

    " guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality ­ judiciously, as you will ­ we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

    "Scholars"? Pah!

    KA , January 24, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT \n
    400 Words

    These think tanks are overrated But they are overrated for a purpose – to have reliable ally in media administration defense and foreign policy They ensure a continuity. Think Tank is the one -stop shopping point . It provides ready mix of useful ideas for the imperial adventures and domestic control .
    Neocons have lost the job but doesn't mean the same job wont get done or the jobs be removed from the goals and aims . Neocons are angry mad and fuming ,just like Democrats became when Bush Jr came to power and just like the antiwar ant corporate pro liberal agenda group are getting mad and furious at Trump after remaining brain dead for 8 yrs under Obama . Partisan fights for the spoils and nothing more going on here .

    It is still very good .

    There will be some nice new developments in the process of fight for lost ground,the Neocons will start tearing apart the system They are vicious just like the ISIS is .It's them or none .

    The fight will expose more truth and realities to the American public than any truth commission will ever do . Trump in his few effective and pregnant moments of arrogance and disdain have exposed more about Iraq war, WMD , role of the neocons and issues surrounding 911 than any commission ever did or could have achieved .Those wouldn't have surfaced had the neocons kept quiet and not fought Trump. Those truths were known to millions but Trump gave it the seal of approval and made those truths earn the rightful place in American narrative .

    Neocons may be warmongers Israeli firtsers but they are also self promoting bastards To promote themselves against the stiff resistance from the new elites ,they will harm the objectives of the Thinktank They will blame everybody They have a track record of doing so. They blamed Bush Cheney intelligence and military for each and every failure they they themselves brought upon America from pre 911 to -p0st 2007 . WaPo will not stay passive observer .We will be regaled by the groans and moans of the laments

    woodNfish , January 24, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    How fantastic it would be to see lobbies and the parasites who work for them put out of business, particularly if our much beloved neoconservatives are simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security policy and their think tanks are withering on the vine. What a wonderful world it would be.

    What a beautiful thing it would be! Pass the popcorn!

    [Jan 30, 2017] Former Obama adviser Rice calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel stone cold crazy

    Notable quotes:
    "... There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community ..."
    "... the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes. ..."
    "... In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative." ..."
    Jan 30, 2017 | www.cnn.com

    Former Obama adviser calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel 'stone cold crazy'

    President Donald Trump's decision to reorganize the National Security Council in a way that removes the director of intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is "stone cold crazy," former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday.

    Rice retweeted another Twitter user, P.E. Juan, who said: "Trump loves and trusts the military so much he just kicked them out of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place."

    Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, was reacting to an executive order signed by Trump that said that the head of DNI and the nation's most senior military officer would be invited to attend the security meetings "where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed."

    "This is stone cold crazy. After a week of crazy. Who needs military advice or intell to make policy on ISIL, Syria, Afghanistan, DPRK?" Rice tweeted, with DPRK referring to North Korea.

    White House press secretary Sean Spicer told ABC News Rice's comments were "clearly inappropriate language from a former ambassador."

    DNI James Clapper was always included in Obama administration's NSC principals' meetings, CNN confirmed.

    In contrast, Trump's order makes his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, a regular member of the Principals Committee. The committee is Cabinet-level group of agencies that deal with national security that was established by President George H. W. Bush in 1989. Every version of it has included the Joint Chiefs chairman and the director of the CIA or, once it was established, the head of the DNI. The President's chief of staff was typically included as well.

    Bannon's presence reinforces the notion he is, in essence, a co-chief of staff alongside Reince Priebus, and demonstrates the breadth of influence the former head of Breitbart News has in the Trump administration.

    Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, offered praise for the administration's national security team writ large, but expressed concerns about Bannon.

    "I think the national security team around President Trump is very impressive. I don't think you could ask for a better one," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

    "I am worried about the national security council who are the members of it and who are the permanent members of it. The appointment of Mr. Bannon is something which is a radical departure from any national security council in history," he said. "It's of concern this quote reorganization."

    Rice continued her tweetstorm: "Chairman of Joint Chiefs and DNI treated as after thoughts in Cabinet level principals meetings. And where is CIA?? Cut out of everything?"

    And she noted a provision that would allow Vice President Michael Pence to chair NSC meetings if Trump isn't available.

    "Pence may chair NSC mtgs in lieu of POTUS," Rice tweeted. "Never happened w/Obama."

    And she added the observation that Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was "sidelined from Cabinet and Sub Cab mtgs."

    The NSC is run by National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was asked to step down in 2014 by senior intelligence leaders.

    There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community , though during a January 22 visit to the CIA Trump declared that "nobody feels stronger about the intelligence community than Donald Trump," adding that "I love you. I respect you."

    Before then, the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes.

    In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative."

    Regular members of the Principals Committee will include the secretary of state, the treasury secretary, the defense secretary, the attorney general, the secretary of Homeland Security, the assistant to the President and chief of staff, the assistant to the President and chief strategist, the national security adviser and the Homeland Security adviser.

    [Jan 30, 2017] Former Obama adviser calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel 'stone cold crazy'

    Notable quotes:
    "... There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community ..."
    "... the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes. ..."
    "... In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative." ..."
    Jan 30, 2017 | www.cnn.com

    Former Obama adviser calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel 'stone cold crazy'

    President Donald Trump's decision to reorganize the National Security Council in a way that removes the director of intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is "stone cold crazy," former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday.

    Rice retweeted another Twitter user, P.E. Juan, who said: "Trump loves and trusts the military so much he just kicked them out of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place."

    Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, was reacting to an executive order signed by Trump that said that the head of DNI and the nation's most senior military officer would be invited to attend the security meetings "where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed."

    "This is stone cold crazy. After a week of crazy. Who needs military advice or intell to make policy on ISIL, Syria, Afghanistan, DPRK?" Rice tweeted, with DPRK referring to North Korea.

    White House press secretary Sean Spicer told ABC News Rice's comments were "clearly inappropriate language from a former ambassador."

    DNI James Clapper was always included in Obama administration's NSC principals' meetings, CNN confirmed.

    In contrast, Trump's order makes his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, a regular member of the Principals Committee. The committee is Cabinet-level group of agencies that deal with national security that was established by President George H. W. Bush in 1989. Every version of it has included the Joint Chiefs chairman and the director of the CIA or, once it was established, the head of the DNI. The President's chief of staff was typically included as well.

    Bannon's presence reinforces the notion he is, in essence, a co-chief of staff alongside Reince Priebus, and demonstrates the breadth of influence the former head of Breitbart News has in the Trump administration.

    Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, offered praise for the administration's national security team writ large, but expressed concerns about Bannon.

    "I think the national security team around President Trump is very impressive. I don't think you could ask for a better one," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

    "I am worried about the national security council who are the members of it and who are the permanent members of it. The appointment of Mr. Bannon is something which is a radical departure from any national security council in history," he said. "It's of concern this quote reorganization."

    Rice continued her tweetstorm: "Chairman of Joint Chiefs and DNI treated as after thoughts in Cabinet level principals meetings. And where is CIA?? Cut out of everything?"

    And she noted a provision that would allow Vice President Michael Pence to chair NSC meetings if Trump isn't available.

    "Pence may chair NSC mtgs in lieu of POTUS," Rice tweeted. "Never happened w/Obama."

    And she added the observation that Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was "sidelined from Cabinet and Sub Cab mtgs."

    The NSC is run by National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was asked to step down in 2014 by senior intelligence leaders.

    There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community , though during a January 22 visit to the CIA Trump declared that "nobody feels stronger about the intelligence community than Donald Trump," adding that "I love you. I respect you."

    Before then, the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes.

    In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative."

    Regular members of the Principals Committee will include the secretary of state, the treasury secretary, the defense secretary, the attorney general, the secretary of Homeland Security, the assistant to the President and chief of staff, the assistant to the President and chief strategist, the national security adviser and the Homeland Security adviser.

    [Jan 29, 2017] How Obama Framed Trump with Faux Mortgage Insurance Rate Decrease

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist, was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in Feel The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on Citizens' Media TV ..."
    "... "to be in the tank is to be "lovingly enthralled; foolishly enraptured; passionately bedazzled"" ..."
    "... Today, the President announced a major new step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy families. ..."
    Jan 29, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on January 28, 2017 by Yves Smith By Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist, was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in Feel The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on Citizens' Media TV

    (This is my first issue-opinion video. With thanks especially to Adryenn Ashley and Jimmy Dore for the inspiration. All sources and supporting evidence is below.) Within hours of becoming the 45th President of the United States , one of Donald Trump's first orders of business was to sign an executive order to " raise mortgage insurance rates " on millions of homeowners , by around $500 a year.

    But while it is technically true that Trump did sign the order reversing the decrease, it is a misleading picture. This story is more a negative reflection on President Obama than it is on Trump.

    A Brief Tutorial From Someone Who Is Learning the Subject Right Along With You

    Generally speaking, if you are a first time homebuyer and purchase a house with a down payment of less than 20% of the home's worth, you are required to purchase mortgage insurance. This insurance is to protect the the lender in case you default on your payments.

    Let's use the example of a $200,000 home with a $10,000 (5%) down payment. So you need to borrow $190,000.

    $200,000 * .05 = $10,000
    
    $200,000 - $10,000 = $190,000
    

    Since January 2015 , the upfront MIP ( mortgage insurance premium ) has been 1.75%, with the annual premium at .8%. So when you sign the mortgage, you pay the upfront premium of $3,325.

    $190,000 * .0175 = $3,325
    

    And then every year, you pay the annual premium of $1,520.

    $190,000 * .008 = $1,520
    

    As you pay off your principal, this number goes down.

    The Obama administration's reduction of the annual premium rate is .25 points (the upfront premium remains unchanged). So with the same loan above, your annual premium would instead be $1,045.

    .008 - .0025 = .0055
    
    $190,000 * .0055 = $1,045
    

    That's a savings of $475 a year, or about $40 a month.

    $1,520 - $1,045 = $475
    
    $475 / 12 months = $39.59
    

    Backlash Against Trump

    The criticism of Trump for this move has been unrelenting and, at least in my internet bubble, unanimous. I have not seen any criticism of the Obama administration at all; including by, disappointingly, one of my primary sources of news, The Young Turks. (Can't find the video at the moment, but they briefly criticized Trump for the move, without looking further into the issue.)

    As reported by USA Today :

    Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday that Trump's words in his inaugural speech "ring hollow" following the mortgage premium action.

    "In one of his first acts as president, President Trump made it harder for Americans to afford a mortgage," he said. "What a terrible thing to do to homeowners. Actions speak louder than words."

    As reported by Bloomberg :

    "This action is completely out of alignment with President Trump's words about having the government work for the people," said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, through a spokesman. "Exactly how does raising the cost of buying a home help average people?"

    Sarah Edelman, director of housing policy for the left-leaning Center for American Progress, in an e-mail wrote, "On Day 1, the president has turned his back on middle-class families - this decision effectively takes $500 out of the pocketbooks of families that were planning to buy a home in 2017. This is not the way to build a strong economy."

    And one of the many strong criticisms as documented by Common Dreams :

    "Donald Trump's inaugural speech proclaimed he will govern for the people, instead of the political elite," [Liz Ryan Murray, policy director for national grassroots advocacy group People's Action] said. "But minutes after giving this speech, he gave Wall Street a big gift at the expense of everyday people. Trump may talk a populist game, but policies like this make life better for hedge fund managers and big bankers like his nominee for Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, not for everyday people."

    The Full Picture

    To say that Trump took savings away from the neediest of homebuyers is not true, because homebuyers never had the savings to begin with. The rate reduction was not announced until January 9 of this year–11 days before the end of Obama's eight year term–and was not set to take effect until January 27, a full week after Trump was sworn in.

    (Here's the PDF from the FHA, of Trump's suspension announcement .)

    In addition, Obama's reduction decision seems to have been made without any advance notice or even a projection document justifying the decrease. As I understand it , both of these things are unusual with a change of this magnitude.

    Finally, with the announcement made little more than a week before the new administration was to be sworn in, and despite Trump being entirely responsible for implementing this change, the incoming administration was not consulted.

    Now that the timing is clear, Time Magazine's coverage is particularly misleading:

    Trump, who claimed a populist mantle in his first speech as a president, signed the executive order less than an hour after leaving the inaugural stage. It reverses an Obama-era policy.

    "Obama-era policy" implies the reduction was made long ago, and has been in force for much of that time.


    (Rates can't be raised if they were never lowered.)

    Conclusion: It Was a Set Up

    Finally. After eight years of hard work and multiple requests, your boss approaches you on a Monday morning and says, "Good news! Starting in two weeks, I'm giving you a raise. Congratulations."

    Two days later, you find out that he decided to leave the company months ago, and his final day is Friday. Your raise doesn't start until a week after that.

    You ask him about your new boss. "Well, he's a pretty strict guy." He leans in, puts the back of his hand to the side of his mouth, lowers his voice, and continues, "Honesty, I hear he is a bit difficult to work with. Real penny pincher." He sits up, his voice back to its normal cadence, "But don't worry. I'm leaving a note on his desk telling him just how important this raise is to you and your family." He stands up and slaps you on the back as he walks away. "I'm sure he'll keep my word."

    If that were me, I would be upset at my new boss, but I would be furious at my old one. He had eight years to do something.

    This was nothing more than an opportunistic political maneuver by the outgoing president, to set the incoming president up for failure. All while pretending to care about American homeowners. If the President Obama really wanted to help Americans, he would've considered this move–or something similar–long ago. Instead, he told them he was giving them a gift and promised that it would be delivered by Trump, knowing full well that he would never follow through. Lower-income Americans were used as pawns in a cheap political game.

    Further confirming my theory, here is what was said when the reduction was originally announced :

    "The Trump administration would be accused on day one of raising mortgage costs for average Americans if it reverses the FHA move," analyst Jaret Seiberg, managing director at Cowen Group Inc., wrote in a note to clients. "Trump's career has been real estate. It would seem out of character for him to be aggressively negative on real estate in his first week in office." [ ]

    "I have no reason to believe this will be scaled back," [HUD Secretary Julian] Castro told reporters. The premium cut "offers a good benefit to hardworking American families out there at a time when interest rates might well continue to go up."

    It is not Trump's responsibility to keep the promises that Obama makes on his way out the door. It is Obama's responsibility to not promise what is not promiseable.

    There are so many things for progressives to criticize Trump about. This is not one of them.

    So Who Are We Fighting Anyway?

    To paraphrase Jimmy Dore , "The way to oppose Trump is to agree with him when he's right, and to fight him when he's wrong. Anything else delegitimizes you, especially in the eyes of his supporters."

    And again in another of his videos : "We don't need to unite against Trump. We need to unite against corruption and corporatism."

    If Democrats do something wrong, we need to fight them. If Trump does something wrong, we need to fight him. If Trump does something right, we need to stand with him.

    If we can't win with the truth, we don't deserve to win.

    39 0 10 0 1 This entry was posted in Banana republic , Banking industry , Credit markets , Dubious statistics , Guest Post , Media watch , Real estate , Regulations and regulators on January 28, 2017 by Yves Smith . Subscribe to Post Comments 93 comments Lambert Strether , January 28, 2017 at 6:06 am

    "If we can't win with the truth, we don't deserve to win."

    Let's get that tatooed on our foreheads.

    UserFriendly , January 28, 2017 at 7:21 am

    I agree with the sentiment but after watching the D party protest war under Bush, never talk about it under Obama, and then cheerlead for it with Hillary I don't think they actually stand for anything except identity politics.

    jgordon , January 28, 2017 at 7:47 am

    Right, they traded support for real issues for identity politics. Identity politics which is lovingly celebrated on TYT every day by the way. I'm not sure how or why anyone would go to that rancid cesspool of biased disinformation for news, but ok.

    Here is a litmus test: anyone who gave a pro forma endorsement of Hillary OK, understandable, and I can kind of tolerate that. But for the others who were in the tank for Hillary like TYT–all except for Jimmy Dore–those people are persona non grata from here out.

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 8:35 am

    Totally disagree that TYT was in the tank for Hillary. Have watched these guys every day since around May. They're all pro-Bernie. They clearly wanted Hillary over Trump during the general (and I did too, but that's waaaaaay not to say I'm pro-Hillary), but I don't think "in the tank for Hillary" is a fair characterization for any of them.

    To me, the best evidence is that I have not witnessed Jimmy Dore being forced to tone his admittedly louder and more vehement anti-Hillary ranting down on any show, including the main show. They even gave him his own show around the end of the primaries where he gleefully goes off (Aggressive Progressives).

    As an aside, The Jimmy Dore Show seems fresher than Aggressive Progressives, I believe because he rehearses the bits on own show first. On TJDS, he is frequently good, and consistently on fire.

    Naked Cap, the entire TYT network, Glenn Greenwald, Le Show, and of course, Bernie Sanders, are among my most important truth tellers.

    Jerry Denim , January 28, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    Sorry for being so clueless, but "TYT", "TJDS" ?

    Anyone care to fill me in on this nomenclature?

    Thanks!

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    TYT – The Young Turks
    TJDS – The Jimmy Dore Show

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    The Young Turks and The Jimmy Dore Show. YouTube shows.

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    If you voted for Hillary then you were in the tank for her. There's no such thing as the lesser of the two evils. Sorry! Same goes for TYT.

    dcrane , January 28, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    A relevant definition of "in the tank" from this NY Times Magazine article:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-safire-t.html

    "to be in the tank is to be "lovingly enthralled; foolishly enraptured; passionately bedazzled""

    Yves Smith Post author , January 28, 2017 at 4:59 pm

    It's not that clear cut. For instance, if you are a person of color, there was good reason to be plenty worried about Trump. Violence against immigrants picked up big time in the UK after Brexit, so there's a close parallel. And his appointment of Jeff Sessions as AG is hardly encouraging.

    Brian Daly , January 28, 2017 at 7:43 pm

    But if you're White, you have no good reason to be worried about Trump? That's a rather shabby way to think about folks of all colors.

    Sorry to be snarky. It's just exasperating reading these attempts to define and claim moral purity. In a complex and compromised world.

    integer , January 28, 2017 at 10:17 pm

    Did you see their election day coverage? Here are the highlights: TYT meltdown .
    My favorite part starts at 14m50s, when Kasparian rants about how she has no respect for women who didn't vote for Clinton and calls them "f@#king dumb". Solidarity!

    skippy , January 28, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    What the – ????? – like the right wing is not all about Identity Politics from an ethnic and religious foundations .. errrrrrr .

    Now that the Democrats embraced free market neoliberalism and went off the reservation with non traditional views wrt whom could join the club, being the only thing separating the two, its a bit wobbly to make out like there is some massive schism between the two.

    Disheveled . you can't have a "dominate" economic purview running the ship for 50ish years and then devolve into polemic political warfare ..

    Teejay , January 28, 2017 at 4:42 pm

    jgordon– Identity politics lovingly celebrated on that rancid cesspool of biased disinformation every day. Wow, takes my breath away. I've watched the TYT evening news for ~10 months virtually ever day and I'd guesstimate that I viewed 60 of their You Tube clips. Seems to me you're projecting. Given your strident certitude you should have no trouble provide any links that convinced you of your opinion, buttress your argument. The daily recurrences of "identity politics" put it out there. What convinced you they were "in the tank for Hillary"? It'd be hard to come up with a more inaccurate phrase. They full throatedly endorsed Sanders in the primaries. Cenk announced on the Monday (IIRC) before that he would be voting for HRC so how do you arrive at using "in the tank"? I found your remarks a "rancid cesspool of biased disinformation" long on emotion and very short on facts and evidence. That's why it seems like projection.

    Donald , January 28, 2017 at 10:00 am

    The US support for the Saudi war in Yemen is the most clearcut example of the moral worthlessness of many liberals. Actually, to their credit many Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress have opposed it, but it isn't a big cause because Obama was the one doing it. I imagine Trump will continue the policy, but don't expect anything to change– Trump can be opposed on other issues, so there will be no incentive to criticize him on an issue when the Trump people can say they are just continuing what Obama started.

    It is infuriating to hear liberals mindlessly repeating how disgraceful it is to see Trump cozying up with a dictator who has blood on his hands. It is the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind with these people.

    integer , January 28, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    This tweet (which I found @ActualFlatticus ) sums up the dynamic you are referring to perfectly imo.

    Jen , January 28, 2017 at 7:31 am

    Hear, hear! Thanks to NC that Common Dreams piece set off my bs detector immediately. There's a larger framing question we can add as well: who benefits from PMI?

    Using the example above, the home buyer pays an upfront premium of $3,300 which gives them no additional equity in their home, and somewhere between $1400 and $1500 a year for their premium, which also doesn't increase their equity. And, they continue to pay PMI until they achieve a loan to value ratio of 80%.

    So you buy your 200K house and dutifully pay your mortgage and PMI, which, btw, is also not tax deductible. You finally get to the point where through a combination of paying down your mortgage and increasing home prices, you have 80% equity in your home. Then the housing market tanks, and your 200K home is worth 170K. Your house is worth less than you paid for it and you're stuck paying $1500 a year in fees that don't reduce the amount of your mortgage, that you can't deduct from your taxes, and that you can't get rid of until you have 80% equity in your house.

    Sign me up!

    So who benefits? Certainly not the middle class would be homeowner, who not only gets screwed on the finances, but thanks to inflation of home prices, is getting screwed on the finances so that they can spend 200K on a crappy little ranch that's a 40 minute commute to their job one way on a good day.

    jgordon , January 28, 2017 at 7:56 am

    I also read about this on the Neocon/Neolib pro-war propaganda and general disinformation site for women and manginas Huffington Post, and I have to say that they were spinning really hard to make this look like something horrible Trump had done. But even in the extremely biased article I read they surreptitiously had to admit that this was a rule the Obama regime had put in place the midnight before Obama departed and that Trump was just reversing it. I read this before I knew anything else about t he subject and already had a pretty good idea of what was going on. But the above post helped a lot.

    Baby Gerald , January 28, 2017 at 8:45 am

    'the Neocon/Neolib pro-war propaganda and general disinformation site for women and manginas '

    Thank you, jgordon, for my first hearty laugh of the morning. I'm going to bookmark HuffPo just so I can re-title it this.

    Thanks again to NC for giving me a good link to use against the uninformed masses with whom I frequently have to deal.

    lyman alpha blob , January 28, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    Finance benefits – they get to keep promoting unaffordable mortgages.

    We refused to pay this BS insurance when purchasing our house, since it wan't insuring us against anything but rather we'd be paying for the bank's insurance against ourselves. Seems a lot more like a scam when you frame it that way, considering that the bank is lending you money they just created in the first place.

    Instead we saved up for another year or two until we had the whole 20% down required to avoid the insurance. I do understand that not everyone can afford 20% down depending on their job and where they live however if enough people refused both PMI and to purchase because they couldn't afford 20% down on an overpriced house (and we are in another bubble already, at least in my area), prices would drop until people could really afford them.

    Finance pretends they are just trying to make the American Dream available to everybody and too many have taken the bait to the point where finance as a percentage of GDP is near or at an all time high. The reality is that it's mostly just a scam to benefit finance and turn the population into debt slaves.

    Marcer69 , January 28, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    The home owner was able to purchase a home with less than 20% down. The PMI protects the lender during default, which is considerably higher when borrower has no skin in the game. Also, there are other options such as lender paid mi.

    Marcer69 , January 28, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    Additionally, most of you are confusing PMI – Private Mortgage Insurance- with FHA Upfront and MIP. With the latter being required regardless of the down payment. Secondly, the author was wrong on his facts. MIP is .85 @ 96.5% and .80 @ 30 years. 15 YR.terns offer reduced

    koki , January 28, 2017 at 10:50 pm

    PMI is another insurance company rip-off. Requiring people to escrow taxes with no interest paid to them by the banks using those funds is another rip-off.

    Roger Smith , January 28, 2017 at 10:40 am

    Agreed! Great article Jeff!

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    Thank you, Roger.

    nonsense factory , January 28, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    Trying to condense this whole article into a tweet is a challenge. . .

    "Obama cuts mortg. ins. rate for <20% down by 25 pts ($500 on $200k home) 11days prior to exit in con artist act sure to be dropped by Trump resulting in bogus media claims about Dem support for working class homeowners."

    Sondra , January 28, 2017 at 4:35 pm

    I agree. If we Progressives are to make any fwd movement, we can't beat up on DJT on any and everything. I am also cautioning friends & family to do so too. If cry "foul" everyou time he acts, that delegitimizes us.

    One recent example is the Trumps' arrivall @ wh b4 the inauguration. A snapshot shows DJT entering WH before the Obamas and Mrs. DJT. Once posted, goes viral and the talk is how ill-mannered, selfish is and how gracious the Obamas are for escorting the Mrs. after her "oafish" husband

    What is not shown is that DJT stops, comes back, and ushers the trio ahead of him. (which you can see on CSPAN ).
    When I saw the truth of what happened, after reading the negative comments, that worried me.

    We REALLY need to be more dis corning and employ critical thinking.

    Have to be careful not to be swayed by bullshit, no matter where it comes from.

    Quiet , January 28, 2017 at 7:01 am

    This explanation, while nice, only serves to make Trump look dumb. He jumped into an obvious trap. Rather than focus on how Obama tricked him, I'm a bit more concerned with what this portends for the future. See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to avoid easy pitfalls like this, the odds of his success aren't very high.

    By the way, this reads like one more zing at Obama after he's already left the building. He earned most of the criticism he got, definitely from this site, but I feel like this is overdoing it. Criticizing him for not doing it sooner? Totally valid. Criticizing him for tripping up his successor? Petty.

    Pointing out the hypocrisy of Schumer and Kaine isn't part of that pettiness, though. That will be useful to remember as they cozy up to the Don and claim they're doing it to "help working families."

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 8:13 am

    I am admittedly a political newbie (Bernie woke me up never did anything before him but vote), and perhaps I am missing something, but I would be much less upset about it if he didn't screw middle class Americans in the process.

    That this is considered petty, by which I believe you mean normal politics, is exactly the problem.

    JTMcPhee , January 28, 2017 at 11:37 am

    "Screw middle class Americans" exactly how?

    The article makes it pretty clear, if I am reading it and the links and background right, that the screwing is principally in the form of requiring mortgage insurance to insure THE LENDER (or note holder or whoever MERS says gets paid on default). And that the "benefit" you may feel was (according to the spin) "taken away," was not even an "entitlement" because it would not have even been in effect until three weeks AFTER Obama (who has screwed the middle class and everyone else not in the Elite, nine ways from nowhere, for 8 years), and would not change the abuse that is PMI. And would not have "put dollars in the pockets of consumers" anyway for long after that. And how many homeowners are in the category?

    And banksters and mortgage brokers and the rest, gee whiz, we mopes are supposed to be concerned about THEM? About people whose paydays come from commissions on the dollar amount of the loans they write? Where all the "incentives," backed by the Real Economy that undergirds the ability of the US Government to do its fiat money forkovers to lenders that connived to change the policies against prudential lending to inflate the bubble that crashed and burned so many, are all once again being pointed in the direction of making Realtors ™(c)(BS) and lenders even richer on flips and flops and dumb transactions and churning?

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 12:08 pm

    He screwed the middle class by teasing them with a rate reduction, knowing that Trump was going to never let it happen.

    JTMcPhee , January 28, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    Just to clarify, and please anyone correct me, this was not any kind of "rate reduction." Rate reductions are what is supposed to happen under the various homeowner "they let you live in their house as long as you pay the rent mortgage" relief programs that never happened except to transfer more money to the Banksters. As in "reduce the unaffordable interest rate on oppressive mortgages." And "mark to market." And PRINCIPAL reductions as a result. And I do know the nominal difference between "title" states and "equitable interest" states - in either, the note holder effectively owns the house and property until the last nickel is paid, and as seen in the foreclosure racket, often not even the. And the "homeowner" gets to pay the taxes and maintain and maybe improve the place, to protect the note holder's equity "Fee simple absolute" is a comforting myth.

    As the article points out, the only potential reduction in money from borrower to lender/loan servicer (since the PMI underwriters seem to have such close financial ties to the insured note holder, there's but slim difference between the parts of the racket) might have been that tiny reduction in the insurance PREMIUM.

    Niggling over terms, maybe, but that's what "the law" is made up of.

    And apologies if I mistook the referent of "he" to be "Trump" rather than Obama and his clan - but nonetheless

    hemeantwell , January 28, 2017 at 8:54 am

    This excellent analytic walkthrough is a model for what must be done to ward off any form of "Obama 2!" as a political battle cry. It must be done relentlessly and without any consideration of being fair to that neoliberal schemer. The Clintonites will claw their way back from the edge of their political grave if they can draw on such sentiments.

    nonsense factory , January 28, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    Exactly, what we need is an FDR approach, which Bernie Sanders Democrats are far more likely to deliver. Instead of bailing out AIG and Goldman Sachs, FDR would have set up a Homeonwers Loan Corporation to buy up all the adjustable rate mortgages and convert them to fixed-rate mortgages, and instead of the zero-interest loans going to Wall Street from the Fed, they'd have gone to homeowners facing foreclosure, who could then stay in their homes and pay them off over time.

    But when Obama came in, he brought in Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, who preached about "not returning to the failed policied of FDR." What a pack of con artists. I prefer your honest hustlers to those guys (i.e. Team Trump, American Hustle 2.0 at least you know what to expect.)

    a different chris , January 28, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    >See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to avoid easy pitfalls like this

    How is this a pitfall? Trump puts a hold on a "last minute Obama change", lets it sit for awhile, and then reinstates it or maybe even makes it better. Then Trump owns the reduction, not Obama.

    This isn't even one-dimensional chess.

    Jim Haygood , January 28, 2017 at 7:59 am

    This essay focuses on timing and tactics. Not analyzed is the essential question of What is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?

    It's an actuarial question based on prior loss experience. Real estate moves in long cycles. Each trough is different in depth.

    Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans.

    Obama's action mirrors what's seen in other gov-sponsored insurance programs, such as pension benefit guarantee schemes which are chronically under-reserved. Cheap premiums look like a free benefit, until the guarantee fund goes bust in a down cycle, and taxpayers get hit with a bailout.

    What's so stupendously silly about Obama's diktat is that it was too late to provide any electoral benefit. Whereas if HUD's mortgage insurance pool later went bust, it could have been blamed on Obama for cutting premiums without any actuarial analysis.

    Perhaps HUD secretary Ben Carson will ask a more fundamental question: what is HUD doing in the mortgage insurance business, anyway? Obama's ham-handed tampering with premiums for political purposes shows why government is not well placed to be in the insurance business - it has skewed incentives. Ditch it, Ben!

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 8:49 am

    In researching this story (I have no financial background, and have never owned anything beyond a car), I had a theory that the reduction made no fiscal sense because the Feds raised rates for the first time in 2016, after hovering above near zero for eight years, to .5%. My thinking was that the move was to discourage new borrowers by making loans more expensive, therefore increasing the cost of mortgages and ultimately threatening the solvency of the FHA. I was wrong, which is disappointing because it would have made for a more dramatic ending, in that Trump's revoking the decrease would have been the "correct" thing to do.

    Brian Lindholm , January 28, 2017 at 9:23 am

    Jim,

    Aye. You make an excellent point that essentially everybody in media has ignored. What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should be high enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but no higher.

    I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately require a taxpayer bailout. Either way , Obama is incompetent.

    If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for free!! But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require continuous injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress, then you have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or 4.0% or 6.2% matters not a whit in this calculation.

    Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the concept of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.

    Jim Haygood , January 28, 2017 at 9:53 am

    An analogy could be made to municipal bond insurance, which like mortgage insurance is intended to protect the lender against loss of principal:

    Municipal bond insurance adds a layer of protection in the rare case of default. However, that protection is dependent on the insurance companies' credit quality.

    Municipal bond insurance used to be commonplace; now it's quite rare. Why is that? As of 2008, nearly half of all newly issued municipal bonds carried some form of insurance. Today, the share is less than 7%.

    The number of municipal bond insurers has also declined and their credit ratings have fallen.

    A number of bond insurers went bust during the Great Recession. Plus, a large default by Puerto Rico has caused many municipal market participants to question the ability of insurance companies to pay on the bonds they insure.

    http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/How-the-Municipal-Bond-Insurance-Market-Has-Changed-Since-the-Great-Recession

    Muni bond insurers were publicly traded, profit seeking companies. But they underpriced their insurance, probably because no one expected a 1930s-style crisis like 2008.

    Obama had no more concept about how to price mortgage insurance than I do about how to perform brain surgery. He was just mindlessly handing out bennies at public expense in the dark of night, before skulking away into well-deserved obscurity.

    shinola , January 28, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    I dunno Jim – perhaps Obama DID know (or was advised) that the rate cut was actuarially unsound thus setting up his successor for problems down the road or bad optics upfront if the cut was reversed.

    Cleverly devious?

    Brian Lindholm , January 28, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    Yep. To quote the White House press release, " Today, the President announced a major new step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy families. "

    That's not a valid reason to lower PMI rates. PMI rates must cover losses, and higher interest rates on mortgages may very well mean higher default rates. If so, PMI rates would need to go up as well.

    Now if the press release had talked about PMI overcharges by the FHA, then I might have have bought it. But they didn't. There was no mention of actuarial soundness at all .

    Jack , January 28, 2017 at 10:12 am

    For a good explanation of how mortgage insurance works and the impact of the discussed premium increase/decrease, check out David Dayen's (a frequent contributor to NC) article on the Intercept here . David goes more in depth on the actual numbers and what they mean.

    Optic7 , January 28, 2017 at 12:26 pm

    I did briefly hear some discussion in the news about the FHA mortgage insurance program having been underfunded in the recent past. This could have given an additional reason for Trump to block the lower rate until the numbers could be analyzed. I did a search and found a couple of articles from before either of these decisions that illustrate different perspectives on this issue:

    http://thehill.com/policy/finance/232492-castro-grilled-over-lowering-mortgage-insurance-premiums

    http://www.fhaloanpros.com/2009/01/is-the-fha-under-funded/

    The latter article is from 2009 but includes some interesting details about significant amounts of money being transferred from the fund to the treasury department.

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    From the first link, as of 2015: " his recent decision to lower mortgage insurance premiums despite the FHA falling short of its capital reserve requirement." So the fund was out of compliance with the law, and this was a long-running point of contention between the administration and the Republicans in Congress.

    What we don't know yet is whether the fund reached its goal, which would justify lowing the premium. The Congress members were complaining about being lied to.

    DarkMatters , January 28, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    "What is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?"

    "Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans."

    The argument here seems to be that what is typical is appropriate. By that argument, 0.55% which falls in that range would be ok. The argument that it's too low assumes that the range as it stands is somehow rationally defined, which is another assumption that itself bears scrutiny. To say that 0.5-1.0% is ok is an assumption, and should be examined in detail right along with the 0.55 and 0.8 HUD figures before firmer conclusions could be drawn. The results would give an informed answer to the rhetorical question " what is HUD doing in the mortgage insurance business, anyway?" Absent that, we're reduced to arguments, tainted on both sides by political inclinations. Jeff Epstein's clarification is exemplary.

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    " Whereas if HUD's mortgage insurance pool later went bust, it could have been blamed on Obama for cutting premiums without any actuarial analysis."

    Oh Boy! That would really hurt Obama, when he'd be long gone and dancing with the stars!

    Remember, whatever he did during his term he weighed and measured a thousand times.

    flora , January 28, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    "Cheap premiums look like a free benefit, until the guarantee fund goes bust in a down cycle, and taxpayers get hit with a bailout."

    +1.

    Domofdoom , January 28, 2017 at 8:18 am

    Well said. What do you think would be more effective: trying to change the dems or giving up on them and setting up another party?

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    option 2

    Vatch , January 28, 2017 at 4:37 pm

    One may be more effective, but if it's not feasible, it doesn't matter how effective it would be in theory. See this comment by Martin from Canada a few days ago:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/bernie-sanders-nails-trumps-pick-health-human-services-directly-wall.html#comment-2747290

    Here's the link that Martin pointed to:

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democratic-labor-party-ackerman/

    Maybe a viable new progressive party can be created. But it sure won't be easy. If it weren't extremely difficult, don't you think that the Greens would have done it by now? For now, I think that people need to be actively looking for candidates to run in the 2018 Democratic primaries. In a few places, at the state level, this will be happening in 2017. See:

    https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2017

    "Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia hold elections in odd-numbered years."

    rjs , January 28, 2017 at 8:36 am

    Obama came in off the golf course after Trump was elected and issued dozens of similar diktats i recall wondering at the time that if all those moves were so important, why didn't he make them in the 8 years he had

    oho , January 28, 2017 at 9:39 am

    EZ real issue for Democrats to embrace. Stop the sales tax of food at the state/muni level. Shift that burden (or as much as reasonably possible) to the top income brackets.

    Oh wait, the places where Democrats can do this, always solidly vote D and there's no incentive.

    J.P. Steele , January 28, 2017 at 9:51 am

    There is an art to politics. As anyone who studies the subject knows, one has to be both "Lion & Fox." Lion .for the strength to drive policies, but also a Fox in order to avoid "Snares and Traps." Bannon, who actually has been writing these executive orders, stepped right into this Trap. Rookie mistake. This is what happens when you have ideologues attempting to actually govern. They "step in it." I believe that Jeff is a bit naive and thin skinned here as to "The Game." Obama did indeed set a snare ..but I am a bit more concerned by Steve's arrogance for boldly stepping in it and allowing the opposition a fine platform to grandstand on the issue. Rookie mistake. Arrogance & Stupidity.

    integer , January 28, 2017 at 11:13 pm

    Afaics there are two ways in which this game can be played:

    A)
    1: 0bama sets the trap.
    2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates while simultaneously denouncing 0bama for setting the trap.
    3: MSMedia circus.

    B)
    1: 0bama sets the trap.
    2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates.
    3: D-party denounces Trump.
    4: MSMedia circus.
    5: Trump/Bannon denounces 0bama for setting the trap.
    6: MSMedia once again loses credibility, at least in the eyes of Trump supporters.

    Why is option A better than B? Am I missing something here?

    Yves Smith Post author , January 29, 2017 at 12:02 am

    Trump and Bannon will never do 5 and 6. They never fight on the level of detail and timetables.

    Horatio Parker , January 28, 2017 at 10:14 am

    Simple question: why did Trump reverse the cut?

    Craig , January 28, 2017 at 10:53 am

    Excellent question, it has not been answered yet:). Lotsa words tho.

    cm , January 28, 2017 at 2:39 pm

    1. It raised financial risk to the govt.
    2. As the article pointed out many times, it was a sleazy move on Obama's part

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    Same reason Bush 43 reversed the last-minute reductions to water regulations that Bill Clinton passed, and Obama had to deal with

    Clinton to Bush : President Clinton Signs Midnight Regulations

    Bush to Obama : Bush's Final FU: Last-Minute Regulations That Will Screw America for Years to Come

    Obama to Trump: Mortgage rate (non-)"reduction", likely more to come

    Wiki on "Midnight Regulations": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_regulations

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 4:07 pm

    Not a lot of archived stuff from 2001 and before on the nets, oddly. I regret posting the CNN link up there.

    I washed my hands twice afterward.

    ScottW , January 28, 2017 at 10:17 am

    If everyone with less than 20% equity has PMI, why didn't it pay off after the crash and lessen the need for a bailout? Logic would dictate most of the foreclosures were on homes people bought most recently with less than 20% down. Did PMI pay any money during the crash and to whom and for what?

    If it didn't do any good during the last crash to lessen the public bailout, what's the point of requiring it?

    lyman alpha blob , January 28, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    That is a very good question and I don't remember hearing anything about PMI paying out during the crash (but that could just be my memory). In fact it never even crossed my mind but yeah you'd think that should have mitigated some of the losses. Maybe any payout would only benefit the mortgage holder directly and wouldn't carry through to the mortgage-based securities? That seems odd though and if true would be a strong case for severely curtailing if not eliminating at least the more exotic bets.

    Anybody know anything about this?

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    I often wondered about the same thing/

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    Because it's another BS fee they tack on for no good reason other than greed.

    I was in the mortgage game in 2006-2008. Now matter how many showers I take I still don't feel clean.

    bob , January 28, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    "Logic would dictate most of the foreclosures were on homes people bought most recently with less than 20% down."

    Not banker logic. They were foreclosing on houses with equity to steal. Those houses that were valued above what was mortgaged.

    Jim F , January 28, 2017 at 10:29 am

    What gets me is people who think "shame on Trump" for not recognizing and avoiding the trap. Every single one of those people I avoid like the plague.

    Joel , January 28, 2017 at 10:42 am

    Re: The Young Turks

    I watched a few times until what's his name, the main turk, interrupted and talked over the female co-host too many times for my stomach. There are too many good choices to give clicks to that type of behavior. Hey this is the 21st century.

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    Cenk Uygur – the only actual Turk on the show. It IS his show and network, but I see your point.

    jake , January 28, 2017 at 10:42 am

    I don't know . Obama made many policy changes after the election results came.

    It's not as if government is a fast moving engine. This could have been in the works for years and got expedited for obvious reasons. It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences, also Chelsea Manning, and there was no political gain in it for him.

    Unless the policy was itself a fraud, it's impossible to know whether it was implemented cynically.

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    I made this point below, once it escapes moderation, but basically: 1) the article fails to tell us whether the new rate made sense; and 2) Clinton did the same thing – a bunch of last-minute progressive moves, designed to stroke his legacy and punk his Republican successor. Let's hope the clemency actions are less reversible than the policy moves.

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    "It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences, also Chelsea Manning, and there was no political gain in it for him."

    It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences, also Chelsea Manning,*** BECAUSE*** there was no political gain in it for him.

    There, I fixed it for you.

    John , January 28, 2017 at 11:00 am

    So Trump/Bannon got punked by Obama the first week in office. Looks like to me th e Repubs are realizing Obamacare may be a similar punkjob.

    JamesG , January 28, 2017 at 11:02 am

    "Simple question: why did Trump reverse the cut?"

    To gain time.

    To evaluate the numbers and come up with an accurate rate?

    My simple question: Why did the Ds presume it was simply "to hurt the middle class?"

    Horatio Parker , January 28, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    Because it makes buying a house more expensive.

    It seems that Obama's motives may safely assumed to be deceitful and petty, but we can conclude nothing at all about Trump or his motives.

    I don't see how this "truth" advances any agenda.

    DarkMatters , January 28, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    Maybe Mnuchin protecting his faction? Just another hypothesis.

    NotClairVoyant , January 28, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    The MIP rate reduction was either an ill-advised reaction to the recent spike in mortgage rates or a simple set-up for the incoming administration. I suspect is was a combination of both, and likely designed more for political gain than anything.

    It's hard to take a guy seriously when he professes to be concerned about home affordability when he spent the last 8 years "foaming the runway" for banks as millions of people were foreclosed on their homes, only to watch many of those same homes get gobbled up by Wall Street and rented back out to them.

    Fewer underwater borrowers will at least curtail the path to feudalism in this new echo housing bubble.

    winstonsmith , January 28, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    Another issue is who would have actually benefited from the Obama rate cut. We are supposed to believe it would have been home buyers, but a uniform increase in the spending power of home buyers as a group is to a large extent offset by a corresponding increase in home prices. To that extent it would be sellers (including private equity) and not low income buyers who would benefit.

    yan , January 28, 2017 at 1:14 pm

    Also, as far as I'm concerned, if Obamamometer was serious about helping homeowners there are many more better ways to do it than "foaming the runway" for banks, or preempting any meaningful action through his statewide get out of jail free card settlement, or actually trying to stop his buddies from blowing asset bubble after asset bubble.
    Moreover, if you can΄t put up more than 20% up front to buy a house maybe the problem is that wages are shit compared to property prices and people can΄t afford anything more than cheap meth or oxycontin to cope with their sorry lives.

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    +1

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    Pardon if this is a duplication, but: Isn't there a very large omission here? Was the premium decrease justified, or not? It's supposed to be government insurance, so the premium should cover the costs. Did it? Would the proposed lower premium cover them? (Yeah, I know, MMT. But apparently the idea here was to have a self-supporting program, so it should be self-supporting unless you announce otherwise.)

    That said: this is part of a pattern. Obama made a number of progressive policy moves at the very last minute, most of them reversible. This is nothing but legacy-stroking, as well as setting a trap for the next Pres. Clinton did the same thing, along with some questionable pardons.

    "So why'd you wait so long?"

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    Well, Haygood was the only one to beat me to it.

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    I noticed the false headlines on yahoo news (the bastion of fake and worthless news) and I immediately checked it to find that O'Liar had planted this landmine so that it could blow up in Trump's face. Sure enough, when Trump canceled it, he was the bad guy (even though it had never had gone into effect as this article points out). What a cynical move by O'Liar and how cynical can his sycophants be?

    flora , January 28, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    Great post! I saw the headlines when the story came out and instantly thought there was something "off", something a little too pat about the stories. But I wasn't sure what was wrong with the stories, and was left confused. This post of investigative reporting and facts informs me what was actually happening. Thank you.

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 4:48 pm

    Nice to hear this. Thanks.

    jake , January 28, 2017 at 4:29 pm

    The reaction here puzzles me to the point of confusion. Absent any argument that the policy didn't offer it's claimed benefits (cost savings for the middle-class), is the left so virtuous that it will reject and refuse to fight for any advance which isn't selflessly arrived at?

    Compare this to "conservatives" who successfully campaigned in 2010 against supposed Medicare cuts related to Obamacare implementation, when they'd love nothing more than to kill the program outright.

    We, by contrast, we won't even fight for what we claim to believe in, if it isn't wrapped in virtue.

    Yves Smith Post author , January 28, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    You are missing that this is insurance, and the cost of losses must be paid for somehow. From Bruce's comment above:

    What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should be high enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but no higher.

    I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately require a taxpayer bailout. Either way, Obama is incompetent.

    If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for free!! But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require continuous injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress, then you have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or 4.0% or 6.2% matters not a whit in this calculation.

    Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the concept of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.

    jake , January 28, 2017 at 6:56 pm

    Granted, but nobody knows the facts. Bruce wants to damn Obama for not doing it before, or damn him now for doing it. But nothing he either did or didn't do will be deemed acceptable at this point, even if the reduction is fully warranted.

    Have we never heard politics? Process? Delay? Your net conclusion may still prove to be the correct one, though I'm not sure that failure to implement change earlier, assuming it was warranted, could be justly laid at the feet of Obama. But we do know?

    flora , January 28, 2017 at 7:55 pm

    I'm not sure that failure to implement change earlier, assuming it was warranted, could be justly laid at the feet of Obama. But we do know?"

    A Presidential Directive, aka an executive order or executive action, can be laid at the feet of the President. So, yes, we do know. He could have taken the action anytime in the past 8 years. Note the date on this action – Jan 7th, 2017.
    http://www.housingwire.com/articles/32533-its-official-obama-to-direct-fha-to-cut-mortgage-insurance-premiums

    centaur , January 28, 2017 at 5:03 pm

    +1000, jake

    witters , January 28, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    So Obama almost nearly did something that might, maybe, have been a tiny bit useful, but then the US Constitution

    [Jan 29, 2017] The Neocons Grand Plan and Obamas Blundering Foreign Policy: An Actor Playing the Role of a President ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions." President Barack Obama, May 29, 2014 commencement speech at West Point ..."
    "... "War is mankind's most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.", President Dwight Eisenhower, 1947 commencement speech at West Point ..."
    "... "Politically speaking, tribal nationalism always insists that its own people is surrounded by "a world of enemies", "one against all", that a fundamental difference exists between this people and all others. It claims its people to be unique, individual, incompatible with all others, and denies theoretically the very possibility of a common mankind long before it is used to destroy the humanity of man." Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951 ..."
    "... " An empire is a despotism, and an emperor is a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy. For, although the will of an absolute monarch is law, yet his edicts must be registered by parliaments. Even this formality is not necessary in an empire." John Adams (1735-1826), 2nd American President ..."
    "... Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is an internationally renowned economist and author, whose last two books are The Code for Global Ethics, Prometheus Books, 2010; and The New American Empire, Infinity Publishing, 2003. ..."
    Jan 29, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm : January 26, 2017 at 04:55 PM , 2017 at 04:55 PM
    Daron Acemoglu flowing irony......... missed Egypt where generals couped to keep Camp David aid from Muslims muftis

    only domestic coups listed. missed numerous coups US imposes and the royals' funded jihadis the CIA funds to coup out Assad.

    Trumps main scare is to the CIA

    Glad all the "managers" at state resigned they don't fit a regime that don't fund jihadis neocons okay. Irony!

    libezkova : Reply Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 06:38 PM , January 26, 2017 at 06:38 PM
    A blast from the past

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-neocons-grand-plan-and-obamas-blundering-foreign-policy-an-actor-playing-the-role-of-a-president_072014

    == quote ==

    The Neocons "Grand Plan" and Obama's Blundering Foreign Policy: "An Actor Playing the Role of a President"?

    July 16, 2014 | Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay | The New American Empire | 378 views

    I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions." President Barack Obama, May 29, 2014 commencement speech at West Point

    "War is mankind's most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.", President Dwight Eisenhower, 1947 commencement speech at West Point

    "Politically speaking, tribal nationalism always insists that its own people is surrounded by "a world of enemies", "one against all", that a fundamental difference exists between this people and all others. It claims its people to be unique, individual, incompatible with all others, and denies theoretically the very possibility of a common mankind long before it is used to destroy the humanity of man." Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

    " An empire is a despotism, and an emperor is a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy. For, although the will of an absolute monarch is law, yet his edicts must be registered by parliaments. Even this formality is not necessary in an empire." John Adams (1735-1826), 2nd American President

    Am I alone in having the uneasy feeling, while listening to Barack Obama's speeches, that we are witnessing an actor playing the role of an American president and carefully reading the script he has been given? As time goes by, indeed, Barack Obama seems to be morphing more and more into a Democratic George W. Bush. Those who write his speeches seem to have the same warmongering mentality as those who wrote George W. Bush's or Dick Cheney's speeches, ten years ago.

    That's probably no accident since Neocons occupy key positions in Barack Obama's administration as they did under George W. Bush when they pushed the United States into the war in Iraq, and as they have also tried to push the United States toward a military showdown with Iran and as they are now attempting to provoke Russia into a military conflict. How Neocons can infiltrate both Republican and Democratic administrations and be trouble-makers in both administrations is the daily wonder of American politics!

    But we know the Neocons' "Grand Plan". They have published it. Indeed, this is a plan that has been outlined in many reports published by the (now defunct) Project for a New American Century (PNAC), an organization created in 1997, and whose many founders became prominent members of the Bush-Cheney administration. They have rebranded themselves as the Foreign Policy Initiative and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and have now succeeded in becoming influential within the Obama-Biden administration, especially at the State Department as leftovers of former Secretary Hillary Clinton. They and their allies are the main force behind the disastrous and incoherent U.S. foreign policies being pursued by the United States government both in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe.

    Basically, it is a plan that has little to do with the fundamental interests of ordinary Americans, and everything to do with those of some foreign and domestic entities, most prominently the state of Israel because of its influence in American domestic politics and the Sunni state of Saudi Arabia because of its crucial role in influencing the price of oil internationally. It is also a plan that fits in very well with the interests of the military-industrial complex, which needs a permanent war environment to justify huge defense budgets.

    Such a plan is based on the old principle of "Divide and Conquer" (or in Latin, " Divide ut Regnes or "Divide et Impera"). This sometimes requires creating political chaos where stability prevails. And stirring the pot is what the Neocons want to do in order to attain their goals. In the Middle East, they do it by fanning the flames of the old sectarian conflict between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims in order to overthrow unfriendly established governments and to disintegrate countries into smaller and more easily controlled parts, even though the human costs for the local populations are horrific.

    For example, even though it may seem absurd for the Obama administration to arm and support fanatical Islamist rebels in Syria while fighting them in Iraq with drones and Marines, such a bizarre policy appears rational in the eyes of the Neocons if it results in Sunnis and Shiites killing each other and if the country of Iraq is broken down into parts.

    In Europe, the Neocons have persuaded the clueless Obama administration that provoking a rekindling of the old Cold War and re-igniting tensions between Russia and the West were necessary steps to be taken in order to solidify the U.S.'s influence on the European Union (E.U.) and to establish a reframed and enlarged NATO as an American-controlled offensive military alliance that can sidestep the United Nations, justifying military interventionism abroad.

    But, because the neocon plan is often in conflict with long-term economic and political American interests at home and abroad, the neocon plan to launch a string of American-sponsored wars in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe may explain why Obama's current foreign policy appears to be so incoherent and so inconsistent. Let us elaborate.

    1- First, consider the chaotic situations in Syria, in Libya, and in Iraq, where well-armed Islamic militias are well positioned to destabilize these countries' established governments through civil wars that could easily lead to their political disintegration and economic downfall.

    However, while permanent chaos in that oil-rich part of the world may serve certain political interests, especially those of Israel whose geopolitical advantage is to weaken surrounding Islamic states and even break them up into smaller entities, and those of Sunni and oil-rich Saudi Arabia whose advantage is to profit from higher oil prices and to weaken the Middle East Shiite states (Iran, Iraq and their ally Syria), such permanent military conflicts hardly serve the interests of American consumers and workers and may threaten the business interests of the large American oil companies operating in the region.

    Indeed, higher oil prices are one of the causes behind the current relative economic stagnation in the United States and in Europe, while the possibility that Islamic militias can attack and take control of oil fields in those countries runs counter to the interests of American oil companies.

    This partly explains why there are conflicting demands being made on the Obama administration by different political and economic interests, and it has become increasingly difficult to accommodate them all, notwithstanding how hard President Obama tries to do so. Thus, the apparent incoherence and inconsistency in that foreign policy.

    Sometimes Barack Obama acts as if he accepts the neocon agenda of destabilizing most Middle East Muslim countries for the benefit of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Witness the U.S. government's financial and military support of terrorist organizations to provoke "regime change" in Syria as it has done in Libya. Remember that last September, Obama had acquiesced to his neocon advisers' recommendation to bomb the country of Syria, whose Assad government was deemed too close to Shiite Iran, before realizing that the entire cabal of justifications was a false flag operation.

    Sometimes, however, the economic costs of such instability are considered too high and a timid Obama, to the chagrin of his neocon advisers, hesitates to implement fully the Machiavellian neocon plan. President Obama then becomes the target of the neocon media who picture him as weak, "out of touch", inexperienced and irresolute, thus contributing to his increasing unpopularity.

    2- Secondly, consider the new Cold War that the Neocons have succeeded in rekindling in Europe, with their aggressive policy of encircling Russia with missiles and hostile neighboring countries and of engineering a "regime change" in Ukraine. Who profits from these renewed tensions? Certainly not ordinary Americans and ordinary Europeans. The profiteers are the empire builders and the arms traffickers, and all those who like to fish in troubled waters.

    Conclusion

    It is most unfortunate that President Barack Obama has not been able to establish a coherent and credible American foreign policy of his own, with clear principles and clear objectives, and has had to rely on discredited Neocons for advice. Therefore, he has placed himself and his government at the mercy of various and contradictory influences, sometimes jerking in one direction, sometimes in another direction. That's called a lack of vision and a lack of leadership.

    It may not be too late for Barack Obama to be his own man in his second term and to stop emulating George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. For that, however, he would have to fire all the Neocons in positions of power and policy-making in his administration. If he does not have the guts to do that, he may turn out to be one of the worst American presidents ever, on a par with George W. Bush.

    Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is an internationally renowned economist and author, whose last two books are The Code for Global Ethics, Prometheus Books, 2010; and The New American Empire, Infinity Publishing, 2003.

    [Jan 28, 2017] The US government has been making a mess of the world for decades with its overt and covert wars of aggression

    Notable quotes:
    "... My feel is nyt don't care for dιtente and prefers something like the stalemate in central Europe of 1983 ..."
    "... 1983 the year I (along with most Germans) realized I could be 'envied by the survivors'. ..."
    "... This neocon is really unrepentant Trotskyite hell bent on world neoliberal revolution and the USA world hegemony. Nothing will change such people. ..."
    "... In a sense they are real "occupiers" of the USA, the sect that keep the country, and especially its foreign policy, hostage. ..."
    "... This represents a continuation of the plan outlined by the neocon think tank known as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). It was the PNAC that plotted to deceive the US into invading Iraq for the benefit of Israel. (Do some Googling and reading if none of this sounds familiar.) ..."
    "... The US government has been making a mess of the world for decades with its overt and covert wars of aggression. Maybe we should insist that "our" government quit dancing to the tune of the special interests who profit from endless war and conflict (the "defense" industry, the Israel lobby, etc.) and try minding our own business in the world for a change? ..."
    "... Mc Cain and Portman are of the hillary/nuland/kagan neocon branch of the GOP. Why Jeb! was dumped. Mc Cain just came out for a nearly 50% increase in weapons buying funds! ..."
    "... US intelligence officials before the inauguration pandered to Obama about hacking! ..."
    Jan 28, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... January 28, 2017 at 07:13 AM , 2017 at 07:13 AM
    How much does Trump love Putin? And how worried should we be?
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/01/28/how-much-does-trump-love-putin-and-how-worried-should/ogb4ZD4DyCyKlQyX3knqkJ/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe - Alan Berger - January 28, 2017

    In a notorious interview with the Times of London and the German paper Bild, America's new president, Donald Trump, opined that NATO is obsolete, that disintegration of the European Union would make no difference to the United States, and that he will start off trusting Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel equally. It should come as no surprise that Trump's airing of such views provoked anxiety on both sides of the Atlantic.

    Speaking in his characteristic scattershot style, however, Trump also said he respected Merkel, he appreciated NATO, and his trust of either Putin or Merkel could dissipate rapidly. Thus it was that Trump raised vexing questions about himself.

    Is he really in thrall to Putin the war criminal? Does Trump have some sinister reason for praising Putin as a strong leader and passing over in silence Putin's propensity for having meddlesome journalists, dissidents, and turncoat spooks gunned down or poisoned with potions prepared by his special services?

    Or does Trump's praise of Putin reflect a neophyte's susceptibility to the views of courtiers such as his strategic adviser Steve Bannon, promoter of alt-right nationalism, or national security advisor, Mike Flynn, who took money from Putin's TV propaganda arm, Russia Today, and was seated next to Putin at a banquet celebrating the success of that international enterprise?

    To frame the question in a cruder way: Should we look on Trump as Putin's puppet or merely as a feckless con man from Queens who is woefully out of his depth on the great stage of history?

    Concern about a suspect relationship between Trump and Putin's regime cannot be dismissed as pure paranoia - even if there is no compromising video of Trump cavorting in a Moscow hotel with sex workers employed by Putin's security services. The FBI and US intelligence agencies had been looking into transactions between Trump associates and Putin's people well before receiving the dossier on Trump's Kremlin ties assembled by a retired officer of Britain's foreign intelligence service, MI6.

    And there is something yet more worrisome. The Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, noted for his exceptional sources in Israel's intelligence services, reported in the Israeli paper Yedioth Ahronoth that in a recent meeting between American and Israeli intelligence officers, the Americans warned their Israeli counterparts not to disclose sensitive sources and methods to the Trump White House or security council. The Israelis were told there is a danger Trump's people might pass such items to Russia's security services, and the Russians, wishing to make Iran as dependent on Moscow as Syria has become, would deliver Israel's most closely guarded secrets to Iran.

    Nevertheless, Trump's ignorance represents a greater danger than any covert obligation to the Kremlin.

    There is, after all, a rational case to be made that presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush indulged in geopolitical hubris when, disregarding Russian anxieties about a vulnerable periphery as well as verbal assurances originally offered by George H.W. Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker, they permitted NATO to expand from Germany's eastern to Russia's western border. At the end of the Cold War, Russia should have been brought into a Eurasian partnership with the NATO allies.

    Hence it makes sense for a new US president to seek to resolve dangerous tensions with a nuclear-armed Russia. But there is no justification for Trump's denigration of NATO and America's allies.

    Someone, perhaps Defense Secretary James Mattis, ought to explain to Trump what has made Article 5 of the NATO treaty - the pledge that an attack on one alliance member will be considered an attack on all - the key to keeping the peace in Europe. Stalin and his successors understood that Article 5 was an absolute commitment; that once Warsaw Pact troops marched westward, there would be no parliamentary debates in Western capitols, no dithering by presidents or prime ministers; there would be immediate military retaliation.

    This has been the secret of Western solidarity and the primary reason Mattis could say in his confirmation hearing that NATO might be the most successful military alliance in history. Success meant never having to use NATO armed forces in Europe.

    When Trump mindlessly hints that he might refuse to defend NATO allies who don't meet a voluntary pledge to spend 2 percent of their budgets on their militaries, he undermines Article 5. If he were sitting on Putin's lap and mouthing words from the Kremlin Godfather, his performance might be understandable. But if these impulses are his own, they suggest a perverse worldview that endangers America, its allies, and world peace.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 28, 2017 at 07:20 AM
    'It should come as no surprise that Trump's airing of such views provoked anxiety on both sides of the Atlantic':

    Trump's barbs aimed at Germany's
    Merkel seen boosting her election pitch
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/01/17/trump-barbs-aimed-germany-merkel-seen-boosting-her-election-pitch/8vG3sSSaUOq2EUZSdKGcmK/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe
    Arne Delfs and Patrick Donahue - Bloomberg News - January 17, 2017

    Angela Merkel's advisers see a chance that Donald Trump's swipes against the chancellor could work in her favor as she seeks a fourth term as German leader. ...

    Polls suggest most Germans were already put off by the U.S. president-elect's rhetoric and policy positions even before his latest volley, published in the country's biggest-selling Bild newspaper. Though he expressed respect for Merkel as Europe's pre-eminent leader, Trump laid out stances on the European Union, NATO and the economy that signal a fundamental clash with the chancellor's defense of free trade, open borders and liberal democracy. ...

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 28, 2017 at 10:29 AM
    Does Merkel really want open borders while US neocons would war over countries kluged after WW II?

    Or is this more yellow journalism from a nyt subsidiary?

    My feel is nyt don't care for dιtente and prefers something like the stalemate in central Europe of 1983.

    1983 the year I (along with most Germans) realized I could be 'envied by the survivors'........

    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 28, 2017 at 04:23 PM
    Compare with his previous article

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/09/20/berger/pT8vfC7EUkHwDRsZo1tPhK/story.html

    This neocon is really unrepentant Trotskyite hell bent on world neoliberal revolution and the USA world hegemony. Nothing will change such people.

    In a sense they are real "occupiers" of the USA, the sect that keep the country, and especially its foreign policy, hostage.

    Here is one interesting comment from
    http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/03/11/for-islamic-state-war-hints-look-to-the-bolsheviks/

    == quote ==

    The rise of ISIS was the direct consequence of the neocon-controlled US government's attempts at "regime change" in the Middle East. The CIA and other US government stooges helped provide arms, training, and funding to rebels in Libya and Syria in the hope that fueling those civil conflicts would destabilize the region.

    This represents a continuation of the plan outlined by the neocon think tank known as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). It was the PNAC that plotted to deceive the US into invading Iraq for the benefit of Israel. (Do some Googling and reading if none of this sounds familiar.)

    The situation with ISIS parallels the rise of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as a result of covert CIA support for the Islamic mujahideen in their fight against the Soviet occupiers. Most Americans are too ignorant to know that Osama Bin Laden and his comrades were once US allies (just as Saddam Hussein was a US ally until he ceased to be a cooperative puppet). Here's a quote from Reagan himself:

    "To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom."
    - U.S. President Ronald Reagan, March 21, 1983

    Naturally, those freedom fighters magically turned into "terrorists" and "cowards" once they started using those simple hand-held weapons to fight the massive US military that was invading their land, just as the Soviets had done in years past.

    The US government has been making a mess of the world for decades with its overt and covert wars of aggression. Maybe we should insist that "our" government quit dancing to the tune of the special interests who profit from endless war and conflict (the "defense" industry, the Israel lobby, etc.) and try minding our own business in the world for a change?

    Posted by Heretic50 | Report as abusive

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 28, 2017 at 10:25 AM
    Mc Cain and Portman are of the hillary/nuland/kagan neocon branch of the GOP. Why Jeb! was dumped. Mc Cain just came out for a nearly 50% increase in weapons buying funds!

    US intelligence officials before the inauguration pandered to Obama about hacking!

    Why I do not touch nyt, more yellow than wsj!

    [Jan 28, 2017] Obama Bequeaths A More Dangerous World

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the real world of modern Washington, Obama's choice of hawkish Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State and Republican apparatchik Robert Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense – along with keeping Bush's high command, including neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus – guaranteed that he would achieve little real foreign policy change. ..."
    "... Indeed, in 2009, this triumvirate collaborated to lock Obama into a futile counterinsurgency escalation in Afghanistan that did little more than get another 1,000 or so U.S. soldiers killed along with many more Afghans. In his memoir Duty , Gates said he and Clinton could push their joint views – favoring more militaristic strategies – in the face of White House opposition because "we were both seen as 'un-fireable.'" ..."
    "... So, Obama's rookie management mistake of surrounding himself with seasoned Washington operatives with a hawkish agenda doomed his early presidency to maneuvering at the edges of change rather than engineering a major – and necessary – overhaul of how the United States deals with the world. ..."
    "... Thus, Obama was frequently outmaneuvered. Besides the ill-fated counterinsurgency surge in Afghanistan, there was his attempt in 2009-10 to get Brazil and Turkey to broker a deal with Iran in which it would surrender much of its enriched uranium. But Israel and the neocons wanted a "regime change" bombing strategy against Iran, leading Secretary Clinton to personally torpedo the Brazil-Turkey initiative (with the strong support of The New York Times' editorial page ) as Obama silently acquiesced to her insubordination. ..."
    "... Even after Clinton, Gates and Petraeus were gone by the start of Obama's second term, he continued to acquiesce to most of the demands of the neocons and liberal interventionists. Rather than act as a decisive U.S. president, Obama often behaved more like the sullen teen-ager complaining from the backseat about not wanting to go on a family trip. Obama grumbled about some of the neocon/liberal-hawk policies but he mostly went along, albeit half-heartedly at times. ..."
    Jan 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Robert Parry via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Any fair judgment about Barack Obama's presidency must start with the recognition that he inherited a dismal situation from George W. Bush : the U.S. economy was in free-fall and U.S. troops were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly, these intertwined economic and foreign policy crises colored how Obama viewed his options, realizing that one false step could tip the world into the abyss.

    It's also true that his Republican rivals behaved as if they had no responsibility for the messes that Obama had to clean up. From the start, they set out to trip him up rather than lend a hand. Plus, the mainstream media blamed Obama for this failure of bipartisanship, rewarding the Republicans for their nihilistic obstructionism.

    That said, however, it is also true that Obama – an inexperienced manager – made huge mistakes from the outset and failed to rectify them in a timely fashion. For instance, he bought into the romantic notion of a "Team of Rivals" with his White House trumpeting the comparisons to Abraham Lincoln (although some of Lincoln's inclusion of rivals actually resulted from deals made at the 1860 Republican convention in Chicago to gain Lincoln the nomination).

    In the real world of modern Washington, Obama's choice of hawkish Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State and Republican apparatchik Robert Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense – along with keeping Bush's high command, including neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus – guaranteed that he would achieve little real foreign policy change.

    Indeed, in 2009, this triumvirate collaborated to lock Obama into a futile counterinsurgency escalation in Afghanistan that did little more than get another 1,000 or so U.S. soldiers killed along with many more Afghans. In his memoir Duty , Gates said he and Clinton could push their joint views – favoring more militaristic strategies – in the face of White House opposition because "we were both seen as 'un-fireable.'"

    Seasoned Operatives

    So, Obama's rookie management mistake of surrounding himself with seasoned Washington operatives with a hawkish agenda doomed his early presidency to maneuvering at the edges of change rather than engineering a major – and necessary – overhaul of how the United States deals with the world.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on May 1, 2011, watching developments in the Special Forces raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Neither played a particularly prominent role in the operation. (White House photo by Pete Souza)

    Obama may have thought he could persuade these experienced players with his intellect and charm but that is not how power works. At moments when Obama was inclined to move in a less warlike direction, Clinton, Gates and Petraeus could easily leak damaging comments about his "weakness" to friendly journalists at mainstream publications. Obama found himself consistently under pressure and he lacked the backbone to prove Gates wrong by firing Gates and Clinton.

    Thus, Obama was frequently outmaneuvered. Besides the ill-fated counterinsurgency surge in Afghanistan, there was his attempt in 2009-10 to get Brazil and Turkey to broker a deal with Iran in which it would surrender much of its enriched uranium. But Israel and the neocons wanted a "regime change" bombing strategy against Iran, leading Secretary Clinton to personally torpedo the Brazil-Turkey initiative (with the strong support of The New York Times' editorial page ) as Obama silently acquiesced to her insubordination.

    In 2011, Obama also gave in to pressure from Clinton and one of his key advisers, "humanitarian" warmonger Samantha Power, to support another "regime change" in Libya. That U.S.-facilitated air war devastated the Libyan military and ended with Islamic militants sodomizing Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi with a knife and then murdering him, a grisly outcome that Clinton celebrated with a chirpy rephrase of Julius Caesar's famous boast about a conquest, as she said: "We came, we saw, he died."

    Clinton was less upbeat a year later when Islamic militants in Benghazi, Libya, killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel, launching a scandal that led to the exposure of her private email server and reverberated through to the final days of her failed presidential campaign in 2016.

    Second-Term Indecision

    Even after Clinton, Gates and Petraeus were gone by the start of Obama's second term, he continued to acquiesce to most of the demands of the neocons and liberal interventionists. Rather than act as a decisive U.S. president, Obama often behaved more like the sullen teen-ager complaining from the backseat about not wanting to go on a family trip. Obama grumbled about some of the neocon/liberal-hawk policies but he mostly went along, albeit half-heartedly at times.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with U.S. President Barack Obama in the White House on Nov. 9, 2015. (Photo credit: Raphael Ahren/Times of Israel)

    For instance, although he recognized that the idea of "moderate" Syrian rebels being successful in ousting President Bashar al-Assad was a "fantasy," he nevertheless approved covert shipments of weapons, which often ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda-linked terrorists and their allies. But he balked at a full-scale U.S. military intervention.

    Obama's mixed-signal Syrian strategy not only violated international law – by committing aggression against a sovereign state – but also contributed to the horrific bloodshed that ripped apart Syria and created a massive flow of refugees into Turkey and Europe. By the end of his presidency, the United States found itself largely sidelined as Russia and regional powers, Turkey and Iran, took the lead in trying to resolve the conflict.

    But one of the apparent reasons for Obama's susceptibility to such fruitless undertakings was that he seemed terrified of Israel and its pugnacious Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who made clear his disdain for Obama by essentially endorsing Obama's 2012 Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

    Although Obama may have bristled at Netanyahu's arrogance – displayed even during meetings in the Oval Office – the President always sought to mollify the tempestuous Prime Minister. At the peak of Obama's power – after he vanquished Romney despite Netanyahu's electoral interference – Obama chose to grovel before Netanyahu with an obsequious three-day visit to Israel .

    Despite that trip, Netanyahu treated Obama with disdain, setting a new standard for chutzpah by accepting a Republican invitation to appear before a joint session of Congress in 2015 and urge U.S. senators and representatives to side with Israel against their own president over Obama's negotiated agreement to constrain Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu and the neocons wanted to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.

    However, the Iran nuclear deal, which Netanyahu failed to derail, may have been Obama's most significant diplomatic achievement. (In his passive-aggressive way, Obama gave Netanyahu some measure of payback by abstaining on a December 2016 motion before the United Nations Security Council condemning Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands. Obama neither vetoed it nor voted for it, but let it pass.)

    Obama also defied Washington's hardliners when he moved to normalize relations with Cuba, although – by 2016 – the passionate feelings about the Caribbean island had faded as a geopolitical issue, making the Cuban sanctions more a relic of the old Cold War than a hot-button issue.

    Obama's Dubious Legacy

    Yet, Obama's fear of standing up consistently to Official Washington's neocons and cowering before the Israeli-Saudi tandem in the Middle East did much to define his foreign policy legacy. While Obama did drag his heels on some of their more extreme demands by resisting their calls to bomb the Syrian government in 2013 and by choosing diplomacy over war with Iran in 2014, Obama repeatedly circled back to ingratiating himself to the neocons and America's demanding Israeli-Saudi "allies."

    King Salman greets the President and First Lady during a state visit to Saudi Arabia on Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

    Instead of getting tough with Israel over its continued abuse of the Palestinians, Obama gave Netanyahu's regime the most sophisticated weapons from the U.S. arsenal. Instead of calling out the Saudis as the principal state sponsor of terrorism – for their support for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State – Obama continued the fiction that Iran was the lead villain on terrorism and cooperated when the Saudis launched a brutal air war against their impoverished neighbors in Yemen .

    Obama personally acknowledged authorizing military strikes in seven countries, mostly through his aggressive use of drones , an approach toward push-button warfare that has spread animosity against the United States to the seven corners of the earth.

    However, perhaps Obama's most dangerous legacy is the New Cold War with Russia, which began in earnest when Washington's neocons struck back against Moscow for its cooperation with Obama in getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons (which short-circuited neocon hopes to bomb the Syrian military) and in persuading Iran to accept tight limits on its nuclear program (another obstacle to a neocon bombing plan).

    In both cases, the neocons were bent on "regime change," or at least a destructive bombing operation in line with Israeli and Saudi hostility toward Syria and Iran. But the biggest challenge to these schemes was the positive relationship that had developed between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin. So, that relationship had to be shattered and the wedge that the neocons found handy was Ukraine.

    By September 2013, Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, had identified Ukraine as "the biggest prize" and a steppingstone toward the ultimate goal of ousting Putin. By late fall 2013 and winter 2014, neocons inside the U.S. government, including Sen. John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, were actively agitating for a "regime change" in Ukraine, a putsch against elected President Viktor Yanukovych that was carried out on Feb. 22, 2014.

    This operation on Russia's border provoked an immediate reaction from the Kremlin, which then supported ethnic-Russian Ukrainians who had voted heavily for Yanukovych and who objected to the coup regime in Kiev. The neocon-dominated U.S. mainstream media, of course, portrayed the Ukrainian conflict as a simple case of "Russian aggression," and Obama fell in line with this propaganda narrative.

    After his relationship with Putin had deteriorated over the ensuring two-plus years, Obama chose to escalate the New Cold War in his final weeks in office by having U.S. intelligence agencies leak unsubstantiated claims that Putin interfered in the U.S. presidential election by hacking and publicizing Democratic emails that helped Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.

    Smearing Trump

    The CIA also put in play salacious rumors about the Kremlin blackmailing Trump over a supposed video of him cavorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel. And, according to The Wall Street Journal, U.S. counterintelligence agents investigated communications between retired Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's national security advisor, and Russian officials. In the New McCarthyism that now surrounds the New Cold War, any conversation with Russians apparently puts an American under suspicion for treason.

    President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

    The anti-Russian frenzy also pulled in The New York Times , The Washington Post and virtually the entire mainstream media, which now treat any dissent from the official U.S. narratives condemning Moscow as prima facie evidence that you are part of a Russian propaganda apparatus. Even some "progressive" publications have joined this stampede because they so despise Trump that they will tout any accusation to damage his presidency.

    Besides raising serious concerns about civil liberties and freedom of association, Obama's end-of-term anti-Russian hysteria may be leading the Democratic Party into supplanting the Republicans as America's leading pro-war party allied with neocons, liberal hawks, the CIA and the Military-Industrial Complex – in opposition to President Trump's less belligerent approach toward Russia.

    This "trading places" moment over which party is the bigger warmonger could be another profound part of Obama's legacy, presenting a crisis for pro-peace Democrats as the Trump presidency unfolds.

    The Real Obama

    Yet, one of the mysteries of Obama is whether he was always a closet hawk who just let his true colors show over the course of his eight years in office or whether he was a weak executive who desperately wanted to belong to the Washington establishment and underwent a gradual submission to achieve that acceptance.

    I know some Obama watchers favor the first answer, that he simply bamboozled people into thinking that he was an agent for foreign policy change when he was always a stealth warmonger. But I tend to take the second position. To me, Obama was a person who – despite his intelligence, eloquence and accomplishments – was never accepted by America's predominantly white establishment.

    Because he was a black male raised in a white family and in a white-dominated society, Obama understood that he never really belonged. But Obama desperately wanted to be part of that power structure of well-dressed, well-schooled and well-connected elites who moved with such confidence within the economic-political system.

    An instructive moment came in 2014 when Obama was under sustained criticism for his refusal to bomb the Syrian military after a sarin gas attack outside Damascus that was initially blamed on the government though later evidence suggested that it was a provocation committed by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate.

    Despite the uncertainty about who was responsible, the neocons and liberal hawks deemed Obama "weak" for not ordering the bombing strike to enforce his "red line" against chemical weapons use.

    In a 2016 article in The Atlantic, Obama cited his sarin decision as a moment when he resisted the Washington "playbook" that usually favors a military response. The article also reported that Obama had been informed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that there was no "slam dunk" evidence pinning the attack on the Syrian military. Yet, still Obama came under intense pressure to strike.

    A leader of this pressure campaign was neocon ideologue Robert Kagan, an architect of the Iraq War and the husband of Assistant Secretary of State Nuland. Kagan penned a long essay in The New Republic entitled " Superpowers Don't Get to Retire ." A subsequent New York Times article observed that Kagan "depicted President Obama as presiding over an inward turn by the United States that threatened the global order and broke with more than 70 years of American presidents and precedence."

    Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl )

    Kagan "called for Mr. Obama to resist a popular pull toward making the United States a nation without larger responsibilities, and to reassume the more muscular approach to the world out of vogue in Washington since the war in Iraq drained the country of its appetite for intervention," the Times article read.

    Obama was so sensitive to this criticism that he modified his speech to the West Point graduation and "even invited Mr. Kagan to lunch to compare world views," the Times reported. A source familiar with that conversation described it to me as a "meeting of equals."

    So, Obama's subservience to the neocons and liberal hawks may have begun as a case of an inexperienced president getting outmaneuvered by rivals whom he had foolishly empowered. But Obama's descent into a full-scale New Cold Warrior by the end of his second term suggests that he was no longer an overpowered naοf but someone who had become a committed convert.

    How Obama reached that point may be less significant than the fact that he did. Thus, the world that President Obama bequeaths to President Trump may not have all the same dangers that Bush left to Obama but the post-Obama world has hazards that Obama did more to create than to resolve - and some of the new risks may be even scarier.

    [Jan 28, 2017] Putin said for over two centuries Russia has supported the United States, was its ally during the two world wars, and now sees the United States as a major partner in fighting international terrorism.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Both sides demonstrated a mood for active, joint work on stabilizing and developing Russian-American cooperation," the Kremlin said in a statement, saying Putin and Trump had agreed to work on finding a possible time and place for a meeting. ..."
    "... The Kremlin said the US President asked his Russian counterpart "to wish the Russian people happiness and prosperity" on his behalf, adding Americans "have warm feelings towards Russia and its citizens." Putin said the feeling was "mutual," stressing that historically, the Russians and the Americans were close allies on more than one occasion. ..."
    "... Putin said "for over two centuries Russia has supported the United States, was its ally during the two world wars, and now sees the United States as a major partner in fighting international terrorism." ..."
    "... Moscow, for its part, has repeatedly suggested fostering closer cooperation between the Russian and US Air Forces in Syria, but blamed the previous Obama administration for failing to adequately respond to its entreaties. Relations between the two countries have been marred in recent years over various issues, including divisions on the Syrian crisis and allegations of Russian meddling into the US elections in November of 2016. US sanctions against Russia - imposed over the crisis in Ukraine - was one of the issues expected to be on the agenda of the Trump-Putin exchange. However, the issue was not mentioned in the Kremlin's statement summarizing the conversation. ..."
    "... Russia has been cautious about the prospects for a potential "reset" with the US under the new administration. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said the country has no "naive expectations" and is under no "illusions." ..."
    Jan 28, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs January 28, 2017 at 01:06 PM

    Putin, Trump, in 'Positive' Call, Say Want to Cooperate in Syria: Kremlin https://nyti.ms/2jIzuKa
    NYT - REUTERS - January 28, 2017

    MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump said in a "positive" phone call on Saturday they favored their two countries cooperating in Syria to defeat Islamic State, the Kremlin said in a statement.

    In an eagerly awaited phone call, the first since Trump's inauguration, the two men stressed the importance of restoring economic ties between the two countries and of stabilizing relations, the Kremlin said.

    U.S.-Russia relations had hit a post-Cold War low under Barack Obama and Trump has made clear he wants a rapprochement with Moscow if he can get along with Putin.

    "Both sides demonstrated a mood for active, joint work on stabilizing and developing Russian-American cooperation," the Kremlin said in a statement, saying Putin and Trump had agreed to work on finding a possible time and place for a meeting.

    There was no mention in the statement that the possibility of Trump easing sanctions on Moscow imposed over the Ukraine conflict had been mentioned, a subject widely expected to be raised.

    The Kremlin said Trump and Putin had agreed to establish "partner-like cooperation" when it came to global issues such as Ukraine, Iran's nuclear program, tensions on the Korean peninsula and the Israeli-Arab conflict.

    Trump's stance on Russia has been under intense scrutiny from critics who say he was elected with help from Russian intelligence, an allegation he denies. His detractors have also accused him of being too eager to make an ally of Putin.

    For Putin, an easing of Western sanctions would be a major coup ahead of next year's presidential election as it would help the economy recover.

    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 28, 2017 at 03:58 PM

    Compare the coverage with

    https://www.rt.com/news/375416-putin-trump-telephone-call/

    == quote ==

    In their first phone conversation that lasted nearly an hour, Russian President Vladimir Putin and the new US President Donald Trump have outlined their intent to cooperate on issues ranging from defeating Islamic State to mending bilateral economic ties.

    "Both sides expressed their readiness to make active joint efforts to stabilize and develop Russia-US cooperation on a constructive, equitable and mutually beneficial basis," as well as "build up partner cooperation" on a wide range of international issues, according to a Kremlin statement following their discussion.

    The White House said that the "positive" conversation was "a significant start to improving the relationship between the United States and Russia that is in need of repair."

    "Both President Trump and President Putin are hopeful that after today's call the two sides can move quickly to tackle terrorism and other important issues of mutual concern," the White House statement added.

    After speaking with Chancellor Merkel for 45 minutes @POTUS is now onto his 3rd of 5 head of government calls, speaking w Russian Pres Putin pic.twitter.com/RPAWIgcO2C
    - Sean Spicer (@PressSec) January 28, 2017Q

    "The Presidents have spoken in favor of establishing a real coordination between the US and Russian actions in order to defeat ISIS and other terrorist organizations in Syria," the Kremlin statement said.

    The two leaders also discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as Iran's nuclear program. "Major aspects of the Ukrainian crisis have been also touched upon," the Kremlin announced.

    The leaders of Russia and the US have noted a need to restore economic ties "to stimulate" further development of the relationship between the nations. Putin and Trump also agreed to initiate a process to "work out possible dates and venue of their personal meeting."

    Telephone conversation with US President Donald Trump https://t.co/mjp9Tta1sE
    - President of Russia (@KremlinRussia_E) 28 января 2017 г.Q
    During the conversation the Presidents also expressed their desire to "maintain regular personal contacts," the Kremlin statement said.

    The Kremlin said the US President asked his Russian counterpart "to wish the Russian people happiness and prosperity" on his behalf, adding Americans "have warm feelings towards Russia and its citizens." Putin said the feeling was "mutual," stressing that historically, the Russians and the Americans were close allies on more than one occasion.

    Putin said "for over two centuries Russia has supported the United States, was its ally during the two world wars, and now sees the United States as a major partner in fighting international terrorism."

    U.S. President Donald Trump © Mark MakelaTrump hopes to get along with Russia, 'knock the hell out of ISIS together'

    On Friday, speaking at a joint briefing with British Prime Minister Theresa May, Trump said he hoped he would have a "fantastic relationship" with Russia's president, but understands that might not happen. Trump has said previously that he would welcome Moscow's involvement in a joint effort to battle Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

    "I don't know Putin, but if we can get along with Russia that's a great thing. It's good for Russia; it's good for us; we go out together and knock the hell out of ISIS, because that's a real sickness," he said in an interview with Fox News.

    Moscow, for its part, has repeatedly suggested fostering closer cooperation between the Russian and US Air Forces in Syria, but blamed the previous Obama administration for failing to adequately respond to its entreaties. Relations between the two countries have been marred in recent years over various issues, including divisions on the Syrian crisis and allegations of Russian meddling into the US elections in November of 2016. US sanctions against Russia - imposed over the crisis in Ukraine - was one of the issues expected to be on the agenda of the Trump-Putin exchange. However, the issue was not mentioned in the Kremlin's statement summarizing the conversation.

    Citing an unnamed source in the White House, a researcher at the Atlantic Council analytical center, Fabrice Pothier, wrote in a Twitter post on Thursday that the Trump administration "has an executive order ready" to lift the restrictions on Moscow, but Trump said on Friday that it is "very early to be talking about that."

    U.S. House of Representatives in Washington © Gary Cameron Top Dem to propose bill to hamstring Trump in relaxing sanctions on Russia with GOP wingmen

    However, earlier in January, Trump said that he would consider lifting restrictions if Moscow cooperates with Washington on certain issues, such as nuclear arms reduction.

    "They have sanctions on Russia - let's see if we can make some good deals with Russia. For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that's part of it," Trump was quoted as saying by the Times.

    Trump also said in one of his Tweets that "having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing," warning only "fools" would think otherwise. However, several US Senators proposed a bill last week that would make it impossible for the US President to lift restrictions without congressional approval.

    Russia has been cautious about the prospects for a potential "reset" with the US under the new administration. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said the country has no "naive expectations" and is under no "illusions."

    [Jan 27, 2017] The Syrian People Desperately Want Peace

    Jan 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : January 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM , 2017 at 11:29 AM
    https://medium.com/@TulsiGabbard/the-syrian-people-desperately-want-peace-e308f1777a34#.7f55b27yb

    January 24, 2017

    The Syrian People Desperately Want Peace
    By Tulsi Gabbard

    As much of Washington prepared for the inauguration of President Donald Trump, I spent last week on a fact-finding mission in Syria and Lebanon to see and hear directly from the Syrian people. Their lives have been consumed by a horrific war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians and forced millions to flee their homeland in search of peace.

    It is clear now more than ever: this regime change war does not serve America's interest, and it certainly isn't in the interest of the Syrian people.

    We met these children at a shelter in Aleppo, whose families fled the eastern part of the city. The only thing these kids want, the only thing everyone I came across wants, is peace. Many of these children have only known war. Their families want nothing more than to go home, and get back to the way things were before the war to overthrow the government started. This is all they want.

    I traveled throughout Damascus and Aleppo, listening to Syrians from different parts of the country. I met with displaced families from the eastern part of Aleppo, Raqqah, Zabadani, Latakia, and the outskirts of Damascus. I met Syrian opposition leaders who led protests in 2011, widows and children of men fighting for the government and widows of those fighting against the government. I met Lebanon's newly-elected President Aoun and Prime Minister Hariri, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Elizabeth Richard, Syrian President Assad, Grand Mufti Hassoun, Archbishop Denys Antoine Chahda of Syrian Catholic Church of Aleppo, Muslim and Christian religious leaders, humanitarian workers, academics, college students, small business owners, and more.

    Their message to the American people was powerful and consistent: There is no difference between "moderate" rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or ISIS - they are all the same. This is a war between terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government. They cry out for the U.S. and other countries to stop supporting those who are destroying Syria and her people.

    I heard this message over and over again from those who have suffered and survived unspeakable horrors. They asked that I share their voice with the world; frustrated voices which have not been heard due to the false, one-sided biased reports pushing a narrative that supports this regime change war at the expense of Syrian lives.

    I heard testimony about how peaceful protests against the government that began in 2011 were quickly overtaken by Wahhabi jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) who were funded and supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the United States, and others. They exploited the peaceful protesters, occupied their communities, and killed and tortured Syrians who would not cooperate with them in their fight to overthrow the government.

    I met a Muslim girl from Zabadani who was kidnapped, beaten repeatedly, and raped in 2012, when she was just 14 years old, by "rebel groups" who were angry that her father, a sheep herder, would not give them his money. She watched in horror as masked men murdered her father in their living room, emptying their entire magazine of bullets into him.

    I met a boy who was kidnapped while walking down the street to buy bread for his family. He was tortured, waterboarded, electrocuted, placed on a cross and whipped, all because he refused to help the "rebels" - he told them he just wanted to go to school. This is how the "rebels" are treating the Syrian people who do not cooperate with them, or whose religion is not acceptable to them.

    Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about their adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state, it would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all religions have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to seek reforms, they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change war against Syria using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they work peacefully toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians.

    Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I felt it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there's a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering.

    I met these amazing women from Barzi, many of whom have husbands or family members who are fighting with al-Nusra/al-Qaeda, or with the Syrian army. When they come to this community center, all of that is left behind, as they spend time with new friends, learning different skills like sewing, making plans for their future. They were strangers before coming to this community center whose mission is empowering these women, and now they are " sisters" sharing laughter and tears together.

    I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists - directly by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    The U.S. must stop supporting terrorists who are destroying Syria and her people. The U.S. and other countries fueling this war must stop immediately. We must allow the Syrian people to try to recover from this terrible war.

    Thank you,

    Tulsi

    [Jan 27, 2017] Just Back From Syria, Rep. Gabbard Brings Message There Are No Moderate Rebels

    Notable quotes:
    "... Regardless of the name of these groups, the strongest fighting force on the ground in Syria is al Nusra, or al Qaida and ISIS. That is a fact," Gabbard said. ..."
    "... "The Syrian people recognize and they know that if President Assad is overthrown, then al Qaida -- or a group like al Qaida, that has been killing Christians, killing people simply because of their religion, or because they won't support their terror activities, they will take charge of all of Syria. ..."
    "... Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about their adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state, it would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all religions have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to seek reforms, they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change war against Syria using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they work peacefully toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians. ..."
    "... I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. ..."
    Jan 27, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
    "They asked me, why is the United States and its allies supporting these terrorist groups who are destroying Syria when it was al Qaida who attacked the United States on 9/11, not Syria. I didn't have an answer for them," Gabbard said.

    "The reality is... every place that I went, every person that I spoke to, I asked this question to them, and without hesitation, they said, there are no moderate rebels. Who are these moderate rebels that people keep speaking of?

    Regardless of the name of these groups, the strongest fighting force on the ground in Syria is al Nusra, or al Qaida and ISIS. That is a fact," Gabbard said.

    "There is a number of different, other groups -- all of them essentially are fighting alongside, with, or under the command of the strongest group on the ground that's trying to overthrow Assad.

    "The Syrian people recognize and they know that if President Assad is overthrown, then al Qaida -- or a group like al Qaida, that has been killing Christians, killing people simply because of their religion, or because they won't support their terror activities, they will take charge of all of Syria.

    "This is the reality that the people of Syria are facing on the ground, and why they are pleading with us here in the United States to stop supporting these terrorist groups. Let the Syrian people themselves determine their future, not the United States, not some foreign country."

    ... ... ...

    I heard testimony about how peaceful protests against the government that began in 2011 were quickly overtaken by Wahhabi jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) who were funded and supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the United States, and others. They exploited the peaceful protesters, occupied their communities, and killed and tortured Syrians who would not cooperate with them in their fight to overthrow the government.

    I met a Muslim girl from Zabadani who was kidnapped, beaten repeatedly, and raped in 2012, when she was just 14 years old, by "rebel groups" who were angry that her father, a sheep herder, would not give them his money. She watched in horror as masked men murdered her father in their living room, emptying their entire magazine of bullets into him.

    I met a boy who was kidnapped while walking down the street to buy bread for his family. He was tortured, waterboarded, electrocuted, placed on a cross and whipped, all because he refused to help the "rebels" - he told them he just wanted to go to school. This is how the "rebels" are treating the Syrian people who do not cooperate with them, or whose religion is not acceptable to them.

    Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about their adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state, it would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all religions have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to seek reforms, they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change war against Syria using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they work peacefully toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians.

    ... ... ...

    I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists - directly by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    The U.S. must stop supporting terrorists who are destroying Syria and her people. The U.S. and other countries fueling this war must stop immediately. We must allow the Syrian people to try to recover from this terrible war.

    Thank you,

    Tulsi

    [Jan 27, 2017] How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War by Michael Lind

    Jan 27, 2017 | www.antiwar.com

    America's allies and enemies alike are baffled. What is going on in the United States? Who is making foreign policy? And what are they trying to achieve? Quasi-Marxist explanations involving big oil or American capitalism are mistaken. Yes, American oil companies and contractors will accept the spoils of the kill in Iraq. But the oil business, with its Arabist bias, did not push for this war any more than it supports the Bush administration's close alliance with Ariel Sharon. Further, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not genuine "Texas oil men" but career politicians who, in between stints in public life, would have used their connections to enrich themselves as figureheads in the wheat business, if they had been residents of Kansas, or in tech companies, had they been Californians.

    Equally wrong is the theory that the American and European civilizations are evolving in opposite directions. The thesis of Robert Kagan, the neoconservative propagandist, that Americans are martial and Europeans pacifist, is complete nonsense. A majority of Americans voted for either Al Gore or Ralph Nader in 2000. Were it not for the overrepresentation of sparsely populated, right-wing states in both the presidential electoral college and the Senate, the White House and the Senate today would be controlled by Democrats, whose views and values, on everything from war to the welfare state, are very close to those of western Europeans.

    Both the economic-determinist theory and the clash-of-cultures theory are reassuring: They assume that the recent revolution in U.S. foreign policy is the result of obscure but understandable forces in an orderly world. The truth is more alarming. As a result of several bizarre and unforeseeable contingencies – such as the selection rather than election of George W. Bush, and Sept. 11 – the foreign policy of the world's only global power is being made by a small clique that is unrepresentative of either the U.S. population or the mainstream foreign policy establishment.

    The core group now in charge consists of neoconservative defense intellectuals. (They are called "neoconservatives" because many of them started off as anti-Stalinist leftists or liberals before moving to the far right.) Inside the government, the chief defense intellectuals include Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. He is the defense mastermind of the Bush administration; Donald Rumsfeld is an elderly figurehead who holds the position of defense secretary only because Wolfowitz himself is too controversial. Others include Douglas Feith, No. 3 at the Pentagon; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a Wolfowitz protιgι who is Cheney's chief of staff; John R. Bolton, a right-winger assigned to the State Department to keep Colin Powell in check; and Elliott Abrams, recently appointed to head Middle East policy at the National Security Council. On the outside are James Woolsey, the former CIA director, who has tried repeatedly to link both 9/11 and the anthrax letters in the U.S. to Saddam Hussein, and Richard Perle, who has just resigned his unpaid chairmanship of a defense department advisory body after a lobbying scandal. Most of these "experts" never served in the military. But their headquarters is now the civilian defense secretary's office, where these Republican political appointees are despised and distrusted by the largely Republican career soldiers.

    Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party's tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for "democracy." They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.

    The neocon defense intellectuals, as well as being in or around the actual Pentagon, are at the center of a metaphorical "pentagon" of the Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think tanks, foundations and media empires. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) provide homes for neocon "in-and-outers" when they are out of government (Perle is a fellow at AEI). The money comes not so much from corporations as from decades-old conservative foundations, such as the Bradley and Olin foundations, which spend down the estates of long-dead tycoons. Neoconservative foreign policy does not reflect business interests in any direct way. The neocons are ideologues, not opportunists.

    The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq. In October 2000, he cosigned a Jinsa letter that began: "We ... believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel Defense Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of [the] Palestinian Authority."

    The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby. Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush administration's liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organization of America, citing him as a "pro-Israel activist." While out of power in the Clinton years, Feith collaborated with Perle to coauthor a policy paper for Likud that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace process, reoccupy the territories, and crush Yasser Arafat's government.

    Such experts are not typical of Jewish-Americans, who mostly voted for Gore in 2000. The most fervent supporters of Likud in the Republican electorate are Southern Protestant fundamentalists. The religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidize Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

    The final corner of the neoconservative pentagon is occupied by several right-wing media empires, with roots – odd as it seems – in the British Commonwealth and South Korea. Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda through his Fox television network. His magazine, the Weekly Standard – edited by William Kristol, the former chief of staff of Dan Quayle (vice president, 1989-1993) – acts as a mouthpiece for defense intellectuals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Woolsey as well as for Sharon's government. The National Interest (of which I was executive editor, 1991-1994) is now funded by Conrad Black, who owns the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger empire in Britain and Canada.

    Strangest of all is the media network centered on the Washington Times – owned by the South Korean messiah (and ex-convict) the Rev. Sun Myung Moon – which owns the newswire UPI. UPI is now run by John O'Sullivan, the ghostwriter for Margaret Thatcher who once worked as an editor for Conrad Black in Canada. Through such channels, the "gotcha!" style of right-wing British journalism, and its Europhobic substance, have contaminated the US conservative movement.

    The corners of the neoconservative pentagon were linked together in the 1990s by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), run by Kristol out of the Weekly Standard offices. Using a P.R. technique pioneered by their Trotskyist predecessors, the neocons published a series of public letters whose signatories often included Wolfowitz and other future members of the Bush foreign policy team. They called for the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq and to support Israel's campaigns against the Palestinians (dire warnings about China were another favorite). During Clinton's two terms, these fulminations were ignored by the foreign policy establishment and the mainstream media. Now they are frantically being studied.

    How did the neocon defense intellectuals – a small group at odds with most of the U.S. foreign policy elite, Republican as well as Democratic – manage to capture the Bush administration? Few supported Bush during the presidential primaries. They feared that the second Bush would be like the first – a wimp who had failed to occupy Baghdad in the first Gulf War and who had pressured Israel into the Oslo peace process – and that his administration, again like his father's, would be dominated by moderate Republican realists such as Powell, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft. They supported the maverick senator John McCain until it became clear that Bush would get the nomination.

    Then they had a stroke of luck – Cheney was put in charge of the presidential transition (the period between the election in November and the accession to office in January). Cheney used this opportunity to stack the administration with his hard-line allies. Instead of becoming the de facto president in foreign policy, as many had expected, Secretary of State Powell found himself boxed in by Cheney's right-wing network, including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton and Libby.

    The neocons took advantage of Bush's ignorance and inexperience. Unlike his father, a Second World War veteran who had been ambassador to China, director of the CIA, and vice president, George W was a thinly educated playboy who had failed repeatedly in business before becoming the governor of Texas, a largely ceremonial position (the state's lieutenant governor has more power). His father is essentially a northeastern moderate Republican; George W, raised in west Texas, absorbed the Texan cultural combination of machismo, anti-intellectualism and overt religiosity. The son of upper-class Episcopalian parents, he converted to Southern fundamentalism in a midlife crisis. Fervent Christian Zionism, along with an admiration for macho Israeli soldiers that sometimes coexists with hostility to liberal Jewish-American intellectuals, is a feature of the Southern culture.

    The younger Bush was tilting away from Powell and toward Wolfowitz ("Wolfie," as he calls him) even before 9/11 gave him something he had lacked: a mission in life other than following in his dad's footsteps. There are signs of estrangement between the cautious father and the crusading son: Last year, veterans of the first Bush administration, including Baker, Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, warned publicly against an invasion of Iraq without authorization from Congress and the U.N.

    It is not clear that George W fully understands the grand strategy that Wolfowitz and other aides are unfolding. He seems genuinely to believe that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," something the leading neocons say in public but are far too intelligent to believe themselves. The Project for the New American Century urged an invasion of Iraq throughout the Clinton years, for reasons that had nothing to do with possible links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Public letters signed by Wolfowitz and others called on the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq, to bomb Hezbollah bases in Lebanon, and to threaten states such as Syria and Iran with U.S. attacks if they continued to sponsor terrorism. Claims that the purpose is not to protect the American people but to make the Middle East safe for Israel are dismissed by the neocons as vicious anti-Semitism. Yet Syria, Iran and Iraq are bitter enemies, with their weapons pointed at each other, and the terrorists they sponsor target Israel rather than the U.S. The neocons urge war with Iran next, though by any rational measurement North Korea's new nuclear arsenal is, for the U.S., a far greater problem.

    So that is the bizarre story of how neoconservatives took over Washington and steered the U.S. into a Middle Eastern war unrelated to any plausible threat to the U.S. and opposed by the public of every country in the world except Israel. The frightening thing is the role of happenstance and personality. After the al-Qaida attacks, any U.S. president would likely have gone to war to topple bin Laden's Taliban protectors in Afghanistan. But everything that the U.S. has done since then would have been different had America's 18 th century electoral rules not given Bush the presidency and had Cheney not used the transition period to turn the foreign policy executive into a PNAC reunion.

    For a British equivalent, one would have to imagine a Tory government, with Downing Street and Whitehall controlled by followers of the Rev. Ian Paisley, extreme Euroskeptics, empire loyalists and Blimpish military types – all determined, for a variety of strategic or religious reasons, to invade Egypt. Their aim would be to regain the Suez Canal as the first step in a campaign to restore the British empire. Yes, it really is that weird.

    [Jan 24, 2017] The Definitive Demise of the Debunked Dodgy Dossier on The Donald

    Notable quotes:
    "... of Corrente . ..."
    "... Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump? ..."
    "... For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful. ..."
    "... Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued. ..."
    "... puts his name on stuff ..."
    "... transition ..."
    Jan 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    by Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    In the midst of the hysteria about Russian interference in the 2016 election - 52% of Democrat voters believe it's definitely or probably true that "Russia tampered with vote tallies" , a view for which there is no evidence whatever, and which is a depressing testimony to the power of propaganda to produce epistemic closure in liberals as well as conservatives - came Buzzfeed's 35-page "dodgy dossier" on Donald Trump, oppo that the researcher, Christopher Steele , peddled during the election proper, but was unable to sell, not even to an easy mark like Jebbie. (There's a useful debunking of Steele's report in the New York Review of Books , of all places.) Remember the piss jokes? So two-weeks ago Amazingly, or not, a two-page summary to Steele's product had been included in a briefing given to Trump (and Obama). A weary Obama was no doubt well accustomed to the intelligence community's little ways, but the briefing must have been quite a revelation to Trump. I mean, Trump is a man who knows shoddy when he sees it, right?

    In any case, a link to the following story in Hamburg's ridiculously sober-sided Die Zeit came over the transom: So schockiert von Trump wie alle anderen ("So shocked by Trump like everyone else"). The reporter is Alexej Kowaljow , a Russian journalist based in Moscow. Before anyone goes "ZOMG! The dude is Russian !", everything Kowaljow writes is based on open sources or common-sense information presumably available to citizens of any nation. The bottom line for me is that if the world is coming to believe that Americans are idiots, it's not necessarily because Americans elected Trump as President.

    I'm going to lay out two claims and two questions from Kowaljow's piece. In each case, I'll quote the conventional, Steele and intelligence community-derived wisdom in our famously free press, and then I'll quote Kowaljow. I think Kowaljow wins each time. Easily. I don't think Google Translate handles irony well, but I sense that Kowaljow is deploying it freely.

    (1) Trump's Supposed Business Dealings in Russia Are Commercial Puffery

    Here's the section on Russia in Time's article on Trump's business dealings; it's representative. I'm going to quote it all so you can savor it. Read it carefully.

    Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map

    Russia

    "For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump tweeted in July, one day before he called on the country to "find" a batch of emails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private server. Nonetheless, Russia's extraordinary meddling in the 2016 U.S. election-a declassified report released by U.S. intelligence agencies in January disclosed that intercepted conversations captured senior Russian officials celebrating Trump's win-as well as Trump's complimentary remarks about Russian President have stirred widespread questions about the President-elect's pursuit of closer ties with Moscow. Several members of Trump's inner circle have business links to Russia, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who consulted for pro-Russia politicians in the Ukraine. Former foreign policy adviser Carter Page worked in Russia and maintains ties there.

    Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser, has been a regular guest on Russia's English-language propaganda network, RT , and even dined with Putin at a banquet.

    During the presidential transition, former Georgia Congressman and Trump campaign surrogate Jack Kingston told a gathering of businessmen in Moscow that the President-elect could lift U.S. sanctions.

    According to his own son, Trump has long relied on Russian customers as a source of income. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr. told a Manhattan real estate conference in 2008 , according to an account posted on the website of trade publication eTurboNews. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." Back to map .

    Read that again, if you can stand it. Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump? Do you see the name of any businessperson who closed a deal with Trump? Do you, in fact, see any reporting at all? At most, you see commercial puffery by Trump the Younger: "Russians [in Russia?] make up a pretty [qualifier] disproportionate [whatever that means] cross-section [whatever that means] of a lot of [qualifier] our assets."

    Now Kowaljow (via Google Translate, so forgive any solecisms):

    For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful.

    Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued.

    Because think about it: Trump puts his name on stuff . Towers in Manhattan, hotels, casinos, golf courses, steaks. Anything in Russia with Trump's name on it? Besides the failed vodka venture? No? Case closed, then.

    (2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy

    From The Hill's summary of Russian "interference" in the 2016 election:

    Five reasons intel community believes Russia interfered in election

    The attacks dovetailed with other Russian disinformation campaigns

    The report covers more than just the hacking effort. It also contains a detailed list account of information warfare against the United States from Russia through other means.

    Political party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the report lists as a "pro-Kremlin proxy," said before the election that, if Trump won, Russia would 'drink champagne' to celebrate their new ability to advance in Syria and Ukraine.

    Now Kowaljow:

    The report of the American intelligence services on the Russian interference in the US elections, published at the beginning of January, was notoriously neglected by Russians, because the name of Vladimir Zhirinovsky was mentioned among the "propaganda activities of Russia", which had announced that in the event of an election victory of Trump champagne to want to drink.

    Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky – ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the US by means of "gravitational weapons".

    If, therefore, the Kremlin had indeed had the treacherous plan of helping Trump to power, it would scarcely have been made known about Zhirinovsky.

    The American equivalent would be . Give me a moment to think of an American politician who's both so delusional and such a laughingstock that no American President could possibly consider using them as a proxy in a devilishly complex informational warfare campaign Sara Palin? Anthony Weiner? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Na ga happen.

    And now to the two questions.

    (3) Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele?

    Kowaljow:

    But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to be discredited appears strange.

    Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible, you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational, and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st and 20th centuries, suborning the President of the United States, and whose intelligence agencies are (3) leakly like a sieve. Does that make sense? (Of course, the devilish Russkis could have fed Steele bad data, knowing he'd then feed it to the American intelligence agencies, who would lap it up, but that's another narrative.)

    (4) How Do You Compromise the Uncompromisable?

    Funny how suddenly the word kompromat was everywhere, wasn't it? So sophisticated. Everybody loves to learn a new word! Regarding the "Golden Showers" - more sophistication! - Kowaljow writes:

    But even if such a compromise should exist, what sense should it have, since the most piquant details have long been publicly discussed in public, and had no effect on the votes of the elected president? Like all the other scandals trumps, which passed through the election campaign, they also remained unresolved, including those who were concerned about sex.

    This also includes what is known as a compromise, compromising material, that is, video shots of the unsightly nature, which can destroy both the political career and the life of a person. The word Kompromat shines today – as in the past Perestroika – in all headlines; It was not invented in Russia, of course. But in Russia in the Yeltsin era, when the great clans in the power gave bitter fights and intensively used the media, works of this kind have ended more than just a brilliant career. General Prosecutor Jurij Skuratov was dismissed after a video had been shown in the country-wide television channels: There, a person "who looks like the prosecutor's office" had sex with two prostitutes.

    Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game, you don't care about the niceties.

    Conclusion

    It would be nice, wouldn't it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump transition , instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:

    1) The content and impact of Trump's Executive Orders.

    2) Ditto, regulations.

    3) Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?

    4) Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them. Charters, for example.

    5) Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.

    6) The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.

    7) Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump's implementation

    And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days.

    Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing unless, of course, you're the sort of sleaze merchant who downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it's all about the clicks.

    [Jan 23, 2017] Karl Roves Prophecy

    Notable quotes:
    "... "that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ..."
    "... "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
    "... Financial Times ..."
    "... Rush To Judgment ..."
    Jan 23, 2017 | www.unz.com
    by Karel van Wolferen Karl Rove. Credit: Jay Godwin/Wikimedia Commons [We're very pleased to run this provocative new piece by Karel van Wolferen , who has spent decades as one of Holland's most distinguished international journalists.]

    In a famous exchange between a high official at the court of George W. Bush and journalist Ron Suskind, the official – later acknowledged to have been Karl Rove – takes the journalist to task for working in "the reality-based community." He defined that as believing "that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." Rove then asserted that this was no longer the way in which the world worked:

    "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." (Ron Suskind, NYTimes Magazine, Oct. 17, 2004).

    This declaration became popular as an illustration of the hubris of the Bush-Cheney government. But we could also see it as fulfilled prophecy. Fulfilled in a manner that no journalist at that time would have deemed possible. Yes, the neoconservatives brought disrepute upon themselves because of the disaster in Iraq. Sure, opposition to the reality Rove had helped create in that devastated country became a first rung on the ladder that could lead to the presidency, as it did for Barack Obama. But the neocons stayed put in the State Department and other positions closely linked to the Obama White House, where they became allies with the liberal hawks in continuing 'spreading democracy' by overthrowing regimes. America's mainstream news and opinion purveyors, without demurring, accommodated the architects of reality production overseen by Dick Cheney.

    This did not end when Obama became president, but in fact with seemingly ever greater eagerness they gradually made the CIA/neocon-neoliberal created reality appear unshakably substantial in the minds of most newspaper readers and among TV audiences in the Atlantic basin. This was most obvious when attention moved to an imagined existential threat posed by Russia supposedly aimed at the political and 'Enlightenment' achievements of the West. Neoconservatives and liberal hawks bent America's foreign-policy entirely to their ultimate purpose of eliminating a Vladimir Putin who had decided not to dance to Washington's tune so that he might save the Russian state, which had been disintegrating under his predecessor and Wall Street's robber barons.

    With President Obama as a mere spectator, the neocon/liberals could – without being ridiculed – pass off as a popular revolution the coup d'ιtat they fomented in the Ukraine. And because of an unquestioned Atlanticist faith, which holds that without the policies of the United States the world cannot be safe for people of the Atlantic basin, the European elites that determine policy or comment on it joined their American counterparts in endorsing that reality.

    As blind vassals the Europeans have adopted Washington's enemies as their own. Hence the ease with which the European Union member states could be roped into a system of baseless economic sanctions against Russia, much to the detriment of their own economic interests. Layers upon layers of anti-Russian propaganda have piled up to bamboozle a largely unsuspecting public on both sides of the Ocean.

    In the Netherlands, from where I have been watching all this, Putin was held personally responsible in much of the media for the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner flying over the Ukraine, which killed 298 people. No serious investigation was undertaken. The presentation of 'almost definitive' findings by the joint investigation team under Dutch leadership has neither included clues supplied by jet fighter cannon holes in the wrecked fuselage nor eyewitness stories, which would make the government in Kiev the prime suspect. Moscow's challenging the integrity of the investigation, whose agreed-upon rules included publication of findings only if Kiev agreed with them, were met with great indignation by the Dutch Foreign and Prime Ministers.

    As the fighting in Syria reached a phase when contradictions in the official Washington/NATO story demanded a stepping back for a fresh look, editors were forced into contortions to make sure that the baddies stayed bad, and that no matter how cruel and murderously they went about their occupation in Aleppo and elsewhere, the jihadi groups fighting to overthrow the secular Assad government in Damascus remained strictly labeled as moderate dissidents worthy of Western support, and the Russians as violators of Western values. Architects of an official reality that diverges widely from the facts you thought you knew must rely on faits accompli they achieve through military or police violence and intimidation, in combination with a fitting interpretation or a news blackout delivered by mainstream media.

    These conditions have been widely obtained in the Atlantic basin through a gradual loss of political accountability at top levels, and through government agencies protected by venerated secrecy that are allowed to live lives of their own. As a result American and European populations have been dropped into a fantasy world, one under constant threat from terrorists and an evil dictator in Moscow. For Americans the never ending war waged by their own government, which leaves them with no choice but to condone mass murder, is supposedly necessary to keep them safe. For Europeans, at least those in the northern half, the numerous NATO tanks rolling up to the border of the Russian Federation and the massing of troops in that area are an extra guarantee, on top of the missiles that were already there, that Vladimir Putin will restrain his urges to grab a European country or two. On a smaller scale, when every May 4th the 1940-45 war dead are remembered in the Netherlands, we must now include the fallen in Afghanistan as if they were a sacrifice to defend us against the Taliban threat from behind the Hindu Kush.

    Ever since the start of this millennium there has been a chain of realities as prophesied by Karl Rove, enhanced by terrorist attacks, which may or may not have been the work of actual terrorists, but whose reality is not questioned without risking one's reputation. The geopolitical picture that they have helped build in most minds appears fairly consistent if one can keep one's curiosity on a leash and one's sense of contradiction sufficiently blunt. After all, the details of the official reality are filled in and smoothed out all the time by crafty campaigns produced in the PR world, with assistance from think tanks and academia.

    But the question does reappear in one's thoughts: do the politically prominent and the well-positioned editors, especially those known for having once possessed skeptical minds, actually believe it all? Do those members of the cabinet or parliament, who can get hot under their collar as they decry the latest revelation about one or other outrage committed by Putin, take seriously what they're saying? Not all of them are believers, I know that from off the record conversations. But there appears to be a marked difference between the elite in government, in the media, in prominent social positions, and ordinary people who in these recent times of anguish about populism are sometimes referred to as uneducated. Quite a few among the latter appear to think that something fishy is going on. This could be because in my experience the alert ones have educated themselves, something that is not generally understood by commentators who have made their way through the bureaucracy of standard higher education.

    A disadvantage of being part of the elite is that you must stick to the accepted story. If you deviate from it, and have your thoughts run rather far away from it, which is quite inevitable once you begin with your deviation, you can no longer be trusted by those around you. If you are a journalist and depend for your income on a mainstream newspaper or are hired by a TV company, you run the risk of losing your job if you do not engage in self-censorship.

    Consequently, publications that used to be rightly known as quality newspapers have turned into unreadable rags. The newspaper that was my employer for a couple of decades used to be edited on the premise that its correspondents rather than authorities were always correct in what they were saying. Today greater loyalty to the reality created in Washington and Langley cannot be imagined. For much of northern Europe the official story that originates in the United States is amplified by the BBC and other once reliable purveyors of news and opinion like the Guardian , the Financial Times and the (always less reliable) Economist .

    Repetition lends an ever greater aura of truth to the nonsense that is relentlessly repeated on the pages of once serious publications. Detailed analyses of developments understood through strings of false clues give the fictions ever more weight in learned heads and debates in parliament. At the time of writing, the grave concern spread across the opinion pages on my side of the Atlantic is about how Putin's meddling in upcoming European elections can be prevented.

    The realities Rove predicted have infantilized parliamentary debates, current affairs discussion and lecture events, and anything of a supposedly serious nature on TV. These now conform to comic book simplicities of evil, heroes and baddies. They have produced a multitude of editorials with facts upside-down. They force even those who advise against provoking Moscow to include a remark or two about Putin being a murderer or tyrant, lest they could be mistaken for traitors to Enlightenment values or even as Russian puppets, as I have been. Layers of unreality have incapacitated learned and serious people to think clearly about the world and how it came to be that way.

    How could Rove's predictions so totally materialize? There's a simple answer: 'they' got away with momentous lies at an early stage. The more authorities lie successfully the more they are likely to lie again in a big way to serve the purposes of earlier lies. The 'they' stands for those individuals and groups in the power system who operate beyond legal limits as a hydra-headed entity, whose coordination depends on the project, campaign, mission, or operation at hand. Those with much power got away with excessive extralegal use of it since the beginning of this century because systems of holding the powerful to account have crumbled on both sides of the Atlantic. Hence, potential opposition to what the reality architects were doing dwindled to almost nothing. At the same time, people whose job or personal inclination leads them to ferret out truth were made to feel guilty for pursuing it.

    The best way, I think, to make sense of how this works is to study it as a type of intimidation. Sticking to the official story because you have to may not be quite as bad as forced religious conversion with a gun pointed at your head, but it belongs to the same category. It begins with the triggering of odd feelings of guilt. At least that is how I remember it. Living in Tokyo, I had just read Mark Lane's Rush To Judgment , the first major demolishing in book form of the Warren Report on the murder of John F. Kennedy, when I became aware that I had begun to belong to an undesirable category of people who were taking the existence of conspiracies seriously. We all owe thanks to writers of Internet-based samizdat literature who've recently reminded us that the pejorative use of the conspiracy label stems from one of the greatest misinformation successes of the CIA begun in 1967.

    So the campaign to make journalists feel guilty for their embarrassing questions dates from before Dick Cheney and Rove and Bush. But it has only reached a heavy duty phase after the moment that I see as having triggered the triumph of political untruth.

    We have experienced massive systemic intimidation since 9/11. For the wider public we have the absurdities of airport security – initially evidenced by mountains of nail-clippers – reminding everyone of the arbitrary coercive potential that rests with the authorities. Every time people are made to take off their belts and shoes – to stick only to the least inane instances – they are reminded: yes, we can do this to you! Half of Boston or all of France can be placed under undeclared martial law to tell people: yes, we have you under full control! For journalists unexamined guilt feelings still play a major role. The serious ones feel guilty for wanting to ask disturbing questions, and so they reaffirm that they still belong to 'sane' humanity rather than the segment with extraterrestrials in flying saucers in its belief system. But there is a confused interaction with another guilty feeling of not having pursued unanswered questions. Its remedy appears to be a doubling down on the official story. Why throw in fairly common lines like "I have no time for truthers" unless you feel that this is where the shoe pinches?

    You will have noticed a fairly common response when the 9/11 massacre enters a discussion. Smart people will say that they "will not go there", which brings to mind the "here be dragons" warning on uncharted bits of medieval maps. That response is not stupid. It hints at an understanding that there is no way back once you enter that realm. There is simply no denying that if you accept the essential conclusions of the official 9/11 report you must also concede that laws of nature stopped working on that particular day. And, true enough, if you do go there and bear witness publicly to what you see, you may well be devoured; your career in many government positions, the media and even academia is likely to come to an end.

    So, for the time being we are stuck with a considerable chunk of terra incognita relating to recognized political knowledge; which is an indispensable knowledge if you want to get current world affairs and the American role in it into proper perspective.

    Mapping the motives of those who decide "not to go there" may be a way to begin breaking through this disastrous deadlock. Holding onto your job is an honorable motivation when you have a family to maintain. The career motivation is not something to scorn. There is also an entirely reasonable expectation that once you go there you lose your voice publicly to address very important social abuse and political misdeeds. I think it is not difficult to detect authors active on internet samizdat sites who have that foremost in mind. Another possible reason for not going there is the more familiar one, akin to the denial that one has a dreadful disease. Also possible is an honorable position of wishing to preserve social order in the face of a prospect of very dramatic political upheaval caused by revelations about a crime so huge that hardly anything in America's history can be compared to it. Where could such a thing end – civil war? Martial law?

    What I find more difficult to stomach is the position of someone who is worshiped by what used to be the left, and who has been guiding that class of politically interested Americans as to where they can and cannot go. Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes. One can only hope that this overrated analyst of the establishment, who helps keep the most embarrassing questions out of the public sphere, trips over the contradictions and preposterousness of his own judgments and crumples in full view of his audience.

    The triumph of political untruth has brought into being a vast system of political intimidation. Remember then that the intimidater does not really care what you believe or not, but impresses you with the fact that you have no choice. That is the essence of the exercise of brute power. With false flag events the circumstantial evidence sometimes appears quite transparently false and, indeed could be interpreted as having been purposeful. Consider the finding of passports or identity papers accidentally left by terrorists, or their almost always having been known to and suspected by the police? What of their death through police shooting before they can be interrogated? Could these be taunting signals of ultimate power to a doubting public: Now you! Dare contradict us! Are the persons killed by the police the same who committed the crime? Follow-up questions once considered perfectly normal and necessary by news media editors are conspicuous by their absence.

    How can anyone quarrel with Rove's prophecy. He told Suskind that we will forever be studying newly created realities. This is what the mainstream media continue to do. His words made it very clear: you have no choice!

    A question that will be in the minds of perhaps many as they consider the newly sworn in president of the United States, who like John F. Kennedy appears to have understood that "Intelligence" leads a dangerously uncontrolled life of its own: At what point will he give in to the powers of an invisible government, as he is made to reckon that he also has no choice?

    Karel van Wolferen is a Dutch journalist and retired professor at the University of Amsterdam. Since 1969, he has published over twenty books on public policy issues, which have been translated into eleven languages and sold over a million copies worldwide. As a foreign correspondent for NRC Handelsblad , one of Holland's leading newspapers, he received the highest Dutch award for journalism, and over the years his articles have appeared in The New York Times , The Washington Post , The New Republic , The National Interest , Le Monde , and numerous other newspapers and magazines.

    [Jan 23, 2017] I'm pretty sure, to discredit whatever protest they are parasitic upon. Undercover cops behaving badly for a paycheck.

    Jan 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    NeoGeshel , January 23, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    The point about surveillance cameras is silly. The purpose of such strategic violence is to draw attention to the protest in a way that peaceful demonstration doesn't. Producing footage of their actions is the whole point. And, obviously, they are wearing masks.

    Kurt Sperry , January 23, 2017 at 3:35 pm

    The idea is, I'm pretty sure, to discredit whatever protest they are parasitic upon. Undercover cops behaving badly for a paycheck.

    ambrit , January 23, 2017 at 4:42 pm

    Well, false flag or not, do notice how "high profile" the forces of the State are when the venue of the action is in upper class areas, such as trendy down towns, Government zones, and high rent suburbs. Contrast that with the almost hands off attitude when the burning people, places and things are lower class.
    Feedback requested. I'm wondering if my thesis is sound or not.
    ambrit

    [Jan 22, 2017] CIA to be a single organization. It is more like a loose association, conglomerate of several feuding groups each with its own agenda and political goals, which drive the US foreign policy

    Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    A Boy Named Sue : , January 21, 2017 at 12:50 AM
    >Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency.

    FFS, grow up. I take back my positive comments about you.

    Do you think he asked for it?

    Plus he tried normalize our relationships with Iran and Cuba.

    ilsm -> A Boy Named Sue... , January 21, 2017 at 04:23 AM
    Yes, the day he became CinC he should have given the order: "mobilize the transports, evacuate the forces".

    That was too hard, it would have reduced the plunder his backers take. It was against his hidden neocon!

    Obama is responsible for as much evil, fraud, waste and murder as W and immensely more than Bill Clinton.

    The Old Testament warning: "Let them stand the judgement".

    libezkova -> A Boy Named Sue... , January 21, 2017 at 09:43 PM
    "Plus he tried normalize our relationships with Iran and Cuba."

    You are trying to change the subject. While in relations with Iran and Cube Obama did achieve some progress, this not the whole story and this is not a major story. The major story is as following: in relations with Russia Obama was a very dangerous neocon warmonger, who actually put even more dangerous warmonger Hillary in charge of his foreign policy for a long four years period. And who has a track record in Ukraine and Syria which is the track record of a typical neocon.

    Both Russia and the USA nuclear forces are now on high alert, while you typing your staff. That means that if something happens (and the sophistication of modern computers chances are higher then before) leaders of the country have less then 20 min to prevent nuclear war. Less for Russia as the USA got way too close and literally encircled Russia. Do you see the problem ? This Nobel Peace Price winner does not give Russia enough time for measured response. Is not his a warmonger with a typical neoconservative ambitions?

    This is what recently Professor Steven Cohen told us. He think that this the current situation is close or even worse then the Cuban Nuclear Crisis.

    He also told a very interesting thing: it is wrong to consider CIA to be a single organization. It is more like a loose association, conglomerate of several feuding groups each with its own agenda and political goals, which can be even in fight with each other and with Pentagon and FBI.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op6Qr7uuMy8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCMyHJJrdDw

    And they are really ready to put the world on fire for their narrow goals (such as neocon goal of world dominance; or deposing Assad in Syria).

    [Jan 22, 2017] Disruption of neoliberal status quo and sending Hillary and some other neocon warmongers packing is already an imporatn Trump achievement, not matter how successful he might be in domestic economic policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's success of failure will be measured by one thing: number of factory jobs added or lost, series MANEMP at the St. Louis FRED website.* If he doesn't create at least about 100,000 a year, he's in trouble. ..."
    "... Disruption of neoliberal status quo and sending Hillary and some other neocon warmongers packing is already an achievement, not matter how you slice it. ..."
    "... And a hissy fit that some factions of CIA demonstrated just before inauguration (it should not be considered as a monolithic organization; more like feudal kingdom of competing and often hostile to each other and to Pentagon and FBI factions ) was a reaction to this setback to neoconservatives in Washington. ..."
    "... If Trump does what he promised in foreign policy: to end the wars for the expansion of neoliberal empire and to end of Cold War II with Russia it will be a huge achievement, even if the US economics not recover from Obama's secular stagnation (oil prices probably will go higher this year, representing an important headwind) . ..."
    "... While we are writing those posts nuclear forces of both the USA and Russia are on high alert, and if something happen (and proliferation of computers make this more rather then less likely), the leaders of both countries have less then 20 minutes to decide about launching a full scale nuclear war. Actually Russia now has less time because of forward movement of NATO forces. ..."
    Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    New Deal democrat -> Fred C. Dobbs...January 22, 2017 at 07:10 AM
    Trump's success of failure will be measured by one thing: number of factory jobs added or lost, series MANEMP at the St. Louis FRED website.* If he doesn't create at least about 100,000 a year, he's in trouble.

    *assuming the data continues to be reported if it goes south on him, or he doesn't insist that the method of measuring change. Something that is a real fear.

    Slightly OT, there is one well-known wonky government data site I am watching. I think there are better than 50/50 odds it disappears within the next two weeks.

    libezkova -> New Deal democrat... , January 22, 2017 at 09:04 AM
    Disruption of neoliberal status quo and sending Hillary and some other neocon warmongers packing is already an achievement, not matter how you slice it.

    And a hissy fit that some factions of CIA demonstrated just before inauguration (it should not be considered as a monolithic organization; more like feudal kingdom of competing and often hostile to each other and to Pentagon and FBI factions ) was a reaction to this setback to neoconservatives in Washington.

    If Trump does what he promised in foreign policy: to end the wars for the expansion of neoliberal empire and to end of Cold War II with Russia it will be a huge achievement, even if the US economics not recover from Obama's secular stagnation (oil prices probably will go higher this year, representing an important headwind) .

    No further escalation in geopolitical conflicts represents an important tailwind and might help.

    While we are writing those posts nuclear forces of both the USA and Russia are on high alert, and if something happen (and proliferation of computers make this more rather then less likely), the leaders of both countries have less then 20 minutes to decide about launching a full scale nuclear war. Actually Russia now has less time because of forward movement of NATO forces.

    Professor Stephen Cohen thinks that this is worse then Cuban Missile Crisis and he is an expert in this area.

    [Jan 22, 2017] Trumps inaugural speech – promises, hopes and opportunities by the Saker

    Am nteresting thought (replace imperialism with neoliberalism) : "I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature. "
    Revival of far right in Europe also is connected with the crisis of neoliberalism.
    Notable quotes:
    "... This might be something crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to simply do "more of the same" like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the Neocons always try to. ..."
    "... I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. ..."
    "... I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature. ..."
    "... Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is 21 st Century Socialism , which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was so central to the 20 th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern "21st Century Socialism" is very pro-Christian. Could 21 st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe. ..."
    "... Furthermore, the Trump inaugural speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did sound like a paleo-liberal ..."
    "... Today, when Trump pronounced the followings words " We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first " he told the Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a "friend" of Russia and Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. ..."
    "... All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears. ..."
    Jan 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Just hours ago Donald Trump was finally sworn in as the President of the United States. Considering all the threats hanging over this event, this is good news because at least for the time being, the Neocons have lost their control over the Executive Branch and Trump is now finally in a position to take action. The other good news is Trump's inauguration speech which included this historical promise " We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow ". Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon? The mere fact of asking the question is already an immensely positive development as nobody would have asked it had Hillary Clinton been elected.

    The other interesting feature of Trump's speech is that it centered heavily on people power and on social justice. Again, the contrast with the ideological garbage from Clinton could not be greater. Still, this begs a much more puzzling question: how much can a multi-billionaire capitalist be trusted when he speaks of people power and social justice – not exactly what capitalists are known for, at least not amongst educated people. Furthermore, a Marxist reader would also remind us that " imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism " and that it makes no sense to expect a capitalist to suddenly renounce imperialism.

    But what was generally true in 1916 is not necessarily true in 2017.

    For one thing, let's begin by stressing that the Trump Presidency was only made possible by the immense financial, economic, political, military and social crisis facing the USA today. Eight years of Clinton, followed by eight years of Bush Jr and eight years of Obama have seen a massive and full-spectrum decline in the strength of the United States which were sacrificed for the sake of the AngloZionist Empire. This crisis is as much internal as it is external and the election of Trump is a direct consequence of this crisis. In fact, Trump is the first one to admit that it is the terrible situation in which the USA find themselves today that brought him to power with a mandate of the regular American people (Hillary's "deplorables") to "drain the DC swamp" and "make America", as opposed to the American plutocracy, "great again". This might be something crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to simply do "more of the same" like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the Neocons always try to.

    I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. If that assumption of mine proves to be correct, then this is by definition very good news for the entire planet because whatever Trump ends up doing (or not doing), he will at least not push his country into a nuclear confrontation with Russia. And yes, I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature.

    Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is 21 st Century Socialism , which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was so central to the 20 th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern "21st Century Socialism" is very pro-Christian. Could 21 st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.

    Furthermore, the Trump inaugural speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did sound like a paleo-liberal, something which we did not hear from him during the campaign. You could also say that Trump sounded very much like Putin. The question is will he now also act like Putin too?

    There will be a great deal of expectations in Russia about how Trump will go about fulfilling his campaign promises to deal with other countries. Today, when Trump pronounced the followings words " We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first " he told the Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a "friend" of Russia and Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others.

    All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears.

    Then there are Trump's words about " forming new alliances " and uniting " the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth ". They will also be received with a great deal of hope by the Russian people. If the USA is finally serious about fighting terrorism and if they really wants to eradicate the likes of Daesh, then Russia will offer her full support to this effort, including her military, intelligence, police and diplomatic resources. After all, Russia has been advocating for " completely eradicating Radical Islamic Terrorism from the face of the Earth " for decades.

    There is no doubt in my mind at all that an alliance between Russia and the USA, even if limited only to specific areas of converging or mutual interests, would be immensely beneficial for the entire planet, and not for just these two countries: right now all the worst international crises are a direct result from the "tepid war" the USA and Russia have been waging against each other. And just like any other war, this war has been a fantastic waste of resources. Of course, this war was started by the USA and it was maintained and fed by the Neocon's messianic ideology. Now that a realist like Trump has come to power, we can finally hope for this dangerous and wasteful dynamic to be stopped.

    The good news is that neither Trump nor Putin can afford to fail. Trump, because he has made an alliance with Russia the cornerstone of his foreign policy during his campaign, and Putin because he realizes that it is in the objective interests of Russia for Trump to succeed, lest the Neocon crazies crawl back out from their basement. So both sides will enter into negotiations with a strong desire to get things done and a willingness to make compromises as long as they do not affect crucial national security objectives. I think that the number of issues on which the USA and Russia can agree upon is much, much longer than the number of issues were irreconcilable differences remain.

    So yes, today I am hopeful. More than anything else, I want to hope that Trump is "for real", and that he will have the wisdom and courage to take strong action against his internal enemies. Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump , I get very, very concerned and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?". What is certain is that in the near future one of us will soon become very disappointed. I just hope that this shall not be me.

    Mao Cheng Ji , January 21, 2017 at 10:15 am GMT \n

    100 Words

    Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon?

    Well, another author here, David Chibo, seems to think that the intent is exactly the opposite: for the US (the nation) to become World Hegemon. As opposed to what we have today, to multinational capital being World Hegemon

    Anonymous , January 21, 2017 at 2:17 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump

    Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so mainstream media like.
    So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography ( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.

    He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white hate groups.

    I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by seeing him called a "rabid maniac".

    alexander , January 21, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT \n
    300 Words

    Yes Saker,

    The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.

    The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.

    Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion in 2000.

    Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled from 9.3 trillion in 2000.

    A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its GDP, which happened to us two years ago .and the spread is growing, not tightening.

    If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in serious jeopardy and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.

    I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency and chart a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.

    There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.

    So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over but its really almost ten years to late for this.

    Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising income taxes.

    And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we should be able to dodge the bullet.

    I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which are highly successful.

    It is so important to us all.

    bluedog , January 21, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @alexander Yes Saker,


    The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.

    The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.

    Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion in 2000.

    Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled from 9.3 trillion in 2000.

    A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its GDP, which happened to us two years ago....and the spread is growing, not tightening.

    If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in serious jeopardy...and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.


    I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency ...and chart a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.

    There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.

    So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over...but its really almost ten years to late for this.

    Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising income taxes.

    And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we should be able to dodge the bullet.


    I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which are highly successful.

    It is so important to us all.

    Guess you didn't watch the debate where Trump said there is a very large bubble over wall street, and its bigger than the housing bubble (my words not Trumps) and our GDP the figures the government puts out as David Stockman Reagan budget director said is very suspect to say the least, for I have seen it stated anywhere from $16 trillion to $18 trillion and change much like the BLS report I suspect.
    Not much wiggle room for Trump a crashing bubble on wall street almost 100,000,000 un-employed per the Lay-Off-List, no that fails to jibe with the figure the government puts out, much like the GDP I suspect, and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the debt will grow under Trump as he re-builds the military, as more tax dollars are flushed down the drain to keep company with the trillions already there.
    Chalmers Johnson was right in his excellent books from Blowback to The Sorrows of Empire Militarism,Secrecy,and the End of the Republic and our 900+ bases around the globe, can Trump change that close at least half of those bases that cost us billions of dollars we don't have or will it be the status quo I suspect it will be the later

    Dan Hayes , January 21, 2017 at 8:08 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Anonymous
    When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
    Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so... mainstream media like.
    So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography ( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.

    He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white hate groups.

    I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by seeing him called a "rabid maniac".

    Anonymous:

    I can back up Horowitz being termed "a rapid maniac". Some time ago I met him at one of his book signings. At that time I would be regarded as one of his disciples, i.e. his camp followers. That changed once I actually met him. His eyes were those of a crazed man. Enough said!

    Mao Cheng Ji , January 21, 2017 at 8:40 pm GMT \n

    Fuck Horowitz, he certainly is a rabid maniac and a scumbag.

    As for the main topic, there's also this, the Masters of the Universe vs. the deep state:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/heres-how-the-trump-presidency-will-play-out/5570021

    Anon , January 22, 2017 at 2:29 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    "After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears."

    But it could mean NOT putting Zionist-Globalist interest first.
    And that's what it's all about.

    Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
    Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way, all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism.

    Beckow , January 22, 2017 at 8:11 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    The problem is that the issues between Russia and US are not that easy to resolve. For example, will US keep the "anti-Iran" missile defense systems in East Europe? Will they continue to state that Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO? Will the recent NATO troops in Poland, Baltic states and Romania stay? There are a few others, like the Ukraine problem – Crimea, Donbass, economic collapse.

    None of those issues are suitable for a deal. A deal requires things that either side can let go. We don't have that here. Most likely the tensions will recede, some summits will be held, a few common policies will be attempted (e.g. Middle East), but none of the really big issues (missiles, NATO expansion, Crimea, Ukraine) will be addressed. US has gone too far down that road to backtrack now – it is all logistics at this point. And logistics don't change short of something like a war.

    So we are stuck. But at least we are no longer heading towards a catastrophe.

    Miro23 , January 22, 2017 at 8:41 am GMT \n
    200 Words @alexander Yes Saker,


    The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.

    The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.

    Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion in 2000.

    Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled from 9.3 trillion in 2000.

    A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its GDP, which happened to us two years ago....and the spread is growing, not tightening.

    If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in serious jeopardy...and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.


    I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency ...and chart a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.

    There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.

    So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over...but its really almost ten years to late for this.

    Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising income taxes.

    And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we should be able to dodge the bullet.


    I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which are highly successful.

    It is so important to us all.

    I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency and chart a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.

    There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.

    That's an interesting point, the US does have creditors and it has reached its credit limit, and hasn't exactly been making good investments with the money that was borrowed.

    The real issues seem to be making spending efficient (for example US healthcare that costs about 2x the Canadian rate per person for the same result), and rebasing production in the US (more US taxpayers).

    The Socialist UK government was in a similar position in the early 1970′s with a "welfare state" that it couldn't afford, general industrial strife and a "class war". When the UK's creditors saw that things weren't going to change they sold off government bonds and the country got the "Sterling Crisis" with Sterling losing what was left of its Reserve Currency status.

    At least Trump is indicating a political will for change, but he needs to act quickly.

    Realist , January 22, 2017 at 9:07 am GMT \n
    @Anonymous
    When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
    Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so... mainstream media like.
    So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography ( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.

    He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white hate groups.

    I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by seeing him called a "rabid maniac".

    For one thing Horowitz is a goofy ass russophobe.

    Timur The Lame , January 22, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    I listened to Trump's speech live on headphones while power walking on a country road. Something about that scenario allowed me to give it a focus that I may not have had if I was watching it on the idiot box or reading a transcript.

    If I'm not mistaken, he literally called most of his esteemed guests ( ex-presidents especially) corrupt criminals, frauds and traitors. An unbelievable moment where the mob was reminded that politicians are not to be fawned over. They work for the people.

    The rest of the speech of course was lyrics for a remake of the song 'Dream the Impossible Dream'. But still, if the population wasn't attention deficit affected, that part of his speech could have been right up there with Ike's MIC moment.

    Anatoly Karlin , Website January 22, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT \n
    200 Words NEW!

    This is a very good article. I agree with it almost entirely.

    Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.

    When would it be possible for the anti-imperialist ideological system to dump its core belief that, Lenin's demented (and unoriginal) ramblings to the contrary, capitalism has intrinsically zilch to do with imperialism?

    Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?".

    David Horowitz merely demonstrated that, unlike " renegade Jews " such as the Kristols and the Krauthammers, he is a patriot of his own country (the USA) first and a Jewish nationalist second. I consider that perfectly fine and worthy of respect.

    Seamus Padraig , January 22, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    @Chet Roman "drain the DC swamp" and "make America", as opposed to the American plutocracy, "great again"

    While I am hopeful and will give Trump the chance to prove himself. Unfortunately, he like Obama before him, has appointed most the same plutocrats/neoliberal parasites in his administration that are part of what the Saker calls the "AngloZionist Empire". Will they, like the patrician FDR, promote policies against their own class interests? Time will tell but, after the same betrayal by "Hope and Change" Obama I would not bet on it.

    Not that I'm very sanguine about all the Goldman Sachs people in Trump's cabinet either, but if you're looking for reasons for optimism: At least Trump–unlike Clinton, Bush and Obama–hasn't appointed any retreads; i.e., people who've served in previous cabinets. That may indicate that some change is in the offing. Let's hope it's a change for the best.

    alexander , January 22, 2017 at 9:53 pm GMT \n
    400 Words

    Annamaria,

    The key to US solvency and credit worthiness is the "ratio" of Debt to GDP ..Our GDP should ALWAYS be in the plus column, and when its not . it's bad news.

    Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T) it is such bad news our big media has refused to discuss it ..The only person to bring it up , ever, was the Donald.

    The big media does not want to say the wars they lied us into bankrupted our nation because it makes them accountable.

    The scaly truth is that they "are" accountable.

    Ironically,Donald Trump (who knows this too) now has the power as President to generate over two trillion dollars in revenues, literally overnight, and move our Debt to GDP ratio right back in the plus column.

    Do you want to know how ?

    He goes on record that the Iraq War "lies" constituted a defrauding of the American people , our country, and the brave men and women who fought and died there .and he has chosen to recognize this "defrauding " as a supreme terrorist act against the wellbeing of our nation ,our citizenry and the values that make us who we are ..

    He goes on to say that ALL the perpetrators will be held accountable for this despicable act of deception , so that it may never happen again.

    Then he proceeds with operation "Clean Sweep" and takes down all the back room billionaire oligarchs who jockeyed for the war and profited from it .

    Lets say by the time he is done he has arrested 700 belligerent oligarchs and media moguls and seizes all their assets .If they are each worth, on average, 4 billion dollars .

    then 700 x 4 billion = 2.8 trillion dollars

    If this 2.8 trillion goes to paying down the national debt .then "bingo" our Debt to GDP ratio is right back in the" plus column" .

    Our National debt is reduced by 2.8 T and the GDP stays the same ..the new ratio is 17.1 T Debt/ 18.7 T GDP.

    Our credit worthiness, as a nation, is now out of the" danger zone".

    Whatever assets the criminal oligarchs had, are auctioned off and redistributed to all the good people who would never "lie us into war".

    This sends an enormously reassuring message throughout the world that we are able to take care of business at home, and clean house when necessary.

    This would also serve as a much needed tonic within the entire "establishment" community, as they would be intensely fearful of ever defrauding the American people again.

    Would you do it ? ..If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability ?

    Skeptikal , January 22, 2017 at 11:37 pm GMT \n
    300 Words @Anon "After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears."

    But it could mean NOT putting Zionist-Globalist interest first.
    And that's what it's all about.

    Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
    Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way, all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism.

    "Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
    Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way, all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism."

    That seems to be true.
    I was shocked to read a letter in the current London Review of Books, actually a rebuttal to another letter, by Adam Tooze. Tooze had written a review of a book by Wolfgang Streeck. In his rebuttal Tooze attacked Streeck as an anti-Semite because Streeck had *dared* to write a book that presents arguments for the primacy of the nation-state as opposed to globalist forces. Tooze's argument basically came down to: nation-state = chauvinism = anti-Semitism, where globalization = "Semitism," I suppose, and Tooze actually more or less accused Streeck of anti-Semitism on this basis: that you cannot defend the idea of the nation-state without being in effectively anti-Semitic. He didn't show any other evidence but just this supposed syllogism, all of it theoretical. Interestingly Tooze was the one making the equation of globalism and Jews-not Streeck! But still, Streeck was the guilty one. Tooze spent a lot of breath on the word "Volk" for "people." Of coure, Streeck in German, and that is the German word for "people." Any other overtones "Volk" has acquired in English are the fault of the English, as English has its own second word, "folk," which German does not, and so English speakers didn't have to take over the German word and demonize it. They could have demonized their own word . . . Tooze's pedantry and intellectual sloppiness were quite startling. I look forward to seeing a rebuttal and maybe counterattack from Streeck in the next LRB . . .

    SmoothieX12 , Website January 22, 2017 at 11:40 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T)

    These are bad news, but the news which are even worse is the fact that of these 18.7 Trillion of nominal GDP, probably third (most likely more) is a virtual GDP–the result of cooking of books and of financial and real estate machinations. Trump knows this, I am almost 99% positive, even 99.9%, on that.

    Skeptikal , January 22, 2017 at 11:42 pm GMT \n
    @Anatoly Karlin

    This is a very good article. I agree with it almost entirely.

    Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes?... Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
    When would it be possible for the anti-imperialist ideological system to dump its core belief that, Lenin's demented (and unoriginal) ramblings to the contrary, capitalism has intrinsically zilch to do with imperialism?
    Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?".
    David Horowitz merely demonstrated that, unlike " renegade Jews " such as the Kristols and the Krauthammers, he is a patriot of his own country (the USA) first and a Jewish nationalist second. I consider that perfectly fine and worthy of respect.

    " one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. "

    True also of Kennedy and Khrushchev.

    Seraphim , January 23, 2017 at 12:39 am GMT \n
    100 Words @Diogenes

    "Make America Great Again"- is just an empty political slogan like bait on a fishing hook that only dumb fish would be attracted to.

    I suggest readers look at an article by Andrew Levine, a very insightful Jewish American political commentator and regular contributor to Counterpunch.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/20/when-was-america-great/

    "the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth".

    What has ISIS done to America or Trump that he should want to totally obliterate them? Before you denounce or pronounce me as dumb heretical dissenter, read on.

    Sunni Arabs in the Middle East have been exploited and controlled by racially arrogant European interlopers and colonists since the fall of the Ottomans. They have been especially mistreated and ravaged by vengeful Americans since 2001. They also facilitated a revival of Shia-Sunni sectarian conflict in Syria and Iraq. Now the displaced and persecuted Sunni minority want to form their own state, free from foreign interference to practice their chosen religion and way of life. I grant you that they are also vengeful and violent to those who persecuted them by using terrorist methods and that they practiced "ethnic cleansing" but that does not make them "uncivilized", the civilized Americans and Europeans did the same when conquering their settler colonies. So why not let them have their own land, just like the Jewish Europeans were given and make peace with time provided they renounce their goal of spreading Wahhabi Muslim empire by force?

    The Arab states which emerged after the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate were not meant to be replaced by an Arab Caliphate. The fight of the Sunnis is not the fight of a 'persecuted' minority, but of the former dominant minority for the re-establishment of their dominant position in the frame of the Caliphate, with wet dreams of world domination. ISIS is but the tip of the iceberg. Their eradication would cool down the overheated minds of the Caliphate dreamers.

    Cloak And Dagger , January 23, 2017 at 1:19 am GMT \n
    400 Words @alexander Annamaria,

    The key to US solvency and credit worthiness is the "ratio" of Debt to GDP.....Our GDP should ALWAYS be in the plus column, and when its not.... it's bad news.

    Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T)...it is such bad news our big media has refused to discuss it .....The only person to bring it up , ever, was the Donald.

    The big media does not want to say the wars they lied us into bankrupted our nation because it makes them accountable.

    The scaly truth is that they "are" accountable.


    Ironically,Donald Trump (who knows this too) now has the power as President to generate over two trillion dollars in revenues, literally overnight, and move our Debt to GDP ratio right back in the plus column.

    Do you want to know how ?


    He goes on record that the Iraq War "lies" constituted a defrauding of the American people , our country, and the brave men and women who fought and died there....and he has chosen to recognize this "defrauding " as a supreme terrorist act against the wellbeing of our nation ,our citizenry and the values that make us who we are.....

    He goes on to say that ALL the perpetrators will be held accountable for this despicable act of deception , so that it may never happen again.

    Then he proceeds with operation "Clean Sweep" and takes down all the back room billionaire oligarchs who jockeyed for the war and profited from it .

    Lets say by the time he is done he has arrested 700 belligerent oligarchs and media moguls and seizes all their assets....If they are each worth, on average, 4 billion dollars .......

    then 700 x 4 billion = 2.8 trillion dollars

    If this 2.8 trillion goes to paying down the national debt....then "bingo" our Debt to GDP ratio is right back in the" plus column" ....

    Our National debt is reduced by 2.8 T and the GDP stays the same .....the new ratio is 17.1 T Debt/ 18.7 T GDP.

    Our credit worthiness, as a nation, is now out of the" danger zone".

    Whatever assets the criminal oligarchs had, are auctioned off and redistributed to all the good people who would never "lie us into war".

    This sends an enormously reassuring message throughout the world that we are able to take care of business at home, and clean house when necessary.

    This would also serve as a much needed tonic within the entire "establishment" community, as they would be intensely fearful of ever defrauding the American people again.


    Would you do it ?.....If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability ?

    Would you do it ? ..If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability

    Not to speak for Anna, but maybe I would – if blessed with balls of titanium, or perhaps by underestimating the capacity of the deep state to slice them off. Being human, one can only hope that Trump will do what I cannot, or could not in his shoes.

    One thing he cannot do is feign ignorance or pretend to be unaware of the critters festering in the swamp – after all, he campaigned on the promise of draining it. Where hope falters is in seeing the cabinet he is building with characters unlikely to do much in the swamp-draining department. Without a strong cadre of testicular fortitude surrounding him in his cabinet, his most sincere attempts at swamp-drainage will be quixotic at best.

    So, where does one place hope lest one becomes a blathering cynic or a nattering nabob of negativity?

    Ego -- That is where my chips are stacked. Nothing defines or motivates Trump more than his self-perception. I believe that it is much more than showmanship that propels his self-promotion, and nothing would be more devastating to the man than to be ridiculed or perceived as a failure. I doubt that Netanyahu could do to him what he did to Obama and survive the retaliatory deluge that would follow. I think Trump's hidden strength is his desire for vengeance against those that wrong him (I expect there to be tribulations in HRC's future). If the deep state doesn't do him in first, there is the strong possibility of damage on the deep state – one that they may never recover from in this world of instant information that wilts night-flowers.

    He may redefine victory on occasion for outcomes that are too difficult for him to accept, but in the end, he will "Make Trump Great Again," and if fortune favors us, help the US benefit in the process, if not the rest of the world.

    That does not rule out that his naivetι may cause him to stumble and fall, perhaps more than once, and he has not always succeeded in business, but it seems that he does build on his failures, and is unlikely to make the same mistake twice.

    Doesn't appear like a lot to cling to, but in this dystopic world, it is the best we have. Is it enough?

    [Jan 22, 2017] The policy of imperialism threatens to change the temper of our people, and to put us into a permanent attitude of arrogance, testiness, and defiance towards other nations

    Notable quotes:
    "... Alarmed by the spread of anti-imperialist ideas, Lodge invited his closest friend, Governor Theodore Roosevelt of New York, to join him in Boston to launch a counterattack. On Oct. 31, 1899, both spoke to the Republican Club of Massachusetts at the cavernous Music Hall on Winter Street. "We have got to put down the insurrection!" Roosevelt cried. "If we are men, we can't do otherwise!" Lodge portrayed anti-imperialists as not only defeatist, but complicit in the killing of American soldiers. ..."
    "... Tides ran in favor of the expansionist idea. Prominent anti-imperialists lost elections. War in the Philippines slowly reached its bloody end. Americans began focusing on other problems. The United States had leaped from continental empire to overseas empire. ..."
    "... That war - which is actually a war against war - has never ended. The debate over American intervention abroad, which began at Faneuil Hall in 1898, is still raging. It will shape the new administration in Washington and, through it, the world. ..."
    Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs :

    How (When?) Boston fought the empire
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/01/22/how-boston-fought-empire/mWNyIXXDIdogeh9guKDnzN/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe - Stephen Kinzer - January 22, 2017

    Where better to launch a patriotic uprising than Faneuil Hall in Boston? It is a lodestone of American liberty, a cathedral for freedom fighters. That is why a handful of eminent Bostonians chose it as the place to begin a new rebellion on the sunny afternoon of June 15, 1898.

    Like all Americans, they had been dizzied by the astonishing events of recent weeks. Their country had suddenly burst beyond its natural borders. American troops had landed in Cuba. American warships had bombarded Puerto Rico. An American expeditionary force was steaming toward the distant Philippine Islands. Hawaii seemed about to fall to American power. President William McKinley had called for 200,000 volunteers to fight in foreign wars. Fervor for the new idea of overseas expansion gripped the United States.

    This prospect thrilled some Americans. It horrified others. Their debate gripped the nation. The country's best-known political and intellectual leaders took sides. In the history of US foreign policy, this is truly the mother of all debates.

    When we argue over whether we should depose a government in Iraq or Syria or Libya, whether we should wage war in Afghanistan, whether we should encourage the bombing of Yemen, or whether we should seek to bend Russia to our will, we are arguing the same question that was at the center of this original debate. Every argument about foreign intervention that we make today - on both sides - was first made in the period around 1898. Today's debates are amazingly precise repetitions of that first one. The central question is the same: Should the United States project power into faraway lands? Yes, to guarantee our prosperity, save innocent lives, liberate the oppressed, and confront danger before it reaches our shores! No, intervention brings suffering and creates enemies!

    Boston was the epicenter of that original debate. Bostonians played such a large role in the national debate that one California newspaper called anti-imperialists "the kicking Bostonese." Several hundred of them turned out for the Faneuil Hall meeting. One speaker, the Rev. Charles Ames, a theologian and Unitarian pastor, warned that the moment the United States seized a foreign land, it would "sacrifice the principles on which the Republic was founded."

    The policy of imperialism threatens to change the temper of our people, and to put us into a permanent attitude of arrogance, testiness, and defiance towards other nations. ... Once we enter the field of international conflict as a great military and naval power, we shall be one more bully among bullies. We shall only add one more to the list of oppressors of mankind.

    At the end of that afternoon, one of the meeting's organizers came to the podium and read a resolution. "Resolved, that the mission of the United States is to help the world by an example of successful self-government, and that to abandon the principles and the policy under which we have prospered, and embrace the doctrine and practices now called imperial, is to enter the path which, with other great republics, has ended in the downfall of free institutions," it declared. "Resolved, that our first duty is to cure the evils in our own country." The resolution was adopted by acclamation.

    At the very moment these words were shaking Faneuil Hall, debate on the same question - overseas expansion - was reaching a climax in Congress. It is a marvelous coincidence: The first anti-imperialist rally in American history was held on the same day that Congress voted, also for the first time, on whether the United States should take an overseas colony. The colony in question was Hawaii, but all understood that the real question was immensely greater. It was nothing less than the future of the Republic: whether or not the United States should become a global military power and seek to shape the fate of faraway lands.

    On that day, as expected, the House of Representatives voted to annex Hawaii. Yet the great debate had only begun. Working from offices in Boston, anti-imperialists spent the summer and fall of 1898 writing letters to potential sympathizers across the country.

    Their work came to fruition on Nov. 18, when an eager crowd packed a law office on Milk Street to witness the founding of the Anti-Imperialist League. George Boutwell, who had been a passionate abolitionist as well as a congressman, US senator, and governor of Massachusetts, was chosen by acclimation as the league's first president. In his mind, every abolitionist was a natural anti-imperialist, since anyone who opposed keeping human beings as slaves must also oppose ruling other peoples against their will.

    At the end of 1898, American negotiators forced the defeated Spanish to sign the Treaty of Paris, in which they surrendered Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. On Jan. 4, 1899, President McKinley submitted the treaty for Senate ratification. That set off a monthlong debate over what one senator called "the greatest question that has ever been presented to the American people." The dominant figure on each side was a brilliantly articulate Republican senator from Massachusetts.

    George Frisbie Hoar of Worcester led the anti-imperialist charge. The United States, he insisted, must not "rush madly upon this new career," lest it become "a cheap-jack country raking after the cart for the leavings of European tyranny." He ended his speech in a crescendo: "The poor Malay, the poor African, the downtrodden workman of Europe will exclaim, as he reads this new doctrine: 'Good God! Is there not one place left on earth where, in right of my manhood, I can stand up and be a man?' "

    Hoar's sharpest opponent was Henry Cabot Lodge of Beacon Hill and Nahant. Lodge told the Senate that since many foreign peoples were unequipped to govern themselves wisely, they should submit to American guidance and trust "the American people, who have never failed in any great duty or feared to face any responsibility, to deal with them in that spirit of justice, humanity, and liberty which has made us all that we are today or can ever hope to be."

    From their bustling office on Kilby Street, leaders of the Anti-Imperialist League fed information to friendly senators and heavily lobbied the handful who remained undecided. The league also published a stream of pamphlets, called Liberty Tracts, aimed at bringing its arguments to a larger audience. Often their titles were questions. "Which shall it be, nation or empire?" asked one. Another: "Is it right for this country to kill the natives of a foreign land because they wish to govern themselves?"

    On Feb. 6, 1899, despite these intense efforts, senators ratified the Treaty of Paris - by just one vote more than the required two-thirds majority. Armed rebellion broke out immediately in the Philippines. Tens of thousands of American troops were sent to suppress it. President McKinley faced a difficult task: explain to a divided nation why taking foreign lands was no betrayal of the American idea. He decided to deliver a speech in Boston, home of the Anti-Imperialist League and thus the heart of enemy territory. To assure himself a friendly audience, however, he chose as his platform the Home Market Club, one of the country's most potent agglomerations of corporate power.

    A crowd led by Mayor Josiah Quincy cheered as McKinley emerged from South Station around midday on Feb. 15, 1899. The next night, nearly two thousand guests packed Mechanics Hall for the largest banquet ever staged in the United States. In his speech, McKinley asserted that the essential goodness of the American people is the supreme and sole necessary justification of whatever the United States chooses to do in the world. This goodness, he acknowledged, might not be clear to the "misguided Filipino," but soon the islands would prosper under the rule "not of their American masters, but of their American emancipators."

    "Did we need their consent to perform a great act for humanity?" he asked. "We had it in every aspiration of their minds, in every hope of their hearts."

    These words disgusted the philosopher William James. In an anguished letter to Boston newspapers, he called McKinley's speech a "shamefully evasive" attempt to obscure the central truth of the age: "We are cold-bloodedly, wantonly, and abominably destroying the soul of a people who never did us an atom of harm in their lives. It is bald, brutal piracy."

    Alarmed by the spread of anti-imperialist ideas, Lodge invited his closest friend, Governor Theodore Roosevelt of New York, to join him in Boston to launch a counterattack. On Oct. 31, 1899, both spoke to the Republican Club of Massachusetts at the cavernous Music Hall on Winter Street. "We have got to put down the insurrection!" Roosevelt cried. "If we are men, we can't do otherwise!" Lodge portrayed anti-imperialists as not only defeatist, but complicit in the killing of American soldiers.

    "I vote with the army that wears the uniform and carries the flag of my country," he said. "When the enemy has yielded and the war is over, we can discuss other matters!"

    Tides ran in favor of the expansionist idea. Prominent anti-imperialists lost elections. War in the Philippines slowly reached its bloody end. Americans began focusing on other problems. The United States had leaped from continental empire to overseas empire.

    "Well, we are defeated for the time," admitted the Cambridge anti-imperialist Charles Eliot Norton. "But the war is not ended, and we are enlisted for the war."

    That war - which is actually a war against war - has never ended. The debate over American intervention abroad, which began at Faneuil Hall in 1898, is still raging. It will shape the new administration in Washington and, through it, the world.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 22, 2017 at 07:23 AM
    Few want Manifest Destiny to stop short of an American world.
    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Splendid essay.

    [Jan 22, 2017] The rise of Trump and Isis have more in common than you might think by Patrick Cockburn

    Notable quotes:
    "... In Europe and the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass immigration and military intervention abroad. ..."
    "... Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three buttons, the importance of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking their cue from their donors rather than potential voters, never appreciated. ..."
    "... The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important example being the Kurds. ..."
    "... Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. ..."
    "... It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian leaders whose regimes were more the symptom than the cause of division. ..."
    "... Political divisions in the US are probably greater now than at any time since the American Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity in both countries betray a deepening disunity and alarm as people sense that they are moving in the dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible and may no longer exist. ..."
    "... Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia ..."
    "... But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading for Central Europe and the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle East could not be contained. They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian nationalist right and made them real contenders for power. ..."
    "... One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far he succeeds in closing down these wars, something that is now at last becoming feasible. ..."
    Jan 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    In the US, Europe and the Middle East there were many who saw themselves as the losers from globalisation, but the ideological vehicle for protest differed markedly from region to region. In Europe and the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass immigration and military intervention abroad. The latter theme is much more resonant in the US than in Europe because of Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three buttons, the importance of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking their cue from their donors rather than potential voters, never appreciated.

    The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important example being the Kurds. This is a big change from 50 years ago when revolutionaries in the region were usually nationalists or socialists, but both beliefs were discredited by corrupt and authoritarian nationalist dictators and by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

    Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. When Isis forces were advancing on Baghdad after taking Mosul in June 2014, it was a fatwa from the Iraqi Shia religious leader Ali al-Sistani that rallied the resistance. No non-religious Iraqi leader could have successfully appealed to hundreds of thousands of people to volunteer to fight to the death against Isis. The Middle East differs also from Europe and the US because states are more fragile than they look and once destroyed prove impossible to recreate. This was a lesson that the foreign policy establishments in Washington, London and Paris failed to take on board after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, though the disastrous outcome of successful or attempted regime change has been bloodily demonstrated again and again. It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian leaders whose regimes were more the symptom than the cause of division.

    But it is not only in the Middle East that divisions are deepening. Whatever happens in Britain because of the Brexit vote or in the US because of the election of Trump as president, both countries will be more divided and therefore weaker than before. Political divisions in the US are probably greater now than at any time since the American Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity in both countries betray a deepening disunity and alarm as people sense that they are moving in the dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible and may no longer exist.

    The mainline mass media is finding it difficult to make sense of a new world order which may or may not be emerging. Journalists are generally more rooted in the established order of things than they pretend and are shocked by radical change. Only two big newspapers – the Florida Times-Union and the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Trump before the election and few of the American commentariat expected him to win, though this has not dented their confidence in their own judgement. Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia, but there is also genuine uncertainty about whether he will be a real force for change, be it good or ill.

    Crises in different parts of the world are beginning to cross-infect and exacerbate each other. Prior to 2014 European leaders, whatever their humanitarian protestations, did not care much what happened in Iraq and Syria. But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading for Central Europe and the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle East could not be contained. They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian nationalist right and made them real contenders for power.

    The Middle East is always a source of instability in the world and never more so than over the last six years. But winners and losers are emerging in Syria where Assad is succeeding with Russian and Iranian help, while in Iraq the Baghdad government backed by US airpower is slowly fighting its way into Mosul. Isis probably has more fight in it than its many enemies want to believe, but is surely on the road to ultimate defeat. One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far he succeeds in closing down these wars, something that is now at last becoming feasible.

    [Jan 22, 2017] Stephen Cohen about Fake News, Neo-McCarthyism, Aleppo, CIA hacking allegations and Rex Tillerson

    As Stephen Cohen noted Kremlin bating was adopted by Hillary campaign -- they wanted to fight again Trump and Putin, instead Trump and Pence. That did not them any good.
    Notable quotes:
    "... 2016 was the year of collapse of western mainstream media. No decent people must now on trust on our western mainstream media. ..."
    "... You have to dig the truth from independent sources. I found this thing much before Iraq War. Even Vietnam War was run by similar lies of media and ruling class (Tonkin Gulf plot). ..."
    www.youtube.com

    DieFlabbergast

    Whether you have a favorable or unfavorable view of Putin, or of Russia in general, it is people like Stephen Cohen - who has studied Russia all his life and actually knows what he's talking about - to whom you should listen. Compared to the media men who have Cohen on their shows, he is like an adult talking to children.

    I hate modern football

    As a Finn i have been forced to learn the history of Russia in perspective of Finland (and Sweden).

    And my conclusion has become more stable that Finland is for Russia nothing more than buffer: a country causing no problems but lots of good things IF THERE ARE NO MILITARY FORCES OF ENEMY GREAT POWER.

    After that basic geopolitical fact it's clear why Finland is not NATO country and hope will never come even there are lots of Finnish media pundits suggesting it.

    Pfirtzer -> I hate modern football

    Well older people have still the idea America liberated them and other uninformed people find Russia to bo the enemy because of MH17 plain that was shot down above Ukraine.

    But in fairness there are many dutch people who want to have a good relation with Russia and having trade with Russia, because it's good to trade, and talk , war is just good for the Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Bushes and co

    Look a booklet https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html War Is a Racket google it, your eyes will open what is going on in the world!

    Jason Roggasch

    No proof no facts JUST assertions from one of the most destructive forces the world has ever known THE CIA

    Patricia Leary

    "It's CLEAR that Russia is meddling in our election" Dude! Clarity without ANY facts? Zero evidence? Seriously??

    Here's what IS crystal clear and is backed by COPIOUS undisputed evidence, and nary a word from corporate neocon Obama or his MSM lapdogs - Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the Superdelegates criminal, corrupt election fraud, defiling our election integrity, during the primaries, backed by huge corporate interests to ensure that an anti-corporatist like Bernie Sanders, DID NOT gain the nomination.

    Had Sanders been nominated, he would have won the presidency hands down! They knew that! The corporate billionaires ruling the world COULD NOT and WOULD NOT HAVE THAT! Yes. There was meddling but it wasn't a foreign entity. It was the United States of Corporations!

    Susan Joy Worker

    why should anyone believe Clinton and the Globalist-controlled media? They lie about everything.

    The Leaks have revealed extensive crimes - we now need a Full investigation of ALL of those crimes.

    Then Mrs Clinton can explain herself at a fair trial. If that leads to jail or execute, so be it.

    Let us move the discussion on to her crimes, and who conspired with her in those crimes.

    I am tired of the distractions

    Alex Trefall

    As a Polish national I have no great love for Russia. But in recent years I recognized that what I consider "my version of history" may not be the same for someone else.

    Meaning: history is not facts but rather its mostly political fiction mixed with some facts. I don't claim to know who has the proverbial answer, or who is right.

    All I see is that in the last 15 years, if not longer it's the US that invaded more countries and caused countless deaths in the name of their own self interest ( democracy - freedom/slavery to consume whatever we like in whatever quantity ).

    Trying to blame Russia for everything just seems pathetic regardless how good or bad Putin really is.

    B M

    USA governments have been in the pocket of the Globalist Arms Manufacturers because it is worth trillions of dollars to them.Its all about $$$$$$.People are expendable.

    We now have a chance for peace but Trump is in danger for attempting to break this evil establishment.

    ameighable

    Julian Assange has said that the leaks were not from state operatives and definitely not Russsia. A former UK ambassador says that he personally few to DC to personally receive the WikiLeaks material. Julian Assange suggested in an interview with Dutch TV that Seth Rich, a DNC employee who was murdered not long after the leaks, was the leaker.

    Furthermore, the ambassador said that all published information was legally obtained by disgruntled insiders.

    Vlasta Molak

    There are 4 totalitarian, supremacist, apartheid and imperialistic IDEOLOGIES, which had threatened advances of the Western civilization: Communism, Fascism, Nazism and Islam, of which Islam is the most current and dangerous, as it is worst than Nazism. Communism fell under its own weight, Fascism and Nazism were defeated in WWII (although it exists in small enclaves) but Islam is invading the West with the help of treasonous Western politicians, such as b. Hussein Obama, Angela Merkel, EC and even Pope.

    Trump recognizes this and his choice for Secretary of State, Rex Tillleson is a great one, as Mr. Tillerson is a problem solver, just as Trump is, who listens to everybody, including those who opposed him and defamed him. this is a characteristic of a GREAT leader. Putin has a PhD in Economics who lived in Dresden while working for KGB and Putin is aware of the danger of Islam to Western civilization.

    Vlasta Molak

    Wahbis RULE Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam in Mecca and therefore are just like the war lord Mohamed role models for ALL Muslim men who have to come for Hajj at least once in a lifetime. It is the IDEOLOGY of Islam that is the ROOT cause of terrorism and violence nowadays.

    444suse

    2016 was the year of collapse of western mainstream media. No decent people must now on trust on our western mainstream media.

    You have to dig the truth from independent sources. I found this thing much before Iraq War. Even Vietnam War was run by similar lies of media and ruling class (Tonkin Gulf plot).

    Russia Good

    World Disorder in the New Year, By Stephen F. Cohen https://player.fm/series/the-john-batchelor-show/1-year-ago-world-disorder-in-the-new-year-stephen-f-cohen-nyu-princeton-eastwestaccordcom

    Susan Joy Worker

    Brian on NYT: "There are other points of view, including the point of view of Donald Trump, that do get on their pages."
    LOL, This made me laugh aloud. "On their pages" - to be misreported and ridiculed. The NY Times is definitely part of the problem and is a key part of the spin machine. I was happy to hear that they will let enough employees go to free up 8 floors. May the shrinking continue in 2017. It will save the "good guys" from nuking the place and all who work there.


    [Jan 21, 2017] James Mattis confirmed as secretary of defense

    Jan 20, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    The Senate confirmed the appointment of retired general James Mattis as secretary of defense on Friday, making him the first member of Donald Trump's cabinet cleared to take office.

    The Senate vote was passed by 98-1 after Trump signed a waiver making Mattis exempt from a law that blocks senior officers from taking the defense secretary job within seven years of retirement. Mattis has been out of uniform for three years.

    The single vote against his confirmation was from Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, a Democrat who argued the bar should remain in place on the grounds that civilian control of the military was a fundamental principle of US democracy.

    [Jan 21, 2017] The most dangerous moment in the US-Russia relations

    Interesting thought: there is no intelligence community, there is not CIA, there are different groups within CIA unbrella with different, often conflicting interests and political agenda.
    Notable quotes:
    "... This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under the Obama administration. ..."
    "... In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say the CIA We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover, this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    The most dangerous moment in the US-Russia relations Leading scholar on US-Russia relations addresses the claim being trumpeted by politicians and media on both sides of the political spectrum that Russia is now the "number one" threat to the United States. Given the proxy wars in Syria and Ukraine, Dr. Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and New York University, tells host of 'The Empire Files', Abby Martin, that the real alarming danger today is "a new, multi-front Cuban missile crisis."

    This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under the Obama administration.

    Meanwhile, Russia was of course in the person of Putin, repeatedly, almost begging the US to join it in an alliance against terrorism, not only in Syria, but in a kind of global war. I don't know if the global war against terrorism is possible as a separate issue, but Russia wanted to partner with the US. Obama was inclined very briefly in Sep. 2016, but that was killed by the US department of defence when they attacked those Syrian troops.

    In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say the CIA We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover, this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved.

    There are very different views about Washington's policy toward Russia, inside the intelligence community. This may be the single most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations.

    The Cuban missile crisis is always said to have been the turning point in our awareness of how dangerous the Cold War was. And that, after we avoided nuclear Armageddon, both sides became wise, and the Cold War continued, but there was a code of contact. Everybody understood where the danger lines were. There was a code of conduct between the Soviet Union and the United States. It doesn't exist today. After the Cuban missile crisis in '62, the two sides began to develop interactive cooperation, student exchanges, scientific exchanges, hot lines, constant talks about nuclear weapons, nuclear reductions, trade agreements. That has come to an end along with communication.

    There are now three fronts in the new Cold War that are fought with the possibility of actual war. There's the Baltic region and Poland, where NATO unwisely building up its military presence. There is, of course, Ukraine which could exploded any moment, and, of course, there is Syria, where you got Russian and American aircraft. So, you got a multi-front potential Cuban missile crisis.

    Meanwhile, in the United States, this hysterical reaction to alleged - because there is no proof been produced - that somehow Putin put Trump in the White House, this combination of demented public discourse, engrave danger abroad, at least comparable to the Cuban missile crisis.

    It's been said that the European Union offered Ukraine a very benign economic relationship. That wasn't a benign agreement, about a thousand pages long. There is a section called 'military security issues' and it's very clear, that any country that signs this so-called eastern partnership agreement with the EU, is obliged to adhere to NATO security policies. By signing that, you become a de facto member of NATO. And this was just more of the attempt by Washington to get Ukraine in the NATO, if not openly, through the back door, and they're still at it.

    The decision to expand NATO, all the way, including Ukraine and Georgia, has created a situation in which none of us is safe. And they call that 'national security'?

    Full interview: watch-v=Op6Qr7uuMy8

    [Jan 21, 2017] For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East.

    Notable quotes:
    "... A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy, proclaiming its will to represent the people. ..."
    "... I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find amusing. ..."
    "... For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to 2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy. Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world. ..."
    "... I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you? ..."
    "... Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency. We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | crookedtimber.org

    b9n10nt 01.20.17 at 8:47 pm

    Nah, Reagan was tragedy, this one is farce. A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy, proclaiming its will to represent the people.
    Layman 01.20.17 at 9:24 pm ( 17 )

    Has anyone noticed the creepy banner CNN is using for their coverage? Two general's stars on a red ribbon? I was struck by it, so I went to CNN's archive to see what they did for the last two inaugurations. I couldn't find anything like it.

    And of course there is the story that his team wanted a military vehicle parade, e.g. Tanks, mobile missile launchers, etc. How long before the Don dons a uniform?

    Collin Street 01.20.17 at 11:51 pm ( 20 )
    Actually, second time as farce.

    I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find amusing.

    kidneystones 01.21.17 at 12:23 am
    What I told my own first-year students yesterday:

    For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to 2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy. Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world.

    I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you?

    Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency. We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China.

    He's not interested in what goes on in other people's countries. He wants to mind his own business. He wants to get rich and become as famous as possible. We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans have elected a president who does not want to attack other countries.

    We are not looking at a new US war in the Middle East for the first time in a very long time. That doesn't mean the war won't happen. Americans love bombing people. But I'm immensely pleased Hillary Clinton is not fighting more wars in the Middle East, and that for the first time in a very long time Americans seem to have decided to leave the rest of us live our lives in peace.

    God bless everyone.

    [Jan 21, 2017] Trump will struggle to find a face-saving retreat from these unnecessary conflicts and shut his ears to the siren songs of the war party and deep state which just failed to stage a soft coup to block his inauguration

    Notable quotes:
    "... Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course. ..."
    "... Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria. ..."
    "... Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    What I found most impressive this time was the reaffirmation of America's dedication to the peaceful transfer of political power. This was the 45th time this miracle has happened. Saying this is perhaps banal, but the handover of power never fails to make me proud to be an American and thankful we had such brilliant founding fathers.

    This peaceful transfer sets the United States apart from many of the world's nations, even Britain and Canada, where leaders under the parliamentary system are chosen in a process resembling a knife fight in a dark room. The US has somehow managed to retain its three branches of government in spite of the best efforts of self-serving politicians to wreck it.

    Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course.

    Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria.

    This week US B-2 heavy bombers attacked Libya. US forces are fighting in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and parts of Africa. For what? No one is quite sure. America's foreign wars, fueled by its $1 trillion military budget, have assumed a life of their own. Once a great power goes to war, its proponents insist, 'we can't be seen to back down or our credibility will suffer.'

    Trump will struggle to find a face-saving retreat from these unnecessary conflicts and shut his ears to the siren songs of the war party and deep state which just failed to stage a 'soft' coup to block his inauguration. Waging little wars against weak nations is a multi-billion dollar national industry in the US. America has become as addicted to war as it has to debt.

    If President Trump truly wants to bring some sort of peace to the explosive Mideast, he will have to reject the advice of the hardline Zionists with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Their primary interest is Greater Israel, free of Arabs, not in a Greater America. Trump is too smart not to know this. But he may also listen to his blood and guts former generals who lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Trump appears to have been gulled into believing the canard that Mideast-origin violence is caused by what he called in his inaugural speech, radical Islamic terrorism. This is a favorite device promoted by the hard right and Israel to de-legitimize any resistance to Israel's expansion and ethnic cleansing. The label of 'terrorism' serves the same purpose.

    Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it.

    Unfortunately, President Trump is unlikely to get this useful advice from the men who now surround him, with the possibly exception of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Let's hope that Tillerson and not Goldman Sachs bank ends up steering US foreign policy.

    (Reprinted from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)

    [Jan 21, 2017] Transcript And Analysis President Trump's Inauguration Speech NPR

    Notable quotes:
    "... For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. ..."
    "... Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | www.npr.org
    Some clearly anti-establishment paragraphs.
    The following is the complete text of President Donald J. Trump's inaugural address delivered on January 20, 2017.

    Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans, and people of the world: thank you.

    We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.

    Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for years to come.

    We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.

    Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent.

    Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

    For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.

    Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

    That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

    It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.

    This is your day. This is your celebration.

    And this, the United States of America, is your country.

    What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.

    January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.

    The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

    Everyone is listening to you now.

    You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before.

    At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.

    Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.

    These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.

    But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

    This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

    We are one nation – and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.

    The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.

    For many decades, we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry;

    Subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military;

    We've defended other nation's borders while refusing to defend our own;

    And spent trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.

    We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.

    One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.

    The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world.

    But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future.

    We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.

    From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.

    From this moment on, it's going to be America First.

    Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.

    We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

    I will fight for you with every breath in my body – and I will never, ever let you down.

    America will start winning again, winning like never before.

    We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.

    We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.

    We will get our people off of welfare and back to work – rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.

    We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.

    We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

    We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.

    We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.

    At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

    When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

    The Bible tells us, "how good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity."

    We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.

    When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.

    There should be no fear – we are protected, and we will always be protected.

    We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.

    Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger.

    In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving.

    We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.

    The time for empty talk is over.

    Now arrives the hour of action.

    Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.

    We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.

    We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.

    A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.

    It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.

    And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.

    So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words:

    You will never be ignored again.

    Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.

    Together, We Will Make America Strong Again.

    We Will Make America Wealthy Again.

    We Will Make America Proud Again.

    We Will Make America Safe Again.

    And, Yes, Together, We Will Make America Great Again. Thank you, God Bless You, And God Bless America.

    [Jan 21, 2017] The billionaire Warren Buffett to Trump: "I feel that way no matter who is president, the CEO -- which I am -- should have the ability to pick people that help you run a place."

    Jan 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. : January 20, 2017 at 11:50 AM

    Billionaires have to stick together.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-20/buffett-says-he-supports-trump-s-cabinet-picks-overwhelmingly?bcomANews=true

    Buffett Supports Trump on Cabinet Picks 'Overwhelmingly'

    by Amanda L Gordon and Noah Buhayar

    January 19, 2017, 8:19 PM EST January 20, 2017, 10:12 AM EST

    Warren Buffett said he "overwhelmingly" supports President-elect Donald Trump's choices for cabinet positions as the incoming commander-in-chief's selections face confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate.

    "I feel that way no matter who is president," the billionaire Berkshire Hathaway Inc. chairman and chief executive officer said Thursday in New York at the premiere of a documentary about his life. "The CEO -- which I am -- should have the ability to pick people that help you run a place."

    "If they fail, then it's your fault and you got to get somebody new," Buffett said. "Maybe you change cabinet members or something."

    Buffett, 86, backed Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, stumping for her in Omaha, Nebraska, and headlining fundraisers. The billionaire frequently clashed with Trump and scolded him for not releasing income-tax returns, as major party presidential candidates have done for roughly four decades.

    Trump's cabinet picks include Treasury Secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker; former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state; and retired Marine Corps General James Mattis as Defense secretary.

    Since the election, Buffett has struck a more conciliatory tone toward Trump and called for unity. In an interview with CNN in November, he said that people could disagree with the president-elect, but ultimately he "deserves everybody's respect."

    Trump's Popularity

    That message hasn't resonated. Trump's popularity is the worst for an incoming president in at least four decades, with just 40 percent of Americans saying they have a favorable impression of him, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll published Tuesday. Buffett said on Thursday that the low approval ratings won't matter much.

    "It's what you go out with that counts -- 20, 50 years later what people feel you've achieved," Buffett said.

    The president-elect has continued his pugnacious style during the transition, picking fights on Twitter with news outlets, automakers, defense contractors, intelligence agencies, Hollywood actress Meryl Streep and civil rights hero-turned-U.S. Congressman John Lewis.

    ...

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 20, 2017 at 12:05 PM
    Class warfare at its finest...
    sanjait -> Peter K.... , January 20, 2017 at 12:54 PM
    I wondered how you'd synthesize a way to disagree with Krugman on this one, given how seemingly commonsense and obvious are Krugman's points.

    Here's the answer it seems: talk about something else.

    John M -> sanjait... , January 20, 2017 at 01:14 PM
    The Bush team went further than that, actively sabotaging FBI field agents' investigations of possible upcoming attacks.

    Need it be stated that 9/11 did wonders for the Bush Administration?

    John M -> pgl... , January 20, 2017 at 01:35 PM
    Wonders for the Bush Administration:

    * It solved the problem of Democrats beginning to get a spine and going after the Felonious Five (or at least the three with major conflict of interest).

    * It bumped Bush's approval rating from 40% to 80%.

    * It greatly lowered opposition to Bush's anti-civil-liberties policies, such as creating "1st Amendment Zones".

    * It made passage of the Patriot Act possible.

    * People were able to smear opposition to the Bush team policies as treasonous.

    * It rendered torture, aggressive war, and barbaric imprisonment without due process of law respectable.

    Bush Administration sabotaged investigation:

    Remember Coleen Rowley who claimed that an FBI superior back in DC rewrote her request for a warrant, to make it less likely that it would be approved? There was also the FBI agent in Arizona who wanted to investigate certain pilot students, but was prohibited.

    pgl -> sanjait... , January 20, 2017 at 01:20 PM
    Remember the DeLenda Plan? Once we knew the USS Cole was Al Qaeda, it should have been executed. As in the spring of 2001. Alas, it was deferred to after 9/11. Most incompetent crew ever and the Twin Towers fell down taking 3000 people with because of their utter incompetence.
    ilsm -> sanjait... , January 20, 2017 at 03:09 PM
    Obama presided over 8 more years of Bushco organized murder and good profits for the war mongers.

    [Jan 21, 2017] Donald Trump Introduced To The Audience At Swearing In Ceremony - YouTube

    Jan 21, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    David B 3 hours ago (edited) Alright Trump, you're in office now, drain the Swamp, you can start with the federal Reserve, and CIA, oh and the justice department as well.

    [Jan 21, 2017] Obama promised to reverse the growth of the surveillance state. He did the opposite.

    Notable quotes:
    "... President Obama will go down in history as the man who helped entrench history's largest and most powerful surveillance state ..."
    "... Obama didn't just fall short of progressive hopes - he went in the opposite direction ..."
    "... he broke a campaign promise and voted for a bill expanding government surveillance and granting immunity to telecommunications companies who helped Bush spy on Americans. ..."
    "... Upon becoming president, the already vast surveillance powers of the United States have expanded . By 2010, the NSA was collecting 1.7 billion emails, phone calls, and other types of communications. By 2012, XKeyscore - which sweeps up "everything a user typically does on the internet" - was storing as much as forty-one billion records in thirty days. This gargantuan volume of data has the ironic effect of making it harder to detect security threats. ..."
    "... The use of secret laws - hidden from public eyes and often related to surveillance activities - shot up under Obama. The administration tried (and failed) to force Apple to insert security flaws in its phones, to give law enforcement a potential "back door" around encryption. ..."
    "... But this would not have happened - and the scope of US surveillance would have stayed secret - had it not been for the disclosures by Edward Snowden, whom Obama criticized and refused to pardon in the waning days of his administration, even as he claimed to " welcome " a debate on surveillance. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com

    President Obama will go down in history as the man who helped entrench history's largest and most powerful surveillance state, providing it with a liberal legitimacy that left it largely immune from criticism during his two terms. As President Trump takes the reins of that surveillance state's power in whatever terrifying ways he chooses, we should remember that it was Obama who paved the way for him.

    Obama has often been painted as a disappointing president, one who reached for the stars but ultimately, whether due to Republican obstructionism or the disappointing realities of governing, fell short. In the area of state surveillance, however, Obama didn't just fall short of progressive hopes - he went in the opposite direction.

    Obama built his career opposing the Patriot Act and Bush-era secrecy. He made this opposition a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, promising "no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime . . . No more ignoring the law when it is convenient."

    The first sign of his waning commitment came three months after a glowing Times op-ed declared him potentially the first civil libertarian president, when he broke a campaign promise and voted for a bill expanding government surveillance and granting immunity to telecommunications companies who helped Bush spy on Americans.

    Upon becoming president, the already vast surveillance powers of the United States have expanded . By 2010, the NSA was collecting 1.7 billion emails, phone calls, and other types of communications. By 2012, XKeyscore - which sweeps up "everything a user typically does on the internet" - was storing as much as forty-one billion records in thirty days. This gargantuan volume of data has the ironic effect of making it harder to detect security threats.

    The use of secret laws - hidden from public eyes and often related to surveillance activities - shot up under Obama. The administration tried (and failed) to force Apple to insert security flaws in its phones, to give law enforcement a potential "back door" around encryption.

    It extended controversial Patriot Act provisions year after year. Less than a week before Donald Trump, a man he has called "unfit" for office, took power, Obama expanded the NSA's power to share its data with other agencies. Meanwhile, the FBI is paying Best Buy employees to snoop through your computer.

    Where there have been privacy wins on Obama's watch, they have largely been inadvertent. The NSA collects a much smaller proportion of Americans' phone records today than it did eleven years ago because cell phone use has exploded. Furthermore, the USA Freedom Act passed in 2015, ending bulk collection of US phone records ( only of phone records, it must be said), something Obama tried to claim as part of his legacy in his farewell speech.

    But this would not have happened - and the scope of US surveillance would have stayed secret - had it not been for the disclosures by Edward Snowden, whom Obama criticized and refused to pardon in the waning days of his administration, even as he claimed to " welcome " a debate on surveillance.

    All of this happened under a liberal former constitutional law professor. The question must be asked: What will follow under Trump?

    -Branko Marcetic

    [Jan 21, 2017] The Trump Speech That No One Heard by Mike Whitney

    Notable quotes:
    "... Here's an excerpt from the speech Trump delivered in Cincinnati on December 1, that presents Trump's views on the topic: ..."
    "... "We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will." ..."
    "... This is why none of the major media published Trump's comments. The corporate bosses who own the media have nothing to gain by promoting the views of a populist executive who wants to minimize the carnage by working cooperatively with foreign leaders the media has already designated as 'enemies of the state', like Vladimir Putin. How does that advance the media's agenda? ..."
    "... But the Washington power-elite know what Trump said, and they have acted accordingly. They have put together a plan that is designed to undermine Trump's credibility, back him into a corner and remove him from office. That's the plan, regime change in the USA. ..."
    "... This is why CIA Director John Brennan took the unprecedented step of appearing on FOX News Sunday. Brennan and the other heads of the Intelligence Community have taken a leading role in the desperate character assassination campaign that is intended to obliterate public confidence in Trump in order to foil his attempts at resetting relations with Russia. ..."
    "... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
    Jan 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Donald Trump wants to fundamentally change U.S. foreign policy. The President-elect wants to abandon the destabilizing wars and regime change operations that have characterized US policy in the past and work collaboratively with countries like Russia that have a mutual interest in fighting terrorism and establishing regional security. Here's an excerpt from the speech Trump delivered in Cincinnati on December 1, that presents Trump's views on the topic:

    "We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will."

    Trump's approach to foreign policy may seem commendable given the disastrous results in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq, but it is also a dramatic departure from the last 70 years of activity during which time the United States has either overthrown or attempted to overthrow 57 foreign governments. (According to author William Blum) This is why the political class and their wealthy constituents are so worried about Trump, it's because they don't want the new president mucking-around in a process he doesn't understand, a process that has reshaped the world in a way that clearly benefits US mega-corporations while reinforcing Washington's iron grip on global power. The bottom line is that "violence works" and any deviation from the present policy represents a direct threat to the people whose continued power and prosperity depend on that violence.

    This is why none of the major media published Trump's comments. The corporate bosses who own the media have nothing to gain by promoting the views of a populist executive who wants to minimize the carnage by working cooperatively with foreign leaders the media has already designated as 'enemies of the state', like Vladimir Putin. How does that advance the media's agenda?

    It doesn't, which is why they'd rather the public remain in the dark about what Trump actually said.

    But the Washington power-elite know what Trump said, and they have acted accordingly. They have put together a plan that is designed to undermine Trump's credibility, back him into a corner and remove him from office. That's the plan, regime change in the USA.

    This is why CIA Director John Brennan took the unprecedented step of appearing on FOX News Sunday. Brennan and the other heads of the Intelligence Community have taken a leading role in the desperate character assassination campaign that is intended to obliterate public confidence in Trump in order to foil his attempts at resetting relations with Russia. The CIA's involvement in the coups in Ukraine and Honduras, as well as the agency's funding, arming and training of Sunni militants in Libya and Syria, attest to the fact that Brennan does not see peace and reconciliation as compatible with US foreign policy objectives. Like his elitist paymasters, Brennan is committed to perpetual war, regime change, and mass annihilation. Trump offers some relief from this 70 year-long nightmare policy. Check out this quote from Vice President-elect, Mike Pence on FOX News Sunday:

    "I think the president elect has made it very clear that we have a terrible relationship with Russia right now. And that's not all our own doing, but really is a failure of American diplomacy in successive administrations. And what the president elect has determined to do is to explore the possibility of better relations. We have a common enemy in ISIS, and the ability to work with Russia to confront, hunt down and destroy ISIS at its source represents an enormously important priority of this incoming administration. But what the American people like about Donald Trump is that he's someone who can sit down, roll his sleeves up and make a deal. And what you're hearing in his reflections whether it be with Russia, or China or other countries in the world, is that we're going to reengage. We're going to put America first, we're going to reengage in a way that advances America's interests in the world and that advances peace."

    Vice President-elect Mike Pence, FOX News Sunday

    "Better relations" with Russia?

    Not on your life. US elites and their think tank lackeys would never allow it, not in a million years. Even now, after six years of death and destruction in Syria, elites at the Council on Foreign Relations are still resolved to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. (Re: "Aleppo's Sobering Lessons," Project Syndicate, by Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations) The same is true at the Brookings Institute where chief strategist Michael O' Hanlon leads the charge for splitting up the battered country so Washington can control vital pipeline corridors, establish military bases in the east, and eliminate a potential threat to Israeli expansion. Here's a clip from a recent piece by O' Hanlon that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The author admits that the US goal is to splinter to country into multiple parts transforming it into a failed state:

    "To achieve peace, Syria will need self-governance within a number of autonomous zones. One option is a confederal system by which the whole country is divided into such zones. A less desirable but minimally acceptable alternative could be several autonomous zones within an otherwise still-centralized state-similar to how Iraqi Kurdistan has functioned for a quarter-century .

    Many Syrians will not like the idea of a confederal nation, or even of a central government controlling half the country with the other half divided into three or four autonomous zones. But the broad vision should be developed soon." (Wall Street Journal)

    "Autonomous zones" in a "confederal system" is a sobriquet for a broken, Balkanized failed state run by tribal elders, disparate warlords and bloodthirsty jihadists. O' Hanlon's vision for Syria is a savage dysfunctional dystopia run by homicidal fanatics who rule with an iron fist. Is it any wonder why the Syrian people have fought tooth and nail to fend off the terrorist onslaught?

    The United States is entirely responsible for the bloody decimation of Syria. It is absurd to think that either the Saudis, the Qataris or the Turks would have launched a war on a strategically-critical nation like Syria without a green light from Washington. The conflict is just the latest hotspot in Washington's 15 year-long war of terror. The ultimate goal is to remove all secular Arab leaders who may pose a threat to US imperial ambitions, open up the region to US-dominated extractive industries, and foment enough extremism to legitimize a permanent military presence.

    Russia's intervention into the Syrian conflict in September 2015, has cast doubt on Washington's ability to prevail in the six year-long war. The election of Donald Trump has further complicated matters by affecting a seismic shift in policy that could end the fighting and lead to improved relations between the US and Russia. Naturally, that is not in the interests of the vicious neocons or their liberal interventionist counterparts who see the proxy war in Syria as a pivotal part of their plan to clip Russia's wings, discredit Putin in the eyes of the international community, and lay the groundwork for regime change in Moscow. Washington's ultimate plan for Russia hews closely to that of Zbigniew Brzezinski who– in an titled "A Geostrategy for Eurasia"– had this to say:

    "Given (Russia's) size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia's vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia - composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic - would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entitles would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow's heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization." (Zbigniew Brzezinski, A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, 76:5, September/October 1997)

    Nice, eh? In other words, Washington's plan for Russia is no different than its plan for Syria. Both countries will be chopped up into smaller bite-size chunks eliminating the possibility of a strong nationalist government rising up and resisting Washington's relentless exploitation and repression. It's divide and conquer writ large.

    "A loosely confederated Russia" also fits perfectly with Washington's top priority to spread military bases across Asia, control crucial energy supplies, open up financial markets, impose Washington's neoliberal economic policies, and maintain a stranglehold on China's explosive growth. It's the Great Game all over again, and Washington is "In it to win it."

    Here's an excerpt from a speech Hillary Clinton gave in 2011 titled "America's Pacific Century". The speech underscores the importance that elites attach to the "rebalancing" plan contained in the term "pivot to Asia". The strategy relies on the opening up of new markets to US corporations and Wall Street, controlling critical resources, and "forging a broad-based military presence" across the continent. Washington intends to be the main player in the world's most prosperous region. Here's Clinton:

    "The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action . One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment - diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise - in the Asia-Pacific region

    Harnessing Asia's growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology ..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia."

    ("America's Pacific Century", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton", Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)

    Onward, to Asia, the next great US battlefield! The killing never ends.

    As we noted earlier, the pivot to Asia is Washington's top priority. Clinton merely confirms what geopolitical strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski laid out in his 1997 magnum opus The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Here's a short excerpt from the book:

    "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia (p.30) .. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. .About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

    For Washington to achieve its foreign policy objectives, it must eliminate or defeat all emerging threats to its dominance. In practical terms, that means the Russo-Sino plan to transform Europe and Asia into a giant free trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok– must be sabotaged by any means possible. The State Department's coup in Kiev as well as aggressive efforts to restrict the flow of Russian gas to the EU via Nord Stream and South Stream, have temporarily succeeded in undermining Moscow's plan for accelerated economic integration. Had Hillary won the election, the US would have stepped up its provocations, its sanctions, its military buildup on Russia's borders, its gas war, its attacks on Russia's markets and currency, and its proxy wars in Syria and Ukraine. But now that Trump has been thrown into the mix, anything is possible. Even a fundamental change in the policy.

    The question is whether the deep state powerbrokers –who have already launched a number of attacks on Trump in the media - will throw in the towel and allow Trump to develop his own independent foreign policy or take steps to have him removed from office.

    Early indications suggest that a coup is already underway.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

    Diogenes , January 19, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT • 200

    Trump to date has been "all talk and no action" and as we know "actions speak louder than words".
    The voters who put their trust in Trump rather than Hillary now expect actions and Trump to deliver on his election "plank".
    Needless to say politicians tend to "talk the walk" but not "walk the walk". So unless he delivers he is going to be another big disappointment for his supporters. I and many other cynics have maintained he is not going to deliver.
    But, what do I know? However the American Establishment probably knows a lot more than me and if they are worried about Trump and want him out of power then they feel threatened by him and his supporters may have really voted for a change that challenges the status quo.
    A purge of the Neo -liberal Globalist Establishment is long over due and much to be desired BUT we don't know who and what will replace them. Trump may be an "existential threat" to the malevolent swamp creatures that dwell in Washington but he might also be a threat to the whole country. We hope for a benevolent outcome; "Time will tell".

    Beckow , January 19, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT • 200

    But none of it has worked. Brzezinski, or whoever, can write books, can dream big, can play with maps after dinner at Georgetown parties – but it is has not worked. The 'divide and conquer' ended up dividing the world more, and conquering almost nothing. It is a mess, and the coming consequences were going to be dire.

    Results matter. Trump is not just an emotional reaction to the crazy globalist neocon-liberal idiocy, he is also a reaction to failure. If Clinton took over and doubled down on the same policies (she was going to), there simply would be a lot more failure. And there is no way to dress up failures as 'good for us'. Neo-cons/liberals have had everything on their side – power, academia, media, all institutions – except results.

    Trump might fail, or he might succeed, but by coming in at this time, he is in effect saving the failing policies – they don't have to answer for the obvious and accelerating failures that these interventions have caused. The authors will avoid consequences and will very quickly shift into 'we were betrayed', or 'if we just had 10 more years', the usual escapist nonsense that failed ideologues always use. (The communist ideologues still claim that the problem was that 'they should had tried harder, had 'purer' communism', blabla .and same is true about other failed ideologies).

    And they will be back. Whether in 'a year or two' as Kerry just said at Davos, or in 2020, 2024, they will be back. This mental state is incurable. (But if we get a few years break, well, let's be thankful for that.)

    TG , January 19, 2017 at 9:47 pm GMT • 200

    An interesting and well-reasoned post. Indeed, it's kind of shocking when you think about it just how much our government is doing running around the world messing in the affairs of nations that really shouldn't be our concern

    About whether Trump means what he said during the campaign, well yes, there is always the danger that he will 'pull an Obama' and stab his constituents in the back – talk is cheap. And yet, if that were the case then, as with Obama, we would expect the elites to make nice with him. Instead the elites are if anything ramping up their attacks.

    Now the enemy of my enemy is not always a friend – Trump could yet be a disaster. But the war that the deep state is waging on him is perhaps not a bad sign.

    And for those who find his tweets repellent, well, that's the only mechanism he has to avoid letting the corporate press completely shut him out and control the dialog. Trump's genius (or luck) is that by being outrageous he has, unlike Nader or Perot or Dean etc., been unable to be silenced by the corporate press. Although in the long run it can't be a sustainable system I would say that breaking up the big corporate industrial/press cartels should be a prime aim. No more news outlets owned by (for example) tech titans with a zillion dollars in CIA contracts and numerous other non-press business interests, you get the idea.

    Robert Magill , January 20, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT

    For Washington to achieve its foreign policy objectives, it must eliminate or defeat all emerging threats to its dominance. In practical terms, that means the Russo-Sino plan to transform Europe and Asia into a giant free trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok– must be sabotaged by any means possible.

    Too late. In December the last remaining Sharia objections to trade in gold were resolved. One billion plus Muslims can now bypass paper money at will and trade in gold. (Gaddafi attempted to do that in Africa and it cost him his life) China has begun to purchase oil with gold all over the mideast. Bye bye petro dollars. Hello breadlines in the former empire.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    alexander , January 20, 2017 at 3:13 pm GMT • 300

    Mike,

    It is well worth considering the possibility that were our perpetual war making to finally end, our "deep state neocon warmongers " might find themselves on the receiving end of a very robust "reckoning" for the titanic criminal catastrophes they have inculcated.

    Please tell me where is it written that they shouldn't be ?

    The prodigious assault to disinherit President Trump may well reflect not only their contempt at the thought he might be ending their "evil" wars, but the very real fear in their hearts, they may be held to account, for starting them in the first place.

    One cannot overstate the level of absolute impunity our Neocons have enjoyed over the last decade, for committing some of the most horrific crimes the world has seen, since WWII.

    Nor can one discount their imperial need of a win for Queen Hillary as being, first and foremost, a lock on that very impunity.

    Her loss at the ballot box had very little to do with the voters rejection of her projected veneer of "progressive " values, but a frank realization by the electorate that Ms. Clinton was nothing more than a belligerent neocon warmonger in a phony "liberal" pantsuit.

    This "unraveling" has left them all twisting in the wind.

    How could it not ?

    After all, Donald Trump, is a billionaire oligarch who not only wants "peace", but has been highly articulate and cuttingly accurate as to how (and why) our wars have been total disasters.

    This presents quite an unsettling conundrum for all the back room billionaire oligarchs who have always been able to buy their wars as well as the Presidents ( and the Press ) willing to start them.

    The fact they might, now, find themselves out of their hegemonic "drivers seat" .and in the criminals "hot seat", as targets for "bone-crushing" war crimes tribunals, . could have them all frantically climbing the walls.

    Anonymous , January 20, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT • 100

    Well, even if he does a little of what he promised – such as deport those illegals that have a criminal record – that alone will be good. If he could also do something for the Millennials to be able to move out of their parents' homes, that would be good too.

    [Jan 21, 2017] Obama's foreign policy was expansive, secretive, and wedded to the status quo.

    Jan 21, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com

    As the follow-up act to George W. Bush, Barack Obama was supposed to restore the United States to the fold of respectable nations whose leaders did not devise such foreign policy goals as "smokin' 'em out."

    Particularly given Obama's campaign pledge to engage in dialogue with traditional American enemies like Iran and Cuba - both included in the Axis of Evil-plus-three configuration marketed during the Bush era - optimistic sectors of the international community predicted the advent of a humane, benevolent superpower.

    The naοvetι of such thinking was rather evident from the get-go; now, at the end of Obama's reign, it's glaringly obvious. Consider the recent calculation by the Council on Foreign Relations that the United States "dropped 26,172 bombs in seven countries" in 2016 alone - an estimate the authors acknowledge is "undoubtedly low."

    In February 2015, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that Obama's covert drone strikes on territories where the United States is not officially at war had already "killed almost six times more people and twice as many civilians than those ordered in the Bush years."

    Obama's rapprochement with Cuba and his nuclear deal with Iran have been hailed by fans as landmark achievements and alleged evidence of his status as peacemonger-in-chief. Often lost in the celebrations, however, is the fact that both locales are still targeted with sanctions that undeniably constitute "war by other means."

    In Cuba, Obama might have bolstered his ethical credentials by fulfilling his promise to close Guantαnamo, thereby terminating the US occupation of Cuban territory and ending a symbol of America's global impunity.

    In the Middle East, efforts to defuse the nuclear issue would have been less blatantly hypocritical if Obama hadn't also approved a $38 billion military aid package to Israel, the largest in US history.

    This is the same Israel that happens to maintain a nuclear arsenal and grants itself immunity from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Beyond some jabs at Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama has not allowed the Israeli military's recurring slaughter of Palestinian civilians to get in the way of his principled commitment to Israel's right to " self-defense ."

    The full extent of the fallout of Obama's rule, of course, remains to be seen. But for one particularly troubling hint as to his legacy-in-progress, one need look no further than Medea Benjamin's recent remarks in the Guardian : "The twisted legal architecture the Obama administration has constructed to justify its interventions, especially extrajudicial drone killings with no geographic restrictions, will now be transferred into the erratic hands of Donald Trump." Call it teamwork .

    -Belιn Fernandez

    [Jan 21, 2017] Truthdig - Chris Hedges on How the 'Deep State' Will Influence the Trump Presidency

    Notable quotes:
    "... "It's about shutting down the voices of the dissidents," Hedges says. He explains that America always needs an enemy and that Russian President Vladimir Putin is "easier to demonize" than someone like FBI Director James Comey, who was initially seen as the enemy when Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | www.truthdig.com

    Chris Hedges on How the 'Deep State' Will Influence the Trump Presidency

    http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_the_deep_state_will_influence_the_trump_presidency_20170117/

    Posted on Jan 17, 2017


    By Chris Hedges

    In a new episode of his RT show "Redacted Tonight (https://www.rt.com/shows/redacted-tonight-summary/373661-deep-state-trump-presidency/) ," host Lee Camp sits down with Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges (https://www.truthdig.com/staff/chris_hedges) to discuss the "collapse of the mainstream media and the continued rise of [the] deep state."

    The two examine recent headlines over alleged Russian hacks (http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/experts_arent_convinced_by_fbi_and_homeland_security_20161230) during the 2016 election. Hedges condemns the mainstream media for "hyperventilating" over the alleged hacks, adding that the media fervor about Russia has "insidious" roots.

    "It's about shutting down the voices of the dissidents," Hedges says. He explains that America always needs an enemy and that Russian President Vladimir Putin is "easier to demonize" than someone like FBI Director James Comey, who was initially seen as the enemy when Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election.

    Hedges notes that there are also economic factors at play. The "war machine," he says, needs to "demonize Russia" because it "is earning billions of dollars in Eastern Europe with the expansion of NATO."

    Camp asks how Donald Trump, who presented himself as a political outsider, will handle these economic and political forces when he becomes president. Hedges responds:


    I'm not sure Trump has any fixed beliefs. And it's clear that the deep state-the security and surveillance apparatus, the war machine-all sectors of the deep state, Democrat and Republican, are going to put the screws on him to ratchet up or continue this aggressive posture towards Russia. Partly because there are large sections of the U.S. economy, i.e., the defense industry, for whom this is a huge profit-making venture.

    The two also discuss how dissidents will be handled by the Trump administration and whether American society has anything to hope for.

    Watch the full video below.

    [Jan 21, 2017] James Mattis confirmed as secretary of defense

    Jan 20, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    The Senate confirmed the appointment of retired general James Mattis as secretary of defense on Friday, making him the first member of Donald Trump's cabinet cleared to take office.

    The Senate vote was passed by 98-1 after Trump signed a waiver making Mattis exempt from a law that blocks senior officers from taking the defense secretary job within seven years of retirement. Mattis has been out of uniform for three years.

    The single vote against his confirmation was from Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, a Democrat who argued the bar should remain in place on the grounds that civilian control of the military was a fundamental principle of US democracy.

    [Jan 21, 2017] Obama's Biggest Lies

    Jan 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Those are not the biggest. Russian hysteria was probably the biggest. Obama's Biggest Lies TeamDepends -> WTFRLY , Jan 20, 2017 9:24 AM

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/05/17/the-vetting-barack-ob...

    y3maxx -> WTFRLY , Jan 20, 2017 9:33 AM

    Will Trump "drain the swamp".

    GunnerySgtHartman , Jan 20, 2017 9:21 AM

    Another huge Obama lie: Obamacare would result in $2500 savings per year per family!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-25/obama-promised-healthcare-premiums-would-fall-2500-family-they-have-climbed-4865

    Frodobaggins -> GunnerySgtHartman , Jan 20, 2017 10:06 AM

    Ahh the memoreies.. remember this whopper?

    "One study shows that through new options created by the Affordable Care Act, nearly 6 in 10 uninsured Americans will find that they can get covered for less than $100 a month. Think about that. Through the marketplaces you can get health insurance for what may be the equivalent of your cell phone bill. Or your cable bill. And that's a good deal"

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/28/barack-ob...

    A large portion of America is either very stupid or asleep. Let's hope it's the latter. If Trump accpplishes half of what he's promised America will be better off for it.

    CaptainObvious , Jan 20, 2017 9:26 AM

    Oh please, WaPo, you're not even close to Obama's biggest lie. Obama's biggest lie was that he was a Constitutional scholar. That man has never even read the Constitution. The only thing he ever did with the Constitution was to wipe his ass with it. Sheeit. You know how hard it is to remove fecal stains from a piece of 230 year old parchment?

    Bill of Rights , Jan 20, 2017 9:35 AM

    " HOPE AND CHANGE " was the greatest lie ever in American history.

    Sean7k , Jan 20, 2017 9:37 AM

    Our reality is perception generated by people determined to maintain a slave society for their exclusive benefit. As perception must pass through individual filters, we have the ability to change reality as we currently experience it.

    By the use of intention, firmly expressed, humans as a group can disrupt the ruling paradigm. By rejecting the hatred and division provided by media and others, we can choose to embrace love, reciprocity, integrity, charity, etc. All the attributes we hold as cherished values.

    Reality will be changed. Without firing a shot, clubbing a friend/fiend or destroying one's property. We hold in our hands the power to effectively change the parasites into friends and family.

    However, hateful dialogue will accomplish nothing. There is a reason we all yearn to be loved and by experiencing it we learn to love others as well. It is a special kind of magic and we are all grand magicians.

    [Jan 20, 2017] Transcript And Analysis President Trump's Inauguration Speech NPR

    Jan 20, 2017 | www.npr.org
    Some clearly anti-establishment paragraphs.

    For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left. And the factories closed.

    The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land. That all changes starting right here and right now. Because this moment is your moment. It belongs to you.

    [Jan 20, 2017] I don't think much of Trump but it is kind of amusing to see the elites, who screwed over most of the population, now having nervous breakdowns.

    Jan 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Tom aka Rusty -> Fred C. Dobbs... The elites are wetting their pants.

    I don't think much of Trump but it is kind of amusing to see the elites, who screwed over most of the population, now having nervous breakdowns.

    Therapists in Manhattan and Hollywood will do a booming business. Reply Friday, January 20, 2017 at 07:05 AM Peter K. -> Tom aka Rusty... , January 20, 2017 at 07:14 AM

    yeah the elites are getting a taste of the fear regular folks get over losing a job and financial disaster.

    The thing is, Trump is very unpopular.

    EMichael -> Tom aka Rusty... , January 20, 2017 at 07:20 AM
    So, which elites are you talking about?

    Just give me an example or two.

    Y'know, it is possible to be successful and still spend a lot of time doing the right things for people not as successful as you.

    Peter K. -> EMichael... , January 20, 2017 at 07:36 AM
    Summers and Krugman. See their most recent columns. I think more of the level-headed elites are thinking/hoping that Trump will be 4 years and out and it will all blow over.
    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 20, 2017 at 07:38 AM
    The really clever ones recognize that their is a populist upsurge worldwide against elite policymaking as Thoma discussed in his column on Davos man.
    Tom aka Rusty -> EMichael... , -1
    Yes, there are a few of those. I;ve been impressed by some of the things I have heard from the Steyer brothers.

    But then there is Bill and Hill, Soros, the Trump cabinet, Rubin/Corzine/Rattner/Summers and a whole unheavenly host.

    But not all that many impress me, particularly in Manhattan and California.

    [Jan 18, 2017] War is a ... destructive suction tube.

    Jan 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    It is MLK weekend....

    A Boy Named Sue, January 15, 2017 at 12:22 AM

    It is MLK weekend....
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rynxqdNMry4
    ilsm -> A Boy Named Sue... , January 15, 2017 at 05:12 AM
    Freedom is in the soul.

    Let us 'ally' with all the world, let us protect civilians, let us impose 'just peace', let us squander the environment. No plan is too bloody, no price too steep to prevent another 9/11. The evening news still needs bodies of "those people". Non violence is un American.

    I am not surprised the neoliberals do not post Dr King's Vietnam Speech:

    Here it is:

    http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/riversidetranscript.html

    War is a ... "destructive suction tube. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor."

    Ike said the same thing in 1953 and 1961.

    Poverty is violence.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 15, 2017 at 05:17 AM
    I was informed by MLK's awareness of the truth on the ground in 1967. That is why I protested the war in Viet Nam when protests began early in 1968 in Richmond VA, but not the draft. In April 1969 I had to decide whether to go to Canada and maybe never see my family again and take my wife far from her family as well, go to prison, or go to Viet Nam. MLK had already been murdered and I had already lost hope in the truth and social justice. So, I went to Viet Nam. I figured Doctor King would understand.
    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 15, 2017 at 05:34 AM
    I have a buddy who refused to take the step. Repeatedly until the SS board sent him to the 'judge'.

    He got 3 years in Public Health Service...... it was late '70 maybe they got kinder or maybe it was his area of NYS.

    I took the ROTC route, became a cold warrior by accident.

    Thank God! I never had to do any of my jobs!

    Humans rarely see.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 15, 2017 at 06:08 AM
    "...maybe it was his area of NYS..."

    [I'd go with probably.]

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 15, 2017 at 05:19 AM
    BTW, that is an awesome great MLK speech. THANKS for dragging it out.

    [Jan 18, 2017] What happens if Trump and co decide to purge intelligence agencies of individuals they consider undesirable?

    Jan 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    jonny bakho -> reason ...

    Do allies refuse to share intel with the US due to Trump-Russia
    The Great Game has turned. Reply Monday, January 16, 2017 at 08:02 AM ilsm -> jonny bakho... , January 16, 2017 at 09:46 AM
    US could do with a little better assessments and a lot less from many "allies".

    Do you mistrust US allies?

    Like I do!

    Chris G -> jonny bakho... , -1
    $20 says "Yes."

    And what happens if Trump and co decide to purge intelligence agencies of individuals they consider undesirable? I have no idea but I'm guessing they won't go flip burgers at McDonalds. (See also disbanding the Iraqi army ca. 2003.) Will they exhibit an entrepreneurial spirit? If so then what form will it take?

    [Jan 18, 2017] M of A - It Cant Happen Here - Color Revolution By Force

    Jan 15, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    "It Can't Happen Here" - Color Revolution By Force

    The "Donald Trump likes Russia" and "Russia bad" strategy was propagated by the Clinton election campaign. It build on constant U.S. incitement against Russia after the U.S. coup in Ukraine partially failed and after the Russian intervention on the side of the government in Syria. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was the main force behind the original anti-Russian campaign. When Clinton lost the election to Trump the theme connecting Trump and Russia was continued and fanned by parts of the U.S. intelligence community.

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FBI published a propaganda report claiming nefarious Russian cyber activities during the election without providing any evidence. The report came together with the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats by the Obama administration. The DHS then planted a false story of Russian cyber-intrusion into a Vermont utility with the Washington Post.

    The Director of National Intelligence Clapper followed up with a "report" of alleged Russian interference with the election. Even the Putinphobe Masha Gessen found that to be a shoddy piece of implausible propaganda. The DNI then helped to publish an MI6 "report" of fakes asserting Russian influence on Trump. In an unprecedented threat escalation the Pentagon sends a whole brigade and other assets to the Russian border.

    Now the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, warns the President elect to " watch his tongue ". Is there any precedence of some "intelligence" flunky threatening a soon to be President?

    This has been, all together, a well though out propaganda campaign to reinforce the scheme Clinton and her overlords have been pushing for quite some time: Russia is bad and a danger. Trump is aligned with Russia. Something needs to be done against Trump but most importantly against Russia.

    Propaganda works. The campaign is having some effects :

    Americans are more concerned than they were before the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign began about the potential threat Russia poses to the country, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday. The Jan. 9-12 survey found that 82 percent of American adults, including 84 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans, described Russia as a general "threat" to the United States. That's up from 76 percent in March 2015 when the same questions were asked.

    Such extensive and expensive campaigns are not run by chance. They have a larger purpose.

    Originally the campaign was only directed against Russia with the apparent aim of reigniting a (quite profitable) cold war. Seen from some distance the campaign now looks more like the preparation for a typical CIA induced color-revolution :

    In most but not all cases, massive street protests followed disputed elections, or requests for fair elections, and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian.

    What is missing yet in the U.S. are the demonstrations and the large civilian strife.

    Unlike the earlier CIA launched color revolutions in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004) and elsewhere, all recent U.S. instigated "color-revolutions", i.e. putsch attempts, have been accompanied by the use of force from the side of the "peaceful protesters". Such color-revolutions by force were instigate in Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

    A common denominator of these was the primary use of violence occurred from the "good side" against the "bad side" while the propagandists claimed that it was the "bad side" that started the shooting and strife. The "good site" is inevitably "demonstrating peacefully" even when many policemen or soldiers on the "bad side" die. Thus was the case in Libya where the U.S. and its Gulf proxies used al-Qeada aligned Jihadis from Benghazi as "peaceful demonstrators" against the government, in Syria where the NATO and Gulf supported Muslim Brotherhood killed policemen and soldiers during "peaceful demonstrations" in Deraa and in Ukraine where fascist sharpshooters killed demonstrators and policemen from a hotel roof in the hand of the opposition. All three happened while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

    There have been claims of an upcoming color-revolution in the U.S. from different extremist sides of the political spectrum. Before the election Neocon Jackson Diehl claimed that "Putin" was preparing a color-revolution against a President-elect Clinton to enthrone Donald Trump. But as Trump won fair and square and Clinton lost that plot did not make it to the stage. After the election the conspiracy peddler Wayne Madsen immediately " discovered " that Clinton and George Soros were launching a color-revolution against Trump.

    Remnants of the Clinton campaign have called for a large anti-Trump demonstration during the inauguration on January 20 in Washington DC.

    Mass shootings in the United States by this or that type of lunatics happen every other month. There are no wild conspiracy theories or nefarious plots necessary to consider some what-if questions around such an event.

    So what happens after some "Trump supporter" on January 20 starts to shoot into the demonstrating masses (and also into the police cordons)?

    What if the CIA, DHS and DNI then detect and certify that the ensuing "massacre" was a "Russian plot"?

    Posted by b on January 15, 2017 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    Comments next page " Anon | Jan 15, 2017 12:30:39 PM | 1
    Tyranny abroad leads to tyranny at home.

    The Greeks knew it and so do we.

    I am amazed and scared how easily propaganda works in democracies, while no one, NO ONE ever deal or mentions it! Western populations are truly naive and swallow anything. No wonder Hitler could amass millions of germans.

    Posted by: Test | Jan 15, 2017 12:42:17 PM | 2

    I am amazed and scared how easily propaganda works in democracies, while no one, NO ONE ever deal or mentions it! Western populations are truly naive and swallow anything. No wonder Hitler could amass millions of germans.

    Posted by: Test | Jan 15, 2017 12:42:17 PM | 2

    Yonatan | Jan 15, 2017 12:43:14 PM | 3
    What will happen? A good question?

    The signs are not good. The veteran journalist Claire Hollingworth has just died at 105. Finian Cunningham comments on her death and the current amnesia over the significance of the 1000's of NATO tanks massing in east Europe :

    "A measure of this apparent collective amnesia can be gleaned from the passing of veteran English newspaper journalist Clare Hollingworth, who died this week at the age of 105. Hollingworth published the "scoop of the century" in 1939 when she first reported Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland, which then sparked the Second World War. The headline of her original report in Britain's Daily Telegraph on August 29, 1939, read: "1,000 tanks massed on Polish frontier."

    Amid media tributes to the deceased journalist, reference to contemporary events was absent. In the same week that Clare Hollingworth passed away, tanks were again rolling into Poland from Germany, this time driven by American troops. But Western media outlets made no such connection."


    From The Hague | Jan 15, 2017 12:59:29 PM | 4
    Advice for the USA to simplify things: Cut out the middle man and inaugurate Putin on the 20th.

    Bob In Portland | Jan 15, 2017 1:08:57 PM | 5
    One thing to understand is that, since 1963, the President is no longer fully a President in the US. The CIA has constructed a system of control within Congress, the military, and the intelligence services to direct US policy. When Jimmy Carter's CIA Director Stansfield Turner tried to eliminate a lot of the ops side of intelligence (the agents and the plots that always seem to be nearby other course corrections (like Dallas, Watergate) the ops side created an oil crisis and a hostage crisis in Iran. Reagan had been a spokesman for the Congress For Freedom, a CIA operation that imported fascists, to include a large group of Ukrainian OUN-B residua. Those people and their children became the backbone of the US reinsertion of fascism in Eastern Europe and Russia.

    Since Reagan, all Presidents seem to have deep intelligence backgrounds. Of course, George Bush was former CIA Director (and undoubtedly an agent prior to his political career), and his son was his son. Some of Dubya's pre-Presidential failed business dealings appear to have been money laundering, likely for the CIA Since they burst upon the national scene there are hints that the Clintons probably were recruited for intelligence work in the late sixties, prior to even meeting each other.

    Obama, with SOS Clinton looking over his shoulder, was mostly a Deep State ally.

    Clinton was supposed to win. In fact, there are indications that Clinton and her Deep State allies worked to make Trump her opponent. She succeeded that far, but not enough to win the electoral college. Trump is certainly anathema to most working class Americans. His problem with the Deep State is that he wants friendly relations with Russia.

    What the world is witnessing is how the Deep State negotiates hardball with Trump.

    Krollchem | Jan 15, 2017 1:09:34 PM | 6
    Using techniques of her mentor, Hillary and her allies appear to be planning a purple revolution in the US:
    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/11/11/clintons-and-soros-launch-america-purple-revolution.html

    james | Jan 15, 2017 1:14:12 PM | 7
    valid speculation on your part b... the propaganda has gotten so thick, your scenario sounds like a ripe idea..

    the usa appears to be imploding in on itself... i didn't realize how bad the folks in power wanted clinton to be president.. relevant article..

    time2wakeupnow | Jan 15, 2017 1:15:05 PM | 8
    "Advice for the USA to simplify things: Cut out the middle man and inaugurate Putin on the 20th"

    Or, rephrased to correctly reflect the true nature of the who's really in charge in this country: Advise for the cosmetic US government and the corporate infotainment: cut out the middle man and inaugurate the head of the Deep State on the 20th.

    ProPeace | Jan 15, 2017 1:20:29 PM | 9
    It's astounding that Fecesbrook and other social media control outlets support calls for assassination of the President-elect, by not removing them. This is gonna be an explosive January, Spring and year.

    Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald Discuss Deep State War Vs. Trump, While Ex-Spook Hints At Assassination

    Mysterious snipers have been deadly present in many "peaceful revolutions":

    Land Destroyer: Color Revolution's Mystery Gunmen

    Unknown Snipers and Western backed "Regime Change"

    More 'Mysterious Snipers' Responsible For Latest Ukraine Escalation?

    The snipers of Black October

    "Yeltsin's 'Red October II'"- TiM GW Bulletin 98/3-10

    Anon | Jan 15, 2017 1:24:18 PM | 10
    5:

    I think there is a factional civil war going on in the deep state.

    Clinton who would have kept the party going was supported by the CIA, with many of their guys endorsing her.

    Trump seems to be the candidate of a less reckless faction. Remember, he was endorsed by a few hundred senior officers. It seems the army is tired of cleaning up the CIA messes.

    Recall the CIA and Army were fighting each other by proxy in Syria.

    Remember, Trump has Flynn on his side. And the army. And the FBI, and every patriot in the IC.

    In 5 days he will hold the reins of power.

    Trump wins.

    Curtis | Jan 15, 2017 1:26:39 PM | 11
    Anon 1
    "I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."
    Robert E Lee to Lord Acton, 1866

    CHRISTINNE RADU | Jan 15, 2017 1:29:06 PM | 12
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-is-the-reality-of-syrias-popular-revolution-which-sparked-six-years-of-violence/5568564

    ProPeace | Jan 15, 2017 1:29:45 PM | 13
    Ukraine: Israeli Special Forces Unit under Neo-Nazi Command Involved in Maidan Riots?

    Camouflaged Israeli soldiers on Maidan Square


    According to the Israeli website alyaexpress-news.com, a unit of 35 armed and masked men and women on Maidan square is commanded by four former Israeli Army officers, who wear a kippah under their helmets.

    The site claims that these former officers, who live today in Ukraine, joined the movement since the beginning of the events alongside the Freedom Party (Svoboda), although the latter has a reputation for being virulently anti-Semitic.

    With the help of the Israeli Embassy, this intervention force reportedly also handled the transfer of 17 seriously injured persons to Israel for treatment.

    The presence of Israeli units had been reported in a similar scenario in Georgia, both in during the "Rose Revolution" (2003) that in the war against South Ossetia (2008).


    john | Jan 15, 2017 1:35:08 PM | 14
    gosh b, the spectre of dread you raise is downright cinematographic!

    Anonymous | Jan 15, 2017 1:40:34 PM | 15
    CIA chief warns Trump to watch what his words
    http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/01/15/506327/US-Trump-Nazis-Russia-Putin

    Where do these people come from? Here we have a intelligence chief that blast Trump but tell to Trump that he cant blast them!

    Have deep-state/CIA ever meddled in their own nation like this before? These people are nuts.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 1:46:01 PM | 16
    I think b describes well why a color revolution is plausible. But some traditional 'color revolution' tactics, like the use of snipers, may not be necessary because:
    (1) Pence appears to be much more friendly to the Clinton/CIA establishment; and

    (2) there are other means of removing Trump: impeachment or 25th Amendment

    Anti-Trump organizations have stated their intention to disrupt the inauguration. The likelihood of street violence seems high. This "resistance" and Russian tensions will weigh on the minds of Congressman and frighten the public.

    The de-legimization campaign seems likely to culminate with Trump's impeachment for violations of the Logan act (see below) and/or VP Pence invoking the 25th Amendment. As President, Pence would choose a VP. One possible choice is Hillary - winner of the popular vote - thereby creating a 'unity' government. Democrats have already labeled such unity as = PURPLE =. Republican Party RED combined with Democratic Party BLUE.

    This trajectory helps to explain the consternation with FBI Dir. Comey. Democrats believe that Comey helped Trump in the last days of the campaign. The FBI is said to be investigating the Clintons. And Comey refused to discuss with Congress (in closed hearing) details of any possible investigation into Russian interference into US elections. Comey is now himself under investigation by DOJ's Inspector General (an Obama appointee) .

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Team Trump: Flynn called Russia ambassador, no sanction talk 'plain and simple'

    It's not unusual for incoming administrations to have discussions with foreign governments before taking office. But repeated contacts just as Obama imposed sanctions raised questions about whether Trump's team discussed -- or even helped shape -- Russia's response .

    Reuters reports that Flynn and Kislyak talked several times on Dec. 29.

    Putin unexpectedly did not retaliate against the U.S. for the move, a decision Trump quickly praised.

    More broadly, Flynn's contact with the Russian ambassador suggests the incoming administration has already begun to lay the groundwork for its promised closer relationship with Moscow.

    That effort appears to be moving ahead, even as many in Washington, including Republicans, have expressed outrage over intelligence officials' assessment that Putin launched a hacking operation aimed at meddling in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump.

    . . .

    Trump has been willing to insert himself into major foreign policy issues during the transition, at times contradicting the current administration and diplomatic protocol.

    He accepted a call from Taiwan's president, ignoring the longstanding "One China" policy that does not recognize the island's sovereignty. Asked about that Friday by the Journal, he responded, "Everything is under negotiation."

    He also publicly urged the U.S. to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements , then slammed the Obama administration for abstaining and allowing the measure to pass.

    47 | Jan 15, 2017 1:58:11 PM | 17
    @2, Test

    It works everywhere the same way; that is, the method is not re-invented, just repeated. People only need a period of convincing that the enemy of the day is out there to get them. Here is a short note on landscapes of fear: http://www.zokpavlovic.com/conflict/the-landscape-of-fear-paranoia-and-galvanization-of-masses/

    AriusArmenian | Jan 15, 2017 2:11:36 PM | 18
    We are in a time as dangerous as the early 1960's.
    Then they wanted war in Vietnam and got rid of JFK to get it.
    Now they want a bigger war with Russia as the target.
    Anything can happen in the next few weeks.

    Anonymous | Jan 15, 2017 2:27:33 PM | 19
    Its interesting too that the debate should be about why Democrats lost why Hillary didnt generate enough votes, no, instead they start a hysteria about Trump and Russia.

    NemesisCalling | Jan 15, 2017 2:31:38 PM | 20
    Well, if a color revolution does transpire to dethrone Trump, one thing is FOR certain: Circe and Chipnik will say, "see, I told you that Trump was at the center of the plot to give the government fully to our fascist-ponzi-overlords," without even a twinge of irony.

    jo6pac | Jan 15, 2017 2:49:18 PM | 21
    #5
    Nailed it and now they come out from behind behind the curtain to do the work under the propaganda arm the so-called liberal press own by the elite who really don't like change except when they win.

    #2, Amerika hasn't been a D in a long time if ever.

    Thanks b

    jayc | Jan 15, 2017 2:51:43 PM | 22
    Polling tends to reflect a wag-the-dog effect, i.e. the media runs a saturation campaign based on a particular premise, then polls are taken which generally support the premise. What is mildly surprising is that the alleged Russian threat perception has only increased six percentage points after all the crazy headlines of the past few weeks.

    The American public may be too polarized for a successful colour revolution. The Russia/Trump freak-out is localized in the Beltway establishment, Democratic Party, and the mainstream media - which, when united, represents a formidable force in concentrating and saturating a message across consensus reality, but the degree to which the message has actually been internalized by the public-at-large may be far less than it may appear. But the stakes are obviously very very high for the deep state faction which desires the confrontation with Russia, and therefore a dramatic false flag event is unfortunately extremely possible if it is determined that the impeachment gambit might not work. (the impeachment concept might not work, at least not immediately, because, like the electoral college, it would be too obviously a reversal of the election and a large portion of the public would reject it)

    likklemore | Jan 15, 2017 2:53:13 PM | 23
    Thanks b. One typo (it's Wayne Madsen)

    The Timeline is spot on. Right after the election, Soros held a meet-up in Washington said to be a planning session and to re-assess. Short weeks thereafter both Hill and Bill appeared sporting purple dress-up. Notice also in the ensuing weeks other Hill/Bill supporters sporting purple ties.
    Soros' underwriting revolutions is coming home to USA. He should be brought before the ICJ.

    Conspiracy theory becomes a fact.

    January 20 may ignite the spark. Bikers for Trump assembled; J20 gang; 5000 national guards and security people providing 360 barricade. What could go wrong?

    Some 4 years ago I read at the GEAB.eu LEAP's website, that they anticipated the USA would become ungovernable in year 2016.. Cue it up.
    (GEAB, France, a French Think-Tank most articles by subscription)

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    Death Threats:
    To a blind person?

    1. "Death Threats Force Opera Star Bocelli To Pull Out Of Inauguration Performance"

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-15/death-threats-force-opera-star-bocelli-pull-out-inauguration-performance

    "Andrea is very sad to be missing the chance to sing at such a huge global event but he has been advised it is simply not worth the risk..." according to a source close to blind opera singer Bocelli who had been determined to 'press ahead' and sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

    2. Will The CIA Assassinate Trump? Ron Paul Warns Of "More Powerful, Shadow Government"
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-14/will-cia-assassinate-trump-ron-paul-warns-more-powerful-shadow-government

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    RT had this piece from Clapper, not covered by lame-stream US media.

    Published time: 14 Jan, 2017 20:32
    Edited time: 15 Jan, 2017 16:31

    " Intelligence insiders call Russian dossier 'complete fraud' – Trump
    https://www.rt.com/usa/373708-trump-us-russian-dossier-fake/

    On Thursday, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released a rare statement, saying that he met with Trump to express his "profound dismay" over the dossier.
    "This document is not a US intelligence community (IC) product and I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC," Clapper said.

    ~ ~ ~ ~
    You would think Clapper's statement would be covered by MSM, No?:

    chipnik | Jan 15, 2017 2:56:40 PM | 24
    'Mass shootings' is a bit of a specious reach. Americans are psychologically and emotionally 'bleached'. The 'mass shootings' are largely juveniles on Aderal and Prozac, mentally bleached by the State. The vast majority of 'mass' shootings are collectively in the gun states, as here: https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/50060317/police_shootings.0.0.png, and that's just the State shootings of citizens.

    You won't see the victorius Trumpeteers shooting into crowds, you'll see massive civil and union actions against each new Jesuit-Jew SCOTUS decision, but the Trump State will remain so opaque, and the poodled Fourth Estate so pandered and Java-Script clik-bait revenue-driven, only blogs like MoA will post the truth...if they can absent themselves fron the Two-Party Conspiracy-State Koolaid drinking.

    There is only the One Party of Mil.Gov.Fed, which survives and undermines every Administration, and metastasizes on every new law and every specious blog-post about post-inauguration 'mass-shootings'.

    SOW, my PC is now in the shop, after visiting a Breitbart Jerusalem article, and watching a proxy-script malware drop down, that froze out internet access, even after I bleached my cookies and did a Foxfire uninstall and re-install. We are far more likely to 'go dark' under Trump and his Breitbart Zook propaganda machine, than see any Red-on-Blue.

    Denis | Jan 15, 2017 3:02:15 PM | 25
    Just a couple of loose (meaning bordering on idiotic) thoughts:

    1. Mina says we need to drop this whole Trump thing. And she's right. Just b/c the world is going to end on Friday doesn't mean we should be preoccupied. Besides SNL has it covered, as usual.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V8TO6y0IR4

    2. The "MI6 Report?" A bit of a misnomer isn't it? I haven't seen any allegations that MI6 itself was involved, making the term "MI6 Report" itself inferential propaganda fluff. Better name: "Steele Report"

    Bob | Jan 15, 2017 3:02:53 PM | 26
    The 2004 "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine and the 2000 overthrow of Milosevic didn't rely on the use of violence.

    The slick youth oriented campaigns from Otpor! and the Ukrainian follow up, along with heavy support from outside actors such as the US, were enough.

    I doubt there is a need for violence to get rid of Trump if this was the strategy they intended to use. Catchy slogans amd symbols along with the support of the media could be enough to instigate some kind of proceedings leading to his removal from office.

    Anonymous | Jan 15, 2017 3:03:55 PM | 27
    No need for a color revolution, the coup have already been made right in front of us, = Trump's image have been smeared and his policy on Russia wont work.

    laserlurk | Jan 15, 2017 3:05:28 PM | 28
    That is one good b.'s assumption and it is not far fetched at all.

    Some sort of an American Spring is looming, if things fall in place next week.
    Would it be a sort of Maidan's effect, unrest etc. remains to be seen, but I doubt it.
    What is lacking there is a critical mass. And that is people.
    Their psyche is right now not for Trump and against Clinton. It is a bit of schizophrenic situation atm. and ideals worth fighting and dying for are not too high. Or their conviction.

    What and how this is envisaged by IC might be as well a long and a painful processes of "legal" threading through various investigative hearings, commissions and panels followed by legislative votings on different issues that might come up, as impeachments, scandals and all the arsenal of "soft" torture where expected result is that Americans are kept enchanted, asleep and hypnotised, thus neutralised.
    Like the rest of us are supposed to be.

    Quickest way to jump into prevention of Trump's presidency would be to quickly build up a false flag set of events and start a big conflict with Russia or with one of their interest zones. That would set the spotlight away from Washington while fractions IC would have enough time to clear its ranks and prepare the actual coup.
    What they do not understand is that nobody ever goes to war with Russia. Ever.

    So, maybe better outcome for everybody would be wishful thinking scenario of a Designated Survivor Kiefer Sutherland's TV-series .

    rg the lg | Jan 15, 2017 3:07:00 PM | 29
    The fun thing about revolutions is that once they start it is hard to figure out where they are going to end up.

    Alas, the BEST we can hope for is a new set of oligarchs. Democracy will never happen ... it is a cover for what is now referred to as the deep state.

    In my (admittedly jaundiced) view ... a nuclear holocaust seems infinitely better than the status quo, or what might emerge from the looming conflict.

    With a nuclear Armageddon, maybe life can restart and NOT create something as vile as people: you, me and all the rest!

    Jan Sammer | Jan 15, 2017 3:11:53 PM | 30
    There is actually much more abundant evidence of British interference in the US election, than there is for Russian interference. The MI6 smear memo is a glaring example, but on top of that is the state-owned BBC constant stream of anti-Trump propaganda, the petition against allowing Trump to visit Britain, Foreign Minister Boris Johnson called Trump "clearly out of his mind", accused him of "quite stupefying ignorance" that makes him "unfit for office" and said he would not visit New York because of the "real risk of meeting Donald Trump". Where is the outrage, where is the congressional committee investigating this blatant foreign interference in our democratic process? By our ex-colonial masters to boot. Are they still nursing grudges from the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812?

    Bob | Jan 15, 2017 3:13:13 PM | 31
    @Myself 26

    For a start you could have a supposedly 200,000 strong women's march all wearing " pussy hats ".

    "The Pussy Revolution"

    chipnik | Jan 15, 2017 3:15:31 PM | 32
    16

    Purple is a reminder of the One Party of Mil.Gov.Fed, the Purple State Apparatchik that holds the reins of power, a 99.4% unappointed, unelected, civil and military unionized Purple Gog-Magog that just raised USArya's debt limit by $10 TRILLION, and uses Red-Blue Tinfoil the way the Jesuits and Jews always have since they first rose to power in 1917. That 100 Centeniary is Trump, the Orange Jesuit with the Jesuit-Jew SCOTUS at his Right Hand, Global Business Mafias at his Left Hand, and poodled Congress at his feet.

    We are all Purple Zeks now.

    Clueless Joe | Jan 15, 2017 3:16:19 PM | 33
    Well, thing is, in the US, the bulk of people with guns, knowing how to use them, and ready to use them, is on Trump's side, when it was more split on Ukraine, Syria or Libya. So this leaves the US Army to do most of the fighting on Clinton's (or the Borg's) behalf. Not sure the troopers would do it gladly. I mean, the Civil War traumatized the US way more than even WWII.
    At this point, one has to wonder if for such a coup to succeed, a cause uniting the people wouldn't be required, like, say, a significant foreign war that would need the support of US people coming together, which would both unite it to the point of reducing the will of NRA people to resist the takeover, and which would focus the attention somewhere else. Having some hot war on Russian border could maybe do the trick.
    Though in such a case, the Borg better make it work inside the US, because the military would be quite busy in Europe, so if Trump supporters still took arms to protest the coup, it just couldn't deal with all threats.
    Very speculative, of course. I still think they don't plan that well and will do a half-assed job that will backfire, and will try to undermine Trump in the long run rather than trying to take him down right now.

    Harry | Jan 15, 2017 3:18:10 PM | 34
    @ Denis | 25

    2. The "MI6 Report?" A bit of a misnomer isn't it? I haven't seen any allegations that MI6 itself was involved, making the term "MI6 Report" itself inferential propaganda fluff. Better name: "Steele Report"

    Steele requested permission of high ranking officials to go through with this report and he got the green light. Also he has very influential friends in MI6 and was involved in MAJOR propaganda campaigns before, like Litvinenko's.

    Therefore it wasnt a "solo" campaign, and UK will have to do serious mea culpas to fix the relationship with Trump.

    Louis Proyect | Jan 15, 2017 3:21:56 PM | 35
    This is really funny stuff. A government that festooned with Goldman-Sachs bankers has to worry about being toppled in a coup?

    fast freddy | Jan 15, 2017 3:23:11 PM | 36
    Trump can fire Brennan just as JFK fired Allan Dulles. How'd that work out?

    s | Jan 15, 2017 3:26:39 PM | 37
    "So what happens after some 'Trump supporter' on January 20 starts to shoot into the demonstrating masses (and also into the police cordons)?"

    Trump has already made his own funeral arrangements: Pence is the gravedigger, not the media or color conspiracies. A massacre of protesters against Trump would just make Trumpists horny. If Trump really pisses of enough of his peers in the owner class, their minions will impeach him. Hell, picking Pence was like Trump handing in an undated resignation letter, just to set their minds at ease.

    "What if the CIA, DHS and DNI then detect and certify that the ensuing 'massacre' was a 'Russian plot'?"

    If the police massacre protesters, then no conservative will believe it was a Russian plot. If a nobody massacres protesters, and the CIA etc. say it was a Russian plot, then Trump will get shirty with Putin. But then the whole point of this campaign is to force his hand on Russia policy, not this BS about a color revolution. If the CIA accuse the dead protesters of being part of a Russian plot, then and only then is when you'll know they're getting serious (about either an immediate war with Russia or forcing Trump to step down.)

    Gross misstatements in the OP? 1) Clinton was not the main driver of foreign policy for the conclusive reason no Secretary of State has been the main driver in foreign policy since John Foster Dulles. And that was only because Eisenhower was a general who treated his cabinet like a military staff. 2) Trump did not win the vote at all, he won the Electoral College, which isn't "fair and square," as everybody knew since the controversies over the actual Electoral College votes during the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers themselves. The Electoral College is unfair and slanted, on purpose, and everybody who cares to know, knows it. There is a point when there's being stupid, and there's being a liar. Neither is a good place to be.

    When Trump tries to take Putin to the cleaners, which is what he means when talks about making a deal with Russia, either Putin crawls (my guess, but I'm not a mind reader, but Putin's got no principles, no plan and very little power,) or he signs on to the cold (or surface of the sun hot) war with China. At this point, these people are just bad cop to Trump's good cop. His tinpot Orthodox God had better help Putin if he thinks these anybody in this government is anything but an enemy.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 3:28:49 PM | 38
    Louis 'the clown' Proyect passes gas @35.

    Very funny indeed.

    s | Jan 15, 2017 3:40:50 PM | 39
    PS 1) Forgot to mention the belief that an official from the previous administration isn't allowed to criticize Trump really betrays something uncomfortably close to servility. Trump's a twitter-pated nitwit. He knew Godwin's Law means you lose if you mention Nazis. Turning Brennan's perfectly normal use of Trump's internet gaffe into a threat on Trump's life and/or the nation itself? Why not rant about the threat to motherhood and apple pie, too?

    2) Curtis@11 tells us Trumpery looks up to Robert E. Lee, a traitor and a slaver (literally, seizing blacks on the Gettysburg campaign as slaves,) and a wretched buffoon like Acton. So much the worse for Trumpists!

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2017 3:53:40 PM | 40
    ...
    So what happens after some "Trump supporter" on January 20 starts to shoot into the demonstrating masses (and also into the police cordons)?
    What if the CIA, DHS and DNI then detect and certify that the ensuing "massacre" was a "Russian plot"?
    b.

    Trump came into this election with his eyes wide open.
    During the campaign he once said "I know things most people don't know."

    If one of the things Trump knows is that CIA color revolutions are started by enhancing Gene Sharp's Non-violent Protest playbook with guns, then he'll have that possibility covered most likely by the 200 military officers whom he claims have offered their support for a Trump Presidency.

    I find it bizarre that the name Chuck Hagel (the man who never lies) hasn't been mentioned at all since campaigning began.

    DavidKNZ | Jan 15, 2017 4:03:26 PM | 41
    Behind these toxic allegations are deadly alligators.
    They just don't like having their swamp drained
    :-)

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2017 4:04:45 PM | 42
    Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2017 3:53:40 PM | 40

    Apologies for CIA typo. It should read State Department color revolutions. State Dept runs US Ambassadors and, thereby, color revolutions.

    VietnamVet | Jan 15, 2017 4:13:15 PM | 43
    The only mass movement is the one that elected Donald Trump stop the depredation of mid-America. The intelligence community coup attempt is strictly inside the Beltway. The death knell of the Democratic Party is their support of a war with Russia to hide their incompetence and corruption. We are watching one gang of oligarchs fight another for control of the pirate plunder; globalists verses nationalists. Government by and for the people was flushed down the toilet in 2000. The USA is not a sovereign state, it is an Empire in decline. If Mike Pence takes the reins, the purple Clinton/Obama/Bush corporate globalists won.

    Perimetr | Jan 15, 2017 4:43:20 PM | 44
    Russian Foreign Ministry: "Obama Still Has A Few Days Left To Destroy The World"

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-15/russian-foreign-ministry-obama-administration-stil-has-few-days-left-destroy-world

    Michael McNulty | Jan 15, 2017 4:48:30 PM | 45
    The main difference between Hitler and today's America is Hitler built a police state at home to take war abroad while the US took war abroad to build a police state at home. The results will be the same; a fearful, murderous Nazism of "enemies" abroad and "undesirables" and at home.

    From The Hague | Jan 15, 2017 5:00:25 PM | 46
    Trump can fire Brennan just as JFK fired Allan Dulles. How'd that work out?
    Posted by: fast freddy | Jan 15, 2017 3:23:11 PM | 36

    Ever heard of Mike Pompeo?

    likklemore | Jan 15, 2017 5:14:39 PM | 47
    @ s 37
    1) Clinton was not the main driver of foreign policy for the conclusive reason no Secretary of State has been the main driver in foreign policy since John Foster Dulles. And that was only because Eisenhower was a general who treated his cabinet like a military staff. 2) Trump did not win the vote at all, he won the Electoral College, which isn't "fair and square," as everybody knew since the controversies over the actual Electoral College votes during the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers themselves. The Electoral College is unfair and slanted, on purpose, and everybody who cares to know, knows it. There is a point when there's being stupid, and there's being a liar. Neither is a good place to be.

    1. Reminder since you may have missed the leaked emails and important events during Hillary Clinton's tenure as SoS: the force behind the push in Lybia

    (a) Lybia - Get the gold
    (b) "we came, we saw, he died." Cackles.
    (c) Ditto the lies surrounding Stevens – the arms smuggling to AQ in Syria

    2. Suggest some read up on the Constitution and structure of the Republic of The United States of America. The Electoral College is designed to balance small states vs large states; the same rationale for the Senate.
    3. On Election day, November 8, the voters selected the Electors to the Electoral College who then vote for the President and VP. Smart presidential candidates craft their campaign with the Electoral College's target, 270 votes. MSM polls showing Clinton having a 95% chance of winning, (Newsweek Madame President) so she disappeared during the last three weeks in October.
    4. Newsflash: Clinton's so-called national popular vote win by "millions" is a fraud. Millions of illegals voted in California, placing the so-called popular vote in her column. Never mind California. How about Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan's recount that was aborted? One example; a sealed ballot box had Clinton with 306 votes and when opened, the count was only 50. Other ballot boxes had similar anomalies.
    5. Trump won by a landslide; where it counts ---in the Counties --- 302 votes in the Electoral College for the final count.


    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    The Electoral College is unfair! Then so is the make-up of the Senate: regardless of population the 50 states x 2 senators each = 100. Get over it.
    Trump may be a skillful deal-maker but he won't be taking Putin to the Cleaners. Ask Rex Tillerson.

    juliania | Jan 15, 2017 5:24:46 PM | 48
    jayc@22:

    ". . . the degree to which the message has actually been internalized by the public-at-large may be far less than it may appear. . ."

    This sensible comment goes to the 'polls' taken - haven't we recently seen the worth of polls? These are the same polls that gave us Hillary as a sure bet.

    You have to have a trusting public somewhat unaware of the forces in play to work a color revolution, and even the one in Ukraine has not worked. People will know, enough people will know, what is happening. If it's tried there will most assuredly be support for anything Trump and his followers may do in response. There's no slam dunk here, CIA We don't love you; we don't even trust you. Try something at your own peril.

    If Americans want anything at this point, they do want an orderly change of government. They may not have high hopes for the incoming crowd but they don't want chaos. They do not want to be the next Syria. And even if they don't know precisely who's doing what in the days before the inauguration, they'll be suspicious of anyone who tries to start something.

    When 9/11 events were underway, remember the passengers on the plane in Pennsylvania? There'll be good citizens ready to put out any fire even at the cost of their own lives; I'm betting on them.

    karlof1 | Jan 15, 2017 5:34:54 PM | 49
    Hmmm.... The intrigue is fascinating!! BUT! We must recall the primary goal/motivation for the Deep State's Outlaw US Empire since 1990 has been to acquire Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its people, to which it's had fairly solid success--except with Russia, China and their few allies, the numbers of which are growing slowly. It's said by Putin and Xi that there's no ideological battle akin to the Cold War, but I don't think that's true: Both Putin, Xi, and their nation's economic plans for Eurasian integration are based on Win/Win aims for all involved, whereas the stated ideological goal of the Outlaw US Empire is stated above--enslaving the Hydra (Hydra being the global masses). The current "strategy" was to attack both Russia and China simultaneously, with an emphasis on Russia; Trump and his crew, however, are proposing a different approach based on the tried and true Divide and Conquer concept that's worked so well to now, but is no longer effective thanks to Neoliberalcon behavior allowing an understanding--and thus countermoves--to be gained of their modus. Clearly, Neoliberalcons are miffed that the ball is being taken from them regarding Imperial policy--note there's very little (elite) bickering about what the Republican controlled congress is doing to domestic policy, where most Mass Resistance to Trump/Congress is occurring. From a domestic POV, it seems like Trump's most likely to alienate those who thought he'd improve their standing because of his unwillingness to confront the Republican Congress's destruction of critical social and ecological programs.

    Trump's election outcome seems to mimic what was predicted to occur if a Third Party won and had to confront an antithetical congress having its own plans/policies to implement, adding the assumption that the Deep State would oppose such a Party as a matter-of-course, doing everything it could to delegitimize the incoming administration. If a Color Revolution's planned, then I'd expect to see a big rise in Tea Party activity, as most Soros-sponsored US-ngos are already at odds with Congress, not Trump's as yet unknown Imperial policy direction.

    Banger | Jan 15, 2017 5:54:56 PM | 50
    We are seeing some deep divisions not just within the State but in the public. We are now seeing the healthy growth of "alternative" Narratives which are far more compelling and based more on objective truth than the mainstream Narratives which means, over the long haul, they should win out unless those Narratives are rigorously suppressed. The only chance the authorities have to suppress these competing points of view and a lurch towards reality is to create an external enemy. Now we see the Democrats and "moderate" Republicans joining forces with the National Security State and the mainstream media to create the utterly fictional Russian "threat" in the same way they've created all the phony threats of the past. Will it work? I don't know--what I do know is that the majority of the population "wants" to believe in scapegoats and an enemy because it radically simplifies life and allows people to join together in virtual "two minutes of hate." This kind of thing usually works when you have "progressvies" and "leftists" joining in along with the usual warmongers in howling for blood. What I call the "Stasi left" is now showing itself for the CIA minions (people don't really know how "liberal" most of the CIA actually is) they are and perhaps have been or at least wannabe.

    I had for some time wanted to dissociate myself from the left but am now ready to do so not because I'm no longer on the left but because "the left" seem no longer to be on the left. I know it's time to move away from those divisions which are mainly just part of the mind-control regime we've been under since 1917. We have to choose. Continue to research what is the truth as best we can or join in the tribal wars that may well end in mutual destruction and certainly a possible civil war.

    I know Trump is attempting to placate those who might murder him--we'll see how it works. From where I sit it seems unlikely that Trump will put a dent in the ongoing Imperial project and the criminals it harbors.

    ALberto | Jan 15, 2017 5:58:03 PM | 51
    @47

    "Electoral College is unfair and slanted, on purpose, and everybody who cares to know, knows it."

    Electoral College = United States

    Popular Vote = United State

    12th Amendment so simple a preteen can grasp its main thrust.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 5:59:46 PM | 52
    You forgot to include the green revolution in Iran instigated by CIA and Mossad operatives with the help of Jundallah and MEK. Since it could be attempted again during Trump's Presidency; let's not sweep it under the rug and out of the pages of infamous recent history. Although, I believe Trump and his cabal will take more hostile and aggressive measures against Iran than instigating a color revolution.

    That being said; permit me to change the title to: Planting the Bad Seed. I'm not sure if you did this intentionally or not, but the pen is a mighty sword that you use skilfully therefore I should assume it was deliberate.

    I don't think I've yet read such artful, crafty and not to overuse, Machiavellian false equivalency as I just did now with this piece first introducing it with an outline of nefarious machinations against Trump, followed by a synopsis of fake revolutions to get to the grain. So in other words you're saying that the CIA or present state enemies of Trump would use the unsuspecting, and I'm not being facetious-innocent- leftist masses for their end. This is not to say that Neolibs are not lurking in there to sabotage this Presidency exploiting legitimate and justified dissent and dissenters as tools to use against Trump.

    Moreover, the only one doing the sabotaging here ; no, I won't go that far. Maybe you'll re-evaluate how this piece comes off, so let me give you the benefit of doubt while I still condemn it and its author who has yet to reconsider and join the good fight instead. If there are nefarious machinations in the works to sabotage Trump, then you are similarly busy working the Trump side with equally nefarious propaganda by raising a conspiracy spectre intended as an influence manoeuvre to crush all LEGITIMATE DISSENT against Trump that includes, more importantly, dissent against the cabal that brought him to power, by smearing such dissenters with the same brush you're using against those who would use them. Therefore in my opinion you are just as exploitive as Trump, his enemies and the deep state cabal that surrounds him and that he fully, absolutely represents.

    So let's say Chipnik is right, that at some point in time, which may not be during the inauguration, the Trump fascist squad aggressively lean on protesters or as Chip writes, start shooting into the crowd. Your angle is to first plant the seed, that it won't necessarily be the Trump squad that is or would be responsible for such a heinous act, but other forces meant to make Trump look like the fascist; never mind, that this is who he REALly is.

    So you're trying to delegitimize the revolution before it even starts. This is pretty devious; if not ugly; I'm being kind. As a matter of fact, it feels kind of sinister to suppress with twisted assumption, before it even gets started, the inevitable uprising you know Trump will ignite with his repressive regime. Is this not resorting to goebbel hasbara for an end you imagine is justified; a highly questionable, even wicked means to what YOU imagine will be a beneficial end like perhaps dιtente with Russia? What an intangible, sorry excuse that would be to extinguish real and enduring change BY THE PEOPLE that might end up benefitting your cause as well.

    What the hell are you trying to pull with this piece? Are you trying to crush growing and overwhelming legitimate dissent by planting a conspiracy theory that whatever revolution Trump accelerates with his wrongful actions will be illegitimate and fraudulent because it isn't inspired by justified dissent against him or better yet against the system that spawned Trump , but instigated by nefarious forces conspiring to overthrow him?

    Let me tell you something; the Revolution has been a long time simmering BEFORE Trump appeared on the political scene. If Trump is the accelerant that will finally make it explode then that's too bad for your own 'justified' goal and Trump for continuing the deep state subornation and subversion of democracy! Your goal (if honourable) should regrettably be the necessary, hopefully, temporary casualty of the rebellion against Trump's dangerous deception to quote an Engdahl phrase that best describes him.

    Trump is an asterisk in the reasons for the Revolution that should have happened after 9/11; and that you would try to delegitimize it this way planting a seed that might spread like poison to kill it, is reprehensible. The Revolution, my friend, won't and shouldn't be strictly limited to Trump. The Revolution will be about the entire two-faced monopoly and the evil forces sustained by this monopoly that brought Trump to power and repeatedly suborn leadership and subvert the people's power. People deserve to have this long-awaited Revolution, and if you, with your grain of conspiracy, propagate a theory that delegitimizes this Revolution making it only about a coup against Trump, then you are no better than the cabal you pretend to expose.

    Propaganda works. Then stop using it to kill the Revolution.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 6:20:42 PM | 53
    @24 chipnik

    'Mass shootings' is a bit of a specious reach.

    True, but sarcastically, symbolically or not, you, yourself, did reference there would be 'shootings on crowds after Trump assumes office' in several previous posts.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 6:25:27 PM | 54
    Trump can fire Brennan just as JFK fired Allan Dulles. How'd that work out?
    Posted by: fast freddy | Jan 15, 2017 3:23:11 PM | 36

    Ever heard of Mike Pompeo?

    Posted by: From The Hague | Jan 15, 2017 5:00:25 PM | 46

    Yeah. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.

    Circe, because there can only be one revolution at a time, Soros is Calvinistically the most righteous and therefore has priority? Get over this liberal conceit of righteous pitched battle. In the meantime, talk to my filter.

    Posted by: Jonathan | Jan 15, 2017 6:25:55 PM | 55

    Circe, because there can only be one revolution at a time, Soros is Calvinistically the most righteous and therefore has priority? Get over this liberal conceit of righteous pitched battle. In the meantime, talk to my filter.

    Posted by: Jonathan | Jan 15, 2017 6:25:55 PM | 55

    Trump should order further investigation on Hillary and send her to jail where she belongs.
    No one plays with Donald Trump without bearing consequences

    Posted by: virgile | Jan 15, 2017 6:29:43 PM | 56

    Trump should order further investigation on Hillary and send her to jail where she belongs.
    No one plays with Donald Trump without bearing consequences

    Posted by: virgile | Jan 15, 2017 6:29:43 PM | 56

    From The Hague | Jan 15, 2017 6:39:27 PM | 57
    Yeah. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
    Posted by: Circe | Jan 15, 2017 6:25:27 PM | 54

    Meet the new boss: Circe, the man who kwows the past and the future.

    terry | Jan 15, 2017 6:49:43 PM | 58
    Looks like there is going to be a big turnout . I think that these people had mentioned that they would put themselves in between any protesters of Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1qlkIXja6U

    x | Jan 15, 2017 6:51:01 PM | 59
    ZH reports:

    "... CIA Director Brennan Warns Trump To "Watch What He Says"

    "There is no basis for Mr Trump to point fingers at the intelligence community for 'leaking' information... "

    So the head of the Ministry for Dis-Information complains that there is 'no basis' (aka 'no facts') for this allegation. When did lack of evidence ever bother the CIA?

    And Brennan does not like comparison by his new boss (who's not like the old boss):

    "What I do find outrageous is equating intelligence community with Nazi Germany," Brennan said. "I do take great umbrage at that."

    This is the gangster-in-chief running the Afghan opium trade and any number of odious regime change programs that have killed and mained tens of millions now demanding 'evidence' when the finger is pointed his way.

    "Hypocrite" is the word for this type of odious person. And Trump had better watch his back. These types are worse than nazi Germans.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-15/scathing-attack-cia-director-brennan-warns-trump-watch-what-he-says

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 7:06:46 PM | 60
    @55

    Soros can kiss my ass; and Trump can kiss his.

    Mina | Jan 15, 2017 7:08:00 PM | 61
    If you watch Podesta speech on the n7ght of the election wgen he called the few remaining ppl in the room to go to sleep and wait for more in the morning it seems pretty clear they were already planning. Let s hope for some significant leaks.

    dh | Jan 15, 2017 7:14:29 PM | 62
    Trump made some interesting comments in an interview with the Times today. They seem to be aimed at disaffected Europeans and there are lots of those these days.

    "Merkel made a catastrophic mistake (letting a million refugees in)"

    "Countries want their own identity and the UK wanted its own identity,"

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38632485

    jfl | Jan 15, 2017 7:21:16 PM | 63
    @10 unnamed, 'In 5 days he will hold the reins of power'

    that's my expectation. despite the cinamatography @14 john

    @15 yet another unnamed, 'These people are nuts'

    i certainly hope you're right! that brennan and the rest are immediately shown the door and the deconstruction of the vile, 'unamerican' cia begins on saturday, in the pale afternoon.

    @19 ya unnamed, '... Hillary didnt generate enough votes ...'

    hillary won the popular vote ... if the elctronic tally system is to be believed. not

    @22 jayc, 'The Russia/Trump freak-out is localized in the Beltway establishment, Democratic Party, and the mainstream media ...'

    that's my feeling too. i think this is a media tempest in a media teapot. the good news is they are alienating ordinary americans, just as their choice of hillary for empress did. i hope the tnc msm go down along with republicrat/demoblican party ... and the vile cia.

    @23 likklemore, 'You would think Clapper's statement would be covered by MSM, No?'

    no. it's a perfunctory cover-the-ass-of-the-nsa/cia-combine statement. clapper put the more than 'dodgy dossier' in the obama/trump briefing in order for it to be leaked. now he's decrying others' - fully intended - use of his more than dodgy inclusion. the tnc msm know what he's done and what he's doing and are acting accordingly. his statement is a footnote for the history books.

    @35 lp, 'This is really funny stuff. A government that festooned with Goldman-Sachs bankers has to worry about being toppled in a coup?'

    even a blind pig can smell the acorns ... or g-sax truffles?

    @36 ff, 'Trump can fire Brennan just as JFK fired Allan Dulles'

    and he'd better. and he'd better finish the job: kill the cia. or the cia will certainly kill him. one way or another.

    @37, @39 s

    with the exception of your assessment of russia and china and their leadership - and your nasty, supercilious tone - i agree, think most of what you say is about right. why should anyone care what i think?

    @42 hw, 'State Department color revolutions. State Dept runs US Ambassadors and, thereby, color revolutions'

    yeah, but now State is a condominium of the cia/pentagon. mostly the cia.

    @45 mm, 'the difference between Hitler and today's America is Hitler built a police state at home to take war abroad while the US took war abroad to build a police state at home'

    well put.

    @47 likkelmore, 'The Electoral College is designed to balance small states vs large states; the same rationale for the Senate.'

    The Electoral College was designed to balance slave states vs non-slave states; the same rationale for the Senate.

    'so is [was] the make-up of the Senate'

    check.

    @48 juliana, 'If Americans want anything at this point, they do want an orderly change of government'

    i think that's the word.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 7:28:50 PM | 64
    juliania @48:
    haven't we recently seen the worth of polls?
    The're sinister when used to cement the reality that the propaganda is meant to create. In which case, most Americans believe .... could well be reworded as: most of your fellow citizens have accepted our disinformation - you should too!

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    karlof1 @49:

    Divide and Conquer
    No doubt Russia and China are aware of this possible strategy. It leads to the question of whether it is better for our globally-linked human society that Russia integrate with the West or join with China as counterweight.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Banger @50:

    ... deep divisions not just within the State but in the public.
    Sadly, public divisions don't seem to mean much except when exploited by a powerful elite faction. Thus public divisions become a resource for elite maneuvering.

    Kudos: You were early in anticipating a leader like Trump who would exploit the discontent.

    Narratives which are far more compelling and based more on objective truth ...
    I think narratives that spin truth around accepted myths are most compelling (and what we see all-too-often).
    "moderate" Republicans
    I wouldn't call McCain, Graham, Rubio, and Company "moderates". William Banzai depicts them as American Jihadis!

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Circe @52

    WTF! b has previously spoken of the desireability of a real resistance to Trump, saying:

    Trump should and must be fought but that fight should be about important economic and social issues for which people care and of which there are plenty.... Every attempt to accuse Trump of this or that "Russia" outrage that has nothing to do with the average voter's life simply fails. These pseudo scandals waged within the "elite" media against him just makes him stronger.
    Please try to keep up.

    chipnik | Jan 15, 2017 7:37:59 PM | 65
    64

    To quote George Carlin, 'They (One Party of Mil.Gov.Fed) don't give a fuck about you! '

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 7:38:52 PM | 66
    x @59
    "Hypocrite" is the word for this type of odious person.
    No, the word is " sociopath " - a person with impaired conscience (aka "moral compass").

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 7:55:08 PM | 67
    @55

    Oh, and while I'll admit my conviction may come off as conceit; you, OTOH, are at the height of arrogant cynicism masking who knows what ideological Z-aberration known for its hubris.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 7:59:28 PM | 68
    @ b
    Bravo.

    Though we must not forget the same tactic used against Chavez in Venezuela, in ' The coup that failed, stillborn ? , or much more recently another unsuccessful rehash against Maduro.

    These are merely the newest, latest refined & distilled, incarnation of methods & technique, we have used against foreign governments since the 1800's!(two centuries of refinement). The latest methods are designed to maximize Plausible-Deniablility and maximize supposed credibility of the proxies, and create a foundation for continuing attempts should it not be successful (not - all or nothing), whilst always presenting Faux arguments/justifications in the latest 'methods', re Democracy, Rule of Law, Rights, Oppression, Dis=Enfranchised ... whilst launching a foreign State sponsored, instigated, financed, managed, resourced, Coup!

    From 1887 Samoa, 1893 Hawaii thru to 1953 Mossadegh (Iran), 1954 Guatemala, 1958 Lebanon, thru to 1973 Allende (Chile), 1991 Haiti and then thru to today.

    All our chickens have come home to roost. :(

    @ Posted by: Bob In Portland | Jan 15, 2017 1:08:57 PM | 5

    The CIA is not the 'entire' Deep State, nor is the CIA or the Deep State (think all aspects and scale and scope of GLADIO) the actual drivers/deciders. The CIA and other such entities 150 years before the CIA was legally born, are mercenaries acting upon the directions/instructions they receive , in actions such as these. YMMV

    mischi | Jan 15, 2017 8:02:51 PM | 69
    dh, not only did he say that Merkel had made a big mistake, Trump also told Bild that the EU was built to give the Germans primacy in Europe and for the EU to give the US a trading rival. He applauded Brexit, saying that everyone wanted to keep their identity and wanted a quick trading deal with the UK. Interesting times we live in.

    Peter AU | Jan 15, 2017 8:04:00 PM | 70
    The 9/11, WMD, MH17 crew are still out and about so it will be interesting to see what happens in the near future.
    I wouldn't like to be part of the cannon fodder brigade the US has moved to Russia's borders. They are starting to look like sacraficial goats for the good cause of geo-politics at this stage.

    86'd | Jan 15, 2017 8:11:40 PM | 71
    Color Revolutions are diplomacy by other means? If so, looking back a decade in Iran is just a start.
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GG06Ak03.html
    Perhaps review of centuries is needed.
    England 1689 France 1789 1989 USSR...

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:12:56 PM | 72
    @ Posted by: Denis | Jan 15, 2017 3:02:15 PM | 25

    You jest assuredly ... who controls the ' Sole Remaining Superpower ', which spends more on its Military, let alone Intelligence/Proxy/NGO entities/forces, than the next largest 13 nations COMBINED, in a domestic US counter-election Coup is, ... not of significance ... everything re our rapacious actions on the people of Terra may be affected by these events, let alone domestically, for good of bad, or not.

    2. The "MI6 Report?" A bit of a misnomer isn't it? I haven't seen any allegations that MI6 itself was involved, making the term "MI6 Report" itself inferential propaganda fluff. Better name: "Steele Report"
    again, given the well documented & corroborated, FACTS, throughout these threads, you jest, yes ?

    86'd | Jan 15, 2017 8:19:49 PM | 73
    Russia is still dominated by the Oligarchs- and who are they? Dual nationals of the same Little Horn as the dual nationals that run USA. And Iran. And China and Trump.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:21:38 PM | 74
    The only REAL, committed, passionate, mass united group of citizens is the 'Bag-of-Depplorables', most of the assets being burnt up in this Psyop campaign are 'False' or long ago 'Bought & Paid for'.

    Will those of the US citizenry who identify with or are misled/deceived by 'Identity Politics' and 'Fake Left' 'R2P', etc narratives be prepared to step up and put it all, 'On the Line'? Somewhat doubt it.

    Given what they openly say in comments and the twitts, etc, one doubts they, the 'Deplorables' who won the election for the Trumpster, will stand by passively should this continue to escalate beyond the 20th. No doubt at all.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 8:33:00 PM | 75
    @64

    Geez, I have to break my rule with you; this one time, 'coz you probably didn't read my comment (56) in response to the post you quote 'b' from where I compared him to Lt. Col. Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai, (decent guy; but thoroughly misdirecting his genius to assisting the enemy). Here is the excerpt where I address that part of his post you quoted.:

    At times reading this; I thought I had entered the twilight zone of Breitbart, and only when I got to this disclaimer, was relieved to see that there is still a glimmer of hope that you will return to the side fighting the good fight.

    But the war against Trump is not over. In my view Trump should and must be fought [no kidding!] but that fight should be about important economic and social issues for which people care and of which there are plenty. Trump has his own cabal, libertarian billionaires like the Koch brothers, several generals in his cabinet and arch Zionists like Adelson. But that cabal's henchmen are not yet installed throughout the government. It is important to hinder such infestation.

    Yes, I do recognize a glimmer of hope, understated, but promising. You might yet blow up that bridge you've magnificently engineered, but I'd like to make these adjustments: the fight will and should not be restricted to economic and social issues. Do you really believe that the intended repression and exploitation will be limited to the U.S. alone???

    And allow me to correct this sentence by adding my two cents in square parenthesis:

    But that cabal's henchmen are not yet [ALL] installed throughout the government.

    Have you looked at his cabinet and entourage lately?

    Therefore, it is YOU, jr, that failed to keep up. Don't try to bait me; I'm so bored with your spin.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:33:28 PM | 76
    @ Posted by: VietnamVet | Jan 15, 2017 4:13:15 PM | 43

    Got it in one, VietnamVet.

    Interesting also is how the false narratives/dissembling is strong and responsive, in this thread, from particular posters, so quickly and in great quantity ...

    The simple question is: If Trump is not perceived as the greatest threat in at least ~71 years to the Military-Industrial-Corporate-Complex, and, more importantly their ultimate owners, the puppet-masters behind the curtain, the 0.01% owners thereof. Hence, why are we seeing these very events unfurl before our very eyes ?

    This is no charade or deceptive play to distract, amuse or entertain. That is bullshit.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 8:43:01 PM | 77
    @73

    Add UK and maybe France, Canada and Australia to the list and leave Iran and China out. They haven't been Z-infested yet; except maybe with spies and operatives.

    Kalen | Jan 15, 2017 8:43:48 PM | 78
    In every country under so called color revolution the underlying theme was imminent economic collapse that elites not only were unable to prevent but even actively pursuited and used the phony revolution to cover up their own theft and introduction global banking thieves into local economy under exigency of crisis, by selling land and state monopolies.
    If b is right preplaned economic crisis in the US is about to happen and a scape goat is about to be sworn in.
    That is the position of many independent economists recognizing that FED is covering up already ongoing depression that needs to be blamed on somebody but the establishment.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:46:16 PM | 79
    Posted by: Circe | Jan 15, 2017 8:33:00 PM | 75

    Lt. Col. Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai, (decent guy; but thoroughly misdirecting his genius to assisting the enemy)

    An entirely false, fantasy, fiction, perpetrated in a movie FICTION!

    Veterans were and still are incensed. Let alone those who survived the industrialized torments/tortures, forced labor, starvation, neglect/disease and Death Marches, as well as their families who struggle with those survivors, to this very day .

    And it is used as a reference, for support ?! WTF! Have you ever personally met any of the survivors, and talked with them ?! A few still endure, many were only 17-20 at the time ...

    Have you no decency left, to try that one on, none at all ?

    Words fail me.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 8:51:39 PM | 80
    @71

    There was the real Revolution in Iran deposing the Shah and then there was an attempt at a fake one orchestrated by CIA and Mossad; the green revolution.

    Just want to emphasis that I was referring to the later fake one in my own post @52 above.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:58:46 PM | 81
    @ Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 7:38:52 PM | 66

    Sociopaths & psychopaths, sometimes both, in dedicated service to their Patrons, the ultimate Psychopathic Sociopaths, the soulless, inhuman, rapacious, 'Old Grey Men', of the 0.01%.

    The 0.01% who steered and enabled, incrementally, their tools, such as the NSA (created by Presidential Executive Order, Not thru an Act of Legislation), to ' Collect it all/Process it all '.

    Which is merely a reflection of the 0.01%s desires ... re Terra and all that is on it and populate it.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 9:19:38 PM | 82
    @Circe

    Well, I stand corrected! Your vitriol wasn't a lapse, it was vomiting on our host.

    You have yet to suggest anything constructive.

    Supporting Obama-Hillary's Democratic Party against Trump is a NON-STARTER. The Democratic Party has proven to be thoroughly corrupt, and is more 'Zionist' than you care to admit (because that is adverse to your mission) .

    I think most independent thinkers have decided that a better starting point for change is Trump's in-your-face MAGA tyranny because the MSM-fueled globalist stab-you-in-the-back tyranny is more dangerous. The sheep are too willing to sleepwalk into the latter.

    So we CHEER when Trump puts down MSM because they are a tool that is used against the people, but you GROAN because he's gaining ground.

    Its clear that you are not here to be constructive. Your mission is to De-legitimize Trump.

    guest77 | Jan 15, 2017 9:22:15 PM | 83
    Glad to see Louis Proyect still comes around like a little mouse, pooping in the corner and scurrying away.

    P Walker | Jan 15, 2017 9:22:33 PM | 84
    likklemore@47

    And where are the charges from the DoJ from all this illegal voting? Republicans have been screaming out this "problem" for sixteen years and yet can never offer up such evidence. How many cases were brought up during the Bush years? This is one of those far-right fake news stories like the Vince Foster murder or Pizzagate. There's as much evidence of this electoral fraud as there is of Russian hacking of the election.

    You get "insiders" speaking about things like same-day no-ID registrations allowing people to vote. They're being very, very deceptive. These people get provisional ballots, which basically are not ever counted in just about every state that has them. Same with absentee ballots. The problem with absentee ballots is that they so easily disqualified over trivialities (i.e., stray pencil marks) and voters are left with this idea that their vote was counted. Why is there an explosion in absentee ballots? Because minority communities, the same communities that have their names purged from voting roles by GOP state governments, not to mention reduce machines for voting day and limit open hours, but absentee ballot voters think that it's better to send in absentee votes than wait in crazy lines on voting day.

    Democrats lost because they couldn't muster the vote from the plurality and conservatives ALWAYS come out to vote; they are the only reliable voting group out there. That's why the win Congress and at the state level. They win because their opposition are a bunch of out-of-touch elitist morons more concerned about get the "firsts". The first woman president, the first black president, the first hispanic senator, and so on and that is purely a reflection on the Democratic Party establishment's cosmopolitan champagne socialism obsession. They *are* out of touch which is why 50% of the population no longer votes. There's no point voting Democrat anymore.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 9:22:48 PM | 85
    Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 9:19:38 PM | 82

    No! Please, Say it is not so ? ;)

    And he/she ... is not alone ...

    Peace.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 9:23:14 PM | 86
    @79

    For crying out loud! I wasn't making any statement on whether or not the film fictionalized the actual events. I was using that character's role in the film to make an analogy here. Now go lecture and scream at someone else for a change.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 9:24:23 PM | 87
    Outraged @81

    I would think "sociopath!" every time Hillary spoke of "making tough choices".

    s | Jan 15, 2017 9:45:25 PM | 88
    likklemore@47 Illegals voting by the millions, like the hint about blacks somehow rigging the voting in urban areas, really is nothing but race baiting. OF course you talk about the Republic, that's practically a certificate of mad dog reaction. No, one man one vote is equal, the Electoral College is not. Even worse for you, if you really want to go the inequality route, you're the one who is inferior, being someone who upholds the equality of states rather than the equality of people, and mindlessly repeat lame slanders about the dark hordes somehow cheating at the polls and deranged irrelevancies instead of arguments. I suggest you more than most benefit from the proposition that all should have equal rights, because if they had to earn them, you lose.

    And lest I forget, your lame unthinking babble. You think the Senate is fair and square? No, you don't. When it's called the UN General Assembly, you know to the marrow of your bones it's not. Before you start ranting about what you think, you really need to have actual thoughts first.

    Trumpists are not the defenders of the people, Trumpists are the leaders in the attack on the people.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 9:54:26 PM | 89
    @ Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 9:24:23 PM | 87

    One always saw and still, sees, the classical middle ages ' Grim Reaper' (image), standing and speaking in her stead, gesturing, enticingly ...

    Same same for Obama, Bush the Younger, too.

    86'd | Jan 15, 2017 9:55:33 PM | 90
    Circe: Even Islamic Revolution of 1979 was US backed. They wanted the Shah out. He had become "undependable" starting back around the time he threw his multi million $ celebration of 2500 Years of Persian Empire stuff- crowning himself Shah han Shah etc
    French were well aware he had cancer- they were treating him.
    Like the West has installed the MBros jihadis across the region to take down secular regimes of Gadaffi, Mubarak, Saddam, Assad. West had no hesitation installing an Islamic one to take out secular Shah. In Hegelian fashion, it began the Pike Program of "West vs Islam" phase of the Three World Wars. Or "Clash of Civilizations" or "War on Terror". The list above re: SNIPERS is interesting, as this motif also occurred in Tehran during the protests in Ferdowsi Sq w/ mysterious gunmen shooting into demos to incite the crowd.
    As for China not being dominated by the Zios? Afraid so. David Rockefeller had a vise grip via Chase Manhattan Bank very early on, and never forget that Trotsky "Lev Bronstein" was trained, equipped and prepped while living in in high style the Bronx on his way to Bolshevik Rev.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 9:59:06 PM | 91
    Just to be clear; I'll repeat this for the literacy challenged and bald-faced liar who wrote I support Democrats.:

    The Revolution will be about the entire two-faced monopoly and the evil forces sustained by this monopoly that brought Trump to power and repeatedly suborn leadership and subvert the people's power.

    Where does this indicate affiliation with one party or another??? Trump and Hillary belong to the two-faced monopoly. I am an equal opportunity dissenter; I don't give a rat's ass about either party or their chosen change messiah-con, Trump being the latest, that the deep-state cabal use to lure the servitude into believing they live in a democracy with equal opportunity for all and things are gonna change.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 10:05:33 PM | 92
    We're not buying it Circe. How many times do we need to tell you that? We've seen this before.

    Attacking Trump relentlessly while claiming that it is in the service of some super-high noble and unattainable rationale?

    What else ya got?

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 10:05:49 PM | 93
    @ Posted by: s | Jan 15, 2017 9:45:25 PM | 88

    Do you support the Constitution as it stands, the Laws of the United States, Federal & State or not ?

    Or only when it conveniently suits your argument/narrative/position ... regardless of facts ?

    This is why Intelligence Analysts (ultimately realists doing a job) for example, in the main, and most of the Military and a surprising number of citizens, are staying out of it, neutral, and incrementally ever so slowly pushing back against the screed and leaning towards the new POTUS/Administration. Why ?

    But, hey, he won the election, she lost! What is going on here ?

    Generations of belief in unreal myths re Democracy, etc, are, in effect, working against the Coup plotters Psyop campaign narrative.

    Denis | Jan 15, 2017 10:14:12 PM | 94
    Harry | Jan 15, 2017 3:18:10 PM | 34
    Steele requested permission of high ranking officials to go through with this report and he got the green light. Also he has very influential friends in MI6 and was involved in MAJOR propaganda campaigns before, like Litvinenko's.

    Sorry, Harry, but I can't decipher the above. Having a link to your source[s] might help.

    For instance, what do you mean by Steele got "permission" from "high ranking officials"?? Even if the assertion is factual, "high ranking officials" does not necessarily mean MI6. Officials where? US, UK, Ru ??? And having friends in MI6 has nothing to do with your assertion that Steele "requested permission" to do a dirty like this one.

    Let's presume you have a source that says Steele got "permission" from MI6. Do you see the implications of that? The report was initially commissioned by an as yet unidentified Republican candidate. But that person dropped out before the investigation really got started. So Steele shopped the project to Hillary's bunch of bums. And so what you are saying is that Steele went to some "high ranking official" I presume you mean in the UK, and further, within the context of the comment, you mean MI6 – and from that high ranking MI6 person came a green-light for Steele to do a hit-piece on a US presidential candidate. IOW, you are accusing the UK in precisely the same way the MSM and Obama are accusing Russia/Putin.

    Accepted wisdom has it that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and yet I see no proof here of any sort. Please pass me a link to a reliable source that says Steele asked for and rec'd permission from MI6. That would be very hot.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:12:56 PM | 72

    You jest assuredly ... who controls the 'Sole Remaining Superpower', which spends more on its Military, let alone Intelligence/Proxy/NGO entities/forces, than the next largest 13 nations COMBINED, in a domestic US counter-election Coup is, ... not of significance ... everything re our rapacious actions on the people of Terra may be affected by these events, let alone domestically, for good of bad, or not.

    I have absolutely no earthly idea what you are talking about. Is that "paragraph" supposed to be a response to my comment #25? Are we on the same page? Planet? What does the "Sole Remaining Superpower" have to do with any of this?

    To review: The topic is whether MI6 is eye-balls deep in the Steele Report. If it is, then calling it the "MI6 Report" makes sense. If not, then "MI6 Report" is a misleading misnomer and propaganda in its own right.

    again, given the well documented & corroborated, FACTS, throughout these threads, you jest, yes ?

    OK, that's better. I can understand that one. I noticed you capitalized "FACTS." Now we're talkin' the same language, dude.

    See my response to Harry, above. Same goes for you: Can you give me a link to a reliable source saying MI6 signed off on this attack on a US presidential candidate? Throw some FACTS my way. . .

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 10:15:27 PM | 95
    As long as the money flows, Democratic Party and sympathetic establishment operatives will try to derail Trump.

    At some point, a real resistance with some integrity will spring up once the Democratic Party and its lackeys have failed so miserably that they are a laughing stock.

    86'd | Jan 15, 2017 10:17:38 PM | 96
    Circe,
    Got it. Agree 100%. Until we take out the ventriloquists, we will be forever trapped in the fake left-right paradigm arguing over the Elite's puppet du jour- but never taking on the Deep State puppeteers. Seems we'd rather be manipulated by them, and persist in bickering w/ each other.

    Peter AU | Jan 15, 2017 10:19:57 PM | 97
    93 "Generations of belief in unreal myths re Democracy, etc, are, in effect, working against the Coup plotters Psyop campaign narrative."

    Spot on. The powers that be have to, over a very short period, try to turn this narrative around. It seems than now they will be impaled on their own democratic sword.

    Julian | Jan 15, 2017 10:25:23 PM | 98
    Hello Civil War!

    Although Pence-Clinton might be enough to mollify the population.

    This is exactly why Trump must go after the Clinton Foundation full throttle on January 20.

    There is no time to waste to neutralise this threat

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 10:32:46 PM | 99
    What else ya got?

    Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 10:05:33 PM | 92

    Oh gee, I dunno...how about this?!

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/05/3b/50/053b50e784c7bfc634dfac7f574adb06.jpg

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 10:44:53 PM | 100
    @ Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2017 4:04:45 PM | 42

    Apologies for CIA typo. It should read State Department color revolutions. State Dept runs US Ambassadors and, thereby, color revolutions.

    Respectfully, the CIA through the 'Local Station'(CIA), local Company technical/support sections & assets & agents, sources & proxies (NGOs/Associations/Union/Business elements), AND

    The State Department, through Diplomats/Officers and CIA under Official Cover(OC)(Diplomatic), also interacting with and managing the previous, though mostly focused on High level political, corporate entities/assets,

    ... simultaneously ... concurrently ... run the Coups and 'faux' revolutions/uprisings/'Arab Springs' ...

    To a varying lesser or greater degree there of, limited and/or competing co-operation/conflict.

    The Agency(CIA) and the State Department are not a monolithic entity ... there are common and partially overlapping interests and objectives, sometimes more, others less so ... yet they have never acted as one, as a 'Borg'.

    Phil Agee's published diary, to corroborate my brief explanation above in excruciating detail, is an accessible, open, unclassified insight re how this all actually works, for ant interested reader at MOA.

    Full text of 'Inside-the-Company-CIA-diary-Philip-aAgee.pdf" (Direct PDF doenload)

    There are no blanks in Philip Agee's Inside the Company: CIA Diary. This densely detailed expose names every CIA officer, every agent, every operation that ...

    ...

    Philip Agee discusses his experiences inside the CIA

    Philip Agee was a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who served in Latin America. After resigning from the CIA he lectured and wrote on the Agency's clandestine operations. His activities were not unnoticed. Ex-CIA Director and later President Bush the first called Agee "a traitor to our country." He is the author of Inside the Company: CIA Diary and On the Run. He died in Cuba in January 2008.

    Cheers.

    [Jan 18, 2017] War is a ... destructive suction tube.

    Jan 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    It is MLK weekend....

    A Boy Named Sue, January 15, 2017 at 12:22 AM

    It is MLK weekend....
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rynxqdNMry4
    ilsm -> A Boy Named Sue... , January 15, 2017 at 05:12 AM
    Freedom is in the soul.

    Let us 'ally' with all the world, let us protect civilians, let us impose 'just peace', let us squander the environment. No plan is too bloody, no price too steep to prevent another 9/11. The evening news still needs bodies of "those people". Non violence is un American.

    I am not surprised the neoliberals do not post Dr King's Vietnam Speech:

    Here it is:

    http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/riversidetranscript.html

    War is a ... "destructive suction tube. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor."

    Ike said the same thing in 1953 and 1961.

    Poverty is violence.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 15, 2017 at 05:17 AM
    I was informed by MLK's awareness of the truth on the ground in 1967. That is why I protested the war in Viet Nam when protests began early in 1968 in Richmond VA, but not the draft. In April 1969 I had to decide whether to go to Canada and maybe never see my family again and take my wife far from her family as well, go to prison, or go to Viet Nam. MLK had already been murdered and I had already lost hope in the truth and social justice. So, I went to Viet Nam. I figured Doctor King would understand.
    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 15, 2017 at 05:34 AM
    I have a buddy who refused to take the step. Repeatedly until the SS board sent him to the 'judge'.

    He got 3 years in Public Health Service...... it was late '70 maybe they got kinder or maybe it was his area of NYS.

    I took the ROTC route, became a cold warrior by accident.

    Thank God! I never had to do any of my jobs!

    Humans rarely see.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 15, 2017 at 06:08 AM
    "...maybe it was his area of NYS..."

    [I'd go with probably.]

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 15, 2017 at 05:19 AM
    BTW, that is an awesome great MLK speech. THANKS for dragging it out.

    [Jan 18, 2017] Barack Obamas Real Legacy

    Jan 18, 2017 | viableopposition.blogspot.ca
    January 16, 2017

    Barack Obama's Real Legacy With Barack Obama's eight year stint in the Oval Office coming to an end and his persona (at least to those who don't really pay attention) as a "peacemaker", a recent analysis by Micah Zenko provides us with an interesting glimpse at his real foreign military approach.
    Before we get into the meat of this posting, let's look at a bit of history from 2009:

    Here is what the Nobel Committee had to say in October 2009 about the President who had been in office for less than ten months at that point in time:
    " The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
    Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
    Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
    For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges. " (my bold)
    With that in mind, let's get back to Micah Zenko's analysis. Here is a table showing the number of U.S. bombs that were dropped in all of its current theatres of operation during 2016:

    The vast majority of bombs, 24,287 in total, were dropped during the anti-Islamic State Operation Inherent Resolve in both Syria and Iraq which received 2,963 and 2,941 airstrikes respectively. Of the 7,473 coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, the United States was responsible for 5,904 or 79 percent of the total. Of the total of 30,743 bombs that were dropped by America's coalition partners, the United States dropped 24,287 or 79 percent of the total. When looking at the coalition bombing statistics on a national basis, in 2016, the United States conducted 67 percent of the airstrikes in Iraq and 96 percent of the airstrikes in Syria.
    Just in case you wondered, 2015 was also a bomb-dropping bonanza with a total of 23,144 bombs dropped including 22,110 in Iraq and Syria, the major beneficiaries of the Peace President's munificence as shown here:
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
    Apparently, Obama-style Nobel Peace Prize-winning international diplomacy included materiel raining from the sky on the innocent and guilty alike. Barack Obama has the distinction of being the only U.S. president to serve his entire eight year term in a state of war including operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Syria. That is his legacy.

    [Jan 17, 2017] I'll sell myself out in a lot of different ways, but I will never sell myself out for a check from BuzzFeed

    Jan 17, 2017 | washingtonbabylon.com

    See, I'm not surprised that BuzzFeed would do something as shady and unethical as exposing this Trump dossier that alleges he paid Russian sex workers for a golden shower show. Nope, literally nothing this loathsome, pathetic excuse for a "news" site does could ever surprise me. I can't understand why anyone would take a site seriously that posts things they admit cannot be verified.

    [Jan 17, 2017] If we assume that Trump is a narcissist he might go not after China, but after national security parasites who tried to pull J. Edgar Hoover on him.

    Jan 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Kervick : , January 16, 2017 at 07:08 PM
    Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president will be determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance.
    Chris G -> Dan Kervick... , January 16, 2017 at 07:28 PM
    He's got a lot of options for catastrophic failure - potential conflict with China coming to the forefront over the past week or so.* If he decides to have a go with them that will have an adverse effect on people's ability to buy cheap shit at WalMart. It could well adversely affect their ability to feed themselves. If that happens then I predict it will adversely affect his popularity.

    Trump is a narcissist. Popularity is of foremost importance to him. That noted, I'm skeptical that he's self-aware enough to recognize what actions he might take that people - as in essentially all of us, not just the ones who didn't vote for him - would hate him for. If given enough rope will he hang himself? Perhaps more significantly, how many of us will hang first?

    *Next week it'll be something new. Iran's probably due for a turn in the headlines before the winter is out. Perhaps a dust up with Putin in the spring?

    libezkova -> Chris G ... , January 16, 2017 at 08:30 PM
    If we assume that Trump is a narcissist, your analysis is all wrong. In this case he might go not after China, but after security parasites who tried to play J. Edgar Hoover on him. And try to destroy this scum.
    libezkova -> Dan Kervick... , -1
    Dan,

    "Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president will be determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance."

    I am not so sure. People fought to block Hillary not to elect Trump. Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. They actually don't care if politician belong to 'D' or 'R' branch of the establishment party. They are only concerned how well they will serve the US led global neoliberal empire.

    That means that Trump deserves the "Benefit of the Doubt" in evaluation of his performance -- most people understand that he will be fighting on two fronts, with the deep state being one.

    [Jan 17, 2017] I'll sell myself out in a lot of different ways, but I will never sell myself out for a check from BuzzFeed

    Jan 17, 2017 | washingtonbabylon.com

    See, I'm not surprised that BuzzFeed would do something as shady and unethical as exposing this Trump dossier that alleges he paid Russian sex workers for a golden shower show. Nope, literally nothing this loathsome, pathetic excuse for a "news" site does could ever surprise me. I can't understand why anyone would take a site seriously that posts things they admit cannot be verified.

    [Jan 17, 2017] Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. They actually don't care if politician belong to 'D' or 'R' branch of the establishment party. They are only concerned how well they will serve the US led global neoliberal empire

    Jan 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Kervick : January 16, 2017 at 07:08 PM

    Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president will be determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance.

    Chris G -> Dan Kervick... , January 16, 2017 at 07:28 PM

    He's got a lot of options for catastrophic failure - potential conflict with China coming to the forefront over the past week or so.* If he decides to have a go with them that will have an adverse effect on people's ability to buy cheap shit at WalMart.

    It could well adversely affect their ability to feed themselves. If that happens then I predict it will adversely affect his popularity.

    Trump is a narcissist. Popularity is of foremost importance to him. That noted, I'm skeptical that he's self-aware enough to recognize what actions he might take that people - as in essentially all of us, not just the ones who didn't vote for him - would hate him for. If given enough rope will he hang himself? Perhaps more significantly, how many of us will hang first?

    *Next week it'll be something new. Iran's probably due for a turn in the headlines before the winter is out. Perhaps a dust up with Putin in the spring?

    libezkova -> Dan Kervick... , -1
    Dan,

    "Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president will be determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance."

    I am not so sure. People fought to block Hillary not to elect Trump. Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. They actually don't care if politician belong to 'D' or 'R' branch of the establishment party. They are only concerned how well they will serve the US led global neoliberal empire.

    That means that Trump deserves the "Benefit of the Doubt" in evaluation of his performance -- most people understand that he will be fighting on two fronts, with the deep state being one.

    Jas11 -> libezkova... , January 16, 2017 at 08:40 PM
    The market reaction to Trumps surprise win pretty clearly indicates that Hillary was not the finance industries choice.

    If your that far off on this one, I'd bet your just as far off on the 'deep state', whatever that means.

    libezkova -> Jas11... , January 16, 2017 at 09:08 PM
    I agree that it is strange that we have "Trump rally" and that this rally somewhat contradicts my hypothesis (although not much if we analyze S&P 500 by sector, for example oil industry definitely should rally, no question about it).

    You forgot a very important nuance that S&P500 as a whole did much better that financial industry ETFs.

    People made a lot of money based on this recently.

    In any case, thank you for pointing this out.

    Ben Groves -> libezkova... , January 16, 2017 at 09:35 PM
    Trumps ties to de Rothschild is where you don't get it. Oh, what did Donald do in 2008 that got him in bad trouble..............GS left the Morgans in 2009 and finally that truth is coming out of the closet. My guess when Democrats come back into the WH, GS gets hurt bad bad bad.
    sanjait -> libezkova... , January 16, 2017 at 11:14 PM
    "You forgot a very important nuance that S&P500 as a whole did much better that financial industry ETFs."

    This is the exact opposite of what actually happened.

    Seriously, go look it up. The finance sector has been *by far* the biggest beneficiary of Trump's election, in terms of stock price movement.

    Seriously, go look it up. XLF, for example, vs S&P 500.

    libezkova -> sanjait... , January 17, 2017 at 03:20 AM
    Yes, from election day I am deeply wrong. For 2017, I am right.
    Dan Kervick -> libezkova... , January 17, 2017 at 04:59 AM
    Trump will likely do something bold militarily, very early in his administration, most likely directed against ISIS and related jihadi groups. He will partner with Russia in doing this.

    If it goes reasonably well, Putin will be our new best buddy in the war on terror. The media herd, responding with the usual America at War televised info-frenzy, will ramble en masse away from it's current obsession with Russian spying and hacking, and will instead be covering the war theater with embedded journalists in flak jackets and helmets. They will be interviewing, among others, Russian pilots and generals, newly discovered to be likable and sturdy vodka-slugging war heroes, and our allies against terrorists, not diabolical villains. They will regale the public with background stories about heroic Russian deeds of the past, including how they stopped Hitler in the snows of western Russia. Nobody will care any more about the details of the 2016 election, and the sad dead-enders who can't let it go.

    On the other hand, if it goes poorly, this will give the public even more opportunity to indulge conspiracy theories about false flags, Russian and American "deep state" subversion, crony-capitalist bribery, election meddling and the illegitimacy of the 2016 outcome, Russian state television propaganda, left-wing fifth columnists and traitors, etc.

    So that's what I mean when I say that Trump's perceived legitimacy will depend on how things go.

    Chris G -> Dan Kervick... , -1
    That sounds about right.

    [Jan 17, 2017] Is Politically Correct or Jingoistic Reporting Fake News - The Unz Review

    Jan 17, 2017 | www.unz.com
    What Russia's crime consisted of, by the most damaging interpretation, was hacking into a private server belonging to a political party and possibly allowing the admittedly factual but embarrassing material obtained to make its way into the media. Excuse me, but that is what intelligence agencies do routinely to justify their multiple billion dollar budgets. The United States is the world leader in such activity as revealed by Jim Bamford's books on the subject and also through the revelations obtained in the Snowden papers. Now Russia is being condemned for possibly doing some of the same, though no evidence is being provided, and the story is being framed as if we are by definition the good guys and Vladimir Putin is the devil incarnate.

    What I am saying is that the United States mainstream media is the primary source of fake news due to its inbuilt biases on what is acceptable and what is not. It actually hurts black people by its attempts to be protective and its unwillingness to consider a news story through the eyes of the other party for chauvinistic reasons means that Americans are particularly uninformed about what is going on in the world. To suggest that all of this is particularly dangerous, both in terms of domestic tranquility and possible foreign threats, would be an understatement.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Who is blackmailing the president ? by Eric Zuesse

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia. ..."
    "... What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.washingtonsblog.com
    Eric Zuesse 2 days ago

    This article caused me to lose respect for 'Gaius Publius', because of his statements so prejudicial and presumption-laden, so trusting in what liars (including especially Trump) have said, as, "As horrible and as monstrous as this incoming administration is - and it will prove to be the worst in American history" -- which presumes that Trump will certainly turn out to have been even worse than George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which means that 'Gaius Publius' doesn't understand what the competition for that title, "the worst in American history," really is and how vile and evil and harmful they were, such as Obama's having tried to push Russia to the very brink of war (and Hillary Clinton would have pushed it beyond the brink, by her insisting upon establishing a "no-fly zone" in Syria, shooting down Russian planes and forcing Russia to shoot down American planes there). 'Gaius Publius' is a Democratic Party sucker there, blind to Obama's (and especially Clinton's) evil. Then he says:

    "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia.

    What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? Would we feel safe from their missiles? How blind can Democrats be? It's why I quit the Party.

    'Gaius Publius' is just a fool, someone who can't get rid of his assumptions once they've become false. How is he any smarter than Republicans, who are long-infamous for being precisely such fools?

    This article has some true parts, but the person who wrote it is a fool. Lots of fools mix falsehoods in with truths, instead of believe only falsehoods. Those fools are harder to detect, but that also makes even more important the reader's being on guard against believing what such 'over-educated' fools say or write. 'Gaius Publius' hasn't absorbed the reality of the Clinton-Obama-led Democratic Party. It's disgusting.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Has the imperator surrounded himself with the wrong praetorians?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Define unprecedented. What are your standards for a "major western nation"? Any moral standard? Do they include blowing up countries, using militarized spooks with unlimited secret funding? ..."
    "... In tilting with the CIA, Trump is a saint. ..."
    "... The meme that Trump will "get US into war" is a Clinton loser-whiner meme! Delusional and misleading; the neocon Clinton would have done Putin first CIA fictional, regime change excuse the yellow press could spread. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    reason : January 16, 2017 at 02:25 AM
    Just as an aside - not really economics, but I am really worrying about what the war between the future white house team and the CIA that seems to be brewing. I don't see good solutions to this. It is sort of unprecedented in a major western country. Can you think of a similar case (where the intelligence services - and perhaps the military as well regarded there own government head as an enemy agent)?
    reason -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 03:02 AM
    Perhaps MI5 and Wilson?
    Fang__z -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 04:03 AM
    Canaris and Hitler. :p
    ilsm -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 04:41 AM
    Henry VI Pt2

    dems playing Yorks

    put the CIA in

    the Tower

    CIA been the neocon

    payroll too long

    who told you Soviets

    were never going

    tp collapse

    ilsm -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 04:49 AM
    Define unprecedented. What are your standards for a "major western nation"? Any moral standard? Do they include blowing up countries, using militarized spooks with unlimited secret funding?

    If you side with the devil what are you?

    In tilting with the CIA, Trump is a saint.

    jonny bakho -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 05:03 AM
    Don't worry. Be happy. Nothing can be done now.The voters wanted someone to "shake things up"
    Trump will be applying creative destruction to government
    Obama failed to drive the NeoCons out of government. Trump may do so, but the replacement might be fundamentally more corrupt.

    As with Obamacare, the idea is to destroy it and replace it with something better.
    Most revolutions find it easy to destroy and very much harder to build
    Most sane leaders recognize this difficulty and modify the existing rather than destroy and never getting around to replacement or find the replacement to be worse than the existing.

    Looters on the other hand love destruction. The resulting chaos affords them more opportunity to get windfalls. Trump will give the voters the radical change they think they want. But Trump will use the destruction as an opportunity for personal gain. The public will be left with a gutted government that will need to be rebuilt before it will function again

    Chris G -> jonny bakho... , January 16, 2017 at 05:06 AM
    One quibble: The destruction he applies will not be creative. It will be thorough but entirely unimaginative.
    reason -> jonny bakho... , January 16, 2017 at 07:24 AM
    I don't believe in "creative destruction", I believe in "destructive creation" which is something quite different. But that is not the point. This is not about the government as such, it is about the security apparatus in itself. It could get very nasty if that ends up either totally alienated or politicized.
    Chris G -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 05:03 AM
    If I were President, provoking an organization whose specialty is covert operations and which has track record of bringing about the demise of insufficiently agreeable leaders would not be high on my to-do list.
    ilsm -> Chris G ... , January 16, 2017 at 05:20 AM
    Has the imperator surrounded himself with the wrong praetorians?
    Peter K. -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 05:37 AM
    Why do you think a war is brewing? What do you think is going to happen?

    They'll give him bad intel like they did with Bush?

    ilsm -> Peter K.... , January 16, 2017 at 05:44 AM
    The meme that Trump will "get US into war" is a Clinton loser-whiner meme! Delusional and misleading; the neocon Clinton would have done Putin first CIA fictional, regime change excuse the yellow press could spread.
    Peter K. -> ilsm... , January 16, 2017 at 05:54 AM
    Trump is an isolationist who repeatedly said the Iraq war was a disaster, which it was.

    If the CIA is going after Trump they're doing a bad job. The worst they could come up with is some unverified accounts that Trump likes pee-pee parties.

    reason -> Peter K.... , January 16, 2017 at 07:29 AM
    Because they are already reportedly telling some of their contacts not to trust the government with information in case it ends up with hostile governments. Maybe using the word "war" is misleading. Maybe "cold war" is more accurate, but in general I mean a state of mutual distrust.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Gaius Publius analysys of who is blackmailing the president is so prejudicial and presumption-laden that trusting it would be unwise by Eric Zuesse

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia. ..."
    "... What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.washingtonsblog.com
    Eric Zuesse 2 days ago

    This article caused me to lose respect for 'Gaius Publius', because of his statements so prejudicial and presumption-laden, so trusting in what liars (including especially Trump) have said, as, "As horrible and as monstrous as this incoming administration is - and it will prove to be the worst in American history" -- which presumes that Trump will certainly turn out to have been even worse than George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which means that 'Gaius Publius' doesn't understand what the competition for that title, "the worst in American history," really is and how vile and evil and harmful they were, such as Obama's having tried to push Russia to the very brink of war (and Hillary Clinton would have pushed it beyond the brink, by her insisting upon establishing a "no-fly zone" in Syria, shooting down Russian planes and forcing Russia to shoot down American planes there). 'Gaius Publius' is a Democratic Party sucker there, blind to Obama's (and especially Clinton's) evil. Then he says:

    "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia.

    What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? Would we feel safe from their missiles? How blind can Democrats be? It's why I quit the Party.

    'Gaius Publius' is just a fool, someone who can't get rid of his assumptions once they've become false. How is he any smarter than Republicans, who are long-infamous for being precisely such fools?

    This article has some true parts, but the person who wrote it is a fool. Lots of fools mix falsehoods in with truths, instead of believe only falsehoods. Those fools are harder to detect, but that also makes even more important the reader's being on guard against believing what such 'over-educated' fools say or write. 'Gaius Publius' hasn't absorbed the reality of the Clinton-Obama-led Democratic Party. It's disgusting.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Gaius Publius Who is Blackmailing the President Why Arent Democrats Upset About It by Gaius Publius,

    Highly recommended!
    Recommended !
    Notable quotes:
    "... The CIA and NSA (the largest part of the "national security state") were intruding politically in the other direction , by endorsing Clinton and demonizing Trump ..."
    "... For months , the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton's candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. ..."
    "... It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA's proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war , while Trump denounced it . ..."
    "... This is not a game, even at the electoral level. It has nation-changing, anti-democratic consequences. Democratic voters fear a coup, or a kind of coup, led by the Trump administration, and for good reason. But there's another coup in the making as well, and Democrats are cheering it. ..."
    "... Yet the following actually did happen (Greenwald again, my emphasis): "Just last week, Chuck Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being 'really dumb' by challenging the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare to stand up to them ." And yet there was no shock or fear, at least from Maddow or her viewers. ..."
    "... And Schumer really did use the phrase "they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." The video is embedded here . Is that how Democrats plan to defeat Trump? Is it better, more comforting, if a Democrat makes that threat and appears to side with the security agencies' (the deep state's) strong-arm tactics? ..."
    "... A coup in the making - not the one we fear, which may also occur - but a coup nonetheless. This really is not a game, and both sides are playing for keeps. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.washingtonsblog.com

    The CIA and NSA (the largest part of the "national security state") were intruding politically in the other direction , by endorsing Clinton and demonizing Trump (my emphasis):

    For months , the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton's candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump.

    In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that "Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." The CIA and NSA director under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton, and went to the Washington Post to warn , in the week before the election, that "Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin," adding that Trump is "the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited."

    It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA's proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war , while Trump denounced it .

    Now Trump is president and the pro-war national security forces are at it again, leaning again on Trump in yet another intrusion into the political process .

    So who again tried to tilt the field for or against Clinton or Trump? Including Russia, the administration, Comey, agents of the FBI and NY police, the CIA and national security forces, I count five groups. This is a lot of political intrusion, regardless of which candidate you favored - all within the last year - and we're still not done. I'm sure we're only halfway through this extended drama.

    The Selective Blindness of the Democratic Party

    Third, with all this political interference, where are the Democrats? Do they condemn it all, praise it all, or pick and choose?

    Bottom line: They see what they want to see, not what's in front of us all and in plain sight. Which is not only unprincipled, it's dangerous for them as well as us.

    Again, they did not see Obama's original declarations of Clinton's innocence as political intrusion. But they did see Comey's eventual "won't indict, but will condemn" speech, and his and other investigators' pre-election actions, as political intrusion. They did not see the "pro-war" security apparatus' endorsement of Clinton and trashing of Trump as intrusions. But they do see Russian interference as intrusion. And they absolutely don't see the security services' present blackmail threats against a duly elected president as political interference.

    They see what they want to see, what they think helps them politically and electorally, and they're blind to the rest. This is highly unprincipled. And again, it's dangerous as well.

    After all, one reason the institutional Democratic Party nearly lost to Sanders, a highly principled man - and did lose to Trump, a man who pretended to be principled - is that plenty of voters in key states were just tired of being taken for a ride by "say one thing, do another" Democrats. Tired, in other words, of unprincipled Democrats - tired of job-promising. job-killing trade deals pushed hard by both Democratic presidents, tired of the bank bailout that made every banker whole but rescued almost no mortgagees , tired of their reduced lives , their mountain of personal debt , tired of the overly complex, profit-infected, still-unsolved medical care system - tired of what 16 years of Democrats had done to them, not for them.

    If Democrats want to start winning again, not just the White House, but Congress and state houses, they can't continue to be these Democrats - unprincipled and self-serving. They must be those Democrats, Sanders Democrats, principled Democrats instead.

    Does the above litany of complaint about political interference when it suits them, and non-complaint when it doesn't, look like principled behavior to you?

    Which brings me to the end of this part of the discussion. If some people see this party behavior as self-serving hypocrisy, you can bet others do as well. Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles. They have to attract the Sanders voters who stood aside in the general election and see them very negatively. Yes, Democrats will continue to get votes - some people will always vote Democratic. But in the post-Sanders, post-Trump era, will they get enough votes to turn the current tide, which runs heavily against them?

    I'm not alone in thinking, not a chance.

    But this is the long form of what I wanted to say. For the elevator speech version, just read the three tweets at the top. I think they capture the main points very nicely.

    Glenn Greenwald: "The Deep State Goes to War with the President-Elect, and Democrats Cheer"

    Greenwald's take is very similar to mine, and there's much more research in his excellent piece . Writing at The Intercept , he says (emphasis in original):

    The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer

    In January, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction's power even further.

    This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News."

    Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing - eager - to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.

    You can see where this is going. The "deep state," the CIA, NSA and the rest of the unelected national security apparatus of the U.S., is going to war with an elected president even before he takes office, and Democrats are so eager for a win that they're siding with them.

    Did Russia attempt to interfere in the U.S. election? Of course, and Democrats condemned it. Did the agents of the FBI et al attempt to interfere in the U.S. election? Of course, and Democrats condemned it. Is the national security state today interfering in the outcome of a U.S. election, by trying to destabilize and force its will on the incoming administration? Of course, and Democrats are cheering it.

    As horrible and as monstrous as this incoming administration is - and it will prove to be the worst in American history - who would aid the national security apparatus in undermining it?

    Apparently, the Democratic Party. Greenwald continues:

    The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.

    But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth - despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie - is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.

    And Greenwald agrees that this tactic is not just craven; it's also dangerous:

    Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people and institutions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from basic means of ensuring accuracy?

    All of this, don't forget, rests on the one document mentioned above , the material summarized in an appendix to the classified version of the security services' report on Russia (emphasis mine):

    the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump , accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it.

    I'll send you to the Greenwald piece for much more of this detail. As I said above, this story has seemed muddy until now, but it just came clear.

    A Coup in the Making

    This is not a game, even at the electoral level. It has nation-changing, anti-democratic consequences. Democratic voters fear a coup, or a kind of coup, led by the Trump administration, and for good reason. But there's another coup in the making as well, and Democrats are cheering it.

    If a Republican elected official had publicly warned Obama not oppose a policy the Republicans and the CIA/NSA favored because "they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you," what would - what should - our response to that be? Mine would be horror and shock that a Republican had dared make that threat, followed by fear that he, and the agencies behind him, will make good on it. At which point, it's farewell democracy, likely for a long long time.

    Yet the following actually did happen (Greenwald again, my emphasis): "Just last week, Chuck Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being 'really dumb' by challenging the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare to stand up to them ." And yet there was no shock or fear, at least from Maddow or her viewers.

    And Schumer really did use the phrase "they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." The video is embedded here . Is that how Democrats plan to defeat Trump? Is it better, more comforting, if a Democrat makes that threat and appears to side with the security agencies' (the deep state's) strong-arm tactics?

    A coup in the making - not the one we fear, which may also occur - but a coup nonetheless. This really is not a game, and both sides are playing for keeps.

    By Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius, Tumblr and Facebook. GP article archive here. Originally published at DownWithTyranny

    [Jan 16, 2017] If DNI Clapper is telling the truth, then the ICA was prepared in a manner that violated the very tradecraft regarding the preparation of intelligence community analytical products

    Notable quotes:
    "... The implication inherent in DNI Clapper's revelation is that the classified information relied upon by the Intelligence Community was so specific as to its nature, and so critical and central to the judgments made in the ICA, that it could not be worked around to the extent necessary to shield its specific source from the analysts in the INR. ..."
    "... If DNI Clapper is telling the truth, then the ICA was prepared in a manner that violated the very tradecraft regarding the preparation of intelligence community analytical products he proudly cited to underpin the credibility of the ICA. It also implies that the intelligence community was comfortable with excluding from one of the most important assessments of Russian intent in modern times the very agency, the Department of State, that deals with the Russians on a broad spectrum of issues on a daily basis, and as such would be ideally positioned to weigh in on issues such as Russian intent – especially that of its leader, Vladimir Putin. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    fresno dan , January 15, 2017 at 8:29 am

    Exposing The Man Behind The Curtain Scott Ritter, Huffington Post (Fiver). Important.

    "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election." This statement was false when it was made by Hillary Clinton, on October 9, 2016, referring to the aforementioned October 7 joint statement by DHS and the ODNI; as was the case for the Russian ICA, the joint statement drew upon only three of the 16 agencies (the 17th is the ODNI, which is a coordinating body, not a separate intelligence agency), the only intelligence agencies involved in crafting the underlying assessments and judgments were the FBI, CIA and NSA.

    When one dissects the nuts and bolts that hold the Russian ICA together, the framework is actually quite weak. The FBI, the sole agency responsible for intelligence derived from a domestic source (i.e., the DNC server and John Podesta) has acknowledged that it has had no direct access to the servers involved, and was compelled to carry out its investigation based upon the technical report of a private cyber security company, Crowdstrike, brought in by the DNC in April 2016***.
    ..
    It was interesting to note that DNI Clapper told the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, in open session on January 10, 2016, that the State Department, in particular its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was excluded from participating in the preparation of the classified ICA because of "sensitivity of sources." This seems to be a unique circumstance, as the Senator who asked the question noted; INR analysts possess the highest level of security clearances that grant them access to a broad range of highly classified sources of intelligence.

    The implication inherent in DNI Clapper's revelation is that the classified information relied upon by the Intelligence Community was so specific as to its nature, and so critical and central to the judgments made in the ICA, that it could not be worked around to the extent necessary to shield its specific source from the analysts in the INR.

    This exclusion, however, would cut across the entire intelligence community, given the "need to know" caveats attached to most, if not all, sensitive information of this nature. If this was, indeed, the standard applied, then it would also exclude from participation in preparation of the ICA many of the CIA's own analysts, and most, if not all, of the academics recruited to fill positions within the National Intelligence Council, the arm of the ODNI responsible for overseeing the production of multi-agency assessments like the ICA on Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

    If DNI Clapper is telling the truth, then the ICA was prepared in a manner that violated the very tradecraft regarding the preparation of intelligence community analytical products he proudly cited to underpin the credibility of the ICA. It also implies that the intelligence community was comfortable with excluding from one of the most important assessments of Russian intent in modern times the very agency, the Department of State, that deals with the Russians on a broad spectrum of issues on a daily basis, and as such would be ideally positioned to weigh in on issues such as Russian intent – especially that of its leader, Vladimir Putin.

    ==================================================================
    It may seem like a small lie, 3 bureaucracies instead of 17, but it is is an innate characteristic of these institutions and individuals. They spread a lot of disinformation. And than of course, the lying by omission.

    Its a complete and thorough "assessment" .except for the fact that all those cynics, skeptics, and anyone with the expertise to refute the dubious assumptions and obvious biases of the CIA were excluded.

    So, the CIA says "WE ALL AGREE" – does anyone know of a MSM that has pointed out that the "intelligence report" is a consensus ONLY because anybody who disagreed was left off???

    ***
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.c9e570cc61fc

    One group, which CrowdStrike had dubbed Cozy Bear, had gained access last summer and was monitoring the DNC's email and chat communications, Alperovitch said.

    The other, which the firm had named Fancy Bear, broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files, Henry said. And they had access to the computers of the entire research staff - an average of about several dozen on any given day.

    The computers contained research going back years on TRUMP. "It's a huge job" to dig into the dealings of somebody who has never run for office before, Dacey said.

    CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC employees with "spearphishing" emails. These are communications that appear legitimate - often made to look like they came from a colleague or someone trusted - but that contain links or attachments that when clicked on deploy malicious software that enables a hacker to gain access to a computer. "But WE DON'T HAVE HARD EVIDENCE," Alperovitch said.

    ===================================
    Soooo .the DNC is mad that Russia got all their Trump Opo dirt for free?

    HBE , January 15, 2017 at 10:42 am

    Great detailed piece, and on huffpo no less.

    Then I checked the comments (only 12 in 3 days), of which all were of the "OMG Russians" or "the IC must be trusted" variety.

    It appears huffpo buried this affront to it's general narrative somewhere deep, so as not risk a distortion to it's well manicured bubble.

    Not that they needed to, as the few comments on the buried piece illustrate the bubble has become self sustaining.

    WJ , January 15, 2017 at 10:59 am

    Ritter's piece is unfortunately too detailed and informative–too accurate, in a word–for the vast majority of the screen-reading populace, the credentialed among whom are much dumber and less cultured than their working-class forebears. It's much less taxing to read Jeff Bezos's Blog while ordering your no-whip vanilla latte than trying to work through the far-reaching implications of Ritter's analysis.

    fresno dan , January 15, 2017 at 11:51 am

    WJ
    January 15, 2017 at 10:59 am

    Poor Ritter – doomed to be this era's Cassandra. Or maybe poor us (poor "US" as in USA) – doomed to ignore the truthful and listen to the liars ..

    and the population all composed of Hamilton Burgers*

    *Hamilton Burger was the rather obtuse District Attorney who charged the clients of Perry Mason with crimes, when week after ween, month after month, year after year the clients would be exonerated*** Most people would have long ago figured out not to charge people Perry Mason was defending, but this DA never learned .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Mason_(TV_series)
    ***When asked by a fan why Perry Mason won every case, Burr told her, "But madam, you see only the cases I try on Saturday."[61]:590
    Mason is known to have lost, in some form or manner, three cases-"The Case of the Terrified Typist", "The Case of the Witless Witness", and "The Case of the Deadly Verdict".[72]

    polecat , January 15, 2017 at 12:32 pm

    Why read Ritter . when you can just 'turn on' to Mara liasson ,or lachml Singh, or any of the assorted stenographic heathers on N P R ..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    I don't see Scott tossing out tote bags to the rabble

    Montanamaven , January 15, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    Yeh, but Ritter also inserts this into the piece.

    These failures are furthered when one incorporates the shortcomings of American intelligence analysis behind the failure to accurately predict the Russian actions against Georgia in 2008, the annexation of the Crimea in 2014, and the intervention in Syria in 2015 – in short, the track record of the very intelligence community that produced the ICA addressing allegations of a Russian influence campaign targeting the 2016 US Presidential election is not impressive.

    lyman alpha blob , January 15, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    I took that to mean that the IC was too stupid to figure out that Russia would not just sit back and do nothing while the US interfered in their sphere of influence, not necessarily that Russia was the instigator.

    susan the other , January 15, 2017 at 10:56 am

    Why hasn't anybody demanded to see CrowdStrike's pedigree beyond its vague vetting (?) by the DNC? A private company that has remained anonymous except for its name – well that makes no sense. Or rather, it makes the DNC look even worse.

    Pat , January 15, 2017 at 11:13 am

    Not to mention that one thing that no one seems to be disputing is that DNC cyber security was terrible to non-existent, so their judgment in this area can be considered weak at best.

    Katniss Everdeen , January 15, 2017 at 11:30 am

    That would be the function of a "principled press," the position of which can be summarized as "Trump and Putin sittin' in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G."

    Still, I can't help but wonder if the "principled" press and the "intelligence" community have not painted themselves into a corner. With Trump and Putin portrayed as locked in a loving embrace and isis seemingly dropped off the face of the earth, should Trump meet with a tragic "accident," whom will the public blame?

    craazyboy , January 15, 2017 at 11:32 am

    Because Alperovitch is also on the Atlantic Council(neocons-NATO) and also has very close ties to Ukraine Nationals? Reaching across the aisle and bi-partisian support, methinks.

    craazyboy , January 15, 2017 at 11:18 am

    CrowdStrike is fullokrap

    "spearphishing" – See Podesta dump for screenshots of phishing site asking for Podesta to enter his id and password.

    The so called "unique" Russian exploit techniques are old, and can be done by many other reasonably competent hackers.

    Surprising to me is that no one yet has mentioned that a real state hacker would hide her IP behind probably multiple large VPN networks. There might be some way of setting up "spoof servers" too, but I'm nowhere competent enough in this subject to say anything with much certainty. Other than CrowdStrike is full of crap.

    Katniss Everdeen , January 15, 2017 at 11:33 am

    Maybe "crowdstrike" is the hacking version of "correct" the record.

    Arizona Slim , January 15, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    Spearphishing? Welcome to my e-mail in box!

    If I'm not getting e-mails urging me to update some password or the other, I'm getting tales of woe regarding package delivery or something going wrong with an account of a bank I've never used.

    Do I respond? Nope. Do I click on the links or open the attachments in these e-mails? Uh-uh.

    So, am I now in the running for a position at the DNC?

    craazyboy , January 15, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    Possibly a DNC IT guru?

    Oregoncharles , January 15, 2017 at 4:57 pm

    No, you're specifically disqualified.

    How else are they going to lose to Trump, of all people, next time?

    cnchal , January 15, 2017 at 12:48 pm

    Here is the damning part, economics unwise.

    Errors have been made by the Intelligence Community in the past and, given the punishing reality of a fair and open society, and the scrutiny of a free press contained within, these failures have been exposed – sometimes ruthlessly so – for all the world to see. From the reversal of the Intelligence Community's stance on the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program, underestimating the scope and reach of the threat of the Islamic State, and the exaggeration of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the shortcomings of the intelligence assessments and estimates conducted by the IC over the past two decades – the period spanning the careers of those who continue to provide the analysis that underpinned these highlighted erroneous conclusions and findings – the public history of the failures of the judgment of the American intelligence community is extensive and uncomplimentary.

    This represents massive overhead that can't even be ditched as sunk costs. Keeping this "intelligence" enterprise going is embedded in the government's budget, and the results of these massive errors have caused thousands of untold lives to be destroyed, even the ones still alive, and wasted trillions of dollars, which is ongoing. Meanwhile the rest of the country crumbles.

    "You're fired", directed at upper management of the "intelligence" community can't come fast enough from President Trump's mouth.

    John Parks , January 15, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    "the shortcomings of the intelligence assessments and estimates conducted by the IC over the past two decades"

    This article comes awfully close to equating "assessment" with "wild ass guess" but doesn't quite go that far. (probably deemed unprofessional)
    The misplaced dedication shown by our IC goes further back ..probably even further back than when the FBI spent two years studying the lyrics of "Louie, Louie"

    Goyo Marquez , January 15, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    So the chain of evidence for Trump oppo is:
    DNC>Russians>MI6>John McCain>CIA>Buzzfeed?
    Wow well played.

    LT , January 15, 2017 at 2:33 pm

    Thinking back, the Democrats and Beltway insiders were still believing their computers' predictions of a Hillary at the time the "Russians are coming" mantra began.
    Something tells me this was expected to be the pretext for a Clinton administration led conflict with Russia they just didn't want to let Trump winning stop their plans.
    So it's coming off very clumsily. Lots lost in the improvisation.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 15, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    Campaign internals. The appearance schedule, reports of polls asking about opinions of Michelle, and Obama hitting the campaign trail when he would ideally like to make a grand gesture such as fraudulent peace talks was a sign the campaign was in trouble.

    There is a good chance the vaunted "data" people noticed the Republicans they expected to win weren't abandoning Trump and registration efforts over the Summer didn't pan out due to lack of effort.

    Russia is the new Nader, war President, and how Bush out spent Kerry on ads excuses from previous campaigns to excuse the same old Clinton ideas and people leading to the usual disaster. I believe the Green Party moved to recount mode so swiftly to blunt being turned into the villain.

    allan , January 15, 2017 at 8:31 am

    To ruin your Sunday morning, listen (if you have the stomach) to Council on Foreign Relations head Richard Haas
    on the Tavis Smiley show
    . Doubling down on the Washington consensus, and clearly trying to talk up
    an intervention in Venezuela. Because R2P can not fail – it can only be failed.

    Pat , January 15, 2017 at 9:50 am

    True believer, or cynic who knows it is hard to sell a book to people telling them their ideas and goals are bull, you decide.

    I realoy don't know anymore who is just delusional, and who wants their slice of other people's pie regardless of who they have to damage.

    fresno dan , January 15, 2017 at 8:42 am

    The Russian Dossier Reminds Me of the Row Over Saddam's WMDs Counterpunch

    "Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively, [said that] the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP, for at least FIVE YEARS."

    ==========================================================
    Dang those guys are prescience .I wanna ask them what stocks to buy (Hot Octopuss? are masturbatoriums the coming thing???), or better yet, what lottery numbers to pick ..

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , January 15, 2017 at 11:22 am

    FIVE YEARS?

    Those Euro-Asians are patience and they think long term.

    In the 1963 movie, Bye Bye Birdie, Dick Van Dyke played Al Peterson, whose song, The Last Kiss, to by sung by the just-drafted Conrad (or was it Comrade) Birdie, on the Ed Sullivan Show, was going to make him rich enough to take care of his mother and marry his girl friend. The plan was spoiled by those scheming Russian ballet dancers whose number was going to run too long that Ed Sullivan had to eliminate the song. So, the attack on American freedom went way, way back.

    Moreover, Van Dyke, being a Ph.D. in biochemistry, had invented a pill to 'speed up' animals and humans as well. The girl friend, posing as a photo-journalist, was able to slip a speed-up pill into the conductor Borov's milk, in order to 'speed up' their show, and restore Birde's lost minutes. While this successful patriotic plan was unfolding, you can see a mad Russkie official clutching a shoe, as if he was ready to hit something with it.

    That, there, was the subliminal message to all future shoe-throwers who are now plaguing our world these days.

    And, comrades, that's long-range planning five years is nothing.

    craazyboy , January 15, 2017 at 12:37 pm

    Initially, the devious rooskies were grooming Trump to take down Vince McMahon and totally flatten the Rosie Threat. When they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams is when things went to their heads and they got too big for their britches.

    Now they're coming after our super stars. Those rooskies need to be taken down a notch or two.

    integer , January 15, 2017 at 8:59 am

    Although I was aware of Schumer's recent comment to Maddow ("You take on the intelligence community? They have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you") I did not get around to watching the exchange until today.

    What struck me when watching it was that Schumer is saying, on the record, that establshment politicians are subservient to the intelligence agencies because it is considered an accepted fact that their careers will be at risk if they do not give these agencies the freedom to act however they see fit. That is an incredibly dangerous dynamic, and what's worse is that it has been normalized and accepted by cowardly and/or corrupt politicians who purport to serve their constituents.

    I for one am grateful that Trump has enough spine to stand firm wrt putting these agencies back in their place (especially the CIA ), which is, after all, to serve and protect the citizens of the US.

    fresno dan , January 15, 2017 at 12:54 pm

    integer
    January 15, 2017 at 8:59 am

    the fact that it did not elicit a firestorm tells you all you need to know about how the US government is really run .

    Nechaev , January 15, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    "their careers" – or given not-so-recent-yet-not-so-ancient USian history – indeed even their lives could/ would be at risk
    the schumer-maddow exchange can certainly be –chillingly– interpreted in a number of ways.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , January 15, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    That's Schumer's "My Struggle" moment – foretelling what is and what will be happening.

    It's all there, years before it becomes reality.

    "It's impossible. All of them? Too big to imagine. Too big to fail, check that, too big to apprehend. They don't dare."

    alex morfesis , January 15, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    The blob is all powerful ?? or people like Schumer are afraid of their own shadow sadly methinx it is the later The blob is able to function since characters sit in the seats of power instead of real men ( & not enough women).

    In much like how the mafia slowly brings someone to the dark side by having them do small indiscretions and crimes over a period of time until the victim becomes the victimizer, the blob will attempt to reel one in by burping out national security or just dumping natsec "non disclosures" or luring in someone close to you or finding someone close to you who they already have in their pockets

    If one resists too much, then the existing wimps in charge make sure you get stuck in some subcommittees handling bipartisan egg rolls on the whitehouse lawn

    Get along or get along now(scoot)

    It is getting near the end of the movie and toto has pulled back the curtain .

    shall we ignore the little men behind the curtain

    polecat , January 15, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    I guess this means Chucky won't be calling any .. uh .. 'plumbing contractors' .. to his house anytime soon, unless they're members of Conniving .. Instigators .. Associates --

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , January 15, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    Schumer is no lightweight, if he says/believes this then we have a whole lot to be worried about. Thank goodness for Trump.
    (For the record, I voted McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama)

    EndOfTheWorld , January 15, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    Schumer has never been accused of being overly intelligent. He is still miffed because HRC went down in flames. She was supposed to be his partner in crime for eight years.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 15, 2017 at 7:13 pm

    And he was supposed to be Senate Majority Leader and get a really cool office instead of the crummy basement one. Given the seats up for reelection in 2018, he will have to wait until January 2021.

    Susan C , January 15, 2017 at 7:47 pm

    When I watched that exchange the other evening in real time, it seemed ominous to me, very dark. I think he was trying to instill real fear into the heart of Trump. I wonder if someone like a Trump has ever felt fear. It makes you wonder. Or if Trump has ever dealt with anyone more powerful than he believes himself to be.

    neo-realist , January 15, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    What struck me when watching it was that Schumer is saying, on the record, that establshment politicians are subservient to the intelligence agencies because it is considered an accepted fact that their careers will be at risk if they do not give these agencies the freedom to act however they see fit. That is an incredibly dangerous dynamic, and what's worse is that it has been normalized and accepted by cowardly and/or corrupt politicians who purport to serve their constituents

    Well hasn't this been pretty much the case since the incident in Dallas 50 plus years ago?

    mad as hell. , January 15, 2017 at 9:38 am

    I hope Booker wears that pharmaceutical vote around his neck for the rest of his life or at least until 2020.

    Annotherone , January 15, 2017 at 10:29 am

    Yes, indeed! It'll go well with the mantle he appears to be taking over as the "more effective evil".

    craazyboy , January 15, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    Leaked tapes from DNC Strategy Room meeting.

    DNC Chair – But Black worked?

    DNC Political Strategist – Yes

    DCN Chair – But Women failed

    DNC Political Strategist – As a strategy, Yes

    DCN Chair – So Black then?

    DNC Political Strategist – We could conclude that, yes

    Haiku politics

    John Wright , January 15, 2017 at 11:08 am

    I'm somewhat surprised Booker did not pull a Nancy Pelosi type vote on this bill.

    From what I remember, on the TPP Fast Track, Pelosi worked behind the scenes to get Fast Track through, and then, with enough votes to assure it would pass without her vote, voted against the very action she had promoted.

    Of course, Pelosi's constituents were opposed to the TPP and she "supported" them.

    Booker could have quietly, privately, assured his big Pharma funders he was in the tank for them while still voting in support of the drug importation bill, because if his vote had moved to the supporting side, the count would have been 47-51 and the bill would still fall the way the big Pharma wanted.

    Maybe other senators in the 46 "supporters" were playing the cynical Pelosi optics type of game and Booker had to fall on his sword to show both his loyalty to big Pharma and give them cover?

    Possibly Booker also priced in that there are about 4 years before the next presidential election and this vote could fall into the dustbin of history.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 15, 2017 at 11:19 am

    Dems have gotten away with a lot, hiding behind Obama or Hillary and using the rotating villain strategy, and now they don't have a leader to protect them. Booker doesn't have the cult of personality Obama had, and there won't be an echo chamber to shut down dissent. I don't believe Democrats have a handle on their status.

    mad as hell. , January 15, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    No it was Russia's fault. Now we must circle the wagons and destroy Russia. Ya better be with me cause we are soon going to war to protect democracy and if you ain't with me you are a ( fill in the blank). The Democratic party does not make mistakes. The rag tag voters make mistakes! Now send us some money so we can stop Trump!

    Will this b******t ever end. It is driving me nuts.

    uncle tungsten , January 15, 2017 at 5:20 pm

    Me too MaH. The imitation democracy that is the USA is just a pathetic sideshow and brutally overpriced.

    The only interesting aspect right now is how Trump responds to the unintelligence community for their transparent insubordination and abuse of power. Time will tell.

    Pat , January 15, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    Dems have had the delusional idea since they caught the car bumper and had both Houses of Congress and the Presidency that just one of those is good, and preferably the Presidency. Hence their lack of panic as they lost the House, the Senate and most of the state legislatures and Governorships in the nation.

    Having now lost the one thing they were determined to win, they are going to slowly find out that there is no place to hide when their constituents are going to expect them to use all the same levers the Republicans did to obstruct all that stuff Obama wanted to do. They can't do the rotating villain thing, they can't NOT block things AND when that doesn't work the myth that Obama was hamstrung by Republicans is going to fall apart. Oops.

    Mind you the Republicans are going to have the problem of needing to pass the things they promised and living with those consequences.

    It is going to be interesting. And terrifying especially with the IC and MIC having tantrums that would do two year olds proud.

    John Wright , January 15, 2017 at 2:57 pm

    One fear of the Democrats might be they could be now be viewed as a useless appendage to the political process and unworthy of financial support by TPTB.

    That could hit them hard as Democratic think tanks lose funding and the NPV of the future lobbying potential of a current Democratic politician drops off dramatically.

    The Dems might actually feel a personal recession as they lose the ability to place their friends and relatives in well-paid politically related jobs.

    TPTB can simply support a handful of Blue-dog Democrats to buy a voting cushion on legislation that matters to them.

    Why pay more than necessary for Democratic support when it is largely irrelevant?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , January 15, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    And the Dem reaction, of course, will be to suck up even harder to their money masters they've already concluded from the election that they weren't far enough to the right, this should mesh quite nicely. We've had one party in the country for decades, Obama's populist words (while pushing neo-con corporo-fascist actions) bamboozled for two terms, now we will get absolute unity in pushing the 1% agenda. Then we can do 1776 redux and take back our country.

    Pat , January 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    People really are loathe to admit that Obama has been an utter freakin' disaster. I was telling someone about how close the ALEC owned state houses were to getting their Constitutional convention and blamed Obama. I was lectured about how he came into a mess and that he was obviously not the problem it was people like Wasserman Schultz. I had to explain about the President and the DNC and that both Kaine and DWS were Obama's hand picked heads, that he moved grass roots organizing to OFA AND that over the course of his leadership of the party they had gone from having the Presidency, the House, the Senate, a majority of Governorships and an almost equal number of state legislative houses to exactly the opposite. Suffice it to say I left them speechless.

    And none of that should have been all that revelatory to a supposed political junkie. But to recognize that he wasn't interested in Democrats winning who were not named Obama is to understand he didn't care that he would not be in a position to get anything Democratic voters want

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 15, 2017 at 7:09 pm

    In one sense, Obama's failure was not in our stars but in ourselves, not me personally. If the Obots who cared so much for Obama and politics had torn themselves away from the latest insipid episode of X and called their Congressman or Senator instead of "liking" a cool meme about Obama, he might have been under enough pressure to not be completely terrible. Obama's evolution on gay rights only came after public outrage.

    The Obama followers have to understand this and simply don't want to admit their own complicity preferring to blame their plumber who may or may not have voted.

    HotFlash , January 15, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    Obama's evolution on gay rights only came after public outrage gay big-dollar donors slammed their wallets shut.

    Fixed it for ya.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 15, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    Example 1: Krugthullu's recent craziness.
    Example 2: Greta Van Susteren and noted racist, Megan Kelly both scored gigs at NBC. Were no Dems available? Or at least someone who didn't have a meltdown over a black Santa?
    Example 3: the CGI shutting down despite all the good they do (snark)

    Pat , January 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    Well that may be their strategy going ahead, but if you looked at the last couple of elections, they just were not interested in winning elections. Money was thrown at people who didn't really need it, token amounts to others. People were chosen to run who had lost in the past, or the usual suspects owed. There was little or no recruitment, the former Republicans they supported pretty much fell in their laps.
    No they are going to have to seriously attempt to win even on a limited manner, and I don't think they have clue how anymore.

    Pat , January 15, 2017 at 12:24 pm

    Both Schumer and Gillibrand voted against this the first two times it came up. They voted for it this time. Works for the rotating villain theory

    marym , January 15, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    Same for Durbin 2009 (N) 2012 (N) 2017 (Y)

    polecat , January 15, 2017 at 12:57 pm

    Who knows .. Maybe the Donald with bring about a presidential decree, thereby forcing our reps & senators to don 'advertizing' as per Nascar race cars --

    Then it would be apparent to all as to whose loyalties they actually cater to .

    Carla , January 15, 2017 at 10:58 am

    Don't hold your breath. They're Democrats.

    Arizona Slim , January 15, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    This Zonie was amazed to learn that Senators McCain and Flake voted FOR this bill.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 15, 2017 at 1:29 pm

    Flake's on the ballot in November, and McCain does do his rotating hero strategy, he's on the side of good when it doesn't matter. He does have a huge senior population who like that desert air.

    Vatch , January 15, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    There are two Senators scheduled to be at this event: Booker and Menendez, and they both voted against the Klobuchar/Sanders amendment to allow Americans to buy medicine from Canada! Clearly this event was scheduled before the vote occurred. I wonder what kinds of discussions about this have been occurring behind the scenes?

    Rhondda , January 15, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    Speaking of Amy Klobuchar - I saw in the noooze that she was one of McCain's compatriots on that holiday jaunt to Ukraine

    Klobuchar, McCain, Graham in Ukraine, Baltic States, and Georgia to
    http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/ /klobuchar-mccain-graham-in-ukraine-baltic-states-and-.. .
    Dec 28, 2016 – WASHINGTON, DC – This week, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar is in Ukraine, the Baltic states, and Georgia to reinforce support for the North
    Minnesota Sen. Klobuchar Spends New Year's Eve in Ukraine – Amy
    http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/ /minnesota-sen-klobuchar-spends-new-year-s-eve-in-uk.. .
    Dec 31, 2016 – U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar spent New Year's Eve day with the president of Ukraine and marines fighting Russian aggression in that country.

    Did you know that there is a Senate Ukraine Caucus? News to me.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Ukraine_Caucus
    The Senate Ukraine Caucus is a bipartisan caucus of the United States Senate that was Ron Johnson (R-WI); Amy Klobuchar (D-MN); Mark Kirk (R-IL); James Inhofe (R-OK); Chris Murphy (D-CT). Gary Peters (D-MI); Rob Portman (R-OH)

    OIFVet , January 15, 2017 at 4:23 pm

    It's OK when Ukraine manipulates US politics. The US has always found nazis to be useful in its anti-Russian efforts, from Reinhard Behlen to Wernher von Braun, with a few Ukie Banderites thrown in for the truly dirty work.

    UserFriendly , January 15, 2017 at 7:44 pm

    She's always been about as far right as she can get away with in this state.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Mainstream Medias Russian Bogeymen by Gareth Porter

    DHS security honchos want to justify their existence. There is not greater danger to national security then careerists in position of security professionals. Lying and exaggerating the treats to get this dollars is is what many security professionals do for living. They are essentially charlatans.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure. ..."
    "... Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
    "... Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack." ..."
    "... That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012. ..."
    "... Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE." ..."
    "... according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients. ..."
    "... "Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives." ..."
    "... The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications private. ..."
    "... Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, US officials say." ..."
    "... DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability." ..."
    "... The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed. ..."
    "... Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is encouraging people to run indicators.'" ..."
    "... The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion" into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication. ..."
    "... The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining that it must have been a Russian hack. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    The mainstream hysteria over Russia has led to dubious or downright false stories that have deepened the New Cold War

    In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure.

    DHS had initiated the now-discredited tale of a hacked computer at the Burlington, Vermont Electricity Department by sending the utility's managers misleading and alarming information, then leaked a story they certainly knew to be false and continued to put out a misleading line to the media.

    Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.

    The story of how DHS twice circulated false stories of Russian efforts to sabotage US "critical infrastructure" is a cautionary tale of how senior leaders in a bureaucracy-on-the-make take advantage of every major political development to advance its own interests, with scant regard for the truth.

    The DHS had carried out a major public campaign to focus on an alleged Russian threat to US power infrastructure in early 2016. The campaign took advantage of a US accusation of a Russian cyber-attack against the Ukrainian power infrastructure in December 2015 to promote one of the agency's major functions - guarding against cyber-attacks on America's infrastructure.

    Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack."

    That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012.

    Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE."

    The report clearly conveyed to the utilities that the "tools and infrastructure" it said had been used by Russian intelligence agencies to affect the election were a direct threat to them as well. However, according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients.

    "Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives."

    Lee and his staff found only two of a long list of malware files that could be linked to Russian hackers without more specific data about timing. Similarly a large proportion of IP addresses listed could be linked to "GRIZZLY STEPPE" only for certain specific dates, which were not provided.

    The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications private.

    Lee said the DHS staff that worked on the technical information in the report is highly competent, but the document was rendered useless when officials classified and deleted some key parts of the report and added other material that shouldn't have been in it. He believes the DHS issued the report "for a political purpose," which was to "show that the DHS is protecting you."

    Planting the Story, Keeping it Alive

    Upon receiving the DHS-FBI report the Burlington Electric Company network security team immediately ran searches of its computer logs using the lists of IP addresses it had been provided. When one of IP addresses cited in the report as an indicator of Russian hacking was found on the logs, the utility immediately called DHS to inform it as it had been instructed to do by DHS.

    In fact, the IP address on the Burlington Electric Company's computer was simply the Yahoo e-mail server, according to Lee, so it could not have been a legitimate indicator of an attempted cyber-intrusion. That should have been the end of the story. But the utility did not track down the IP address before reporting it to DHS. It did, however, expect DHS to treat the matter confidentially until it had thoroughly investigated and resolved the issue.

    "DHS wasn't supposed to release the details," said Lee. "Everybody was supposed to keep their mouth shut."

    Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, US officials say."

    DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."

    The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed.

    The day after the story was published, the DHS leadership continued to imply, without saying so explicitly, that the Burlington utility had been hacked by Russians. Assistant Secretary for Pubic Affairs J. Todd Breasseale gave CNN a statement that the "indicators" from the malicious software found on the computer at Burlington Electric were a "match" for those on the DNC computers.

    As soon as DHS checked the IP address, however, it knew that it was a Yahoo cloud server and therefore not an indicator that the same team that allegedly hacked the DNC had gotten into the Burlington utility's laptop. DHS also learned from the utility that the laptop in question had been infected by malware called "neutrino," which had never been used in "GRIZZLY STEPPE."

    Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is encouraging people to run indicators.'"

    Original DHS False Hacking Story

    The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion" into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication.

    Like the Burlington fiasco, the false report was preceded by a DHS claim that US infrastructure systems were already under attack. In October 2011, acting DHS deputy undersecretary Greg Schaffer was quoted by The Washington Post as warning that "our adversaries" are "knocking on the doors of these systems." And Schaffer added, "In some cases, there have been intrusions." He did not specify when, where or by whom, and no such prior intrusions have ever been documented.

    On Nov. 8, 2011, a water pump belonging to the Curran-Gardner township water district near Springfield, Illinois, burned out after sputtering several times in previous months. The repair team brought in to fix it found a Russian IP address on its log from five months earlier. That IP address was actually from a cell phone call from the contractor who had set up the control system for the pump and who was vacationing in Russia with his family, so his name was in the log by the address.

    Without investigating the IP address itself, the utility reported the IP address and the breakdown of the water pump to the Environmental Protection Agency, which in turn passed it on to the Illinois Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center, also called a fusion center composed of Illinois State Police and representatives from the FBI, DHS and other government agencies.

    On Nov. 10 – just two days after the initial report to EPA – the fusion center produced a report titled "Public Water District Cyber Intrusion" suggesting a Russian hacker had stolen the identity of someone authorized to use the computer and had hacked into the control system causing the water pump to fail.

    The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining that it must have been a Russian hack.

    The fusion center "intelligence report," circulated by DHS Office of Intelligence and Research, was picked up by a cyber-security blogger, who called The Washington Post and read the item to a reporter. Thus the Post published the first sensational story of a Russian hack into a US infrastructure on Nov. 18, 2011.

    After the real story came out, DHS disclaimed responsibility for the report, saying that it was the fusion center's responsibility. But a Senate subcommittee investigation revealed in a report a year later that even after the initial report had been discredited, DHS had not issued any retraction or correction to the report, nor had it notified the recipients about the truth.

    DHS officials responsible for the false report told Senate investigators such reports weren't intended to be "finished intelligence," implying that the bar for accuracy of the information didn't have to be very high. They even claimed that report was a "success" because it had done what "what it's supposed to do – generate interest."

    Both the Burlington and Curran-Gardner episodes underline a central reality of the political game of national security in the New Cold War era: major bureaucratic players like DHS have a huge political stake in public perceptions of a Russian threat, and whenever the opportunity arises to do so, they will exploit it.

    Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at [email protected] .

    Reprinted from Consortium News with the author's permission.

    [Jan 16, 2017] The President Who Wasn't There Barack Obama's Legacy of Impotence

    Notable quotes:
    "... The people will have no say in the matter. As Oscar Wilde quipped: "All the world's a stage, badly cast." ..."
    "... Obama dismissed both attempts to downsize his unilateralist approach to military operations, saying with a chill touch of the surreal that the 14,000-and-counting sorties flown over Libya didn't amount to a "war." ..."
    "... This is Barack Obama, the political moralist? The change agent? The constitutional scholar? Listen to that voice. It is petulant and dismissive. Some might say peevish, like the whine of a talented student caught cheating on a final exam. ..."
    "... Corporate capitalism just wasn't delivering the goods anymore. Not for the bottom 80 percent, any way. The economy was in ruins, mired in what appeared to be a permanent recession. ..."
    "... His vaguely liberal political ideology remained opaque at the core. Instead of an over-arching agenda, Obama delivered facile jingoisms proclaiming a post-racial and post-partisan America. ..."
    "... the Obama revolution was over before it started, guttered by the politician's overweening desire to prove himself to the grandees of the establishment. ..."
    "... Within weeks of taking office, Obama had been taken to the woodshed by Robert Gates and General David Petreaus and had returned to the White House bruised and humbled. The withdrawal would slowly proceed, but a sinister force would remain behind indefinitely, a lethal contingent of some 50,000 or so CIA operatives, special forces units, hunter-killer squads and ruthless private security details. Bush's overt war quietly became a black op under Obama. Out of sight, out of mind. ..."
    "... Obama, in a cynical ploy to prove his martial meddle, journeyed to West Point and announced in a somber speech that he was raising the stakes in Afghanistan by injecting a Petreaus-sanctioned surge of forces into the country and unleashing a new campaign of lethal operations that would track and target suspected insurgents across the Hindu Kush and into Pakistan. ..."
    "... There was nothing to win in Afghanistan. Out on that distant rim of the world, there weren't even any standards to gauge military success. This was meant to be a punitive war, pure and simple, designed to draw as much blood as possible, an obscene war fought largely by remote-controlled drones attacking peasant villages with murderous indiscretion. ..."
    "... as Obama's wars spread from Afghanistan and Iraq to Pakistan and Yemen, Somalia and Libya, outside of the redoubtable Catholic Workers and Quakers and a few Code Pinkers -- the last flickering moral lights in the nation -- even those empty yawps of protest dissipated into whispered lamentations, hushed murmurs of disillusionment. Could it be that the American Left had gone extinct as any kind of potent political force and it took the presidency of Barack Obama to prove it? ..."
    "... This essay is adapted from Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion . ..."
    "... Jeffrey St. Clair is editor of CounterPunch. His new book is Killing Trayvons: an Anthology of American Violence (with JoAnn Wypijewski and Kevin Alexander Gray). He can be reached at: [email protected] . ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

    Barack Obama was in Brasilia on March 19, 2011, when he announced with limited fanfare the latest regime change war of his presidency. The bombing of Libya had begun with a hail of cruise missile attacks and air strikes. It was something of an impromptu intervention, orchestrated largely by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and the diva of vengeance Samantha Power, always hot for a saturation bombing in the name of human rights.

    Obama soon upped the ante by suggesting that it was time for Qaddafi to go. The Empire had run out of patience with the mercurial colonel. The vague aims of the Libyan war had moved ominously from enforcing "a no-fly zone" to seeking regime change. Bombing raids soon targeted Qaddafi and his family. Coming in the wake of the extra-judicial assassination of Osama Bin Laden in a blood-spattered home invasion, Qaddafi rightly feared Obama wanted his body in a bag, too.

    Absent mass protests against the impending destruction of Tripoli, it fell to Congress to take some tentative steps to challenge the latest unauthorized and unprovoked war. At an earlier time in the history of the Republic, Obama's arrogant defiance of Congress and the War Powers Act of 1973 might have provoked a constitutional crisis. But these are duller and more attenuated days, where such vital matters have been rendered down into a kind of hollow political theater. All the players duly act their parts, but everyone, even the cable news audience, realizes that it is just for show. The wars will proceed. The Congress will fund them. The people will have no say in the matter. As Oscar Wilde quipped: "All the world's a stage, badly cast."

    That old softy John Boehner, the teary-eyed barkeep's son, sculpted a resolution demanding that Obama explain his intentions in Libya. It passed the House overwhelmingly. A competing resolution crafted by the impish gadfly Dennis Kucinich called for an immediate withdrawal of US forces from operations in Libya. This radically sane measure garnered a robust 148 votes. Obama dismissed both attempts to downsize his unilateralist approach to military operations, saying with a chill touch of the surreal that the 14,000-and-counting sorties flown over Libya didn't amount to a "war."

    This is Barack Obama, the political moralist? The change agent? The constitutional scholar? Listen to that voice. It is petulant and dismissive. Some might say peevish, like the whine of a talented student caught cheating on a final exam.

    Yes, all the political players were acting their parts. But what role exactly had Obama assumed?

    Obama, the Nobel laureate, casts himself as a New Internationalist, a chief executive of the global empire, more eager to consult with European heads of state than members of Congress, even of his own party. Indeed, his co-conspirators in the startling misadventure in Libya were David Cameron and Nikolas Sarkozy, an odd troika to say the least. Even Obama's own Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, seems to have been discreetly cut out of the decision loop.

    You begin to see why Obama sparks such a virulent reaction among the more histrionic precincts of the libertarian right. He has a majestic sense of his own certitude. The president often seems captivated by the nobility of his intentions, offering himself up as a kind of savior of the eroding American Imperium.

    While Obama sells pristine idealism to the masses, he is at heart a calculating pragmatist, especially when it comes to advancing his own ambitions. Obama doesn't want to be stained with defeat. It's one reason he has walked away from pushing for a Palestinian state, after his Middle East envoy George Mitchell resigned in frustration. It's why Obama stubbornly refused to insist on a public option for his atrocious health care bill. It's why he backed off cap-and-trade and organized labor's card check bill and the DREAM Act.

    Obama assumed the presidency at a moment when much of the nation seemed ready to confront the unwelcome fact that the American project had derailed. Before he died, Norman Mailer took to lamenting that the American culture was corroding from a bad conscience. The country was warping under the psychic weight of years of illegal wars, torture, official greed, religious prudishness, government surveillance, unsatisfying Viagra-supplemented sex, bland genetically engineered food, crappy jobs, dismal movies, and infantile, corporatized music?all scrolling by in an infinite montage of annoying Tweets. Even the virtual commons of cyberspace had gone solipsistic.

    Corporate capitalism just wasn't delivering the goods anymore. Not for the bottom 80 percent, any way. The economy was in ruins, mired in what appeared to be a permanent recession. The manufacturing sector had been killed from the inside-out, with millions of well-paying jobs outsourced and nothing but dreary service-sector positions to take their place. Chronic long-term unemployment hovered at more than 10 percent, worse, much worse, in black America. Those who clung to their jobs had seen their wages stagnate, their home values shrivel and were suffocating under merciless mounds of debt. Meanwhile, capital moved in ever-tightening circles among a new odious breed of super-rich, making sweat-free billions from the facile movement of money.

    By 2008, the wistfulness seemed to have evaporated from the American spirit. The country had seen its own government repeatedly prey on its citizens' fear of the future. Paranoia had become the last growth industry. From the High Sierras to the Blue Ridge, the political landscape was sour and spiteful, the perfect seed-ground for the sprouting of the Tea Party and even ranker and more venomous movements on the American right. These were not the ideological descendents of the fiery libertarian Barry Goldwater. The tea-baggers lacked Goldwater's western innocence and naive idealism. These suburban populists, by and large, were white, unhappy and aging. Animated by the grim nostalgia for a pre-Lapsarian fantasyland called the Reagan administration, many sensed their station in society slipping inexorably away. They wanted their country back. But back from whom?

    Instead of blaming corporate outsourcers or predatory bankers, they directed their vindictive impulse toward immigrants and blacks, government workers and teachers, scientists and homosexuals. There's something profoundly pathetic about the political fatalism of this new species of Know-Nothings. But, it must be said, their wrath was mostly pure. This strange consortium of discontent seethed with an inchoate sense of alienation, an acidic despair at the diminished potentialities of life in post-industrial America.

    No, these were not fanatical idealists or even ante-bellum utopians. They were levelers, of a sort, splenetic and dread-fuelled levelers, conspiratorialists with a Nixonian appetite for political destruction. Primed into a frenzy by the cynical rantings of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, mass gatherings of Tea Partiers across the summer of 2009 showed signs of a collective psychopathy, as if the enervating madness from decades of confinement in the hothouse of the American suburbs had finally ruptured in primetime for all the world to watch over-and-over again on YouTube with mounting mortification. Right there on the National Mall could be heard the vapid gibberish of Michele Bachmann and the new American preterite, those lost and bitter souls who felt their culture had left them far behind.

    With his sunny disposition and Prospero-like aptitude for mystification, Obama should have been able to convert them or, at least, to roll over them. Instead, they kicked his ass. How?

    Obama is a master of gesture politics, but he tends to flinch in nearly every pitched battle, even when the odds and the public are behind him. His political instincts drive him to seek cover in the middle ground. He is a reflexive compromiser, more Rodney "Can't We All Just Get Along" King than Reverend King. Even when confronted by bumbling hacks like John Boehner and Eric Cantor, Obama tends to wilt.

    Perhaps Obama had never before been confronted with quite this level of toxic hostility. After all, he'd lived something of a charmed life, the life of a star-child, coddled and pampered, encouraged and adulated, from Indonesia to Harvard. Obama was the physical and psychic embodiment of the new multiculturalism: lean, affable, assured, non-threatening. His vaguely liberal political ideology remained opaque at the core. Instead of an over-arching agenda, Obama delivered facile jingoisms proclaiming a post-racial and post-partisan America. Instead of radical change, Obama offered simply managerial competence. This, naturally, the Berserkers of the Right interpreted as hubris and arrogance and such hollow homilies served only to exacerbate their rage. The virulent right had profiled Obama and found him to be the perfect target for their accreted animus. And, even better, they had zeroed-in on an enemy so innately conflict-averse that even when pummeled with racist slurs he wouldn't punch back.

    Of course, Obama's most grievous political wounds were self-inflicted, starting even before his election when he rushed back to Washington to help rescue Bush's Wall Street bailout. This was perhaps the first real indication that the luminous campaign speeches about generational and systemic change masked the servile psyche of a man who was desperately yearning to be embraced by the nation's political and financial elites. Instead of meeting with the victims of Wall Street predators or their advocates, like Elizabeth Warren and Ralph Nader, Obama fist-bumped with the brain trust of Goldman Sachs and schmoozed with the creme de la creme of K Street corporate lobbyists. In the end, Obama helped salvage some of the most venal and corrupt enterprises on Wall Street, agreed to shield their executives from prosecution for their financial crimes and, predictably, later got repaid with their scorn.

    Thus the Obama revolution was over before it started, guttered by the politician's overweening desire to prove himself to the grandees of the establishment. From there on, other promises, from confronting climate change to closing Gitmo, from ending torture to initiating a nationalized health care system, proved even easier to break.

    Take the issue that had so vivified his campaign: ending the war on Iraq. Within weeks of taking office, Obama had been taken to the woodshed by Robert Gates and General David Petreaus and had returned to the White House bruised and humbled. The withdrawal would slowly proceed, but a sinister force would remain behind indefinitely, a lethal contingent of some 50,000 or so CIA operatives, special forces units, hunter-killer squads and ruthless private security details. Bush's overt war quietly became a black op under Obama. Out of sight, out of mind.

    By the fall of 2009 even the most calloused Washington hands had grown weary over how deeply entangled the US occupation of Afghanistan had become. The savage rhythms of the war there had backfired. Too many broken promises, too many bombed weddings and assassinations, too many dead and mutilated children, too much cowardice and corruption in the puppet satrapy in Kabul. The tide had irrevocably turned against the US and its squalid policies. Far from being terminally crippled, the Taliban was now stronger than it had been at any time since 2001. But instead of capitalizing on this tectonic shift of sentiment by drawing down American troops, Obama, in a cynical ploy to prove his martial meddle, journeyed to West Point and announced in a somber speech that he was raising the stakes in Afghanistan by injecting a Petreaus-sanctioned surge of forces into the country and unleashing a new campaign of lethal operations that would track and target suspected insurgents across the Hindu Kush and into Pakistan.

    That night Obama spoke in a stern cadence, studded with imperious pauses, as if to suggest that he, unlike the fickle George W. Bush, was going to wage the Afghan war until it was won. But he knew better. And so did his high command–even Stanley McChrystal and David Petreaus, who had trademarked the counter-insurgency strategy. There was nothing to win in Afghanistan. Out on that distant rim of the world, there weren't even any standards to gauge military success. This was meant to be a punitive war, pure and simple, designed to draw as much blood as possible, an obscene war fought largely by remote-controlled drones attacking peasant villages with murderous indiscretion.

    Afterwards, the American peace movement could only bray in impotent outrage. But as Obama's wars spread from Afghanistan and Iraq to Pakistan and Yemen, Somalia and Libya, outside of the redoubtable Catholic Workers and Quakers and a few Code Pinkers -- the last flickering moral lights in the nation -- even those empty yawps of protest dissipated into whispered lamentations, hushed murmurs of disillusionment. Could it be that the American Left had gone extinct as any kind of potent political force and it took the presidency of Barack Obama to prove it?

    And what of Obama's spellbound followers, those youthful crusaders who saw him illumined in the sacral glow of his ethereal rhetoric and cleaved to him during the hard slog of two campaigns with a near-religious devotion? What was running through their minds when the mists finally parted to reveal that Obama was implementing cunning tracings of Bush-era policies on everything from the indefinite detention of uncharged prisoners in the war on terror to raids on medical marijuana distributors in states where medical pot has been legalized? What, indeed.

    Illusions die hard, especially when shattered by cruise missiles.

    This essay is adapted from Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion . Join the debate on Facebook

    Jeffrey St. Clair is editor of CounterPunch. His new book is Killing Trayvons: an Anthology of American Violence (with JoAnn Wypijewski and Kevin Alexander Gray). He can be reached at: [email protected] .

    [Jan 16, 2017] Viable Opposition Blocking Donald Trumps Inauguration

    Jan 16, 2017 | viableopposition.blogspot.ca
    Here is what the group is about:

    " 1. Trump won the Electoral College vote – a legacy of slavery, and used to embed inequality in voting rights since. He lost the popular vote, by well over 2 and a half million votes. Trump has no "mandate", and his victory is illegitimate.
    2. More fundamental: the illegitimacy of the entire fascist regime Trump is moving to install. Trump promises to inflict repression and suffering on people in this country, to deport millions, to increase violence up to the use of nuclear weapons on people across the globe, and to inflict catastrophes upon the planet itself.
    3. He is assembling a "Legion of Doom" cabinet of white supremacists, woman haters, science deniers, religious fundamentalist zealots, and war mongers. NO! His regime must not be allowed to consolidate. We REFUSE to accept a Fascist America !"
    Since the organization regularly refers to "fascism", let's look at the Dictionary.com definition of fascism :
    1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
    2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
    3. (initial capital letter) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43."

    There are three main aspects of fascism ;

    1.) authoritarianism or the rule of a strong central government.
    2.) nationalism or the pride in one's country.
    3.) xenophobia - the fear of unknown peoples or entities.

    As we all know, the 20th century saw the rise of fascism in both Germany under Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist movement and Italy under Benito Mussolini prior to and during the Second World War, both in circumstance where their homelands had experienced a long period of economic hopelessness. It is actually Benito Mussolini who coined the term "fascism" after the Latin word "fasces" which was the symbol of bound sticks used as a symbol of power in ancient Rome. Here's what Mussolini had to say about fascism:

    " Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

    ... Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism , the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect....And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

    After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application.

    Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage " (i.e. the vote).... (my bold and comment in brackets)

    By using the term "fascism" in association with Donald Trump and his chosen insiders, the group behind Refuse Fascism has used our innate fears of another Adolf Hitler to raise opposition to the Trump Administration.

    The media has played right into this with banners like these:

    1. Slate which found Donald Trump not completely guilty of fascism:
    2. Newsweek :
    3. The Washington Post which actually graded Donald Trump as a 26 out of a possible 44 Benitos (i.e. he doesn't completely fit the profile):
    4. Vox which actually found Donald Trump "not guilty" of fascism:
    Given that the term "fascist" is one of the strongest political epithets that one can use, the very mention of the word in conjunction with the Trump name is a rather convenient way of getting readers to associate the two, particularly given that most readers don't read much past the first few paragraphs of any news item.

    The one key point missing in the Trump as a fascist claim is that fascism is deeply suspicious of capitalism because it divided nations and destroyed national traditions. It advocates strong state intervention in the economy to maintain control of the "fatherland". One definitely cannot term Donald Trump as an anti-capitalist.


    Bruce Wilds January 15, 2017 at 10:05 AM

    The new year rolled in with several Sunday morning talk shows that discuss the Washington beltway and current events piling on America's new president-elect. The panel of supposed experts who impart their deep knowledge in an attempt to enlighten us more ignorant folks made it clear America may not survive as a result of Trump being elected.

    It is difficult not to notice the stark contrast between how Trump is being treated by the press and how they heap praise upon Obama as he takes a "victory tour" lauding his accomplishments as president. More on the ramifications of this bashing of Trump in the article below.

    http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2017/01/sunday-morning-talk-shows-excel-in.html

    [Jan 15, 2017] CIA careerists are likely upset at the prospect of being shipped abroad, hence their outrage at Trump and Michael Flynn.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I like the use of "careerist" ; it should be used more often, as it describes the motivation of a rather large number of decision-makers I've met. ..."
    "... I would hate to see it used more often. I have heard of its being applied to a grad student who–wait for it!–actually hoped to have an academic career and recognized the forms that had to be gone through to achieve that. There are places where it is an appropriate description, but it is one of those vogue words (like narcissistic) which become void of meaning through overuse. ..."
    Jan 15, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    nonsense factory , January 14, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    CIA careerists are likely upset at the prospect of being shipped abroad, hence their outrage at Trump and Michael Flynn.
    Foreign Policy Blogy 1/07 CIA restructuring proposed

    Team Trump is working on a plan "to restructure the Central Intelligence Agency, cutting back on staffing at its Virginia headquarters and pushing more people out into field posts around the world,"

    And the main reason Clinton Democrats are jumping on this bandwagon is that they want to blame their gross electoral failure on "external forces", not their own terrible record of sabotaging the middle class in favor of elite Wall Street interests. Their current fear is progressive Sanders Democrats kicking them out of the DNC and other party organization leadership positions (which just happened in California); hence their willingness to get behind bogus claims on DNC hacking and Russians running Trump.

    As far as the FBI's Comey, notably he acted to protect Clinton when the great fear was that she'd be defeated by Sanders; notably the FBI didn't access DNC servers to look for evidence of a hack (it was probably an internal leak), and Comey's refusal to recommend criminal charges for Clinton during the primary was a service to the Clinton Democrats.

    And the DNC was just so sleazy, no wonder they alienated all the Sanders supporters for the general election:

    It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.- DNC CFO Brad Marshall

    TedHunter , January 14, 2017 at 2:33 am

    The argument is convincing.

    I like the use of "careerist" ; it should be used more often, as it describes the motivation of a rather large number of decision-makers I've met.

    Katharine , January 14, 2017 at 10:37 am

    I would hate to see it used more often. I have heard of its being applied to a grad student who–wait for it!–actually hoped to have an academic career and recognized the forms that had to be gone through to achieve that. There are places where it is an appropriate description, but it is one of those vogue words (like narcissistic) which become void of meaning through overuse.

    [Jan 15, 2017] At that point the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal authority to run the country

    Notable quotes:
    "... I very much doubt that will happen, even should Trump survive and demand it. Just as the 9/11 Commission was a farce, just as the craven non-investigations of global financial disaster-spawning Wall Street crimes or grotesque Bush war crimes utterly hollowed-out the rule of law, the gigantic stake through the heart of US democracy that was this disastrous political fiasco just happens to advance and further empower the very worst interests operating in the US. ..."
    "... And as Snowden reports, Obama, on top of everything else gifted Trump (or Pence) in terms of Executive power has also given the entire US Intel Community access to NSA information. That's it. At that point the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal authority to run riot. ..."
    "... Excellent post. Many of us are appropriately disinterested in the specific allegations made in that dossier. Yet this rather bizarre behavior by the Deep State is frightening. Given these circumstances, it is not too surprising the man has selected Gen. Mad Dog Mattis to run his defense. He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible. I don't much care for Mr. Trump, but carry much more animosity toward the Deep State. ..."
    "... The intelligence apparatus now has immense power and has developed it own objectives outside of political control. It needs to be broken up and reined in, ensuring it is tightly controlled. Particularly, the intelligence community cannot have the tools, such as mass internal NSA surveillance, allowing it to interfere in our internal political processes. I imagine Trump now has the incentive to take on the intelligence community. Whether he will be successful or not, only time will tell. ..."
    "... The gloves come off and the plutocracy shows its true self for all those whose eyes are open. ..."
    "... Like falsifying evidence to wage war in Iraq and before that Vietnam, this is a mark against the US intelligence agencies. This is also a mark on the Democrats, who are trying to use these as a distraction for facing up to the reality of losing to Trump. ..."
    Jan 15, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Fiver , January 14, 2017 at 3:18 am

    Here's an account by Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector on the Iraq WMD investigation. It certainly appears to me from this and a number of sources that what we have is a scandal of mammoth proportions that would suck in the senior leadership of both Parties, the Intelligence Community, the State Department, the White House and of course all of the various surrogates throughout media, were this all subject to an independent, credible investigation.

    I very much doubt that will happen, even should Trump survive and demand it. Just as the 9/11 Commission was a farce, just as the craven non-investigations of global financial disaster-spawning Wall Street crimes or grotesque Bush war crimes utterly hollowed-out the rule of law, the gigantic stake through the heart of US democracy that was this disastrous political fiasco just happens to advance and further empower the very worst interests operating in the US.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exposing-the-man-behind-the-curtain_us_5877887be4b05b7a465df6a4

    And as Snowden reports, Obama, on top of everything else gifted Trump (or Pence) in terms of Executive power has also given the entire US Intel Community access to NSA information. That's it. At that point the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal authority to run riot.

    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/13/obama-opens-nsas-vast-trove-of-warrantless-data-to-entire-intelligence-community-just-in-time-for-trump/

    olga , January 14, 2017 at 11:07 am

    Ritter's piece is quite exhaustive

    steelhead23 , January 14, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    Excellent post. Many of us are appropriately disinterested in the specific allegations made in that dossier. Yet this rather bizarre behavior by the Deep State is frightening. Given these circumstances, it is not too surprising the man has selected Gen. Mad Dog Mattis to run his defense. He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible. I don't much care for Mr. Trump, but carry much more animosity toward the Deep State.

    Jagger , January 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible

    The intelligence apparatus now has immense power and has developed it own objectives outside of political control. It needs to be broken up and reined in, ensuring it is tightly controlled. Particularly, the intelligence community cannot have the tools, such as mass internal NSA surveillance, allowing it to interfere in our internal political processes. I imagine Trump now has the incentive to take on the intelligence community. Whether he will be successful or not, only time will tell.

    Altandmain , January 14, 2017 at 3:53 am

    The gloves come off and the plutocracy shows its true self for all those whose eyes are open.

    We've got multiple wrongs here. The Democratic Establishment, the Intelligence agencies, and the Pravda-like media form the Deep State, which is really controlled by the very rich. They are trying to cling to power here and extract rent from society for the very rich. In return, its political servants are themselves rewarded with wealth.

    Then there's Trump. While I think he's a very unsavory person and he will do some very damaging things to society, making up accusations of Russian hacks is not the way to go. So far not a shred of evidence has been provided that Russia was hacking. I doubt we will get any. That does not, as the article notes mean that Russia is guiltless, but so fa the Democrats are pulling lies out of a hat and hoping desperately it sticks.

    Like falsifying evidence to wage war in Iraq and before that Vietnam, this is a mark against the US intelligence agencies. This is also a mark on the Democrats, who are trying to use these as a distraction for facing up to the reality of losing to Trump.

    The sad part is that America is going to continue its decline unless this whole mess stops. It is likely that anyone truly principled would have to clean house in both parties and in many senior leadership positions across the US government. Then there is the matter of corporate America and its agenda of rent seeking.

    [Jan 15, 2017] Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam

    Jan 15, 2017 | lib.berkeley.edu

    The Pacifica Radio/UC Berkeley
    Social Activism Sound Recording Project

    Martin Luther King,
    "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"
    April 30, 1967, Riverside Church, New York

    The sermon which I am preaching this morning in a sense is not the usual kind of sermon, but it is a sermon and an important subject, nevertheless, because the issue that I will be discussing today is one of the most controversial issues confronting our nation. I'm using as a subject from which to preach, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam."
    Now, let me make it clear in the beginning, that I see this war as an unjust, evil, and futile war. I preach to you today on the war in Vietnam because my conscience leaves me with no other choice. The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.

    The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we're always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for in all our history there has never been such a monumental dissent during a war, by the American people.

    Polls reveal that almost fifteen million Americans explicitly oppose the war in Vietnam. Additional millions cannot bring themselves around to support it. And even those millions who do support the war [are] half-hearted, confused, and doubt-ridden. This reveals that millions have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism, to the high grounds of firm dissent, based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. It's a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence dissent. But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told, and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the best in our tradition.

    Yes, we must stand, and we must speak. [tape skip]...have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam. Many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. And so this morning, I speak to you on this issue, because I am determined to take the Gospel seriously. And I come this morning to my pulpit to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation.

    This sermon is not addressed to Hanoi, or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Nor is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in a successful resolution of the problem. This morning, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans, who bear the greatest responsibility, and entered a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

    Now, since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is...a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed that there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments, hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the build-up in Vietnam. And I watched the program broken as if it was some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such.

    Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hope of the poor at home. It was sending their sons, and their brothers, and their husbands to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportion relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with a cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same school room. So we watch them in brutal solidarity, burning the huts of a poor village. But we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago or Atlanta. Now, I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

    My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years--especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action; for they ask and write me, "So what about Vietnam?" They ask if our nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence I cannot be silent. Been a lot of applauding over the last few years. They applauded our total movement; they've applauded me. America and most of its newspapers applauded me in Montgomery. And I stood before thousands of Negroes getting ready to riot when my home was bombed and said, we can't do it this way. They applauded us in the sit-in movement--we non-violently decided to sit in at lunch counters. The applauded us on the Freedom Rides when we accepted blows without retaliation. They praised us in Albany and Birmingham and Selma, Alabama. Oh, the press was so noble in its applause, and so noble in its praise when I was saying, Be non-violent toward Bull Connor;when I was saying, Be non-violent toward [Selma, Alabama segregationist sheriff] Jim Clark. There's something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children. There's something wrong with that press!

    As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964. And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was not just something taking place, but it was a commission--a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of Man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances. But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men, for communists and capitalists, for their children and ours, for black and white, for revolutionary and conservative. Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved His enemies so fully that he died for them? What, then, can I say to the Vietcong, or to Castro, or to Mao, as a faithful minister to Jesus Christ? Can I threaten them with death, or must I not share with them my life? Finally, I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be the son of the Living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. And because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come today to speak for them. And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak not now of the soldiers of each side, not of the military government of Saigon, but simply of the people who have been under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution until some attempt is made to know these people and hear their broken cries.

    Now, let me tell you the truth about it. They must see Americans as strange liberators. Do you realize that the Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation. And incidentally, this was before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. And this is a little-known fact, and these people declared themselves independent in 1945. They quoted our Declaration of Independence in their document of freedom, and yet our government refused to recognize them. President Truman said they were not ready for independence. So we fell victim as a nation at that time of the same deadly arrogance that has poisoned the international situation for all of these years. France then set out to reconquer its former colony. And they fought eight long, hard, brutal years trying to re-conquer Vietnam. You know who helped France? It was the United States of America. It came to the point that we were meeting more than eighty percent of the war costs. And even when France started despairing of its reckless action, we did not. And in 1954, a conference was called at Geneva, and an agreement was reached, because France had been defeated at Dien Bien Phu. But even after that, and after the Geneva Accord, we did not stop. We must face the sad fact that our government sought, in a real sense, to sabotage the Geneva Accord. Well, after the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come through the Geneva agreement. But instead the United States came and started supporting a man named Diem who turned out to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the history of the world. He set out to silence all opposition. People were brutally murdered because they raised their voices against the brutal policies of Diem. And the peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States influence and by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown, they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace. And who are we supporting in Vietnam today? It's a man by the name of general Ky [Air Vice Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky] who fought with the French against his own people, and who said on one occasion that the greatest hero of his life is Hitler. This is who we are supporting in Vietnam today. Oh, our government and the press generally won't tell us these things, but God told me to tell you this morning. The truth must be told.

    The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support and all the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps, where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go, primarily women, and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the towns and see thousands of thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers. We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the United Buddhist Church. This is a role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible but refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. I'm convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.

    A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be changed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

    Oh, my friends, if there is any one thing that we must see today is that these are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. They are saying, unconsciously, as we say in one of our freedom songs, "Ain't gonna let nobody turn me around!" It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo, we shall boldly challenge unjust mores, and thereby speed up the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places straight. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."

    A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing, unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of mankind. And when I speak of love I'm not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of John: "Let us love one another, for God is love. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us."

    Let me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly with the triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism. We are presently moving down a dead-end road that can lead to national disaster. America has strayed to the far country of racism and militarism. The home that all too many Americans left was solidly structured idealistically; its pillars were solidly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage. All men are made in the image of God. All men are bothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State--they are God-given. Out of one blood, God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. What a marvelous foundation for any home! What a glorious and healthy place to inhabit. But America's strayed away, and this unnatural excursion has brought only confusion and bewilderment. It has left hearts aching with guilt and minds distorted with irrationality.

    It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to come back home. Come home, America. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on." I call on Washington today. I call on every man and woman of good will all over America today. I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God."

    Now it isn't easy to stand up for truth and for justice. Sometimes it means being frustrated. When you tell the truth and take a stand, sometimes it means that you will walk the streets with a burdened heart. Sometimes it means losing a job...means being abused and scorned. It may mean having a seven, eight year old child asking a daddy, "Why do you have to go to jail so much?" And I've long since learned that to be a follower to the Jesus Christ means taking up the cross. And my bible tells me that Good Friday comes before Easter. Before the crown we wear, there is the cross that we must bear. Let us bear it--bear it for truth, bear it for justice, and bear it for peace. Let us go out this morning with that determination. And I have not lost faith. I'm not in despair, because I know that there is a moral order. I haven't lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. I can still sing "We Shall Overcome" because Carlyle was right: "No lie can live forever." We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant was right: "Truth pressed to earth will rise again." We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell was right: "Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne." Yet, that scaffold sways the future. We shall overcome because the bible is right: "You shall reap what you sow." With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when the lion and the lamb will lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid because the words of the Lord have spoken it. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when all over the world we will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" With this faith, we'll sing it as we're getting ready to sing it now. Men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. And nations will not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore. And I don't know about you, I ain't gonna study war no more.

    Transcript by Gary Handman, UC Berkeley Media Resources Center, 2006

    [Jan 15, 2017] Gaius Publius Who's Blackmailing the President Why Arent Democrats Upset About It

    Notable quotes:
    "... William Binney,another NSA whistleblower and hero, stated on his Truthdig interview with Sheer (who talked and repeated himself way too much, not leaving much time for Binney to talk) that Snowden knew from watching what happened to the five of them (among them,Thomas Drake/currently pensionless and an apple store worker ) and that Snowden did it the only way it could be done and did the leak well by gathering so much information up there was no chance of plausible deniability. ..."
    "... First they gaslight you. "There is no surveillance. You have no evidence." ..."
    "... As soon as there's evidence, they downplay it. "Everyone knew there was surveillance. This is nothing new!" ..."
    "... Snowden's leaks were crucial and necessary. State surveillance had been normalized long before him. He only told us it had happened. What happens next is a battle that is still being fought, despite the best efforts of people who weasel about "ambivalence". ..."
    "... Exposing the workings of the deep state is necessary if we are to ever reclaim democracy, if in fact we ever had it. ..."
    "... Greenwald isn't defending the Russians– he is asking for evidence so we don't have to rely on the intelligence community. ..."
    Jan 15, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    HopeLB , January 14, 2017 at 5:22 pm

    William Binney,another NSA whistleblower and hero, stated on his Truthdig interview with Sheer (who talked and repeated himself way too much, not leaving much time for Binney to talk) that Snowden knew from watching what happened to the five of them (among them,Thomas Drake/currently pensionless and an apple store worker ) and that Snowden did it the only way it could be done and did the leak well by gathering so much information up there was no chance of plausible deniability.

    reslez , January 14, 2017 at 6:28 pm

    Your "ambivalence" is one of the favorite tactics of people in CTR, who start off all their comments with "I love Bernie, but ". Here's how it works:

    1. First they gaslight you. "There is no surveillance. You have no evidence."
    2. As soon as there's evidence, they downplay it. "Everyone knew there was surveillance. This is nothing new!"

    Snowden's leaks were crucial and necessary. State surveillance had been normalized long before him. He only told us it had happened. What happens next is a battle that is still being fought, despite the best efforts of people who weasel about "ambivalence".

    Jack , January 14, 2017 at 9:29 am

    SantaFe you said "his career was literally made by a document dump from guy who increasungly appears to be much more nefarious". Glenn Greenwald's "career" was made long before Snowden appeared on the scene. That's why Snowden chose him to release the documents to. He has long been known as a journalist who speaks truth to power. And what do you mean by this; " He is quickly losing credibility among many who admired him." ? Yourself? I see no reason why Greenwald should be losing credibility. Primarily what he is doing is in this particular instance is questioning the veracity of the documents being used against Trump and the means by which they are being "released". That is one of Greenwald's greatest strengths. He plays no favorites. As far as the WSJ article on Snowden, I assume you are referring to the now discredited op-ed (not an article) piece by Epstein? This self serving op-ed was clearly written by Epstein to promote his recent book and the "points" he made about Snowden have been discredited by many sources.

    Michael C. , January 14, 2017 at 10:39 am

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. Exposing the workings of the deep state is necessary if we are to ever reclaim democracy, if in fact we ever had it.

    DJG , January 14, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    Agreed: Further, the recent article in the New Yorker, in which Malcolm Gladwell (who isn't glib, of course) decides that Snowden isn't classy enough is more of the same.

    Santa Fe: Greenwald losing credibility? Sorry. You just lost credibility, if you ever had any.

    Donald , January 14, 2017 at 10:05 am

    Speak for yourself. Greenwald isn't defending the Russians– he is asking for evidence so we don't have to rely on the intelligence community. And while Assange appears motivated by animus against Clinton, I have yet to see anything about Snowden that would make me distrust him more than the press. What I do see are a lot of centrist liberals acting like Joseph McCarthy.

    And even with Assange, wikileaks has been invaluable. The mainstream press largely gored its most interesting revelations - for instance, the Clinton camp privately acknowledged that the Saudi government supports ISIS. We hear much more shooting the messenger stories about dissenters than we hear stories about the message.

    Donald , January 14, 2017 at 10:14 am

    Here is a link about the Isis, Saudi, Clinton story.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

    I didn't see anything about this in the US mainstream press, though I won't swear it didn't appear somewhere. But I have heard much more about how the wikileaks releases contained little of substance.

    [Jan 15, 2017] Days before far-right President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in, President Barack Obama has expanded all intelligence agencies access to private communications obtained via warrentless spying

    economistsview.typepad.com

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 14, 2017 at 12:28 PM

    Obama continues to set the table for Trump:

    "Days before far-right President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in, President Barack Obama has expanded all intelligence agencies' access to private communications obtained via warrentless spying.

    An executive order allows the National Security Agency (NSA) to share data collected via its global surveillance dragnet with all other U.S. intelligence agencies, without redacting untargeted American citizens' private information.

    "The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data," explained the New York Times, which broke the story late Thursday. The Times also shared the 23-page declassified version of the president's order."
    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/01/13/obama-expands-spy-agencies-access-private-data-just-time-trump

    Not that Democrats like Pelosi/Schumer/Feinstein care...they're apparently quite happy to give Trump's people access to all Americans' most private data.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Reflections on a Post Election Soft Coup: Fake News , CIA Intervention, US-NATO Militarization on Russia s Doorstep

    Jan 13, 2017 | www.globalresearch.ca
    All this brings to mind the report that Trump is considering a realignment of the intel agencies including staff reductions and reassignments as it compares with JFK's experience when he fired CIA Director Allen Dulles. Kennedy replaced Dulles for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs debacle with an inept outsider named John McCone who was easily snookered by CIA staff. Kennedy did not fully realize the depth of Dulles' betrayal as he continued to meet with senior CIA staff at his home on a regular basis where they discussed, debated and decided CIA policy.

    What Trump needs to understand is that certain cats, especially the neo-con variety, have more than nine lives and will hang on to their power base with every fiber of their being - and we know how that worked out for JFK.

    Enrique Ferro's insight: Observing the President since the November 8th election, his reactions reveal an aggressiveness rarely, if ever seen in an outgoing President's closing days, and has become a fascinating study in human dynamics.

    Obama is clearly experiencing more than a normal reluctance to hand over his @POTUS twitter account as perhaps the reality has only just hit home that it is far too late to create a new, improved legacy.

    One explanation may be that the President's carefully constructed veneer of personality, never convincing for those who have long sought the 'real' Barak Obama, has cracked under the pressure of the 2016 losses.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Pretty sure they call it deep state for a reason .... its the known unknowns you have to worry about

    Notable quotes:
    "... "With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place." ..."
    "... Assasinate, NO. Exposed, Setup, Patsy, Blamed, ABSOLUTELY ..."
    Jan 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:23 PM

    If Trump is worried about the existence of some "deep state" his first act in office should be to demand a complete list of every intelligence sector employee, and the budgets, and dig in and inform himself. They all work for him now.

    Croesus -> ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:41 PM

    Assassinating Trump would be a VERY bad idea:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-14/his-first-foreign-trip-presiden...

    Escrava Isaura -> Croesus , Jan 14, 2017 10:44 PM

    CIA for dummies:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXcL5o55q8s."#t=20s "

    remain calm -> Chris Dakota , Jan 14, 2017 10:59 PM

    The Bush family will have him killed.

    Chris Dakota -> remain calm , Jan 14, 2017 11:01 PM

    Those Pedo Bush's don't have the power to do this anymore.

    JFK was a lesson. Trump very well knows not to make the same mistakes.

    Chupacabra-322 -> Chris Dakota , Jan 14, 2017 11:04 PM

    The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says it all.

    The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.

    Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.

    Arrest Hillary & Bill Clinton. Freeze their assets. RICO The Clinton Foundation & bring down the Satanic Global Crime Syndicate.

    This will de facto Drain the Swamp. Then, immediately End the Fed.

    These Scum Fuck Occultist have been "Illuminated" and forced out into the light. This opportunity to peacefully "Drain the Swamp" cannot be squandered.

    Scuba Steve -> ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:49 PM

    um, pretty sure they are deep state for a reason .... its the "known unknowns" you have to worry about

    GUS100CORRINA -> ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:53 PM

    I AGREE with complete audit of all intelligence personnel and the entire intelligence apparatus.

    This is really a question of FAITH versus FEAR. i choose FAITH over FEAR. Things will work out according to a divine plan.

    While I appreciate the patriotism and intelligence of the individuals WHO contributed to this article, this article is bordering on FEAR MONGERING.

    We need to be discerning when reading articles like this one because they create a spirit of FEAR. The DEEP STATE has been with us since GENESIS 3:15.

    Paul Kersey -> ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:49 PM

    From the above article:

    "With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place."

    Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is both a Goldmanite and, like his convict father, a neocon. It is Jared Kushner who chose all the Goldmanites and Neocons in Trump's Cabinet, just as it was Kushner who got rid of Gov. Chris Christie, the former NJ Prosecutor who put Jared's dad, Charles Kushner, in Federal prison.

    Consequently, there will be no Trump assassination, because Kushner and his Goldmanites will not allow it. VP-Elect Mike Pence may be a lot of things, but a Goldmanite is not one of them. The Goldmanites, historically, were not his campaign contributors, and they do not want him in the Presidency. Trump will be protected BY Deep State and won't need to be protected FROM Deep State.

    NoWayJose , Jan 14, 2017 10:24 PM

    Didn't know the fired CIA guy ended up on the Warren 'coverup' Commission.

    socalbeach , Jan 14, 2017 10:31 PM

    The CIA has plenty of experience in overthrowing foreign governments. All they have to do is turn their expertise inwardly.

    Radical Marijuana -> socalbeach , Jan 14, 2017 10:55 PM

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-03/more-confessions-economic-hit-man-time-they're-coming-your-democracy

    More Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man: "This Time, They're Coming For Your Democracy"

    "...Perkins has just reissued his book with major updates. The basic premise of the book remains the same, but the update shows how the economic hit man approach has evolved in the last 12 years. Among other things, U.S. cities are now on the target list. The combination of debt, enforced austerity, underinvestment, privatization, and the undermining of democratically elected governments is now happening here" ... "Things have just gotten so much worse in the last 12 years since the first Confessions was written.

    Economic hit men and jackals have expanded tremendously, including the United States and Europe. Back in my day we were pretty much limited to what we called the third world, or economically developing countries, but now it's everywhere. And in fact, the cancer of the corporate empire has metastasized into what I would call a failed global death economy. This is an economy that's based on destroying the very resources upon which it depends, and upon the military. It's become totally global, and it's a failure."

    Son of Captain Nemo , Jan 14, 2017 10:40 PM

    Not with this announcement ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-14/his-first-foreign-trip-presiden... ) and a repeat for detente wiping the slate clean!...

    And if he is assassinated?...

    Plan on a "treasure hunt" that will result in the likes of POTUS "transvestitus" John "winter soldier" Kerry and John "demonic" Leprechaun Brennan being FOUND, SKINNED and put on display in front of their respective places of work!...

    SO HELP ME GOD!!! THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT!!!!!

    Scuba Steve -> Son of Captain Nemo , Jan 14, 2017 10:56 PM

    see, i agree with this.

    If something happens to Trump, I'm thinking there are going to be a lot of big names hanging from trees for all of Facebook to pass around.

    CC Lemon , Jan 14, 2017 10:35 PM

    What's frightening is that as the elites had NO IDEA hillary would lose so bad, they might have equally NO IDEA of the massive blowback should they go through with anything like this.

    JarMyMetric , Jan 14, 2017 10:36 PM

    Don't worry Trump will start magically singing in key very soon after inauguration or Pence will sing for him.

    dogismycopilot , Jan 14, 2017 10:37 PM

    A lot of US spooks are on the gravy train. Do you know how many Orlando McMansions and DC Colonials have been bought with black bag money? There are Billions flowing in a river through the Middle East.

    Also, these fuckers don't know how to do anything but destroy value and kill people. They know this is the only job they can get. They are incompetent in the private market. Look at the MI6 idiot who writes worse than a high school kid.

    CIA isn't going to give that up without a fight. They are cornered rats. When Putin is in Iceland I hope he can relate this survival story to President Trump:

    https://jppreston.com/2010/12/23/the-six-most-interesting-excerpts-from-...

    Following World War II, in which his father served with the Russian secret police, his parents move into a communal apartment in St. Petersburg where they eventually give birth to Putin (1952). Because Russia is facing major poverty and is still recovering from the war, the apartment is, in the words of Putin's school teacher, "horrid without any conveniences" (10). Although he goes on to explain his experiences with the other families in the commune, none of whom had any children, he briefly tells a story of the first time he learned "the meaning of the word cornered."

    There, on that stair landing, I got a quick and lasting lesson in the meaning of the word cornered. There were hordes of rats in the front entryway. My friends and I used to chase them around with sticks. Once I spotted a huge rat and pursued it down the hall until I drove it into a corner. It had nowhere to run. Suddenly it lashed around and threw itself at me. I was surprised and frightened. Now the rat was chasing me. It jumped across the landing and down the stairs. Luckily, I was a little faster and managed to slam the door shut in its nose. (10)

    matermaker , Jan 14, 2017 11:00 PM

    I call bullshit, Slavo. I feel certain Mr. T. fully understands the deep state and watched Ike's last address. There is an equally powerful 'state' in this nation and it is not born out of the government. Even the negroes will rally to his side if they feel he's a better populist alternative to the deep state.

    I'm sure that I would giggle to read who is getting interviewed for T's personal security. He's not going to go driving in chicago with the top down. Kennedy pissed off all sides of power.

    I do not see T having a really bad day while traveling or flying. Kennedy was arrogant in a much different way. This time 'round, it's more like Adolf choosing sides with Earnst Rhom and brown shirts over the Gestapo.

    And if 'they' are listening, as they usually are... safe drivers are rewarded with auto insurance. Getting yearly full on check ups should drop bucks on your insurance. No penalties for being unhealthy, but rewards for being healthy. It's called health care, not sick care. Get a camera shoved up your ass every ten years after 50? discount! oh... and that shouldn't cost 15k

    Rebel yell , Jan 14, 2017 10:49 PM

    If the central idiots assassinate Trump, there should be massive wildcat strikes and refusal to buy anything, and the military should refuse to follow all military commands! Don't fight the terrorists aka CIA war!

    kanoli , Jan 14, 2017 10:56 PM

    The fact that it is so plainly stated that the intelligence apparatus run the country and none dare stand against them is evidence that it is high time for a president and the people to take them down.

    Saul Alinsky's Rule #1 is to appear more powerful than you are in order to cultivate fear in your enemies. The American intelligence community and military-industrial complex are rotten and termite-eaten by corruption.

    Every successful revolution is merely the kicking in of a door that is already rotten. . I'm not sure Trump is the guy for it, but I'd sure like to see him try.

    NobodyNowhere , Jan 14, 2017 11:01 PM

    " military industrial complex base of ultimate power in the United States"

    MIC is NOT the ultimate power in the US. Certain Bankster dynasties are. MIC is just one of their profit centers.

    JailBanksters , Jan 14, 2017 11:06 PM

    Assasinate, NO. Exposed, Setup, Patsy, Blamed, ABSOLUTELY

    There's too many Eyes, and everybody will know who planned it and who did it, so he won't be Assassinated by physical means, just Politically Assassinated.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Will The CIA Assassinate Trump Ron Paul Warns Of More Powerful, Shadow Government

    Very questionable assessment.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment, new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of "being really dumb." for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia. ..."
    "... "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you . He's being really dumb to do this." ..."
    "... No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national security establishment ..."
    "... Kennedy After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy's murder. ..."
    Jan 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

    It isn't just that Donald Trump routinely thumbs his nose at the establishment, insults media figures he sees as unfair and bucks conventional wisdom.

    It is that President-elect Trump is defying the will of the deep state, military industrial complex base of ultimate power in the United States. That is why he is treading dangerous waters, and risks the fate of JFK.

    Trump publicly dissed the intelligence community assessments on Russian hacking; they retaliated with a made up dossier about the alleged Trump-Putin 'golden shower' episode .

    Russians have compromising footage of Donald Trump paying prostitutes to piss on a bed ???? #GoldenShowerGate https://t.co/AdQGhE2y06

    - Loco Goose ???????????????? (@CrazyGoose) January 11, 2017

    While it may be a silly falsehood, it may also be serving as a final warning that they get to script reality, not him.

    Perhaps they want Trump to feel blackmailed and controlled by alluding to fake dirt, while reminding him of the real dirt they hold on his activities (whatever it may be).

    Insulting the credibility of the intelligence community in a public way – as the man elected to the highest office in the land – is liable to ruffle a few feathers, and it could provoke a serious response.

    Trump knows the power of the people he is taunting, but he may not be aware of where the line is between play in political rhetoric and actually irritating and setting off those who control policy.

    There is plenty of Trump misbehavior that can be simply written off, or trivialized, but cutting into the war and statecraft narrative of the shadow government steering this deep state is a deviation too far.

    It is one thing to play captain, but another to imagine that you steer the ship. They are happy for Trump to take all the prestige and privileges of the office; but not for him to cut into the big business of foreign conflict, the undercurrent of all American affairs, the dealings in death, drugs, oil and weapons, and the control of people through a manipulation of these affairs.

    If President Trump takes his rogue populism too far, he will suffer the wrath of the same people who took out Kennedy there are some things that are not tolerated by those who are really in charge. And now leaders in the Senate are warning President-elect Trump about the stupidity of going against the national-security establishment.

    As Jacob G. Hornberger warns :

    In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment, new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of "being really dumb." for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia.

    "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you . He's being really dumb to do this."

    [ ]

    No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national security establishment [ ] They knew that if they opposed the national-security establishment at a fundamental level, they would be subjected to retaliatory measures.

    Kennedy After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy's murder.

    Kennedy's antipathy toward the CIA gradually extended to what President Eisenhower had termed the military-industrial complex, especially when it proposed Operation Northwoods, which called for fraudulent terrorist attacks to serve as a pretext for invading Cuba, and when it suggested that Kennedy initiate a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.

    [ ]

    Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, [Kennedy] initiated secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro , both of whom, by this time, were on the same page as Kennedy.

    [ ]

    Kennedy was fully aware of the danger he faced by taking on such a formidable enemy.

    And to the extent that President Kennedy consciously stood up to the system, he paid the price for his attempt at independent wielding of power from the Oval Office.

    It is a shuddering thought. A sharp lesson in history that must not be misinterpreted.

    The implications for Trump are quite clear. If his refusal to take intelligence briefings, or follow CIA advice is serious, then serious consequences will follow. If Trump is serious about peace with Putin when they insist on war, there will be a problem.

    There are several powers behind the throne that have wanted to ensure that presidents don't let the power go to their head, or try to change course from the carefully arranged crisis-reaction-solution paradigm.

    True peace is not good for military industrial complex business; true peace, without the persistence of grave threats, and plenty of sparks of chaos to back it up, cannot be tolerated.

    As things have progressed today, making friendly with Putin, and calling off the war with Russia may simply be impermissible. If Trump is attempting to negotiate his own peace – and sing along with Frank Sinatra's "My Way" at the inauguration, then he is in for a very rude awakening.

    If, on the other hand, he is the Trump card being played by this very same establishment, then things may develop according to the same ultimate objectives, albeit through a 'wild card' path styled after the ego of President Trump.

    With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place.

    As SHTF has previously reported, the continuity of government "Doomsday" command-and-control planes were brought out after the election as a public show of power to Trump and the American people. The shadow government is real, and for now, maintains dominance.

    "Mysterious" plane circling over Denver was "just" an E-6B Mercury "doomsday" plane https://t.co/SqJlBkdIqg pic.twitter.com/oE0BBWrhFL

    - The Aviationist (@TheAviationist) November 17, 2016

    Former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul warned of the shadow government taking control of President Trump's administration before it was even formed:

    [Jan 14, 2017] Reflections on a Post Election Soft Coup: Fake News , CIA Intervention, US-NATO Militarization on Russia s Doorstep

    Jan 13, 2017 | www.globalresearch.ca
    All this brings to mind the report that Trump is considering a realignment of the intel agencies including staff reductions and reassignments as it compares with JFK's experience when he fired CIA Director Allen Dulles. Kennedy replaced Dulles for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs debacle with an inept outsider named John McCone who was easily snookered by CIA staff. Kennedy did not fully realize the depth of Dulles' betrayal as he continued to meet with senior CIA staff at his home on a regular basis where they discussed, debated and decided CIA policy.

    What Trump needs to understand is that certain cats, especially the neo-con variety, have more than nine lives and will hang on to their power base with every fiber of their being - and we know how that worked out for JFK.

    Enrique Ferro's insight: Observing the President since the November 8th election, his reactions reveal an aggressiveness rarely, if ever seen in an outgoing President's closing days, and has become a fascinating study in human dynamics.

    Obama is clearly experiencing more than a normal reluctance to hand over his @POTUS twitter account as perhaps the reality has only just hit home that it is far too late to create a new, improved legacy.

    One explanation may be that the President's carefully constructed veneer of personality, never convincing for those who have long sought the 'real' Barak Obama, has cracked under the pressure of the 2016 losses.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Is Trump Already Finished - The Unz Review

    Jan 14, 2017 | www.unz.com
    It did not take long before we knew there was no hope of change from President Obama. But at least he went into his inauguration with an unprecedented number of Americans on the Mall showing their support for the President of Change. Hope was abundant.

    But with Trump, we are already losing faith, if not yet with him, at least with his choice of those who comprise his government even before Trump is inaugurated.

    Trump's choice for Secretary of State not only sounds like the neoconservatives in declaring Russia to be a threat to the United States and all of Europe, but also sounds like Hillary Clinton in declaring the South China Sea to be an area of US dominance. One would think that the chairman of Exxon was not an idiot, but I am no longer sure. In his confirmation hearing, Rex Tillerson said that China's access to its own South China Sea is "not going to be allowed."

    Here is Tillerson's statement: "We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also not going to be allowed."

    I mean, really, what is Tillerson going to do about it except get the world blown up. China's response was as pointed as a response can be:

    Tillerson "should not be misled into thinking that Beijing will be fearful of threats. If Trump's diplomatic team shapes future Sino-US ties as it is doing now, the two sides had better prepare for a military clash. Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories."

    So Trump is not even inaugurated and his idiot nominee for Secretary of State has already created an animosity relationship with two nuclear powers capable of completely destroying all of the West for eternity. And this makes the US Senate comfortable with Tillerson. The imbeciles should be scared out of their wits, assuming they have any.

    One of the reasons that Russia rescued Syria from Washington's overthrow is that Russia understood that Washington's next target would be Iran and from a destroyed Iran terrorism would be exported into the Russian Federation. There is an axis of countries threatened by US supported terrorism-Syria, Iran, Russia, China.

    Trump says he wants to normalize relations with Russia and to open up business opportunities in the place of conflict. But to normalize relations with Russia requires also normalizing relations with Iran and China.

    Judging from their public statements, Trump's announced government has targeted Iran for destabilization. Trump's appointees as National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, and Director of the CIA all regard Iran incorrectly as a terrorist state that must be overthrown.

    But Russia cannot allow Washington to overthrow the stable government in Iran and will not allow it. China's investments in Iranian oil imply that China also will not permit Washington's overthrow of Iran. China has already suffered from its lost investments in Libyan oil as the result of the Obama regimes overthrow of the Libyan government.

    Realistically speaking, it looks like the Trump Presidency is already defeated by his own appointees independently of the ridiculous and completely unbelievable propaganda put out by the CIA and broadcast by the presstitute media in the US, UK, and Europe. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and BBC have lowered themselves below the National Enquirer.

    Possibly, as I wrote earlier today ( http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/01/13/the-establishment-is-trying-to-steal-the-presidency-from-trump-paul-craig-roberts/ ), these statements from Trump's appointees are nothing but what is required to be confirmed and are not operational in any sense. However, it is possible to stand up to the bastards in confirmation hearings. I stood up in my confirming hearing, and the embarrassed Democrats requested that the entire hearing be deleted from the record.

    If the Chairman of Exxon and a Lt. General are not capable of standing up to the imbecilic Congress, they are unfit for office. That they did not stand up is an indication that they lack the strength that Trump needs if he is to bring change from the top.

    If Trump is unable to change US foreign policy, thermonuclear war and the destruction of Earth are inevitable.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Neocon chickenhawks as closet Napoleons with huge sense of inferiority by DUNCAN KELLY

    Notable quotes:
    "... Napoleon didn't mean fatalism by this, rather that political action is unavoidable if you want personal and national glory. It requires a mastery of fortune, and a willingness to be ruthless when necessary. If this sounds Machiavellian, that's because it is - Machiavelli's arguments about politics informed Napoleon's self-consciousness, whether in appraising fortune as a woman or a river to be tamed and harnessed, or assuming that in politics it is better to be feared than loved. Such views went hand in hand with the grand visions of politics outlined in the ancient histories and biographies Napoleon revered as a young man. "Bloodletting is among the ingredients of political medicine" was Napoleon's cool if brutal reminder of an ever-present item on his exhausting schedule. ..."
    "... Those chickenhawk neocons like Hillary, Kagan or Michael Leeden do not want to die, they want that somebody else died for them implementing their crazy imperial ambitions. ..."
    "... The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an "official narrative" that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between "the truth" as defined by the ruling classes and any other "truth" that contradicts their narrative. ..."
    Jan 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne -> New Deal democrat... January 14, 2017 at 08:16 AM

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/books/review/napoleon-a-life-by-andrew-roberts.html

    November 16, 2014

    'Napoleon: A Life,' by Andrew Roberts

    By DUNCAN KELLY

    On July 22, 1789, a week after the storming of the Bastille in Paris, Napoleon Bonaparte wrote to his older brother, Joseph, that there was nothing much to worry about. "Calm will return. In a month." His timing was off, but perhaps he took the misjudgment to heart because he spent the rest of his life trying to bring glory and order to France by building a new sort of empire. By the time he was crowned emperor on Dec. 2, 1804, he could say, "I am the Revolution." It was, according to the historian Andrew Roberts's epically scaled new biography, "Napoleon: A Life," both the ultimate triumph of the self-made man, an outsider from Corsica who rose to the apex of French political life, and simultaneously a "defining moment of the Enlightenment," fixing the "best" of the French Revolution through his legal, educational and administrative reforms. Such broad contours get at what Napoleon meant by saying to his literary hero Goethe at a meeting in Erfurt, "Politics is fate."

    Napoleon didn't mean fatalism by this, rather that political action is unavoidable if you want personal and national glory. It requires a mastery of fortune, and a willingness to be ruthless when necessary. If this sounds Machiavellian, that's because it is - Machiavelli's arguments about politics informed Napoleon's self-consciousness, whether in appraising fortune as a woman or a river to be tamed and harnessed, or assuming that in politics it is better to be feared than loved. Such views went hand in hand with the grand visions of politics outlined in the ancient histories and biographies Napoleon revered as a young man. "Bloodletting is among the ingredients of political medicine" was Napoleon's cool if brutal reminder of an ever-present item on his exhausting schedule.

    His strategy always included dashing off thousands of letters and plans, in a personal regime calling for little sleep, much haste and a penchant for being read to while taking baths so as not to waste even a minute. He compartmentalized ruthlessly, changing tack between lobbying for more shoes and brandy for the army at one minute, to directing the personal lives of his siblings or writing love letters to the notorious Josephine at another; here ensuring extravagant financial "contributions" from those whom he had vanquished, there discussing the booty to send back to Paris, particularly from the extraordinary expedition in Egypt where his "savants had missed nothing." The personal and the political ran alongside each other in his mind.

    Yet when his longtime collaborator but fair-weather political friend, the diplomat Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, suggested that Napoleon try to make those he conquered learn to love France, Napoleon replied that this was an irrelevance. "Aimer: I don't really know what this means when applied to politics," he said. Still, if grand strategy and national interest lay behind foreign affairs, there were nevertheless personal rules of conduct to uphold. Talleyrand was a party to Napoleon's strategy since supporting his coup d'ιtat against the French Directory in 1799. That was O.K. And by short-selling securities he made millions for himself. But he was called out by Napoleon and dismissed as vice grand elector when found facing both ways politically at a crucial moment.

    Napoleon understood those temptations because he was also flexible enough to tilt toward the winning side, regularly supporting any form of local religion that could help him militarily. Nonetheless, Roberts's Napoleon is a soldier, statesman and "bona fide intellectual," who rode his luck for longer than most intellectuals in politics ever do....

    Duncan Kelly teaches political thought at the University of Cambridge.

    libezkova -> anne... , January 14, 2017 at 10:25 AM
    " "Bloodletting is among the ingredients of political medicine" "

    Those chickenhawk neocons like Hillary, Kagan or Michael Leeden do not want to die, they want that somebody else died for them implementing their crazy imperial ambitions.

    kthomas -> libezkova... , January 14, 2017 at 11:48 AM
    Russian troll?
    libezkova -> kthomas... , -1
    I like the way you are thinking about this issue my totally brainwashed friend (sorry Anne ;-)

    Your remark just confirms the power of official propaganda machine

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/why-ridiculous-official-propaganda-still-works

    == quote ==

    The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an "official narrative" that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between "the truth" as defined by the ruling classes and any other "truth" that contradicts their narrative.

    The current "Russian hacking" hysteria is a perfect example of how this works. No one aside from total morons actually believes this official narrative (the substance of which is beyond ridiculous), not even the stooges selling it to us. This, however, is not a problem, because it isn't intended to be believed it is intended to be accepted and repeated, more or less like religious dogma.

    ilsm -> libezkova...
    US press is a propaganda mill.

    The DNC is not the "US election", therefore how can hacking the DNC be a serious issue?

    Then they give front page to Mr. Lewis who says a deceitful line that 'Russians made Clinton lose'. Nothing in the hack changed my observation that she is a war monger in wall st's employ.

    They print and broadcast the lines fed. Lines which have no basis in truth.

    If you think of what is said you have to conclude that criminals should have privacy and those digging perpetrate harm when the "leaks" exposed truths the public is not supposed to know.

    If the average American could think and get a few facts they would conclude there is no democracy because the things they know are not true.

    Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 05:11 PM
    libezkova -> ilsm...

    MSM is an executive arm of "deep state" propaganda machine.

    http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    == quote ==

    During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency's involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff.

    ...Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America's leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. "Let's not pick on some poor reporters, for God's sake," William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee's investigators. "Let's go to the managements. They were witting." In all, about twenty‑five news organizations including those listed at the beginning of this article) provided cover for the Agency.

    == end of quote ==

    This is not about DNC hacking. Hacking is just a smokescreen. The real game is to prevent any change in the USA foreign policy, especially in Syria and toward Russia. That's why they tried this "soft coup" against Trump. That's why NYT, CNN, etc published all those dirty stories.

    Also many CIA bureaucrats do not want to be sent from bloated Washington headquarters to distant lands to do what they are supposed to do -- collect intelligence, not to engage is domestic politics (and they were fully engaged on the side of Hillary).

    ilsm -> kthomas..., January 14, 2017 at 03:30 PM

    Preparation and objects make one lucky.

    Americans are remiss in ignoring Napoleon, many of his students, etc.

    libezkova is worth reading.

    The problem with HRC, Kagan or Leeden is they thought a new American century was strategy, then silled a lot of snake oil.

    ilsm said... , January 14, 2017 at 06:08 AM
    The past year we have had two war parties tilt for the White House. Neither has strategy, both morally bankrupt!

    http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/riversidetranscript.html

    Rev Martin Luther King at Riverside Church in NYC Apr 1967.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 14, 2017 at 01:03 PM
    [Awesome, Dude. THX. Should be mandatory reading for everyone that votes or expresses political opinion in the US. As inappropriate as it is to cherry pick anything from this marvelous speech/sermon out of context to its entirety, this one tidbit really stood out:] "... There's something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children. There's something wrong with that press!..."
    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 14, 2017 at 03:34 PM

    I wonder had I read it as a young man would I have the courage to accept it the way I do now after I have made all the wrong decisions.

    He opened my eyes nearly as much as my friend Bob who had been an SF advisor at the province level and confirmed everything written about the corruption and plundering of the RVN government.

    MLK was incredibly aware of the truth on the ground in Vietnam.

    [Jan 14, 2017] John McCain is serving the interests of a fascist regime in Ukraine

    Jan 14, 2017 | theduran.com
    From theduran .com - January 12, 7:35 PM
    Increasingly, the American public who declared McCain a 'loser' in his attempts to become President, see the world through the eyes of Trump. However, many in the deep state remain sympathetic to McCain style fanaticism. It is why as Donald Trump alleged, the intelligence agencies were irresponsible in leaking the bogus dossier that McCain handed to them with glee.
    Enrique Ferro's insight: Donald Trump has few significant connections to Russia, whilst McCain has many profound connections with the fascist regime in Kiev. He helped them get into power, he was there cheering on the coup. Therefore, why has no one accused McCain of being a Ukrainian agent, working to destabilise American democracy in the name of a corrupt foreign power?

    [Jan 14, 2017] Shes Back

    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI posted on its website more than 300 emails that Clinton had sent to an unnamed colleague not in the government - no doubt her adviser Sid Blumenthal - that had fallen into the hands of foreign powers. It turns out - and the Sunday night release proves this - that Blumenthal was hacked by intelligence agents from at least three foreign governments and that they obtained the emails Clinton had sent to him that contained state secrets. Sources believe that the hostile hackers were the Russians and the Chinese and the friendly hackers were the Israelis. ..."
    "... Last Sunday's revelations make the case against Clinton far more serious than Comey presented it to be last summer. Indeed, Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has been nominated by Trump to be attorney general and who has been a harsh critic of Clinton's, told the Senate Judiciary Committee this week that he would step aside from any further investigation of Clinton, thereby acknowledging that the investigation will probably be opened again. ..."
    "... One of the metrics that the DOJ examines in deciding whether to prosecute is an analysis of harm caused by the potential defendant. I have examined the newly released emails, and the state secrets have been whited out. Yet it is clear from the FBI analysis of them that real secrets were exposed by the nation's chief diplomat - meaning she violated an agreement she signed right after she took office, in which she essentially promised that she would not do what she eventually did. ..."
    "... Anyone who thinks that the Clintons represent no threat to the Republic, or that they have no further political ambitions, are delusional. ..."
    "... "the friendly hackers' (Israelis )" sounds like it's a page from the same book as "moderate rebels". Is there a name for this language? ..."
    "... Begemot: yes, the probability that Clinton has serious dirt on Hussein is high. ..."
    "... More like acknowledging the fact that being clear about not lumping Israel in with Russia and China is good for one's future prospects in the media business. Napolitano's got a wide truth-telling streak, so simply not mentioning the Israelis wasn't good enough. ..."
    "... A minor but perhaps telling point. Loretta Lynch recently admitted that contrary to her previous denials, Hillary's emails and server were the subject of her infamous conversations with Bill Clinton on the airport tarmac. ..."
    Jan 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

    ... ... ...

    The case was briefly reopened 11 days before Election Day. The FBI announced it had stumbled upon a potential treasure-trove of emails contained in a laptop jointly owned and used by Hillary Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner. The FBI believed at the time that the laptop contained nearly every email Abedin had received from Clinton. Weiner was under investigation for various sexual crimes, and the FBI had obtained the laptop in its search for evidence against him.

    Then, a week later, the FBI announced that it had found nothing among the 650,000 emails in the laptop that would cause it to reopen the Clinton case, and it closed the case a second time.

    Donald Trump argued during the last weeks of the presidential election campaign that Clinton had exposed state secrets to hostile foreign governments. FBI agents who disagreed with their boss's decision not to seek the indictment of Clinton made the same arguments. Clinton denied vehemently that she had caused any state secrets to pass into the hands of hostile foreign governments.

    Then Trump was elected president of the United States.

    Then Clinton left the public scene.

    Then, last Sunday evening, during the NFL playoff game between the New York Giants and the Green Bay Packers, the FBI posted on its website more than 300 emails that Clinton had sent to an unnamed colleague not in the government - no doubt her adviser Sid Blumenthal - that had fallen into the hands of foreign powers. It turns out - and the Sunday night release proves this - that Blumenthal was hacked by intelligence agents from at least three foreign governments and that they obtained the emails Clinton had sent to him that contained state secrets. Sources believe that the hostile hackers were the Russians and the Chinese and the friendly hackers were the Israelis.

    Last Sunday's revelations make the case against Clinton far more serious than Comey presented it to be last summer. Indeed, Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has been nominated by Trump to be attorney general and who has been a harsh critic of Clinton's, told the Senate Judiciary Committee this week that he would step aside from any further investigation of Clinton, thereby acknowledging that the investigation will probably be opened again.

    One of the metrics that the DOJ examines in deciding whether to prosecute is an analysis of harm caused by the potential defendant. I have examined the newly released emails, and the state secrets have been whited out. Yet it is clear from the FBI analysis of them that real secrets were exposed by the nation's chief diplomat - meaning she violated an agreement she signed right after she took office, in which she essentially promised that she would not do what she eventually did.

    The essence of the American justice system is the rule of law. The rule of law means that no one is beneath the law's protections or above its obligations.

    Should Clinton skate free so the Trump administration can turn the page? Should the new DOJ be compassionate toward Clinton because of her humiliating election loss and likely retirement from public life? Of course not.

    She should be prosecuted as would anyone else who let loose secrets to our enemies and then lied about it.

    Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

    dearieme , January 11, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT

    This needs careful consideration, weighing up the pros and cons, determining what's in the interest of the US republic. Let there be no rush to judgement.

    And then lock her up.

    Diversity Heretic , January 11, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Anyone who thinks that the Clintons represent no threat to the Republic, or that they have no further political ambitions, are delusional. Jeff Sessions or Congress, or both, should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate every aspect of the Clintons' conduct, and prosecute them for every crime that they've committed. States should also be encouraged to open investigations for criminal activities under state laws. The Clintons should spend the rest of their lives responding to subpoenaes, facing trials, paying fines and serving prison time.

    @SteveRogers42
    Maybe that's the position that Christie and/or Guiliani have been saved for.
    woodNfish , January 11, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT

    HRC, Billy boy, Loretta Lynch, Comey, Lois Lerner and the many other criminals and thugs in the obama, bush and clinton administrations need to be prosecuted to show there is accountability in government.

    The Grate Deign , January 11, 2017 at 4:59 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Anyone who has had a job involving the handling of classified material knows that Clinton's actions violated the law. I appreciate Judge Napolitano's update on this case but remain mystified as to why the issue even needs to be discussed.

    Furthermore, the matter of motive seldom gets mentioned in public discussions. While Clinton's e-mails were left in an unsecured state, the Clinton Foundation was getting tens of millions in "donations" from the Russians and others, and former President Clinton was getting paid handsomely for delivering a speech in Russia.

    Not only is it reasonable to ask whether she - no, they - committed actual treason, it's unreasonable not to ask!

    @Thirdeye
    Donations from the Russians? Which Russians? We do know that the Clinton Foundation was getting donations from the Saudis, followed by Clinton approving a massive arms deal with them as Secretary of State. Those same arms are being used for the slaughter in Yemen.
    Skeptikal , January 11, 2017 at 9:33 pm GMT • 100 Words

    "She should be prosecuted as would anyone else who let loose secrets to our enemies and then lied about it"

    Especially since similar accusations are being lobbed at Trump. Not identical, of course, but they can be compared-Trump putatively traitorously associated with Putin.

    What's sauce for the gander . . .

    But I don't understand this:

    "Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has been nominated by Trump to be attorney general and who has been a harsh critic of Clinton's, told the Senate Judiciary Committee this week that he would step aside from any further investigation of Clinton, thereby acknowledging that the investigation will probably be opened again."

    Why would Sessions step aside? And why would that mean that the investigation will probably be opened again?

    Thirdeye , January 11, 2017 at 10:18 pm GMT
    @The Grate Deign
    Anyone who has had a job involving the handling of classified material knows that Clinton's actions violated the law. I appreciate Judge Napolitano's update on this case but remain mystified as to why the issue even needs to be discussed.

    Furthermore, the matter of motive seldom gets mentioned in public discussions. While Clinton's e-mails were left in an unsecured state, the Clinton Foundation was getting tens of millions in "donations" from the Russians and others, and former President Clinton was getting paid handsomely for delivering a speech in Russia.

    Not only is it reasonable to ask whether she -- no, they -- committed actual treason, it's unreasonable not to ask!

    Donations from the Russians? Which Russians? We do know that the Clinton Foundation was getting donations from the Saudis, followed by Clinton approving a massive arms deal with them as Secretary of State. Those same arms are being used for the slaughter in Yemen.

    @The Grate Deign
    These Russians: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0


    And you're making my point for me. Thanks!

    Cyrano , January 11, 2017 at 10:21 pm GMT • 200 Words

    I wish Hillary wasn't so modest and declared openly what motivated her to act as she did. The reason why she used private email server is not because she is dumb, but because she is super smart. You see, she foresaw the Russian hacking of the American election and took steps to minimize the damage.

    What would you do if you were Russian hacker – what is the first place that you would look in for top secret files? The government run servers of course. You see how smart Hillary was? She hid those sensitive documents in the last place any self-respecting hacker would look – on a private server.

    This shows how everybody misunderastimated Hillary. She was far ahead of the game and showed ability of strategic thinking unmatched by anyone. I think that Americans made grave mistake for not electing her as president and that US would have benefited greatly from having such a superpatriot, not to mention visionary, as leader. I am also disappointed that the MSM didn't come up with this most logical of explanations.

    The Grate Deign , January 12, 2017 at 12:08 am GMT
    @Thirdeye
    Donations from the Russians? Which Russians? We do know that the Clinton Foundation was getting donations from the Saudis, followed by Clinton approving a massive arms deal with them as Secretary of State. Those same arms are being used for the slaughter in Yemen.

    These Russians: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

    And you're making my point for me. Thanks!

    NoseytheDuke , January 12, 2017 at 4:39 am GMT

    "the friendly hackers' (Israelis )" sounds like it's a page from the same book as "moderate rebels". Is there a name for this language?

    @The Grate Deign
    I think he was referring to the fact that all countries spy on all other countries. Some of them are enemy countries. The rest are intended by the shorthand, "friendly hackers." And nobody does more "friendly" spying and hacking than the USA.
    @HBM
    Hasbara
    SteveRogers42 , January 12, 2017 at 5:52 am GMT
    @Diversity Heretic
    Anyone who thinks that the Clintons represent no threat to the Republic,or that they have no further political ambitions, are delusional. Jeff Sessions or Congress, or both, should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate every aspect of the Clintons' conduct, and prosecute them for every crime that they've committed. States should also be encouraged to open investigations for criminal activities under state laws. The Clintons should spend the rest of their lives responding to subpoenaes, facing trials, paying fines and serving prison time.

    Maybe that's the position that Christie and/or Guiliani have been saved for.

    The Grate Deign , January 12, 2017 at 11:29 am GMT
    @NoseytheDuke
    "the friendly hackers' (Israelis )" sounds like it's a page from the same book as "moderate rebels".

    Is there a name for this language?

    I think he was referring to the fact that all countries spy on all other countries. Some of them are enemy countries. The rest are intended by the shorthand, "friendly hackers." And nobody does more "friendly" spying and hacking than the USA.

    Authenticjazzman , January 12, 2017 at 12:22 pm GMT
    @Cyrano
    I wish Hillary wasn't so modest and declared openly what motivated her to act as she did. The reason why she used private email server is not because she is dumb, but because she is super smart. You see, she foresaw the Russian hacking of the American election and took steps to minimize the damage.

    What would you do if you were Russian hacker – what is the first place that you would look in for top secret files? The government run servers of course. You see how smart Hillary was? She hid those sensitive documents in the last place any self-respecting hacker would look – on a private server.

    This shows how everybody misunderastimated Hillary. She was far ahead of the game and showed ability of strategic thinking unmatched by anyone. I think that Americans made grave mistake for not electing her as president and that US would have benefited greatly from having such a superpatriot, not to mention visionary, as leader. I am also disappointed that the MSM didn't come up with this most logical of explanations.

    Begemot , January 12, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT

    I expect Hillary Clinton will get a pardon from Obama. All of this will then become moot. Unfortunately. Prosecuting and jailing our masters sets a bad precedent.

    @Bill Jones
    But the Clinton Foundation will still be up for demolition. ,
    @another fred
    I expect Hillary Clinton will get a pardon from Obama.
    I don't think he can pardon her as she has not been convicted. He would have to grant her immunity from prosecution. I don't think that is in his enumerated powers.
    Svigor , January 12, 2017 at 8:37 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Begemot: yes, the probability that Clinton has serious dirt on Hussein is high.

    Sources believe that the hostile hackers were the Russians and the Chinese and the friendly hackers were the Israelis.

    Lol, cute. Russian, Chinese hackers, penetrating US gov't and stealing US gov't secrets: "from Hell's heart, I hack at thee." Israeli hackers, penetrating US gov't and stealing US gov't secrets: "I'm only doing this because I love you."

    Why would Sessions step aside? And why would that mean that the investigation will probably be opened again?

    I take it that Napolitano's reading of the tea leaves is that Sessions will appoint an independent investigator.

    Is there a name for this language?

    Newspeak.

    Svigor , January 12, 2017 at 8:39 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I think he was referring to the fact that all countries spy on all other countries. Some of them are enemy countries. The rest are intended by the shorthand, "friendly hackers." And nobody does more "friendly" spying and hacking than the USA.

    More like acknowledging the fact that being clear about not lumping Israel in with Russia and China is good for one's future prospects in the media business. Napolitano's got a wide truth-telling streak, so simply not mentioning the Israelis wasn't good enough.

    Bill Jones , January 13, 2017 at 12:00 am GMT

    What sort of clown thinks that Israel is less of an enemy of the US than China or Russia?

    Svigor , January 13, 2017 at 1:02 am GMT • 100 Words

    What sort of clown thinks that Israel is less of an enemy of the US than China or Russia?

    I do. I'd trust the Israelis, before I trusted the Chinese. Not that that's saying a whole lot. There's a lot of daylight between my position and the "our greatest ally" position, but there's some room between mine and the "Israel, China, Russia, same diff" position, too, I guess is what I'm saying.

    another fred , January 13, 2017 at 2:12 am GMT
    @Begemot
    I expect Hillary Clinton will get a pardon from Obama. All of this will then become moot. Unfortunately. Prosecuting and jailing our masters sets a bad precedent.

    I expect Hillary Clinton will get a pardon from Obama.

    I don't think he can pardon her as she has not been convicted. He would have to grant her immunity from prosecution. I don't think that is in his enumerated powers.

    @another fred
    From Wikipedia:
    In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.
    Maybe amnesty. It will be interesting to see if he tries. She might have to admit guilt to get amnesty.
    another fred , January 13, 2017 at 2:21 am GMT • 100 Words
    Svigor , January 14, 2017 at 12:12 am GMT • 100 Words

    I don't think he can pardon her as she has not been convicted. He would have to grant her immunity from prosecution. I don't think that is in his enumerated powers.

    I looked into this recently, and apparently, the presidential pardon is not so limited by reason or logic. At least, it's not clear that it is.

    Dan Hayes , January 14, 2017 at 6:11 am GMT

    A minor but perhaps telling point. Loretta Lynch recently admitted that contrary to her previous denials, Hillary's emails and server were the subject of her infamous conversations with Bill Clinton on the airport tarmac.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Is Trump Already Finished - The Unz Review

    Jan 14, 2017 | www.unz.com
    It did not take long before we knew there was no hope of change from President Obama. But at least he went into his inauguration with an unprecedented number of Americans on the Mall showing their support for the President of Change. Hope was abundant.

    But with Trump, we are already losing faith, if not yet with him, at least with his choice of those who comprise his government even before Trump is inaugurated.

    Trump's choice for Secretary of State not only sounds like the neoconservatives in declaring Russia to be a threat to the United States and all of Europe, but also sounds like Hillary Clinton in declaring the South China Sea to be an area of US dominance. One would think that the chairman of Exxon was not an idiot, but I am no longer sure. In his confirmation hearing, Rex Tillerson said that China's access to its own South China Sea is "not going to be allowed."

    Here is Tillerson's statement: "We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also not going to be allowed."

    I mean, really, what is Tillerson going to do about it except get the world blown up. China's response was as pointed as a response can be:

    Tillerson "should not be misled into thinking that Beijing will be fearful of threats. If Trump's diplomatic team shapes future Sino-US ties as it is doing now, the two sides had better prepare for a military clash. Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories."

    So Trump is not even inaugurated and his idiot nominee for Secretary of State has already created an animosity relationship with two nuclear powers capable of completely destroying all of the West for eternity. And this makes the US Senate comfortable with Tillerson. The imbeciles should be scared out of their wits, assuming they have any.

    One of the reasons that Russia rescued Syria from Washington's overthrow is that Russia understood that Washington's next target would be Iran and from a destroyed Iran terrorism would be exported into the Russian Federation. There is an axis of countries threatened by US supported terrorism-Syria, Iran, Russia, China.

    Trump says he wants to normalize relations with Russia and to open up business opportunities in the place of conflict. But to normalize relations with Russia requires also normalizing relations with Iran and China.

    Judging from their public statements, Trump's announced government has targeted Iran for destabilization. Trump's appointees as National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, and Director of the CIA all regard Iran incorrectly as a terrorist state that must be overthrown.

    But Russia cannot allow Washington to overthrow the stable government in Iran and will not allow it. China's investments in Iranian oil imply that China also will not permit Washington's overthrow of Iran. China has already suffered from its lost investments in Libyan oil as the result of the Obama regimes overthrow of the Libyan government.

    Realistically speaking, it looks like the Trump Presidency is already defeated by his own appointees independently of the ridiculous and completely unbelievable propaganda put out by the CIA and broadcast by the presstitute media in the US, UK, and Europe. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and BBC have lowered themselves below the National Enquirer.

    Possibly, as I wrote earlier today ( http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/01/13/the-establishment-is-trying-to-steal-the-presidency-from-trump-paul-craig-roberts/ ), these statements from Trump's appointees are nothing but what is required to be confirmed and are not operational in any sense. However, it is possible to stand up to the bastards in confirmation hearings. I stood up in my confirming hearing, and the embarrassed Democrats requested that the entire hearing be deleted from the record.

    If the Chairman of Exxon and a Lt. General are not capable of standing up to the imbecilic Congress, they are unfit for office. That they did not stand up is an indication that they lack the strength that Trump needs if he is to bring change from the top.

    If Trump is unable to change US foreign policy, thermonuclear war and the destruction of Earth are inevitable.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Position Statement in support of a new investigation into the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001

    Sponsors: Daniel Barnum, FAIA and Fifty Members of the Institute

    Intent: To adopt a Position Statement in support of a new investigation into the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001.

    Text of Resolution

    WHEREAS, according to the AIA Public Policies and Position Statements, architects are professionally obligated to use their knowledge, skill, and experience to engage in civic life; and

    WHEREAS, World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), a 47-story, steel-framed high-rise building, suffered a total collapse at 5:20 PM on the afternoon of September 11, 2001; and

    WHEREAS, the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 has become the subject of vigorous public debate, such that establishing the true cause of the collapse
    of WTC 7 is of great civic importance; and|

    WHEREAS, the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 has become the subject of vigorous public debate, such that establishing the true cause of the collapse of WTC 7 is of great civic importance; and

    WHEREAS, prior to and since September 11, 2001, no steel-framed high-rise building has ever suffered a total collapse, except buildings demolished through the procedure known as controlled demolition; and

    WHEREAS, the collapse of WTC 7 exemplified many of the signature features of controlled demolition, including:

    WHEREAS, first responders and bystanders reported explosions and other phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition immediately prior to and during the collapse of WTC 7, as exemplified in the following account by a first-year NYU medical student identified as "Darryl" on 1010 Wins Radio: "[W]e heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. Turned around. We were shocked to see that the building was, uh Well, it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out. It was horrifying. And then about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that"; and

    WHEREAS, a CNN video captured both the sound of an explosion coming from WTC 7 and the following statements prior to the onset of the collapse:

    Unidentified voice: "You hear that?"

    Voice of emergency worker #1: "Keep your eye on that building. It'll be coming down soon."

    Voice of emergency worker #2: "Building is about to blow up, move it back . We are walking back, there's a building about to blow up. Flame and debris coming down"; and

    WHEREAS, numerous experts in controlled demolition and structural engineering have attested that the collapse of WTC 7 could have only been caused by controlled demolition, as exemplified in the following statement made by Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko after viewing video of the collapse: "This is controlled demolition . It's been imploded. It's a hired job, done by a team of experts"; and

    WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that WTC 7 had only few, small, and scattered fires and modest structural damage, the NYC Office of Emergency Management and the New York Fire Department predicted the collapse of WTC 7 with extraordinary confidence and precision, deciding to establish a safety zone around WTC 7 early in the afternoon and waiting several hours in anticipation of the building's collapse; and

    WHEREAS, local authorities were so certain of WTC 7's eventual collapse that anticipation of the collapse was widely reported in the media, as exemplified by MSNBC's Ashleigh Banfield, who reported, "I've heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is gonna go down next. In fact, one officer told me they're just waiting for that to come down at this point" - and by the BBC, who erroneously began reporting the collapse 23 minutes before it actually occurred; and

    WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that local authorities predicted the collapse of WTC 7 with extraordinary confidence and precision, investigators for the Building Performance Study, conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), were "stunned" by the collapse of WTC 7 and concluded in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence"; and

    WHEREAS, three and a half years after the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began its investigation into the World Trade Center disaster, NIST's lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, stated that NIST had some "preliminary hypotheses," but conceded, "[T]ruthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7"; and

    WHEREAS, NIST finally concluded in its 2008 report that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by "normal office fires," thus abandoning earlier hypotheses that diesel fuel fires or structural damage caused the collapse; and

    WHEREAS, according to NIST, the fires that it alleges triggered the total collapse of WTC 7 burned at temperatures "hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings"; and

    WHEREAS, NIST neglected to examine steel from WTC 7 with a "Swiss cheese appearance" that had been attacked by molten iron - as documented in Appendix C of the FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study - and instead falsely alleged that no identifiable steel was recovered from WTC 7; and

    WHEREAS, in its draft report for public comment, NIST falsely denied that WTC 7 entered free fall, and then acknowledged the occurrence of free fall in its final report, but falsely alleged that the occurrence of free fall was consistent with its computer model, which, in fact, does not show a period of free fall, nor does it come close to replicating the observed collapse; and

    WHEREAS, NIST's computer model omitted critical structural features of WTC 7, which, in the opinion of independent engineers, had they been included, the computer model would have shown that NIST's alleged collapse initiation mechanism had zero probability of occurring; and

    WHEREAS, NIST has refused to release key portions of its modeling data to engineers studying the collapse of WTC 7, claiming that to do so "might jeopardize public safety"; and

    WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including the 97 sponsors of this resolution, believe there is sufficient evidence contradicting NIST's explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 to warrant a new investigation.

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AIA Board of Directors shall commence the process to adopt a Position Statement, to be published in the AIA Directory of Public Policies and Position Statements, stating both:

     The AIA's belief that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and analysis; and

     The AIA's support for a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC 7.

    [Jan 13, 2017] Neoliberalism vs Make America Great Again slogan

    Notable quotes:
    "... Our model for funding infrastructure is broken. Federal funding means project that are most needed by cities can be overlooked while projects that would destroy cities are funded. ..."
    "... The neo in neoliberalism, however, establishes these principles on a significantly different analytic basis from those set forth by Adam Smith, as will become clear below. Moreover, neoliberalism is not simply a set of economic policies; it is not only about facilitating free trade, maximizing corporate profits, and challenging welfarism. ..."
    "... But in so doing, it carries responsibility for the self to new heights: the rationally calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action no matter how severe the constraints on this action-for example, lack of skills, education, and child care in a period of high unemployment and limited welfare benefits. ..."
    "... A fully realized neoliberal citizenry would be the opposite of public-minded; indeed, it would barely exist as a public. The body politic ceases to be a body but is rather a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers . . . ..."
    "... consider the market rationality permeating universities today, from admissions and recruiting to the relentless consumer mentality of students as they consider university brand names, courses, and services, from faculty raiding and pay scales to promotion criteria. ..."
    "... The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the market. ..."
    Jan 13, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    sanjait : , January 13, 2017 at 01:09 AM
    I just read through the Zingales, Schiller, Smith and Wren-Lewis pieces.

    They all make what I would consider to be obvious points, though all are arguably worth repeating, as they are widely not accepted.

    pgl -> sanjait... , January 13, 2017 at 02:07 AM
    Let's see. Zingales does not like crony capitalism whereas Schiller praises LBJ's Great Society. I think most progressives agree with both.
    Libezkova -> sanjait... , January 13, 2017 at 04:37 AM
    There is nothing common between articles of Zingales and Schiller.

    My impression is that Schiller might lost his calling: he might achieve even greater success as a diplomat, if he took this career. He managed to tell something important about incompatibility of [the slogan] "Make America Great Again" with neoliberalism without offending anybody. Which is a pretty difficult thing to do.

    Zingalles is just another Friedman-style market fundamentalist. Nothing new and nothing interesting.

    pgl : , January 13, 2017 at 01:32 AM
    Noah Smith is wrong here: "This idea is important because it meant that we shouldn't expect fiscal stimulus to have much of an effect. Government checks are a temporary form of income, so Friedman's theory predicts that it won't change spending patterns, as advocates such as John Maynard Keynes believed."

    Friedman's view about consumption demand is the same as the Life Cycle Model (Ando and Modligiani). OK - these models do predict that tax rebates should not affect consumption. And yes there are households who are borrower constrained so these rebates do impact their consumption.

    But this is not the only form of fiscal stimulus. Infrastructure investment would increase aggregate demand even under the Friedman view of consumption. This would hold even under the Barro-Ricardian version of this theory. OK - John Cochrane is too stupid to know this. And I see Noah in his rush to bash Milton Friedman has made the same mistake as Cochrane.

    jonny bakho -> pgl... , January 13, 2017 at 03:23 AM
    What Friedman got wrong is not including current income. People with high income spend a fraction of that income and save the rest. Their demand is met, so the additional income mostly goes to savings.

    People with low income spend everything and still have unmet demands. Additional income for them will go to meet those unmet demands (like fixing a toothache or replacing bald tires).

    Friedman was biased against fiscal intervention in an economy and sought evidence to argue against such policies

    Our model for funding infrastructure is broken. Federal funding means project that are most needed by cities can be overlooked while projects that would destroy cities are funded.

    Federal infrastructure funding destroyed city neighborhoods leaving the neighboring areas degraded. Meanwhile, necessary projects such as a new subway tunnel from NJ to Manhattan are blocked by States who are ok if the city fails and growth moves to their side of the river.

    Money should go directly to the cities. Infrastructure should be build to serve the people who live, walk and work there, not to allow cars to drive through at high speeds as the engineers propose. This infrastructure harms cities and becomes a future tax liability that cannot be met if the built infrastructure it encourages is not valuable enough to support maintenance.

    We are discovering that unlike our cities where structures can increase in value, strip malls decline in value, often to worthlessness. Road building is increasingly mechanized and provides less employment per project than in the past. Projects such as replacing leaking water pipes require more labor.

    pgl : , January 13, 2017 at 01:37 AM
    Simon Wren Lewis leaves open the possibility that an increase in aggregate demand can increase real GDP as we may not be at full employment (I'd change that from "may not be" to "are not") but still comes out against tax cuts for the rich with this:

    "There is a very strong case for more public sector investment on numerous grounds. But that investment should go to where it is most needed and where it will be of most social benefit"

    Exactly but alas Team Trump ain't listening.

    Libezkova : January 13, 2017 at 03:45 AM
    Re: Milton Friedman's Cherished Theory Is Laid to Rest - Bloomberg View

    Friedman was not simply wrong. The key for understanding Friedman is that he was a political hack, not a scientist.

    His main achievement was creation (partially for money invested in him and Mont Pelerin Society by financial oligarchy) of what is now called "neoliberal rationality": a pervert view of the world, economics and social processes that now still dominates in the USA and most of Western Europe. It is also a new mode of "govermentability".

    Governmentality is distinguished from earlier forms of rule, in which national wealth is measured as the size of territory or the personal fortune of the sovereign, by the recognition that national economic well-being is tied to the rational management of the national population. Foucault defined governmentality as:

    "the ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses, and reflections, the calculations and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power, which has as its target population, as its principle form of knowledge political economy and as its technical means, apparatuses of security"

    Here is Wendy Brown analysis of "neoliberal rationality": http://lchc.ucsd.edu/cogn_150/Readings/brown.pdf

    == quote ===

    A liberal political order may harbor either liberal or Keynesian economic policies -- it may lean in the direction of maximizing liberty (its politically "conservative" tilt) or of maximizing equality (its politically "liberal" tilt), but in contemporary political parlance, it is no more or less a liberal democracy because of one leaning or the other.

    Indeed, the American convention of referring to advocates of the welfare state as political liberals is especially peculiar, given that American conservatives generally hew more closely to both the classical economic and the political doctrines of liberalism -- it turns the meaning of liberalism in the direction of liberality rather than liberty.

    For our purposes, what is crucial is that the liberalism in what has come to be called neoliberalism refers to liberalism's economic variant, recuperating selected pre-Keynesian assumptions about the generation of wealth and its distribution, rather than to liberalism as a political doctrine, as a set of political institutions, or as political practices. The neo in neoliberalism, however, establishes these principles on a significantly different analytic basis from those set forth by Adam Smith, as will become clear below. Moreover, neoliberalism is not simply a set of economic policies; it is not only about facilitating free trade, maximizing corporate profits, and challenging welfarism.

    Rather, neoliberalism carries a social analysis that, when deployed as a form of governmentality, reaches from the soul of the citizen-subject to education policy to practices of empire. Neoliberal rationality, while foregrounding the market, is not only or even primarily focused on the economy; it involves extending and disseminating market values to all institutions and social action, even as the market itself remains a distinctive player.

    ... ... ...

    1. The political sphere, along with every other dimension of contemporary existence, is submitted to an economic rationality; or, put the other way around, not only is the human being configured exhaustively as homo economicus, but all dimensions of human life are cast in terms of a market rationality. While this entails submitting every action and policy to considerations of profitability, equally important is the production of all human and institutional action as rational entrepreneurial action, conducted according to a calculus of utility, benefit, or satisfaction against a microeconomic grid of scarcity, supply and demand, and moral value-neutrality. Neoliberalism does not simply assume that all aspects of social, cultural, and political life can be reduced to such a calculus; rather, it develops institutional practices and rewards for enacting this vision. That is, through discourse and policy promulgating its criteria, neoliberalism produces rational actors and imposes a market rationale for decision making in all spheres.

    Importantly, then, neoliberalism involves a normative rather than ontological claim about the pervasiveness of economic rationality and it advocates the institution building, policies, and discourse development appropriate to such a claim. Neoliberalism is a constructivist project: it does not presume the ontological givenness of a thoroughgoing economic rationality for all domains of society but rather takes as its task the development, dissemination, and institutionalization of such a rationality. This point is further developed in (2) below.

    2. In contrast with the notorious laissez-faire and human propensity to "truck and barter" stressed by classical economic liberalism, neoliberalism does not conceive of either the market itself or rational economic behavior as purely natural. Both are constructed-organized by law and political institutions, and requiring political intervention and orchestration. Far from flourishing when left alone, the economy must be directed, buttressed, and protected by law and policy as well as by the dissemination of social norms designed to facilitate competition, free trade, and rational economic action on the part of every member and institution of society.

    In Lemke's account, "In the Ordo-liberal scheme, the market does not amount to a natural economic reality, with intrinsic laws that the art of government must bear in mind and respect; instead, the market can be constituted and kept alive only by dint of political interventions. . . . [C]ompetition, too, is not a natural fact. . . . [T]his fundamental economic mechanism can function only if support is forthcoming to bolster a series of conditions, and adherence to the latter must consistently be guaranteed by legal measures" (193).
    The neoliberal formulation of the state and especially of specific legal arrangements and decisions as the precondition and ongoing condition of the market does not mean that the market is controlled by the state but precisely the opposite. The market is the organizing and regulative principle of the state and society, along three different lines:

    1. The state openly responds to needs of the market, whether through monetary and fiscal policy, immigration policy, the treatment of criminals, or the structure of public education. In so doing, the state is no longer encumbered by the danger of incurring the legitimation deficits predicted by 1970s social theorists and political economists such as Nicos Poulantzas, Jόrgen Habermas, and James O'Connor.6 Rather, neoliberal rationality extended to the state itself indexes the state's success according to its ability to sustain and foster the market and ties state legitimacy to such success. This is a new form of legitimation, one that "founds a state," according to Lemke, and contrasts with the Hegelian and French revolutionary notion of the constitutional state as the emergent universal representative of the people. As Lemke describes Foucault's account of Ordo-liberal thinking, "economic liberty produces the legitimacy for a form of sovereignty limited to guaranteeing economic activity . . . a state that was no longer defined in terms of an historical mission but legitimated itself with reference to economic growth" (196).
    2. The state itself is enfolded and animated by market rationality: that is, not simply profitability but a generalized calculation of cost and benefit becomes the measure of all state practices. Political discourse on all matters is framed in entrepreneurial terms; the state must not simply concern itself with the market but think and behave like a market actor across all of its functions, including law. 7
    3. Putting (a) and (b) together, the health and growth of the economy is the basis of state legitimacy, both because the state is forthrightly responsible for the health of the economy and because of the economic rationality to which state practices have been submitted. Thus, "It's the economy, stupid" becomes more than a campaign slogan; rather, it expresses the principle of the state's legitimacy and the basis for state action-from constitutional adjudication and campaign finance reform to welfare and education policy to foreign policy, including warfare and the organization of "homeland security."

    3. The extension of economic rationality to formerly noneconomic domains and institutions reaches individual conduct, or, more precisely, prescribes the citizen-subject of a neoliberal order. Whereas classical liberalism articulated a distinction, and at times even a tension, among the criteria for individual moral, associational, and economic actions (hence the striking differences in tone, subject matter, and even prescriptions between Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and his Theory of Moral Sentiments), neoliberalism normatively constructs and interpellates individuals as entrepreneurial actors in every sphere of life.

    It figures individuals as rational, calculating creatures whose moral autonomy is measured by their capacity for "self-care"-the ability to provide for their own needs and service their own ambitions. In making the individual fully responsible for her- or himself, neoliberalism equates moral responsibility with rational action; it erases the discrepancy between economic and moral behavior by configuring morality entirely as a matter of rational deliberation about costs, benefits, and consequences.

    But in so doing, it carries responsibility for the self to new heights: the rationally calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action no matter how severe the constraints on this action-for example, lack of skills, education, and child care in a period of high unemployment and limited welfare benefits.

    Correspondingly, a "mismanaged life," the neoliberal appellation for failure to navigate impediments to prosperity, becomes a new mode of depoliticizing social and economic powers and at the same time reduces political citizenship to an unprecedented degree of passivity and political complacency.

    The model neoliberal citizen is one who strategizes for her- or himself among various social, political, and economic options, not one who strives with others to alter or organize these options. A fully realized neoliberal citizenry would be the opposite of public-minded; indeed, it would barely exist as a public. The body politic ceases to be a body but is rather a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers . . . which is, of course, exactly how voters are addressed in most American campaign discourse.8

    Other evidence for progress in the development of such a citizenry is not far from hand: consider the market rationality permeating universities today, from admissions and recruiting to the relentless consumer mentality of students as they consider university brand names, courses, and services, from faculty raiding and pay scales to promotion criteria. 9

    Or consider the way in which consequential moral lapses (of a sexual or criminal nature) by politicians, business executives, or church and university administrators are so often apologized for as "mistakes in judgment," implying that it was the calculation that was wrong, not the act, actor, or rationale.

    The state is not without a project in the making of the neoliberal subject. It attempts to construct prudent subjects through policies that organize such prudence: this is the basis of a range of welfare reforms such as workfare and single-parent penalties, changes in the criminal code such as the "three strikes law," and educational voucher schemes.

    Because neoliberalism casts rational action as a norm rather than an ontology, social policy is the means by which the state produces subjects whose compass is set entirely by their rational assessment of the costs and benefits of certain acts, whether those acts pertain to teen pregnancy, tax fraud, or retirement planning. The neoliberal citizen is calculating rather than rule abiding, a Benthamite rather than a Hobbesian.

    The state is one of many sites framing the calculations leading to social behaviors that keep costs low and productivity high. This mode of governmentality (techniques of governing that exceed express state action and orchestrate the subject's conduct toward himor herself) convenes a "free" subject who rationally deliberates about alternative courses of action, makes choices, and bears responsibility for the consequences of these choices. In this way, Lemke argues, "the state leads and controls subjects without being responsible for them"; as individual "entrepreneurs" in every aspect of life, subjects become wholly responsible for their well-being and citizenship is reduced to success in this entrepreneurship (201).

    Neoliberal subjects are controlled through their freedom-not simply, as thinkers from the Frankfurt School through Foucault have argued, because freedom within an order of domination can be an instrument of that domination, but because of neoliberalism's moralization of the consequences of this freedom. Such control also means that the withdrawal of the state from certain domains, followed by the privatization of certain state functions, does not amount to a dismantling of government but rather constitutes a technique of governing; indeed, it is the signature technique of neoliberal governance, in which rational economic action suffused throughout society replaces express state rule or provision.

    Neoliberalism shifts "the regulatory competence of the state onto 'responsible,' 'rational' individuals [with the aim of] encourag[ing] individuals to give their lives a specific entrepreneurial form" (Lemke, 202).

    4. Finally, the suffusion of both the state and the subject with economic rationality has the effect of radically transforming and narrowing the criteria for good social policy vis-ΰ-vis classical liberal democracy. Not only must social policy meet profitability tests, incite and unblock competition, and produce rational subjects, it obeys the entrepreneurial principle of "equal inequality for all" as it "multiples and expands entrepreneurial forms with the body social" (Lemke, 195). This is the principle that links the neoliberal governmentalization of the state with that of the social and the subject.

    Taken together, the extension of economic rationality to all aspects of thought and activity, the placement of the state in forthright and direct service to the economy, the rendering of the state tout court as an enterprise organized by market rationality, the production of the moral subject as an entrepreneurial subject, and the construction of social policy according to these criteria might appear as a more intensive rather than fundamentally new form of the saturation of social and political realms by capital. That is, the political rationality of neoliberalism might be read as issuing from a stage of capitalism that simply underscores Marx's argument that capital penetrates and transforms every aspect of life-remaking everything in its image and reducing every value and activity to its cold rationale.

    All that would be new here is the flagrant and relentless submission of the state and the individual, the church and the university, morality, sex, marriage, and leisure practices to this rationale. Or better, the only novelty would be the recently achieved hegemony of rational choice theory in the human sciences, self-represented as an independent and objective branch of knowledge rather than an expression of the dominance of capital. Another reading that would figure neoliberalism as continuous with the past would theorize it through Weber's rationalization thesis rather than Marx's argument about capital.

    The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the market.

    Julio -> Libezkova...

    I agree with this. But I think it's extraordinarily wordy, and fails to emphasize the deification of private property which is at the root of it.

    anne -> Libezkova... January 13, 2017 at 05:10 AM

    http://lchc.ucsd.edu/cogn_150/Readings/brown.pdf

    January, 2003

    Neoliberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy
    By Wendy Brown

    Chris G :

    Brown - who I haven't read much of but like what I have - sounds a lot like Lasch.

    Brown:

    "The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the market."

    Lasch in Revolt of the Elites:

    "... Individuals cannot learn to speak for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there are no values except those of the market.... The market tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist with institutions that operate according to principles that are antithetical to itself: schools and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pressure on every activity to justify itself in the only terms it recognizes: to become a business proposition, to pay its own way, to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship into professional careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every institution in its own image."

    Libezkova -> anne... January 13, 2017 at 05:43 AM
    The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy Paperback – January 17, 1996

    by Christopher Lasch

    https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Elites-Betrayal-Democracy/dp/0393313719

    anne -> anne...
    Correcting:

    https://www.theworkingcentre.org/course-content/2717-communitarianism-or-populism-ethic-compassion-and-ethic-respect

    May, 1992

    Communitarianism or Populism? The Ethic of Compassion and the Ethic of Respect
    By Christopher Lasch

    [Jan 13, 2017] Mystery Hackers Blow Up Secret NSA Hacking Tools in 'Final F--k You'

    Notable quotes:
    "... The message was accompanied by a parting gift...an apparently complete NSA backdoor kit targeting the Windows operating system. The kit is comprised of 61 malicious Windows executables, only one of which was previously known to antivirus vendors... ..."
    Jan 13, 2017 | www.thedailybeast.com
    by Kevin Poulsen

    "A mysterious hacking group has been bedeviling the U.S. intelligence community for months, releasing a tranche of secret National Security Agency hacking tools to the public while offering to sell even more for the right price. Now with barely a week to go before Donald Trump's inauguration, the self-styled "Shadow Brokers" on Thursday announced that they were packing it in.

    "So long, farewell peoples. TheShadowBrokers is going dark, making exit," the group wrote on its darknet site... The message was accompanied by a parting gift...an apparently complete NSA backdoor kit targeting the Windows operating system. The kit is comprised of 61 malicious Windows executables, only one of which was previously known to antivirus vendors...

    ... ... ...

    The Shadow Brokers emerged in August with the announcement that they'd stolen the hacking tools used by a sophisticated computer-intrusion operation known as the Equation Group, and were putting them up for sale to the highest bidder. It was a remarkable claim, because the Equation Group is generally understood to be part of the NSA's elite Tailored Access Operations program and is virtually never detected, much less penetrated.

    ... ... ...

    Released along with the announcement was a huge cache of specialized malware, including dozens of backdoor programs and 10 exploits, two of them targeting previously unknown security holes in Cisco routers-a basic building block of the internet. While Cisco and other companies scrambled for a fix, security experts pored over the Shadow Brokers tranche like it was the Rosetta Stone. "It was the first time, as threat-intelligence professionals, that we've had access to what appears to be a relatively complete toolkit of a nation-state attacker," says Jake Williams, founder of Rendition Infosec. "It was excitement in some circles, dismay in other circles, and panic and a rush to patch if you're running vulnerable hardware."

    [Jan 12, 2017] The Neocons declaration of war against Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ." ..."
    "... this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat. ..."
    "... Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery! ..."
    "... Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him. ..."
    "... Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump. ..."
    "... In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. ..."
    "... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ..."
    "... I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently. ..."
    "... Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives). ..."
    "... There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, ..."
    "... His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries. ..."
    "... I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake. ..."
    "... To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World. ..."
    "... The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness. ..."
    "... despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. ..."
    "... Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything. ..."
    "... The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion. ..."
    "... There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal. ..."
    "... It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general. ..."
    "... So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation. ..."
    "... Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity. ..."
    "... "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit" ..."
    "... I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison. ..."
    "... It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool. ..."
    "... The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true. Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature. ..."
    "... McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family. ..."
    "... I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months. ..."
    "... The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times. ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be called a declaration of war against Donald Trump.

    It all began with CNN published an article entitled " Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him " which claimed that:

    Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible ( ) The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

    The website Buzzfeed then published the full document . Here it is in full.

    When I first read the document my intention was to debunk it sentence by sentence. However, I don't have the time for that and, frankly, there is no need for it. I will just provide you here with enough simple straightforward evidence that this is a fake. Here are just a few elements of proof: The document has no letterhead, no identification, no date, no nothing. For many good technical and even legal reasons, sensitive intelligence documents are created with plenty of tracking and identification information. For example, such a document would typically have a reference to the unit which produced it or an number-letter combination indicating the reliability of the source and of the information it contains. The classification CONFIDENTIAL/SENSITIVE SOURCE is a joke. If this was a true document its level of classification would be much, much higher than "confidential" and since most intelligence documents come from sensitive sources there is no need to specify that.

    The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ."

    Nobody in a real intelligence document would bother to clarify what the word "kompromat" means since both in Russian and in English it is obviously the combination of the words "compromising" and "materials". Any western intelligence officer, even a very junior one, would know that word, if only because of the many Cold War era espionage books written about the KGB entrapment techniques. The document speaks of "source A", "source B" and further down the alphabet. Now ask yourself a simple question: what happens after "source Z" is used? Can any intelligence agency work with a potential pool of sources limited to 26? Obviously, this is not how intelligence agencies classify their sources.

    I will stop here and submit that there is ample evidence that this is a crude fake produced by amateurs who have no idea of what they are talking about.

    This does not make this document any less dangerous, however.

    First, and this is the really crucial part, there is more than enough here to impeach Trump on numerous grounds both political and legal . Let me repeat again – this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat.

    Second, this documents smears everybody involved: Trump himself, of course, but also the evil Russians and their ugly Machiavellian techniques. Trump is thereby "confirmed" as a sexual pervert who likes to hire prostitutes to urinate on him. As for the Russians, they are basically accused of trying to recruit the President of the United States as an agent of their security services. That would make Trump a traitor, by the way.

    Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery!

    Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him.

    Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump.

    All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House (I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed.

    [Sidebar: to those who wonder what I mean by "crackdown" I will summarize here what I wrote elsewhere: the best way to do that is to nominate a hyper-loyal and determined FBI director and instruct him to go after all the enemies of Trump by investigating them on charge of corruption, abuse of power, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and all the other types of behavior which have gone on forever in Congress, the intelligence community, the banking world and the media. Deal with the Neocons like Putin did with the Russian oligarchs or how the USA dealt with Al Capone – get them on tax evasion. There is no need to open Gulags or shoot people when you can get them all on what is their normal daily behavior :-)]

    I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and I admit that I might be, but I don't have the gut feeling that Trump has what it takes to hit hard enough at those who are using any and every ugly method imaginable to prevent him from ever making it into the White House or to have him impeached if he tries to deliver on his campaign promises. I cannot blame him for that either: the enemy has infiltrated all the level of power in the US polity and there are strong sign that they are even represented in Trump's immediate entourage. Putin could do what he did because he was an iron-willed and highly trained intelligence officer. Trump is just a businessman whose best "training" to deal with such people would probably be his exposure to the mob in New York. Will that be enough to allow him to prevail against the Neocons? I doubt it, but I sure hope so.

    As I predicted it before the election , the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump, the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas). At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat against Trump, I predict that these millions of American will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life, their values and their country.

    In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC. If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President ΰ la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police, security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a Cold War clichι) this can also happen in the USA.

    I sure hope that I am wrong and that this latest attack against Trump is the Neocon's last "hurray" before they finally give up and leave. I hope that all of the above is my paranoia speaking. But, as they say, " just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ".

    So please tell me I am wrong!

    (Reprinted from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)

    Mao Cheng Ji , January 11, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.

    Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).

    @Mikhailovich
    "this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case - why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
    Seamus Padraig , January 11, 2017 at 9:05 pm GMT

    Looks like CNN and Buzzfeed got trolled hard by 4Chan: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-11/archived-posts-prove-4chan-trolled-cia-trump-golden-shower-story-entire-russian-hack

    dearieme ,January 11, 2017 at 9:44 pm GMT

    If the pis-en-lit putsch fails, there will be another along in a minute. "Lock 'em up" is going to have to be applied by the thousands.

    @pyrrhus
    Indeed. There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, a number of people at the CIA would be shot for treason.
    Enrique Ferro , January 11, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Saker, Putin's crack down the oligarchs took him some years, the time to gather forces and get them in disarray. He was very clever and cautious, he didn't go after them overnight. And Putin had decisive connections. Besides it was never so dramatic, and his succession was smooth The problem with Trump, as you say, is that he is quite new in town, and a forlorn fighter.

    His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries.

    I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake.

    @Mikhailovich
    Russian oligarchs had about 5% support of Russian people. They needed Putin themselves. Alternative was the communists and the nationalisation of everything.

    Putin gave them choice: carry on with your business, but not interfere in the politics or leave the country. Khodorkovsky tried to resist and failed miserably. The regime change from the oligarchs to Putin took about four years.

    After election 2004, it was clear who control the country. In US, the establishment, in their struggle against Trump, has support of almost half of US people, including all minorities (Jews too). To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World.

    Robert Magill , January 11, 2017 at 10:59 pm GMT • 200 Words

    This is excerpted from a futurist short story that was never published and hopefully would never be acted upon. Today's madness make it almost a possibility.

    Rescuing the Republic From Itself /or How 50 Men, Women and Children Could Save our Bacon.

    One thing still trumps all others in America. It isn't wealth, nor power, it's not the myth of our uniqueness under Heaven no. It's a lot more basic and powerful than those. It even trumps celebrity which is a close second. No, fundamental as those are in the national psyche they pale in comparison to Number One racism. Added to this ancient plague is a relative newcomer. Only about a century old; it is a formidable competitor and looks like it's here to stay. (If the money holds out.) Big drum roll ..ForeverWar!

    Secret Plan: Your Eyes Only. Need-To-Know Established. Emergency use only! Not to be attempted until things are so bad nothing else is feasible.The basis of the Secret Plan is to use racism against racism. more https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/how-our-republic-was-finally-rescued-from-itself-or/

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    @Lemurmaniac
    Racism is in group preference based upon common descent. It's how you create a stable polity as De Tocqueville elaborated - one people and one culture settled the United States. Ethnic solidarity allows us to cooperate to produce public goods in the common interest.
    Forbes , January 12, 2017 at 2:54 am GMT • 100 Words

    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.

    What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.

    @Kyle McKenna
    It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.

    However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.

    Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.

    Anon , January 12, 2017 at 5:35 am GMT • 100 Words

    Does blackmail work?

    Didn't J. Edgar Hoover have all sorts of tapes of MLK acting like Fartin Poother Bling? Drunkeness, orgies, blasphemy, hitting women around, and acting like some rapper thug?

    Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.

    And Monica's dress failed to topple Billy Boy Clinton.

    BBC reports that it was some British Intelligence that got this news. But I don't know if we should trust that stuff. Didn't British intelligence spread false rumors to drag the US into both WWI and WWII?

    Well, if Russia does have the incriminating tape and had planned to blackmail Trump, that possibility is gone since the beans have been spilled.

    PS. Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men? Now, that would explain a lot.

    @Eagle Eye
    Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men?
    Senator Frist was mentioned as a Barry worshiper. Barry loves humiliating and lying to white men, probably still acting out early childhood trauma over having been ditched by 3 parents (father - whoever he was, mother, and stepfather), perhaps a lot of other unpleasantness that tends to befall unprotected boys. ,
    @Dr. X
    Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
    Yeah, because a Federal judge sealed his FBI records from being FOILed for fifty years, so that TPTB could create a Magic Negro myth about him and make him more important than George Washington.
    The Alarmist , January 12, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT

    "There is no need to open Gulags ."

    There's still plenty of room at Gitmo, and it would only be fitting to bring the neocons face to face with their old friends and henchmen.

    Kyle McKenna , January 12, 2017 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words
    @Forbes
    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.

    What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.

    It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.

    However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.

    Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.

    @Anonymous
    "even a tad hysterical"

    it's anutha showa --

    Ned Resnikoff

    Nov 12 2016 -- 4 days after the election of Donald Trump

    Wanted to share an experience from earlier today. This afternoon, I had a plumber over to my apartment to fix a clogged drain. He was a perfectly nice guy and a consummate professional. But he was also a middle aged white man with a southern accent who seemed unperturbed by this week's news. And while I had him in the apartment, I couldn't stop thinking about whether he had voted for Trump, whether he knew my last name is Jewish, and how that knowledge might change the interaction we were having inside my own home. I have no real reason to believe he was a Trump support or an anti-Semite, but in my uncertainty I couldn't shake the sense of potential danger. I was rattled for some time after he left.

    I'm very privileged insofar as this sense of range is unfamiliar to me. And I know I feel it much less acutely than a lot of other people right now. I'm still a straight, white guy who can phenotypically pass for gentile. Plus my first name is pretty WASP-y.

    But today was a reminder that ambiguous social interactions now feel unsafe and unpredictable in a way that they never did before. And even if Trump is gone in four years, I don't expect to ever reclaim that feeling of security. That's just one more thing you voted for, if you voted for him."

    https://twitter.com/Thomasismyuncle/status/818117574466699264

    anon , January 12, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT • 100 Words

    I am of the opinion that the dossier, even if true, is at most embarrassing but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment is for offenses committed while in office, not for alleged misdeeds before the office starts when the person was a private citizen. The process of election, is a judgement on fitness to hold office. He can be impeached only for things he will do after Jan. 20.

    All voters who voted for him knew he is not strong on personal or business morality or ethics. He was elected in spite of that. That should take away all the sting out of the dossier allegations.

    Impeachment and Removal by CRS

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

    @Randal
    The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion.

    There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal.

    Miro23 , January 12, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT • 500 Words

    The Neocons' Declaration of War Against Trump,

    It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general.

    So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation.

    You either belong to the corporation or you don't, and it's not essential to have a Jewish connection either (e.g. top executives Hillary Clinton and John McCain) with the general idea being to run the enterprise for the mutual benefit of its members.

    Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity.

    Corporations are not too concerned if their competitors go bankrupt, it's just part of the business, and in fact it's positive, since it shows that your corporation can capture a market and exploit it more profitably. If your competitors are Gentile businesses then there are various ways to remove them, the most popular being to gain leadership positions in Gentile Corporation "G" while still holding loyalty to Jewish Corporation "J". Corporation "G" can them be incorporated in Corporation " J" and the top executives replaced.

    Trump's problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a Corporate "J" run "deep state", that sees the US in mostly economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit. Putin faced a similar problem when he came to power in Russia (also Corporation "J" ), and slowly resolved it by blocking their attempts to gain political power (arrest on tax charges of Khodorkovsky) and emphasizing national interests and identity over corporate interests.

    Trump could follow a similar line by blocking all special interest access to Congress, or more aggressively suspend all CIA and FBI non-disclosure agreements, giving past and present agents immunity to prosecution and inviting them to present documentation in confidence to a Presidential Commission regarding any activities that in their opinion were conducted against the interests of the United States.

    Alternatively he could accept the presidency of Corporation "J", take the tremendous benefits, and be hailed by the MSM as America's Greatest Leader, but as the article says, face a backlash from his base who will see that he has sold them out.

    @alexander
    "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit"


    "Exploited" Miro23 ?

    This has got to be the "understatement" of the decade.... Lets just take a look at the numbers, shall we?..

    Let us say for a moment that I placed you (or myself ) on a street corner in New York City with the specific intention of handing out a $1,000,000 cashiers check to each and every person who walks by ........ Do you know how many people you would have to hand the check to...in order to EQUAL the amount of tax dollars this "deep state" VACUUM has "sucked" from the taxpayers pockets, in a mere decade and a half ?......

    14,300,000 people.!

    That's right !... the entire Population of Manhattan.. TIMES TWO.

    This is not the total in "spending" , mind you..No, No....this is the total in... "overspending".

    Our national debt has BALLOONED from 5.7 trillion in 2000 to a whopping 20 trillion in just sixteen years...

    A "bone crunching" $14.3 million, million dollars --

    This level of "assault" on our nations balance sheet is wholly unprecedented in history.

    Its absolutely "mind -numbing"

    Its obscene.

    And what can nearly all of this humongous debt, foisted on the backs of 320 million Americans, be attributed to ....

    BANKING FRAUD as in....triple A rating worthless subprime junk
    TERROR FRAUD as in ....it was "Saddam's Anthrax" in Senators Leahy's office
    WAR FRAUD as in.....imminent threat of "mushroom clouds" ,WMD's, and "Yellow Cake from Niger".

    This kind of behavior is simply unacceptable.

    Yet for some reason, there has been ZERO accountability......ZERO.

    This cannot continue.

    The people voted in the Donald to "Drain the Swamp"....because if he doesn't do something..we are all SUNK.

    And if the "swamp doesn't want to be drained"...well.... too bad......Because the American people have put their foot down on this....and they ain't gonna budge --

    Throw the whole lot in Guantanamo Bay, Mr. President, if need be.....Just get it done --

    Enough is enough.

    Mikhailovich , January 12, 2017 at 7:40 am GMT

    I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison.

    @annamaria
    Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination, what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit... clear signs of degradation.
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.

    Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).

    "this whole thing was his own design" – you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case – why he would attack them? And other question – why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?

    @Mao Cheng Ji
    No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them -- in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it -- and then get burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind... ,
    @squf
    No, "by design" would refer to the original document being hoaxed, not that Trump has complete control over the Cathedral's media wing.
    n230099 , January 12, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT • 100 Words

    "And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC"

    One of the oft heard cliches of the gun control crowd is that the armed among the unwashed are silly to think they could stand against the might of the government. But as the writer here implies, this notion relies on the authorities staying with the program. But these folks are still family people for which their service is just a job. The notion that they're all part of a unified goon squad may be in error.

    Ram , January 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT • 100 Words

    " one of the parties here will be crushed."

    I sure hope it won't be Trump. However, his promise to drain the swamp has NOT happened, and the State Department is still completely controlled by the ZioCons and the foreign policy is controlled from Tel Aviv. The recent attempt to further subvert British politics by the Israeli embassy in London was exposed but what will the consequence be.? Not very much I guess.

    War for Blair Mountain , January 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The Civil War will be in fact an all-out-race-war. They didn't take this into account when the 1965 Immigration Reform Act was passed. We are already in a low-level .maybe not so low-level race war. Barack Obama will spend his time in retirement with very aggressive racial grievance agitation.

    The basement of the US has been filled to the brim with gasoline ..we are one match away .one match

    @george strong
    I hope you are correct. All decent white men have many scores to settle.
    Quartermaster , January 12, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT • 100 Words

    It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool.

    @annamaria
    Agree. The "intelligent" community's big shots showed themselves to be intellectual whimpers. ,
    @Eagle Eye
    Yep, the more lurid parts are definitely a hoax, with some other parts cobbled together from open sources to lend volume and credibility to this threadbare effort.

    The weird fascination with the person of Obama is a dead giveaway. Only an Obama worshiper would feel that the highest/lowest form of sexual perversion is to commit sacrilege against a BED that the Holy One and his consort had slept in.

    Whatever Trump's personal predilections, they are most unlikely to revolve around the person of Barry Obama.

    On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see will have encountered the type of fervid, manic, glassy-eyed Barry worshiper (mostly gay or female) with the characteristic combination of sexual arousal and religious fervor, leavened with vicious bitchiness during depressive phases.

    War for Blair Mountain , January 12, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Dear Saker

    The term "hillbillies" is a slur against the People of Appalachia. It is a slur that is used in comedy skits on SNL written by the East Coast Rootless Cosmopolitan SNL Comedy Writers. For the record Tina Fey is not Jewish niether is Samantha Bee -- but they are Rootless Cosmopolitan Filth.

    CK , January 12, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true.
    Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature.

    Rick Wilson is a moral degenerate as is his son whose web site is a storehouse of perversity.

    Imagine what kind of mental aberration you have to hold to believe that hiring prostitutes and having them urinate on new linen somehow invalidated or harms someone who might have slept in that room months previously.

    That is the level of aberration that runs from Pizzagate to the highest levels of American Journalism and the American Democratic party ( but I repeat myself). Sympathetic magic maybe?

    @annamaria
    McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family.
    Che Guava , January 12, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

    I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months.

    Hanoi Hilton collaborator and Lord Haw Haw of the US in Vietnam, John McCain decided to dash it out again. Having never logged on to 4chan, but been an admin on a site they invaded, I know and at times enjoy their troll style. That supposedly serious 'intelligence' agencies push that entertaining crap, as disinfo without a second thought is mystifying

    It also raises my estimation of the Donald, never heard his speaking voice before, but it is quite good,
    .
    Trump needs to clean their Augean stables.

    They are cleary sn.

    If the disinfo against hm iis so bad, he must be doing many things right.
    . . .

    Anonymous , January 12, 2017 at 2:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its founding and note this has always been the case. Like petulant children, the CIA tends to be present oriented in extremis . It discounts the future and is therefore constitutively unprepared for exposure, consequences, and blowback. The CIA knows how to make a mess of things but not much else.

    I would not trust any intelligence coming from the CIA It doesn't appear to be staffed with very intelligent people. The KGB (now the SFB/SVR) is running circles around them.

    @annamaria
    "...incompetent CIA.."
    Decades of selection in favor of opportunists and sycophants, while, at the same time, weeding out the principled and competent professionals.
    Is not the result grand? - CIA as a senescent, gossiping madame. ,
    @Realist
    "I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its founding and note this has always been the case."

    Exactly right. The CIA has never done anything to better the US for the common man. From it's inception it was the muscle for the power elite. It's purpose was to manipulate foreign governments to provide wealth and power to the power elite/deep state, which ever you prefer. And occasionally to eliminate threats to it'self.

    DaveE , January 12, 2017 at 3:06 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.

    No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.

    Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?

    Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it .." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take a train outa town.

    If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.

    @CanSpeccy
    War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.

    That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home, and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.

    alexander , January 12, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT • 400 Words
    Agent76 , January 12, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT • 100 Words

    They are the cancer that needs to be radiated and removed in both wings of the War party!

    Mar 2, 2014 Jeremy Scahill: The One Party State, The War Party

    Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today's world behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature. Washington, D.C. is a town that operates by campaign contributions and legal bribery in the form of campaign finance. What can the American people do to get their political representatives to represent them as opposed to the mega corporations. When will the people's voice be heard?

    @Realist
    Jeremy is wrong at least one thing. McCain is a member in good standing with the deep state. Just too stupid to be elected.
    Mao Cheng Ji , January 12, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Mikhailovich
    "this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case - why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?

    No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them - in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it - and then get burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind

    @Mikhailovich
    The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times.
    @anonymous
    They'd probably bite on anything.

    I look at the CNN webpage once in a while, and I get the distinct impression that the people staffing the place are simply not very bright.

    There may be too many diversity hires? It seems like a group of actors and SJWs pretending to be journalists. They aren't serious people, and you'd like to not have to take them seriously but since they control the information flow of the nation you kind of have to.

    CanSpeccy , • Website January 12, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @DaveE
    The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.

    No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.

    Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?

    Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it....." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take a train outa town.

    If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.

    War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.

    That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home, and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.

    Abelard Lindsey , January 12, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT

    I can assure you that, if Trump is prevented from taking office, or is removed from office after being sworn in, millions of us WILL treat it as a coup d'etat and will respond appropriately, and this does not necessarily involve violence.

    I can also tell you our feelings are not limited to the South and Texas. Many of us in the Western U.S. feel the same way.

    @anonymous
    So many options. Take a page from the leftists and block highways and ports -- but on a grand scale.

    Simply stop paying taxes. Stop funding the entire machine -- the sports, shops, colleges. Just stop it all.

    If there is a coup, it'll more than past time for it all to be stopped. It will be time to implode the whole thing and hit the reset button.

    Thales the Milesian , January 12, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

    USA: numero uno!

    Every patriotic American should support president Trump, all the way.

    Long live President Trump!

    annamaria , January 12, 2017 at 5:12 pm GMT
    @Mikhailovich
    I tell you - you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison.

    Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination, what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit clear signs of degradation.

    @Mikhailovich
    The difference between the corporate interests of the financial-political elite and the interests of the nation became too obvious. So they are failing to persuade American Nation that they are acting in the national interest.

    [Jan 12, 2017] The Neocons declaration of war against Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ." ..."
    "... this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat. ..."
    "... Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery! ..."
    "... Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him. ..."
    "... Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump. ..."
    "... In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. ..."
    "... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ..."
    "... I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently. ..."
    "... Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives). ..."
    "... There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, ..."
    "... His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries. ..."
    "... I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake. ..."
    "... To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World. ..."
    "... The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness. ..."
    "... despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. ..."
    "... Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything. ..."
    "... The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion. ..."
    "... There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal. ..."
    "... It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general. ..."
    "... So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation. ..."
    "... Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity. ..."
    "... "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit" ..."
    "... I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison. ..."
    "... It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool. ..."
    "... The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true. Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature. ..."
    "... McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family. ..."
    "... I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months. ..."
    "... The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times. ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be called a declaration of war against Donald Trump.

    It all began with CNN published an article entitled " Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him " which claimed that:

    Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible ( ) The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

    The website Buzzfeed then published the full document . Here it is in full.

    When I first read the document my intention was to debunk it sentence by sentence. However, I don't have the time for that and, frankly, there is no need for it. I will just provide you here with enough simple straightforward evidence that this is a fake. Here are just a few elements of proof: The document has no letterhead, no identification, no date, no nothing. For many good technical and even legal reasons, sensitive intelligence documents are created with plenty of tracking and identification information. For example, such a document would typically have a reference to the unit which produced it or an number-letter combination indicating the reliability of the source and of the information it contains. The classification CONFIDENTIAL/SENSITIVE SOURCE is a joke. If this was a true document its level of classification would be much, much higher than "confidential" and since most intelligence documents come from sensitive sources there is no need to specify that.

    The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ."

    Nobody in a real intelligence document would bother to clarify what the word "kompromat" means since both in Russian and in English it is obviously the combination of the words "compromising" and "materials". Any western intelligence officer, even a very junior one, would know that word, if only because of the many Cold War era espionage books written about the KGB entrapment techniques. The document speaks of "source A", "source B" and further down the alphabet. Now ask yourself a simple question: what happens after "source Z" is used? Can any intelligence agency work with a potential pool of sources limited to 26? Obviously, this is not how intelligence agencies classify their sources.

    I will stop here and submit that there is ample evidence that this is a crude fake produced by amateurs who have no idea of what they are talking about.

    This does not make this document any less dangerous, however.

    First, and this is the really crucial part, there is more than enough here to impeach Trump on numerous grounds both political and legal . Let me repeat again – this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat.

    Second, this documents smears everybody involved: Trump himself, of course, but also the evil Russians and their ugly Machiavellian techniques. Trump is thereby "confirmed" as a sexual pervert who likes to hire prostitutes to urinate on him. As for the Russians, they are basically accused of trying to recruit the President of the United States as an agent of their security services. That would make Trump a traitor, by the way.

    Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery!

    Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him.

    Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump.

    All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House (I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed.

    [Sidebar: to those who wonder what I mean by "crackdown" I will summarize here what I wrote elsewhere: the best way to do that is to nominate a hyper-loyal and determined FBI director and instruct him to go after all the enemies of Trump by investigating them on charge of corruption, abuse of power, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and all the other types of behavior which have gone on forever in Congress, the intelligence community, the banking world and the media. Deal with the Neocons like Putin did with the Russian oligarchs or how the USA dealt with Al Capone – get them on tax evasion. There is no need to open Gulags or shoot people when you can get them all on what is their normal daily behavior :-)]

    I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and I admit that I might be, but I don't have the gut feeling that Trump has what it takes to hit hard enough at those who are using any and every ugly method imaginable to prevent him from ever making it into the White House or to have him impeached if he tries to deliver on his campaign promises. I cannot blame him for that either: the enemy has infiltrated all the level of power in the US polity and there are strong sign that they are even represented in Trump's immediate entourage. Putin could do what he did because he was an iron-willed and highly trained intelligence officer. Trump is just a businessman whose best "training" to deal with such people would probably be his exposure to the mob in New York. Will that be enough to allow him to prevail against the Neocons? I doubt it, but I sure hope so.

    As I predicted it before the election , the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump, the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas). At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat against Trump, I predict that these millions of American will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life, their values and their country.

    In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC. If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President ΰ la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police, security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a Cold War clichι) this can also happen in the USA.

    I sure hope that I am wrong and that this latest attack against Trump is the Neocon's last "hurray" before they finally give up and leave. I hope that all of the above is my paranoia speaking. But, as they say, " just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ".

    So please tell me I am wrong!

    (Reprinted from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)

    Mao Cheng Ji , January 11, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.

    Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).

    @Mikhailovich
    "this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case - why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
    Seamus Padraig , January 11, 2017 at 9:05 pm GMT

    Looks like CNN and Buzzfeed got trolled hard by 4Chan: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-11/archived-posts-prove-4chan-trolled-cia-trump-golden-shower-story-entire-russian-hack

    dearieme ,January 11, 2017 at 9:44 pm GMT

    If the pis-en-lit putsch fails, there will be another along in a minute. "Lock 'em up" is going to have to be applied by the thousands.

    @pyrrhus
    Indeed. There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, a number of people at the CIA would be shot for treason.
    Enrique Ferro , January 11, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Saker, Putin's crack down the oligarchs took him some years, the time to gather forces and get them in disarray. He was very clever and cautious, he didn't go after them overnight. And Putin had decisive connections. Besides it was never so dramatic, and his succession was smooth The problem with Trump, as you say, is that he is quite new in town, and a forlorn fighter.

    His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries.

    I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake.

    @Mikhailovich
    Russian oligarchs had about 5% support of Russian people. They needed Putin themselves. Alternative was the communists and the nationalisation of everything.

    Putin gave them choice: carry on with your business, but not interfere in the politics or leave the country. Khodorkovsky tried to resist and failed miserably. The regime change from the oligarchs to Putin took about four years.

    After election 2004, it was clear who control the country. In US, the establishment, in their struggle against Trump, has support of almost half of US people, including all minorities (Jews too). To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World.

    Robert Magill , January 11, 2017 at 10:59 pm GMT • 200 Words

    This is excerpted from a futurist short story that was never published and hopefully would never be acted upon. Today's madness make it almost a possibility.

    Rescuing the Republic From Itself /or How 50 Men, Women and Children Could Save our Bacon.

    One thing still trumps all others in America. It isn't wealth, nor power, it's not the myth of our uniqueness under Heaven no. It's a lot more basic and powerful than those. It even trumps celebrity which is a close second. No, fundamental as those are in the national psyche they pale in comparison to Number One racism. Added to this ancient plague is a relative newcomer. Only about a century old; it is a formidable competitor and looks like it's here to stay. (If the money holds out.) Big drum roll ..ForeverWar!

    Secret Plan: Your Eyes Only. Need-To-Know Established. Emergency use only! Not to be attempted until things are so bad nothing else is feasible.The basis of the Secret Plan is to use racism against racism. more https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/how-our-republic-was-finally-rescued-from-itself-or/

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    @Lemurmaniac
    Racism is in group preference based upon common descent. It's how you create a stable polity as De Tocqueville elaborated - one people and one culture settled the United States. Ethnic solidarity allows us to cooperate to produce public goods in the common interest.
    Forbes , January 12, 2017 at 2:54 am GMT • 100 Words

    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.

    What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.

    @Kyle McKenna
    It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.

    However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.

    Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.

    Anon , January 12, 2017 at 5:35 am GMT • 100 Words

    Does blackmail work?

    Didn't J. Edgar Hoover have all sorts of tapes of MLK acting like Fartin Poother Bling? Drunkeness, orgies, blasphemy, hitting women around, and acting like some rapper thug?

    Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.

    And Monica's dress failed to topple Billy Boy Clinton.

    BBC reports that it was some British Intelligence that got this news. But I don't know if we should trust that stuff. Didn't British intelligence spread false rumors to drag the US into both WWI and WWII?

    Well, if Russia does have the incriminating tape and had planned to blackmail Trump, that possibility is gone since the beans have been spilled.

    PS. Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men? Now, that would explain a lot.

    @Eagle Eye
    Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men?
    Senator Frist was mentioned as a Barry worshiper. Barry loves humiliating and lying to white men, probably still acting out early childhood trauma over having been ditched by 3 parents (father - whoever he was, mother, and stepfather), perhaps a lot of other unpleasantness that tends to befall unprotected boys. ,
    @Dr. X
    Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
    Yeah, because a Federal judge sealed his FBI records from being FOILed for fifty years, so that TPTB could create a Magic Negro myth about him and make him more important than George Washington.
    The Alarmist , January 12, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT

    "There is no need to open Gulags ."

    There's still plenty of room at Gitmo, and it would only be fitting to bring the neocons face to face with their old friends and henchmen.

    Kyle McKenna , January 12, 2017 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words
    @Forbes
    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.

    What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.

    It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.

    However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.

    Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.

    @Anonymous
    "even a tad hysterical"

    it's anutha showa --

    Ned Resnikoff

    Nov 12 2016 -- 4 days after the election of Donald Trump

    Wanted to share an experience from earlier today. This afternoon, I had a plumber over to my apartment to fix a clogged drain. He was a perfectly nice guy and a consummate professional. But he was also a middle aged white man with a southern accent who seemed unperturbed by this week's news. And while I had him in the apartment, I couldn't stop thinking about whether he had voted for Trump, whether he knew my last name is Jewish, and how that knowledge might change the interaction we were having inside my own home. I have no real reason to believe he was a Trump support or an anti-Semite, but in my uncertainty I couldn't shake the sense of potential danger. I was rattled for some time after he left.

    I'm very privileged insofar as this sense of range is unfamiliar to me. And I know I feel it much less acutely than a lot of other people right now. I'm still a straight, white guy who can phenotypically pass for gentile. Plus my first name is pretty WASP-y.

    But today was a reminder that ambiguous social interactions now feel unsafe and unpredictable in a way that they never did before. And even if Trump is gone in four years, I don't expect to ever reclaim that feeling of security. That's just one more thing you voted for, if you voted for him."

    https://twitter.com/Thomasismyuncle/status/818117574466699264

    anon , January 12, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT • 100 Words

    I am of the opinion that the dossier, even if true, is at most embarrassing but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment is for offenses committed while in office, not for alleged misdeeds before the office starts when the person was a private citizen. The process of election, is a judgement on fitness to hold office. He can be impeached only for things he will do after Jan. 20.

    All voters who voted for him knew he is not strong on personal or business morality or ethics. He was elected in spite of that. That should take away all the sting out of the dossier allegations.

    Impeachment and Removal by CRS

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

    @Randal
    The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion.

    There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal.

    Miro23 , January 12, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT • 500 Words

    The Neocons' Declaration of War Against Trump,

    It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general.

    So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation.

    You either belong to the corporation or you don't, and it's not essential to have a Jewish connection either (e.g. top executives Hillary Clinton and John McCain) with the general idea being to run the enterprise for the mutual benefit of its members.

    Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity.

    Corporations are not too concerned if their competitors go bankrupt, it's just part of the business, and in fact it's positive, since it shows that your corporation can capture a market and exploit it more profitably. If your competitors are Gentile businesses then there are various ways to remove them, the most popular being to gain leadership positions in Gentile Corporation "G" while still holding loyalty to Jewish Corporation "J". Corporation "G" can them be incorporated in Corporation " J" and the top executives replaced.

    Trump's problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a Corporate "J" run "deep state", that sees the US in mostly economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit. Putin faced a similar problem when he came to power in Russia (also Corporation "J" ), and slowly resolved it by blocking their attempts to gain political power (arrest on tax charges of Khodorkovsky) and emphasizing national interests and identity over corporate interests.

    Trump could follow a similar line by blocking all special interest access to Congress, or more aggressively suspend all CIA and FBI non-disclosure agreements, giving past and present agents immunity to prosecution and inviting them to present documentation in confidence to a Presidential Commission regarding any activities that in their opinion were conducted against the interests of the United States.

    Alternatively he could accept the presidency of Corporation "J", take the tremendous benefits, and be hailed by the MSM as America's Greatest Leader, but as the article says, face a backlash from his base who will see that he has sold them out.

    @alexander
    "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit"


    "Exploited" Miro23 ?

    This has got to be the "understatement" of the decade.... Lets just take a look at the numbers, shall we?..

    Let us say for a moment that I placed you (or myself ) on a street corner in New York City with the specific intention of handing out a $1,000,000 cashiers check to each and every person who walks by ........ Do you know how many people you would have to hand the check to...in order to EQUAL the amount of tax dollars this "deep state" VACUUM has "sucked" from the taxpayers pockets, in a mere decade and a half ?......

    14,300,000 people.!

    That's right !... the entire Population of Manhattan.. TIMES TWO.

    This is not the total in "spending" , mind you..No, No....this is the total in... "overspending".

    Our national debt has BALLOONED from 5.7 trillion in 2000 to a whopping 20 trillion in just sixteen years...

    A "bone crunching" $14.3 million, million dollars --

    This level of "assault" on our nations balance sheet is wholly unprecedented in history.

    Its absolutely "mind -numbing"

    Its obscene.

    And what can nearly all of this humongous debt, foisted on the backs of 320 million Americans, be attributed to ....

    BANKING FRAUD as in....triple A rating worthless subprime junk
    TERROR FRAUD as in ....it was "Saddam's Anthrax" in Senators Leahy's office
    WAR FRAUD as in.....imminent threat of "mushroom clouds" ,WMD's, and "Yellow Cake from Niger".

    This kind of behavior is simply unacceptable.

    Yet for some reason, there has been ZERO accountability......ZERO.

    This cannot continue.

    The people voted in the Donald to "Drain the Swamp"....because if he doesn't do something..we are all SUNK.

    And if the "swamp doesn't want to be drained"...well.... too bad......Because the American people have put their foot down on this....and they ain't gonna budge --

    Throw the whole lot in Guantanamo Bay, Mr. President, if need be.....Just get it done --

    Enough is enough.

    Mikhailovich , January 12, 2017 at 7:40 am GMT

    I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison.

    @annamaria
    Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination, what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit... clear signs of degradation.
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.

    Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).

    "this whole thing was his own design" – you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case – why he would attack them? And other question – why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?

    @Mao Cheng Ji
    No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them -- in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it -- and then get burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind... ,
    @squf
    No, "by design" would refer to the original document being hoaxed, not that Trump has complete control over the Cathedral's media wing.
    n230099 , January 12, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT • 100 Words

    "And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC"

    One of the oft heard cliches of the gun control crowd is that the armed among the unwashed are silly to think they could stand against the might of the government. But as the writer here implies, this notion relies on the authorities staying with the program. But these folks are still family people for which their service is just a job. The notion that they're all part of a unified goon squad may be in error.

    Ram , January 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT • 100 Words

    " one of the parties here will be crushed."

    I sure hope it won't be Trump. However, his promise to drain the swamp has NOT happened, and the State Department is still completely controlled by the ZioCons and the foreign policy is controlled from Tel Aviv. The recent attempt to further subvert British politics by the Israeli embassy in London was exposed but what will the consequence be.? Not very much I guess.

    War for Blair Mountain , January 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The Civil War will be in fact an all-out-race-war. They didn't take this into account when the 1965 Immigration Reform Act was passed. We are already in a low-level .maybe not so low-level race war. Barack Obama will spend his time in retirement with very aggressive racial grievance agitation.

    The basement of the US has been filled to the brim with gasoline ..we are one match away .one match

    @george strong
    I hope you are correct. All decent white men have many scores to settle.
    Quartermaster , January 12, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT • 100 Words

    It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool.

    @annamaria
    Agree. The "intelligent" community's big shots showed themselves to be intellectual whimpers. ,
    @Eagle Eye
    Yep, the more lurid parts are definitely a hoax, with some other parts cobbled together from open sources to lend volume and credibility to this threadbare effort.

    The weird fascination with the person of Obama is a dead giveaway. Only an Obama worshiper would feel that the highest/lowest form of sexual perversion is to commit sacrilege against a BED that the Holy One and his consort had slept in.

    Whatever Trump's personal predilections, they are most unlikely to revolve around the person of Barry Obama.

    On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see will have encountered the type of fervid, manic, glassy-eyed Barry worshiper (mostly gay or female) with the characteristic combination of sexual arousal and religious fervor, leavened with vicious bitchiness during depressive phases.

    War for Blair Mountain , January 12, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Dear Saker

    The term "hillbillies" is a slur against the People of Appalachia. It is a slur that is used in comedy skits on SNL written by the East Coast Rootless Cosmopolitan SNL Comedy Writers. For the record Tina Fey is not Jewish niether is Samantha Bee -- but they are Rootless Cosmopolitan Filth.

    CK , January 12, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true.
    Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature.

    Rick Wilson is a moral degenerate as is his son whose web site is a storehouse of perversity.

    Imagine what kind of mental aberration you have to hold to believe that hiring prostitutes and having them urinate on new linen somehow invalidated or harms someone who might have slept in that room months previously.

    That is the level of aberration that runs from Pizzagate to the highest levels of American Journalism and the American Democratic party ( but I repeat myself). Sympathetic magic maybe?

    @annamaria
    McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family.
    Che Guava , January 12, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

    I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months.

    Hanoi Hilton collaborator and Lord Haw Haw of the US in Vietnam, John McCain decided to dash it out again. Having never logged on to 4chan, but been an admin on a site they invaded, I know and at times enjoy their troll style. That supposedly serious 'intelligence' agencies push that entertaining crap, as disinfo without a second thought is mystifying

    It also raises my estimation of the Donald, never heard his speaking voice before, but it is quite good,
    .
    Trump needs to clean their Augean stables.

    They are cleary sn.

    If the disinfo against hm iis so bad, he must be doing many things right.
    . . .

    Anonymous , January 12, 2017 at 2:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its founding and note this has always been the case. Like petulant children, the CIA tends to be present oriented in extremis . It discounts the future and is therefore constitutively unprepared for exposure, consequences, and blowback. The CIA knows how to make a mess of things but not much else.

    I would not trust any intelligence coming from the CIA It doesn't appear to be staffed with very intelligent people. The KGB (now the SFB/SVR) is running circles around them.

    @annamaria
    "...incompetent CIA.."
    Decades of selection in favor of opportunists and sycophants, while, at the same time, weeding out the principled and competent professionals.
    Is not the result grand? - CIA as a senescent, gossiping madame. ,
    @Realist
    "I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its founding and note this has always been the case."

    Exactly right. The CIA has never done anything to better the US for the common man. From it's inception it was the muscle for the power elite. It's purpose was to manipulate foreign governments to provide wealth and power to the power elite/deep state, which ever you prefer. And occasionally to eliminate threats to it'self.

    DaveE , January 12, 2017 at 3:06 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.

    No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.

    Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?

    Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it .." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take a train outa town.

    If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.

    @CanSpeccy
    War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.

    That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home, and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.

    alexander , January 12, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT • 400 Words
    Agent76 , January 12, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT • 100 Words

    They are the cancer that needs to be radiated and removed in both wings of the War party!

    Mar 2, 2014 Jeremy Scahill: The One Party State, The War Party

    Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today's world behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature. Washington, D.C. is a town that operates by campaign contributions and legal bribery in the form of campaign finance. What can the American people do to get their political representatives to represent them as opposed to the mega corporations. When will the people's voice be heard?

    @Realist
    Jeremy is wrong at least one thing. McCain is a member in good standing with the deep state. Just too stupid to be elected.
    Mao Cheng Ji , January 12, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Mikhailovich
    "this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case - why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?

    No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them - in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it - and then get burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind

    @Mikhailovich
    The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times.
    @anonymous
    They'd probably bite on anything.

    I look at the CNN webpage once in a while, and I get the distinct impression that the people staffing the place are simply not very bright.

    There may be too many diversity hires? It seems like a group of actors and SJWs pretending to be journalists. They aren't serious people, and you'd like to not have to take them seriously but since they control the information flow of the nation you kind of have to.

    CanSpeccy , • Website January 12, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @DaveE
    The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.

    No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.

    Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?

    Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it....." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take a train outa town.

    If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.

    War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.

    That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home, and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.

    Abelard Lindsey , January 12, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT

    I can assure you that, if Trump is prevented from taking office, or is removed from office after being sworn in, millions of us WILL treat it as a coup d'etat and will respond appropriately, and this does not necessarily involve violence.

    I can also tell you our feelings are not limited to the South and Texas. Many of us in the Western U.S. feel the same way.

    @anonymous
    So many options. Take a page from the leftists and block highways and ports -- but on a grand scale.

    Simply stop paying taxes. Stop funding the entire machine -- the sports, shops, colleges. Just stop it all.

    If there is a coup, it'll more than past time for it all to be stopped. It will be time to implode the whole thing and hit the reset button.

    Thales the Milesian , January 12, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

    USA: numero uno!

    Every patriotic American should support president Trump, all the way.

    Long live President Trump!

    annamaria , January 12, 2017 at 5:12 pm GMT
    @Mikhailovich
    I tell you - you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison.

    Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination, what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit clear signs of degradation.

    @Mikhailovich
    The difference between the corporate interests of the financial-political elite and the interests of the nation became too obvious. So they are failing to persuade American Nation that they are acting in the national interest.

    [Jan 12, 2017] Chuck Todd Excoriates Buzzfeed's Editor in Chief 'YOU PUBLISHED FAKE NEWS'

    Jan 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Chuck Todd Excoriates Buzzfeed's Editor in Chief: 'YOU PUBLISHED FAKE NEWS'

    Rudolph Steiner Jan 12, 2017 3:17 PM

    You cannot make this up! As a NEWS purveyor today you say anything you like, from any credible or not credible person or organization on the planet, and then claim it is up to your readers to decide if it is true or not. Yikes. The American Fourth Estate is beginning to look like a one flight up gentleman's parlor on old Times Square.

    inosent Jan 12, 2017 12:17 PM

    a lot of homosexual practitioners like ben smith produce this kind of garbage. the aggressive promotion of homosexualized America, and Europe as well, has been very bad news indeed. That is a political agenda that needs to meet some serious resistance.

    dizzyfingers Jan 12, 2017 12:07 PM

    Isn't 99.99% of tv "news" fake? That's if you add in commercials... :-)

    worbsid Karl Marxist Jan 12, 2017 1:06 PM

    Chuck Todd is doing exactly was he is being paid to do. Just like you, me, and every one else. Not that he is especially good at what he is supposed to be doing though. Tucker is much better.

    chunga Jan 12, 2017 10:56 AM

    Carlson blowing up Mark Ingram last night was pretty funny too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7FZ6dJGoJ4

    [Jan 12, 2017] I know a lot of people who dislike Trump, and none of them seem to believe the buzzfeed story

    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke.
    Notable quotes:
    "... People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their minds. ..."
    "... People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe it. ..."
    "... People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story". Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday Night Live sketch about Trump. ..."
    "... "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit." ..."
    "... It's just partisan warfare. ..."
    "... "Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy. ..."
    "... CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else? ..."
    "... Glenn Greenwald explains the whole vendetta against Trump based on sham data. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/ ..."
    "... With release of the buzz feed data, they overplayed their hand, destroyed their narrative, embarrassed themselves, and ultimately strengthened Trump. ..."
    "... "they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man. ..."
    "... The long knives will come out during the next recession ..."
    "... This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information about Bush43 as a draft dodger. ..."
    "... In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus. ..."
    "... In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect, though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the buzz feed overreach. ..."
    "... Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is Putin's fault' narrative comes in. ..."
    "... Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security. ..."
    "... Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very sick. ..."
    "... There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and too specific. ..."
    "... the election should never been about Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary could never wrap here head around. ..."
    "... Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news. ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 06:57 AM
    The thing about Trump is that people can imagine he's the kind of guy who would enjoy being urinated on by Russian prostitutes, even if the allegations are untrue. He is so into gold and into women.

    People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their minds.

    jeff fisher -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 10:10 AM
    I know a lot of people who dislike Trump, and none of them seem to believe the buzzfeed story. People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe it.

    People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story". Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday Night Live sketch about Trump.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 06:59 AM
    "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit."

    Kind of like Comey was a huge embarrassment to Republicans? I don't think so. It's just partisan warfare.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 07:01 AM
    So leaks are good when Wikileaks do them but bad when intelligence officials do them?

    We know Trump will never be consistent, but you can try to have single standards.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 07:06 AM
    "Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 07:28 AM
    "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit."

    CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else?

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 07:44 AM
    Glenn Greenwald explains the whole vendetta against Trump based on sham data.
    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/

    With release of the buzz feed data, they overplayed their hand, destroyed their narrative, embarrassed themselves, and ultimately strengthened Trump.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 07:50 AM
    Like Trump doesn't use "sham data" and innuendo. Who cares? Poetic justice. Trump is just going to waste his time pursuing vendettas against those who sullied his good name.

    Maybe that drama will "crowd out" some of his plans to enact Paul Ryan's agenda. Maybe it will cause a backlash among those Americans interested in a free press and democratic norms.

    Like I said some of your ideas are good, but they are tarnished by some of the really stupid things you say by association.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 08:21 AM
    We already know that Trump has a Teflon shield. If the establishment is going to get him, they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables. Trumped up charges won't cut it.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:32 AM
    "We already know that Trump has a Teflon shield."

    via DeLong:

    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/01/should-read-josh-marshall-_what-you-didnt-see_-what-may-be-the-most-significant-news-of-the-day-barely-made-a-ri.html#more

    Should-Read: Josh Marshall: What You Didn't See: "What may be the most significant news of the day barely made a ripple...

    ...Donald Trump, ten days from becoming President, has an approval rating of 37%. Most presidents seldom get so low. Some never do. For ten days away from inauguration it's totally unprecedented.... Each of the last three presidents had approval ratings of at least 65% during their presidential transitions.... Curiously absent from press coverage [has been that] Trump, his agenda and his party are deeply unpopular... [and have] gotten steadily more unpopular over the last four weeks..."

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:34 AM
    "they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man.
    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 09:39 AM
    The long knives will come out during the next recession, when Trump will have proven his incompetence. Pretense for impeachment is unknowable, but it better be good!
    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 07:56 AM
    This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information about Bush43 as a draft dodger.

    In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus.

    In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect, though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the buzz feed overreach.

    Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:08 AM
    There was an interesting movie about the Rather case staring Robert Redford and Cate Blanchette. Trump is engaging in the same thuggish behavior as Republicans used against Rather and his producer in that case. Or course CBS folded because they had regulatory changes about affiliate ownership before the Bush administration.

    We can expect the same cowardice from our corporate media regarding the Trump administration.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 08:19 AM
    It would be interesting to know if Trump had something to do with release of the buzz feed report. It would make Trump smarter than I think he really is. My understanding is that John McCain, who hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before buzz feed released it.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:40 AM
    "My understanding is that John McCain, who hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before buzz feed released it." A lot of people knew about it. The eight leading congress people on the intelligence committees knew about it. David Corn reported about it in October in Mother Jones.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:27 AM
    "Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative."

    I'll agree with you on this. Obama went more positive in 2008 and 2012 than Hillary did in 2016 and was successful at the polls. Negative campaigning works but seems like too much of it depresses turnout.

    Part of it is that establishment Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 09:06 AM
    Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is Putin's fault' narrative comes in.

    Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security.

    Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very sick.

    jeff fisher -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 10:35 AM
    There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and too specific.

    The Republican's policy ideas are awful. Trump will be a terrible president. Putin wants us weak, and the Republican party will deliver just as it did during the Bush presidency.

    We will make little progress on our important problems, and make massive blunders that cost us for decades.

    Global warming will continue to improve the Russian Climate. Progress on renewable energy will be slowed, improving the market for Russian oil and gas. The US will worsen its healthcare problems. The US will exacerbate its inequality. The toxic republican attitude toward the institutions of democracy will come from all three branches of the federal government, and most state governments.

    Peter K. -> jeff fisher... , January 12, 2017 at 10:42 AM
    Putin doesn't like Hillary. At the time, she said Putin's election was rigged. And they were pushing Russia on all fronts. Trump is an isolationist who doesn't care about human rights or freedom of the press.

    Simple as that.

    jeff fisher -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 11:02 AM
    That's too specific. Not a good campaign narrative. It is reasonably true.

    But remember, Putin is supporting awful right wing parties in various nations. It wasn't just Clinton.

    JohnH -> jeff fisher... , January 12, 2017 at 12:08 PM
    Agreed. There were probably better Putin narratives, and the election should never been about Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary could never wrap here head around.

    Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news.

    [Jan 12, 2017] And now bottom feeders from BBC join the chorus

    This Paul Wood. is very funny "I understand the CIA believes it is credible..." The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. But despite this Paul wood provided a good (albeit very dirty) hatchet job. Looks like neocons declared the open war on Trump. And as they are just a flavor of Trotskyites they are are capable of everything as they preach " the end justifies the means"... with their global neoliberal revolution under threat they can do as low as gangsters. Fake evidence is OK form in the best the "end justified the means" way.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent, understood to be Christopher Steele ..."
    "... As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information. ..."
    "... Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack. The president-elect himself, outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" ..."
    "... He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together". ..."
    "... The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries. ..."
    "... Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter. ..."
    "... At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have cameras." ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : January 12, 2017 at 09:06 AM , 2017 at 09:06 AM
    Adding the BBC's reporting on the compromising of Donald Trump to the above posts that got off-track, imo, from the issue

    "Theatre of the absurd"

    Took my breath away...

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

    "Trump 'compromising' claims: How and why did we get here?"

    By Paul Wood...BBC News...Washington...1-12-2017...47 minutes ago

    "Donald Trump has described as "fake news" allegations published in some media that his election team colluded with Russia - and that Russia held compromising material about his private life. The BBC's Paul Wood saw the allegations before the election, and reports on the fallout now they have come to light.

    The significance of these allegations is that, if true, the president-elect of the United States would be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.

    I understand the CIA believes it is credible that the Kremlin has such kompromat - or compromising material - on the next US commander in chief. At the same time a joint taskforce, which includes the CIA and the FBI, has been investigating allegations that the Russians may have sent money to Mr Trump's organisation or his election campaign.

    Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent, understood to be Christopher Steele.

    As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information.

    They told him that Mr Trump had been filmed with a group of prostitutes in the presidential suite of Moscow's Ritz-Carlton hotel. I know this because the Washington political research company that commissioned his report showed it to me during the final week of the election campaign.

    The BBC decided not to use it then, for the very good reason that without seeing the tape - if it exists - we could not know if the claims were true. The detail of the allegations were certainly lurid. The entire series of reports has now been posted by BuzzFeed.

    [Image of Trump's Tweet]

    Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack. The president-elect himself, outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" Later, at his much-awaited news conference, he was unrestrained. "A thing like that should have never been written," he said, "and certainly should never have been released."

    He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together".

    The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries.

    Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter. But these are not political hacks - their usual line of work is country analysis and commercial risk assessment, similar to the former MI6 agent's consultancy. He, apparently, gave his dossier to the FBI against the firm's advice.

    [Photo of Trump in Moscow, 2013 w/beauty contestants]

    And the former MI6 agent is not the only source for the claim about Russian kompromat on the president-elect. Back in August, a retired spy told me he had been informed of its existence by "the head of an East European intelligence agency".

    Later, I used an intermediary to pass some questions to active duty CIA officers dealing with the case file - they would not speak to me directly. I got a message back that there was "more than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature".

    'Be very careful'

    The claims of Russian kompromat on Mr Trump were "credible", the CIA believed. That is why - according to the New York Times and Washington Post - these claims ended up on President Barack Obama's desk last week, a briefing document also given to Congressional leaders and to Mr Trump himself.

    Mr Trump did visit Moscow in November 2013, the date the main tape is supposed to have been made. There is TV footage of him at the Miss Universe contest. Any visitor to a grand hotel in Moscow would be wise to assume that their room comes equipped with hidden cameras and microphones as well as a mini-bar.

    At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have cameras." So the Russian security services have made obtaining kompromat an art form.

    One Russian specialist told me that Vladimir Putin himself sometimes says there is kompromat on him - though perhaps he is joking. The specialist went on to tell me that FSB officers are prone to boasting about having tapes on public figures, and to be careful of any statements they might make.

    A former CIA officer told me he had spoken by phone to a serving FSB officer who talked about the tapes. He concluded: "It's hokey as hell."

    Mr Trump and his supporters are right to point out that these are unsubstantiated allegations.

    But it is not just sex, it is money too. The former MI6 agent's report detailed alleged attempts by the Kremlin to offer Mr Trump lucrative "sweetheart deals" in Russia that would buy his loyalty.

    Mr Trump turned these down, and indeed has done little real business in Russia. But a joint intelligence and law enforcement taskforce has been looking at allegations that the Kremlin paid money to his campaign through his associates.

    Legal applications

    On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

    "I'm going to write a story that says " I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he would reply, if my information was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.

    Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly - a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.

    It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.

    The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency, responsible for electronic spying.

    Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

    Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

    Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

    A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

    I spoke to all three of those identified by this source. All of them emphatically denied any wrongdoing. "Hogwash," said one. "Bullshit," said another. Of the two Russian banks, one denied any wrongdoing, while the other did not respond to a request for comment.

    The investigation was active going into the election. During that period, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, wrote to the director of the FBI, accusing him of holding back "explosive information" about Mr Trump.

    Mr Reid sent his letter after getting an intelligence briefing, along with other senior figures in Congress. Only eight people were present: the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress, the "gang of eight" as they are sometimes called. Normally, senior staff attend "gang of eight" intelligence briefings, but not this time. The Congressional leaders were not even allowed to take notes.

    'Puppet'

    In the letter to the FBI director, James Comey, Mr Reid said: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and co-ordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government - a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Mr Trump praises at every opportunity.

    "The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information."

    The CIA, FBI, Justice and Treasury all refused to comment when I approached them after hearing about the Fisa warrant.

    It is not clear what will happen to the inter-agency investigation under President Trump - or even if the taskforce is continuing its work now. The Russians have denied any attempt to influence the president-elect - with either money or a blackmail tape.

    If a tape exists, the Russians would hardly give it up, though some hope to encourage a disloyal FSB officer who might want to make some serious money. Before the election, Larry Flynt, publisher of the pornographic magazine Hustler, put up a million dollars for incriminating tape of Mr Trump. Penthouse has now followed with its own offer of a million dollars for the Ritz-Carlton tape (if it exists).

    It is an extraordinary situation, 10 days before Mr Trump is sworn into office, but it was foreshadowed during the campaign.

    During the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump a "puppet" of Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin. "No puppet. No puppet," Mr Trump interjected, talking over Mrs Clinton. "You're the puppet. No, you're the puppet."

    In a New York Times op-ed in August, the former director of the CIA, Michael Morell, wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr Putin had recruited Mr Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    Agent; puppet - both terms imply some measure of influence or control by Moscow.

    Michael Hayden, former head of both the CIA and the NSA, simply called Mr Trump a "polezni durak" - a useful fool.

    The background to those statements was information held - at the time - within the intelligence community. Now all Americans have heard the claims. Little more than a week before his inauguration, they will have to decide if their president-elect really was being blackmailed by Moscow."

    [Jan 11, 2017] Remarks of Stephen Bannon at a Conference at the Vatican

    See http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/11/18/remarks-of-stephen-bannon-at-a-conference-at-the-vatican
    Notable quotes:
    "... Dugin is positively millenarian: "We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ." ..."
    Jan 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne -> Julio ... , January 10, 2017 at 10:20 AM
    Again, I know nothing about Steve Bannon but the column of David Brooks does not seem to be connected to the Vatican speech referred to:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/11/18/remarks-of-stephen-bannon-at-a-conference-at-the-vatican/

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , January 10, 2017 at 10:53 AM
    Putin and Trump could be on the same side in this troubling new world order https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/trump-putin-same-side-new-world-order
    The Guardian - Matthew d'Ancona - Dec 19

    Russian hacking, White House warnings, angry denials by Vladimir Putin's officials: we are edging towards a digital Cuban crisis. So it is as well to ask what is truly at stake in this e-conflict, and what underpins it.

    To which end, meet the most important intellectual you have (probably) never heard of. Alexander Dugin, the Russian political scientist and polemicist, may resemble Santa's evil younger brother and talk like a villain from an Austin Powers movie. But it is no accident that he has earned the nickname Putin's Rasputin. ...

    The purpose of operations like the hacking of the US election has been to destabilize the Atlantic order generally, and America specifically. And on this great struggle, Dugin is positively millenarian: "We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ."

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 10, 2017 at 12:03 PM
    I do appreciate the reference, but the language of the column portion is too much for me. I stopped reading a few words after "Santa's."
    Julio -> anne... , January 10, 2017 at 11:27 AM
    At the end of your linked article there is a link to the full speech, including the Q&A. It takes you here:
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.wn06r4OX5#.eqzLQEa5M

    In the Q&A he discusses Russia and Putin; his comments include this: "I'm not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. "

    John San Vant -> Julio ... , January 10, 2017 at 11:26 AM
    Bannon is a zionist shill and always will be. He has tried to blur that point away. But that kind of crap is pure zionism. Putin's ties with Ashkenazi jews is well well known. He has had much support from the extreme wings of the Lukud for years, yet the idiots don't pay attention. Putin sold himself and they bought it up. The myth he purged the Oligarchs from Russia cracks me up. He made sure the winners power was firmly planted.

    From a "conservative revolutionary" (Renee Guenon aka real traditionalism) pov, this is pure bunk. Nationalism is semitic by its very nature and collectivist. What they want is a global plutocracy with the bible as its whip. Now, not everybody agrees with that version of "plutocracy". Thus comes the adversaries, the Jesuits.

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 10, 2017 at 09:58 AM
    http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/11/18/remarks-of-stephen-bannon-at-a-conference-at-the-vatican/

    2014

    Remarks of Stephen Bannon at a Conference at the Vatican

    [Jan 11, 2017] Intelligence Agencies Ask Americans to Trust, Don t Verify in New Cold War

    Jan 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : January 10, 2017 at 05:50 AM

    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/intelligence-agencies-ask-americans-to-trust-don-t-verify-in-new-cold-war

    January 9, 2017

    Intelligence Agencies Ask Americans to "Trust, Don't Verify" in New Cold War
    By Mark Weisbrot

    Just as the first casualty of war is said to be the truth, the first casualty of the New Cold War is irony. Our most prominent journalists seem to have missed the Orwellian irony of Senator John McCain asking Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper at Friday's Senate hearings if Julian Assange has any credibility. Assange has maintained that the hacked or leaked emails of Democratic Party officials did not come from the Russian government, or any other government.

    As is well known, Clapper lied to Congress about a serious violation of the constitutional rights of tens of millions of Americans. This lie is a crime for which he actually could have been prosecuted.

    In March 2013, Clapper falsely answered, "No, sir" to the question, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He later admitted that his answer was untrue.

    Clapper lied again in Friday's testimony, saying that Assange was "under indictment" for "a sexual crime." In fact, Assange has not been indicted for anything, and the government of Sweden has never even charged him with a crime. In reality, he is a political prisoner, and the United Nations Working Group on arbitrary detention has found that he has been arbitrarily detained since 2010 by the UK and Sweden, and ordered his release and compensation. He has offered from the beginning of his political persecution to co-operate with the Swedish authorities in any investigation, and to be interviewed at any time in London. He could not safely return to Sweden without guarantees that he would not be sent to the US, where he currently faces a high likelihood of imprisonment (even before any trial) for having published leaked documents that exposed US war crimes and other embarrassments. For years, neither Sweden nor the UK would agree to that because, it appears, their foreign ministries are collaborating with the US government to keep him imprisoned.

    For anyone on a jury who had to weigh the testimony of Clapper against that of Assange, it would be a no-brainer. Not only is Clapper a proven and serial liar, but in 10 years of WikiLeaks revelations, Assange has never been shown to have lied about anything.

    That said, it is entirely possible the Russian government was involved in the hacking of emails here, and that Assange and WikiLeaks would not necessarily be able to identify the original source of the leaks, which is very difficult to do. However, We the People have yet to be presented with evidence that Russian hacking is what actually happened.

    But the media has become so distracted with the festivities at America's new 1950's theme party, hating on Putin and Russia like there's no tomorrow, that the lack of evidence has become almost irrelevant to the big media conversation. The DNI report released on Friday, supposedly to provide the public with evidence that the Russian government had indeed hacked emails in order to influence the US elections, contained no actual evidence that they did so. There was a lot of evidence that Trump was the preferred candidate of Putin and his government. But we didn't need evidence for this; pure logic would have sufficed. What government wouldn't favor a candidate who promises better relations with them?

    About half of the report was littered with a long rant against Russian-sponsored media, including the television station Russia Today. Here is another deep irony: the media that swung the election for Trump was not Russian but American, despite the fact that most of these journalists and editors found the candidate repellent. Trump's huge advantage in free publicity not only won him the primary, but continued into the general election. It was the US media that made the Comey letter so important, because the broadcast media used it to displace Trump's scandals, including the allegations of sexual assaults, in the crucial last 11 days when millions of voters made up their minds.

    Another irony: The US has been hacking elections (and toppling governments) around the world for more than a century. How many hundreds of millions of people, from Indonesia to Chile and dozens of countries in between, wish that all the United States did to their elections was what Russia is accused of doing here in 2016? Of course that is no justification for any foreign intervention here, but it is part of the current story if we want to understand it. Washington's intervention in Ukraine, for example, helped push that country into a civil war that became the main cause of the current state of Cold War between the US and Russia....

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , January 10, 2017 at 07:01 AM
    'The US has been hacking elections (and toppling governments) around the world for more than a century. How many hundreds of millions of people, from Indonesia to Chile and dozens of countries in between, wish that all the United States did to their elections was what Russia is accused of doing here in 2016?'

    Indeed. However, we may insist (feebly) that
    this is NOT something which Great Powers do
    to one another.

    JohnH -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 10, 2017 at 08:10 AM
    Russia is very familiar with foreign meddling in their elections: "President Bill Clinton meddled in Russian affairs in the 1990s and helped Boris Yeltsin get elected to a second term, political analyst Dick Morris told Newsmax TV."
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/bill-clinton-advise-boris-yeltsin-dick-morris/2016/09/08/id/747327/

    I don't like Dick Morris. But he was a top Clinton advisor at the time...he was an eye witness, so he is an excellent source.

    Payback is a bitch!

    kthomas -> JohnH... , January 10, 2017 at 08:21 AM
    Pink hands.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 10, 2017 at 08:21 AM
    The US once invaded Russia, which our goo-goo liberals seem to forget.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

    "The Allied intervention was a multi-national military expedition launched during the Russian Civil War in 1918. The initial goals were to help the Czechoslovak Legion, secure supplies of munitions and armaments in Russian ports, and re-establish the Eastern Front. After winning World War I, the Allies militarily backed the anti-Bolshevik White forces in Russia. Allied efforts were hampered by divided objectives, war-weariness after they just finished greater conflict, and a lack of domestic support. These factors, together with the evacuation of the Czechoslovak Legion, compelled the Allies to withdraw from North Russia and Siberia in 1920, though Japanese forces occupied parts of Siberia until 1922 and the northern half of Sakhalin until 1925.[3]"

    [Jan 11, 2017] Andrew Bacevich How the US Blew the Post-Cold-War Era naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Andrew J. Bacevich, professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book is ..."
    "... American elites might, of course, have assigned a far different, less celebratory meaning to the passing of the Cold War. They might have seen the outcome as a moment that called for regret, repentance, and making amends. ..."
    "... annus mirabilis ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal, ..."
    "... Washington Post, ..."
    "... Weekly Standard, ..."
    "... ne plus ultra ..."
    "... Putin's no saint, but Jeebus, Kissinger and Brxzyzeniski and Nuland and all the rest? The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight? Do they get to run us all into the grave, because we Policy Addicts go along with the insane "logic" of whatever the hell it is that "NATO" in all its idiotic parts is doing? Was the Crimea a casus belli? though it seems to people who are deep in the Think Tanks think EVERYTHING is a casus belli, and never ask any questions of the sorts that Sun Tzu counseled ought to be asked, long before and at every point in any "war" action ..."
    "... This disabled Vietnam vet offers a big FU, to all the Fokkers, armchair or ergonomic Battlespace Manager or Foggy Bottom delicate or Langley overstuffed chairs, who are driving the vast bus we all have to ride in off the cliff, all happy with their impunity and immunity and faux self-created, self-p[rolonged, terminal Grand Responsibilities. ..."
    "... Show how smart you are, send another 300 Marines to Iraq, and another 300 to Notagainistan, for "we won't say combat" involvement in the futility and corruption and destabilization and destruction there Who will be the last Troop, and the last "noncombatant," to die in this old-as-civilization idiocy? Who Fokking cares, really, as long as it is one of those "Enemies " ..."
    "... Gorbachev must have been either stupid or traitor to accept such promises in lieu of real and tangible concessions. ..."
    "... In my view, the biggest mistake was not NATO expansion but rather the looting of the Soviet Union. If the major soviet republics was to be integrated within the western alliance more or less in the same manner as Germany, the situation today would have been very different. Instead of sucking soviet resources over a longer term like Germany does to the EU, west was salivating on the prospects of literally new loots thus awaken the pray. ..."
    "... That made the people of Russia and many others feel disgust, and they resisted at the first opportunity they got. Now, there is no way Russia can be put under the American influence. This is all more remarkable because most Russians had admired the empire so much thus putting them under American umbrella would have been so easy. Putin, for example, was ready to play ball with the west but their insistence on total dominance disgusted even him. I am sure the global elite recognizes this but some still cannot get over how they let this pass. ..."
    "... Putin still supports neoliberalism but this too will pass as neoliberal order is controlled by New York bankers and only way out is another world order, which is exactly what Russia and China started building. Departure of Russia from neoliberal order, I believe, will seal the fate of neoliberalism as it just did it exactly 100 years ago. ..."
    "... I think Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy ..."
    "... Lasch was notable for other trenchant social criticism, including identifying narcissism as the dominant trait of the postwar American psyche and challenging some tenets of second wave feminism. As befits a fearless and original thinker he didn't fit neatly into any established intellectual paradigm. ..."
    "... Globalisation was accompanied by an ideology, neoliberalism, that was guaranteed to fail. The problems were there at the start but were ignored, it was always going to go wrong in exactly the way it has. ..."
    "... Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive ideas. Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many. Democracy – that requires the support of the majority. ..."
    Jan 11, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Andrew Bacevich: How the US Blew the Post-Cold-War Era Posted on January 9, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. While this account is useful, it omits two events I regard as key. One is how the US was singularly responsible for the plutocratic land grab in post-Soviet Russia (see How Harvard Lost Russia ), which led to a stunning fall in male lifespans, a rise of a class of oligarchs, which in turn led to the rise of Putin, whose success resulted from reining in the oligarchs to a degree and delivering a sustained improvement in economic conditions for ordinary people. The US fondness for neoliberal projects all over the world has not done much for international stability. But that is a feature, not a bug, for members of the industrial/surveillance complex.

    Second is the fact that under Clinton, the US began to move NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries, contrary to a promise made by James Baker to Gorbachev. The Russians apparently regarded this as binding, while the legalistic US took the position that unless it was in writing, it didn't count. George Kennan, hardly a slouch in the Cold Warrior department, said it would prove to be the worst geopolitical mistake the US had ever made in the modern era .

    By Andrew J. Bacevich, professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book is America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History . Originally published at TomDispatch

    The fall of the Berlin Wall in October 1989 abruptly ended one historical era and inaugurated another. So, too, did the outcome of last year's U.S. presidential election. What are we to make of the interval between those two watershed moments? Answering that question is essential to understanding how Donald Trump became president and where his ascendency leaves us.

    Hardly had this period commenced before observers fell into the habit of referring to it as the "post-Cold War" era. Now that it's over, a more descriptive name might be in order. My suggestion: America's Age of Great Expectations.

    Forgive and Forget

    The end of the Cold War caught the United States completely by surprise. During the 1980s, even with Mikhail Gorbachev running the Kremlin, few in Washington questioned the prevailing conviction that the Soviet-American rivalry was and would remain a defining feature of international politics more or less in perpetuity. Indeed, endorsing such an assumption was among the prerequisites for gaining entrιe to official circles. Virtually no one in the American establishment gave serious thought to the here-today, gone-tomorrow possibility that the Soviet threat, the Soviet empire, and the Soviet Union itself might someday vanish. Washington had plans aplenty for what to do should a Third World War erupt, but none for what to do if the prospect of such a climactic conflict simply disappeared.

    Still, without missing a beat, when the Berlin Wall fell and two years later the Soviet Union imploded, leading members of that establishment wasted no time in explaining the implications of developments they had totally failed to anticipate. With something close to unanimity, politicians and policy-oriented intellectuals interpreted the unification of Berlin and the ensuing collapse of communism as an all-American victory of cosmic proportions. "We" had won, "they" had lost - with that outcome vindicating everything the United States represented as the archetype of freedom.

    From within the confines of that establishment, one rising young intellectual audaciously suggested that the "end of history" itself might be at hand, with the "sole superpower" left standing now perfectly positioned to determine the future of all humankind. In Washington, various powers-that-be considered this hypothesis and concluded that it sounded just about right. The future took on the appearance of a blank slate upon which Destiny itself was inviting Americans to inscribe their intentions.

    American elites might, of course, have assigned a far different, less celebratory meaning to the passing of the Cold War. They might have seen the outcome as a moment that called for regret, repentance, and making amends.

    After all, the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union, or more broadly between what was then called the Free World and the Communist bloc, had yielded a host of baleful effects. An arms race between two superpowers had created monstrous nuclear arsenals and, on multiple occasions , brought the planet precariously close to Armageddon. Two singularly inglorious wars had claimed the lives of many tens of thousands of American soldiers and literally millions of Asians. One, on the Korean peninsula, had ended in an unsatisfactory draw; the other, in Southeast Asia, in catastrophic defeat. Proxy fights in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East killed so many more and laid waste to whole countries. Cold War obsessions led Washington to overthrow democratic governments, connive in assassination, make common cause with corrupt dictators, and turn a blind eye to genocidal violence . On the home front, hysteria compromised civil liberties and fostered a sprawling, intrusive, and unaccountable national security apparatus. Meanwhile, the military-industrial complex and its beneficiaries conspired to spend vast sums on weapons purchases that somehow never seemed adequate to the putative dangers at hand.

    Rather than reflecting on such somber and sordid matters, however, the American political establishment together with ambitious members of the country's intelligentsia found it so much more expedient simply to move on. As they saw it, the annus mirabilis of 1989 wiped away the sins of former years. Eager to make a fresh start, Washington granted itself a plenary indulgence. After all, why contemplate past unpleasantness when a future so stunningly rich in promise now beckoned?

    Three Big Ideas and a Dubious Corollary

    Soon enough, that promise found concrete expression. In remarkably short order, three themes emerged to define the new American age. Informing each of them was a sense of exuberant anticipation toward an era of almost unimaginable expectations. The twentieth century was ending on a high note. For the planet as a whole but especially for the United States, great things lay ahead.

    Focused on the world economy, the first of those themes emphasized the transformative potential of turbocharged globalization led by U.S.-based financial institutions and transnational corporations. An "open world" would facilitate the movement of goods, capital, ideas, and people and thereby create wealth on an unprecedented scale. In the process, the rules governing American-style corporate capitalism would come to prevail everywhere on the planet. Everyone would benefit, but especially Americans who would continue to enjoy more than their fair share of material abundance.

    Focused on statecraft, the second theme spelled out the implications of an international order dominated as never before - not even in the heydays of the Roman and British Empires - by a single nation. With the passing of the Cold War, the United States now stood apart as both supreme power and irreplaceable global leader, its status guaranteed by its unstoppable military might.

    In the editorial offices of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New Republic, and the Weekly Standard, such "truths" achieved a self-evident status. Although more muted in their public pronouncements than Washington's reigning pundits, officials enjoying access to the Oval Office, the State Department's 7th floor, and the E-ring of the Pentagon generally agreed. The assertive exercise of (benign!) global hegemony seemingly held the key to ensuring that Americans would enjoy safety and security, both at home and abroad, now and in perpetuity.

    The third theme was all about rethinking the concept of personal freedom as commonly understood and pursued by most Americans. During the protracted emergency of the Cold War, reaching an accommodation between freedom and the putative imperatives of national security had not come easily. Cold War-style patriotism seemingly prioritized the interests of the state at the expense of the individual. Yet even as thrillingly expressed by John F. Kennedy - "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" - this was never an easy sell, especially if it meant wading through rice paddies and getting shot at.

    Once the Cold War ended, however, the tension between individual freedom and national security momentarily dissipated. Reigning conceptions of what freedom could or should entail underwent a radical transformation. Emphasizing the removal of restraints and inhibitions, the shift made itself felt everywhere, from patterns of consumption and modes of cultural expression to sexuality and the definition of the family. Norms that had prevailed for decades if not generations - marriage as a union between a man and a woman, gender identity as fixed at birth - became passι. The concept of a transcendent common good, which during the Cold War had taken a backseat to national security, now took a backseat to maximizing individual choice and autonomy.

    Finally, as a complement to these themes, in the realm of governance, the end of the Cold War cemented the status of the president as quasi-deity. In the Age of Great Expectations, the myth of the president as a deliverer from (or, in the eyes of critics, the ultimate perpetrator of) evil flourished. In the solar system of American politics, the man in the White House increasingly became the sun around which everything seemed to orbit. By comparison, nothing else much mattered.

    From one administration to the next, of course, presidential efforts to deliver Americans to the Promised Land regularly came up short. Even so, the political establishment and the establishment media collaborated in sustaining the pretense that out of the next endlessly hyped "race for the White House," another Roosevelt or Kennedy or Reagan would magically emerge to save the nation. From one election cycle to the next, these campaigns became longer and more expensive, drearier and yet ever more circus-like. No matter. During the Age of Great Expectations, the reflexive tendency to see the president as the ultimate guarantor of American abundance, security, and freedom remained sacrosanct.

    Blindsided

    Meanwhile, between promise and reality, a yawning gap began to appear. During the concluding decade of the twentieth century and the first decade-and-a-half of the twenty-first, Americans endured a seemingly endless series of crises. Individually, none of these merit comparison with, say, the Civil War or World War II. Yet never in U.S. history has a sequence of events occurring in such close proximity subjected American institutions and the American people to greater stress.

    During the decade between 1998 and 2008, they came on with startling regularity: one president impeached and his successor chosen by the direct intervention of the Supreme Court; a massive terrorist attack on American soil that killed thousands, traumatized the nation, and left senior officials bereft of their senses; a mindless, needless, and unsuccessful war of choice launched on the basis of false claims and outright lies; a natural disaster (exacerbated by engineering folly) that all but destroyed a major American city, after which government agencies mounted a belated and half-hearted response; and finally, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, bringing ruin to millions of families.

    For the sake of completeness, we should append to this roster of seismic occurrences one additional event: Barack Obama's election as the nation's first black president. He arrived at the zenith of American political life as a seemingly messianic figure called upon not only to undo the damage wrought by his predecessor, George W. Bush, but somehow to absolve the nation of its original sins of slavery and racism.

    Yet during the Obama presidency race relations, in fact, deteriorated. Whether prompted by cynical political calculations or a crass desire to boost ratings , race baiters came out of the woodwork - one of them, of course, infamously birthered in Trump Tower in mid-Manhattan - and poured their poisons into the body politic. Even so, as the end of Obama's term approached, the cult of the presidency itself remained remarkably intact.

    Individually, the impact of these various crises ranged from disconcerting to debilitating to horrifying. Yet to treat them separately is to overlook their collective implications, which the election of Donald Trump only now enables us to appreciate. It was not one president's dalliance with an intern or " hanging chads " or 9/11 or " Mission Accomplished " or the inundation of the Lower Ninth Ward or the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the absurd birther movement that undermined the Age of Great Expectations. It was the way all these events together exposed those expectations as radically suspect.

    In effect, the various crises that punctuated the post-Cold War era called into question key themes to which a fevered American triumphalism had given rise. Globalization, militarized hegemony, and a more expansive definition of freedom, guided by enlightened presidents in tune with the times, should have provided Americans with all the blessings that were rightly theirs as a consequence of having prevailed in the Cold War. Instead, between 1989 and 2016, things kept happening that weren't supposed to happen. A future marketed as all but foreordained proved elusive, if not illusory. As actually experienced, the Age of Great Expectations became an Age of Unwelcome Surprises.

    A Candidate for Decline

    True, globalization created wealth on a vast scale, just not for ordinary Americans. The already well-to-do did splendidly, in some cases unbelievably so . But middle-class incomes stagnated and good jobs became increasingly hard to find or keep. By the election of 2016, the United States looked increasingly like a society divided between haves and have-nots, the affluent and the left-behind, the 1% and everyone else. Prospective voters were noticing.

    Meanwhile, policies inspired by Washington's soaring hegemonic ambitions produced remarkably few happy outcomes. With U.S. forces continuously engaged in combat operations, peace all but vanished as a policy objective (or even a word in Washington's political lexicon). The acknowledged standing of the country's military as the world's best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led force coexisted uneasily with the fact that it proved unable to win . Instead, the national security establishment became conditioned to the idea of permanent war, high-ranking officials taking it for granted that ordinary citizens would simply accommodate themselves to this new reality. Yet it soon became apparent that, instead of giving ordinary Americans a sense of security, this new paradigm induced an acute sense of vulnerability, which left many susceptible to demagogic fear mongering .

    As for the revised definition of freedom, with autonomy emerging as the national summum bonum, it left some satisfied but others adrift. During the Age of Great Expectations, distinctions between citizen and consumer blurred. Shopping became tantamount to a civic obligation, essential to keeping the economy afloat. Yet if all the hoopla surrounding Black Friday and Cyber Monday represented a celebration of American freedom, its satisfactions were transitory at best, rarely extending beyond the due date printed on a credit card statement. Meanwhile, as digital connections displaced personal ones, relationships, like jobs, became more contingent and temporary. Loneliness emerged as an abiding affliction. Meanwhile, for all the talk of empowering the marginalized - people of color, women, gays - elites reaped the lion's share of the benefits while ordinary people were left to make do. The atmosphere was rife with hypocrisy and even a whiff of nihilism.

    To these various contradictions, the establishment itself remained stubbornly oblivious, with the 2016 presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton offering a case in point. As her long record in public life made abundantly clear, Clinton embodied the establishment in the Age of Great Expectations. She believed in globalization, in the indispensability of American leadership backed by military power, and in the post-Cold War cultural project. And she certainly believed in the presidency as the mechanism to translate aspirations into outcomes.

    Such commonplace convictions of the era, along with her vanguard role in pressing for the empowerment of women, imparted to her run an air of inevitability. That she deserved to win appeared self-evident. It was, after all, her turn. Largely overlooked were signs that the abiding themes of the Age of Great Expectations no longer commanded automatic allegiance.

    Gasping for Air

    Senator Bernie Sanders offered one of those signs. That a past-his-prime, self-professed socialist from Vermont with a negligible record of legislative achievement and tenuous links to the Democratic Party might mount a serious challenge to Clinton seemed, on the face of it, absurd. Yet by zeroing in on unfairness and inequality as inevitable byproducts of globalization, Sanders struck a chord.

    Knocked briefly off balance, Clinton responded by modifying certain of her longstanding positions. By backing away from free trade, the ne plus ultra of globalization, she managed, though not without difficulty, to defeat the Sanders insurgency. Even so, he, in effect, served as the canary in the establishment coal mine, signaling that the Age of Great Expectations might be running out of oxygen.

    A parallel and far stranger insurgency was simultaneously wreaking havoc in the Republican Party. That a narcissistic political neophyte stood the slightest chance of capturing the GOP seemed even more improbable than Sanders taking a nomination that appeared Clinton's by right.

    Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed, erratic, and with little regard for truth, Trump was sui generis among presidential candidates . Yet he possessed a singular gift: a knack for riling up those who nurse gripes and are keen to pin the blame on someone or something. In post-Cold War America, among the millions that Hillary Clinton was famously dismissing as "deplorables," gripes had been ripening like cheese in a hothouse.

    Through whatever combination of intuition and malice aforethought, Trump demonstrated a genius for motivating those deplorables. He pushed their buttons. They responded by turning out in droves to attend his rallies. There they listened to a message that they found compelling.

    In Trump's pledge to "make America great again" his followers heard a promise to restore everything they believed had been taken from them in the Age of Great Expectations. Globalization was neither beneficial nor inevitable, the candidate insisted, and vowed, once elected, to curb its effects along with the excesses of corporate capitalism, thereby bringing back millions of lost jobs from overseas. He would, he swore, fund a massive infrastructure program, cut taxes , keep a lid on the national debt, and generally champion the cause of working stiffs. The many complications and contradictions inherent in these various prescriptions would, he assured his fans, give way to his business savvy.

    In considering America's role in the post-Cold War world, Trump exhibited a similar impatience with the status quo. Rather than allowing armed conflicts to drag on forever, he promised to win them (putting to work his mastery of military affairs) or, if not, to quit and get out, pausing just long enough to claim as a sort of consolation prize whatever spoils might be lying loose on the battlefield. At the very least, he would prevent so-called allies from treating the United States like some patsy. Henceforth, nations benefitting from American protection were going to foot their share of the bill. What all of this added up to may not have been clear, but it did suggest a sharp departure from the usual post-1989 formula for exercising global leadership.

    No less important than Trump's semi-coherent critique of globalization and American globalism, however, was his success in channeling the discontent of all those who nursed an inchoate sense that post-Cold War freedoms might be working for some, but not for them.

    Not that Trump had anything to say about whether freedom confers obligations, or whether conspicuous consumption might not actually hold the key to human happiness, or any of the various controversies related to gender, sexuality, and family. He was indifferent to all such matters. He was, however, distinctly able to offer his followers a grimly persuasive explanation for how America had gone off course and how the blessings of liberties to which they were entitled had been stolen. He did that by fingering as scapegoats Muslims , Mexicans , and others "not-like-me."

    Trump's political strategy reduced to this: as president, he would overturn the conventions that had governed right thinking since the end of the Cold War. To the amazement of an establishment grown smug and lazy, his approach worked. Even while disregarding all received wisdom when it came to organizing and conducting a presidential campaign in the Age of Great Expectations, Trump won. He did so by enchanting the disenchanted, all those who had lost faith in the promises that had sprung from the bosom of the elites that the end of the Cold War had taken by surprise.

    Adrift Without a Compass

    Within hours of Trump's election, among progressives, expressing fear and trepidation at the prospect of what he might actually do on assuming office became de rigueur . Yet those who had actually voted for Trump were also left wondering what to expect. Both camps assign him the status of a transformative historical figure. However, premonitions of incipient fascism and hopes that he will engineer a new American Golden Age are likely to prove similarly misplaced. To focus on the man himself rather than on the circumstances that produced him is to miss the significance of what has occurred.

    Note, for example, that his mandate is almost entirely negative. It centers on rejection: of globalization, of counterproductive military meddling, and of the post-Cold War cultural project. Yet neither Trump nor any of his surrogates has offered a coherent alternative to the triad of themes providing the through line for the last quarter-century of American history. Apart a lingering conviction that forceful - in The Donald's case, blustering - presidential leadership can somehow turn things around, "Trump_vs_deep_state" is a dog's breakfast.

    In all likelihood, his presidency will prove less transformative than transitional. As a result, concerns about what he may do, however worrisome, matter less than the larger question of where we go from here. The principles that enjoyed favor following the Cold War have been found wanting. What should replace them?

    Efforts to identify those principles should begin with an honest accounting of the age we are now leaving behind, the history that happened after "the end of history." That accounting should, in turn, allow room for regret, repentance, and making amends - the very critical appraisal that ought to have occurred at the end of the Cold War but was preempted when American elites succumbed to their bout of victory disease.

    Don't expect Donald Trump to undertake any such appraisal. Nor will the establishment that candidate Trump so roundly denounced, but which President-elect Trump, at least in his senior national security appointments, now shows sign of accommodating. Those expecting Trump's election to inject courage into members of the political class or imagination into inside-the-Beltway "thought leaders" are in for a disappointment. So the principles we need - an approach to political economy providing sustainable and equitable prosperity; a foreign policy that discards militarism in favor of prudence and pragmatism; and an enriched, inclusive concept of freedom - will have to come from somewhere else.

    "Where there is no vision," the Book of Proverbs tells us, "the people perish." In the present day, there is no vision to which Americans collectively adhere. For proof, we need look no further than the election of Donald Trump.

    The Age of Great Expectations has ended, leaving behind an ominous void. Yet Trump's own inability to explain what should fill that great void provides neither excuse for inaction nor cause for despair. Instead, Trump himself makes manifest the need to reflect on the nation's recent past and to think deeply about its future.

    A decade before the Cold War ended, writing in democracy , a short-lived journal devoted to "political renewal and radical change," the historian and social critic Christopher Lasch sketched out a set of principles that might lead us out of our current crisis. Lasch called for a politics based on "the nurture of the soil against the exploitation of resources, the family against the factory, the romantic vision of the individual against the technological vision, [and] localism over democratic centralism." Nearly a half-century later, as a place to begin, his prescription remains apt. vlade , January 9, 2017 at 4:49 am

    I'm sorry Yves, but I don't buy your narrative "NATO broke the promise" . NATO's promise to Gorbatchev was not to deploy non-GERMAN troops in what used to be GDR. That was 1990s promise that Baker gave to Gorbatchev (and this is confirmed by Gorbatchev, see https://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html ). Baker did say "no inch east" in the opening stages of the discussion with Gorbatchev, but the ultimate agreement was only German troops in GDR (and that was enshrined in law, both German and international). I'd point out that one of the ideas Gorbatchev discussed there was to include Russia in NATO as well, as part of the supra-European security structure.

    Now, Gorbatchev also now says NATO expansion in 1993 was a mistake, and that it was against the spirit of what was discussed in 1990. But then you have to also look at the countries themselves, who were all pushing VERY hard to get into NATO, as they saw it (rightly or wrongly) as the only way how to get out of the Russian sphere of influence (much more so than EU accession). Especially Poland in its history was overrun by Russians at least once a century since about 1600s, and twice (or three times, depends on whether you count M-R pact in the post WW2 spoils division or not) in the 20th alone.

    I actually spoke to some people on the Czech side who were involved in the talks at the highest level (close to then Czech president Vaclav Havel), and US, including the US military, was very much against the expansion, and the Visegrad Four had to lobby with Clinton very very hard to get it.

    So the agency wasn't NATOs, or even US military – that's a very US centric view of the world that denies the people of anyone who isn't US a say in their future – and I'd point out that regimes in those countries at the time were entirely legitimate, and NATO membership was (and still is) is supported by most of the populace there – seen exactly as about the only shield from Russian expansionist (which taking over Crimea did little to soothe).

    The problem wasn't NATO expansion per se (in the 1990s). The problem was that US saw themselves as the victors in the Cold War, and showed (as per usual) little manganimity and understanding for the former foe. Almost as little as the Allies showed to Central Powers after WW1 and the disaster that casued later on, except now we have nukes.

    PlutoniumKun , January 9, 2017 at 5:32 am

    Yes, I think the history is very tangled. Certainly there was a very determined push by east European countries to get NATO and EU membership – probably even more for the former than the latter. From the 20th Century perspective of living anywhere east of Berlin or Vienna, the USSR/Russia always seemed the biggest threat to freedom and independence for the majority. Much of this I think arose from the perception of Germany (also of course an historic aggressor) as having been completely tamed and defeated post 1945. Its notable of course that even the new wave of anti-EU politician in eastern Europe tend to be quite pro-Nato (with some exceptions).

    But I think there was a lot of muddled thinking and bad faith on the part of both western Europeans and the US in the 1990's. There was certainly open contempt for Russia in the 1990's and a feeling they could be made do what they wanted. A policy which showed more consideration of Russian sensibilities would have been to focus on EU membership first, and perhaps a sort of softer NATO membership that would have specifically excluded foreign bases on those countries soil, but would have given more reassurances of protection in the event of Russian hostility would have been more appropriate.

    I think there are lots of echoes of pre-WWI in having what was originally a tight set of agreements between major powers aimed at a specific threat being extended much wider over small unstable countries.

    Tigerlily , January 9, 2017 at 9:34 am

    A policy which showed more consideration of Russian sensibilities would have been to focus on EU membership first, and perhaps a sort of softer NATO membership that would have specifically excluded foreign bases on those countries soil, but would have given more reassurances of protection in the event of Russian hostility would have been more appropriate.

    If NATO had in fact promised not to deploy any forces in Eastern Europe in perpetuity any "reassurances of protection" it gave would rightly have been regarded as worthless -- not to mention invite obvious and grievous comparisons to the worthless security guarantee Britain and France extended to Poland in 1939 – because such reassurances would be made in the full knowledge of all concerned that NATO had already surrendered the means to give them effect.

    I also want to point out that until the annexation of the Crimea there were no NATO forces permanently stationed in either Poland or the Baltic republics. Poland requested 10 000 NATO troops two weeks after the annexation of the Crimea, and even now NATO is scrambling to find 600-800 troops to deploy on a "semi-permanent" basis to each of the Baltic republics.

    Praedor , January 9, 2017 at 11:14 am

    By "annexation of Crimea" you mean "reuniting Crimea with Russia". The Ukraine is 100% a 20th century creation and Crimea was ALWAYS Russian until Kruschev, by fiat (and he a Ukrainian) simply gave Crimea to Ukraine without asking, without concern, for what the people of Crimea wanted.

    Russia didn't "take" Crimea from Ukraine. Russia took back what was historically (and ethnically and culturally) theirs by long history.

    JTMcPhee , January 9, 2017 at 11:18 am

    And gee, why is NATO "Scrambling" to find troops to garrison in another set of countries? What geopolitical conditions are real, and which BS are us mopes supposed to believe and feed into our fear generators "going forward (sic)?" What are our rulers and great patently incompetent but very well compensated and demonstrably corrupt military, security (sic) and "statecraft" sh!tes doing to cool down, stand down, stop wasting huge amounts of time, talent and money ginning up more threats and counter threats and Grand Strategies? What's the End of the Great Game, or does it just go on until all the resources are exhausted, or the cheating officers that "man" and "woman" the Land Based Leg of the Service-Competition-Everyone-Has-The-"Right"-To-A-Share-Of-The-Carcass-Absolutely-Must-Have Triad, or some glitch, as there have been many of, in all the circuitry and mechanisms and algorithms does an "Oopsie" and we all and a lot of other species get to die? Not to mention the bugs and nanodevices and autonomous killing machines that the grim enthusiasts of the Geopolitical Masterbatorium just can't wait to get on line?

    Putin's no saint, but Jeebus, Kissinger and Brxzyzeniski and Nuland and all the rest? The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight? Do they get to run us all into the grave, because we Policy Addicts go along with the insane "logic" of whatever the hell it is that "NATO" in all its idiotic parts is doing? Was the Crimea a casus belli? though it seems to people who are deep in the Think Tanks think EVERYTHING is a casus belli, and never ask any questions of the sorts that Sun Tzu counseled ought to be asked, long before and at every point in any "war" action

    I know, money rules, Empire is inevitable and so very seductive to have all that Power ("and not use it") especially if one is paid in gelt or psycho-satisfaction to go all grim-visages warrior in a Game of RISK! that for some reason never ends up with one Player owning the entire world

    This disabled Vietnam vet offers a big FU, to all the Fokkers, armchair or ergonomic Battlespace Manager or Foggy Bottom delicate or Langley overstuffed chairs, who are driving the vast bus we all have to ride in off the cliff, all happy with their impunity and immunity and faux self-created, self-p[rolonged, terminal Grand Responsibilities.

    Show how smart you are, send another 300 Marines to Iraq, and another 300 to Notagainistan, for "we won't say combat" involvement in the futility and corruption and destabilization and destruction there Who will be the last Troop, and the last "noncombatant," to die in this old-as-civilization idiocy? Who Fokking cares, really, as long as it is one of those "Enemies "

    Kemal Erdogan , January 9, 2017 at 8:43 am

    No, that was precisely what was promised; But promises means nothing, and frankly, Gorbachev must have been either stupid or traitor to accept such promises in lieu of real and tangible concessions.

    In my view, the biggest mistake was not NATO expansion but rather the looting of the Soviet Union. If the major soviet republics was to be integrated within the western alliance more or less in the same manner as Germany, the situation today would have been very different. Instead of sucking soviet resources over a longer term like Germany does to the EU, west was salivating on the prospects of literally new loots thus awaken the pray.

    That made the people of Russia and many others feel disgust, and they resisted at the first opportunity they got. Now, there is no way Russia can be put under the American influence. This is all more remarkable because most Russians had admired the empire so much thus putting them under American umbrella would have been so easy. Putin, for example, was ready to play ball with the west but their insistence on total dominance disgusted even him. I am sure the global elite recognizes this but some still cannot get over how they let this pass.

    Putin still supports neoliberalism but this too will pass as neoliberal order is controlled by New York bankers and only way out is another world order, which is exactly what Russia and China started building. Departure of Russia from neoliberal order, I believe, will seal the fate of neoliberalism as it just did it exactly 100 years ago.

    fresno dan , January 9, 2017 at 8:59 am

    vlade
    January 9, 2017 at 4:49 am

    Thank you for your perspective – it adds to my understanding.

    olga , January 9, 2017 at 9:52 am

    You are plain wrong. Just read what Gorbachev has to say on the subject – and he was there. NATO expansion was not expected by the Russians, is considered a betrayal of promises, and is to a large extent responsible for the renewed sense of paranoia in Europe and Russia. Whether US military was against it is irrelevant (or whether Vysehrad four lobbied for it) – it was done and it damaged relations. And it continues to do damage – as the buildup of troops and equipment has escalated.

    Patrick Reilly , January 9, 2017 at 7:45 am

    Thanks for the link to the Christopher Lasch article. Please note that page 35 thereof is missing.

    Tigerlily , January 9, 2017 at 10:47 am

    I think Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy , first published in 1994 shortly after his death, is a forgotten classic. Lasch was well ahead of his time in foreseeing how the rise of technocratic, transnational elites would dissolve the social contract that in the postwar era had kept the interests of haves and have nots at least loosely aligned and lubricated a considerable degree of wealth transfer from the former to the latter, which in turn would lead to socio-economic polarization.

    If he were alive today I'm sure he would be appalled by a President Trump even as he recognized that this was the logical culmination of the trends he himself had identified all those years ago.

    Lasch was notable for other trenchant social criticism, including identifying narcissism as the dominant trait of the postwar American psyche and challenging some tenets of second wave feminism. As befits a fearless and original thinker he didn't fit neatly into any established intellectual paradigm.

    He died on February 14 1994 and now I think of him every Valentine's Day. I guess I'm something of an admirer.

    Sound of the Suburbs , January 9, 2017 at 8:06 am

    Globalisation was accompanied by an ideology, neoliberalism, that was guaranteed to fail. The problems were there at the start but were ignored, it was always going to go wrong in exactly the way it has.

    Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and "liberal democracy".

    Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive ideas. Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many. Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.

    Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just doesn't work.

    The ideas of "Economic Liberalism" came from Milton Freidman and the University of Chicago. It was so radical they first tried it in a military dictatorship in Chile, it wouldn't be compatible with democracy. It took death squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was an ethnic cleansing of anyone who still showed signs of any left wing thinking.

    It was tried in a few other places in South America using similar techniques. It then did succeed in a democracy but only by tricking the people into thinking they were voting for something else, severe oppression was needed when they found out what they were getting.

    Margaret Thatcher bought these ideas to the West and the plan to eliminate the welfare state has only recently been revealed. Things had to be done slowly in the West due to that bothersome democracy. The West has now seen enough.

    It was implemented far more brutally in the developing world where Milton Freidman's "Chicago Boys" were the henchmen of "The Washington Consensus". The IMF and World Bank acted as enforcers insisting on neoliberal conditionalities for loans.

    Global markets punished those not towing the neoliberal line and kept nations in their place. As Nelson Mandela was released from prison the South African Rand fell 10%, someone like this was going to be pushing up wage costs and would be bad for the economy.

    Looking back it was a grand folly of an international elite whose greed overcame even a modicum of common sense.

    Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" will take you through all the gory details.

    Underlying neo-liberalism is a different economics, neoclassical economics, which is heavily biased towards the wealthy. Inequality and a lack of demand in the global economy were also guaranteed from the start.

    Sound of the Suburbs , January 9, 2017 at 8:08 am

    The world is saturated in debt and if rates rise this is going to blow the neo-liberal experiment sky high.

    Neo-liberalism is a system that uses debt to keep going and the world has nearly maxed out. It's underlying neoclassical economics uses spurious assumptions about money and debt and so no one sees the problems coming.

    2008 – "How did that happen?"

    Twelve people were officially recognised by Bezemer in 2009 as having seen 2008 coming, announcing it publicly beforehand and having good reasoning behind their predictions. They all thought the problem came from excessive debt levels.

    Having all our mainstream experts using spurious assumptions about money and debt, doesn't actually stop the whole thing blowing up.

    Attributing 2008 to a "black swan" has allowed us to think more debt can be used to solve a debt crisis, needless to say the debt levels are much higher than 2008 and excessive debt has now spread through emerging markets. China and emerging markets are not going to provide an engine of growth next time.

    The other day I was watching a particularly apocalyptic video from Peter Schiff, he is no fool, he was one of the twelve that saw 2008 coming. Steve Keen is another one of the twelve and he is of the same opinion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrz76_j9MRs
    (Ignore first 50 secs. just intro).

    Most people don't realise money = debt, all the money in existence has a corresponding amount of debt.
    We can see what Steve Keen saw by looking at the US money supply.

    http://www.whichwayhome.com/skin/frontend/default/wwgcomcatalogarticles/images/articles/whichwayhomes/US-money-supply.jpg

    No, it wasn't a black swan and if the FED could have understood what the money supply was telling them they could have nipped it in the bud.

    M3 was going exponential and a credit bubble was forming, Steve Keen saw it in 2005.

    The spurious assumptions on money and debt in neoclassical economics leave you blind.

    Praedor , January 9, 2017 at 11:21 am

    Aha, but the bubble is beside the point. The entire US economy from Clinton onward is BASED on bubbles of one type or another to create the feeling of (false) wealth. Bubbles are INTENDED because it fools many into thinking, as they ride upon the inflation of the bubble, that they are making bank. Clinton's economy "boom" was based on telling people that their homes are "investments" that they need to borrow against to buy "stuff". Lots of stuff. FEEL rich while you actually go deeply into debt on a bubble-inflated home equity loan.

    Can't repeat the real estate bubble again and again so the Fed feeds a different bubble each cycle. Real estate this cycle, stocks the next, etc.

    Webstir , January 9, 2017 at 11:47 am

    Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive ideas.
    Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many.
    Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.

    Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just doesn't work.

    This statement depends on who the mutually exclusive ideas are intended to work for. They worked spectacularly for the Davos Class. Which I might add, was the class that came up with the idea. They sold a lie that the media - who is wholly controlled by them - took hook line and sinker. That the establishment media are peddling the fake news angle so vociferously is telling. But the problem in my mind isn't "fake news" per se. It is the uncritical peddling of fake ideologies.

    I think a quote from the 2016 Mann Booker Prizewinner's "The Sellout" by Paul Beatty is instructive on this point: "People eat the shit you shovel them." And man alive, have the 99% ever been shoveled some shit in the "Age of Great Expectations."

    And btw - thanks for the link Yves. That was instructive.

    toshiro_mifune , January 9, 2017 at 9:17 am

    Reading this reminded me of the Peace Dividend we were supposed to get in the wake of the collapsing Soviet Union. Alas, we never got it.
    We squandered a perfectly good empire on McMansions and Ford Explorers. At least Rome got coliseums and orgies.

    Enquiring Mind , January 9, 2017 at 9:47 am

    Age of Great Expectations brings to mind a recursive acronym, indicative of a type of tunnel vision and failure to learn from the past, tempered by a preternatural optimism that is thought to be in the Tocquevillian American DNA.

    DJG , January 9, 2017 at 9:59 am

    Excellent article. Christopher Lasch's prescription is food for thought, although I agree with vidimi that we have to get beyond a romantic conception of the individual. In fact, I submit that we are in a new baroque, dominated by religious insanity (like the first baroque with its Spanish Inquisition and tortuous Calvinist theology), economic excesses (just as Spain looted the Indian nations of the New World of their gold in the first one), and individual fear.

    I would caution Bacevich, who is usually better than this, and in general: Psychobabble isn't going to get us anywhere. And I'm seeing so much of it.

    From the article:
    "Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed, erratic, and with little regard for truth, Trump was sui generis among presidential candidates."

    Bacevich has never read about Andrew Jackson, who sponsored the Trail of Tears forced on the Cherokee and the Choctaw nations? Bacevich has never heard of Strom Thurmond's presidential run? George Wallace's presidential run? (And let us not forget the laughable claim that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified presidential candidate in U.S. history, except for, ohhhh, Jefferson, Washington, and Madison.)

    One problem in the analysis of U.S. history is to think of the U S of A and of U.S. individuals as sui generis. They aren't. Vlade points out above that the Visegrad Four (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary) were actors in NATO expansion. Considering that Romania was an economic and social basketcase when it acceded to the EU, I'd venture that the EU made a mistake or three, also.

    So we require more hard-headedness in analyzing our context and how events arise. As always Bacevich is good as an analyst, and some details may not matter in understanding the rise of Trump, but the solution also is not yet discernible. What I would say is that the democratic mindset, which is skeptical yet still inclined toward participation in public events is a serious way, is in disrepair. Class warfare and endless war for empire have caused damage.

    JTMcPhee , January 9, 2017 at 11:25 am

    Maybe some day people will start asking seriously what outcomes they want from the political economy they perforce must live in. "Are you better off today than you were XX years ago?" And maybe (not at all likely) come up with an organizing principle (like, maybe, some iteration of the Golden Rule?) that if at all adhered to, might lead to something other than climate collapse or some Soylent Green or other apocalyptic future

    I know, no chance to amass a huge pile of wealth and rents and vain attempts to overwhelm the personal pleasure centers in that kind of future So "No Sale "

    Webstir , January 9, 2017 at 11:53 am

    I like your golden rule idea. But I think more apt would be the golden rule of physics: The Second Law of Thermodynamics. If economics were truly a science, the study could not but adhere to this rule.

    See: http://steadystate.org/economics-as-if-the-laws-of-thermodynamics-mattered/

    Arizona Slim , January 9, 2017 at 11:58 am

    What's conspicuously absent from many of these "collapse of the Soviet Union" narratives? Chernobyl.

    That 1986 explosion - and the bungled disaster response - probably did more to bring down the Soviet Union than Reagan's military buildup or Gorbachev's moves toward reform.

    juliania , January 9, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    Yves's two caveats are extremely important in assessing this article. I have a couple more. The first is the omission of the glaringly obvious theft of candidacy which occurred during the Democratic primary and did not occur in the Republican one. And the second is the article's description of Trump voters as " those who nurse gripes and are keen to pin the blame on someone or something."

    Then too, I will just say that the mandate so far is not a negative one because Trump hasn't taken office yet, and in fact some positive occurrences have seemed to be happening in the Middle East to restore several nations there to what they had been before 'great expectations' got into the mix.

    Just my two cents. Some people's great expectations are not other people's great expectations. Mine are for a peaceful world and a restoration of sanity between nations.

    [Jan 11, 2017] Please do not let the door hit you on the ways out,

    Jan 11, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Synoia , January 10, 2017 at 6:25 pm

    President Obama plans to offer a graceful goodbye to the nation in a prime-time address Tuesday night from Chicago, transferring executive power with the same tone of hope and optimism that powered his rise to the presidency

    I, too will offer a gracious (not graceful that mean something very different) goodby – Please do not let the door hit you on the ways out,

    followed by Cromwell's parting statement to the Rump Parliament, as pointed and relevant now as it was then:

    It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

    Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government. Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

    Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

    Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

    Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

    Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

    Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

    I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

    Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

    In the name of God, go!

    allan , January 10, 2017 at 6:45 pm

    Rahm Emanuel has a somewhat more nuanced take:

    Rahm Thanks Obama in Video Posted Before Farewell Address
    [DNA Info]

    In the minute-long video, Emanuel spoke while framed by American and Chicago flags and as pictures of him with the president flashed through Obama's eight years in office.

    However, Emanuel urged those preparing for the speech not to be swept up in "nostalgia about the past" but to listen with "optimism and hope about the future."

    "Our work of keeping the dream of America and the promise of America is just beginning," Emanuel said. "We all have in this great country have a responsibility each day to take America a step closer to its ideal of what it can be and the promise of America."

    Surprising as it might be to Rahmbo, it's actually very easy not to be swept up in "nostalgia about the past".

    [Jan 11, 2017] Masha Gessen on the new McCarthyism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Agree that is the real reason they don't want to take responsibility. It would mean that the Establishment would be discredited. ..."
    "... It is easy to read the report and understand how the CIA concluded that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction – you start with what you want to conclude and than you can find evidence. Likewise for Russian hacking . ..."
    "... If you like, see this link to Mish – a blogger sometimes in the NC links. Mish does the thought experiment of whether Israel undermined Hillary (and a whole lot more) – but it shows that Israel is just as plausible as Russia if you apply CIA type reasoning . ..."
    "... Masha Gessen is deeply antiputinitic. So if she finds the "Putin diddit" narrative unconvincing, it must be weak indeed. ..."
    Jan 11, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Masha Gessen hardly can be called a sympasizer of Putin;-). Actually the reverse is very true.
    The New McCarthyism

    "Russia, Trump & Flawed Intelligence" [Masha Gessen, New York Review of Books ]. "On Friday, when the report appeared, the major newspapers came out with virtually identical headlines highlighting the agencies' finding that Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered an "influence campaign" to help Donald Trump win the presidency-a finding the agencies say they hold 'with high confidence.'

    A close reading of the report shows that it barely supports such a conclusion. Indeed, it barely supports any conclusion."

    And: "That is the entirety of the evidence the report offers to support its estimation of Putin's motives for allegedly working to elect Trump: conjecture based on other politicians in other periods, on other continents-and also on misreported or mistranslated public statements." A massive takedown, from the heart of the Manhattan intelligentsia.

    Class Warfare

    [A study published late last month by the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)] released Dec. 20, said the jobs of between 1.34 million and 1.67 million truck drivers would be at risk due to the growing utilization of heavy-duty vehicles operated via artificial intelligence. That would equal 80 to 100 percent of all driver jobs listed in the CEA report, which is based on May 2015 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a unit of the Department of Labor. There are about 3.4 million commercial truck drivers currently operating in the U.S., according to various estimates" [DC Velocity]. "The Council emphasized that its calculations excluded the number or types of new jobs that may be created as a result of this potential transition. It added that any changes could take years or decades to materialize because of a broad lag between what it called "technological possibility" and widespread adoption."

    Altandmain , January 10, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    The report on Friday in regards to the Russian hack:

    https://www.extremetech.com/internet/242370-governments-public-evidence-falls-short-proving-russian-involvement-dnc-hack

    The government has failed to provide the solid proof that is necessary to make such a bold accusation.

    For those who haven't read it, here's the Intercept's take as well (also in the article linked from ET):
    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/06/underwhelming-intel-report-shows-need-for-congressional-investigation-of-dnc-hack/

    What I'm disappointed in the DNC and the Party as a whole is rather than admit their failings, they want to conjure up Russia as a distraction. I'm not saying that Putin's a great guy (he seems to be an oligarch), but the Democrats need to take responsibility for 2016.

    If not, 2020 might end up like 2016 again. If they think Trump will fail no matter what, take a hard look at what happened to Kerry in 2004. Stop underestimating Trump. He's got a base and the Democrats screwed up big time.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 10, 2017 at 2:34 pm

    If Democrats take "responsibility" for 2016, the courtesan class will be wiped out, and many elected Dems who dream of a spot on the ticket in 2020 will have to accept they are going no where. Andy Cuomo sees himself in 2020 running. He's like Hillary without the charisma.

    Altandmain , January 10, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    Agree that is the real reason they don't want to take responsibility. It would mean that the Establishment would be discredited.

    One question though, Clinton had charisma? Are we talking about the same candidate here? I though that Clinton was a wooden stump. You could tell that what she said was forced. Apparently one of the Wikileaks leaks said that she hated the American people.

    PottedFrog , January 10, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    http://ibankcoin.com/flyblog/2016/10/11/wikileaks-reveals-hillary-hates-everyday-americans/

    fresno dan , January 10, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    Altandmain
    January 10, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    It is easy to read the report and understand how the CIA concluded that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction – you start with what you want to conclude and than you can find evidence. Likewise for Russian hacking .

    If you like, see this link to Mish – a blogger sometimes in the NC links. Mish does the thought experiment of whether Israel undermined Hillary (and a whole lot more) – but it shows that Israel is just as plausible as Russia if you apply CIA type reasoning .

    Waldenpond , January 10, 2017 at 3:05 pm

    The new McCarthyism . when the IC report came out it was noted the numbers on the RT/CNN comparison report were inaccurate. Someone looked and it turned out the numbers were from several years ago . and the person criticized the report for including a 4 to 5 year old criticism of RT to pad the length of the report.

    Rosario , January 10, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    I wonder how long the mainstream media (see CNN above) can sustain the left's jouissance WRT Bernie until it blows up in their face? It seems like the elite liberal class is finding his "voice" a far more useful resistance to Trump compared to the overly simplified identity narrative or pathetic "foreign" threat narrative, but how long can they play with that fire. The fact is, Bernie really does talk about issues and policy, in a concrete way, in a demonstrable way. Those perspectives with class consciousness, and a dash of populist passions and you have political nitro far more threatening to the establishment than anything Trump can dish out. I'm all for it though I am very suspicious. I'm wondering what they (liberal elites) are cooking up.

    different clue , January 10, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    Masha Gessen is deeply antiputinitic. So if she finds the "Putin diddit" narrative unconvincing, it must be weak indeed.

    3.14e-9 , January 10, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    Re: Obama's extraordinary, aimless presidency [The Week]

    Nope, it was Putin's fault. Although, in fairness, Linker doesn't claim it was Obama's fault, only that he "helped prepare the way for the anti-establishment, populist wave " Master propagandist Putin knows a good opportunity when he sees one:

    Moscow is pushing populist movements to bring 'real security threats to Europe,' new report says [McClatchy]

    "Moscow is encouraging a wave of populism that extends from the election of President-elect Donald Trump through Brexit and rise of nationalist politics in France and Germany to bring about 'real security threats to Europe,' " according to a report in a new NATO journal."

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article125396679.html

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , January 10, 2017 at 4:45 pm

    Populists are just proletarians in different clothing.

    alex morfesis , January 10, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    Don trumpioni and his capos are gonna woyk on keepyn the nayburhood nice again kapeesh ??

    As to the new McCarthyism, despite the capacity of fartspace and garggle to have algorithms filter certain "thoughts", the problems for the death spiral media are not going away and the death of myspace is a perfect example of the capacity of the blob to choke on its own vomit same for the rise and fall of the aol reich it was everywhere and then it was nothing

    Some self stylized masters of the universe imagine their luck as genius Cuban andreesson

    when all they are good at(which is good for their own pocket) is selling as soon as the griddle gets hot and the sound of the searing begins

    The internet of no-things and self krashing kars are well designed pitches but the details

    getting a virus or giving a virus to your over inquisitive refrigerator should deal with the all seeing pinkman brigade

    last I checked, customer service was not exactly the top issue concerning wall street

    Money isnt being spent on the infrastructure that exists today all this big blobber nonsense will require a tenfold increase in maintenance

    or are the folks who could not or would not program a vcr to reset the time automaticaly when there was a power outage suddenly all qualify to be mensa members

    [Jan 11, 2017] Washington Invented Hacking and Interfering in Elections

    Jan 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Weaponized hacking all began with Stuxnet

    Is the United States the victim of an unprovoked cyber and media attack by Russia and China or are the chickens coming home to roost after Washington's own promotion of such activity worldwide? On Thursday Director of National Intelligence James Clapper asserted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that while no foreign government had been able to interfere with actual voting machines, "U.S. agencies are more confident than ever that Russia interfered in America's recent presidential election. And he called the former Cold War foe an 'existential threat' to the nation." Pressed by Senator John McCain whether the "attack" constituted an "act of war," Clapper demurred, saying that it would be a "very heavy policy call" to say so. He also said that he could not judge if the election outcome had been changed due to the claimed outside interference.

    Clapper also claimed that the Russian effort included including the creation and dissemination of fake stories, explaining that " While there has been a lot of focus on the hacking, this is actually part of a multifaceted campaign that the Russians mounted." Clapper singled out Russian state funded TV channel RT, previously called Russia Today. "Of course RT was very, very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system." [Full disclosure: I have been on RT numerous times.]

    Apart from the nonsense about foreign broadcasters being part of a conspiracy to "disparage our system" and destroy our democracy, I confess that I was willing to be convinced by what seemed to be the near-unanimous intelligence and law enforcement agency verdict but, any such expectations disappeared when the 17 page report on the hack was actually released on Friday. Entitled Declassified Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections , the report is an exercise in speculation minus evidence indicting alleged Russian interference in the recent election. It even came with a significant caveat, "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."

    So I am still waiting to see the actual evidence for the Russian direct involvement and have to suspect that there is little to show, or possibly even nothing. Saying that Russian government agents were employed in passing the stolen emails from the DNC server to WikiLeaks raises more questions than it answers, particularly as it is now clear from media leaks that the parties involved were using what is referred to as cut-outs to break the chain of custody of the material being passed. Does the intelligence community actually know exactly who passed what to whom and when or is it engaged in reconstructing what it think happened? Does it really believe that intercepted unencrypted phone calls among Russian officials expressing pleasure over the election result equate to an actual a priori conspiracy to determine the outcome? And based on what evidence do they know that conspiracy was "ordered" by President Vladimir Putin as is now being alleged? Or are the only assuming that it must have been him because he is head of state?

    ... ... ...

    When I was in Europe with CIA the U.S. government regularly interfered with elections, particularly in Italy, Spain, France and Portugal, all of which had active communist parties. The Agency would fund opposition parties directly or indirectly and would manage media coverage of the relevant issues to favor the non-communists. The end result was that the communists were indeed in most cases kept out of government but the resulting democracy was frequently corrupted by the process. Italy in particular suffers from that corruption to this day.

    The United States has directly interfered in Russia, using proxies, IMF loans and a media controlled by the oligarchs to run the utterly incompetent Boris Yeltsin's successful campaign in 1996 and then continuing with more aggressive "democracy promotion" projects until Putin expelled many of the NGOs responsible in 2015. More recently there have been the pastel revolutions in Eastern Europe and the upheaval in Ukraine, which came about in part due to a $5 billion investment by the United States government in "democracy building" supplemented by regular visits from John McCain and the State Department's activist Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

    [Jan 09, 2017] Amazon reviews of the book The Field of Fight How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies by Lieutenant General (Ret.) Michael T. Flinn

    Jan 09, 2017 | www.amazon.com
    William Struse TOP 500 REVIEWER on July 17, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
    The Crossroads of Our Republic

    " Several times in its nearly 250 years of existence our Nation has been at a crossroads. Looking back on our War for Independence, the Civil War, and WWII we know the decisions made in those tumultuous times forever altered the destiny of our Republic.

    We are once again at one of those crossroads where the battle lines have been drawn, only this time in an asymmetrical war between western democracy and the radical Islamists and nation states who nurture them. In his timely book Field of Fight, Lt. General Michael T. Flynn provides a unique perspective on this war and what he believes are some of the steps necessary to meet this foe.

    Field of Fight begins as an autobiography in which the author gives you a sense of who he is as a man and a soldier. This background information then provides the reader with a better perspective through which to evaluate his analysis of the challenges we face as well as the course of action he believes we need to take to meet those challenges.

    The following are a few of the guidelines General Flynn proposes for developing a winning strategy in our war with radical Islam and other potential foes:

    1. Properly assess your environment and clearly define your enemy;
    2. Face reality – for politicians, this is never an easy thing to do;
    3. Understand the social context and fabric of the operational environment;
    4. Recognize who's in charge of the enemy's forces.

    In Field of Fight General Flynn makes the case that we are losing this war with radical Islam because our nation's leadership has failed to develop a winning strategy. Further he opines that our current leaders lack the clarity of vision and moral certitude that understands American democracy is a "better way", that not all forms of human government are equal, and that there are principled reasons worth fighting for - the very basic of those being, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    I'll admit I'm concerned about the future of our country. As a husband and a father of five I wonder about the world we leaving for our children to inherit. I fear we have lost our moral compass thus creating a vacuum in which human depravity as exemplified by today's radical Islamists thrives.

    Equally concerning to me is what happens when the pendulum swings the other way. Will we have the moral and principled leaders to check our indignation before it goes too far? When that heart rending atrocity which is sure to come finally pushes the American people to white hot wrath who will hold our own passions in check? In a nation where Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are an outdated notion what will keep us from becoming that which we most hate?

    As I stated at the start of this review, today we are at a crossroads. Once again our nation needs principled men and women in positions of leadership who understand the Field of Fight as described by General Flynn and have the wisdom and courage to navigate this battlefield.

    * * *

    In summary, although I don't agree with everything written in this book I found it to be an educational read which will provided me with much food for thought over the coming months. As a representative republic choosing good leadership requires that we as citizens understand the problems and challenges we face as a nation. Today radical Islam is one of those challenges and General Flynn's book Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies gives a much needed perspective on the subject. stars better, get it at your local library By Jim Lobe on January 3, 2017 Format: Hardcover | Verified Purchase The book is remarkably poorly written and even more poorly argued. The constant use of the pronoun "I" suggests that Flynn wrote it, although most of its main themes and much of the language are ones that Ledeen has repeated endlessly in books, blogs, and op-eds since 9/11 (and even before). In fact, it seems that Ledeen was the main author, and one is forced to wonder whether Flynn even gave the manuscript a thorough read-through before it was published. If he did read and approve it, and if he retains his position as Trump's national security adviser, then the country could be in for some serious foreign-policy incoherence. While Trump has claimed he's against "regime change," the book comes out strongly in favor. While Trump has said he opposes nation-building, the book says we need to completely reconstruct whole societies. ("It's not just a matter of changing local leaders; we want to change the whole system as we used to do.") And remember, Bolivia and Nicaragua are part of the "enemy alliance," along with Al Qaeda and ISIS, of which Iran is the "centerpiece." If you can't get enough of Islamophobia, Iranophobia, conspiracy thinking, and what Flynn's colleagues at the Defense Intelligence Agency used to call "Flynn facts" (multiple highly questionable assertions lack footnotes or any credible attribution), then buy this book or, better, get it at your local library. Otherwise, just google Ledeen and head for the fever swamps.

    out of 5 stars A Disappointment By Ed on December 28, 2016 Format: Hardcover | Verified Purchase Responding to terrorism is an important topic and I was looking forward to reading about potential strategic visions and tactical approaches that could be employed. This book disappointed. The first half of the book was a written account of how great the author is. He even made being a juvenile delinquent a plus! As a veteran I have encountered many officers who are "legends in their own minds". These pages do nothing to advance the subject of winning against terrorism.

    The next section is a series of rants about how weak and worthless politicians are. Few are spared, although Lincoln and FDR were ok. Colin Powell is also served up for criticism. General Powell is one of my heroes, a perfect example of the citizen soldier. Gen. Flynn is the opposite whose view is that the USA's elected representatives are holding the military back from winning the war on terror. I believe General Powell is correct.

    Politicians are only responsible to the people who elect them. Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama are judged at the voting poles. This is how free people govern themselves. Criticism from subordinates is not useful, advice is. One is insubordination and the other is duty and loyalty. If you cannot support the elected leaders of the USA you should resign your commission, not wait to get fired.

    The final section of the book deals with the plan to defeat the radical Muslims. Gen Flynn is now our NSA to President-elect Trump. We'll get to see if Gen. Flynn can effectively advise President Trump. Will his "maverick" streak help or hinder his efforts? Will past insubordination reemerge when he does not get everything he proposes? Will he be able to convince Congress to take the "handcuffs" the military to win the War on Terror? Elected representatives will stay true to the wishes of the voters and be judged by them accordingly. As a loyal veteran and citizen, I wish nothing but the best for our country and that means wishing nothing but "HUGE" successes for our new president and his administration, including Gen. Flynn. 2.0 out of 5 stars simnplistic By juelanne dalzell on December 16, 2016 Format: Hardcover | Verified Purchase The book scared me silly. I got the impression that the author may be insane and believes everything his paranoia is telling him. What is scary is that some of the information appears accurate and that provides enough 'proof' for the author to make conclusions that aren't based in analytical reasoning. Due to its lack of depth or complexity the book is an easy read. 3.0 out of 5 stars Lacking on specifics, and disappointing over all By Adam M. Donaldson on August 7, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition | Verified Purchase I would give the book a 2.5 stars out of 5 but I'm limited to a three. I think the chapters describing the links etc. between various nation states and terrorist networks was very informative and the best part of the book. I did find the book extremely lacking though when it came to how to defeat the enemy he describes, which disappointed me because that's what this book as billed as. The strategies given were nothing more then basic overviews of things many other people have already said. So in that end it was even more disappointing. I also think he pays to much credit to using the word radical Islam as a strategy for defeating the enemy since in reality it would do nothing to hurt or help our cause. But that I think was a part of a mild paranoia that I found in the book. So in the end it's not bad, but it's no where near good. I would not recommend the book personally. A Valuable, But Slight, Work By A. T. Yoshida on July 27, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition | Verified Purchase There are good pieces here, but the book just doesn't ever quite gel. I can't help but think it was largely-written to further Gen. Flynn's Vice Presidential ambitions as much as anything else.

    The problem is two-fold. First, much of what is written here is already widely-known to those with a deep interest in the subject. In particular I think that there is a distinct lack of insight from the General's time at the DIA. In a sense I suppose that probably can't be helped - much of what went down is probably covered by NDAs - but it leaves us with a work whose basic contents may be found daily on any number of other forums.

    On the other side, for those without a a strong grounding in this area, the book lacks enough information about the origins and underpinnings of the Islamist war against us to be thoroughly informative.

    Still, I do concur in the recommendations contained within this book and hope that the General's talents will be utilized by the next administration.

    [Jan 09, 2017] Who Will Donald Trump Turn Out To Be?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump has ideas that he is not disclosing. He is new and the bureaucracy will run him instead of the other way around. Much will be half implemented because neither Trump nor GOP policies are popular. ..."
    "... MinWage increases is one of the most popular policies but one the GOP is least likely to pass ..."
    "... Domestic policy? Trump might act pseudo-magnanimous and come out for single payer, or something like that. The politically smartest next move would be to buy-off some progressive Berniecrats, while sticking it to Wall Street (in a phony, visual way). ..."
    "... But more likely it will be Reaganoid business as usual. Why? Because: ..."
    "... The system is complicated, and every thread you pull on, unravels something else. That's systems theory, folks! ..."
    "... The power of the Presidency is limited, and overrated by partisans on both sides. ..."
    "... A President's information is restricted to what comes in through his advisors, and this bunch are looking like, kwite a kwazy krew. ..."
    "... Trump's low cognition and narcissism will result in short-sighted moves and more foreign policy quagmires for the US: "Look at the black eye the US gave itself, with the Bush-Cheney War! -- Let's make America stupid again!" ..."
    "... On trade? Trump is setting up the conditions where the richest people can plunder what's remains of the U.S., before getting out of the country: ..."
    "... The new global slogan will be, "Trade with China -- We're the Crooks You Can TRUST!" ..."
    "... Meanwhile Trump will give big tax cuts to the richest Americans, because his knuckleheaded voters believe all the "makers vs. takers" baloney; they haven't been schtupped up the keister enough... ..."
    "... Then the rich will slowly start taking that money out of the U.S. to some other country that gets a higher global ROI under the new Chinese trade rules, because U.S. exporters under protectionism won't be nearly as profitable. ..."
    "... The bureaucracy is too massive for any one person to control. Change requires action from the top or its business as usual. Trump does not have enough trusted aids and insiders to manage the government ..."
    "... Right now it's hard to know if Trump's administration really wants to deliver change. Its cabinet-level staffing is hard to read. It is full of establishment types who could deliver change if that is really their mission. They are not beholden to anyone for their positions and they are not in need of lucrative employment after cabinet service that might otherwise make them tend to curry favor with interests they affect in office. ..."
    "... Tillerson became CEO of Exxon and has been successful there, nontrivial achievements both. He is not a professional foreign service officer, neither was HRC. For many oil-producing countries, their most important foreign patron is Exxon. Tillerson is very familiar with the inside game in the Middle East where all kinds of shit has been hitting the fan for the past 25 years without the US having much success there. HRC and Kerry have been particularly ineffective and had far less accomplishments in life before assuming SoS office than Tillerson. ..."
    "... Mnuchin got rich in Hollywood because he knew what people wanted from Hollywood. he was also chief of the NY bond desk for GS and was CIO for GS for five years. That is CIO of the most technologically sophisticated investment bank in the world. ..."
    "... Mnuchin knows the technology and how it can be used to execute or hide chicanery better than anyone else in the industry. If he aims to reform the TBTF banks, he is better equipped than anyone who has been Treasury secretary over the 25 years during which computer technology assumed a key role in skulduggery in the industry. ..."
    "... Marine nicknames are often ironic. "Mad Dog" Mattis probably reflects recognition of his intellect and coolness by his Marine colleagues. ..."
    "... Mattis has been well known to be a smart, tough, effective achiever. If pentagon reform is really the goal, he would be hard to beat. ..."
    "... These men have all been very successful at running large organizations. Let's see what direction they try to take the government and how they do at it. Should be interesting. ..."
    "... History without context is meaningless. ..."
    "... Wars play too great a role in history as taught. Neither of the Bushes, with their limited thinking, like the generals above, should have ever been allowed near hammers ..."
    "... Colonialism took a bit too long to die, but Archduke Ferdinand was indeed about the dying throws of monarchies. ..."
    Jan 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Brad DeLong:
    Who Will Donald Trump Turn Out To Be? :

    We have very little indication of what policies Donald Trump will try to follow or even what kind of president he will be. The U.S. press corps did an extraordinarily execrable job in covering the rise of Trump--even worse than it usually does. Even the most sophisticated of audiences--those interested in asset prices and how they are affected by government policies--have very little insight into Trump's views or those of his key associates.

    Will Donald Trump turn out to be the equivalent of Ronald Reagan -- someone who comes into office from the world of celebrity with a great many unfixed policy intuitions, but no consistent plan?

    Will he turn out to be the equivalent of Silvio Berlusconi, who regards the presidency as an opportunity to wreak his kleptocratic will on the country?

    Or will he turn out to be someone worse than Berlusconi?

    I would say that Trump could be any of four figures...
    jonny bakho -> pgl... January 09, 2017 at 03:20 AM , 2017 at 03:20 AM
    DeLong's guess is as good as anyones.

    Trump has ideas that he is not disclosing. He is new and the bureaucracy will run him instead of the other way around. Much will be half implemented because neither Trump nor GOP policies are popular.

    MinWage increases is one of the most popular policies but one the GOP is least likely to pass

    Congress has power but they must shift from opposition mode to governing mode. I expect much overreach and 'creative' destruction

    Lee A. Arnold -> jonny bakho... , January 09, 2017 at 03:43 AM

    Domestic policy? Trump might act pseudo-magnanimous and come out for single payer, or something like that. The politically smartest next move would be to buy-off some progressive Berniecrats, while sticking it to Wall Street (in a phony, visual way).

    But more likely it will be Reaganoid business as usual. Why? Because:

    1. The system is complicated, and every thread you pull on, unravels something else. That's systems theory, folks!
    2. The power of the Presidency is limited, and overrated by partisans on both sides.
    3. A President's information is restricted to what comes in through his advisors, and this bunch are looking like, kwite a kwazy krew. 4. There is a mid-term election less than 2 years from now.

    Foreign policy? Putin wanted Trump to win, but NOT to make the U.S. stronger. He wants a weaker US. Why? Because the Russians hate the US for screwing them economically after the Iron Curtain fell, with trying to impose a bunch of free-market fundamentalist ignorance...

    Were that not bad enough, the US slapped on oil sanctions recently, after Putin tried shoring-up his borders against NATO expansion and against Islamic terrorists.

    ... ... ...

    Whether you yourself think it's good or bad to oppose Russia -- and whatever you think of Putin's tactics in response -- is not the point here. Fact is, Putin hates the US. Therefore, Putin is not going to help anyone whom he thinks will make the US stronger or more respected in the world.

    Russian psych profiling may suggest that Trump's low cognition and narcissism will result in short-sighted moves and more foreign policy quagmires for the US: "Look at the black eye the US gave itself, with the Bush-Cheney War! -- Let's make America stupid again!"

    On trade? Trump is setting up the conditions where the richest people can plunder what's remains of the U.S., before getting out of the country: Trump wants to tear up the big trade deals and make every country go into bilateral negotiations with his trade team... BUT those countries are all going to say, "Forget it! We just spent 6 years negotiating, and we know we can't trust the US anymore!"...

    Then, they are going to turn around and join China's new global trade organization, which was suddenly announced the DAY AFTER Trump's election (funny, that, after years of planning, building forward military bases in the Pacific, etc.) The new global slogan will be, "Trade with China -- We're the Crooks You Can TRUST!"

    Meanwhile Trump will give big tax cuts to the richest Americans, because his knuckleheaded voters believe all the "makers vs. takers" baloney; they haven't been schtupped up the keister enough... Then the rich will slowly start taking that money out of the U.S. to some other country that gets a higher global ROI under the new Chinese trade rules, because U.S. exporters under protectionism won't be nearly as profitable.

    "...And golly, honey, there's plenty of pretty places over there to build new mansions, for both you, AND the mistress..." Meanwhile, back in the U.S., voters will continue walking around with their thumbs up their butts, & trying to prevent other Americans from getting healthcare, trying to prevent them from voting, etc... To get cash, the U.S. can join into a big flea market with the Brexiters, and we can all swap old Beatles vinyl...

    Get behind Bernie, NOW!!!

    JF -> jonny bakho... , January 09, 2017 at 04:24 AM
    The bureaucracy will run things? This is not going to happen, governance will stall or cease.

    Let me see, a party that says our form of govt is the problem. A party who has obstructed matters to cause dysfunction in govt on purpose, and who is entertaining nominees to head these agencies who do not care that they exist, bills introduced already to allow pay even to the individual to be cut , and to smooth firing processes, with an incoming group who surfaces transition-team surveys for the purposes of chilling efforts with the agencies even before they take control, on climate change for instance, well, the bureaucracy is demoralized, and threatened. The dysfunction of the American 'experiment' in self government will be harmed, perhaps accomplished finally.

    And when they get their legs about them with new judiciary appointments they then should thread cases via these courts so holdings they get won't be appealed, giving them full control, with still the purpose being dysfunction for what has been the generally applicable law before. Ok with them, it would seem.

    jonny bakho -> JF... , -1
    The bureaucracy is too massive for any one person to control. Change requires action from the top or its business as usual. Trump does not have enough trusted aids and insiders to manage the government
    anne -> pgl... , January 09, 2017 at 07:35 AM
    "Reagan did not campaign for and enter the presidency thinking that he was going to push the value of the dollar up by 70%..."

    -- Brad DeLong

    [ The real trade-weighted price of the dollar increased by about 45% between 1980 and March 1985 and then declined and finished the Reagan presidency about 5% below the level of 1980. ]

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 09, 2017 at 07:56 AM
    [I set the Way-back machine to Links for 12-31-16 and copied what mrrunangun said to me then. From my experience mrrunangun is a more reliable source than the MSM, but then so is my wife and over half of the random strangers that I meet in Walmart.]

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/12/links-for-12-31-16.html

    mrrunangun -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Right now it's hard to know if Trump's administration really wants to deliver change. Its cabinet-level staffing is hard to read. It is full of establishment types who could deliver change if that is really their mission. They are not beholden to anyone for their positions and they are not in need of lucrative employment after cabinet service that might otherwise make them tend to curry favor with interests they affect in office.

    Tillerson became CEO of Exxon and has been successful there, nontrivial achievements both. He is not a professional foreign service officer, neither was HRC. For many oil-producing countries, their most important foreign patron is Exxon. Tillerson is very familiar with the inside game in the Middle East where all kinds of shit has been hitting the fan for the past 25 years without the US having much success there. HRC and Kerry have been particularly ineffective and had far less accomplishments in life before assuming SoS office than Tillerson.

    Mnuchin got rich in Hollywood because he knew what people wanted from Hollywood. he was also chief of the NY bond desk for GS and was CIO for GS for five years. That is CIO of the most technologically sophisticated investment bank in the world.

    Many of the big errors in banking over the past 20 years have been due to inadequate supervision of trading units. Traders learn to hide losses using the computer systems of the banks and clearing houses. The Barclay's Singapore disaster, the London whale, the UBS fiasco, the DB bond desk fiasco all got out of hand because traders' losing positions went undetected by the traders' supervisors who lacked the technical sophistication necessary to provide adequate supervision. Mnuchin knows the technology and how it can be used to execute or hide chicanery better than anyone else in the industry. If he aims to reform the TBTF banks, he is better equipped than anyone who has been Treasury secretary over the 25 years during which computer technology assumed a key role in skulduggery in the industry.

    Marine nicknames are often ironic. "Mad Dog" Mattis probably reflects recognition of his intellect and coolness by his Marine colleagues. In the movie Full Metal Jacket, a dark-skinned black man was named "snowball" and, after getting slapped around for smiling at the DI's jokes, the main character was named "Joker". Victor Krulak, a Marine general during the VietNam war, got the name Brute because of his diminutive size. He became probably the only five foot four-inch Marine general of the twentieth century. Mattis has been well known to be a smart, tough, effective achiever. If pentagon reform is really the goal, he would be hard to beat.

    These men have all been very successful at running large organizations. Let's see what direction they try to take the government and how they do at it. Should be interesting.

    Reply Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:18 PM

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 09, 2017 at 06:33 AM
    Suri never really makes his case against belligerent deterrence because his historical references are inconsistent with his thesis. As much as I agree with TR's "Walk soft and carry a big stick" even that is a superficial take on Teddy Roosevelt's approach to diplomatic engagement, which was a superior way to conduct foreign policy even compared to Taft's dollar diplomacy.

    Taft's way was more readily assessable to the mediocre men that would normally lead our country though, which is why Kissinger as Secretary of State held to it dearly. Buying peace is much cheaper than waging war.

    ken melvin -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 09, 2017 at 06:01 AM
    History without context is meaningless. War is but a consequence. Generals shouldn't be allowed hammers.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ken melvin... , January 09, 2017 at 06:58 AM
    Understood. Woodrow Wilson was a pacifist and the US during his administration was isolationist. That hardly sounds like a case of belligerent deterrence going wrong, but more like the opposite.

    Suri's point was that circumstances can dictate significant reversals from original intentions though. WW-II did not seem like our choice and certainly was reluctant more like WW-I rather than a case of belligerent deterrence going wrong.

    The US entered the Korean War because its presidents, first Truman and then Eisenhower were more afraid of Joe McCarthy than China, also not a case of belligerent deterrence, just domino theory.

    Kennedy and Johnson just feared the anti-communist Republican hawks that remained after McCarthy died more than they feared China, just more domino theory there too.

    When we finally got a POTUS that did the full court press on belligerent deterrence, Reagan, then peace broke out.

    By this time Suri's case is getting real weak. The first Bush war, the daddy Bush war, was just a reaction function and limited at that. The next two Bush wars, the baby Bush wars, were finally belligerent deterrence on steroids, but also a reaction function or an over-reaction function to 9/11.

    Suri stands empty handed on his history, but that does not mean that he is wrong on his prognostications, just unconvincing in his larger historical based argument aside from the notion of unintended consequences. That alone may however be Donald Trumps undoing, but just as easily so from domestic policy as foreign policy. Only time will tell. I prefer not to guess this one out too far myself, unintended consequences being what they are and all.

    ken melvin -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 09, 2017 at 07:42 AM
    Quite a lot; where to start? The world as it is vs. our wishful perceptions? I think remembering that most problems requiring governmental action are really quite complicated and often have more than one possible answer is essential. It's the simple arsed responses, so loved by the many, that get us into some of the worst messes. The urge to tear it down and start anew, another source of grief, again linked to the simple arsed, our most current response.

    See Reagan and Ike as being dependent to a fault on their advisers (in the case of Reagan, we really lucked out with Baker, Schultz, Deaver); Bush II as being dumb enough to think he was smart when, in fact, he was too dumb for the job; and Drumpf, I suspect/fear, being of the same ilk as Bush II.

    For WWI context, I see: the swell of the industrial age, the vying for raw materials and markets, all in a period when one saw the dying throes of colonialism and monarchies whilst no one seem to grasp the reality of what was going on (bout where we find ourselves). Wars play too great a role in history as taught. Neither of the Bushes, with their limited thinking, like the generals above, should have ever been allowed near hammers

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ken melvin... , January 09, 2017 at 08:06 AM
    Colonialism took a bit too long to die, but Archduke Ferdinand was indeed about the dying throws of monarchies.

    Relative to Suri's argument there was nothing about US foreign policy activism that got us into WWI unless you want to consider the negative. Had the US been more involved in European diplomacy in a cogent and persuasive manner then it may have averted the Prussian brinksmanship that ignite WW-I. Theodore Roosevelt may have been capable of that, but not Taft nor Wilson.

    [Jan 09, 2017] Russian Interference in the Election is A Media Hoax

    Notable quotes:
    "... Referring to Putin and the Russian hackers, Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson contends: "Their hacking - as interpreted by both the CIA and the FBI - qualifies as state-sponsored aggression. It does jeopardize our way of life. It undermines the integrity of our political institutions and popular faith in them. More than this, it warns us that our physical safety and security are at risk. Hostile hackers can hijack power grids, communication networks, transportation systems and much more." [17] Even criticizing the position of the CIA-an institution American liberals, not too long ago, looked upon as a force for evil–is now considered a threat to American democracy. As establishment liberal E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post pontificates: "That Trump would happily trash our own CIA to get Putin off the hook is disturbing enough . . . . That he would ignore the risks our intelligence agents take on so many fronts to protect us is outrageous ..."
    "... The Washington Post was enraged when, in 2015, Russia shut down the U.S. government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), relying on a law that "bans groups from abroad who are deemed a 'threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.'" The Washington Post wrote: "The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts." [20] Presumably, such things as "transparency in public affairs," fighting corruption, and "freedom of information," are vital for creating a "healthy democracy" in Russia when promoted by a foreign organization but are a grave danger to democracy if a foreign entity should try to do the same thing in the United States. ..."
    "... The mainstream media has acted as if Russian efforts to influence American policy are something novel, that this had never happened to the U.S. before. And "policy" is used here rather than "election" because affecting policy is apparently Putin's motive, not simply putting Trump in the White House with U.S. policy toward Russian unchanged. It is quite understandable that Putin would view Trump as a better President from the standpoint of Russian interests than Hillary Clinton since Trump advocated improving relations with Russia while Clinton was oriented toward exacerbating them. ..."
    "... In making major foreign policy decisions, Obama's modus operandi has often been one of reacting to pressure-usually, but not always, from elite opinion-which has caused him to take positions contrary to his own, often more non-interventionist and pacific, inclination. This seems to have been the case regarding Obama's policy toward Libya, Syria, Israel (his obeisance to the Israel Lobby until the very end of his presidency), and even Russia, where he initially sought a "reset" to achieve friendlier relations. ..."
    "... By penalizing Russia, Obama makes it difficult for President Trump to establish a more cordial relationship with Russia. There is extensive support in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans for taking strong action against Russia. As the title of an article in Roll Call, which focuses on the activities of the U.S. Congress , puts it: "Obama's Russia Sanctions Put Trump, Hill GOP on Collision Course." The author of this article, John T. Bennett, opines that Trump's opposition to Obama's retaliation against Russia "will immediately pit him against the hawkish wing of the Republican party." [29] ..."
    "... While Trump could overturn Obama's anti-Russian measures, which are based on an executive order, his doing so would almost certainly be countered by legislation put forth by Democrats and some Republicans-the latter led by McCain and Graham, who have already said that they will introduce Russian sanction legislation. ..."
    "... To conclude, the Russian interference narrative did not serve to prevent Trump from becoming president but it does seem that it will cause serious problems for his presidency and for American foreign relations as well, as America will drift further into Cold War II, which is something that Trump, if not facing obstruction, could have possibly prevented. ..."
    "... CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story ..."
    "... It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! Nice Try Clinton News Network! ..."
    "... Obama's petty and stupid response to the current unproven allegations against Russia will haunt his legacy and Hillary's bizarre contention that Putin personally "had it in for her" is yet another sign of her mental instability. ..."
    Jan 09, 2017 | www.unz.com
    The mainstream media's narrative that the Russian government interfered with the United States election, and that this interference invalidated, or at least tainted, Trump's election has culminated in President Obama taking a series of measures against Russia, which consist of: imposing sanctions on the GRU and the FSB (the two major Russian intelligence organizations), four officers of the GRU, and two Russian individuals who allegedly used "cyber-enabled means to cause misappropriation of funds and personal identifying information;" expelling 35 diplomats and intelligence officials; and closing two Russian compounds in Maryland's Eastern Shore and Long Island, New York. These actions were said to have been taken not only because of Russian interference in the election but for a number of other instances of Russian malfeasance that go back in time and are unrelated to alleged election interference. And there was no evidence provided that showed, or even claimed to show, that the particular individuals and entities covered by these measures had anything to do with the alleged election interference. [1]

    Like other common memes-such as anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism-used to silence debate, the exact meaning of Russian interference in the election is unclear-and Obama's inclusion of a number of extraneous issues in his explanation for taking retaliatory action against Russia muddles the issue even more. The reference to Russian interference in the election includes a composite of alleged Russian misdeeds-"fake news," computer hacking, and manipulating voting machines [2] –which are usually lumped together but are actually quite different and should be analyzed separately since the combination approach only serves to obfuscate the issue. Of course-and this probably would not be shocking to most readers of this essay-many of those who promote the idea of Russian culpability are not really concerned about pursuing a Socratic search for truth but instead want to anathematize Putin's Russia and/or delegitimize Trump's election victory.

    First, let me take care of the most extreme claim-that Russian hackers manipulated election results to make Trump president. This would be a nearly impossible task since voting machines are not attached to the Internet, and it was never pointed out how the Russians could do this on any significant scale. [3] Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton was urged by "a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers" to demand a recount in three states-Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-in which Clinton seemed to be slightly ahead in pre-election polls but which were won by Trump by narrow margins. The group claimed to have statistical evidence that the vote had been altered. [4] The basis of this claim, however, was quite flimsy since it simply rested on an analysis that showed that in Wisconsin counties with electronic voting machines, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes than in counties with paper ballots or optical scanners. It was then assumed that the same thing could have occurred in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    There was a recount in Wisconsin in which Trump increased his victory margin by 131 votes; a total of 2.976 million ballots were cast. The recount was requested by Green Party candidate Jill Stein who covered the estimated $3.5 million cost of the endeavor. [5] Similar efforts by Stein to get recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania were blocked in the state courts because of her lack of standing by the laws of those states-not having any chance of winning herself, she could not be considered an "aggrieved party." Hillary Clinton's campaign did not make official efforts to get recounts in any states. With Trump's victory in Wisconsin surviving the recount, he had garnered a majority of the electoral votes, which would make him President unless there were a far higher number of faithless electors than turned out to be the case. Nonetheless, half of Clinton's voters still think Russia hacked the election day voting. [6]

    Now to consider the ramifications of Russia's hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, and the reception and release to the public of this Russian-hacked information by WikiLeaks. While this is assumed to be incontestably true by the mainstream media, neither one of these allegations is rock solid at the moment. The alleged consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies is that there is sufficient evidence that Russia hacked the aforementioned emails, but the evidence for this has not been made available to the public nor is there proof that WikiLeaks relied on emails derived from Russian hacks. Given the fact that America's intelligence agencies are not noted for being honest with the public, one would think that the mainstream media would give some attention to the critics of the dominant narrative.

    Reacting to these allegations, WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, claims that his organization did not release any information provided to it by Russia or a Russian proxy. And Assange does have a vested interest in being truthful in order to maintain WikiLeaks' credibility, which has so far been impeccable. Confirming Assange's contention is Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Assange, though not an official member of the WikiLeaks staff. Murray stated: "As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks." He goes on to claim: "Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling." Murray alleges that the two sets of emails-from the DNC and from Podesta–came from American insiders but from different sources. [7]

    Obviously, the security agencies should provide the public with detailed evidence and describe the actual sources. As Pat Buchanan suggests: "The CIA director and his deputies should be made to testify under oath, not only as to what they know about Russia's role in the WikiLeaks email dumps but also about who inside the agency is behind the leaks to The Washington Post designed to put a cloud over the Trump presidency before it begins." [8]

    Now it should be pointed out that the actual content of the emails released by WikiLeaks, which the U.S. claims to have been obtained by Russian hacking, has not been falsified. The information harmful to Hillary Clinton included the DNC's behind-the-scenes support for her over Bernie Sanders (which included then DNC chair Donna Brazile's feeding answers to Clinton before the latter's debate with Bernie Sanders); Clinton's unpublicized paid speeches-on foreign policy and the economy– to wealthy business executives and bankers revealing views diametrically opposed to her campaign positions; the collusion of mainstream media reporters with the DNC. For example, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank requested and got the DNC to do the research for a negative column he wrote about Trump.

    ORDER IT NOW

    If the WikiLeaks information were completely fallacious, it would not have been derived from hacking or even from leaks, but simply fabricated. Nonetheless, this defense is being made. The logical form of this argument is that hacking took place but that the released emails were doctored to make them damaging. But this is based on the fact that it is possible to doctor emails, rather than any evidence that the WikiLeaks' emails were altered. The assumption being made was that Russia was capable of doctoring the emails, therefore, the emails must be doctored. For example, Jamie Winterton, director of strategy for Arizona State University's Global Security Initiative, was quoted as saying: "I would be shocked if the emails weren't altered," and went on to say that Russia was well-known to have used this technique in the past. ix Similarly, Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin asserted: "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton." He referred to doctored emails that supposedly appeared on websites linked to Russian intelligence as proof that "documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign," although Caplin did not say that the emails concerning Clinton's speeches had been faked. x According to James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the spreading of false information by intelligence services "is a technique that goes back to Tsarist times." Among his examples, he referred to the Soviet-spread rumor that the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus. Needless to say, this, too, had nothing to do with WikiLeaks much less the emails it released on Clinton and the DNC. [11]

    MSNBC's terrorist analyst and a former intelligence officer, Malcolm Nance, tweeted a message, shortly after WikiLeaks' October release of some of Podesta's emails, that these emails were "riddled with obvious forgeries," without ever providing evidence. [12] If any emails released by WikiLeaks were "obvious forgeries," it would seem quite easy for U.S. intelligence agencies to point this out without using any secret, super-high tech methods, and thus substantiate the case being made.

    Interestingly, Nance was also quoted as taking the opposite position: "We have no way of knowing whether this is real or not unless Hillary Clinton goes through everything they've said and comes out and says it cross-correlates and this is true." [13] Here, Nance seems to be saying that WikiLeaks' could only be considered accurate if Hillary would show this to be the case. Since Hillary is not going to indict herself, this is not going to happen. However, the burden of proof should be on those who claim that the emails were altered to point out the discrepancies between the emails released by WikiLeaks and the DNC's and Podesta's actual emails. It would not be necessary to go through the whole tranche but simply focus on the detrimental emails. If this is not done, then claims that the WikiLeaks provides specious information should be dropped. So far, however, there seems to be little effort to show that the damaging information was untrue. [14]

    Actually, it seems that much of the hostility to the WikiLeaks' information has little to do with it being false but rather that the emails were pilfered and made public. Adam Schiff, a Democratic congressman from California, who serves as the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Jane Harman, who is currently the president of the Wilson Center and a former ranking Democratic member of the same House committee state: "Russia's theft and strategic leaking of emails and documents from the Democratic Party and other officials present a challenge to the U.S. political system unlike anything we've experienced." [15] Note that these writers charge Russia not only with illicitly obtaining the emails but also of "strategic leaking," which was obviously the work of WikiLeaks, and for which no evidence whatsoever exists that Russia determined when the materials would be leaked.

    The New York Times Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes that "[t]he pro-Putin tilt of Mr. Trump and his advisers was obvious months before the election . . . . By midsummer the close relationship between WikiLeaks and Russian intelligence was also obvious, as was the site's growing alignment with white nationalists." Krugman goes on to blame the mainstream media for giving attention to WikiLeaks. "Leaked emails, which everyone knew were probably the product of Russian hacking, were breathlessly reported as shocking revelations, even when they mostly revealed nothing more than the fact that Democrats are people." [16] However, if nothing harmful was revealed, it is hard to maintain that Russian hacking had a significant effect on the election. If harm were done to the Democrats, it was presumably caused by the media, which falsely implied that serious revelations were being made by WikiLeaks.

    Referring to Putin and the Russian hackers, Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson contends: "Their hacking - as interpreted by both the CIA and the FBI - qualifies as state-sponsored aggression. It does jeopardize our way of life. It undermines the integrity of our political institutions and popular faith in them. More than this, it warns us that our physical safety and security are at risk. Hostile hackers can hijack power grids, communication networks, transportation systems and much more." [17] Even criticizing the position of the CIA-an institution American liberals, not too long ago, looked upon as a force for evil–is now considered a threat to American democracy. As establishment liberal E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post pontificates: "That Trump would happily trash our own CIA to get Putin off the hook is disturbing enough . . . . That he would ignore the risks our intelligence agents take on so many fronts to protect us is outrageous . [18]

    Michael Daly of the liberal millennials–oriented "Daily Beast" writes: "Russians went from simply gathering our secrets to then making them public in such a way as to influence American public opinion and therefore the course of our democracy. Putin must marvel at the fervently patriotic, flag-waving Americans who shrug at the near certainty that a foreign power had subverted the electoral process that is at the heart of America's true greatness." [19]

    It is not apparent how receiving accurate information regarding political issues-which is what WikiLeaks seems to have provided-could really have a negative impact on American democracy; rather it would seem that it would actually improve democracy. The purpose of Voice of America is supposed to be to provide such information to foreign countries and especially to those where the governments prevent the facts from reaching their inhabitants. The idea is that people in foreign countries should know the truth about their own government and about other governments, as well.

    The Washington Post was enraged when, in 2015, Russia shut down the U.S. government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), relying on a law that "bans groups from abroad who are deemed a 'threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.'" The Washington Post wrote: "The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts." [20] Presumably, such things as "transparency in public affairs," fighting corruption, and "freedom of information," are vital for creating a "healthy democracy" in Russia when promoted by a foreign organization but are a grave danger to democracy if a foreign entity should try to do the same thing in the United States.

    The mainstream media has acted as if Russian efforts to influence American policy are something novel, that this had never happened to the U.S. before. And "policy" is used here rather than "election" because affecting policy is apparently Putin's motive, not simply putting Trump in the White House with U.S. policy toward Russian unchanged. It is quite understandable that Putin would view Trump as a better President from the standpoint of Russian interests than Hillary Clinton since Trump advocated improving relations with Russia while Clinton was oriented toward exacerbating them.

    While the mainstream media implies that what Russia was allegedly attempting to do had never happened before, foreign countries had actually tried to shape American policies since the George Washington administration [21] when the ambassador from revolutionary France, popularly known as Citizen Genet, came to the United States in 1793 and sought to generate popular support to get the United States to modify its strict neutrality policy to one that would be helpful to France in its war with Great Britain. Genet even commissioned privateers to attack British shipping. Ultimately, however, President Washington and his Cabinet, angered by Genet's activities that violated American sovereignty, demanded his recall. Genet simultaneously fell from favor in France as more radical Jacobins led by Robespierre took power and fearing he might face the guillotine if he returned to France, Genet requested and received asylum in the United States.

    In 1867-1868, the Russian ambassador to the U.S. resorted to bribing lobbyists, newspapers, and members of Congress in order to make sure that the U.S. Congress would provide the funds for the treaty already signed by Secretary of State Seward (and approved by the Senate) to purchase Alaska.

    In World War I both Germany and England were relying heavily on propaganda in the U.S.-the British goal to get the U.S. into the war on its side; the German goal to keep the U.S. out of the war. In 1917, Britain Illicitly intercepted and decoded what became known as the Zimmerman Telegram, which was a message from the German foreign ministry to its ambassador in Mexico instructing him to inform the Mexican government that Germany would, if the United States joined the war against it, support a Mexican effort to regain its former territory taken by the United States (though technically purchased) as a result of the Mexican-American War. [22] After Britain turned the information over to the U.S. government, the publication of the telegram in March 1917 may have played a supporting role in America's entrance into World War I in April 1917.

    In World War II, British intelligence closely cooperated with the Roosevelt administration and the American interventionists-actually setting up pro-interventionist front groups–and engaged in efforts to destroy the non-interventionists. [23] Soviet agents were also trying to shape American foreign policy during World War II and its aftermath in order to advance the interests of Stalinist Russia. [24] And Israel (and the Zionist agency before Israel's founding) and its American supporters have played a role in shaping America's policy in the Middle East policy since World War I. [25]

    Finally, let us explore the reasons for Obama's retaliation against the alleged Russian interference in the election, which included activities-mostly, but not only, involving spying-that had been going on for years. An obvious question is: why didn't Obama take action earlier?

    It should be pointed out that it is commonplace for spies to pose as diplomats. And it is likewise commonplace that a host country does nothing to stop the spying unless it goes too far or if the host country wants to send a message that it is concerned about some other matter and does so by expelling officials for spying who were not necessarily involved in the issue of concern. Obama's expulsion edict fit the second category and was meant to show the U.S. government's ire regarding the alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election. [26] Therefore, Obama's retaliation against individuals and entities not involved in the matter of concern was not unconventional and if there had not been any alleged interference in the U.S. election, they likely would have been left alone.

    Furthermore, it would appear that Obama chose to take action for political reasons: in order to appeal to the Democratic base and the mainstream media, afflicted as those two groups are by Trump Derangement Syndrome, [27] and also to hardline opponents of Russia who loom large in the Republican Party and have become a significant force among the Democratic elite (e.g. Brookings Institution).

    In making major foreign policy decisions, Obama's modus operandi has often been one of reacting to pressure-usually, but not always, from elite opinion-which has caused him to take positions contrary to his own, often more non-interventionist and pacific, inclination. This seems to have been the case regarding Obama's policy toward Libya, Syria, Israel (his obeisance to the Israel Lobby until the very end of his presidency), and even Russia, where he initially sought a "reset" to achieve friendlier relations.

    Although it has been claimed that Obama had entertained issuing punitive measures against Russia before the election, but opted against this to avoid possible Russian retaliation that could affect the voting, it is not apparent that Obama would have taken comparable retaliatory action if Clinton had won a clear-cut electoral victory. [28] While Republican hardliners, such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, might have wanted such action, the Democrats would be satisfied with their victory, and Clinton and her foreign policy advisers, even though they might be anti-Putin, would not want their hands tied by such measures. While Obama is not a fan of Hillary Clinton, he did want her to be his successor, since that would have made him look good; there would have been no reason to antagonize her, her supporters, or the Democratic Party elite.

    By penalizing Russia, Obama makes it difficult for President Trump to establish a more cordial relationship with Russia. There is extensive support in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans for taking strong action against Russia. As the title of an article in Roll Call, which focuses on the activities of the U.S. Congress , puts it: "Obama's Russia Sanctions Put Trump, Hill GOP on Collision Course." The author of this article, John T. Bennett, opines that Trump's opposition to Obama's retaliation against Russia "will immediately pit him against the hawkish wing of the Republican party." [29]

    While Trump could overturn Obama's anti-Russian measures, which are based on an executive order, his doing so would almost certainly be countered by legislation put forth by Democrats and some Republicans-the latter led by McCain and Graham, who have already said that they will introduce Russian sanction legislation. In the past few years, an overwhelming majority in Congress has voted for sanctions legislation against Russia, which makes it likely that there would be a veto-proof majority to stymie Trump on this issue. [30]

    To conclude, the Russian interference narrative did not serve to prevent Trump from becoming president but it does seem that it will cause serious problems for his presidency and for American foreign relations as well, as America will drift further into Cold War II, which is something that Trump, if not facing obstruction, could have possibly prevented.

    Beckow , < > January 6, 2017 at 7:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Great article, the key question remains: why is there an obsession for a large part of Washington bipartisan elite to have a horrible relationship with Russia?

    It is on its face self-defeating: Russia poses no real threat as a peaceful neighbor, it has lots of resources and the largest consumer market in Europe. Russia is also generally secular, relative socially liberal, and shares many of the same policies as US, e,g. fighting Islamic terrorism, checking China's influence, etc

    So why the hostility? It makes West weaker, not stronger. It hurts global economy, it increases risks of a nuclear confrontation. It also cannot really achieve much beyond continued hostility and shouting at each other.

    Unless I am missing something, the hostility with Russia has no conceivable – and realistic – final outcome . Russia is not about to collapse, and it is not about to revert to a Western-run 90′s 'liberal' utopia. Any actual and realistic threat to Russia's existence could trigger a nuclear war – no winners there.

    The disputes – from Crimea to Syria, from 'hacking' to Pussy Rioters – are oversimplified and intentionally misrepresented by the West. All of these issues are more complex, less clear-cut, and there is a valid and rational point of view on Russia's side.

    So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?

    @dearieme
    "What's the point?" I don't know but the usual point of US foreign policy is to let US corporations win new markets. ,
    @CK
    Putin has reversed the Yeltsin era oligarchy that was bent on looting everything moveable in Russia. In doing so he pissed off some very connected Americans and Israelis. They want to get back to the loot trough. Sometimes it is as simple as evil men wanting to steal the wealth of others and hating those who stop them. ,
    @Harry107
    Are you kidding? Russia represents everything the Anglo-Zionist empire hates and fears:

    - Russia is sovereign and not under the control of financial interests. It is not possible to financially strip-mine Russia. For example, the Russian central band keeps real interest rates above 3%, allowing savers to keep the benefit of their savings, unlike in the West.

    - The Russian state under Putin has overthrown financial oligarch control, and the people know this. This accounts for his extraordinary popularity.

    - Russia is a Christian country which has built or reopened an astounding 30,000 churches in the last three years. They do not allow gay marriage and are about as socially conservative as the US was in the 70's. Jews are not allowed to dominate the national conversation or have inordinate control.

    - Russia manufactures their own armaments and is a strong arms export competitor. The Russian state gets much more bang for their armament buck than we do, being effectively equal to us with 1/10 the military spending. This is more evidence of the independence of the state from financial oligarchs. Currently, Russian jets and missiles are markedly superior to American ones. (Don't believe me? Google "F-15's in Syria" The Pentagon responded to Russia bringing advanced jets to Syria by transferring a squadron of F-15E's to Syria. The F-15 entered service in 1974. Each successive generation of US fighter jets since then has had inferior performance to its predecessor. This is disgraceful.)

    - The very existence of Russian independence is a mortal threat to the evil Anglo-Zionist empire. Look at Snowden, still walking and breathing and calling bullshit on American retrogression. The existence of one free country holds out a dangerous example to all other nations. ,

    @Cato
    You ask the question I've been asking myself. I don't have an answer, but I've wondered if it could be any of these:

    * inertia (the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I)
    * anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)
    * profits (the Military-Industrial Complex has settled on Russia as the threat that will justify the weapons systems they want to sell)
    * Europe (Russia is the only power that could draw away our European vassal states--the Germans were particularly cozy with Putin right before Ukraine blew up; the Gulenist coup happened just weeks after Erdogan got friendly with Russia)
    * petroleum (can't quite see how that fits here, but oil and gas are usually involved in Deep State machinations)

    But it could be all or none of these... ,

    @Bill Jones
    War, cold or hot, sells weapons
    The warmongers own the politicians.
    You've never figured this out? ,
    @NoseytheDuke
    The backers of HRC seek global domination and they know that time is against them. They have over-reached and now find themselves on the back foot. They are ruthless and desperate so this is why their actions make little sense if viewed through the lens of what is good for the ZUSA. ,
    @Fran Macadam
    Follow the money. ,
    @Connecticut Famer
    What's the point?

    There is a deep-seated, visceral need for an Enemy, that's the point. Any kind of an enemy. At present the Flavor of The Month is Russia, with China waiting in the wings.

    As a footnote--and I wish could remember his name-- but earlier this week O'Reilly had some guy on his show who was a retired USMC "intelligence expert" who said in one breath that the CIA had "proof" that the Rooshians hacked the emails then in the next breath said that the CIA can't release the information as it would compromise their operatives. Yeah, right! ,

    @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    "So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?"

    Many or perhaps most Washington elites, including Congressmen, US Supreme Court justices (Kagan, Sotormayor, and Roberts), and the former president are sodomites and pederasts. President Putin's refusal to celebrate their alternative deathstyle INFURIATES them.

    Period. ,

    @DES
    Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the M-I complex faced a big problem: how to maintain huge defense budgets when the main enemy had suddenly disappeared. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 provided them with a temporary solution, as did 9-11. What we are witnessing now is the latest chapter of this saga. Ross Perot was right: follow the money. ,
    @jacques sheete
    What's the point?
    It depends on your point of view. From we schmucks who have to pay for it all, it's worse than pointless. From the rulers' point of view, there are many of them as shown by the other replies.

    To understand their points, here are a few primers.

    Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? The real reason that the war that we have just finished took place was that Germany was afraid her commercial rivals were going to get the better of her, and' the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry.

    -Woodrow Wilson, Speech at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, on the Peace Treaty and the League of Nations (5 September 1919)

    In an effort to PREVENT the war that Churchill called "unnecessary," (WW2,) this 2 time Medal of Honor recipient wrote...

    " I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism."

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    Randolph Bourne left an unfinished, unpaginated draft of The State when he died during the flu pandemic of 1918. The draft was published posthumously, with some material incorrectly ordered, in Untimely Papers (1919). Nevertheless, The State , answers your question in detail.
    With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war.

    For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going to war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of a bigger role in the destiny of the world.

    -Randolph Bourne, The State, From Untimely Papers (1919).


    http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/

    ,
    @ZVD
    Same reason as for hostility toward Serbs! The Serbs did not pose any treat to the Washington "elite", yet they were demonized and destroyed. It was the thirst for Serb blood, and it is the thirst for Russian blood that is the driving force behind the polices of the Washington "elite". Simply put: RUSSOPHOBIA. ,
    @annamaria
    OffGuardian on participation of the Guardian in the anti-Russian folly: https://off-guardian.org/2017/01/06/34553/

    "The Guardian's anti-Putin propaganda has gotten into the bizarre. The editors have lost touch with sanity."

    Why the insanity? - Money.

    "The Guardian and Soros-connected New East Network run anti-Putin and anti-Russia propaganda daily. There is no shortage of pro-Ukraine propaganda either. That propaganda spills over onto the Guardian website. This is a sinister conflict of interest for the Guardian. It should make a full disclosure of the financial arrangements between itself and Soros.

    George Soros has made his fortune on currency speculation, regime change, coups and vulture capitalism. His current venture of destruction is Ukraine. Soros financed NGO's that fueled the US led coup against the elected government of Ukraine and installed a cabal of fascists. Soros is a major backer of anti-Putin NGO's in Russia. Soros constantly lobbies the US and the EU to bail out Ukraine with Billions of dollars, of which he would be a big beneficiary. Soros lobbies the US and the EU to destabilize Russia, which again would benefit him in Billions of dollars (here)."

    Peace is not profitable for the warmongers and financial speculators.

    @USAMNESIA
    Policy wonks reinforcing existing delusional ideology....for example....in September, the Atlantic Council, a mainstream US geopolitical think tank, published a report that predicted a Hobbesian world "marked by the breakdown of order, violent extremism [and] an era of perpetual war". The new enemies were a "resurgent" Russia and an "increasingly aggressive" China. Only heroic America can save us.

    Two highly recommended reads:

    The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government

    THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World

    dearieme , January 6, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT
    @Beckow

    .... ... ...

    "What's the point?" I don't know but the usual point of US foreign policy is to let US corporations win new markets.

    @Mao Cheng Ji
    to let US corporations win new markets
    In the case of Russia, it's more like natural resources. Also, to weaken a potential geopolitical competitor, to force obedience.

    Also, they need a boogieman, always. The 'Osama bin Laden' character had expired, and so they needed a new face for their hate-weeks. ,

    @Sean
    The only part of the Washington elite that wants to treat Russia as no threat is the part that articulates the views of corporations who want to sell US shale gas technology to Russia, which will sell cheap and clean energy to China so they can destroy American manufacturing jobs. The time has come to try and slow China's growth down. ,
    @annamaria
    Agree. "...the usual point of US foreign policy" is thievery of mineral resources and gold reserves in the hapless countries that were selected to experience the US/NATO "humanitarian interventions" and "democracy on the march"
    Here is a great paper by Robert David Steele, "The Russians Did Not "Hack" the US Election – a Few Facts from a Former CIA Spy:" http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-russians-did-not-hack-the-us-election-a-few-facts-from-a-former-cia-spy/5567215
    Steele gives a well-deserved black eye to the "perfumed princess and princesses" at the State Dept and CIA He simply calls them traitors. Refreshing.
    "Steele served in the Marine Corps as an 0203 Ground Intelligence Officer. After serving 4 years he joined CIA where he served for 10 years (3 tours overseas focused on extremist and terrorist targets). He resigned CIA to accept an invitation from the Marine Corps to stand up the Marine Corps Intelligence Center...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_David_Steele
    Mao Cheng Ji , January 6, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @dearieme
    "What's the point?" I don't know but the usual point of US foreign policy is to let US corporations win new markets.

    In the case of Russia, it's more like natural resources. Also, to weaken a potential geopolitical competitor, to force obedience.

    Also, they need a boogieman, always. The 'Osama bin Laden' character had expired, and so they needed a new face for their hate-weeks.

    Sean , January 6, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT
    @dearieme

    "What's the point?" I don't know but the usual point of US foreign policy is to let US corporations win new markets.

    The only part of the Washington elite that wants to treat Russia as no threat is the part that articulates the views of corporations who want to sell US shale gas technology to Russia, which will sell cheap and clean energy to China so they can destroy American manufacturing jobs. The time has come to try and slow China's growth down.

    CK , January 6, 2017 at 9:59 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @Beckow

    Great article, the key question remains: why is there an obsession for a large part of Washington bipartisan elite to have a horrible relationship with Russia?

    It is on its face self-defeating: Russia poses no real threat as a peaceful neighbor, it has lots of resources and the largest consumer market in Europe. Russia is also generally secular, relative socially liberal, and shares many of the same policies as US, e,g. fighting Islamic terrorism, checking China's influence, etc...

    So why the hostility? It makes West weaker, not stronger. It hurts global economy, it increases risks of a nuclear confrontation. It also cannot really achieve much beyond continued hostility and shouting at each other.

    Unless I am missing something, the hostility with Russia has no conceivable - and realistic - final outcome . Russia is not about to collapse, and it is not about to revert to a Western-run 90's 'liberal' utopia. Any actual and realistic threat to Russia's existence could trigger a nuclear war - no winners there.

    The disputes - from Crimea to Syria, from 'hacking' to Pussy Rioters - are oversimplified and intentionally misrepresented by the West. All of these issues are more complex, less clear-cut, and there is a valid and rational point of view on Russia's side.

    So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?

    Putin has reversed the Yeltsin era oligarchy that was bent on looting everything moveable in Russia. In doing so he pissed off some very connected Americans and Israelis. They want to get back to the loot trough. Sometimes it is as simple as evil men wanting to steal the wealth of others and hating those who stop them.

    @Wally
    Indeed, Putin actually prosecuted some Chosenites. An unforgivable sin for a goy to engage in. Then Putin put the kabosh on Israeli plans for Syria.

    Hence the absurd hacking claims promoted in the Zionist media.

    Harry107 , January 6, 2017 at 11:36 pm GMT • 300 Words
    @Beckow

    Are you kidding? Russia represents everything the Anglo-Zionist empire hates and fears:

    - Russia is sovereign and not under the control of financial interests. It is not possible to financially strip-mine Russia. For example, the Russian central band keeps real interest rates above 3%, allowing savers to keep the benefit of their savings, unlike in the West.

    - The Russian state under Putin has overthrown financial oligarch control, and the people know this. This accounts for his extraordinary popularity.

    - Russia is a Christian country which has built or reopened an astounding 30,000 churches in the last three years. They do not allow gay marriage and are about as socially conservative as the US was in the 70′s. Jews are not allowed to dominate the national conversation or have inordinate control.

    - Russia manufactures their own armaments and is a strong arms export competitor. The Russian state gets much more bang for their armament buck than we do, being effectively equal to us with 1/10 the military spending. This is more evidence of the independence of the state from financial oligarchs. Currently, Russian jets and missiles are markedly superior to American ones. (Don't believe me? Google "F-15′s in Syria" The Pentagon responded to Russia bringing advanced jets to Syria by transferring a squadron of F-15E's to Syria. The F-15 entered service in 1974. Each successive generation of US fighter jets since then has had inferior performance to its predecessor. This is disgraceful.)

    - The very existence of Russian independence is a mortal threat to the evil Anglo-Zionist empire. Look at Snowden, still walking and breathing and calling bullshit on American retrogression. The existence of one free country holds out a dangerous example to all other nations.

    @Beckow
    I am not 'kidding', I am quite serious. You make good points - and the points about resources, obedience and pure anger at losing the 90's opportunity to steal, all of that is true. But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?

    It also clearly doesn't work, and it cannot work - one cannot wish reality away and Russia is not going to be defeated by these silly temper tantrums. I am assuming that we are dealing with grown-up, serious people in Washington (and Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London), they must know that the screaming and demonization do nothing to weaken Russia. If this is an infantile anger at recent setbacks, it will blow over. But I would think that advanced Western societies have their resident infantilism under control. (Or do they?)

    So what if this is not just infantile screaming by people who lost their toys and want to show their anger. What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today? What if they genuinely lost it and truly believe all this insane stuff: "Putin wanted to influence the sacred election - it is an act of war!!!!" - where would you even start a rational discussion on this?

    Civilizations collapse when their rational core is replaced by ambitious morons who can no longer tell the difference between reality and their own "narrative", and even worse they don't much care for reality. ,

    @Abbybwood
    Also Russia has banned GMO's and they are giving safe haven to Edward Snowden.
    Beckow , January 7, 2017 at 2:20 am GMT • 200 Words
    @Harry107
    Are you kidding? Russia represents everything the Anglo-Zionist empire hates and fears:

    - Russia is sovereign and not under the control of financial interests. It is not possible to financially strip-mine Russia. For example, the Russian central band keeps real interest rates above 3%, allowing savers to keep the benefit of their savings, unlike in the West.

    - The Russian state under Putin has overthrown financial oligarch control, and the people know this. This accounts for his extraordinary popularity.

    - Russia is a Christian country which has built or reopened an astounding 30,000 churches in the last three years. They do not allow gay marriage and are about as socially conservative as the US was in the 70's. Jews are not allowed to dominate the national conversation or have inordinate control.

    - Russia manufactures their own armaments and is a strong arms export competitor. The Russian state gets much more bang for their armament buck than we do, being effectively equal to us with 1/10 the military spending. This is more evidence of the independence of the state from financial oligarchs. Currently, Russian jets and missiles are markedly superior to American ones. (Don't believe me? Google "F-15's in Syria" The Pentagon responded to Russia bringing advanced jets to Syria by transferring a squadron of F-15E's to Syria. The F-15 entered service in 1974. Each successive generation of US fighter jets since then has had inferior performance to its predecessor. This is disgraceful.)

    - The very existence of Russian independence is a mortal threat to the evil Anglo-Zionist empire. Look at Snowden, still walking and breathing and calling bullshit on American retrogression. The existence of one free country holds out a dangerous example to all other nations.

    I am not 'kidding', I am quite serious. You make good points – and the points about resources, obedience and pure anger at losing the 90′s opportunity to steal, all of that is true. But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?

    It also clearly doesn't work, and it cannot work – one cannot wish reality away and Russia is not going to be defeated by these silly temper tantrums. I am assuming that we are dealing with grown-up, serious people in Washington (and Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London), they must know that the screaming and demonization do nothing to weaken Russia. If this is an infantile anger at recent setbacks, it will blow over. But I would think that advanced Western societies have their resident infantilism under control. (Or do they?)

    So what if this is not just infantile screaming by people who lost their toys and want to show their anger. What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today? What if they genuinely lost it and truly believe all this insane stuff: "Putin wanted to influence the sacred election – it is an act of war!!!!" – where would you even start a rational discussion on this?

    Civilizations collapse when their rational core is replaced by ambitious morons who can no longer tell the difference between reality and their own "narrative", and even worse they don't much care for reality.

    @RudyM
    But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me. ,
    @SmoothieX12
    But I would think that advanced Western societies have their resident infantilism under control.
    1. LOL.
    2. What is so "advanced" about such shitholes as Marseilles or Malmo? ,
    @utu
    "But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?"

    I am glad you are persistent in asking these questions and being satisfied by answers being offered. I do not have answer either. But I may ask more questions.

    What was the true objective of 2009 Reset? Was it trap? Who really sabotaged it?

    Perhaps we must go back to 2009 and the Reset that Hillary and Obama started with Russia. In Sept. 2009 Obama cancelled the defensive shield in Poland and Czech Republic and then in April 2010 they signed START treaty in Prague. What Obama wanted to get from Russia in return? What else Russia wanted? Or was it trap? But the relations remained good even after Polish president and all Polish NATO generals got killed in Smolensk in April 2010 three days after signing the START treaty.

    There are various theories about the crash in Smolensk. One of them is that it was a false flag intending to implicate Russia and destroy the Reset and possibly it was a part of a coup against Putin.

    Who was behind it? The hawks and neocons (in cooperation with Russia's GRU elements) wanted to proceed with the operation against Iran while Obama and Putin were against it? After Smolensk the de facto no-fly zone was imposed over the whole Europe (Eyjafjallajφkull volcano) when perhaps the fate of relationship with Russia and perhaps the fate of the world was being decided. Did Putin find out who was really behind the Smolensk crash? Anyway the Reset was then preserved. Who had to bend over backwards more: Obama or Putin? In later part of 2010 a major shake up in GRU took place and several generals ended up having accidents and some units of GRU were reassigned to FSB.

    Things started going sour in 2012 when the operation in Libya started. Medvedev who was then a president must have been asleep at the switch and did not veto it in UN. Putin watched the video of Qaddafi being murdered several times and allegedly vowed to never let anything like this happen again. He also became president that year, The US was meddling in the election process against him. In parallel with Libya the operation in Syria started. Fighters and weapons were moved between the two countries. It was happening as if against the will of Obama. In Sept. 2013 Putin kind of saved Obama's ass who clearly did not want to go ahead with bombing of Syria by having Assad giving up his chemical weapons. Neocons were furious.

    One reason I am very interested in this is because I am looking for reasons to like Obama. And Syria in 2013 might be one of these reasons. But after that not much has changed. Money and support for rebels was flowing from the US and other countries. This tells you that the colossus like America has its momentum and policies that will not easily change regardless of will and beliefs of some people in power. Hersh wrote article on how gen. Dempsey and DIA was sabotaging CIA in Syria by sending defective weapon supplies to rebels supposedly to gain credibility in the eyes of Assad to keep the communication channels open with Damascus via Berlin, Tel Aviv and Moscow.

    Then in 2014 the anti-Russian coup was engineered in Ukraine (some thing it was neocon's revenge for Putin's meddling in their meddling in Syria) that forced Russia to annex Crimea. He had no choice. And this is how Putin became a new Stalin and Hitler. The war against Putin and Putin's Russia was in the open.

    In winter 2014/2015 a brand new project called IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh was unveiled with saturated media campaign of their self-advertised atrocities. I think that many videos of executions were staged. And what was their purpose? It allowed the US to create a coalition to start bombing the ISIS also in Syria. Lots of countries joined it: Denmark, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and later Australia in 2015 and France. But their bombings were anemic at least as ISIS in Syria was concerned. Did they bomb Syrian forces? The coalition did not have a mandate for the no-fly zone as they had in Libya that if they had it, it would finish Assad off.

    I like to think that the next stage in attempt to escalate crisis in Syria was the refugee crisis in 2015. Somebody organized it. Somebody cut off UN funding to refugee camps in Turkey. Somebody took care of logistics. Lots of money. Maps to Germany in Arabic. It was not Germany doing it, was it? Was it to get the public opinion of Europe behind the final solution of Syrian crisis by destroying Assad? Would the escalation in Syria where Iranian troops were fighting destroy the deal Obama was working with Iran? Was Merkel's decision to embrace the invaders a way to diffuse the crisis and avert calls for no-fly zone? Did her decision give Putin extra few weeks to prepare Russia's engagement in Syria?

    Did Trump in June 2015 know about the impeding refugee crisis in Europe. His speech about illegals, border and wall preceded pictures of marching columns of young men approaching Hungarian and then Slovenian (Melania's home country) borders by about six weeks. Who was Trump's source? Our military or Netanyahu? Those who engineered that crisis?

    In all this it beats me what was Netanyahu's role. Surely he wanted to attack Iran. Surely he wanted to have Syria destroyed and destabilized. So why he was so nice to Putin? What took place between him and Putin in Moscow in summer 2015? Then he went there two more times. A bromance? Why Israel was so obliging to Russia engagement in Syria in which Russia used small and inferior force? Just four dozens of planes with one dozen of fighter planes while Israel itself has over 400 F-15 and F-16 and Turkey over 200?

    Why are they so afraid of Putin? What kind of goods Putin has on them? Certainly it is not because of Russia's military strength. ,

    @annamaria
    "What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today?"
    It is a vicious hatred of expropriators towards any resistance to their thieving-thuggish advances. They want these mineral resources now. They want this gold reserve now. The cognitive cacophony among the "deciders" is beyond comprehension: they are afraid of truth like vampires are afraid of light. This seems like a consequence of weeding out the principled and competent among the highest echelons of US government. Instead, as the propornot story shows, there is a triumph of DC career opportunists who would say anything and would do anything to get their money and to maintain their power. Rather scary.
    Cato , January 7, 2017 at 2:31 am GMT • 100 Words
    @Beckow

    You ask the question I've been asking myself. I don't have an answer, but I've wondered if it could be any of these:

    * inertia (the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I)
    * anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)
    * profits (the Military-Industrial Complex has settled on Russia as the threat that will justify the weapons systems they want to sell)
    * Europe (Russia is the only power that could draw away our European vassal states–the Germans were particularly cozy with Putin right before Ukraine blew up; the Gulenist coup happened just weeks after Erdogan got friendly with Russia)
    * petroleum (can't quite see how that fits here, but oil and gas are usually involved in Deep State machinations)

    But it could be all or none of these

    RudyM , January 7, 2017 at 3:24 am GMT • 100 Words @Beckow
    I am not 'kidding', I am quite serious. You make good points - and the points about resources, obedience and pure anger at losing the 90's opportunity to steal, all of that is true. But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?

    It also clearly doesn't work, and it cannot work - one cannot wish reality away and Russia is not going to be defeated by these silly temper tantrums. I am assuming that we are dealing with grown-up, serious people in Washington (and Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London), they must know that the screaming and demonization do nothing to weaken Russia. If this is an infantile anger at recent setbacks, it will blow over. But I would think that advanced Western societies have their resident infantilism under control. (Or do they?)

    So what if this is not just infantile screaming by people who lost their toys and want to show their anger. What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today? What if they genuinely lost it and truly believe all this insane stuff: "Putin wanted to influence the sacred election - it is an act of war!!!!" - where would you even start a rational discussion on this?

    Civilizations collapse when their rational core is replaced by ambitious morons who can no longer tell the difference between reality and their own "narrative", and even worse they don't much care for reality.

    But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?

    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.

    @Beckow
    "fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area"
    Clearly that is the strategic goal. But it has already succeeded in Syria - it doesn't matter that Assad is staying, Syria is fragmented. Since the goal has been achieved, why would the symbolic defeat in Aleppo trigger this level of hostility?

    I agree about gays, that is a secondary driver for the hate campaign. They are a derivative ally.

    The problem with the Brzezinski explanation is that it only partially fits the facts: the early Obama administration genuinely tried to have better relations with Russia. And Brzezinski for all his Russo-phobic reputation is actually a realist and has spoken out against the excesses in the last few years. There is the usual 'neo-con grandkids of pogrom refugees' - yes, many are, but there are also many who are from the same background who are not obsessive Russia haters, often just the opposite.

    "the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I"
    There are some old Cold Warriors and some still angry at Vietcong (McCain), but the recent energy in the Attack-Russia crowd comes from the younger people - often millennials and recent Ivy League graduates in the media and in Washington. They are post Cold War and their hatred seems fresh and genuine. How does one explain that phenomenon?

    The military spending goes on and on - the need for an excuse is hard to document. There is almost no chance that some program would get cancelled because there are not "sufficient enemies" - so that explanation also seems secondary.

    It is a puzzle, there doesn't seem to exist any adequate explanation. Maybe it really is just stupidity - ambitious people who are where they are because they know how to take tests, how to write 'memos', and how to please their elders. But they don't know or care about much else. It is an elevated form of shallowness and mental lazyness. But it remains a puzzle. How can an advanced society drop its intellectual standards so quickly? ,

    @Anonymous
    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.
    The foaming-at-the-mouth Russophobia and the Victoria Nuland & CIA-orchestrated coup in the Ukraine occurred after Russia intervened in Syria re: the red line issue (and chemical attack staged by Turks and CIA). ,
    @Anonymous
    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.
    The foaming-at-the-mouth Russophobia and the Victoria Nuland & CIA-orchestrated coup in the Ukraine occurred after Russia intervened in Syria re: the red line issue (and chemical attack staged by Turks and CIA).
    RudyM , January 7, 2017 at 3:27 am GMT

    * anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)

    In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way to whip up some popular liberal support for it.

    @Randal
    In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way to whip up some popular liberal support for it.
    Cato's approach of looking for a range of reasons is clearly the right one, since there is no one authority driving policy, but rather a range of groups whose interests converge in one policy direction on a particular issue. This is true for any substantial state and for any sufficiently significant policy area, and especially so for US foreign policy. Looking for one single reason why any major policy direction is pursued is futile.

    As such, the homosexual lobby is clearly one of the forces driving anti-Russian policy in US sphere countries, if not necessarily the most powerful. I think it should not be too blithely underestimated, though, as a part of the general globalist/antinationalist/social radical ideological alliance that dominates the US sphere media and political high ground.

    That said, you are clearly also correct that US regime frustration with Russian involvement in defeating their regime change project in Syria is also clearly very significant, although anti-Russian sentiment in the US regime long predates that particular issue.

    RudyM , January 7, 2017 at 3:32 am GMT • 300 Words

    I think these remarks from Frances Boyle are worth considering, as well, although this sometimes sounds like it might have been translated from English into Russian and back again, or something of that sort:

    I regret to say what we are seeing here in the Unites States are the ascendancy of two factions in this country who are against Russia and the Russians. First is Brzezinski, who was Obama's mentor when Obama was a college student in Columbia, and Brzezinski in 2008 ran all the foreign affairs and defence policies of the Obama presidential campaign and has stacked his administration with advisor on Russia at the National Security Council comes from the Brzezinski's outpoll CSIS there in Washington D.C. I graduated from the same Ph.D. programme at Harvard that produced Brzezinski before me.

    He is a die-hard Russian hater, he hates Russia, he hates the Russian, and he wants to break Russia up into its constituent units, and, unfortunately, he has his people, his proteges in the Democratic Party and in this Administration. Second faction lining against Russia are the neo-conservatives, for e.g. this latest Brookings Institute report calling for arming the Ukrainian military in these Nazi formations which is now reflected in this latest bill just introduced into the Congress yesterday, and the neoconservatives feel exactly the same way against Russia and the Russians.

    I went to school with large numbers of these neoconservatives at the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz and all the rest of them. Many of them are grandchildren of Jewish people, who fled the pogroms against Jews, and they have been brainwashed against Russia and the Russians. So you have two very powerful factions here in the United States against Russia and the Russians who are driving this policy, and I regret to report there are very few voices opposing this.

    http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/16-02-2015/129834-brzezinski_russia-0/

    But again, to the question why now? I would point to Russia's interferene with attempts to overthrow Assad and shatter Syria.

    @Wally
    "Many of them are grandchildren of Jewish people, who fled the pogroms against Jews, and they have been brainwashed against Russia ... "

    What pogroms? Got proof or just Zionist talk?

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since at least 1869?

    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg

    Joe Franklin , January 7, 2017 at 3:41 am GMT

    Obama and his professional disinformation minions concocted a Russia-hacking-DNC BS story to rationalize to the public their desires to punish Russia for thwarting their evil plans in Ukraine and Syria.

    Fran Macadam , January 7, 2017 at 4:04 am GMT

    All I have to say about the liars who will say and do anything to ramp up war in the world, for fun and profit, is:

    Sad!

    SmoothieX12 , • Website January 7, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT
    @Beckow

    But I would think that advanced Western societies have their resident infantilism under control.

    1. LOL.
    2. What is so "advanced" about such shitholes as Marseilles or Malmo?

    Bill Jones , January 7, 2017 at 5:10 am GMT

    What sort of moron ever doubted it was a hoax?

    @Olorin
    Morons like these:

    http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

    Who comprise about half of those who voted on Nov. 8.

    I have found it hard to reserve even shallow attention for the hacking/interference allegations, never mind apply deep reasoning to it. So I appreciate pieces like this.

    I have assumed from the get-go that these narratives' sole purpose was for the Dems--or more specifically their funders/puppetmasters--to stay in the headlines by any means necessary. "Stay in the headlines" means "work the system to maintain the position to keep telling stories." As any PR or advertising or marketing specialist can tell you, the most important part of a PR or ad or marketing campaign is to stay on message. The message doesn't have to make sense or be true, because its mere repetition is the point, not its content.

    These stories serve to keep that voter base paying attention and emotionally mobilized. The stories don't have to make sense or be true. This isn't reason playing out, it's secular-religious hysteria.

    The Dems appeal to a chunk of the electorate that operates from emotionalism, messianic zeal that flips over to destructive rage, virtue signaling, and a desire to feel like heroes for rebelling against whatever whatever.

    Beckow , January 7, 2017 at 5:10 am GMT • 300 Words
    @RudyM
    But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.

    "fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area"

    Clearly that is the strategic goal. But it has already succeeded in Syria – it doesn't matter that Assad is staying, Syria is fragmented. Since the goal has been achieved, why would the symbolic defeat in Aleppo trigger this level of hostility?

    I agree about gays, that is a secondary driver for the hate campaign. They are a derivative ally.

    The problem with the Brzezinski explanation is that it only partially fits the facts: the early Obama administration genuinely tried to have better relations with Russia. And Brzezinski for all his Russo-phobic reputation is actually a realist and has spoken out against the excesses in the last few years. There is the usual 'neo-con grandkids of pogrom refugees' – yes, many are, but there are also many who are from the same background who are not obsessive Russia haters, often just the opposite.

    "the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I"

    There are some old Cold Warriors and some still angry at Vietcong (McCain), but the recent energy in the Attack-Russia crowd comes from the younger people – often millennials and recent Ivy League graduates in the media and in Washington. They are post Cold War and their hatred seems fresh and genuine. How does one explain that phenomenon?

    The military spending goes on and on – the need for an excuse is hard to document. There is almost no chance that some program would get cancelled because there are not "sufficient enemies" – so that explanation also seems secondary.

    It is a puzzle, there doesn't seem to exist any adequate explanation. Maybe it really is just stupidity – ambitious people who are where they are because they know how to take tests, how to write 'memos', and how to please their elders. But they don't know or care about much else. It is an elevated form of shallowness and mental lazyness. But it remains a puzzle. How can an advanced society drop its intellectual standards so quickly?

    @RudyM
    Clearly that is the strategic goal. But it has already succeeded in Syria – it doesn't matter that Assad is staying, Syria is fragmented. Since the goal has been achieved, why would the symbolic defeat in Aleppo trigger this level of hostility?
    I was thinking of "now" in terms of a larger time-frame, going back at least to the Sochi olympics, which is when I started to especially take notice of the anti-Russia rhetoric. So I wasn't thinking of Aleppo specifically, but going back to Russia's negotiation to thwart an attack on Syria in response to the chemical attack which was being blamed on the Syrian government. That seems to be when things really started heating up.

    Syria is fragmented, but it's not over yet. I think it may be made more whole in the future. Additionally, it hasn't been fragmented to the extent originally desired.

    And there must be some anger that Russia would step in and intervene at all, even if much of what was desired has already been accomplished.

    Brzezinski has at times expressed more moderate opinions, but most of what I've seen, even in recent years, has been quite anti-Russian. Maybe I've missed some statements, but what I've seen from him has been pretty consistent in treating the situation in the Ukraine as a case of Russian aggression, deserving sanctions at least. And the "reset" under Obama I would need to go back and look at more closely. Is it possible it was a feint of some sort? I have to admit I wasn't following US-Russian policy very closely at the time.

    And I'm not sure about the bitter Jewish pogrom-survivor angle. I don't know enough about that history or what the average intellectual with Russian Jewish ancestry thinks about Russia.

    [B]ut the recent energy in the Attack-Russia crowd comes from the younger people – often millennials and recent Ivy League graduates in the media and in Washington. They are post Cold War and their hatred seems fresh and genuine. How does one explain that phenomenon?
    This may be lazy but I'd say that in many cases it's because it's the Zionist line right now. The LGBT angle also makes it easy to whip up opposition toward Russia. In general, Russia has come to represent in many westerners' minds the anti-liberal. ,
    @anonymous
    It is a puzzle, there doesn't seem to exist any adequate explanation. Maybe it really is just stupidity – ambitious people who are where they are because they know how to take tests, how to write 'memos', and how to please their elders.
    One interpretation might be that American capitalism is based upon the need for constant expansion and in the course of that expansion obstacles along the way must be overcome. If it can no longer grow and expand it'll implode upon itself. This is the inner dynamic forcing it's outward movement. Russia has risen from the wreckage of twenty-five years ago and is now ascendant and represents a barrier. It has sabotaged US schemes in Ukraine and Syria and is asserting it's own sphere of interest. An implosion of the US balloon would be disastrous since there is no ethnic, political or cultural cohesiveness within it to soften the impact.
    The leadership has become divorced from everyday reality. Most are theorists with no real-world experience and all come out of the same 3-4 universities. In late stage empires that crumble the leadership class are often absorbed in petty rivalries, become decadent hedonists and distrust their own population. Incompetent and uncaring, they're prone to rashness and taking the empire down with them. The US seems to be at that point.
    Bill Jones , January 7, 2017 at 5:11 am GMT
    @Sean
    The Russians are treating Trump like an imbecile, they're yet again announcing they're pulling out of Syria

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-withdraw-armed-forces-syria-aircraft-carrier-group-civil-war-ceasefire-assad-regime-ally-a7512541.html

    Whatever they did or didn't do, Trump has been made to look small, and that is the one thing he cannot stand. Putin will soon be wishing that Hillary had won.

    FOAD, TROLL

    Bill Jones , January 7, 2017 at 5:13 am GMT
    @Beckow

    ... ... ...

    So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?

    War, cold or hot, sells weapons. The warmongers own the politicians. You've never figured this out?

    Carlton Meyer , • Website January 7, 2017 at 5:54 am GMT

    The insanity continues as "liberal" Senator Chuck Schumer (D-Israel) suggested that the Intelligence agencies will "get back" at President Trump, and that all Americans should praise their secret and mostly illegal, unconstitutional, and inhuman efforts. The few remaining true progressives/liberals in America must have gagged at his comments.

    @El Dato
    Wow.

    Did I just watch an eager underling and an oozing mobster discuss the next brilliant, brilliant hit to get back on top?

    "We need the Intelligence Community. Without them we wouldn't have discovered the Russian hacking".

    Really.

    NoseytheDuke , January 7, 2017 at 6:08 am GMT • 100 Words
    @Beckow

    The backers of HRC seek global domination and they know that time is against them. They have over-reached and now find themselves on the back foot. They are ruthless and desperate so this is why their actions make little sense if viewed through the lens of what is good for the ZUSA.

    Giuseppe , January 7, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT

    If Russian hackers did not exist, it would be necessary for the CIA to invent them. The Empire's geopolitical agenda of putting Russia in its place is thereby advanced, the truth of the allegations is irrelevent.

    WorkingClass , January 7, 2017 at 6:55 am GMT • 200 Words

    That Trump is a Russian agent is a big fat stupid naked lie riding on the back of an even bigger lie. The lie that Russia is a threat to the U.S. Its a pity that so many man hours must be devoted to refuting it. The lie is perpetrated by imperialists who intend to rule the world by force of arms. They are psychotic and extremely dangerous to the people of earth. Bubba, Dubya and Obama have been happy to serve them. Hillary was to be the fourth horseman.

    The fourth horseman is mentioned in Revelation 6:8, "I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. "

    Trump is not an imperialist. He is not one of them. He is his own man. He is a nationalist. He would be a player in a multi-polar world. He is a threat to their insane plans. They have tried and are trying to neutralize him with lies and slander and have failed. Now they must deal with him or martyr him. Which will it be?

    @El Dato
    I always thought the "Whore of Babylon" was a better fit for She Who Must Be Elected.
    Diversity Heretic , January 7, 2017 at 6:58 am GMT • 100 Words

    I have read with interest the various explanations about why the United States's foreign policy seems so pointlessly anti-Russian. There are a lot of reasons, ably articulated by the commenters. It seems to me that, to put it bluntly, the United States, or at least a good portion of its leadership, is in the midst of a national nervous breakdown, brought on by Donald Trump's unexpected election.

    I would counsel Russia and its leadership to be very careful in dealing with the U.S. -- you simply can't tell what an irrational person/nation might do.

    @Olorin
    Good point...though I'm guessing that the Russians got a whiff of your closing point sometime in 2008. :)
    Harry107 , January 7, 2017 at 7:16 am GMT • 200 Words

    Allow me to propose another cause for the mysterious Anglo-Zionist hostility toward Russia.

    That is, the instability of the empire. The huge military spending supports the Petrodollar system. The petrodollar system keeps the dollar as reserve currency. Then dollar creation by the federal reserve taxes all users of the dollar, or the world. This tax helps finance the military spending. And so on, ad infinitum. This positive feedback loop holds the status quo in the current state.

    But if the petrodollar system is broken, the US will have to pay its own way. The US tax cows would rebel, then bye bye to the empire. Imagine if Germany and Russia joined in a trade zone, let alone a gold standard union. The US standard of living would drop like a rock overnight. We'd have to relearn to produce stuff. Perhaps US oligarchs would lose control in the resulting social disruption.

    So to avoid this scenario, the US deep state whips up anti-Russian hysteria aimed at both US and European sheeple.

    @Bill
    Great comment. It's worth noting, though, that the US standard of living in the intermediate to long run would not drop for the middle and working classes. It's the looter class (and their clients in the underclass and the bureaucracies to serve them) which would lose out in a really big way.
    edNels , January 7, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT • 200 Words

    Well they couldn't put the Pantsuit into the President suite. Even when they got the best bunch of ducks in a row ever! Almost the perfect storm of idiots all in sink to force or cram the worst of the evils, two or more) even against unlikely DT, and with the PTB & company jumping ship from the Republicans enmasse, still they got beat.

    The Democrats almost had the thing, But they are myopic special issue, (needs) Identity politics people, and not of sufficient caliber to be involved in international diplomacy etc.

    I see several commenters have mentioned dumb and stupid, as reasons, I agree, these nitwits are way out of their element, and as to why they pick on Russia now, because they are naive enough to think they can snub, insult, push with impunity, and they seem to be getting away with it. But they hurt America, for having such low grade fools representing it. A bunch of cretinous egotists who are run secretly by puppeteers, and backed up by brute force.

    utu , January 7, 2017 at 7:23 am GMT • 1,000 Words
    @Beckow

    "But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?"

    I am glad you are persistent in asking these questions and being satisfied by answers being offered. I do not have answer either. But I may ask more questions.

    What was the true objective of 2009 Reset? Was it trap? Who really sabotaged it?

    Perhaps we must go back to 2009 and the Reset that Hillary and Obama started with Russia. In Sept. 2009 Obama cancelled the defensive shield in Poland and Czech Republic and then in April 2010 they signed START treaty in Prague. What Obama wanted to get from Russia in return? What else Russia wanted? Or was it trap? But the relations remained good even after Polish president and all Polish NATO generals got killed in Smolensk in April 2010 three days after signing the START treaty.

    There are various theories about the crash in Smolensk. One of them is that it was a false flag intending to implicate Russia and destroy the Reset and possibly it was a part of a coup against Putin.

    Who was behind it? The hawks and neocons (in cooperation with Russia's GRU elements) wanted to proceed with the operation against Iran while Obama and Putin were against it? After Smolensk the de facto no-fly zone was imposed over the whole Europe (Eyjafjallajφkull volcano) when perhaps the fate of relationship with Russia and perhaps the fate of the world was being decided. Did Putin find out who was really behind the Smolensk crash? Anyway the Reset was then preserved. Who had to bend over backwards more: Obama or Putin? In later part of 2010 a major shake up in GRU took place and several generals ended up having accidents and some units of GRU were reassigned to FSB.

    Things started going sour in 2012 when the operation in Libya started. Medvedev who was then a president must have been asleep at the switch and did not veto it in UN. Putin watched the video of Qaddafi being murdered several times and allegedly vowed to never let anything like this happen again. He also became president that year, The US was meddling in the election process against him. In parallel with Libya the operation in Syria started. Fighters and weapons were moved between the two countries. It was happening as if against the will of Obama. In Sept. 2013 Putin kind of saved Obama's ass who clearly did not want to go ahead with bombing of Syria by having Assad giving up his chemical weapons. Neocons were furious.

    One reason I am very interested in this is because I am looking for reasons to like Obama. And Syria in 2013 might be one of these reasons. But after that not much has changed. Money and support for rebels was flowing from the US and other countries. This tells you that the colossus like America has its momentum and policies that will not easily change regardless of will and beliefs of some people in power. Hersh wrote article on how gen. Dempsey and DIA was sabotaging CIA in Syria by sending defective weapon supplies to rebels supposedly to gain credibility in the eyes of Assad to keep the communication channels open with Damascus via Berlin, Tel Aviv and Moscow.

    Then in 2014 the anti-Russian coup was engineered in Ukraine (some thing it was neocon's revenge for Putin's meddling in their meddling in Syria) that forced Russia to annex Crimea. He had no choice. And this is how Putin became a new Stalin and Hitler. The war against Putin and Putin's Russia was in the open.

    In winter 2014/2015 a brand new project called IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh was unveiled with saturated media campaign of their self-advertised atrocities. I think that many videos of executions were staged. And what was their purpose? It allowed the US to create a coalition to start bombing the ISIS also in Syria. Lots of countries joined it: Denmark, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and later Australia in 2015 and France. But their bombings were anemic at least as ISIS in Syria was concerned. Did they bomb Syrian forces? The coalition did not have a mandate for the no-fly zone as they had in Libya that if they had it, it would finish Assad off.

    I like to think that the next stage in attempt to escalate crisis in Syria was the refugee crisis in 2015. Somebody organized it. Somebody cut off UN funding to refugee camps in Turkey. Somebody took care of logistics. Lots of money. Maps to Germany in Arabic. It was not Germany doing it, was it? Was it to get the public opinion of Europe behind the final solution of Syrian crisis by destroying Assad? Would the escalation in Syria where Iranian troops were fighting destroy the deal Obama was working with Iran? Was Merkel's decision to embrace the invaders a way to diffuse the crisis and avert calls for no-fly zone? Did her decision give Putin extra few weeks to prepare Russia's engagement in Syria?

    Did Trump in June 2015 know about the impeding refugee crisis in Europe. His speech about illegals, border and wall preceded pictures of marching columns of young men approaching Hungarian and then Slovenian (Melania's home country) borders by about six weeks. Who was Trump's source? Our military or Netanyahu? Those who engineered that crisis?

    In all this it beats me what was Netanyahu's role. Surely he wanted to attack Iran. Surely he wanted to have Syria destroyed and destabilized. So why he was so nice to Putin? What took place between him and Putin in Moscow in summer 2015? Then he went there two more times. A bromance? Why Israel was so obliging to Russia engagement in Syria in which Russia used small and inferior force? Just four dozens of planes with one dozen of fighter planes while Israel itself has over 400 F-15 and F-16 and Turkey over 200?

    Why are they so afraid of Putin? What kind of goods Putin has on them? Certainly it is not because of Russia's military strength.

    @Mao Cheng Ji
    some think it was neocon's revenge
    I'm not a fan of assigning human motivations (like revenge) to institutions (like the US establishment), but if I was trying to explain the recent escalations by the revenge motive, then I would probably put sheltering Snowden front and center.

    I don't think the crash in Smolensk is an issue; it has always been clear what happened there, and it's nothing sinister. ,

    @Randal
    One reason I am very interested in this is because I am looking for reasons to like Obama. And Syria in 2013 might be one of these reasons.
    I've never liked Obama, and I'm not looking for reasons to like him, but Syria 2013 is certainly a strongly arguable point in his favour.

    Apart from that, it's hard not to admire his glorious parting middle finger to the Israel lobby with the recent UN resolution. ,

    @Bill
    Good stuff. ,
    @RudyM
    In general outline, this is pretty close to how I see it. I remember realizing that ISIS/Daesh was being used as an excuse to go into Syria. I don't think I realized immediately that it was also just another proxy force used to overthrow Assad. So, typically, it was used for two purposes, just as Al Qaeda has been used to target governments the US wants to weaken, while also being blamed for attacks on western interests (9/11 being the most spectacular) and used as an excuse for war. It's an elegantly multi-purpose operation. ,
    @Capn Mike
    Maybe Bibi's affection for Russia has a domestic component. There is a huge influx of Russians into Israel and I presume they vote.
    Fran Macadam , January 7, 2017 at 8:00 am GMT
    @Beckow

    So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?

    Follow the money.

    Wally , • Website January 7, 2017 at 8:31 am GMT
    @RudyM

    I think these remarks from Frances Boyle are worth considering, as well, although this sometimes sounds like it might have been translated from English into Russian and back again, or something of that sort:

    I regret to say what we are seeing here in the Unites States are the ascendancy of two factions in this country who are against Russia and the Russians. First is Brzezinski, who was Obama's mentor when Obama was a college student in Columbia, and Brzezinski in 2008 ran all the foreign affairs and defence policies of the Obama presidential campaign and has stacked his administration with advisor on Russia at the National Security Council comes from the Brzezinski's outpoll CSIS there in Washington D.C. I graduated from the same Ph.D. programme at Harvard that produced Brzezinski before me.

    He is a die-hard Russian hater, he hates Russia, he hates the Russian, and he wants to break Russia up into its constituent units, and, unfortunately, he has his people, his proteges in the Democratic Party and in this Administration. Second faction lining against Russia are the neo-conservatives, for e.g. this latest Brookings Institute report calling for arming the Ukrainian military in these Nazi formations which is now reflected in this latest bill just introduced into the Congress yesterday, and the neoconservatives feel exactly the same way against Russia and the Russians.

    I went to school with large numbers of these neoconservatives at the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz and all the rest of them. Many of them are grandchildren of Jewish people, who fled the pogroms against Jews, and they have been brainwashed against Russia and the Russians. So you have two very powerful factions here in the United States against Russia and the Russians who are driving this policy, and I regret to report there are very few voices opposing this.

    http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/16-02-2015/129834-brzezinski_russia-0/

    But again, to the question why now? I would point to Russia's interferene with attempts to overthrow Assad and shatter Syria.

    ... ... ...

    @RudyM
    Wally, I was just quoting what Francis Boyle had to say, not necessarily endorsing every part of it. I don't know that much about Russian history. (Sorry, I don't know much about anything.) As for the 6,000,000, yeah, it's very dubious, to put it mildly. I have serious doubts about the official Holocaust story, but I haven't dug into it enough to make a strong assertion about it one way or another. I'll just say the arguments against it are much stronger than I ever expected before I started looking.
    animalogic , January 7, 2017 at 8:55 am GMT • 100 Words

    Agree with most reasons given for the current hyped hostility to Russia. Two extra points:

    1. Trump publicly "aligned" himself with a more "open" policy towards Russia. When the leaks occurred it made sense to the DNC to link & tar BOTH Trump & Russia with every evil under the sun (two for price of one). And naturally the anti-trump forces continue with the farce.(Imagine charging a president-elect with treason as some in the msm have done : mind-boggling !)

    2. Hyping up the Russia-hate is handy for any future false flags, provocations etc to justify retaliation.

    Timur The Lame , January 7, 2017 at 10:01 am GMT • 200 Words

    There are many plausible reasons for the anti-Russian dialogue specifically the alleged vote hack scenario but one cannot discount a very obvious one and that is the destroyed credibility of the MSM in the mob's eyes.

    How else to explain that they all walked in lockstep and some major ones were predicting a Gorgon landslide and equally the statistical impossibility of a Trump win right up to election night only to have major ostrich egg on their collective faces the next morning. "Hell hath no fury like fake news outlets scorned" as Francis Bacon might say.

    So now the implication would be that they were right (as always) but some evil elf in the Kremlin changed the tally. Lame for sure but we are dealing with lamestream media. The top honchos know that their days of influence are numbered. Only a collective ignorance can delay their demise.

    A small point I wish to make taken from the body of the article is that whenever someone states that a controversial document ( perhaps The Protocols) are a forgery, it is incumbent for someone disagreeing to state "a forgery of what?" A forgery is not the same as a fake document created out of whole cloth.

    Cheers-

    Olorin , January 7, 2017 at 10:25 am GMT • 100 Words
    @Bill Jones
    What sort of moron ever doubted it was a hoax?

    Morons like these:

    http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

    Who comprise about half of those who voted on Nov. 8.

    I have found it hard to reserve even shallow attention for the hacking/interference allegations, never mind apply deep reasoning to it. So I appreciate pieces like this.

    I have assumed from the get-go that these narratives' sole purpose was for the Dems–or more specifically their funders/puppetmasters–to stay in the headlines by any means necessary. "Stay in the headlines" means "work the system to maintain the position to keep telling stories." As any PR or advertising or marketing specialist can tell you, the most important part of a PR or ad or marketing campaign is to stay on message. The message doesn't have to make sense or be true, because its mere repetition is the point, not its content.

    These stories serve to keep that voter base paying attention and emotionally mobilized. The stories don't have to make sense or be true. This isn't reason playing out, it's secular-religious hysteria.

    The Dems appeal to a chunk of the electorate that operates from emotionalism, messianic zeal that flips over to destructive rage, virtue signaling, and a desire to feel like heroes for rebelling against whatever whatever.

    Olorin , January 7, 2017 at 10:32 am GMT
    @Diversity Heretic
    I have read with interest the various explanations about why the United States's foreign policy seems so pointlessly anti-Russian. There are a lot of reasons, ably articulated by the commenters. It seems to me that, to put it bluntly, the United States, or at least a good portion of its leadership, is in the midst of a national nervous breakdown, brought on by Donald Trump's unexpected election. I would counsel Russia and its leadership to be very careful in dealing with the U.S.--you simply can't tell what an irrational person/nation might do.

    Good point though I'm guessing that the Russians got a whiff of your closing point sometime in 2008. :)

    Brαs Cubas , January 7, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT • 100 Words

    Excellent piece. Congratulations to Ron Unz for hiring such a superb mind!

    As for what lays ahead, Trump's resourcefulness, which seemed endless during the campaign, may surprise us yet again during his term.

    However this turns out, it will be fun to watch (for me, anyway, from outside the U.S.A.)

    Robert Magill , January 7, 2017 at 11:46 am GMT • 100 Words

    Things are crawling out of the woodwork. This election cycle for no intended reason has become an accidental fumigator of creepy crawlies.

    It has also started a sort of political trench warfare between the two principal creeper nests.

    We've known of the existence of the so called 'deep state' but now, at last, we realize how shallow it really is.

    more https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/jeepers-creepers/

    Randal , January 7, 2017 at 11:52 am GMT • 300 Words

    What I am interested in is what will be the Trump regime's response to this comedic but open assault by the politicised US intelligence establishment. The Democrats are gloating that the US security elite are far too dangerous for any mere elected official to tangle with , but it seems to me Trump can't hope to rule effectively if he lets this pass.

    He will have to frame any action within loud support for protecting America's security, but it seems to me he must have ways of responding. It will be interesting to see if he uses them. I am not all that familiar with the ins and outs of the top levels of the US security bureaucracy, but here's the view of someone who is:

    I would think that the Trump Administration will go through the ranks of the SES/SIS position holders at CIA/DIA/NSA, etc. like a scythe. These folks, of whom I was one (SES-4) are not career protected like the lower members of the federal civil service. In return for their elevated rank (equivalent to military flag officers) they lack actual legal job security and can be much more easily removed. They are usually highly politicized schemers and enablers for their presidential appointee bosses at the very top of the food chain. But who will run things!? Well, pilgrims there are lots of eager beaver GS-15s awaiting their turn and eager to prove their loyally to the administration.

    Surely this will have to be the first item on Trump's action list once in office? I mean, the dangers to him of leaving these people in place are obvious.

    @Diversity Heretic
    Can SESes appeal adverse personnel actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board? I also think that SESes can be hired outside the normal civil service process -- one of the original purposes of the program was to draw on outside talent.

    GS-15s might not be all that useful -- they're more likely to be thinking of their careers in four years if Trump isn't re-elected (in the toilet). It's bureaucratic "inside baseball" things like this that Trump needs to be made aware of so that he can clean house in the intelligence establishment.

    It is obviously hostile to him.

    Randal , January 7, 2017 at 11:56 am GMT • 100 Words
    @utu

    I've never liked Obama, and I'm not looking for reasons to like him, but Syria 2013 is certainly a strongly arguable point in his favour.

    Apart from that, it's hard not to admire his glorious parting middle finger to the Israel lobby with the recent UN resolution.

    Randal , January 7, 2017 at 12:09 pm GMT • 200 Words
    @RudyM
    * anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)
    In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way to whip up some popular liberal support for it.

    In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way to whip up some popular liberal support for it.

    Cato's approach of looking for a range of reasons is clearly the right one, since there is no one authority driving policy, but rather a range of groups whose interests converge in one policy direction on a particular issue. This is true for any substantial state and for any sufficiently significant policy area, and especially so for US foreign policy. Looking for one single reason why any major policy direction is pursued is futile.

    As such, the homosexual lobby is clearly one of the forces driving anti-Russian policy in US sphere countries, if not necessarily the most powerful. I think it should not be too blithely underestimated, though, as a part of the general globalist/antinationalist/social radical ideological alliance that dominates the US sphere media and political high ground.

    That said, you are clearly also correct that US regime frustration with Russian involvement in defeating their regime change project in Syria is also clearly very significant, although anti-Russian sentiment in the US regime long predates that particular issue.

    @Bill
    Yes, the over-representation of gays in DC is not as striking as the over-representation of Jews, but it is striking nonetheless.
    Franks Batts , January 7, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Brilliant analysis revealing the sad state of affairs currently existing in America. The ongoing propaganda is having its intended effect influencing a good portion of the citizens (e.g.: over 50% of Americans during George Bush's second campaign still believed Iraq and Saddam were involved in 911!) What is one to do?

    @Agent76
    You are correct they are watching the CIA mockingbird media and do not read books or know how to research anything for the most part. So do please share this with them SIMPLE.

    September 07, 2016 - September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century "What Really Happened"?

    WTC Building exploding into fine dust (it is not burning down) by pre-planted explosives in an obvious controlled demolition.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-15th-anniversary-of-the-crime-and-cover-up-of-the-century/5544414 ,

    @Agent76
    If those who were elected at the state level are real this would be my strategy.

    Dec 30, 2015 Nullification in One Lesson

    "When the federal government violates our rights, we're not just supposed to sit idly by and wait for the federal government to stop itself."

    https://youtu.be/k3L0U9EcP0Y

    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." James Madison

    Anonymous , January 7, 2017 at 1:00 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @RudyM
    But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.

    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.

    The foaming-at-the-mouth Russophobia and the Victoria Nuland & CIA-orchestrated coup in the Ukraine occurred after Russia intervened in Syria re: the red line issue (and chemical attack staged by Turks and CIA).

    Faraday's Bobcat , January 7, 2017 at 1:00 pm GMT

    No patriot wants any foreign power influencing a US election. Therefore, I'd like to see the actions of China, Israel, Mexico and the EU investigated with vigor equal to that brought to bear on Russia.

    Diversity Heretic , January 7, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Randal
    As I said, I've only a vague and general idea of how the US security bureaucracy works at the top levels. I don't know how the various SIS arrangements relate to the wider SES, or what the protections etc are, so I'm totally dependent on those who do know more for clues as to how things might play out when Trump takes office.

    Common sense alone, though, surely suggests some sort of thorough purge, doubtless dressed up as reform and improving fitness for purpose, must happen now, no? Presumably that might mean something of a turf war between the Executive and the Legislative branches, since the old establishment is still strong in the latter.

    Perhaps a few Executive Orders might be needed.

    GS-15s might not be all that useful–they're more likely to be thinking of their careers in four years if Trump isn't re-elected (in the toilet).
    That's a sensible point, but iirc there are limits on bringing in outsiders, at least as far as SES is concerned.
    It's bureaucratic "inside baseball" things like this that Trump needs to be made aware of so that he can clean house in the intelligence establishment. It is obviously hostile to him.
    Indeed. I'm sure there are plenty of people advising him in detail on all this. For the rest of us, it's a spectator sport, from a distance.
    Agent76 , January 7, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story

    It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! Nice Try Clinton News Network!

    @El Dato
    But that's just one of the useless "filler photos" (aka "artist's impression"), it's not like someone claims having stood behind a Russian Hacker and photographed his screen.
    Agent76 , January 7, 2017 at 2:16 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Franks Batts

    Brilliant analysis revealing the sad state of affairs currently existing in America. The ongoing propaganda is having its intended effect influencing a good portion of the citizens (e.g.: over 50% of Americans during George Bush's second campaign still believed Iraq and Saddam were involved in 911!) What is one to do?

    You are correct they are watching the CIA mockingbird media and do not read books or know how to research anything for the most part. So do please share this with them SIMPLE.

    September 07, 2016 – September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century "What Really Happened"?

    WTC Building exploding into fine dust (it is not burning down) by pre-planted explosives in an obvious controlled demolition.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-15th-anniversary-of-the-crime-and-cover-up-of-the-century/5544414

    macilrae , January 7, 2017 at 2:16 pm GMT • 200 Words

    This whole business is so infantile and it is demeaning to the dignity of the United States.

    Of course, as we have clearly seen over the years, the intelligence agencies of all states attempt to covertly gather sensitive information about each other – indeed, even when they are not antagonists. Consider the US hacking of Angela Merkel's phone or Israel's spies Jonathan Pollard and Lawrence Franklin.

    Those in possession of state secrets have an obligation to secure them and, if they are penetrated, the blame is to them alone. The DNC and Podesta emails were not even state secret material either!

    Obama's petty and stupid response to the current unproven allegations against Russia will haunt his legacy and Hillary's bizarre contention that Putin personally "had it in for her" is yet another sign of her mental instability.

    I saw yesterday that the fact of the Russians celebrating Trump's victory was taken as further proof of their complicity in Hillary's downfall – how could they possibly be expected to behave otherwise? Give me a break!

    @MarkinLA
    This whole business is so infantile and it is demeaning to the dignity of the United States.

    But keeping with the kind of people the US has always had in positions of power.

    Bill , January 7, 2017 at 3:11 pm GMT
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    the Russian interference narrative did not serve to prevent Trump from becoming president but it does seem that it will cause serious problems for his presidency and for American foreign relations
    Not necessarily. He may be able to discredit their narrative, and to replace it with his own narrative. After all, he's done plenty of that during the campaign... And this time he'll have the 'bully pulpit', so it should be easier....

    Yes. The chutzpah patrol only knows how to double down / pick up nickels in front of a steamroller. That strategy looks fine right up until it blows up completely. It could easily happen that they beat Trump. It could also easily happen that they blow themselves up.

    @annamaria
    Another Guardian' presstitute, Nick Cohen, is going insane with Russophobia:

    https://off-guardian.org/2017/01/08/neo-liberal-paranoia-is-extreme-and-it-is-everywhere/#comments

    The ziocon is upset hysterically with "Russian treachery" https://www.theguardian.com/profile/nickcohen

    The same Nick Cohen on his Hebraic enlightenment: "Why I'm becoming a Jew and why you should, too"

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/19/why-i-am-becoming-a-jew-and-you-should-too

    Who owns the Guardian? - "The Guardian and its parent groups participate in Project Syndicate, established by George Soros"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

    Che Guava , January 7, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT • 400 Words

    Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton was urged by "a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers" to demand a recount in three states-Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-in which Clinton seemed to be slightly ahead in pre-election polls but which were won by Trump by narrow margins.

    That is not quite true, Hillary pretended to be above it all, and used 'Green Party' candidate Jill Stein as a proxy.

    Which raises its own questions.

    who covered the estimated $3.5 million cost of the endeavor.

    Again, not true, she 'crowd-sourced' the money, perhaps a small portion of the cash was left over from Stein's own campaign.

    Raising so much so quickly indicates a plutocratic contribution.

    the Soviet-spread rumor that the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus.

    It was not a rumour, and has never been convincingly refuted. There was much scientific analysis behind the claim, connected to related viruses.

    The Americans came up with the 'African Green monkey' bullshit, claimed to have found earlier cases in Africa, there are many auto-immune-system collapse disorders, there has never been any convincing evidence for the claimed (and very few) earlier cases of auto-immune deficiency found in old colonial health records, and claimed to be evidence of an Africa origin of AIDs, having been related to HIV.

    The fact is, patient zero and all of the early cases were in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the Fire Island scene in Noo Yawk. Wikipedia even misidentifies the real patient zero, with some spreader of the disease that they say was patient O.

    I am never part of those scenes, often bullied as straight, as often treated nicely as accepting, although I have had good friends who were same-sex lovers, but the phenomenom of interpretation of HIV-AIDS, as opposed to other auto-immune syndromes, it has really become wild propaganda.

    Patient zero was certainly a homosexual Nord-Amerique man.

    Propaganda to divert people's attention from this is very strong, another example of the disconnection between pre-mass-'net paper info and now.

    I do not want to write at length on this, now, but am making a very good case.

    Your article is alright, but not very good, my comments before the AIDs-related ones may assist you to write a little better.

    the spreading of false information by intelligence services "is a technique that goes back to Tsarist times."

    No shit Sherlock? I goes way farther back than that, I read the rest of the article, wow, a dim bulb struggling to be bright. You may get there, writing is not all bad.

    @El Dato
    > the Soviet-spread rumor that the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus.

    It was not a rumour, and has never been convincingly refuted. There was much scientific analysis behind the claim, connected to related viruses.

    That made no sense in the 80s and makes no sense today.

    The only "development" of a virus that had happened at that time was the development of the spanish flu in the trenches of WWI (and we still don't know how that worked, really).

    Hell, most of the stuff related to retroviruses still had to be written. Gallo was checking out Leukemia-causing retrovirus. Remember the grainy, bad photos that the Institut Pasteur published of "LAV"? Yeah. Grainy. That was the kind of tech back then.

    At some point wrong structure diagrams appeared in Scientific American and Nature. PCR was in its infancy. Computers were basically useless for deep data crunching. "Developing a virus" was just not possible. Germans coming up with fully functional ICBMs in 1914 sounds more likely.

    Just no.

    @RobinG
    " but going back to Russia's negotiation to thwart an attack on Syria in response to the chemical attack which was being blamed on the Syrian government. That seems to be when things really started heating up."
    EXACTLY. That began with the frenzy over "Will gay Olympians be safe in Sochi?" nonsense in US Big Media. Also when Code Pink and progressive media (aka Big Media's little brother) got all hot and bothered about Pussy Riot. (Did Vice News even understand the reference to chickens at the end of this video?)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFrZfluKDrc
    Pussy Riot Gets Whipped in Sochi

    Plus the obligatory slandering of Sochi facilities construction. All spite and sour grapes over Syria.

    As for "...the bitter Jewish pogrom-survivor angle" that would be Fucktoria Nuland, et al. Plenty of them find it useful to nurse their Russia hatred.

    Connecticut Famer , January 7, 2017 at 3:53 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Beckow

    As a footnote–and I wish could remember his name– but earlier this week O'Reilly had some guy on his show who was a retired USMC "intelligence expert" who said in one breath that the CIA had "proof" that the Rooshians hacked the emails then in the next breath said that the CIA can't release the information as it would compromise their operatives. Yeah, right!

    KA , January 7, 2017 at 4:01 pm GMT • 400 Words

    "Nonetheless, half of Clinton's voters still think Russia hacked the election day voting.[6]"

    There are so many things that are wrong with the country . Some are transients some are less important and some could be brushed aside as angry response from the loser but also a fundamental shift could be seen in the dogged persuasion of the stupidities and visceral attachment to the absurd despite the inconsistencies,contradictions,and presence of collectively motivated misrepresentation ,among both party's loyal supporters . These are loyal to party irrespective of the political social economic faiths and known behaviors of the candidates . Because they have sunk their own daily existential identities with that of a party, they find it difficult to move away from any party position . It is a religion and the arguments and the information are fixed and formatted to suit that unidirectional unyielding emotional intellectual existence . but it produces inertia , extinguishes curiosity, stifles the resistance ,reinforces the stagnation , and eventually reduces the power of the intellectual forces to guide the debate and the fate of the country. It does so by bringing out and giving prominence to the most vocal sentimental ignorant intellectually passive segment who dislike more intellectually inquisitive challenging neutral minded citizen and supporters with openness to new possibilities and ideas .

    Nuances don't matter . Blind belief becomes synonymous with resolve and steadfastness .

    Bush Cheney destroyed the GOP Now Clinton is doing same with ample help from those whose interests she would serve best .( It is doubtful if Bush or Cruz or Huckabee or Graham or Rubio were the winner, we would be seeing this remonstration . So basically people are being schooled to follow certain official positions and lines Those positions are also the positions of the elite irrespective of the party affiliation .Party works for the elite that roam across the aisle . In this situation , the presence of thinking and discerning minds pose a risk . The zeitgeist is best preserved by the vocal assertive and effective presence of the sheeple dyed in different colors who would fight for the preservation of the colors and for nothing else .

    Does it portend a decline of average IQ over times? If it does then the western civilization is digging its own grave . Even if it doesn't in this particular route , the route that is being offered through stifling of any logical rational openness ,suppression of any kind of questioning and insistence on one kind of idea,value, and analysis leads to the same fate .

    @RudyM
    If anyone has missed this, leaked audio of Kerry admitting Daesh was allowed to grow:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3KfmjdviHM

    (I think the US role was less passive than that, but it's still pretty damning.)

    (Oops, this was not @ anyone in particular.) ,

    @edNels
    Does it portend a decline of average IQ over times? If it does then the western civilization is digging its own grave .
    The new left vs right, or a new kind of opposition politics based less on ''issues'', and more on what kind of Bull shit you are vulnerable to. The various Catapulted Propogandar.

    Cartoon images, or more realistic stuff? Not that cartoons need to be less insightful than movies.

    But, what I am gett'n at: politics between the two sides of the Bell Curve, more and more.

    [Jan 09, 2017] State Department Says Presenting Evidence Of Russian Hacking Would Be Irresponsible

    Jan 09, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Yellow cake story No.2 ? Probably he implies that the release of Stuxnet, Flame and similar worms was responsible. What they can hide after Snowden revelations? The fact that they collect all inbound and outbound traffic ?
    One recurring lament throughout the theatrically dramatic campaign involving reports and emotional appeals by US intelligence agencies such as the CIA (whose primary function is the creation of disinformation) to ordinary Americans, that Russia had "hacked the US presidential election" is that for all the bluster and "conviction", there has been zero evidence.

    And, as it turns out, there won't be any, because according to the US State Department, US intelligence agencies were right to not reveal evidence of their proof that Russia interfered in US elections, and comparisons with intelligence reports that Iraq had WMDs were not relevant in the current year.

    Asked by RT's Gayane Chichakyan if Friday's public intelligence report should have contained any proof of Russian intervention, State Department spokesman John Kirby said that no one should be surprised that US intelligence agencies were keeping evidence secret in order to protect sources and methods.

    "Most American people understand that they have the responsibility to protect their sources and methods," Kirby said, adding it would be "irresponsible" to do otherwise. Actually, with the Iraq WMD fiasco strill fresh in "American people's" minds, it is irresponsible to think most Americans are still naive idiots who will believe whatever the "intelligence agencies" will tell them.

    ... ... ...

    When Chichakyan brought up the 2003 intelligence assessment on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – invoked by the Bush administration to justify the US invasion and occupation of that country – Kirby said the comparison was irrelevant, since that was a long time ago. "We have moved on. We have learned a lot from those mistakes," he said. Ironically, somehow much of America ended up with the opposite conclusion.

    Bunghole -> 07564111 •Jan 9, 2017 9:59 PM

    Didn't State claim Ambassador Stevens was killed over a youtube video? ... ... ...

    Dame Ednas Possum -> 07564111 •Jan 9, 2017 10:14 PM

    I agree with Kirby unreservedly when he stated: 'I think, er... well, I don't think...' These blind fools cannot fathom that an increasing number of others don't simply regurgitate the narrative thoughtlessly. We apply rational thought, particularly in considering what the implications are to the innocents e.g. 500,000 dead civilians in Iraq. It's good in a way as it simply brings society closer to the demise of this evil sooner. Unfortunately this may require us passing through a period of intense turmoil, upheaval, pain and suffering. As Jim Morrison said: 'they've got the guns, but we got the numbers... TAKING OVER... C'MON'

    philipat -> BullyBearish •Jan 9, 2017 9:59 PM

    So let me see if I get this straight. Either, there IS no evidence, OR the US is doing precisely the same things that the Russians are accused of? Neither is an attractive admission by .gov if the propaganda is to be effective. Repeat after me, it was the Russians......

    07564111 -> philipat •Jan 9, 2017 10:12 PM

    OR the US is doing precisely the same things that the Russians are accused of?

    For your viewing pleasure http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21013087

    Zen Xenu •Jan 9, 2017 9:41 PM

    "Trust us, we know best." - Anonymous Intelligence Official (speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to make statements).

    Reaper •Jan 9, 2017 9:53 PM

    We ought thank Putin for revealing the corruption of Clinton, if he truly did it. Intel presents an argument for fools. If Putin likes chocolate, should we hate it? The logical fallacy: guilt by association.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad_H ...

    [Jan 09, 2017] the case will be made that 'destroying the economies of others' is also a Good Thing in the long run.

    Notable quotes:
    "... War is evil. So St Augustine devised this doctrine of 'just war', standards to which US has failed since 1945. Then Obama comes up with the idea of "just peace', we should have read in detail his Nobel lecture! Neocon pap! ..."
    "... If Clinton decides the peace is not just then organized murder is the detail for the week. Economies are sometime zero sum games and you can get Ike's 1953 speech for what you give up for a destroyer..... ..."
    Jan 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... January 08, 2017 at 05:27 AM , 2017 at 05:27 AM
    'if building aircraft carriers saved the economy in 1941, and defenses against imaginary aliens would save the economy in 2013, it's not clear why real aircraft carriers have the opposite effect.'

    Not ALL of economics is a zero-sum game.

    USING munitions destroys the economies of others.

    It's not as if preparing to engage aliens is actually going to go anywhere which leads to that, tinfoil-hat-wise.

    (That may be the advantage of building expensive, impossibly risky-to-use nuclear weapons - which also might be of use against aliens!)

    Of course, the case will be made that 'destroying the economies of others' is also a Good Thing in the long run.

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 08, 2017 at 05:58 AM
    Not ALL of economics is a zero-sum game.

    USING munitions destroys the economies of others.

    [ Really, really important though little addressed these past years. ]

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , January 08, 2017 at 06:07 AM
    The overriding complaint about 'economic efforts devoted to building armaments' is that such resulting goods are of NO civilian use.

    Aside from post-war battleship tours and the like. Aside from all the wondrous technological developments which always ensue, but most importantly the industrial capacity that is put to civilian use in peacetime.

    Are such aspects Necessary Evils?

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 08, 2017 at 09:18 AM
    War is evil. So St Augustine devised this doctrine of 'just war', standards to which US has failed since 1945. Then Obama comes up with the idea of "just peace', we should have read in detail his Nobel lecture! Neocon pap!

    If Clinton decides the peace is not just then organized murder is the detail for the week. Economies are sometime zero sum games and you can get Ike's 1953 speech for what you give up for a destroyer.....

    As long as no kid of a war plant worker goes hungry........ or has to drive a beater when she gets 16.

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 08, 2017 at 10:32 AM
    I do not understand this comment, and would appreciate further development.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , January 08, 2017 at 11:27 AM
    You don't understand this?

    'The overriding complaint about 'economic efforts devoted to building armaments' is that such resulting goods are of NO civilian
    use.'

    Or ilsm's reply?

    I think he & I actually agree that (excessive) funding on war material is a total waste.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 08, 2017 at 12:32 PM
    I see the pentagon trough as expensive term life. For the past 70 years the US has bet over $28T and around 100000 KIA (probably 15000 more killed in training events) that evil 'enemies' are going to muck with Neocon's or whomever's "just peace"*.

    Since 1950 war has been a huge, more than Smedley Butler's wars for the bankers in Central America, racket.

    For the do overs and weapons bought for the sole benefit of the trough there is only local 'welfare'.

    Outside of indivisible public goods [as Arrow and others studied] government spending is not efficient.

    Where markets fail government should intervene, unless the standard of 'justice' is profit for the rentier.

    Think of it next time someone wants to dump on Iran.

    *measured by "security" and prosperity.

    Julio -> anne... , January 08, 2017 at 11:40 AM
    We've improved on Keynes. Consider, e.g.,
    http://www.thedevelopmentinitiative.com/landmine-and-battle-area-clearance/?gclid=CjwKEAiA48fDBRDJ24_imejhwUkSJAAr0M5kA_wSabZbGgiA8-I-yH8kkCamcj0G8jYIbWrGMXeVBhoClZjw_wcB
    anne -> Julio ... , January 08, 2017 at 11:52 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.html

    December 30, 2016

    Nixon's Vietnam Treachery
    By JOHN A. FARRELL

    Richard M. Nixon always denied it: to David Frost, to historians and to Lyndon B. Johnson, who had the strongest suspicions and the most cause for outrage at his successor's rumored treachery. To them all, Nixon insisted that he had not sabotaged Johnson's 1968 peace initiative to bring the war in Vietnam to an early conclusion. "My God. I would never do anything to encourage" South Vietnam "not to come to the table," Nixon told Johnson, in a conversation captured on the White House taping system.

    Now we know Nixon lied. A newfound cache of notes left by H. R. Haldeman, his closest aide, shows that Nixon directed his campaign's efforts to scuttle the peace talks, which he feared could give his opponent, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, an edge in the 1968 election. On Oct. 22, 1968, he ordered Haldeman to "monkey wrench" the initiative.

    The 37th president has been enjoying a bit of a revival recently, as his achievements in foreign policy and the landmark domestic legislation he signed into law draw favorable comparisons to the presidents (and president-elect) that followed. A new, $15 million face-lift at the Nixon presidential library, while not burying the Watergate scandals, spotlights his considerable record of accomplishments.

    Haldeman's notes return us to the dark side. Amid the reappraisals, we must now weigh apparently criminal behavior that, given the human lives at stake and the decade of carnage that followed in Southeast Asia, may be more reprehensible than anything Nixon did in Watergate.

    Nixon had entered the fall campaign with a lead over Humphrey, but the gap was closing that October. Henry A. Kissinger, then an outside Republican adviser, had called, alerting Nixon that a deal was in the works: If Johnson would halt all bombing of North Vietnam, the Soviets pledged to have Hanoi engage in constructive talks to end a war that had already claimed 30,000 American lives.

    But Nixon had a pipeline to Saigon, where the South Vietnamese president, Nguyen Van Thieu, feared that Johnson would sell him out. If Thieu would stall the talks, Nixon could portray Johnson's actions as a cheap political trick. The conduit was Anna Chennault, a Republican doyenne and Nixon fund-raiser, and a member of the pro-nationalist China lobby, with connections across Asia.

    "! Keep Anna Chennault working on" South Vietnam, Haldeman scrawled, recording Nixon's orders. "Any other way to monkey wrench it? Anything RN can do."

    Nixon told Haldeman to have Rose Mary Woods, the candidate's personal secretary, contact another nationalist Chinese figure - the businessman Louis Kung - and have him press Thieu as well. "Tell him hold firm," Nixon : .

    anne -> Julio ... , January 08, 2017 at 11:56 AM
    Bombs and mines from the Nixon years of the War in Vietnam were cleaned from neighboring Laos and Cambodia for years after the war ended and are still unfortunately found today.

    [Jan 09, 2017] Let the Clintons and Kagans define what is just peace and when we release the organized murder on small countries.

    Jan 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> EMichael...

    The past 2 months of the neocon babble machine trying to delegitimize the president elect is un-American.

    I define how Murkan I am not you. If you all democrats want your neocons to win in a coupe delegitimizing the PeOTUS step up!

    Take a half hour and read this:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

    my favorite line:

    "And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace."

    Let the Clintons and Kagans define what is just peace and when we release the organized murder on small countries.

    Reply Sunday, January 08, 2017 at 12:42 PM

    [Jan 08, 2017] Clappers own credibility is suspect. It looks like NSA does not possesses the evidence of Russian hacking

    Notable quotes:
    "... Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence. ..."
    "... Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking." ..."
    "... In response, Clapper and other U.S. government officials have sought to disparage Assange's credibility, including Clapper's Senate testimony on Thursday gratuitously alluding to sexual assault allegations against Assange in Sweden. ..."
    "... However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave false testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans. Clapper's deception was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the NSA program to the press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony. ..."
    Jan 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC -> ilsm... January 08, 2017 at 06:03 AM

    US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack'
    January 7, 2017

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/07/us-report-still-lacks-proof-on-russia-hack/

    ... ... ...

    Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence.

    For instance, that's the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

    Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking."

    There is also the fact that both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and one of his associates, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, have denied that the purloined emails came from the Russian government. Going further, Murray has suggested that there were two separate sources, the DNC material coming from a disgruntled Democrat and the Podesta emails coming from possibly a U.S. intelligence source, since the Podesta Group represents Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments.

    In response, Clapper and other U.S. government officials have sought to disparage Assange's credibility, including Clapper's Senate testimony on Thursday gratuitously alluding to sexual assault allegations against Assange in Sweden.

    However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave false testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans. Clapper's deception was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the NSA program to the press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony.

    [Jan 08, 2017] In polemics neoliberals like Trotskyites typically restort to dirty tricks

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have some friends who seem to hold out the fantasy that these corporations will forbear from "normalizing" Trump, presumably by turning their news broadcasts into some version of America Held Hostage for the duration of the Trump presidency. But this is fairly ridiculous. The audience for that kind of treatment of the administration is relatively small, and so that's not the treatment major new organizations are likely to produce. ..."
    "... talking to the progressive neoliberals here is a waste of time. Their heads are fully up their behinds. ..."
    "... Their competent, knowledgeable establishment candidate lost to a laughable reality TV star clown. They're still in shock. Waste of time. ..."
    "... Other tilts include the ad hominem, the red herring, false equivalent, the halo, and so forth. ..."
    "... Does exhibiting several of the top ten logic fallacies qualify for HFUTB? ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Kervick -> EMichael... January 05, 2017 at 10:02 AM
    Well, that's capitalism. NBC News is a a division of Comcast, a large capitalist firm. They are in the business of making money by attracting consumer/viewer eyeballs to their output and out-competing their competitors for market share. Therefore they can always be expected to continually modify and redesign that output in the direction of perceived changes in audience tastes.

    I have some friends who seem to hold out the fantasy that these corporations will forbear from "normalizing" Trump, presumably by turning their news broadcasts into some version of America Held Hostage for the duration of the Trump presidency. But this is fairly ridiculous. The audience for that kind of treatment of the administration is relatively small, and so that's not the treatment major new organizations are likely to produce.

    Peter K. said in reply to Dan Kervick... , January 05, 2017 at 11:33 AM

    NBC's The Apprentice made Trump well-known to a large public. They've already profited off of him.

    But talking to the progressive neoliberals here is a waste of time. Their heads are fully up their behinds.

    Their competent, knowledgeable establishment candidate lost to a laughable reality TV star clown. They're still in shock. Waste of time.

    ilsm -> Peter K.... , -1
    I rather observe we have a lot intent on sorting* the evidence to support their beliefs+.

    Other tilts include the ad hominem, the red herring, false equivalent, the halo, and so forth.

    Does exhibiting several of the top ten logic fallacies qualify for HFUTB?

    * deduction is not reasoning

    + they might use thumb screws....... on the non believer

    [Jan 08, 2017] Interests of some dwarf European states might be sacrificed to pull Russia from alliance with China. Nothing personal, just business

    Notable quotes:
    "... This is probably very similar to very cunning efforts for preventing alliance between Russia and Germany by British empire. In general the current USA policy toward Russia has British roots. ..."
    "... And as for your utter naivety about respect, as Machiavelli pointed out, respect is not everything. Fear might be good substitute. And the US neocons understand this very well. ..."
    "... As Michael Ledeen put it "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business..." (Ledeen doctrine). ..."
    Jan 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc -> ilsm... January 07, 2017 at 08:02 PM

    Trump is making nice with Putin but he's picking fight with Mexico on our border, China, and North Korea.

    By making nice with Putin and Russia PE Trump puts our long term traditional Allies in Europe, especially those that border Russian, on notice that they will not be protected by the USA to the extent in the past which opens them up to Russian political and business pressures/extortion as well as weakening the ties that bind them to us.

    Of course, all that rebalanced geopolitics means no nation in future will trust the USA in the same way again in politics, business, trade, or global security.

    You may like Trump upsetting the apple cart that has been carefully built by successive President's since WWII but I doubt most Americans will or do.

    Libezkova -> im1dc... January 07, 2017 at 10:03 PM

    You need to understand that splitting alliance of Russia and China is probably strategically important for the USA neoliberal elite then anything else.

    In this sense Trump just want to end the blunders of Obama foreign policy which made rapprochement of Russia and China possible, or even inevitable. The problem is that after Ukraine Russia does not trust the USA. On any level. Attitude now is probably much worse then it was during years of Cold War. Even bitter enemies of Putin now curse the Obama administration using the last words.

    In other words, what Obama did with his Ukrainian adventure is eliminated any (as in zero) internal opposition to Putin inside the country. Such a blowback, in CIA terms.

    So much for Nobel Peace Price winner foreign policy achievements (Iran "lifting sanctions" gambit is still standing as one).

    This is probably very similar to very cunning efforts for preventing alliance between Russia and Germany by British empire. In general the current USA policy toward Russia has British roots.

    Like French say: "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" (on ne saurait faire d'omelette sans casser des œufs )

    So interests of some dwarf European states might be sacrificed to pull Russia from alliance with China. Nothing personal, just business.

    And as for your utter naivety about respect, as Machiavelli pointed out, respect is not everything. Fear might be good substitute. And the US neocons understand this very well.

    As Michael Ledeen put it "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business..." (Ledeen doctrine).

    ilsm -> libezkova... January 08, 2017 at 05:27 AM , 2017 at 05:27 AM
    Couple of observations:

    Russia and China did not come together during the cold war against the US empire, big difference today is the potential for trade cooperation on a Beijing Moscow Madrid (with a branch to Tehran) axis.

    That observation aside; a huge enemy is good for the US' military industry complex; businesses whose minimum returns are over 6% and assured by political influence.

    There is money to be made pushing the Bear and the Dragon into a corner.

    The Queen Empresses workers were protecting all that exploited labor in India. The Royal Navy and coaling stations kept the sea routes open

    [Jan 08, 2017] US funded lesser al Qaeda in Syria at least since 5 years.

    Jan 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm said in reply to Jay... US funded lesser al Qaeda in Syria at least since 5 years.

    The US Russia thing is parallel to the Sunni Shiite thing where Iran is reluctantly pushed toward Moscow bc the CIA remains vengeful over the CIA's Shah deposed in 1979.

    US funding in Syria is consistent with Gulf Coop Council actions there and in Yemen, using US provided cluster weapons.

    The phony reason Obama did Qaddafi was Hollande threatened the French would do it.... of course the French could maybe get 2 sorties off a day for 3 days! Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 10:58 AM ilsm said in reply to kthomas... Exceptionalism justifies horror!

    The F-111's killed one of Qaddafi's daughters (by a wife of many) for that one and the Berlin club!

    US vengeance worth giving entire countries over to al Qaeda.

    Exceptional we can incinerate the world!

    [Jan 08, 2017] How worse than the neocon neolib of the past 8 years can Trump be?

    Jan 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , -1
    How worse than the neocon neolib of the past 8 years can Trump be?

    If the US president has done well the past 30 the standards need adjustment.

    How many dead for the prosperity of the empire and its satellites?

    Libezkova -> ilsm... , January 03, 2017 at 10:08 PM
    Exactly --

    Brainwashed part of commentariat here does not understand that the fact the USA escaped the danger to be ruled by Clinton mafia is a blessing, not a curse. Trump does not matter in this respect. The fact of escape matters a lot.

    None of them would ever agree that the benefits to be ruled by a 69 years old health handicapped (probably Parkinson stage II) neocon warmonger for the USA population might be highly questionable.

    More so then for Trump, who also represents some dangers. That's for sure.

    And there are quite a few such people here who uncritically repeat neoliberal propaganda: The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed ( if not plain vanilla evil ) they might be in political issues. Probably a side effect of overspecialization.

    Take for example a group of people here who claim that Putin is a kleptocrat. If so he obviously should put his money in Western banks like any self-respecting kleptocrat ;-). But nobody has found such a bank. And that includes a dozen of the USA intelligence agencies, which so easily determined that government connected Russian hackers penetrated DNC stole emails and submitted them to Wikileaks to influence the USA presidential election.

    The fact that bank with his billions was never found, makes it more plausible that he is just a moderate Russian nationalist (with some neoliberal tendencies -- he brought Russia into WTO) and not a kleptocrat like neoliberal propaganda machine in the USA and GB proclaim.

    But tell them that Hillary is a classic kleptocrat (and she clearly is taking bribes, sorry donations and speaking fees, left and right) and they will do such a hissy fit that you will regret that you touched this theme.

    As for hacking hysteria tell them that it looks more and more plausible that some part of US elite now is definitely interested in reviving "Red scare" to improve manageability and social stability of neoliberal society, which with the election of Trump got into the second crisis after 2008, with the population no longer believing neoliberal myths and you will be declared Putin stooge (Putin stooge for some commenters here is any person with whom they disagree; how convenient).

    They are also very sensitive to political correctness rules. Just mention Building 7 and your instantly become 9/11 truther. But, at the same time, most of them never watched 30 sec video of building 7 collapse ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU ) and do not understand elementary physics.

    [Jan 07, 2017] War conflict is not a chess game like many neocon chicenhawks assume.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Chickenhawks like you should better be careful what they wish for. With the election of Hillary we would be on the brink of not "cold", but "hot" war, starting in Syria. But chickenhawks like you prefer other people to die to their imperial complex of inferiority. ..."
    "... In other words, all you funny "Putin Poodle", "Putin is a kleptocrat", etc noises is just a testament of the inferiority complex of a typical neoliberal chickenhawk. Much like was the case with Hillary. ..."
    Jan 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Libezkova -> pgl... January 06, 2017 at 05:09 PM

    Why don't you just buy m16, some ammunition and go to Syria to prove your point and take revenge for Hillary fiasco.

    Chickenhawks like you should better be careful what they wish for. With the election of Hillary we would be on the brink of not "cold", but "hot" war, starting in Syria. But chickenhawks like you prefer other people to die to their imperial complex of inferiority.

    In other words, all you funny "Putin Poodle", "Putin is a kleptocrat", etc noises is just a testament of the inferiority complex of a typical neoliberal chickenhawk. Much like was the case with Hillary.

    War conflict is not a chess game.

    [Jan 07, 2017] The fake image is what the neocons want us to believe about the dire threat from Putin!

    Jan 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm : January 07, 2017 at 06:40 AM , 2017 at 06:40 AM
    Barry Ritholtz does a service linking us to a propaganda piece in politico:

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/putins-real-long-game-214589

    The service is an example of propaganda using "deductive reasoning"; a journalist interviewing lots of propagandists and using their spin to support an hypothesis that is Clinton Mrs Kagan/Nuland neocon bat crazy!

    The fake image is what the neocons want us to believe about the dire threat from Putin!

    At least once a year Barry posts the cheat sheet, then he sets out hundreds of examples in his reads.

    [Jan 07, 2017] Heres How Many Bombs Obama Dropped In 2016

    Jan 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Seven years after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," despite having been in office for less than one year and having pretty much no actual, tangible foreign diplomacy accomplishments at the time, President Obama will depart the White House having dropped 26,171 bombs on foreign countries around the world in 2016, 3,027 more than 2015.

    [Jan 07, 2017] Obama already proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is change we can believe in bait and switch Maestro

    Jan 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    sanjait : , January 06, 2017 at 03:53 PM
    Hard to tell if this is something new in scope or if it was always thus.

    Certainly politicians have always lied, exaggerated and made big shows of trivial symbolic things.

    I don't think Trump is unique in doing this.

    Trump is perhaps unique though in doing NOTHING ELSE.

    Libezkova -> sanjait... , January 06, 2017 at 05:00 PM
    You are too quick to judge. Trump will become POTUS only on 20th.

    But Obama already proved "beyond reasonable doubt" that he is "change we can believe in" bait and switch Maestro. That's his legacy and he can't change it.

    What a horrible, brazen betrayer of his voters he proved to be. 100% neoliberal "wolf in sheep's clothing" ...

    Pretty bright student of Bill Clinton. The same "they have nowhere to go" attitude to working people and lower middle class.

    Libezkova -> Libezkova... , January 06, 2017 at 05:06 PM
    But in reality they have a place to go: they went to far right nationalistic movements.

    In this sense Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are godfathers of the US far right renaissance. Barack actually did the same trick in Ukraine, so this is his double "success". And the major legacy.

    But wait till 2020 and the situation might become very interesting indeed. Especially if there will be no revival of economics that Trump promised.

    Libezkova -> Libezkova... , -1
    And don't forget his romance with "Muslim brotherhood" (and his role in the creation of ISIS) as well as his Libya and Syria adventures.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump and Hegel concept of the Irony of History.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction. ..."
    "... But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again. ..."
    "... Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that. ..."
    "... "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-ΰ-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism." ..."
    "... Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line. ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : January 05, 2017 at 07:40 AM , 2017 at 07:40 AM
    (Harding redux?)

    The Trump Administration
    http://tws.io/2iFd3rC
    via @WeeklyStandard
    Nov 28, 2016 - William Kristol

    Who now gives much thought to the presidency of Warren G. Harding? Who ever did? Not us.

    But let us briefly turn our thoughts to our 29th president (while stipulating that we're certainly no experts on his life or times). Here's our summary notion: Warren G. Harding may have been a problematic president. But the Harding administration was in some ways an impressive one, which served the country reasonably well.

    It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction.

    Andrew Mellon was a successful Treasury secretary whose tax reforms and deregulatory efforts spurred years of economic growth. Charles Dawes, the first director of the Bureau of the Budget, reduced government expenditures and, helped by Mellon's economic policies, brought the budget into balance. Charles Evans Hughes as secretary of state dealt responsibly with a very difficult world situation his administration had inherited-though in light of what followed in the next decade, one wishes in retrospect for bolder assertions of American leadership, though in those years just after World War I, they would have been contrary to the national mood.

    In addition, President Harding's first two Supreme Court appointments -- William Howard Taft and George Sutherland -- were distinguished ones. And Harding personally did some admirable things: He made pronouncements, impressive in the context of that era, in favor of racial equality; he commuted the wartime prison sentence of the Socialist leader, Eugene V. Debs. In these ways, he contributed to an atmosphere of national healing and civility.

    The brief Harding administration-and for that matter the eight years constituting his administration and that of his vice president and successor, Calvin Coolidge-may not have been times of surpassing national greatness. But there were real achievements, especially in the economic sphere; those years were not disastrous; they were not dark times.

    President-elect Donald J. Trump probably doesn't intend to model his administration on that of President Warren G. Harding. But he could do worse than reflect on that administration's successes-and also on its failures, particularly the scandals that exploded into public view after Harding's sudden death. These were produced by cronies appointed by Harding to important positions, where they betrayed his trust and tarnished his historical reputation.

    Donald Trump manifestly cares about his reputation. He surely knows that reputation ultimately depends on performance. If a Trump hotel and casino is successful, it's not because of the Trump brand-that may get people through the door the first time-but because it provides a worthwhile experience thanks to a good management team, fine restaurants, deft croupiers, and fun shows. If a Trump golf course succeeds, it's because it has been built and is run by people who know something about golf. The failed Trump efforts-from the university to the steaks-seem to have in common the assumption that the Trump name by itself would be enough to carry mediocre or worse enterprises across the finish line.

    To succeed in business, the brand only gets you so far. Quality matters. To succeed in the presidency, getting elected only gets you so far. Governing matters.

    It would be ironic if Trump's very personal electoral achievement were followed by a mode of governance that restored greater responsibility to the cabinet agencies formally entrusted with the duties of governance. It would be ironic if a Trump presidency also featured a return of authority to Congress, the states, and to other civic institutions. It would be ironic if Trump's victory led not to a kind of American Caesarism but to a strengthening of republican institutions and forms. It would be ironic if the election of Donald J. Trump heralded a return to a kind of constitutional normalcy.

    If we are not mistaken, it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (though sadly unaware of the phenomena of either Warren G. Harding or Donald J. Trump) who made much of the Irony of History.

    But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again.

    (Harding-Coolidge-Hoover were a disastrous triumvirate that ascended to power after the Taft & Wilson administrations, as the GOP - then the embodiment of progressivism - split apart due to the efforts of Teddy Roosevelt.)

    Peter K. -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that.
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 03:35 PM
    It is the neocon's taking a back seat!

    Kristol is co-founder of PNAC along with a Clinton mob long time foggy bottom associate's husband..

    Trump is somewhat less thrilled with tilting with Russia for the American empire which is as moral as Nero's Rome.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Prescient: dumping Kristol's PNAC will strengthen the republic.
    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 07:52 AM
    "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-ΰ-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism."

    Is it better to ignore this fault line and try to paper it over or is it better to debate the issues in a polite and congenial manner?

    Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump to revamp intelligence agencies: report

    I am actually surprised by the amount of Trump hating comments to this article.... What is so criminal in trying to reorganize two of 12 Us intelligence agencies. Which might become too bloated and deviate from their original purposes. Is not how restructuring is used in business world ? And the number of commenters blaclmpousing Putin and Russia create great alarm. Looks like the US MSM managed to brainwash the US population like in 50th during "Red Scare". Some comments looks like hate sessions from 1984.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 - Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors. ..."
    "... This use of propaganda on the American public effectively nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. ..."
    "... The NDAA in its current form allows the State Department and Pentagon to go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets to directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public. ..."
    "... They refused to brief Congress. They were never allowed to release their findings publicly, because they still haven't. They leaked their conclusions. All to attempt to undermine the stability of their own country. And you don't see this. ..."
    "... This is why Wikileaks exists. What the MSM can no longer deliver (the TRUTH and credible news), Wikileaks can deliver to the American people. ..."
    "... Are you claiming the US hasn't done all it can to destabilize and destroy Russia? ..."
    "... This blame Russia frenzy is a loser strategy. The sole purpose is to deligitimize Trump's victory. Can't wait for Trump to start firing a**es. ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | thehill.com

    "The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world [is] becoming completely politicized," an individual close to Trump's transition operation said. "They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring agencies and how they interact."
    Trump is targeting the CIA and the ODNI as he publicly wars with the U.S. intelligence community over its conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

    Trump wants to shrink the ODNI, as he believes the agency established in 2004 as a response to the 9/11 terror attacks has become bloated and politicized.

    Guest sikaniska • 2 hours ago
    Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 - Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors.

    The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 passed Congress as part of the NDAA 2013 on December 28, 2012.

    The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public http://www.businessinsider.com...

    This use of propaganda on the American public effectively nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion.

    The NDAA in its current form allows the State Department and Pentagon to go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets to directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public.

    But the US public learned quickly and they are not buying the misinformation anymore.

    hmg, Jr. • 4 hours ago
    is this the revelation due early this week that he promised us?
    JacksonEuler • 4 hours ago
    Trump knows better:

    1) Renewables:
    "I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth." - April 2016

    2) Social media
    "I understand social media. I understand the power
    of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost
    anybody, based on my results, right?" - November 2015

    3) Debt
    "Nobody knows more about debt. I'm like the king. I love debt." - May 2016

    4) Taxes, again
    "I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe
    in the history of the world. Nobody knows more about taxes." - May 2016

    I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has
    ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes
    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2016

    don Jody • 4 hours ago
    They refused to brief Congress. They were never allowed to release their findings publicly, because they still haven't. They leaked their conclusions. All to attempt to undermine the stability of their own country. And you don't see this.
    Guest • 2 hours ago

    This is why Wikileaks exists. What the MSM can no longer deliver (the TRUTH and credible news), Wikileaks can deliver to the American people.

    Trump University • 5 hours ago
    OBL caused 9/11 -- and it happened on Dubya's watch. He was expressly warned OBL wanted to do it -- and he laughed and let it happen.
    Vegas DB Pro Alex Cross • 4 hours ago
    Are you claiming the US hasn't done all it can to destabilize and destroy Russia?
    DoILookAmused2u ? Vegas DB Pro • 4 hours ago
    No, we haven't. Putin, United Russia, and his buddies in organized crime sure have though.
    Vegas DB Pro DoILookAmused2u ? • 4 hours ago
    Really? We've been interfering in theirs, and many other countries, affairs for decades, same as they've done to us. Learn some history, dummy.
    DoILookAmused2u ? Vegas DB Pro • 3 hours ago
    No, we haven't, and we didn't. In fact, his former boss -- Yeltsin -- hired Republican political consultants to help his campaign.

    Putin would like the world to believe that Russians fed up with bribery, extortion, the fall of the ruble, and the fact that their votes don't count rising up and protesting was about outside meddling, but it was internal.

    And he responded by making protests illegal, getting rid of the election of governors (he appoints them now), closing down critical reporting outlets, and some journalists were murdered.

    Uncle Keef Vegas DB Pro • 4 hours ago
    So? whose side are you on?
    Don't be like Trump. Stand with the U.S.
    Vegas DB Pro Uncle Keef • 4 hours ago
    You moron, I served the US for 20 years in the military, but facts are facts and we need to butt the he!! out of other countries business, and until we do, they will continue to come after us. How long were you in?
    Mohammad Izzaterd • 4 hours ago
    This blame Russia frenzy is a loser strategy. The sole purpose is to deligitimize Trump's victory. Can't wait for Trump to start firing a**es.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump Splits With 'Senior Advisor' Former CIA Chief Woolsey Zero Hedge

    Jan 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Trouble in paradise? Following his comments earlier in the week that it was not just the Russians (but China and Iran maybe) that hacked US and that Trump "may be playing us ," former CIA Director James Woolsey has parted ways with the president-elect and will no longer be a Senior Advisor .

    Woolsey did not appear to be toeing the company-line completely...

    Former CIA director James Woolsey: Possibility that more than one country is involved in hacking is there. https://t.co/cxZqeyNvOI

    - New Day (@NewDay) January 3, 2017

    As we noted previously, The Hill reports , Woolsey, who was a senior advisor to President-elect Donald Trump , said:

    "I don't think people ought to say they know for sure there's only one. I don't think they're likely to be proven correct. It shouldn't be portrayed as one guilty party,"

    "It's much more complicated than that. This is not an organized operation that is hacking into a target. It's more like a bunch of jackals at the carcass of an antelope ."

    Woolsey suggested China and Iran could be behind cyber breaches in the U.S.

    "Is it Russian? Probably some," he said. "Is it Chinese and Iranian? Maybe. We may find out more from Mr. Trump coming up today."

    This follows Trump's comments on Sunday hinting he would reveal new information about alleged Russian hacking during a New Year's Eve celebration at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla.

    "[I know] things that other people don't know," he said. "I just want them to be sure because it's a pretty serious charge. I think it's unfair if they don't know."

    To which Woolsey contentiously also commented:

    "There's a possibility that he is [playing us] a little bit."

    But as is clear, Woolsey's belief that the Russians "were in there" still goes further than what Trump has said about the hacks ... which may be why Woolsey has announced in a formal statement

    "Effective immediately, Ambassador Woolsey is no longer a Senior Adviser to President-elect Trump or the transition," Woolsey's spokesman, Jonathan Franks, wrote in a statement that was first reported by CNN's Jeremy Diamond.

    "He wishes the President-elect and his Administration great success in their time in office."

    Furthermore, The Washington Post's Philip Rucker reports, Woolsey resigned after being cut out of intelligence talks with Trump and his national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

    nmewn PT Jan 5, 2017 8:51 PM

    So yeah, Russian hackers.

    Here we go, this is from Buzzfeed so according to the NYT's and Washington Post this source would qualify as "fake news"...lol...but!...

    "The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI's Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice's National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney's Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers," Eric Walker, the DNC's deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News in an email."

    ...but!...just looky here...we've got an actual non-anonymous, real life, people-type person who is not speaking from the shadows in an underground parking garage its, Eric Walker, the DNC's deputy communications director.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/the-fbi-never-asked-for-access-to-h...

    Oh my ;-)

    847328_3527 xythras Jan 5, 2017 9:42 PM

    I still think it is independent patriots assited by patriotic insiders who exposed the DNC's criminal activity.

    Anyway, when do we get the criminal investigation into the contents of the leaks? That's where the meat is. Not that someone exposed the crimes; they deserve a medal.

    fleur de lis ElTerco Jan 5, 2017 8:44 PM

    Shit on Woolsey.

    He went out of his way to get that traitorous vermin Jonathan Pollard out of jail.

    He accused the whole country of anti-semitism just because Pollard got busted giving secrets away to the Israelis for years.

    As if the Israelis don't get enough as it is.

    http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Former-CIA-director-accuses-...

    Why didn't someone on Trump's team ask him about that.

    And they had better start doing some real due dilligence on these remora types.

    Where there's one Israeli mole there's ten.

    Woolsey thinks Pollard's release is overdue.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/James-Woolsey-Jonathan-Pollard-release...

    A very, very close look at Woolsey is overdue.

    And his associations, bank books, phone calls, etc.

    How dare he advise any of us about security after that.

    Woolsey is a Mossad crack ho.

    He needs a major smackdown.

    Paul Kersey localsavage Jan 5, 2017 8:25 PM

    Former CIA Director James Woolsey, was a vocal advocate of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq who promoted allegations that Saddam Hussein harbored illegal weapons of mass destruction.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump and Hegel concept of the Irony of History.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction. ..."
    "... But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again. ..."
    "... Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that. ..."
    "... "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-ΰ-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism." ..."
    "... Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line. ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : January 05, 2017 at 07:40 AM , 2017 at 07:40 AM
    (Harding redux?)

    The Trump Administration
    http://tws.io/2iFd3rC
    via @WeeklyStandard
    Nov 28, 2016 - William Kristol

    Who now gives much thought to the presidency of Warren G. Harding? Who ever did? Not us.

    But let us briefly turn our thoughts to our 29th president (while stipulating that we're certainly no experts on his life or times). Here's our summary notion: Warren G. Harding may have been a problematic president. But the Harding administration was in some ways an impressive one, which served the country reasonably well.

    It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction.

    Andrew Mellon was a successful Treasury secretary whose tax reforms and deregulatory efforts spurred years of economic growth. Charles Dawes, the first director of the Bureau of the Budget, reduced government expenditures and, helped by Mellon's economic policies, brought the budget into balance. Charles Evans Hughes as secretary of state dealt responsibly with a very difficult world situation his administration had inherited-though in light of what followed in the next decade, one wishes in retrospect for bolder assertions of American leadership, though in those years just after World War I, they would have been contrary to the national mood.

    In addition, President Harding's first two Supreme Court appointments -- William Howard Taft and George Sutherland -- were distinguished ones. And Harding personally did some admirable things: He made pronouncements, impressive in the context of that era, in favor of racial equality; he commuted the wartime prison sentence of the Socialist leader, Eugene V. Debs. In these ways, he contributed to an atmosphere of national healing and civility.

    The brief Harding administration-and for that matter the eight years constituting his administration and that of his vice president and successor, Calvin Coolidge-may not have been times of surpassing national greatness. But there were real achievements, especially in the economic sphere; those years were not disastrous; they were not dark times.

    President-elect Donald J. Trump probably doesn't intend to model his administration on that of President Warren G. Harding. But he could do worse than reflect on that administration's successes-and also on its failures, particularly the scandals that exploded into public view after Harding's sudden death. These were produced by cronies appointed by Harding to important positions, where they betrayed his trust and tarnished his historical reputation.

    Donald Trump manifestly cares about his reputation. He surely knows that reputation ultimately depends on performance. If a Trump hotel and casino is successful, it's not because of the Trump brand-that may get people through the door the first time-but because it provides a worthwhile experience thanks to a good management team, fine restaurants, deft croupiers, and fun shows. If a Trump golf course succeeds, it's because it has been built and is run by people who know something about golf. The failed Trump efforts-from the university to the steaks-seem to have in common the assumption that the Trump name by itself would be enough to carry mediocre or worse enterprises across the finish line.

    To succeed in business, the brand only gets you so far. Quality matters. To succeed in the presidency, getting elected only gets you so far. Governing matters.

    It would be ironic if Trump's very personal electoral achievement were followed by a mode of governance that restored greater responsibility to the cabinet agencies formally entrusted with the duties of governance. It would be ironic if a Trump presidency also featured a return of authority to Congress, the states, and to other civic institutions. It would be ironic if Trump's victory led not to a kind of American Caesarism but to a strengthening of republican institutions and forms. It would be ironic if the election of Donald J. Trump heralded a return to a kind of constitutional normalcy.

    If we are not mistaken, it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (though sadly unaware of the phenomena of either Warren G. Harding or Donald J. Trump) who made much of the Irony of History.

    But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again.

    (Harding-Coolidge-Hoover were a disastrous triumvirate that ascended to power after the Taft & Wilson administrations, as the GOP - then the embodiment of progressivism - split apart due to the efforts of Teddy Roosevelt.)

    Peter K. -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that.
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 03:35 PM
    It is the neocon's taking a back seat!

    Kristol is co-founder of PNAC along with a Clinton mob long time foggy bottom associate's husband..

    Trump is somewhat less thrilled with tilting with Russia for the American empire which is as moral as Nero's Rome.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Prescient: dumping Kristol's PNAC will strengthen the republic.
    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 07:52 AM
    "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-ΰ-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism."

    Is it better to ignore this fault line and try to paper it over or is it better to debate the issues in a polite and congenial manner?

    Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump Aims To Cut The Neocon Deep State Off At The Knees

    Jan 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    I have long held that America's Deep State --the unelected National Security State often referred to as the Shadow Government-- is not a unified monolith but a deeply divided ecosystem in which the dominant Neocon-Neoliberal Oligarchy is being challenged by elements which view the Neocon-Neoliberal agenda as a threat to national security and the interests of the United States.

    I call these anti-Neocon-Neoliberal elements the progressive Deep State.

    If you want a working definition of the Neocon-Neoliberal Deep State, Hillary Clinton's quip-- we came, we saw, he died --is a good summary: a bullying, arrogance-soaked state-within-a-state pursuing an agenda of ceaseless intervention while operating a global Murder, Inc., supremely confident that no one in the elected government can touch them.

    Until Trump unexpectedly wrenched the presidency from the Neocon's candidate. The Neocon Deep State's response was to manufacture a mass-media hysteria that Russia had wrongfully deprived the Neocon's candidate (Hillary Clinton) of what was rightfully hers: the presidency. (The Neocons operate their own version of the divine right of Political Nobility .)

    The Neocon-Neoliberals' strategy was to delegitimize Trump's victory by ascribing it to "Russian Hacking," a claim that remains entirely unsubstantiated. Now that this grasping-at-straws Hail Mary coup attempt by a politicized CIA and its corporate media mouthpiece has failed, the Neocon Deep State is about to find out the Progressive Deep State finally has a president who is willing and able to cut the Neocon-Neoliberals off at the knees.

    Trump Is Working On A Plan To Restructure, Pare Back The CIA And America's Top Spy Agency .

    If you want documented evidence of this split in the Deep State--sorry, it doesn't work that way. Nobody in the higher echelons of the Deep State is going to leak anything about the low-intensity war being waged because the one thing everyone agrees on is the Deep State's dirty laundry must be kept private.

    As a result, the split is visible only by carefully reading between the lines, by examining who is being placed in positions of control in the Trump Administration, and reading the tea leaves of who is "retiring" (i.e. being fired) or quitting, which agencies are suddenly being reorganized, and the appearance of dissenting views in journals that serve as public conduits for Deep State narratives.

    I have also long held that Wall Street's political dominance is part and parcel of the Neocon-Neoliberal ideology , and the progressive elements in the Deep State also want to (finally) limit the power of the big banks and the rest of the Wall Street crowd.

    Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014)

    The split in the Deep State is a reflection of the profound political disunity that is occurring in the U.S. In other words, it isn't just disunity in the masses or the political elites--it's a division in all levels of our society.

    The cause is not difficult to discern: the concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of the few is generating levels of inequality that threaten democracy, the social order and the vitality of the economy:

    As someone who has studied the Deep State for 40 years, I find it ironic that so many self-identified "progressives" do not understand that the U.S. military is now the Progressive element and it's the civilian leadership--the Neocon-Neoliberals-- who are responsible for leading the nation into quagmires and handing the keys to the chicken coop to the wolves of Wall Street.

    When military leaders such as Eric Shinseki questioned the Neocon's insane "strategy" in Iraq--essentially a civilian fantasy of magical-thinking--the Neocons quickly cashiered him (Shinseki was a wounded combat veteran of Vietnam who rose through the ranks--the exact opposite of the coddled never-get-my-hands-dirty Elites in the civilian Neocon-Neoliberal leadership.)

    To the degree that the U.S. has become a Third World Oligarchy owned and controlled by a financial-political Elite, then the U.S. military is one of the few national institutions that hasn't been corrupted by top-down politicization and worship of Wall Street.

    Shinseki et al. did not amass a fortune from Wall Street like Bill and Hillary Clinton. The simple dictum-- follow the money --maps the lay of the land rather neatly.

    The Neocon-Neoliberals have run the nation into the ground. They must be fired and put out to pasture before they do any more harm. That includes the Fake-"Progressives" and the fake-"Conservatives" alike who have enriched themselves within the Neocon-Neoliberal Oligarchy.

    If you are surprised that the Democratic Party, the CIA and Wall Street are all hugging each other in the same cozy Neocon-Neoliberal Oligarchic embrace, you shouldn't be. Open your eyes.

    Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? (August 8, 2016)

    stizazz Jan 5, 2017 10:39 PM

    W Bush: "Dad, what's a neocon?" HW Bush: "You want names or description?" W: "Description." HW: "Israel."

    Chopping down the neocon deep state is to cut down Israel. Trump won't, though he should.

    techies-r-us stizazz Jan 5, 2017 10:42 PM

    All of America's problems in the MidEast is because of these Israel-first neocons.

    Mano-A-Mano bamawatson Jan 5, 2017 10:56 PM

    Why is it that no one wants to describe who the neocons are?

    Which lends credence to the fact that in the Israeli-occupied West you can't criticize Israel, no matter the evil they inflict on the Middle East.

    fleur de lis J S Bach Jan 5, 2017 10:56 PM

    The problem is that the deep state owns most if not all the wet workers.

    They will do whatever the DS says since their paychecks depend upon it.

    Best thing would be to ID the wet workers and give them X amount of time to come in from the cold, then give them the choice of taking a payoff and staying out of trouble or getting their wings clipped for violating parole, or turning state's evidence in exchange for a job or getting their spawn into good schools/jobs.

    If they miss the deadline they default into "problems" and get dealt with accordingly.

    Rebel yell Jan 5, 2017 10:53 PM

    If Trump can cut the neo-fascist deep-state off at the knees, America can be great again!

    The Spanish-American Inquisition : Mexican propaganda was the reason that people voted for Hillary Clinton. NYT largest shareholder is Carlos Slim who has lost 40% of his net worth in the last 2 years as a result of the peso. Trump would diminish his own personal empire by further devaluation of the peso and by reducing Mexican manufacturing.

    The Mexican propaganda was not merely limited to the NYT. Telemundo also played a large part in this. The infiltration of Mexican spies and propagandists through telemundo owned by Comcast, the country's largest media organization has completely compromised Comcast! All of their companies endorsed Hillary in order to benefit the Mexican economy!

    Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post in order to spread Cuban propaganda. His adopted father was from Cuba. Since Jeff Bezos purchased WaPo, Obama has restored relations with Cuba. Coincidence?! We think not!!!

    CNN is Chilean propaganda -- What lengths will they go to in order to mislead the public as the Chilean president owns Chilevisian which is a Time Warner subsidiary and Time Warner owns CNN?! Trump's plan of rewriting NAFTA would be less favorable to Chile than it is in its current form! CNN is trying to get people to put the needs of the Chilean people above the needs of American people!

    Congress has the right to declare war, but the president is the commander in chief. Let congress declare war on Russia and go and fight the Russians themselves. They can declare war, but there will be nobody to fight it, unless they do it themselves!

    Paul Kersey Jan 5, 2017 10:53 PM

    The Fed and the TBTF banks run Deep State, and according to the latest article in the WSJ, Trump is beyond indebted to the TBTF banks. If true, this is scary and gives Trump a pretty serious reason for putting so many Goldmanites in positions of power in his Administration.

    (Wall Street Journal)

    "More than 150 financial institutions hold debt from President-elect Donald Trump's businesses or businesses in which he is at least a 30 percent stakeholder, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

    That amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in potential conflicts of interest as Trump prepares to begin his presidency.

    When Trump submitted a required financial disclosure form with the Federal Election Commission in May 2015, he listed 16 loans, collectively worth $315 million in debt, that his businesses had received from 10 companies, according to the newspaper.

    The Journal's analysis goes beyond those loans and includes debt held by companies in which Trump is at least a 30 percent stakeholder, including, for example, the companies which control 1290 Avenue of the Americas.

    That building, owned by a partnership of companies that is 30 percent owned by Trump, received $950 million in loans in 2012 from UBS Group AG, Bank of China, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Deutsche Bank, according to the report.

    Deutsche Bank, a German institution, is currently under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for its equity trading with wealthy Russian clients.

    In the case of Goldman Sachs, the bank now counts several its former employees among the highest levels of the incoming Trump administration, including former bank president Gary Cohn, who was appointed director of Trump's National Economic Council."

    DirtySanchez Jan 5, 2017 10:56 PM

    "The Neocon-Neoliberals have run the nation into the ground. They must be fired and put out to pasture before they do any more harm. That includes the Fake-"Progressives" and the fake-"Conservatives" alike who have enriched themselves within the Neocon-Neoliberal Oligarchy."

    My ass!!!!! Mr Trump is the right man at the right time to send these war criminals to hell where they belong! HW, W, Bozo,Their globalists war cabinets,Their corrupt underlings, #MAGA #Drain the Swamp

    cheech_wizard Jan 5, 2017 11:20 PM

    Trump needs to distract them quickly. So I have given this a few quick moments of thought and came up with what should be Trump's first executive order. Congress and all Federal employees are now required to use Obamacare as their health plan.

    Standard Disclaimer: Aside from watching Congressional critter's heads explode, the disaster known as Obamacare would be either repealed or fixed in a NY minute.

    [Jan 06, 2017] If we consider two possibilities: GOP establishment chew up Trump and Trump chew up GOP establishment it is clear that possibility is more probable.

    Jan 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. -> Chris G ... , January 05, 2017 at 11:59 AM
    I've heard otherwise. The progressive neoliberals are just putting out disinformation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html

    "At every point of the race, Mr. Trump was doing better among white voters without a college degree than Mitt Romney did in 2012 - by a wide margin. Mrs. Clinton was also not matching Mr. Obama's support among black voters."

    "Mrs. Clinton's gains were concentrated among the most affluent and best-educated white voters, much as Mr. Trump's gains were concentrated among the lowest-income and least-educated white voters."

    Peter K. -> Chris Lowery ... , January 05, 2017 at 07:30 AM
    Trump won the Republican primary and general election.

    ""Trump dominated - in the primary and general elections - those districts represented by Congress's most conservative members," Tim Alberta wrote in National Review (he is now at Politico):

    They once believed they were elected to advance a narrowly ideological agenda, but Trump's success has given them reason to question that belief.

    Among these archconservatives, who in the past had been fanatical in their pursuit of ideological purity, the realization that they can no longer depend on unfailing support from their constituents has provoked deep anxiety."

    These archconservatives who say that Trump's flimsy mandate is just based on just 80,000 votes in the rustbelt are in for a rude awakening. He won the primary. In Northern States. In Southern States. Everywhere.

    It's hilarious that the progressive neoliberals like DeLong, Krugman, Drum, Yglesias etc have said exactly nothing about Trump's tweets at Congressional Republicans over the independent ethics committee.

    Silence.

    JF -> Chris Lowery ... , January 05, 2017 at 09:02 AM
    There is a propaganda technique where you describe straw-person characterizations then undermine them. When in fact the whole longwinded campaign depends on readers and listeners not bothering or too tired to focus and see the mischaracterizations in the straw.

    This whole thing is an apologia, for propaganda purposes, as I see it.

    We all need to take care. It takes a lot of money and effort to organize such propaganda exercises. Please take care in using and reusing these type things.

    Libezkova -> Chris Lowery ... , January 05, 2017 at 09:49 AM
    "Trump has converted the G.O.P. into a populist, America First party" is an overstatement. He definitely made some efforts in this direction, but it is premature to declare this "fait accompli".

    If we consider two possibilities: "GOP establishment chew up Trump" and "Trump chew up GOP establishment" it is clear that possibility is more probable.

    Theoretically that might give Democrats a chance, but I think the Clintonized Party is too corrupt to take this chance. "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." ;-)

    In any case, 2018 elections will be very interesting as I think that the process of a slow collapse of neoliberal ideology and the rise of the US nationalist movements ("far right") will continue unabated.

    This is the same process that we see in full force in EU.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump and Hegel concept of the Irony of History.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction. ..."
    "... But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again. ..."
    "... Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that. ..."
    "... "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-ΰ-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism." ..."
    "... Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line. ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : January 05, 2017 at 07:40 AM , 2017 at 07:40 AM
    (Harding redux?)

    The Trump Administration
    http://tws.io/2iFd3rC
    via @WeeklyStandard
    Nov 28, 2016 - William Kristol

    Who now gives much thought to the presidency of Warren G. Harding? Who ever did? Not us.

    But let us briefly turn our thoughts to our 29th president (while stipulating that we're certainly no experts on his life or times). Here's our summary notion: Warren G. Harding may have been a problematic president. But the Harding administration was in some ways an impressive one, which served the country reasonably well.

    It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction.

    Andrew Mellon was a successful Treasury secretary whose tax reforms and deregulatory efforts spurred years of economic growth. Charles Dawes, the first director of the Bureau of the Budget, reduced government expenditures and, helped by Mellon's economic policies, brought the budget into balance. Charles Evans Hughes as secretary of state dealt responsibly with a very difficult world situation his administration had inherited-though in light of what followed in the next decade, one wishes in retrospect for bolder assertions of American leadership, though in those years just after World War I, they would have been contrary to the national mood.

    In addition, President Harding's first two Supreme Court appointments -- William Howard Taft and George Sutherland -- were distinguished ones. And Harding personally did some admirable things: He made pronouncements, impressive in the context of that era, in favor of racial equality; he commuted the wartime prison sentence of the Socialist leader, Eugene V. Debs. In these ways, he contributed to an atmosphere of national healing and civility.

    The brief Harding administration-and for that matter the eight years constituting his administration and that of his vice president and successor, Calvin Coolidge-may not have been times of surpassing national greatness. But there were real achievements, especially in the economic sphere; those years were not disastrous; they were not dark times.

    President-elect Donald J. Trump probably doesn't intend to model his administration on that of President Warren G. Harding. But he could do worse than reflect on that administration's successes-and also on its failures, particularly the scandals that exploded into public view after Harding's sudden death. These were produced by cronies appointed by Harding to important positions, where they betrayed his trust and tarnished his historical reputation.

    Donald Trump manifestly cares about his reputation. He surely knows that reputation ultimately depends on performance. If a Trump hotel and casino is successful, it's not because of the Trump brand-that may get people through the door the first time-but because it provides a worthwhile experience thanks to a good management team, fine restaurants, deft croupiers, and fun shows. If a Trump golf course succeeds, it's because it has been built and is run by people who know something about golf. The failed Trump efforts-from the university to the steaks-seem to have in common the assumption that the Trump name by itself would be enough to carry mediocre or worse enterprises across the finish line.

    To succeed in business, the brand only gets you so far. Quality matters. To succeed in the presidency, getting elected only gets you so far. Governing matters.

    It would be ironic if Trump's very personal electoral achievement were followed by a mode of governance that restored greater responsibility to the cabinet agencies formally entrusted with the duties of governance. It would be ironic if a Trump presidency also featured a return of authority to Congress, the states, and to other civic institutions. It would be ironic if Trump's victory led not to a kind of American Caesarism but to a strengthening of republican institutions and forms. It would be ironic if the election of Donald J. Trump heralded a return to a kind of constitutional normalcy.

    If we are not mistaken, it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (though sadly unaware of the phenomena of either Warren G. Harding or Donald J. Trump) who made much of the Irony of History.

    But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again.

    (Harding-Coolidge-Hoover were a disastrous triumvirate that ascended to power after the Taft & Wilson administrations, as the GOP - then the embodiment of progressivism - split apart due to the efforts of Teddy Roosevelt.)

    Peter K. -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that.
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 03:35 PM
    It is the neocon's taking a back seat!

    Kristol is co-founder of PNAC along with a Clinton mob long time foggy bottom associate's husband..

    Trump is somewhat less thrilled with tilting with Russia for the American empire which is as moral as Nero's Rome.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Prescient: dumping Kristol's PNAC will strengthen the republic.
    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 07:52 AM
    "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-ΰ-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism."

    Is it better to ignore this fault line and try to paper it over or is it better to debate the issues in a polite and congenial manner?

    Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump to revamp intelligence agencies: report

    I am actually surprised by the amount of Trump hating comments to this article.... What is so criminal in trying to reorganize two of 12 Us intelligence agencies. Which might become too bloated and deviate from their original purposes. Is not how restructuring is used in business world ? And the number of commenters blaclmpousing Putin and Russia create great alarm. Looks like the US MSM managed to brainwash the US population like in 50th during "Red Scare". Some comments looks like hate sessions from 1984.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 - Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors. ..."
    "... This use of propaganda on the American public effectively nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. ..."
    "... The NDAA in its current form allows the State Department and Pentagon to go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets to directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public. ..."
    "... They refused to brief Congress. They were never allowed to release their findings publicly, because they still haven't. They leaked their conclusions. All to attempt to undermine the stability of their own country. And you don't see this. ..."
    "... This is why Wikileaks exists. What the MSM can no longer deliver (the TRUTH and credible news), Wikileaks can deliver to the American people. ..."
    "... Are you claiming the US hasn't done all it can to destabilize and destroy Russia? ..."
    "... This blame Russia frenzy is a loser strategy. The sole purpose is to deligitimize Trump's victory. Can't wait for Trump to start firing a**es. ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | thehill.com

    "The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world [is] becoming completely politicized," an individual close to Trump's transition operation said. "They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring agencies and how they interact."
    Trump is targeting the CIA and the ODNI as he publicly wars with the U.S. intelligence community over its conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

    Trump wants to shrink the ODNI, as he believes the agency established in 2004 as a response to the 9/11 terror attacks has become bloated and politicized.

    Guest sikaniska • 2 hours ago
    Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 - Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors.

    The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 passed Congress as part of the NDAA 2013 on December 28, 2012.

    The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public http://www.businessinsider.com...

    This use of propaganda on the American public effectively nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion.

    The NDAA in its current form allows the State Department and Pentagon to go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets to directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public.

    But the US public learned quickly and they are not buying the misinformation anymore.

    hmg, Jr. • 4 hours ago
    is this the revelation due early this week that he promised us?
    JacksonEuler • 4 hours ago
    Trump knows better:

    1) Renewables:
    "I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth." - April 2016

    2) Social media
    "I understand social media. I understand the power
    of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost
    anybody, based on my results, right?" - November 2015

    3) Debt
    "Nobody knows more about debt. I'm like the king. I love debt." - May 2016

    4) Taxes, again
    "I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe
    in the history of the world. Nobody knows more about taxes." - May 2016

    I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has
    ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes
    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2016

    don Jody • 4 hours ago
    They refused to brief Congress. They were never allowed to release their findings publicly, because they still haven't. They leaked their conclusions. All to attempt to undermine the stability of their own country. And you don't see this.
    Guest • 2 hours ago

    This is why Wikileaks exists. What the MSM can no longer deliver (the TRUTH and credible news), Wikileaks can deliver to the American people.

    Trump University • 5 hours ago
    OBL caused 9/11 -- and it happened on Dubya's watch. He was expressly warned OBL wanted to do it -- and he laughed and let it happen.
    Vegas DB Pro Alex Cross • 4 hours ago
    Are you claiming the US hasn't done all it can to destabilize and destroy Russia?
    DoILookAmused2u ? Vegas DB Pro • 4 hours ago
    No, we haven't. Putin, United Russia, and his buddies in organized crime sure have though.
    Vegas DB Pro DoILookAmused2u ? • 4 hours ago
    Really? We've been interfering in theirs, and many other countries, affairs for decades, same as they've done to us. Learn some history, dummy.
    DoILookAmused2u ? Vegas DB Pro • 3 hours ago
    No, we haven't, and we didn't. In fact, his former boss -- Yeltsin -- hired Republican political consultants to help his campaign.

    Putin would like the world to believe that Russians fed up with bribery, extortion, the fall of the ruble, and the fact that their votes don't count rising up and protesting was about outside meddling, but it was internal.

    And he responded by making protests illegal, getting rid of the election of governors (he appoints them now), closing down critical reporting outlets, and some journalists were murdered.

    Uncle Keef Vegas DB Pro • 4 hours ago
    So? whose side are you on?
    Don't be like Trump. Stand with the U.S.
    Vegas DB Pro Uncle Keef • 4 hours ago
    You moron, I served the US for 20 years in the military, but facts are facts and we need to butt the he!! out of other countries business, and until we do, they will continue to come after us. How long were you in?
    Mohammad Izzaterd • 4 hours ago
    This blame Russia frenzy is a loser strategy. The sole purpose is to deligitimize Trump's victory. Can't wait for Trump to start firing a**es.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Both Clinton's are war mongering corporatists apologizing for banksters, same mold as Obama who is a better con artist than HRC!

    Jan 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. : January 05, 2017 at 07:42 AM , 2017 at 07:42 AM
    It's now democratic socialists versus progressive neoliberals.

    The progressive neoliberals have failed the world over.

    Hillary Clinton, a competent, knowledgeable establishment politician, lost to a laughable reality TV star clown.

    Think about it. Mull it over in your mind. It's hilarious how cocky and confident the neoliberals were throughout the election. It's amazing how wrong they were. Trump's victory is almost worth it. Not quite.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/26/we-are-not-denmark-hillary-clinton-and-liberal-american-exceptionalism

    Published on
    Friday, February 26, 2016
    by Common Dreams

    "We Are Not Denmark": Hillary Clinton and Liberal American Exceptionalism

    by Matthew Stanley

    Several months removed, it now seems clear that the Democratic debate on October 13 contained an illuminating moment that has come to embody the 2016 Democratic Primary and the key differences between its two candidates. Confronting Bernie Sanders's insistence that the United States has much to learn from more socialized nations, particularly the Nordic Model, Hillary Clinton was direct: "I love Denmark. But we are not Denmark. We are the United States of America."

    The implication behind this statement-the reasoning that ideas and institutions (in this case social and economic programs) that are successful in other nations are somehow practically or ideologically inconsistent with Americans and American principles-speaks to a longstanding sociopolitical framework that has justified everything from continental expansion to the Iraq War: American exceptionalism. Rooted in writings of Alexis de Tocqueville and the mythology of John Winthrop's "City Upon a Hill," the notion that the history and mission of the United States and the superiority of its political and economic traditions makes it impervious to same the forces that influence other peoples has coursed through Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address," the Cold War rhetoric of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and the foreign policy declarations of Barack Obama.

    espite particular historical trends-early and relatively stable political democracy, birthright citizenship, the absence of a feudal tradition, the relative weakness of class consciousness-historians have critiqued this "American exceptionalism" as far more fictive than physical, frequently citing the concept as a form of state mythology. Although different histories lead naturally to historical and perhaps even structural dissimilarities, America's twenty-first century "exceptions" appear as dubious distinctions: gun violence, carbon emissions, mass incarceration, wealth inequality, racial disparities, capital punishment, child poverty, and military spending.

    et even at a time when American exceptionalism has never been more challenged both by empirically-validated social and economic data and in public conversation, the concept continues to play an elemental role in our two-party political discourse. The Republican Party is, of course, awash with spurious, almost comically stupid dialogue about a mythic American past-"making America great again"-the racial and ethnic undertones of which are unmistakable. Those same Republicans have lambasted Obama and other high profile Democrats for not believing sufficiently in their brand of innate, transhistoric American supremacy.

    But this Americentrism is not the sole province of the GOP. We need look no further than bipartisan support for the military-industrial complex and the surveillance state to see that national exceptionalism, and its explicit double-standard toward other nations, resides comfortably within the Democratic Party as well. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa censured Obama's use of the term in the fall of 2013, with the latter likening it to the "chosen race" theories of Nazi Germany. Hyperbole notwithstanding, academics often do associate American exceptionalism with military conquest. It does, after all, have deep roots in the Manifest Destiny ethos that spurred the Mexican War, drove continental and trans-Pacific expansion, and emerged as a paternalistic justification for voluminous military interventions in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. As Dick Cheney suggests, "the world needs a powerful America." In this unilateral missionizing zeal Clinton proves most typical. As historian Michael Kazin argues in a recent piece for The Nation: "Hillary Clinton is best described as a liberal. Like every liberal president (and most failed Democratic nominees) since Wilson, she wants the United States to be the dominant power in the world, so she doesn't question the massive sums spent on the military and on the other branches of the national-security state."

    But Clinton's brand of American exceptionalism goes beyond the issue of American military dominion and into the policy potentials of mid-century social liberalism and, more specifically, the neoliberalism that has since replaced it. Indeed, since George McGovern's failed presidential bid of 1972, neoliberals, moving decidedly rightward on economic issues, have consistently employed exceptionalist code to fight off movements, ideas, and challengers from the left. The victims include leftist efforts toward both American demilitarization and the expansion of a "socialistic" welfare state. Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-ΰ-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism. It also revealed a more clandestine strain of American exceptionalism common among liberals and the Democratic Party elite in which "opportunity" serves as a stand-in for wider egalitarian reform. As Elizabeth Bruenig highlighted in The New Republic: "Since getting ahead on one's own grit is such a key part of the American narrative, it's easy to see how voters might be attracted to Clinton's opportunity-based answer to our social and economic woes, though it leaves the problem of inequality vastly under-addressed. Indeed, a kind of American exceptionalism does seem to underpin much opportunity-focused political rhetoric."

    This preference for insider politics (rather than mass movements involving direct action) and limited, means-tested social programs speaks to a broader truth about modern liberalism: it functions in a way that not only doesn't challenge the basic tenets of American exceptionalism, it often reinforces them. Whether vindicating war and torture and civil liberties violations, talking past the War on Drugs and the carceral state, or exhibiting coolness toward the type of popular protest seen during of Occupy Wall Street, with its direct attacks on a sort of American Sonderweg, establishment Democrats are adept at using a more "realistic" brand of Americentrism to consolidate power and anchor the party in the status quo. Now the 2016 Democratic Primary has seen progressive ideas including universal health care, tuition-free college, and a living minimum wage, all hallmarks of large swaths of the rest of the developed world, delegitimized through some mutation of liberal exceptionalist thinking. These broadminded reforms are apparently off limits, not because they are not good ideas (though opponents make that appraisal too), but because somehow their unachievability is exceptional to the United States.

    All this is not to exclude (despite his "democratic socialist" professions) Sanders's own milder brand of "America first," most evident in his economic nationalism, but to emphasize that American exceptionalism and the logical and practical dangers it poses exist in degrees across a spectrum of American politics. Whatever his nationalistic inclinations, Sanders's constant reiteration of America's need to learn from and adapt to the social, economic, and political models of other nations demonstrates an ethno-flexibility rarely seen in American major party politics. "Every other major country " might as well be his official campaign slogan. This bilateral outlook does not fit nearly as neatly within Clinton's traditional liberal paradigm that, from defenses of American war and empire to the, uses American exceptionalism tactically, dismissing its conservative adherents as nationalist overkill yet quietly exploiting the theory when politically or personally expeditious.

    In looking beyond our national shores and domestic origin-sources for fresh and functional policy, Sanders seems to grasp that, from the so-called "foreign influences" of the Republican free soil program or Robert La Follette's Wisconsin Idea or even Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, American high politics have been at their most morally creative and sweepingly influential not only when swayed by direct action and mass movements, but also when they are less impeded by the constraints of ethnocentrism and exceptionalism. The "We are not Denmark" sentiment might appear benign, lacking as it does the bluster of Republican claims to national supremacy and imaginary "golden age" pasts and what economist Thomas Picketty has termed a "mythical capitalism." But it is the "seriousness" and very gentility of liberal Americentrism that underscores the power, omnipresence, and intellectual poverty of cultural dismissal. "I still believe in American exceptionalism," Clinton has proclaimed in pushing for U.S. military escalation in Syria. Indeed she does, and it is by no means relegated to the sphere of foreign policy.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 07:52 AM
    "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-ΰ-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism."

    Is it better to ignore this fault line and try to paper it over or is it better to debate the issues in a polite and congenial manner?

    Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line.

    And then our Miss Manners Chris Lowrey complains about all sides.

    Dan Kervick -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 10:09 AM
    Yeah, that's good stuff.

    One thing about this website is that we don't have a "like" button. Since expressing simple agreement is not very interesting, most people don't do it and the interactions that do occur are critical. That creates the impression that people are more uniformly hostile to one another than they probably are.

    Chris G -> Dan Kervick... , January 05, 2017 at 04:07 PM
    +1

    ;-)

    ilsm -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 02:19 PM
    Both Clinton's are war mongering corporatists apologizing for banksters, same mold as Obama who is a better con artist than HRC!

    That democrats are "soft" on the war trough is false news since 1960. But a good scam to get pro abortion faux liberals to support the war machine's trough.

    Funding planned parenthood does not make war criminals liberal.

    [Jan 04, 2017] The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash

    Jan 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> Dan Kervick... January 04, 2017 at 11:14 AM

    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stages-of-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition/

    January 21, 2016

    The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition
    By Glenn Greenwald

    The British political and media establishment incrementally lost its collective mind over the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the country's Labour Party, and its unraveling and implosion show no signs of receding yet. Bernie Sanders is nowhere near as radical as Corbyn; they are not even in the same universe. But, especially on economic issues, Sanders is a more fundamental, systemic critic than the oligarchical power centers are willing to tolerate, and his rejection of corporate dominance over politics, and corporate support for his campaigns, is particularly menacing. He is thus regarded as America's version of a far-left extremist, threatening establishment power.

    For those who observed the unfolding of the British reaction to Corbyn's victory, it's been fascinating to watch the D.C./Democratic establishment's reaction to Sanders' emergence replicate that, reading from the same script. I personally think Clinton's nomination is extremely likely, but evidence of a growing Sanders movement is unmistakable. Because of the broader trends driving it, this is clearly unsettling to establishment Democrats - as it should be.

    A poll last week found that Sanders has a large lead with millennial voters, including young women; as Rolling Stone put it: "Young female voters support Bernie Sanders by an expansive margin." The New York Times yesterday trumpeted that, in New Hampshire, Sanders "has jumped out to a 27 percentage point lead," which is "stunning by New Hampshire standards." The Wall Street Journal yesterday, in an editorial titled "Taking Sanders Seriously," declared it is "no longer impossible to imagine the 74-year-old socialist as the Democratic nominee."

    Just as was true for Corbyn, there is a direct correlation between the strength of Sanders and the intensity of the bitter and ugly attacks unleashed at him by the D.C. and Democratic political and media establishment. There were, roughly speaking, seven stages to this establishment revolt in the U.K. against Corbyn, and the U.S. reaction to Sanders is closely following the same script:

    Britain is well into Stage 7, and may even invent a whole new level (anonymous British military officials expressly threatened a "mutiny" if Corbyn were democratically elected as prime minister). The Democratic media and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and is now entering Stage 6. The arrival of Stage 7 is guaranteed if Sanders wins Iowa.

    It's both expected and legitimate in elections for the campaigns to harshly criticize one another. There's nothing wrong with that; we should all want contrasts drawn, and it's hardly surprising that this will be done with aggression and acrimony. People go to extremes to acquire power: That's just human nature.

    But that doesn't mean one can't find meaning in the specific attacks that are chosen, nor does it mean that the attacks invoked are immune from critique (the crass, cynical exploitation of gender issues by Clinton supporters to imply Sanders support is grounded in sexism was particularly slimy and dishonest given that the same left-wing factions that support Sanders spent months literally pleading with Elizabeth Warren to challenge Clinton, to say nothing of the large numbers of female Sanders supporters whose existence was nullified by those attacks).

    People in both parties, and across the political spectrum, are disgusted by the bipartisan D.C. establishment. It's hardly mysterious why large numbers of adults in the U.S. want to find an alternative to a candidate like Clinton who is drowning both politically and personally in Wall Street money, who seems unable to find a war she dislikes, and whose only political conviction seems to be that anything is justifiably said or done to secure her empowerment - just as it was hardly a mystery why adults in the U.K. were desperate to find an alternative to the craven, war-loving, left-hating Blairites who have enormous amounts of blood stained indelibly on their hands.

    But the nature of "establishments" is that they cling desperately to power, and will attack anyone who defies or challenges that power with unrestrained fervor. That's what we saw in the U.K. with the emergence of Corbyn, and what we're seeing now with the threat posed by Sanders. It's not surprising that the attacks in both cases are similar - the dynamic of establishment prerogative is the same - but it's nonetheless striking how identical is the script used in both cases.

    Reply Wednesday, January 04, 2017 at 11:14 AM anne -> Dan Kervick... , January 04, 2017 at 11:31 AM
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bill-clinton-jeremy-corbyn-maddest-person-speech-wikileaks-hack-a7404641.html

    November 8, 2016

    Bill Clinton branded Jeremy Corbyn 'maddest person in the room', leaked speech reveals
    By Joe Watts

    Bill Clinton branded Labour's Jeremy Corbyn the "maddest person in the room" in a speech he gave explaining the resurgence of left-wing politics in Europe and America.

    Documents released by Wikileaks show the former President joked that when Mr Corbyn won his leadership contest, it appeared Labour had just "got a guy off the street" to run the party.

    He compared Mr Corbyn's rise to the success of Alexis Tsipras in Greece and Bernie Sanders in US primaries.

    In one section of the speech, Mr Clinton said Labour had disposed of one potentially successful leader, David Miliband, because they were "mad at him for being part of Tony Blair's government in the Iraq War".

    He went on: "They moved to the left and put his brother in as leader because the British labor movement wanted it.

    "When David Cameron thumped him in the election, they reached the interesting conclusion that they lost because they hadn't moved far left enough, and so they went out and practically got a guy off the street to be the leader of the British Labor Party [sic]."

    Mr Clinton added: "But what that is reflective of – the same thing happened in the Greek election – when people feel they've been shafted and they don't expect anything to happen anyway, they just want the maddest person in the room to represent them." ...

    [Jan 04, 2017] The Machiavellian humanism of Us neocons

    Jan 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc -> JF... , January 03, 2017 at 11:35 AM
    It is obvious to me at least that PE Trump will force immediate detente with Russia, weaken NATO, and substitute China as the bogey man to prepare to battle, economically, politically, and militarily.

    Watch for it.

    Of course, that also entails tossing US Allies in Europe under the bus b/c Putin wants more influence and control over nations on his borders than the USA and NATO have allowed following the break up of the USSR both economically and militarily.

    Not so sure how the experienced foreign policy Hawks, mostly retired Generals, will go along with letting Putin's Russia out of NATO's cage.

    Should be interesting if Trump gets them to go along with is plans to free Putin and make him and Russia friends with the US again.

    sanjait -> im1dc... , January 03, 2017 at 12:11 PM
    Pork for defense contractors and WWC workers with little or no legitimate defense value ... sounds like the kind of thing Trump will support enthusiastically.
    ilsm -> sanjait... , January 03, 2017 at 06:27 PM
    Did you lose any sleep the past week?

    There was not one US navy carrier on 'patrol' anywhere for the past week.

    Littoral Combat Ships are useless too small too little keel, and no good in open water.

    The CVN 78 is a dinosaur...........

    Look how those CV/CVN's did off Vietnam for 7 years!

    ilsm -> ilsm... , -1
    The faux 'threats' must have decided to be nice to the empire:

    "For the next week, not only will there be no U.S. Navy aircraft
    carrier in the Middle East, but there will be no American aircraft
    carriers deployed at sea anywhere else in the world, despite a host

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/30/no-us-carrier-at-sea-leaves-gap-in-middle-east.html

    [Jan 03, 2017] Propaganda and Disinformation on Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Aleppo, a city of about 3 million people, was once the financial heart of Syria. As it continues to deteriorate, many civilians here are losing patience with the increasingly violent and unrecognizable opposition - one that is hampered by infighting and a lack of structure, and deeply infiltrated by both foreign fighters and terrorist groups. The rebels in Aleppo are predominantly from the countryside, further alienating them from the urban crowd that once lived here peacefully, in relative economic comfort and with little interference from the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad." ..."
    "... The Snopes' investigation criticizing Bartlett was superficial and ignored the broader issues of accuracy and integrity in the Western media's depiction of the Syrian conflict. Instead the article appeared to be an effort to discredit the eyewitness observations and analysis of a journalist who dared challenge the mainstream narrative. ..."
    "... The enactment of HR5181, "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation," suggests that the ruling powers seek to escalate suppression of news and analyses that run counter to the official narrative. Backed by a new infusion of $160 million, the plan is to further squelch skeptical voices with operation for "countering" and "refuting" what the U.S. government deems to be propaganda and disinformation. ..."
    Jan 03, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Syria is a good case study in the modern application of information warfare. In her memoir Hard Choices , former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote that the U.S. provided "support for (Syrian) civilian opposition groups, including satellite-linked computers, telephones, cameras, and training for more than a thousand activists, students and independent journalists."

    A heart-rending propaganda image designed to justify a major U.S. military operation inside Syria against the Syrian military.

    Indeed, a huge amount of money has gone to "activists" and "civil society" groups in Syria and other countries that have been targeted for "regime change." A lot of the money also goes to parent organizations that are based in the United States and Europe, so these efforts do not only support on-the-ground efforts to undermine the targeted countries, but perhaps even more importantly, the money influences and manipulates public opinion in the West.

    In North America, representatives from the Syrian "Local Coordination Committees" (LCC) were frequent guests on popular media programs such as "DemocracyNow." The message was clear: there is a "revolution" in Syria against a "brutal regime" personified in Bashar al-Assad. It was not mentioned that the "Local Coordination Committees" have been primarily funded by the West, specifically the Office for Syrian Opposition Support, which was founded by the U.S. State Department and the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

    More recently, news and analysis about Syria has been conveyed through the filter of the White Helmets, also known as Syrian Civil Defense. In the Western news media, the White Helmets are described as neutral, non-partisan, civilian volunteers courageously carrying out rescue work in the war zone. In fact, the group is none of the above. It was initiated by the U.S. and U.K. using a British military contractor and Brooklyn-based marketing company.

    While they may have performed some genuine rescue operations, the White Helmets are primarily a media organization with a political goal: to promote NATO intervention in Syria. (The manipulation of public opinion using the White Helmets and promoted by the New York Times and Avaaz petition for a "No Fly Zone" in Syria is documented here. )

    The White Helmets hoax continues to be widely believed and receives uncritical promotion though it has increasingly been exposed at alternative media outlets as the creation of a "shady PR firm ." During critical times in the conflict in Aleppo, White Helmet individuals have been used as the source for important news stories despite a track record of deception.

    Recent Propaganda: Blatant Lies?

    As the armed groups in east Aleppo recently lost ground and then collapsed, Western governments and allied media went into a frenzy of accusations against Syria and Russia based on reports from sources connected with the armed opposition. CNN host Wolf Blitzer described Aleppo as "falling" in a "slaughter of these women and children" while CNN host Jake Tapper referred to "genocide by another name."

    War damage in the once-thriving Syrian city of Aleppo.

    The Daily Beast published the claims of the Aleppo Siege Media Center under the title "Doomsday is held in Aleppo" and amid accusations that the Syrian army was executing civilians, burning them alive and "20 women committed suicide in order not to be raped." These sensational claims were widely broadcast without verification. However, this "news" on CNN and throughout Western media came from highly biased sources and many of the claims – lacking anything approaching independent corroboration – could be accurately described as propaganda and disinformation.

    Ironically, some of the supposedly "Russian propaganda" sites, such as RT, have provided first-hand on-the-ground reporting from the war zones with verifiable information that contradicts the Western narrative and thus has received almost no attention in the U.S. news media. For instance, some of these non-Western outlets have shown videos of popular celebrations over the "liberation of Aleppo."

    There has been further corroboration of these realities from peace activists, such as Jan Oberg of Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research who published a photo essay of his eyewitness observations in Aleppo including the happiness of civilians from east Aleppo reaching the government-controlled areas of west Aleppo, finally freed from areas that had been controlled by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate and its jihadist allies in Ahrar al-Sham.

    Dr. Nabil Antaki, a medical doctor from Aleppo, described the liberation of Aleppo in an interview titled "Aleppo is Celebrating, Free from Terrorists, the Western Media Misinformed." The first Christmas celebrations in Aleppo in four years are shown here, replete with marching band members in Santa Claus outfits. Journalist Vanessa Beeley has published testimonies of civilians from east Aleppo. The happiness of civilians at their liberation is clear.

    Whether or not you wish to accept these depictions of the reality in Aleppo, at a minimum, they reflect another side of the story that you have been denied while being persistently force-fed the version favored by the U.S. State Department. The goal of the new Global Engagement Center to counter "foreign propaganda" is to ensure that you never get to hear this alternative narrative to the Western propaganda line.

    Even much earlier, contrary to the Western mythology of rebel "liberated zones," there was strong evidence that the armed groups were never popular in Aleppo. American journalist James Foley described the situation in 2012 like this :

    Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative.

    "Aleppo, a city of about 3 million people, was once the financial heart of Syria. As it continues to deteriorate, many civilians here are losing patience with the increasingly violent and unrecognizable opposition - one that is hampered by infighting and a lack of structure, and deeply infiltrated by both foreign fighters and terrorist groups. The rebels in Aleppo are predominantly from the countryside, further alienating them from the urban crowd that once lived here peacefully, in relative economic comfort and with little interference from the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad."

    On Nov. 22, 2012, Foley was kidnapped in northwestern Syria and held by Islamic State terrorists before his beheading in August 2014.

    The Overall Narrative on Syria

    Analysis of the Syrian conflict boils down to two competing narratives. One narrative is that the conflict is a fight for freedom and democracy against a brutal regime, a storyline promoted in the West and the Gulf states, which have been fueling the conflict from the start . This narrative is also favored by some self-styled "anti-imperialists" who want a "Syrian revolution."

    The other narrative is that the conflict is essentially a war of aggression against a sovereign state, with the aggressors including NATO countries, Gulf monarchies, Israel and Jordan. Domination of the Western media by these powerful interests is so thorough that one almost never gets access to this second narrative, which is essentially banned from not only the mainstream but also much of the liberal and progressive media.

    For example, listeners and viewers of the generally progressive TV and radio program "DemocracyNow" have rarely if ever heard the second narrative described in any detail. Instead, the program frequently broadcasts the statements of Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power and others associated with the U.S. position. Rarely do you hear the viewpoint of the Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations, the Syrian Foreign Minister or analysts inside Syria and around the world who have written about and follow events there closely.

    "DemocracyNow" also has done repeated interviews with proponents of the "Syrian revolution" while ignoring analysts who call the conflict a war of aggression sponsored by the West and the Gulf monarchies. This blackout of the second narrative continues despite the fact that many prominent international figures see it as such. For example, the former Foreign Minister of Nicaragua and former President of the UN General Assembly, Father Miguel D'Escoto, has said, "What the U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which, according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State can commit against another State."

    In many areas of politics, "DemocracyNow" is excellent and challenges mainstream media. However in this area, coverage of the Syrian conflict, the broadcast is biased, one-sided and echoes the news and analysis of mainstream Western corporate media, showing the extent of control over foreign policy news that already exists in the United States and Europe.

    Suppressing and Censoring Challenges

    Despite the widespread censorship of alternative analyses on Syria and other foreign hotspots that already exists in the West, the U.S. government's new "Global Engagement Center" will seek to ensure that the censorship is even more complete with its goal to "counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation." We can expect even more aggressive and better-financed assaults on the few voices daring to challenge the West's "group thinks" – smear campaigns that are already quite extensive.

    The "White Helmets" symbol, expropriating the name of "Syria Civil Defense."

    In an article titled "Controlling the Narrative on Syria" , Louis Allday describes the criticisms and attacks on journalists Rania Khalek and Max Blumenthal for straying from the "approved" Western narrative on Syria. Some of the bullying and abuse has come from precisely those people, such as Robin Yassin-Kassab, who have been frequent guests in liberal Western media.

    Reporters who have returned from Syria with accounts that challenge the propaganda themes that have permeated the Western media also have come under attack. For instance, Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett recently returned to North America after being in Syria and Aleppo, conveying a very different image and critical of the West's biased media coverage. Bartlett appeared at a United Nations press conference and then did numerous interviews across the country during a speaking tour. During the course of her talks and presentation, Bartlett criticized the White Helmets and questioned whether it was true that Al Quds Hospital in opposition-held East Aleppo was attacked and destroyed as claimed.

    Bartlett's recounting of this information made her a target of Snopes, which has been a mostly useful website exposing urban legends and false rumors but has come under criticism itself for some internal challenges and has been inconsistent in its investigations. In one report entitled " White Helmet Hearsay," Snopes' writer Bethania Palmer says claims the White Helmets are "linked to terrorists" is "unproven," but she overlooks numerous videos , photos, and other reports showing White Helmet members celebrating a Nusra/Al Qaeda battle victory, picking up the bodies of civilians executed by a Nusra executioner, and having a member who alternatively appears as a rebel/terrorist fighter with a weapon and later wearing a White Helmet uniform. The "fact check" barely scrapes the surface of public evidence.

    The same writer did another shallow "investigation" titled "victim blaming" regarding Bartlett's critique of White Helmet videos and what happened at the Al Quds Hospital in Aleppo. Bartlett suggests that some White Helmet videos may be fabricated and may feature the same child at different times, i.e., photographs that appear to show the same girl being rescued by White Helmet workers at different places and times. While it is uncertain whether this is the same girl, the similarity is clear.

    The Snopes writer goes on to criticize Bartlett for her comments about the reported bombing of Al Quds Hospital in east Aleppo in April 2016. A statement at the website of Doctors Without Borders says the building was "destroyed and reduced to rubble," but this was clearly false since photos show the building with unclear damage. Five months later, the September 2016 report by Doctors Without Borders says the top two floors of the building were destroyed and the ground floor Emergency Room damaged yet they re-opened in two weeks.

    The many inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of Doctors Without Borders resulted in an open letter to them. In their last report, Doctors Without Borders (known by its French initials, MSF) acknowledges that "MSF staff did not directly witness the attack and has not visited Al Quds Hospital since 2014."

    Bartlett referenced satellite images taken before and after the reported attack on the hospital. The images do not show severe damage and it is unclear whether or not there is any damage to the roof, the basis for Bartlett's statement. In the past week, independent journalists have visited the scene of Al Quds Hospital and report that that the top floors of the building are still there and damage is unclear.

    The Snopes' investigation criticizing Bartlett was superficial and ignored the broader issues of accuracy and integrity in the Western media's depiction of the Syrian conflict. Instead the article appeared to be an effort to discredit the eyewitness observations and analysis of a journalist who dared challenge the mainstream narrative.

    U.S. propaganda and disinformation on Syria has been extremely effective in misleading much of the American population. Thus, most Americans are unaware how many billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on yet another "regime change" project. The propaganda campaign – having learned from the successful demonizations of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and other targeted leaders – has been so masterful regarding Syria that many liberal and progressive news outlets were pulled in. It has been left to RT and some Internet outlets to challenge the U.S. government and the mainstream media.

    But the U.S. government's near total control of the message doesn't appear to be enough. Apparently even a few voices of dissent are a few voices too many.

    The enactment of HR5181, "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation," suggests that the ruling powers seek to escalate suppression of news and analyses that run counter to the official narrative. Backed by a new infusion of $160 million, the plan is to further squelch skeptical voices with operation for "countering" and "refuting" what the U.S. government deems to be propaganda and disinformation.

    As part of the $160 million package, funds can be used to hire or reward "civil society groups, media content providers, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and development centers, private companies, or academic institutions."

    Among the tasks that these private entities can be hired to perform is to identify and investigate both print and online sources of news that are deemed to be distributing "disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda directed at the United States and its allies and partners."

    In other words, we are about to see an escalation of the information war.

    Rick Sterling is an independent investigative journalist. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area and can be reached at [email protected]

    [Jan 02, 2017] The Same Idiots Who Pushed the Iraq War Are Now Stirring Up Hysteria About Russia

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    The propaganda about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was one of the most blatant examples of "fake news" in American history.

    Now, many of the same idiots who pushed the Iraq war lies are stirring up hysteria about Russia.

    For example, the Washington Post's editorial page editor Fred Hiatt cheerleaded for the Iraq war. Now, the Washington Post under Hiatt's leadership has been the main source of the most breathless anti-Russian hysteria .

    ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd – chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney '04 presidential campaign – was a big booster for the Iraq war. Now, Dowd Tweets that you're only a patriot if you blindly accept what President Obama and the intelligence services claim without any proof.

    George W. Bush's speechwriter David Frum – who pushed many of the biggest lies about the Iraq war – is now trying to ridicule anyone who doesn't accept the evidence-less claims that Russia hacked the Democratic party as a Kremlin stooge.

    Similarly, Jonathan Chait championed the Iraq war. And now he's ridiculing those asking for evidence before jumping headlong into anti-Russia hysteria.

    These guys all have a track record of pushing false stories which get us into disastrous wars why should we listen to them now?

    CRM114 •Jan 2, 2017 12:27 PM

    I was at the sharp end of the Cold War, defending against a REAL Soviet threat. I am well acquainted with psyops and insidious means of destabilizing a state.

    The idea that Russia is behind this is just total BS.

    Any attack on this supposed scale produces evidence, and whilst much of it cannot be directly revealed (to protect sources), there would be quite sufficient to be presented, if it existed. It doesn't.

    And whilst we are at it, the arguments for the Invasion of Iraq were BS also, and that was clear to many in the military despite being cheerled by the MSM.

    ronaldwilsonreagan , Jan 2, 2017 12:09 PM
    There is much at stake for the Neo-cons, they will not give up easy. I would consider them armed and dangerous.
    scraping_by ronaldwilsonreagan , Jan 2, 2017 12:58 PM
    There's no cost involved. They are advisors and propagandists nputting ideas into the heads of people with real authority. If they had to repay the price others paid for their slogans, or even more, had to put on BDUs and go put them into action, we'd hear a lot less of them.
    Xena fobe , Jan 2, 2017 11:37 AM
    Almost all comments on MSM are anti Russia. These comments are at a higher level of writing and intellect than the typical SJW post. Someone is financing this social media campaign. People aren't stupid but we do have a herd mentality. If everyone around me believes X, they must be correct, right. Thank God for ZH.
    Northern Flicker , Jan 2, 2017 11:15 AM
    The ziocons are pissed, they had Russia all wrapped for the NWO 10 years ago and blew it. Now they want it back to finish their plans and are willing to sacrifice the rest of us for it.
    iAmerican3 Northern Flicker , Jan 2, 2017 11:18 AM
    Ziocons are just fronting the Roman Anti-Christ, just as their Khazar ancestors were doing the actual hammering of the impalement stake up through the Body of Our Lord on Golgotha.

    The "good cop/bad cop" satanic psychopathy's got it going on for thousands of years: the Seventh Head of the Beast.

    Time for the Beast to be cast down as the Apocalypse is already upon True Israel, America, but to Satan's liars and pedophile homosexuals. #Pizzagate

    pine_marten , Jan 2, 2017 10:39 AM
    Let's compile a list of Hillary supporting, MIC shill, G.O.P. turncoats:

    Paul Ryan

    John McCain

    Lindsey Graham

    scraping_by , Jan 2, 2017 10:33 AM
    Ah, yes. Stupid, crazy, or evil.

    Stupid is the usual fallback position, as in How Could We Have Been So Wrong? Good-hearted by soft-headed. We all make mistakes, don't we?

    Crazy is out there, even after all these years, seeing Commies under every bed. Spy movies tell the honest truth.

    Evil is pretty much everything else. Simply taking it as a position to be promoted is, in the end, the same thing as thinking up the lies. Thinking of it as just a move in a game. Enjoying chaos for its own sake.

    Stupid, crazy, or evil.

    YHC-FTSE , Jan 2, 2017 9:57 AM
    There's a website called "Right Web" that purports to track militarists' efforts to influence US foreign policy and it's another resource to do research on individuals ( http://rightweb.irc-online.org )

    The Council on Foreign Relations, with notable exceptions, is a who's who of neocon zionist warmongers, a list of movers and shakers of every war and crime against humanity. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Council_on_Foreign_Relations )

    So, let's see who these liars, psychopaths and criminals mentioned are:

  • Fred Hiatt - Ashkenazi Jew - Member of the Council on Foreign Relations
  • Matthew Dowd - divorced Catholic - Useful minion of both neocons, neolibs, anyone in power. CFR guest speaker. Pundit on supporting Israel.
  • David Frum - Jewish - Editor of Atlantic, contributor to CFR, Board member of Republican Jewish Coalition, coined the term "Axis of Evil" for G.W.Bush
  • Jonathan Chait - Jewish - Writer for New York Magazine, on CFR website "Must read list", recently called for the assassination of Donald Trump.

  • ~ DC v4.0
    MrBoompi DuneCreature , Jan 2, 2017 11:43 AM
    They use the same old lies because they work.

    ====

    They do work. Most of the population ignores all of this. Many who attempt to pay attention believe the government lies. That leaves the rest of us who believe the government and their media mouthpieces are full of shit. The lies work on us too, in the sense that even if they know we know they're full of shit, what the fuck can we do about it? They are at the point where they truly believe they can get away with anything.

    Reaper , Jan 2, 2017 9:14 AM
    The Russian hacking is a fallacious argument appealing to an authority. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/ Worse, the specific person of the authority is not identified. Worse, the authority is known as a purveyor of lies.

    The Exceptionals believe an exceptionally fallacious argument?

    SmallerGovNow2 , Jan 2, 2017 8:33 AM
    Why indeed? Like John McStain and Lefty Lindsey who were out this weekend calling for even tougher sanctions on Russia. War mongering neocons...
    HowdyDoody SmallerGovNow2 , Jan 2, 2017 9:41 AM
    Dont forget (((Adam Schiff))). He's up for more sanctions as well.
    overmedicatedun... , Jan 2, 2017 8:28 AM
    thanks GW..these idiots (clever and smart as they are)..see a NWO bankster run one world .gov..and Trump USA with Russia..is a big threat to that..Putin and Trump can see this as well as anyone of us..what they do about it? in the old days hang em high..traitors to the constitution deserve harsh ends. Justice has been denied far far too long..
    VideoEng_NC , Jan 2, 2017 7:52 AM
    Let me see if I have this visual correct, A bunch of former W staff folks are promoting fake news so that 0bama can maintain his "...it's the Russians!" narrative. All I need to see now is 0bama pointing at their propaganda for one more, "...see?!...but Bush!" to close out his "legacy" as president.
    Taint Boil , Jan 2, 2017 7:48 AM

    I'm perplexed about all the focus on the hacked / leaked emails by the "Russians" but not a peep about what's in the emails. Not one word (that I know of) about how the information is not true, faked or doctored. So, the only thing the email leak did was expose the truth about a group.

    Just can't make this shit up. That is like being outraged because a pedophile has been exposed by some email leak. What is wrong with exposing the truth? This isn't a group that that is entitled to privacy and no scrutiny like a regular citizen if anything they should be subject to scrutiny with all their public affairs; what they do in private is a different story.

    Ask yourself why are they so upset – for exposing their real colors and the truth? Too funny.

    SmallerGovNow2 Taint Boil , Jan 2, 2017 8:41 AM
    Blatant cover up of the democratic parties manipulation of the primary process...
    jeff montanye Taint Boil , Jan 2, 2017 8:08 AM
    well one reason the legacy media is outraged is it makes even more apparent how little investigative journalism is being done by them on their slowly clocking out watch.

    they are just better at stenography done in really nice restaurants and at taking sides: it pays better and it's more fun.

    scraping_by jeff montanye , Jan 2, 2017 12:11 PM
    And don't forget covering up real stories. Their silence is golden.
    Bay Area Guy nah , Jan 2, 2017 9:50 AM
    I can't quite recall. Was it Russia that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine and replaced it with a government led, in large part, by NAZIS?

    Oh, now I remember. No. No, it wasn't Russia that did that. That was the good old USA.

    InTylerWeTrust , Jan 1, 2017 8:39 PM
    Let's not forget John "Bombs Away" Bolton. That bimbo eruption and his moustache can't wait to start the next war for the glory of Pax Americana.
    Mandel Bot InTylerWeTrust , Jan 2, 2017 8:22 AM
    Calling these people 'idiots' is being too kind.

    They are traitorous warmongers.

    xavi1951 Mandel Bot , Jan 2, 2017 10:35 AM
    You left out the CIA It was the CIA that started both lies.
    jeff montanye InTylerWeTrust , Jan 2, 2017 8:01 AM
    it is not for pax americana it is for Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah, greater or entire israel.

    [Jan 02, 2017] The Same Idiots Who Pushed the Iraq War Are Now Stirring Up Hysteria About Russia

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    The propaganda about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was one of the most blatant examples of "fake news" in American history.

    Now, many of the same idiots who pushed the Iraq war lies are stirring up hysteria about Russia.

    For example, the Washington Post's editorial page editor Fred Hiatt cheerleaded for the Iraq war. Now, the Washington Post under Hiatt's leadership has been the main source of the most breathless anti-Russian hysteria .

    ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd – chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney '04 presidential campaign – was a big booster for the Iraq war. Now, Dowd Tweets that you're only a patriot if you blindly accept what President Obama and the intelligence services claim without any proof.

    George W. Bush's speechwriter David Frum – who pushed many of the biggest lies about the Iraq war – is now trying to ridicule anyone who doesn't accept the evidence-less claims that Russia hacked the Democratic party as a Kremlin stooge.

    Similarly, Jonathan Chait championed the Iraq war. And now he's ridiculing those asking for evidence before jumping headlong into anti-Russia hysteria.

    These guys all have a track record of pushing false stories which get us into disastrous wars why should we listen to them now?

    CRM114 •Jan 2, 2017 12:27 PM

    I was at the sharp end of the Cold War, defending against a REAL Soviet threat. I am well acquainted with psyops and insidious means of destabilizing a state.

    The idea that Russia is behind this is just total BS.

    Any attack on this supposed scale produces evidence, and whilst much of it cannot be directly revealed (to protect sources), there would be quite sufficient to be presented, if it existed. It doesn't.

    And whilst we are at it, the arguments for the Invasion of Iraq were BS also, and that was clear to many in the military despite being cheerled by the MSM.

    ronaldwilsonreagan , Jan 2, 2017 12:09 PM
    There is much at stake for the Neo-cons, they will not give up easy. I would consider them armed and dangerous.
    scraping_by ronaldwilsonreagan , Jan 2, 2017 12:58 PM
    There's no cost involved. They are advisors and propagandists nputting ideas into the heads of people with real authority. If they had to repay the price others paid for their slogans, or even more, had to put on BDUs and go put them into action, we'd hear a lot less of them.
    Xena fobe , Jan 2, 2017 11:37 AM
    Almost all comments on MSM are anti Russia. These comments are at a higher level of writing and intellect than the typical SJW post. Someone is financing this social media campaign. People aren't stupid but we do have a herd mentality. If everyone around me believes X, they must be correct, right. Thank God for ZH.
    Northern Flicker , Jan 2, 2017 11:15 AM
    The ziocons are pissed, they had Russia all wrapped for the NWO 10 years ago and blew it. Now they want it back to finish their plans and are willing to sacrifice the rest of us for it.
    iAmerican3 Northern Flicker , Jan 2, 2017 11:18 AM
    Ziocons are just fronting the Roman Anti-Christ, just as their Khazar ancestors were doing the actual hammering of the impalement stake up through the Body of Our Lord on Golgotha.

    The "good cop/bad cop" satanic psychopathy's got it going on for thousands of years: the Seventh Head of the Beast.

    Time for the Beast to be cast down as the Apocalypse is already upon True Israel, America, but to Satan's liars and pedophile homosexuals. #Pizzagate

    pine_marten , Jan 2, 2017 10:39 AM
    Let's compile a list of Hillary supporting, MIC shill, G.O.P. turncoats:

    Paul Ryan

    John McCain

    Lindsey Graham

    scraping_by , Jan 2, 2017 10:33 AM
    Ah, yes. Stupid, crazy, or evil.

    Stupid is the usual fallback position, as in How Could We Have Been So Wrong? Good-hearted by soft-headed. We all make mistakes, don't we?

    Crazy is out there, even after all these years, seeing Commies under every bed. Spy movies tell the honest truth.

    Evil is pretty much everything else. Simply taking it as a position to be promoted is, in the end, the same thing as thinking up the lies. Thinking of it as just a move in a game. Enjoying chaos for its own sake.

    Stupid, crazy, or evil.

    YHC-FTSE , Jan 2, 2017 9:57 AM
    There's a website called "Right Web" that purports to track militarists' efforts to influence US foreign policy and it's another resource to do research on individuals ( http://rightweb.irc-online.org )

    The Council on Foreign Relations, with notable exceptions, is a who's who of neocon zionist warmongers, a list of movers and shakers of every war and crime against humanity. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Council_on_Foreign_Relations )

    So, let's see who these liars, psychopaths and criminals mentioned are:

  • Fred Hiatt - Ashkenazi Jew - Member of the Council on Foreign Relations
  • Matthew Dowd - divorced Catholic - Useful minion of both neocons, neolibs, anyone in power. CFR guest speaker. Pundit on supporting Israel.
  • David Frum - Jewish - Editor of Atlantic, contributor to CFR, Board member of Republican Jewish Coalition, coined the term "Axis of Evil" for G.W.Bush
  • Jonathan Chait - Jewish - Writer for New York Magazine, on CFR website "Must read list", recently called for the assassination of Donald Trump.

  • ~ DC v4.0
    MrBoompi DuneCreature , Jan 2, 2017 11:43 AM
    They use the same old lies because they work.

    ====

    They do work. Most of the population ignores all of this. Many who attempt to pay attention believe the government lies. That leaves the rest of us who believe the government and their media mouthpieces are full of shit. The lies work on us too, in the sense that even if they know we know they're full of shit, what the fuck can we do about it? They are at the point where they truly believe they can get away with anything.

    Reaper , Jan 2, 2017 9:14 AM
    The Russian hacking is a fallacious argument appealing to an authority. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/ Worse, the specific person of the authority is not identified. Worse, the authority is known as a purveyor of lies.

    The Exceptionals believe an exceptionally fallacious argument?

    SmallerGovNow2 , Jan 2, 2017 8:33 AM
    Why indeed? Like John McStain and Lefty Lindsey who were out this weekend calling for even tougher sanctions on Russia. War mongering neocons...
    HowdyDoody SmallerGovNow2 , Jan 2, 2017 9:41 AM
    Dont forget (((Adam Schiff))). He's up for more sanctions as well.
    overmedicatedun... , Jan 2, 2017 8:28 AM
    thanks GW..these idiots (clever and smart as they are)..see a NWO bankster run one world .gov..and Trump USA with Russia..is a big threat to that..Putin and Trump can see this as well as anyone of us..what they do about it? in the old days hang em high..traitors to the constitution deserve harsh ends. Justice has been denied far far too long..
    VideoEng_NC , Jan 2, 2017 7:52 AM
    Let me see if I have this visual correct, A bunch of former W staff folks are promoting fake news so that 0bama can maintain his "...it's the Russians!" narrative. All I need to see now is 0bama pointing at their propaganda for one more, "...see?!...but Bush!" to close out his "legacy" as president.
    Taint Boil , Jan 2, 2017 7:48 AM

    I'm perplexed about all the focus on the hacked / leaked emails by the "Russians" but not a peep about what's in the emails. Not one word (that I know of) about how the information is not true, faked or doctored. So, the only thing the email leak did was expose the truth about a group.

    Just can't make this shit up. That is like being outraged because a pedophile has been exposed by some email leak. What is wrong with exposing the truth? This isn't a group that that is entitled to privacy and no scrutiny like a regular citizen if anything they should be subject to scrutiny with all their public affairs; what they do in private is a different story.

    Ask yourself why are they so upset – for exposing their real colors and the truth? Too funny.

    SmallerGovNow2 Taint Boil , Jan 2, 2017 8:41 AM
    Blatant cover up of the democratic parties manipulation of the primary process...
    jeff montanye Taint Boil , Jan 2, 2017 8:08 AM
    well one reason the legacy media is outraged is it makes even more apparent how little investigative journalism is being done by them on their slowly clocking out watch.

    they are just better at stenography done in really nice restaurants and at taking sides: it pays better and it's more fun.

    scraping_by jeff montanye , Jan 2, 2017 12:11 PM
    And don't forget covering up real stories. Their silence is golden.
    Bay Area Guy nah , Jan 2, 2017 9:50 AM
    I can't quite recall. Was it Russia that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine and replaced it with a government led, in large part, by NAZIS?

    Oh, now I remember. No. No, it wasn't Russia that did that. That was the good old USA.

    InTylerWeTrust , Jan 1, 2017 8:39 PM
    Let's not forget John "Bombs Away" Bolton. That bimbo eruption and his moustache can't wait to start the next war for the glory of Pax Americana.
    Mandel Bot InTylerWeTrust , Jan 2, 2017 8:22 AM
    Calling these people 'idiots' is being too kind.

    They are traitorous warmongers.

    xavi1951 Mandel Bot , Jan 2, 2017 10:35 AM
    You left out the CIA It was the CIA that started both lies.
    jeff montanye InTylerWeTrust , Jan 2, 2017 8:01 AM
    it is not for pax americana it is for Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah, greater or entire israel.

    [Jan 02, 2017] After releasing to the surprised world Flame and Stuxnet the USA should not be shy to disclose how they trace Russian hackers

    Slightly edited for clarity....
    Notable quotes:
    "... This kind of stuff has been going on for YEARS. Multiple countries, multiple blogs, news sites, Facebook and Twitter accounts. The US does it too. Corporations do it; political parties do it; David Brock does it; and people in other countries do it. It may or may not be state coordinated, in any given case. And it's probably not actually illegal in most of these cases. Yes, of course people in other countries have preferences about who wins our elections. We live in a big new internet-connected world, where all kinds of folks are constantly trying to influence outcomes of various kinds in other countries. Grow up. ..."
    "... After releasing to the surprised world Flame ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_%28malware%29 ) and Stuxnet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet ) not much was left to disclose. ..."
    "... Add to this Snowden revelations and you have the situation when you can be almost completely open about methods you use (the most interesting part is how multiple levels of indirection are traced -- Snowden used this NSA program against Chinese hackers -- so it's existence is no longer secret staff. Simplifying you need something like traceroute via VPN channels ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute ). But there can be proxies in the middle so the whole thing is very complex. ..."
    "... Yeah, sounds a whole lot like that Nigerian uranium and Saddam's weapons. I was told back then also that the intelligence was just too sensitive to reveal. Sources and methods and all that. ..."
    "... Good to see Matt Bruenig, Noah Smith and few others keeping their heads on their shoulders and trying to put the focus on policy. ..."
    "... Do you really assume that the amount of "compromat" that Russia has on Clintons (and especially Clinton Foundation, which is a real ticking bomb) is less valuable that Trump fuzzy desire to normalize relations, which can change any time (and may be dictated by the desire to drive a wedge in Russia relations with China). ..."
    "... Clinton is "the devil that we know" for Russia. Trump is "the devil that we don't". ..."
    "... It is also unclear to what extent Presidents, being now to a certain extent just ceremonial figureheads legitimizing the existence of "deep state" can change the foreign policy course, which remains remarkably consistent for the last six US administrations (Clinton+Bush+Obama x 2 ). ..."
    Jan 02, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Now everybody can study them and learn from the masters of Cyberwarfare

    sanjait -> Dan Kervick...

    The US isn't going to release intelligence sources but it's really really easy to see who Russia favored in the election and evidence of their efforts to influence it.

    DeDude -> sanjait... , January 02, 2017 at 02:02 PM

    Exactly - even a moron (without a political agenda) will look at the publicly available information and concluded that we are already past any "reasonable doubt".

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    Then there is all the additional material that simply cannot be released because it would help the adversaries plug certain channels of counter intelligence.

    It is a fact that the hackers were Russian. It is a fact that the only viable motive to release that material the way it was (timed to inflict maximum damage on HRC) would be to lower the chances of Hilary being elected. It is a fact that nobody in Russia would dare to challenge Putin's authority and release this material without his knowledge.

    However, tomorrow the great Orange will be informed about the facts and it will not make him change his conclusion that the facts are wrong and he the great Trump and his great inside (from Kremlin) sources have proven that it was not Russia. The Trump bobbleheads and associated clowns will agree not because Trump had any evidence but because he told them what they wanted to hear.

    sanjait -> DeDude... , January 02, 2017 at 02:37 PM
    True.

    Though for me the most compelling evidence was the simple observation that paid commenters (with only moderate English speaking capability and no comment history, often from brand new Facebook accounts) appeared with such frequency in comment sections of sites like WAPO and other major news organizations, and the associated reporting with first person non-anonymous accounts of how Russia ran farms for such paid comments.

    The strangest part of this is how many useful idiots (in the classic sense) like Kervick exist out there with various forms of apologetics for these actions.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to sanjait... , January 02, 2017 at 03:52 PM
    This kind of stuff has been going on for YEARS. Multiple countries, multiple blogs, news sites, Facebook and Twitter accounts. The US does it too. Corporations do it; political parties do it; David Brock does it; and people in other countries do it. It may or may not be state coordinated, in any given case. And it's probably not actually illegal in most of these cases. Yes, of course people in other countries have preferences about who wins our elections. We live in a big new internet-connected world, where all kinds of folks are constantly trying to influence outcomes of various kinds in other countries. Grow up.
    cal -> Dan Kervick... , January 02, 2017 at 06:55 PM
    "Grow up."

    Not that one is short and just needs to plow into those Cheerios, but this is a parent speaking to their child(ren), yes?

    Deplorable(s).

    This too, is part of the same exchange: not merely commander to commanded, but deaf to any other view that might be characterized as a dialog between adults who are interested in the best path.

    As if any dialog could take place between one person with a microphone and public relations team on the command side and a flock of fans on the other, but I digress.

    My favorite is "Suck it up Buttercup" at the sign of any resistance, or reluctance, or indifference that might indicate you are nothin but a fading flower...sorta blows air in your face twice.

    So Dan, I hear you and read most of your posts. And Sanjait's too. And both worth reading among still others...my standards aren't terribly high.

    Your note that the US does it too, might be the understatement of the year. And Sanjait's suggestion that just as there is an adult-age limit there should be a senility limit too. As close as this election was, the less capable adults (MCI is easily more than the 3M difference.) explains the poor polls and the worse outcome.

    ilsm -> DeDude... , January 02, 2017 at 04:52 PM
    Aside from how crooked the DNC and Clinton are what did the CIA WMD screamers say the Russians released?

    You all should stop whining!

    It is getting unseemly.

    like poor pk.

    likbez -> DeDude... , January 02, 2017 at 08:05 PM
    You are funny.

    After releasing to the surprised world Flame ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_%28malware%29 ) and Stuxnet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet ) not much was left to disclose.

    Now everybody can study them and learn from the masters of Cyberwarfare ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare )

    Add to this Snowden revelations and you have the situation when you can be almost completely open about methods you use (the most interesting part is how multiple levels of indirection are traced -- Snowden used this NSA program against Chinese hackers -- so it's existence is no longer secret staff. Simplifying you need something like traceroute via VPN channels ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute ). But there can be proxies in the middle so the whole thing is very complex.

    So when they suggest that certain IPs signify Russian hacking they are insulting average computer literate person intelligence.

    There are some posters in this group who really understand this staff. I don't.

    They can probably comment further.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to sanjait... , January 02, 2017 at 03:46 PM
    Yeah, sounds a whole lot like that Nigerian uranium and Saddam's weapons. I was told back then also that the intelligence was just too sensitive to reveal. Sources and methods and all that.

    And at the end of the day, the only credible charge is not that Russia hacked "the election", but that they hacked John Podesta's email.

    Anyway, it's water under the bridge. Meanwhile, Donald Trump and the radical Republican Congress have a reactionary legislative agenda all lined up, and Democrats have done close to squat to build and articulate a clear, unified and compelling counter-agenda. They are off on a crazy Russian goose chase. So the Republicans are probably going to pass a lot of their agenda, because Democrats are putting nothing on the table.

    Good to see Matt Bruenig, Noah Smith and few others keeping their heads on their shoulders and trying to put the focus on policy.

    anne -> Dan Kervick... , January 02, 2017 at 03:59 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html

    July 6, 2003

    What I Didn't Find in Africa
    By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th

    WASHINGTON -- Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

    Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

    For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargι d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and Sγo Tomι and Prνncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

    It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

    In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

    After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the CIA paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

    In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

    The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq - and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

    I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

    Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired....

    Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995.

    likbez -> sanjait... , January 02, 2017 at 07:01 PM
    If you have Ph.D you should really be ashamed writing such nonsense.

    Do you really assume that the amount of "compromat" that Russia has on Clintons (and especially Clinton Foundation, which is a real ticking bomb) is less valuable that Trump fuzzy desire to normalize relations, which can change any time (and may be dictated by the desire to drive a wedge in Russia relations with China).

    Clinton is "the devil that we know" for Russia. Trump is "the devil that we don't".

    It is also unclear to what extent Presidents, being now to a certain extent just ceremonial figureheads legitimizing the existence of "deep state" can change the foreign policy course, which remains remarkably consistent for the last six US administrations (Clinton+Bush+Obama x 2 ).

    Or do you really think that Bolton in State Department is different from Victoria Nuland?

    [Jan 02, 2017] The War Against Alternative Information

    Notable quotes:
    "... The legislation was initiated in March 2016, as the demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia was already underway and was enacted amid the allegations of "Russian hacking" around the U.S. presidential election and the mainstream media's furor over supposedly "fake news." Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives." ..."
    "... The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges a new McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with a new Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation." ..."
    "... The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the U.S. election. ..."
    "... Despite these accusations - leaked by the Obama administration and embraced as true by the mainstream U.S. news media - there is little or no public evidence to support the charges. There is also a contradictory analysis by veteran U.S. intelligence professionals as well as statements by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and an associate, former British Ambassador Craig Murray , that the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Yet, the mainstream U.S. media has virtually ignored this counter-evidence, appearing eager to collaborate with the new "Global Engagement Center" even before it is officially formed. ..."
    "... In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that formula with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media. The U.S. government's strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation escalates this information war by tossing another $160 million into the pot. ..."
    "... There's a real love fest for Trump on this site and I believe you are all going to be bitterly disappointed in the end. ..."
    "... Putin obviously has something on Trump ..."
    "... I'm well aware of the propaganda from our government but if you believe it will be better under Trump, you are living in a fairy tale. ..."
    "... The Police State requires each person to believe their lies. Paraphrasing a comment attributed to a former CIA operative: "When the only narrative available is ours, we will have done our job". ..."
    "... While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" ..."
    "... this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
    The U.S. government is creating a new $160 million bureaucracy to shut down information that doesn't conform to U.S. propaganda narratives, building on the strategy that sold the bloody Syrian "regime change" war, writes Rick Sterling.

    The U.S. establishment is not content simply to have domination over the media narratives on critical foreign policy issues, such as Syria, Ukraine and Russia. It wants total domination. Thus we now have the " Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act " that President Obama signed into law on Dec. 23 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017 , setting aside $160 million to combat any "propaganda" that challenges Official Washington's version of reality.

    ... ... ...

    The new law mandates the U.S. Secretary of State to collaborate with the Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence and other federal agencies to create a Global Engagement Center "to lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The law directs the Center to be formed in 180 days and to share expertise among agencies and to "coordinate with allied nations."

    The legislation was initiated in March 2016, as the demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia was already underway and was enacted amid the allegations of "Russian hacking" around the U.S. presidential election and the mainstream media's furor over supposedly "fake news." Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives."

    The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges a new McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with a new Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation."

    As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives, the law authorizes the Center to: "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best practices." (This section is an apparent reference to proposals that Google, Facebook and other technology companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet sites as purveyors of "Russian propaganda" or "fake news." )

    Justifying this new bureaucracy, the bill's sponsors argued that the existing agencies for " strategic communications " and " public diplomacy " were not enough, that the information threat required "a whole-of-government approach leveraging all elements of national power."

    The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the U.S. election.

    Despite these accusations - leaked by the Obama administration and embraced as true by the mainstream U.S. news media - there is little or no public evidence to support the charges. There is also a contradictory analysis by veteran U.S. intelligence professionals as well as statements by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and an associate, former British Ambassador Craig Murray , that the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Yet, the mainstream U.S. media has virtually ignored this counter-evidence, appearing eager to collaborate with the new "Global Engagement Center" even before it is officially formed.

    Of course, there is a long history of U.S. disinformation and propaganda. Former CIA agents Philip Agee and John Stockwell documented how it was done decades ago, secretly planting "black propaganda" and covertly funding media outlets to influence events around the world, with much of the fake news blowing back into the American media.

    In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that formula with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media. The U.S. government's strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation escalates this information war by tossing another $160 million into the pot.

    ... ... ...

    Rick Sterling is an independent investigative journalist. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area and can be reached at [email protected]

    Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    Here comes the Ministry of truth.

    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength

    Big Brother is watching us.

    Abe , January 1, 2017 at 10:21 pm

    The information war against reputable independent investigative journalism has been in full swing for years. $160 million is just the latest shake of piddle.

    In addition to the army of paid journalists in mainstream media, "pro-democracy" and "human rights" NGOs, and assorted limited hangouts we are all too familiar with, there is the new Propaganda 3.0 species of "open source intelligence" scammers, bogus "independent researchers", and corporate-funded fake "citizen investigative journalists" like Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat, all busily churning out fake news.

    Uncritical journalists have ignored the deeper layer of deception underlying the Washington Post / PropOrNot imbroglio.

    Some "useful idiots" have gone so far as to actively promote the illusion that Bellingcat and other PropOrNot "Related Projects" are "professional" information sources.

    In reality, Google-funded Bellingcat is directly allied with the Washington Post and New York Times, the two principal mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the Google's new Ministry of Truth: The First Draft Coalition "partner network".

    Note that it was the Washington Post that catapulted PropOrNot to prominence.

    True independent investigative journalism is the declared enemy of Google's new Minitrue.

    In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Propaganda 3.0 coalition has already demonstrated its ability to "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process" of Western propaganda narratives.

    The devil's hands are very busy.

    Peter Loeb , January 2, 2017 at 6:44 am

    MUST READ .

    Tom Anderson: THE DIRTY WAR ON SYRIA

    (Global Research, 2016)

    (Available at Amazon and probably elsewhere.)

    This well documented book explores the arguments presented in
    Rick Sterling's excellent article above in detail. The book is in defense
    of Syria.It includes many references (in English), most available on line.

    ---------

    NOTE: See requests elsewhere in the Defense Appropriation Act of 2017.
    As always, an APPROPRIATION of amounts is required.

    -------

    A basic issue can be raised involving any commitment of the
    next President of the United States to policies of this
    Administration and Congress. It is well-known that Donald
    Trump has not previously shared many of the views on which this
    legislation is based.

    Senator John McCain, primary sponsor, D-Ariz, does share
    these views. It needs reminding that that being said, much
    of this GOP interest was under the assumption that
    Hillary Clinton's election was a foregone conclusion.

    Though Senator McCain is the sole sponsor of the entire
    bill in his role as Chairman of the Armed Services
    Committee of the Senate, many Democrats joined in the
    many amendments. were co-sponsored by Democratic
    Senators.

    Regarding Syria, many of the issues are dealt with
    in Tom Anderson's book noted above.

    --Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    Linda Doucett , January 1, 2017 at 11:28 pm

    a lot of Soros schills on this thread :)

    exiled off mainstreet , January 2, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    That is it exactly. The yankee regime has gone over into fascist control of the narrative. Erstwhile "leftists" like Amy Goodman have jumped the shark and joined the imperialist propaganda push. Even the ACLU is sponsoring islamofascists like Khisr Khan, who is an apologist for el qaeda spouting that the Iraq war, a war crime by any objective definition, was 'in defense of constitutional values. Since courts no longer hold the regime accountable, the fact this is blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the rule of law does not seem to mean much. Hopefully, the new administration, despite the reputation of its leadership, will be less autocratic in practice. As far as I'm concerned, they all have jumped the shark and the last shreds of legitimacy have disappeared. The entire existing regime and its acolytes are war criminals and traitors to the rule of law.

    Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    You don't watch Democracy Now much. I've seen all points of view presented there. Perhaps you should examine with a more open mind.
    I never supported getting involved in Syria but there was a lot of pressure to do so. It was a big mistake. The history I know says that climate change had much to do with what happened there. A severe drought made conditions untenable for the farmers and they started to revolt. Assad handled what was happening very badly. It was a terrible situation. Assad wan't going to help them but he generally had the support of the rest of the people. Getting involved there was stupid. There was no way for intervention to be successful unless it was humanitarian like helping them to help the farmers Of course intervention is seldom humanitarian and when it is, it's seen as weak an ineffective by the powerful forces that oppose it.

    There's a real love fest for Trump on this site and I believe you are all going to be bitterly disappointed in the end. Putin obviously has something on Trump and you should be shouting for his tax returns so we can understand that relationship. We know he's received a lot of money from Russia.
    Everyone, including you discount David Corn's research about that relationship. No one wants to hear it.

    David Ecklein , January 1, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    Bill Cash- "We know he's [Trump} received a lot of money from Russia."

    There is possibly a malicious insinuation here. Was that to support Trump's political campaign, or was that from business deals – which Trump has in any number of countries?

    Bill Cash- "Everyone, including you discount David Corn's research about that relationship [Trump/Russia]."

    Include me in your "everyone". If you mean Corn's article in Mother Jones, it is not "research" but forwarded innuendos.

    As to whether anyone will be "bitterly disappointed" with Trump, that is beside the point – many of us are deeply concerned with other possible aspects of the coming administration. I am just glad to see Trump or any prominent US political commentator buck the knee-jerk attempt to blame Russia for our own troubles. Jerks like that can be hazardous to our health and possibly our continued existence.

    Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    You think climate change is a problem? Trump thinks it's a hoax. Will climate change provoke many Syria's around the world?
    Is Trump building a government of, by and for the very rich?
    Putin obviously has something on Trump which all of you are ignoring. Now Trump is saying he knows more about hacking than everyone else. There's too much in that relationship to be ignored but you are ignoring it and it will come back to bite us.
    Trump wants to dismantle the epa, medicare and social security. That should really help the country.
    Enjoy Trump while you can. Keep protecting him.

    Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 2:44 pm

    What proof do you have that Putin has "something" on Trump? It could be that Trump sees opportunities for business with Russia if there are improved relations. Russia has a lot of natural resources waiting to be exploited. The military/security/industrial complex is at odds with that idea because they need their boogeyman.

    And why does it always have to be one or the other between Hillary and the Donald? I think they both suck. My only hope is that he disrupts the power of the deep state warmongers and cleans house at the CIA And even there, it is only a hope. I am not blindly optimistic.

    I doubt there are many of us here at Consortium news that are enjoying or protecting Trump, but Hillary would have been a disaster as well. Bill Cash is blind not to see that. There was no lesser of two evils in this election, just two different evils.

    Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    Get Trump to release his tax returns. Why is he afraid to do that? There is something there h doesn't want us to see.
    We know he's received a lot of money from Russia, That's well documented and Putin doesn't allow that without strings. We know he's had dealings with both the mafia and the Russian mob.
    You should be screaming for his tax returns but instead you assume his innocence.
    You know nothing about me. I do believe Hillary would be better because she believes in global warming but I was a Bernie supporter.
    If you know anything about Trump, you know he only acts to help himself, for his own enrichment. If you don't know that, I can't talk to you. You'd have to give me examples of him ever thinking outside himself. There has to be something in the Putin relationship that's good for Trump.
    Get his tax returns!!!!!

    Blahblahblah , January 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm

    Heh, I'm Russian from Russia. 1. Russia is not building any ministry of truth, many western channels like France 24, BBC, EuroNews and Fox News are part of standard cable TV package here (at least in Moscow and other major cities). 2. Not sure what image you have of our president, but blackmailing leaders of other states is America's thing, that's not what Russians do (we send tanks, threaten or negotiate) – you should stop thinking the whole world acts the same way America does. 3. I doubt Trump got money from Russia, at least not more than Clinton got from Saudi Arabia and others, including Ukraine (the latter donated about US$30 million, the former could have donated up to US$500 million // could you name the amount given by Russia to Trump, which you speak about?). Anyway, is it really okay that future American president are for sale internationally, regardless if it's Trump or Clinton? 4. I doubt Russians hacked you since there's still no single proof (What CIA says and "everyone knows" is not a proof. If you like this type of justice, I suggest you abolish your whole legal system and replace it with Lynch courts). 5. Lastly, you suggest that the U.S. s almost uninvolve din Syria. Is it really so? Who are you supplying weapons to then? Turkish president (Turkey is still NATO member, ally of the U.S.) said he has proof U.S. is supporting terrorists, mainly ISIL and Al Quaida. Al Quaida were the guys who organized 9/11. I hope you're proud to be American and of Obama and Clinton.

    ????????, ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? 8 ??? ?????, ?? ?????????? ????? ?????.

    ? ??????? ?? ?????? :-)

    Jessejean , January 2, 2017 at 12:56 am

    Blah x3: that was beautiful. It makes me so sick to my stomach that these things can be said about my country and that I know they are true. For years I blamed the FBI. Or Nixon. Or Ronnie, or Col. North and Iran Countra, or the Rethugs. Or the CIA Or DIck and Bush. But when Hillary tried to force herself down our throats in a kind of female felacio (sorry, don't know how to spell that) and Thomas Frank went after Slick Willy with a cleaver and Matt Taibbi exposed Obama's financial machinations and Little Debbie Shitz kneecapped the progressives, I finally saw what the world has been seeing for decades. I love my country, and all I was taught she stood for, and I know you love your country and her amazing history. I don't like Trump, but if he's the poison it takes to heal my country so we can get along with yours, here's to poison. Dos vee donya. ( terrible speller. Sorry)

    Zachary Smith , January 1, 2017 at 11:57 pm

    Trump and climate change = Trump an ignoramus.
    Hillary and Obama on climate change equaled lots of grand speech-making, no effective actions.
    I don't see a significant difference here. And at least in theory, ignorance can be corrected more easily than cynical indifference chasing the easy money..

    Trump building a government of, by and for the very rich? That's right.
    Hillary and the TPP meant government would be handed to corporations.

    Trump wants to dismantle the epa, medicare and social security. Probably.
    Obama was itching for 8 years to strike a Grand Bargain with the Republicans to dismantle Social Security. If I was to waste time looking at Hillary and Social Security, I'd expect to find weasel lawyer talk giving her the same leeway.

    Putin obviously had something on Trump. Is this in the same class of "reality" as the Russians obviously stealing the 2016 election and preparing to destroy the electrical systems in Vermont?

    David Corn: I looked at his archives at Mother Jones. He was always frothing at the mouth against whoever it was who was in the lead in the Republican primary. Mention of Hillary was always a side factor except in one piece which had this title.

    You Go to War With the Hillary Clinton You Have

    I examined the piece, and found it summarizes as 'the woman isn't worth a crap, but she's all we've got.' Corn was a little more explicit about Hillary's faults in 2008. From one of his pieces then:

    I, too, have huffed about Obama's staffing decisions. It remains a mystery to me why Obama would want to bring into his Big Tent the Clinton circus, which frequently features excessive spin, backstabbing, leaking and messy melodrama. Sen. Clinton is a smart woman who has stature and globetrotting experience. But as health-care czar in her husband's administration, she set back that cause, which is near and dear to the hearts of progressives, by nearly two decades.

    That's right – Hillary wasn't worth a crap back in 2008 either, only back then Corn was a bit more truthful. I've seen that with others – in their 2008 blog posts they were doing to Hillary what they're doing to Trump now – making an all-out assault. How those people convinced themselves that 2008 totally evil Hillary was transformed into 2016 Saint Hillary still confounds me.

    exiled off mainstreet , January 2, 2017 at 2:19 pm

    Trump, if he proves as bad on climate change as feared, can be reversed. If the harpy had gotten in, she would have said the right words on climate change, but put policies via the "trade pacts" under extra-legal corrupt corporate arbitration courts who would have been able to sideline the rule of law in this area and would have established an irreversible corporate regime on climate change. Since courts long ago ceased to hold to rule of law standards basing their decisions on extra-legal state secrets and anti-free-speech considerations, and since such extra-legal "trade pacts" have not even been questioned in US courts, the reality is that this would have meant the end of serious climate change work. This seems to me to be much more concerning than Trump's rhetoric on climate change issues, since, whatever the talk, the factual result of the policy would have been far more odious.

    Lin Cleveland , January 1, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    " There's a real love fest for Trump on this site "

    Me thinks you infer what we do not imply!

    D5-5 , January 1, 2017 at 3:07 pm

    I watched Democracy Now for over a decade–until recently. I tried to tolerate its bias on Syria and wrote to the site several times to no avail. Coverage of Syria was consistently a fairy tale of Assad the evil Hitler versus the good rebels–essentially a Washington Post view. This program has declined. I'm sorry to say it. It is now so unreliable I can no longer watch it. I believe the writer here is accurate and fair on this evaluation.

    Gregory Kruse , January 2, 2017 at 11:02 am

    That's what happens when a site has "Democracy" in its name. The term no longer has any coherent meaning.

    JohnMMorgan , January 2, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    I agree, the role Democracy Now played in paving the way for the destruction of Libya and now Syria is shameful. Given how divided the left is on Syria, the least DN could and should have done is have weekly debates between top advocates of the different narratives to expose their listeners to both sides. Instead they gave constant repetition of the official propaganda line with only very rarely a little of the other side.

    On U.S., Russia and Ukraine it has been more like DN has been MIA.

    I think it is entirely appropriate for Rick Sterling to challenge DN in this excellent article.

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    There's a real love fest for Trump on this site and I believe you are all going to be bitterly disappointed in the end.

    I read Consortium News practically every day, but somehow I missed the "love fest" comments. Can you share an example or two. There were several articles clearly exposing Hillary Clinton's defects, but it would take lots of stretching of points to interpret them as pro-Trump. I and others have made comments along the lines of "when it comes to Clinton and Trump there is no lesser evil." I don't recall anyone challenging comments like that.

    Similarly, I and others have made the point that we might escape Hillary Clinton's frying pan but we will land in Donald Trump's fire. Or, another version, we might have dodged Hillary Clinton's bullet but Donald Trump will be the price we will have to pay.

    Putin obviously has something on Trump

    In this bizarre era of world politics that may or may not be true. It is, however, unlikely to be obvious either way to many visitors to this site. Can you share what causes you to believe it is obvious?

    Gregory Herr , January 1, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    Severe drought and sanctions that go back to the Bush Administration certainly created some economic hardships. But the conflict in Syria is hardly the outgrowth of a farmers' revolt. The people of Syria are generally educated and politically astute. Naturally occurring political activity not unlike what we sometimes see here in the States (with "movements" such as Occupy) did not have an insurrectionist flavor and few Syrian citizens had armed revolt in mind. Many were simply keen for Assad to step up the pace of the political reform he was a part of. The armed "revolt" that you somehow think Assad handled badly was managed by foreign provocateurs. Assad and the Syrian Arab Army and the Russian Air Force have been protecting the citizens of Syria from vile terrorist mercenaries.

    John P , January 1, 2017 at 6:54 pm

    In support of some your comments Bill Cash, see – Putin's friendly response to the expulsion of his US diplomats – shown on the British Independent newspaper site. In it they state:
    "The President-elect's nomination of Rex Tillerson, chief of ExxonMobil, as Secretary of State, will if confirmed mean that Putin has someone whom he knows well, and has personally awarded the Russian Order of Friendship, in charge of US foreign policy. As for his own business interests, he signed an agreement last summer (just one, it should be said, of several attempts to do so) to build a Trump Tower in Moscow."

    Also interesting to read is Mondoweiss: "Why Obama waited 8 years to take on Netanyahu"

    Happy New year everybody and lets hope we don't get Trumped --

    John P , January 1, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    The web address for the first article above is :

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/putin-trump-obama-russia-us-new-cold-war-two-diplomacy-editorial-a7502631.html

    I'm with you Bill Cash

    Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 9:19 pm

    I find this idea that better relationships between the US and Russia would be bad for Central and Western Europe very strange. Of course, there are a few neocon hawks in Europe, as well, but mostly, Europeans are very sceptical about strongly anti-Russian US policies in recent years (in many European countries US power and influence is seen as a similar or bigger threat than Russia, see http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/13/europeans-see-isis-climate-change-as-most-serious-threats/epw-russia-china-u-s-threats-web-version/ ). US pressure was needed for the EU to pass sanctions against Russia (of course, Poland and Angela Merkel were in favor, but since there is little popular support for these sanctions outside Poland and the Baltic states, that would hardly have sufficed without US pressure). In Europe, the simplified, dumbed-down presentations of conflicts like the one in Ukraine that are meant to use such complex situations for a one-sided demonization of Russia are less widely accepted. I think there are far more Europeans who saw the constant US pressure for worsening relationships with Russia as a significant threat than people who think that a rapprochement of the US and Russia would be dangerous.
    Of course, there are a few very vocal European journalists who belong to "Atlantic" neocon associations who will scream when someone threatens to ease tensions with Russia, but they only represent a very small part of Europeans.

    Vera , January 1, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    Now we will really get a "taste" of fake news

    Zachary Smith , January 1, 2017 at 1:18 pm

    As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives, the law authorizes the Center to: "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best practices ." (This section is an apparent reference to proposals that Google, Facebook and other technology companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet sites as purveyors of "Russian propaganda" or "fake news.")

    I suspect "best practices" will include more than simply blocking the alternative information sites like this and Naked Capitalism and the others on the BS PROPORNOT list. Expect other schemes to be tried, each one with effectively unlimited funding.

    They're going to do what the murderous twit George "dumbya" Bush spoke of:

    "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

    I and many others voted for Obama in 2008 because of our utter disgust with the Texas Torturer. The master psychologists who selected Obama knew that would happen, and his fancy talking along with his black skin caused some people I KNEW were racists to vote for him too – just to prove to themselves they weren't. ( a task eased by the alternative of McCain and Palin)

    Obama has his fingerprints all over the endless crap discussed in this splendid essay, and the sooner people recognize he is a Bush-Level President the better.

    Here is a good introduction to that theme.

    http://www strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/31/obama-failed-presidency.html

    My main complaint about the essay at the link is that at the end of it author Eric Zuesse was still in a "defense" mode for the disaster which has been the Obama years.

    doray , January 1, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    The cartoon that should result from this action would be to show Obama and every member of Congress who voted for this insanity taking a giant steaming dump on the First Amendment. We have arrived at the Fourth Reich.
    Will they just block the alternative news, or criminalize those who try and post it?

    J'hon Doe II , January 1, 2017 at 1:53 pm

    Alt-Info vs. this Letter to America.

    http://www.terrain.org/2016/guest-editorial/letter-to-america-golden/

    ::
    wherefore does your sincerity
    lie?
    sincerity in heart is truth.

    stan , January 1, 2017 at 2:16 pm

    You can read chapter 6 of Mein Kampf to learn the power and techniques of war propaganda. I started watching the propaganda in 1989 when George Bush Sr. invaded panama to capture his buddy Noriega. There was a story about how the U.S. military had found womens panties and cocaine in Noriegas hideout. After he was captured and reporters asked for proof of this, the U.S. military said they could not find the underwear in question and the cocaine turned out to be baking soda. Of course it was all fabrication.

    During the leadup to the bombing of Iraq in 1991, the story was that the Iraqi soldiers had gone in a hospital and thrown babies out of their incubators "onto the cold hard floor". Of course, this was a total lie also. Even our president kept repeating it, so he was either stupid or lying. Guess which.

    But these are the stories to incite the murderous rage of a people, and prevent people from questioning the attack. When you hear of the smear – someone hiding in a "spider-hole", or someone caught trying to sneak away wearing women's clothing, then you know it is part of the smear campaign and a total lie. It is just a smear, which psychologically makes you not protest the attack, because, well, it could be true, and who wants to stand up in public to protect a sex pervert or a coward.

    But the real power of propaganda is in controlling the narrative. Here is the true narrative of our murderous rampage in the middle east.

    The wars of the U.S. are the empires fighting over control of territory, with all of the benefits and privileges thereof – take the resources, collect taxes, and control terms of commerce and trade to benefit yourself. Big wars begin when empires fall. This also happens when an elephant falls in the jungle. The lions, hyenas, vultures, etc. all try to grab a piece. Governments do this too, as do crime syndicates and mobsters. Mobsters are always trying to muscle in on the territory of other gangs, and police know that when a powerful mobster falls, there will be wars between the gangs fighting for turf and control of territory and markets.

    The U.S. began the destruction of Iraq with the murderous bombing of that country as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. This attack was planned and prepared for during the Regan military buildup of the 1980s. The U.S. knew the soviet union was going to fall, and they prepared for it. It was decided to "pivot" from the U.S. military defeat in southeast asia to begin an invasion of southwest asia. Zbigniew Brezinsky was the architect of the plan to destablize Afghanistan. The U.S. military would not have done that without a follow up plan, and it takes years to plan and prepare an armada for an invasion. In the time since, we have basically invaded and militarily conquered the middle east, africa, southwestern asia and parts of the old soviet union in eastern europe. It is a war between empires (very large business syndicates). All the day-to-day happenings are trivial irrelavancies in terms of reasons for U.S. foreign policy and military actions. Our future foreign policy to again invade asia was decided before 1980. Think of the president as the CEO, and the board of directors tells him what to do. The board of directors has not changed.

    backwardsevolution , January 1, 2017 at 5:46 pm

    stan – very good post!

    Dwight , January 1, 2017 at 9:32 pm

    Amnesty International lent its name to the incubator baby propaganda, playing an important role in helping Bush Sr. get Senate approval for the 1991 Gulf War. Amnesty International along with Human Rights Watch also played an important role in legitimizing the 1999 Kosovo war by timely, uncritical, and grossly irresponsible parroting of claims about killings at the village of Racak.

    Fritz , January 1, 2017 at 11:17 pm

    I hate to say: 'well said', generally, because it implies that I am in a position to give you a grade, like a teacher would.

    But here I must say "well said" to your post --

    Lin Cleveland , January 1, 2017 at 2:19 pm

    "the Ministry of Truth!" Yes indeed, Mr. Sterling, that's what we're seeing here. The stench of hypocrisy wafting from the East is overwhelming, isn't it? To boot Obama signed this bit of government overreach on my birthday claiming this legislation is to protect "national security interests" and "to protect the American people from 'foreign propaganda' and disinformation." Most U.S. citizens know that politicians tell whoppers on the campaign trail. Remember in 2008 when heroic Hillary told about arriving in Bosnia "under a hail of bullets"? That never happened!

    No surprise she supports the bill. "Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives." Let's understand what the lady means by "our democracy." She refers to the democracy of the few, the political elites in cahoots with Wall Street who meet behind a curtain to decide U.S. policy. Anyway, as long as we look to "leaders" we'll continue to live in a hierarchy based in money and power–and that is not a democracy! Innocent lives? No, this bill protects the guilty from public scrutiny.

    The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the U.S. election.

    O yea! the irony is palpable. One section of the bill stipulates that information "experts" appointed by the government will train prospective journalists. Gee, you mean we don't already have that with ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC? The term "The Fourth Estate" for a free and open press dates back to Edmond Burke in 1875. Of course all along those in power have worked overtime to propagate our own citizens, but the idea of government-trained journalists is a slap in the face to "freedom of the press." All of us who post our fact-based opinions qualify as press. From now on, however, a journalist must have a stamp of approval from the government!

    On another not-so "fake news" site I found an article by a retired professor well versed in computer language. Dr. Spring challenges the Russian hacking story, but I don't know enough to understand it all Some of you might.


    Was Claim by Department of Homeland Security and FBI About Russian Hacking Fake News?
    by David Spring

    Bart in Virginia , January 2, 2017 at 9:30 am

    "One section of the bill stipulates that information "experts" appointed by the government will train prospective journalists."

    Maybe Palin's 'FEMA Camps' could be used for this purpose.

    Kent , January 1, 2017 at 2:36 pm

    Funny how they never mention the plans for competing pipelines, re: Syria.

    http://wordpress.redirectingat.com/?id=725X1342&site=willyloman.wordpress.com&xs=1&isjs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.strategic-culture.org%2Fimages%2Fmyfls%2Foct2016%2Fzuss24101604.jpg&xguid=2e57ce35a8601dd695623b4d3e3dfa17&xuuid=8c1d9d73fc5e8f18a3ea1dbf15a2f510&xsessid=922426a0b3f7b6513a1608d74aa1b9b8&xcreo=0&xed=0&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwillyloman.wordpress.com%2Fpage%2F4%2F&xtz=300&abp=1

    backwardsevolution , January 1, 2017 at 9:45 pm

    Kent – re competing pipelines. I used to think that was the main reason for the war in Syria. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote an article entitled "Syria: Another Pipeline War". I'm sure the pipeline from Qatar up through Syria is part of the reason, but another poster commented that he didn't buy this, mainly because the pipeline could have gone up through Iraq and then across Turkey. I looked at a map and, yes, he was correct. It would cost more money, but could easily have been done. No, he contended that there was a much greater reason for the war: Israel.

    Joe Tedesky , January 1, 2017 at 10:50 pm

    I'm leaving you something to read see link below, where the author talks about an energy alliance between Turkey, Israel, and Russia is being discussed between these three countries. The U.S. is not included in these discussions.

    Personally I have thought for quite awhile now that this Middle East American NATO driven war has been more about destabilizing Israel's neighbors (Yinon Plan, Clean Break), as opposed to routing energy pipelines.

    Read this .

    http://journal-neo.org/2016/10/25/russia-turkey-israel-and-a-new-balance-of-power/

    Kent , January 2, 2017 at 10:42 am

    Excellent info there,Joe. Demonstrating once again that Putin is a far better, more creative, and less deluded strategic thinker than our best and brightest. I suspect that Turkey's turn toward a Russian alliance on the energy front is sparked the CIA's (failed) Gulenist coup attempt last summer.

    And of course Israel is always Israel.

    The recent bizarre assassination of the Russian ambassador in Turkey by the 'security' guy yelling 'this is for Aleppo' was also a tell regarding the US's support, arming, and funding of the proxy mercenaries Daesh/Isis/al Nusra/al Quaeda.

    Losing's a bitch, especially when it requires treason and you STILL lose. The Masters of the Universe take a hit and I actually see a small glimmer of hope in that.

    Joe Tedesky , January 2, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    Yes the deception and intrigue makes one get dizzy trying to figure out who is really behind all of it. The U.S. needs a new strategy, but it fails to acknowledge it, and with that nothing will change for the good.

    Kent , January 2, 2017 at 10:51 am

    BWE- True enough about the alternate route, through the new and improved 'Kurdistan' but that would have still left the Syrian/Russian legal alliance in place as a competitor for EU business.

    I also think that since Syria was 'on the list' from the get/go, our 'thinkers' in the MI$S complex Mafia weren't creative enough to pivot and adapt. Plus, it would have still left competition noted above.

    CitizenOne , January 1, 2017 at 2:39 pm

    I was watching the news. It is all about the Russians. The Expulsions, the sanctions, the democrats and the republicans are united against their common enemy the Russians. More sanctions are on the way. If a family member recently passed away you can be assured the Russians murdered them! Why don't they just declare war with Russia and get all the niceties over and done so we can get right down to the war?

    Nowhere in this uni-polar single topic narrative of how Russia and Russia alone rigged the election is there a mention of any possible other source of influence on the election. What about the glacially paced multi year investigation into Benghazi? What about Comey's October Surprise with Anthony Wiener's Laptop? What about any other foreign power? What about voter ID laws? What about gerrymandering? What about black box voting? What about Citizens United vs. FEC and McCutcheon vs. FEC and dark money in politics?

    These are just some of the things that have dominated all the previous narratives before now on how elections might be rigged minus the foreign hacks by the Russians which was never a concern. Now, all those things are forgotten. Never happened, not a problem. All washed away in an instant with an entirely new theory out of a clear blue sky. The one single question posed by the politicians and the media might just as well be why are we not loading weapons on boats and planes, dropping them off all along Russia's borders and reinstating the draft right now?

    There is a word for this. This is Propaganda. The law is a perversion of its alleged purpose of defense of the truth by claiming it will weed out lies. It actually seeks to preserve complete control of the narrative a.k.a., propaganda by shutting out anyone else with a different opinion. They need to go after foreign sources because obviously, there is no need for worry or concern that our domestic media might actually do its job. It is clearly already deep inside the belly of the beast.

    Mr. Obama has 20 days left and they cannot possibly go by fast enough as he salts the political landscape in order to tie the incoming administrations hands.

    This has to be one of the scariest and damnable things Obama signed into law. Hopefully, it will shortly be rescinded but it seems even the republicans like Mitch McConnell are all on board with preserving the military industrial complex at all costs. War is their stock and trade and there are trillions of dollars at stake here. The Defense Industry needs enemies not friends.

    What we are seeing is the Neo-Con Cabal wringing their hands with anxiety that the next war with Russia might be on hold and doing everything they can to make that happen. This is what Eisenhower warned us about. But it is an old problem.

    Here are some quotes:

    I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.

    Abraham Lincoln – In a letter written to William Elkin less than five months before he was assassinated.

    The money power preys on the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.

    Abraham Lincoln

    A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world – no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men .

    Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

    Woodrow Wilson – In The New Freedom (1913)

    The fact is that there is a serious danger of this country becoming a pluto-democracy; that is, a sham republic with the real government in the hands of a small clique of enormously wealth men, who speak through their money, and whose influence, even today, radiates to every corner of the United States.

    William McAdoo – President Wilson's national campaign vice-chairman, wrote in Crowded Years (1974)

    When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

    Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms

    The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.

    Prof. Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope

    In a small Swiss city sits an international organization so obscure and secretive .Control of the institution, the Bank for International Settlements, lies with some of the world's most powerful and least visible men: the heads of 32 central banks, officials able to shift billions of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen.

    Keith Bradsher of the New York Times, August 5, 1995

    The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is eager to enter into close relationship with the Bank for International Settlements .The conclusion is impossible to escape that the State and Treasury Departments are willing to pool the banking system of Europe and America, setting up a world financial power independent of and above the Government of the United States .The United States under present conditions will be transformed from the most active of manufacturing nations into a consuming and importing nation with a balance of trade against it.

    Rep. Louis McFadden – Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency quoted in the New York Times (June 1930)

    backwardsevolution , January 1, 2017 at 9:53 pm

    CitizenOne – great post!

    D5-5 , January 1, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    Thank you for this excellent analysis. Particularly disturbing to me is the success of the propaganda in places I wouldn't expect it, as with Democracy Now, and my neighbors, who seem decent, intelligent people, but entirely done in by the false impressions. I have the feeling the critical views expressed here and in this excellent Consortium site, plus similar sites, represent a small minority of the American public? Or is an awakening in progress causing this newest repressive move, a growing skepticism threatening "national security"? I did read a comment somewhere that fifty percent of the American public is not taken in by the current Russia blaming, but I don't know if this is true.

    junius , January 2, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    How about Rolling Stone's October article praising Hillary Clinton as a champion of feminism? I just cancelled my subscription to the New Yorker because the quality of its great cartoons no longer outweighs the ugly rightward shift in its editorial policy.

    We seem to be witnessing the completion of the project begun a century ago this year, in 1917, with the establishment of the Committee on Public Information. Also known as the Creel Commission, it was the government agency tasked with convincing the American people that it was a good idea to support one faction in Europe's Great War and to take arms against the other. As laughably naive as that propaganda effort seems now, it was the beginning of the end of independent journalism, which in truth had always been on shaky ground in this country. The Founders were among the most cynical of men. It's not hard to picture them laughing in their sleeves over the farcical First Amendment for well they knew from colonial experience that the "freedom" to publish belongs only to those who can afford the price of a printing press, ink, and paper, and who, most importantly, curry favor from government and business. It remains to be seen what effect the internet will have – and how easily it can be silenced

    Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    I'm well aware of the propaganda from our government but if you believe it will be better under Trump, you are living in a fairy tale. As Bernie said, he's a pathological liar.

    Whatever benefits Trump determines what he will say. Look under the covers and you find Steve Bannon who runs the trump campaign. If you think the propaganda is bad now, wait until he's in control.

    Trump isn't the answer and we need his tax returns. I can see him creating an alliance with Putin and undermining Western Europe.

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 3:49 pm

    I'm well aware of the propaganda from our government but if you believe it will be better under Trump, you are living in a fairy tale.

    Bill Cash: I'm with you on this point, but your reasoning above in other posts was very sloppy making facts out of speculation. Speculation, even if it is plausible, does not qualify as fact. I also agree with other commentators suggesting Trump will probably make Obama look good despite negative opinions of Obama.

    Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 4:23 pm

    How would creating an alliance with Putin undermine western Europe? You are right that I don't know much about you, but I am with Bill Bodden that you are guilty of shoddy reasoning. As for Global warming, I am sure that it is a serious problem. But Hillary's foreign policy would have had me concerned about nuclear winter. And Hillary is a pathological liar who thinks only of herself and talks out both sides of her mouth. And she is a slave to the deep state and wall street. I think you are dead right about Trump's character, but I think you may be underestimating much of the horrors of the Clintons. How about foreign alliances via the Clinton Foundation- it's pay to play scenario, and the possible impacts on foreign policy? Look at the utter mayhem in the Middle East and the refugee crisis in Europe. Hillary would have promised us more of the same as president.

    I was a Bernie supporter as well, but he lost me when he gave up the fight.

    Jessejean , January 2, 2017 at 1:20 am

    Skip–Bernie didn't give up the fight. He did what he had promised to do and supported the nominee. In other words, he kept his word, even tho it clearly cost him. You abandoned him when the fight became tough, when it wasn't so glamorous, when it shifted over to the hard slog of grassroots organizing and door to door work for some school board member–you know, the kind of work Stokley Charmicheal did for years to help build the Panthers. Don't blame Bernie for your lacking of true heart. It's you.

    Skip Scott , January 2, 2017 at 9:00 am

    When Bernie discovered proof thru wikileaks that the DNC was actively working against him, he should have fought for the nomination at the convention, instead of caving to all the corruption (super delegates, etc etc.) If he had failed there, he could have topped the green party ticket with Jill Stein to run as VP. Then he would have succeeded in blowing up the entirely corrupt two party system, if nothing else. He would have had the 15% to make the national debates. He may have even won. Where was the slog of grassroots organizing after he quit the fight? It's come to naught. I had the true heart to stay with him if he hadn't caved. Bernie even supported some faux democrats against genuine
    progressive greens in down ballot races. This is not a game, it's real life. It is time for people to stand strong for the issues they care about.

    Brad Owen , January 2, 2017 at 10:44 am

    I agree Skip. Bernie was the man of the hour. He had the perfect tool to smash the two-party/Wall Street/deep state Establishment: millions of independent citizen donors. Then he threw it all away to actively campaign for the queen of chaos and the Establishment War Party. I was so disgusted and mad that I went Green and never looked back. I now donate 10$ a month, every month, to the Greens hoping to see recreated the Tool that Bernie threw away (and still trying to lasso to the D-side of the Establishment War Party): millions of independent citizens donating 10$ or 20$ a month to the Green Party to build up a war chest to challenge both wings of the Establishment War Party.

    Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 6:59 pm

    Certainly Trump should not be trusted, among the two very bad (in my view) candidates, I considered Trump the greated evil for domestic US policy, but probably the lesser evil in foreign policy compared to Hillary Clinton's more aggressive neocon policies.

    In what ways should a good collaboration of Trump and Putin undermine Western Europe? According to surveys (e.g. http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/13/europeans-see-isis-climate-change-as-most-serious-threats/epw-russia-china-u-s-threats-web-version/ ), apart from Poland, relatively few Europeans see Russia as a big threat, and in many countries, US power and influence is actually seen as a similar or even bigger threat than Russia.

    I think the demonization of Russia and the presentation of the Russian government as a big threat also has to do with the goal of keeping a strong US influence in Western Europe – and for supporting the influence of US-linked European interest groups. But I doubt that this is going to work. It might work on the US public, but apart from Poland and the Baltic states, demonizing Russia is much more difficult in Europe, and the percentage of people who know more about the conflicts in which Russia is involved than the simplified depictions that are popular in the US is probably much bigger.

    John P , January 1, 2017 at 7:05 pm

    In support Bill, see:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/putin-trump-obama-russia-us-new-cold-war-two-diplomacy-editorial-a7502631.html

    James lake , January 1, 2017 at 10:31 pm

    You do realise who owns that news paper you are quoting. It's owned by the Ledbedev family who are oligarchs in the fine tradition. Stole money ran to the west claiming persecution by Putin. It's an anti Putin paper. They are purely online now as the print version of the paper ceased to make a profit.

    The only writers worth reading are Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn

    Kalen , January 1, 2017 at 3:23 pm

    Just a note for DN lovers. Since before 2008 the Pacifica Fundation running DN was taken over by Goldman Sachs. Many local stations rebelled and were cut off from money, forcing them into turmoil and like KPFA and KPFK throwed the management off, cut the fat and went fully listener funded. All that while GS bought Amy Goodman a new TV studio with audience who after the show for $2000 had a chance to go to dinner with Amy.

    All in the midst of 2008 ensuing collapse. When DN subsequently ignored Puerto Rico general strike and a quarter million street demonstration. I stopped watching and listening DN on radio after 15 years.

    I guess they are not doing better now.

    ger , January 1, 2017 at 3:24 pm

    The Police State requires each person to believe their lies. Paraphrasing a comment attributed to a former CIA operative: "When the only narrative available is ours, we will have done our job". The problem for the Police State is even if there is only one person left to speak truth to their lies. that truth will need to be snuffed out. It will take a lot more than $160,000,000.

    Tristan , January 1, 2017 at 3:27 pm

    This article does well to point out the impending doom of our intellectual discourse regarding the nature of the U.S. gov't and its relationship with the citizenry. Already the citizens of the U.S. are more commonly referred to as consumers, thus it follows that the more equal of the equal should control what the consumers are fed.

    The dystopian nature of free market globalized capitalism is now finding, or is near to, the apex of what capitalism unfettered can accomplish. Resulting in the frantic "marketing" that this form of capitalism relies on to "sell" itself as the only way to survive this ugly planet. War is the product, propaganda is the marketing, we fools, consumers, are forced to buy the product from afar and those who receive the product pay a price that no human ought to bear.

    Since we must recognize the complete corruption of such a condition, those that wish to continue to profit from this are forced to act in ways which protect this profit. If this includes an Orwellian Ministry of Truth, as the CFPDA intends, then that's the remedy that is needed because profit, you know, money, power, ad nauseum. That's it. If there were some greater underpinning to the destruction of whole societies and nations and regions that made some sense in the fabric of improving the well being of the planet's humans, perhaps we could accede to the years of long sacrifice and struggle. But no, this is only about wealth and the accumulation of power that this now provides in our modern world.

    The narratives which counter the prevailing religion in the West, the religion of Capitalism unfettered and rapacious, are not given voice. Many don't even understand that there a different ways of organizing a society or a nation that serves the need and well being of its citizens.

    This bullshit machine being funded by "our own" government is ensuring just that, that people are not even provided an opportunity to discuss an alternative to the present state of things. Try not to buy the products that this machine produces, as even if we dream of something else, this too is contrary to the designs of the machine. Next is the Ministry of Thought, or perhaps it was first. And the Ministry of Truth is just now only the second to appear manifest.

    Brian , January 1, 2017 at 3:46 pm

    Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)

    It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.

    https://youtu.be/A7_kD2D-eaU

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 3:55 pm

    John McCain has long been recognized as a warmonger eager to attack foreign nations. Many Americans will be surprised to learn he is now waging war on the American people. Many other Americans won't have a clue of what this bill means – or even of its existence.

    Liam , January 1, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    Regarding all the major propaganda narrative relating to the Syrian War, I put together a massive compendium of photos, videos and linked evidence related to the White Helmets and other ruses. Links here:

    Extensive links to important JPR posts exposing the White Helmet terrorists .

    Please bookmark and save this large amount of info related to the US/UK backed White Helmets as it is extensive proof that the officials of the aforementioned countries are supporting a fake group that is directly linked to terrorism. The White Helmets killed the real Syrian Civil Defense in east Aleppo, Syria in 2013. The videos and research throughout these posts, which is primarily conducted by UK investigative reporting outfit 21st Century Wire and Venessa Beeley, exposes one of the greatest war lies over told, a massive propaganda effort meant to deceive and coerce the populations of western countries into believing that al-Qaeda linked terrorists are civil humanitarians that save little children.

    Bob Van Noy , January 2, 2017 at 3:31 pm

    Thank you Liam, wonderful

    J'hon Doe II , January 1, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    depth of depraved indifference revealed in the below regarding the US hired interrogator of the captured Saddam.

    the segment ought to inform you of critical justice. And Truth.

    https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/part_2_cia_interrogator_reveals_saddam

    Michael Rohde , January 1, 2017 at 4:58 pm

    So we have our own Pravda now. Way to go obama. I voted for him twice and this is how he leaves us? Not the ending I envisaged.

    Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    I voted for Obama twice as well. I believe in both those cases, he was the lesser of two evils. McCain knows of no problem that sufficient bombing can't fix, and Romney thought the entire American public should become vulture capitalists like himself. Who knows what kind of pressure Obama was under from the deep state. They may well have taken him to the woodshed and told him what he needed to do if he loved living, and loved his wife and daughters.

    Joe Tedesky , January 2, 2017 at 2:34 am

    Michael, Skip, don't beat yourself so up to bad, it wasn't as though our choices of candidates are ever that good. I blame that on a money driven media system, and a public controlled by a constant narravative void of any critical thinking. This past years election was nothing but immature on zingers and never about having an intelligent debate. So, don't be to hard on yourself, you and I never stood a chance with what we had, or rather didn't have to work with. Our candidate never runs nor do they win. Have a great New Years, I mean that.

    F. G. Sanford , January 1, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    "Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives.""

    "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best practices."

    " the U.S. government's new "Global Engagement Center" will seek to ensure that the censorship is even more complete with its goal to "counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation.""

    So Hillary supports the bill, but people still think she's a progressive, let alone a Democrat? This should solidify the concept that both parties are beholden to a deeper agenda which has decidedly fascist overtones. When they implement those "best practices", I wonder where book-burning and smashing printing presses will shake out in that "wide range of techniques". I can already imagine where they'll go to get that "external expertise". Probably the same place where they're currently getting "expert training" for our police forces.

    These developments contain hallmarks of an empire in decline, clutching at any figment of its imagination to control the narrative and retain its legitimacy. But on the bright side, I'm curious to know how far $160 million could really go to prop up failing entities like the NYT, WaPo, CNN and MSNBC. Wolf Blitzer, Christianne Amanpour, Jill Dogherty, Rachel Maddow, Jake Tapper, Michael Smerconish, Anderson Cooper, Fareed Zakaria, Ben Wedeman, John King, Gloria Borger and Dana Bash are just a few of the faces that can make me instantly change the channel. I used to think Phyllis Bennis, Amy Goodman and Paul Jay were on the level, but they too frequently pull their punches when the truth REALLY needs to be told. Fox news is just totally hopeless. Most of these people are shameless liars, and I don't think I'm the only person who notices. They have "phony" written all over their faces. In the end, free market economics may go a long way to hamper any benefit a mere $160 million transfusion can pump into the dying corpse of mainstream media. And, if they try to shut down Black Agenda Report, I wonder whose side the ACLU will pick? Lots of Ph.D theses and Supreme Court cases are on the horizon from this one! It's still pretty hard to sell a horse with a wooden leg even with skillful marketing.

    In the meantime though, the U.S. Government's "Goebbels Engagement Center" is definitely a scary thought. Giddayup, Nellybell, here comes the lynch mob!

    Regina Schulte , January 1, 2017 at 5:18 pm

    The enormity of our government's hypocrisy in all of this defies a sane person's ability to comprehend the current stance we are now placing before the rest of the world. The long list of our spying, regime changes, executions, unwarranted secret operations, destruction of national economies, and the myriad of ongoing other secrecies is a measure of our hubris in thinking that the rest of the world is our oyster. Despite all of our own sins, we dare to accuse other leaders of invading our empirical rights!!!

    Josh Stern , January 1, 2017 at 5:34 pm

    It would be very interesting to learn more about some of the main mechanisms through which current day US propaganda is scheduled to lead, with nothing bleeding – or even interesting – at mainstream media outlets. Are those decisions coming from the executive editors or from the media owners? I'm not going to hold my breath for the media to report on itself in that capacity, but perhaps some investigative journalists on those staffs will put their anonymously sourced mouths where their sourced mouths usually go and act as informants to allow independent reporters to get the scoop on how this works. Who at NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc. decided to make no true evidence, probably a false story, missing the big picture, no-harm Russian hacking a main story almost every day, giving support fir bloviating idiots in US Congress to declare that Russia must be punished for the things they have previously declared "every nation does".

    Gary Hare , January 1, 2017 at 5:45 pm

    It is quite possible that MSM is sometimes accurate in its reporting, and objective in its analysis. But it has been shown too often to be purveyors of pure propaganda, ignorant of facts that counter such propaganda and cheerleaders for US/NATO aggression, that it has lost all credibility, and so we must question virtually everything it says regarding world affairs. The actions of lawmakers regarding "fake news", and the Obama, Clinton, DMC "we woz robbed" by Putin storyline, is kindergarden stuff, farcical and petulant, and should be treated as such by objective journalists.
    Will Trump be any better? I believe there is reason to expect he and his administration to be even worse, but I wait in hope that I am wrong. The world's only "superpower" has become the world's leading laughing stock. Are there any grown-ups in US/NATO politics?

    F. G. Sanford , January 1, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    I just gotta say something about that "love fest for Trump" comment. Here's how I see it. Trump says stuff, and it may not be true. But he really believes it. Hillary tells lies, but she knows she's lying. She tells them anyway, and insists they're true. I don't have anything but hope. Deep down, I'm relatively optimistic. Hillary's lies could start WWIII. Trump's blustering probably wont. If there's even a shred of a chance he'll listen to reason, he has the coglioni to make some needed changes. Hillary was the puppet. Trump, admittedly, is a bull in a china shop, but with him, I think we still have a future. And, it could be a very bright one if he plays his cards right. It's that simple.

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 6:31 pm

    The War Against Alternative Information

    In a war there are two sides – the aggressors and their targets.

    There are two sides to the targets – those who surrender and collaborate and those who resist to defend their homeland.

    Pick a side.

    W Hajicek , January 1, 2017 at 6:43 pm

    Seriously? Defending Mideast dictatorships because things were orderly?

    I am dismayed at the prospect of more propaganda coming from the government. However, a more pertinent and enlightening critique of this development would be to inform readers of the history of our government's use of propaganda, and how this new funding, etc., impacts what the government is already doing. That is wholly missing from this article. Instead there is an inexplicable defense of authoritarian regimes, in particular going on for paragraph after paragraph about Syria.

    And what was your point? Are you actually just debating recent U.S. focus on regime change, a la Bush? I don't agree with that, but I wouldn't defend Assad or Putin, nor dismiss their use of propaganda.

    Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 7:44 pm

    Who claims that everything was alright in the dictatorships like Iraq and Libya? It is just very likely that there would have been much less violence and suffering if these governments had not been toppled by force. Claiming that there were allegedly good intentions certainly does not justify the suffering and violence that was caused by these interventions.

    Likewise, of course, those who arm and finance jihadist militias in Syria can claim that their goal is improving the human rights situation. But is there any credibility of the claim that human rights will improve when the Syrian government is toppled and Islamist extremist groups like the Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda), Al Zenki and Ashrar Al Sham take power in the parts of Syria that are not already under the control of Daesh? Or should we believe some fairytales like that, after taking power in Syria, Wahhabi militias would step aside and hand over power to some liberal pro-democratic intellectual who had been in exile? The point is that it is certainly not good enough to point out human rights violations of the Assad government to justify policies that would, if they were successful, probably bring to power forces that have even less respect for human rights.

    Furthermore, if the fact that the government of a country can be called a dictatorship should be a sufficient reason for overthrowing it (whichever forces come to power afterwards), what should be the criteria? After all, dictatorships are not really rare in many parts of the world, especially the Middle East. Why has the US turned on one secular dictatorship after the other, but never attacked theocratic Sunni regimes like Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that have an abysmal human rights record? Obviously, the criteria are not based on whether a government is an autocracy or how much it violates human rights, but something else (probably some geostrategic interests).

    I think the main points of criticism of the idea that the fact that a government is autocratic gives an outside country like the US the right to topple it are:

    1. "Humanitarian" justifications of interventions are worthless when they are likely to lead to more violence and suffering than if the intervention had not been made.

    2. Toppling a dictator in a country without a long democratic tradition is not likely to lead to a functioning democracy afterwards. In Western countries, democracy has also taken a long time to develop, it can hardly be brought about by some bombs. In many cases, toppling a dictator either leads to long-term armed fights between competing groups and/or a new dictatorship sooner or later.

    3. When we look at autocracies that were toppled and others that were not toppled by the US, it is hardly plausible that the criterion was how autocratic the government was, how much it violated human rights or how low the standard of living was. Since the "humanitarian" arguments are not the real criteria for the decision about which autocracy should be attacked (otherwise, it would be hard to explain why, for instance, Saudi Arabia has not been attacked), it would make more sense to discuss the real reasons for the attacks, whatever they are, than the justifications that are brought forward when the decision to topple a country has been taken.

    4. If the idea of the illegality of wars of aggression in international law (except extraordinary circumstances authorized by the UN Security Council) is given up, this could lead to dangerous wars in many regions. Which countries should have the right to attack countries that are determined to be autocracies by the attacker? Would the US tolerate it if India or Russia decided to topple pro-Western autocracies that violate himan rights (e.g. Saudi Arabia)?

    Sam F , January 1, 2017 at 8:49 pm

    Yes, the same US propaganda reasoning applied to the US oligarchy, which is a set of autocrats, would require that the US use subversion and military force to remove the Republicans, Democrats, warmongers, AIPAC, imperialist financiers etc..

    Starting with drone attacks on mass media, party operatives, bank HQ etc. Then some "shock and awe" and an invasion to subdue its military forces, greeted by the people of the US dancing in the streets. Then denial of employment to all who worked for the US regime, followed by founding a true democracy where money does not buy mass media or elections.

    Something tells me that the dark state will not reach that conclusion. So I guess that democracy was never the objective of regime change by the US.

    Blahblahblah , January 1, 2017 at 9:48 pm

    Judging by your name, you have Czech origin. Why are you supporting democracy all over the world from the U.S.? Shouldn' t you be saving the Czech Reublic from bad Zeman? There's no communism there anymore

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 10:56 pm

    One of the problems with regime change whether practices by an outside agency such as the United States and Iraq, Libya, etc. or through an internal revolution is the risk of the cure being worse than the disease.

    Oleg , January 1, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    It is funny and indeed troubling that the US is busy copycatting the practices of the recent foe that went down exactly because these practices were grossly inefficient. I of course mean the Cold War 1.0 and the former Soviet Union. I remember listening to Voice of America in my youth in search for truth. I never imagined that only a few years later during my lifetime Americans will be looking for truth in Russian news outlets and the US will create "the Global Engagement Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation." In fact, resorting to such practices is a huge sign of weakness and decline. It is a pity really that the US are getting that weak that fast. I am not really pro-American but I still remember things that America used to champion around the world (yes, the Freedom of Speech too!), and we all still need these things as much as ever. Too bad they are under threat in the US themselves now. Hopefully Trump will indeed be able to make America great again and stop all this nonsense.

    Blahblahblah , January 1, 2017 at 9:46 pm

    What is most sad is that many American rally for this "the Global Engagement Center". See Bill Cash here.
    I see it the same way you do, sinc eI was also born in the USSR.

    Joe Tedesky , January 1, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    Oleg read this link I'm providing, and see if you feel as does the Russian who wrote this magnificent article .

    https://slavyangrad.org/2014/09/24/the-russia-they-lost/

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 11:05 pm

    Great link, Joe. Thank you for sharing.

    John , January 1, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    these are just semi clever diversions leading the average away from the Prime Agenda ..Lol ..ask Merkel she knows

    Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    What I find scary is how much the dominance of the propaganda discourse has increased. Before the Iraq war, there was widespread dissent, and in most of Europe, support for the war was a minority position. But in the case of Libya and, even more Syria, dissent is tolerated less and almost all media strictly follow the official propaganda line. I find this even more striking because, after all, this is a position that should be rather hard to sell to the public. One should think that it should not be so easy to spread the idea that mostly jihadist militias that were (and mostly still are) allied with Al Qaeda are the good guys that should be supported with money and arms. That even such a difficult position could reach such a dominant position in the Western media discourse shows how effective the propaganda is. I am beginning to think that if the line that Sweden is the biggest threat to world peace was spread, people would sign petitions on change.org for finally occupying Sweden, and there would be talking points about the inaction of the US president because Sweden still has not been occupied by US troops although everyone recognizes that it is an enormous threat to humanity. I am probably exaggerating a bit, but if the relevant interest groups are successful in making many people believe that anyone who does not support jihadist allies of Al Qaeda who behead "traitors" and bombing anti-air defences all over the country is heartless towards Syrians, there are probably many other things that seem absurd and extreme now that could be promoted in a way that soon anyone who does not agree with it is depicted as a bad person.

    I find the role of Snopes particularly worrying. Of course, I cannot judge whether everything Eva Bartlett says is true. But her reports are detailed and connected to evidence, while the Snopes texts that dismiss her are written in a sloppy and superficial way. This would not be a problem if Snopes was just one more website where a point of view is expressed (accidentally or not so accidentally one that is very close to the position of the US government). But since it is planned that Snopes should be one of the arbiters with a higher authority that should decide what is true and what is not, this is worrysome. It is not too hard to predict that Snopes would hardly ever flag articles from the Washington Post or the New York Times that are close to the US government as "disputed" even if they are speculative and based on flimsy evidence, but other texts contradicting them will probably regularly be flagged as "disputed". The only question is whether this will be effective or if people will just ignore the "disputed" flags if they are biased in a way that is too obvious (which also means that the flags would be ineffective against real fake news) and, if Facebook starts hiding such "disputed" stories, just move over to other networks.

    Oleg , January 1, 2017 at 9:24 pm

    Regarding Sweden and propaganda: Wag the Dog. 1997 movie. All said then. Sadly, still more true than ever.

    Stefan , January 1, 2017 at 8:54 pm

    Democracy Later is more dangerous than the other big propaganda organs.

    While the latter ones require very little scrutiny by the observant to recognize as the warmongers that they are

    the former (democracy now[sic] ) tries to lure the the careful reader and critic into its well crafted trap of deception – to gather your trust where it matters the least, and couches it's warmongering where it matters the most, most recently in regards to Syria.

    Kent , January 2, 2017 at 11:33 am

    Stefan,

    'Democracy Later' I like that.

    Look at DN's funding structure it's not hard to figure out.

    http://www.newsofinterest.tv/_sam_noitv/politics/media_issues/bias/left_gatekeepers_smaller.jpg

    Eddie , January 2, 2017 at 2:19 pm

    Kent – The link to a supposed 'flow chart' looks suspicious, since there's no links/attributions to sources, and the 'newsofinteterest' website (apparently inactive for ~5 yrs?) didn't appear to be particularly credible in my experience (ie; links to 911 truthers, Laetrile cancer proponents, etc). And to regard Noam Chomsky's political views as somehow significantly influenced by corporate money/government coercion (as the diagram does at the bottom) is laughable - the guy has been a strong, vocal, prolific critic of US imperialism, condemning it since the c1960.

    Decades ago he stopped paying a portion of his taxes as a protest against military spending, and subsequently has had his wages garnished by the government. While I don't necessarily agree with all of Chomsky's prescriptions of what to do (e.g.; his judgement that it was best to vote for HC), his descriptions of what HAS happened have been accurate, nuanced, and documented.

    David F., N.A. , January 1, 2017 at 10:49 pm

    This says it all:

    But the U.S. government's near total control of the message doesn't appear to be enough. Apparently even a few voices of dissent are a few voices too many.

    The illusions of "freedom" hates us for our First Amendment. Isn't this the true premise behind our bought-and-paid-for government's multinational oligarchs' enactment of all these new Patriot Acts (NDAAs and other laws)?

    For over a year and a half prior to the election several liberal websites started mimicking the msm with their Trump bashing. To me, all these bashings were backhanded endorsements for Clinton. I swear, most, if not all, of the liberal topics, talking points and phrases were exactly identical to the msm's. As apparent as it was this election, this showed that the bluedogs in-charge had been influencing the liberals for quite some time. This is probably why the duopoly issue wasn't strongly addressed back when Nader spoiled Gore's chances in 2000 (hold on, hold on, I have a legitimate excuse: a foundation paid me to say that).

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 11:12 pm

    Obama did promise hope and change, but it is highly unlikely anyone outside the neocon and proto-fascist cabals hoped for this change setting up a Ministry of Truth. What a legacy!!!

    Elizabeth Hanson , January 2, 2017 at 12:14 am

    What a great essay. Thank you to the writer. So many links to explore. I agree wholeheartedly in the analysis. I wrote a very simple essay for my own website which comes to the same conclusions. I include a list of headlines from main stream media regarding the "Russian hacking" and then the headlines from independent media. It was quite stark. Someone is lying.

    https://turningpointnews.org/exposing-political-corruption/why-we-need-independent-media

    Keep up the great work Consortium news!

    Joe Tedesky , January 2, 2017 at 2:16 am

    I agree Elizabeth we do need Independent Media. I wish our news was more International Independent, and I think that maybe coming. I see people posting comments on this site from International Countries, so it's already happening. I read some foreign sites myself, but I hope that if allowed to continue that this average person may be able to interact with other peoples of the world, and make some sense of all of this. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but a person can dream can't they?

    This 2017 New Years Americans are permitted to blame Vladimir Putin for they're getting obnoxiously drunk while bringing in the New Year with a couple a bottles of Stolichnaya .this maybe void in Vermont, considering.

    This Russian hacking scare is scaring some Americans for real, and that ain't good, because with the hysteria comes the loss of more freedoms. Each episode of terror or security related troubled matters comes America's way, means the end of a Right. Our grandchildren of this new century will assume there always was a Homeland Security, because it's always been there as long as they can remember. The most pathetic part of all of this is that it all began to be set in motion over Hillary's loss. I'll end it here, but your essay was spot on and intelligent on top of that.

    Brian , January 2, 2017 at 9:37 am

    "Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!" Nathan Meyer Rothschild

    June 13, 2016 Which Corporations Control The World?

    A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44864.htm

    jo6pac , January 2, 2017 at 11:51 am

    Then there's this.

    http://variety.com/2016/film/news/george-clooney-white-helmets-rescuers-syria-1201945608/

    The great noise machine never sleeps.

    Zachary Smith , January 2, 2017 at 1:09 pm

    I just ran into a little essay which suggests to me that The War Against Alternative Information is actually one of many campaigns in a much larger conflict. Regarding the link, the author is somebody I've never heard of, and I hope and pray he doesn't turn out to be a neo-nazi or some similar kind of nut.

    Trump sensing Obama's resort to violent retaliation against Russia, and the likelihood he would turn the gun to 'Putin's accomplice', the President-elect decided to take precautionary measures, he replaced Obama's secret service by his private security guards.

    ... ... ...
    There is little doubt that the murder of the Russian Ambassador will be the beginning of a cycle of violent assassinations. It is certain that Putin and Trump will take the appropriate defensive measures.

    I don't follow Roman Catholic affairs, but last I heard the current Pope hadn't moved into the Vatican. It's my opinion that's the only reason the man is still alive. Still an opinion, but his hyper-caution is something other people ought to imitate.

    http://www ..unz.com/jpetras/portrait-of-an-assassin-obamas-revenge/

    Brian , January 2, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Jan 1, 2017 2017: TRUTH RISING - Melissa & Aaron Dykes

    Aaron and Melissa Dykes are truth researchers, truth journalists and truth filmmakers. Their excellent website Truthstreammedia com and You Tube channel by the same name are two must visit destination for anyone who wants to be informed about the REAL issues we face. Truthstreammedia is the antithesis to the "fake news" you'll get from CNN and mainstream media outlets.

    https://youtu.be/jFwyxR7oh3I

    Stephen , January 2, 2017 at 2:57 pm

    I believe the war criminals past and present are terrified that the sleeping masses might finally wake up. Therefore, they are attempting to shut down alternative voices, and continuing their propaganda via their corporate hand maidens.

    "There is overwhelming evidence that wars on a number of countries were planned. Yet, this evidence is censored and covered up by many of the so-called "searchers for truth," in the "investigative media." The TV "news" parrots propaganda daily and the "newspapers" do likewise "
    [read more at link below]
    http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/12/the-propaganda-peddlers-war-criminals.html

    [Jan 02, 2017] If There Really Was Evidence Of Russian Hacking, The NSA Would Have It Zero Hedge

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by David Spring via TurningPointNews.org,

    On December 29, 2016, the Hill posted an article discussing a 13 page report by the FBI and DHS claiming that their 13 page report was "evidence" of Russian hacking in US elections.
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

    Wikileaks has repeatedly stated that the source of its leaks was a disgruntled Democratic Party insider.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

    However, President Obama issued a press release on December 29 2016 using the DHS-FBI report to justify increasing sanctions against Russia.
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/statement-president-actions-response-russian-malicious-cyber-activity

    I therefore decided to see what the evidence was of Russian involvement in US Elections. The Hill article linked to this 13 page government press release as its proof of Russian hacking.
    https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf

    The government press release written by DHS-FBI did not mention Wikileaks in its report. Nor did the report provide any evidence of Russian hacking in the US elections. Instead, the press release stated that "technical indicators" of Russian hacking were in the "CSV file and XML file attached with the PDF." However, there was no CSV or XML file or link attached with the PDF. I was eventually able to find these two files at this link.
    https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity

    To see the evidence of Russian hacking first hand, I downloaded the CSV file and converted it into a spreadsheet. The CSV file and the XML file both contained the same data. Here is the XML link to this data which can be viewed online in a web browser.
    https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR-16-20296.xml

    Both files provide a list of 895 "indicators" of Russian Hacking. Unfortunately, nearly all of these indicators are simply IP addresses. In other words, it is a list of 895 servers from from more than 40 countries around the world. But the list also includes a few website domain names. (Domain names are simply the name of the website such as Youtube.com). I looked up these website domain names with the the following tool which tells us who owns the domain names and where they are located:
    https://www.whois.net/

    My review of these domain names confirmed that none of these domain names have any relationship to Russian government hackers. Here are the results for four of the domain names provided by the DHS and the FBI as evidence of Russian hacking:

    ritsoperrol.ru is not in use. It is registered to a private person. The named server hosting the domain is nserver: ns0.xtremeweb.de. This is a German web hosting and consulting company whose address and phone number are publicly listed on their website. It is highly unlikely that Russian hackers would use a public German web host to register and host their domain names.

    littlejohnwilhap.ru is not in use and is available to be purchased. It is unlikely that Russian hackers would use a domain name like this to launch a cyber attack on the US.

    wilcarobbe.com is taken and is not in use. It is registered to Arsen Ramanov in Groznenskaya Russia. His address, phone number and email address are all publicly listed. It is highly unlikely that Russian hackers would use a domain name that was publicly listed. Hackers are not idiots.

    one2shoppee.com is taken and is registered with GoDaddy.com. It is not currently in use. But it is highly unlikely that Russian Hackers would register their domain names with GoDaddy – which is a US server. In fact, it is very unlikely that Russian hackers would ever use any US servers. They would only use their own servers.

    How did these four domain names get on a list of Russian hackers? It is possible that some unknown agents took over these domain names and may have used them for some kind of hacking activity. However, the agents could have just as easily been from the US as from Russia. In fact, it is not likely that these domain names were taken over by Russian hackers for the simple reason that Russian hackers are way to smart to be using these silly tactics.

    None of the 885 IP addresses have any confirmed relationship to Russian Government Hackers

    An IP address is simply a numerical designation for a server. The 885 IP addresses listed in the DHS – FBI CSV file were even more interesting. The IP addresses were located on servers from the US and more than 40 nations around the world including more than 30 IP addresses supposedly located in China. Here are a few of the IP addresses

  • 167.114.35.70
  • 185.12.46.178
  • 46.102.152.132
  • 178.20.55.16
  • I looked up several of these IP addresses using the following tool:
    http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip-lookup

    Here are a four examples of IP addresses in the DHS-FBI report:

    167.114.35.70 is a Canadian Corporate server specializing in the promotion of Bitcoin. They are within a few miles of the US border.

    185.12.46.178 is a Swiss corporate server associated with the domain name leavesorus.com. The domain name leavesorus.com is currently available to be purchased. This indicates that this is a fake domain name and likely a fake corporation.

    46.102.152.132 is another Swiss corporate server this one specializing in emails and associated with the domain name maxsultan.xyz which is a fake domain name. This also indicates that this is another fake corporation.

    178.20.55.16 is a proxy server with no known location but has been used as a TOR router exit node. A proxy server is another name for a mirror or server used to bounce information from one server to another in order to hide the true location of the original server. This proxy server is associated with the domain name nos-oignons.net. This domain name was registered on December 31 2012 and is valid until December 31 2017. In other words, whoever got this domain name paid for its use for 5 years. But they did registered the domain name anonymously. The website associated with this server appears to be a group in France promoting the TOR router. They became an association in May 2013 – 5 months after getting the domain name. The group currently has 5 members and it costs one Euro to join this group. Their website was reported 9 days ago as having been infected with the Zues virus. This infection does not leave tracks on server logs. So it is difficult to tell where it came from. Removal of this virus requires a complete rebuild of the server. In short, some agency decided to take out this server and then use it to make a cyber attack on some US government agency and thus have the IP address listed on the DHS-FBI list as one of 895 indicators of Russian hacking.

    Many of the IP addresses yielded the same dead end or otherwise highly suspicious result - meaning that some very large agency is using hundreds of servers in various countries around the world as a front for hacking attacks. I recently researched a series of attacks on my personal websites from hundreds of IP addresses using hundreds of servers that were supposedly located in the Ukraine. I was able to confirm the exact location in the Ukraine that was supposedly being used to launch literally thousands of attacks on my websites. However, it is not credible that anyone in the Ukraine has the millions of dollars needed to be running hundreds of servers in a remote Ukrainian location. Nor is it likely that anyone in rural Ukraine would even have the knowledge to take care of hundreds of servers even if they did have the millions of dollars needed to plow into buying these servers. Nor are they likely to have the knowledge needed to be running very complex cyber attacks. Ukraine is just not a good location for servers. This experience convinced me that attacks were being launched from other locations and were merely being routed through Ukraine in order to mislead people about where the attacks were really coming from.

    Next, the CSV file provided by DHS-FBI listed the physical location of all 885 IP addresses. What is most ironic is that, only two of the 885 IP addresses were from servers in Russia. The most common location of the hacking servers was the United States. Over 30 of the servers were supposedly located in China. But it is known that the NSA has the ability to use satellite mirrors to hide the locations of their servers – making folks believe that the attacks are coming from China (or Ukraine or Mongolia) when in fact they are coming from servers located in the US.

    ... ... ...

    Actually, there were two Russian servers located on lines 259 and 261. Here are the IP addresses.

  • 93.171.203.244
  • 95.105.72.78
  • Here is more information about each of these:

    93.171.203.244 This is a clean broadband server located near Ufa which is a city in Russia with one million people. It is associated with an organization called Miragroup Ltd. The website is rxbrothers.ru. Naturally, this is a fake domain name which is available to be purchased. Miragroup is actually a corporation located in Great Britain.

    95.105.72.78 is another clean broadband server located near Ufa. The organization is JSC Ufanet and the website is ufanet.ru which is a public broadband service started in 1997. Someone apparently is using this broadband service to hack the US government. Could this be the smoking gun that the Russian government is attacking the US? Think about it. If you were a Russian hacker, would you really use a public server located in some Russian town? I don't think so. This is more like evidence that some hacker was using the local public library.

    Imagine someone launching a cyber attack from the Seattle Public library – and then our government declaring that they have evident that the mayor of the City of Seattle was responsible for the attack because "nothing happens in Seattle without the approval of the Mayor!". This is worse than a silly accusation. It is ridiculous. It is irresponsible.

    Real Russian Hackers do not use Windows Servers

    Only three of the servers provided in the DHS/FBI report included detailed information (despite the fact that the IP addresses provided information on all 895 servers and that DHS/FBI certainly have detailed information on all of the servers). All three servers listed in the report were Windows servers. It is highly unlikely that Russian hackers or Chinese hackers would be using Windows servers. Instead, all real hackers use Linux servers because Linux servers are much more secure than Windows servers.
    https://techlog360.com/top-15-favourite-operating-systems-of-hackers/

    If there really was evidence of Russian hacking, the NSA would have it

    Former NSA leader turned whistleblower William Binney recently stated that if the Russians really did hack the Democratic Party servers, the NSA would certainly have real evidence (not the nonsense put out in the DHS-FBI CSV file). Here is his quote from a December 29 2016 article by Glenn Greenwald: "The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any "hacked" emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network. This process can sometimes require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender and recipient can be traced across the network."
    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/top-secret-snowden-document-reveals-what-the-nsa-knew-about-previous-russian-hacking/

    Edward Snowden has not only confirmed that the NSA has this ability – but that he himself used an NSA program called XKEYSCORE to monitor such attacks.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/26/russian-intelligence-hack-dnc-nsa-know-snowden-says/

    Anyone with any kind of technical background in defending against hacker attacks would understand that what Binney, Snowden and Greenwald are saying is true. The evidence of their truth – most of which was supplied by Snowden from NSA documents – is overwhelming.

    Conclusion

    An important research principle is to follow the money. People around the world need to ask themselves who has the money and technical ability to be running hundreds and perhaps thousands of real servers and real IP addresses from fake corporations using fake websites in fake locations in more than 40 nations around the world?

    What agency has already been proven to be running mass surveillance on billions of people in more than 40 nations all around the world? Whose military cyber budget is more than 10 times larger than the cyber warfare budget of the rest of the world combined? There is certainly an elephant in the room – but it is not a Russian elephant.

    At a televised press conference on April 2016, former NSA agent, Edward Snowden asked the Russian leader Vladimir Putin if the Russian government engaged in mass surveillance of millions of people in a manner similar to the NSA. Putin replied that Russian law prohibited the Russian government from engaging in mass surveillance. Putin then pointed out that the Russian military budget was less than 10% of the US military budget. So even if they wanted to engage in mass surveillance, they simply did not have the money.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/apr/17/snowden-putin-russia-surveillance-phone-in-video

    People also need to ask themselves why the FBI DHS chose to place their evidence in a CSV file and XML file rather than a normal document or spreadsheet. If this were real evidence, it would have been placed directly in the PDF report for everyone to read – not hidden away in a file the general public has little ability to read.

    Finally, for the FBI or the DHS to claim that the XML-CSV file contains evidence or even indicators of Russian hacking is simply a false statement. It is a perfect example of fake news. Any news agency promoting this claim without doing even the most basic of research that would easily confirm it is false, should be listed as a fake news agency.

    The real question that we should all be asking is why the DHS and FBI would destroy their reputation by posting such a fake report?

    Several years ago, our CIA claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction – meaning that we went to war and spent over a trillion dollars on a fake report. Is this new fake report a pretext for launching a cyber war against Russia? Is it intended to justify increasing US military spending?

    It is hard to say what the real purpose of this fake DHS-FBI report is. But the fact that this silly list of IP addresses was the best evidence they could provide should be a strong indication that there really is no evidence of Russian hacking. Instead, it is more likely that Wikileaks is telling the truth in stating that they got the emails from a disgruntled Democratic Party insider. J S Bach bamawatson , Jan 1, 2017 8:47 PM

    The DHS and FBI have no reputation to destroy. They are part of the cancerous system and thus infamously corrupt. Look at the way they handled the Hillary emails. Total proof of treason and they chose to ignore it. Do we expect any more honesty or competency from such a den of snakes?
    tazs Draybin Deffercon III , Jan 1, 2017 9:12 PM
    Russian Hacking is a politically-correct way of saying Trump stole the election.

    https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/views-of-news/#presidenttrump

    TBT or not TBT bamawatson , Jan 1, 2017 8:44 PM
    John Podesta fell for a phishing attack. So they got all of his emails. Which were embarrassing. And Huma stupidly used Carlos Danger's perving PC for government business. Shit like that. Oh, and SecState email was kept on an unsecure server in some guy's bathroom and places like that. And could not be FOIAed. Or secured. And got copied around to non-cleared persons pretty heavily and carelessly.
    Crash Overide TBT or not TBT , Jan 1, 2017 9:03 PM
    This shit's getting ridiculously ridiculous.
    TBT or not TBT Crash Overide , Jan 1, 2017 9:24 PM
    And who fucking cares whether the hacker who hit the jackpot happened to be Russian or to know Russians or to have even seen Dr Zhivago or admired Baryshnykov's dancing crotch meat back in the day?

    Everyone with an email account has received phishing emails. This is not sophisticated cloak and dagger or supercomputers or signal intercepts.

    Its a typical old mean white guy Dem grandee who let ALL his email fly into the wind. His real thoughts and feelings and plans and reactions thereto by other old mean lefties. Which were embarrassiing.

    DuneCreature Crash Overide , Jan 1, 2017 10:08 PM
    From Planet Ridiculo

    Barry started the hacking wars:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of...

    The NSA may have hacked the DNC with a bot released and intended for someone else. ...... That can happen very easily. ..... Just ask Barry and The Israelites

    Live Hard, STUXNET Is Still In The Wild Doing Mischief To This Day, Die Free

    ~ DC v4.0

    Dr. Bonzo , Jan 1, 2017 8:32 PM
    Great write-up. While I never had any doubt the DNC-hacks were 100% an inside job, simple deductive reasoning leads to very few other conclusions, it's nice to see a thorough parsing of the gubmint's smoke and mirrors job.
    uhland62 Dr. Bonzo , Jan 1, 2017 8:44 PM
    It's all about incompetence.

    Iraq - fail. Libya - fail. Syria - fail. Constructing war against Russia using this tool - fail. I like the glass ceiling, for another little while.

    dwboston , Jan 1, 2017 8:34 PM
    "If this were real evidence, it would have been placed directly in the PDF report for everyone to read – not hidden away in a file the general public has little ability to read."

    Anyone with Excel (which is basically anyone with a Windows PC) can open a CSV file. Of course the "hacking" claims are BS, but there's no need for hyperbole when the facts are so obvious.

    SantaClaws , Jan 1, 2017 8:36 PM
    " The real question that we should all be asking is why the DHS and FBI would destroy their reputation by posting such a fake report?"

    Why? Because the most important thing to Obama is to spread his lies and other propaganda by whatever means necessary. No one should take any DHS or FBI report seriously after 8 years of Obama (and James Comey, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and dozens of other agency chiefs).

    uhland62 , Jan 1, 2017 8:41 PM
    My respect for this work - totally impressive, even though It's mostly beyond me. If the NSA has every keystroke that anyone makes, then they'd have everything, of course.

    The Dems and all the McCain's men are just rattled that their war against Russia could be slipping away. Their next tool will be to turn Trump or impeach him.

    Don't enlist or you could find yourself in a war against Russia, dead, or a damaged veteran. Don't let them use you.

    Kirk2NCC1701 , Jan 1, 2017 8:46 PM
    As I wrote on Dec. 12, 2016: "Riddle me this, CIA..

    1. Is it possible to hack into a computer, and not leave a trail or unique fingerprint that leads back to You? Especially if the hack is physically initiated from outside the location (country, company or building) from where the attack is shown to originate? E.g. initiate hack from Macao or US. Is it possible? YES or NO?

    2. Do you think that the Russian government, any other major Power or "Mr. Robot" hacker have the ability to do #1? YES or NO?

    If the answers are Yes to both these critical questions, then you got Nothing, Zip, Zilch, Zero, Nada, Babkuss on "the Russians". At best, all you have is Conjecture or a Staged Trail.

    Next "Fake Issue"?"

    Reference: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-12/fbi-disputes-cias-fuzzy-and-amb...

    Kirk2NCC1701 LetThemEatRand Dec 12, 2016 3:51 PM

    p.s. As I wrote some days later, if it were me, I'd take a fresh "Burner Laptop" and initiate a hack attack from some Asian country, or even from within the US. The CIA, DNC and Obama are so full of shit, that it reeks to the moon.

    TBT or not TBT Kirk2NCC1701 , Jan 1, 2017 9:28 PM
    The Podesta emails were obtained from a simple phishing attack that the evil old fuck fell for. This is the "hacking" that made any difference.
    deja , Jan 1, 2017 8:50 PM
    "However, it is not credible that anyone in the Ukraine has the millions of dollars needed to be running hundreds of servers in a remote Ukrainian location."

    I guess the author has never heard of botnets...

    any_mouse , Jan 1, 2017 8:59 PM
    Smart hackers use bots to hide behind.

    That is the point of the bot networks.

    I still fail to see the logic where by the release of actual emails indicating unethical, criminal actions of a group (DNC) results in accusations that "Russians hacked the election".

    "Russian hackers" is the new "because 9/11" mantra.

    A cyber-TSA will be soon groping you as you surf the web.

    You will need a gov approved identification device to connect.

    Randomly your connection will be paused while a cyber-LEO avatar pops up and asks for your id and some questions about what you are doing.

    Because ... you know why.

    captain-nemo , Jan 1, 2017 9:30 PM

    Finally a proper analyzes of the report. Thanks a lot. I am still wondering why nobody has done the same. Having read this article it's obvious they got nothing.

    I bet that Obama and the deep state are gambling on that the fakestream media will do their job and misinform the sheeple and that decades of old mistrust and fake propaganda against the Russians will do the rest.

    It does not matter if the evidence are fake, when most people already has bought it, and the fakestream media keeps backing it up. Hell. Even republicans have swallowed the bate.

    So why did they do it?. Perhaps Obama, the deep state and the FBI and all those other agencies already knows that their days are numbered. They might as well producing just another fake report before it's over.

    If Trump wants to stop and reverse this, it's not enough to clean out the FBI and all those other agencies, he has to do something with the fakestream media too, because what they are doing is strait out criminal.

    Yen Cross , Jan 1, 2017 9:38 PM
    Lot's of Chinese IP addresses on those lists.

    WE gotta find the ISP's <sarc>

    If the NSA is so good, they should have MAC numbers on those machines, and trace the serial numbers.

    monad Yen Cross , Jan 1, 2017 10:19 PM
    What you do son, is block the Chinese IP blocks at your firewall. Blook 'em all. Some hackers will complain and give you their addresses when they do. Then you show up at their house with 6 football players and they never, ever do that again.

    To anybody. Ever.

    DuneCreature , Jan 1, 2017 9:39 PM
    The NSA has the to and from metadata for sure and copies of the data content going in both directions as a bonus. This is a false flag dog and pony show to use as an excuse to expel Russian diplomats and maybe start WW III if 'somebody somewhere' deems it necessary.

    Consider it magic 'yellow cake' or a Polish radio station. ... It won't go away because you have iron clad evidence that it was never there to begin with.

    This is the New World Odor where things are what you are told they are and if it kills a few million people then just get over it and be Dog Blamed glad it didn't eat your homework and kill you too.

    Live Hard, It Is Hard To Argue With Rock Solid Reasoning Like That, Die Free

    ~ DC v4.0

    TruthBeforeAll , Jan 1, 2017 9:43 PM
    Speaking of the NSA, somebody has a sense of humor in my neighborhood. I've never noticed it before tonight.

    http://i.imgur.com/2IgHRsX.png

    I tried logging in with "Password" but it didn't work. Go figure.

    Bay Area Guy , Jan 1, 2017 9:52 PM
    If the Russian hackers are so damn good at what they do, it seems ludicrous that they would leave great big arrows pointing towards themselves. Why, it's almost like a guy that drives a truck into a crowd leaving his identity card in the cab of the truck. Or it's like a bunch of guys that hijacked planes and flew them into buildings using their real names and their indestructible passpoorts to board the planes. ZH had an article yesterday quoting that hard-hitting political publication Rolling Stone magazine saying that this entire Russian hacking report has all the earmarks of a repeat of Bush the Lesser's WMD in Iraq report. I gotta agree with Rolling Stone. If a hacker is really good, and we keep getting force-fed how good the Russians are, they AIN'T going to leave their calling card in the server(s) they've hacked.
    Dilluminati , Jan 1, 2017 10:14 PM
    yep!

    Similar to spy satellites there is a level of clarity and transparency that many advanced nations have.

    That is why Hillary is such a ridiculous cunt for using a private server to perform her clinton foundation and day to day operations upon and why the US government "explicitly prohibits it."

    The leaks originated and were targeted at that ridiculous cunt Hillary and she made us all less safe by being corrupt, stupid, and unethical in her office of trust.

    NSA also has all.. ALLLL the emails that that criminal cunt Hillary sent.

    I really do think we need a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of all of this.

    a C&C command and control server could be anywhere, often these servers are used by cyber squating

    http://www.thewindowsclub.com/cybersquatting-and-typosquatting

    The domain at that point in time might be different than it is now.

    That is why MD5 and chain of custody is required to illsutrate what the conditions were.

    petroglyph , Jan 1, 2017 10:12 PM
    Somewhere in this monster bureaucracy imitating a government "for the people" is somebody[s] collecting a fat paycheck and bennies to make damn sure our election didn't get hacked by Russians. Could somebody please fire the fucker if we were actually hacked.

    I am suffering from bullshit burnout. I just want the election to be over for awhile, my god what an inept bunch of hacks running the country, [into the ground].

    Phillyguy , Jan 1, 2017 10:29 PM
    The entire Russian "hacking" saga was nonsense from day 1 and indicative of severe structural problems confronting US capitalism and raging battles going on between competing factions within the financial elite controlling US foreign policy. These divisions have become more pronounced following: 1) Trump's upset victory in November and 2) the military debacle for the US/NATO in Syria. Trumps victory notwithstanding, expect these divisions to become increasingly ferocious as the economic vice continues tightening. Very dangerous times ahead.
    Dutch1 , Jan 1, 2017 11:01 PM
    Any hacker good enough to work for a big government agency would be good enough to not get caught. All big governments spy and hack eachother. They may know they've been hacked and even speculate who may have done it, but there is no so called definitive "evidence" at that level.Evidence of a hack probably, evidence of who.... no fucking way. Here the government goes again trying to create a boogeyman to promote some rich people's agenda. Pretty sure the NSA spys and hacks eeeevverryyybody.... hypocrites.

    [Jan 02, 2017] Trump Hints At Russian Hacking Revelations In Coming Days I Know Things Other People Dont

    www.zerohedge.com
    Asked what that information included, the Republican President-elect said, " You will find out on Tuesday or Wednesday ." He did not elaborate.

    Trump also reiterated his belief that others might be responsible for the cyberattacks: "I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don't know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation."

    "I think it's unfair if we don't know. It could be somebody else," Reuters cited Trump as telling the media.

    He also added that computers are a risky form of communication. "It's very important, if you have something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old fashioned way because I'll tell you what, no computer is safe," Mr. Trump added. "I don't care what they say, no computer is safe. I have a boy who's 10 years old, he can do anything with a computer. You want something to really go without detection, write it out and have it sent by courier."

    HoserF16 , Jan 1, 2017 9:51 AM
    Yeah like "The Russians Didn't Do It!"
    chunga HoserF16 , Jan 1, 2017 9:54 AM
    His name was Seth Rich.
    CuttingEdge chunga , Jan 1, 2017 10:02 AM
    Methinks Langley is in for a bit of Trump bulldozing if he has an inkling they are trying to fuck him over.
    Looney CuttingEdge , Jan 1, 2017 10:04 AM

    0bama's predecessors, at least, used to put some effort into False Flags and Spook-Ops.

    0bama comes up with a lie, without any evidence , and just keeps repeating it like a broken Jukebox.

    What a lazy-ass squirrel-bitch!

    Looney

    [Jan 01, 2017] Putin's Real Long Game by Molly K. McKew

    How low Politico fall by publishing this neocon trash. Which probably belongs to some major neocon publications which publish Kagan and like.
    As Robert Parry noted "Neocons want a new Cold War – all the better to pick the U.S. taxpayers' pockets – but this reckless talk and war profiteering could spark a nuclear war and leave the world to the cockroaches" Trading Places Neocons and Cockroaches – Consortiumnews
    This "bloodthirsty Molly" is not a vampire. She is yet another female warmonger, a neocon of the mold of Hillary Clinton, who lost her plush job with the ousting of Saakashvili in Georgia and desperately wants it back even if American start ding for this "noble purpose".
    Her article might be considered a classic in neocon demonization of Putin. Complete detachment from the reality of collapsing neoliberal ideology and inability of the USA to maintain its global neoliberal empire despite recent success in Ukraine (as well as Brazil and Argentina), the success which pushed the majority of Ukrainian population on Central African standard of living with income less then two dollars a day. And pensioners dying from hunger in cities, and lack of medical care in rural areas, just to satisfy the US imperial ambitions. And they replaced corrupt and criminal neoliberal government of Yanukovich with even more corrupt and more neoliberal Provisional Government first (which literally was ready to privatize Ukraine state access to Western companies for pennies on the dollar) and then Poroshenko which drive the economy even lower breaking all ties with its former major market -- Russia -- for the ideological reasons, of course. The country became the debt salve of the West, another neo-colony.
    The author is right the the West in now at war -- Cold War II, but he is lying that it sinot recognized by Western government. It was launched by Western government to colonize Russia as neoliberalism needs market expansion and cheap oil to sustain neoliberal globalization, and Russian is one of the few countries on the Earth which not fully colonized (it was under Yeltsin).
    Notable quotes:
    "... Political warfare is meant to achieve specific political outcomes favorable to the Kremlin: it is preferred to physical conflict because it is cheap and easy. The Kremlin has many notches in its belt in this category, some of which have been attributed, many likely not. It's a mistake to see this campaign in the traditional terms of political alliances: rarely has the goal been to install overtly pro-Russian governments. Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones ..."
    "... Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not "propaganda" as we've come to think of it, but the less obvious techniques known in Russia as " active measures " and " reflexive control " . Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests. ..."
    www.politico.com

    Increasingly, people in Russia's sphere of influence were deciding that the values that were supposed to bind the West together could no longer hold. That the world order Americans depend on had already come apart.

    ... ... ...

    What both administrations fail to realize is that the West is already at war, whether it wants to be or not. It may not be a war we recognize, but it is a war. This war seeks, at home and abroad, to erode our values, our democracy, and our institutional strength; to dilute our ability to sort fact from fiction, or moral right from wrong; and to convince us to make decisions against our own best interests.

    ... ... ...

    Those on the Russian frontier, like my friends from Ukraine and Estonia, have already seen the Kremlin's new toolkit at work. The most visible example may be "green men," the unlabeled Russian-backed forces that suddenly popped up to seize the Crimean peninsula and occupy eastern Ukraine. But the wider battle is more subtle, a war of subversion rather than domination. The recent interference in the American elections means that these shadow tactics have now been deployed – with surprising effectiveness – not just against American allies, but against America itself. And the only way forward for America and the West is to embrace the spirit of the age that Putin has created, plow through the chaos, and focus on building what comes next.

    ... ... ...

    First, it is a war. A thing to be won, decisively - not a thing to be negotiated or bargained. It's all one war: Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, the Baltics, Georgia. It's what Vladislav Surkov, Putin's 'grey cardinal' and lead propagandist, dubbed "non-linear war" in his science fiction story "Without Sky," in 2014.

    Second, it's all one war machine. Military, technological, information, diplomatic, economic, cultural, criminal, and other tools are all controlled by the state and deployed toward one set of strategic objectives.

    This is the Gerasimov doctrine, penned by Valery Gerasimov, the Russian Chief of the General Staff, in 2013.

    Political warfare is meant to achieve specific political outcomes favorable to the Kremlin: it is preferred to physical conflict because it is cheap and easy. The Kremlin has many notches in its belt in this category, some of which have been attributed, many likely not. It's a mistake to see this campaign in the traditional terms of political alliances: rarely has the goal been to install overtly pro-Russian governments. Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones.

    Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not "propaganda" as we've come to think of it, but the less obvious techniques known in Russia as "active measures" and "reflexive control". Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests.

    Fourth, the diplomatic side of this non-linear war isn't a foreign policy aimed at building a new pro-Russian bloc, Instead, it's what the Kremlin calls a "multi-vector" foreign policy, undermining the strength of Western institutions by coalescing alternate - ideally temporary and limited - centers of power. Rather than a stable world order undergirded by the U.S. and its allies, the goal is an unstable new world order of "all against all." The Kremlin has tried to accelerate this process by both inflaming crises that overwhelm the Western response (for example, the migration crisis in Europe, and the war in eastern Ukraine) and by showing superiority in 'solving' crises the West could not (for example, bombing Syria into submission, regardless of the cost, to show Russia can impose stability in the Middle East when the West cannot).

    This leads to the final point: hard power matters. Russia maintains the second most powerful military in the world, and spends more than 5 percent of its weakened GDP on defense. Russia used military force to invade and occupy Georgian territory in 2008 to disrupt the expansion of NATO, and in 2013 in Ukraine to disrupt the expansion of the EU. They have invested heavily in military reform, new generations of hardware and weapons, and expansive special operations training, much of which debuted in the wars in Ukraine and Syria. There is no denying that Russia is willing to back up its rhetoric and policy with deployed force, and that the rest of the world notices.

    How did we reach this point? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western security and political alliances expanded to fill the zone of instability left behind. The emerging Russian security state could only define this as the strategic advance of an enemy. The 9/11 attacks shattered Western concepts of security and conflict and expanded NATO's new mission of projecting security. When Putin offered his assistance, we effectively responded "no thanks," thinking in particular of his bloody, ongoing, scorched-earth war against the Chechens. We did it for the right reasons. Nonetheless, it infuriated Putin. This was the last moment when any real rapprochement with Putin's Russia was possible.

    ... ... ...

    Molly K. McKew (@MollyMcKew) advises governments and political parties on foreign policy and strategic communications. She was an adviser to Georgian President Saakashvili's government from 2009-2013, and to former Moldovan Prime Minister Filat in 2014-2015.

    [Jan 01, 2017] Now that 0bama is about to exit as US Pres, perhaps it is time to revisit the Who Is Worse: Bush43 v 0bama question.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away fast enough. ..."
    "... Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was. ..."
    "... The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism. ..."
    "... Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive" and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. ..."
    "... At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted for with them. ..."
    "... In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians. ..."
    "... Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the rough wards of Chicago politics. ..."
    "... But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand marshal. ..."
    "... A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s. ..."
    "... At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit. ..."
    "... "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor." ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Now that 0bama is about to exit as US Pres, perhaps it is time to revisit the Who Is Worse: Bush43 v 0bama question.

    Conventional wisdom among "Progressive" pundits, even good ones like SecularTalk, seems to be "yes, 0bama is better than Bush43, but that is a very low bar, & not a real accomplishment. 0bama still sucks".

    IMHO, 0bama's relentless pursue of 1 Grand "Bargain" Ripoff & 2 TPP, may alone make him Even Worse than Bush43, as far as to damage inflicted on USians had 0bama been successful in getting these 2 policies. 0bama tried for years getting these 2 policies enacted, whereas Bush43 tried quickly to privatize SS but then forgot it, & IIRC enacted small trade deals (DR-CAFTA ?). Bush43 focus seemed to be on neocon regime change & War On Terra TM, & even then IIRC around ~2006 Bush43 rejected some of Darth Cheney's even more extremish neocon policy preferences, with Bush43 rejecting Cheney's desired Iran War.

    IMHO both policies would've incrementally killed thousands of USians annually, far more than 1S1S or the Designated Foreign Boogeyman Du Jour TM could ever dream of. Grand Ripoff raising Medicare eligibility age (IIRC 67 to 69+ ?) would kill many GenX & younger USians in the future. TPP's pharma patent extensions would kill many USians, especially seniors. These incremental killings might exceed the incremental life savings from the ACA (mainly ACA Adult Medicaid expansion). Furthemore, 0bama could've potentially achieved MedicareForAll or Medicare Pt O – Public Option in ~2010 with Sen & House D majorities, & 0bama deliberately killed these policies, as reported by FDL's Jane Hamsher & others.

    Bush43 indirectly killed USians in multiple ways, including Iraq War, War On Terra, & failing to regulate fin svcs leading to the 2008 GFC; however it would seem that 0bama's Death Toll would have been worse.

    "What do you think?!" (c) Ed Schultz

    How do Bush43 & 0bama compare to recent Presidents including Reagan & Clinton? What do you expect of Trump? I'd guesstimate that if Trump implements P Ryan-style crapification of Medicare into an ACA-like voucher system, that alone could render Trump Even Worse than 0bama & the other 1981-now Reganesque Presidents.

    It does seem like each President is getting Even Worse than the prior guy in this 21st Century. #AmericanExceptionalism (exceptionally Crappy)

    timbers , December 31, 2016 at 9:14 am

    You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few bad things Obamanation did:

    1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared by Congress.

    2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture, and assassinate anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.

    3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered because of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief in austerity helped defeat Clinton 2016.

    Pat , December 31, 2016 at 9:18 am

    HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it the norm.
    Deporting more people than Presidents before him.
    Passing the Korea and Columbia free trade pacts, even lying about what the pact did to get the Columbian one passed. KORUS alone made our trade deficit with Korea soar and lost an estimated 100,000 jobs in the US (and not those part time ones being created).
    Had the chance to pass a real infrastructure repair/stimulus package, didn't.
    Had the chance to put the Post Office in the black and even start a Postal Bank, didn't. Didn't even work to get rid of the Post Office killing requirement to fund its pension 75 years out.
    Furthering the erosion of our civil rights by making it legal to assassinate American citizens without trial.
    Instead of kneecapping the move to kill public education by requiring any charter school that receives federal funding to be non-profit with real limits on allowable administrative costs, expanded them AND expanded the testing boondoggle with Common Core.
    Libya.
    Expansion of our droning program.

    While I do give him some credit for both the Iran deal and the attempt to rein in the Syria mistake, I also have to take points away for not firing Carter and demoting or even bringing Votel before a military court after their insubordination killing the ceasefire.

    Should I continue. Bush was evil, Obama the more effective one.

    John Wright , December 31, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Bush's Iraq war will cost an estimated $3 trillion per Joseph Stiglitz.

    That does not count all the damage done to Iraq/Afghanistan people and property and American's reputation.

    Iraq's excess deaths due to the war were estimated at 500K to 655K.

    On a population adjusted basis, this would be equivalent to the USA losing 5 to 6.55 million people to a foreign, unprovoked, power.

    Bush scores quite high on being an effective evil, especially when viewed from outside the USA

    I score him the winner vs Obama on total damage done to the USA and the world

    j84ustin , December 31, 2016 at 10:52 am

    Absolutely.

    Pat , December 31, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Was that a disastrous choice? Certainly and it is a big one, but it also ignores how much of the disastrous choices attached to that decision Barack H. Obama has either continued or expanded upon. It also ignores how that war continues under Obama. Remember when we left Iraq? Oh, wait we haven't we just aren't there in the previous numbers.

    http://time.com/4298318/iraq-us-troops-barack-obama-mosul-isis/

    And what about Libya? You remember that little misadventure. Which added to our continued Saudi/Israeli determined obsession with Syria has led to a massive refugee crisis in Europe. How many were killed there. How much will that cost us fifteen years on?

    https://www.ft.com/content/c2b6329a-9287-11e4-b213-00144feabdc0

    I get that the quagmire was there before Obama. I also get that he began to get a clue late in his administration to stop listening to the usual subjects in order to make it better. But see that thing above about not firing people who undermined that new direction in Syria, and are probably now some of the most pressing secret voices behind this disastrous Russia Hacked US bull.

    But I think only focusing on the original decision also ignores how effective Obama has been at normalize crime, corruption, torture and even assassination attached to those original choices – something that Bush didn't manage (and that doesn't even consider the same decriminalization and normalization done for and by the financial industry). Bush may have started the wheel down the bumpy road, but Obama put rubber on the wheel and paved the road so now it is almost impossible to stop the wheel.

    TedWa , December 31, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Pat – don't forget about him putting banks above the law – unconstitutional and e v i l

    JCC , December 31, 2016 at 12:40 pm

    As mentioned, Bush is a very low bar for comparison, and if that's the best presidential comparison that can be made with Obama, then that says it all.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , December 31, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    Mr. O long ago received my coveted Worst_President_Ever Award (and yes the judging included Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson).
    Handed the golden platter opportunity to repudiate the myriad policy disasters of Bush (which as cited above cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives) he chose instead to continue them absolutely unchanged, usually with the same personnel. Whether it was unprosecuted bank crime in the tens of billions, foreign policy by drone bomb, health care mega-bezzle, hyper-spy tricks on everyday Americans, and corporo-fascist globalist "trade" deals, Mr. O never disappointed his Big Wall St, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Surveillance-Industrial Complex constituents. Along the way he reversed the polarity of American politics, paving the way for a true corporo-fascist to say the slightest thing that might be good for actual workers and get into the White House. History will remember him as the president who lost Turkey and The Philippines, destroyed any remaining shreds of credibility with utterly specious hacking claims and war crime accusations of other nations, and presided over an era of hyper-concentration of billionaire wealth in a nation where 70% of citizens would need to borrow to fund a $400 emergency. Those failures are now permanently branded as "Democrat" failures. The jury is unanimous: Obama wins the award.

    crittermom , December 31, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    "HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it the norm."
    Exactly. That is #1 on my list making him worst president ever.

    Katharine , December 31, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    I would question "ever" simply because I know I don't know enough about the history of previous presidents, and I doubt any of us do; even historians who focus on this kind of thing, supposing we had any in our midst, might be hard put to it to review all 44 thoroughly.

    witters , December 31, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    I like your epistemology! You don't know, but you do know others don't know either, even historians who clearly know a lot more on this than you.

    Ed , December 31, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    Declining empires tend to get entire series of bad kings.

    Tom Bradford , December 31, 2016 at 8:08 pm

    Cause or effect?

    Ray Phenicie , December 31, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    I vote the mortgage fraud situation (see Chain of Title by David Dayen -not really a plug for the book) as the worst aspect of the Obama Administration. What to say about it? Regular readers of this site are well versed in the details but one aspect of it needs to be expounded upon; stand on the housetops and shout it kind of exposition: the mortgage fraud worked on millions (3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million) shows that rule of law is now destroyed in the land. Dictionary .com says this about the phrase

    Rule of Law: the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.

    The World Justice Project has several pages on the topic and starts off with this:

    * The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
    * The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
    * The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
    * Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

    I would invite the reader to take a moment and apply those principles to what is known about the situation concerning mortgage fraud worked on millions of homeowners during the past two decades.

    The Justice Department's infamous attempts to cover up horribly harmful schemes worked by the mortgage industry perpetrators involved the cruel irony of aiding and abetting systemic racism. Not a lot was said in the popular press about the subject of reverse redlining but I'm convinced by the preponderance of evidence that overly complicated mortgage products were taken into the neighborhoods of Detroit (90% Black or Latin American, Hispanic) and foisted off on unsuspecting homeowners. Those homeowners did not take accountants and lawyers with them to the signing but that's how those schemes should have been approached; then most of those schemes would have hit the trashcan. Many a charming snake oil salesman deserves innumerable nights of uncomfortable rest for the work they did to destroy the neighborhoods of Detroit and of course many other neighborhoods in many other cities. For this discussion I am making this a separate topic but I realize it is connected to the overall financial skulduggery worked on us all by the FIRE sector.

    However, let me return to the last principle promulgated by the World Justice Project pertaining to Rule Of Law and focus on that: "Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve." Now hear this: "are of sufficient number" for there, and gentle reader, please take this to bed with you at the end of your day: we fail as a nation. But look to the 'competent, ethical and independent' clause; we must vow to not sink into despair. This subject is a constant struggle. Google has my back on this: Obama, during both campaigns of '08 and '12, took millions from the very financial sector that he planned to not dismay and then was in turn very busy directing the Attorney General of The United States, the highest law officer in the country, to not prosecute. These very institutions that were in turn very busy taking property worth billions. 12 million stolen homes multiplied times the average home value = Trillions?

    Finally, my main point here (I am really busy sharpening this ax, but it's a worthy ax) is the issue of systemic racism- that the financial institutions in this country work long hours to shackle members of minority neighborhoods into monetarily oppressive schemes in the form of mortgages, car loans, credit cards and personal loans (think pay day scammers) and these same makers of the shackles have the protection of the highest officials in the land. Remember the pitchforks Obama inveighed? Irony of cruel ironies, two black men, both of whom appear to be of honorable bearing, (Holder moved his chair right directly into the financiers, rent takers of Covington & Burling ) work to cement the arrangements of racist, oppressive scammers who of course also work their playbooks on other folks.

    To finalize, the subject of rule of law that I have worked so assiduously to sharpen, applies to all of the other topics we can consider as failures of the Obama Presidency. So besides racism and systemic financial fraud we can turn to some top subjects that make '09 to '17 the nadir of the political culture of the United States of America. Drone wars, unending war in the Middle East, attempts to place a cloak of secrecy on the workings of the Federal Government, the reader will have their own axes to sharpen but I maintain if the reader will fervently apply and dig into the four principles outlined above, she, he, will agree that the principles outlining Rule of Law have been replaced by Rule of the Person.

    Ray Phenicie , December 31, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    (3, 5, 7. 12 million) should be 3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million

    Ray Phenicie , December 31, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance and mortgage industries.
    Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
    Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
    Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
    Office of Population Research, Princeton University

    Ray Phenicie , December 31, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Arghhh, the server is apparently napping-more caffeine please for the cables.
    Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance and mortgage industries.
    Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
    Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
    Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
    Office of Population Research, Princeton University

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    The book deserves to be plugged. I thought it was great. A fast and infuriating read. And very well written.

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 9:09 am

    I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh

    Pat , December 31, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop.

    Even if the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First because Bush pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away fast enough.

    Your position is obviously different.

    And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.

    Lost in OR , December 31, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.

    The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.

    In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed to be. Feint left, drive right.

    With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 9:32 am

    Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)

    Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive" and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican.

    At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted for with them.

    Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum; "Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.

    So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it. You may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."

    craazyboy , December 31, 2016 at 11:47 am

    Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1 to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.

    It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players and too many styles. It's just not possible.

    Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of course.

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    America will be lucky if it avoids something similar to the earlier Russian people's ranking of Tsar Nicholas versus Karensky and subsequent events.

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    I like your response. Thanks.

    I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive. He's far from progressive.

    I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.

    My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.

    Vatch , December 31, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Sorry if I came across as harsh. I enjoy your arguments, so, I tried to encourage you to hang in there.
    Happy New Year

    hunkerdown , December 31, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    In other words, Obama's a Kissingerian realist, or a businessperson (but I repeat myself): only permanent interests.

    Happy New Year, and try to don't run off so easy. :)

    Yves Smith , December 31, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    I have to tell you it is inaccurate in material respects, and many of the people who played important roles in the fight were written out entirely or marginalized.

    Christopher Fay , December 31, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    This one's a keeper. I have to take notes including writer's name, post title, dates. Good summary.

    Ed , December 31, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    GW Bush sort of had two administrations. The first two years and the last two years was sort of a generic Republican but sane administration, sort of like his father's, and was OK. The crazy stuff happened in the middle four years, which maybe not coincidentally the Republicans had majorities in both house of Congress.

    Obama signed off on the Big Bailout (as did GW Bush, but my impression is that the worst features of the Big Bailout were on Obama's watch(), and that defined his administration. Sometimes you get governments defined by one big thing, and that was it. But I suspect he may have prevented the neocons from starting World War III, but that is the sort of thing we won't know about until decades have passed, if we make it that long.

    tongorad , December 31, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Obama promised hope and change and delivered the exact opposite – despair and decline. Obama should be remembered as the Great Normalizer. All of the shitty things that were around when he was inaugurated are now normalized. TINA to the max, in other words.
    It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics.

    Jess , December 31, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    "It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics."

    Bingo. Hit that one dead solid perfect, right in the ten-ring.

    Jess , December 31, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    "It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics."

    Bingo. You can say that again. Right in the ten-ring, dead solid perfect.

    Montanamaven , December 31, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    You got it. Obama was hired to employ "The Shock Doctrine" and he did. He was and is "a Chicago Boy"; the term Naomi Klein used for the neoliberals who slithered out of the basements of U of Chicago to visit austerity on the masses for the enhancement of the feudal lords. It is laughable that he said last week that he could have beaten Trump. As always, He implied that it was the "message" not the policy. And that he could "sell" that message better than Hilary. For him it was always about pitching that Hopey Changey "One America" spleel that suckered so many. The Archdruid calls this "the warm fuzzies". But the Donald went right into the John Edwards land of "The Two Americas". He said he came from the 1%; but was here to work for the 99% who had been screwed over by bad deals. We will see if the Barons will stand in his way or figure out that it might be time to avoid those pitchforks by giving a little to small businesses and workers in general. Like FDR, will they try to save capitalism?

    The Donald has the bad trade deals right, but looks like he doesn't know what havoc Reagan wreaked on working people's household incomes and pension plans by breaking any power unions had and by coming up with the 401K scam; plus the Reagan interest rates that devastated farmers and ranchers and the idea of rewarding a CEO who put stock price above research and development and workers' salaries. But again, I believe it was a Democratic congress and a Democratic president Carter who eliminated the Usury law in 1979. From then on with stagnating wages, people began the descent into debt slavery. And Jimmy started the Shock Doctrine by deregulating the airlines and trucking. But he did penance. Can't see Obama doing that.

    LT , December 31, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    And once usary laws went away, credit cards were handed out to college students, with no co-sign, even if students had no work or credit history and were unemployed.
    It took until just a few years ago before they revisted that credit card policy to students.

    alex morfesis , December 31, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    dont want to burst your bubble(or anyone elses) but obama is not and was not the power to the throne it was michelle and val jar (aka beria) it was a long series of luck that got that krewe anywhere near any real power mostly, it comes from the Univ of Chicago hopey changee thingee was a nice piece of marketing by david axelrod..

    the grey lady

    5-11-2008

    In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians.

    Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the rough wards of Chicago politics.

    But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand marshal.

    but to capture the arrogance of hyde park (read the last line)

    A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s.

    At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit.

    "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor."

    also note how the lib racist grey lady can not bring themselves to name the parade it is the

    bud billiken parade

    peaceful, fun, successful

    heaven forbid the world should see a giant event run by black folk that does not end in violence might confuse the closet racists

    RudyM , January 1, 2017 at 12:17 am

    There are enough examples of such things for it to be a reasonable expectation.

    The parade also hasn't always gone without a hitch:

    The 2003 parade featured B2K.[9] The concert was free with virtually unlimited space in the park for viewing. However, the crowd became unruly causing the concert to be curtailed. Over 40 attendees were taken to hospitals as a result of injuries in the violence, including two teenagers who were shot.[38] At the 2014 parade, Two teenagers were shot after an altercation involving a group of youths along the parade route near the 4200 block of King Drive around 12:30 pm.[39][40]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Billiken_Parade_and_Picnic#Violence

    dcrane , December 31, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    On balance this one should go on the "Good" list for Bush 43:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief

    Yes, the abstinence-education dimension probably wasn't worth much, but that took up only a minority share of the funds.

    Oregoncharles , December 31, 2016 at 11:14 pm

    Yes, they've been getting steadily worse (more right-wing) since Carter, without regard to party. That's at least 30 years now.,

    Cry Shop , December 31, 2016 at 8:49 am

    Jerri-Lynn, do all these last minute moves by Obama fit the pattern you observed Obie-the-wan perform at Harvard?

    Oregoncharles , December 31, 2016 at 11:15 pm

    Clinton did it, too. I think it's a general pattern resulting from term limits – but in the case of sole executives, term limits do make sense.

    [Jan 01, 2017] Two views on Syrian war

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/i-am-a-syrian-living-in-syria-it-was-never-a-revolution-nor-a-civil-war-the-terrorists-are-sent-by-your-government/5544450

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-elections-2016-us-natos-failed-attempt-to-deny-the-will-of-the-syrian-people/5520087

    [Jan 01, 2017] NHS surgeon David Nott recounts harrowing story from a Syrian field hospital

    Notable quotes:
    "... Its a shame our government supported al Nusra and other anti Assad organisations in this region, even ISIL were present (the capture of the Turkish soldiers from E Aleppo who were subsequently murdered). ..."
    "... If we had not supported these anti Assad groups many not even Syrian, there would have been many less murdered children. ..."
    "... Its like when we air lifted poor Ali Abbas from Iraq who had him arms blown off and other children then we gave ourselves a pat on the back, yet we were responsible for Ali's injuries and thousands others. ..."
    dailymail.co.uk

    I have made numerous trips to Syria to treat the casualties of this war, but none was as sorrowful as the week I spent with Aleppo's children.

    Bone-weary and drained emotionally, I returned to London on Christmas Eve and couldn't wait to hold my 17-month-old daughter and see my wife and family. Christmas was a joy.

    Yet Maram was never far from my mind's eye: a haunting, residual memory that I could not have shaken even if I had wished; I find myself waking in the early hours worrying about her.

    I first saw Maram on December 20, a few days after she was evacuated from Aleppo in an ambulance.

    Her legs and left arm had been shattered in a bomb attack that killed her parents and injured her brother and sister.

    Pieces of ordnance shell were embedded in her infected wounds but, because the Aleppo doctors had run out of dressings, disinfectant and saline, they had no choice but to operate on her dirty body tissue.

    John, Auckland, New Zealand, about 12 hours ago

    Fake news

    Scotsgrey, Hong Kong, about 12 hours ago

    Didn't a canadian journalist said in U.N. conference with video evidence, they recycle victims for their photoshoot?

    Emmaz, wild west, United States, about 20 hours ago

    I wonder how all these families- knowing they are in a war Torn country are deciding to have babies now. I don't think i could bring a new baby into the world knowing what immediate impact it could have on them. So sad. Poor babies.

    janiceK, manchester, United Kingdom, about 23 hours ago

    Its a shame our government supported al Nusra and other anti Assad organisations in this region, even ISIL were present (the capture of the Turkish soldiers from E Aleppo who were subsequently murdered).

    If we had not supported these anti Assad groups many not even Syrian, there would have been many less murdered children.

    Its like when we air lifted poor Ali Abbas from Iraq who had him arms blown off and other children then we gave ourselves a pat on the back, yet we were responsible for Ali's injuries and thousands others.


    [Jan 01, 2017] Washington Post Retracts Story About Russian Hackers Penetrating US Electricity Grid

    Notable quotes:
    "... Those anonymous U.S. officials who reported Russian hacking code had been found "within the system" of a Vermont power utility must've been surprised to learn the code was on a laptop that wasn't actually connected to the grid . ..."
    "... [Was "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."] ..."
    "... [was "penetration"] ..."
    "... Our posture is fucking horrific. We support Israel even when they blatantly violate international law. We've long sided with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. We overthrew Iraq, creating ISIS. We're largely responsible for arming a good chunk of the terrorists in the world. Yeah, Russia does shitty things, but our problems are big enough that our first concern should be fixing our own problems. Not understand that, along with the unbelievable hubris of the Clintonites, is why the Democrats got their asses kicked in this election, and why they've been getting their asses kicked for so long. ..."
    "... The U.S. government has killed, or caused the death of, an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war. War is extremely profitable for some corporations. ..."
    "... Exactly, bullshit. It sounds to me like an employee used his laptop to visit an infected website, or answered a general phishing mail. Hardly an attack aimed at the grid, and volume cranked up to 11 by WP as a part of the general current panic to glorify Obama and what his administration has done, and undermine the incoming administration. ..."
    "... In some ways it is a success story. The Government put out a warning for a specific malware and how to detect it. The company appropriately scanned based on that warning, found the malware on a isolated laptop (which was isolated from grid systems), and appropriately reported it. ..."
    "... Security experts have been warning of possible foreign hacking for decades . But why this sudden spate of "Russia hacked X" stories now? Why not back when our Secretary of State was running an illegal, private, unsecured email server through which she transmitted classified information [politifact.com]? ..."
    "... Simple: The Washington Post wanted Hillary to win the Presidential election, and reminding people how her action made it easier for Russian hackers to gain access to classified information wouldn't have helped her. ..."
    "... But publishing it now helps support the false narrative [theintercept.com] that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not disgruntled Democratic Party staffers [washingtontimes.com], and thus supposedly harms President-elect Donald Trump, whom the Washington Post and it's employees almost universally loath. That's the entire reason the story is being written and published now. ..."
    "... NSA has failed us again. Instead protecting America, they are wasting their and our time by mass collecting data on citizens. Instead of making sure exploits are fixed to keep our systems secure, they hold onto them so they can use them against us and other countries. ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | yro.slashdot.org
    (washingtonpost.com) 388

    Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday January 01, 2017 @05:12PM from the power-play dept.

    Those anonymous U.S. officials who reported Russian hacking code had been found "within the system" of a Vermont power utility must've been surprised to learn the code was on a laptop that wasn't actually connected to the grid .

    The Washington Post has updated their original story, which now reports that "authorities" say there's no indication that Russian hackers have penetrated the U.S. electric grid. The Post's newly-edited version appears below (with their original, now-deleted text preseved inside brackets).

    A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility , according to U.S. officials. While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter, the discovery underscores the vulnerabilities of the nation's electrical grid... [Was "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."] American officials, including one senior administration official, said they are not yet sure what the intentions of the Russians might have been. The incursion [was "penetration"] may have been designed to disrupt the utility's operations or as a test by the Russians to see whether they could penetrate a portion of the grid... According to the report by the FBI and DHS, the hackers involved in the Russian operation used fraudulent emails that tricked their recipients into revealing passwords. The Vermont utility does report that they'd "detected suspicious Internet traffic" on the laptop, but they believe subsequent news coverage got the story wrong. "It's unfortunate that an official or officials improperly shared inaccurate information with one media outlet, leading to multiple inaccurate reports around the country."

    king neckbeard ( 1801738 ) writes: on Saturday December 31, 2016 @12:14PM ( #53584935 )

    Re:Tit for tat ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

    Our posture is fucking horrific. We support Israel even when they blatantly violate international law. We've long sided with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. We overthrew Iraq, creating ISIS. We're largely responsible for arming a good chunk of the terrorists in the world. Yeah, Russia does shitty things, but our problems are big enough that our first concern should be fixing our own problems. Not understand that, along with the unbelievable hubris of the Clintonites, is why the Democrats got their asses kicked in this election, and why they've been getting their asses kicked for so long.

    As it stands right now, the best thing that could happen for world peace is for the US to go down in flames. I would rather that not happen, but if we listen to people like you instead of behaving like adults, the rational choice for the world at large is to get rid of us.

    Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) December 31, 2016 @12:27PM ( #53585001 ) Homepage
    Evaluate the U.S. government? No, too many secrets ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

    "... the US's general posture in the world is wildly preferable..."

    The U.S. government has many secret and semi-secret agencies. No one, literally no one, knows all of them, or which are badly managed. As we've seen, the secret and semi-secret U.S. government agencies often hire outside consulting companies that often have areas of sloppy management. The U.S. government is, by some measures, such as money spent, the most violent in the world.

    The U.S. government has killed, or caused the death of, an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war. War is extremely profitable for some corporations.

    See the book, House of Bush, House of Saud [amazon.com], by Craig Unger.

    Bush and Cheney started a war that was profitable for them. The U.S. has the largest percentage of its citizens in prison, of any country, in any century. The prison system is hugely profitable for prison corporations.

    Two of the many articles: ACLU:

    dilvish_the_damned ( 167205 ) December 31, 2016 @11:28AM ( #53584771 ) Journal
    Re:Tit for tat ( Score: 4 , Interesting)

    While the phishing attack may have originated in Russia, I find it disingenious to portray everything as state sponsored when the evidence is weak at best. To me its something akin to suggesting we need to retaliate against Australia every time Julian Assange takes a leak.

    LTIfox ( 4701003 ), December 31, 2016 @10:43AM ( #53584561 )
    Countermeasures ( Score: 3 , Interesting)

    Some organizations started to inject fake phishing emails into their communication systems. All employees who clicked get their heads bashed with a rock.

    Anonymous Coward, December 31, 2016 @10:44AM ( #53584563 )
    Bullshit ( Score: 5 , Informative)

    One laptop not on the network had malware. Fuck the washington post.

    http://boingboing.net/2016/12/31/no-russia-didnt-hack-vermon.html

    Velox_SwiftFox ( 57902 ), December 31, 2016 @11:23AM ( #53584745 )
    Re:Bullshit ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

    Exactly, bullshit. It sounds to me like an employee used his laptop to visit an infected website, or answered a general phishing mail. Hardly an attack aimed at the grid, and volume cranked up to 11 by WP as a part of the general current panic to glorify Obama and what his administration has done, and undermine the incoming administration.

    Or the WP feels it is simply unimportant to get proper attribution and any of the details right. Reply to This Parent Share

    Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) writes: on Saturday December 31, 2016 @01:08PM ( #53585217 )
    Re:Bullshit ( Score: 2 )

    In some ways it is a success story. The Government put out a warning for a specific malware and how to detect it. The company appropriately scanned based on that warning, found the malware on a isolated laptop (which was isolated from grid systems), and appropriately reported it.

    Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) writes: on Saturday December 31, 2016 @01:05PM ( #53585199 )
    Re:Bullshit ( Score: 2 )

    It should be deeply concerning, but that's effectively the result of the complete lack of care regarding OpSec and vital infrastructure. We've had reasons to be deeply concerned about that for years, if not decades, but now seems like an awfully convenient time to trot out a fact that would likely have applied at just about any point in time if we did an audit of our power grid.

    What is deeply concerning? The bullshit false headline?

    mattwarden ( 699984 ) writes: on Saturday December 31, 2016 @10:56AM ( #53584631 ) Homepage
    Re:1 laptop, not connected to the grid ( Score: 5 , Informative)

    I'm very happy to come to the comments section and find mostly mocking and people who looked beyond the headline. Would have been nice if the editors did that.

    Here is the full takedown on The Intercept of this BS-vending from WaPo: https://theintercept.com/2016/... [theintercept.com]

    Streetlight ( 1102081 ) writes: on Saturday December 31, 2016 @11:17AM ( #53584721 ) Journal
    Re:has to be asked ( Score: 5 , Informative)

    According to an earlier post the laptop that was allegedly infected was not connected to the electric company's grid control system. That conclusion answered my first question. Any vital utility system should absolutely never have it's control system of computers connected to the Internet. If somehow that's the case, those responsible need a very long prison sentence. There also needs to be other security measures to prevent folks having direct access to these control systems from sabotaging them.

    HornWumpus ( 783565 ) writes: on Saturday December 31, 2016 @01:05PM ( #53585195 )
    Re:has to be asked ( Score: 5 , Informative)

    Worked in the industry for a decade. Wrote simulation shells that did short term forecasts based on on system conditions, did data reductions etc (e.g. This unit IS going down for unscheduled maintenance, how much will it cost to shut it down RTF now vs after afternoon peak?) Went on to 'tech lead' for significant energy trading/risk management platform. Ran on many traders and grid operators desks...don't ask, won't tell. Did once see a bug because grand total on printable VAR only had room for 10 digits plus sign. Assigned to Brahmin coder, week later I fixed it myself, I digress.

    What you say isn't really possible. What they typically do have is a secure network, which runs operations, staffed with lots of ex-military actual Engineering school grads. That network is being monitored by redundant data integrators which present integrated (by some time interval, usually hours/half hours or minutes, back when I was up to my nose in it) system data to a second less secure (but still as secure as any corporate) network where routine operations run. That server is usually locked down tight, read only from the less secure network; but that is only software. They also like to run diverse OSs, lots of 'big iron' and Unixes and home brewed binary data formats. These things were mostly architected before Windows was common, particularly on the secure side it's still loaded with 'legacy', likely to remain so until they have a complete staff turnover. Old Dilbert with neckbeard flipping a nickle at Wally and telling him to get a better computer, that's the dude.

    Routine operations need access to internet based facilities. To schedule transmission line capacity, trade power, get closing prices from grid operators, weather forecasts and unit availability from neighbors (lots of VPNs). But that part of the operations could more or less crash and burn and it will only cost money (and extra CO2). Operations, more or less, ignores trading at the minute by minute level. Trading gives them trade schedules and operations will try their best. But if 'shit happens' they keep the lights on and let the accountants worry about reconciling to 'what should have happened'. Which is sometimes a bitch of a computational problem, fortunately most everybody involved are engineers and close enough is close enough. Pennies aren't statistically significant; try and explain that to an accountant. Don't recommend it, just say 'not a material difference' and get on with your life, I'm digressing again.

    Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ), on Saturday December 31, 2016 @12:42PM ( #53585053 ) Homepage
    One example of U.S. government mismanagement: ( Score: 2 )

    Confirmed: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it [arstechnica.com].

    Nova Express ( 100383 ) , Saturday December 31, 2016 @11:20AM ( #53584729 ) Homepage Journal
    Hey look! It's another MSM Russian Hacking Story! ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

    Security experts have been warning of possible foreign hacking for decades . But why this sudden spate of "Russia hacked X" stories now? Why not back when our Secretary of State was running an illegal, private, unsecured email server through which she transmitted classified information [politifact.com]?

    Simple: The Washington Post wanted Hillary to win the Presidential election, and reminding people how her action made it easier for Russian hackers to gain access to classified information wouldn't have helped her.

    But publishing it now helps support the false narrative [theintercept.com] that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not disgruntled Democratic Party staffers [washingtontimes.com], and thus supposedly harms President-elect Donald Trump, whom the Washington Post and it's employees almost universally loath. That's the entire reason the story is being written and published now.

    Further reading here [battleswarmblog.com] and here [battleswarmblog.com].

    What do you think the under/over is for MSM "Russian Hacking" stories between now and January 20?

    Nyder ( 754090 ), December 31, 2016 @11:21AM ( #53584731 ) Journal
    NSA has failed us again ( Score: 2 , Interesting)

    NSA has failed us again. Instead protecting America, they are wasting their and our time by mass collecting data on citizens. Instead of making sure exploits are fixed to keep our systems secure, they hold onto them so they can use them against us and other countries.

    If am I to believe this Russian hacking our systems like the Government is pushing, then the blame goes straight on the NSA and those who backed them.

    Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ), December 31, 2016 @12:43PM ( #53585055 )
    No Grid Penetration ( Score: 5 , Informative)

    The headline is complete bullshit. Can the author not even read? The grid was not penetrated, hacked, or comprimised. No report says it was. This is totally a fabrication from the reporters.

    "We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization's grid systems."

    Billly Gates ( 198444 ) writes:
    Re: ( Score: 2 )
    The headline is complete bullshit. Can the author not even read? The grid was not penetrated, hacked, or comprimised. No report says it was. This is totally a fabrication from the reporters.

    "We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization's grid systems."

    So other sources [cnn.com] say more than just a laptop and last I checked a power station is part of the grid

    colin_faber ( 1083673 ), December 31, 2016 @05:00PM ( #53586147 )
    Re:No Grid Penetration ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

    CNN ceased being a credible news organization after the wikileaks revolutions

    NotAPK ( 4529127 ), December 31, 2016 @12:44PM ( #53585061 )
    Re:An avalanche of bullshit... ( Score: 2 )

    And what can we do? Hope it doesn't degrade into WW3?

    Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ), December 31, 2016 @01:00PM ( #53585159 ) Homepage
    Amazon's CEO owns the Washington Post. ( Score: 3 )

    Amazon's Jeff Bezos Explains Why He Bought The Washington Post [nytimes.com].

    In my opinion, a good indication of Jeff Bezos's management ability is any Amazon web page. Amazon web pages distract you from buying something by trying to sell other things.

    [Jan 01, 2017] New Russian Hacks ? No, Old Ukrainian Malware Found.

    Notable quotes:
    "... For any American leader, an attempt to subvert U.S. democracy ought to be unforgivable - even if he is the intended beneficiary. Some years ago, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor," and the fear at the time was of a cyberattack collapsing electric grids or crashing financial markets. Now we have a real cyber-Pearl Harbor, though not one that was anticipated. ..."
    "... Pearl Harbor was followed by the U.S. entry into a world war. Do the editors want to repeat that when alluding to it? ..."
    "... I suspect that the pushing of the Vermont hack was also an attempted hit against Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont who was scammed out of the Democratic candidacy by the Clinton aligned Democratic National Council. He would now either have to jump on the "Russian hacking->bad Putin->bad-Trump" train or could be blamed of pro-Russian, pro-Putin and pro-Trump tendencies. All such tendencies are of course bad in the view of the pseudo-liberal Washington establishment which is busy promoting the New Red Scare . ..."
    "... But back to that malware. DHS and FBI had published a " report " (pdf) which again attempted to blame Russia of hacking the Democratic National Council while again providing zero actual evidence of such a hack (hint: there is none). The 13 pages include 2 with amateur graphics of a trivial hack architecture and 7 with amateur advice on how to protect a network. Of interest in it were samples and checksums of moduls of the hacking software it attributed to Russia and a list of IP addresses through which it claims the DNC hack was made. Of special interest is also what it does not say . ..."
    "... The whole bogus "Russian hacking" and "Putin did it" claims are issued to lock the coming President Trump into an anti-Russian position. Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations. That again would mean lower advertisement income for the Washington Post and less money for its staff, editors and owner. ..."
    "... These people would rather have Word War III than to endure that. ..."
    "... b, 'Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations. ...' ..."
    "... so they have decided to preemptively make their own 'imminent threat' claims less plausible by endlessly crying 'wolf! wolf!' themselves when there is no wolf. the neo-con brain trust ... idiots and fools. this all goes hand in hand with obama's childish dismissal of the russians in new york and maryland, and appears as foolish as did obama himself in the light of putin's disdain for the lamest of lame ducks who cannot simply learn to lose. ..."
    "... tee-rump's reply to putin's exercise of restraint together with his previous allusion ... these are the same guys who brought us wmds and the shocking, awful wars in afghanistan, iraq, libya, ukraine and syria ... have shown that he is not affected by their bluff ... that he knows he has the support of the fossil-fuelers, at least, probably of the financiers as well ..."
    "... the neo-con hyperventilation ... including that of bibi netanyahoo ... betrays their recognition of their own collapse. the thousand year reich lasted 9 years, the plan for a new american century lasted 15 ... good riddance to bad rubbish, as we used to say in the schoolyard as children, for that's the level the bezos' blog and the neo-cons shrieking behind the curtain. ..."
    "... while just 14% of their self-identifying republicrats - the new, majority party in the us federal government - take the overall 'the russians are coming' scam seriously, fully 50% of those self-identifying as demoblicans - the new, minority party in the us federal government - do so. ..."
    "... VP Pence is a friend of McCain's, supports Syrian 'no-fly' zones, and supports the TPP (aka "Obamatrade"). He voted for the Iraq War and agreed with Hillary's deposing Qaddafi. ..."
    "... that certainly paints a target on tee-rump's back, doesn't it? tee-rump really needs to kill the cia in the pale afternoon of 20 january 2017, or they'll surely kill him! ..."
    "... "It is therefore inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows . . ." ..."
    "... It must be a job to continue debunking the childish lies of Barack Obama and his gang of ineptitude officials. It is unfortunately that human beings are dumb, otherwise there would have been no need to respond to the stream of idiotic pronouncements of the White House and the Anglo American mainstream media. ..."
    "... I predict that Barack Obama and his wife will check into therapy as soon as they remove their baggage from the White House. Crooked Clintons seem to have got a lock on them, so they are ready to leave office in disgrace just to please the disgraceful Clinton family. ..."
    "... Now let's have some more holier-than-thou talk from WaPo and NYT about "fake news" on the internet. The WaPo has become a cess-pool of lies and misinformation ever since Bezos took it over and started turning it into a tabloid. ..."
    "... Sen. John McCain said Friday that Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election amounted to an "act of war." The Arizona Republican, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also has scheduled a hearing for next week on foreign cyberthreats to the US, which will also focus on Russian cyberhacking, a committee aide told CNN earlier Friday. McCain, who is one of Washington's most prominent foreign policy hardliners, has criticized the recent sanctions and expulsions announced by the Obama administration this week as insufficient and belated. He made his latest comments in Ukraine, a nation threatened by a resurgent Russia, after meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. ..."
    "... Obama isn't a dingbat. He is devious. ..."
    "... I kept insisting that the DNC hacking was a False Flag, and idem on this one; but keep on guessing who's behind it. I expect there will be yet more False Flags to move the U.S. in the right direction. ..."
    "... Obama went berserk, he went insane showed himself as a puny vindictive partisan weasel not worthy presidency in the first place regardless of his murderous and imperial policies and utter submission to Wall Street thieves, with despicable character that shows itself in his childlike temper tantrum rants unworthy of any federal employee not to mention POTUS. ..."
    "... Once, in less insane times, had some government been found to have tampered with elections, the heads of the agencies responsible for protecting against that would now be testifying before Congress and trying to explain how they let that happen. ..."
    "... Some of the officials would resign in disgrace, some would no doubt have been found to have lied and to have tried to cover up their incompetence, and probably at least someone would have gone to jail. ..."
    "... These stories reflect the demonize Russia as the latest enemy and throw as much "evidence" at the wall that will stick. ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    All recent claims of "Russian hacking" are either outright false or are based on "evidence" that only shows run-of-the-mill attacks by some anonymous basement hacker.

    The year 2016 saw the person elected U.S. president who Jeff Bezos' propaganda rag, the Washington Post, hated most. To celebrate the end of this very bad year its writers and editors decided to put more egg on their faces. It first published the piece promoted on the left and some three hours later the fundamentally "corrected" one on the right .

    The claim in the first piece, based on anonymous "officials", was that Russia hacked into the U.S. electricity grid through a utility company in Vermont. But then the utility companies in question, Burlington Electric, issued a statement that a recent scan of its IT systems had found only one laptop with some malware and that the laptop in questions was not connected to its networks at all. There was nothing found on any net-connected system. It had reported the find to the federal U.S. government. (Some very shortsighted "officials" immediately abused the confidential company information to miss-inform the Washington Post.) The utility company found the malware by scanning for a malware signature published in a lame recent assessment by Homeland Security and the FBI.

    Dubious claims of foreign hacking of the electricity grid have already been made in 2009 . Its an old trick of the Obama administration to achieve some political aims. The Washington Post was obviously so eager to publish another of its daily "Russian hacking" fakes that it did not even ask the two Vermont utilities in question before pushing the stenographed piece out of the door. That may well have been because the lead editorial of that day was warning of Putin hacking the U.S. electricity network and (again) hitting at Trump:

    For any American leader, an attempt to subvert U.S. democracy ought to be unforgivable - even if he is the intended beneficiary. Some years ago, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor," and the fear at the time was of a cyberattack collapsing electric grids or crashing financial markets. Now we have a real cyber-Pearl Harbor, though not one that was anticipated.

    Pearl Harbor was followed by the U.S. entry into a world war. Do the editors want to repeat that when alluding to it?

    The editorial also pushed a bunch of wholly invented conspiracy theories:

    Why is Mr. Trump so dismissive of Russia's dangerous behavior? Some say it is his lack of experience in foreign policy, or an oft-stated admiration for strongmen, or naivete about Russian intentions. But darker suspicions persist. Mr. Trump has steadfastly refused to be transparent about his multibillion-dollar business empire. Are there loans or deals with Russian businesses or the state that were concealed during the campaign? Are there hidden communications with Mr. Putin or his representatives? We would be thrilled to see all the doubts dispelled, but Mr. Trump's odd behavior in the face of a clear threat from Russia , matched by Mr. Putin's evident enthusiasm for the president-elect, cannot be easily explained .

    During the election campaign WaPo was the news paper with the most anti-Trump screeds on its neoconned editorial page. That actually helped Trump by making him the obvious anti-Neocon candidate. But "Pearl Harbor" comparisons and "darker suspicions" beat even the most stupid earlier pieces on him.

    I suspect that the pushing of the Vermont hack was also an attempted hit against Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont who was scammed out of the Democratic candidacy by the Clinton aligned Democratic National Council. He would now either have to jump on the "Russian hacking->bad Putin->bad-Trump" train or could be blamed of pro-Russian, pro-Putin and pro-Trump tendencies. All such tendencies are of course bad in the view of the pseudo-liberal Washington establishment which is busy promoting the New Red Scare .

    But back to that malware. DHS and FBI had published a " report " (pdf) which again attempted to blame Russia of hacking the Democratic National Council while again providing zero actual evidence of such a hack (hint: there is none). The 13 pages include 2 with amateur graphics of a trivial hack architecture and 7 with amateur advice on how to protect a network. Of interest in it were samples and checksums of moduls of the hacking software it attributed to Russia and a list of IP addresses through which it claims the DNC hack was made. Of special interest is also what it does not say .

    Several well known IT security experts have said earlier , like me , that such "reports" and claims are bullshit. A few more add to that:

    All, and especially Matt Tait, are right.

    Wordfence, also a reputed IT security company, took a detailed look at the samples and tables in the new DHS/FBI "report" and concludes:

    The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors , especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

    The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian . It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website.

    There is your "Russian hack" the DHS and FBI claim hit the DNC servers and WaPo falsely claimed hit the U.S. electricity grid. A run-of-the-mill hack through freely available servers with old Ukrainian malware just like the hundred-thousand others that happen each day.

    ... ... ...

    But if you, like me, believe the word of former British ambassador Craig Murray who works with Wikileaks, there was no hack at all. The DNC data came via an insider who had direct access to them. They were handed to Craig for publishing by Wikileaks.

    The whole bogus "Russian hacking" and "Putin did it" claims are issued to lock the coming President Trump into an anti-Russian position. Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations. That again would mean lower advertisement income for the Washington Post and less money for its staff, editors and owner.

    These people would rather have Word War III than to endure that.

    Oui | Dec 31, 2016 11:27:04 AM | 1
    The old con-man McCain calling in from the Ukraine:

    Russian cyberattacks 'an act of war'

    Ghostship | Dec 31, 2016 11:51:44 AM | 2
    rather have Word War III
    The current version of Microsoft Word (365 or whatever) is so shite, I'd nuke Redmond if I was Trump.
    WorldBLee | Dec 31, 2016 11:54:10 AM | 3
    There really are no words for the stupidity, small-mindedness, and mendacity of the Washington Post, NYT, and CNN (to name but three of the hacks that report on behalf of the powers-that-be) these days. I mean, they were always bad but they are continually striking new lows as if they were the inverse of the US stock market.
    kraus | Dec 31, 2016 12:18:38 PM | 6

    ...For those who missed the REAL hacking story: not covered by the lying fake news msm!
    "US government hackers attacked russian electric grid"
    https://www.rt.com/usa/372347-russian-hackers-power-grid/

    kraus | Dec 31, 2016 12:28:16 PM | 7
    Soon a laptop will appear in the white house, sigh this crazy desinformation is getting ugly.

    Last month US actually hacked russian grid systems!
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-government-military-hackers-dnc-homeland-security-nsa-clinton-election-day-a7398881.html

    mauisurfer | Dec 31, 2016 12:47:57 PM | 8
    Exit Obama in a Cloud of Disillusion, Delusion and Deceit 100
    31 Dec, 2016 in Uncategorized by craig

    I had promised myself and my family that on this holiday I would do nothing but relax. However events have overtaken my good intentions. I find myself in the unusual position of having twice been in a position to know directly that governments were lying in globe-shaking events, firstly Iraqi WMD and now the "Russian hacks".

    Anybody who believes the latest report issued by Obama as "proof" provides anything of the sort is very easily impressed by some entirely meaningless diagrams. William Binney, who was Technical Director at the NSA and actually designed their surveillance capabilities, has advised me by email. It is plain from the report itself that the Russian groups discussed have been under targeted NSA surveillance for a period longer than the timeframe for the DNC and Podesta leaks. It is therefore inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows and they would be saved. In other words, the NSA would have the actual hack on record, would be able to recognise the emails themselves and tell you exactly the second the transmission or transmissions took place and how they were routed. They would be able to give you date, time and IP addresses. In fact, not only do they produce no evidence of this kind, they do not even claim to have this kind of definite evidence.

    Secondly, Bill points out that WikiLeaks is in itself a top priority target and any transmission to WikiLeaks or any of its major operatives would be tracked, captured and saved by NSA as a matter of routine. The exact route and date of the transmission or transmissions of the particular emails to WikiLeaks would be available. In fact, not only does the report not make this information available, it makes no claim at all to know anything about how the information was got to WikiLeaks.

    Of course Russian hackers exist. They attack this blog pretty well continually – as do hackers from the USA and many other countries. Of course there have been attempted Russian hacks of the DNC. But the report gives no evidence at all of the alleged successful hack that transmitted these particular emails, nor any evidence of the connection between the hackers and the Russian government, let alone Putin.

    There could be no evidence because in reality these were leaks, not hacks. The report is, frankly, a pile of complete and utter dross. To base grave accusations of election hacking on this report is ludicrous. Obama has been a severe disappointment to all progressive thinkers in virtually every possible way. He now goes out of power with absolutely no grace and in a storm of delusion and deceit. His purpose is apparently to weaken Trump politically, but to achieve that at the expense of heightening tensions with Russia to Cold War levels, is shameful. The very pettiness of Obama's tongue out to Putin – minor sanctions and expelling some diplomatic families – itself shows that Obama is lying about the pretext. If he really believed that Russia had "hacked the election", surely that would require a much less feeble response. By refusing to retaliate, Russia has shown the kind of polish that eludes Obama as he takes his empty charisma and presentational skills into a no doubt lucrative future in the private sector.
    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/exit-obama-cloud-disillusion-delusion-deceit/comment-page-1/#comments

    jfl | Dec 31, 2016 2:01:29 PM | 9
    b, 'Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations. ...'

    so they have decided to preemptively make their own 'imminent threat' claims less plausible by endlessly crying 'wolf! wolf!' themselves when there is no wolf. the neo-con brain trust ... idiots and fools. this all goes hand in hand with obama's childish dismissal of the russians in new york and maryland, and appears as foolish as did obama himself in the light of putin's disdain for the lamest of lame ducks who cannot simply learn to lose.

    tee-rump's reply to putin's exercise of restraint together with his previous allusion ... these are the same guys who brought us wmds and the shocking, awful wars in afghanistan, iraq, libya, ukraine and syria ... have shown that he is not affected by their bluff ... that he knows he has the support of the fossil-fuelers, at least, probably of the financiers as well, two out of three of the f*ked up f's, against the fusiliers.

    the neo-con hyperventilation ... including that of bibi netanyahoo ... betrays their recognition of their own collapse. the thousand year reich lasted 9 years, the plan for a new american century lasted 15 ... good riddance to bad rubbish, as we used to say in the schoolyard as children, for that's the level the bezos' blog and the neo-cons shrieking behind the curtain.

    may 2017 be the year of their abject collapse and may they all, including especially their nobel peace prize laureate, live forever in infamy.

    jfl | Dec 31, 2016 2:03:14 PM | 10
    @8 mauisurfer

    thanks for sharing the insights of william blinney ... please ask him if you may share his email with the moon and the world!

    jfl | Dec 31, 2016 2:25:11 PM | 11
    b, 'Of special interest is also what it does not say .'

    the vermont utility scam is just that. the last link within that quoted above points to a graphic from politico that is very informative : while just 14% of their self-identifying republicrats - the new, majority party in the us federal government - take the overall 'the russians are coming' scam seriously, fully 50% of those self-identifying as demoblicans - the new, minority party in the us federal government - do so. in other words, only the scammers themselves claim to 'believe' their own scam.

    the tnc msm : sound and fury signifying nothing. officially.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 31, 2016 2:26:22 PM | 12
    What's behind the anti-Russia hysteria?
    1) Cover for Democratic Party failure?

    2) Cover for fall of Aleppo / Russian success?

    3) "Boxing in" the Trump Administration? (spoiling the supposed Trump-Putin love fest)

    4) Another ploy to unseat Trump? Does trumped-up conflict with Russia mean that the supposed Trump-Putin love fest causes an inability to discharge office of President as per the 25th Amendment ?

    5) All of the above?

    6) Something else?

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Note: VP Pence is a friend of McCain's, supports Syrian 'no-fly' zones, and supports the TPP (aka "Obamatrade"). He voted for the Iraq War and agreed with Hillary's deposing Qaddafi.

    jfl | Dec 31, 2016 2:35:15 PM | 13
    @11 jr, 'VP Pence is a friend of McCain's, supports Syrian 'no-fly' zones, and supports the TPP (aka "Obamatrade"). He voted for the Iraq War and agreed with Hillary's deposing Qaddafi.'

    that certainly paints a target on tee-rump's back, doesn't it? tee-rump really needs to kill the cia in the pale afternoon of 20 january 2017, or they'll surely kill him!

    let us hope that we can all soon stand over the cia's collective graves till we're sure that they're dead.

    may the cia not reach their three score and ten.

    jfl | Dec 31, 2016 2:41:40 PM | 14
    b,

    great graphic in the last link from ' what it does not say '

    the demoblicans and the tnc msm : the new minority making great sounds and demonstrating great fury yet eating their own dog food and signifying nothing.

    boilo | Dec 31, 2016 2:49:13 PM | 16
    at #8 thank you for this post plus highlight/emphasizing:

    "It is therefore inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows . . ."

    jfl | Dec 31, 2016 2:54:01 PM | 17
    @10, maui wowee

    sorry, due to your unconventional posting style i had thought it was yourself and not craig murray who was in contact with william blinney. i see my error now.

    stumpy | Dec 31, 2016 2:55:51 PM | 18
    The faked news phenom is IMO the result of the US higher education culture finally producing the critical mass of self-entitled narcissistic punks to flood the airwaves with "useful" tripe. Put profit before performance and this is what you get. The only thing I use print media for is lining rabbit cages.

    May the new year be safe and prosperous for fellow bar-dwellers and friends. Bottoms up.

    ToivoS | Dec 31, 2016 3:05:46 PM | 19
    The Guardian is continuing with the claims that Russia is responsible for the malware found in that laptop by adding a little detail that the malware contained code used by the Russians. They do at least tell the reader that the laptop was not connected to the grid.

    This anti-Russian propaganda is getting more extreme by the day. greenwald is collecting many examples on his twitter feed.

    Steve | Dec 31, 2016 3:13:52 PM | 20
    Happy New Year to all. It must be a job to continue debunking the childish lies of Barack Obama and his gang of ineptitude officials. It is unfortunately that human beings are dumb, otherwise there would have been no need to respond to the stream of idiotic pronouncements of the White House and the Anglo American mainstream media.

    I predict that Barack Obama and his wife will check into therapy as soon as they remove their baggage from the White House. Crooked Clintons seem to have got a lock on them, so they are ready to leave office in disgrace just to please the disgraceful Clinton family.

    Denis | Dec 31, 2016 3:38:47 PM | 22
    The WaPo's deceit on this story can't be over-emphasized. The original report by Juliet Eilperin and Adam Entous was dated Dec30. Then their lies about hacking the grid were exposed and they re-wrote the article.

    The WaPo did not just publish a correction with an update date, they republished the article under the new headline and under a new date, Dec31. At the bottom of the current article there is an editor's note referring to an "earlier version" of the article and acknowledging the lie about penetrating the grid. But the significance of the re-write is not obvious from the editor's note or the new headline. Compare the second paragraphs of each version, for instance.

    Now let's have some more holier-than-thou talk from WaPo and NYT about "fake news" on the internet. The WaPo has become a cess-pool of lies and misinformation ever since Bezos took it over and started turning it into a tabloid.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 31, 2016 3:53:57 PM | 23
    followup @11:

    Pence's friend McCain: Russian cyberintrusions an 'act of war'

    Sen. John McCain said Friday that Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election amounted to an "act of war."

    The Arizona Republican, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also has scheduled a hearing for next week on foreign cyberthreats to the US, which will also focus on Russian cyberhacking, a committee aide told CNN earlier Friday.

    McCain, who is one of Washington's most prominent foreign policy hardliners, has criticized the recent sanctions and expulsions announced by the Obama administration this week as insufficient and belated. He made his latest comments in Ukraine, a nation threatened by a resurgent Russia, after meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 31, 2016 3:57:25 PM | 24
    Steve @18

    Obama isn't a dingbat. He is devious. When I see him acting like a dingbat, I ask: what's he really up to?

    Circe | Dec 31, 2016 4:04:11 PM | 25
    I kept insisting that the DNC hacking was a False Flag, and idem on this one; but keep on guessing who's behind it. I expect there will be yet more False Flags to move the U.S. in the right direction.
    Jackrabbit | Dec 31, 2016 4:33:01 PM | 27
    How John McCain and Mike Pence created a high value target
    rg the lg | Dec 31, 2016 4:37:29 PM | 28
    Back door to war ... the way Roosevelt got us into WWII ... along with a whole string of alleged attacks on the most aggressive and hate filled empire the world has ever known. The Kahns of central Asia, the Romans at their most vicious, could have learned a lot of pure nastiness from the long string of American 'wars for empire' going from the New England and Virginia plantations to the present.

    We hack, that is good. They (might have) hacked, that is bad. Sick ...

    Jennifer | Dec 31, 2016 4:40:57 PM | 29
    The chaos is cover for deep criminality that includes dems, repugs, dictators, respectable people, and criminals on many levels.

    This guy seems to be on the right track as to what's really going on.

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQ-wHKVi0JDWjQGcuoYnew

    Here are some key videos, it is a complicated puzzle.

    DAY 65 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1, The Crime
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UVkkLCrj3w
    DAY 65 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2, Coverup
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjhfXhTVjJ4
    Day 65 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3, Researcher Version
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvW4k3hDfLQ

    I urge all of you to take a look at this ongoing expose and judge for yourself.

    You will probably be shocked and disgusted at the ugliness of it all.

    Download key videos, just in case it is taken down, and share.

    Here are the latest video.
    Day 68 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUvoOVYjNuE
    Day 68 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTNPN0snwEU

    Earlier Videos

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfEgn8oXojIJQHhokupVf9w

    How to investigate – lots of tips in these two

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBqX5FiinYM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K0k84CXkRM

    We must confront these criminals if we are to have a future.

    Happy New Year

    Kalen | Dec 31, 2016 5:58:33 PM | 30
    Obama went berserk, he went insane showed himself as a puny vindictive partisan weasel not worthy presidency in the first place regardless of his murderous and imperial policies and utter submission to Wall Street thieves, with despicable character that shows itself in his childlike temper tantrum rants unworthy of any federal employee not to mention POTUS.

    I, as a harsh critic of Trump incoherent style must admit that Obama's abhorrent behavior made Trump look like statesman.

    Obama unnecessarily, senselessly, horribly embarrassed the office of POTUS and destroyed any chance for another African American to be near the WH for another century. And what for?

    For sore looser claims that elections were rigged against Hillary because of Podesta email hack? That's the nonsense, the only document rigging attempt was DHS in few states.

    People must understand that any information could influence a voter but as long it is true it is legal and acceptable element of electoral process. It is an act of due influence performed by all candidates themselves, their campaigns as well as supporting special interests, investigative journalists and independent bloggers who work to reveal true picture of a candidate in relation to their qualifications, skills, experience and moral values that would inform his/her choices in office.

    Only proliferated lies may be construed as "unduly" influencing public but only if not countered by the publishing the truth and evidence for it.

    Podesta emails told the truth about Hillary and her insidious or even illegal manipulation of the primaries and her attitude of entitlement informed by her imperial hubris and likely illegal money manipulation. So told the truth disclosed of Trump scandals with Trump University or sexual harassment or bankruptcies.

    And for that reason alone [the truth in Podesta emails] there could be no connection between elections outcome and alleged Russia hacks.

    Hacks themselves even if true but no evidence presented as of yet, would have been a minor episode, worth of a brief headline especially when it is US and Israel who are real cyber aggressors.

    Ken Nari | Dec 31, 2016 5:58:40 PM | 31
    Once, in less insane times, had some government been found to have tampered with elections, the heads of the agencies responsible for protecting against that would now be testifying before Congress and trying to explain how they let that happen.

    Some of the officials would resign in disgrace, some would no doubt have been found to have lied and to have tried to cover up their incompetence, and probably at least someone would have gone to jail.

    That the U.S. is helpless in the face for foreign technology that information would be kept top secret while a huge effort would be initiated to catch up. The vulnerability would not be broadcast, you can be sure.

    Probably nowhere has critical thinking been more effectively stamped out than in the American public. Gradually, however -- I think -- people in the U.S. are slowly beginning to awake from their comfortable stupor.

    rm | Dec 31, 2016 10:04:40 PM | 33
    Proviso to the 'intelligence' report : (DHS) "does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information
    contained within" (JAR_16-20296)
    Peter AU | Dec 31, 2016 10:14:56 PM | 34
    RM 31
    The disclaimer shows straight away it was written up as a political report. Nothing to do with intelligence in either sense of the word.
    ALberto | Dec 31, 2016 10:47:00 PM | 35
    The alleged Russian US hack is plainly a straw man distraction designed to divert the inquiring public.s attention away from the actual contents of the KKKLinton, DNC, Podesta, et al, emails. Same goes for the alleged Russian hacking of the US Presidential Election. Another childish misdirection play.

    Alternate medias have taken the bait hook, line unt sinker. Rather than concentrate on the actual contents of the emails which reveal immense crimes including war crimes, crimes against humanity and Treason the so called independent medias waste their time like dogs chasing their own tails pursing information that to a computer literate audience would find laughable. THERE WAS NO HACK OF THE GRID.

    Get on to the publishing and dissemination of these emails rather than dancing for the self appointed 'Chess Masters' of the Great Game.

    Just me opinion

    MadMax2 | Dec 31, 2016 11:02:01 PM | 36
    Great post B. MSM born #Fakenews is the gift that just keeps on giving. So much mileage left. Viewing decay has never been so enjoyable.

    @8 mauisurfer
    Fantastic reading. Indeed, if Trump wants to win back public faith in the NSA, he'll get on his hands and knees and grovel to bring back a true yank patriot in Binney

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 1, 2017 12:00:11 AM | 37
    Amid the cornucopia of persuasive evidence that the barking mad neocons are barking up the wrong tree, this one pushes all the right buttons for me (given that only idiots allow themselves to think that Russians are incompetent fools).

    John McAfee (now often nutty but right in this):

    "If it looks like the Russians did it I can guarantee you it wasn't the Russians".

    Q.E.D.
    In 16 words.

    kraus | Jan 1, 2017 4:09:02 AM | 38
    Trump says he knows something..

    Trump questions claim of Russia hacking DNC, says he 'knows things other people don't'
    https://www.rt.com/usa/372400-trump-doubts-russia-hacking/

    A5 | Jan 1, 2017 7:29:31 AM | 39
    They want and must have war with Russia.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlC0vM0QvHo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvj0v0W6yjk
    Ghostship | Jan 1, 2017 9:43:19 AM | 40
    >>>> CHRISTINNE RADU | Dec 31, 2016 6:12:33 PM | 32
    The Daily Mail featured on the World at One on the BBC today starting at about 23:28 in.
    There is also a snippet at 16:10 about ISIS's avowed aim the break up the EU. Which is more important to the US? A stable EU or pushing regime change in Moscow. Putin has made it very clear that he wants a stable EU. So what's the problem?
    Curtis | Jan 1, 2017 10:59:07 AM | 41
    These stories reflect the demonize Russia as the latest enemy and throw as much "evidence" at the wall that will stick.

    However, it is obvious that the operating systems are not secure and cybersecurity efforts are not working.

    While it looks like the DNC/email thing is the result of leaks not hacks and that Seth Rich may have been murdered for this, the reality is that govt/banking/businesses have endangered us by making our information vulnerable and then blaming those who get in when they leave the door open.

    After the OPM data thefts, I asked my congressmen why such important data was put on the internet when they know they cannot protect it. I received form letters saying they took cybersecurity seriously and they believe the Chinese did it.

    A non-answer if ever there was one. Back then I didn't care if a govt went after Microsoft as a monopoly when it should go after it for providing vulnerable systems to the govt (and the rest of us) in the first place.

    In the internet's startups and non-profits, security was not taken as seriously as just getting some kind of system to work.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/10/the_dyn_ddos_attack_shows_how_vulnerable_we_ve_made_ourselves.html

    "In the late 1990s, when the utilities' vulnerabilities first came to light, Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, proposed imposing mandatory cybersecurity requirements on all industries connected to critical infrastructure. The companies lobbied against his plan, as did President Bill Clinton's economic advisers, who warned that the measures would cripple these companies' competitiveness in the global market. Clarke also suggested putting the government and critical-infrastructure industries on a parallel internet, which would be wired to certain agencies that could detect intrusions. This plan was leaked and denounced as 'Orwellian.'"

    This current accusation of Russians hacking US utilities may be so much BS and propaganda. But the US/Israeli STUXNET attack on Iran proved that some things should be protected.

    anon | Jan 1, 2017 1:38:41 PM | 42
    wow, friendly relations with other countries and potential business interests are bad? and would lead to a flaky electric grid in Vermont... because... ??
    our electric grids suck because of the friendly f-ing relations with our own bloodthirsty companies right here in the US. same for our lousy failing healthcare that only feeds the fat faces of the private owners...

    our freeways in Silicon Valley are lined with homeless people right now who are freezing at night, in a city that would shut off the outdoor outlets near city hall so that homeless disabled people will push their wheelchairs someplace else. the Bezos bozos are so out of touch. we know who to blame.

    Yonatan | Jan 1, 2017 2:14:22 PM | 43
    The report is clearly a fake. The authors are totally incompetent. They claim that CHOPSTICK is a Russian Intelligence Service Actor. It is so blatanly clear to anyone with any knowledge of international security threats that CHOPSTICK is Chinese.

    /sarc

    Yonatan | Jan 1, 2017 2:18:01 PM | 44
    Christinne Radu @32, Ghostship @40

    Nott has form. His wife was highly placed in the Institute of Strategic Studies (a connected thinktank), and she now runs the Nott Foundation, a charity which finances and organises training in disaster medicine. I wonder if they get a good deal on bulk purchases of white helmets?

    fredjc | Jan 1, 2017 2:41:10 PM | 46
    Is Obama dumb enough to attempt an executive order, which might, for example, claim that Russia had significantly affected the presidential elections and falsely maintain his own presidency?
    Yonatan | Jan 1, 2017 3:03:12 PM | 47
    fredjc @46

    So an actual coup? Everything the US does abroad works its way back home eventually, so I would not put it past his handlers to try it. The alternative would be to murder Trump. Either way, the US could then go into Ukraine-style meltdown.

    [Jan 01, 2017] Has political/media rhetoric always been as inflated and over the top when for example Washpost calling Russian hacking "cyber Pearl Harbor."

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Release of Flame and Stuxnet against Iran was probably the real cyber Perl Habor. In this case the USA and allied played the role of Imperial Japan. Stuxnet Computer worm opens new era of warfare - CBS News

    Pespi , December 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    I have a question for anyone who's been around a little while.

    Has political/media rhetoric always been as inflated and over the top as it is now? ie Washpost calling Russian hacking "cyber pearl harbor."

    Is this old hat or something caused by the attention economy?

    Katharine , December 31, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    This is way worse than it used to be. There was something to be said for stodgy journalism. Even when it misrepresented reality, it did so in terms that sounded comparatively measured and adult, not like hysterical kids on a playground.

    Susan C , December 31, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    I agree – I have never seen journalism like this before. Have been watching a lot of MSNBC and CNN during the past few weeks and I can't believe how over the top they are about the Russian hacking story – it goes on for hours. And the papers too. Is it that it is a slow news period and they have to keep their audiences shocked and awed all the time? I have no idea why this is going on about the Russian hacking unless the media is trying very hard to change people's opinions about Russia, and if they are, why? What's the objective? And the 99 senators too are in on this? They make it sound very serious and yet it seems everyone is being hacked all the time anyway.

    [Jan 01, 2017] Part of the original Cold War mania was devised to cover up the fact the US was importing a slew of former Nazis for varied and sundry reasons

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Elizabeth Burton , December 31, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    Considering part of the original Cold War mania was devised to cover up the fact the US was importing a slew of former Nazis for varied and sundry reasons, not to mention allowing them to slip into hiding without any real effort made to find them, one does have to wonder at the coincidence that we are now engaging in neo-Cold War rhetoric just as the "alt-right" neo-Nazis have been granted dispensation to go public.

    Of course, one could believe the idea that all those former Nazis were really just poor souls who only worked for the Third Reich out of fear for their families and were, therefore, only too happy to embrace the joys of American freedom. One could, were it not for the other coincidence that similar fascist organizations have arisen almost simultaneously to public attention throughout Europe.

    But never mind. That's tinfoil-hat stuff. We trounced all that Nazi scum, and besides most of the people weren't really Nazis and didn't believe all that stuff. Right?

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater Published on Dec 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies Published on Oct 30, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou Published on Dec 28, 2017 | theduran.com

    [Dec 28, 2017] From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media Published on Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Published on Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt Published on Dec 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker Published on Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker Published on Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 21, 2017] The RussiaGate Witch-Hunt Stockman Names Names In The Deep State's Insurance Policy by David Stockman Published on Dec 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Dec 18, 2017] The Scary Void Inside Russia-gate by Stephen F. Cohen Published on Dec 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next? Published on Dec 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    [Dec 12, 2017] Bad Moon Rising, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review Published on Dec 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 12, 2017] We are all just hapless passengers on the Neocon Titanic, unable to influence what is playing out on the bridge Published on Dec 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry Published on Jul 13, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Dec 10, 2017] blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag. Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time Published on Dec 10, 2017 | off-guardian.org

    [Dec 10, 2017] When Washington Cheered the Jihadists Consortiumnews Published on Dec 10, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein Published on Dec 10, 2017 | www.facebook.com

    [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal Published on Nov 13, 2017 | www.truthdig.com

    [Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic Published on Feb 01, 2016 | chroniclesmagazine.org

    [Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast Published on Apr 15, 2015 | antiwar.com

    [Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura Published on Oct 08, 2017 | www.amazon.com

    [Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried Published on Nov 30, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter Published on Nov 28, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik Published on Jun 09, 2017 | www.amazon.com

    [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry Published on Nov 08, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Nov 04, 2017] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Leads US President Trump to War with Iran by Prof. James Petras Published on Oct 26, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    [Nov 04, 2017] Who's Afraid of Corporate COINTELPRO by C. J. Hopkins Published on Nov 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 31, 2017] Above All - The Junta Expands Its Claim To Power Published on Oct 31, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts Published on Oct 03, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA Published on Oct 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins Published on Oct 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class Published on Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jun 05, 2020] Antifa in Theory and in Practice Published on Oct 11, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick Published on Oct 09, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter Published on Oct 09, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Oct 09, 2017] Autopilot Wars by Andrew J. Bacevich Published on Oct 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 03, 2017] The Vietnam Nightmare -- Again by Eric Margolis Published on Sep 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign Published on Oct 03, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald Published on Sep 28, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Sep 27, 2017] Come You Masters of War by Matthew Harwood Published on Sep 26, 2017 | www.fff.org

    [Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar Published on Sep 26, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed Published on Jun 26, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    [Sep 24, 2017] How Sony, Obama, Seth Rogen and the CIA Secretly Planned to Force Regime Change in North Korea by Tim Shorrock Published on Sep 05, 2017 | www.alternet.org

    [Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames Published on Jun 03, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    [Sep 19, 2017] The Glaring Omissions in Trumps U.N. Speech by Daniel Larison Published on Sep 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Sep 20, 2017] The Politics of Military Ascendancy by James Petras Published on Sep 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Sep 19, 2017] Trump behaviour at UN and Nixon's "madman gambit" against Soviets Published on Sep 19, 2017 | www.msn.com

    [Sep 18, 2017] How The Military Defeated Trumps Insurgency Published on Sep 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry Published on Sep 18, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Sep 16, 2017] Empire of Capital by George Monbiot Published on Apr 30, 2012 | www.monbiot.com

    [Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot Published on Sep 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    [Aug 30, 2017] Weather Underground Members Speak Out on the Media, Imperialism and Solidarity in the Age of Trump Published on Aug 30, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

    [Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century Published on Aug 26, 2017 | www.amazon.com

    [Dec 21, 2019] We are all Palestinians: possible connection between neocons and Pentagon Published on Aug 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back Published on Aug 09, 2017 | zeroanthropology.net

    [Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson Published on Jul 30, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

    [Jul 29, 2017] Ray McGovern The Deep State Assault on Elected Government Must Be Stopped Published on Apr 2, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    [Jul 26, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIAs Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras Published on Jan 20, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    [Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras Published on Apr 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military by James Petras Published on Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills Published on Jul 14, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

    [Jul 13, 2017] Progressive Democrats Resist and Submit, Retreat and Surrender by James Petras Published on Jul 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary Published on Jul 12, 2017 | russia-insider.com

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce Published on Jun 24, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    [Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman Published on Jun 22, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    [Jun 24, 2017] The United States and Iran Two Tracks to Establish Hegemony by James Petras Published on Jun 10, 2017 | unz.com

    [Jun 15, 2017] Comeys Lies of Omission by Mike Whitney Published on Jun 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [May 21, 2017] What Obsessing About Trump Causes Us To Miss by Andrew Bacevich Published on May 08, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    [May 21, 2017] WhateverGate -- The Crazed Quest To Find Some Reason (Any Reason!) To Dump Trump by John Derbyshire Published on May 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff Published on Apr 02, 2017 | thesaker.is

    [May 20, 2017] Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins Published on May 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue Published on May 05, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

    [May 04, 2017] Jared Kushner fired me over Israel ten years ago by Philip Weiss Published on www.unz.com

    [Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy Published on Feb 19, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared! Published on Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared! Published on Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    [Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy Published on Feb 19, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jan 16, 2017] Gaius Publius Who is Blackmailing the President Why Arent Democrats Upset About It by Gaius Publius, Published on Jan 16, 2017 | www.washingtonsblog.com

    Oldies But Goodies

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

    [Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

    [Dec 28, 2017] From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media

    [Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

    [Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt

    [Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker

    [Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker

    [Dec 21, 2017] The RussiaGate Witch-Hunt Stockman Names Names In The Deep State's Insurance Policy by David Stockman

    [Dec 18, 2017] The Scary Void Inside Russia-gate by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Dec 14, 2017] With the 2018 midterms on the horizon, Moscow proposed a sweeping noninterference agreement with the United States. The Trump administration said no

    [Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next?

    [Dec 12, 2017] Bad Moon Rising, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review

    [Dec 12, 2017] We are all just hapless passengers on the Neocon Titanic, unable to influence what is playing out on the bridge

    [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

    [Dec 10, 2017] blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag. Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time

    [Dec 10, 2017] When Washington Cheered the Jihadists Consortiumnews

    [Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein

    [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

    [Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic

    [Dec 01, 2017] NSA hacks system administrators, new leak reveals

    [Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast

    [Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura

    [Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

    [Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter

    [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

    [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Nov 04, 2017] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Leads US President Trump to War with Iran by Prof. James Petras

    [Nov 04, 2017] Who's Afraid of Corporate COINTELPRO by C. J. Hopkins

    [Oct 31, 2017] Above All - The Junta Expands Its Claim To Power

    [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

    [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

    [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

    [Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

    [Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter

    [Oct 09, 2017] Autopilot Wars by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Oct 03, 2017] The Vietnam Nightmare -- Again by Eric Margolis

    [Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign

    [Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald

    [Sep 27, 2017] Come You Masters of War by Matthew Harwood

    [Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

    [Sep 24, 2017] How Sony, Obama, Seth Rogen and the CIA Secretly Planned to Force Regime Change in North Korea by Tim Shorrock

    [Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames

    [Sep 19, 2017] The Glaring Omissions in Trumps U.N. Speech by Daniel Larison

    [Sep 20, 2017] The Politics of Military Ascendancy by James Petras

    [Sep 19, 2017] Trump behaviour at UN and Nixon's "madman gambit" against Soviets

    [Sep 18, 2017] Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish partnerships with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

    [Sep 18, 2017] How The Military Defeated Trumps Insurgency

    [Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry

    [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus

    [Sep 16, 2017] Empire of Capital by George Monbiot

    [Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot

    [Aug 30, 2017] Weather Underground Members Speak Out on the Media, Imperialism and Solidarity in the Age of Trump

    [Aug 30, 2017] The President of Belgian Magistrates - Neoliberalism is a form of Fascism by Manuela Cadelli

    [Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back

    [Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson

    [Jul 29, 2017] Ray McGovern The Deep State Assault on Elected Government Must Be Stopped

    [Jul 26, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIAs Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

    [Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense by James Petras

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

    [Jul 13, 2017] Progressive Democrats Resist and Submit, Retreat and Surrender by James Petras

    [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

    [Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman

    [Jun 24, 2017] The United States and Iran Two Tracks to Establish Hegemony by James Petras

    [Jun 15, 2017] Comeys Lies of Omission by Mike Whitney

    [May 21, 2017] What Obsessing About Trump Causes Us To Miss by Andrew Bacevich

    [May 21, 2017] WhateverGate -- The Crazed Quest To Find Some Reason (Any Reason!) To Dump Trump by John Derbyshire

    [May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

    [May 20, 2017] Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins

    [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

    [May 04, 2017] Jared Kushner fired me over Israel ten years ago by Philip Weiss

    [Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

    [Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy

    [Jan 16, 2017] Gaius Publius Who is Blackmailing the President Why Arent Democrats Upset About It by Gaius Publius,

    [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

    [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray

    [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Dec 09, 2018] Die Weltwoche Weltwoche Online – www.weltwoche.ch Tucker Carlson Trump is not capable Die Weltwoche, Ausgabe 49-2018

    [Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games

    [Dec 05, 2018] Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate by Philip Giraldi

    [Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot

    [Dec 01, 2018] Congress' Screwed-Up Foreign Policy Priorities by Daniel Larison

    [Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published

    [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders

    [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi

    [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda

    [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

    [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers

    [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

    [Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz

    [Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer

    [Oct 18, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon by Robert W. Merry

    [Oct 10, 2018] A Decalogue of American Empire-Building A Dialogue by James Petras

    [Oct 08, 2018] Hacking and Propaganda by Marcus Ranum

    [Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin

    [Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.

    [Sep 11, 2018] If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed

    [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone

    [Sep 03, 2018] www.informationclearinghouse.info/50168.htm In Memoriam by Paul Edwards

    [Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan

    [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov

    [Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou

    [Aug 11, 2018] President Trump the most important achivement

    [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.

    [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?

    [Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp

    [Jul 23, 2018] The Prophecy of Orwell's 1984. Totalitarian Control and the Entertainment Culture that Takes Over by Edward Curtin

    [Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski

    [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

    [Jul 20, 2018] What exactly is fake news caucus99percent

    [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland

    [Jul 15, 2018] As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?

    [Jul 03, 2018] Russia has a lot of information about Lybia that could dig a political grave for Hillary. They did not release it

    [Jul 03, 2018] Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence

    [Jun 19, 2018] How The Last Superpower Was Unchained by Tom Engelhardt

    [Jun 18, 2018] American Pravda The JFK Assassination, Part I - What Happened, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review

    [Jun 17, 2018] Mattis Putin Is Trying To Undermine America s Moral Authority by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Jun 17, 2018] the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia

    [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern

    [Jun 12, 2018] The real reason for which 'information apocalypse' terrifies the mainstream media

    [Jun 10, 2018] Trump and National Neoliberalism by Sasha Breger Bush

    [Jun 10, 2018] Trump and National Neoliberalism, Revisited by Sasha Breger Bush

    [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare

    [Jun 06, 2018] Why Foreign Policy Realism Isn't Enough by William S. Smith

    [Jun 06, 2018] Trump Voters, Your Savior Is Betraying You by Nicholas Kristof

    [May 31, 2018] Journalists and academics expose UK's criminal actions in the Middle East by Julie Hyland

    [May 24, 2018] The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy

    [May 23, 2018] If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump

    [May 22, 2018] Cat fight within the US elite getting more intense

    [May 22, 2018] Can the majority of the USA be made to see that neocons will ruin the USA, and that their power must be liquidated ?

    [May 04, 2018] Media Use Disinformation To Accuse Russia Of Spreading Such by b

    [May 03, 2018] Despite all the propaganda, all the hysterical headlines, all the blatantly biased coverage, the British haven't bought it

    [May 03, 2018] The 'Libya model' Trump's top bloodthirsty neocon indirectly admits that N. Korea will be invaded and destroyed as soon as it gives up its nukes by system failure

    [Apr 27, 2018] A Most Sordid Profession by Fred Reed

    [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice

    [Apr 24, 2018] America's Men Without Chests by Paul Grenier

    [Apr 21, 2018] On the Criminal Referral of Comey, Clinton et al by Ray McGovern

    [Apr 20, 2018] Stench of hypocrisy British 'war on terror' strategic ties with radical Islam by John Wight

    [Apr 19, 2018] The Neocons Are Selling Koolaid Again! by W. Patrick Lang

    [Apr 17, 2018] Poor Alex

    [Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Apr 11, 2018] Female neocon warmongers from Fox look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless.

    [Apr 09, 2018] When Military Leaders Have Reckless Disregard for the Truth by Bruce Fein

    [Apr 09, 2018] Trump Is He Stupid or Dangerously Crazy by Justin Raimondo

    [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

    [Mar 31, 2018] RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past

    [Mar 31, 2018] RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past

    [Mar 27, 2018] Let's Investigate John Brennan, by Philip Giraldi

    [Mar 25, 2018] A truly historical month for the future of our planet by The Saker

    [Mar 25, 2018] Cambridge Analytica Scandal Rockets to Watergate Proportions and Beyond by Adam Garrie

    [Mar 24, 2018] Why the UK, the EU and the US Gang-Up on Russia by James Petras

    [Mar 23, 2018] Inglorious end of career of neocon McMaster

    [Mar 22, 2018] If it's correct, the Brits made a very nasty error that shows the true nature of their establishment.

    [Mar 21, 2018] Former CIA Chief Brennan Running Scared by Ray McGovern

    [Mar 21, 2018] Washington's Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen

    [Mar 21, 2018] Whataboutism Is A Nonsensical Propaganda Term Used To Defend The Failed Status Quo by Mike Krieger

    [Mar 21, 2018] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair

    [Mar 16, 2018] Corbyn Calls for Evidence in Escalating Poison Row

    [Mar 16, 2018] The French philosopher Alain Soral is quite right when he says that modern "journalists are either unemployed or prostitutes"

    [Mar 16, 2018] Are We Living Under a Military Coup ?

    [Mar 16, 2018] Will the State Department Become a Subsidiary of the CIA

    [Mar 14, 2018] UNSC holds urgent meeting over Salisbury attack

    [Mar 14, 2018] Jefferson Morley on the CIA and Mossad Tradeoffs in the Formation of the US-Israel Strategic Relationship

    [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin

    [Mar 11, 2018] Washington s Century-long War on Russia by Mike Whitney

    [Mar 11, 2018] Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia by Kit

    [Mar 10, 2018] Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in Obama policy and HRC campaign long before any Steele s Dossier. This was a program ofunleashing cold War II

    [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

    [Mar 08, 2018] In recent years, there has been ample evidence that US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service reports.

    [Mar 08, 2018] A key piece of evidence pointing to 'Guccifer 2.0' being a fake personality created by the conspirators in their attempt to disguise the fact that the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' were obtained by a leak rather than a hack had to do with the involvement of the former GCHQ person Matt Tait.

    [Mar 06, 2018] The U.S. Returns to 'Great Power Competition,' With a Dangerous New Edge

    [Mar 06, 2018] The current anti-Russian sentiment in the West as hysterical. But this hysteria is concentrated at the top level of media elite and neocons. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided within themselves due to the crisis of neolineralism.

    [Mar 04, 2018] Generals who now are running the USA foreign policy represents a great danger. These men seem incapable of rising above the Russophobia that grew in the atmosphere of the Cold War. They yearn for world hegemony for the US and to see Russia and to a lesser extent China and Iran as obstacles to that dominion for the "city on a hill

    [Mar 02, 2018] The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against Trump might be that they're terrified that -- unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for the US led neoliberal empire. This threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train

    [Mar 02, 2018] Fatal Delusions of Western Man by Pat Buchanan

    [Feb 26, 2018] Democrat Memo Lays Egg by Publius Tacitus

    [Feb 26, 2018] Why one war when we can heve two! by Eric Margolis

    [Mar 06, 2019] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus

    [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation

    [Feb 23, 2018] NSA Genius Debunks Russiagate Once For All

    [Feb 22, 2018] Bill Binney explodes the rile of 17 agances security assessment memo in launching the Russia witch-hunt

    [Feb 20, 2018] For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia

    [Feb 20, 2018] Russophobia is a futile bid to conceal US, European demise by Finian Cunningham

    [Feb 19, 2018] Nunes FBI and DOJ Perps Could Be Put on Trial by Ray McGovern

    [Feb 19, 2018] The Russiagate Intelligence Wars What We Do and Don't Know

    [Feb 19, 2018] Russian Meddling Was a Drop in an Ocean of American-made Discord by AMANDA TAUB and MAX FISHER

    [Feb 18, 2018] This dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia is extremely lucrative for the war profiteers, the retired generals intelligence members who prostitute themselves as media pundits, the members of Congress who get $$$ from the war profiteers, and the corporate media which thrives on links to the war profiteers as well as on war reporting

    [Feb 14, 2018] Recused Judge in Flynn Prosecution Served on FISA Court

    [Feb 14, 2018] The FBI and the President – Mutual Manipulation by James Petras

    [Feb 12, 2018] The Age of Lunacy: The Doomsday Machine

    [Feb 12, 2018] Ike's Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex Is Alive and Very Well by William J. Astore

    [Feb 10, 2018] The generals are not Borgists. They are something worse ...

    [Feb 10, 2018] More on neoliberal newspeak of US propaganda machine

    [Feb 08, 2018] Control of narrative means that creation of the simplistic picture in which the complexities of the world are elided in favor of 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys' dichotomy

    [Jan 30, 2018] The Unseen Wars of America the Empire The American Conservative

    [Jan 28, 2018] Russiagate Isn t About Trump, And It Isn t Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    [Jan 28, 2018] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Russiagate Isn't About Trump, And It Isn't Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    [Jan 26, 2018] Warns The Russiagate Stakes Are Extreme by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jan 25, 2018] Russiagate as Kafka 2.0

    [Jan 24, 2018] The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate by Ray McGovern

    [Jan 24, 2018] Brazen Plot To Exonerate Hillary Clinton And Frame Trump Unraveling, Says Former Fed Prosecutor

    [Jan 22, 2018] Pentagon Unveils Strategy for Military Confrontation With Russia and China by Bill Van Auken

    [Jan 22, 2018] If Trump is an authoritarian, why don t Democrats treat him like one? by Corey Robin

    [Jan 19, 2018] No Foreign Bases Challenging the Footprint of US Empire by Kevin B. Zeese and Margaret Flowers

    [Jan 17, 2018] Neoconning the Trump White House by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

    [Jan 06, 2018] Russia-gate Breeds Establishment McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    [Jan 02, 2018] The Still-Missing Evidence of Russia-gate by Dennis J. Bernstein

    [Jan 02, 2018] Neocon warmongers should be treated as rapists by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears

    [Jan 02, 2018] Jill Stein in the Cross-hairs by Mike Whitney

    [Mar 17, 2019] Mueller uses the same old false flag scams, just different packaging of his forensics-free findings

    [Mar 17, 2019] VIPS- Mueller's Forensics-Free Findings

    [Mar 15, 2019] Will Democrats Go Full Hawk by Jack Hunter

    [Mar 07, 2019] Are you ready? Here is all the data Facebook and Google have on you by Dylan Curran

    [Mar 06, 2019] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus

    [Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy

    [Feb 24, 2019] David Stockman on Peak Trump : Undrainable swamp (which is on Pentagon side of Potomac river) and fantasy of MAGA (which become MIGA -- make Israel great again)

    [Feb 21, 2019] The Empire Now or Never by Fred Reed

    [Feb 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard kills New World Order bloodbath in thirty seconds

    [Feb 19, 2019] Warmongers in their ivory towers - YouTube

    [Feb 19, 2019] Charles Schumer and questioning the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class

    [Feb 18, 2019] Joe Rogan Experience #1170 - Tulsi Gabbard

    [Feb 17, 2019] Was Trump was a deep state man from day one, just like Obama, Bush, Clinton and all the rest?

    [Feb 17, 2019] The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives

    [Feb 13, 2019] MoA - Russiagate Is Finished

    [Feb 13, 2019] Making Globalism Great Again by C.J. Hopkins

    [Feb 10, 2019] Pussy John Bolton and His Codpiece Mustache by Fred Reed

    [Feb 08, 2019] To understand Steele and the five eyes involvement in the Russia hoax you need to go to the library

    [Feb 05, 2019] The neocon s strategy

    [Feb 02, 2019] Michael Hudson Trump s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember US Dollar Hegemony by Michael Hudson

    [Jan 30, 2019] The ruling class of the US imperium will simply not tolerate any government that opposes its financial and geopolitical dominance

    [Jan 29, 2019] Guardian became Deep State Guardian

    [Jan 26, 2019] Can the current US neoliberal/neoconservative elite be considered suicidal?

    [Jan 21, 2019] Beyond BuzzFeed The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing US Media Failures On The Trump-Russia Story by Glenn Greenwald

    [Jan 14, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard, A Rare Anti-War Democrat, Will Run For President

    [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating Fox News

    [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson has sparked the most interesting debate in conservative politics by Jane Coaston

    [Jan 11, 2019] How President Trump Normalized Neoconservatism by Ilana Mercer

    [Jan 11, 2019] Facts does not matter in the current propoganda environment, the narrative is everything

    [Jan 08, 2019] Shock Files- What Role Did Integrity Initiative Play in Sergei Skripal Affair- - Sputnik International

    [Jan 08, 2019] Skripal spin doctors- Documents link UK govt-funded Integrity Initiative to anti-Russia narrative

    [Jan 04, 2019] Veteran NBC-MSNBC Journalist Blasts Network in Resignation

    [Jan 02, 2019] Russian bots - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News

    [Jan 02, 2019] The Only Meddling "Russian Bots" Were Actually Democrat-Led "Experts" by Mac Slavo

    [Jan 02, 2019] Did Mueller Patched Together Much of His Indictment from 2015 Radio Free Europe Article ?

    [Jan 02, 2019] That madness of the US neocons comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of groupthink, and manipulating the language. Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies.

    Sites



    Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


    Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

    FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

    This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

    You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

    Disclaimer:

    The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

    Last modified: May, 04, 2020